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 NOVEMB ER 21 , 2005 THOMAS K. KAH

N CL ERK [D O N OT P UBL ISH]
IN TH E U NITE D S TAT ES C OUR T OF AP PE ALS F OR TH E E LE V EN TH C IR C U IT

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

N o. 04- 1653 0 N on -A rg um en t C ale nd ar

--- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- -- D.C. Dock etNo. 0 4- 00 08 0- CR-2 -0 02 -LAC UNITED STAT ES OF AMERIC A, Pl ai nt iff -Ap pe ll ee,
ve rs us JOSE IGNACI O MACIA, Defen da nt -Ap pe ll an t.

--- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- - Ap peal from the Un ited S tates D istrict C ourt fo r th e N or th er n D ist ri ctof F lor id a

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

(N ove m be r 21, 200 5) Be fo re ED M ON D SO N , C hi ef Ju dg e, TJ OF LA T a nd D U BI N A , C ir cu it Ju dg es . PE R C URIAM :Macia was serving a 170-month sentence for c onvictions of financ ial-base d char g es whe n he 1 esca ped. Macia conce des that a B ooker c onstitut ional err or did not occur
. 2 2 Jo se I gna ci o M ac iaappe al s hi s 15 -m onth se nte nc e, im pose d purs ua nt t o hi s gui lty ple a, f or e sc ap e, 18 U
. S. C. §§ 7 51( a) & 2. Ma ci a co nte nds tha t he is due to 1 be r es en te nc ed

in the li ght

of U nit ed S tate s v. Bo oke r, 125 S
. Ct
. 738 ( 2005 ) be ca use the dis tr ic t c ourt i m

pose d hi s se nte nc e unde r a m an da tor y S en te nc ing G uid el ine s sc he m e. W e va cate Ma ci a’ s se nte nc e an d r em an d f or r es en te nc ing consist ent with Booker. Ma ci a tim el y

r ai se d an ob

j ec tio n ba se d onBl ak el y v. W as hin gto n, 124 S. Ct. 2531 (2004). T hus, we reviewhis Book er c laim for har m less error. See U nit ed S ta te s v. Ma the nia , 409 F
. 3d 1 289, 129 1 ( 11th C ir
. 200 5)
. T he gove rn m en t c onc ed es that the dis tr ic t c ourt c om m itt ed a statut or y Bo oke r er

ro r when it sentenced Mac ia under a m andatory guidelin e sy stem . See United States
v. S he lto n, 400 F
. 3d 1 325, 133 0- 31 ( 11th C ir
. 200 5) ( se tti ng f orth tha t tw o ki nds of sentencing errors exist based on Book er: constitutio nal error s and statuto ry
er ro rs ). T he gov er

nm en t the n be ar s th e bur de n of sho w ing that the statut or y e rr or 2
w as harm le ss. S ee Ma the nia , 409 F
. 3d a t 12 92. A statut or

y Bo oke r er

ro r is h ar m le ss o nly

if the gov er

nm en t sh ow s th at

the
error did no t affe ct the sentence, or had only a very slight eff ect. Id. “ If one canTh e g ov e rnme nt m ist ake nly c on c e de s th at it

c ann ot s ho w h arm le ss e rr or “ be y on d a

re a so na ble 3 doubt,” the hig her standa

rd applicable to constitutional Booker err ors. See United States v. Paz, 405 F. 3 d 9 4 6 , 9 4 8 ( 1 1 th Ci r . 2 0 0 5 )
. So , th e c o n c e s s io n d o e s n o t d e te r mi n e th e r e sult. S till t he g overnme nt failed to dischar g e its burden of showing that the di strict court’s statutory Booke r er

ror wa s h arm le ss. 3 say with fa ir assurance that the sentence wa s not su bstantiallysway ed by the err or, the se nte nc e is d

ue to be a ff

irm ed e ve n th oughthe re w as e rr or . ” I d. ( ci ta tio ns and internal quotatio n m arks om itted). B ut we have written that the statuto ry Booker harm le ss e rr or

standard is not e as y to m ee t: “ [i ] t i s a s di ff

ic ult f or the gov er

nm en t to m eet that standard as it is for a defendant to m eet the third-prong prej udice standard for plain error review .” Id. A nd here, the governm ent not on ly concedes tha t a statut or y Bo oke r er

ro r oc curr ed , but

c onc ed es that i t c an not

sho wthat this
er ro r w as harm le ss. Mo re ove r, the dis tr ic t c ourt m ad e no s ta te m en t tha t i t w oul d 3 have im posed th e sam e sentence r egardless of w hether the guidelin es we re advisory or m andatory
. See Mathenia, 409 F. 3d at 129 2 (concludin g that statuto ry Booker err or wa s harm less where district court annou nced it would have im posed
sa m e se nt en ce i f gu id el in es were u nc on st it ut io na l as ap pl ie d m an da to ril y ). So m e fa ct s e xis t i n th e re co rd that su gge st the dis tr ic t c ourt m igh t have im posed th e sam e sentence under an advisory guidelin es schem e. Macia m oved fo r a dow nw ar d de part

ur e, ba se d onhis a lle gatio n th at he ha d e sc ap ed

be ca use his br ot he r ha d d ie d a nd th atMac ia was n ot gi ve n e no ug h t im e to vi si t h is rel at iv es .Ma c ia ha d e sc a pe d w ithc od e fe nd ant Wi lli am Abr a c zins ka s. 4 Also, the district court orde red the sentenc e to r un consec utively

to Macia’ s undischarg ed prior 5 sentenc e, as r equire d by

U.S.S.G. § 5G1.3(a). A lthough 18 U.S.C
. § 3584(a) provides that a district court may impose a sentenc e to run concurre ntly or consecutively to an undis char g ed sente nce, the district court indicate d that it c onsidered the § 3553(a) fac tors in imposing Macia ’s sentenc e. And § 3584(b) provides that, in de ciding whether to impose a consec utive or a conc urre nt sentence , the c ourt is t o w e ig h th e § 3 55 3( a ) f a c tor s. 4 The district court denied Macia ’ s request, stating that “ the circum stances under
w hic h bo th d ef

en dants w er e ap pr eh en de d do not sug ge st anythi ng tha t w oul d supp ort a dow nw ar d de part

ur e or a nythi ng i n m iti ga tio n of the se nte nc e in this
ca se . ” T he dis tr ic t c ourt the n se nte nc ed Ma ci a to 1 5 m onths’ im

pr iso nm en t: the 4
m idp oin t of

the 12 t o 18 -m onth gu ide lin e se nte nc ing r an ge . S ee Me j ia -G iov an i, 416 F.3d 132 3, 1327 (11th Cir. 2005 ) (stating, in preser ved-err or case, that sentence in m idpo int of guid eline range w as one factor suggesting th at statutory Booker err or wa s harm less). The c ourt noted th at it wa s im posin g this s entence

“ due to the lack of aggravating or m itigatin g factors. ” A nd the dis trict court stated tha t i t “ care fu lly

c onsi de re d” the f

ac tor s in18 U
. S. C. § 35 53( a) in fa shi oni ng the sentence: the court specifically determ ined that the sentence (1) m et “ the general goa ls o f puni shm en t . . . f or y our c ri m ina l c ondu ct

of e sc ap e” a nd ( 2) a ct ed

a s a

“ de te rren ce t o o th ers who m ig ht en ga ge in si m il ar co nd uc t.” 5 The governm ent bears the burden of dem onstrating harm less error. See M at h en i a, 4 0 9 F. 3 dat 1 2 9 2 . We a re u n ab l e t o s ay wi t h fa i r a s s u ra n ce t h at Ma ci a’s5

se nte nc e w as not

sw ay ed sub stanti al ly

by the Bo oke r er

ro r. Ma ci a is d

ue to be resentenced under an advisory guidelin es sy stem

in accordance with Booker. VACATED an d REMANDED.