### FI LED U.S. COURT O F APP EALS ELEVENTH CIRCUIT J uly 11, 20 05 THO MAS K. KAH N CL ERK [DO NOT PUBLISH] IN THE UN ITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FO R T HE EL EV EN TH CIRC UI T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. 04- 1610 1 Non-A rgum ent Calendar

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ D. C. Dock etNo. 0 4- 00 26 1- CR-T-2 7- MAP UNITED STAT ES OF AMERIC A, Plaintiff-Appellee, ve rs us SILVARIO HEREA-MARTI NEZ, D ef en dant- Appe llant.

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ Appeal f rom the United State s District Court fo r the Mi ddl e D istri ct

of F lor ida

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ _ (J ul y 11 , 200 5) Be fo re BI RC H , D U BIN A and B A RKE T T , Ci rc uit Jud ge s. PE R CU RIA M:2

Appe llant H er ea -M ar

tin ez , thr oughc ouns el , appe al s hi s 13 5- m onth s e n t e n c e f

o r c o n s p i r a c y a n dp o s s e s s i o n w i t h th e i n t e n tt o d i s t r i b u t e f i v e k i l o g r a ms or m or e of c oc ai ne w hil e ab oard

ave sse l su

bj ec t t o th e U nit ed

S ta te s j ur isd ic tio n, in vio lation of 46 App. U. S. C. § 190 3(a), (g), and (j ) and 21 U. S. C. 960( b) (1 )( B) (i i) . O n a

ppe al , H er ea -M ar

tin ez arg ue s th at

the dis tr ic t c ourt e rr ed

in deny ing hi s request for a m itigatin g-role re duction . He also argues that the court com m itted reversible err or under B lak el y v. W ashi ngt on , 542 U . S. ___ , 124 S . Ct . 2531 , 159 L . E d. 2d 4 03 ( 2004 ), and United States v. B ooker , 543 U. S. ___, 125 S. Ct . 738 , 160 L . E d. 2d 6 21 ( 2005 ), w he n it ( 1) de nie d hi s r eque st f

or am iti ga tin grole reduction on the basis of fac ts neither alleged in the indi ctm ent nor adm itted b y h i m, an d( 2 ) s e n t e n c e dh i m u n d e r aman d a t o ry G u i d e l i n e s s ys t e m. M it iga ti ng -R ole R ed uc ti on

“ [A ] dis tr ic t c ourt’ s de te rm inatio n of ade fe ndant’ s r ole in the of fe nse is a questio n of fact to be r eviewe d und er the c learly err oneous standard.” United Sta tes v . D e V

aron , 175 F. 3d 93 0, 938 (11th Cir. 1999) ( en ban c ). Ade fe ndant who is “plainlyam ong th e least culpable of those invol ved in the cond uct of a gr ou p,” is en ti tl edto a fo ur -le ve l re du ct io n fo r hi s m in im al rol e in th e o ffen se . U. S. S. G. § 3B1.2(a) , c m

t. n. 4. Adefendant “ who is less culpable than m ost oth er part ic ipants , but

w hose r ole c oul d no t be de sc ri be d a s m ini m al ” is e nti tle d to a3

tw o- le ve l r ed

uc tio n f or his m ino r ro le . U . S. S. G . § 3B 1. 2( b) , c m t. n. 5. “ T he pr opon en t of

the downw ar d a dj ustm en t . . . a lw ay s be ar s th e bur de n of pr ovi ng a m itigatin g role in the offense by a preponderance of

the evidence.” D e V

aron , 175 F. 3d 9 39. In D e V aron , w e es ta

bli she d atw o- part

te st f or w he the r a m iti ga tin g- ro le reduc ti on is ap pr op ria te . Se e id. a t 94 0- 45. I n a ppl y ing the f

ir st p ro ng, “ the dis tr ic t c ourt m

ust m ea sur e the de fe ndant’ s r ole a ga ins t the r el ev an t c ondu ct f or which [he] has been held accountable.” Id . at 940. “ [W ] here the r elevant conduct attributed to a defendant is ident ical to [his] actual conduct, [ he] cannot prove that [ h e ] i s e n t i t l e dt o ami n o r [ o r mi n i ma l ] r o l e a d

j u s t me n ts i mp l y b y p o i n t i n g t o s o me broader cr im inal schem e in which [he] wa s a m inor participant but for which [he] wa s not heldaccountable.” Id . at 941. “ [W ] hen a drug courier’ s relevant conduct is l im ite d to [ his ] ow n a ct of im porta tio n, adis tr ic t c ourt m ay le git im at el y co nc lud e that the c our ie r play ed an im portant o r es se nti al r ole in the im porta tio n of those drugs .” Id

. at 942-43. Critica lly , the f irst prong of D e V

aron is often di sp os it iv e. Id

. a t 94 5. “ O nly

if ade fe ndant c ane sta

bli sh tha t [ he ] play ed

a re la tiv el y m ino r ro le in the c ondu ct f or w hic h [ he ] ha s a lr ea dy

be enhe ld ac co unt ab le . . . sho uld

the dis tr ic t c ourt gr an t a

downw ar d a dj ustm en t f

or m ino r role in the offense. ” Id

. a t 94 4.4

In the second prong of the D e V aron ana ly sis , the dis tr ic t c ourt m ay a sse ss a de fe ndant’ s r el at ive c ulp ab ili ty vis -a -v is “ oth er

part ic ipants in the r el ev an t conduct.” Id

. at 944. “ The c ondu ct of participants in any larger crim inal conspiracy

is irrelevant. ” Id

. H ow ev er , “ [t ] he f

ac t tha t a de fe ndant’ s r ole m ay

be le ss than th at

of oth er part ic ipants e nga ge d inthe r el ev an t c ondu ct m ay not be dis posi tiv e of

r ole in the of

fe nse , sin ce it

is poss ibl e that no ne are m ino r or m inim al participants.” Id . T he dis tr ic t c ourt ha s “ co nsi de ra ble dis cr et ionin m aking th e fa ct-intensive determ ination .” United States v. B oyd , 291 F . 3d 1 274, 1277 -78 (11th Cir. 2002). He re, the rec ord supp orts the district court’s f indin gs that the cond uct attr ibu te d to H er ea -M ar

tin ezw as ide nti ca l t o hi s a ct ua l c ondu ct

and tha t he did

not de m on st rat e th athe was l es s cu lp ab le th an hi s co de fen da nt s. Acco rd in gl y , we co n cl u d e t h at th e d i s t ri ct co u rt d i dn o tcl ea rl y err, an dwe af fi rm th e d i s t ri ct co u rt ’s de nia l of H er ea -M ar

tin ez ’ s r eque st f

or a m iti ga tin g- ro le r ed

uc tio n. Blak ely/Book er Whe n an a

ppl ic an t ha s ti m el y

obj ec te d to the appl ic at ionof the S en te nc ing G uid el ine s, w e re vie whis Blakely /Booker claim “ in order to determ ine whether the error wa s harm less.” U

nit ed Sta tes v . M

ath en ia , N o. 04-15250 , slip. op. at 2328 ( 11th C ir . May

23, 200 5) . “ [C ] onst itu tio na l e rr or s are harm le ss whe re theApprendi v. New Je rsey , 530 U.S. 466, 490, 120 S. C t. 2348, 2362-63, 147 L . Ed. 2d 435 1 (2 00 0) (h old ingthat “ [o]th e r t ha n th e fa c t of

a pr ior c onvic tio n, any

fa c t th at in c re a se s th e pe na lty for a crime be y ond the pre scribed statutory maxi mum mustbe submitted to a jury , and prove d beyond a re asonable doubt”). 5 gove rn m en t c ansho w , be y ond a re as ona ble doubt, that the e rr or

did not c ontri but e to the defendant’ s ultim ate sentence. ” Id . A non -c onst itu tio na l e rr or is harm le ss i f, vie w ing the pr oc ee din gs i n the ir e nti re ty , ac ourt de te rm ine s th at the e rr or did not a ff ec t the se nte nc e, or

ha d bu t ve ry

sli ght e ff ec t. I f one c ansay

w ithf ai r as sur an ce . . . that the se nte nc e w as not sub stanti al ly

sw ay ed by the error , the sentence is due to be affirm ed even thoug h there w as err or. Id . a t 23 28- 29 ( quot at ion s and a lte ratio ns o m itt ed ). “ It is as dif fi cu lt fo r the gove rn m en t t o m ee t tha t st an dard a s it is fo r a de fe ndant t o m ee t the thi rd -p ro ng prej udice standard for plain error review .” Id . a t 23 29; see also United States v. Rodriguez , 398 F. 3d 12 91, 1301 (11t h Cir. ) (descr ibing the defendant’ s burden un de r pl ai n- erro r an al y si s) , cert. denied , ( U. S. June 20, 2005 ) (N o. 04-1148). In B lak el y , the S uprem e Court struck down an upwar d departure im posed under W ashingt on state sentencing guidelin es that wa s based solelyon judicial factf indin g, clarify ing th at the rele vant “ statutory m axim um ’ for A ppre ndi 1 purpos es is the m axim

um sentence a j udge m ay

im pose sol el y on t he bas is o f the facts reflected in the jur

y verdict or admitted by the defendant .” 542 U . S. a t __ _, 124 S. Ct . a t 25 34- 38. I n Booker , the S upr em e Co urt e xte nde d th is h old ing to theThe fa ctors set for th in § 3553(a) include , amongothers: “( 1) the nature a nd 2 circ umstances of

the offe nse and the history and cha rac teristics of the de fenda nt; (2) the nee d for the sentenc e imposed to (A) to refle ct the ser iousness of the off ense, to promote r espec t for the law, and to pr ovide just punishment for the offe nse; (B ) af ford a dequate deter

renc e to cr iminal conduct; (C) to prote ct the public fr om further crimes of the def endant; and ( D) to provide the defe ndant with neede d educa tional or vocational training , medical c are , or other c orre ctional tr e atme nt i n th e mos t e ff

e c tiv e mann e r; (3 ) t

he kin ds of

se nte nc e s ava ila

ble ; . . . ( 6) the ne e d to avoid unwar

rante d sentenc e disparities among de fenda nts with sim ilar re cords who ha ve bee n found guilty

of similar conduc t; and (7) the ne ed to provide r estitution t o any victims of the offe nse.” 18 U .S.C. § 1353(a). 6 Fe de ra l S en te nc ing G uid el ine s. 543 U . S. a t __ _, 125 S . Ct . a t 75 6. T o c ur e the Si xthA m en dm en t vi olatio n in Booker , th e Supr em e Co ur t (1 ) ex erci se d t wo statut or y pr ovi sio ns tha t r ei nf

or ce d th e m an da tor

y na tur e of the G uid el ine s, ( 2) he ld tha t the G uid el ine s w er e advis or y , and ( 3) de te rm ine d th at se nte nc es sho uld be review ed on appeal for re asonableness, considering the 18 U. S. C. § 355 3(a) fa ct or s. Id

. a t __ _, 125 S . Ct . a t 76 4. 2 W e ha ve he ld tha t the re c oul d be tw o di sti nc t Booker e rr or s – ( 1) the e rr or of im posi ng a se nte nc e en hanc em en t ba se d onj udi ci al f ind ing s th at

go b ey ond the fa ct s a dm itt ed

by the de fe ndant o r fo und by the j ur y , or “ co nst itu tio na l e rr or ”; and (2) the er ror of being sentenced under a m andatory guidelin es sy stem , or “ statutory error .” Se e M

ath en ia , N o. 04- 1525 0, sli p op . a t 23 28. Whe n th er e is n o co nst itu tio na l Booker

e rr or , thi s c ourt st ill m

ust de te rm ine w he the r the non co nst itu tio na l B ook

er error in sentencing a defe ndant un der the G uidelin es as m an da to ry

co ns ti tu te d re ve rs ib le erro r. Se e U nit ed Sta tes v . G all egos-

A gue ro , N o.7

04- 1424 2, sli p op . a t 23 08 ( 11th C ir . May 18, 200 5) ( hol din g th at

“ [t ] he use of

the gui de lin es a s m an da tor

y [ is] e rr or , e ve n inthe abse nc e of aS ixth A m en dm en t violatio n”). Inthe pr es er

ve d e rr or c ont ex t whe re the gov er

nm en t be ar s th e bur de n of p ro v i n g th at th e s t at u t o ry erro r i s h ar m l es s , we h av e a ff i rmeda d ef

en d an t ’s sentence, despite the Booker err or when the district court stated its sentences w oul d be the sam e ev en

if the S upr em e Co urt a ff

irm ed the de ci sio n in Booker

and held that “ under B lak

el y , the United States Sentencing Guidelines [we re] uncons titutio nal . . . .” Se e M ath en ia , N o. 04- 1525 0, sli p. op. a t 23 28- 30. A lth oughH er ea -M ar

tin ez sug ge sts that the dis tr ic t c ourt c om m itt ed a co nst itu tio na l Booker

e rr or in de ny ing his r eque st f

or am iti ga tin g- ro le r ed

uc tio n on the ba sis of

f ac ts n ei the r al le ge d inthe ind ic tm en t no r adm itt ed by him , ( 1) by its ow n te rm s B ook

er refe rs only

to factors that increa se a defe ndant’s sentence, see B ooker , 543 U. S. at ___, 125 S. C t. at 756; and (2) even if Booker appl ie d to sentence reductions, the sentencing court denied Herea -Martinez’ s request for a ro le r ed uc tio n onthe ba sis of

a ct s th at H er ea -M ar

tin ez a dm itt ed

dur ing the ch an ge -o f- ple a he ar ing . A cc or din gly , w e co nc lud e that the dis tr ic t c ourt di d no t co m m it a co nst itu tio na l B ook er error .8

Inr eg ar d to the non -c onst itu tio na l Booker err or, bec ause the district court sentenced Her ea-Martinez at the bottom of his guid eline range and did not o ffer an ind ic at ionthat i ts s en te nc e w oul d have be enthe sam e if the G uid el ine s w er e not m andatory , the governm ent cannot sho w “ with fair assurance” that the m andatory na tu re o f th e Gui de li ne s d idno t s ub st an ti al ly sway Herea- Mar ti ne z’s se nt en ce. Se e M ath en ia , No . 0 4 - 1 5 2 5 0 , s l i p o p . a t2 3 2 9 . Th e r e f o r e , th e s t a tu t o ry Booker er ro r is n ot h ar

m le ss. For the fore goin g reasons, w e af firm the district court’ s denial of Her eaM ar t i n ez ’s re qu es tfo r am i t i g at i n g -r o l e r ed u ct i o n , b u twe v ac at e H er ea -M ar t i n ez ’s se nte nc e an d r em an d th is c as e fo r re se nte nc ing c onsi ste nt w ith B lak el yand Booker . AF FIRMED in partand V AC ATE D and RE MA ND ED in part.