### FI LED U.S. COURT O F APP EALS ELEVENTH CIRCUIT JUN E 10, 20 05 THO MAS K. KAH N CL ERK [DO NOT PUBLISH]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- 1411 3 Non-A rgum ent Calendar

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ D. C. Docket N o. 03-00020 -CR- 1 UNITED STAT ES OF AMERIC A, Plaintiff-Appellee,
ve rs us JOSE RODR IGUEZ, 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 S o u t h e rn D i s t r i c to f

A l ab a ma

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ _ (June 10, 200 5) Be fo re CA RN E S, H U L L a nd M A RC U S, Ci rc uit Jud ge s. PE R CU RIA M:2

Jos e Ro dr igu ez appe al s hi s 30 4- m onth se nte nc e im pose d f or c onsp ir ac y

to di st rib ut e an d p os se ss wit h i nt en t t o d is tri bu te m et ha m ph et am in e. Afte r rev ie w,
w e va cate his se nte nc e an d r em an d to the dis tr ic t c ourt f or r es en te nc ing
. I. BACK GROUND A. Guilty P lea Ro dr igu ez ple d gu ilty

to co nspi ra cy

to dis tr ibu te a nd p oss es s w ithint en t t o dis tr ibu te m or e than 50 0 gr am s of am ixt ur e an d su

bst an ce c ont ai nin g ade te ct ab le
am ount of m etha m phe tam ine , in vio la tio n of 21 U
. S. C. §§ 8 41( a) (1 ), 846
. A tta ch ed to Ro dr igu ez ’ s pl ea

a gr ee m en t w as a“ fa ct

ua l r es um e” c ont ai nin g the facts that Rodriguez adm itted as true. Ac cording to th e fa ctual resum e, R o d r i g u e z wa s p a rto f

amet h a mp h e t a mi n e d i s t r i b u t i o n c o n s p i r a c y. S p e c i f i c a l l y, in October 2001, K enneth and Debra P arks introduced Rodrigu ez to T rum an Rodney Daniel, a susp ected m etham phetam ine traff

icker. T he Par

kses introd uced Ro dr igu ez a s th ei r sour ce f or m etha m phe tam ine in Ca lif

or nia
. A t the m ee tin g,
w hic h to ok p la ce in Bars tow , Ca lif or nia , D an ie l purc ha se d on e- ha lf pound o f
m etha m phe tam ine f

ro m Ro dr igu ez , w hic h D an ie l the n br ough t ba ck to Ba ldw in Co un ty, Alab am a fo r di st rib ut io n. On O ctober 21, 2002, California law e nforcem ent officer s arre sted Ro dr igu ez w hil e he w as ope ratin g ac lande sti ne m etha m phe tam ine la

bor at or y in aSection 2D1.1(b)( 1) provides that “[ i] f a da ng erous we apon (inc luding a firea rm) wa s 1 possessed, incr ease by

2 levels.” U .S.S.G. § 2D1.1(b)(1) ( 2003). 3 shed in Helendale, California. T he shed was located beside a house/residence wher e lawenforce m ent officer s found p recursor m aterials used to m anufacture
m etha m phe tam ine
. L awe nf

or ce m en t of

fi ce rs a lso f

ound tw o c el l ph one s, ap pr ox im at el y

1.5 po un ds of m et ha m

ph et am in e, di gi ta l s cal es , a lar ge kn ife , a rifle, and a . 40-caliber sem i-autom atic handgun during a “ search of the property .” Add it io na ll y , th ere wer e ch il dr en in th e h ou se at t he ti m e o f Ro dr ig ue z’s arre st . The f actual re sum e also stated that the parties agree d that Rodrigu ez w as
res po ns ib le for7.5 po un ds , or 3 .4 k il og ram s, o f m et ha m ph et am in e. During the plea colloquy , the district court confirm ed that Rodriguez had
re vie w ed the f ac tua l r es um e. R odr igu ez a cknow le dge d th at he r ea d, und er sto od,
an d si gne d th e fa ct

ua l r es um e an d th at

he “ did the thi ngs that i t” sa id h e did
. T he d i s t r i c tc o u rtth e n a d

ju d i c a t e dR o d r i g u e z g u i l t y. B. PS I and Se nten cing T he P SI a sse sse d R odr igu ez aba se of fe nse le ve l of

34. T he P SI a lso
as se sse d: ( 1) atw o- le ve l e nhanc em en t purs uant t o U
. S. S. G
. § 2D 1. 1( b) (1 ) be ca use a dangerous wea

pon was possess ed during th e conspiracy ; and (2) a six-level 1 enhancem ent pursuant to U. S. S. G. § 2D1.1(b)( 5)(C) because the offe nse invo lvedSection 2D1.1(b)( 5)(C) pr ovides that “[i] f the off ense (i) involved the manufa cture of . . . 2 methamphetamine; and (ii) c reated a substantial risk of ha rm to the life of a

minor . . . increa se by 6 levels.” U.S.S .G. § 2D1.1(b)( 5)(C) (2003). This Court has held that “ [a] lthough the district c ourt is not re quired to ide ntify a specific minor, it must still make a findingthat the def

endant’ s actions place d a minor at risk.” United States v. Flore nce, 333 F .3d 1290, 1293 (11th Cir. 2003). 4 the m anuf

ac tur e of m etha m phe tam ine a nd c re at ed

asub stanti al r isk

of harm to the l i f e o f ami n o r . Af

t e r ath r e e - l e v e l r e du c t i o n f

o r a c c e p t a n c e o f

r e s p o n s i b i l i t y, 2 Rodriguez’ s total adjusted offense level w as 39. W ith a crim inal histo ry category of III , R odriguez’ s Guidelines range w as 324-405 m onth s’ im prisonm ent. T he PSI al so n ote d am an da tor

y m ini m um se nte nc e of

120 m onths’ im

pr iso nm en t, pur suant to 21 U.S .C. § 841(b)(1)(A ). Inthe dis tr ic t c ourt, Ro dr igu ez obj ec te d to both th e fi re ar m a nd
en dange rm en t- to- a- m ino r en hanc em en ts. H e ar gue d ( 1) that the re w as ins uf fi ci en t
ev ide nc e to s uppo rt

the e nhanc em en ts, a nd ( 2) that a ppl ic at ionof

the
en hanc em en ts v iol at ed

his S ixth A m en dm en t r igh ts p ur suant t o B lake ly v. W as hi ng to n, 5 42 U.S. __ , 12 4 S . Ct. 2 53 1 (2 00 4)
. Furthe rm or e, a t the se nte nc ing he ar ing , the gov er nm en t di d no t r el y

sol el y on the factual resum e to suppo rt the two e nhancem ents, but instead called a law
en fo rc em en t w itn es s to te sti fy
. A t the se nte nc ing he ar ing , S anBe rn ad ino Co unty Sh er if f D ep uty Mark Ro ge rs te sti fi ed

that the she d w he re Ro dr igu ez w as f ound
an d a rres te d was lo cat edin a ru ral area ab ou t 2 5 fe etfro m th e h ou se /re si de nc e.5

Alt ho ug h R od rig ue z was fou nd in th e sh ed , he d idno t l iv e o n t he pro pe rty. Rather, Manuel T orres and Rosa L acosta lived in the ho use/residence. Rogers al so t es tif ie d th at L ac ost a’ s th re e- y ear- old gr an dsonw as on the pr ope rty dur ing the se ar ch , a nd L ac ost a inf orm ed Ro ge rs that the c hil d w as the re e ve ry a ft er noon and that oth er c hildren also stay ed at the house. A cc or din g to Ro ge rs , T or re s w as pa id m one y

to al lowdr

ug m anuf ac tur ing at the loc at ion
. R odr igu ez tol d R oge rs a t the ti m e of a rr es t tha t he w as the re to pur ch as e m etha m

phe tam ine , but

that hi s f ing er pr int s w oul d be f

ound on o ne of

the containers used to m ake the m etham phetam ine. F urther, Rogers testified that there
was a la rg e dum

p p it wit h c he m ic al s i n t he di rt o ut si de of t he sh ed
. A ddi tio na lly , Ro ge rs te sti fi ed that he f ound the f oll ow ing it em s inthe hous e/re sid en ce dur ing the se ar ch : ( 1) MS M ( a co m m on dru g c utt ing a ge nt) , ( 2) Red D evil Ly e, (3) linen bed sheets used as a filter, (4) bungee cords, ( 5) the rifle,
an d (6 ) th e se m i-a ut om at ic ha nd gu n. Af ter Rogers’ s testim ony , the district court deter m ined that there wa s suf fi ci en t e vid en ce to supp ort e nhanc em en ts. A s to the f ir earm e nhanc em en t, the district court foundthat the firearm s discov ered in the house/residence we re
r e l a t e dt o R o d r i g u e z ’s man u f a c tu r e o f met h a mp h e t a mi n e i n th e s h e d
. S p e c i f i c a l l y, the dis tr ic t c ourt st at ed

that “ al tho ugh the la

b w as out the re , the re is ev ide nc e fr om6

the of fi ce r, thr ee or

f our it em s f ound in the hou se r el at ed

to the m anuf

ac tur e of
m etha m phe tam ine
. ” L at er , w he n r ef er ri ng t o th e she d and the e vid en ce f ound in th e h ou se , th e d is tri ctco ur t s ta te d t ha t “ cl earl y , it ’s all in te rwo ve n.” As to the endangerm ent-to-a-m inor enhancem ent, the district court de te rm ine d th at

the re w as asub stanti al r isk of dange r to the thr ee -y ear- old c hil d in li gh t o f th e p ro xi m it y

of t he sh edan d d um

p p it to th e h ou se /re si de nc e. Sp ec if ic al ly , the dis tr ic t c ourt st at ed : W e l l , w h a t I p i c tu r e i n m y m i n d ’ s e y e . . . i s a t h r e e y ea r oldc hil d standin g on th e deck of that [house] , wher e the office r w as sitting when he wa s testify ing and h ow long it would take him to walk the thirty

fee t to the b ac kof this courtroom if som ebody

turned their attention away fr om him fo r a m om en t. It w oul d take te n se co nds an d th at c hil d c oul d be i n t h a t m e t h l ab
. S o I f i n d t h e r e i s a s ub s t a n t i a l r i s k o f d a n g e r to a m inor, or w as, I shoul d say , and ho pefully , I m ean thankfully it’ s a w as an d no t an is
. T he dis tr ic t c ourt f

urthe r de te rm ine d th at

Bl ak el y did not appl y to the G uid el ine s, a nd o ve rr

ule d R odr igu ez ’ s ob

j ec tio ns t o th e en hanc em en ts. T he gov er

nm en t r ec om

m en de d th at

Ro dr igu ez be se nte nc ed

a t the lowe nd of the Guidelines range, and the district court stated that it would d o so because,

“ ba se d onthe le ngth of

thi s se nte nc e an d a ll the c ir cu m stanc es , that [ it] is ap pr opr ia te . ” T he dis tr ic t c ourt the n se nte nc ed Ro dr igu ez to 304 m onths’ im prisonm ent and 5 y ears’ supervised release, notin g that the sentenceThe district cour t also noted that the 304-month sentenc e did “not re flec t a down war d 3 de pa rt ure fr om t

he guid e lin e ra

ng e [of 32 4- 40 5 mo nth s’ imp ri so nme nt]. ” Rathe r, the 30 4- month sentenc e “ta

kes into acc ount the time duringwhich [Rodrigue z was] i n California state c ustody for an off ense that has bee n taken into ac count in the deter mination of the offe nse leve l of the instant offe nse” pur suant to U.S.S.G. § 5G1.3(b). Rodrigue z’s plea agree ment contained a sentenc e-a ppeal waiver . We note that Rodrigue z’s 4 argument that the district court violated his Six th Amendment rights as to t he enda ng erme nt-to-aminor enhanc ement arguably is barr ed by his sentenc e-a ppeal waiver. See United States v. Rubbo, 396 F.3d 1 3 3 0 , 1 3 3 5 (11th Cir. 2005) (“ In summary , the rig ht to appeal a sentenc e base d on Ap pr e nd i/B oo ke r gro un ds c an b e wa ive d in a ple a a g re e me nt. B ro a d w a ive r l angua g e c ov e rs tho se g rounds of a

ppeal.” ). Howe ver, the g overnme nt does not make this argument on appea l, and thus we de cline to addre ss it. See United States v. For d, 270 F.3d 1346, 1347 ( 11th Cir. 2001) (“[O]ur well established r

ule is that issues and contentions not timely rai s ed in the briefs a

re de emed abandone d.”). 7 “ ad dr es se [d ] the se nte nc ing obj ec tiv es of pun ish m en t, de te rr en ce a nd inc ap ac itatio n. ” R odr igu ez ti m el y appe al ed
. 3 II. D ISCU SSION O n a ppe al , Ro dr igu ez a rg ue s th at the dis tr ic t c our

t’ s a ppl ic at ionof

the fi re ar m e nhanc em en t and the e ndange rm en t- to- a- m ino r en hanc em en t vi olate d hi s S i x t h Ame n d men tr i g h t s p ur s u a n tt o B l a k e l y. 4 Be ca use Ro dr igu ez r ai se d hi s B lake ly obj ec tio n inthe dis tr ic t c ourt and i n hi s i ni ti al bri ef o n app eal , we rev ie w hi s s en te nc e d e n ov o. Un it edSta te s v . Paz, – F. 3d –, 2005 W L 757876, at *2 (11th Cir. April 5, 2005). InU nit ed S ta te s v. Bo oke r, 543 U
. S. –, 125 S
. Ct
. 738 ( 2005 ), am aj or ity of the S upr em e Co urt c onc lud ed that the m an da tor

y na tur e of the G uid el ine s m ad e them incom patible with the Sixth Am endm ent’ s guaranty of the right to a j ury

trialTh e g ov e rnme nt argue s that in the fa c tua l re sume Rod ri gue z ad mitte d th e ne c e ssa

ry fa c ts 5 to support the two enhanc ements. The pr oblem with this argument is that the district court in making its fact-f indings re lied no t o n l y o n the fa ctual re sume, but also on Roge rs’s testimony . Thus, we need n o t re ach the issue of whe ther the f actua l resume a lone was suf ficient to support the enhancements be cause the district court re lied on both the fac tual resume a nd Roge rs’s testimony fo r i ts f a c t f ind ing s. 8 w he re “ [a ] ny

f ac t ( oth er than apr ior

c onvi ct ion ) w hic h is ne ce ssary to supp ort a
se nte nc e ex ce ed ing the m ax im um auth or iz ed

by the f ac ts e sta bli she d by

aple a of guityor a j ury

verdict [w as not] adm itted by the defendant or proved to a j ury bey ond a reasonable doub t.” Booker, 125 S. Ct. at 756. A s explained in United St at es v. Ro dr igu ez , 398 F
. 3d 1 291, 130 1 ( 11th C ir
. 200 5) , pe tit ionf or c er t. f ile d, 73 U
. S. L
. W
. 353 1 (N o. 04- 1148 ) (F eb
. 23, 200 5) , “ [t ] he c onst itu tio na l e rr or is the
use of e xtr a- ve rd ic t e nhanc em en ts t o r ea chagui de lin es r es ult that i s bi ndi ng o n the se nte nc ing j udge ; the e rr or is the m an da tor

y na tur e of the gui de lin es onc e the gu id el in es ran ge ha s b een de te rm in ed .” We f i r s tc o n c l u d e th a tth e r e w a s s u f f i c i e n te v i d e n c e i n th e f

a c tu a l r e s u me and from De putyRogers’ s testim ony to supp ort the district court’ s fact- finding s as t o b o t h th e f

i r e a rm an de n d a n g e rme n t - o f
- a - mi n o r e n h a n c e me n t s . T h e f

i r e a rms 5 enhancem ent was based on the rifle and .40-ca liber sem i-autom atic handgun that
w er e fo und dur ing the se ar chof the pr ope rty

on whic h R odr igu ez w as ope ratin g the m etham

phetam ine laboratory
. Ac cording to Deputy Rogers, the firearm s wer e fo und in the hou se /r es ide nc e, the hou se /r es ide nc e w as 25 f ee t aw ay f ro m the she d,9

an d se ve ra l othe r pie ce s of e vid en ce r el at ed

to the m anuf

ac tur e of
m etha m phe tam ine w er e fo und in the hou se /r es ide nc e, inc lud ing MS M, ac om m on drug cu tt in g a ge nt . As to the endangerm ent-of-a- m inor enhancem ent, Rodriguez adm itted that ch ildre n w er e pr es en t i n th e hous e/re sid en ce . A cc or din g to D ep uty Ro ge rs , L ac ost a’ s th re e- y ear- old

gr an dsonw as on the pr ope rty dur ing the se ar ch , a nd the ch ild w as the re e ve ry

a ft er noon . F urthe r, the she d w as j ust 25 f ee t f ro m the ho us e/ res id en ce an d t he re was a du m p p it fil le d wi th ch em ic al s n ex t t o t he sh ed
. A cc or din gly , suf

fi ci en t e vid en ce sup porte d th e dis tr ic t c ourt’ s f ac t- fi ndi ngs as to the tw o e nhanc em en ts. Further, we conclude that the dis trict court corr ectly determ ined the proper Gui de li ne s ra ng e fo r Ro dr ig ue z’s co nv ic ti on is 32 4- 40 5 m on th s’ im pr is on m en t. N one the le ss, Ro dr igu ez ’ s S ixth A m en dm en t r igh ts w er e vio la te d be ca use Rodriguez’ s sentence wa s enhanced, under a m andatory Guidelines sy stem , based
on fact s n ei th er fo un d b y a jury norad m it te d b y

Ro dr ig ue z in th e fac tu al res um e. The S ixth Am endm ent violatio n stem m ed not from

the district court’ s extraverdict enhancem ents, but from the district court’ s use of those extra-verdict
en ha nc em en ts in sen te nc in g R od rig ue z in a m an da to ry Gui de li ne s s ch em e. Ro dr ig ue z, 39 8 F .3dat 1 30 1.“ To fi nd ha rm le ss e rr or , w e mus t det e rm ine that th e e rr or did no t a ff e c t th e su bs tanti a l r ig hts 6 of the pa rties.” Paz, 2005 WL757876, at *2 (quoting United States v. Her nandez, 160 F.3d 661, 670 (11th Cir. 1998)). “ A constitutional error, s u ch as a Booke r er

ror, must be disre g arde d as not af fe ctingsubstantial rig hts if the err or is harmless be y ond a re asonable doubt.” I d. (interna l quotation marks, punctuation and c itation omit ted). 10 Af ter re viewing the record, we further c onclud e that the governm ent has failed to m eet its burden to sh ow that the constituti onal error w as harm less. S ee Pa z, 200 5 W L 757 876, a t *2 -3
. I n P az , w hic h w as aBo oke r co nst itu tio na l e rr or 6
ca se , w e ex pla ine d th at

harm le ss e rr or

a na ly sis put s th e bur de n onthe gov er nm en t to s how“ be y ond a re as ona ble doubt tha t the e rr or

c om pla ine d of

did not
co ntr ibu te to the se nte nc e obt ai ne d. ” I d. a t *2
. T hus, the gov er nm en t m ust sho w b e yo n dar e a s o n ab l e d o ub tth a tth e man d a t o ry, a s o p p o s e dt o th e a d v i s o ry, application o f the guidelines di d not con tribute to the defendant’s sentence. See U nit ed S ta te s v. D av is, – F
. 3d – , 200 5 W L 103 3422 , a t *1 ( 11th C ir
. May 4, 2005 ). I n th e re co rd

in thi s c as e, the re is no e vid en ce ind ic at ing w ha t e ff ec t, if
an y , c hangi ng f

ro m am an da tor

y to ana dvi sor

y appr oa chw oul d have ha d onthe district court’ s sentencing d ecision. A ccordingly , “ [w ] e sim ply do not know what the se nte nc ing c ourt w oul d have don e ha d it und er sto od the gui de lin es to be advis or y r athe r than m an da tor

y , a nd h ad

pr ope rl y c onsi de re d th e fa ct or s in18 U. S. C. § 355 3(a). ” Id. at *2. “ Ther efore, the Governm ent cannot m eet its burden of sho w ing that the m an da tor y appl ic at ionof

the gui de lin es in vio la tio n ofWe do not mean to imply that on rema nd the di strict court mustimpose a lesser sentenc e. 7 On re mand, the district cour t may impos e t h e same sentenc e. Rather , we mer ely hold that the g overnme nt has failed to mee t its burden to show that the B ooker c onstitut ional err or of se ntencing under a ma

n d ato r y G u id e li n e s r e g im e w a s h ar ml e s s . A d d it io n a ll y , w e d o n o t k n o we xa c tl y

w h at sentenc e the district court will impose on rema nd afte r consultingthe § 3553(a ) fa ctors. We will not atte mpt to de c ide no w wh e the r a pa rt ic ula r s e nte nc e be low

the Gu ide lin e s r ang e might b e re a so na ble in this case. I f there is an appe al of the actua l post-r emand sentenc e which ra ises that issue, we c an decide it then. 11 [Rodriguez’ s] Sixth Am endm ent right was harm less bey ond a reasonable doub t.” Id.; C f. Rodriguez, 398 F. 3d at 130 1 (apply ing pl ain error analy sis and statin g that because the defe ndant bo re the burden of persuasion and no o ne could kn ow w hat
w oul d have ha

ppe ne d ina n a dvi sor

y sy ste m , the de fe ndant c oul d no t m ee t hi s burden). Thu s, we v acat e Ro dr ig ue z’s se nt en ce an d re m an d fo r res en te nc in g. On
rem and, the district court is required to sentence Rodriguez under an advisory G uid el ine s r eg im e, a nd s ha ll co nsi de r the G uid el ine s r an ge of 324 -4 05 m onths’ im prisonm ent and “ other statutory concerns as w ell, see [18 U. S. C.] § 3553 (a) (S upp. 200 4)
. ” Bo oke r, 125 S
. Ct
. a t 75 7. 7 VACATED AND REMANDED FOR RESENTENCI NG