FILED U.S. COURT OF AP PEALS ELEV ENT HC IR C U IT MAY 9 , 2006 THOMAS K. KAHN 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- 14806 N on -A rgum entC al endar

________________________ D . C . D o c k e tN o . 0 4 - 0 0 2 9 1 - C R - J - 3 2 - MMH 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 P A T R I C K R O O S E V E L T S T O U T A M I R E , D e fe 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 forthe M i ddl e D i s tr i c tof F l or i da

_________________________ ( M ay 9, 2006) B efo re B IR C H , B L A C K an d B A R K E T T , C i rcu i tJu d g es. P E R C U R I A M: P a tr i c k R oos e ve l tS t out a m i r e a ppe a l s hi s 84- m onth s e nt e nc e fordi s tr i but i on2

o f c o c a in e b a s e , in v io la tio n o f 2 1 U .S .C . § 8 4 1 ( a ) ( 1 ) , ( b ) ( 1 ) ( C ) . O n a p p e a l, S t o u t a m i r e a r g u e s th a tth e u s e o f th e c a r e e ro f

fe n d e re n h a n c e m e n t , U. S . S . G. § 4B 1. 1, w a s unc ons t i tut i ona l be c a us e i tr e qui r e d the di s tr i c tc our tt o m a ke f i ndi ngs be y ond the m e r e e xi s t e nc e of hi s t w o fe l ony c onvi c t i ons , na m e l y , tha tthe c a s e s w e r e n o t r e la te d a n d th a t th e y w e r e q u a lif y in g c r im e s u n d e rth e e n h a n c e m e n t. F i n d i n g n o r e v e r s i b l e e rr o r , w e A F F I R M.

I . B AC KG RO UN D A gr a nd j ur y i ndi c t e d S t out a m i r e on fourc ount s of dr ug tr a f

f i c ki ng, i nc l udi ng, i n r e l e va ntpa r t , fordi s tr i but i on of c oc a i ne ba s e , i n vi ol a t i on of 21 U . S . C . § 841( a ) ( 1) , ( b) ( 1) ( C ) . T he i ndi c tm e ntm a de no m e nt i on of pr i or c onvi c t i ons . T he not i f

i c a t i on of

m a xi m um pe na l ty s t a t e d tha tthe m a xi m um pe na l ty foravi ol a t i on of tha ts t a tut e w a s t w e nty y e a r s of i m pr i s onm e nt . R 1- 85. A t h is in itia l p le ah e a r in g b e fo r e am a g is tr a te , th e c o u r t a s k e d S to u ta m ir e if he un ders t oo d thathe fa ce d u p t o t w enty y ears of i m pri sonm ent , t o w hi ch S to u ta m ir e r e s p o n d e d a f f ir m a tiv e ly . H e th e n p le d g u ilty , s ta tin g th a t h e h a d s o ld c r a c k c o c a in e . A f

te rS to u ta m ir e s ta te d h e w a n te d to ta lkh is p le ao v e rw ith h is fa m i l y, the courtre sc hedu l ed t aki ng hi s pl eafor a no ther day . O nce the pl ea he a r i ng w a s r e c onve ne d, the m a gi s tr a t e j udge , i n de t e r m i ni ng the vol unt a r i ne s s of3

hi s pl e a , r e m i nde d S t out a m i r e , “ tha tc r i m e c a rr i e s w i th i t , thos e be i ng am a xi m um s e n te n c e o f

u p to 2 0 y e a r s .” R 3 a t 7 . T h e m a g is tr a te ju d g e a ls o a s k e d h im w h e th e ra n y o n e h a d “p r o m is e d . . . th a t y o u ’r e g o in g to g e t alig h t s e n te n c e ,” to w hi c h he r e s ponde d “ N o. ” I d. a t9. L a t e r , the m a gi s tr a t e j udge i s s ue d ar e por ta nd r e c o m m e n d a tio n , w h ic h r e c o m m e n d e d to th e d is tr ic t ju d g e th a t h e a c c e p t th e g u ilty pl ea . T he m agi stra t e j ud ge further not i fi ed S t ou t am i re thatthe prob ati on offi ce w ou l d p re pare a P re se nt ence Investi gat i on R eport(“ P S I” ). P u rsu an tt o U . S . S . G . § 4 B 1 . 1 , th e P S I co n cl u d ed th atS t o u t am i re w as a c a r e e rof fe nde rbe c a us e he ha d t w o pr i orfe l ony c onvi c t i ons fore i the rac r i m e of vi ol ence or a c on trol l ed subst ance offe nse. T he t w o q ual i fy i ng conv i cti on s w er e ( 1) a ggr a va t e d ba tt e r y ( s e nt e nc e d i m pos e d 30 S e pt e m be r1991) ; a nd ( 2) the s a l e of c o c a in e w ith in 1 ,0 0 0 fe e t o f as c h o o l ( s e n te n c e im p o s e d 2 4 M a r c h 1 9 9 4 ) . T h is e n h a n c e m e n t in c r e a s e d h is b a s e o f fe n s e le v e l f

r o m 1 2 to 3 2 , a n d in c r e a s e d h is c r i m i na l hi s t or y c a t e gor y f r om V t o V I . S t out a m i r e w a s gr a nt e d a3 poi nt r e duc t i on fora c c e pt a nc e of r e s pons i bi l i ty , l e a vi ng hi m w i th at ot a l of fe ns e l e ve l of 2 9 . B as ed o n h is to tal o ffen se lev el an d a c rim in al h isto ry ca teg o ry , S to u tam ire’s i m pri sonm entra ng e w as 15 1 t o 1 88 m on ths. S t ou t am i re obj ec t ed t o the l ac k o f a n adj ust m entfor am i no r- rol e a nd t o the appl i ca t i on of the care eroffe nd er e nha nc e m e nt , s t a t i ng tha tthe e nha nc e m e ntw a s notc ont e m pl a t e d i n the not i c e of4

m a x im u m p e n a ltie s . A t s e n te n c in g , S to u ta m ir e a s k e d fo ra n d r e c e iv e d am in o r - r o le a d ju s tm e n t. H e s ta te d th a t, a t h is p le ah e a r in g , h e h a d n o n o tic e th a t h is s e n te n c e w o u ld i ncre as e s o d ra m ati ca l l y, and h e r ei t er at ed hi s obj ec t i on t o the care eroffe nd er e nha nc e m e nt , w hi c h r a i s e d hi s S e nt e nc i ng G ui de l i ne s r a nge f r om 21 t o 27 m onths of i m pri sonm entt o 1 51 t o 1 88 m on ths. T he courtst at ed thati tdi d n otse e a prob l em w i th the care eroffe nd erenhancem ent , bu ttho ug htthatS t ou t am i re a c tua l l y m a y ha ve be e n a r gui ng tha thi s pl e aw a s notvol unt a r y . W hi l e he di d not cont es tthatthe G ui del i nes r ange w as i ncorrec t l y c al cul at ed, S t ou t am i re st at ed that hi s obj ec t i on t o the enhancem entw as on const i tut i on al grou nd s bec ause the court ha d t o m a ke the s e pa r a t e f i ndi ngs tha tthe pr i orc onvi c t i ons qua l i f i e d a s afe l ony d r u g o f fe n s e o rac r im e o f

v io le n c e a n d th a t th e c o n v ic tio n s w e r e n o t r e la te d . I nvoki ng U ni t e d S t a t e s v. B ooke r , 543 U . S . 220, 125 S . C t . 738 ( 2005) a nd A pp re nd i v. N ew Je rs ey , 53 0 U . S . 46 6, 12 0 S . C t . 23 48 (200 0), S t ou t am i re ar gu ed tha t“ fa c tua l f

i ndi ngs l i ke tha t. . . e i the rha ve t o be a dm i tt e d i n apl e aorfound by aj ur y . ” R 4 a t13. T he di stri ctcourtdet er m i ned thatS t ou t am i re di d q ual i fy for the care er of fe nde re nha nc e m e nt , f

i ndi ng tha tone of

hi s pr i orc onvi c t i ons w a s ac r i m e of vi ol ence and thatthe other w as a qual i fy i ng , un re l at ed, drug offe nse. T he di stri ct5

c our tr e j e c t e d S t out a m i r e ’ s c ons t i tut i ona l a r gum e nt s . T a ki ng i nt o a c c ountthe 18 U . S . C . § 3553( a ) fa c t or s , the c our t , a f t e rgr a nt i ng adow nw a r d de pa r tur e for s u b s ta n tia l a s s is ta n c e , s e n te n c e d h im to 8 4 m o n th s o f im p r is o n m e n t.

I I . DI S CUS S I ON O n a p p e a l, S to u ta m ir e a r g u e s th a t h is s e n te n c e w a s in c r e a s e d b a s e d o n fa c ts n o t a d m itte d b y h im , n o rfo u n d b y aju r y in v io la tio n o f th e S ix th A m e n d m e n t, c i t i ng the r e c e ntS upr e m e C our tde c i s i on S he pa r d v. U ni t e d S t a t e s , 544 U . S . 13, 125 S . C t . 1254 ( 2005) . B e c a us e S t out a m i r e obj e c t e d t o the s e nt e nc i ng enhancem enton const i tut i on al grou nd s, he has pre se rved hi s c on sti tut i on al c h a lle n g e . S e e U n ite d S ta te s v . D o w lin g , 4 0 3 F .3 d 1 2 4 2 , 1 2 4 5 ( 1 1 th C ir . 2 0 0 5 ) . W e r evi ew such i ss ues de nov o, bu tw i l l re vers e onl y for harm ful error. S ee U ni t ed S t at es v. P az , 40 5 F . 3d 94 6, 94 8 (11 th C i r. 20 05 ). T h e s e n te n c e in th is c a s e w a s im p o s e d a f te rth e S u p r e m e C o u r t’s d e c is io n in U ni t ed S t at es v. B oo ker, 54 3 U . S . 22 0 (20 05 ), and thu s, w as appl i ed un der a n a d v is o r y g u id e lin e s s y s te m . A s s u c h , th e d is tr ic t c o u r t d id n o t c o m m it c ons t i tut i ona l e rr orbe c a us e the r e i s no S i xth A m e ndm e ntc ons t i tut i ona l vi ol a t i on i n a ppl y i ng the gui de l i ne s i n anon- m a nda t or y fa s hi on. S e e U ni t e d S t a t e s v. C ha u, 42 6 F . 3d 13 18 , 13 23 -24 (11 th C i r. 20 05 ). S t ou t am i re has notpres er ved a st atut oryCompare United States v. Spell, 44 F .3d 936, 939 (11th Cir. 1995) (a pplying similar 1 analy sis set forth in Taylor to the sentenc ing guidelines to determine whether prior convic tion qualified under § 4B 1.1 of the sentencingguidelines); United States v. Krawczak, 331 F .3d 1302, 1303 (11th Cir. 2003) (same , but for § 2L 1.2(b) of the sentenc ing guidelines); United State s v . Kendri c k, 42 3 F .3 d 8 03 , 8 08 -0 9 ( 8thCir . 2 00 5) (a pp lyingShepa

rdandTaylor

analy sis to the sentenc ing guidelines); United States v. Delaney , 427 F.3d 1224, 1226 ( 9th Cir. 2005) (same) ; United States v. Gutierre z-Ramirez, 405 F.3d 352, 358-59 (5th Cir. 2005) ( same); United States v. Galloway , 439 F.3d 320, 323- 24 (6th Cir. 2006) (same ). 6 a r gum e nttha tS he pa r d a nd T a y l orv. U ni t e d S t a t e s , 495 U . S . 575, 110 S . C t . 2143 ( 1990) s houl d be a ppl i e d t o adi s tr i c tc our t ’ s c a t e gor i z a t i on of apa r t i c ul a rpr i or c onvi c t i on forpurpos e s of § 4B 1. 1 ( i . e . , w he the rthe c onvi c t i on w a s adr ug of fe ns e , ac r i m e of

vi ol e nc e , a nd notr e l a t e d t o the othe rc onvi c t i on) , orhow the di stri ctcourtshou l d arr i ve atthatca t egori za t i on w hen sent enci ng un der a n advi sory gu i del i nes s ys t em . T hu s, he has w ai ved thatar gu m ent . S ee U ni t ed 1 S t at es v . D u n can , 4 0 0 F . 3 d 1 2 9 7 , 1 2 9 9 n . 1 (1 1 th C i r. 2 0 0 5 ) (d ecl i n i n g t o ad d ress th e B o o k e rim p lic a tio n s o f f ir e a r m a n d r o le e n h a n c e m e n ts b e c a u s e a p p e lla n t d id notc ha l l e nge thos e e nha nc e m e nt s i n hi s i ni t i a l br i e f) ; s e e a l s o W i l ke r s on v. G r i nne l l C orp. , 270 F . 3d 1314, 1322 ( 11th C i r . 2001) ( hol di ng tha ti s s ue s not cl earl y r ai se d i n i ni t i al bri efs are consi dere d aband on ed). AF F I RME D.