FIL ED U.S . C OUR T O F A PPE ALS ELE VEN TH CIRCUI T Aug ust18 , 2 005 THO MAS K. KA

HN CLE RK [DO NOT PUBLISH] IN THE UN ITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FO R T HE EL EV EN TH CIRC UI T

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ N o. 04- 1593 2 Non-A rgum ent Calendar

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ D. C. Docket N o. 03-00649 -CR- RW S-1-1 UNITED STAT ES OF AMERIC A, Plaintiff-Appellee,
ve rs us BARON CARL SM ITH, a. k. a. Mi ch ae l P
. Ba

bin ch ak , D ef en dant- Appe llant.

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ __ Appe al f ro m the U nit ed

S ta te s D istri ct

Co urt f or the N orthe rnD istri ct

of G eo rg ia

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ _ (Augus t 18 , 200 5) Be fo re BI RC H , BL A CK

and P RY O R, Ci rc uit

Jud ge s. PE R CU RIA M: Baron Car l Sm ith appeals his sentence for illegally re- entering the United States af ter previously

being rem oved, in violatio n of 8 U. S. C. § 132 6(a)( 2),2

(b )( 2)
. S m ithple d gu ilty to the one -c ount

ind ic tm en t f

or il le ga l r e- en tr

y . T he gove rn m en t pr es en te d th e fa ct ua l ba sis f

or the ind ic tm en t a t the ple a he ar ing , re pr es en tin g th at

S m ith“ ha d f

el ony c onvi ct ion s f

or c ar ry ing af ir earm w ith out a li cen se an d re cei vi ng st ol en pro pe rty” bef or e h is de po rta ti on in 20 03 . R2 at 22
. Sm ith adm itted that he was convicted of those crim es, but em phasized that he was pleading g uiltyonly

to the indi ctm ent and asserted that the prior conviction s wer e ne ith er pr es en te d to the gr an d j ur y nor a lle ge d inthe ind ic tm en t. I d. a t 23 -2 4. T he pr oba tio n of

fi ce r ca lc ulate d S m ith ’ s gu ide lin es r an ge a s 18 -2 4 m onths b as ed on a total offense level of 13 and a cr im inal histo ry category of II I. A t se nte nc ing , S m itharg ue d th at apr opos ed

8- le ve l e nhanc em en t ba se d on his pr ior c onvi ct ion s w as not

inc lud ed in the ind ic tm en t and thus vio la te d B lake ly
v . Was h i n g t o n , U.S . , 1 2 4 S. Ct . 2 5 3 1 (2 0 0 4 ). R3 at 2 . B as ed o n th i s co u rt ’s precedent, the district court overruled the objection. Id. at 2. T he district court subs equently

sentenced Sm ith to a term of im prisonm ent of 21 m onth s and 3 y ears supervised release. O n a ppe al , S m itharg ue s th at

the dis tr ic t c ourt vi olate d hi s S ixth A m en dm en t r igh t purs uant t o U nit ed S ta te s v. Bo oke r, 543 U . S. __, 125 S
. Ct
. 738 (2 005) , by

e nhanc ing his se nte nc e w ithpr ior c onvi ct ion s no t c harg ed

in the3

ind ic tm en t or

pr ove n to aj ur

y . H e al so c ont en ds tha t the dis tr ic t c ourt sh oul d have co ns id ered th e g ui de li ne s i n a n a dv is ory rat he r th an a bi nd in g m an ne r. Whe n ade fe ndant r ai se s ac onst itu tio na l ob j ec tio n to se nte nc ing enhancem ents in the dis trict court, we reviewthe sentence de novo. U nited States
v. P az , 405 F . 3d 9 46, 948 ( 11th C ir
. 200 5)
. T o pr es er ve aBo oke r er

ro r, the ti m el y co nst itu tio na l ob

j ec tio n m ust have r ef er re d to the S ixth A m en dm en t, Appr en di o r oth er r el at ed c as es , or the r igh t t o have the j ur

y de ci de the dis put ed

f ac t, or have rai se d ach al le ng e to th e jud ge ’s rol e as fact -fi nd er wi th reg ardto sen te nc in g. See United States v. Dow ling, 403 F.3d 1242 , 1246 (11th Cir. 2005). I n Booker, the Suprem e Court held that a defendant’ s Sixth Am endm ent right to trial by j ury i s v i o l a t e db y th e i mp o s i t i o n o f as e n t e n c i n g e n h a n c e men tu n d e r th e man d a t o ry y fe de ra l se nte nc ing gui de lin es sc he m e ba se d up on f ac ts n ei the r adm itt ed

by the de fe ndant n or

f ound by the j ur y . B ooke r, 543 U . S. a t __ , , 125 S
. Ct
. a t 74 9- 56, 764. Based on Booker, w e have stated that there c an two Booker er rors: (1) a Si xthA m en dm en t e rr or

by the im posi tio n of

ase nte nc ing e nhanc em en t ba se d on j udi ci al f ind ing s th at

go b ey ond the f

ac ts a dm itt ed

by the de fe ndant o r fo und by the j ury , and (2) a statutory err or by being sentenced un der a m andatory guidelin es syste m . Unit edSta te s v . She lt on , 40 0 F .3d13 25 , 13 30 -3 1 (1 1t h C ir. 2 00 5)
.4

W e w ill reverse a

sentence only

if the district court’ s sentencing error w as harm ful. P az, 405 F.3d at 948. Aconstitu tional error is harm less when it is clear bey ond a reasonable doub t that the error did no t contribute to th e sentence im pose d. I d. T he gov er

nm en t be ar s th e bur de n of sho w ing “ that the e rr or

did not af fe ct the de fe ndant’ s su

bst an tia l r igh ts. ” Id
. T he re is, how ev er , no S ixth A m en dm en t vi olatio n w he n ade fe ndant’ s se nte nc e is e nhanc ed ba se d onpr ior convictio ns. U nited States v. G allegos-Aguero, 409 F.3d 1274 , 1276 (11th Cir. 20 05 ). A non -con st it uti ona l e rr or is harm le ss i f, vie w ing the pr oc ee din gs i n the ir e nti re ty , ac ourt de te rm ine s th at the e rr or

did not a ff ec t the [s en te nc e] , or ha d but ve ry sli ght ef fe ct . If one can say w ithfair as sur an ce . . . that the [s en tenc e] w as not sub stanti al ly

sw ay ed by the error , the [ sentence] is due to be affir m ed even thoug h there w as err or. U nit ed S ta te s v. Mathe nia , 409 F . 3d 1 289, 129 2 ( 11th C ir
. 200 5) ( quot at ionm ar ks
om itt ed and c itatio n om itt ed ). T he gov er nm en t’ s burd enin pr ovi ng h ar m le ss e rr or fo r a n on -co ns ti tu ti on al erro r is di ffi cu lt . Id. at12 92
. T he dis tr ic t c ourt di d no t e rr by e nhanc ing S m ith ’ s se nte nc e ba se d onhis pr ior c onvi ct ion s. T he dis tr ic t c ourt, how ev er , c om m itt ed e rr or by se nte nc ing Sm ithund er

am an da tor

y gui de lin es sy ste m . B ec au se S m ithpr es er ve d th e er ro r be low , w e re vie wf

or harm le ss e rr or . T he e rr or w as harm fu l be ca

use the gove rn m en t ha s no t sh ow n th at the e rr or did not a ff ec t S m ith ’ s se nte nc e or5

subs tanti al r igh ts, and the r ec or d do es not ind ic at e that the dis tr ic t c ourt w oul d ha ve sen te nc edin th e sa m e m an ne r if th e g ui de li ne s wer e n ot m an da to ry . T he re fo re , the dis tr ic t c ourt c om m itt ed harm fu l e rr or . A cc or din gly , w e va cate and
re m an din g f

or r es en te nc ing
. VACATED AND REMANDED.