### FI LED U.S. COURT O F APP EALS ELEVENTH CIRCUIT J uly 12, 20 05 THO MAS K. KAH N CL ERK [DO NOT PUBLISH]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- 1556 7 Non-A rgum ent Calendar

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ D.C. Dock etNo. 0 0- 06 02 4- CR-P AS UNITED STAT ES OF AMERIC A, Plaintiff-Appellee,
ve rs us HENRY HERNANDE Z, 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 So uth er n D istri ct of F lor ida

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ _ (July 12, 200 5) Be fo re A N D E RS O N , BL A CK

a nd H U L L , Ci rc uit

Jud ge s. PE R CU RIA M: H en ry H er nande z ap pe al s hi s se nte nc e im pose d a ft er

ple ad ing gui lty

to poss ession with int ent to dist ribute cocaine, a violation o f 21 U. S. C. § 841 (a)( 1),2

arguing the di strict court err ed under United States v. B ooker , 125 S
. Ct
. 738 (2005). W e af

firm He rnandez’ s sentence.

I. DISCUSSI ON Beca use Her nandez raised a c onsti tutio nal objection to his sentence based
on B lak el y v. W ashi ngt on , 12 4 S . Ct. 2 53 1 (2 00 4) , bef or e th e d is tri ctco ur t, we
rev ie w hi s s en te nc e d e n ov o, b ut wil l re ve rs e o nl y forha rm fu l erro r. See United Sta tes v . P az , 40 5 F .3d 94 6, 9 48 (11 th Cir . 20 05 ). W e h av e cl ari fie d t he re ar e two ty pes of Booker

e rr or : ( 1) S ixth A m en dm en t, or c onst itu tio na l e rr or

ba se d up on sentencing enh ancem ents, im posed un der a m andatory Guidelines sy stem , neither adm itt ed by the de fe ndant n or

sub m itt ed

to a j ur y a nd p ro ve n be y ond a re as ona ble doub t; and (2) statutory

err or based upon sentencing un der a m andatory Gui de li ne s s y st em . U

nit ed Sta tes v . She lto n , 400 F. 3d 13 25, 1329– 30 (11th Cir. 2005 ). A. Co nst itu tio nal

E rro r Ther e is no Sixth Am endm ent error under Booker

wher e the defe ndant has ad m it te d t o fa ct s l at er u se d b y th e d is tri ctco ur t t o e nh an ce a s en te nc e. Id

. at 1 33 0. A quanti ty

of 15 k ilo gr am s bu t l es s th an50 k ilo gr am s of c oc ai ne r es ult s inaba se le ve l o f 34
. See U
. S. S. G
. § 2D 1. 1( c) (3 ). A n e nhanc em en t f or obs tr uc tio n of j ust ic e is p ro pe r w he re the de fe ndant “ es ca p[ es ] or a tte m pt[ s] to es ca

pe f ro m3

custodybefore tr ial or sentencing.” See U. S. S. G. § 3C1.1, c omm ent. ( n.4(e) ). In the state m en t of

f ac ts s uppo rt ing his ple a ag re em en t, H er nande z adm itt ed

that the of fe nse inv olv ed

35. 01 k ilo gr am s of

c oc ai ne a nd tha t he f

le d D E A c ust ody

a nd
re m ai ne d af

ugi tiv e fo r m or e than tw o y ears . T hus, H er nande z adm itt ed

the f ac ts supp ortin g hi s ba se of

fe nse le ve l of

34 and the e nhanc em en t f or obs tr uc tio n of j ust ic e, a nd the re is no B ook er constitu tional error. B. Sta tutoryE

rro r Eve n i n t he ab se nc e o f a Si xt h Am en dm en t v io la ti on , Booker e rr or e xis ts whe re t he di st ric t co ur t i m po se s a s en te nc e u nd er a m an da to ry Gui de li ne s s y st em . She lto n , at 1330 –31. The district court sentenced Her nandez under a m andatory Gui de li ne s s y st em , th us st atut ory erro r ex is ts . Se e id. “ A non -c onst itu tio na l e rr or is h ar m le ss i f, vie w ing the pr oc ee din gs i n th ei r en tir ety , ac ourt de te rm ine s th at the
er ro r did not a ff ec t the se nte nc e, or

ha d bu t ve ry

sli ght e ff ec t. I f one c ansay

w ith fa ir a ssuranc e . . . that the se nte nc e w as not sub stanti al ly

sw ay ed by the e rr or , the sentence is due to be affirm ed even thoug h there w as err or.” United States v. M ath en ia , 11th Cir. , 2005, __ F. 3d __(N o. 04-15250 , May 23, 2005) (internal quot at ionm ar

ks and b ra ck et s om itt ed ). T he G ove rn m en t ha s th e bur de n of sh owi ng th e err orwas h arm le ss . Id

.4

Whe n im posi ng H er

nande z’ s se nte nc e, the dis tr ic t j udge state d th at “ if the [G ] uid el ine s are a dvi sor

y or tr uly [ G ] uid el ine s a s op pose d to a r igi d, I w ill sti ll im pose the sam e se nte nc e. ” A cc or din gly , the G ove rn m en t ha s m et it s burd enof showing th e Booker

statutory err or of sentencing Her

nandez under a m andatory Gui de li ne s s ch em e was ha rm le ss . See U nited Sta tes v. Robles , 11th C ir
. , 200 5, __ F. 3d _ _ (N o. 04- 1359 8, May

10, 200 5) ( hol din g, und er the hig he r be y ond a
re as ona ble doubt s tandard

use d in Booker

c onst itu tio na l e rr or

c as es , that a lth ough the district court erred in im posin g a sentence under a m andatory Guidelines sy ste m ba se d onf

ac ts n ot a dm itt ed

by the de fe ndant, the e rr or

w as harm le ss be y ond a re as ona

ble doubt b ec au se “ [t ] he dis tr ic t c ourt st at ed it s se nte nc e w oul d be the sam e even if the [ G] uidelin es we re only advisory ”). II. CONCLUSION T he re w as no B ook

er constitu tional er

ro r be ca use H er nande z adm itt ed

the fa ct s us ed in im posi ng h is s en te nc e. A ddi tio na lly , the G ove rn m en t ha s m et it s burden of sho wing the Booker statutory err or of sentencing Her

nandez under a
m an da tor y G uid el ine s sc he m e w as harm le ss. AFFIR MED.