### F I LE D U. S . COURT OF AP PE ALS E LEVE NTH CI RCUI T D e c e m be r 28, 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- 15944

________________________ D. C . Do c k e tNo . 0 4 - 0 0 2 2 5 - C R - T - 2 4 - MAP 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 O S E P H H A Y N E S , 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 28, 2005) B efo re C A RN E S , H U L L an d P R Y O R , C i rcu i tJu d g es. P E R C U R I A M: D e f e nda ntJ os e ph H a y ne s appe a l s hi s c onvi c t i on a nd 78- m onth s e nt e nc e f or k n o w in g ly a tte m p tin g to p e r s u a d e , in d u c e , e n tic e , a n d c o e r c e a m in o rto e n g a g e in2

pr ohi bi t e d s e xua l a c t i vi ty , i n vi ol a t i on of 18 U . S . C . § 2422( b) . A f t e rr e vi e w a nd oral ar gu m ent , w e a ff

i rm H ay nes’ s c on vi ct i on , bu tvaca t e hi s s ent ence .

I . B AC KG RO UN D O n A pr i l 12, 2004, H a y ne s , a r e s i de ntof T a m pa , F l or i da , l ogge d ont o the i nt ernetand ent er ed a t ee n chatroom for “ Y ou ng T ee ns for O l der M en. ” H ay nes i nst antm es sa ged “ kaci _fl _g url , ” w ho se profi l e s t at ed thatshe w as a f ou rt ee n-ye ar ol d gi r l w ho l i ve d i n T a m pa a nd w a s i nt e r e s t e d i n “ c he e r i ng, da nc i ng, s hoppi ng, m ov i es , go i ng 2 d a bea ch. ” “ K ac i ” i n fac tw as Inno ce ntIm ages T as k F orce S pe c i a l A ge ntW i l l i a m H ol l a nd. H ay nes a nd K ac i engaged i n a chat , i n w hi ch H ay nes r epea t edl y t ol d K ac i thathe w ant ed t o m ee ther a nd thathe w ant ed t o l i ck her i n a cl earl y s exual m anner. K ac i re fe rr ed t o h er se l f a s bei ng 14 ye ar s ol d, and H ay nes t ol d K ac i that he w a s 39. K a c i r e pe a t e dl y t a l ke d a bouthe rm othe rf i ndi ng outa nd ge tt i ng c a ught a n d s t a t e d th a th e rm o th e rwo u l d “ f l i p ” o v e rh e rt a l k i n g t o a 3 9 - y e a r - o l d . T h e two a ls o d is c u s s e d m e e tin g a t M c D o n a ld ’s . H a y n e s a n d K a c i e n g a g e d in f o u rm o r e c h a ts , in w h ic h K a c i r e p e a te d ly m e nt i one d he ra ge a nd hi di ng the i rr e l a t i ons hi p f r om he rm othe r . A tone poi nt K ac i as ked H ay nes i f he had ever had a gi rl fr i end h erage before , and h e r es po nd ed

“ no . . . 17, 18 a nd 20 butnotqui t e ura ge . ” H a y ne s c ont i nue d t o t e l l K a c i tha the3

w a n te d to lic k h e r“h e a d to to e ” a n d to ld h e rin e x p lic it te r m s th a t h e w a n te d to m ake her orgas m by l i cki ng her geni t al s. H ay nes a nd K ac i fi nal i ze d a pl an t o m ee t i n the parki ng l otata M cD on al d’ s r es t aura ntat3 p . m . on A pri l 20 , 20 04 . H ay nes t ol d K ac i thathe w ou l d b e w ai t i ng for heri n h i s s i l ver J ee p. H e a l so sugg es t ed the y e a tdi nne ra nd m a y be s e e a m ovi e , a nd he a s ke d he ri f s he l i ke d C hi ne s e f

ood. A lth o u g h K a c i a n d H a y n e s b o th w e r e in th e T a m p a a r e a , th e ire le c tr o n ic c o mmu n i c a t i o n s w e r e r o u t e d th r o u g h Y a h o o ’ s s e r v e r s i n W a s h i n g t o n , D . C. O n A pri l 20 , 20 04 , ar ou nd 3 p . m . , H ay nes a rr i ved atthe desi gn at ed M cD on al d’ s parki ng l otdri vi ng a s i l ver J ee p. A tthatt i m e, offi ce rs arre st ed H a y ne s . H a y ne s t ol d the of f i c e r s tha the w a s the r e m a ki ng t e l e phone c a l l s a nd ge tt i ng a dr i nk. I n H a y ne s ’ s J e e p, of

f i c e r s di s c ove r e d a l oa de d gun, 92 r ounds of a m m uni t i on, c ondom s , a nd a C hi ne s e r e s t a ur a ntm e nu. O f f i c e r s a l s o e xe c ut e d a s e a r c h w a rr a nta tH a y ne s ’ s hom e , w he r e the y s e i z e d a c om put e rt ow e rf r om H a y n e s ’s h o m e o f

f ic e a n d a d a y p la n n e rc o n ta in in g th e f o llo w in g e n try f

o rA p r il 20 , 20 04 : “ 3: 00 p. m . K ac i e. ” A fore nsi c e xam i nat i on of the com pu t erre veal ed tw e l ve i m a ge s of

c hi l d pornogr aphy a nd the i nt e rne tpr of i l e s of va r i ous t e e na ge g i rl s. B a s e d on thi s c onduc t , H a y ne s w a s c onvi c t e d by a j ury of one c ountofAl l c itatio ns areto t he20 03 vers ion

of theguide lin e s. 1 4 c oe r c i on ore nt i c e m e ntof a m i nort o e nga ge i n s e xua l a c t i vi ty , i n vi ol a t i on of 18 U . S . C . § 2 42 2(b). T he di stri ctcourtpres ent ed the j ury w i th a spec i al verdi ctform i nc l udi ng the f

ol l ow i ng que s t i on: “ D i d the of f e ns e i nvol ve the know i ng m i sr epre se nt at i on of D ef endant ’ s i dent i ty ( m ay consi der s uch fact ors a s nam e, age, o c c u p a tio n , g e n d e ro rs ta tu s ) to p e r s u a d e , in d u c e , e n tic e , o rc o e r c e th e v ic tim to engage i n p rohi bi t ed se xu al cond uct ? ” T he j ury a nsw er ed thi s quest i on “ N o. ” H ay nes’ s bas e off

ense l evel w as 21 . S ee U . S . S . G . § 2 A 3. 2(a) (2) ( 20 03 ). 1 H ayn es received th ese th ree en h an cem en t s: (1 ) a tw o -l ev el en h an cem en tb ecau se he used a com pu t erand t he Int ernet , se e U . S . S . G . § 2 A 3. 2(b)(3); (2) atw o-l evel e n h a n c e m e n t b e c a u s e h e “o th e rw is e u n d u ly in f lu e n c e d th e v ic tim to e n g a g e in proh i bi t ed se xu al cond uct , ” s ee U . S . S . G . § 2 A 3. 2(b)(2)(B); and (3) a tw o-l evel enhancem entfor obstruct i on of j ust i ce base d o n h i s t es t i m on y a ttri al thatthe chat r o o m “Y o u n g T e e n s f

o rO ld e rM e n ” w a s a n a d u lt r a th e rth a n a te e n c h a t r o o m . S ee U . S . S . G . § 3 C 1. 1. W i th an adj ust ed offe nse l evel of 27 and a cri m i nal hi st ory ca t egory I , H ay nes’ s gui del i nes r ange w as 70 -87 m on ths. T he di stri ctcourt s e n te n c e d H a y n e s to 7 8 m o n th s ’ im p r is o n m e n t. I I . DI S CUS S I ON O n app ea l , H ay nes r ai se s the fol l ow i ng ar gu m ent s: (1) the di stri ctcourt“ We a pp ly a mixe d s tandard

of review to th edenial of

a de fendant’ s mo tio n tosu pp re ss, 2 reviewingthedis tric t c ourt ’sfinding s o f f a c t f or c le ar error

and its a pp lic atio n o f l aw to th os e fac ts deno vo .”Unite d St ate s v . Lyon s, 40 3 F .3 d 1 24 8, 12 50 (1 1th Cir .) , c e rt . d e nie d, 12 6 S. Ct. 732 (2005). 5 erre d i n d enyi ng H ay nes’ s m ot i on t o sup pres s bec ause the se ar ch w arra ntw as ove r l y br oa d; ( 2) the c um ul a t i ve i m pa c tof the di s tr i c tc our t ’ s e vi de nt i a ry rul i ngs deni ed H ay nes’ s r i gh t s t o d ue process and a fai r tri al ; (3) the di stri ctcourt im p r o p e r ly in s tru c te d th e ju ry th a t th e in te rn e t is a n in s tru m e n ta lity o f in te r s ta te c om m e r c e ; ( 4) the di s tr i c tc our tvi ol a t e d H a y ne s ’ s r i ghta ga i ns tdoubl e j e opa r dy by im p o s in g a n e n h a n c e m e n t u n d e rU .S .S .G . § 2 A 3 .2 ( b ) ( 3 ) b a s e d o n th e s a m e f a c ts ( u s e o f a c o mp u t e ra n d th e I n t e rn e t ) e s t a b l i s h i n g a n e s s e n t i a l e l e me n to f th e c r i me of conv i ct i on ; (5) the di stri ctcourti m prop er l y app l i ed an enhancem entun der U . S . S . G . § 2A 3. 2( b) ( 2) , i n vi ol a t i on of U ni t e d S t a t e s v. B ooke r , 543 U . S . 220, 125 S . C t . 738 ( 2005) ; a nd ( 6) H a y ne s ’ s i ntr a s t a t e i nt e rne tc ha t s a r e a n i ns uf f i c i e nt ba s i s f orf e de r a l j ur i s di c t i on. O nl y the m ot i on- t o- s uppr e s s i s s ue a nd the s e nt e nc i ng i s s ue s w a rr a ntdi s c us s i on. A . M o ti o n to S u p p ress H a y ne s a r gue s tha tthe di s tr i c tc our te rr e d i n de ny i ng hi s s uppr e s s i on m ot i on and al l ow i ng chi l d p orno graphy i m ages re covered fr om H ay nes’ s hom e c om pu t er to b e in tro d u ce d at trial. T h e im ag es w er e r ec o v er ed d u rin g a s ea rc h o f H ay n es ’s 2 hom e pur s ua ntt o a w a rr a nt . H a y ne s a s s e r t s tha tthe w a rr a ntw a s ove r l y br oa d, a nd6

n o t s u p p o r te d b y p r o b a b le c a u s e , to th e e x te n t it a llo w e d f o rth e s e iz u r e o f

a ll c om put e r s a nd c om put e rha r dw a r e a s w e l l a s a l l “ di gi t a l da t a f i l e s pe r t a i ni ng t o the po ss es si on , re ce i pt , or di stri bu t i on of chi l d p orno graphy. ” H e does notcont es tthat pr oba bl e c a us e s uppor t e d the w a rr a ntt o s e a r c h hi s hom e f ore vi de nc e of

e nt i c i ng a m i no r t o eng age i n sexual cond uct , i ncl ud i ng evi dence on h i s c om pu t er . H ow ever , he a r gue s tha tthe e nt i c e m e ntc onduc ti s di f f e r e nttha n c hi l d pornogr aphy , a nd th ere w as n o p ro b ab l e cau se t o su p p o rta search fo r ch i l d p o rn o g rap h y. T he go vernm entre spon ds thatthere w as prob abl e c ause for the se ar ch w a rr a nta nd i tw a s notove r l y br oa d. A ge ntH ol l a nd t e s t i f i e d a tthe s uppr e s s i on he a r i ng tha t“ pe opl e i nt e r e s t e d i n e nga gi ng i n s e x w i th a m i norof t e nt i m e s ha ve p ic tu r e s o f

c h ild r e n .” A g e n t H o lla n d d id n o t in c lu d e th is s ta te m e n t in h is a f f id a v it s uppor t i ng the s e a r c h w a rr a nt , a nd both he a nd the gove rnm e ntc onc e de d tha the s houl d ha ve e xpl a i ne d the c onne c t i on i n hi s a f f i da vi t . N e ve r the l e s s , the g o v e rn m e n t a r g u e s th a t, b e c a u s e a c o n n e c tio n e x is ts b e tw e e n e n tic in g m in o r s to e n g a g e in s e x u a l c o n d u c t a n d p o s s e s s io n o f c h ild p o rn o g r ap h y , th e r e w a s p r o b a b le c a us e t o s uppor tthe w a rr a nt ’ s i nc l us i on of c hi l d pornogr aphy . A c c or di ng t o the go vernm ent , “ [c ] om m on se nse di ct at es thatthere i s are as on abl e probabi l i ty thatan a dul tm a l e w ho ha s e xpr e s s e d a n i nt e r e s ti n e nga gi ng i n s e xua l a c t i vi ty w i th a m i no r . . . w ou l d p osse ss chi l d p orno graphy or chi l d erot i ca . ”7

H ow ever , w e nee d n otdeci de w hether the se ar ch w arra ntw as ov er l y broad be c a us e the e vi de nc e i s a dm i s s i bl e unde rthe good- f a i th e xc e pt i on t o the e xc l us i ona ry rul e . S e e U ni t e d S t a t e s v. L e on, 468 U . S . 897, 104 S . C t . 3405 ( 1 9 8 4 ) . T h is C o u r t h a s e x p la in e d th a t L e o n “s ta n d s f o rth e p r in c ip le th a t c o u r ts general l y s ho ul d n otre nd eri nadm i ss i bl e e vi dence obt ai ned b y pol i ce offi ce rs a c t i ng i n r e a s ona bl e r e l i a nc e upon a s e a r c h w a rr a nttha ti s ul t i m a t e l y f ound t o be uns uppor t e d by pr oba bl e c a us e . ” U ni t e d S t a t e s v. M a r t i n, 297 F . 3d 1308, 1313 (11t h C i r. 20 02 ). T hu s, supp re ss i on i s nec es sa ry “ on l y i f the offi ce rs w er e di shon es tor re ckl es s i n p re pari ng thei r a ff i davi tor coul d n othave harbored an obj e c t i ve l y r e a s onabl e be l i e f i n the e xi s t e nc e of

pr oba bl e c a us e . ” I d. ( quot a t i on m arks and ci t at i on om i tt ed). T here i s no d ou btthat“ [t ] he go od fa i th except i on m ay be appl i ed t o a se ar ch c onduc t e d pur s ua ntt o a n ove r l y br oa d w a rr a nt . ” U ni t e d S t a t e s v. T r a ve r s , 233 F .3 d 1 3 2 7 , 1 3 3 0 ( 1 1 th C ir . 2 0 0 0 ) . T h e o f f ic e r s h e r e c le a r ly a c te d in r e a s o n a b le re l i ance up on the w arra nt . Indeed, on appeal , H ay nes does noteven argue, m uch le s s s h o w , th a t a n y o f

th e e x c e p tio n s to th e g o o d - f a ith d o c tr in e ap p lie s . C ons e que nt l y , the di s tr i c tc our tdi d note rri n de ny i ng the s uppr e s s i on m ot i on a nd adm i tt i ng the chi l d p orno graphy evi dence. B. D o ubl e J e o pa r dy I s s ueB e c a us eHa y ne s did n ot raisethi s is su ebe fo rethedis tric t c ourt , w ereview f or plain 3 error only . See United States v. Mira nda, 197 F .3d 1357, 1358-59 (11th Cir. 1999).

8 O n ap p e a l, H a y n e s a s s e r ts th a t h is e n h a n c e m e n t u n d e rU .S .S .G . § 2A 3. 2( b) ( 3) f

orhi s us e of

a c om put e ra nd the I nt e rne tvi ol a t e s hi s doubl e j e opa r dy r i ght s . E s s e nt i a l l y , H a y ne s a r gue s tha tbe c a us e hi s c onvi c t i on w a s f orus i ng a 3 c om put e rt o e nt i c e a m i nor , hi s s e nt e nc e c oul d notbe e nha nc e d f orus i ng a co m p u t er an d th e In t ern ett o en t i ce a m i n o r. H o w ev er, th e d o u b l e j eo p ard y cl au se doe s notpr ohi bi ta s i ngl e c our s e of c onduc tf

r om s e r vi ng a s the ba s i s f orboth a pr e di c a t e of

f e ns e a nd a n e nha nc e m e nt . S e e U ni t e d S t a t e s v. S tr i c kl a nd, 261 F . 3d 12 71 , 12 74 (11t h C i r. 20 01 ). L i k ew i se, th ere i s n o d o u b l e co u n t i n g i n th i s case. H ayn es’ s b ase o ffen se le v e l d id n o t ta k e in to a c c o u n t h is u s e o f a c o m p u te ra n d th e I n te rn e t. T h e r e f o r e , it w as approp ri at e f

or the di stri ctcourtt o app l y the tw o-l evel enhancem entun der § 2 A 3 .2 ( b ) ( 3 ) . S e e U n ite d S ta te s v . P e r e z , 3 6 6 F .3 d 1 1 7 8 , 1 1 8 3 - 8 4 & n .6 ( 1 1 th C i r. 20 04 ). C . Bo o k e r I s s ue O n app ea l , H ay nes c hal l enges the tw o-l evel enhancem enthe re ce i ved pur s ua ntt o U . S . S . G . § 2A 3. 2( b) ( 2) . B e f or e di s c us s i ng H a y ne s ’ s a r gum e nt s on appeal , w e out l i ne w hat§ 2 A 3. 2(b)(2) provi des a nd w hathapp ened i n the di stri ct c o u r t.9

A tw o-l evel enhancem enti s w arra nt ed un der s ub se ct i on (A ) of § 2A 3. 2(b)(2) i f “ the offens e i nv ol ved t he kn ow i ng m i sr epre se nt at i on of a pa r t i c i pa nt ’ s i de nt i ty t o ( i ) pe r s ua de , i nduc e , e nt i c e , orc oe r c e the vi c t i m t o e nga ge i n p rohi bi t ed se xu al cond uct . ” U . S . S . G . § 2 A 3. 2(b)(2)(A )( i ) ( em ph as i s a dd ed). In co n tras t, su b se ctio n (B ) o f § 2 A 3 .2 (b )( 2 ) a u th o rize s a tw o -lev el en h an ce m en t i f “a part i ci pantotherw i se un du l y i nfl uenced the vi ct i m t o eng age i n p rohi bi t ed se xu al c onduc t . ” U . S . S . G . § 2A 3. 2( b) ( 2) ( B ) . A c c or di ng t o the c om m e nt a ry t o s ubs e c t i on ( B ) , if th e d e f e n d a n t is a t le a s t 1 0 y e a r s o ld e rth a n th e v ic tim , a r e b u ttab le p r e s u m p tio n e x is ts th a t th e d e f e n d a n t u n d u ly in f

lu e n c e d th e v ic tim to e n g a g e in pr ohi bi t e d s e xua l c onduc t . S e e U . S . S . G . § 2A 3. 2 c m t . n. 4 ( M i s r e pr e s e nt a t i on of Ident i ty) . T hus , s ubs e c t i on ( A ) f

oc us e s on a de f

e nda nt ’ s know i ng m i s r e pr e s e nt a t i on e nt i c i ng the vi c t i m a nd s ubs e c t i on ( B ) f oc us e s on the a ge di f

f e r e nc e be tw e e n the d e f e n d a n t a n d th e v ic tim a n d o th e rf a c to r s th a t m ig h t u n d u ly in f lu e n c e a v ic tim . A l tho ug h the j ury r eturned a gu i l ty ver di ctas t o C ou ntI, the di stri ctcourt subm i tt ed a s peci al verdi ctthatas ked a qu es t i on re l evantt o sub se ct i on (A ) of § 2A 3. 2( b) ( 2) . T he f

i r s tque s t i on the j ury w a s di r e c t e d t o a ns w e rw a s : “ D i d the offe nse i nv ol ve the kn ow i ng m i sr epre se nt at i on of D ef endant ’ s i dent i ty ( m ay consi der s uch fact ors a s nam e, age, occupat i on , gend eror st atus) t o p er suade,10

i nduc e , e nt i c e , orc oe r c e the vi c t i m t o e nga ge i n pr ohi bi t e d s e xua l c onduc t ? ” T he j ury a ns w e r e d “ N o. ” T he que s t i on t o the j ur y e s s e nt i a l l y tr a c ke d the l a ngua ge of subsec t i on (A ) of § 2A 3. 2(b)(2). A ft erthe j ury’ s ver di ct , the P S I, i n p ar agraph 20 , re com m ended a tw o-l evel en h an cem en tp u rsu an tt o o n l y § 2 A 3 . 2 (b )(2 )(B ), st at i n g as fo l l o w s: M r . H a y ne s r e pr e s e nt e d hi m s e l f a s a 39 y e a rol d m an t o “ K a c i ” w ho re po rt ed hers el f t o b e a14 ye ar o ld fem al e. H ow ever , M r. H ay nes w as i n fac t47 ye ar s ol d. T he defendant ’ s a ge i n thi s m att ergenerat es an u n d u e i n fl u en ce o v er th e v i ct i m . T h u s, th e i n crease ap p l i es. U . S . S . G . § 2 A 3. 2(b)(2)(B). W hi l e the P S I f

oc us e d m a i nl y on the a ge di f f e r e nc e a s the j us t i f

i c a t i on f orthe tw ol evel enhancem entun der s ub se ct i on (B ), the P S I a l so no t ed thatthe defendanthad r e pr e s e nt e d tha the w a s 39 w he n i n f a c the w a s 47. A t s e n te n c in g , th e d is tr ic t c o u r t in q u ir e d a b o u t th e d e f e n d a n t’s o b

je c tio n to the tw o-l evel enhancem entun der § 2A 3. 2(b)(2)(B). D ef ense coun se l cl ai m ed that the tw o-l evel enhancem entshou l d n otappl y bec ause “ there ’ s no w ay t o rebutthat te n - y e a rg ap [ a s ] th e r e is n o v ic tim .” T h e d is tr ic t c o u r t th e n a s k e d d e f e n s e c o u n s e l:

“ W e l l , d o n ’ ty o u a l s o wa n tt o o b j e c tb a s e d o n th e – o n th e v e r d i c to f th e j u ry ? B ec ause w as n’ tthi s aspec i fi c quest i on w e s entt o the j ury i n q uest i on nu m ber on e. ” D ef

ense coun se l re spon ded i n the af fi rm at i ve. I n e v a l u a t i n g w h e th e rth e tw o - l e v e l e n h a n c e me n tu n d e rs u b s e c t i o n ( B)In the district court, Ha y nes explicitl y

raised c onstitut ional issues under B lakely v. 4 Washington, 542 U.S. 296, 124 S. Ct. 2531 (2004), and, thus, we review his Booker claim de novo. United States v. Paz, 405 F.3d 946, 948 (11th Cir. 2005). 11 appl i ed, the di stri ctcourtfi rs tno t ed thatw hen “ a par t i ci panti s a tl ea stt en ye ar s o ld e rth a n th e v ic tim – w h ic h is th e c a s e h e r e – th e r e s h a ll b e a r e b u ttab le pr e s um pt i on f

orpurpos e s of

( b) ( 2) ( B ) tha ts uc h pa r t i c i pa ntundul y i nf l ue nc e d the v i ct i m . . . . ” T h e d i stri ctco u rtth en st at ed th at“ [c] l earl y th ere w as a m i sr epre se nt at i on by the defendantas t o h i s a ge” a nd that“ [c ] l ea rl y, there ’ s m ore th a n te n y e a r s b e tw e e n th e a lle g e d v ic tim a n d th e d e f e n d a n t.” T he di s tr i c tc our tthe n m a de a f i ndi ng tha tthe e nha nc e m e ntunde rs ubs e c t i on ( B ) ap p lie d , a n d , in d o in g s o , tr e a te d th e ju ry ’s s p e c ia l v e r d ic t a s r e le v a n t to s ubs e c t i on ( B ) . S pe c i f

i c a l l y , the di s tr i c tc our ts t a t e d “ tha tI c a n m a ke thi s f i ndi ng be y ond – by a pr e ponde r a nc e of the e vi de nc e e ve n though the j ur y f ound no by

‘ beyond a r ea sonabl e dou bt . ’ I thi nk i tcl ea rl y s ho ul d b e app l i ed, and I m ake that f in d in g b y a p r e p o n d e r a n c e o f th e e v id e n c e .” I n h is b r ie f

o n ap p e a l, H a y n e s a r g u a b ly r a is e s tw o s e p a r a te is s u e s w ith r e g a r d to h is tw o - le v e l e n h a n c e m e n t u n d e r§ 2 A 3 .2 ( b ) ( 2 ) . H a y n e s f ir s t a r g u m e n t is tha tthe di s tr i c tc our tvi ol a t e d B ooke rby i m pos i ng a n e nha nc e m e ntba s e d on H ay nes’ s m i sr epre se nt at i on of hi s a ge t o a m i no r, no tw i thst andi ng thatthe j ury e x p r e s s ly r e

je c te d th e f

a c tu a l b a s is f

o rth a t e n h a n c e m e n t in its s p e c ia l v e r d ic t. 4In th eB oo ker s e c tio n o f his b ri e f, Ha y ne s c ite s o nly

to U .S. S.G . § 2A 3. 2(b) (2 ). Thus , 5 we c onclude that Ha

y nes has not raised a c onstitut ional Booker challeng e to any of his other e nh anc e ments . 12 H o w e v e r , th e a g e - m is r e p r e s e n ta tio n e n h a n c e m e n t is s e t f o r th in § 2 A 3 .2 ( b ) ( 2 ) ( A ) . S e e U . S . S . G . § 2A 3. 2( b) ( 2) ( A ) . T o the e xt e ntH a y ne s i s c ha l l e ngi ng a ny e nha nc e m e ntunde r§ 2A 3. 2( b) ( 2) ( A ) , hi s c ha l l e nge i s w i thoutm e r i tbe c a us e the di stri ctcourtdi d n oti m po se an enhancem entun der § 2A 3. 2(b)(2)(A ). M or e i m por t a nt l y , a s t o the e nha nc e m e ntunde r§ 2A 3. 2( b) ( 2) ( B ) , w hi c h the di s tr i c tc our tdi d i m pos e , the r e i s no r e qui r e m e nttha tthe de f e nda ntm i s r e pr e s e nt hi s a ge. D es pi t e the part i es and t he di stri ctcourttre at i ng the j ury’ s s peci al verdi ct a s r e l e va ntt o s ubs e c t i on ( B ) , i ti s c l e a rtha tthe j ur y ’ s s pe c i a l ve r di c ti s notr e l e va nt t o sub se ct i on (B ). H a y n e s ’s s e c o n d a r g u m e n t is b a s ic a lly a c o n s titu tio n a l B o o k e rc la im . I n h is o p e n in g b r ie f

, H a y n e s a r g u e s th a t th is s e n te n c in g e n h a n c e m e n t “v io la te d th e ru le of A pp re nd i , B l akel y, and B oo ker, thatany f ac tthatra i se s adefe nd ant [’ ] s s ent ence m u s t b e p r o v e n to a ju ry b e y o n d a r e a s o n a b le d o u b t.” 5 I n th is c a s e , w e c o n c lu d e th a t H a y n e s h a s s h o w n c o n s titu tio n a l B o o k e re rr o r . A l tho ug h i ti s und i sput ed thatthere w as m ore than a 10 -y ea r gap betw ee n H ay nes a nd hi s i nt e nde d vi c t i m , thi s a ge di f f e r e nc e s uppl i e s onl y a pr e s um pt i on tha tthe enhancem entun der § 2A 3. 2(b)(2)(B) appli es . B ec ause H ay nes di d n otadm i tthatIn B oo ker, theSup remeCourt he ld t hat B lake ly

v. Was hington , 4 52 U. S. 2 96 , 1 24 S. Ct . 6 2531 (2004), a

pplied to the SentencingGuidelines. United States v. Rodriguez, 398 F.3d 1291, 1297-98 (11th Cir.), c ert. denied, 125 S. Ct. 2935 (2005). “[T] he Six th Amendment right to trial by jury is violated whereunder a mandatory

guidelines system a sentenc e is incre ased be causeof an enha ncement based on facts found by the judg e that were ne ither admitted by the def endant nor found by

the jury .” I d. The c onstitut ional error is not beca use therewere extra-verdict enhanc ements; rather, “[t] he er ror is that therewere extra-verdict enha ncements used in a mandatory

guidelines system.” I d. at 1300. 13 the age di ff

er ence ac tual l y i nfl uenced hi s i nt ended v i ct i m (i nd ee d, he chal l enged the e nha nc e m e ntunde r§ 2A 3. 2( b) ( 2) ( B ) ) , H a y ne s di d nota dm i tt o a l l the ne c e s s a ry f

a c t s i n § 2A 3. 2( b) ( 2) ( B ) . W hi l e the r e w a s s uf f i c i e nte vi de nc e f

orthe di stri ctcourtt o m ake i t s f ac tfi nd i ng of un du e i nfl uence, the di stri ctcourt no nethel es s app l i ed thatextra -ver di ctenhancem entun der am andat ory gui del i nes sc hem e, and, thu s, H ay nes has dem on stra t ed const i tut i on al B oo ker e rr or. 6 H ow e ve r , thi s C our tm a y s t i l l a f f i r m H a y ne s ’ s 78- m onth s e nt e nc e i f the g o v e rn m e n t e s tab lis h e s th a t a n y c o n s titu tio n a l e rr o rw a s h a r m le s s .

“ [ C ] ons t i tut i ona l e rr or s a r e ha r m l e s s w he r e the gove rnm e ntc a n s how , be y ond a r e a s o n a b le d o u b t, th a t th e e rr o rd id n o t c o n tr ib u te to th e d e f e n d a n t’s u ltim a te se nt ence . ” U ni t ed S t at es v. M atheni a, 40 9 F . 3d 12 89 , 12 91 (11t h C i r. 20 05 ). In th i s case, th e g o v ern m en th as n o tsh o w n th atan y co n st i tu t i o n al erro r w as h arm l ess. A cco rd i n g l y, w e v acat e H ayn es’ s 7 8 -m o n th sen t en ce an d rem an d th i s case for the l i m i t ed pu rpose of r es ent enci ng H ay nes und eran advi sory gu i del i nes s y s te m . T h e d is tr ic t c o u r t c o rr e c tly c a lc u la te d H a y n e s ’s g u id e lin e s r a n g e a s 7 0 toWe do not mean to imply that on rema

nd the district court must impose a different 7 sentenc e. Rather , we merely hold that the g overnment has failed to meet its burden to show that the B ooker c onstitut ional error of sentencingunder a mandatory

guidelines reg ime was ha rmless. We also will not attempt t o decidenow whether a pa rticular sentencebelow or a bove the guidelines rang e might be re asonablein this case. I f thereis an appe al of the actual post-remand sentenc e which raises that issue, wecan de cide it then. 14 87 m on ths and n ee d n otre vi si tthe gu i del i nes c al cul at i on s. O n rem and, the di stri ct courti s s i m pl y r equi re d t o sent ence H ay nes und eran advi sory gu i del i nes r egi m e, a nd s ha l l c ons i de rthe gui de l i ne s r a nge of 70 t o 87 m onths ’ i m pr i s onm e nta nd

“ other s t atut ory c on ce rns a s w el l , se e [ 18 U . S . C . ] § 3 55 3(a) (S up p. 20 04 ). ” B ooke r , 125 S . C t . a t757. 7 C ON VI C T I ON AF F I R ME D; S E NT E NC E VA C AT E D A ND R E MAND E D.