### FI LED U.S. COURT O F APP EALS ELEVENTH CIRCUIT J une 8, 20 05 THO MAS K. KAH N CL ERK [DO NOT PUBLISH] IN THE UN ITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FO R T HE EL EV EN TH CIRC UI T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- 1396 1 Non-A rgum ent Calendar

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ D. C. Docket N o. 04-00004 -CR- FT M-29SPC UNITED STAT ES OF AMERIC A, Plaintiff-Appellee, ve rs us ROB ER T R . C URT IS, a . k . a . P l a y, D ef en dant- Appe llant.

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

S ta te s D istri ct

Co urt f or the Mi ddl e D istri ct

of F lor ida

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ _ (J un e 8, 200 5) Be fo re CA RN E S, MA RC U S an d W IL SO N , Ci rc uit Jud ge s. PE R CU RIA M:2

Ro be rt R. Curt is a

ppe al s hi s 16 9- m onth se nte nc e fo r the dis tr ibu tio n of co ca ine ba se , in vio la tio n of 21 U . S. C. § 84 1. C urtis e nte re d agui lty ple a w ith out a plea agr eem ent, which the dist rict court ac cepted. At sentencing, the c ourt ca lc ula te d C urtis ’ s ba se of fe nse le ve l onthe ba sis of ( 1) his thr ee pr ior

c onvi ct ion s for the sale of cocaine, which qualified him for career

offender status un der U.S.S.G. § 4B 1. 1, a nd ( 2) the f ac t tha t C urtis ’ s in stant o ff en se of c onvi ct ion carr ie d a m ax im

um sen te nc e o f 20 y ears . See U. S. S. G. § 4B1.1(b) ( instructin g that the offense level be set at the greater of either the off

ense level for a

car eer offender under § 4B1.1 or the offense level otherw ise applicable). Curt is arg ue d a t se nte nc ing that B lak el y v. W ashi ngt on prohibit s federa l co urts f ro m se nte nc ing de fe ndants ba se d onunc harg ed r el ev an t c ondu ct

that i s ne ith er sti pul at ed

to by the de fe ndant n or

pr ove n to aj ur

y be y ond a re as ona

ble do ub t. See 542 U . S. ___ , 124 S . Ct . 253 1 ( 2004 ). T hus, he a rg ue s, the gui de lin e provisi ons th at allow f

or such enhancem ents are unconstitu tional. Curtis further ar gue s th at

the r ea soni ng b eh ind

e xe m pti ng p ri or

c onvi ct ion s f

ro m the hol din g in Apprendi v. N

ew Je rsey , 530 U . S. 466 , 120 S . Ct . 234 8 ( 2000 ), a nd Alm endarez-Torres v. U

nited Sta tes , 523 U. S. 224, 118 S. Ct. 1219 (1998), has been underm ined by

subsequ ent cases. Curtis thus claim s that even if the fac t of a prior conviction is exem

pted from the B lak el yr ule , the c ar ee r of

fe nde r pr ovi sio n3

in U. S. S. G. § 4B1.1 does not su rvive constitu tional scrutin y because his sentence w as inc re as ed

ba se d ona ddi tio na l f

ac ts tha t w er e not

c harg ed in the ind ic tm en t or sti pul at ed to at the ple a he ar ing . T he f

ac ts w ithw hic h he take s is sue a re : ( 1) he w as a t l ea st 1 8 y ears old

w he n he c om

m itt ed the ins tant o ff

en se , ( 2) the ins tant of fe nse w as af

el ony inv olv ing ac ontro lle d su bst an ce , a nd ( 3) Curt is h ad tw o pr ior felony conviction s that wer e either c rim es of violence or controlled subs tance of fe nse s. C urtis a lso a rg ue s th at , apart f ro m his se nte nc ing e nhanc em en t, the sentencing cou rt err oneous ly believed that it had no authority to im pose a lesser sentence than the guid elines required and, thus, sentenced C urtis und er an in co rrec t l eg al st an da rd . Inthe pos t- Booker

era , w e have explained that there ar e tw o ty pes of Booker er ro r: ( 1) aS ixth A m en dm en t e rr or –th at is, im posi ng a se nte nc ing e nhanc em en t ba se d onj udi ci al f

ind ing s th at

go b ey ond the f

ac ts a dm itt ed

by the de fe ndant o r fo und by the j ur y , a nd ( 2) statut or

y e rr or –be ing se nte nc ed

und er ase nte nc ing gu id el in es sch em e th atis m an da to ry . U nit ed Sta tes v . She lto n , 400 F . 3d 1 325, 1330 –31 (11t h Cir. 2005 ). A . Si xthA m en dm en t E rr or U . S. S. G . § 4B 1. 1( a) state s: “ A de fe ndant i s ac ar ee r of fe nde r if ( 1) the de fe ndant w as a t l ea st e igh te eny ears old a t the ti m e the de fe ndant c om m itt ed the4

instant o ffense of convictio n; (2) the instant offense of conviction is a felony that is e ith er ac ri m e of

vio le nc e or

ac ontro lle d su

bst an ce of

fe nse ; and ( 3) the de fe ndant h as a t l ea st tw o pr ior f el ony c onvi ct ion s of

e ith er ac ri m e of

vio le nc e or a controlled subs tance offe nse.” If a court finds a defendant to be a car eer offender under § 4B1.1( a), the defendant’ s offense level is enhanced under § 4 B1 .1(b ). See U. S. S. G. § 4B1.1(b) ( setting th e base off ense level at the greater of either the off

ense level for a

car eer offender under § 4B1.1 or the offense level otherwise applicable). In Booker , the S upr em e Co urt “ le ft und ist ur be d it s ho ldi ng i n [ Alm endarez-Torres ] , that r ec idi vis m is not a separate elem ent of an offense that the governm ent is required to prove bey ond a reasonable doub t.” United States v. Orduno-Mireles , N o. 04- 1263 0, sli p op . a t 17 92 ( 11th C ir . Apr . 6, 200 5) ; se e als o United States v. C

amacho-Ibarquen , 40 4 F .3d 12 83 , 12 90 (11 th Cir . 20 05 ). Mor eo ve r, the Co urt r ea ff irm ed A ppre ndi ’ s ho ldi ng tha t “ [a ] ny f ac t ( oth er tha n a pri or c onv ic tio n ), w hic h is ne ce ssary to supp ort a

se nte nc e ex ce ed ing the m axim um authorized by

the fac ts establish ed by

a plea of guilt y

or a j ury verdict m ust be adm itted by

the defendant or proved to a j ury bey ond a reasonable doub t.” Orduno-Mireles , N o. 04- 1263 0, sli p op . a t 17 92. A cc or din gly , in Orduno-Mireles w e obse rv ed

that “ the Co urt’ s ho ldi ng i n Boo ker . . . is not im pli cate d w he n a5

defendant’ s sentence is enhanced based on a prior convictio n.” Id . ; se e als o U nit ed Sta tes v . M

ars ei lle , 377 F. 3d 12 49, 1257 (11t h Cir. 2004 ). Beca use Alm endarez-Torres r em ai ns g ood law , the se nte nc ing c ourt di d no t er r in f ind ing that C urtis sho uld r ec ei ve a n e nhanc em en t purs uant t o § 4 B1 . 1 a s a care er of fe nde r ba se d onhis pr ior

c onvi ct ion s. T o th e ex te nt tha t the S upr em e Co urt’ s r ec en t de ci sio n in She pard ar gua

bly unde rm ine d Alm endarez-Torres , t h a td e c i s i o n d o e s n o tu n d e rmi n e o u r o u t c o me he re. See Shepard

v. United States , __ U . S. __, 125 S . Ct . 125 4 ( 2005 ). C urtis stated at sentencing that he had “ no factual obje ctions” to th e presentence investig ation report. T herefor e, the sentencing court did not resolve disp uted fact s, b ut ba se d i ts sen te nc e o n a dm it te d fa ct s. Se e She pard , 125 S . Ct . a t 12 63; se e als o U

nit ed Sta tes v . B urge , N o. 04-13468 , m anuscript op. at 17 (11th Cir. May 2, 2005) (noting that the defendant had waived his objections to the factual state m en ts i n th e pr es en te nc e inv es tig at ionr ep ort and, the re fo re , ha d “ adm itt ed ” those facts). Moreover, there is no doub t that the prior offenses, of which there we re m any

m ore than the two re quired, w ere felonies invo lving controlled subs tances. Suffic e it to say that, in this case, we are not presented with an oppo rtunity

to determ ine the im

plications and reac h of She pard . Thu s, we6

co n cl u d e t h at t h e d i s t ri ct co u rt ’s u s e o f p ri o r c o n v i ct i o n s t o en h an ce Cu rt i s ’s se nte nc e did

not vio la te the S ixth A m en dm en t. B. St at

uto ry E rr or D ue to the na tur e of

the S upr em e Co urt’ s Booker r em edy , w e ha ve co nc lud ed

that a dis tr ic t c ourt ha s c om

m itt ed Booker

e rr or w he ne ve r it se nte nc es a de fe ndant unde r a m an da tor y gui de lin es sc he m e, e ve n inthe abse nc e of aS ixth Am en dm en t erro r. She lto n , 400 F . 3d a t 13 30–3 1. N ex t w e co nsi de r w he the r the e rr or w as harm le ss. Whe n an e rr or is nonc onst itu tio na l, it

is harm le ss i f it doe s no t a ff ec t the sub stanti al r igh ts o f the pa rti es . See 28 U . S. C. § 21 11; U nit ed Sta tes v . G uzm an , 167 F . 3d 1 350, 135 3 (11th Cir. 1999). “ [A ] noncon stitut ional error r equires rever sal onlyif it re sulted in actual prej udice because it had subst antial and injurious effec t.” G uzm an , 167 F. 3d a t 13 53 ( int er

na l qu ota tio ns and c itatio n om itt ed ). T he gov er nm en t be ar s th e bu rd en of s ho win g t ha t t he erro r di d n ot affe ctCu rti s’s s ub st an ti al rig ht s. United States v. H

ernandez , 160 F. 3d 66 1, 670 (11th Cir. 1998). T he governm ent has m et its bur de n. First, the district court im posed a sentence in the m iddle of the guid elines range . T he c ourt c oul d have se nte nc ed Curt is t o ase nte nc e on the lowe nd o f the spe ctrum , but

did not do s o. S ec ond, the c ourt c oul d have de part ed f ro m the7

gui de lin es pur suant t o U . S. S. G . § 4A 1. 3, but de cl ine d de fe nse c ouns el ’ s in vit at ion to do so . When defense counsel asked the court to findthat Curtis’ s crim inal histo ry category overrepre sented his actual crim inal histo ry , which couns el ch ar ac te ri ze d a s “ co nsi ste nt w ithsom eb ody w ho i s si m

ply tr y ing to supp ort the ir ow n ha bit , ” the c ourt de cl ine d. C iti ng the pa tte rnof c ri m ina l a ct ivi ty

be gin nin g in 1984 a nd p ro gr es sin g si nc e the n, the c ourt de nie d de fe nse c ouns el ’ s m oti on t o depart downward. The r ecord establishes that, even though the district court c o mm i t t e ds t a tu t o ry Booker err or, that e rror w as harm less because it did no t have a subs tantial and injurious effec t on Curtis’s sentence. For the fore goin g reasons, w e af firm the district court’ s sentence. AFFIRMED.