FI L ED U.S. COURT OF A P P E A LS E LE V EN T H C IR C U IT SEPTEMBER 6, 2005 THOMAS K. KAH

N CL ERK [D O N OT P UBL ISH] IN TH E U NITE D S TAT ES C OUR T OF AP PE ALS F OR TH E E LE V EN TH C IR C U IT

--- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- -

N o. 04- 1486 5 N on -A rg um en t C ale nd ar

--- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- -- D.C. Dock etNo. 0 4- 20 10 7- CR-UUB UNITED STAT ES OF AMERIC A, Plai nt iff -Ap pe ll ee, ve rs us LUIS GUSTAVO AN DINO, Defend an t-Ap pe ll an t.

--- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- - Ap peal from the Un ited S tates D istrict C ourt fo r th e So ut he rn D ist ri ctof F lor id a

--- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- -

(S ep te m be r 6, 200 5) Be fo re ED M ON D SO N , C hi ef Ju dg e, C A RN ES an d M A R C U S, C ir cu it Ju dg es .2

PE R C URIAM : Luis G ustavo Andin o appeals his 70 -m onth sentence, im posed after he pled guilt y to illegal reentry

of a pre viou sly

deported alien, in violation of 8 U. S. C. § 13 26( a) , ( b) (2 ). R ev er sib le e rr or e xis ts unde r U nit ed

S ta te s v. Bo oke r, 125 S . Ct . 738 (2 005) ; w e va cate A ndi no’ s se nte nc e an d r em an d f or r es en te nc ing c onsi ste nt with Booker. W e ini tia lly

a ddr es s A ndi no’ s arg um en t tha t the dis tr ic t c ourt e rr ed in apply ing a 16-level enhancem ent for being deported after a felony conviction of a

“ cr im e of vio le nc e” , pur suant t o U . S. S. G . § 2L 1. 2( b) (1 )( A )( ii) , ba se d onhis pr ior Fl or ida state c onvi ct ionf

or r obbe ry . A ndi no c ont en ds tha t a c onf lic t e xis ts be tw ee n th e de fi nit ion s of a“ cr im e of

vio le nc e” und er

§ 2L 1. 2( b) (1 )( A )( ii) and un de r th e imm ig rat io n s ta tu te s: he cla im s t ha t t he st atut ory de fin it io n c on tro ls . W e re vie wde nov o adis tr ic t c ourt’ s in te rp re ta tio n of c ri m ina l st at

ute s and sentencing g uidelin es. United States v. Kr aw czak, 331 F.3d 1302 , 1305 (11th Cir. 20 03 ). W e conclude that the district court properly applied the enhancem ent under § 2L 1. 2( b) (1 )( A )( ii) . T his gui de lin e re qui re s a16- le ve l e nhanc em en t i f the3

d e f e n d an tp r e v i o u s l y w a s d e p o rt e da f t e r ac o n v i c t i o n f

o r af e l o n y t h a ti s a“c r i me of vio le nc e. ” S ee U . S. S. G . § 2L 1. 2( b) (1 )( A )( ii) . U nde r Fl or ida law , r obbe ry

is a se co nd d eg re e fe lon y

pun ish ab le by

up t o 15 y ears ’ im

pr iso nm en t. S ee F la . S ta t. A nn. §§ 8 12. 13( 2) (c ), 775 . 082( 3) (c ). T hus, und er the gui de lin es and the ac co m pany ing c om

m en tary , A ndi no’ s c onvi ct ionf or r obbe ry qua lif ie s a s af el ony

“ cr im e of vio le nc e” that tri gge rs the 16- le ve l e nhanc em en t. S ee U . S. S. G . § 2L 1. 2, co m m en ts . (n.1 (B)( ii i) a nd2). A nd w e re

j ec t A ndi no’ s c la im

about the c onf lic t be tw ee n th e gui de lin es and the im m igr at ionstatut es . T he im m igr at ionstatut es pr ovi de aba se m ax im um tw oy ear p ris on sen te nc e fo r il le ga l re en try of a d ep or te d a li en . 8 U.S.C. § 13 26 (a). But § 132 6(b)(1) allow s a m axim um ten-y ear sentence if the deportation was subs eque nt t o ac onvi ct ionf or thr ee or m or e m isd em eanor s in vol vin g dr ugs, cr im es a ga ins t the pe rs on, or af el ony ( oth er than an a ggr av at ed

f el ony ). A nd § 132 6(b)(2) allow s a m axim um twe nty -y ear sentence if the deportation was s ub s e qu e n tt o ac o n v i c t i o n f o r an “ a g g r a v a t e df

e l o n y.” An “ a g g r a v a t e df e l o n y” inc lud es a“ cr im e of

vio le nc e” f

or w hic h th e te rm

of im pr iso nm en t a ct

ua lly im pose d is a t l ea st o ne y ear. S ee 8 U . S. C. § 11 01( a) (4 3) (F ); U nit ed S ta te s v. Guzm an-Ber a, 216 F.3d 1019 , 1020 (11th Cir. 2000).W e al s o n o t e that the PSIindicates that Andino ha s at least thre e prior misdeme anor dr ug 1 convictions. These convictions also ex pose Andino to § 1326(b)( 1)’s max imum ten-y ear sentenc e. 4 No o ne di sp ut es th ata ro bb ery is a cri m e o f vi ol en ce. See 18 U.S.C. § 1 6. Bu t A ndi no w as se nte nc ed onl y to 364 day s’ im

pr iso nm en t f

or the F lor ida ro bbe ry . B ec au se his a ct ua l se nte nc e w as le ss than on e y ear, he c ont en ds tha t hi s ro bbe ry c onvi ct iondoe s no t qu al if y a s an “ ag gr av at ed

f el ony ” unde r § 13 26( b) (2 ) that w oul d e xpos e him

to the m ax im

um 20- y ear se nte nc e. T o th e ex te nt tha t the district court adopt ed the statem ent in the presentence investigatio n report (PS I) that Andino was subjec t to a 20-y ear m axim um sentence under § 1326 (b)(2), an erro r oc cu rred . Bu t i t i s an e rr or

that do es not

m ean m uc h. A ndi no arg ue s th at

the gui de lin e de fi nit ionf

or a“ cr im e of

vio le nc e” , w hic h in cl ude s any r obbe ry , r eg ar dle ss o f the se nte nc e ac tua lly

im pose d, c onf

lic ts w iththe statut or

y de fi nit ionof

a“ cr im e of violence” that qualifies as an “ aggravated felony ”. A ndin o’ s robbery conviction -- w hil e not a“ cr im e of

vio le nc e” that qu al if

ie s a s an “ ag gr av at ed

f el ony ” unde r the im m igration statu tes -- does qualify as a f elony that exposes Andino to a ten-y ear m axim um sentence under § 1326 (b)(1). T his ten-y ear m axim um sentence is m ore 1 than Andino’s guideline sentencing range of 70 to 87 m onth s’ im prisonm ent afterWe n e e d n ot hy po the size a

bo ut whe the r a sit

uatio n c ou ld ari se wi th t

he c on fl ic t A nd ino a sse rt s. 2 We a re awa re that th e de fi nit ion s o f “ cri me of vio le nc e ” un de r U .S. S.G . § 2L 1. 2 a nd 8 U .S. C. § 1101(a) (43)( F) differ : the latter re quires that the s entenc e ac tually imposed be at lea st one y ear , and the forme r re quires only that the conviction be punishable by a term of imprisonment in excess of one y ear . B u t t

h e d e f in it io no f a “ c r im e o f

v io le n c e ” th at i s an“ a g g r av ate d f e lo ny” un d er § 1101(a) (43)( F) applies to the dete rminati o n o f a max imum possi ble sentenc e for a violation of § 1326(a) : t h i s d efinition does not apply to § 2L 1.2, which unambiguously define s a “c rime of v i o l e n c e ” i ni t s c o m m e n t ar y. 5 apply ing th e 16-level enhancem ent. Under these fac ts, w e discern no conflict be tw ee n th e ap pli catio n of 8 U . S. C. § 13 26 and U . S. S. G . § 2L 1. 2. 2 A ndi no a lso arg ue s th at , und er Bl ak el y v. W as hin gto n, 124 S . Ct . 253 1 (2 004) , the dis tr ic t c ourt vi olate d hi s F if th and S ixth A m en dm en t r igh ts whe n it enhanc ed his se nte nc e ba se d onthe f ac t of his pr ior c onvi ct ion , w hic h w as not ch ar ge d inthe ind ic tm en t, not pr ove d to aj ur

y be y ond a re as ona

ble doubt, and n ot ad m it te d b y

hi m . Andino properly

raised his Blakely

/Booker claim

in the district court. Se e U nit ed S ta te s v. D ow lin g, 403 F . 3d 1 242, 124 5 ( 11th C ir . 200 5) . W e re vie wthi s issue de nov o; we w ill reverse unless the governm ent shows that any err or wa s harm less. S ee United States v. Robles, 408 F.3d 132 4, 1327 (11th Cir. 2005 ). Andino’s 16-level e nhancem ent under U. S. S. G. § 2L1.2( b)(1)(A )(ii) w as based solely

on the fact that he had a pre viou s convictio n. I n Alm endarez- Torr es v. U nit ed S ta te s, 118 S . Ct . 121 9 ( 1998 ), the S upr em e co urt st at ed that the gove rn m en t ne ed

not a lle ge in the ind ic tm en t and n ee d no t pr ove be y ond a6

re as ona ble doubt tha t a

de fe ndant h ad

apr ior c onvi ct ionf

or adis tr ic t c ourt t o us e that c onvi ct ionto enhanc e a se nte nc e. “ T his c onc lus ionw as le ft und ist ur be d by Appr en di, Bl ak el y , and B ooke r. ” U nit ed S ta te s v. S he lto n, 400 F . 3d 1 325, 132 9 (11th Cir. 2005). Thus, the district court did not vio late A ndin o’ s constit ution al ri ght s by appl y ing the § 2L 1. 2( b) (1 )( A )( ii) e nhanc em en t ba se d onhis pr ior co nvi ct ion . S ee U nit ed

S ta te s v. G al le gos- A gue ro , 409 F . 3d 1 274, 127 6- 77 ( 11th Cir. 2005 ). But the district court didcom m it a statutory

err or under Booker. See United St at es v. D ac us, 408 F . 3d 6 86, 688 ( 11th C ir . 200 5) ( unde r Bo oke r, tw o ty pe s of se nte nc ing e rr or s e xis t: “ one is co nst itu tio na l and the oth er is statut or

y ”) . T he statutory err or occurs w hen the district court sentences a defendant “ under a m an da tor y G uid el ine s sc he m e, e ve n inthe abse nc e of aS ixth A m en dm en t enhancem ent violatio n.” Shelton, 400 F.3d at 1330-31. Booker statutory err ors ar e subj ec t t o ale ss d em an din g harm le ss e rr or te st tha t i s a

ppl ic ab le to nonco nst itu tio na l e rr or s. S ee U nit ed S ta te s v. Mathe nia , 409 F . 3d 1 289, 129 2 ( 11th Ci r. 200 5) . T ha t st an dard r equir es us t o de te rm ine w he the r the e rr or e ith er did not af fe ct the se nte nc e or

onl y ha d asli ght

e ff ec t. I d. He re , t h e g o v ern m en th as fa i l edt o d emo n s tra t e t h at th e d i s tri ct co u rt ’s statutory err or of apply ing th e guidelines in a m andatory fashion didnot have anJ ust before Andino was sente nced a nd befor e the Supre me Court decide d Booke r, we declined 3 to apply the principles set out in B lakely to the sentenc ing guidelines. United States v. Reese , 382 F.3d 1308 ( 11th Cir. 2004), vacated, 125 S.Ct. 1089 (2005). 7 af fe ct on the se nte nc e A ndi no r ec ei ve d. I n r ej ec tin g A ndi no’ s B lake ly c la im , the district court stated “ we don’t nee d to deal with [the Blakely objec tion] anym ore since it’ s sim

ply overruled by

the Ele venth Circuit’ s decision.” T he district court 3 m ade no statem ent that it would have im posed an id entical sentence if it had been proceeding und er an adviso ry guidelin es sy stem . The c ourt m erely sentenced A ndi no at the low

e nd o f the gui de lin e range w ith out c om m en tin g onw he the r the gu id el in es sen te nc e was ap pr op ria te un de r th e ci rcu m st an ces . In sum , a lthou gh the dis trict court properly applied the 16-level enhanc em en t un de r § 2L 1. 2( b) (1 )( A )( ii) , A ndi no m ust be r es en te nc ed

und er the advisory guidelin es sy stem

in accordance with Booker. VACATED an d REMANDED.