FILED U.S. COURT OF AP P EALS E LEVEN T HC IRC UIT March 28, 2008 THOMAS K. KAH

N CLERK [ 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- 10710 N on -A rgum entC al endar

________________________ D. C . Do c k e tNo . 0 6 - 2 0 4 1 8 - C R - UU B 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 F R E D D Y P O L I N O - M E R C E D E S , 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 ar c h 28, 2008) B efo re A N D E R S O N , B IR C H an dD U B IN A , C i rcu i tJu d g es. P E R C U R I A M: F r e ddyP ol i no- M e r c e de s appe a l s hi s 46- m onth s e nt e nc e f ori l l e ga l r e e ntryof a r em ov ed al i en, i n v i ol at i on of 8 U . S . C . § 1 32 6(a) and (b). P ol i no -M er ce des2

r a is e s tw o a r g u m e n ts : ( 1 ) h is s e n te n c e is p r o c e d u r a llya n ds u b s ta n tiv e ly u n r e a s o n ab le ; a n d ( 2 ) f

o rth e f ir s t tim e o n ap p e a l, th a t th e d is tr ic t c o u rt v io la te dh is F i fth and S i xth A m endm entri gh t s w hen i tused hi s pri or fe l on y c on vi ct i on that w a s n o t a lle g e d in th e in d ic tm e n t o rp r o v e n to aju ryb e y o n dar e a s o n ab le d o u b t to e n h a n c e h i s s e n t e n c e p u r s u a n tt o 8 U. S . C . § 1 3 2 6 ( b ) ( 2 ) a n dU. S . S . G. § 2 L 1 .2 ( b ) ( 1 ) ( A ) ( i) . F ir s t, P o lin o - M e r c e d e s a r g u e s th a t h is 4 6 - m o n th s e n te n c e is p r o c e d u r a lly a nd s ubs t a nt i ve l yunr e a s onabl e be c aus e the di s tr i c tc ourtf a i l e d t o a de qua t e l ya nd pr ope r l yc ons i de rthe § 3553( a ) f a c t or s . F urthe r , P ol i no- M e r c e de s a r gue s tha tthe s e n te n c e f

a ils to ta k e in to c o n s id e r a tio n p o te n tia l s e n te n c in g d is p a r itie s b e c au s e , if h e h a d b e e n c o n v ic te d o f c o c a in e tr a f

f ic k in g in f

e d e r a l c o u rt, r a th e rth a n s ta te c ourt , hi s G ui de l i ne r a nge w oul d l i ke l yha ve be e n l ow e r , a nd thus he m i ghtha ve r e c e i ve d al ow e rs e nt e nc e ba s e d on the i ns t antof f e ns e . A ddi t i ona l l y , P ol i noM e r c e d e s a r g u e s th a t a1 6 - le v e l e n h a n c e m e n t f o rap r io ra g g r a v a te df

e lo n yis un re as on abl e bec ause i tfa i l s t o d i st i ng ui sh betw ee n m ore s ever e and l es s s ever e m i s c onduc t , i tdoubl e ortr i pl e c ount s the c r i m i na l hi s t orypoi nt s , a nd i tf a i l s t o t a ke i nt o a c c ountdi s pa r i t i e s a c r os s di s tr i c t s i n r e e ntryc a s e s due t o the e xi s t e nc e of “f a s t- tr a c k ” p r o g r a m s in c e rta in d is tr ic ts . P o lin o - M e r c e d e s f u rth e ra r g u e s th a t h is s e nt e nc e i s unr e a s onabl e pa rt i c ul a r l ybe c aus e hi s c onduc tw a s m i nor . P ol i no-3

M e r c e de s c i t e s L ope z v. G onz a l e s , 549 U . S . ___, 127 S . C t . 625 ( 2006) , f orthe pr opos i t i on tha tf

e de r a l l a w , r a the rtha n s t a t e l a w , s houl d be the be nc hm a rk of the “s e r io u s n e s s ” o f

ad ru g tr a f

f ic k in g c r im e f

o rf e d e r a l s e n te n c in g p u rp o s e s . P ur s ua ntt o the S upr e m e C ourt ’ s de c i s i on i n U ni t e d S t a t e s v. B ooke r , 543 U .S . 2 2 0 , 1 2 5 S .C t. 7 3 8 , 1 6 0 L .E d .2 d6 2 1 (2 0 0 5 ), w e r ev iew a d istrict co u rt’s ul t i m a t e s e nt e nc e f

orr e a s onabl e ne s s . U ni t e d S t a t e s v. A r e va l o- J ua r e z , 464 F . 3d 1 2 4 6 , 1 2 4 9 ( 1 1 th C ir . 2 0 0 6 ) . T h e s e n te n c in g c o u rt m u s t f ir s t c o rr e c tlyc a lc u la te th e d e f e n d a n t’s G u id e lin e r a n g e . U n ite dS ta te s v . T a lle y , 4 3 1 F .3 d7 8 4 , 7 8 6 ( 1 1 th C i r . 2005) . S e c ond, the s e nt e nc i ng c ourtm us tc ons i de rthe f a c t or s l i s t e d i n 18 U. S . C . § 3 5 5 3 ( a ) t o d e t e rm i n e ar e a s o n ab l e s e n t e n c e . I d . Wh e n we r e v i e w a s e nt e nc e f

orr e a s onabl e ne s s , w e c ons i de r“ the f i na l s e nt e nc e , i n i t s e nt i r e ty , i n l i ght of the § 3 55 3(a) fa ct ors. ” U ni t ed S t at es v. M art i n, 45 5 F . 3d 12 27 , 12 37 (11th C i r. 2 0 0 6 ) .U n r e a s o n ab le n e s s m a yb e p r o c e d u r a l o rs u b s ta n tiv e . U n ite dS ta te s v . H u n t, 4 5 9 F .3 d 1 1 8 0 , 1 1 8 2 n .3 ( 1 1 th C ir . 2 0 0 6 ) . A s e n te n c e m a yb e p r o c e d u r a lly u n re as o n ab le if “i t i s th e p ro d u ct o f a p ro ce d u re th at d o es n o t fo ll o w B o o k er ’s r e qui r e m e nt s , r e ga r dl e s s of the a c tua l s e nt e nc e . ” I d. M or e ove r , as e nt e nc e m a ybe pr oc e dur a l l yunr e a s onabl e i f the di s tr i c tc ourtf

a i l e d t o c ons i de rthe r e l e va nt § 3 5 5 3 ( a ) f

a c to r s . T a lle y , 4 3 1 F .3 da t 7 8 6 . A s e n te n c e “m a yb e s u b s ta n tiv e ly4

unr e a s onabl e , r e ga r dl e s s of the pr oc e dur e us e d. ” H unt , 459 F . 3d a t1182 n. 3. T he w e ig h t a c c o r d e d to th e § 3 5 5 3 ( a ) f a c to r s is w ith in th e d is tr ic t c o u rt’s d is c r e tio n . U ni t e d S t a t e s v. W i l l i a m s , 456 F . 3d 1353, 1363 ( 11th C i r . 2006) , c e rt . di s m i s s e d, 127 S . C t . 3040 ( 2007) . T he § 3553( a ) f a c t or s i nc l ude : ( 1) the na tur e a nd c ir c u m s ta n c e s o f

th e o f f e n s e a n d th e h is to rya n dc h a r a c te r is tic s o f th e d e f e n d a n t; ( 2 ) th e n e e d f

o rth e s e n te n c e ( A ) 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 p r o v id e ju s t p u n is h m e n t f o rth e o f f e n s e , ( B ) to a f f or d a de qua t e de t e rr e nc e t o c r i m i na l c onduc t , ( C ) t o pr ot e c tthe publ i c f r om further c ri m es of the defendant , and (D ) t o p rovi de the defendantw i th n ee ded educat i on al or vo ca t i on al tra i ni ng or m edi ca l care ; (3) the ki nd s of s ent ence s a va i l abl e ; ( 4) the S e nt e nc i ng G ui de l i ne s r a nge ; ( 5) pe rt i ne ntpol i c ys 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; ( 6) the ne e d t o a voi d unw a rr a nt e d s e nt e nc i ng d is p a r itie s ; ( 7 ) a n d th e n e e d to p r o v id e r e s titu tio n to v ic tim s . S e e 1 8 U .S .C . § 3 5 5 3 ( a ) ( 1 ) - ( 7 ) . P ol i no- M e r c e de s ’ s a r gum e nttha tdi s pa r i t i e s i n s e nt e nc e s tha ta r os e due t o a l a c ko f f a s t - tr a c kp r o g r a m s i n c e rt a i n d i s tr i c t s f a i l s b e c au s e , i n Ar e v a l o - J u a r e z , we hel d that“ i tw as i m perm i ss i bl e f or the di stri ctcourtt o con si der di spar i t i es as soci at ed w i th ear l y di sposi t i on prog ram s i n i m po si ng [def endant ’ s] se nt ence , be c aus e s uc h di s pa r i t i e s a r e not‘ unw a rr a nt e d s e nt e nc i ng di s pa r i t i e s ’ f orthe5

p u rp o s e s o f

§ 3 5 5 3 ( a ) ( 6 ) .” 4 6 4 F .3 da t 1 2 5 1 . R egar di ng w hether P ol i no -M er ce des’ s pri or cocai ne conv i ct i on w as i m perm i ss i bl y dou bl e or tri pl e c ou nt ed, the di stri ctcourtconsi dere d the i ss ue w hen i tas ked the go vernm entfor are spon se t o P ol i no -M er ce des’ s argum ent . M oreover, w e ha ve he l d, I m pe rm i s s i bl e doubl e c ount i ng oc c ur s onl yw he n one pa rtof the G ui de l i ne s i s appl i e d t o i nc r e a s e ade f e nda nt ’ s puni s hm e nton a c c ount of aki nd of

ha rm tha tha s a l r e a dybe e n f ul l ya c c ount e d f

orby appl i c a t i on of

a nothe rpa rtof

the G ui de l i ne s . W e pr e s um e tha tthe S e n te n c in g C o m m is s io n in te n d e ds e p a r a te g u id e lin e s s e c tio n s to ap p lyc u m u la tiv e ly , u n le s s s p e c if ic a llyd ir e c te do th e rw is e . D o u b le c ount i ng af

a c t ordur i ng s e nt e nc i ng i s pe rm i tt e d i f the S e nt e nc i ng C o m m is s io n . . . in te n d e d th a t r e s u lt a n de a c h g u id e lin e s e c tio n in q u e s tio n c o n c e rn s c o n c e p tu a llys e p a r a te n o tio n s r e la tin g to s e nt e nc i ng. U ni t e d S t a t e s v. D udl e y , 463 F . 3d 1221, 1226- 27 ( 11th C i r . 2006) ( quot a t i ons a nd ci t at i on s om i tt ed). P ol i no -M er ce des does notar gu e thatthe di stri ctcourt in c o rr e c tlyc a lc u la te d h is G u id e lin e r a n g e . H o w e v e r , h e a r g u e s th a t h is s e n te n c e is unr e a s onabl e be c aus e hi s pr i orc onvi c t i on i s doubl e ortr i pl e c ount e d, a nd thus r e s ul t s i n as e nt e nc i ng di s pa r i tybe c aus e hi s s e nt e nc e i s the s a m e a s tha tf or s o m e o n e w h o h a s b e e n c o n v ic te do f am o r e s e r io u s c r im e . H is a r g u m e n t f a ils be c aus e thi s di s pa r i tyi s notunw a rr a nt e d a s i tw a s c r e a t e d byapr ope rappl i c a t i on o f th e G u id e lin e s . T o th e e x te n t th a t P o lin o - M e r c e d e s a r g u e s th a t h e r e c e iv e dap r o c e d u r a lly6

u n r e a s o n ab le s e n te n c e b e c au s e th e d is tr ic t c o u rt f a ile dto c o n s id e rh is a r g u m e n ts an d th e § 3 5 5 3 (a) factors, his argu m en tfai l s. B efo re sen t en ci n g P o l i n o -M erced es, th e d is tr ic t c o u rt ju d g e s ta te d , “I th in kth e g u id e lin e s e n te n c e is ar e a s o n ab le se nt ence and I’ m go i ng [t o] i m po se a s ent ence atthe l ow end o f the gu i del i nes. ” H ow ever , the di stri ctcourtdi sc usse d v ar i ou s § 35 53 (a ) f ac t ors bef

ore i tse nt ence d P ol i no- M e r c e de s . F urthe r , the c ourte xpl i c i t l ys t a t e d tha ti tha d c ons i de r e d P ol i noM er ce des’ s argum ent s and the § 3 55 3(a) fa ct ors. In fa ct , the di stri ctcourt s pe c i f i c a l l ym e nt i one d § 3553( a ) thr e e t i m e s . T he r e f or e , the r e c or d s how s tha tthe c ourtc om pl i e d w i th B ooke r ’ s r e qui r e m e nt s . S e e T a l l e y , 431 F . 3d a t786. T he re cord al so show s thatthe di stri ctcourtdi d n otpres um e aw i thi n-gu i del i nes s e n te n c e to b e r e a s o n ab le . P ol i no- M e r c e de s a r gue s tha tthe S upr e m e C ourt ’ s hol di ng i n L ope z , 549 U . S . ___, 127 S . C t . 625, i ndi c a t e s tha tf e de r a l r a the rtha n s t a t e l a w s houl d be the be nc hm a rk of

the “ s e r i ous ne s s ” of

adrug tr a f

f i c ki ng c r i m e f

orf e de r a l s e nt e nc i ng pu rposes . In L op ez , the C ou rthel d thatfor purpo se s of det erm i ni ng w hether a f e lo n yis a n a g g r a v a te d f e lo n yf o rp u rp o s e s o f

th e I m m ig r a tio n a n dN a tio n a lity A ct , “ a s t at e off

ense const i tut es a ‘ fe l on y pun i shabl e und erthe C on trol l ed S ub st ance s A ct ’ on l y i f i tproscr i bes c on du ctpu ni shabl e a s afe l on y und erthat fe dera l l aw . ” I d. at___, 12 7 S . C t . at63 3. H er e, P ol i no -M er ce des c on ce des that7

hi s c on vi ct i on for s el l i ng coca i ne w ou l d h ave been a f el on y und erfe dera l l aw because he a dm i t s thathe w ou l d h ave been el i gi bl e f or a t erm of i m pri sonm entof 8 to 1 4 m o n th s if h e h ad b ee n se n ten ce du n d erfe d er al law . P o li n o -M er ce d es ’s a r g u m e n t f

a ils b e c au s e th e G u id e lin e s p r o p e r lya c c o u n te df o rth e s e r io u s n e s s o f

h is u n d e r ly in g c o n v ic tio n a n d th e d is tr ic t c o u rt c o n s id e r e dh is a r g u m e n t. R egar di ng w hether P ol i no -M er ce des’ s s ent ence i s r ea sonabl e, the di stri ct c ourts t a t e d tha ti tha d c ons i de r e d the s t a t e m e nt s of the pa rt i e s , the P S I , the a dvi s oryG ui de l i ne s r a nge , a s w e l l a s the § 3553( a ) f a c t or s . A tthe s e nt e nc i ng h eari n g , th e d i stri ctco u rth eard arg u m en tfro m co u n sel fo r P o l i n o -M erced es, a r g u m e n t f

r o m c o u n s e l f

o rth e g o v e rn m e n t, a n das ta te m e n t f r o m P o lin o - M e r c e d e s . T o the e xt e nttha tP ol i no- M e r c e de s a r gue s tha tthe di s tr i c tc ourtf a i l e d t o gi ve w e i ghtt o hi s f

a c t or s a s s e rt e d i n s upportof al ow e rs e nt e nc e , s uc h a s the ne e d f or heal thcar e and hi s per sonal ci rc um st ance s, thatdeci si on i s w i thi n the di stri ct court ’ s di sc re t i on . S ee W i l l i am s, 45 6 F . 3d at13 63 (“ T he w ei gh tt o b e a cc orded a nygi ve n § 3553( a ) f

a c t ori s am 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 d i stri ctco u rt . ”). F u rth er, P o l i n o -M erced es’ s 4 6 -m o n th (3 years, 1 0 m o n th s) se nt ence w as atthe bo tt om of the G ui del i nes r ange and b el ow the st atut ory m ax i m u m o f 2 0 years’ i m p ri so n m en t . S ee 8 U . S . C . § 1 3 2 6 (b )(2 ), see al so W i ni ng ear, 42 2 F . 3d at12 46 . B as ed on thi s r ec ord, P ol i no -M er ce des has no tm et8

the bu rden of es t abl i shi ng the un re as on abl enes s of hi s s ent ence . S e c o n d , P o lin o - M e r c e d e s a r g u e s f o rth e f ir s t tim e o n ap p e a l th a t h is F if th a nd S i xth A m e ndm e ntr i ght s w e r e vi ol a t e d w he n the di s tr i c tc ourtus e d hi s pr i or c onvi c t i on tha tw a s nota l l e ge d i n the i ndi c tm e ntorpr ove n t o aj urybe y ond a r e a s o n ab l e d o u b tt o e n h a n c e h i s s e n t e n c e u n d e rb o th U. S . S . G. § 2 L 1 . 2 ( b ) ( 1 ) ( A) ( a ddi ng 16 l e ve l s f

orha vi ng apr i ora ggr a va t e d f e l ony ) a nd 8 U . S . C . § 1326( b) ( 2) (i ncre as i ng the st atut ory m axi m um t o 2 0 years ’ i m pri sonm ent ). H e a ckno w l edges th a t h is a r g u m e n t is f

o r e c lo s e d b yo u rp r e c e d e n t, b u t r a is e s th e c la im to p r e s e rv e it f orf urthe rappe l l a t e r e vi e w . B e c aus e P ol i no- M e r c e de s di d notr a i s e a n obj e c t i on b a s e d o n th e F if

th a n d S ix th A m e n d m e n ts in th e d is tr ic t c o u rt, w e r e v ie w h is c ons t i tut i ona l c l a i m f

orpl a i n e rr or . S e e U ni t e d S t a t e s v. D a y , 465 F . 3d 1262, 1264 (11th C i r. 20 06 ). “A n ap p e lla te c o u rt m a yn o t c o rr e c t a n e rr o rth e d e f e n d a n t f a ile dto r a is e in th e d is tr ic t c o u rt u n le s s th e r e is : ( 1 ) 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 subst ant i al ri gh t s. If

al l three cond i t i on s are m et , an appel l at e c ou rtm aythen e x e r c is e its d is c r e tio n to n o tic e af o r f e ite de rr o r , b u t o n lyif

( 4 ) th e e rr o rs e r io u s ly af fe ct s the fa i rnes s, i nt egri ty, or pu bl i c r eput at i on of j ud i ci alproceedi ng s. ” U ni t ed S t a t e s v. R odr i gue z , 398 F . 3d 1291, 1298 ( 11th C i r . 2005) ( c i t a t i ons a nd qu ot at i on s om i tt ed). A n err or i s notpl ai n “ i f i ti s notcl ear und ercurr entl aw . ”9

U ni t e d S t a t e s v. C hau, 426 F . 3d 1318, 1322 ( 11th C i r . 2005) ( c i t a t i on a nd q u o ta tio n s o m itte d ) . I n A l m e nda r e z - T orr e s , the S upr e m e C ourthe l d the gove rnm e ntne e d not a lle g e in its in d ic tm e n t a n d n e e d n o t p r o v e b e y o n dar e a s o n ab le d o u b t th a t a d efen d an th ad p ri o r co n v i ct i o n s i n o rd er fo r th e d i stri ctco u rtt o u se th o se conv i ct i on s f

or pu rposes of enhanci ng a s ent ence . 52 3 U . S . at23 5-39 , 11 8 S . C t . at 12 26 -29. W e have not ed that , w hi l e r ec entdeci si on s, i ncl ud i ng S hepard, m ay a r g u ab lyc a s t d o u b t o n th e f u tu r e p r o s p e c ts o f

A lm e n d a r e z - T o rr e s , th e c a s e is s till control l i ng prec edentas the S up re m e C ou rthas notexpl i ci t l y overrul ed i t . U ni t ed S t a t e s v. C a m a c ho- I ba r que n, 410 F . 3d 1307, 1316 n. 3 ( 11th C i r . ) , c e rt . de ni e d, 546 U . S . 951 ( 2005) . A s the S upr e m e C ourtha s s t a t e d, i t s “ de c i s i ons r e m a i n bi ndi ng pr e c e de ntunt i l [ i t ] s e e [ s ] f i tt o r e c ons i de rthe m , r e ga r dl e s s of w he the rs ubs e que nt cases h av e rai sed d o ub t s ab o u tth ei r co n t i n u i n g v i t al i ty. ” H o h n v . U n i t ed S t at es, 5 2 4 U .S . 2 3 6 , 2 5 2 - 5 3 , 1 1 8 S .C t. 1 9 6 9 , 1 9 7 8 , 1 4 1 L .E d .2 d2 4 2 ( 1 9 9 8 ) . W hi l e the S up re m e C ou rtm ayhave cas tdo ub ton A l m endarez -T orre s, i thas n o ts p e c i f

i c a l l yo v e rru l e d th a tc a s e . C a m a c h o - I b a r q u e n , 4 1 0 F . 3 da t1 3 1 6 n . 3 . As s uc h, a nye rr ori s notpl a i n be c aus e i ti s notc l e a runde rS upr e m e C ourtorour c a s e l a w . S e e C hau, 426 F . 3d a t1322 ( “ w he r e the e xpl i c i tl a ngua ge of as t a tut e or rul e does notspec i fi ca l l y r es ol ve an i ss ue, there can b e no p l ai n err or w here therePolino-Merce des’s re quest for oral argument is denied. 1 10 i s n o p reced en tfro m th e S u p rem e C o u rto r th i s C o u rtd i rect l y reso l v i n g i t . ”). T h u s, P o lin o - M e r c e d e s ’s a r g u m e n t th a t th e d is tr ic t c o u rt v io la te dh is F if th a n dS ix th A me n d me n tr i g h t s b yi n c r e a s i n g th e s t a tu t o ryma x i mu m u n d e r8 U . S. C. § 1326( b) ( 2) f

a i l s . B a s e d on ourpr e c e de nt , P ol i no- M e r c e de s ha s f a i l e d t o s how p la in e rr o r . U pon r e vi e w of

the r e c or d, a nd upon c ons i de r a t i on of the br i e f s of the p a rtie s , w e d is c e rn n o r e v e r s ib le e rr o r . T h e r e f o r e , w e a f

f irm . A F F I R M E D . 1