### FI LED U.S. COURT O F APP EALS ELEVENTH CIRCUIT J une 9, 20 05 THO MAS K. KAH N CL ERK [DO NOT PUBLISH] IN THE UN ITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FO R T HE EL EV EN TH CIRC UI T

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ N o. 04- 1460 5 Non-A rgum ent Calendar

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ D. C. Docket N o. 04-00079 -CR- 1-1 UNITED STAT ES OF AMERIC A, P laintiff-Appellee, ve rs us BOB BY GENE SH IV ER S, D ef en dant- Appe llant.

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ __ Appe al f ro m the U nit ed

S ta te s D istri ct

Co urt f or the N orthe rnD istri ct

of G eo rg ia

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ _ (J un e 9, 200 5) Be fo re H U L L , W IL SO N and KRA V IT CH , Ci rc uit Jud ge s. PE R CU RIA M: Bo bby G en e Sh ive rs appe al s hi s se nte nc e of thi rty m onths i m

pr iso nm en t, im pose d f oll ow ing his gui lty

ple a fo r poss es sio n of

af ir earm by ac onvi ct ed

f el on,2

in v iol at ionof

18 U . S. C. § 92 2( g) . O n a ppe al , he c ha lle nge s hi s se nte nc e in l igh t of Bl ak el y v. W as hin gto n, 542 U . S. –, 124 S . Ct . 253 1, 159 L . E d. 2d 4 03 ( 2004 ) an d U nit ed

S ta te s v. Bo oke r, 543 U . S. –, 125 S . Ct . 738 , 160 L . E d. 2d 6 21 ( 2005 ) Sh ive rs w as ind ic te d f

or pos se ssi on o f a fi re ar

m by ac onvi ct ed

f el on, in violatio n of 18 U. S. C. § 922 (g). H e agre ed to plead guil ty without a negotiated pl ea ag reem en t. A t the c hange -o f- ple a he ar ing , the gov er nm en t pr of

fe re d th at it c oul d pr ove that poli ce observed Shivers loitering in a known drug area and approached Shivers to inqu ire w hether he had a controlled subst ance or w eapon. S hivers adm itted that he had a gun, and he handed po lice a . 38 caliber fire arm . In a later state m en t t o A T F ag en ts, S hiv er s a dm itt ed that the gunw as his . T he gov er nm en t further stated that it had Shivers’ s prior convictio n record, dem onstrating that Shivers had a 1979 st ate conviction for arm ed robbery , a 1984 conviction for a co nt ro ll edsu bs ta nc e o ffen se , and a 19 88 fed eral co nv ic ti on forba nkrob be ry . S h i v e r s a d mi t t e dth a tth e f a c tu a l p r o f

f e r wa s c o rr e c tan de n t e r e dap l e ao f g u i l t y, whi ch th e co ur t ac cep te d. The pre sentence investigatio n report (“ PSI ”) c alculated a total offe nse level of 17, w ithou t any

extra-ver dict enhancem ents, and a c rim inal histo ry category III3

ba se d onS hiv er s’ s pr ior

c onvi ct ion s, r es ult ing in a gui de lin es r an ge of 30 t o 37 m on th s i m

pr is on m en t. Shivers did no t file any

objec tions to the PSI, but m oved the court to d eclar e the gui de lin es unc onst itu tio na l i n li ght of Bl ak el y . T he dis tr ic t c ourt de nie d th e m otion , noting that Blakely wa s inappli cable beca

use Shivers’ s sentence wa s ba se d onpr ior

c onvi ct ion s. T he c ourt se nte nc ed S hiv er s to 30 m onths im prisonm ent, stating that this sentence w as “ adequate.” W e re vie wade fe ndant’ s pr es er ve d c ha lle nge s to his se nte nc e de nov o bu t w ill r ev er se and r em an d on ly f or harm fu l e rr or . U nit ed

S ta te s v. Ri le y , 250 F . 3d 1303 , 1307 n.5 (11th Cir. 2001). InBo oke r, the S upr em e Co urt r ei te rate d it s pr ev iou s ho ldi ng tha t, “ [a ] ny fact ( other than a prior conviction ) w hich is necessary to supp ort a sentence exceeding the m axim

um authorized by

the fac ts establish ed by

a plea of guilt y

or a j ur y ve rd ic t m

ust be a dm itt ed

by the de fe ndant o r pr ove d to aj ur y be y ond a re as ona ble doubt. ” 125 S . Ct . a t 74 9, 756 . T he Co urt the n de te rm ine d th at the m an da tor y na tur e of the se nte nc ing gui de lin es w as inc om pa tib le w ithit s co nst itu tio na l ho ldi ng, and, the re fo re , the gui de lin es c oul d be a dvi sor y onl y . T he Co urt, how ev er , e xpl ai ne d th at a lth oughthe gui de lin es w er e advis or y onl y , c ourts4

shou ld consid er the guidelines in addi tion to the sentencing factors in 18 U.S .C. § 3 55 3( a), i n d et erm in in g a reas on ab le sen te nc e. 12 5 S .Ct. at 75 6- 57 , 76 4. H er e, S hiv er s c an not

sho wany

c onst itu tio na l e rr or

in his se nte nc e ba se d on the use of apr ior c onvi ct ion . E ve n a ft er

Bo oke r, the gov er

nm en t i s no t r equir ed

to ple ad or pr ove to a j ur

y ade fe ndant’ s pr ior

c onvi ct ion s and the re is no co nst itu tio na l e rr or

w he n th e co urt i m

pose s se nte nc e ba se d onthe se pr ior co nv ic ti on s. Un it edSta te s v . She lt on , 40 0 F .3d13 25 , 13 27 (11 th Cir . 20 05 ). Mor eo ve r, S hiv er s a dm itt ed dur ing the ple a co llo quy that the gov er

nm en t c oul d pr ov e h is pri orco nv ic ti on s. Th us , he h as ad m it te d t he fact s fo r Bo ok er p ur po se s. Se e U nit ed

S ta te s v. Ra ad , N o. 04- 1530 0, sli p op . a t 20 20 n . 1 ( 11th C ir . Apr il 21, 2005 ); S he lto n, 400 F . 3d at 13 33 n . 10. B ec au se the gov er nm en t i s no t r equir ed

to ple ad or pr ove pr ior

c onvi ct ion s un de r Bo oke r, and S hiv er s a dm itt ed to his pr ior co nvi ct iona t the c hange -o f- ple a he ar ing , the re is no c onst itu tio na l e rr or in his se nt en ce. A lth oughthe re is no S ixth A m en dm en t vi olatio n inthi s c as e, the re is statut or y e rr or be ca use the c ourt i m

pose d se nte nc e unde r a m an da tor y gui de lin e schem e. T hus, the burden falls on the go vernm ent to sho w that the er ror w as harm le ss. U nit ed

S ta te s v. Mathe nia , N o. 04- 1525 0, m anusc ri pt o p. a t 5- 6 ( 11th Ci r. May 23, 200 5) . “ A non -c onst itu tio na l e rr or is harm le ss i f, vie w ing theThe he ighte ned “be y ond a rea sonable doubt” test applies to harmless er ror c ases involving 1 constitutional errors. United Sta t es v . Robles, No. 04-13598, slip op. at 2257 (11th Cir. May 10, 2005). He re, the re is statutory , but not constitut ional, err or. 5 pr oc ee din gs i n th ei r en tir ety , ac ourt de te rm ine s th at the e rr or did not a ff ec t the se nte nc e, or

ha d bu t ve ry

sli ght e ff ec t. ” I d. a t 5- 6 ( ci ta tio ns and quot at ion s 1 om it te d) . H er e, w e cannot

say that the gov er

nm en t ha s m et

it s burd ento showthat the er ro r w as harm le ss. I n im

posi ng a se nte nc e of

30 m onths i m

pr iso nm en t, the dis tr ic t c ourt st at ed

that the se nte nc e w as “ ad equa te . ” W e cannot de te rm ine f

ro m thi s c om m en t w he the r the c ourt w oul d have se nte nc ed S hiv er s di ff

er en tly ha d it known th e gui de lin es w er e not m an da tor

y , but a dvi sor y onl y . B ec au se w e do n ot know , the gov er

nm en t ha s no t m et

it s burd en . U nit ed

S ta te s v. P etho, N o. 04- 1541 2 m anusc ri pt o p. a t 4 (1 1thCi r. May 18, 200 5) ; U nit ed

S ta te s v. D av is, N o. 04-145 85 (11th Cir. May 4, 2005). A cc or din gly , w e V A CA T E and RE MA N D f or r es en te nc ing .