FI L ED U.S. COURT OF A P P E A LS E LE V EN T H C IR C U IT J UNE 22, 2005 THOMAS 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N CL ERK [DO NOT PUBLISH] IN THE UN ITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FO R T HE EL EV EN TH CIRC UI T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- 1445 3 Non-A rgum ent Calendar

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ D.C. Dock etNo. 0 4- 00 01 5- CR-T-2 6EAJ UNITED STAT ES OF AMERIC A, Plaintiff-Appellee, ve rs us RICH ARD CRA TI S CA RT ER , a. k. a. Cr at is4 5, D ef en dant- Appe llant.

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

S tate s D istri ct

Co urt fo r the Mi ddl e D istri ct

of F lor ida

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ _ (J un e 22, 200 5) Be fo re BI RC H , BA RKE T T and H U L L , Ci rc uit Jud ge s. PE R CU RIA M: A ft er ple ad ing gui lty , de fe ndant R ic hard Cr at is C ar

te r ap pe al s hi s 96 -m onth se nte nc e fo r know ing ly

dis tr ibu tin g and atte m

pti ng t o di str ibu te c hil d2

po rn og rap hy, in v io la ti on of 1 8 U.S.C. § § 2 an d 2 25 2A( a)(2 ). Afterrev ie w, we a f f i rm. I. BACK GROUND O n Ju ly 23, 200 3, Cart er

se nt an e -m ai l, c ont ai nin g avid eo a tta ch m en t, f ro m his com puter in Florida to an und ercover Federa l Bureau of I nvestig ation (“ FBI” ) ag en t l oc at ed

in N ewY ork. T he vid eo de pic te d apr ep ube sc en t f em al e en ga gin g in sexual int ercourse w ith an adult m ale. O n three subsequentoccasions, Car ter sent the und ercover FBI agent approxim ately 12 additi onal vid eos, all of which co nta ine d si m ilar de pic tio ns o f pr ep ube sc en t m ino rs e nga gin g inse xua lly e xpl ic it co nduc t. A cc or din g to the wri tte n pl ea a gr ee m en t, ( 1) the gov er nm en t e xpr es sly re se rv ed it s r igh t t o m ak e any

r ec om m en da tio n w ithr eg ar d to Cart er ’ s se nte nc ing that it deem ed appropriate, and (2) Car ter had discussed the Sentencing Guidelin es with his attorney

and understoo d how they applied to hi s case. T he plea ag re em en t a lso c ont ai ne d an a ppe al -w ai ve r pr ovi sio n, in w hic h C ar te r “ expr es sly waiv e[d ] th e ri gh t t o app eal [hi s] sen te nc e, di rect ly or co ll at eral ly, on an y gro un d, .

. . e xc ep t f

or an up w ar d de part

ur e by the se nte nc ing j udge , ase nte nc e ab ove the statut or y m ax im um , or ase nte nc e in v iol at ionof the lawapart

f ro m the se nte nc ing gu id el in es .”Al l c itatio ns are to t he 20 03 ve rs ion

of the Gu ide lin e s. 1 3 O n th e m or

nin g of the c hange -o f- ple a he ar ing , Cart er ’ s c ouns el m et w iththe pr ose cu tor

to dis cu ss wha t r ec om

m en da tio ns w oul d be m ad e w ithr eg ar d to se nte nc ing . A t this m ee tin g, Cart er ’ s c ouns el a ske d th e pr ose cu tor if she w oul d

“ be willing to standsilent” with regar d to Carter’ s request for a low-end sentence, to which the prosecutor responded th at, “providednothi ng ou t of the ordinary wa s fo und, [ she ] w oul dn’ t m ak e a re co m m en da tio n f

or hig h e nd o r lowe nd b ef

or e [the se nte nc ing c ourt] . ” A t the c hange -o f- ple a he ar ing , the m ag istrate j udge re co gni ze d th at

thi s e xc hange c onst itute d a“ sid e ag re em en t” be tw ee n th e part ie s, w he re by the gov er

nm en t a gr ee d th at

“ it’ s no t go ing to ar gue that [ Cart er ] sho uld be sentenced at the top of the guid elines and it’ s goin g to be silent . . . about what range w ith in the gui de lin es [ his ] se nte nc e shou ld b e. ” T he m ag istrate j udge rem inded Carter that, notwithstand ing th is agreem ent, the governm ent’ s silence did not pr ev en t the dis tr ic t c ourt f ro m m ak ing an in de pe nde nt d et er m inatio n r e g ar d i n g anap p r o p r i a t e s e n t e n c e . C art e r i n d i c a t e dth a th e u n d e r s t o o dth e t e rms of the side agreem ent and acknowledged the district court’s a utho rity to im pose an appropriate sentence. The P resentence I nvestig ation Report (“ PSI ”) set C arter ’ s base offense level at 17, pur suant t o U . S. S. G . § 2G 2. 2( a) , and r ec om m en de d th e fo llo w ing 14

enhanc em en ts: ( 1) tw o le ve ls, pur suant t o § 2 G 2. 2( b) (1 ) be ca use the of fe nse invo lved m aterial depicting sexually explicit im ages of a pre pubescent m inor; (2 ) fi ve le ve ls, pur suant t o § 2 G 2. 2( b) (2 )( B) , be ca use Cart er

“ tr an sm itt ed

c hil d por nogr ap hy in expe ct at ionof

r ec ei vin g c hil d po rn ogr ap hy in re tur n” ; ( 3) f our levels, pursuant to § 2G2.2(b)(3), because “ the offense involved m aterial that po rtr ay [ed ] sa di st ic or m as oc hi st ic co nduc t o r ot he r de pi ct io ns of v io le nc e,” nam ely , sexual intercourse betw een an adult m ale and a pre pubescent fem ale; (4 ) tw o le ve ls, pur suant t o § 2 G 2. 2( b) (5 ), be ca use Cart er

use d ac om

put er to dis tr ibu te the m at er ia l; an d ( 5) f ive le ve ls, pur suant t o § 2 G 2. 2( b) (6 )( D ), be ca use the of fe nse inv olv ed

600 or m or e im ag es ( ap pr oxi m at el y 890 im ag es of

c hil d p o rn o g rap h y). Th e P SI al s o re co m m en d eda t h re e- l ev el re du ct i o ni nCa rt er ’s of fen se lev el , pu rs ua ntto U.S.S.G. § 3 E1.1 , foracce pt an ce o f res po ns ib il it y . Gi v en a t o t al o ff

en s e l ev el o f 3 2 , a n da c ri m i n al h i s t o ry ca t eg o ry o f I , C ar t er ’s gui de lin e se nte nc ing r an ge w as 121 to 151 m onths. A t se nte nc ing , Cart er

obj ec te d to the P SI , arg uin g th at the se nte nc ing enhanc em en ts v iol at ed

his F if th and S ixth A m en dm en t r igh ts, a s e xpl ic at ed by Blakely v. W ashingt on, 124 S. C t. 2531 (2004 ), Apprendi v. N ewJersey , 530 U. S. 466, 120 S . Ct . 234 8 ( 2000 ), and J one s v. U nit ed S tate s, 526 U . S. 227 , 119 S . Ct . 1215 ( 1999 ). C ar

te r ar gue d th at , und er

Bl ak el y , it

w as c onst itutio na lly5

im perm issib le for the district court to sentence him based on facts that we re neither charged in the indictm ent nor proved to a jury . Ac cording to Carter, based sol el y on the f ac ts c ont ai ne d inthe ind ic tm en t, his tot al of fe nse le ve l sh oul d have been set at 17. C arter

also objecte d to the enhancem ent for the num ber of im ages inv olv ed in the of fe nse , arg uin g th at

onl y atw o- le ve l e nhanc em en t, pur suant t o § 2G 2. 2( b) (6 )( A ) (at l ea st 1 0, but f ew er than 15 0 im ag es ), w as w ar rante d. A t the se nte nc ing he ar ing , the dis tr ic t c ourt ov er ru le d C ar te r’ s S ixth A m en dm en t ob

j ec tio n, f ind ing that B lake ly

w as ina ppl ic ab le to the S en te nc ing G uid el ine s. T he dis tr ic t c ourt, how ev er , sus ta ine d C ar te r’ s ob j ec tio n to the enhanc em en t f

or the num be r of im ag es , f ind ing that on ly

atw o- le ve l e nhanc em en t w as w ar rante d. A cc or din gly , the dis tr ic t c our t f ound that C ar te r’ s to ta l of

fe nse le ve l w as 29, w hic h c or

re spon de d to agui de lin e se nte nc ing r an ge of 87 t o 10 8 m onth s. C arter

requested a sentence at the low end of the guideline range. W hen as ke d by the dis tr ic t c ourt f

or he r re co m

m en da tio n w ithr eg ar d to se nte nc ing , the prosecutor responded th at she “ will never m ake a low -end provisio n in a plea agreem ent for these ty

pes of cases, but just leave it up to the Court to decide.” A ddi tio na lly , the gov er

nm en t no te d th at

the of fe nse to w hic h C ar

te r ple d gu ilty wa s n o tan i s o l at edi n ci d en t . C ar t erd i dn o to b je ctt o an y o f t h e p ro s ec u t o r’s6

co m m en ts. F ind ing that a

low -e nd s en te nc e w as not appr opr iate in thi s c as e, the dis tr ic t c ourt se nte nc ed

Cart er to 96 m onths’ im

pr iso nm en t. II. D ISCU SSION A . Pl ea

A gr ee m en t On appeal, Carter ar gues that the go vernm ent violated th e term s of the plea ag re em en t by

f ai lin g to “ stand s ile nt” w ithr es pe ct to his gui de lin e se nte nc ing range. A ccording to Carter, the parties orally am ended the term s of the plea agreem ent at the change-of-plea hearing, where the governm ent agreed “ to stay sil en t a s to the poi nt w ith in the gui de lin e range a t whic h th e de fe ndant s houl d be se nte nc ed . ” Cart er

arg ue s th at

the pr ose cu tor

vio late d th is a gr ee m en t “by c le ar ly te lli ng the c ourt tha t a

lowe nd s en te nc e w oul d ne ve r be appr opr iate in a ca se invo lving child porno graphy .” Moreover, Carter ar gues, this breach constituted pla in e rr or

and a ff ec te d hi s su

bst an tia l r igh ts b ec au se “ the re w as a m ple sup port i n the record f

or a sentence at the low end of the guideline range.” Be ca use Cart er

f ai le d to obj ec t t o th e pr ose cu tor ’ s c om m en ts b ef or e the dis tr ic t c ourt, w e re vie wf or pla in e rr or . S ee U nit ed

S tate s v. Ro m an o, 314 F . 3d 1279 , 128 1 ( 11 Ci r. 200 2) . P la in e rr or e xis ts whe re : “ (1 ) er

ro r oc curr ed , and ( 2) th the e rr or is pla in, ( 3) a ff

ec ts the de fe ndant' s su

bst an tia l r igh ts, and ( 4) se ri ousl y affe ct s t he fai rn es s, i nt eg rit y , or p ub li c rep ut at io n o f th e jud ic ia l p ro ceed in gs .” Id .7

Inor de r to p ro ve that a

part ic ular er

ro r af fe ct ed his sub stanti al r igh ts, the appe llant m ust dem onstrate a re asonable probabil ity that the result would have been dif fe re nt, but

f or the a lle ge d e rr or . U nit ed S tate s v. Ro dr igu ez , 398 F . 3d 1 291, 12 99 (11 Cir . 20 05 ), pe ti ti on forcert . fil ed , (U.S. Feb . 23 , 20 05 ) (No . 04 -1 14 8) .

th

“ [W ] he re the e ff

ec t of an e rr or on the r es ult

in the dis tr ic t c ourt i s un ce rt ai n or ind et er m inate . . . the appe llant h as not m et his bur de n of

sho w ing ar ea sona

ble pr oba bil ity that the r es ult

w oul d have be endif

fe re nt b ut f

or the e rr or . ” I d. a t 13 01. E ve n a ssum ing that the pr ose cu tor ’ s c om m en ts w er e in b re ac h of

the “ sid e ag re em en t, ” Cart er

ha s f ai le d to de m onstrate ar ea sona ble pr oba bil ity that hi s se nte nc e w oul d have be endif fe re nt a bse nt the pr ose cu tor ’ s c om m en ts. I n th is ca se , the dis tr ic t c ourt gave no i ndi catio n th at it s de ci sio n to se nte nc e Cart er to 96 m on th s’ im

pr is on m en t was in an y

way in flu en cedby the pro se cu to r’s st at em en ts . Cart er h as no t ca rri edhi s h eav y bu rd en un de r pl ai n- erro r rev ie w. B. Booker O n a ppe al , Cart er

a lso arg ue s th at

his se nte nc e vio late s U nit ed S tate s v. Bo oke r, 125 S . Ct . 738 ( 2005 ). H ow ev er , Cart er w ai ve d th e ri ght

to ap pe al thi s issue.

“ [T ] he r igh t t o a

ppe al ase nte nc e ba se d on[ Bl ak el y /B ooke r] gr ound s c anbe w ai ve d inaple a ag re em en t, ” an d “ [b ] ro ad w ai ve r langua ge c ove rs tho se gr ound s8

of appeal. ” United States v. Rubbo, 396 F.3d 1330, 1335 (11 Cir. 2005 ). In th Rubbo, this Cou rt concluded that, absent any indication that the parties to a plea agreem ent intended to alter the ordinary m eaning of the term

“ statutory m axim um ,” the appeal-w aiver exce ption for “ a sentence above the statutory m ax im um ” doe s no t a

ppl y to anarg um en t ba se d onthe Bl ak el y /B ooke r. R

ubbo , 396 F.3d at 1334 -35. More rec ently , this Court determ ined that the appeal-waiver ex ce pti on f

or “ a se nte nc e in v iol at ionof the lawapart

f ro m the se nte nc ing gui de lin es ” lik ew ise doe s no t pe rm it a de fe ndant t o r ai se aBl ak el y /B ooke r iss ue on appeal. United States v. G rinard-H enry , 399 F. 3d 12 94, 1296-97 (11 Cir. th 2005 ), cert. denied, 75 U. S. L. W . 3672 (U. S. May 16, 2005) (No. 04-9566 ). W e conclude that Carter ’ s sentence-appeal w aiver is enforc eable beca use, during th e change-of- plea hearing, the m agistrate j udge specifically question ed Cart er about the w ai ve r, and C ar

te r ind ic at ed

that he f ull y und er sto od i ts signi ficance . See United States v. Bushert, 997 F. 2d 13 43, 1352-53 (11 Cir. th 1993 ). A dditi onally , none of the enum erate d exceptions to the sentence-appeal w ai ve r ap pli es to pe rm it Cart er to ra ise his Bl ak el y

/B ooke r ar gum en t onappe al . AFFIRMED.