### FI LED U.S. COURT O F APP EALS ELEVENTH CIRCUIT Ma y 2 7, 2005 THO MAS K. KAH N CL ERK [DO NOT PUBLISH]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- 1409 1 Non-A rgum ent Calendar

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ D. C. Dock etNo. 0 4- 20 17 4- CR-J EM UNITED STAT ES OF AMERIC A,
Pl ai nt iff -Ap pe ll ee,
ve rs us JOR GE ARTURO GIRALDO, Defen da nt -Ap pe ll an t.

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ Appeal f rom the United State s District Court fo r the S outhe rnD istri ct

of F lor ida

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ _ (M ay 27, 200 5) ON PETI TI ON FOR PANEL REHE ARING Be fo re H U L L , MA RC U S an d W IL SO N , Ci rc uit Jud ge s. PE R CU RIA M:2

T he pane l’ s op ini on i n th is c as e iss ue d onMarc h 8, 2005
. P ur suant t o App el la nt ’s pet it io n fo r reh eari ng , whi ch we GRANT as t o p an el r e h e a r i n g, we VA CAT E our prior opinion and is sue the following op inion in its place: Jor ge G ir al do a

ppe al s hi s 57 -m onth se nte nc e, im pose d a ft er

his ple a of gui lty to im portin g 10 0 gr am s or

m or e of he ro in, in vio la tio n of

21 U
. S. C. §§ 952( a) , 960 (b )( 2)
. O n a ppe al , Gi raldo c ha lle nge s hi s se nte nc e on tw o gr ound s, both of w hich h e ra i s ed in the dist rict court: (1) G iraldo argues the district court
e rr e d b y d e n y i n g a m i n o r - r o l e r e du c t i o n , b e c au s e h e w a s o n l y a c o u r ie r, a nd ( 2) G ir al do a sse rt s hi s F if

th an d Si xt h Am en dm en t r igh ts w er e vio la te d, be ca use his
se nte nc e w as ba se d up on a dr ug qua nti ty

that w as ne ith er

c ha rg ed in the ind ic tm en t no r sti pul at ed to by him , in vio la tio n of

Bl ak el y v. W as hin gto n, 542 U.S. __ , 12 4 S . Ct. 2 53 1, 1 59 L. Ed. 2d 40 3 (2 00 4)
. W e re vie w adis tr ic t c ourt’ s f ac tua l f ind ing s r eg ar din g a de fend an t’ s r ole in the of fe nse fo r cl ear er

ro r. U nit ed St at es v. D e V ar on, 175 F. 3d 930, 93 7 (11th Cir
. 199 9) ( enbanc ). W e re vie w pr es er ve d c onst itu tio na l e rr or s de nov o, but “ w ill
re ve rs e onl y

f or harm fu l e rr or . ” U nit ed

S ta te s v . S an ch ez , 269 F
. 3d 1 250, 127 2 (11th Cir. 2002) (en banc). A fter the S uprem e Court’ s rece nt decision in United States v. Booker, __ U .S . __, 125 S. Ct. 738, 765-66 (20 05), w e re view a district
co ur t’s s en te nc in g s ch em e fo r un reas on ab le ne ss .The plea ag ree ment did not contain a sente nce- appea l waiver
. 1 3 A ft er tho ro ugh re vi ew of

the r ec or d, a s w el l a s c ar ef ul c onsi de ratio n of

the parties’ briefs, we find no Book er c onsti tuti o n al er ro r. How ever, we find Booker
non- c o n s t i tu t i o n a l e rr o r a n d c o n c l u d e t h a t b e c au s e t h e g o v e rn m e n t h a s n o t m etit s bur de n to sho w harm le ssn es s, w e va ca te a nd rem and G ir al do’ s se nte nc e fo r
re se nte nc ing , pur suant t o th e dis cr et ion ar y S en te nc in g G uid el ine s sc he m e now required by

Booker. T he r el ev an t f

ac ts are the se . On Mar ch19, 200 4, G ir al do w as ind ic te d w ith
one c ount

of im portin g in to the U nit ed

S ta te s 10 0 gr am s or

m or e of he roin, in vio la tio n of

21 U
. S. C. §§ 952( a) , 960( b) (2 ) (C ount 1) ; and one c ount of pos se ssi ng
w ithint en t t o di str ibu te 100 gr am s or m or e of he ro in, in vio la tio n of

21 U
. S. C. §§ 84 1( a)(1), 841 (b )( 1) (B ). P ur suant t o aw ri tte n pl ea a gr ee m en t, G ir al do a gr ee d to ple ad gui lty to Co unt 1 and the gov er

nm en t a gr ee d to dis m iss Co unt 2. 1 At the subsequent pl ea colloquy , G iraldo ack n o wledged th at he (1) w as charged w ith im

porting m ore than 100 gram s of heroin, an d (2) fa ced a statutory
se nte nc e of

5 t o 40 y ears ’ im

pr iso nm en t. The go ve rn m en t the n pr ovi de d th e following f

actual proffer to support the plea. On March 8, 2004 , Gira ldo a rr i v ed at Miam i International Airport ( “ MIA ”) on a f light from

Medellin, Colo m

bia. D ur ing ase co ndary

x- ray e xa m ina tio n of

G ir al do, Un it ed S ta te s C ust om s and4

Bo rd er P ro te ct ionins pe ct or s di sc ove re d nu m er ous pe lle ts d istri but ed thr ough out Gira ldo’s intestinal tract. T hereaf ter, 99 pellets wer e re co v er ed from his bod y . In total, the pellets te sted positive for 985 gram s of heroin. The district co u rt ask ed Giraldo w he the r he be lie ve d th at the gov er

nm en t c oul d pr ove it s f

ac tua l a sse rt ion s attr ia l, t o w h i c h h e r e s p o n d e d , “ Y e s , I t h i n k s o . ” H e t h e n p r o c e e d e d to
se nte nc ing
. Ac cording to t h e p resentence investigation report (“ PSI ”), Gir aldo had sig ne d a w ri tte n sta te m en t, in w hic h he adm itt ed his inv olv em en t in the off en se
an d st at ed

tha t he ha d be enr ec ru ite d by U lic es Jaram ill o to br ing dr ugs int o th e U nit ed S ta te s f ro m Co lom bia
. A cco rd in g to his state m en t, G ir al do w as goi ng t o be pa id $ 30, 000 w he n th e dr ugs w er e de liv er ed
. T he P SI se t G ir al do’ s ba se of fe nse le ve l a t 30 , pur suant t o U
. S. S. G
. § 2D 1. 1( c) (5 ), ba se d onthe pr oba tio n of fi ce r’ s c onc lus iontha t G ir al do w as r es pons ibl e fo r 985 gr am s of he roin ( ag ai n, the a m ount t he go ve rnm e nt e a r l i e r ha d pr of f e r e d, a nd t o w hi c h G i r a l do a greed, at th e p le a co ll oq uy). Wit h a t o t al o ff

en s e l ev el o f 2 5 a n da c ri m i n al h i s t o ry ca t eg o ry I, Gi ra l d o ’s G uid el ine s r an ge w as 57 t o 71 m onths’ im pr iso nm en t. G ir al do o bj ec te d to the pr oba tio n of

fi ce r’ s f ai lur e to a

ppl y atw o- le ve l, m ino r- ro le r ed uc tio n, pursu ant t o U
. S. S. G
. § 3B1. 2. H e al so obj ec te d th at , pur suant t o th e Su pr em e Co urt’ s de ci sio n5

in Bl ak el y , he shou ld ha ve be en he ld re spon sib le fo r onl y 100 gr am s o f hero in, ba se d o n t he am ou nt ch arg edin th e in di ct m en t. A t the se nte nc ing he ar ing , G ir al do ag ai n argued that he w as e nti tle d to a
m i n o r- role reduction because he play ed a lim ited role in the offense and there w as no evi d en ce t h at he intended personallyto distrib ute the drugs th at he had im porte d. T he gov er

nm en t r es pond ed

that a m ino r- ro le r educ tio n w as not
wa rr a nt e d be c aus e ( 1) G i r a l do ha d be e n he l d r e sp on si bl e on l y f or t he he r oin that he pe r so na l l y i m

po rt e d; ( 2) he ha d a n “ e qu i t y i nt e r e st ” i n t he dr ug s; a nd (3) there
w as asub stanti al a m ount of he ro in i nvol ve d inthe c ri m inal of fens e. A ft er

not ing i t s d i s cr et i o n t o g ra n tt h e r ed u ct i o n , t h e d i s t ri ct co u rt o v er ru l ed Gi ra l d o ’s obj ec tio n, statin g th at

it w as doi ng s o f

or the r ea sons se t f

orth by the gov er

nm en t
an d t h e P S I
. T h e c o u rt n o t e d : “ I d o n o t b e l i e v e t h a t t h i s i s a n ap p r o p r i at e ca se f or
a m inor role adj ustm ent and I will not choose to do that.” T he court also overruled Gira ldo’s Blakely

objec tion, notin g that he had acknowledged, during the plea
co ll oq uy, tha t h e h adim

po rte d 9 85 gra m s o f he ro in
. T he dis tr ic t c ourt sen te nc ed G ir al do t o a57- m onth te rm of im pr iso nm en t. G ir al do the n r en ew ed

his obj ec tio n to the de nia l of am ino r- ro le r ed

uctio n, obj ec tin g to the gov er

nm en t’ s c ha ra ct er iz at ionof the fee th at he w as goi ng t o be paid as an equity

interest
. Gi ra l do also renewed his Blakely objec tion, notin g that6

his “ ta ci t a cc ep tanc e” of the gov er

nm en t’ s pr of

fer a t the ple a co llo quy

did not
amo u n tt o a s t i p u l at i o n . T h e d i s t ri ct co u rt re s p o n d ed t h at i tfo u n dGi ra l d o ’s
acce pt an ce o f th e go ve rn m en t’s p ro fferas t o d ru g q ua nt it y ha d n ot be en “ ta ci t,” but r athe r w as “ a dir ec t a cc ep tanc e of the pr es en ta tio n whi ch wa s m ad e by the govern m en t. T hat was m y interpretation of it.” In overruling Giraldo’ s renew ed objec tion, the co u rt fu rt h er noted: “ If I had held that it was m erely a tacit a pproval I could assure y ou I would have i n q u i red further, a s I have in other cases m ore
re ce ntl y w he re the re ha s be ensom e que sti on a s to w he the r the y w er e adm itt ing the fact s t ha t wer e p res en t[e d].” Thi s ap pe al fol lo wed
. Fi rs t, G ir al do arg ue s th e dis tr ic t c ourt e rr ed by de ny ing him

am ino r- ro le reduct ionbe ca

use he w as onl y

ac our ie r, m ak ing aone -t im e de liv er y of dr ugs, a nd the oth er pa rtic ipants w er e m or e cu lpa ble
. H e al so a sse rt s th at the c ourt e rr ed

by finding he had an equity

interest in the drugs -- he contends t h e record establishes onlythat he would rece ive a fe e for tr ansportin g the drugs from Colom bia. T he G uid el ine s pr ovi de f or atw o- le ve l de crease w he re the de fe ndant w as a
m ino r pa rt ic ipant i n any c ri m in al activi ty
. S ee U
. S. S. G
. § 3B 1. 2( b)
. A m ino r partici p ant is defined as “ any participant who is less culpable than m ost oth er pa rt ic ipants , but

w hose ro le c oul d no t be de sc ri be d a s m ini m al
. ” U
. S. S. G
. § 3B 1. 2,
co m m ent. ( n.3). T o determ ine whether the adj ustm ent applies, a district court7

first should m easure the def endant’ s role against the condu ct for w hich he has be enhe ld a cc ount ab le
. S ee D e V ar on, 175 F
. 3d a t 934. W it h r eg ar d to dr ug couriers, this Court has in dicated that its hol ding in De Va ro n “ [d id] not create a presum ption that drug couriers are never m inor or m i nim al participants, any m ore tha n that th e y

a r e a l w a y s m i n o r

o r m i n i m a l , ” b u t“ [ r ] a t h e r

. . . [ e s t ab l i s h e d ] o n ly tha t the dis trict c ourt m

ust a sse ss a ll of

the f ac ts p ro ba tiv e of

the de fe ndant’ s r ole in [his] relevant conduct in evaluating the defendant’ s role in t h e o ff en se.” U nited St at es v. Bo y d, 291 F
. 3d 1 274, 12 77 (1 1t h Cir
. 200 2)
. I n dr ug c our ie r ca se s, “ the
amo u n to f d ru g s i m

p o rt ed i s a mat er i al co n s i d er at i o n i n as s es s i n g a d ef en d an t ’s
ro le in [h is] r el ev an t c ondu ct ” an d “ m ay be di sposit ive – i n and o f its el f – inthe
ex tre m e cas e.” DeVaro n, 1 75 F.3d at 9 43
. Se cond, w he re the re is suf fi ci en t e vid en ce , ac ourt a lso m ay m ea sur e the d e f e n d an t ’s c o n du c ta g a i n s tt h a to f o t h e r p a rt i c i p a n t s i n t h e c r i mi n a l s c h e me at tr ibu te d to the de fe ndant. S ee id. I n m ak ing thi s in qui ry , adis tr ic t c ourt sh oul d loo k to other

part ic ipants onl y

to the e xte nt tha t the y ( 1) a re ide nti fi ab le or discernable from

the evi d en ce , and (2) we re involved in the relevant conduct at tr i b u t e d t o t h e d e f

e n d a n t
. S e e i d
. a t 9 4 4 ( s t a t i n g t h a t “ [ t ] h e c o n duc t of pa rt ic ipants in an y

larg er c ri m ina l c onsp iracy

is ir re le va nt” ). Mo re ove r, “ the
amo u n t o f drugs im

ported is a m aterial c onsid eration in assessing a defe ndant'sWe are unpersua ded by Giraldo’s argument that, in denying the enhanc ement, the district 2 court fa iled to make indepe ndent finding s and improper l y relied upon the g overnme nt’s mistaken asser tion that he possessed an “ equity interest” in the he roin. T h e PSI , which wa s adopted by the district court, conta ined Gira ldo’s written acknow ledg ment that he wa s to be paid a f lat $30,000 fee for tra nsporting the heroin a

nd made no mention of a n “equit y i n t er es t ” in t he her oin. Any err or re s u l t i n g from the g overnme nt’s single ref ere nce to a

n “equity interest,” which Gira ldo had the opportunity

to object to at the sentencing hear ing but did not, clea rly was ha rmless. Cf United States v. Shelton,400 F.3d 1325 (11th Cir. Fe b. 25, 2005) (defenda nt who di d not object to PSI ’s fa ctual statements about re levant conduc t admitted those fac ts) (citingUnited States v. Walters, 269 F.3d 1207, 1213 (10th Cir. 2001) (“ Walters did not challeng e the acc urac y of the re levant fa cts containe d in the PSR . There fore , under t h e l aw of this circuit, they

are deeme d admitted as true.” (citation omitted)); Un i t ed S t at es v . J oshua, 40 F .3d 948, 952 (8th Cir. 1994) (“ J oshua did not dispute the PSR’ s r e nd iti on

of his c ri min a l hi sto ry , a

nd the fa c ts t

he re in there fore stand as admitted.” ( citation omitted)). 8 ro le in [hi s] rel ev an t co nd uc t.” Id . at 9 43
. H er e, the r el ev an t c ondu ct a ttr ibu te d to G ir al do a t se nte nc ing w as the im porta tion of 98 5 gra m s of he ro in, w hic h r ep re se nts onl y the a m ount

of dr ugs fo un do n G i r a l d o up o n h i s a rr i v a l a tM I A
. B e c au s e h e w a s h e l dr e s p o n s i b l e o n ly for the am ount of narcotics he per sonallysm uggl ed, G iraldo’ s relev an t conduct
wa s sufficient to supp ort the district c o u rt ’s factual findin g that he play ed an
es se nti al r ole in the im

porta tio n of

tho se dr ugs. O n th e se co nd p ro ng, Gira ldo 2 failed to show that his cond u ct i n t ransporting the drugs int o the United States rendered him

less culpable than the o n l y other participant whom he identified (J ar am ill o) , a nd G ir al do u nque sti on ab lysm uggl ed asub stanti al a m ount

of
co ca ine , w hic h is r el ev an t t o th e m ino r- ro le - re duc tio n c al cu lus
. S ee D e V ar on, 175 F. 3d a t 94 6 ( de te rm ini ng tha t 51 2. 4 gr am s w as a “ subs tanti al a m ount ” ofAfter the fil ing of the briefs in this case , the S upreme Court ext ended B lakely to the Fe dera l 3 SentencingGuidelines. See United States v. Booke r, 543 U.S. __, 125 S. Ct. 738 (2005). 9 heroin). A ccordingl y, w e ca n find no clear er ror in the district court’ s finding that Gira ld o d id no t p la y

a m in or rol e in th e o ffen se . G ir al do n ex t arg ue s th at , und er the S upr em e Co urt’ s ho ldi ng in Bl ak el y , his Fifth and Sixth Am endm ent rights were violated becaus e h i s sentence w as based uponadr ug qua nti ty

tha t w as ne ith er

c ha rg ed in the ind ic tm en t no r sti pul at ed to by him
. I n de te rm ini ng w he the r a de fe ndant h as a dm itt ed to fa ct s f or se nte nc ing 3 pur pose s, w e ha ve he ld tha t, “ w he n ade fen da nt plea ds g uil ty a nd a cc ep ts the dr

ug quan t i t y d e t e rm i n a t i o n c o n t a i n e d i n t h e p r e - s e n t e n c e r e p o rt o r a g r e e s to d ru g quanti ty a t se nte ncin g or in his ple a co llo quy , he w ai ve s any r igh t t o a

ppe al his
se nte nc e on the ba sis of Appr en di, r eg ar dle ss o f w hat se nte nc e is u lti m at el y im pose d. ” S an ch ez , 269 F
. 3d a t 12 71 n
. 40. Mo re ove r, adr ug -q ua nt ity sti pul at ionw ai ve s th e ri ght to a j ur y tri al on the iss ue , e ve n if the dr ug qua nti ty
ca use s ade fe ndant t o be se nte nc ed abov e th e st at

uto ry m ax im um f or Appr en di. Id. Ther efore, “ a stipulatio n to a s p ec i fic drug quantity-- whether as part of a
w ri tte n pl ea

a gr ee m en t, part

of aj ur y tr ial, or at se nte nc ing - - se rv e[ s] a s th e equivalent of a

j ury finding o n that issu e, since the stipul ation takes the issu e aw ay fr o m t h e j u ry . ” S a n c h e z , 2 6 9 F
. 3 da t1 2 7 1 n . 4 0
. I n s u rv e y i n g o u r Appr en diTo the extent Gi ra ldo ag ain asser ts that his agr eeme nt to the drug -quantity proff er w as 4 “tac it” in nature, based on our revie w of the e ntire re cord, inc luding the ple a colloquy transcr ipt, we rema in un p er s u aded. At the colloquy , the district court e x pressly asked G iraldo about the g overnme n t’ s dr

u g - qu an ti ty

p r o f f e r , an d G ir a ld o r e s p o n d e d

th a t h e a g r e e d

to th e amo un t. T he district court fur

ther discussed the plea ag ree ment, the eleme nts of the offe nse, the burde n of proof , and the c onsequenc es of plea ding guilty with Giraldo in detail. Giraldo responde d that he wa s not coer ced into plea ding guilty , that he under stood the char g es and c onsequenc es of p le adingg uilty , and that he ple a de d guil ty . T he re c or d s ho ws th at G ir a ldo un de rs too d th e c ha rg e s a g a ins t hi m, h is 10 pr ec ed en t, w e not ed

tha t this ru le ap pl ies no t on ly w he n th e de fe ndant t ak es the af fi rm at ive ste p of

sti pul at ing to a pa rt ic ular fa ct , but al so w he n th e de fe ndant f ai ls to object to or contest the particular f indin g at issue. Id. (em

phasis add ed). Indeed, in the context of a plea ag re ement, the Blakely Court observed that the gov er nm en t “ is fre e to s ee k j udi ci al se nte nc e en ha nc em en ts s o lo ng a s th e de fen da nt ei th er sti pu la te s to th e rel ev an t fact s or con se nt s to jud ic i a l f a c tfi nd in g.” Bl ak el y , 542 U
. S. a t __

_, 124 S.Ct . a t 2541. T hus, the re is no S ixth A m en dm en t vi ol at io n wh en a di st ric t co ur t re li es on fact s t o wh ic h t he de fen da nt ag rees . Id.;
se e al so U nit ed

S ta te s v. Sh el ton , 400 F. 3d 1 325, 133 0 ( 11th C ir
. 200 5) ( re vie w ing for p lain error and hold ing th at there w as no Sixth Am endm ent violatio n und er Booker because the defe ndant’s sentencing enhancem ents wer e based on either p r i o r c o n v i c t i o n s o r

f a c t s t h a twe r e a d mi t t e db y th e d e f e n d a n t )
. P u ts i mp l y, because G iraldo adm itted during the plea colloquyto the gov ernm ent’ s factual pr of fe r re ga rd ing the dr

ug quanti ty , the dis tr ic t co urt co m m itt ed no Sixth A m en dm en t vi ola tio n by se nte nc ing him

ba se d onhis a dm iss ion
. 4options, and the g overnme nt’s proff er, a nd that he voluntarily

a n d k n o wing ly pleade d g uilty . Giraldo h a s p o i n t e d

t o n o e v i d e n c e s u g g e s t i n g anam o un to th e r th anth e 9 8 5 g r am s a t tr i b u t e d t o h i m . In c a se s invo lvi ng a lle g e d co ns tit uti on a l er ro rs , this Court mus t af

fi rm “ if the re c or d d oe s n ot c on ta in evidenc e that could r ationally lead to a c ontrary

finding with r espec t to drug quantity .” United States v . N e a ly , 2 3 2 F
. 3 d

8 2 5 , 8 3 0 ( 1 1 th

Ci r 2 0 0 0 ) ( c it a ti o no mi tt e d )
. H e r e , G ir a ld o s ign e d a w r itten state me nt, a dmi tti nghis inv olv e me nt in the of fe ns e , a nd the dr ugqu anti ty

wa s b a se d o n a c tua l he ro in retrie ved fr om Giraldo by law enf orce ment office rs. In light of this evidence, ther e is no evidenc e f r o mw h i c ha

r e a s o n a b l e j ur y c o u l d h av e f o un d a c o n tr ar y dr u g qu an t i ty.
11 D es pit e tha t the re w as no i m pe rm iss ibl e j udi ci al f

actfi nd in g her e, w e fi nd ther e w as Booker err or, w ithin the m eaning of the rem edial holdi ng of the case, b e c au s e t h e c o u rtt r e a t e dt h e G u i d e l i n e s r a n g e a s ma n d a t o ry a n d“th e S up r e me Co ur t h as no w exc is edth e m an da to ry na tu re o f t h e G ui de li ne s i n B oo ke r.” Sh el ton , 4 00 F.3 d a t 13 30 ( re vie w ing Bo oke r cl ai m f or pla in e rr or ). I n S he lto n,
w e co nclu de d th at

“ it w as Bo oke r er

ro r fo r the dis tr ic t c ourt t o se nte nc e Sh el ton unde r a m an da tor

y G uid el ine s sche m e, e ve n inthe abse nc e of aS ixth A m en dm en t
en ha nc em en t v io la ti on .” Id . (cit at io n o m it te d)
. B a s e d o n t h e e x c i s i o n o f t h e
m andatory

provisio ns of the Guidelines, in cases inv olvin g preserved Booker
er ro r, w e ha ve requir ed

the G ove rn m en t t o sh owthat the m an da tor y , a s op pose d to t h e a d v i s o ry, ap p l i ca t i o n o f t h e G u i d el i n es d i dn o tco n t ri b u t e t o t h e d ef en d an t ’s
se nte nc e. S ee U nit ed

S ta te s v. Paz, 40 5 F. 3d 9 46, 948 -4 9 ( 11th C ir
. 200 5) (h old ing tha t the G ove rn m en t co uld not m ee t i ts b ur de n un de r ha rm le ss e rr or analy sis b ecause the record indicated that district court would have im posedA non-c onstitut ional err or is ha rmless “if, viewing the proc eeding s in their entirety , a cour t 5 deter mines that the error did not aff ect the [out come], or had but ve ry slight ef fec t.” United States v. Horna day , 392 F.3d 1306, 1315 ( 11th Cir. 2004) (interna l quotation mar ks and citations omitted). “I f one c an say ‘with fair assura nce . . . that the judgme nt w as not substantially sway ed by

the er ror,’ the judg ment is due to be af firmed even though there was err or.” I d. (quoting Kotteakos v. United States, 328 U.S. 750, 764 66 S. C t. 1239, 1248 , 9 0 L
. E d
. 1 5 5 7 (1946)) ; see a lso United States v. Fr azier, 387 F .3d 1244, 1266 n.20 (11th Cir. 2004) (en banc) (“Er rors do aff

ect a substantial rig ht of a party if they have a ‘subst antial i nfluenc e’ on the out come of a case or leave ‘ g rave doubt’ as to whe the r t

he y a ff e c te d the outc ome of a c a se .” (q uo tin g Ko tte ako s, 32 8 U .S. a t 76 4- 65 , 6 6 S. Ct. at 1248)).
12 shor te r se nte nc ing und er

a dvi sor y G uid el ine s sch em e)
. T he gov er nm en t be ar s th e burden to sh ow that the Boo k er n o n -constitut ional error did not affec t subs tantial rights. See Fe d
. R. Crim . P . 52(a) ; United States v. Ga llegos-Aguero, - -- F .3d -- --, 2005 W L 116 0635, *2 ( 11th C ir
. May 18, 200 5) (“

N on- co nst itu tio na l e rr or is ha rm le ss whe n it

doe s no t a ff

ec t the sub stanti al r igh ts of th e part ie s. . . . T he b u rd en i s o n t h e g o v er n m en tt o s h o w t h at t h e e rr o r d i dn o taf fe ct t h e d ef

en d an t ’s subs tantial rights.” (citations om itted)). 5 Ba se d onour

c ar ef ul r ea din g of th e re co rd , a nd p ar tic ularl y the tr an sc ri pt o f the se nte nc ing he arin g, w e co nc lud e tha t the gov er nm en t ha s no t m et

it s burd enof
es ta bli shi ng tha t the e rr or

w as ha rm le ss. Cf

. P az , 405 F
. 3d a t 94 8- 49 ( hol din g governm ent failed to m eet it burden to sho w har m l es s ness of m andatory application o f the G uidelin es where transcript of sentencing hearing indicated dis tr ic t c ourt w oul d have im pose d sh orte r se nte nc e unde r advis or y se nte nc ingWe note that in this case, t h e district cour t corre ctly

deter mined the Guidelines ra

ng e for 6 Giraldo’s c onviction. On rema nd, pursuant to B ooker, t he district cour t is required to sente nce Gi ra l d o un d er

an ad v i s o ry

Gu i d el i n es s ch em e, an d , i ns o d o i n g, mu s tco n s i d er th e G u i d el i n es ra n ge and “ oth e r statut or

y c on c e rn s a s w e ll, se e [18 U .S. C.] § 35 53 (a ) ( Sup p. 20 04 ). ” B oo ke r, 12 5 S. Ct. at 757. 13 sc he m e)
. A cc or din gly , w e va ca te G ir al do’ s se ntenc e an d r em an d f or r es en te nc ing consist ent with Booker. 6 VACATED AND REMANDED.