Opinion ID: 77401
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: appeal of sentences

Text: 177 Appellants contend that resentencing is required because their sentences violate United States v. Booker, 543 U.S. 220, 125 S.Ct. 738, 160 L.Ed.2d 621 (2005). We first review Appellants' sentences, and then the Booker issues.
178 Appellants Ronda, Aguero, Beguiristain and Castello — those Appellants convicted in the first trial — were sentenced at a hearing held on October 9, 2003. The Presentence Investigation Reports (PSIs) for all four Appellants assigned them a base offense level of 12 under U.S.S.G. § 2J1.2(a). Appellants Ronda and Castello were assigned no enhancements or reductions; their offense levels of 12 and criminal history categories of I produced a Guidelines range of 10 to 16 months' imprisonment. 179 While the PSIs also assigned a base offense level of 12 to Appellants Aguero and Beguiristain, their PSIs recommended several adjustments to that base offense level. Appellant Aguero's PSI recommended a total adjusted offense level of 19, which included: (1) a two-level enhancement for playing an organizing role in the criminal activity, see U.S.S.G. § 3B1.1(c); (2) a two-level enhancement for abusing a position of public trust in a manner that significantly facilitated the commission or concealment of the offense, see U.S.S.G. § 3B1.3; and (3) a three-level increase pursuant to the multiple count Guidelines, see U.S.S.G. §§ 3D1.1 through 3D1.5. 38 Appellant Aguero's total adjusted offense level of 19 and his criminal history category of I produced a Guidelines range of 30 to 37 months' imprisonment. 180 Appellant Beguiristain's PSI recommended a total adjusted offense level of 17. In addition to Beguiristain's base offense level of 12, the PSI added: (1) a two-level enhancement for abusing a position of public trust in a manner that significantly facilitated the commission or concealment of the offense, see U.S.S.G. § 3B1.3; and (2) a three-level increase pursuant to the multiple count Guidelines, see U.S.S.G. §§ 3D1.1 through 3D1.5. 39 Appellant Beguiristain's total adjusted offense level of 17 and his criminal history category of I produced a Guidelines range of 24 to 30 months' imprisonment. 181 At the October 9, 2003 sentencing hearing, the district court sentenced Appellants Ronda and Castello to 13 months' imprisonment, the middle of their Guidelines range. The district court sentenced Appellant Aguero to 37 months' imprisonment, the high end of his Guidelines range, and sentenced Appellant Beguiristain to 27 months' imprisonment, the middle of his Guidelines range. 40 In imposing these sentences, the district court stressed, inter alia, the seriousness of the offenses, the need to deter future criminal activity, and in particular Appellant Aguero's role as the most culpable participant in the conspiracy, as follows: 182 [T]he crimes committed by these former police officers are very serious in nature and should be punished as such. 183 It is my view that each sentence imposed should reflect not only the seriousness of the crime but each defendant's role and participation in the overall conspiracy. 184 Furthermore, the sentences imposed should serve to deter against future criminal activity by these defendants as well as by others similarly situated who may be tempted to violate the law and their oath of office to protect themselves or their fellow officers from possible state or federal criminal investigations. 185 Therefore, I shall impose full prison terms for Defendants Ronda and Castello and Beguiristain at mid-range within their respective Sentencing Guidelines. 186 With respect to Defendant Aguero, I find that he is the most culpable member of the conspiracy. I also shall take into account his prior inappropriate conduct while serving as a police officer in sentencing him at the upper end of the guidelines. 187 Oct. 29, 2003 Sentencing Tr. at 44. 188 Appellants Garcia, Gonzalez and Quintero — the Appellants convicted in the second trial — were sentenced at a hearing on November 16, 2004. The PSIs assigned Appellants Garcia, Gonzalez and Quintero a base offense level of 12 under U.S.S.G. § 2J1.2(a) and no enhancements or reductions. As all three Appellants were assigned to criminal history category I, their Guidelines ranges were 10 to 16 months' imprisonment. 189 The district court then sentenced Appellants Garcia, Gonzalez and Quintero each to 16 months' imprisonment, the high end of the Guidelines range, after considering the nature of the crimes and Appellants' roles in the offenses in relation to the other Appellants. 41 The district court expressed compassion for the circumstances faced by Appellants and their families, but emphasized the seriousness of the crimes as follows: 190 These matters are beyond the compassion I feel for the individuals associated with this case. They involve serious crimes, and this I-395 aspect involved the death of two individuals. The concealment relating to these deaths I find even more serious, both in kind and degree than the incidents involved in Coconut Grove, which in and of themselves were serious, although the injury involved was less serious. 191 Defendants Garcia and Quintero were very active, involved in gun planting incidents here and the cover-up. It is a sad thing that Defendant Gonzalez, who had a leadership role at the time, did not take active steps to prevent or stop the conspiracy as it evolved based upon the matters that were presented to the jury in terms of what occurred at the scene and what occurred thereafter. 192 All these are serious matters that require the Court to act accordingly. 193 Nov. 16, 2004 Sentencing Tr. at 42-43.
194 For the first time on appeal, all Appellants challenge their sentences based on Booker. 42 Because Appellants did not raise the Blakely/Booker issue in district court, we review this issue for plain error. 43 195 Under a plain-error analysis, an appellant must show `(1) error, (2) that is plain, and (3) that affects substantial rights.' United States v. Rodriguez, 398 F.3d 1291, 1298 (11th Cir.) (quoting United States v. Cotton, 535 U.S. 625, 631, 122 S.Ct. 1781, 1785, 152 L.Ed.2d 860 (2002)), cert. denied, ___ U.S. ___, 125 S.Ct. 2935, 162 L.Ed.2d 866 (2005). If the appellant is able to make a showing of all three, we then may exercise discretion to notice the error if the error `seriously affect[ed] the fairness, integrity, or public reputation of judicial proceedings.' Id. (citation omitted). 196 In the context of Booker errors, the appellant has shown that his substantial rights were affected `when there is a reasonable probability that the district court would have imposed a different sentence if the guidelines were not mandatory.' United States v. York, 428 F.3d 1325, 1336 (11th Cir.2005) (citation omitted), petition for cert. filed, No. 05-1503 (U.S. May 22, 2006). The third prong of the plain-error test almost always requires that the error must have affected the outcome of the district court proceedings. Rodriguez, 398 F.3d at 1299 (quotation marks and citations omitted). The standard for showing that is the familiar reasonable probability of a different result formulation, which means a probability sufficient to undermine confidence in the outcome. Id. (quotation marks and citations omitted). In regard to the third prong, the burden rests with the appellant to show prejudice. Id. Where errors could have cut either way and uncertainty exists, the burden is the decisive factor in the third prong of the plain error test. . . . Id. at 1300. 197 Under Booker, there are two types of sentencing errors: one is constitutional and the other is statutory. United States v. Dacus, 408 F.3d 686, 688 (11th Cir.2005). [T]he Sixth Amendment right to trial by jury is violated where under a mandatory guidelines system a sentence is increased because of an enhancement based on facts found by the judge that were neither admitted by the defendant nor found by the jury. Rodriguez, 398 F.3d at 1298. The statutory error occurs when the district court sentences a defendant under a mandatory Guidelines scheme, even in the absence of a Sixth Amendment enhancement violation. United States v. Shelton, 400 F.3d 1325, 1330-31 (11th Cir.2005). 198 Appellants Aguero and Beguiristain have established Sixth Amendment violations under Booker because the district court enhanced their sentences under a mandatory Guidelines system based on judicially-determined fact findings that went beyond those facts admitted by Appellants or found by the jury. Rodriguez, 398 F.3d at 1298. The Sixth Amendment violations under Booker stemmed not from the district court's extra-verdict enhancements but from the district court's application of those enhancements under a mandatory Guidelines system. Id. at 1301. Further, Appellants Ronda, Castello, Garcia, Gonzalez, and Quintero have established statutory Booker error because while the district court did not assign them any extra-verdict enhancements, they too were sentenced under a mandatory Guidelines system. Shelton, 400 F.3d at 1330-31. 199 Because plain Booker errors occurred, all seven Appellants have established the first two prongs of plain-error review. Rodriguez, 398 F.3d at 1299. 44 However, none of the Appellants has shown that the Booker error affected their substantial rights. Accordingly, Appellants have failed to satisfy the third prong of plain-error review. Id. The sentencing record provides no basis for a conclusion that any Appellant has a reasonable probability of receiving a more lenient sentence under an advisory Guidelines system. The district court did not make any comments that the sentences imposed were too severe. The record indicates no frustration on the part of the district court with the severity of the Guidelines sentence[s], nor did the district court indicate a desire to impose a lesser sentence in [Appellants'] case. United States v. Underwood, 446 F.3d 1340, 1344 (11th Cir.2006). 200 Rather, the district court stressed the need for either a high- or mid-range sentence because of the severity of Appellants' crimes; the need for deterrence; Appellants' status as police officers and society's need for law enforcement officers to follow the law; the role and participation of each Appellant in the conspiracy; and Appellant Aguero's heightened culpability. A sentence in the middle or high end of the range, as each Appellant received, suggests that the district court did not prefer a more lenient sentence and would not have imposed one under an advisory system. 45 201 Accordingly, Appellants have not met their burden to show a reasonable probability that the result of their sentencing would have been different but for the Booker errors. Rodriguez, 398 F.3d at 1300-01. Because Appellants have not shown that their substantial rights were adversely affected under the third prong, we need not analyze the fourth element of plain-error review. Id. at 1301.