FILED U.S. COURT OF AP P E ALS E LE V EN T HC IRC U IT MAY 24, 2007 THOMAS K. KAH

N CLERK [ 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. 06- 11514 N on -A rgum entC al endar

________________________ D. C . Do c k e tNo . 0 2 - 2 0 0 3 0 - C R - UU B 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 S H E M T O V M I C H T A V I , 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

_________________________ ( M ay 24, 2007) B efo re B L A C K , M A R C U S an d W IL S O N , C i rcu i tJu d g es. P E R C U R I A M: S he m t ov M i c ht a vi appe a l s hi s 240- m onth s e nt e nc e , i m pos e d on r e m a nd,2

fol l ow i ng hi s c on vi ct i on for c on spi ra cyt o d i stri bu t e am i xture a nd subst ance cont ai ni ng a det ec t abl e a m ou ntof M ethyl enedi ox ym etham ph et am i ne (“ M D M A ”) , o r“E c s ta s y ,” in v io la tio n o f 2 1 U .S .C . § § 8 4 1 ( a ) ( 1 ) , 8 4 1 ( b ) ( 1 ) ( C ) , 8 4 6 . W e previ ou sl y r em anded thi s c as e t o the di stri ctcourtfor r e- se nt enci ng af t er det erm i ni ng thatconst i tut i on al and st atut ory B oo ke re rr o r s h a d o c c u rr e d . On r e m a nd, the di s tr i c tc our ti m pos e d a n i de nt i c a l s e nt e nc e w he n c ons i de r i ng the gui de l i ne s a s a dvi s ory . O n appe a l , M i c ht a vi a r gue s tha tthe di s tr i c tc our te rr e d by f a i l i ng t o de t e r m i ne a tr e - s e nt e nc i ng the drug qua nt i t i e s a ttr i but abl e t o hi m , a nd by s e nt e nc i ng hi m ba s e d on a drug qua nt i ty de t e r m i na t i on tha tw a s notf ound by the ju ry . M ic h ta v i a ls o a r g u e s th a t h is s e n te n c e w a s u n r e a s o n ab le u n d e r1 8 U .S .C . § 35 53 (a ). I . D r u g Q u an t i t y D e t e r m i n at i on M ic h ta v i c h a lle n g e d th e f in d in g s a s to th e d ru g q u a n tity a m o u n t a ttr ib u te d to hi m both a thi s i ni t i a l s e nt e nc i ng he a r i ng a nd a tr e - s e nt e nc i ng. A tr e - s e nt e nc i ng, th e d i s tr i c ta d o p t e d i t s q u a n t i ty f i n d i n g s f r o m th e i n i t i a l h e a r i n g . We r e v i e w a sen t en ci n g co u rt ’ s ap p l i cat i o n o f th e S en t en ci n g G u i d el i n es de no vo. U ni ted Stat es v . E dm onds , 3 4 8 F .3 d 9 5 0 , 9 5 2 -5 3 (1 1 th C ir. 2 0 0 3 ). W e r ev iew a d istrict co u rt’s d ru g q u a n tity d e te r m in a tio n f o rc le a re rr o r . U

ni te d State s v . Me r t i lus , 111 F . 3d 8 7 0 , 8 7 3 ( 1 1 th C ir . 1 9 9 7 ) .3

S ect i o n 2 D 1 . 1 o f th e S en t en ci n g G u i d el i n es est ab l i sh es th e b ase-o ffen se l e ve l s f ordrug of

f e ns e s a c c or di ng t o the qua nt i ty of drugs a ttr i but abl e t o the d e f e n d a n t. See U . S . S . G . § 2D 1. 1. “ T he gove rnm e ntm us te s t abl i s h the drug qu ant i ty by aprepon dera nce of the evi dence. ” Me r t i lus , 111 F . 3d a t873 I n a drug co n sp i racy, a d efen d an tm ay b e h el d acco u n t ab l e n o to n l y fo r h i s o w n act s b u tal so f or“ ‘ a l l r e a s onabl y f

or e s e e abl e a c t s a nd om i s s i ons of othe r s i n f

ur the r a nc e of

the j oi nt l y und ert aken cri m i nal ac t i vi ty. ’ ” U ni ted Stat es v. B easley , 2 F . 3d 1551, 1561 (11th C i r. 19 93 ) ( qu ot i ng U . S . S . G . § 1 B 1. 3(a) (1)( B )) . “ T hu s, the G ui del i nes r equi re a di s tr i c tc our tt o a ttr i but e t o a de f e nda nta l l drugs f

or e s e e abl y di s tr i but e d pur s ua nt t o a co m m o n sch em e o r p l an o f w h i ch th atd efen d an t ' s o ffen se o f co n v i ct i o n w as a part . ” U ni ted Stat es v. L aw re nce , 4 7 F .3 d 1 5 5 9 , 1 5 6 6 ( 1 1 th C ir . 1 9 9 5 ) . T he di s tr i c tc our tdi d notc l e a r l y e rri n i t s i ni t i a l drug qua nt i ty de t e r m i na t i on, and i tdi d n oterr i n rel yi ng on i t s f i nd i ng atre -s ent enci ng . T he di stri ctcourt a ttr i but e d 182. 2 ki l ogr a m s of M D M A t abl e t s s e i z e d f r om the N e w Y or k apa r tm e nt t o M i cht avi . M i cht avi conspi re d w i th Z ev R osenst ei n, w ho ow ned the se i ze d drug s, and M ordechai C oh en t o d i stri bu t e drugs. M i cht avi t ol d C oh en thati f C oh en c oul d f i nd buy e r s f

orthe M D M A , M i c ht a vi c oul d s uppl y the pi l l s . T he apa r tm e nt w a s us e d t o c om pl e t e s e ve r a l drug de a l s w hi c h M i c ht a vi br oke r e d. A l s o, the re corded t el epho ne conv er sa t i on s betw ee n M i cht avi and C oh en, w here i n they4

di s c us s e d the s e i z ur e of the 182. 2 ki l ogr a m s of

M D M A i n the N e w Y or k apa r tm e nt a nd C ohe n’ s r e s pons i bi l i ty f orthe m one y ow e d f

orthe drugs , e vi de nc e s tha tthe a m ountul t i m a t e l y s e i z e d w a s r e a s onabl y f or e s e e abl e t o M i c ht a vi . G i ve n tha tthe di stri ctcourthad al re ady hea rd the evi dence attri al and argum enton the i ss ue at the i ni t i al se nt enci ng hear i ng , there w as no error i n rel yi ng on i t s f i nd i ng s a tre s e n te n c in g w h e n n e ith e rs id e r e q u e s te d a n e w e v id e n tia ry h e a r in g . A ddi t i ona l l y , M i c ht a vi a r gue s tha tthe drug qua nt i ty f i ndi ng s houl d ha ve b ee n m ad e b y a ju ry . W e h av e h eld th at in a § 8 4 1 ca se in w h ich a d ef en d an t’ s ul t i m at e s ent ence fa l l s a tor bel ow the st atut ory m axi m um penal ty provi ded i n § 8 4 1 ( b ) ( 1 ) ( c ) , th e r e i s n o c o n s t i tu t i o n a l e rr o rs t e mmi n g f r o m App re nd iv. N

ew Je rs ey , 5 3 0 U .S . 4 6 6 , 1 2 0 S . C t. 2 3 4 8 , 1 4 7 L . E d . 2 d 4 3 5 ( 2 0 0 0 ) , a n d d ru g q u a n tity n e e d n o t h a v e b e e n s u b m itte d to a ju ry a n d p r o v e n b e y o n d a r e a s o n ab le d o u b t. See U ni te d State s v . U

nde rw ood , 4 4 6 F .3 d 1 3 4 0 , 1 3 4 4 - 4 5 ( 1 1 th C ir . 2 0 0 6 ) , c e r t. deni ed , 127 S . C t . 225 ( 2006) ( c i t i ng U ni ted Stat es v. Sa nchez , 269 F . 3d 1250 ( 11th C i r . 2001) ) . A s M i c ht a vi ’ s ul t i m a t e s e nt e nc e w a s a tthe s t a tut ory m a xi m um o f 2 0 y e a r s , th e d is tr ic t c o u r t d id n o t v io la te M ic h ta v i’s c o n s titu tio n a l r ig h ts .

II . R eason ab l en es s of M i ch tavi ’s S en te n ce M i cht avi cont ends thathi s s ent ence w as un re as on abl e bec ause the di stri ct5

court(1) f

ai l ed t o adequ at el y c on si der hi s hea l th and age a nd (2) c re at ed se nt enci ng di spar i t i es betw ee n M i cht avi and co-conspi ra t ors. A ft er U ni ted Stat es v. B oo ke r , 54 3 U . S . 22 0, 12 5 S . C t . 73 8, 16 0 L . E d. 2d 62 1 (20 05 ), w e r evi ew sen t en ces u n d er th e ad v i so ry g u i d el i n e reg i m e fo r reaso n ab l en ess. R easo n ab l en ess r e vi e w i s de f

e r e nt i a l , r e qui r i ng us t o " e va l ua t e w he the rthe s e nt e nc e i m pos e d by th e d is tr ic t c o u r t f

a ils to a c h ie v e th e p u rp o s e s o f s e n te n c in g a s s ta te d in [ 1 8 U .S .C .] se ct i on 35 53 (a ). ” U

ni ted Stat es v. T

al l ey , 43 1 F . 3d 78 4, 78 8 (11 th C i r. 20 05 )( per curi am ). “ T he w ei gh tt o b e a cc orded any gi ven § 35 53 (a ) f ac t or i s am att er c om m i tt e d t o the s ound di s c r e t i on of the di s tr i c tc our t [ , ] ” a nd w e “ w i l l not subst i tut e our j ud gm enti n w ei gh i ng the re l evantfa ct ors . . . ” U ni ted Stat es v. Wi l l i a ms , 45 6 F . 3d 13 53 , 13 63 (11th C i r. 20 06 ), pe t i t i on f orc e r t . f i l e d, ( U .S . O c t. 1 9 , 2 0 0 6 ) ( N o . 0 6 - 7 3 5 2 ) . M ic h ta v i b e a r s th e b u r d e n o f e s tab lis h in g th a t h is s e n te n c e is u n r e a s o n ab le in lig h t o f

th e r e c o r d a n d§ 3 5 5 3 ( a ) s e n te n c in g f a c to r s . T al l ey , 431 F . 3d a t788. T h e d is tr ic t c o u r t m u s t e n g a g e in a tw o s te p p r o c e s s . F ir s t it m u s t c o rr e c tly ca l cul at e the defendant ’ s gui del i ne ra ng e; se cond , i tm ustconsi der the § 3 55 3(a) s e n te n c in g f

a c to r s . Id . at78 6. T he courti s notre qu i re d t o exp l i ci t l y c on si der e ac h o f th e s e f a c to r s o n th e r e c o r d . U n ite d S ta te s v . Sc o tt, 426 F . 3d 1324, 1329- 30 ( 1 1 th C ir . 2 0 0 5 ) . I t is e n o u g h f o rth e c o u r t to a c k n o w le d g e th e p a r tie s ’ a r g u m e n ts6

a n d s ta te th a t it h a s c o n s id e r e d th e f a c to r s . I d. T he di stri ctcourthere corr ec t l y c al cul at ed the gu i del i ne rang e a nd st at ed tha ti tha d c ons i de r e d the s t a t e m e nt s of the pa r t i e s , the pr e s e nt e nc e i nve s t i ga t i on r e p o r t c o n ta in in g th e a d v is o ry g u id e lin e s , a s w e ll a s th e f a c to r s s e t f

o r th i n § 3553( a ) . W hi l e the di s tr i c tc our tw a s notr e qui r e d t o di s c us s e a c h f a c t oron the r e c o r d , it c o n s id e r e d M ic h ta v i’s d e te r io r a tin g m e d ic a l c o n d itio n , b u t u ltim a te ly concl ud ed thatfa ct ors other than h i s a ge and p hysi ca l heal th sho ul d b e a ff orded g reat er w ei g h t . T h e co u rtem p h asi zed th e n atu re, ci rcu m st an ces, an d seri o u sn ess of the offens e. S peci fi ca l l y, the courtfocuse d o n the l ar ge sc op e a nd i nt ernat i on al char ac t erof the cr i m i nal ent erpri se , and d et erm i ned thatsuch cond uctconst i tut ed a n “ a s s a ul ton the s ove r e i gnty of the U ni t e d S t a t e s ” a nd i t s c i t i z e ns . F ur the r , the c our ta l s o c ons i de r e d the ne e d t o pr ovi de a j us tpuni s hm e nta nd the ne e d f or det erre nce a s i texpl ai ned thata s ent ence atthe m i dp oi ntof the gu i del i nes r ange, w h ic h w a s a ls o th e s ta tu to ry m a x im u m , p r o v id e d th e m o s t ju s t a n d r e a s o n ab le p u n is h m e n t u n d e rth e c ir c u m s ta n c e s . F urtherm ore, no se nt enci ng di spar i ty e xi st ed betw ee n M i cht avi and si m i l ar si tuat ed co-conspi ra t ors, because c o-conspi ra t ors w ho re ce i ved sub st ant i al l y l es se r se nt ence s than M i cht avi ei ther had coop er at ed w i th the go vernm entor had ac qu i re d a spec i fi c a m ou ntof M D M A . A dd i t i on al l y, the evi dence es t abl i shed that7

M i c ht a vi ’ s c onduc tw a s di s t i ngui s habl e f r om tha tof

hi s c ode f

e nda nt s a s M i c ht a vi a c t e d a s a br oke rf

orthe drug de a l s . T he r e f or e , the r e w a s a r e a s on f orthe s e nt e nc i ng di s pa r i ty , a nd, thus , i tw a s notunw a rr a nt e d. I n s um , M i c ht a vi ha s not c a rr i e d hi s bur de n t o s how tha thi s s e nt e nc e , pr ope r l y de t e r m i ne d us i ng th e § 3 5 5 3 ( a ) f

a c to r s , w a s u n r e a s o n ab le . A c c o r d in g ly , w e a f f irm . AF F I RME D.