FIL ED U.S. COURT OF APPEAL S EL EVENTHCI RCUI T FEB 1, 2011 J OHN L EY CL ERK [DO NOT PUBLISH] IN THE U

NITED STATE S COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELE VENTH CIRCUIT

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ No. 1 0- 12 06 2 Non -Arg um en t Ca le nd ar

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ D.C. Dock etNo. 5 :0 9- cr-0 00 61 -HL-CWH-1 UNITED STAT ES OF AMERIC A, ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll l Pla in ti ff-Ap pe ll ee, vers us RAYMOND SMI TH, ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll l D efen 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 Mi dd le Dis tri ctof Ge or gi a

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ (Feb ru ary 1, 2 01 1)
Befo re BARKETT, MARCUS an d ANDERSON, Ci rcu itJu dg es . PER CURI AM: Raym on d S m it h app eal s t he 12 0- m on thsen te nc e h e rec ei ve d a fte r pl ead in ggu il ty to two co un ts of d is tri bu ti on of m or e th an50 gra m s o f co cai ne ba se , in

vi ol at io n o f 21 U.S.C. § 8 41 (a)( 1) an d 8 41 (b )(1 )(A)(i ii ). On ap pe al , Sm it h a rg ue s th at , bec au se he was n otaware t ha t h e was onpro ba ti on at the ti m e h e co m m it te d th e o ffen se s, h e sh ou ldno t h av e b een ass ig ne d t wo cr im in al -h is to ry po in ts un de r U.S. Sen te nc in g Gu id el in es Man ua l § 4A1 .1(d ). W e rev ie w de n ov o th e d is tri ctco urt’s i nt erp ret at io n o f th e Gui de li ne s. Uni te d S ta te s v . Zald iv ar, 6 15 F.3d13 46 , 13 50 (11 th Cir . 20 10 ). W e rev ie w th e di st ric t co urt’s fa ctua l fi nd in gs forcle ar err or , Uni te d S ta te s v . Wrig ht , 60 7 F .3d 70 8, 7 11 (11 th Cir . 20 10 ), an d we app ly de n ov o rev ie w to th e d is tri ctco urt’s ap pl ic at io n o f th e Gui de li ne s t o t he fact s, Zal di var, 61 5 F .3dat 1 35 0. Sect io n 4 A1.1 (d ) in st ru ct s t he di st ric t co urt t o a ddtwo po in ts “ if t he de fen da ntco m

m it te d t he in st an t o ffen se whi le un de r an y cri m in al jus ti ce s en te nc e, in cl ud in g p ro ba ti on , par ol e, supe rv is edrel eas e, im pr is on m en t, wo rk

rel eas e, or es cap e st atus .” Furth erm or e, “ act iv e supe rv is io n i s n otrequi redfor th is it em to ap pl y .” U.S. Sen te nc in g Gu id el in es Man ua l § 4A1 .1 cmt. n .4 (2 00 8) . The Sen te nc in g Gu id el in es no whe re m en ti on kn owl ed ge of o ne ’s st atus as aco nd it io n fo r th e en ha nc em en t. Ina cas e d eal in g wi th pa ro le st atus un de r § 4 A1.1 (d ), th is Co urt re jecte d t he de fen da nt ’s arg um en t tha t, b ecau se he in co rrec tl y be li ev edth athi s p aro le pe rio d 2was term in at edas o f hi s d ep orta ti on da te , he s ho ul d n othave rece iv edtwo

cri m in al -h is to ry

po in ts . Uni te d S ta te s v . Phi ll ip s, 4 13 F.3d12 88 , 12 92 (11 th Cir . 20 05 ). In t ha t ca se , we no te d t ha t ac ti ve supe rv is io n i s n ota requi rem en t u nd er § 4 A1.1 (d ), an d c on cl ud edth at“ no th in g i n t he tex t [o f § 4 A1.1 (d )] ind ic at es th ata de fen da nt ’s subjec ti ve un de rs ta nd in g o f th e p aro le term is rel ev an t.” Id . Our reas on in g i n P hi ll ip s ap pl ie s wi th equa l fo rce t o c as es in vo lv in g p ro ba ti on , be cau se § 4 A1.1 (d ) requi res two po in ts to be ad de d t o the de fen dant ’s cri min al hi st ory sco re fo r ei th er p ro ba ti on or p aro le . Acco rd in g t o S m it h, “ ne it he r th e Co urt n or hi s at to rn ey

in fo rm edth e App el la ntth athe was p la cedon pro ba ti on .” Mo reo ve r, Sm it h o bs erv es th athe was ne ve r requi redto return t o c ou rt o r to rep ort t o apro ba ti on off ic e. Sti ll , Sm it h co nc ed es th athi s at to rn ey ’s in te rces si on inpl aci ng hi m on pro ba ti on en ab le d h im to rei ns ta te hi s co m

m erci al dri ve r’s li cen se . Sm it h a ls o arg ue s t ha t, al th ou gh § 4 A1.1 co ve rs term s o f un supe rv is edpro ba ti on , th e Sec ti on ’s def in it io n o f a cri m in al jus ti ce s en te nc e d oe s n otap pl y to sen te nc es th atm erel y

im po se a fi ne , su chas S m it h’s s en te nc e b efo re i t was m od ifi edto in cl ud e p ro ba ti on . Non e o f th es e arg um en ts ch an ge s the factth atSm it h was on pro ba ti onat t he ti m e h e co m m it te d h is off

en se . It was pro pe r fo r th e d is tri ctco urt t o a ddpo in ts to Sm it h’s cri m in al hi st ory

sco re u nd er § 4A1 .1(d ) de sp it e Sm it h’s m is ta ke n b el ie f reg ard in g 3hi s s ta tu s.

Sm it h’s co nt en ti on th atth e d is tri ctco urt m is cal cu la te d h is cri m in al hi st ory sc or e is witho utm eri t. Up on rev ie w of t he reco rdan d c on si de rat io n o f th e p art ie s’ br ie fs , we affi rm . AFFIRMED.

4