United States v. Ulpiano Mina ( 2007 )

[DO NOT PUBLISH]
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT FILED
________________________ U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
November 15, 2007
No. 06-15683 THOMAS K. KAHN
Non-Argument Calendar CLERK
________________________
D. C. Docket No. 05-00365-CR-T-27-TBM
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
ULPIANO MINA,
Defendant-Appellant.
________________________
No. 06-15741
Non-Argument Calendar
________________________
D. C. Docket No. 05-00365-CR-T-27TBM
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
TEOFILO RENTERIA-BRAVO,
Defendant-Appellant.
________________________
No. 06-15766
Non-Argument Calendar
________________________
D. C. Docket No. 05-00365-CR-T-27-TBM
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
RICHAR VALLECILLA-VELEZ,
Defendant-Appellant.
________________________
No. 06-15768
Non-Argument Calendar
________________________
D. C. Docket No. 05-00365-CR-T-27-TBM
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
2
JOSE CARLOS BELALCAZAR-VALLEALLA,
Defendant-Appellant.
________________________
No. 06-15769
Non-Argument Calendar
________________________
D. C. Docket No. 05-00365-CR-T-27-TBM
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
LEONARDO ANCHICO-JIMENEZ,
Defendant-Appellant.
________________________
No. 06-15770
Non-Argument Calendar
________________________
D. C. Docket No. 05-00365-CR-T-27-TBM
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
3
SERGIO PORTOCARRERO-REINA,
Defendant-Appellant.
________________________
No. 06-15869
Non-Argument Calendar
________________________
D. C. Docket No. 05-00365-CR-T-27-TBM
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
VIRGILIO CAICEDO,
Defendant-Appellant.
________________________
No. 06-15910
Non-Argument Calendar
________________________
D. C. Docket No. 05-00365-CR-T-27-TBM
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
BENITO MURILLO-CUERO,
Defendant-Appellant.
4
________________________
Appeals from the United States District Court
for the Middle District of Florida
_________________________
(November 15, 2007)
Before MARCUS, WILSON and PRYOR, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
In these consolidated appeals, Ulpiano Mina, Sergio Portocarrero-Reina,
Virgilio Caicedo, Teofilo Renteria-Bravo, Leonardo Anchico-Jimenez, Richar
Vallecilla-Velez, Jose Carlos Belalcazar-Vallealla, and Benito Murillo-Cuero
appeal their convictions for possession with intent to distribute five kilograms or
more of cocaine while on board a vessel subject to the jurisdiction of the United
States and conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute five kilograms or more of
cocaine while on board a vessel subject to the jurisdiction of the United States. See
46 U.S.C. app. §§ 1903(a), (g), (j) (1994); 18 U.S.C § 2; 21 U.S.C. §
960(b)(1)(B)(ii). Mina, Belalcazar-Vallealla, Vallecilla-Velez, and Murillo-Cuero
also appeal their sentences imposed by the district court.
The defendants present three arguments. First, all of the defendants contend
that the district court lacked subject matter jurisdiction. Second, four defendants
contend that they were entitled to minor role reductions in their sentences. Third,
three defendants argue that their sentences are unreasonable.
5
A. The Defendants Waived Their Argument That Their Convictions Are Invalid In
Their Unconditional Guilty Pleas.
The defendants argue that their convictions are invalid because the district
court lacked subject matter jurisdiction. The defendants contend that the district
court erroneously concluded that the “Rio Mar I was, at the time it was interdicted
by the United States Coast Guard, a vessel subject to the jurisdiction of the United
States, [because] the government of [Colombia], the F/V Rio Mar I’s flag nation,
consented to the enforcement of United States law by the United States.” See 46
U.S.C. App. §§ 1903(a), (c)(1)(C), (f). We disagree.
The problem for each defendant is that each entered an unconditional plea of
guilty. We review de novo whether a voluntary, unconditional plea of guilty
waives the ability to appeal a particular issue. See United States v. Patti, 337 F.3d
1317, 1320 n.4 (11th Cir. 2003). “[A] voluntary, unconditional guilty plea waives
all nonjurisdictional defects in the proceedings.” Id. at 1320.
The defendants’ argument that jurisdiction did not exist over the Rio Mar I is
different from a challenge to the authority of the district court over the case and
controversy. Under the Maritime Drug Law Enforcement Act, “[i]t is unlawful for
any person . . . on board a vessel subject to the jurisdiction of the United States”
knowingly to possess with the intent to distribute a controlled substance. 46
U.S.C. App. § 1903(a). Because the indictments of the defendants charged them
with a violation of this law of the United States, the district court had subject
6
matter jurisdiction over their actions. See McCoy v. United States, 266 F.3d 1245,
1252 n.11 (11th Cir. 2001); 18 U.S.C. § 3231. The defendants waived the
argument that the Rio Mar I was not a vessel subject to the jurisdiction of the
United States when they pleaded guilty unconditionally. See Patti, 337 F.3d at
1320.
B. The Argument of Mina, Belalcazar-Vallealla, Vallecilla-Velez, and Murillo-
Cuero That They Were Entitled To A Minor Role Reduction Is Subject To An
Enforceable Appeal Waiver.
Mina, Belalcazar-Vallealla, Vallecilla-Velez, and Murillo-Cuero argue that
the district court erred when it denied them a minor role reduction, but the
government contends that an enforceable appeal waiver bars this argument. A
defendant may waive his statutory right to appeal. See United States v. Grinard-
Henry, 399 F.3d 1294, 1296 (11th Cir. 2005). “Waiver will be enforced if the
government demonstrates either: (1) the district court specifically questioned the
defendant about the waiver during the plea colloquy, or (2) the record clearly
shows that the defendant otherwise understood the full significance of the waiver.”
Id. (quoting United States v. Benitez-Zapata, 131 F.3d 1444, 1446 (11th Cir. 1997)
(internal quotation marks omitted).
We agree with the government. The record establishes that the district court
specifically questioned Mina, Belalcazar-Vallealla, Vallecilla-Velez, and Murillo-
Cuero during the plea colloquy about the appeal waiver and adequately explained
7
the significance of the waiver. Because Mina, Belalcazar-Vallealla, Vallecilla-
Velez, and Murillo-Cuero knowingly and voluntarily waived the right to appeal
their sentences on this ground, we dismiss this portion of their appeals.
C. The Sentences of Mina, Vallecilla-Velez, and Belalcazar-Vallealla Are
Reasonable.
Three of the defendants challenge the reasonableness of their sentences.
Mina argues that his sentence of 188 months of imprisonment is unreasonable
because the government offered to recommend a sentence of eight years of
imprisonment and Mina’s history and characteristics support imposition of a lower
sentence. Vallecilla-Velez argues that his sentence of 235 months of imprisonment
is grossly disproportionate to similarly situated defendants. Belalcazar-Vallealla
challenges his below-Guidelines sentence of 144 months of imprisonment and
argues that his “sentence is disparate from the other similarly situated defendant.”
These arguments fail.
We review a sentence for reasonableness. United States v. Talley, 431 F.3d
784, 785 (11th Cir. 2005). “Review for reasonableness is deferential.” Id. at 788.
“[T]he party who challenges the sentence bears the burden of establishing that the
sentence is unreasonable in the light of both [the] record and the factors in section
3553(a).” Id. “When we review a sentence for reasonableness, we do not, as the
district court did, determine the exact sentence to be imposed.” Id. “We must
evaluate whether the sentence imposed by the district court fails to achieve the
8
purposes of sentencing as stated in section 3553(a).” Id. “[W]hen the district court
imposes a sentence within the advisory Guidelines range, we ordinarily will expect
that choice to be a reasonable one.” Id.The transcript of the sentencing hearing establishes that the district court
sentenced Mina, Vallecilla-Velez, and Belalcazar-Vallealla after careful
consideration of their arguments in favor of mitigation, the Guidelines, and the
sentencing factors of section 3553(a). Mina was sentenced at the low-end of the
Guidelines range. Vallecilla-Velez’s sentence was within the Guidelines-range and
higher than the sentences of his codefendants because the district court determined
that, unlike some of the other defendants, Vallecilla-Velez was not entitled to an
reduction for acceptance of responsibility. Belalcazar-Vallealla’s sentence was
below the Guidelines range. The sentences of Mina, Vallecilla-Velez, and
Belalcazar-Vallealla are reasonable.
AFFIRMED IN PART; DISMISSED IN PART.
9