FILED U.S. COURT OF A P P E A LS E LE V EN T HC IR C U IT OC TO B ER 7 , 2005 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. 05- 11336 N on -A rgum entC al endar

________________________ D. C. Do c k e tNo . 0 4 - 2 0 7 1 0 - CR - J EM 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 M A G N O L I A P A Z B A R O N 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 S outhe r n D i s tr i c tof F l or i da

_________________________ ( O c t ob e r 7, 2005) B efo re T JO F L A T , D U B IN A an d F A Y , C i rcu i tJu d g es. P E R C U R I A M:2

M a gnol i a P a z B a r ona di r e c t l y a ppe a l s he r36- m onth s e nt e nc e f ori m por t i ng a m i xtur e a nd s ubs t a nc e c ont a i ni ng a de t e c t a bl e a m ountof he r oi n, i n vi ol a t i on of 2 1 U .S .C . § 9 2 5 ( a ) . P a z B a r o n a a r g u e s o n a p p e a l th a t th e d is tr ic t c o u r t e r r e d in r e f u s in g to g r a n t h e ra tw o - le v e l m in o r - r o le a d ju s tm e n t in h e rb a s e o f

f e n s e le v e l, p u r s u a n tt o U. S . S . G. § 3 B 1 . 2 ( b ) . F o rth e r e a s o n s s e tf o r th m o r e f

u l l y b e l o w, we af fi rm P az B ar on a’ s s ent ence . A cc ordi ng t o P az B ar on a’ s pre se nt ence i nv es t i gat i on re po rt(“ P S I” ), w hen she a nd her s i st erarri ved atthe M i am i Int ernat i on al A i rporti n M i am i , F l ori da, th e y b o th w e r e s e l e c t e d f o rs e c o n d a r y e x a mi n a t i o n b y i n s p e c t o r s w i th th e U . S. C u s to m s a n d B o r d e rP r o te c tio n s . P a z B a r o n a in itia lly s ta te d th a t s h e w e n t to C ol om bi a t o v i si ther i l l m ot her, and t hatshe w as tra vel i ng w i th h ersi st er . P az B a r o n a a ls o c o n s e n te d to h a v e h e rlu g g a g e e x a m in e d . A lth o u g h th e in s p e c to r s d id no tre cover narc ot i cs du ri ng thi s s ea rc h, or du ri ng a c on se nsual se ar ch of P az B ar on a’ s per son, they s t i l l suspec t ed her of bei ng a drug cou ri erand g ai ned h er c ons e ntt o c onduc ta n x- r a y e xa m i na t i on of he rpe r s on. A f

t e rthi s e xa m i na t i on r e ve a l e d f

or e i gn bodi e s i n P a z B a r ona ’ s r e c tum , the of f i c i a l s a r r e s t e d P a z B a r ona a nd tr a ns por t e d he rt o a hos pi t a l . P a z B a r ona s ubs e que nt l y e xpe l l e d thr e e l a r ge la te x - c o v e r e d p e lle ts , w h ic h c o n ta in e d h e r o in . T he P S I f

ur the ri nc l ude d tha tP a z B a r ona ’ s s i s t e rs i m i l a r l y w a s t a ke n t o aA subsequent laboratory analysis revealed that the thre e pellets Paz Ba rona e xpelled 1 contained 90.7 grams net we ight of heroin, a nd that the nine pellets her sister expelled containe d 271.5 grams net we ight of heroin. 3 h o s p ita l, w h e r e s h e e x p e lle d n in e h e r o in p e lle ts . W h e n la w e n f o r c e m e n t o f

f ic ia ls 1 a ga i n a t t e m pt e d t o que s t i on P a z B a r ona a nd he rs i s t e r , the y both de c l i ne d t o m a ke a s t a t e m e nt . P r i ort o s e nt e nc i ng, how e ve r , P a z B a r ona s ubm i t t e d t o the c our tthe f o llo w in g “a c c e p ta n c e o f r e s p o n s ib ility ” s ta te m e n t: I w e ntt o C a l i t o vi s i tm y f a m i l y the r e . W hi l e I w a s w a i t i ng a tthe de nt i s t ’ s of

f i c e one da y , I m e tthr e e pe opl e , tw o m e n a nd a w om a n, w h o o f f e r e d to p a y m e $ 1 ,5 0 0 to b r in g s o m e th in g b a c k w ith m e to N e w Y o r k . A lth o u g h th e y d id n o t s p e c if ic a lly s a y th a t it w a s d ru g s , I as sum ed i tw as drug s bec ause of the ci rc um st ance s. A fe w days l at er , they gave m e a pl as t i c bag w i th t he pel l et s i n i t . T hey t ol d m e that s o me o n e w o u l d me e tme a tth e a i rp o r ti n N e w Y o r k , t a k e me s om e w he r e t o e xpe l the pe l l e t s a nd pa y m e . T hi s pe r s on w oul d know m e by w ha tI w a s w e a r i ng. In as se ss i ng P az B ar on a’ s r ol e i n t he offe nse, the prob at i on offi ce r f ou nd thatP az B ar on a a nd her s i st er , as heroi n carri er s, (1) bot h w er e r es po nsi bl e f or the t ot al a m ountof

362. 20 gr a m s of

he r oi n, a nd ( 2) di d notpl a y e i the ra m i t i ga t i ng or a g g r a v a tin g r o le in th e o f f e n s e . P a z B a r ona f

i l e d obj e c t i ons t o the P S I , a r gui ng, a m ong othe rthi ngs , tha tthe p r o b a tio n o f

f ic e rs h o u ld h a v e r e c o m m e n d e d a § 3 B 1 .2 ( b ) m in o r - r o le a d ju s tm e n t. In su p p o rt , P az B aro n a assert ed th atsh e (1 ) w as recru i t ed t o actex cl u si v el y as a drug couri er ; (2) w as pai d a re l at i vel y s m al l am ou ntof m on ey , $1 , 50 0; (3) had4

l i m i t e d know l e dge of

the drug c ons pi r a c y , a s s he onl y m e tthe tw o m e n a nd one w o m an w h o g av e h er th e seal ed p el l et s; (4 ) h ad n o p ro p ri et ary i n t eresti n th e d ru g s; ( 5) ha d no know l e dge of the pe opl e w ho w e r e t o di s tr i but e the drugs , orof how thi s di s tr i but i on w a s t o oc c ur ; ( 6) ha d no r ol e i n pl a nni ng the of f e ns e ; ( 7) ha d no de c i s i on- m a ki ng a uthor i ty ; a nd ( 8) ha d notpa r t i c i pa t e d i n a ny othe rdrug tr a ns a c t i ons w i th the pe r s ons w ho ha ve r e c rui t e d he ra c our i e r . P a z B a r ona cont ended t hat , af

t erconsi deri ng the nature a nd degree of hercont ac tw i th o ther pa r t i c i pa nt s a nd he rr e l a t i ve s ha r e of the drug pr oc e e ds , the c our ts houl d c onc l ude th a t s h e “p e r f

o r m e d a lim ite d f

u n c tio n ” in th e o f

f e n s e . O n F e b ru a r y 2 4 , 2 0 0 5 , a t s e n te n c in g , P a z B a r o n a r e n e w e d h e ro b je c tio n to the P S I ’ s f

a i l ur e t o r e c om m e nd a § 3B 1. 2( b) a dj us tm e nt . A s pa r tof thi s obj e c t i on, P a z B a r o n a c o n te n d e d th a t th e d is tr ic t c o u r t c o u ld c o n s id e rth e f a c t th a t s h e o n ly w a s b e in g h e ld a c c o u n ta b le f o rth e a m o u n t o f

d ru g s th a t s h e p e r s o n a lly tra nspo rt ed, bu tthatthi s f ac tw as no tdet er m i nat i ve. T he court , i n turn, di sc usse d thati tw as i ncl i ned ei ther t o h ol d P az B ar on a a cc ou nt abl e onl y f or the drug s that s h e p e r s o n a lly tr a n s p o r te d in to th e U n ite d S ta te s , o rto g r a n t h e ra m in o r - r o le a d ju s tm e n t, b u t th a t it d id n o t in te n d to ta k e b o th o f th e s e a c tio n s . T h e c o u r t, h o w e v e r , c la r if ie d th a t it u n d e r s to o d th a t it h a d th e d is c r e tio n to g r a n t P a z B a r o n a a m in o r - r o le a d ju s tm e n t, e v e n if

it h e ld h e ra c c o u n ta b le f o ro n ly5

90 . 7 g ra m s of her oi n— the am ou ntof heroi n t hatshe per sonal l y tra nspo rt ed. In doi ng s o, the c our te xpl a i ne d: I a m noti nc l i ne d t o gr a ntthe m i norr ol e , a l though I w a nti tc l e a ron the r e c or d tha tI unde r s t a nd tha tI c oul d do tha t , tha ti tw oul d be w i thi n m y di s c r e t i on t o do s o. I c hoos e nott o do s o be c a us e I be l i e ve tha ti n the c ont e xtof

the l e s s e ra m ounta nd w ha ts he di d, s he ’ s not e n title d to a m in o rr o le . H ersi st erdi d n otgeta m i no r r ol e, ei ther. H ersi st erdi d n otgetan enhancem ent , ei ther, as a r es ul tof thi s. I thi nk thatthey bot h w er e w h a t th e y w e r e , ju s t p a r tic ip a n ts . A n d I d o n ’t th in k e ith e ro f th e m is ent i t l ed t o an enh ance m entor a m i no r r ol e. T he c our tul t i m a t e l y de t e r m i ne d tha tP a z B a r ona w a s r e s pons i bl e f orl e s s tha n 100 gram s of her oi n, deni ed her r equestfor a m i no r- rol e a dj ustm ent , and sent ence d h er to 3 6 m o n th s ’ im p r is o n m e n t a n d 3 y e a r s ’ s u p e r v is e d r e le a s e . O n app ea l , P az B ar on a a rgues thatthe di stri ctcourterre d i n d enyi ng her a m in o r - r o le a d

ju s tm e n t b e c a u s e it u n d u ly r e lie d o n th e f a c t th a t s h e w a s b e in g h e ld a c c o u n ta b le a t s e n te n c in g o n ly f o rh e ro w n c o n d u c t. P a z B a r o n a c o n te n d s th a t, pur s ua ntt o a 2001 A m e ndm e ntt o § 3B 1. 2, the c our tw a s notpr e c l ude d f r om gr a nt i ng a r ol e a dj us tm e nt , e ve n though s he onl y w a s he l d a c c ount a bl e f orthe qu ant i ty of drugs for w hi ch she w as i nv ol ved p er sonal l y. P az B ar on a a l so ar gu es thatthe courterre d i n fai l i ng t o con si der a l l of the fa ct s a nd ci rc um st ance sPaz B aro na ha s w a ive d b y

no t arguin gon

a pp e a l th at her s e ntenc ewa s im po se d in 2 violation of Blake ly

v. Washington, 542 U.S. 296, 124 S.Ct. 2531, 159 L .Ed.2d 403 (2004), or United States v. Booker, 543 U.S. ___, 125 S.Ct. 738, 160 L .Ed.2d 621 (2005). SeeUnited State s v . D oc kery, 4 01 F .3 d 1 26 1, 12 62 -6 3 ( 11 th C ir .) (h oldingthat ou r “we ll- e sta

bli sh e d r ule that is su e s and

c onte nti on s n ot time ly

raise d in thebrie fs arede e me d a

ba nd on e d”is a

pp lic a bleto claims based on A

pprendi v. New J ersey , 530 U.S. 466, 120 S.C t. 2348, 147 L .Ed.2d 435 (2000), and its prog eny

), petition for c ert. filed, (U.S. Aug . 5, 2005) (No. 05- 5714). W ea l s o e xp l a i n e d

i nC r aw f o rd th at , a f t e r a di s tri c tc o urth a s c a l c u l at e d a c c ur at e l y a 3 de fend ant’ s guid e lin era

ng e , it “ may imp os ea morese vereor

morele nient s e ntenc e ,”wh ic h th is Court review s only

for reasona

bleness. See Cra

wford, 407 F .3d at 1179; see also United States v. Wining e ar, No . 0 5- 11 19 8, manu sc ript op. at 9- 11 (1 1th Cir . Aug . 3 0, 20 05 ) ( c on c ludingthat, contra ry to defendant’s argument on appeal, his post-Booker sentenc e wa s rea sonable). However, bec ause Paz Ba rona ha s not argued on appe al that her sentenc e wa s unrea sonable, we also conc lude that this issue is abandoned. SeeDockery , 401 F.3d at 1261. 6 s ur r oundi ng he ri nvol ve m e nti n the of f e ns e of c onvi c t i on. 2 S ec t i on 3B 1. 2(b) of the U ni t ed S t at es S ent enci ng G ui del i nes provi des f or a tw o -l ev el d o w n w ard ad j u stm en ti n a d efen d an t ’ s b ase o ffen se l ev el i f sh e w as a m i norpa r t i c i pa nti n the of f e ns e . U . S . S . G . § 3B 1. 2( b) . T he de f e nda ntbe a r s the bur de n of

pr ovi ng by a pr e ponde r a nc e of the e vi de nc e tha ts he i s e nt i t l e d t o a m in o r- ro le ad

ju stm en t. D e V ar o n , 1 7 5 F .3 d at 9 3 9 . A d istrict co u rt’s de t e r m i na t i on of

a de f e nda nt ’ s r ol e i n a n of

f e ns e c ons t i tut e s a f

a c tua l f i ndi ng r e v ie w e d f

o rc le a re r r o r . I d . a t 9 3 7 . M o r e o v e r , p o s t- B o o k e r , w e c o n tin u e to r e vi e w a di s tr i c tc our t ’ s f a c tua l de t e r m i na t i ons f

orc l e a re r r or . S e e U ni t e d S t a t e s v. C r a w f o r d , 4 0 7 F .3 d 1 1 7 4 , 1 1 7 8 - 7 9 ( 1 1 th C ir . 2 0 0 5 ) ( e x p la in in g th a t B o o k e rd id nota l t e re i the rourr e vi e w of the a ppl i c a t i on of

the gui de l i ne s , orours t a nda r ds of re vi ew ). W e c anno tfi nd cl ea r e rr or un l es s w e a re “ l ef tw i th a defi ni t e a nd fi rm 37

c o n v ic tio n th a t a m is ta k e h a s b e e n c o m m itte d .” I d . a t 1 1 7 7 ( q u o ta tio n o m itte d ) . A m i n o r p art i ci p an tm ean s an y p art i ci p an t“ w h o i s l ess cu l p ab l e th an m o st o th e rp a r t i c i p a n t s , b u twh o s e r o l e c o u l d n o tb e d e s c r i b e d a s m i n i m a l . ” U. S . S . G. § 3B 1. 2, c om m e nt . ( n. 5) . T he a ppl i c a t i on of thi s a dj us tm e ntde pe nds he a vi l y on the f a c t s i n e a c h c a s e . I d. , c om m e nt . ( n. 3© ) ) . I n de t e r m i ni ng w he the ra de f e nda nt pl a y e d a m i norr ol e i n the of f e ns e f orw hi c h s he ha s be e n he l d a c c ount a bl e , the di stri ctcourt“ m ustm ea sure the defendant ’ s r ol e a gai nstthe re l evantcond uct a t tr i but e d t o he ri n c a l c ul a t i ng he rba s e of f e ns e l e ve l . ” D e V a r on, 175 F . 3d a t943- 44 . “ [W ] here the re l evantcond uctattri bu t ed t o a defendanti s i dent i ca l t o h er a c tua l c onduc t , s he c a nnotpr ove tha ts he i s e nt i t l e d t o a m i nor [ - ] r ol e a dj us tm e nt s i m pl y by poi nt i ng t o s om e br oa de rc r i m i na l s c he m e i n w hi c h s he w a s a m i nor pa r t i c i pa ntbutf

orw hi c h s he w a s nothe l d a c c ount a bl e . ” I d. a t941. A l though i n m a ny c a s e s thi s f i r s tm e thod of

a na l y s i s w i l l be di s pos i t i ve , the di s tr i c tc our tm a y a l s o m e a s ur e the de f e nda nt ’ s c ul pa bi l i ty i n c om pa r i s on t o tha tof o th er p art i ci p an t s i n th e rel ev an tco n d u ct . Id . at9 4 4 . In d ru g -co u ri er cases, rel ev an tco n si d erat i o n s m ay i n cl u d e, am o n g o th er factors: (1) the am o u n to f d ru g s; ( 2) the f a i rm a r ke tva l ue of

the drugs ; ( 3) the a m ountof m one y t o be pa i d t o the c our i e r ; ( 4) the e qui ty i nt e r e s ti n the drugs ; ( 5) the de f e nda nt ’ s r ol e i n pl a nni ng the c r im in a l s c h e m e ; a n d ( 6 ) th e d e f e n d a n t’s r o le in d is tr ib u tio n . I d . a t 9 4 5 .8

R e ga r dl e s s , i ti s “ e nt i r e l y pos s i bl e f orc ons pi r a c i e s t o e xi s ti n w hi c h the r e a r e no m i no r par t i ci pant s. ” U ni t ed S t at es v. Z ac ca rdi , 92 4 F . 2d 20 1, 20 3 (11 th C i r. 19 91 ). I n D e V a r on, the de f

e nda nt , a drug c our i e r , a l l e ge d tha ta nothe rpe r s on re crui t ed her, m ade the arra ng em ent s f or the tri p, and t ol d h erthatan un i dent i fi ed in d iv id u a l w o u ld r e c e iv e th e d ru g s in M ia m i. D e V a r o n , 1 7 5 F .3 d a t 9 3 4 - 3 5 , 9 4 6 . R e g a r d le s s , w e c o n c lu d e d th a t th e d is tr ic t c o u r t d id n o t c le a r ly e r rw h e n it det er m i ned t hatthe defendant , w ho had sm ug gl ed 51 2. 4 g ra m s of her oi n i nsi de her body i nt o the U ni t e d S t a t e s , ha d notpl a y e d a m i norr ol e i n he rr e l e va ntc onduc tof i m por t i ng the he r oi n. I d. a t934, 947. S i m i l art o t he defendanti n D e V ar on , P az B ar on a has fa i l ed t o est abl i sh that the di stri ctcourtcl ea rl y e rr ed i n ref usi ng t o g ra nther a m i no r- rol e a dj ustm ent . P az B ar on a’ s a ctof i m po rt i ng 90 . 7 g ra m s of her oi n con st i tut ed the re l evantcond uct thatw as attri bu t ed t o h er . U nd erthe se cond partof the D e V ar on anal ys i s, P az B ar on a a l so fa i l ed t o sho w thatshe w as subst ant i al l y l es s c ul pabl e than o ther part i ci pant s i n t he conspi ra cy . A s di sc usse d abo ve, P az B ar on a a ss er t ed i n sup po rt of he rm i nor - r ol e obj e c t i on tha ts he ( 1) w a s r e c rui t e d t o a c te xc l us i ve l y a s a drug couri er ; (2) w as pai d a re l at i vel y s m al l am ou ntof m on ey ; (3) had l i m i t ed k n o w l ed g e o f th e d ru g co n sp i racy; (4 ) h ad n o p ro p ri et ary i n t eresti n th e d ru g s; ( 5) ha d no know l e dge of the pe opl e w ho w e r e t o di s tr i but e the drugs , orof how9

thi s di s tr i but i on w a s t o oc c ur ; ( 6) ha d no r ol e i n pl a nni ng the of f e ns e ; ( 7) ha d no de c i s i on- m a ki ng a uthor i ty ; a nd ( 8) ha d notpa r t i c i pa t e d i n othe rdrug tr a ns a c t i ons w i th the pe r s ons w ho ha ve r e c rui t e d he ra c our i e r . P a z B a r ona ’ s “ a c c e pt a nc e of r e s pons i bi l i ty s t a t e m e nta l s o r e f l e c t e d tha ts he w a s r e c rui t e d by pe r s ons s he di d not k n o w , a n d th a t s h e d id n o t k n o w th e p e r s o n to w h o m s h e w a s to d e liv e rth e h e r o in . P az B ar on a, ho w ever , w as pers on al l y r es po nsi bl e f or i m po rt i ng a s ub st ant i al a m o u n t o f

h e r o in , w ith th e in te n t to d e liv e rth e h e r o in a n d c o lle c t $ 1 ,5 0 0 in e xc ha nge . S e e D e V a r on, 175 F . 3d a t941. O ut s i de of the f a c ttha the rs i s t e r— the o n ly o th e rid e n tif

ia b le m e m b e ro f

th e d ru g o p e r a tio n — d e liv e r e d a g r e a te rq u a n tity o f h e r o in , P a z B a r o n a a ls o f a ile d to s h o w th a t h e rs is te r , in im p o r tin g h e r o in in to the U ni t e d S t a t e s a tthe s a m e t i m e , pl a y e d a gr e a t e rr ol e i n the ope r a t i on. I nde e d, in d e n y in g P a z B a r o n a a m in o r - r o le a d ju s tm e n t, th e c o u r t n o te d th a t it s im ila r ly ha d notgr a nt e d a n a dj us tm e ntt o P a z B a r ona ’ s s i s t e r . T hus , the c our tdi d not c le a r ly e r rin c o n c lu d in g th a t th e r e w e r e n o m in o rp a r tic ip a n ts . S e e id . a t 9 3 9 . T o the e xt e ntP a z B a r ona a l s o i s c ont e ndi ng tha tthe c our tm i s a ppl i e d the s e n te n c in g g u id e lin e s b y r e ly in g e x c lu s iv e ly o n th e f a c t th a t s h e w a s h e ld a c c ount a bl e f

oronl y the 90. 7 gr a m s of he r oi n tha ts he pe r s ona l l y i m por t e d i nt o the c ountr y , thi s a r gum e nts i m i l a r l y i s w i thoutm e r i t . A m e ndm e nt635 of the S e n te n c in g G u id e lin e s , w h ic h r e v is e d th e c o m m e n ta r y to § 3 B 1 .2 , s ta te s th a t a10

de f e nda nt“ w ho i s a c c ount a bl e unde r§ 1B 1. 3 ( R e l e va ntC onduc t ) onl y f orthe co n d u cti n w h i ch th e d efen d an tp erso n al l y w as i n v o l v ed an d w h o p erfo rm s a l i m i t e d f unc t i on i n c onc e r t e d c r i m i na l a c t i vi ty i s notpr e c l ude d f r om c ons i de r a t i on f o ra n a d ju s tm e n t u n d e rth is g u id e lin e .” S e e U .S .S .G . § 3 B 1 .2 , c o m m e n t. ( n .3 ( A ) ) . H ow e ve r , w e ha ve de t e r m i ne d tha tthe S e nt e nc i ng C om m i s s i on, i n pa s s i ng A m en d m en t 6 3 5 , m er ely r atified o u r c o n clu sio n in D e V ar o n th at a d ef en d an t’ s rol e a s a drug couri ercr ea t es no pres um pt i on as t o w hether or nothi s r ol e w as m in o r . S e e U n ite d S ta te s v . B o y d , 2 9 1 F .3 d 1 2 7 4 , 1 2 7 7 ( 1 1 th C ir . 2 0 0 2 ) . M o r e o v e r , in s ta tin g th a t it u n d e r s to o d th a t it h a d th e d is c r e tio n to g r a n t a m i no r- rol e a dj ustm ent , and t hati t“ cho[se ] no tt o d o so b ec ause [i t ] bel i eve[ d] that i n the c ont e xtof

the l e s s e ra m ounta nd w ha t[ P a z B a r ona ] di d, s he [ w a s ] not e nt i t l e d t o a m i norr ol e , ” the c our tde m ons tr a t e d tha ti tunde r s t ood tha ti tw a s not fore cl osed fr om grant i ng the adj ustm ent . T hese st at em ent s a l so show thatthe court c ons i de r e d f

a c t or s i n a ddi t i on t o drug a m ount , a nd tha ti tf ound tha tthi s a dj us tm e nt u n w a r r a n te d b a s e d o n th e p a r tic u la rc ir c u m s ta n c e s in th e c a s e . A cc ordi ng l y, w e c on cl ud e thatthe di stri ctcourt ’ s dec i si on no tt o g ra ntP az B ar on a a § 3 B 1. 2(b) m i no r- rol e a dj ustm entw as no tcl ea rl y e rr on eous. W e, th e r e f o r e , a f f i r m. AF F I RME D.