FILED U.S. COURT OF AP P E A LS E LE V EN T HC IRC U IT APR 4 , 2006 THOMAS K. KAH

N CLERK

Honora ble J ane A . Restani, Chief Judg e, United States Court of International Trade , * sitti ngby designation. [ 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. 04- 16667

________________________ D. C . Do c k e tNo . 0 3 - 6 0 2 2 0 - C R - KA M 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 U R I C E H I C K S , G E R A L D C A M P B E L L , D e f e n d a n ts - A p p e lla n ts .

________________________ A pp ea l s f

rom 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

_________________________ ( A p r i l 4, 2006) B ef ore T JO F L A T and H U L L , C i rc ui tJudg es , and R E S T A N I , Judg e. *2

P E R C U R I A M: D e f e nda nt s M a ur i c e H i c ks a nd G e r a l d C a m pbe l l appe a l the i rc onvi c t i ons f or 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 a t le a s t f iv e k ilo g r a m s o f

c o c a in e , in v io la tio n o f

2 1 U .S .C . § § 8 4 1 a n d 8 4 6 , a n d c a rry in g a n d p o s s e s s in g a f ir e a r m in r e la tio n to a d ru g tr a f

f ic k in g c r im e , in v io la tio n o f 1 8 U .S .C . § 9 2 4 ( c ) ( 1 ) ( A ) . O n appe a l , one orboth of the de f e nda nt s r a i s e the f

ol l ow i ng a r gum e nt s : ( 1) tha t21 U . S . C . §§ 841 a nd 846 a r e unc ons t i tut i ona l l y ove rbr oa d i n tha tthe y a l l ow th e f e d e r a l g o v e rn m e n t to r e g u la te c o n d u c t w ith little o rn o c o n n e c tio n to in te r s ta te com m er ce ; (2) thatthe go vernm entfa i l ed t o est abl i sh the i nt er st at e c om m er ce nexu s r equi re d for fe dera l j uri sdi ct i on ; (3) thatthe go vernm entcom m i tt ed m i s c onduc ta nd i m pr ope r l y s hi f t e d the bur de n of

pr oof t o the de f

e nda nt s ; a nd ( 4) tha tthe di s tr i c tc our te rr e d i n r e f us i ng t o gi ve r e que s t e d j ur y i ns truc t i ons a bout m u l t i p l e c o n s p i r a c i e s a n d e n tr ap m e n t . Af t e rr e v i e w a n d o r a l a r g u m e n t , we c onc l ude tha tthe s e a r gum e nt s l a c k m e r i ta nd w a rr a ntno f ur the rdi s c us s i on. H i ck s an d C am p b el l al so b o th ch al l en g e th ei r sen t en ces. C am p b el l fi rst ar gu es thatthe di stri ctcourterre d rever si bl y by app l yi ng a c ar ee r off ender e nha nc e m e nt , pur s ua ntt o U ni t e d S t a t e s S e nt e nc i ng G ui de l i ne s § 4B 1. 1. T he gove rnm e nts how e d tha tC a m pbe l l ha d tw o pr i orF l or i da f e l ony c onvi c t i ons f

or del i very of cocai ne. C am pb el l di d n otdeny these conv i ct i on s; ra ther, he ar gu edU. S.S. G. § 4 B 1. 1 s tate s, in re le va nt p art : 1 A de fendant i s a care e r of fend e r if (1 ) the de fendant wa s at lea st ei ghte e n ye arsold at the time the defenda

nt committed the i nstant offense of c onviction; (2) the instant offense of co nv iction is a felony that is either a crime of violenc e or a controlled substance of

fense ; and (3) the def

endant ha s at least two prior f elony convictions of either a crime of violence or

a controlled substance of fense . U.S.S.G. § 4B1.1(a). The term “c ontrolled substanceoffense” is def ined in U.S.S.G. § 4B1.2 as “an of fenseunder f

ederal or state la

w, punishable by

imprisonment for a ter

m exceedingone year , that prohibits the manufac ture, import, export, distribut ion, or dispensingof a c ontrolled substance . . . .” 3 thatthey w er e not“ cont rol l ed subst ance offe nses ” f or pu rposes of the ca re er offe nd erprov i si on . B ec ause a c on vi ct i on for del i veryof cocai ne cl ea rl y i s a n 1 offe nse und erst at e l aw thatproh i bi t s the di stri bu t i on or di spensi ng of a c on trol l ed s ubs t a nc e , w e r e

j e c tthi s a r gum e nt . S e e U ni t e d S t a t e s v. G ova n, 293 F . 3d 1248, 1250 ( 11th C i r . 2002) ( not i ng tha ti tw a s undi s put e d tha tde f e nda nt ’ s pr i or co n v i ct i o n fo r d el i v ery o f co cai n e q u al i fi ed as a co n tro l l ed su b st an ce o ffen se w ith in th e m e a n in g o f

U .S .S .G § 4 B 1 .2 ( b ) ) . A l t e rna t i ve l y , C a m pbe l l a r gue s tha thi s tw o f e l ony c onvi c t i ons c a nnotbe us e d t o e nha nc e hi s s e nt e nc e be c a us e the gove rnm e ntf a i l e d t o pl e a d the c onvi c t i ons i n the i ndi c tm e ntorpr ove the m t o the j ur y . I n A l m e nda r e z - T orr e s v. U ni t ed S t at es , 52 3 U . S . 22 4, 11 8 S . C t . 12 19 (199 8), “ the S up re m e C ou rthel d that th e g o v e rn m e n t n e e d n o t a lle g e in its in d ic tm e n t a n d p r o v e b e y o n d a r e a s o n a b le d o u b tth ata d efen d an th ad p ri o r co n v i ct i o n s fo r a d i stri ctco u rtt o u se th o se c onvi c t i ons f

orpurpos e s of

e nha nc i ng a s e nt e nc e . ” U ni t e d S t a t e s v. M a r s e i l l e , 377Campbell also argues that the district cour t erre d reversibly

in using he arsa

y information 2 from his Presentence I

nvestig ation Report in calculating his sentence. Campbell failed to objec t in t hedis tric t c ourt

to t heus eof thi s h e ars ay

inf or matio n, and

thu s w ereview thisc halleng eon ly for plain error . See United States v. Ola no, 507 U.S. 725, 731-32, 113 S. Ct. 1770, 1776 (1993). This Court has expl ained that the admission of hearsa y evidenc e at a

sentenc ing he aring“ca

nnot be plain er

ror.”United States v. Chau, 426 F.3d 1318, 1323 ( 11th Cir. 2005). Indeed, w e have decide d that the right to confrontation does not a pply at sentenc ing. United States v. Cantellano, 430 F.3d 1142, 1146 ( 11th Cir. 2005). 4 F .3 d 1 2 4 9 , 1 2 5 7 ( 1 1 th C ir .) , c e r t. d e n ie d , 5 4 3 U .S . 1 0 1 3 , 1 2 5 S . C t. 6 3 7 ( 2 0 0 4 ) . C am p b el l arg u es th atth e S u p rem e C o u rt ’ s d eci si o n i n S h ep ard v . U n i t ed S t at es, 54 4 U . S . 13 , 12 5 S . C t . 12 54 (200 5), ca st s dou bton the vi t al i ty of A l m endarez T o rr e s . H o w e v e r , a s w e h a v e r e p e a te d ly e x p la in e d p o s t- S h e p a r d , w e a r e b o u n d to f o l l o w th e Su p r e me Co u r t ’ s p r e c e d e n ti n A l me n d a r e z - To rr e s u n t i l th e Su p r e me C our te xpl i c i t l y ove rrul e s i t . S e e , e . g. , U ni t e d S t a t e s v. G r e e r , — F . 3d — , 2006 W L 435662 a t*5- 7 ( 11th C i r . F e b. 24, 2006) ; U ni t e d S t a t e s v. G i bs on, 434 F . 3d 1234, 1246- 47 ( 11th C i r . 2006) . T hus , the di s tr i c tc ourtdi d note rri n e nha nc i ng C am p b el l ’ s sen t en ce b ased o n h i s p ri o r co n v i ct i o n s. 2 H ow ever , as C am pb el l corr ec t l y not es , the di stri ctcourtcom m i tt ed st atut ory e rr o ru n d e rU n ite d S ta te s v . B o o k e r , 5 4 3 U .S . 2 2 0 , 1 2 5 S . C t. 7 3 8 ( 2 0 0 5 ) , in s e nt e nc i ng C a m pbe l l unde ra m a nda t ory , r a the rtha n a n a dvi s or y , s e nt e nc i ng gui de l i ne s s y s t e m . B e c a us e C a m pbe l l obj e c t e d a ts e nt e nc i ng ba s e d on B l a ke l y v. W a s hi ngt on, 542 U . S . 296, 124 S . C t . 2531 ( 2004) , w e r e vi e w hi s B l a ke l y , now B o o k e r , is s u e d e n o v o . 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 ir . 2 0 0 5 ) .5

S ta tu to ry B o o k e re rr o rr e q u ir e s r e v e r s a l o n ly if th e e rr o rw a s h a r m f

u l. U n ite d S ta te s v . G a lle g o s - A g u e r o , 4 0 9 F .3 d 1 2 7 4 , 1 2 7 7 ( 1 1 th C ir . 2 0 0 5 ) . A s ta tu to ry B o o k e re rr o ris h a r m le s s “if , v ie w in g th e p r o c e e d in g s in th e ire n tir e ty , a c our tde t e r m i ne s tha tthe e rr ordi d nota f f e c tthe s e nt e nc e , orha d butve ry s l i ght e f f e c t . ” U ni t e d S t a t e s v. M a the ni a , 409 F . 3d 1289, 1292 ( 11th C i r . 2005) (quo t at i on m arks and ci t at i on s om i tt ed). U nd erthi s s t andard, “ [i ] f one can s ay w i th f a i ra s s ur a nc e tha tthe s e nt e nc e w a s nots ubs t a nt i a l l y s w a y e d by the e rr or , the s e nt e nc e i s due t o be a f

f i r m e d e ve n though the r e w a s e rr or . ” I d. ( c i t a t i on a nd pu nctuat i on om i tt ed). T he go vernm entbear s the bu rden t o sho w thatthe pres erved s t a tut ory B ooke re rr ordi d nots ubs t a nt i a l l y a f f e c tthe s e nt e nc e . I d. H e r e , the go vernm entfa i l ed t o p oi ntt o any i nd i ca t i on i n the re cord thatthe di stri ctcourt w ou l d h ave i m po se d the sa m e s ent ence un der a n adv i sory se nt enci ng gu i del i nes s y s te m , a n d th u s th e g o v e rn m e n t f a ile d to m e e t its b u r d e n . A c c o r d in g ly , w e v a c a te C a m p b e ll’s s e n te n c e a n d r e m a n d f o rr e s e n te n c in g c o n s is te n t w ith B o o k e r . H ic k s a ls o r a is e s a s ta tu to ry B o o k e ra r g u m e n t. H o w e v e r , H ic k s f a ile d to r a is e a B la k e ly /B o o k e ro b je c tio n a t s e n te n c in g , a n d th u s w e r e v ie w h is c la im o n ly f o rp la in e rr o r . U n ite d S ta te s v . S h e lto n , 4 0 0 F .3 d 1 3 2 5 , 1 3 2 8 ( 1 1 th C ir . 2 0 0 5 ) . U nde rthi s s t a nda r d, w e c a nnotc or r e c ta n e rr orthe de f e nda ntf a i l e d t o r a i s e i n the d i stri ctco u rtu n l ess th ere i s “ (1 ) erro r, (2 ) th ati s p l ai n , an d (3 ) th ataffect[s]6

s ubs t a nt i a l r i ght s . ” U ni t e d S t a t e s v. C ott on, 535 U . S . 625, 631, 122 S . C t . 1781, 17 85 (200 2) (quo t at i on m arks and ci 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 then exerci se i t s di sc re t i on t o n ot i ce a f orfe i t ed error, b u t o n ly if

( 4 ) th e e rr o rs e r io u s ly a f f e c t[ s ] th e f

a irn e s s , in te g r ity , o rp u b lic r e p u ta tio n o f

ju d ic ia l p r o c e e d in g s .” I d . ( q u o ta tio n m a r k s a n d c ita tio n o m itte d ) . H e r e , H ic k s h a s f

a ile d to s h o w a r e a s o n a b le p r o b a b ility th a t th e d is tr ic t c o u r t w o u ld have i m po se d a di ff

er entse nt ence un der a n adv i sory se nt enci ng gu i del i nes s ys t em a nd thus ha s f

a i l e d t o m e e tthe thi r d pr ong of the pl a i n- e rr ort e s t . S e e S he l t on, 400 F .3 d a t 1 3 3 2 . C o n s e q u e n tly , w e a f f ir m H ic k s ’s s e n te n c e . F orthe a bove r e a s ons , w e a f f i r m H i c ks ’ s a nd C a m pbe l l ’ s c onvi c t i ons a nd H i cks’ s s ent ence . A s t o C am pb el l ’ s s ent ence , w e a ff i rm the ca re eroffe nd er e nha nc e m e nta nd the di s tr i c tc our t ’ s c orr e c tc a l c ul a t i on of C a m pbe l l ’ s s e nt e nc i ng gu i del i nes r ange bu tvaca t e f or re se nt enci ng consi st entw i th B oo ker. AF F I R ME D i n p a r t , R E VE R S E D i n p a r t , a n d R E MAND E D.