FI LED U. S . COURT OF AP PE ALS E L E V E N T H C IR C U IT June 26, 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- 15730 N on -A rgum entC al endar

________________________ D. C . Do c k e tNo . 0 3 - 0 0 4 4 1 - C R - T - 1 7 - E AJ 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 A N D R E R U S S E L L S I M M O N S , 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 M i ddl e D i s tr i c tof F l or i da

_________________________ ( Ju n e 26, 2006) B efo re T JO F L A T , D U B IN A an d H U L L , C i rcu i tJu d g es. P E R C U R I A M: A pp el l antA nd re R usse l l S i m m on s app ea l s hi s 77-m on th sent ence , i m po se d2

a tr e - s e nt e nc i ng f

orpos s e s s i on of

af i r e a rm by ac onvi c t e d f

e l on, i n vi ol a t i on of

18 U . S . C . §§ 92 2(g)(1) and 92 4(a) (2). O n app ea l , S i m m on s argues thatthe di stri ct c our te rr e d i n appl y i ng af our - l e ve l e nha nc e m e ntunde rU . S . S . G . § 2K 2. 1( b) ( 5) w he n hi s pos s e s s i on of

the f i r e a rm w a s m e r e l y i nc i de nt a l t o, not“ i n c onne c t i on w i th, ” a nothe rf

e l ony of f e ns e . S i m m ons a l s o a r gue s tha t , be c aus e the S e nt e nc i ng G u id e lin e s c r e a te d le g a lly b in d in g m a x im u m s e n te n c e s w h e n h e c o m m itte d h is of f e ns e , hi s s e nt e nc e c oul d be no hi ghe rtha n the m a xi m um s e nt e nc e pr ovi de d f or unde rthe gui de l i ne s a nd ba s e d on onl y the f a c t s tha tw e r e c ha r ge d i n the i nd i ctm ent . S i m m on s f urther a rgues thatthe re troac t i ve appl i ca t i on of the advi sory gui de l i ne s vi ol a t e d hi s due pr oc e s s r i ght s a nd ex p o s t fa c to p r in c ip le s . I. W e “ r e vi e w [ ] the di s tr i c tc our t ’ s appl i c a t i on a nd i nt e rpr e t a t i on of the se nt enci ng gu i del i nes und era de no vo s t a nda r d of r e vi e w , butr e vi e w [ ] i t s f i ndi ngs of fa ctfor c l ea r e rr or. ” U ni te d State s v . R hi nd , 289 F . 3d 690, 693 ( 11th C i r . 2002) ( c ita tio n o m itte d ) . A d is tr ic t c o u r t m a y u s e f a c ts a d m itte d b y ad e f

e n d a n t to e n h a n c e h is s e n te n c e . U ni te d State s v . She l ton , 40 0 F . 3d 13 25 , 13 30 (11th C i r. 20 05 ). A pp l yi ng the advi sorygu i del i nes, a di stri ctcourtm ayuse aprepon dera nce of the e vi de nc e s t a nda r d t o m a ke f a c tua l f i ndi ngs be y ond the c ha r ge s i n the in d ic tm e n t o rad e f

e n d a n t’s a d m is s io n s . U ni te d State s v . Chau , 426 F . 3d 1318,3

1 3 2 4 ( 1 1 th C ir . 2 0 0 5 ) . S e c t i on § 2K 2. 1( b) ( 5) pr ovi de s f oraf our - l e ve l e nha nc e m e nt“ [ i ] f the de f e nda nt. . . pos s e s s e d a ny f i r e a rm . . . i n c onne c t i on w i th a nothe rf e l ony of f e ns e . ” U . S . S . G . § 2K 2. 1( b) ( 5) . T hi s s e c t i on of the gui de l i ne s doe s notde f i ne the ph ra se “ i n con nect i on w i th. ” See U . S . S . G . § 2 K 2. 1, com m ent . (n. 1). A di stri ct court ’ s det erm i nat i on thata f i re arm w as po ss es se d “ i n con nect i on w i th” another f e lo n y o f f e n s e is af

a c tu a l o n e . See U

n ite d S ta te s v . W

h itfie ld , 50 F . 3d 947, 949 & n. 8 ( 11th C i r . 1995) . W e ha ve r e f us e d t o a doptam or e r e s tr i c t i ve appr oa c h of in te rp r e tin g “in c o n n e c tio n w ith ” u s e d in o th e rc o u r ts . U ni te d State s v . Y

oung , 115 F .3 d 8 3 4 , 8 3 7 - 3 8 ( 1 1 th C ir . 1 9 9 7 ) . W e h a v e c o n s id e r e d th e d e f in itio n o f “in c onne c t i on w i th” i n othe rs e c t i ons of the gui de l i ne s a nd ha ve de t e rm i ne d tha tthe p h r a s e “ me r e l y r e f

l e c t s th e c o n t e x to f

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

th e f i r e a rm” and the fi re arm “ do es no thave t o fac i l i t at e the un derl yi ng offe nse. ” R hi nd , 289 F . 3 d a t6 9 5 ( c i t a t i o n s o m i tt e d ) . T h e e n h a n c e m e n tm a y b e ap p l i e d wh e n th e two f e lo n y o f f e n s e s a r e f

o rd if f e r e n t c o n d u c t, b u t a r e c o m m itte d c o n te m p o r a n e o u s ly . U ni te d State s v . J

ac k s on , 27 6 F . 3d 12 31 , 12 34 (11th C i r. 20 01 ). A f te rr e v ie w in g th e r e c o r d , w e c o n c lu d e th a t th e d is tr ic t c o u r t d id n o t e rrin m a k in g th e f

a c tu a l f in d in g th a t S im m o n s p o s s e s s e d af ir e a rm in c o n n e c tio n w ith a rm e d tr e s p a s s in g , n o rin ap p ly in g af o u r - le v e l e n h a n c e m e n t u n d e r§ 2 K 2 .1 ( b ) ( 5 ) .4 I I . W h e n ad e f

e n d a n t r a is e s a n d th e n k n o w in g ly w ith d r a w s a n o b je c tio n to h is s e n te n c e , w e d e e m th e o b je c tio n w a iv e d a n d w ill n o t r e v ie w it o n ap p e a l. U ni ted S ta tes v. M

a sters , 11 8 F . 3d 15 24 , 15 26 (11th C i r. 19 97 ). “ T he do ctri ne of i nv i t ed error i s i m pl i ca t ed w hen a party i nd uces or i nv i t es the di stri ctcourti nt o m aki ng an e rr or . W he r e i nvi t e d e rr ore xi s t s , i tpr e c l ude s ac our tf r om i nvoki ng the pl a i n e rr or rul e and re vers i ng . ” U

n i ted S ta tes v. S i lvestri , 40 9 F . 3d 13 11 , 13 27 -28 (11 th C i r. ), ce rt. deni ed , 1 2 6 S . C t. 7 7 2 ( 2 0 0 5 ) ( c ita tio n a n d q u o ta tio n o m itte d ) . W e have hel d that“ the use of e xtra -ver di ctenhancem ent s i n an adv i sory gu i del i nes s ys t em i s notun const i tut i on al . ” U ni ted Stat es v. R odri

gu ez , 398 F . 3d 12 91 , 13 01 (11th C i r. ) ce rt. deni ed , 1 2 5 S . C t. 2 9 3 5 ( 2 0 0 5 ) . W e h a v e a ls o h e ld tha tthe r e tr oa c t i ve appl i c a t i on of the r e m e di a l hol di ng i n B oo ke rd o e s n o t v io la te ex p o st fa c to p r in c ip le s . U ni te d State s v . D unc an , 4 0 0 F .3 d 1 2 9 7 , 1 3 0 7 - 0 8 ( 1 1 th C ir .) , ce rt. deni ed , 12 6 S . C t . 43 2 (20 05 ). W e c o n c lu d e f

r o m th e r e c o r d th a t, a s S im m o n s s p e c if ic a lly w ith d r e w h is B la ke ly obj ec t i on atthe re -s ent enci ng hear i ng , he has w ai ved any const i tut i on al e rr orba s e d on B la ke ly , a nd w e w i l l notr e vi e w tha ti s s ue . A l s o, S i m m ons s ought re -s ent enci ng i n l i gh tof B oo ke r , a nd, thus , i nvi t e d the e rr orof w hi c h he now c om pl a i ns c onc e rni ng r e tr oa c t i ve appl i c a t i on. M or e ove r , w e a r e bound by pr i or5

prec edentho l di ng thatthe use of e xtra -ver di ctenhancem ent s i n an adv i sory gui de l i ne s s y s t e m s i s notunc ons t i tut i ona l a nd tha tthe r e tr oa c t i ve appl i c a t i on of the r e m e di a l hol di ng i n B oo ke rdo es no tvi ol at e ex p o s t fa c to p ri n ci p l es. A cco rd i n g l y, w e a ff i rm S i m m on s’ s 77-m on th sent ence . A FFI R M ED .