FILED U.S. COURT OF AP P EALS E LEVEN T HC IRC U IT JULY 25, 2007 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. 06- 14822 N on -A rgum entC al endar

________________________ D. C. Do c k e tNo . 0 6 - 0 0 0 4 8 - CR - J - 2 0 - TE M 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 U G O R O L A N D O T O B A R - C A M P O S , a .k .a . T o n y , a .k .a . A n th o n y T o v a r , a .k .a . R o la n d o G u tie rr e z - J a im 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

_________________________ ( Ju l y 25, 2007) B efo re A N D E R S O N , 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:2

H ug o R ol ando T ob ar -C am po s app ea l s hi s 13-m on th sent ence i m po se d f ol l ow i ng hi s gui l ty pl e at o know i ngl y tr a ns por t i ng a n i l l e ga l a l i e n w i thi n the U ni t ed S t at es i n furthera nce of the al i en’ s vi ol at i on of the l aw and i l l egal pres ence in th e U n ite d S ta te s , in v io la tio n o f 8 U .S .C . § 1 3 2 4 ( a ) ( 1 ) ( A ) ( ii) . O n appe a l , T oba r - C a m pos f i r s ta r gue s tha tthe di s tr i c tc our tpl a i nl y e rr e d by ( a ) f a i l i ng t o gi ve hi m not i c e pur s ua ntF e d. R . C r i m . P . 32( h) be f or e i ti m pos e d a s e n t e n c e ab o v e th e a d v i s o ry Gu i d e l i n e s r a n g e ; ( b ) d e p a r t i n g u n d e rU. S . S . G. § 5 K 2. 0 b ec ause i tre l i ed on hi s drug d ea l i ng ac t i vi t i es and tho se of hi s brother that w a s notr e l e va ntt o the i ns t a ntof f e ns e unde rU . S . S . G . § 1B 1. 3, a nd i tf a i l e d t o f i nd tha tthe r e e xi s t e d a n a ggr a va t i ng orm i t i ga t i ng c i r c um s t a nc e of aki nd ort o a degree thatw as no tadequat el y t aken i nt o con si dera t i on by the G ui del i nes; (c ) d e p a r tin g f

r o m th e ap p lic ab le c r im in a l h is to ry c a te g o ry u n d e rU .S .S .G . § 4 A 1 .3 be c aus e i tf

a i l e d t o m a ke f

i ndi ngs a s t o the ne xtc r i m i na l hi s t ory c a t e gory a nd d e te rm in e if

h e c lo s e ly r e s e m b le d d e f e n d a n ts in th a t c a te g o ry ; a n d ( d ) in c o rr e c tly i n t erp ret i n g th e G u i d el i n es t o al l o w fo r an u p w ard d ep artu re fro m th e b ase o ffen se l ev el . S eco n d , T o b ar-C am p o s arg u es th ath i s sen t en ce w as u n reaso n ab l e b ecau se the di s tr i c tc ourtf

a i l e d t o pr ope r l y c ons i de rthe s e nt e nc i ng f a c t or s s e tf

or th i n 18 U .S .C . § 3 5 5 3 ( a ) . W e a d d r e s s e a c h a r g u m e n t in tu rn .3 I. D i st ri ct C ou rt ’s Im p osi ti on of a V ari an ce S en te n ce W e ge ne r a l l y r e vi e w the di s tr i c tc our t ’ s i nt e rpr e t a t i on of the S e nt e nc i ng G u id e lin e s d e n o v o , a n d its f a c tu a l f in d in g s f o rc le a re rr o r . U n ite d S ta te s v . J o r d i, 41 8 F . 3d 12 12 , 12 14 (11th C i r. ), ce rt . deni ed, 12 6 S . C t . 81 2 (20 05 ). H ow ever , be c aus e T oba r - C a m pos di d notobj e c tbe l ow t o the di s tr i c tc our t ’ s s e nt e nc e above the G ui de l i ne s nort o the l a c k of not i c e , w e r e vi e w the s e c l a i m s f orpl a i n e rr or o n ly . S e e U n ite d S ta te s v . G e rr o w , 2 3 2 F .3 d 8 3 1 , 8 3 5 ( 1 1 th C ir . 2 0 0 0 ) U n d e rp la in e rr orr e vi e w , w e m a y , a tourdi s c r e t i on, c orr e c ta n e rr orw he r e ( 1) a n e rr or o ccu rred , (2 ) th e erro r w as p l ai n , (3 ) th e erro r affects sub st an t i al ri g h t s, a nd ( 4) “ the e rr ors e r i ous l y a f f e c t [ s ] the f

a i rne s s , i nt e gr i ty orpubl i c r e put a t i on of ju d ic ia l p r o c e e d in g s .” U n ite d S ta te s v . O la n o , 5 0 7 U .S . 7 2 5 , 7 3 2 - 3 6 , 1 1 3 S .C t. 17 70 , 17 77 -79, 12 3 L . E d. 2d 50 8 (19 93 ) ( i nt ernal qu ot at i on s and ci t at i on s om i tt ed). I n U n ite d S ta te s v . E ld ic k , 4 4 3 F .3 d 7 8 3 ( 1 1 th C ir .) , c e r t. d e n ie d , 1 2 7 S .C t. 251 ( 2006) , w e not e d tha tthe di s tr i c tc our t ’ s de c i s i on t o s e nt e nc e E l di c k above the G u i d el i n es ran g e d i d n o tco n st i tu t e an u p w ard d ep artu re, b u trath er w as an ex erci se o f d is c r e tio n . W e n o te d tw o f a c to r s in s u p p o r t o f

its c o n c lu s io n : ( 1 ) “th e c o u r t d id notc i t e t o as pe c i f

i c gui de l i ne s de pa r tur e pr ovi s i on” a nd ( 2) the di s tr i c tc our tj udge s t a t e d tha t“ the gui de l i ne s di d ‘ nota de qua t e l y t a ke i nt o a c c ountthe s e ve r i ty of the da m a ge done by M r . E l di c k, ” a nd the r e f or e , i tf ound tha tthe y s houl d notbe4

appl i e d. 433 F . 3d a t788 n. 2. A ddi t i ona l l y , i n U ni t e d S t a t e s v. I r i z a rry , 458 F . 3d 1208, 1211- 12 ( 11th C i r . 2006) , pe t . f orc e r t . f i l e d, ( U . S . O c t . 26, 2006) ( N o. 06- 7517) , w e he l d tha tadi s tr i c tc our t , a f t e rc orr e c t l y c a l c ul a t i ng the G ui de l i ne s r a nge a nd c ons i de r i ng the s e nt e nc i ng f a c t or s unde r§ 3553( a ) , i m pos e d as e nt e nc e above the G ui del i nes r ange pu rs uantt o i t s B oo ker di sc re t i on , and n otpu rs uantt o an u p w a r d d e p a rtu r e . I n th a t c a s e , th e d is tr ic t c o u r t f o u n d th a t th e m a x im u m tim e to w hi c h I r i z a rry c oul d be s e nt e nc e d w a s “ be s tf ors oc i e ty , ” a nd the “ gui de l i ne r a nge [ w a s ] notappr opr i a t e ” be c aus e i tw a s not“ hi gh e nough. ” I d. a t1210, 1211 ( e m p h a s is in o r ig in a l) . F e d e r a l R u le o f

C r im in a l P r o c e d u r e 3 2 ( h ) r e q u ir e s th a t: B e f or e the c ourtm a y de pa r tf r om the appl i c abl e s e nt e nc i n g ran g e o n a gr ound noti de nt i f

i e d fo r de pa r tur e e i the ri n the pr e s e nt e nc e r e por tor i n a party’ s pre hear i ng subm i ss io n , the courtm ustfi rs tgi ve the part i es re as on abl e n o ti ce thati ti s c on t em pl at i ng such a departure. T he no t i ce m us ts p ec i f

y a ny gr ound on w hi c h the c our ti s c ont e m pl a t i ng a d e p a rtu r e . F e d .R .C r im .P . 3 2 ( h ) ; s e e a ls o B u rn s v . U n ite d S ta te s , 5 0 1 U .S . 1 2 9 , 1 3 8 , 1 1 1 S .C t. 2 1 8 2 , 2 1 8 7 , 1 1 5 L .E d .2 d 1 2 3 ( 1 9 9 1 ) ( s a m e ) . S ig n if ic a n tly , w e h a v e h e ld th a t th is r e q u ir e m e n t, a d d r e s s e d a s it is to d e p a r tu r e s f r o m th e G u id e lin e s , d o e s n o t ap p ly to vari ance s f

rom the G ui del i nes und erB oo ker. Ir i zarry, 45 8 F . 3d at12 12 . “ A ft er B o o k e r , p a rtie s a r e in h e r e n tly o n n o tic e th a t th e s e n te n c in g G u id e lin e s r a n g e is a dvi s ory [ , . . . a nd] pa rt i e s c a nnotc l a i m unf a i rs urpr i s e ori nabi l i ty t o pr e s e nt5

i nf orm e d c om m e nt. . . w he n adi s tr i c tc our ti m pos e s as e nt e nc e above the G u id e lin e s r a n g e b a s e d o n th e s e c tio n 3 5 5 3 ( a ) s e n te n c in g f a c to r s .” I d . H e r e , i ti s appa r e nttha tthe di s tr i c tc our tdi d noti m pos e ade pa r tur e pur s ua nt t o e i the rU . S . S . G . §§ 4A 1. 3 or5K 2. 0, be c aus e i te xpl i c i t l y s t a t e d tha ti tw a s not i m po si ng a G ui del i nes departure, bu tra ther w as i m po si ng an abov e- G ui del i nes s e nt e nc e pur s ua ntt o i t s B ooke rdi s c r e t i on. T he c our tne ve rc i t e d a ny pr ovi s i on un der the G ui del i nes r egar di ng a departure, m ade no fi nd i ng s usual l y r equi re d u n d erth e G u id elin es to su p p o rt a d ep ar tu re , an d an alyz ed T o b ar -C am p o s’s s e nt e nc e unde rthe 18 U . S . C . § 3553( a ) s e nt e nc i ng f a c t or s . T hus , c ons i de r i ng the d istrict co u rt’s ex p li cit statem en ts an d ac ti o n s to th e c o n trar y, T o b ar -C am p o s’s a r g u m e n t th a t th e d is tr ic t c o u rt im p r o p e r ly im p o s e d aG u id e lin e s d e p a r tu r e is w ith o u t m e r it. M o r e o v e r , a s it is ap p a r e n t th a t th e d is tr ic t c o u r t im p o s e d av a r ia n c e u s in g its B oo ker di sc re t i on , and n ota G ui del i nes departure, T ob ar -C am po s’ s argum entthat th e d is tr ic t c o u rt e rr e d in n o t g iv in g h im n o tic e u n d e rF e d .R .C r im .P . 3 2 ( h ) is m er i t l es s, as the di stri ctcourtexpl ai ned i t s r ea sons for notprov i di ng such no t i ce , and w e have previ ou sl y hel d thatsuch no t i ce i s notre qu i re d i n the ca se of a di stri ct c o u r t’s im p o s itio n o f

aB o o k e rv a r ia n c e .6 II . R eason ab l en es s of T ob ar-C am p os’s S en te n ce A s a n in itia l m a tte r , th e g o v e rn m e n t c o n te n d s th a t w e s h o u ld r e v ie w th is i s s ue f orpl a i n e rr orbe c aus e T oba r - C a m pos f a i l e d t o obj e c tbe l ow t o the pr oc e dur a l ors ubs t a nt i ve r e a s onabl e ne s s of hi s s e nt e nc e . U pon r e vi e w of the re cord, the go vernm ent ’ s argum entappears t o b e c orre ct . In any e vent , T ob ar C a m p o s ’s s e n te n c e c a n b e a f f irm e d a s r e a s o n ab le , a n d th e p la in e rr o rte s t w o u ld n o t p r o d u c e ad if

f e r e n t r e s u lt. W e r e vi e w the f

i na l s e nt e nc e i m pos e d by the di s tr i c tc our tf or r e a s onabl e ne s s . U ni t e d S t a t e s v. T a l l e y , 431 F . 3d 784, 788 ( 11th C i r . 2005) ( c i t i ng U ni t e d S t a t e s v. B ooke r , 543 U . S . 220, 260, 125 S . C t . 738, 765, 160 L . E d. 2d 621 ( 2005) ) . W he n e va l ua t i ng the r e a s onabl e ne s s of as e nt e nc e , w e c ons i de rthe f a c t or s out l i ne d i n 18 U . S . C . § 3553( a ) a nd the di s tr i c tc our t ’ s r e a s ons f or i m pos i ng the pa rt i c ul a rs e nt e nc e . U ni t e d S t a t e s v. W i l l i a m s , 456 F . 3d 1353, 1360- 6 1 ( 1 1 th C ir . 2 0 0 6 ) , p e t. f o rc e rt. f ile d , ( U .S . O c t. 1 9 , 2 0 0 6 ) ( N o . 0 6 - 7 3 5 2 ) . U nr e a s onabl e ne s s m a y be pr oc e dur a l , w he n the c our t ’ s pr oc e dur e doe s notf ol l ow B ooke r ’ s r e qui r e m e nt s , ors ubs t a nt i ve . U ni t e d S t a t e s v. H unt , 459 F . 3d 1180, 1182 n. 3 ( 11th C i r . 2006) . I n or de rt o i m pos e apr oc e dur a l l y r e a s onabl e s e nt e nc e , the d is tr ic t c o u rt m u s t f

ir s t c o rr e c tly c a lc u la te th e G u id e lin e s . T a lle y , 4 3 1 F .3 d a t 7 8 6 . S e c ond, the di s tr i c tc ourtm us tc ons i de rthe f ol l ow i ng f

a c t or s , s e tf

or th i n 187

U . S . C . § 3553( a ) , t o de t e rm i ne ar e a s onabl e s e nt e nc e : ( 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 ry a n d c 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 t o r e f

l e c tth e s e r i o u s n e s s o f

th e o f f e n s e , t o p r o m o t e r e s p e c tf o rth e l a w, a nd t o pr ovi de j us tpuni s hm e ntf orthe of f e ns e ; ( 3) the ne e d f

orde t e rr e nc e ; ( 4) the need t o p rot ec tthe pu bl i c; (5) the need 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 ; (6) the ki nd s of s ent ence s a va i l abl e ; ( 7) the S e nt e nc i ng G ui de l i ne s r a nge ; ( 8) pe r t i ne ntpol i c y s 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; ( 9) 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 ; a n d ( 1 0 ) th e n e e d to p r o v id e r e s titu tio n to v ic tim s . I d . T he di stri ctcourti s notre qu i re d t o d i sc uss e ac h § 35 53 (a ) f ac t or, and “ an ac k n o w led g m en t b y th e d istrict co u rt th at ith as co n sid er ed th e d ef en d an t’ s arg u m en t s an d th e fact o rs i n sect i o n § 3 5 5 3 (a) i s su ffi ci en tu n d er B o o k er. ” T al l ey, 4 3 1 F . 3 d a t7 8 6 . “ Wh e n r e v i e wi n g th e l e n g th o f as e n t e n c e f

o rr e a s o n ab l e n e s s , we w i l l r e m a nd f

orr e s e nt e nc i ng i f

w e a r e l e f

tw i th the de f

i ni t e a nd f

i rm c onvi c t i on tha tthe di s tr i c tc ourtc om m i tt e d ac l e a re rr orof j udgm e nti n w e i ghi ng the § 3553( a ) f

a c t or s by a rr i vi ng a tas e nt e nc e tha tl i e s out s i de the r a nge of re as on abl e s ent ence s di ct at ed by the fa ct s of the ca se . ” W i l l i am s, 45 6 F . 3d at 13 63 . “ T he w ei gh tt o b e a cc orded any gi ven § 35 53 (a ) f ac t or i s am att er c om m i tt 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 [ , ] ” a nd w e w i l l not8

“ s ubs t i tut e ourj udgm e nti n w e i ghi ng the r e l e va ntf a c t or s be c aus e ourr e vi e w i s not d e n o v o .” I d . ( c ita tio n o m itte d ) . H er e, T ob ar -C am po s’ s 13-m on th sent ence w as re as on abl e. F i rs t , the di stri ct c our tw a s notr e qui r e d t o e xpl i c i t l y a ddr e s s e ve ry s i ngl e 18 U . S . C . § 3553( a ) f a c t or i n o rdert o com pl y w i th B oo ker. N everthel es s, the courtst at ed thati thad consi dere d the st at em ent s of the part i es , the P S I, and the 18 U . S . C . § 3 55 3(a) se n ten cin g fa cto rs . In ex p lain in g it s r ea so n s f o r th e im p o siti o n o f T o b ar -C am p o s’s se nt ence , the courtem ph as i ze d thati tw as concerned thatw hi l e i n the U ni t ed S t at es i l l eg al l y, h e w as i n v o l v ed i n th e tran sp o rt at i o n o f i l l eg al al i en s, m a nuf a c tur i ng of

f a l s e i de nt i f

i c a t i ons , a nd di s tr i but i ng drugs . A ddi t i ona l l y , the courtno t ed thati tw as i m po rt antt o send a m es sa ge t o o ther s i m i l ar l y s i tuat ed d e f e n d a n ts . T h u s , in im p o s in g T o b a r - C a m p o s ’s s e n te n c e , th e c o u r t e x p lic itly c ons i de r e d the na tur e a nd c i r c um s t a nc e s of hi s of f e ns e a nd the hi s t ory a nd c h a r a c te r is tic s o f

T o b a r - C a m p o s , a s w e ll a s th e n e e d to d e te rf u tu r e c r im in a l a c ts . F urther, because the courtexpl i ci t l y a ckno w l edged thatthe G ui del i nes w er e a d v is o ry , s ta te d th a t aw ith in - G u id e lin e s s e n te n c e w a s n o t s u f f ic ie n t to c o m p ly w i th the st atut ory purpo se s of s ent enci ng , and i nd i ca t ed thatt o the ext enti tw as reaso n ab l e, a sen t en ce ab o v e th e G u i d el i n es ran g e co u l d b e i m p o sed . A d d i t i o n al l y, gi ven thatT ob ar -C am po s’ s s ent ence w as far bel ow the fi ve-y ear s t atut oryTobar- Campos’s reque st for oral argument is denied. 1 9 m a xi m um t e rm of

i m pr i s onm e nt , a nd w a s pr ope r l y de t e rm i ne d us i ng the 18 U .S .C . § 3 5 5 3 ( a ) f

a c to r s , T o b a r - C a m p o s h a s n o t c a rr ie d h is b u r d e n to s h o w th a t h is s e n te n c e w a s u n r e a s o n ab le . A F F I R M E D . 1