FI LED U. S . COURT OF AP PE ALS E L E V E N T H C IR C U IT A ugus t 19, 2005 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. 04- 14840 N on -A rgum entC al endar

________________________ D . C. D o c k e tN o . 0 4 - 6 0 1 2 3 - CR- W PD 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 L O U I S G E R A L D I N D E L L , 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

_________________________ ( A ugus t19, 2005)

B e f o r e A N D E R S O N , B L A C K a n d B A R K E T T , C ir c u it J u d g e s . P E R C U R I A M:2

L oui s G e r a l d I nde l l appe a l s hi s s e nt e nc e i m pos e d a f t e rpl e a di ng gui l ty t o pos s e s s i on of

a f i r e a r m a nd a m m uni t i on by a c onvi c t e d f e l on, i n vi ol a t i on of

18 U . S . C . § 9 22 (g)( 1), as se rt i ng the di stri ctcourterre d u nd er U ni ted Stat es v. B oo ke r , 1 2 5 S . C t. 7 3 8 ( 2 0 0 5 ) . W e v a c a te a n d r e m a n d f o rr e s e n te n c in g . I . DI S C US S I ON B e c a us e I nde l l r a i s e d a c ons t i tut i ona l obj e c t i on t o hi s s e nt e nc e ba s e d on B lake l y v . W as hi ngton , 12 4 S . C t . 25 31 (200 4), before the di stri ctcourt , w e r evi ew h is s e n te n c e d e n o v o , b u t w ill r e v e r s e o n ly f o rh a r m f u l e rr o r . See U

ni ted Stat es v. P az , 40 5 F . 3d 94 6, 94 8 (11 th C i r. 20 05 ). W e ha ve c l a r i f i e d the r e a r e tw o ty pe s of B oo ke re rr or : ( 1) S i xth A m e ndm e nt , orc ons t i tut i ona l , e rr orba s e d upon s e nt e nc i ng e nha nc e m e nt s , i m pos e d unde ra m a nda t ory G ui de l i ne s s y s t e m , ne i the ra dm i tt e d by the de f e nda ntnors ubm i tt e d t o a j ury a nd pr ove n be y ond a r e a s onabl e doubt ; a nd ( 2 ) s ta tu to ry e rr o rb a s e d u p o n s e n te n c in g u n d e ra m a n d a to ry G u id e lin e s s y s te m . U ni te d Stat e s v . She l ton , 4 0 0 F .3 d 1 3 2 5 , 1 3 2 9

– 3 0 ( 1 1 th C ir . 2 0 0 5 ) . A. C ons t i tut i onal

E r r or 1 . C ons t i tut i onal

E r r or A d is tr ic t c o u r t d o e s n o t c o m m it B oo ke rc ons t i tut i ona l e rr orby r e l y i ng on p a s t c o n v ic tio n s to e n h a n c e a d e f e n d a n t’s s e n te n c e . She l ton , 400 F . 3d a t1329.I n h is r e p ly b r ie f , I n d e ll a r g u e s th a t U

n i ted S ta tes v. Sh ep a rd , 125 S . C t . 1254 1 (200 5), m an da t e s a j ury mus tf i nd the f a c t s un de r l y i ng hi s pr i orc on vi c t i on s tha t tri g g er en h an cem en t s. W e d i sag r e e . Sh e p a rd re af firm ed “aco u rt

. . . c o u ld lo o k to st atut ory e l em ent s, char gi ng do cum ent s, an d j ury i nstruct i on s t o d et erm i ne w hether an earl i er co n v i ct i o n ” q u al i fi ed as a v i o l en tf e lo n y . I d. at12 57 (e m ph as i s a dd ed). W h il e Sh ep a rd l i mi t e d th e c a t e g o r i e s o f ma t e r i a l a c o u r t c o u l d c o n s i d e r i n ma k i ng a v io le n t f e lo n y d e te r m in a tio n , it d i d n o t ta k e a w a y a ju d g e ’s p o w e rto p a s s o n th is m a tte ro f la w o re v e n s u g g e s t i t w a s a p p r o p r ia te f o rju ry c o n s id e r a tio n . See U ni t ed Stat es v. M

arcuss en , 4 0 3 F .3 d 9 8 2 , 9 8 4 ( 8 th C ir . 2 0 0 5 ) ( “T h e S u p r e m e C o u r t’s p o s tB oo ke ropi ni on i n Sh epard v. U ni ted States l e nds f

ur the rsu p p o rt t o t he rul e tha tthe se nt enci ng court , no t a j ury, m ust det erm i ne w hether the pri or conv i ct i on s qual i fy as vi ol entfe l on i es . ”) . 3 B e c a us e I nde l l ’ s s e nt e nc e w a s e nha nc e d ba s e d on pa s tc onvi c t i ons , the r e i s no const i tut i on al error. 1 B. Statutor

y E r r or A l though the di s tr i c tc our tc om m i tt e d no c ons t i tut i ona l e rr ori n s e nt e nc i ng Indel l , because the di stri ctcourtse nt ence d h i m un der am andat ory G ui del i nes sch em e, th ere w as B oo ke rs ta tu to ry e rr o r . See She l ton , 4 0 0 F .3 d at 1 3 3 0

– 3 1 . “ A n o n - c o n s titu tio n a l e rr o ris h a r m le s s if , v ie w in g th e p r o c e e d in g s in th e ire n tir e ty , a c our tde t e r m i ne s tha tthe e rr ordi d nota f f e c tthe s e nt e nc e , orha d butve ry s l i ght e f f e c t. I f o n e c a n s a y w ith f

a ira s s u r a n c e . . . th a t th e s e n te n c e w a s n o t s u b s ta n tia lly sw ay ed by the error, the se nt ence i s due t o b e a ff i rm ed even tho ug h there w as error. ” U

n ite d S ta te s v . M

a th e n ia , 11 th C i r. , 20 05 , __ F . 3d __ (N o. 04 -152 50 , M ay 23 , 20 05 ) ( i nt ernal qu ot at i on m arks and b ra cket s om i tt ed). T he G ov ernm enthas th e b u r d e n o f

s h o w in g th e e rr o rw a s h a r m le s s . I d.4

I n U n ite d S ta te s v . D a v is , 407 F . 3d 1269, 1271 ( 11th C i r . 2005) , us i ng the hi ghe rha r m l e s s be y ond a r e a s onabl e doubts t a nda r d us e d i n B oo ke rconst i tut i on al e rr o rc a s e s , w e h e ld th e d is tr ic t c o u r t’s g r a n t o f th e g o v e rn m e n t’s U .S .S .G . § 5 K 1 .1 m ot i on for ado w nw ar d d eparture bas ed on the defendant ’ s s ub st ant i al as si st ance n ei th er rem o v ed n o r ren d ered h arm l ess b eyo n d a reaso n ab l e d o u b tan y B oo ke r e rr or . I n s o hol di ng, w e r e a s one d the § 5K 1. 1 m ot i on di d notgi ve the s e nt e nc i ng c our t“ unf

e tt e r e d” di s c r e t i on, a s a r gue d by the gove rnm e nt , butr a the rga ve the c o u r t o n ly lim ite d d is c r e tio n to c o n s id e rth e d e f e n d a n t’s a s s is ta n c e . I

d. N ot i ng the se nt enci ng courtcoul d n otperm i ss i bl y c on si der the se nt enci ng fa ct ors a nn ou nced i n 1 8 U . S . C . § 3 55 3(a) w hen exerci si ng i t s di sc re t i on , w e c on cl ud ed i tw as un cl ea r w ha tthe s e nt e nc i ng c our tw oul d ha ve done ha d i tunde r s t ood the G ui de l i ne s t o be a d v is o ry a n d h a d p r o p e r ly c o n s id e r e d th e § 3 5 5 3 ( a ) f a c to r s . I d. T h e Go v e rn m e n ta s s e r t s th e e rr o ri s h a r m l e s s b e c a u s e I n d e l l m a d e two r e q u e s ts f

o rd o w n w a r d d e p a r tu r e s th a t p r o v id e d th e d is tr ic t c o u r t w ith d is c r e tio n to gi ve I nde l l a s e nt e nc e l ow e rtha n the bott om of the G ui de l i ne s r a nge , a nd the di s tr i c tc our tde c l i ne d t o de pa r tdow nw a r d. W e c onc l ude the e rr orw a s not h a r m le s s . I n r e v ie w in g th e r e c o r d , it is u n c le a rw h a t th e s e n te n c in g c o u r t w o u ld ha ve done ha d i tunde r s t ood the G ui de l i ne s t o be a dvi s ory . A l though the s e n te n c in g c o u r t c o m m e n te d th a t I n d e ll’s c r im in a l h is to ry r e f le c te d a n e e d to5

p r o te c t th e p u b lic a n d th a t I n d e ll w o u ld b e “b e tte ro f f ” in c a r c e r a te d in lig h t o f h is dr i nki ng pr obl e m , thus c ons i de r i ng the ne e d t o pr ot e c tthe publ i c a nd pr ovi de the d e f e n d a n t w ith n e e d e d m e d ic a l c a r e , se e 18 U . S . C . § 3553( a ) ( 2) ( C ) , ( D ) , w e c a nnot s a y w h a t th e s e n te n c in g c o u r t w o u ld h a v e d o n e h a d it u n d e r s to o d th e G u id e lin e s to b e a d v is o ry . T h e G o v e rn m e n t c a n n o t s h o w th e s e n te n c e w a s n o t s u b s ta n tia lly s w a y e d b y th e e rr o r . Se e U n ite d S ta te s v . M

a th e n ia , 11th C i r . , 2005, __ F . 3d __ ( N o . 0 4 - 1 5 2 5 0 , M a y 2 3 , 2 0 0 5 ) . I I . C ON C L US I ON T he di stri ctcourterre d i n tre at i ng the G ui del i nes a s m andat ory, and that e rr orw a s notha r m l e s s . T hus , w e va c a t e a nd r e m a nd f orr e s e nt e nc i ng i n l i ghtof B oo ke r . W e not e the di s tr i c tc our tc orr e c t l y c a l c ul a t e d I nde l l ’ s G ui de l i ne s r a nge of 3 0 to 3 7 m o n th s ’ im p r is o n m e n t. See U n i ted S ta tes v. C ra w

f o rd , 407 F . 3d 1174, 11 78 –7 9 (11 th C i r. 20 05 ) ( st at i ng af t er B oo ke r , di s tr i c tc our t s m us tc ons ul tthe G ui del i nes a nd “ [t ] hi s c on sul t at i on re qu i re m ent , ata m i ni m um , ob l i ges the di stri ct courtt o cal cul at e c o r r e c tly th e s e n te n c in g r a n g e p r e s c r ib e d b y th e G u id e lin e s ” ) . T h u s , o n r e m a n d , th e d is tr ic t c o u r t is r e q u ir e d to s e n te n c e I n d e ll a c c o r d in g to B oo ke r , co n si d eri n g th e G u i d el i n es ad v i so ry ran g e o f 3 0 t o 3 7 m o n th s’We do not mean to imply that on rema nd the district court must impose a lesser sentenc e. 2 Rather, wemere ly

hold the Gover

nment did not meet its burden of showing the Booker statutory error is harmless. We also will not attempt to decide now whether a par ticular sentence be low the Guidelines ra

ng e might be re asonablein this case. 6 i m pri sonm entand “ other s t atut ory c on ce rns a s w el l , se e [ 18 U . S . C . ] § 3 55 3(a) (S up p. 20 04 ). ” B oo ke r , 125 S . C t . a t757. 2 VA C AT E D A ND R E MAND E D.