FILED U.S. COURT OF A P P E A LS E LE V EN T HC IR C U IT JANUARY 11, 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- 11344 N on -A rgum entC al endar

________________________ D . C. D o c k e tN o . 0 6 - 0 0 0 7 2 - CR- FTM - 2 9 - SPC 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 J O S E L U I S S A L A Z A R - F L O R 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 M i ddl e D i s tr i c tof F l or i da

_________________________ ( Jan u ar y 11, 2008) B efo re H U L L , M A R C U S an d W IL S O N , C i rcu i tJu d g es. P E R C U R I A M: J o s e L u is S a la z a r - F lo r e s a p p e a ls h is 1 8 8 - m o n th s e n te n c e f o rp o s s e s s io n w ith2

i nt entt o d i stri bu t e m etham ph et am i ne, i n v i ol at i on of 21 U . S . C . § 8 41 (a )( 1), ( b ) ( 1 ) ( A ) ( v i i i ) . A f

t e rr e v i e w , w e a f

f i r m. I . B AC KG RO UN D S al az ar -F l ores w as arre st ed af t erhe del i vere d m etham ph et am i ne t o an u n d erco v er D ru g E n fo rcem en tA g en cy (“ D E A ”) ag en t . S al azar-F l o res, a c c om pa ni e d by J os e A s c e nc i on- P e r e z , dr ove hi s pi c kup t o a pr e a r r a nge d m e e t i ng pl a c e a ta C r a c ke rB a r r e l r e s t a ur a nt . S a l a z a r - F l or e s i ndi c a t e d t o the D E A a ge nt tha the w a s the pe r s on de l i ve r i ng the m e tha m phe t a m i ne . S a l a z a r - F l or e s w a l ke d the a g e n t to a n o th e rc a rd r iv e n b y A rb e y M e d in a - F lo r e s , S a la z a r - F lo r e s ’s c o u s in . S al az ar -F l ores op ened a re arpass enger doo r a nd m ot i on ed t o t he D E A agentthat the drug s w er e i n t he back. W hen t he D E A agentdi d n otse e a ny drug s, M edi naF l ores st at ed thatthe drug s w er e behi nd the cushi on i ng of a c hi l d carse atand l i ft ed th e c u s h io n in g . T h e D E A a g e n t s a w s e v e r a l c y lin d r ic a l o b je c ts w r a p p e d in c e llo p h a n e . U s i ng a r a z orbl a de pr oduc e d by S a l a z a r - F l or e s , the D E A a ge ntope ne d one o f th e p ack ag es an d fo u n d a b ro w n , p o w d ery su b st an ce. A ft er S al azar-F l o res, M e di na - F l or e s a nd A s c e nc i on- P e r e z w e r e a r r e s t e d, l a b r e por t s c onf i r m e d tha tthe subst ance consi st ed of 2. 14 4 k i l og ra m s of am etham ph et am i ne m i xture. A t h is p le a h e a r in g , S a la z a r - F lo r e s in d ic a te d th a t h e w is h e d to e n te ra g u ilty3

pl e a , buta l s o m a i nt a i ne d e s s e nt i a l l y tha the w a s a drug m ul e a nd tha t , a l though he kne w he w a s de l i ve r i ng drugs hi dde n i n the c hi l d c a rs e a t , he di d notknow tha tthe drug w a s m e tha m phe t a m i ne . D e f e ns e c ouns e l e xpr e s s e d c onc e r n tha tthe r e m i ght n o tb e a factual basis for a g u i l ty p l ea an d th ath i s cl i en tm i g h tn o tw an tt o p ersi st i n h i s pl ea . A ft era r ec es s, S al az ar -F l ores ent er ed a notgu i l ty pl ea . S a la z a r - F lo r e s , M e d in a - F lo r e s a n d A s c e n c io n - P e r e z w e r e tr ie d to g e th e r . S al az ar -F l ores ’ s def

ense w as thathe w as i nn ocentbeca use, al tho ug h h e s uspect ed there m i gh tbe an i l l egal subst ance i n t he chi l d carse at , he di d n otkn ow for s ure and h e di d n otkn ow thatthe subst ance w as m etham ph et am i ne. S al az ar -F l ores ca l l ed co-defe nd antA sc enci on -P er ez as a def ense w i tness . A sc enci on -P er ez t e s t i f i e d tha the a nd S a l a z a r - F l or e s ha d gone t o the C r a c ke rB a r r e l r e s t a ur a ntf or w o r k a n d w e r e u n a w a r e o f th e d ru g s in th e c h ild c a rs e a t. I n a d d itio n , S a la z a r - F lo r e s te s tif ie d o n b e h a lf

o f h is c o u s in M e d in a - F lo r e s . S pe c i f i c a l l y , S a l a z a r - F l or e s t e s t i f i e d tha tw he n he m e tthe unde r c ove ra ge nt , he thoughthe w a s de l i ve r i ng the c hi l d c a rs e a t . S a l a z a r - F l or e s a l s o t e s t i f i e d tha the d id n o t k n o w th e r e w e r e d ru g s in th e c a rs e a t a n d th a t h e th o u g h t th e p e r s o n to w hom he w a s de l i ve r i ng the c a rs e a tw oul d gi ve hi m w or k i n c ons truc t i on or p ai n t i n g . T h e j u ry co n v i ct ed S al azar-F l o res an d h i s co -d efen d an t s. S a l a z a r - F l or e s ’ s P S I r e c om m e nde d a t ot a l a dj us t e d of f e ns e l e ve l of

36,4

w h i ch i n cl u d ed a tw o -l ev el en h an cem en tfo r o b stru ct i o n o f j u st i ce. T h e P S I al so r e c o m m e n d e d th a t S a la z a r - F lo r e s n o t r e c e iv e a n a c c e p ta n c e o f r e s p o n s ib ility re du ct i on . B as ed on a t ot al offe nse l evel of 36 and a cri m i nal hi st ory c at egory of I , th e P S I reco m m en d ed an ad v i so ry g u i d el i n e ran g e o f 1 8 8 t o 2 3 5 m o n th s’ i m p ri so n m en t . T h e st atu t o ry m an d at o ry-m i n i m u m sen t en ce w as t en years’ i m pri sonm ent . S al az ar -F l ores obj ec t ed t o t he P S I, ar gu i ng , i nt eral i a, thathe w as ent i t l ed t o an acce pt ance of re spon si bi l i ty r educt i on . In the addend um t o t he P S I, the prob at i on offi ce r not ed thatS al az ar -F l ores decl i ned t o p ar t i ci pat e i n an i nt e r vi e w a f

t e rhi s c onvi c t i on. A tse nt enci ng , S al az ar -F l ores ar gu ed thathi s s t at em ent s duri ng hi s pl ea hear i ng show ed thathe had acce pt ed re spon si bi l i ty a nd thathe w as an un educat ed m an w ho had b ee n m ani pu l at ed and i nfl uenced by ot hers . T he di stri ctcourt ov errul ed S al az ar -F l ores ’ s obj ec t i on , fi nd i ng thatS al az ar -F l ores ’ s l at ertri al t e s t i m ony de ny i ng l i a bi l i ty w a s i nc ons i s t e ntw i th hi s s t a t e m e nt s a tthe pl e a he a r i ng an d i n d i cat ed th atS al azar-F l o res d i d n o taccep tresp o n si b i l i ty. A dd re ss i ng the 18 U . S . C . § 3 55 3(a) se nt enci ng fa ct ors, S al az ar -F l ores a r gue d tha t( 1) he ha d onl y a s e c ond gr a de e duc a t i on, ( 2) he ha d c om e t o the U ni t ed S t at es on l y t o fi nd w ork and a bett erpl ac e f or hi m se l f, (3) he had been m a ni pul a t e d by a l a r ge drug or ga ni z a t i on, a nd ( 4) tha the w a s “ a tthe bot t om ” of5

tha tdrug or ga ni z a t i on. S a l a z a r - F l or e s a l s o poi nt e d outtha the ha d no pr i or c r i m i na l hi s t or y ; ha d a w i f e a nd f ourc hi l dr e n; a nd, a s a r e m ova bl e a l i e n, w oul d be h e ld in a n I N S p r is o n a n d r e tu r n e d to M e x ic o a f te rh e f in is h e d h is s e n te n c e . S al az ar -F l ores urged t he di stri ctcourtt o i m po se a t en-y ea r s ent ence . In re spon se , th e g o v er n m en t n o ted th at (1 ) S alaz ar -F lo re s h ad testified o n M ed in a- F lo re s’s b eh al f attri al , (2 ) th ere w as ev i d en ce th atth e C rack er B arrel d eal w as n o tth e fi rst tr a ns a c t i on a nd ( 3) the a m ountof drugs i nvol ve d di d notw a r r a nta s e nt e nc e be l ow the advi sory gu i del i nes r ange. T h e d is tr ic t c o u r t s ta te d th a t it c o n s id e r e d a ll o f S a la z a r - F lo r e s ’s a r g u m e n ts and t he § 3 55 3(a) fa ct ors, bu tfoun d t hatthe on l y m i t i gat i ng fa ct or w as S al az ar F l ores ’ s l ac k o f apri or cr i m i nal hi st ory. A dd i t i on al l y, the di stri ctcourtno t ed that S al az ar -F l ores w as i n t he coun try i l l egal l y, w as i nv ol ved i n t he di stri bu t i on of a s ubs t a nt i a l a m ountof

m e tha m phe t a m i ne , e ve n i f he w a s j us ta “ m ul e , ” a nd tha the h a d lie d a b o u t h is in v o lv e m e n t. T h e d is tr ic t c o u r t im p o s e d a 1 8 8 - m o n th s e n te n c e . S a la z a r - F lo r e s f

ile d th is a p p e a l. I I . DI S CUS S I ON A . A c c e p t an c e of

R e s p on s i b i l i t y R e d u c t i on O n a ppe a l , S a l a z a r - F l or e s a r gue s tha tthe di s tr i c tc our tc l e a r l y e r r e d i n not p r o v id in g a tw o - le v e l a c c e p ta n c e o f r e s p o n s ib ility r e d u c tio n , p u r s u a n t toWe reviewa district cour t’s fac tual finding s concerningacc eptanc e of responsibility for 1 clea r er ror. United States v. Williams, 408 F.3d 745, 756 (11th Cir. 2005). “A district c ourt’s deter mination that a defendant is not entitled to acceptanceof re sponsibili ty will not be set aside unless the fa cts in the rec ord cle arly establish that a def

endant ha s acc epted personal responsibility .” United States v. Sawyer, 180 F .3d 1319, 1323 (11th Cir. 1999). Th ere le va

nt c omm e nta

ry to § 3E 1. 1 s tate s in

full: 2 Th is adju stm e nt i s n ot intend e d to a pp ly to a de fend ant wh o p uts theg ov e rnme nt t o its burd e n o f p ro of

at trial by

denyingthee ssenti a l f

a c tual e le me nt s of guil t, is c onvi cte d, and

on ly then a dmi ts guilt and

e xpre sse s re mor se . Co nv ic tio n b y trial, however, does not aut o m ati cally prec lude a de fenda

nt from consideration for [the a c c epta nc e of re sp on sib ili ty] re du c tio n. In raresit uatio ns a de fend ant m ay

c le arly demonstrate a

n acc eptanc e of responsibility for his c riminal conduct even though he exerc is e s h is c o n s ti tuti o n a l right t o a trial. T h is ma

y o c c ur . . . wh e r ea

d e f e n d ant g o e s t o tri a lt o a s s e rt an d p r e s e r v ei s s u e s th atd o n o tr e l at et o f a c tu a lgu i l t. . . . In eac h s u c hin s ta

n c e , h o w e v e r , a

d e ter min ati o nth at a

d e f e n d ant h a s a c c epted re sp on sib ili ty

wi ll b eba se d p ri mari ly

up on pre -t ri a l st ate me nts and

c on du c t. U.S.S.G. § 3E1.1 cmt. n.2 (emphasis adde d). 6 U . S . S . G . § 3E 1. 1. 1 A defe nd anti s e nt i t l ed t o a tw o-l evel re du ct i on i f he “ cl ea rl y dem on stra t es a c c e pt a nc e of

r e s pons i bi l i ty f

orhi s of f e ns e . ” U . S . S . G . § 3E 1. 1( a ) . T he c om m e nt a r y t o § 3E 1. 1 i ndi c a t e s tha ti n the “ r a r e s i tua t i on[ ] ” tha ta de f e nda nt p r o c e e d s to tr ia l “to a s s e r t a n d p r e s e r v e is s u e s th a t d o n o t r e la te to f a c tu a l g u ilt,” th e d e f e n d a n t m a y b e e n title d to a n a c c e p ta n c e o f r e s p o n s ib ility r e d u c tio n if h is “p r e - tr ia l s ta te m e n ts a n d c o n d u c t” d e m o n s tr a te th a t h e h a s a c c e p te d r e s p o n s ib ility . U .S .S .G . § 3 E 1 .1 c m t. n .2 . H o w e v e r , th a t c o m m e n ta r y a ls o p r o v id e s th a t a defe nd antw ho deni es the “ es se nt i al fa ctual el em ent s of gui l t ” a ttri al i s notent i t l ed t o a n a c c e pt a nc e of

r e s pons i bi l i ty r e duc t i on. I d. 2 H e r e , th e d is tr ic t c o u r t d id n o t c le a r ly e r rin f in d in g th a t S a la z a r - F lo r e s d idOrdin ari ly , w ereview a dis tric t c ourt ’s de te rm inatio n o f a de fend ant’ s rolein t

heof fens e 3 for c lear error. United States v. DeVaron, 175 F.3d 930, 937 ( 11th Cir. 1999). However, be c a us eSa lazar

faile d to re qu e st a

min or -rolere du c tio n at sentenc ing , w ereview o nly fo r p lain error. See United States v. Camacho- I barquen, 410 F.3d 1307, 1315 ( 11th Cir. 2005) (applying plain error re view to sentenc ing issues not raised before the district cour t). 7 nota c c e ptr e s pons i bi l i ty f orhi s drug tr a f

f i c ki ng of f e ns e . S a l a z a r - F l or e s pl e d not gu i l ty a nd m ai nt ai ned h i s i nn ocence duri ng tri al . H i s def ense att em pt ed t o at t ac k the e s s e nt i a l s c i e nt e re l e m e ntof hi s of f e ns e . H e di d notgo t o tr i a l t o a s s e r ta nd pr e s e r ve i s s ue s unr e l a t e d t o hi s f a c tua l gui l t . T hus , S a l a z a r - F l or e s ’ s de c i s i on t o go to tr ia l d o e s n o t p r e s e n t o n e o f th e “r a r e s itu a tio n s ” n o te d in th e c o m m e n ta r y to § 3E 1. 1 i n w hi c h hi s e nt i t l e m e ntt o a c c e pt a nc e of r e s pons i bi l i ty c a n be dem on stra t ed by hi s a dm i ss i on du ri ng hi s pl ea hear i ng thathe kn ew he w as del i veri ng drug s. U nd erthe ci rc um st ance s, the re cord do es no tcl ea rl y s ho w that S al az ar -F l ores ac ce pt ed re spon si bi l i ty f or hi s off ense . B . M i n or R ol e R e d u c t i on S a l a z a r - F l or e s a r gue s f

orthe f i r s tt i m e on a ppe a l tha the s houl d ha ve r e c e iv e d a r o le r e d u c tio n b e c a u s e h e w a s a m e r e d ru g “m u le .” 3 If the defendantw as a m i no r par t i ci panti n t he cr i m i nal ac t i vi ty, the di stri ct c our tde c r e a s e s the of

f e ns e l e ve l by tw o l e ve l s . U . S . S . G . § 3B 1. 2( b) . A m i nor p a r tic ip a n t is o n e “w h o is le s s c u lp a b le th a n m o s t o th e rp a r tic ip a n ts , b u t w h o s e r o le c oul d notbe de s c r i be d a s m i ni m a l . ” U . S . S . G . § 3B 1. 2 c m t . n. 5. I f the de f e nda nt8

w a s a m i ni m a l pa r t i c i pa nti n the c r i m i na l a c t i vi ty , the di s tr i c tc our tde c r e a s e s the of f e ns e l e ve l by f

ourl e ve l s . U . S . S . G . § 3B 1. 2( a ) . A m i ni m a l pa r t i c i pa nti s one w ho “ pl ay s am i ni m al rol e i n con ce rt ed ac t i vi ty” ; thi s phras e “ i s i nt ended t o cov er de f e nda nt s w ho a r e pl a i nl y a m ong the l e a s tc ul pa bl e of thos e i nvol ve d i n the c onduc tof

a gr oup. ” U . S . S . G . § 3B 1. 2 c m t . n. 4. T he de f e nda ntha s the bur de n of e s ta b lis h in g h is m itig a tin g r o le in th e o f f e n s e 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 on, 175 F . 3d a t939. T w o p ri n ci p l es g u i d e a d i stri ctco u rt ’ s co n si d erat i o n : (1 ) th e co u rtm u st 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 th e r e le v a n t c o n d u c t a ttr ib u te d to 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) the c our tm a y c om pa r e the defe nd ant ’ s c on du ctt o t hatof ot her par t i ci pant s i nv ol ved i n t he offens e. Id. at 9 4 0 - 4 5 . W h e n th e r e le v a n t c o n d u c t a ttr ib u te d to a d e f e n d a n t is id e n tic a l to h is a c tua l c onduc t , he c a nnotpr ove he i s e nt i t l e d t o a r ol e r e duc t i on s i m pl y by poi nt i ng t o s om e br oa de rs c he m e f orw hi c h he w a s nothe l d a c c ount a bl e . I d. a t941. H e r e , th e r e c o r d d o e s n o t s u g g e s t th a t it w a s e r r o r , le t a lo n e p la in e r r o r , to d en y S alaz ar -F lo re s a ro le re d u ctio n . T h e d istrict co u rt ca lcu lated S alaz ar -F lo re s’s offe nse l evel usi ng the am ou ntof drug s f ou nd i n t he chi l d carse at . T hu s, S al az ar F lo r e s ’s r e le v a n t c o n d u c t a n d h is a c tu a l c o n d u c t a r e id e n tic a l, a n d h e w a s n o t h e ld ac coun t abl e f

or the l ar ger drug con spi ra cy for w hi ch he cl ai m s t o h ave w orkedWe n otethat th eg ov e rnme nt p re se nte d e vid e nc eat trial f ro m whic h a

re a so na ble 4 inference c ould be dra

wn that Salazar-F lores wa s the person identified only as “Chulucke ,” who arrang ed the dr

ugtransac tion by

telephone a

nd claimed hecould ar

rang e futuredeliverie s. However, even if we disre g ard this evidenc e, Salazar- Flore s’s role in the Cra cker Ba rre l trans a c tio n w a s n ot m ino r o r m ini mal. Be causeSalazar-F lores wa s not entitled to a role re duction, his argument that he wa s 5 entitled to a three -leve l reduc tion under U.S.S.G. § 2D1.1(a) (3), whic h is contingent upon re c e ivinga

ro lere du c tio n, is also wi tho ut m e ri t. 9 on l y a s am ul e. F urtherm ore, the ov ertw o k i l og ra m s of m etham ph et am i ne m i xture fo u n d i n th e car seat i s a su b st an t i al am o u n to f d ru g s. In addi t i on , S al az ar -F l ores appears equal l y c ul pabl e w i th t he ot her pa r t i c i pa nt s i n the drug tr a ns a c t i on a tthe C r a c ke rB a r r e l , na m e l y hi s c od e f e n d a n ts . S e e id . a t 9 4 4 ( e x p la in in g th a t it is p o s s ib le th a t s o m e c o n s p ir a c ie s w ill have no m i no r or m i ni m al part i ci pant s a nd thatthe di stri ctcourtshou l d com pare the de f e nda nt ’ s r ol e onl y t o the othe ri de nt i f i a bl e pa r t i c i pa nt s i n the r e l e va nt c o n d u c t a n d th a t “[ t]h e c o n d u c t o f p a r tic ip a n ts in a n y la r g e rc r im in a l c o n s p ir a c y is i rr el evant ”) . F rom the evi dence pres ent ed attri al and recount ed i n t he P S I, S a l a z a r - F l or e s m e tw i th the unde r c ove rD E A a ge nt , i de nt i f i e d hi m s e l f

a s the pers on w ho w ou l d d el i ver the drug s a nd es cort ed the D E A agentt o t he ca r w here the drug s w er e hi dd en. H e a l so hand ed the D E A agenta r az or bl ade a nd as ked 4 h i m i f h e w an t ed t o v eri fy th e q u al i ty o f th e d ru g s. W e can n o tsay, u n d er th ese f a c t s , tha tS a l a z a r - F l or e s w a s e nt i t l e d t o a r ol e r e duc t i on. 5 C . R ea so n a b l en essIn Gall v. United States, the SupremeCourt stated that its “explanation of 6 ‘re asonableness’ review in the B ooker opinion madeit pellucidly clea r that the fa

miliar abuseof -disc re tio n s tand ard

of review n owa

pp lie s to a

pp e llatereview o f s e ntenc ingde c isi on s. ”Gall v. United States, No. 06-7949, ___ U.S. ___, ___ S. Ct. ___, 2007 W L4292116, at *6 (De c. 10, 2007). The Supreme Court further explained that “[t] he uniquene ss of the individual case. . . do e s n ot c ha

ng ethede ferenti a l a

bu se -o f- dis c re tio n s tand ard of review tha

t a pp lie s to a ll sentenc ing de cisions.” I d. at *8. The § 3553(a) fa ctors include: ( 1) the nature a nd circumstances of

the offense and the 7 history and cha rac teristics of the de fenda nt; (2) the nee d to refle ct the seriousness of the off ense, to promote respe ct for thelaw, and to provide just punishment for the offense; (3) theneed f or de te rre nc e ; ( 4) thene e d to prote c t th epu bli c ; ( 5) thene e d to prov idethede fend ant w ith educational or vocational trainingor medical care; (6) thekinds of sentenc es available; (7) the sentenc ing guidelines rang e; (8) pertinent policy statements of the SentencingCommi ssion; (9) thene e d to avo id u

nw arrante d s e ntenc ingdispa ri tie s; a nd (1 0) thene e d to prov idere sti tution to victims. S ee 18 U .S.C. § 3553(a). 10 S a la z a r - F lo r e s c o n te n d s th a t h is 1 8 8 - m o n th s e n te n c e is u n r e a s o n a b le b ecau se th e d i stri ctco u rtd i d n o tad eq u at el y co n si d er th e § 3 5 5 3 (a) factors. 6 A ft erU ni t ed S t at es v. B oo ker, 54 3 U . S . 22 0, 12 5 S . C t . 73 8 (20 05 ), a di stri ct court , i n d et erm i ni ng a r ea sonabl e s ent ence , m ustconsi der the corre ct l y c al cul at ed a dvi s or y gui de l i ne s r a nge a nd the § 3553( a ) f a c t or s . U ni t e d S t a t e s v. T a l l e y , 431 F . 3d 784, 786 ( 11th C i r . 2005) . A l though the di s tr i c tc our tm us tc ons i de rthe 7 § 3 5 5 3 ( a ) f

a c to r s , “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 r t 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 ot t , 426 F . 3d 1324, 1 3 2 9 (1 1 th C i r. 2 0 0 5 ). “ T h e w ei g h tt o b e acco rd ed an y g i v en § 3 5 5 3 (a) factor is a m a t t e rc om m i t t e d t o the s ound di s c r e t i on of the di s tr i c tc our t . ” U ni t e d S t a t e s v. W i l l i am s, 45 6 F . 3d 13 53 , 13 63 (11t h C i r. 20 06 ).11

W e h a v e a lr e a d y c o n c lu d e d th a t th e d is tr ic t c o u r t c o n s id e r e d th e c o r r e c tly c a lc u la te d a d v is o r y g u id e lin e s r a n g e . F u r th e r m o r e , a lth o u g h th e d is tr ic t c o u r t d id no tdi sc uss e ac h fac t or i nd i vi du al l y, i tdi d st at e thati thad con si dere d t he § 3 55 3(a) fa cto rs . T h e d istrict co u rt also stated th at ith ad co n sid er ed S alaz ar -F lo re s’s a r g u m e n ts in m itig a tio n , w h ic h in c lu d e d , a m o n g o th e r s , h is a s s e r tio n s a b o u t h is l i m i t e d e duc a t i on, hi s l i m i t e d i nvol ve m e nti n the tr a ns a c t i on a nd hi s i m m i gr a t i on s t a tus , f a c t or s he now a r gue s the di s tr i c tc our ti na de qua t e l y c ons i de r e d. T he d istrict co u rt co n clu d ed th at th e o n ly tru ly m it ig atin g fa cto r w as S alaz ar -F lo re s’s l a c k of a c r i m i na l hi s t or y a nd pl a c e d gr e a t e rw e i ghton the l a r ge a m ountof drugs in v o lv e d a n d S a la z a r - F lo r e s ’s w illin g n e s s to lie a t tr ia l a b o u t h is in v o lv e m e n t in the of f e ns e . W e c a nnots a y tha tthe di s tr i c tc our ta bus e d i t s di s c r e t i on i n w e i ghi ng the va r i ous § 3553( a ) f

a c t or s ortha tthe 188- m onth s e nt e nc e , a tl ow e nd of the a dvi s or y gui de l i ne s r a nge , w a s out s i de the r a nge of r e a s ona bl e s e nt e nc e s f

r om w hi ch the di stri ctcourtcoul d cho ose. AF F I RME D.