### F I LE D U. S . COURT OF AP PE ALS E LEVE NTH CI RCUI T Se pt e m be r 1, 2005 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. 04- 13937 N on -A rgum entC al endar

________________________ D . C. D o c k e tN o . 0 3 - 8 0 1 6 1 - CR- J CP 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 U R I E L P I N E D A , a .k .a . U r ie l P in e d a - T o rr e s , a .k .a . J o s e R o b le s , a .k .a . J o s e S a lv a tin 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 orthe S outhe rn D i s tr i c tof F l or i da

_________________________ ( S e p t e m b e r 1, 2005) B efo re A N D E R S O N , B IR C H an d P R Y O R , C i rcu i tJu d g es. P E R C U R I A M: U r i e l P i ne da appe a l s hi s 57- m onth s e nt e nc e of i m pr i s onm e ntf

orr e e nt e r i ng2

the U ni t ed S t at es i l l egal l y a ft erhavi ng previ ou sl y bee n rem ov ed. P i neda argues thatthe di stri ctcourtcom m i tt ed bo th st atut ory a nd const i tut i on al errors un der U ni t ed S t at es v. B oo ker, 54 3 U . S . ___, 12 5 S . C t . 73 8 (20 05 ), because the di stri ct c our t , unde ra m a nda t ory G ui de l i ne s s y s t e m , e nha nc e d P i ne da ’ s s e nt e nc e ba s e d on a f i nd i ng thatP i neda w as se nt ence d p re vi ou sl y t o con curr ent25 -m on th sent ence s f o rtr a f f ic k in g c o c a in e b e f

o r e P in e d a w a s r e m o v e d f r o m th e U n ite d S ta te s . B e c a us e P i ne da pr e s e r ve d thi s obj e c t i on i n the di s tr i c tc our t , a nd the gove rnm e nt ca nn otes t abl i sh thatthe error of s ent enci ng P i neda un der am andat ory r egi m e w as h a r m le s s , w e v a c a te h is s e n te n c e a n d r e m a n d f o rr e s e n te n c in g . A f t e rP i ne da pl e a de d gui l ty t o vi ol a t i ng 18 U . S . C . s e c t i on 1326( a ) a nd (b)( 2), the di stri ctcourtenhanced P i neda’ s s ent ence because P i neda had b ee n c onvi c t e d pr e vi ous l y of tr a f f i c ki ng c oc a i ne . U . S . S . G . § 2L 1. 2( b) ( 1) ( A ) ( i ) . P i ne da ha d be e n s e nt e nc e d t o l onge rtha n 13 m onths ’ i m pr i s onm e nt , the thr e s hol d f orthe s e nt e nc e e nha nc e m e ntof s e c t i on 2L 1. 2( b) ( 1) ( A ) ( i ) of the G ui de l i ne s . P i ne da o b j ect ed t o th e en h an cem en to f h i s sen t en ce b ecau se th e d i stri ctj u d g e, n o ta j u ry, f ound tha tP i ne da ha d be e n s e nt e nc e d t o m or e tha n 13 m onths ’ i m pr i s onm e ntf or h i s p rev i o u s o ffen se. T h e d i stri ctco u rto v erru l ed P i n ed a’ s o b j ect i o n an d , b ecau se P i ne da w a s a c a t e gory I V c a r e e rc r i m i na l , s e nt e nc e d P i ne da t o 57 m onths i n pr i s on f o rh is ille g a l r e e n try . T h a t s e n te n c e w a s a t th e lo w e n d o f th e G u id e lin e r a n g e .3

“W h e r e th e r e is a tim e ly o b je c tio n , w e r e v ie w th e d e f e n d a n t’s B o o k e rc la im i n o rdert o d et erm i ne w hether the error w as harm l es s. ” U ni t ed S t at es v. M atheni a, 40 9 F . 3d 12 89 , 12 91 (11t h C i r. 20 05 ). A s thi s C ou rtdi sc usse d i n M atheni a,

“ [t ] here ar e tw o h arm l es s e rr or st andards. O ne of them appl i es t o B oo ker c ons t i tut i ona l e rr or s , the othe rt o B ooke rs t a tut ory e rr or s . ” I d. T he f i r s ts t a nda r d, f o rc o n s titu tio n a l e rr o r , r e q u ir e s th e g o v e rn m e n t to s h o w “b e y o n d a r e a s o n a b le do ub t , thatthe error di d n otcont ri bu t e t o the defendant ’ s ul t i m at e s ent ence . ” I d. at 1291- 92. T he s e c ond s t a nda r d, f ors t a tut or y e rr or , r e qui r e s us t o de t e r m i ne w h e th e rth e e rr o re ith e rd id n o t a f f e c t th e s e n te n c e o ro n ly h a d a v e ry s lig h t e f f e c t. Id. at12 92 (quo t i ng U ni t ed S t at es v. H ornaday, 39 2 F . 3d 13 06 , 13 15 -16 (11 th C i r. 2004) ) . T he s t a nda r d of r e vi e w f ors t a tut or y e rr or“ i s note a s y f orthe gove rnm e nt t o m ee t . Iti s a s di ff

i cul tfor the go vernm entt o m ee tthatst andard as i ti s f or a de f e nda ntt o m e e tthe thi r d- pr ong pr e j udi c e s t a nda r d f

orpl a i n e rr orr e vi e w . ” I d. P i neda’ s c on st i tut i on al ar gu m entfa i l s. Itw as no tan error f or the di stri ct c o u r t to e n h a n c e P in e d a ’s s e n te n c e b a s e d o n h is p r e v io u s c o n v ic tio n s a n d s e n te n c e . A s the C ou rtexpl ai ned i n B oo ker, “ A ny fa ct(other than a pri or conv i ct i on ) w hi ch is n e c e s s a ry to s u p p o r t a s e n te n c e e x c e e d in g th e m a x im u m a u th o r iz e d b y th e f a c ts e s t a bl i s he d by a pl e a of gui l ty ora j ury ve r di c tm us tbe a dm i tt e d by the de f e nda nt orpr ove d t o a j ury be y ond a r e a s ona bl e doubt . ” 543 U . S . a t___, 125 S . C t . a t7564

(e m ph as i s a dd ed). T hi s C ou rthas s t at ed previ ou sl y that“ w e f i nd no m er i ti n [the]

. . . arg u m en tth atth e S i x th A m en d m en treq u i res th ata j u ry, n o ta j u d g e, m u st det erm i ne w hether” a pre vi ou s c on vi ct i on fi t s w i thi n a “ ca t egory of offe nses . ” U ni t ed S t at es v. G al l egos-A gu er o, 40 9 F . 3d 12 74 , 12 77 (11t h C i r. 20 05 ). Judi ci al f a c t f i ndi ng r e ga r di ng the l e ngth of the s e nt e nc e i m pos e d f ora pr e vi ous c onvi c t i on i s anece ss ary c om po nentof the survi vi ng exce pt i on t o the ban o n j ud i ci al f a c tf in d in g im p o s e d b y B o o k e r. P i ne da ’ s a r gum e ntr e ga r di ng s t a tut or y e rr orha s m e r i t . A s s t a t e d e a r l i e r , the s ta n d a r d o f

r e v ie w f o rp r e s e r v e d s ta tu to ry e rr o r“is n o t e a s y f o rth e g o v e rn m e n t to m e e t.” M a th e n ia , 4 0 9 F .3 d a t 1 2 9 2 . T h e g o v e rn m e n t h a s c o n c e d e d its d if f ic u lty he r e : the gove rnm e nta dm i t s tha tthe r e c or d doe s nots how tha ts e nt e nc i ng P i ne da u n d e rth e G u id e lin e s a s m a n d a to ry h a d a m in im a l e f f e c t o n P in e d a ’s u ltim a te se nt ence . B ec ause the go vernm entca nn otes t abl i sh thatthi s s t atut ory e rr or w as harm l es s, w e m ustvaca t e P i neda’ s s ent ence and rem and t hi s c as e t o the di stri ct c o u r t. VA C A TED a nd R EM A N D ED .