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. 06- 11188 N on -A rgum entC al endar

________________________ D . C. D o c k e tN o . 0 3 - 0 0 4 8 9 - CR- T- 1 7 - M SS 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 G E Z I M S E L G J E K A J , a .k .a . J im m y , 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 M i ddl e 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 D U B IN A , H U L L 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: T hi s i s G e z i m S e l gj e ka

j ’ s s e c ond a ppe a r a nc e b ef or e the C our t . B a s e d on the S u p r e m e C o u r t’s d e c is io n in U n ite d S ta te s v . B o o k e r , 5 4 3 U .S . 2 2 0 ( 2 0 0 5 ) , a s w e ll2

a s the gove r nm e nt ’ s c onc e s s i on “ tha ti tc oul d nots how be y ond a r e a s ona bl e doubt tha tthe di st ri c tc our t ’ s e r r ora ts e nt e nc i ng . . . pur s ua ntt o a m a nda t or y a ppl i c a t i on of the g ui del i nes w as harm l es s, ” w e pre vi ou sl y vac at ed hi s s ent ence and rem anded f orr e s e nt e nc i ng. S e e U ni t e d S t a t e s v. S el g j e ka j , N o. 04- 16228 ( 11th C i r . D e c . 15, 20 05 ) ( “ S el g

jek aj I” ) ( un pu bl i shed order grant i ng m ot i on for vaca tur). A ft era r e s e n te n c in g h e a r in g , a t w h ic h th e d is tr ic t c o u r t c o n s id e r e d th e p a r tie s ’ a r g u m e n ts and w ri t t en su b m issi on s per t ai ni ng t o t he 18 U . S . C . § 3 55 3(a) fa ct ors, the di stri ct courti m po se d t he sa m e s ent ence , w hi ch w as atthe l ow es tend o f th e G ui del i nes r a n g e S e lg

je k a j f a c e d . I n th is a p p e a l, S e lg je k a j a g a in c h a l l e n g e s h is 4 1 - m o n th s e n te n c e f

o rc o n s p ir a c y to tr a f

f ic a n d tr a f

f ic k in g in c o n tr a b a n d c ig a r e tte s , in v io lati o n o f 1 8 U .S .C . § § 3 7 1 an d 2 3 4 2 . S e lg je k aj as se rts th at th e d istrict co u rt’s i m p o si t i o n o f sen t en ce v io l at ed h i s S i x th A m en d m en tri g h t s an d B o o k er b ecau se the c our ti nc r e a s e d hi s of f e ns e l e ve l a f

t e r m ak i ng a n e xtr a - ve r di c tf a c tua l f i ndi ngWe a reun pers uade d b y

Se lg je ka j’ s a dditi on a l argument, that th edis tric t c ourt 1 c on str uc tiv e ly ame nd e d th eindic tment when it ins tr uc te d th ejur

y c on c e rninga

sc rivener’ s error

in Count 17 of the indictment. Be causeneither thestate in which the of fenseconduct took placenor the state represented on the counterfe it ciga rette stamps a

re e ssenti al elements of thecharg ed of fens e , s e e18 U. S.C. § 2 34 2( a), theorig inal in dic tment put S elg je ka j on no tic eof

thec rime charg ed, and thechang e did not provide a broader basis for conviction, we disc ern no c onstructive amendment here. Cf. United States v. Castro, 89 F.3d 1443, 1452- 53 (11th Cir. 1996) (holdingthat constructive a

mendments al t er o r expand the e ssential elements of theoffense contained in the indictment, such that, the possible bases f or convic tion go be yond what is containe d in the indictment). 3 tha tthe a m ountof l o ss w a s be tw e e n $400, 000 a nd $1, 000, 000. A f t e rc a r e f ul 1 r e v i e w , w e a f

f i r m. W e r e vi e w s e nt e nc e s i m pos e d unde ra n ad v i so r y G ui de l i ne s s y s t e m f or re as on ab len es s. S ee U ni t ed S t at es v. T al l ey , 43 1 F . 3d 78 4, 78 6 (11 th C i r. 20 05 ); U ni t ed S t at es v . W i ni ng ea r, 42 2 F . 3d 12 41 , 12 44 (11t h C i r. 20 05 ). T he di stri ct c our tm us tf

ol l ow a tw o- s t e p pr oc e s s t o de t erm i n e a de f e nda nt ’ s s e nt e nc e by ( 1) c o n s u l t i n g th e G u i d e l i n e s a n d c o r r e c t l y c a l c u l a t i n g th e a d v i s o r y r a n g e , a nd ( 2) c o n s id e r in g th e f

a c to r s u n d e r1 8 U .S .C . § 3 5 5 3 ( a ) . T a lle y , 4 3 1 F .3 d a t 7 8 6 . W e r e vi e w a de f

e n d a nt ’ s ul t i m a t e s e nt e nc e , i n i t s e nt i r e ty , f orunr e a s ona bl e ne s s i n l i ght of the facto rs in § 3 55 3(a) . S ee W i ni ng ea r, 42 2 F . 3d at12 45 . W hen a di stri ct courtappl i es the G ui del i nes a s a dv i sory , no thi ng i n B o o k er proh i bi t s the di stri ct courtfr om m aki ng , un de r a prepon dera nce- of-the-e vi dence s t andard, addi t i on al f a c tua l f i ndi ngs tha tgo be y ond a de f e nda nt ’ s ad m i ssi o n . U ni t e d S t a t e s v. C ha u, 4 2 6 F .3 d 1 3 1 8 , 1 3 2 3 - 2 4 ( 1 1 th C ir . 2 0 0 5 ) .4

S e c t i on 2B 1. 1 o f t h e G u i de l i ne s pr ovi de s a ba s e of f e ns e l e ve l of

s i x f or c r i m e s i nvol vi ng a l t e r e d orc ount e r f e i ti ns trum e nt s , a nd i n cl ude s a n e nha nc e m e nt b a s e d o n th e d o lla r v a l u e o f t h e lo s s . S e e U .S .S .G . § 2 B 1 .1 ( a ) ( 2 ) , ( b ) . “L o s s ” is d efi n ed a s th e g reat er o f “ actu al l o ss” o r “ i n t en d ed l o ss, ” w h ere th e actu al l o ss i nc l ude s “ the reaso n abl y f or e s e e a bl e pe c uni a r y ha r m tha tr e s ul t e d f r om the o f f e n s e ,” an d i n t en d ed l o ss “ (I) m ean s th e p ecu n i ary h arm th at w as i n t en d ed to r e s ul tf r om the of

f e ns e ; a nd ( I I ) i nc l ude s i nt e n d ed pe c uni a r y ha r m tha tw oul d ha ve been i m po ss i bl e or unl i kel y t o o ccur. ” U . S . S . G . § 2 B 1. 1 com m ent . (n. 3(A )( i ), (i i )) . I n c a lc u la t i n g th e a m o u n t o f lo s s , th e d is tr ic t c o u r t “n e e d o n ly m a k e a r e a s o n a b le e s tim a te o f th e l o ss. ” U . S . S . G . § 2 B 1 . 1 co m m en t . (n . 3 (C )). F o r l o ss am o u n ts gr e a t e rtha n $400, 000 but$1, 000, 000 orl e s s , the of f en se l e ve l i s i nc r e a s e d by 14 l evel s. U . S . S . G . § 2 B 1. 1(b)(1). A t th e c o n c lu s io n o f

S e lg je k a j’s tr ia l, th e ju r y f

o u n d h im g u ilty o n b o th c ount s a nd, i n r e s pons e t o s pe c i a l i nt e r r oga t or i e s , f ound tha tthe va l ue of

the goods for C ou nt2 -- the conspi ra cy -- w as $5 , 00 0 o r m ore. A cc ord in g t o t he pres ent ence i nve s t i ga t i on r e por t( “ P S I ” ) , S e l gj e ka j c ons pi r e d t o tr a f

f i c i n 350 c a s e s of cont raband ci gare t t es , w hi ch cont ai ned a t ot al of 21 , 00 0 car t on s a t$2 7. 64 per c a r to n . T h is g a v e th e c ig a r e tte s a to ta l w h o le s a le v a lu e o f $ 5 8 0 ,4 4 0 . B a s e d o n th is a m ount , the P S I r e c om m e nde d e nha nc i ng S e l gj e ka j ’ s b ase o ffen s e l e ve l of 6 by 14Th ePSI a lso re c omm e nd e d a

2- le ve l in c re a sefo r obs tr uc tio n o f j us tic e , p ur su ant t o 2 U.S.S.G. § 3C1.1, which the district court did not adopt in imposi ngsentenc e. 5 l e ve l s , ba s e d on a l os s a m ountof $580, 440, w hi c h w as b et w een $400, 000 a nd $1, 000, 000. S e e U . S . S . G . § 2 B 1 . 1 ( b) . W i th a n a dj us t e d of f e ns e l e ve l of

20 a nd a 2 c r i m i na l hi s t or y c a t e gor y I I I , S e l gj e ka j f a c e d a G ui de l i ne s i m pri so n m e ntr a nge of 41 -51 m on ths’ i m pri sonm ent . T he di stri ctcourti m po se d a 41 -m o n th se nt ence , w hi ch w as the se nt ence w e vac at ed i n S el gj ekaj I. A tthe r e s e nt e nc i ng he ari n g , i n i m pos i ng the s a m e l ow - e nd s e nt e nc e , the di s tr i c tc our ts t a t e d the f ol l ow i ng: [T ] he evi dence thatca m e outw it h re gard t o t hese ac t i vi t i es w as of a very se ri ou s nature. A nd there w as a grea t deal of h ar m th at r e s ul t e d f

r om i ta nd the w r ong ty pe o f i m pr e s s i on, the ty pe s of deal i ng s thatpeop l e s ho ul d h ave w i th o ne anot her. A n d I r e c a l l t h e t e s tim o n y . I d o n ’t h a v e to r e a d th e tr a n s c r ip t. I r e m e m b er i t . T he C our tf e l ta tthe t i m e [ of

the or i gi na l s e nt e nc i ng h e a r i n g ] t h a t it h a d c o n s id e r e d e v e r y th in g th a t w a s a p p r o p r ia te w ith r e g a r d to M r . S e lg

je k a j a n d g a v e h im th e o p p o r tu n ity w ith o u t p e n a lty to a s s e r t th a t h e w a s n o t g u ilty a n d to g o t o tr ia l. I d id n ’t s e n te n c e h im a t t h e t o p en d o f

the gui de l i ne s . I s e nt e nc e d hi m a tthe l ow e nd of the gui de l i ne s a nd m a de a de t e r m i na t i o n , as y ou w e l l know , unde rthe ve r di c t by the j ur y tha t he s houl d not ha ve a n e nha nc em en t [ f or obs truc t i on of

j us t i c e ] . A n d I d i s a gr e e d w i th the gove r nm e nta nd di sa gree d w i th the po si t i on of the [P S I] beca use of w hat I p er ce i ved w a s a n o b

je c tio n u n d e rB la k e ly , a n d h o n o r e d th e ju r y ’s d e c is io n w ith re gard t o t hat . S o h e di d g eta r educt i on atthatt i m e. I thi nk - - I thoughttha ta r e a s ona bl e an d j u s ta nd s uf f i c i e nt s e n t e n c e w a s th e 4 1 mo n th s , a nd I th i n k th a tn o w w i th c r e d i tf o rt i me s e r ve d.6

. . . . T he s e nt e nc e i s w i thi n the g ui de l i ne r a nge . T ha tr a nge doe s not e xc eed 2 4 m onths . T he C our tf i nds no r e a s on t o de pa r tf r om the se n ten ce d cal l ed for by the appl i ca t i on of the gu i del i nes. T he C ou rt f in d s th e s e n te n c e to b e r e a s o n a b le a n d s u f f ic ie n t. A nd even tho ug h you di d m ake a re qu es tfor i t , un der 35 53 (a )( 1) throu gh (7) of 18 U . S . C . , the C ou rtspec i fi ca l l y f i nd s that the se nt ence i s r ea sonabl e, suff i ci ent , and adequ at e. W e f i n d i t p l a i n th a t th e c o u r t tr e a t e d th e G u i d e l i n e s r a n g e a s a d v i s or y on r e s e nt e nc i ng, a nd the r e f or e , B ooke rdi d notpr e c l ude the c our tf r o m m a ki ng a nd r e l y i ng on t h e ch al l e nge d f a c tf i ndi ngs . C ha u, 426 F . 3d a t1323 ( hol di ng tha tthe

“ us e of e xtr a - ve r di c t en h an cem e nt s i n a n a dvi s or y gui de l i ne s s y s t e m i s not un const i tut i on al . ” ( qu ot at i on om i tt ed )) . Iti s now w el l -s ett l ed thata di stri ctcourt m a y f in d f a c ts n o t f

o u n d b y a ju r y o ra d m itte d b y th e d e f e n d a n t, a n d u s e th e m in fo rm u l at i n g a se n ten ce, as l o n g as i tp ro p erl y ap p l i es th e G u i d el i n es as ad v i so ry. I d. a t1324. I n r e vi e w i ng the r e c or d, the di s tr i c tc o u rt co r r e c t l y a ppl i e d the G ui del i nes, consi dere d t hem advi sory , and i m po se d a re as o n ab le se nt ence af t er co n si d erat i on of

the f a c t or s i n 18 U . S . C . § 3553( a ) . S e e T a l l e y , 431 F . 3d a t786. A cc ordi ng l y, w e a ff

i rm S el gj ekaj ’ s c on vi ct i on and sent ence . AF F I RME D.