FI L ED U.S. COURT OF A P P E A LS E LE V E N T H C IR C U IT MAY 31, 2005 THOMAS K. KAH

N CL ERK [DO NOT PUBLISH]
IN THE UN ITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FO R T HE EL EV EN TH CIRC UI T

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ N o. 04- 1555 2 Non-A rgum ent Calendar

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ D.C. Dock et No. 0 4- 80 08 2- CR-DTKH UNITED STAT ES OF AMERIC A, Pla in ti ff-Ap pe ll ee,
ve rs us VIVIANE ALAD IN, D ef en da nt- A ppe llant.

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ __ A ppe al f ro m the U nit ed

S ta te s D istri ct

Co urt fo r the S outhe rnD istri ct

of F lor ida

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ _ ( May 31, 200 5) Be fo re T JO FL A T , D U BI N A , a nd M A RC U S, Ci rc uit Jud ge s. PE R CU RIA M: V ivi an e A la dinappe al s he r 24- m onth se nte nc e fo r ill eg al ly r e- en te ri ng the United States after previous deportation, in violatio n of 8 U. S. C. § 132 6(a) and (b)(2). A la dinarg ue s th at

the dis tr ic t c ourt er

re d by appl y ing a12- le ve l e nhanc em en t,2

pur suant t o U
. S. S. G
. § 2L 1. 2( b) (1 )( B) , ba se d on he r pr ior c onvi ct ionf

or adr ug tr af fi ck ing of

fe nse , w he n t he pr io r co nvi ct ionw as ne ith er pr es en te d to aj ur

y nor adm itt ed by he r, in vio la tio n of

Bl ak el y v. W as hin gto n, 542 U
. S. ___ , 124 S
. Ct
. 2531 , 159 L. Ed. 2d 403 (200 4), and United States v. B ooker, 543 U. S. ___, 125 S. Ct. 738, 160 L. E d. 2d 261 (200 5). Aladin also argues that the di s t ri ct court
co m m itted rev ers ibl e er

ro r by tr ea tin g th e Se nte nc ing G uid el ine s a s m an da tor y , in violatio n of Booker. The govern m en t concedes that the district court comm itted Booker non-cons titutio nal error by apply ing the Guidelines as m andatory and states tha t r em an d f

or r es en te nc ing is ap pr opr ia te be ca use the dis tr ic t cour

t di d no t i ndi ca te whether it would im

pose the sam e sentence if the Guidelines wer e advisory in nature. A la dinr ai se d he r ar gum en ts i n th e dis tr ic t c our t and the re fo re is en tit le d to de
novo review
. United States v. Paz,
--- F. 3d

--- , 2005 W L 7578 76, *2 ( 11th Cir. Apr. 5, 2005). W e will reverse a Booker er ror only if the er ror w as harm ful, m eaning that the e rr or a ff ec te d su bst an tia l r igh ts. I d. T he gov ern m en t be ars the bur de n of
es ta bli shi ng tha t an e rr or

did not a ff ec t a de fe ndant’ s su

bst an tia l r igh ts. I d. As a prelim inary

m at t er , we easily

dispens e w ith Aladin’ s argum ent that her case pre sents a Booker constitu tional error beca use the district court enhanced her sentence for a

prior drug-traff

icking con vi ction, w hen the prior convictio n was
ne ith er pr es en te d to a j ur

y nor adm itt ed by

he r. I n B ooke r, the S upr em e Co urt he ld3

tha t the m an da tor

y na tur e of

the G uid el ine s r en de red the m inc om pa tib le w iththe Si xth A m en dm en t’ s r igh t t o aj ur y tr ia l. S ee 543 U
. S. __, 125 S. Ct
. a t 74 9- 50.

“ [T ] he Court left undistu rbed its hold ing in Alm endarez- Torr es v . United States, that
re ci div ism

is not a se pa ra te el em en t of an of fe nse tha t the gove rn m en t is r equir ed to prove bey ond a reasonable doub t.” United State s v. O rduno-Mireles, - -- F .3d -- -, 2005 W L 768134 (11t h Cir. Apr. 6, 2005) (citing Alm enda rez- Torr es v. U nited St at es , 523 U
. S. 224 , 247 , 118 S
. Ct
. 121 9, 123 3, 140 L
. E d. 2d 350 (1 998) ). “ A ny fact ( other than a prior convi ct i o n ), which is necessary to supp ort a sentence exceeding the m axim

um authorized by

the fac ts establish ed by

a plea of guilt y

or a j ur y ve rd ic t m

ust a dm itt ed by the de fe ndant or pr ove d to aj ur y be y ond a re as ona

ble do ub t.” Bo ok er, 1 25 S. Ct. at 75 6 (e m ph as is ad de d)
. “ T he r ea son fo r the e xc ep tio n f or pr ior co nvi ct ion s is cl ear: ‘ a pr ior c onvi ct ion
m ust itself have been establish ed thro u g h procedures satisfy ing th e fa ir notice,
re as ona ble doubt, a nd jurytr ia l gu ar an te es . ’ ” O rd uno- Mi re le s, 200 5 W L 768 134 (quot ing Jon es v. U nit ed St at es , 526 U
. S. 227, 249, 119 S. Ct
. 121 5, 122 7, 143 L
. E d. 2d 3 11 ( 1999 ))
. Simpl y pu t, the re is no S ixth A m en dm en t vi ola tio n w he n a defendant’ s sentence is enhanced based on a prior convictio n. “ [B] ecause the priorconvictio n exception rem ains und isturbed after Booker, a district court does not err by r el y ing on pr ior

c onvi ct ion s to e nhanc e a de fe ndant’ s se nte nc e. ” I d. ; se e al so4

U nit ed St at es v. Ca m ac ho- Ib ar que n, 404 F. 3d 1283 , 129 0 ( 11th C ir
. 200 5) ( hol din g tha t, pur suant t o A lm en da re z- T or re s, “ the gov er

nm en t ne ed

not alle ge in its ind ic tm en t and n ee d no t pr ove be y ond a re as ona ble doubt tha t a de fe ndant h ad pr ior
co nvi ct ion s f

or adis tr ic t c ourt t o us e tho se c onvi ct ion s f or pur pose s of en ha nc ing a
se nte nc e” ); U nit ed St at es v. Sh el ton , 400 F. 3d 1325 , 1329 (1 1th Ci r. 2005 ) (h old ing tha t t h e S up r e m e C o u rt ’ s d e c i s i o n i n A l m e n d a r e z - T o rr e s “ w a s l e f t u n d i s tu rb edby A ppr en di, Bl ak el y , a nd B ooke r, ” an d th at “ a dis tr ic t c ourt does not er r by re ly ing on pr io r co nv ic ti on s t o e nh an ce a d efen da nt ’s sen te nc e”). How ev er , as conceded by the governm ent, A ladin is righ t that there w as Bo oke r non- co nst itu tio na l e rr or , ba se d on the re m ed ia l ho ldi ng o f the c as e, be ca use the district court treated the G uidelin es range as m andatory and “ the Suprem e Court ha s no w e xc ise d th e m an da tor y na tur e of the G uid el ine s in Bo ok er. ” Sh el ton , 400 F. 3d at 133 0 (review ing Book er c laim for plain e rror)
. In Shelton, we concluded th at

“ it was B ook er er ro r for the district court to sentence Shelton un der a m andatory G uid el ine s sc he m e, e ve n inthe absen ce of aS ixth A m en dm en t e nhanc em en t violatio n.” Id. (citation om itted). “ As a result of Booker’ s rem edial holdi ng, Booker
error exists when the district court m isapplies the Guidelines by considering them as bi nd in g a s o pp os edto ad vi so ry .” Id . at 1 33 1.5

“ In cases involvin g preserved Booker er ror, the Governm ent m

ust sh ow that the m an da tor

y , a s op pose d to the a dvi sor y , appl ic at ionof

the gui de li ne s did not
co n tri b u t e t o t h e d ef

en d an t ’s s en t en ce .” Un i t ed St at es v . Da v i s , -- - F. 3 d

-- -, 2 0 0 5 WL 10 33 42 2, * 1 (1 1t h C ir. M ay 4, 2 00 5) (ci ti ng Paz, 2 00 5 WL 75 78 76 at * 2) . A
no n- co ns ti tu ti on al erro r is ha rm le ss “ if, v ie win g th e pr oc eed in gs in th ei r en ti ret y , a
c o u rt d e t e rm i n e s t h a t t h e e rr o r d i d n o t a f f e c t t h e [ o u t c o m e ] , o r h a d b u t v e ry sli ght effe ct.” U nited States v. Hornaday , 392 F. 3d 13 06, 1315 (11t h Cir. 2004 ) (internal quot ation m arks and citations om itted). “ If one can s ay ‘ with fair assurance .
. . that the j udgm en t w as not

sub stanti al ly

sw ay ed by the e rr or , ’ th e jud gm en t i s du e to b e af fi rm ed e ve n th oughthe re w as e rr or . ” Id
. (quot ing K ott eakos v. U nit ed S ta te s, 328 U. S. 750, 764 66 S. Ct. 1239 , 124 8 , 9 0 L. Ed. 1557 (1946)); see also U nited States
v. F ra zi er , 387 F. 3d 1 244, 126 6 n. 20 ( 11th C ir
. 200 4) ( enba nc ) (“ E rr or s do a ff ec t a subs tantial right of a party if they have a ‘ subs tantial influence’ on the ou tcom e of a
cas e o r le av e ‘grav e d ou bt ’ as to whet he r th ey affe ct e d th e o ut co m e o f a cas e.” (quotin g Kotteakos, 328 U. S. at 764-65, 66 S. C t. a t 1248 )). H er e, the r ec or d do es not

ind ic at e w he the r or not the dis tr ic t cour t w oul d ha ve giv enA la dinth e sa m e se nte nc e unde r ana dvi sor y sc he m e. Mo re ove r, the gove rn m en t c onc ed es tha t the dis tr ic t co urt’ s er ro r w as not

ha rm le ss, a nd thus cannot
m ee t i ts b ur de n of

sho w ing tha t the erro r di d not a ff ec t A la din ’ s su

bst an tia l r igh ts.We note that in this case, the district cour t corre ctly

deter mined the Guidelines ra

ng e for 1 Al a din ’s c on vic tio n. On re mand , p ur su ant t o B oo ke r, the dis tr ic t c ourt is r e qu ir e d to se nte nc e Al a din under a n advisory

Guidelines sche me, and, in so doing , must consider the Guidel i n es rang e and “other statutory conce rns as we ll , s ee [18 U.S .C.] § 3553(a) (Supp. 2004).” B ooker, 125 S. Ct. at 757. 6 Se e D av is, 200 5 W L 103 3422 , *2 ( “ W e sim ply do n ot k no w wh at th e se nte nc ing court would have done had it u nderstood the g u i d el i n es to be adviso ry rather than
m andator y , and had prop erly considered the factors in 18 U. S. C. § 355 3(a). Th er ef o re , t h e G o v er n m en tca n n o tm ee ti t s b u rd en o f s h o wi n g t h at t h e d i s t ri ct co u rt ’s
er ro ne ous ap pli ca tio n of

the G uid el ines as m anda tor y w as ha rm le ss b ey ond a
reas on ab le do ub t.”)
. A cc or din gly , w e va ca te A la din ’ s se nte nc e an d r em an d f or r es en te nc ing consist ent with Booker. 1 VACATED AND REMANDED.