### FI LED U.S. COURT O F APP EALS ELEVENTH CIRCUIT JUN E 10, 20 05 THO MAS K. KAH N CL ERK [DO NOT PUBLISH] IN THE UN ITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FO R T HE EL EV EN TH CIRC UI T

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ N o. 04- 1328 1 Non-A rgum ent Calendar

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ D. C. Docket N o. 03-00028 -CR- 1-W LS -1 UNITED STAT ES OF AMERIC A, P laintiff-Appellee, ve rs us ROGERS LEE JACKSON, D ef en dant- Appe llant.

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ __ Appe al f ro m the U nit ed

S ta te s D istri ct

Co urt f or the Mi ddl e D istri ct

of G eo rg ia

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ _ (June 10, 200 5) Be fo re T JO FL A T , D U BIN Aand KRA V IT CH , Ci rc uit Jud ge s. PE R CU RIA M: Ro ge rs L ee Ja ck son w as ind ic te d f or f ive c ount s of

pos se ssi on w ithint en t t o di st rib ut e m or e th an fiv e g ram s o f cra ck , in vi ol at io n o f 21 U.S.C. § 8 41 .2

Th e e v i d e n c e a ttr i a l e s t ab l i s h e dth a tth e DE Ao r g an i z e dc o n tr o l l e db u ys usi ng a c onf ide nti al inf

orm an t ( “ CI ”) w ho w oul d c al l Ja ck son’ s c el l ph one and arr an g e t o p u r c h a s e c r a c k . I nmo s tc a s e s , th e me e t i n g o c c u r r e da tJ a c k s o n ’s h o me an dea ch p h o n e c al l an dm ee t i n g wa s t ap e r ec o rd ed . Ov erd ef en s e c o u n s el ’s objec tions , the C I identified Jackson’s voice on the tape, and identified Jackson as the pe rs on w ithw hom

he m et to pur ch as e cr ac k. A cc or din g to the D E Af or en sic c h e mi s t , th e t o t a l w e i g h tf r o m th e f i v e e x c h an g e s i n v o l v i n g th e C I w a s 5 8 g r a ms of c ra ck . I n an in te rv ie wa ft er his arr es t, Ja ck son ide nti fi ed his c oc ai ne sourc es , and inform ed agents that he purchased approxim ately one kilog ram

of powder co cai ne pe r weekfora y ear, wh ic h h e co nv ert edto crac k. A ft er the gov er

nm ent r es te d, and J ac ksonde ci de d no t t o te sti fy , de fe nse co unse l e xpl ai ne d th at

he int en de d to c al l no w itn es se s be ca use “ [w ] hil e w e have subp oe na ed

six w itn es se s and a s I und er stand tha t are a va ila ble and o uts ide the co ur tro om

read y to tes ti fy , in li gh t o f fu rth er d is cu ss io n wi th Mr. J ack so n, we wou ldpre se nt no ev id en ce.” Th e jury con vi ct edJac ks on of a ll fiv e co un ts . The probation officer

prepare d a presentence investigation report (“ PSI ”), groupin g the five counts to gether and assignin g a base offe nse level of 36 und er U . S. S. G . §§ 3 D 1. 2 and 2 D 1. 1( c) (2 ) be ca use Ja ck son w as he ld a cc ount ab le f or m or e than 50 0 gr am s, but le ss than 1. 5 ki log ram s of c ra ck . Ja ck son’ s r es ult ing3

gui de lin es r an ge w as 188 to 235 m onths i m pr iso nm en t. B othJa ck son an d th e go ve rn m en t o bjec te d t o t he am ou nt of d ru gs att rib ut edto Jac ks on . A t se nte nc ing , the gov er

nm en t pr es en te d te sti m ony f ro m se ve ra l pe opl e w ho s ta te d th at

the y ha d be eninv olv ed

in dr ug d ea ls w ithJa ck son. T ra ce y T im ly adm itt ed that he use d to pur ch as e cr ac k f ro m Ja ck son, and tha t he ty

pic al ly m ad e one pur ch as e ea chw ee k of tw o or thr ee c ooki es e ac h ti m e w ithJa ck son as his onl y supp lie r. H e expla ine d th at ac ooki e w ei ghe d a

bout 25 g ram s and c ost

about $65 0 to $75 0. T im ly

further e xplained th e process by which powder

cocaine w as co nve rt ed to cr ac k. C al ve rt

Br ow n te sti fi ed

that he pur ch as ed

c ra ck f ro m Ja ck son two or t hr ee t im es by con ta ct in g J ack so n v iacel l p ho ne . N ev or iaJa ck son state d th at in Fe br uary 200 2 he sol d 20 c ooki es to Ja ck son for $5,000. Cr

y stal Young testified that sh e purchased cra ck from Jackson ov er a fewy ears and that sh e usually boug ht about $20 worth at a tim e, but that sh e had se en lar ge r qu an ti ti es at J ack so n’s h om e. Ja ck son ag ai n de ci de d no t t o te sti fy , and d ef en se c ouns el did

not pr of fe r any oth er e vid en ce . T he gov er

nm en t arg ue d th at

the c ourt sh oul d c onsi de r the se dr ug transactions as relevant conduct, and it claim ed that it was proper to offer testim ony on the conversion from

powder to cr ack through a lay person fam iliar with the process. Ac cording to th e governm ent, e ven usin g conservative estim ates4

on the a m ount

of y ie ld f ro m the c onve rs ionpr oc es s, Ja ck son w as r es pons ibl e fo r m or e th an 1.5 ki lo gr am s o f co cai ne , whi ch was s up po rte d b y Jac ks on ’s own statem ents to DE A and AT F agents after his arrest. D efense c ouns el responded that the re w as no s ci en tif ic e vid en ce to supp ort the c onve rs ionam ount s, and the te st im on y of adru g t raff

ic ke r was no t s uf

fic ie nt . The c ourt tookthe issue und er a dvisem ent and contin ued sentencing . When se nte nc ing r ec onve ne d, the c ourt e xpl ai ne d th at aone -t o- one r at io o f pow de r to crac k cocaine w as not proper, and that the governm ent failed to m eet its burden es t ab l i s h i n g th e a cc u ra t e r at i o . Ac co rd i n g l y, th e c o u rto v erru l edth e g o v ern m en t ’s obj ec tio n to the dr

ug quanti ty . T he c ourt a lso ove rr ule d Ja ck son’ s ob

j ec tio n to drug quan tity , f

indin g that Jackson wa s responsib le for the 58 gram s proven at tr ia l pl us r el ev an t c ondu ct in the sa le s to Br ow n and T im ly and the pur ch as e fr om N ev or iaJa ck son. T he c ourt se nte nc ed Ja ck son to c onc ur

re nt 2 35- m onth te rm s of im pr iso nm en t one ac h c ount , and c onc ur re nt f ive -y ear te rm s of

sup er vis ed r el ea se on e ac h c ount . Ja ck son nowappe al s, r ai sin g tw o is sue s: ( 1) his se nte nc e is unc onst itu tio na l i n li ght

of Bl ak el y v. W as hin gto n, 542 U . S. –, 124 S . Ct . 253 1, 15 9 L.Ed .2d40 3 (2 00 4) , and(2) tri al co un se l was co ns ti tu ti on al ly defec ti ve . Be ca use w e co nc lud e that the r ec or d is not suf fi ci en tly de ve lop ed

f or us t o a ddr es sIneff ective assistance of counsel is a mix ed question of law and fac t that this court review s 1 de novo. United States v. F reixas, 332 F.3d 1314, 1316 (11th Ci r. 2003); United St ates v. B ender , 290 F.3d 1279, 1284 ( 11th Cir. 2002). This c ourt g ener ally does not consider

ineffe ctive-a ssistanceof-c ounsel claims on direc t appea l unless the rec ord is sufficie ntly develope d. Fr eixas, 332 F.3d at 13 19 n. 3; B e nd e r, 29 0 F .3 d at 12 84 . H e re , the re c or d is no t su ff ic ie ntl y de ve lop e d f

or thi s c ourt to addre ss the claim. Cf. Fr eixas , 3 3 2 F.3d at 1319 n.3 (findingthe re cord suf ficiently develope d beca use the c ourt questioned the de fenda nt conce rningcounsel duringthe plea c olloquy and held a he ari ngon

the de fe nd ant’ s re qu e st to wi thd ra w he r ple a ba se d on c ouns e l’ s a lle g e d f a ilure to d isc us s the ca se with her) . J ackson ma y b ri n g t h i s cl aim in a post-conviction collate ral a ppeal unde r 28 U.S.C. § 2255. 5 Ja ck son’ s in ef

fe ct ive -a ssi stanc e- of

- co unse l c la im

on d ir ec t a

ppe al , w e ne ed

not discuss that issue. 1 Ja ck son ar gue s th at

his se nte nc es are unc onst itu tio na l be ca use he w as he ld ac co unt ab le f

or c ondu ct not c harg ed in the ind ic tm en t or

pr ove n to aj ur

y be y ond a reas on ab le do ub t, i n v io la ti on of B la ke ly. Whe n ade fe ndant f

ai ls t o ob j ec t t o an e rr or

be fo re the dis tr ic t c ourt, thi s co urt r ev ie w s th e arg um ent f or pla in e rr or . U nit ed

S ta te s v. H al l, 314 F . 3d 5 65, 566 (1 1thCi r. 200 2) ; se e al so Unit ed S ta te s v. O lano, 507 U . S. 725 , 731 -3 2, 113 S. Ct . 177 0, 177 6, 123 L . E d. 2d 5 08 ( 1993 ). “ Pl ai n e rr or oc curs w he re ( 1) the re is an err or; (2) that is plain or obvi ous; (3) affe cting the defendant’s substantial ri ght s inthat i t w as pr ej udi ci al and n ot h ar m le ss; and ( 4) that se ri ousl y a ff ec ts the fa ir ne ss, int eg ri ty , or

pub lic r ep utatio n of

the j udi ci al pr oc ee din gs. ” H al l, 314 F. 3d at 56 6; O lano, 507 U . S. a t 73 2. H er e, a lth oughJa ck son obj ec te d to the6

quanti ty of dr ugs fo r w hic h he w as he ld a cc ount ab le , he did not do s o ba se d on Bl ak el y . Accor di ng ly, we ap pl y pl ai n e rro r rev ie w. T he U . S. S upr em e Co urt i n th e landm ar k c as e of Bl ak el y v. W as hin gto n, 124 S. Ct . 253 1 ( 2004 ), r ev er se d an up w ar d de part ur e im pose d purs uant t o th e St at e of W as hin gto n’ s st at e se nte nc ing gui de lin es . T he Co urt a ppl ie d th e ru le in Appr en di v . N ewJe rs ey , 530 U . S. 466 , 490 , 120 S . Ct . 234 8, 236 2- 63, 147 L . E d. 2d 435 (200 0), that “ [o] ther than the fact of a prior conviction, any fac t that increases the pe na lty

f or ac ri m e be y ond the pr es cr ibe d st at uto ry m ax im um m ust be subm itted to a jury , and provedbey ond a reasonable doub t.” Blakely , 124 S. Ct. at 2536 -3 8. I n r ev er sin g th e upw ar d de part ur e, the S upr em e Co urt he ld tha t the

“ relevant statutory

m axim um for Apprendi pu rposes is the m axim um a j udge m ay im pose ba se d so le ly

on the f ac ts r ef le ct ed in the j ur y ve rd ic t or

a dm itt ed by the defendant.” Id. at 2537. The Court explicitlynoted “ [t] he Feder al G uidelin es are no t b efo re u s, an d we e xp res s n o o pi ni on on th em .” Id . at 2 53 8 n .9. T he re af te r, the S upr em e Co urt i ssu ed it s de ci sio n inU nit ed

S ta te s v. Bo oke r, 543 U . S. –, 125 S . Ct . 738 , – L . E d. 2d – ( 2005 ), f ind ing “ no d ist inc tio n of co nst itu tio na l si gni fi canc e be tw ee n th e Fe de ra l S en te nc ing G uid el ine s and the W as hin gto n pr oc ed

ur es a t i ssu e” in Bl ak el y . B ooke r, 125 S . Ct . a t 74 9. R es olv ing the constitu tional qu estion left open in Blakely , the C ourt held that th e m andatory7

na tur e of the f ed er al gui de lin es r en de re d th em inc om pa tib le w iththe S ixth A m en dm en t’ s gu ar an te e to the r igh t t o aj ur y tr ia l. I d. a t 74 9- 51. I n e xte ndi ng i ts hol din g inBl ak el y

to the G uid el ine s, the Co urt e xpl ic itl y r ea ff ir m ed it s r at ion al e in Appr en di. I d. a t 75 6. In a second and separate m aj ority opini on, the Court in Booker concluded that, to be st p re se rv e Co ngr es s’ s in te nt i n e na ct ing the S en te nc ing Re fo rm A ct of 1984 , the a

ppropriate rem edy

wa s to “ excise” tw o specific sections—18 U.S. C. § 355 3(b)(1) ( requiring a sentence w ithin the guidelin e range, absent a departure) an d 18 U . S. C. § 37 42( e) ( es ta bli shi ng s tandard s of

r ev ie won a

ppe al , inc lud ing de novo r ev ie wof

de part ur es f ro m the appl ic ab le gui de lin e range )— the re by ef fe ct ive ly r en de ri ng the S en te nc ing G uid el ine s a dvi sor y onl y . I d. a t 76 4. T he Co urt e xpl ai ne d th at

dis tr ic t c ourts are not

bound t o a

ppl y the S en te nc ing Guidelines, but “ m

ust cons ult tho se Guidelines and take them into account when se nte nc ing . ” I d. a t 76 7. T he Co urt the n announc ed that, und er

the r em ai nin g pr ovi sio ns o f § 37 42, c ourts o f ap pe al s m ust r ev ie wse nte nc es f

or

“ unr ea sona

ble [n es s] . ” I d. a t 76 5. T he Co urt f urthe r ind ic at ed

that bo th i ts “ Si xth A m en dm en t ho ldi ng and . . . r em ed ia l i nte rp re ta tio n of the S en te nc ing A ct ” m

ust be appl ie d to “ al l c as es on d ir ec t r ev ie w . ” I d. a t 76 9. T he Co urt c au tio ne d, how ev er , that no t e ve ry

se nte nc e w ill giv e ri se to a Si xthA m en dm en t vi olatio n,8

nor would every

appeal lead to a newsentencing hearing. Id. T he Court ins tr uc te d r ev ie w ing c ourts t o a ppl y “ or din ar y pr ude nti al doc tr ine s, de te rm ini ng, fo r ex am ple , w he the r the iss ue w as r ai se d be lowand whe the r it fa ils the ‘ pla inerro r’ tes t.” Id . W e co nc lud e that Ja ck son cannot sho wpla in e rr or

in the im posi tio n of

his se nte nc e. S ee U nit ed

S ta te s v. Ro dr igu ez , 398 F . 3d 1 291 (1 1thCi r. ), pe tit ionf or cert. filed, No. 04-1148 (Fe b. 23, 2005) (ac knowledgin g that a Booker err or wa s plain, but hol ding that, in order to show that his subst antial rights were aff ected unde r pla in e rr or

r ev ie w , the appe llant m

ust sho wthat hi s se nte nc e w oul d have be endif fe re nt b ut f

or the c ourt’ s us e of

the m an da tor

y gui de lin es ). T he re is no ev ide nc e in the r ec or d to sho wthat Ja ck son’ s se nte nc e w oul d have be endif fe re nt b u tfo r t h e man d at o ry g u i d el i n es . Ac co rd i n g l y, we A FF IR M J ac k s o n ’s co nvi ct ion s and s en te nc es .J ackson f ails to establish the third prongof the plain e rror s t an d ard beca use he ha s not 1 shown (fr om whateve r the district judg e may have sa id on the rec ord at his sentenc ing he aring ) “that his sentenc e would have been dif fer ent but for the c ourt’s use of the mandator

y guidelines.” Ante at

_ _ _ _ _ . As a pra ctical matter , such a showingis - in this case and in a lmost every case of Booke r plain er

ror r eview - impossibl e to make. 9 Tj o f l a t , C i r c u i tJ u d g e , c o n c u rr i n g s p e c i a l l y: As I explain in my

dissent to the court’ s refusal to re hear Rodriguez en banc , the e rr or

in a ca se suc h a s th is—

w he re the dis tr ic t c ourt e nhanc es the de fe ndant’ s se nte nc e on the ba sis of f ac ts n ot a dm itt ed

by the de fe ndant o r fo und by aj ur y —i s stru ct

ur al e rr or , and the thi rd

pr ong of the pla in- er

ro r te st i s, th er ef o re , i n ap p l i cab l e. Se e U n i t edSt at es v . R o dri g u ez , — F. 3 d— , 2 0 0 5 WL 8951 74 ( 11th C ir . Apr . 19, 200 5) ( T j of lat, J. , dis se nti ng f

ro m the de nia l of re he ar ing e n banc ). A cc or din gly , the c ourt sh oul d c onsi de r w he the r the e rr or 1

“ seriouslyaff

ect[s] the fairness, integrity , or publ ic reputation of judicial pr oc ee din gs, ” U nit ed

S ta te s v. O lano, 507 U . S. 725 , 736 , 113 S . Ct . 177 0, 177 9, 1 2 3 L. Ed .2 d5 0 8 (1 9 9 3 ), an di nth i s ca s e, i td o es . I c o n cu r i nth e c o u rt ’s jud gm en t b ecau se we are R od rig ue z b ou nd .