### F I LE D U. S . COURT OF AP PE ALS E LEVE NTH CI RCUI T Jul y 27, 2005 T HOM AS K. KAHN C L E RK [ 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. 04- 13259 N on -A rgum entC al endar

________________________ D. C . Do c k e tNo . 0 4 - 2 0 0 5 8 - C R - F AM 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 L A U D A M O J I C A , 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 S outhe r n D i s tr i c tof F l or i da

_________________________ ( Ju l y 27, 2005) B efo re T JO F L A T , D U B IN A an d B A R K E T T , C i rcu i tJu d g es. P E R C U R I A M: L auda M oj i ca appeal s her41 -m on th sent ence , i m po se d aft era j ury f ou nd her g u ilty o f p r e s e n tin g f

r a u d u le n t c la im s to th e I n te r n a l R e v e n u e S e r v ic e ( “I R S ” ) , in2

vi ol at i on of 18 U . S . C . § 2 87 . O n app ea l , M oj i ca ar gu es thatthe di stri ctcourter re d i n d et er m i ni ng the l oss a m ou ntby a pre po nd er ance of the evi dence and usi ng that a m ountt o c a l c ul a t e he rs e nt e nc e , w he n the l os s a m ountw a s ne i the ra dm i t t e d nor p r o v e n to a ju ry , in v io la tio n o f U n ite d S ta te s v . B o o k e r , 1 2 5 S .C t. 7 3 8 ( 2 0 0 5 ) . M o ji ca ra ises ad d it io n al se n ten cin g ar g u m en ts co n ce rn in g th e d istrict co u rt’s i m po si t i on of an enhancem entfor obst ruct i on of j ust i ce and i t s deni al of do w nw ar d a dj us t m e nt s f

ora c c e pt a nc e of

r e s pons i bi l i ty a nd m e nt a l he a l th. W e ne e d not addres s these addi t i on al ar gu m ent s, as w e f i nd thatM oj i ca ’ s pre se rved B oo ker a r gum e nta s t o l os s a m ountr e qui r e s tha tw e va c a t e he rs e nt e nc e a nd r e m a nd the c a s e f o rr e s e n te n c in g . B AC KG R OU ND M o j i c a w a s i n d i c t e d f

o re i g h tc o u n t s o f

ma k i n g f

r a u d u l e n tc l a i ms t o th e I RS, i n vi ol a t i on of

18 U . S . C . § 287. M oj i c a pr oc e e de d t o tr i a l on the s e c ount s . D ur i ng the j ur y c ha r ge c onf

e r e nc e , M oj i c a r e que s t e d tha tthe j ur y de t e r m i ne the a m ountof l os s a s t o e a c h c ount . T he c our tr e c ogni z e d tha ti f drug qua nt i ty w e r e i n que s t i on, A pp re nd i v. N ew Je rs ey , 53 0 U . S . 46 6 (20 00 ), w ou l d requi re a j ury t o m ake that fi nd i ng . H ow ever , the courtre as on ed t hatbecause i tdi d n oti nt end t o i ss ue a sen t en ce b eyo n d th e st atu t o ry m ax i m u m , a fi n d i n g as t o th e am o u n to f l o ss r e m a in e d a “ju d ic ia l f

u n c tio n ,” p r o p e r ly f

o u n d b y a p r e p o n d e r a n c e o f th e e v id e n c e .3

T he court , ho w ever , no t ed M oj i ca ’ s obj ec t i on , and st at ed t hatthe i ss ue w as pres er ved for appeal . T he j ury ul t i m at el y r eturned a gu i l ty ver di ctagai nstM oj i ca o n al l ei g h tco u n t s. T he P r e s e nt e nc e I nve s t i ga t i on R e por t( “ P S I ” ) a ppl i e d a ba s e of f e ns e l e ve l of 1 8 , w h ic h c o r r e s p o n d e d to th e g o v e r n m e n t’s lo s s c a lc u la tio n o f a p p r o x im a te ly $720, 000. T he P S I the n a ppl i e d a tw o- l e ve l e nha nc e m e ntf orobs truc t i on of j ust i ce , for a t ot al adj ust ed offens e l evel of 20 . W i th a cr i m i nal hi st ory c at egory I , th e r e s u ltin g s e n te n c in g r a n g e s to o d b e tw e e n 3 3 a n d 4 1 m o n th s ’ im p r is o n m e n t. M oj i c a obj e c t e d t o the l os s c a l c ul a t i on a m ounta nd the e nha nc e m e ntf or ob struct i on of j ust i ce . S he al so cont ended she w as ent i t l ed t o d ow nw ar d de pa r tur e s f

ora c c e pt a nc e of

r e s pons i bi l i ty a nd due t o he rpoorm e nt a l he a l th. T he di s tr i c tc our tove r rul e d a l l of the s e obj e c t i ons a nd a dopt e d the P S I ’ s f i ndi ngs of f a c ta nd c onc l us i ons of

l a w . T he di s tr i c tc our tthe n i m pos e d a s e nt e nc e of 41 m onths . M oj i c a t i m e l y a ppe a l e d. ST AN DA RD OF RE VI EW M oj i c a r a i s e d a n obj e c t i on dur i ng the j ur y c ha r ge c onf e r e nc e , a s ki ng the di s tr i c tc our tt o s ubm i tthe l os s a m ountf orj ury de t e r m i na t i on ba s e d on the p r in c ip le a n n o u n c e d in A p p r e n d i. T h e d is tr ic t c o u r t d e f in itiv e ly o v e r ru le d th is o b je c tio n a n d in d ic a te d to M o jic a th a t s h e h a d d o n e a ll th a t w a s n e c e s s a r y toAdditionally , beca use Mojica wa s sentence d under theman d atory guidelines schemethat 1 Booker’s re medial holding rendered advisory, her sentencewas also infected w ith statutory Booker e rror . Se e Un ite d St ate s v . She lto n, 40 0 F. 3d 13 25 , 133 0- 31 (1 1th Cir . 2 00 5) . H ow e ve r, be c a us e c on sti tutio nal erro r w a s p re se nt, wea pp ly themore ri g orou s h arm le ssn e ss s tand ard a pp lic a bleto constitutional errors. SeeUnited States v. Mathenia, 409 F .3d 1289, 1291-92 (11th Cir. 2005). 4 p r e s e r v e th e is s u e f

o ra p p e lla te r e v ie w . A s s u c h , th o u g h M o jic a d id n o t r e ite r a te he robj e c t i on a ts e nt e nc i ng, s he i s e nt i t l e d t o pr e s e r ve d e r r orr e vi e w . S e e C ook v. S heri ff of M on roe C ou nt y, 40 2 F . 3d 10 92 , 11 10 n. 6 (11 th C i r. 20 05 ) ( w here

“ c om m e nt s by the tr i a l c our tc r e a t e d the c l e a ri m pr e s s i on tha t[ a ppe l l a nt ] ha d done a l l s he ne e de d t o do t o pr e s e r ve he robj e c t i on” s he w a s e nt i t l e d t o pr e s e r ve d e r r or re vi ew despi t e f

ai l ure t o reoff

erw i tness t es t i m on y a ttri al ). DI S C US S I ON W here a def

endant ’ s s ent ence i s e nh ance d u nd era m andat ory gui del i nes s y s te m b a s e d o n f

a c ts f o u n d b y th e ju d g e th a t w e r e n e ith e ra d m itte d , n o rp r o v e n to a j ury bey on d a re as on abl e dou bt , the defendant ’ s S i xt h A m endm entri gh t s a re v io la te d . B o o k e r , 1 2 5 S .C t. a t 7 5 6 . T h e g o v e r n m e n t c o n c e d e s th a t M o jic a ’s S ix th A m e n d m e n t r ig h ts w e r e v io la te d h e r e w h e n th e d is tr ic t c o u r t m a d e f in d in g s a s to l o s s a m o u n tth a twe r e n e i th e rp r o v e n t o th e j u r y n o ra d m i t t e d b y Moj i c a . As 1 M oj i c a ha s pr e s e r ve d thi s c l a i m , the onl y que s t i on r e m a i ni ng i s w he the rthe B o o k er erro r i s h arm l ess. W he r e a n e r r orha s be e n pr e s e r ve d, the gove r nm e ntbe a r s the bur de n ofIn United States v. Galleg os-Aguero, 409 F .3d 1274 (11th Cir. 2005), wedeter mined that 2 statutory Booker er

ror wa s harmless under the less string ent test applied to non-c onstitut ional errors where the district cour

t indicated that it wished to impose the statut ory maxi mum sentenceand ultimately

imposed the maxi mum se ntence in the applicableguidelines rang e. Unlike the sentence in Galleg os-Aguero, Mojica ’s sentenc e wa s infecte d with a constitutional Book er erro r, and the more string ent “be yond a re asonabledoubt” har mless error

standard the ref

ore a p p l i es . See Mathenia , 4 09 F .3 d at 12 91 -9 2 ( dis tin guis hing bet we e n th e ha rm le ssn e ss t e sts a

pp lie d to constitutional and statutory Booker er

roror s). Moreover, the district court i n Galleg os-Aguero indicat e d th at i t w is h e d

to im p o s e a s e nten c e h igh e r

th anth e a

p p li c a b legu id e li n e s r an g e , th

us 5 de m ons tr a t i ng tha tthe e r r ori s ha r m l e s s . U ni t e d S t a t e s v. O l a no, 507 U . S . 725, 2 3 4 - 3 5 ( 1 9 9 3 ) . A c o n s titu tio n a l B o o k e re r r o rc a n b e r e g a r d e d a s h a r m le s s o n ly w he r e i ti s c l e a r“ be y ond a r e a s ona bl e doubttha tthe e r r orc om pl a i ne d of di d not c o n tr ib u te to th e s e n te n c e o b ta in e d .” U n ite d S ta te s v . P a z , 4 0 5 F .3 d 9 4 6 , 9 4 8 ( 1 1 th C i r . 2005) . W he r e w e do notknow w ha ts e nt e nc e the di s tr i c tc our tw oul d ha ve i m pos e d a bs e ntthi s e r r or , the gove r nm e ntc a nnotm e e ti t s bur de n. U ni t e d S t a t e s v. R obl e s , 408 F . 3d 1324, 1327 ( 11th C i r . 2005) ; U ni t e d S t a t e s v. D a vi s , 407 F . 3d 1 2 6 9 , 1 2 7 1 - 7 2 ( 1 1 th C ir . 2 0 0 5 ) ( h o ld in g th a t th e g o v e r n m e n t f a ile d to d e m o n s tr a te tha tnon- c ons t i tut i ona l B ooke re r r orw a s ha r m l e s s w he r e the r e c or d di d not d e m o n s tr a te w h a t s e n te n c e th e d is tr ic t c o u r t w o u ld h a v e im p o s e d a b s e n t th e e r r o r ) . A s s uch, w here the di stri ctcourti nd i ca t ed t hati tw ou l d i m po se the sa m e s ent ence w e r e the gui de l i ne s m e r e l y a dvi s or y , the r i gor ous ha r m l e s s ne s s t e s tf or const i tut i on al er rors i s m et . R ob l es , 40 8 F . 3d at13 27 -28. In no ot her s i tuat i on has thi s c ou rthel d t hatthe go vernm enthas s ucce ss ful l y s ho w n con st i tut i on al B oo ker erro r t o b e h arm l ess. 2providingevidenc e that the de fenda nt suffered no prejudice from the error. Galleg os-Aguero, 409 F .3 d at 12 77 . N o s uc h in dic atio n o f what sentenc e thedis tric t c ourt wo uld imp os e un de r thepo stB oo ke r a dv iso ry guid e lin e s sc he me a pp e ars in the re c ord he re . We a rethu s le ft

to s pe c ulatea s to whether the B ooker error

contributed to the sente nce oppose d.

6 N o n eth eles s, th e g o v er n m en t arg u es th at th e B o o k er er ro r in M o ji ca ’s s e nt e nc e i s ha r m l e s s be c a us e : ( i ) the di s tr i c tc our tw oul d be e nt i t l e d t o i m pos e the s a m e s e nt e nc e unde rthe pos t - B ooke ra dvi s or y gui de l i ne s s y s t e m ; ( i i ) M oj i c a ’ s 41- m o n th sen t en ce i s reaso n ab l e; an d (i i i ) th e d i stri ctco u rti m p o sed th e h i g h est s e nt e nc e i n the a ppl i c a bl e m a nda t or y gui de l i ne r a nge . H ow e ve r , the gove r nm e nt pres ent s no evi dence t o p rove beyond a r ea sonabl e dou btthatthe di stri ctcourt w o u l d h av e actu al l y i m p o sed th e sam e sen t en ce ab sen ti t s d et erm i n at i o n o f th e l o ss a m ountunde rthe pr e ponde r a nc e s t a nda r d. I nde e d, w e c a nnots a y tha tthe c ons t i tut i ona l B ooke re r r ordi d notc ontr i but e t o the s e nt e nc e M oj i c a r e c e i ve d, w here the di stri ctcourt ’ s l oss f i nd i ng di ct at ed M oj i ca ’ s bas e l evel , and t hu s, her m a nda t or y s e nt e nc i ng r a nge . T he r e f or e , w e va c a t e M oj i c a ’ s s e nt e nc e a nd r e m a nd f o rr e - s e n te n c in g c o n s is te n t w ith B o o k e r . V ACAT E D AND RE M ANDE D F OR RE - S E NT E NCI NG.