FILED U.S. COURT OF AP P E A LS E LE V EN T HC IRC U IT MAY 11, 2005 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. 04- 10810

________________________ D . C . D ocketN o. 01 -007 33 -C R -2-1 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 S T E V E N B E RN A R D P I T T S , B Y R O N S Y L V E S T E R P I T T S , D e f e n d a n ts - A p p e lla n ts .

________________________ 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 r n D is tr ic t o f G e o r g ia

_________________________ ( M a y 11, 2005) B efo re A N D E R S O N , H U L L an d R O N E Y , C i rcu i tJu d g es. P E R C U R I A M: T hi s appe a l i s br oughtby tw o br othe r s , B y r on S y l ve s t e rP i tt s ( “ B y r on” ) a nd-2-

S t e ve n B e r na r d P i tt s ( “ S t e ve n” ) , w ho w e r e c onvi c t e d of tw o drug of

f e ns e s . B y r on P i tt s w as al so conv i ct ed of a f i re arm s off

ense . T he tw o d ef

endant s w er e c on vi ct ed i n a s i ngl e tr i a l , a nd now appe a l the i rc onvi c t i ons a nd s e nt e nc e s . A f t e rr e vi e w a nd oral ar gu m ent , w e a ff

i rm the defendant s’ conv i ct i on s, bu tvaca t e thei r s ent ence s and rem and for res ent enci ng un der a n adv i soryS ent enci ng G ui del i nes s ys t em p u r s u a n t to B o o k e r . I . E V I DE NC E AT T RI AL In o rd er t o an al yze p ro p erl y th e d efen d an t s’ ch al l en g es t o th ei r co n v i ct i o n s, a nd the di s tr i c tc our t ’ s appl i c a t i on of the S e nt e nc i ng G ui de l i ne s , w e r e c ountthe e v id e n c e p r o d u c e d a t th e d e f e n d a n ts ’ jo in t tr ia l. B y r on a nd S t e ve n P i tt s a r e br othe r s f r om C ol l e ge P a r k, G e or gi a w ho o p e r a te d a s d ru g b r o k e r s , a r r a n g in g d ru g d e a ls in v o lv in g la r g e a m o u n ts o f c o c a in e . O n O ct o b er 5 , 2 0 0 1 , th e D ru g E n fo rcem en tA g en cy (“ D E A ”) co n d u ct ed a rev erse st i ng op er at i on w i th t he hel p o f c on fi dent i al i nform antE ri c S t apl es , a f eder al pri soner c on vi ct ed of drug tra ff i cki ng and a l on g-t i m e f ri end o f B yr on and S t even P i tt s . B y r on w a s a r r e s t e d dur i ng the s t i ng ope r a t i on. S t e ve n f l e d the s c e ne a nd r e m a in e d a f

u g itiv e f o rap p r o x im a te ly o n e y e a r . A ttri al , the go vernm enti nt rodu ce d a vi deo t ape of a c on vers at i on betw ee n S t apl es and t he defendant s i n w hi ch S t apl es i nform ed the defendant s thathe w asAt a pre -trial hea ring , Steven Pitts expressed conc ern that admitting the conf ession of 1 B y ro n Pi tts , a

no n- te sti fy

ingc o- de fend ant, wo uld

imp lic ateSte ven’ s rights un der t heSixth Amendment’s Confrontation Clause. In responseto this concern, all mention of St even Pitts was omitted from the testimony reg arding

By ron’s c onfession. -3- pr e pa r e d t o s e l l the m a qua nt i ty of c oc a i ne . S t apl e s t e s t i f

i e d tha ta s a r e s ul tof

the vi de o- t ape d c onve r s a t i on, B y r on c a l l e d S t apl e s a nd pl a c e d a n or de rf or100 k ilo g r a m s o f

c o c a in e . T he go vernm enti nt rodu ce d d ozens of t aped t el epho ne ca l l s betw ee n S t apl es a nd the de f

e nda nt s di s c us s i ng the de t a i l s of the pr opos e d drug tr a ns a c t i on, i ncl ud i ng the l ocat i on of the exchange, the part i es t o b e i nv ol ved, and t he pri ce . S t apl e s t e s t i f

i e d tha tthe de f

e nda nt s ul t i m a t e l y i nc r e a s e d the i ror de rt o 110 k ilo g r a m s o f

c o c a in e . T h e g o v e r n m e n t a ls o in tr o d u c e d a s ta te m e n t m a d e b y B y r o n P itts u p o n h is a r r e s tde t a i l i ng hi s i nvol ve m e nti n the ope r a t i on. A c c or di ng t o the D E A a ge ntw ho i nt ervi ew ed B yr on af

t erhi s a rr es t , B yr on adm i tt ed t o p ar t i ci pat i ng i n t he drug deal and i dent i fi ed the key part i ci pant s. B yr on al so st at ed thatthe deal w as t o b e a

“ tur n- a r ound” i n w hi c h the pur c ha s e rw oul d s e l l the f i r s ts hi pm e ntof

c oc a i ne i m m e di a t e l y , a nd the n pur c ha s e a n a ddi t i ona l 110 ki l ogr a m s of c oc a i ne the fo l l o w i n g d ay. 1 E d d i e M yri ck , an o th er fed eral p ri so n er co n v i ct ed o f co cai n e co n sp i racy, t e s t i f i e d tha the w a s t o be the pur c ha s e rof the c oc a i ne i n the de a l s e tup by the-4-

D E A a nd S t apl e s . M y r i c k t e s t i f i e d tha ton the da y of

the pl a nne d drug de a l , he tr a ns f e r r e d m or e tha n tw o m i l l i on dol l a r s i nt o S t e ve n P i tt s ’ s gol d C a di l l a c E s c a l a de a n d f o l l o we d S t e v e n t o th e l o c a t i o n wh e r e th e d e a l wa s t o b e c o n s u m m a t e d . At som e poi nt , M yr i ck re al i ze d t hatthe drug deal w as “ a s et -up, ” a nd he and S t even f le d th e s c e n e . T h e p a r t i e s s t i p u l a t e d th a t , d u r i n g th e s t i n g , th e g o v e r n m e n ts e i z e d two m i l l i on do l l ar s i n cas h from the back of a gold C adi l l ac E sc al ade thatw as parked at the sc ene. T he D E A agental so t es t i fi ed thatw hen B yr on P i tt s w as arre st ed, po l i ce fo u n d “a G lo ck h an d g u n fix ed w ith a las ersig h t o n th e trig g erg u ar d ” in B yr o n ’s f r o n t p o c k e t. S t apl e s , the a l l e ge d s uppl i e rof the c oc a i ne , a l s o t e s t i f

i e d tha the ha d a l ong hi s t or y of

s uppl y i ng the P i tt s br othe r s w i th c oc a i ne , be gi nni ng i n M a r c h orA pr i l of 2 0 0 1 . T h e f

ir s t tr a n s a c tio n in v o lv e d 1 0 k ilo g r a m s . A f e w w e e k s la te rS tap le s s o ld th e d e f e n d a n ts 7 0 k ilo g r a m s o f c o c a in e f

o ro n e m illio n d o lla r s . M y r i c k a l s o t e s t i f

i e d tha the ha d pur c ha s e d c oc a i ne f r om the de f

e nda nt s on n u m ero u s o ccasi o n s. M yri ck t est i fi ed sp eci fi cal l y t o sev eral tran sact i o n s, i nc l udi ng one i n w hi c h he pur c ha s e d 50 or70 ki l ogr a m s , a nd a nothe ri n w hi c h he p u rch ased ap p ro x i m at el y 3 0 k i l o g ram s. T od d W al ker, anot her f eder al pri soner c on vi ct ed of drug tra ff i cki ng , t es t i fi ed-5-

thathe sol d cocai ne t o t he defendant s f rom 19 98 t o 2 00 0 o n app roxi m at el y t en oc c a s i ons e a c h. W a l ke rs t a t e d tha tthe m os the e ve rs ol d t o B y r on orS t e ve n i n a s i n g l e tr a n s a c t i o n w a s o n e k i l o g r a m. T h e ju r y f

o u n d b o th B y r o n a n d S te v e n P itts g u ilty o f ( 1 ) c o n s p ir a c y to pos s e s s w i th the i nt e ntt o di s tr i but e a tl e a s tf i ve ki l ogr a m s of

c oc a i ne , i n vi ol a t i on o f 2 1 U .S .C . § 8 4 6 , a n d ( 2 ) a id in g a n d a b e ttin g e a c h o th e rto p o s s e s s w ith in te n t to di s tr i but e a tl e a s tf

i ve ki l ogr a m s of

c oc a i ne , i n vi ol a t i on of 18 U . S . C . § 2 a nd 21 U . S . C . § 841( b) ( 1) ( A ) ( i i ) . I n a ddi t i on, the j ur y f ound B y r on P i tt s gui l ty of p o s s e s s in g a f

ir e a r m d u r in g th e c o m m is s io n o f a d ru g tr a f

f ic k in g o f f e n s e , in vi ol at i on of 18 U . S . C . § 9 24 (c )( 1)(A )( i ). I I . S E NT E NCI NG B y r on a nd S t e ve n P i tt s w e r e s e nt e nc e d s e pa r a t e l y . W e ne xtr e c ountthe de t a i l s of the i rs e nt e nc i ng he a r i ngs i n tur n. A . B y r on P i t t s ’ s S e n t e n c i n g D u r in g B y r o n P itts ’s s e n te n c in g h e a r in g , th e d is tr ic t c o u r t a ttr ib u te d to h im a tl e a s t150 ki l ogr a m s of c oc a i ne , y i e l di ng a ba s e of f e ns e l e ve l of

38 unde rthe S e nt e nc i ng G ui de l i ne s . T he di s tr i c tc our tba s e d i t s drug qua nt i ty f i ndi ng on the tri al t es t i m on y r egar di ng the am ou ntof cocai ne i nv ol ved i n t he st i ng and o ther pr e vi ous tr a ns a c t i ons . T he di s tr i c tc our tgr a nt e d a tw o- l e ve l r e duc t i on f or-6-

accep t an ce o f resp o n si b i l i ty u n d er U . S . S . G . § 3 E 1 . 1 b ecau se B yro n ’ s p o st -arrest c o n f e s s io n h a d le d to th e a r r e s t o f s e v e r a l o th e rp a r tic ip a n ts , in c lu d in g E d d ie M y r i c k. T he di s tr i c tc our tde ni e d B y r on’ s r e que s tf ora m i nor - r ol e r e duc t i on. W i th a t ot al adj ust ed offens e l evel of 36 and cri m i nal hi st ory c at egory of I I, the di s tr i c tc our tc a l c ul a t e d a G ui de l i ne s r a nge of 210- 262 m onths ’ i m pr i s onm e nt f orthe drug c ount s , w i th a n a ddi t i ona l s t a tut or y m a nda t or y m i ni m um of 60 m onths ’ s i m pr i s onm e nton the f i r e a r m s c ha r ge . T he di s tr i c tc our ts e nt e nc e d B y r on P i tt s t o the l ow e nd of

the G ui de l i ne s r a nge , i m pos i ng 210 m onths ’ i m pr i s onm e nt on the tw o d rug cou nt s t o b e s erved con curr ent l y, and t he st atut ory m andat ory m i ni m um 60 m on ths’ i m pri sonm enton the fi re arm coun t , t o b e s erved c o n s e c u tiv e ly . B. St e v e n Pi t t s ’ s Se nt e nc i ng D u r in g S te v e n P itts ’s s e n te n c in g h e a r in g , th e d is tr ic t c o u r t a ttr ib u te d to h im a tl e a s t150 ki l ogr a m s of c oc a i ne , y i e l di ng a ba s e of f e ns e l e ve l of

38 unde rthe G u id e lin e s . A s in B y r o n ’s s e n te n c in g , th e d is tr ic t c o u r t b a s e d th is d ru g q u a n tity f i ndi ng on the tr i a l t e s t i m ony r e ga r di ng the a m ountof c oc a i ne i nvol ve d i n the s t i ng and p re vi ou s tra nsac t i on s. In addi t i on , the di stri ctcourtgrant ed a tw o-l evel in c r e a s e u n d e rU .S .S .G . § 2 D 1 .1 ( b ) ( 1 ) , c o n c lu d in g th a t it w a s r e a s o n a b ly f or e s e e a bl e t o S t e ve n tha tB y r on w oul d pos s e s s a f i r e a r m dur i ng the c om m i s s i onU.S.S.G. § 2D1.1(b)(1) provides for the alteration of the “base of fenselevel” ba sed on 2 the spec ific cha

rac teristics of a dr

ugtraff ickingoffense. Specific ally , it state, “[i] f a da ng erous wea pon (includinga fire arm) w as possessed, inc rea se by 2 levels.” Wh er e ani n cr ea s e i ns ent en ce p urs u antt o § 2 D1 . 1 (b )( 1 ) i s b as edo na c o -c o n s p i rat o r's possession of a firear

m, this C ourt has determined that certain re quirements must be met. Specifically , we ha

ve held that the g overnment must prove by a prepondera

nce of the evidenc e that “(1) the possessor of thefirea rm was a co-c onspirator, (2) the possession was in fur thera nce of the c onspiracy, (3) the de fenda nt was a member of theconspiracy at the time of possession, and (4) the co- conspirator possession was re asonably fore seea ble by the def endant.”United States v. Gallo, 195 F.3d 1278, 1284 ( 11th Cir. 1999). As noted later , Steven Pitts does not appeal the fac t-findingthat supports this two-level fire arm enhancement under § 2D 1.1(b)( 1). -7- of the drug tra ff

i cki ng offe nse. 2 W i th a t ot al adj ust ed offens e l evel of 40 and cri m i nal hi st ory c at egory of I II , the di stri ctcourtca l cul at ed a G ui del i nes r ange of 36 0 m on ths’ t o l i fe i m pr i s onm e nt . T he di s tr i c tc our ts e nt e nc e d S t e ve n P i tt s t o the l ow e nd of the G u id e lin e s r a n g e , im p o s in g 3 6 0 m o n th s ’ im p r is o n m e n t o n th e tw o d ru g c o u n ts , to b e serv ed co n cu rren t l y. I I I . DI S CUS S I ON A . C on vi ct i on Is su es O n ap p e a l, th e d e f

e n d a n ts r a is e s e v e r a l c h a lle n g e s to th e irc o n v ic tio n s . B o th de f e nda nt s c l a i m : ( 1) tha tthe y w e r e i nc om pe t e ntt o s t a nd tr i a l ; ( 2) tha tthe evi dence of pri or un re l at ed drug tra nsac t i on s s ho ul d n othave been adm i tt ed at tri al ; and (3) thatthe di stri ctcourtshou l d h ave gi ven t hei r r equest ed j ury in s tru c tio n o n w ith d r a w a l f r o m a c o n s p ir a c y . In ad d i t i o n , each d efen d an tsep arat el y rai ses cert ai n i ssu es. S p eci fi cal l y,On appe al, Steven Pitts does not challeng e the district cour t’s fac t-finding s or Guidelines 3 calculations with respec t to his sentence. -8- S te v e n P itts a r g u e s : ( 1 ) th a t th e a d m is s io n o f B y r o n ’s c o n f

e s s io n v io la te d h is r ig h ts un der the C on fr on t at i on C l ause of the S i xt h A m endm ent ; and (2) thatthe di stri ct courti m prop er l y r ef

used t o i nstructthe j ury thata buyer/ se l l erre l at i on shi p d oes n o t c o n s titu te a c o n s p ir a c y . O n app ea l , B yr on P i tt s a rgues: (1) thathi s post -a rr es tst at em entw as a d m itte d in v io la tio n o f 1 8 U .S .C . § 3 5 0 1 ( c ) b e c a u s e o f th e d e la y in b r in g in g h im b e f o r e a m a g is tr a te ju d g e ; a n d ( 2 ) th a t th e d is tr ic t c o u r t a b u s e d its d is c r e tio n in d e n y in g B y r o n ’s m o tio n to s e v e rth e tr ia l. A f t e rr e vi e w a nd or a l a r gum e nt , w e f i nd tha ta l l of

the s e i s s ue s a r e w i thout m e r i ta nd w a r r a ntno f

ur the rdi s c us s i on. B. Fa c t - Fi ndi ng s a t Byr o n’ s Se nt e nc i ng O n appe a l , i n a ddi t i on t o r a i s i ng the B ooke ri s s ue s di s c us s e d be l ow , B y r on P i tt s ch al l en g es th e fact -fi n d i n g s d u ri n g h i s sen t en ci n g h eari n g . S p eci fi cal l y, 3 B yr on P i tt s c hal l enges the di stri ctcourt ’ s f i nd i ng s ( 1) thathi s off

ense s i nv ol ved at le a s t 1 5 0 k ilo g r a m s o f

c o c a in e , a n d ( 2 ) th a t h e w a s n o t e n title d to a m in o r - r o le r e duc t i on. W e r e vi e w the s e f a c t - f i ndi ngs f orc l e a re r r or . S e e , e . g. , U ni t e d S t a t e s v. D e V ar on , 17 5 F . 3d 93 0, 93 7 (11 th C i r. 19 99 ) ( en banc) (mi no r- rol e r educt i on ); U n ite d S ta te s v . M e r tilu s , 1 1 1 F .3 d 8 7 0 , 8 7 3 ( 1 1 th C ir . 1 9 9 7 ) ( d ru g q u a n tity ) .A s t o th em i n o r - ro l er e d u c t i o n , B yro nP i tt s h a s th eb urd e no f p ro v i n gh i s m i n o r

ro l eb y a 4 preponderanc e of theevidenc e. United States v. B oyd, 291 F.3d 1274, 1277 ( 11th Cir. 2002). -9- W i th r e ga r d t o drug qua nt i ty , the r e w a s a m pl e e vi de nc e t o s uppor tthe 150- ki l ogr a m qua nt i ty of

c oc a i ne . F ore xa m pl e , the e xt e ns i ve tr i a l e vi de nc e i nc l ude d: ( 1) a c onf

e s s i on by B y r on P i tt s i n w hi c h he s t a t e d tha tthe 110- ki l ogr a m c oc a i ne pur c ha s e tha the or c he s tr a t e d w a s t o i nc l ude a s e c ond “ tur n a r ound” i nvol vi ng anot her 100 ki l og ra m s of c ocai ne; (2) c orrobo ra t i ng t es t i m on y f rom tw o ass oci at es of the P i tt s br othe r s e s t a bl i s hi ng a hi s t or y of l a r ge - qua nt i ty drug tr a ns a c t i ons ; a nd ( 3 ) th e s e iz u r e o f

m o r e th a n tw o m illio n d o lla r s in c a s h ( a n a m o u n t c o n s is te n t w ith o v e r1 0 0 k ilo g r a m s o f

c o c a in e ) . W i th regard t o t he m i no r- rol e r educt i on , the tri al evi dence s ho w ed that B yr on P i tt s’ s r ol e i n t he offens es w as subst ant i al and cruci al . F or exam pl e, there w er e d o ze n s o f tap ed p h o n e c o n v er sa ti o n s b etw ee n B yr o n P itts an d th e D E A ’s c onf i de nt i a l i nf

or m a ntdi s c us s i ng the de t a i l s of the drug tr a ns a c t i on. B y r on s e tthe p r ic e a n d d e te r m in e d w h e r e a n d w h e n th e d ru g tr a n s f e rw a s to ta k e p la c e . A ls o , it w a s B y r on w ho or i gi na l l y or de r e d the 100 ki l ogr a m s of c oc a i ne . T he t e s t i m ony re l at i ng t o p ri or tra nsac t i on s a l so show ed thatB yr on P i tt s opera t ed as atl ea stan eq u al p ar tn erw ith h is b ro th er . T ak en to g eth er , th e e v id en ce sh o w ed th at B yr o n ’s r o le in th e o f

f e n s e s w a s a n y th in g b u t m in o r . A t a m in im u m , B y r o n f a ile d to es t abl i sh thathi s r ol e w as m i no r. 4-10-

A c c o r d in g ly , b a s e d u p o n a ll th e e v id e n c e in th is c a s e , th e d is tr ic t c o u r t d id notc l e a r l y e r ri n m a ki ng i t s f a c tua l de t e r m i na t i ons a s t o e i the rthe drug qua nt i ty or the m i nor - r ol e r e duc t i on. C . B oo k er Is su es In thei r i ni t i al bri ef

s on app ea l , bo th d ef

endant s a rgued t hatthei r s ent ence s w e r e i nc r e a s e d ba s e d upon f a c t s notf ound by the j ur y i n vi ol a t i on of B l a ke l y v. W a s hi ngt on, 542 U . S . __, 124 S . C t . 2531 ( 2004) . S i nc e the f i l i ng of the br i e f s on appeal , the S up re m e C ou rtext ended B l akel y t o t he F eder al S ent enci ng G ui del i nes in U n ite d S ta te s v . B o o k e r , 5 4 3 U .S . __ , 1 2 5 S . C t. 7 3 8 ( 2 0 0 5 ) . U n d e rB la k e ly ( now B ooke r ) , the de f

e nda nt s c ont e nd tha tthe j udi c i a l f a c t - f i ndi ngs unde r l y i ng th e irs e n te n c e e n h a n c e m e n ts v io la te d th e S ix th A m e n d m e n t. B e c a us e the de f

e nda nt s di d notr a i s e thi s B l a ke l y ( now B ooke r ) i s s ue i n the di s tr i c tc our t , w e r e vi e w onl y f orpl a i n e r r or . U ni t e d S t a t e s v. R odr i gue z , 398 F . 3d 12 91 , 12 98 (11t h C i r. 20 05 ), pet i t i on for c er t . fi l ed 73 U . S . L . W . 35 31 (U . S . F eb 23, 2005) ( N o. 04- 1148) . “ A n appe l l a t e c our tm a y notc or r e c ta n e r r orthe d e f e n d a n t f a ile d to r a is e in th e d is tr ic t c o u r t u n le s s th e r e is : ‘( 1 ) e r r o r , ( 2 ) th a t is pl a i n, a nd ( 3) tha ta f

f e c t s s ubs t a nt i a l r i ght s . ’ ” I d. ( quot i ng U ni t e d S t a t e s v. C ott on, 5 3 5 U .S . 6 2 5 , 6 3 1 , 1 2 2 S . C t. 1 7 8 1 , 1 7 8 5 ( 2 0 0 2 ) ) . I f th e s e th r e e c o n d itio n a r e m e t, the n w e ha ve di s c r e t i on t o r e ve r s e a f or f e i t e d e r r or , “ butonl y i f

( 4) the e r r orTh ejur y retur ne d a verdic t c onvic tin gthede fend ants of dr ugc rime s invo lvingat le a st 5 five kilograms of c ocaine . The de fenda nts weresentenc ed base d upon judicial fac t-finding s that the ir dr ugc rime s invo lve d mo retha n 1 50 kil ogra

ms o f c oc aine . In additi on , whil eB y ro n Pi tts was c onvicted of posse ssing a firea rm duringa drugtraff

ickingoffense, Steven Pitts was not charg ed with a f

irea rms offense. Rather , Steven Pitts ’s sentenc e wa s enhanc ed by the district court ba sed upon a determination that By ron’s use of

a fire arm wa s fore seea

ble to Steven. -11- se 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 j ud i ci al proceedi ng s. ’ ” I d. (quo t i ng C ot t on , 53 5 U . S . at63 1, 12 2 S . C t . at17 85 ). Iti s und i sput ed thatbo th d ef endant s w er e gi ven sent ence s bas ed up on extra verdi ctenhancem ent s und erthe G ui del i nes. Iti s f urther und i sput ed that , un der 5 B oo ker, these extra -ver di ctenhancem ent s i m po se d u nd era m andat ory gui del i nes s y s te m v io la te d th e d e f

e n d a n ts ’ S ix th A m e n d m e n t r ig h ts . S e e B o o k e r , 1 2 5 S . C t. at74 9-56 ; R od ri gu ez , 39 8 F . 3d at13 01 (B oo ker e rr or i s “ no tthe use of e xt ra verdi ctenhancem ent s . . . . [R ather, ] [t ] he const i tut i on al error i s the use of e xt ra ve r di c te nha nc e m e nt s t o r e a c h a gui de l i ne s r e s ul ttha ti s bi ndi ng on the s e nt e nc i ng j ud ge. ”) (e m ph as i s a dd ed). T hi s C our tha s a l r e a dy de t e r m i ne d tha tthi s ty pe of B ooke re r r orm e e t s the f ir s t tw o p r o n g s o f

p la in - e r r o rr e v ie w b e c a u s e it is ( 1 ) e r r o r , ( 2 ) th a t is p la in . U ni t ed S t at es v. S hel t on , 40 0 F . 3d 13 25 , 13 30 -31 (11 th C i r. 20 05 ); R od ri gu ez , 3 9 8 F . 3 d 1 2 9 8 -9 9 . W e th u s m o v e t o th e th i rd p ro n g o f p l ai n -erro r an al ysi s. U nde rthe thi r d pr ong, B y r on a nd S t e ve n P i tt s be a rthe e xa c t i ng bur de n of show i ng thatthe B oo ker e rr ors i n t hei r s ent enci ng “ af fe ct [e d] [thei r] subst ant i al-12-

ri gh t s. ” S hel t on , 40 0 F . 3d at13 31 . T he defendant s’ heavy burden i n t hi s r egar d

“ i s t o s how tha tthe e r r ora c tua l l y di d m a ke a di f f e r e nc e . ” I d. a t1332 ( quot a t i on m a r ks a nd c i t a t i on om i tt e d) . S pe c i f i c a l l y , i n pos t - B ooke rs e nt e nc i ng c a s e s , the thi rd pron g i s m eton l y i f the defendantshow s “ a r ea sonabl e probabi 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 or y i ns t e a d of bi ndi ng f a s h io n b y th e s e n te n c in g ju d g e in th is c a s e .” R o d r ig u e z , 3 9 8 F .3 d a t 1 3 0 1 . 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” is 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. a t1299. I n th is c a s e , a s in S h e lto n , w e c o n c lu d e th a t b o th B y r o n a n d S te v e n P itts have carri ed thi s e xact i ng bu rden. A s t o B yr on P i tt s, the di stri ctcourtse nt ence d B yr on t o 2 10 m on ths, the l ow end o f the G ui del i nes r ange. M ore i m po rt ant l y, here the di stri ctcourtal so i nd i ca t ed i t s di ss at i sf ac t i on w i th t he se nt ence i tw as re qu i re d t o i m pos e unde rthe G ui de l i ne s . A tone poi ntdur i ng B y r on P i tt s ’ s s e nt e nc i ng he a r i ng, the di s tr i c tc our ts t a t e d tha ti tf e l tc ons tr a i ne d by the l e tt e rof the G ui del i nes des pi t e i t s des i re t o i m po se a l es se r s ent ence . S peci fi ca l l y, the court s t a t e d, “ F r a nkl y , I ’ d l i ke t o he l p y ou outbe c a us e I don’ tw a ntt o i m pos e the ki nd of s e n te n c e I ’v e g o t to im p o s e to d a y . . . .” In addi t i on , w hen cal cul at i ng B yr on ’ s c ri m i nal hi st ory c at egory, the di stri ct c our tnot e d tha ti tw a s “ tr oubl e d by the f a c ttha t[ one of

the m i s de m e a nor-13-

conv i ct i on s i n B yr on ’ s c ri m i nal hi st ory] w as n’ tcoun se l ed. ” H ow ever , the di stri ct c our ta ga i n not e d tha ti tw a s c ons tr a i ne d by the G ui de l i ne s on thi s poi nt , s t a t i ng tha t“ [ t ] he gui de l i ne s s a y tha te ve n unc ouns e l e d m i s de m e a nor s s houl d be c ount e d, s o b a s e d o n th a t I ’m g o in g to ru le a g a in s t y o u . . . .” A s w a s the c a s e i n S he l t on, a l l of the s e c om m e nt s , a nd a f a i rr e a di ng of

the s e n te n c in g tr a n s c r ip t a s a w h o le , “c o n v in c e u s th a t th e r e is a r e a s o n a b le p r o b a b ility the di s tr i c tc our tw oul d ha ve i m pos e d a l e s s e rs e nt e nc e i n [ thi s ] c a s e i f i tha d not f e l tbound by the G ui de l i ne s . ” S he l t on, 400 F . 3d a t1332- 33. L i ke w i s e , a s t o S t e ve n P i tt s , the di s tr i c tc our ts e nt e nc e d S t e ve n t o 360 m o n th s, th e lo w en d o f th e G u id elin es ra n g e. A lso , d u rin g S tev en P itts’s s e n te n c in g h e a r in g , th e d is tr ic t c o u r t e x p r e s s e d d is s a tis f a c tio n w ith th e s e n te n c e it w a s b o u n d to im p o s e . F o re x a m p le , a lth o u g h th e d is tr ic t c o u r t u ltim a te ly se nt ence d S t even atthe l ow es tpo ss i bl e e nd of hi s G ui del i nes r ange, the di stri ct c o u r t s ta te d th a t th e s e n te n c e “w a s v e r y h a r s h .” T h e d is tr ic t c o u r t a ls o s p e c if ic a lly thank ed S t even’ s a tt orney f or att em pt i ng t o h ave the se nt ence re du ce d, st at i ng that “y o u ’v e g iv e n m e e v e r y o p p o r tu n ity to n o t d o w h a t I th in k th e la w r e q u ir e s m e to do and I thank you for that . ” A ga i n, a l l of

the s e c om m e nt s , a nd a f a i rr e a di ng of

the s e nt e nc i ng tr a ns c r i pt as a w ho l e, “ conv i nce us thatthere i s are as on abl e probabi l i ty the di stri ctcourtWe note that By ron Pitts’s 60-month sentence imposed for car rying a firea rm duringthe 6 commission of a drugtraff ickingoffense constitutes the statutory mandatory

minimumfor that of fens e . Se e18 U. S.C. § 9 24 (c )( 1) (A)( i) (s tatin gthat any pers on vio latin gthestatut e“ sh a ll, in addition to the punishment provided for suc h . . . drugtraff ickingcrime . . . besentenc ed to a term of imp ri so nment o f n ot l e ss t ha n 5 ye ars ” ). On

remand , th edis tric t c ourt wi ll re main constraine d by

the statutory

sentenc ing provision. Theref ore, theonly

portion of B y

ron Pitts’s sentenc e that could beaff ecte d by consulting the§ 3553(a) fac tors is the 210-month sentence Pitt s re c e ive d f

or his dr ugc onvic tio ns . We also note, as wedid in Shelton, that we do not know what sentenc e the district cour t might impose on either

defendant af

ter c onsulting the factors in § 3553(a). We there forecannot deter mine at this tim e whe ther a particula r sentenc e below theGuidelines ra ng e will be rea sonable in this case , and do not express any opinion on the rea sonablene ss of such a sentence . See Shelton, 400 F.3d at 1333 n.11. -14- w oul d ha ve i m pos e d a l e s s e rs e nt e nc e i n [ thi s ] c a s e i f i tha d notf

e l tbound by the G u id e lin e s .” I d . F i nal l y, the fourth p rong of pl ai n-error a nal ys i s r equi re s us t o con si der w h e th e rth e s e n te n c in g e r r o r s in th is c a s e “s e r io u s ly a f f e c te d th e f

a ir n e s s , in te g r ity o r p u b l i c rep u t at i o n o f j u d i ci al p ro ceed i n g s. ” Id . at1 3 3 3 (q u o t at i o n m ark s, pu nctuat i on , and ci t at i on om i tt ed). U nd erthe fa ct s a nd ci rc um st ance s of thi s c as e, w e a l s o c onc l ude tha tthe f our th pr ong i s e s t a bl i s he d a nd tha ta n e xe r c i s e of our di s c r e t i on i s w a r r a nt e d. 6 I V . CONCL US I ON F ora l l of the a bove r e a s ons , w e A F F I R M a l l the c onvi c t i ons of de f e nda nt B y r on P i tt s a nd de f

e nda ntS t e ve n P i tt s . W e V A C A T E the i rs e nt e nc e s a nd R E M A N D t o the di s tr i c tc our ts o tha te a c h de f e nda ntm a y be r e s e nt e nc e d i n a m anner consi st entw i th B oo ker.We do not mean to imply that on rema

nd the district court must impose a lesser 7 sentenc e . O n re mand , th edis tric t c ourt may imp os ethesamesentenc e . Rather, wemere ly ho ld that By ron and Steven Pitt s have e ach shown a re asonableprobability that the district court would have imposed a

lesser sentenceunder a

n advisory

Guidelines re g ime. -15- W e not e thati n t hi s c as e, the di stri ctcourtcorr ec t l y det erm i ned t he prop er G ui de l i ne s r a nge f

orboth B y r on’ s a nd S t e ve n’ s c onvi c t i ons . O n r e m a nd, the di stri ctcourti s r equi re d t o res ent ence ea ch defendantun der a n adv i sory G ui del i nes r e gi m e , a nd s ha l l c ons i de rthe r e l e va ntG ui de l i ne s r a nge f ore a c h de f

e nda nta nd

“ ot her 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 ooke r , 125 S . C t . a t757. 7 A F F I R M E D in p a r t; V A C A T E D a n d R E M A N D E D in p a r t.