### FI LED U.S. COURT O F APP EALS ELEVENTH CIRCUIT J uly 20, 20 05 THO MAS K. KAH N CL ERK [DO NOT PUBLISH] IN THE UN ITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FO R T HE EL EV EN TH CIRC UI T

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ _ N o. 04- 1146 9 Non-A rgum ent Calendar

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ _ D. C. Docket N o. 03-00206 -CR- 1-CB UNITED STAT ES OF AMERIC A, Plai nt iff -Ap pe ll ee, ve rs us MATTHEW

PATRICK J OHNSON, Defen da nt -Ap pe ll an t.

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ___ Appeal f rom the United State s District Court f o r th e S o u t h e rn D i s t r i c to f

A l ab a ma

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ (J ul y 20 , 200 5) Be fo re , E D MO N D SO N , Ch ie f Judg e, H U L L a nd W IL SO N , Ci rc uit Jud ge s. PE R CU RIA M:Jo h n s o np le a d e d gu il ty to o n e c o un t o f

a f iv e c o un t i n d ic tm e n t p ur s u an t t o a w r itte nplea 1 ag r e e me n t th at c o n ta in e d a s e n te n c e a p p e a l w a iv e r . B e c a

u s e th e g o v e r

n me n t f a il e d to raise the appea l waiver

as a ba r to J o h n s o n ’s sentenc e enha nceme nt challeng e, we will not address the applicability

of t he appeal waiver. See United St ates v. Ne aly , 232 F.3d 825, 830 ( 11 Cir. 2000) th (“Par ties must subm it all issues on appeal in their initial briefs.” ). 2 D ef en dant- Appe llant M atthe wP atri ck Joh nsonappe al s hi s se nte nc e fo r co nspi ra cy

to poss es s w ithint en t t o di str ibu te m etha m phe tam ine , in vio la tio n of 2 1 U . S . C . § 8 4 6 . N o r e v e r s i b l e e rr o r h a s b e e n s h o w n ; w e a f

f i rm. John son raises a single iss ue on appeal: whether the sentencing court co m m itt ed r ev er sib le c onst itu tio na l e rr or und er Bl ak el y v. W as hin gto n, 124 S . Ct . 25 31 (20 04 ). Jo hn so n a rg ue s t ha t t he sen te nc in g ju dg e im pe rm is si bl y

ad de d t wo le ve ls t o hi s ba se of

fe nse le ve l f

or pos se ssi on o f a dange ro us w ea pon pur suant t o U . S. S. G . § 2D 1. 1( b) (1 ) ba se d onaj udi ci al f ind ing of f ac t tha t the f

ir earm - - w hose poss es sio n Jo hnso n a dm itt ed - - w as c onne ct ed

to the dr ug o ff en se . A t se nte nc ing , John son obj ec te d to the f ir earm e nhanc em en t ba se d onhis c ont en tio n th at the we apon was unconnected to the drug s; but J ohns on raised no cons titutio nal challenge to the enhancem ent at sentencing. Bec ause this Blakely -- now Booker 1 v. U nit ed S ta te s, 125 S . Ct . 738 ( 2005 ) -- iss ue is ra ise d f or the f ir st t im e on a

ppe al , w e re vie wf

or pla in e rr or . S ee Bo oke r, 124 S . Ct . a t 76 9, U nit ed S ta te s v. Ro dr ig ue z, 39 8 F .3d12 91 , 12 98 (11 Cir . 20 05 ), cert. denied , 200 5 W L 483 174 th (U .S . June 20, 2005).3

On plain err or review , a

defendant m

ust sh ow “ error ” that is “ plain” and that

“ af fe ct [s ] sub stanti al r igh ts” . U nit ed S ta te s v. O lano, 113 S . Ct . 177 0, 177 6 (1993). It is only

after these conditio ns have been satisfied that an appellate court has discretion to notice a forf eited err or. An appellate c ourt m ay rem edy err or that is p la in and a ff

ec ts s ubst an tia l r igh ts o nly if “ the e rr or

‘ se ri ousl y

a ff ec ts[ s] the fa ir ne ss, int eg ri ty , or

pub lic r ep utatio n of

j udi ci al pr oc ee din gs. ’ ” John son v. U nit ed S ta te s, 177 S . Ct . 154 4, 154 9 ( 1997 ), quo tin g O lano, 113 S . Ct . a t 17 76. Section 2D1. 1(b)(1) im

poses a two level increa se in the base offense level of of fe nse s in vol vin g dr

ugs if adange ro us w ea

pon is p oss es se d. U nde r the co m m en tary , the e nhanc em en t “ shou ld b e ap pli ed if the w ea pon w as pr es en t, unless it is clearly

im probable that the weapon wa s connected with the offense. ” U. S. S. G. 2D1. 1, com

m ent. n. 3. Johnson adm itted at sentencing th at the loaded gun fo und in a

c los et in the r oom

use d a s am etha m

phe tam ine la

b w as his gun ; John son argued that th e fire arm wa s unconn ected to the drugs. T he district court stated that Joh nson failed to show that it wa s clearly im probable that the firear

m w as c onne ct ed

to the dr ug o ff en se . I nst ea d, the dis tr ic t c ourt st at ed that i t c oul d not “ im ag ine a ll the c oin ci de nts [ sic ] a nd c ir cu m stanc es ” that w oul d have to ap ply to sh ow t he “ gu n ju st happ en edto be in a ro om wher e a m et h l ab was l oc at ed .”J ohnson challeng es only the district court’s c onclusion that the fire arm wa s connec ted to the drug 2 offe nse. While we wil l acc ept that this determination is a fa ctual findingthat can c onstitut e B ooker err or, ar guably at issue only is the application of the guidelines to the admitted fac t of possession. In United States v. Shelton, 400 F.3d 1325, 1331 (11th Cir. 2 0 0 5 ), i t was a lso concluded that 3 “B ooker e rror

exis ts when the district cour t misapplies the Guidelines by consi d er i n g t h em as binding a s opposed to a dvisory .” And such statutory Booke r er ror e x ists “even in the a

bsence of a Six th Amendment enha

nceme nt violation.” I d. at 1330-31.

4 In Rodriguez, w e re cognized that an enhancem ent im posed un der a m an da tor y gui de lin es sy ste m

ba se d onf

ac ts f ound by the j udge that w en t be y ond those adm itted by

the defendant or found bythe j ury constitu ted Booker err or. Rodriguez, 398 F. 3d at 129 8-99. A nd, because of B ooker, w e concluded that such error is now plain. T o the extent that Jo hnso n challenges judicial fa ct finding that 2 w en t be y ond his a dm iss ion s, the f ir st tw o r equir em en ts f

or pla in e rr or

r el ie f w oul d be sa tis fi ed . 3 John son fa ils , how ev er , to sa tis fy the thi rd r equir em en t: that the e rr or

“ af fe ct ed sub stanti al r igh ts. ” A s w e ex pla ine d inRo dr igu ez , the Bo oke r er ro r is not th e use of extra- verdict enhancem ents; it is “ the use of extra-ver dict enhancem ents to reach a guidelines result that is bi ndin g on th e sentencing judge.” Id . a t 13 01. T o sh owthe pr ej udi ce r equir ed f or pla in e rr or

r el ie f, ac la im an t m

ust show a “ reasonable probabilityof a diff erent re sult if the gui delines had been ap pli ed in ana dvi sor

y ins te ad of bin din g f as hio n. ” Id .5

John son ha s no t m et

his bur de n of

sho w ing that a

Bo oke r er

ro r in h is c as e affe cted the outcom e of his sentencing. See id. at 1301, 1306. Johnso n proffers nothin g to sho wthat a

r ea sona ble pr oba bil ity e xis ts tha t the se nte nc ing j udge would have im

posed a m ore lenient sentence had the guidelin es been applied in an ad vi so ry an d n on -b in di ng fas hi on . See i d. at 13 01 . AFFIR MED.