FI LED U. S . COURT OF AP PE ALS E L E V E N T H C IR C U IT Se pt e m be r 19, 2006 T HOM AS K. KAHN CL E RK [ 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. 05- 15124 N on -A rgum entC al endar

________________________ D . C . D ocketN o. 03 -002 55 -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 L A R R Y H A M P T O N , 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 19, 2006) B efo re C A RN E S , W IL S O N an d P R Y O R , C i rcu i tJu d g es. P E R C U R I A M: L a rry H a m p to n ap p e a ls h is 1 2 0 - m o n th s e n te n c e im p o s e d a f te rh e p le d g u ilty2

t o pos s e s s i on w i th i nt e ntt o di s tr i but e 5 orm or e gr a m s of c oc a i ne ba s e i n vi ol a t i on o f 2 1 U .S .C . § 8 4 1 ( a ) . H a m p to n c o n te n d s th a t th e d is tr ic t c o u r t e rr e d w h e n it appl i e d atw o- l e ve l e nha nc e m e ntf orpos s e s s i on of

af i r e a rm i n c onne c t i on w i th a drug of f e ns e be c a us e the onl y e vi de nc e i n s uppor tof the e nha nc e m e ntw a s i n the p r e s e n te n c e in v e s tig a tio n r e p o r t ( “P S I ” ) . H a m p to n f u r th e ra r g u e s th a t h is S ix th A m en d m en t rig h ts w er e v io lated w h en h is se n ten ce w as en h an ce d b y a ju d g e’s f a c tu a l f in d in g s a n d im p o s e d u n d e rth e th e n - m a n d a to ry s e n te n c in g g u id e lin e s . A f t e rr e v i e w o f

th e r e c o r d a n d p a r t i e s ’ b r i e f s , w e a f f i rm. B AC KG R OU ND Ha m p t o n wa s i n i t i a l l y c h a r g e d i n ath r e e - c o u n ti n d i c tm e n ta l l e g i n g two c ount s of f e l on i n pos s e s s i on of

af i r e a rm a nd the above - m e nt i one d drug c ha r ge (C ou nt3). H am pt on subsequent l y pl ed gu i l ty t o the drug char ge pu rs uantt o an ag reem en tan d th e g o v ern m en td i sm i ssed th e o th er co u n t s. A cc ordi ng t o the un di sput ed fa ct s i n the P S I, po l i ce m on i t ored a confi dent i al i nform antw ho m ade acontrol l ed pu rc hase of cr ac k cocai ne fr om H am pt on . A ft er p o l i c e v e r i f

i e d H a mp t o n ’ s a d d r e s s , th e y o b t a i n e d as e a r c h w a rr a n tf o rh i s h o me a n d o b s e rv e d aq u a n tity o f c r a c k c o c a in e a n d as c a le in th e k itc h e n . U pon qu es t i on i ng , H am pt on adm i tt ed thata f i re arm w as l ocat ed i n h i s bedroom ’ s dre ss er dr a w e r . A ge nt s r e tr i e ve d a9m m s e m i a ut om a t i c pi s t ol a nd $1500 c a s h f r om the3

d raw er, $ 2 0 0 o f w h i ch w as th e “ b u y m o n ey” th atth e i n fo rm an tu sed t o p u rch ase c o c a in e b a s e f

r o m H a m p to n . T h e P S I s e t H a m p to n ’s b a s e o f f e n s e le v e l a t 2 6 , p u r s u a n t to U .S .S .G . § 2D 1. 1( c ) ( 7) . N e xt , the P S I a dde d atw o- l e ve l e nha nc e m e ntf orf i r e a rm pos s e s s i on u n d erU .S .S .G . § 2 D 1 .1 (b )( 1 ) b as ed o n th e d isco v er y o f a fire ar m in H am p to n ’s h o m e i n “ v ery cl o se p ro x i m i ty” t o th e d ru g sal e p ro ceed s an d o n l y “ ro o m s aw ay” f r om aqua nt i ty of

c r a c k c oc a i ne . T hr e e l e ve l s w e r e r e duc e d f ora c c e pt a nc e of r e s pons i bi l i ty unde rU . S . S . G . § 3E 1. 1( a ) - ( b) f orat ot a l of

f e ns e l e ve l of

25. T he P S I f urther not ed that , fol l ow i ng hi s a rr es tfor the i nst antoffe nse, H am pt on si gn ed a“ W a i ve rof

F i na l H e a r i ng” w i th r e ga r d t o hi s pa r ol e r e voc a t i on, i n w hi c h he a dm i tt e d be i ng gui l ty of pos s e s s i ng c oc a i ne w i th i nt e ntt o di s tr i but e , pos s e s s i on of a dea dl y w eapo n, and p osse ss i on of a f i re arm by a c on vi ct ed fe l on . H am pt on w as then ass es se d 1 1 cri m i nal hi st ory poi nt s, pl ac i ng hi m i n cri m i nal hi st ory c at egory V . T hus , the appl i c abl e s e nt e nc i ng gui de l i ne r a nge w a s 100 t o 125 m onths im p r is o n m e n t. H a m p to n f

ile d aw r itte n o b

je c tio n to th e tw o - le v e l f ir e a rm e n h a n c e m e n t, ar gu i ng thatthere w as no evi dence thatthe fi re arm even bel on ged t o h i m and that d ru g c r im e a n d f

ir e a rm w e r e u n c o n n e c te d . H e s tated n o o b jectio n to th e P S I’s de s c r i pt i on of

the “ W a i ve rof

F i na l H e a r i ng” a nd i t s c ont e nt s . A ts e nt e nc i ng,4

H am p t o n ’ s att o rn ey arg u ed th atth e en h an cem en tsh o u l d n o tb e ap p l i ed b ecau se

“ the pi s t ol w a s notf

ound i n [ hi s ] c a r , a nd i tw a s notf ound i n the s a m e r oom a s the c r a c k c o c a in e .” R .3 - 3 3 a t 4 . T he gove rnm e nt , a dopt i ng the pr oba t i on of f i c e r ’ s s t a nc e , a r gue d tha tthe fi re arm di d n othave t o b e i n the sa m e r oo m as the cr ac k cocai ne so l on g as i tw as pres entatthe t i m e of the charged condu ct , i ncl ud i ng al l re l evantcond uct , such as the pres ence of the “ bu y- i n” m on eyl ocat ed i n the sa m e dra w er . T he di stri ctcourt o v e rru le d H a m p to n ’s o b je c tio n a n d a d o p te d th e P S I . T h e c o u r t f

o u n d th a t th e g u id e lin e s p r o v id e d f o ra1 0 0 to 1 2 5 m o n th s e nt e nc e . P r i ort o pr onounc i ng H a m pt on’ s s e nt e nc e , the c our ti nqui r e d about H a m pt on’ s f

a m i l y , c hi l dr e n, a nd e duc a t i ona l ba c kgr ound. T he c our tf ound no re as on t o d epartfr om the appl i cabl e s ent ence un der the gu i del i nes, and sent ence d H am pt on t o 1 20 m on ths i m pri sonm ent . F or i t s r ea sons, the courtst at ed that H a m pt on ha d al e ngthy c r i m i na l hi s t ory , i nc l udi ng be i ng on pa r ol e f oradrugre l at ed offens e w hen h e c om m i tt ed the i nst antoffe nse, and h ad no tshow n m uch a m b itio n o rr e s p e c t to w a r d c o n tin u in g h is e d u c a tio n o rm a in ta in in g e m p lo y m e n t. T he courtse nt ence d H am pt on nearthe up per- end o f the appl i cabl e gui del i ne ra ng e. H a m pt on f

a i l e d t o f i l e at i m e l y appe a l , butf i l e d am ot i on t o va c a t e , pur s ua nt to 2 8 U .S .C . § 2 2 5 5 , a r g u in g , in te ra lia , tha tc ouns e l ha d be e n i ne f f e c t i ve i n f

a i l i ng5

to tim e ly ap p e a l d e s p ite h a v in g b e e n to ld d o s o . T h e m o tio n w a s d e n ie d in p a r t, b u t H a m p to n w a s e v e n tu a lly p e rm itte d to f ile a n o u t o f

tim e ap p e a l. ST AN DA RD OF RE VI EW W e r e vi e w the di s tr i c tc our t ’ s f a c tde t e rm i na t i on tha ts uppor t e d the s e nt e nc i ng e nha nc e m e nta s af i ndi ng of f a c ts ubj e c tt o the c l e a r l y e rr one ous st an d ard , w h i l e th e ap p l i cat i o n o f th e S en t en ci n g G u i d el i n es t o th o se fact s i s a que s t i on of

l a w r e vi e w e d de no vo . U ni ted Stat es v. N

di aye , 434 F . 3d 1270, 1280 ( 1 1 th C ir . 2 0 0 6 ) , pe t i t i on f orc e r t . f i l e d, ( J une 05, 2006) ( N o. 05- 11415) . W he n a defe nd antfa i l s t o l od ge a S i xth A m endm entobj ec t i on t o h i s s ent ence , thi s C ou rt r e v ie w s o n ly f

o rp la in e rr o r . U

ni ted Stat es v. R odri

gu ez , 3 9 8 F .3 d 1 2 9 1 , 1 2 9 8 ( 1 1 th C ir . 2 0 0 5 ) , c e r t . de ni e d, 12 5 S . C t . 29 35 (200 5). DI S C US S I ON I. U se of P S I r ep ort H am pt on chal l enges the di stri ctcourt ’ s f i nd i ng thathe po ss es se d the fi re arm ba s e d on i nf

orm a t i on i n the P S I r e por t . T o pr e s e rve a n obj e c t i on t o hi s s e nt e nc e f or appe a l , ade f

e nda ntm us tr a i s e the l e ga l i s s ue i n c l e a ra nd s i m pl e l a ngua ge t o the d is tr ic t c o u r t. See U

ni ted Stat es v. M

asse y , 4 4 3 F .3 d 8 1 4 , 8 1 9 ( 1 1 th C ir . 2 0 0 6 ) . H e r e H a m pt on’ s a tt orne y f i l e d a n obj e c t i on t o the P S I r e por tw hi c h a r gue d tha tno6

evi dence s ho w ed the fi re arm bel on ged t o the defendantor thatthe defendantever po ss es se d the fi re arm w hi l e s el l i ng coca i ne. A l tho ug h h i s ora l obj ec t i on focuse d on adi f f e r e ntl e ga l the ory ( tha tthe f i r e a rm a nd c r i m e w e r e notc onne c t e d) , he i ncorpo ra t ed by re fe re nce hi s f i l ed st at em ent s. W e w i l l there fore tre atthe i ss ue as pr e s e rve d a nd r e vi e w the f i ndi ng unde rthe c l e a r l y e rr one ous s t a nda r d. U nd erU . S . S . G . § 2 D 1. 1(b)(1), a tw o-l evel enhancem enti s w arra nt ed i f a d a n g e r o u s w e ap o n , in c lu d in g af ir e a rm , w a s p o s s e s s e d . T h is e n h a n c e m e n t s h o u ld be appl i e d i f

aw e apon w a s pr e s e nt“ unl e s s i ti s c l e a r l y i m pr obabl e tha tthe w e apon w as conn ec t ed w i th the offens e. ” U . S . S . G . § 2 D 1. 1, cm t . n. 3. T he di stri ctcourt m a y b a s e its f

in d in g s o f

f a c t o n e v id e n c e p r e s e n t a t tr ia l o rs e n te n c in g , f a c ts a d m itte d b y th e d e f

e n d a n t, o ru n d is p u te d s ta te m e n ts in th e P S I . U ni ted Stat es v. W i l s on , 884 F . 2d 1355, 1356 ( 11th C i r . 1989) . W he n f a c t s a r e i n di s put e , onc e the pr os e c ut i on s how s by the “ pr e ponde r a nc e of e vi de nc e tha tthe f

i r e a rm w a s pr e s e nt a t th e s ite o f

c h a r g e d c o n d u c t, th e e v id e n tia ry b u r d e n s h if ts to th e d e f

e n d a n t to show thata c on nect i on betw ee n the fi re arm and the offens e i s c l ea rl y i m prob abl e. ” U n ite d S ta te s v . H

a ll , 4 6 F .3 d 6 2 , 6 3 ( 1 1 th C ir . 1 9 9 5 ) ( p e rc u r ia m ) . I n the i ns t a ntc a s e , the P S I c l e a r l y s t a t e d tha t , f ol l ow i ng hi s a rr e s t , H a m pt on si gn ed a “ W ai ver of F i nal H ea ri ng ” a dm i tt i ng hi s gui l tfor posse ss i on of cocai ne, p o s s e s s io n o f

ad e a d ly w e ap o n , a n d p o s s e s s io n o f af ir e a rm b y ac o n v ic te d f

e lo n .7

T he r e w a s onl y one f

i r e a rm f ound i n H a m pt on’ s hom e — the . 9m m ha ndgun f ound in th e s am e d ra w eras th e b u y- in m o n ey . T h e w aiv er ’s co n ten ts an d th e g u n ’s l oc a t i on w e r e undi s put e d. A c c or di ngl y , the di s tr i c tc our tdi d notc l e a r l y e rrby f i ndi ng tha tH a m pt on pos s e s s e d i tf orpurpos e s of

the e nha nc e m e nt . H a m pt on f a i l e d t o pr of

f e re vi de nc e a ts e nt e nc i ng tha ti tw a s c l e a r l y i m pr obabl e tha tthe fi re arm w as po ss es se d i n con nect i on w i th the offens e, and, there fore , the di stri ct c o u r t d id n o t e rrb y r e ly in g o n s o le ly th e P S I to s u p p o r t th e e n h a n c e m e n t. II . S i xth A m en d m en t B e c a u s e H a m p to n f

a ile d to p r e s e rv e h is S ix th A m e n d m e n t o b je c tio n to h is s e n te n c e , w e r e v ie w o n ly f o rp la in e rr o r . R odri

gu ez , 3 9 8 F .3 d a t 1 2 9 8 . U n d e rth is st andard, w e " m ayno tcorr ec tan error the defendantfa i l ed t o rai se i n the di stri ct courtun l es s there i s: (1) e rr or, (2) thati s pl ai n, and (3) thataf fe ct s s ub st ant i al r ig h ts . I f a ll th r e e c o n d itio n s a r e m e t, a n ap p e lla te c o u r t m a y th e n e x e r c is e its di s c r e t i on t o not i c e af

or f e i t e d e rr or , butonl y i f

( 4) the e rr ors e r i ous l y a f f e c t s the fai rn ess, i n t eg ri ty, o r p u b l i c rep u t at i o n o f j u d i ci al p ro ceed i n g s. " I d. (i nt ernal qu ot at i on s a nd ci t at i on s om i tt ed). H am pt on has m etthe fi rs tand sec on d p rong s of the pl ai n err or t es t . A ft er j ud gm enthad b ee n ent er ed, bu tpri or t o thi s app ea l , the S up re m e C ou rthel d that the m a nda t ory na tur e of the f e de r a l gui de l i ne s r e nde r e d the m i nc om pa t i bl e w i th the8

S ix th A m e n d m e n t’s g u a r a n te e to th e r ig h t to aju ry tr ia l. U ni ted Stat es v. B oo ke r , 54 3 U . S . 22 0, 23 1-36 , 12 5 S . C t . 73 8, 16 0 L . E d. 2d 62 1 (20 05 ). U nd era m andat ory gui del i nes s ys t em , the di stri ctcourtenhanced H am pt on ’ s s ent ence base d o n a fi nd i ng of fa ctm ade by the j ud ge w hi ch w entbeyond the fa ct s a dm i tt ed by the defendantor foun d b y aj ury, thu s c om m i tt i ng a B oo ke re rr or . A l though the e rr orw a s not“ pl a i n” a tthe t i m e of s e nt e nc i ng, “ i ti s e nough tha tthe e rr orbe

‘ pl ai n’ atthe t i m e of app el l at e c on si dera t i on . ” John son v. U ni ted Stat es , 5 2 0 US 4 6 1 , 4 6 8 ( 1 9 9 7 ) . H o w e v e r , th e th ir d p r o n g is “e x c e e d in g ly d if f ic u lt” to m e e t. U

ni ted Stat es v. She l ton , 4 0 0 F . 3 d 1 3 2 5 , 1 3 3 1 (1 1 th C i r. 2 0 0 5 ). T o d o so , H am p t o n m u st d e m o n s tr a te th a t, b u t f

o rth e m a n d a to ry g u id e lin e s , th e r e is ar e a s o n ab le p r o b ab ility h e w o u ld h a v e b e e n s e n te n c e d d if f e r e n tly . See R odri

gu ez , 39 8 F . 3d at 13 00 . T he re cord do es no tsupp ortthi s c on cl usi on . F i rs t , the di stri ctcourt se nt ence d H am pt on t o the hi gh erend o f the se nt enci ng gu i del i nes r ange aft er co n sid er in g , j u st as itw o u ldu n d erth e p re se n t ad v iso ry sy stem , H am p to n ’s c r i m i na l hi s t ory a nd hi s na tur e a nd c ha r a c t e r i s t i c s . T hi s i s i nc ons i s t e ntw i th the su g g est i o n th ata l i g h t er sen t en ce m ay h av e b een i m p o sed ab sen tth e g u i d el i n es. Se e U n ite d S ta te s v . C u r tis , 40 0 F . 3d 13 34 , 13 36 (11th C i r. 20 05 ). T he court e xpr e s s e d a n i nt e ntt o s e nd the de f e nda nta w a y f

oral ong t i m e t o ge ttheIn Shelton, this Court held that a def endant satisfied the third prongbeca use the district cour

t 1 stated that it thought the guideline sentenc e wa s too severe , that it was unfortunate, and that the sentenc e wa s more than a ppropriate . Shelton, 400 F.3d at 1332-33.

9 defe nd ant ’ s a tt ent i on . F i nal l y, un l i ke ca se s l i ke She l ton , the c our tm a de no 1 st at em ent s of r egre tor re m orse abou tthe se veri ty of the se nt ence . H am pt on bear s the bur de n of

pe r s ua s i on he r e , a nd he ha s f a i l e d t o m e e tthe thi r d pr ong. Up o n r e v i e w o f

th e r e c o r d a n d c o n s i d e r a t i o n o f th e p a r t i e s ’ b r i e f

s , we di sc ern n o revers i bl e e rr or. T here fore , w e a ff i rm H am pt on ’ s s ent ence . AF F I RME D.