### F I LE D U. S . COURT OF AP PE ALS E LEVE NTH CI RCUI T Jul y 13, 2005 T HOM AS K. KAHN C L 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. 04- 16737 N on -A rgum entC al endar

________________________ D . C . D o c k e tN o . 0 4 - 0 0 0 8 7 - C R - WS 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 F R A N C I S C O J A V I E R V A R E L A A L V A 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 o rth e So u th e rn D i s tr i c to f A l ab a ma

_________________________ ( Ju l y 13, 2005) B efo re B L A C K , W IL S O N an d P R Y O R , C i rcu i tJu d g es. P E R C U R I A M: F r a nc i s c o J . V a l e r a A l va r e z appe a l s hi s 57- m onth s e nt e nc e i m pos e d f or ille g a l r e e n try a f

te rd e p o r ta tio n , in v io la tio n o f 8 U .S .C . § 1 3 2 6 ( a ) a n d ( b ) .2

A l vare z a rgues thatthe di stri ctcourterre d u nd er B lake l y v . W as hi ngton , 5 4 2 U . S.

__ , 1 2 4 S . C t . 2 5 3 1 ( 2 0 0 4 ) , n o w U ni t ed Stat es v. B oo ke r , 5 4 3 U .S . ___ , 1 2 5 S . C t. 73 8 (20 05 ), w hen i tse nt ence d h i m un der the m andat ory s ent enci ng G ui del i nes syst em . H e co n t en d s th atth e g o v ern m en tcan n o tp ro v e th atth e erro r w as h arm l ess be c a us e the c our ts e nt e nc e d hi m t o the l ow e s te nd of the gui de l i ne r a nge a nd deni ed hi s m ot i on for dow nw ar d d eparture bas ed on l ac k o f autho ri ty. A l vare z f u r th e ra s s e r ts th a t p o s t- B oo ke r , “ un der 18 U . S . C . § 3 55 3(a) (6), the di stri ctcourt m us tc ons i de r‘ the ne e d t o a voi d unw a rr a nt e d s e nt e nc e di s pa r i t i e s a m ong d e f e n d a n ts w ith s im ila rr e c o r d s w h o h a v e b e e n f o u n d g u ilty o f

s im ila rc o n d u c t’ s u c h a s a v a ilab ility o f

f o r m a l f a s t- tr a c k d e p a r tu r e p r o g r a m s in o n ly s o m e d is tr ic ts .” W e have expl ai ned thatthere ar e tw o types of B oo ke re rr o r : ( 1 ) a S ix th A m endm enterror–thati s, i m po si ng a s ent enci ng enhancem enti n a m andat ory G ui de l i ne s s y s t e m ba s e d on j udi c i a l f i ndi ngs tha tgo be y ond the f a c t s a dm i tt e d by the defendantor foun d b y the j ury; and (2) st atut ory e rr or–b ei ng se nt ence d u nd era s e n te n c in g G u id e lin e s s c h e m e th a t is m a n d a to ry . U ni t e d Stat e s v . She l ton , 400 F . 3d 13 25 , 13 30 –3 1 (11 th C i r. 20 05 ). A . S i xth A m e ndm e ntE rr or S i n ce A l v arez raised h i s B la kel y/ B o o ker a r g u m e n t b e f

o r e th e d is tr ic t c o u r t, w e rev i ew h i s B oo ke rc la im s f o rh a r m le s s e rr o r . Se e U ni t e d Stat e s v . P az , 4053

F .3 d 9 4 6 , 9 4 8 ( 1 1 th C ir . 2 0 0 5 ) . C ons t i tut i ona l e rr orm us tbe di s r e ga r de d i f the e rr ori s ha r m l e s s be y ond a r e a s o n ab le d o u b t. U

n ite d S ta te s v . C a n de la r io , 24 0 F . 3d 13 00 , 13 07 (11th C i r. 2 0 0 1 ) . I n th e in s ta n t c a s e , w e f in d n o c o n s titu tio n a l B o o ker e rr or , s o w e ne e d not r e a c h w h e th e rth e e rr o ris h a r m le s s b e y o n d a r e a s o n ab le d o u b t. I n B oo ke r , th e S u p r e m e C o u r t “le f t u n d is tu rb e d its h o ld in g in [A lm enda rez- T

orre s v . U

ni t ed Stat es , 523 U . S . 224, 227, 118 S . C t . 1219, 1233 (1 9 9 8 )] , th atreci d i v i sm i s not a s e pa r a t e e l e m e ntof

a n of f e ns e tha tthe gove rnm e nt is r e q u ir e d to p r o v e b e y o n d a r e a s o n ab le d o u b t.” U ni t ed Stat es v. O rdun o-Mi re l es , 405 F . 3d 960, 962 ( 11th C i r . 2005) . M or e ove r , the C our tr e a f f i r m e d Appr e ndi ’s h o ld in g th a t “[ a ]n y f

a c t ( o th e rth a n a p r io rc o n v ic tio n ) , w h ic h is n e c e s s a ry to su p p o rta sen t en ce ex ceed i n g th e m ax i m u m au th o ri zed b y th e fact s est ab l i sh ed b y a pl e a of gui l ty ora j ury ve r di c tm us tbe a dm i tt e d by the de f e nda ntorpr ove d t o a j ury bey on d a re as on abl e dou bt . ” Id . A c c or di ngl y , i n O rdun o-Mi re l es we obs e r ve d tha t“ the C our t ’ s hol di ng i n B o o ke r. . . i s noti m pl i c a t e d w he n a defe nd ant ’ s s ent ence i s e nh ance d b as ed on a pri or conv i ct i on . ” I d. T o the e xt e nttha tthe S upr e m e C our t ’ s r e c e ntde c i s i on i n She par d a r g u ab ly unde r m i ne d A lm enda rez- T orre s , th a td e c i s i o n d o e s n o tu n d e r mi n e o u ro u t c o me h e r e . See Shepa rd v. U ni t ed Stat es , 54 3 U . S . __ , 12 5 S . C t . 12 54 (200 5). H er e,4

A l va r e z obj e c t s t o the 16- l e ve l e nha nc e m e ntof hi s s e nt e nc e ba s e d on hi s pr i or c onvi c t i on of

a c r i m e of

vi ol e nc e , s pe c i f

i c a l l y a ggr a va t e d a s s a ul t . H ow e ve r , i n the A p p l i c a t i o n N o t e o f

U . S. S. G . § 2 L1 . 2 , a g g r a v a t e d a s s a u l ti s r e f e r e n c e d a s a c r i me o f v io le n c e . U .S .S .G . § 2 L 1 .2 , c m t. n .1 ( B ) ( iii) . T h e r e f o r e , th e d is tr ic t c o u r t d id n o t m a k e a n y q u a lita tiv e f a c tu a l f in d in g s w ith r e g a r d to A lv a r e z ’s p r io rc o n v ic tio n . A s the di s tr i c tc our tdi d notl ook be y ond the j udi c i a l r e c or d a nd the f a c tof A l vare z’ s pri or conv i ct i on , i t s app l i ca t i on of the 16 -l evel enhancem entw as prop er un der A lm en da rez-T

o rre s a nd di d n oti m pl i ca t e Sh ep a rd . B ec ause A lm enda rez- T

orre s re m ai ns go od l aw , the di stri ctcourtdi d n oterr i n f i ndi ng tha tA l va r e z s houl d r e c e i ve a n e nha nc e m e ntba s e d on hi s pr i or c o n v ic tio n . T h u s , w e c o n c lu d e th a t th e d is tr ic t c o u r t’s u s e o f p r io rc o n v ic tio n s to e n h a n c e A lv a r e z ’s s e n te n c e u n d e ra m a n d a to ry G u id e lin e s s y s te m d id n o t v io la te th e S ix th A m e n d m e n t. B . S t a tut ory E rr or I n She l ton , w e i m pl i ci t l y hel d thatw hen a defendantra i se d a B la ke ly / B oo ke r const i tut i on al cl ai m i n h i s i ni t i al bri ef , w e s ho ul d al so consi der w hether there w as s ta tu to ry e rr o r . Se e She l ton , 4 0 0 F .3 d a t 1 3 3 0 ; see a l so U ni t e d Stat e s v . C am ac hoIbarqu en , __F .3 d __ , 2 0 0 5 W L 1 2 9 7 2 3 6 , N o . 0 4 - 1 1 1 5 5 ( 1 1 th C ir . J u n e 2 , 2 0 0 5 ) . T h u s , w e c o n s id e rth is is s u e o n ap p e a l.5

A lth o u g h th e d is tr ic t c o u r t d id n o t v io la te th e S ix th A m e n d m e n t in sen t en ci n g A l v arez, i td i d co m m i ta st atu t o ry B o o ker e rr or . D ue t o the na tur e of th e S u p rem e C o u rt ’ s B oo ke rre m edy, w e have concl ud ed thata di stri ctcourthas c om m i tt e d B oo ke rerror w henever i tse nt ence s adefe nd antun der am andat ory G u id e lin e s s c h e m e , e v e n in th e ab s e n c e o f a S ix th A m e n d m e n t e rr o r . She l ton , 400 F . 3d a t1330–31. W he n a n e rr ori s nonc ons t i tut i ona l , i ti s ha r m l e s s i f i tdoe s nota f

f e c tthe s u b s ta n tia l r ig h ts o f

th e p a r tie s . See 2 8 U .S .C . § 2 1 1 1 ; U ni t e d Stat e s v . G uz m an , 16 7 F . 3d 13 50 , 13 53 (11th C i r. 19 99 ). “ [A ] no ncon st i tut i on al error r equi re s r e ve r s a l onl y i f

i tr e s ul t e d i n a c tua l pr e

j udi c e be c a us e i tha d s ubs t a nt i a l a nd i nj uri ou s e ff

ec t . ” G uz m an , 167 F . 3d a t1353 ( i nt e rna l quot a t i ons a nd c i t a t i on om i tt ed). T he go vernm entbear s the bu rden of show i ng thatthe error di d n otaf fe ct A lv a r e z ’s s u b s ta n tia l r ig h ts . U n i t ed S ta t es v. Fern , 15 5 F . 3d 13 18 , 13 27 (11th C i r. 1998) . “ T he non- c ons t i tut i ona l ha r m l e s s e rr ors t a nda r d i s note a s y f orthe go vernm entt o m ee t . ” U n ite d S ta te s v . M

a th e n ia , __F . 3d__, N o. 04- 15250, 2005 W L 1 2 0 1 4 5 5 a t * 2 ( 1 1 th C ir . M a y 2 3 , 2 0 0 5 ) . H e r e , th e g o v e rn m e n t h a s f a ile d to m e e t its b u r d e n . In se nt enci ng A l vare z t o the l ow es tpo i nti n the gu i del i ne ra ng e, the court c om m e nt e d tha t“ the s e nt e nc e a ddr e s s e s the s e r i ous ne s s of the of f e ns e a nd the6

s e n t e n c i n g o b

j e c t i v e s o f

p u n i s h me n t , d e t e rr e n c e , a n d i n c ap a c i t a t i o n . ” Th i s i s s o me e vi de nc e tha tthe c our tw oul d pe rhaps r e s e nt e nc e A l va r e z t o the s a m e t e r m of in c a r c e r a tio n a f

te rc o n s id e r in g th e f

a c to r s in 1 8 U .S .C . § 3 5 5 3 ( a ) . T h e c o u r t, h o w e v e r , m a d e n o o th e rc o m m e n t r e g a r d in g th e ap p r o p r ia te n e s s o f th e s e n te n c e . A l th o u g h th e d i stri ctco u rtco n si d ered th e sen t en ce ap p ro p ri at e an d d i d n o tex p ress di ss at i sf ac t i on w i th the G ui del i nes or des i re t o i m po se a l es se r s ent ence , the di stri ct courtdi d sent ence A l vare z a tthe l ow es tend o f the gu i del i ne ra ng e. T he re cord do es no tshow w i th fai r a ss urance thatthe se nt ence w as no tsubst ant i al l y s w ay ed b y th e c o u r t’s ap p lic a tio n o f th e S e n te n c in g G u id e lin e s a s m a n d a to ry a s o p p o s e to ad v iso ry . T h er ef

o re , th e g o v er n m en t h as fa il ed to sh o w th at th e d istrict co u rt’s error di d n othave a s ub st ant i al and i nj uri ou s e ff ec ton A l vare z’ s s ent ence . W e not e the di s tr i c tc our tc orr e c t l y c a l c ul a t e d A l va r e z ’ s G ui de l i ne r a nge of 5 7 - 7 1 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, 11 78 -79 (11 th C i r. 20 05 ) ( st at i ng af t er B oo ke r , di s tr i c tc our t s m us tc ons ul tthe G ui del i nes a nd “ [t ] hi s c on sul t at i on re qu i re m ent , ata m i ni m um , ob l i ges the di stri ct courtt o cal cul at e c o r r e c tly th e s e n te n c in g r a n g e p r e s c r ib e d b y th e G u id e lin e s ” ) . T h u s , o n r e m a n d th e d is tr ic t c o u r t is r e q u ir e d to s e n te n c e A lv a r e z a c c o r d in g to B oo ke r , c ons i de r i ng the G ui de l i ne s r a nge of 57- 71 m onths ’ i m pr i s onm e nta nd

“ other s t 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 ). ”We do n ot m e an toimp ly by our h oldingtha

t on remand thedis tric t c ourt mus t f ir st impo se 1 a lesser sentenc e. Rather , we merely hold the Gover

nment has n o t m et its burden to show the statutory error wa s harmless. We also will not attempt to decide now whether a par ticular sentence below the Guide line rang e might be re asonablein this case. 7 B oo ke r , 125 S . C t . a t757. 1 F o rth e f o r e g o i n g r e a s o n s , we VA C AT E Al v a r e z ’ s s e n t e n c e a n d R E MAND t o the di s tr i c tc our tf

orr e - s e nt e nc i ng c ons i s t e ntw i th the S upr e m e C our t ’ s de c i s i on i n B oo ke r . S E NT E NC E V AC AT E D a n d RE MAND E D.