### F I LE D U. S . COURT OF AP PE ALS E LEVE NTH CI RCUI T Jul y 29, 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- 16033 N on -A rgum entC al endar

________________________ D . C . D ocketN o. 04 -000 16 -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 A L B E R T Y O U N G , 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 rn D is tr ic t o f G e o r g ia

_________________________ ( Ju l y 29, 2005) B efo re C A RN E S , 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: A l be r tY oung appe a l s hi s 199- m onth s e nt e nc e i m pos e d f orr obbi ng aba nk2

a n d u s i n g a f

i r e a rm d u r i n g th e c o mmi s s i o n o f a r o b b e ry , i n v i o l a t i o n o f 1 8 U . S. C. § 2 1 1 3 ( a ) , ( d ) a n d 1 8 U .S .C . § 9 2 4 ( c ) . Y o u n g r a is e s tw o is s u e s o n ap p e a l. I. F i rst , Y o u n g arg u es th ath i s S i x th A m en d m en tri g h t s w ere v i o l at ed b ecau se th e d is tr ic t c o u r t e n h a n c e dh is s e n te n c e o n th e b a s is o f f a c ts th a t w e r e f

o u n d o n ly by apr e ponde r a nc e of

the e vi de nc e , i ns t e a d of by the be y ond- a - r e a s onabl e - doubt s ta n d a r d r e q u ir e d b y U n ite d S ta te s v . B o o k e r , 5 4 3 U .S . __ , 1 2 5 S . C t. 7 3 8 ( 2 0 0 5 ) . Y o u n g ’s a r g u m e n t is m is p la c e d , h o w e v e r , b e c a u s e h e w a iv e d h is S ix th A m e n d m e n t r ig h ts p u r s u a n t to h is p le aa g r e e m e n t. A defe nd anti s perm i tt ed t o w ai ve ce rt ai n con st i tut i on al ri gh t s throu gh a pl ea a gr e e m e nt , s o l ong a s the a gr e e m e ntw a s m a de know i ngl y a nd vol unt a r i l y . P a rke v. R a l e y , 506 U . S . 20, 28–29, 113 S . C t . 517, 523 ( 1992) ; U ni t e d S t a t e s v. B r ow n, 1 1 7 F. 3 d 4 7 1 , 4 7 6 ( 1 1 th Ci r . 1 9 9 7 ) . I n Bl a k e l y v . W a s h i n g t o n , 5 4 2 U . S. __ , 1 2 4 S. C t . 2531 ( 2004) , the S upr e m e C our ts pe c i f i c a l l y s t a t e d tha ta de f

e nda ntm a y w a i ve hi s S i xth A m e ndm e ntr i ghtt o be s e nt e nc e d onl y on the ba s i s of f a c t s f ound by the ju ry o ra d m itte d b y h im . “[ N ]o th in g p r e v e n ts a d e f e n d a n t f r o m w a iv in g h is A pp re nd i ri gh t s. W hen a defendantpl ea ds gu i l ty, the [gov ernm ent ] i s f re e t o see k j udi c i a l s e nt e nc e e nha nc e m e nt s s o l ong a s the de f e nda nte i the rs t i pul a t e s t o the r e le v a n t f

a c ts o rc o n s e n ts to ju d ic ia l f a c tf in d in g .” B la k e ly , 1 2 4 S . C t. a t 2 5 4 1 .Th erearetw o ty pe s o f B oo ker error . Thefirs t isthec on stitution al error , which B enn e tt 1 waived his right to challeng e in his plea agreement. The sec ond is the statutory error of “misappl[ing] the guide lines by consideringthem as bindingas opposed to advisory .” United States v. Shelton, 400 F.3d 1325, 1330–31 (11th Cir. 2005). B eca use B ennett filed his brie f af ter the Supreme Court issued its decision in Booker and heargues only constitutional error, however, weneed not c onsider whether there wa s statutory error in this case. SeeUnited States v. Silvestri, 409 F.3d 1311, 1338 n.18 (11th Cir. 2005) (“ [A] n issue not raised in a pa rty ’s initial appellatebrief is c onsidered w aived . . . .” ). 3 H e r e , th e p le aa g r e e m e n t s ig n e d b y Y o u n g a n d h is c o u n s e l s p e c if ic a lly st at ed thatY ou ng “ consent [e d] t o b ei ng se nt ence d u nd erthe U ni t ed S t at es S e nt e nc i ng G ui de l i ne s , w a i ve [ d] a ny r i ghtt o ha ve a j ury r e s ol ve a nd de c i de s e nt e nc i ng i s s ue s , i nc l udi ng pos s i bl e e nha nc e m e nt s t o hi s s e nt e nc e , w a i ve [ d] a ny ri gh tt o h ave s ent enci ng i ss ues, i ncl ud i ng po ss i bl e e nh ance m ent s t o h i s s ent ence p r e s e n te d to a g r a n d ju ry , [ a n d ] e x p r e s s ly c o n f e r [ r e d ] u p o n th e c o u r t th e r ig h t to deci de any a nd al l se nt enci ng i ss ues by aprepon dera nce of the evi dence s t andard. ” Y o u n g d o e s n o t c o n te n d th a t h is w a iv e rw a s u n in f o rm e d o rin v o lu n ta ry . T h e r e f o r e , Y o u n g w a iv e d h is S ix th A m e n d m e n t r ig h ts a n d h is B o o k e ra r g u m e n t is f or e c l os e d. 1 II. S ec on d, Y ou ng cont ends thatthe di stri ctcourterre d i n app l yi ng a s i x-l evel enhancem entpu rs uantt o U . S . S . G . § 2 B 3. 1(b)(3)(C) because on e of the robb ery vi c t i m s s us t a i ne d ape rm a ne ntorl i f e - thr e a t e ni ng i nj ury . T he c our tappl i e d the e nha nc e m e ntbe c a us e B e ve r l y C onne r , one of the ba nk t e l l e r s pr e s e ntdur i ng the4

r obbe ry , s uf

f e r e d ahe a r ta tt a c k i m m e di a t e l y a f t e rw a r d. Y oung a r gue s tha tthe d is tr ic t c o u r t e rr o n e o u s ly e n h a n c e d h is s e n te n c e b e c a u s e th e r e w a s n o e v id e n c e in th e r e c o r d to s u g g e s t th a t C o n n e r ’s in ju ry w a s e ith e rp e rm a n e n t o rlif e - th r e a te n in g .

“ T hi s C our tr e vi e w s the di s tr i c tc our t ’ s appl i c a t i on of the s e nt e nc i ng g u id e lin e s d e n o v o a n d its f in d in g s o f

f a c t f o rc le a re rr o r .” U n ite d S ta te s v . G r a n t, 3 9 7 F . 3 d 1 3 3 0 , 1 3 3 2 (1 1 th C i r. 2 0 0 5 ). “ T h e sev eri ty o f a v i ct i m ’ s i n j u ri es i s a fa ctual det erm i nat i on and thu s r evi ew ed for c l ea r e rr or. ” U ni t ed S t at es v. P ri ce , 149 F . 3d 352, 353 ( 5th C i r . 1998) . “ [ W ] e w i l l notf i nd c l e a re rr orunl e s s our r e vi e w of

the r e c or d l e a ve s us w i th the de f i ni t e a nd f

i rm c onvi c t i on tha ta m i s t a ke has bee n com m i tt ed. ” U ni t ed S t at es v. W hi t e, 33 5 F . 3d 13 14 , 13 19 (11th C i r. 20 03 ) ( i nt ernal m arks om i tt ed). T h e s e n te n c in g g u id e lin e s p r o v id e f o ra s ix - le v e l e n h a n c e m e n t if a n y v ic tim o f ar o b b e ry s u s t a i n e d a “ [ p ] e rm a n e n to rl i f e - th r e a t e n i n g b o d i l y i n

j u ry . ” U. S . S . G. § 2 B 3. 1(b)(3)(C). “ P erm anentor l i fe -threa t eni ng bo di l y i nj ury” i s def i ned as

“ i nj ury i nvol vi ng a s ubs t a nt i a l r i s k of de a th; l os s ors ubs t a nt i a l i m pa i rm e ntof the f unc t i on of

a bodi l y m e m be r , or ga n, orm e nt a l f a c ul ty tha ti s l i ke l y t o be pe rm a ne nt ; ora n obvi ous di s f i gur e m e nttha ti s l i ke l y t o be pe rm a ne nt . ” I d. § 1 B 1. 1, cm t . n. 1(J) . W e have s ai d thatthi s l angu age “ encom pass es i nj uri es that m a y notbe t e rr i bl y s e ve r e buta r e pe rm a ne nt , he nc e the di s j unc t i ve : ‘ pe rm a ne ntor5

lif e - th r e a te n in g in

ju r ie s .’” U n ite d S ta te s v . T o rr e a lb a , 3 3 9 F .3 d 1 2 3 8 , 1 2 4 6 ( 1 1 th C ir . 2 0 0 3 ) . W e d isce rn n o clea r e rr o r in th e d istrict co u rt’s d eter m in atio n th at C o n n er ’s i nj ury w a s “ pe rm a ne ntorl i f e - thr e a t e ni ng, ” a s de f

i ne d by the gui de l i ne s . T he re cord show s thati m m edi at el y f ol l ow i ng the robb ery C on ner s uffe re d a heart a tt a c k a nd ha d t o be t a ke n by a m bul a nc e t o the hos pi t a l . S he w a s hos pi t a l i z e d f or f ourda y s a nd ha d t o unde r go a c a r di a c c a the t e r i z a t i on. C onne r ’ s tr e a t i ng phy s i c i a n i ndi c a t e d tha the ri nj ur i e s a r e pe rm a ne nt ; s he w i l l r e qui r e a l i f e t i m e of m edi ca l ca re as a r es ul tof her heartatt ac k. C on ner s t at ed that , because of the heart a tt a c k, s he ha s t o t a ke f

ourdi f f e r e ntm e di c a t i ons a nd w i l l ha ve t o c ont i nue doi ng s o f o rth e r e s t o f

h e rlif e . A l tho ug h C on ner’ s hea rtatt ac k w as (f ortun at el y) no tas se ri ou s a s i tm ay have been, i thas perm anent l y a ff ec t ed her heal th. F urtherm ore, gi ven thatheart a tt a c ks a r e of

t e n f a t a l , w e s e e no e rr ori n the di s tr i c tc our t ’ s c onc l us i on tha te ve n a re l at i vel y m i no r hea rtatt ac k i s a n “ i nj ury i nv ol vi ng a s ub st ant i al ri sk of death. ” S e e U .S .S .G . § 1 B 1 .1 , c m t. n .1 ( J ) . T h e r e f o r e , w e c o n c lu d e th a t it w a s n o t c le a r ly e rr one ous f

orthe di s tr i c tc our tt o appl y the s i x- l e ve l e nha nc e m e ntf orc a us i ng a p e rm a n e n t o rlif

e - th r e a te n in g in

ju ry u n d e r§ 2 B 3 .1 ( b ) ( 3 ) ( C ) . AF F I R ME D.