FILED U.S. COURT OF AP P E A LS E LE V EN T HC IRC U IT SEPTEMBER 13, 2005 THOMAS K. KAH

N CLERK [ 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. 04- 16436 N on -A rgum entC al endar

________________________ D. C . Do c k e tNo . 0 4 - 0 0 0 6 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 J O N A T H A N A A R O N T O M P K I N 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

_________________________ ( S e p t e m b e r 13, 2005) B efo re B IR C H , C A RN E S an d M A R C U S , C i rcu i tJu d g es. P E R C U R I A M: J ona tha n A a r on T om pki ns appe a l s hi s 103- m onth s e nt e nc e pur s ua ntt o a g u i l ty p l e a f

o rp o s s e s s i o n o f

f i r e a r m b y a c o n v i c t e d f

e l o n , i n v i o l a t i o n o f

1 8 U . S. C.In A lmendare z -T or re s, theSup remeCourt

he ld t hat th eg ov e rnment w a s n ot re quire d to 1 alleg e in an indictment or prove beyond a re asonabledoubt a def endant’ s prior convic t i o n s for a dis tric t c ourt

to u setho sec onvic tio ns fo r the purp os eof sentenc ee nh anc e ment. Almendare z-T or re s, 523 U.S. at 241, 243-44, 247-48, 118 S. Ct. at 1229, 1230-31, 1232-33. 2 § 9 2 2 ( g ) ( 1 ) . H e c o n c e d e s th a t, in h is p le a a g r e e m e n t, h e w a iv e d h is S ix th A m e n d m e n t r ig h t to h a v e a ju ry f in d s e n te n c in g f

a c ts b e y o n d a r e a s o n a b le d o u b t. H e a rgues, ho w ever , thatthe di stri ctcourtpl ai nl y e rr ed by appl yi ng the U ni t ed S t a t e s S e nt e nc i ng G ui de l i ne s a s m a nda t ory , i n l i ghtof B l a ke l y v. W a s hi ngt on, 542 U . S . 296, 124 S . C t . 2531 ( 2004) , a nd U ni t e d S t a t e s v. B ooke r , 543 U . S . ___, 125 S . C t. 7 3 8 ( 2 0 0 5 ) , a n d a s s e r ts th a t th e d is tr ic t c o u r t’s e x p r e s s lim ita tio n o f its s e n te n c in g d e c is io n to f a c to r s w ith in th e g u id e lin e s w a s h e ld u n c o n s titu tio n a l in B ooke r . H e f

ur the ra s s e r t s tha t , a l though the di s tr i c tc our tc om m e nt e d tha tthe se nt ence sa t i sf

i ed the 18 U . S . C . § 3 55 3(a) pu rposes of pu ni shm entand d et erre nce, i tdi d n oti nd i ca t e w hether the se nt ence w as desi gn ed t o sat i sf y other § 35 53 (a ) i n t erest s, su ch as reh ab i l i t at i o n , ed u cat i o n al trai n i n g , o r m ed i cal care. H e al so c ont e nds tha tthe di s tr i c tc our tvi ol a t e d hi s S i xth A m e ndm e ntr i ght s by r e l y i ng on hi s pri or conv i ct i on s t o enh ance hi s c on vi ct i on s, as se rt i ng thatA l m endarez -T orre s v . U n ite d S ta te s , 5 2 3 U .S . 2 2 4 , 1 1 8 S . C t. 1 2 1 9 ( 1 9 9 8 ) is n o lo n g e rg o o d la w in 1 lig h t o f S h e p a r d v . U n ite d S ta te s , 5 4 4 U .S . ___ , 1 2 5 S . C t. 1 2 5 4 ( 2 0 0 5 ) . I n hi s pl e a a gr e e m e nt , T om pki ns w a i ve d hi s B ooke rS i xth A m e ndm e ntr i ght to h a v e a ju ry f

in d th e s e n te n c in g f

a c ts b e y o n d a r e a s o n a b le d o u b t. R 1 - 2 9 a t 5 .3

H e c onc e de s pl a i n e rr orr e vi e w a s t o the B ooke rs t a tut ory i s s ue r e ga r di ng the di stri ctcourt ’ s app l i ca t i on of the gu i del i nes a s m andat ory. T o p re vai l un der a pl a i n e rr ors t a nda r d, a n appe l l a ntm us ts how tha tthe r e i s : ( 1) a n e rr or ; ( 2) tha tthe error i s pl ai n; and (3) thatthe pl ai n err or af fe ct ed subst ant i al ri gh t s. U ni t ed S t at es v. S hel t on , 40 0 F . 3d 13 25 , 13 28 -29 (11 th C i r. 20 05 ). O nce the appel l antprov es the s e thr e e e l e m e nt s , w e m a y not i c e the e rr oronl y i f i t“ s e r i ous l y a f

f e c t s the f a i rne s s , i nt e gr i ty , orpubl i c r e put a t i on of j udi c i a l pr oc e e di ngs . ” I d. a t1329 ( in te rn a l c ita tio n o m itte d ) . B a s e d o n th e S u p r e m e C o u r t ’ s h o l d i n g s i n B o o k e r , th e r e c a n b e two B oo ker e rr ors: (1) aS i xth A m endm ent , const i tut i on al , error i n the i m po si t i on of a s e n te n c in g e n h a n c e m e n t b a s e d o n ju d ic ia l f in d in g s th a t g o b e y o n d th e f a c ts a dm i tt e d by the de f

e nda ntorf

ound by the j ur y , a nd ( 2) a s t a tut ory e rr ori n the i m po si t i on of a s ent ence un der am andat ory gui del i nes s ys t em . Id. , 40 0 F . 3d at 13 30 -31. E ven i n the abse nce of a Bo ok erconst i tut i on al error, a di stri ctcourterrs by i m pos i ng a s e nt e nc e unde ra m a nda t or y G ui de l i ne s s c he m e . S e e i d. A pl a i n e rr orm a y be e s t a bl i s he d unde rthe f i r s ttw o pr ongs of

the pl a i n e rr or t es tw hen a st atut ory e rr or exi st s; thati s, the defendanti s s ent ence d u nd er m a n d a to ry r a th e rth a n a d v is o ry g u id e lin e s . I d . T h e d e f e n d a n t's b u r d e n w ith re spec tt o the thi rd pron g, ho w ever , “ i s t o sho w thatthe error a ctual l y di d m ake a4

d if f e r e n c e .” U n ite d S ta te s v . R o d r ig u e z , 3 9 8 F .3 d 1 2 9 1 , 1 3 0 0 ( 1 1 th C ir .) , c e r t. d en i ed , U . S . , 1 2 5 S . C t . 2 9 3 5 (2 0 0 5 ). “ [I] n ap p l yi n g th e th i rd p ro n g , w e ask w hether there i s are as on abl e probabi l i ty of adi ff er entre sul ti f the gu i del i nes had b e e n ap p lie d in a n a d v is o ry in s te a d o f b in d in g f

a s h io n b y th e s e n te n c in g ju d g e in th i s case. ” Id . at1 3 0 1 . R easo n ab l e p ro b ab i l i ty o f a d i fferen tresu l tm ean s a pr oba bi l i ty “ s uf

f i c i e ntt o unde r m i ne c onf i de nc e i n the out c om e . ” I d. a t1299 ( c ita tio n a n d p u n c tu a tio n o m itte d ) . U n d e rth e f o u r th p r o n g , w e c o n s id e rth e p la in error’ s a ff

ec ton the j ud i ci al proceedi ng s a nd l oo k for such fac t ors a s the di stri ct j udge ’ s e xpr e s s de s i r e t o i m pos e a s e nt e nc e di f f e r e nttha n tha ti m pos e d. S he l t on, 400 F . 3d a t1333- 34. W e ha ve c ons i s t e nt l y he l d tha ta s e nt e nc e e ve n a tthe l ow en d o f th e g u id elin e r an g e, stan d in g alo n e, is in su ff icien t t o ca rr y a d ef

en d an t’ s bu rden dem on stra t i ng a r ea sonabl e probabi l i ty of al es se r s ent ence un der a dv i sory gui de l i ne s . S e e U ni t e d S t a t e s v. F i e l ds , 408 F . 3d 1356, 1361 ( 11th C i r . 2005) ( hol di ng tha tthe f

a c ttha tthe de f

e nda ntw a s s e nt e nc e d a tthe bott om of the m an d ato ry g u id elin e r an g e, w ith o u t m o re , i s in su ff icien t t o sa ti sf

y th e th ird p ro n g ’s re qu i re m entthatthe defendantshow a r ea sonabl e probabi l i ty of al es se r s ent ence unde ra n a dvi s ory gui de l i ne s y s t e m ; a c c or d U ni t e d S t a t e s v. C a r tw r i ght , 413 F . 3d 12 95 , 13 01 (11t h C i r. 20 05 )) . E ven w i th the go vernm ent ’ s c on ce ss i on thatdi stri ctcourtcom m i tt ed5

B ooke re rr ortha tw a s pl a i n by appl y i ng the s e nt e nc i ng gui de l i ne s a s bi ndi ng, T o m p k in s f

a ils to s e t f

o r th a n y e v id e n c e to s h o w th a t th e r e is a r e a s o n a b le prob abi l i ty of adi ff

er entre sul ti f the gu i del i nes had been appli ed i n an adv i sory i ns t e a d of

bi ndi ng f

a s hi on by the s e nt e nc i ng j udge . S e e S he l t on, 400 F . 3d a t1330- 31. T he di s tr i c tc our ts e nt e nc e d T om pki ns t o a t e r m of i m pr i s onm e ntf

or103 m onths , w hi c h i s w i thi n the m i ddl e of the gui de l i ne r a nge . T he di s tr i c tj udge e xpl a i ne d: “ T hi s i s a tthe m i dpoi ntof the gui de l i ne r a nge , the C our tnotf i ndi ng a ny a ggr a va t i ng orm i t i ga t i ng c i r c um s t a nc e s nota l r e a dy a c c ount e d f orby the g u i d el i n es. I d o fi n d th i s m eet s th e g o al s o f p u n i sh m en tan d h o p efu l l y w i l l actas a d e te rr e n t to a n y o n e e ls e w h o m ig h t c o n s id e rs im ila rc r im in a l a c tiv ity .” R 4 a t 1 0 . T he di s tr i c tc our ts a i d nothi ng e l s e , l e a vi ng no i ndi c a t i on ore xpr e s s i on of

“ re as on abl e probabi l i ty” thati tw ou l d h ave s ent ence d T om pk i ns t o a l es se r s e n te n c e h a d th e g u id e lin e s b e e n m e r e ly a d v is o ry . T o m p k i n s al so ci t es n o au th o ri ty req u i ri n g th e d i stri ctco u rt ’ s ex p ress s ta te m e n t th a t it c o n s id e r e d e a c h p e n a l p u rp o s e lis te d in § 3 5 5 3 ( a ) , a s o p p o s e d to s im p ly s ta tin g th a t th e s e n te n c e m e e ts “th e g o a ls o f p u n is h m e n t a n d h o p e f

u lly w ill a c ta s a de t e rr e nt . ” I d. a t10- 11; s e e , e . g. , U ni t e d S t a t e s v. R obl e s , 408 F . 3d 1324, 1328 ( 11th C i r . 2005) ( pe rc ur i a m ) ( s t a t i ng tha te ve n pos t - B ooke r , “ w e w oul d not expectthe di stri ctcourti n every ca se t o con du ctan ac coun t i ng of every § 35 53 (a )6

f a c t or. . . a nd e xpound upon how e a c h f a c t orpl a y e d a r ol e i n i t s s e nt e nc i ng de c i s i on” ) . T he r e w a s no r e ve r s i bl e , s t a tut ory B ooke re rr ori n s e nt e nc i ng T om pki ns unde ra m a nda t ory gui de l i ne s c he m e be c a us e he f a i l e d t o s how tha tthe pl a i n e rr ora f

f e c t e d hi s s ubs t a nt i a l r i ght s . S e e F i e l ds , 408 F . 3d a t1361. A l tho ug h T om pk i ns al so ar gu es thatthe use of pri or conv i ct i on s t o enh ance the se nt ence i s uncon st i tut i on al and t hatA l m endarez -T orre s i s no l on ger goo d l aw i n l i g h tS h e p a r d , h i s p l e a a g r e e m e n twa i v e ra l s o c o v e r s th i s i s s u e . F u r th e r , we h a v e c o n s is te n tly h e ld th a t h e ld th a t A lm e n d a r e z - T o rr e s r e m a in s g o o d la w u n til it i s ove rrul e d by the S upr e m e C our t . S e e U ni t e d S t a t e s v. C a m a c ho- I ba r que n, 410 F . 3 d 1 3 0 7 , 1 3 1 6 n . 3 (1 1 th C i r. 2 0 0 5 ) (p er cu ri am ) (“ A l th o u g h recen td eci si o n s, i nc l udi ng S he pa r d, . . . m a y a r gua bl y c a s tdoubton the f utur e pr os pe c t s of A l m endarez -T orre s’ s hol di ng re gardi ng pri or conv i ct i on s, the S up re m e C ou rthas no texpl i ci t l y overrul ed A l m endarez -T orre s. ”) . F o rth e r e a s o n s s ta te d a b o v e , T o m p k in s ’s s e n te n c e is AF F I RME D.