FILED U.S. COURT OF AP P E A LS E LE V EN T HC IRC U IT JULY 01, 2008 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. 08- 10337 N on -A rgum entC al endar

________________________ D . C . D ocketN o. 06 -000 26 -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 C H A R L E S W I L L I S , a .k .a . M o n te , 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 S o u th e r n D is tr ic t o f G e o r g ia

_________________________ ( Ju l y 1, 2008) B efo re A N D E R S O N , D U B IN A an d H U L L , C i rcu i tJu d g es. P E R C U R I A M: A ppe l l a ntC ha r l e s W i l l i s appe a l s hi s 192- m onth s e nt e nc e a f t e rpl e a di ng2

g u i l ty i n th e S o u th ern D i stri cto f G eo rg i a t o o n e co u n to f co n sp i racy t o p o ssess w i th i nt e ntt o di s tr i but e a nd t o di s tr i but e c oc a i ne a nd c oc a i ne ba s e , i n vi ol a t i on of 2 1 U .S .C . § § 8 4 6 , 8 4 1 ( a ) ( 1 ) , a n d 1 8 U .S .C . § 2 . A f te rW illis w a s a r r e s te d in c onne c t i on w i th thi s of

f e ns e i n S a va nna h, G e or gi a , l a w e nf or c e m e ntdi s c ove r e d a f i r e a r m i n hi s hom e i n A t l a nt a , G e or gi a , a l ong w i th e vi de nc e of drug tr a f

f i c ki ng act i v i ty. O n app ea l , W i l l i s f

i rs tar gu es thatthe di stri ctcourt ’ s s ent ence w as un const i tut i on al un der U ni t ed St at es v. B oo ke r , 543 U . S . 220, 125 S . C t . 738, 160 L . E d. 2d 62 1 (20 05 ), beca use the courti m po se d a fi re arm enhancem entun der U . S . S . G . § 2D 1. 1( b) ( 1) ba s e d on f a c t s nots ubm i tt e d t o a j ur y f orpr oof be y ond a r e a s o n a b le d o u b t. S e c o n d , W illis a r g u e s th a t th e c o u r t e r r e d b y e n h a n c in g h is s e nt e nc e unde r§ 2D 1. 1( b) ( 1) be c a us e l a w e nf or c e m e ntdi d notdi s c ove rthe f i r e a r m a tthe s i t e of

the c ha r ge d c onduc t , a nd he di d notus e the f i r e a r m dur i ng a ny d ru g tran sact i o n s. A f t e rr e vi e w i ng the r e c or d a nd r e a di ng the pa r t i e s ’ br i e f s , w e di s c e r n no re vers i bl e e rr or. I. B ooke rE r r or B ec ause W i l l i s di d n otra i se a c on st i tut i on al obj ec t i on t o h i s s ent ence base d upon the pr i nc i pl e s s e touti n B oo ke r , w e r e v ie w h is a r g u m e n ts f o rp la in e r r o r . See3

U ni t ed St at es v. R odri

gu ez , 3 9 8 F .3 d 1 2 9 1 , 1 2 9 8 ( 1 1 th C ir . 2 0 0 5 ) . “A n ap p e lla te courtm ay no tcorr ec tan error the defendantfa i l ed t o rai se i n t he di stri ctcourt un l es s there i s: (1) e rr or, (2) thati s pl ai n, and (3) thataf fe ct s s ub st ant i al ri gh t s. ” I d. (quo t at i on om i tt ed). “ If al l three cond i t i on s a re m et , an appel l at e c ou rtm ay the n e xe r c i s e i t s di s c r e t i on t o not i c e a f or f e i t e d e r r or , butonl y i f

( 4) the e r r or 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 at i on om i tt ed). C on st i tut i on al error und er B oo ke re x is ts

“ w he n the di s tr i c tc our tm i s appl i e s the G ui de l i ne s by c ons i de r i ng the m a s bi ndi ng as op po se d t o adv i sory . ” U ni t e d Stat e s v . She l ton , 40 0 F . 3d 13 25 , 13 31 (11t h C i r. 2 0 0 5 ) .W e co n cl u d e fro m th e reco rd th atW i l l i s’ s B oo ke ra r g u m e n t is w ith o u t m e r it beca use the di stri ctcourtun ders t oo d t hatthe G ui del i nes w er e a dv i soryand app l i ed the m i n a n a dvi s or y f

a s hi on. II. Fir e arm E n h an c e m e n t u n de rU . S. S. G. § 2D 1. 1(

b) ( 1)

“ W e r e vi e w the di s tr i c tc our t ’ s f i ndi ngs of

f a c tunde rU . S . S . G . § 2D 1. 1( b) ( 1) fo r cl ear erro r, an d th e ap p l i cat i o n o f th e S en t en ci n g G u i d el i n es t o th o se fact s de no vo . ” U

ni t e d Stat e s v . P ham , 463 F . 3d 1239, 1245 ( 11th C i r . 2006) ( quot a t i on om i tt ed). S ec t i on § 2 D 1. 1(b)(1) provi des f or a tw o-l evel enhancem ent“ [i ] f a d a n g e r o u s we ap o n ( i n c l u d i n g a f i r e a r m ) wa s p o s s e s s e d . . . . ” U. S . S . G.4

§ 2 D 1. 1(b)(1). T he com m ent ary provi des thatthe enhancem ent“ shou l d b e app l i ed i f the w eapo n w as pres ent , un l es s i ti s c l ea rl y i m prob abl e thatthe w eapo n w as conn ec t ed w i th t he offens e. ” I d. , c om m e nt . ( n. 3) . I nt e rpr e t i ng thi s G ui de l i ne a nd its c o m m e n ta r y , w e h a v e s ta te d th a t: T o j ust i fy a f

i re arm s e nh ance m ent , the go vernm entm ustei ther es t abl i sh by a pre po nd er ance of the evi dence thatthe fi re arm w as pr e s e nta tthe s i t e of

the c ha r ge d c onduc torpr ove tha tthe de f e nda nt pos s e s s e d a f

i r e a r m dur i ng c onduc ta s s oc i a t e d w i th the of f e ns e of conv i ct i on . If

the go vernm enti s s ucce ss ful i n m ee t i ng thi s i ni t i al b u rd en , th en th e ev i d en t i ary b u rd en sh i ft s t o th e d efen d an t , w h o m u st d em o n strat e th ata co n n ect i o n b etw een th e w eap o n an d th e o ffen se w a s “c le a r ly im p r o b a b le .” U ni t e d Stat e s v . Stal l i ngs , 46 3 F . 3d 12 18 , 12 20 (11t h C i r. 20 06 ) ( ci t at i on om i tt ed), ce rt . deni ed , 1 2 7 S . C t. 2 4 4 6 ( 2 0 0 7 ) . W e h a v e h e ld th a t th e e n h a n c e m e n t is ap p lic a b le w h e n th e f ir e a r m is di sc ov er ed du ri ng cond uctre l at ed t o t he charged offe nse, even i f i ti s notpres entat th e s ite o f

th e c h a r g e d c o n d u c t. U n ite d S ta te s v . Sm ith , 1 2 7 F .3 d 1 3 8 8 , 1 3 9 0 ( 1 1 th C i r. 1 9 9 7 ). W e h av e al so h el d th atth ere i s n o req u i rem en tth atth e d efen d an tu se th e f ir e a r m to f

a c ilita te th e c o m m is s io n o f th e o f f e n s e . U n ite d S ta te s v . A u da in , 254 F . 3d 1286, 1289 ( 11th C i r . 2001) . T hus , w e ha ve uphe l d the e nha nc e m e nt w he r e the f

i r e a r m i s di s c ove r e d w i th e vi de nc e of drug tr a f

f i c ki ng a c t i vi ty a tone lo c a tio n , e v e n th o u g h th e d e f e n d a n t is a r r e s te d o rc h a r g e d w ith a d ru g o f f e n s e a t a d if f e r e n t lo c a tio n . See U

ni t ed St at es v. H

un t er , 17 2 F . 3d 13 07 , 13 08 -09 (11 th C i r.5

1999) ( uphol di ng the e nha nc e m e ntw he r e the pol i c e , tw o da y s a f t e ra r r e s t i ng H u n t er i n h i s car fo r d ru g o ffen ses, d i sco v ered h u n d red s o f p l ast i c b ag g i es, g l ass v ia ls , m ix in g s p o o n s , d ilu tin g a g e n ts , tr a n s a c tio n r e c o r d s , a n d 5 f ir e a r m s in h is ho m e, w hi ch w as al m ost10 0 m i l es aw ay fr om the l ocat i on of hi s a rr es t ). W e c onc l ude f

r om the r e c or d tha tthe di s tr i c tc our tdi d note r rby appl y i ng the enhancem entun der § 2D 1. 1(b)(1) because l aw enforce m entfoun d t he fi re arm a ti s s ue i n W i l l i s ’ s hom e a l ong w i th s ubs t a nt i a l e vi de nc e of drug tr a f

f i c ki ng ac t i vi ty. C on tra ry t o W i l l i s’ s a rgum ent s, i ti s i rr el evantun der our cas el aw thatl aw enforce m entdi d n otdi sc ov erthe fi re arm i n t he sa m e j uri sdi ct i on as the charged c o n d u c t a n d th a t h e d id n o t u s e th e f ir e a r m to f

a c ilita te a n y d ru g tr a n s a c tio n s . A cc ordi ng l y, w e a ff

i rm hi s s ent ence . AF F I RME D.