[DO NOT PUBLISH] IN THE UN ITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELE VENTH CIRCUIT

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ No. 1 1- 11 16 4 Non -Arg um en t Ca le nd ar

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ D.C. Dock etNo. 8 :1 0- cr-0 03 74 -J DW -TGW -1

UNITED STAT ES OF AMERIC A, Pl ai nt iff -Ap pe ll ee, ve rs us DAVID LEO N SMITH, JR ., Defen da nt -Ap pe ll an t.

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ App eal fro m

th e Uni te d S ta te s Di st ric t Co urt forth e Mi dd le Dis tri ctof F lo rid a

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ (Jul y 25 , 20 12 ) Befo re TJ OFLAT, HU LL andFAY, Circ ui t J ud ge s. PER CURI AM:

Case: 11-11164 Date Filed: 07/25/2012 Page: 1 of 10Afte r pl ead in g g ui lt y , Defen da ntDavi d Leo n S m it h, J r. ap pe al s h is 20 4-

m on th sen te nc e fo r (1 ) di st rib ut io n o f crac k c oc ai ne invi ol at io n o f 21 U.S.C. § 8 41 (a)( 1) an d (b )(1 )(C) (Co un t On e), (2 ) di st rib ut io n o f fi ve gra m s o r m or e o f crac k c oc ai ne invi ol at io n o f 21 U.S.C. § 8 41 (a)( 1) an d (b )(1 )(B) (ii i) ( Co un t Two ), an d (3 ) po ss es si on of f

iv e g ram s o r m or e o f cra ckco cai ne with t he in te ntto di st rib ut e in vi ol at io n o f 21 U.S.C. § 8 41 (a)( 1) an d (b )(1 )(B) (ii i)( Co un t Th ree) . On ap pe al , Sm it h c ha ll en ge s t he di st ric t co urt’s ap pl ic at io n o f a d an ge ro us weap on en ha nc em en t an d c on te nd s t ha t the di st ric t co urt s ho ul d h av e ap pl ie d t he pe na lt y pr ov is io ns in21 U.S.C. § 8 41 (b ) as am en de d b y th e Fai r Sen te nc in g Act(“ FSA”). Afte r rev ie w, we affi rm

Sm it h’s d an ge ro us weap on en ha nc em en t, b utva cat e an d rem an d fo r res en te nc in g i n l ig htof Do rs ey v. Un it edSta te s, _

__ _ U.S. _

__ _, _ __ _ S. Ct . __ __ , Nos . 11 -5 68 3, 1 1- 57 21 (U.S. Ju ne 21 , 20 12 ).

I. BACKG ROUND A. Offe ns e Con duct InMay 201 0, d et ect iv es with t he Hil ls bo ro ug h C ou nt y , Flo rid a Sh eri ff’s of fic e rec ei ve d i nf

orm at io n t ha t Def

en dantSm ith was di st rib ut in g c rackco cai ne . Late r th atm on th , on May 25, 2 01 0, u nd erco ve r de te ct iv es co nt act edSm it h and arra ng edth e p ur ch as e o f 1.4 gra m s o f crac k c oc ai ne fro m hi m . Sm ith a rri ve d a t th e p rearran ge d l oc at io n a ndso ldth e d et ect iv es th e ag reedam ou nt . Two da y s 2 Case: 11-11164 Date Filed: 07/25/2012 Page: 2 of 10la te r, onMay 27, 2 01 0, af te r th e d et ect iv es co nt act edhi m ag ai n, Sm it h m etwith th e d et ect iv es an d d el iv eredanad di ti on al 14 .4 g ram s o f cra ckco cai ne . On J un e 2 , 20 10 , law en fo rcem en t ex ecu te d asearch warran t o n S m it h’s res id en ce an d re co ve red26 .8 g ram s o f crac k c oc ai ne , 38 4 g ram s o f m ari juan a, a bo x o f ba gg ie s, a d ig it al sca le , andanun lo ad edBere tt a USA Co rp . 22 Lon g R ifl e cal ib er p is to l. Eve ry

it em ex cep t the pi st ol was fo un d i n t he m as te r be dr oo m . The pi st ol was fo un d o n t op of t he refri ge rat orne ar the fro ntdo or . Sm it h a dm it te d own ers hi p o f th e dru gs . On Se pt em

be r 9, 2 01 0, a g ran d ju ry

in di ct edSm it h o n t he ab ov e th ree co un ts . Sm it h’s M ay

25 , 20 10 an d M ay

27 , 20 10 dru g s al es form edth e b as is of Co un ts One a ndTwo, res pe ct iv el y . The cra ckco cai ne fou ndinSm it h’s re si de nc e fo rm edth e b as is forCo un t Th ree. Subs eque nt ly, th e g ov ern m en t fi le d ano ti ce o f pr io r co nv ic ti on s, p ur su an t t o 2 1 U.S.C. § 85 1( a), o ut li ni ng Sm it h’s fi ve pre vi ou s fel on y dru g o ffen se s t ha t the go ve rn m en t p la nn edto rel y up on at s en te nc in g. Sm ith p le d g ui lt y

to all th ree c ou nt s. B. Pres ente nce I nv es tig at io n Repo rt Sm it h’s p res en te nc e in ve st ig at io n re po rt ( “ PSI” ) in it ia ll y cal cu la te d h is ba se of fen se lev el as 2 6 b as edon th e to ta l am ou ntof c rackco cai ne in vo lv ed(42 .6 gr am s) inSm it h’s t hr ee co un ts (1.4 gra m s i n C ou ntOne, 1 4.4 gra m s i n C ou ntTwo 3 Case: 11-11164 Date Filed: 07/25/2012 Page: 3 of 10an d 2 6.8 gra m s i n C ou ntThre e). See U.S.S.G. § 2 D1.1 (c)( 7) . The PSI th en

in crea se d S m it h’s o ffen se lev el by two l ev el s due to th e p res en ce o f a d an ge ro us weap on , res ul ti ng inanad jus te d o ffen se lev el of 2 8. Se e U.S.S.G. § 2 D1.1 (b )(1 ). Bec au se Sm it h qua li fie d a s a c aree r of fen de r du e to hi s p rio r fel on y co nv ic ti on s, th e PSI r es etth e o ffen se lev el at 3 7 b as edon Sm it h’s s ta tu to ry m ax im um li fe se nt en ce u nd er § 84 1( b) (1 )(B) (ii i). Se e U.S.S.G. § 4 B1 .1. After de crea si ng 1 Sm ith’s o ffen se lev el by thre e le ve ls foracce pt an ce o f res po ns ib il it y un de r U.S.S.G. § 3 E1.1 (a) a ndforti m el y no ti fic at io n o f in te ntto pl eadgu il ty und er U.S.S.G. § 3 E1.1 (a) a nd(b) , th e PSI c al cu la te d S m ith’s t ot al off en se lev el as 3 4. The PSI as si gn edSm it h acri m in al hi st ory cat eg ory VI ba se d o n e it he r Sm ith’s l en gt hy crim in al hi st ory or, a lt ern at iv el y , hi s ca reeroff en de r st atus . W it h The c are er of

fende r provision assigns offe nse leve ls based on the de fenda nt’s statutory 1 maxi mum sentence and instructs the sente ncingcourt to apply that offe nse leve l if it is gre ater than the other

wise-a pplicable of

fenselevel, as f

ollows: Ex cept a s provided in subsection (c ), if the of fense level for

a ca ree r off ender from the table in this subs ection is greater than theoffe nse leve l otherwise applicable , the offe nse leve l from the table in this subsection shall apply . A ca ree r offe nder’ s criminal history cate g ory in ever y case under this subsection shall be Categ ory VI . Offe nse Statutory

Maxi mum Offe nse L evel (1) L ife 37 (2) 25 year s or more 34 (3) 20 year s or more, but less than 25 year s 32 (4) 15 year s or more, but less than 20 year s 29 (5) 10 year s or more, but less than 15 year s 24 (6) 5 year s or more, but less than 10 year s 17 (7) More than 1 year , but less than 5 year s 12. U.S.S.G. § 4B1.1(b) (footnote omitted). 4

Case: 11-11164 Date Filed: 07/25/2012 Page: 4 of 10anoff

en se lev el of 3 4 anda cri m in al hi st ory cat eg ory of VI, the PSI re co m

m en de d anadvi so ry

gu id el in es ran ge of 2 62 to 32 7 m on th s. C. Smith’s Obje cti on Sm it h d idno t o bjec t t o t he un de rlyin g fa ct s i n t he PSI. Rel ev an t t o t hi s ap pe al , Sm it h o bjec te d t o the two -le ve l d an ge ro us weap onen ha nc em en t. Sm it h al so fil eda m ot io n re qu es ti ng th e d is tri ctco urt t o app ly pro vi si on s o f th e Fai r Sen te nc in g Actth atwentin to effe ctAug us t 3 , 20 10 , aft er h e co m m it te d t he ch arg edoff

en se s, b utbe fo re h e was sen te nc ed . Pri orto th e FSA, i f a d efen da nt ’s § 8 41 (a) o ffen se in vo lv ed5 o r m or e g ram s of crac k c oc ai ne an d t he de fen da ntha d apri orfel on y dru g c on vi ct io n, h e was subjec t t o aten -y ear m an da to ry m in im um sen te nc e an d ast atut ory

m ax im um li fe se nt en ce. See 21 U.S.C. § 8 41 (b )(1 )(B) (ii i) ( 20 06 ). The FS A, am on g o th er th in gs , rai se d t he am ou ntof c rackco cai ne in§ 8 41 (b )(1 )(B) (ii i) t o 2 8 g ram s o r m or e. See Fa ir S en te nc in g Actof 2 01 0, Pub. L. No. 1 11 -2 20 § 2 (a), 1 24 Sta t. 23 72 (20 10 ). Thu s, af

te r th e FSA, i f a d efen da nt ’s § 8 41 (a) o ffen se in vo lv edles s th an28 gra m s o f cra ckco cai ne an d h e h ada pr io r fel on y dru g c on vi ct io n, h e was no t s ub ject t o a ny m an da to ry

m in im um sen te nc e an d h is st atut ory m ax im um se nt en ce was th irt y

y ears ’ im pr is on m en t, n otli fe. See 21 U.S.C. § 8 41 (b )(1 )(C) . Fu rth er, a d efen dant ’s st atut ory m ax im um sen te nc e fo r eac h § 84 1( a) co un t 5 Case: 11-11164 Date Filed: 07/25/2012 Page: 5 of 10is de te rm in edba se d o n t he am ou ntof d ru gs in vo lv edinon ly tha t § 84 1( a)

vi ol at io n. Se e 2 1 U.S.C. § 84 1( b) . Sm it h was ch arg edwith t hr ee s ep arat e § 8 41 (a) o ffen se s o ccu rri ng on th ree d iff eren t d ay s. Alt ho ug h t he to ta l dru g qu an ti ty in Sm it h’s t hr ee § 84 1( a) o ffen se s was 42 .6 g ram s o f cra ckco cai ne un de r th e g ui de li ne s ca lc ul at io ns , each § 8 41 (a) o ffen se st il l i nv ol ve d l es s t ha n 2 8 g ram s fo r pu rp os es of c al cu la ti ng th e st atut ory m ax im um . 2 Here, Sm ith’s s en te nc in g o bjec ti onarg ue d tha t, af te r th e FSA, Sm ith was no lo ng er s ub

ject t o a ny m an da to ry

m in im um sen te nc e o n C ou nt s Two an d Th ree. Sm it h a ls o c on te nd ed , bas edon hi s n ew th irt y -y ear s ta tu to ry m ax im um un de r th e FSA, tha t h is off en se lev el un de r th e car eer o ffen de r gu id el in e, U.S.S.G. § 4 B1 .1(b ), was 3 4, n ot37 . Smit h c la im edth at , aft er the th ree- le ve l re du ct io n fo r acce pt an ce o f res po ns ib il ity , hi s t ot al off en se lev el sh ou ldha ve be en31 , whi ch wou ldy ie ldanadvi so ry

gu id el in es ran ge of 1 88 to 23 5 m on th s. D. Sent enci ng At a M arch 9, 2 01 1 s en te nc in g h eari ng , Smit h re it erat edhi s o bjec ti onto th e two -le ve l d an ge ro us weap on enha nc em en t. Nei th er p arty pre se nt edtes ti m on y . Sm ith a rg ue d t ha t “ al th ou ghhe was re si di ng inth e res id en ce h e was ina di ffer en t The Sentenc ing Guidelines group multiple § 841(a) c ounts toge ther a nd calc ulate the 2 defe ndant’s base offe nse leve l based on the total drugquantity . See U.S.S.G. §§ 2D1.1, 3D1.2(d). 6

Case: 11-11164 Date Filed: 07/25/2012 Page: 6 of 10lo cat io n. Th e weap on was n otfou ndon hi m .”

Afte r qu es ti on in g b y

th e d is tri ctco urt, Sm it h a dm it te d t ha t the fir earm was fo un d a t Sm it h’s re si de nc e, whi ch he sh aredwith h is gi rlf rie nd . Smit h d idno t di sp ut e th at“ in ci de ntto th e se arch warran t, dru gs , par ap he rn al ia , anda fi rearm were fo un d i ns id e th e res id en ce co nn ect in g t he res id en ce t o t he dru g a ct iv it y .” The di st ric t co urt as ke d S m ith i f he ha d a ny evi de nc e to “ de m on st rat e th atth e co nn ect io n b etweenth e g un an d t he off en se was . . . cle arl y

im pr ob ab le .” Sm it h res po nd edth athe di d n ot , andth e d is tri ctco urt o ve rru le d h is ob jecti on . The di stric t co urt al so de ni edSm it h’s m ot io n t o app ly the FSA. The d is tri ct co urt s ta te d t ha t, b as edon th is Co urt’s p rece de ntinUni te d S ta te s v . Gom es , 62 1 F.3 d 1 34 3 (1 1t h C ir. 2 01 0) , itwas “ bo un d t o app ly the m in im um m an da to ry pe na lt ie s tha t ap pl y

to th e o ffen se co m

m it te d p rio r to en actm en t o f th e FSA.” Sm it h t he n a rg ue d t ha t h e sh ou ldrece iv e a 1 20 -m on th sen te nc e b as edon th e se nt en ci ng di sp ari ty betweencrac k a ndpo wde r co cai ne an d t he 18 U.S.C. § 3 55 3( a) fa ct or s. Be fo re s en te nc in g, the di st ric t co urt d is cu ss edSm it h’s p ers on al an d c riminal hi st ory , th e se rio us ne ss of t he ch arg edoff en se s, the ne edforpubl ic pr ot ect io n, an d S m ith’s p ot en ti al forreh ab il it at io n. Al th ou gh th e d is tri ctco urt fo un d the ap pl ic ab le gu id el in es ran ge to be 26 2 t o 3 27 m on th s’ im pr is on m en t, the co urt s ta te d t ha t “ ev en. . . th e lo w endof t he advi so ry ran ge is ex tra or di na ril y 7 Case: 11-11164 Date Filed: 07/25/2012 Page: 7 of 10se ve re.” Th e d is tri ctco urt v ari eddo wnwar d b y 58 m on th s an d s en te nc edSm it h t o 20 4 m on th s fo r eac h o f th e th ree c ou nt s, t o ru n c on cu rren tl y . II . DISCUSSI ON A. Dan ge ro us Wea po n Enh an cement Sm it h a rg ue s t ha t the di st ric t co urt erredinap pl y in g t he two -le ve l da ng ero us weap on en ha nc em en t u nd er U.S.S.G. § 2 D1.1 (b )(1 ). W e d is ag ree. 3 Und er U.S.S.G. § 2 D1.1 (b )(1 ), a d efen da nt ’s off en se lev el in crea se s b y

two le ve ls “ [i]f a d an ge ro us weap on (in cl ud in g afir earm ) was po ss es se d.” U.S.S.G. § 2 D1.1 (b )(1 ). The t wo- le ve l i nc reas e ap pl ie s “ if t he weap on was p res en t, u nl es s itis cle arl y

im pr ob ab le th atth e weap on was c on ne ct edwith the off en se .” Id . § 2 D1.1 , cmt. n .3(A) . Once t he go ve rn m en t d em on st rat es by a prep on de ran ce o f th e ev id en ce tha t the fir earm was p res en t atth e si te of the ch arg edco nduc t, the bu rd ensh ift s t o t he de fen dantto sh ow t ha t a c on ne ct io n b etweenth e fi rearm an d th e o ffen se is cle arl y

im pr ob ab le . Uni te d S ta te s v . Sta ll in gs , 46 3 F .3d12 18 , 12 20 (1 1t h C ir. 2 00 6) . The PSI’s u nd is pu te d fa ct s es tabl is he d t ha t o ffi cers reco ve redth e fi rearm fro m Sm it h’s re si de nc e al on g wi th a la rg e qua nt ity of c rackco cai ne , a sc al e, an d We reviewfor c lear

err or the district cour

t’s finding s of fa ct under

U.S.S.G. 3 § 2D1.1(b)( 1), and w e re view de novo the application of the SentencingGuidelines to those fac ts. United States v. Pham, 463 F.3d 1239, 1245 (11th Cir. 2006). 8 Case: 11-11164 Date Filed: 07/25/2012 Page: 8 of 10sm al l p la st ic ba gg ie s. Alt ho ug h t he fir earm was n otinth e sa m e ro om as t he dru gs an d t he di st rib ut io n p arap he rn al ia , itwas s to redonto p o f th e ref rig erat orne xtto th e fro ntdo or . Thes e fac ts are s uf fic ie ntto carry

th e g ov ern m en t’s b ur de n t o s ho w th atth e fi rearm

was p res en t atth e si te of S m ith’s ch arg eddru g a ct iv it ie s. See Uni te d S ta te s v . Hun te r, 17 2 F .3d13 07 , 13 09 (11 th Cir . 19 99 ) (co nc lu di ng fir earm s wer e p res en t atth e si te of t he ch arg eddru g t raff ic ki ng wher e th ey

were fo un d i n d efen da nt ’s ho m e al on g wi th pl as ti c b ag gi es , gl as s v ia ls , m ix in g s po on s, di lu ti ng ag en t, an d tran sa ct io n re co rd s) ; Un it edSta te s v . Trujil lo , 14 6 F .3d83 8, 84 7 (1 1th C ir. 1 99 8) (co nc lu di ng fir earm was p res en t wh ere d efen da nt ’s lo ad ed gu n was fou ndinanoff

ic e ad jacen t t o t he areawher e th e co cai ne was d is co ve red ). Inco nt ras t, Sm it h p res en te d n o e vi de nc e to su gg es t tha t the co nn ect io n b etween th e fi rearm

an d t he dru g o ffen se s was cle arl y im pr ob ab le . Inan y ev en t, an y

all eg ederro r was harm le ss . The d is tri ctco urt u lt im at el y cal cu la te d S m it h’s o ffen se lev el ba se d o n U.S.S.G. § 4B 1.1 , th e car eer o ffen de r pr ov is io n, an d n oton U.S.S.G. § 2 D1.1 . On ap pe al , Sm it h d oe s n otch al le ng e th at he qu al ifi edas acare er o ffen de r un de r th e ad vi so ry gu id el in es . Thu s, an y

all eg ed 4 As discussed her ein, Smith does challeng e his statutory maxi mum sentenceunder the 4 FSA and what offe nse leve l should apply due to his car eer

offe nder status, but he doe s not challeng e his status as a c are er of fende r. And, e ven with a r educe d statutory maxi mum of thirty year s, Smi th’s car eer

offe nder of

fense level of 34 unde r U.S.S.G. § 4B1.1(b) will still exceed his adjusted off

ense le vel of 28 unde r U.S.S.G. § 2D1.1. Ag ain, this is why the alleg ed er

ror is harmless. 9

Case: 11-11164 Date Filed: 07/25/2012 Page: 9 of 10erro r inth e d is tri ctco urt’s ap pl ic at io n o f th e d an ge ro us weap on en ha nc em en t d id

no t af fectSm it h’s ad vi so ry

gu id el in es ran ge . B. Fai r Sen tenc in g Act At s en te nc in g, the di st ric t co urt d ecl in edto ap pl y th e p en al ty pro vi si on s i n 21 U.S.C. § 8 41 (b ) as am en de d b y th e FSA b ecau se Sm it h c omm it te d h is crac k co cai ne off

en se s i n M ay

20 10 , bef

or e th e FSA’s Au gu st3, 2 01 0 e ffec ti ve da te . The Supr em e Co urt re cen tl y he ldth atth e FSA’s “ m or e le ni en t p en al ty pro vi si on s ap pl y to off en de rs who co m

m it te d acrac k c oc ai ne cri m e b efo re Au gu st3, 2 01 0, bu t wer e n otsen te nc edun ti l af te r Aug us t 3 .” Dors ey

v. Un it edSta te s, _

__ _ U.S.

__ __ , __ __S. Ct. _

__ _, No s. 1 1- 56 83 , 11 -5 72 1, s li p o p. at2 (U.S. J un e 2 1, 2 01 2) . Whi le inm os t ca se s the FSA affe ct s wh ethe r a m an da to ry m in im um sen te nc e ap pl ie s, the FSA h ere a ffec ts Sm it h’s s ta tu to ry m ax im um sen te nc e an d i n turn wha t o ffen se lev el in§ 4 B1 .1 s ho ul d b e u se d due to Sm it h’s ad m it te d c aree r of fen de r st atus . Tho se cal cu la ti on s an d the ul ti m at e se nt en ce s ho ul d b e ad dr es se d by the di st ric t co urt i n t he fir stin st an ce. We the refo re v acat e Sm it h’s s en te nc es an d re m an d fo r th e li m it edpu rp os e o f res en te nc in g i n l ig htof Do rs ey . 5 AFFIRMED I N PART; VACATED IN PART AND REMANDED.

Be cause we va cate Smit h’s 204-month sentenc e, we do not addre ss his argument that his 5 sentenc e wa s unrea sonable. 10

Case: 11-11164 Date Filed: 07/25/2012 Page: 10 of 10