### F I LE D U. S . COURT OF AP PE ALS E LEVE NTH CI RCUI T O c t obe r 5, 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. 05- 10240 N on -A rgum entC al endar

________________________ D. C . Do c k e tNo . 0 4 - 6 0 1 9 2 - C R - MGC 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 E D W A R D M E L V I 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 orthe S outhe rn D i s tr i c tof F l or i da

_________________________ ( O c t ob e r 5, 2005) B efo re A N D E R S O N , B IR C H an d H U L L , C i rcu i tJu d g es. P E R C U R I A M: E dw ar d M el vi n app ea l s hi s s ent ence of 10 0 m on ths i m pri sonm ent , i m po se d f ol l ow i ng hi s gui l ty pl e a a s t o know i ngl y a nd i nt e nt i ona l l y di s tr i but i ng a ndUnited States v. Booker, 534 U.S. ___, 125 S. Ct. 738 (2005). 1 2 p o s s e s s in g w ith in te n t to d is tr ib u te a c o n tr o lle d s u b s ta n c e , “c r a c k ” c o c a in e , w ith in 1 ,0 0 0 f e e t o f a p la y g r o u n d , in v io la tio n o f 2 1 U .S .C . § § 8 4 1 ( a ) ( 1 ) a n d 8 6 0 . B ec ause M el vi n p re se rved hi s B oo ker chal l enge, the go vernm entm ustshow that 1 an y co n st i tu t i o n al erro r i n th e d i stri ctj u d g e’ s i m p o si t i o n o f sen t en ce w as h arm l ess beyond a r ea sonabl e dou bt . H er e, the re cord do es no tes t abl i sh harm l es s e rr or, a nd, the r e f

or e , w e V A C A T E a nd R E M A N D f orr e s e nt e nc i ng. I . B AC KG RO UN D M e l vi n w a s c ha r ge d by i ndi c tm e ntw i th thr e e c ount s of know i ngl y a nd i nt ent i on al l y di stri bu t i ng and p osse ss i ng w i th i nt entt o d i stri bu t e a n u nspeci fi ed qu ant i ty of acontrol l ed subst ance , “ cr ac k cocai ne, ” w i thi n 1 , 00 0 fee tof a pl ay grou nd , i n v i ol at i on of 21 U . S . C . §§ 84 1(a) (1) a nd 86 0. H e a gree d t o p l ea d gui l ty w i thoutaw r i tt e n pl e a a gr e e m e nt , a nd w i thouta dm i tt i ng t o the drug qu ant i t i es t ot al i ng 5. 63 gram s out l i ned i n the go vernm ent ’ s f ac tual proffe r. R 3 at 8 - 1 0 . T h e c o u r t a c c e p te d th e g u ilty p le a in lig h t o f th e g o v e rn m e n t’s c o n s e n t to a c c e p t th e p le a w ith o u t a n a d m is s io n a s to q u a n tity . I d . a t 1 0 - 1 1 . T he pr oba t i on of

f i c e rc om put e d a ba s e of f e ns e l e ve l of

28, us i ng the drug a m ount s a l l e ge d by the gove rnm e nt , butnota dm i tt e d byM e l vi n. T he r e w e r e no o th e re n h a n c e m e n ts . M e lv in w a s a w a r d e d a th r e e - le v e l r e d u c tio n f o rtim e ly3

a c c e pt a nc e of

r e s pons i bi l i ty . T hi s y i e l de d a t ot a l of f e ns e l e ve l of

25. T he pr oba t i on of

f i c e rc a l c ul a t e d M e l vi n’ s c r i m i na l hi s t ory s c or e a tt e n poi nt s , r e s ul t i ng i n a cr i m i nal hi st ory c at egory of V . A cc ordi ng l y, M el vi n’ s gui del i nes r ange w as 1 0 0 to 1 2 5 m o n th s im p r is o n m e n t. M e l vi n c ha l l e nge d the c om put a t i on of hi s of f e ns e l e ve l on the ba s i s of B la k e ly v . W a s h in g to n , 5 4 2 U .S . 2 9 6 , 1 2 4 S . C t. 2 5 3 1 ( 2 0 0 4 ) . R 2 - 2 8 a t 2 - 3 , 1 0 . H e a r gue d tha tB l a ke l y s houl d be appl i e d t o the f e de r a l s e nt e nc i ng gui de l i ne s a nd tha t , i f i tw e r e s o appl i e d, hi s ba s e of f e ns e l e ve l w oul d be 12, r a the rtha n 28, b e c a u s e h e h a d n o t a d m itte d to th e q u a n tity o f d ru g s u s e d in c a lc u la tin g it. I d . a t 2 . M e l vi n a l s o obj e c t e d t o the c om put a t i on of hi s c r i m i na l hi s t ory s c or e , c ont e ndi ng tha tgi vi ng m ul t i pl e poi nt s f ora s i ngl e of

f e ns e c ons t i tut e s j udi c i a l f a c t - f i ndi ng, pr e c l ude d by B l a ke l y a nd A ppr e ndi v. N e w J e r s e y , 530 U . S . 466, 120 S . C t . 2348 ( 2 0 0 0 ) . I d . a t 1 1 . M el vi n argued, al t ernat i vel y, thathe shou l d rec ei ve a dow nw ar d d eparture pu rs uantt o U . S . S . G . §4 A 1. 3 (20 04 ) bec ause hi s c ri m i nal hi st ory w as ov er r e p r e s e n te d b y th e a s s ig n e d s c o r e , a n d p u r s u a n t to U .S .S .G . § 5 K 2 .1 1 , b e c a u s e h is cond uctdi d n otthrea t en the harm soug htt o b e pre vent ed by the drug st atut e he had vi ol a t e d. I d. a t12- 16. M or e s pe c i f i c a l l y , he a r gue d tha thi s di s tr i but i on of drugs w ith in 1 ,0 0 0 fe et o f a p layg ro u n d w as p u re ly in ad v er ten t, b ec au se h is fa m il y’sMelvin also objected to the om ission of a three -leve l downward adjustment for acceptance 2 of re sp on sib ility . R2 -2 8 at 12 . Th e prob atio n o ff ic er c or re c te d th ec alculatio n toa c c ount f or thi s oversight beforethe sentenc ing he aring . In Reese, w e held that Blake ly did not apply

to the federal sentencingguidelines. Reese , 3 382 F.3d at 1312. Following the Supreme Court’s further consideration in li ght of United States v. Booker, 534 U.S.__ , 1 2 5 S . C t . 738 (2005), wevaca ted Reese ’s sentenc e and remande d. United States v. Reese, 397 F .3d 1337 (11th Cir. 2005). 4 re si dence (the l ocat i on fr om w hi ch he di stri bu t ed the “ cr ac k” cocai ne) w as l ocat ed ne a ra pa r k w i th a pl a y gr ound. I d. a t14- 16. 2 A tse nt enci ng , M el vi n renew ed hi s B l akel y obj ec t i on s a nd re i t er at ed that

“ [ w ] he n the qua nt i t i e s w e r e r e c i t e d [ a tthe c ha nge - of - pl e a he a r i ng, he ha d] m a de no a gr e e m e nt s , no a dm i s s i ons , [ a nd] no c onc e s s i ons ” r e ga r di ng a ny a m ountof

“ crack ” co cai n e. R 4 at7 . T h e co u rto v erru l ed M el v i n ’ s o b j ect i o n s t o th e b ase offe nse l evel and the cr i m i nal hi st ory s core on the basi s of U ni t ed S t at es v. R ee se , 3 8 2 F .3 d 1 3 0 8 ( 1 1 th C ir . 2 0 0 4 ) , a n d d e n ie dh is r e q u e s ts f o rd o w n w a r d d e p a r tu r e . 3 R 4 at10 , 22 -23. W i th regard t o the §5 K 2. 11 re qu es t , the courtconcl ud ed that M el vi n’ s off

ense cond uct , se l l i ng “ cr ac k” cocai ne “ w i thi n [ ] a s t on e’ s throw ” of a pa r k f r e que nt e d by c hi l dr e n, f e l l s qua r e l y w i thi n the ha r m c ont e m pl a t e d by 21 U .S .C . § 8 6 0 . R 4 a t 1 2 , 1 4 . M el v i n al so rai sed a si x th o b j ect i o n , co n t en d i n g th atth e g u i d el i n es as a w h o le w e r e u n c o n s titu tio n a l. I d . a t 7 . T h e c o u r t o v e rru le d th is o b je c tio n , a g a in c itin g R e e s e , a n d s e n te n c e d M e lv in to 1 0 0 m o n th s im p r is o n m e n t a s to e a c h c o u n t,The other issues raised be forethe cour t, but not argued in the brie fs on appe al are deemed 4 abandone d. See Cross v. United States, 893 F .2d 1287, 1289 n.4 (11th Cir. 1990). We now review B lakley arguments under B ooker. 5 5 to b e s e r v e d c o n c u rr e n tly , a n d 6 y e a r s s u p e r v is e d r e le a s e a s to e a c h c o u n t, a ls o to ru n co n cu rren t l y. Id . at1 0 , 2 4 -2 5 . M el v i n n o w ap p eal s th e cal cu l at i o n o f h i s b ase o ffen se l ev el i n l i g h to f th e u n ad m i tt ed d ru g q u an t i t i es. 4 I I . DI S CUS S I ON I n U ni t e d S t a t e s v. B ooke r , 534 U . S . ___, 125 S . C t . 738 ( 2005) , the 5 S upr e m e C our the l d tha tB l a ke l y appl i e d t o the f e de r a l s e nt e nc i ng gui de l i ne s a nd th at th e S ix th A m en d m en t req u ired th at an y f ac t th at in cr ea se d a d ef

en d an t’ s sen t en ce b eyo n d th e m ax i m u m sen t en ce au th o ri zed b y th e fact s est ab l i sh ed b y a pl e a ora j ury ve r di c tm us tbe a dm i tt e d by the de f e nda ntorpr ove n t o a j ury be y ond a r ea sonabl e dou bt . Id. at, 12 5 S . C t . 75 5-56 . W e have expl ai ned thata B oo ker error a l so re sul t s f

rom the di stri ctcourt ’ s use of a m andat ory gui del i nes s chem e, e ve n i n the abs e nc e of

a ny c ons t i tut i ona l e rr or . S e e U ni t e d S t a t e s v. S he l t on, 400 F .3 d 1 3 2 5 , 1 3 3 0 - 3 1 ( 1 1 th C ir . 2 0 0 5 ) . B e c a u s e Me l v i n p r e s e r v e d h i s B o o k e rc h a l l e n g e i n th e d i s tr i c tc o u r t , we re vi ew the se nt ence de no vo , bu tw i l l re vers e onl y i f the error w as harm ful . 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. 20 05 ) ( per c uri am ). T he bu rden is o n th e g o v e rn m e n t to s h o w th a t th e e rr o rw a s h a r m le s s . T o s h o w th a t a6

c ons t i tut i ona l e rr orw a s ha r m l e s s , the gove rnm e ntm us tde m ons tr a t e “ be y ond a r e a s o n ab le d o u b t, th a t th e e rr o rd id n o t c o n tr ib u te to th e d e f e n d a n t’s u ltim a te se nt ence . ” U ni t ed S t at es v. M atheni a, 40 9 F . 3d 12 89 , 12 91 (11th C i r. 20 05 ) ( per c ur i a m ) ( c i t a t i on om i tt e d) . T o s how non- c ons t i tut i ona l ha r m l e s s e rr or , the gove rnm e nti s he l d t o a l e s s de m a ndi ng s t a nda r d, butm us ts how tha t , vi e w i ng the pr oc e e di ngs i n the i re nt i r e ty , the e rr orha d no e f f e c tora ve ry s l i ghte f

f e c ton the se nt ence . S ee i d. at12 91 -92. H er e, the go vernm entconcedes thatthe re cord e s tab lis h e s b o th c o n s titu tio n a l a n d n o n - c o n s titu tio n a l e rr o r . W e a g r e e . A sen t en ci n g co u rt ’ s d et erm i n at i o n o f d ru g q u an t i t i es, i f i tserv es t o i n crease an i nd i vi du al ’ s bas e off ense l evel un der the gu i del i nes, i s c on st i tut i on al error. S ee U n i t e d St a t e s v . Ro d r i g u e z , 3 9 8 F. 3 d 1 2 9 1 , 1 2 9 8 ( 1 1 th Ci r . ) , c e r t . d e n i e d , __U . S.

__ , 12 5 S . C t . 29 35 (200 5). H er e, i n cal cul at i ng the base offe nse l evel , the court re l i ed on drug qu ant i t i es thatw er e nei ther i ncl ud ed i n the i nd i ctm entno r a dm i tt ed b y M e lv in . T h e c o u r t’s d e te r m in a tio n w a s b a s e d o n th e g o v e rn m e n t’s s ta te m e n ts i n the c ha nge - of

- pl e a c ol l oquy a nd on the s t a t e m e ntof of f e ns e c ont a i ne d i n the pres ent ence i nv es t i gat i on re po rt . R 4 at6. M el vi n n everagre ed t o thi s or a ny other q u a n tity , a n d s p e c if

ic a lly s ta te d th a t h e p la n n e d to c o n te s t th e q u a n titie s a s s e r te d if it e v e rb e c a m e n e c e s s a ry . R 3 a t 1 1 ; R 4 a t 6 - 7 . R e lia n c e o n th e s e q u a n titie s in c a l c ul a t i ng the s e nt e nc e thus a m ount e d t o a c ons t i tut i ona l e rr or . F ur the r , the7

court ’ s tre atm entof the gu i del i nes a s m andat ory c on st i tut es st atut ory e rr or. T h e g o v e rn m e n t a ls o c o n c e d e s th a t th e e rr o rh e r e is n o t h a r m le s s . W e a g r e e . W he r e i ti s unc l e a rw he the rthe c our tw oul d ha ve i m pos e d the s a m e s e nt e nc e but for the m andat ory gui del i nes, the go vernm entca nn otshow thatthe error w as ha r m l e s s be y ond a r e a s onabl e doubt . S e e U ni t e d S t a t e s v. D a vi s , 407 F . 3d 1269, 1 2 7 1 - 7 2 ( 1 1 th C ir . 2 0 0 5 ) ( p e rc u r ia m ) . H e r e , th e c o u r td i d n o ti n d i c a t e th a ti tw o u l d h a v e i mp o s e d th e s a me se nt ence i f the gu i del i nes had been advis ory. D uri ng se nt enci ng , i tdi sc usse d o p tio n s f o ra d o w n w a r d d e p a r tu r e f r o m th e g u id e lin e s r a n g e , b u t w a s u n ab le to f i nd a ba s i s f

ors uc h de pa r tur e unde rU . S . S . G . §§4A 1. 3 a nd 5K 2. 11. R 4 a t14, 18, 2 3 . D e p a r tu r e s u n d e rth e s e s e c tio n s m u s t b e b a s e d o n f a c to r s n o t n e c e s s a r ily encom pass i ng tho se consi dere d u nd er18 U . S . C . §3 55 3(a) . T he courtal so st at ed th a t it f in d s “le n g th y in c a r c e r a te d s e n te n c e s f o ry o u n g m e n e x tr e m e ly d if f ic u lt to g iv e ,” a n d g a v e M e lv in th e lo w e s t s e n te n c e p e r m itte d in h is r a n g e . R 4 a t 2 3 - 2 4 . F i na l l y , the c our tc om m e nt e d tha ta n appe a l a f t e rB ooke rm i ghtbr i ng a di f f e r e nt r e s u lt. I d . a t 2 3 . W e c a n n o t s a y h o w th e c o u r t w o u ld h a v e s e n te n c e d M e lv in h a d it notbe l i e ve d the gui de l i ne s w e r e m a nda t ory . C ons e que nt l y , a s i tha s c onc e de d, the g o v e rn m e n t c a n n o t s h o w th e c o n s titu tio n a l 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 ab leTh esamefac ts w ould re sult in a remand un der thele ss s tring ent te st f or statutor y ha rmle ss 6 er ro r . Th ec o urts p e c i f

i c al ly t o l d M e l v i nth ati t s d e c i s i o n w a s p re di c at e d o n h er b e i n g b o un d b y a mandator y sentenc ingsc heme . R4at 23 . Where the dis tric t court ha s indi c ate d a des ire to impo se a lesser sentenc e than that mandated by federal guidelines, we have rema nded the ca se. See Shelton, 400 F.3d at 1332-33, 1334. The f acts here sug g est that the cour t was concerned with the length of Melvin’s sentenc e. Thus, as the gover nment has concede d, it cannot show the error had only a slight eff ect on the sentenceimposed. See Mathenia , 409 F.3d at 1292. 8 d o u b t. 6

I I I . CONCL US I ON T h erefo re, b ecau se th e g o v ern m en tcan n o tm eeti t s b u rd en t o sh o w h arm l ess error, w e VA C A TE a nd RE MAND for r es ent enci ng un der a n adv i sorygu i del i nes sc hem e.