FI LED U. S . COURT OF AP PE ALS E L E V E N T H C IR C U IT M ay 31, 2006 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- 16521 N on -A rgum entC al endar

________________________ D . C. D o c k e tN o . 0 5 - 0 0 1 0 0 - CR- O RL- 1 9 K RS 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 A M U E L B R A M I N A L O P E Z , a .k .a . D ic o n c io M o n ta n o , a .k .a . D e o n ic io M o n ta n o - G o m e z , a .k .a . D io n ic io M o n ta n o - G o m e z , a .k .a . B e to G a r c ia , a .k .a . S a m u e l B r a m b ila - L o p e z , a .k .a . M o n ta n o B r a m b ila - L o p e z , D e fe 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 forthe M i ddl e D i s tr i c tof F l or i da

_________________________ ( M ay 31, 2006)2

B efo re D U B IN A , H U L L an d K R A V IT C H , C i rcu i tJu d g es. P E R C U R I A M: S a m ue l B r a m i na - L ope z w a s c ha r ge d w i th i l l e ga l r e - e ntr y a f t e rde por t a ti on, i n v i ol ati on of 8 U . S . C . § 1 32 6(a) . T he i nd i ctm ental l eged thathe had b ee n de por t e d i n 1997 a nd ha d s i nc e be e n found i n the U ni t e d S t a t e s w i thoutpe r m i s s i on to r e - e n te r . H e a g r e e d to p le a d g u ilty w ith o u t aw r itte n p le aa g r e e m e n t. A tthe c ha nge - of- pl e ahe a r i ng, he a dm i tt e d tha the w a s ac i ti z e n of M e xi c o, th a t h e h a d b e e n d e p o r te d in 1 9 9 7 , a n d th a t h e h a d r e - e n te r e d w ith o u t p e r m is s io n . T he gove r nm e ntpr of

fe r e d tha tB r a m i na - L ope z ha d be e n de por t e d i n 1991, 1993, 1 9 9 5 , an d 1 9 9 7 , an d th at th e 1 9 9 7 d ep o rtatio n o cc u rr ed af ter B ra m in a- L o p ez ’s c onvi c ti on fori l l e ga l r e - e ntr y . B r a m i na - L ope z di s put e d the s e fa c t s , a l though he a d m itte d to th e 1 9 9 7 d e p o r ta tio n a lle g e d in th e in d ic tm e n t. T he prob ati on offi ce r pre pare d a pres ent ence i nv es ti gat i on re po rt(“ P S I” ), as si gn i ng a bas e off

ense l evel of 8 u nd erU . S . S . G . § 2 L 1. 2(a) , w i th a 16 -l evel enhancem entun der § 2L 1. 2(b)(1)(A )( i i ) bec ause B ra m i na-L op ez had b ee n de por t e d a f

t e rac r i m e of

vi ol e nc e . T he pr oba ti on of f i c e de duc t e d 3 l e ve l s for accep t an ce o f resp o n si b i l i ty u n d er U . S . S . G . § 3 E 1 . 1 , resu l ti n g i n a t o t al o ffen se le v e l o f 2 1 . C al cul ati ng B ra m i na-L op ez ’ s c ri m i nal hi st ory, the prob ati on offi ce r c i t edAcc ording t o th e P SI , Bramina-Lopez was deported followinghis 1991 conviction. He 1 was deported ag ain followinghis 1993 convictions. Bramina-Lopez was found in the United States in 1994 and was deported in May 1995. In September 1995, he was found ag ain in theUnited States andwa s deporte d in 19 97. In April 1 99 8, hewa s cha rg e d w ithill e g al re -entry andapp arently releas ed , b u t th e probation officer did not have the spe cifics of the offense. Hewas then a rre sted ag ain in 2005 on the instant offense. Bramina-Lopez asserte d that the robbery i n v o l v ed only

a twelve -pack of beer. In any 2 event, the two rape c onvictions should be sufficient to establish a prior crime of violence f or purposes of theenhanc ement. U.S.S.G. § 2L 1.2, comment. (n.1(B )(iii)). 3 ( 1) a1990 c onvi c ti on forr obbe r y of $950, a nd the s ubs e que ntvi ol a ti on of s upe r vi s e d r e l e a s e due t o the fa i l ur e t o pa y r e s ti tuti on; ( 2) a1991 c onvi c ti on for pos s e s s i on of

c oc a i ne ; ( 3) t w o 1993 c onvi c ti ons forr a pe ; ( 4) a1995 c onvi c ti on for del i very of a c on trol l ed subst ance ; and (5) conv i cti on s i n 1 99 5 and 19 98 for i l l egal re -e ntry . T hese conv i cti on s r es ul t ed i n 1 4 cri m i nal hi st ory poi nt s, bu t2 m ore

1 poi nt s w e r e a dde d be c a us e the i ns t a ntof fe ns e be ga n on oraboutA pr i l 2, 1998 a nd o c c u rr e d le s s th a n 2 y e a r s a f te rB r a m in a - L o p e z ’s r e le a s e f r o m c u s to d y in 1 9 9 6 . W i th at ot a l of

16 poi nt s , B r a m i na - L ope z ’ s c r i m i na l hi s t or y fe l l i n c a t e gor y V I , a nd th e r e s u ltin g a d v is o r y g u id e lin e s r a n g e w a s 7 7 to 9 6 m o n th s im p r is o n m e n t. B r a m i na - L ope z m a de onl y one obj e c ti on t o the P S I ; he c ha l l e nge d the pr i or c o n v ic tio n fo rr o b b e r y . T h e c o u r t s u s ta in e d th e o bje c tio n a n d c h a n g e d th e P S I to 2 r e f l e c tB r a m i na - L ope z ’ s ve r s i on of the of fe ns e , butthe r e w a s no c ha nge i n the cr i m i nal hi st ory c at egory. A tno ti m e di d B ra m i na-L op ez chal l enge the 16 -l evel e n h a n c e m e n t u n d e rU .S .S .G . § 2 L 1 .2 ( b ) ( 1 ) ( A ) ( ii) . H e s u g g e s te d , h o w e v e r , th a t aUnited States v. Booker, 543 U.S. 220, 125 S.Ct. 738, 160 L .Ed.2d 621 (2005). 3 4 fi ve-y ear s ent ence w as suff i ci entt o m ee tthe se nt enci ng go al s. T he courtre j ec t ed thi s pr opos e d s e nt e nc e , noti ng the l e ngthy c r i m i na l hi s t or y a nd the m ul ti pl e pr i or de por t a ti ons a nd r e - e ntr i e s . T he c our tthe n c ons i de r e d the gui de l i ne s r a nge a nd the s e nt e nc i ng fa c t or s of

18 U . S . C . § 3553( a ) , a nd de t e r m i ne d tha tas e nt e nc e of 80 m on ths w as approp ri at e t o d et erthe behavi or and p rot ec tsoci ety. B ra m i na-L op ez rai sed n o o th er o bj ecti o n s. O n a ppe a l , B r a m i na - L ope z a r gue s tha tthe c our tpl a i nl y e rr e d by e nha nc i ng hi s s ent ence base d o n a pri or conv i cti on thatw as no tprov en t o a j ury or a dm i tt ed b y h im . Wh e n ad e fe n d a n tfa i l s t o o bj e c tt o a n e rr o rb e fo r e th e d i s tr i c tc o u r t , we r e vi e w the a r gum e ntforpl a i n e rr or . U ni t e d S t a t e s v. R odr i gue z , 398 F . 3d 1291, 12 98 (11th C i r. ), ce rt . deni ed, 12 5 S . C t . 29 35 (200 5). P l ai n err or occurs w here (1 ) th er e is a n erro r; (2 ) th at is p lain o r o b v io u s; (3 ) a ffec ti n g th e d efen d an t’ s s u b s ta n tia l r ig h ts in th a t it w a s p r e ju d ic ia l a n d n o t h a r m le s s ; a n d ( 4 ) th a t s e r io u s ly a f fe c ts th e fa ir n e s s , in te g r ity , o rp u b lic r e p u ta tio n o f th e ju d ic ia l p r o c e e d in g s . I d . H e r e , B r a m in a - L o p e z c a n n o t s h o w p la in e rr o rin h is g u id e lin e s c a lc u la tio n s . A n e nha nc e m e ntba s e d on apr i orc onvi c ti on, e ve n i f nota dm i tt e d by the de fe nda nt , doe s notr e pr e s e ntac ons ti tuti ona l B ooke r e rr or . U ni t e d S t a t e s v. 35

M a r ti ne z , 434 F . 3d 1318, 1323 ( 11th C i r . 2006) ; U ni t e d S t a t e s v. C a nt e l l a no, 430 F . 3d 11 42 , 11 47 (11th C i r. 20 05 ), ce rt . deni ed, 12 6 S . C t . 16 04 (200 6); U ni t ed S t a t e s v. O r duno- M i r e l e s , 405 F . 3d 960, 962- 63 ( 11th C i r . 2005) ; U ni t e d S t a t e s v. C am ac ho -I barquen, 40 4 F . 3d 12 83 , 12 90 (11th C i r. 20 05 ); se e a l so U ni t ed S t at es v . T a y lo r , 4 1 7 F .3 d 1 1 7 6 , 1 1 8 2 - 8 3 ( 1 1 th C ir .) , c e r t. d e n ie d , 1 2 6 S .C t. 7 6 8 ( 2 0 0 5 ) . M oreover, by no tchal l engi ng al l of hi s pri or conv i cti on s a tse nt enci ng , B ra m i naL o p e z a d m itte d th e m . U n ite d S ta te s v . W illia m s , 4 3 8 F .3 d 1 2 7 2 , 1 2 7 3 - 7 4 ( 1 1 th C i r . 2006) ; U ni t e d S t a t e s v. B ur ge , 407 F . 3d 1183, 1191 ( 11th C i r . ) , c e r t . de ni e d, 1 2 6 S . C t . 5 5 1 (2 0 0 5 ). T h erefo re, th ere i s n o m eri tt o B ram i n a-L o p ez’ s arg u m en t s, a n d w e A F F I R M.