FI LED U. S . COURT OF AP PE ALS E L E V E N T H C IR C U IT M ar c h 27, 2006 T HOM AS K. KAHN CL 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- 14722 N on -A rgum entC al endar

________________________ D . C . D oc ke tN o. 03- 00168- C R - 001 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 P A T R I C K T H O M P S O N , D e fe 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 fo rth e So u th e r n D i s tr i c to f A l a b a ma

_________________________ ( M ar c h 27, 2006) B efo re T JO F L A T , D U B IN A an d H U L L , C i rcu i tJu d g es. P E R C U R I A M: T he fol l ow i ng corr ec t ed op i ni on w i tho utsubst ant i ve change i s s ub sti tut ed forourM a r c h 27, 2006 opi ni on:2

P a tr ic k T h o m p s o n a p p e a ls h is c o n v ic tio n s a n d s e n te n c e s fo rc o n s p ir a c y to pos s e s s w i th i nt e ntt o di s tr i but e pow de rc oc a i ne a nd c r a c k c oc a i ne , 21 U . S . C . §§ 84 1(a) (1), 84 6; po ss es si on w i th i nt entt o d i stri bu t e pow der c ocai ne and crac k c oc a i ne , 21 U . S . C . § 841( a ) ( 1) ; a nd obs tr uc t i on of j us t i c e , 18 U . S . C . §§ 2, 1 5 1 2 ( c ) ( 1 ) . A f

te rr e v ie w , w e a f

f ir m T h o m p s o n ’s c o n v ic tio n s , b u t v a c a te h is sen t en ces. I . B AC KG RO UN D A . T h o m p so n ’s A rrest I n J u n e 2 0 0 3 , ac o n f

id e n tia l in fo r m a n t ( “C I ” ) to ld C o r p o r a l R o y C u th k e lv in w i th th e M o b i l e Co u n t y , A l a b a maSh e r i f f ’ s D e p a r t me n ta b o u tama n k n o w n a s “ P” w h o u s e d a2 0 0 0 M e r c e d e s a n d a2 0 0 3 C a d illa c w ith M a s s a c h u s e tts r e g is tr a tio n s to tr a ns por tki l ogr a m s of

c oc a i ne f

r om A t l a nt at o M obi l e . O n J ul y 14, 2003, C ut hk el vi n and anot her off i ce r obser ved a brand n ew C adi l l ac and a new er -m od el M e r c e de s , both w i th M a s s a c hus e tt s l i c e ns e pl a t e s a nd i de nt i c a l fa nc y w he e l s , i n the pa r ki ng l otof

a n I nt ow n S ui t e s m ot e l . T he of f i c e r s not e d the t a g num be r s a nd l e a r ne d tha tthe c a r s w e r e r e gi s t e r e d t o aA ppe l l a ntP a tr i c k T hom ps on. T hr ough the m ot el , the offi ce rs al so det er m i ned t hatthere w as no gu es tre gi st er ed as P atri ck T hom ps on, buttha tone c a rw a s l i s t e d a s be l ongi ng t o M or r i s P a r s ons i n r oom 241. L a t e rtha te ve ni ng, of

f i c e r s s t oppe d the M e r c e de s , dr i ve n by T hom ps on,3

a f t e ri te nt e r e d the m ot e l pa r ki ng l ot . T hom ps on de ni e d s t a y i ng a tthe m ot e l a nd in d ic a te d th a t af

r ie n d h a d ar o o m o n th e th ir d f lo o r . T h o m p s o n c o n s e n te d to ap a td o w n s e a r c h , d u r in g w h ic h o f f ic e r s fo u n d fo u ro rf

iv e h u n d r e d d o lla r s a n d ak e y to r oom 241. T hom ps on a l s o c ons e nt e d t o as e a r c h of the M e r c e de s a nd the C adi l l ac . In the trunk of on e c ar , offi ce rs foun d a pl as t i c bag cont ai ni ng thi rt ee n thous a nd dol l a r s i n c a s h, al a r ge qua nt i t y of j e w e l r y , apl a ne ti c ke ti n the na m e of P atri ck T h o m p so n an d so m e d o cu m en t s b eari n g th e n am e M o rri s P arso n s. C uthke l vi n obt a i ne d as e a r c h w a r r a ntforr oom 241. D ur i ng the s e a r c h, of f i c e r s di s c ove r e d, a m ong othe rthi ngs , 1. 5 ki l ogr a m s of c oc a i ne , 217 gr a m s of c r a c k c o c a in e , d ig ita l s c a le s a n d ar e c e ip t in T h o m p s o n ’s n a m e fo ras to r a g e u n it in M a s s a c hus e tt s . T hom ps on w a s a r r e s t e d. I n at a pe d phone c onve r s a t i on f r om j a i l s hor t l y a f

t e rhi s a r r e s t , T hom ps on a s k e d aw o m a n n a m e d T a n y aJ a n ic e L e e to e m p ty th e M a s s a c h u s e tts s to r a g e u n it. L e e di d a s T hom ps on a s ke d a nd r e m ove d as ui t c a s e c ont a i ni ng m one y , ar us t y gun an d so m e c ra ck co ca in e. L ee d isp o se d o f th e g u n , g av e th e c ra ck to T h o m p so n ’s br othe r , ga ve m os tof

the m one y t o T hom ps on’ s fa the ra nd e ve ntua l l y tur ne d the sui t ca se w i th t he re m ai ni ng ca sh ov ert o t he F B I. B . T h om p s on ’ s F i r s tT r i al T h o m p s o n w a s c h a r g e d in as ix - c o u n t in d ic tm e n t w ith : ( 1 ) c o n s p ir a c y to4

pos s e s s w i th i nt e ntt o di s tr i but e pow de rc oc a i ne a nd c r a c k c oc a i ne ( C ount s 1 a nd 2) ; ( 2) pos s e s s i on w i th i nt e ntt o di s tr i but e pow de rc oc a i ne a nd c r a c k c oc a i ne ( C ount s 3 a nd 4) ; ( 3) obs tr uc t i on of j us t i c e ( C ount5) ; a nd ( 4) afor fe i tur e c ount ( Co u n t6 ) . Th o mp s o n mo v e d t o s u p p r e s s th e e v i d e n c e fo u n d i n th e mo t e l r o o m, a r g u in g th a t th e s e a r c h w a s c o n d u c te d b e fo r e o f f ic e r s s e c u r e d as e a r c h w a r r a n t. T hom ps on a tt a c he d t o hi s m ot i on ac opy of the s e a r c h w a r r a nts i gne d by the j udge a nd i s s ue d a t10: 40 p. m . a nd ac opy of C uthke l vi n’ s a r r e s tna r r a t i ve s t a t i ng tha tthe s e a r c h w a s e xe c ut e d a t2140 hour s , or9: 40 p. m . T he di s tr i c tc our t , C hi e f J udge G ran ad e, d en i ed T h o m p so n ’ s m o t i o n t o su p p ress as u n t i m el y. D ur i ng the tr i a l be for e J udge B ut l e r , C uthke l vi n t e s t i f i e d tha tthe s e a r c h of the m ot e l r oom w a s c onduc t e d onl y a f t e rhe obt a i ne d the s e a r c h w a r r a ntf r om the ju d g e a n d th a t th e tim e n o te d in h is a r r e s t n a r r a tiv e w a s aty p o g r a p h ic a l e r r o r . P r i ort o j ur y de l i be r a t i ons , the gove r nm e nta s ke d the di s tr i c tc our tt o r e vi s i tthe pr i orr ul i ng on the m ot i on t o s uppr e s s i n l i ghtof C uthke l vi n’ s t e s t i m ony a boutthe t i m i ng of the se ar ch. Judg e B ut l erconcl ud ed thatT ho m pson had n otbeen prej ud i ce d b y the l ac k o f asupp re ss i on hear i ng beca use the evi dence pres ent ed at tr i a l i ndi c a t e d tha tthe r oom ha d be e n s e a r c he d a f t e rthe of f i c e r s ha d obt a i ne d a search w arran t , as fo l l o w s: A nd I’ m no tgo i ng t o m ake arul i ng on the m ot i on t o sup pres s a s m uch as I ’ m go i ng t o say thatthere appears t o t he C ou rtt o h ave been5

no pr e j udi c e s uf

fe r e d by the de fe nda ntby the i r[ s i c ] notha vi ng a s uppr e s s i on he a r i ng t o be gi n w i th. B e c a us e e ve r y thi ng tha tc a m e out in th e tr ia l te s tim o n y , s u bje c t to c r o s s - e x a m in a tio n , d id n o t in d ic a te any a venu e of possi bl e r el i ef, i f y ou w i l l , fr om the concl usi on that ever yone t es t i fi ed t o, thatthe room w as se ar ched aft erthe w arra ntw as obt a i ne d. A f t e rj ur y de l i be r a t i ons be ga n, the j ur y r e por t e d tha ti tw a s hope l e s s l y de a dl oc ke d, a n d th e d is tr ic t c o u r t d e c la r e d am is tr ia l. C . T h om p s on ’ s S e c on d T r i al I n as upe r s e di ng s e ve n- c ounti ndi c t m e nt , T hom ps on w a s c ha r ge d w i th the s ix c o u n ts d is c u s s e d a b o v e a n d a n a d d itio n a l c o u n t o f o b s tr u c tio n o f

ju s tic e . Th o mp s o n a g a i n mo v e d t o s u p p r e s s th e e v i d e n c e fo u n d i n th e mo t e l r o o m, a s s e r t i ng the unt i m e l i ne s s of the s e a r c h w a r r a nt . T he di s tr i c tc our t , C hi e f J udge G ra nade, agai n d eni ed the m ot i on for l ac k o f s t andi ng and b as ed on the l aw -of- theca se do ctri ne. A ft era s ec on d tri al before Judg e B ut l erpres i di ng , the j ury co n v i ct ed T h o m p so n o f al l sev en co u n t s. D . Se nt e nc i ng T h e P resen t en ce In v est i g at i o n R ep o rt(“ P S I”) reco m m en d ed a b ase o ffen se l e ve l of 34 be c a us e T hom ps on w a s a c c ount a bl e foram a r i j ua nae qui va l e nc y of 4, 64 0 k i l og ra m s. S ee U . S . S . G . § 2 D 1. 1(c) (3) ( 20 02 ). T he P S I r ec om m ended i nc r e a s e s of : ( 1) t w o l e ve l s unde rU . S . S . G . § 2D 1. 1( b) ( 1) be c a us e T hom ps onSpecifically , the PSIstated that co- conspirator Tanya Lee admitted to authorities that the 1 suitcase sheretrieved from Thompson’s storag e unit in Massachusetts contained a small bagof c r ac k , a gu nan dmo n ey. 6 pos s e s s e d af

i r e a r m ; ( 2) fourl e ve l s unde rU . S . S . G . § 3B 1. 1( a ) be c a us e T hom ps on

1 w a s al e a de roror ga ni z e rof the c ons pi r a c y i nvol vi ng f i ve orm or e pa r t i c i pa nt s ; a nd ( 3) t w o l e ve l s forobs tr uc t i on of j us t i c e unde rU . S . S . G . § 3C 1. 1 be c a us e T hom ps on ha d c onc e a l e d a nd a tt e m pt e d t o c onc e a l the e vi de nc e i n the s t or a ge uni t . W i th a to tal o ffen se lev el o f 4 2 an d a c rim in al h isto ry ca teg o ry o f V , T h o m p so n ’s G u id e lin e s r a n g e w a s 3 6 0 m o n th s to life im p r is o n m e n t. T ho m pson obj ec t ed t o t he P S I’ s r ec om m endat i on of a t w o-l evel fi re ar m e nha nc e m e nta nd afour - l e ve l r ol e e nha nc e m e nt . T hom ps on a l s o obj e c t e d t o the m a n d a to r y a p p lic a tio n o f th e G u id e lin e s a n d ju d ic ia l fa c t- f in d in g , p u r s u a n t to B l akel y v. W as hi ng t on , 54 2 U . S . 29 6, 12 4 S . C t . 25 31 (200 4). D ur i ng the s e nt e nc i ng he a r i ng be for e J udge B ut l e r , the gove r nm e nt conceded thata fou r- l evel rol e e nh ance m entw as i napp ropri at e, and t he di stri ct c o u r t lim ite d th e r o le e n h a n c e m e n t to tw o le v e ls p u r s u a n t to U .S .S .G . § 3 B 1 .1 ( c ) . T he di s tr i c tc our tove r r ul e d T hom ps on’ s obj e c t i on t o the f i r e a r m e nha nc e m e nta nd hi s B l a ke l y obj e c t i on. T he di s tr i c tc our ta dopt e d the P S I ’ s c a l c ul a t i ons ( e xc e ptfor the four - l e ve l r ol e e nha nc e m e nt ) . T hi s l e f tT hom ps on’ s t ot a l of

fe ns e l e ve l a t40, w i th ac r i m i na l hi s t or y c a t e gor y of V , r e s ul t i ng i n aG ui de l i ne s r a nge of 3607

m on ths t o l i fe i m pri sonm ent . T he di stri ctcourtre j ec t ed T ho m pson ’ s r equestfor a s e nt e nc e a tthe l ow e nd of the G ui de l i ne s r a nge a nd s e nt e nc e d T hom ps on t o 480 m onths ’ i m pr i s onm e nte a c h on C ount s 1 thr ough 4 a nd 240 m onths ’ i m pr i s onm e nt e a c h on C ount s 5 a nd 6, a l l t o r un c onc ur r e nt l y . T hom ps on t i m e l y a ppe a l e d. I I . DI S CUS S I ON A . M o ti o n to S u p p ress T h o m p s o n a r g u e s th a t th e d is tr ic t c o u r t e r r e d b y n o t h o ld in g ah e a r in g w ith r e g a r d to h is m o tio n to s u p p r e s s . T h o m p s o n c o n te n d s th a t h e h a d s ta n d in g to c ha l l e nge the s e a r c h w a r r a nta nd tha tthe l a w - of- the - c a s e doc tr i ne di d notpr e c l ude the di stri ctcourtfr om re sol vi ng the fa ctual i ss ue of w hether the se ar ch of the m ot el r oom w a s c onduc t e d be for e of f i c e r s obt a i ne d as e a r c h w a r r a nt . W e f i nd no r e ve r s i bl e e r r orw i th r e ga r d t o the di s tr i c tc our t ’ s r e f us a l t o hol d ahe a r i ng.

“ [ A ] tr i a l c our tm a y r e f

us e ade fe nda nt ’ s r e que s tforas uppr e s s i on he a r i ng a n d m o tio n to s u p p r e s s if th e d e fe n d a n t fa ils to a lle g e fa c ts th a t, if p r o v e d , w o u ld r e qui r e the gr a ntof

r e l i e f . ” U ni t e d S t a t e s v. R i c ha r ds on, 764 F . 2d 1514, 1526- 27 ( 11 C i r . 1985) . W e r e vi e w adi s tr i c tc our t ’ s r e f us a l t o hol d ahe a r i ng fora bus e of th di sc re t i on . U ni t ed S t at es v. C oo per, 20 3 F . 3d 12 79 , 12 85 (11 C i r. 20 00 ). A s a th thres ho l d i nq ui ry , court s m ustdet er m i ne w hether adefe nd anthas e st abl i shed s t a ndi ng t o br i ng the m ot i on t o s uppr e s s by s uf f i c i e nt l y a l l e gi ng tha the pos s e s s e d a8

r e a s ona bl e e xpe c t a t i on of pr i va c y i n the a r e as e a r c he d. I d. a t1284. W i th r e ga r d t o s t a ndi ng, T hom ps on a dm i t s tha the r e pe a t e dl y a nd a d a m a n tly d is c la im e d a n y in te r e s t in th e m o te l r o o m o n th e n ig h t o f th e s e a r c h . S uc h adi s c l a i m e rof

ow ne r s hi p ori nt e r e s tde pr i ve s ade fe nda ntof the “ s ubj e c t i ve e xpe c t a t i on of

pr i va c y t o a s s e r ts t a ndi ng . . . . ” U ni t e d S t a t e s v. S w e e t i ng, 933 F . 2d 962, 964 & n. 2 ( 11 C i r . 1991) ( c onc l udi ng tha tde fe nda nt s w ho de ni e d a ny th r e la tio n s h ip w ith th e irm o th e r ’s r e s id e n c e e x c e p t a c c e s s d id n o t h a v e s ta n d in g to obj ec tt o t he se ar ch, despi t e fac tthatgo vernm entes t abl i shed attri al that defe nd ant s a ctual l y l i ved atthe re si dence). A d d i t i o n al l y, T h o m p so n ’ s st an d i n g al l eg at i o n s i n h i s m o t i o n t o su p p ress w e r e in s u f

f ic ie n t to ju s tif

y h o ld in g ah e a r in g . T h e o n ly fa c t T h o m p s o n a lle g e d in hi s m ot i on t o s uppr e s s r e l a ti ng t o s t a ndi ng w a s tha tthe “ gove r nm e ntc ont e nds [r oo m 24 1] t o b e aroom re nt ed by or t o t he defendant . ” W e a gree w i th t he di stri ct c our ttha tthi s a l l e ga ti on i s nots uf f i c i e ntt o e s t a bl i s h s t a ndi ng. S e e C oope r , 203 F . 3 d at1 2 8 4 (h o l d i n g th atd efen d an t s’ o ffh an d referen ces t o h o t el ro o m as “ th ei rs” in m o tio n to s u p p r e s s w a s to o g e n e r a l a n d c o n c lu s o r y to d e m o n s tr a te ar e a s o n a b le e x p e c ta tio n o f

p r iv a c y c o n fe r r in g s ta n d in g a n d th u s d is tr ic t c o u r t d id n o t a b u s e its di s c r e t i on i n r e f

us i ng t o hol d ahe a r i ng) ; U ni t e d S t a t e s v. S ne e d, 732 F . 2d 886, 888 ( 11 C i r . 1984) ( “ T he c onc e pt s of due pr oc e s s do notr e qui r e tha tade fe nda ntw ho th9

fa i l s t o m a ke the f

unda m e nt a l a l l e ga t i ons [ of s t a ndi ng] i n hi s m ot i on t o s uppr e s s be af forded a pretri al hear i ng on hi s m ot i on . ”) . T h o m p s o n p o in ts to C u th k e lv in ’s a f f id a v it in s u p p o r t o f

th e s e a r c h w a r r a n t, w hi c h w a s a tt a c he d t o the m ot i on t o s uppr e s s . I n the a f f i da vi t , C uthke l vi n a ve r r e d, a m ong othe rthi ngs , tha tT hom ps on w a s one of t w o oc c upa nt s of

the m ot e l r oom and t hata key t o roo m 24 1 h ad been foun d o n T ho m pson , bu tal so averre d t hat T hom ps on ha d de ni e d s t a y i ng a tthe m ot e l . G i ve n tha tT hom ps on a dm i t s tha the r e pe a t e dl y a nd a da m a nt l y di s c l a i m e d a ny i nt e r e s ti n the m ot e l r oom on the ni ghtof the s e a r c h, w e c onc l ude C uthke l vi n’ s a f f i da vi ta l s o di d note s t a bl i s h s t a ndi ng for T hom ps on. E ve n a s s um i ng T hom ps on s uf f i c i e nt l y a l l e ge d s t a ndi ng, C hi e f J udge G ran ad e’ s refu sal t o h o l d a h eari n g b efo re ru l i n g o n th e seco n d m o t i o n t o su p p ress w as no tre vers i bl e e rr or. A s not ed abov e, du ri ng the fi rs ttri al , Judg e B ut l erm ade a fi nd i ng thatthe se ar ch w as cond uct ed on l y a ft erthe go vernm entob t ai ned a se ar ch w a r r a n t. T h o m p s o n e m p h a s iz e s th a t J u d g e B u tle rs ta te d a t th e b e g in n in g o f h is c o m m e n ts th a t h e w a s n o t r u lin g o n th e m o tio n to s u p p r e s s . W h e n th is p h r a s e is r e a d i n c ont e xt , how e ve r , i ti s c l e a rtha tJ udge B ut l e rm e a nttha the w a s not c ha ngi ng the e a r l i e rr ul i ng on the f i r s tm ot i on t o s uppr e s s , a nd tha the w a s m a ki ng afa c tu a l f

in d in g a s a d d itio n a l s u p p o r t fo rth a t e a r lie rr u lin g .10

P er h ap s m o re im p o rtan tl y, as C h ief J u d g e G ra n ad e n o ted , T h o m p so n ’s s e c o n d m o tio n to s u p p r e s s w a s “fa c tu a lly id e n tic a l” to h is f ir s t m o tio n to s u p p r e s s . I n othe rw or ds , T hom ps on pr e s e nt e d no ne w e vi de nc e s ugge s t i ng tha tJ udge B ut l er ’ s f

i nd i ng w as erroneou s. U nd erthese ci rc um st ance s, w e c anno tsa y that C h ief J u d g e G ra n ad e a b u se d h er d iscr etio n w h en sh e a d h er ed to Ju d g e B u tl er ’s ea rl i erfa ctual fi nd i ng and d eni ed T ho m pson a hea ri ng t o rec on si der the i ss ue. B . M u l ti p l i ci ty T h o m p s o n a ls o a r g u e s th a t h is in d ic tm e n t w a s m u ltip lic ito u s b e c a u s e it char ged h i m w i th separ at e c ou nt s of c on spi ra cy and p osse ss i on for the cr ac k coca i ne (C ou nt s 1 and 3 ) a nd coca i ne po w der ( C ou nt s 2 and 4 ) fou nd i n t he m ot el room . “ ‘ A n i nd i ctm enti s m ul t i pl i ci t ou s i f i tchar ges asi ng l e off ense i n m ore than one c ount . ’ ” U ni t e d S t a t e s v. S i r a ng, 70 F . 3d 588, 595 ( 11 C i r . 1995) ( quot i ng th U n ite d S ta te s v . H o w a r d , 9 1 8 F .2 d 1 5 2 9 , 1 5 3 2 ( 1 1 C ir . 1 9 9 0 ) ) . th O rdi nari l y, w e r evi ew de no vo w hether c ou nt s i n an i nd i ctm entar e m ul t i pl i ci t ou s. U ni t ed S t at es v. S m i th, 23 1 F . 3d 80 0, 80 7 (11 C i r. 20 00 ). th T ho m pson , ho w ever , di d n otra i se a m ul t i pl i ci t y c hal l enge pri or t o tri al . R ather, T ho m pson ra i se d h i s m ul t i pl i ci t y c hal l enge on l y a ft erthe go vernm enthad res t ed its c a s e a n d T h o m p s o n m o v e d fo rad ir e c te d v e r d ic t. W h e n ad e fe n d a n t fa ils to obj e c tt o m ul t i pl i c i t ous c ount s i n a n i ndi c t m e ntpr i ort o tr i a l , he i s ba r r e d f r omIn any event, there does not a

ppear to be a multiplicityerror with reg ard to Thompson’s 2 sentenc es. In this circuit, the simultaneous possession of different c ontrolled substance s constitutes separate offenses under 21 U.S.C. § 841(a) for

which multiple sentence s may be imposed. See United States v. Davis, 656 F.2d 153, 156-60 ( 5 Cir. Unit B Sept. 1981) th (involving defendant convicted of two counts of possession of a controlled substanc e under § 841(a) , one count f

or marijuana

and one c ount for qualude s, which re sulted in consecutive sentenc es). Thelaw has longdraw n distinctions between crack c ocaineand powder coc aine. See, e.g ., 21 U.S.C. § 841(b)(1)( A)(ii)( II) &(b)( 1)(A) (iii); U.S.S.G. § 2D1.1(c); United States v. Sloan, 97 F.3d 1378, 1381-84 ( 11 Cir. 1996) (explaining the chemical distinctions between th crack coc aine and powder cocaine and c oncludingthat the provisions of § 841(b) and U.S.S.G. § 2D1.1 imposing moresevere penalties for crack c ocainedo not violate the equal protection prongof the DueProcess Clause) ; United States v. Terry , 60 F.3d 1541, 1544- 45 (11 Cir. 1995) th (explaini ngthat Co ngre ss distinguis he d b etw e e n crac k c oc aineandpo wder c oc ainebe c aus e “ c rac k c oc aineis moredang ero us , morehighly addic tiv e , moree a sily

availa ble , andle ss expensive than powder

cocaine” and findingthat the har sher penalties in § 841(b) for crack cocaine do not violate the Equal Protection Clause). B eca use Thompson was c onvicted of possessing and conspiringto possess two different controlled substanc es – crack c ocaineand powder cocaine, he did not re ceivemultipl e sentences f or the sameoffense. 11 chal l engi ng hi s c on vi cti on s a nd m ay chal l enge on l y hi s s epar at e s ent ence s. U ni t ed St a t e s v . G r i n k i e w i c z , 8 7 3 F. 2 d 2 5 3 , 2 5 5 ( 1 1 Ci r . 1 9 8 9 ) ; Fe d . R. Cr i m. P. th 12( b) ( 3) ( B ) . M or e i m por t a nt l y , T hom ps on r e c e i ve d c onc ur r e nts e nt e nc e s on the coun t s he c l ai m s w er e m ul t i pl i ci t ou s. T here fore , even as sum i ng ar gu endo that T ho m pson ’ s m ul t i pl i ci t y c l ai m w as corr ec t , any e rr or w ou l d b e har m l es s. S ee U ni t ed S t at es v. L angford, 94 6 F . 2d 79 8, 80 4-05 (11 C i r. 19 91 ) ( fi nd i ng that th m ul t i pl i ci t ou s s ec uri t i es fr aud cou nt s w er e har m l es s e rr or because se nt ence s w er e co n cu rr en t). A cc o rd in g ly, w e f in d n o re v er sib le er ro r w ith re g ar d to T h o m p so n ’s c onc ur r e nts e nt e nc e s on C ount s 1 a nd 3 ( c r a c k c oc a i ne ) a nd C ount s 2 a nd 4 (pow der c ocai ne). 2 C . C on s t i t u t i on al B ook e r E r r orB e c aus eTh omp so n ti me ly raise d a B lakely ob je c tio n inthedis tric t c ourt , w ereview his 3 Blakely , now B ooker, c laim de novo. United States v. Paz, 405 F.3d 946, 948 (11th Cir. 2005). 12 O n app ea l , T ho m pson ar gu es thatthe di stri ctcourtcom m i tt ed error und er U n ite d S ta te s v . B o o k e r , 5 4 3 U .S . 2 2 0 , 1 2 5 S . C t. 7 3 8 ( 2 0 0 5 ) , b y e n h a n c in g h is se nt ence s bas ed on fa ct s thathe di d n otadm i tand t hatw er e notprov en t o a j ury beyond a r ea sonabl e dou btand b y s ent enci ng hi m un der am andat ory G ui del i nes sc hem e. 3 In B oo ker, the S up re m e C ou rthel d t hatB l akel y a pp l i ed t o t he fe dera l S e n te n c in g G u id e lin e s . U n ite d S ta te s v . R o d r ig u e z , 3 9 8 F .3 d 1 2 9 1 , 1 2 9 7 - 9 8 ( 1 1 th C i r . ) , c e r t . de ni e d, 125 S . C t . 2935 ( 2005) . “ U nde rB ooke r , the r e a r e t w o ki nds of s e nt e nc i ng e r r or s : one i s c ons t i tut i ona l a nd the othe ri s s t a tut or y . ” U ni t e d S t a t e s v. D ac us, 40 8 F . 3d 68 6, 68 8 (11 th C i r. 20 05 ). “ [T ] he S i xt h A m endm entri gh tt o tri al b y ju r y is v io la te d w h e r e u n d e ram a n d a to r y g u id e lin e s s y s te m as e n te n c e is i ncre as ed because of an enhancem entbase d o n fac t s fou nd by the j ud ge thatw er e nei ther a dm i tt ed by the defendantno r fou nd by the j ury. ” R od ri gu ez , 39 8 F . 3d at 12 98 (e m ph as i s om i tt ed). T he st atut ory e rr or occurs w hen t he di stri ctcourt se nt ence s adefe nd ant“ un der am andat ory G ui del i nes s chem e, even i n t he abse nce of aS i xth A m e ndm e nte nha nc e m e ntvi ol a t i on. ” U ni t e d S t a t e s v. S he l t on, 400 F . 3d 13 25 , 13 30 -31 (11 th C i r. 20 05 ). W ith r e g a r d to th e c o n s titu tio n a l B o o k e re r r o r , T h o m p s o n a r g u e s th a t h isThompson conce des in his supplemental brief that therewas no Six th Amendment 4 violation as to the obstruction-of-justiceenhanc ement bec ause thefac ts supporting that enhanc ement were f

ound by the jury beyond a re asonabledoubt at Thompson’s trial. Specifically , the jury

found that Thompson conc eale d and attempted to c onceal currency and documents with the intent to impair their integrity and availabilityfor useat trial. In addition, Thompson does not challeng e the role enhancement, pursuant to U.S.S.G. § 3B1.1(c ). Indeed, at sentenc ing Thompson agree d that a two-level role enhancement was a ppropriate . 13 S i x th A m en d m en tri g h t s w ere v i o l at ed w h en th e d i stri ctco u rtcal cu l at ed h i s b ase o f fe n s e le v e l u s in g d r u g q u a n titie s n o t b a s e d o n aju r y d e te r m in a tio n a n d w h e n it i m pos e d at w o- l e ve l f

i r e a r m e nha nc e m e nt . T he r e w a s no S i xth A m e ndm e nt 4 vi ol a t i on a s t o the dr ug qua nt i t y f i ndi ngs . T hom ps on’ s P S I he l d T hom ps on re spon si bl e for 1. 5 k i l og ra m s of c ocai ne po w der a nd 21 7 g ra m s of c ra ck cocai ne, foram a r i

j ua nae qui va l e nc y of

4, 340 ki l ogr a m s . T hom ps on di d notobj e c tt o the fa c tua l f i ndi ngs of

the P S I , i nc l udi ng the dr ug qua nt i t i e s . N ordi d he obj e c tt o the c a l c ul a t i on of

hi s ba s e of

fe ns e l e ve l us i ng thos e dr ug qua nt i t i e s . T hus , T hom ps on a d m itte d to b e in g r e s p o n s ib le fo ram a r iju a n ae q u iv a le n c y o f 4 ,3 4 0 k ilo g r a m s . A c c or di ngl y , the r e w a s no S i xth A m e ndm e ntvi ol a t i on w i th r e ga r d t o the dr ug qu ant i t y f

i nd i ng . S ee U ni t ed S t at es v. W i l l i am s, 43 8 F . 3d 12 72 , 12 74 (11 C i r. th 2 0 0 6 ) ( c o n c lu d in g th a t, e v e n th o u g h d e fe n d a n t’s c o n v ic tio n w a s b a s e d o n o n ly “f iv e g r a m s o rm o r e ,” th e d is tr ic t c o u r t’s d r u g q u a n tity f in d in g w a s n o t r e v e r s ib le B ooke re r r orbe c a us e de fe nda nt ’ s “ fa i l ur e t o c ont e s tthe 37 gr a m s i m put e d i n the P S I c on sti tut ed an adm i ss i on of thatqu ant i t y” ); se e a l so U ni t ed S t at es v. B urge, 407 F . 3d 1183, 1191- 92 ( 11 C i r . ) , c e r t . de ni e d, 126 S . C t . 551 ( 2005) ; S he l t on, thWe do not sugg est that on remand the district court must impose any particula r sentenc e 5 or that the district court is not free to impose the same sentenc e. Furthermore, as this is a limited remand to permit the district court to determine what sentence is re asonableand appropriate after consideringthe now-advisory Guidelines rang e and thefac tors set forth in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a), Thompson may

not re-a rgue issues alre ady

or nec essarily

decide d duringthe first sentenc ing whic h eith er h avebe e n aff irme d inthi s a

pp e al or c ou ld h avebe e n b ut w ereno t raise d b y him duringthis appeal. SeeUnited States v. Davis, 329 F .3d 1250, 1252 (11 Cir. 2003) (explaining th that when the a

ppellate c ourt issues a limited mandate, “ the trial court is restricted in the rang e of issues it may

consider on remand” ). 14 400 F . 3d a t1330. T here w as , ho w ever , a S i xt h A m endm entvi ol ati on as t o t he fi re ar m en h an ce m en t. W e r ev er se an d re m an d fo r r es en ten cin g o n ly if th e d istrict co u rt’s B ooke re r r orw a s notha r m l e s s . U ni t e d S t a t e s v. C a i n, 433 F . 3d 1345, 1347 ( 11 th C i r . 2005) . F orac ons t i tut i ona l B ooke re r r ort o be ha r m l e s s , the gove r nm e nt

“ m us tpr ove be y ond ar e a s ona bl e doubt‘ the m a nda t or y , a s oppos e d t o the ad v iso ry , ap p li ca ti o n o f th e g u id elin es d id n o t co n trib u te to th e d efen d an t’ s s e nt e nc e . ’ ” I d. a t1348 ( quot i ng U ni t e d S t a t e s v. D a vi s , 407 F . 3d 1269, 1271 ( 11 th C i r . 2005) ) . H e r e , the gove r nm e ntha s notm e ti t s bur de n t o s how tha tthe c ons t i tut i ona l B ooke re r r orw a s ha r m l e s s . “ W e s i m pl y do notknow w ha tthe se nt enci ng courtw ou l d h ave don e had i tun ders t oo d t he gu i del i nes t o b e a dv i sory r a th e rth a n m a n d a to r y , a n d h a d p r o p e r ly c o n s id e r e d th e fa c to r s in 1 8 U .S .C . § 3553( a ) . ” D a vi s , 407 F . 3d a t1271. A cc o rd in g ly, w e a ff

irm T h o m p so n ’s co n v icti o n s, b u t w e v ac ate T h o m p so n ’s s e nt e nc e s a nd r e m a nd forr e s e nt e nc i ng c ons i s t e ntw i th thi s opi ni on. 5 A FFI R M ED I N PA R T, VA C A TED A N D R EM A N D ED I N PA R T.