FILED U.S. COURT OF AP P EALS E LEV EN T HC IRC U IT MAY 18 , 2006 THOMAS K. KAH

N 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- 11478 N on -A rgum entC al endar

________________________ D. C . Do c k e tNo . 0 3 - 6 0 1 7 9 - C R - KA M 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 N O E L Y O U N G , 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

_________________________ ( M ay 18, 2006) B efo re B A R K E T T , M A R C U S an d W IL S O N , C i rcu i tJu d g es. P E R C U R I A M: N oe l Y oung appe a l s hi s c onvi c t i ons a nd s e nt e nc e f or( 1) m a ki ng, pa s s i ng,2

a nd s e l l i ng c ount e r f

e i tc urr e nc y i n vi ol a t i on of 18 U . S . C . §§ 2 a nd 471- 73; ( 2) pos s e s s i ng doc um e nt - m a ki ng i m pl e m e nt s w i th the i nt e nttha tthe y be us e d t o m a ke f a l s e i de nt i f

i c a t i on doc um e nt s i n vi ol a t i on of 18 U . S . C . § 1028( a ) ( 5) ; a nd ( 3) be i ng af e l o n i n p o s s e s s i o n o f

af i r e a rm a n d a mmu n i t i o n , i n v i o l a t i o n o f 1 8 U . S. C. §§ 92 2(g)(1) and 92 4(a) (2). O n app ea l , Y ou ng ar gu es thatthe di stri ctcourterre d b y ( 1 ) d e n y in g h is m o tio n f o rju d g m e n t o f

a c q u itta l; ( 2 ) d e n y in g h is m o tio n to supp re ss evi dence; (3) denyi ng hi s m ot i on for m i stri al base d o n p rose cut ori al m is c o n d u c t; a n d ( 4 ) e n h a n c in g h is s e n te n c e b a s e d o n e x tr a - v e r d ic t f a c ts . W e a ddr e s s e a c h i s s ue i n turn.

I . MOT I ON F OR J UD GME NT OF AC QU I T T AL W e r e vi e w de novo the di s tr i c tc our t ’ s de ni a l of ade f e nda nt ’ s m ot i on f

or j ud gm entof ac qu i tt al . U ni t ed S t at es v. P er ez -T ost a, 36 F . 3d 15 52 , 15 56 (11th C i r. 1 9 9 4 ) . T o u p h o ld s u c h ad e n ia l, “th is C o u r t n e e d o n ly d e te rm in e th a t ar e a s o n ab le f a c t- f in d e rc o u ld c o n c lu d e th a t th e e v id e n c e e s tab lis h e d th e d e f e n d a n t’s g u ilt beyond a r ea sonabl e dou bt . ” U ni t ed S t at es v. P i st on e, 17 7 F . 3d 95 7, 95 8 (11 th C i r. 19 99 ). W e m ustvi ew al l re as on abl e i nfer ence s i n favor of the go vernm ent . P er ez T o s ta , 3 6 F .3 d a t 1 5 5 6 . A. COUN TE RF EI TI NG CHARGES W e co n cl u d e, b ased u p o n th e ev i d en ce i n th i s reco rd , t ak en i n th e l i g h tm o st3

f a vor abl e t o the gove rnm e nt , tha tar e a s onabl e f a c t - f i nde rc oul d c e r t a i nl y ha ve foun d Y ou ng gu i l ty of m aki ng , pass i ng , and sel l i ng coun t er fe i tcurr ency , or at l e a s t , of a i di ng a nd abe tt i ng s uc h c onduc t . T he e vi de nc e e s t abl i s he d m or e tha n one w i tness ’ s a cc ou ntof Y ou ng ’ s i nv ol vem enti n the offens e. F i rs t , U ni t ed S t at es S e c r e tS e rvi c e S pe c i a l A ge ntK e nne th M a nde r s on t e s t i f i e d a ttr i a l tha the ha d m a de anum be rof

pur c ha s e s of

c ount e r f e i tm one y f

r om Y oung a nd L e be r tw i th K e i no L ew i s ( “ K ei no ”) , a c on fi dent i al i nform ant , and thatL eberthad t ol d M anders on that he used Y ou ng ’ s m ac hi ne t o p ri ntthe coun t er fe i tbi l l s. S ec on d, K ei no t es t i fi ed at tr i a l tha the ha d obs e rve d Y oung m a ki ng the c ount e r f e i tm one y , a nd both Y oung a n d L e b e r t c u ttin g th e m o n e y , d u r in g ac o n tr o lle d p u r c h a s e o n J u ly 7 , 2 0 0 3 . S peci fi ca l l y, K ei no t es t i fi ed thathe ob se rved Y ou ng pri nt i ng m on eyfr om a pri nt er conn ec t ed t o a l apt op and cut t i ng the m on eyw i th sci ss ors. K ei no al so t es t i fi ed tha t , dur i ng a nothe rpur c ha s e , Y oung gota ngry be c a us e K e i no a nd M a nde r s on w e r e c ount i ng the c ount e r f e i tm one y i n publ i c , a nd Y oung t ol d K e i no nott o do th a t a g a in . T h ir d , L e b e r t te s tif ie d th a t h e a n d Y o u n g h a d b e e n m a k in g c o u n te r f e it m o n e y a n d id e n tif

ic a tio n d o c u m e n ts to g e th e r , a n d th a t Y o u n g ’s r o le w a s to h e lp c utthe c urr e nc y . L e be r ta l s o t e s t i f i e d tha tthe ba t c h of

c urr e nc y the y s ol d t o K e i no on Jul y 7 had b ee n p ri nt ed athi s apartm enton a pri nt erhe and Y ou ng had asked Y ou ng ’ s gi rl fr i end t o b uy for them . L ebertal so t es t i fi ed thathe and Y ou ng had4

m ad e th e c o u n terf

eit m o n ey in v o lv ed in an o th ertran sa ctio n w ith K ein o in Y o u n g ’s gi r l f r i e nd’ s apa r tm e nt , w he r e Y oung a l s o l i ve d. B ec ause the evi dence s uffi ci ent l y s up po rt s Y ou ng ’ s c on vi ct i on s, the di stri ct c o u r t d id n o t e rrin d e n y in g Y o u n g ’s m o tio n f o rju d g m e n t o f

a c q u itta l o n th is c h a r g e . B . DO C UME NT - MAKI NG I MP L E ME NT S C HA R GE Y o u n g a ls o a r g u e s th a t th e e v id e n c e w a s n o t s u f f ic ie n t to s u p p o r t h is c onvi c t i on f

oravi ol a t i on of

18 U . S . C . § 1028( a ) ( 5) be c a us e he onl y pos s e s s e d the E ltro n P 3 1 0 C ar d M ak erfo r th e leg it im ate p u rp o se o f u sin g itin h is fa th er ’s truc ki ng bus i ne s s . Y oung a l s o a s s e r t s tha tL e be r tt e s t i f i e d tha tY oung di d not k n o w th a t L e b e r t h a d m a d e f r a u d u le n t id e n tif

ic a tio n s a n d s o c ia l s e c u r ity c a r d s . T he evi dence does notsupp ortY ou ng ’ s a rgum entbecause L ebertt es t i fi ed th at, w h il e L eb er t an d Y o u n g in it iall y p u rc h as ed th e C ar d M ak erfo r Y o u n g ’s f a the r ’ s truc ki ng bus i ne s s , the y both us e d the de vi c e f ori l l e ga l purpos e s . Y oung di d n otpres entany e vi dence i n con tra di ct i on of L ebert ’ s t es t i m on y. E ven a s s u m in g th a t Y o u n g p o s s e s s e d th e E ltr o n P 1 3 0 C a r d M a k e rp u r e ly f o rle g itim a te purpos e s , Y oung f

a i l s t o a ddr e s s the m ount a i n of othe rdoc um e nt - m a ki ng i m pl e m e nt s tha tw e r e f

ound a thi s apa r tm e nt , i nc l udi ng: ( 1) s of tw a r e c apabl e of m aki ng coun t er fe i tm on ey ; (2) i m ages of pers on al si gn atures ; (3) graph i ca l fi l es5

r e p r e s e n tin g aF lo r id ad r iv e r ’s lic e n s e s tr ip ; ( 4 ) p h o to g r ap h s ; ( 5 ) s o f tw a r e c ap ab le of m a ki ng i de nt i f

i c a t i on c a r ds ; ( 6) i m a ge s of s oc i a l s e c ur i ty c a r ds ; a nd ( 7) abox of b la n k w h ite c a r d s u s e d to m a k e d r iv e r ’s lic e n s e s a n d I D ’s . B a s e d u p o n th is e vi de nc e , ar e a s onabl e f a c t - f i nde rc oul d ha ve f

ound Y oung gui l ty of

pos s e s s i ng

“ doc um e nt - m a ki ng i m pl e m e nt [ s ] . . . w i th the i nt e nts uc h doc um e nt - m a ki ng im p le m e n t[ s ] . . . w ill b e u s e d in th e p r o d u c tio n o f af a ls e id e n tif

ic a tio n d o c u m e n t . . . .” S e e 1 8 U .S .C . § 1 0 2 8 ( a ) ( 5 ) . A c c o r d in g ly , th e d is tr ic t c o u r t d id n o t e rrin d en yi n g Y o u n g ’ s m o t i o n fo r j u d g m en to f acq u i tt al o n th i s b asi s. C. FI RE ARM AN D A M M UN I TI ON CHARGES Y oung ne xta r gue s tha t , gi ve n the i nc ons i s t e nts t a t e m e nt s tha thi s gi r l f r i e nd, J a m i l i a h B r ow n, m a de t o pol i c e c onc e rni ng ow ne r s hi p of the f i r e a rm a nd a m m uni t i on, no r e a s onabl e j ur orc oul d ha ve r e l i e d on he rt e s t i m ony a s the ba s i s f or Y o u n g ’ s co n v i ct i o n s as t o co u n t s fi v e an d si x . Y o u n g assert s th at , b ecau se B row n’ s c on tra di ct ory t es t i m on y i s the on l y e vi dence t endi ng t o sho w thathe w as th e p o s s e s s o ro f

th e f ir e a rm , th e e v id e n c e is in s u f f ic ie n t to e s tab lis h h is g u ilt. H er e, w hi l e B row n adm i tt edl y provi ded fal se st at em ent s t o the po l i ce , Y ou ng ’ s c ou nsel cr oss- exam i ned h eron the t op i c of herfa l se st at em ent s. A ft er B r ow n ha d t e s t i f

i e d on di r e c ta nd Y oung’ s c ouns e l c r os s - e xa m i ne d he r , the ul t i m at e det erm i nat i on w i th regard t o h ercr edi bi l i ty w as l ef tt o the j ury. S ee6

P a rr a do, 911 F . 2d 1567, 1571 ( 11th C i r . 1990) ( “ C r e di bi l i ty de t e rm i na t i ons a r e the e xc l us i ve pr ovi nc e of

the j ury ” ) , c i t i ng U ni t e d S t a t e s v. H e w i tt , 663 F . 2d 1381, 1 3 8 5 ( 1 1 th C ir . 1 9 8 1 ) ( s ta tin g th a t th e ju ryis e n title d to b e lie v e th e g o v e rn m e n t's w itn e s s e s e v e n if

th e y c o n s is t o f

“a n a rr a y o f

s c o u n d r e ls , lia r s a n d b r ig a n d s ” ) . F i ndi ng tha tB r ow n m a de the f a l s e s t a t e m e nt s be c a us e of he rf e e l i ngs f orY oung and the pres sure she f

el tfr om Y ou ng t o l i e i s notan un re as on abl e c on cl usi on for a ju r o rto m a k e . M o r e o v e r , th e e v id e n c e th a t Y o u n g liv e d a t th e ap a r tm e n t, k e p t h is cl othes i n the cl oset , and h ad a key t o the apartm entdem on stra t es thatY ou ng had

“ the pow e ra nd i nt e nt i on t o e xe r c i s e dom i ni on orc ontr ol ” ove rthe f i r e a rm a nd a m m uni t i on c ont a i ne d i n the m a s t e rbe dr oom c l os e t . S e e U ni t e d S t a t e s v. G unn, 36 9 F . 3d 12 29 , 12 35 (11th C i r. 20 04 ). T here fore , because are as on abl e f ac t -f i nd er c o u ld d e te rm in e th a t th e e v id e n c e e s tab lis h e d Y o u n g ’s g u ilt b e y o n dar e a s o n ab le doubt , the di s tr i c tc our tdi d note rri n de ny i ng Y oung’ s m ot i on f orj udgm e ntof a c q u itta l. I I . M O TI O N TO SU PPRESS Y o u n g a ls o a r g u e s th a t th e d is tr ic t c o u r t e rr e d in d e n y in g h is m o tio n to s uppr e s s be c a us e the w a rr a nti s s ue d t o s e a r c h hi s apa r tm e ntw a s nots uppor t e d by p r o b ab le c a u s e . Y o u n g c o n te n d s th a t, a t th e tim e o f th e is s u a n c e o f

th e w a rr a n t, the r e w a s uns ubs t a nt i a t e d e vi de nc e tha tL e be r tha d e nt e r e d apa r tm e nt#1805We reviewthe district court’s denial of a motion to suppres s un d era mix ed standa rd, 1 reviewingqu e sti on s o f f

a c t forc le ar error

and thedis tric t c ourt ’sa

pp lic atio n o f l aw to th os efac ts de novo. United States v. Jim inez, 224 F.3d 1243, 1247 (11th Cir. 2000). 7 (Y ou ng ’ s apartm ent ) w hi l e the po l i ce w er e s urvei l l i ng L ebert . Y ou ng further a s s e r ts th a t th e p o lic e c o u ld n o t b e s u r e th a t L e b e r t e x ite d ap a r tm e n t # 1 8 0 5 o n h is w a y t o c om pl e t e the f

r a udul e nti de nt i f

i c a t i on c a r d tr a ns a c t i on. Y oung thus m a in ta in s th a t, b a s e d o n th e to ta lity o f th e c ir c u m s ta n c e s , th e d is tr ic t c o u r t s h o u ld h av e g ran t ed h i s m o t i o n t o su p p ress. 1 I n thi s c a s e , the a f

f i da vi tf orthe s e a r c h w a rr a nt , w hi c h S pe c i a l A ge ntF r e und pr e pa r e d, i ndi c a t e d tha tthe of f i c e r s w e r e a w a r e of

the f ol l ow i ng i nf

orm a t i on a tthe t i m e of the af

fi davi t : (1) K ei no , the confi dent i al i nform anti n thi s c as e, had m et w i th L ebertand Y ou ng t o exchang e c ou nt er fe i tcurr ency ; (2) Y ou ng w as at L e be r t ’ s apa r tm e ntw he n L e be r tga ve K e i no the c ount e r f e i tc urr e nc y ; ( 3) Y oung a c c e pt e d the ge nui ne c urr e nc y i n e xc ha nge f orthe c ount e r f

e i tc urr e nc y ; ( 4) K e i no m e t w ith Y o u n g a n d L e b e r t o n a n o th e ro c c a s io n to a g a in tr a n s f e rc o u n te r f

e it c urr e nc y ; ( 5) of

f i c e r s w i tne s s e d L e be r te nt e r i ng I nve rr a ry G a r de ns apa r tm e nt co m p l ex an d L eb ertl at er i n fo rm ed o ffi cers th ath e h ad b een m ak i n g fal se i dent i fi ca t i on s a tan apartm entw i thi n the com pl ex; (6) a ft erL ebert ’ s a rr es t , L ebert t o l d o ffi cers th atY o u n g ’ s ap artm en tw as l o cat ed at4 2 0 0 In v errary G ard en s, A pa r tm e nt#1805, a nd tha tL e be r tha d m a de f r a udul e nti de nt i f

i c a t i ons the r e ; a ndSpecifically , Youngobjects to the followingredire ct examination of Brown: 2 Q: Now, the f

ourth statement that you g ave on J anuar y 13 , when you said that you th had no idea

about the gun at the re sidenceand you didn’t know who the gun b e l o n g e d t o , th o s ew erel i e s , w eren ’ tth ey? A: Ye s, c or

re c t. Q: And ag ain you were still trying to protect your boyfriend? A: Ye s. Q: Be causeyou stillwere see ing him at the jail, weren’t you? 8 ( 7 ) L e b e r t to ld o f

f ic e r s th a t th e id e n tif

ic a tio n - m a k in g e q u ip m e n t b e lo n g e d to Y o u n g a n d w a s lo c a te d a t Y o u n g ’s ap a r tm e n t. C ons i de r i ng a l l the i nf

orm a t i on tha tS pe c i a l A ge ntF r e und s ubm i tt e d t o the c o u r t in th e a f

f id a v it f o rth e s e a r c h w a rr a n t, a n d in lig h t o f th e f a c t th a t Y o u n g o n ly c ha l l e nge s the s urve i l l a nc e i s s ue on appe a l , i ti s c l e a rtha t“ the t ot a l i ty of the c i r c um s t a nc e s a l l ow ac onc l us i on tha tthe r e [ w a s ] af a i rpr obabi l i ty of

f i ndi ng c ontr aba nd ore vi de nc e ” a tY oung’ s apa r tm e nt . U ni t e d S t a t e s v. B rundi dge , 170 F .3 d 1 3 5 0 , 1 3 5 2 ( 1 1 th C ir . 1 9 9 9 ) . T h u s , th e d is tr ic t c o u r t d id n o t e rrin d e te rm in in g th a t p r o b ab le c a u s e s u p p o r te d th e s e a r c h w a rr a n t. I I I . MOT I ON F OR MI S T R I AL Y o u n g a r g u e s o n ap p e a l th a t th e d is tr ic t c o u r t ab u s e d its d is c r e tio n in denyi ng Y ou ng ’ s m ot i on for am i stri al . Y ou ng cont ends thatthe prosecut or’ s a ct o f q u e s tio n in g B r o w n c o n c e rn in g Y o u n g ’s c u s to d ia l s ta tu s w a rr a n te d am is tr ia l. 2 Y ou ng m ai nt ai ns thatthe prosecut or’ s s t at em ent , thatY ou ng w as i n cust od y, “ had no re l evance and w as extre m el y pre j ud i ci al . ”9

W e r e vi e w the di s tr i c tc our t ’ s de ni a l of am ot i on f

orm i s tr i a l f

orabus e of d is c r e tio n . U n ite d S ta te s v . K n o w le s , 6 6 F .3 d 1 1 4 6 , 1 1 6 3 ( 1 1 th C ir . 1 9 9 5 ) . W e w ill r e v e r s e ad e f

e n d a n t’s c o n v ic tio n o n th e b a s is o f p r o s e c u to r ia l m is c o n d u c t o n ly w he r e the pr os e c ut or ’ s r e m a rks w e r e “ ( 1) i m pr ope ra nd ( 2) pr e j udi c e d the de f e nda nt ’ s s ubs t a nt i ve r i ght s . ” U ni t e d S t a t e s v. H e rna nde z , 145 F . 3d 1433, 1438 ( 1 1 th C ir . 1 9 9 8 ) ; s e e a ls o U n ite d S ta te s v . A b r a h a m , 3 8 6 F .3 d 1 0 3 3 , 1 0 3 6 ( 1 1 th C i r. 20 04 ) ( expl ai ni ng thatprosec ut ori al m i sc on du ctre qu i re s are vers al of a defe nd ant ’ s c on vi ct i on on l y w here the defendant ’ s s ub st ant i al ri gh t s w er e p r e ju d ic e d “in th e c o n te x t o f th e e n tir e tr ia l in lig h t o f a n y c u r a tiv e in s tru c tio n ” ) .

“ In o rd er t o assess th e p rej u d i ci al i m p acto f a p ro secu t o r’ s st at em en t s, w e m u st eval uat e them i n the cont extof the tri al as a w ho l e a nd as se ss thei r probabl e i m pact on the j ury . ” H e rna nde z , 145 F . 3d a t1438. In thi s c as e, w hi l e Y ou ng m ai nt ai ns thatthe prosecut or’ s c om m entw as p r e ju d ic ia l, h e f

a ils to in d ic a te p r e c is e ly h o w th e c o m m e n t p r e ju d ic e d h is s ubs t a nt i a l r i ght s a s t o w a rr a ntam i s tr i a l . G i ve n the ove rw he l m i ng e vi de nc e of Y o u n g ’s g u il t, m en ti o n ed ab o v e, itis u n clea r in w h at m an n erth e p ro se cu to r’s c o m m e n t th a t Y o u n g h a d b e e n in c a r c e r a te d c o u ld h a v e im p a c te d th e ju ry s o th a t it w ou l d h ave been i ncl i ned t o fi nd Y ou ng gu i l ty r egar dl es s of the other e vi dence. In othe rw or ds , Y oung ha s note s t abl i s he d tha t , butf orthe pr os e c ut or ’ s r e m a rk, the10

j ury w oul d ha ve f

ound hi m notgui l ty . N o m e nt i on of Y oung’ s c us t odi a l s t a tus w a s a ga i n m a de by the pr os e c ut orora ny w i tne s s . F ur the r , Y oung de c l i ne d the c our t ’ s of

f e rt o pr ovi de ac ur a t i ve i ns truc t i on t o the j ury . B a s e d on the f or e goi ng, th e d is tr ic t c o u r t d id n o t e rrin d e n y in g Y o u n g ’s m o tio n f o ram is tr ia l. I V. SE NTENCE ENHA NCEM ENTS Y oung a r gue s tha tthe di s tr i c tc our tvi ol a t e d hi s F i f th a nd S i xth A m e ndm e nt r ig h ts b y e n h a n c in g h is s e n te n c e b a s e d o n f a c ts th a t w e r e n e ith e rc h a r g e d in h is i nd i ctm entno r f

ou nd by a j ury. Y ou ng spec i fi ca l l y a rgues thathi s s ent ence e nha nc e m e nt s ba s e d on ( 1) hi s obs truc t i on of j us t i c e , ( 2) the f

a c e va l ue of

the c ount e r f e i tc urr e nc y i nvol ve d i n the c r i m e t ot a l i ng be tw e e n $30, 000 a nd $70, 000, and (3) the offens e i nv ol vi ng betw ee n 2 5 and 99 coun t er fe i tdo cum ent s, vi ol at ed the rul es se tforth i n B l akel y v. W as hi ng t on , 54 2 U . S . 29 6 (20 04 ), and U ni t ed S ta te s v . B o o k e r , 5 4 3 U .S . 2 2 0 , 1 2 5 S .C t. 7 3 8 ( 2 0 0 5 ) . Y ou ng prop er l y pre se rved hi s c l ai m i n the di stri ctcourtby obj ec t i ng un der B l a ke l y a nd B ooke rt o the di s tr i c tc our t ’ s us e of f a c t s f ound by apr e ponde r a nc e of the e vi de nc e t o e nha nc e hi s s e nt e nc e . S e e U ni t e d S t a t e s v. D ow l i ng, 403 F . 3d 12 42 , 12 45 -46 (11 th C i r. ) ( expl ai ni ng the w ay s a n app el l antca n p re se rve aB oo ker c l a i m ) . S i n c e Yo u n g t i m e l y r a i s e d aB o o k e ro b j e c t i o n i n th e d i s tr i c tc o u r t , we re vi ew the cl ai m on appeal de no vo , bu tre vers e onl y f or harm ful error. S ee U ni t ed11

S ta te s v . P a z , 4 0 5 F .3 d 9 4 6 , 9 4 8 ( 1 1 th C ir . 2 0 0 5 ) . In B oo ker, the S up re m e C ou rthel d thatthe F eder al S ent enci ng G ui del i nes v io la te th e S ix th A m e n d m e n t r ig h t to atr ia l b y ju ry to th e e x te n t th a t th e y p e rm it a j udge t o i nc r e a s e ade f

e nda nt ' s s e nt e nc e ba s e d on f a c t s tha ta r e ne i the rf

ound by the ju ry n o ra d m itte d b y th e d e f e n d a n t. B o o k e r , 5 4 3 U .S . a t 2 4 4 . T o r e m e d y th is vi ol at i on , the C ou rtexci se d tw o speci fi c provi si on s of the S ent enci ng R ef orm A ct o f 1 9 8 4 , th e r e b y r e n d e r i n g th e g u i d e l i n e s “ e f f e c t i v e l y a d v i s o ry . ” I d . a t2 4 5 - 4 6 . As a r es ul t , a s ent enci ng courtm ustst i l l “ consi der G ui del i nes r anges, ” buti tm ay “ta ilo rth e s e n te n c e in lig h t o f o th e rs ta tu to ry c o n c e rn s a s w e ll.” I d . a t 2 4 5 - 4 6 . In R od ri gu ez , w e c l ar i fi ed thatB oo ker e rr or “ i s notthatthere w er e extra -ver di ctenhancem ent s - enhancem ent s bas ed on fa ct s f ou nd by the j ud ge that w e r e n o t a d m itte d b y th e d e f e n d a n t o re s tab lis h e d b y th e ju ry v e r d ic t - th a t le d to an i ncre as e i n the defendant ' s s ent ence . T he error i s thatthere w er e e xtra -ver di ct e nha nc e m e nt s us e d i n am a nda t ory gui de l i ne s s y s t e m . ” R odr i gue z , 398 F . 3d 1291, 13 00 (200 5) (e m ph as i s a dd ed). W e f urther e xp l ai ned that“ the use of e xtra -ver di ct enhancem ent s i n an adv i sorygu i del i nes s ys t em i s notun const i tut i on al . ” I d. at 1301; s e e a l s o U ni t e d S t a t e s v. C ha u, 426 F . 3d 1318, 1323- 24 ( 11th C i r . 2005) ( h o ld in g th a t “[ n ]o th in g in B o o k e ris to th e c o n tr a ry ” o f ad is tr ic t c o u r t d e c is io n to ba s e s e nt e nc e e nha nc e m e nt s , unde ra n a dvi s ory gui de l i ne s s c he m e , on f a c t s f ound12

b y ap r e p o n d e r a n c e o f

th e e v id e n c e th a t w e r e n o t c h a r g e d in th e in d ic tm e n t) . Y ou ng ’ s c hal l enge t o h i s s ent ence on appeal i s thatthe di stri ctcourtvi ol at ed B o o k e ra n d Y o u n g ’s c o n s titu tio n a l r ig h ts b y e n h a n c in g h is s e n te n c e b a s e d o n f a c ts n o tc h a r g e d i n h i s i n d i c tm e n to rf o u n d b e y o n d ar e a s o n ab l e d o u b tb y aj u ry . At s e nt e nc i ng, the di s tr i c tc our ta dopt e d the P S I ’ s appl i c abl e gui de l i ne s r a nge ca lcu lati o n . N o th in g in B o o k erp re clu d ed th e c o u rt fr o m fin d in g th at th e P S I’s e nha nc e m e nt s w e r e s uppor t e d by apr e ponde r a nc e of the e vi de nc e . S e e C ha u, 426 F . 3d at13 24 . T he courtthen exp l i ci t l y r ec og ni ze d thatthe gu i del i nes w er e a d v i s o ry a n d c o n s i d e r e d o th e rs e n t e n c i n g f a c t o r s , a s ma n d a t e d i n 1 8 U . S. C. § 3 55 3(a) . T hu s, the di stri ctcourtdi d n oterr i n enh anci ng Y ou ng ’ s s ent ence base d o n ex tra-v erd i ctfact s. 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 s c e rn no r e ve r s i bl e e rr or . A c c or di ngl y , w e a f f i rm Y oung’ s c onvi c t i ons a nd se nt ence . AF F I RME D.