FI L ED U.S. COURT OF A P P E A LS E LE V E N T H C IR C U IT MARCH 20, 2006 THOMAS 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N CL ERK [DO NOT PUBLISH]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- 1637 6 Non-A rgum ent Calendar

--- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- -- D. C. Docket N o. 02-00586 -CR- BBM-1-2 UNITED STAT ES OF AMERIC A, Pl ai nt iff -Ap pe ll ee, ve rs us JOSE J AIMES CAM BRAY, Defen da nt -Ap pe ll an t.

--- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- - Appeal f rom the United State s District Court for the N orthern District of Ge orgia

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

(M ar ch 20, 200 6) Be fo re E D MO N D SO N , Ch ie f Judg e, A N D E RS O N a nd B IR CH , Ci rc uit Jud ge s. PE R CU RIA M:Bo o k er wa s d ec i d ed b y t h e S u

p re m e C o urtaf

t er De fe n d an twa s s en t en ce d
. Ats en t en ci n g, 1 Def endant r aised his constitutional claims based on B lakely v. Washington, 124 S.Ct
. 2531 (2004). B e c a us e the B oo ke r de c isi on a pp lie s to a ll c a se s on dir e c t r e vie w, we a pp ly B oo ke r t o th is a

pp e a l. Booke r, 125 S.Ct. at 769. 2 De fendant-Appellant Jose Jaim es Cam bray appeals his 228 -m onth sentence im pose d a ft er

he ple ad ed

gui lty to one c ount

c harg ing adr

ug tra ff ic kin g co nspi ra cy , thr ee c ount s c harg ing sub stanti ve dr ug tra ff ic kin g of fe nse s, a nd o ne co un t ch arg in g p os se ss io n o f a fi rear m in fur th eran ce o f a d ru g t raff ic ki ng cri m e. D ef en dant c ont en ds the dis tr ic t c ourt c om m itt ed Bo oke r er

ro r, U nit ed

S ta te s v. Bo oke r, 125 S
. Ct
. 738 ( 2005 ), w he n it c al cu la te d hi s se nte nc e ba se d ondr ug 1 quantit ies greater

than the quanti ties charged in the indictm ent and to which D ef en dant p le ad ed

gui lty
. D ef

en dant’ s c onst itu tio na l c la im s w er e ra ise d ti m el y in the dis tr ic t c ourt and, a s su ch , a re pr es er ve d f or our r ev ie w . W e va cate a nd
rem an d fo r res en te nc in g. D ef en dant arg ue d a t se nte nc ing a nd arg ue s a ga in o n a ppe al that, c onsi ste nt
w ithhis c onst itu tio na l r igh ts, he m ay be se nte nc ed

ba se d ondr

ug quanti tie s no gr eat er t ha n t ho se ch arg edin th e in di ct m en t t o wh ic h h e p le ad edgu il ty. A cc or din g to D ef

en dant, be ca

use the dr ugs as soc ia te d w iththe sub stanti ve c ount s in the ind ic tm en t t ota le d 1, 000 gr am s of m etha m phe tam ine a nd 5 00 g ram s of
co ca ine , D ef

en dant’ s of

fe nse le ve l un de r the gui de lin es , be fo re c re dit f or3

ac ce ptanc e of

r es pons ibi lity , w as le ve l 32
. B as ed on this le ve l 32 c al cu la tio n, D ef en dant’ s c ri m ina l hi sto ry c at eg or y of I , a nd a ppl ic at ionof

athr ee - poi nt c re dit fo r ac ce ptanc e of

r es pons ibi lity , D ef

en dant’ s gu ide lin es se nte nc e w as le ss than th e 10-y ear m andatory

m inim um . De fendant contends h is sentence can be no greater than th e 10- y ear m an da tor y m ini m um plu s th e co nse cu tiv e fi ve -y ear se nte nc e fo r the wea pons offense. Instead, the district court held D efendant acc ount able for drug quantities state d inthe P SI a nd c al cu la te d se nte nc e ba se d ona lm ost 16, 000 gr am s of
m et h amp h et amin e a n dal m o s t1 6 0 0 g ra m s o f c o ca i n e. Ov erth e g o v ern m en t ’s objec tion, the district court gave Def endant a three-point reduction for acce ptance of r es pons ibi lity . B as ed

on this dr

ug quanti ty , D ef

en dant’ s a cc ep tanc e of
re spon sib ili ty , a nd a

c ri m ina l hi sto ry

c at eg or y of I , D ef en dant’ s gu ide lin e range
w as 168 to 210 m onths, plu s th e co nse cu tiv e fi ve -y ear se nte nc e fo r the w ea pons of fe nse . D ef

en dant w as se nte nc ed

to 168 m onths i m

pr iso nm en t f

or the dr ug of fe nse s, to be f

oll ow ed by 60 m onths, f

or atot al of 228 m onths i m

pr iso nm en t. W e se e no m er it in D ef

en dant’ s c onst itu tio na l c la im s. A lth oughD ef en dant
ar gue s to the c ontrary , D ef en dant a dm itt ed

to the a ddi tio na l dr

ug am ount s duri ng the ple a co llo quy . B ef

or e D ef en dant’ s gu ilty

ple a w as a cc ep te d by

the c ourt, the gove rn m en t st at ed

that the e vid en ce a t tri al w oul d sh owthat a t l ea st 5 00 g ram s ofL aboratory repor ts show that the actual amount of methamphe tamine seized from De fenda nt’s 2 apar tment was 33.869 pounds, not 39 pounds. The PSI calc ulated De fenda nt’s sentenc e base d on the ac tual amounts set out in the laboratory repor ts. 4 co ca i n e a n d3 9 p o u n d s o f met h amp h et amin e w as re co v er ed fr o m De fe n d an t ’s ap ar tm en t, a nd a ddi tio na l m etha m phe tam ine ( ap pr oxi m at el y one pound o r . 454 2 kg) was seiz ed as a r esult of the LaB arca transaction. A lthou gh the dis trict court d i dn o tqu es t i o n De fe n d an tab o u tth e e x ac tdru g amou n t s i n th e g o v ern m en t ’s fa ct ua l pr of fe r, the D ef

en dant d id a dm it ex pr es sly his r es pons ibi lity

f or the se dr ugs. A nd, e ve n a t se nte nc ing , D ef en dant m ad e no o bj ec tio n to the dr ug quantit ies set out in th e PS I on factual grounds; he ob j ected on constitu tional gr ou nd s t o a n e nh an cem en t fo r qu an ti ti es be y on d t ho se ch arg edin th e in di ct m en t. Whe n ade fe ndant a dm its to the f ac ts tha t e nhanc ed

his se nte nc e, no S ixth A m en dm en t vi olatio n un de r Bo oke r can be sho w n. B ooke r, 125 S
. Ct
. a t 75 6 (r ea ff irm ing that f

ac ts u se d to e nhanc e a se nte nc e, oth er than apr ior

c onvi ct ion , m ust be proved to a j ury

bey ond a reasonable doub t or adm itted by the defendant);
se e Uni te d S ta te s v . She lt on , 40 0 F .3d13 25 , 13 30 (11 Cir . 20 05 ). And , a th defendant’ s failure to dispute drug -quantityfac ts contained in the PSI operates as
ana dm iss ionof

tho se f ac ts f or Bo oke r pur

pose s. S ee id. Although we conclude that the sentencing court com m itted no con stitut ional Booker err or, tw o kind s of sentencing error m ay be claim ed under Booker:We apply prese rved e rror

revie w when c onsideringboth constituti onal and statutory Booke r er

ror 3 wh e n, a s h e re , th e de fe nd ant m a de a c on sti tut ion a l B oo ke r o bje c tio n in the dis tr ic t c ourt

and his initial appellate brie f wa s filed bef ore our decision in Shelton. 5 co nst itu tio na l and s ta tut or y . S ee , e . g. , U nit ed

S ta te s v. Ma the nia , 409 F
. 3d 1 289, 1291 (11 Cir. 2005 ). “ [C] onsti tutio nal error is the use of extra-ver dict th enhancem ents to reach a guidelines result that is bi ndin g on th e sentencing judge.” Sh el ton , 400 F
. 3d at 13 31 ( quot ing U nit ed S ta te s v. Ro dr igu ez , 398 F
. 3d 1 291, 1301 ( 11 Ci r. ), c er

t. de nie d, 125 S
. Ct
. 293 5 ( 2005 ))
. S ta tut or y Bo oke r er

ro r th occurs when the district court m isapplies th e guidelines b y considering th em

as bind ing “ even in the absence of a S ixth Am endm ent enhancem ent violatio n.” Sh el ton , 400 F
. 3d at 13 30- 31. B ec au se the dis tr ic t c ourt se nte nc ed D ef en dant unde r a m an da tor

y gui de lin es sy ste m , statut or y Bo oke r er

ro r ha s be ensho w n. W e ap ply pr es er ve d e rr or r ev ie wto a statut or

y Bo oke r cl ai m

if de fe ndant preserved a c onsti tutio nal claim by “ citation to Apprendi or to ot her ca ses in that line of cases. ” U nited States v. D owling, 403 F.3d 1242, 1246 (11 Cir. 2005 ). th 3 Statutory Booker err or requires r eversal “ onlyif [the e rror] resulted in actual pr ej udi ce be ca

use it ha d su bst an tia l and i nj ur iou s e ff ec t or inf lue nc e in de te rm ini ng the [ re sul t ]
. ” U nit ed S ta te s v. G al le gos- A gue ro , 409 F
. 3d 1 274, 127 7 (11 Cir. 2005 ) (quoting United States. v. Guzm an, 167 F. 3d 13 50, 1353 (11 Cir. th th 1999 ))
. T he gov er

nm en t be ar s th e bur de n to sho wthe abse nc e of e ff ec t of the6

st atut ory erro r on th e d efen da nt ’s su bs ta nt ia l ri gh ts . Mat he ni a, 40 9 F .3dat 1 29 2. A se nte nc e is d

ue to be a ff

irm ed if it c anbe sa id “ ‘ w ithf

ai r as sur an ce . . . that the [sentence] wa s not su bstantiallysway ed by the err or.’ ” Id. (quoting United State s v. H ornaday , 392 F. 3d 13 06, 1315-16 (11 Cir. 2004 ). th From our reviewof the rec ord we can not say with fa ir assurance that De fendant’ s sentence wa s not su bstantiallyim pacted on by

the statutory

Booker
er ro r. Wha t se nte nc e the dis tr ic t c ourt w oul d have im pose d ha d it

c onsi de re d th e guid elines adviso ry

and had properly

considered the factors in 18 U. S. C. § 355 3(a) is unkno w n and unkno w ab le
. T he gov er nm en t f ai le d to c ar

ry it s burd enof
s h o wi n g th at th e e rr o r w as h ar m l es s . Ac co rd i n g l y, we v ac at e D ef en d an t ’s sentence and rem and for re sentencing con sistent with Book er. VACATED an d REMANDED.