FILED U.S. COURT OF AP P EALS E LEV EN T HC IRC U IT FEB RUARY 24, 2006 THOMAS K. KAH

N CLERK [ 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- 11690 N on -A rgum entC al endar

________________________ D . C . D ocketN o. 04 -000 90 -C R -1-1 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 L A R R Y B A T T L E , 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 o rth e N o r th e rn D is tr ic t o f G e o r g ia

_________________________ ( F e b r u ar y 24, 2006) B efo re A N D E R S O N , B L A C K an d B A R K E T T , C i rcu i tJu d g es. P E R C U R I A M: L a rry B a tt l e ( “ B a tt l e ” ) appe a l s hi s 180- m onth s e nt e nc e , i m pos e d a f t e rhe2

pl e d gui l ty t o one c ountof be i ng af

e l on i n pos s e s s i on of

af i r e a rm , i n vi ol a t i on of 18 U . S . C . §§ 922( g) a nd 924( e ) . O n appe a l , B a tt l e a s s e r t s tha thi s i ndi c tm e nt c o n ta in e d n o a lle g a tio n s r e g a r d in g th e n a tu r e o f h is p r io rc r im in a l o f

f e n s e s –in p a r tic u la r , th e in d ic tm e n t d id n o t a lle g e th a t th e o f f e n s e s s a tis f

ie d th e r e q u ir e m e n ts of § 924( e ) . B a tt l e f

ur the ra l l e ge s tha tthe f

a c tof apr i orc onvi c t i on i s a n e l e m e nt o f th e o f f e n s e th a t m u s t b e in c lu d e d in th e in d ic tm e n t a n d p r o v e d to th e ju ry . B a tt l e not e s tha thi s pos i t i on c onf l i c t s w i th ourr e c e ntde c i s i on i n U ni t e d S t a t e s v. O r duno- M i r e l e s , 405 F . 3d 960, 962- 63 ( 11th C i r . ) , c e r t . de ni e d, 126 S . C t . 223 ( 2 0 0 5 ) , th a t th e S ix th A m e n d m e n t is n o t im p lic a te d w h e n ad e f e n d a n t’s s e n te n c e is e n h a n c e d o n th e b a s is o f p r io rc o n v ic tio n s . H e s ta te s th a t h e n e v e r th e le s s s e e k s to p r e s e rv e th is is s u e in o r d e rto r a is e it a t th e ap p r o p r ia te tim e . A s a n i ni t i al m att er , B att l e does notdi sput e the ca l cul at i on of the arm ed c a r e e rc r i m i na l pr ovi s i on a s avi ol a t i on of the gui de l i ne s i n hi s i ni t i a l br i e f on appeal . R ather, he ar gu es on l y thatthe i m po si t i on of the enhancem ent s vi ol at ed h is S ix th A m e n d m e n t r ig h ts a n d c o n tr a d ic te d th e S u p r e m e C o u r t’s h o ld in g in U n ite d S ta te s v . B o o k e r , 5 4 3 U .S . ___ , 1 2 5 S .C t. 7 3 8 , 1 6 0 L .E d .2 d 6 2 1 ( 2 0 0 5 ) . A c c or di ngl y , w e ne e d nota ddr e s s the i m pos i t i on of the e nha nc e m e nt , a s a ny a r gum e nti n thi s r e ga r d ha s be e n aba ndone d. S e e U ni t e d S t a t e s v. D unc a n, 400 F . 3d 1297, 1300 n. 1 ( 11th C i r . 2005) , c e r t . de ni e d, N o. 05- 5467 ( U . S . O c t . 11,3

2 0 0 5 ) . B e c a us e B a tt l e r a i s e d aB ooke robj e c t i on a thi s s e nt e nc i ng, w e r e vi e w the i ss ue de no vo , and w e w i l l re vers e “ on l y i f a ny error w as harm ful . ” U ni t ed S t at es v . P a z , 4 0 5 F .3 d 9 4 6 , 9 4 8 ( 1 1 th C ir . 2 0 0 5 ) . I n B o o k e r , th e S u p r e m e C o u r t h e ld tha tthe m a nda t ory na tur e of the G ui de l i ne s r e nde r e d the m i nc om pa t i bl e w i th the S i xth A m e ndm e nt ’ s gua r a nt e e t o the r i ghtt o aj ury tr i a l . B ooke r , 543 U . S . a t___, 125 S . C t . a t749- 51. T he C our te xpl i c i t l y r e a f f i rm e d tha t“ [ a ] nyf

a c t( othe rtha n a pr i orc onvi c t i on) w hi c h i s ne c e s s a ry t o s uppor tas e nt e nc e e xc e e di ng the m a xi m um a uthor i z e d by the f

a c t s e s t abl i s he d by apl e aof gui l ty oraj ury ve r di c tm us tbe adm i tt ed by the defendantor prov ed t o a j ury bey on d a re as on abl e dou bt . ” I d. at

___, 125 S . C t . a t756. A f t e rB ooke r , the G ui de l i ne s r a nge i s now a dvi s ory a nd no l onge rdi c t a t e s the f

i na l s e nt e nc i ng r e s ul t , buti ti s a n i m por t a nts e nt e nc i ng f a c t or tha tthe s e nt e nc i ng c our ts houl d c ons i de r , a l ong w i th the f a c t or s c ont a i ne d i n 18 U . S . C . § 3553( a ) . I d. a t764- 65. W e ha ve e xpl a i ne d tha tthe r e a r e tw o type s of B o o k e re rr o r : ( 1 ) S ix th A m e n d m e n t e rr o rb a s e d u p o n s e n te n c in g e n h a n c e m e n ts ne i the ra dm i tt e d by the de f e nda ntnors ubm i tt e d t o aj ury a nd pr ove n be y ond a r e a s onabl e doubttha ta r e bi ndi ng on the s e nt e nc i ng j udge ; a nd ( 2) s t a tut ory e rr or ba s e d upon s e nt e nc i ng unde ram a nda t ory G ui de l i ne s s y s t e m . U ni t e d S t a t e s v. S h e lto n , 4 0 0 F .3 d 1 3 2 5 , 1 3 2 9 - 3 0 ( 1 1 th C ir . 2 0 0 5 ) .4

I n A l m e nda r e z - T orr e s v. U ni t e d S t a t e s , the S upr e m e C our the l d tha tthe gove rnm e nti s notr e qui r e d t o a l l e ge i n i t s i ndi c tm e nt , norm us ti tpr ove be y ond a re as on abl e dou bt , thata def endanthad p ri or conv i ct i on s i n o rderfor adi stri ctcourt t o pr ope r l y us e thos e c onvi c t i ons t o e nha nc e as e nt e nc e . A l m e nda r e z - T orr e s v. U n ite d S ta te s , 5 2 3 U .S . 2 2 4 , 2 4 7 , 1 1 8 S .C t. 1 2 1 9 , 1 2 3 3 , 1 4 0 L .E d 2 d 3 5 0 ( 1 9 9 8 ) . A ft erB oo ker, w e hel d thatthe deci si on i n A l m endarez -T orre s w as “ l ef t undi s turbe d by A ppr e ndi [ v. N e w J e r s e y , 530 U . S . 466, 120 S . C t . 2348, 147 L . E d. 2d 435 ( 2000) ] , B l a ke l y [ v. W a s hi ngt on, 542 U . S . 296, 124 S . C t . 2531, 159 L . E d. 2d 403 ( 2004) ] , a nd B ooke r , ” a nd tha t“ adi s tr i c tc our tdoe s note rrby r e l y i ng on pr i orc onvi c t i ons t o e nha nc e ade f e nda nt ’ s s e nt e nc e . ” S he l t on, 400 F . 3d a t1329. R e c e nt l y , i n S he pa r d v U ni t e d S t a t e s , the S upr e m e C our tr e a f f i rm e d the

“ c a t e gor i c a l ” appr oa c h t o e s t abl i s hi ng apr e di c a t e pr i orc onvi c t i on f orpurpos e s of the A rm e d C a r e e rC r i m i na l A c t , 18 U . S . C . § 924( e ) , a nd he l d tha t , w he n the pr i or s t a t e c onvi c t i on r e s ul t e d f r om agui l ty pl e a , f

e de r a l s e nt e nc i ng c our t s m a ki ng the c a r e e r - of f e nde rde t e rm i na t i on m a y onl y c ons i de rthe t e rm s of the c ha r gi ng doc um e nt , the t e rm s of

apl e aa gr e e m e nt , the tr a ns c r i ptof apl e ac ol l oquy w i th the ju d g e d u r in g w h ic h th e f a c tu a l b a s is f

o rth e p le aw a s c o n f

irm e d b y th e d e f

e n d a n t, ors om e c om pa r abl e j udi c i a l r e c or d of thi s i nf orm a t i on, butnotothe runde r l y i ng5

d o c u m e n ts s u c h a s p o lic e r e p o r ts . S h e p a r d v . U n ite d S ta te s , __U .S . __ , 1 2 5 S .C t. 1254, 1259- 1263, 161 L . E d. 2d 205 ( 2005) . I n as e pa r a t e s e c t i on, apl ur a l i ty of the C our te xpl a i ne d tha t , w hi l e adi s put e d f a c ta s t o w he the rabur gl a ry w a s avi ol e nt fe l on y f or pu rposes of the A ctbecause i tw as com m i tt ed i n a bu i l di ng or encl osed s p a c e ( “g e n e r ic b u r g la ry ” ) c o u ld b e “d e s c r ib e d a s af a c t ab o u t ap r io rc o n v ic tio n , it [ w a s ] t oo f

a rr e m ove d f

r om the c onc l us i ve s i gni f i c a nc e of apr i orj udi c i a l r e c or d, a nd t oo m uc h l i ke the f

i ndi ngs s ubj e c tt o J one s [ v. U ni t e d S t a t e s , 526 U . S . 227, 11 9 S . C t . 12 15 , 14 3 L . E d. 2d 31 1 (19 99 )] and A pp re nd i , t o saythatA l m endarez T orre s c l ea rl y autho ri ze s aj ud ge t o res ol ve the di sput e. ” I d. at__ , 12 5 S . C t . at 1 2 6 2 . A f te rS h e p a r d , w e h a v e h e ld th a t A lm e n d a r e z - T o rr e s r e m a in s g o o d la w . S e e , e .g ., U n ite d S ta te s v . C a m a c h o - I b a r q u e n , 4 1 0 F .3 d 1 3 0 7 , 1 3 1 5 - 1 6 ( 1 1 th C ir .) , c e r t . de ni e d, 126 S . C t . 457 ( 2005) a nd U ni t e d S t a t e s v. O r duno- M i r e l e s , 405 F . 3d 96 2 (20 05 ), ce rt . deni ed, 12 6 S . C t . 22 3 (20 05 ). H er e, B attl e’s s en ten cin g h ea rin g o cc u rr ed af ter th e S u p re m e C o u rt’s deci si on i n B oo ker. A cc ordi ng l y, there w as no st atut ory B oo ker e rr or here, as B att l e’ s s ent ence w as i m po se d u nd eran advi sorygu i del i nes s chem e. F urtherm ore, th e § 9 2 4 (e ) e n h an ce m en t w as ap p ro p riately a p p li ed . In so fa r a s th e d istrict co u rt’s e n h a n c e m e n t o f

B a ttle ’s o f

f e n s e le v e l u n d e r§ 9 2 4 ( e ) a n d U .S .S .G § 4 B 1 .4 m e r e ly i nvol ve d de t e rm i na t i ons tha the ha d pr i orqua l i f y i ng c onvi c t i ons , the e nha nc e m e nt6

di d noti m pl i c a t e the B ooke rl i ne of c a s e s , a s thos e c a s e s c l e a r l y e xe m ptpr i or c onvi c t i ons f

r om the type s of

f a c t s tha tm us tbe a dm i tt e d by the de f e nda ntor prov ed t o a j ury bey on d a re as on abl e dou bti n o rdert o sup po rta s ent ence e nha nc e m e nt . M or e ove r , w e ha ve i ndi c a t e d tha t , unt i l the S upr e m e C our thol ds othe rw i s e , A l m e nda r e z - T orr e s r e m a i ns good l a w . S e e e . g. , O r duno- M i r e l e s , 405 F . 3d a t963. T he S upr e m e C our t ’ s de c i s i ons i n B ooke ra nd S he pa r d ha ve not ove rrul e d i t s pr e vi ous hol di ng i n A l m e nda r e z - T orr e s tha tpr i orc onvi c t i ons m a y be c o n s id e r e d in e n h a n c in g s e n te n c e s . T h u s , a f te rB o o k e r , aju d g e s till is ab le to im p o s e e n h a n c e m e n ts o n th e b a s is o f ad e f e n d a n t’s p r io rc o n v ic tio n s . B att l e al so arg u es th atth e d i stri ctco u rtv i o l at ed S h ep ard v . U n i t ed S t at es, 125 U . S . 1254 ( 2005) , by c ha r a c t e r i z i ng hi s pr i orc onvi c t i ons a s “ s e r i ous drug of f e ns e s ” unde r§ 924( e ) . H ow e ve r , w e c onc l ude tha tB a tt l e ’ s a r gum e nti s w i thout m e r i tbe c a us e the r e w e r e no di s put e d i s s ue s w i th r e s pe c tt o B a tt l e ’ s pr i ordrug offe nses . B att l e c on ce ded athi s c hang e- of-pl eahear i ng thathe had b ee n con vi ct ed of the ne c e s s a ry pr e di c a t e of f e ns e s f orthe e nha nc e m e nt . M or e ove r , he di d not obj e c tt o the de s c r i pt i ons of the pr i orc onvi c t i ons i n the pr e s e nt e nc e i nve s t i ga t i on re po rt(“ P S I” ), and, thu s, these fa ct s s ho ul d b e dee m ed “ adm i tt ed” f or B oo ker purpos e s . S e e S he l t on, 400 F . 3d a t1330 ( hol di ng tha tade f e nda nta dm i t s t o the P S I ’s f a c tu a l s ta te m e n ts ab o u t h is r e le v a n t c o n d u c t w h e r e h e r a is e s n o o b je c tio n s to7

th o s e s ta te m e n ts ) . A f te rth e d is tr ic t c o u r t d e te rm in e d th a t § 9 2 4 ( e ) w a s ap p lic ab le h e r e , it s e nt e nc e d B a tt l e t o the s t a tut ory m a nda t ory m i ni m um s e nt e nc e of 15 y e a r s or180 m on ths of i m pri sonm ent . T hi s s ent ence w as approp ri at e, because, po st -B oo ker, di stri ctcourt s r em ai n b ou nd by st atut ory m andat ory m i ni m um se nt ence s. S ee S h e lto n , 4 0 0 F .3 d a t 1 3 3 3 n .1 0 . T h u s , w e a f f irm B a ttle ’s s e n te n c e . AF F I RME D.