FI LED U. S . COURT OF AP PE ALS E L E V E N T H C IR C U IT A ugus t 30, 2005 T HOM AS K. KAHN CL 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. 05- 10392 N on -A rgum entC al endar

________________________ D. C . Do c k e tNo . 0 4
- 2 0 2 8 5 - C R - P AS 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 B R U N O G A S P A R O T T O , 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 ort he S out he r n D i s tr i c tof F l or i da

_________________________ ( A ugus t30, 2005)
B efo re H U L L , M A R C U S an d W IL S O N , C i rcu i tJu d g es. P E R C U R I A M: B runo G a s pa r ot t o a ppe a l s hi s 228- m ont h t ot a l s e nt e nc e , i m pos e d a f t e rhe p le d g u ilty , p u r s u a n t to a w r itte n p le a a g r e e m e n t, to c o n s p ir in g to p o s s e s s w ith in te n t to d i s t r i b u t e f

iv e o rm o r 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 . §2

846, a nd c a r r y i ng a f

i r e a r m i n f

ur the r a nc e of

a drug t r a f

f i c ki ng c r i m e , i n vi ol a t i on o f 1 8 U .S .C . § 924( c ) ( 1( A ) ( i )
. H e a r gue s the di s tr i c tc ou rt v i ol a t e d B l a ke l y v. W as hi ng t on , 54 2 U . S . 29 6, 12 4 S . C t . 25 31 , 15 9 L . E d . 2 d 4 03 (200 4) and U ni t ed S t a t e s v. B ook er, 5 4 3 U . S . __, 125 S . C t . 738, 160 L . E d. 2d 621 ( 2005) , by i m pos i ng hi s sen t enc e unde ra m a nda t or y s e nt e nc i ng r e gi m e . T he gove r nm e nt
a gr e e s tha tt he r e w a s B ooke rnon- c ons t i tut i ona l e r r ora nd t h at t h e ca s e s houl d be
re m anded for t he di stri ctcourtt o i m po se se nt en ce in ac co rdance w i th t he re m edi al ho l di ng of B oo ker. B e c a u s e Ga s p a r a t t o d i d n o tr a i s e h i s B o o k e rc l a i m i n th e d i s tr i c tc o u r t , we r e vi e w the i s s ue f

orpl a i n e r r oronl y . S e e U ni t e d S t a t es v . D o w l i ng, 403 F . 3d 1242, 1246- 47 ( 11th C i r . 2005)
. U nde rpl a i n e r r ora nal ysi s , a de f e nda ntm us ts how (1) a n err or, (2) thati s plain , and (3) thataf fe ct s s ub st ant i al ri gh t s. Id. at12 47 . If th e d efen d anti s a bl e t o m a ke a s how i ng of a l l t hr e e , w e t he n m a y e xe r c i s e our di s c r e t i on t o not i c e the er r ori f the e r r or“ s e r i ous l y a f

f e c t s t he f a i r ne s s , i nt e gr i t y , or publ i c r e put a t i on of

j udi c i a l pr oc e e di ng s. ” I d. W e ha ve he l d, i n the c ont e xtof B oo ker e rr ors, thatthe pl ai n err or t es ti s s at i sf i ed on l y w hen th e d ef endantca n show that “ ‘ there i s a re as on abl e prob abi l i ty of a di ff er ent re sul t i f th e g u id elines had b ee n app l i ed i n an adv i sory i nst ea d o f a bi nd i ng fa shi on . ’ ” I d. (q u o ti n g U ni t ed S t a t e s v. R odr i gue z , 398 F . 3d 1291, 1301 ( 11t h C i r . ) , c e r t . de ni e d 1 2 5 S . C t . 29353

(200 5)). In B l akel y, the S up re m e C ou rthel d t hat , un der the S t at e of W as hi n g to n ’s
m a nda t or y s e nt e nc i ng gui del i n es s y s t e m , the i m pos i t i on of a s e nt e nc i ng e nha nc e m e ntba s e d upon f a c t s ne i the ra dm i t t e d by the de f e ndan t n orf

ound by t he j ur y v i o l a t e d t he de f

e nda nt ’ s S i xth A m e ndm e ntr i ghtt o a j ur y t r i a l
. B l a ke l y , 542 U . S. a t - - - , 1 2 4 S. Ct . a t 2 5 3 4
- 3 8 . Th e Su p r e me Co u r t e x t e n d e d th i s h o l d i n g t o t he fe dera l S ent enci ng G ui del i nes. B oo ker, 54 3 U . S . a t - -- , 1 25 S . C t . at76 0. B as ed
on the S up re m e C ou rt ’ s anal ys i s i n B oo ker, w e have st at ed that there ar e tw o types of B oo ker e rr o r: (1) a S i xt h A m endm enter ror, w hi ch occurs w hen t he di stri ctcourt uses ext ra -ver di ctenhancem ent s t o rea ch a G ui del i nes r es ul tun der a m andat ory se nt enci ng re gi m e, and (2) a s t atut ory e rr or, w hi ch oc cu rs w hen t he di stri ctcourt i m po se s s ent ence un der a m an dat ory G ui del i nes s ys t em . R od ri gu ez , 39 8 F . 3d at 13 00 (11t h C i r. 20 05 ). G as para t t o ass er t s onl y the l att ert ype of B oo ker e rr or . B ec ause G as para t t o w as se nt ence d u n d er a m andat ory s ent enci ng re gi m e, th ere w as B o o k er n o n -co n st i tu t i o n al , o r st atu t o ry, erro r. U n i t ed S t at es v . G al l eg o sA gu ero, 40 9 F . 3d 12 74 , 12 77 (11t h C i r. 20 05 ) ( ci t i ng R od ri gu ez , 39 8 F . 3d at 13 00 ). “ T he use of the gu i del i nes a s m an dat ory w as er ror, even i n t he abse nce of a S i xt h A m e ndm e ntvi ol at i on. ” G a l l e gos - A gue r o, 409 F . 3d a t1277 ( c i t i ng S he l t on, 400 F . 3d a t1330- 31)
. W e ha ve r e c ogni z e d tha tB ook er erro rs s a t i s f y pr ongs ( 1)4

a n d ( 2 ) o f

th e p la in e r r o rte s t. S e e R o d r ig u e z , 3 9 8 F .3 d a t 1 2 9 8
- 9 9 . T o sat i sf y the t hi rd pron g o f the pl ai n err or t es t , a def endantm ustshow that the er ror a ctual l y did m ak e a d i ff er ence : i f i ti s e qu al l y pl ausi bl e that the erro rw or ke d i n f

a vorof t he de f e ns e , t he de f

e nda ntl os e s ; i f

the ef fe ct o f th e er ror i s s o u ncer t ai n t hatw e do n otkn ow w hi ch, i f e i ther, s i de i the l pe d the de f

e nda ntl oses. W h er e the e r r or s c oul d ha ve c ut e ith e rw a y a n d u n c e r ta in ty e x is ts , th e b u r d e n is th e d e c i s i v e f a c to rin the thi r d pr ong of

th e pl a i n e r r ort e s t , a nd the bur de n i s on the d e f e n d a n t. I d
. a t 1 3 0 0 . B a s e d on our r e vi e w of t h e s e n t e n c i n g t r a ns c r i pt , a s w e l l a s t he gove r nm e nt ’ s c onc e s s i on on the poi nt , G a s pa r ot t o a l s o m e e t s the thi r d pr ong re qu i re m en t b ec ause t he di stri ctcourt ’ s e rr or af fe ct s hi s s ub st ant i al ri gh t s. In
exam i ni ng w het her a n err or af fe ct s a defe nd ant ’ s s ub st ant i al ri gh t s, w e l oo k at

“ w het her there i s a re as on abl e pro b ab i l i ty of a di ff er entre sul ti f the gu i del i nes had be e n a ppl i e d i n a n a dvi s or y i ns t e a d of bi ndi ng f

a s hi on. . . . ” U ni t e d S t a t e s v. D ac us, 40 8 F . 3d 68 6, 68 9 (11 th C i r. 20 05 ) ( qu o ti ng R od ri gu ez , 39 8 F . 3d at13 00 ). T he c o u r t l o w e r e d G a s p a r o t t o ’ s b a s e o f f e n s e l e v e l b y tw o u n d e r U . S. S. G . § 5K 2. 0, and t hen l at er , af

t erhear i ng fr om G as parot t o and hi s f am i l y, depart ed an addi t i on al tw o l evel s. T he courtst at ed, “ I w i sh th at th e S ent enci ng G ui del i nes w er e nothere ; th at I w o u l d l i k e t o i m p o se a l o w er sen t en ce. I h av e, w i th [t h e p ro b at i o n o f fi cer’s ] h e l p , d o n e th e b e s t th a t I c a n u n d e r th e G u i d e l i n e s . ” Th e c o u r t s a i d t hi s r e duc t i on go t cl oser t o a n app ropri at e se nt ence , spec i fi ca l l y i nd i ca t i ng a di ff er entse n t enceWe do not me an to imply by our holding that on rema nd the district c ourt must impos e a 1 particula r sentenc e. Howe ver, on remand, the district c ourt must c alculate correctly the sentenc ing rang e pursua

nt to its consultation of the Guidelines. Cf. United States v. Crawford, 407 F.3d 1174, 11 78 -7 9 ( 11 th C ir . 2 00 5) (s tatin ga ft e r B oo ke r, dis tric t c ourt s mu st c on su lt theGuide lin e s and “ [t]his consultation require ment, at a minimum, obliges the district c ourt to calc ulat e co rr ec t ly the sentenc ing rang e prescribe d by the Guidelines”). “A misinterpretation of the Guidelines by a district court e ffe ctively

means that the district c ourt h as n o tproperly consulted the Guide lines.” I d. (internal quotation marks, brac kets, and c itation omitted). On a ppeal, wecontinue to re view a district court' s application of the Guidelines just as we did pre-B ooker, although now w e re view the u ltim ates e nten c e im

p o s e d f o r r e a s o n a b len e s s . Se e Un it e d

St ate s v . Jo r d i, - - - F . 3 d

- - - - , 2 0 0 5 WL 1798055 (11th Cir. Aug .1, 2005) (quotation and citation omitted); see also Booker, 125 S . Ct. at 764 (p ro vidingthat st and ard of a pp e a l f or sente nc e imp os e d und e r disc re tio na ry re g imeis rea sonablene ss, with consideration of the18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) fa ctors). A fter the correct c alculation of the Guide lines rang e, the district cour t should turn to consideration of “other statutory concerns as we ll, see [18 U.S.C .] § 3553(a) (Supp. 2004)”under B ooker. See125 S. Ct . at 757. We do not attempt now to decidewhether a par ticular sente nce might be re asonablein this case.

5 w o u ld h a v e r e s u lte d if

th e c o u r t h a d n o t tr e a te d th e G u id e lin e s a s m a n d a to r y . F i na l l y , w he r e a c our te xpr e s s e s a c l e a rde s i r e t o i m pos e a m or e l en i ent se nt ence , and B oo ker p ro v ides thatt he di stri ctcourthad t he aut ho ri ty t o con si der the G ui de l i ne s a dvi s or y , t he pl a i n e r r ors e r i ous l y a f f e c t e d the f

a i r ne s s , i nt e gr i t y , or p u b lic r e p u ta tio n o f

th e ju d ic ia l p r o c e e d in g s . S h e lto n , 4 0 0 F .3 d a t 1 3 3 3
- 1 3 3 4 . A l l f our pr o n g s o f

th e p l a i n e r r o rs t a n d a r d a r e s a t i s f i e d
. I ti s e v i d e n tf

r om th e d is tr ic t c o u r t’s f

r e q u e n t r e m a r k s d u r in g th e s e n te n c in g h e a r in g , a s w e ll a s its i m po si t i on of a s ent ence at th e l ow end o f the G ui del i nes r ange, thatthe court perc ei ved th e G ui del i nes a s m andat ory t o t he det ri m entof G as parot t o’ s s ub st ant i al
r i ght s . T hus , w e va c a t e G a s pa r ot t o’ s s e nt e nc e an d rem a nd f orr e - s e nt e nc i ng consi st entw i th B oo ker. 1 VA C A TED A N D R EM A N D ED .6