FILED U.S. COURT OF AP P EALS E LEVEN T HC IRC UIT JANUARY 17 , 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- 14504 N on -A rgum entC al endar

________________________ D . C . D ocketN o. 03 -000 50 -C R -6 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 M A R C U S F I T Z G E R A L D S T E V E N S O N , 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 So u th e rn D i s tr i c to f A l ab a ma

_________________________ ( Jan u ar y 17, 2006) B efo re T JO F L A T , B A R K E T T an d H U L L , C i rcu i tJu d g es. P E R C U R I A M: M ar cus F i t zger al d S t evenson app ea l s hi s r ei nst at ed 57 -m on th sent ence ,2

im p o s e d u p o n r e s e n te n c in g , f o rin te r s ta te tr a n s p o rta tio n in a id o f r a c k e te e r in g , in vi ol at i on of 18 U . S . C . § 1 95 2(a) (3). A ft erre vi ew , w e vac at e S t evenson’ s s ent ence a nd r e m a nd f

orr e s e nt e nc i ng. In a pri or appeal , thi s C ou rtaf fi rm ed the di stri ctcourt ’ s c ri m i nal hi st ory ca l cul at i on and con cl ud ed thatthere w as no const i tut i on al vi ol at i on un der U ni t ed S t a t e s v. B ooke r , 543 U . S . 220, 125 S . C t . 738 ( 2005) . S e e U ni t e d S t a t e s v. S t e ve ns on, 131 F . A pp’ x 248 ( 11 C i r . 2005) ( unpubl i s he d) . H ow e ve r , i n the pr i or th ap p ea l, th is C o u rt also fo u n d statu to ry B o o k ererro r a n d th u s v ac ated S tev en so n ’s se nt ence and rem anded for res ent enci ng i n l i gh tof B oo ker. O n rem and, the di stri ct c ourtr e s e nt e nc e d S t e ve ns on t o the s a m e 57- m onth s e nt e nc e w i thoutahe a r i ng or a n o p p o rtu n ityf

o rS te v e n s o n to a llo c u te . B ec ause S t evenson’ s ori gi nal se nt ence w as vaca t ed i n i t s e nt i re ty, the di stri ct c o u rt e rr e d b yn o t g r a n tin g h im ah e a r in g a n d a f f o r d in g h im th e o p p o rtu n ityto al l ocut e a tre se nt enci ng . S ee U ni t ed S t at es v. T ay l or, 11 F . 3d 14 9, 15 1 (11 C i r. th 19 94 ) ( ho l di ng thata def endant ’ s r i gh t s, un der F eder al R ul es of C ri m i nal P r o c e d u r e 3 2 a n d 4 3 , to b e p r e s e n t a t s e n te n c in g a n d to a llo c u te “e x te n d s to se nt enci ng w hen the ori gi nal se nt enci ng package i s vac at ed i n i t s e nt i re ty on app ea l a nd ac a s e i s r e m a nde d f orr e s e nt e nc i ng” ) ; U ni t e d S t a t e s v. J a c ks on, 923 F . 2d 14 94 , 14 96 (11th C i r. 19 91 ) ( ho l di ng that , w hen a se nt enci ng “ package” has been3

v a c a te d o n ap p e a l, th e d e f e n d a n t’s p r e s e n c e a t ah e a r in g is n e c e s s a ry ) . A ddi t i ona l l y , a l though S t e ve ns on’ s gui de l i ne s r a nge w a s c orr e c t l yc a l c ul a t e d, the di stri ctcourtm ustst i l l have a hear i ng t o con sul tthe fa ct ors i n 1 8 U . S . C . § 3 55 3(a) as no w re qu i re d b y B oo ker und eran advi sorygu i del i nes s ys t em . W e there fore vaca t e S t evenson’ s s ent ence and rem and t o the di stri ctcourtso thatthe di stri ct courtm ayho l d a heari ng , consul tthe fa ct ors i n § 35 53 (a ) a s r equi re d b y B oo ker a nd pr ovi de S t e ve ns on the opportuni tyt o a ddr e s s the c ourtpr i ort o i m pos i ng a se nt ence . VA C A TED A N D R EM A N D ED W I TH I N STR U C TI O N S.