FI LED U.S. COURT OF APPEALS ELEV ENT H CI RCUI T MARCH 3 1, 20 11 J OHN LEY CLERK [DO NOT PUBLISH]

IN THE U

NITED STATE S COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE ELE VENTH CIRCUIT

__

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ No. 1 0- 13 78 3 Non -Arg um en t Ca le nd ar

__

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ D.C. Dock et No. 0 :1 0- cr-6 01 46 -J IC-1

UNITED STAT ES OF AMERIC A,
lll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll l Pl ai nt iff -Ap pe ll ee,

ve rs us
DIEGO L. SIM AN,
ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll Defen da nt -Ap pe ll an t.

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ App eal fro m

th e Uni te d S ta te s Di st ric t Co ur t for th e So ut he rn Dis tri ct of F lo rid a

__

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ (Ma rch 31 , 20 11 )
Befo re MAR CUS, WILSON an d B LACK, Circ ui t J ud ge s.
PER CURI AM: Dieg o L. Si m an ap pe al s hi s 84 -m on th , ab ov e-g ui de li ne se nt en ce im po se d aft er pl ead in g gu il ty to wire frau d, in vi ol at io n of 18 U.S.C. § 13 43

. Si m an arg ue s: (1 ) fo rt h e f

i r s t ti m e on ap pe al th at di st ric t co ur t’s de vi at io n ab ov e th e gu id el in e ran g e

co ns ti tu te s an up ward de pa rtu re of whi ch he was en ti tl ed to ad va nc e no ti ce pe r
Fed .R.Cri m .P. 32 (h ); (2 ) in th e al te rn at iv e, th at th e ab ov e-g ui de li ne se nt en c e i s

s u b st an ti ve ly un reas on ab le ; an d (3 ) th at th e di st ric t co ur t vi ol at ed Fed .R.Cri m .P.

32 (i) (1 )(C) an d hi s rig ht to du e pr oc es s by co ns id eri ng un di sc lo se d vi ct im le tt ers to
de te rm in e hi s se nt en ce wit ho ut fir st pr ov id in g Si m an wit h co pi es of al l of th e le tt ers

. Afte r car efu l re vi ew, we affi rm

. W e rev ie w ob

jecti on s no t rai se d at t h e se nt en ci ng he ari ng an d rai se d fo r th e
fir st ti m e on ap pe al fo r pl ai n erro r. See Uni te d St at es v. Vale nt in e, 21 F.3 d 39 5, 39 7 (1 1t h Ci r. 19 94 ). Und er th e pl ai n erro r st an da rd , th e ap pe ll an t m us t sh ow (1 ) an erro r

t h at (2 ) is pl ai n, (3 ) affe ct s su bs ta nt ia l rig ht s, an d (4 ) se rio us ly affe ct s th e fai rn es s,
in te gr it y , o r pu bl ic rep ut at io n of jud ic ia l pr oc eed in gs

. Uni te d St at es v. O l a n o , 5 0 7
U.S. 72 5, 73 2 (1 99 3)

. W e rev ie w th e su bs ta nt iv e reas on ab le ne ss of a se nt en ce un de r

“ a de fere nt ia l ab us e-o f-d is cret io n st an da rd ” co ns id eri ng th e “ to ta li ty of th e
ci rcu m st an ces ” an d gi v in g “ du e de fere nc e to th e di st ric t co ur t’s de ci si on th at th e §

35 53 (a) fact or s, on a who le , jus ti fy ” th e se nt en ce im po se d. Uni te d St at es v. Liv es ay , 52 5 F.3 d 10 81 , 1 09 0- 91 (1 1t h Ci r. 20 08 ) (q uo ta ti on om it te d)

. Fi na ll y , we rev ie w

co ns ti tu ti on al ch al le ng es to a se nt en ce de no vo

. Uni te d S t a t e s v
. Ch au , 42 6 F.3 d

13 18 , 13 21 (1 1t h Ci r. 20 05 ). “ W e are pr ecl ud ed , ho wev er, fro m rev ie win g an is su e

2rai se d on ap pe al if it ha s be en waiv ed th ro ug h th e do ct rin e of in vi te d erro r.” Uni te d

St at es v. Br an na n, 5 62 F.3d 13 00 , 13 06 (11 th Cir . 20 09 ) (em ph as is om it te d)

. Fi rs t, we reject Si m an ’s cl ai m th at th e di st ric t co ur t p la in ly erred in fai li ng to gi ve no ti ce th at it was co ns id eri ng im po si ng an up ward de p a rtu re. It is un de ni ab le
th at a di st ric t co ur t is req ui red to gi ve reas on ab le n o t i c e to th e de fen da nt whe n it

co nt em pl at es de pa rti ng fro m t h e se nt en ci ng ran ge on gr ou nd s no t id en ti fie d fo r
de pa rtu re in th e PSI or ot he r pr es en te nc in g su bm is si on s. Fed .R.Cri m .P. 32 (h ).

Howev er, th is no ti ce req ui rem en t ap pl ie s on ly to de pa rtu res , no t to d i s c r e t i on ary

va ria nc es

. Uni te d St at es v. Iri zarr y , 45 8 F.3 d 12 08 , 12 12 (1 1t h Ci r. 20 06 ), aff’d, 55 3

U.S. 70 8, 71 6 (2 00 8)

. W e ha ve he ld th at an ab ov e-g ui de li ne se nt en ce was th e res ul t
of a va ria nc e, rat he r th an a de pa rtu re, whe n th e di st ric t co ur t di d no t ci te to a sp eci fic

gu id el in e de pa rtu re pr ov is io n an d st at ed th at th e gu id el in e ran ge di d no t ad eq ua te ly

acco un t fo r th e se ve rit y of th e of fen se

. Uni te d St at es v. Eld ic k, 44 3 F.3 d 78 3, 78 8 n.2 (1 1t h Ci r. 20 06 ); se e al so Irri zary, 45 8 F.3 d at 12 11 -1 2 (h ol di ng th at th e di st ric t co ur t
i mp o se d a di sc ret io na ry va ria nc e rat he r th an a de pa rtu re, be cau se it co ns id ered th e
ad eq ua cy of th e ran ge in li gh t of 18 U.S.C. § 35 53 (a) an d th e ev id en ce pr es en te d of

“ th e fu tu re ri sk Defen da nt po se d t o t he pu bl ic ”).
Si m il arl y , in th is cas e, th e di st ric t co ur t c a l c u l at ed th e co rrec t ad vi so ry

gu id el in e ran ge an d co ns id ered th e vi ct im st at em en ts an d th e st at em en ts pr es en te d by

3th e de fen se

. The di st ric t co ur t sa id th at aft er co ns id eri ng th e st at em en ts of th e pa rti es

an d th e § 35 53 (a) fact or s, th e cas e warra nt ed a se nt en ce ab ov e t h e gu id el in e

m ax im um an d se t fo rth it s reas on in g at le ng th , sp eci fic al ly ci ti ng th e se rio us ne ss an d

m ag n i t u d e o f t h e cri m e, as well as th e ne ed fo r jus t pu ni sh m en t an d ad eq ua te
de te rren ce. Alt ho ug h th e di st ric t co ur t rep eat ed ly re f e rred to th e ab ov e-g ui de li ne s

se nt en c e a s an “ up ward de pa rtu re,” th e di st ric t co ur t di d no t ci te to a gu id el in e
de pa rtu re pr ov is io n or in di cat e th at it was fo ll owi ng th e de pa rtu re fram ew o rk in

U.S.S.G. Ch ap te r 5. See Eld ic k, 44 3 F.3 d at 78 8 n.2

. Co ns id eri ng th e en ti re reco rd , th en , th e di st ric t co ur t cl earl y “ ex erci se d it s po st -Bo ok e r d i s cret io n to im po se a

reas on ab le se nt en ce ou ts id e th e se nt en ci ng gu id el in e ran ge ” in li gh t of th e § 35 53 (a)
fact or s. See Iri zarr y , 45 8 F.3 d at 12 11 -1 2. As a res ul t, th e se nt en ce was th e res ul t of

a va ria nc e, whi ch di d no t tri gg er th e no ti ce req ui rem en t in Ru le 32 (h ), an d th e di st ric t

co ur t di d no t err, pl ai nl y or ot he rwis e, in fai li ng to gi ve no ti ce of it s in te nt to im po se

an ab ov e-g ui de li ne sen te nc e.
Fu rth erm or e, Si m an ha s fai le d to sh ow th at th e di st ric t co ur t co m m it te d a cl ear

erro r of jud gm en t or th at th e 84 -m on th , ab ov e-g ui de li ne se nt en ce im po se d is ou ts id e
th e ran ge of reas on ab le se nt en ces ba se d on th e fac ts of th is cas e. See Uni te d Stat es

v. Irey, 61 2 F.3 d 11 60 , 11 90 (1 1t h Ci r. 20 10 ) (en ba nc ), pe ti ti on fo r cert

. fil ed , (U.S.

Nov

. 24 , 20 10 ) (No

. 10 -7 27 ). The di st ric t co ur t was no t bo un d by th e go ve rn m en t’s

4reco m

m en da ti on of a se nt en ce at th e bo tt om of th e gu id el in e ran ge

. See Eld ic k, 44 3

F.3 d at 78 9. Add it io na ll y , th e di st ric t co ur t is pe rm it te d to im po se an up ward

va ria nc e whe re th e gu id el in es do no t ad eq ua te ly ad dr es s th e s e r io us ne ss an d

m ag ni tu de of t he ha rm

cau se d b y

th e d efen da nt . See i d.

As th e reco rd sh ows , th e di st ric t co ur t he ard th e de fen dant’ s sta te m ent, vi ct im s’

st at em en ts , an d th e go ve rn m en t’s reco m m en da ti on , an d de te rm in ed th at th e ne ed fo r
ad eq ua te de te rren ce an d jus t pu ni sh m en t wou ld no t be sa ti sf ie d by a se nt en ce wit hi n
th e gu id el in e ran ge

. And de sp it e Si m an ’s co nt en ti on s, th e fact or s un de r § 35 53 (a) do

no t req ui re “ vu ln erab le vi ct im s” or “ sp eci al fact or s.” See 18 U.S.C. § 35 53 (a). The

ev id en ce pr es en t e d a t t h e he ari ng in di cat ed th at Si m an to ok ad va nt ag e of an d, in

so m e cas es , to ok th e en ti re li fe sav in gs fro m “ in no cen t peo pl e, ha rd wor ki ng pe op le tryin g to accu m

ul at e fu nd s fo r a co ll eg e ed uc at io n, fo r ret ire m en t, to m ak e th ei r li ve s
be tt er.” The di st ric t co ur t fo un d th at Si m an ’s frau d was “ se rio us ” an d “ eg reg io us .”
Fi na ll y , al th ou gh Si m an ’s 84 -m on th se nt en ce is 21 m on th s ab ov e th e m ax im um of th e

gu id el in e ran ge , it is wel l be lo w th e 20 -y ear st at ut or y m ax im um se nt en ce. Thu s,
Si m an ’s 84 -m on th sen te nc e is su bs ta nt iv el y reas on ab le

. Fi na ll y , Si m an waiv ed hi s rig ht s un de r Fed .R.Cri m .P. 32 (i) (1 )(C) to rev ie w th e

un di sc lo se d vi ct im im

pa ct le tt ers , an d th us , in vi te d th e erro r to whi ch he no w ap pe al s.
Thi s “ do c t r i ne of in vi te d erro r is im pl ic at ed whe n a pa rty in du ces or in vi te s th e

5di st ric t co ur t in to m ak in g an erro r.” Bran na n, 56 2 F.3 d at 13 06

. “Th u s, if a pa rty

waiv es a pr oc ed ur al rig ht or ag rees to th e ad m is si bi li ty of cert ai n ev id en ce, he can no t
la te r co m pl ai n t ha t an y

res ul ti ng erro r is rev ers ib le .” Id

. In de ed , ev en if th e di st ric t co ur t erre d by co ns id eri ng th e ex pa rte vi ct im im pa ct
le tt ers , Si m an rep eat ed ly fai le d to ob ject pr io r to th e di st ric t co ur t im po si ng se nt en ce,
de sp it e freq ue nt di sc us si on of th e le tt ers du rin g th e co ur se of th e se nt en ci ng he ari ng

. W he n Sim an fin al ly ob

jecte d aft er th e se nt en ce was im po se d, he su bs eq ue nt ly waiv ed

hi s ob jecti on by d ecl in in g to rev ie w th e le tt ers an d pr ov id e a reb ut ta l whe n of fere d
th e op po rtu ni ty by t h e di st ric t co ur t. Acco rd in gl y , Si m an in vi te d th e erro r fro m
whi ch he no w ap pe al s, an d m or eo ve r, ha s fai le d to sh ow ho w th e erro r res ul te d in an y

pr ejud ic e to hi m

at s en te nc in g. We affi rm Sim an ’s 84 -m on th sen te nc e.
AFFIRMED.

6