### F I LE D U. S . COURT OF AP PE ALS E LEVE NTH CI RCUI T M ar c h 20, 2006 T HOM AS K. KAHN C L 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- 12628 N on -A rgum entC al endar

________________________ D . C. D o c k e tN o . 0 4 - 0 0 3 3 5 - CR- T- 1 7 - M SS 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 J O S E M U R I L L O - M O Y 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

_________________________ ( M ar c h 20, 2006) B efo re B L A C K , B A R K E T T an d W IL S O N , C i rcu i tJu d g es. P E R C U R I A M: J os e M ur i l l o- M oy a ( “ M ur i l l o” ) appe a l s hi s 135- m onth s e nt e nc e f or2

pos s e s s i on w i th the i nt e ntt o di s tr i but e f i ve ki l ogr a m s orm or e of c oc a i ne w hi l e on boa 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 the U ni t e d S t a t e s , i n vi ol a t i on of 46 U . S . C . app. § 1903( a ) , ( g) , 18 U . S . C . § 2, a nd 21 U . S . C . § 960( b) ( 1) ( B ) ( i i ) , a nd c ons pi r a c y t o pos s e s s w i th the i nt e ntt o di s tr i but e f i ve ki l ogr a m s orm or e of c o c a in e w h ile o n b o a r d a v e s s e l s u b je c t to th e ju r is d ic tio n o f th e U n ite d S ta te s , in v io la tio n o f

4 6 U .S .C . ap p . § 1 9 0 3 ( a ) , ( g ) , ( j) , a n d 2 1 U .S .C . § 9 6 0 ( b ) ( 1 ) ( B ) ( ii) . F i r s t , M ur i l l o c ha l l e nge s on appe a l the di s tr i c tc our t ’ s f a i l ur e t o a w a r d a m i norr ol e r e duc t i on, a r gui ng tha tthe di s tr i c tc our tonl y c ons i de r e d the qua nt i ty of drug s tra nspo rt ed and d i d n otconsi der the fa ctthathi s r ol e w as on l y t o tra nsfe r f u e l a n d s u p p lie s o rth a t h e h a d n o f in a n c ia l in te r e s t in th e d ru g tr a n s a c tio n . M uri l l o al so no t es thathe di d n otow n the vess el , di d n othave any s peci al i ze d s ki l l s , ha d no di r e c tc ont a c tw i th the c oc a i ne s hi pm e nt , a nd di d nota i d i n the p la n n in g o f

th e s h ip m e n t. N ext , M uri l l o argues thathi s s ent ence i s unrea sonabl e und er U ni t ed Stat es v. B oo ke r , 54 3 U . S . 22 0, 12 5 S . C t . 73 8, 16 0 L . E d. 2d 62 1 (20 05 ), cont endi ng that th e d is tr ic t c o u r t f

a ile d to c o n s id e rs e v e r a l o f th e 1 8 U .S .C . § 3 5 5 3 ( a ) f a c to r s . M ur i l l o a r gue s tha thi s s e nt e nc e doe s notr e f l e c tthe s e r i ous ne s s of

hi s pa r t i c i pa t i on o rp r o v i d e a j u s tp u n i s h m e n tf o ra p e r s o n try i n g t o p r o v i d e f o ra f a m i l y . He c ont e nds tha thi s s e nt e nc e i s e xc e s s i ve be c a us e i tf a i l s t o c ons i de rtha the w oul d be3

de por t e d upon r e l e a s e f

r om pr i s on a nd w oul d notbe i n a pos i t i on t o ha r m a ny one e ls e in th e U n ite d S ta te s . Up o n r e v i e w o f

th e r e c o r d a n d u p o n c o n s i d e r a t i o n o f th e p a r t i e s ’ b r i e f

s , we f in d n o r e v e r s ib le e rr o r . I.

“ [A ] d i stri ctco u rt ’ s d et erm i n at i o n o f a d efen d an t ’ s ro l e i n th e o ffen se i s a fi nd i ng of fa ctt o b e r evi ew ed on l y f or cl ea r e rr or. ” U

ni t e d Stat e s v . D e V

ar on , 175 F . 3d 930, 937 ( 11th C i r . 1999) ( e n ba nc ) . T he pr opone ntof the r e duc t i on be a r s the bur de n of

pr ovi ng the m i norr ol e i n the of f e ns e by a pr e ponde r a nc e of the e v id e n c e . Id . a t939. I n de t e r m i ni ng the de f e nda nt ’ s r ol e i n the of

f e ns e , the

“ deci si on fa l l s w i thi n the soun d d i sc re t i on of the tri al court . ” Id . a t945. “ S o l ong a s the ba s i s of

the tr i a l c our t ’ s de c i s i on i s s uppor t e d by the r e c or d and doe s not i nv ol ve a m i sapp l i ca t i on of a rul e of l aw , w e bel i eve thati tw i l l be ra re for a n ap p e lla te c o u r t to c o n c lu d e th a t th e s e n te n c in g c o u r t’s d e te r m in a tio n is c le a r ly erroneou s. ” Id . T h e d is tr ic t c o u r t n e e d n o t m a k e s p e c if ic f a c tu a l f in d in g s in d e te r m in in g th e d e f

e n d a n t’s r o le . Id . at 9 3 9 . “ S o lo n g as th e d istrict co u rt’s d eci si o n i s su p p o rt ed b y th e reco rd an d th e co u rtcl earl y reso l v es an y disput ed fa ctual i ss ues, a s i m pl e s t at em entof the di stri ctcourt ’ s c on cl usi on i s s uffi ci ent . ” Id .4

Th e g u i d e l i n e s p r o v i d e f o ra tw o - l e v e l mi n o rp a r t i c i p a n tr e d u c t i o n . U . S. S e n te n c in g G u id e lin e s M a n u a l § 3 B 1 .2 . A d e f e n d a n t is a m in o rp a r tic ip a n t if h e is le s s c u lp a b le th a n m o s t o th e rp a r tic ip a n ts , b u t h is r o le w a s n o t m in im a l. Id . c m t. n .5 . I n d e te r m in in g w h e th e ra r o le r e d u c tio n is w a rr a n te d , a d is tr ic t c o u r t “s h o u ld b e in fo rm ed b y tw o p rin cip les d isce rn ed fr o m th e G u id elin es : first, th e d ef en d an t’ s r ol e i n the r e l e va ntc onduc tf orw hi c h [ he ] ha s be e n he l d a c c ount a bl e a ts e nt e nc i ng, a nd, s e c ond, [ hi s ] r ol e a s c om pa r e d t o tha tof othe rpa r t i c i pa nt s i n [ hi s ] r e l e va nt cond uct . ” D e V

ar on , 17 5 F . 3d at94 0. U nd erthe fi rs tpron g, the di stri ctcourt “m u s t a s s e s s w h e th e rth e d e f e n d a n t is a m in o ro rm in im a l p a r tic ip a n t in r e la tio n to th e rel ev an tco n d u ctattri b u t ed t o th e d efen d an ti n cal cu l at i n g [h i s] b ase o ffen se l evel . ” Id . at 9 4 1 . U n d erth e s ec o n d p ro n g , th e c o u rt “m ea su re [s ] th e d ef en d an t’ s cul pabi l i ty i n com pari son t o thatof ot her par t i ci pant s i n the re l evantcond uct . ” Id . a t944. I n thi s a na l y s i s the c our t“ s houl d l ook t o othe rpa r t i c i pa nt s onl y t o the ext entthatthey a re i dent i fi abl e or di sc ernabl e f rom the evi dence” a nd “ m ay consi der onl y tho se part i ci pant s w ho w er e i nv ol ved i n the re l evantcond uct attri bu t ed t o the defendant . ” Id . T h e d is tr ic t c o u r t d id n o t c le a r ly e rrin d e n y in g a m in o rr o le r e d u c tio n . W ith re spec tt o the fi rs tpron g o f D e V ar on , a di s tr i c tc our tm a y l e gi t i m a t e l y c onc l ude5

th at a d ru g co u rierp laye d an im p o rtan t an d es se n ti al ro le w h er e th e c o u rier ’s r e le v a n t c o n d u c t is lim ite d to h is o w n c r im in a l a c t. I d. a t942- 43. T he r e l e va nt cond uctattri bu t ed t o M uri l l o w as i dent i ca l t o h i s a ctual cond uctbecause he w as on l y hel d acc ou nt abl e f or the 16 bal es of cocai ne re covered fr om the vess el , w hi ch c ont a i ne d 320 ki l ogr a m s of c oc a i ne . T hus , M ur i l l o’ s c l a i m unde rthe f i r s tpr ong f a ils . W i th res pectt o the se cond pron g, M uri l l o’ s c ou nsel ar gu ed thatM uri l l o w as onl y a de c k ha nd w ho w a s noti nvol ve d i n the pl a nni ng orf i na nc i ng of

the shi pm entand w ou l d n othave profi t ed fr om the shi pm ent . T he P re se nt ence Invest i gat i on R eport(“ P S I” ) di d n otspec i fy w hatrol es the ot her c re w m em bers p la y e d in o r g a n iz in g th e d ru g s h ip m e n t, a n d M u r illo d id n o t p r o f f e ra n y f a c ts di st i ng ui shi ng hi s r ol e f rom the ot her c re w m em bers . M uri l l o d i d n ott es t i fy re gardi ng hi s i nv ol vem enti n the tra nsac t i on or proffert es t i m on y f rom any other d e f e n d a n t s i n d i c a t i n g th a th e p l a y e d a s m a l l e rr o l e th a n o th e rc r e w m e m b e r s . As the re cord i s l ar gel y devoi d o f e vi dence cl ar i fy i ng any di st i nct i on i n the rol es p l ayed b y th e crew m em b ers, M u ri l l o ’ s arg u m en tal so fai l s u n d er th i s p ro n g . T h u s, M uri l l o h as no tm ethi s hi gh bu rden of prov i ng thatthe di stri ctcourtcl ea rl y e rr ed in d e n y in g a m in o rr o le r e d u c tio n . II .The government argues on appeal that we do not have subject matter jurisdiction to hear 1 challeng es to the re asonab l en ess of the sentencein this case. We re cently held, however, that “a po st-Booker

appeal based on the ‘ unre as o n ableness’ of a sentence , whether within or outside the advisory guidelines range, is an appe al asser ting that a

sentenc e wa s imposed in violation of law pursuant to § 3742( a)( 1).” United States v. Martinez , 434 F.3d 1318, 1322 ( 11th Cir. 2006) (per curiam). 6 F ol l ow i ng the S upr e m e C our t ’ s de c i s i on i n B oo ke r , w e r ev iew a d ef en d an t’ s f in a l s e n te n c e im p o s e d , in its e n tir e ty , f o rr e a s o n a b le n e s s in lig h t o f th e f a c to r s in 18 U . S . C . § 3 55 3(a) . U ni t e d Stat e s v . W

i ni nge ar , 42 2 F . 3d 12 41 , 12 46 (11t h C i r. 1 2005) ( pe rc ur i a m ) . T hos e 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 ; ( 2) the hi s t ory a nd c ha r a c t e r i s t i c s of the de f e nda nt ; ( 3) the ne e d f

orthe s e nt e nc e i m pos e d t o 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 or the l a w , a nd t o pr ovi de j us tpuni s hm e nt ; ( 4) the ne e d t o pr ot e c tthe publ i c ; a nd ( 5) th e g u id e lin e r a n g e . See 1 8 U .S .C . § 3 5 5 3 ( a ) . A d is tr ic t c o u r t is n o t r e q u ir e d to s t a t e on the r e c or d tha ti tha s e xpl i c i t l y c ons i de r e d e a c h of the § 3553( a ) f

a c t or s or to d is c u s s e a c h o f

th e § 3 5 5 3 ( a ) f

a c to r s . U

n ite d S ta te s v . Sc o tt , 426 F . 3d 1324, 13 29 (11t h C i r. 20 05 ). W e have ac kn ow l edged t hatthe gu i del i nes r em ai n “ ce ntra l t o the s e nt e nc i ng pr oc e s s , ” butw e ha ve r e j e c t e d the i de a tha ta s e nt e nc e w i thi n the g u id e lin e s is p e rs e r e a s o n a b le . U ni t ed Stat es v. T

al l ey , 4 3 1 F .3 d 7 8 4 , 7 8 7 ( 1 1 th C ir . 2 0 0 5 ) ( p e rc u r ia m ) . W e hol d thatM uri l l o’ s s ent ence i s r ea sonabl e i n l i gh tof the § 3 55 3(a)Be causethe sentenc e is reasona ble under either an abuse of discretion or plain error review 2 standard, w e do not address whether Murillo raised a sufficient rea sonablen es s o b j ection in the di s tri c tc o urt , wh i c hw o u l d a f f e c twh i c hs t an d ard

o f re v i e ww o u l d

a p p l y. 7 fa ct ors. T he courtst at ed atse nt enci ng thati thad con si dere d the advi sory

2 gu i del i nes a nd § 3 55 3(a) fa ct ors a nd had d et erm i ned t hatthe se nt ence i m po se d w as s uf f i c i e ntbutnotgr e a t e rtha n ne c e s s a ry t o c om pl y w i th the s t a tut or y purpos e s of se nt enci ng . M uri l l o’ s 135 -m on th sent ence i s a tthe l ow end o f the gu i del i ne ra ng e, a r ange thatt akes i nt o acc ou ntM uri l l o’ s off ense cond uct , pers on al char ac t er i st i cs a n d h is to ry , ju s t p u n is h m e n t, a n d a d e q u a te d e te rr e n c e . Se e Sc o tt , 4 2 6 F .3 d a t 1 3 3 0 . M uri l l o’ s s ent ence i s a l so w i thi n the st atut ory r ange of t en ye ar s t o l i fe . T he court a ls o c o n s id e r e d th e n a tu r e o f th e o f f e n s e a n d th e n e e d to p r o v id e a d e q u a te det erre nce because i tcom m ent ed thateven i nd i vi du al s pl ay i ng al l eged sm al l er r o le s in d ru g s m u g g lin g n e e d to b e d e te rr e d . T h u s , M u r illo ’s s e n te n c e is reaso n ab l e i n l i g h to f th e § 3 5 5 3 (a) factors. AF F I RME D.