FILED U.S. COURT OF AP P E A LS E LE V EN T HC IRC U IT MAR 19, 2007 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- 14919 N on -A rgum entC al endar

________________________ D . C . D ocketN o. 05 -000 23 -C R -D H B -3 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 D A N I E L L E M E T C A L F S H A N E Z , 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 o rth e S o u th e rn D is tr ic t o f G e o r g ia

_________________________ ( M ar c h 19, 2007) B efo re B IR C H , D U B IN A an d P R Y O R , C i rcu i tJu d g es. P E R C U R I A M: D a ni e l l e M e t c a l f

S ha ne z appe a l s he rs e nt e nc e of tw e l ve m onths of i m pr i s onm e ntf

ori nt e r s t a t e tr a ve l t o f

a c i l i t a t e a ga m bl i ng e nt e rpr i s e . S e e 182

U . S . C . § 1 95 2(a) (3). S hanez ar gu es thatthe di stri ctcourterroneou sl y depar t ed upw a r d f r om the appl i c a bl e S e nt e nc i ng G ui de l i ne s r a nge a nd f a i l e d t o gi ve re as on abl e not i ce thata departure w as po ss i bl e. S hanez di d n otobj ec tat s e n t e n c i n g o n e i th e rg r o u n d . W e a f f i r m.

“ Wh e n a d e f

e n d a n tf a i l s t o o b j e c tt o a n e rr o rb e f

o r e th e d i s tr i c tc o u r t , we r e vi e w the a r gum e ntf

orpl a i n e rr or . ” U ni t e d S t a t e s v. R a a d, 406 F . 3d 1322, 1323 (11t h C i r. ), ce rt . deni ed, __ U . S . __ , 12 6 S . C t . 19 6 (20 05 ). P l ai n err or occurs w he r e “ ( 1) the r e i s a n e rr or ; ( 2) tha ti s pl a i n orobvi ous ; ( 3) a f f e c t i ng the de f e nda nt ’ s s ubs t a nt i a l r i ght s i n tha ti tw a s pr e j udi c i a l a nd notha r m l e s s ; a nd ( 4) thatse 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 the j ud i ci al p r o c e e d in g s .” I d . ( in te rn a l q u o ta tio n m a r k s o m itte d ) . S ha ne z f i r s ta r gue s tha tthe di s tr i c tc our te rr one ous l y de pa r t e d f r om the appl i c a bl e G ui de l i ne s r a nge . W e di s a gr e e . C ontr a ry t o S ha ne z ’ s c ha r a c t e r i z a t i on, the devi at i on by the di stri ctcourtw as a var i ance and n ota departure. T he di stri ct courtadop t ed fr om the P re se nt ence Invest i gat i on R eportthe ca l cul at i on of an advi sory G ui del i nes r ange of zer o t o si x m on ths of i m pri sonm ent . T he courtthen c ons i de r e d the s e c t i on 3553( a ) f a c t or s , de c i de d t o va ry f r om the G ui de l i ne s , a nd i m po se d a se nt ence of tw el ve m on ths of i m pri sonm ent . T hatthe di stri ctcourt s o m e tim e s d e s c r ib e d its d e v ia tio n a s a “d e p a r tu r e ” is n o t d is p o s itiv e a n d m e r e ly3

r e f le c ts a n im p r e c is e u s e o f la n g u a g e b y th e d is tr ic t c o u r t. T o the ext entS hanez’ s a rgum entca n b e c on strued t o con t end t hatthe di stri ct c o u r t e rr o n e o u s ly v a r ie d f r o m th e ap p lic a b le G u id e lin e s r a n g e , th e a r g u m e n t s till fa i l s. A ft erU ni t ed S t at es v. B oo ker, 54 3 U . S . 22 0, 12 5 S . C t . 73 8 (20 05 ), a di stri ct co u rtm ay i m p o se a sen t en ce th atv ari es fro m th e ap p l i cab l e G u i d el i n es ran g e so lo n g a s it c o n s id e r s th e f a c to r s o f s e c tio n 3 5 5 3 ( a ) a n d im p o s e s a s e n te n c e th a t is r e a s o n a b le . S e e U n ite d S ta te s v . T a lle y , 4 3 1 F .3 d 7 8 4 , 7 8 6 , 7 8 8 ( 1 1 th C ir . 2 0 0 5 ) . H e r e , the di s tr i c tc our tthought f ul l y e xpl a i ne d how S ha ne z ’ s s e nt e nc e w a s ba s e d on the fa ct ors of s ec t i on 35 53 (a ), and n othi ng i n the re cord sugg es t s thatthe se nt ence i s unrea sonabl e. T here w as no pl ai n err or. S hanez’ s s ec on d argum enti s thatthe di stri ctcourtfa i l ed t o g i ve her r e a s ona bl e not i c e unde rF e de r a l R ul e of C r i m i na l P r oc e dur e 32( h) . T hi s a r gum e nt i s f orec l osed by ou r pre ce dent . B ec ause the se nt ence i m po se d b y the di stri ctcourt w as a var i ance and n ota departure, R ul e 32(h) di d n otappl y, and t he di stri ctcourt di d note rr . S e e U ni t e d S t a t e s v. I r i z a rry , 458 F . 3d 1208, 1212 ( 11th C i r . 2006) (“ W e . . . concl ud [e ] R ul e 32(h) do es no tappl y t o . . . vari ance s. ”) . S h a n e z ’s s e n te n c e is AF F I RME D.