Court Opinion

ID: 9896226
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-11-09 20:01:04.24232+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:14:31.148808
License: Public Domain

USCA11 Case: 22-14025    Document: 30-1     Date Filed: 11/09/2023   Page: 1 of 6

                                                  [DO NOT PUBLISH]
                                   In the
                United States Court of Appeals
                        For the Eleventh Circuit

                          ____________________

                                No. 22-14025
                          Non-Argument Calendar
                          ____________________

       UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
                                                     Plaintiﬀ-Appellant,
       versus
       CORDERO BETHEL,

                                                   Defendant-Appellee.

                          ____________________

                 Appeal from the United States District Court
                     for the Southern District of Florida
                    D.C. Docket No. 0:22-cr-60112-RS-2
                          ____________________
USCA11 Case: 22-14025      Document: 30-1       Date Filed: 11/09/2023     Page: 2 of 6

       2                       Opinion of the Court                  22-14025

       Before WILSON, LUCK, and MARCUS, Circuit Judges.
       PER CURIAM:
              The government appeals Cordero Bethel’s 36-month total
       imprisonment sentence for three counts of smuggling three aliens
       into the United States for commercial and private gain. On appeal,
       the government argues that: (1) because Bethel pled guilty to
       smuggling three aliens, he was subject to the 60-month statutory
       mandatory minimum under 8 U.S.C. § 1324(a)(2)(B); and (2) as-
       suming arguendo that plain-error review applies, the district court
       plainly erred when it sentenced Bethel below the statutory manda-
       tory minimum. After thorough review, we vacate and remand for
       resentencing.
               We review questions of statutory interpretation de novo.
       United States v. St. Amour, 886 F.3d 1009, 1013 (11th Cir. 2018).
       However, if the issue is raised for the first time on appeal, we re-
       view for plain error only. United States v. Wright, 607 F.3d 708, 715
       (11th Cir. 2010). To establish plain error, a party must show (1) an
       error, (2) that is plain, and (3) that affected its substantial rights,
       meaning that the error affected the outcome of the case in the dis-
       trict court. United States v. Turner, 474 F.3d 1265, 1276 (11th Cir.
       2007); United States v. Clark, 274 F.3d 1325, 1329 (11th Cir. 2001). If
       these three conditions are satisfied, we may exercise our discretion
       to recognize the error only if it seriously affects the fairness, integ-
       rity, or public reputation of judicial proceedings. Turner, 474 F.3d
       at 1276. We’ve said that “to preserve an objection to a sentencing
USCA11 Case: 22-14025      Document: 30-1      Date Filed: 11/09/2023     Page: 3 of 6

       22-14025               Opinion of the Court                          3

       determination, a party must raise that point in such clear and sim-
       ple language that the trial court may not misunderstand it.” United
       States v. Brown, 934 F.3d 1278, 1306 (11th Cir. 2019). Under our
       prior precedent rule, we must follow a prior binding precedent
       “unless and until it is overruled by this [C]ourt en banc or by the
       Supreme Court.” United States v. Brown, 342 F.3d 1245, 1246 (11th
       Cir. 2003) (italics added).
                Under 8 U.S.C. § 1324(a)(2)(B), a person who smuggles ille-
       gal aliens into this country for commercial advantage or private fi-
       nancial gain will be fined or imprisoned based on “each alien in re-
       spect to whom a violation of this paragraph occurs” and “in the
       case of a first or second violation of subparagraph . . . (B)(ii), not
       less than 3 nor more than 10 years, and for any other violation, not
       less than 5 nor more than 15 years.” In United States v. Ortega-Torres,
       the defendant challenged § 1324(a)(2), arguing that his 22 convic-
       tions were one violation because he smuggled seven aliens at the
       same time and they should count as his first violation for sentenc-
       ing purposes. 174 F.3d 1199, 1200 (11th Cir. 1999). We looked to
       the plain language of the statute and held that the penalties under
       § 1324(a)(2) were determined on a per-alien basis. Id. at 1201. Sim-
       ilarly, in United States v. Raad, we upheld Raad’s 60-month manda-
       tory minimum sentence for smuggling three aliens. 406 F.3d 1322,
       1323 & n.2 (11th Cir. 2005). In affirming his 60-month sentence,
       we explained that Raad pled guilty to smuggling three aliens, each
       alien was counted as a separate violation, and he thus faced the
       mandatory minimum 60-month term of imprisonment. Id.
USCA11 Case: 22-14025        Document: 30-1        Date Filed: 11/09/2023        Page: 4 of 6

       4                         Opinion of the Court                     22-14025

              A district court has no discretion to downwardly depart
       from mandatory minimum sentences on its own motion on the
       ground that the sentences overrepresented the seriousness of the
       defendant’s offense. United States v. Simpson, 228 F.3d 1294, 1302–
       03 (11th Cir. 2000); see also Clark, 274 F.3d at 1328 (stressing that
       “[t]he sentencing guidelines make clear that where a guidelines
       range falls entirely below a mandatory minimum sentence, the
       court must follow the mandatory statutory minimum sentence”).
       The district court, and we, remain bound by the statutory manda-
       tory minimum sentences, United States v. Shelton, 400 F.3d 1325,
       1333 n.10 (11th Cir. 2005), and nothing in United States v. Booker,
       543 U.S. 220 (2005), changed that obligation. We’ve emphasized
       that mandatory minimum sentences, having been established by
       Congress, take precedence over the guideline range. Clark, 274
       F.3d at 1328.
              Here, even assuming arguendo that the government did not
       preserve its challenge to Bethel’s sentence, we vacate Bethel’s sen-
       tence and remand for resentencing because the district court
       plainly erred in sentencing Bethel below the statutory mandatory
       minimum.1 As we’ve detailed, our precedent establishes that the

       1 As a preliminary matter, it is unclear whether the government preserved its

       challenge to Bethel’s sentence. While the government did not object to the
       sentence, the district court did not explicitly ask whether the government had
       any objections to the sentence. Further, the government argued for the im-
       position of the 60-month mandatory minimum sentence and argued that the
       court should not follow Bethel’s request for a sentence below the 60-month
       statutory mandatory minimum. Since the government put the district court
       on notice of the statutory mandatory minimum, it is arguable that the
USCA11 Case: 22-14025        Document: 30-1         Date Filed: 11/09/2023        Page: 5 of 6

       22-14025                  Opinion of the Court                               5

       penalties under § 1324 are punished on a per-alien basis and that a
       defendant who smuggles three aliens, and pleads guilty to three
       charges for doing so, is subject to the five-year mandatory mini-
       mum. See Ortega-Torres, 174 F.3d at 1201; Raad, 406 F.3d at 1323 &
       n.2. As the record reflects, Bethel pled guilty to smuggling three
       aliens and the three corresponding charges under §
       1324(a)(2)(B)(ii). Further, his presentence investigation report, the
       government, and his attorney noted that he was subject to the five-
       year mandatory minimum. Thus, under our clear precedent, the
       district court committed error, that was plain, by sentencing Bethel
       below the five-year mandatory minimum in § 1324(a)(2) on his
       third count of conviction. See Ortega-Torres, 174 F.3d at 1201; Raad,
       406 F.3d at 1323 & n.2.
              As for the next step of the plain-error test, the government
       showed that its substantial rights were affected because the out-
       come of the district court proceedings was altered by the district
       court’s error. Clark, 274 F.3d at 1329. Without the district court’s
       error, Bethel’s total sentence would have been 60 months instead
       of 36 months. Finally, as for the last step, the error affects the in-
       tegrity or public’s perception of the judicial proceedings because it
       is expected that courts will abide by the penalties set out by Con-
       gress. Id. Therefore, the government has shown that the court’s

       government preserved its challenge to Bethel’s sentence, even if it did not ob-
       ject. See Brown, 934 F.3d at 1306. We need not resolve this issue, however,
       because the government met its burden of establishing plain error, as we’ll
       discuss.
USCA11 Case: 22-14025    Document: 30-1    Date Filed: 11/09/2023   Page: 6 of 6

       6                    Opinion of the Court              22-14025

       failure to impose the 60-month mandatory minimum for Bethel’s
       third count of conviction was plain error. We vacate and remand
       for resentencing consistent with the statutory minimum imprison-
       ment term.
             VACATED AND REMANDED.