FILED U.S. COURT OF AP P EALS E LEV EN T HC IRC U IT NOVEMB ER 16 , 2005 THOMAS K. KAH

N CLERK [ DO NOT P UB L I S H] I N TH E U N I TED STA TES C O U R T O F A PPEA LS F O R T H E E L E V E N T H C IR C U IT

________________________ N o. 05- 11144 N on - A r gu m e n t C al e n d ar

________________________ D. C . Do c k e tNo . 0 4 - 0 0 0 0 7 - C R - OR L - 1 8 DA B 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 S H A W N M I C H A E L S I M M E R E R , D e f e n d a n t- A p p e lla n t.

________________________ A p p ealfr om th e U n i te d S tate s D i st ri ct C ou rt f o r t he M i ddl e D i s t r i c t o f Fl o r i da

_________________________ ( N ove m b e r 16, 2005) B efo re D U B IN A , B L A C K a n d B A R K E T T , C i rcu i t J u d g es. P E R C U R I A M:2

A p p e lla n t S h a w n M ic h a e l S im m e r e rap p e a ls h is c o n v ic tio n a n d 6 0 - m o n th s e n te n c e f

o rb a n k f

r a u d in v io la tio n o f

1 8 U .S .C . § § 1 3 4 4 a n d 2 . O n ap p e a l, S i m m er erar gu es thatthe di stri ctcourterre d i n (1) denyi ng hi s m ot i on for a c ont i nua nc e , ( 2) a dm i tt i ng e vi de nc e of f l i ghtf r om l a w e nf

or c e m e nta nd gi vi ng a j ury i ns truc t i on a s t o f

l i ght , a nd ( 3) i m pos i ng a n unr e a s onabl e s e nt e nc e i n e xc e s s of the G ui de l i ne r a nge . H e c ont e nds tha t , i n i m pos i ng a n unr e a s onabl e s e nt e nc e , the c o u r t f a ile d to ( 1 ) p r o v id e a d v a n c e n o tic e th a t it w a s c o n te m p la tin g as e n te n c e in e xc e s s of the G ui de l i ne i m pr i s onm e ntr a nge of 27- 33 m onths , ( 2) appl y the G ui de l i ne s i n am a nda t oryf a s hi on i n or de rt o a voi d a n ex p o s t fa c to vi ol a t i on, a nd (3 ) accu rat el y cal cu l at e th e sen t en ci n g ran g e p rescri b ed b y th e G u i d el i n es. I. Motion for a Con tin u an ce W e rev i ew th e d i stri ctco u rt ’ s d en i al o f a req u estfo r a co n t i n u an ce fo r ab u se o f d is c r e tio n . U

n i te d S ta te s v . Bo we , 221 F . 3d 1183, 1189 ( 11th C i r . 2000) . T he S ix th A m e n d m e n t to th e U .S . C o n s titu tio n g u a r a n te e s th a t a n y p e r s o n b r o u g h t to tri al i n any fe dera l courtm ustbe af forded the ri gh tt o ass i st ance of coun se l before h e o rs h e c a n b e v a lid ly c o n v ic te d a n d p u n is h e d b y im p r is o n m e n t. Faret ta v. C a lifo r n ia , 4 2 2 U .S . 8 0 6 , 8 0 7 , 9 5 S . C t. 2 5 2 5 , 2 5 2 7 , 4 5 L . E d . 2 d . 5 6 2 ( 1 9 7 5 ) . A tr ia l c o u r t’s d e n ia l o f

am o tio n f

o rc o n tin u a n c e m a yv io la te th is r ig h t b e c a u s e it m a y in f r in g e u p o n d e f

e n s e c o u n s e l’s ab ility to p r e p a r e a n a d e q u a te d e f e n s e . SeeThe district cour t granted Simmerer

four previous continuanc es of his trial date . 1 3 Un i te d S ta te s v . V

e r de r a me , 51 F . 3d 249, 251 ( 11th C i r . 1995) . “ T he r e a r e no m e c h a n ic a l te s ts f

o rd e c id in g w h e n ad e n ia l o f ac o n tin u a n c e is s o a rb itr a ry a s to v io la te d u e p r o c e s s . T h e a n s w e rm u s t b e f o u n d in th e c ir c u m s ta n c e s p r e s e n t in e ve ry c a s e , pa r t i c ul a r l y i n the r e a s ons pr e s e nt e d t o the tr i a l j udge a tthe t i m e the re qu es ti s deni ed. ” I

d. T o sho w a vi ol at i on of the ri gh tt o cou nsel as the re sul tof a deni al of a m ot i on for c on t i nu ance , a def endantm ustshow thatthe deni al re sul t ed in s p e c if ic s u b s ta n tia l p r e

ju d ic e . I d. A ft er rev i ew i n g th e reco rd , w e co n cl u d e th atth e d i stri ctco u rtd i d n o tab u se i t s di s c r e t i on i n de ny i ng S i m m e r e r ’ s m ot i on f orac ont i nua nc e . A l though S im m e r e rlis te d s e v e r a l g r o u n d s a s to w h y h e n e e d e d af if th c o n tin u a n c e , h is 1 m ot i on fa i l ed t o art i cul at e how he w ou l d suffe r s peci fi c pre j ud i ce i f the m ot i on w as de ni e d. T hus , the c our tdi d notabus e i t s di s c r e t i on i n de ny i ng the m ot i on. I I . I nte ntio na l

Fl i g ht A . A dm is s ib ility

“ T he ul t i m at e dec i si on on adm i ss i bi l i ty of f l i gh tevi dence re st s w i th the tri al j udge , w hos e e xe r c i s e of di s c r e t i on w i l l notbe ove r turne d abs e ntas how i ng of cl ea r abu se . ” U

n ite d S ta te s v . B la ke ly , 9 6 0 F .2 d 9 9 6 , 1 0 0 1 ( 1 1 th C ir . 1 9 9 2 ) .

“ E vi de nc e of

f l i ghti s a dm i s s i bl e t o de m ons tr a t e c ons c i ous ne s s of gui l ta nd the r e byIn Bo nn e r v. Ci ty of Pricha rd, 661 F.2d 1206, 1209 ( 11th Cir. 1981) (en banc) , we adopted 2 as bindingprec edent the decisions of the former Fifth Circuit ha nded down prior to October 1, 1981.

4 gu i l t . ” I d. a t 1 0 0 0 . H o w e v e r , th e p r o b a tiv e v a lu e o f s u c h e v id e n c e d im in is h e s “if the de f e nda ntha s c om m i tt e d s e ve r a l unr e l a t e d c r i m e s ori f the r e ha s be e n a si gn i fi ca ntt i m e del aybetw ee n the com m i ss i on of the cr i m e or the po i ntatw hi ch th e a c c u s e d h a s b e c o m e a w a r e th a t h e is th e s u b je c t o f ac r im in a l in v e s tig a tio n , to the t i m e of f

l i gh t . ” I d. at10 00 -01. E vi dence of fl i gh ti s probat i ve as c ir c u m s ta n tia l e v id e n c e o f g u ilt if th e f o llo w in g f

o u rin f e r e n c e s c a n b e c o n f

id e n tly d r a w n : “( 1 ) f

r o m th e d e f

e n d a n t’s b e h a v io rto f

lig h t; ( 2 ) f

r o m f lig h t to c o n s c io u s n e s s o f

g u ilt; ( 3 ) f

r o m c o n s c io u s n e s s o f

g u ilt to c o n s c io u s n e s s o f g u ilt c onc e rni ng the c r i m e c ha r ge d; a nd ( 4) f r om c ons c i ous ne s s of

gui l tc onc e rni ng the cr i m e c harged t o actual gu i l tof the cr i m e c harged. ” U n i ted S ta tes v. M

yers , 550 F . 2d 10 36 , 10 49 (5th C i r. 19 77 ). 2 A f t e rr e vi e w i ng the r e c or d, w e c onc l ude tha ti n a dm i tt i ng the e vi de nc e of S i m m e r e r ’ s f

l i ght , the di s tr i c tc our tdi d notabus e i t s di s c r e t i on. B a s e d on the c i r c um s t a nc e s s urr oundi ng S i m m e r e r ’ s a rr e s t , one c a n m a ke i nf e r e nc e s ( 1) f

r om hi s be ha vi ort o f

l i ght ; ( 2) f

r om f l i ghtt o c ons c i ous ne s s of gui l t ; ( 3) f

r om c ons c i ous ne s s of

gui l tt o c ons c i ous ne s s of gui l tc onc e rni ng the c r i m e c ha r ge d; a nd5

( 4) f r om c ons c i ous ne s s of

gui l tc onc e rni ng the c r i m e c ha r ge d t o a c tua l gui l tof the c r im e c h a r g e d . M

yers , 5 5 0 F .2 d a t 1 0 4 9 . B . J ur y I ns tr uc t i on W e r e vi e w the l e ga l c orr e c tne s s of aj ury i ns truc t i on de no vo , butde f e ron q u e s tio n s o f

p h r a s in g ab s e n t a n ab u s e o f d is c r e tio n . U

ni ted Stat es v. P rather , 205 F . 3d 1265, 1270 ( 11th C i r . 2000) . D i s tr i c tc our t s ge ne r a l l y ha ve br oa d di s c r e t i on in f o rm u la tin g ju ry in s tru c tio n s a s lo n g a s th e c h a r g e a s aw h o le a c c u r a te ly r e f le c ts th e la w a n d th e f

a c ts . I d. M o r e o v e r , w e w ill n o t r e v e r s e ac o n v ic tio n o n th e b a s is of aj ury c ha r ge unl e s s the i s s ue s of l a w w e r e pr e s e nt e d i na c c ur a t e l y orthe c ha r ge im p r o p e r ly g u id e d th e ju ry in s u c h as u b s ta n tia l w a y a s to v io la te d u e p r o c e s s . I d. W e e x a m in e “w h e th e rth e ju ry c h a r g e s , c o n s id e r e d a s aw h o le , s u f f ic ie n tly i nstruct ed the j ury s o thatthe j urors und er st oo d the i ss ues a nd w er e notm i sl ed. ” U ni ted Stat es v. Starke , 6 2 F .3 d 1 3 7 4 , 1 3 8 0 ( 1 1 th C ir . 1 9 9 5 ) ( q u o ta tio n o m itte d ) . W e have “ consi st ent l y app roved the i ncl usi on of a j ury i nstruct i on on fl i gh t . ” U n i ted S ta tes v. B o rders , 6 9 3 F .2 d 1 3 1 8 , 1 3 2 7 ( 1 1 th C ir . 1 9 8 2 ) . A n ap p r o p r ia te ju ry in s tru c tio n o n f

lig h t s h o u ld c o rr e c tly c a u tio n th e ju ry th a t it is u p to it to det erm i ne w hether the evi dence proves fl i gh tand w hatw ei gh tshou l d b e a cc orded to s u c h ad e te rm in a tio n . See i d. a t1328.6

W e c onc l ude f

r om the r e c or d tha tthe di s tr i c tc our tdi d note rri n i ns truc t i ng th e ju ry r e g a r d in g in te n tio n a l f lig h t b e c a u s e th e ju ry in s tru c tio n a c c u r a te ly re fl ec t ed the l aw . T he j ury i nstruct i on i n the i nst antca se m i rr ors the j ury i ns truc t i on on f

l i ghttha tw e uphe l d i n B o rders , and i tcorr ec t l y c aut i on ed the j urors tha ti tw a s up t o the m t o de t e rm i ne w he the rthe e vi de nc e pr ove d f l i ghta nd the w e ig h t, if

a n y , to b e a c c o r d e d s u c h ad e te rm in a tio n . Se e i d. a t1328. I I I . S e n te n c e in E

xc e s s of t h e A pplic able G u ide lin e R an ge A . N ot i ce F e d . R . C r im . P . 3 2 ( h ) p r o v id e s : B e f or e the c our tm a y d ep art fr om the appl i c abl e s e nt e nc i ng r a nge on a gr ound noti de nt i f

i e d f orde pa r tur e e i t h eri n the pr e s e nt e nc e r e por tor i n a party' s pre hear i ng subm i ss i on , the courtm ustgi ve the part i es re as on abl e not i ce that it is co nt em pl at i ng such a departure. T he no t i ce m us ts pe c i f

y a ny gr ound on w hi c h the c our ti s c ont e m pl a t i ng a departure. T he S upr e m e C our tha s he l d tha tbe f or e di s tr i c tc our t s c a n de pa r tupw a r d on a gr ound noti de nt i f

i e d e i the ri n the pr e s e nt e nc e r e por tori n apr e he a r i ng s ubm i s s i on by the go vernm ent , the court s m ust , un der F ed. R . C ri m . P . 32 , gi ve part i es r e a s onabl e not i c e tha tthe y a r e c ont e m pl a t i ng s uc h arul i ng a nd the gr ounds on w h ic h th e d e p a r tu r e is b a s e d . B urns v. U ni ted Stat es , 5 0 1 U . S. 1 2 9 , 1 3 8 - 3 9 , 1 1 1 S. C t . 2182, 2187, 115 L . E d. 2d. 123 ( 1991) . H ow e ve r , i n B ur ns the S up re m e C ou rt7

w a s a ddr e s s i ng a n upw a r d de pa r tur e unde rthe the n m a nda t ory S e nt e nc i ng G u id e lin e s , n o t ap o s t- B oo ke rv a r ia n c e u n d e ra n a d v is o ry s y s te m . See i d. B ec ause S i m m er erfa i l ed t o rai se thi s i ss ue i n the di stri ctcourt , w e r evi ew th e a r g u m e n t o n ap p e a l f o rp la in e rr o r . U

ni te d State s v . She l ton , 400 F . 3d 1325, 1328 ( 11th C i r . 2005) . T o pr e va i l unde rthi s s t a nda r d, the appe l l a ntm us tpr ove the f ol l ow i ng thr e e r e qui r e m e nt s : ( 1) the r e m us tbe a n e rr or ; ( 2) tha te rr orm us tbe p la in ; a n d ( 3 ) th e p la in e rr o rm u s t a f f e c t s u b s ta n tia l r ig h ts . I

d. at13 28 -29. O nce th e ap p e lla n t p r o v e s th e s e th r e e e le m e n ts , w e m a y n o tic e th e e rr o ro n ly if it

“ se ri ou sl y a ff

ec t s the fa i rnes s, i nt egri ty, or pu bl i c r eput at i on of j ud i ci al proceedi ng s. ” I

d. at1 3 2 9 . N o n eth el ess, a n e rr o rc a n n o t m e e t th e p la in r e q u ir e m e n t o f th e p la in e rr o rru le if

it i s notcl ear unde rc urr e ntl a w . F r om tha tpr i nc i pl e f l ow s the l a w of th is c ir c u it th a t, a t le a s t w h e r e th e e x p lic it la n g u a g e o f as ta tu te o rru le do es n o ts pe c i f

i c a l l y r e s ol ve a n i s s ue , the r e c a n be no pl a i n e rr or w here there i s no p re ce den t from the S up re m e C ou rtor thi s C ou rt d ir e c tly r e s o lv in g it. U ni te d State s v . Chau , N o. 05- 10640, ____F . 3d ____ ( 11th C i r . S e pt . 27, 2005) (quo t at i on s a nd ci t at i on s om i tt ed). T here i s no p re ce dentfr om thi s c ou rtor fr om the S up re m e C ou rt e s tab lis h in g th a t F e d . R . C r im P . 3 2 ap p lie s to ap o s t- B oo ke rup w ar d v ar i ance . In the “ abse nce of any c on trol l i ng prec edent ” s up po rt i ng S i m m er er ’ s propo si t i on that th e r e w a s e rr o r , U

ni te d State s v . L e

j ar de - R ada , 31 9 F . 3d 12 88 , 12 91 (11th C i r.8

2003) , the di s tr i c tc our t ’ s f a i l ur e t o gi ve not i c e i n c om pl i a nc e w i th R ul e 32 c a nnot be pl ai n err or. B . E x P os t Fac to V i olat i on

“ T he ex p o s t fa c to c l a us e pr ohi bi t s the e na c tm e ntof s t a tut e s w hi c h m a ke m ore burdensom e the pu ni shm entfor acr i m e, af t eri t s c om m i ss i on . ” U

ni ted Stat es v . A br aham , 386 F . 3d 1033, 1037 ( 11th C i r . 2004) ( quot a t i on a nd a l t e r a t i ons o m itte d ) , ce rt. deni ed , ____ S . C t . ____ ( 2005) . R e c e nt l y , w e r e vi e w e d a d e f e n d a n t’s a r g u m e n t th a t B oo ke r ’ s rem ed i al p ro v i si o n s, i f ap p l i ed retro act i v el y, w ou l d i ncre as e the se nt ence autho ri ze d b y the j ury’ s ver di ctand, there fore , c ons t i tut e a n ex p o s t fa c to la w in v io la tio n o f th e d e f e n d a n t’s d u e p r o c e s s r ig h ts . U ni te d State s v . D unc an , 4 0 0 F .3 d 1 2 9 7 , 1 3 0 6 - 0 7 ( 1 1 th . C ir .) , ce rt. deni ed , ___S. C t . ___ ( 2005) . W e de t e rm i ne d tha t , w he n the appe l l a ntc om m i tt e d the of f e ns e of c onvi c t i on, “ the r e c ogni z e d s t a t e of the l a w l ooke d t o the U . S . C ode a s e s t abl i s hi ng m axi m um se nt ence s. ” I d. at13 07 -08. W e f

urther e xp l ai ned that , before B lakel y v . W as hi ngton , 542 U . S . 296, 124 S . C t . 2531, 159 L . E d. 2d 403 ( 2004) w a s de c i de d, e v e ry f e d e r a l c o u r t o f

ap p e a ls h a d h e ld th a t App re nd iv. N ew Je rs ey , 530 U . S . 466, 120 S . C t . 2348, 147 L . E d. 2d 435 ( 2000) di d notappl y t o gui de l i ne c a l c ul a t i ons m a d e w ith in ad e f

e n d a n t’s s ta tu to ry m a x im u m s e n te n c e . I d. a t1 3 0 8 . T h u s , we9

concl ud ed thatthe defendant , w ho w as se nt ence d w i thi n h i s s t atut ory r ange, had su ffi ci en tw arn i n g t o sat i sfy ex p o s t fa c to c o n c e rn s . I d. T h e r e c o r d d e m o n s tr a t e s th a tS i m m e r e rd i d n o tp r e s e rv e th i s i s s u e b e l o w, a n d h e c a n n o t p r e v a il n o w b e c a u s e in th is in s ta n c e th e r e w a s n o p la in e rr o r . See She l ton , 40 0 F . 3d at13 28 -29. S i m m er er ’ s s ent ence di d n otvi ol at e the E x P o st Fa c to C l ause because ( 1) he w as se nt ence d t o a t erm l es s than the st atut ory m axi m um , and (2) he had suffi ci entw arni ng of the po ss i bl e m axi m um se nt ence u n d e rth e U .S . C o d e . See D unc an , 400 F . 3d a t1308. C . R ea so n a b l en ess I n U ni ted Stat es v. B oo ke r , the S up re m e C ou rthel d thatthe m andat ory na tur e of the F e de r a l S e nt e nc i ng G ui de l i ne s r e nde r e d the m i nc om pa t i bl e w i th the S i xth A m e ndm e nt ’ s gua r a nt e e t o the r i ghtt o aj ury tr i a l . ____ U . S . ____, 125 S . C t . 738, 749- 51, 160 L . E d. 2d 621 ( 2005) . T he C our tde c i de d tha tthe appr opr i a t e r e m e dy w a s t o e xc i s e tw o s pe c i f i c s t a tut ory pr ovi s i ons w hi c h m a de the G u id e lin e s m a n d a to ry , th e r e b y r e n d e r in g th e G u id e lin e s a d v is o ry o n ly . 1 2 5 S . C t. at76 4. T he C ou rtexpl ai ned that , “ [w ] i tho utthe ‘ m andat ory’ prov i si on , the A ct no nethel es s r equi re s j ud ges t o t ake a cc ou ntof the G ui del i nes t og ether w i th o ther s e n te n c in g g o a ls ” c o n ta in e d in 1 8 U .S .C . § 3 5 5 3 ( a ) . I d. S ec t i on 35 53 (a ) provi des th a t d is tr ic t c o u r ts im p o s in g as e n te n c e m u s t f ir s t c o n s id e r , i nter a lia , the nature10

a n d c ir c u m s ta n c e s o f

th e o f f e n s e , th e h is to ry a n d c h a r a c te r is tic s o f th e d e f e n d a n t, the need for the se nt ence t o ref l ec tthe se ri ou snes s of the offens e, prom ot e r es pect for the l aw , and p rovi de j ustpu ni shm entfor the offens e, and the ki nd s of s ent ence s a n d s e n te n c in g r a n g e e s tab lis h e d b y th e G u id e lin e s . See 18 U . S . C . § 3 55 3(a) . W e a r e r e q u ir e d to “r e v ie w f o ru n r e a s o n ab le n e s s ” as e n te n c e im p o s e d p o s tB oo ke r . B oo ke r , 1 2 5 S . C t. a t 7 6 5 ( q u o ta tio n a n d a lte r a tio n o m itte d ) ; see a l so U n i ted S ta tes v. Cra w

f o rd , 40 7 F . 3d 11 74 , 11 78 (11th C i r. 20 05 ) ( no t i ng that

“B oo ke res t abl i shed a ‘ re as on abl enes s’ st andard for the se nt ence fi nal l y i m po se d o n ad e f e n d a n t” ) . W e h a v e s ta te d th a t th e d is tr ic t c o u r t is o b lig a te d “to c a lc u la te c o r r e c tly the se nt enci ng ra ng e pre sc ri bed b y the G ui del i nes. ” Cra w f o rd , 407 F . 3d at11 78 . “ A ft eri thas m ade thi s c al cul at i on , the di stri ctcourtm ayi m po se a m ore se vere or m ore l eni entse nt ence as l on g as the se nt ence i s r ea sonabl e . . . . ” I d. at 1179. I n U

ni te d State s v . W

i ni nge ar , w e r ec ent l y c on du ct ed a r evi ew of an appe l l a nt ’ s s e nt e nc e f

orr e a s onabl e ne s s a nd e xpl a i ne d tha tthe s e nt e nc e m us tbe r e a s onabl e i n the c ont e xtof the f a c t or s l i s t e d i n 18 U . S . C . § 3553( a ) . 422 F . 3d 1 2 4 1 , 1 2 4 6 ( 1 1 th C ir . A u g . 3 0 , 2 0 0 5 ) . I n c o n d u c tin g o u rr e v ie w , w e s ta te d th a t it doe s “ notappl y the r e a s onabl e ne s s s t a nda r d t o e a c h i ndi vi dua l de c i s i on m a de dur i ng the s e nt e nc i ng pr oc e s s ; r a the r , w e r e vi e w the f i na l s e nt e nc e f

or11

re as on abl enes s. ” I

d. a t1245. I n a ddi t i on t o di s c us s i ng the na tur e a nd c ir c u m s ta n c e s o f

th e o f f e n s e a n d W in in g e a r ’s c r im in a l h is to ry , w e s p e c if ic a lly no t ed thatthe se nt ence i m po se d w as “ on e- t enth the l ength o f the tw enty- ye ar s ta tu to ry m a x im u m s e n te n c e ,” a n d h e ld th a t th e s e n te n c e w a s r e a s o n ab le . I d. at 1246. W e c o n c lu d e th a t th e d is tr ic t c o u r t’s s e n te n c e in th is c a s e w a s r e a s o n ab le . T he j ud ge i n sent enci ng S i m m er ert o 6 0 m on ths i m pri sonm entexpl ai ned i n g re at de t a i l w hy the G ui de l i ne r a nge w a s i na de qua t e . T he j udge e xpl i c i t l y r e l i e d on f a c t or s l i s t e d i n § 3553( a ) . M or e ove r , S i m m e r e r ’ s s e nt e nc e i s onl y one - s i xth the le n g th o f th e 3 0 - y e a rs ta tu to ry m a x im u m . See W i ni nge ar , 4 2 2 F .3 d a t 1 2 4 6 . F u r th e rm o r e , S im m e r e r ’s a r g u m e n t th a t th e c o u r t’s s e n te n c e w a s u n r e a s o n ab le b e c a u s e th e c o u r ti n c o rr e c t l y c a l c u l a t e d h i s s e n t e n c i n g r a n g e wh e n i tg a v e h i m two a d d i t i o n a l c r i m i n a l p o i n t s u n d e rU. S . S . G. § 4 A1 . 1 ( d ) i s wi th o u tm e r i t . T h e s e two cr i m i nal hi st ory poi nt s a re i m m at er i al t o the G ui del i ne ra ng e c al cul at i on because, w i th o r w i tho utthese po i nt s, hi s c ri m i nal hi st ory c at egory w ou l d st i l l have been III a n d th e G u id e lin e r a n g e w o u ld s till h a v e b e e n 2 7 to 3 3 m o n th s .12

Con c lu s ion F or the re as on s s t at ed abov e, w e c on cl ud e thatthe di stri ctcourtdi d n oterr w he n i t( 1) de ni e d S i m m e r e raf i f th c ont i nua nc e of

tr i a l , ( 2) a dm i tt e d e vi de nc e of i nt ent i on al fl i gh t , (3) gave a j ury i nstruct i on on i nt ent i on al fl i gh t , and (4) i m po se d as e n te n c e in e x c e s s o f

th e ap p lic ab le G u id e lin e r a n g e . T h e 6 0 - m o n th s e n te n c e d id no tvi ol at e ex p o s t fa c to pri nci pl es and w as no tun re as on abl e. M oreover, S i m m er er c oul d note s t abl i s h tha tthe c our t ’ s f a i l ur e t o pr ovi de hi m r e a s onabl e not i c e of the s e nt e nc e w a s pl a i n e rr or . A c c or di ngl y , w e a f f i rm S i m m e r e r ’ s c onvi c t i on a nd se nt ence . AF F I RME D.