FI L ED U.S. COURT OF A P P E A LS E LE V EN T H C IR C U IT J ULY 12, 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N CL ERK [DO NOT PUBLISH] IN THE UN ITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FO R T HE EL EV EN TH CIRC UI T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- 1513 6 Non-A rgum ent Calendar

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ D.C. Dock etNo. 0 3- 20 71 2- CR-UUB UNITED STAT ES OF AMERIC A, Plaintiff-Appellee, ve rs us HUNTER DEMARICK, D ef en dant- Appe llant.

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ __ Appe al f ro m the U nit ed

S ta te s D istri ct

Co urt f or the So uth er n D istri ct of F lor ida

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ _ ( Jul y 12, 200 5) Be fo re A N D E RS O N , CA RN E S an d W IL SO N , Ci rc uit Jud ge s. PE R CU RIA M: Hunter D em arick appeals his 188-m onth sentence im posed after a j ury co nvi ct ed him f or pos se ssi on o f a fi re ar

m by ac onvi ct ed

f el on, in vio la tio n of

18 U . S. C. §§ 9 22( g) (1 ) an d 92 4( e) . O n a ppe al , D em ar ic k arg ue s th at , in lig ht o f the2

rem edial holdi ng of United States v. B ooker , 543 U. S. ___, 125 S. Ct. 738 (200 5), th e d is tri ctco ur t erredby app lying th e Sen te nc in g Gu id el in es as m an da to ry . Mor eo ve r, D em ar ic k arg ue s, the f ac t tha t the c ourt se nte nc ed him to the low es t poss ible sentence within the guid eline range dem onstrates that the Booker e rr or wa s not harm less. A ccording to Dem arick, because the court er roneouslybelieved that it was r equired to im pose a sentence w ithin the guidelin e range, rather than an al te rn at iv e rea so nabl e se nt en ce, h e is en ti tl edto a rem an d fo r res en te nc in g. W e not e at

the out se t tha t be ca

use D em ar ic k f

ai le d to r ai se his Booker ar gum en t be fo re the dis tr ic t c ourt, w e re vie wthe dis tr ic t c ourt’ s de ci sio n f or pla in erro r. See U

nited Sta tes v. Rodriguez , 398 F. 3d 12 91, 1298 (11t h Cir. 2005 ), petition for cert. filed , 73 U.S.L.W . 35 31 (U.S. Feb . 23 , 20 05 ) (No . 04 -1 14 8) . T hus, w e m ay

e xe rc ise our

dis cr et ionto co rr ec t a

f or fe ite d e rr or

onl y w he re the appellant establish es: “ (1) er ror, (2) that is plain, and (3) that affe cts subst antial ri ght s . . . , but

onl y if ( 4) the e rr or

se ri ousl y a ff ec ts the f ai rn es s, int eg ri ty , or publ ic reputation of judicial procee ding s.” Id . ( ci ta tio ns and i nte rn al quo ta tio ns om itted). Inor de r to p ro ve that a

part ic ular er

ro r af fe ct ed his sub stanti al r igh ts, the ap pe llant m

ust de m onstrate ar ea sona

ble pr oba bil ity that the r es ult

w oul d have be en di ffer en t b ut forth e al le ge d e rro r. Id . at 1299. “ [W ] here the e ffec t of an3

er ro r on the r es ult

in the dis tr ic t c ourt i s un ce rt ai n or ind et er m inate . . . [ the appellant] has not m et his burden of sho wing that his su bstantial righ ts have been affe cted.” Id

. a t 13 01 ( ci tin g Jones v. United States , 527 U. S. 373, 394-95, 119 S. Ct . 209 0, 210 5 ( 1999 )) . T he f ac t tha t a dis tr ic t c ourt i m

pose d ase nte nc e at

the lowe nd o f the gui de lin e range doe s no t, by it se lf , e sta bli sh a r ea sona ble probabilit y

that it would have im

posed a lesser sentence under an advisory gu id el in e sc he m e. U

nit ed Sta tes v . F

ie lds , N o. 04- 1248 6, m anusc ri pt o p. a t 8- 10 (11th Cir. May

16, 2005). W e have explained that there ar e tw o poss ible ty pes of Booker

e rr or : ( 1) the er ro r of se nte nc ing ade fe ndant o n th e ba sis of f ac ts n ot f ound by the j ur y nor adm itt ed by the de fe ndant, or

“ co nst itu tio na l e rr or ”; and ( 2) the e rr or of be ing sentenced under a m andatory guidelin es schem e, or “ statutory err or.” See U

nited Sta tes v . She lto n , 400 F. 3d 13 25, 1330-31 (11th Cir. 2005). A . Si xt h A m en dm en t Er ro r In Booker , th e S up r e me C o u rtr e a f f i rme di t s h o l d i n g f

r o m A ppre ndithat,

“ [a] ny fac t (other than a prior conviction) 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 be a dm itt ed

by the de fe ndant o r pr ove d to aj ur y be y ond a reasonable doubt.” Booker , 543 U . S. a t __ _, 125 S . Ct . a t 75 6 ( ci tin g Apprendi v.4

New J ersey , 530 U . S. 466 , 120 S . Ct . 234 8 ( 2000 )) . T hus, w he n ade fe ndant i s se nte nc ed on the ba sis of

f ac ts a dm itt ed

by him , that se nte nc e doe s no t of fe nd the S i x th Ame n d men t ’s r i g h tt o tr i a l b y ju ry. In She lto n , w e he ld tha t the de fe ndant’ s S ixth A m en dm en t r igh ts w er e not vio la te d be ca

use he ha d a dm itt ed

the f ac ts u se d to e nhanc e his se nte nc e by f ai lin g to object to the statem ents contained in the presentence investigation report (“ PSI” ). She lto n , 400 F . 3d at 13 30. L ike w ise , D em ar ic k f ai le d to obj ec t t o th e fa ct s c ont ai ne d inthe P SI . T he re fo re , he a dm itt ed the f ac ts tha t su

ppor t hi s se nte nc e. A s no te d a

bove , se nte nc ing on the ba sis of a dm itt ed f ac ts d oe s no t violate the Sixth Am endm ent, and therefore ther e is no Sixth Am endm ent error . B. St at ut or y E rr or N o n e t h e l e s s , De mar i c kc a n e s t ab l i s h s t a tu t o ry B ook er er ro r be ca use the di st ric t co ur t s en te nc edhi m un de r a m an da to ry

gu id el in es sch em e. Id

. T he de ci sio n in Booker

m ad e thi s e rr or

pla in, thu s satis fy ing the f ir st tw o pr ongs of

the pl ai n e rro r te st . Id . D es pit e thi s pl ai n e rr or , D em ar ic k c annot pr ev ai l be ca

use he c annot d e mo n s tr a t e th a th i s s ub s t a n t i a l r i g h t s w e r e a f f e c t e db y t h e e rr o r . D e mar i c kc l a i ms that the f ac t tha t he w as se nte nc ed on the lowe nd o f the se nte nc ing r an ge es ta bli she s ar ea sona

ble pr oba bil ity that hi s se nte nc e w oul d have be endif fe re nt5

unde r ana dvi sor

y gui de lin es sc he m e. A s w e he ld i n F ie lds , thi s sh ow ing , w ith out m or e, doe s no t m ee t the de fe ndant’ s burd enund er the thi rd pr ong of the pla in e rr o r t e s t . Th e r e f

o r e , th e r e i s n o s t a tu t o ry B ook er error . Fo r the f or eg oin g r ea sons , and u

pon co nsi de re d r ev ie wof the r ec or d and the parties’ briefs, we aff

irm De m arick’ s sentence. AFFIRMED.