FILED U.S. COURT OF A P P E ALS ELE V EN T HC IR C U IT MAY 4 , 2006 THOMAS K. KAHN 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. 05- 15565 N on -A rgum entC al endar

________________________ D. C. Do c k e tNo . 0 0

- 1 4 0 5 6
- CR

- DLG 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 S T A N L E Y G E O R G E L A W E S , D e fe n d a n t- A p p e lla n t.

________________________ A pp ea l fr om t he U ni t ed S t at es D i stri ctC ou rt fort he S out he r n D i s tr i c tof F l or i da

_________________________ ( M ay 4, 2006) B efo re A N D E R S O N , B IR C H an d M A R C U S , C i rcu i tJu d g es. P E R C U R I A M: S t a nl e y L a w e s a ppe a l s hi s 168- m ont h s e nt e nc e , w hi c h w a s i m pos e d a f t e rhe pl e d gui l t y t o pos s e s s i ng w i t h i n t e ntt o di s tr i but e 50 gr a m s orm or e of c oc a i ne ba s e , i n vi ol a t i on of

21 U
. S
. C
. § 841( a ) ( 1)
. O n a ppe a l , L a w e s arg u es tha tt heW ere j e c tL aw e s ’ s ad di ti o n a larg u m e n tth atth edi s tri c tc o urterre db y gr an ti n go n l y a 1 horizontal downward departu re and denying his re quest for an additional vertical downward departure ba sed on alleg ed over-representation of the seriousness of his prior crimes. Our re view of the re cord reveals no indi ca t i o n that the district court thought it lacke d authority to grant the departure. Ac cording ly , we will not review the denial of Lawe s’s reque sted vertical departure. See Unite d St ate s v . And ers on , 3 26 F .3 d 131 9, 13 33 (1 1thCir . 2 00 3) (“ A d e fend ant m ay no t ordin ari ly app e al a dis tric t c ourt ’s re fu sal togrant a do wn wa rddepa rture . Wh erethec ourt

erron e ou sly believed that it lacked the authority to grant the downwa rd depa rture, how ever , the def

endant may appeal the court’s f

ailure to downward depart” (empha sis added) ); United States v. Smith, 289 F.3d 696, 710-11 (11th Cir. 2002) (holdingth at d ep arture ba sed upon the over-repre sentation of a defendant’s cri m inal history must procee d under U .S.S.G. § 4A1.3 and not U.S.S.G. § 5K2.0; “downwa rd depa rtures under U.S.S.G. § 4A1.3 must be on the horizontal ax is, refle ctingthe offender’ s criminal history cate g ory , and not on the vertical axis, reflec ting his off ense le vel”)
. 2 d is tr ic t co u rt erred b y (1 ) sen t en ci n g h i m u n d er a m an d at o ry G u i d el i n es sch em e, in
v i o l at i o n o f U ni t e d S t a t e s v. B ooke r , 543 U
. S
. 220 ( 2005) ; a nd ( 2) r e l y i ng on pr i or
c o n v ic tio n s , w h ic h w e r e n e ith e rc h a r g e d in th e in d ic tm e n t n o rfo u n d b y a ju r y , to
e n h a n c e h i s s e n t e n c e . A f t e rc a r e f u l r e v i e w , w e a f

f i r m. 1 T h e re lev antfa ct s a re stra i gh t forw ar d. O n A ug ust31 , 20 00 , L aw es w as i ndi c t e d fo r p o s s e s s i on w i th i nt e ntt o di s tr i but e m or e t ha n 50 gr a m s of c oc a i ne base , i n v i olatio n o f 2 1 U . S
. C
. § 8 41 (a )( 1) (C ou nt1). A thi s a rr ai gn m entbefore a
m a g is tr a te ju d g e , L a w e s p le d n o t g u i l t y . H e s u b s e q u e n tly c h a n g e d h is p le a to g u ilty , p u r s u a n t to a w r itte n p le a a g r e e m e n t w ith th e g o v e r n m e n t, a n d p r o c e e d e d to
s e nt e nc i ng. A c co rd i n g t o th e p resen t en ce i n v est i g at i o n rep o rt (“ P S I”), L aw es so ld 5 5 .3 gra m s of c oc a i ne ba s e t o ac onf i de nt i a l s our c e w or ki ng w i th D r ug E nfor c e m e nt A dmi ni s tr a t i on ( “ D EA ” )
. Ba s e d on thi s a moun t of c oc a i ne ba s e , the PS I ca l cul at ed3

a bas e off

ense l evel , pu rs uantt o U . S
. S
. G
. § 2 D 1. 1(a) (3), of 3 2 . T he P S I then
r e c o mme n d e d a c a r e e r - o f fe n d e r e n h a n c e me n t , p u r s u a n t t o U . S. S. G
. § 4B 1. 1, beca use the i nst antoffe nse w as a c on trol l ed-s ub st ance fe l on y off ense and L aw es had atl ea stt w o p ri or cont rol l ed-s u bst ance fe l on y c on vi ct i on s. A ft era 3-l evel
r e du c t i on for a c c e pt a nc e of r e s po ns i bi l i t y un de r U . S. S. G
. § 3E1. 1( a ) a nd (b), L a w e s ’s a d

ju s te d o f fe n s e le v e l w a s 3 4
. I n c a l c ul a t i ng L a w e s ’ s c r i m i na l hi s t or y c a t e gor y , the P S I i nc l u de d a desc ri pt i on of t he t w o p ri or con trol l ed-s ub st ance fe l on y c on vi ct i on s thatqu al i fi ed L aw es for the ca re er -off ender enhancemen tun der § 4B 1. 1. T he P S I f urt her not ed t hatL aw es had a t ot al of t w o cri m i nal hi st ory poi nt s, w hi ch no rm al l y w ou l d acc ord h im a c rim in al h isto r y c a te g o ry o f I I. B u t th e P S I r ec o m m en d ed , b as ed o n L aw es ’s
ca re er -off

ender s tatu s, a cr i m i nal hi st ory c at egory V I. L aw es fa ce d a m andat ory
m i ni m um se nt ence of t en ye ar s’ i m pri sonm en tand a m axi m um of l i fe i m pr i s onm e ntunde r21 U
. S
. C
. § 841( b )(1) ( A )
. T he G ui de l i ne s r a nge w a s 262- 327
m o n th s ’ im p r is o n m e n t. L aw es obj ec ted to the e nh ance d cri m i nal hi st ory c at egory of V I, ar gu i ng t hat i t s i gn i f i c a n t l y o v e r - r e p r e s e n t e d th e s e r i o u s n e s s o f h i s c r i mi n a l h i s t o r y o rt he li k elih o o d th at h e w o u ld c o m m itfu rth er cr im es . H e a lso o bjected to th e P S I’s fa i l ure t o rec om m end a do w nw ar d d epar ture beca use the enhan ce d se nt ence w as4

noti n f ur the r a nc e of

a n a l l ow a bl e p u rp o s e unde r18 U
. S
. C
. 3553( a )
. A tthe subsequentse nt enci ng hear i ng , he al so as se rt ed he w as enti tl ed t o an add i t i on al dow nw a r d de pa r tur e ba s e d on hi s l i m i t e d e duc a t i on a n d m i ni m a l c r i m i na l r e c or d. T h e g o v e r n m e n t a g r e e d w ith L a w e s ’s a r g u m e n t th a t a c a te g o r y V I o v e r s ta te d h is
c r i m i na l hi s t or y , butobj e c t e d t o L a w e s ’ s s ugge s t i on tha the w a s e nt i t l e d t o a
cr i m i nal h isto ry ca t egory I . In re spon se t o t hese ar gu m ent s, the di stri ctcourt ob se rved t hatthere w er e “ strong ar gu m ent s t o b e m ad e thatno ho ri zont al departure [ w a s ] a ppr opr i a t e ” an d t h att he gove r nm e ntw a s be i ng “ be ne vol e nt ” i n not
o p p o s in g it. R eg ard i n g L aw es’ s req u est fo r a § 5 K 2 d ep art u re, th e co u rt d en i ed it, fi n d i n g t h atth e i n st an tcase w as n o to u t si d e t h e h eart l an d an d st at i n g th at“ i t ’ s a fa i r l y t y pi c a l c a se. U nfor tuna t e l y , by ope r a t i on of l a w a nd t he gui de l i ne s , t he
s e nt e n c e i s v e r y h a r s h , w h i c h i s c a u s i n g a l l o f u s t o p a u s e t o s o me e x t e nt . ” T he
c o u r t a ls o a d d r e s s e d L a w e s ’s o bje c ti o n t h a t a c a te g o r y V I o v e r - r e p r e s e n te d h is
cr i m i nal hi st ory. T he di stri ctcourtfi rs tno t ed t hati tha d di sc re t i on t o d epar t h o r iz o n ta lly a c r o s s th e c r im in a l h is to r y c a te g o r y . B a s e d o n its d e te r m in a tio n th a t a
c a t e gor y V I w a s nota ppr opr i a t e , a nd c ons i de r i ng t he pa t t e r n a nd t i m i ng of L aw es ’ s pre vi ou s c on vi ct i on s, the di stri ctcourtdepart ed to a c at egory I I c ri m i nal hi st ory. In deci di ng agai nstdepart i ng t o a ca t egory I cr i m i nal hi st ory, th e cou rt5

com m ent ed t hat , “ [c ] at egory one, w here som eone has no p re vi ou s c ri m i nal offe nses , i s s ortof i ncon si st entw i th t he w ho l e caree r c ri m i nal concept . ” T he court f u r th e re x p la in e d th a t “th o u g h s till h a r s h , a c a t e g o r y tw o w o u ld a d e q u a te ly
re pres entt he D ef

endant ’ s c ri m i nal hi st ory over a l engt hy peri od of t i m e. ” A f t e rt he for e goi ng a dj us t m e nt s t o L a w e s ’ s c r i m i n al hi s t or y c a t e gor y , t he di stri ctcourtca l cul at ed a new G ui del i nes r an g e o f 168 t o 2 10 m on ths. T he di stri ct courtst at ed th at “[b ] as ed on the l engt hy se nt ence af forded by t he gu i del i ne ra ng e, t he C ou rtw i l l i m po se a s ent en ce at th e b ot t om of t he ra ng e. ” T he courtthen
se nt ence d L aw es t o a 16 8-m on th t er m of i m pri sonm entfol l ow ed by a 5 -y ear t er m of s upe r vi s e d r e l e a s e . T hi s a ppe a l fol l ow e d. B e c a us e L a w e s rai s e s hi s B ooke rc l a i m fort he f i r s tt i m e on a ppe a l , our
r e v i e w i s fo r p l a i n e r r o r . Se e U n i t e d St a t e s v . Ro d r i g u e z , 3 9 8 F. 3 d 1 291, 1298 ( 1 1 th C ir .) , c e r t. d e n ie d , 1 2 5 S .C t. 2 9 3 5 ( 2 0 0 5 )
. I n o r d e rfo ru s to c o r r e c t p la in
erro r: (1 ) t h ere m u stb e erro r, (2 ) t h e erro r m u stb e p l ai n , an d ( 3 ) th e erro r m u st af fe ctsubst ant i al ri gh t s. Id. “ If al l t hree co n d i t i on s a re m et , an appel l at e c ou rt
m a y t he n e xe r c i s e i t s d i s c r e t i on t o not i c e a for fe i t e d e r r or , butonl y i f ( 4) the e r r or
se ri ou sl y a ff

ec t s the fa i rnes s, i nt egri t y, or pu bl i c r eput at i on of j ud i ci al proceedi ng s. ” I d. (quo t at i on om i t t ed). U nd ert he t hi rd pron g, t he appel l antbear s t h e bur de n t o s how tha t the e r r or “ a f fe c t e d s ubs t a nt i a l r i ght s , w hi c h a l m ost al w ays6

re qu i re s thatthe er ro r m u sthave aff ec t ed t he ou t com e of the di stri ctcourt p r o c e e d in g s . T h e s t a n d a r d fo rs h o w in g th a t is th e fa m ilia rr e a s o n a b le p r o b a b ility
o f a d i f fe r e n tr e s u l tfo r mu l a t i o n , w h i c h me a n s a p r o b a b i l i t y s u f f i c i e n tt o u n d e r mi ne confi dence i n t he ou t com e. ” I d. at 1 2 9 9 (a l t er at i on and q uo t at i on s om i t t ed).

“ [ W ] he r e the e f

fe c tof a n e r r oron t he r e s ul ti n the di s tri c tc our ti s unc e r t a i n or in d e te r m in a te

– w h e r e w e w o u ld h a v e to s p e c u la te

– th e a p p e lla n t h a s n o t m e t h is bu rden of show i ng a r ea sonabl e p ro babi l i t y thatthe re sul tw ou l d h ave been di f fe r e ntbutfort he e r r or. . . . ” I d. a t1301. I n U ni t e d S t a t e s v. S he l t o n , w e r e c ogni z e d tha tthe r e a r e t w o t y pe s of B ooke re r r o r : ( 1 ) t h e Si x th A me n d me n t“ c o n s t i tu t i o n a l ” e r r o ro f u s i n g j u d g e - found fa c t s t o i nc r e a s e a de fe nda nt ’ s s e nt e nc e unde r a m a nda t or y gui de l i ne syst em ; and ( 2 ) th e “s ta tu to r y ” e r r o ro f a p p ly in g th e G u id e lin e s a s m a n d a to r y , a s o p p o s e d to advi sory . 40 0 F .3 d 1 3 2 5 , 1 32 9-31 (11t h C i r. 20 05 ). L aw es as se rt s thatbo th t ypes of B oo ker e rr or occurre d h er e. F i rs t , a fter ca l cul at i ng the new G ui del i nes r ange, the di stri ctcourtcom m i t t ed
s t a tu to r y B o o k e re r r o rb y a p p ly in g th e G u id e lin e s in a m a n d a to r y fa s h io n . B u t in
or de rt o pr ove t ha tt he e r r ora f fe c t e d hi s s ubs t a nt i a l r i ght s unde rthe thi r d pr ong of pl ai n-er ror r evi ew , a d efendantm ustdem on stra t e “ a r ea sonabl e probabi l i t y of a di f fe r e ntr e s u l ti f

the gui de l i ne s ha d be e n a ppl i e d i n a n a dvi s or y i ns t e a d of bi ndi ng7

fa s hi on by the s e nt e nc i ng j udge i n thi s c a s e . ” U n i t ed S t at e s v. R odr i gue z , 398 F
. 3d 12 91 , 13 01 (11t h C i r.), ce rt. d eni ed, 12 5 S
. C t . 29 35 (200 5). W here “ [t ] he re cord pr ovi d e s n o r e a s o n t o b e l i e v e a n y r e s u l ti s mo r e l i k e l y t h a n t h e o th e r , ” a d e fe n d a nt
c a nnotpr e va i l unde rpl a i n- e r r orr e vi e w . I d. H e r e , L a w e s d o e s n o t p o in t to a n y th in g in th e r e c o r d th a t w o u l d s a tis f y h is bu rden of show i ng a r ea sonabl e probabi l i t y t hathe w ou l d h ave r ec ei ved a l es se r
se nt ence had h e bee n sent ence d u nd eran advi sory sc h em e. W hi l e the di stri ctcourt
s t a t e d t ha tL a w e s ’ s c r i m i n al h i st or y r e s ul t e d i n a “ l e ngt hy ” s e nt e nc e unde rt he G u id e lin e s , th e c o u r t d id n o t s a y , o rin a n y w a y im p ly , t h a t i t w a s in c lin e d to i m pos e a l ow e rs e nt e nc e i f notbound by the G ui de l i ne s . M o reo ve r , a tno poi nt d u r in g th e p r o c e e d in g s d id th e c o u r t m e n tio n th a t th e l e n g t h y s e n te n c e w a s tie d in
a ny w a y t o the m a nda t ory na tur e of the G ui de l i ne s . S i m pl y put , L a w e s ha s not dem on stra t ed a r ea sonabl e probabi l i t y of a less er se nt ence un der a n adv i sory sy st em . A cc ordi ng l y, the di stri ctcourtdi d n otcom m i tre vers i bl e pl ai n err or un der t he st atut ory c om po nentof B oo ker. W e a ls o r e

je c t L a w e s ’s a r g u m e n t th a t th e d is tr ic t c o u r t e r r e d w h e n it i m pos e d s e nt e nc e pur s ua ntt o t he c a r e e r - of fe nde rpr ovi s i ons by r e l y i ng on pr i or
c o n v i c t i o n s th a twe r e n e i t h e r c h a r g e d i n th e i n d i c t m e n tn o rfo u n d b y a j u r y . As L aw es ac kn ow l edges, w e have hel d t hata di stri ctco u rt d o es n otcom m i tB oo ker8

c ons t i t ut i ona l e r r orw he n i ta ppl i es a c a r e e r - of fe nde re nha nc e m e ntba s e d on p r e v i o u s c o n v i c t i ons , pu r s u a n tt o A l me n d a r e z - To r r e s v . U n i t e d St a t e s , 5 2 3 U . S. 2 2 4 ( 1 9 9 8 ) , w h ic h r e m a in s b in d in g o n th is C o u r t. In A l m en d arez-T o rres, th e S u p rem e C o u rth el d t h at“ [a] n in d i ct m en tm u st
se tforth eac h el em entof t he cr i m e thati tchar ges [ , b] uti tneed no tse tforth fac t ors
r e le v a n t o n ly to th e s e n te n c i n g o f a n o f fe n d e rfo u n d g u ilty o f

th e c h a r g e d c r im e .” Id
. a t22 8 ( c i t a t i on omi t t e d)
. Be for e Book e r , w e he l d tha tA l me nd a r ez -T orre s
r e m a i ne d good l a w . U ni t e d S t at es v . M ar s e i l l e , 377 F
. 3d 1249, 1257- 58, n. 14 (11t h C i r. ), ce rt . deni ed, 54 3 U
. S
. 10 13 (200 4). A nd af ter B o o k er , w e obser ved th a t A lm e n d a r e z - T o r r e s “w a s le f t u n d is tu r b e d b y A p p r e n d i, B la k e ly , a n d B o o k e r ,” and t hat“ a di stri ctcourtdo es no ter r by re ly i ng on pri or conv i ct i on s t o enh ance a de fe nd a nt ’ s s e nt e nc e . ” She l t on , 40 0 F. 3d a t 13 29
. B ec ause t he S up re m e C ou rt has notove r r ul e d A l m e nda r e z - T or r e s , the di s tr i ct co u rt di d note r rw he n i ta ppl i e d the U . S
. S
. G
. § 4B 1. 1 c a ree r - of fe nde re nha nc e m e nt , r e l y i ng on t w o pr i orqua l i f y i ng
c o n v ic tio n s th a t w e r e n e ith e ra lle g e d in th e in d ic tm e n t n o rp r o v e n to a ju r y . A F F I R M E D .