### F I L E D U .S . C O U R T O F A PPE A LS E L EVENTH CI RCU I T Augus t12, 2005 T HO MAS K . KA HN C L ER K [ 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- 15242 N on -A rgum entC al endar

________________________ D. C . Do c k e tNo . 0 4 - 2 0 3 1 0 - C R - MGC 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 , ve r s us W I L L I A M V A Z Q U E Z , 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 S outhe r n D i s tr i c tof F l or i da

_________________________ ( A ugus t12, 2005)

B efo re B L A C K , C A RN E S an d M A R C U S , C i rcu i tJu d g es. P E R C U R I A M:2

W i l l i a m V a z que z appe a l s hi s s e nt e nc e i m pos e d a f t e rpl e a di ng gui l ty t o one coun tof conspi ra cy t o st ea l go od s i n exces s of $1, 00 0, w hi ch w er e par tof an i n t erst at e frei g h tsh i p m en t , i n v i o l at i o n o f 1 8 U . S . C . § § 3 7 1 , 6 5 9 . V azq u ez asserts the di s tr i c tc our tvi ol a t e d B lake l y v . W as hi ngton , 124 S . C t . 2531 ( 2004) , a nd U ni t ed Stat es v. B oo ke r , 125 S . C t . 738 ( 2005) , by s e nt e nc i ng hi m ba s e d on a f i ndi ng of a l os s a m ounti n e xc e s s of $400, 000, w hi c h w a s ne i the rr e f l e c t e d i n the i ndi c tm e nt , nora dm i tt e d by hi m . V a z que z f ur the rc ont e nds tha tpur s ua ntt o U ni t ed Stat e s v . She l ton , 40 0 F . 3d 13 25 , 13 30 –3 1 (11 th C i r. 20 05 ), the di stri ctcourterre d b y s e n te n c in g h im u n d e rth e m a n d a to r y s c h e m e o f th e s e n te n c in g g u id e lin e s . W e va c a t e a nd r e m a nd f

orr e s e nt e nc i ng c ons i s t e ntw i th B oo ke r . B ec ause V az qu ez ra i se d a B la ke ly o b j e c t i o n b e f

o r e th e d i s tr i c tc o u r t , we r e v ie w h is s e n te n c e d e n o v o , b u t w ill r e v e r s e o n ly f o rh a r m f u l e r r o r . See U

ni t ed Stat e s v . P az , 4 0 5 F . 3 d 9 4 6 , 9 4 8 ( 1 1 th C i r . 2 0 0 5 ) . We h a v e c l a r i f i e d th e r e a r e two types of B oo ke re r r or : ( 1) S i xth A m e ndm e nt , orc ons t i tut i ona l , e r r orba s e d upon se nt enci ng enhancem ent s i m po se d u nd era m andat ory G ui del i nes s ys t em nei ther a d m itte d b y th e d e f

e n d a n t n o rs u b m itte d to a ju r y a n d p r o v e n b e y o n d a r e a s o n a b le do ub t ; and (2) st atut ory e rr or base d u po n sent enci ng un der am andat ory G ui del i nes s y s te m . U

ni t e d Stat e s v . She l ton , 40 0 F . 3d 13 25 , 13 29 –3 0 (11 th C i r. 20 05 ).3

U . S . S . G . § 2 B 1. 1(b)(1)(H ) provi des i f the am ou ntof l oss e xcee ded m ore than $ 40 0, 00 0, bu tl es s that$1 , 00 0, 00 0, a bas e off ense l evel shou l d b e i ncre as ed by 14 po i nt s. W here a def endantadm i t s t o the fa ct s thatenhanced hi s s ent ence , there i s no S i xt h A m endm entvi ol at i on un der B oo ke r . See She l ton , 40 0 F . 3d at 1 3 3 0 ; se e a l

so U ni te d Stat e s v . B ur

ge , 407 F . 3d 1183, 1191 ( 11th C i r . 2005) ( w ith d r a w a l o f

f a c tu a l P S I o b

je c tio n c o n s titu te s a d m is s io n ) . I n th is c a s e , c o n s titu tio n a l e r r o rd id n o t o c c u rb e c a u s e V a z q u e z a d m itte d to the a m ountof

l os s of $400, 000 butl e s s tha n $1, 000, 000 tha tf or m e d ba s i s f

orthe 1 4 - p o in t e n h a n c e m e n t. I n f a c t, V a z q u e z n e v e rh a s c o n te s te d h e w a s r e s p o n s ib le f o rth is a m o u n t o f

lo s s b e c a u s e : ( 1 ) h e d id n o t o b je c t to th e f

a c tu a l s ta te m e n ts in the P r e s e nt e nc e I nve s t i ga t i on R e por t( P S I ) r e ga r di ng the a m ountof l os s , a nd ( 2) he a dopt e d a s true the f

a c t s c ont a i ne d i n the P S I , w hi c h s pe c i f i c a l l y f ound the i nt ended t heftam ou ntw as atl ea st$5 00 , 00 0, by st at i ng i n h i s “ P osi t i on of P art i es w ith R e s p e c t to S e n te n c in g F a c to r s ” th a t th e r e w e r e n o d is p u te d f a c ts . A cc ordi ng l y, because V az qu ez adm i tt ed t o the fa ct s thatenhanced hi s s ent ence , there i s no S i xt h A m endm entvi ol at i on un der B oo ke r . F urtherm ore, V az qu ez never chal l enged t he suff

i ci ency of the evi dence s up po rt i ng the val uat i on i n the di stri ct c o u r t a n d r a is e s th e s u f

f ic ie n c y a r g u m e n t f

o rth e f ir s t tim e o n ap p e a l, d e s p ite h is w a iv e ro f

th e is s u e in th e d is tr ic t c o u r t.4

E v e n in th e a b s e n c e o f

c o n s titu tio n a l e r r o r , B o o ker e r r ore xi s t s w he r e the d is tr ic t c o u r t im p o s e s a s e n te n c e u n d e ra m a n d a to r y G u id e lin e s s y s te m . She l ton , 40 0 F . 3d at13 30 –3 1. T he di stri ctcourtse nt ence d V az qu ez un der am andat ory G u id e lin e s s y s te m , th u s s ta tu to r y e r r o re x is ts . Se e id . “ A non- c ons t i tut i ona l e r r or i s ha r m l e s s i f

, vi e w i ng the pr oc e e di ngs i n the i re nt i r e ty , a c our tde t e r m i ne s tha tthe e r r o rd id n o t a f

f e c t th e s e n te n c e , o rh a d b u t v e r y s lig h t e f f e c t. I f o n e c a n s a y w ith 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 r r or , the se nt ence i s due t o b e a ff i rm ed even tho ug h there w as error. ” U ni t ed Stat es v. M a th e n ia , 409 F . 3d 1289, 1292 ( 11th C i r . 2005) ( i nt e r na l quot a t i on m a r ks a nd brac ket s om i tt ed). T he bu rden i s on the go vernm entt o sho w the error w as h a r m le s s . I

d. T he G ove r nm e ntc a nnotm e e ti t s bur de n. T he di s tr i c tc our ti m pos e d a se nt ence atthe l ow end o f the appl i cabl e gui del i nes r ange and ann ou nced an al t ernat i ve se nt ence of si x m on ths’ i m pri sonm enti n cas e the S up re m e C ou rtrul ed th a t B la ke ly w a s ap p lic a b le to th e G u id e lin e s . A c c o r d in g ly , b e c a u s e th e r e is e vi de nc e i n the r e c or d the di s tr i c tc our tw oul d ha ve i m pos e d a l e s s e rs e nt e nc e on V a z que z , w e va c a t e a nd r e m a nd f orr e s e nt e nc i ng c ons i s t e ntw i th B oo ke r . W e n o te the di s tr i c tc our tc or r e c t l y c a l c ul a t e d V a z que z ’ s G ui de l i ne s r a nge of 24 t o 30 m o n th s ’ im p r is o n m e n t. See U n i t ed S ta t es v. C ra w

f o rd , 407 F . 3d 1174, 1178–79We do n ot m e an toimp ly by our h oldingthat on

remand thedis tric t c ourt

mus t im po se 1 a lesser sentenc e. Rather , we merely hold the Gover

nment has not met its burden to show the statutory error wa s harmless. We also will not attempt to decide now whether particula r sentenc es below theGuidelines ra ng e might be re asonablein this case.

5 (11t h C i r. 20 05 ) ( st at i ng af t er B oo ke r , di stri ctcourt s m ustconsul tthe G ui del i nes a n d “[ t]h is c o n s u lta tio n r e q u ir e m e n t, a t a m in im u m , o b lig e s th e d is tr ic t c o u r t to ca l cul at e c o r r e c tly the s e nt e nc i ng r a nge pr e s c r i be d by the G ui de l i ne s ” ) . T hus , on r e m a nd, the di s tr i c tc our ti s r e qui r e d t o s e nt e nc e V a z que z a c c or di ng t o B oo ke r , consi deri ng the G ui del i nes r ange of 24 t o 3 0 m on ths’ i m pri sonm entand “ other st atut ory c on ce rns a s w el l , se e [ 18 U . S . C . ] § 3 55 3(a) (S up p. 20 04 ). ” B oo ke r , 125 S . C t . a t757. 1 VA CATE D A ND RE M AN DED .