FILED U.S. COURT OF AP P E A LS E LE V EN T HC IR C U IT SEPT 08 , 2006 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. 05- 16948 N on -A rgum entC al endar

________________________ D . C . D o c k e tN o . 0 5 - 2 0 5 3 8 - C R - C MA 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 D A M I O U N C O L E , 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 S outhe r n D i s tr i c tof F l or i da

_________________________ ( S e p t e m b e r 8, 2006) B efo re B L A C K , B A R K E T T an d M A R C U S , C i rcu i tJu d g es. P E R C U R I A M: D a m i oun C ol e a ppe a l s hi s 364- da y s e nt e nc e , w hi c h w a s i m pose d a f t e rhe p le d g u ilty to k n o w in g ly e n g a g in g in a n d a tte m p tin g to e n g a g e in a s e x u a l a c t w ithCole does not addre ss the separate issues of whether a downwa

rd depa rture w as wa

rra nted 1 or whe th er thesentenc ewa s re a so na bleun der B oo ker. Ac c ording ly , h eha s w a ive d th os ec laims . Cf. United States v. Hembre e, 381 F.3d 1109, 1110 (11th Cir. 2004) (prior to Booker, holdingthat claims not raised on a

ppeal, includingclaims based on Blakely v. Washington, 542 U.S. 296 ( 2004), aredeeme d waived) ; United States v. Curtis, 380 F.3d 1308, 1310-11 (11th Cir. 2004) (sa me). 2 a f e m a le in m a te a t th e F e d e r a l D e te n tio n C e n te r( “F D C ” ) in M ia m i, F lo r id a , in vi ol at i on of 18 U . S . C . § 2 24 3(b). O n a p p ea l, C o le ar gu es thatthe di stri ctcourt v i o l at ed U n i t ed S t at es v . B o o k e r , 5 4 3 U . S . 2 2 0 (2 0 0 5 ), b y en h an ci n g h i s o ffen se l e ve l f orobs truc t i on of

j us t i c e , pur s ua ntt o U . S . S . G . § 3C 1. 1, a nd the n ap p l yi n g the G u i d e l i n e s i n a ma n d a t o r y f a s h i o n . A f

t e rc a r e f u l r e v i e w , w e a f

f i r m. 1 A l though C ol e di d not r a i s e a B ooke r obj e c t i on a t the s e nt e nc i ng h eari n g , he di d p reser ve a n A ppr e ndi obj e c t i on r e l a t i ng t o the e nha nc e m e ntf orobs truc t i on of ju s tic e w h e n , a t th e s e n te n c in g h e a r in g , h e a r g u e d th a t th e e n h a n c e m e n t “w o u ld t a ke [ the s e nt e nc e ] a bove the s t a tut or y m a xi m um . ” C f . U ni t e d S t a t e s v. D ow l i ng, 40 3 F . 3d 12 42 , 12 46 ( 11 th Ci r . ) ( f i nd i ng tha ts i mi l a rA pp r e nd i ob j e c t i on w as suff i ci entt o p re se rve B oo ker c l ai m s) , ce rt . deni ed, 1 2 6 S . C t . 4 6 2 (2 0 0 5 ). T h u s, w e r e vi e w C ol e ’ s pr e s e rv ed B o o k er c l a i m s de novo. S e e U ni t e d S t a t e s v. C a i n, 4 3 3 F. 3 d 1 3 4 5 , 1 3 4 7 ( 1 1 th Ci r . 2 0 0 5 ) ; U n i t e d St a t e s v . Ca n d e l a r i o , 2 4 0 F . 3d 1300, 1 3 0 4 ( 1 1 th C ir . 2 0 0 1 ) ( c ita tio n s o m itte d ) . P ursuantt o B oo ker, “ the S i xt h A m endm en tri gh tt o t ri al by j ury i s vi ol at ed w here un der am andat ory gui del i nes s ys te m a s ent ence i s i ncre as ed because of an3

e nha nc e m e ntba s e d on f a c t s f ound by the j udge tha tw e r e ne i the ra dm i t t e d by the de f e nda ntnorf

ound by the j ur y . ” U ni t ed S t at es v. R odr i gue z , 398 F . 3d 1291, 1 2 9 8 ( 1 1 th C ir .) ( e m p h a s is in o r ig in a l) , c e r t . d e n i e d , 1 2 5 S . C t. 2 9 3 5 ( 2 0 0 5 ) . W e ha ve he l d tha tthe r e a r e tw o ty pe s o f B o o k ere r r or s : ( 1) c ons t i tut i ona l e r r or r e s ul t i ng f

r om e nha nc e m e nt s ba s e d on j u d i ci al fact -fi n d i ng, a nd ( 2) n o n - c o n s t i tu t i o n a l s t a tu t o r y e r r o rr e s u l t i n g f r o m ma n d a t o r y a p p l i c a t i o n o f t he G ui del i nes. S ee U ni t ed S t at es v. S hel t on , 40 0 F .3 d 13 25 , 13 30 -31 (11 th C i r. 20 05 ). H er e, w e c an d isce rn n eith er typ e o f B o o k e r er ro r. C o n trar y to C o le’s a r g u m e n ts , th e d is tr ic t c o u r t e x p lic itly s ta te d th a t it w a s a p p ly in g th e G u id e lin e s in a n a dvi s or y , a nd notm a nda t or y , m a nne r . S e e R 3 a t50 ( “ U n d erst a ndi ng tha tthe G ui deli n es ar e a dv i sory and u nd er st andi ng w hatthe st atut ory c ri t er i a a re thatI a m r e qui r e d t o c ons ul ta nd a ppl y unde r35 U . S . C . § 3553( a ) ( 1) thr ough ( 7) . . . . ” ) ; i d. at61 (“ there fore the ap p ro p riat e off ense l evel for M r. C ol e und erthe advi sory G ui de l i ne s i s a l e ve l 14 w i th a r a nge of 15 t o 21 m onths . I a m m i ndf ul of the st atut ory m axi m um , ho w ever , and I w i l l no texce ed th atst atut ory m axi m um . ”) . M oreover, the di st ri ctcourtca l cul at ed the se nt enci ng ra ng e c on si st entw i th U ni t ed S t at es v. C ra w ford, 40 7 F . 3d 11 74 (11t h C i r. 20 05 ), and t hen st at ed thati thad consi dere d al l of the § 3 55 3(a) facto rs and t he 12 -m on th st atut ory m axi m um before i m po si ng i t s s ent ence . A cc ordi ng l y, the di strictcourtsa t i sf i ed i t s obl i gat i on s und er4

B oo ker, and t here w as no B oo ker e rr or, of ei ther aconst i tut i o n al or st atut ory v ari ety. W e lik e w is e a r e u n p e r s u a d e d b y C o le ’s s e p a r a te a r g u m e n t th a t, p u r s u a n t to A pp re nd i v. N ew Je rs ey , 53 0 U . S . 46 6 (20 00 ), the ob stru ctio n -of- j ust i ce enhancem ent im p erm i ss i bl y i ncre as ed the penal ty over the st atut ory m axi m um . In short , beca use C ol e’ s s enten ce , w hi ch the di stri ctcourti m po se d u nd eran advi sory s e n t e n c i n g s c h e m e , d i d n o te x c e e d th e s t a tu t o r y m a x i m u m p r e s c r i b e d i n 1 8 U . S. C. § 2243( b) , the r e w a s no A ppr e ndi vi ol a t i on. S e e U ni t e d S t a t e s v. C l ay, 376 F . 3d 12 96 , 13 01 (1 1t h C i r. 20 04 ) ( no t i ng that“ the const i tut i on al rul e of A pp re nd i do es nota ppl y w h ere the s e nt e nc e i m pos e d i s notgr e a t e rtha n the pr e s c r i be d m a xi m um fo r th e o ffen se o f co n v i ct i o n . ”); cf. R o d ri g u ez, 3 9 8 F . 3 d at 1 2 9 7 (h o ld in g th a t, po st-B o o ker, a di stri ctcourtm ay cont i nu e t o d et erm i ne any e nh ance m entw hen appl yi ng the G ui del i nes a s a dv i sory ). AF F I RME D.