FILED U.S. COURT OF AP P EALS E LEV EN T HC IRC U IT SEPTEMBER 13, 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. 04- 16606 N on -A rgum entC al endar

________________________ D . C. D o c k e tN o . 0 4 - 0 0 0 3 1 - CR- O RL- 3 1 K RS 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 M I G U E L A N G E L A B E N D A N O - C A M A C H O , a .k .a . G ir o , 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

_________________________ ( S e p t e m b e r 13, 2005) B efo re B IR C H , B A R K E T T an d F A Y , C i rcu i tJu d g es. P E R C U R I A M:2

M ig u e l A n g e l A b e n d a n o - C a m a c h o ( C a m a c h o ) ap p e a ls h is 6 3 - m o n th se nt ence for c on spi ra cyt o p osse ss w i th i nt entt o d i stri bu t e 100 ki l og ra m s of m ore of m ar i j uana, i n v i ol at i on of 21 U . S . C . § 8 46 . C am ac ho pl ea d g ui l ty t o the charge, a dm i tt i ng tha t , dur i ng the c ons pi r a c y , he a s s i s t e d i n di s tr i but i ng be tw e e n 400 a nd 7 0 0 k ilo g r a m s o f

m a r iju a n a . O n ap p eal , C am ach o assert s th at , as ex p l ai n ed i n A p p ren d i v . N ew Jersey, 530 U . S . 466, 490, 120 S . C t . 2348, 2362- 63, 147 L . E d. 2d 435 ( 2000) , B l a ke l y v. W as hi ng t on , 54 2 U . S . 29 6, 12 4 S . C t . 25 31 , 15 9 L . E d. 2d 40 3 (20 04 ), and U ni t ed S ta te s v . B o o k e r , 5 4 3 U .S . __ , 1 2 5 S .C t. 7 3 8 , 1 6 0 L .E d .2 d 6 2 1 ( 2 0 0 5 ) , in o r d e rto com po rtw i th the F i fth and S i xth A m endm ent s, a f ac tual det erm i nat i on that i nc r e a s e s the pe na l ty f

orac r i m e be y ond the appl i c abl e gui de l i ne r a nge m us tbe r e f le c te d in th e ju ry v e r d ic t o ra d m itte d b y th e d e f e n d a n t. C a m a c h o a r g u e s th a t, in hi s c as e, the di stri ctcourterre d b y i m po si ng hi s s ent ence un der am andat ory gu i del i ne sy st em and u nd erthe bel i ef thati tdi d n othave the autho ri ty t o d epart d o w n w ard fro m th e ap p l i cab l e g u i d el i n e ran g e. C am ach o al so arg u es th at , b ecau se the c our tw a s r e qui r e d t o m a ke f a c tua l f i ndi ngs i n or de rt o de t e rm i ne the m a n d a to ry g u id e lin e r a n g e , th e r e w a s c o n s titu tio n a l e rr o rin h is s e n te n c e a s w e ll. H e c ont e nds tha t , ha d the c our tbe l i e ve d tha tthe gui de l i ne s w e r e a dvi s ory , he w ou l d h ave been se nt ence d b el ow the gu i del i ne se nt enci ng ra ng e.3

W here a def

endantfa i l s t o rai se a S i xth A m endm entobj ec t i on i n the di stri ct court , the st andard of revi ew i s f or pl ai n err or. S ee U ni t ed S t at es v. R od ri gu ez , 39 8 F . 3d 12 91 , 12 98 (11th C i r. ), ce rt . deni ed, 12 5 S . C t . 29 35 (200 5). U nd er pl a i n- e rr orr e vi e w , the de f e nda ntha s the bur de n t o s how tha t“ the r e i s ( 1) e rr or( 2) thati s pl ai n and (3) thataf fe ct s s ub st ant i al ri gh t s. If al l three cond i t i on s a re m et , an ap p e lla te c o u r t m a y th e n e x e r c is e its d is c r e tio n to n o tic e af o r f e ite d e rr o r , b u t o n ly i f ( 4) the e rr ors 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 ju d ic ia l p r o c e e d in g s .” I d . ( in te rn a l c ita tio n s a n d q u o ta tio n s o m itte d ) . I n A ppr e ndi , the S upr e m e C our the l d tha t“ [ o] the rtha n the f a c tof apr i or conv i ct i on , any f

ac tthati ncre as es the penal ty f or a c ri m e bey on d the pres cr i bed s ta tu to ry m a x im u m m u s t b e s u b m itte d to aju ry a n d p r o v e d b e y o n d ar e a s o n ab le d o u b t.” 5 3 0 U .S . a t 4 9 0 , 1 2 0 S .C t. a t 2 3 6 2 - 6 3 . T h e C o u r t la te rr e v is ite d th a t ru le i n the cont extof W as hi ng t on st at e’ s s ent enci ng gu i del i ne sc hem e, cl ar i fy i ng that

“ the ‘ s t a tut ory m a xi m um ’ f orA ppr e ndi purpos e s i s the m a xi m um s e nt e nc e aj udge m ayi m po se sol el y on the basi s of the fa ct s r ef l ec t ed i n the j ury ver di ctor adm i tt ed by the de f

e nda nt . . . . I n othe rw or ds , the r e l e va nt‘ s t a tut ory m a xi m um ’ i s notthe m a xi m um s e nt e nc e aj udge m a y i m pos e a f t e rf i ndi ng a ddi t i ona l f

a c t s , butthe m axi m um he m ayi m po se w i tho utany a dd i t i on al fi nd i ng s. ” B l akel y, 54 2 U . S . at

___ , 1 2 4 S .C t. a t 2 5 3 7 ( e m p h a s is in o r ig in a l) . S u b s e q u e n tly , th e C o u r t is s u e d its4

deci si on i n B oo ker, fi nd i ng “ no di st i nct i on of const i tut i on al si gn i fi ca nce betw ee n th e F e d e r a l S e n te n c in g G u id e lin e s a n d th e W a s h in g to n p r o c e d u r e s a t is s u e ” in B l akel y. B oo ker, 54 3 U . S . at___, 12 5 S . C t . at74 9. R es ol vi ng the const i tut i on al que s t i on l e f

tope n i n B l a ke l y , the C our the l d tha tthe m a nda t ory na tur e of the f e d e r a l S e n te n c in g G u id e lin e s r e n d e r e d th e m in c o m p a tib le w ith th e S ix th A m e n d m e n t’s g u a r a n te e to th e r ig h t to aju ry tr ia l. I d . a t _

__ ,1 2 5 S .C t. a t 7 4 9 - 5 1 . T h e C o u r t c o n c lu d e d th a t th e ap p r o p r ia te r e m e d y w a s to e x c is e tw o s p e c if ic se ct i on s of the se nt enci ng re form ac t : 18 U . S . C . § 3 55 3(b)(1) (r equi ri ng a s ent ence w i thi n the gu i del i ne ra ng e, abse nta departure) and 1 8 U . S . C . § 3 74 2(e) ( e s t abl i s hi ng s t a nda r ds of r e vi e w on appe a l ) . T hus , the r e m e dy l e f tthe S e nt e nc i ng G ui de l i ne s i nt a c t , w hi l e r e nde r i ng the m a dvi s ory onl y . I d. a t___, 125 S . C t . a t764. W e h a v e e x p la in e d th a t th e r e a r e tw o ty p e s o f e rr o ru n d e rB o o k e r : ( 1 ) S ix th A m e ndm e nte rr orba s e d upon s e nt e nc i ng e nha nc e m e nt s ne i the ra dm i tt e d by the de f e nda ntnors ubm i tt e d t o aj ury a nd pr ove n be y ond ar e a s onabl e doubt ; a nd (2) e rr or base d u po n sent enci ng un der am andat ory gui del i nes s ys t em . U ni t ed S ta te s v . S h e lto n , 4 0 0 F .3 d 1 3 2 5 , 1 3 2 9 - 1 3 3 4 ( 1 1 th C ir .2 0 0 5 ) . T h e r e is n o S ix th A m endm enterror und erB oo ker w here the defendanthas a dm i tt ed t o fac t s l at er u s e d b y th e d is tr ic t c o u r t to e n h a n c e as e n te n c e . S h e lto n , 4 0 0 F . 3 d a t 1 3 3 0 . W i th regard t o st atut ory e rr or, w here the di stri ctcourti m po se d a se nt ence5

un der am andat ory gui del i nes s ys t em , the fi rs ttw o p rong s of the pl ai n err or t es tar e sat i sfi ed . S ee S h el t o n , 4 0 0 F . 3 d at1 3 3 0 -3 1 . T h e th i rd p ro n g o f th e p l ai n erro r t est re qu i re s the defendantt o d em on stra t e that“ there i s are as on abl e probabi l i ty of a di f f e r e ntr e s ul ti f

the gui de l i ne s ha d be e n appl i e d i n a n a dvi s ory i ns t e a d of bi ndi ng fa shi on by the se nt enci ng j ud ge i n thi s c as e. ” S ee R od ri gu ez , 39 8 F . 3d at13 00 . In R odr i gue z w e e xpl a i ne d tha t : “ W he r e e rr or s c oul d ha ve c ute i the rw a y a nd u n c e r ta in ty e x is ts , th e b u r d e n is th e d e c is iv e f a c to rin th e th ir d p r o n g o f th e p la in e rr o rt e s t , a n d th e b u r d e n i s o n th e d e f e n d a n t . ” I d . Wh e r e we “ j u s td o n ’ tk n o w” w hether the defendantw ou l d h ave r ec ei ved a l es se r s ent ence un der a n adv i sory gu i del i ne sy st em , the defendanthas f ai l ed hi s burden o f s ho w i ng prej ud i ce . Id. at 1301. T he f

a c ttha t“ the di s tr i c tc our ts e nt e nc e d ade f e nda ntt o the bott om of

the ap p lic ab le g u id e lin e s r a n g e [ ,]” s ta n d in g a lo n e , “d o e s n o t e s tab lis h ar e a s o n ab le prob abi l i ty thatthe courtw ou l d h ave i m po se d a l es se r s ent ence un der a n adv i sory r e g im e .” U n ite d S ta te s v . F ie ld s , 4 0 8 F .3 d 1 3 5 6 , 1 3 6 1 ( 1 1 th C ir . 2 0 0 5 ) . U pon r e vi e w of

the r e c or d a nd c ons i de r a t i on of the pa r t i e s ’ br i e f

s , w e f i nd no r e ve r s i bl e e rr or . T he r e i s s i m pl y nothi ng i n the r e c or d t o s ugge s ttha tthe s e nt e nc i ng j udge w oul d ha ve i m pos e d al ow e rs e nt e nc e know i ng tha tthe g u i d el i n es w ere n o l o n g er m an d at o ry. B e c a us e C a m a c ho a dm i tt e d t o the f a c t s s uppor t i ng the s e nt e nc e i m pos e d,6

th e r e is n o p la in c o n s titu tio n a l e rr o rin h is s e n te n c e . I n a d d itio n , b e c a u s e th e r e is n o t ar e a s o n ab le p r o b ab ility th a t C a m a c h o w o u ld h a v e b e e n s e n te n c e d d if f e r e n tly u n d eran ad v iso ry g u id elin e s ch em e, th e s tatu to ry er ro r in th e d istrict co u rt’s se nt ence di d n otaf

fe ctC am ac ho ’ s s ub st ant i al ri gh t s, and w e a ff i rm hi s s ent ence . A F F I R M E D .