FI LED U. S . COURT OF AP PE ALS E L E V E N T H C IR C U IT O c t obe r 21, 2005 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. 05- 11770 N on -A rgum entC al endar

________________________ D. C . Do c k e tNo . 0 4 - 0 0 4 6 7 - C R - T - 2 6 - E AJ 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 E U S E B I O M O N T A N A - B A T A L L 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

_________________________ ( O c t obe r21, 2005) B efo re B L A C K , H U L L an d P R Y O R , C i rcu i tJu d g es. P E R C U R I A M:2

E us e bi o M ont a na - B a t a l l aappe a l s hi s 135- m onth s e nt e nc e f orpos s e s s i on w i th i nt entt o d i stri bu t e 5 ki l og ra m s or m ore of c ocai ne w hi l e abo ar d a vess el subj ec tt o U ni t ed S t at es j uri sdi ct i on , i n v i ol at i on of 46 U . S . C . A pp . § 1 90 3(a) , (g), a n d 2 1 U .S .C . § 9 6 0 ( b ) ( 1 ) ( B ) ( ii) , a n d c o n s p ir a c y to p o s s e s s w ith in te n t to d i s tr i b u t e 5 k i l o g r a ms o rmo r e o f c o c a i n e w h i l e ab o a r d av e s s e l s u b j e c tt o U . S. j u r i s d i c t i o n , i n v i o l a t i o n o f 4 6 U . S. C. § 1 9 0 3 ( a ) , ( g ) , a n d ( j ) , a n d2 1 U . S. C. § 9 60 (b)( 1)(B )( i i ). M on t ana- B at al l a w as se nt ence d aft erU ni t ed S t at es v. B oo ker, 54 3 U . S . __ , 12 5 S . C t . 73 8 (20 05 ) und eran advi soryG ui del i nes s chem e. A ft er r e v ie w , w e a f

f irm . I . B AC KG RO UN D A . Pl e a C o l l o quy M ont a na - B a t a l l apl e d gui l ty w i thoutaw r i tt e n pl e aa gr e e m e ntt o the above c h a r g e s . D u r in g th e p le ac o llo q u y , th e g o v e rn m e n t s e t f o rth th e f o llo w in g f

a c ts . O n o rab o u t S e p te m b e r2 3 , 2 0 0 4 , in th e e a s te rn P a c if ic O c e a n , M o n ta n a - B a ta lla and seven co-defe nd ant s w er e tra vel i ng i n the S an Jose , a 77-footfi shi ng vess el r e gi s t e r e d i n B e l i z e . T he f i s hi ng ve s s e l c ont a i ne d al a r ge qua nt i ty of c oc a i ne packaged i n 2 0-ki l og ra m bai l s s ec re t ed i n a hi dd en com partm ent , w hi ch w as lo c a te d in th e f

o rw a r d s e c tio n o f

th e h u ll. O n the m orni ng of S ept em ber 23, 20 04 , the U ni t ed S t at es C oastG uard3

b o ard ed th e S an Jo se an d n o t i ced th atfl o o ri n g t i l es h ad b een p l aced i n fresh c onc r e t e i n both the porta nd s t a rboa r d be rthi ng c om pa rtm e nt s . B e ne a th the n e w ly - la id tile s , th e C o a s t G u a r d f o u n d tw o e n try w a y s to th e h id d e n c o m p a rtm e n t. I ns i de the c om pa rtm e nt , the C oa s tG ua r d f ound 525 ba l e s of

c oc a i ne w e i ghi ng ap p r o x im a te ly 1 0 ,5 0 0 k ilo g r a m s . M o n ta n a - B a ta llaa n d h is s e v e n c o - d e f e n d a n ts w ere d et ai n ed an d tran sp o rt ed t o th e U n i t ed S t at es. P r io rto th e tim e th a t th e S a n J o s e le f t th e p o rt in C o lo m b ia , M o n ta n a - B a ta lla and h i s c o-defendant s m etw i th the capt ai n o f the S an Jose and l earned thatthey w oul d be tr a ns port i ng the drugs t o atr a ns f e rpoi nti n the e a s t e rn P a c i f i c O c e a n a nd w oul d the n di s tr i but e i tt o a nothe rpe r s on. A tthe e nd of

the gove rnm e nt ’ s pr of

f e r , M ont a na - B a t a l l aa dm i tt e d t o the fact s. B. PSI a nd Se nt e nc i ng T he P re se nt ence Invest i gat i on R eport(“ P S I” ) a ss es se d a base offe nse l evel of 38, hol di ng M ont a na - B a t a l l ar e s pons i bl e f or10, 500 ki l ogr a m s of

c oc a i ne . T he P S I r e c o m m e n d e d ( 1 ) atw o - le v e l s a f e ty - v a lv e r e d u c tio n u n d e rU .S .S .G . § 5 C 1 .2 a nd 18 U . S . C . § 3553( f

) ; a nd ( 2) athr e e - l e ve l r e duc t i on f ora c c e pt a nc e of re spon si bi l i ty und erU . S . S . G . § 3 E 1. 1. W i th an o ff ense l evel of 33 and a cri m i nal h i st o ry cat eg o ry o f I, M o n t an a-B at al l a’ s G u i d el i n es ran g e w as 1 3 5 -1 6 8 m o n th s’4

im p r is o n m e n t. M on t ana- B at al l a obj ec t ed t o the P S I’ s f ai l ure t o i ncl ud e atw o-l evel d o w n w a r d d e p a rtu r e f

o rh is r o le in th e o f

f e n s e p u r s u a n t to U .S .S .G . § 3 B 1 .2 ( b ) . T he P r oba t i on O f

f i c e rr e s ponde d by s t a t i ng tha tM ont a na - B a t a l l aw a s be i ng h el d acco u n t ab l e o n l y fo r th e am o u n to f d ru g s o n th e sh i p , th e 1 0 , 5 0 0 k i l o g ram s, w hi ch w as the sa m e a m ou ntattri bu t abl e t o h i s c o-defendant s. T here af t er , M ont a na - B a t a l l af

i l e d am ot i on f

oradow nw a r d de pa rtur e f orhi s r ol e i n the offe nse. M on t ana- B at al l a’ s m ot i on ar gu ed thathe w as ent i t l ed t o a departure because he w as no tan organi ze r, l ea der, m anager, or supervi sor i n the cr i m i nal a c tiv ity , a n d h is r o le in th e o f f e n s e w a s “m in im a l a t b e s t a n d m in o ra t th e le a s t” in c o m p a r is o n to h is c o - d e f e n d a n ts . A tthe s e nt e nc i ng he a r i ng, M ont a na - B a t a l l ar e ne w e d hi s a r gum e ntr e ga r di ng a m i no r- rol e r educt i on . M on t ana- B at al l a argued that : (1) a l tho ug h thi s c on spi ra cy i nvol ve d m ul t i pl e tr i ps , he w a s onl y i nvol ve d i n as i ngl e tr i p; ( 2) he w a s not in v o lv e d in th e o r g a n iz a tio n o rp la n n in g o f th e c o n s p ir a c y ; ( 3 ) h e h a d n o e q u ity i n t eresti n th e d ru g s; an d (4 ) si n ce “ th ere m u stb e a l ead er” i n th e co n sp i racy, “th e r e m u s t b e [ ] m in im a l a n d m in o rp a rtic ip a n ts .” T h e d istrict co u rt stated th at, ev en as su m in g th is trip w as M o n tan a- B atalla’s f i r s t , i tw a s “ notgoi ng t o tr e a thi m a ny di f f e r e nt l y tha n the othe rm e c ha ni c [ i tha d]5

ju s t s e n te n c e d .” T h e d is tr ic t c o u rt o v e rru le d M o n ta n a - B a ta lla ’s o b je c tio n , n o tin g : ( 1) a“ tr e m e ndous ” a m ountof c oc a i ne , 10, 500 ki l ogr a m s , w a s i nvol ve d i n the in s ta n t o f

f e n s e ; ( 2 ) g iv e n th e f

a c t th a t th e c o c a in e w a s h id d e n , ar e a s o n ab le i n feren ce w o u l d b e th atev eryo n e o n th e v essel assi st ed i n th e co n sp i racy; ( 3) M ont a na - B a t a l l aw a s am e c ha ni c , a nd “ notj us tar e gul a rm a r i ne r ” ; a nd ( 4)

“ [w ] hen you ’ re ou tthere on the hi gh se as and som ethi ng go es w rong w i th a bo at lik e th is , th e f

ir s t p e r s o n y o u w a n t to h a v e is ag o o d m e c h a n ic . S o h e ’s in te g r a l to thi s venture. ” M on t ana- B at al l a then n ot ed thatthe di stri ctcourtal re ady had m ent i on ed som e of the fa ct ors l i st ed i n § 35 53 (a ); ho w ever , M on t ana- B at al l a a sked the court t o c ons i de rthe f

ol l ow i ng i n i m pos i ng hi s s e nt e nc e : ( 1) he ha d s e rve d i n the C ol om bi an arm y; (2) he di d n othave a cr i m i nal hi st ory; (3) he had a st abl e w ork hi s t ory ; a nd ( 4) hi s f

a m i l y w a s s truggl i ng a s ar e s ul tof hi s i nc a r c e r a t i on. T he di s tr i c tc ourta c know l e dge d the s e f a c t s a nd s e nt e nc e d M ont a na - B a t a l l at o at e rm of 1 3 5 m o n th s ’ im p r is o n m e n t a s to C o u n ts 1 a n d 2 , to b e s e rv e d c o n c u rr e n tly . I I . DI S CUS S I ON A . M i n or R ol e R e d u c t i on O n appe a l , M ont a na - B a t a l l af i r s ta r gue s tha tthe di s tr i c tc ourte rr e d by denyi ng hi m a m i no r or m i ni m al -r ol e r educt i on . W e r evi ew for c l ear e rr or a6

d is tr ic t c o u rt’s d e te rm in a tio n o f ad e f e n d a n t’s q u a lif

ic a tio n f o rar o le r e d u c tio n . U n ite d S ta te s v . D e V a r o n , 1 7 5 F .3 d 9 3 0 , 9 3 7 ( 1 1 th C ir . 1 9 9 9 ) ( e n b a n c ) . T h e d efen d an th as th e b u rd en o f est ab l i sh i n g h i s ro l e i n th e o ffen se b y a p re p o n d er an ce o f th e e v id en ce . Id . at 9 3 9 . T w o p rin cip les g u id e a d istrict co u rt’s c o n s id e r a tio n : ( 1 ) th e c o u rt m u s t c o m p a r e th e d e f e n d a n t’s r o le in th e o f

f e n s e w ith 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) th e c o u rt m a y c o m p a r e th e d e f e n d a n t’s c o n d u c t to th a t o f o th e rp a rtic ip a n ts i nvol ve d i n the of

f e ns e . I d. a t943- 44. W he n the r e l e va ntc onduc ta ttr i but e d t o a de f e nda nti s i de nt i c a l t o hi s a c tua l c onduc t , he c a nnotpr ove tha the i s e nt i t l e d t o a m i nor - r ol e a dj us tm e nts 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 f or w h ic h h e w a s n o t h e ld a c c o u n tab le . I d . a t 9 4 1 . T he di stri ctcourtdi d n otcl earl y e rri n ref usi ng t o g rantM on t ana- B at al l a a m i no r- rol e r educt i on . U nd erthe fi rs tpron g o f the D e V ar on t es t , the di stri ctcourt he l d M ont a na - B a t a l l aa c c ount abl e f oronl y the 10, 500 ki l ogr a m s of c oc a i ne a ttr i but abl e t o hi m . S e e D e V a r on, 175 F . 3d a t942- 43 ( “ T he r e f or e , w he n adrug couri er ’ s r el evantcond ucti s l i m i t ed t o h erow n actof i m po rt at i on , a di stri ctcourt m a y le g itim a te ly c o n c lu d e th a t th e c o u r ie rp la y e d a n im p o rta n t o re s s e n tia l r o le in th e im p o rta tio n o f

th o s e d ru g s .” ) . A s to th e s ec o n d p ro n g o f th e D e V ar o n test, w e r ejec t M o n tan a- B atalla’s7

a r g u m e n t th a t th e r e m u s t b e am in o rp a rtic ip a n t. E v e n if M o n ta n a - B a ta lla ’s r o le w a s l e s s tha n tha tof

s om e of the othe rpa rt i c i pa nt s , thi s C ourts t a t e d i n D e V a r on thatthe fa ctthata def

endant ’ s r ol e i s l es s than thatof other part i ci pant s i nv ol ved d o e s n o t au to m a tic a lly e n title h im to am in o r - r o le r e d u c tio n b e c au s e it is p o s s ib le tha tnone of

the i ndi vi dua l s i s e nt i t l e d t o be am i norpa rt i c i pa nt . D e V a r on, 175 F . 3d a t944. M or e ove r , the di s tr i c tc ourts pe c i f i c a l l y not e d tha ti ti m pos e d the s a m e s e nt e nc e on M ont a na - B a t a l l aa s i ti m pos e d on othe rc o- c ons pi r a t or s w i th the sa m e r ol e. A dd i t i on al l y, M on t ana- B at al l a f ai l ed t o p re se ntany e vi dence di st i ng ui shi ng hi s i nv ol vem entfr om thatof other c re w m em bers . T hu s, the di stri ct courtdi d n oterr i n d et erm i ni ng thatM on t ana- B at al l a di d n otqu al i fyfor am i no rr ol e r e duc t i on. B . B oo k er M ont a na - B a t a l l aa l s o a r gue s tha tthe di s tr i c tc ourtf a i l e d t o c ons i de rthe f a c to r s in § 3 5 5 3 ( a ) in im p o s in g h is s e n te n c e . M o n ta n a - B a ta llac o n te n d s th a t, a l though the c ourtw a s “ appr a i s e d of [ hi s ] f a m i l y a nd f

i na nc i a l ba c kgr ound, he a l th, e duc a t i ona l a nd voc a t i ona l l e ve l , a nd l a c k of c r i m i na l hi s t ory , ” i tf

a i l e d t o t a ke th e s e f a c to r s in to c o n s id e r a tio n . I n B ooke r , the S upr e m e C ourthe l d tha tthe m a nda t ory na tur e of the S en ten cin g G u id elin es re n d er ed th em in co m p atib le w ith th e S ix th A m en d m en t’ s8

gu ar ant ee t o the ri gh tt o a j ury tri al . Id. at74 9-51 . T he S up re m e C ou rtdeci ded thatthe approp ri at e r em edy w as t o exci se tw o speci fi c s t atut ory provi si on s that m ade the G ui del i nes m andat ory, there by re nd er i ng the G ui del i nes a dv i sory . Id. at 764. T he S upr e m e C ourte xpl a i ne d tha t , “ [ w ] i thoutthe ‘ m a nda t ory ’ pr ovi s i on, the A c t n o n e th e le s s r e q u ir e s ju d g e s to ta k e a c c o u n t o f th e G u id e lin e s to g e th e rw ith other s ent enci ng go al s” cont ai ned i n § 35 53 (a ). Id. S ec t i on 35 53 (a ) provi des that di s tr i c tc ourt s i m pos i ng as e nt e nc e m us tc ons i de r , i nt e ra l i a , 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 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 ; the need for the se nt ence t o ref l ec tthe se ri ou snes s of the offens e; t o p rom ot e r es pect f orthe l a w , a nd t o pr ovi de j us tpuni s hm e ntf orthe of f e ns e , a nd the s e nt e nc i ng r a n g e e s tab lis h e d b y th e G u id e lin e s . S e e 1 8 U .S .C . § 3 5 5 3 ( a ) . P o s t- B o o k e r , w e r e v ie w s e n te n c e s f o ru n r e a s o n ab le n e s s . B o o k e r , 1 2 5 S . C t. a t765 ( quot a t i on a nd a l t e r a t i on om i tt e d) ; s e e a l s o U ni t e d S t a t e s v. C r a w f or d, 407 F . 3d 1174, 1178 ( 11th C i r . 2005) ( not i ng tha t“ B ooke re s t abl i s he d a

‘ re as on abl enes s’ st andard for the se nt ence fi nal l y i m po se d o n a defendant ”) . W e r e c e n tly h e ld th a t “n o th in g in B o o k e ro re ls e w h e r e r e q u ir e s th e d is tr ic t c o u rt 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 t o di s c us s e a c h of

the § 3553( a ) f

a c t or s . ” U ni t e d S t a t e s v. S c ott , – F . 3d –, 2005 W L 2 3 5 1 0 2 0 , a t * 4 ( 1 1 th C ir . S e p t. 2 7 , 2 0 0 5 ) .9

We c o n c l u d e th a tMo n t a n a - B a t a l l a ’ s 1 3 5 - m o n th s e n t e n c e i s r e a s o n ab l e . As not e d above , M ont a na - B a t a l l a ’ s s e nt e nc e w a s w i thi n the G ui de l i ne s r a nge , one of the e xpl i c i t§ 3553( a ) f

a c t or s . 18 U . S . C . § 3553( a ) ( 4) . A s the B ooke rC ourtnot e d,

“ [t ] h e d i stri ctco u rt s, w h i l e n o tb o u n d t o ap p l y th e G u i d el i n es, m u stco n su l tth o se G ui del i nes and t ake them i nt o acc ou ntw hen sent enci ng . ” B oo ker, 12 5 S . C t . at 767. F urthe r , i ti s c l e a rthe di s tr i c tc ourtc ons ul t e d the G ui de l i ne s a s a dvi s ory a nd m a d e a n a c c u r a te c o m p u ta tio n o f th e G u id e lin e s r a n g e . T he di stri ctcourtal so consi dere d the other § 35 53 (a ) f ac t ors. T he di stri ct c ourts pe c i f

i c a l l y c ons i de r e d the na tur e a nd c i r c um s t a nc e s of the of f e ns e a nd the hi st ory and char ac t er i st i cs of the defendant , i ncl ud i ng the prob abi l i ty that M o n ta n a - B a ta llah a d c o m m itte d th e in s ta n t o f f e n s e in a n e f

f o rt to p r o v id e f

o rh is fa m il y in C o lo m b ia. F u rth er , th e d istrict co u rt also co n sid er ed M o n tan a- B atalla’s la c ko f c r im in a l h is to ry a n d h is s tab le w o rkh is to ry . A nd al tho ug h the di stri ctcourtdi d n otexpl i ci t l y s etforth eac h § 35 53 (a ) f a c to r , a s d is c u s s e d ab o v e , th e d is tr ic t c o u rt w a s n o t r e q u ir e d to d o th a t. S c o tt, 2005 W L 2351020, a t*4. I n s hort , nothi ng i n the r e c or d c onvi nc e s us tha tthe se nt ence w as un re as on abl e i n l i gh tof the § 3 55 3(a) fa ct ors. W e are sa t i sf i ed un der the c i r c um s t a nc e s of

thi s c a s e tha tthe s e nt e nc e w a s r e a s onabl e . U ni t e d S t a t e s v. W i ni nge a r , – F . 3d –, 2005 W L 2077087, a t*4 ( 11th C i r . A ug. 30, 2005)10

(c on cl ud i ng se nt ence w as re as on abl e i n l i gh tof the G ui del i nes r ange and the other fa ct ors out l i ned i n § 35 53 (a )) . U pon c a r e f

ul r e vi e w of

the r e c or d on appe a l , a nd upon c ons i de r a t i on of the part i es ’ bri ef

s, w e di sc ern n o revers i bl e e rr or. A cc ordi ng l y, w e a ff i rm M on t anaB at al l a’ s s ent ence . AF F I RME D.