[DO N OT PUBLISH] IN THE UN ITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELE VENTH CIRCUIT

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ No. 1 1- 14 78 0 Non -Arg um en t Ca le nd ar

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ D.C. Dock etNo. 1 :9 3- cr-0 02 52 -UU-3 UNITED STAT ES OF AMERIC A, ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll Pl ai nt iff -Ap pe ll ee, vers us KEVIN DEN ARD ROZIER, a.k .a. Bo , a.k .a. Co wbo y , a.k .a. Sli ck , ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll Defen da nt -Ap pe ll an t.

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ App eal fro m

th e Uni te d S ta te s Di st ric t Co urt forth e So ut he rnDis tri ctof F lo rid a

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ (J ul y 27 , 20 12 ) Case: 11-14780 Date Filed: 07/27/2012 Page: 1 of 15Befo re DUBINA, Ch ie f Ju dg e, BARKETT andHULL, Cir cu itJu dg es .

PER CURI AM: App el la ntKevi n Den ardRo zi er ap pe al s h is to ta l s en te nc e o f 50 y ears ’ im pr is on m en t, i m

po se d b y th e d is tri ctco urt fo ll owi ng hi s s uc ces sf ul 28 U.S.C. § 22 41 pe ti ti on , fortwo co un ts of kno win gl y an d i nt en ti on al ly dis tri bu ti ng co cai ne , in vi ol at io n o f 21 U.S.C. § 8 41 (a)( 1) (“ Co un ts 5 an d 6 ”), an d o ne co un t o f po ss es si on of afir earm

by a con vi ct edfel on , invi ol at io n o f 18 U.S.C. § 9 22 (g )(1 ) (“ Co un t 2 0” ). Pri orto hi s re se nt en ci ng , Roz ie r was sen te nc edto 20 y ears ’ im pr is on m en t o n C ou nt s 5 an d 6 , setto run co nc urren tl y , andto li fe i m pr is on m en t on Co un t 2 0, al so setto run co nc urren tl y . Fol lo win g R oz ie r’s su cces sf ul § 2 24 1 pe ti ti on ch al le ng in g o nl y hi s s en te nc e o n C ou nt20 , th e d is tri ctco urt v acat edth e or ig in al jud gm en t an d re se nt en cedhi m to 20 y ears ’ im

pr is on m en t o n C ou nt s 5 an d 6, s etto run co ns ecu ti ve ly, an d t o aco ns ecu ti ve 10 y ear s en te nc e o f im pr is on m en t on Co un t 2 0, wh ic h was th e st atut ory m ax im um . Ro zi er p res en ts th ree a rg um en ts on ap pe al . Firs t, h e as se rts th aton ce the Sen te nc in g Gu id el in es be cam e ad vi so ry aft er the Supr em e Co urt’s d eci si on in Uni te d Sta tes v. Bo ok

er , 54 3 U.S. 2 20 , 12 5 S . Ct. 7 38 , 16 0 L. Ed. 2 d 6 21 (20 05 ), ou r op in io n i n Uni te d Sta tes v. Ro se n , 76 4 F .2d76 3, 7 66 (11 th Cir . 19 85 ), sh ou ld be readto di ct at e th atth e d is tri ctco urt d oe s n othave juri sd ic ti on to res en te nc e a 2 Case: 11-14780 Date Filed: 07/27/2012 Page: 2 of 15de fen da nton co un ts of c on vi ct io n tha t h e d oe s n otch al le ng e in a § 2 24 1 p et it io n.

Seco nd , he a rg ue s t ha t t he di stric t co urt v io la te d h is du e p ro ces s an d d oubl e jeop ardy rig ht s b y res en te nc in g h im

on th e u nc ha ll en ge d c ou nt s o f co nv ic ti on . Thi rd , he a rg ue s t ha t t he di st ric t co urt v io la te d t he Doubl e Je op ardy Claus e b y res en te nc in g h im

to a co ns ecu ti ve 10 -y ear t erm of i m pr is on m en t o n C ou nt20 , be cau se hi s n ew se nt en ce s tri pp edhi m of t im e h e h adalr eady

serve d i n co m pl et in g h is sen te nc e o n C ou nt20 . Fo r th e rea so ns th atfol lo w, we affi rm . I. W e rev ie w qu es ti on s co nc ern in g t he juri sd ic ti on of t he di st ric t co urt de no vo . Uni te d Sta tes v. Ph il li ps , 59 7 F .3d11 90 , 11 94 n.9 (11 th Cir . 20 10 ). Und er th e la w-o f-the -cas e d oc tri ne , th e p art ie s m ay no t re li ti ga te , andwe m ay no t reco ns id er, i ss ue s t ha t wer e d eci de d i n a n e arl ie r ap pe al of the same case . Se e Uni te d Sta tes v. J

or da n , 42 9 F .3d10 32 , 10 35 (11 th Cir . 20 05 ). Thu s, “ [a]n ap pe ll at e d eci si on bi nd s al l s ub se qu en t p ro ceed in gs inth e sa m e cas e n oton ly as to ex pl ic itrul in gs , bu t al so as t o i ss ue s d eci de d n eces sa ril y by im pl ic at io n o n t he pr io r ap pe al .” Uni te d Sta tes v. Ta may o , 80 F.3d15 14 , 15 20 (11 th Cir . 19 96 ). The la w-o f-the -cas e d oc tri ne m ay be ov erco m e, ho wev er, wh ensubs ta nt ia ll y di ffer en t ev id en ce i s p ro du ced , con tro ll in g aut ho rit y ha s ch an ge d, o r th e p rio r de ci si on was 3 Case: 11-14780 Date Filed: 07/27/2012 Page: 3 of 15cl earl y

erro ne ou s an d app li cat io n o f itwou ldres ul t i n m an ife stin jus ti ce. Id. In Ros en , a pr e-Se nt en ci ng Gui de li ne s ca se , we hel d tha t m ul ti pl e-co un t co nv ic ti on s p res en te d t he tri al jud ge with t he ne edfor a se nt en ci ng sch em e th at to okin to co ns id erat io n “ th e to ta l o ffen se ch arac te ris ti cs of ade fen da nt ’s be ha vi or .” Ros en , 76 4 F .2dat 7 67 . Whe n t ha t s ch em e was di sr up te d b ecau se it in co rp or at edanil le ga l s en te nc e, itwas app ro pr ia te forth e en ti re ca se to be rem an de d fo r res en te nc in g. Id. W e li m it edou r ho ld in g, h owe ve r, to si tu at io ns whe re a d efen dantch al le ng edall of h is co nv ic ti on s o n d ire ctap pe al . Id. W e h el d th atth ere was a di ffer en ce b etween a co ll at eral att ackon a pa rti cu la r se nt en ce un de r Fed .R.Cri m .P. 35 or 2 8 U.S.C. § 22 55 , anda di rectap pe al fro m m ul ti pl e co un t co nv ic ti on s. Id. at 7 66 –6 7. With a co ll at eral att ack , we hel d t ha t, b ecau se on ly a spe ci fic sen te nc e o n asp eci fic co un t was be fo re the di stric t co urt, the co urt ha d p owe r on ly ove r th e sp eci fic co un t. Id. at 7 66 . Subs eque nt ly, aft er the Sen te nc in g Gu id el in es wentin to effe ct , we dec id ed Uni te d Sta tes v. Mi

xo n , 11 5 F .3d90 0 (1 1t h C ir. 1 99 7) , whi ch ad dr es se d s uc ces sf ul co ll at eral ch al le ng es to 18 U.S.C. § 9 24 (c) c on vi ct io ns un de r Bai le y v. Uni te d St at es , 51 6 U.S. 1 37 , 14 2- 43 , 11 6 S . Ct. 5 01 , 50 5, 1 33 L. Ed. 2d47 2 (1 99 5) , and de ci de d t ha t t he di st ric t co urt m ay res en te nc e d efen da nt s o n re la te d b ut un ch al le ng eddru g c ou ntco nv ic ti on s. Mix on , 11 5 F .3dat 9 02 . W e n ot edth at , at 4 Case: 11-14780 Date Filed: 07/27/2012 Page: 4 of 15th e ti m e o f se nt en ci ng , th e d is tri ctco urt co ul d n otim po se th e m an da to ry

sen te nc e fo r th e § 92 4( c) v io la ti onan d app ly a two- le ve l en ha nc em en t u nd er U.S.S.G. § 2D1 .1(b )(1 ) fo r po ss es si on of f ire arm s dur in g t he off

en se . Id . Thu s, the rel at io ns hi p b etween § 9 24 (c) and§ 2 D1.1 (b )(1 ) was an“ ei th er/ orrel at io ns hi p” at se nt en ci ng . Id. W e co nc lu de d t ha t t he Gui de li ne s co nt em pl at edth e in te rd ep en de nc e o f a § 92 4( c) co nv ic ti on an d u nd erl y in g d ru g o ffen se s an d h el d th at , bas edonth e in te rd ep en de nc e o f th e m ul ti pl e co un ts forsen te nc in g p ur po se s, th e d is tri ctco urt co ul d p ro pe rly adjus t t he de fen da nt s’ sen te nc es onth e un ch al le ng edco un ts . Id. at 9 03 . In Uni te d Sta tes v. Ol iv er , 14 8 F .3d12 74 (11 th Cir . 19 98 ), th e ap pe ll an ts arg ue d t ha t t he ir § 92 4( c) co nv ic ti on s wer e in va li d i n l ig htof Bai le y , andwe he ld th atth ei r arg um en ts were fo recl os edby Mix on . Oli ver , 14 8 F .3dat 1 27 5. We fu rth er n ot edth atou r de ci si on in Ros en was n otin op po si ti on to ou r ho ld in g i n Mix on , bec au se Ros en was a pr e-Gu id el in es cas e, an d t he lan gu ag e ci te d b y th e de fen da nt s was di cta . Id. W e rea so ne d t ha t b ecau se Ros en was apre -Gu id el in es cas e, itco ul d n otha ve co ns id eredth e u ni qu e rel at io ns hi p b etween 18 U.S.C. § 92 4( c) an d U.S.S.G. § 2D1 .1(b )(1 ). Id. Si m il arl y , in Uni te d Sta tes v. Wat ki ns , 14 7 F .3d12 94 (11 thCir . 19 98 ), we face d the same qu es ti on as i n Mix on an d Oli ver , bu t wi th a twi st . Se e W atki ns , 5 Case: 11-14780 Date Filed: 07/27/2012 Page: 5 of 1514 7 F .3dat 1 29 6. Th e d efen da ntin W at ki ns was a n a rm edcare er cr im in al , whi ch m ean t t ha t U.S.S.G. § 2D1 .1(b )(1 ) co ul d n otap pl y to en ha nc e h is off

en se lev el . Id. Acco rd in gl y , we hadto de ci de whet he r th e av ai labi li ty of th e § 2D1 .1(b )(1 ) en ha nc em en t was anin te gr al co m po ne ntof t he di st ric t co urt’s jur is di ct io n t o res en te nc e o n u nc ha ll en ge d c ou nt s fo ll owi ng a § 2 25 5 p ro ceed in g t ha t v acat eda § 9 24 (c) c on vi ct io n. Id. at 1 29 6- 97 . The d efen da ntrel ie d o n Ros en an d a rg ue d th atth e d is tri ctco urt d idno t h av e juri sd ic ti on to res en te nc e h im on Co un ts I an d II, b ecau se on ly Cou ntIII was th e subjec t o f hi s h ab eas pe ti ti on . W e n ot edth at Ros en was d eci de d b efo re the Gui de li ne s wen t i nf o e ffec t an d d idno t co nt em pl at e th e in te rd ep en de nc e o f a § 92 4( c) co nv ic ti on an d t he un de rlyin g o ffen se . Acco rd in gl y , Ros en was di st in gu is habl e. Se e id. W e furth er n ot edth atth e d is tri ct co urt v ie wedth e d efen da nt ’s sen te nc e as a “pa ck ag e,” an d we h el d t ha t the

“ in te rd ep en de nc e o f th e dru g a ndfir earm s o ffen se s an d t he sen te nc in g p ack ag e do ctrin e p ro vi de d t he di stric t co urt wi th th e juri sd ic ti on to res en te nc e [the de fen da nt ] fo ll owi ng hi s s uc ces sf ul co ll at eral att ackon th e § 92 4( c) o ffen se .” Id. at12 97 . Thu s, the av ai labi li ty of th e U.S.S.G. § 2 D1.1 (b )(1 ) en ha nc em en t was no t ne ces sa ry to th e co urt’s jur is di ct io n t o re se nt en ce o n u nc ha ll en ge d c ou nt s. Id. Po st - Boo ker , we hav e rep eat ed ly hel d t ha t d is tri ctco urts are s ti ll requi redto co rrec tl y cal cu la te th e ad vi so ry

gu id el in e ran ge be fo re i m po si ng a se nt en ce. Se e, 6 Case: 11-14780 Date Filed: 07/27/2012 Page: 6 of 15e.g . , Uni te d Sta tes v. Li ves ay , 52 5 F .3d10 81 , 10 89 (11 th Cir . 20 08 ). Mo reo ve r,

we ha ve ad op te d a“ ho li st ic ap pr oa ch ” to res en te nc in g, “ tre at in g acri m in al se nt en ce as a pa ck ag e o f sa nc ti on s t ha t maybe ful ly revi si te d upo n re se nt en ci ng .” Uni te d Sta tes v. Ma rt in ez , 60 6 F .3d13 03 , 13 04 (11 thCir . 20 10 ) (i nt ern al qu ot at io n m ark s o m it te d) . The Supr em e Co urt h as he ldth atap pe ll at e co urts m ay co nt inue to us e th e

“ se nt en ci ng pa ck ag e” ap pr oa ch . Se e Gre en la w v. Uni te d Sta tes , 55 4 U.S. 2 37 , 25 3, 1 28 S. Ct. 2 55 9, 2 56 9, 1 71 L. Ed. 2d39 9 (2 00 8) . It n ot edth atsu ch

“ se nt en ci ng pa ck ag e cas es ” typi cal ly inv ol ve m ul ti -co un t i nd ic tm en ts an d “ a su cces sf ul att ackby a defe nd an t o n s om e b utno t al l o f th e co un ts of c on vi ct io n.” Id. The ap pe al s co urt, i n s uc h i ns ta nc es , “ m ay va cat e th e en ti re s en te nc e o n a ll co un ts so th at , on rem an d, t he tri al co urt ca n re co nf ig ur e th e se nt en ci ng pl anto as su re tha t i t re m ai ns ad equa te to sat is fy th e se nt en ci ng fact or s i n 1 8 U.S.C. § 35 53 (a).” Id. The Supr em e Co urt fu rth er re co gn iz edth e p os si bi li ty tha t, upo n rem an d, tria l co urts m ay

im po se sen te nc es onth e rem ai ni ng co un ts th atwere lo ng er tha n t he sen te nc es ori gi na ll y im po se d o n t ho se co un ts , bu t yield in g a n ag gr eg at e se nt en ce tha t was no lo ng er tha n t he ori gi na l ag gr eg at e se nt en ce. Id. at 25 3, 1 28 S. Ct. 2 56 9- 70 . Thu s, al th ou gh th e d efen da ntul ti m at el y m ay ga in no th in g fr om

hi s l im it edsu cces s o n app eal , he a ls o l os es no th in g. Id. at 2 54 , 12 8 7 Case: 11-14780 Date Filed: 07/27/2012 Page: 7 of 15S. Ct . at 2 57 0.

Mix on , Oli ver , and W

atki ns are al l g oo d l aw, be cau se altho ug h t he Sen te nc in g Gu id el in es are n ow ad vi so ry un de r Boo ker , di st ric t co urts m us t s ti ll co ns id er the Gui de li ne s an d c orrect ly calcu la te th e ad vi so ry gu id el in e ran ge be fo re im po si ng a se nt en ce. Li ves ay , 52 5 F .3dat 1 08 9. Th eref or e, whe n i m

po si ng se nt en ces form

ul ti -co un t co nv ic ti on s, d is tri ctco urts m us t n eces saril y

co ns id er the in te rd ep en de nc e o f va rio us cri m es un de r th e Gui de li ne s. As su ch , th e ad vi so ry na tu re o f th e Gui de li ne s d oe s n otch an ge ou r ho ld in g t ha t a d is tri ctco urt h as juri sd ic ti on to res en te nc e a d efen da nton un ch al le ng edco un ts of c on vi ct io n, fo ll owi ng a su cces sf

ul co ll at eral att ack , whenth e u nc ha ll en ge d a ndch al le ng ed co un ts are “ in te rd ep en de nt ” fo r se nt en ci ng pu rp os es un de r th e Gui de li ne s. Se e, e.g . , Mix on , 11 5 F .3dat 9 03 . The Supr em e Co urt’s ap pr ov al of s en te nc in g pa ck ag es furth er s up po rts ou r po si ti on . Se e Gre en la w , 55 4 U.S. at25 3, 1 28 S. Ct. at25 69 . Acco rd in gl y , her e, th e d is tri ctco urt h adjuri sd ic ti on to res en te nc e Ro zi er o n Co un ts 5 an d 6 as l on g a s t he y were i nt erd ep en de ntwith C ou nt20 . W e p rev io us ly he ld , ina 20 02 de ci si on affi rm in g R oz ie r’s pr io r to ta l s en te nc e, th atth e dru g a nd fir earm s o ffen se s i n h is cas e were i nt erd ep en de nt , bec au se Co un t 2 0 i nv ol ve d co nduc t t ha t was tre at edas asp eci fic off en se ch arac te ris ti c in th e g ui de li ne s 8 Case: 11-14780 Date Filed: 07/27/2012 Page: 8 of 15ap pl ic ab le to Co un ts 5 an d 6 , andbe cau se th e th ree c ou nt s wer e g ro up edto ge th er.

Bec au se we alr eady

de ci de d t he in te rd ep en de nc e que st io n i n a n e arl ie r ap pe al , we m ay no t re co ns id er i t, p ur su an t t o t he law- of -th e-ca se do ctrin e, an d R oz ie r ha s n ot id en ti fie d a ny reaso ns why th e d oc tri ne sh ou ldbe ov erco m e. Jo rd an , 42 9 F .3dat 10 35 . Thu s, b ecau se Co un ts 5, 6 , and20 were i nt erd ep en de ntfor sen te nc in g pu rp os es un de r th e Gui de li ne s, we co nc lu de th atth e d is tri ctco urt h adjuri sd ic ti on to res en te nc e Ro zi er o n C ou nt s 5 an d 6 , eve n t ho ug h h e d idno t ch al le ng e th os e co un ts in hi s § 22 41 pe ti ti on . II. Whe th er a d is tri ctco urt’s re se nt en ci ng vi ol at eda de fen da nt ’s du e p ro ces s an d d oubl e jeop ardy

rig ht s i nv ol ve qu es ti on s o f la w th atwe rev ie w de no vo . W atki ns , 14 7 F .3dat 1 29 6.

“ A def en da nt ’s du e p ro ces s ri gh ts m ay be vi ol at edwhen a se nt en ce i s en ha nc edaft er the de fen da ntha s s erv edso m uc h o f hi s s en te nc e th athi s ex pe ct at io ns as t o fi na li ty hav e crysta ll iz edan d i t wo ul d b e fu nd am en ta ll y un fai r to de featth em .” Uni te d Sta tes v. Da vis , 32 9 F .3d12 50 , 12 55 (11 th Cir . 20 03 ) (in te rn al qu ot at io n m ark s o m it te d) . In ad di ti on , du e p ro ces s i s i m pl ic at edif, “ aft er th e v acaturof ade fen da nt ’s sen te nc es , th e d is tri ctco urt i m po se s a h ars he r 9 Case: 11-14780 Date Filed: 07/27/2012 Page: 9 of 15pu ni sh m en t.” Uni te d Sta tes v. Sti ns on , 97 F.3d46 6, 4 70 (11 th Cir . 19 96 ) (i nt ern al

qu ot at io n m ark s o m it te d) . As fo r th e Doubl e Je op ardy Claus e, itpro te ct s ag ai ns t, in te r a li a , m ul ti pl e pu ni sh m en ts forth e sa m e o ffen se . Uni te d Sta tes v. C oc hr an , 88 3 F .2d10 12 , 10 16 (1 1t h C ir. 1 98 9) , su

pe rs ed ed byru le on othe r gro un ds as stat ed in Uni te d Sta tes v. Dia z- Clark, 29 2 F .3d13 10 , 13 18 (11 th Cir . 20 02 ). Thu s, the claus e m ay be vi ol at edwhen a de fen dant ’s ori gi na l s en te nc e is in crea se d i n asec on d p ro ceed in g. Id. In s uc h acir cu m st an ce, “ th e d oubl e jeop ardy in qu iry turns on th e ex te ntan d le gi ti m acy of a d efen da nt ’s exp ect at io n o f fi na li ty in the ori gi na l s en te nc e.” Id. (quo ti ng Uni te d Sta tes v. Di Fra nc es co , 44 9 U.S. 1 17 , 13 9, 1 01 S. Ct. 4 26 , 43 8, 6 6 L. Ed. 2d32 8 (1 98 0) ). In Mix on , we no te d t ha t, wh il e itwas c le ar tha t t he “ Due Pro ces s C laus e wou ldbe im

pl ic at edif t he di stric t co urt h adim po se d h ars he r se nt en ces , th at[was ] no t t he cas e . . . where the di st ric t co urt s ub st an ti al ly redu ced ” th e d efen da nt ’s to ta l s en te nc e. Mix on , 11 5 F .3dat 9 04 . W e al so he ldth atres en te nc in g t he de fen da nton un ch al le ng edco un ts di d n otvi ol at e th e Doubl e Je op ardy Claus e, be cau se th e d efen da ntdi d n otha ve anex pe ct at io n o f fi na li ty w it h re ga rdto hi s se nt en ce wh enhi s o ve ral l s en te nc e was reduc ed . Id. at 9 03 -0 4. Lik ewis e, in W

atki ns , we hel d t ha t t he di st ric t co urt d idno t v io la te th e

10 Case: 11-14780 Date Filed: 07/27/2012 Page: 10 of 15de fen da nt ’s du e p ro ces s ri gh ts when itin crea se d h is sen te nc es on un ch al le ng ed

co un ts . W

atki ns , 14 7 F .3dat 1 29 8. Be cau se th e d efen da nt ’s agg reg at e se nt en ce was no t i nc reas ed , th e d efen dantwas p utin th e sa m e p os it io n a s i f th e v acat ed co un t was ne ve r in cl ud edin th e in di ct m en t. The de fen da ntals o h adno ex pe ct at io n o f fi na li ty in h is sen te nc e b ecau se he ch al le ng eda co nv ic ti onth atwas cl os el y li nk edwith h is un ch al le ng eddru g o ffen se s, an d b ecau se he ha d n ot co m pl et edhi s t erm

of i m pr is on m en t. Id. Mo reo ve r, we he ldth atth e d efen da nt ’s res en te nc in g d idno t v io la te th e Doubl e Je op ardy Claus e, be cau se th e d efen da nt ha d n o e xp ect at io n o f fi na li ty in h is ori gi na l s en te nc e o n h is un ch al le ng edco un t, whe n tha t s en te nc e was in te rd ep en de nton th e ch al le ng edsen te nc e. Id. at12 97 -9 8. When“ a p ris on er co ll at eral ly atta ck s a p orti on of ajud gm en t, h e is reo pe ni ng th e en ti re jud gm en t an d c an no t s el ect iv el y craf t t he en ti re m an ne r in whi chth e co urt co rrec ts th atjud gm en t.” Id. at 1 29 8 (i nt ern al qu ot at io n m ark s om it te d) . W e co nc lu de fro m

th e rec or d h ere t ha t Ro zi er’s due pro ces s ri gh ts were n ot vi ol at edbe cau se he di d n otha ve anex pe ct at io n o f fi na li ty as to hi s s en te nc es , su ch th atth e d is tri ctco urt’s en ha nc em en t o f hi s s en te nc es was fu nd am en ta ll y un fai r. Dav is , 32 9 F .3dat 1 25 5. Mo reo ve r, th e d is tri ctco urt d idno t i m po se a ha rs he r se nt en ce. St in so n , 97 F.3dat 4 70 . Altho ug h t he di st ric t co urt o rd eredhi s 11 Case: 11-14780 Date Filed: 07/27/2012 Page: 11 of 15se nt en ces on Co un ts 5 an d 6 co ns ecu ti ve , itreduc edhi s t ot al sen te nc e fro m li fe im pr is on m en t t o 5 0 years’ im pr is on m en t. Se e W

atki ns , 14 7 F .3dat 1 29 8. In ad di ti on , hi s u nc ha ll en ge d s en te nc es were i nt erd ep en de ntwith h is ch al le ng ed se nt en ce, an d b ecau se hi s o rig in al to ta l s en te nc e was li fe i m pr is on m en t, h e co ul d no t h av e h adany

ex pe ct at io ns of f

in al it y when he ha d s erv edab ou t 2 0 years o f th atto ta l s en te nc e. Id. Fo r si m il ar re as on s, we co nc lu de th atRo zi er’s d oubl e jeop ardy rig ht s wer e no t v io la te d. Sp eci fic al ly, he ha d n o e xp ect at io ns of f in al it y in hi s o rig in al se nt en ces on Co un ts 5 an d 6 , when th os e se nt en ces were i nt erd ep en de ntonth e se nt en ce fo r Co un t 2 0. Id. at 1 29 7- 98 . In o th er wo rd s, h e d idno t h av e an y ex pe ct at io ns of f

in al it y reg ard in g h is in di vi du al sen te nc es on eachco un t o f co nv ic ti on , when hi s s en te nc es were o rig in al ly creat edto form a se nt en ci ng pa ck ag e o f li fe i m

pr is on m en t. III. W e rev ie w arg um en ts rai se d fo r th e fi rs t t im e o n app eal for pl ai n e rro r. Uni te d Sta tes v. Bel

fa st , 61 1 F .3d78 3, 8 15 (11 th Cir . 20 10 ). To es tabl is h p la in erro r, th e d efen da ntm

us t s ho w th atth ere was (1) erro r, (2 ) th atwas p la in , and(3) th ataffe ct edhi s s ub st an ti al rig ht s. “ [W] e m ay rev ers e o nl y

if t he erro r al so se rio us ly affect edth e fai rn es s, i nt eg rity , or p ub li c rep ut at io n o f jud ic ia l 12 Case: 11-14780 Date Filed: 07/27/2012 Page: 12 of 15pr oc eed in gs .” Id. (in te rn al qu ot at io n m ark s o m it te d) .

As p rev io us ly not ed , th e Doubl e Je op ardy Claus e m ay

be vi ol at edwhen a de fen da nt ’s ori gi na l s en te nc e is in crea se d i n asec on d p ro ceed in g. Co ch ra n , 88 3 F.2 d a t 1 01 6. In su ch a ci rcu m st an ce, the do ub le jeop ardy in qu iry “tu rn s o n t he ex te ntan d l eg it im acy of a d efen da nt ’s exp ect at io n o f fi na li ty in t he ori gi na l se nt en ce.” Id. (in te rn al qu ot at io n m ark s o m it te d) . Any exp ect at io n o f fi na li ty in a se nt en ce, h owe ve r, “ is who ll y ab se ntwher e . . . the de fen da ntreque st s t ha t h is pr io r se nt en ces be nu ll ifi ed .” Id. at 1 01 7. “ The de fen da ntha s, b y hi s o wn h an d, de feat edhi s ex pe ct at io n o f fi na li ty, an d t he Doubl e Je op ardy Claus e, whi ch gu ard s ag ai ns t Go ve rn m en t o pp res si on , do es no t re li ev e a d efen da ntfro m th e co ns eque nc es of h is vo lu nt ary ch oi ce.” Id . (in te rn al qu ot at io n m ark s o m it te d) . Fo r pu rp os es of t he Doubl e Je op ardy Claus e, res en te nc in g d oe s n otcrea te m ul ti pl e p un is hm en ts forth e sa m e o ffen se si nc e th e p rio r pu ni sh m en t i s v oi d, pr ov id edth atth e d efen da ntrece iv es cred itforti m e se rv ed . Id. W he n aco nv ic ti on is setasi de , anda pr is on er i s s ub se qu en tl y retrie d a ndco nv ic te d o f th e sa m e of fen se , “ itis well -es tabl is he d t ha t u nd er the Doubl e Je op ardy Claus e, th e ti m e se rv edun de r th e in va li d c on vi ct io n m us t b e cre di te d t owa rdth e n ew se nt en ce.” Hen le y v. Jo hn so n , 88 5 F .2d79 0, 7 93 (11 th Cir . 19 89 ). The s am e ap pl ie s wh ena pr is on er i s re se nt en cedfol lo win g asu cces sf ul po st -co nv ic ti onch al le ng e to hi s 13 Case: 11-14780 Date Filed: 07/27/2012 Page: 13 of 15or ig in al sen te nc e. Se e Jo ne s v. Th oma s , 49 1 U.S. 3 76 , 37 8, 3 82 , 10 9 S . Ct. 2 52 2,

25 24 , 25 26 , 10 5 L. Ed. 2 d 3 22 (19 89 ). As an in it ia l m at te r, Ro zi er ra is es th is arg um en t fo r th e fi rs t t im e o n app eal , an d t hu s, we re vi ew fo r pl ai n e rro r on ly. Belf as t , 61 1 F .3dat 8 15 . Here, we co nc lu de fro m

th e rec or d t ha t t he di st ric t co urt d idno t p la in ly err by resen te nc in g Ro zi er t o aco ns ecu ti ve 10 -y ear s en te nc e o n C ou nt20 . Whe n h e ap pe al edhi s or ig in al sen te nc e o n C ou nt20 , he v ol un ta ril y reque st edth atth e se nt en ce b e nu ll ifi ed , th ereb y

rem ov in g a ny exp ect at io n o f fi na li ty in h is sen te nc e an d de feat in g any sub se qu en t Do ub le Jeo pa rdy cla im . St in so n , 97 F.3dat 4 69 ; Co ch ra n , 88 3 F .2dat 1 01 7. Mo reo ve r, as di sc us se d abo ve , he d idno t h av e an ex pe ct at io n o f fi na li ty in h is ori gi na l s en te nc e whe n h is co un ts of c on vi ct io n wer e in te rd ep en de nt , andhe ha d n otco m pl et edhi s ag gr eg at e se nt en ce. Se e W atki ns , 14 7 F .3dat 1 29 8. In ad di ti on , eve n t ho ug h R oz ie r is co rrec t i n t ha t t im e al read y se rv edun de r anol d s en te nc e m us t b e cre di te d a ga in sta ne w sen te nc e, un de r a

“ se nt en ci ng pa ck ag e” ap pr oa ch , any tim e se rv edwou ldbe cred it edag ai ns t the ne w to ta l s en te nc e, no t the in di vi du al sen te nc es oneach co un t o f co nv ic ti on . Hen le y , 88 5 F .2dat 7 93 . There fo re, b ecau se th e d is tri ctco urt i m po se d a

“ se nt en ci ng pa ck ag e” i n t hi s ca se , any tim e Ro zi er al read y serve d wo ul d g o ag ai ns t h is to ta l s en te nc e, no t h is in di vi du al sen te nc e o n C ou nt20 . Thu s, n o 14 Case: 11-14780 Date Filed: 07/27/2012 Page: 14 of 15do ub le jeop ardy vi ol at io n h as oc cu rred , bec au se he ha s n otrece iv edm ul ti pl e pu ni sh m en ts forth e sa m e o ffen se . Fo r th e afo rem en ti on edreas on s, we af firm Ro zi er’s t ot al sen te nc e. AFFIRMED.

15 Case: 11-14780 Date Filed: 07/27/2012 Page: 15 of 15