FILED U.S. COURT OF AP P EALS E LEVEN T HC IRC UIT AUGUST 17, 2005 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. 03- 12810 N on -A rgum entC al endar

________________________ D. C. Do c k e tNo . 0 0 - 0 0 2 6 2 - CR - 3 - J - 2 0 HTS 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 W I L L I A M A L L E N A RN O L D , 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

_________________________ ( A ugus t17, 2005) O N R EM A N D FR O M TH E SU PR EM E C O U R T O F TH E U N I TED STA TES B efo re C A RN E S , B A R K E T T an d M A R C U S , C i rcu i tJu d g es. P E R C U R I A M:2

T he appe a l of

W i l l i a m A l l e n A rnol d, pr o s e , i s a ga i n be f or e us , f ol l ow i ng a r e m a n d f r o m th e S u p r e m e C o u rt o f th e U n ite d S ta te s f

o rf u rth e rc o n s id e r a tio n in l i gh tof U ni t ed S t at es v. B oo ker, 12 5 S . C t . 78 3 (20 05 ). S ee A rnol d v . U ni t ed S t a t e s , 125 S . C t . 2527 ( 2005) . W e pr e vi ous l ya f f i rm e d A rnol d’ s c onvi c t i on a nd tw e l ve - m onth s e nt e nc e f orc ons pi r i ng t o de f

r aud the U ni t e d S t a t e s , i n vi ol a t i on of 1 8 U .S .C . § 3 7 1 . U n ite d S ta te s v . A rn o ld , 1 2 5 F e d . A p p x . 2 6 9 ( 1 1 th C ir . 2 0 0 4 ) . A f te rr e v ie w , w e c o n c lu d e th a t b e c au s e A rn o ld r a is e d aB o o k e r - typ e c la im in h is i ni t i al bri ef

on appeal , bu tra i se d n o such cl ai m before the di stri ctcourt , w e c an r e vi e w hi s s e nt e nc e onl y f orpl a i n e rr or . H ow e ve r , be c aus e A rnol d ha s not dem on stra t ed a r ea sonabl e probabi l i ty of adi ff er entre sul tun der the po st -B oo ker advi sorygu i del i nes s ys t em , w e a gai n aff i rm A rnol d’ s s ent ence and rei nst at e i n p art o u rp r io ro p in io n . B AC KG RO UN D A f t e rthe j ury r e turne d agui l ty ve r di c t , the P r e - S e nt e nc e I nve s t i ga t i on R ep o rt (“P S I” ) c alcu lated $ 2 1 7 , 5 8 6 .0 0 as th e to tal t ax lo ss attrib u tab le to A rn o ld ’s ro l e i n th e co n sp i racy. U si n g th i s l o ss am o u n t , th e P S I reco m m en d ed a b ase o ffen se l ev el o f si x t een , p u rsu an tt o U . S . S . G . § 2 T 1 . 1 (a)(1 ). T h e P S I al so r e c o m m e n d e d atw o - le v e l 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 , p u r s u a n t to3

U . S . S . G . § 3 C 1. 1, du e t o A rnol d’ s c on t i nu ed re fusa l t o com pl y w i th g rand j ury p r o c e e d in g s –c o n d u c t th a t u ltim a te ly r e s u lte d in ac r im in a l c o n te m p t c o n v ic tio n . W i th a n a d

j u s t e d o f f e n s e l e v e l o f

1 8 a n d ac r i mi n a l h i s t o ry c a t e g o ry o f I , th e PSI c a lc u la te d h is g u id e lin e s ’ im p r is o n m e n t r a n g e a t 2 7 to 3 3 m o n th s . A rn o ld f ile d ap r o s e a f

f id a v it s ta tin g h is o b

je c tio n s to th e P S I . H is ext ensi ve obj ec t i on s l ar gel y c on ce rned al l egat i on s thatthe di stri ctcourtl ac ked j uri sdi ct i on , as w el l as hi s r el at ed qu as i -c on st i tut i on al cl ai m s r egar di ng the Int ernal R e v e n u e S e rv ic e a n d S o c ia l S e c u r ityA d m in is tr a tio n . W h ile A rn o ld d id r e p e a te d ly o b ject to th e tax lo ss am o u n ts ca lcu lated , h e d idn o t d o so b as ed o n th e ju d g e’s d eter m in atio n o f th e tax lo ss o r ju ry ’s fa il u re to fin d th e tax am o u n t. A rn o ld ’s a f f i da vi ta l s o f

a i l e d t o r e f

e r e nc e the S i xth A m e ndm e ntora ny c a s e s i n the l i ne of A p p r e n d i v . N e w J e r s e y , 5 3 0 U .S . 2 6 6 ( 2 0 0 0 ) . A tthe se nt enci ng hear i ng , A rnol d ref used t o add re ss the di stri ctcourt r e ga r di ng hi s obj e c t i ons , r e pe a t e dl y s t a t i ng tha the w oul d r e m a i n s i l e nta nd s t a nd o n th e o b je c tio n s c o n ta in e d in h is p r e v io u s ly - s u b m itte d a f f id a v it. H e e x p lic itly d e c lin e d to b e h e a r d o n th e is s u e o f ta x lo s s c a lc u la tio n s . T h e d istrict co u rt u lt im ately o v erru led an y o b jectio n s a n d ad o p ted th e P S I’s fa ctual fi nd i ng s and gu i del i ne ca l cul at i on s. H ow ever , the di stri ctcourtthen de pa rt e d dow nw a r d pur s ua ntt o U . S . S . G . §5G 1. 3, be c aus e A rnol d ha d a l r e a dy4

s e rve d 18 m onths f

orc r i m i na l c ont e m ptba s e d on hi s f a i l ur e t o c oope r a t e w i th the gr a nd j ury pr oc e e di ngs . T he di s tr i c tc ourtul t i m a t e l y s e nt e nc e d A rnol d t o tw e l ve m o n th s ’ im p r is o n m e n t a n d tw o y e a r s ’ o f s u p e rv is e d r e le a s e . O n ap p e a l , A rn o l d , a g a i n p r o c e e d i n g p r o s e , r a i s e d av a r i e ty o f c l a i ms c o n c e rn in g h is c o n v ic tio n a n d s e n te n c e . I n r e le v a n t p a rt, A rn o ld a g a in o b je c te d to the di stri ctcourt ’ s t ax l oss c al cul at i on on se vera l grou nd s, i ncl ud i ng a c l ai m that h is “s e n te n c e is n o t la w f u l” b e c au s e it w a s “b a s e d u p o n [ ta x lo s s ] ‘n u m e r ic s ’ . . . c onj ur e d af

tertr i a l , f

orac ha r ge ne ve re ve n a l l e ge d, m uc h l e s s tr i e d. ” A ppe l l a nt B r. at50 (e m ph as i s i n o ri gi nal ). A rnol d argued thati m po si ng such a s ent ence w here the t ax l oss am ou ntw as nei ther c harged no r tri ed, w ou l d “ rocket -s l ed thr ough the due pr oc e s s ba rr i e ra tl i ghts pe e d. ” I d. W e a f f i rm e d A rnol d’ s c onvi c t i on a nd s e nt e nc e , f i ndi ng the t a x l os s a m ount u sed b y th e d i stri ctco u rti n sen t en ci n g w as a reaso n ab l e est i m at e o f th e t ax l o ss dur i ng the t i m e of

A rnol d’ s i nvol ve m e nti n the c ons pi r a c y . A rnol d, 125 F e d. A p p x . 2 6 9 . A rn o l d th e n f i l e d ap e t i t i o n f

o raw r i to f

c e rt i o r a r i w i th th e Su p r e me C ourt . T he S upr e m e C ourtgr a nt e d tha tpe t i t i on, va c a t i ng ouropi ni on a nd r e m a n d in g th e c a s e f

o rf u rth e rc o n s id e r a tio n in lig h t o f B o o k e r . A rn o ld , 1 2 5 S . C t. 2527.5 STA N D A R D O F R EVI EW W hi l e A rnol d a s s e rt s tha the r a i s e d the B ooke ri s s ue both a ttr i a l a nd on di r e c tappe a l , the r e c or d doe s nots upportthi s a s s e rt i on. A rnol d’ s s e nt e nc i ng

“ a f f i da vi t ” di d notobj e c tt o the di s tr i c tc ourt ’ s e s t i m a t i on of the t a x l os s unde rthe pr e ponde r a nc e s t a nda r d, r a i s e hi s j ury tr i a l r i ght s unde rthe S i xth A m e ndm e nt , nor c i t e t o a ny c a s e i n the A ppr e ndi l i ne . S e e U ni t e d S t a t e s v. D ow l i ng, 403 F . 3d 1242, 1246 ( 11th C i r . 2005) ( hol di ng tha tappe l l a nt ’ s non- c ons t i tut i ona l s e nt e nc i ng o b je c tio n f a ile d to p r e s e rv e B o o k e re rr o r , w h e r e th e o b je c tio n m a d e n o r e f

e r e n c e to the S i xth A m endm ent , the rol e of j ud ge as fa ct -f i nd er , the ri gh tt o j ury det erm i nat i on of di sput ed fa ct s, or the A pp re nd i l i ne of cas es ). H o w ev er, w h en rev i ew ed u n d er th e l i b eral st an d ard s ap p l i cab l e t o p ro se ar gu m ent s, se e M eder os v. U ni t ed S t at es , 21 8 F . 3d 12 52 , 12 54 (11th C i r. 20 00 ), A rn o ld ’s in itia l b r ie f

o n ap p e a l d o e s ap p e a rto r a is e aB o o k e r - typ e c la im . S p eci fi cal l y, A rn o l d arg u ed th ath i s sen t en ce v i o l at ed co n st i tu t i o n al d u e p ro cess gu ar ant ee s bec ause the t ax l oss am ou ntw as never tri ed before the j ury, bu ti nst ea d w a s c a lc u la te d a f

te rtr ia l. A p p e lla n t B r ie f a t 5 0 . G iv e n o u ro b lig a tio n to lib e r a lly construe pro se fi l i ng s, w e hol d thatA rnol d’ s app el l at e- bri ef ar gu m ent s are s uf f i c i e ntt o r a i s e the B ooke ri s s ue . N one the l e s s , be c aus e A rnol d di d notr a i s e a ny such i ss ue bel ow , w e r evi ew hi s B oo ker c l ai m on l y f or pl ai n err or. U ni t ed S t at es6

v. R odr i gue z , 398 F . 3d 1291, 1297 ( 11th C i r . 2005) , c e rt . de ni e d, 125 S . C t . 2935 (200 5). DI S CUS S I ON U nd erpl ai n err or re vi ew , appel l at e c ou rt s have al i m i t ed po w ert o correc t e rr or s tha tw e r e nott i m e l y r a i s e d i n the di s tr i c tc ourt . U ni t e d S t a t e s v. O l a no, 507 U . S . 72 5, 73 1 (19 93 ). W e m ayno tcorr ec tsuch an error unl es s: (i ) there i s e rr or; (i i ) i ti s pl ai n; and (i i i ) i taf fe ct s s ub st ant i al ri gh t s. Id. If these three cond i t i on s are m e t , w e m a y e xe r c i s e ourdi s c r e t i on t o c orr e c tthe e rr ori f i ts 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 on of j udi c i a l pr oc e e di ngs . I d. In thi s c as e, the di stri ctcourtcom m i tt ed bo th con st i tut i on al and st atut ory B oo ker e rr ors w hen i tse nt ence d A rnol d u nd era m andat ory gui del i nes s ys t em base d u po n fac t s ( the t ax l oss am ou ntand A rnol d’ s obstruct i on of j ust i ce ) that w e r e n e ith e ra d m itte d b y A rn o ld n o rp r o v e n to aju ry b e y o n d ar e a s o n ab le d o u b t. B ooke r , 125 S . C t . a t756. T hough thi s e rr orw a s notappa r e nta tthe t i m e of s e nt e nc i ng, unde rB ooke ri ti s now pl a i n. R odr i gue z , 398 F . 3d a t1299. H o w e v e r , it d o e s n o t ap p e a rth a t u n d e rth e th ir d p r o n g o f th e p la in - e rr o rte s t, A rnol d’ s s ubs t a nt i a l r i ght s ha ve be e n a f f e c t e d. T he thi r d pr ong of pl a i n e rr or r e v ie w r e q u ir e s A rn o ld to d e m o n s tr a te th a t ab s e n t th e e rr o r , th e r e is ar e a s o n ab le p r o b ab ilityo f

ad if f e r e n t r e s u lt. I d . W h e r e th e e f f e c t o f th e e rr o ris in d e te rm in a te7

o rif w e w o u ld b e le f

t to s p e c u la te , th a t b u r d e n h a s n o t b e e n s a tis f ie d . I d . a t 1 3 0 1 . A c lo s e r e v ie w o f

th e r e c o r d r e v e a ls n o s u g g e s tio n th a t th e d is tr ic t c o u rt w o u ld h a v e im p o s e d alo w e rs e n te n c e u n d e rth e p o s t- B o o k e ra d v is o ry s e n te n c in g s y s te m . A s s u c h , A rn o ld h a s f

a ile d to d e m o n s tr a te th a t th e B o o k e re rr o ra f f e c te d h is subst ant i al ri gh t s. S ee U ni t ed S t at es v. C artw ri gh t , 41 3 F . 3d 12 95 , 13 01 (11th C i r. 20 05 ). A c c or di ngl y , w e r e i ns t a t e ourpr i oropi ni on w i th the e xc e pt i on of our di s c us s i on of

the di s tr i c tc ourt ’ s t a x c a l c ul a t i on, f orw hi c h w e s ubs t i tut e the f or e goi ng. O P I N I O N R E I N S T A T E D I N P A R T ; A F F I R M E D .