FILED U.S. COURT OF AP P E A LS E LE V EN T HC IRC U IT AUGUST 10, 2005 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. 04- 13428 N on -A rgum entC al endar

________________________ D. C . Do c k e tNo . 0 3 - 0 0 1 2 2 - C R - F T M- 2 9 - DN F 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 F R A N C I S M A C K E Y D A V I S O N , I I I , 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 M i ddl e D i s tr i c tof F l or i da

_________________________ ( A u gu s t 10, 2005) S UB S T I T UT E D OP I NI ON B efo re B L A C K , M A R C U S an d P R Y O R , C i rcu i tJu d g es. P E R C U R I A M: T he panel ’ s opi ni on i n t hi s ca se issu ed on A pri l 20 , 20 05 . T he m andat e w as2

w ith h e ld p u r s u a n t to a r e q u e s t b y a n a c tiv e ju d g e o n t h i s C o u r t. W e s u a s p o n te v a c a te o u rp r io ro p in io n a n d s u b s titu te th e f o llo w in g o p in io n in its p la c e : F ra nci s M ac key D avi son, II I, appeal s hi s 120 -m on th sent ence , i m po se d a fter h e p le d g u ilty t o p o s s e s s in g c h ild p o r n o g r ap h y , in v io la tio n o f 1 8 U .S .C . § 22 52 (a )( 4)(B ) a nd (b)( 2). O n app ea l , D avi son argues thatthe di stri ctcourterre d by i m pos i ng a n e nh a nc e d s e nt e nc e , ba s e d o n h i s pr i ors t a t e c on vi c t i on f orl ew d c onduc tw i th a m i nor , be c a us e t h atf a c tw a s notc ha r ge d i n the i ndi c tm e ntor e xpr e s s l y a dm i t t e d by hi m d u ri n g t h e pl e a c ol l oquy , i n vi ol a t i on of A ppr e ndi v. N e w J e r s e y , 5 3 0 U . S . 4 6 6 , 1 2 0 S . C t. 2 3 4 8 , 1 4 7 L . E d . 2 d 4 3 5 ( 2 0 0 0 ) , a n d B la k e ly v. W as hi ng t on , 54 2 U . S . __ , 12 4 S . C t . 25 3 1 , 1 5 9 L . E d. 2d 40 3 (20 04 ), w hi ch w as e x t e n d e d t o th e f

e d e r a l Se n t e n c i n g G u i d e l i n e s i n U n i t e d St a t e s v . Bo o k e r , 5 4 3 U . S.

__ , 12 5 S . C t . 73 8 (20 05 ). D avi son t i m el y r ai se d h i s s ent enci ng cl ai m i n th e d i stri ctcourtand h i s i ni t i al bri ef i n t hi s C ou rt , and t hu s he i s e nt i t l ed t o p re se rved err or re vi ew . S ee U ni t ed S t at es v . C andel ar i o, 24 0 F . 3d 13 00 , 13 05 (11t h C i r. 20 01 ) ( re vi ew i ng pres erved A ppr e ndi c l a i m ) . U nde rthi s s t a nda r d, w e l ook f i r s tt o w he the rthe r e w a s e r r ora nd, i f so , w e u n d ert ak e a h arm l ess erro r an al ysi s. Id . at 1 3 0 7 ; U n i t ed S t at es v . N eal y, 232 F . 3d 825, 829 ( 11th C i r. 2000) ( r e vi e w i ng pr e s e r ve d c ons t i tut i ona l c ha l l e nge t o a s e nt e nc e de novo, buts t a t i ng w e “ w i l l r e ve r se orr e m a nd onl y f orha r m f ul3

e r r o r ” ) . U p o n th o ro u g h rev i ew o f th e reco rd an d carefu l co n si d erat io n o f th e p art i es’ b r i e f s , w e f i n d n o r e v e r s i b l e e r r o ra n d a f f i r m. T he r e l e va ntf

a c t s a r e s tr a i ght f

orw ard. O n N ove m be r12, 2003, by s u p e r s e d in g in d ic tm e n t, D a v is o n w a s c h a r g e d w ith o n e c o u n t o f p o s s e s s in g c h ild p o r n o g r a p h y , in v io la tio n o f 1 8 U .S .C . § 2252( a ) ( 4) ( B ) , ( b )(2) ( C ount1) , a nd one c o u n t o f r e c e iv in g c h ild p o r n o g r ap h y th a t w a s s h i p p e d o r tr a n s p o r te d in in te r s ta te and forei gn com m er ce , i n v io lati on of 18 U . S . C . § 2 25 2(a) (2), (b)( 1) (C ou nt2). D a vi s on s ubs e que nt l y p l e d gui l ty t o C ount1 a nd, upon the gove r nm e nt ’ s m ot i on, th e d is tr ic t c o u r t d is m is s e d C o u n t 2 . T h e g o v e r n m e n t p r o v id e d th e f o llo w in g f

a c tu a l b a s is f

o rD a v is o n ’s p le a in i t s N ot i c e of

P e na l t i e s , E l e m e nt s , a nd F a c t s ( “ N ot i c e ” ) . O n A ugus t29, 2003, F e d e r a l B u r e a u o f

I n v e s tig a tio n ( “F B I ” ) S p e c i a l A g e n t J o h n K u c h ta s p o k e w ith O ff i cer M au re en T re l ea se , of the F l ori da D epar tm entof C orre ct i on s. O ff i ce r T r e l e a s e ha d be e n D a vi s on’ s pr oba t i on of f i c e rs i nc e D a vi so n w as r e l e a s e d f r om s t a t e pr i s on on J ul y 17, 2001, a f t e rbe i ng c onvi c t e d of c om m i t t i ng l e w d or l a s c i vi ous c onduc tw i th a vi c t i m unde r16 y e a r s ol d. A l s o o n A ugus t29, 2003, a nothe rF B I a ge n t w en t t o D a vi s on’ s pl a c e of bus i ne s s , c onf

i r m i ng tha tD a vi s on w a s e m p lo y e d th e r e .4

T here af t er , i n S ept em ber 200 3, a f eder al se ar ch w arra ntw as exec ut ed at D a v is o n ’s p la c e o f

b u s in e s s f

o rD a v is o n ’s c o m p u te ra n d a ll s t o r e d e le c tr o n ic i nf or m at i o n l o c a t e d a tD a vi s on’ s de s k. A s ubs e que ntf or e ns i c e xa m i na t i on of

the c om put e rr e ve a l e d 23 orm or e m ovi e / i m a ge f i l e s , w hi c h w e r e c hro n i cl e d i n the N ot i c e , a l l de pi c t i ng pr e pube s c e ntc hi l dr e n e nga ge d i n s e x a c t s . W he n c onf r ont e d, D avi son p rovi ded a ful l confes si on . T he N o ti ce in di ca t ed thatthe m axi m um t erm o f im p r is o n m e n t w a s 1 5 y e a r s . D ur i ng the pl e a c ol l oquy , the di s tr i c tc our tc l a r i f i e d tha tthe m a xi m um pe na l ty w a s di f

f e r e ntf r om w ha tw a s pr e s e nt e d i n t he N ot i c e , w hi c h D a vi s on ac kn ow l ed g ed re ce i vi ng . T he di stri ctcourtst at ed thatthe m axi m um penal ty w as 1 0 years’ i m p ri so n m en t , b u t , th ati f D av i s o n h a d c ert ai n typ es o f p ri o r co n v i ct i o n s, th e r e c o u ld b e a n e n h a n c e m e n t, w h ic h w o u ld in c r e a s e th e im p r is o n m e n t r a n g e to 10 t o 20 y e a r s . A t t h at poi nt , the di s tr i c tc our ta dvi s e d D a vi s on tha ti tdi d not k n o w w h e th e r D a v is o n ’s p r io r c o n v ic tio n q u a lif ie d h im f

o rt h e e n h a n c e m e n t, s t a t i ng tha tthe de t e rm i n at i on w oul d be m a de a ts e nt e nc i ng, ba s e d on the p r e sen t en ce i n v est i g at i o n rep o rt (“ P S I”). T h e d i stri ct j u d g e ag ai n rei t erat ed th atit w a s po s s i bl e tha tD a vi s on ’ s pr i orc on vi c t i on w ou l d r e s ul ti n the i mpos i t i on of a s e n te n c e th a t c a r r i e d a m a n d a to r y m in im u m s e n te n c e o f 1 0 y e a r s ’ im p r is o n m e n t. D a vi s on r e pl i e d tha the unde r s t ood. T he di s tr i c tco u rt the n e xpl a i ne d tha tthe5

S e n te n c in g G u id e lin e s a r e “[ e ]s s e n tia lly a s e t o f ru lin g s th a t th e [ c ]o u r t h a s to fol l ow i ng i n d ec i di ng w h atse nt ence shou l d b e i m po se d. ” T he courtfurther e xpl a i ne d tha tthe P S I ha d t o be pr e pa r e d i n o rd er t o de t e r m i ne ( 1) how the G ui de l i ne s w oul d appl y t o D a vi s on’ s s e nt e nc e , a nd ( 2) the a ppl i cabl e m a xi m um pe na l ty , w hi c h w oul d be based , i n pa r t , on D a vi s on’ s pr i orr e c or d. D a vi s on a c know l e dge d tha the unde r s t ood. T he gove r nm e ntthe n pr of f e r e d th e fact s s uppor t i ng the c ha r ge a nd D a vi s on ac kn ow l edged t hatthe fa ctual p ro ff erw as ac cura t e. T he di stri ctcourtas ked D a v is o n if

h e h a d “ r e a d t h e f

a c ts s e t f o r th in th a t [ N ]o tic e ? I t’s s e v e r a l p a g e s ,” to w hi ch D avi son r epl i ed, “ I haven’ t re ad them at l engt h. . . . I ki nd of g lo ss ed ov er them . ” T he courtthen d i re ct ed D avi son t o re v iew the ent i re fa ctual basi s c on t ai ned i n t he N ot i ce and i nd i ca t e w hether there w er e a ny po rt i on s thatw er e notac cu ra t e. A f t e rr e vi e w i ng the N ot i c e , D a vi s on obj e c t e d t o, i nt e ra l i a , the s pe c i f i c c hr oni c l e of f i l e s s t or e d on hi s c om put e r , i ndi c a t i ng tha the c oul d notr e c a l l t h e e xa c tf i l e s , but st at i ng thathe “ fr ee l y a dm i t [e d] hi s gui l tand th at h e h ad m at er i al s on h i s c om pu t er th a t h e [ k n e w w e r e ] in v io la tio n o f th e la w .” D a v is o n th e n a d m itte d to do w nl oadi ng the chroni cl ed m ov i es / i m ages . F i nd in g thatD avi son’ s pl eaw as kn ow i ng and v ol u n tary , th e c ou rtac ce pt ed hi s pl eaof gu i l ty. D avi son t hen pr oc e e de d t o s e nt e nc i ng.6

T he P S I c al cul at ed a t ot al adj ust ed b as e o ff en se l evel of 24 and a cri m i nal hi s t or y c a t e gor y I I I , w hi c h pr oduc e d a n i ni t i a l s e nt e nc i ng ran g e of 63 t o 78 m on ths’ i m pri sonm ent . B ec au se the st atut ori l y r equi re d m i ni m um se nt ence w as gr e a t e rtha n the appl i c a bl e G ui de l i ne r a nge , how e ve r , the pr oba t i on of f i c e rf ound th atth e G u id e lin e i m p ri so n m en tran g e w as th e st atu t o ry m i n i m u m , o r 1 2 0 m o n th s, unde r U . S . S . G . § 5G 1. 1( c ) ( 2) a nd 18 U . S . C . § 2252( b) ( 2) . I n c a l c u l at i n g t he s t a tut or y m i ni m um s e nt e nc e , th e P S I not e d tha t , i n 2000, w he n D a vi s on w a s 26 y e a r s ol d, he w a s c onvi c t e d by a F l or i da c our tof l e w d orl a s c i vi ous c onduc tw i th a 5 - y e a r - o ld g ir l. A tthe se nt enci ng heari ng , D avi son o bj ec t ed t o i m po si t i on of the m andat ory m in im u m s e n t e n c e , a r g u in g th a t b e c a u s e h is p r io rc o n v ic tio n w a s n o t c h a r g e d in th e su p er se di ng i nd i ctm ent , i tcoul d n otbe used as a bas i s f or the enhanced s e nt e nc e . D a vi s on a r gue d tha tthe S upr e m e C ou rt ’ s d eci s i on i n A ppr e ndi unde r c ut its e a r lie rd e c is io n in A lm e n d a r e z - T o r r e s v . U n ite d S ta te s , 5 2 3 U .S . 2 2 4 , 1 1 8 S . C t. 1219, 140 L . E d. 2d 35 0 ( 1998) ( hol di ng tha tthe f a c tof a pr i orc onvi c t i on ne e d not be al l eged i n t he i nd i ctm entor subm i tt ed to the j ury i n o rdert o b e use d t o enh ance a sen t en ce). D av i so n ask ed th atth e d i stri ctco u rtt o o v erru l e A l m en d arez-T o rres. T he di stri ctcou rt re sp o nd ed: “ S o you ar e i nv i t i ng m [e ] t o o verrul e the U ni t ed S ta te s S u p r e m e C o u r t? ” to w h ic h D a v is o n r e s p o n d e d , “Y e s .” N o t in g th a t th is7

C our t ’ s pr e c e de ntw a s c l e a ron the i s s ue , the di s t ri c tc our te xpl a i ne d tha tA ppr e ndi d o e s n o t r e q u ir e th a t th e g o v e r n m e n t a lle g e th e p r io rc o n v ic tio n in th e in d ic tm e n t. A s s u c h , th e c o u r t o v e r ru le d th e o b je c tio n , f in d in g n o e r r o ru n d e rA p p r e n d i. T h e d is tr ic t c o u r t th e n a d o p te d th e P S I ’s f a c tu a l s ta te m e n ts , a s w e l l a s its a p p l i c a t i o n o f

th e G u i d e l i n e s , n o t i n g th a t , “ be c a us e o f th e ma n d a t o r y mi n i mu m, tha ti s s om e w ha ta c a de m i c . ” A f t e rc onc l udi ng tha tD a vi s on w a s s ubj e c tt o the st atu t o ry m an d at o ry m i n i m u m se n te n ce, th e co u rtsen t en ced h i m t o 1 2 0 m o n th s’ i m pr i s onm e nt . T hi s a ppe a l f ol l ow e d. D avi son argues thatthe di stri ctco u rt er red b y e nh anci ng hi s s ent ence base d o n h is p ri o r co n v i ct i o n b ecau se th atfactw as n o tch arg ed i n th e i n d i ctm en t, i ncl ud ed i n t he go vern m ent ’ s N ot i ce , or expres sl y a dm i t t ed by hi m du ri ng the pl ea c ol l oquy . I n B ooke r , t he S upr e m e C our the l d tha tthe m a nda t or y na tur e of the fe d er al G u id elin es re n d er ed th em in co m p atib le w ith th e S ix th A m e n d m en t’ s gua r a nt e e t o the r i ghtt o a j ur y tr i a l . S e e 543 U . S . __, 125 S . C t . a t749- 50. H ow ever , the C ou rtl ef tun di stu rb ed i t s hol di ng i n A l m endarez -T orre s, that re cid iv ism i s nota s epar at e e l em entof an offense thatthe go vernm enti s r equi re d t o pr ove be y ond a r e a s ona bl e doubt . S e e 523 U . S . at 2 47, 118 S . C t . a t1233. M o reo v er, i n i t s recen tB o o k er d eci si o n , th e C o u rtag ai n reaffirm ed i t s h o l d i n g fi rst p r o n o u n c e d in A p p r e n d i: “A n y f a c t ( o th e rth a n a p r io r c o n v ic tio n ) , w h ic h is8

n e c e s s a r y to s u p p o r t a s e n te n c e e x c e e d in g th e m a x im u m a u th o r iz e d b y th e f a c ts est a bl i s he d by a pl e a of gui l ty ora j ur y ve r di c tm us ta dm i t t e d by the de f e nda ntor p r o v e d to a ju ry b e y o n d a r e a s o n a b le d o u b t.” 1 2 5 S . C t. a t 7 5 6 ( e m p h a s is a d d e d ) . S i m pl y put , “ the C our t ’ s hol di ng i n B ooke r , tha tthe G ui de l i ne s c a nnotbe m andat ory c on si st entw i th a defendant ’ s S i xt h A m endm entri gh t s, i s noti m pl i ca t ed w hen a defe nd ant ’ s se nt ence i s enhanced bas ed on a pri or conv i ct i o n .” U ni t ed S t at e s v. O r du no - M i r e l e s , 40 5 F. 3d 96 0, 96 2 ( 11 th Ci r . 20 05 ) . W e ha ve he l d t hat

“ A l m en d ar ez -T orre s r em ai ns the l aw un t i l the S up re m e C ou rtdet erm i nes that A l m en d ar ez -T orre s i s notcont rol l i ng prec edent . ” U ni t ed S t at es v. G uadam uzS ol i s, 23 2 F . 3d 13 63 , 13 63 (11t h C i r. 20 00 ); se e a l so U ni t ed S t at es v. M ar se il l e, 37 7 F . 3d 12 49 , 12 57 & n. 14 (11t h C i r. ) ( re fusi ng to int erpretA pp re nd i as ove r rul i ng the pr i orS upr e m e C our tde c i s i on i n A l m en d ar e z - T or r e s , a nd c onc l udi ng tha tB l a ke l y “ doe s nott a ke s uc h f act - f i ndi ng outof

the ha nds of

the co u rts” ), ce rt. d en ie d , 1 2 5 S . C t. 6 3 7 (2 0 0 4 ). In sh o rt, th e S u p re m e C o u rt’s de c i s i on i n A l m e nda r e z - T or r e s “ w a s l e f tundi s turbe d by A p p r e ndi , B l a ke l y , a nd B o o k e r ” a n d th a t “a d is tr ic t c o u r t d o e s n o t e r rb y r e ly in g o n p r io rc o n v ic tio n s to e nha nc e a de f

e nda nt ’ s s e nt e nc e . ” U ni t e d S t a t e s v. S he l t on, 400 F . 3d 1325, 1327 ( 11th C i r . 200 5 ) ; O r duno- M i r e l e s , 405 F . 3d a t962 ( f i ndi ng no S i xth A m e ndm e nt vi ol a t i on ba s e d on 16- l e ve l e nha nc e m e ntunde rU . S . S . G . § 2L 1. 2( b) ( 1) ( A ) ( i i ) f orTo the extent Davison sug g ests he did not admit to the prior conviction, base d on our 1 review of the ple a co l l o quy , his argument is contrar y to the rec ord. After reviewingthe Notice at the plea c olloquy , Davison noted what he cons i d er ed to be inaccuracie s concerningthe ty pes and contents of f

iles found on his computer. No t ab ly , he did not contest that he previously was c onvic te d o f l e wd c on du c t with a min or . Mo re ov e r, at the sentenc inghe aring , h edid no t ob je c t to the PSI ’s re citation of the prior conviction. Finally , Davison ac knowledg ed, duringhis plea c oll oq uy, th at the prior

c onvic tio n c ould s e rv ea s a ba sis fo r a

n enh anc e ment t

hat w ould s ub

je c t him to a mand ator

y minimum term

of 10 ye ars ’ impriso nment. In im po singthestatutorily

mand ate d minimum term , th edis tric t c ourt no te d th at, “be c a

us e of the mandatory minimum ,” Davison’s Apprendi argument was “ somewhat academic.” Thedistrict court wa s not operatingunder a mistaken assumption that the Guidelines were mandatory (rather, the sentenc e wa s mandated by statute). Thus, Booker statutory error did not occur -- a fter B ooker, dis tric t c o urts r e main

b o un d b y th e s tatuto r

y min im ums . Se eSh e lto n , 4 0 0 F . 3 d at 1 3 3 3 n . 1 0 ( “ We emphasize that the district court wa s, and still is , bound by the statutory

minimum s.”). 9 pri or conv i ct i on s) . B e c a us e , a f

t e r B ooker, a d i s tr i c t c our t s t i l l i s a bl e t o r e l y on pr i orc onvi c t i ons in im p o s in g s e n te n c e , a n d D a v is o n a d m itte d , d u r in g h is p le a c o llo q u y , to a s ta te c o n v ic tio n f

o r le w d c o n d u c t in v o lv in g a m in o r , th e d is tr ic t c o u r t d id n o t e r rin its re so lut i on of D avi son’ s c on st i tut i on al se nt enci ng cl ai m s. A cc ordi ng l y, w e a ff i rm 1 D avi son’ s s ent ence . AF F I RME D.