F ILED U.S. COURT O F APP EALS EL EV EN TH C IRC UIT Jun e 9, 20 05 T HOMA S K. KA HN CLERK [DO NOT PUBLISH] IN THE UN ITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FO R T HE EL EV EN TH CIRC UI T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- 1226 0

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ D
. C. D oc ke t N o. 03- 6022 7 C R- W JZ UNITED STAT ES OF AMERIC A, Plaintiff-Appellee,
ve rs us ALANDO BERRY, D ef en da nt- A ppe llant.

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ Appeal f rom the United State s District Court fo r the S out he rnD istri ct

of F lor ida

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ _ (J une 9, 200 5)
Be fo re E D MO N D SO N , Ch ie f Judg e, BI RC H a nd C O X , Ci rc uit Jud ge s. PE R CU RIA M: Alando Berr

y appeals, c hallengin g both his convi ction and hi s sentence. Be rr y ple ad ed gui lty to viol at ing 18 U. S. C. § 92 2( g) (5 )( B) , w hic h m ak es it a
cr im e fo r ana lie n a dm itt ed to the U nit ed

S ta te s un de r a noni m

m igr an t vi sato poss es sAt the g uilty plea he aring , Be rry

asser ted under oath that he enter ed the United States on a 1 non-immigra

nt visa. (R.2-12.) At sentenc ing, the prosec utor said that upon further investigation, she believed that Be rry 2 was no t an o ve rs tay , b ut h a d r e e nte re d th e c ountr y ill e g a lly . D e fe ns e c ouns e l ob je c te d to thi s, contendingthat no deter

mination had been ma de as to B err y ’s status. (R.3-5.) 2 a fi re ar m . T he dis tr ic t co urt ac ce pte d Be rr y ’ s gui lty ple a an d se nte nc ed him to 3 7
m ont hs i n pr iso n. D uring his plea colloquy , B erry insisted that he wa s in the United States le ga lly w ithava lid

vis a. A nd, Be rr

y did not r ec an t tha t po sit iona t se nte nc ing
. T he 1 2 G ove rn m en t now be lie ve s tha t Be rr y ha d le ft the c ountry

a nd, a t so m e poi nt, il le ga lly
re en te red th e U nit ed

S ta te s. B er

ry ne ve r as ke d th e dis tr ic t c ourt t o di sm iss the ind ic tm en t. N or did he as k le av e to w ith dr aw his gui lty ple a. T he Gov ern m en t
co nc ed es on this appe al tha t B er ry sho uld ha ve be enc ha rg ed

w ithvio la tin g § 922(g)(5)(A ), and not § 9 22(g)(5)(B)
. Section 922(g)(5)(A ) m akes it a cr im e for an al ie n w ho i s inthe U nit ed S ta te s il le ga lly to poss es s af ir earm . N oth w ith standi ng the G ove rn m en t’ s c onc es sio n, how ev er , the G ove rn m en t cont en ds tha t our re vie w is f or pl ai n e rro r, an d t ha t t he re i s no pl ai n erro r. W e ag ree. Und er pla in erro r rev ie w, we ask wheth er t h er e i s: “ (1) er ror, (2) that is plain, and (3) that affe cts subst antial rights.” U

nit ed Sta tes v . Co tto n , 535 U. S. 625, 631, 122 S. Ct. 1781 , 1785 (2002). If these three cond ition s are m et, we then decide whether the error seriously aff ected th e fai rn es s, i nt eg rit y

or p ub li c rep ut at io n o f th e jud ic ia l p ro ceed in g. Id

.3

W e re vie w Be rr

y ’ s ar gum en t tha t the re w as an ins uf fi ci en t fa ct

ua l ba sis f

or his gu il ty pl ea for p la in erro r. Se e U nit ed Sta tes v . V

onn , 535 U
. S. 55, 122 S
. Ct
. 104 3 (2 002)
. W e co nc lud e tha t the dis tr ic t c ourt di d no t err, pla inl y or oth er w ise , by
r e l yi n g o n B e rry’s o w n s t a t e men tu n d e r o a t h t h a th e wa s i n t h e Un i t e dS t a t e s l e g a l l y. And, in lig ht of the ci rc um stanc es an d the fa ct tha t the puni shm en t fo r vio la tin g § 92 2( g) (5 )(A) i s th e sa m e as th e pu ni sh m en t for vi ol at in g § 922 (g )(5 )(B) , ev en if we
as sum e er ro r, the f ai rn es s, int eg ri ty , a nd publ ic re put at ion of the j udi ci al pr oc ee din gs ha ve no t be en ser io us ly affect ed
. Se e U nit ed Sta tes v . O lan o , 507 U
. S. 725 , 732 , 113 S. Ct . 17 70 , 17 76 (19 93 ). W e aff irm Berr y ’s con vi ct io n. Be rr y c ha lle nge s hi s se nte nc e on s ev er al gr ound s. H e co nte nds, f ir st, tha t the dis tr ic t c ourt e rr ed

by e nha nc ing thi s se nte nc e fo r obstru ct ionof j ust ic e ba se d onf

al se sta te m en ts m ad e by

him ; se co nd, tha t the dis tr ic t c ourt f ai le d to m ak e spe ci fi c finding s as to how his false statem ents obs tructed j ustice; and third, that the district
co urt e rr ed by de ny ing him an ac ce ptanc e- of -r es pons ibi lity re duc tio n. T he f ir st and thi rd c ha lle nge s ar e m er itl es s, an d the se co nd one w as not pr es er ve d by appr opr ia te ob jecti on fol lo win g s en te nc in g. Fo r the f ir st t im e on a

ppe al , Be rr

y a sse rt s ac onst itu tio na l c ha lle nge to the dis tr ic t c ourt’ s i m

p o s i t ionof

se nte nc e en ha nc em en ts u nde r the se nte nc ing gui de lin es , ba si ng hi s chal le nge on B lak el y v. W ashi ngt on , 124 S
. Ct
. 253 1 ( 2004 ). B ec au se4

Berr y di d no t rais e th is is su e in th e di st ric t cou rt, we rev ie w on ly for p la in erro r. See Co tto n , 535 U. S. at 631-32 , 1 2 2 S. Ct . a t 1785
. Berr y has dem onstrated that there
w as e rr or , an d tha t it is pla in. B er ry ’ s se nte nc e w as e nha nc ed a s ar es ult

of f ind ing s
m ad e by the j udge tha t w en t be y ond the fa ct s Be rr y adm itt ed in ple ad ing gui lty
. A nd, al tho ugh the e rr or

w as not “ pla in” a t the ti m e of

se nten cing, “ it is e noug h th at the
error be ‘plain’ at the tim e of appellate c onsid eration.” United States v. R odrig uez , 398 F. 3d 1291, 1299 (11th Cir. 2005) ( citing John son v. U nited Sta tes , 520 U
. S. 461 , 468, 117 S
. Ct
. 154 4, 154 9 ( 1997 ))
. W e co nc lud e, how ev er , tha t B er ry ha s no t
carr ie d h is bu rd en to pro ve th at th is erro r ha s af fect edhi s s u b s t a n t i al rig ht s. See Rodriguez , 398 F
. 3d a t 12 99- 1306
. I t i s un cl ear w he the r the dis tr ic t c ourt w oul d ha ve giv enBe rr

y adiffe ren t se ntenc e unde r ana dvi sor y gui de lin e sc he m e. T he dis tr ic t c ourt’ s se nte nc e is, the re fo re , a ff irm ed
. AFFIR MED.