FI LED U. S . COURT OF AP PE ALS E L E V E N T H C IR C U IT January 9, 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. 05- 10771 N on -A rgum entC al endar

________________________ D . C . D o c k e tN o . 0 4 - 2 0 6 8 8 - C R - K MM 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 O R G E E N R I Q U E R A M I R E Z F L O R 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

_________________________ ( Jan u ar y 9, 2006) B efo re B L A C K , B A R K E T T an d H U L L , C i rcu i tJu d g es. P E R C U R I A M:The PSIlisted the following: ( 1) eight arre sts between 1981 a nd 1996 on such cha

rg es as 1 gra nd the ft , th e ft , b urg lary, re c e ivingsto le n p ropert y , c arr yinga c on c e a le d w e a

po n, and false identification to a pe aceofficer, where e ach of the cha rg es were ultimately

dismiss ed; (2) three arrests between 1994 and 1996 on cha rg es of illeg al entry

or depor tation proce eding s, where , for eac h of the c harg es, Ramirez Flore z was removed or voluntarily

returne d to Mex ico; (3) two arrests, one in 1985 for posse ssion of a controlled substanc e and onein 1996 for larceny, where, for e ach of

the cha rg es, a bench wa

rra nt was issued and thecharg e remained ac tive; and (4) three

2 Jorge E nri qu e R am i re z F l orez appeal s hi s 36-m on th sent ence i m po se d aft er pl e a di ng gui l ty t o unl a w f ul a t t e m pt e d r e e ntr y a f

t e rde por t a t i on f

ol l ow i ng the c o m m is s io n o f

a f e lo n y , in v io la tio n o f

8 U .S .C . § § 1 3 2 6 ( a ) , ( b ) ( 1 ) . O n a p p e a l, R a m i r e z F l or e z a r gue s tha tthe di s tr i c tc our te r r e d w he n i tf a i l e d t o pr ovi de pr i or n o tic e o f its in te n t to d e p a r t u p w a r d ly f r o m th e g u id e lin e s a n d a ls o w h e n it ad d ressed R am i rez F l o rez’s co u n sel , rath er th an R am i rez F l o rez p erso n al l y, re g ar d in g h is d es ire to allo cu te. A fter re v iew , w e v ac ate R am irez F lo re z’s s e nt e nc e a nd r e m a nd f

orr e s e nt e nc i ng. I . F AC T UA L B AC KG RO UN D Ra mi r e z Fl o r e z , a n a l i e n , p l e d g u i l ty t o u n l a w f u l l y a r r i v i n g a tM i a mi Int ernat i on al A i rportaf

t erhavi ng been previ ou sl y deport ed fr om the U ni t ed S t at es i n M a y 1994 a s a c onvi c t e d f e l on. A s t o R a m i r e z F l or e z ’ s c r i m i na l hi s t or y , 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 ” ) l i s t e d one c r i m i na l c onvi c t i on, a 1993 s t a t e c onvi c t i on f

orgr a nd the f

t . T he P S I a l s o l i s t e d s i xt e e n a r r e s t s r a ngi ng f r om 1981 t o 1996, butpr ovi de d the f a c tua l c i r c um s t a nc e s f

oronl y one a r r e s t , a 1996 arre stfor l ar ce ny. T he P S I s t at ed thatthe ci rc um st ance s f or the ot her a rr es t s w er e 1arre sts , o nein 1 98 2 f or gra nd the ft , o nein 1 98 5 f

or po sse ssi on

of sto le n p ropert

y , a nd on ein 1999 for illeg al entry, where, for eac h of the c harg es, the disposition of the charg e wa s unknown.

3 n o t a v a ila b le . T h e P S I r e c o m m e n d e d a to ta l a d ju s te d o f f e n s e le v e l o f

1 0 , a cri m i n al h i st o ry cat eg o ry II an d a g u i d el i n e ran g e o f 8 t o 1 4 m o n th s’ i m pr i s onm e nt . T he P S I a l s o r e c om m e nde d tha tthe r e w e r e no f a c t or s w a r r a nt i ng a departure. A tthe se nt enci ng hear i ng , R am i re z F l orez and t he go vernm entea ch i nd i ca t ed thatthey had no obj ec t i on s t o t he P S I. T he di stri ctcourtthen ann ou nced i t s i nt ent i on t o d epar tup w ar dl y f rom the gu i del i ne ra ng e bas ed on R am i re z F l or e z ’ s m ul t i pl e a r r e s t s a nd de por t a t i ons . D e f e ns e c ouns e l obj e c t e d t o the us e of th e a r r e s ts b e c a u s e th o s e c a s e s h a d b e e n d is m is s e d a n d th e g o v e r n m e n t f a ile d to prov i de the i nform at i on needed t o p erm i tthe courtt o d et erm i ne w hether R am i re z F lo r e z w a s g u ilty o f

th e o f f e n s e s . T h e d is tr ic t c o u r t a s k e d d e f e n s e c o u n s e l, “A n y th in g e ls e ? D o e s h e w a n t to s a y a ny thi ng? ” D e f

e ns e c ouns e l r e s ponde d, “ N o, tha nk y ou, Y ourH onor . ” T he d i stri ctco u rtth en u p w ard l y d ep art ed an d sen t en ced R am i rez F l o rez t o 3 6 m o n th s’ i m pr i s onm e nt . A tthe t i m e s e nt e nc e w a s i m pos e d, the di s tr i c tc our tdi d not r e f e r e nc e U . S . S . G . § 4A 1. 3 a s the ba s i s f orthe upw a r d de pa r tur e . H ow e ve r , the di s tr i c tc our tl a t e rf

i l e d a s t a t e m e ntof

r e a s ons i ndi c a t i ng tha ti tha d de pa r t e d a bove the gu i del i nes r ange pu rs uantt o § 4A 1. 3 b ec ause R am i re z F l orez ’ s c ri m i nal hi st oryAlthough Ramirez Flores did not lodg e an obje ction with the district court that he had 2 re c e ive d in su ff

ic ie nt n oti c eof

theup wa rd depa rt ure , h ec onte nd s th at pl a in- e rror review s ho uld not apply to this i ssue bec ause hewas una ble to make a

proper objection at sentencingdue to the district court’s failure to make c lear the basis for its upwa

rd depa rture. B eca

use weconclude that the district court c ommitt ed reversible error under themore string ent plain-error standard, we ne ed not re solve this issue. 4 ca t egory had un der- re pres ent ed the se ri ou snes s of R am i re z F l orez ’ s c ri m i nal hi st ory a nd hi s l i kel i ho od thathe w ou l d ree nt erthe U ni t ed S t at es . T hi s app ea l f ol l ow e d. I I . STA N D A R D O F R EVI EW O n a ppe a l , R a m i r e z F l or e z c l a i m s the di s tr i c tc our te r r e d by f a i l i ng t o gi ve h i m th e req u i red n o t i ce o f i t s i n t en tt o u p w ard l y d ep artan d b y fai l i n g t o ad d ress R a m ir e z F lo r e z p e r s o n a lly a n d in v ite h im to a llo c u te . R a m ir e z F lo r e z f a ile d to obj e c ta ts e nt e nc i ng on the gr ounds now r a i s e d on a ppe a l , a nd thus w e r e vi e w f or pl ai n err or. U ni t ed S t at es v. Z i nn , 32 1 F . 3d 10 84 , 10 87 (11 C i r. 20 03 ). W e th 2 c or r e c tpl a i n e r r orw he n: ( 1) the r e i s e r r or ; ( 2) the e r r ori s pl a i n; ( 3) i ta f f e c t s the de f e nda nt ’ s s ubs t a nt i a l r i ght s ; a nd ( 4) i ts e r i ous l y a f f e c t s the f a i r ne s s , i nt e gr i ty or publ i c r e put a t i on of

the j udi c i a l pr oc e e di ngs . U ni t e d S t a t e s v. R om a no, 314 F . 3d 12 79 , 12 81 (11 C i r. 20 02 ). th I I . DI S CUS S I ON R am i re z F l orez ar gu es , and t he go vernm entagre es , thatthe di stri ctcourt i m pr ope r l y de pa r t e d upw a r d f r om the gui de l i ne s r a nge be c a us e i tdi d notgi veRule 32 was re cently amende d to refle ct the SupremeCourt’s holding in B urns, and the 3 failureto provide the noticerequire d in Rule 32 is commonly ref erred to as a

Bur ns violation. 5 n o tic e p r io rto th e s e n te n c in g h e a r in g th a t it w o u ld c o n s id e ra n u p w a r d d e p a r tu r e . W e a l so agre e. F e de r a l R ul e of

C r i m i na l P r oc e dur e 32 pe r m i t s a c our tt o de pa r tf r om the a ppl i c a bl e gui de l i ne s r a nge on a gr ound noti de nt i f i e d i n the P S I ori n the gove r nm e nt ’ s pr e - he a r i ng s ubm i s s i on onl y i f i tpr ovi de s a c r i m i na l de f e nda nt r e a s ona bl e not i c e s pe c i f y i ng the gr ound upon w hi c h i ti s c ont e m pl a t i ng a d e p a r tu r e . Se e Fe d . R. Cr i m. P. 3 2 ( h ) ; s e e a l s o Bu r n s v . U n i t e d St a t e s , 5 0 1 U . S. 12 9, 13 8-39 11 1 S . C t . 21 82 , 21 87 (199 1). W e have hel d t hat“ re as on abl e not i ce ” 3 re qu i re s, ata m i ni m um , thatno t i ce be gi ven b ef ore the se nt enci ng hear i ng . U ni t ed S t at es v. Jones, 1 F . 3d 11 67 , 11 69 (11 C i r. 19 93 ). th H er e, the di stri ctcourtpl ai nl y e rr ed by no tgi vi ng R am i re z F l orez no t i ce before the se nt enci ng hear i ng thati tw as cont em pl at i ng an up w ar d d epar ture und er U . S . S . G . § 4A 1. 3. T he P S I di d nots ugge s ta n upw a r d de pa r tur e , a nd the g o v ern m en tm ad e n o su ch su g g est i o n i n i t s p re-h eari n g su b m i ssi o n . T h e fi rst m ent i on of a possi bl e departure f rom the gu i del i nes r ange w as m ade by the di stri ct c our ta tthe s e nt e nc i ng he a r i ng. T hus , the r e w a s e r r ortha tw a s pl a i n, s a t i s f y i ng the f i r s ttwo p r o n g s o f

p l a i n - e r r o rr e v i e w. A s to th e th ird p ro n g , th e B u rn s- n o ti ce er ro r a ff ec ted R am irez F lo re z’s6

s ubs t a nt i a l r i ght s unde rthe f a c tua l c i r c um s t a nc e s of

thi s c a s e . S e e U ni t e d S t a t e s v. V al ent i ne, 21 F . 3d 39 5, 39 7-98 (11 C i r. 19 94 ) ( ho l di ng thatdi stri ctcourt th com m i t t ed pl ai n err or w hen i tfa i l ed t o p rovi de pre-hea ri ng no t i ce of an up w ar d departure, re l i ed up on un supp ort ed fa ctual as sum pt i on s a s abasi s f or the departure a n d im p o s e d a s e n te n c e s u b s ta n tia lly in e x c e s s o f th e g u id e lin e s r a n g e ) . F ir s t, if d e f e n s e c o u n s e l h a d k n o w n p r io rto th e h e a r in g th a t R a m ir e z F lo r e z ’s p r io ra r r e s ts m ig h t b e u s e d to s u p p o r t a n u p w a r d d e p a r tu r e , h e w o u ld h a v e h a d a n o p p o r tu n ity t o m ar shal fa ct s t o con t es ta departure on t hi s bas i s. S ee i d. at39 8 (expl ai ni ng that defe nd antw as prej ud i ce d b ec ause the l ac k o f pre -hea ri ng no t i ce depri ved cou nsel of the op po rtun i ty t o con t es tfa ctual as sum pt i on s use d t o sup po rtup w ar d departure) . S ec on d, R am i re z F l orez has pre se nt ed ar gu m ent s on app ea l c ha l l e ngi ng the us e of

the pr i ora r r e s t s a nd s how n tha tthe y c oul d ha ve be e n m a de a ts e nt e nc i ng i f

gi ve n a de qua t e not i c e of the upw a r d de pa r tur e . S e e J one s , 1 F . 3d a t 1 1 7 1 . T hi r d, the di s tr i c tc our ts e nt e nc e d R a m i r e z F l or e z t o a t e r m of i m pr i s onm e nt ( 36 m onths ) s i gni f

i c a nt l y hi ghe rtha n the a ppl i c a bl e gui de l i ne s r a nge ( 8 t o 14 m on ths). S ee V al ent i ne, 21 F . 3d at39 8 (po i nt i ng t o t he defendant ’ s “ subst ant i al e xtr a pr i s on t i m e ” i n de t e r m i ni ng tha tde f e nda ntw a s pr e

j udi c e d by the e r r one ous up w ar d d epar ture) . U nd erthe ci rc um st ance s of thi s c as e, R am i re z F l orez hasB e c a us ewec on c ludethat th edis tric t c ourt plainly e rre d in up wa rdly depa rtingin 4 vio latio n o f R

ule32 and

B ur ns , w ene e d n ot add

re ss Ramire z F lore z’s many oth e r a rguments , such as that: (1) the district court improperly relied on thearrest repor ts as a basis for

the upward depar ture, e specially

where they

were not supported by

a factual summary

of each ar

rest dra wn from a policerepor

t; (2) the district cour

t erre d in failingto make a “ guided” departureas require d by

U.S.S.G. § 4A1.3(a)( 4); and (3) due proc ess and e xpost facto c onsiderations re quire that he be sentence d on rema nd within the applicable guidelines rang e bec ause his off ense a nd conviction occurre d prior to United States v. B ooker, 543 U .S. 220, 125 S. C t. 738 (2005). T h es e argum ent s ar e p ro p er l y di re ct edi nth e f

i rs ti n s t an ce t o th e d i s tri ctco urtatre s ent en ci n g. 7 s how n notonl y tha tthe e r r ora f f e c t e d hi s s ubs t a nt i a l r i ght s , buta l s o tha tthe e r r or s e r i ous l y a f

f e c t e d the f

a i r ne s s a nd i nt e gr i ty of

the s e nt e nc i ng he a r i ng. B a s e d on the f or e goi ng, w e va c a t e a nd r e m a nd f orr e s e nt e nc i ng, w i th i ns truc t i ons t o pr ovi de r e a s ona bl e B ur ns not i c e i f a n upw a r d de pa r tur e unde r§ 4A 1. 3 w i l l be c ons i de r e d. 4 A l though the di s tr i c tc our t ’ s B ur ns vi ol a t i on a l one r e qui r e s us t o va c a t e a nd rem an d fo r resen t en ci n g , w e n o t e th atth e p art i es ag ree th atth e d i stri ctco u rtal so e r r e d w he n i tf

a i l e d t o a ddr e s s R a m i r e z F l or e z pe r s ona l l y i n i nqui r i ng a bout R a m i r e z F l or e z ’ s de s i r e t o a l l oc ut e . S e e F e d. R . C r i m . P . 32( i ) ( 4) ( A ) ( i i ) ( pr ovi di ng tha t , be f or e i m pos i ng s e nt e nc e , the di s tr i c tc our tm us tpe r s ona l l y a ddr e s s the d e f e n d a n t “in o r d e rto p e r m it th e d e f e n d a n t to s p e a k o rp r e s e n t a n y in f o r m a tio n to m itig a te th e s e n te n c e ” ) ; U n ite d S ta te s v . P r o u ty , 3 0 3 F .3 d 1 2 4 9 , 1 2 5 1 - 5 2 & n .1 ( 11 C i r . 2002) ( hol di ng tha tthe di s tr i c tc our tpl a i nl y e r r e d w he n i tof f e r e d the th o p p o r tu n i ty t o a l l o c u t e t o d e f e n s e c o u n s e l r a th e rth a n t o d e f e n d a n tp e r s o n a l l y ) . At re se nt enci ng , the di stri ctcourtw i l l have the op po rtun i ty t o add re ss R am i re z F l orez pe r s ona l l y a nd i nvi t e hi m t o s pe a k.8

F i na l l y , w e de c l i ne R a m i r e z F l or e z ’ s r e que s ttha tw e r e a s s i gn thi s c a s e t o a di f f e r e ntj udge on r e m a nd. R a m i r e z F l or e z a gr e e s tha tthi s di s tr i c tj udge doe s not ha rbora ny pe r s ona l a ni m us t ow a r d hi m . W e s e e no ba s i s i n thi s r e c or d f or re as si gn m ent . S ee U ni t ed S t at es v. T orki ng t on , 87 4 F . 2d 14 41 , 14 46 -47 (11 C i r. th 1 9 8 9 ) ( s ta tin g f

a c to r s to c o n s id e rw h e n th is C o u r t is e x e r c is in g its a u th o r ity to or de rr e a s s i gnm e nt ) ; s e e a l s o U ni t e d S t a t e s v. G upt a , 363 F . 3d 1169, 1177 ( 11 th C i r . 2004) ( r e

j e c t i ng a r e que s tf

orr e a s s i gnm e nta nd hol di ng tha tthe r e w a s no re as on t o d ou btthe di stri ctj ud ge’ s j ud gm entor i m part i al i ty, even i f the j ud ge w er e to im p o s e th e s a m e s e n te n c e h e s u g g e s te d a t th e p r e v io u s s e n te n c in g ) . In concl usi on , beca use of the pl ai n err or i n t he l ac k o f the pre-hea ri ng no t i ce r e qui r e d by R ul e 32 a nd B ur ns , w e va c a t e R a m i r e z F l or e z ’ s s e nt e nc e a nd r e m a nd f ora ne w s e nt e nc i ng c ons i s t e ntw i th thi s opi ni on. V AC AT E D a n d RE MAND E D.