FI L ED U.S. COURT OF A P P E A LS E LE V E N T H C IR C U IT FEB RUARY 9, 2007 THOMAS K. KAH

N CL ERK [DO NOT PUBLISH] IN THE UN ITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FO R T HE EL EV EN TH CIRC UI T

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ N o. 06- 1051 5 Non-A rgum ent Calendar

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ D. C. Docket N o. 05-10019 -CR- KMM UNITED STAT ES OF AMERIC A, Plaintiff-Appellee,
ve rs us SANTIAGO HERRERA MCCLYM ONT, VICTOR MANUEL OLIVARES MARILUZ, D ef en da nts -Appe llants .

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ Appeals fr om

the United State s District Court fo r the S outhe rnD istri ct

of F lor ida

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ (F eb ru ar y 9, 200 7) Be fo re D U BIN A , CA RN E S, a nd C O X , Ci rc uit Jud ge s. PE R CU RIA M: Appe llants S an tia go H er

re ra Mc Cl ym ont an d V ic tor Manue l O liv ar es Mari luz appeal their convictions for conspiracy to poss ess with intent to di stribute cocaine2

and poss es si onw i t h i nt e nt t o di str i bu t e c oc a i ne o n bo a r d av e ss e l s ub j e c tt o U .S
. juri sd ic ti on , 46 U.S.C. App . § 19 03 (a),(j). McC lym on t al so ap pe al s hi s s en te nc e. On ap pe al , Mc Cl ym ont

c ont en ds tha t the dis tr ic t c ourt e rr ed in: (1 ) not se tti ng a sid e its
ru lin g onthe m oti on t o di sm iss the ind ic tm en t be ca use Mc Cl ym ont

w as not pr es en t fo r the he ar ing on the m oti on; ( 2) de nyin g McC ly m ont ’ s m oti on f or aj udgm en t of
ac qui tta l; (3 ) fa ili ng t o gr an t M cC ly m ont am ino r- ro le reduc tio n; and ( 4) im posi ng
anunr ea sona

ble se nte nc e of

288 m onths’ im

pr iso nm en t. O liv ar es c ont en ds tha t the d i s t ri ct co u rt erre di n fa i l i n g : (1 ) to d i s m i s s t h e i n d i ct m en tb as ed o n t h e g o v er n m en t ’s de str uc tio n of the ve sse l on w hic h O liv ar es w as a rr es te d; and ( 2) de ny ing his m oti on to suppre ss e vid en ce obt ai ne d a s th e re sul t of ase ar cha nd s ei zure of

the ve sse l. O liv ar es a lso c ont en ds tha t the re w as ins uf fi ci en t e vid en ce to supp ort hi s c onvi ct ion s. O nly iss ue s (1 ) an d (4 ) ra ise d by Mc Cl ym ont

w ar rant d isc uss ion
. Mc Cl ym ont
ar gue s th at th e di str ic t c ourt e rr ed in not se tti ng a sid e its r

uli ng o n th e m oti on t o dis m iss the ind ic tm en t be ca use Mc Cl ym ont

w as not pr esen t f or the he ar ing on the
m oti on. H ow ev er , e ve n a ssu m ing that McC lym ont m ay ha ve ha d ar igh t t o be pr es en t, a ny

e rr or c re at ed by his abse nc e w as harm le ss, a s he ha s be enuna ble to de m on st rat e th athe su ffer edan y pre jud ic e. Se e Uni te d States v . P arr ish , 427 F
. 3d 1345 , 1347-48 (11th Cir. 2005 ). Sec ond, McCly m ont argu es that the district court im posed an un reasonable sentence of 288 m onth s’ im prisonm ent. The sentence w as3

w ith in the a dvi sor

y G uid el ine s r an ge , a nd “ w e or din ar ily w ill e xpec t that ch oic e to be a reas o n ab l e one.” United States v. T alley , 431 F. 3d 78 4, 788 (11th Cir. 2005). A ddi tio na lly , a lth ough18 U
. S. C. § 35 53( a) (6 ) dir ec ts th e di st ri ct c ourt t o “ av oid
unw a rr a n t e ds e n t e n c e d i s p a r i t i e s a m o n g d e f e n d a n t s w i t h s i m i l a r

r e c o r d s w h o h a ve be en fo und gui lty of sim ilar co nduc t, ” he re the re ar e ratio na l re as on s fo r w hy McCly m ont’s c odefendants received lesser sentences, nam ely the fa ct that they
rece ived the benefits of their cooperation. McC lym ont’s sentence is reasonable. Only issues (1) and (2) r aised by Olivare s war

rant discussio n. O livares argues tha t the dis tr ic t c ourt e rred by fail ing to dis m iss the ind ic tm en t ba se d onthe gove rn m en t’ s de str

uc tio n of the ve sse l on w hic h O liv ar es w as ar re ste d. I n or de r fo r evidence to be m aterial f or constitu tional pu rp oses, it m ust “ both possess an
ex culp at or y va lue tha t w as appare nt b ef or e the e vid en ce w as de str oy ed , a nd b e of
suc h ana tur e tha t the de fe ndant w oul d be unab le to obt ai n c om pa ra ble e vid en ce by other reasonably

available m eans.” Ca lif

orni a v. T rom be tta , 467 U
. S. 479, 489, 104 S. Ct
. 252 8, 253 4 ( 1984 ). O liv ar es f ai ls to satis fy

the f ir st p ro ng o f the te st. T hus, the dis tr ic t c ourt di d no t e rr in de ny ing his m oti on t o di sm iss
. O liv ar es ’ se co nd i ssu e is tha t the dis tr ic t c ourt e rr ed by f ai lin g to sup pr es s
ev ide nc e obt ai ne d a s th e re sul t of a n il le ga l se ar cha nd s ei zure of the ve sse l. H owe ve r, the m ag istrate j udge f ound that the U nit ed

S ta te s C oa st Gua rd

ha d th e4

consent of Sao Tom e to searc h the ship in the form of an agre em ent with the U .S
. St at e Dep art m en t o bt ai ne d i n 2 00 3. ( See R. 1-119 at 2-4.) T his findi ng has su pport in the record, and suffices to suppo rt th e con clusion that the ship wa s subject to U .S
. juri sd ic ti on un de r 46 U.S.C. § 1 90 3( c)(1 )(C)
. W e fi nd no rev ers ib le erro r. AFFIRMED.