FILED U.S. COURT OF AP P EALS E LEV EN T HC IRC U IT MAY 6, 2005 THOMAS K. KAH

N CLERK [ 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- 12952 N on -A rgum entC al endar

________________________ D. C . Do c k e tNo . 0 4 - 0 0 0 0 8 - C R - 3 - L AC 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 R O N A L D D E 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 N or the rn D i s tr i c tof F l or i da

_________________________ ( M a y 6, 2005) B efo re B IR C H , 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:2

R o n a ld D e e s ap p e a ls h is n in e ty - f o u r - m o n th s e n te n c e f

o rb e in g af

e lo n in p o s s e s s i o n o f

af i r e a rm i n v i o l a t i o n o f

1 8 U . S. C. § § 9 2 2 ( g ) ( 1 ) . W e a f f i rm. I. D ee s f i rs tcont ends thatthe di stri ctcourterre d b y c on cl ud i ng thati tl ac ked a uthor i ty t o m a ke hi s f

e de r a l s e nt e nc e run c onc urr e nt l y w i th hi s the n- i m pe ndi ng s ta te s e n te n c e . A d is tr ic t c o u r t h a s a u th o r ity to im p o s e as e n te n c e c o n c u rr e n t w ith af u tu r e s ta te s e n te n c e , a n d its f a ilu r e to r e c o g n iz e th a t a u th o r ity is r e v e r s ib le e rr o r . U n ite d S ta te s v . M c D a n ie l, 3 3 8 F .3 d 1 2 8 7 , 1 2 8 8 ( 1 1 th C ir . 2 0 0 3 ) ( p e rc u r ia m ) . D e e s c ont e nds tha tthe di s tr i c tc our t ’ s c om m e nta ts e nt e nc i ng— tha ti tw a s “ of the b elief th at yo u ca n ’tru n a s en ten ce co n cu rr en t w ith a s en ten ce th at d o es n ’t e x is t”

— r e v e a ls it m is u n d e r s to o d its a u th o r ity a n d , th e r e f o r e , e rr e d . W e w i l l as sum e, w i tho utdeci di ng , thatD ee s’ cont ent i on thatthe di stri ct c our ti m pr ope r l y f

a i l e d t o r e c ogni z e i t s a uthor i ty i s c orr e c t , be c a us e a ny e rr orby th e d i stri ctco u rtw as h arm l ess an yw ay. F i rst , th e erro r i t sel f d i d n o taffect D ees’ ul t i m a t e s e nt e nc e be c a us e , e ve n ha d the di s tr i c tc our tr e c ogni z e d ( a nd e xe r c i s e d) i t s autho ri ty t o m ake D ee s’ se nt ence concurrentt o the i m pend i ng st at e s ent ence , the s t a t e c our tw oul d ha ve be e n f r e e t o i gnor e tha tor de ra nd i m pos e ac ons e c ut i ve se nt ence . S ee U ni t ed S t at es v. A nd re w s, 33 0 F . 3d 13 05 , 13 07 –0 8 n . 1 (11 th C i r. 20 03 ) ( “ W e f

ul l y r ec og ni ze thatthe S up re m ac y C l ause do es no tperm i tfe dera lAf ter D e e s f ile d his b ri e f in this c a se , th eSupremeCourt a pp lie d th eho ldingof

B lake ly 1 to the federal sentencingguidelines in United States v. Booker, 543 U.S. __, 125 S. Ct. 738 (2005). 3 c o u r ts to c o n tr o l h o w as ta te c o u r t s e n te n c e s ad e f e n d a n t.” ) S e c o n d , w h e n th e s ta te c o u r t e v e n tu a lly s e n te n c e d D e e s , it r a n h is s ta te s e n te n c e c o n c u rr e n t w ith h is f e de r a l s e nt e nc e . S e e A ppx. t o A ppe l l e e ’ s B r . T hus , be c a us e a ny e rr orby the di s tr i c tc our tdi d nota f

f e c tD e e s ’ s ubs t a nt i a l r i ght s , r e m a nd on tha te rr ori s not w a rr a nt e d. F e d. R . C r i m . P . 52( a ) ; W i l l i a m s v. U ni t e d S t a t e s , 503 U . S . 193, 203, 11 2 S . C t . 11 12 , 11 20 –2 1 (19 92 ). II. N e xt , D e e s c ont e nds tha the i s e nt i t l e d t o r e s e nt e nc i ng unde rB l a ke l y v. W as hi ng t on , 52 4 U . S . __ , 12 4 S . C t . 25 31 (200 4), because the di stri ctcourt en h an ced h i s sen t en ce b ased o n fact s n ei th er ad m i tt ed b y h i m n o r fo u n d b y a j u ry. 1 B e c a u s e De e s r a i s e d th i s c o n s t i tu t i o n a l o b j e c t i o n f o rth e f i r s tt i m e o n ap p e a l , we r e v ie w it f

o rp la in e rr o r . U n ite d S ta te s v . C o tto n , 5 3 5 U .S . 6 2 5 , 6 3 1

– 3 2 , 1 2 2 S . C t. 17 81 , 17 85 (200 2). U nd erpl ai n err or re vi ew , “ before an app el l at e c ou rtca n c orr e c ta n e rr ornotr a i s e d a ttr i a l the r e m us tbe ( 1) e rr or , ( 2) tha ti s pl a i n, a nd ( 3) thataf fe ct s s ub st ant i al ri gh t s. ” I d. at63 1, 12 2 U . S . at17 85 (quo t at i on and i nt ernal m arks om i tt ed). U nde rourr e c e ntde c i s i on i n U ni t e d S t a t e s v. R odr i gue z , __ F . 3d __, N o. 04-4

12676 ( 11th C i r . F e b. 4, 2005) , D e e s ha s nots how n tha thi s s e nt e nc e w oul d ha ve b e e n d if f e r e n t u n d e rth e n e w B o o k e ra d v is o ry r e g im e . T h e r e f o r e , D e e s a g a in c a nnots how tha thi s s ubs t a nt i a l r i ght s w e r e a f f e c t e d. III. F i nal l y, D ee s a rgues thatou r pre ce denton the i ss ue of w hether “ coi nci dent al p o s s e s s io n ” o f

af ir e a rm d u r in g th e c o m m is s io n o f a n o th e rf

e lo n y is s u f

f ic ie n t to s uppor tthe f

our - l e ve l e nha nc e m e ntunde rU . S . S . G . § 2K 2. 1( b) ( 5) i s w r ong because i ti s c on tra ryt o the l angu age of the gu i del i nes ( and the ho l di ng of t en other c i r c ui t s ) . A l though he r e c ogni z e s tha tw e c a nnotove rrul e apr i orpa ne l de c i s i on, h e r a is e s th e is s u e to p r e s e rv e it f o rap p e a l to th e S u p r e m e C o u r t. D e e s c orr e c t l y a c know l e dge s tha tthe pr i orpr e c e de ntrul e w oul d pr e ve ntus f r om a c c e pt i ng hi s a r gum e nt , w e r e w e t o r e a c h i t . S e e U ni t e d S t a t e s v. H oga n, 986 F .2 d 1 3 6 4 , 1 3 6 9 ( 1 1 th C ir . 1 9 9 3 ) ( “[ I ]t is th e f irm ly e s tab lis h e d ru le o f th is C ir c u it thatea ch succ ee di ng panel i s bou nd by the ho l di ng of the fi rs tpanel t o add re ss an i s s u e o f l a w , u n l e s s a n d u n t i l th a th o l d i n g i s o v e rru l e d e n b a n c o rb y th e Su p r e me C o u r t.” ) . H is c h a lle n g e , h o w e v e r , is f o r e c lo s e d f

o ram o r e p r e lim in a ry r e a s o n . D e e s ’ a r g u m e n t r e g a r d in g § 2 K 2 .1 ( b ) ( 5 ) is m is p la c e d b e c a u s e h e d id n o t a c tu a lly recei v e th e fo u r-l ev el en h an cem en tu n d er th atsen t en ci n g p ro v i si o n . In st ead , D ees’ to ta l a d ju s te d o f f e n s e le v e l w a s b a s e d o n ac r o s s - r e f e r e n c e f o u n d a t §The cross-re ferenceapplies if a de fenda nt possesses a firear

m “in connec tion with” 2 another offense, § 2K2.1(c )(1) , while the four-leve l enhanc ement under § 2K2.1(b)( 5) re quires that the fire arm bepossessed “in c onnection with” a felony . 5 2 K 2 .1 ( c ) ( 1 ) ( A ) , w h ic h r e q u ir e d th e ju d g e to s e n te n c e h im b a s e d o n § 2 D 1 .1 , a c o m p le te ly s e p a r a te g u id e lin e s p r o v is io n w ith its o w n o f f e n s e - s p e c if

ic e nha nc e m e nt s . B e c a us e D e e s w a s f ound w i th be tw e e n f

i ve a nd tw e nty gr a m s of c o c a in e b a s e , h e w a s g iv e n ab a s e o f f e n s e le v e l o f

2 6 u n d e r§ 2 D 1 .1 ( c ) ( 7 ) . T h e n , a tw o- l e ve l ( notf

our - l e ve l ) e nha nc e m e ntw a s a dde d unde r§ 2D 1. 1( b) ( 1) f or pos s e s s i ng ada nge r ous w e apon. T hus , thi s C our t ’ s pr e c e de nti nt e rpr e t i ng § 2K 2. 1( b) ( 5) di d nota f

f e c tD e e s ’ s e nt e nc e . D e e s doe s nota r gue i n hi s br i e f tha tthe n e a r ly id e n tic a l la n g u a g e in § 2 K 2 .1 ( c ) ( 1 ) , th e c r o s s - r e f e r e n c e th a t e n h a n c e d h is s e nt e nc e , s houl d be i nt e rpr e t e d the s a m e w a y he a r gue s tha tl a ngua ge s houl d be i nt erpret ed un der § 2K 2. 1(b)(5). 2 AF F I RME D.