[DO NOT PUBLISH]
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
FILED
________________________ U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
February 28, 2006
No. 05-11734
THOMAS K. KAHN
Non-Argument Calendar CLERK
________________________
D. C. Docket No. 04-00113-CR-T-17-TGW
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
MARTHA SANCHEZ-RESTREPO,
Defendant-Appellant.
________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Middle District of Florida
_________________________
(February 28, 2006)
Before BLACK, BARKETT and HULL, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
After pleading guilty, Martha Sanchez-Restrepo appeals her 262-month
concurrent sentences for: (1) conspiracy to import one kilogram or more of heroin,
in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 952(a), 960(a)(1) and (b)(1)(A), and 963;
(2) knowingly importing one kilogram or more of heroin, in violation of 21 U.S.C.
§§ 952(a), and 960(a)(1) and (b)(1)(A); (3) conspiracy to possess with intent to
distribute one kilogram or more of heroin, in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1)
and (b)(1)(A)(i), and 846; and (4) possession with intent to distribute one kilogram
or more of heroin, in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1) and (b)(1)(A)(i). After
review, we affirm.1
On appeal, Sanchez-Restrepo argues that the district court erred in holding
her accountable for 10,145.1 grams of heroin because she did not admit to that
drug amount and that amount was not specified in the indictment. However,
Sanchez-Restrepo admitted that she was responsible for that amount of drugs by
not objecting to that amount in the PSI or at sentencing. See United States v.
Shelton, 400 F.3d 1325, 1330 (11 th Cir. 2005) (defendant’s failure to object at
sentencing to PSI’s fact statements about relevant conduct constitutes admission to
facts in PSI). Thus, the district court properly calculated the defendant’s
guidelines range as 262 to 327 months.
1
Sanchez-Restrepo argues for the first time on appeal that her trial attorney was
constitutionally ineffective. However, given the state of the record, we decline to address the
defendant’s ineffective-assistance-of-counsel claim on direct appeal. See Massaro v. United
States, 538 U.S. 500, 504-05,123 U.S. 1690, 1694 (2003).
2
Alternatively, Sanchez-Restrepo was sentenced under an advisory guidelines
system post-United States v. Booker, 543 U.S. 220, 125 S. Ct. 738 (2005). This
Court has concluded that when the district court applies the guidelines in an
advisory manner, it does not violate a defendant’s Sixth Amendment right to apply
extra-verdict enhancements under a preponderance-of-the-evidence standard.
United States v. Chau, 426 F.3d 1318, 1323-24 (11 th Cir. 2005); United States v.
Rodriguez, 398 F.3d 1291, 1301 (11 th Cir. 2005). Consequently, the district court
properly determined, under a preponderance-of-the-evidence standard, that
Sanchez-Restrepo was responsible for over ten kilograms of heroin.2
AFFIRMED.
2
The defendant also claims that her 262-month sentence constitutes cruel and unusual
punishment, in violation of the Eighth Amendment. We reject this argument as meritless.
Sanchez-Restrepo also summarily asserts that she “would adopt (and has repeated some of) the
favorable arguments of at least the co-defendants/co-appellants.” By rule of this Court, parties
wishing to adopt portions of other parties’ briefs “shall include a statement describing in detail
which briefs and which portions of those briefs are adopted.” 11th Cir. R. 28-1(f). However,
Sanchez-Restrepo does not specify or describe in any way which parties’ arguments she purports
to adopt. Consequently, we conclude that Sanchez-Restrepo has failed to properly “adopt” any
of her co-defendants’ arguments.
3