FILED U.S. COURT OF AP P E A LS E LE V EN T HC IRC U IT JANUARY 12 , 2006 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. 05- 13534 N on -A rgum entC al endar

________________________ D. C. Do c k e tNo . 0 3 - 2 0 8 0 7 - CR - J EM 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 R E I N A L D O G I L A R T , 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

_________________________ ( Jan u ar y 12, 2006) B efo re M A R C U S , W IL S O N an d P R Y O R , C i rcu i tJu d g es. P E R C U R I A M: R e i na l do G i l a r tappe a l s hi s s e nt e nc e of 210 m onths of

i m pr i s onm e ntf

or2

c o n s p ir a c y to p o s s e s s w ith in te n t to d is tr ib u te c o c a in e . S e e 2 1 U .S .C . § 8 4 6 . G i l a r tr a i s e s f

oura r gum e nt s : be c a us e tw o a r e s qua r e l y f or e c l os e d by pr e c e de ntof th is C o u r t, a n d th e o th e rtw o a ls o f a il, w e a f f ir m . I . B AC KG RO UN D G i l artand t w o o ther m en, on e of w ho m w as an un derc ov erpo l i ce offi ce r, conspi re d t o st ea l betw ee n 2 0 and 30 ki l og ra m s of c ocai ne fr om an al l eged sa fe h o u s e . W h e n G ila r t a n d th e o th e rm a n m e t w ith th e u n d e r c o v e rp o lic e o f f ic e rto c om m i tthe c r i m e , pol i c e of f i c e r s a rr e s t e d G i l a r ta nd hi s c o- c ons pi r a t ora nd f ound a l oa de d pi s t ol on the pe r s on of G i l a r t ’ s c o- c ons pi r a t or . A f t e ra tr i a l , the j ur y f

ound G i l a r tgui l ty of

c ons pi r a c y t o pos s e s s w i th i nt e ntt o di s tr i but e f i ve ki l ogr a m s or m or e of c oc a i ne , s e e 21 U . S . C . §§ 841( a ) ( 1) , 841( b) ( 1) ( A ) , 846, butnotgui l ty of c ons pi r a c y t o us e , c a rry , a nd pos s e s s a f i r e a r m dur i ng a nd r e l a t i on t o a c r i m e of vi ol e nc e a nd a drug tr a f f i c ki ng c r i m e , s e e 18 U . S . C . § 924( o) , a nd notgui l ty of att em ptt o p osse ss w i th i nt entt o d i stri bu t e f i ve ki l og ra m s or m ore of c ocai ne, se e 21 U . S . C . §§ 841( b) ( 1) ( A ) , 846; 18 U . S . C . § 2. T he j ury w a s una bl e t o r e a c h a verdi cton the charge of r ob bery , se e 18 U . S . C . § 1 95 1(a) , and returned a speci al verdi ctthatfoun d G i l art ’ s off ense i nv ol ved l es s than fi ve ki l og ra m s of c ocai ne. T he di stri ctcourtse nt ence d G i l artt o 2 10 m on ths of i m pri sonm entand t hree y e a r s o f s u p e r v is e d r e le a s e f

o rth e o f f e n s e o f c o n s p ir a c y to p o s s e s s w ith in te n t to3

di stri bu t e f

i ve ki l og ra m s or m ore of c ocai ne, bu taf t erG i l artappeal ed that se nt ence , w e r em anded for res ent enci ng i n the l i gh tof U ni t ed S t at es v. B oo ker, 543 U . S . __, 125 S . C t . 738 ( 2005) . A tr e s e nt e nc i ng, G i l a r tm a de the f ol l ow i ng thr e e a r gum e nt s : ( 1) the e nha nc e m e nt s f orpos s e s s i ng a f

i r e a r m a nd f

ordrug qua nt i ty w e r e i m pr ope rbe c a us e the e nha nc e m e nt s w e r e ba s e d on c onduc tf or w hi ch he had b ee n acqui tt ed by the j ury a nd the j ury had re turned a speci al verdi ct fi nd i ng thathi s off

ense i nv ol ved l es s than fi ve ki l og ra m s of c ocai ne; (2) ase nt ence enhanced on the basi s of a cqui tt ed cond uctand con tra ry t o the spec i al verdi ct w ou l d b e unreas on abl e; and (3) appl yi ng the B oo ker r em edy of a n adv i sory gu i del i nes s chem e t o sent ence hi m base d o n fac t s thatw er e nei ther proved t o a j ury n o r ad m i tt ed b y h i m v i o l at ed h i s ri g h t s u n d er th e E x P o stF act o an d D u e P ro cess C la u s e s o f

th e U .S . C o n s titu tio n . T he di stri ctcourtre

j ec t ed G i l art ’ s a rgum ent s. T he di stri ctcourtre as on ed tha tthe e nha nc e m e ntf

ordrug qua nt i ty w a s pr ope rbe c a us e the c onvi c t i on f or conspi ra cy t o p osse ss coca i ne w as for 20 t o 3 0 k i l os and “ that ’ s w hatw as t al ked a bout . ” T he di s tr i c tc our ts t a t e d tha ti tf ound G i l a r t ’ s c r i m i na l ba c kgr ound “a b y s m a l” a n d w a s e s p e c ia lly c o n c e rn e d w ith h is h is to ry o f a r m e d h o m e in v a s io n s . A f t e rs t a t i ng i tha d c ons i de r e d the a dvi s ory gui de l i ne s c om put a t i ons i n the P re se nt enci ng Invest i gat i ve R eport , the st at em ent s of the part i es , and t he st atut ory4

fa ct ors, se e 18 U . S . C . 35 53 (a )( 1)-( 7), the di stri ctcourti m po se d an am ended s e n te n c e o f

2 1 0 m o n th s o f

im p r is o n m e n t a n d th r e e y e a r s o f s u p e r v is e d r e le a s e . I I . STA N D A R D O F R EVI EW W e r e v ie w d e n o v o a c la im o f c o n s titu tio n a l s e n te n c in g e rr o rb 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 . S e e U n ite d S ta te s v . P a z , 4 0 5 F .3 d 9 4 6 , 9 4 8 ( 1 1 th C i r . 2005) . W e r e vi e w de novo the appl i c a t i on by the di s tr i c tc our tof the S e nt e nc i ng G ui de l i ne s , a nd f i ndi ngs of

f a c tf orc l e a re rr or , U ni t e d S t a t e s v. T ruj i l l o, 14 6 F . 3d 83 8, 84 7 (11 th C i r. 19 98 ); B oo ker does notchange thi s s t andard o f r e v ie w , U n ite d S ta te s v . C r a w f o r d , 4 0 7 F .3 d 1 1 7 4 , 1 1 7 8 ( 1 1 th C ir . 2 0 0 5 ) . W e r e vi e w f orr e a s ona bl e ne s s a s e nt e nc e i m pos e d by the di s tr i c tc our tunde rthe ad v iso ry g u id elin es . C ra w fo rd , 4 0 7 F .3 d at 1 1 7 8 . “ W e r ev iew a d istrict co u rt’s de t e r m i na t i on of

the qua nt i ty of

drugs us e d t o e s t a bl i s h a ba s e of f e ns e l e ve l f

or s e nt e nc i ng purpos e s unde rthe c l e a r l y e rr one ous s t a nda r d, ” U ni t e d S t a t e s v. S i m p so n , 2 2 8 F . 3 d 1 2 9 4 , 1 2 9 8 (1 1 th C i r. 2 0 0 0 ), an d “ can n o tfi n d cl ear erro r u n l ess

‘ w e a re l ef

tw i th a defi ni t e a nd fi rm conv i ct i on thata m i st ake has been c om m i tt e d. ’ ” C r a w f

or d, 407 F . 3d a t1177 ( quot i ng G l a s s r oth v. M oor e , 335 F . 3d 1 2 8 2 , 1 2 9 2 ( 1 1 th C ir . 2 0 0 3 ) ) . I I I . DI S CUS S I ON G ila r t n o w ap p e a ls h is s e n te n c e , a n d h e m a k e s f o u ru n s u c c e s s f

u l a r g u m e n ts .5

W e di s c us s e a c h i n turn.

A . It W as N otE rr or to App l

y the G ui del i nes as A dvisory . G i l a r ta r gue s tha t , be c a us e he c om m i tt e d hi s c r i m e a f t e rB l a ke l y v. W a s h i n g t o n , 5 4 2 U . S. 2 9 6 , 1 2 4 S. Ct . 2 5 3 1 ( 2 0 0 4 ) , b u tb e f o r e Bo o k e r , 5 4 3 U . S.

— , 1 2 5 S . C t. 7 3 8 , th e d is tr ic t c o u r t v io la te d G ila r t’s r ig h ts u n d e rth e e x p o s t f a c to pri nci pl e of f

ai r w arni ng i n the D ue P roce ss C l ause w hen i tse nt ence d h i m base d on po st -ver di ctfi nd i ng s of f ac tand retroac t i vel y app l i ed the se nt enci ng gu i del i nes as advi sory . G i l artconcedes thatw e have re j ec t ed thi s a rgum ent . S ee U ni t ed St a t e s v . D u n c a n , 4 0 0 F. 3 d 1 2 9 7 ( 1 1 th Ci r . 2 0 0 5 ) . Be c a u s e “ o n l y th e Su p r e me C o u r t o rth is C o u r t s ittin g e n b a n c c a n ju d ic ia lly o v e rru le a p r io rp a n e l d e c is io n ,” U n ite d S ta te s v . M a r te , 3 5 6 F .3 d 1 3 3 6 , 1 3 4 4 ( 1 1 th C ir . 2 0 0 4 ) , th is a r g u m e n t f a ils . B . I t W a s N o t E r r o rto E n h a n c e G ila r t’s Se n te n c e B a s e d o n A c q u itte d

C o n du c t. G i l artal so ar gu es that , i f i tw as no terror t o app l y the S ent enci ng G ui del i nes as advi sory , thati tw as error und erthe advi sory gu i del i nes t o enh ance hi s s ent ence b a s e d o n a c q u itte d c o n d u c t a n d c o n d u c t th a t c o n tr a d ic te d th e s p e c ia l ju ry v e r d ic t. A ga i n, D unc a n c ontr ol s thi s i s s ue : “ B ooke rdoe s nots ugge s ttha tthe c ons i de r a t i on of a c qui tt e d c onduc tvi ol a t e s the S i xth A m e ndm e nta s l ong a s the j udge doe s not i m po se a s ent ence thatexce eds w hati s autho ri ze d b y the j ury ver di ct . ” 400 F . 3d at 13 04 . T he on l y r equi re m enti s thatthe go vernm ent“ prov es the ac qu i tt ed cond uct6

r e l i e d upon by a pr e ponde r a nc e of the e vi de nc e . ” I d. ( quot i ng U ni t e d S t a t e s v. B a r a ka t , 130 F . 3d 1448, 1452 ( 11th C i r . 1997) ) . B e c a us e the di s tr i c tc our tf ound by a pr e ponde r a nc e of

the e vi de nc e tha tthe qua nt i ty of drugs w a s 20 t o 30 k il o g ra m s a n d G il ar t p o ss es se d a g u n d u rin g ex ec u ti o n o f th e c rim e, G il ar t’ s a r g u m e n t f

a ils . C . T h e D is tr ic t C o u r t D id

N o t I m p r o p e r ly C a lc u la te D r u gQ u a n tity . G i l a r ta r gue s tha t , e ve n i f i tw a s note rr ort o e nha nc e hi s s e nt e nc e ba s e d on a c qui tt e d c onduc t , the f i ndi ng of the di s tr i c tc our ta s t o drug qua nt i ty w a s not supp ort ed by a prepond er ance of the evi dence. H e a rgues thatthe evi dence does n o t p r o v e b y a p r e p o n d e r a n c e o f th e e v id e n c e e ith e rth a t h is p r im a ry f o c u s w a s to s t e a l m one y r a the rtha n drugs ortha the i nt e nde d t o c ons pi r e t o s t e a l 20 t o 30 ki l og ra m s of c ocai ne. W e di sa gree . F i rs t , i f the j ury bel i eved G i l artm ea ntt o st ea l m o n e y r a th e rth a n d ru g s , th e n it w o u ld n o t h a v e c o n v ic te d G ila r t o f c o n s p ir a c y to pos s e s s c oc a i ne . S e c ond, i tw a s notc l e a re rr orf orthe di s tr i c tc our tt o f

i nd tha tthe am ou ntof cocai ne w as 20 t o 3 0 k i l og ra m s bec ause thati s the am ou ntthatw as d is c u s s e d d u r in g th e c o n s p ir a c y .

D . G i lart ’s Sent ence W as R easona bl e. G i l artcom pl ai ns thathi s s ent ence w as un re as on abl e bec ause the di stri ct c our te nha nc e d the s e nt e nc e ba s e d on a c qui tt e d c onduc t , di d nota c c ountf orthe7

s p e c ia l ju ry v e r d ic t, d id n o t a c c o u n t f o rm itig a tin g p e r s o n a l c h a r a c te r is tic s , a n d d id notc ons i de rthe f

a c t or s i n s e c t i on 3553( a ) ( 1) - ( 7) a s r e qui r e d by B ooke r . S e e 18 U . S . C . § 3553; B ooke r , 543 U . S . a t__, 125 S . C t . a t764- 65. W e di s a gr e e . T he di stri ctcourtac coun t ed for the spec i al j ury ver di ctby fi nd i ng thatthe j ury w as c onf us e d a s t o the a m ountof drugs i tc oul d a ttr i but e t o G i l a r ta s the r e w e r e no ac tual drug s. T he di stri ctcourtal so st at ed thati thad con si dere d “ the fa ct ors s et forth i n [se ct i on 35 53 (a )( 1)-( 7)] . ” A l tho ug h “ no thi ng i n B oo ker or e l se w here re qu i re s the di stri ctcourtt o st at e on t he re cord thati thas e xp l i ci t l y c on si dere d ea ch of the § 3 55 3(a) fa ct ors or t o d i sc uss e ac h o f the § 3 55 3(a) fa ct ors, ” U ni t ed S ta te s v . S c o tt, 4 2 6 F .3 d 1 3 2 4 , 1 3 2 9 ( 1 1 th C ir . 2 0 0 5 ) , th e d is tr ic t c o u r t s p e c if ic a lly c ons i de r e d G i l a r t ’ s c r i m i na l hi s t ory a nd c ha r a c t e r i z e d i ta s “ a by s m a l ” a nd

“ ho rr i bl e. ” T he di stri ctcourtal so consi dere d “ the pres ent ence re po rtw hi ch co n tain s th e a d v iso ry g u id elin es .” T h e s en ten cin g g u id elin e r an g e f o r G il ar t’ s of f e ns e , a s c a l c ul a t e d i n the P S I , w a s 235 t o 293 m onths , or235 t o 240 m onths be c a us e of

the s t a tut ory m a xi m um . T he di s tr i c tc our ti m pos e d a s e nt e nc e of 210 m o n th s o f

im p r is o n m e n t. W e c a n n o t s a y th a t G ila r t’s s e n te n c e is u n r e a s o n a b le .

I V . CONCL US I ON W e a f f ir m G ila r t’s s e n te n c e . AF F I RME D.