### F I LE D

. U. S . COURT OF AP PE ALS ELE VENTH CI RCUI T D E C E M B E R 22, 2006 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. 06- 12816 N on -A rgum entC al endar

________________________ D . C. D o c k e tN o . 0 3 - 0 0 0 6 5 - CR- FTM - 2 9 - SPC 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 W Y A T T H E N D E R S 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 orthe M i ddl e D i s tr i c tof F l or i da

_________________________ ( D e c e m b e r 22, 2006) B efo re D U B IN A , C A RN E S an d B A R K E T T , C i rcu i tJu d g es. P E R C U R I A M: W ya ttH enders on appeal s hi s 27-m on th con curr entse nt ence s i m po se d aft erWe previously vacated Henderson’s orig inal sentenc e and remande d for resentencing 1 in line with United States v. Booker , 543 U.S. 220, 125 S.C t. 738, 160 L .Ed.2d 621 (2005). See Unite d St ate s v . H e nd e rs on , 4 09 F .3 d 1 29 3, 13 06 -0 8 ( 11 th C ir . 2 00 5) , c e rt . d e nie d, 12 6 S. Ct. 1331 (2006). 2 r e s e n te n c in g . H e n d e r s o n c la im s th a t th e d is tr ic t c o u r t p la in ly e r r e d b y f a ilin g to 1 obt a i n a n upda t e d pr e s e nt e nc e i nve s t i ga t i on r e por t( “ P S I ” ) upon r e s e nt e nc i ng, a nd erre d i n fai l i ng t o aw ar d a do w nw ar d d eparture or vari ance . A s aprel i m i nary m att er , w e f i rs taddres s the go vernm ent ’ s a ss er t i on that H e n d e r s o n ’ s a r g u me n t s r e g a r d i n g th e n e e d f o ra n u p d a t e d PSI w i th th e f i r e a r menhancem entre fe re nces exci se d, shou l d n otbe re vi ew ed atal l beca use he i nv i t ed the di s tr i c tc our tdur i ng r e s e nt e nc i ng t o r e l y on the or i gi na l P S I . “ T he doc tr i ne of in v ite d e r r o ris im p lic a te d w h e n a p a r ty in d u c e s o rin v ite s th e d is tr ic t c o u r t in to m a ki ng a n e r r or . W he r e a pa r ty i nvi t e s e r r or , [ w e a r e ] pr e c l ude d f r om r e vi e w i ng thaterror on app ea l . ” U ni t ed S t at es v. H arri s, 44 3 F . 3d 82 2, 82 3-24 (11t h C i r. 2 0 0 6 ) ( q u o ta tio n s a n d c ita tio n s o m itte d ) . I n H a r r is , th e d is tr ic t c o u r t c le a r ly vi ol a t e d R ul e 32 by f

a i l i ng t o i ndi c a t e tha tthe r e c or d a l l ow e d i tt o s e nt e nc e the de f e nda ntw i thouta P S I . I d. a t824. N one the l e s s , w e di d notr e vi e w the defe nd ant ’ s R ul e 32 argum enton appeal thatthe di stri ctcourtcoul d n otse nt ence hi m w i tho uta P S I bec ause “ H arri s’ [s ] coun se l w ai ved t he P S I [ by st at i ng that H arri s w as w i l l i ng t o p roce ed w i tho uta P S I] and t hatw ai ver i nv i t ed any e rr or that m a y h a v e a r is e n [ .]” I d .3

H e r e , how e ve r , unl i ke the s i tua t i on i n H a r r i s , 443 F . 3d a t823, H e nde r s on n e v e rw a iv e d th e P S I , a n d m a in ta in e d h is o b je c tio n s to it b y r e f

e r e n c in g h is s e n te n c in g m e m o r a n d a in h is s u p p le m e n ta l le tte rs u b m itte d b e f o r e r e s e n te n c in g . A l though he s t a t e d tha the ha d no obj e c t i ons t o the f a c tua l s t a t e m e nt s i n the P S I , he qu al i fi ed thi s s t at em entw i th, “ N on e other than t he on es thathave previ ou sl y bee n a r g u e d . N o w in lig h t o f y o u rn e w ru lin g , w e s ta n d b y th a t.” T h u s , th is s itu a tio n is n o t a n a lo g o u s to th e e rr o rin v ite d in H a r r is b y th e e x p lic it w a iv e ro f a P S I . Ac c o r d i n g l y , He n d e r s o n ’ s a r g u m e n ti s n o tp r e c l u d e d f r o m r e v i e w. B e c a u s e He n d e r s o n d i d n o to b j e c tb e l o w t o th e u s e o f th e o r i g i n a l P S I , we re vi ew hi s a rgum ent s on app ea l for pl ai n err or. S ee U ni t ed S t at es v. R od ri gu ez , 3 9 8 F . 3 d 1 2 9 1 , 1 2 9 8 (1 1 th C i r. ), cert . d en i ed , 5 4 5 U . S . 1 1 2 7 (2 0 0 5 ); see al so U n i t ed S t at es v . S ch u l t e, 2 6 4 F . 3 d 6 5 6 , 6 6 2 (6 th C i r. 2 0 0 1 ) (p ersu asi v e au th o ri ty) ( r e vi e w i ng f

orpl a i n e r r orthe appe l l a nt ’ s a r gum e nt , m a de f orthe f i r s tt i m e on appe a l , tha tthe di s tr i c tc our te r r e d by f a i l i ng t o obt a i n a n upda t e d P S I f or re se nt enci ng ). T o p rove pl ai n err or, a par ty m ustshow thatthere i s: “ (1) e rr or, ( 2 ) th a t is p la in , a n d ( 3 ) th a t a f f e c ts s u b s ta n tia l r ig h ts ” a t w h ic h p o in t “a n ap p e lla te c our tm a y the n e xe r c i s e i t s di s c r e t i on t o not i c e a f or f e i t e d e r r or , butonl y i f

( 4) the error s er i ou sl y a ff

ec t s the fa i rnes s, i nt egri ty, or pu bl i c r eput at i on of j ud i ci al p r o c e e d in g s .” R o d r ig u e z , 3 9 8 F .3 d a t 1 2 9 8 ( q u o ta tio n s a n d c ita tio n o m itte d ) .4

U n d er p l ai n -erro r an al ysi s, w h en n o rel ev an tcase l aw ex i st s, th e erro r, i f an y, c a nnotbe c ons i de r e d pl a i n orobvi ous . U ni t e d S t a t e s v. L e C r oy , 441 F . 3d 914, 9 3 0 - 3 1 ( 1 1 th C ir . 2 0 0 6 ) . H e nde r s on c a nnotpr ove tha tthe di s tr i c tc our tc om m i tt e d e r r or , pl a i n or o th er w ise, b y f

aili n g to o b tain an u p d ated P S I u p o n re se n ten cin g . H en d er so n ’s s uppl e m e nt a l l e tt e rt o hi s s e nt e nc i ng m e m or a ndum a nd the r e s e nt e nc i ng he a r i ng tr a n s c r ip t d e m o n s tr a te th a t h e h a d a m p le o p p o r tu n ity to in f o rm th e c o u r t o f

h is g o o d c o n d u c t d u r in g th e tw o y e a r s p r e c e d in g r e s e n te n c in g . A d d itio n a lly , th e r e is no re qu i re m entun der R ul e 32 t hatthe courtre m ov e or r es ol ve cont es t ed m att er s tha tdo nota f

f e c tthe de f

e nda nt ’ s s e nt e nc e , butr a the ronl y a f f e c tthe s e ve r i ty r a t i ng by the B ur e a u of

P r i s ons ( “ B O P ” ) . S e e B a y l e s s v. U ni t e d S t a t e s , 14 F . 3d 410, 411- 12 ( 8th C i r . 1994) ( pe r s ua s i ve a uthor i ty hol di ng tha ta di s tr i c tc our tne e d not re sol ve di sput ed m att er s s o l on g as tho se m att er s do n otaf fe ctthe se nt ence i t se l f, and o nl y a ff

ec tthe “ offe nse s ever i ty r at i ng on the parol e gui del i ne w orksheet ”) ; s e e a ls o F e d .R .C r im .P . 3 2 , 2 0 0 2 a d v is o r y c o m m itte e ’s n o te s ( “T o a v o id u n d u ly bur de ni ng the c our t , the C om m i tt e e e l e c t e d nott o r e qui r e r e s ol ut i on of obj e c t i ons th a t g o o n ly to s e r v ic e o f s e n te n c e .” ) . I nde e d, R ul e 32 a s s um e s tha tthe P S I w i l l c ont a i n di s put e d m a tt e r s , a nd al l ow s the di stri ctcourtt o art i cul at e how i tw i l l w ei gh thati nform at i on . S eeHend e rs on a lso fails to m e e t th ethird pron gof plain- e rror

analysis be c a

us ehis 2 speculative asser

tion that an updated PSI“likely” would haveresulted in the probation officer re c omm e ndinga

do wnwa rd va ri anc elow e r t

ha n th era ng e , doe s n ot “ demon stratethat th e reis a rea sonable proba

bility of a diff erent outcome” with an updated PSI . See L eCroy, 441 F.3d at 931. Hend e rs on ’s c itatio n toUnite d St ate s v . L on g , 6 56 F .2 d 1 16 2 ( 5th Cir . 1 98 1) , is 3 unp er s u as i v e. InL o n g, as o p p o s edt o He n d er s o n ’s ca s e, th e r ec o rdco nt ai n edn o P S I . S ee L o n g, 65 6 F .2 d at 11 63 . N ot o nly did Hend e rs on

havea PSI , h ea lso had th eoppo rt un ity to obje c t to th e f ac t s co nt ai n edth er ei n , an d t o argu e f

o r al o we r s ent en ce . Un l i k e th e s i tu at i o ni nL o n g, where the district cour

t waited 18 months before sentencingwithout a PSI , the district court here had a PSI , rec eived supplemental information and a rguments from Henderson, a nd, thus, did not “re duce thehearing on sentenceto a meaning less formality .” L ong , 656 F.2d at 1165. 5 F e d. R . C r i m . P . 32( i ) ( 3) ( B ) ( pr ovi di ng tha t , a ts e nt e nc i ng, the c our t“ m us t - - f ora ny di s put e d por t i on of

the pr e s e nt e nc e r e por torothe rc ontr ove r t e d m a tt e r - - rul e on the di s put e orde t e r m i ne tha ta rul i ng i s unne c e s s a r y e i the rbe c a us e the m a tt e rw i l l not a f f e c t s e n te n c in g , o rb e c a u s e th e c o u r t w ill n o t c o n s id e rth e m a tte rin se nt enci ng [. ] ”) . G i ven t hatdi sput ed i nform at i on i s a l l ow ed t o rem ai n i n t he P S I, H enders on ca nn otprov e pl ai n err or. M oreover, there si m pl y i s no cas e l aw pr ovi di ng tha ta di s tr i c tc our t , dur i ng r e s e nt e nc i ng, m us tor de ra n upda t e d P S I or e xc i s e por t i ons of

the P S I upon w hi c h i tha d i ni t i a l l y a nd unc ons t i tut i ona l l y r e l i e d. 2 S ee L eC roy, 44 1 F . 3d at93 0-31 . A cc ordi ng l y, w e f i nd no pl ai n err or. 3 H enders on al so ar gu es thatthe di stri ctcourterroneou sl y f ai l ed t o con si der a r g u m e n ts in f

a v o ro f a d o w n w a r d d e p a r tu r e , b e lie v e d it la c k e d s ta tu to r y a u th o r ity to d e p a r t f

r o m th e g u id e lin e r a n g e , a n d its s ta te m e n t th a t it f o u n d n o r e a s o n to de pa r tf r om the r a nge w a s a m bi guous a nd i nc ons i s t e ntw i th i t s s t a t e m e nttha tthe6

g u i d el i n es w ere ad v i so ry. “[ W e ] la c k [ ] ju r is d ic tio n to r e v ie w ad is tr ic t c o u r t’s d is c r e tio n a r y r e f u s a l to g r a n t a d o w n w a r d d e p a r tu r e , u n le s s th e d is tr ic t c o u r t in c o r r e c tly b e lie v e d th a t it l a c ke d the s t a tut or y a uthor i ty t o de pa r tf r om the gui de l i ne r a nge . ” U ni t e d S t a t e s v. N orri s, 45 2 F . 3d 12 75 , 12 82 (11t h C i r. 20 06 ) ( em ph as i s a dd ed) ( ci t i ng U ni t ed S t at es v. W i nn i ng ea r, 42 2 F . 3d 12 41 , 12 45 -46 (11 th C i r. 20 05 )) . T he re cord here do es no ti nd i ca t e thatthe di stri ctcourtm i st akenl y bel i eved thati tl ac ked st atut ory autho ri ty t o d epar tdo w nw ar d. D uri ng the i ni t i al se nt enci ng hear i ng , the di stri ct courtent er t ai ned, bu tre j ec t ed, nu m er ou s a rgum ent s f or a dow nw ar d d epar ture un der am andat ory gui del i nes s chem e. A dd i t i on al l y, atre se nt enci ng po st -B oo ker, th e d is tr ic t c o u r t s im p ly n o te d th a t th e g u id e lin e s w e r e a d v is o r y , a n d d e c id e d n o t to granta dow nw ar d v ar i ance . C on tra ry t o H enders on ’ s c on t ent i on , the di stri ct c o u r t’s r e f

u s a l to g r a n t a d o w n w a r d v a r ia n c e d o e s n o t s o m e h o w in d ic a te th a t it be l i e ve d i tl a c ke d a uthor i ty t o gr a nta dow nw a r d de pa r tur e . A c c or di ngl y , t o the ext entH enders on appeal s the di stri ctcourt ’ s f ai l ure t o g ra nta dow nw ar d g u i d e l i n e s d e p a r tu r e , w e l a c k j u r i s d i c t i o n t o c o n s i d e rth i s c l a i m. T o th e e x te n t H e n d e r s o n c h a lle n g e s th e d is tr ic t c o u r t’s r e f u s a l to g r a n t a dow nw a r d va r i a nc e , w e r e vi e w pos t - B ooke rs e nt e nc e s f orr e a s ona bl e ne s s i n l i ght o f th e f a c to r s s e t f

o r th in § 3 5 5 3 ( a ) . B o o k e r , 5 4 3 U .S . a t 2 6 1 , 1 2 5 S .C t. a t 7 6 5 ;7

U ni t e d S t a t e s v. T a l l e y , 431 F . 3d 784, 785 ( 11th C i r . 2005) . A pa r ty c ha l l e ngi ng a sen t en ce b ears th e b u rd en o f est ab l i sh i n g th atth e sen t en ce i s u n reaso n ab l e. T al l ey, 4 3 1 F . 3 d at7 8 8 . B ecau se H en d erso n m ak es n o arg u m en t s o n ap p eal t o est ab l i sh th a t h is s e n te n c e s a r e u n r e a s o n a b le , h e c a n n o t m e e t th is b u r d e n . AF F I RME D.