F ILED U.S. COURT O F APP EALS EL EV EN TH C IRC UIT Sep tember 1 6, 2005 T HOMA S K. KA HN CLERK [DO NOT PUBLISH] IN THE UN ITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FO R T HE EL EV EN TH CIRC UI T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- 1633 2 Non-A rgum ent Calendar

--- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- -- D.C. Dock etNo. 04 -0 01 39 -CR- W TM UNITED STAT ES OF AMERIC A, Pl ai nt iff -Ap pe ll ee, ve rs us DI LL ARD RO SS, Defen da nt -Ap pe ll an t.

--- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- - Appeal f rom the United State s District Court for the Southern D istrict of Ge orgia

--- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- -

(S ep te m be r 16, 200 5) Be fo re E D MO N D SO N , Ch ie f Judg e, A N D E RS O N and C A RN E S, Ci rc uit Jud ge s. PE R CU RIA M:
D ill ar d R oss appe al s hi s 10 8- m onth se nte nc e, pur suant t o hi s gu ilty ple a, f or distribu tion o f 5 or m ore gram s of cra ck cocaine, in viol ation of 21 U.S .C.Ross also was indicted for p ossession of a fir ear m by a convic ted fe lon, but that count was 1 dis mis se d o n th e g ov e rnme nt’ s mo tio n a nd is n ot r e le va

nt t o th is a

pp e a l. 2 § 84 1( a) (1 ). R oss arg ue s th at the dis tr ic t c ourt vi olate d B lake ly v. W as hin gto n, 124 S. Ct
. 253 1 ( 2004 ), w he n it se nte nc ed

him ba se d onadr

ug quanti ty

that he did not a dm it an d th at

w as not pr ove d to aj ur

y be y ond a re as ona

ble doubt. T he gove rn m en t c onc ed es that e rr or e xis ts unde r U nit ed

S ta te s v. Bo oke r, 125 S
. Ct
. 738 (2 005)
. W e ag re e; w e va cate Ro ss’ s se nte nc e an d r em an d f or r es en te nc ing consist ent with Booker. Ross was indicted for tw o counts of distributi on of 5 or m ore gram s of cra ck
co ca ine ba se d ontw o tr an sa ct ion s: the f ir st, inv olv ing 46. 4 gr am s, oc curr ed on 7 January 200 4 ( Co unt

O ne ) an d th e se co nd, inv olv ing 27. 6 gr am s, oc curr ed on 1 6 January 200 4 ( Co unt

T w o)
. R oss a gr ee d to ple ad gui lty to Co unt O ne . I n th e 1 plea agree m ent, the governm ent agreed to dism iss Coun t Tw o, and Ross adm itted to d istri but ing 46. 4 gr am s of c oc ai ne ba se on 7 January 200 4. R oss m ad e no adm iss ionabout

Co unt T w o. T he pr es en te nc e inv es tig at ionr ep ort ( PS I) a ttr ibu te d to Ro ss a tot al dr ug qu an ti ty of 74 gra m s o f cra ckco cai ne : 4 6.4 gra m s fo r th e fi rs t t ran sa ct io n a nd27 .6 gr am s f or the se co nd transa ct ion
. T he P SI a ssi gne d aba se of fe nse le ve l of

32, unde r U . S. S. G
. § 2D 1. 1( c) (4 ), and a 3- le ve l r ed

uc tio n f or a cc ep tanc e of3

responsib ility , § 3E 1.1(a) , ( b). Com bined with a crim inal histo ry category of II I, the P SI a ssi gne d R oss agui de lin e se nte nc ing r an ge of 108 to 135 m onths’ im pr is on m en t. Ba se d onBl ak el y

and Appr en di v
. N ewJe rs ey , 120 S
. Ct
. 234 8 ( 2000 ), Ro ss obj ec te d to the P SI ’ s in cl usi on, in its dr ug w ei ght

c al cu la tio n, of

the sa le of

the 27.6 gram s of cra ck cocaine listed in Count Two. H e ar gued that he did not plead gui lty to Co unt T w o, that he did

not a dm it to this c ondu ct , and tha t a j ur y did not fi nd h im gui lty of that c harg e. R oss a sse rt ed that he c oul d be he ld a cc ount ab le f or t h e 4 6 .4 g ra m s o f c ra ckco ca i n e i n Co u n tOn e. Th e d i s t ri ct co u rt o v erru l ed Ro s s ’s B l a k e l y o b

j e c t i o n , b u te x p r e s s e dh o p e “th a ts o me t i me v e ry s o o n th e S up r e me Co urt of the U nit ed

S ta te s w ill c lari fy

the iss ue of

the gui de lin es and the ir
co nst itu tio na lity , but

unt il suc h ti m e as the y

c hange the law , it

is the opi nio n of thi s C ourt tha t the gui de lin es are sti ll bin din g. ” T he dis tr ic t c ourt the n a dopt ed the PS I’ s c al cu la tio ns and s en te nc ed Ro ss t o 10 8 m onths’ im

pr iso nm en t. InBo oke r, the S upr em e Co urt he ld tha t B lake ly appl ie d to the S en te nc ing Guidelines. United States v. Rodriguez, 398 F.3d 1291 , 1297-98 (11th Cir. ), pe ti ti on forcert . den ie d, No . 04 -1 14 8 (U.S. J un e 2 0, 2 00 5) . Und er Bo ok er, t wo ty pes of sentencing errors exist: “ one is const itutio nal and the other is statut ory .” U nit ed S ta te s v. D ac us, 408 F . 3d 6 86, 688 ( 11th C ir
. 200 5)
. “ [T ] he S ixth4

Am endm ent right to trial by j ury is violated where under a m andatory guidelin es sy ste m ase nte nc e is i nc re as ed

be ca use of an e nhanc em en t ba se d onf ac ts f ound by the j udge that were neither adm itted by the defendant nor found bythe j ury .” Rodriguez, 398 F. 3d at 129 8. T he statutory err or occurs w hen the district court sentences a defe ndant “ under a m andatory Guidelines schem e, even in the absence of aS ixth A m en dm en t e nhanc em en t vi olatio n. ” U nit ed S ta te s v. S he lto n, 400 F. 3d 13 25, 1330-31 (11th Cir. 2005). Ro ss p ro pe rl y

pr es er ve d hi s B lake ly

/B ooke r co nst itu tio na l ob j ec tio n inthe district court. Se e U nited States v. D owling, 403 F.3d 1242, 1245 (11th Cir. 2005 ). W e re vie wthi s is sue de nov o; b ut w e w ill not r ev er se the dis tr ic t c ourt i f the governm ent shows that the error w as harm less bey ond a reasonable doub t. S ee United States v. Paz , 405 F. 3d 94 6, 948 (11th Cir. 2005). Ross’ s sentence wa s enhanced, under a m andatory guidelin es sy stem , based on facts found bythe j udge and no t adm itted by Ross: Booker indicates that Ro ss’ s S ixth A m en dm en t r igh t t o tr ia l by j ur y w as vio la te d. S ee U nit ed S ta te s v. Davis, 407 F.3d 1269 , 1270 (11th Cir. 2005). And the go vernm ent concedes err or: the gov er nm en t thus doe s no t a tte m pt t o sh ow“ that the m an da tor y , a s op pose d to the advisory , a

pplication of the guidelines d id not contribute to [Ross]’ s sentence.” Id
. a t 12 71. T he dis tr ic t c ourt e xpr es sly tr eate d th e gui de lin es a s m an da tor y : i t5

m ade no statem ent indicating that it would have given th e sam e sentence re gard le ss o f w he the r the gui de lin es w er e advis or y or m an da tor

y . S ee id. ( no harm less error bey ond a reasonable doub t wher e “ [w ] e sim ply do not know what the se nte nc ing c ourt w oul d have don e ha d it und er sto od the gui de lin es to be advis or y r athe r than m an da tor

y , and h ad

pr ope rl y c onsi de re d th e fa ct or s in18 U. S. C. § 355 3(a)”)
. Ross m ust be resentenced under the advisory guidelin es sy ste m : onr em an d, the dis tr ic t c ourt, “ w hil e not bound t o a

ppl y the G uid el ine s, m ust cons ult tho se guidelin es and take them into account when sentencing.” Paz , 405 F.3d at 949 (quo ting Boo ker, 125 S.Ct. at 767). VACATED andREMANDED.