FI L ED U.S. COURT OF APPEAL S EL EVENTHCI RCUI T J ANUARY 25, 2010 J OHN L EY ACTI NG CL ERK [DO NOT PUBLISH] IN THE UN ITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELE VENTH CIRCUIT

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ No. 0 9- 13 85 4 Non -Arg um en t Ca le nd ar

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ D. C. Dock etNo. 0 6- 00 02 6- CR-6 UNITED STAT ES OF AMERIC A, Pl ai nt iff -Ap pe ll ee, ve rs us HOMER HOLLOWAY, Defen da nt -Ap pe ll an t.

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ App eal fro m

th e Uni te d S ta te s Di st ric t Co urt fo r th e So ut he rnDis tri ctof Ge or gi a

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ _ (J anua ry 25 , 20 10 ) Befo re DUBINA, Ch ie f Ju dg e, BLACK an d P RYOR, Ci rcu itJu dg es . PER CURI AM:App el la ntHom er Ho ll owa y ch al le ng es hi s 1 56 -m on th sen te nc e fo r co ns pi racy to d is tri bu te , andto po ss es s wi th in te ntto di st rib ut e, a quant it y of crac k andco cai ne , invi ol at io n o f 21 U.S.C. § 8 46 . Hol lo way rai se s t hr ee arg um en ts on ap pe al : (1 ) th e d is tri ctco urt erredin cal cu la ti ng hi s cr im in al hi st ory cat eg ory , (2) th e d is tri ctco urt erredby fail in g t o g ran t Ho ll oway a do wnwar d ad jus tm en t b as edon hi s m in orrol e in th e o ffen se , and(3) th e d is tri ctco urt vi ol at edth e p le a ag reem en t an d h is Six th Am en dm en t ri gh ts by accep ti ng th e pr ob at io n o ffi cer’s ca lc ul at io n o f hi s b as e o ffen se lev el ba se d o n aqu an ti ty of 15 to 50 ki lo gr am s o f co cai ne . I. Hol lo way arg ue s tha t t he di st ric t co urt erredin rul in g t ha t h is pri or bu rg la ry of fen se s ar e n ot“rel at edoff en se s” un de r U.S.S.G. § 4 A1.2 (a)( 2) for pu rp os es of cal cu la ti ng hi s cr im in al hi st ory . Hol lo way co nt en ds th athi s p rio r co nc urren t se nt en ces forbu rg la ry

co nv ic ti on s i n s ep arat e co un ti es were p artof a“ si ng le co m m on sch em e o r pl an ” b ecau se th ey oc cu rredwithi n ash ort s pa n o f week s i n a sm al l g eo gr ap hi c are a an d i nv ol ve d t he same core gro up of a cco m pl ic es an d t he sa m e type o f vi ct im , th us sat is fy in g s om e o f th e fac to rs id en ti fie d i n U.S.S.G. § 1B 1.3 cmt. n .9(a ). Hol lo way no te s t ha t t he on ly reaso n t he two set s o f cri m es

2were n otform al ly con so li da te d fo r tr ia l o r se nt en ci ng was due to Geor gi a’s

juri sd ic ti on al laws . W e rev ie w a di st ric t co urt’s d et erm in at io n o f whe th er p rio r co nv ic ti on s ar e rel at edfor

pu rp os es of U.S.S.G. § 4A1 .2 fo r cl ear e rro r. Uni te d Sta tes v. Herna ndez -Ma rt in ez , 38 2 F .3d13 04 , 13 06 (11 th Cir . 20 04 ). “ [W] e wil l n otfin d cl ear e rro r un le ss ou r rev ie w of the reco rdlea ve s u s wi th th e d efi ni te an d fi rm co nv ic ti on th ata m is ta ke ha s b een co m m it te d.” Uni te d Sta tes v. Whi te , 33 5 F .3d 13 14 , 13 19 (11 th Cir . 20 03 ) (i nt ern al qu ot at io n m ark s o m it te d) . Incal cu la ti ng a de fen dant ’s cri m in al hi st ory sco re, p rio r se nt en ces im po se d in un rel at edcas es are co un te d s ep arat el y , whi le pri orsen te nc es im po se d i n re la te d cas es are t reat edas o ne sen te nc e. U.S.S.G. § 4 A1.2 (a)( 2) . Purs ua ntto th e Nov em be r 1, 2 00 5 e di ti onof t he Uni te d S ta te s Se nt en ci ng Gui de li ne s M anua l, whi chwas i n e ffec t atth e ti m e o f Hol lo way ’s off en se , if the pri orsen te nc es are no t s ep arat edby an in te rv en in g a rres t, the y are co ns id eredrel at edif t he y res ul te d fro m off en se s tha t (A) o ccu rredon th e sa m e o ccas io n, (B ) were p artof asi ng le co m m on sch em e o r pl an , or (C ) were c on so li da te d fo r tr ia l o r se nt en ci ng . 1 U.S.S.G. § 4 A1.2 cm

t. n .3 (2 00 5) . The Sentenc ing Commission abandoned the three -fa ctor re latedness test in the 1 November

1, 2007 edition of the Guidelines Ma nual, but the par

ties have a ll agree d that the 2005 edition should apply

due to ex post facto conce rns. SeeU.S.S.G. § 4A1.2(a)( 2) (2007) . 3W e co nc lu de th atth e d is tri ctco urt d idno t cl earl y err i n d et erm in in g t ha t t he of fen se s ar e u nr el at ed . The ev id en ce s up po rts th e d is tri ctco urt’s co nc lu si on th at th e two set s o f of

fen se s wer e n otco m

m it te d o n t he same occa si onan d wer e n ot pa rt o f th e sa m e co m

m on sch em e o r pl anas t he y were co m

m it te d i n d iff

eren t co un ti es an d i nv ol ve d d iff eren t v ic ti m s an d d iff

eren t ac co m

pl ic es . II . Hol lo way arg ue s tha t t he di st ric t co urt erredin fai li ng to co ns id er h im a

“ m in orpa rti ci pant ,” th ereb y de nyin g ado wnwar d a dju stm en t b as edon hi s m in or ro le in th e o ffen se . Hol lo way arg ue s t ha t t he pre se nt en ce i nv es ti ga ti on rep ort (PSI ) cl earl y

sh owe d t ha t h is rol e in th e dru g d is tri bu ti on org an iz at io n was si gn ifi can tl y

les s t ha n t he rol e o f co de fen da ntSte ph an ie Co ll in s, an d h e was th eref or e en ti tl edto a m in orrol e reduc ti on . A di st ric t co urt’s d et erm in at io n o f whe th er a d efen da ntqu al ifi es fora m in or ro le ad jus tm en t u nd er the gu id el in es is a fi nd in g o f fac t t ha t we re vi ew on ly for cl ear e rro r. Uni te d Sta tes v. Ro dr ig ue z De Va ro n , 17 5 F .3d93 0, 9 34 (11 th Cir . 19 99 ) (en ba nc ). The p ro po ne ntof t he do wnwar d a dju st m en t b ears th e b ur de n o f es tabl is hi ng hi s m in orrol e in th e o ffen se by a prep on de ran ce o f th e ev id en ce. Id. at93 9. Pu rs ua ntto U.S.S.G. § 3 B1 .2, a d efen da ntm ay rece iv e an ad

jus tm en t fo r hi s m it ig at in g ro le in th e o ffen se if h e “pl ay s a p artin co m m it ti ng th e o ffen se th at 4m ak es hi m

subs ta nt ia ll y

les s cu lp ab le th anth e av erag e p art ic ip an t.” U.S.S.G. § 3B 1.2 cmt. n .3(A) . A two- le ve l, m in orrol e reduc ti on un de r § 3 B1 .2(b ) ap pl ie s t o a d efen da nt“ who is les s cu lp ab le th anm os t o th er p art ic ip an ts , bu t wh os e ro le co ul d n otbe de sc rib edas m in im al .” U.S.S.G. § 3 B1 .2, co m m en t. (n .5). Und er De Var on , th e d is tri ctco urt co nduc ts a two -p artan al y si s o f a de fen da nt ’s con du ctto de te rm in e whe th er the de fen da ntis en ti tl edto a m in orrol e reduc ti on . 17 5 F .3dat 9 40 -4 5. Fi rs t, the co urt m us t m eas ur e th e d efen da nt ’s rol e ag ai ns t t he rel ev an t co nduc t fo r whi ch he was h el d a cco un tabl e atsen te nc in g. Id. at94 5. Se co nd , th e d is tri ctco urt m ay co m pa re “ th e d efen da nt ’s rol e ag ai ns t t he ot he r pa rti ci pa nt s, t o t he ex te ntth atth ey are d is cern ab le , inth atrel ev an t co nduc t.” Id . “ [A] defen da ntis no t au to m at ic al ly ent it le d t o am in orrol e ad jus tm en t m erel y be cau se [he ] was so m ewh atles s cu lp ab le th anth e o th er d is cern ab le pa rti ci pa nt s.” Id. at 9 44 . To ap pl y

th e ad jus tm en t u nd er thi s p ro ng , th e d is tri ctco urt m us t fi nd th at“ th e d efen dantwas l es s cu lp ab le th an mos t o th er pa rt ic ip an ts in[hi s] rel ev an t co nduc t.” Id. (em

ph as is in ori gi na l). The di stric t co urt d idno t cl earl y err i n d et erm in in g t ha t Ho ll owa y was a n av erag e p art ic ip an t an d, t he refo re, i s n oten ti tl edto a m in orrol e reduc ti on . The factth atHol lo way

be li ev es he is les s cu lp ab le th anon e co -co ns pi rat or , Col li ns , is no t p ers ua si ve on th is po in t as th e co ns pi racy inc lu de d m or e th anth irty pe op le . 5As a wh ol e th e ev id en ce s up po rts th e d is tri ctco urt’s co nc lu si on th atHol lo way

was no t en ti tl edto a m in orrol e ad jus tm en t. II I. Hol lo way arg ue s fo r th e fi rs t t im e o n app eal th at(1) th e d is tri ctco urt vi ol at edhi s Si xt h Am en dm en t ju ry tri al rig ht s b y

acce pt in g the PSI’s ca lc ul at io n of hi s b as e o ffen se lev el ba se d o n aqu an ti ty of 15 to 50 ki lo gr am s o f co cai ne , and (2 ) th e d is tri ctco urt’s re li an ce o n t he PSI’s ca lc ul at io n o f th e am ou ntof c oc ai ne he was re sp on si bl e fo r vi ol at edth e p ro vi si onof h is pl ea ag reem en t s ta ti ng th atno in fo rm at io n p ro vi de d b y

Hol lo way

wou ldbe us edag ai ns t h im .

“ W e rev ie w sen te nc in g a rg um en ts rai se d fo r th e fi rs t t im e o n app eal for pl ai n e rro r.” Uni te d Sta tes v. Bo ni ll a , 57 9 F .3d12 33 , 12 38 (11 th Cir . 20 09 ). To es tabl is h p la in erro r, anap pe ll an t m us t s ho w th ere i s (1 ) erro r, (2 ) th atis pl ai n, an d (3 ) th atpre

jud ic ia ll y affe ct edhi s s ub st an ti al rig ht s. Id. If th e ap pe ll an t s ho ws tha t al l t hr ee co nd it io ns are m et , “we m ay ex erci se ou r di sc ret io n t o re co gn iz e a fo rfei te d e rro r, bu t o nl y

if t he erro r se rio us ly affect s the fai rn es s, i nt eg rit y or publ ic rep ut at io n o f jud ic ia l p ro ceed in gs .” Uni te d Sta tes v. Mo ri ar ty , 42 9 F .3d 10 12 , 10 19 (11 th Cir . 20 05 ) (i nt ern al qu ot at io n m ark s an d a lt erat io n o m it te d) . In App re nd i , th e Supr em e Co urt h el d t ha t, ex cep t fo r th e fac t o f pr io r co nv ic ti on s, the go ve rn m en t m us t p ro ve to a jury bey on d areas on ab le do ub t an y

6factth atin crea se s t he st atut ory m ax im um sen te nc e. App re nd i v. Ne w Jer se y , 53 0 U.S. 46 6, 4 90 , 12 0 S . Ct. 2 34 8, 2 36 2- 63 , 14 7 L. Ed. 2 d 4 35 (20 00 ). “ The ‘statut ory m ax im um ’ fo r App re nd i pu rp os es is th e m ax im um sen te nc e a jud ge m ay im po se so le ly on t he ba si s o f th e fac ts refl ect edin th e jury verd ic t o r ad m it te d b y th e d efen da nt .” Bla kel

y v. W as hi ng to n , 54 2 U.S. 2 96 , 30 3, 1 24 S. Ct. 2 53 1, 2 53 7, 15 9 L. Ed. 2 d 4 03 (20 04 ) (em ph as is in ori gi na l). In Uni te d Sta tes v. S mith , we he ldth atwhen a se nt en ci ng co urt u nd ers to odth at“ itwas o pe rat in g u nd er an advi so ry sch em e, it s fa ct -fi nd in g d idno t i m pl ic at e th e Si xt h Am en dm en t.” 4 80 F.3 d 1 27 7, 1 28 1 (1 1t h C ir. 2 00 7) . “ Incas es wher e a d efen da nt ’s actua l s en te nc e fal ls withi n t he ran ge pre sc rib edby the st atut e fo r th e cri m e o f co nv ic ti on [,] th ere is no App re nd i co ns ti tu ti on al erro r.” Uni te d Sta tes v. Un de rw oo d , 44 6 F .3d13 40 , 13 44 (11 th Cir . 20 06 ) (i nt ern al qu ot at io n m ark s o m it te d) . The di stric t co urt d idno t v io la te Hol lo way ’s pl ea ag reem en t o r hi s Si xt h Am en dm en t ri gh ts un de r App re nd i , andHol lo way ha s fa il edto sh ow t ha t t he di st ric t co urt co m

m it te d p la in erro r in sen te nc in g h im . Hol lo way ’s sen te nc e o f 15 6 m on th s’ im

pr is on m en t fa ll s wi th in th e im pr is on m en t ra ng e p res cri be d b y th e st atut e. Se e 21 U.S.C. § 8 41 (b )(1 )(C) . The p ro ba ti on off ic er an d t he di st ric t co urt ba se d i ts cal cu la ti on of t he am ou ntof c oc ai ne att rib ut ab le to Hol lo way on pro ffer st at em en ts an d t es ti m on y of s ev eral of Ho ll owa y ’s co- co ns pi rat or s, n oton

7in fo rm at io n p ro vi de d b y Hol lo way

as p artof h is pl ea ag reem en t. The refo re, the di st ric t co urt d idno t co m m itpl ai n e rro r in co ns id eri ng su ch ev id en ce. AFFIRMED.

8