### F I LE D U. S . COURT OF AP PE ALS E LEVE NTH CI RCUI T Jul y 01, 2005 T HOM AS K. KAHN C L E RK [ 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- 13385 N on -A rgum entC al endar

________________________ D . C . D ocketN o. 03 -005 01 -C R -1-1 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 E R I K P A Z , 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 N o r th e rn D is tr ic t o f G e o r g ia

_________________________ ( Ju l y 1, 2005) B efo re B A R K E T T , H U L L an d W IL S O N , C i rcu i tJu d g es. P E R C U R I A M: E r i k P a z appe a l s hi s c onvi c t i ons a nd 37- m onth c onc ur r e nts e nt e nc e s f orone c ountof c ons pi r i ng t o utt e rc ount e r f e i tc ur r e nc y , i n vi ol a t i on of 18 U . S . C . § 371,2

a nd thr e e c ount s of

pa s s i ng a nd utt e r i ng c ount e r f e i tc ur r e nc y , i n vi ol a t i on of 18 U .S .C . § 4 7 2 . T h e c h a r g e s w e r e b a s e d o n a lle g a tio n s th a t P a z , a lo n g w ith e m p lo y e e s o f

a S a v e R ite g r o c e ry s to r e in N o r c r o s s , G e o r g ia , p a s s e d c o u n te r f e it U .S . c u rr e n c y b y e x c h a n g in g c o u n te r f e it b ills w ith g e n u in e b ills in th e S a v e R ite safe. T h e co u n t erfei tb i l l s w ere th en al l eg ed l y d ep o si t ed i n t o a b an k w i th th e rest o f th e st o re’ s fu n d s, w h i l e th e co n sp i rat o rs k ep tth e g en u i n e cu rren cy. P a z c la im s th a t th e d is tr ic t c o u r t c o m m itte d f o u re rr o r s th a t e n title h im to r e lie f o n ap p e a l: ( 1 ) a d m ittin g e v id e n c e o f p r io ru n c h a r g e d c r im i n a l a c tiv ity in vi ol at i on of F eder al R ul es of E vi dence 403 and 4 04 (b); (2) basi ng the l oss c al cul at i on re l evantt o h i s s ent ence , un der U .S .S .G . § 2 B 1 .1 , o n a c q u itte d c o n d u c t; ( 3) appl y i ng a n i nc orr e c t l eg a l s t a nda r d a nd f a i l i ng t o m a ke r e qui r e d f

a c tua l f i ndi ngs i n e nha nc i ng hi s s e nt e nc e f or obs truc t i on of

j us t i c e pur s ua ntt o U . S . S . G . § 3C 1. 1; a nd ( 4) i m pos i ng a n unc ons t i tut i ona l s e nt e nc e pur s ua ntt o B l a ke l y v. W a s hi ngt on, 542 U . S . __, 124 S . C t . 2531, 1 5 9 L . E d. 2d 403 ( 2 0 0 4 ) , a n d U n ite d S ta t e s v . B o o k e r , 5 4 3 U .S . __ , 1 2 5 S . C t. 73 8, 16 0 L . E d. 2d 62 1 (20 05 ). W e a ddr e s s e a c h a r gum e nti n turn. 1) A d m i tt i n g E vi d en ce of P ri or U n ch arged C ri m i n al C on d u ct P a z f ir s t c o n te s ts th e d is tr ic t c o u r t’s d e c is io n to a d m it te s tim o n y o f N a k e ta J e n k in s , a n a c q u a in ta n c e o f P a z , in d ic a tin g th a t P a z s h o w e d h e rc o u n te r f e it3

curr ency and asked her i f s he tho ug hthe coul d p as s the curre ncy a tthe S aveR i t e, c l a i m i n g th a ti tv i o l a t e d F e d e r a l R u l e s o f E v i d e n c e 4 0 4 ( b ) a n d 4 0 3 . We r e v i e w a di s tr i c tc our t ’ s e vi de nt i a ry rul i ngs f ora bus e of

di s c r e t i on. U ni t e d S t a t e s v. J im in e z , 2 2 4 F .3 d 1 2 4 3 , 1 2 4 9 ( 1 1 th C ir . 2 0 0 0 ) . F ed eral R u l e o f E v i d en ce 4 0 4 (b ) p ro v i d es th at“ ev i d en ce o f o th er cri m es, w r o n g s , o ra c ts is n o t a d m is s ib le to p r o v e th e c h a r a c te ro f a p e r s o n in o r d e rto show ac t i on i n con form i ty there w i th. ” H ow ever , e v i d enc e of

c r i m i na l a c t i vi ty othe rtha n the c ha r ge d of f e ns e i s not ex trin sic u nd erR ul e 404 (b) i f i ti s ( 1) an un char ged o ff ense w hi ch a r o s e o u t o f th e s a me tr a n s a c t i o n o r s e r i e s o f tr a n s a c t i o ns a s t he c ha r ge d of

f e ns e , ( 2) ne cessary t o c om pl e t e the s t ory of the c r i m e , or (3) i next ricabl y i nt ertw i ned w i th the evi dence re gardi ng the charged offe nse. U n ite d S ta te s v . R a m s d a le , 6 1 F .3 d 8 2 5 , 8 2 9 ( 1 1 th C ir . 1 9 9 5 ) . P u r s u a n t to F e d e r a l R u le o f E v id e n c e 4 0 3 , r e le v a n t e v id e n c e is in a d m is s ib le if “its p r o b a tiv e v a lu e is s u b s ta n tia lly o u tw e ig h e d b y th e d a n g e ro f u n f a ir pr e j udi c e , c onf

us i on of the i s s ue s , orm i s l e a di ng the j ury , orby c ons i de r a t i ons of un du e del ay , w as t e of t i m e, or needl es s pre se nt at i on of cum ul at i ve evi dence. ”

“ R ul e 403 i s a n e xtr a or di na ry r e m e dy w hi c h the di s tr i c tc our ts houl d i nvoke s pa r i ngl y , ” a nd w he n a ddr e s s i ng c ha l l e nge s t o a dm i tt e d e vi de nc e unde rR ul e 403 on appe a l , “ [ w e ] l ook a tthe e vi de nc e i n a l i ghtm os tf a vor a bl e t o i t s a dm i s s i on, m axi m i zi ng i t s probat i ve val ue and m i ni m i zi ng i t s und ue prej ud i ci al ef fe ct . ”To thee xtent th at Paz ch alleng e s Jenkin s’ s c re dib ili ty on app eal , his c laim f

ails be c a us e 1 cre dibility

issues arebest left to the trial c ourt and jury, whose judgment will not ordinarily be disturbed on appe al. See United States v. Ramire z-Chil el, 289 F.3d 744, 749 ( 11th Cir. 2002). 4 U ni t ed S t at es v. E l ki ns, 88 5 F . 2d 77 5, 78 4 (11 th C i r. 19 89 ). T h e a d m is s io n o f

J e n k in ’s te s tim o n y d id n o t v io la te R u le 4 0 4 ( b ) b e c a u s e it w a s “in e x tr ic a b ly in te r tw in e d ” w ith th e e v id e n c e r e g a r d in g th e c h a r g e d o f f e n s e s . J e n k i n s t e s t i mo n y c o n c e rn e d a c o n v e r s a t i o n i n w h i c h Pa z s u g g e s t e d th e v e ry s a me c o u n te r f e it c u rr e n c y tr a n s a c tio n s th a t f o rm e d th e b a s is o f

th e c h a r g e s a g a in s t h im . M o r e o v e r , th e r e is n o in d ic a tio n th a t a d m is s io n o f J e n k in s ’ te s tim o n y v io la te d R u le 403, a s i t s pr oba t i ve va l ue w a s nots ubs t a nt i a l l y outw e i ghe d by the da nge rof unf a i rpr e j udi c e , c onf

us i on of the i s s ue s , orm i s l e a di ng the j ur y , orby c ons i de r a t i ons of

undue de l a y , w a s t e of

t i m e , orne e dl e s s pr e s e nt a t i on of c um ul a t i ve e vi de nc e . F e d. R . E vi d. 403. A c c or di ngl y , the di s tr i c tc our tdi d not ab u se i t s d i scret i o n i n ad m i tt i n g Jen k i n s’ s t est i m o n y. 1 2 ) B a s in g t h e L o s s C a lc u la t io n R e le v a n t t o P a z’ s S e n t e n c e , u n d e r U .S .S .G . § 2B 1. 1, on A cq u i tt ed C on d u ct P az n ex tch al l en g es th e d i stri ctco u rt ’ s cal cu l at i o n o f th e am o u n to f l o ss attri bu t abl e t o P az on the basi s that , as a m att erof l aw , i tconsi dere d acqui tt ed c onduc ti n i t s c a l c ul a t i on. S pe c i f i c a l l y , P a z a s s e r t s , the j ury a c qui tt e d hi m of f our coun t s a l l eged i n the i nd i ctm ent , bu tthe l oss r el at ed t o tho se coun t s w as i ncl ud ed in th e a m o u n t o f

lo s s c a lc u la tio n u n d e rU .S .S .G . § 2 B 1 .1 , th e r e b y in c r e a s in g h is“Although Booker established a ‘re asonableness’ standa

rd for the sentenc e finally

imposed 2 on a defendant,” Booker does not alter the standa rd weuse to review a district cour t’s application of the U.S. Sentenc i n g Gu i delines. United States v. Craw ford, 407 F .3d 1174, 1178 (11th Cir. 2005). 5 o f f e n s e le v e l b y tw o . W e r e vi e w a di s tr i c tc our t ’ s l os s c a l c ul a t i ons f orc l e a re rr or . U ni t e d S t a t e s v. D o m i n g u ez, 1 0 9 F . 3 d 6 7 5 , 6 7 6 (1 1 th C i r. 1 9 9 7 ). T o d et erm i n e th e l o ss 2 a ttr i but a bl e t o a de f

e nda nt , the c our tm a y c ons i de ra l l a c t s w hi c h he “ c om m i tt e d, ai ded, abett ed, coun se l ed, com m anded, i nd uced, procured or w i l l ful l y c ause d. ” U .S .S .G . § 1 B 1 .3 (a )( 1 )( A ). M o re o v er , th e S u p re m e C o u rt h as h eld th at “a ju ry ’s verdi ctof ac qu i tt al do es no tpreventthe se nt enci ng courtfr om consi deri ng cond uct unde r l y i ng the a c qui tt e d c ha r ge , s o l ong a s tha tc onduc tha s be e n pr ove d by the p r e p o n d e r a n c e o f

th e e v i d e n c e . ” U n i t e d St a t e s v . W a tt s , 5 1 9 U . S. 1 4 8 , 1 5 7 , 1 1 7 S. C t. 6 3 3 , 6 3 8 , 1 3 6 L . E d . 2 d 5 5 4 ( 1 9 9 7 ) ; s e e a ls o B o o k e r , 5 4 3 U .S . a t _

_ , 1 2 5 S . C t. a t754- 55 ( m e nt i oni ng, butnotove rrul i ng, W a tt s ) . T hus , the di s tr i c tc our tdi d not c le a r ly e rrin b a s in g its a m o u n t o f lo s s c a lc u la tio n o n a c q u itte d c o n d u c t. 3) A p p l y i n g a n In corr ec t L egal S tan d ard an d F ai l i n g to M ak e R eq u i re d F actu al F i n d i n gs i n E n h an ci n g P az ’s S en te n ce for O b st ru ct i on of Ju st i ce P u r s u a n t t o U .S .S .G . § 3 C 1 .1 P az al so chal l enges the di stri ctcourt ’ s e nh ance m entof hi s s ent ence un der U .S .S .G . § 3 C 1 .1 , f

o ro b s tru c tio n o f

ju s tic e , w h e n c a lc u la tin g th e ap p lic a b le gui de l i ne s r a nge . H e i de nt i f i e s tw o a l l e ge d i nc ons i s t e nc i e s upon w hi c h the6

pr e s e nt e nc e i nve s t i ga t i on r e por t( “ P S I ” ) r e l i e d i n c onc l udi ng tha ta n obs truc t i on of j us t i c e e nha nc e m e ntw a s w a rr a nt e d w e r e i ns uf f i c i e ntt o s uppor tthe i m pos i t i on of the enhancem ent , un der U . S . S . G . § 3 C 1. 1. H e a l so as se rt s that , un der U ni t ed S t a t e s v. D unni ga n, 507 U . S . 87, 113 S . C t . 1111, 22 L . E d. 2d 445 ( 1993) , the di s tr i c tc our te rr e d be c a us e i tdi d notm a ke s pe c i f i c f i ndi ngs a s t o e a c h of

the e l e m e nt s of

pe r j ury . P a z f

ur the rc ont e nds tha tthe di s tr i c tc our ts houl d ha ve appl i e d a m or e de m a ndi ng s t a nda r d of pr oof tha n m e r e l y a pr e ponde r a nc e of the e v id e n c e in e v a lu a tin g w h e th e rh e o b s tru c te d ju s tic e . W e a c c or d s pe c i a l de f

e r e nc e t o the di s tr i c tc our t ’ s c r e di bi l i ty de t e r m i na t i ons a nd r e vi e w f

orc l e a re rr orthe di s tr i c tc our t ’ s appl i c a t i on of the obs truc t i on of j us t i c e e nha nc e m e ntf

orpe r j ury . U ni t e d S t a t e s v. B a nks , 347 F . 3d 1266, 1269 (11t h C i r. 20 03 ). S ec t i on 3C 1. 1 o f the G ui del i nes provi des f or a tw o-l evel e n h a n c e m e n t “if

[ ] th e d e f

e n d a n t w illf

u lly o b s tru c te d o rim p e d e d , o ra tte m p te d to obs truc tori m pe de , the a dm i ni s tr a t i on of j us t i c e dur i ng the c our s e of the i nv es t i gat i on , prosec ut i on , or se nt enci ng of the i nst antoffe nse of c on vi ct i on . ” U . S . S . G . § 3C 1. 1. A de f e nda ntm a y obs truc tori m pe de j us t i c e by “ c om m i tt i ng, s u b o rn in g , o ra tte m p tin g to s u b o rn p e r ju ry .” § 3 C 1 .1 , c o m m e n t. ( n .4 ( b ) ) . W e h el d i n U n i t ed S t at es v . S i n g h th at , u n d er D u n n i g an , fo u r el em en t s m u st be pres entfor afi nd i ng of perj ury: (1) t es t i m on y und eroath o r a ff i rm at i on , (2) that7

i s f a l s e , ( 3) tha ti s m a t e r i a l , ( 4) a nd tha ti s gi ve n w i th the w i l l f ul i nt e ntof

f a l s e hood a nd notr e s ul t i ng f

r om m i s t a ke , c onf

us i on, orf

a ul ty m e m ory . 291 F . 3d 756, 763 ( 1 1 th C ir . 2 0 0 2 ) . T h e S u p r e m e C o u r t in D u n n ig a n n o te d th a t, w h ile it is

“ pref er abl e” for the di stri ctcourtt o m ake ase para t e f i nd i ng i n rel at i on t o eac h el em entof the al l eged perj ury, i ti s s uffi ci enti f “ the courtm akes a f i nd i ng of an ob struct i on of, or i m pedi m entt o, j ust i ce thatencom pass es al l of the fa ctual pr e di c a t e s f

ora f i ndi ng of pe r j ury . ” D unni ga n, 507 U . S . a t95, 113 S . C t . a t1117 ( i ndi c a t i ng tha tthe s e nt e nc i ng c our t ’ s f i ndi ngs tha t“ the de f

e nda ntw a s untruthf

ul a ttr i a l w i th r e s pe c tt o m a t e r i a l m a tt e r s i n thi s c a s e , . . . [ a nd s he f a i l e d] t o gi ve truthf ul t e s t i m ony on m a t e r i a l m a tt e r s tha tw e r e de s i gne d t o s ubs t a nt i a l l y a f f e c tthe ou t com e of the ca se ” w er e s uffi ci entt o w arra ntan ob struct i on enhancem ent ). W e, to o , h av e s tated th at ev en ab se n t p ar ti cu larize d fin d in g s r eg ar d in g th e d ef en d an t’ s perj ury, w e m ay af

fi rm i f the re cord supp ort s the di stri ctcourt ’ s f i nd i ng . U ni t ed S ta te s v . D o b b s , 1 1 F .3 d 1 5 2 , 1 5 5 ( 1 1 th C ir . 1 9 9 4 ) . In S i ng h, w e f

ou nd thatthe di stri ctcourt ’ s f i nd i ng thatthe defendanthad m a d e “f a ls e s ta te m e n ts ” u n d e ro a th a t h is s e n te n c in g h e a r in g w a s s u f f ic ie n t to su p p o rtth e § 3 C 1 . 1 en h an cem en tw h en th e reco rd refl ect ed th atth e fal se st at em ent s w er e m at er i al and cou l d n ot“ po ss i bl y be the re sul tof a m i st ake, confusi on , or faul ty m em ory. ” 291 F . 3d at76 3-64 . S i m i l ar l y, the di stri ctcourt8

h e r e f o u n d th a t P a z h a d m a d e a t le a s t tw o f a ls e s ta te m e n ts u n d e ro a th a t tr ia l th a t, base d o n o ur re adi ng of the re cord, w er e m at er i al and cou l d n otpo ss i bl y have been the re sul tof a m i st ake, confusi on , or faul ty m em ory. A l tho ug h the di stri ctcourt coul d h ave m ade m ore part i cul ar i ze d fi nd i ng s a s t o eac h el em entof perj ury, w hi ch w oul d ha ve be e n pr e f

e r abl e unde rD unni ga n, the i m pos i t i on of the e nha nc e m e nt w a s s uppor t e d by the r e c or d. S e e D obbs , 11 F . 3d a t155. W e the r e f or e f i nd no cl ea r e rr or w i th the di stri ctcourt ’ s i m po si t i on of the ob struct i on of j ust i ce enhancem ent , no r do w e f i nd any e rr or w i th res pectt o the spec i fi ci ty of i t s f ac tual fi n d i n g s. T o the e xt e nttha tP a z a r gue s tha tthe di s tr i c tc our tappl i e d the w r ong st an d ard o f rev i ew i n d et erm i n i n g th ath e o b stru ct ed j u st i ce, h i s arg u m en tm u st f a i l , be c a us e a s not e d by the gove rnm e nt , i tr e l i e s upon a n obs ol e t e c om m e ntt o the G ui del i nes. U . S . S . G . A pp . C , 41 4 (A m endm ent56 6) (del et i ng the ph ra se “ such t e s t i m ony ors t a t e m e nt s s houl d be e va l ua t e d i n a l i ghtm os tf a vor a bl e t o the defe nd ant . ”) . 4. B l ak e l y / B ook e r O b j e c t i on F i na l l y , P a z a r gue s tha t , i n l i ghtof B l a ke l y v. W a s hi ngt on, 542 U . S . __, 124 S . C t . 2531, 159 L . E d. 403 ( 2004) , a nd by e xt e ns i on, U ni t e d S t a t e s v. B ooke r , 543 U .S . __ , 1 2 5 S . C t. 7 3 8 , 1 6 0 L . E d . 2 d 6 2 1 ( 2 0 0 5 ) , h is S ix th A m e n d m e n t r ig h ts9

w er e v io lated b ec au se h is se n ten ce ex ce ed ed th e m ax im u m au th o rize d b y th e ju ry ’s verdi ct , base d o n fac t s ( other than p ri or conv i ct i on s) thathe di d n otadm i tand w er e n o t p r o v e d to a ju ry b e y o n d a r e a s o n a b le d o u b t. B e c a us e P a z m a de thi s obj e c t i on w i th r e s pe c tt o the c a l c ul a t i on of the a m ountof

l os s be f or e the di s tr i c tc our t , ba s e d on A ppr e ndi v. N e w J e r s e y , 530 U .S . 4 6 6 , 4 9 0 , 1 2 0 S . C t. 2 3 4 8 , 2 3 6 2 - 6 3 , 1 4 7 L . E d . 2 d 4 3 5 ( 2 0 0 0 ) , w e r e v ie w h is B l akel y/ B oo ker c l ai m de no vo , and w i l l re vers e onl y i f a ny error w as harm ful . S ee U ni t e d S t a t e s v. P a z , 405 F . 3d 946, 948 ( 11th C i r . 2005) ; s e e a l s o U ni t e d S t a t e s v. G ar ci a, 40 5 F . 3d 12 60 , 12 75 (11t h C i r. 20 05 ) ( expl ai ni ng thatappel l anthad p r e s e r v e d h is c la im b y c le a r ly r a is in g a n “A p p r e n d i- ty p e c o n s titu tio n a l c la im ” in hi s obj ec t i on s t o the P S I, atse nt enci ng , and i n h i s app el l at e bri ef s) . C on st i tut i on al B o o k e re rr o ris h a r m le s s if th e g o v e rn m e n t c a n m e e t its b u r d e n to s h o w th a t “it is c le a rb e y o n d a r e a s o n a b le d o u b t th a t th e e rr o rc o m p la in e d o f d id n o t c o n tr ib u te to th e s e n te n c e o b ta in e d .” P a z , 4 0 5 F .3 d a t 9 4 8 ( q u o ta tio n a n d a lte r a tio n o m itte d ) . I n B ooke r , the S upr e m e C our the l d tha t“ [ a ] ny f a c t( othe rtha n a pr i or c onvi c t i on) w hi c h i s ne c e s s a ry t o s uppor tas e nt e nc e e xc e e di ng the m a xi m um a uthor i z e d by the f

a c t s e s t a bl i s he d by a pl e a of gui l ty ora j ur y ve r di c tm us tbe adm i tt ed by the defendantor prov ed t o a j ury bey on d a re as on abl e dou bt . ” B oo ker, 543 U . S . a t___, 125 S . C t . a t756. I n a s e c ond a nd s e pa r a t e m a j or i ty opi ni on, the10

B ooke rC our tc onc l ude d tha t , t o be s tpr e s e r ve C ongr e s s ’ s i nt e nti n e na c t i ng the S e n t e n c i n g R e f

o r m Ac to f

1 9 8 4 , th e ap p r o p r i a t e r e m e d y wa s t o “ e x c i s e ” two s pe c i f i c s e c t i ons — 18 U . S . C . § 3553( b) ( 1) ( r e qui r i ng a s e nt e nc e w i thi n the gui de l i ne r a nge , a bs e nta de pa r tur e ) a nd 18 U . S . C . § 3742( e ) ( e s t a bl i s hi ng s t a nda r ds of

r e vi e w on appe a l , i nc l udi ng de novo r e vi e w of de pa r tur e s f

r om the appl i c a bl e gui de l i ne r a nge )

— the r e by e f f e c t i ve l y r e nde r i ng the S e nt e nc i ng G ui del i nes a dv i sory on l y. Id. at___, 12 5 S . C t . at76 4. T he C ou rti nd i ca t ed that both i t s “ S i xth A m e ndm e nthol di ng a nd . . . r e m e di a l i nt e rpr e t a t i on of the Se n t e n c i n g A c t ” mu s tb e ap p l i e d t o “ a l l c a s e s o n d i r e c tr e v i e w . ” I d . a t___ , 1 2 5 S. C t. a t 7 6 9 . I n the i ns t a ntc a s e , the di s tr i c tc our tc om m i tt e d c ons t i tut i ona l B ooke re rr or by s e nt e nc i ng P a z on the ba s i s of f a c t s tha the di d nota dm i t , w e r e notpr ove d t o a j ury bey on d a re as on abl e dou bt , and d i d n otconst i tut e pri or conv i ct i on s. T he j ury c o n v ic te d P a z o f

th r e e o f th e s u b s ta n tiv e c o u n ts c o n ta in e d in th e in d ic tm e n t – C o u n t s 4 , 5 , an d 9 . A cco rd i n g t o th e P S I, th e am o u n to f l o ss st em m i n g fro m th o se coun t s w as $1 , 20 0, $6 50 , and $ 2, 56 0, re spec t i vel y. T here fore , the j ury f ou nd that the a m ountof

l os s a ttr i but a bl e t o P a z ’ s c onduc tw a s $4, 410. T hi s c a l c ul a t i on w o u ld h a v e r e s u lte d in a o n e - le v e l in c r e a s e to P a z ’s o f f e n s e le v e l, u n d e rU .S .S .G . § 2B 5. 1(b)(1)(A ), because the l oss e xcee ded $ 2, 00 0, bu tw as l es s than $ 5, 00 0. In11

ca l cul at i ng the am ou ntof l oss, ho w ever , the di stri ctcourt , i n ado pt i ng the P S I, in c lu d e d in th e lo s s c a lc u la tio n th e lo s s e s s te m m in g f r o m a c q u itte d c o n d u c t, de t a i l e d i n C ount s 3, 6, 7, a nd 8, e ve n though P a z di d nota dm i tthos e l os s e s a nd th e j u ry v erd i ctd i d n o tau th o ri ze th e i n cl u si o n o f th o se l o sses. D u e t o th ese addi t i on al fa ctual fi nd i ng s, P az ’ s off ense l evel w as enhanced by an addit i on al three le v e ls u n d e rU .S .S .G . § § 2 B 5 .1 ( b ) ( 1 ) a n d 2 B 1 .1 . T h u s , P a z ’s s e n te n c e is u n c o n s titu tio n a l. Ho we v e r , th e d i s tr i c tc o u r t ’ s c o n s t i tu t i o n a l Bo o k e re rr o rwa s h a r ml e s s . To s how tha tc ons t i tut i ona l B ooke re rr orw a s ha r m l e s s , the gove rnm e ntm us tpr ove be y ond a r e a s ona bl e doubttha tthe di s tr i c tc our tw oul d ha ve i m pos e d a n e qui va l e nt orgr e a t e rs e nt e nc e ha d i ts e nt e nc e d P a z unde ra n a dvi s ory , r a the rtha n a m a nda t ory , s e nt e nc i ng gui de l i ne s s c he m e . U ni t e d S t a t e s v. D a vi s , __ F . 3d __, N o. 04- 14585, 2005 W L 1033422, a t*1- 2 ( 11th C i r . M a y 4, 2005) . T he tr a ns c r i ptof P a z ’s s e n te n c in g h e a r in g r e v e a ls s e v e r a l f a c ts th a t in d ic a te th e d is tr ic t c o u r t w o u ld have i m po se d an equ i val entor grea t erse nt ence had i tse nt ence d P az un der a n advi sory gu i del i nes s chem e: 1. af t eraf fordi ng P az and h i s c ou nsel an o pp ortun i ty t o argue “ as t o w he the r or not the c our t ought t o s e nt e nc e hi m a t the l ow e nd o f th e g u i d el i n e ran g e, ” th e d i stri ctco u r t im p o sed th e h i g h estSee United States v. Gallego s -A guero, __ F .3d __, No. 04-14242, 2005 WL1160635, at 3 *2 (1 1th Cir . M ay

18 , 2 00 5) (findingno n- c on sti tution al B oo ker error ha rmle ss, un der t

hele ss rig orous non-c onstitut ional harmless error standard, where“[t] he dis tri ct cour t judgesentenc ed Galleg os -A gu er o t o the highest sentenc e available under the applica

ble guideline ra

ng e, and consi dere d sentenc ing G alleg os-Aguero to 20 year s, the maxi mum allowable under the statute of c onvic tio n” ); se ealsoUnite d St ate s v . Ri c c ardi, 4 05 F .3 d 8 52 , 8 76 (1 0th Cir . 2 00 5) (inc or

re c tly analy zing the har

mlessness of constitutional Booker er ror under the less-rigorous non-constitutional harmless error standard, but finding the error ha rmless under thenon-constitutional standard where the district court sentenc ed the defendant to thehighe st sentencein the applicableguideline ra ng e, and when “the c ourt’s remarks at sentencing[do not ] sugg est any thing other than a be lief that the 262 month sentencewas a ppropriatein light of all the circumstanc es”) .

12 po ss i bl e s ent ence w i thi n the appl i cabl e gui del i nes r ange; 3 2 . th e d is tr ic t c o u r t d e n ie d P a z ’ s r e q u e s t to r e c o m m e n d h is pa r t i c i pa t i on i n the B ur e a u of P r i s on’ s I nt e ns i ve C onf i n em e nt C e nt e rP r ogr a m , or“ s hoc k i nc a r c e r a t i o n ” p r ogr a m , s e e 18 U . S . C . § 4 04 6 (20 04 ), an i nt ensi ve, re habi li t at i on -ori ent ed prog ra m thatw ou l d h ave, up on su cc es sf ul com pl et i on , ent i t l ed P az t o s e r v e th e rem ai n d er o f h i s sen t en ce i n a co m m u n i tyba s e d pr ogr a m , s e e 28 C . F . R . §§ 524. 31( a ) a nd 524. 32( d) ( 1) ( 2 0 0 4 ) , e v e n th o u g h h e w o u ld b e e lig ib le to p a r tic ip a te ; 3. the di s tr i c tc our te xpr e s s e d c onc e rn tha tr e c o m m en d i ng P a z f or the shock i ncar ce ra t i on prog ra m w ou l d m ak e hi m el i gi bl e f or a m o re l en i en tsen t en ce, th u s i n d i cat i n g i t s d esi re t o av o id pe r m i tt i ng P a z t o s e r ve l e s s tha n 37 m onths i n pr i s on; a nd 4. by r e f

us i ng t o i m pos e a s e nt en ce a tthe l ow e nd of the appl i cabl e gui del i nes r ange, the di stri ctcourtprevent ed P az fr om bei ng el i gi bl e f

or a s ent ence re du ct i on throu gh the shock in c a r c e r a tio n p r o g r a m s h o u ld th e B u r e a u o f P r i s o n s la te rp e r m it h i m t o pa r t i c i pa t e . S e e 28 C . F . R . §§ 524. 31( a ) a nd 52 4. 32 (d)( 2) (200 4). T h e s e f a c to r s a r e e n o u g h to c o n v in c e u s b e y o n d a r e a s o n a b le d o u b t, o n th is r e c or d, tha tthe di s tr i c tc our t ’ s B ooke re rr ori s ha r m l e s s be c a us e i tw oul d ha veThe d i s tri ct co urt also committed statutory Booker er

ror by sentenc ing Paz under

a 4 mandatory

guidelines scheme . United States v. Shelton, 400 F.3d 1325, 1330 (11th Cir. 2005). “No n- c on sti tution al error is h armle ss when it do e s n ot a ff e c t th esu bs tanti al rightsof

thepa rtie s. Under this standard, wemust rever se only if the er ror resulted in ac tu al p re

j u d i ce beca

use it had substantial and injurious effe ct or influence on [the defendant’s] sentence .” United States v. Petho, __ F.3d __, No. 04- 15412, 2005 WL1160640, at *1 (11th Cir. Ma y 18, 2005) (internal citations and marks omitted). B eca

use it is easier f

or the go v ernment to establish the harmlessness of nonconstitutional Booker

error than the ha

rmlessness of constitutional B ooker error, see United States v. Robles, __ F.3d __ , No. 04- 13598, 2005 WL1083487, at *3 (11th Cir. May 10, 2005), when a district court’s c onstitut ional Booker er ror is har mless, any

non-constitutional B ooker error will be ha rmle ss a s w e ll. 13 i m po se d an equ i val entor grea t erse nt ence un der a n adv i sory gu i del i nes s chem e. 4 T h u s , u p o n r e v i e w o f

th e r e c o r d a n d c o n s i d e r a t i o n o f th e p a r t i e s ’ b r i e f

s , we d i scern n o rev ersi b l e erro r w i th reg ard t o P az’ s co n v i ct i o n s o r sen t en ces. AF F I RME D.