[PUBLISH]
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
________________________ FILED
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
No. 04-10654 ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
AUGUST 25, 2005
________________________
THOMAS K. KAHN
CLERK
D. C. Docket No. 98-00427-CR-JLK
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
LUIS ADEL BORDON,
a.k.a. Luisito,
LUIS BORDON,
a.k.a. Luisito Jr., etc.,
et al.,
Defendants-Appellants.
________________________
Appeals from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Florida
_________________________
(August 25, 2005)
Before ANDERSON, PRYOR and HILL, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
Luis Adel Bordon (“Bordon”) and his sons, Luis Bordon and Adel Bordon,
appeal their sentences for: (1) conducting an illegal gambling business, in violation
of 18 U.S.C. § 1955; and (2) conspiring to commit money laundering by
conducting financial transactions involving the proceeds of an illegal gambling
business with the intent of promoting that illegal gambling activity and concealing
the nature and proceeds of the illegal gambling activity, in violation of 18 U.S.C. §
1956(h). The Bordons argue that the Feeney Amendment, which states that a
sentencing court should apply the Guidelines that were in place prior to the appeal,
should not have been applied to their sentence. The Bordons contend that the
retroactive application of that amendment violates the Ex Post Facto Clause. The
Bordons further argue that the district court erred in its calculation of monetary loss
associated with the crime and that the seventeen-month delay between the district
court’s receipt of the appellate mandate and the imposition of the sentence violated
the Bordons’ right to sentencing without unreasonable delay. We reject their
arguments and affirm their sentence.
I. FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY
This is the third time this case has come before this Court on appeal.
A. Underlying Crime
Bordon opened a liquor store and a legitimate check cashing business in
1986. In 1988, a long-time friend, Raul Fernandez, approached him and asked him
to cash checks for him. Bordon agreed to cash checks for Fernandez for a fee.
2
Bordon was aware that the checks cashed were proceeds emanating out of
Fernandez’s illegal “bolita” gambling enterprises. Eventually, Fernandez was
funneling $15,000 each week through Bordon’s liquor store and would routinely
come to the store and deliver or pick up the checks or cash for his gambling
business. Through word of mouth, other illegal bolita operators became aware of
Bordon’s ability to cash/launder checks and began using his liquor store for this
same purpose. Bordon's sons helped operate the liquor store. The sons were
aware of and participated in their father's illegal relationship with Fernandez and
the other bolita players. In August 1998, a jury found the Defendants guilty of
conspiring to launder proceeds of the illegal gambling operation, and of conducting
the same.
B. First Sentencing
The trial court originally sentenced the Bordons in November 1998. The
trial court used a base offense level of twenty. Following the 1998 money
laundering guidelines, the court enhanced seven levels based on the amount of
money involved in the gambling operation. In calculating the amount of money
involved, the court deferred to the jury’s special verdict finding that $5,756, 232.85
was involved in the gambling operation and should be forfeited. The trial court
then departed downward two levels from the Sentencing Guidelines based on the
3
view that the true nature of the crime departed from the “heartland consideration of
the Sentencing Commission.” The sentencing judge also noted that if the
Defendants had been prosecuted in state court they would have received a lesser
sentence, and “money laundering in what [were] substantially misdemeanor
offenses under statutes for the offense of operating a bolita business, would not rise
to the level that this type of sentencing should apply.” Finally, the district court
granted a two point reduction to the sons for their limited role in the offense.
Ultimately, Bordon's offense level was twenty-five, which recommends 57-71
months in prison, and his sons' offense levels were twenty-three, which
recommends 46-57 months in prison. The trial court imposed prison sentences of
57 months for Bordon, 46 months for his sons, and issued a preliminary order
forfeiting each appellant's interest in $5,756, 232.85.
C. First Appeal
The Bordons appealed their conviction and the forfeiture order. The
government cross-appealed the sentencing judge's base level calculation and
downward departure.
On July 21, 2000, in United States v. Bordon, No. 98-5841 (11th Cir. July
21, 2000) (“Bordon I”), an unpublished opinion, this Court affirmed the Bordons’
convictions, but found in favor of the government on its cross-appeal. The opinion
4
stated that the trial court erred when it used the base level of twenty instead of
twenty-three, and that the district court abused its discretion when it departed
downward from the Sentencing Guidelines because the downward departure was a
misapplication of the Guidelines. In holding that the district court erred in
departing downward, this Court stated, “A court may not depart from the
sentencing guidelines . . . merely because it believes that the sentence mandated is
excessive . . .. The district court’s explanation for a downward departure here
reflects a dissatisfaction with the sentence mandated for money laundering crimes.”
Bordon I at 15-16 (internal citations omitted).
D. Second Sentencing (First Re-sentencing)
The district court re-sentenced the Bordons on July 13, 2001. As instructed
by this Court in Bordon I, the district court used a base level of twenty-three, and
then enhanced seven levels for the amount of money involved in the crime. The
court granted a two-point reduction to the sons for having a minor role in the crime.
Accordingly, the court assigned an offense level of thirty to Bordon and twenty-
eight to each of his sons. The sentencing range for offense level thirty, criminal
history category I, is 97-121 months, and the sentencing range for offense level
twenty-eight, criminal history category I, is 78-97 months. When considering a
downward departure, the court stated, “I find that I have no discretion except to
5
sentence within that guideline range.” Accordingly, the court imposed a sentence
of 97 months for Bordon and 78 months for each of his sons.
E. Second Appeal
On August 23, 2002, this Court once again vacated and remanded the
Bordons’ sentences. United States v. Bordon, No. 01-14211(11th Cir. Aug. 23,
2002) (“Bordon II”). This Court found that the district court erred by construing
this Court’s opinion in Bordon I as having removed the district court’s discretion to
consider a downward departure. Bordon II stated that our holding in Bordon I did
not preclude the district court from departing downward during re-sentencing so
long as the court made the necessary findings on the record. Accordingly, and
expressing no view as to whether a downward departure should be granted, this
Court once again vacated and remanded the Bordons’ sentences to the district
court.
F. Legal Changes
Two notable changes in the law occurred during the course of this case.
First, in November 2001, after the Bordons appealed their second sentence, but
before this Court's second decision was issued vacating it, Congress approved a
revised version of the guideline associated with money laundering, U.S.S.G. §
2S1.1. This revision probably would have indicated a significantly reduced
6
guideline range in this case had the Bordons been sentenced in 2001 or after.
Second, in April 2003, Congress passed the PROTECT Act. Section 3742
(g)(1) of the act, known as the Feeney Amendment, provides that when re-
sentencing after appellate remand, a district court should apply the Guidelines that
were in place prior to the appeal.
G. Third Sentencing (Second Re-sentencing)
On January 23, 2004, the district court entered an order sentencing the
Bordons for the third time. This is the sentence that is currently before us on
appeal.
At their third sentencing, the Bordons argued that the Guidelines as amended
in 2001, as opposed to the 1998 Guidelines, should apply to their sentences. The
Bordons argued that the Feeney Amendment should not apply because their
sentences were vacated, in addition to being remanded, and that the imposition of
the 1998 Guidelines violated the Ex Post Facto Clause. The Bordons further
argued that the amount of money involved in the crime was improperly determined,
and that they were entitled to a downward departure from the sentencing range in
the Guidelines. The district court rejected all of these arguments. The district
court used the 1998 Guidelines in light of the Feeney Amendment and once again
calculated an offense level of thirty for Luis Adel Bordon and an offense level of
7
twenty-eight for Luis Bordon and Adel Bordon. Thus, the district court again
sentenced Bordon to 97 months and his sons to 78 months, the low end of the
guideline range in each case.
II. DISCUSSION
On appeal, the Bordons argue: (1) the district court erred by applying the
Feeney Amendment to their re-sentencing; (2) the “retroactive application” of the
Feeney Amendment violated the Ex Post Facto Clause; (3) the district court erred
in its calculation of monetary loss associated with the crime; (4) and the seventeen-
month delay between the district court’s receipt of the appellate mandate and the
imposition of the sentence violated the Bordons’ right to sentencing without
unreasonable delay.1 We reject all of these arguments and affirm the Bordons’
1
Before oral argument, the Bordons also submitted a Notice of Supplemental
Authority pursuant to Fed.R.App. P. 28(j) citing United States v. Booker, 543 U.S. __,
125 S. Ct. 738, 764 (2005), and urging this Court to consider the case as outcome
determinative; the Booker claim was fully discussed at oral argument. We recognize that
the Bordons could readily satisfy the plain error analysis we announced in United States
v. Rodriguez, 398 F.3d 1291 (11th Cir. 2005), and United States v. Shelton, 400 F.3d
1325 (11th Cir. 2005). This is because the sentencing judge in their case not only stated
that he believed the sentence was excessive, but in his initial sentencing, actually departed
downward on a belief that the sentence was excessive. However, the Defendants' Booker
claim was not timely raised in their initial brief on appeal and is thus subject to this
Court's prudential rule as articulated in United States v. Dockery, 401 F.3d 1261, 1262
(11th Cir. 2005); United States v. Levy, 379 F.3d 1241, 1242 (11th Cir. 2004), reh'g en
banc denied, 391 F.3d 1327 (11th Cir. 2004), vacated by __ U.S. __, 125 S.Ct. 2542
(2005), reinstated by __ F.3d __, 2005 WL 1620719 (11th Cir. July 12, 2005); and
United States v. Ardley, 242 F.3d 989, 990 (11th Cir. 2001). This Court's long-standing
rule is that issues and contentions not timely raised in the briefs are deemed abandoned.
Ardley, 242 F.3d at 990. The court has opted to apply this rule uniformly and equally to
8
sentences.
First, the Bordons' argument that the Feeney Amendment should not apply to
their sentence because it was “vacated and remanded” is refuted by the plain
language of the Amendment. The Feeney Amendment states:
(g) Sentencing upon remand.--A district court to which a case is remanded
pursuant to subsection (f)(1) or (f)(2) shall re-sentence a defendant in
accordance with section 3553 and with such instructions as may have been
given by the court of appeals, except that–
(1) In determining the range referred to in subsection 3553(a)(4), the
court shall apply the guidelines issued by the Sentencing Commission
pursuant to section 994(a)(1) of title 28, United States Code, and that
were in effect on the date of the previous sentencing of the defendant
prior to the appeal, together with any amendments thereto by any act
of Congress that was in effect on such date.
18 U.S.C.A. § 3742.(g)(1). The Amendment references 18 U.S.C. 3742(f)(1)-(2).2
all cases, and thus we are unable to entertain the Bordons’ Booker claim.
2
18 U.S.C. 3742(f)(1-2) states:
(f) Decision and disposition.--If the court of appeals determines that--
(1) the sentence was imposed in violation of law or imposed as a result of
an incorrect application of the sentencing guidelines, the court shall
remand the case for further sentencing proceedings with such instructions
as the court considers appropriate;
(2) the sentence is outside the applicable guideline range and the district
court failed to provide the required statement of reasons in the order of
judgment and commitment, or the departure is based on an impermissible
factor, or is to an unreasonable degree, or the sentence was imposed for an
offense for which there is no applicable sentencing guideline and is plainly
unreasonable, it shall state specific reasons for its conclusions and--
(A) if it determines that the sentence is too high and the appeal has
been filed under subsection (a), it shall set aside the sentence and
remand the case for further sentencing proceedings with such
instructions as the court considers appropriate, subject to
subsection (g);
9
The following subsection, 18 U.S.C. 3742(f)(3),3 requires an appellate court to
affirm a sentence if the appealed sentence does not fall within § § 3742 (f)(1) or
(f)(2). Therefore, subsections (f)(1) and (f)(2) encompass all of the possible
scenarios for non-affirmance of a sentence, including sentences that are vacated,
like the Bordons’.4
Next, the application of the Feeney Amendment to the Bordons’ sentences
does not violate the Ex Post Facto Clause. In Hock v. Singletary, 41 F.3d 1470
(11th Cir. 1995), this Court explained, “The Ex Post Facto Clause operates not to
protect an individual's right to less punishment, but rather as a means of assuring
that an individual will receive fair warning of criminal statutes and the punishments
they carry.” Id. at 1471-72 (citing Weaver v. Graham, 450 U.S. 24, 28-30, 101
S.Ct. 960, 964-65 (1981), and Dobbert v. Florida, 432 U.S. 282, 298, 97 S.Ct.
(B) if it determines that the sentence is too low and the appeal has
been filed under subsection (b), it shall set aside the sentence and
remand the case for further sentencing proceedings with such
instructions as the court considers appropriate, subject to
subsection (g). 18 U.S.C.A. § 3742
3
18 U.S.C.§ 3742 f(3) states: “[if the court of appeals determines that] the
sentence is not described in paragraph (1) or (2), it shall affirm the sentence.”
4
In United States v. Booker, 543 U.S. __, 125 S. Ct. 738, 764 (2005), the Supreme
Court excised a portion of the Feeney Amendment,18 U.S.C. § 3742(e), but left intact §
3742(g), the provision addressing what version of the Guidelines a court should use on
remand.
10
2290, 2300 (1977)). The Feeney Amendment requires that the Sentencing
Guidelines in place at the Bordons’ original sentencing be applied on remand. In
this case, the Amendment does not impose a greater sentence on the Bordons, but
merely declines to grant them a favorable change in the law that occurred after they
committed their crime. In Johnson v. United States, 529 U.S. 694, 120 S.Ct. 1795
(2000), the Supreme Court explained that in order to prevail on an ex post facto
claim, a defendant “must show both that the law he challenges operates
retroactively (that it applies to conduct completed before its enactment) and that it
raises the penalty from whatever the law provided when he acted.” Id. at 699, 120
S.Ct. at 1800. The Feeney Amendment does not raise the penalty from what it was
at the time the Bordons committed their crime, and therefore does not violate the
Ex Post Facto Clause. When the Sentencing Commission revised the guideline
associated with money laundering, U.S.S.G. § 2S1.1, it did not indicate that the
amendment should be applied retroactively. Accordingly, the district court
properly used the 1998 version of U.S.S.G. § 2S1.1 because that was the version of
the Guidelines in effect on the date of the Bordons’ previous sentencing, prior to
their first and second appeals.
We decline to consider the Bordons’ claim that the district court improperly
calculated the monetary loss associated with the crime because this Court
11
previously reviewed and affirmed the calculation; there is no new evidence, no new
controlling authority, Bordon I was not clearly erroneous in this respect, and the
opinion did not present a manifest injustice with regard to this issue. Therefore, the
district court properly determined that the monetary calculation was law of the
case. Oladeinde v. City of Birmingham, 230 F.3d 1275, 1288 (11th Cir. 2000)
(stating that both district and appellate courts are generally bound by an earlier
appellate decision in the case unless there is new evidence, new controlling
authority, or the earlier opinion is clearly erroneous and would result in manifest
injustice); see also United States v. Tamayo, 80 F.3d 1514, 1520 (11th Cir. 1996)
(stating “in the interest of judicial economy for the [district court] not to redo that
which had been done correctly at the first [sentencing], we have held that there is
‘nothing improper’ in the district court's limiting the scope of a re-sentencing
proceeding,” and holding that the approach is consistent with our law of the case
doctrine).
Finally, we conclude that the seventeen-month delay between the time that
this Court issued its second appellate mandate (August 2002) and the imposition of
their sentences (January 2004) did not violate their Sixth Amendment right to a
speedy trial. In reviewing the delay, the district court found that events
contributing to the delay included the Bordons’ request for updated PSIs in late
12
August 2003 (which take two months to prepare); the unavailability of a defense
lawyer during a 19-day period in July 2003; two extensive re-sentencing hearings
in August 2003; and the Bordons’ filing of numerous re-sentencing memoranda
and objections beginning in August 2003, which raised a plethora of legal issues
that required extensive and thorough analysis. The district court further noted that
nothing was filed to bring to the court's attention that re-sentencing was delayed
beyond what it should be or to request that the court move more swiftly. We
conclude the district court’s explanation is supported by the record and, given the
delay was in significant part due to the Defendants, we conclude that this claim is
without merit.
III. CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, we AFFIRM.
HILL, Circuit Judge, concurring:
With lack of enthusiasm, I concur.
This is the third appearance of this case in this court. All three appeals have
tested the legality of the Bordon’s sentences. This third appeal follows two prior
vacations and remands. Today we affirm that the Bordon’s sentences were
13
lawfully imposed.
Yet, ironically, after the third appeal was filed in this court, the Supreme
Court held that sentences such as these were unlawful. United States v. Booker,
543 U.S. ___, 125 S. Ct. 738, 764 (2005). In supplemental authority and at oral
argument, the Bordons offered Booker as support that they were unlawfully
sentenced.
Based upon the doctrine of stare decisis, I am convinced that our court is
correct in holding that the Bordons cannot now bring Booker to our attention. The
Bordons should have claimed relief under Booker – before Booker was decided!
For this precedent I am sorry. I confess that this feeling has long and deep
roots. See McGinnis v. Ingram Equip. Co., Inc., 918 F.2d 1491, 1498-1501 (11th
Cir. 1990) (Hill, J., dissenting). In McGinnis, I probably said all that I needed to
say on this subject. I won’t repeat it here. Id.
I should like to think that a court would want to correct an erroneous
sentence of incarceration – if an efficient and prudential method could be devised
to do so. We must feel that we cannot. Yet, the other circuits in this country seem
to be doing so – and surviving!
We hold steadfastly to our precedent. That is worthwhile conduct and
procedure. Stare decisis is an important doctrine. But I trust that, from time to
14
time, it might be tempered with fiat justitia ruat coelum.5
I reluctantly concur.
5
Let justice be done though the heavens will fall.
In Hampton v. City of Jacksonville, Fla., et al., 304 F.2d 320, 330 (5th Cir. 1962), Chief
Judge Tuttle quoted Justice Logan Bleckley of the Supreme Court of Georgia in Ellison v.
Georgia R.R. Co., 87 Ga. 691, 696, 13 S.E. 809 (1891), as follows: “When an error . . .
competes with truth in the struggle for existence, the maxim for a supreme court, – supreme in
the majesty of duty as well as in the majesty of power, – is not stare decisis, but fiat justitia ruat
coelum.”
15