### F I LE D U. S . COURT OF AP PE ALS E LEVE NTH CI RCUI T Se pt e m be r 28, 2005 T HOM AS K. KAHN C L E RK [ 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- 10940 N on -A rgum entC al endar

________________________ D . C . D ocketN o. 95 -000 04 -C R -01-3 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 H N F R E D P A R R I S H , 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

_________________________ ( S e p t e m b e r 28, 2005) B efo re A N D E R S O N , H U L L an d W IL S O N , C i rcu i tJu d g es. P E R C U R I A M: John F re d P arri sh appeal s hi s e i gh t -y ea r s ent ence , sum m ar i l y r ei m po se d2

pur s ua ntt o U

ni te d State s v . P hi l l i

ps , 22 5 F . 3d 11 98 , 12 01 (11th C i r. 20 00 ), af t er the di s tr i c tc our tr e voke d hi s pr oba t i on. B AC KG R OU ND P a rr i s h w a s c onvi c t e d on N ove m be r30, 1987, f ortw o c ount s of

m a i l f r a ud a nd one c ountof

c onduc t i ng a n e nt e rpr i s e thr ough apa tt e rn of r a c ke t e e r i ng a c t i vi ty , i n vi ol a t i on of

18 U . S . C . §§ 1341, 1962( c ) , a nd 1963, a s c ha r ge d i n a th r e e - c o u n t in d ic tm e n t. H e w a s s e n te n c e d to 2 0 y e a r s ’ im p r is o n m e n t a s to C o u n t 3 of the i ndi c tm e nt . T he c our ts us pe nde d the s e nt e nc e s f orC ount s 1 a nd 2 a nd pl a c e d P a rr i s h on pr oba t i on f or5 y e a r s , w hi c h w a s t o be gi n upon hi s r e l e a s e f r om c u s to d y a n d e x p ir a tio n o f h is p a r o le te rm . I n a d d itio n , th e c o u r t o r d e r e d P a rr is h to pa y $4, 400, 000 i n r e s t i tut i on. O n O c t obe r5, 1990, the c our tor de r e d tha tthe se nt ence as t o C ou nt3 b e r educed from 20 ye ar s t o 1 2 yea rs . P arri sh w as parol ed o n O c to b e r2 0 , 1 9 9 3 . O n J u n e 1 9 , 2 0 0 3 , th e p r o b a tio n o f f ic e rin th e S o u th e rn D is tr ic t o f G e o r g ia supervi si ng P arri sh fi l ed a P et i t i on t o R evok e P robat i on . T he prob at i on offi ce r al l eg ed th atP arri sh h ad co m m i tt ed tw o v i o l at i o n s o f h i s p ro b at i o n co n d i t i o n s: ( 1) P a rr i s h ha d vi ol a t e d “ C ondi t i on N o. 1, ” w hi c h pr ohi bi t e d hi m f r om vi ol a t i ng a ny l a w , by f

a i l i ng t o s ubm i ttruthf

ul r e por t s a nd f

i na nc i a l s t a t e m e nt s t o the prob at i on offi ce r, i n v i ol at i on of 18 U . S . C . § 1 00 1; and (2) P arri sh vi ol at ed3

“C o n d itio n N o . 1 2 ,” w h ic h r e q u ir e d h im to f o llo w th e la w f

u l o r d e r s o f

h is p r o b a tio n o f

f ic e r , b y r e f

u s in g to s u b m it c e r ta in f in a n c ia l r e c o r d s r e q u e s te d b y h is p r o b a tio n o f

f ic e r . A ft erhear i ng evi dence atthe prob at i on re vo ca t i on hear i ng , the di stri ctcourt c onc l ude d tha tP a rr i s h ha d vi ol a t e d “ c ondi t i on num be rone ” a nd “ c ondi t i on num be rtw e l ve ” of

hi s pr oba t i on. A c c or di ngl y , the c our ts e nt e nc e d hi m t o f our ye ar s’ i m pri sonm entas t o “ coun ton e” and “ coun ttw o, ” t o b e s erved c o n s e c u tiv e ly , f

o rato ta l te rm o f

e ig h t y e a r s ’ im p r is o n m e n t. P a rr i s h d i d n o to b

j e c tt o th e m a n n e ri n wh i c h th e s e n t e n c e wa s i m p o s e d . He d id n o t f ile an o tic e o f

ap p e a l o f

h is s e n te n c e , b u t s u b s e q u e n tly a tta c k e d h is se nt ence by fi l i ng a m ot i on un der 28 U . S . C . § 2 25 5. T he go vernm entconceded thatP arri sh w as prob abl y e nt i t l ed t o an o ut -of- t i m e di re ctappeal , and the di stri ct c our t , pur s ua ntt o P hi l l i ps , gr a nt e d P a rr i s h’ s § 2255 m ot i on, va c a t e d i t s pr e vi ous r e v o c a t i o n o r d e r , a n d s u mma r i l y e n t e r e d an e w j u d g me n tr e f l e c t i n g th e s a me s e n te n c e p r e v io u s ly im p o s e d , o u ts id e o f P a rr is h ’s p r e s e n c e . P a rr is h ap p e a ls th is sum m ar i l y r ei m po se d sent ence . ST AN DA RD OF RE VI EW W e r e vi e w f

orha rm l e s s e rr orc l a i m s tha tade f e nda ntw a s e nt i t l e d t o be pr e s e nta tva r i ous s t a ge s of ac r i m i na l pr oc e e di ng, a r i s i ng unde rF e de r a l R ul e ofIn Bo nn e r v. Pricha rd, 661 F.2d 1206, 1209 ( 11th Cir. 1981) ( en banc ), weadopted a s 1 binding prece dent all dec isions of the former Fifth Circuit hande d down prior to the c lose of business on September 30, 1981. 4 C r im in a l P r o c e d u r e 4 3 ( a ) . See U ni ted Stat es v. D om i ng uez , 615 F . 2d 1093, 1096 n. 4 (5th C i r. 19 80 ); see a l so F ed. R . C ri m . P . 52 (a ). 1 W e r e vi e w pr e - G ui de l i ne s pr oba t i on r e voc a t i on de c i s i ons f orabus e of d is c r e tio n . U

ni te d State s v . T

ay lor , 93 1 F . 2d 84 2, 84 5 (11 th C i r. 19 91 ). H ow ever , w e r e v ie w f

o rp la in e rr o rth o s e is s u e s to w h ic h th e d e f e n d a n t d id n o t m a k e tim e ly o b je c tio n s in th e d is tr ic t c o u r t. U ni te d State s v . O lano , 5 0 7 U . S. 7 2 5 , 7 3 1 , 1 1 3 S. C t. 1 7 7 0 , 1 7 7 6 ( 1 9 9 3 ) ; see a l so F e d . R . C r im . P . 5 2 ( b ) . DI S C US S I ON I . R i g ht t o be Pr e s e nt a t Se nt e nc i ng O n ap p e a l, P a rr is h f

ir s t m a in ta in s th a t th e d is tr ic t c o u r t v io la te d h is const i tut i on al ri gh tt o b e pre se ntand adv i se d o f hi s r i gh t s w hen the courtre s e nt e nc e d hi m w i thoutahe a r i ng a f t e rhe ha d e xpr e s s l y s t a t e d tha the w oul d not w a i ve hi s pr e s e nc e a tr e - s e nt e nc i ng. P a rr i s h c ont e nds tha tthe F e de r a l R ul e s of C ri m i nal P roce du re i nd i ca t e thata def endant ’ s pre se nce i s m andat ory a t s e nt e nc i ng, e xc e ptf

ors e nt e nc i ng de c i s i ons i nvol vi ng c orr e c t i ons orr e duc t i ons of s e n te n c e u n d e rF e d e r a l R u le o f C r im in a l P r o c e d u r e 3 5 o r1 8 U .S .C . § 3 5 8 2 ( c ) . See F e d. R . C r i m . P . 43( b) ( 4) . C i t i ng John son v. U ni ted Stat es , 61 9 F . 2d 36 6 (5th C i r.5

19 80 ), P arri sh cont ends thatw e have hel d thata def endant ’ s r i gh tt o b e pre se ntat se nt enci ng ext ends t o the i m po si t i on of a new se nt enci ng package af t eran ori gi nal sen t en ce i s v acat ed an d th e case i s rem an d ed fo r re-sen t en ci n g . H e cl ai m s, there fore , thatthe di stri ctcourt ’ s c on cl usi on thatno hear i ng w as re qu i re d v i ol at ed hi s F i f th a nd S i xth A m e ndm e ntr i ght s . M or e ove r , P a rr i s h a s s e r t s , be c a us e of the m a g n itu d e o f

th e c o n s titu tio n a l v io la tio n , h e n e e d n o t s h o w p r e ju d ic e . W e ha ve de t e rm i ne d tha t“ [ w ] he n the di s tr i c tc our t s of thi s c i r c ui tc onc l ude tha ta n out - of

- t i m e appe a l i n ac r i m i na l c a s e i s w a rr a nt e d a s the r e m e dy i n a§ 2255 proceedi ng , they s ho ul d eff ec tthatre m edy i n the fol l ow i ng w ay : (1) the cr i m i nal j udgm e ntf

r om w hi c h the out - of

- t i m e appe a l i s t o be pe rm i tt e d s houl d be va c a t e d; (2) the sa m e s ent ence shou l d then b e r ei m po se d; (3) upo n rei m po si t i on of that se nt ence , the defendantshou l d b e a dv i se d o f a l l the ri gh t s a ss oci at ed w i th an appeal fr om any c ri m i nal se nt ence ; and (4) the defendantshou l d al so be advi se d th atth e t i m e fo r fi l i n g a n o t i ce o f ap p eal fro m th atre-i m p o sed sen t en ce i s t en d ays, w h ic h is d ic ta te d b y R u le 4 ( b ) ( 1 ) ( A ) ( i) [ o f th e F e d e r a l R u le s o f

A p p e lla te P roce du re ] . ” P hi l l i

ps , 225 F . 3d a t1201. U nde rF e de r a l R ul e of

C r i m i na l P r oc e dur e 43( a ) ( 3) , “ the de f e nda ntm us tbe pr e s e nta t. . . s e nt e nc i ng, ” butne e d notbe pr e s e nta tpr oc e e di ngs i nvol vi ng “ the c o rr e c t i o n o rr e d u c t i o n o f s e n t e n c e u n d e rRu l e 3 5 o r1 8 U . S. C. § 3 5 8 2 ( c ) . ” Fe d . R.6

C rim . P . 4 3 (a )( 3 ), (b )( 4 ). W e h av e n o ted th at th e r ig h t t o b e p re se n t at o n e’s s e nt e nc i ng “ doe s nottr a ns l a t e i nt o ar i ghtt o be pr e s e ntw he ne ve rj udi c i a l a c t i on m od i fy i ng a s ent ence i s t aken. ” U ni te d State s v . J

ac k s on , 923 F . 2d 1494, 1496 (11th C i r. 19 91 ) ( defe nd ant ’ s pre se nce notre qu i re d w hen a courtcorr ec t s a n i l l egal s e n te n c e , p u r s u a n t to F e d . R .C r im . P . 3 5 ) ; s e e a ls o U n ite d S ta te s v . P o r tillo , 363 F .3 d 1 1 6 1 , 1 1 6 6 ( 1 1 th C ir .) , ce rt. deni ed , 1 2 5 S . C t. 4 4 8 (2 0 0 4 ) ( d ef en d an t’ s pr e s e nc e notr e qui r e d w he n ac our tc orr e c t s ac l e r i c a l e rr ori n as e nt e nc e pur s ua nt t o F ed. R . C ri m . P . 36 ). T he ra t i on al e f or re qu i ri ng a def

endantt o b e pre se ntat s e nt e nc i ng i s “ t o e ns ur e tha ta ts e nt e nc i ng – ac r i t i c a l s t a ge of the pr oc e e di ngs a ga i ns tthe a c c us e d – the de f e nda ntha s a n oppor tuni ty t o c ha l l e nge the a c c ur a c y of i nf orm a t i on the s e nt e nc i ng j udge m a y r e l y on, t o a r gue abouti t s r e l i abi l i ty a nd the w e i ghtthe i nf

orm a t i on s houl d be gi ve n, a nd t o pr e s e nta ny e vi de nc e i n m i t i ga t i on he m ayhave. ” J

ac k s on , 923 F . 2d a t1496. In addi t i on t o the prot ec t i on s a ff orded b y F eder al R ul e of C ri m i nal P r o c e d u r e 4 3 ( a ) , ad e f

e n d a n t h a s ad u e p r o c e s s r ig h t to b e p r e s e n t d u r in g c e r ta in pr oc e e di ngs . U nde rthe D ue P r oc e s s C l a us e , “ ade f e nda nti s gua r a nt e e d the r i ght to b e p r e s e n t a t a n y s ta g e o f th e c r im in a l p r o c e e d in g th a t is c r itic a l to its o u tc o m e if hi s pre se nce w ou l d con tri bu t e t o the fa i rnes s of the procedure. ” U ni ted Stat es v. N ov aton , 2 7 1 F .3 d 9 6 8 , 9 9 8 ( 1 1 th C ir . 2 0 0 1 ) . A lth o u g h w e h a v e n o t e x p lic itly7

deci ded the com para t i ve sc op es of R ul e 43 and D ue P roce ss prot ec t i on s, other c ir c u its h a v e n o te d th a t th e r ig h t to b e p r e s e n t u n d e rth e D u e P r o c e s s C la u s e is n a rr o w e rth a n th e r ig h t to b e p r e s e n t u n d e rR u le 4 3 . U ni ted Stat es v. B oyd , 131 F .3 d 9 5 1 , 9 5 3 n .3 ( 1 1 th C ir . 1 9 9 7 ) ( o b s e rv in g th a t “[ o ]th e rc ir c u it c o u r ts o f ap p e a ls ha ve c onc l ude d tha tR ul e 43’ s pr ot e c t i ons a r e br oa de rtha n thos e a f f or de d . . . by du e proces s, and thu s i f the rul e does notre qu i re a def endant ’ s pre se nce a ta gi ven pr oc e e di ng, ne i the rdoe s the C ons t i tut i on, ” butde c l i ni ng t o de c i de the e xt e ntof the ov er l ap). In th e i n st an tcase, th e d i stri ctco u rtd i d n o terr b y re-sen t en ci n g P arri sh w i tho utho l di ng a hea ri ng . U nd er P hi l l i ps , the di stri ctcourtw as re qu i re d t o res e n te n c e P a rr is h to th e s a m e s e n te n c e o r ig in a lly im p o s e d , a n d w a s n o t r e q u ir e d to h o ld ar e - s e n te n c in g h e a r in g . Se e P hi l l i ps , 22 5 F . 3d at12 01 . T he di stri ctcourt pr ope r l y f

ol l ow e d the pr oc e dur e de t a i l e d i n P hi l l i ps by vaca t i ng the ori gi nal s e nt e nc e , i m pos i ng the e xa c ts a m e s e nt e nc e , a nd a dvi s i ng P a rr i s h of the r i ght s a nd t i m e l i m i t a t i ons a s s oc i a t e d w i th the appe a l . A c c or di ngl y , the di s tr i c tc our tdi d not vi ol at e P arri sh’ s r i gh t s und erF eder al R ul e of C ri m i nal P roce du re 43 (a ) or und er the D ue P roce ss C l ause . I I . S e n t e n c e I m p os e d U p on P r ob at i on R e voc at i on P a rr i s h a l s o a r gue s tha tthe di s tr i c tc our te rr one ous l y ba s e d i t s r e voc a t i on of8

hi s probat i on and i t s s ent ence up on the bel i ef thatthe com m ut ed se nt ence , or i gi na l l y i m pos e d a f

t e rhi s gui l ty pl e at o the C ount3 of the i ndi c tm e nt , c oul d be r e v i v e d a n d r e v o k e d , t o f o rm th e b a s i s f

o ra n e i g h t - y e a rp r i s o n s e n t e n c e . He cont ends thatthi s w as error, un der 18 U . S . C . § 3 65 3, because the on l y s ent ence tha tc oul d be r e voke d w a s the s us pe nde d s e nt e nc e i m pos e d f orC ount s 1 a nd 2 of th e in d ic tm e n t. H e a s s e r ts th a t th e d is tr ic t c o u r t m is c o n s tru e d th e s ta tu te to co n cl u d e th atth e am o u n to f h i s sen t en ce fo r C o u n t3 th ath ad b een co m m u t ed w as, unde r§ 3653, the s e nt e nc e “ tha tm i ghtor i gi na l l y ha ve be e n i m pos e d, ” a nd, ac co rd in g ly, sen ten ce d h im to eig h t yea rs ’ i m p riso n m en t. T h e d istrict co u rt’s r e f e r e n c e to “c o u n ts ” in its o r a l p r o n o u n c e m e n t, h e a lle g e s , r e f e rr e d n o t to C o u n ts 1 a nd 2 of

hi s or i gi na l i ndi c tm e nt , butt o the tw o c ount s of pr oba t i on vi ol a t i on a lle g e d in th e p e titio n to r e v o k e h is p r o b a tio n . B ec ause P arri sh di d n otchal l enge the m anner i n w hi ch the di stri ctcourt i m pos e d hi s s e nt e nc e a thi s pr oba t i on r e voc a t i on he a r i ng, w e r e vi e w hi s c l a i m f or pl a i n e rr or . T o pr e va i l unde rapl a i n e rr ors t a nda r d, P a rr i s h m us tpr ove tha t( 1) th e r e is a n e rr o r ; ( 2 ) th a t is p la in ; a n d ( 3 ) th a t a f f e c ts s u b s ta n tia l r ig h ts . O lano , 507 U . S . at73 2, 11 3 S . C t . at17 76 . If P arri sh prov es these el em ent s, w e m ayno t i ce 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 ud i ci al proceedi ng s. ” I d. a t 7 3 6 , 1 1 3 S . C t. a t 1 7 7 6 .9

A di stri ctcourtm ayre qu i re a def endantw ho se pre- G ui del i nes probat i on has b e e n r e v o k e d “to s e rv e th e s e n te n c e im p o s e d , o ra n y le s s e rs e n te n c e , a n d if i m pos i t i on of

s e nt e nc e i s s us pe nde d, m a y i m pos e a ny s e nt e nc e w hi c h m i ght or i gi na l l y ha ve be e n i m pos e d. ” 18 U . S . C . § 3653. T he t e xtof the s t a tut e gi ve s the di s tr i c tc our tbr oa d di s c r e t i on t o r e i ns t a t e as e nt e nc e w i thi n the r a nge of the o r ig in a l s u s p e n d e d s e n te n c e . See U ni ted Stat es v. R i ce , 6 7 1 F .2 d 4 5 5 , 4 6 0 ( 1 1 th C ir . 1 9 8 2 ) , s u

p e r c e de d

b y r u le o n o th e rg r o u n d

s a s s ta te d

in U ni ted Stat es v. O rozc o , 160 F . 3d 1309 ( 11th C i r . 1998) . B e c a us e the s e nt e nc e “ w hi c h m i ghtha ve b e e n im p o s e d ” c o u ld in c lu d e c o n s e c u tiv e s e n te n c e s f o rs e p a r a te o f

f e n s e s , se e U ni ted Stat es v. L ach , 874 F . 2d 1543, 15 49 -50 (11 th C i r. 19 89 ), the di stri ctcourt m ay rei n st at e sen t en ces so th atth ey ru n co n secu t i v el y. H ere, th e d i stri ctco u rtd i d n o terr i n sen t en ci n g P arri sh t o ei g h tyears’ im p r is o n m e n t a t h is p r o b a tio n r e v o c a tio n h e a r in g . A r e v ie w o f th e r e c o r d r e v e a ls tha tthe s e nt e nc i ng c our ts us pe nde d P a rr i s h’ s s e nt e nc e a s t o the tw o m a i l f r a ud coun t s, and, atthe t i m e, ea ch m ai l fr aud cou ntca rr i ed a s t atut ory m axi m um of 5 y e a r s ’ im p r is o n m e n t. See 18 U . S . C . § 1341 ( 1987) . B e c a us e § 3653 gi ve s the di stri ctcourtthe po w ert o “ i m po se any s ent ence w hi ch m i gh tori gi nal l y have been i m pos e d, ” the di s tr i c tc our tr e voki ng hi s pr oba t i on c oul d ha ve i m pos e d up t o 5 y e a r s ’ i m pr i s onm e nta s t o e a c h c ount , t o run c ons e c ut i ve l y , f orat ot a l t e rm of

1010

y e a r s ’ im p r is o n m e n t. A l tho ug h the courtdi d n otexpl i ci t l y s t at e a tse nt enci ng thatthe “ coun ton e” a nd “ c ounttw o” t o w hi c h i tr e f e rr e d w e r e the s us pe nde d s e nt e nc e s f orm a i l f r a ud, i tappe a r s f

r om the r e c or d tha tthe c our ti nt e nde d t o i m pos e as e nt e nc e of f our ye ar s’ i m pri sonm entas t o eac h m ai l fr aud cou nt . F i rs t , the courtno t ed that , as P a rr i s h’ s i ni t i a l s e nt e nc e w a s i m pos e d pr e - G ui de l i ne s , the s e nt e nc e i m pos e d upon the re vo ca t i on of hi s probat i on w ou l d b e e xp re ss ed i n t erm s of y ea rs , ra ther than m on ths. T hu s, the courti m pl i ed thati tun ders t oo d thatthe se nt ence s i m po se d up on re vo ca t i on of P arri sh’ s probat i on re l at ed t o h i s ori gi nal , pre- G ui del i nes s u s p e n d e d s e n te n c e , n o t to h is p r o b a tio n v io la tio n s . S e c o n d , th e c o u r t p la in ly c o n c lu d e d th a t P a rr is h h a d v io la te d “c o n d itio n o n e ” a n d “c o n d itio n tw e lv e ” o f h is pr oba t i on, a nd s ubs e que nt l y i m pos e d as e nt e nc e of f oury e a r s a s t o e a c h “ c ount on e” and “ coun ttw o. ” T hu s, the al t ernat i ve sugg es t ed by P arri sh – thatthe court c ons true d “ c ountone ” a nd “ c ounttw o” t o be the tw o vi ol a t i ons l i s t e d i n the prob at i on offi ce r’ s r equestt o revok e P arri sh’ s probat i on – st em s f rom a s tra i ned read i n g o f th e sen t en ci n g tran scri p t , as th e co u rtd i st i n g u i sh ed b etw een “ co u n t s” a n d “c o n d itio n s ” d u r in g h is o r a l p r o n o u n c e m e n t. F i na l l y , t o the e xt e nttha tP a rr i s h a r gue s tha tthe c our tba s e d i t s r e voc a t i on of hi s pr oba t i on a nd i t s s e nt e nc e upon the be l i e f tha thi s c om m ut e d s e nt e nc e c oul d be11

re vi ved and re vo ked t o form the basi s f or an ei gh tye arse nt ence , the re cord do es no tre fl ec tthatthe courtop er at ed un der thatbel i ef . A l tho ug h the courtob se rved thatthe ef

fe ctof an ei gh tye arse nt ence w ou l d b e t o “ re turn [P arri sh’ s] se nt ence f r om 12 y e a r s t o the or i gi na l l y i m pos e d 20 y e a r s , ” the c our t , by r e f e rr i ng t o “ c ount one ” a nd “ c ounttw o, ” de m ons tr a t e d tha ti tw a s i m pos i ng s e nt e nc e s tha tc oul d ha ve o ri g i n al l y b een i m p o sed i n rel at i o n t o th e m ai l frau d co u n t s an d n o t , as P arri sh al l eges , re vi vi ng hi s c om m ut ed se nt ence . A cc ordi ng l y, P arri sh has notshow n that the courterre d i n sent enci ng hi m . W e there fore af fi rm hi s s ent ence . AF F I RME D.