### FI LED U.S. COURT O F APP EALS ELEVENTH CIRCUIT A pril 1 9, 2005 THO MAS K. KAH N CL ERK [DO NOT PUBLISH] IN THE UN ITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FO R T HE EL EV EN TH CIRC UI T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- 1230 7 Non-A rgum ent Calendar

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ D. C. Docket N o. 01-00981 -CR- KMM UNITED STAT ES OF AMERIC A, Plaintiff-Appellee, ve rs us ORESTES DESOTO, D ef en dant- Appe llant.

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ __ Appe al f ro m the U nit ed

S ta te s D istri ct

Co urt f or the So uth er n D istri ct of F lor ida

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ _ (A pr il 19, 200 5) Be fo re BI RC H , BA RKE T T and H U L L , Ci rc uit Jud ge s. PE R CU RIA M: O re ste s D eS oto , a20- y ear pol ic e ve te ran, appe al s f or the se co nd t im e his 235- m onth and 8 4- m onth c onse cu tiv e se nte nc es im pose d a ft er

his gui lty

ple a toWit hout a written plea

ag ree ment, DeSoto pled guilty to these eight crimes: (1) one count 1 of conspira cy

“to possess with intent to dist ribute a Schedule I I controlled subst ance , that is five (5) kilogr ams or m ore of a mix ture or substanc e conta ining a detec table amount of c ocaine ,” in violation of 21 U.S.C. § § 8 4 6 , 841(b)( 1)(A) (ii); (2) one count of c onspiracy to obstruct, delay , and af fec t c omm e rc e by

ro bb e ry us ingme ans of

a c tua l and

thr e ate ne d f

or c e , v io len ce and

fe ar o f i nju

ry , in violation of

18 U.S.C. § 1951 (Hobbs Act); (3) one count of conspirac y

to use, ca rry , brandish, and 2 s ev er al dru g an dfi re ar m s o ff en s es . In h i s fi rs tap p ea l , we v ac at ed De So t o ’s se nte nc es and r em an de d f or r es en te nc ing . U nit ed

S ta te s v. D eS oto , Ca se N o. 02- 1523 8, a t *3 ( 11th C ir . D ec . 12, 200 3) ( he re ina ft er “ D eS oto I ”) . D eS oto now ap pe al s h is ne w sen te nc es . Inthi s a ppe al , D eS oto c ha lle nge s th e dis tr ic t c ourt’ s f ac t f ind ing s a s to dr

ug quanti ty . H e al so c ha lle nge s, f or the f ir st t im e, his se nte nc es ba se d onAppr en di v . N ewJe rs ey , 530 U . S. 466 , 120 S . Ct . 234 8 ( 2000 ), and B lake ly v. W as hin gto n, 542 U. S. , 124 S.Ct. 2531 (2004). Be cause the Suprem e Court re cently extended Blakely to the United States S entencing Guidelines in United State s v. Booker, 543 U.S . __, 125 S. Ct. 738 (200 5), w e consider De Soto’ s appeal under Booker as
w e l l . A f t e r r e v i e w , w e a f

f i rm. I. BACK GROUND A. De Soto’s P lea Colloquy De Soto’ s drug and firearm s convictio ns stemm ed from three r obberies that D eS oto planne d and c om m itt ed w ithCe ci lio N une z, Juan C as til lo, and A lbe rt o G ar ci a. D ur ing the ple a co llo quy , the gov er nm en t se t f

orth the f oll ow ing f

ac ts 1possess a fire arm duringand in re lation to a crime of violence or drugtraff ickingcrime, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 924(o); (4) thre e counts of unla wfully obstructing , delay

ing, a nd aff ectingcommerc e by robber y using me ans of a ctual and thr eate ned forc e, violence , and fe ar of injury on or about Janu ary 13 , 2 00 0, F e br

ua ry 5, 20 00 , a

nd F e br ua ry 15 , 2 00 0, re sp e c tiv e ly , in vio latio n o f 1 8 U .S. C. § 1951(a) ; (5) attemptingto possess with intent to di stribute five kilog rams or more of coc aine on o r ab o u tFe b ru ary

5 , 2 0 0 0 , i n v i o l at i o n o f 2 1 U. S . C . § § 8 4 6 , 8 4 1 (b )( 1 )( A) (i i ); an d (6 ) u s i n g, ca rryi n g, and br and ish inga fi re arm duri ng and in re latio n to a cr ime of vio le nc e or a dr ugtr a ff ic kin gc ri me on or about F ebrua

ry 5, 2000, in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 924(c)(1)( A)(i) , (A)( ii) and 2. 3 about th e robberies. T he first robbery occurre d on Janu ary

13, 2000, and invo lved a 7- 11 s tor e m an ag er . D eS oto w en t i nsi de the 7- 11 s tor e to v er if y that the m an ag er w as pr es en t. A ft er

D eS oto c onf

irm ed the m an ag er ’ s pr es en ce , Ca sti llo an d G ar ci a w ai te d f

or the m an ag er

to le av e, f

oll ow ed him , spr ay ed

him w ith pe pp er s pr ay

or m ace p ro vi de d b y

DeSo to , and st ol e $ 10 ,00 0. T he se co nd r obbe ry

oc curr ed on F eb ru ar

y 5, 200 0, and i nvol ve d ar es taur an t owner that D eSoto and his co-consp irators believed wa s a drug dealer. N unez, posi ng a s apol ic e of

fi ce r, c ondu ct ed

atr af fi c sto p of

the r es taur an t owne r. G ar ci a and Castillo, also acting as police officers, drove up and Garc ia flashed a police ba dge pr ovi de d by

D eS oto . G ar ci a an d C as til lo the n to ok the r es taur an t owne r to a w ar eh ouse w he re D eS oto poi nte d aguna t hi s he ad , be at him , and thr eate ne d to harm him f urthe r if he did not dis cl ose w he re the dr

ugs co uld be f ound . A s it tur ne d ou t, the vic tim

ha d no dr

ugs, so D eS oto and h is c o- co nspi rator s st ole the vi ct im ’s m on ey

an d jewel ry .4

A cc or din g to the gov er

nm en t, D eS oto ha d to ld h is c o- co nspi rator s ( G ar ci a an d C as ti ll o) th atth e res ta ur an t o wne r wou ldha ve 5 k il og ram s o f co cai ne . H ow ev er , the gov er

nm en t a cknow le dge d th at D eS oto dis put ed

that dr ug quanti ty in tha t D eS oto “ ha s r ep eate dly be enint er

vie w ed and e ve ntu al ly

he a dm itt ed

his invo lvem ent in this crim e, [but] he has stated it was only ounces that they

we re after , not five kilos.” T he thi rd r obbe ry oc curr ed on F eb ru ar

y 15, 200 0, and i nvol ve d af em al e ba ke ry ow ne r. D eS oto r ec ru ite d C as til lo and G ar ci a to r ob the vic tim , w hom D eS oto tol d hi s c o- co nspi rator s w oul d m ak e a good targ et . T he thr ee w at ch ed the ba ke ry own er, fo ll owe d h er h om e, an d ro bb edhe r of he r ba ke ry

pro ceed s. To en su re t he rob be ry ’s su cces s, o ne of t he co ns pi rat or s wai te d i n a po li ce ca r do wn the str ee t f

ro m the vic tim ’ s ho m e so tha t he c oul d pr et en d to be c ha sin g th e ro bbe rs . During the plea colloquy , the governm ent also proffere d facts about a failed atte m pte d r obbe ry

that t ook pla ce on F eb ru ar y 19, 200 0. D eS oto and h is c ohor ts planned to rob persons whom they believed had won the lottery . This robbery plan w as f

oil ed , how ev er , w he n r ea l po lic e of fi ce rs f ound G ar ci a an d C as til lo i n the vicinitywith burglary tools, a w alkie talkie, and glo ves. A lthou gh the po lice stopp ed De Soto as he wa s driving by , they relea sed him

because he identified5

him se lf a s apol ic e of

fi ce r. T he pol ic e la te r dis co ve re d am at ch ing w al kie -t al kie in th e p at h DeS ot o t oo k t o l eav e th e sc en e. At the e nd of the gov ernm ent’ s recitation of the fac ts, the district court asked DeS oto if the gov ernm ent’ s evidence wa s correc t, to w hich DeS oto replied

“ Y es , sir . ” T he dis tr ic t c ourt the n a ske d if the re w as “ [a ] nythi ng y ou w an t t o a dd or anythi ng I le ft

out ?” D eS oto r ep lie d, “N o, sir . ” D eS oto the n pl ed gui lty to al l ei ght c ount s inthe ind ic tm en t, inc lud ing c ount 1, w hic h c harg ed

c onsp ir ac y

“ to poss es s w ithint en t t o di str ibu te aS ch ed ule I I co ntr oll ed

sub stanc e, that i s f

ive ( 5) kil ogr am s or

m or e of am ixt ur e an d su

bst an ce c ont ai nin g ade te ct ab le a m ount of co cai ne . . . .” A ft er D eS oto ple d gu ilty , the gov er nm en t a ske d f

or “ ana ddi tio na l qu es tio n to avoidsentencing iss ues.” Specifica lly , the governm ent asked the district court t o co n fi rm th at th e c o n s p i ra cy wa s fo r 5 o r mor e k i l o g ra m s o f c o ca i n e. De So t o ’s co unse l r es pond ed

that “ [t ] he Co urt a lr ea dy a ske d hi m

spe ci fi ca lly

tho se que sti ons. . . . [ an d] [ y ] ou h av e done asuf fi ci en t j ob t o m ak e sur e he is ple ad ing gui lt[ y ] to the c harg es . ” T he dis tr ic t c ourt the n a cknow le dge d th at the re m ay

be som e fa ct ua l di sput es that D eS oto w oul d “ take up at se nte nc ing , ” inc lud ing the dr ug quanti ty

iss ue . T he dis tr ic t c ourt a dj udge d D eS oto gui lty of a ll co unt s inthe ind ic tm en t.The PSIrec ommended that De Soto’s e ight offe nses be g rouped into thre e sepa rate g roups 2 based on the J anuar

y 13, Fe bruar

y 5, and Fe bruar

y 15 robber ies. Group 2, r elatingto the Fe bruar y 5, 2000 robber

y of the restaur ant owner , produce d the hig hest adjusted off ense le vel. Group 2 w as thus used to compute DeSoto’s Guidelines r ang e. 6 B. P re se nt en ce In ve st iga ti on R ep or t (“ P SI ”) an d Se nt en ci ng T he P SI r ec om

m en de d aba se of

fe nse le ve l of

32 b ec au se D eS oto ’ s dr

ug of fe nse inv olv ed

a t l ea st 5 , but

le ss than 15 , kil ogr am s of c oc ai ne . T he of

fe nse 2 le ve l of 32 w as inc re as ed : ( 1) tw o le ve ls, pur suant t o U . S. S. G . § 3A 1. 3, be ca use the r es taur an t owne r w as phy sic al ly r es tr ai ne d duri ng the r obbe ry ; ( 2) f our le ve ls, pursuant to U. S. S. G. § 3B1.1(a) , bec ause of D eSoto’ s role as a le ader or or ganizer; an d ( 3) tw o le ve ls unde r U . S. S. G . § 3B 1. 3, be ca use a s apol ic e of

fi ce r D eS oto ab use d apos iti on o f tr

ust . A ft er

atw o- le ve l r ed

uc tio n f or a cc ep tanc e of responsib ility , D eSoto’ s total offense level w as 38. H is crim inal histo ry category of I and o ff en se le ve l of

38 p ro duc ed

aG uid el ine s r an ge of

235 to 293 m onths’ im pr is on m en t. De Soto objected to the PS I and again at sentencing to the role and abuse-oftr ust e nhanc em en ts. T he dis tr ic t c ourt ov er ru le d th es e obj ec tio ns. D eS oto a lso obj ec te d to the P SI ’ s r ec om m en de d dr

ug quanti ty

but he did not r ai se the dr

ug qu an ti ty iss ue at s en te nc in g.7

T he dis tr ic t c ourt a dopt ed the P SI c al cu la tio ns and s en te nc ed D eS oto to 235 m onths’ im

pr iso nm en t ( the lowe nd o f the G uid el ine s r an ge ), to run c onse cu tiv el y to an 84-m onth sentence on the firearm conviction . The district court also ordere d DeSo to to pa y

$2 2,1 69 .93 in res ti tu ti on . C . D eS ot o’ s F ir stA pp ea l D eS oto a ppe al ed his c onvi ct ion s and s en te nc es . A s to his se nte nc es , D eS oto arg ue d th at

the dis tr ic t c ourt e rr ed

in or de ri ng r es tit

uti on and i n determ ining the enhancem ents for his role as a lea der, his abuse of trust as a police officer , and for a drug quantityof 5 or m ore kilogram s of cocaine. Inthe f ir st a ppe al , thi s C ourt c onc lud ed “ the re is no m er it to any

of the ch al le nge s D eS oto m ak es c onc er nin g hi s c onvi ct ion s and s en te nc es , w iththe ex ce pti on o f the iss ue inv olv ing dr ug quanti ty . ” D eS oto I , a t *3 . A ft er a ff irm ing D eS oto ’ s c onvi ct ion s, thi s C ourt the n sa id, “ be ca use the dis tr ic t c ourt f

ai le d to m ak e fi ndi ngs re gard ing the f ive or m or e kil ogr am s of

c oc ai ne f or w hic h it he ld D eS oto r es pons ibl e at

se nte nc ing , w e va cate D eS oto ’ s se nte nc es and r em an d th is cas e fo r res en te nc in g. Id . D. De Soto’s R esent encin g On re m and, the district court restric ted all argum ents and evidence at resentencing to the drug-qu antity issue, finding that we had issued a lim ited8

re m an d. A t the r es en te nc ing he ar ing , the gov er nm en t pr es en te d atr an sc ri pt o f the sworn testim ony

of robbery -participant Garcia who testified at Nunez’ s trial that De Soto toldthem

that the February

5, 2000 robbery

victim would have 5 kil ogr am s of

c oc ai ne . S pe ci fi ca lly , dur ing N une z’ s tr ia l, G ar ci a te sti fi ed r eg ar din g w ha t the c o- co nspi rator s pl an ne d to take f ro m the r es taur an t owne r. G ar ci a state d:

“ It wa s a l arg e am ou nt of m on ey , what ’s supp os edto be fiv e k il os , so m e m on ey . I ev en tua lly

gave in. ” G ar ci a w as a lso a ske d: “ Mr . D es oto tol d y ou i t w oul d be f ive kil os o f co ca ine ?” G ar ci a re spon de d “ y es . ” L at er in the tr ia l, on c ro ssex am inatio n, G ar ci a re ite rate d th at the goa l w as to ge t 5 kil ogr am s of c oc ai ne f ro m th e res ta ur an t o wne r. A t the r es en te nc ing he ar ing , D eS oto dis put ed the dr ug quanti ty

by poi nti ng to h is o w n te sti m ony

f ro m N une z’ s tr ia l i n w hic h he ( 1) de nie d havin g any detailed inform ation abou t the am ount of drugs and (2) denied telling Garcia that the r es taur an t owne r w oul d have 5 ki log ram s. T he dis tr ic t c ourt f

ound that D eS oto w as r es pons ibl e fo r 5 ki log ram s of co ca ine be ca

use he ha d pl ed

gui lty to that am ount . T he dis tr ic t c ourt a lso f ound that G ar ci a’ s tr ia l t es tim ony w as r el ia ble and c re dib le , that D eS oto ’ s te sti m ony w as “ am biv al en t” and “ se lf

-s er vin g, ” an d thus, that the gov er nm en t su cc es sf

ull y proved bya preponderance of the evidence that De Soto was r espons ible for 59

kilog ram s of cocaine. T he district court then reim posed th e sam e sentences it had en te re d a t the or igi na l se nte nc ing . D eS oto ti m el y appe al ed . II. D ISCU SSION Inthi s se co nd a

ppe al , D eS oto arg ue s ( 1) that the dis tr ic t c ourt e rr ed in lim iting resentencing to the drug-qu antity issue; and (2) that the dist rict court er red i n i t s f a c t - f i n d i n g a s t o th e a mo u n to f c o c a i n e . D e S o t o a l s o r a i s e s f o r th e f i r s tt i me Apprendi/Blakely

argum ents as to his s entencing enhancem ents. W e discuss each iss ue in tur

n. A. Lim ited R esent encin g Although De Soto’ s original senten ce w as vacated, the De Soto I panel clear ly stated that none of the sentencing issues DeSoto raised in the first appeal h a dan y me r i t , e x c e p tth e dr u g - qu a n t i t y i s s u e . B e c au s e , f o r j u d i c i a l e c o n o my pur pose s it is be tte r fo r the dis tr ic t c ourt no t t o r ed o th at w hic h w as don e pr ope rl y at the f ir st s en te nc ing , thi s C ourt ha s he ld tha t the re is “ nothin g im pr ope r” in the dis tr ic t c ourt l im iti ng the sc ope of the r es en te nc ing pr oc ee din g. U nit ed S ta te s v. T am ay o, 80 F . 3d 1 514, 152 0 ( 11th C ir . 199 6) ( int er na l qu otatio n m ar

ks andIn limit ing the rese ntencingto the drug quantity issue, the district court e x plained that: “the 3 way Iwould interpre t the letter a nd spirit of the rema

nd is that t hey

don’t want me r evisiting the issues that were previously raised be fore the district court in the fir st sentencingand have been re vie we d o n a

pp e a l and

any thi ngmor e tha

n th at w ou ld u

nd e rm ine the ir

pr ior a pp e llate deter minations.” 10 ci ta tio n om itt ed ). C onse que ntl y , the dis tr ic t c ourt di d no t e rr in lim iti ng i ts resentencing consid eration to the drug-quant ity issue. 3 B. Cocaine Fact -F inding G ive n c o- co nspi rator

G ar ci a’ s te sti m ony , w e al so f ind no r ev er sib le e rr or

in t h e d i s t r i c tc o u rt ’s f

a c t - f i n d i n g th a tth e dr

u g qu a n t i t y w a s mo r e th a n 5 k i l o g r a ms but le ss than 15 kil ogr am s. W e re co gni ze that D eS oto e m pha siz ed that no dr

ugs we re a ctually

stolen du ring the February 5, 2000 robbery . How ever, De Soto was puni she d f

or c onsp ir ing to poss es s w ithint en t t o di str ibu te 5 ki log ram s or m or e of cocaine, and not for actually com pleting the crim e. T he fac t that no drug s wer e ac tua lly sto le n do es not

pr ec lud e the e nhanc em en t. S ee U nit ed S ta te s v. Ram sda le , 179 F . 3d 1 320, 132 5 ( 11th C ir . 199 9) ( co nc lud ing the re w as no e rr or in attr ibu tin g 15 kil ogr am s of m etha m phe tam ine to de fe ndants c onvi ct ed of co nspi ri ng t o m anuf

ac tur e m etha m

phe tam ine w he n de fe ndants ha d no t a ct ua lly m anuf ac tur ed that am ount , but

“ w oul d pr oba

bly ” buy 15 k ilo gr am s of

the ne ces sa ry in gr ed ie nt “ ev ery th ree wee ks ” in ord er t o d o s o) .11

W e also rej ect D eSoto’ s claim that the district court used th e w rong legal standard. A lthou gh the dis trict court did state that DeS oto was responsible for 5 kil ogr am s of

c oc ai ne be ca

use thi s am ount

w as r ea sona

bly f or es ee ab le , it

a lso state d th at

it w as ba sin g it s dr

ug- quanti ty

f ind ing on the pr ep onde ranc e of the e v i d e n c e , n a me l y, G a r c i a ’s t e s t i mo n y. I n d o i n g s o , th e d i s t r i c tc o u rts t a t e d : “I thi nk the r ec or d c le ar ly

e sta bli she s by

apr ep onde ranc e of

the e vid en ce ba se d on the credible and reliable and the specific testim ony of Mr. Garcia that the deal wa s supp osed to in volv e five kilos or m ore of coca ine.” C . Bo ok er Er ro r Fo r the f ir st t im e on a

ppe al , D eS oto arg ue s th at his se nte nc es vio la te Appr en di/ Bl ak el y

be ca use the dis tr ic t c ourt a

ppl ie d se ve ra l se nte nc ing en hanc em en ts b as ed

on f ac ts n ei the r adm itt ed

by him nor f ound by aj ur y be y ond a re as ona ble doubt. B ec au se Bo oke r ex te nde d B lake ly to the S en te nc ing G uid el ine s, w e re vie wD eS oto ’ s c la im s un de r Bo oke r. W e co nc lud e that the re is no S ixth A m en dm en t vi olatio n a s to any of D eS oto ’ s se nte nc ing e nhanc em en ts. InBl ak el y , the S upr em e Co urt he ld tha t the im posi tio n of

ase nte nc ing enhancem ent under the state of W ashingt on’s m andatory guidelin es sy stem

based uponf ac ts n ei the r adm itt ed

by the de fe ndant n or

f ound by the j ur y vio la te d th e defendant’ s Sixth Am endm ent right to a jury trial. 124 S. C t. at 2534 -38. I nTo establish plain err or, the de fenda nt must show “‘( 1) err or, (2) that is pla in, a nd (3) that 4 aff ects substantial rig hts.” Rodrigue z, 2005 WL 272952, at *6 (quotingUnited States v. Cotton, 535 U.S. 625, 631, 122 S. Ct. 1781, 1785 (2002)) . “‘I f all three conditions are me t, an appe llate cour t may the n e xer c ise its dis c re tio n to no tic e a fo rf e ite d e rr or , but on ly

if (4 ) t he e rr or se ri ou sly a ff e c ts the fa ir ne ss, int e g ri ty , o r p ub lic re putatio n of jud ic ia l pr oc e e din g s. ” I d. (q uo tin g Cotton , 53 5 U .S. at 631, 122 S. Ct. at 1785). 12 Bo ok er, t he Supr em e Co ur t ex te nd edth is ho ld in g t o t he Sen te nc in g Gu id el in es . Bo oke r, 125 S . Ct . a t 74 6. D et er m ini ng tha t i t w as the bin din g natur e of the Guidelines that offended the Sixth Am endm ent, the S uprem e Court in Booker excised the provisi ons of the Sentencing Reform Ac t m aking th e G uidelin es m an da tor y and p ro vid ing f

or de nov o r ev ie wof

se nte nc es on a

ppe al . I d. a t 75 6- 57 . Thu s, t he Supr em e Co ur t ef fect iv el y m ad e th e Gui de li ne s ad vi so ry . Bo ok er i ss ue s ra is edforth e fi rs t t im e o n app eal are re vi ewedforpl ai n e rro r. U nit ed S ta te s v. Ro dr igu ez , – F . 3d – , 200 5 W L 272 952, a t *6 ( 11th C ir . F eb . 4, 2005 ). 4 D eS oto doe s no t m ee t the f ir st p ro ng o f the pla in- er

ro r te st b ec au se dur ing the ple a co llo quy

he a dm itt ed

the f ac ts tha t su

ppor te d th e dis tr ic t c ourt’ s f

oll ow ing se nt en ci ng en ha nc em en ts . See Bo ok er, 1 25 S. Ct. at 75 6. A s to the § 3A 1. 3 e nhanc em en t f or phy sic al ly

r es tr ai nin g th e vic tim , the f a c t s a tth e p l e ac o l l o qu y e s t ab l i s h e dth a tdu r i n g th e F e b r u a ry 5 , 2 0 0 0 r o b b e ry, D eS oto and h is c o- co nspi rator s be at the r es taur an t owne r an d th re at en ed him whi le ho ld in g a gu n t o h is he ad .13

As to the § 3B1.1 enhancem ent, the f acts at the plea c olloq uy

established that D eS oto : ( 1) r ec ru ite d hi s c o- co nspi rator s to r ob v ar iou s pe rs ons dur ing f our differe nt robberies; (2) provided so m e of the tools necessary , such as pepper spray an d a po li ce b ad ge ; an d (3 ) st ud ie d t he vi ct im s. A s to the § 3B 1. 3 a

buse -o f- posi tio n- of

-tru st e nhanc em en t, the f ac ts at the ple a co llo quy

e sta bli she d th at

in the F eb ru ar

y 5, 200 0 r obbe ry , D eS oto and h is c oco nspi rator s po se d a s po lic e of fi ce rs , c ondu ct ed

atr af fi c sto p of

the r es taur an t ow ne r, too k hi m

to a w ar eh ouse , and b eat hi m in ane ff ort t o le ar n w he re the dr

ugs co uld be f ound . A s to dr ug quanti ty , D eS oto ple d gu ilty to the ind ic tm en t, w hic h se t f orth a spe ci fi c dr

ug quanti ty

of 5 or m or e kil ogr am s of

c oc ai ne , and thus D eS oto adm itt ed to thi s dr ug quanti ty

a s w el l. O ur

e ar lie r re m an d f

or adr ug- quanti ty fi ndi ng i n D eS oto I w as be ca use the dis tr ic t c ourt t ec hni ca lly f ai le d to m ak e the req ui si te fact fin di ng , no t b ecau se of i ns uf fic ie nt ev id en ce o f th e 5 ki lo gr am s. Thus, given D eSoto’ s guilt y plea adm itting to a drug quanti ty of 5 or m ore kil ogr am s of

c oc ai ne and the f

ac t tha t he w as se nte nc ed onl y f or 5 ki log ram s of co cai ne , th ere i s n o S ix th Am en dm en t v io la ti on in hi s s en te nc e. Alter natively , if

the initial rem and im

plicitlyfound DeSoto’ s guilt y -plea adm iss ion s in suf

fi ci en t t o e sta

bli sh dru g qu an tity , aS ixth A m en dm en t vi olatio n14

unde r Bo oke r ex ist s a s to the j udi ci al f ac t f ind ing of dr ug quanti ty . I n su cha sit ua tio n, the S ixth A m en dm en t vi olatio n un de r Bo oke r w oul d be be ca use the district court applied th e drug quantit y enhancem ent under a m andatory Guidelines sy ste m . S ee Ro dr igu ez , 200 5 W L 272 952, a t 9; se e al so Unit ed S ta te s v. S he lto n, 2005 W L 435 120, a t *5 ( 11th C ir . F eb . 25, 200 5) . I f a Si xthA m en dm en t vi olatio n ex ist s, D eS oto ha s e sta

bli she d th e fi rs t tw o pr ongs of pla in- er ro r re vie w . S he lto n, 2 0 0 5 WL 4 3 5 1 2 0 , a t* 5 ( s t a t i n g th a t“i ti s e n o u g h th a tth e e rr o r b e p l a i n a tth e t i me of appellate consideration” (internal quotatio n m arks and citation om itted)). How ever, as to the third prong , D eSoto has not establi shed that the Book er er ro r af fe ct ed his sub stanti al r igh ts. T he thi rd pr ong of the pla in- er

ro r te st “ al m ost alway s requires that the err or m ust have affec ted the outcom e of the district court pr oc ee din gs. ” Ro dr igu ez , 200 5 W L 272 952, a t *7 ( quot at ionm ar ks and c itatio ns om itt ed ). “ T he standard

f or sho w ing that i s th e fam ili ar r ea sona ble pr oba bil ity of a dif fe re nt r es ult

f orm ulatio n, w hic h m eans a

pr oba bil ity suf fi ci en t t o un de rm ine co nf id en ce i n t he ou tc om e.” Id . (qu ot at io n m ark s an d c it at io ns om it te d) . In this particular case, the sentencing record provides no basis for a co nc lus ionthat D eS oto ha s sh ow n ar ea sona ble pr oba bil ity of am or e le nie nt se nte nc e unde r ana dvi sor y G uid el ine s r eg im e. G ive n th e se ri ousn es s of the se vio le nt c ri m es , his c onvi ct ion s f or e igh t di ff

er en t c ri m es , inc lud ing thr ee se parate15

ro bbe ri es , the phy sic al r es tr ai nt o f the vic tim s, and D eS oto ’ s a buse of his pos iti on of trust as a police office r, we conclude that DeSoto has not satisfied the third pr ong. D. Re stitut ion Orde r D eS oto arg ue s th at

the r es tit uti on o rd er

is unc onst itu tio na l un de r Bl ak el y (n owBo oke r) be ca

use it is ba se d onaj udi ci al f

ind ing of los s ne ith er

a dm itt ed by him nor f ound by aj ur y . B ec au se D eS oto f

ai le d to obj ec t onthi s ba sis in the d i s t ri ct co u rt , we re v i ew th i s cl ai m al s o fo r p l ai n erro r. Se e R o d ri g u ez , 2 0 0 5 WL 27 29 52 , at * 6. Beca use neither the Suprem e Court nor this Court has addressed whether Bo oke r ap pli es to re sti tut ion , any e rr or c an not be pla in. S ee U nit ed

S ta te s v. G er ro w , 232 F . 3d 8 31, 835 ( 11th C ir . 200 0) (h old ing that “ w he re ne ith er the Suprem e Court nor this Court has ever resolved an issue, and other circ uits are spl it on i t, the re c anbe no p la in e rr or in re gard to that i ssu e. ” (i nte rn al quo ta tio n m ar ks and c itatio n om itt ed )) . Mo re ove r, a t l ea st o ne c ir cu it ha s he ld tha t B lake ly doe s no t a

ppl y to re sti tut ion . U nit ed

S ta te s v. S w an son, 394 F . 3d 5 20, 526 ( 7th Ci r. 200 5) ( “ T he de ci sio ns i n B lake ly , Bo oke r, and F an fan, . . . do n ot a ff ec t the m an ne r in whi ch fin di ng s o f res ti tu ti on or f or fei tu re am ou nt s m

us t b e m ad e.”). A cc or din gly , no p la in e rr or ha s be ensho w n a s to the r es tit uti on.16

Upon care fu l r ev ie wof

the r ec or d and the part ie s’ br ie fs , w e fi nd n o re ve rs ibl e er

ro r an d a ff

irm D eS oto ’ s se nte nc es . AF FIRMED .