FILED U.S. COURT OF AP P E A LS E LE V EN T HC IRC U IT JUNE 29, 2007 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- 16589 N on -A rgum entC al endar

________________________ D. C . Do c k e tNo . 0 2 - 0 0 3 4 5 - C R - UWC - HG D 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 A R T U R O Z A V A L A , 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 o rth e N o r th e rn D i s tr i c to f A l a b a ma

_________________________ ( Ju n e 29, 2007) B efo re W IL S O N , P R Y O R an d F A Y , C i rcu i tJu d g es. P E R C U R I A M:2

A rtu ro Z av al a ap p eal s h i s 2 6 2 -m o n th sen t en ce fo r co n sp i racy t o p o ssess w i th the i nt e ntt o di s tr i but e m or e tha n 500 gr a m s of m e tha m phe t a m i ne , i n vi ol a t i on of 21 U . S . C . §§ 841( a ) ( 1) , ( b) ( 1) ( A ) , a nd 846. O n appe a l , Z a va l a a r gue s tha tthe di s tr i c tc our tpl a i nl y e rr e d i n s e nt e nc i ng hi m unde ra m a nda t ory S e nt e nc i ng G u id e lin e s s c h e m e , w h e r e th e c o u r t a c k n o w le d g e d th a t th e s e n te n c e w a s to o lo n g . F orthe r e a s ons di s c us s e d m or e f ul l y be l ow , w e va c a t e Z a va l a ’ s s e nt e nc e a nd rem an d t o th e d i stri ctco u rtfo r fu rth er p ro ceed i n g s. I n J a n u a ry 2 0 0 3 , Z a v a l a p l e d g u i l ty t o th e a b o v e - m e n t i o n e d o f f e n s e . At se nt enci ng , the di stri ctcourtfoun d thatZ aval a’ s off ense l evel w as 39 , hi s c ri m i nal h i st o ry cat eg o ry w as I, an d h i s resu l t i n g g u i d el i n e ran g e w as 2 6 2 t o 3 2 7 m o n th s’ im p riso n m en t. T h er ea fter , th e c o u rt stated to Z av ala th at “[t] h e s en ten ce th at I’m goi ng t o ha ve t o i m pos e on y ou, I thi nk, i s t oo l ong. B utI don’ tha ve a ny d i scret i o n i n th atm att er. ” T h e co u rtth en sen t en ced Z av al a t o 2 6 2 m o n th s’ im p r is o n m e n t. I n N o v e m b e r2 0 0 3 , Z a v a la tim e ly ap p e a le d h is c o n v ic tio n a n d s e n te n c e . H o w e v e r , w e d is m is s e d f o rw a n t o f

p e r s e c u tio n b e c a u s e Z a v a la f a ile d to tim e ly f

ile a n ap p e lla te b r ie f

a n d r e c o r d e x c e rp ts . I n J u ly 2 0 0 5 , Z a v a la f ile d a m o tio n to va c a t e , s e ta s i de , orc orr e c thi s s e nt e nc e , pur s ua ntt o 28 U . S . C . § 2255. T he m a g is tr a te ju d g e r e c o m m e n d e d g r a n tin g th e § 2 2 5 5 m o tio n a s to Z a v a la ’s c la imIn Ph ill ips , this C ourt he ld t hat: 1 When the district courts of this circuit conclude that a n out-of-time a

ppeal in a c rimin al c a seis w arrante d a s th ereme dy in a § 2 25 5 p ro c e e ding , th e y

sh ould eff ect that remedy

in the followingway : (1) the c riminal judgment from which the out-of- time appeal is to be permitted should be vac ated; (2) the same sentence should then be re imposed; (3) upon re imposit ion of that sentenc e, the de fenda nt should be advised of

all the rights associated w ith an appeal from any criminal s ent en ce ; an d

(4 ) th e d ef

en d ants h o u l d

al s o b e a dv i s edth atth e t i m e f o r f i l i n g a notice of a

ppeal f rom that re- imposed sentenceis ten days . . . . Phill ips, 225 F.3d at 1201. 3 tha thi s c ouns e l w a s i ne f f e c t i ve f orf a i l i ng t o pur s ue hi s di r e c tappe a l . T he m a g is tr a te a ls o r e c o m m e n d e d th a t Z a v a la b e ap p o in te d c o u n s e l, r e s e n te n c e d in a c c or da nc e w i th U ni t e d S t a t e s v. P hi l l i ps , 225 F . 3d 1198, 1201 ( 11th C i r . 2000) , 1 a nd pe r m i tt e d t o t a ke a n out - of - t i m e appe a l . T he di s tr i c tc our ta dopt e d a nd a f f i r m e d the m a gi s tr a t e ’ s r e c om m e nda t i on. A tre se nt enci ng , the courtac kn ow l edged t hat , w hen i ti ni t i al l y s ent ence d Z a va l a , i tbe l i e ve d tha tthe s e nt e nc e w a s unf a i ra nd t oo hi gh, buttha ti tha d no di s c r e t i on i n the m a tt e ra ttha tt i m e . T he c our tf ur the ra c know l e dge d tha ti tnow h ad d iscr etio n in se n ten cin g , b u t b ec au se o f th e p ro ce d u ra l p o stu re o f Z av ala’s ca se , i n thathe w as bei ng re se nt ence d u nd erP hi l l i ps and w as re qu i re d t o rec ei ved th e s a m e s e n te n c e a s h e r e c e iv e d in itia lly , th e c o u r t s ta te d th a t it c o u ld o n ly r e i ns t a t e the pr e vi ous s e nt e nc e . T he c our ta l s o i ndi c a t e d tha t , upon r e m a nd f r om thi s C our t , i ti nt e nde d “ t o s e nt e nc e hi m t o a s i gni f i c a nt l y l e s s e rt e r m . . . tha n heUnited States v. Booker, 543 U.S. 220, 125 S.Ct. 738, 160 L .Ed.2d 621 (2005) 2 4 w as i n i t i al l y sen t en ced . ” T h e co u rtth u s sen t en ced Z av al a t o 2 6 2 m o n th s’ im p r is o n m e n t. O n app ea l , Z aval a a rgues, and t he go vernm entagre es , thatthe di stri ctcourt pl a i nl y e rr e d i n i m pos i ng the s e nt e nc e . Z a va l a di d notr a i s e thi s c l a i m be f or e the di s tr i c tc our ta nd, thus , w e w i l l r e vi e w onl y f orpl a i n e rr or . U ni t e d S t a t e s v. R od ri gu ez , 39 8 F . 3d 12 91 , 12 98 (11t h C i r. 20 05 ). U nd erpl ai n err or re vi ew , there m ustbe (1) a n err or, (2) thati s pl ai n, and (3) aff ec t s s ub st ant i al ri gh t s. Id. W hen the s e thr e e f

a c t or s a r e m e t , w e m a y the n e xe r c i s e ourdi s c r e t i on a nd c or r e c tthe error i f i tse ri ou sl y a ff

ec t s the fa i rnes s, i nt egri ty, or pu bl i c r eput at i on of the j ud i ci al p r o c e e d in g s . I d . Z a v a la w a s s e n te n c e d u n d e rth e p r e - B o o k e r m a n d a to ry G u id e lin e s s c h e m e . 2 U nde rB ooke r , “ e rr ore xi s t s w he n the di s tr i c tc our tm i s appl i e s the G ui de l i ne s by c ons i de r i ng the m a s bi ndi ng a s oppos e d t o a dvi s ory . ” U ni t e d S t a t e s v. S he l t on, 40 0 F . 3d 13 25 , 13 31 (11t h C i r. 20 05 ). H er e, error e xi st ed because the di stri ct c o u r t c le a r ly ap p lie d th e G u id e lin e in a m a n d a to ry f a s h io n . T h e e rr o rw a s p la in be c a us e , a s w e c onc l ude d i n S he l t on, “ B ooke rm a de pl a i n the di s tr i c tc our t ’ s e rr or i n s e nt e nc i ng [ a de f

e nda nt ] unde ra m a nda t or y G ui de l i ne s s c he m e tha ti s now a d v i s o ry . ” S h e l t o n , 4 0 0 F . 3 d a t1 3 3 1 . T h u s , Z a v a l a ’ s c a s e m e e t s th e f i r s ttwo5

p r o n g s o f

p l a i n e rr o rr e v i e w. U n d e rth e th ir d p r o n g , Z a v a la m u s t d e m o n s tr a te th a t th e e rr o ra f f e c te d h is s ubs t a nt i a l r i ght s . “ [ I ] n pos t - B ooke rs e nt e nc i ng c a s e s , i n appl y i ng the thi r d pr ong, w e a s k w he the rthe r e i s a r e a s ona bl e pr oba bi l i ty of a di f f e r e ntr e s ul ti f

the gui de l i ne s ha d be e n appl i e d i n a n a dvi s ory i ns t e a d of bi ndi ng f

a s hi on by the se n ten cin g ju d g e in th is ca se .” S h elto n , 4 0 0 F .3 d at 1 3 3 2 (q u o tati o n o m itted ). “A r e a s o n a b le p r o b a b ility o f a d if f e r e n t r e s u lt m e a n s a p r o b a b ility s u f f ic ie n t to unde r m i ne c onf

i de nc e i n the out c om e . ” I d. ( quot a t i on om i tt e d) . R e vi e w of the re cord i n Z aval a’ s c as e i nd i ca t es thatthe courtw ou l d h ave i m po se d a l ow er se nt ence had i tno tfe l tbo un d b y the G ui del i nes. F i rs t , the courtexpres se d an op i ni on thati tbel i eved the se nt ence w as “ t oo l on g. ” M oreover, the court ul t i m a t e l y s e nt e nc e d Z a va l a t o the l ow e s ts e nt e nc e a l l ow a bl e unde rhi s G ui de l i ne ra ng e. A dd i t i on al l y, atre se nt enci ng , the courtagai n ackno w l edged t hati tbel i eved th e s e n te n c e w a s “u n f

a ir ” a n d th a t, u p o n r e m a n d f r o m th is C o u r t, it in te n d e d to s e n te n c e h im to a le s s e rs e n te n c e th a n w a s in itia lly im p o s e d . T h e r e f o r e , Z a v a la es t abl i shed thatthe error a ff ec t ed hi s s ub st ant i al ri gh t s bec ause , had h e bee n s e n te n c e d u n d e ra n a d v is o ry G u id e lin e s s c h e m e , th e r e is a r e a s o n a b le p r o b a b ility thathe w ou l d h ave r ec ei ved a l es se r s ent ence . F i na l l y , Z a va l a a l s o ha s m e tthe f our th pr ong of

pl a i n e rr orr e vi e w . T he6

courtexpres se d a cl ea r des i re t o i m po se a l es se r s ent ence than t he m andat ory G ui del i nes perm i tt ed, and, si nce Z aval a’ s i ni t i al se nt enci ng , the S up re m e C ou rthas sa i d thatsuch a c on si dera t i on of the G ui del i nes a s a dv i sory i s perm i ss i bl e. S ee S he l t on, 400 F . 3d a t1333- 34 ( hol di ng tha t , unde rs i m i l a rc i r c um s t a nc e s , the d e f e n d a n t h a d e s tab lis h e d p la in e rr o rth a t a f f e c te d th e f

a irn e s s , in te g r ity , o rp u b lic re pu t at i on of the proceedi ng s) . U nd erthese ci rc um st ance s, Z aval a has dem on stra t ed pl ai n err or by the di stri ctcourtand t hatthe error s er i ou sl y a ff ec t ed th e f a irn e s s , in te g r ity , o rp u b lic r e p u ta tio n o f h is ju d ic ia l p r o c e e d in g s . A c c or di ngl y , w e va c a t e Z a va l a ’ s s e nt e nc e a nd r e m a nd t o the di s tr i c tc our tf or re se nt enci ng consi st entw i th B oo ker. V AC AT E D A ND RE MAND E D.