FI LED U.S. COURT OF APPEALS ELEV ENT H CI RCUI T FEB 2, 2 011 J OHN LEY CLERK [DO NOT PUBLISH]
IN THE UN ITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELE VENTH CIRCUIT

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ No. 0 9- 16 33 1 Non -Arg um en t Ca le nd ar

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ D. C. Dock etNo. 0 5- 00 04 2- CR-1 -MM P UNITED STAT ES OF AMERIC A,
Pl ai nt iff -Ap pe ll ee,
ve rs us ROBERT LEE PERRY, Defen 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 fo r th e North ernDis tri ctof F lo rid a

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ _ (Feb ru ary 2, 2 01 1) Befo re HULL, MARTIN an d ANDERSON, Ci rcu itJu dg es . PER CURI AM:Ro be rt Lee Perry app eal s fr om hi s co nv ic ti on forco ns pi racy to d is tri bu te
an d p os se ss with i nt en t t o d is tri bu te m or e th anfiv e k il og ram s o f co cai ne an d m or e th anfif ty gram s o f co cai ne ba se , invi ol at io n o f 21 U.S.C. §§ 84 6 a nd 84 1( b) (1 )(A)(i i) a nd(ii i). Onap pe al , Perry argu es th atth e d is tri ctco urt l ack ed juri sd ic ti on to ap pl y

anen ha nc em en t ac co rd in g t o 2 1 U.S.C. § 85 1 b ecau se th e go ve rn m en t’s § 85 1 n ot ic e la ck edsp eci fic it y . He als o a rg ue s tha t the go ve rn m en t fai le d t o p ro ve th athe ha d b een co nv ic te d o f two pri ordru g- rel at edfel on ie s fo r th e p ur po se s o f th e § 85 1 e nh an cem en t. I. W e rev ie w th e ad equa cy

of a n e nh an cem en t n ot ic e o n t he ba si s o f 21 U.S.C. § 8 51 de no vo . Uni te d S ta te s v . Ram ire z, 50 1 F .3d12 37 , 12 39 (11 th Cir
. 20 07 ) (p er cu ria m). The n ot ic e requi rem en t o f § 8 51 is juri sd ic ti on al . Uni te d St at es v. J ack so n, 5 44 F.3d11 76 , 11 84 -8 5 (1 1t h C ir. 2 00 8) (pe r cu ria m). Altho ug h P erry didno t ra is e a cl ear o bjec ti on to th e § 85 1 n ot ic e athi s fi rs t
se nt en ci ng he ari ng , th e juri sd ic ti on al na tu re o f th e requi rem en t al lo ws Pe rry to rai se th e is su e atan y

ti m e. See Uni te d S ta te s v . Giral do -Pra do , 15 0 F .3d13 28 , 13 39 (11 th Cir . 19 98 ) (n ot in g t ha t “ a p arty m ay rai se juri sd ic ti on at a ny tim e du rin g t he pe nd en cy

of the pro ceed in gs ”) (p er cu ria m).

2W e requi re s tri ctco m pl ianc e wit h t he pro cedur al an d s ub st an ti ve requi rem en ts of § 85 1 n ot ic es . Uni te d S ta te s v . Rut he rfo rd , 17 5 F .3d89 9, 9 04 (1 1t h C ir. 1 99 9) . Sect io n 8 51 (a)( 1) requi res th atth e g ov ern m en t fi le an in fo rm at io n t ha t s ta te s t he pre vi ou s co nv ic ti on s tha t wi ll be rel ie d upo n i n wri ti ng . 21 U.S.C. § 8 51 (a)( 1) . A no ti ce tha t co nt ai ns m in orerro rs st il l co m pl ie s wi th § 8 51 as l on g a s t he no ti ce, d es pi te th e erro rs , un am bi gu ou sl y si gn al s the go ve rn m en t’s i nt en t. See Pere z v . Uni te d S ta te s, 2 49 F.3d12 61 , 12 66 -6 7 (1 1t h Ci r. 20 01 ). The § 8 51 no ti ce i n t hi s ca se was l eg al ly suf fic ie ntbe cau se itno ti fie d P erry th atth e g ov ern m en t i nt en de d t o s eeken ha nc edpe na lt ie s u nd er 2 1 U.S.C. § § 8 41
an d 8 46 . The n ot ic e cl earl y est ab li sh edth atth e en ha nc em en t was ba se d o n fo ur li st edpri orfel on y

dru g c on vi ct io ns an d wo ul d re su ltinli fe i m pr is on m en t. Fo r each of t ho se fou r co nv ic ti on s, the § 8 51 no ti ce p ro vi de d t he da te of c on vi ct io n, a br ie f de sc rip ti onof t he off en se , andth e cas e num

be r. Perry no te s tha t the da te of
on e o f th e co nv ic ti on s was m is st at edinth e PSI i n o ne sec ti on . Howev er, the da te
was co rrec t i n t he no ti ce an d i n asep arat e se ct io n o f th e PSI. Fu rth erm or e, th e
en ha nc em en t o nl y

requi redth e supp ort o f two of t he fou r pr ed ic at e o ffen se s. See 21 U.S.C. § 8 41 (b )(1 )(A). The m is ta ke inth e PSI d idno t p rev en t the go ve rn m en t

3fro m

un am bi gu ou sl y si gn al in g i ts in te nt . Accor di ng ly, th e § 85 1 n ot ic e was ad equa te . II. Whe n ade fen da ntfai ls to ob ject t o asen te nc in g i ss ue inth e d is tri ctco urt,
we rev ie w forpl ai n e rro r. Uni te d S ta te s v . Bon il la , 57 9 F .3d12 33 , 12 38 (11 th Ci r. 20 09 ), cert . den ie d, 1 30 S.Ct . 23 61 (20 10 ) (ci ta ti on om it te d) . To es tabl is h pl ai n e rro r, Perry

“ m us t s ho w th atth ere i s (1 ) erro r (2 ) th atis pl ai n a nd(3) th at affe ct [s ] subs ta nt ia l ri gh ts .” Uni te d S ta te s v . Lejarde -Rad a, 31 9 F .3d12 88 , 12 90 (1 1t h C ir. 2 00 3) (pe r curia m) (al te rat io n i n o rig in al ) (quo ta ti on s o m it te d) . “ Fo r an
erro r to affe ctsubs tant ia l ri gh ts , inm os t ca se s i t m ean s tha t the erro r m us t h av e be enpre jud ic ia l: It m

us t h av e aff

ect edth e o ut co m e o f th e d is tri ctco urt pr oc eed in gs .” Uni te d S ta te s v . De La Garza, 5 16 F.3d12 66 , 12 69 (11 th Cir
. 20 08 ) (quo ta ti onom it te d) . The d efen da ntbe ars th e b ur de n o f es tabl is hi ng pr ejud ic e. Id
. Perry ha s n otarg ue d tha t h e was pre jud ic edby the go ve rn m en t’s al le ge d fai lu re t o p ro ve hi s p rio r co nv ic ti on s. See De La Garza, 5 16 F.3dat 1 26 9. The refo re, Perry

ha s n otest ab li sh edth atth e d is tri ctco urt p la in ly erredinfin di ng th athe ha d p rev io us ly been co nv ic te d o f two fel on y dru g o ffen se s an d,
co ns eque nt ly, th athe was e li gi bl e fo r anen ha nc edsen te nc e. Mo reo ve r, Perry 4fai le d t o o bjec t t o t he co nv ic ti on s s etou t i n t he § 8 51 no ti ce an d i n t he PSI.

In de ed , Perry con ced edth athe was fa ci ng a m an da to ry li fe s en te nc e. Upo n re vi ew of

th e rec or d a ndaft er co ns id erat io n o f th e p art ie s’ bri efs , we affi rm . AFFIRMED.

5