FILED U.S. COURT OF AP P EALS E LEV EN T HC IRC U IT JAN 24, 2007 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. 06- 12239 N on -A rgum entC al endar

________________________ D . C . D ocketN o. 05 -001 91 -C R -4 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 D O N A L D W H I T A K E R , 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 o rth e S o u th e rn D is tr ic t o f G e o r g ia

_________________________ ( Jan u ar y 24, 2007) B efo re A N D E R S O N , B IR C H an d W IL S O N , C i rcu i tJu d g es. P E R C U R I A M: D on al d W hi t akerappeal s hi s 150 -m on th sent ence for di stri bu t i on of cocai ne,We note that the Supreme Court ha s more re cently held th at a suspended or probate d 1 sentenc e of imprisonment entitles the def endant to the benefit of counsel. Alabama v. Shelton, 535 U.S. 654, 674, 122 S.C t. 1764, 1776, 152 L .Ed.2d 888 (2002). W e d ecline to address whether Shelton applies in this case beca use Whitaker did not bringit to the district cour t’s attention and has 2 21 U . S . C . § 8 41 . F i rs t , W hi t akerar gu es thathi s s ent ence shou l d n otbe i ncre as ed base d o n a pri or un re pres ent ed m i sdem ea no r c on vi ct i on . S ec on d, W hi t akerar gu es th a t h e w a s in d ic te d f

o rs e llin g c o c a in e “f

r o m h is h o m e a n d c a rin M a r c h o f 2 0 0 5 ,” a n d th a tth e r e f

o r e o th e rc o c a i n e s e i z e d b y p o l i c e i n 2 0 0 4 w a s n o tp a r to f th e “ s a me course of cond uct ” und erthe gu i del i nes a nd shou l d n othave been consi dere d at s e nt e nc i ng. A f

t e rr e vi e w i ng the pa r t i e s ’ br i e f s a nd the r e c or d a s aw hol e , w e f i nd no re vers i bl e e rr or. I.

“ A di s tr i c tc our t ’ s appl i c a t i on of the s e nt e nc i ng gui de l i ne s i s s ubj e c tt o de no vo re vi ew . ” U ni t ed S t at es v. B aker , 11 6 F . 3d 87 0, 87 2 (11 th C i r. 19 97 ).

“ [W ] here no se nt ence of i m pri sonm entw as i m po se d, a def endantchar ged w i th a m i sdem ea no r ha[ s] no const i tut i on al ri gh tt o cou nsel . ” N i chol s v. U ni t ed S t a t e s , 511 U . S . 738, 743, 114 S . C t . 1921, 1925, 128 L . E d. 2d 745 ( 1994) ( c i t i ng S c o tt v . I llin o is , 4 4 0 U .S . 3 6 7 , 9 9 S .C t. 1 1 5 8 , 5 9 L .E d .2 d 3 8 3 ( 1 9 7 9 ) ) . I n lin e w ith tha trul e , the S upr e m e C our tha s he l d tha ta n “ unc ouns e l e d m i s de m e a nor c o n v ic tio n , v a lid u n d e rS c o tt b e c a u s e n o p r is o n te rm w a s im p o s e d , is a ls o v a lid w h e n u s e d t o e n h a n c e p u n i s h me n ta tas u b s e q u e n tc o n v i c t i o n . ” N i c h o l s , 5 1 1 U . S. 1not raised thecaseon appeal; thus, the issue is deemed waive d. See Greenbriar, Ltd. v. City of Alabaster, 881 F .2d 15 7 0 , 1 5 7 3 n.6 (11th Cir. 1989) (holdingthat issues not raised on a ppeal a re deeme d waived) . 3 a t 7 4 9 , 1 1 4 S .C t. a t 1 9 2 8 . A cc ordi ng t o the 20 05 vers i on of the se nt enci ng gu i del i nes, pri or se nt ence s of i m pri sonm entof atl ea st60 days ar e a ss i gn ed betw ee n tw o and three cr i m i nal h is to ry p o in ts , d e p e n d in g o n le n g th , a n d a n y o th e rp r io rs e n te n c e s n o t r e s u ltin g in such i m pri sonm enti s a ss i gn ed on e c ri m i nal hi st ory poi nt . U . S . S . G . § 4 A 1. 1(a) - (c ). T he gu i del i nes r es tri ctthe m ea ni ng of a “ se nt ence of i m pri sonm ent ” t o cas es w here the defendant“ ac tual l y s erved a peri od of i m pri sonm ent ” or w ou l d h ave had th e d e f e n d a n t n o t e s c ap e d , a n d e x p r e s s ly p r o v id e th a t “[ a ] s e n te n c e o f p r o b a tio n is t o be tr e a t e d a s as e nt e nc e unde r§ 4A 1. 1( c ) unl e s s ac ondi t i on of pr oba t i on r e qui r i ng i m pr i s onm e ntof a tl e a s ts i xty da y s w a s i m pos e d. ” U . S . S . G . § 4A 1. 2, co m m en t . (n . 2 ). T h e g u i d el i n es al so n o t e th at“ [p ] ri o r sen t en ces, n o to th erw i se excl ud ed, ar e t o b e c ou nt ed i n the cr i m i nal hi st ory s core , i ncl ud i ng un coun se l ed m i s de m e a nors e nt e nc e s w he r e i m pr i s onm e ntw a s noti m pos e d. ” U . S . S . G . § 4A 1. 2, ba c kgr ound c om m e nt . F i na l l y , the gui de l i ne s e xpr e s s l y i nc l ude c onvi c t i ons f or D U I i n a defendant ’ s c ri m i nal hi st ory. U . S . S . G . § 4 A 1. 2, com m ent . (n. 4). In thi s c as e, as the courtof conv i ct i on of the 20 02 D U I di d n oti m po se a s e nt e nc e of

i m pr i s onm e nton W hi t a ke r , the di s tr i c tc our tdi d note rrby gi vi ng4

W hi t a ke rone c r i m i na l hi s t ory poi ntf ortha tc onvi c t i on. B a ke r , 116 F . 3d a t872. II . W e r evi ew a di stri ctcourt ’ s f i nd i ng as t o rel evantcond ucton l y f or cl ea r e rr or . U ni t e d S t a t e s v. B l a nc , 146 F . 3d 847, 851 ( 11th C i r . 1998) . I f w e “ de c i de th atth e d i stri ctco u rtm i sap p l i ed th e [g ] u i d el i n es, a rem an d i s ap p ro p ri at e u n l ess w e c onc l ude [ ] , on the r e c or d a s aw hol e , tha tthe e rr orw a s ha rm l e s s , i . e . , tha tthe error di d n otaf

fe ctthe di stri ctcourt ’ s s el ec t i on of the se nt ence i m po se d. ” W i l l i a m s v. U ni t e d S t a t e s , 503 U . S . 193, 203, 112 S . C t . 1112, 1120- 21, 117 L .E d .2 d 3 4 1 ( 1 9 9 2 ) . U nde rthe s e nt e nc i ng gui de l i ne s , tw o c r i m i na l hi s t ory poi nt s a r e a dde d t o a de f e nda nt ’ s c r i m i na l hi s t ory i f he “ c om m i tt e d the i ns t a ntof f e ns e w hi l e [ on] pa r ol e ” ( a m ong othe rthi ngs ) . U . S . S . G . § 4A 1. 1( d) . A s us e d i n s e nt e nc i ng, “ the in s ta n t o f

f e n s e ” m e a n s “a n yr e le v a n t c o n d u c t.” U .S .S .G . § 4 A 1 .1 , c o m m e n t. ( n . 4 ) . “A c tiv ity th a t m e e ts th e d e f in itio n o f r e le v a n t c o n d u c t . . . m u s t b e f u lly ta k e n in to a c c o u n t.” S e e B la n c , 1 4 6 F .3 d a t 8 5 1 ( d is c u s s in g “r e le v a n t c o n d u c t” in the cont extof U . S . S . G . § 5 G 1. 3).

“ U . S . S . G . § 1B 1. 3 i ns truc t s di s tr i c tc our t s t o c ons i de rnotm e r e l y the char ged con du ct , bu tra ther a l l ‘ re l evantcond uct ’ . . . . ” U ni t ed S t at es v. H am aker , 4 5 5 F .3 d 1 3 1 6 , 1 3 3 6 ( 1 1 th C ir . 2 0 0 6 ) . T h e g u id e lin e s d e f in e r e le v a n t c o n d u c t, in5

p ert i n en tp art , as: a l l a c t s a nd om i s s i ons c om m i tt e d . . . orw i l f ul l y c a us e d by the de f e nda nt [ , a s w e l l a s ] a l l r e a s onabl y f or e s e e abl e a c t s a nd om i s s i ons of others i n furthera nce of [ a] j oi nt l y und ert aken cri m i nal ac t i vi ty, that o c c u rr e d d u r in g th e c o m m is s io n o f th e o f f e n s e o f c o n v ic tio n , in p r e p a r a tio n f

o rth a t o f f e n s e , o rin th e c o u r s e o f a tte m p tin g to a v o id d e te c tio n o rr e s p o n s ib ility f o rth a t o f f e n s e [ .] U . S . S . G . § 1B 1. 3( a ) ( 1) . R e l e va ntc onduc ta l s o i nc l ude s “ a l l a c t s a nd om i s s i ons de s c r i be d . . . above tha tw e r e pa r tof the s a m e c our s e of

c onduc torc om m on sch em e o r p l an as th e o ffen se o f co n v i ct i o n . ” U . S . S . G . § 1 B 1 . 3 (a)(2 ). N o t ab l y, th e c o m m e n ta ry to th is g u id e lin e s ta te s th a t “th e d e f e n d a n t is a c c o u n tab le f

o ra ll qua nt i t i e s of

c ontr aba nd w i th w hi c h he w a s di r e c t l y i nvol ve d. ” U . S . S . G . § 1B 1. 3, c om m e nt . ( n. 2) . W e i nt e rpr e tthe pr ovi s i ons of the r e l e va ntc onduc tgui de l i ne br oa dl y . U ni t e d S t a t e s v. B e hr , 93 F . 3d 764, 765 ( 11th C i r . 1996) . “ [ S ] e nt e nc i ng c our t s m a y c ons i de rboth unc ha r ge d a nd a c qui tt e d c onduc ti n de t e rm i ni ng the appr opr i a t e s e nt e nc e . ” H a m a ke r , 455 F . 3d a t1336. A ts e nt e nc i ng, W hi t a ke rdi d notobj e c tt o the P S I ’ s f i ndi ng tha tthe drugs s e i z e d i n 2004 w e r e f

ound i n hi s f

orm e rbe dr oom . W hi t a ke rdi d a s s e r ttha tthe c onf i de nt i a l i nf

orm a nt ’ s i nf

orm a t i on w a s unr e l i abl e , buthe di d notpr e s e nta ny e vi de nc e on thi s poi ntorof f e ra ny a r gum e nte xpl a i ni ng hi s a s s e r t i on. F i na l l y , he chal l enged the re l i abi l i ty of hi s s t ep-f ather’ s s t at em entthatthe drug s w er e hi s ( i . e. W h ita k e r ’s ) , b u t o n ly b y n o tin g th a t h is p a r e n ts h a d s in c e b e e n c o n v ic te d o n s ta te6

char ges r el at ed t o the 20 04 se i zure . H ow ever , w i tho utkn ow i ng w hattho se char ges w e r e , it is d if

f ic u lt to d e te rm in e w h e th e re s tab lis h in g h is p a r e n ts ’ g u ilt w o u ld e x o n e r a te W h ita k e r . F u r th e r , a s th e d is tr ic t c o u r t n o te d , th e f a c t th a t th e s ta te re fr ai ned from char gi ng W hi t akeri n thatoffe nse does notnece ss ar i l y i nd i ca t e that ith ad n o ev id en ce to su p p o rt su ch ch ar g es , b u t co u ldsim p ly re flec t th e s tate’s r e c o g n itio n th a t W h ita k e rh a d b e e n c h a r g e d in f e d e r a l c o u r t. F in a lly , W h ita k e rd id notc ha l l e nge the f

a c ttha tw he n he w a s ul t i m a t e l y a rr e s t e d–r oughl y thr e e m onths a f t e rthe 2004 s e i z ur e –a nd m or e drugs w e r e f ound i n hi s pa r e nt s ’ hous e , he ad m i tt ed th atth o se d ru g s w ere h i s. A s i ti s w el l -s ett l ed thata s ent enci ng courtca n u se “ un char ged o r a cqui tt ed cond uct ” i n sent enci ng a def endant , H am aker , 45 5 F . 3d at13 36 , and as W hi t aker has f ai l ed t o p re se ntany e vi dence t o rebutthe fa ct s a l l eged i n the P S I, the di stri ct courtdi d n otcl ea rl y e rrby concl ud i ng thatthe i nst antoffe nse began as ea rl y a s D e c e m be r2004. T he i nf orm a t i on s ugge s t i ng tha tW hi t a ke rw a s c onne c t e d t o the drug s s ei ze d i n 2 00 4 j ust i fi ed the concl usi on thathe had com m i tt ed ac t s a tthat t i m e e i ther i n p re para t i on for the offens es com m i tt ed three m on ths l at er , or as part o f th e “ c o n d u c to rc o m m o n s c h e m e o rp l a n ” o f th o s e l a t e ro f

f e n s e s . U. S . S . G. § 1 B 1. 3(a) (1)- (2). C on si dere d even m ore broadl y, the i nform at i on i n the P S I, al on g w i th the fi nd i ng s notdi sput ed by W hi t aker , supp ort ed a c on cl usi on that7

W hi t a ke rw a s “ di r e c t l y i nvol ve d” w i th the 2004 drugs . U . S . S . G . § 1B 1. 3, c o m m e n t . ( n . 2 ) . Ac c o r d i n g l y , th e c o u r tc o rr e c t l y a s s i g n e d Wh i t a k e rtwo addi t i on al cr i m i nal hi st ory poi nt s bec ause he w as on parol e i n D ec em ber 200 4 at the t i m e he e ng aged i n con du ctre l evantt o the i nst antoffe nse. F urther, even i f the di stri ctcourtdi d erri n thi s r egar d, the error w as h a rm le s s , a s r e d u c in g W h ita k e r ’s c r im in a l h is to ry f r o m 1 2 p o in ts to 1 0 p o in ts w ou l d n ot , by i t se l f, have reduced hi s c ri m i nal hi st ory c at egory, and there fore w oul d notha ve r e duc e d hi s gui de l i ne s e nt e nc i ng r a nge . S e e U . S . S . G . C hapt e r5, P a r t A , S e n te n c in g T ab le ; W illia m s , 5 0 3 U .S . a t 2 0 3 , 1 1 2 S .C t. a t 1 1 2 0 - 2 1 . F o rth e f o r e g o in g r e a s o n s , th e ju d g m e n t o f th e d is tr ic t c o u r t is AF F I RME D.