FILED U.S. COURT OF AP P E A LS E LE V EN T HC IRC U IT SEPTEMBER 8, 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. 06- 11394 N on -A rgum entC al endar

________________________ D . C. D o c k e tN o . 0 5 - 0 0 0 8 5 - CR- FTM - 2 9 - SPC 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 R A M I R O H E RN A N D E Z , 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

_________________________ ( S e p t e m b e r 8, 2006) B efo re A N D E R S O N , B IR C H an d D U B IN A , C i rcu i tJu d g es. P E R C U R I A M: A ppe l l a ntR a m i r o H e rna nde z appe a l s hi s 18- m onth s e nt e nc e f orpos s e s s i onThis violation is punishable up to five year s imprisonment. See Fla. Stat. §§ 775.082(3) (d), 1 796.05(1). This violation is punishable up to 10 year s imprisonment. See18 U.S.C. § 2424(a). 2 2 of a f i r e a r m by a n i l l e ga l a l i e n, i n vi ol a t i on of 18 U . S . C . §§ 922( g) ( 5) a nd 924( a ) ( 2) , a tt a c ki ng the di s tr i c tc our t ’ s appl i c a t i on of a f our - l e ve l s e nt e nc i ng enhancem ent , pu rs uantt o U . S . S . G . § 2 K 2. 1(b)(5), for use or po ss es si on of a f i r e a r m i n c onne c t i on w i th tw o othe rf e l ony of f e ns e s , na m e l y : ( 1) “ de r i v[ i ng] s uppor torm a i nt e na nc e i n w hol e ori n pa r tf r om w ha ti s be l i e ve d t o be the e a rni ngs or proceeds of s uch p er son’ s prost i tut i on , ” i n v i ol at i on of F l a. S t at . § 7 96 . 05 (1); 1 a nd ( 2) f a i l i ng t o f

i l e a w r i tt e n s t a t e m e ntw i th the C om m i s s i one rof the Im m ig ra ti o n an d N atu ra li za ti o n S er v ice ( “IN S ”) w ith in fiv e d ay s o f “k ee p [in g ], m a i nt a i n[ i ng] , c ontr ol [ l i ng] , s uppor t [ i ng] , orha rbor [ i ng] i n a ny hous e orpl a c e f or the purpos e of

pr os t i tut i on . . . a ny i ndi vi dua l , know i ng ori n r e c kl e s s di s r e ga r d of the fa ctthatthe i nd i vi du al i s a n al i en, ” i n v i ol at i on of 18 U . S . C . § 2 42 4(a) . 2 O n appe a l , H e rna nde z a r gue s tha tthe di s tr i c tc our tc l e a r l y e rr e d i n f i ndi ng tha tthe s hot gun he pos s e s s e d w a s i nvol ve d i n the othe rf e l oni e s be c a us e : ( 1) he w a s nots how n t o ha ve a c tua l l y ga i ne d e a rni ngs , s uppor t , orm a i nt e na nc e f r om pr os t i tut i on, a s r e qui r e d by F l or i da s t a t e pr e c e de nti nt e rpr e t i ng § 796. 05; ( 2) the s t a tut e s a nc t i ons e c onom i c ga i n f r om pr os t i tut i on r a the rtha n s ugge s t i ng pu ni shm entfor w eapo ns vi ol at i on s; and (3) se ct i on 24 24 (a ) i s onl y am i ni st er i alThis guide line provides that “[a]ll co unt s involving substantially the same ha

rm shall be 3 grouped tog ether

into a singleGroup.”U.S.S.G. § 3D1.2. 3 r e por t i ng r e qui r e m e nt , a nd “ [ t ] he t e m por a ry pos s e s s i on of the f i r e a r m by [H ernand ez ] had n othi ng t o d o w i th the no n-re po rt i ng t o the IN S and w as there fore notc onne c t e d. ” H e a l s o appe a r s t o a r gue f orthe f i r s tt i m e on appe a l tha tthe of f e ns e s unde r§ 796. 05( 1) a nd § 2424( a ) s houl d ha ve be e n c om bi ne d, f or s e n te n c in g p u rp o s e s a n d p u r s u a n t to U .S .S .G . § 3 D 1 .2 , w ith e a c h o th e ra n d w ith 3 th e o f f e n s e o f c o n v ic tio n b e c a u s e th e s e th r e e o f f e n s e s o c c u rr e d c o n te m p o r a n e o u s ly a nd “ a l though l e ga l l y di s t i nc tof f e ns e s , r e pr e s e nt [ ] e s s e nt i a l l y the s a m e w r ongf ul cond uct [. ] ”

“ T hi s c our tr e vi e w s 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 erthe de no vo s ta n d a r d o f r e v ie w , b u t r e v ie w s its fi nd i ng s of f

ac tfor c l ea r e rr or. ” U

ni t e d Stat e s v . R hi nd , 2 8 9 F .3 d 6 9 0 , 6 9 3 ( 1 1 th C ir . 2 0 0 2 ) . T h e d is tr ic t c o u r t’s d e te r m in a tio n th a t th e d e f e n d a n t u s e a f

ir e a r m “in c o n n e c tio n w ith ” a n o th e rf e lo n y o f f e n s e is r e v ie w e d f

o rc le a re rr o r . U

ni t ed Stat es v . W h itfie ld , 5 0 F .3 d 9 4 7 , 9 4 9 n .8 ( 1 1 th C ir . 1 9 9 5 ) ; see a l so U ni t ed Stat es v. G ai ney , 11 1 F . 3d 83 4, 83 7 (11 th C i r. 19 97 ) ( ho l di ng thatdi stri ctcourt ’ s f ac tual f in d in g th a t th e d e f

e n d a n t p o s s e s s e d f

ir e a rm “in c o n n e c tio n w ith ” h is h e r o in of f e ns e w a s notc l e a r l y e rr one ous ) . B e c a us e H e rna nde z di d notr a i s e a n a r gum e nt u n d e r§ 3 D 1 .2 in th e d is tr ic t c o u r t, w e r e v ie w th is a r g u m e n t f o rp la in e rr o r .To establish plain error, Hernande z mus t show that there is: “(1) error, (2) that is plain, and 4 (3) that a ffe cts substantial rights. I f a l l threeconditions are met, an appe llate cour t may then exercise its discre tion to noti ce a fo rf ei ted er ror, but only

if (4) theerror seriously aff ects the fairne ss, integrity , or public reputation o f j udicial proc eeding s.” Shelton , 400 F.3d at 1328-29 (quotations and citations omitted). 4 See U ni t e d Stat e s v . She l ton , 40 0 F . 3d 13 25 , 13 28 -29 (11 th C i r. 20 05 ). 4 T he S ent enci ng G ui del i nes provi de that , for adefe nd antl i ke H ernand ez , w h o w a s c o n v ic te d u n d e r1 8 U .S .C . § 9 2 2 ( g ) , th e b a s e o f f e n s e le v e l is 1 4 . See U . S . S . G . § 2K 2. 1( a ) ( 6) , c om m e nt . ( n. 3) . “ I f the de f e nda ntus e d orpos s e s s e d a ny f i r e a r m ora m m uni t i on i n c onne c t i on w i th a nothe rf e l ony of f e ns e ; orpos s e s s e d or tr a ns f e rr e d a ny f

i r e a r m ora m m uni t i on w i th know l e dge , i nt e nt , orr e a s on t o be l i e ve th a t it w o u ld b e u s e d o rp o s s e s s e d in c o n n e c tio n w ith a n o th e rf e lo n y o f f e n s e ,” h is o f f e n s e le v e l is in c r e a s e d b y 4 le v e ls , o rto a m in im u m o f le v e l 1 8 . I

d. § 2 K 2. 1(b)(5). T he G ui del i nes def i ne the t erm “ anot her f

el on y off ense ” a s

“ offe nses other than exp l osi ves or f i re arm s posse ss i on or tra ff i cki ng offe nses . ” I

d. § 2 K 2 .1 , c o m m e n t. ( n .1 5 ) . B e c a u s e th e G u id e lin e s d o n o t d e f in e th e p h r a s e “in c o n n e c tio n w ith ” in § 2K 2. 1( b) ( 5) , w e ha ve he l d tha tthe phr a s e s houl d be i nt e rpr e t e d e xpa ns i ve l y , not r e s tr i c t i ve l y , a nd “ m e r e l y r e f l e c t s the c ont e xtof

[ the de f e nda nt ’ s ] pos s e s s i on of

the fi re arm . ” See R hi nd , 289 F . 3d a t695 ( br a c ke t s i n or i gi na l , quot a t i ons a nd c i t a t i ons om i tt ed). “ [T ] he fi re arm do es no thave t o fac i l i t at e the un derl yi ng offe nse. ” I d.5

A ddi t i ona l l y , e ve n i f

the “ othe r ” of

f e ns e oc c ur s c ont e m por a ne ous l y w i th, a nd w i tho uta di st i nct i on of cond uctfr om , the offens e of c on vi ct i on , the four-l evel e n h a n c e m e n t m a y s till b e ap p lie d . See U ni te d Stat e s v . J

ac k s on , 276 F . 3d 1231, 1 2 3 4 ( 1 1 th C ir . 2 0 0 1 ) ( u p h o ld in g e n h a n c e m e n t w h e r e d e f e n d a n t p le d g u ilty to bei ng a f el on i n p osse ss i on of a f i re arm , w hi ch offens e occ urre d cont em po ra neou sl y w i th the “ other” st at e f el on y of a ss aul tand b att ery of pol i ce offi ce rs ). F urther, fi re arm po ss es si on i s “ i n con nect i on w i th” ot her c ri m i nal ac t i vi ty w hen t he po ss es si on “ em bo l den[s] ” the defendantt o u nd ert ake the ot her c r im in a l a c tiv ity . See i d. a t1234- 35 ( not i ng tha tw he n de f e nda nt s ’ pos s e s s i on of f ir e a r m s “le n [ t] s u p p o r t to a n in f e r e n c e th a t th e d e f

e n d a n ts w o u ld h a v e , if nece ss ary, used thei r f

i re arm s i n furthera nce of thei r c ri m es [, ] ” thi s i nfer ence pe r m i tt e d a f

i ndi ng tha tthe pos s e s s i on w a s “ i n c onne c t i on w i th” the c r i m e s of c o n v ic tio n ) . T he di s tr i c tc our tdi d note rr , pl a i nl y orothe rw i s e , i n f a i l i ng t o gr oup H ernand ez ’ s i l l egal cond uctt og ether or c l ea rl y e rri n fi nd i ng thatH ernand ez p o ss es se d th e s h o tg u n in co n n ec ti o n w ith o th ero ff en se s. F irst, H er n an d ez ’s a r gum e nttha tthe tw o pr os t i tut i on- r e l a t e d of f e ns e s e a c h c ons t i tut e d j us t“ a ny other” and n ot“ anot her” fe l on y off ense i s w i tho utm er i tbecause the G ui del i nes spec i fi ca l l y provi de thatthe t erm “ anot her f el on y off ense ” i ncl ud es “ offe nses otherHer nandez’s citation of United States v. Szakac s , 212 F.3d 344 (7th Cir. 2000) (persuasive 5 authority ), is unpersua sive. In Szakacs , the def endants were c onvicted for conspiracy

to steal firea rms from a licensed dealer, and the S eventh Ci rcuit refused to apply § 2K2.1(b)( 5)’s four-leve l enhanc ement for

the “other” state f

elony of conspiracy

to commit burgl ary

beca use “thestate law offense and the federal offense were essentially the same crime.” See id. at 349-50. Here, how ever , Her nandez’s off

ense of conviction (firear

m possession by an il leg al alien) is substantively different than the prostitution-relate d offenses underlying theenhanc ement. 6 tha n e xpl os i ve s orf

i r e a r m s pos s e s s i on ortr a f f i c ki ng of f e ns e s . ” U . S . S . G . § 2K 2. 1, co m m en t . (n . 1 5 ). H ern an d ez’ s “ o th er o ffen ses” w ere p ro st i tu t i o n -rel at ed o ffen ses, w hi c h di d noti nvol ve e xpl os i ve s , f i r e a r m s , ortr a f

f i c ki ng. L i ke w i s e , no

“ di s t i nc t i on of

c onduc t ” be tw e e n the of f e ns e of c onvi c t i on a nd the othe rf e l ony o f f e n s e n e e d e x is t. See J

ac k s on , 276 F . 3d a t1234. 5 A dd i t i on al l y, H ernand ez ’ s a rgum entthatthese offe nses shou l d h ave been g r o u p e d to g e th e r , p u r s u a n t to U .S .S .G . § 3 D 1 .2 , is w ith o u t m e r it. S e c tio n 3 D 1 .2 p r o v id e s th a t “[ a ]ll c o u n ts i nv ol vi ng subst ant i al l y the sa m e harm shal l be grou ped t og ether i nt o a si ng l e G roup . ” U . S . S . G . § 3 D 1. 2 (em ph as i s a dd ed). H ernand ez w a s onl y c ha r ge d w i th one c ount o f f ir e a r m p o s s e s s io n b y a n ille g a l a lie n . T he r e f or e , the r e w e r e no c o u n ts to b e g r o u p e d to g e th e r . C f. U . S . S . G . § 3D 1. 2, com m ent . (n. 6) (provi di ng thatfi re arm s c ou nt s a re t o b e group ed t og ether w hen

“ [t ] he defendanti s c on vi ct ed of th r e e c o u n ts of un l i ce nsed deal i ng i n fi re arm s” ) (e m ph as i s a dd ed). T hu s, the di stri ctcourtdi d n otcom m i terror, pl ai n o r otherw i se , in ap p ly in g th e e n h a n c e m e n t. F u r th e r m o r e , H e rn a n d e z ’s a r g u m e n t th a t th e s e o f f e n s e s w e r e n o t “inHer nandez’s contention that the governm en t d i d not show that he derived support from 6 prostitution i s without merit becausehe admitted to working fo r six monthsa s a do or man at a ho us e of prostitution. Cf. Sta tev . M orris , 540 So. 2d 22 6 (F la . Dis t. Ct. App. 19 89 ) (ho ldingthat mere ly g etting suppor

t from someone known to eng ag e in prostitut ion is insufficient for a convic tion under § 796.05(1)) . 7 conn ec t i on w i th” hi s off ense of conv i ct i on cond uctal so fa i l s. H ernand ez adm i tt ed t o the fa ct s r ec al l ed i n the pres ent ence i nv es t i gat i on re po rt(“ P S I” ), w hi ch st at ed th ath e w o rk ed fo r ap p ro x i m at el y si x m o n th s ata h o u se w h ere h e k n ew th ere w as a s hot gun a nd l oa de d i ton one oc c a s i on; a nd w he r e he pe r f or m e d the dut i e s of prot ec t i ng the ho use ( po ss i bl y w i th the ai d o f the shot gu n), and ensuri ng that pa tr ons pa i d i n a dva nc e f ors e x w i th i ndi vi dua l s w hom H e rna nde z be l i e ve d t o be ille g a l a lie n s . U n d ero u r e x p an siv e v iew o f th e p h ra se “i n co n n ec ti o n w ith ,” H er n an d ez ’s adm i ss i on s provi ded fact s upo n w hi ch the di stri ctcourtcoul d eas i l y det erm i ne that H e rn a n d e z ’s s h o tg u n p o s s e s s io n o c c u rr e d in c o n n e c tio n w ith b o th : ( 1 ) h is d e r iv a tio n o f

s u p p o r t o rm a in te n a n c e f r o m p r o s titu tio n , in v io la tio n o f F la . S ta t. § 7 96 . 05 (1); and (2) hi s f ai l ure t o fi l e aw ri tt en st at em entw i th the C om m i ss i on er 6 of the I N S w i thi n f

i ve da y s of

ke e pi ng, m a i nt a i ni ng, c ontr ol l i ng, s uppor t i ng, or ha rbor i ng i ndi vi dua l s he kne w t o be a l i e ns i n the hous e f orthe purpos e of p r o s titu tio n , in v io la tio n o f 1 8 U .S .C . § 2 4 2 4 ( a ) . See R hi nd , 289 F . 3d a t695 ( c o n c lu d in g th a t th is C o u r t e x p a n s iv e ly in te rp r e ts th e p h r a s e “in c o n n e c tio n w ith ” ) .8

L i ke the de f

e nda nt s di s c us s e d i n J

ac k s on , H ernand ez ’ s s ho t gu n p osse ss i on , w hi ch h e a d m itte d s e r v e d to p r o te c t th e p r o s titu tio n h o u s e , e m b o ld e n e d h im in unde r t a ki ng hi s othe rc r i m i na l a c t i vi t i e s of e a rni ng m one y f

r om pr os t i tut i on a nd f a ilin g to r e p o r t p r o s titu tio n p e r f o r m e d b y ille g a l a lie n s . See J ac k s on , 27 6 F . 3d at 1234- 35 ( de f

e nda nt s ’ f

i r e a r m pos s e s s i on “ l e n[ t ] s uppor tt o a n i nf e r e nc e tha tthe d e f e n d a n ts w o u ld h a v e , if

n e c e s s a ry , u s e d th e irf

ir e a r m s in f

u r th e r a n c e o f

th e ir cr i m es ”) . A cc ordi ng l y, the di stri ctcourtdi d n otcl ea rl y e rri n app l yi ng the fourle v e l e n h a n c e m e n t, a n d w e a f f ir m H e rn a n d e z ’s s e n te n c e . AF F I RME D.