FIL ED U.S. COURT OF APPEAL S EL EVENTHCI RCUI T FEB RUARY 9, 2011 J OHN L EY CL ERK [PUBLISH]
IN THE UN ITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELE VENTH CIRCUIT

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ No. 0 9- 14 20 4

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ D. C. Dock etNo. 0 9- 00 01 0- CR-T-2 6- TGW
UNITED STAT ES OF AMERIC A, Pl ai nt iff -Ap pe ll ee, ve rs us JHON J AIRO VALENCIA SAAC, Defen da nt -Ap pe ll an t.

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ No. 0 9- 14 22 8

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ D. C. Dock etNo. 0 9- 00 01 0- CR-T-2 6- TGW UNITED STAT ES OF AMERIC A, Pl ai nt iff -Ap pe ll ee, ve rs us CARLOS ANDRES MINA M ENESES, D efen da nt -Ap pe ll an t.__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ No. 0 9- 14 32 9

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ D. C. Dock etNo. 0 9- 00 01 0- CR-T-2 6- TGW
UNITED STAT ES OF AMERIC A, Pl ai nt iff -Ap pe ll ee, ve rs us VICTOR RODRIGUEZ RENEGIFO, D efen da nt -Ap pe ll an t.

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ No. 0 9- 14 34 5

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ D. C. Dock etNo. 0 9- 00 01 0- CR-T-2 6- TGW
UNITED STAT ES OF AMERIC A, Pl ai nt iff -Ap pe ll ee, ve rs us MIGUEL OTERO ESTUPINAN, D efen da nt -Ap pe ll an t.

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ App eal fro m

th e Uni te d S ta te s Di st ric t Co urt fo r th e Mi dd le Dis tri ctof F lo rid a

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ _ (Feb ru ary 9, 2 01 1)

2Befo re EDMONDSON, MARTIN an d C OX, Circ ui t J ud ge s.

MARTIN, Ci rcu itJu dg e: Thi s ca se co ns ol id at es cri m in al ap pe al s b y fou r co -d efen da nt s ch al le ng in g th e co ns ti tu ti on al ity

of t he Drug Traffi ck in g Ves se l In te rd ic ti on Act o f 20 08 (“ DTVIA”), 18 U.S.C. § 2 28 5. J ho n J ai ro Vale nc iaSaac , Vict orRo dr ig ue z Ren eg ifo , Mig ue l Ot ero Estup in an , andCarl os Andres Mi naMen es es (“ de fen da nt s” ) al so ap pe al th ei r 10 8 m on th sen te nc es , im po se d a fte r th ey

pl ead ed gu il ty to co ns pi rin g t o v io la te an d t o kno win gl y vi ol at in g t he DTVIA. T he y arg ue th atth ei r se nt en ces are p ro cedur al ly andsubs ta nt iv el y un reas on ab le . Mr. Estup in anarg ue s s ep arat el y th atth e d is tri ctco urt v io la te d F ed . R. Cri m . P. 32 (i) (3 )(C) by fail in g t o a tt ach a co py of it s ru li ng s o n t he pa rti es ’ ob jecti on s t o th e PSI. Aft er tho ro ug h re vi ew, an d h av in g h adth e b en efi t o f or al arg um en t, we affi rm an d c on cl ud e th atth e DTVIA is co ns ti tu ti on al . W e rem an d o nl y so th atth e di st ric t co urt ca n att ach a co py of it s ru li ng s o n M r. Estup in an ’s ob jecti on s t o t he PSI. I. FACTUAL BACKGROUND On J anua ry

6, 2 00 9, a Un it edSta te s h el ic op te r cre w ob se rv edde fen da nt s o n bo arda se lf- pr op el le d, s em i-s ub m ers ib le ve ss el th atwas d eadinth e in te rn at io na l wate rs of t he eas te rnPaci fic Ocean . Defen da nt s’ sem i-s ub m ers ib le ve ss el lac ke d a
3fla g, re gi st rat io n n um be r, ho m ep ort, o r na vi ga ti on al li gh ts . The ne xtda y , as the Uni te d S tate s C oa stGuar d app ro ach edde fen da nt s’ ves se l, a h el ic op te r cre w saw th e fo urde fen dant s, thr ee o f who m were wear in g l ife ve st s, em erg e fro m th e
ve ss el ’s hat chan d ju m

p i nt o t he wate r. The ve ss el san k wi th in m inut es . The Co as t Gu ardreco ve redall fou r de fen da nt s the same day
. Mr. Ro dr ig ue z Ren eg ifo id en ti fie d h im se lf a s the m as te r of th e v es se l b utcla im edno na ti on al ity forit
. Defen da nt s as se rte d tha t the y were Co lo m

bi ancit iz en s. The go ve rn m en t fi le d atwo -co un t i nd ic tm en t i n fe de ral di st ric t co urt. The fir stco un t ch arg edde fen da nt s wi th kn owi ng ly con sp iri ng to op erat e a s em isubm ers ib le ve ss el witho utna ti on al ity an d wi th th e in te ntto ev ad e d et ect io n i n vi ol at io n o f 18 U.S.C. §§ 22 85 (a) and(b)
. The sec on d c ha rg edde fen da nt s wi th kn owi ng ly andin te nt io na ll y , whi le aid in g a ndab et ti ng each ot he r, op erat in g a nd
em bark in g i n asemi-subm ers ib le ve ss el witho utna ti on al ity , with t he in te ntto
ev ad e d et ect io n i n v io la ti on of 1 8 U.S.C. § 22 85 (a) and(b)
. The DTVIA pro vi de s tha t: [w]hoe ve r kn owi ng l y o pe rat es , o r at te m pt s or co ns pi res to op erat e, by an y m ean s, or em

ba rk s in an y subm ers ib le ve ss el or s e m i-s ub m ers ib le ve ss el th at is witho ut na ti on al ity an d th at is navi ga ti ng or ha s navi ga te d in to , th ro ug h, or fro m wate rs be y on d th e ou te r li mit of th e te rri to ria l se a of a si ng le co un try or a late ral li m it of th at co un try’ s te rri to ria l se a with an ad jacen t co un try, with th e in te nt to ev ad e de te ct io n, sh al l be fin ed un de r th is ti tl e, im

pr is on edno t m or e th an15 y ears , or b oth.

418 U.S.C. § 2 28 5( a). A subm ers ib le ve ss el is on e th at“ is cap ab le of o pe rat in g

co m pl et el y be lo w th e su rfac e o f th e wat er, i nc lu di ng bo th m an ne d a ndun m an ne d wate rcra ft.” 46 U.S.C. § 7 05 02 (f)(2 ). A sem i-s ub m ers ib le ve ss el is “ an y wate rcra ft c on st ru ct edor a dapt edto be cap ab le of o pe rat in g wi th m os t o f it s h ul l
an d b ul k u nd er the su rfac e o f th e wat er, i nc lu di ng bo th m an ne d a ndun m an ne d wate rcra ft.” Id. at§ 7 05 02 (f)(1 ). Defen da nt s p le ad edno t-g ui lty at a rrai gn m en t. Mr. Ro dr ig ue z Ren eg ifo fil eda m ot io n t o d is m is s the in di ctm en t, ar gu in g t ha t 1 8 U.S.C. § 22 85 is
un co ns ti tu ti on al . The o th er d efen da nt s ea chfil eda “ m ot io n t o a do ptco -d efen da nt Ro dr ig ue z Ren eg ifo ’s m ot io n t o d is m is s i nd ic tm en t,” a ndth e d is tri ctco urt
co ns id eredMr. Ro dr ig ue z Ren eg ifo ’s m ot io n a s t o a ll de fen da nt s. Th e d is tri ct
co urt d en ie d t he m ot io n t o d is mis s the in di ctm en t, co nc lu di ng th at§ 2 28 5 i s n ot
un co ns ti tu ti on al ly vag ue , do es no t v io la te th e Due Pro ces s C laus e, an d d oe s n ot
ex ceedCo ng res s’s p owe r un de r Arti cl e I, Sec ti on 8, Cl au se 10 of t he Co ns ti tu ti on . Afte r th e d is tri ctco urt d en ie d t he m ot io n t o d is m is s, d efen da nt s en te red
un co nd it io na l g ui lty

pl eas , witho utpl ea ag reem en ts , as t o b ot h c ou nt s o f th e in di ctm en t. At the ch an ge of p le a h eari ng , def en da nt s i nf

orm edth e d is tri ctco urt th at , bas edonbi nd in g p rece de nt , th ey un de rs to odth atth ei r gu il ty ple as wou ldno t pr ecl ud e th em

fro m co nt es ti ng th e co ns ti tu ti on al ity of t he DTVIA onap pe al
. The 5di st ric t co urt ag reedwith d efen da nt s’ read in g o f th e rel ev an t p rece de nt . The

go ve rn m en t m ad e n o a rg um en t t o t he co nt rary. At s en te nc in g, the di st ric t co urt d et erm in edde fen da nt s’ sen te nc es by ap pl y in g t he 18 U.S.C. § 3 55 3( a) fa ct or s. Th e d is tri ctco urt d ecl in edto ap pl y an y of fen se -s pe ci fic sen te nc in g g ui de li ne s. Th e co urt s en te nc edeach de fen da ntto 10 8
m on th s i m

pr is on m en t an d 3 y ears of s up erv is edrel eas e fo r eac h c ou nt , all to run co nc urren tl y . The co urt as se ss edeach de fen da nt$1 00 pe r co un t. Defe nd an ts each fil edsep arat e, ti m el y

no ti ces of app eal
.

II. DISCUSS ION Defen da nt s’ app eal rai se s fo uris su es . Firs t, we ad dr es s wh ethe r de fen da nt s’ gu il ty ple as pre cl ud e th em fro m ch al le ng in g the co ns ti tu ti on al ity of th e DTVIA, andbe cau se we fin d d efen da nt s ar e n otpre cl ud ed , whet he r th e DTVIA is co ns ti tu ti on al . W e n ex t ad dr es s the pro cedur al an d s ub st an ti ve reas on ab le ne ss of d efen da nt s’ sen te nc es . Fin al ly, we de ci de whet he r th e d is tri ct
co urt erredby fail in g t o a tt ach a co py of it s ru li ng s o n d is pu te d s en te nc in g i ss ue s to th e PSI. A. To b eg in , th e g ov ern m en t ar gu es th atde fen da nt s’ vo lu nt ary, un co nd it io na l gu il ty ple as pre ve ntth em fro m ch al le ng in g t he co ns ti tu ti on al ity of t he DTVIA, 18
6U.S.C. § 2 28 5. “ Gen eral ly, en te rin g agu il ty ple a wai ve s a d efen da nt ’s rig htto all

no n- juri sd ic ti on al ch al le ng es to a co nv ic ti on .” Uni te d S ta te s v . Bon il la , 57 9 F .3d 12 33 , 12 40 (11 th Cir . 20 09 ). An u nc on di ti on al gu il ty ple a, ho wev er, “ do es no t waiv e juri sd ic ti on al de fect s.” Un it edSta te s v . Tom en y , 14 4 F .3d74 9, 7 51 (11 th Ci r. 19 98 ).

“ Whe th er a cl ai m

is ‘juri sd ic ti on al ’ de pe nd s o n wh ethe r th e cl ai m canbe
res ol ve d b y

ex am in in g t he face of t he in di ctm en t o r th e rec or d at the ti m e o f th e pl ea wi th ou t re qu iri ng furth er p ro ceed in gs .” Id . (qu ot at io n m ark s o m itte d) . A de fen da nt ’s cla im

th atth e in di ctm en t fa il edto ch arg e a l eg it im at e o ffen se is juri sd ic ti on al an d i s n otwaiv edup on pl ead in g g ui lty . Id.; see als o Un it edSta te s v. M each am , 62 6 F .2d50 3, 5 10 (5t h C ir. 1 98 0) ("Th e v io la ti on of [ a d efen da nt 's] rig htto be free of p ro se cu ti onfora no no ffen se wou ldba r hi s co nv ic ti onev enif hi s 'fa ctua l g ui lt ' ha d b eenest ab li sh edva li dl y ."); acco rdUni te d S ta te s v . Bro wn, 1 58 6 F .3d13 42 , 13 50 (11 th Cir . 20 09 ). Thu s, “ [a] gu il ty ple a [] do es no t wai ve th e rig htof an a ccu se d t o c ha ll en ge th e co ns ti tu ti on al ity of t he st atut e und er wh ic h h e is co nv ic te d.” Uni te d S tate s v . Pal aci os -Cas qu et e, 55 F.3d55 7, 5 61 (11 th Cir
. 19 95 ); s ee al so Hayne s v . Uni te d S ta te s, 3 90 U.S. 85 , 87 & n .2, 8 8 S . Ct. 7 22 , 72 5

In Bonne r v. City

of Prichar d, 661 F.2d 1206, 1209 ( 11th Cir. 1981) (en ba nc), w e 1 adopted a s binding pre cede nt all decisions of the for mer F ifth Circuit handed down be fore October 1, 1981. 7(1 96 8) (de te rm in in g c on st itut io na li ty of cri m in al st atut e, whi chde fen da nt

ch al le ng edbe fo re d is tri ctco urt thr ou gh m ot io n t o d is m is s, ev enth ou gh de fen da nt
was co nv ic te d u nd er tha t s ta tu te aft er p le ad in g g ui lty ). The co ns ti tu ti on al ity

of t he DTVIA, the st atut e und er wh ic h d efen da nt s were co nv ic te d, i s a ju ris di ct io na l i ss ue th atde fen da nt s d idno t wai ve up on pl ead in g g ui lty . See To m en y , 14 4 F .3dat 7 51 ; Br own , 58 6 F .3dat 1 35 0. Itis cl ear t ha t d efen da nt s d idno t wai ve th ei r arg um en t tha t Co ng res s l ack edth e au th or ity to en actth e DTVIA in so far as th is cla im go es to th e le gi ti m acy of th e of fen se th atde fen da nt s’ in di ctm en t ch arg ed . Evenif d efen dant s ar e fac tu al ly gu il ty of DTVIA vi ol at io ns , th e g ov ern m en t wo ul d l ackth e p owe r to pro se cu te if Co ng res s ex ceed edit s au th or ity inen act in g t he DTVIA. For thi s re as on , we ad dr es s the m eri ts of d efen dant s’ con st itut io na l ch al le ng e to th e DTVIA. B. Defen da nt s ch al le ng e th e co ns ti tu ti on al ity of t he DTVIA ontwo gro un ds , on ly one of wh ic h i s p ro pe rly befo re u s. Defen dant s fi rs t ar gu e th atth e DTVIA vi ol at es th ei r pr oc edur al du e p ro ces s ri gh ts be cau se itsh ift s t o the de fen da ntth e bu rd enof d is pr ov in g e ss en ti al ele m en ts of t he off en se an d c reat es a pr es um pt io n of gu il t. Defen da nt s l ackst an di ng to rai se th atarg um en t b ecau se “ [a] gu il ty ple a
se rv es as a n a dm is si on of a ll th e el em en ts of aform al cri m in al ch arg e . . . . [A] 8de fen da ntm ay no t ch al le ng e th e st atut e whe re the fact s ad m it te d b y th e g ui lty

pl ea ren de r th e st atut e’s al le ge d u nc on st itut io na li ty m oo t as to th e d efen dant .” Uni te d St at es v. Sk in ne r, 25 F.3d13 14 , 13 16 –1 7 (6 th Cir . 19 94 ) (quo ta ti on m ark s om itte d) ; Ba xt er v . Est el le , 61 4 F .2d10 30 , 10 36 (5t h C ir. 1 98 0) (“ By en te rin g a gu il ty ple a, [a d efen da nt ] ha s ad m it te d a ll th e el em en ts of t he off en se , in cl ud in g th e v ery factto be pre su m ed .”). Becaus e d efen dant s v ol un ta ril y pl ead edgu il ty, th ereb y adm it ti ng gu il t, the go ve rn m en t n ev er m ad e u se of a ny pres um pt io n, as su m in g t ha t o ne ex is ts , no r sh ift edth e b ur de n o f pr oo f to de fen da nt s. Bax te r, 2 61 4 F .2dat 1 03 6. W e tu rnto de fen da nt s’ arg um en t tha t i n e na ct in g t he DTVIA Con gr es s ex ceed edit s p owe r un de r th e Hig h S eas Claus e o f th e Co ns ti tu ti on , Arti cl e I, § 8, cl . 10 . The Hi ghSeas Claus e en ab le s C on gr es s “ [t]o d efi ne an d p un is h P ira ci es
an d F el on ie s co m

m it te d o n t he hi gh Seas , andOffen ces ag ai ns t the Law of Nati on s.” U.S. Co ns t., art . I, § 8 , cl. 1 0. Whil e th ere i s a d eart h o f au th or ity in te rp ret in g t he sco pe of C on gr es s’s p owe r un de r th e Hig h S eas Claus e, earl y Supr em e Co urt o pi ni on s i nt im at e th atst atut es pa ss edun de r th e Hig h S eas Claus e Mr. Rodriguez Reneg ifo conc edes the se points. In his reply brief Mr . Rodrigue z 2 Reneg ifo attempts to relabe l his procedur al due pr ocess c halleng e as a substantive due proc ess one to esc ape the prec lusive eff ect of his guilty plea. Def

endant’ s new labe l does not chang e the essential natur e of the claim. Def endant’ s arg

ument that the DTVIA unconstitutionally shifts the burden to de fenda

nts to prove essential e lements of the of fense rema ins one grounded in proce dural due proce ss. 9m ay

pro pe rly crim in al iz e co nduc t tha t l ack s a c on ne ct io n t o t he Uni te d S ta te s. See Uni te d S tate s v . Sue rte , 29 1 F .3d36 6, 3 73 (5th C ir. 2 00 2) (di sc us si ng earl y cas es
an d l eg is la ti on ). Forin st an ce, i n Un it edSta te s v . Pal m er, 1 6 U.S. (3 Whe at .) 61 0, 63 0, 4 L. Ed. 47 1 (1 81 8) , th e Co urt ex pl ai ne d t ha t “ [t]he co ns ti tu ti on ha vi ng co nf erre d o n c on gr es s the po wer o f de fin in g a ndpu ni sh in g p ira cy , th ere c anbe no do ub t o f th e ri gh t o f th e le gi sl atur e to en actlaws pu ni sh in g p ira te s, al th ou gh th ey
m ay be for ei gn ers , andm ay

ha ve co m

m it te d n o p art ic ul ar o ffen ce ag ai ns t the Uni te d S tate s.” Defen da nt s ar gu e th atforCo ng res s t o c riminal iz e co nduc t b y st atut e und er th e Hig h S eas Claus e, th e co nduc t m us t h av e a n ex us with t he Uni te d S ta te s. W e fir stob se rv e th atth e te xtof t he claus e m ak es no m en ti on of s uc h ajuri sd ic ti on al
ne xu s re qu ire m en t. The claus e g iv es Co ng res s the po wer “ [t]o d efi ne an d p un is h Pi raci es an d F el on ie s co m m it te d o n t he hi gh Seas , andOffen ces ag ai ns t the Law of Nati on s.” U.S. Co ns ti t., art . I, § 8 , cl. 1 0. Th e cl au se ’s tex t d oe s n otli m itth at po wer t o o nl y

th os e p ira ci es an d fe lo ni es co m m it te d i n wat ers withi n the territ or ia l juri sd ic ti on of t he Uni te d S ta te s. Nei th er d oe s the claus e ex pr es sl y li m it Co ng res s’s p owe r to on ly tho se off en se s co m

mit te d o n o r by Unit edSta te s ci ti zen s.

10Defen da nt s re ly on Un it edSta te s v . Fur lo ng , 18 U.S. (5 Wheat .) 18 4, 1 85 ,

20 0, 5 L. Ed. 64 (18 20 ), as supp ort fo r th e p ro po si ti on th atth e Hig h S eas Claus e al lo ws Co ng res s t o re achon ly con du ctwith aco nn ect io n t o t he Uni te d S ta te s. Bu t in Furlo ng th e Supr em e Co urt ex am in edth e sc op e o f a s ta tu te Co ng res s p as se d pu rs ua ntto th e Hig h S eas Claus e, rathe r th anth e sc op e o f Co ng res s’s p owe r un de r th e Hig h S eas Claus e it se lf. Th e Co urt h el d t ha t b ecau se th e p art ic ul ar s ta tu te at is su e in cl ud edth e p hr as e “ ou t o f th e juri sd ic ti on of a ny part ic ul ar St at e ” it s s co pe was li m it edto m

ur de rs co m

m it te d “ ou t o f an y on e o

f the Uni te d Sta tes .” Id . at 2 00 (em ph as is ad de d)
. The C ou rt r eas on edth at“ [b ]y ex am in in g the co nt ex t, i t wi ll be
se enth at pa rt ic ul ar

Stat e is un ifo rm ly use d i n c on tra di st in ct io n t o Uni te d Sta tes [wit hi n t he st atut e].” Id. Thu s, the Co urt’s an al y si s i s a t ex tu al on e, co nf in edto
anin te rp ret at io n o f th e la ng ua ge an d s tru ctur e o f th e st atut e b efo re i t. Fu rlo ng , a st atut ory in te rp ret at io n c as e, th eref or e, do es no t re so lv e th e p art ie s’ deb at e o ve r th e sc op e o f Co ng res s’s co ns ti tu ti on al au th or ity . Whe n a na lyzin g aco ns ti tu ti on al ch al le ng e to th e Marit im e Dru g Law Enfo rcem en t Act(“ MDLEA”), 46 U.S.C. app . § 1 90 1 e t s eq ., we reject edth e sa m e arg um en t tha t d efen da nt s m ak e h ere–th atCo ng res s ex ceed edit s co ns ti tu ti on al
au th or ity un de r th e Hig h S eas Claus e in pa ss in g ast atut e th atpuni sh es co nduc t witho uta ne xu s t o the Uni te d S ta te s. See Uni te d S ta te s v . Estup in an , 45 3 F .3d
1113 36 , 13 38 (11 th Cir . 20 06 ). In d oi ng so , we exp la in edth at“ th is cir cu itan d o th er

ci rcu it s h av e n otem

be ll is he d the MDLEA with th e requi rem en t o f a n ex us be twee n ade fen da nt ’s cri m in al co nduc t an d t he Uni te d S ta te s.” Id . (qu ot at io n
m ark s o mit te d) ; s ee al so Uni te d S ta te s v . Mo ren o- Mo ril lo , 33 4 F .3d81 9, 8 24 (9t h Ci r. 20 03 ); Un it edSta te s v . Mart in ez-Hi da lg o, 9 93 F.2d10 52 , 10 56 (3dCir
. 19 93 ); S ue rte , 29 1 F .3dat 3 75 (ho ld in g t ha t Du e Pro ces s C laus e d oe s n otim po se
a n ex us requi rem en t b ecau se th e Hig h S eas Claus e al lo ws “ fo r th e p un is hm en t o f of fen se s o ut si de th e te rri to ria l l im it s o f th e Uni te d S ta te s” ). In the MDLEA case s, th e ap pe ll an ts arg ue d t ha t o ffen se s o th er tha n p ira ci es m ay no t b e p un is he d u nd er Co ng res s’s Hi gh Seas Claus e p owe r whe n t he re i s n o n ex us to th e Uni te d S ta te s. Ineach cas e, th e co urt co nc lu de d, h owe ve r, th atCo ng res s’s Hi gh Seas Claus e po wer i nc lu de s the au th or ity to pu ni sh off

en se s o th er tha n p ira ci es ou ts id e th e te rri to ria l l im it s o f th e Uni te d S ta te s. See , e.g., Su ert e, 29 1 F .3dat 3 75 . This Co urt, an d o ur

si st er ci rcu it s, h av e ref

us edto reada juri sd ic ti on al ne xu s requi rem en t i nt o t he claus e. Inex am in in g t he co ns ti tu ti on al ity of t he MDLEA, we con cl ud edth atth e st atut e’s ex tra te rri to ria l re ach was ju st ifi edun de r th e uni ve rs al pri nc ip le of in te rn at io na l l aw. Estup in an , 45 3 F .3dat 1 33 9. Acco rd in g t o thi s p rin ci pl e, a
na ti on m ay

pa ss laws to de fin e an d p un is h c ert ai n c rimes co ns id eredto be of
12“un iv ers al co nc ern .” See Her ero Peo pl e’s Rep arat io ns Co rp . v. Deu ts ch e Ban k,

A.G., 370 F.3d11 92 , 11 96 (D.C. Cir . 20 04 ) (quo ta ti on m ark s o m it te d) . W e ad op te d t he reas on in g o f th e Thi rdCir cu it , whi chop in edth at“ [i]na sm uc h a s the tra ffi ck in g o f na rco ti cs is co nd em ne d u ni ve rs al ly by

law- ab id in g n at io ns , we see no reas on to co nc lu de th atitis ‘ fund am en ta ll y un fai r’ for Co ng res s t o p ro vi de for th e p un is hm en t o f pe rs on s ap pr eh en de d wi thnarco ti cs on th e h ig h s eas .” Estup in an , 45 3 F .3dat 1 33 9 (c it in g M art in ez-Hi da lg o, 9 93 F.2dat 1 05 6) . Thu s, we reas on edth atbe cau se th e MDLEA cri m in al iz es co nduc t tha t i s co nd em ne d
un iv ers al ly, th e st atut e’s ex tra te rri to ria l re ach was p erm is si bl e. W e n ow co nc lu de th atth e DTVIA is als o ju st ifi edun de r th e uni ve rs al pr in ci pl e an d thu s a c on st itut io na l ex erci se of C on gr es s’s p owe r un de r th e Hig h Seas Claus e. Inpa ss in g t he DTVIA, Con gr es s re po rte d t ha t i t: fin ds an d d ecl ares th atop erat in g o r em ba rk in g i n a subm ers ib le ve ss el orsemi-subm ers ib le ve ss el witho ut na ti on al ity an d o n a n i nt ern at io na l voy ag e is a se riou s in te rn at io na l pr ob le m , faci li ta te s tra ns na ti on al crim e, in cl ud in g drug tra ffi ck in g, an d te rro ris m , an d pr es en ts a sp eci fic th reat to th e sa fety of m a r i t i m e na vi ga ti on an d th e se cu rit y of th e Uni te d St at es . Dru g Tra ffi ck in g Ves se l In te rd ic ti on Act o f 20 08 , Pub . L. No. 11 0- 40 7, § 10 1, 1 22 St at . 42 96 , 42 96 (20 08 ). Con gr es s’s fi nd in gs sh ow tha t the DTVIA targ et s 3 Vessels without nationality include: 3
13cri m in al co nduc t tha t fa ci li tate s dru g t raff ic ki ng , whi chis “ co nd em ne d u ni ve rs al ly by law-ab id in g n at io ns .” Estup in an , 45 3 F .3dat 1 33 9 (c it in g M art in ez-Hi da lg o, 99 3 F .3dat 1 05 6)
. Giv enCo ng res s’s fi nd in gs , th e “pr ot ect iv e p rin ci pl e” o f in te rn at io na l l aw pr ov id es anequa ll y

co m pe ll in g re as on to up ho ldth e DTVIA. Und er tha t pr in ci pl e, a n at io n m ay

“ as se rt ju ris di ct io n o ve r a p ers on who se co nduc t o ut si de th e n at io n’s t erri to ry

th reat en s the nati on ’s sec ur ity or c ou ldpo te nt ia ll y

in te rfer e with t he op erat io n o f it s g ov ern m en ta l fu nc ti on s.” Un it edSta te s v . Gon zal ez, 7 76 F.2 d 9 31 , 93 8 (1 1t h C ir. 1 98 5) . “ The pro te ct iv e p rin ci pl e d oe s n otrequi re tha t th ere b e p ro of

of an a ctua l o r in te nd edeffec t i ns id e th e Uni te d S ta te s.” Id . at 9 39
. Tho se who en ga ge inco nduc t the DTVIA targ et s thr eat enou r na ti on ’s sec ur ity by
ev ad in g d et ect io n wh il e u si ng subm ers ib le ve ss el s t o s m ug gl e il le ga l dru gs or ot he r co nt rab an d, s uc h a s i ll eg al weap on s, fr om on e co un try to a no th er, an d o fte n in to th e Uni te d S ta te s. See 15 4 C on g. Re c. H72 38 –3 9 (d ai ly ed. Ju ly 29, 2 00 8) ; (A) a vessel aboard which the master or individual in ch arg e makes a claim of reg istry that is denied by

the nation whose r eg istry is claimed; (B ) a vessel aboard which the m aster or individual in charg e fa ils, on reque st of an office r of the United States authorized to enfor ce ap p l icable provisions of United States law, to make a

claim of nationality

or re g istry

for that ve ssel; and (C) a vessel aboar d which th e m as t er or individual in charg e makes a claim of reg istry and for which the claimed nation of reg istry does not aff i rm ati vely and unequivoca lly

asser t that the vessel is of its nationality
. 46 U.S.C. § 70502(d)(1). 1415 4 C on g. Re c. H10 15 3– 54 , H10 25 2– 54 (da il y ed . Sep t. 2 7, 2 00 8) ; H.R. Re p. No
. 11 0- 94 1, at18 2– 83 (20 09 ); H.R. Re p. No . 11 0- 93 6, at28 (20 09 ); s ee al so Gon zal ez, 7 76 F.2dat 9 39 –4 0 (e xp la in in g t ha t the di st rib ut io n o f na rco ti cs m ay be pr oh ib it edun de r th e p ro te ct iv e p rin ci pl e). The Uni te d S ta te s C oa stGuar d re po rte d t o C on gr es s tha t s em i-s ub m ers ib le
ve ss el s p res en t “ on e o f th e em erg in g a ndm os t s ig ni fic an t thr eat s we fa ce i n
m ari ti m e la w enf

or cem en t t od ay .” 15 4 C on g. Re c. H72 39 (da il y ed . Ju ly 29, 20 08 ) (s ta te m en t o f Rep . Dani el E. Lung ren ). Thes e v es se ls po se a fo rm id ab le
se cu rit y th reatbe cau se th ey

are d iff ic ul t t o d et ectan d e as y

to scu tt le or s in k. 1 54 Co ng . Rec. H7 23 8– 39 ; 1 54 Co ng . Rec. H1 01 53 –5 4, H1 02 52 –5 4; H.R. Rep . No. 11 0- 94 1, at18 2– 83 ; H.R. Re p. No . 11 0- 93 6, at28 . Thes e v es se ls th eref or e faci li ta te th e d es tru ct io n o f ev id en ce an d h in de r pr os ecu ti onof s m ug gl in g of fen se s. See 15 4 C on g. Re c. H72 38 –3 9; 15 4 C on g. Re c. H10 15 3– 54 , H10 25 2– 54
. Bas edon th e fo reg oi ng , we con cl ud e th atCo ng res s ac te d p ro pe rly with in it s co ns ti tu ti on al au th or ity

un de r th e Hig h S eas Claus e in pa ss in g t he DTVIA. T he factth atde fen da nt s ar e ch al le ng in g t he co ns ti tu ti on al ity of ast atut e o th er tha n t he MDLEA do es no t al te r ou r co nc lu si on ab ou t the sco pe of C on gr es s’s p owe r un de r th e Hig h S eas Claus e. See Es tupi na n, 4 53 F.3dat 1 33 8. We dec li ne d t o e m be ll is h
15on e st atut e p as se d u nd er the Hig h S eas Claus e wit h ane xu s re qu ire m en t. We no w

de cl in e d efen da nt s’ in vi ta ti on to rewri te th e Co ns ti tu ti on to crea te on e. C. Defen da nt s n ex t ar gu e th atth ei r se nt en ces are p ro cedur al ly and
subs ta nt iv el y

un reas on ab le . “ W e rev ie w sen te nc in g d eci si on s o nl y for ab us e o f di sc ret io n, an d we u se a two -s te p p ro ces s.” Un it edSta te s v . Sha w, 56 0 F .3d12 30 , 12 37 (11 th Cir . 20 09 ); s ee al so Gall v. Un it edSta te s, 5 52 U.S. 38 , 41 , 12 8 S . Ct. 58 6, 5 91 (20 07 ). Fir st , we “ en su re tha t the di st ric t co urt co m m it te d n o s ig ni fic an t pr oc edur al erro r, su chas f ai li ng to cal cu la te (orim

pr op erl y cal cu la ti ng ) th e Gui de li ne s ra ng e, tr eat in g t he Gui de li ne s as m an da to ry , fai li ng to co ns id er the § 3 55 3( a) fa ct or s, s el ect in g asen te nc e b as edoncle arl y erro ne ou s fa ct s, o r fai li ng to ad equa te ly exp la in th e ch os ensen te nc e—i nc lu di ng anex pl an at io n fo r any de vi at io n fr om

th e Gui de li ne s ra ng e.” Sh aw, 56 0 F .3dat 1 23 7 (quo ti ng Gall , 55 2 U.S. at 5 1, 1 28 S. at 5 97 ). “ [T]he se co ndst ep is to rev ie w th e se nt en ce’s ‘sub st an ti ve reas on ab le ne ss ’ un de r th e to ta li ty of th e ci rcu m st an ces , in cl ud in g ‘th e ex te ntof a ny vari an ce fr om th e Gui de li ne s ra ng e.’” Id. (quo ti ng Gall , 55 2 U.S. at 51 , 12 8 S . Ct. at59 7) . “ [T]he p arty who ch al le ng es th e se nt en ce b ears th e b ur de n of est ab li sh in g t ha t the sen te nc e is un reas on ab le inth e li gh t o f bo th th [e] reco rd
an d t he fact or s i n s ect io n 3 55 3( a).” Un it edSta te s v . Alfar o- Mo nc ad o, 6 07 F.3d
1672 0, 7 35 (11 th Cir . 20 10 ) (quo ti ng Uni te d S ta te s v . Tall ey , 43 1 F .3d78 4, 7 88

(1 1t h C ir. 2 00 5) ). i. Defen da nt s ar gu e th atth ei r se nt en ces are p ro cedur al ly unr eas on ab le be cau se th e d is tri ctco urt fa il edto ap pl y th e p ro pe r se nt en ci ng gu id el in e. Sp eci fic al ly, de fen da nt s ar gu e th atth e co urt s ho ul d h av e ap pl ie d t he bo rd er tun ne l gu id el in e, Uni te d S ta te s Se nt en ci ng Gui de li ne s § 2X7 .1 (No v. 2 00 8) , bec au se no of fen se -s pe ci fic gu id el in e h adbe enpro m ul ga te d fo r vi ol at io ns of 1 8 U.S.C. § 2 28 5 a t the ti m e th ey

were s en te nc ed . See U.S.S.G. § 2 X5.1 (“ If the off en se is a fel on y forwhi chno gu id el in e expr es sl y ha s b eenpro m

ul ga te d, ap pl y

th e m os t
an al og ou s o ffen se gu id el in e.”). Sec ti on 2X7 .1, the bo rd er tun ne l g ui de li ne , ex pr es sl y ap pl ie s t o v io lati on s o f 18 U.S.C. § 5 55 . Thatst atut e cri m in al iz es th e co ns tru ct io n, fi na nc e an d u se of tun ne ls or s ub te rran eanpa ss ag es th atcro ss in te rn at io na l b or de rs be twee n the Uni te d S ta te s an d a no th er co un try. See 18 U.S.C. § 5 55
. The go ve rn m en t d oe s n otdi sp ut e th atat t he ti m e o f se nt en ci ng no gu id el in e ha d b eenpro m

ul ga te d fo r DTVIA vi ol at io ns . Rath er, the sen te nc in g c omm is si on ha d p ro po se d a n a m en dm en t t o t he gu id el in es to ad d a n o ffen se -s pe ci fic gu id el in e fo r DTVIA vi ol at io ns : 17§2 X7.2 . Submers ib le an d Semi-Sub m ers ib le Vess el s (a) B as e Offen se Leve l: 26 (b ) Sp eci fic Offen se Ch arac te ris ti c (1 ) (Ap pl y

th e g reat es t) I f th e o ffen se in vo lv ed– (A) a fai lu re to he av e to whe n di rect e d by la w en fo rcem en t of

fic ers , in crea se by 2 le ve ls ; (B) an a t t em

pt to si nk th e ve ss el , in crea se by 4 lev el s; or (C) th e si nk in g of th e ve ss el , in crea se by 8 le ve ls
. (No v. 2 00 9) . Con gr es s l at er ad op te d t he pro po se d DTVIA g ui de li ne , whi ch be cam e eff

ect iv e o n No ve m

be r 1, 2 00 9, m on th s af

te r th e d is tri ctco urt s en te nc ed de fen da nt s. See U.S.S.G. app . C at 3 14 –1 6 (No v. 2 01 0)
. Inde fen da nt s’ pre se nt en ce i nv es ti ga ti on rep ort (“ PSI” ), th e p ro ba ti on of fic er ca lc ul at edth ei r advi so ry gu id el in es ran ge as 1 08 to 13 5 m on th s im pr is on m en t, u si ng th e b as e o ffen se lev el inpro po se d g ui de li ne am en dm en t § 2 X7.2
. The pro ba ti on off ic er ad de d 8 lev el s, p ur su an t t o § 2X7 .2(b )(1 )(C) , be cau se de fen da nt s s an k t he ir v es se l. Sh e al so de du ct ed3 l ev el s fo r ear ly
acce pt an ce o f res po ns ib il ity an d c oo pe rat io n. The p ro ba ti on off ic er ac kn owl ed ge d th at§ 2 X7.2 ha d b eensubm it te d b y th e Uni te d S ta te s Se nt en ci ng Co m m is si on bu t ha d n otbe enpro m

ul ga te d b y

Co ng res s as of t he ti m e o f se nt en ci ng . The di stric t co urt fo un d t ha t the bo rd er tun ne l g ui de li ne is no t “ su ffi ci en tl y
an al og ou s” to DTVIA vio la ti on s. The co urt o bs erv edth at“ Sect io n 5 55 de al s wi th 18pr ob le m s as so ci at edwith s m ug gl in g a ct iv it ie s o ccurri ng on lan d, s pe ci fic al ly be twee n the bo rd er . . . bec au se th ere [ are] on ly two co un tri es we bo rd er, Can ad a
an d M ex ic o.” The co urt n ot ed , ho wev er, tha t the ne w pro po se d g ui de li ne for DTVIA vi ol at io ns , onth e o th er h an d, i s “ de si gn [ed ] to ad dr es s p ro bl em s as so ci at edwith dru g s m

ug gl in g at s ea, es pe ci al ly in t erm s o f th e subs ta nt ia l qu an ti ti es of dru gs th atare i nv ol ve d i n t he se dru g s m ug gl in g v en tu res .” In st eadof app lying eit he r pr ov is io n, the di st ric t co urt ex pl ai ne d t ha t i t was

“ rel y [in g] so le ly on the 35 53 (a) fa ct or s i n i m po si ng [a] sen te nc e o n t he se Defen da nt s.” Th e se nt en ce the co urt ap pl ie d c orres po nd s t o asen te nc e atth e bo tt om of the gu id el in e ran ge th atwou ldha ve res ul te d fr om ap pl ic at io n o f th e pr op os edsubm ers ib le ve ss el gu id el in e. See U.S.S.G. § 2X7 .2 (No v. 2 00 9)
. ii
. Whe n n o o ffen se -s pe ci fic gu id el in e h as be enpro m ul ga te d, the di st ric t co urt ei th er m us t ap pl y th e m os t an al og ou s g ui de li ne or, “ [i]f th ere i s n ota su ffi ci en tl y
an al og ou s g ui de li ne , th e p ro vi si on s o f 18 U.S.C. § 3 55 3 s ha ll co nt ro l . . . .” U.S.S.G. § 2 X5.1 . “ The m os t an al og ou s g ui de li ne co nt em pl at edby sect io n 2 X5.1 is th e g ui de li ne th atap pl ie s t o the m os t an al og ou s s ta tu te of c on vi ct io n.” Uni te d St at es v. Hy de , 97 7 F .2d14 36 , 14 38 –3 9 (1 1t h C ir. 1 99 2) . “ Sect io n 2 X5.1

19in di cat es th at‘ th e m os t an al og ou s o ffen se gu id el in e’ is d et erm in edby anal og y of cri m in al be ha vi or. . . .” Id . at 1 43 9. W e can no t s ay

th atth e d is tri ctco urt erredinreject in g d efen da nt s’ reque stto ap pl y th e b or de r tu nn el gu id el in e. Sect io n 2 X7.1 pe rta in s t o “ [b ]ord er [t ]unn el s
an d [s ]ubt erra ne an[p]as sa ge s.” Ev ery pr ov is io n und er § 2X7 .1 ex pr es sl y an d
so le ly addres se s co nv ic ti on s u nd er 1 8 U.S.C. § 55 5, wh ic h c riminal iz es th e co ns tru ct io n, fi na nc e an d u se of b or de r tu nn el s tha t cr os s i nt ern at io na l b or de rs be twee n the Uni te d S ta te s an d a no th er co un try. Becaus e th e m os t an al og ou s 4 of fen se gu id el in e is de te rm in edby anal og y of c riminal be ha vi or , th e d is tri ctco urt di d n otab us e it s d is cret io n i n fi nd in g t he bo rd er tun ne l g ui de li ne in su ffi ci en tl y
an al og ou s. Th e ac tu s r eu s in vo lv edinco ns tru ct in g, fi na nc in g a ndus in g b or de r tu nn el s d iff

ers m at eri al ly from

th e cri m in al act s p un is he d b y th e DTVIA. The DTVIA targ et s m ari ti m e smugg li ng inth e b ro ad er i nt ern at io na l ar en a.

§2X7.1. Border Tunnels an d Su bterr anean Passage s 4 (a) Ba se Off ense L evel: (1) I f the defe ndant was convicted under 18 U.S.C. § 555(c) , 4 plus the o ff

ense level applicable to the underly ing smugg ling offe nse. I f the resulting offe nse level is less than leve l 16 , incre ase to leve l 16
. (2) 16 , if the def

endant wa s convicted unde r 18 U.S.C. § 555(a) ; or (3) 8 , if the def

endant wa s convicted unde r 18 U.S.C. § 555(b). 20Face d wi th “ no gu id el in e [tha t] exp res sl y ha [d ] be enpro m

ul ga te d” an d n o

“ su ffi ci en tl y

an al og ou s g ui de li ne ,” th e d is tri ctco urt fo ll owe d t he sen te nc in g gu id el in es ’ in st ru ct io n t o s el ecta se nt en ce b as edon th e § 35 53 fact or s. See 5 U.S.S.G. § 2 X5.1 . The § 35 53 fact or s i nc lu de , am on g o th ers : th e na tu re an d ci rcum st an ces of th e of fen se an d th e hi st ory an d ch arac te ris ti cs of th e de fen da nt ; [t]he ne ed fo r th e se nt en ce im po se d– to refl ect th e se rio us ne ss of th e of fen se , to pr om ot e res pe ct fo r th e la w, an d to pr ov id e jus t pu ni sh m en t fo r th e of fen se ; to affo rd ad equa te de te rren ce

. . .; to pr ot ect th e publ ic
. . .; an d to pr ov id e th e de fen da nt with ne ed ed educ at io na l or vo cat io na l tra in in g, m ed ic al care , or o th e r co rrec ti on al tre atm en t; [an d] [t]he ne ed to a v o i d un warrant ed di sp ari ti es am on g de fen da nt s wi th si m il ar re co rd s wh o ha ve be enfou ndgu il ty of si m il ar co nduc t.

We need not addr ess whethe r the district cour t erre d by considering , even if

not 5 applying, the proposed submer sible vessel guideline. The district c ourt clea rly explained that it would have a

pplied the same se ntence based solely on the § 3553 fa ctors. See United States v. Kee ne, 470 F .3d 1347, 1349 (11th Cir. 2006) (“ [T] he Supreme Court and this Court have long rec ognized that it i s not nece ssary to decide guidelines issues or re mand ca ses for ne w sentenc e proce eding s where the guidelines err or, if any , did not affe ct the sente nce.” (quotation marks omitted)). We also need not a ddress Mr. Me neses’ s argument that the district court e rre d by implicitl y applying a

n eight-level e nhance ment under theproposed subter rane an vesse l guide line, § 2X7.2(b)( 1)(C), be cause defe ndants sank their ve ssel. The district cour t expl ained that ha d it applied the pr oposed subterr anea n vessel guideline, it “would have found that the e nhance ment for sc uttling is more than a ppropriate under the fac ts as [the cour t] kn[e] w them.” The indictment alleg ed that def endants’ ve ssel sank within minutes after de fenda nts jumped from it. Def endants ne ver r efute d this point . Be cause the district court c alculate d defe ndants’ sente nces based on a

n application of the § 3553 fac tors alone, howe ver, w e nee d not decide whether it would have be en prope r for the district court to apply the enha nceme nt under the f

acts of this case . See Ke ene, 470 F .3d at 1349.
2118 U.S.C. § 3 55 3( a). The di stric t co urt ex pr es sl y co ns id eredth e § 35 53 fact or s. The co urt s ta te d t ha t i t i m po se d d efen da nt s’ parti cu la r se nt en ces to sen d am es sa ge to de te r drug cart el s fr om us in g s ub m ers ib le ve ss el s t o s m ug gl e dru gs , to pro te ct th e p ub li c, an d t o p ro vi de pro pe r pu ni sh m en t, es pe ci al ly in l ig htof t he ser io us ne ss of th e o ffen se . The di st ric t co urt co ns id eredth e p art ie s’ arg um en ts an d g av e a
reas on edba si s fo r it s s en te nc e. Thatis all th atwe requi re o f se nt en ci ng co urts . See R it a v . Uni te d S ta te s, 5 51 U.S. 33 8, 3 56 , 12 7 S . Ct. 2 45 6, 2 46 8 (2 00 7) . W e th eref or e co nc lu de th atth e d is tri ctco urt co m m it te d n o p ro cedur al erro r in
se le ct in g d efen da nt s’ sen te nc e. ii i. Defen da ntMen es es arg ue s tha t h is 10 8 m on th sen te nc e is subs ta nt iv el y
un reas on ab le
. Mr. Men es es arg ue s tha t the di st ric t co urt s ho ul d h av e d ep art ed do wnwar d fr om

it s g ui de li ne cal cu la ti on whende te rm in in g h is sen te nc e b ecau se hi s s ta tu s as anali encrea te s a s en te nc in g d is pa rit y . Mr. Men es es ass ert s tha t h is al ie na ge ren de rs hi m

in el ig ib le forcert ai n v oc at io na l an d o th er p ro gr am s tha t
co ul d l eadto earl y

rel eas e an d p recl ud es pl acement i n am in im um sec ur ity faci li ty
orho m e co nf

in em en t. The cru x o f hi s ar gu m en t i s tha t h e rec ei ve d “ a se nt en ce th atis gre at er tha n n eces sa ry .”

22Inrev ie win g asen te nc e fo r subs ta nt iv e rea so nabl en es s, we ex am in e th e

to ta li ty of th e ci rcu m st an ces an d d et erm in e whe th er the sen te nc e ach ie ve s the
se nt en ci ng go al s s ta te d i n 1 8 U.S.C. § 35 53 (a). Un it edSta te s v . Cul ve r, 59 8 F .3d 74 0, 7 53 (11 th Cir . 20 10 ); Un it edSta te s v . Pug h, 5 15 F.3d11 79 , 11 91 (11 th Cir
. 20 08 ). It i s wi th in th e d is tri ctco urt’s d is cret io n t o wei gh th e § 35 53 (a) fa ct or s,
an d “ [w]e will no t s ub st itut e o urjud gm en t i n wei gh in g t he rel ev an t [s ta tu to ry ] fact or s.” Un it edSta te s v . Am ed eo , 48 7 F .3d82 3, 8 32 (11 th Cir . 20 07 ) (quo ta ti on
m ark s o mit te d) . In a p re-B oo ke r de ci si on , we hel d tha t a s en te nc in g c ou rt m ay no t ap pl y a do wnwar d d ep artur e to sh ie ldali en s fr om de tri m en ta l co ll at eral
co ns eque nc es st emmin g fr om de fen dant s’ st atus as an a li en . Uni te d S tate s v . Mau ng , 32 0 F .3d13 05 , 13 08 –1 0 (1 1t h C ir. 2 00 3) ; s ee al so Uni te d S ta te s v . Velo za, 8 3 F .3d38 0, 3 82 (11 th Cir . 19 96 ) (h ol di ng th atco ll at eral co ns eque nc es of de fen da nt s’ ali en ag e co ul d s erv e as ba si s fo r do wnwar d d ep artur e o nl y if tho se co ns eque nc es “ were ex tra or di nary inna tu re o r de gr ee,” andaffi rm in g c ou rt’s refu sa l t o d ep artba se d o n “ th e una va il ab il ity of p refe rredco nd it io ns of
co nf in em en t” (qu ot at io n m ark s o m itte d) ), ov erru le d o n o th er gr ou nd s b y Uni te d St at es v. De Varo n, 1 75 F.3d93 0 (1 1t h C ir. 1 99 9) (enba nc ). 6

Mr. Mene ses argues that our Ma ungand Ve loza decisions are no longe r binding 6 prec edent a fter United States v. Booke r, 543 U.S. 220, 125 S. Ct. 738 (2005). In the alter native, he argues that eve n if they rema in binding, his ca se is distinguishable be cause he suff ers greater 23W e co nc lu de th atMr. Me ne se s’s s en te nc e is subs tant iv el y reas on ab le . The di st ric t co urt co ns id eredMr. Me ne se s’s d is parit y arg um en t. Defe nd an ts ’ se nt en ce is well be lo w th e 1 5 year st atut ory m ax im um forvi ol at io ns of t he DTVIA. See 18 U.S.C. § 2 28 5( a). Giv enth e se ve rit y of t he off

en se an d n eedforde te rren ce, Mr
. Men es es ’s sen te nc e ach ie ve s the sen te nc in g g oa ls st at edin§ 3 55 3. We can no t s ay th at“ we are ‘lef

t wi th th e d efi ni te an d fi rm co nv ic ti on th atth e d is tri ctco urt
co m m it te d acle ar erro r of

jud gm en t i n wei gh in g t he § 3 55 3( a) fa ct or s b y arri vi ng ata se nt en ce tha t l ie s o ut si de th e ran ge of r eas on ab le sen te nc es di ct at edby the fact s o f th e cas e.’” Unit edSta te s v . McBr id e, 51 1 F .3d12 93 , 12 97 –9 8 (1 1t h C ir. 20 07 ) (quo ti ng Uni te d S ta te s v . W il li am s, 4 56 F.3d13 53 , 13 63 (11 th Cir . 20 06 )). W e th eref

or e aff irm Mr. Me ne se s’s s en te nc e.

D. Fi na ll y , Mr. Estup in anarg ue s tha t the di st ric t co urt erredby fail in g t o a tt ach
a co py of it s ru li ng s o n t he pa rti es ’ se nt en ci ng ob jecti on s t o h is PSI. Fed eral Ru le of Cri m in al Pro cedur e 3 2( i)( 3) (C) re qu ire s the sen te nc in g c ou rt t o “ ap pe nda co py of th e co urt’s d et erm in at io ns [fo r an y di sp ut edpo rti on of t he PSI o r ot he r co nt ro ve rte d m at te r] to an y co py of th e p res en te nc e rep ort m ad e av ai labl e to th e hardships as a

result of his aliena g e than the a liens in Maungand Ve loza. We need not re solve these issues, as w e conc lude that Mr. Mene ses’s sente nce is substantively rea sonable in light of the district court’s c onsideration of his disparity conce rns in its application of the § 3553 fa ctors. 24Bu reauof P ris on s.” We hav e sa idth atfai lu re t o fo ll ow Ru le 32 (i) (3 ) is a m ere

“ ‘min is te ria l m at te r’ which m ay be rem ed ie d wi th ou t re se nt en ci ng by atta ch in g a co py of th e se nt en ci ng he ari ng tra ns cri ptto th e p res en te nc e rep ort.” Un it edSta te s v. Sp ears , 44 3 F .3d13 58 , 13 62 (11 th Cir . 20 06 ) (quo ta ti on m ark s o m it te d) . At th e se nt en ci ng he ari ng , Mr. Estup in an , th ro ug h c ou ns el , rai se d o bjec ti on s t o t he pr op os edgu id el in e cal cu lati on inth e PSI. The di st ric t co urt erredby fail in g t o ap pe nda co py of it s ru li ng s o n the se ob jecti on s. We th eref

or e rem an d fo r th e li mit edpurp os e o f al lo win g t he di st ric t co urt t o a tt ach a co py of it s ru li ng s o n M r. Estup in an ’s ob

jecti on s t o h is PSI.

III. CONCLUSION Fo r th es e rea so ns , we AFFIRM th e d is tri ctco urt’s fi nd in g t ha t the DTVIA is a co ns ti tu ti on al ex erci se of C on gr es s’s p owe r un de r th e Hig h S eas Claus e. W e al so AFFIRM de fen da nt s’ sen te nc es . W e REMAND fo r th e d is tri ctco urt t o fo ll ow the pro cedur es ou tl in edinFed . R. Cri m . P. 32 (i) (3 )(C) for ap pe nd in g i ts
ru li ng s o n c on te st edsen te nc in g i ss ue s t o t he PSI.

AFFIRMED an d R EMANDED.

25