FI LED U. S . COURT OF AP PE ALS E L E V E N T H C IR C U IT Jul y 6, 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. 04- 16168 N on -A rgum entC al endar

________________________ D . C . D oc ke tN o. 04- 00051- C R - 002 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 T R A C Y K A P R I C E C O T T O N , 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 So u th e rn D i s tr i c to f A l a b a ma

_________________________ ( J ul y 6, 2005)

B efo re A N D E R S O N , C A RN E S an d M A R C U S , C i rcu i tJu d g es. P E R C U R I A M: T r a c y K ap r ic e C o tto n ap p e a ls h e r1 0 8 - m o n th s e n te n c e f o ra tte m p t to ma n u f a c tu r e mo r e th a n 5 0 g r a ms o f me th a mp h e t a mi n e , i n v i o l a t i o n o f 2 1 U . S. C.2

§ 846, a r gui ng tha tthe di s tr i c tc our te rr e d, i n l i ghtof U ni t e d S t a t e s v. B ooke r , 543 U . S . ___, 12 5 S . C t . 73 8, 16 0 L . E d. 2d 62 1 (20 05 ), by enhanci ng her s ent ence base d on f a c t s tha tw e r e notpr ove n t o a j ur y ora dm i tt e d t o by he r , a nd by appl y i ng the G u id e lin e s a s m a n d a to ry . B e c a us e C ott on r a i s e d a c ons t i tut i ona l obj e c t i on t o he rs e nt e nc e be f or e the di s tr i c tc our tba s e d on 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 . 2 d 4 0 3 (2 0 0 4 ), w e rev i ew th e co n st i tu t i o n al i ssu e d e n o v o , b u tw i l l rev erse on l y f or a harm ful error. S ee U ni t ed S t at es v. P az , 40 5 F . 3d 94 6, 94 8 (11 th C i r. 2005) . A c ons t i tut i ona l e rr ori s ha r m l e s s i f “ i ti s c l e a rbe y ond a r e a s ona bl e doubt tha tthe e rr orc om pl a i ne d of di d notc ontr i but e t o the s e nt e nc e obt a i ne d. ” I d. (quo t at i on and al t er at i on om i tt ed). T he go vernm entbear s the bu rden t o sho w that any e rr or w as harm l es s. Id. W e have not ed that“ the party bea ri ng the bu rden f a c e s a di f

f i c ul tc ha l l e nge ” w he n “ w e s i m pl y do notknow w ha ts e nt e nc e the di s tr i c tc our tw oul d ha ve i m pos e d a bs e ntthe e rr or . ” U ni t e d S t a t e s v. R obl e s , N o. 04- 13598, m a nus c r i ptop. a t8 ( 11th C i r . M a y 10, 2005) ; s e e a l s o U ni t e d S t a t e s v. D a vi s , 407 F . 3d 1269, 1271- 72 ( 11th C i r . 2005) ( hol di ng tha tthe gove rnm e nt c oul d notm e e ti t s bur de n w he n “ [ w ] e s i m pl y do notknow w ha tthe s e nt e nc i ng courtw ou l d h ave don e had i tun ders t oo d the gu i del i nes t o b e a dv i sory ra ther than m andat ory, and h ad prop er l y c on si dere d the fa ct ors i n 1 8 U . S . C . § 3 55 3(a) ”) .3

B e c a u s e C o tto n p r e s e r v e d h e rc o n s titu tio n a l o b je c tio n b y tim e ly r a is in g it be f or e the di s tr i c tc our t , the bur de n i s on the gove rnm e ntt o s how be y ond a reaso n ab l e d o u b tth atth i s erro r w as h arm l ess. S ee P az, 4 0 5 F . 3 d at9 4 8 . B ecau se there i s no cl ea r i nd i ca t i on of w hatse nt ence the di stri ctcourtw ou l d h ave i m po se d had i tkn ow n the G ui del i nes w er e a dv i sory on l y, w e hol d thatthe go vernm enthas n o t m e t its b u r d e n to s h o w th a t th e e rr o rw a s h a r m le s s b e y o n d a r e a s o n a b le d o u b t. A c c o r d in g ly , w e v a c a te a n d r e m a n d f o rr e s e n te n c in g c o n s is te n t w ith B o o k e r . V AC AT E D a n d RE MAND E D.