FI LED U. S . COURT OF AP PE ALS E L E V E N T H C IR C U IT June 20, 2006 T HOM AS K. KAHN CL E RK [ 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. 05- 11363 N on -A rgum entC al endar

________________________ D . C. D o c k e tN o . 0 4 - 0 0 1 6 3 - CR- J - 2 5 - M CR 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 B E L A Y R E D D I C K , a .k .a . U n k n o w n B , 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 M i ddl e D i s tr i c tof F l or i da

_________________________ ( Ju n e 20, 2006) B efo re B L A C K , B A R K E T T an d H U L L , C i rcu i tJu d g es. P E R C U R I A M: B el ay R eddi ck appeal s hi s 240 -m on th sent ence for one coun tof conspi ra cy2

t o pa s s orutt e ra f

a l s e i ns trum e nt , i n vi ol a t i on of 18 U . S . C . §§ 371 a nd 514, a nd thr e e c ount s of

know i ngl y pa s s i ng orutt e r i ng a f a l s e i ns trum e nt , i n vi ol a t i on of 18 U . S. C. § 5 1 4 . A f

t e rr e v i e w , w e a f

f i r m. I . B AC KG RO UN D B e tw e e n A u g u s t 2 0 0 3 a n d h is a rr e s t in M a y 2 0 0 4 , R e d d ic k w a s in v o lv e d in a c ons pi r a c y t o pr oduc e c ount e r f e i tc he c ks . R e ddi c k c r e a t e d c ount e r f e i tc he c ks u s in g c o m p u te r s b e lo n g in g to h is w if e a n d to a c o - c o n s p ir a to r , C h a r le s P o r te r . R e ddi c k a l s o r e c rui t e d a nd pa i d othe r s t o c a s h the c he c ks a tva r i ous ba nks a nd chec k-ca shi ng es t abl i shm ent s. W hi l e part i ci pat i ng i n thi s c ou nt er fe i tchec k sc hem e, R eddi ck w as on supervi se d rel ea se af t erhavi ng se rved a 60-m on th federa l pri son t erm for ase para t e c ou nt er fe i tchec k schem e. R eddi ck’ s e stra ng ed w i fe , C ar l a H ug hes, advi se d the S ec re tS ervi ce that R eddi ck w as agai n cou nt er fe i t i ng chec ks and thatR eddi ck pl anned t o h ave H ug hes ne got i a t e s e ve r a l c ount e r f e i tc he c ks . W hi l e unde rs ur ve i l l a nc e on M a y 21, 2004, R eddi ck drov e H ug hes a nd a thi rd i nd i vi du al , B eni t a J on es , t o a bank . A ft erJones e n te r e d th e b a n k , la w e n f o r c e m e n t a tte m p te d to s to p R e d d ic k ’s c a r . I n a n e f f o r t to e l ude pol i c e , R e ddi c k dr ove thr ough a B ur ge rK i ng pa r ki ng l ota nd j um pe d f r om the c a r , w hi c h c ont i nue d i n m ot i on a nd c ol l i de d w i th the bus he s i n a n a dj oi ni ng pa r ki ng l ot . R e ddi c k w a s appr e he nde d a nd a rr e s t e d.3

A s e a r c h o f

R e d d ic k ’s w if

e ’s c o m p u te rr e v e a le d a s o f tw a r e p r o g r a m u s e d to m anufacture c hecks a nd l og s of the coun t er fe i tchec ks m ade w i th the prog ra m t ot al i ng ov er$1 80 , 00 0. A se ar ch of co-conspi ra t or P ort er ’ s hom e uncov er ed $5, 500 i n c ount e r f

e i tc he c ks a nd a c om put e rtha tP or t e rr e nt e d t o othe r s , i nc l udi ng R eddi ck. P ort er ’ s c om pu t ercont ai ned a l og of coun t er fe i tchec ks t ot al i ng an a ddi t i ona l $48, 917. 13. W i thoutthe be ne f

i tof a pl e a a gr e e m e nt , R e ddi c k pl e d gui l ty t o one c ountof c ons pi r a c y t o pa s s orutt e ra f a l s e i ns trum e nt , i n vi ol a t i on of 18 U . S . C . §§ 371 a nd 5 1 4 , a n d th r e e c o u n ts o f k n o w in g ly p a s s in g o ru tte r in g a f a ls e in s tru m e n t, in vi ol at i on of § 5 14 . T he P re se nt ence Invest i gat i on R eport(“ P S I” ) r ec om m ended the s e e nha nc e m e nt s : ( 1) a 12- l e ve l e nha nc e m e ntf ora l os s a m ountof

$247, 364. 06; (2) a4-l evel enhancem entfor R eddi ck’ s r ol e a s al ea der or organi ze r; (3) a2-l evel enhancem entfor obstruct i on of j ust i ce because R eddi ck w rot e l ett er s t o h i s w i fe a tt e m pt i ng t o i nt i m i da t e he ra nd pr e ve nthe rf r om t e s t i f

y i ng a ga i ns thi m ; ( 4) a 2- l evel enhancem entfor r ec kl es s e nd angerm entdu ri ng fl i gh tbecause R eddi ck j um ped from hi s m ov i ng ca r w hen p ol i ce chas ed hi m . T he P S I c al cul at ed a t ot al of f e ns e l e ve l of

27 a nd 23 c r i m i na l hi s t ory poi nt s f ora c r i m i na l hi s t ory c a t e gory of V I. R e ddi c k f

i l e d num e r ous w r i tt e n obj e c t i ons t o the P S I , pr i m a r i l y a s s e r t i ng4

tha thi s s e nt e nc e c oul d notbe e nha nc e d ba s e d on f a c t s ne i the rpr ove n t o a j ury nor adm i tt ed by hi m . R eddi ck al so ar gu ed thathi s e ff ort s t o avo i d p ol i ce w er e in s u f f ic ie n t to s u p p o r t th e r e c k le s s e n d a n g e r m e n t e n h a n c e m e n t. A t th e s e n te n c in g h e a r in g , R e d d ic k r a is e d a d d itio n a l o b je c tio n s to th e P S I . F ir s t, R e d d ic k d e n ie d in v o lv e m e n t w ith 1 0 o f th e 3 5 c o - c o n s p ir a to r s id e n tif ie d in the P S I . A f

t e rthe gove rnm e ntnot e d tha tR e ddi c k di d notc ont e s ta tl e a s tf i ve of the c o- c ons pi r a t or s l i s t e d i n the P S I , w hi c h w a s s uf f i c i e ntt o s uppor tthe l e a de r/ or ga ni z e rr ol e e nha nc e m e nt , the di s tr i c tc our tove rrul e d the obj e c t i on. S e c ond, R e ddi c k obj e c t e d t o the P S I ’ s l os s c a l c ul a t i on of $247, 364. 06. T he l oss c al cul at i on i ncl ud ed $1 80 , 11 2. 55 i n checks l og ged o n R eddi ck’ s c om pu t er , $12, 782. 03 i n c ount e r f

e i tc he c ks c a s he d by R e ddi c k’ s c o- c ons pi r a t or s , $5, 552. 35 i n c ount e r f

e i tc he c ks f

ound i n P or t e r ’ s r e s i de nc e f ora t ot a l of

$198, 446. 93. T he lo s s a m o u n t a ls o in c lu d e d $ 4 8 ,9 1 7 .1 3 in c h e c k s lo g g e d o n P o r te r ’s c o m p u te r . Re d d i c k d i d n o to b

j e c tt o $ 1 9 8 , 4 4 6 . 9 3 o f

th e l o s s , b u ta r g u e d th a tth e PSI i m p ro p erl y i n cl u d ed al l o f th e ch eck am o u n t s l o g g ed o n P o rt er’ s co m p u t er b ecau se tha tc om put e rw a s us e d by othe r s . I n r e s pons e , the gove rnm e ntpr of f e r e d tha t( 1) the checks f

ou nd on P ort er ’ s c om pu t erw er e s uffi ci ent l y s i m i l art o checks R eddi ck h a d f o r g e d to b e a ttr ib u tab le to h im , a n d ( 2 ) P o rte rh a d to ld in v e s tig a to r s th a t, w hi l e he r ent ed the com pu t ert o p eopl e other than R eddi ck, no on e e l se , other than5

on e of R eddi ck’ s c o-conspi ra t ors, used i tt o forge checks. T he di stri ctcourtthen ov errul ed thi s obj ec t i on w i tho utcom m ent . T he di stri ctcourtal so ov errul ed R e ddi c k’ s w r i tt e n obj e c t i on t o the r e c kl e s s e nda nge r m e nte nha nc e m e nt , but s u s ta in e d R e d d ic k ’s w r itte n o b je c tio n to th e o b s tru c tio n o f ju s tic e e n c h a n tm e n t. T hi s r es ul t ed i n a t ot al offe nse l evel of 25 , w hi ch, w i th a cr i m i nal hi st ory c at egory o f V I , y ie ld e d a n a d v is o ry G u id e lin e s r a n g e o f 1 1 0 to 1 3 7 m o n th s ’ im p r is o n m e n t. T h e d is tr ic t c o u r t th e n a d v is e d th e p a r tie s th a t, g iv e n R e d d ic k ’s “h o rr ib le c r i m i na l hi s t ory ” a nd r e c i di vi s m , i tw a s c ons i de r i ng i m pos i ng the m a xi m um sen t en ce, as fo l l o w s:

W e ll, le t m e –le t m e s a y th is to y o u , a n d I ’m o n ly s a y in g th is to

–to d ir e c t y o u rc o m m e n ts . I th in k th e r e is n o th in g th a t c a n b e d o n e to st op M r. R eddi ck. I thi nk he – i f he get s f i ve ye ar s, i f he get s t en years, h e’ s g o i n g t o b e b ack i n t o d o i n g th i s ag ai n . I th i n k h e h as a h o rr ib le c r im in a l h is to ry c a te g o ry . T h e f a c t th a t h e ’s a lr e a d y b e e n in f e d e r a l p r is o n f

o r6 0 m o n th s f

o rth is o f f e n s e is e x tr e m e ly tr o u b lin g to m e, there fore , I a m consi deri ng i m po si ng the m axi m um se nt ence un der the l aw i n thi s c as e. A f te rR e d d ic k a r g u e d f

o ra s e n te n c e w ith in th e a d v is o ry G u id e lin e s r a n g e o f 1 1 0 to 137 m onths , the di s tr i c tc our t , i n i m pos i ng a 240- m onth s e nt e nc e , r e vi e w e d how R e ddi c k ha d c ont i nuous l y c om m i tt e d f r a ud, the f

t , w or thl e s s c he c k of

f e ns e s , a nd coun t er fe i tand forged securi ty off ense s. T he di stri ctcourtal so po i nt ed ou tthat R eddi ck had com pl et ed a 60-m on th feder al se nt ence , then h ad hi s s up ervi se d r e l e a s e r e voke d i n 2003 a nd s t i l l c om m i tt e d the i ns t a ntof f e ns e s i n 2003 a nd 2004,6

w h ile o n s u p e r v is e d r e le a s e . T h e d is tr ic t c o u r t f o u n d th a t R e d d ic k h a d r e f u s e d to s t op hi s of

f e ns e s a nd onl y m a xi m um j a i l t i m e w oul d pr ot e c tthe publ i c , s t a t i ng: T h is –th is m a n h a s b e e n –h is c r im in a l h is to ry is –is h o rr ib le . H e h a s 2 0 c r im in a l h is to ry p o in ts f o ra lo t o f

th in g s b u t q u ite a b it o f it i n v o l v ed th e sam e typ e o f –th e sam e typ e o f frau d u l en t -typ e o ffen se and theftoffe nse s t art i ng fr om age 18. I m ea n, he has w orthl es s c heck c ha r ge s , f

r a udul e ntus e of

c r e di tc a r ds , gr a nd the f t , f or ge ry , utt e r i ng f or ge r i e s , m or e w or thl e s s c he c ks , m or e gr a nd the f t s , obt a i ni ng a m ot or vehi cl e by f

raud , the l ett er s t al k abo utsom e other i nsurance f r a ud, obt a i ni ng w or thl e s s c he c ks a ga i n. A nd I thi nk w ha t ’ s e ve n m or e tr oubl i ng t o m e i s tha ti n 1997 – w i th a l l of

tha ti n ‘ 98 he ’ s s e nt e nc e d t o 60 m onths t o the B ur e a u of P ri sons for c on spi ra cy t o m ake a nd ut t ercoun t er fe i tand forged se curi t i es t o b e f

ol l ow ed by three ye ar s s up ervi se d rel ea se , he w as re leas ed in 2 0 0 2 an d re v o k ed in 2 0 0 3 , an d h e’s b ac k ag ain . I d o n ’t thi nk he c a n be s t oppe d. A nd I thi nk i n c ons i de r i ng 3553, the onl y w a y t o pr ot e c tthe publ i c f r om f ur the rc r i m e s f

r om thi s de f

e nda nti s t o puthi m i n pr i s on for a s l on g as I ca n, and the gu i del i nes I thi nk ar e . . . or the se nt ence that ’ s c al l ed for i n the gu i del i nes i s j ustt ot al l y i napp ropri at e t o d o that co n si d eri n g h i s h i st o ry. A l though the m a xi m um s e nt e nc e on c ountone i s f i ve y e a r s a nd the m a xi m um se nt ence on coun t s tw o throu gh four i s tw enty- fi ve ye ar s, the di stri ctcourti m po se d a s e nt e nc e of

240 m onths ortw e nty y e a r s . T hi s appe a l f ol l ow e d. I I . DI S CUS S I ON A . B oo k er R e ddi c k a r gue s tha tthe di s tr i c tc our tc om m i tt e d B ooke re rr orby e nha nc i ng h is s e n te n c e b a s e d o n f

a c ts th a t w e r e n o t p r o v e n to a ju ry a n d th a t h e d id n o t a d m it.Reddick also argues that his due proc ess rights wereviolated bec ause theg overnment 1 faile d toinf

or m him th at it

would se e k th esentenc inge nh anc e mentsuntila ft e r h eple d guilty and that the district cour

t erre d in applying thepreponderanc e standa rd rather than theclea

r and convincingevidenc e standa rd in deter

mining the f

acts underlying his sentencingenhanc ements. These a rguments lack merit and war rant no fur

ther discussion. 7 T here i s no B oo ker e rr or here because the di stri ctcourtse nt ence d R eddi ck un der a n a dvi s ory r a the rtha n m a nda t ory G ui de l i ne s s c he m e . S e e U ni t e d S t a t e s v. C ha u, 426 F . 3d 1318, 1323- 24 ( 11 C i r . 2005) ; U ni t e d S t a t e s v. R odr i gue z , 398 F . 3d th 12 91 , 13 01 (11 C i r. ), ce rtdeni ed, 12 5 S . C t . 29 35 (200 5). In addi t i on , R eddi ck th a r g u e s th a t, b e c a u s e th e G u id e lin e s w e r e m a n d a to ry w h e n h e c o m m itte d h is offe nses , appl i ca t i on of the advi soryG ui del i nes s chem e t o h i s s ent ence vi ol at es ex p o stfact o an d d u e p ro cess p ri n ci p l es. W e h av e h el d th atn o d u e p ro cess o r ex p o st fa ct o v i ol at i on s occ ur base d o n retroac t i ve appl i ca t i on of B oo ker’ s r em edi al opi ni on m a ki ng the G ui de l i ne s a dvi s ory . S e e U ni t e d S t a t e s v. D unc a n, 400 F . 3d 12 97 , 13 06 -08 (11 C i r. ), ce rt . deni ed, 12 6 S . C t . 43 2 (20 05 ); se e a l so U ni t ed th S t at es v. M art i nez, 43 4 F . 3d 13 18 , 13 23 (11 C i r. 20 06 ). th 1 B . S en te n ci n g E n h an ce m en ts R e ddi c k a l t e rna t i ve l y a r gue s tha thi s s e nt e nc i ng e nha nc e m e nt s w e r e not supp ort ed by suff

i ci entevi dence. W hen a defendantchal l enges one of the fa ctual b ases fo r h i s sen t en ce, th e g o v ern m en tm u stest ab l i sh th e d i sp u t ed factb y a pr e ponde r a nc e of

the e vi de nc e , a nd thi s bur de n m us tbe s a t i s f i e d w i th “ r e l i abl e a ndAlthough Re ddick objecte d to the rec kless endang erment enhanc ement, he did not 2 dispute the fac ts underlying that enhanc ement, i.e., that, while a ttempting to elude police , he jumped from a movingcar that he had be en drivingthrough a B urg er King pa rkinglot. Instead, Reddick argued that immediate f light from arre st is ins ufficient to support the enhanc ement. He do e s n ot raisethi s argument o n a pp e al. Booker did not alter the sta ndards of review for Guidelines issues. United States v. 3 Crawf ord, 407 F .3d 1174, 1178 (11 Cir. 2005). We review for c lear error a district c ourt’s th fac tual f indingthat a

de fendant w a s a

le a der o r o rg anizer u

nde r U .S. S.G . § 3B 1. 1 a

nd its los s calculation under the Guidelines. United States v. Ramirez, 426 F.3d 1344, 1355 ( 11 Cir. 2005) th (U .S. S.G . § 3B 1. 1) ; Unit e d St ate s v . M c Crimm on , 3 62 F .3 d 7 25 , 7 28 (1 1 Cir . 2 00 4) (l os s th calculation). Although Booker re quires the district cour t to properly

calculate the Guide lines rang e, if the district c ourt erred in doingso, we a re not re quired to remand for resentencingif the district court likely

would have sentence d the def endant in the same way

without the error . United States v. Scott, 441 F.3d 1322, 1329 (11th Cir. 2006). 8 s pe c i f i c e vi de nc e . ” U ni t e d S t a t e s v. S e pul ve da , 115 F . 3d 882, 890 ( 11 C i r . 1997) th ( c i t a t i on om i tt e d) . T he onl y e nha nc e m e nt s t o w hi c h R e ddi c k c ha l l e nge d the f a c tua l ba s i s w e r e the or ga ni z e r/ l e a de re nha nc e m e nta nd the e nha nc e m e ntf orthe $ 2 4 7 , 3 6 4 . 0 6 l o ss. W e fi n d n o rev ersi b l e erro r w i th reg ard t o th ese en h an cem en t s. 2 3 A s f orthe r ol e e nha nc e m e nt , R e ddi c k di s put e d hi s c r i m i na l i nvol ve m e nt w i th o n l y 1 0 o f th e 3 5 co -co n sp i rat o rs n am ed i n th e P S I. S ect i o n 3 B 1 . 1 req u i res a tw o-l evel i ncre as e i f “ the defendantw as an organi ze r or l ea der of acr i m i nal ac t i vi ty thati nv ol ved fi ve or m ore part i ci pant s. U . S . S . G . § 3 B 1. 1(a) . G i ven that R eddi ck adm i tt ed i nv ol vem entw i th 2 5 o f the co-conspi ra t ors i dent i fi ed i n the P S I, th e d is tr ic t c o u r t d id n o t c le a r ly e rrb y im p o s in g th e o r g a n iz e r/le a d e rr o le e nha nc e m e nt . S e e U ni t e d S t a t e s v. H e dge s , 175 F . 3d 1312, 1315 ( 11 C i r . 1999) th9

( c o n c l u d i n g th a tth e d i s tr i c tc o u r tma y r e l y o n a n y u n d i s p u t e d s t a t e me n t s i n th e PSI even i n the abse nce of s up po rt i ng evi dence). A s fo r th e l o ss cal cu l at i o n , U . S . S . G . § 2 B 1 . 1 p ro v i d es fo r a b ase o ffen se l e ve l of 7 w he r e , a s he r e , the de f e nda ntw a s c onvi c t e d of a c r i m e i nvol vi ng coun t er fe i ti nstrum ent s thathas ast atut ory m axi m um t erm of i m pri sonm entof at l east2 0 years. U . S . S . G . § 2 B 1 . 1 (a)(1 ). If ei th er th e actu al o r i n t en d ed l o ss, w h i ch ev er i s g reat er, resu l t i n g fro m th e o ffen se ex ceed ed $ 1 2 0 , 0 0 0 th e o ffen se l evel i s i ncre as ed by 10 l evel s. U . S . S . G . § 2 B 1. 1(b)(1)(F) & cm t . n. 3(A )( i )- (i i ). If th e lo s s e x c e e d e d $ 2 0 0 ,0 0 0 , th e o f f e n s e le v e l is in c r e a s e d b y 1 2 le v e ls . U .S .S .G . § 2 B 1 .1 ( b ) ( 1 ) ( G ) . T h e d is tr ic t c o u r t’s v a lu a tio n o f th e lo s s n e e d n o t b e p r e c is e ; a

“ re as on abl e e st i m at e of the i nt ended l oss w i l l be up hel d o n app ea l . ” U ni t ed S t at es v. D om i ngue z , 109 F . 3d 675, 676 ( 11 C i r . 1997) ( a ddr e s s i ng l os s c a l c ul a t i on th un der f orm erU . S . S . G . § 2 F 1. 1 n ow consol i dat ed w i th U . S . S . G . § 2 B 1. 1). H er e, R eddi ck di d n otdi sput e $19 8, 44 6. 93 of the l oss c al cul at i on , w hi ch al on e broug hthi m cl ose t o the $2 00 , 00 0 am ou ntneeded t o tri gg erthe 12 -l evel in cr ea se h e r ec eiv ed . A s f o r th e $ 4 8 ,9 1 7 .1 3 w o rth o f c h ec k s lo g g ed o n P o rter ’s com pu t er , R eddi ck di d n otdeny usi ng thatcom pu t eri n h i s s chem e, bu tobj ec t ed on l y t o b ei ng hel d res po nsi bl e f or al l of the checks on thatcom pu t ersi nce others h a d a c c e s s . B e c a u s e th e d is tr ic t c o u r t’s v a lu a tio n n e e d o n ly b e a r e a s o n ab leThe factors in § 3553(a) include ( 1) the nature a nd circumstances of

the offense, (2) the 4 history and cha rac teristics of the de fenda nt, (3) the ne ed for

the sentenc e imposed to ref lect the seriousness of theoffense, to promote re spect for the law, a

nd to provide just punishment, (4) the need to protect the public, a nd (5) the guideline ra

ng e. 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) . 10 es t i m at e a nd gi ven thaton l y $1, 55 3. 07 i n checks outof the $4 8, 91 7. 13 w er e ne e de d t o pl a c e R e ddi c k ove rthe $200, 000 thr e s hol d, w e c a nnots a y tha tthe d is tr ic t c o u r t’s lo s s d e te r m in a tio n w a s c le a re rr o r . In any e vent , any e rr or here w as harm l es s bec ause , consi deri ng the di stri ct court ’ s s t at em ent s a tse nt enci ng thatR eddi ck needed the l on gestpo ss i bl e s ent ence du e t o h i s r ec i di vi sm and the court ’ s dec i si on t o i m po se an abov e- G ui del i nes se nt ence , i ti s hi gh l y unl i kel y the di stri ctcourtw ou l d h ave i m po se d a l es se r s e nt e nc e e ve n abs e nta ny e rr ori n the l os s c a l c ul a t i on. C . B o o k er R ea so n a b l en ess R eddi ck ar gu es thathi s abo ve-G ui del i nes s ent ence i s unrea sonabl e. A ft er B oo ker, a s ent enci ng courtm ustconsi der the corre ct l y c al cul at ed G ui del i nes r ange, bu tthen, af

t erconsi dera t i on of the fa ct ors i n 1 8 U . S . C . § 3 55 3(a) , m ay i m po se a m ore s ever e or m ore l eni entse nt ence as l on g as thatse nt ence i s r ea sonabl e. U ni t ed S ta te s v . J o r d i, 4 1 8 F .3 d 1 2 1 2 , 1 2 1 5 ( 1 1 C ir .) , c e r t. d e n ie d , 1 2 6 S . C t. 8 1 2 ( 2 0 0 5 ) . th W e r e v ie w a d e f

e n d a n t’s u ltim a te s e n te n c e , in its e n tir e ty , f o ru n r e a s o n ab le n e s s in l i ghtof the § 3553( a ) f

a c t or s . U ni t e d S t a t e s v. W i ni nge a r , 422 F . 3d 1241, 1245 (11 C i r. 20 05 ). th 411

A ft erre vi ew , w e c anno tsa y R eddi ck’ s 240 -m on th sent ence w as unr e a s onabl e . T he di s tr i c tc our tc ons i de r e d the § 3553( a ) f a c t or s a nd de t e r m i ne d, base d o n R eddi ck’ s e xt ensi ve cr i m i nal hi st ory and re ci di vi sm , thata s ent ence w i thi n the G ui del i nes w ou l d b e i nadequ at e t o p rot ec tthe pu bl i c a nd det erR eddi ck fr o m co n ti n u in g h is co u n terf eit ch ec k sc h em es . A sig n ifican t p o rtio n o f R ed d ick ’s c r i m i na l hi s t ory poi nt s w e r e a ttr i but abl e t o f r a ud- r e l a t e d c r i m e s , s uc h a s pa s s i ng w orthl es s c hecks a nd usi ng a f raud ul entcr edi tca rd. Indeed, R eddi ck’ s 23 cri m i nal hi st ory poi nt s f

arexce eded the 13 po i nt s r equi re d t o o bt ai n a cr i m i nal hi st ory c a t e gory of

V I . S e e U . S . S . G . c h. 5, pt . A ( s e nt e nc i ng t abl e ) . M os ttr oubl i ng t o the d i s tr i c tc o u r tw a s th e f

a c tth a tRe d d i c k b e g a n a n e w c h e c k c o u n t e r f e i t i n g s c h e me al m osti m m edi at el y upo n h avi ng com pl et ed a 60-m on th sent ence for hi s l as tchec k c ount e r f e i t i ng c onvi c t i on a nd w hi l e s t i l l on s upe r vi s e d r e l e a s e . A l though the d is tr ic t c o u r t c o n te m p la te d im p o s in g th e lo n g e s t s e n te n c e p o s s ib le , th e 2 4 0 - m o n th s e nt e nc e i ti m pos e d w a s f i ve y e a r s l e s s tha n the s t a tut ory m a xi m um s e nt e nc e of 25 ye ar s. W e f

i nd no thi ng on thi s r ec ord thatconv i nces us thatR eddi ck’ s s ent ence w as un re as on abl e. D . R u l e 32(h ) N oti ce R e ddi c k a l s o a r gue s tha tthe di s tr i c tc our tw a s r e qui r e d by F e de r a l R ul e of C r i m i na l P r oc e dur e 32( h) t o gi ve hi m not i c e tha ti ti nt e nde d t o s e nt e nc e hi m aboveReddick incorrectly characterizes the district court’s 240-month sentence a s an “upw ard 5 depar ture.”The district cour

t did not depart under

the Guidelines. Rather , the district court c alculate d th eGuide lin e s rang eand then, a ft e r c on side ringthe§ 3 55 3( a) f a c tor s a s re quire d in Booker, selec ted a sentenceabove theadvisory Guidelines ra

ng e. 12 th e ad v i so ry G u i d el i n es ran g e. B ecau se R ed d i ck rai ses th i s arg u m en tfo r th e fi rst 5 t i m e on appe a l , w e r e vi e w f orpl a i n e rr or . U ni t e d S t a t e s v. P a s l a y , 971 F . 2d 667, 67 4 n . 13 (11 C i r. 19 92 ).

th R u le 3 2 ( h ) p e r m its a s e n te n c in g c o u r t to d e p a r t f r o m th e ap p lic ab le G ui del i nes r ange on a groun d n oti dent i fi ed i n the P S I or i n the go vernm ent ’ s pre he a r i ng s ubm i s s i on onl y i f i tpr ovi de s the de f

e nda ntr e a s onabl e not i c e s pe c i f y i ng the grou nd up on w hi ch i ti s c on t em pl at i ng a departure. F ed. R . C ri m . P . 32 (h); se e a ls o B u rn s v . U n ite d S ta te s , 5 0 1 U .S . 1 2 9 , 1 3 8 - 3 9 , 1 1 1 S . C t. 2 1 8 2 , 2 1 8 7 ( 1 9 9 1 ) . T h i s C o u rth as n o tyetad d ressed w h eth er, p o st -B o o k er, R u l e 3 2 (h ) req u i res a d is tr ic t c o u r t to g iv e n o tic e b e f o r e im p o s in g a n ab o v e - G u id e lin e s - r a n g e s e n te n c e in an advi sorysy st em as op po se d t o d epart i ng up w ar d a m andat ory G ui del i nes sy st em . H ow ever , atl ea ston e c i rc ui thas c on cl ud ed thati tdo es no t . S ee U ni t ed S t at es v . E g en b erg er, 4 2 4 F . 3 d 8 0 3 , 8 0 5 (8 C i r. 2 0 0 5 ). U n d er th ese th ci rcu m st an ces, w h ere th ere i s n o b i n d i n g o r p ersu asi v e p reced en tt o th e co n trary, any e rr or w as no tpl ai n. S ee U ni t ed S t at es v. B aker , 43 2 F . 3d 11 89 , 12 07 (11 C i r. th 2005) ( e xpl a i ni ng tha tf ora n e rr ort o be pl a i n i tm us tbe obvi ous unde rc urr e nt l aw ).Be causethe re cord is not suffic iently develope d, we de cline to address on direc t appeal 6 Reddick’s c laims that he rec eived inef fec tive assistanceof counse l when his sentenc ing c ounsel failed to pre servesentenc ing issues f or appe al. See United States v. Ty ndale, 209 F .3d 1292, 1294 (11 Cir. 2000).

th 13 I I I . CONCL US I ON F or al l these re as on s, w e a ff i rm R eddi ck’ s 240 -m on th sent ence . H ow ever , 6 w e r em and thi s c as e t o the di stri ctcourtso thatthe courtca n app end a w ri tt en re cord of i t s s ent enci ng fi nd i ng s t o the P S I a s r equi re d b y F eder al R ul e of C ri m i nal P roce du re 32 (i )( 3)(C ). AF F I RME D a n d RE MAND E D.