FI LED U. S . COURT OF AP PE ALS E L E V E N T H C IR C U IT M ay 29, 2008 T HOM AS K. KAHN CL 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. 07- 12622 N on -A rgum entC al endar

________________________ D. C. Do c k e tNo . 0 6 - 1 0 0 1 1 - CR - J LK 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 A L B E R T P I N A - S U A R E Z , 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 ay 29, 2008) B efo re B L A C K , C A RN E S an d B A R K E T T , C i rcu i tJu d g es. P E R C U R I A M:2

A l be r tP i na - S ua r e z , f

ol l ow i ng a j ury tr i a l , appe a l s hi s c onvi c t i ons a nd se nt ence s f

or 24 coun t s of bri ng i ng i n al i ens a ta pl ac e other than a desi gn at ed po rt o f e n try , in v io la tio n o f

8 U .S .C . § 1 3 2 4 ( a ) ( 2 ) ( B ) ( iii) , a n d o n e c o u n t o f f a ilu r e to heave t o, i n v i ol at i on of 18 U . S . C . § 2 23 7. P i na-S uare z a ss ert s: (1) the evi dence w as i nsuffi ci entt o sup po rthi s c on vi ct i on s und erbo th st atut es ; (2) the di stri ctcourt e rr e d i n i ns truc t i ng the j ury ; ( 3) the di s tr i c tc our tabus e d i t s di s c r e t i on i n a l l ow i ng i nt o evi dence an al t er ed vi deot ape a nd t es t i m on y r egar di ng a G P S un i the used dur i ng a pr e vi ous tr i p; ( 4) the di s tr i c tc our te rr e d i n e nha nc i ng hi s s e nt e nc e f or c a u s in g b o d ily in

ju ry a n d o b s tru c tio n o f

ju s tic e ; a n d ( 5 ) h is to ta l 9 6 - m o n th s e n te n c e w a s u n r e a s o n ab le . W e a f f ir m P in a - S u a r e z ’s c o n v ic tio n s a n d s e n te n c e s . I . DI S C US S I ON A . Su f f i ci ency of

the E vi dence 1 . 1 8 U

.S.C . §1 3 2 4 (

a ) ( 2 ) ( B ) ( iii) G e ne r a l l y , a de f

e nda nt ’ s pr e s e nt a t i on of a c a s e a f t e rthe de ni a l of

a m ot i on for j ud gm entof ac qu i tt al , m ade a tthe cl ose of the go vernm ent ’ s c as e- i n-chi ef , o p e r a te s a s a w a iv e ro f

a n y o b je c tio n to th e d e c is io n o n th e m o tio n . U ni ted Stat es v. Jones , 3 2 F .3 d 1 5 1 2 , 1 5 1 6 ( 1 1 th C ir . 1 9 9 4 ) . W h e n th e d e f e n d a n t f a ils to p r e s e r v e a m o t i o n f

o rj u d g m e n to f

a c q u i tt a l a tth e c l o s e o f a l l th e e v i d e n c e , we rev i ew th e su ffi ci en cy o f th e ev i d en ce fo r a m an i festi n j u st i ce, w h i ch req u i res a3

f i ndi ng the e vi de nc e on a ke y e l e m e ntof the of f e ns e i s s o t e nuous tha ta c onvi c t i on w o u ld b e s h o c k in g . U

n ite d S ta te s v . T

a p ia , 76 1 F . 2d 14 88 , 14 92 (11th C i r. 19 85 ). W e c o n s id e ra ll o f

th e e v id e n c e p r o d u c e d a t tr ia l a g a in s t th e d e f e n d a n t in e v a lu a tin g a c la im th a t th e e v id e n c e w a s in s u f f ic ie n t to c o n v ic t. U

ni ted Stat es v. T hom as , 8 F . 3d 1552, 1558 n. 12 ( 11th C i r . 1993) . M or e ove r , w he n a de f e nda nt choo se s t o t es t i fy athi s ow n tri al , the j ury i s f re e noton l y t o rej ec thi s t es t i m on y a s a c o m p le te f

ab r ic a tio n , b u t is a ls o f

r e e to c o n c lu d e th e o p p o s ite o f h is te s tim o n y is tru e . See U

ni ted Stat es v. V

azqu ez , 5 3 F .3 d 1 2 1 6 , 1 2 2 5 - 2 6 ( 1 1 th C ir . 1 9 9 5 ) . A s p a r to f

i t s c a s e i n p r o v i n g a d e f e n d a n tv i o l a t e d 8 U . S. C. § 1 3 2 4 ( a ) ( 2 ) ( B ) ( iii) , th e g o v e rn m e n t m u s t p r o v e “th e d e f e n d a n t c o n d u c te d h im s e lf

‘ know i ng ori n r e c kl e s s di s r e ga r d of the f a c ttha ta n a l i e n ha s notr e c e i ve d pr i or offi ci al autho ri za t i on t o com e t o, ent er , or re si de i n the U ni t ed S t at es . ’ ” U ni ted Stat es v. P er ez , 4 4 3 F. 3 d 7 7 2 , 7 8 0 ( 1 1 th Ci r . 2 0 0 6 ) ( c i t i n g 8 U . S. C. § 1324( a ) ( 2) ( B ) ( i i i ) ) . W e ha ve i nt e rpr e t e d the “ r e c kl e s s di s r e ga r d” e l e m e ntof tra nspo rt i ng i l l egal al i ens a s “ t o b e a w ar e of, bu tconsci ou sl y a nd ca re l es sl y i gn ore, fa ct s a nd ci rc um st ance s c l ea rl y i nd i ca t i ng thatthe pers on tra nspo rt ed w as an al i en w ho had ent er ed or re m ai ned i n the U ni t ed S t at es i n v i ol at i on of l aw . ” I d. a t781 (quo t i ng E l eventh C i rc ui tP att ern Jury I nstruct i on s ( C ri m i nal ) a t83 . 2 (20 03 ))4

( e m pha s i s om i tt e d) . W e ha ve a l s o appr ove d the f ol l ow i ng de f

i ni t i on of the

“ reck l ess d i sreg ard ” el em en to f tran sp o rt i n g i l l eg al al i en s: T he phra s e “ r e c kl e s s di s r e ga r d of the f a c t , ” a s i tha s be e n us e d f r om tim e to tim e in th e s e in s tru c tio n s , m e a n s d e lib e r a te in d if f e r e n c e to fa ct s w hi c h, i f

c on s i de r e d a nd w e i gh e d i n ar e a s on abl e ma nn er , i nd i c a t e the hi gh e s t pr ob abi l i ty tha t the a l l e ge d a l i e ns w e r e i n fac t al i en s an d w ere i n th e U n i t ed S t at es u n l aw fu l l y. I d. a t781 ( quot i ng U

ni te d State s v . Z latogur , 2 7 1 F .3 d 1 0 2 5 , 1 0 2 9 ( 1 1 th C i r. 20 01 )) . A re vi ew of the re cord i n thi s c as e r ef l ec t s s uffi ci entevi dence for a c onvi c t i on unde re a c h e l e m e ntof § 1324. T he i nt e ntunde r§ 1324 r e qui r e s the gove rnm e ntpr ove the de f e nda nta c t e d i n “ know i ng ori n r e c kl e s s di s r e ga r d” of the fa ctthe i nd i vi du al s he w as bri ng i ng i n w er e i l l egal al i ens. T es t i m on y a ttri al e s t abl i s he d P i na - S ua r e z ha d aboa tf ul l of pe opl e a s ki ng t o be tr a ns por t e d t o the U ni t ed S t at es , they di d n otspea k E ng l i sh, he had ei ther pi cked them up fr om a r af t i n th e o cean m ad e o u to f trees fo u n d i n C u b a o r fro m C u b a i t sel f, an d th e C o ast G u a r d o r d e r e d h im to s to p , w h ic h h e f a ile d to d o . F u r th e r , P in a - S u a r e z s ta te d in hi s t e s t i m ony the pe opl e on hi s boa tt ol d hi m how m uc h the y w a nt e d t o be A m er i ca n. Itw as re as on abl e, base d o n thi s e vi dence, for aj ury t o con cl ud e P i naS uare z knew , or ac t ed w i th d el i bera t e i nd i ff er ence t o the fa ctthe peop l e on h i s boat w e r e i n f a c ti l l e ga l a l i e ns . T he e vi de nc e pr e s e nt e d r e ga r di ng the e l e m e ntof5

“ know i ng ori n r e c kl e s s di s r e ga r d” i s the r e f or e not“ s o t e nuous tha ta c onvi c t i on w ou l d b e s ho cki ng . ” Se e T a p ia , 761 F . 2d a t1492. 2. 18 U

. S. C . § 2237 W h e r e , a s h e r e , a d e f

e n d a n t r a is e s a n o b

je c tio n f o rth e f ir s t tim e o n ap p e a l, w e r e v ie w f

o rp la in e rr o rto a v o id m a n if e s t in ju s tic e . U

ni ted Stat es v. H

un er lach , 19 7 F . 3d 10 59 , 10 68 (11th C i r. 19 99 ). U nd erthi s s t andard, there m ustbe (1) a n e rr o r , ( 2 ) th a t is p la in , a n d ( 3 ) th a t a f f e c ts s u b s ta n tia l r ig h ts . U ni ted Stat es v. O lano , 11 3 S . C t . 17 70 , 17 76 (199 3). W hen these three fa ct ors a re m et , w e m ay c orr e c tthe e rr ori f

i ts e r i ous l y a f

f e c t s the f a i rne s s , i nt e gr i ty , orpubl i c r e put a t i on of ju d ic ia l p r o c e e d in g s . I

d. A n err or i s pl ai n i f i ti s “ ‘ ob vi ou s’ and ‘ cl ea r und er curr entl aw . ’ ” U

ni ted Stat es v. H

um ph re y , 1 6 4 F .3 d 5 8 5 , 5 8 8 ( 1 1 th C ir . 1 9 9 9 ) . T he r e c a n be no pl a i n e rr or , how e ve r , w he r e the r e i s no s t a tut e orpr e c e de ntf r om th e S u p r e m e C o u r t o rth is C o u r t d ir e c tly r e s o lv in g a n is s u e . U ni te d State s v . Chau , 4 2 6 F .3 d 1 3 1 8 , 1 3 2 2 ( 1 1 th C ir . 2 0 0 5 ) ( c ita tio n o m itte d ) . T o s uppor ta c onvi c t i on unde r18 U . S . C . § 2237, the gove rnm e ntbe a r s the b u rd en o f p ro v i n g a d efen d an t : (1 ) k n o w i n g l y fai l ed t o o b ey (2 ) an o rd er b y a F e d e r a l la w e n f

o r c e m e n t o f

f ic e r( 3 ) to h e a v e to th a t v e s s e l. 1 8 U .S .C . § 2 2 3 7 . T h e r e is n o c a s e la w f

r o m th is C ir c u it, n o rf

r o m th e S u p r e m e C o u r t, re gardi ng the i nt entre qu i re d for a c on vi ct i on un der 18 U . S . C . § 2 23 7. T here fore ,6

b e c a u s e th is c la im is r e v ie w e d f o rp la in e rr o r , it n e c e s s a r ily f a ils . See H

um ph re y , 1 6 4 F .3 d a t 5 8 8 ; Chau , 426 F . 3d a t1322. P i na - S ua r e z doe s notc ont e nd the evi dence w as i nsuffi ci entt o sup po rta c on vi ct i on i f a§ 2 23 7 v i ol at i on i s ageneral i n t en tcri m e, an d h e ad m i t s th e co u rti n stru ct ed th e j u ry th i s w as th e l aw . B ecau se no ca se l aw exi st s s t at i ng § 2 23 7 v i ol at i on s a re spec i fi c i nt entcr i m es , thi s C ou rt ne e d notc ons i de rw he the rthe e vi de nc e w a s s uf f i c i e ntt o s uppor ta f

i ndi ng of spec i fi c i nt ent , because there i s no p l ai n err or. B . J ur y I ns tr uc t i ons 1. 8 U

. S. C . § 1324(

a) ( 2) ( B ) ( i i i ) and 18 U

. S. C . § 2237 W he r e , a s he r e , a de f

e nda ntc ha l l e nge s a j ury i ns truc t i on f orthe f i r s tt i m e on ap p e a l, th e in s tru c tio n is r e v ie w e d f o rp la in e rr o r . U

n i ted S ta tes v. Mo o re , 253 F .3 d 6 0 7 , 6 0 9 ( 1 1 th C ir . 2 0 0 1 ) . T o s uppor ta c onvi c t i on unde r8 U . S . C . § 1324( a ) ( 2) ( B ) ( i i i ) , the gove rnm e nt m us tpr ove “ the de f

e nda ntc onduc t e d hi m s e l f ‘ know i ng ori n r e c kl e s s di s r e ga r d of the fa ctthatan al i en has notre ce i ved p ri or offi ci al autho ri za t i on t o com e t o, ent er , or re si de i n the U ni t ed S t at es . ’ ” P er ez , 443 F . 3d a t780. W i th r e ga r d t o the i nt e nt i ns truc t i on f

or8 U . S . C . § 1324, the di s tr i c tc our ti ns truc t e d the j ury the G ov ernm enthad t o p rove, beyond al l re as on abl e dou bt“ the defendantac t ed know i ngl y ori n r e c kl e s s di s r e ga r d of the f a c ttha tthe a l i e n ha d notr e c e i ve d pr i or7

offi ci al autho ri za t i on t o com e t o o r e nt erthe U ni t ed S t at es , re gardl es s of w hether the al i en w as l at eral l ow ed t o rem ai n i n the U ni t ed S t at es . ” T he courtfurther c l a r i f i e d t o a c tw i th r e c kl e s s di s r e ga r d m e a ns “ t o be a w a r e of , butc ons c i ous l y a nd ca re l es sl y i gn ore, fa ct s a nd ci rc um st ance s c l ea rl y i nd i ca t i ng thatthe pers on w as an al i en w ho had ent er ed or re m ai ned i n the U ni t ed S t at es i n v i ol at i on of l aw . ” B e c a u s e th e r e q u is ite c r im in a l in te n t f o ra c o n v ic tio n u n d e rth is s e c tio n is

“ know i ng orw i th r e c kl e s s di s r e ga r d, ” a nd be c a us e the c our ti ns truc t e d the j ury on th a t in te n t, P in a - S u a r e z h a s f a ile d to s h o w e rr o ro n th e p a r t o f th e d is tr ic t c o u r t in i t s i nstruct i on s on thi s c harge. T o s uppor ta c onvi c t i on unde r18 U . S . C . § 2237, the gove rnm e ntm us tpr ove a de f e nda nt( 1) know i ngl y f

a i l e d t o obe y ( 2) a n or de rby a F e de r a l l a w e nf or c e m e nt offi ce r ( 3) t o h ea ve t o thatvess el . 18 U . S . C . § 2 23 7. W i th regard t o i nt entun der th is s e c tio n , th e c o u r t in s tru c te d th e ju ry th e g o v e rn m e n t h a d to p r o v e b e y o n d a ll re as on abl e dou bt“ the defendantkn ow i ng l y f ai l ed t o o bey [ the C oastG uard’ s order t o h ea ve t o] . ” A s not ed abov e, there i s no p re ce dentfr om thi s C i rc ui tw hi ch i de nt i f i e s the i nt e ntr e qui r e d f

ora c onvi c t i on unde rthi s s e c t i on. H ow e ve r , the pl a i n l a ngua ge of

§ 2237 i ndi c a t e s the r e qui s i t e m e nt a l i nt e ntf ora c onvi c t i on un der thi s s ec t i on i s “ kn ow i ng l y. ” T here fore , on i t s f ac e, the di stri ctcourt c om m i tt e d no pl a i n e rr ori n i t s i ns truc t i ons on thi s c ha r ge .8

2 . L esser In clu ded

O f f en se W here a def

endantfa i l s t o requestan i nstruct i on on a l es se r i ncl ud ed of f e ns e , a nd f

a i l s t o obj e c tt o the om i s s i on of s uc h a n i ns truc t i on a ttr i a l , i ti s not e rr orf ora di s tr i c tc our tt o f

a i l t o gi ve s uc h a n i ns truc t i on s u a s p o n te . See U

ni ted Stat es v. Cha nd l er , 996 F . 2d 1073, 1099 ( 11th C i r . 1993) ( hol di ng w he n a de f e nda nt“ di d notr e que s ta n i ns truc t i on orobj e c tt o the om i s s i on of a n i ns truc t i on f orthe l e s s e ri nc l ude d of f e ns e . . . the di s tr i c tc our tdi d note rrby f a i l i ng t o gi ve s uc h a n i ns truc t i on s u a s p o n te ” ) . T h u s , b e c a u s e P in a - S u a r e z d id n o t r e q u e s t a l es se r i ncl ud ed offens e i nstruct i on , or obj ec tt o the om i ss i on of a l es se r i ncl ud ed offe nse i nstruct i on , the di stri ctcourtdi d n oterr i n fai l i ng t o g i ve such an i ns truc t i on s u a s

p o n te . 3. T he or y of the D e f e ns e I ns tr uc t i on W e r evi ew a properl y pre se rved cl ai m the di stri ctcourtom i tt ed an in s tru c tio n f

o ra n ab u s e o f

d is c r e tio n . U

n ite d S ta te s v . Mo r r is , 20 F . 3d 1111, 1114 ( 11th C i r . 1994) . T he appe l l a nti s e nt i t l e d t o r e l i e f on the c l a i m onl y w he r e “ the r e j e c t e d i ns truc t i on w a s s ubs t a nt i ve l y c orr e c t , the a c tua l c ha r ge t o the j ury di d not s u b s ta n tia lly c o v e rth e p r o p o s e d in s tru c tio n , a n d th e f a ilu r e to g iv e it s u b s ta n tia lly i m pai re d the defendant ’ s abi l i ty t o p re se ntan ef fe ct i ve defense . ” Z latogur , 271 F .3 d a t 1 0 3 0 .9

“ A cri m i n al d efen d an th as th e ri g h tt o h av e th e j u ry i n stru ct ed o n [h i s] the ory of de f e ns e , s e pa r a t e a nd apa r tf r om i ns truc t i ons gi ve n on the e l e m e nt s of the char ged o ff

ense . ” U n ite d S ta te s v . R u iz , 59 F . 3d 1151, 1154 ( 11th C i r . 1995) . T he d e f e n d a n t's b u r d e n o f

p r e s e n tin g e v id e n c e to o b ta in th e in s tru c tio n is “e x tr e m e ly l ow ” a nd the di s tr i c tc our tm us tvi e w the e vi de nc e i n a l i ghtm os tf a vor abl e t o the d e f e n d a n t. I

d. “ [ A ] de f

e nda nti s nota ut om a t i c a l l y e nt i t l e d t o a the ory of the d e f e n s e in s tru c tio n if

th a t a r g u m e n t is a d e q u a te ly c o v e r e d in a n o th e rin s tru c tio n , if it w o u ld b e c o n f

u s in g , if it is n o t a le g a lly c o g n iz ab le d e f e n s e , o rif

it m e r e ly em ph as i ze s ace rt ai n p hase of the evi dence. ” U ni te d State s v . B lanton , 793 F . 2d 1 5 5 3 , 1 5 6 1 ( 1 1 th C ir . 1 9 8 6 ) . P i na - S ua r e z t e s t i f

i e d on hi s ow n be ha l f

r e ga r di ng hi s be l i e f

he c oul d nots t op h i s b o atas o rd ered b y th e C o astG u ard fo r fear o f d eath o r seri o u s b o d i l y i n j u ry, n a m e ly , th a t tw o in d iv id u a ls o n h is b o a t w o u ld th r o w h im o v e rb o a r d if h e tr ie d to s t op, a nd he f

e a r e d be i ng thr ow n of

f of the boa ta t50 or60 m i l e s pe rhoura nd be i ng run ove rby the pr op. F ur the r , P i na - S ua r e z i ntr oduc e d tw o w i tne s s e s , both of w hom c orr obor a t e d hi s s t ory tha ta m a n on hi s boa tw oul d nota l l ow hi m t o s t op w he n or de r e d by the C oa s tG ua r d. P i na - S ua r e z a l s o t e s t i f i e d tha t , due t o the behavi or of the C oastG uard, shut t i ng off hi s boatand g ett i ng throw n o verboard c o u ld h a v e r e s u lte d in h im b e in g ru n o v e rb y th e C o a s t G u a r d .To establish a de fenseof dure ss, a def endant must show (1) heacte d under a n 1 immediate threat of death or serious bodily injury , (2) hehad a w ell-grounded f ear the threat would be ca

rried out, a

nd (3) hehad no re asonableopportunity to esca pe or infor

m authorities. Un ited S tates v. A lza te , 47 F.3d 1103, 1104 ( 11th Cir. 1995). 10 T hi s t e s t i m ony w a s c ount e r e d by w i tne s s e s f orthe G ove rnm e nt , w ho t es t i fi ed that , af

t erorderi ng P i na-S uare z t o st op hi s boat , P i na-S uare z i nst ea d ge s tur e d a s i f

the y w e r e goi ng t o l a nd, ga ve the C oa s tG ua r d the m i ddl e f i nge r , a nd began d ri vi ng erra t i ca l l y, try i ng t o i m pactthe C oastG uard’ s boat . F urther, w i tness es t es t i fi ed they c ou l d see P i na-S uare z dri vi ng , and n o o ne el se w as near h im d u r in g th e c h a s e . B e c a us e a de f

e nda nt ’ s bur de n of

pr e s e nt i ng e vi de nc e t o obt a i n the in s tru c tio n is “e x tr e m e ly lo w ” a n d m u s t b e v ie w e d in th e lig h t m o s t f a v o r ab le to th e d e f e n d a n t, th e e v id e n c e p r e s e n te d b y P in a - S u a r e z in th is c a s e w a s a r g u ab ly su ffi ci en tt o m eetth e ev i d en t i ary b u rd en fo r th e req u est ed i n stru ct i o n o f d u ress. 1 Se e R u iz , 59 F . 3d a t1154. H ow e ve r , e ve n a s s um i ng the i ns truc t i ons pr opos e d by P i na - S ua r e z w e r e c orr e c ta nd w e r e nots ubs t a nt i a l l y c ove r e d by othe ri ns truc t i ons gi ve n t o the j ury , the di s tr i c tc our t ’ s f a i l ur e t o gi ve the r e que s t e d i ns truc t i on di d not s u b s ta n tia lly im p a irP in a - S u a r e z ’s ab ility to p r e s e n t a n e f f e c tiv e d e f

e n s e . See Z latogur , 2 7 1 F .3 d at 1 0 3 0 . A s n o ted ab o v e, th ro u g h o u t th e trial, P in a- S u ar ez ’s de f e ns e w a s tha the ha d a c t e d i nvol unt a r i l y , w hi c h he w a s a l l ow e d t o pr e s e nt u n fe tt er ed b y th e d istrict co u rt. F u rth er , th e e n ti re th ru st o f d ef en se co u n se l’ s11

cl osi ng ar gu m entw as that , al tho ug h P i na-S uare z f ai l ed t o st op w hen com m anded by the C oa s tG ua r d, hi s a c t i ons w e r e notw i l l f ul orvol unt a ry , butw e r e due t o the fa cthe w as bei ng threa t ened by the peop l e on h i s boat . T he re cord show s P i naS ua r e z w a s abl e t o pr e s e nt , thr oughoutthi s c a s e , e vi de nc e of i nt i m i da t i on or coer ci on . T here fore , because the di stri ctcourt ’ s f ai l ure t o g i ve the re qu es t ed i ns truc t i on di d nots ubs t a nt i a l l y i m pa i rP i na - S ua r e z ’ s abi l i ty t o pr e s e nta n e f f e c t i ve d e f e n s e , th e f

a ilu r e to g iv e th e in s tru c tio n d o e s n o t c o n s titu te r e v e r s ib le e rr o r . C . E v i de nt i ar

y R ul i ngs 1. V i de otape W h e r e , a s h e r e , a p a r ty c la im s e v id e n tia ry e rr o r s f o rth e f ir s t tim e o n ap p e a l, w e w ill n o t r e v e r s e u n le s s th e y c o n s titu te p la in e rr o r . U ni te d State s v . H

aw ki ns , 905 F . 2d 1489, 1493 ( 11th C i r . 1990) . E ve n i f the e vi de nc e w a s a dm i tt e d or e x c lu d e d im p r o p e r ly , w e w ill n o t v a c a te u n le s s th e d e f e n d a n t’s s u b s ta n tia l r ig h ts w e r e a f f e c te d . I d . F urther, the S up re m e C ou rthas hel d “ un l es s acr i m i nal de f e nda ntc a n s how ba d f

a i th on the pa r tof

the pol i c e , f

a i l ur e t o pr e s e r ve po t ent i al l y use ful evi dence does notconst i tut e adeni al of du e proces s of l aw . ” A r i z ona v . Y oungblood , 1 0 9 S . C t. 3 3 3 , 3 3 7 ( 1 9 8 8 ) . P i na - S ua r e z ha s f

a i l e d t o de m ons tr a t e pl a i n e rr orw i th r e s pe c tt o the vi deot ape. T es t i m on y a ttri al re veal ed the C oastG uard began t api ng the chas e,12

s t oppe d, r e w ound, a nd s t a r t e d the t ape ove rdue t o pr of a ni ty us e d by one of

the c r e w on the t ape . P i na - S ua r e z ha s f a i l e d t o de m ons tr a t e thi s w a s done f ora ny p u rp o s e o th e rth a n th e o n e s ta te d a t tr ia l. T h e r e f o r e , h e h a s f

a ile d to s h o w b a d f

a ith on the partof the C oastG uard, and the re w i nd i ng of the t ape does notconst i tut e a d e n ia l o f d u e p r o c e s s . Se e i d. A s s uc h, the di s tr i c tc our tdi d note rri n a dm i tt i ng the vi deot ape i nt o evi dence. 2. T e s t i m ony W h en a p ar ty p ro p er ly p re se rv es it s c laim , w e r ev iew th e d istrict co u rt’s ru lin g s o n a d m is s io n o f e v id e n c e f

o ra n ab u s e o f

d is c r e tio n . U

ni ted Stat es v. Ji m i nez , 22 4 F . 3d 12 43 , 12 49 (11th C i r. 20 00 ). E ven i f the evi dence w as adm i tt ed o re x c lu d e d im p r o p e r ly , w e w ill n o t v a c a te u n le s s th e d e f e n d a n t’s s u b s ta n tia l r ig h ts w e r e a f f e c te d . H aw ki ns , 90 5 F . 2d at14 93 . W e det erm i ne w hether a n err or had s u b s ta n tia l in f

lu e n c e o n th e o u tc o m e b y w e ig h in g th e r e c o r d a s a w h o le , se e U ni ted S ta te s v . Mo n ta lv o - Mu r illo , 110 S . C t . 2072, 2080 ( 1990) , a nd e xa m i ni ng “ the fa ct s, the tri al cont extof the error, and the prej ud i ce cr ea t ed there by as j ux t aposed agai nstthe stre ng th o f the evi dence of defe nd ant ’ s gui l t . ” U ni ted Stat es v. R ee d , 70 0 F . 2d 63 8, 64 6 (11 th C i r. 19 83 ) ( qu ot at i on om i tt ed). B e c a us e the r e w a s s uf

f i c i e nte vi de nc e t o c onvi c tP i na - S ua r e z on c ount s 1- 24 abs e ntthe a ge nt ’ s t e s t i m ony r e ga r di ng the G P S , a nd be c a us e the t e s t i m ony13

reg ard i n g th e G P S w as n o tad m i tt ed t o p ro v e an y el em en t s o f th e ch arg ed o ffen ses, bu tw as i ntrodu ce d sol el y f or the pu rposes of i m peac hm enton a c ol l at er al i ss ue, any pot ent i al error on the partof the di stri ctcourti n adm i tt i ng the re bu tt al testim o n y r eg ar d in g P in a- S u ar ez ’s h an d h eld G P S is d idn o t aff ec t P in a- S u za re z’s s u b s ta n tia l r ig h ts a n d is h a r m le s s . D . Sent enci ngG ui del i nes “T h e s e n te n c in g g u id e lin e s m a k e c le a rth a t w h e r e a g u id e lin e s r a n g e f a lls e n tir e ly b e lo w a m a n d a to ry m in im u m s e n te n c e , th e c o u r t m u st f ol l ow the m andat ory s t atut ory m i ni m um se nt ence . ” U n i ted S ta tes v. C la rk , 274 F . 3d 1325, 1 3 2 8 ( 1 1 th C ir . 2 0 0 1 ) . A s s u c h , a n y p o s s ib le e rr o rin th e G u id e lin e s c a lc u la tio n s is h a r m le s s a n d n e e d n o t b e a d d r e s s e d . U ni te d State s v . R aad , 406 F . 3d 1322, 1323 n .1 ( 1 1 th C ir . 2 0 0 5 ) . H e r e , th e ap p lic ab le G u id e lin e s r a n g e w a s 4 6 to 5 7 m o n th s ’ im p r is o n m e n t. H ow e ve r , due t o the num be rof a l i e ns P i na - S ua r e z w a s c onvi c t e d of s m uggl i ng i n t o th e U n i t e d St a t e s , th e s t a tu t e u n d e rw h i c h h e w a s c o n v i c t e d , 8 U . S. C. § 1324( a ) ( 2) ( B ) ( i i i ) , c a rr i e d a m a nda t ory m i ni m um s e nt e nc e of 5 y e a r s , or60 m onths . T he r e f

or e , a ny pot e nt i a l e rr oron the pa r tof the di s tr i c tc our ti n e nha nc i ng P i n a-S u arez’s sentence fo r b o d i l y i n j u ry an d o b stru ct i o n o f j u st i ce i s h arm l ess. See R aad , 406 F . 3d a t1323 n. 1.14

E. R ea so n a b l en ess W e r e v ie w P in a - S u a r e z ’s s e n te n c e f o rr e a s o n ab le n e s s . See U ni ted Stat es v. B oo ke r , 12 5 S . C t . 73 8, 76 7 (20 05 ). “ R egar dl es s of w hether the se nt ence i m po se d i s i ns i de orout s i de the G ui de l i ne s r a nge , the appe l l a t e c our tm us tr e vi e w the se nt ence un der a n abu se -of- di sc re t i on st andard. ” G al l v. U ni ted Stat es , 1 2 8 S . C t. 5 8 6 , 5 9 7 ( 2 0 0 7 ) . P in a - S u a r e z b e a r s th e b u r d e n o f s h o w in g h is s e n te n c e is u n r e a s o n ab le . See U

ni ted Stat es v. T

al l ey , 4 3 1 F .3 d 7 8 4 , 7 8 8 ( 1 1 th C ir . 2 0 0 5 ) . A ft er B oo ke r , se nt enci ng re vi ew re qu i re s tw o st eps: fi rs t , w e m ustensure th e d i stri ctco u rtco m m i tt ed n o si g n i fi can tp ro ced u ral erro r, an d seco n d , w e m u st c o n s id e rth e s u b s ta n tiv e r e a s o n ab le n e s s o f th e s e n te n c e im p o s e d . Se e G a ll, 1 2 8 S. C t . a t597. I n r e vi e w i ng the ul t i m a t e s e nt e nc e f orr e a s onabl e ne s s , w e c ons i de rthe f in a l s e n te n c e im p o s e d in lig h t o f th e § 3 5 5 3 ( a ) f

a c to r s . U

n ite d S ta te s v . M

a r tin , 4 5 5 F .3 d 1 2 2 7 , 1 2 3 7 ( 1 1 th C ir . 2 0 0 6 ) . O u rr e a s o n ab le n e s s r e v ie w is d e f e r e n tia l, a n d r e q u ir e s u s to “e v a lu a te w h e th e rth e s e n te n c e im p o s e d b y th e d is tr ic t c o u r t f a ils t o achi eve the pu rposes of se nt enci ng as st at ed i n [§] 35 53 (a ). ” T al l ey , 43 1 F . 3d at 7 8 8 . In arri vi ng ata r ea sonabl e s ent ence , the di stri ctcourti s r equi re d t o con si der the f a c t or s s e touti n 18 U . S . C . 3553( a ) : “ ( 1) the na tur e a nd c i r c um s t a nc e s of the offe nse a nd the hi st ory a nd char ac t er i st i cs of the defendant ; (2) the need t o ref l ec t15

th 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 , an d t o p ro v i d e j u st puni s hm e ntf

orthe of f e ns e ; ( 3) the ne e d f

orde t e rr e nc e ; ( 4) the ne e d t o pr ot e c tthe pu bl i c; (5) the need t o p rovi de the defendantw i th n ee ded edu ca t i on al or vo ca t i on al tr a i ni ng orm e di c a l c a r e ; ( 6) the ki nds of s e nt e nc e s a va i l abl e ; ( 7) the S e nt e nc i ng G ui de l i ne s r a nge ; ( 8) pe r t i ne ntpol i c y s t a t e m e nt s of the S e nt e nc i ng C om m i s s i on; ( 9) the ne e d t o a voi d unw a nt e d s e nt e nc i ng di s pa r i t i e s ; a nd ( 10) the ne e d t o pr ovi de re st i tut i on t o v i ct i m s. ” T al l ey , 4 3 1 F .3 d a t 7 8 6 ( c itin g 1 8 U .S .C . § 3 5 5 3 ( a ) ) . Iti s s uffi ci entfor the di stri ctcourtt o ackno w l edge thati thas c on si dere d th e s e f a c to r s ; it n e e d n o t e x p lic itly c o n s id e ro rd is c u s s e a c h o f th e m . U

ni ted Stat es v . Sc o tt , 426 F . 3d 1324, 1329 ( 11th C i r . 2005) . F ur the r , “ [ t ] he w e i ghtt o be a c c or de d a ny gi ve n § 3553( a ) f a c t ori s a m a tt e rc om m i tt e d t o the s ound di s c r e t i on of the di stri ctcourt . ” U ni te d State s v . C lay , 483 F . 3d 739, 743 ( 11th C i r . 2007) (quo t at i on om i tt ed). F or adequat e app el l at e r evi ew , w hen a di stri ctcourtvari es a s ent ence un der 18 U . S . C . § 3553( a ) , s ubs e c t i on ( c ) r e qui r e s a j udge t o s t a t e hi s r e a s ons f ors uc h a v a r ia n c e . “C o n g r e s s h a s s p e c if ic a lly p r o c la im e d th a t a s e n te n c in g c o u r t s h a ll s ta te the r e a s on f

ori m pos i ng a s e nt e nc e [ e xc e e di ng 24 m onths ] a ta pa r t i c ul a rpoi nt w ith in th e r a n g e . W h e n a s e n te n c in g c o u r t f a ils to c o m p ly w ith th is r e q u ir e m e n t, the se nt ence i s i m po se d i n v i ol at i on of l aw . ” Un i te d S ta te s v . Wi l l i a ms , 438 F . 3d16

1272, 1274 ( 11th C i r . 2006) ( quot a t i ons a nd a l t e r a t i ons om i tt e d) . T he br e vi ty or le n g th o f s u c h a s ta te m e n t d e p e n d s u p o n th e c ir c u m s ta n c e s o f e a c h p a r tic u la rc a s e . R i ta v. U ni ted Stat es , 1 2 7 S . C t. 2 4 5 6 , 2 4 6 8 ( 2 0 0 7 ) . “T h e la w le a v e s m u c h , in th is r e s p e c t, to th e ju d g e ’s o w n p r o f e s s io n a l ju d g m e n t. . . . T h e s e n te n c in g ju d g e s h o u ld setfo rth en o u g h t o sat i sfy th e ap p el l at e co u rtth ath e h as co n si d ered th e p art i es’ a r gum e nt s a nd ha s a r e a s one d ba s i s f ore xe r c i s i ng hi s ow n l e ga l de c i s i onm a ki ng autho ri ty. ” I

d. T o d et erm i ne w hether ase nt ence w as i m po se d d ue t o a G ui del i nes departure o ra § 3 5 5 3 ( a ) v a r ia n c e , w e lo o k to th e p r o c e s s ta k e n b y th e d is tr ic t c o u r t in m a k in g its d e te r m in a tio n . See U n i ted S ta tes v. Iri

za rry , 458 F . 3d 1208, 1211- 12 ( 1 1 th C ir . 2 0 0 6 ) , ce rt. gran ted , 12 8 S . C t . 82 8, N o. 06 -751 7 (Ja n. 4, 20 08 ). In Iri za rry , w e f

ound the s e nt e nc e i m pos e d w a s a va r i a nc e due t o the f ol l ow i ng fact o rs: T h e d is tr ic t c o u r t c o rr e c tly c a lc u la te d to a d v is o ry g u id e lin e s r a n g e . T he c our tthe n c ons i de r e d the a de qua c y of thi s r a nge i n the l i ghtof the s e nt e nc i ng f

a c t or s l i s t e d i n 18 U . S . C . s e c t i on 3553( a ) a nd the evi dence pres ent ed atthe se nt enci ng hear i ng . A ft erconcl ud i ng that th e g u i d el i n es ran g e d i d n o tad eq u at el y ad d ress th e fu tu re ri sk D e f e n d a n t p o s e d to th e p u b lic , th e c o u r t e x e r c is e d its p o s t- B oo ke r di s c r e t i on t o i m pos e a r e a s onabl e s e nt e nc e out s i de the s e nt e nc i ng g u id e lin e s r a n g e . I d. (i nt ernal ci t at i on om i tt ed).17

B o th p a r tie s d is c u s s e d a t le n g th th e ap p r o p r ia te G u id e lin e s c a lc u la tio n s , w ith the di s tr i c tc our tul t i m a t e l y de t e r m i ni ng the appr opr i a t e G ui de l i ne s r a nge t o be 46 to 5 7 m o n th s ’ im p r is o n m e n t, w ith a s ta tu to ry m a n d a to ry m in im u m o f 6 0 m o n th s . T he courtthen turned t o a consi dera t i on of w hatthe se nt ence ou gh tt o b e, re cogn i zi ng the advi sory nature of the G ui del i nes a nd i t s di sc re t i on t o i m po se a r e a s o n ab le s e n te n c e b a s e d o n th e s e v e r ity a n d n a tu r e o f th e o f f e n s e , a n d th e f

a c ts of the r e c or d. T he c our tthe n he a r d t e s t i m ony f r om P i na - S ua r e z ’ s m othe r , a nd a r gum e ntf

r om both pa r t i e s r e ga r di ng s e nt e nc i ng a nd the § 3553( a ) f a c t or s . T he courtthen i m po se d a se nt ence of 96 m on ths’ i m pri sonm ent . G i ven the st eps t aken by the di s tr i c tc ourti n thi s c a s e , w hi c h f ol l ow thos e t a ke n i n Iri

za rry , the se nt ence i m pos e d i n thi s c a s e appe a r s t o be the r e s ul tof a va r i a nc e unde r18 U . S . C . § 3553, n o t a G u id e lin e s d e p a r tu r e . In rev i ew i n g th e reaso n ab l en ess o f a sen t en ce, th i s C o u rtm u stfi rst det erm i ne w hether the di stri ctcourtcom m i tt ed any s i gn i fi ca ntprocedural error, such as i ncorrec t l y c al cul at i ng the G ui del i nes r ange or tre at i ng the G ui del i nes a s m a n d a to ry . Se e G a ll , 1 2 8 S . C t . at5 9 7 . P arto f th e p ro ced u ral accu racy i n cl u d es a s t a t e m e ntby the c our tof r e a s ons f

ori m pos i ng a s e nt e nc e out s i de of the r e c o m m e n d e d G u id e lin e s r a n g e . R ita , 1 2 7 S . C t. a t 2 4 6 7 ; Wi l l i a ms , 43 8 F . 3d at 1274. H e r e , a l though the c our tf ol l ow e d the c orr e c tpr oc e dur e i n de t e r m i ni ng the18

G u i d el i n es ran g e, g av e n o t i ce t o th e p art i es th ati tco u l d v ary ab o v e th e G u i d el i n es, a n d h e a r d a r g u m e n ts r e g a r d in g th e p a r tie s ’ d e te r m in a tio n o f a n ap p r o p r ia te s e nt e nc e , i tdi d note xpl i c i t l y s t a t e i t s r e a s ons f ora va r i a nc e a s r e qui r e d by § 3 5 5 3 (c ). H o w ev er , i t ap p ea rs th e d istrict co u rt ac ce p ted th e G o v er n m en t’ s po si t i on re gardi ng se nt enci ng , w hi ch sa t i sf i es the re qu i re m ent s of R ita a n d a l l o ws f orm e a ni ngf

ul appe l l a t e r e vi e w . T he r e f or e , the di s tr i c tc our tc om m i tt e d no p r o c e d u r a l e rr o rin d e te rm in in g P in a - S u a r e z ’s s e n te n c e . T he G ove rnm e nta r gue d f ora n i nc r e a s e d s e nt e nc e on the ba s i s tha tthe m an d at o ry m i n i m u m ap p l i es reg ard l ess w h eth er a d efen d an taccep t s resp o n si b i l i ty, ob struct s j ust i ce , com m i t s per j ury, or i nj ures peop l e. P i na-S uare z never a cc ept ed r e s pons i bi l i ty , l i e d t o l a w e nf or c e m e nta nd a ttr i a l , putthos e on hi s boa ta nd m e m b e r s o f

th e C o a s t G u a r d in h a r m s w a y , a n d in ju r e d th r e e o f

th e p e o p le o n h is boa t . B e c a us e s om e one w ho ha d done none of thos e thi ngs w oul d s t i l l r e c e i ve the m a nda t ory m i ni m um s e nt e nc e , the G ove rnm e ntf e l ttha ta s e nt e nc e above the s ta tu to ry m in im u m w o u ld b e ap p r o p r ia te . T he s e r e a s ons t a ke i nt o a c c ountva r i ous § 3553( a ) f a c t or s , i nc l udi ng the na tur e a nd c i r c um s t a nc e s of the of f e ns e , the ne e d t o pr ovi de j us tpuni s hm e nt , a nd the need t o avo i d u nw ant ed se nt enci ng di spar i t i es . A l tho ug h P i na-S uare z a rgues the c our tvi ol a t e d B oo ke ri n fai l i n g t o acco u n tfo r th e m i t i g at i n g § 3 5 5 3 (a) factors,As Pina-Suare z has failed to demonstrateany serious er

rors on the pa

rt of the district 2 court, his claim that the cumulative prejudicial effe ct of the ma ny serious er

rors c ommitt ed at trial re quire s re vers al is meritle ss. 19 because the w ei gh tt o b e a cc orded t o any gi ven § 35 53 (a ) f ac t or i s am att er com m i tt ed t o the soun d d i sc re t i on of the di stri ctcourt , the di stri ctcourtdi d n oterr in s e n te n c in g P in a - S u a r e z ab o v e th e m a n d a to ry m in im u m . Se e C lay , 48 3 F . 3d at 7 4 3 . B a s e d o n th e s e f

a c ts , th e d is tr ic t c o u r t d id n o t ab u s e its d is c r e tio n in s e n te n c in g P in a - S u a r e z ab o v e th e m a n d a to ry m in im u m s e n te n c e , a n d th e u ltim a te s e n te n c e s im p o s e d a r e r e a s o n ab le in lig h t o f th e f a c ts a n d c ir c u m s ta n c e s o f th is c a s e . I I . C ON C L US I ON T he e vi de nc e w a s s uf

f i c i e ntt o s uppor tc onvi c t i ons unde rboth s t a tut e s a nd th ere w as n o rev ersi b l e erro r i n th e d i stri ctco u rt ’ s j u ry i n stru ct i o n s. A d d i t i o n al l y, the di stri ctcourtdi d n otpl ai nl y e rror abuse i t s di sc re t i on i n the chal l enged ev i d en t i ary ru l i n g s. A cco rd i n g l y, w e affi rm P i n a-S u arez’s con v i ct i o n . W e al so 2 concl ud e P i na S uare z’ s s ent ence i s r ea sonabl e. A F F I R M E D .