FI LED U. S . COURT OF AP PE ALS E L E V E N T H C IR C U IT O c t obe r 25, 2005 T HOM AS K. KAHN CL E RK [ DO NO T P UB L I S H] I N THE UN I TE D STATE S C OU RT OF APPE ALS F O R T H E E L E V E N T H C IR C U IT

________________________ N o. 04- 12772 N on -A rgum entC al endar

________________________ D. C . Do c k e tNo . 0 3 - 6 0 1 8 4 - C R - DT KH U N I T E D S T A T E S O F A M E R I C A , P la in tif f - A p p e lle e , v ersu s L A Z A R O G A R C I A , D e f e n d a n t- A p p e lla n t.

________________________ A pp ea l fr om the U ni t ed S t at es D i stri ctC ou rt f orthe S outhe rn D i s tr i c tof F l or i da

_________________________ ( O c t obe r25, 2005) B efo re B IR C H , C A RN E S an d M A R C U S , C i rcu i tJu d g es. P E R C U R I A M: D e f e nda nt - appe l l a nt , L a z a r o G a r c i a , appe a l s hi s s e nt e nc e of 151 m onthsUnited States v. Booker, 543 U.S. __, 125 S. Ct. 738 (2005). 1 The orig inal indictment list ed only threecounts, but it was to Count I Iof the four-count 2 s u p e rc e di n gi n di c tm e ntth atG arc i a e nt e re d a p l e a o f gu i l ty. 2 i m p r i s o n m e n t , i m p o s e d a f t e rh e e n t e r e d a p l e a o f

g u i l ty a s t o p o s s e s s i o n o f MD MA w i th i nt entt o d i stri bu t e i n v i ol at i on of 21 U . S . C . § 8 41 (a )( 1). G ar ci a a rgues that hi s s e nt e nc e w oul d l i ke l y ha ve be e n di f f e r e ntha d the di s tr i c tc our tappl i e d the S en t en ci n g G u i d el i n es as ad v i so ry cap aci ty rath er th an as m an d at o ry. U n l ess G a r c ia c a n s h o w th a t h e p r e s e r v e d h is B o o k e r c h a lle n g e f o rap p e a l, w e r e v ie w h is 1 se nt ence for pl ai n err or and h e m ustdem on stra t e avi ol at i on of hi s s ub st ant i al r i g h t s . We f

i n d n o p l a i n e rr o ra n d A F F I R M.

I . B AC KG RO UN D P ur s ua ntt o a w r i tt e n pl e a a gr e e m e ntw i th the gove rnm e nt , G a r c i a e nt e r e d a p le a o f g u ilty a s to v io la tio n o f 2 1 U .S .C . § 8 4 1 ( a ) ( 1 ) , p o s s e s s io n o f M D M A w ith i nt entt o d i stri bu t e. In l at e J ul y 200 3, agent s f rom the D E A and t he B row ar d C ounty S he r i f

f’ s O f f i c e m e tG a r c i a thr ough P a m e l a D i z , a drug de a l e ra nd co d efen d an t , i n an att em p tt o b u y M D M A . A ft er sev eral u n su ccessfu l att em p t s, tra nsac t i on s w er e c om pl et ed on 26 Jul y 200 3 and 14 A ug ust14 20 03 . G ar ci a w as arre st ed and eventual l y c harged w i th fou r c ou nt s of c on trol l ed subst ance v i o l at i o n s. 2 F o rs e n t e n c i n g p u rp o s e s , h e w a s h e l d r e s p o n s i b l e f o r2 5 . 7 g r a m s o f

MD MA3

a nd 3. 7 gr a m s of

c r a c k c oc a i ne , w hi c h w e r e c onve r t e d t o the m a r i j ua na e qui va l e nt of 86. 85 ki l ogr a m s t o y i e l d a ba s e l e ve l of f e ns e of 24. U . S . S . G . § 2D 1. 1( a ) ( 3) (2 0 0 2 ). B ecau se h e w as atl east1 8 years o l d atth e t i m e o f th e o ffen se, th e o ffen se i nvol ve d a c ontr ol l e d s ubs t a nc e , a nd he ha d a tl e a s ttw o pr i orvi ol e ntf e l ony c o n v ic tio n s , h o w e v e r , G a r c ia q u a lif ie d a s a c a r e e ro f

f e n d e r . U .S .S .G . § 4 B 1 .1 ( a ) . T h i s c l a s s i f

i c a t i o n r a i s e d Ga r c i a ’ s b a s e l e v e l o f f e n s e f r o m 2 4 t o 3 2 . S e e U. S . S . G. § 4B 1. 1( b) . T hr e e poi nt s w e r e s ubtr a c t e d be c a us e G a r c i a a dm i tt e d hi s i nvol ve m e nt in th e o f f e n s e a n d a c c e p te d r e s p o n s ib ility f o rh is a c tio n s in a c c o r d a n c e w ith U . S . S . G . § 3 E 1. 1, l ea vi ng hi m w i th a t ot al offe nse l evel of 29 . G ar ci a’ s c ar ee r o f f e n d e rs ta tu s g a v e h im a c r im in a l h is to ry c a te g o ry o f V I . U .S .S .G . § 4 B 1 .1 . A ll th is r e s u lte d in a r a n g e o f 1 5 1 to 1 8 8 m o n th s im p r is o n m e n t. A tthe s e nt e nc i ng he a r i ng, G a r c i a obj e c t e d t o num e r ous c onvi c t i ons e rr o n e o u s l y a ttr i b u t e d t o h i m i n th e p r e s e n t e n c e i n v e s t i g a t i o n r e p o r t( “ P S I ” ) . He d id n o t c h a lle n g e th e c a lc u la tio n o f th e s e n te n c in g g u id e lin e r a n g e ap p lie d to h im orthe f a c tua l orl e ga l ba s e s unde r l y i ng tha tr a nge . T he c our ts us t a i ne d the obj e c t i on a s t o the e rr one ous l y l i s t e d c onvi c t i ons , butnone of the s e c onvi c t i ons af fe ct ed ei ther G ar ci a’ s c ri m i nal hi st ory s core or the det erm i nat i on of hi s s t atus as a c a r e e ro f

f e n d e r . Ga r c i a a l s o r e q u e s t e d a h o r i z o n t a l d e p a r tu r e u n d e rU. S . S . G. § 4 A1 . 3 . HeIn 1991, Garcia pled guilty to throwinga deadly

missil e into a building a

nd to the 3 unlawful possession of a

firea rm while eng ag ed in a c riminal offense. In 1995, Garcia wa s convicted of

attempted burg lary

of an oc cupied dwe lling. Ga rc ia a ssert s th at hec ommitt e d th e19 95 c rimebe c a us ehebe lieve d a

ne ighb or wa s in 4 trouble. 4 a r gue d tha t , be c a us e he ha d c om m i tt e d tw o of the f e l oni e s c ontr i but i ng t o hi s s t a tus as a c ar ee r off

ender as l on g ago as 19 91 and 1 99 5, hi s c ri m i nal re cord ov er r e pr e s e nt e d the s e r i ous ne s s of hi s c r i m i na l hi s t ory . H e a l s o a r gue d tha thi s m i nor 3 r ol e i n the 1991 of

f e ns e a nd e xpl a na t ory c i r c um s t a nc e s r e l a t i ng t o the 1995 co n v icti o n o u g h t t o m it ig ate in h is fa v o r. T h e d istrict co u rt d en ied G ar cia’s 4 r e q u e s t f o rd o w n w a r d d e p a r tu r e c itin g its lim ite d a b ility to lo o k b e h in d s ta te c onvi c t i ons i n f

e de r a l s e nt e nc i ng pr oc e e di ngs , G a r c i a ’ s “ pa tt e rn of pe r s i s t e nt cr i m i nal behavi or” over the ye ar s, and t he “ very , very se ri ou s” nature of the cr i m es of w hi c h he ha d be e n c onvi c t e d. R 2 a t60- 61. I n de ny i ng the r e que s tf or do w nw ar d d epar ture, the courtexpl ai ned t hati tw as “ no tprepare d t o fi nd that p la c in g M r . G a r c ia [ in ] c r im in a l h is to ry c a te g o ry [ V I ] s u b s ta n tia lly o v e rr e p r e s e n t[ e d ] h is c r im in a l h is to ry ” o rth e lik e lih o o d th a t h e w o u ld c o m m it f ur the rc r i m e . I d. a t61. T he c our ta l s o c ons i de r e d the pos s i bi l i ty of a dow nw a r d de pa r tur e f or s ubs t a nt i a l a s s i s t a nc e . T he c our tf ound no ba s i s f

ora dow nw a r d de pa r tur e a tthe t i m e of s ent enci ng , bu tdi d i nd i ca t e aw i l l i ng ness t o rec on si der the se nt ence at5

s om e l a t e rpoi nts houl d G a r c i a de c i de t o s uppl y s ubs t a nt i a l a s s i s t a nc e . F i na l l y , the co u rtex p l i ci t l y st at ed th at“ a sen t en ce atth e l o w en d o f th e g u i d el i n e ran g e [w as] c om pl e t e l y appr opr i a t e , ” a nd s e nt e nc e d G a r c i a t o the m i ni m um pe r i od a l l ow e d by the gui de l i ne s r a nge , 151 m onths . R 2 a t81. G a r c i a now r a i s e s a B ooke re rr or a r g u m e n t, a s s e r tin g th a t th e c o u r t m ig h t h a v e im p o s e d a le s s e rs e n te n c e h a d it co n si d ered th e g u i d el i n es t o b e ad v i so ry rath er th an m an d at o ry. I I . DI S CUS S I ON W e have hel d thata c on st i tut i on al obj ec t i on i n the di stri ctcourti s nec es sa ry t o pr e s e r ve a B ooke rc l a i m f orappe l l a t e r e vi e w . S e e U ni t e d S t a t e s v. D ow l i ng, 403 F . 3d 1242, 1245- 47 ( 11th C i r . ) , c e r t . de ni e d, N o. 05- 6234, 2005 W L 2494155 ( U .S . O c t. 1 1 , 2 0 0 5 ) . S p e c if ic a lly , d e f

e n d a n ts m u s t e ith e rr e f

e rto th e S ix th A m e ndm e ntorU ni t e d S t a t e s v. A ppr e ndi , 530 U . S . 466, 120 S . C t . 2348, 147 L . E d. 2d 43 5(20 00 ), or i t s progeny. S ee i d. at12 46 -47. G ar ci a’ s obj ec t i on s a t s e n te n c in g w e r e lim ite d to f a c tu a l o b je c tio n s to c o n v ic tio n s e rr o n e o u s ly lis te d in hi s P S I. H i s m ot i on for ado w nw ar d d epar ture und erU . S . S . G . § 4 A 1. 3 w as base d o n h is c la im th a t h is c a te g o r iz a tio n a s a c a r e e ro f f e n d e ro v e r - r e p r e s e n te d h is cri m i n al h i st o ry. N ei th er o f th ese q u al i fi es as a co n st i tu t i o n al o b j ect i o n . B ecau se G ar ci a f ai l ed t o rai se a c on st i tut i on al obj ec t i on atthe se nt enci ng hear i ng , he has f a i l e d t o pr e s e r ve a B ooke robj e c t i on.Garcia doe s not argue that there wa s constitutional Booker error . Even if hehad, the 5 Six th Amendment violation describe d in Booker does not extend to prior convictions. See United States v. Orduno- Mireles, 405 F .3d 960, 962 (11th Cir.), cert. denied, N o. 05-5141, 2005 WL1673125 (U.S. Oct. 3, 2005). G arc ia’s status as a career offender w as base d on prior convictions. 6 Wh e r e a d e f

e n d a n tf a i l s t o p r e s e r v e a B o o k e ro b j e c t i o n f o rap p e l l a t e r e v i e w, w e r e vi e w a di s tr i c tc our t ’ s s e nt e nc e f orpl a i n e rr or . S e e U ni t e d S t a t e s v. R o d r ig u e z , 3 9 8 F .3 d 1 2 9 1 , 1 2 9 8 ( 1 1 th C ir .) , c e r t. d e n ie d , __U .S . __ , 1 2 5 S . C t. 29 35 (200 5). T o p re vai l un der apl ai n err or st andard, an appel l antm ustshow that there i s: “ (1) e rr or, (2) thati s pl ai n, and (3) thataf fe ct s s ub st ant i al ri gh t s. ” U ni t ed S t at es v . S h el t o n , 4 0 0 F . 3 d 1 3 2 5 , 1 3 2 8 -2 9 (1 1 th C i r. 2 0 0 5 ). O n ce w e h av e th ese th ree el em en t s, w e m ay n o t i ce th aterro r o n l y i f i t“ seri o u sl y affects th e fai rn ess, i nt egri ty, or pu bl i c r eput at i on of j ud i ci al proceedi ng s. ” I d. at13 29 (i nt ernal ci t at i on om i tt ed). T hi s i s adi ff i cul tst andard t o m ee t , and o ne t o b e e xerc i se d

“ spar i ng l y” – o nl y w hen “ a m i sc arri age of j ust i ce w ou l d o therw i se re sul t . ” R od ri gu ez , 39 8 F . 3d at12 98 (c i t at i on om i tt ed). T he f i r s ttw o pr ongs of

the pl a i n e rr ort e s ta r e m e t , a s the gove rnm e nt c onc e de s w a s the c a s e he r e , w he n a s t a tut or y e rr ore xi s t s ; tha ti s , w he n the defe nd anti s s ent ence d u nd erm andat ory r ather than adv i sory gu i del i nes. S ee 5 S he l t on, 400 F . 3d a t1331. T he de f e nda nt ' s bur de n w i th r e s pe c tt o the thi r d pr ong i s , the n, “ t o s how tha tthe e rr ora c tua l l y di d m a ke a di f f e r e nc e . ” R odr i gue z , 398Generally, we ha ve found a

defendant’s plain er

ror burden to be met in ca ses containing 6 a cle ar record of a district c ourt’s ar ticulated desireto impose a lower sentencethan the guidelines permitted. Wherethe sentenc ing judg e expresses the view that the sentence require d by the guidelines is “too severe,” or“morethan appropriate,”the def endant will meet his burden o f s h o w i n ga

re a s o n a b l ep ro b a b i l i ty o f a l e s s e r s e nt e n c e . S h e l t o n , 4 0 0 F . 3 d at1 3 3 2 . S i m i l arl y, the def endant meets his high burden where the district cour t imposes the minimum sentence un der t heguide lin e s and

thejudg eremark s “ that prob a bly un der t hec irc ums tanc e s, that’ s a little high . . . but that’ s what the guidelines call for and that’ s what I ’m obligated to sentenc e him.” United States v. Henderson, 409 F.3d 1293, 1307 ( 11th Cir. 2005). 7 F .3 d a t 1 3 0 0 . “[ I ]n ap p ly in g th e th ir d p r o n g , w e a s k w h e th e rth e r e is a r e a s o n a b le prob abi l i ty of adi ff

er entre sul ti f the gu i del i nes had been appli ed i n an adv i sory i ns t e a d of

bi ndi ng f

a s hi on. ” I d. a t1301. R e a s ona bl e pr oba bi l i ty of a di f f e r e nt re sul tm ea ns a probabi l i ty “ suff i ci entt o u nd erm i ne confi dence i n the ou t com e. ” I d . a t 1 2 9 9 ( c ita tio n o m itte d ) . G arci a arg u es, i n p art , th atth e co u rt ’ s i m p o si t i o n o f a t erm o f 1 5 1 m o n th s’ i m pri sonm ent , w hi ch w as atthe bo tt om of the gu i del i ne ra ng e i tconsi dere d m a nda t ory , s how s r e a s ona bl e pr oba bi l i ty of a l e s s e rs e nt e nc e . W e ha ve consi st ent l y f

ou nd , ho w ever , thata s ent ence atthe l ow end o f the gu i del i ne ra ng e, s t a ndi ng a l one , i s i ns uf

f i c i e ntt o c a rry a de f

e nda nt ’ s bur de n of

de m ons tr a t i ng a re as on abl e probabi l i ty of al es se r s ent ence un der a dv i sory gu i del i nes. S ee U ni t ed S t a t e s v. F i e l ds , 408 F . 3d 1356, 1361 ( 11th C i r . ) , c e rt . de ni e d, N o. 05- 5157, 2005 W L 16 73 02 2 (U . S . O ct . 3, 20 05 ). G ar ci a f ai l s t o o ff

erany e vi dence, other than th is b o tto m - o f

- th e - r a n g e s e n te n c e , o f

a r e a s o n a b le p r o b a b ility o f a d if f e r e n t r e s u lt h a d th e c o u r tap p l i e d th e g u i d e l i n e s a s a d v i s o ry r a th e rth a n a s m a n d a t o ry . He 6In support of his contention, Garcia points to the followingstatement by the cour t: “I 7 think one of the thing s clea r to everyone [is that] the United States Sentenc ing Guidelines are fairly merc iless.” R2 at 55. Taken in context, however, this ref lects the sentencingjudge ’s g eneral under standingof the guidelines rather than his view of the propriety

of the sentence imposed upon Garc ia thereunder. 8 as se rt s thatthe courtexpres se d sym pathy for hi m , bu tdo es no tqu ot e or i dent i fy s p e c if ic la n g u a g e to s u p p o r t th is s ta te m e n t. 7 T o the c ontr a ry , c our ts pe c i f i c a l l y f ound the s e nt e nc e i m pos e d t o be “co m p letely ap p ro p riate.” R 2 at 8 1 . F u rth er , i n it s d iscr etio n , i t rejec ted G ar cia’s r e q u e s t f o ra d o w n w a r d d e p a r tu r e u n d e rU .S .S .G . § 4 A 1 .3 , e x p la in in g th a t a r e vi e w of

G a r c i a ’ s c r i m i na l c onvi c t i on hi s t ory de m ons tr a t e d “ a pa tt e rn of pe r s i s t e ntc r i m i na l be ha vi or ” tha tl e f tthe c our tuna bl e t o de pa r tdow nw a r d f r om G a r c i a ’ s a s s i gne d c r i m i na l hi s t ory c a t e gory V I . F i na l l y , a l though the s e nt e nc i ng courti n the pres entca se offe re d G ar ci a a n o pp ortun i ty t o reduce hi s s ent ence th r o u g h s u b s ta n tia l a s s is ta n c e to th e g o v e rn m e n t a t s o m e f u tu r e p o in t, it spec i fi ca l l y r ej ec t ed such a dow nw ar d d epar ture bas ed up on the st at e of a ff ai rs at s e nt e nc i ng. I n s um , G a r c i a ha s f a i l e d t o e s t a bl i s h a r e a s ona bl e pr oba bi l i ty tha tthe di stri ctcourtw ou l d h ave i m po se d a l ow erse nt ence . T hu s, he has f ai l ed t o m ee t h i s b u rd en o f sh o w i n g th atth e erro r affected h i s su b st an t i al ri g h t s. A cco rd i n g l y, w e c o n c lu d e th a t G a r c ia h a s f a ile d to m e e t th e d if

f ic u lt s ta n d a r d im p o s e d f o rp la in e rr o rr e v ie w .9 I I I . CONCL US I ON B e c a u s e Ga r c i a f

a i l e d t o p r e s e r v e h i s B o o k e ra r g u m e n tf o rap p e a l , we re vi ew hi s 151 -m on th sent ence for pl ai n err or. W e f i nd thatG ar ci a’ s s ub st ant i al r i ght s w e r e nota f

f e c t e d by the di s tr i c tc our t ’ s tr e a tm e ntof the S e nt e nc i ng G u id e lin e s a s m a n d a to ry b e c a u s e n o th in g in th e r e c o r d d e m o n s tr a te s a r e a s o n a b le prob abi l i ty thatthe courtw ou l d h ave i m po se d a l es se r s ent ence had the gu i del i nes b een ad v i so ry. A cco rd i n g l y, G arci a’ s sen t en ce i s AF F I RME D.