FI L ED U.S. COURT OF APPEAL S EL EVENTHCI RCUI T MAY 24, 2011 J OHN L EY CL ERK [DO NOT PUBLISH] IN THE U

NITED STATE S COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELE VENTH CIRCUIT

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ No. 1 0- 14 61 6 Non -Arg um en t Ca le nd ar

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ D.C. Dock etNo. 6 :0 7- cr-0 00 65 -ACC- KRS-1 UNITED STAT ES OF AMERIC A, ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll l Pla in ti ff-Ap pe ll ee, vers us DONALD RAY HARRIS, ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll l Defen da nt -Ap pe ll an t.

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ App eal fro m

th e Uni te d S ta te s Di st ric t Co urt forth e Mi dd le Dis tri ctof F lo rid a

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ (Ma y 24 , 20 11 ) Befo re HULL, PRYOR an d M ARTIN, Cir cu itJu dg es . PER CURI AM: Don al d R ay

Harri s ap pe al s h is 12 0- m on th sen te nc e, im po se d a fte r rese nt en ci ng , forpo ss es si on of afir earm an d a m m un it io n b y

a co nv ic te d fe lo n, i nvi ol at io n o f 18 U.S.C. §§ 92 2( g) (1 ), 92 4( a)(2 ), an d 9 24 (e)( 1) . In l ig htof t he

Supr em e Co urt’s re cen t d eci si on inPep pe r v. Un it edSta te s, _

__U.S. __

_, 1 31 S. Ct . 12 29 (20 11 ), whi ch ab ro ga te d Un it edSta te s v . Loren zo , 47 1 F .3d12 19 (11 th Ci r. 20 06 ), we va cat e Harri s’s s en te nc e an d re m an d fo r re-s en te nc in g. I.

“ W e rev ie w sen te nc in g d eci si on s o nl y forab us e o f di sc ret io n, an d we u se a two -s te p p ro ces s.” Un it edSta te s v . Shaw, 56 0 F .3d12 30 , 12 37 (11 th Cir . 20 09 ). Fi rs t, we “ en su re tha t the di st ric t co urt co m m it te d n o s ig ni fic an t p ro cedur al erro r, su chas f ai li ng to cal cu la te (orim

pr op erl y cal cu la ti ng ) th e Gui de li ne s ra ng e, tre at in g the Gui de li ne s as m an da to ry , fai li ng to co ns id er the § 3 55 3( a) fa ct or s, se le ct in g asen te nc e b as edon cle arl y erro ne ou s fa ct s, o r fai li ng to ad equa te ly ex pl ai n t he ch os ensen te nc e—i nc lu di ng anex pl an at io n fo r an y de vi at io n fr om

th e Gui de li ne s ra ng e.” Id . (qu ot in g Gal l v . Uni te d S ta te s, 5 52 U.S. 38 , 51 , 12 8 S . Ct. 58 6, 5 97 (20 07 )). If we co nc lu de th atno pro cedur al erro r oc cu rred , “ th e se co nd st ep is to rev ie w th e se nt en ce’s ‘subs ta nt iv e rea so nabl en es s’ un de r th e to ta li ty of th e ci rcu m st an ces , in cl ud in g ‘th e ex te ntof a ny vari an ce fr om th e Gui de li ne s ran ge .’ ” Id . (qu ot in g Gal l, 5 52 U.S. at 5 1, 1 28 S. Ct. at59 7) . “ [T]he p arty who ch al le ng es th e se nt en ce b ears th e b ur de n o f es tabl is hi ng th atth e se nt en ce i s un reas on ab le inth e li gh t o f bo th [th e] reco rdan d t he fact or s i n s ect io n 3 55 3( a).” 2Uni te d S ta te s v . Tall ey , 43 1 F .3d78 4, 7 88 (11 thCir . 20 05 ).

Inno w see ki ng rem an d fo r re-s en te nc in g, Harris arg ue s, as he di d a t h is se nt en ci ng he ari ng , th atth e d is tri ctco urt s ho ul d c on si de r hi s p os t-s en te nc e reh ab il it at iv e co nduc t i n d et erm in in g h is ne w sen te nc e. Whe n h e rec ei ve d t he 12 0- m on th sen te nc e whi ch is th e subjec t o f th is ap pe al , th is Co urt’s p rece de ntpro vi de d th at“po st -s en te nc e reh ab il it at iv e co nduc t [wa s] an i m pe rm is si bl e fac to r fo r th e di st ric t co urt’s co ns id erat io n.” Loren zo , 47 1 F .3dat 1 22 1. In Pep pe r, th e Supr em e Co urt ab ro ga te d thi s C ou rt’s o pi ni on inLore nz o, an d h el d t ha t “ whe n ade fen da nt ’s se nt en ce h as be ensetasi de on ap pe al , a di st ric t co urt atres en te nc in g m ay co ns id er ev id en ce o f th e d efen da nt ’s po st se nt en ci ng reh ab il it at io n a nd. . . su chev id en ce m ay , inap pr op ria te cas es , supp ort a d own wardva ria nc e fro m th e n ow- advi so ry Fed eral Sen te nc in g Gu id el in es ran ge .” 13 1 S . Ct. at12 36 ; s ee al so Uni te d S ta te s v . Sm it h, _

__F.3d__

_, No . 09 -1 33 07 , 20 11 WL 14 99 22 9, * 1 (1 1t h C ir. Ap r. 21 , 20 11 ) (rec og ni zi ng th atLore nz o was ab ro ga te d b y Pep pe r). Altho ug h Lo ren zo was b in di ng pre ced en t atth e ti m e o f hi s re -s en te nc in g he ari ng , Harri s co nt en ds th atinli gh t o f Pep pe r th e d is tri ctco urt p ro cedur al ly erred by fail in g t o c on si de r hi s p os t re habi li ta ti ve co nduc t. The go ve rn m en t ar gu es in res po ns e th atan y

erro r by the di st ric t co urt was harm le ss . In i m po si ng it s s en te nc e, th e d is tri ctco urt s ta te d: “ The Co urt re co gn iz es y ou r si gn ifi can t re habi li ta ti on in 3pr is on bu t fe el s t ha t . . . 12 0 m on th s i s an ap pr op ria te sen te nc e und er the

ci rcu m st an ces .” Bas edon th atst at em en t, the go ve rn m en t ar gu es th atth e d is tri ct co urt d id , infact , con si de r Harri s’s p os t-r eh ab il it at iv e co nduc t b utco nc lu de d t ha t i t di d n otwarran t a l es se r se nt en ce. See W il li am s v . Uni te d S ta te s, 5 03 U.S. 19 3, 20 3, 1 12 S. Ct. 1 11 2, 1 12 1 (1 99 2) (“ If the pa rty defe nd in g t he sen te nc e p ers ua de s th e co urt o f ap pe al s tha t the di st ric t co urt wo ul d h av e im po se d t he same sen te nc e ab se ntth e err on eo us fact or , th ena rem an d i s n otrequi red .”). Afte r th or ou gh rev ie w of t he reco rd , we vac at e Harri s’s s en te nc e an d re m an d fo r re-s en te nc in g. Th e d is tri ctco urt’s s ta te m en t re gard in g Harris ’s po st reh ab il it at iv e co nduc t i s ambig uo us . Whi le th e d is tri ctco urt ex pr es sl y reco gn iz ed Harri s’s p os t re habi li ta ti ve co nduc t atre-s en te nc in g, i t i s u nc le ar fro m th e rec or d whe th er the co urt ac ti ve ly con si de redth atco nduc t i n d et erm in in g i ts sen te nc e. Giv enth atou r de ci si on inLore nz o was bi nd in g p rece de ntat t he ti m e o f Harri s’s re-s en te nc in g, we wi ll no t i nf er tha t the di st ric t co urt g av e co ns id erat io n t o afact or th atat t he ti m e was im

pe rm is si bl e. See Lo ren zo , 47 1 F .3dat 1 22 1. Fo r th es e reas on s, we v acat e Harri s’s s en te nc e an d re m an d fo r re-s en te nc in g s o t ha t the di st ric t co urt m ay

co ns id er h is po st -s en te nc e reh ab il it at iv e co nduc t as pe rm it te d un de r Pep pe r. VACATED andREMANDED. 4