### F I LE D U. S . COURT OF AP PE ALS E LEVE NTH CI RCUI T Fe br uar y 3, 2006 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- 13529 N on -A rgum entC al endar

________________________ D. C. Do c k e tNo . 0 3 - 2 0 4 1 1 - CR - J EM 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 H I R A R D E S P E R A N C E , 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 r n D i s tr i c tof F l or i da

_________________________ ( F e b r u ar y 3, 2006) B efo re B L A C K , B A R K E T T an d H U L L , C i rcu i tJu d g es. P E R C U R I A M: H i rard E sp eran ce ap p eal s h i s 1 5 1 -m o n th sen t en ce fo r co n sp i racy t o p o ssess w i th i nt e ntt o di s tr i but e c r a c k c oc a i ne , i n vi ol a t i on of 21 U . S . C . §§The third drugtransac tion was arrang ed by an undercover

officer, but was not 1 consummated be causeinstead law enforc ement executed a search wa

rra nt on the residenc es where the previous two transactions had occurre d and where thedrug s for the third tra nsaction were beingprepa

red. H owever, for

easeof re ference , we will re fer to all three inc idents as drug trans a c tio ns . 2 841( b) ( 1) ( A ) ( i i i ) a nd 846, a nd di s tr i but i on of c r a c k c oc a i ne , i n vi ol a t i on of 21 U . S . C . § 8 41 (a )( 1). A ft erre vi ew , w e a ff i rm E sper ance ’ s 151 -m on th sent ence . I . B AC KG RO UN D B ef ore di sc ussi ng E sper ance ’ s c urre nt15 1-m on th sent ence , w e out l i ne w hat happe ne d i n E s pe r a nc e ’ s pr i orappe a l i n w hi c h w e a f f i r m e d hi s c onvi c t i ons butnot hi s 188 -m on th sent ence . A . F i r s t A p p e al E s p e r a n c e w a s tr ie d a n d c o n v ic te d o f b o th ( 1 ) a d ru g c o n s p ir a c y th a t in v o lv e d th r e e d ru g tr a n s a c tio n s , to ta lin g 2 2 5 .9 g r a m s o f c o c a in e b a s e , w ith unde r c ove rpol i c e of

f i c e r s i n A pr i l a nd M a y 2003, a nd ( 2) a drug di s tr i but i on c ount tha ti nvol ve d one of

thos e tr a ns a c t i ons , s pe c i f i c a l l y a pur c ha s e of

131. 7 gr a m s of c oc a i ne ba s e on A pr i l 24, 2003. 1 A tE sper ance ’ s ori gi nal se nt enci ng , the pres ent ence i nv es t i gat i on re po rt (“ P S I”) at tri b u t ed 2 2 5 . 9 g ram s o f co cai n e b ase t o E sp eran ce t o assi g n h i m a b ase of f e ns e l e ve l of

34 pur s ua ntt o U . S . S . G . § 2D 1. 1( c ) ( 3) . T he P S I r e c om m e nde d a tw o-l evel fi re arm enhancem entun der U . S . S . G . § 2 D 1. 1(b)(1) because afi re arm3

w as foun d d uri ng a s ea rc h o f the re si dence w here the cocai ne base had b ee n c o o k e d . T h e P S I c o n c lu d e d th a t E s p e r a n c e w a s n o t e n title d to a r o le r e d u c tio n . W i th a n a d

j u s t e d o f f e n s e l e v e l o f

3 6 a n d a c r i mi n a l h i s t o r y c a t e g o r y o f I , th e PSI reco m m en d ed a g u i d el i n es i m p ri so n m en tran g e o f 1 8 8 t o 2 3 5 m o n th s. E sper ance di d n otobj ec tt o the drug qu ant i ty a ttri bu t ed t o h i m for purpo se s of de t e r m i ni ng hi s ba s e of f e ns e l e ve l of

34. H e a l s o di d nots e e k s a f e ty - va l ve r e l i e f . H ow e ve r , E s pe r a nc e obj e c t e d t o the tw o- l e ve l f i r e a rm e nha nc e m e nta nd al so t o t he deni al of a m i no r r ol e r educt i on . T he di stri ctcourtov errul ed E s pe r a nc e ’ s obj e c t i ons a nd s e nt e nc e d E s pe r a nc e ba s e d on the c a l c ul a t i ons i n the P S I to 1 8 8 m o n th s ’ im p r is o n m e n t. I n hi s f i r s tappe a l , E s pe r a nc e r a i s e d s e ve r a l i s s ue s r e l a t i ng t o the c onduc tof hi s tri al and al so chal l enged h i s ori gi nal 18 8-m on th sent ence . A s t o h i s s ent ence , E sper ance chal l enged o nl y the di stri ctcourt ’ s i m po si t i on of tw o-l evel fi re arm en h an ce m en t. In h is firs t ap p ea l, E sp er an ce d id n o t ch allen g e th e d istrict co u rt’s drug qua nt i ty f

i ndi ng tha tE s pe r a nc e ’ s c ons pi r a c y of f e ns e i nvol ve d 225. 9 gr a m s of c o c a in e b a s e . N o rd id h e a r g u e th a t h e w a s e n title d to s a f e ty - v a lv e r e lie f

. W e a f f ir m e d E s p e r a n c e ’s c o n v ic tio n s , b u t v a c a te d E s p e r a n c e ’s s e n te n c e a n d e x p r e s s ly r e m a n d e d “ f

o rr e s e n t e n c i n g wi th o u tth e f i r e a r m e n h a n c m e n t . ” T h e r e f o r e , we r e m a nde d w i th a l i m i t e d m a nda t e t o r e m ove the f i r e a r m e nha nc e m e nta ndIn his post-remand written objection filed with the district court, Esperanc e claims that 2 he is renewinghis objection to the calculation of the drugquantity in the PSI , namely

paragraphs 22 and 32. However, Esperanc e did not object to these two pa ragraphs in his first written objection and did not raise this objection verbally at the sentencinghearing. There fore , at resentencing , Espera

nce’ s objection to drugquantity was a new, not a renew ed, objec tion. 4 re se nt ence . B. Po s t - r e m a nd R e s e nt e nc i ng O n rem and, E sper ance re new ed hi s obj ec t i on s r ai se d atthe ori gi nal s e n te n c in g . H e a ls o r a is e d th e f o llo w in g th r e e n e w o b

je c tio n s : ( 1 ) th a t h e s h o u ld b e h e l d a c c o u n t a b l e o n l y f o rth e A p r i l 2 4 , 2 0 0 3 , tr a n s a c t i o n i n v o l v i n g 1 3 1 . 7 g r a ms of c oc a i ne ba s e , w hi c h w oul d r e s ul ti n a ba s e of f e ns e l e ve l of

32, r a the rtha n 34 and a gu i del i nes i m pri sonm entra ng e of 121 t o 1 51 m on ths; (2) thata s ent ence 2 b a s e d o n a 1 0 0 :1 r a tio f o rc r a c k c o c a in e a n d c o c a in e p o w d e rw a s u n r e a s o n a b le un der U 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 ), and t hat E s pe r a nc e s houl d be s e nt e nc e d unde ra 20: 1 r a t i o; ( 3) tha tE s pe r a nc e qua l i f i e d f or sa fe ty- val ve re l i ef

un der 18 U . S . C . § 3 55 3(f) . A tthe r e s e nt e nc i ng he a r i ng, E s pe r a nc e a r gue d tha tonl y the A pr i l 24, 2003, tr a ns a c t i on i nvol vi ng 131. 7 gr a m s of c oc a i ne ba s e s houl d be a ttr i but a bl e t o hi m f or pu rposes of ca l cul at i ng hi s bas e off ense l evel . T he go vernm entre spon ded t hat E s p e r a n c e c o u ld s till b e h e ld a c c o u n ta b le f o rth e a m o u n t o f

d ru g s in v o lv e d in a ll thr e e tr a ns a c t i ons c om pr i s i ng the c ons pi r a c y i n w hi c h E s pe r a nc e w a s i nvol ve d a nd5

for w hi ch he w as conv i ct ed. T he di stri ctcourtagre ed and fou nd thatE sper ance w as ac coun t abl e f

or the ful l 22 5. 9 g ra m s of c ocai ne base . E sper ance then renew ed hi s r equestfor am i no r r ol e r educt i on , ar gu i ng that he w a s pr e s e nta tonl y one of the thr e e tr a ns a c t i ons a nd tha the ha d a n i nnoc e nt expl anat i on for hi s pre se nce. T he go vernm entre spon ded t hatobj ec t i on s r ai se d at the fi rs tse nt enci ng and o verrul ed w er e notw i thi n the sc op e of the re m and, as fo l l o w s: Y o u rH o n o r , f

ir s t o f a ll, th is w a s c o n s id e r e d b y th e C o u r t in itia lly . Y ou rul e d a ga i ns tthe m . W e a r e he r e f orr e - s e nt e nc i ng on the one enhancem enti ss ue. S o, fi rs tof al l , I’ m no tsure thatthe C ou rteven c a n c ons i de ra l l the s e othe ri s s ue s tha tw e r e pr e vi ous l y r a i s e d a nd de ni e d. T he gove r nm e nta l t e r na t i ve l y a r gue d tha tE s pe r a nc e w a s note nt i t l e d t o a m i nor rol e r educt i on because s om e of hi s c o-conspi ra t ors had t es t i fi ed attri al thathe w as a s uppl i e rof

s om e of the c oc a i ne pow de rtha tw a s c onve r t e d t o c r a c k c oc a i ne . T he di s tr i c tc our ts t a t e d tha ti tw oul d “ r e ne w m y rul i ngs [ a nd] a ga i n de ny [ the ] m i nor r o le a t th is p a r tic u la rtim e .” F in a lly , E s p e r a n c e c o n te n d e d th a t h e q u a lif ie d f o rs a f e ty - v a lv e r e lie f

. D ef ense coun se l st at ed thatE sper ance m ai nt ai ned h i s i nn ocence a nd had p rovi ded all th e in fo rm atio n h e k n ew . T h e g o v er n m en t res p o n d ed th at E sp er an ce ’s c ont i nue d c l a i m of

i nnoc e nc e w a s i nc ons i s t e ntw i th hi s c onvi c t i ons ge ne r a l l y a nd,6

i n p ar t i cul ar , w i th com m ent s E sper ance m ade t o u nd er cover pol i ce offi ce rs show i ng thathe w as i nv ol ved i n the A pri l 24 , 20 03 , drug tra nsac t i on . T he di stri ct c our tde ni e d s a f

e ty - va l ve r e l i e f

, not i ng tha tthe j ur y ha d f ound E s pe r a nc e gui l ty of the drug c ons pi r a c y a nd E s pe r a nc e ha d notm e tthe r e qui r e m e nt s f orobt a i ni ng sa fe ty- val ve re l i ef

. T he di s tr i c tc our tthe n f ound tha tE s pe r a nc e ’ s t ot a l of f e ns e l e ve l w a s 34 a nd hi s c ri m i nal hi st ory c at egory w as I, re sul t i ng i n an adv i sory gu i del i nes i m pri sonm entra ng e of 151 t o 1 88 m on ths. T he di stri ctcourtthen st at ed i t s bel i ef tha t“ i ti s a de qua t e t o puthi m a tthe bott om e nd of tha tgui de l i ne , ” a nd tha t“ the fa ct s of thi s c as e m andat e ase nt ence w i thi n the advi sory gu i del i ne ra ng e a l bei tat the l ow erend . . . . ” A ft erperm i tt i ng E sper ance t o al l ocut e, the di stri ctcourtst at ed tha ti tha d c ons i de r e d the pa r t i e s ’ s t a t e m e nt s , the P S I , the a dvi s or y gui de l i ne s r a nge and t he fa ct ors i n 1 8 U . S . C . § 3 55 3. T he di stri ctcourtthen sent ence d E sper ance ,

“ [b ] ased o n th e sev eri ty an d si g n i fi can ce o f th e o ffen se, ” t o 1 5 1 m o n th s’ i m pr i s onm e nt , a tthe l ow e nd of the gui de l i ne s r a nge . T hi s appe a l f ol l ow e d. I I . DI S CUS S I ON A . D ru g Q u an ti ty I n thi s s e c ond appe a l , E s pe r a nc e c ont e nds tha t , f orpurpos e s of

c a l c ul a t i ng h is b a s e o f

f e n s e le v e l u n d e rth e g u id e lin e s , th e d is tr ic t c o u r t s h o u ld h a v e h e ld h imWhen an appe llate cour t vacates a sentence in its entirety and remands with a g eneral 3 mand ate , th elaw- of

-t he -c a sedo c trinedo e s n ot a pp ly, a nd thedis tric t c ourt

is f re eto c on du c t a 7 acco u n t ab l e fo r a l o w er d ru g q u an t i ty. W e d o n o tad d ress th i s arg u m en tb ecau se th is is s u e is f

o r e c lo s e d b y th e la w - o f - th e - c a s e d o c tr in e . U nde rone a r m of

the l a w - of

- the - c a s e doc tr i ne , l ow e rc our trul i ngs tha tha ve n o t b e e n c h a lle n g e d o n a f ir s t ap p e a l w ill n o t b e d is tu rb e d in a s u b s e q u e n t ap p e a l. S e e , e . g. , U ni t e d S t a t e s v. E s c oba r - U r r e go, 110 F . 3d 1556, 1560 ( 11 C i r . 1997) th ( hol di ng tha tf

a i l ur e t o c ha l l e nge on f

i r s tappe a l di s tr i c tc our t ’ s de c i s i on r e ga r di ng the am ou ntof “ usabl e” coca i ne for purpo se s of c al cul at i ng gu i del i nes s ent ence pr e c l ude d de f

e nda ntf r om r a i s i ng i s s ue on s e c ond appe a l ) ; U ni t e d S t a t e s v. F i a l l oJ a c om e , 874 F . 2d 1479, 1481- 83 ( 11 C i r . 1989) ( hol di ng tha tc r i m i na l de f e nda nt th w ai ves hi s r i gh tt o rai se i n sec on d app ea l i ss ues notra i se d i n fi rs tappeal ). T here are th ree ex cep t i o n s t o th e l aw -o f-th e-case d o ctri n e. A co u rti s n o tb o u n d b y a pr i orrul i ng i f

( 1) ne w e vi de nc e i s pr e s e nt e d, ( 2) the r e i s a c ha nge i n the c ontr ol l i ng l aw , o r (3 ) th e p ri o r d eci si o n w as cl earl y erro n eo u s an d w i l l cau se m an i fest i nj us t i c e . E s c oba r - U r r e go, 110 F . 3d a t1561. N on e of the except i on s t o t he l aw -of- the-c as e doctri ne appl y t o the di stri ct c our t ’ s drug qua nt i ty f

i ndi ng. T he r e f

or e , tha tdrug qua nt i ty f i ndi ng be c a m e the la w o f th e c a s e , a n d E s p e r a n c e is p r e c lu d e d f r o m r e litig a tin g d ru g q u a n tity in h is s e c o n d ap p e a l. 3de novo re sentenc ing. See , e.g ., United States v. Davis, 329 F .3d 1250, 1252 (11 Cir. 2003). th “If th e ap p el l at e c o urti s s u es a l i m i t edm an d at e, h o we v er , th e tri al co urti s re s tri ct edi nth e r an ge of issues it may

consider on remand.”I d. (citingUnited States v. Tamayo, 80 F.3d 1514, 1520 (11 Cir. 1996)). th 8 A l t ernat i vel y, even i f thi s C ou rt ’ s ori gi nal re m and w er e c on strued t o b e a g e n e r a l r e m a n d , th e r e b y p e r m ittin g th e d is tr ic t c o u r t a n d th e d e f e n d a n t to r e v is it th e d ru g q u a n tity is s u 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 its f a c t f in d in g a s to drug qu ant i ty. In ou r pri or op i ni on i n the fi rs tappeal , the C ou rtaf fi rm ed E sper ance ’ s c on vi ct i on s a nd ou t l i ned i n d et ai l the evi dence connect i ng E sper ance t o the drug c ons pi r a c y , a nd w e ne e d notr e pe a ti the r e . I n a ddi t i on, the drug q u an t i ty o f 2 2 5 . 9 g ram s o f co cai n e b ase w as al l attri b u t ed t o E sp eran ce as a m e m be rof

thi s drug c ons pi r a c y a nd c ons i s t e d of: ( 1) 71. 3 gr a m s pur c ha s e d f r om hi s c o- c ons pi r a t or s F r a nk a nd C i ne a s dur i ng the A pr i l 18, 2003 tr a ns a c t i on a tthe 6040 N W F i r s tA ve nue r e s i de nc e ; ( 2) the 131. 7 gr a m s pur c ha s e d f r om F r a nk a nd C i ne a s w i th E s pe r a nc e ’ s a s s i s t a nc e a tthe 6063 N W F i r s tA ve nue r e s i de nc e on A p ri l 2 4 , 2 0 0 3 ; an d (3 ) th e ad d i t i o n al 2 2 . 9 g ram s sei zed fro m th e 6 0 6 3 N W F i rst A venu e r es i dence on M ay 13 , 20 03 . F urtherm ore, attri al , C i neas t es t i fi ed that E s pe r a nc e w a s i nvol ve d i n the drug de a l s , w a s pr e s e ntw he n s he “ c ooke d” the coca i ne po w der i nt o cocai ne base for the A pri l 24 tra nsac t i on , and t hatE sper ance he l pe d F r a nk c ountthe m one y dur i ng tha ttr a ns a c t i on. J os e ph, a nothe rc oc ons pi r a t or , t e s t i f

i e d tha tE s pe r a nc e pr ovi de d “ ha l f ke y s ” a nd “ ke y s ” of

c oc a i ne9

po w der t o F ra nk , w hi ch F ra nk then coo ked i nt o cra ck. T he un derc ov eroffi ce r t e s t i f i e d, a f t e rhe a r i ng a n a udi ot ape , tha tE s pe r a nc e appr oa c he d hi s c a rdur i ng the se cond pu rc hase of 5 “ cook i es ” of c ocai ne base and sai d, “ W e have four. W e a re m aki ng fi ve. Justw ai t . ” A ft erre vi ew , w e c on cl ud e thatthere w as am pl e e vi dence t o s u p p o r tth e d i s tr i c tc o u r t ’ s d ru g q u a n t i ty f i n d i n g a s t o E s p e r a n c e . S e e U. S . S . G. § 1 B 1 .3 ( a ) ( s ta tin g th a t a d e f e n d a n t’s b a s e o f

f e n s e le v e l is b a s e d o n r e a s o n a b ly fore se eabl e a ct i on s of others t aken i n furthera nce of the j oi nt l y und ert aken cri m i nal a c t i vi ty ) ; U ni t e d S t a t e s v. M a xw e l l , 34 F . 3d 1006, 1012 ( 11 C i r . 1994) th (e xp l ai ni ng that , un der the S ent enci ng G ui del i nes, a m em ber of adrug conspi ra cy i s a c c ount a bl e f

orthe r e a s ona bl y f

or e s e e a bl e c onduc tof

othe r s i n f

ur the r a nc e of the drug conspi ra cy ). B . S af

e t y V al ve E s p e r a n c e a ls o a r g u e s th a t th e d is tr ic t c o u r t c le a r ly e r r e d in d e n y in g h im “saf ety- v alv e” re li ef. F o r th e r ea so n s a lrea d y d iscu ss ed w ith re g ar d to E sp er an ce ’s chal l enge t o t he drug qu ant i ty, the l aw -of- the-c as e doctri ne precl ud es further c o n s id e r a tio n o f

th is is s u e . E s p e r a n c e d id n o t s e e k s a f e ty - v a lv e r e lie f

a t h is or i gi na l s e nt e nc i ng a nd r a i s e tha ti s s ue i n hi s f i r s tappe a l . T he r e f

or e , unde rthe l a w - of - the - c a s e doc tr i ne , E s pe r a nc e w a i ve d hi s r i ghtt o r a i s e the s a f e ty - va l ve i s s ue in a s e c o n d ap p e a l. S e e U n ite d S ta te s v . F ia llo - J a c o m e , 8 7 4 F .2 d a t 1 4 8 1 - 8 3 .10

A d d it io n ally, th e s af

ety- v alv e iss u e d id n o t fall w ith in th e s co p e o f th is C o u rt’s l i m i t ed m andat e on rem and t o sent ence E sper ance w i tho utthe fi re arm en h an cem en tan d d i d n o tfal l w i th i n o n e o f th e ex cep t i o n s t o th e l aw -o f-th e-case doc tr i ne . S e e T a m a y o, 80 F . 3d a t1521 ( hol di ng tha ti s s ue s out s i de the s c ope of the l i m i t ed m andat e w er e pre cl ud ed by l aw -of- the-c as e doctri ne). A l t ernat i vel y, even i f thi s C ou rt ’ s r em and w er e c on strued t o b e ageneral r e m a nd, E s pe r a nc e ’ s s a f e ty - va l ve a r gum e nts t i l l f a i l s . U nde rthe s a f

e ty - va l ve prov i si on s of 18 U . S . C . § 3 55 3(f) and U . S . S . G . § 5 C 1. 2, a s ent enci ng courtm ay de pa r tdow nw a r d f

r om the s t a tut or y m i ni m um s e nt e nc e i f the de f e nda nt , a m ong othe rthi ngs , gi ve s the gove r nm e ntpr i ort o the s e nt e nc i ng he a r i ng truthf ul a nd c om pl e t e i nf

or m a t i on c onc e r ni ng hi s i nvol ve m e nti n the of f e ns e . U ni t e d S t a t e s v. S i m pson , 22 8 F . 3d 12 94 , 13 04 -05 (11 C i r. 20 00 ); 18 U . S . C . § 3 55 3(f) (5); th U . S . S . G . § 5C 1. 2( a ) ( 5) . “ T he que s t i on of w he the rthe i nf

or m a t i on [ tha tthe d efen d an t ] su p p l i ed t o th e g o v ern m en t. . . w as tru th fu l an d co m p l et e . . . i s a f a c tua l f i ndi ng f orthe di s tr i c tc our t . ” U ni t e d S t a t e s v. B r ow nl e e , 204 F . 3d 1302, 1305 ( 11th C i r . 2000) . “ T he bur de n of pr oof on the truthf

ul ne s s i s s ue l i e s , of c o u r s e , w ith th e d e f

e n d a n t.” U n ite d S ta te s v . E s p in o s a , 1 7 2 F .3 d 7 9 5 , 7 9 7 ( 1 1 th C i r. 19 99 ). W e r evi ew a di stri ctcourt ’ s f ac tual det erm i nat i on s i n d ec i di ng w hether t o gr a nts a f

e ty - va l ve r e l i e f

f orc l e a re r r or . U ni t e d S t a t e s v. C ruz , 106 F . 3d 1553,Specifically , Espera nce stated to an undercover officer and a

confidential informant who 4 were waiting in a c ar f

or the c ocaineto finish “cooking ,” “We have four . We aremakingfive. Just wait,” and “ Becool, we ma ke it right for you.”

11 15 56 -57 (11 th C i r. 19 97 ). T he di s tr i c tc our tdi d notc l e a r l y e r ri n c onc l udi ng tha tE s pe r a nc e di d not m e e t h is b u r d e n to p r o v id e ac o m p le te a n d tru th f u l s ta te m e n t o f

h is in v o lv e m e n t in th e d ru g c o n s p ir a c y . A t r e s e n te n c in g , E s p e r a n c e m a in ta in e d th a t h e w a s in n o c e n t. H ow ever , E sper ance w as t ape- re corded speaki ng t o u nd er cover agent s i n a w ay thatdem on stra t ed thathe w as i nv ol ved i n and aw ar e of the drug sa l e. E sper ance 4 offe re d n o i nform at i on t o acc ou ntfor hi s s t at em ent s t o u nd er cover agent s. U nd er th e s e f a c ts , 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 d e n y in g s a f e ty - v a lv e r e lie f

. C . R eason ab l en es s of E sp er an ce ’s S en te n ce E sper ance nextar gu es thathi s s ent ence i s unrea sonabl e und 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 m on g o ther thi ng s, E sper ance a r g u e s th a t th e 1 0 0 :1 p e n a lty r a tio f o ro f f e n s e s in v o lv in g c o c a in e b a s e c o m p a r e d to o ff en se s in v o lv in g co ca in e p o w d erre n d er s h is se n ten ce u n re as o n ab le. E sp er an ce ’s reaso n ab l en ess ch al l en g e i s n o tfo recl o sed b y th e l aw -o f-th e-case d o ctri n e b ecau se i tf a l l s wi th i n o n e o f

th e d o c tr i n e ’ s e x c e p t i o n s . B o o k e rwa s d e c i d e d a f t e rwe r e m a n d e d E s p e r a n c e ’s c a s e f o rr e s e n te n c in g , a n d B o o k e r ’s r e m e d ia l h o ld in g th a t a s e n t e n c e m u s tb e r e a s o n a b l e c o n s t i tu t e d a n i n t e r v e n i n g c h a n g e i n th e l a w.The factors in § 3553(a) include: “ (1) the nature a nd circumstances of

the offense; (2) 5 the history

and cha rac teristics of the de fenda nt; (3) the nee d for the sentenceimposed to refle ct the seriousne ss of the off ense, to promote respec t for the law , and to provide just punishment; (4) the nee d to protect the public; a nd (5) the Guidelines rang e.” United States v. Scott, 426 F.3d 1324, 1328-29 (11 Cir. 2005) (citing18 U.S.C. § 3553(a)). “ [N] othing in B ooker or elsewhere th require s the district court to state on the record that it has expl icitly considere d each of the § 35 53 (a) f a c tor s o r to discus s e a c h o f t he§ 3 55 3( a) f

a c tor s. ”I d. at 13 29 . Ins te a d, indic atio ns in the re cord that the district court considered facts and c ircumstance s fallingwithin § 3553(a)’ s fac tors will suffice. Talley , 431 F.3d at 876; Scott, 426 F.3d at 1329-30. 12 A ft er B o o k er, a d i stri ctco u rt , i n d et erm i n i n g a reaso n ab l e sen t en ce, m u st consi der the corre ct l y c al cul at ed se nt enci ng ra ng e und erthe S ent enci ng G ui del i nes a nd the f a c t or s s e tf

or th i n 18 U . S . C . § 3553( a ) . S e e B ooke r , 543 U . S . a t___, 125 S . C t . at76 4-66 ; U ni t ed S t at es v. T al l ey , 43 1 F . 3d 78 4, 78 6 (11 C i r. 20 05 ). W e th 5 r e vi e w a de f

e nda nt ’ s ul t i m a t e s e nt e nc e , i n i t s e nt i r e ty , f orunr e a s ona bl e ne s s i n l i ght of the f a c t or s i n § 3553( a ) . S e e U ni t e d S t a t e s v. W i ni ge a r , 422 F . 3d 1241, 1245 (11 C i r. 20 05 ). th A ft erre vi ew , w e c anno tsa y thatE sper ance ’ s 151 -m on th sent ence w as un re as on abl e. T he di stri ctcourti m po se d a se nt ence atthe bo tt om of the gu i del i nes ra ng e of 151 t o 1 88 m on ths and w el l bel ow the st atut ory m axi m um se nt ence of l i fe i m pr i s onm e nt . S e e T a l l e y , 431 F . 3d a t788 ( e xpl a i ni ng tha t , a l though w e ha ve decl i ned t o h ol d t hata s ent ence w i thi n the gu i del i nes r ange i s perse re as on abl e, or di na r i l y w e e xpe c ts uc h a s e nt e nc e t o be r e a s ona bl e ) ; W i ni ge a r , 422 F . 3d a t1246 ( c o m p a r in g , a s o n e in d ic a tio n o f r e a s o n a b le n e s s , th e a c tu a l p r is o n te r m im p o s e d to th e st atu t o ry m ax i m u m ). T h e d i stri ctco u rtst at ed th ati th ad co n si d ered th e p art i es’13

st at em ent s, the advi sory gu i del i nes r ange and t he fa ct ors i n § 35 53 (a ) a nd , base d on “ the s e ve r i ty a nd the s i gni f i c a nc e of the of f e ns e , ” i m pos e d a s e nt e nc e a tthe l ow e n d o f th e g u id e lin e s r a n g e . G iv e n th a t th e d is tr ic t c o u r t c o n s u lte d th e a c c u r a te ly ca l cul at ed gu i del i nes r ange and con si dere d the fa ct ors of § 35 53 (a ), w e c anno tsa y thatE sper ance ’ s s ent ence atthe l ow end o f the gu i del i nes r ange i s unrea sonabl e. F or al l these re as on s, w e a ff i rm E sper ance ’ s 151 -m on th sent ence . AF F I RME D.