### FI LED U . S . COURT OF APP EALS ELEVENTH CIRCUIT J uly 15, 20 05 THO MAS K. KAH N CL ERK [DO NOT PUBLISH]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- 1046 1 Non-A rgum ent Calendar

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ D. C. Dock et No. 0 3- 20 68 2- CR-J LK UNITED STAT ES OF AMERIC A, Plaintiff-Appellee,
ve rs us OSCAR J OSEPH PINARGOTE-RAMI REZ, D ef en da nt- A ppe llant.

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ Appeal f rom the United State s District Court fo r the S out he rnD istri ct

of F lor ida

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ _ (J ul y 15 , 200 5) ON REM AN D F ROM THE S UP REM E C OUR T

OF THE U NITE D S TAT ES Be fo re MA RC U S, P RY O R and C O X , Ci rc uit Jud ge s. PE R CU RIA M:2

T his c as e is b ef

or e us f oll ow ing th e Su

pr em e Co urt’ s or de r va ca tin g th e j udgm ent of this c ourt a nd r em an din g th e ca se f or f urthe r co nsi de ra tio n inli ght of United States v. B ooker , 12 5 S. Ct. 7 38 (20 05 ). Pinargote-Ram irez v. United States , 12 5 S . Ct. 1 74 1 (2 00 5)
. Fo llo w ing re m an d, w e en te re d an or de r dir ec tin g the pa rt ie s to su bm it supp le m en ta l l et te r br ie fs spe ci fi ca lly ad dr es sin g: (1) a des cr ipt ion of w he re , w he n,
a n dh o w a n y B ook

er iss ue w as fi rs t ra ise d; and (2 ) an y ar gum en t abou t wh ethe r an d how the Booker

de ci sio n a

ppl ie s to the pr es en t c as e, a nd w ha t a ct ionthe c ourt sh oul d ta ke
. Pinargote asserts that a Booker issue w as first ra ised in his initial brief before thi s c ourt i n w hic h he arg ued th at the dis tr ic t c ourt “ de nie d th e de fe nda nt the ind iv id ua liz ed , dis cr et ion ar y se nte nc ing upo n w hic h th e co nst itu tio na lity of the gui de lin es , und er the Fi fth Am en dm en t, de pe nds. ” A ppe llant’ s Br
. a t 6. P inarg ote doe s no t c ont en d th at

he r ai se d a ny

suc h is sue be fo re the dis tr ic t c ourt, an d he concedes that under U

nit ed St at es v . F

ie lds , N o. 04-12486 , __ F. 3d __(11th Cir. 2005 ), “ the m er e fa ct

tha t P inar got e re ce ive d agui de lin e- m ini m um se nte nc e is ins uf fi ci en t t o m ee t hi s pl ai n e rr or bur de n. ” A ppe llant’ s S upp. L et te r Br
. a t 5. Th e Go v e rn men t a r g u e s t h a t P i n a r g o t e d i d n o t p r o p e r l y p r e s e rv e a n y Booker
ar gum en t be fo re thi s c ourt or the dis tr ic t cour

t. T he G ove rn m en t’ s posit ionis tha t t he3

ar g u m en tra i s ed i n h i s i n i t i al b r i ef wa s d es i g n ed t o at t ac kt h e d i s t ri ct co u rt ’s ap pli ca tio n of the m ino r ro le gui de lin e, but did not ad equa te ly ra ise an y se nte nc ing iss ue s or c onst itu tio na l ob

j ec tio ns i nvol vin g the Fi fth or Six th A m en dm en t i n r el at ion to Apprendi v. N

ew Je rsey , 530 U. S. 466, 120 S. Ct. 2 348 (200 0), or the district
co urt’ s auth or ity

to en ga ge in fa ct -f

ind ing
. A nd, in an y

e ve nt, be ca

use no Booker is su e was rai se d b efo re t he di st ric t co ur t, o urrev ie w wou ld on ly be fo r pl ai n e rro r. W e ag re e w ith the G ove rn m en t t ha t be ca use Pi na rg ote r ai se d no B ook er iss ue be fo re t he di st ric t co ur t o urrev ie w is on ly for p la in erro r. See U nited S tates v. Rodriguez , 39 8 F .3d12 91 , 12 98 (11 th Cir . 20 05 ). Und er p la in erro r rev ie w, Pi na rg ote be ar s th e bur de n of e sta bli shi ng ( 1) e rr or , ( 2) tha t is p la in, w hic h ( 3) a ff ec ts hi s su bs ta nt ia l ri gh ts
. Id
. If the se thr ee co ndi tio ns ar e m et , the c ourt m ay e xe rc ise it s dis cr et ionto not ic e a fo rf ei te d e rr or , but

onl y if ( 4) the error

se ri ousl y a ff ec ts the fai rn es s, i nt eg rit y , or pu bl ic rep ut at io n o f jud ic ia l p ro ceed in gs . Id
. T houg h P inarg ote
can li ke ly sati sf

y th e fi rs t t wo p ro ng s o f th is tes t, see Johnso n v. United States , 520 U
. S. 461 , 468 , 117 S
. Ct
. 154 4, 154 9 ( 1997 ), he cann ot d em onstra te tha t a ny e rr or affe cted his subs tantial rights because h e canno t poin t to any thing in the record w hich shows that he would have received a differe nt sentence b ut for th e m andatory nature of th e g ui de li ne s. See R odrig uez , 398 F
. 3d a t 13 01. O ur pr ev iou s de ci sio n a ff

irm ing D ef en da nt’ s c onvi ct iona nd s en te nc e is, the re fo re , r ei nst at ed
. JUDGMENT AF F I RM I N GC O N V I C TI O NAN D S ENTENCE REINSTAT ED.