### FI LED U.S. COURT O F APP EALS ELEVENTH CIRCUIT Ma y 3 , 2 005 THO MAS K. KAH N CL ERK [DO NOT PUBLISH] IN THE UN ITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FO R T HE EL EV EN TH CIRC UI T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- 1042 1 Non-A rgum ent Calendar

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ D. C. Docket N o. 03-14034 -CR- KMM UNITED STAT ES OF AMERIC A, Pl ai nt iff -Ap pe ll ee, ve rs us RICHAR D ANTHO NY MANDILE, 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 3 , 200 5) Befo re CARNES, HULL and PRYOR, Ci rcu itJu dg es . PE R CU RIA M: T his appe al of

Ri ch ar d A nth ony

Mandi le r eg ar din g th e pr opr ie ty of his 240 -2

m onth prison senten ce f

or bank robbery

is on rem and from

the United State s Suprem e Court for f

urther consideration in th e light of United States v. Booker,

___ U . S. ___ , 125 S . Ct . 738 ( 2005 ). Mandi le v. U nit ed S ta te s, ___

U . S. ___ , 125 S. Ct . 14 05 (20 05 ). Beca us e o urpre vi ou s o pi ni on was v acat ed , we con si de r two iss ue s: f ir st, w he the r the dis tr ic t c ourt e rr ed by pun ish ing Mandi le tw ic e fo r his escape attem

pt; and second , whether Mandile wa s incorrectly sentenced under Bo ok er. Afte r rec on si de rat io n, we ag ai n a ffi rm Man di le ’s sen te nc e. Mandi le ple ad ed

gui lty to bank r obbe ry , but

be fo re se nte nc ing Mandi le assaulted a feder al m arshal w hile attem pting to escape fr om

custody . W e re view de novo Madile’ s argum ent that the district court incorrectly applied sentence enhanc em en ts t o punis h hi m tw ic e fo r his e sc ap e atte m pt. U nit ed

S ta te s v. Am edeo, 370 F. 3d 13 05, 1312 (11t h Cir. 2004 ). U nder 18 U. S. C. section 374 2(f)( 1), w e m

ust rem and this case if Mandile’ s sentence wa s im posed be ca use the dis tr ic t c ourt a

ppl ie d th e se nte nc ing gui de lin es inc or re ct ly unl es s “ the error did no t affe ct the district court’ s selection of the sentence im posed.” W il li am s v . Uni te d S ta te s, 5 03 U.S. 19 3, 2 03 , 11 2 S . Ct. 1 11 2, 1 12 1 (1 99 2) . Be ca use Mandi le r ec ei ve d an e nhanc ed se nte nc e fo r be ing ac ar ee r of fe nde r an d th e en ha nc em en ts ab ou t wh ic h M an di le co m pl ai ns di d n ot affe cthi s s en te nc e, we a f f i rm.3

Mandile pleaded guil ty

to a violation of 18 U. S. C. section 211 3(a), which resulted in a base offense level of 20. A t the sentencing h earing, the district court rai se d a nddi sc us se d p ot en ti al en ha nc em en ts forMan di le ’s esc ap e at te m pt . Mandi le arg ue s th at

the dis tr ic t c ourt sh oul d no t have a ssi gne d bo th an ob str uc tio n of j ust ic e enhanc em en t and an e nhanc em en t f or r ec kle ss e ndange rm en t and as sault ing the m ar sha l i n th e co ur se of his e sc ap e atte m

pt, w hic h, c om

bin ed w ith oth er e nhanc em en ts a

bout w hic h M an dil e doe s no t c om pla in, r ai se d hi s of

fe nse level to 28. Bec ause he w as a category VI car eer crim inal, Mandile w as assigned an ad jus te d o ffen se lev el of 3 2. Ba se d o n t ho se cal cu la ti on s, u nd er s ect io n 4 B1 .1 of the se nte nc ing gui de lin es , Mandi le r ec ei ve d th e statut or y m ax im um of 240 m on th s’ im

pr is on m en t. A cc or din g to se ct ion4B 1. 1 of the G uid el ine s, ac ar ee r of fe nde r w ill be as sig ne d th e gr eate r of

e ith er the of fe nse le ve l i n su

bse ct ion( b) or

the m ax im

um of fe nse le ve l tha t the of

fe nde r ha s e ar

ne d ba se d onoth er

c al cu latio ns. Mandi le wa s sentenced, w ithou t objec tion, as a career offender; e ven if the district court er re d by inc lud ing the e nhanc em en ts f or obs tr uc tio n of j ust ic e an d r ec kle ss e n d an g e rmen t , th o s e e n h a n c e men t s d i dn o ta f f e c th i s s e n t e n c e . Th e e rr o r , i f an y, was ha rm le ss . Se co nd, Mandi le ’ s B ooke r ar gum en t f ai ls b ec au se he w ai ve d th at arg um en t4

by f ai lin g to pr es en t i t i n hi s in iti al br ie f. Mandi le c ite d B lake ly v. W as hin gto n,

___ U . S. ___ , 124 S . Ct . 253 1 ( 2004 ), f or the f ir st t im e as sup ple m en ta l auth or ity to this Court after

he filed his initial brief, which didnot raise a Blakely /Booker ar gum en t. T ha t su

ppl em en ta l auth or ity

w as str uc k by thi s C ourt, and w as not co nsi de re d inour

e ar lie r pane l de ci sio n. U nit ed S ta te s v. L ev y , 379 F . 3d 1 241, 12 42 -4 4 (1 1t h C ir.) , reh eari ng en ba nc de ni ed , 39 1 F .3d13 27 (11 th Cir . 20 04 ). AFFIRMED.