FILED U.S. COURT OF AP P EALS E LEVEN T HC IRC U IT MARCH 17, 2008 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. 07- 13716 N on -A rgum entC al endar

________________________ D. C . Do c k e tNo . 0 6 - 2 0 7 5 6 - 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 R A M O N C A RN I C E R O , 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 ar c h 17, 2008) B efo re T JO F L A T , D U B IN A an d B L A C K , C i rcu i tJu d g es. P E R C U R I A M:2

A p p e lla n t R a m o n C a rn ic e r o ap p e a ls a s u n r e a s o n ab le h is 1 5 1 - m o n th s e n te n c e im p o s e d a f

te rh e p le d g u ilty to c o n s p ir a c y to p o s s e s s w ith in te n t to di stri bu t e m ethyl enedi ox ym etham ph et am i ne hydrochl ori de (“ M D M A ”) , in v io la tio n o f

2 1 U .S .C . § 8 4 6 . A ls o , C a rn ic e r o ap p e a ls h is $ 3 ,0 0 0 f in e . C a rni c e r o f

i r s ta r gue s tha thi s s e nt e nc e i s unr e a s onabl e ba s e d on the 18 U . S . C . § 3553( a ) f

a c t or s a nd be c aus e the di s tr i c tc ourtf a i l e d t o gi ve pr ope rw e i ght t o h i s w i l l i ng ness t o coo pera t e w i th the go vernm ent . A dd i t i on al l y, he ar gu es that he w as no tthe supp l i erof the M D M A , al l bu ton e of hi s pri or offe nses w er e c om m i tt e d w i thouti ndi c i aof vi ol e nc e , a nd the di s tr i c tc ourtf a i l e d t o a c know l e dge thathe had a l on gt i m e s ub st ance abuse probl em and thathe had fam i l y s up po rt a v a ilab le to h im .

“ W e r evi ew the se nt ence i m po se d b y the di stri ctcourtfor r ea sonabl enes s. ” U ni ted Stat es v. T

al ley , 431 F . 3d 784, 785 ( 11th C i r . 2005) . W he n r e vi e w i ng f or r e a s o n ab le n e s s , w e a r e to ap p ly th e d e f e r e n tia l ab u s e - o f

- d is c r e tio n s ta n d a r d . G a ll v. U ni ted Stat es , 55 2 U . S . ___, 12 8 S . C t . 58 6, 59 1 (20 07 ). T hi s abu se -ofdi s c r e t i on r e vi e w appl i e s t o a l l s e nt e nc e s , “ w he the ri ns i de , j us tout s i de , or si gn i fi cant l y out si de the G ui del i nes r ange. ” I d. a t _

__ , 1 2 8 S . C t. a t 5 9 1 . I n r e v i e wi n g th e s e n t e n c e , we m us tf i r s te ns ur e tha tthe di s tr i c tc ourtc om m i tt e d no s i gni f i c a nt p r o c e d u r a l e rr o r , s u c h a s f a ilin g to c a lc u la te ( o rim p r o p e r ly3

ca l cul at i ng ) the G ui del i nes r ange, tre at i ng the G ui del i nes a s m a nda t ory , f

a i l i ng t o c ons i de rthe § 3553( a ) f a c t or s , s e l e c t i ng a s e n te n c e b a s e d o n c le a r ly e rr o n e o u s f a c ts , o rf a ilin g to a d e q u a te ly e xpl a i n the c hos e n s e nt e nc e - i nc l udi ng a n e xpl a na t i on f ora ny devi at i on fr om the G ui del i nes r ange. I d. a t__, 128 S . C t . a t597. I f w e c onc l ude tha tthe di s tr i c tc ourtm a de no pr oc e dur a l e rr or s , w e “ s houl d the n c ons i de rthe s ubs t a nt i ve r e a s onabl e ne s s of the se nt ence i m po se d u nd eran abuse- of-di sc re t i on st andard. ” I d. at___, 12 8 S . C t . at 5 9 7 ; se e a l

so , U ni te d State s v . H

unt , 459 F . 3d 1180, 1182 n. 3 ( 11th C i r . 2006) (“ A ft er[ U

ni ted Stat es v. ] B oo ke r , [543 U . S . 22 0, 12 5 S . C t . 73 8 (20 05 )] a s ent ence ma y b e r e v i e w e d f

o rp r o c e d u r a l o rs u b s t a n t i v e u n r e a s o n ab l e n e s s . ” ) . Th e Su p r e me C ou rthas s ug gest ed thatre vi ew for s ub st ant i ve re as on abl enes s und erthe abuse-ofdi s c r e t i on s t a nda r d i nvol ve s i nqui r i ng w he the rthe f a c t or s i n § 3553( a ) s upportthe s e n te n c e in q u e s tio n . See G a ll , 5 5 2 U .S . a t _

__ , 1 2 8 S . C t a t 6 0 0 ( h o ld in g th a t, if the di stri ctcourtcom m i t s no p roce du ra l error, the courtof appeal s s ho ul d con si der

“ w hether the se nt ence w as re as on abl e— i . e. , w h e th e rth e D is tr ic t J u d g e ab u s e d h is d is c r e tio n in d e te rm in in g th a t th e § 3 5 5 3 ( a ) f a c to r s s u p p o rte d ” th e s e n te n c e .) . R e a s onabl e ne s s r e vi e w i s “ de f e r e nt i a l , ” a nd “ the pa rty w ho c ha l l e nge s the s e nt e nc e be a r s the bur de n of e s t abl i s hi ng tha tthe s e nt e nc e i s unr e a s onabl e i n the l i gh tof bo th [the] re cord and the fa ct ors i n sec t i on 35 53 (a ). ” T al ley , 43 1 F . 3d at 78 8. T he di stri ctcourtneed no tst at e on the re cord thati thas e xp l i ci t l y c on si dere d4

e a c h f a c to ra n d n e e d n o t d is c u s s e a c h f a c to r . I d. at78 6. R ather, “ an ac k n o w led g m en t b y th e d istrict co u rt th at ith as co n sid er ed th e d ef en d an t’ s ar gu m ent s and the fa ct ors i n sec t i on 35 53 (a ) i s s uffi ci entun der B oo ke r . ” I d. T he w e ig h t a c c o r d e d to th e § 3 5 5 3 ( a ) f a c to r s is w ith in th e d is tr ic t c o u rt’s d is c r e tio n . See U ni te d State s v . P ugh , ___F .3 d ___ , N o . 0 7 - 1 0 1 8 3 ( 1 1 th C ir . J a n . 3 1 , 2 0 0 8 ) . T he § 3553( a ) f

a c t or s i nc l ude : ( 1) the na tur e a nd c i r c um s t a nc e s of the of f e ns e a nd th e h is to ry a n d c h a r a c te r is tic s o f th e d e f e n d a n t; ( 2 ) th e n e e d f

o rth e s e n te n c e ( A ) to r e f l e c tthe s e r i ous ne s s of

the of f e ns e , t o pr om ot e r e s pe c tf orthe l a w , a nd t o pr ovi de j ustpu ni shm entfor the offens e, (B ) t o aff ord adequ at e det erre nce t o cri m i nal c o n d u c t, ( C ) to p r o te c t th e p u b lic f r o m f u rth e rc r im e s o f

th e d e f e n d a n t, a n d ( D ) to prov i de the defendantw i th n ee ded edu ca t i on al or vo ca t i on al tra i ni ng or m edi ca l care ; (3) the ki nd s of s ent ence s a vai l abl e; (4) the S ent enci ng G ui del i nes r ange; ( 5 ) p e rtin e n t p o lic y s ta te m e n ts o f th e S e n te n c in g C o m m is s io n ; ( 6 ) th e n e e d to a v o id u n w a rr a n te d s e n te n c in g d is p a r itie s ; a n d ( 7 ) th e n e e d to p r o v id e r e s titu tio n to v ic tim s . See 1 8 U .S .C . § 3 5 5 3 ( a ) ( 1 ) - ( 7 ) . B e c au s e w e c o n c lu d e f

r o m th e r e c o r d th a t th e d is tr ic t c o u rt p r o p e r ly c a l c ul a t e d C a rni c e r o’ s gui de l i ne r a nge , c ons i de r e d the § 3553( a ) f a c t or s , a nd i m pos e d as e nt e nc e a tthe bott om of the gui de l i ne r a nge , C a rni c e r o f a i l s t o s how5

th a t th e d is tr ic t c o u rt im p o s e d ap r o c e d u r a lly o rs u b s ta n tiv e ly u n r e a s o n ab le s e n te n c e . R e ga r di ng hi s f

i ne , C a rni c e r o a r gue s tha tthe di s tr i c tc ourte rr e d by i m pos i ng a f i ne because i tw as un di sput ed thathe had n o abi l i ty t o p aythe fi ne, the court o r d e r e d th a t th e f

in e b e p a id im m e d ia te ly , an d th e r e w a s n o s h o w in g th a t h e w o u ld be abl e t o pa rt i c i pa t e i n the I nm a t e F i na nc i a l R e s pons i bi l i ty P r ogr a m ( “ I F R P ” ) or th a tth e I F R P wo u l d f

u l f i l l th e c o u rt ’ s o r d e rth a tth e f i n e b e p a i d i m m e d i a t e l y . He cont ends that , because he w as i nd i gent , the i m m edi at el y pay abl e f i ne w as im p r o p e r . A d d itio n a lly , h e a r g u e s th a t th e r e c o r d r e f le c ts th a t th e c o u rt f

a ile d to c o n s id e rth e U .S .S .G . § 5 E 1 .2 ( d ) f a c to r s a n d f

a ile d to m a k e f

in d in g s to s u p p o rt its im p o s itio n o f

th e f in e . W e r evi ew the di stri ctcourt ’ s det erm i nat i on of the approp ri at e f i ne for c l ear e rr o r . U ni te d State s v . L om bardo , 35 F . 3d 526, 527 ( 11th C i r . 1994) . F urthe r , the d e f e n d a n t h a s th e b u r d e n o f p r o v in g in ab ilityto p a y af in e . U ni ted Stat es v. H erna ndez , 1 6 0 F .3 d 6 6 1 , 6 6 5 ( 1 1 th C ir . 1 9 9 8 ) . U n d e rth e s e n te n c in g g u id e lin e s , ad is tr ic t c o u rt “s h a ll im p o s e af in e in a ll c a s e s , e xc e ptw he r e the de f e nda nte s t abl i s he s tha the i s unabl e t o pa y a nd i s not l i ke l y t o be c om e abl e t o pa y a ny f i ne . ” U . S . S . G . § 5E 1. 2( a ) . F urthe r , the g u id e lin e s lis t th e f

o llo w in g f

a c to r s th a t th e d is tr ic t c o u rt s h a ll c o n s id e rin6

d e te rm in in g th e a m o u n t o f th e f in e : ( 1 ) th e n e e d f

o rth e c o m b in e d s e n te n c e to refl ectth e seri o u sn ess o f th e o ffen se, t o p ro m o t e resp ectfo r th e l aw , t o p ro v i d e j u st p u n i sh m en t , an d t o affo rd ad eq u at e d et erren ce; (2 ) th e d efen d an t ’ s ab i l i ty t o p ay a fi n e; (3 ) th e b u rd en th atth e fi n e p l aces o n th e d efen d an tan d h i s d ep en d en t s; ( 4) a ny r e s t i tut i on tha tthe de f e nda ntm us tpa y ; ( 5) a ny c ol l a t e r a l c ons e que nc e s of conv i ct i on ; (6) w hether the defendantprevi ou sl y has been fi ned for a s i m i l ar of f e ns e ; ( 7) the e xpe c t e d c os t s t o the gove rnm e nt ; a nd ( 8) a ny othe rpe rt i ne nt e q u itab le c o n s id e r a tio n s . See U . S . S . G . § 5E 1. 2( d) . W e ha ve he l d tha tthe s e nt e nc i ng c ourti s notr e qui r e d t o m a ke s pe c i f i c f i ndi ngs of

f a c tw i th r e s pe c tt o the S en ten cin g G u id elin e f

ac to rs as lo n g as “th e r ec o rd re flec t[s] th e d istrict co u rt’s consi dera t i on of the pert i nentfa ct ors pri or t o i m po si ng the fi ne. ” L om bardo , 35 F .3 d at 5 3 0 (in tern al q u o tati o n an d citati o n o m itted ). F ailu re to o b ject to th e P S I’s f a c tu a l a lle g a tio n s a d m its th o s e f a c ts f o rs e n te n c in g p u rp o s e s . U ni ted Stat es v. W ade , 4 5 8 F .3 d 1 2 7 3 , 1 2 7 7 ( 1 1 th C ir . 2 0 0 6 ) , ce rt. deni ed , 12 7 S . C t . 20 96 (200 7). W h e n ad is tr ic t c o u rt im p o s e s af in e o ro th e rm o n e ta ry p e n a lty , s u c h p e n a lty is o r d in a r ily p a y ab le im m e d ia te ly . See 1 8 U .S .C . § 3 5 7 2 ( d ) ( 1 ) . H o w e v e r , a d is tr ic t c o u rt m a y p e rm it p a y m e n t o n ad a te c e rta in o rp a y m e n t in in s ta llm e n ts . I d. T he IF R P w as cr ea t ed t o encou ra ge “ ea ch se nt ence d i nm at e t o m ee thi s or her le g itim a te f

in a n c ia l o b lig a tio n s .” 2 8 C .F .R . § 5 4 5 .1 0 . T h e r e g u la tio n s p r o v id e th a t,7

w hen an i nm at e has a f

i nanci al ob l i gat i on , i ncl ud i ng the fi ne i m po se d at s e nt e nc i ng, the B ur e au of P r i s ons ( “ B O P ” ) s t a f

f “ s ha l l he l p tha ti nm a t e de ve l op a f in a n c ia l p la n a n d s h a ll m o n ito rth e in m a te ’s p r o g r e s s in m e e tin g th a t o b lig a tio n .” 2 8 C .F .R . § 5 4 5 .1 1 . B e c au s e th e r e c o r d r e f

le c ts th a t th e d is tr ic t c o u rt c o n s id e r e d th e § 5 E 1 .2 f a c to r s , a n d C a rn ic e r o f

a ile d to s h o w th a t h e w o u ld n o t b e ab le to p a y af in e v ia part i ci pat i on i n the IF R P , w e a ff i rm the di stri ctcourt ’ s i m po si t i on of the fi ne. A F F I R M E D .