FILED U.S. COURT OF AP P EALS E LEVEN T HC IRC UIT FEB RUARY 24, 2006 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. 05- 12626 N on -A rgum entC al endar

________________________ D . C. D o c k e tN o . 0 4 - 0 0 3 3 5 - CR- T- 1 7 - M SS 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 E B E R T O M A R T I N E Z - G O N Z A L E S , 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 M i ddl e D i s tr i c tof F l or i da

_________________________ ( F e b r u ar y 24, 2006) B efo re B L A C K , B A R K E T T an d W IL S O N , C i rcu i tJu d g es. P E R C U R I A M: E bert o M art i nez- G on za l es appeal s hi s 135 -m on th con curr entse nt ence s2

i m pos e d a f

t e rpl e a di ng gui l tyt o ( 1) pos s e s s i on w i th i nt e ntt o di s tr i but e f i ve ki l ogr a m s orm or e of

c oc a i ne w hi l e on boa r d ave s s e l , i n vi ol a t i on of 46 A pp. U . S . C . § 1 9 0 3 (a) an d 2 1 U . S . C . § 9 6 0 (b )(1 )(B )(i i ), an d(2 ) co n sp i racy t o p o ssess w ith in te n t to d is tr ib u te f iv e k ilo g r a m s o rm o r e o f c o c a in e w h ile o n b o a r dav e s s e l, in v io la tio n o f

4 6 A p p . U .S .C . § 1 9 0 3 ( j) a n d2 1 U .S .C . § 9 6 0 ( b ) ( 1 ) ( B ) ( ii) . M art i nez- G on za l es ar gu es thatthe di stri ctcourterre d i n d enyi ng hi s r equestfor a m i ni m a l - r ol e orm i nor - r ol e r e duc t i on a nd tha thi s s e nt e nc e i s unr e a s onabl e . T he gove rnm e ntr e s ponds tha tthe di s tr i c tc ourtdi d notc l e a r l ye rri n de c l i ni ng t o gr a nt M art i n ez-G o n zal es a m i n i m al - o r m i n o r-ro l e red u ct i o n . T h e g o v ern m en tal so a r g u e s th a t w e la c kju r is d ic tio n o v e rM a rtin e z - G o n z a le s ’s c h a lle n g e th a t h is se nt ence i s unrea sonabl e bec ause the se nt ence i m po se d w as w i thi n the advi sory g u id e lin e r a n g e a n d th e r e f o r e is n o t ap p e a lab le w ith in th e m e a n in g o f 1 8 U .S .C . § 37 42 (a ). A cco rd i n g t o th e p resen t en ce i n v est i g at i o n rep o rt , a U n i t ed S t at es C o ast G u a r d h e lic o p te rs p o tte d a“g o - f a s t” v e s s e l c a rry in g n u m e r o u s b a le s o f c o c a in e . U p o n o b s e rv in g th e h e lic o p te r , th e c r e w m e m b e r s b e g a n je ttis o n in g th e c o c a in e . A t e a m f r om ane a rbyC oa s tG ua r d ve s s e l boa r de d the “ go- f a s t ” a nd a rr e s t e d the ei gh tcr ew m em bers , i ncl ud i ng M art i nez- G on za l es . S i xt ee n b al es of cocai ne, c ont a i ni ng at ot a l of

320 ki l ogr a m s of

c oc a i ne , w e r e r e c ove r e d.“Releva nt conduct” is the c onduct for which the def endant is held accounta

ble under 1 U.S.S.G. § 1B1.3. De Varon , 175 F.3d at 934. 3 M a rtin e z - G o n z a le s f

ir s t a r g u e s th a t th e d is tr ic t c o u rt e rr e din d e c lin in g to g ra n t a m in im al- o r m in o r- ro le ad ju stm en t. W e r ev iew th e d istrict co u rt’s d e te rm in a tio n o f

ad e f e n d a n t’s r o le in th e o f

f e n s e f o rc le a re rr o r . U

ni ted States v. D e V ar on , 1 7 5 F .3 d 9 3 0 , 9 3 7 ( 1 1 th C ir . 1 9 9 9 ) ( e n b a n c ) . A de f e nda ntw ho i s am i ni m a l pa rt i c i pa nti s one w ho i s “ pl a i nl ya m ong the le a s t c u lp ab le o f

th o s e in v o lv e d in th e c o n d u c t o f ag r o u p .” U .S .S .G . § 3 B 1 .2 c m t. n. 4. A defe nd anti s am i no r part i ci panti f he “ i s l es s c ul pabl e than m ostother p a rtic ip a n ts , b u t w h o s e r o le c o u ldn o t b e d e s c r ib e da s m in im a l.” U .S .S .G . § 3 B 1 .2 c m t . n. 3. “ [ A ] di s tr i c tc ourt ’ s de t e rm i na t i on of ade f e nda nt ’ s m i t i ga t i ng r ol e i n the offe nse s ho ul d b e i nform ed by tw o m od es of anal ys i s[ . ] ” D e V ar on , 17 5 F . 3d at 945. F i r s t , the de f

e nda nt ’ s r ol e m us tbe m e a s ur e d “ a ga i ns tthe r e l e va ntc onduc tf or w h ich [h e] w as h eld ac co u n tab le at se n ten cin g [.]” Id . S ec o n d , th e d ef en d an t’ s 1 r o le m a yb e m e a s u r e d a g a in s t th a t o f o th e rp a rtic ip a n ts in th e r e le v a n t c o n d u c t. Id .

“ T he de f e nda ntbe a r s the bur de n of pr ovi ng hi s m i norr ol e byapr e ponde r a nc e of the evi dence. ” U

ni ted States v. B oyd , 29 1 F . 3d 12 74 , 12 77 (11th C i r. 20 02 ). H er e, the re cord supp ort s the di stri ctcourt ’ s f i nd i ng thatM art i nezG on za l es ’ s r ol e w as no tm i ni m al or m i no r. A pp l yi ng the fi rs tpartof the D e V ar on a na l y s i s , M a rt i ne z - G onz a l e s w a s he l d a c c ount abl e f orthe pos s e s s i on of

the 3204

ki l ogr a m s of

c oc a i ne tha tw e r e j e tt i s one d f r om the boa t . T he r e f

or e , hi s a c tua l a nd r e le v a n t c o n d u c t w e r e th e s a m e . “[ W ]h e n ad ru g c o u r ie r ’s r e le v a n t c o n d u c t is l i m i t e d t o [ hi s ] ow n a c tof i m port a t i on, adi s tr i c tc ourtm a yl e gi t i m a t e l yc onc l ude th atth e co u ri er p l ayed an i m p o rt an to r essen t i al ro l e i n th e i m p o rt at i o n o f th o se drug s. ” D e V

ar on , 175 F . 3d a t942- 43. W i th res pectt o the se cond partof the D e V ar on a na l y s i s , the r e i s i ns uf f i c i e nt e v id e n c e to s h o w th a t M a rtin e z - G o n z a le s w a s am in o ro rm in im a l p a rtic ip a n t in com pari son t o o thers . In det erm i ni ng w hether adefe nd antw as l es s c ul pabl e than others , “ the di stri ctcourtshou l d l oo k t o o ther part i ci pant s onl y t o the ext entthat they are i dent i fi abl e or di sc erni bl e f rom the evi dence. ” Id . a t 9 4 4 . H e r e , th e o n ly pers on s i dent i fi abl e f

rom the evi dence ar e M art i nez- G on za l es and the se ven o ther cr ew m em bers of the vess el . M art i nez- G on za l es ar gu es thatthere w er e other in d iv id u a ls in v o lv e d , b u t “w h e r e th e r e le v a n t c o n d u c t a ttr ib u te dto ad e f e n d a n t is i de nt i c a l t o [ hi s ] a c tua l c onduc t , [ he ] c a nnotpr ove tha t[ he ] i s e nt i t l e d t o a [ mi t i g a t i n g - r o l e ] a d

j u s tme n ts i mp l yb yp o i n t i n g t o s o me b r o a d e rc r i mi n a l s c h e me in w h ic h [ h e ] w a s am in o rp a rtic ip a n t b u t f o rw h ic h [ h e ] w a s n o t h e ld ac coun t abl e. ” Id . at94 1. F urther, M art i nez- G on za l es has provi ded n o evi dence thathe w as the am on g the l ea stcul pabl e of the cr ew m em bers . H e c l ai m s onl y that h e w a s a“d e c kh a n d ” w h o s e r o le w a s lim ite dto ta k e tu rn s d r iv in g th e v e s s e l.5

H o w ev er, h e h as n o tsh o w n th ath i s resp o n si b i l i t i es ab o ard th e v essel w ere l ess vi t al t o the ent erpri se than tho se of any other c re w m em bers . T here fore , M art i nezG o n z a le s h a s f

a ile d to s h o w th a t h e w a s e n title dto am itig a tin g - r o le a d ju s tm e n t. M a rt i ne z - G onz a l e s a l s o a r gue s tha thi s s e nt e nc e w a s unr e a s onabl e i n l i ghtof the fa ct ors l i st ed i n 1 8 U . S . C . § 3 55 3(a) . T he go vernm entre spon ds thatw e l ac k j uri sdi ct i on t o con si der the i ss ue because a s ent ence i m po se d w i thi n the gu i del i nes r a n g e is n o t ap p e a lab le f o rr e a s o n ab le n e s s w ith in th e m e a n in g o f 1 8 U .S .C . § 3 7 4 2 ( a ) . W e r e v ie w q u e s tio n s o f ju r is d ic tio n d e n o v o . See Mi lan E xpress , Inc. v. A ve ri t t E xpress , Inc. , 2 0 8 F .3 d 9 7 5 , 9 7 8 ( 1 1 th C ir . 2 0 0 0 ) . W e h a v e p r e v io u s ly r e je c te d th e g o v e rn m e n t’s p o s itio n w ith r e g a r dto ju r is d ic tio n . See U ni ted States v. M art i nez , 11 th C i r. 20 06 , ___ F . 3d ___, (N o. 05 -127 06 , Jan. 9, 20 06 ) ( per c uri am ); s e e al s o U ni te d State s v . Mi c ke l

s on , 8th C i r . 2006, ___ F . 3d ___, ( N o. 05- 2324, Jan. 6, 20 06 ) ( re

j ec t i ng the go vernm ent ’ s posi t i on thatappel l at e c ou rt s l ac k j uri sdi ct i on t o revi ew se nt ence s f or re as on abl enes s und er§ 3 74 2(a) ). B e c au s e w e h a v e ju r is d ic tio n to e n te rta in ap p e lla te r e v ie w , w e n o w tu rn to the re as on abl enes s of M art i nez- G on za l es ’ s s ent ence . “ W e r evi ew [M art i nezG onz a l e s ’ s ] f

i na l s e nt e nc e , i n i t s e nt i r e ty , f orunr e a s onabl e ne s s i n l i ghtof the fa ct ors i n § 35 53 (a ). ” M art i nez , ___F .3 da t _

__ ; se e al so U ni ted States v.6

W i ni nge ar , 4 2 2 F .3 d 1 2 4 1 , 1 2 4 5 ( 1 1 th C ir . 2 0 0 5 ) ( p e rc u r ia m ) ( “W e d o n o t ap p ly the r e a s onabl e ne s s s t a nda r d t o e a c h i ndi vi dua l de c i s i on m a de dur i ng the s e nt e nc i ng p r o c e s s ; r a th e r , w e r e v ie w th e f in a l s e n te n c e f

o rr e a s o n ab le n e s s .” ) . “[ O ]r d in a r ily w e w o u lde x p e c t as e n te n c e w ith in th e G u id e lin e s r a n g e to b e r e a s o n ab le ,” a lth o u g h s u c h as e n te n c e is n o t p e rs e r e a s o n ab le . U ni ted States v. T

al ley , 431 F . 3d 7 8 4 , 7 8 8 ( 1 1 th C ir . 2 0 0 5 ) ( p e rc u r ia m ) . H e r e , th e s e n te n c e o f

1 3 5 m o n th s ’ im p r is o n m e n t is n o t u n r e a s o n ab le . T h is s e nt e nc e w a s a tthe l ow e nd of the gui de l i ne s r a nge , ar a nge tha tt a ke s i nt o a c c ount M art i n ez-G o n zal es’ s o ffen se co n d u ct , h i s p erso n al ch aract eri st i cs an dh i st o ry, j u st p u n is h m e n t, a n d a d e q u a te d e te rr e n c e . Se e U n ite d S ta tes v . Sc o tt , 426 F . 3d 1324, 13 30 (11th C i r. 20 05 ). T he re cord revea l s nothi ng t o i nd i ca t e thatsuch a s ent ence w a s u n r e a s o n ab le in lig h t o f th e § 3 5 5 3 ( a ) f

a c to r s . T h e r e f

o r e , th e d is tr ic t c o u rt d id n o terr i n sen t en ci n g M art i n ez-G o n zal es. Up o n r e v i e w o f

th e r e c o r d a n dc o n s i d e r a t i o n o f th e p a rt i e s ’ b r i e f

s , we d is c e rn n o r e v e r s ib le e rr o rin th e d is tr ic t c o u rt’s d e n ia l o f am itig a tin g - r o le r e d u c t i o n o ri n th e s e n t e n c e i mp o s e d . A c c o r d i n g l y , w e a f f i rm. AF F I RME D.