### F I LE D U. S . COURT OF AP PE ALS E LEVE NTH CI RCUI T O c t obe r 11, 2005 T HOM AS K. KAHN C L E RK

Honora ble L loyd D. Georg e, United States District Judg e for the District of Ne vada, sitting * by designation. [ 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- 12668

________________________ D
. C. D o c k e tN o . 0 3
- 1 0 0 2 1
- CR- SH
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 J O N A T H A N L E E V E R N I E R , 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 orthe S outhe r n D i s tr i c tof F l or i da

_________________________ ( O c t ob e r 11, 2005) B ef ore B A R K E T T and M A R C U S , C i rc ui tJudg es , and G E O R G E , D i stri ctJudg e. * P E R C U R I A M:2

J ona tha n L e e V e rni e r a ppe a l s hi s 210- m onth s e nt e nc e a nd $ 7 0, 296. 52
r e s t i tut i on or der i m pos e d a f t e rpl e a di ng gui l ty t o: ( 1) the know i ng a nd
un autho ri ze d u se of on e or m ore unaut ho ri ze d acc es s devi ce s ( a c re di tca rd) i ss ued to a n o th e rp e r s o n in o r d e rto w ith d r a w $ 4 ,9 2 8 , in v io la tio n o f 1 8 U .S .C . § 10 29 (a )( 2) (C ou nt1); and (2) t he tra nspo rtati on of m ore than $ 5, 00 0 o f s t ol en pr ope r ty (

j e w e l r y ) i n i nt erst a t e c om m e r c e , i n vi ol a t i on of 18 U
. S
. C
. § 2314 ( C ount 2 )
. O n a ppe a l , V e r ni e ra r gue s tha tthe sent e nc e m us tbe va c a t e d be c a us e ( 1) the d is tr ic t c o u r t w a s “u n a lte r a b ly p r e d i s p o s e d to w a r d a p a r tic u la rp u n is h m e n t,” U ni t e d S t a t e s v. G r e e nm a n, 700 F
. 2d 1377, 1 3 7 9 (1 1th C i r . 1983) , i n vi ol a t i on of th e D e f e n d a n t’s d u e p r o c e s s r ig h ts ; ( 2 ) th e d is tr ic t c o u r t e r r e d a s a m a tte ro f la w in g ra n ti n g an u p w ar d d ep a r tu r e u n d er U .S .S .G . § 5 K 2 .1 ; (3 ) th e d istrict co u rt’s
se nt ence am ou nt ed t o p l ai n err or un der the l i n e o f S up re m e C ou rtca se s
c ul m i na t i ng i n U ni t e d S t a t e s v. B ooke r , 543 U
. S
. ___, 125 S
. C t . 738, 160 L
. E d. 2d 62 1 (20 05 ); and (4) t he di stri ctcour t’ s res t i tut i on order w as i nv al i d. A ft er thor ough r e vi e w , w e a f f i r m the s e nt e n ce i n a l l r e s pe c t s e xc e ptf orthe or de rof
r e s t i tut i on. I
. B a c kgr ound A
. T he G ui l ty P l eaVer nier wa s also indicted for inter state transpor tation of a motor vehic le owned by 1 another , in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2312 (Count3); and the a ssault of two FB Iag ents duringthe courseof their of

ficial duties, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 111(a) ( Counts 4 and 5). 3 O n J a nua r y 16, 2 0 0 4 , pur s ua ntt o a de t a i l e d w r i t t e n pl e a a gr e e m e nta nd a
s t i pul a t e d s e tof fact s, V e r ni e rpl e d gui l ty t o C ount s 1 a nd 2 of a f i ve - c ount i ndi c t m e n t . Th e a g r e e me n tp r o v i d e d th a t( 1 ) th e g o v e r n me n tw o u l d d i s mi s s t he
rem ai n i n g th ree co u rt s o f th e i n d i c tm en taft er sen t en ci n g ; (2 ) th atth e l o ss 1 i nvol ve d i n the r e l e va ntc onduc tw a s m or e t h an $ 1 2 0, 000 a nd l e s s tha n $200, 000 fo r p u rp o ses o f U
. S
. S
. G
. § 2 B 1
. 1 (b )(1 ), an d , acco rd i n g l y, th a t a t en -l ev el “ l o ss”
e nha nc e m e ntw a s w a r r a nt e d; a nd ( 3) th at t h e o ff e ns e s e m bodi e d i n C ount s 1 a nd 2 in v o lv e d th e f

t f r o m th e p e r s o n o f

a n o th e r( R a n M e s ik a ) f o rp u rp o s e s o f

U .S .S .G . § 2B 1. 1( b) ( 3) , a nd the r e f

or e , a n a ddi t i ona l tw o- l e ve l e nha nc e m e ntw a s w a r r a nt e d. T h e p a r tie s a ls o a g r e e d a n d s tip u la te d to th e f o llo w in g b a s i c f

a c ts . O n A p r il 12, 2003, R a n M e s i ka , a tw e nty - tw o y e a r o l d Israel i , l e f tS a n D i e go i n hi s 1991 F ord E cono l i ne van. M es ika’ s van cont ai ned $ 12 3, 43 0. 75 w orth o f j ew el ry that ha d be e n c ons i gne d t o hi m by a j e w e l r y c om p an y. M esi k a i nt e nde d t o s e l l the j ew el ry as h e tr avel ed ac ross the coun try . M es i ka al so po ss es se d a V i sa cr edi tca rd i ssu ed b y an Israel i cred i tcard co m p an y. Pr i or t o M a y 1, 2 0 0 3 , M e s i k a me tth e D e f e n d a n ta n d o f

f e r e d h i m a r i d e . By the ea rl y m orni ng of M ay 1st , the tw o m en ar ri ved i n L ak e C h ar les, L ou i si ana.4

S om e t i m e be f

or e 9: 48 a
. m . , the D e f

e nda nt“ t ook p o ssess i on, c us t ody , a nd c ontr ol of the subj ec tvan and subj ec tj ew el ry fr om M es i ka w i tho utM es i ka’ s vol un t ar y consent , autho ri za t i on or approv al , thati s, the subj ec tvan an d subj ec tj ew el ry w er e st ol en fr om M es i ka by V er ni er . ” B esi d es th e v a n a n d j ew el ry, th e D efen d an tal so “ t o o k p o ssessi o n , cu st o d y,
a nd c ontr ol ” of

M e s i ka’ s cred i t c a r d. A ta bout9: 48 a
. m . on M a y 1s t , the D ef e nd a nt un s uc c e s s f

ul l y a t t e mpt e d a $2 00 c a s h a dv a nc e w i thd r a w a l f r om an A T M m ac hi ne ata truck st op in L o u isian a usi ng M es i ka’ s c re di tca rd. V er ni er
m ade a se cond attem p t tw o m i nu t es l at erand succes sf ul l y w i thd re w $2 00 , and t hen
ma d e a th i r d s u c c e s s f

u l w i th d r a w a l a t9 : 5 2 a . m. B etw ee n M ay 2n d a nd M ay 5t h, V er ni er m ade som e forty- si x c as h ad v an ce
w i thdr a w a l s us i ng M e s i ka ’ s c r e di tc a r d i n L oui si an a , M i s s i s s i ppi , A l a ba m a , a nd F l or i da , t ot a l i ng a bout$4, 928. 00. O n M a y 13, 2003, the D e f e nda ntw a s sp o t t e d by l aw enforce m entagen ts leav i ng a c am psi t e i n K ey W es t , F l ori da. M es i ka’ s van
w a s f ou nd a t the c a mps i t e . V e r ni e r w a s a r r e s t e d a nd the va n w a s s e a r ched. It cont ai ned “ tho usan d s o f p i ec es of the subj ec tj ew el ry . ” F i nal l y, the part i es
s t i pul a t e d tha tthe j e w e l r y ha d tr a ve l e d i n i nt e r s t a t e c om m e r c e pr i ort o M a y 13th. B
. T he P re se nt ence Invest i gat i on R eport T h e P resen t en ce In v est i g at i o n R ep o rt(“ P S I”) d et ai l ed th e s tip u la t ed fact s,5

a ddi ng s om e a ddi t i ona l de t a i l s i nc l udi ng the c i r c um st an ces s ur r oundi ng the D ef endant ’ s a rr es tand M es i ka’ s di sapp ea ra nce. A m on g othe r thi ng s , the PS I r e c ou nt e d tha t l a w e nf or c e me nt di s c ov e r e d t hat V er ni e rha d us e d the na m e “ R a n M e s i ka ” w he n he r e gi s t e r e d a tthe K e y W est
c a m ps i t e , tha tV e r ni e rha d c a l l e d hi m s e l f “ T r oubl e , ” a nd tha tthe D e f e nda ntt ol d a
w om a n tha tM e s i ka ’ s va n w a s hi s a nd tha the w a s a j e w e l r y s a l e s m a n. W he n f e d e r a l l a w e n f

o r c e me n ta g e n t s i d e n t i f i e d th e ms e l v e s t o V e r n i e r , t he D ef en d an t p u sh ed the agent s a w ay and fl ed on foot
. A l on g t he w ay , V er ni er pus he d a w om a n of

f a m ot ors c oot e r , s e i z e d i ta nd dro v e i t t h ro u g h the s tr e e t s of K ey W es tas the agent s pursued hi m . S oo n th er ea fter , V er ni erdo ve i n t he w at er , s w a m to a n o t h e rlo c a tio n , p u s h e d a n o th e rw o m a n o f f a b ic y c le , w h ic h h e u s e d to f l e e , a nd w a s ul t i m a t e l y a ppr e he nde d. A su b seq u en tsearch o f th e v an an d cam p si t e rev eal ed , am o n g o th er t h i n g s, t he c o n s i g n e d j e w e l r y a n d a p l a s t i c t a rp , w h i c h w a s p l a c e d o v e r th e r e a r of Me s i k a ’ s v a n , c o n c e a l i n g th e C a l i f o r n i a l i c e n s e p l a t e . Ag e n t s a l s o l o c a t e d DN A
ev i d en c e on a t i r e i r on a nd a c a m e r a tr i pod, a nd f ound bl ood s t a i ns thr oughoutthe
va n, i nc l u d i n g o n t h e va n’ s c a rpe t , a nd bl ood s pl a t t e ron the w i ndow s a nd a l i ght fi xture i n t he re arof the van. T he D N A fou n d at th e sc en e a nd i n t he van m at ched M e s i k a ’ s D N A
. D N A e v i d e n c e a l s o e x c l u d e d th e D e f e n d a n t a s a s o u r c e of

t he6

D N A f ound on the bl ood s t a i ne d i t e m s s e i z e d i n the va n. B a s e d on thi s f

act pa t t e r n, the P S I gr oupe d C ount s 1 a nd 2, a nd s e tthe D e f e n d a n t ’ s b a s e o f

f e ns e l e v e l a ts i x , p u r s u a n tt o U
. S. S. G
. § 2 B1
. 1 ( a ) ( 2 )
. Th e PSI
a l s o i ncreased t he ba s e of f e ns e l e ve l by t e n l e ve l s ba s e d on the “ l os s ” a m ount agre ed t o b y t h e p ar t i es , pu rs uantt o U
. S
. S
. G
. § 2 B 1. 1(b)(1)(F), and b y a n ad d i t i o n al tw o l ev el s, ag ai n b ased o n th e s tip u l at ed fact s, b ecau se th e o ffen se in v o lv e d th e f

t f r o m a n o th e r , p u r s u a n t to U .S .S .G . § 2 B 1 .1 ( b ) ( 3 ) . P u r s u a n t to U
. S
. S
. G
. § 3C 1. 2, the P S I al so r e c om m e nde d a nothe rtw o- l e ve l i nc r e a s e , ba s e d on th e D e f e n d a n t’s r e c k le s s c r e a tio n o f a s u b s ta n tia l r is k o f

d e a th o rs e r io u s b o d ily i n j u ry d u ri n g th e co u rse o f h i s fl i g h tfro m l aw en fo rcem en to ffi cers i n K ey W e s t. T he D ef

endant ’ s t i m el y a cc ept ance of re spon si bi li ty yi el ded a t hree -l evel
r e duc t i on, pur s ua ntt o U
. S
. S
. G
. § 3E 1. 1, a nd a t ot a l of f e ns e l e ve l of

s e ve nt e e n. T he D ef endant ’ s ver y e xt en si ve cr i m i nal hi st ory r es ul t ed i n t w el ve cr i m i nal hi s t or y poi nt s . T w o a ddi t i ona l poi nt s w e r e a dde d be c au se V e r ni e rc om m i t t e d the
c h a r g e d o f

f e n s e s a f te rh a v in g e s c a p e d f

r o m a C o lo r a d o ja il in A p r il 2 0 0 3 w h ile
se rvi ng a t er m of i m pri sonm ent , and o n e m o re p o i ntw as added si nce he com m i t t ed th e ch arg ed o ffen ses l ess th an tw o years after es c a p in g fro m p ri so n . A s a
c ons e que nc e , V e rn i er w a s gi ve n a C r i m i na l H i s t or y C a t e gor y of V I y i e l di ng a p r e s u m p tiv e g u id e lin e r a n g e o f f if ty - o n e to s ix ty - th r e e m o n th s im p r is o n m e n t.7

F i nal l y, the P S I not ed three po ss i bl e groun ds fo r upw ar d d epar ture a nd ob se rved th a t th e g o v e r n m e n t in te n d e d to s e e k a § 5 K 2 .1 u p w a r d d e p a r tu r e s p e c if ic a lly be c a us e the D e f

e nda nti nt e nde d orknow i ngl y c a us e d M e s i ka ’ s de a th ors e r i ous b o d i l y i n j u ry. T h e D ef en d antfi l ed w ri t t en obj ec t i on s t o t he P S I s ee ki ng , am on g o ther thi ngs , th e el i m i n at i on of P a r a gr a phs 18 a nd 19 f r om the P S I , w hi c h out l i ne d the D N A t e s t i ng r e s ul t s a nd the di sap p e a r a nc e of M e s i ka , on the gr ounds tha tthe i nf or m a t i on w a s “ notr e l e va nt ” t o the c ha r ge s the D e f e nda ntpl e d g u i l t y t o. T he D e f e nda nta dde d tha tthi s w a s not a de a th c a s e , a nd the r e w a s no e vi de nc e of M es i ka’ s dea th o r of the D ef endant ’ s r es po nsi bi l i ty f or i t , ob se rvi ng thatthe l ac k
o f k n o w l ed g e o f M esi k a’ s w h ereab o u t s w as an i n su ffi ci en t fo u n d at i o n t o e s ta b li sh a b as is for departure. T he D ef endantal so chal l enged t he prop osed tw o-l evel i ncre as e, pu rs ua n t to § 3C 1. 2, and p ort i on s of the re st i tut i on se ct i on of the P S I,
c o n te s tin g a m o n g o th e rth in g s , th e v a l u e o f th e s to le n je w e lr y in c lu d e d b e c a u s e it ha d be e n r e c ove r e d. T he gove r nm e nt , i n t u r n, r e s ponde d t o the D e f e nda nt ’ s obj e c t i ons , a nd
m ov ed f ora f i f t e e n- l e ve l up w a r d d e pa r tur e , pu r s ua ntt o § 5K 2. 1, c on t e nd i ng that V er ni erca used the d ea th of M es i ka i n t he course of c om m i t t i ng the charged
c r i m e s . T he gove r nm e ntde t a i l e d the l e ga l ba s i s f orthe de pa r tur e a nd out l i ne d the8

evi dence i ti nt ended t o add uce a tthe se nt enci ng hear i ng i n o rder to es tab li sh that M es i ka w as dead and V er ni erw as re spon si bl e. C
. T he S e nt e nc i ng H e a r i ng V e r ni e r ’ s s e nt e nc i ng he a r i ng t ook pl a c e on M ay 1 0 , 2004, a tw hi c h t i m e the di stri ctcourtt oo k t es t i m on y pre se nt ed b y th e gov er nm enton the i ss ues
s ur r oundi ng M e s i ka ’ s purp o rt ed d e a th a nd the D e f e nda nt ’ s f

l i ght
. A ga i n the D ef endantobj ec t ed on the grou nd s thatthe go vernm enthad i m prov i dent l y turned th e s e n te n c in g h e a r in g in to a m u r d e r tr ia l w h e n , in f a c t, it p r o p e r ly c o n c e r n e d o n ly th e i n t ers tat e tran sp o rt at i o n o f st o l en p ro p ert y an d th e i m p ro p er u se o f an access d e v ic e . T h e D e f

e n d a n t a d d e d th a t th e p r o p o s e d te s tim o n y w o u ld “p o is o n th e w e ll”
a n d im p r o p e r ly p r e

ju d ic e th e c o u r t. T h e d is tri ctcourtsum m ar i l y overrul ed the D ef endant ’ s obj ec t i on s, sa i d t hat i t w o u l d e n t e r t a i n n o f

u r th e r a r g u me n t , a n d a l l o w e d th e g o v e r n me n t t o pr e s e nt t he t e s t i m ony of

f ourF B I a ge nt s a nd M e s i ka ’ s f a the r . A m ong o t h er t h i ngs , the t es t i m on y e st abl i shed thatthe D efendantand M es i ka w er e c aptured on vi deo survei l l ance t apes t aken at a W al-M ar tst ore i n N orth L ake C harl es , L ou i si ana, depi ct i ng them t og ether a t4: 19 a. m . on M ay 2, 20 03
. T he t apes al so show ed V er ni erre -e nt er i ng th e W al -M ar tal on e a roun d 6 : 40 a. m . S t i l l ot her vi deo survei l l ance t apes t aken from an A T M ata truck st o p th at sa m e m orni ng , on M ay9

2n d, show ed V er n ie r a l on e, usi ng M es i ka’ s c re di tca rd. T ho se t apes al so re veal ed M e s ik a ’s v a n in th e p a r k in g lo t a n d th e n d r iv in g a w a y a f te rV e r n ie rf

in is h e d h is
c r e di tc a r d tr a ns a c t i on. M es i ka’ s c el l u lar te l epho ne re cords w er e a l so i nt rodu ce d, w hi ch es t abl i shed p h o n e c a lls m a d e b e t w e e n m id n ig h t a n d 3 :0 0 a .m . o n M a y 2 n d , o r ig in a tin g in T e x a s , an d cal l s m ad e b etw een 3 : 0 0 an d 4 : 0 0 a. m . i n L o u i si an a. N o p h o n e calls
w e r e m a d e o rr e c e iv e d o n M e s ik a ’s c e llu la rp h o n e a f te r7 :0 0 p .m . th a t d a y . I ns i de M e s i ka ’ s va n, l oc a t e d a tthe K e y W e s tc a m ps i t e , the a ge nt s f ound a
ru g cl ean er, a p l ast i c cl ean er, a s c r u b b r u s h , an d ai r fresh en er. T h ey al so d i s c o v e r e d th a tth e v a n ’ s ru g a n d w a l l s h a d j u s tb e e n s c ru b b e d c l e a n. N e ve r the l e s s , the a ge nt s f ound bl ood, a nd bl ood s pl a t t e r , thr ou g h o u t t he va n, i n c l u d i n g o n th e p a s s e n g e r - s i d e r e a r wi n d o w, th e o v e r h e a d l i g h t , a n d th e d o o r j a m. T he a ge nt s a l s o fo u n d a t i re i r on a nd r ope i n the ba c k of the va n. T he t i r e i r on,
w hi ch w as di sc ov er ed u n d er n eat h a sui t ca se cont ai ni ng the st ol en j ew el ry , had vi si ble hum an t i ss ue and b l oo d res i du e on i t . A s not ed, D N A t es t i ng det er m i ned M es i ka t o b e the source of the bl oo d and the hu m an t i ss ue. F in a lly , M e s ik a ’s f

a th e r , a n I s r a e li c itiz e n , te s tif ie d th a t h e h a d s p o k e n w ith hi s s on , R an M es i ka, ever y day by ce l l ph on e p rio r to M ay 2, 20 03 , bu tthathe has nothe a r d f

r om hi s s on s i nc e tha tda t e . H e al so t e s t i f i e d tha thi s s on ge ne r a l l y s l e pt10

in th e v a n to s a v e m o n e y . M o r e o v e r , a c c o r d in g to th e te s tim o n y o f a n F B I a g e n t, M es i ka’ s van cont ai ned a fol di ng m et al bedframe and a fri en d o f M es i ka’ s had i nf or m e d hi m tha tthe be df r a m e c ont a i ne d a m a t tr e s s w he n M e s i ka l e f tS a n D i e go. W hen t he van w as se ar ched, ho w ever , i tcont ai ned o nl y the m et al bedframe. V er ni er ’ s c ou n se l cr oss- exam i ned t he go vernm ent ’ s w i tness es , bu tpres ent ed
no w i tne s s e s ore vi de n ce o n the D e f e nda nt ’ s be ha l f

, a l though a f

f or de d the
o p p o rtu n ity to d o so b y th e d istrict c o u r t, a n d d id n o t d isp u te th e g o v er n m en t’ s evi dence. A l tho ug h t he d istri ctcourti ni t i al l y s ai d t hati tw ou l d n otent er t ai n any l egal
a r gum e nt , i t p erm i t t e d both s i de s t o a r gue a f t e rthe f a c tua l pr e s e nt a t i on. T he gove r nm e ntur ge d the c our tt o de pa r tupw a r d ba s e d on § 5K 2. 1, a s s e r t i n g t h atthe D ef endantw as re spon si bl e f or M es i ka’ s vi ol entdeath and thaton l y a fi ft ee n -l evel d e p a r tu r e w a s r e a s o n a b le u n d e rth e c ir c u m s ta n c e s . T h e d e f e n s e r e s p o n d e d th a t th e a lle g e d m u r d e ro f M e s ik a w a s le g a lly i rr el evantt o t he charg es , t hata § 5K 2. 1 u pw ar d d epar ture w as l egal l y pre em pt ed by U
. S
. S
. G
. § 2 B 1
. 1( b) ( 11) ( § 2B 1. 1( b) ( 12) i n the m os tr e c e ntve r s i on of the G u i d el i n es), w h i ch p ro v i d ed fo r a tw o -l ev el i n crease i n cases w h ere th e o f f en se in v o lv e d th e c o n s c io u s o rr e c k le s s r is k o f d e a th o rs e r io u s b o d ily in j u r y , a n d th a t, i n a ny e ve nt , e vi de nc e of M e s i ka ’ s de a th w a s s pe c ul a t i ve i n the a b senc e of f i ndi ngThe district cour t observed: 2 Well, to all who are pre sent here , whether you understand e ve ry thi ngthat ha s g on e on

he retod ay

or no t is no t r e a lly

re le va nt. B ut I thi nk it o nly fair to p oint out, b e c a

us e c ouns e l ha s h e ard

mesa y thi s to juror s, Ido n’ t kn owho w m any tim e s, a nd e ssenti a lly

it i s th is. Evidencein a matter of

this nature may

be pre sented by

what we c a ll e ith e r dir e c t or

c irc ums tanti a l e vid e nc e . I havefu rt he r adv ise d th os e jurors that the lawmakes no distinction nor limit ation upon the weight that you the finder

of the fa cts may

g ive to either dire ct or c ircumstantial evidenc e. Today Isit as the tr[i] er of

the fa cts as we ll as the arbiter of the law for pur poses of this proce eding
. Ido not mind, as a matter of fac t Ithink Iwould be derelict if I faile d to makec e rt a in o bs e rv atio ns . Iam intellectually

of the fir m conviction that Ran Mesika is indeed dece ased a

nd that the def

endant wa s awa

re of this fact at the times a

nd 11 th e b o d y. T he di s tr i c tc our tf

ur the ra l l ow e d the D e f e nda ntt e n da y s t o f

i l e a ny
m em oran d a or m ot i on “ re l evantt o t he up w ar d d epar ture, ” butdecl ar ed thati thad det er m i ned t o g ra ntthe go vernm ent ’ s m ot i on for a n u pw ar d d epar ture und er§ 5K 2. 1. M ore prec i se l y, the co u rt ov er rul ed V er ni er ’ s obj ec t i on s t o t he P S I, grant ed th e g o v ern m en t ’ s m o t i o n fo r a fi ft een -l ev el u p w ard d ep artu re, d ep art ed fro m a b ase of f e ns e l e ve l of

17 t o a l e ve l 32, a nd s e nt e nc e d V e r ni e rt o a t o t a l of 210 m onths of i m pri sonm ent (105 m on ths on ea ch of C ou nt s 1 a nd 2), three ye ar s o f s up er vi se d
r e le a s e , a n d $ 7 0 ,2 9 6 .5 2 in r e s titu tio n . T h e d is tr ic t c o u r t a ls o s ta te d its in te n tio n to f i l e a n or de rm e m or i a l i z i ng i t s r a t i ona l e f orthe de pa r tur e . N ot ab l y, t h e D e f e nda nt 2dates hewas usingthe victim’s ATM ca rd. What areso meof

tho sec irc ums tanc e s th at in flue nc e d th is C ourt , and , I am sure , w ou ld i nf

luenc e juror s? Here wehave a

n acknow ledg ed mee ting, onementioned over a phone to amongothers the f ather of the victim. And then wehave a complete c ut off. But then w e haveconduct of this nature. Theuse of a n ATM ca

rd by the per petrator knowingfull well that he did not haveto be worried about someone reportingthe loss of that ATM ca rd and the reby immediately

setting up alerts that could be pla ced in those A TM ma c hin e s. This is withoutquestion the most powerful c ircumstantial ca se of conduct by

this defenda

nt that Ihave e ver w itnessed either as the tr[i] er of f a c to r b e f o r e a j ur y. Ihad no hesitanc y

in making thedecision that I have ma de for , I repe at, that I

am now both intellectually and prof essionally convince d that Ran Mesika is indeed de cea sed and inde ed that this defe ndant was a ware of it b e c a us e of his de e ds
. As the Court has indicate d, the Court agree s with the analysis of the g overnme nt’s in the g overnme nt’s reque st and motion for an upwa rd depa rt ure . A s I havea lr e a dy

state d th is C ourt

ha s d e te rm ine d p ri or

to e v e nr e v iew in gth at m o ti o nth at t h is Co urt w o u ld

in d e e d d ep art[ ]. 12 di d n otra i se a c on st i tut i on al chal le ng e t o the G ui del i ne se nt ence , no r di d h e obj ec t t o the w a y the di s tr i c tc our tc onduc t e d the s e nt e nc i ng he a r i ng. W i thi n the t e n da y pe r i od, V e r ni e rf i l e d a w r i t t e n r e s pons e t o t he g o v e r n m e n t’s m o tio n f o ra n u p w a r d d e p a r tu r e , a g a in a r g u in g th a t a § 5 K 2 .1 d e p a r tu r e w a s l e g a lly p r e e m p te d b y § 2 B 1 .1 ( b ) ( 1 1 ) , th a t h is c a s e c o u ld n o t f a ll
ou t s i de the “ he a r t l a nd ” of § 2 B1. 1 c a s e s a s a ma t t e rof l a w , a nd tha tthe de parture13

w a s i na ppr opr i a t e , i n a ny c a s e, b eca us e the r e w a s i ns uf f i c i e ntpr oof

tha tM e s i ka
w as ac tual l y dea d. V er ni erthen t i m el y f i l ed a not i ce of appeal
. A ft erV er ni erfi l ed hi s i ni t i al bri ef

w i th t hi s C ou rt , the di stri ctcourt , on S ep tem b er 17 , 20 04 , ent er ed
a n or de rm e m ori al i zi n g i t s r e a s ons f orgr a nt i ng the § 5K 2. 1 de pa r tur e . T he D e f e n d a n t o b

je c te d to th e o r d e ra s s e r tin g th a t th e d is tr ic t c o u r t lo s t ju r is d ic tio n in lig h t o f th e p e n d in g a p p e a l. I I
. D i s c us s i on A. T he D e f

e nda ntf i r s ta r g u e s tha tw e s houl d r e ve r s e hi s s e nt e nc e a nd r e m a nd f o r r e - s e n t e n c i n g b e f

o r e a n o th e r d i s tr i c t j u d g e b e c a u s e th e c o u r t h a rb o r e d a pervas i ve bi as agai nsthi m and w as un al t er abl y di sposed t o a part i cul ar puni s hm e nt . W e a r e notpe r s ua de d. W e o b se r ve a tthe out s e ttha tthe D e f e nda ntdi d notobj e c tdur i ng ora f t e rthe
s e nt e n ci n g p r oc e e di ng t o the c our t ’ s a l l e ge d bi a s . I n the a bs e nc e of pr e s e r vi ng the i s s ue of bi a s , w e w i l l ge ne r a l l y r e f us e t o e nt ert ai n i t on a ppe a l a bs e nta s how i ng of fund am ent al er ror. U ni t ed S t at es v. R am o s, 9 3 3 F
. 2d 96 8, 97 4 (11 th C i r. 19 91 ). F un dam ent al er ror m ay be foun d, ho w ever , w here the j ud ge’ s rem ar ks and con du ct evi nce pervas i ve bi as and p re j ud i ce thatun fa i rl y pre j ud ices th e def

endant
. Id. at 973- 74.14

W e a d d th a t ju d ic ia l r e m a r k s c r itic a l o f a p a r ty w ill n o t g e n e r a lly s u p p o r t a
c l a i m of

pa r t i a l i ty orbi a s . A s the S upr em e C o u rt ha s obs e r ve d,

“ [d ] i si n t erest ed n ess d o es n o tm ean ch i l d -l i k e i n n o cen ce. ” L i t ek y v . U n i t ed S t at es, 51 0 U
. S
. 54 0, 55 1, 11 4 S
. C t . 11 47 , 11 55 , 12 7 L
. E d. 2d 47 4 (19 94 ). W hen
ex am in in g th e t o tali ty o f th e rec o rd , w e are re q u ired to as k w h e th e r th e ju d g e’s
r e m a r k s r e v e a l s o “h ig h d e g r e e o f f a v o r itis m o ra n ta g o n is m a s to m a k e f a ir j udgm e nti m pos s i bl e . ” I d. a t555, 114 S
. C t . a t1157. W hen t hi s r ec ord is v iew ed as a w ho l e w e a re sa t i sf i ed thatthe di stri ct court ’ s c on du ctdu ri ng the se nt enci ng hear i ng do es no testab li sh pervas i ve bi as
a ga i ns tV e r ni e rr e nde r i ng f a i ra nd i m pa r t i al j udgm e nti m pos s i bl e . W hi l e s om e of the di stri ctcourt ’ s c om m ent s w er e pl ai nl y i nfel i ci t ou s, they do n otevi nce l egal bi a s . W i thoutque s t i on, the di s tr i c tc our tc o n d u ct ed t h e s e nt e nc i ng he a r i ng i n a bl un tand forcefu l m anner. N ever thel es s, the di stri ctcourtre ce i ved and re vi ew ed th e D e f e n d a n t’s w r itte n o b

je c tio n s to th e P S I , g a v e th e D e f e n d a n t th e o p p o r tu n ity t o con fr on t , cr oss- exam i ne, and rebutthe go vernm ent ’ s e v id en ce and w i tness es pr e s e nt e d a tthe s e nt e nc i ng he a r i ng, i n f a c ta l l ow e d the de f

e ns e t o a r gue both the f a c ts a n d t h e l a w a t th e h e a r in g , a n d p r o v id e d th e D e f e n d a n t w ith th e o p p o r tu n ity t o b ri ef the m att erof departure f urther. T he f a c ttha tthe di s tr i c tc our tbl unt l y a nnounc e d i t s i nt en t i o n t o de pa r ta tthe15

o u ts e t o f

th e h e a r in g d o e s n o t e v in c e a d e e p - s e a te d b a is o ra n u n a lte r a b le pr e di s pos i t i on. I nde e d, ourl aw i s w el l
- s e tt l e d tha ta di s tr i c tc our tm us ta dvi s e the pa r t i e s pr i ort o the s e nt e nc i ng he a r i ng of i t s i nt e nt i on t o d ep art fr om the gui de l i ne
r a nge . S ee, e. g . , B u r ns v. U ni t e d S t a t e s , 501 U
. S
. 129, 138- 39, 111 S
. C t . 2182, 2187, 115 L
. E d. 2d 123 ( 1991)
. In t h i s ca s e , the di s tr i c tc our tpl a i nl y putthe go vernm entt o i t s burden o f e st ab li shi ng the fa ctual base s f or the departure. M or e ove r , V e r ni e r ’ s ba s i c a r gum e nt tha t the a l l e ge d m ur de r a r i s i ng ou t o f the
c h a r g e d c o n d u c twa s l e g a l l y i r r e l e v a n twa s u n d e n i a b l y wi th o u tm e r i t , s e e U. S
. S
. G. § 1 B 1 .3 (s tatin g th at re lev an t co n d u ct fo r p u rp o se s o f d eter m in in g a d ef en d an t’ s gui de l i ne r a nge i nc l ude s “ a l l a c t s a nd om i s s i ons c om m i t t e d, a i de d, a be t t e d,
coun se l ed, com m anded, i nd uced, procured, or w i l l ful l y c ause d”), and t h e di stri ct courtw as no tob l i ged t o com m entatl engt h abo uti t . N or, fi nal l y, t aken as a w ho l e,
c a n w e di s c e r n on the r e c or d, a vi ol a t i on o f R u l e 3 2 of the F e de r a l R ul e s of C ri m i nal P roce du re . B. V e r ni e ra l s o a r gue s tha tt h e d i st ri c tc our te r r e d i n de pa r t i ng upw a r d ba s e d on § 5K 2. 1 be c a us e ( 1) th e co u rt h ad no j ur i s di c t i on t o e nt e ra s uppl e m e nt a l or de ron S ept em ber 14t h m em ori al i zi ng i t s r ea sons for g ra n ti ng the departure; (2) the court d id n o t m ak e a d eq u ate f in d in g s th at M es ik a’s d ea th re s u lt ed fr o m th e D ef en d an t’ s16

c o n d u c t; ( 3 ) th e c o u r t f a ile d to r e c o g n i z e t h a t in th is c a s e § 2 B 1 .1 ta k e s d e a th in to
ac coun t , pree m pt i ng a § 5K 2. 1 d epar ture; and (4 ) the ext entof the up w ar d d e p a r tu r e w a s u n la w f

u l b e c a u s e th e c o u r t d id n o t c o n s id e rth e f a c t o r s o u t lin e d in the c om m e nt a r y t o § 5K 2. 1. W e r e m a i n unc onvi nc e d. A s a thr e s hol d m at t e r , w e m us tde c i de w he the rt o m e a s ur e the l a w f ul ne s s of t he di s tr i c t c o u r t ’ s § 5 K 2
. 1 d e p a r tu r e i n l i g h t o f i t s Se p t e mb e r 1 7 , 2 0 0 4 o r de r , or
on l y i n l i ghtof

the r e c or d de ve l ope d pr i ort o V e r ni e rha vi ng f i l e d hi s not i c e of
a pp e a l
. Th e i s s u e tu r n s o n w h e th e r th e d i s tr i c t c o u r t h a d j u r i s d i c t i o n t o e n t e r t he S ept em ber 17t h o rderaf t eri tent er ed j ud gm entand th e D ef endantfi l ed hi s not i ce
o f a p p e a l. T he f i l i ng of a not i c e of

a ppe a l w i l l g en eral l y di ve s tthe di s tr i c tc our tof j ur i s di c t i on ove rthe m a t t ers at i ssue i n the a ppe a l , e xc e ptt o the e xt e nttha tthe
c our tm us ta c t“ i n a i d of the a ppe a l
. ” S he w c h u n v . U n i t ed S t a t e s , 797 F
. 2d 941, 9 4 2 ( 1 1 th C ir . 1 9 8 6 ) . P la in ly , th e d is tr ic t c o u r t h a d b e e n d iv e s te d o f ju r is d ic tio n to
a c t o th e rth a n “in a i d o f t h e a p p e a l ” w h e n it e n te r e d its S e p te m b e r1 7 th o r d e r . W e h o ld th a t in th is c a s e , h o w e v e r , th e s u p p le m e n ta l o r d e rw a s a p e r m is s ib le a c t in a id of a ppe a l pr e c i s e l y be c a us e i tf a c i l i t a t e d, r a the rtha n i nt e r f e r e d w i th t h e rev i ew of th e a p p e a l. T h e d is tr ic t c o u r t in te n d e d a ll a lo n g to f ile a w r i t t e n o r d e rd e ta ilin g its
r a t i ona l e f

o r th e u p w a r d d e p a r tu r e . Th e o r d e r d i d n o mo r e th a n th a t . I n f a c t , t he17

S ept em ber 17t h o rderi n n o w ay m o d ified t he di stri ctcourt ’ s s ent ence or al t er ed the f ounda t i on upon w hi c h i tr e s t e d. It d i d n o t am ountt o a r e - s e nt e nc i ng of the D ef endant
. R ather, the di stri ctcourt ’ s r educt i on of i t s ora l fi nd i ng s t o w ri t i ng af t er t h e f i l i n g o f a n o t i c e o f a p p e a l w a s w i th i n i t s j u r i s d i c t i o n b e c a u s e i t w oul d a i d t he
a ppe l l a t e c our ti n i t s r e vi e w . S e e , e . g. , U ni t e d S t a t e s v. N i c hol s , 56 F
. 3d 403 ( 2d C i r. 19 95 ). N o ra r e w e p e r s u a d e d b y V e r n ie r ’ s s u g g e s tio n th a t th e d is tr ic t c o u r t f a ile d to
m a ke a de qua t e f

i ndi ngs . D e f

e nda nt ’ s a r gum e nttha tthe di s tr i c tc our tw a s de f i c i e nt in its f in d in g s r e s ts o n th e la n g u a g e in § 5 K 2 .1 th a t, [ t]h e s e n t e n c i n g ju d g e m u s t g iv e c o n s id e r a tio n to m a tte r s th a t w o u ld nor m a l l y di s t i ngui s h a m ong l e ve l s of h o m i ci de , s uc h a s the de f e nd an t ’ s s t a t e of

m i nd a nd the de gr e e of pl a nni ng orpr e pa r a t i on. O the ra ppr opr i a t e f

a c t or s a r e w he the rm ul t i pl e de a ths r e s ul t e d, a nd the m e a n s b y w h i c h lif

e w a s ta k e n . T h e e x te n t o f th e in c r e a s e s h o u ld d e p e n d o n th e d a n g e r o u s n e s s o f th e d e f e n d a n t’s c o n d u c t, th e e x te n t to w h i ch d ea th ors e r i ous i nj ur y w a s i nt e nde d orknow i ngl y r i s ke d, a nd th e ex t en t t o w h i ch th e o ffen se l ev el fo r th e o ffen se o f co n v i ct i o n . . . a lr e a d y r e f

le c ts th e r is k o f

p e r s o n a l in

ju r y . U .S .S .G . § 5 K 2 .1
. T he di stri ctcour t e x pres sl y t oo k n ot e of these re qu i re m ent s i n i t s S ept em ber 17 th o rder
. Itthen p roce eded t o m ake num er ou s f i nd i ng s e xh ib it i ng com pl i ance
w ith th e G u id e lin e s . I n p a r tic u la r , th e d is tr ic t c o u r t f o u n d th a t, V e r ni e r. . . ha d the m ot i ve a nd o p p o rt u n i ty t o m ur de rM e s i ka by ta k in g a d v a n ta g e o f

h is c lo s e r e la tio n s h i p to th e v ic tim to g a in18

f i n a n c ia lly b y th e f

r a u d u le n t u s e o f

M e s ik a ’s c r e d it c a r d a f te rh is de a th.
. . . V e r ni e r[ a l s o] a t t e m pt e d t o co v er u p t h e s c e ne of hi s de a th. T he cl ea ni ng agent s a nd w at erand b l oo d stain s (bel on gi ng t o M es i ka) s how tha tV e r ni e ra t t e m pt e d t o h i d e the m ur de rs c e ne a nd e va de puni s hm e ntf

orthe he i nous c r i m e s he c om m i t t e d. T he s e f i ndi ngs s a y tha tD e f

e nda ntm ur de r e d M e s i ka i nt e nt i onal l y as evi de ntf r om th e f in a n c ia l g a in D e f

e n d a n t r e a p e d a n d f

r o m D e f e n d a n t’s c a lc u la te d e f

f o r t to
c onc e a l M e s i ka ’ s de a th. A s w e l l , t h e y s ugge s ttha tthe D e f e nda ntpl a nne d the
m urde ri n the c ou r s e of c ul t i va t i ng a r e l a t i on s hi p w i th M e s i ka
. Fi na l l y , the di st ri ct
c our t s ugge s t e d i n c a l l i ng D e f e nda nt ’ s c r i m e s “ he i nous , ” tha t D e f e nda n t t ook M es i ka’ s l i fe in a b rut al fa shi on . In short , w e a re sa t i sf i ed thatthe di stri ctcourt f ol l ow e d the gui da nc e pr ovi de d i n the c om m en t ari es t o § 5K 2. 1 i n de t e r m i ni ng the
e x te n t o f a n u p w a r d d e p a r tu r e . W e a re al so u n co nv i cned by V er ni er ’ s a rgum entthat§ 2 B 1. 1 al re ady t akes de a th i nt o a c c ount , pr eem p t i n g as a m a t t e rof l a w a § 5K 2. 1 de pa r tur e . S e c t i on 2B 1. 1(b )( 11) of

the G ui de l i ne s s pe c i f

i c a l l y pr ovi de s f

ora tw o- l e ve l i nc r e a s e i n the ba s e of f e ns e l e ve l “ [ i ] f

the of f e ns e i nvol ve d [ ] the c ons c i o u s o r r e c kl e s s r i s k of de a th ors e r i ous bodi l y i nj ur y . ” T ha tpr ovi s i on a ppl i e s , how e ve r, o n l y w he r e the de f e nda nt ’ s of

f e ns e c onduc ti ntr i ns i cal l y car r i e s the c ons c i ous orr e c kl e s s r i s k of d e a th o rin

ju r y . I n th is c a s e , V e r n i e r ’s o f f e n s e c o n d u c t - - d r iv in g a v a n a c r o s s s ta te l i n es w i th s t ol e n j e w e l r y , a nd us i ng a thi r d pe r s on’ s c r e di tc a r d w i thout19

au th o r iz a tio n - - carries no i n h eren tri sk o f d eat h o r seri o u s b o d i l y i n j u ry. T h i s case i s not hi ng l i ke U ni t ed S t at es v. S nyder, 29 1 F
. 3d 12 91 , 12 94 -95 (11 th C i r. 20 02 ),
w he r e the § 2B 1. 1 pr ovi s i on a ppl i e d t o c onduc ti nvol vi ng f a l s e c e r t i f

i c a t i ons t o the F D A c onc e r ni ng the e f f e c t i v en ess of

a c a nc e rdrug, pr e c i s e l y be c a us e the
u n d e r ly in g c o n d u c t in h e r e n tly c a r r i e d a r is k o f d e a th o rs e r io u s in

ju r y to c lin ic a ltri al vo l u n teer s. S ee al so U ni t ed S t at es v. L uci en, 34 7 F
. 3d 45 , 55 -57 (2d C i r. 20 03 ) ( appl yi ng § 2 B 1. 1(b)(11) t o fra ud conv i ct i on s i nv ol vi ng fa bri ca t ed aut om ob i l e c ol l i si on s, cond ucti nh er ent l y c ar ry i ng ri sk of death o r s er i ou s i nj ury)
. C. V e r ni e ra l s o a r gue s , f orthe f i r s tt i m e on a ppeal t h at hi s s e nt e nc e m us tbe
r e ve r s e d be c a us e i tw a s i m pos e d on the b asi s of f a c t s ne i the rc ha r ge d i n the i n d i ct m en t , n o r fo u n d b y th e j u ry, i n v i o l at i o n o f th e F i fth an d S i x th A m en d m e n ts,
a n d th e Su p r e me Co u r t ’ s r ul i n g s i n A p p r e n d i v . N e w J e r s e y , 5 3 0 U
. S. 4 6 6 , 1 2 0 S. Ct
. 2 3 4 8 , 1 4 7 L. Ed
. 2 d 4 3 5 ( 2 0 0 0 ) , Bl a k e l y v . W a s h i n g t o n , 5 4 2 U
. S. 2 9 6 , 1 2 4 S. C t . 2 5 3 1 , 1 5 9 L. Ed
. 2 d 4 0 3 ( 2 0 0 4 ) , a n d U n i t e d St a t e s v . Bo o k e r , 5 4 3 U
. S
. ___, 12 5 S
. C t . 73 8, 16 0 L
. E d. 2d 62 1 (20 05 ). W he r e , a s he r e , a de f e nda nt r a i s e s a B ooke r c l a i m f or the f i rst t i m e on
a ppe a l , w e r e vi e w the m a t t e ronl y f orpl a i n e r r or . U ni t ed S t a t e s v. R odr i gue z , 398 F .3 d 1 2 9 1 , 1 2 9 8 ( 1 1 th C ir . 2 0 0 5 ) ; s e e a ls o F e d . R
. C r i m . P
. 5 2 ( b ) . U n d e rth is20

s t a nda r d of

r e vi e w , “ [ a ] n a ppel l a t e c our tm a y notc or r e c ta n e r r orthe de f e nda nt f 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 there i s : ‘ ( 1) e r r or , ( 2) tha ti s pl a i n, a nd ( 3) tha ta f

f e c t s s ubs t a nt i a l r i ght s , ’ ” a nd e ve n the n, the a ppe l l at e co u r tha s the d i scret i o n t o ad d ress t h e e r r o r o n ly i f “ ‘ (4 ) th e erro r seri o u sl y affects th e fai rn ess, i nt eg rity, o r p ub l i c r eput at i on of j ud i ci al proceedi ng s. ’ ” R od ri gu ez , 39 8 F
. 3d at 1298 ( quot i n g U ni t e d S t a t e s v. C ot t on, 535 U
. S
. 625, 631, 122 S
. C t . 1781, 1785, 15 2 L
. E d. 2d 86 0 (20 02 ))
. A s w e r e c e nt l y obs e r ve d: U nde rU ni t e d S t a t e s v. B oo k er , the r e a r e tw o ki nds of s e n te n c in g e r r o r s : o n e is c o n s titu tio n a l a n d th e o th e ris s t a tu to r y . “[ T ]h e S ix th A m e n d m e n t r ig h t to tr ia l b y ju r y is vi o lated w here un der a m andat ory gui del i nes s ys t em a s ent ence i s i n cr e a s e d be c a us e of

a n e nha nc e m e ntba s e d on f a c t s f ound by t h e j u d g e th a tw e r e n e i th e ra d mi t t e d b y th e d e f e n d a n tn o rf

o u nd by the j ur y . ” U ni t e d S t at e s v. R odr i gue z , 398 F
. 3d 1291, 1297 (11t h C i r. 20 05 ). In addi t i on , “ [a ] s a re su lt o f B oo ker’ s r em edi al ho l di ng , B oo ker e rr or ex ists w hen t he di stri ctcourtm i sapp l i es th e G u id e lin e s b y c o n s id e r in g th e m a s b in d in g a s o p p o s e d to a d v i s o r y . ” U n i t e d St a t e s v . Sh e l t o n , 4 0 0 F. 3 d 1 3 2 5 , 1330- 31 (11t h C i r. 20 05 ). U ni t ed S t at es v. C ar tw ri gh t , 41 3 F
. 3d 12 95 , 13 00 (11t h C i r. 20 05 ). V e r ni e r s ug ge s t s tha t the di s tr i c t c ou r t c ommi t t e d Book e r e r r or w i th res pect t o cer t ai n enh ance m ent s a nd fi nd i ng s c on tri bu t i ng t o th e D ef endant ’ s s ent ence -- i ncl ud i ng a f

i nd i ng of fi ft ee n cri m i nal hi st ory poi nt s a nd a C ri m i nal H i st ory C a t e gor y V I , a t e n- l e ve l e nha nc e m e ntf ora l os s i n the a m ountof $128, 791. 82,21

pur s ua ntt o U
. S
. S
. G
. § 2B 1. 1( b) ( 1) ( F ) , a tw o- l e ve l e nha nc e m e ntf orthe f tf r om the p e r s o n o f

a n o th e r , p u r s u a n tt o U
. S. S. G
. § 2 B1
. 1 ( b ) ( 3 ) , a tw o - l e v e l i n c r e a s e f or
r e c kl e s s e nda nge r m e ntdur i ng f l i ght , pur s u an t t o U
. S
. S
. G
. § 3C 1. 2, a nd a n or de rof
r e s t i tut i on, p u rsu a ntt o the M a nda t or y V i c t i m s R e s t i tut i on A c t( “ M V R A ” ) , 18 U
. S
. C
. §§ 3663A
- 3664. W e a r e unpe r s ua de d. F i rs t , as for the D ef

endant ’ s c rim in al hi st ory, w e have consi st ent l y r ej ec t ed
a ny c l a i m tha tthe di s tr i c tc our te r r e d w he n i t en h a nc e d a s e nt e nc e ba s e d on pr i or
c o n v ic tio n s . T h e S u p r e m e C o u r t h a s c o n s is te n tly r e je c te d th e a r g u m e n t th a t a di s tr i c tc our t c om m i t s e r r orw he n i tc ons i de r s pr i orc onvi c t i ons i n s e nt e nc i ng a d efen d an t u n d er t h e G u i d el i n es. S ee, e. g . , A l m en d arez-T o rres v . U n i t ed S t at es, 523 U
. S
. 224, 118 S
. C t . 1219, 140 L
. E d. 2d 350 (1 9 9 8 ) ; U ni t e d S t a t e s v. M a r s e i l l e , 377 F
. 3d 1249, 1257 ( 11th C i r . 2004) ; a c c or d U ni t e d S t a t e s v. O r duno- M i r e l e s , 405 F
. 3d 960, 963 ( 11th C i r . 2005) ; S he l t on, 400 F
. 3d a t1329. S e c ond, the t e n- l e ve l e nha nc e m e ntf orl os s i n a n a m ounte xc e e di ng $1 20 , 00 0, and t he tw o-l evel enhancem entfor theftfr om th e p er son o f a no ther,
w e r e n o t th e r e s u lt o f ju d ic ia l f a c t- f in d in g , b u t r a th e r w e r e f a c t s u n a m b ig u o u s ly adm i t t ed by V er ni eras p ar tof the pl ea agre em ent . A cc ordi ng l y, no const i tut i on al
o rs ta tu to r y B o o k e re r r o rc a n b e a ttr ib u te d to th o s e e n h a n c e m e n t s . S e e C a r tw r ig h t, 4 1 3 F .3 d a t 1 3 0 0 ; S h e lto n , 4 0 0 F .3 d a t 1 3 3 0
.22

T hus , the onl y s e n t enc i ng e nha nc e m e ntnota dm i t t e d t o by V e r ni e rbut
una m bi guous l y f

oun d b y t he di s tr i c tc our tw a s f orr e c kl e s s e nda nge r m e ntdur i ng fl i gh t . A s f

or thi s t w o-l evel enhancem ent , the D ef endantshow ed thatthe er ror w as “p la in ” s i n c e “it is e n o u g h th a t th e e r r o rb e ‘p la in ’ a t th e tim e o f a p p e lla te
co n si d erat i o n . ” R o d ri g u ez, 3 9 8 F
. 3 d at1 2 9 9 (q u o t i n g Jo h n so n v . U n i t ed S t at es, 5 2 0 U .S . 4 6 1 , 4 6 8 , 1 1 7 S . C t. 1 5 4 4 , 1 5 4 9 , 1 3 7 L . E d . 2 d 7 1 8 ( 1 9 9 7 ) )
. I t is th e th ir d p r o n g o f

th e p la in e r r o r s t a n d a r d th a t d e f e a ts th e v a s t m a

jo r ity
o f u n s u c c e s s f

u l B o o k e rc la i m s , a n d t h i s c a s e is n o e x c e p tio n . I t r e q u ir e s th a t a de f e nda nts how “ the r e i s a r e a s ona bl e pr oba bi l i ty of a di f f e r e ntr e s ul ti f

the gui de l i n e s h a d b e e n a p p l i e d i n a n a d v i s o r y i n s t e a d o f b i n d i n g f

a s h i o n b y t he
s e n t e n c i n g j u d g e i n [ th e ] c a s e . ” I d
. a t1 3 0 1
. A “ r e a s o n a b l e p r o b a b i l i ty , ” we de s c r i be d, “ m e a ns a pr oba bi l i ty ‘ s uf f i c i e ntt o unde r m i ne c onf i de nc e i n the
ou t c o me . ’ ” I d
. a t 1 2 9 9 ( q u o t i n g U n i t e d St a t e s v . D o mi n g u e z Be n i t e z , 5 42 U
. S
. 74, 1 2 4 S
. C t . 2 3 3 3 , 2 3 4 0 , 1 5 9 L
. E d
. 2 d 1 5 7 (2 0 0 4 ) (ci t at i o n o m i t t ed )). N o th in g in the re cord i nd i ca t es th atthe di stri ctcourtw ou l d h ave i m po se d a di ff er entse nt ence i f i tha d know n the G ui de l i ne s w e r e no t m an d at o ry. T o the c ontr a r y , the tr i a l j udge coul d n ot h av e b ee n m ore e m ph at i c thathi s s ense of j ust i ce and res po nsi bi l i ty a s
m uch p ropel l ed the en h an ce m ent s of D ef endant ’ s s ent ence as the m andat ory nature of the G ui del i nes. In short , w e c anno tsa y thatthe o u tco m e w o u ld have been23

di ff er enti f the di stri ctcourthad k no w n t hati ncre as i ng D ef endant ’ s s ent ence base d
on aggravat i ng fa ct ors w as no tm andat ory. A cc ordi ng l y, D ef endant ’ s B oo ker
c la im m u s t f

a il. T hi rd, w e c on si der the di stri ctcourt ’ s f i ft ee n-l evel up w ar d d epar ture und er§ 5K 2. 1. S e c t i on 5K 2. 1 pr ovi de s t h at “ [i ] f de a th r e s ul t e d, the c our tm a y i nc r e a s e the
se nt ence abov e the aut ho ri ze d g ui del i ne ra ng e. ” ( E m ph as i s a dd ed). W hether
exer ci se of a c ou rt ’ s di sc re t i on t o d epar tup w ar d i s a deci si on m ade und era

“ ma n d a t o r y G u i d e l i n e s r e g i me , ” a s n e e d e d f o r Bo o k e r e r r o r , i s a ma t t e r of s ome
unc e r t a i nty . C om pa r e U ni t e d S t a t e s v. M a y , 413 F
. 3d 841, 848 ( 8th C i r . 2005) ( s t a t i ng tha ti ti s “ unc l ear” w he the ra de pa r tur e w i thi n the di s tr i c tc our t ’ s di s c r e t i on i s B oo ker e rr or), w i th U ni t ed S t at es v. C u n n in gh am , 40 5 F
. 3d 49 7, 50 4 (7t h C i r. 20 05 ) ( “ To the e xt e nttha t[ de f e nd a nt ] a r gu e s tha tthe c ou r t ’ s up w a r d depar t ure [notm andat ed by t he gu i del i nes] vi ol at es the S i xt h am endm ent , he i s c orre ct . ”)
. T hi s C i rc ui thas y ett o squ ar el y a dd ress w hether di sc re t i on ar y depar tures m ay even
c o n s titu te B o o k e re r r o r . T h is c a s e w ill n o t b e o u rf ir s t f o r a y in to th a t d e b a te . E ven i f th e D ef

endantcoul d est abl i sh thatthe di stri ctcourt ’ s upw ar d d e p a r tu r e s o m e h o w a m o u n te d to B o o k e re r r o r , a n d th a t t h e e r r o rw a s p la in , in
s a tis f a c tio n o f th e f

ir s t tw o p r o n g s o f th e p la in e rr o r s ta n d a r d , V e r n i e r w o u l d f a il
s t i l l a g a i n b e c a u s e h e c a n n o t s h o w t h a tth e e r r o ra f f e c t e d h i s s u b s t a n t i a l r i g h t s . As24

w i th th e D ef

endant ’ s other c l ai m s, there i s notthe sl i gh t es ti nd i ca t i on i n t hi s r ec ord th a t th e d is tr ic t c o u r t w o u ld h a v e s e n te n c e d th e D e f e n d a n t d if

f e r e n tly e v e n if

it
w er e operat i ng un der a pu re l y a dv i sory se nt enci ng gu i del i ne re gi m e. F i nal l y, w e c on si der the di stri ctcourt ’ s o rd ert o p ay re st i tut i on un der § 3663A of

the M V R A
. R e c e nt l y , w e obs e r ve d tha t n e i the rthi s C our tnorthe S upr e m e C our t ha s a ddr e s s e d w he the r B ooke r a ppl i e s t o r e s t i tut i on o rd ers a nd othe rc i r c ui t s a r e s pl i ton t h e q u es t i on. U ni t e d S t a t e s v. K i ng, 414 F
. 3d 1329, 1330 (11th C ir. 2 0 05 ). T hu s, even i f a court ’ s r es t i tut i on order const i tut ed B oo ker e rr or, th a t e r r o rw a s n o t “p l a i n . ” I d . D e f e n d a n t’s a r g u m e n t c a n n o t s u c c e e d f o rth is
r e a s on. D ef endantal so ar g u es thatthe di stri ctcourthad n o aut ho ri ty t o o rder
r est i t ut i on f

orthe va l ue of

s t ol e n j e w e l r y , w hi c h the gove r nm e ntr e c ove r e d,
w i thoutde t e r m i ni ng that retur ni ng the j e w e l r y w a s “ i m pos s i bl e , i m pr a c t i c a l , or i na de q u at e, ” as r e qui r e d by the M V R A
. 18 U
. S
. C
. § 3663A ( b)
. T he gove r nm e nt
c o n c e d e s t h a t in th is r e s p e c t, it h a s n o t m e t its b u r d e n o f p r o o f u n d e r 1 8 U .S .C . § 3664A ( e )
. W e a gr e e . A c c or di ngl y , w e rem an d t o the di s tr i c tc our tthe i s s ue of det er m i ni ng w hether D ef endant m ust m ake re st i tut i on for the val ue of th e s to l en j ew el ry.25 I I I
. C onc l us i on I n s hor t , w e A F F I R M the s e nt e nc e i n a l l r e s pe c t s e xc e ptf orthe ord e rof
re st i tut i on , w hi ch w e V A C A T E and R E M A N D t o t he di stri ctcourtfor f urther pr oc e e di ngs c ons i s t e ntw i th thi s opi ni on. A FFI R M ED I N PA R T, VA C A TED A N D R EM A N D ED I N PA R T.