FI LED U. S . COURT OF AP PE ALS E L E V E N T H C IR C U IT D e c e m be r 28, 2005 T HOM AS K. KAHN CL E RK [ DO NO T P UB L I S H] I N THE UN I TE D STATE S C OU RT OF APPE ALS F O R T H E E L E V E N T H C IR C U IT

________________________ N o. 05- 13035 N on -A rgum entC al endar

________________________ D. C . Do c k e tNo . 0 3 - 0 0 0 5 9 - C R - 3 - L AC U N I T E D S T A T E S O F A M E R I C A , P la in tif f - A p p e lle e , v ersu s M A R K R I C H A R D T Y N E S , D e f e n d a n t- A p p e lla n t.

________________________ A pp ea l fr om the U ni t ed S t at es D i stri ctC ou rt f orthe N or the rn D i s tr i c tof F l or i da

_________________________ ( D e c e m be r28, 2005) B efo re C A RN E S , H U L L an d P R Y O R , C i rcu i tJu d g es. P E R C U R I A M: A f t e ra j ury tr i a l , M a r k R i c ha r d T y ne s appe a l s hi s 324- m onth s e nt e nc e f or2

conspi ri ng t o p osse ss w i th i nt entt o d i stri bu t e 100 ki l og ra m s or m ore butl es s than 1000 ki l ogr a m s of

a m i xtur e ors ubs t a nc e c ont a i ni ng m a r i j ua na , i n vi ol a t i on of

21 U . S . C . §§ 84 1(a) (1), (b)( 1)(B )( vi i ) a nd 84 6 (C ou ntI) , and h i s 120 -m on th sent ence f orpos s e s s i on w i th i nt e ntt o di s tr i but e l e s s tha n 50 ki l ogr a m s of a m i xtur e or subst ance cont ai ni ng m ar i j uana, i n v i ol at i on of 21 U . S . C . §§ 84 1(a) (1) & ( b ) ( 1 ) ( D ) . A f

t e rr e v i e w , w e a f

f i r m. O n ap p e a l, T y n e s a r g u e s th a t, e v e n u n d e ra n a d v is o ry g u id e lin e s s y s te m , h is se nt ence : (1) vi ol at es the st atut ory m axi m um as defi ned b y A pp re nd i v. N ew Je rs ey , 53 0 U . S . 46 6, 12 0 S . C t . 23 48 (200 0); (2) vi ol at es U ni t ed S t at es v. B oo ker, 543 U . S . 220, 125 S . C t . 738 ( 2005) , be c a us e the di s tr i c tc our tde t e r m i ne d drug q u a n tity b a s e d o n f

a c ts n e ith e ra d m itte d b y h im n o rp r o v e n b e y o n d a r e a s o n a b le d o u b t; a n d ( 3 ) w a s u n r e a s o n a b le . I . S T AT UT OR Y MAX I MUM T ynes ar gu es thathi s s ent ence vi ol at es A pp re nd i because the di stri ctcourt im p e r m is s ib ly h e ld h im a c c o u n tab le f o r1 ,3 6 0 k ilo g r a m s o f

m a r iju a n a . S pe c i f i c a l l y , T y ne s a s s e r t s tha tbe c a us e ( 1) he di d nota dm i tt o the 1, 360 ki l og ra m s, and (2) the j ury s peci fi ca l l y f ou nd hi m gu i l ty of di stri bu t i ng l es s than 1 ,0 0 0 k ilo g r a m s o f

c o c a in e , th e s ta tu to ry m a x im u m f o rA p p r e n d i p u rp o s e s is l i m i t ed t o a d ru g q u an t i ty o f l ess th an 1 , 0 0 0 k i l o g ram s.“In Almendarez-Torre s v. United States, 523 U.S. 224, 118 S. C t. 1219 (1998), the 1 Supreme Court held that the g overnment need not alleg e in its indictment and need not prove beyon d a re a so na bledo ub t th at a

de fendant h a d p ri or

c onvic tio ns fo r a

dis tric t c ourt

to u setho se convictions for pur

poses of enhancinga sentence.”United States v. Marse ille, 377 F.3d 1249, 1257 (11 Cir.), cert. denied, 125 S. Ct. 637 (2004). Ne ither Apprendi, Blake ly v. Washington, th 542 U.S. 296, 124 S. C t. 2531 (2004), nor B ooker disturbe d the Almendarez-Torre s holding. United States v. Camacho- I barquen, 410 F.3d 1307, 1315- 16 (11 Cir. 2005). th 3 T y n e s w a s o r ig in a lly c h a r g e d w ith c o n s p ir in g to p o s s e s s w ith in te n t to di stri bu t e 100 0 k i l og ra m s or m ore of am i xture or s ub st ance cont ai ni ng m ar i j uana, i n vi ol a t i on of

21 U . S . C . §§ 841( a ) ( 1) , ( b) ( 1) ( B ) ( vi i ) a nd 846 ( C ountI ) . A l though the j ury r eturned a gu i l ty ver di ctas t o C ou ntI, the di stri ctcourtsubm i tt ed a s peci al ve r di c ttha tdi r e c t e d the j ury t o “ de t e r m i ne the a m ountof m a r i j ua na i nvol ve d i n the c ons pi r a c y . ” T he j ury s e l e c t e d “ l e s s tha n one thous a nd ( 1, 000) ki l ogr a m s butone hundr e d ( 100) ki l ogr a m s orm or e of . . . m a r i j ua na . ” T hus , unde rA ppr e ndi , the s t a tut ory m a xi m um i s l i m i t e d t o the m a xi m um f ora n a m ountl e s s tha n 1, 000 ki l og ra m s of m ar i

j uana. B a s e d on the drug qua nt i ty f ound by the j ur y ( l e s s tha n 1, 000 ki l ogr a m s but m or e tha n 100 ki l ogr a m s of m a r i j ua na ) , T y ne s ’ s s t a tut or y m a xi m um w oul d ha ve be e n 40 y e a r s . S e e 21 U . S . C . 841( b) ( 1) ( B ) . H ow e ve r , be c a us e T y ne s ha s a pr i or c r im in a l c o n v ic tio n f

o ra f e lo n y d ru g o f

f e n s e , h is s ta tu to ry m a x im u m b e c a m e lif e . S e e id . B e c a u s e T y n e s ’s s ta tu to ry m a x im u m w a s lif e , h is 3 2 4 - m o n th s e n te n c e d id 1 n o t v io la te A p p r e n d i. I I . BO O K ERThis is Ty nes’s sec ond appeal beforethis Court. In his first appeal, this C ourt 2 de termine d th at th erewa s su ff ic ient evide nc eto s uppo rt thea pp lic atio n o f v ari ou s enh anc e ments and that th ede fendant’ s sentenc edid no t vi olateAppre ndi v. New Je rs e y , 5 30 U. S. 4 66 , 1 20 S. Ct. 2348 (2000), or B lakely v. Washington, 542 U.S. 296, 124 S. Ct. 2531 (2004). See United States v. Ty

nes, No. 12105 (11 Cir. Dec. 27, 2004) . Shortly there after, the SupremeCourt th de c ide d Unit e d St ate s v . B oo ker, 54 3 U .S. 22 0, 12 5 S. Ct. 73 8 ( 20 05 ). B a se d o n B oo ker, thi s Court granted Ty

nes’s motion for re consideration and vacated his sentence . See United States v. Ty nes, No. 12105 (11 Cir. Mar. 10, 2005). H owever, this Court affirme d the district court’s th guidelines calculations, including dr ugquantity . I d.

4 T ynes al so ar gu es thathi s s ent ence vi ol at es B oo ker because the di stri ctcourt det erm i ned d rug q uant i ty bas ed on fa ct s nei ther a dm i tt ed by hi m no r proven b e y o n d a r e a s o n a b le d o u b t. T h is a r g u m e n t is f o r e c lo s e d b y T y n e s ’s f

ir s t ap p e a l. 2 In any e vent , thi s C ou rthas r epea t edl y s t at ed thataf t erB oo ker adi stri ct courtm ay cont i nu e t o d et erm i ne drug qu ant i ty, or any other e nh ance m entun der a n advi sory gu i del i nes s ys t em , base d o n a prepon dera nce of the evi dence. S ee U ni t ed S t at es v. R od ri gu ez , 39 8 F . 3d 12 91 , 12 97 (11 C i r. 20 05 ). In fa ct , a di stri ctcourt th m a y e ve n c ont i nue t o c ons i de rr e l e va nta c qui tt e d c onduc tw he n appl y i ng the gui de l i ne s i n a n a dvi s ory m a nne r . S e e U ni t e d S t a t e s v. D unc a n, 400 F . 3d 1297, 1304- 05 ( 11 C i r . 2005) . C ons e que nt l y , T y ne s ’ s B ooke ra r gum e nti s w i thout

th m e r it. I I I . R EA SO N A BLEN ESS F i na l l y , T y ne s a r gue s tha thi s s e nt e nc e s w e r e unr e a s ona bl e be c a us e hi s c od e f e n d a n ts r e c e iv e d lo w e rs e n te n c e s . H o w e v e r , T y n e s a c k n o w le d g e s th a t h is

“ pri or cr i m i nal hi st ory l i kel y r es ul t ed i n a st i ff erpenal ty. ”5

I n i m pos i ng T y ne s ’ s s e nt e nc e s , the di s tr i c tc our ts t a t e d: I do f i nd thi s s e nt e nc e m e e t s the ge ne r a l goa l s of puni s hm en ta nd ho peful l y w il l ac tas a det erre nce [ si c] t o o thers w ho m i gh tconsi der si m i l arcr i m i nal cond uct . A nd up o n re v ie w of al l of the fa ct ors pr o pe r l y c ons i de r e d unde rT i t l e 18, U ni t e d S t a t e s C ode , S e c t i on 3553- [ a ] , t a k i n g i n t o a c c o u n tth e a d v i s o ry n a tu r e o f th e s e n t e nc i ng gui de l i ne s , I do c onc l ude tha tthi s s e nt e nc e , w hi c h i s w i thi n the g u id e lin e r a n g e b u t a t th e lo w e n d , is r e a s o n a b le . T h is s e n te n c e is s uf f i c i e nta nd a gr e a t e rs e nt e nc e i s notne c e s s a ry t o c o m p l y w i t h the s t a tut ory a nd de f

i ne d purpos e s of

s e nt e nc i ng. G i ve n T y ne s ’ s c r i m i na l hi s t ory a nd the di s tr i c tc our t ’ s c ons i de r a t i on of the § 3 55 3(a) fa ct ors, w e c on cl ud e thathi s s ent ence w as no tun re as on abl e. S ee U ni t ed S t at es v. S cott , 42 6 F . 3d 13 24 , 13 30 (11 C i r. 20 05 ); U ni t ed S t at es v. W i ni ng ea r, th 42 2 F . 3d 12 41 , 12 46 (11 C i r. 20 05 ). th F ora l l the a bove r e a s ons , w e a f f i r m T y ne s ’ s c onc urr e nt324- m onth a nd 120- m o n th sen t en ces. AF F I R ME D.