### FI LED U.S. COURT O F APP EALS ELEVENTH CIRCUIT J uly 07, 20 05 THO MAS K. KAH N CL ERK [DO NOT PUBLISH] IN THE UN ITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FO R T HE EL EV EN TH CIRC UI T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- 1593 3 Non-A rgum ent Calendar

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ D. C. Docket N o. 04-00282 -CR- CAP -1-1 UNITED STAT ES OF AMERIC A, Pl ai nt iff -Ap pe ll ee, ve rs us MARLENE ALVARADO, Defen da nt -Ap pe ll an t.

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ Appeal f rom the United State s District Court fo r the N orthe rnD istri ct

of G eo rg ia

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ _ (J ul y 7, 200 5) Be fo re CA RN E S, MA RC U S an d W IL SO N , Ci rc uit Jud ge s. PE R CU RIA M: Marl en e A lvara do a

ppe al s he r 46- m onth se nte nc e fo r ill eg al ly r ee nte ri ng the Uni te d S ta te s af

te r be in g d ep or te d, i n v io la ti on of 8 U.S.C. § 1 32 6( a) an d (b )(2 ).2

On appeal, Alvar ado argues that, in light of United States v. B ooker , 543 U . S. ___ , 125 S. Ct
. 738 ( 2005 ), the dis tr ic t c ourt e rr ed by im posi ng a 16- le ve l e nhanc em en t to he r of fen se lev el un de r th e Fed eral Sen te nc in g Gu id el in es , pu rs ua nt to U.S.S.G. § 2L1.2(b)( 1)(A )(i), based on a finding that she previous ly had been deported after
a co nvi ct ionf

or af el ony that i s adr

ug tra ff ic kin g of fe nse , w he n th is f

ac t w as not ch ar ge d inthe ind ic tm en t, a dm itt ed to by he r, or pr ove n to aj ur

y be y ond a re as ona ble doubt. A lvara do a lso a rg ue s th at the dis tr ic t c ourt e rr ed

by se nte nc ing h e r u n d e r aman d a t o ry g u i d e l i n e s s ys t e m. W e have explained that there ar e tw o ty pes of Booker

e rr or : ( 1) aS ixth Am endm ent error

–that is, im

posin g a sentencing enhancem ent based on judicial f i n d i n g s t h a tg o b e yo n dt h e f a c t s a d mi t t e d

b y th e d e f

e n d a n to r f o u n db y th e ju ry; and (2) statutory

err or–being sentenced under a sentencing gui delines schem e that is m an da to ry . U

nit ed Sta tes v . She lto n , 400 F. 3d 13 25, 1330– 31 (11th Cir. 2005 ). I. S ixth A m en dm en t E rr or Beca use Alvara do raised a constitut ional ob j ection to her sentence before the dis tr ic t c ourt ba se d on B lak el y v. W ashi ngt on , 542 U . S. __, 124 S
. Ct
. 253 1 (2004), w e re view the constitutio nal issue de novo , but w ill reverse only for a ha rm fu l erro r. U

nit ed Sta tes v . P az , 405 F. 3d 94 6, 948 (11th Cir. 2005). Co nst itu tio na l e rr or

m ust be dis re gard ed

if the e rr or is harm le ss b ey ond a3

reas on ab le do ub t. U

nit ed Sta tes v . Ca nde lar io , 240 F. 3d 13 00, 1307 (11t h Cir. 2001 ). I n th e ins tant c as e, w e fi nd n o c onst itu tio na l B ook er er ro r, so w e ne ed

not re ac h w he the r the e rr or

is harm le ss b ey ond a re as ona ble doubt. In Booker , the S upr em e Co urt “ le ft und ist ur be d it s ho ldi ng i n [ Alm endarez-Torres v. U

nited Sta tes , 523 U . S. 224 , 227 , 118 S
. Ct
. 121 9, 123 3 (1 998) ] , that r ec idi vis m

is not ase parate e le m en t of

a n of fe nse that the go ve rn m en t i s re qu ire d t o p ro ve be y on d a reas on ab le do ub t.” U nited Sta tes v. Orduno-Mireles , 405 F. 3d 96 0, 962 (11th Cir. 2005). Mor eover, the Court
re af fi rm ed A ppre ndi ’ s hold ing th at “ [a] ny fac t (other than a prior conviction),
w hic h is ne ce ssary

to supp ort a

se nte nc e ex ce ed ing the m ax im um auth or iz ed

by the f ac ts e sta bli she d by

aple a of gui lty or aj ur y ve rd ic t m

ust be a dm itt ed

by the defendant or proved to a jur y bey ond a reasonable doub t.” Id
. A cc or din gly , in Orduno-Mireles w e obse rv ed that “ the Co urt’ s ho ldi ng i n Boo ker
. . . is not im plicated when a def

endant’ s sentence is enhanced based on a prior convictio n.” Id
. T o th e ex te nt tha t the S upr em e Co urt’ s r ec en t de ci sio n in She pard ar gua

bly unde rm ine d Alm endarez-Torres , t h a td e c i s i o n d o e s n o tu n d e rmi n e o u r o u t c o me he re. See Shepard

v. United States , __ U . S. __, 125 S
. Ct
. 125 4 ( 2005 ). A lvara do did not dis put e he r pr ior

c onvi ct ion
. A cc or din gly , the se nte nc ing c ourt di d no t4

res ol ve di sp ut edfact s, b ut ba se d i ts sen te nc e o n a dm it te d fa ct s. Se e She pard , 125 S. Ct
. a t 12 63; se e als o U nit ed Sta tes v . B urge , 407 F. 3d 11 83, 1191 (11t h Cir. 2005 ); She lto n , 400 F. 3d at 133 0. T herefor e, in this case, w e ar e not presented with an opportun ity

to determ ine the im

plications and reac h of She pard
. Beca use Alm endarez-Torres rem ains goo d law a fter Booker , a nd b ec au se A lvara do’ s se nte nc e w as e nhanc ed onl y ba se d onthe f

ac ts o f he r pr ior

c onvi ct ion , we hold th at there w as no Sixth Am endm ent violatio n when the district court
en ha nc edAlv arad o’s s en te nc e p ur su an t t o U.S.S.G. § 2L1 .2(b )(1 )(A)(i ). See Orduno-Mireles , 405 F . 3d at 96 2. II . S ta tut or

y E rr or A lth oughthe dis tr ic t c ourt di d no t vi olate the S ixth A m en dm en t i n s e n t e n c i n g Al v a r a d o , i td i dc o mm i tas t a tu t o ry B ook er er ro r. D ue to the na tur e of the S upr em e Co urt’ s Booker rem edy , w e have concluded that a district court has
co m m itt ed Booker

err or whenever

it sentences a defe ndant un der a m andatory gu id el in es sch em e, ev en in th e ab se nc e o f a Si xt h Am en dm en t erro r. She lto n , 400 F. 3d at 13 30–3 1. Whe n an e rr or

is nonc onst itu tio na l, it

is harm le ss i f it doe s no t a ff ec t the
su bs ta nt ia l ri gh ts of t he pa rti es . See 28 U
. S. C. § 21 11; U nit ed Sta tes v . G uzm an , 167 F.3d 135 0, 1353 (11th Cir. 1999 ). “ [A ] noncon stitut ional error r equires5

re ve rs al onl y

if it r es ult ed in ac tua l pr ej udi ce be ca

use it ha d su bst an tia l and injurious effe ct.” G uzm an , 167 F . 3d at 13 53 ( int er na l qu otatio ns and c itatio n om itt ed ). T he gov er

nm en t be ar s th e bur de n of sho w ing that the e rr or

did not affe ctAlv arad o’s s ub st an ti al rig ht s. U nit ed Sta tes v . F

ern , 155 F . 3d 1 318, 132 7 (1 1thCi r. 199 8)
. “ T he non -c onst itu tio na l harm le ss e rr or standard is not e as y f or the governm ent to m eet. ” U nit ed Sta tes v . M

ath en ia , __F . 3d__ , N o. 04- 1525 0, 2005 W L 1201455 at *2 (11th Cir. May 23, 2005). H ere, the governm ent has fai le d t o m eetit s b ur de n. First, the governm ent concedes in its brief that there w as a statutory err or, and therefore, does not even attem pt to m eet its burden to sh ow that the er ror w as harm less. S econd, a r eview of the rec ord reveals no indication of w hat sentence the district court would have im posed hadit known the Guidelines were advisory only
. Ac cordingly , bec ause “ [w ] e sim ply do not know what the sentencing court
w oul d have don e, ” the gov er nm en t ha s no t m et

it s burd ento showthat the e rr or w as harm le ss, w e va cate A lvara do’ s se nte nc e an d r em an d to the dis tr ic t c ourt f or res en te nc in g. Se e U

nit ed Sta tes v . D av is , 40 7 F .3d12 69 , 12 71 (11 th Cir . 20 05 ). Fo r the f or eg oin g r ea sons , w e V A CA T E A lvara do’ s se nte nc e an d R E M A N D t o t h e d i s t r i c tc o u rtf

o r r e - s e n t e n c i n g c o n s i s t e n tw i t h t h e S up r e me Co urt’ s de ci sio n in Booker
. SENTE NCE VACATED and REMANDED.