### F I LE D U. S . COURT OF AP PE ALS E LEVE NTH CI RCUI T O c t obe r 18, 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. 05- 10948 N on -A rgum entC al endar

________________________ D . C . D ocketN o. 00 -005 27 -C R -1-1 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 R O D N E Y D E M A R I U S G I D D E N S , 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 r th e rn D is tr ic t o f G e o r g ia

_________________________ ( O c t ob e r 18, 2005) B efo re C A RN E S , B A R K E T T an d M A R C U S , C i rcu i tJu d g es. P E R C U R I A M: R odne y D e m a r i us G i dde ns appe a l s hi s 180- m onth s e nt e nc e f orpos s e s s i on of2

af i r e a rm b y ac o n v i c t e d f

e l o n , i n v i o l a t i o n o f

1 8 U. S . C . § § 9 2 2 ( g ) , 9 2 4 ( e ) . On appeal , G i dd ens a rgues thatthe di stri ctcourterre d u nd erU ni t ed S t at es v. B oo ker, 5 4 3 U .S . ____ , 1 2 5 S .C t. 7 3 8 , 7 5 6 , 1 6 0 L .E d .2 d 6 2 1 ( 2 0 0 5 ) , b y e n h a n c in g h is s e nt e nc e pur s ua ntt o the A rm e d C a r e e rC r i m i na l pr ovi s i on be c a us e the f a c ta nd c ha r a c t e r i z a t i on of

the pr i orc onvi c t i ons w e r e nota l l e ge d i n the i ndi c tm e ntor pr ove d t o the j ury be y ond ar e a s onabl e doubt . G i dde ns i nt e rpr e t s B l a ke l y v. W as hi ng t on , 54 2 U . S . 29 6, 12 4 S . C t . 25 31 , 15 9 L . E d. 2d 40 3 (20 04 ), t o st at e that th e u s e o f

ap r io rc o n v ic tio n to e n h a n c e as e n te n c e v io la te s th e F if th a n d S ix th A m endm ent s the sa m e a s a ny other f ac t N ext , G i dd ens a rgues f

or the fi rs tt i m e on app ea l thati ti s uncl ea r w hat do cum ent s the courtvi ew ed i n d et erm i ni ng thathi s pri or conv i ct i on s qual i fi ed as predi ca t e off

ense s w i thi n the m ea ni ng of the A rm ed C ar ee r C ri m i nal A ct (“ A C C A ”) . G i dd ens not es the S up re m e C ou rt ’ s hol di ng i n S hepard v. U ni t ed S t a t e s , 544 U . S . ____, 125 S . C t . 1254, 161 L . E d. 2d 205 ( 2005) , w hi c h r e s tr i c t s the ty pe s of doc um e nt s tha tthe c our tc a n vi e w i n a s s e s s i ng w he the rapr i orc onvi c t i on is aq u a lif

y in g o f f e n s e u n d e rth e A C C A . W e a ff i rm . W e have m ade c l ea r thatA l m endarez -T orre s " w as l ef t undi s turbe d by A ppr e ndi , B l a ke l y , a nd B ooke r . " U ni t e d S t a t e s v. S he l t on, 400 F . 3d 1325, 1329 ( 11th C i r . 2005) . M or e ove r , w e ha ve not e d tha t , w hi l e r e c e nt3

de c i s i ons , i nc l udi ng S he pa r d, m a y a r guabl y c a s tdoubton the f utur e pr os pe c t s of A l m endarez -T orre s, the S up re m e C ou rthas notexpl i ci t l y overrul ed A l m endarez T orr e s , a nd, a s ar e s ul t , w e m us tf ol l ow A l m e nda r e z - T orr e s . U ni t e d S t a t e s v. C am ac ho -I barquen, 41 0 F . 3d 13 07 , 13 16 n. 3 (11 th C i r. 20 05 ). W e not e thatthere i s n o B o o k er st atu t o ry erro r b ecau se G i d d en s recei v ed a sen t en ce o f 1 8 0 m o n th s’ im p r is o n m e n t, w h ic h w a s th e s ta tu to ry m in im u m s e n te n c e . D is tr ic t c o u r ts a r e s till bound by s t a tut ory m i ni m um s e nt e nc e s a f t e rB ooke r . S he l t on, 400 F . 3d a t1333 n. 10 . T here fore , even i f the di stri ctcourtdi d app l y the gu i del i nes i n a m andat ory fa shi on , the error w as harm l es s bec ause the courtcoul d n othave i m po se d a l es se r s e nt e nc e due t o the s t a tut ory m i ni m um . U ni t e d S t a t e s v. R a a d, 406 F . 3d 1322, 1 3 2 3 n .1 ( 2 0 0 5 ) . F in a lly , b e c a u s e G id d e n s a r g u e s f o rth e f ir s t tim e o n ap p e a l th a t th e r e c o r d is unc l e a ra s t o w ha tdoc um e nt s the di s tr i c tc our tus e d i n a s s e s s i ng hi s pr i or conv i ct i on s und erA C C A , w e r evi ew for pl ai n err or. U ni t ed S t at es v. R od ri gu ez , 398 F . 3d 1291, 1297 ( 11th C i r . ) , c e r t . de ni e d 125 S . C t . 2935 ( 2005) . W e “ m a y not c orr e c ta n e rr orthe de f

e nda ntf a i l e d t o r a i s e i n the di s tr i c tc our tunl e s s the r e i s : ( 1) e rr o r , ( 2 ) th a t is p la in , a n d ( 3 ) th a t a f f e c ts s u b s ta n tia l r ig h ts .... E v e n th e n , [ th is C o u r t] w ill e x e r c is e [ its ] d is c r e tio n to r e c tif y th e e rr o ro n ly if

it s e r io u s ly a f

f e c ts the f a i rne s s , i nt e gr i ty , orpubl i c r e put a t i on of j udi c i a l pr oc e e di ngs . ” I d. a t1298.4

T he A rm e d C a r e e rC r i m i na l A c t“ m a nda t e s af orm a l c a t e gor i c a l appr oa c h, l ooki ng onl y t o the s t a tut ory de f i ni t i ons of

the pr i orof

f e ns e s , a nd nott o the pa r t i c ul a rf

a c t s unde r l y i ng thos e c onvi c t i ons ” w he n appl y i ng the s e nt e nc i ng e nha nc e m e nt . T a y l orv. U ni t e d S t a t e s , 495 U . S . 575, 600, 110 S . C t . 2143, 2159, 109 L . E d. 2d 607 ( 1990) . T he S upr e m e C our the l d i n S he pa r d tha tas e nt e nc i ng courtm ayno tre l y on p ol i ce re po rt s or c om pl ai ntappl i ca t i on s i n d ec i di ng w hether a pri or conv i ct i on w as a " generi c burgl ary, " i n the cont extof det erm i ni ng w hether the c onvi c t i on i s a" vi ol e ntf e l ony " unde rA C C A . S he pa r d, 543 U . S . a t____, 125 S . C t . a t1263. I ns t e a d, w he n i ti s i m pos s i bl e t o de t e rm i ne f r om the f a c e of the j ud gm entor st atut e w hether the pri or conv i ct i on sa t i sf i es the enhancem entst atut e, the di s tr i c tc our t ' s r e vi e w " i s l i m i t e d t o the t e rm s of the c ha r gi ng doc um e nt , the t e rm s of the pl e aa gr e e m e ntortr a ns c r i ptof c ol l oquy be tw e e n j udge a nd de f e nda nt i n w h i c h th e f

a c tu a l b a s i s f

o rth e p l e aw a s c o n f

i rme d b y th e d e f

e n d a n t , o rt o s o me c om pa r abl e j udi c i a l r e c or d of thi s i nf orm a t i on. " I d. Up o n r e v i e w o f

th e r e c o r d a n d u p o n c o n s i d e r a t i o n o f th e p a r t i e s ’ b r i e f

s , we f in d n o r e v e r s ib le e rr o r . T h e s e n te n c in g c o u r t h e r e d id n o t e rru n d e rS h e p a r d in det erm i ni ng thatG i dd ens’ s pri or conv i ct i on s qual i fi ed as vi ol entfe l on i es un der A C C A . A tthe s e nt e nc i ng he a r i ng, G i dde ns ’ s c ouns e l r e f e rr e d the c our tt o the s e n te n c in g tr a n s c r ip t f

r o m G id d e n s ’s 1 9 9 7 c o n v ic tio n s , w h ic h h e h a d s u b m itte d to5

the c our tw i th ac opy of hi s pe ndi ng s t a t e habe a s c orpus pe t i t i on. T he gove rnm e nt ’ s c ouns e l the n r e f e r e nc e d the i ndi c tm e nta nd the s e nt e nc i ng doc um e nt subm i tt ed by G i dd ens’ s c ou nsel . In re ac hi ng i t s c on cl usi on re gardi ng the nu m ber of G i dde ns ’ s pr i orc onvi c t i ons , the c our ts t a t e d: B u t if y o u lo o k a t th e o v e r a ll p ic tu r e , th e c ol l oq u y d u ri n g th e p l ea a nd t he –a nd t he –a nd [ t he c o ur t ’ s ] s e nt e nc i ng a nd w ha t [ t he cou rt i s] go i n g o ver a n d th e f a c t, a n d th e f

a c t th a t th e r e c e r ta in ly appear t o b e s epar at e off ense s . . . It ’ s afa i r c on cl usi on and a prop er c o n c lu s io n to d e c id e th a t h e is b e in g s e n te n c e d f o rf iv e c o u n ts in v o lv in g b u r g la ry a n d o n e a tte m p te d a rm e d r o b b e ry . . . A n d it is c le a rth a t th e s e a r e , a s am a tte ro f f a c t, s e p a r a te a n d d is tin c t o f f e n s e s . T he r e f or e , the di s tr i c tc our tdi d note rrunde rS he pa r d i n a s s e s s i ng the num be rof pr i orc onvi c t i ons unde rA C C A , be c a us e the s e nt e nc i ng tr a ns c r i ptr e ve a l s tha tthe courtvi ew ed the pl eacol l oq uy, the i nd i ctm ent , and sent enci ng do cum ent , w hi ch a r e a ll a c c e p tab le d o c u m e n ts u n d e rS h e p a r d . W h ile th e c o u r t d id n o t s ta te e xpl i c i t l y w ha tdoc um e nt s i tvi e w e d i n c ha r a c t e r i z i ng G i dde ns ’ s pr i orc onvi c t i ons a s qua l i f y i ng of f e ns e s unde rA C C A , the c our ti s s ue d i t s f i ndi ng tha tG i dde ns qua l i f i e d a s a n A rm e d C a r e e rC r i m i na l i m m e di a t e l y a f t e ri t s di s c us s i on of

the num be rof

hi s pr i orc onvi c t i ons , w hi c h s tr ongl y s ugge s t s tha tthe c our tr e l i e d upon th e s a m e d o c u m e n ts s u b m itte d b y G id d e n s to c h a r a c te r iz e th e p r io rc o n v ic tio n s . AF F I RME D.