FI LED U. S . COURT OF AP PE ALS E L E V E N T H C IR C U IT M ay 31, 2006 T HOM AS K. KAHN CL E RK

Th eHo no ra

bleAl fre d T . G oo dw in, Unite d St ate s Circ uit Judg efo r theNi nthCirc uit , * sitti ngby desig nation. [ 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. 05- 12591 N on -A rgum entC al endar

________________________ D. C . Do c k e tNo . 0 5 - 0 0 0 0 6 - C R - T - 2 6 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 A L E J A N D R O A G U I L A R - O R T I Z , a .k .a . A le ja n d r o O r tiz , D e fe n d a n t- A p p e lla n t.

________________________ A pp ea l fr om t he U ni t ed S t at es D i stri ctC ou rt for t he M i ddl e D i s tr i c tof F l or i da

_________________________ ( M ay 31, 2006) B efo re T JO F L A T , B A R K E T T an d G O O D W IN , C i rcu i tJu d g es. *With a 3-le vel re duction for acceptanceof re sponsibili ty , Ortiz’s adjusted offense leve l 1 was 17, whic h, combined with his criminal history cate g ory III , resulted in an advisory g uide lin e s r ang eof

30to 3 7 mo nth s impriso nment. Th ec ourt imp os e d a

se ntenc eof

30months ’ imp ri so nment. 2 B A R K E T T , C i rc ui tJudg e: A le ja n d r o A g u ila r - O r tiz a p p e a ls h is s e n te n c e o f th ir ty m o n th s im p r is o n m e n t, i m po se d fol l ow i ng a gui l t y pl ea , for bei ng foun d i n t he U ni t ed S t at es af t er de por t a t i on, i n vi ol a t i on of 8 U . S . C . § 1326. O ve r A gui l a r - O r t i z ’ s obj e c t i on, t he di stri ctcourtappl i ed a 12-l evel enhancem entun der U . S . S ent enci ng G ui del i nes § 2L 1. 2( b) ( 1) ( B ) for a pr i or c onvi c t i on of a “ dr ug tr a f

f i c ki ng of fe ns e . ” T he pr i or c onvi c t i on e nha nc e m e ntw a s ba s e d on a c onvi c t i on i n F l or i da s t a t e c our tfor s ol i c i t a t i on t o de l i ve r c oc a i ne . A gui l a r - O r t i z a ppe a l s hi s s e nt e nc e , a r gui ng t ha tt he 1 d is tr ic t c o u r t e r r e d in tr e a tin g s o lic ita tio n a s a d r u g tr a f f ic k in g o f fe n s e a n d th a t h is se nt ence i s unrea sonabl e. W e r e vi e w que s t i ons of l a w w i t h r e s pe c tt o t he di s tr i c tc our t ’ s a ppl i c a t i on of t he S e nt e nc i ng G ui de l i ne s de novo. S e e U ni t e d S t a t e s v. C r a w for d, 407 F . 3d 1174, 1 1 7 8 (1 1 th C ir. 2 0 0 5 ). W h er e th e d istrict co u rt in co rr ec tl y c alcu lates a d efen d an t’ s G ui de l i ne s r a nge be c a us e of l e ga l e r r or , w e r e m a nd for r e s e nt e nc i ng be c a us e t he S u p r e m e C o u r t’s d e c is io n in B o o k e r “a t a m in im u m , o b lig e s th e D is tr ic t C o u r t to c a lc u la te c o r r e c tly th e s e n te n c in g r a n g e p r e s c r ib e d b y th e G u id e lin e s .” I d . W he t he rs ol i c i t a t i on c ons t i t ut e s a dr ug tr a f f i c ki ng of fe ns e for pur pos e s of3

U .S . S e n te n c in g G u id e lin e s § 2 L 1 .2 ( b ) ( 1 ) ( B ) is a q u e s tio n o f f ir s t im p r e s s io n in ou r C i rc ui t . S ec t i on 2L 1. 2(b)(1)(B) prov i des thati f adefe nd antprevi ou sl y w as depo rt ed, or un l aw ful l y r em ai ned i n t he U ni t ed S t at es , af t erconv i ct i on for a

“ fe l ony dr ug tr a f

f i c ki ng of fe ns e ” for w hi c h t he s e nt e nc e i m pos e d w a s 13 m ont hs or l e s s , t he of

fe ns e l e ve l s houl d be i nc r e a s e d by 12 l e ve l s . T he G ui de l i ne s do not t he m s e l ve s de f

i ne t he t e r m “ dr ug tr a f

f i c ki ng of fe ns e ” i n r e ga r d t o t he enhancem ent . H ow ever , t he appl i ca t i on no t es defi ne a “ drug tra ff i cki ng offe nse” as “ an offens e und erfe dera l , st at e, or l ocal l aw t hatproh i bi t s the m anufacture, i m po rt , expo rt , di stri bu t i on , or di spensi ng of a c on trol l ed subst ance (or a c o u n te r fe it s u b s ta n c e ) o r th e p o s s e s s io n o f a c o n tr o lle d s u b s ta n c e ( o r a c o u n te r fe it subst ance ) w i t h i nt entt o m anufacture, i m po rt , expo rt , di stri bu t e, or di spense . ” U . S . S . G . § 2L 1. 2 c m t . n. 1( B ) ( i v) . T he not e s a l s o pr ovi de t ha t“ [ p] r i or c onvi c t i ons of of fe ns e s c ount e d unde r s ubs e c t i on ( b) ( 1) i nc l ude t he of fe ns e s of a i di ng a nd a be t t i ng, c ons pi r i ng, a nd a t t e m pt i ng, t o c om m i ts uc h of fe ns e s . ” T he N ot e s do not m e n tio n w h e th e r s o lic ita tio n s h o u ld b e c o u n te d u n d e r s u b s e c tio n ( b ) ( 1 ) . I d . c m t. n. 5. T he fa ct s r egar di ng O rt i z’ s pri or conv i ct i on for s ol i ci t at i on t o d el i ver coca i ne as se tforth i n t he P S I w er e a dm i t t ed by O rt i z a tse nt enci ng and are u n d is p u te d . A c c o r d in g to th e P S I , O r tiz s o lic ite d a n u n d e r c o v e r p o lic e o f f ic e r toIn Taylor, the Supreme Court wa s fac ed with determining whether Congress intende d a 2 de fend ant’ s p ri or

c on vic tio n f

or se c on d- de gre eburg lary

un der M iss ourilaw to qualif y a s a 4 s e ll h im $ 3 0 w o r th o f

c r a c k c o c a in e . H e w a s a r r e s te d a f te r th e o f f ic e r s o ld h im s a i d a m ountof

c ount e r fe i tc r a c k c oc a i ne . A gui l a r - O r t i z w a s c onvi c t e d of sol i ci t at i on of t he del i very of drug s, i n v i ol at i on of F l a. S t at . § 7 77 . 04 (2), w hi ch st at es t hat“ [a ] pers on w ho sol i ci t s a no t her t o com m i tan offe nse prohi bi t ed by l aw a n d in th e c o u r s e o f

s u c h s o lic ita tio n c o m m a n d s , e n c o u r a g e s , h ir e s , o r r e q u e s ts an o t h er p erso n t o en g ag e i n sp eci fi c co n d u ctw h i ch w o u l d co n st i t u t e su ch o ffen se o r a n a tte m p t to c o m m it s u c h o f fe n s e c o m m its th e o f

fe n s e o f c r im in a l s o lic ita tio n ,” and § 89 3. 13 (1)( a) , w hi ch m akes i t“ un l aw ful for a ny pers on t o sel l , m anufacture, or del i ver, or po ss es s w i t h i nt entt o sel l , m anufacture, or del i ver, a c on trol l ed s ubs t a nc e . ” T he que s t i on pr e s e nt e d i s w he t he r t hi s of fe ns e c ons t i t ut e d a dr ug tr a f f ic k in g o f fe n s e fo r p u r p o s e s o f

th e S e n te n c in g G u id e lin e s . W e c o n c lu d e th a t, unde r t he s e fa c t s , t he di s tr i c tc our te r r e d i n a ppl y i ng t he e nha nc e m e ntfor a pr i or drug tra ff

i cki ng offe nse. G en eral l y, i n d et erm i n i n g w h et h er a p ri o r co n v i ct i o n i s a q u al i fyi n g o ffen se for e nh ance m entpu rposes , w e a pp l y a“ ca t egori ca l ” a pp roac h, w hi ch m ea ns t hat w e l ook no fa r t he r t ha n t he j udgm e ntof c onvi c t i on. S e e U ni t e d S t a t e s v. S pe l l , 44 F . 3d 936, 939 ( 11t h C i r . 1995) ; T a y l or v. U ni t e d S t a t e s , 495 U . S . 575, 602 (1 9 9 0 ). H o w ev er, w h ere t h e j u d g m en to f co n v i ct i o n an d st at u t e are am b i g u o u s,

2“violent fe lony ” for purposes of enhancinghis sentenceunder theArmed Career Criminal Act (“A CCA”). The g overnme nt had succ essfully argued bef

ore theEig hth Circuit that by listi ng “burg lary” as a

“violent fe lony ” in the ACCA, Congress intende d “burg lary” to be de fined however a statechose. Taylor, 495 U.S. at 579 (citations omitted). In reversing , the Court conclude d that the ACCA’s use of “burg lary” wa s not intended by Congress to encompa ss any crime la beled a “burg lary” under

state law. Rather, “burg lary” under the ACCA encompa ssed only crimes f itting the g eneric or c ontemporary meaningof burg lary , to wit: “an unlawf ul or unprivi le g e d e ntry

into, or remaini ngin, a

bu ildingor

oth er s truc ture , w ithinte nt to c ommit a crime.” Id. at 598. Havingreached this conc lusion, the Court recog nized that it was then fac ed with “the problem of a

pplying this conc lusion to cases in which the statestatute under w hich a de fendant is convicted va

ries from the g eneric def

inition of ‘burg lary .’” Id. at 599. Recog nizi ngthe “practical diff

iculties and potential unfairness of a fac tual approach” in whic h mini-trials might have to beconducte d to determine w hether the def endant indee d had been convicted of the requisite prior crime, the Court held that “ an off ense c onstitut es ‘burg lary ’ for purposes of a

§ 92 4( e ) s e ntenc ee nh anc e me nt i f eith er i ts s tatutory de fi nitionsubs tanti ally

c or re sp on ds to ‘g eneric’ burg lary , or the c harg ing pa per and jury

instructions actually

require d the jury

to find all the elements of g eneric burg lary in order to c onvict the def endant.” Id. at 602. Although T aylor was an ACCA case , this court applied and f ollowed it in Spell, 44 F.3d 3 at 939-40. In Spell, the ambiguity of the c onviction and the statute under which Spell wa s prosec uted re quired the sentencingcourt to look behind the judg ment of convic tion. 44 F.3d at 93 9. Th ejud g me nt o f c on vic tio n e ntere d into throu g h a ple a agre e me nt s tate d th eof

fens ea s a “burg lary of a struc ture,” yet the statute under which hewas c onvicted enc ompassed thre e different burg lary

scena rios, all of which c ould be a burg lary of a struc ture. Id. at 939-40. The sentenc ing c ourt could not determine from the c onviction and statute whether Spell burg larized a dwelling , which would subjec t him to a guidelines enhancement, or unag gravated burg lary of a str uc ture , w hic h w ou ld n ot. Ac c ordin g ly , w eremand e d f or thedis tric t c ourt

to exami ne“e a sil y produc e d ande valuate d c ourt do c uments , in c ludingthejud g me nt o f c on vic tio n, c ha rg ingpa pers , plea agreement, presentencereport adopted by the court, and the finding s of a se ntencingjudge .” Id. 5 i . e . , the de t e r m i na t i on w he t he r a pr i or c onvi c t i on i s a qua l i f y i ng of f e ns e f r om t he fa ce of t he j ud gm enti t se l f i s i m po ss i bl e, w e r em and for t he di stri ctj ud ge t o l oo k at t he fa c t s unde r l y i ng a s t a t e c onvi c t i on. S e e U ni t e d S t a t e s v. K r a w c z a k, 331 F . 3d 13 02 , 13 06 (11t h C i r. 20 03 ) ( ci t i ng U ni t ed S t at es v. S pel l , 44 F . 3d 93 6 (11 t h C i r. 19 95 )) . In exam i ni ng t he fa ct s und er l yi ng a pri or conv i ct i on t o d et er m i ne w het her

3We arenot concerned here w ith Shepard’s a pplicability

to an advisory

g uidelines 4 scheme . We have he ld that there is no constitutional error whe n a district court applies the Se ntenc ingGu ide lin e s inan adv iso ry mann er. Se eUnite d St ate s v . Ch au, 42 6 F .3 d 1 31 8 ( 11 th Cir . 2 00 5) . O n th eoth er h and , w evie w Sh epa rda s a pp lyingandre fi nin gthee vide nti ary analy sis of Taylor. Under

the Taylor line of ca ses in this Court, evidentiary limit ations on the district court’s a pplication of sentenc ing enhancements apply in both ACCA and non-ACCA case s. See, e .g ., Spe ll, 44F .3 d at 93 9 ( ho ldi ngthat th ere a so nin gin T aylor “ app lie s w ithe qu al f

orc eto | decisions under

§§ 4B1.1 and 4B1.2” ); see also United States v. Kraw czak, 331 F.3d 1302, 1306 (11th Cir. 2003) (a

pplying reasoningin Taylor to the sentenc ing guidelines); United States v. Gay , 2 51 F .3 d 9 50 , 9 52(1 1thCir . 2 00 1) (s ameandho ldi ngthat th eabil ity to l oo k b ehin d a

state conviction in federal sentencingis “very limit ed”) ; United States v. Richardson, 230 F .3d 1297, 1300 (11th Cir. 2000) (a

pplying reasoningin Taylor to the sentenc ing guidelines). We seeno meaning ful distinction between the le vel of re liabilityin an analy sis of a fact of a prior c on vic tio n f

or purp os e s o f theAC CAandfo r p ur po seof these ntenc ingg uide lin e s, a s b oth requirethe same or

simil ar f actual analy sis and raise similar c oncerns of re liability . We note that our s ister c irc uit s h aveapp lie d Sh epa rdto theSe ntenc ingGu ide lin e s n otw ith standingtheir advisory natureafter B ooker. SeeUnited States v. Gutierrez-Ramirez, 405 F.3d 352 (5th Cir. 2005) (holdingthat Shepard’ s discussion should be used to determine w hether a prior c onviction is a “drugtraff

ickingoffense” under § 2L 1.2 of the Sentenc ing Guidelines); seealso United States v. Galloway , 439 F.3d 320, 323- 24 (6th Cir. 2006) (“Whil e Shepard involves the de fi nitionof

a vio le nt f e lony un der theAC CA , w ec on c ludethat Sh epa rd ’s ho ldi ngis f

ull y applicableto SentencingGuideline ca ses that re quire a court to determine the nature of a prior conviction when thedefendant has a prior convic tion under a g eneric statute that may or may not serveas a predicate for a

sentenc ing enhancement.”); United States v. Kendrick, 423 F .3d 803, 808-09 (8th Cir. 2005); United States v. Lewis, 405 F .3d 511, 513-15 (7th Cir. 2005); United States v. Delaney , 427 F.3d 1224, 1226 ( 9th Cir. 2005); United States v. Washington, 157 Fe d. Appx. 43 (10th C ir. 2005); United States v. Esteve z, 419 F.3d 77 (1st Cir. 2005); United States v. Washington, 404 F .3d 834, 841 (4th Cir. 2005) (a pplying Shepa

rd to the guidelines based on the Six th Amendment). 6 it q u a lif ie s fo r a s e n te n c in g e n h a n c e m e n t, o u r c a s e s , r e ly in g o n T a y lo r , h a v e h e ld t ha ts e nt e nc i ng c our t s m a y r e l y onl y on a l i m i t e d s e tof m a t e r i a l s . I n S he pa r d v. U ni t ed S t at es , 54 4 U . S . 13 , 12 5 S . C t . 12 54 (200 5), t he S up re m e C ou rtcl ar i fi ed T ay l or, ho l di ng t hata c ou rtm ay re l y onl y on t he “ char gi ng do cum ent , w ri t t en pl ea agre em ent , tra nscr i ptof pl ea col l oq uy, and any expl i ci tfa ctual fi nd i ng by t he tri al j udge t o w hi c h t he de fe nda nta s s e nt e d. ” S he pa r d, 125 S . C t . a t1257. 47

O rt i z a rgues thatsol i ci t at i on of t he del i very of drug s does notconst i t ut e a dr ug tr a f f i c ki ng of fe ns e be c a us e i n c a s e s l i ke hi s , w he r e t he de fe nda nts ol i c i t s t he de l i ve r y of

a “ pe r s ona l qua nt i t y a m ount ” of dr ugs , the r e i s no i nt e ntfor t he defe nd antt o “ t o m anufacture, i m po rt , expo rt , di stri bu t e, or di spense ” a cont rol l ed s ubs t a nc e ( or c ount e r fe i ts ubs t a nc e ) . O r t i z f ur t he r a r gue s t ha tbe c a us e t he A ppl i c a t i on N ot e s pr ovi de e xpl i c i t l y t ha te l i gi bl e pr i or c onvi c t i ons i nc l ude a i di ng a nd a be t t i ng, c ons pi r a c y , a nd a t t e m pt , w e s houl d i nfe r f r om t he om i s s i on of sol i ci t at i on offe nses t hatsuch offe nses w er e noti nt ended t o b e use d t o enh ance u n d e r § 2 L 1 .2 ( b ) . In re spon se , t he go vernm entar gu es t hatt he di stri ctcourtprop er l y a pp l i ed t he e nha nc e m e ntbe c a us e s ol i c i t a t i on i s s uf f i c i e nt l y s i m i l a r t o t he of fe ns e s of a i di ng a nd a be t t i ng, c ons pi r a c y , a nd a t t e m ptt ha ts ol i c i t a t i on s houl d fa l l w i t hi n t he in te n d e d o f

fe n s e s c o v e r e d b y § 2 L 1 .2 , e v e n if it is n o t m e n tio n e d e x p lic itly . A l t ho ug h n o C i rc ui thas hel d t hatsol i ci t at i on const i t ut es a drug t ra ff i cki ng offe nse, t he T e nt h C i r c ui tr e c e nt l y he l d t ha ts ol i c i t a t i on i s s uf f i c i e nt l y s i m i l a r t o a i di ng a nd ab et t i n g , co n sp i racy, an d at t em p tt h at“ so l i ci t at i o n o f an o ffen se t h ato t h erw i se m ee t s the defi ni t i on of ‘ cr i m e of vi ol ence ’ i s a l so a c ri m e of vi ol ence ” for pu rposes of t he enhancem entfor c ri m es of vi ol ence un der U . S . S ent enci ng G ui del i nes § 2 L 1 .2 ( b ) ( 1 ) ( A ) . S e e U n ite d S ta te s v . C o r n e lio - P e n a , 4 3 5 F .3 d 1 2 7 9 , 1 2 8 8 ( 1 0 thAl tho ugh th eus eof theterm “ dr ugtr aff ic kin g ” in theU. S. Sentenc ingGu ide lin e s is 5 wh atwemu s tap p l y , wefi n dp er s u as i v e s up p o rti nth e F l o ri d a s t atu te d ef i n i n g a “ traff

i cki n g” offense under

Florida law, which limits traffic king of fense s to those involving 28 grams or more of coc aine. SeeFla. Stat. § 893.135(1) (b) ( 2005). Aguilar-Ortiz solicited only $30 worth of cocaine, which would not qualify as a “ drugtraff

ickingoffense” under Florida law. 8 C ir . 2 0 0 6 ) . W e b e g in o u r a n a ly s is b y e v a lu a tin g th e ju d g m e n t o f c o n v ic tio n a n d s ta tu te t o d et er m i ne w het her the F l ori da st atut e und erw hi ch A gu i l ar -O rt i z w as conv i ct ed com po rt s f

ul l y w i t h t he defi ni t i on prov i ded i n t he A pp l i ca t i on N ot es . S ee K r a w c z a k, 331 F . 3d a t1306. W e f i r s tnot e t ha tde fe nda nt s m a y be found gui l t y of th e c r im e o f

s o lic ita tio n in F lo r id a o n th e b a s is o f a w id e r a n g e o f

c o n d u c t. A conv i ct i on coul d b e bas ed on t he sol i ci t at i on of t he del i very of enorm ou s quant i t i es of na r c ot i c s for r e di s tr i but i on. H ow e ve r , a c onvi c t i on c oul d a l s o be ba s e d on t he s o l i c i t a t i o n o f

t h e s ma l l e s ta mo u n to f

d r u g s s o l e l y fo r p e r s o n a l u s e . Th u s t h e c r i me of s ol i c i t a t i on c a nnotbe c ons i de r e d a s pr ovi di ng a c a t e gor i c a l , or pe r s e , ba s i s for t hi s e nh ance m ent . A cc ordi ng l y, w het her a sol i ci t at i on offe nse und erF l ori da l aw q u a lif ie s a s a d r u g tr a f

f ic k in g o f fe n s e u n d e r th e e n h a n c e m e n t d e p e n d s o n th e fa c ts of t he ca se . 5 In t hi s c as e, t he on l y c on du ctO rt i z has com m i t t ed i s the sol i ci t at i on of a pe r s ona l qua nt i t y a m ountof dr ugs – i n e s s e nc e , a t t e m pt e d pos s e s s i on w i t hout i nt e ntt o di s tr i but e . C f . H ut c hi ns on v. S t a t e , 315 S o. 2d 546 ( F l a . 2d D C A 1975)9

( e x p la in in g th a t F lo r id a la w d o e s n o t r e c o g n iz e a c r im e o f “a tte m p te d c o n s p ir a c y ,” butr a t he r pr ohi bi t s s uc h c onduc ta s “ s ol i c i t a t i on” ) . P os s e s s i on, bot h a c t ua l a nd at t em pt ed, fa i l s t o q ual i fy as a drug t ra ff i cki ng offe nse und ert he G ui del i nes. S ee U . S . S ent enci ng G ui del i nes § 2L 1. 2. S ol i ci t at i on of t he del i very of a per sonal qua nt i t y a m ountof

dr ugs i s notdi f

fe r e nti n ki nd f

r om a t t e m pt e d pos s e s s i on, t hus w e s h o u ld n o t tr e a t th e m a s s u c h fo r p u r p o s e s o f th e e n h a n c e m e n t u n d e r § 2 L 1 .2 . F ur t he r m or e , w e f

i nd t ha ts ol i c i t a t i on of

a pe r s ona l qua nt i t y a m ountof dr ugs i s di ff er enti n k i nd fr om t he ot her i ncho at e off ense s l i st ed i n t he G ui del i nes A p p lic a tio n N o te s . S o lic ita tio n o f a p e r s o n a l q u a n tity a m o u n t o f d r u g s r e s u lts s ol e l y i n t he di s tr i but i on of dr ugs t o t he de fe nda nt . I n s uc h a c a s e , t he de fe nda nt ha s nothi m s e l f

e nga ge d i n t he tr a f

f i c ki ng of dr ugs t o ot he r s . I n c ontr a s t , w he n a d e fe n d a n t c o m m its th e c r im e o f a tte m p te d d is tr ib u tio n , c o n s p ir a c y to d is tr ib u te d ru g s, o r ai d i n g an d ab et t i n g t h e d i stri b u t i o n o f d ru g s, i ti s t h e d efen d an tw h o se cond uctm ay be chara ct er i ze d as the tra ff i cki ng of drug s t o ano t her. T hese t hree of fe ns e s i nc l ude d w i t hi n t he A ppl i c a t i on N ot e s a r e t hus qui t e di f fe r e ntf r om t he sol i ci t at i on of a per sonal qu ant i t y a m ou nt . S ee U ni t e d S t a t e s v. D ol t , 27 F . 3d 235 (6 t h C i r. 1 9 9 4 ) (h o l d i n g t h atso l i ci t at i o n i s n o ta “ co n tro l l ed su b st an ce” o ffen se u n d er § 4 B 1 . 2 o f t h e G u i d el i n es b ecau se “ [s] o l i ci t at i o n i s n o ten u m erat ed as a pr e di c a t e of

fe ns e i n t he G ui de l i ne s a nd F l or i da ’ s s ol i c i t a t i on s t a t ut e i s not10

su ffi ci en t l y si m i l ar t o ai d i n g an d ab et t i n g , co n sp i racy o r at t em p tt o serv e as a pr e di c a t e ‘ c ontr ol l e d s ubs t a nc e of fe ns e ’ a s de f

i ne d by § 4B 1. 2 of

t he S e nt e nc i ng G ui de l i ne s ” ) ; c f . S a l i na s v. U ni t e d S t a t e s , - - - S . C t . - - - - , N o. 05- 8400, 2006 W L 1059408, a t*1 ( A pr . 24, 2006) ( hol di ng t ha tF i f t h C i r c ui te r r e d i n tr e a t i ng d efen d an t ' s p ri o r co n v i ct i o n fo r si m p l e p o ssessi o n o f a co n tro l l ed su b st an ce as a

“ c ontr ol l e d s ubs t a nc e of fe ns e ” w i t hi n m e a ni ng of c a r e e r of

fe nde r S e nt e nc i ng G ui del i ne). U l t i m a t e l y , w e c a nnots a y a s a c a t e gor i c a l m a t t e r t ha ta l l s ol i c i t a t i on o ffen ses u n d er F l o ri d a l aw ei t h er d o o r d o n o tq u al i fy as d ru g traffi ck i n g o ffen ses. T he r e m a y be s om e s ol i c i t a t i on c a s e s w he r e a de fe nda ntha s be e n c onvi c t e d for sol i ci t i ng a s uffi ci ent l y l ar ge qu ant i t y of drugs t hatt he se nt enci ng courtm ay i nfera defe nd ant ’ s i nt entt o d i stri bu t e the drug s. In t ho se ca se s, t he di stri ctcourtm ay de t e r m i ne t ha tt he de fe nda nt ’ s pr i or c onvi c t i on for s ol i c i t a t i on of t he de l i ve r y of dr ugs c ons t i t ut e d a dr ug tr a f f i c ki ng of fe ns e s o l ong a s t he c our tpe r m i s s i bl y f i nds subst ant i al evi dence, on t he basi s of the “ char gi ng do cum ent , w ri t t en pl ea agre em ent , tra nscr i ptof pl ea col l oq uy, and any expl i ci tfa ctual fi nd i ng by t he tri al j udge t o w hi c h t he de fe nda nta s s e nt e d, ” S he pa r d, 125 S . C t . a t1257, t ha tt he defe nd antm anufactured, i m po rt ed, expo rt ed, di stri bu t ed, or di spense d o f a c o n tr o lle d ( o r c o u n te r fe it) s u b s ta n c e , o r p o s s e s s e d a s u b s ta n c e w ith th e in te n t to11

m a nufa c t ur e , i m por t , e xpor t , di s tr i but e , or di s pe ns e i t . S e e U . S . S e nt e nc i ng G ui del i nes § 2L 1. 2 cm t . n. 1(B )( i v). T hi s i s notsuch a c as e. A c c or di ngl y , w e va c a t e t he s e nt e nc e i m pos e d on t he ba s i s of t he e nha nc e m e nta nd r e m a nd for r e s e nt e nc i ng. V AC AT E D A ND RE MAND E D.