T hi s O r derand J udgm enti s notbi ndi ng pr ece dent , exce ptundert he * d o ctri n es o f law o f th e c ase , res jud icata, and co ll ateral estop p el. T h e c o u rt gener al l ydi s favor s t he ci t at i on of or der s and j udgm ent s ; neverthel es s , an or der and j udgm entm aybe ci t ed undert he t erm s and condi t i ons of 10th C i r . R
. 36. 3. U n ite d S ta te s v . B o o k e r, 5 4 3 U .S . 2 2 0 (2 0 0 5 ). 1 

## F I LED United States C ourt of Appeals Tenth Circuit 

### A u gu s t9,2006 Elisab eth A. Shumaker C l erk of C ourt UNI TED S TATES COURT OF APP EALS

TENTH C IR C U IT
UNI T E D S T AT E S o f AM E RI CA , Pl ai nt i ff- A ppel l ee, v. ANTHON Y DELL I S S P ENCE R, D e fe n d a n t-A p p e llan t. N o. 04- 4307 ( D. C. No
. 2 : 0 3
- CR
- 6 1 6
- 0 1
- DAK)

( D
. U t ah)

ORDE R AND J UDGE M EN T *
B efor e EB EL , HOLL OW AY and KELLY , C i rcui tJudg es.

I n t hi s di r ectcr i m i nal appea l , D efe ndant
- A ppel l antA nthonySpencer
c h a lle n g e s h is 3 6 0 -m o n th s e n te n c e fo r c o n s p ir in g to d is tr ib u te m e th a m p h e ta m in e . T he di s t r i ctcour t , i n i m pos i ng t hats ent ence , comm i t t ed cons t i tut i onal B ooker 1
err orw hen i tenhanc ed Spence r ’ s s ent ence bas ed upon tw o fac tual fi ndi ngs m ade b yth e c o u rt , ra th e r t h a n th e ju ry. S p e n c e r p re s e rv e d th is e rr o r fo r r e v ie w .2 1 U .S .C . § 8 4 6 p ro v id e s th a t “[ a ]n yp e rso n w h o a ttem p ts o r c o n sp ire s to 2 c o mmi ta n yo ffe n s e d e fi n e d i n t h i s s u b c h a p t e rs h a l l b e s u bj e c tt o t h e s a me penal t i es as t hos e pr es cr i bed fort he offens e, t he comm i s s i on of w hi ch w as t he obj ectof the att empt orcons pi r acy . ” A nd 21 U
. S. C
. § 841( a) m akes i t“unl aw ful

. . . t o di s t r i but e . . . a contr ol l ed s ubs t ance . ” Fora cr i m e i nvol vi ng 78. 6 gr ams of m ethamphet ami ne, Spencer , w ho had a pr i orfel onydrug convi ct i on, fac ed a s t a tu t o r yma x i mu m s e n t e n c e o f l i fe i mp r i s o n me n t . S e e 2 1 U. S
. C. § 8 4 1 (b )( 1 )( A )( v iii)
. T h e d is tr ic t c o u rt a p p lie d th e 2 0 0 3 s e n te n c in g g u id e lin e s . 3 - 2 - N e v e rth e les s, b e c a u se w e c o n c lu d e th a t th e e rro r w a s h a rm les s, w e A F F IR M h is
s ent ence . I . BA CKGROUND S p e n c e r p led g u iltyto c o n sp irin g to d istrib u te m e th a m p h e tam in e , in vi ol at i on of 21 U
. S. C
. § 846. T hi s convi ct i on s t emm ed fr om hi s s el l i ng an 2
u n d e rc o v e r o ffice r fo u r o u n c e s, o r 7 8 .6 g ra m s, o f m e th a m p h e tam in e . T h is tr a n s a c tio n w a s a rr a n g e d b ya g o v e rn m e n t in fo rm a n t. A ts ent enci ng, t he di s t r i ctcourtfound, bya pr eponder ance of the evi dence , t hatSpencer1) had obs t ruct ed j us t i ce byt hr eat eni ng the i nform antand hi s w i fe;
a n d 2 ) wa s a l e a d e ro ro r g a n i z e ri n t h i s d ru g t r a n s a c t i o n . Ba s e d o n t h e s e t wo fac tual fi ndi ngs , t he di s t r i ctcourtenhanc ed Spence r ’ s bas e offens e l evel fr om th irty -tw o to th irty -e ig h t. A n o ffe n se lev e l o f th irty -e ig h t, co m b in e d w ith 3 Spencer ’ s cr i m i nal hi s t or ycat egoryof V I , pr oduced a s ent enci ng r ange of betw een 360 mont hs and l i fe i n pr i s on. T he di s tr i ctcourti m pos ed a s ent ence at th e b o tto m o f

th a t r a n g e , 3 6 0 m o n th s .T he di s t r i ctcour ts ent ence d Spenceron A ugus t16, 2004, aft ert he 4 S u p re m e C o u rt h a d d e c id e d B lak e ly , b u t b e fo re th e C o u rt d e c id e d B o o k e r in J anuary2005. - 3 - In li g h t o f B lake ly v . W ash ing ton , 5 4 2 U
. S
. 2 9 6 (20 0 4 ), the d istri ct co u rt 4 al s o i m pos ed an a l t ernat i ve s ent ence :

T he C our texer ci s es i t s di s cr et i on under the St atut e of C onvi ct i on, and s ho u ld [B la kel y ] be found t o i m pactthe Feder al S e n ten c in g G u id e lin e s, a n d th e ysh o u ld b e h e ld to b e u n c o n stitu tio n a l, t he s ent ence under t he S t atut e of C onvi ct i on[] i s the s ame se nt ence that I g a v e u n d e r t h e g u i d e l i n e ; 3 6 0 mo n th s c o n c u rr e n t l ywi th t h e o th e rt wo [s ent ence s Spencerw as a lr ea d ys ervi ng] and the 60 mont hs of s upervi s ed r el eas e. Spencerappea l s hi s s ent ence , ar gui ng 1) t he di s tr i ctcourtcomm i t t ed
cons t i tut i onal B ookererr orbyus i ng cour t - found fa ct s , m ade bya pr eponder ance of the evi dence , t o enhanc e Spence r ’ s s ent ence ; and 2) t he di s tr i ctcourt ’ s fi ndi ng th e e x iste n c e o f

th e se e n h a n c e m e n ts w a s c lea r e rro r. H a v in g ju risd ictio n to
c o n s i d e rt h i s a p p e a l u n d e r1 8 U. S
. C. § 3 7 4 2 ( a ) a n d 2 8 U. S
. C. § 1 2 9 1 , we A F F I R M. I I . S TANDA RD O F REVI EW E ven af t erB ooker , t hi s courtcont i nues t o r evi ew t he l egal det erm i nat i ons under l y i ng a di s t r i ctcour t ’ s s ent enci ng deci s i on de novo and a nyfac tual fi ndi ngs fo r clear e rror. S ee U n it ed S tat es v . Z u n ie, 4 4 4 F
. 3 d 1 2 3 0 , 1 2 3 6 (10 th C ir
. 2 0 0 6 ).- 4 -

Be fo r e t h e d i s t r i c tc o u r t , S p e n c e ru n s u c c e s s f u l l yo bj e c t e d t o th e s e two enhanc ement s , r el y i ng on A ppr endi v. N ew J er s ey , 530 U
. S. 466 ( 2000) , and B la k e ly. T h o s e o bje c tio n s p re s e rv e d S p e n c e r’ s c o n s titu tio n a l B o o k e r a rg u m e n t. See Zuni e, 444 F. 3d at1237 ( hol di ng thatr ai s i ng B l akel yar gum entats ent enci ng pr es erved B ookererr orforappea l ) ; U ni t ed St at es v. G l over , 413 F. 3d 1206, 1208, 1210 ( 10t h C i r . 2005) ( as s um i ng A ppr endi obj ect i on pr es erved B ookererr orfor
re v iew ). T h is c o u rt, th e re fo re , w ill re v iew S p e n c e r’s c o n stitu tio n a l ch a llen g e to h is s e n ten c e d e n o v o . S e e U n ited S tate s v . S tig e r, 4 1 3 F .3 d 1 1 8 5 , 1 1 9 1 (1 0 th C ir .), c e rt . d e n ie d , 1 2 6 S . C t. 7 7 5 (2 0 0 5 ). III . A N A L Y S IS I n B ooker , t he Supr eme C our t“hel d thatm andat oryappl i cat i on of the [fe der al s ent enci ng] G ui del i nes vi ol at es t he Si xth A m endmentw hen j udge- found fac t s , ot hert han thos e of pr i orconvi ct i ons , ar e empl oy ed t o enhanc e a s ent ence . ” U ni t ed St at es v. G onzal ez- H uer t a, 403 F. 3d 727, 731 ( 10th C i r . ) ( en banc ) (cit ati o n , q u o tat ion , alt era ti o n o m itted), cert. d en ied, 12 6 S
. C t. 4 9 5 (20 0 5 ). In t he w ake of

B ooker , t hen, t her e ar e tw o di s t i ncterr or s t hatar e pos s i bl e:
cons t i tut i onal B ookererr or , w hi ch i nvol ves t he di s tr i ctcourtus i ng fac tual fin d ing s itm ad e b ya p rep o n d era n ce o f th e e v iden ce to en h an ce the d efen d an t’ s
sen tenc e; an d n o n -co n sti tuti o n al B o o k er e rror, w h ich in v o lves the d istri ct co u rt ’s appl y i ng t he fe der al s ent enci ng gui del i nes i n a mandat orym anner . See G o n za lez-H u erta, 4 0 3 F
. 3 d at 73 1 -32 (cit ati o n s o m itted).A ts ent enci ng, Spenceral s o chal l enged a t hi r d enhanc ementm ade pur s uant 5 t o U
. S. S. G
. § 2J 1. 7, w hi ch i ncr eas ed hi s offe ns e l evel byt hr ee. B utSpencerdoes n o t r e a s s e rt th a t o bje c tio n o n a p p e a l. - 5 - I n t hi s cas e, t he di s t r i ctcour tcomm i t t ed cons t i tut i onal B ookererr orw hen i tfound, bya pr eponder ance of the evi dence , thatSpencer1) obs truct ed j us t i ce by t hr eat eni ng t he i nform antand hi s w i fe; and 2) w as a l eade roror gani zerof the
m ethamphet ami ne tr ans act i on; and then us ed thes e fa ctual fi ndi ngs t o enhanc e S p en ce r’s sen tenc e. S ee U n it ed S tat es v . S m all , 4 2 3 F
. 3 d 1 1 6 4 , 1 1 9 0 (10 th C ir
. 5 2005) , cert . deni ed, 126 S. C t . 1180, 1377, 2050 ( 2006) ; s ee a l s o U ni t ed St at es v. L aV al l ee, 439 F. 3d 670, 707 ( 10th C i r . 2006) ( r ecogni zi ng that , i f the s ent enci ng
c o u rt w o u ld h a v e a p p lied th e g u id e lin e s’ o b stru c tio n -o f-ju stic e e n h a n c e m e n t to i ncr eas e defendant ’ s s ent ence m andat or i l y , i tw oul d amount t o cons t i tut i onal B o o k e r e rr o r) ; U n ite d S ta te s v . L a w re n c e , 4 0 5 F .3 d 8 8 8 , 9 0 5 -0 6 (1 0 th C ir .) ( hol di ng t hatt he di s t r i ctcour t ’ s fi ndi ng thatt he defendantw as an or gani zeror l eade rof the offens e and ther ebyenhanc i ng defe ndant ’ s s ent ence w as
c o n stitu tio n a l B o o k e r e rro r), c e rt. d e n ied , 1 2 6 S . C t. 46 8 (2 0 0 5 ). T h is e rro r w ill
re q u ire re se n ten c in g u n les s th e G o v e rn m e n t ca n sh o w , b e y o n d a re a so n a b le d o u b t, t hatt he err orw as harm l es s , s ee U ni t ed St at es v. W al dr oop, 431 F. 3d 736, 743 ( 10t h C i r . 2005) ; t hati s , t hatt he err ordi d notaffectSpencer ’ s “s ubs t ant i al ri g h ts, ” F ed
. R
. C ri m . P
. 5 2 (a). [T]he r e ar e atl eas tt w o w ay s thata defendant ’ s s ubs t ant i al r i ght s m ay h a v e b e e n a ffe c te d in c a s e s o f c o n s titu tio n a l B o o k e r e rr o r. F ir s t, a defe ndant ’ s s ubs t ant i al r i ght s m aybe affec t ed i f a j u ry ap pl y i ng a18 U
. S. C
. § 3553( a) pr ovi des t hat , i n i m pos i ng a s ent ence , t he di s tr i ct 6 cour ts houl d cons i ders uch thi ngs as t he natur e and c i r cumst ance s of the offens e; t he defendant ’ s hi s t or yand cha r act er i s t i cs ; t he nee d fort he s ent ence t o r efl ectt he s er i ous nes s of the offens e; t he nee d fordet err ence , publ i c pr ot ect i on and re h a b ili tatio n ; th e k in d s o f se n ten c e s a v a ilab le a s w e ll as th e a p p lica b le s e n te n c in g g u id e lin e ra n g e ; a n d th e n e e d to p ro v id e v ic tim s w ith re s titu tio n . A fter B o o k er, th e d istri ct co u rtm u st co n side r th ese 1 8 U
. S
. C
. § 3 5 5 3 (a)’s fa ctors i n i m pos i ng a s ent ence . See U ni t ed St at es v. M or al es - C hai r es , 430 F. 3d 1124, 1 1 2 8 (10 th C ir
. 2 0 0 5 ). - 6 - re a so n a b le d o u b t sta n d a rd w o u ld n o t h a v e fo u n d th e sa m e m a ter ial fa c ts th a t a ju d g e fo u n d b ya p re p o n d e ra n c e o f th e e v id e n c e . S e c o n d , a defe nd ant’ s subst anti al ri gh t s m a y a l so be affect ed if there i s a r easo nabl e pr obabi l i t yt hat , underthe s peci fi c fa ct s of hi s cas e as anal y zed unde rt he s ent enci ng fac t or s of 18 U
. S. C
. § 3 553( a) , the 6 di s t r i ctcour tw oul d r eas onabl yi m pos e a s ent ence out s i de the G ui del i nes r ange. S m a ll, 4 2 3 F .3 d a t 1 1 9 0 & n .1 5 (c itatio n , q u o tatio n o m itt e d ) (fo o tn o te, e m p h a sis
a d d e d ). A . W h eth er a ju ry w o u ld h a v e fo u n d th e sa m e se n ten cin g fac ts be yo nd a r e a s o na bl e do ub t t ha t t he di s t r i c t c o ur t fo un d b y a p r e p o n d e r a n c e o f t h e e v id e n c e . T h e re is o v e rw h e lm in g e v id e n c e in th e re c o rd f ro m w h ich a ju ryw o u ld have found bot h t hatSpencer1) thr eat ened the i nform antand hi s w i fe; and 2) w as a l eade roror gani zerof thi s drug t r ans act i on. See U ni t ed St at es v . R i cca r di , 405 F. 3d 852, 875- 76 ( 10t h C i r . ) ( concl udi ng cons t i tut i onal B ookererr orw as h a rm les s w h e re e v id e n c e su p p o rtin g se n ten c in g fa c ts w a s “ o v e rw h e lm in g ” ), ce rt. d en ied, 12 6 S
. C t. 2 9 9 , 8 2 5 (20 0 5 ).- 7 - 1. O bst ruct i on- of-j ust i ce en h a n ce m en t. T h e d istri ct co u rt , p u rsua n t t o U
. S
. S
. G
. § 3 C 1
. 1 , en h an ce d S p en ce r’s offe ns e l evel byt w o aft erfi ndi ng t hatSpencerhad obs truct ed j us t i ce. Sect i on 3 C 1 .1 p ro v id e s th a t [ i]f (A ) th e d e fe n d a n t w ill f u llyo b stru c ted o r im p e d e d , o r a ttem p ted to obs t ructori m pede, t he admi ni s tr at i on of j us t i ce dur i ng the co u r s e of t he i nv esti g at i on, pr os ecut i on, ors ent enci ng of the i ns t antoffe ns e of convi ct i on, and ( B ) t he obstruct i ve conduc tr el at ed t o . . . the d e fe n d a n t ’ s o ffe n s e o f c o n v i c t i o n . . . , i n c r e a s e th e o ffe n s e l e v e l b y 2 l evels
. O bs t ruct i on of j us t i ce unde r§ 3C 1. 1 i ncl udes “thr eat eni ng, i nt i m i dat i ng, or ot herw i s e unl aw ful l yi nfl uenci ng a co- defe ndant[or ] w i tnes s . . . , di r ect l yor in d ir e c tly, o r a tte m p tin g to d o s o .” Id . a p p lic a tio n n o te 4 (a ). T her e w as overw hel m i ng evi dence i n the r ecor d thatSpencert hr eat ened bot h t he i nform antand hi s w i fe. T he evi dence pr es ent ed ats ent enci ng i ndi cat ed th a t th e G o v e rn m e n t in fo rm a n t h e lp e d a rra n g e S p e n c e r’s m e th a m p h e tam in e sa le t o an under coveroffi cer . T he i nform antw as pr es entw hen thatt r ans act i on t ook pl ace . T o keep Spenc erfr om di s cover i ng the i nform ant ’ s r ol e, pol i ce a rr es t ed the i nform antal ong w i t h Spencer
. A tt he pol i ce s t at i on, offi cer s s t ar t ed t o book t he i nform antbefor e movi ng hi m t o the j ai l ’ s “r el eas e ar ea. ” A ft ert he i nform ants at i n t he r el eas e ar ea foran hour , how ever , t he guar ds fors om e r eas on deci ded not t o r el eas e hi m . I ns t ead, t heyr etur ned hi m t o the j ai l and pl ace d hi m i n an ar ea
w her e he a nd Spencercoul d s ee e ach other
. W hi l e i n thatar ea, t he i nform ants aw- 8 -

Spencerm ake a t el ephone c al l
. T he i nform ant ’ s w i fe t es t i fi ed thatSpencercal l ed h er f rom the jail an d p reten d ed to b e a p o li ce o fficer ask ing ab o u t th e info rm an t’ s
r el eas e; dur i ng t hatconver s at i on Spencereventual l yadmi t t ed w ho he w as and t hen t hr eat ened her by s ay i ng “[I am] goi ng t o get y ou guy s . ” A ft erSpencergot off t he p ho ne w i t h the i nfo rm ant’ s w i fe, S pen cer t old the inform ant that “‘ I j ust cal l ed y ourw i fe, and s he t ol d m e eve rythi ng. ’ ” Spencert hen thr eat ened the i nfo rm ant di rect l y : “‘I ’m go i ng t o g ety ou fuck er. I’ m go i ng t o si c[] these M ex ican s o n y o u , ’” referring to S p en ce r’s co -de fe n d an ts L u is Pe rez an d Isi d ro A n g e l, w h o h a d a ls o b e e n in v o lv e d in th e m e th a m p h e ta m in e s a le
. T h is e v id e n c e is m o re th a n su fficie n t fo r a ju ryto fin d , b e y o n d a re a so n a b le doubt , t hatSpencert hr eat ened the i nform antand hi s w i fe. C f. U ni t ed St at es v. B r adfor d, 423 F. 3d 1149, 1161- 62 ( 10th C i r . 2005) ( r evi ew i ng cons t i tut i onal B ookererr orforpl ai n err orand hol di ng evi dence w as s uffi ci entfora j uryt o fi nd bey ond r eas onabl e doubtt hatdefe ndanthad obs truct ed j us t i ce)
. A nd thatfi ndi ng
wo u l d s u p p o r tt h e t wo - l e v e l o b s tru c t i o n - o f
-j u s t i c e e n h a n c e me n t . U. S
. S
. G. § 3 C 1
. 1 , ap p li ca ti o n n o te 4(a ).

2 . L ea d er sh ip e n h a n ce m en t. T he di s t r i ctcour tal s o i ncr eas ed Spence r ’ s offe ns e l evel byfour , pur s uant t o U
. S. S. G
. § 3B 1. 1( a) , aft erfi ndi ng thathe w as a l eade roror gani zerof the
m ethamphet ami ne s al e. Sect i on 3B 1. 1( a) s peci fi cal l ypr ovi des t hat“[i ] f the defe ndantw as an or gani zerorl eade rof a c r i m i nal act i vi tyt hati nvol ved fi ve orSpencerdoes notdi s put e thatt her e w er e atl eas tfi ve i ndi vi dual s i nvol ved 7 in th is d ru g tr a n s a c tio n . - 9 - m o r e p a r t i c i p a n t s o rw a s o t h e r w i s e e x t e n s i v e , i n c r e a s e [ o ffe n s e l e v e l ] b y 4 7 l evel s . ” ( Foot not e adde d. ) I n appl y i ng thi s enhanc ement , “[t ] he governm entdoes
n o t h a v e to p ro v e th a t d e fe n d a n t co n tro lled fiv e o r m o re p a rticip a n ts. In ste a d , it
m us tpr ove thatfi ve per s ons part i ci pat ed i n the cr i m i nal ventur e, and that D efe ndantexer ci s ed l eade r s hi p contr ol overatl eas tone per s on. ” U ni t ed St at es v. C ruz C amacho, 137 F. 3d 1220, 1224 ( 10th C i r . 1998) ( footnot e omi t t ed) (e m p h a s is a d d e d ). In d ist ing u ishing a lea d ersh ip o r o rg a n iz a ti o n al role f rom o n e o f m ere m anag em entors upervi s i on [forw hi ch a de fenda nts houl d i ns t ead rec eive o n lya thre e-lev el en h a n ce m en t un d er U
. S
. S
. G
. § 3 B 1
. 1 (b)],

. . . [f] act or s t he courts houl d cons i deri ncl ude the exer ci s e of deci s i on m aki ng author i t y , the natur e of part i ci pat i on i n the comm i s s i on o f t he offe ns e, t he r ecrui t m entof ac compl i ces , the cl ai m ed r i ghtt o a l ar ger s hare of the frui t s of the cr i m e, the degr ee of par t i ci pat i on i n pl anni ng o ro r g a n i z i n g t h e o ffe n s e , th e n a tu r e a n d s c o p e o f th e i l l e g a l a c t i v i ty, an d the de g ree o f co n tr o l an d au tho ri ty ex erc ised o v er othe rs. T h ere can, of cour s e, be more t han one pe r s on w ho qual i fi es as a l eade roran o rg a n iz e r o f

a c ri m in a l a s s o c ia tio n o r c o n s p ir a c y . U .S .S .G . § 3 B 1 .1 , ap p lica tio n n o te 4 . T h is fo u r-le v e l “e n h a n c e m e n t is a p p ro p ria te i f defendantw as ei t her a l eade roran or gani zer . ” U ni t ed St at es v. T agor e, 158 F. 3d 1124, 1131 ( 10t h C i r . 1 9 9 8 ). “The gr avamen of the enha ncementi s ei thert he
exer ci s e of c ont r ol o v er otherpar t i ci pant s orthe or gani zat i on of other s fort he p u rp o se o f

c a rry in g o u t th e c rim e .” U n ited S tate s v . S p e a rs, 1 9 7 F .3 d 4 6 5 , 4 6 9 (1 0 th C ir . 1 9 9 9 ) ( q u o ta tio n o m itte d ).- 10 -

T he evi dence pr es ent ed ats ent enci ng overw hel m i ngl yes t abl i s hed thatSpencer pl ay ed a l eade r s hi p oror gani zat i onal r ol e i n the drug tr ans act i on. T he i n formant i nt r oduced the under coveroffi cert o Spencer , and bot h the i nform antand the under cover offi cer negot i at ed w i th Spencer t o pur chas e met hamphet ami ne. Spencer eventual l yagr eed t o m eett he info rm antand the under coveroffi cert o conductt he t r ans act i on. Spencerarr i ved att hi s m eet i ng w i thoutthe d rugs , butacc om pani ed by T r oy D al t on and M andi I gnat ow i cz. W hen the i nform ant and the under coveroffi cer
r efus ed t o l eave w i t h Spencerand the others to r etr i eve the methamphet ami ne, Spencerdi r ect ed D al t on and I gnat ow i cz t o geti t . A nd i t w as Spencerw ho gave the offi cera s ampl e of t he m ethamphet ami ne so he c oul d det erm i ne i t s qual i ty . Spencer al s o t ol d t he off

i cert hatSpencerhad brought I gnat ow i cz w i th hi m s o thatthe off i cer
c o u ld h a v e s e x w ith h e r w h e n th e g ro u p p a rt ie d a f te r c o n c lu d in g th e d ru g s a le
. D al t on and I gnat ow i cz w er e gone f i ft een minu tes; w hen theyr eturned they
w ere acc om pani ed byA ngel and Per ez. Spencerdi r ect ed Per ez t o s how t he under coveroffi cert he drugs . W hen Per ez di d s o, offi cer s arr es t ed eve ry one. T he
u n d erc o v er o fficer testi fied at sen tenc ing that S p en ce r “w as orc h estrati n g the e n ti re deal
. ” T hi s evi dence , t hen, w as s uffi ci entfora j ur yt o have found bey ond a
re a s o n a b le d o u b t th a t S p e n c e r w a s a le a d e r o r o rg a n iz e r o f th is d ru g tr a n s a c tio n . C f. U ni t ed St at es v. A pper s on, 441 F. 3d 1162, 1211- 12 ( 10th C i r . 2006) ( r evi ew i ng B ookererr orforpl ai n err orand hol di ng evi dence w as s uffi ci ents uchBe c a u s e t h e e v i d e n c e i s s u ffi c i e n tfo rt h e j u ryt o h a v e fo u n d t h e s a me 8 s e n t e n c i n g fa c t s b e yo n d a r e a s o n a b l e d o u b tt h a tt h e d i s tr i c tc o u r tfo u n d b y a p rep o n d era n ce o f th e e v iden ce , S p en ce r’s argu m en t, that the d istri ct co u rt ’s fa c tu a l fin d in g s w e re c le a rl ye rr o n e o u s , is u n a v a ilin g . Spencerfur t herar gues t hat , i n m aki ng thes e fa ctual fi ndi ngs , t he di s tr i ct c o u rt e rre d in re ly in g o n “ u n re liab le h e a rsa y .” S p e n c e r a p p e a rs to b e re fe rrin g to the fac t th at, d u ri n g sen tenc ing , the p rose cu tor asse rt ed that S p en ce r’s co- defe ndant s , i n t hei row n gui l typl ea a nd s ent enci ng pr ocee di ngs , had r efe rr ed t o S pen cer as t heirl eader: “[T ]he factst at em ents given byal l of those i ndi vi dual s , w ho al l had no cr i m i nal hi s t or y. . . , w as t hatt heyw er e i nvol ved beca us e of M r . Spencer
. T heydi d w hatt heydi d beca us e M r . Spencert ol d them t o. ” T he d i stri ctcou rt , ho w ever, m ade cleart hat i tw as not r el y i ng on t ho se c o -d e fe n d a n ts ’ s ta te m e n ts to d e te rm in e S p e n c e r’ s s e n te n c e . - 11 - t hat a j uryw ou l d h ave fou nd , bey on d a reasonab l e do ub t , that the d efen dan tw as a
m a n a g e r o r s u p e rv is o r o f th e o ffe n s e ). 3. C onc l us i on. T her e w as overw hel m i ng evi dence pr es ent ed ats ent enci ng fr om w hi ch a j ur yw oul d have found, bey ond a r eas onabl e doubt , t he s ame se nt enci ng fac t s t he di s t r i ctcourtfound bya pr eponder ance of the evi dence
. T her efor e, t he tr i al 8
co u rt ’s co n sti tuti o n al B o o k er e rror— u sing tho se tw o fa cts t o en h an ce S p en ce r’s
s e n te n c e
— d id n o t a ffe c t S p e n c e r’ s s u b s ta n tia l r ig h ts . B . W h eth er th er e is a re a so n a b le p ro b a b il it y th a t the d ist rict co u rt, cons i deri ng 18 U . S. C . § 3553( a) ’ s fact ors , w oul d i m pose a d iffe r e n t s e n te n c e o u ts id e th e g u id e lin e r a n g e . T h e tri al co u rt ’s co n sti tuti o n al B o o k er e rror co u ld also affe ct S p en ce r’s
su b sta n tial rig h ts if

th e re is a re a so n a b le p ro b a b ili tyth a t th e c o u rt, h a d it
cons i der ed the s ent enci ng fac t or s s etfor th i n 18 U
. S. C
. § 3553( a) , w oul d haveA l t hough t he di s t r i ctcourt , i n i m pos i ng thi s al t ernat e s ent ence , di d not 9 expr es s l yaddr es s eac h § 3553( a) fac t or , t hi s courthas neverr equi r ed a s ent enci ng c o u rt to d o so . S e e U n ited S tate s v . C o rn e lio -P e n a , 4 3 5 F .3 d 1 2 7 9 , 1 2 8 9 (1 0 th C i r . ) , cert . deni ed, 126 S. C t . 2366 ( 2006) ; C or chado, 427 F. 3d at821; U ni t ed S tate s v . R in e s, 4 1 9 F .3 d 1 1 0 4 , 1 1 0 7 (1 0 th C ir. 2 0 0 5 ), ce rt. d e n ied , 1 2 6 S . C t. 1 0 8 9 (20 0 6 ). In C o rch ad o , fo r ex am p le, this co u rtreli ed o n the d istri ct co u rt ’s al t ernat e s ent ence , even though “the di s tr i ctcourtdi d nots peci fyt hati tw as appl y i ng t he s ent enci ng m ethodol ogys ugges t ed i n B ooker–namel ycons ul t at i on of t he advi s or yG ui del i nes and the fa ct or s l i s t ed i n 18 U
. S. C
. § 3553( a)
. ” 427 F. 3d at821. N evert hel es s , beca us e the di s tr i ctcourt“cons ul t ed the G ui del i nes and a d o p ted th e fin d in g s in th e P S R , w h ich a n a ly z e d se v e ra l o f th e fa c to rs s e t fo rth in § 3553( a) , ” thi s cour tw as “conf i dentt hatt he di s tr i ctcourtw oul d i m pos e the s ame se nt ence upon r emand. ” I d. ; s ee a l s o C or nel i o- Pena, 435 F. 3d at1289 ( r el y i ng on an al t ernat e s ent ence w her e the di s tr i ctcourt , i n i m pos i ng that (continued...) - 12 - im p o s e d a s e n te n c e o u ts id e th e g u id e lin e ra n g e . S e e S m a ll, 4 2 3 F .3 d a t 1 1 9 0
. O rdin aril y , this an aly sis r eq u ir es u s to c o n side r w h at sen tenc e the d istri ct co u rt
w oul d have i m pos ed, i f i thad appl i ed an appr opr i at e pos t - B ookeranal y s i s . See i d. I n l i ghtof the di s t r i ctcour t ’ s al t ernat e s ent ence i m pos ed i n thi s cas e, h o w e v e r, th e re is n o n e e d fo r u s to e n g a g e in su c h sp e c u latio n . W e k n o w e x a c tly
w hats ent ence t he di s t r i ctcour tw oul d have i m pos ed had the courtnotappl i ed the gui del i nes i n a mandat or ym anner . See U ni t ed St at es v. C or chado, 427 F. 3d 815, 821 ( 10t h C i r . 2005) , cert . deni ed, 126 S. C t . 1811 ( 2006) ; U ni t ed St at es v. S erran o -D o m ing u ez , 4 0 6 F
. 3 d 1 2 2 1 , 1 2 2 4 (10 th C ir
. 2 0 0 5 ). T h e d istri ct co u rt
w oul d i m pos e the s ame se nt ence . T her efor e, w e ca n be conf i dentthatther e i s no
r eas onabl e pr obabi l i t yt hatt he di s tr i ctcour t , now tr eat i ng the gui del i nes as advi s or yand s peci fi cal l ycons i der i ng § 3553( a) ’ s fac t or s , w oul d i m pos e a di ffe r ent s ent ence out s i de t he gui del i ne r ange. C f. U ni t ed St at es v. 9(...continued) 9 s ent ence , cons i der ed the gui del i nes , as advi s or y , the PSR , defe ndant ’ s m ot i on for a d o w n w a rd d e p a rt u re , a n d s e v e ra l § 3 5 5 3 (a ) fa c to rs s p e c ific a lly). - 13 - C or nel i o- Pena, 435 F. 3d 1279, 1289 ( 10th C i r . ) , cert . deni ed, 126 S. C t . 2366 ( 2006) ( r el y i ng on an al t ernat e s ent ence t o concl ude thatnon- cons t i tut i onal B o o k er e rror w as h arm less); C o rch ad o , 4 2 7 F
. 3 d at 82 1 (sam e); S e rr a n o -D o m in g u e z , 4 0 6 F .3 d a t 1 2 2 3 (s a m e ). If, as h e re , “th e se n ten c in g e rro r d o e s n o t affe c t th e se n ten c e th a t w o u ld have be en i m pos ed byt he di s t r i ctcourt , i tdoes notaffects ubs t ant i al r i ght s . ” U ni t ed St at es v. M ar s hal l , 432 F. 3d 1157, 1162 ( 10th C i r . 2005)
. T her efor e, the di s t r i ctcourt ’ s cons t i tut i onal B ookererr orw as harm l es s . See Zuni e, 444 F. 3d at 1 2 3 7 -3 8 ; W a ld ro o p , 4 3 1 F .3 d a t 7 4 3
. I V. CO NC L US I ON F o r t h e s e re a s o n s , w e A F F IR M S p e n c e r’ s 3 6 0 -m o n th s e n te n c e . ENT ERE D FOR T HE COURT

D avi d M
. E bel C i r cui tJ udge