FI L ED U.S. COURT OF APPEAL S EL EVENTHCI RCUI T Sept. 28, 2009 THOMAS K. KAH

N CL ERK [DO NOT PUBLISH] IN THE UN ITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELE VENTH CIRCUIT

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ No. 0 9- 10 21 7 Non -Arg um en t Ca le nd ar

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ D. C. Dock etNo. 0 5- 00 03 4- CR-6 UNITED STAT ES OF AMERIC A, Pl ai nt iff -Ap pe ll ee, ve rs us ROYLAND KICKLIGHTE R, a.k .a. Ro y

Kick li gh te r, 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 fo r th e So ut he rnDis tri ctof Ge or gi a

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ _ (Sep te m be r 28 , 20 09 ) Befo re BI RCH, MAR CUS an d ANDERSON, Ci rcu itJu dg es . PER CURI AM:Ro y la ndKick li gh te r ap pe al s h is 18 0- m on th sen te nc e fo r di st rib ut io n o f

m etha m ph et am in e, pu rs ua ntto 21 U.S.C. § 8 41 (a)( 1) . He arg ue s t ha t the di st ric t co urt erredin de em in g h im to be eli gi bl e fo r th e car eer o ffen de r en ha nc em en t un de r U.S.S.G. § 4 B1 .1. He al so ass ert s t ha t t he co urt erredby app lying th at en ha nc em en t ev enth ou gh th e g ov ern m en t d idno t fi le anin fo rm at io n re gard in g i ts in te ntto rel y

on hi s p rio r dr

ug co nv ic ti on , as re qu ire d b y 21 U.S.C. § 8 51 . After rev ie win g t he reco rd , we fin d n o e rro r an d t hu s AFF IRM hi s s en te nc e. I. BACK GROUND InJan uary

20 06 , Kick li gh te r pl edgu il ty to o ne co un t o f di st rib ut io n o f m etha m ph et am in e, in vi ol at io n o f 21 U.S.C. § 8 41 (a)( 1) . Becau se th e o ffen se in vo lv edat l eas t 5 0, b utles s t ha n 1 50 , gra m s o f m etha m ph et am in e, Kick li gh te r’s ba se off en se lev el forth e cri m e was 32 . See U.S.S.G. § 2 D1.1 (c)( 4) (Mar . 20 06 ). Afte r a thr ee-l ev el sen te nc e reduc ti on for acce pt an ce o f res po ns ib il ity , hi s t ot al of fen se lev el was 2 9. Acco rd in g t o t he Pres en te nc e In ve st ig at io n R ep ort (“ PSI” ), Kick li gh te r ha d thr ee p rio r co nv ic ti on s —two for bu rg la ry of ares id en ce an d o ne fo r co ns pi racy to p os se ss with i nt en t t o d is tri bu te m ari juan a — t ha t wer e ei th er cri m es of v io le nc e o r co ntro ll edsubs ta nc e o ffen se s. As a res ul t, Ki ck li gh te r qu al ifi edas acare er o ffen de r, whi ch ch an ge d h is cri m in al hi st ory cat eg ory fro m V to VI. See i d. § 4B 1.1 (a), (b ). 2Kick li gh te r fi le d awrit te n o bjec ti on to th e PSI i n wh ic h h e as se rte d t ha t t he

bu rg lary co nv ic ti on s wer e n otvi ol en t cr im es an d c it eda pr io r di st ric t co urt ru li ng to th ateffe ct . At th e se nt en ci ng he ari ng , th e p ro ba ti on off ic er wh o c om

pi le d t he PSI re affi rm edth e car eer o ffen de r de te rm in at io n andno te d t ha t t he di st ric t co urt or de r in qu es ti on ad dr es se d asen te nc in g e nh an cem en t fo r po ss es si on of afir earm rathe r th anth e que st io n o f whe th er b ur gl ari es were v io le ntcri m es . Kick li gh te r’s co un se l s ta te d t ha t, af

te r rev ie win g t he do cu m en ta ti on , he a gr eedth atth e ru li ng ad dr es se d adi ffer en t i ss ue an d t ha t an y co nc ern s ab ou t t he PSI h adbe enres ol ve d. Add it io na ll y , Kick li gh te r in di cat edth atth e rea so n h e m en ti on edth atrul in g was be cau se th e ear li er co urt h adco ns id eredth e fi rearm en ha nc em en t a c rime of vi ol en ce an d h e wan te d t o p ro ve th athe was n otvi ol en t. He al so st at edth athe kn ew of no ot he r erro rs inth e PSI. Th e d is tri ctco urt t he n a do pt edth e fac tu al st at em en ts in th e PSI a s fi nd in gs of f act . The co urt n ot edth atKick li gh te r’s to ta l o ffen se lev el of 2 9 a ndcri m in al hi st ory cat eg ory of VI yiel de d agu id el in es ran ge of 1 51 to 18 8 m on th s o f im pr is on m en t. The co urt u lt im at el y sen te nc edKick li gh te r to 18 0 m on th s o f im pr is on m en t. Kic kl ig ht er’s co un se l d idno t o bjec t t o t hi s s en te nc e o r to th e co urt’s fi nd in gs of f

actor c on cl us io ns of l aw. Kick li gh te r ap pe al edhi s s en te nc e.

II . DISCUSSI ON

3On ap pe al , Kick li gh te r rai se s t wo i ss ue s wi th res pe ctto hi s s en te nc e. He

as se rts th atth e d is tri ctco urt erredby find in g h is two pri orbu rg la ry co nv ic ti on s t o be cri m es of v io le nc e u nd er U.S.S.G. § 4 B1 .1. He m ai nt ai ns th atth e st atut e u nd er whi chhe was c on vi ct ed , O.C.G.A. § 1 6- 7- 1, en co m pa ss es co nduc t wh ic h b ot h wou ldan d wo ul d n otbe co ns id ereda cri m e o f vi ol en ce u nd er § 4B 1.1 , andth at th e co urt co ns id eredim

pr op er ev id en ce i n fi nd in g t ha t h is co nv ic ti on was fo r a cri m e o f vi ol en ce. He al so arg ue s t ha t t he di st ric t co urt erredby im po si ng a care er of fen de r en ha nc em en t b ecau se th e g ov ern m en t d idno t p ro vi de no ti ce o f th e co nv ic ti on s i t i nt en de d t o u se in see ki ng anenha nc edsen te nc e, as requi redun de r 21 U.S.C. § 8 51 . A. Caree r Offen de r Enh an cem en t W e rev ie w de n ov o adi st ric t co urt’s d eci si on to cla ss ify a defe nd an t as a care er o ffen de r ba se d o n § 4B 1.1 . See Un it edSta te s v . Gib so n, 4 34 F.3d12 34 , 12 43 (11 th Cir . 20 06 ). Howev er, i f a d efen da ntfai ls to rai se anarg um en t b efo re th e d is tri ctco urt, we re vi ew itfor pl ai n e rro r. See Un it edSta te s v . De La Garza, 51 6 F .3d12 66 , 12 69 (11 th Cir . 20 08 ). “ Und er p la in erro r rev ie w, th ere m us t b e (1 ) anerro r, (2 ) th atis pl ai n, (3 ) th ataffec ts th e d efen dant ’s subs ta nt ia l ri gh ts , and (4 ) th atser io us ly affect s t he fai rn es s, i nt eg rit y , or p ub li c rep ut at io n o f jud ic ia l pr oc eed in gs .” Id . 4Sect io n 4 B1 .1 d eem s a d efen da ntto be a care er o ffen de r if he was a t l eas t ei gh te eny ears ol d a t t he ti m e h e co m m it te d t he off

en se for whi chhe is be in g se nt en ced , th atoff

en se “ is a fel on y

th atis eithe r a cri m e o f vi ol en ce o r a co nt ro ll ed subs ta nc e o ffen se ,” an d h e “ ha s atlea sttwo pri orfel on y co nv ic ti on s o f ei th er a cri m e o f vi ol en ce o r a co nt ro ll edsubs ta nc e o ffen se .” U.S.S.G. § 4 B1 .1(a ). The se nt en ci ng gu id el in es de fin e a “ cri m e o f vi ol en ce” a s a s ta te or f ed eral off en se pu ni sh ab le by im

pr is on m en t fo r m or e th ana y ear t ha t “ (1 ) ha s as anele m en t t he us e, at te m

pt edus e, orth reat en edus e o f ph y si cal for ce ag ai ns t t he pe rs onof an ot he r, or(2) is bu rg la ry of adwel li ng , ars on , or e xt orti on , in vo lv es us e o f ex pl os iv es , or o th erwi se in vo lv es co nduc t tha t p res en ts a se rio us po te nt ia l ri skof ph y si cal in

jury to an ot he r.” Id . § 4 B1 .2(a ). To d et erm in e whe th er an off en se wou ldqu al ify as a cr im e o f vi ol en ce u nd er § 4 B1 .1, “ a d is tri ctco urt m ay lo okou ts id e o f th e ‘offen se of c on vi ct io n’ to th e co nduc t s urro un di ng th atco nv ic ti on if a m bi gu it ie s i n t he jud gm en t m ak e th e cri m e of vi ol en ce d et erm in at io n i m po ss ib le fro m

th e fac e o f th e jud gm en t i ts el f.” Uni te d St at es v. Be ck le s, 5 65 F.3d83 2, 8 42 –4 3 (1 1t h C ir. 2 00 9) (qu ot at io n m ark s an d ci ta ti on om it te d) . Dist ric t co urts th us m ay m ak e ad di ti on al factfin di ng s “ whe n t he cri m e fo r whi ch th e d efen da ntwas c on vi ct eden co m pa ss es bo th co nduc t t ha t co ns ti tu te s a c rime of v io le nc e an d c on du ctth atdo es no t co ns ti tu te a cri m e o f 5vi ol en ce.” Id . at 8 43 . The co urt ca n b as e th es e fac t fi nd in gs “ on un di sp ut ed

st at em en ts in th e PSI.” Uni te d S ta te s v . Ben ne tt , 47 2 F .3d82 5, 8 32 (11 th Cir . 20 06 ) (p er cu ria m). W e d eem fact s co nt ai ne d i n aPSI t o b e u nd is pu te d a nd adm it te d i f a p arty

do es no t as se rt asp eci fic an d c le ar o bjec ti on to th em be fo re the se nt en ci ng co urt. See id .; s ee al so Beck le s, 5 65 F.3dat 8 44 . The fai lure t o m ak e su ch a ch al le ng e “ to co nc lu so ry st at em en ts in th e PSI r en de rs th os e st at em en ts un di sp ut edan d p erm it s the sen te nc in g c ou rt t o re ly upo n t he m witho uterro r ev en if t he re i s an ab se nc e o f supp orti ng ev id en ce.” Be ck le s, 5 65 F.3dat 8 44 . The Geor gi a st atut e u nd er wh ic h Ki ck li gh te r was co nv ic te d o f two bu rg larie s, O.C.G.A. § 1 6- 7- 1, en co m pa ss es co nduc t t ha t b ot h wo ul d a ndwou ld no t co ns ti tu te a cri m e o f vi ol en ce b ecau se itdi sc us se s b ur gl ari es th atin vo lv e va rio us lo cal es , in cl ud in g d well in gs . See O.C.G.A. § 1 6- 7- 1; see als o B en ne tt , 47 2 F .3dat 8 32 (m ak in g asi m il ar d et erm in at io n wi th res pe ctto th is st atut e). Bec au se of t hi s s ta tu to ry

am bi gu it y , th e co urt was pe rm it te d t o re ly on t he un di sp ut edpo rti on s o f Kic kl ig ht er’s PSI to m ak e fac tu al fin di ng s ab ou t wh ethe r hi s co nv ic ti on s wer e fo r bu rg la rie s o f a dwell in g a ndthus wou ldbe cri m es of vi ol en ce. Altho ug h Ki ck li gh te r ob jecte d b efo re the di st ric t co urt t o t he PSI’s ch arac te riz at io n o f hi s b ur gl ary co nv ic ti on s as cri m es of v io le nc e, he di d n otarg ue 6sp eci fic al ly tha t t he y di d n otin vo lv e a dwell in g. Be cau se of t hi s fa il ur e, we ev al ua te th e co urt’s d et erm in at io n fo r pl ai n e rro r. See De La Gar za, 5 16 F.3dat 12 69 . The PSI st at edth atth e b ur gl ari es in vo lv eddwel li ng s an d tha t Ki ck li gh te r qu al ifi edforth e § 4B 1.1 en ha nc em en t as a res ul t. Si nc e Kic kl ig ht er fa il edto m ak e a s pe ci fic an d c le ar o bjec ti on to th es e st at em en ts , th ey were u nd is pu te d, an d th e d is tri ctco urt was pe rm it te d t o re ly on t he m in fin di ng th atKick li gh te r’s bu rg larie s co ns ti tu te d c rimes of vi ol en ce. See Beck le s, 5 65 F.3dat 8 44 . The co urt t hu s was warran te d i n fi nd in g t ha t Ki ck li gh te r ha d a t l eas t two p rio r cri m es of vi ol en ce, as requi redforth e § 4B 1.1 enha nc em en t. Si nc e itis un di sp ut edth at he m etth e o th er re qu ire m en ts forcare er o ffen de r st atus , th e co urt d idno t p la in ly err i n fi nd in g Ki ck li gh te r el ig ib le forth e § 4B 1.1 en ha nc em en t. B. Fai lu re t o F il e In fo rm at io n Kick li gh te r arg ue s tha t t he go ve rn m en t fa il edto pro vi de no ti ce tha t h e was subjec t t o an e nh an cedsen te nc e b as edon hi s p rio r co nv ic ti on s u nd er 2 1 U.S.C. § 8 51 . He m ai nt ai ns th at , as ares ul t, the di stric t co urt erredby im po si ng a se nt en ce b as edon th e car eer o ffen de r en hanc em en t. Bec au se he di d n otrai se th is arg um en t b efo re the di stric t co urt, we ev al ua te itforpl ai n e rro r. See De La Gar za, 51 6 F .3dat 1 26 9.

7“ W e rev ie w th e ad equa cy of asec ti on85 1 n ot ic e d e n ov o.” Uni te d S ta te s v . Ram ie rez, 5 01 F.3d12 37 , 12 39 (11 th Cir . 20 07 ) (p er cu ria m). Sect io n 8 51 (a)( 1) pr ov id es : No pe rs on who st a n d s co nv ic te d of an of fen se un de r th is pa rt sh al l be se nt en ced t o in crea se d pu ni sh m en t by reas on of on e or m or e pr io r co nv ic ti on s, un le ss be fo re tri al , or be fo re en try of a pl ea of gu il ty, th e Uni te d St at es at to rn ey fil es an in fo rm at io n wit h th e co urt (an d se rv es a co py of su ch in fo rm at io n on th e pe rs on or co un se l fo r th e pe rs on ) st at in g in writ in g t he pre vi ou s co nv ic ti on s t o b e rel ie d upo n. 21 U.S.C. § 8 51 (a)( 1) . Howev er, we h av e d et erm in edth es e n ot ic e requi rem en ts do no t ap pl y

when th e g ov ern m en t s eek s t o u se th e p rio r co nv ic ti on s as th e b as is fo r a car eer o ffen de r en ha nc em en t, “ so lo ng as t he en ha nc edsen te nc e st il l fa ll s wit hi n t he pe rm is si bl e st atut ory ran ge .” You ng v. Un it edSta te s, 9 36 F.2d53 3, 53 6 (1 1th C ir. 1 99 1) (co ns id eri ng th e is su e in th e co nt ex t o f a 2 8 U.S.C. § 22 55 pr oc eed in g) . Kick li gh te r ackno wled ge s t hi s p rece de ntbu t as se rts th atth e rat io na le forth e § 85 1 re qu ire m en ts sh ou ldap pl y ev ento care er o ffen de r en ha nc em en ts . Howev er, o urpri orpa ne l p rece de ntrul e fo rb id s u s fr om reac hi ng su ch a co nc lu si on si nc e th ere h as be enno co nt rary opi ni on by the Supr em e Co urt orby thi s co urt s it ti ng enba nc . See Un it edSta te s v . Cam pa , 52 9 F .3d98 0, 1 01 4 (1 1t h C ir. 2 00 8) . Becau se Kick li gh te r’s se nt en ce fe ll be lo w th e st atut ory m ax im um term of i m pr is on m en t, wh ic h was twen ty y ears , th e g ov ern m en t was no t

8requi redto pro vi de § 8 51 no ti ce. See 21 U.S.C. § 8 41 (b )(1 )(C) . Accor di ng ly, we

co nc lu de th atth e d is tri ctco urt d idno t p la in ly err by enh an ci ng hi s s en te nc e as a care er o ffen de r un de r § 4 B1 .1 i n t he ab se nc e o f su ch no ti ce. II I. CONCLUS IO N Kick li gh te r arg ue s tha t t he di st ric t co urt erredby app lying a care er o ffen de r en ha nc em en t b as edonim pr op er ev id en ce an d i n the ab se nc e o f th e requi si te § 8 51 no ti ce. Bec au se he di d n otob ject t o t he factua l b as is up on whi ch th e d is tri ctco urt fo un d h im

eli gi bl e fo r th atenha nc em en t an d s in ce the § 8 51 no ti ce re qu ire m en ts do no t ap pl y

to care er o ffen de r en ha nc em en ts , th e co urt d idno t p la in ly err in ap pl y in g t he enha nc em en t. We the refo re AFFI RM h is sen te nc e. AFFIRMED.

9