[DO NOT PUBLISH] IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT

________________________ No. 12

- 16309 Non

- Argument Calendar

________________________ D.C. Docket No. 8:10

- cr - 00041

- JDW

- AEP

- 1

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff

- Appellee,

versus CEDRIC WILLIAMS, a.k.a. Pain, Defendant

- Appellant.

________________________ Appeal from the United States District Court fo r the Middle District of Florida

________________________ (January 2, 2014) Before HULL, MARCUS and PRYOR , Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: Cedric Williams appeals his sentence of 6 0 months of imprisonment, imposed following a remand for resentencing under the Fair Sentencing Act of

Case: 12-16309 Date Filed: 01/02/2014 Page: 1 of 32 2010 . Will iams argues that the district court erred by impos ing a mandatory minimum sentence based on a drug quantity that was not alleged in the indictment or submitted to a jury, s ee Alleyne v. United States , 570 U.S. ___, 133 S. Ct. 2151 (2013) , and that the district court exceeded the limited scope of our mandate when it considered whether Williams was ineligible for federal benefits , see 21 U.S.C. § 862(a)(1)(C). We affirm. Any error in sentencing Williams to a mandatory minimum sentence base d on a drug quantity that was not alleged in his indictment was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt

. Williams admitted, by failing to object to the facts in his presentence investigation report, that he was responsible for 32.24 grams of crack cocaine , see United States v. Beckles , 565 F.3d 832, 844 (11th Cir. 2009) , which

serve s as the equivalent to a finding by a jury beyond a reasonable doubt that Williams distributed more than 28 grams of cocaine base, see United States v. Booker , 543 U.S. 220, 244, 125 S. Ct. 738, 756 (2005) (“ Any fact

. . . which is necessary to support a sentence exceeding the maximum authorized . . . [may] be admitted by the defendant. ”). Because the “ record does not contain evidence that could rationally lead to a contrary finding with respect to drug quantity , ” any error by the district court was harmless. United States v. Anderson , 289 F.3d 1321, 1327 (11 th Cir

. 2002)

.

Case: 12-16309 Date Filed: 01/02/2014 Page: 2 of 33 The district court also did not violate our mandate. “[O] ur mandates do not bar consideration of matters that could have been, but were not, resolved in earlier proceedings.” United States v. Crape , 603 F.3d 1237, 1241 (11 th Cir

. 2010) (quoting Luckey v. Miller , 929 F.2d 618, 621 (11th Cir.1991) ) (internal quot ations and alterations omitted )

. Although Williams did not challenge the finding in his presentence investigation report that he was ineligible for federal benefits under section 862(a)(1)(C) , see Beckles , 565 F.3d at 844 , th at issue was not mention ed during hi s first sentencing hearing or in the written judgment. The d istrict court did not violate our mandate by d ecid ing while the case was on remand that Williams was ineligible for federal benefits

. See Crape , 603 F.3d at 1241

. Williams does not challenge th e substance of that ruling on appeal. See United States v. Curtis , 380 F.3d 1308 , 1310 ( 11 th Cir

. 2004 ).
We AFFIRM Williams’s sentence. Case: 12-16309 Date Filed: 01/02/2014 Page: 3 of 3