FILED U.S. COURT OF AP P EALS E LEV EN T HC IRC U IT NOVEMB ER 29 , 2005 THOMAS K. KAH

N CLERK [ P UB L I S H] I N TH E U N I TED STA TES C O U R T O F A PPEA LS F O R T H E E L E V E N T H C IR C U IT

________________________ N o. 04- 16745 N on - A r gu m e n t C al e n d ar

________________________ D . C. D o c k e tN o . 0 4 - 0 0 1 9 9 - CR- T- 2 6 TBM 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 J A M I E G E N A R D O G L O V E R , D e f e n d a n t- A p p e lla n t.

________________________ A p p ealfr om th e U n i te d S tate s D i st ri ct C ou rt f o r t he M i ddl e D i s t r i c t o f Fl o r i da

_________________________ ( N ove m b e r 29, 2005) B efo re T J O F L A T , A N D E R S O N a n d P R Y O R , C i rcu i t J u d g es. P E R C U R I A M:2

J a m i e G e na r do G l ove rappe a l s hi s c onvi c t i on a nd s e nt e nc e f orbe i ng af

e l on in p o s s e s s io n o f

af ir e a rm . 1 8 U .S .C . § 9 2 2 ( g ) ( 1 ) . G lo v e rr a is e s th r e e a r g u m e n ts o n ap p e a l: ( 1 ) th e d is tr ic t c o u r t e rr o n e o u s ly f o u n d th a t G lo v e r ’s s ta te m e n t to f e de r a l a ge nt s w a s a dm i s s i bl e be c a us e he w a i ve d hi s M i r a ndar i ght s , ( 2) the e vi de nc e w a s i ns uf

f i c i e ntt o s uppor tagui l ty ve r di c t , a nd ( 3) dur i ng s e nt e nc i ng the di s tr i c tc our te rr one ous l y e nha nc e d hi s s e nt e nc e ba s e d on a n e xtr a - ve r di c tf i ndi ng tha tG l ove r ’ s pr e vi ous c onvi c t i on c ons t i tut e d a“ c r i m e of vi ol e nc e ” a nd appl i e d the U n ite d S ta te s S e n te n c in g G u id e lin e s a s m a n d a to ry . B e c a u s e th e d is tr ic t c o u r t d id no terr i n adm i tt i ng G l ov er ’ s s t at em entand the evi dence w as suff i ci entt o sup po rt th e g u ilty v e r d ic t, w e a f f irm th e c o n v ic tio n . B e c a u s e th e d is tr ic t c o u r t e rr e d in s e nt e nc i ng G l ove runde ram a nda t ory gui de l i ne s s c he m e a nd the e rr orw a s not ha rm l e s s , w e va c a t e the s e nt e nc e a nd r e m a nd f orr e s e nt e nc i ng. I . B AC KG RO UN D O n Ju ly 1 5 , 2 0 0 3 , p o li ce o ff icer s e x ec u ted a s ea rc h w ar ra n t o n G lo v er ’s r e s id e n c e a n d f

o u n d as e m i- a u to m a tic h a n d g u n h id d e n u n d e rG lo v e r ’s m a ttr e s s . G lo v e rw a s n o t p r e s e n t a t th e tim e o f th e s e a r c h , b u t h is r o o m m a te a n d ag u e s t, w ho w er e pre se nt , bo th d eni ed ow ners hi p o f the gu n and offe re d t o m ake a te le p h o n e c a ll to G lo v e r , m o n ito r e d b y th e p o lic e , to v e r if y th a t th e g u n w a s h is . D ur i ng the c a l l , G l ove rm a de s t a t e m e nt s aboutthe gun.3

G lo v e rw a s in d ic te d o n o n e c o u n t o f b e in g af

e lo n in p o s s e s s io n o f

af ir e a rm . S e e 18 U . S . C . § 922( g) ( 1) . A f t e rhi s a rr e s t , G l ove rw a s a dvi s e d of hi s r i ght s a nd w a iv e d th e m in w r itin g . W h ile tr a n s p o r tin g G lo v e rf o ra rr a ig n m e n t, f

e d e r a l a g e n ts qu es t i on ed hi m re gardi ng the gu n. In re spon se t o the qu es t i on i ng , G l ov eradm i tt ed th a th e p u r c h a s e d th e f

i r e a rm. B e f o r e tr ia l, G lo v e rm o v e d to s u p p r e s s h is s ta te m e n t to th e f e d e r a l a g e n ts . T he di stri ctcourthel d a heari ng and d eni ed the m ot i on on the grou nd thatG l ov er h a d w a iv e d h is M ir a n d ar ig h ts . G lo v e rm o v e d f o rr e c o n s id e r a tio n a n d to supp l em entthe re cord w i th t es t i m on y f rom hi s m other, C ar ol D urr. T he di stri ct c o u r t g r a n te d th e m o tio n , a n d D u rrte s tif ie d th a t G lo v e rw a s “m e n ta lly d is ab le d ,” h a d a“te n th g r a d e e d u c a tio n ,” a n d h a d a n “I Q o f 5 7 o r6 7 .” A f

te rh e a r in g th is t est i m o n y, th e d i stri ctco u rtag ai n d en i ed th e m o t i o n t o su p p ress. A ttr i a l , the pr os e c ut i on pr e s e nt e d e vi de nc e tha tG l ove roc c upi e d the be dr oom i n w hi c h the f i r e a rm w a s f

ound, tw o oc c upa nt s of

the r e s i de nc e a tthe t i m e of the se ar ch st at ed the gu n b el on ged t o G l ov er , and G l ov eradm i tt ed pu rc hasi ng the gu n. T he j ury c on vi ct ed G l ov er . G l ov erm ov ed for apo st -ver di ct ju d g m e n t o f

a c q u itta l b a s e d o n in s u f f ic ie n t e v id e n c e . T h e d is tr ic t c o u r t d e n ie d th is m ot i on. A ts e nt e nc i ng, G l ove robj e c t e d t o the c l a s s i f i c a t i on of

hi s pr e vi ous c onvi c t i on f

orba tt e ry on al a w e nf

or c e m e ntof

f i c e runde rF l or i dal a w a s ac r i m e of4

vi ol ence on the grou nd thati tw ou l d v i ol at e hi s S i xth A m endm entri gh tt o a j ury tr i a l . Se e U . S. Co n s t . A me n d . V I ; c f . Bl a k e l y v . W a s h i n g t o n , 5 4 2 U . S. 2 9 6 , 1 2 4 S. C t. 2 5 3 1 ( 2 0 0 4 ) ; A p p r e n d i 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 ( 2 0 0 0 ) . T he di s tr i c tc our ti nvoke d the “ pr i orc onvi c t i ons ” e xc e pt i on t o the A ppr e ndi l i ne of cases, d en i ed th e m o t i o n , an d ap p l i ed th e en h an cem en t . G l o v er h ad a t o t al o ffen se l e ve l of 20, ac r i m i na l hi s t ory c a t e gory of V I , a nd as e nt e nc i ng gui de l i ne r a nge of 70 t o 87 m onths . T he di s tr i c tc our tc om m e nt e d tha t“ notw i ths t a ndi ng B l a ke l y a nd A ppr e ndi , i t ’ s bus i ne s s a s us ua l unde rthe F e de r a l S e nt e nc i ng G ui de l i ne s , ” a nd s e n te n c e d G lo v e rto 7 8 m o n th s o f im p r is o n m e n t. I I . STA N D A R D O F R EVI EW T hi s C ou rtre vi ew s the deni al of a m ot i on t o sup pres s aconfes si on un der a m i xe d s t a nda r d: f

i ndi ngs of

f a c ta r e r e vi e w e d f

orc l e a re rr ora nd the appl i c a t i on of l a w t o the f

a c t s i s r e vi e w e d de novo. U ni t e d S t a t e s v. G i l , 204 F . 3d 1347, 1350 (11th C i r. 20 00 ). W e r evi ew de no vo the deni al of a m ot i on for post -ver di ct j udgm e ntof

a c qui tt a l ba s e d on i ns uf f i c i e nc y of

the e vi de nc e . U ni t e d S t a t e s v. B r a i thw a i t e , 709 F . 2d 1450, 1457 ( 11th C i r . 1983) ; s e e a l s o U ni t e d S t a t e s v. A bbe l l , 271 F . 3d 1286, 1291 n. 2 ( 11th C i r . 2001) . W e vi e w the e vi de nc e i n the l i g h tm o stfav o rab l e t o th e p ro secu t i o n an d d et erm i n e w h eth er “ a reaso n ab l ym in d e d ju ry c o u ld a c c e p t th e r e le v a n t e v id e n c e a s a d e q u a te a n d s u f f ic ie n t to supp ortthe concl usi on of the defendant ’ s gui l tbeyond a r ea sonabl e dou bt . ”5

B ra i thw ai t e, 70 9 F . 2d at14 57 . W e r evi ew de no vo qu es t i on s of l aw ar i si ng un der the U ni t e d S t a t e s S e nt e nc i ng G ui de l i ne s . U ni t e d S t a t e s v. C r a w f or d, 407 F . 3d 11 74 , 11 78 (11th C i r. 20 05 ). I I I . DI S CUS S I ON G l ov erra i se s three ar gu m ent s on app ea l . F i rs t , he ar gu es thatthe di stri ct c o u r t e rr o n e o u s ly a d m itte d h is in c r im in a tin g s ta te m e n ts b e c a u s e h e h a d n o t v a lid ly w ai ved h i s r i gh tagai nstse l f- i ncri m i nat i on . S ec on d, G l ov erar gu es thatthe di stri ct courterre d i n d enyi ng hi s m ot i on for j ud gm entof ac qu i tt al because the evi dence w as i nsuffi ci entt o sup po rta gui l ty ver di ct . T hi rd, G l ov erar gu es thatthe di stri ct co u rterro n eo u sl y en h an ced h i s sen t en ce b y cl assi fyi n g h i s p rev i o u s co n v i ct i o n as a cr i m e of vi ol ence and b y vi ew i ng the G ui del i nes a s m andat ory. W e a dd re ss ea ch a r gum e nti n turn. A . Mo t i o n to Su p p ress G lo v e ra r g u e s th a t th e d is tr ic t c o u r t e rr o n e o u s ly a d m itte d h is s ta te m e n t to the fe dera l agent s i n v i ol at i on of hi s F i fth A m endm entri gh tagai nstse l fi n c r i mi n a t i o n . U . S. Co n s t . A me n d . V ; s e e M i r a n d av . A r i z o n a , 3 8 4 U . S. 4 3 6 , 8 6 S. C t. 1 6 0 2 ( 1 9 6 6 ) . U n d e rM ir a n d a , ap o lic e o f f ic e rm u s t r e a d c e r ta in w a rn in g s — in c lu d in g th e r ig h t to r e m a in s ile n t— to as u s p e c t b e f o r e s u b je c tin g h im t o “ cust od i al i nt errogat i on . ” 384 U . S . at44 4-45 , 86 S . C t . at16 12 . E vi dence obt a i ne d i n vi ol a t i on of

M i r a ndai s i na dm i s s i bl e a ttr i a l . I d.6

T he go vernm entst i pu l at es thatG l ov erw as subj ec tt o “ cust od i al i nt e rr oga t i on” butc ont e nds tha tG l ove rw a i ve d hi s M i r a ndar i ght s . T he gove rnm e ntha d t o pr ove by apr e ponde r a nc e of the e vi de nc e tha tthe de f e nda nt w a i ve d hi s r i ght s “ vol unt a r i l y , know i ngl y , a nd i nt e l l i ge nt l y . ” C ol or a do v. S pr i ng, 4 7 9 U .S . 5 6 4 , 5 7 2 - 7 3 , 1 0 7 S . C t. 8 5 1 , 8 5 6 - 5 7 ( 1 9 8 7 ) ; H a r t v . A tto rn e y G e n e r a l, 32 3 F . 3d 88 4, 89 2-93 (11th C i r. 20 03 ). T o sat i sf y thi s burden, the go vernm enthad t o p rove the defendanthad capaci ty t o u nd er st and the M i ra nd a w arni ng s. S ee T a gue v. L oui s i a na , 444 U . S . 469, 100 S . C t . 652 ( 1980) ( pe rc ur i a m ) ; C ol e m a n v. S i ng l et ary, 30 F . 3d 14 20 , 14 26 -27 (11 th C i r. 19 94 ). G l ov erconcedes thathe si gn ed a w ri tt en w ai ver butar gu es thathi s w ai ver w a s n o t v o lu n ta ry , k n o w in g , a n d in te llig e n t b e c a u s e h e la c k e d th e m e n ta l c ap a c ity t o c om pr e he nd the w a rni ngs . G l ove rr e l i e s on D urr ’ s t e s t i m ony a s t o hi s l e ve l of e duc a t i on a nd hi s I nt e l l i ge nc e Q uot i e nt . D urr ’ s t e s t i m ony w a s notc orr obor a t e d by an ex p er t ev alu atio n , an d h erre co ll ec ti o n w as v ag u e: “h is IQ lev el w as li k e - - I ’m no tsure , I bel i eve they s ai d 5 7, 67 . ” A l though D urr ’ s t e s t i m ony s uppor t e d G l ove r ’ s a r gum e nt , the gove rnm e nt p r e s e n te d e v id e n c e th a t c o n tr a d ic te d D u rr ’s v a g u e a n d u n c o rr o b o r a te d te s tim o n y . T he gove rnm e ntpr e s e nt e d e vi de nc e tha tG l ove ri nt e r a c t e d norm a l l y a nd i nt el l i gent l y w i th the arre st i ng agent s a nd G l ov erw as fa m i l i arw i th the cr i m i nal j us t i c e s y s t e m . B e c a us e the di s tr i c tc our tc oul d c r e di tthe pr oof pr ovi de d by the7

go vernm ent , the di stri ctcourtdi d n otcl ea rl y e rri n fi nd i ng thatG l ov er ’ s w ai ver w a s k n o w in g , v o lu n ta ry , a n d in te llig e n t. B . Mot i on f

orJ udgm e nt of A c qui t tal G l ove ra r gue s tha tthe di s tr i c tc our te rr one ous l y de ni e d hi s j udgm e ntf or a c qui tt a l ba s e d on i ns uf f i c i e nc y of

the e vi de nc e . T o obt a i n ac onvi c t i on f orbe i ng a f e lo n in p o s s e s s io n o f

af ir e a rm , th e p r o s e c u tio n m u s t p r o v e b e y o n d ar e a s o n ab le do ub tthat“ the defendantw as (1) i n k no w i ng po ss es si on of a f i re arm , (2) a conv i ct ed fe l on , and (3) thatthe fi re arm af fe ct ed i nt er st at e c om m er ce . ” U ni t ed S t a t e s v. H a l l , 77 F . 3d 398, 402 n. 4 ( 11th C i r . 1996) . G l ove rc onc e de s the s e c ond a nd thi r d e l e m e nt s a nd a r gue s tha tthe pr os e c ut i on f a i l e d t o pr ovi de s uf

f i c i e nt e v i d e n c e t o p r o v e h e k n o w i n g l y p o s s e s s e d th e f i r e a rm. G l ove r ’ s a r gum e ntf

a i l s . K now i ng pos s e s s i on c a n be de m ons tr a t e d by pr oof of “ e i the ra c tua l orc ons truc t i ve ” pos s e s s i on. U ni t e d S t a t e s v. S w e e t i ng, 933 F . 2d 962, 965 ( 11th C i r . 1991) . T o e s t abl i s h c ons truc t i ve pos s e s s i on, the gove rnm e nt m us ts how “ ow ne r s hi p, dom i ni on, orc ontr ol ” ove rthe f i r e a rm . U ni t e d S t a t e s v. S m i th, 591 F . 2d 1105, 1107 ( 5th C i r . 1979) . G l ove ra dm i tt e d t o pur c ha s i ng the gun, tw o w i tne s s e s t e s t i f i e d tha tthe gun be l onge d t o hi m , a nd G l ove roc c upi e d the b ed ro o m i n w h i ch th e g u n w as l o cat ed . V i ew i n g th i s ev i d en ce i n th e l i g h tm o st fa vo rabl e t o the go vernm ent , w e c on cl ud e thata r ea sonabl e j ury c ou l d fi nd G l ov er8

h a d c o n s tru c tiv e p o s s e s s io n o f th e g u n . S e e id . B e c a u s e th e g o v e rn m e n t m e t its bur de n of

pr oof of c ons truc t i ve pos s e s s i on, w e a f f i rm G l ove r ’ s c onvi c t i on. C . Se nte nc i ng G l ov erar gu es thathe w as se nt ence d i n v i ol at i on of U ni t ed S t at es v. B oo ker,

___U .S . ___ , 1 2 5 S . C t. 7 3 8 ( 2 0 0 5 ) , b e c a u s e th e d is tr ic t c o u r t ( 1 ) c la s s if ie d h is p r e v io u s c o n v ic tio n a s a“c r im e o f v io le n c e ” a n d ( 2 ) c o n s id e r e d th e G u id e lin e s to be m a nda t ory r a the rtha n a dvi s ory . W e ha ve de f i ne d the f

orm e ri s s ue a s one of

“ const i tut i on al B oo ker e rr or” a nd the l att eri ss ue as on e of “ st atut ory B oo ker error. ” S ee U ni t ed S t at es v. R od ri gu ez , 39 8 F . 3d 12 91 , 12 97 (11th C i r. ), re h’ g en b a n c d e n ie d , 4 0 6 F .3 d 1 2 6 1 , c e r t. d e n ie d , ___U .S . ___ , 1 2 5 S . C t. 2 9 3 5 ( 2 0 0 5 ) . W e a ddr e s s e a c h a r gum e nti n turn. 1. C ons t i tut i ona l B ooke rE rr or C ons t i tut i ona l B ooke re rr ora r i s e s w he n “ as e nt e nc e i s i nc r e a s e d be c a us e of a n e nha nc e m e ntba s e d on f a c t s f ound by the j udge tha tw e r e ne i the ra dm i tt e d by the defendantno r f

ou nd by the j ury. ” I d. (c i t at i on s om i tt ed). G l ov erar gu es that the di stri ctcourtm ade afi nd i ng of fa ctthathi s off ense of batt ery on a l aw enforce m entoffi ce r c on st i tut es a “ cr i m e of vi ol ence . ” W e di sa gree . G l ove r ’ s a r gum e ntf

a i l s f ortw o r e a s ons . F i r s t , B ooke rl e f tundi s turbe d the

“ pri or conv i ct i on s” exce pt i on t o the rul e thata j ury m ustfi nd fa ct s thatenhance a s e nt e nc e . B ooke r , ___ U . S . a t___, 125 S . C t . a t756; s e e a l s o U ni t e d S t a t e s v.9

C am ac ho -I barquen, 40 4 F . 3d 12 83 , 12 90 n. 3 (11 th C i r. 20 05 ). S ec on d, w hether a p r e v io u s c o n v ic tio n is a“c r im e o f v io le n c e ” is aq u e s tio n o f la w , n o t o f

f a c t, a s it m us tbe de t e rm i ne d by i nt e rpr e t i ng G ui de l i ne s s e c t i on 4B 1. 2. U . S . S . G . § 4B 1. 2; se e a l so U ni t ed S t at es v. F arri s, 77 F . 3d 39 1, 39 8 (11 th C i r. 19 96 ). G ui del i nes s ec t i on 4B 1. 2 d ef i nes “ cr i m e of vi ol ence ” a s “ any off ense un der fe dera l or st at e l aw , pu ni shabl e by i m pri sonm entfor at erm exce edi ng on e y ea r, that -- (1) has as an el em entthe use, att em pt ed use, or threa t ened use of physi ca l f o r c e a g a i n s tth e p e r s o n o f a n o th e r. . . . ” U. S . S . G. § 4 B 1 . 2 ( a ) . Un d e rF l o r i d al a w,

“ batt ery occ urs w hen a pers on : (1) A ctual l y a nd i nt ent i on al l y t ou ches or stri kes another pers on . . . or (2) I nt ent i on al l y c ause s bod i l y harm t o ano ther pers on . ” F l a. S t a t . §§ 784. 03, 784. 07. B e c a us e ba tt e ry on al a w e nf or c e m e ntof

f i c e ri s ac r i m e of v io le n c e u n d e rG u id e lin e s s e c tio n 4 B 1 .2 , th e d is tr ic t c o u r t d id n o t e rrw h e n it enhanced G l ov er ’ s s ent ence . 2. S t a tut ory B ooke rE rr or S t a tut ory B ooke re rr ora r i s e s “ w he n the di s tr i c tc our tm i s appl i e s the G ui del i nes by c on si deri ng them as bi nd i ng as op po se d t o adv i sory . ” U ni t ed S t at es v. S hel t on , 40 0 F . 3d 13 25 , 13 30 -31 (11 th C i r. 20 05 ). T he di stri ctcourtst at ed dur i ng the s e nt e nc i ng he a r i ng tha t“ notw i ths t a ndi ng B l a ke l y [ v. W a s hi ngt on, 524 U . S . 296, 124 S . C t . 2531 ( 2004) ] a nd A ppr e ndi [ v. N e w J e r s e y , 530 U . S . 466, 120 S . C t . 2348 ( 2000) ] , i t ’ s bus i ne s s a s us ua l unde rthe F e de r a l S e nt e nc i ng10

G ui de l i ne s [ . ] ” B e c a us e the di s tr i c tc our tc ons i de r e d the G ui de l i ne s t o be m andat ory, i tcom m i tt ed st atut ory B oo ker e rr or. B e c a us e G l ove rpr ope r l y pr e s e rve d hi s B ooke robj e c t i on, w e r e vi e w f or h a rm le s s e rr o r . S e e U n ite d S ta te s v . M e jia - G io v a n i, 4 1 6 F .3 d 1 3 2 3 , 1 3 2 6 - 2 7 ( 1 1 th C i r. 20 05 ) ( ci t i ng U ni t ed S t at es v. M atheni a, 40 9 F . 3d 12 89 , 12 91 (11th C i r. 20 05 )) . T he bu rden i s on the go vernm entt o sho w thatthe st atut ory e rr or w as h a rm le s s , a n d th a t b u r d e n is to p r o v e “th a t ‘v ie w in g th e p r o c e e d in g s in th e ir ent i re ty, . . . the error di d n otaf fe ctthe se nt ence , or had b utverysl i gh tef fe ct . If one c a n s a y w i th f

a i ra s s ur a nc e tha tthe s e nt e nc e w a s nots ubs t a nt i a l l y s w a y e d by the e rr or , the s e nt e nc e i s due t o be a f f i rm e d e ve n though the r e w a s e rr or . ’ ” I d. (quo t i ng M atheni a, 40 9 F . 3d at12 91 ). T h e a r g u m e n t o f

th e g o v e rn m e n t is tw o f o ld a n d e rr o n e o u s o n b o th c o u n ts . F i rs t , the go vernm entar gu es that“ no thi ng i n the re cord sugg es t s thatthe di stri ct c o u r t w o u ld h a v e s e n te n c e d G lo v e rd if f e r e n tly h a d it u n d e r s to o d th e g u id e lin e s to be a dvi s ory i ns t e a d of

m a nda t ory , ” buttha ta r gum e nti s note nough t o s a t i s f y the bur de n of

the gove rnm e nt . T he gove rnm e ntm us tpr ove tha ts om e thi ng i n the re cord sugg es t s thatthe di stri ctcourtw ou l d h ave i m po se d the sa m e or agrea t er s e nt e nc e . S e e i d. S e c ond, the gove rnm e nta r gue s tha tas e nt e nc e i n the m i ddl e of th e g u id e lin e s r a n g e e s tab lis h e s th a t a n y e rr o rw a s h a rm le s s , b u t th a t a r g u m e n t f a ils11

b e c a u s e th e s e n te n c e a lo n e te lls u s n o th in g ab o u t w h e th e rth e d is tr ic t c o u ld w o u ld have i m po se d a l es se r s ent ence un der a n adv i sorygu i del i nes s chem e. A l though w e r e c ogni z e tha ttw o of ours i s t e rc i r c ui t s ha ve rul e d tha tam i dra ng e s ent ence al on e e st abl i shes thata s t atut ory e rr or w as harm l es s, se e U ni t ed S t a t e s v. P e r e z - R a m i r e z , 415 F . 3d 876, 878 ( 8th C i r . 2005) ; U ni t e d S t a t e s v. P a xt on, 422 F . 3d 1203, 1207- 08 ( 10th C i r . 2005) , w e di s a gr e e . W e ha ve re cogn i ze d that“ [i ] ti s a s di ff i cul tfor the go vernm entt o m ee t[the harm l es s e rr or] st andard as i ti s f

or a def endantt o m ee tthe . . . st andard for pl ai n err or re vi ew , ” s ee M e j i a - G i ova ni , 416 F . 3d a t1327 ( quot i ng M a the ni a , 409 F . 3d a t1291) , a nd “ the f a c t th a t th e d is tr ic t c o u r t s e n te n c e d th e d e f e n d a n t to th e b o tto m o f

th e ap p lic ab le gui de l i ne s r a nge ” doe s note s t abl i s h pl a i n e rr or , U ni t e d S t a t e s v. F i e l ds , 408 F . 3d 13 56 , 13 61 (11th C i r. 20 05 ). T o ann ou nce arul e thata m i d-ra ng e s ent ence e s t abl i s he s ha rm l e s s e rr orw oul d run c ount e rt o the s e hol di ngs . T he gove rnm e nt m us tdo m or e tha n r e l y upon am i d- r a nge s e nt e nc e t o s a t i s f y i t s bur de n unde rthe ha rm l e s s e rr ors t a nda r d. O ur ho l di ng i s a l so consi st entw i th o ur prece dent s r egar di ng st atut ory B oo ker e rr ors thatw er e harm l es s. S ee M ej i a- G i ov ani , 41 6 F . 3d at13 27 ; U ni t ed S t at es v. G al l egos-A gu er o, 40 9 F . 3d 12 74 , 12 77 (11th C i r. 20 05 ). In M ej i aG i ova ni , i n a ddi t i on t o not i ng tha tthe de f e nda ntw a s s e nt e nc e d i n the m i ddl e of the gu i del i ne ra ng e, w e a l so base d o ur deci si on on se vera l st at em ent s by the di stri ct12

courtthatthe se nt ence m i gh thave been harsherhad the gu i del i nes bee n con si dere d a d v is o ry . S e e 4 1 6 F .3 d a t 1 3 2 6 ( “N o ju d g e e n jo y s . . . d e p a r tin g u p w a r d , b u t I thi nk thatyou are . . . fr ankl y a tri sk of i tthi s m orni ng . ” ( em ph as i s a dd ed)) . In G al l egos-A gu er o, w e s i m i l ar l y det erm i ned thatthe di stri ctcourtconsi dere d s e nt e nc i ng the de f

e nda ntt o the “ m a xi m um a l l ow abl e unde rthe s t a tut e of c onvi c t i on. ” 409 F . 3d a t1277. B e c a us e am i d- r a nge s e nt e nc e a l one i s i ns uf f i c i e nt t o pr ove ha rm l e s s e rr or , w e c onc l ude tha tthe s t a tut ory B ooke re rr orw a s not h arm l ess. I V . CONCL US I ON B e c a u s e th e d is tr ic t c o u r t d id n o t e rr o n e o u s ly f in d th a t G lo v e rw a iv e d h is Mi r a n d ar i g h t s a n d p r o p e r l y d e n i e d th e m o t i o n f o rj u d g m e n to f

a c q u i tt a l , we AF F I RM G lo v e r ’s c o n v ic tio n f o rb e in g af

e lo n in p o s s e s s io n o f

af ir e a rm . B e c a us e the di s tr i c tc our tc om m i tt e d s t a tut ory B ooke re rr orby tr e a t i ng the G ui del i nes a s m andat ory, and the go vernm entfa i l ed t o est abl i sh thatthe error w as harm l es s, w e VA C A TE the s e nt e nc e a nd RE MAND f orr e s e nt e nc i ng.13

T J O F L A T , C i r c ui tJ udge , s pe c i a l l y c onc urr i ng: I c on cur i n the court ’ s j ud gm ent , bu tw ri t e s epar at el y t o em ph as i ze w hy the G o v e rn m e n t h a s n o t d e m o n s tr a te d th a t th e B o o k e rs ta tu to ry e rr o rin th is c a s e is harm l es s. If

w e w er e f

ul l y t o t ake i nt o acc ou ntthe ext entt o w hi ch the pre-Bo ok er s e n te n c in g m o d e l ( u n d e rw h ic h G lo v e rw a s s e n te n c e d ) d if f e r s f r o m th e p o s tB ooke rm ode l , w e w oul d ha ve t o e nga ge i n pur e gue s s w ork t o hol d tha tthe Go v e rn m e n th a s s h o wn h a rm l e s s e rr o ri n th i s c a s e . I d e s c r i b e d th e s e two s e n te n c in g m o d e ls , a n d th e e x te n t to w h ic h th e y d if f e r , in d is s e n tin g f

r o m th is c our t ’ s r e f

us a l t o r e he a re n ba nc U ni t e d S t a t e s v. R odr i gue z . 406 F . 3d 1261, 1281 ( 1 1 th C ir . 2 0 0 5 ) ( T

jo f la t, J ., d is s e n tin g f

r o m th e d e n ia l o f

r e h e a r in g e n b a n c ) . H e r e i s w ha tI s a i d: I ti s di f f i c ul tt o ove r s t a t e the e xt e ntt o w hi c h B ooke ra f f e c t s the f e de r a l s e nt e nc i ng f

r a m e w ork. T he s t a r t i ng poi ntunde rboth the ol d m ode l ( pr e - B ooke r ) a nd n e w m o d e l ( p o s t- B o o k e r ) o f f e d e r a l s e n te n c in g is 1 8 U .S .C . § 3 5 5 3 ( a ) , w h ic h s ta te s th a t [ t ] he c our ts ha l l i m pos e as e nt e nc e s uf f i c i e nt , butnot g reat er th an n ecessary, . . . (A ) t o refl ectth e seri o u sn ess of the of f e ns e , t o pr om ot e r e s pe c tf orl a w , a nd t o pr ovi de ju s t p u n is h m e n t f

o rth e o f f e n s e ; ( B ) to a f

f o r da d e q u a te d e te rr e n c e to c r im in a l c o n d u c t; ( C ) to p r o te c t th e p u b lic f r om f ur the rc r i m e s of

the de f e nda nt ; a nd ( D ) t o pr ovi de the defendantw i th n ee ded edu ca t i on al or vo ca t i on al tr a in in g , m e d ic a l c a r e , o ro th e rc o rr e c tio n a l tr e a tm e n t in th e m o st ef

fe ctiv e m an n er [.] 18 U . S . C . § 3553( a ) ( 2) . I n othe rw or ds , the unde r l y i ng goa l s of the st atut e a nd the G ui del i nes a re “ re tri bu t i on , general det erre nce,14

i nc apa c i t a t i on, a nd r e habi l i t a t i on. ” U ni t e d S t a t e s v. M oge l , 956 F . 2d 15 55 , 15 58 n. 2 (11 th C i r. 19 92 ). In se l ec t i ng an approp ri at e s ent ence , the se nt enci ng courtm ustal so consi der “ the nature a nd ci rc um st ance s of the offens e a nd the hi st ory a nd char ac t er i st i cs of the defendant ”; “ the ki nd s of s ent ence s a vai l abl e” ; al l re l evantgu i del i nes a nd po l i cy s ta te m e n ts is s u e d b y th e S e n te n c in g C o m m is s io n ; “th e n e e d to a v o id un w arra nt ed se nt ence di spar i t i es am on g d ef endant s w i th si m i l ar re cords w ho have been foun d g ui l ty of s i m i l arcond uct ; and the need to p r o v id e r e s titu tio n to a n y v ic tim s o f th e o f f e n s e .” 1 8 U .S .C . § 3 5 5 3 ( a ) ( 1 ) , ( 3 ) - ( 7 ) . U nd erthe ol d m od el , the di stri ctcourtw as bo un d t o sent ence th e d e f e n d a n t w ith in th e ap p lic ab le g u id e lin e r a n g e u n le s s it d e te rm in e d th a t a n a g g r a v a tin g o rm itig a tin g c ir c u m s ta n c e o f ak in d , o rto ade gr e e , nota de qua t e l y t a ke n i nt o c ons i de r a t i on by the S e n te n c in g C o m m is s io n in f o rm u la tin g th e g u id e lin e s . . . s h o u ld r e s u lt in as e n te n c e d if f e r e n t f r o m th a t d e s c r ib e d . I n d e te rm in in g w h e th e rac ir c u m s ta n c e w a s a d e q u a te ly ta k e n in to c o n s id e r a tio n , th e c o u r t [ c o u ld ] c o n s id e ro n ly the se nt enci ng gu i del i nes, po l i cyst at em ent s, and o ff i ci al c o m m e n ta ry o f

th e S e n te n c in g C o m m is s io n . 18 U . S . C . § 3553( b) ( 1) . S t a t e d di f f e r e nt l y , the onl y w a y the defe nd antw as go i ng t o g eta dow nw ar d d eparture und erthe ol d m od el w as by show i ng thathi s c as e w as no tw i thi n the “ heart l and o f typi ca l ca se s. ” K oon v. U ni t e d S t a t e s , 518 U . S . 81, 94, 116 S . C t . 2035, 2044, 135 L . E d. 2d 392 ( 1996) . T hi s w a s adi f f i c ul tt a s k. T o s t a r tw i th, “ the S e nt e nc i ng C om m i s s i on has a l r e a dy c ons i de r e d, a nd the S e nt e nc i ng G u i d el i n es ha ve al re ady f ac t ored i n, m any i f notal l ci rc um st ance s that ar e a rguabl y r el evantt o cri m i nal se nt enci ng . . . . T he G ui del i nes a re , a s C ongr e s s i nt e nde d the m t o be , c om pr e he ns i ve . . . . ” K a t e S t i th & J os e A . C abr a ne s , F e a rof J udgi ng: S e nt e nc i ng G ui de l i ne s i n the F e de r a l C our t s 102 ( 1998) . T hus , i tw a s qui t e unl i ke l y tha tthe de f e nda ntw oul d be abl e t o i de nt i f y ac i r c um s t a nc e tha tthe C om m i s s i on ha d a l t oge the rf a i l e d t o c ons i de r . A nd onc e the s e nt e nc i ng c our tde t e rm i ne d tha tthe C om m i s s i on ha d t a ke n a c i r c um s t a nc e i nt o a c c ount , the de f e nda ntc oul d onl y a r gue tha tthe c ir c u m s ta n c e w a s p r e s e n t in h is c a s e to s o m e a ty p ic a l d e g r e e . T h is is because the C om m i ss i on ’ s s ub st ant i ve j ud gm entas t o the si gn i fi ca nce of the ci rc um st ance i n a heart l and cas e w as un as sa i l abl e. T he c om pr e he ns i ve ne s s of the G ui de l i ne s a nd the15

in v u ln e r ab ility o f

th e p o lic y ju d g m e n ts o n w h ic h th e y r e s t e s s e n tia lly re nd er ed any e vi dence a def endantm i gh tpres entre gardi ng the need f or“ a de qua t e de t e rr e nc e ” orthe ne e d f or“ j us tpuni s hm e nt ” i rr e l e va nt u n d e rth e o ld m o d e l. T h e r e a s o n is s im p ly th a t a lth o u g h r e a s o n ab le m in d s m a y d if

f e ra s to th e le v e l o f

p u n is h m e n t n e e d e d to a d e q u a te ly de t e rorj us t l y puni s h apa r t i c ul a rof f e ns e , onc e the C om m i s s i on a nnounc e d i t s vi e w s on the s ubj e c t , i tw a s di f f i c ul tt o a r gue tha ta ny p a r tic u la rc a s e w a s a ty p ic a l o ro u ts id e th e h e a r tla n d w ith r e s p e c t to these i ss ues. R ather, a party s ee ki ng a departure genera l l y a cc ept ed hi s ba s e of

f e ns e l e ve l a s as t a r t i ng poi nta nd the n a tt e m pt e d t o s how thatthe ca se w as atypi ca l because i tw as com m i tt ed i n an u nu sual m a nne rorf

ors om e una nt i c i pa t e d a nd una c c ount e d- f orr e a s on w arra nt ed a dow nw ar d d eparture. B ec ause the G ui del i nes a re m er el y a dv i soryun der the new m o d e l, th e d e f

e n d a n t is n o lo n g e rlim ite d to a r g u in g th a t h is c a s e is s om e how a ty pi c a l . S uc h a r gum e nt s , of c our s e , r e m a i n vi abl e , but u n d e rth e n e w m o d e l th e d e f e n d a n t c a n a ls o s im p ly c o n c e d e th a t h is ca se is typ ical an d ch allen g e th e w isd o m o f th e C o m m issio n ’s j u d g m en treg ard i n g th e ap p ro p ri at e p u n i sh m en ti n h eart l an d cases. T ha ti s , the de f

e nda ntm a y s i m pl y a r gue tha tthe appl i c abl e gui de l i ne s e nt e nc e i s “ gr e a t e rtha n ne c e s s a ry ” t o a c hi e ve the purpos e s of the S e n te n c in g R e f

o rm A c t. 1 8 U .S .C . § 3 5 5 3 ( a ) . “[ T ]h e G u id e lin e s . . . ar e the prod uctof pol i c

y de c is i ons b y th e S e n te n c in g C o m m is s io n . . .

. I f thos e pol i c y de c i s i ons a r e no l onge rm a nda t ory , the s e nt e nc i ng ju d g e is f

r e e to d is a g r e e w ith th e m ." B o o k e r , 1 2 5 S .C t. a t 7 9 0 n .3 (S ca l i a, J. , di ss ent i ng ). S ubj e c tt o r e vi e w f

orr e a s onabl e ne s s , di s tr i c tj udge s a r e now fr ee t o app l y thei r “ ow n p er ce pt i on s of j ustpu ni shm ent , det erre nce, a nd pr ot e c t i on of

the publ i c e ve n w he n the s e di f f e rf r om the pe r c e pt i ons of

the C om m i s s i on m e m be r s w ho dr e w up the G u id e lin e s .” I d . a t 7 9 0 . A lth o u g h “ju d g e s m u s t s till consi derthe s e nt e nc i ng r a nge c ont a i ne d i n the G ui de l i ne s , . . . tha tr a nge i s now n o th in g m o r e th a n as u g g e s tio n th a t m a y o rm a y n o t b e p e r s u a s iv e . . . w hen w ei gh ed agai nstthe nu m er ou s other c on si dera t i on s l i st ed i n [§ 35 53 (a ) ] . ” I d. at78 7 (S t evens, J. , di ss ent i ng ). Indeed, as on e di stri ct ju d g e h a s a lr e a d y o b s e rv e d , th e r e m e d ia l m a

jo r ity in B o o k e r[ ] d ir e c t[ s ] c o u r ts to c ons i de ra l l of

the § 3353( a ) f

a c t or s , m a ny of

w hi c h the gu i del i nes e i ther r ej ec tor i gn ore. F or exam pl e, un der § 35 53 (a )( 1) a s ent enci ng courtm ustconsi der the “ hi st ory16 a nd c ha r a c t e r i s t i c s of

the de f e nda nt . ” B utunde rthe gui de l i ne s , c our t s a r e ge ne r a l l y f orbi dde n t o c ons i de rthe d e f e n d a n t’s a g e , h is e d u c a tio n a n d v o c a tio n a l s k ills , h is m e nt a l a nd e m ot i ona l c ondi t i on, hi s phy s i c a l c ondi t i on i nc l udi ng drug ora l c ohol de pe nde nc e , hi s e m pl oy m e nt r e c o r d , h is f

a m ily tie s a n d r e s p o n s ib ilitie s , h is soci o-ec on om i c s t atus, hi s c i vi c a nd m i l i t ary c ontr i but i ons , a nd hi s l a c k of gui da nc e a s ay outh. T he gu i del i nes’ proh i bi t i on of consi deri ng these fa ct ors ca nn otbe square d w i th the § 3 55 3(a) (1) r equi re m entthat the c our te va l ua t e the “ hi s t ory a nd c ha r a c t e r i s t i c s ” of the d e f e n d a n t. U ni t e d S t a t e s v. R a num , 353 F . S upp. 2d 984, 986 ( E . D . W i s . 2005) ( c i t a t i ons om i tt e d) . T hus , m i t i ga t i ng c i r c um s t a nc e s a nd s ubs t a nt i ve p o l i cy arg u m en t s th atw ere fo rm erl y i rrel ev an ti n al l b u tth e m o st un usual ca se s a re no w po t ent i al l y r el evanti n every ca se . U ni t ed S t at es v. R od ri gu ez , 40 6 F . 3d 12 86 - 89 (footno t es om i tt ed). A s I unde r s t a nd the G ove rnm e nt ’ s pos i t i on, as e nt e nc e i n the m i ddl e of the G ui del i nes s ent ence ra ng e i s pre sum pt i vel y harm l es s. H ow the G ov ernm entca n s a y th is

— w h e n th e d is tr ic t c o u r t h a d ab s o lu te ly n o id e ath a t th e m o d e l it s h o u ld have been usi ng re nd er ed the G ui del i nes a dv i soryand, m oreover, gave i t , i nst ea d of the S e nt e nc i ng C om m i s s i on, the ul t i m a t e r e s pons i bi l i ty f ora s s e s s i ng the “ ne e d” f o rG lo v e r ’s s e n te n c e s to a c h ie v e th e s e n te n c in g p u rp o s e s s e t o u t in 1 8 U .S .C . § 3 5 5 3 ( a ) ( 2 ) ( A) , ( B ) , ( C ) , o r( D)

— e s c ap e s m e . Wa s th e d i s tr i c tc o u r tc l a i rv o y a n t ? Of co u rs e n o t. T h is is w h y th e c o u rt ex p re ss ed n o v iew as to th e n ee d fo r G lo v er ’s s e nt e nc e s t o pr ovi de j us tpuni s hm e nt , ort o de t e rthe publ i c f r om c om m i tt i ng the sa m e off ense s, or t o i ncapaci t at e G l ov ert o k ee p h i m fr om com m i tt i ng further c r i m i na l a c t s . W ha tthe c our tw oul d ha ve done ha d i tunde r s t ood tha tthe17

G ui del i nes w er e m er el y a dv i soryand thati tw as “ fr ee t o d i sr egar d them , ” a s Just i ce S ca l i a e xp re ss ed i t , coul d n otbe kn ow n w i tho utpu tt i ng the courtun der oath and havi ng i tgu es s a tw hatthe se nt enci ng hear i ng m ayhave l oo ked l i ke had th e p a r tie s u s e d th e p o s t- B o o k e rm o d e l. S u c h s p e c u la tio n w o u ld n e c e s s a r ily i nvol ve a n i m a gi ne d de ba t e , pos s i bl y w i th orpos s i bl y w i thoutthe i ntr oduc t i on of e m pi r i c a l e vi de nc e , r e ga r di ng the w i s dom of a c c e pt i ng S e nt e nc i ng C om m i s s i on ju d g m e n t c a lls m a d e y e a r s a g o a s to th e “n e e d ” o f th e s e n te n c e s in G lo v e r ’s c a s e to a c h ie v e th e o b

je c tiv e s s e t o u t in § 3 5 5 3 ( a ) ( 2 ) . W h e r e I c o m e d o w n is th is . E x c e p t in th e r a r e s t o f c a s e s — s a y ac a s e in w hi c h as t a tut ory m a nda t ory m i ni m um s e nt e nc e c ontr ol s orhi ghl y i nf l ue nc e s the c our t ’ s de c i s i on orthe c our ti ndi c a t e s tha ti tf ul l y unde r s t a nds , pr e - B ooke r , the po st -B oo ker m od el

— w e c an do no thi ng bu tgu es s w hether the B oo ker s t atut ory e rr o ris h a rm le s s .