### F I LE D U. S . COURT OF AP PE ALS E LEVE NTH CI RCUI T M ay 16, 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. 04- 15489 N on -A rgum entC al endar

________________________ D. C . Do c k e tNo . 0 4 - 2 0 2 3 5 - C R - J AL 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 G U S T A V O D E L A C R U Z - P E R E Z , 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

_________________________ ( M ay 16, 2005) B efo re H U L L , W IL S O N an d P R Y O R , C i rcu i tJu d g es. P E R C U R I A M: G us t a vo D e L a C ruz - P e r e z appe a l s hi s 24- m onth c onc ur r e nts e nt e nc e s f or unl a w f ul r e - e ntr y a f

t e rde por t a t i on, i n vi ol a t i on of 8 U . S . C . s e c t i on 1326( a ) a nd2

( b) ( 2) , a nd f

r a ud a nd m i s us e of

vi s a s , pe r m i t s , a nd othe rdoc um e nt s , i n vi ol a t i on of 18 U . S . C . se ct i on 15 46 . C ruz- P er ez ar gu es thatthe di stri ctcourterre d u nd er U ni t e d S t a t e s v. B ooke r , 543 U . S . ___, 125 S . C t . 738 ( 2005) , both by i nc r e a s i ng C ruz - P e r e z ’ s s e nt e nc e ba s e d on pr e vi ous f e l ony drug c onvi c t i ons , a nd by tr e a t i ng the S ent enci ng G ui del i nes a s m andat ory i nst ea d o f app l yi ng them i n an adv i sory f a s h io n . B e c a u s e B o o k e rd o e s n o t ap p ly to th e u s e o f p r e v io u s c o n v ic tio n s in se nt enci ng and any err or i n t he use of the G ui del i nes i n a m andat ory f as hi on w as h a r m le s s , w e a f

f ir m th e d is tr ic t c o u r t. C ruz - P e r e z pl e a de d gui l ty t o both c r i m e s . D ur i ng C ruz - P e r e z ’ s s e nt e nc i ng he a r i ng, the di s tr i c tc our tappl i e d a tw e l ve - l e ve l e nha nc e m e ntf ora pr e vi ous f

e l ony c onvi c t i on f

ordrug tr a f

f i c ki ng. C ruz - P e r e z obj e c t e d t o the e nha nc e m e nta nd a r gue d tha tthe c our tvi ol a t e d the F i f th a nd S i xth A m e ndm e nt s , unde rB l a ke l y v. W a s hi ngt on, 542 U . S . ___, 124 S . C t . 2531 ( 2004) , be c a us e the pr e vi ous conv i ct i on had n ei ther been adm i tt ed by C ruz- P er ez no r f ou nd by a j ury, and h ad notbe e n i nc l ude d i n the i ndi c tm e nt . T he di s tr i c tc ourtove r rul e d the obj e c t i on, se nt ence d C ruz- P er ez t o 2 4 m on ths’ i m pri sonm ent , and st at ed thatthe se nt ence w oul d be the s a m e i f

the S upr e m e C our the l d tha tB l a ke l y appl i e d t o the S e nt e nc i ng G ui de l i ne s . C ruz - P e r e z appe a l e d. C ru z - P e r e z a r g u e s th a t, u n d e rB la k e ly , th e d is tr ic t c o u r t v io la te d th e F if th3

a nd S i xth A m e ndm e ntby i nc r e a s i ng hi s s e nt e nc e be c a us e of a pr e vi ous c onvi c t i on h e h a d n o t a d m itte d a n d th a t w a s n o t in c lu d e d in th e in d ic tm e n t, a n d th a t w e s h o u ld re m and for C ruz- P er ez t o b e s ent ence d u nd erthe G ui del i nes w i tho utthe tw el vel ev el en h an cem en t . T h i s arg u m en tfai l s. In 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 ( 1998) , the S upr e m e C ourt“ he l d tha tthe gove r nm e ntne e d nota l l e ge i n i t s i ndi c tm e nta nd ne e d notpr ove be y ond a reaso n ab l e d o u b tth ata d efen d an th ad p ri o r co n v i ct i o n s fo r a d i stri ctco u rtt o u se tho se conv i ct i on s f

or pu rposes of enhanci ng a s ent ence . T hi s c on cl usi on 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 13 25 , 13 29 (11t h C i r. 20 05 ). W e c on cl ud ed that“ a di stri ctcourtdo es no terr b y r e ly in g o n p r io rc o n v ic tio n s to e n h a n c e a d e f e n d a n t’s s e n te n c e .” I d . C ruz - P e r e z a l s o a r gue d tha t , e ve n i f B ooke rdi d notappl y t o the us e of pr e vi ous c onvi c t i ons i n s e nt e nc i ng, the di s tr i c tc our tvi ol a t e d B ooke rby f i ndi ng th ath i s p rev i o u s co n v i ct i o n w as a d ru g -traffi ck i n g fel o n y. T h i s arg u m en tal so f a i l s . I n S he l t on, w e he l d tha t , unde rA l m e nda r e z - T or r e s , the di s tr i c tc our tdi d not err w hen i ti ncre as ed S hel t on ’ s s ent ence base d o n t hree previ ou s c ri m es thatw er e drug- r e l a t e d. I d. a t1327, 1329. W e m a de no di s t i nc t i on be tw e e n f i ndi ng a previ ou s c on vi ct i on , and fi nd i ng a pre vi ou s c on vi ct i on t o b e drug-rel at ed. Id. In U ni t e d S t a t e s v. O r duno- M i r e l e s , w e he l d tha t , unde rA l m e nda r e z - T or r e s , the4

di s tr i c tc our tdi d note r rw he n i ti nc r e a s e d O r duno- M i r e l e s ’ s s e nt e nc e ba s e d on a pr e vi ous c onvi c t i on tha tthe c our tf ound t o be a c r i m e of

vi ol e nc e . N o. 04- 12630, s l i p op. a t6 n. 3 ( 11th C i r . A pr i l 6, 2005) . W e he l d tha tthe di s tr i c tc our tdi d not re sol ve “ di sput ed fa ct s r el at ed t o t he pri or conv i ct i on w hi ch w er e notadj ud i ca t ed i n t he pri or proceedi ng . ” I d. B ec ause the di stri ctcourtdi d n otre sol ve di sput ed f a c ts r e la te d to C ru z - P e r e z ’s p r e v io u s c o n v ic tio n th a t w e r e n o t a d ju d ic a te d in h is p re v io u s p ro ce ed in g , th e d istrict co u rt d id n o t errb y f in d in g th at C ru z- P er ez ’s p rev i o u s co n v i ct i o n w as a d ru g -traffi ck i n g fel o n y. C ru z - P e r e z a ls o a r g u e s th a t, u n d e rB o o k e r , th e d is tr ic t c o u r t e r r e d w h e n it tr e a t e d the G ui de l i ne s a s m a nda t or y dur i ng s e nt e nc i ng. I ti s “ B ooke re r r orf orthe di stri ctcourtt o sent ence [apri soner] un der am andat ory G ui del i nes s chem e, even in th e a b s e n c e o f

a S ix th A m e n d m e n t e n h a n c e m e n t v io la tio n .” I d . a t 1 3 3 0 - 3 1 . W e mu s td i s r e g a r d th i s e r r o r , h o w e v e r , i f th e e r r o rw a s h a r ml e s s . Fe d . R. Cr i m. P. 5 2 ( a ) .

“ T o f

i nd ha r m l e s s e r r or , w e m us tde t e r m i ne tha tthe e r r ordi d nota f f e c tthe s ubs t a nt i a l r i ght s of

the pa r t i e s . ” U ni t e d S t a t e s v. H e r na nde z , 160 F . 3d 661, 670 ( 11th C i r . 1998) . “ A c ons t i tut i ona l e r r or , s uc h a s [ a B ooke r ] e r r or , m us tbe d i sreg ard ed as n o t‘ affect[i n g ] su b st an t i al ri g h t s, ’ . . . i f th e erro r i s ‘ h arm l ess beyond a r ea sonabl e dou bt [. ] ’ . . . T hi s s t andard i s onl y m etw here i ti s c l ea r5

‘ be y ond a r e a s ona bl e doubttha tthe e r r orc om pl a i ne d of di d notc ontr i but e t o the [s ent ence ] ob t ai ned. ’ ” U ni t ed S t at es v. C andel ar i o, 24 0 F . 3d 13 00 , 13 07 (11t h C i r. 20 01 ) ( ci t at i on s om i tt ed). W e r ec ent l y app l i ed thi s s t andard and h el d t hat , w here a di s tr i c tc our te xpl a i ne d tha ti tw oul d ha ve i m pos e d a l ow e rs e nt e nc e i f the G ui del i nes w er e a dv i sory , the error of tre at i ng the G ui del i nes a s m andat ory w as notha r m l e s s . U ni t e d S t a t e s v. P a z , N o. 04- 14829, s l i p op. a t5 ( 11th C i r . A pr i l 5, 2005) . T he di s tr i c tc our ts t a t e d tha te ve n i f the S upr e m e C our tappl i e d “ the B l a ke l y r a t i ona l e ” t o the G ui de l i ne s , C ruz - P e r e z ’ s s e nt e nc e w oul d ha ve be e n the sam e. T h e B o o k er erro r w as, th erefo re, h arm l ess. A F F I R M E D .