FI L ED U.S. COURT OF A P P E A LS E LE V EN T H C IR C U IT J UNE 6, 2005 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N CL ERK [DO NOT PUBLISH] IN THE UN ITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FO R T HE EL EV EN TH CIRC UI T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- 1411 6 Non-A rgum ent Calendar

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ D. C. Docket N o. 04-00020 -CR- 1 UNITED STAT ES OF AMERIC A, Plaintiff-Appellee, ve rs us CORY LAMONT CARROLL, D ef en dant- Appe llant.

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ __ Appe al f ro m the U nit ed

S ta te s D istri ct

Co urt fo r the S outhe rnD istri ct

of G eo rg ia

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ _ ( June 6, 200 5) Be fo re T JO FL A T , H U L L and W IL SO N , Ci rc uit Jud ge s. PE R CU RIA M: App el la nt pl edgu il ty to p os se ss io n o f a fi rear m by a con vi ct edfel on , a violatio n of 18 U. S. C. § 922 (g)(1), and the court sentenced him to prison for a te rm of 70 m onths. H e nowappe al s hi s se nte nc e, c ont en din g th at Bl ak el y v.2

W as hin gto n, 542 U . S. ___ , 124 S . Ct . 253 1 ( 2004 ), and the S ixth A m en dm en t precluded the district court from enhancing his offense level based on a f act that he did not a dm it as tr

ue . I n U nit ed

S ta te s v. Bo oke r, 543 U . S. ___ , 125 S . Ct . 738 , (2 005) , the S upr em e Co urt m ad e Bl ak el y ’ s r at ion al e ap pli ca ble to the S en te nc ing Gui de li ne s. T he pr es en te nc e re port ( PS I) se t a ppe llant’ s ba se of

fe nse le ve l at 20 pur suant t o U . S. S. G . § 2K2. 1( a) (4 ), and, ba se d oninf orm at ionpr ovi de d by

the ATF—t ha t t he fir earm

ap pe ll an t p os se ss edha d b een st ol en—t he rep or t ad de d t wo poi nts to the ba se of

fe nse le ve l purs uant t o U . S. S. G . § 2K2. 1( b) (4 ). C iti ng Blakely , a

ppellant ob

j ected to this upward adj ustm ent on the grou nd that he had no t ad m it te d, an d wo ul d n ot ad m it , th atth e fi rear m was s to le n. Th e ADDENDUM to the P SI not ed

the obj ec tio n. Appe llant r ep eate d hi s B lake ly obj ec tio n a t the sentencing h earing, Rec ord, V ol. 2 at 2, and the court noted th at he had

“ pr es erv ed[th e o bjec ti on ] fo r ap pe al .” Id . At 3 . Uni te d S ta te s v . Davi s, 2 00 5 WL 10 33 42 2 (1 1 Cir . (Ga.)), te ach es th at“ we th [m ust ] r ev er se [ the de fe ndant’ s se nte nc e] and r em an d [ the c as e fo r re se nte nc ing ] unl es s th e G ove rn m en t c ande m onstrate that the e rr or w as harm le ss b ey ond a re as ona ble doubt . . . that the e rr or c om pla ine d of

did not c ontri but e to the se nte nc e. ” I d. I n th is c as e, the G uid el ine s se nte nc e range –- inc lud ing the3

ch al le nge d tw o- le ve l up w ar d a dj ustm en t— ca lle d f or ate rm of im pr iso nm en t of

63 to 7 8 m onths; appe llant’ s se nte nc e fa lls one m onth be lowthe m idp oin t of thi s range . T he se nte nc ing tr an sc ri pt i nf orm s us that the Bl ak el y

/B ooke r er

ro r did not co ntr ibu te to the se nte nc e in this c as e. A ft er takin g a ppe llant’ s c onsi de ra

ble crim inal histo ry

into account, the court stated: “ I have im posed th e sentence because I do believe, under all the fac ts and the his tory , this whole situation, that this m eets the sentence obj ective of punishm ent, deter rence and incapacitation.” Re co rd , V ol. 2 a t 12 . A lth oughthe c ourt di d no t c ite 18 U . S. C. § 35 53( a) (2 ), it s sentence ref

lected the sentencing purpo ses § 355 3(a)( 2) sets forth, i. e. , the ver y sentencing p urposes the court would hav e to consider anew if w e vacate d ap pe ll an t’s s en te nc e an d re m an de d t he cas e fo r res en te nc in g. AFFIRMED.