FI L ED U.S. COURT OF APPEAL S EL EVENTHCI RCUI T MARCH 12, 2012 J OHN L EY CL ERK [DO NOT PUBLISH] IN THE UN ITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELE VENTH CIRCUIT

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ No. 1 1- 13 91 1 Non -Arg um en t Ca le nd ar

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ D.C. Dock etNo. 1 :0 8- cr-2 02 50 -CM A-1

UNITED STAT ES OF AMERIC A, ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll Pl ai nt iff - App el le e, vers us ELIEZER LAZ O-MARTINEZ, ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll Defen da nt- App el la nt .

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

th e Uni te d S ta te s Di st ric t Co urt forth e So ut he rnDis tri ctof F lo rid a

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ (Ma rch 12 , 20 12 ) Befo re BARKETT, W ILSON, andANDERSON, Circu itJu dg es . PER CURI AM:Eli ezerLazo -Ma rti ne z ap pe al s t he 24 -m on th sen te nc e im po se d a fte r th e rev oc at io n o f hi s s up erv is edrel eas e. Mart in ez ar gu es th atth e se nt en ci ng co urt erre d b y fai li ng to co ns id er t he Gui de li ne s rang e fo r th e o ffen se an d re lying on un subs ta nt ia te d a ll eg at io ns to cal cu la te hi s s en te nc e. I. In20 08 , Lazo -Ma rti ne z p le d g ui lty to co ns pi rin g t o s m

ug gl e al ie ns in to th e Uni te d S ta te s, i n v io la ti on of 8 U.S.C. § 1 32 4( a)(1 )(A)(v )(1 ). He was s en te nc edto 18 m on th s i n p ris on , to be fol lo wedby two y ears of s up erv is edrel eas e. Afte r co m pl et in g h is sen te nc e o f im pr is on m en t, Lazo -Ma rti ne z b eg anservi ng hi s supe rv is edrel eas e o n J ul y 2, 2 00 9. On J ul y 14 , 20 10 , Lazo -Ma rti ne z an d P edro Lui s B la nc o Vel de s wer e fo un d ab ou t fi fty m il es so uth o f Key Larg o, Fl or id a, cap ta in in g abo atth atha d b een rep orte d a s m is si ng fro m it s d oc k i n Key Largo earl ie r in th e d ay . Lazo- Marti ne z an d Vel de s m ai nt ai ne d t ha t t he y ha d p ur ch as edth e b oa t—va lu edat abo ut $8 0,0 00 —fo r $1 0,0 00 fro m anun kn own m anin a truc k. Lazo -Ma rti ne z was arre st edfor

th e st at e cri m es of g ran d t he ft a ndde al in g i n s to le n p ro pe rty. Six d ay s la te r, Lazo -Ma rti ne z’s pa ro le off ic er fi le d ape ti ti on ch arg in g Laz o- Marti ne z wit h two vi ol at io ns of h is supe rv is edrel eas e. The d is tri ctco urt g ran te d t he pe ti ti on an d or de redth atanarre stwarran t b e is su edforLazo -Ma rti ne z. 2On Au gu st9, 2 01 1, t he di st ric t co urt h el d arev oc at io n h eari ng du rin g wh ic h

Lazo -Ma rti ne z p le d g ui lty to co m m it ti ng th e Fl or id a o ffen se of g ran d the ft a nd th ereb y vi ol at in g t he term s o f hi s s up erv is edrel eas e. Duri ng th e h eari ng , th e pr os ecu to r cl ai m edth atLazo -Marti ne z h adob ta in edth e b oa t i n o rd er t o s m ug gl e al ie ns , go in g “ st rai gh t b ackto whathe was d oi ng be fo re, wh ic h i s al ie n sm ug gl in g.” Bas edon th is all eg edreci di vi stbe ha vi or , th e p ro se cu to r reque st ed th atth e co urt i m

po se a se nt en ce o f two y ears —t he st atut ory m ax im um . Oth er t ha n th e ci rcu m st an ti al ev id en ce t ha t Laz o- Marti ne z was in a so ut h- bo un d b oa t s to ck ed wit h alar ge qu an ti ty of fu el , no factua l s up po rt wa s o ffer edforth e acc us at io n t ha t Lazo -Ma rti ne z h adbe enen ga ge d i n a li ensm ug gl in g. Lazo -Ma rti ne z o bjec te d t o t he go ve rn m en t’s co m m en ts ab ou t p ot en ti al ali en sm ug gl in g a ndreque st edth atth e d is tri ctco urt d is reg ard“ th e g ov ern m en t’s sp ecu la ti on ” an d c on fin e it s co ns id erat io n t o “ th e ev id en ce b efo re [t he co urt].” Lazo -Ma rti ne z al so co nt en de d t ha t t he pu rp os e o f hi s b oa t t rip was t o v is ithi s i ll m ot he r inCuba . He con cl ud edby adm it ti ng res po ns ib il it y forth e v io la ti on an d reque st in g asen te nc e o f ei gh t-t o- ni ne m on th s o f im pr is on m en t. The di stric t co urt d eci de d t ha t Laz o- Marti ne z m eri te d a“ se rio us sen te nc e” be cau se he ha d s to le n ave ss el an d was att em pt in g t o c omm itanoff

en se “ si m il ar” to hi s o rig in al off

en se . The co urt t he n re vo ke d Laz o- Marti ne z’s supe rv is ed 3rel eas e an d i m po se d asen te nc e o f two y ears of i m pr is on m en t. Fo ll owi ng im po si ti on of the sen te nc e, th e d is tri ctco urt s ol ic it edob jecti on s t o i ts fin di ng s o r th e m an ne r inwhi ch th e se nt en ce h adbe enan no un ced . Lazo- Marti ne z rep li ed :

“ As t o t he sen te nc e, Ju dg e, we ob ject t ha t i t’s u ndul y

hars h.” Duri ng th e rev oc at io n h eari ng , nei th er p art y no r th e d is tri ctco urt m ad e ref eren ce t o t he Sen te nc in g Gu id el in es or s ta te d t he advi so ry Gui de li ne s ra ng e fo r th e o ffen se , whi chwas fo ur -to -te n m on th s o f im pr is on m en t. II. W e rev ie w th e se nt en ce a d is tri ctco urt i m po se d a fte r rev oc at io n o f supe rv is edrel eas e fo r rea so nabl en es s. Uni te d Sta te s v. Vel as qu ez , 52 4 F .3d12 48 , 12 52 (11 th Cir . 20 08 ) (p er cu ria m ). Our re as on ab le ne ss rev ie w of t he sen te nc e a di st ric t co urt i m

po se s co ns is ts of t wo p art s. Uni te d Sta te s v. Pu gh , 51 5 F .3d11 79 , 11 90 (11 th Cir . 20 08 ). Fir st , we exa m in e whe th er t he sen te nc e is pro cedur al ly reas on ab le . Se e Gal l v. Un it ed St at es , 55 2 U.S. 3 8, 5 1, 1 28 S. Ct. 5 86 , 59 7 (2 00 7) . If we fi ndth atth e se nt en ce i s p ro cedur al ly reaso nabl e, we th enco ns id er wh ethe r th e se nt en ce i s s ub st an ti ve ly reaso nabl e. Id . Inou r rev ie w of t he pro cedur al reas on ab le ne ss of asen te nc e, we “ en su re th atth e d is tri ctco urt co m m it te d n o s ig ni fic an t p ro cedur al erro r, su ch as 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

4as m an da to ry , fai li ng to co ns id er t he § 3 55 3( a) fa ct or s, s el ect in g asen te nc e b as ed

on cle 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.” Id. The d is tri ctco urt “ m us t ad equa te ly exp la in th e ch os ensen te nc e to all ow fo r m ean in gf ul ap pe ll at e rev ie w andto pro m ot e th e p erce pt io n o f fai r se nt en ci ng .” Id. at50 , 12 8 S . Ct. at59 7. “ The rev ie w forsubs ta nt iv e u nr eas on ab le ne ss in vo lv es ex am in in g t he to ta li ty of th e ci rcu m st an ces , in cl ud in g a n i nqui ry in to whet he r th e st atut ory fact or s i n § 35 53 (a) s up po rt t he sen te nc e in qu es ti on .” Uni te d Sta te s v. Gon za le z , 55 0 F .3d13 19 , 13 24 (11 th Cir . 20 08 ) (p er cu ria m ). W e g en eral ly revi ew th e rea so nabl en es s o f a s en te nc e u nd er an ab us e-o f-d is cret io n s ta nd ard . Gal l , 55 2 U.S. at51 , 12 8 S . Ct. at59 7 . “ A di st ric t co urt ab us es it s d is cret io n wh enit(1) fai ls to affo rdco ns id erat io n t o re le va nt fact or s t ha t wer e due si gn ifi can t wei gh t, (2 ) gi ve s s ig ni fic an t wei gh t t o an im pr op er o r irrel ev an t fa ct or , or (3 ) co m m it s a c le ar erro r of

jud gm en t i n co ns id eri ng th e p ro pe r fac to rs .” Uni te d Sta te s v. Ir ey , 61 2 F .3d11 60 , 11 89 (11 th Ci r. 20 10 ) (en ba nc ) (ci ta ti on om it te d) , cer t. d en ie d , 13 1 S . Ct. 1 81 3 (2 01 1) . Howev er, wh ena pa rty rais es anob jecti onforth e fi rs t t im e o n app eal , hi s cl ai m is subjec t t o p la in erro r rev ie w. Uni te d Sta te s v. Gr es ha m , 32 5 F .3d12 62 , 12 65 (1 1t h C ir. 2 00 3) . III. 5Lazo -Ma rti ne z fi rs t ar gu es th atth e d is tri ctco urt’s ca lc ul at io n o f hi s

se nt en ce was pro cedur al ly unr eas on ab le be cau se itrel ie d h eav il y up on an erro ne ou s fa ct

—tha t h e h adbe enen ga ge d i n a li ensm ug gl in g dur in g the bo atth eft . Dur in g t he rev oc at io n h eari ng , Lazo -Ma rti ne z ex pr es se d tha t h e b el ie ve d i t t o b e im pr op er t o c on si de r th es e al le ga ti on s o f al ie n s m ug gl in g dur in g h is sen te nc in g an d u rg edth e jud ge to foc us on th e ev id en ce o f th e cas e rat he r th anth e go ve rn m en t’s s up po si ti on s. Th e g ov ern m en t co nt en ds th atth es e st at em en ts du rin g t he he ari ng di d n otco ns ti tu te a su ffi ci en t o bjec ti on to th e p ro cedur al reas on ab le ne ss of t he sen te nc e im po se d. Th eref

or e, th e g ov ern m en t ar gu es th at pl ai n e rro r rev ie w sh ou ldap pl y . Howev er, “ [t]he pu rp os e o f th e p la in erro r ru le is to en fo rce t he requi rem en t tha t p art ie s o bjec t t o e rro rs at t ria l i n ati m el y m an ne r so as t o p ro vi de th e tr ia l ju dg e an op po rtu ni ty to av oi d o r co rrec t an y erro r, an d th us av oi d t he co st s o f rev ers al .” Uni te d Sta te s v. S or on do , 84 5 F .2d94 5, 9 48 –4 9 (1 1t h C ir. 1 98 8) . Becau se Lazo -Ma rti ne z’s st at em en ts were s uf fic ie ntto gi ve th e di st ric t co urt cl ear n ot ic e th athe ob jecte d t o t he co ns id erat io n o f th e al ie n sm ug gl in g a ll eg at io ns du rin g h is sen te nc in g, we d o n otfin d p la in erro r rev ie w to be ap pr op ria te . W e wil l re vi ew th is ele m en t o f th e p ro cedur al reas on ab le ne ss of Lazo -Ma rti ne z’s se nt en ce u nd er the ab us e-o f-d is cret io n s ta nd ard . Se e Gon za le z , 55 0 F .3dat 1 32 4. 6The di stric t co urt m ad e a fi nd in g o f fac t t ha t Laz o- Marti ne z was “ at te m pt in g to co m m ita si m il ar o ffen se to th e o ne th at[he ] w[as ] on supe rv is io n fo r.” Giv en th atth e o nl y

off en se forwhi ch Lazo -Ma rti ne z was on supe rv is io n was co ns pi racy to co m m itali ensm

ug gl in g, t he di st ric t co urt’s fi nd in g o f fac t was un do ub te dl y th atLazo -Ma rti ne z was ag ai n a tt em pt in g t o e ng ag e in ali ensm ug gl in g. W e m ay on ly set a si de fin di ng s o f fac ts th atare cl earl y erro ne ou s. Fed . R. Ci v. P. 5 2( a); Uni te d Sta te s v. Wal ker , 49 0 F .3d12 82 , 12 99 (11 th Cir . 20 07 ). Howev er, “ [o ]ur de fere nc e to th e d is tri ctco urt i s n otun li m it ed , . . . an d we wi ll ho lda fi nd in g o f fac t cl earl y erro ne ou s i f th e rec or d l ack s s ub st an ti al ev id en ce t o supp ort i t.” Th elma C. Ra le y, In c. v. Kl ep

pe , 86 7 F .2d13 26 , 13 28 (11 th Cir . 19 89 ) (p er cu ria m ). Duri ng th e rev oc at io n h eari ng , th ere was ev id en ce p res en te d th atLazo -Ma rti ne z’s or ig in al co nv ic ti on in vo lv edali ensm ug gl in g b y

bo atan d th atLazo -Ma rti ne z was pl ead in g g ui lt y to th eftof abo at . Thes e were t he on ly fact s p res en te d t o s up po rt t he go ve rn m en t’s as se rti on th atLazo -Ma rti ne z h ad st ol enth e b oa t i n a n a tt em ptto en ga ge in ali ensm

ug gl in g. Atth e cl os e o f th e he ari ng , th e d is tri ctco urt m ad e an un ex pl ai ne d fi nd in g t ha t Laz o- Marti ne z h ad at te m pt edto co m

m itth e cri m e o f al ie n s m ug gl in g i n c on

jun ct io n wi th th e b oa t th eft . W e fi ndth atth is st at em en t l ack s s ub st an ti al ev id en ce t o s up po rt i t an d th eref or e se t i t as id e as cle arl y

erro ne ou s.

7W e m us t n ow d et erm in e whe th er rel ia nc e upo n t hi s erro ne ou s fa ctua l fin di ng ren de redth e cal cu la ti on of Laz o- Marti ne z’s se nt en ce p ro cedur al ly un reas on ab le . The d is tri ctco urt p ro vi de d v ery few jus ti fic at io ns forth e p os trev oc at io n s en te nc e itim po se d. Fi rs t, i t re ci te d Laz o- Marti ne z’s or ig in al off en se an d s en te nc e. Then , th e d is tri ctco urt s ta te d t ha t Laz o- Marti ne z h adst ol ena ve ss el an d h adatt em

pt edto “ co m

m ita si m il ar o ffen se ” to hi s o rig in al of fen se —al ie n s m

ug gl in g. Th e co urt ch arac te riz edth e actas a“ m os t s eri ou s of fen se ” m eri ti ng a “ se rio us sen te nc e.” Alt ho ug h i t i s u nc le ar, i t s eem s tha t t he co urt’s co m

m en t ab ou t a “ se rio us off en se ” co nc ern edth e at te m pt edali en sm ug gl in g, al th ou gh itm ay

ha ve refe ren cedth e p ur

po rte d jo in t ac ti on of b oa t t he ft an d a li ensm

ug gl in g. Re ga rd le ss , itis ev id en t t ha t t he co urt g av e si gn ifi can t weig htto it s fi nd in g t ha t Laz o- Marti ne z h adbe enatt em pt in g a li ensm

ug gl in g ag ai n a ndth atth is was am ajorpa rt o f th e co urt’s jus ti fic at io n fo r im po si ng a se nt en ce eq ua l t o the st atut ory m ax im um . Becau se th e co urt’s fa ctua l fi nd in g was cl earl y erro ne ou s, g iv in g s uc h s ig ni fic an t wei gh t t o i t was anab us e o f di sc ret io n. Se e Ir ey , 61 2 F .3dat 1 18 9. IV. Lazo -Ma rti ne z al so co nt en ds th atth e d is tri ctco urt erredby fail in g t o s ta te th e Gui de li ne s ra ng e o r refe ren ce t he Gui de li ne s atall du rin g h is rev oc at io n 8he ari ng . W e ag ree wi th Lazo -Ma rti ne z th atfai lu re t o d is cu ss th e rel ev an t

Gui de li ne s s en te nc in g ra ng e was a si gn ifi can t p ro cedur al erro r. Gal l , 55 2 U.S. at 51 , 12 8 S . Ct. at59 7. Ho wev er, b ecau se Lazo -Ma rti ne z fai le d t o o bjec t t o t hi s is su e p rev io us ly, we are c on fin edto rev ie win g thi s cl ai m un de r th e p la in erro r st an da rd . Gre sh am , 32 5 F .3dat 1 26 5. Th e p la in erro r st an dardrequi res a sh owi ng no t o nl y

th atanerro r oc cu rredth atwas p la in un de r es tabl is he d l aw, bu t al so th atth e p la in erro r affe ct edsubs ta nt ia l ri gh ts an d s eri ou sl y affe ct edth e fai rn es s o f th e jud ic ia l p ro ceed in gs . Id. In o rd er fo r an erro r to ha ve affe ct ed subs ta nt ia l ri gh ts , itus ua ll y “ m us t h av e affe ct edth e o ut co m e o f th e d is tri ctco urt pr oc eed in gs .” Uni te d Sta tes v. Ol an o , 50 7 U.S. 7 25 , 73 4, 1 13 S. Ct. 1 77 0, 1 77 8 (1 99 3) . “ Norm al ly . . . the de fen da ntm us t m ak e a s pe ci fic sh owi ng of p reju di ce t o sa ti sf y th e ‘affect in g s ub st an ti al rig ht s’ pro ng . . . .” Id . at73 5, 1 13 S. Ct. at17 78 . Lazo -Ma rti ne z’s br ie f arg ue s i nc orrect ly for de no vo rev ie w of h is cla im , an d t he refo re fa il s t o a dd res s t he ne ces sa ry ele m en ts of t he pl ai n e rro r te st . In t he ab se nc e o f an y

all eg at io ns of p reju di ce t o h is subs ta nt ia l ri gh ts , Lazo -Marti ne z do es no t m ak e a p ro pe r sh owi ng of r ev ers ib le pl ai n e rro r. V. Giv enth e d is tri ctco urt’s p ro cedur al erro r in rel y in g h eav il y up onan erro ne ou s fi nd in g o f fac t, we v acat e th e se nt en ce i m po se d a ndrem an d fo r re9se nt en ci ng .

VACATED AND REMANDED.

10