FILED U.S. COURT OF AP P EALS E LEVEN T HC IRC UIT NOV 08, 2007 THOMAS K. KAH

N CLERK [ 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. 06- 14727

________________________ D . C . D ocketN o. 05 -005 93 -C R -R W S -1 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 E A RN E S T O L I V E R H E A R I N G , J R ., a .k .a . T e rry S te p h e n O liv e r , a .k .a . T e rry S te p h e n H e a r in g , a .k .a . E a rn e s t H e a r in g , a .k .a . E a rn e s t O liv e rH e a r a r in g , a .k .a . E a rn e s t O liv e rH e r a r in g , a .k .a . E rn e s t O liv e rH e a r in g , a .k .a . L il M a n H e a r in g , a .k .a . T im o th y N o rr is C r o n ic , a .k .a . T e rry S te p h e n M o n tg o m e ry , a .k .a . E a rn e s t O liv e rH e a r in g , 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 N o rth e rn D is tr ic t o f G e o r g ia

_________________________ ( N ove m b e r 8, 2007)2

B efo re T JO F L A T , A N D E R S O N an d H IL L , C i rcu i tJu d g es. P E R C U R I A M: E arnestO l i ver H eari ng , Jr . , appeal s hi s 180 -m on th sent ence i m po se d f o llo w in g h is g u iltyp le af o rk n o w in g lya n d in te n tio n a llyp o s s e s s in g w ith in te n t to di s tr i but e m a r i

j ua na , i n vi ol a t i on of

21 U . S . C . §§ 841( a ) ( 1) , ( b) ( 1) ( C ) , ( C ount O ne ) , a nd know i ngl y pos s e s s i ng a n unr e gi s t e r e d s i l e nc e r , i n vi ol a t i on of 26 U .S .C . § § 5 8 4 1 , 5 8 6 1 ( d ) , a n d 5 8 7 1 , ( C o u n t E ig h t) . T he i ns t a ntc a s e w a s i ni t i a t e d f ol l ow i ng H e a r i ng’ s a rr e s t s on s t a t e c ha r ge s on Jul y 30, 20 04 , i n C l ay t on C ou nty, G eorgi a, and o n A ug ust16 , 20 04 , i n H enry C o u n ty , G e o r g ia . A s ar e s u lt o f H e a r in g ’s J u ly2 0 0 4 a rr e s t, h e p le d g u iltyin s ta te co u rtt o p o ssessi o n o f m ari j u an a (C o u n tO n e), an d p o ssessi o n o f a fi rearm b y a conv i ct ed fe l on , (C ou ntT w o). H eari ng w as se nt ence d o n b oth cou nt s t o three y e a r s ’ i m pr i s onm e nt , t o be s e rve d c onc urr e nt l yw i th a nyt i m e tha the w a s a l r e a dy s e rvi ng. A ddi t i ona l l y , a s ar e s ul tof a nothe ra rr e s ton A ugus t16, 2004, H e a r i ng p le d g u iltyin ad if

f e r e n t s ta te c o u rt to p o s s e s s io n w ith in te n t to d is tr ib u te m e tha m phe t a m i ne , ( C ountO ne ) , a nd pos s e s s i on of af i r e a rm dur i ng the co m m i ssi o n o f a fel o n y, (C o u n tT h ree). H eari n g w as sen t en ced t o sev en years’ i m pr i s onm e ntf

orC ountO ne a nd f

i ve y e a r s ’ i m pr i s onm e ntf orC ountT hr e e , t o be serv ed co n secu t i v el y t o each o th er, resu l t i n g i n a t o t al sen t en ce o f 1 2 years.3

I n M a y 2006, H e a r i ng pl e d gui l tyt o the i ns t a ntf e de r a l c ha r ge s pur s ua ntt o a w ri tt en p l ea ag reem en t . T h e p art i es ag reed th atH eari n g w o u l d serv e fi v e years’ i m pr i s onm e nta s t o C ountO ne ( know i ngl ya nd i nt e nt i ona l l ypos s e s s i ng w i th i nt e nt to d is tr ib u te m a r iju a n a ) , a n d te n y e a r s ’ im p r is o n m e n t a s to C o u n t E ig h t ( k n o w in g ly po ss es si ng an un l i ce nsed si l ence r) , “ t o b e s erved con se cut i vel y, ” r es ul t i ng i n a t ot al s e n te n c e o f

1 5 y e a r s . T h e g o v e rn m e n t m o v e d to d is m is s th e r e m a in in g c o u n ts in th e in d ic tm e n t. A tsen t en ci n g , th e d i stri ctco u rtsen t en ced H eari n g t o 6 0 m o n th s’ i m pr i s onm e nton C ountO ne a nd 120 m onths ’ i m pr i s onm e nton C ountE i ght , t o run consec ut i vel y, re sul t i ng i n a t ot al se nt ence of 15 ye ar s. H eari ng i nform ed the court thathe w as se rvi ng st at e s ent ence s i nv ol vi ng som e of the sa m e c on du ctand asked the courtt o rec om m end t o the B ureau o f P ri sons (B O P ) thathe se rve hi s f eder al s e n te n c e in s ta te c u s to d y , s o th a t w h e n h e c o m p le te d h is s ta te s e n te n c e s h e w o u ld r e c e iv e c r e d it to h is f

e d e r a l s e n te n c e . T h e c o u rt d e n ie d H e a r in g ’s r e q u e s t, s ta tin g it w oul d a l l ow typi c a l B O P pr ot oc ol t o appl y . T he r e w a s no obj e c t i on. O n ap p e a l, H e a r in g a r g u e s th a t th e d is tr ic t c o u rt p la in lye rr e d b yf a ilin g to c ons i de rU . S . S . G . § 5G 1. 3( b) a nd i n f a i l i ng t o or de rtha thi s f e de r a l a nd un di sc harged st at e s ent ence s run concurrent l y t o eac h o ther. H e a ss ert s that U . S . S . G . § 5 G 1. 3(b) i s app l i cabl e i n thi s c as e bec ause he w as subj ec tt o an4

u n d is c h a r g e d te rm o f

im p r is o n m e n t. H e a ls o a s s e rts th a t U .S .S .G . § 5 G 1 .3 is appl i cabl e bec ause the cond uctun derl yi ng hi s s t at e c ou rtconv i ct i on s i nv ol ves s o m e o f th e s a m e c o n d u c t u n d e r ly in g h is f e d e r a l c o n v ic tio n s , a n d is c o n s e q u e n tly “r e le v a n t” to th e c o m m is s io n o f h is f e d e r a l o f f e n s e s . H e m a in ta in s th a t u n d e rth is C ou rt ’ s pre ce dent , the di stri ctcourt ’ s s ua spon t e f ai l ure t o con si der U . S . S . G . § 5 G 1. 3 i n i m po si ng hi s s ent ence es se nt i al l y m eans thatthe di stri ctcourt di d n otprop er l y c on sul tthe S ent enci ng G ui del i nes. H e argues thatthe di stri ct c ourt ’ s e rr orw a s pl a i n, a s w e ha ve pr e vi ous l ye xpl a i ne d the i m port a nc e a nd im p lic a tio n s o f

U .S .S .G . § 5 G 1 .3 , a n d th e e rr o ra f f e c te d h is s u b s ta n tia l r ig h ts because he now po t ent i al l y f ac es a 27-ye arconfi nem entas op po se d t o the 15 -y ear s e n te n c e th a t h e a lle g e d lya g r e e d to in th e p le aa g r e e m e n t. W e r ev iew d e n o v o a d istrict co u rt’s d eter m in atio n th at a d ef en d an t’ s se nt ence shou l d run consec ut i vel y t o h i s und i sc harged st at e s ent ence s. U ni t ed S t at es v. F uent es , 10 7 F . 3d 15 15 , 15 20 (11th C i r. 19 97 ). H ow ever , w e r evi ew i s s u e s n o tr a i s e d b e f

o r e th e d i s tr i c tc o u rtf

o rp l a i n e rr o r . Un i t e d S t a t e s v . Ge rr o w, 232 F . 3d 831, 835 ( 11th C i r . 2000) . U nde rpl a i n e rr orr e vi e w , w e m a y , a tour di sc re t i on , corr ec tan error w here (1) an err or occurre d, (2) the error w as p l ai n , (3 ) th e erro r affects sub st an t i al ri g h t s, an d (4 ) “ th e erro r seri o u sl y affect[s] the fa i rnes s, i nt egri ty or pub l i c r eput at i on of j ud i ci al proceedi ng s. ” U ni t ed S t at es5

v. O l a no, 507 U . S . 725, 732- 36, 113 S . C t . 1770, 1777- 79, 123 L . E d. 2d 508 ( 1993) ( in te rn a l q u o ta tio n s a n d c ita tio n s o m itte d ) . H e r e , H e a r in g c o n c e d e s th a t w e s h o u ld r e v ie w th is c a s e f

o rp la in e rr o ro n ly . S e c t i on 5G 1. 3 of

the F e de r a l S e nt e nc i ng G ui de l i ne s , e nt i t l e d “ I m pos i t i on of aS e n te n c e o n aD e f

e n d a n t S u b

je c t to a n U n d is c h a r g e dT e rm o f I m p r is o n m e n t” p ro v i d es as fo l l o w s:

( a ) I f the i ns t a ntof

f e ns e w a s c om m i tt e d w hi l e the de f e nda nt w as se rvi ng a t erm of i m pri sonm ent(i ncl ud i ng w ork r e l e a s e , f

ur l ough, ore s c ape s t a tus ) ora f t e rs e nt e nc i ng f or , butbe f

or e c om m e nc i ng s e rvi c e of , suc h t e rm of im p r is o n m e n t, th e s e n te n c e f o rth e in s ta n t o f

f e n s e s h a ll be i m po se d to run con se cut i vel y t o the un di sc harged t erm of i m pr i s onm e nt ( b ) I f s u b s e c t i o n ( a ) d o e s n o t ap p l y , a n d a t e r m of im p r is o n m e n t r e s u lte d f r o m a n o th e ro f

f e n s e th a t is r e l e va ntc onduc tt o the i ns t a ntof f e ns e of c onvi c t i on unde rthe pr ovi s i ons of s ubs e c t i ons ( a ) ( 1) , ( a ) ( 2) , or ( a ) ( 3) of § 1B 1. 3 ( R e l e vantC onduc t ) a nd tha tw a s the ba s i s f or a n i nc r e a s e i n the of f e ns e l e ve l f

or the i n st a nt of f e ns e unde rC hapt e rT w o ( O f f e ns e C onduc t ) or C hapt e rT hr e e (A d

j us tm e nt s ) , the s e nt e nc e f orthe i ns t a nt o ffen se sh al l b e i m p o sed as fo l l o w s: ( 1) the c ourts ha l l a dj us tthe s e n t en ce f ora nype r i od of i m pri sonm ental re ady s erved o n the un d ischar ged t erm of i m pri sonm enti f the courtdet erm i nes that s u c h p eri o d o f i m p ri so n m en t w i l l n o t b e cred i t e d to the f e de r a l s e nt e nc e bythe B ur e au of P r i s ons ; a nd ( 2) the s e nt e nc e forthe i ns t a ntof f e ns e s ha l l be i m pos e d t o r un c onc ur ren t l y t o t heH eari n g w as sen t en ced u n d er th e 2 0 0 5 v ersi o n o f th e S en t en ci n g G u i d el i n es. 1 E f f e c t i v e No v e m b e r 1 , 2 0 0 3 , th e S e n t e n c i n g C o m m i s s i o n a m e n d e d U. S . S . G. 2 § 5 G 1. 3. S ee U . S . S . G . , A m endm ent66 0. F orm er§ 5 G 1. 3(b) re ad as fol l ow s: “ If subsec t i on (a ) does notappl y, and the un di sc harged t erm of i m pri sonm entre sul t ed f r om of f e ns e ( s ) tha tha ve be e n f ul l yt a ke n i nt o a c c ounti n the de t erm i na t i on of the of f e ns e l e ve l f

orthe i ns t a ntof

f e ns e , the s en t enc e f

orthe i ns t a ntof

f e ns e s ha l l be im p o s e d to ru n c o n c u rr e n tlyto th e u n d is c h a r g e d te rm o f im p r is o n m e n t .” U .S .S .G . § 5 G 1 .3 ( b ) ( 2 0 0 2 ) . 6 r e m a i nde rof

the undi s c ha r ge d t erm of im p r is o n m e n t. U . S . S . G . § 5 G 1. 3(a) , (b) ( 20 05 ) ( em ph as i s a dd ed). 1

“ S e c t i ons 5G 1. 3 a nd 1B 1. 3 i nt e r a c tt o pr ot e c tac r i m i na l de f e nda ntf r om d u p lic a tiv e p r o s e c u tio n s .” U n ite d S ta te s v . B id w e ll, 3 9 3 F .3 d 1 2 0 6 , 1 2 0 9 ( 1 1 th C i r. 20 04 ). “ T he i nt ended p urpo se of se ct i on § 5 G 1. 3(b) i s t o eff ec t i vel y ‘ cr edi t [] f o rg u id e lin e s p u rp o s e s ’ d e f e n d a n ts w h o h a v e a lr e a d ys e rv e d tim e –g e n e r a llyin another j uri sdi ct i on – for the sa m e c on du ctor course of cond uct. . . . F or i nst ance , w h en a d efen d an tserv i n g t i m e i n st at e p ri so n fo r d ru g p o ssessi o n recei v es a s ubs e que ntf

e de r a l s e nt e nc e f

orthe s a m e c our s e of

c onduc t , the s e nt e nc e s w i l l be s e rve d c onc urr e nt l y t o c r e di tthe t i m e a l r e a dys e rve d. ” U ni t e d S t a t e s v. F l ow e r s , 13 F . 3 d 3 9 5 , 3 9 7 ( 1 1 th C i r . 1 9 9 4 ) ( ap p l y i n g a n e a r l i e r , b u ts i m i l a rv e r s i o n o f U. S . S . G. § 5 G 1 .3 ) ( c ita tio n o m itte d ) .

2 He r e , th e d i s tr i c tc o u rte rr e d i n f a i l i n g t o s u as p o n t e c o n s i d e rU. S . S . G.The PSIdid not mention §5G1.3, and therewas no objection to thi s omissi on. 3 7 § 5 G 1 .3 in im p o s in g H e a r in g ’s s e n te n c e . W e h a v e h e ld th a t e v e n u n d e rth e p o s t- 3 B ooke r , a dvi s ory s e nt e nc i ng gui de l i ne s , tha tthe di s tr i c tc ourtm us tc ons ul tthe gui de l i ne s a nd c orr e c t l y c a l c ul a t e the gui de l i ne s s e nt e nc e . U ni t e d S t a t e s v. C raw ford, 40 7 F . 3d 11 74 , 11 79 (11th C i r. 20 05 ). W e c an as sum e arguend o that H e a r in g h a s s a tis f

ie d th e f ir s t tw o p r o n g s o f

th e p la in e rr o rte s t. T he thi rd pron g o f the pl ai n err or t es t , ho w ever , i s ano ther m att er . It re qu i re s thatthe error “ af fe ct [e d] subst ant i al ri gh t s, ” w hi ch al m ostal w ay s r equi re s th at th e e rr o r “‘m u st h av e a ff ec ted th e o u tco m e o f th e d istrict co u rt p ro ce ed in g s.’” U ni t e d S t a t e s v. R odr i gue z , 398 F . 3d 1291, 1299 ( 11th C i r . 2005) . T he s t a nda r d f or s how i ng tha ti s the f

a m i l i a rr e a s onabl e pr obabi l i tyof adi f f e r e ntr e s ul tf

orm ul a t i on, w h ich m ea n s a p ro b ab il ity “‘su ff icien t t o u n d er m in e c o n fid en ce in th e o u tco m e.’” U ni t e d S t a t e s v. D om i ngue z B e ni t e z , 542 U . S . 74, 124 S . C t . 2333, 2340, 159 L . E d. 2d 157 ( 2004) ( quot i ng S tr i c kl a nd v. W a s hi ngt on, 466 U . S . 668, 694, 104 S . C t . 2052, 2068, 80 L . E d. 2d 674 ( 1984) ) . T he “ ‘ de f e nda ntr a the rtha n the [g ]o v ern m en t [ ] b ea rs th e b u rd en o f p er su as io n w ith re sp ec t t o p re ju d ice.’” R odr i gue z , 398 F . 3d a t1299 ( quot i ng U ni t e d S t a t e s v. O l a no, 507 U . S . 725, 734, 11 3 S . C t . 17 70 , 17 78 (199 3)). H e a r i ng ha s notpoi nt e d t o a ny thi ng i n the r e c or d tha ts ugge s t s tha tthe8

di stri ctcourtw ou l d h ave gi ven h i m a m ore l eni entse nt ence by m aki ng the fe dera l s e nt e nc e c onc urr e ntt o the s t a t e s e nt e nc e . I n f a c t , the r e c or d r e f

l e c t s al ong a r g u m e n t b y th e g o v e rn m e n t ab o u t w h yth e s e n te n c e s h o u ld ru n c o n s e c u tiv e lyto th e s ta te s e n te n c e s a n d H e a r in g d id n o t o b je c t to th e g o v e rn m e n t’s e x p la n a tio n . T he gove rnm e nte xpl a i ne d the s i gni f i c a nc e of the gun a nd s i l e nc e rtha tw e r e f ound i n H e a r i ng’ s pos s e s s i on, a nd the f a c ttha tthe e vi de nc e i ndi c a t e d tha tthe gun a nd si l ence r had been used atsom e poi nt . T he go vernm entno t ed thatthe charged c ount s w oul d ha ve c a rr i e d am a nda t orym i ni m um l i f e s e nt e nc e unde rthe G ui del i nes. In part i cul ar , the go vernm entexpl ai ned thatthe part i es had n egot i at ed the pl e aa gr e e m e nt , a gr e e i ng t o af i f t e e n- y e a rf

e de r a l s e nt e nc e , w i th the e xpe c t a t i on tha tthe f i f t e e n y e a r s w oul d be s e rve d i n a ddi t i on t o the s t a t e s e nt e nc e s . H e a r i ng a nd hi s a tt orne y r e m a i n s i l e nti n the f a c e of the gove rnm e nt ’ s e xpl a na t i on, thus i m pl i c i t l y a c qui e s c i ng. T he di s tr i c tc ourte xpr e s s l yde c l i ne d t o r e c om m e nd t o the B O P thati tfa ci l i t at e aconcurrence se nt ence . In l i gh tof thi s s ent enci ng transcr i pt , and i n l i gh tof thi s part i cul ar d e f e n d a n t’s c r im in a l h is to ry , w e c o n c lu d e th a t H e a r in g h a s f a ile d to c a rryh is b u r d e n o f

p r o v in g th a t th e r e is ar e a s o n ab le p r o b ab ilityo f ad if f e r e n t r e s u lt. AF F I R ME D.