FILED U.S. COURT OF AP P EALS E LEV EN T HC IRC U IT NOVEMB ER 25 , 2005 THOMAS K. KAH

N CLERK [ 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- 14816 N on -A rgum entC al endar

________________________ D . C. D o c k e tN o . 0 4 - 0 0 0 1 5 - CR- 4 - RH - W CS 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 C H R I S T O P H E R B A S 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 orthe N or the rn D i s tr i c tof F l or i da

_________________________ ( N ove m b e r 25, 2005) B efo re T JO F L A T , B IR C H an d H U L L , C i rcu i tJu d g es. P E R C U R I A M: C h r is to p h e rB a s s ap p e a ls h is lif e s e n te n c e im p o s e d a f

te rh e p le d g u ilty to2

c o n s p i r a c y t o p o s s e s s w i th i n t e n tt o d i s tr i b u t e c o c a i n e , i n v i o l a t i o n o f 2 1 U . S. C. § § 8 4 1 ( a ) ( 1 ) ; 8 4 1 ( b ) ( 1 ) ( A ) ( ii) & ( iii) ; a n d 8 4 6 . O n ap p e a l, B a s s a r g u e s th a t in l i gh tof U ni t ed S t at es v. B oo ker, 54 3 U . S . ___, 12 5 S . C t . 73 8 (20 05 ), the di stri ct c our tvi ol a t e d hi s S i xth A m e ndm e ntr i ght s by e nha nc i ng hi s s e nt e nc e f orbe i ng a m a n a g e ro rs u p e r v is o rin th e c h a r g e d c r im in a l c o n d u c t, p u r s u a n t to U .S .S .G . § 3 B 1 .1 ( b ) . A f

te rr e v ie w , w e a f

f irm . I . B AC KG RO UN D A . Pl e a C o l l o quy B a s s w a s in d ic te d f

o rc o n s p ir a c y to d is tr ib u te a n d p o s s e s s w ith in te n t to di s tr i but e m or e tha n f

i ve ki l ogr a m s of

c oc a i ne a nd m or e tha n f i f ty gr a m s of coca i ne base (c ra ck), i n v i ol at i on of 21 U . S . C . §§ 84 1(a) (1); 84 1(b)(1)(A )( i i ) & ( i i i ) ; a nd 846. F ol l ow i ng hi s i ndi c tm e nt , the gove rnm e ntf i l e d a n i nf

orm a t i on g iv in g n o tic e u n d e r2 1 U .S .C . § 8 5 1 o f in te n t to s e e k a n e n h a n c e d s ta tu to ry p e n a lty of l i fe i m pri sonm entbecause B as s had been conv i ct ed of three pri or drug -r el at ed of f e ns e s , na m e l y ( 1) a c onvi c t i on f orthe s a l e orpur c ha s e of c oc a i ne i n J ul y 1989; ( 2) a c onvi c t i on f

orpos s e s s i on of

c oc a i ne i n J a nua ry 1990; a nd ( 3) a c onvi c t i on f or the s a l e a nd pos s e s s i on of c oc a i ne i n J a nua ry 1994. S e e 21 U . S . C . §§ 84 1(b)(1)(A )( i i )( II ) a nd (i i i ) ( prov i di ng that , i n the ca se of a vi ol at i on of § 841( a ) ( 1) i nvol vi ng 5 ki l ogr a m s orm or e of c oc a i ne or50 gr a m s orm or e ofThe district cour t also informed B ass that the cour t could impose a sentenc e of le ss than life 1 imprisonment if the g overnment filed a substantial assistancemotion pursuant to U.S.S .G. § 5K1.1. The g overnment ultim ately did not file such a motion.

3 c oc a i ne ba s e , w he r e a pe r s on ha s tw o orm or e pr i orc onvi c t i ons f ora f e l ony drug of f e ns e , “ s uc h pe r s on s ha l l be s e nt e nc e d t o a m a nda t ory t e rm of l i f e i m pr i s onm e nt w ith o u t r e le a s e . . .” ) . B a s s p le d g u ilty to th e d ru g c h a r g e s lis te d in h is in d ic tm e n t. P r io rto a c c e pt i ng hi s pl e a , the di s tr i c tc our ti nf orm e d B a s s tha tthe gove rnm e ntha d f i l e d a not i c e s t a t i ng tha the ha d thr e e pr i ordrug f e l ony c onvi c t i ons i n s t a t e c our t , a nd the d is tr ic t c o u r t r e p e a te d to B a s s th e lis t o f c o n v ic tio n s c o n ta in e d in th e in f o rm a tio n . T he di s tr i c tc our ta s ke d B a s s i f he a c tua l l y ha d the thr e e s t a t e d pr i ordrug conv i ct i on s, t o w hi ch B as s a nsw er ed i n the af fi rm at i ve. T he di stri ctcourtthen as ked B as s i f he und er st oo d that , because of hi s pri or drug conv i ct i on s, he w as s u b je c t to a m a n d a to ry m in im u m s e n te n c e in th e in s ta n t c a s e o f lif e im p r is o n m e n t. 1 B a s s in f o r m e d th e d is tr ic t c o u r t th a t h e u n d e r s to o d th e ap p lic ab ility o f th is m a nda t ory m i ni m um t o hi s s e nt e nc e . T he c our tthe n e xpl a i ne d t o B a s s tha tthe statu to ry m in im u m to o k p rio rity o v erth e G u id elin es , stati n g “th e s en ten ce I’m g o in g to im p o s e is lif

e , a n d it d o e s n ’t m a tte rw h a t th e g u id e lin e s s a y .” B a s s to ld th e d is tr ic t c o u r t th a t h e u n d e r s to o d th is f a c t. A ls o d u r in g th e p le a c o llo q u y , th e d e f e n d a n t a d m itte d to th e f o llo w in g f

a c ts .4

B a s s w a s a f

r ie n d o f a w o m a n n a m e d A n g e laG o o d m a n . B a s s p r o v id e d m o n e y to G oo dm an, w ho then u se d thatm on eyt o acqui re coca i ne. G oo dm an then di stri bu t ed the cocai ne, re ce i ved the proceeds, and repai d B as s w i th h i s i ni t i al i nv es tm entpl us hi s s hare of the profi t s. B as s w as ful l y a w ar e thatG oo dm an w as u si n g h i s m o n ey t o d i stri b u t e b o th p o w d er co cai n e an d crack . F u rth er, B ass a d m itte d th a t u n d e rth e ira rr a n g e m e n t, G o o d m a n s o ld 5 0 g r a m s o rm o r e o f c r a c k . B. PSI a nd Se nt e nc i ng A c c or di ng t o the P r e s e nt e nc e I nve s t i ga t i on R e por t( “ P S I ” ) , B a s s , w or ki ng w ith h is b r o th e ra n d o th e r s , d is tr ib u te d 1 .5 k ilo g r a m s o rm o r e o f c r a c k in F lo r id a in the l at e 199 0s. T he part i ci pant s r ent ed ca rs t o d el i ver c ocai ne and crac k i n F l ori da. Be c a u s e Ba s s d i s tr i b u t e d mo r e th a n 1 . 5 k i l o g r a ms o f c r a c k , th e PSI c a lc u la te d h is o f

f e n s e le v e l a t 3 8 , p u r s u a n t to U .S .S .G . § 2 D 1 .1 ( a ) ( 3 ) & ( c ) ( 1 ) . B e c a us e B a s s di s tr i but e d the c r a c k w i th hi s br othe ra s pa rtof a “ l a r ge drug di stri bu t i on op er at i on , ” the P S I r ec om m ended a four-l evel enhancem entun der U . S . S . G . § 3B 1. 1( a ) f

ora c t i ng a s a n or ga ni z e r , l e a de r , m a na ge rors upe rvi s ori n the c ha r ge d c r i m i na l a c t i vi ty . T he P S I a l s o r e c om m e nde d a thr e e - l e ve l r e duc t i on f or ac ce pt ance of re spon si bi l i ty, pu rs uantt o U . S . S . G . § 3 E 1. 1(a) & (b). W i th a t ot al of f e ns e l e ve l of

39 a nd a c r i m i na l hi s t ory c a t e gory of V I , B a s s ’ s G ui de l i ne s r a nge w a s 3 6 0 m o n th s ’ to lif

e im p r is o n m e n t.5

A th i s sen t en ci n g h eari n g , w h i ch t o o k p l ace i n S ep t em b er 2 0 0 4 , B ass obj ec t ed t o the four-l evel enhancem entfor hi s r ol e a s a n o rgani ze r or l ea der. In m a k in g th is o b

je c tio n , B a s s a s s e r te d th a t th e d is tr ic t c o u r t’s f in d in g s o f

f a c t to s u p p o r tth i s e n h a n c e me n tv i o l a t e d 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. C t . 2348 ( 2000) ; B l a ke l y v. W a s hi ngt on, 542 U . S . 296, 124 S . C t . 2531 ( 2004) ; or the deci si on pend i ng atthe t i m e of B as s’ s s ent enci ng hear i ng , w hi ch l at erw as d e c id e d b y th e S u p r e m e C o u r t in U n ite d S ta te s v . B o o k e r , 5 4 3 U .S . ___ , 1 2 5 S . C t. 73 8 (20 05 ). B as s a l so obj ec t ed on the grou nd thathe w as i n fac tno tan organi ze r or a l ea der. A tse nt enci ng , the di stri ctcourtfoun d thatB as s di d n otac tas an organi ze r orl e a de r , pur s ua ntt o U . S . S . G . § 3B 1. 1( a ) , a nd thus , the di s tr i c tc our tdi d not e nha nc e B a s s ’ s of

f e ns e l e ve l by f

ourl e ve l s . H ow e ve r , a f t e rhe a r i ng t e s t i m ony f r om A nge l a G oodm a n a nd f r om B a s s ’ s br othe rr e ga r di ng the drug e nt e rpr i s e , the di stri ctcourtdi d fi nd thatB as s a ct ed as a m anager or s up ervi sor a nd i ncre as ed B a s s ’ s of f e ns e l e ve l by thr e e l e ve l s , pur s ua ntt o U . S . S . G . § 3B 1. 1( b) . I n doi ng s o, th e d is tr ic t c o u r t s ta te d , “M r . B a s s is th e h ig h e s t r a n k in g p e r s o n in th e c o n s p ir a c y . . . . J u s t b e c a u s e y o u ’r e th e b o s s , d o e s n ’t m e a n y o u ’r e a n o r g a n iz e ro rle a d e rw ith in the m e a ni ng of

the gui de l i ne s . T ha tm a ke s hi m the m a na ge r , a nd the f a c ttha the s upe r vi s e d a tl e a s tone othe rpe r s on m a ke s hi m a s upe rvi s or . ” S pe c i f i c a l l y , the6

di s tr i c tc our ts t a t e d tha tba s e d on the t e s t i m ony , B a s s e xhi bi t e d de c i s i on- m a ki ng a uthor i ty , w a s the hi ghe s tr a nki ng pe r s on, a nd e xe r c i s e d pl a nni ng a nd or ga ni z i ng funct i on s, and the drug ent erpri se w as ext ensi ve. T here fore , the di stri ctcourt ca l cul at ed B as s’ s t ot al adj ust ed offens e l evel as 38 and h i s c ri m i nal hi st ory c a t e gory a s V I . U s i ng the s e c a l c ul a t i ons , B a s s ’ s G ui de l i ne s r a nge w a s 360 m o n th s ’ to lif

e im p r is o n m e n t. A tthe s e nt e nc i ng he a r i ng, the di s tr i c tc our ta ga i n a s ke d B a s s abouthi s pr i or drug c onvi c t i ons . S pe c i f i c a l l y , the c our ti nqui r e d i f B a s s ha d a ny ba s i s f

ora r gui ng th a t h is p r io rd ru g c o n v ic tio n s w e r e in v a lid o rc o u ld n o t b e u s e d in s e n te n c in g h im u n d e rth e p e n d in g in d ic tm e n t. B a s s r e p lie dth a t h e d id n o t h a v e a n y s u c h b a s is . T he di stri ctcourtno t ed that , as a r es ul tof B as s’ s pri or conv i ct i on s, a s t atut ory m andat ory m i ni m um of l i fe i m pri sonm entappl i ed t o B as s’ s s ent ence . T he di stri ct c our tthe n s e nt e nc e d B a s s t o l i f e i m pr i s onm e nt . N ot abl y , i n i t s “ S t a t e m e ntof R e a s o n s ,” th e d is tr ic t c o u r t s ta te d th a t th e lif e s e n te n c e w a s m a n d a te d b y s ta tu te buttha tthe s a m e s e nt e nc e w oul d be i m pos e d e ve n i f the G ui de l i ne s w e r e f

ound n o n - b in d in g a s a r e s u lt o f B la k e ly /B o o k e r . I I . DI S CUS S I ON O n appe a l , B a s s a r gue s tha tthe di s tr i c tc our tvi ol a t e d hi s S i xth A m e ndm e nt r i ght s , a s e xpl i c a t e d i n B ooke r , by e nha nc i ng hi s s e nt e nc e ba s e d on f a c t s tha theB e c a u s eB a s s ti m e ly rai s e d

a B l ak e ly o b

j e c ti o ni nth edi s tri c tc o urt , w ere v i ewh i s B l ak e ly, 2 now B ooker, c laim de novo. United States v. P az, 405 F.3d 946, 948 (11th Cir. 2005) ( citation omitted). 7 d id n o t a d m it a n d th a t w e r e n o t p r o v e n to a ju ry b e y o n d a r e a s o n ab le d o u b t. 2 I n B ooke r , 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 u id e lin e s . U n ite d S ta te s v . R o d r ig u e z , 3 9 8 F .3 d 1 2 9 1 , 1 2 9 7 - 9 8 ( 1 1 th C ir .) , c e r t. de ni e d, 125 S . C t . 2935 ( 2005) . “ U nde rB ooke r , [ ] the r e a r e tw o ki nds of s e nt e nc i ng e rr or s : one i s c ons t i tut i ona l a nd the othe ri s s t a tut ory . ” U ni t e d S t a t e s v. D ac us, 40 8 F . 3d 68 6, 68 8 (11 th C i r. 20 05 ). “ [T ] he S i xth A m endm entri gh tt o tri al b y ju ry is v io la te d w h e r e u n d e ra m a n d a to ry g u id e lin e s s y s te m a s e n te n c e is i ncre as ed because of an enhancem entbase d o n fac t s f ou nd by the j ud ge thatw er e nei ther a dm i tt ed by the defendantno r f ou nd by the j ury. ” R od ri gu ez , 39 8 F . 3d at 12 98 (e m ph as i s i n o ri gi nal ). T he st atut ory e rr or occurs w hen the di stri ctcourt se nt ence s adefe nd ant“ un der am andat ory G ui del i nes s chem e, even i n the abse nce of a S i xth A m e ndm e nte nha nc e m e ntvi ol a t i on. ” U ni t e d S t a t e s v. S he l t on, 400 F . 3d 13 25 , 13 30 -31 (11 th C i r. 20 05 ). W e f i rs tconcl ud e thatthere w as suff i ci entevi dence t o sup po rtthe di stri ct c o u r t’s f a c t- f in d in g th a t B a s s w a s a m a n a g e ro rs u p e rv is o ru n d e rU .S .S .G . § 3B 1. 1(b). B as s a dm i tt ed thathe prov i ded m on eyt o G oo dm an, w ho then u se d that m one y t o a c qui r e c oc a i ne . G oodm a n the n di s tr i but e d the c oc a i ne , r e c e i ve d the8

p r o c e e d s , a n d r e p a id B a s s w ith h is in itia l in v e s tm e n t p lu s h is s h a r e o f th e p r o f its . B as s w as ful l y a w ar e thatG oo dm an w as usi ng hi s m on eyt o d i stri bu t e both p ow der c oc a i ne a nd c r a c k. F ur the r , the di s tr i c tc our tf ound tha tB a s s w a s a s upe rvi s oror m a na ge rba s e d on t e s t i m ony a tthe s e nt e nc i ng he a r i ng f r om B a s s ’ s br othe ra nd A nge l a G oodm a n. S pe c i f i c a l l y , the di s tr i c tc our tf ound tha tba s e d on the t e s t i m ony , B a s s e xhi bi t e d de c i s i on- m a ki ng a uthor i ty , w a s the hi ghe s tr a nki ng pers on , exer ci se d p l anni ng and o rgani zi ng funct i on s, and the drug ent erpri se w as e x te n s iv e . T h u s , th e d is tr ic t c o u r t p r o p e r ly c a lc u la te d B a s s ’s G u id e lin e s r a n g e . S ee U ni t ed S t at es v. C ra w ford, 40 7 F . 3d 11 74 , 11 78 (11th C i r. 20 05 ) ( st at i ng that a f t e rB ooke r , di s tr i c tc our t s m us tc ons ul tthe G ui de l i ne s a nd “ [ t ] hi s c ons ul t a t i on r e qui r e m e nt , a ta m i ni m um , obl i ge s the di s tr i c tc our tt o c a l c ul a t e c orr e c t l y the s e n te n c in g r a n g e p r e s c r ib e d b y th e G u id e lin e s ” ) . N one the l e s s , the r e w a s a S i xth A m e ndm e ntvi ol a t i on a nd B ooke re rr or b e c a u s e th e d i s tr i c tc o u r ts e n t e n c e d Ba s s u n d e ra ma n d a t o ry G u i d e l i n e s r e g i me ba s e d on f

a c t s f ound by the j udge a nd ne i the ra dm i tt e d by the de f e nda ntnorf

ound by a j ury. S ee R od ri gu ez , 39 8 F . 3d at13 00 (“ T he error i s thatthere w er e e xtra verdi ctenhancem ent s use d i n a m andat ory gui del i nes s ys t em . ”) . E ve n though the r e i s a S i xth A m e ndm e ntvi ol a t i on a nd B ooke re rr or , the g o v e rn m e n t h a s m e t its b u r d e n to s h o w th a t th is c o n s titu tio n a l e rr o rw a s h a rm le s s .“‘To f ind harmless er

ror, wemust determine that the error d i d n ot affe ct the substantial 3 rights of the par

ties.’” Paz, 405 F.3d at 948 (quoting United States v. Herna ndez, 160 F.3d 661, 670 (11th Cir. 1998)). “A constitutional error , such as a Booker er

ror, must be disre g ar d edas not aff ectingsubstantial rights if the error is h armless beyond a re asonabledoubt.” I d. (internal quotation marks, punctuation and c itation omitted). On appe al, B ass also argues that his attorney ’s failure to specif ically object to Booker 4 statutor y error in additi on

to B oo ker c on stitution al er ro r c o n s tit ute d in e ff e c tiv ea ssi sta

nc eof c ouns e l. Be causewe addres s Ba ss’s Booker argument, we ne ed not address his ineffe ctive assistanc e of 9 S ee P az , 40 5 F . 3d at94 8. In P az , w hi ch w as a B oo ker c on st i tut i on al error c as e, 3 w e e x p la in e d th a t h a r m le s s e rr o ra n a ly s is p u ts th e b u r d e n o n th e g o v e rn m e n t to s h o w “b e y o n d a r e a s o n ab le d o u b t th a t th e e rr o rc o m p la in e d o f d id n o t c o n tr ib u te to th e s e n te n c e o b ta in e d .” I d . ( q u o ta tio n m a rk s , p u n c tu a tio n , a n d c ita tio n o m itte d ) . T hu s, the go vernm entm ustshow beyond a r ea sonabl e dou btthatthe m andat ory, as oppos e d t o the a dvi s ory , appl i c a t i on of the G ui de l i ne s di d notc ontr i but e t o the defe nd ant ’ s s ent ence . S ee U ni t ed S t at es v. D avi s, 40 7 F . 3d 12 69 , 12 71 (11th C i r. 2 0 0 5 ) . A l though the di s tr i c tc our tdi d c a l c ul a t e B a s s ’ s s e nt e nc e unde rthe G ui de l i ne s , the di s tr i c tc our tul t i m a t e l y s e nt e nc e d B a s s i n a c c or da nc e w i th the m a n d a to ry m in im u m s p e c if ie d f o rB a s s ’s o f

f e n s e a t 2 1 U .S .C . § 8 4 1 ( b ) ( 1 ) ( A ) . I n d e e d , th e d is tr ic t c o u r t s ta te d th a t th e s a m e s e n te n c e w o u ld b e im p o s e d e v e n if the G ui de l i ne s w e r e f

ound non- bi ndi ng a s a r e s ul tof B l a ke l y / B ooke r . T hus , a ny B oo ker e rr or com m i tt ed i n d et erm i ni ng B as s’ s s ent ence un der the m andat ory G u i d el i n es w as h arm l ess. 4counsel a

rgument further . The B ooker statutory error is also harmless for the same reasons state d above. Ba ss also argues that the district court erred in failing to consider sufficiently the factors set forth in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a). H owever, bec ause B ass was subjec t to and rec eived a man d atory statutory minimumsentenc e of lifeimprisonment, we nee d not discuss this argument further . 10 AF F I RME D.