### F I LE D U. S . COURT OF AP PE ALS E LEVE NTH CI RCUI T JU N E 23, 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. 04- 16338 N on -A rgum entC al endar

________________________ D. C . Do c k e tNo . 0 4 - 0 0 1 4 1 - C R - OR L - 2 8 J GG 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 J AM ES ROCKET , a .k .a . J a m e s R o c k e tt, a. k. a. Ja m es R ocket t , II I, D e f e n d a n t- A p p e lla n t.

________________________ A ppe a l f r om the U ni t e d S t a t e s D i s tr i c tC our tf orthe M i ddl e D i s tr i c tof

F l or i da

_________________________ ( J une 23, 2005) B efo re B IR C H , B A R K E T T an d W IL S O N , C i rcu i tJu d g es. P E R C U R I A M: J a m e s R oc ke tappe a l s hi s 72- m onth s e nt e nc e i m pos e d pur s ua ntt o hi s pl e a of g u ilty to p o s s e s s io n o f

a f ir e a r m b y a f

e lo n , in v io la tio n o f

2 1 U .S .C . § 9 2 2 ( g ) ( 1 ) .2

O n app ea l , R ocketar gu es thatthe di stri ctcourtcom m i tt ed re vers i bl e e rr or un der B lake l y v . W as hi ngton , 542 U . S . ___, 124 S . C t . 2531 ( 2004) , a nd U ni t ed Stat es v. B oo ke r , 54 3 U . S . ___, 12 5 S . C t . 73 8 (20 05 ), by se nt enci ng hi m un der am andat ory G u i d e l i n e s s y s t e m. B ecau se R o ck etp reserv ed h i s B o o ker c l a i m b y r a i s i n g i ta ts e n t e n c i n g , we re vi ew the chal l enge t o h i s s ent ence de no vo , butw i l l va c a t e a nd r e m a nd onl y f or h a r m f u l e rr o r . U

ni t e d Stat e s v . P az , 405 F . 3d 946, 948 ( 11th C i r . 2005) . “ A nonconst i tut i on al error i s harm l es s i f, vi ew i ng the proceedi ng s i n thei r e nt i re ty, a c ou rt d e te r m in e s th a t th e e rr o rd id n o t a f f e c t th e s e n te n c e , o rh a d b u t v e ry s lig h t e f f e c t. I f o n e c a n s a y w ith f

a ira s s u r a n c e . . . th a t th e s e n te n c e w a s n o t s u b s ta n tia lly sw ay ed by the error, the se nt ence i s due t o b e a ff i rm ed even tho ug h there w as error. ” U

n ite d S ta te s v . M

a th e n ia , __ F . 3d __ ( 11th C i r . M a y 23, 2005) ( quot a t i ons , br a c ke t s , a nd c i t a t i ons om i tt e d) . U nde rha r m l e s s e rr orr e vi e w , the g o v e rn m e n t b e a r s th e b u r d e n o f s h o w in g th a t th e e rr o rw a s h a r m le s s . Id . W e have expl ai ned t hatthere ar e tw o types of B oo ke re rr or– ( 1) the e rr orof i m pos i ng a s e nt e nc i ng e nha nc e m e ntba s e d on j udi c i a l f i ndi ngs tha tgo be y ond the f a c t s a dm i tt e d by the de f e nda ntorf

ound by the j ury , or“ c ons t i tut i ona l e rr or , ” a nd (2) the no n-const i tut i on al error of bei ng se nt ence d u nd era m andat ory gui del i nes sy st em , or “ st atut ory e rr or. ” U ni t e d Stat e s v . She l ton , 400 F . 3d 1325, 1330- 313

( 11th C i r . 2005) . B e c a us e R oc ke ta l l e ge s onl y s t a tut or y e rr or , w e c onf i ne our d is c u s s io n to th a t a r g u m e n t. D u e t o th e n atu re o f th e S u p rem e C o u rt ’ s B oo ke rr e m e dy , w e ha ve concl ud ed thata di stri ctcourterrs w henever i tse nt ence s adefe nd antun der a m a n d a to ry g u id e lin e s s c h e m e . She l ton , 400 F . 3d a t1330- 31. F ur the r m or e , the gove rnm e ntha s f

a i l e d t o m e e ti t s bur de n of pr ovi ng tha tthe e rr orof s e nt e nc i ng R o c k e t u n d e ra m a n d a to ry g u id e lin e s s c h e m e d id n o t a f f e c t h is s u b s ta n tia l r ig h ts . T h erefo re, th e d i stri ctco u rt ’ s erro r w as n o th arm l ess. U pon r e vi e w of

the r e c or d a nd the pa r t i e s ’ br i e f s , w e va c a t e a nd r e m a nd f or r e s e nt e nc i ng c ons i s t e ntw i th B la ke ly a nd B oo ke r . VA C A TED a nd R EM A N D ED .