FI L ED U.S. COURT OF A P P E A LS E LE V E N T H C IR C U IT MAY 10, 2005 THOMAS K. KAH

N CL ERK [DO NOT PUBLISH] IN THE UN ITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FO R T HE EL EV EN TH CIRC UI T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- 1135 6 Non-A rgum ent Calendar

--- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- -- D. C. Docket N o. 02-00469 -CR- 7-1 UNITED STAT ES OF AMERIC A, Plaintiff-Appellee, ve rs us KIMBER LY PATILLO, a. k. a. K im

be rl y Mi ch el le W oods , D ef en dant- Appe llant.

--- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- - Appeal f rom the United State s District Court for the N orthern District of Ge orgia

--- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- -

(M ay 10, 200 5) Be fo re E D MO N D SO N , Ch ie f Judg e, BL A CK and P RY O R, Ci rc uit

Jud ge s.To avoid ex post facto issues, th e PSIused the 2001 e dition of the United States Sentencing 1 Guidelines in ca lculatingPatillo’s guideline se ntence . 2 PE R CU RIA M:

D ef en dant- Appe llant K im

be rl y P at ill o a ppe al s he r 41- m onth se nte nc e fo r conspiracy

to defraud the U nited States, in violation o f 18 U. S. C. § 371 ; and wire fr au d, in vio la tio n of

18 U . S. C. §§ 2 and 1 344, r es ult ing f ro m he r part ic ipatio n ina m ortga ge -f

ra ud s ch em e. P at ill o c ont en ds tha t the dis tr ic t c ourt e rr ed in (1 ) not granting her a two-level a djustm ent to reflec t her m inor role in the schem e, pur suant t o U . S. S. G . 3B 1. 2; and ( 2) de te rm ini ng h er gui de lin e se nte nc e ba se d on fa ct s th at ne ith er w er e ch ar ge d inhe r ind ic tm en t no r fo und be y ond a re as ona ble doub t, in the li ght

of the S upr em e Co urt’ s de ci sio n inBl ak el y v. W as hin gto n, 124 S . C t . 2 5 3 1 ( 2 0 0 4 ) . N o r e v e r s i b l e e rr o r h a s b e e n s h o w n ; w e a f

f i rm. Patillo’ s presentence investigatio n report (“ PSI ”) r ecom m ended that her of fe nse s be gr oupe d to ge the r, pur suant t o U . S. S. G . § 3D 1. 2( d) , and tha t he r ba se of fe nse le ve l be se t a t 6, pur suant t o U . S. S. G . §§ 2 B1 . 1( a) (2 ) (g uid el ine f or offenses involv ing fraud). T he P SI a lso r ec om m en de d a14- le ve l i nc re as e 1 be ca use the of fe nse inv olv ed

appr oxi m at el y

$49 4, 095 in l oss es , pur suant t o U. S. S. G. § 2B1.1(b)(1)( H) (guideline for loss am ount s greater than $40 0,000); a3

2- le ve l i nc re as e be ca

use the of fe nse inv olv ed

f ra udul en t c ondu ct

dur ing a bankr upt cy pr oc ee din g, pur suant t o U . S. S. G . § 2B 1. 1( b) (7 )( B) ; a 2- le ve l i nc re as e be cau se th e o ffen se in vo lv edso ph is ti cat edm ean s, p ur su an t t o U.S.S.G. § 2B1.1(b)(8)( C); a 2-level increase because the offe nse invo lved the unaut horized tra ns fer o r us e o f an y

m ean s o f id en ti fic at io n, p ur su an t t o U.S.S.G. § 2B 1. 1( b) (9 )( C) (i ); and a 2- le ve l do w nw ar d a dj ustm en t f or a cc ep tanc e of res po ns ib il it y , pu rs ua nt to U.S.S.G. § 3 E1.1 (a). Patil lo o bj ec te d to the P SI ’ s r ec om m en de d gu ide lin e en hanc em en ts, but she di d n ot arg ue th ata jury—in st eadof t he di st ric t co ur t— sh ou ldde ci de th em . Patil lo a lso obj ec te d to the P SI ’ s f ai lur e to r ec om

m en d am ino r- ro le a dj ustm en t, pur suant t o U . S. S. G . § 3B 1. 2( b) , be ca use ( 1) he r ro le in the m ortga ge -f ra ud schem e w as m inor com

pared w ith its o ther participants, ( 2) she wa s not aware fu lly of the sc ope of

the sc he m e, ( 3) she w as not inv olv ed in its planni ng, and (4 ) sh e d idno t d efau lt on eit he r of th e lo an s s he en te redas p artof t hi s s ch em e. Af er c ondu cting an evidenti ary hearing on Patillo’ s objections, the district court overruled them , e xcept for the § 2B1.1(b)( 7)(B) adj ustm ent for bankruptcy fr au d. T he c ourt a lso ove rr ule d P at ill o’ s ob

j ec tio n to the P SI ’ s f

ai lur e to re co m m en d am ino r- ro le a dj ustm en t, ba se d onit s sum m ar y de te rm inatio n th at

thi s adj ustm ent was not suppo rted by evidence in the recor d. T he court, how ever,4

sentenced Patillo at the low end of her guid eline range “ in deference to the fact that [Patillo’ s] invol vem ent was le ss than so m e of the [other participants] .” I. Mi nor

Ro le A dj ustm en t Patil lo arg ue s onappe al that the dis tr ic t c ourt e rr ed a s am atte r of

lawby re fu sin g to gr an t he r a m ino r- ro le a dj ustm en t a ft er the c ourt c onc lud ed

that sh e w as le ss c ulp ab le than othe r part ic ipants . S ec tio n 3B 1. 2( b) of the S en te nc ing Guidelines provid es for a two-level a djustm ent in a defendant’ s base offense level if she w as a m inor participant in th e offe nse. U .S .S .G . § 3B1. 2(b). A district court’ s determ ination of a def endant’ s role in an offense constitutes a factual fi ndi ng r ev ie w ed

f or c le ar e rr or . U nit ed

S ta te s v. D e V ar on, 175 F . 3d 9 30, 937 ( 1 1 t h C i r . 1 9 9 9 ) ( e n b a n c ) . Th e d e f e n d a n tb e a r s th e b u r d e n o f p r o v i n g b y a pr ep onde ranc e of

the e vid en ce that sh e is e nti tle d to am ino r- ro le a dj ustm en t. I d. at 939 . A m ino r part ic ipant i n an of fe nse m ea ns a part ic ipant “ [w ] ho i s le ss culpable than m ost oth er participants, but whose role could no t be described as
m ini m al . ” U . S. S. G . § 3B 1. 2. , c om m en t. ( n. 5) . T o de te rm ine w he the r a de fe ndant play ed am ino r ro le in the of

fe nse f or w hic h sh e ha s be enhe ld a cc ount ab le , the district court m

ust “ m easure the def

endant’ s role against the relevant conduct attributable to her in calculating her base offense level. ” D e V aron, 175 F. 3d atAmendment 635 of the Sentencing Guidelines, which r evised the co m m en t ar y t o § 3B1.2., 2 states that a de fenda

nt “who is ac countable unde r § 1B1.3 (Releva nt Conduc t) only for the c onduct in which the def

endant pe rsonally

was involved and who perf orms a limit ed function in conce rted criminal ac tivity

is not pr ec l u d ed from consideration for an a djustment under this guide line.” See U. S.S. G. § 3 B 1. 2, c omm e nt. (n .3 (A )) . Patil lo i mpl ie s th at this am e ndme nt co ns tit ute d a cha

ng e in our law. B ut we have deter mined that the Sentencing Commi ssion, t h ro u g h Amendment 635, ratified our

approa ch in De Var on. See United States v. Boyd, 291 F.3d 1274, 1277 ( 11th Cir. 2002). 5 944. Where the r elevant conduct attribut able to a defendant “ is identical to her ac tua l c ondu ct , she c an not pr ove that sh e is e nti tle d to am ino r- ro le a dj ustm en t sim ply by poi nti ng t o so m e br oa de r cr im ina l sc he m e in whic h sh e w as am ino r part ic ipant b ut f

or w hic h sh e w as not

a cc ount ab le . ” I d. a t 94 1. A lth oughin m an y 2 cases this first m ethod of analy sis will be dispo sitive, the court also m ay m easure the de fe ndant’ s c ulp ab ili ty in co m pari son to t

ha t of oth er part ic ipants in the rel ev an t co nd uc t. Id . at 9 44 -4 5. T he dis tr ic t c ourt he ld P at ill o a cc ount ab le f or the tot al los s am ount

f ro m re al -e state tr an sa ct ion s inw hic h sh e ei the r m isr ep re se nte d he r fi nanc ia l st at us, fal si fie d i de nt ifi cat io n d oc um en ts for“ st raw p ur ch as ers ,”o r he lp edrecrui t b uyers. Shaw n W ilson testified at sentencing that, although another defendant rec ruited him , he pr im ar ily

de al t w ithP at ill o w he n he pr ovi de d f al se ide nti fi catio n inf orm at ion . I nde ed , a lth oughthe c ourt— in s en te nc ing P at ill o a t the lowe nd o f he r gui de lin e range —st at ed that i t ha d de te rm ine d th at she w as le ss i nvol ve d in the m ortga ge -f

ra ud s ch em e than so m e of

he r co de fe ndants , w e ha ve e xpl ai ne d:To the e xtent th at th e dis tr ic t c ourt su mm ari ly de nie d Patil lo’ s r e qu e st f or a min or -r ole 3 a dju stm e nt, we have de te rm ine d th at, “ [i]n ma kin gthe ult imate de te rm inatio n o f t he de f e n d a nt’ s r ole in the offe nse, the sente ncing judge has no duty to make any

specific subsidiary

fac tual finding s. . . . So long an t he dis trict court’s decision is supported by the record and the cour t clear ly resolves any disputed fac tual issues, a simple statement of the district court’s c onclusion is sufficient.” See De Va ron, 175 F .3d at 939 (interna l citations omit ted). 6 a de fe ndant i s no t auto m at ic al ly e nti tle d to am ino r ro le a dj ustm en t m erely because she w as som ew hat less culpable than th e other dis ce rn ab le part ic ipants . R athe r, the dis tr ic t c ourt m ust de te rm ine that the de fe ndant w as le ss c ulp ab le than m ost oth er part ic ipants in he r re le vant c ondu ct . Se e D e V ar on, 175 F . 3d at 94 4 ( em pha sis in or igi na l) . B ec au se P at ill o f ai le d to es ta bli sh b y apr ep onde ranc e of

the e vid en ce that sh e w as le ss c ulp ab le than m ost other participants, the court did not clearly err in deny ing her request for a m inorro le a dj ustm en t. 3 II . Bl ak el y

/B ooke r E rr or Patil lo a lso a sse rt s th at

the dis tr ic t c ourt vi olate d he r Si xthA m en dm en t rights un der Blakely

by determ ining her guideline sentence based on facts that neither we re c harged in her indictm ent nor proven to a jury . Beca use Patillo failed to r ai se thi s c onst itu tio na l c la im in the dis tr ic t c ourt, w e re vie wit onl y f or pla in er ro r. S ee U nit ed

S ta te s v. Ro dr igu ez , 398 F . 3d 1 291, 129 8 ( 11 Ci r. 200 5) th (a ppl y ing pla in e rr or

r ev ie wto Bl ak el y

c la im that a ppe llant f ai le d to r ai se in the district court). Under plain er ror re view, an appellate court m ay not correct an error the defendant failed to raise in the dist rict court unless there is “ (1) er ror,7

(2 ) that i s pl ai n, and ( 3) that a ff ec ts s ubst an tia l r igh ts. ” I d. ( quot at ion s and internal m arks om itted). “ If a ll three condition s are m et, an appellate court m ay the n e xe rc ise it s di sc re tio n to not ic e a fo rf ei te d e rr or , but

onl y if ( 4) the e rr or seriouslyaff

ects the fair

ness, integrity , or publ ic reputation of judicial pr oc eed in gs .” Id . (qu ot at io ns om it te d) . T he S upr em e Co urt de te rm ine d inAppr en di v . N ewJe rs ey , 120 S . Ct . 234 8 (2 000) , that “ [o ] the r than th e fa ct of apr ior c onvi ct ion , any

f ac t tha t i nc re as es the pe na lty be y ond the pr es cr ibe d st at uto ry m ax im um m ust be sub m itt ed

to a j ur y , and proved bey ond a reasonable doub t.” Id. at 2362-63 . Af ter the district court se nte nc ed P at ill o, the S upr em e Co urt c onc lud ed in Bl ak el y

that the im posit ion—b ased solely

on the sentencing j udge’s f actual findings—o f a se nte nc ing e nhanc em en t a bove the 53- m onth st an dard r an ge ind ic at ed

in the S ta te of W as hin gto n’ s S en te nc ing Re fo rm A ct vio la te d th e de fe ndant’ s S ixth Am endm ent rights because the facts supportin g the finding s neither we re a dm itted by the defendant, nor f

ound by a j ury . Blakely , 124 S. Ct. at 2534-38 . The C ourt in Blakely , how ever, expressly stated that “ [t] he Feder al G uidelin es are not before us , and we ex pr es s n o o pi ni on on th em .” Id . at 2 53 8 n .9. The S uprem e Court in United State s v. Booker, 125 S.Ct. 738 (200 5), however, rec ently

determ ined that “ no dis tinction of constitut ional sig nificance8

[e xis te d] be tw ee n th e Fe de ra l S en te nc ing G uid el ine s and the W as hin gto n procedures at issue [in Blakely ] .” Id. at 749. T he Court, ther efore, concluded that the m an da tor

y na tur e of the gui de lin es r en de re d th em inc om pa tib le w iththe S ixth A m en dm en t’ s gu ar an te e to the r igh t t o aj ur y tr ia l. I d. a t 74 9- 51. T he Co urt a lso re af fi rm ed it s r at ion al e in Appr en di tha t “ [a ] ny f ac t ( oth er than apr ior

c onvi ct ion )
w hic h is ne ce ssary

to supp ort a

se nte nc e ex ce ed ing the m ax im um auth or iz ed

by the f ac ts e sta bli she d by

aple a of gui lty or aj ur y ve rd ic t m

ust be a dm itt ed

by the de fen da nt or p ro ve d t o a jury be y on d a reas on ab le do ub t.” Id . at 7 56 . In Rodriguez, w e re viewed a sim ilar appeal in w hich the appellant had fa ile d to pr es er

ve aBl ak el y

/B ooke r obj ec tio n inthe dis tr ic t c ourt, and the Su pr em e Co urt ha d de ci de d B ooke r w hil e the appe llant’ s se nte nc e w as pe ndi ng o n direct appeal. Apply ing pl ain error review , w e determ ined that the appellant h ad satisfied the first elem ent of plain error by showing error beca

use, under a
m an da tor y gui de lin e sy ste m , the appe llant’ s se nte nc e ha d be ene nhanc ed ba se d on j udi ci al ly de te rm ine d f

ac tua l f ind ing s th at

w en t be y ond the f

ac ts a dm itt ed

by the de fen da nt or f

ou nd by the jury. Rod rig ue z, 39 8 F .3dat 1 29 8. W e al so d et er

m ine d inRo dr igu ez that the se co nd e le m en t of pla in- er ro r re vie wha d be enm et . I d. a t 12 99. W e expla ine d th at , a lth oughthe Bo oke r er ro r had not b een “plain” when the court had sentenced the appellant, “ wher e the lawatWe expl ained in fur ther d et ai l i n R o driguez that “pre -B ooker de fenda nts must establish a 4 rea sonable proba

bility that if the district c ourt had c onsidered the guidelines rang e it arr ived at using extra-ver dict enhanc ements as mer ely adviso ry , instead of mandatory , and had taken into acc ount any otherwise unc onsidered [18 U.S.C. § 3553(a)] fac tors, the court wo u ld have imposed a lesser sentenc e than it did.” See Rodriguez, 398 F.3d at 1302. 9 the ti m e of

tr ia l w as se ttl ed

and c le ar ly

c ontrary to the lawa t the ti m e of

appe al —i t is e noug h th at

the e rr or be ‘ pla in’ a t the ti m e of

appe llate c onsi de ratio n. ” I d. (quotation om itted); see also Booker, 125 S.Ct. at 769 (directing that decision wa s ap pl ic ab le to all cas es on di rect ap pe al ). But we concluded in Rodriguez that no plain err or had occurred bec ause, unde r the thi rd

e le m en t of

pla in e rr or , the appe llant h ad f ai le d to sho wthat the Bo oke r er ro r “ af fe ct [e d] sub stanti al r igh ts, ” that i s, that the e rr or “ m ust have affe cted the outcom e of the district court proceedings.” Rodriguez, 398 F. 3d at 1299 , 130 6 ( quot at ionom itt ed ). W e dis cu sse d th at the te st f or sho w ing that the er ro r “ af fe ct ed the out co m e of

the dis tr ic t c ourt pr oc ee din gs” w as the f orm ulatio n of ar ea sona

ble pr oba bil ity of adif fe re nt r es ult , w hic h m eans a pr oba bil ity

“ suf fi ci en t t o un de rm ine c onf ide nc e in the out co m e. ” I d. a t 12 99 ( quot at ion om itt ed ). W e al so r ei te rate d th at , und er thi s th ir d e le m en t, “ [i ] t i s th e de fe ndant rathe r than th e [g ] ove rn m en t w ho b ears the bur de n of pe rs ua sio n w ithr es pe ct

to pr ej udi ce . ” I d. ( quot at ionom itt ed ). B ec au se w e de te rm ine d th at the r ec or d in 4 Ro dr ig ue z “ pr ov id e[d ] no reas on to be li ev e an y res ul t [wa s] m or e li ke ly tha n n ot ,”In deter mining that B ooker e rror

occur red in Rodriguez, we noted, without dec iding, that a n 5 enhanc ement for

obstruction of justice may not have be en a B ooker e rror “bec ause the jury

verdic t convictingthe appe llant of t h e crimes he denied ne cessa rily , albeit implicitly , found that he ha d eng ag ed in beha

vior that fit[] within § 3C1.1.” See Rodrigue z, 398 F.3d at 1298 n.5. In the instant case , howeve r, P atillo contested during her plea colloquy and at sentenc ing the fac ts underlying he r se nte nc e e nh anc e me nts . 10 w e co nc lud ed

that the appe llant h ad

not m et his bur de n onthe thi rd

e le m en t of pla in- er ro r re vie w . I d. a t 13 01. A nd w e co nc lud ed that w e “ ha [d ] no o cc as ionto de ci de howhe w oul d have f ar ed und er the f ourth [ el em en t] . ” I d. Inthe ins tant c as e, P at ill o c ont es te d th e fa ct s onw hic h th e co urt r el ie d in ca l cu l at i n g h erg u i d el i n e s en t en ce u n d era man d at o ry g u i d el i n es s yst em. We conclude that Book er e rror occ urred and that it is now “plain.” S ee Rodriguez, 398 F. 3d at 12 98- 99. B ut s im ilar to the f ac ts i n R odr igu ez , P at ill o ha s no t 5
expla ine d onappe al , m

uc h le ss p ro ve n un de r the thi rd e le m en t of

pla in- er ro r rev ie w, ho w hersu bs ta nt ia l ri gh ts were af fect edby the co ur t’s Bo ok er erro r. In de ed , dis tr ic t c ourts s til l m ust c onsi de r gui de lin e range s. S ee Bo oke r, 125 S. Ct . a t 76 4 ( “ W ith out

the ‘ m an da tor

y ’ pr ovi sio n, the [ Se nte nc ing Re fo rm A ct ] noneth eless requires j udges to take acc ount of the G uidelin es together with other s en t en ci n g g o al s ”) . B ec au s e t h e c o u rt h ea rd ex t en s i v e t es t i m o n y o n Pa t i l l o ’s of fe nse c ondu ct , the c ourt, a t l ea st i m pli ci tly , c onsi de re d th e na tur e an dThese o t h er re l ev ant factors in § 3553(a) include: “( 1) the nature a nd circ umstances of

the 6 offe nse and the history and char acte ristics of the defe ndant; (2) the need for the s en t ence imposed–(A) to r efle ct the seriousness of the offe nse, to promote re spect for the law, a nd to provide just punishm ent for the offe nse; (B ) t o aff ord adequate deterr ence to criminal conduct; (C) t o protec t the public from f

urther c rimes of the de fenda n t ; an d (D) to pr ovide the def endant with nee ded educational or vocational training , medical care , or ot her corre ctional treatment in the most effec tive m an n er ; ( 3 ) t h e k i n d s o f s en t en ce s av ai l ab l e; (4 ) t h e k i n d s o f s en t en ce an d th e s en t en ci n g ra n ge established for

. . . (A) the applicable cate g ory of off ense c ommitt ed by

the applica

ble categ ory

of d e f e n d an t a s s e t f

o rth i n th e gu i d e l i n e s . . . ; ( 5 ) an y p e rt i n e n t p o l i c y s t at e m e n t [] ; ( 6) the ne e d to avoid unwar

rante d sentenc e disparities among de fenda nts with sim ilar re cords who ha ve bee n found guilty of similar conduc t; and (7) the ne ed to provide restitution to any victims of the offe nse.” See 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a)(1) -(7) . 11 circum stances of the offense and Patillo’s c haracte r. See 18 U. S. C. § 355 3(a)( 1). 6 Inim posi ng a se nte nc e at

the lowe nd o f Patil lo’ s gu ide lin e range , ba se d onit s determ ination that she play ed a lesser role than som e of the participants, the court al so d em onstrate d th at

it c onsi de re d th e ne ed

f or the se nte nc e im

pose d. S ee 18 U. S. S. C. § 355 3(a)( 2)-(4). A nd the court ordered a re stitut ion am ount that refle cted the loss sus tained by the victim s of the fra

ud. Se e 18 U. S. C. § 3 55 3( a)(7 ). E ve n inthe abse nc e of

the se de te rm inatio ns, the li ke lih ood of adif fe re nt re sul t w oul d be spe cu la tiv e w ith out ac le ar state m en t or

sig n f ro m the c ourt tha t, but f or the f ac t tha t i ts d isc re tio n w as c onstra ine d un de r the f ed er al gui de lin es , it wou ldha ve im

po se d a li gh te r se nt en ce. See Ro dr ig ue z, 39 8 F .3dat 1 30 0- 01 . Patillo has not cited to such evidence. A t best, it is unclear whether the court would have im

posed a different sentence. Patillo, ther efore, has not m et her burden12

of sho w ing ar ea sona

ble pr oba bil ity that the r es ult

of he r se nte nc ing w oul d have be endif fe re nt b ut f

or the Bo oke r er

ro r, and w e ne ed

not de te rm ine the f

ourth el em en t o f pl ai n- erro r rev ie w. See id . at 1 30 1. In sum , the district court er red under Booker and this error w as “plain.” W e, however, conclude that we m ay not exercise our discretion to not ice this forfeited er ro r be ca use P at ill o ha s f

ai le d to c ar

ry he r bur de n un de r the thi rd e le m en t of

pla in error to show that this pre-B ooker error affe cted her substantial rights . W e, th eref or e, affi rm

Pat il lo ’s 41 -m on th sen te nc e. AFFIRMED.