F ILED U.S. COURT O F APP EALS EL EV EN TH C IRC UIT Sep tember 2 , 2 005 T HOMA S K. KA HN CLERK [DO NOT PUBLISH] IN THE UN ITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FO R T HE EL EV EN TH CIRC UI T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- 1546 1 Non-A rgum ent Calendar

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ D.C. Dock etNo. 0 4- 00 09 3- CR-OR L-28 JGG UNITED STAT ES OF AMERIC A, Plaintiff-Appellee, ve rs us LUIS HUMBERTO ARJ ON-SANDOVAL, D ef en dant- Appe llant.

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

S tate s D istri ct

Co urt f or the Mi ddl e D istri ct

of F lor ida

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ _ (S ep te m be r 2, 200 5)

Be fo re BL A CK , CA RN E S an d M A RC U S, Ci rc uit Jud ge s. PE R CU RIA M:2

L uis H um

be rt o A rj on- Sandov al appe al s hi s se nte nc e fo r co nspi ra cy to poss es s w ithint en t t o di str ibute 100 kil ogr am s or m or e but le ss than 1, 000 kil ogr am s of

m ar ij uana , in vio latio n of 21 U . S. C. § 84 6. A rj on- Sandov al a sse rt s that, in light of B lak

el y v. W ashi ngton , 124 S . Ct . 253 1, and United States v. Booker , 125 S . Ct . 738 ( 2005 ), the dis tr ic t c ourt e rr ed in de te rmini ng at se nte nc ing the quantit y

of drugs invo lved in th e offe nse was gre ater than the quantity the j ury ha d in dic at ed

on a spe ci al ve rd ic t f

orm . W e af

fi rm the dis tr ic t c our

t. I. BACKGROUND The j ury wa s given a special verdict form concerning the drug qu antity that c o n t a i n e dth e f

o l l o w i n g o p t i o n s : ( a ) 1 , 0 0 0 k i l o g r a ms o r mo r e ; ( b ) 1 0 0 k i l o g r a ms or m ore but less than 1,000 kilog ram s; and (c) less than 100 kil ogram s. T he j urors se le ct ed c hoi ce ( b) , f

ind ing the c onsp ir ac y

inv olv ed 100 kil ogr am s or

m or e but less than 1,000 k ilogram s of m arij uana. H owever , at sentencing, the district court determ ined Arj on-Sandoval was re spon sible for 1,496 kilog ram s of m arij uana. II. DISCUSS ION Beca use Arj on-Sandoval raised a B lak el yobj ec tio n be fo re the dis tr ic t c ourt, we rev ie w hi s s en te nc e d e n ov o, b utwil l re ve rs e o nl y forha rm fu l erro r. See U nited Sta tes v . Paz , 405 F. 3d 94 6, 948 (11th Cir. 2005). W e have clar ified there are two ty pes of Booker

err or: (1) Sixth Am endm ent, or c onsti tutio nal, e rror based3

upon sentencing enhancem ents im posed un der a m andatory Guidelines sy stem ne ith er a dm itt ed by the de fe ndant n or

sub m itt ed

to a j ur y and p ro ve n be y ond a reasonable doubt; and (2) statutory err or based upon sentencing un der a m andatory Gui de li ne s s y st em . U

nited Sta tes v . She lto n , 400 F. 3d 13 25, 1329– 30 (11th Cir. 20 05 ). A. Co nst itu tio nal

E rro r T he dis tr ic t c ourt c om

m itt ed B ook

er co nst itutio na l e rr or

by e nhanc ing A rj on- Sandov al ’ s se nte nc e unde r a m an da tor y G uid el ine s sy ste m

ba se d onf

ac ts no t fo un d b y

th e jury. See U

nited Sta tes v. Rodriguez , 398 F . 3d 1 291, 130 0 ( 11th Ci r.), cert. denied , 73 U .S .L .W . 3730 (2005). T his error “ m ust be dis regarded a s no t af fect in g s ub st an ti al rig ht s i f th e erro r is ha rm le ss be y on d areas on ab le do ub t. T his standard

is onl y m et w he re it is cl ear be y ond a re as ona ble doubt tha t the e rr or com plained of didnot contribu te to the sentence obtained.” P az , 405 F . 3d at 94 8 (p unc tuatio n om itt ed ). T he G ove rnm en t ha s th e bur de n of sho w ing the e rr or

did no t af fectth e d efen da nt ’s subs ta nt ia l ri gh ts . Id . T he G ove rnm en t ha s m et it s burd en . A t se nte nc ing the c ourt st at ed : [T ] he r ea son[ s] f

or im posi ng the se le ct ed

se nte nc e ar e as f

oll ow s: T he court has consid ered the nature and circum stances of the offense a s w el l a s th e his tor

y and c hara ct er ist ic s of

the de fe ndant. A nd el ab or at ing on that, thi s w as ar el at ive ly sop his tic at ed

and l ar ge operation desig ned to bring controlled sub stances into th is country18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) provide s, in pertinent par t, that the court, in determiningthe par ticular 1 sentenc e to be imposed shall conside r– (1) the nature a

nd circ umstances of

the offe nse an d t h e h i s t ory and cha rac teristics of the de fe nd ant; (2) the ne ed for

the sentenc e imposed– (A ) t o refle c t th e se ri ou sn e ss o f t he of fe ns e , to pr omo te re sp e c t f or the law, and

to provide just punishment for the off ense; (B ) t o a ff or d a de qu ate de te rr e nc e to c ri min a l c on du c t; (C) to protec t the public from fur ther c rimes of the de fenda nt . . . (3) the kinds of se ntence s available ; (4) the kinds of se ntence and the se ntencingrang e esta blished for– (A ) t h e applicable categ ory of off ense c ommitt ed by

the applica

ble categ ory

of defe ndant as set f

orth in the guidelines . . . . 4 and the court acknowledges that the defendant has a rec ord that pla ce s hi m

in cate gor

y one . T o th e be st o f the c ourt’ s un de rs tandi ng he has no prior crim inal record. Furtherm ore, the court believes that the se nte nc e im

pose d r ef le ct s th e se ri ousn es s of

the of fe nse inv olv ing im portatio n of

alarg e am ount

of c ontro lle d su

bst an ce s. A lso , the co urt ha s c onsi de re d th e se ri ousn es s of the of fe nse , the ne ce ssi ty

to pr ote ct the int eg ri ty

of the lawand p ro m ote r es pe ct f or the lawand considers this punis hm ent j ust. T he court has considered other opt ion s and the ne ed

to pr ote ct

the pub lic f

ro m suc h c ondu ct

in the futur e. T he c ourt be lie ve s th at thi s se nte nc e to b e anappr opr iate de te rren ce t o fu rth er cr im es of t hi s n atur e. The district court’ s statem ent shows it consid ered m any of the 18 U. S. C. § 355 3(a) fa ct or s, w hic h is ar equir em en t po st- Booker. See B ooker , 125 S. Ct. at 757. In

1 ad dit ion , A rj on- Sandov al ’ s Guid el ine r an ge w as 121 to 151 m onths’ im prisonm ent, and the dis trict court re j ected A rj on-Sandoval’s r equest for a se nte nc e at

the bottom

of the r an ge , ins te ad

im posi ng a se nte nc e of

130 m onths’ im prisonm ent. T he district court’ s consid eration of the § 3553 factors, com bined5

with its rej ection of Ar

j on-Sandoval’s r equest for a bottom of the Guidelin es se nte nc e, c onvi nc e us tha t i t i s c le ar be y ond a re as ona

ble doubt the e rr or

did not affe ctth e se nt en ce o bt ai ne d. Se e P az , 40 5 F .3dat 9 48 . B. Sta tutoryE

rro r Eve n i n t he ab se nc e o f co ns ti tu ti on al erro r, B ook er er ro r ex ist s whe re the di st ric t co urt i m

po se s a s en te nc e u nd er a m an da to ry Gui de li ne s s y st em . She lto n , 400 F.3d at 1330 –31. The district court sentenced Arj on-Sandoval un der a m an da to ry

Gui de li ne s s y st em , th us st atut ory erro r ex is ts . Se e id. “

Booker statut or y e rr or s . . . are sub

j ec t t o th e le ss d em an din g te st tha t i s a ppl ic ab le to nonconstitu tional errors.” U nited Sta tes v . M

ath en ia , 409 F. 3d 12 89, 1292 (11t h Cir. 2005 ). “ Anon -c onst itutio na l e rr or is harm le ss i f, vie w ing a ll the pr oc ee din gs i n their entirety , a

court determ ines that the error did not affec t the sentence, or had but a very

slighteff ect. If one can say

with fa ir assurance . . . that the sentence wa s not substantiallysway ed by the err or, the sentence is due to be affirm ed even thou gh there wa s error. ” Id. (in te rn al qu ot at io n m ark s an d b rack et s o m it te d) . Beca use the Governm ent has m et the higher burden of sho wing the constitu tional er ro r w as harm le ss b ey ond a re as ona ble doubt, it

ha s a lso m et

the le sse r bur de n of show ing the statut or

y e rr or w as harm le ss.6 III. CONCLUSION Although the district court erre d in enhancing Ar j on-Sandoval’s sentence unde r a m an da tor

y G uid el ine s sy ste m

ba se d onf

ac ts n ot f ound by the j ur y and i n se nte nc ing him

und er am an da tor

y G uid el ine s sc he m e, the G ove rnm en t ha s m et it s bur de n of sho w ing the se e rr or s w er e harm le ss. AFFIR MED.