### F I LE D U. S . COURT OF AP PE ALS E LEVE NTH CI RCUI T N ove m be r 29, 2005 T HOM AS K. KAHN C L 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- 12150 N on -A rgum entC al endar

________________________ D . C. D o c k e tN o . 0 4 - 0 0 4 3 8 - CR- T- 3 0 - TBM 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 I N O C E N C I O N S E B A S T I A N C U E R O - A N G U L O , 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

_________________________ ( N ove m b e r 29, 2005) B efo re M A R C U S , W IL S O N an d P R Y O R , C i rcu i tJu d g es. P E R C U R I A M: I noc e nc i on S e ba s t i a n C ue r o- A ngul o appe a l s hi s s e nt e nc e s f orpos s e s s i on2

w ith in te n t to d is tr ib u te c o c a in e 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 is tr ib u te c o c a i n e w h i l e o n av e s s e l s u b j e c tt o th e j u r i s d i c t i o n o f th e U n i t e d St a t e s . 2 1 U . S. C. § 960( b) ( 1) ( B ) ; 46 A pp. U . S . C . § 1903( a ) , ( g) . C ue r o- A ngul o a r gue s tha t( 1) the di s tr i c tc l e a r l y e rr e d i n de ny i ng hi m am i nor - r ol e r e duc t i on unde rs e c t i on 3B 1. 2( b) of the U ni t e d S t a t e s S e nt e nc i ng G ui de l i ne s a nd ( 2) the di s tr i c tc ourte rr e d by fa i l i ng t o con si der f

ac t ors und erse ct i on 35 53 (a ) of T i t l e 18 o f the U ni t ed S t at es C o d e to d e te rm in e h is s e n te n c e . W e a f f irm . I . B AC KG RO UN D C ue r o- A ngul o w a s ac ook on af i s hi ng boa ts a i l i ng f

r om C ol om bi a . T he U . S. Co a s tG u a r d i n t e r c e p t e d th e f i s h i n g b o a ta n d d i s c o v e r e d 1 2 , 0 0 0 k i l o g r a ms ( appr oxi m a t e l y 30, 000 pounds ) of c oc a i ne hi dde n i n a n e m pty f ue l t a nk. C ue r oA ngul o pl e a de d gui l ty t o one c ountof pos s e s s i on w i th i nt e ntt o di s tr i but e c oc a i ne a n d o n e c o u n t o f

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 is tr ib u te c o c a in e w h ile ab o a r d av e s s e l s u b

je c t to th e ju r is d ic tio n o f th e U n ite d S ta te s . 2 1 U .S .C . § 960( b) ( 1) ( B ) ; 46 A pp. U . S . C . § 1903( a ) , ( g) . T he P r e - S e nt e nc e I nve s t i ga t i on R eportre com m ended thatthe di stri ctcourtse tC uero-A ng ul o’ s t ot al offe nse l evel a t3 3 w i th o u tami n o r - r o l e r e d u c t i o n . W i th aCa t e g o ry I c r i mi n a l h i s t o ry , th e PSI c a lc u la te d ag u id e lin e r a n g e o f 1 3 5 to 1 6 8 m o n th s o f

im p r is o n m e n t. A tthe s e nt e nc i ng he a r i ng, C ue r o- A ngul o a r gue d tha the w a s e nt i t l e d t o a3

m i n o r-ro l e red u ct i o n u n d er sect i o n 3 B 1 . 2 o f th e S en t en ci n g G u i d el i n es. H e al so pr e s e nt e d e vi de nc e of

hi s f ourth- gr a de l e ve l e duc a t i on a nd l e tt e r s f r om C ol um bi a ns w ho a tt e s t e d t o hi s good m or a l c ha r a c t e r . T he di s tr i c tc ourtove rrul e d C ue r oA ng ul o’ s obj ec t i on t o the deni al of a m i no r- rol e r educt i on because “ thi s has been the l a r ge s tc oc a i ne i nt e r di c t i on i n hi s t ory ” a nd the qua nt i ty of c oc a i ne s how e d the defe nd ant s w er e a“ trust ed cr ew thathas bee n u se d b ef ore. ” A ft erthe di stri ctcourt

“ consi dere d the advi sorygu i del i nes and the fa ct ors c on t ai ned i n 1 8 U . S . C . [] S e c tio n 3 5 5 3 ,” it a d o p te d th e f in d in g s o f

th e P S I a n d s e n te n c e d C u e r o - A n g u lo to 1 3 5 m o n th s o f

im p r is o n m e n t.

I I . STA N D A R D O F R EVI EW W e r e vi e w the de ni a l of am i nor - r ol e r e duc t i on unde rs e c t i on 3B 1. 2 of the S e nt e nc i ng G ui de l i ne s f orc l e a re rr or . U ni t e d S t a t e s v. D e V a r on, 175 F . 3d 930, 937 ( 11th C i r . 1999) . B e c aus e C ue r o- A ngul o di d notobj e c tt o the appl i c a t i on of s e c tio n 3 5 5 3 ( a ) a t th e s e n te n c in g h e a r in g , w e r e v ie w h is a r g u m e n t ab o u t h is s e n te n c e f

o r“p la in e rr o r .” U n ite d S ta te s v . R o d r ig u e z , 3 9 8 F .3 d 1 2 9 1 , 1 2 9 8 ( 1 1 th C ir . 2 0 0 5 ) . I I I . DI S CUS S I ON C ue r o- A ngul o m a ke s tw o a r gum e nt s on appe a l . F i r s t , he a r gue s tha tthe di s tr i c tc ourtc l e a r l y e rr e d w he n i tde ni e d hi m am i nor - r ol e r e duc t i on. S e c ond,4

C ue r o- A ngul o a r gue s tha tthe di s tr i c tc ourte rr one ous l y f a i l e d t o c ons i de rthe fa ct ors i n sec t i on 35 53 (a ) of T i t l e 18 o f the U ni t ed S t at es C od e w hen i tse nt ence d h im . B o th a r g u m e n ts f a il. A . T he D is tr i c t

C our t D i d N ot C le ar l y E r ri n D e ny i ng a Mi nor - R ole R e duc t i on. C ue r o- A ngul o a r gue s tha tthe di s tr i c tc ourte rr one ous l y r e l i e d on the qua nt i ty of

drugs t o de ny hi m am i nor - r ol e r e duc t i on. S e c t i on 3B 1. 2 of the S en t en ci n g G u i d el i n es p ro v i d es a sen t en ce red u ct i o n fo r d efen d an t s w h o are “l ess cul pabl e than m ostother part i ci pant s, bu tw ho se rol e c ou l d n otbe desc ri bed as m i ni m a l . ” U . S . S . G . § 3B 1. 2, c m tn. 5. T o r e c e i ve am i nor - r ol e r e duc t i on, the d efen d an t“ b ears th e b u rd en o f p ro v i n g a m i t i g at i n g ro l e i n th e o ffen se b y a p r e p o n d e r a n c e o f

th e e v id e n c e .” D e V a r o n , 1 7 5 F .3 d a t 9 3 9 ; s e e U .S .S .G . § 3 B 1 .2 . A di stri ctcourt(1) “ m ustm ea sure the defendant ’ s r ol e a gai nstthe re l evantcond uct fo r w h ich []h e h as b ee n h eld ac co u n tab le” a n d (2 ) m ay co n sid erth e d ef en d an t’ s

“ r ol e a s c om pa r e d t o tha tof othe rpa rt i c i pa nt s . ” I d. a t940. O the rf a c t or s the di s tr i c tc ourtm a y c ons i de ri nc l ude the “ a m ountof drugs , f a i rm a rke tva l ue of d ru g s , a m o u n t o f

m o n e y to b e p a id to th e c o u r ie r , e q u ity in te r e s t in th e d ru g s , r o le i n p l a n n i n g th e c r i mi n a l s c h e me , a n d r o l e i n d i s tr i b u t i o n . ” I d . a t9 4 5 . I n “ e x tr e me c a s e s ,” th e q u a n tity o f

d ru g s a lo n e m a y b e d is p o s itiv e . I d . a t 9 4 3 . C uero-A ng ul o’ s argum entfa i l s. C uero-A ng ul o fai l ed t o p rove thathe w as5

he l d a c c ount abl e f

orm or e tha n hi s r ol e i n the of f e ns e be c aus e he pl e a de d gui l ty t o, and w as hel d acc ou nt abl e f or, po ss es si ng 12 , 00 0 k i l og ra m s of c ocai ne. S ee i d. at 941 ( “ [ A ] de f

e nda ntm us tpr ove tha ts he pl a y e d am i norr ol e i n the r e l e va nt co n d u ctattri b u t ed t o h er. ”). H e al so fai l ed t o p ro v e th ath i s co n d u ctw as l ess c u lp ab le th a n h is c o - d e f e n d a n ts . T h e d is tr ic t c o u rt a ls o d id n o t c le a r ly e rre v e n if it h a d r e lie d s o le ly o n th e q u a n tity o f d ru g s to d e n y C u e r o - A n g u lo am in o r - r o le re du ct i on because thi s w as an “ extre m e c as e. ” S ee i d. at94 3. T he di stri ctcourt d id n o t c le a r ly e rrw h e n it d e n ie d C u e r o - A n g u lo am in o r - r o le r e d u c tio n . B . T h e D istri ct

C o u rt D i d N o t Fa i l to C o n si der Sect i o n 3 5 5 3 (a ) Fa cto rs C uero-A ng ul o con t ends thathe w as se nt ence d i n v i ol at i on of U ni t ed S t at es v. B oo ker, ___ U . S . ___, 12 5 S . C t . 73 8 (20 05 ), on the grou nd thatthe di stri ct c ourtappl i e d the S e nt e nc i ng G ui de l i ne s a s m a nda t ory a nd f a i l e d t o c ons i de rthe s ta tu to ry s e n te n c in g f

a c to r s . 1 8 U .S .C . § 3 5 5 3 ( a ) . U n d e rs e c tio n 3 5 5 3 ( a ) , a di s tr i c tc ourtm us tc ons i de r( 1) the na tur e a nd c i r c um s t a nc e s of the of f e ns e , ( 2) the hi st ory and char ac t er i st i cs of the defendant , (3) the need for the se nt ence i m po se d to r e f le c t th e s e r io u s n e s s o f

th e o f f e n s e , to p r o m o te r e s p e c t f o rth e la w , a n d to pr ovi de j us tpuni s hm e nt , ( 4) the ne e d t o pr ot e c tthe publ i c , a nd ( 5) the gui de l i ne rang e. Id. T he di stri ctcourt , ho w ever , need no t“ st at e on the re cord thati thas expl i ci t l y c on si dere d eac h o f the § 3 55 3(a) fa ct ors or [ ] di sc uss e ac h o f the §6

3 5 5 3 ( a ) f a c to r s .” U n ite d S ta te s v . S c o tt, N o . 0 5 - 1 1 8 4 3 ( 1 1 th C ir . S e p t. 2 7 , 2 0 0 5 ) . T h e s ta te m e n ts o f

th e d is tr ic t c o u rt a n d th e c o u r s e o f th e p r o c e e d in g s b e lie C uero-A ng ul o’ s a ss ert i on thatthe di stri ctcourtappl i ed the S ent enci ng G ui del i nes a s m a nda t ory a nd f

a i l e d t o c ons i de rthe f

a c t or s i n s e c t i on 3553( a ) . S e e i d. ( c onc l udi ng tha tw he n adi s tr i c tc ourts t a t e d i tha d c ons i de r e d “ a l l the obvi ous thi ng s thatyou w ou l d n orm al l y t ake i n con si dera t i on , ” the di stri ctcourthad consi dere d fac t ors und erse ct i on 35 53 (a )) . W hen the di stri ctcourtse nt ence d C uero-A ng ul o, i texpl i ci t l y s t at ed thati thad “ consi dere d the advi sorygu i del i nes an d th e fact o rs co n t ai n ed i n 1 8 U . S . C . [] S ect i o n 3 5 5 3 . ” T h e d i stri ctco u rtal so h e a r d e v id e n c e o f

C u e r o - A n g u lo ’s la c ko f e d u c a tio n , v o c a tio n a l le v e l, c h a r a c te rin h is n a tiv e c o u n try , a n d la c ko f c r im in a l h is to ry . T h e d is tr ic t c o u rt d id n o t e rr . I V . CONCL US I ON C ue r o- A ngul o’ s s e nt e nc e i s a f f i rm e d. AF F I RME D.