FI LED U. S . COURT OF AP PE ALS E L E V E N T H C IR C U IT N ove m be r 3, 2005 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- 11072 N on -A rgum entC al endar

________________________ D. C . Do c k e tNo . 0 3 - 8 0 0 5 2 - C R - DT KH 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 E L O R I S M C C R A Y , 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 S outhe rn D i s tr i c tof F l or i da

_________________________ ( N ove m be r3, 2005) B efo re B IR C H , B A R K E T T an d F A Y , C i rcu i tJu d g es. P E R C U R I A M:The Ex Pos t Fac to Clause of ArticleI , section 9 of the U .S. Const itution provides that 1 “[n] o . . . ex postfac to L aw shall be passed.”See U.S. Const. art. I , § 9, cl. 3; see also United State s v . Simmo ns , 3 68 F .3 d 1 33 5, 13 38 (1 1th Cir . 2 00 4) (e xplainingthat th eEx Pos t F a c to Clause “prevents the [g ]overnment from imposing additional penalties for crimes that have alre ady been c ommitt ed”) . 2 D e l or i s M c C r a y appe a l s he rc onc ur r e nt12- m onth a nd 1- da y s e nt e nc e s f or t en coun t s of w i l l ful l y pre pari ng fa l se and fraud ul entt ax re turns t o the Int ernal R e ve nue S e r vi c e ( “ I R S ” ) , i n vi ol a t i on of 26 U . S . C . § 7206( 2) . M c C r a y a r gue s on ap p e a l th a t th e d is tr ic t c o u r t c o m m itte d d u e p r o c e s s o rq u a s i- e x p o s t f a c to v io la tio n s b y s e n te n c in g h e rp u r s u a n t to U ni t e d S t a t e s v. B ooke r , 543 U . S . ___,

1 12 5 S . C t . 73 8, 16 0 L . E d. 2d 62 1 (20 05 ), i nst ea d o f pursuantt o the pre-Bo ok er m andat ory U ni t ed S t at es S ent enci ng G ui del i nes ( “ fe dera l gu i del i nes” ), as i nt e rpr e t e d i n B l a ke l y v. W a s hi ngt on, 542 U . S . 296, 124 S . C t . 2531, 159 L . E d. 2d 4 0 3 ( 2 0 0 4 ) . Fo rth e r e a s o n s s e tf o r th mo r e f

u l l y b e l o w , w e a f

f i r m. A f e de r a l gr a nd j ury r e turne d a n i ndi c tm e nt , w hi c h c ha r ge d M c C r a y w i th the abov e- re fe re nced offense s, bu tdi d n oti ncl ud e a ny t ax l oss a m ou nt s. M cC ra y s ubs e que nt l y e nt e r e d i nt o a w r i tt e n pl e a a gr e e m e ntw i th the gove rnm e nt , w he r e by s he a gr e e d t o pl e a d gui l ty a s c ha r ge d, a nd s he a c know l e dge d tha the rm a xi m um s ta tu to ry s e n te n c e f

o re a c h c h a r g e d o f

f e n s e w a s th r e e y e a r s ’ im p r is o n m e n t. O n F eb ru ary 2 4 , 2 0 0 4 , d u ri n g M cC ray’ s p l ea co l l o q u y, th e d i stri ctco u rtal so pe r s ona l l y a dvi s e d M c C r a y tha the rm a xi m um s t a tut ory s e nt e nc e f ore a c h of

theTh ePSI re fl e c ts that th e19 98 Editi on of fe deral guide lin e s w a s u se d toc alculate 2 M cC ray ’s o ff

en s e l ev el fo r c o n d

u ctth ato cc urr edfr o m1 9 9 7 thro u gh2 0 0 0 b ec au s e, al th o u gh dis tric t c ourt s n or

mally us ethefe deral guide lin e s in e ff e c t on thedatethat a

de fendant i s sentenc ed, the 1998 f

ederal guidelines was morefavorable to McCra y than the cur

rent e dition. See Simmons, 368 F.3d at 1338 (holdingthat, “although courts must presumptively apply the Guidelines as they

exis t at the time of sentenc ing, they may not do so wherethose Guidelines would lead to imposition of a harsher penalty than that to which the de fenda nt was subject at the time of the off

ense. In such ca ses, the Guidelines a pplicable at the time of the off ense must be applied”) . 3 c ha r ge d of

f e ns e s w a s thr e e y e a r s ’ i m pr i s onm e nt , a nd tha tthe s e s e nt e nc e s c oul d run c o n s e c u tiv e ly . T h e g o v e rn m e n t th e n p r o f f e r e d th a t, if

th e c a s e h a d p r o c e e d e d to tr i a l , i tw oul d ha ve pr ove n tha t , on di f f e r e ntoc c a s i ons f

r om t a x y e a r s 1997 thr ough 2 0 0 0 , M c C r a y h a d p r e p a r e d f a ls e ta x r e tu rn s . T h e s e o f f e n s e s , w h ic h g e n e r a lly w e r e the s a m e , i nvol ve d M c C r a y ’ s ( 1) unde r s t a t i ng t a xpa y e r s ’ e a rni ngs or w i thhol di ng on the i rW - 2 f or m s , a nd ( 2) pr e pa r i ng f a l s e 1040 t a x f

or m s . T he go vernm ental so expl ai ned t hat , af t erea ch t axpaye r kno w i ng l y f i l ed a f al se t ax r e tu rn , h e o rs h e p a id M c C r a y a f e e o f u p to $ 3 ,0 0 0 . A t th e c o n c lu s io n o f th is p r o f f e r , M c C r a y c o n c e d e d th a t th e f a c ts w e r e tru e , a n d s h e p le a d g u ilty a s c h a r g e d . P r i ort o s e nt e nc i ng, a pr oba t i on of f i c e rpr e pa r e d a pr e s e nt e nc e i nve s t i ga t i on re po rt(“ P S I” ), re com m endi ng thatM cC ra y be hel d res po nsi bl e f or bo th h er c ha r ge d a nd r e l e va ntc onduc tof pr e pa r i ng f

a l s e t a x r e turns , r e s ul t i ng i n a t ot a l of 61 t ax re turns, a t ax l oss of $23 0, 82 4, and a base off ense l evel of 16 un der U . S . S . G . § 2 T 4. 1(K ) ( offe nse l evel appl i cabl e f or offe nses i nv ol vi ng t ax l osse s g reat er th an $ 2 0 0 , 0 0 0 , b u tl ess th an $ 3 2 5 , 0 0 0 ). T h e p ro b at i o n o ffi cer al so 2Alternatively , McCray argued that the c ourt only should hold her re sponsible for a tax 3 loss of $38, 740—the tax l oss resulting f rom the ten off

enses to which sheplead guilty —resultingin a baseoffense leve l of 12. 4 r e c o m m e n d e d a two - l e v e l i n c r e a s e i n th i s l e v e l , p u r s u a n tt o U. S . S . G. § 2 T 1 .4 ( b ) ( 1 ) ( B ) , b e c a u s e M c C r a y w a s in th e b u s in e s s o f p r e p a r in g o ra s s is tin g in th e p r e p a r a tio n o f

ta x r e tu rn s , a n d a th r e e - le v e l d o w n w a r d a d ju s tm e n t, p u r s u a n t to U . S . S . G . § 3 E 1. 1, for t i m el y a cc ept ance of re spon si bi l i ty. W i th an adj ust ed of f e ns e l e ve l of

15, a nd a c r i m i na l hi s t ory c a t e gory of I , M c C r a y ’ s r e s ul t i ng g u id e lin e r a n g e w a s 1 8 to 2 4 m o n th s ’ im p r is o n m e n t. M c C r a y obj e c t e d t o be i ng he l d r e s pons i bl e f orboth the c ha r ge d a nd r e l e va nt c o n d u c t. M c C r a y a ls o f ile d a s u p p le m e n ta l o b

je c tio n to th e P S I , a r g u in g th a t, pu rs uantt o the S up re m e C ou rt ’ s s ub se qu entdeci si on i n B l akel y, the di stri ctcourt w a s b a rr e d f

r o m im p o s in g a s e n te n c e f a llin g o u ts id e th e z e r o - to - s ix - m o n th s e nt e nc i ng r a nge tha tr e s ul t e d a f t e rc a l c ul a t i ng he rba s e of f e ns e l e ve l a s 6— the l e ve l appl i c a bl e f

orof f e ns e s i nvol vi ng $1, 700 orl e s s of t a x l os s . I n s uppor tof

3 thi s B l a ke l y obj e c t i on, M c C r a y a s s e r t e d tha t , be c a us e the t a x l os s a m ountw a s not char ged i n h eri nd i ctm ent , the go vernm entcoul d n otre l y on i ti n cal cul at i ng her o ff en se lev el. T h e g o v er n m en t res p o n d ed th at th e c o u rt sh o u ld d en y M cC ra y’s B l ak el y o b

j ect i o n b ecau se B l ak el y d i d n o ti n v al i d at e th e fed eral g u i d el i n es. O n J a nua ry 25, 2005, a ts e nt e nc i ng, the c our tnot e d tha t , be tw e e n the5

prepara t i on of M cC ra y’ s P S I a nd se nt enci ng , the S up re m e C ou rti n B oo ker had ext ended i t s hol di ng i n B l akel y t o the fe dera l gu i del i nes. T he courtal so st at ed that i ti nt e nde d t o “ e s s e nt i a l l y go f orw a r d a s [ i t ] ha [ d] i n the pa s ta nd go thr ough the c om put a t i on of

the gui de l i ne s a nd, onc e [ i t ] ha [ d] tha ta s a ba c kgr ound, . . . the court[c ou l d] exer ci se i t s di sc re t i on i n fas hi on i ng a s ent ence . ” M cC ra y then re as se rt ed her B l akel y obj ec t i on , ar gu i ng that(1) s he shou l d b e s ent ence d “ un der th e la w s e t f

o r th in B la k e ly ,” a n d ( 2 ) “th e r e [ w a s ] a d u e p r o c e s s q u a s i e x p o s t f a c to r ig h t th a t w o u ld lim it th e [ c ]o u r t’s c o n s id e r a tio n in c o m p u tin g th e g u id e lin e s to on l y tho se fa ct s s etforth i n the chargi ng do cum ent . ” T he gove rnm e ntr e s ponde d tha tthe c our ts houl d s e nt e nc e M c C r a y pur s ua nt to B o o k e r . T h e g o v e rn m e n t a ls o a s s e r te d th a t B o o k e r“d [ id ] n o t f o llo w B la k e ly in th e w ay th e d efen se [w as] tryi n g t o arg u e th ati tsh o u l d h av e. W h at[th e] d efen se [ w a s ] try i ng t o do [ w a s t a ke ] the pa r tof B l a ke l y tha ti tl i ke d a nd a nt i c i pa t e d a nd ov er l a[ y] thatov erB oo ker. ” T he go vernm ent , ho w ever , expl ai ned t hat , i f the court b e lie v e d th a t M c C r a y h a d b e e n p r e ju d ic e d b y th e c h a n g e in th e la w , th e n it s h o u ld a llo w h e rto w ith d r a w h e rp le a o f g u ilty . A g r e e in g w ith th e g o v e rn m e n t, th e c o u r t s ta te d th a t it w a s r e q u ir e d “to ap p ly th e r e m e d ia l p r o v is io n in th e B o o k e rc a s e ,” th a t is , “to c o n s u lt th e g u id e lin e s b u t to r e t a i n the di s c r e t i on t o i m pos e w ha t e ve rs e nt e nc e the c our tul t i m a t e l y c onc l ude [ d]In im po singMc Cray ’ssentenc e , th ec ourt ag ain e xplaine d th at it

wa s ac ting“ wi th f

ull 4 understandingof the ra

ng e of discretion [afforde d] by virtue of the [Supreme Court’s] decision in the Booker ca se.” 6 t o b e are as on abl e s ent ence i n l i gh tof the gu i del i nes, and i n l i gh tof al l of the ot her fa ct ors s etforth i n [18 U . S . C . § 3 55 3(a) ] . ” N ever thel es s, the courti nstruct ed M cC ra y thati tw ou l d al l ow her t o w i thd ra w her pl ea . A ft erM cC ra y r epl i ed that s he di d notw i s h t o w i thdr a w he rpl e a , the c our te xpl a i ne d tha ts he w oul d be

“ s ubj e c tt o the l a w a s i te xi s t s t oda y . ” T he gove rnm e ntthe n pr oc e e de d t o pr e s e nt te s tim o n y o n th e a m o u n t o f ta x lo s s r e s u ltin g f

r o m M c C r a y ’s r e le v a n t c o n d u c t. D uri ng thi s pre se nt at i on of evi dence, M cC ra y a gree d t o st i pu l at e thather co m b i n ed ch arg ed co n d u ctan d rel ev an tco n d u cth ad i n v o l v ed fi l i n g 6 2 t ax retu rn s, ha d r e s ul t e d i n a n a m ountof t a x l os s be tw e e n $120, 000 a nd $200, 000, a nd s uppor t e d a ba s e of

f e ns e l e ve l of

14. A s pa r tof

thi s s t i pul a t i on, how e ve r , both the pa r t i e s a nd the c our ta gr e e d tha tM c C r a y w a s pr e s e r vi ng he robj e c t i on c onc e rni ng

“ the ex po stfa ct o [i m pl i ca t i on s] of B l akel y. ” A ft erno t i ng thatM cC ra y had a t ot al of f e ns e l e ve l of

14 a nd a gui de l i ne r a nge of 15 t o 21 m onths ’ i m pr i s onm e nt , the courtdi sc usse d atl engt h the se nt enci ng fa ct ors c on t ai ned i n § 35 53 (a ). T he court ul t i m a t e l y s e nt e nc e d M c C r a y be l ow the gui de l i ne r a nge t o c onc urr e nts e nt e nc e s of 1 yea r’ and 1 day’ i m pri sonm ent , 1 yea r’ supervi se d rel ea se , and a $1 , 00 0 speci al as se ss m entfe e. 4Although theg overnment has responde d that McCray ’s guilty plea wa s fre e and 5 vo luntary, M c Cray

ha s n ot challeng e d h e r p le a on a pp e al. Thu s, wede e m any argumentson

it abandone d. See United States v. L evy, 416 F.3d 1273, 1275 ( 11th Cir. 2005) (holding that an argument not raised in an a ppellant’s openingbrief is de emed waived). Reg ardle ss, McCray ’s plea c olloquy

does not ref

lect that the c ourt erred in ac ceptingher ple a. See United States v. B ro wn , 1 17 F .3 d 4 71 , 4 77 (1 1th Cir . 1 99 7) (e xplainingthat “ a vo luntary

ple a of guilty int e lli g e ntly

madein t helight o f t

hethen a pp lic a blelaw doe s n ot b e c omevulnera blebe c a us e later judicial decisions indicate that the ple a re sted on a fa ulty premise”(quotation omitted)). Indeed, when g iven the opportunity at sentenc ing to withdra

w her plea, Mc Cray

declined it. See United States v. Dominguez Benitez, 542 U.S. 74, ___, 124 S .Ct. 2333, 2340, 159 L .Ed.2d 157 (2004) (holding that a

defendant who seeks reversal of his convic tion after a guilty plea, on the ground that the district cour t committed plain error

under F ed.R.Crim.P. 11, must show “a rea sonable proba

bility that, but for the error , he would not haveentered the plea”). 7 M cC ra y a rgues on app ea l thatthe di stri ctcourterre d i n sent enci ng her pu rs uantt o B oo ker, i nst ea d o f pursuantt o the pre-Bo ok erm andat ory f eder al gui de l i ne s , a s i nt e rpr e t e d i n B l a ke l y . M c C r a y c ont e nds tha tthe c our t ’ s appl i c a t i on o f B o o k e ra t s e n te n c in g v io la te d b o th h e rd u e p r o c e s s o rq u a s i- e x p o s t f a c to r ig h ts b e c a u s e it in v o lv e d a r e tr o a c tiv e ap p lic a tio n o f th e la w , d e p r iv e d h e ro f f a ir w arni ng of “ i ncre as ed” c ri m i nal penal t i es , and res ul t ed i n a m ore onerous sent ence tha ts he , othe rw i s e , w oul d ha ve r e c e i ve d. M c C r a y a l s o a s s e rt s tha t , a l though the S u p r e m e C o u r t h e ld in B o o k e rth a t c a s e s g e n e r a lly s h o u ld b e ap p lie d to ap p e a ls p e n d in g w h e n B o o k e rw a s d e c id e d , th is h o ld in g s h o u ld n o t b e “f o r c e d ” u p o n h e r . M cC ra y c on cl ud es thatw e s ho ul d rem and h erca se for the di stri ctcourtt o sent ence h e ru n d e rth e m a n d a to ry f e d e r a l g u id e lin e s , a s in te rp r e te d in B la k e ly , w h ic h w ill r e s u lt in a s e n te n c e b a s e d u p o n o n ly th e c o n d u c t f o rw h ic h s h e w a s in d ic te d a n d to w h i ch sh e p l ead g u i l ty. 58

M c C r a y pr ope r l y pr e s e r ve d he rB l a ke l y c l a i m i n the di s tr i c tc our tby c i t i ng t o B l akel y i n h ersupp l em ent al obj ec t i on t o the P S I a nd atse nt enci ng . S ee U ni t ed S ta te s v . D o w lin g , 4 0 3 F .3 d 1 2 4 2 , 1 2 4 6 ( 1 1 th C ir . 2 0 0 5 ) ( c o n c lu d in g th a t a defe nd antei ther m ust(1) r ef ert o the S i xth A m endm ent ; (2) A pp re nd i v. N ew Je rs ey , 53 0 U . S . 46 6, 12 0 S . C t . 23 48 , 14 7 L . E d. 2d 43 5 (20 00 ), or anot her r el at ed ca se ; (3) a ss ertthe ri gh tt o h ave the j ury dec i de the di sput ed fa ct ; or (4) r ai se a c h a lle n g e to th e r o le o f

th e ju d g e a s f

a c tf in d e rto p r e s e r v e a B la k e ly /B o o k e rc la im ) . T hu s, w e r evi ew i tde no vo , bu tre vers e onl y f or harm ful error. S ee U ni t ed S t at es v. P az , 40 5 F . 3d 94 6, 94 8 (11 th C i r. 20 05 ). S i m i l ar l y, the pres erved con st i tut i on al i ss ues of w hether M cC ra y’ s due proces s r i gh t s w er e vi ol at ed and w hether her s e nt e nc e s w e r e i m pos e d i n vi ol a t i on of the E x P os tF a c t o C l a us e a r e que s t i ons of la w th a t a r e r e v ie w e d d e n o v o . S e e U n ite d S ta te s v . N o e l, 2 3 1 F .3 d 8 3 3 , 8 3 6 ( 1 1 th C i r . 2000) ( due pr oc e s s c l a i m ) ; U ni t e d S t a t e s v. A br a ha m , 386 F . 3d 1033, 1037 ( 11th C i r . 2004) ( e x pos tf a c t o c l a i m ) , pe t i t i on f

orc e r t . f i l e d, ( U . S . F e b. 16, 2005) (N o. 04 -933 4). T o th e e x te n t M c C r a y is r e a r g u in g h e rd u e p r o c e s s a n d q u a s i- e x p o s t f a c to ch al l en g es t o b ei n g sen t en ced p u rsu an tt o B o o k er, “ [t ] h e ex p o stfact o cl au se pr ohi bi t s the e na c tm e ntof s t a tut e s w hi c h . . . m a ke m or e bur de ns om e the puni s hm e ntf

ora c r i m e , a f

t e ri t s c om m i s s i on . . . . ” A br a ha m , 386 F . 3d a t1037The Rog ers Court cited in support to B ouie v. City of Columbia, 378 U.S. 347, 353, 84 6 S.Ct . 1697, 1702, 12 L .Ed.2d 894 (1964), where in the Supreme Court held that judicial e nla rg e ment o f a

c rimin al st atut e , a

pp lie d re troac tiv e ly, v iol ate d th eDu eProc e ss C la us ebe c a us e it w a s unf ore se e a bleand , th

us , likean e x pos t f

a c to l aw. Se eRog e rs , 5 32 U. S. at 46 8, 12 1 S. Ct. at 1703. 9 (quo t at i on om i tt ed). “ [T ] he fol l ow i ng tw o el em ent s m ustbe pres enti n o rderfor a c our tt o f i nd a n e x pos tf

a c t o vi ol a t i on: ( 1) the l a w m us tbe r e tr os pe c t i ve , m e a ni ng i tappl i e s t o e ve nt s oc c urr i ng be f or e i t s e na c tm e nt ; a nd ( 2) the of f e nde rm us tbe d i sad v an t ag ed b y i t . ” Id . (ci t at i o n o m i tt ed ). A l th o u g h th e E x P o stF act o C l au se forbi ds bo th l egi sl at i ve cr ea t i on of new cr i m i nal l i abi l i ty a nd l egi sl at i ve i ncre as es i n p un i shm entaf

t erthe event , i tdo es no tappl y of i t s ow n force t o chang es w orked by j udi c i a l de c i s i ons , s uc h a s B ooke r . S e e R oge r s v. T e nne s s e e , 532 U . S . 451, 4 6 0 , 1 2 1 S. Ct . 1 6 9 3 , 1 6 9 9 , 1 4 9 L. Ed . 2 d 6 9 7 ( 2 0 0 1 ) . N e v e r th e l e s s , th e Su p r e me C o u rti n R o g ers cl ari fi ed th atth e D u e P ro cess C l au se en co m p asses th e ex p o st f a c t o pr i nc i pl e s of

f a i rw a rni ng. I d. , 532 U . S . a t460- 61, 121 S . C t . a t1699- 1700. 6 A ppl y i ng thi s a na l y s i s t o M c C r a y ’ s c ha l l e nge on appe a l , w e be gi n w i th the S upr e m e C our t ’ s hol di ng i n A ppr e ndi tha t“ [ o] the rtha n the f a c tof a pr i or conv i ct i on , any f

ac tthati ncre as es the penal ty f or a c ri m e bey on d the pres cr i bed s ta tu to ry m a x im u m m u s t b e s u b m itte d to a ju ry , a n d p r o v e d b e y o n d a r e a s o n a b le d o u b t. ” A p p re n d i, 5 3 0 U .S . at 4 9 0 , 1 2 0 S .C t. at 2 3 6 2 -6 3 . P rio r to M cC ra y’s s e nt e nc i ng, the S upr e m e C our tr e vi s i t e d tha trul e i n B l a ke l y , i n the c ont e xtof10

W as hi ng t on st at e’ s s ent enci ng gu i del i ne sc hem e, and cl ar i fi ed that“ the ‘ st atut ory m ax i m u m ’ fo r A p p ren d i p u rp o ses i s th e m ax i m u m sen t en ce a j u d g e m ay i m p o se s ol e l y on the ba s i s of

the f a c t s r e f l e c t e d i n the j ury ve r di c tora dm i tt e d by the de f e nda nt. . . . I n othe rw or ds , the r e l e va nt‘ s t a tut ory m a xi m um ’ i s notthe m a xi m um s e nt e nc e a j udge m a y i m pos e a f t e rf i ndi ng a ddi t i ona l f

a c t s , butthe m axi m um he m ay i m po se w i tho utany a dd i t i on al fi nd i ng s. ” B l akel y, 54 2 U . S . at

___, 124 S . C t . a t2537 ( e m pha s i s i n or i gi na l ) . A ppl y i ng the s e pr i nc i pl e s , the S u p r e m e C o u r t h e ld th a t B la k e ly ’s s e n te n c e — w h ic h w a s e n h a n c e d u n d e rth e s ta te gui de l i ne s ba s e d on the c our t ’ s a ddi t i ona l f i ndi ng by a pr e ponde r a nc e of the e v id e n c e th a t B la k e ly c o m m itte d h is k id n ap in g o f f e n s e w ith d e lib e r a te c ru e lty

— v io la te d th e S ix th A m e n d m e n t. I d . a t _

__ , 1 2 4 S .C t. a t 2 5 3 4 - 3 8 . A l though the B l a ke l y C our te xpl i c i t l y r e m a r ke d i n a f ootnot e tha t“ [ t ] he [f ] eder al [g] ui del i nes a re no tbefore us, and w e e xp re ss no op i ni on on them , ” i d. at

___n .9 , 1 2 4 S .C t. at 2 5 3 8 n .9 , th e S u p re m e C o u rt, ag ain p rio r to M cC ra y’s se nt enci ng hear i ng , deci ded i n B oo ker that“ no di st i nct i on of const i tut i on al s i gni f i c a nc e [ e xi s t e d] be tw e e n the [ f e de r a l gui de l i ne s ] a nd the W a s hi ngt on p r o c e d u r e s a t is s u e ” in B la k e ly . B o o k e r , 5 4 3 U .S . a t _

__ , 1 2 5 S .C t. a t 7 4 9 . R e s o lv in g th e c o n s titu tio n a l q u e s tio n le f t o p e n in B la k e ly , th e S u p r e m e C o u r t h e ld i n B oo ker thatthe m andat ory nature of the fe dera l gu i del i nes r endered them11

i nc om pa t i bl e w i th the S i xth A m e ndm e nt ’ s gua r a nt e e t o the r i ghtt o a j ury tr i a l . I d. at___, 12 5 S . C t . at74 9-51 . In ext endi ng i t s hol di ng i n B l akel y t o the fe dera l gu i del i nes, the C ou rtexpl i ci t l y r ea ff i rm ed i t s r at i on al e i n A pp re nd i that“ [a ] ny fa ct ( othe rtha n a pr i orc onvi c t i on) w hi c h i s ne c e s s a ry t o s uppor ta s e nt e nc e e xc e e di ng the m axi m um autho ri ze d b y the fa ct s e st abl i shed by a pl eaof gu i l ty or aj ury v e r d ic t m u s t b e a d m itte d b y th e d e f e n d a n t o rp r o v e d to a ju ry b e y o n d a r e a s o n a b le doubt . ” I d. a t___, 125 S . C t . a t756. In a seco n d an d sep arat e m aj o ri ty o p i n i o n , th e C o u rti n B o o k er al so c onc l ude d tha t , t o be s tpr e s e r ve C ongr e s s ’ s i nt e nti n e na c t i ng the S e nt e nc i ng R e f o r m A c t o f

1 9 8 4 , th e ap p r o p r ia te r e m e d y w a s to “e x c is e ” tw o s p e c if ic se ct i on s— 18 U . S . C . § 3 55 3(b)(1) (r equi ri ng a s ent ence w i thi n the gu i del i ne ra ng e, a bs e nta de pa r tur e ) a nd 18 U . S . C . § 3742( e ) ( e s t a bl i s hi ng s t a nda r ds of r e vi e w on appe a l , i nc l udi ng de novo r e vi e w of de pa r tur e s f

r om the appl i c a bl e gui de l i ne ra ng e)

— there by ef

fe ct i vel y r enderi ng the fe dera l gu i del i nes a dv i soryon l y. Id. at

___, 12 5 S . C t . at76 4. T hu s, the gu i del i ne ra ng e i s now advi sory ; i tno l on ger di ct at es the fi nal se nt enci ng re sul tbu ti nst ea d i s a n i m po rt antse nt enci ng fa ct or that th e s e n t e n c i n g c o u r ti s t o c o n s i d e r , a l o n g w i th th e f a c t o r s c o n t a i n e d i n 1 8 U . S. C. § 3 5 5 3 ( a ) . I d . a t _

__ , 1 2 5 S .C t. a t 7 6 4 - 6 5 . I n U n ite d S ta te s v . D u n c a n , 4 0 0 F .3 d 1 2 9 7 ( 1 1 th C ir .) , p e titio n f o rc e r t.As persua sive authority, the Fir st, Fifth, Seventh, Ninth, and Tenth Circuits also have 7 re je c te d in pu bli sh e d opinion s d

ueproc e ss challeng e s, a s in fo rm e d b y e x pos t f a c to p rinc ipl e s, to district court’s impositions of sentence s under the Supreme Court’s remedial dec ision in Booker. See United States v. L ata, 415 F .3d 107, 110-13 (1st Cir. 2005); United States v. Scrog g ins, 411 F.3d 572, 575- 76 (5th Cir. 2005); United States v. J amison, 416 F.3d 538, 539-40 ( 7th Cir. 20 05 ); Unite d St ate s v . D up a s, 41 9 F .3 d 9 16 , 9 19 -2 1 ( 9th Cir . 2 00 5) , a

nd Unite d St ate s v . Rine s, 419 F.3d 1104, 1106- 07 (10th Cir. 2005). 12 fi l ed, (U . S . Jul y 20, 20 05 ) ( N o. 05 -546 7), w e r evi ew ed a defe nd ant ’ s s i m i l ar a r g u m e n t th a t B o o k e r ’s r e m e d ia l p r o v is io n s , if ap p lie d r e tr o a c tiv e ly , w o u ld i ncre as e the se nt ence autho ri ze d b y the j ury’ s ver di ctand, there fore , const i tut e a n e x p o s t f a c to la w in v io la tio n o f

th e d e f e n d a n t’s d u e p r o c e s s r ig h ts . I d . a t 1 3 0 6 - 0 7 . E xa m i ni ng w he the rthe B ooke ropi ni on w oul d vi ol a t e the due pr oc e s s pr i nc i pl e s of f a i rw a rni ng, w e de t e r m i ne d tha t , w he n the appe l l a ntc om m i tt e d the of f e ns e of conv i ct i on , “ the re cogn i ze d st at e of the l aw l oo ked t o the U ni t ed S t at es C od e a s e s tab lis h in g m a x im u m s e n te n c e s .” I d . a t 1 3 0 7 - 0 8 . W e f u r th e re x p la in e d th a t, be f or e B l a ke l y w a s de c i de d, e ve ry f e de r a l c our tof

appe a l s ha d he l d tha tA ppr e ndi di d n otappl y t o g ui del i ne ca l cul at i on s m ade w i thi n a defendant ’ s s t atut ory m axi m um se nt ence . Id. at13 08 . T hu s, w e c on cl ud ed thatthe defendant , w ho w as s e nt e nc e d w i thi n hi s s t a tut ory r a nge , ha d s uf f i c i e ntw a rni ng t o s a t i s f

y the due pr oc e s s c onc e rns a r t i c ul a t e d i n R oge r s . I d. 7 In the i nst antca se , bo th M cC ra y’ s pl eaagre em entand t he di stri ctcourt co rrect l y ad v i sed h er th ath er m ax i m u m st atu t o ry sen t en ce w as th ree years’ i m pri sonm entfor e ac h o ff ense . S ee 26 U . S . C . § 7 20 6(2) (s ett i ng three -y ea r13

m axi m um st atut ory s ent ence for off ense of prepari ng a f

al se t ax re turn). T he court a l s o a dvi s e d M c C r a y tha the rs e nt e nc e s c oul d be i m pos e d c ons e c ut i ve l y , r e s ul t i ng i n a t ot a l s e nt e nc e of

30 y e a r s ’ i m pr i s onm e nt . S e e 18 U . S . C . § 3584( a ) ( pr ovi di ng thatse nt ence s m ay run con se cut i vel y i f m ul t i pl e t erm s of i m pri sonm entar e im p o s e d o n a d e f

e n d a n t a t th e s a m e tim e ) . T h u s , s im ila rto th e ap p e lla n t in D u n can , M cC ray h ad fai r w arn i n g th atsh e co u l d recei v e u p t o 3 0 years’ i m pri sonm entfor heroffe nses , and h erdu e proces s r i gh t s w er e notvi ol at ed w hen the c our ts e nt e nc e d he rt o 1 y e a r ’ a nd 1 da y ’ i m pr i s onm e nt . S e e D unc a n, 400 F . 3d at13 06 -08. M oreover, t o the ext entM cC ra y has att em pt ed t o d i st i ng ui sh D un ca n b y a r g u in g th a t th e ap p e lla n t in th a t c a s e , w h o w a s s e n te n c e d b e f o r e B la k e ly , d id no tre as on abl y r el y on i t , M cC ra y, si m i l art o the appel l anti n D un ca n, com m i tt ed th e in s ta n t o f

f e n s e s f r o m 1 9 9 7 th r o u g h 2 0 0 0

— w e ll b e f o r e B la k e ly w a s d e c id e d . S e e U ni t e d S t a t e s v. B or don, N o. 04- 10654, s l i p op. a t3419 ( 11th C i r . A ug. 25, 2 0 0 5 ) ( h o ld in g th at th e e x p o st fa cto clau se “o p er ates n o t t o p ro tect an in d iv id u al’s r ig h t to le s s p u n is h m e n t, b u t r a th e ra s a m e a n s o f a s s u r in g th a t a n in d iv id u a l w ill r e c e iv e f a irw a rn in g o f

c r im in a l s ta tu te s a n d th e p u n is h m e n ts th e y c a rry ” ) . I n a d d itio n , M c C r a y h a s m is c o n s tru e d th e S u p r e m e C o u r t’s h o ld in g in B l akel y, al on g w i th fai l i ng t o sho w thatshe w as di sa dv ant aged by the di stri ct court ’ s tre atm entof the fe dera l gu i del i nes a s di sc re t i on ary. A s di sc usse d abo ve,Although th edis tric t c ourt a dju ste d M c Cray ’sof

fens ele ve l of

17 do wnwa

rd s 3 le ve ls 8 based on her timely

acc eptanc e of responsibility , a def endant may

not rec eive a

n additional 1- level adjustment for

a timely plea unless her adjusted of fenselevel is 16 or greater. See U.S.S.G. § 3E1.1(b). 14 the S upr e m e C our ti n B l a ke l y , i n the c ont e xtof W a s hi ngt on s t a t e ’ s s e nt e nc i ng gui de l i ne s c he m e , de t e r m i ne d tha t“ the ‘ s t a tut or y m a xi m um ’ f orA ppr e ndi purpos e s i s the m a xi m um s e nt e nc e a j udge m a y i m pos e s ol e l y on the ba s i s of the f a c t s r e f l e c t e d i n the j ury ve r di c tora dm i tt e d by the de f e nda nt . ” S e e B l a ke l y , 542 U . S . at___, 12 4 S . C t . at25 37 . W e, ho w ever , have det erm i ned t hata f ac tual st i pu l at i on i s the equi val entof a j ury f i nd i ng on a f

ac tbecause i tt akes the i ss ues aw ay fr om the j ury. S ee U ni t ed S t at es v. S hel t on , 40 0 F . 3d 13 25 , 13 30 (11t h C i r. 2005) ( c onc l udi ng tha ta s e nt e nc e e nha nc e m e ntba s e d on drug qua nt i ty di d not vi ol a t e B ooke rw he r e the de f e nda ntdi d notdi s put e , a nd i n f a c tc onc e de d, the f a c tu a l a c c u r a c y o f

h is P S I ) . B ec ause M cC ra y s t i pu l at ed atse nt enci ng thatshe w as re spon si bl e f or an a m o u n t o f

ta x lo s s o f

b e tw e e n $ 1 2 0 ,0 0 0 a n d $ 2 0 0 ,0 0 0 , th e c o u r t d id n o t e rrin r e l y i ng on thi s f

a c ti n de t e r m i ni ng M c C r a y ’ s gui de l i ne r a nge , T hus , e ve n i f the d is tr ic t c o u r t h a d n o t in c r e a s e d M c C r a y ’s o f f e n s e le v e l b y tw o le v e ls , p u r s u a n t to § 2T 1. 4( b) ( 1) ( B ) , ba s e d on the f a c ttha tM c C r a y w a s i n the bus i ne s s of pr e pa r i ng o ra s s is tin g in th e p r e p a r a tio n o f ta x r e tu rn s , M c C r a y ’s to ta l o f f e n s e le v e l w o u ld ha ve be e n 13, a nd he rs e nt e nc e of 1 y e a r ’ a nd 1 da y ’ i m pr i s onm e ntw oul d ha ve 815

f a lle n w ith in h e rr e s u ltin g g u id e lin e r a n g e o f 1 2 to 1 8 m o n th s ’ im p r is o n m e n t. M oreover, i n fol l ow i ng B oo ker’ s r em edi al ho l di ng and t re at i ng the fe dera l gui de l i ne s a s a dvi s ory , the di s tr i c tc our ts e nt e nc e d M c C r a y be l ow he rr e s ul t i ng g u id e lin e r a n g e o f

1 5 to 2 1 m o n th s ’ im p r is o n m e n t. A cc ordi ng l y, w e c on cl ud e thatthe di stri ctcourt ’ s s ent enci ng of M cC ra y p u r s u a n t to B o o k e rd id n o t r e s u lt in e ith e ra d u e p r o c e s s o ra n e x p o s t f a c to vi ol at i on . W e, there fore , af fi rm M cC ra y’ s s ent ence . AF F I RME D.