### F I LE D U. S . COURT OF AP PE ALS E LEVE NTH CI RCUI T Febr uar y 14, 2006 T HOM AS K. KAHN C L 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- 12889 N on -A rgum entC al endar

________________________ D . C . D ocketN o. 02 -003 44 -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 J A M E S J . K U C E R A , J R ., 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 14, 2006) B efo re A N D E R S O N , M A R C U S an d W IL S O N , C i rcu i tJu d g es. P E R C U R I A M: J a m e s K u c e r a ap p e a ls h is s e n te n c e im p o s e d a f te rr e m a n d f

o rk id n ap in g , in2

vi ol a t i on of

18 U . S . C . §§ 1201( a ) ( 1) , ( 2) . H e r a i s e s tw o a r gum e nt s on appe a l : ( 1) tha the w a s s e nt e nc e d i n vi ol a t i on of U ni t e d S t a t e s v. B ooke r , 543 U . S . 220, 125 S . C t . 738, 160 L . E d. 2d 621 ( 2005) ; a nd ( 2) tha tthe di s tr i c tc our te rr e d i n appl y i ng a n e n h a n c e m e n t f

o ro b s tru c tio n o f

ju s tic e . I K ucer a a rgues thatthe di stri ctcourtcom m i tt ed st atut ory a nd const i tut i on al B ooke re rr ori n e nha nc i ng hi s s e nt e nc e ba s e d upon f a c t s tha tw e r e ne i the rf

ound by the j ury nor adm i tt ed by hi m , and b ec ause i tw as bo un d b y am andat ory gui del i nes s y s t e m . H e a r gue s tha tthe di s tr i c tc our ts houl d ha ve r e c ons i de r e d w he the rthe e n h a n c e m e n ts it ap p lie d d u r in g h is p r e v io u s s e n te n c in g h e a r in g w o u ld s till ap p ly u n d er an ad v i so ry g u i d el i n es syst em . H e arg u es th atth e erro r w as n o th arm l ess b e c a u s e a lth o u g h th e c o u rt d e c lin e d to a d d r e s s w h e th e rth e ap p lic a tio n o f c e r ta in g u id e lin e s s e c tio n s w o u ld v io la te A p p r e n d i v . N e w J e r s e y , 5 3 0 U .S . 4 6 6 , 1 2 0 S .C t. 2 3 4 8 , 1 4 7 L . E d . 2 d 4 3 5 (2 0 0 0 ), d u e th e l i m i t ed sco p e o f th e rem an d , i td i d ex p ress c o n c e rn o v e rth e i m p l i c a t i o n s o f Ap p r e n d i a s i tr e l a t e d t o th e e n h a n c e m e n t s . He c o n te n d s th a t th e c o u r t m a d e s ta te m e n ts in d ic a tin g th a t th e f a c ts w e r e g e n e r a lly i ncon si st entw i th the cr i m e def i ned b y the enhancem ent s, and t hi s i nd i ca t es that K u c e r a m ig h t h a v e b e e n g iv e n a lig h te rs e n te n c e h a d th e ju d g e b e e n ab le to c ons i de rothe rf

a c t or s s pe c i f

i c t o hi s c a s e unde ra n a dvi s ory s y s t e m . I n the3

a l t e rna t i ve , he a r gue s tha tpl a i n e rr oroc c urr e d be c a us e he w oul d ha ve r e c e i ve d a l e s s e rs e n t e n c e u n d e ra n a d v i s o ry s y s t e m. I n B ooke r , the U ni t e d S t a t e s S upr e m e C our the l d tha tthe F e de r a l S e nt e nc i ng G ui del i nes vi ol at e the S i xth A m endm entri gh tt o a tri al by j ury, t o the ext entthey perm i ta j ud ge i n a m andat ory gui del i ne sy st em t o i ncre as e adefe nd ant ’ s s ent ence b a s e d o n f

a c ts th a t a r e n e ith e rf

o u n d b y a ju ry n o ra d m itte d b y th e d e f e n d a n t. B ooke r , 543 U . S . a t___, 125 S . C t . a t756. A s a r e m e dy , the C our tr e nde r e d the G ui de l i ne s “ e f

f e c t i ve l y a dvi s ory ” by e xc i s i ng 18 U . S . C . § 3553( b) ( 1) ( r e qui r i ng a se nt ence w i thi n the gu i del i ne ra ng e, abse nta departure) and 1 8 U . S . C . § 3 74 2(e) ( e s t abl i s hi ng s t a nda r ds of r e vi e w on appe a l , i nc l udi ng de novo r e vi e w of d e p a r tu r e s f

r o m th e ap p lic ab le g u id e lin e r a n g e ) . I d . a t _

__ , 1 2 5 S .C t. a t 7 5 6 - 5 7 . T he C our te xpl a i ne d tha t , “ [ w ] i thoutthe ‘ m a nda t ory ’ pr ovi s i on, the [ S e nt e nc i ng R ef orm ] A ctno nethel es s r equi re s j ud ges t o t ake a cc ou ntof the G ui del i nes t og ether w i th o ther s ent enci ng go al s. ” I d. at76 4. P ost -B oo ker, se nt ence s a re st i l l re vi ew ed for r ea sonabl enes s. B oo ker, 54 3 U . S . at___, 12 5 S . C t . at76 5-66 ; se e a l so U ni t ed S t at es v. C ra w ford, 40 7 F . 3d 11 74 , 11 78 (11th C i r. 20 05 ) ( no t i ng that“ B oo ker e s t abl i s he d a ‘ r e a s onabl e ne s s ’ s t a nda r d f orthe s e nt e nc e f

i na l l y i m pos e d on a d e f e n d a n t” ) . B a s e d o n B o o k e r ’s h o ld in g , w e h a v e r e c o g n iz e d th a t th e d is tr ic t c o u r ts c o u ld4

have m ade bot h a const i tut i on al and a st atut ory e rr or i n sent enci ng defe nd ant s pre B ooke r . U ni t e d S t a t e s v. M a the ni a , 409 F . 3d 1289, 1291 ( 11th C i r . 2005) . T he const i tut i on al error i s the use of e xtra -ver di ctenhancem ent s t o rea ch a gui del i nes re sul tthati s bi nd i ng on the se nt enci ng j ud ge. Id. T he st atut ory e rr or occurs w hen the di stri ctcourtse nt ence s adefe nd antun der am andat ory gui del i nes s chem e, even i n the abs e nc e of

a S i xth A m e ndm e nte nha nc e m e ntvi ol a t i on. I d. W e ha ve s t a t e d tha t“ both m a j or i ty opi ni ons i n B ooke rm a ke c l e a rtha tthe deci si ve fa ct or thatm akes pre- B oo ker s ent enci ng prob l em at i c i s notextra -ver di ct e nha nc e m e nt s butthe i rus e i n a m a nda t ory gui de l i ne s s y s t e m . ” U ni t e d S t a t e s v. R od ri gu ez , 39 8 F . 3d 12 91 , 13 01 (11th C i r. ), ce rt . deni ed, 12 5 S . C t . 29 35 (200 5); s e e U n ite d S ta te s v . C h a u , 4 2 6 F .3 d 1 3 1 8 , 1 3 2 3 - 2 4 ( 1 1 th C ir . 2 0 0 5 ) ( h o ld in g th a t if a di s tr i c tc our tappl i e s the G ui de l i ne s a s a dvi s ory , nothi ng i n B ooke rpr ohi bi t s the di s tr i c tc our tf

r om m a ki ng, unde ra pr e ponde r a nc e - of - the - e vi de nc e s t a nda r d, addi t i on al fa ctual fi nd i ng s thatgo beyond a def endant ’ s a dm i ss i on ). B ec ause K ucer a w as re -s ent ence d aft erB oo ker w as deci ded and un der a n advi sory gu i del i nes s chem e, the di stri ctcourtdi d n otcom m i tst atut ory B oo ker error i n app l yi ng the gu i del i nes, or const i tut i on al B oo ker e rr or i n rel yi ng on fa ctual f in d in g s m a d e b y a p r e p o n d e r a n c e o f th e e v id e n c e . II5

K uc e r a a r gue s tha tthe di s tr i c tc our t ’ s “ f i ndi ngs ” dur i ng r e - s e nt e nc i ng s how th a t h e d id n o t c o m m it o b s tru c tio n o f ju s tic e , a n d a lth o u g h h e d id n o t r a is e th is i s s ue dur i ng hi s f

i r s tappe a l , the c our t ’ s c om m e nt s a tr e - s e nt e nc i ng r e qui r e r e m a nd f orr e s e nt e nc i ng. H e a l s o a r gue s tha tthe di s tr i c tc our t ’ s or i gi na l f i ndi ngs di d not supp ortthe ob struct i on of j ust i ce enhancem entbecause the courtdi d n otfi nd that h e h in d e r e d th e in v e s tig a tio n o rp r o s e c u tio n o f h is o f f e n s e , a n d b e c a u s e h e o n ly d e n ie d h is g u ilt, a n d d id n o t c o n c o c t a f a ls e s to ry . W e g en eral l y d eem i ssu es av ai l ab l e b u tn o trai sed i n a d efen d an t ’ s fi rst appeal abando ned and w i l l no tconsi der them i n a subsequentappeal . S ee U ni t ed S ta te s v . F ia llo - J a c o m e , 8 7 4 F .2 d 1 4 7 9 , 1 4 8 0 - 8 3 ( 1 1 th C ir .1 9 8 9 ) ( r e f u s in g to consi der a n i ss ue no tra i se d b y acr i m i nal defe nd anton di re ctappeal because a de f e nda nts houl d notbe gi ve n “ tw o bi t e s a tthe appe l l a t e appl e . ” ) . W he n a d e f e n d a n t d o e s n o t o b

je c t d u r in g s e n te n c in g to th e ap p lic a tio n o f a n e n h a n c e m e n t, i ti s r e vi e w e d f

orpl a i n e rr or . U ni t e d S t a t e s v. R odr i gue z , 398 F . 3d 1291, 1298 ( 1 1 th C ir .) , c e r t. d e n ie d , 1 2 5 S .C t. 2 9 3 5 ( 2 0 0 5 ) . T o p r e v a il u n d e rth is s ta n d a r d , a defe nd antm ustshow “ (1) e rr or, (2) thati s pl ai n, and (3) thataf fe ct s s ub st ant i al ri gh t s. ” I d. (i nt ernal qu ot at i on s a nd ci t at i on s om i tt ed). “ If al l three cond i t i on s a re m et , an appel l at e c ou rtm ay then exerci se i t s di sc re t i on t o n ot i ce a f orfe i t ed error, butonl y i f

( 4) the e rr ors e r i ous l y a f f e c t s the f a i rne s s , i nt e gr i ty , orpubl i c r e put a t i on6

of j udi c i a l pr oc e e di ngs . ” I d. ( quot a t i on a nd c i t a t i on om i tt e d) . T he bur de n i s on the de f e nda ntt o s how a r e a s onabl e pr obabi l i ty of a di f f e r e ntr e s ul t . I d. a t1299- 1300. P ur s ua ntt o U . S . S . G . § 3C 1. 1, a de f e nda nt ’ s of

f e ns e l e ve l i s i nc r e a s e d by tw o p o in ts if

“( A ) th e d e f

e n d a n t w illf

u lly o b s tru c te d o rim p e d e d , o ra tte m p te d to obs truc tori m pe de , the a dm i ni s tr a t i on of j us t i c e dur i ng the c our s e of the i nve s t i ga t i on, pr os e c ut i on, ors e nt e nc i ng of the i ns t a ntof

f e ns e of c onvi c t i on, a nd ( B ) the obs truc t i ve c onduc tr e l a t e d t o ( i ) the de f e nda nt ’ s of

f e ns e of c onvi c t i on a nd a ny r e l e va ntc onduc t [ . ] ” T he c om m e nt a ry t o § 3C 1. 1 c i t e s “ c om m i tt i ng, su b o rn i n g , o r att em p t i n g t o su b o rn p erj u ry” an d “ p ro v i d i n g m at eri al l y fal se i nf or m a t i on t o a j udge orm a gi s tr a t e ” a s e xa m pl e s of c onduc tt o w hi c h the e nha nc e m e ntappl i e s . I d. , c m t . n. 4( b) , ( f ) . P e r j ury i s gi vi ng “ f

a l s e t e s t i m ony co n cern i n g a m at eri al m att er w i th th e w i l l fu l i n t en tt o p ro v i d e fal se t est i m o n y, r a the rtha n a s a r e s ul tof c onf us i on, m i s t a ke , orf

a ul ty m e m ory . ” U ni t e d S t a t e s v. D un ni gan, 50 7 U . S . 87 , 94 , 11 3 S . C t . 11 11 , 11 16 , 12 2 L . E d. 2d 44 5 (19 93 ).

“ M a t e r i a l ” m e a ns “ e vi de nc e , f a c t , s t a t e m e nt , ori nf

or m a t i on . . . tha t , i f

be l i e ve d, wo u l d t e n d t o i n f

l u e n c e o ra f

f e c tth e i s s u e u n d e rd e t e r m i n a t i o n . ” U. S . S . G. § 3C 1. 1, c m t . n. 6. “ [ T ] he thr e s hol d f orm a t e r i a l i ty unde rthe c om m e nt a ry t o § 3 C 1 .1 is ‘c o n s p ic u o u s ly lo w .’” U n ite d S ta te s v . O d e d in a , 9 8 0 F .2 d 7 0 5 , 7 0 7 ( 1 1 th C ir . 1 9 9 3 ) .Appellant’s request for oral a rgument is denied. 1 7 T he S up re m e C ou rthas hel d thati f adefe nd antobj ec t s t o a se nt ence e nha nc e m e nttha tw a s ba s e d on hi s tr i a l t e s t i m ony , “ a di s tr i c tc our tm us tr e vi e w the e vi de nc e a nd m a ke i nde pe nde ntf i ndi ngs ne c e s s a ry t o e s t abl i s h a w i l l f ul i m pe di m e ntt o orobs truc t i on of j us t i c e , ora n a tt e m ptt o do the s a m e , unde rthe pe r j ury de f i ni t i on w e ha ve s e tout . ” D unni ga n, 507 U . S . a t95, 113 S . C t . a t1117 ( c ita tio n s o m itte d ) . A l though K uc e r a di d notr a i s e thi s i s s ue on hi s f i r s tappe a l , the gove rnm e nt d o es n o tcl ai m th atth i s i ssu e i s ab an d o n ed an d , th u s, w e w i l l rev i ew i t . B ecau se the di s tr i c tc our tm a de s pe c i f i c f i ndi ngs tha tK uc e r a c om m i tt e d pe r j ury w he n he te s tif ie d th a t th e v ic tim v o lu n ta r ily p a r tic ip a te d in th e e v e n ts o f th e n ig h t in q u e s tio n , a n d th e s e f

in d in g s w e r e s u p p o r te d b y th e r e c o r d , th e c o u r t d id n o t p la in ly e rrin ap p ly in g th e o b s tru c tio n o f ju s tic e e n h a n c e m e n t. A FFI R M ED 1