FI LED U.S. COURT OF APPEALS ELEV ENT H CI RCUI T OCT OBER 5, 2 010 J OHN LEY CLERK [DO NOT PUBLISH] IN THE U

NITED STATE S COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELE VENTH CIRCUIT

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ No. 1 0- 11 02 1 Non -Arg um en t Ca le nd ar

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ D.C. Dock etNo. 2 :0 7- cr-1 40 78 -KMM -1 UNITED STAT ES OF AMERIC A, ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll l Plai nt iff -Ap pe ll ee, ve rs us ANTYWAN E. BRYANT, ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll l Defen da nt -Ap pe ll an t.

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ App eal fro m

th e Uni te d S ta te s Di st ric t Co urt forth e So ut he rnDis tri ctof F lo rid a

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ (Oct ob er 5 , 20 10 ) Befo re BARKETT, HULL, an d M ARTIN, Cir cu itJu dg es . PER CURI AM: Ant ywanBry an t ap pe al s h is 15 1- m on th sen te nc e, im po se d upo n h is pl ead in g g ui lty

to po ss es si ng with i nt en t t o d is tri bu te 50 gra m s o r m or e o f co cai neba se invi ol at io n o f 21 U.S.C. § 8 41 (a)( 1) . On ap pe al , Bry an t ar gu es th atth e

di st ric t co urt co m

mit te d p la in erro r whe n, co nt rary to thi s C ou rt’s d eci si on in Uni te d S tate s v . W ad e, 45 8 F .3d12 73 , 12 81 (11 th Cir . 20 06 ), itde ni edhi m a two le ve l re du ct io n i n h is off

en se lev el foracce pt an ce o f res po ns ib il it y , pu rs ua ntto Uni te d S tate s Se nt en ci ng Gui de li ne s § 3E1 .1(a ) (No v. 2 00 7) , onth e b as is of h is co nduc t p rio r to hi s i nd ic tm en t i n t hi s ca se . Upo n re vi ew of th e p art ie s’ bri efs an d th e rec or d, we ag ree tha t the di st ric t co urt co m m it te d p la in erro r. For

th e rea so ns se t o utbe lo w, we vac at e Bryant ’s sen te nc e an d re m an d t he cas e to th e d is tri ct co urt fo r fu rth er re vi ew an d re se nt en ci ng . 1 I. Bryantpl ead edgu il ty to p os se ss in g wi th in te ntto di st rib ut e 5 0 g ram s o r m or e o f co cai ne ba se , invi ol at io n o f 21 U.S.C. § 8 41 (a)( 1) . On Ju ne 20 , 20 07 , Bryantwas arres te d b y

st at e au th or it ie s i n F lo rid a fo r th e co nduc t tha t re su lt edin hi s fe de ral ch arg e. He was r el eas edfro m st at e cu st ody

on bo ndth e n ex t d ay . The n, o n Au gu st16 , 20 07 , Bry an t was arre st edby the Flo rid a Hig hwa y Patro l fo r dr iv in g wh il e h is li cen se was s us pe nd ed . Bry an t h ad$3 ,47 0 i n h is po ss es si on at th e ti m e, an d a dm it te d, ac co rd in g t o t he pre se nt en ce i nv es ti ga ti onrep ort (“ PSR” ),

Br yant also argues that his sentenc e wa s substantively unrea sonable. B eca

use we vacate 1 Br yant’s sente nce a

nd rema nd the ca se to the district court f or re sentenc ing, w e nee d not addre ss the substantive re asonable ness of the se ntence . 2th athe “ was trying to ge t s om e co cai ne to m ak e so m e m on ey .” On Oct ob er 2 5,

20 07 , a fed eral gra ndjury returne d a n i nd ic tm en t ch arg in g B ry an t, o n t he ba si s o f th e co nduc t re su lt in g i n h is fir starre st , with o ne co un t o f po ss es si ng with i nt en t t o di st rib ut e 5 0 g ram s o r m or e o f co cai ne ba se invi ol at io n o f 21 U.S.C. § 8 41 (a)( 1) , an d o ne co un t o f be in g afel on inpo ss es si on of afir earm invi ol at io n o f 18 U.S.C. § 9 22 (g )(1 ). Pur su an t t o apl ea ag reem en t wi th th e g ov ern m en t, Bryantpl ead ed gu il ty on Dec em

be r 11 , 20 07 , to po ss es si ng with i nt en t t o d is tri bu te 50 gra m s o r m or e o f co cai ne ba se . In re tu rn , th e g ov ern m en t ag reedto di sm is s the rem ai ni ng co un t ch arg in g B ry an t wi thbe in g afel on inpo ss es si on of afir earm . Inth e PSR , th e p ro ba ti on off ic er d et erm in edth atBry an t h ada ba se off en se le ve l o f 30 , purs ua ntto U.S.S.G. § 2 D1.1 (a)( 3) , whi chwas e nh an cedby two l ev el s to 32 , pu rs ua ntto U.S.S.G. § 2 D1.1 (b )(1 ), be cau se Bry an t p os se ss eda da ng ero us weap on . In co ns id eri ng whet he r a reduc ti on foracce pt an ce o f res po ns ib il it y wou ldbe ap pr op ria te un de r U.S.S.G. § 3 E1.1 , th e p ro ba ti on off ic er n ot edth at Bryantha d a dm itte d t he off en se , exp res se d re gr et , andst at edhi s d es ire to try to he lp st op th e dru g p ro bl em inhi s co m

m un it y . Neverth el es s, the pro ba ti on off ic er co nc lu de d fr om

th e fac ts of B ry an t’s s eco ndarre stth athe ha d “ fai le d t o vo lu nt ari ly term in at e o r withd raw fro m cri m in al co nduc t af

te r co m m is si on of t he in st an t o ffen se an d d oe s n otqu al ify for a re du ct io n fo r acc ep ta nc e o f 3res po ns ib il ity .” The p ro ba ti on off ic er as se ss edBry an t fo urcri m in al hi st ory po in ts , res ul ti ng ina cri m in al hi st ory cat eg ory of I II, whi chpro du ceda gu id el in e se nt en ci ng ran ge of 1 51 to 18 8 m on th s i m pr is on m en t. The off

en se carr ie s a st atut ory m in im um sen te nc e o f te n years i m

pr is on m en t fo ll owe d b y

at l eas t fi ve y ears of s up erv is edrel eas e. 21 U.S.C. § 8 41 (b )(1 )(A). Bryantob jecte d t ha t the cri m in al hi st ory cat eg ory of I II o ve rs ta te d h is actua l co nduc t, as m os t o f hi s p rio r cri m in al co nduc t was rel at edto dri vi ng vi ol at io ns an d t he res t wer e m is de m ean or s n otin vo lv in g the sal e o f il le ga l s ub st an ces . Bas edon th is , he a rg ue d fo r a d own wardde pa rtu re p ur su an t t o U.S.S.G. § 4 A1.3 (b )(1 ). At th e se nt en ci ng he ari ng on Marc h 3 , 20 08 , th e d is tri ctco urt de ni edth e o bjec ti on as u nt im el y , bu t i n c on si de rin g t he 18 U.S.C. § 3 55 3( a) fact or s, the co urt al so no te d t ha t i t wo ul d d en y Bry an t’s o bjec ti on s o n t he m eri ts . Ado pt in g t he PSR’s g ui de li ne cal cu la ti on an d ra ng e o f 15 1 t o 1 88 m on th s, the di st ric t co urt fo un d t ha t “ a se nt en ce atth e lo w endof t he advi so ry gu id el in e ran ge is su ffi ci en tl y

pu ni ti ve to de te r th is de fen da ntfro m furth er cr im in al co nduc t. As a res ul t, the sen te nc e wil l b e im po se d wi th inan d a t the bo tt om of t he advi so ry gu id el in e ran ge .” The c ou rt t he n i m po se d asen te nc e o f 15 1 m on th s i m pr is on m en t fo ll owe d b y

fiv e y ears of s up erv is edrel eas e.

4InMarc h 2 00 9, Bry an t fi le d am ot io n t o v acat e, se t as id e, orco rrec t the

se nt en ce, p ur su an t t o 2 8 U.S.C. § 22 55 , all eg in g t ha t h is co un se l h adfai le d t o pe rfec t an ap pe al fro m

hi s s en te nc e d es pi te hi s re qu es t t o d o s o. Th e d is tri ctco urt gr an te d B ry an t’s § 22 55 m ot io n, v acat edhi s p rio r jud gm en t, an d s ch edul eda res en te nc in g. Pri or

to th e res en te nc in g, Bry an t s ub m it te d o bjec ti on s t o the PSI. Thi s t im e, he ob

jecte d t o t he PSI’s co nc lu si on th athe di d n otqu al ify for a reduc ti on foracce pt an ce o f res po ns ib il ity onth e b as is of t he Aug us t 1 6, 2 00 7 arre st , bec au se th atarre stoc curredbe fo re h e was in di ct edinth is cas e o n Oct ob er 25 , 20 07 . At res en te nc in g o n M arch 1, 2 01 0, the di st ric t co urt o nc e ag ai n i m po se d a se nt en ce o f 15 1 m on th s i m pr is on m en t fo ll owe d b y

fiv e y ears of s up erv is ed rel eas e. II. W e rev ie w th e d is tri ctco urt’s fi nd in gs of f actforcle ar erro r, bu t re vi ew de no vo it s i nt erp ret at io n o f th e se nt en ci ng gu id el in es an d i ts ap pl ic at io n o f th e gu id el in es to th e fac ts . Uni te d S ta te s v . Cam pb el l, 4 91 F.3d13 06 , 13 15 (11 th Cir . 20 07 ). Howev er, we rev ie w sen te nc in g i ss ue s ra is edforth e fi rs t t im e o n app eal fo r pl ai n e rro r. Uni te d S ta te s v . Mas se y , 44 3 F .3d81 4, 8 18 (11 th Cir . 20 06 ). Bryantfai le d t o o bjec t t o the de ni al of atwo -le ve l re du ct io n fo r acc ep ta nc e o f res po ns ib il ity

un de r § 3 E1.1 (a) at h is fir stsen te nc in g h eari ng . He di d ra is e th e 5is su e atres en te nc in g, b utth e d is tri ctco urt ap pa ren tl y co nc lu de d t ha t i t was bo un d by thi s C ou rt’s d eci si on inUni te d S ta te s v . Parri sh , 42 7 F .3d13 45 , 13 48 (11 th Cir . 20 05 ), to im

po se a se nt en ce i de nt ic al to Bry an t’s o rig in al sen te nc e. 2

“ [T]o co rrec t p la in erro r: ( 1) th ere m us t b e err or ; (2 ) th e err or

m us t b e p la in ; an d (3 ) th e err orm

us t af fectsubs ta nt ia l ri gh ts .” Uni te d S ta te s v . Ste ve ns on , 68 F.3 d 1 29 2, 1 29 4 (1 1t h C ir. 1 99 5) . If th os e fac to rs are m et , we hav e d is cret io n t o co rrec t the erro r if

it“ ‘seri ou sl y

affe ct [s ] th e fai rn es s, i nt eg rit y or p ub li c rep ut at io n of th e jud ic ia l p ro ceed in gs .’ ” Uni te d S ta te s v . Olan o, 5 07 U.S. 72 5, 7 32 , 11 3 S . Ct . 17 70 , 17 76 (19 93 ) (quo ti ng Uni te d S tate s v . Young , 47 0 U.S. 1 , 15 , 10 5 S . Ct. 10 38 , 10 46 (19 85 )). An erro r is no t “pl ai n” un le ss itis “ cl ear u nd er cu rren t l aw.” Id . at 7 34 , 11 3 S . Ct. at17 77 . “ It i s the law o f th is cir cu itth at , at l eas t wh ere t he ex pl ic itlan gu ag e o f a s ta tu te or r ul e d oe s n otsp eci fic al ly reso lv e anis su e, th ere canbe no pl ai n e rro r whe re the re i s n o p rece de ntfro m th e Supr em e Co urt o r th is Co urt d ire ct ly reso lv in g i t.” Un it edSta te s v . Lejarde -Rad a, 31 9 F .3d12 88 , 12 91 (1 1t h C ir. 2 00 3) . For ade fen da ntto sh ow tha t h is subs ta nt ia l ri gh ts were v io la te d as a res ul t o f a s en te nc in g e rro r, he m us t es tabl is h t ha t the re i s a r eas on ab le

We need not dec ide whethe r the district cour t properly interpre ted Parrish, nor whether 2 Br yant prope rly

raised the issue befor e the district cour t, beca use we conclude that the district court c ommitt ed plain er

ror by denying B ryant a two- level re duction for a cceptance of responsibility

in the orig inal sentenc e. 6pr ob ab il it y

th at , bu t fo r th e err or , he wo ul d h av e rec ei ve d ales se r se nt en ce. Uni te d S tate s v . Arias -Izqui erd o, 4 49 F.3d11 68 , 11 90 (11 th Cir . 20 06 ); s ee Uni te d S tate s v . Marc us , 56 0 U.S. --- , 13 0 S . Ct. 2 15 9, 2 16 4 (2 01 0) . Whe re the res ul t o f th e err oris “un cert ai n o r in de te rm in at e,” the de fen da ntha s n otm ethi s bu rd enof s ho win g p reju di ce. Uni te d S ta te s v . Rodrig ue z, 39 8 F .3d12 91 , 12 99 –1 30 1 (1 1t h C ir. 2 00 5) (ci ti ng Jo ne s v . Uni te d S ta te s, 5 27 U.S. 37 3, 3 94 –9 5, 11 9 S . Ct. 2 09 0, 2 10 5 (1 99 9) ). A two -le ve l re du ct io n i n ade fen da nt ’s off en se lev el is ap pr op ria te wher e

“ th e d efen dantcle arl y

de m on st rat es acce pt an ce o f res po ns ib il it y forhi s o ffen se .” U.S.S.G. § 3 E1.1 (a). Ap pl ic at io n No te 3 o f th e co m m en tary to § 3 E1.1 st at es th at Entry of apl ea o f gu il ty prio r to th e co m m en cem en t o f tr ia l co m

bi ne d with t ruth fu ll y

adm it ti ng th e co nduc t co m pr is in g t he off

en se of co nv ic ti on , andtru th fu ll y adm it ti ng or n otfal se ly den y in g a ny ad di ti on al rel ev an t co nduc t . . . wil l co ns ti tu te si gn ifi can t ev id en ce o f acce pt an ce o f res po ns ib il it y forth e p ur

po se s o f [§ 3E1 .1(a )]. Howev er, thi s ev id en ce m ay be ou twei gh edby con du ctof t he de fen da ntth atis in co ns is te ntwith s uc h a ccep ta nc e o f res po ns ib il it y . A def en da ntwho en te rs a gu il ty ple a is no t en ti tl edto anad jus tm en t un de r th is sec ti on as am at te r of rig ht . App li cat io n No te 5 o f th e co m m en ta ry to § 3 E1.1 furth er o bs erv es th at“ [t]he se nt en ci ng jud ge is ina un ique po si ti on to ev al ua te a de fen dant ’s acce pt an ce o f res po ns ib il ity . For t hi s re as on , th e d et erm in at io n o f th e se nt en ci ng jud ge is en ti tl edto gre atde fere nc e o n re vi ew.” Bu t the re ar e li m it s t o t he di st ric t co urt’s 7di sc ret io n t o d en y anoff en se -le ve l re du ct io n fo r acc ep ta nc e o f res po ns ib il it y . See W ad e, 45 8 F .3dat 1 27 9– 81 . InW ad e, we co ns id eredwhet he r “ a d is tri ctco urt, i n e va lu at in g wh ethe r a de fen da ntha s cl earl y

de m on strat edacce pt an ce o f res po ns ib il it y , m ay co ns id er the de fen da nt ’s con du ctfol lo win g t he off en se forwhi chhe was u lt im at el y co nv ic te d bu t b efo re fe de ral ch arg es were b ro ug htag ai ns t h im .” Id . at 1 27 9. Th e d efen da nt in W ad e, li ke Bry an t, was arre st edtwi ce b y st at e au th or it ie s b efo re h e was in di ct edforth e co nduc t wh ic h was th e b as is of t he fir stof h is arre st s. Id . at 1 27 5. Als o l ik e Bryant , th e d efen da ntinW ad e was de ni eda two -le ve l re du ct io n fo r acce pt an ce o f res po ns ib il ity on th e b as is of h is sec on d s ta te arre st . Id. at12 76 . W e “ co nc lu de [d ] th ata de fen da nt ’s con du ctfol lo win g e arl ie r st at e ch arg es , at le as t wh ere t ha t co nduc t o ccu rredbe fo re h e kne w th atfed eral ch arg es were fo rth co m in g, o ug htno t v it ia te th e eff ectof h is ot he rwis e ex em pl ary acce pt an ce o f res po ns ib il ity

on ce the fed eral ch arg es were fi le d.” Id. at12 81 . W e ex pl ai ne d t ha t we were fo ll owi ng th e Fi rs t an d S ix th Cir cu it s i n a do pt in g “ a b rig htli ne rul e” tha t a d is tri ctco urt s ho ul d n otde ny the two -le ve l U.S.S.G. § 3E1 .1(a ) reduc ti on on th e ba si s o f pr e-fe de ral -ch arg e co nduc t, b ecau se “ [c]on si de rin g ade fen da nt ’s react io n to pri orst at e ch arg es wou ldde crea se th e li ke li ho odof areduc ti on be in g g ran te d no m at te r ho w qu ic kl y

an d fu ll y he acce pt edth e la te r fed eral ch arg es , th ereb y

8de crea si ng th e in cen ti ve forhi m to do so .” Id . W ad e can no t b e d is ti ng ui sh ed fro m Bry an t’s ca se . In d en y in g B ry an t the two -le ve l re du ct io n fo r acc ep ta nc e o f res po ns ib il ity

un de r § 3 E1.1 (a), the di st ric t co urt fa il edto adhe re t o the “br ig ht li ne rul e” tha t we ad op te d i n Wade . Becau se W ad e ad dr es se d p reci se ly the sc en ari o p res en te d h ere, we co nc lu de th aterro r ex is ts an d t ha t i t i s p la in . 3 The re m ai ni ng qu es ti on is whet he r th aterro r affe ct s s ub st an ti al rig ht s. Th e go ve rn m en t co nt en ds th atitdo es no t, b ecau se th ere i s n ota reas on ab le pro babi li ty th atth e se nt en ce wo ul d b e d iff eren t. We dis ag ree. Th e d is tri ctco urt ex pr es sl y st at edit s i nt en ti on to im

po se a se nt en ce “ atth e b ot to m of the advi so ry

gu id el in e ran ge .” W ith atwo -le ve l re du ct io n fo r acc ep ta nc e o f res po ns ib il it y , Bry an t’s ad jus te d o ffen se lev el wou ldbe 30 , whi chco m bi ne d wi thhi s cr im in al hi st ory cat eg ory of I II wo ul d p ro du ce a g ui de li ne sen te nc in g rang e o f 12 1 t o 1 51 m on th s im pr is on m en t. Thu s, i f th e two -le ve l re du ct io n fo r acc ep ta nc e o f res po ns ib il ity were g ran te d, the 15 1- m on th sen te nc e wou ldno t b e atth e b ot to m of the advi so ry gu id el in e ran ge , bu t i ns te adwou ldbe at t he to p o f th e g ui de li ne ran ge . See Un it ed Br yant also appe ars to argue on appe al, as he attempted to bef ore the district court, that 3 he is entitled to an additional one- level re duction for a cceptance of re sponsibili ty under U .S.S.G. § 3E1.1(b). A s we e x plained in Wade, howe ver, “ [a] reduc tion under [§ 3E1.1(b)] may be grante d only

on formal motion by

the g overnme nt at the time of sentenc ing.” 458 F.3d at 1282; see § 3E1.1 c mt. n.6. Bec ause the g overnme nt did not make such a motion in this case, it was not error , plain or otherw ise, for the district court to deny an additional off

ense- level re duction under § 3E1.1(b). 9St at es v. Be nn et t, 4 72 F.3d82 5, 8 34 (11 th Cir . 20 06 ) (h ol di ng th atwher e “ th e

di st ric t co urt ex pr es sl y

in di cat eda de si re t o i m

po se a se nt en ce n ear t he lo w endof th e se nt en ci ng Gui de li ne s ra ng e,” b utm is cal cu la te d t he off en se lev el su chth atth e se nt en ce i m

po se d was no t n ear t he lo w endof the co rrec tl y -cal cu la te d g ui de li ne ran ge , th ere was a reas on ab le pro babi li ty tha t the di st ric t co urt wo ul d h av e se nt en cedth e d efen da ntdi ffer en tl y if i t h adco rrec tl y

cal cu la te d h is off

en se lev el ); se e al so Uni te d S ta te s v . Frazi er, 6 05 F.3d12 71 , 12 82 –8 3 (1 1t h C ir. 2 01 0) (h ol di ng th atth e d is tri ctco urt’s m is cal cu la ti on of the de fen da nt ’s off en se lev el affe ct edhi s s ub st an ti al rig ht s wh ere t he sen te nc e im po se d was at t he hi gh en d o f th e m is cal cu la te d g ui de li ne ran ge , bu t wo ul d fa ll ou ts id e o f th e co rrec tl y cal cu la te d ra ng e). The go ve rn m en t fu rth er ar gu es th atit ’s no t re as on ab ly pro babl e th at , bu t fo r th is erro r, Bryantwou ldha ve rece iv edth e two -le ve l re du ct io n fo r acc ep ta nc e o f res po ns ib il ity . Agai n, we d is ag ree. Th e PSR rev eal s n o b as is forde nyin g B ry an t th e two -le ve l re du ct io n o th er tha n h is Aug us t 1 6, 2 00 7 a rres t. Nei th er h as th e go ve rn m en t p oi nt edto an y ot he r rea so n fo r th e co urt’s d en ia l o f th e acc ep ta nc e o f res po ns ib il ity

reduc ti on forBry an t. To t he co nt rary, the P SR—to whi chth e go ve rn m en t fi le d n o o bjec ti on s—m ak es cle ar tha t Bry an t ad m it te d t he off en se ,

10ex pr es se d re gr et , andst at eda de si re t o t ry to he lp st op th e dru g p ro bl em inhi s co m m un ity . W e rec og ni ze “ th atpl ai n e rro r rev ie w sh ou ldbe ex erci se d ‘sp ari ng ly,’ an d on ly ‘ in th os e ci rcu m st an ces inwhi cha m is carr ia ge of ju st ic e wou ldothe rwis e res ul t.’” Rodrig ue z, 39 8 F .3dat 1 29 8 (quo ti ng Jo ne s, 5 27 U.S. at 3 89 , 11 9 S . Ct. at21 02 ; Ol an o, 5 07 U.S. at 7 36 , 11 3 S . Ct. at17 79 ). As a co ns eque nc e, pl ai n erro r rev ie w is no t ap pr op ria te “ whe re the effe ctof a n e rro r on th e res ul t i n t he di st ric t co urt i s u nc ert ai n o r in de te rm in at e.” Id . at 1 30 1. Bu t i n t hi s ca se th e res ul t of th e d is tri ctco urt’s erro r is ne it he r un cert ai n n orin de te rm in at e. The g ui de li ne ran ge was c al cu la te d i n am an ne r co nt rary to thi s C ou rt’s p rece de nt , whi chcle arl y pr ov id edth atBry an t s ho ul d n otha ve be ende ni eda two -le ve l re du ct io n fo r acce pt an ce o f res po ns ib il ity . See Wade, 4 58 F.3dat 1 28 1. Fu rth er, the di stric t co urt m ad e cl ear t ha t i t i m po se d asen te nc e o f 15 1 m on th s i m pr is on m en t b ecau se th atwas the lo wes t s en te nc e wit hi n t he advi so ry gu id el in e ran ge . This be in g t he cas e, we co nc lu de th atbu t fo r it s erro r in de nyin g B ry an t the two -le ve l re du ct io n fo r acc ep ta nc e o f res po ns ib il ity , th e d is tri ctco urt wo ul d h av e im po se d asen te nc e of les s than 1 51 m on th s i m pr is on m en t. Acco rd in gl y , we VACATE Bry an t’s s en te nc e an d R EMAND th e cas e to th e di st ric t co urt fo r res en te nc in g i n am an ne r co ns is te ntwith t hi s o pi ni on . 11