FILED U.S. COURT OF AP P EALS E LEV EN T HC IRC U IT NOVEMB ER 19, 2007 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- 11785 N on -A rgum entC al endar

________________________ D . C. D o c k e tN o . 0 6 - 0 0 2 7 9 - CR- T- 1 7 TBM 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 H E N R Y L E R M A , 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

_________________________ ( N ove m b e r 19, 2007) B efo re C A RN E S , B A R K E T T an d H U L L , C i rcu i tJu d g es. P E R C U R I A M: H e n ry L e r m a ap p e a ls h is 1 6 8 - m o n th s e n te n c e f o rc o n s p ir a c y to p o s s e s s w ithOn Oc tob er 6 , 2 00 6, thea

pp endix to T itl e46 wa s repe ale d a nd re c odif ie d a s 4 6 U .S. C. 1 §§ 70503 and 70506 with no re levant cha ng es. See Pub. L . No. 109-304, 120 Stat. 1485 (2006). 2 in te n t to d is tr ib u te 5 k ilo g r a m s o rm o r e o f c o c a in e w h ile ab o a r d a v e s s e l s u b je c t to the j uri sdi ct i on of the U ni t ed S t at es , i n v i ol at i on of 46 U . S . C . A pp . § 1 90 3(a) , (g), (j ) a nd 21 U . S . C . § 9 60 (b)( 1)(B )( i i ), and p osse ss i on w i th i nt entt o d i stri bu t e 5 ki l ogr a m s orm or e of

c oc a i ne w hi l e aboa r d a ve s s e l s ubj e c tt o the j ur i s di c t i on of th e U n i t e d St a t e s , i n v i o l a t i o n o f 4 6 U . S. C. A p p . § 1 9 0 3 ( a ) , ( g ) , 2 1 U . S. C. § 960( b) ( 1) ( B ) ( i i ) a nd 18 U . S . C . § 2. 1 L e r m a w a s one of

ni ne c r e w m e m be r s on a s m a l l ve s s e l tr a ns por t i ng appr oxi m a t e l y 5, 000 ki l ogr a m s of c oc a i ne . L e rm a w a s one of f ourde c k ha nds a nd t o o k tu rn s w i th th e o th er d eck h an d s d ri v i n g th e v essel i n th ree-h o u r sh i ft s. W he n the U ni t e d S t a t e s C oa s tG ua r d ( “ U S C G ” ) c a m e upon the ve s s e l , one o f th e c r e w m e m b e r s in s tru c te d th e o th e r s to p o u rg a s o lin e o n th e v e s s e l a n d s e t it on f i r e i n a n a tt e m ptt o de s tr oy the c oc a i ne . T he U S C G boa r de d the ve s s e l a nd ext i ng ui shed the fi re , bu tno tbefore L erm a a nd another c re w m em ber s ust ai ned s e c o n d a n d th ir d d e g r e e b u rn s th a t r e q u ir e d m e d ic a l a tte n tio n a t ah o s p ita l. L erm a w as i nd i ct ed and p l ed gu i l ty t o b oth cou nt s. T he pres ent ence in v e s tig a tio n r e p o r t ( “P S I ” ) s e t L e rm a ’s b a s e o f f e n s e le v e l a t 3 8 , p u r s u a n t to U . S . S . G . § 2D 1. 1( a ) ( 3) , ba s e d on the 5, 000 ki l ogr a m s of c oc a i ne f

ound on the ve s s e l . T he P S I r e c om m e nde d a thr e e - l e ve l r e duc t i on f ora c c e pt a nc e ofWe reviewa district cour t’s safety-valvefac t-findingfor c lear error. United States v. 2 Cruz, 106 F.3d 1553, 1557 (11th Cir. 1997). 3 re spon si bi l i ty, pu rs uantt o U . S . S . G . § 3 E 1. 1. W i th a cr i m i nal hi st ory c at egory of I , th e r e s u ltin g g u id e lin e r a n g e w a s 1 6 8 to 2 1 0 m o n th s ’ im p r is o n m e n t. L e r m a obj e c t e d t o the P S I ’ s f a i l ur e t o i nc l ude a tw o- l e ve l s a f e ty - va l ve re du ct i on and a tw o-l evel m i t i gat i ng -r ol e r educt i on . A tse nt enci ng , the di stri ct c o u r t o v e rru le d L e r m a ’s o b je c tio n s a n d im p o s e d a 1 6 8 - m o n th s e n te n c e o n b o th co u n t s, t o b e serv ed co n cu rren t l y. L e r m a f ile d th is ap p e a l. I . DI S CUS S I ON A . S afet y -V al ve R el i ef O n ap p e a l , Le r maa r g u e s th a tth e d i s tr i c tc o u r te rr e d w h e n i td e n i e d h i m a tw o -l ev el red u ct i o n u n d er th e safety-v al v e p ro v i si o n o f th e S en t en ci n g G u i d el i n es. 2 U nde rthe s a f

e ty - va l ve pr ovi s i on, i f

a de f e nda ntc onvi c t e d of

c e r t a i n drug c r i m e s s a t i s f

i e s c e r t a i n c r i t e r i a , a di s tr i c tc our ts ha l l i m pos e a s e nt e nc e w i thout r e g a r d t o a n y s t a tu t o ry m a n d a t o ry m i n i m u m , 1 8 U. S . C . § 3 5 5 3 ( f ) , U. S . S . G. § 5 C 1 .2 , a n d a ls o g iv e a tw o - le v e l r e d u c tio n in th e d e f e n d a n t’s o f

f e n s e le v e l, U . S . S . G . § 2D 1. 1( b) ( 9) . A de f e nda ntha s the bur de n of pr ovi ng hi s e l i gi bi l i ty f or s a f e ty - v a lv e r e lie f

. U n ite d S ta te s v . C ru z , 1 0 6 F .3 d 1 5 5 3 , 1 5 5 7 ( 1 1 th C ir . 1 9 9 7 ) . A m o n g th e cri t eri a th atm u stb e m et , th e d efen d an tm u stp ro v e th at“ th e o ffen se4

d id n o t r e s u lt in d e a th o rs e r io u s b o d ily in ju ry to a n y p e r s o n .” U . S . S . G . § 5 C 1. 2(a) (3) ( em ph as i s a dd ed). H e r e , i ti s undi s put e d tha ttw o pe opl e s us t a i ne d s e r i ous bodi l y i nj ury dur i ng the of f e ns e . L e r m a a nd one of hi s c o- de f

e nda nt s w e r e s e r i ous l y burne d a nd r e q u ir e d h o s p ita liz a tio n . L e r m a a d m its th e s e b u rn s c o n s titu te d s e r io u s b o d ily i n j u ry. L erm a poi nt s outthathe sust ai ned i nj uri es and thathe has a l re ady e nd ured pai n and suff

er i ng as a r es ul tof hi s i nj uri es . H e a l so ar gu es thathe sa ved ano ther c o - d e f e n d a n t’s lif

e b y h e lp in g h im p u t o n a lif e ja c k e t a n d p u s h in g h im o v e rb o a r d . T he pl a i n l a ngua ge of

§ 5C 1. 2( a ) ( 3) s t a t e s tha ta de f e nda nti s pr e c l ude d f

r om s a f e ty - v a lv e r e lie f

if th e o f f e n s e r e s u lte d in s e r io u s b o d ily in ju ry to a n y p e r s o n . T hu s, the i nj uri es t o L erm a’ s c o-defendantal on e pre cl ud e the re l i ef . F urtherm ore, no thi ng i n § 5C 1. 2 o r 18 U . S . C . § 3 55 3(f) prov i des f or sa fe ty- val ve re l i ef

w here a co -d ef en d an t su stain s s er io u s in ju ry , b u t th e d ef

en d an t also sa v ed a c o -d ef en d an t’ s l i fe . B ec ause L erm a di d n otm ee tthe re qu i re m ent s of § 5C 1. 2(a) (3), the di stri ct c our tc orr e c t l y de ni e d L e rm a a tw o- l e ve l s a f e ty - va l ve r e duc t i on. B . M i t i gat i n g- R ol e R e d u c t i on L erm a c on t ends thatthe di stri ctcourtshou l d h ave a w ar ded h i m a tw o-l evelA district court’s determination of a de fenda nt’s role in an of

fenseconstitutes a factual 3 findingto b ereviewe d o nly fo r c le ar error . Unite d St ate s v . D eVa ro n, 17 5 F .3 d 9 30 , 9 37 (1 1th Cir. 1999) (en ba

nc). 5 m i t i ga t i ng- r ol e r e duc t i on be c a us e he w a s m e r e l y a c r e w m e m be raboa r d the v e s s e l. 3 If the defendantw as a m i no r part i ci panti n the cr i m i nal ac t i vi ty, the di stri ct c our tde c r e a s e s the of

f e ns e l e ve l by tw o l e ve l s . U . S . S . G . § 3B 1. 2( b) . A m i nor p a r tic ip a n t is o n e “w h o is 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 , b u t w h o s e r o le c oul d notbe de s c r i be d a s m i ni m a l . ” U . S . S . G . § 3B 1. 2 c m t . n. 5. I f the de f e nda nt w a s a m i ni m a l pa r t i c i pa nti n the c r i m i na l a c t i vi ty , the di s tr i c tc our tde c r e a s e s the of f e ns e l e ve l by f

ourl e ve l s . U . S . S . G . § 3B 1. 2( a ) . A m i ni m a l pa r t i c i pa nti s one w h o “p la y s a m in im a l r o le in c o n c e r te d a c tiv ity ” a n d th e p h r a s e “is in te n d e d to c ove rde f

e nda nt s w ho a r e 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 o n d u c t o f

a g r o u p .” U .S .S .G . § 3 B 1 .2 c m t. n .4 . T h e d e f e n d a n t h a s th e b u r d e n to es t abl i sh hi s r ol e i n the offens e by aprepon dera nce of the evi dence. U ni t ed S t at es v . D e V a r o n , 1 7 5 F .3 d 9 3 0 , 9 3 9 ( 1 1 th C ir . 1 9 9 9 ) ( e n b a n c ) . In det erm i ni ng w hether am i t i gat i ng -r ol e r educt i on appl i es , the di stri ctcourt c ons i de r s tw o pr i nc i pl e s : ( 1) the de f e nda nt ’ s r ol e i n the of

f e ns e c om pa r e d t o the r e l e va ntc onduc ta ttr i but e d t o hi m i n c a l c ul a t i ng hi s ba s e of f e ns e l e ve l ; a nd ( 2) the de f e nda nt ’ s r ol e c om pa r e d t o tha tof othe rpa r t i c i pa nt s i n the of f e ns e . I d. a t940-6

45 . “ [I ] n the drug couri ercont ext. . . the am ou ntof drug s i m po rt ed i s am at er i al c ons i de r a t i on i n a s s e s s i ng a de f e nda nt ’ s r ol e i n [ hi s ] r e l e va ntc onduc t. . . . [ a nd] m a y b e d is p o s itiv e –in a n d o f its e lf –in th e e x tr e m e c a s e .” I d . a t 9 4 3 . A ddi t i ona l l y , “ w he n a drug c our i e r ’ s r e l e va ntc onduc ti s l i m i t e d t o [ hi s ] ow n a c tof i m po rt at i on , a di stri ctcourtm ayl egi t i m at el y c on cl ud e thatthe couri erpl ay ed an i m por t a ntore 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. H e r e , L e r m a w a s he l d a c c ount abl e f oronl y the a m ountof

c oc a i ne f

ound on bo ar d the vess el . T hu s, L erm a’ s r el evantcond uctw as i dent i ca l t o h i s a ctual c onduc ti n the i m por t a t i on s c he m e . F ur the rm or e , the a m ountof drugs L e rm a a nd h is c o - d e f

e n d a n ts w e r e tr a n s p o r tin g –5 ,0 0 0 k ilo g r a m s –w a s s u b s ta n tia l. I n a ddi t i on, L e r m a di d nots how tha the w a s l e s s c ul pabl e tha n m os tof the othe ri de nt i f

i abl e pa r t i c i pa nt s i n the of f e ns e . L e rm a w a s one of f ourde c k ha nds on th e v e s s e l . A s p a r to f

h i s j o b , Le rmat o o ks h i f t s d r i v i n g th e v e s s e l . W h i l e Le rma and the other deck hands m ayhave been l es s c ul pabl e than the capt ai n o f the vess el orthe “ l oa d gua r d, ” w e c a nnots a y L e rm aw a s a m i norpa r t i c i pa nt . S e e i d. a t944 (e xp l ai ni ng thati ti s possi bl e f or there t o b e no m i no r part i ci pant s i n a conspi ra cy ). L e r m a ’s c o n te n tio n th a t th e d is tr ic t c o u r t f a ile d to “m a k e a s p e c if

ic com pari son” t o L erm a’ s c o-defendant s i s w i tho utm er i t . T he di stri ctcourtst at ed on the re cord thatL erm a w as “ si m i l ar l y s i tuat ed w i th the other defe nd ant s . . . . ” I n7

a ny e ve nt , the di s tr i c tc our ti s notr e qui r e d t o c om pa r e e a c h i de nt i f i abl e pa r t i c i pa nt t o the defendanton the re cord. S ee D e V ar on , 17 5 F . 3d at94 0 (“ [A ] di stri ctcourt i s notr e qui r e d t o m a ke a ny s pe c i f i c f i ndi ngs othe rtha n the ul t i m a t e de t e rm i na t i on of the defendant ’ s r ol e i n the offens e. ”) . T h u s , th e d is tr ic t c o u r t d id n o t c le a r lye rrin d e n y in g L e rm a a m itig a tin g - r o le a d ju s tm e n t. AF F I RME D.