T he Hon. C

. R ogerVi nson, U ni t ed St at es Di st r i ct Judg e f ort he Nor t her n Di st r i ct of Fl or i da, si t t i ng * b y d e s i g n a ti o n . NO T RE CO MM EN DE D FO R FU LL -T EXTPU BL IC A TI ON Fi le N ame: 07a0831n .06 Fi led : D ecemb er 1 0, 20 07 No s. 06 -6 485/648 7 UNITED STA

TES COURT OF A PPE A LS FO R TH E SI XTH C IR CU IT
UN ITED STATES OF AM ER IC A, Pl ain ti ff-A ppel lee , v. BRYAN T EDW AR DS , Defendant -A ppel lan t. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ON APP EAL F RO M THE UN ITED ST AT ES DIST RICT COURT F O R THE W ESTER N DI ST RI CT OF T EN NE SSEE

Before: D AU GH TREY and CO OK, Ci rc uitJu dg es; and VIN SON , D is tr ict J udg e. *
PER C UR IA M. D efendant Br y ant Edw ards appeal s t he 121- month pr is on sent ence impo sed followi ng his guilty pleas to cha rg es of consp iring to ma nufactu re me th am ph et am i ne a nd c on s pi r i ng to po s s es s w i th i nt en t to d i s tr i bu te mo re th an 5 0 g ram s of met ham phe tam ine. Ed w ards do es no t n o w c h allenge th e factu al base s for his
conv icti ons or

hi s s entenc e. Ins tead, h e a rg ues onl y thatthe presumpt ion of
re a s o n a b l e n e s s a c c o rd e d b y a p p e l l a t e c o u rt s t o s e n t e n c e s w i t h i n t h e a p p l i c a b l e rang es of the U nit ed St ates Sent enci ng Guidel ine s, in co nju nct ion w it h the abi li ty of jud g es – rather tha n juries – to de term ine facts ne cessary to increase those senten ces, vi olate s the jury t ri a l g u a ra n t e e o f

t h e S ixt h A m e n d m e n t t o t h e Un it e d S t a t e s Co n s t it u t io n . Bo u n d , a s weNos. 06-6485/6487

United States v. Edwards

T h e d i s tri c t j u d g e , t h e g o v e rn m e n t, a n d th e d e fe n d a n t’ s c o u n s e l a l l m i s ta k e n l y re fe r to 1 § 2D1. 1( b) ( 6) ( C ) when di scussi ng t hi s off ense l ev el i ncr ease. Sect i on 2D 1. 1 of t he sent enci ng g ui del i nes was am ended , howev er , eff ect i v e Novem ber1, 200 6, ei ght day s pr i ort o Edwar ds’ s s en t enci ng h ear i ng. T he appl i cabl e l angua ge of § 2D 1. 1( b) ( 6) ( C ) oft he 2005 ver sion of t he g ui del i nes was r enum ber ed a nd i ncl uded i n § 2D 1. 1( b) ( 8) ( C ) of t he 2006 ver

sion t hat was i n eff ect on t he d at e of t he d ef endan t ’ s sent enci ng.

- 2 - a re , b y p re c e d e n tfro m t h i s c o u rta n d b y t h e re c e n th o l d i n g s o f Rita v. U nited St ates , 127 S. C t. 2 45 6 ( 20 07 ) , w e di s ag ree a nd t hu s a ffir m.
Fo llo wing E d ward s’s guil ty pl e a s t o th e two co n sp ira cy ch a rge s, th e di st ric t ju d ge initially dete rmine d tha t the defend ant ’s g uide lines of fense lev el shou ld be 28 , base d solely upo n the q uan tity of

ill egal drugs i nvolv ed in th e crimes. The court the n ad ded six m o re lev els to it s cal cul ati on after findi ng , w it hout the i nter v enti on of a j ur

y , t hat o ne of the cr imes both inv olv ed th e manufacture of methamphet amine and “ created a s ubst anti al ri sk of h a rm t o the life of

a mino r or an incom pet ent .” U
. S
. S E NTE NCI NG GUI DE L I NE S M ANU AL § 2 D 1.1( b) (8 )( C) (2 006)

. Ev en after g ra nti ng Edw ards a three- lev el dow nw ard adj ust ment 1 for ac cept ance of res ponsi bil ity , t he di str ict c our t c oncl uded t hat t he defendant’ s g uid eli nes sent enci ng ra ng e as a cr imi nal his tor y cat eg or

y II, offense lev el 31 offender woul d be 121- 151 mont hs. The di str ict j udg e also carefull y consi dered the other sent enci ng fact ors l is ted in 18 U.S. C. § 355 3(a), bu t ultima t e ly d e term ined thata 121 -mon th guideline s sente nce
w oul d i ndeed b e appropr iat e i n l ig ht of the st atuto ry co nsi derati ons. On ap peal , Ed w ards re adi ly “ conc edes that the c ur re nt l aw i n thi s C ircui t is thatthe Su p reme Co urt’ s d eci si on i n United S tates v. Book er , 543 U .S. 220 ( 2005) [,] di d not eli minat e j udi ci al fact- findi ng by di str ict c our

t j udges i n det er mini ng w hether se ntenc ingNos. 06-6485/6487

United States v. Edwards

- 3 - g uid eli ne enha ncement s a re appropr iat e. See, e.g. [,] United S tates v. Sto ne , 432 F.3d 651, 654- 55 ( 6th C ir . 200 5) [, cer t. denied , 127 S.C t. 129 ( 2006) ].” As recog niz ed bythe defendant, how ev er , s uch jud ic ial fact- findin g, a n apparent v iol ati on of the Si xth Amendment pri nci ple s eluc ida ted i n Bl akel y v . Washi ngton , 542 U.S. 29 6, 30 3-04 (2004 ), is per mis si ble onl y

bec ause Book

er mandate s t hat a ny

g uid eli nes sent enci ng ran ge re sul ti ng from the fact -fin din g be c onsi dered adv is or y onl y . See Book

er , 543 U .S. at 23 3.
Acc ording to Edw ards, our recog nit ion of a rebutt abl e presumpt ion of
re asona ble ness of any w it hin -g uid eli nes sent ence, see, e.g. , United State s v. Davis , 458 F. 3d 491, 496 (6 th C ir .) , petiti on fo r cer

t. fil e d , (U.S. N ov . 13, 2006)( No. 06- 7784) , has
once ag ain “ re sul ted i n a de fa ctom a n d a t o rys e n t e n c in g s c h e m e . ” C o n s e qu e n t ly, cont ends the d e fendant, j udi ci al fact- findi ng co nduct ed w it hout the s afeguards of a ju ry and the b ey ond- a- re asona ble -d oubt ev ide nti ar y st andard woul d, as und er pre- Book

er mandator

y g uid eli nes sent enci ng , ev is cerate t he protecti ons of the Si xth A mendment.
U nfo rtuna tely

for E dwards , an i de nt i c al a rg um en t w as rej ecte d by t he S up rem e Cou rti n Rita

. In t hat d eci si on, t he C our t admi tted that “ Ri ta may be c or re ct that the presu mp tion [of

rea sona blen ess] w ill encou ra ge se ntenc ing j udg es to i mpose Gui del ine s sent ence s.” Rita , 127 S.C t. at 24 67 (em p hasi s a dded)

. Nev erthel ess , “ [a] nonbi ndi ng appel lat e presumpt ion that a Gui del ine s sent ence is re asona ble does n o t requ irethe sent enc in g ju d ge t o imp ose th at sen ten ce.” Id. at 246 6 (em pha sis in orig inal). Th us, uti li z ati on by

an a ppel lat e c our

t of the presumpt ion of reason abl eness does not rein sta teNos. 06-6485/6487

United States v. Edwards

- 4 - a mandat or

y guidel ine s s entenc ing sc heme and does not v iol ate S ixth A mendment pr inc ipl es. The Supreme C our

t’ s d eci si on i n Ri

ta forec loses a n y o p por tuni ty by thi s c our

t t o c o n s id e r f urthe r the on ly argumen t advance d by Edw ards on this app eal. W e the refore AFF IR M the j udg ment of the dis tr ict c our t.