FI LED U. S . COURT OF AP PE ALS E L E V E N T H C IR C U IT D e c e m be r 30, 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. 05- 12160 N on -A rgum entC al endar

________________________ D. C . Do c k e tNo . 0 4 - 0 0 5 5 1 - C R - T - 2 7 - MAP 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 A L E J A N D R O R A M O S B E R T E L , 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

_________________________ ( D e c e m be r30, 2005) B efo re B IR C H , B L A C K an d B A R K E T T , C i rcu i tJu d g es. P E R C U R I A M: A l e j a ndr o R a m os B e r t e l appe a l s hi s 188- m onth s e nt e nc e a f t e rpl e a di ng2

gui l ty t o c ons pi r i ng t o pos s e s s a nd pos s e s s i ng w i th i nt e ntt o di s tr i but e f i ve ki l og ra m s or m ore of c ocai ne w hi l e abo ar d a vess el subj ec tt o U ni t ed S t at es j u r i s d i c t i o n , i n v i o l a t i o n o f 4 6 U . S. C. § § 1 9 0 3 ( a ) , ( g ) , a n d ( j ) , a n d 2 1 U . S. C. § 960( b) ( 1) ( B ) ( i i ) . T he di s tr i c tc our tde ni e d hi m am i t i ga t i ng- r ol e a dj us tm e nt p u r s u a n tt o U . S . S . G . § 3 B 1 . 2 . We A F F I R M. I . B AC KG RO UN D In N ov em ber 200 4, the hel i copt ercr ew fr om the R oyal D ut ch N aval vess el W i l l em V an D erZ aa n o bserved a go -f as tbo atst op ped i n the southw es tC arri bean S e a . U pon s i ght i ng the he l i c opt e r , the go- f a s tboa ta tt e m pt e d t o e va de i t . D ur i ng p u r s u it b y th e h e lic o p te r , th e c r e w o f th e g o - f a s t b o a t th r e w b a le s o f

c o c a in e in to the se a a nd subsequent l y s t op ped the bo at . A U ni t ed S t at es C oastG uard L aw E nforcement D et ac hm ent(“ C oastG uard”) as si gn ed t o the W i l l em V an D erZ aa n f orac ount e r - na r c ot i c s pa tr ol i nt e r c e pt e d a nd boa r de d the go- f a s tboa tt o de t e rm i ne its n a tio n a lity . A lth o u g h th e c r e w c la im e d C o lo m b ia n c itiz e n s h ip , th e g o - f a s t b o a t fl ew no fl ag and h ad no re gi stry . C oastG uard pers on nel cont ac t ed C ol om bi an a u th o r itie s , w h o in f

o rm e d th a t th e g o - f

a s t b o a t, w h ic h c o n ta in e d ap p r o x im a te ly 6 0 0 p o u n d s o f fu el , w as w i th o u tn at i o n al i ty. T he D ut c h ve s s e l ’ s c r e w r e c ove r e d 58 ba l e s of c oc a i ne , w e i ghi ng 1, 450 ki l og ra m s, fr om the go -f as tbo at ’ s c ou rs e, w hi l e the C oastG uard remo ved B ert el3

a n d th e o th e r s f

r o m th e g o - f

a s t b o a t f o rtr a n s p o r t to aU n ite d S ta te s n a v a l v e s s e l. D uri ng po st -M i ra nd a s t at em ent s, autho ri t i es l ea rned thatthe four cre w m em bers had b ee n rec rui t ed t o t ake the bal es of cocai ne t o a l ocat i on i n the C ar i bb ea n S ea a n d th a t o n e o f

th e m e n w a s th e c ap ta in o f th e g o - f a s t b o a t. P ur s ua ntt o U . S . S . G . § 3D 1. 2( d) , the pr oba t i on of f i c e rgr oupe d c ount s one a nd tw o of

the i ndi c tm e ntt oge the rba s e d on the drug qua nt i ty i nvol ve d. B a s e d on the 1, 450 ki l ogr a m s of

c oc a i ne f

orw hi c h B e r t e l w a s he l d a c c ount abl e , the prob at i on offi ce r a ss i gn ed a bas e off ense l evel of 38 , pu rs uantt o § 2D 1. 1(c) (1), w h i ch co rresp o n d s t o q u an t i t i es o f 1 5 0 k i l o g ram s o r m o re o f co cai n e. B ecau se B e r t e l ha d apr i orc r i m i na l hi s t ory , the pr oba t i on of f i c e rf ound tha the di d not qua l i f y f ora§ 5C 1. 2 s a f

e ty - va l ve r e duc t i on. N o a dj us tm e ntw a s gi ve n f or B e r t e l ’ s r ol e i n the of

f e ns e . A tw o- poi ntr e duc t i on w a s m a de f ora c c e pt a nc e of r e s pons i bi l i ty , pur s ua ntt o § 3E 1. 1( a ) , a nd a nothe rone - poi ntr e duc t i on w a s m a de because B ert el prov i ded t i m el y not i fi ca t i on t o the go vernm entof hi s i nt entt o p l ea d gu i l ty, re sul t i ng i n a t ot al offe nse l evel of 35 . B ert el had three cr i m i nal hi st ory poi nt s f orapr i orc onvi c t i on f

orpos s e s s i on w i th i nt e ntt o di s tr i but e l e s s tha n 700 ki l og ra m s of m ar i

j uana, re sul t i ng fr om hi s pre vi ou s app re hensi on fr om a ves se l s outh of P ue r t o R i c o. H e w a s a s s i gne d ac r i m i na l hi s t ory c a t e gory of I I , r e s ul t i ng in aS e n te n c in g G u id e lin e s im p r is o n m e n t r a n g e o f 1 8 8 - 2 3 5 m o n th s .4

A ft erprepara t i on of the P re se nt ence Invest i gat i on R eport(“ P S I” ), B ert el obj e c t e d t o the l a c k of

adow nw a r d a dj us tm e ntf orhi s r ol e i n the of

f e ns e a nd c ont e nde d tha the w a s onl y am i norpa r t i c i pa nti n the ove r a l l c ons pi r a c y . T he pr oba t i on of

f i c e rde t e rm i ne d tha tB e r t e l w a s note nt i t l e d t o ar ol e a dj us tm e nt be c a us e hi s r ol e a s ac r e w m e m be rw a s c om pa r abl e t o othe r s i n the c ons pi r a c y , a nd there w as no tsuff

i ci entveri fi abl e i nform at i on t o sho w thathe qu al i fi ed for a d o w n w a r d a d

ju s tm e n t. A tthe se nt enci ng hear i ng , B ert el ’ s c ou nsel re i t er at ed hi s a rgum entthat B ert el sh o u l d recei v e a m i n o r-ro l e ad j u stm en t . H e n o t ed th atB ert el w as o n l y a cr ew m an, and n otan ow ner of the drug s or organi ze r of the conspi ra cy , bu tra ther

“ si m p l y a seto f h an d s” faci l i t at i n g th e tran sp o rto f th e d ru g s. R 3 at3 -4 . H e al so n o t e d th a tami n i ma l - r o l e a d j u s tme n tma y b e w a rr a n t e d b a s e d o n th e s a me a r g u m e n t. I d . a t 4 - 5 . B e r te l m a d e n o o b je c tio n s to th e f

a c ts c o n ta in e d in th e P S I . T he gove rnm e ntnot e d tha tthe c apt a i n of the boa tw a s gi ve n as e nt e nc i ng enhancem entbecause of hi s s peci al ski l l as a dri ver a nd a c apt ai n, bu tar gu ed that th e th r e e o th e r s w e r e “e s s e n tia lly e q u a lly c u lp ab le .” I d . a t 6 . T he di stri ctj ud ge ov errul ed B ert el ’ s obj ec t i on and d eni ed hi s r equestfor a d o w n w a r d a d

ju s tm e n t. B a s e d o n th e r e le v a n t c o n d u c t f o rw h ic h B e r te l w a s h e ld a c c ount abl e , the j udge de t e rm i ne d tha tnothi ng i n the r e c or d i ndi c a t e d tha t“ heBertel wa s sentence d on 11 April 2005, and his counse l argued that, sincethe ra ng e of 1 1 8 8 -2 3 5 m o nth s wa s n o l o n ger b i n di n g o nth e d i s tri ctco urt , th e c o urts h o u l d co n s i d er th e r an ge as we ll as other factors listed in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) in imposing a rea sonable sentence. R3 at 10-13. See United States v. Booker, 543 U.S. ___, ___, 125 S.Ct. 738, 764 (2005). The district court c onsidered the§ 3553(a) fac tors when it sentenc ed B erte l to 188 months of imprisonment. R3 at 19-20. Since B erte l does not argue re asonableness on appe al, it is abandoned. SeeUnited States v. J ernig an, 341 F .3d 1273, 1282 n.8 (11th Cir. 2003) (notingthat a claim that is not plainly and prominently

indicated is aba

ndoned on appe al, even if properly preserved be low). 5 [ w a ] s l e s s c ul pabl e tha n m os tof the othe rpa r t i c i pa nt s , ” a nd hi s c ul pabi l i ty di d not di m i ni sh j ustbecause hi s r ol e m ayno thave been as i m po rt antas the others be c a us e hi s r ol e a s ac r e w m a n w a s s i gni f i c a nti n the s uc c e s s f

ul ope r a t i on of

the c ons pi r a c y . I d. a t8- 9. B e r t e l w a s s e nt e nc e d a tthe l ow e nd of the S e nt e nc i ng G u id e lin e s r a n g e to 1 8 8 m o n th s o f im p r is o n m e n t. 1 I I . DI S CUS S I ON O n ap p e a l , Be r t e l a r g u e s th a tth e d i s tr i c tc o u r te rr e d i n f a i l i n g t o g i v e h i m a m i t i ga t i ng- r ol e a dj us tm e ntbe c a us e no e vi de nc e s how e d tha the ow ne d, s ol d or di stri bu t ed the drug s i n exchang e f or m on ey , and, there fore , hi s r ol e i s l es s than tha tof the l a r ge ror ga ni z a t i on be hi nd the c ons pi r a c y . H e a l s o a r gue s tha tthe d is tr ic t c o u r t d id n o t g iv e a n y c o n s id e r a tio n to h is m itig a tin g r o le a t s e n te n c in g . H e c ont e nds tha thi s r ol e w a s l e s s tha n tha tof a l l of the m a j ortr a ns por t e r s a nd ow ne r s of

the drugs a nd tha the w a s s i m pl y ac r e w m a n. A sen t en ci n g co u rt ’ s d et erm i n at i o n o f a d efen d an t ’ s ro l e i n an o ffen se c ons t i tut e s af

a c tua l f i ndi ng tha tw e r e vi e w f

orc l e a re rr or . U ni t e d S t a t e s v.Pre-B ooker standa rds are used to review a SentencingGuidelines calculation. United 2 S t at es v . C rawf

o rd , 4 0 7 F. 3 d

1 1 7 4 , 1 1 7 8 (1 1 thC i r. 2 0 0 5 ) (p re -B o o k er s ent en ce ). Ev enth o u gh the SentencingGuidelines are advisory after B ooker, thetrial court must continue to consider them when sentencingand must calculate the sentenceunder theGuidelines cor rec tly . I d. at 1178-79. 6 D e V a r on, 175 F . 3d 930, 937 ( 11th C i r . 1999) ( e n ba nc ) . T he pr opone ntof the dow nw a r d a dj us tm e nta l w a y s be a r s the bur de n of pr ovi ng the m i t i ga t i ng r ol e i n the o f f e n s e b y ap r e p o n d e r a n c e o f th e e v id e n c e . I d . a t 9 3 9 .

2 T h e S en t en ci n g G u i d el i n es p erm i ta co u rtt o d ecrease a d efen d an t ’ s o ffen se l e v e l b y f

o u rl e v e l s i f

i tf i n d s th a tth e d e f

e n d a n twa s a“ m i n i m a l p a r t i c i p a n t ” o rtwo l evel s i f i tfi nd s thatthe defendantw as a “ m i no r part i ci pant ” i n the cr i m i nal a c t i vi ty . U . S . S . G . § 3B 1. 2. A m i ni m a l pa r t i c i pa nti s one w ho i s “ pl a i nl y a m ong the l e a s tc ul pabl e of

thos e i nvol ve d i n the c onduc tof agr oup, ” U . S . S . G . § 3B 1. 2, co m m en t . (n . 4 ), w h i l e a m i n o r p art i ci p an ti s o n e “ w h o i s l ess cu l p ab l e th an m o st o th e rp a r t i c i p a n t s , b u twh o s e r o l e c o u l d n o tb e d e s c r i b e d a s m i n i m a l , ” U. S . S . G. § 3 B 1. 2, com m ent . (n. 5). T he a dj us tm e ntappl i e s i f the de f e nda ntpr ove s by pr e ponde r a nc e of the e v id e n c e th a t h e “p la y [ e d ] a p a r t in c o m m ittin g th e o f f e n s e th a t m a k e s h im s ubs t a nt i a l l y l e s s c ul pabl e tha n the a ve r a ge pa r t i c i pa nt . ” U . S . S . G . § 3B 1. 2, c om m e nt . ( n. 3( A ) ) ; U ni t e d S t a t e s v. E ve r e tt , 129 F . 3d 1222, 1224 ( 11th C i r . 1997) ( p e rc u r ia m ) . T h e d e te rm in a tio n o f w h e th e rto ap p ly ar o le r e d u c tio n is ah e a v ily7

f a c t - ba s e d i nqui ry a nd as e nt e nc i ng c our t , “ i n w e i ghi ng the t ot a l i ty of the ci rc um st ance s, i s notre qu i re d t o fi nd , base d sol el y on the defendant ’ s bar e a s s e r tio n , th a t s u c h ar o le a d ju s tm e n t is w a rr a n te d .” U .S .S .G . § 3 B 1 .2 , c o m m e n t. (n. 3(C )) . In det erm i ni ng w hether am i t i gat i ng rol e a dj ustm enti s w arra nt ed, a di stri ct c our tf i r s tm us te va l ua t e the de f e nda nt ’ s r ol e i n the r e l e va ntc onduc tf orw hi c h he has bee n h el d acc ou nt abl e a tse nt enci ng . D e V ar on , 17 5 F . 3d at94 0. In l oo ki ng at r e l e va ntc onduc t , “ the di s tr i c tc our tm us ta s s e s s w he the rthe de f e nda nti s am i nor orm i ni m a l pa r t i c i pa nti n r e l a t i on t o the r e l e va ntc onduc ta ttr i but e d t o the de f e nda nt i n cal cul at i ng [hi s] base offe nse l evel . ” I d. at94 1. “ O nl y i f the defendantca n es t abl i sh that[he] pl ay ed a r el at i vel y m i no r r ol e i n the cond uctfor w hi ch [he] has al re ady bee n h el d acc ou nt abl e – no ta m i no r r ol e i n any l ar ger c ri m i nal conspi ra cy – s houl d the di s tr i c tc our tgr a ntadow nw a r d a dj us tm e ntf orm i norr ol e i n the offe nse. ” I d. at94 4. A l tho ug h a defendant ’ s s t atus as a drug cou ri eral on e does n o t estab li sh w h eth ero r n o t h e is a m in o r p ar ti cip an t, “w h en a d ru g co u rier ’s r e le v a n t c o n d u c t is lim ite d to [ h is ] o w n a c t o f im p o r ta tio n [ o rtr a n s p o r ta tio n ], a di s tr i c tc our tm a y l e gi t i m a t e l y c onc l ude tha tthe c our i e rpl a y e d a n i m por t a ntor e s s e nt i a l r ol e i n the i m por t a t i on of thos e drugs . ” I d. a t942- 43. F ur the rm or e , i n the d ru g - c o u r ie rc o n te x t, “th e a m o u n t o f d ru g s im p o r te d is am a te r ia l c o n s id e r a tio n in8

a s s e s s i ng ade f

e nda nt ’ s r ol e i n [ hi s ] r e l e va ntc onduc t ” a nd, i n s om e c a s e s , c oul d be d is p o s itiv e . I d . a t 9 4 3 . T h e d is tr ic t c o u r t m a y a ls o e v a lu a te ad e f e n d a n t’s r o le b y c o m p a r in g it to tha tof othe rpa r t i c i pa nt s i n hi s r e l e va ntc onduc t . I d. a t940. W he n m e a s ur i ng a defe nd ant ’ s c on du ctagai nstother part i ci pant s’ cond uct , a di stri ctcourtm ay consi der onl y tho se part i ci pant s w ho ar e i dent i fi abl e by the evi dence and w ho w er e in v o lv e d in th e r e le v a n t c o n d u c t f o rw h ic h th e d e f

e n d a n t w a s c o n v ic te d . I d . a t 9 4 4 .

“ T he fa ctthata def

endant ’ s r ol e m aybe l es s than thatof other part i ci pant s e ng aged in th e r e le v a n t c o n d u c t m a y n o t b e d is p o s itiv e o f [ h is ] r o le in th e o f

f e n s e , s in c e it is po ss i bl e thatno ne ar e m i no r or m i ni m al part i ci pant s. ” I d. “ [T ] he di stri ctcourt m u s t d e te rm in e th a t th e d e f e n d a n t w a s le s s c u lp ab le th a n m o s t o th e rp a r tic ip a n ts in [ h is ] r e le v a n t c o n d u c t.” I d .; s e e a ls o U .S .S .G . § 3 B 1 .2 , c o m m e n t. ( n . 3 ( A ) ) ( “T h is s e c tio n p r o v id e s ar a n g e o f a d ju s tm e n ts f

o rad e f e n d a n t w h o p la y s ap a r t in c om m i tt i ng the of

f e ns e tha tm a ke s hi m s ubs t a nt i a l l y l e s s c ul pabl e tha n the a ve r a ge p a r tic ip a n t.” ) . T he di s tr i c tc our tdi d notc l e a r l y e rri n r e f us i ng t o gr a ntB e r t e l am i t i ga t i ngr ol e a dj us tm e nt . F i r s t , B e r t e l i s he l d a c c ount abl e f oral a r ge a m ountof

drugs , a nd th is a lo n e c o u ld p r e c lu d e h im f r o m r e c e iv in g am itig a tin g - r o le a d ju s tm e n t. D e V ar on , 17 5 F . 3d at94 3. F urtherm ore, w here B ert el ’ s r el evantcond uctw as9

p o ssessi n g w i th i n t en tt o d i stri b u t e 1 , 4 5 0 k i l o g ram s o f co cai n e, h e m u stest ab l i sh thathe w as a m i no r part i ci pantw i th res pectt o thatre l evantcond uct , ra ther than n o t i n g th atth ere w as a b ro ad er cri m i n al co n sp i racy. S ee i d . at9 4 4 . F i n al l y, B ert el ’ s r el evantcond ucti s i dent i ca l t o h i s a ctual cond uct . In the drug tra nspo rt cont ext , the di stri ctcourti s a l l ow ed t o con cl ud e, as i tdi d h er e, thathe pl ay ed an i m po rt antor es se nt i al rol e i n the tra nspo rt at i on of tho se drug s. S ee i d. at 942- 43; R 3 a t9. T h e s e c o n d p r o n g o f

D e V a r o n f

u r th e rp r e c lu d e s am itig a tin g - r o le a d ju s tm e n t. T o th e e x te n t th a t B e r te l is a r g u in g th a t h is r o le s h o u ld b e c o m p a r e d to othe r s i n al a r ge rc ons pi r a c y , hi s a r gum e nti s m e r i t l e s s be c a us e the s e othe r s a r e not di sc erni bl e f

rom the evi dence and are no tpartof the re l evantcond uctfor w hi ch B ert el w as conv i ct ed. D e V ar on , 17 5 F . 3d at94 4. W i th res pectt o the other pa r t i c i pa nt s i n the r e l e va ntc onduc t , the y w e r e a l l pa r tof the s a m e c ons pi r a c y a nd a ll h e ld a c c o u n tab le f

o rth e s a m e a m o u n t o f

d ru g s . T h e r e is n o th in g in th e f a c ts , to w h ic h B e r te l d id n o t o b je c t, to in d ic a te th a t B e r te l w a s s u b s ta n tia lly le s s c u lp ab le th a n m o s t o f

h is f e llo w c r e w m e n . F u r th e rm o r e , a s th e d is tr ic t c o u r t n o te d , h is r o le a s ac r e w m a n w a s s ig n if ic a n t in th e s u c c e s s f

u l o p e r a tio n o f

th e c o n s p ir a c y . T ho ug h B ert el ’ s r ol e m aybe l es s than thatof the capt ai n’ s, w ho w as gi ven an e n h a n c e m e n t, th is d o e s n o t a u to m a tic a lly e n title h im to am itig a tin g - r o le10

a d ju s tm e n t s in c e it is p o s s ib le th a t n o n e o f th e p a r tic ip a n ts a r e m in o ro rm in im a l, a s the di s tr i c tc our tc onc l ude d. I d. B ert el ’ s a rgum entthathe w as no tthe ow ner of the drug s w as no tsupp ort ed by the e vi de nc e . B e c a us e ade f e nda nt ’ s r ol e i n a n of

f e ns e i s af

a c t - i nt e ns i ve in q u iry , th e d is tr ic t c o u r t w a s n o t r e q u ir e d to g r a n t B e r te l am itig a tin g - r o le a d ju s tm e n t b a s e d o n h is b a r e a s s e r tio n . U .S .S .G . § 3 B 1 .2 , c o m m e n t. ( n .3 ( C ) ) . S i nc e he di d notc a l l w i tne s s e s orothe rw i s e t e s t i f y i n s uppor tof

hi s a s s e r t i on, B ert el di d n otm ee thi s burden o f s ho w i ng by a pre po nd er ance of the evi dence that h is r e le v a n t c o n d u c t m a d e h im s u b s ta n tia lly le s s c u lp ab le th a n h is c o d e f e n d a n ts . T h e d is tr ic t ju d g e c o n s id e r e d th e m itig a tin g r o le a d ju s tm e n t a n d a d e q u a te ly e x p la in e d a n a c c e p tab le r e a s o n f o rn o t g r a n tin g th e a d

ju s tm e n t. I I I . CONCL US I ON B e r te l h a s ap p e a le d th e d is tr ic t ju d g e ’s d e n y in g h im am itig a tin g - r o le a d ju s tm e n t u n d e rU .S .S .G . § 3 B 1 .2 in h is s e n te n c e f o llo w in g h is p le a d in g g u ilty to c ons pi r i ng t o pos s e s s a nd pos s e s s i ng w i th i nt e ntt o di s tr i but e f i ve ki l ogr a m s or m o r e o f c o c a in e w h ile ab o a r d av e s s e l s u b je c t to U n ite d S ta te s ju r is d ic tio n , in v i o l a t i o n o f

4 6 U. S . C . § 1 9 0 3 ( a ) , ( g ) , a n d ( j ) , a n d 2 1 U. S . C . § 9 6 0 ( b ) ( 1 ) ( B ) ( i i ) . As w e h a v e e x p la in e d , th e d is tr ic t ju d g e ap p r o p r ia te ly d e n ie d B e r te l am itig a tin g - r o le ad j u stm en t . A cco rd i n g l y, h i s sen t en ce i s AF F I RME D.