United States v. Jimy Carmona ( 2011 )


Menu:
  •                                                             [DO NOT PUBLISH]
    IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
    FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
    ________________________                  FILED
    U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
    No. 10-15765                ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
    Non-Argument Calendar               JULY 14, 2011
    ________________________               JOHN LEY
    CLERK
    D.C. Docket No. 1:10-cr-20668-MGC-1
    UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
    Plaintiff-Appellee,
    versus
    JIMY CARMONA,
    Defendant-Appellant.
    ________________________
    Appeal from the United States District Court
    for the Southern District of Florida
    ________________________
    (July 14, 2011)
    Before EDMONDSON, HULL and KRAVITCH, Circuit Judges.
    PER CURIAM:
    After pleading guilty, Jimy Carmona appeals his sentence of 46 months’
    imprisonment for importing 100 grams or more of heroin into the United States, in
    violation of 21 U.S.C. § 952(a). After review, we affirm.
    When Carmona arrived at Miami Airport on a flight from Colombia, U.S.
    Customs inspectors found heroin hidden in the lining of Carmona’s carry-on
    backpack. Carmona has never disputed that the actual amount of heroin he
    transported was 727.4 grams. In fact, at his plea hearing, Carmona admitted he
    transported that amount. Furthermore, Carmona did not object to the presentence
    investigation report (“PSI”), which stated that the heroin in Carmona’s backpack
    weighed 727.4 grams and recommended a base offense level of 30, pursuant to
    U.S.S.G. § 2D1.1(a)(5), based on that drug quantity. Finally, at sentencing,
    Carmona did not object when the district court used that undisputed drug quantity
    to calculate Carmona’s advisory guidelines range of 46 to 57 months’
    imprisonment and then imposed a 46-month sentence, at the low end of the
    advisory guidelines range.
    Carmona did ask for a downward variance from the advisory guidelines
    range because he thought he was carrying 600 grams, rather than 700 grams, of
    heroin. The district court denied the request.1
    For the first time on appeal, Carmona argues that the district court’s use of
    1
    Carmona does not challenge that ruling on appeal or argue that his 46-month sentence
    was procedurally or substantively unreasonable.
    2
    the 727.4 grams of heroin to calculate his advisory guidelines range violated the
    Sixth Amendment. Citing United States v. Booker, 
    543 U.S. 220
    , 
    125 S. Ct. 738
    (2005), Carmona contends that the district court could not hold him accountable
    for that drug quantity because Carmona did not admit, and the government did not
    prove, that Carmona knew that amount of heroin was in his backpack.
    Because Carmona raises his Booker objection for the first time on appeal,
    we review for plain error. See United States v. Munoz, 
    430 F.3d 1357
    , 1374-75
    (11th Cir. 2005).2 Here, we find no error, plain or otherwise.
    For sentencing purposes, the district court may rely on evidence heard
    during trial, the defendant’s admissions during his guilty plea, undisputed
    statements in the PSI or evidence presented at the sentencing hearing. United
    States v. Wilson, 
    884 F.2d 1355
    , 1356 (11th Cir. 1989). The failure to object to
    factual findings in the PSI, including drug quantity findings, is deemed an
    admission of those facts. United States v. Williams 
    438 F.3d 1272
    , 1274 (11th
    Cir. 2006). Moreover, after Booker, under an advisory guidelines system, the
    district courts remain free to impose sentencing enhancements based on judge-
    made findings by a preponderance of the evidence so long as the sentence imposed
    2
    To establish plain error, the appellant must show (1) error, (2) that is plain, (3) that
    affects his substantial rights, and (4) seriously affects the fairness, integrity, or public reputation
    of judicial proceedings. 
    Munoz, 430 F.3d at 1375
    .
    3
    does not exceed the statutory maximum sentence. See United States v. Dean, 
    487 F.3d 840
    , 854 (11th Cir. 2007); United States v. Dudley, 
    463 F.3d 1221
    , 1227-28
    (11th Cir. 2006).
    Carmona does not contend that his 46-month sentence exceeds the 40-year
    statutory maximum sentence authorized by 21 U.S.C. § 960(a)(1), (b)(2)(A).
    Thus, the district court did not violate the Sixth Amendment when it calculated
    Carmona’s advisory guidelines range based on the undisputed statements in the
    PSI and Carmona’s admissions during his plea colloquy.
    The fact that Carmona claims he did not know he was carrying 727.4 grams
    of heroin in his backpack does not change the result. It is well-settled in this
    Circuit, both before and after Booker, that the fact that a drug courier did not know
    the exact amount or type of drugs he was transporting does not prevent a district
    court from attributing the drugs to him for sentencing purposes. See United States
    v. Alvarez-Coria, 
    447 F.3d 1340
    , 1344 (11th Cir. 2006); United States v. Gomez,
    
    905 F.2d 1513
    , 1514-15 (11th Cir. 1990); see also U.S.S.G. § 1B1.3 cmt n.2(a)(1).
    AFFIRMED.
    4