FI L ED U.S. COURT OF A P P E A LS E LE V E N T H C IR C U IT J ULY 8, 2005 THOMAS K. KAH

N CL ERK [DO NOT PUBLISH] IN THE UN ITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FO R T HE EL EV EN TH CIRC UI T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- 1535 0 Non-A rgum ent Calendar

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ D . C. D oc ke t N o. 04- 6004 4- CR -A J UNITED STAT ES OF AMERIC A, Plaintiff-Appellee, ve rs us BE RT LI S E . MC GRI FF, D ef en dant- Appe llant.

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ __ Appe al f ro m the U nit ed

S ta te s D istri ct

Co urt fo r the S outhe rnD istri ct

of F lor ida

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ _ (J ul y 8, 200 5) Be fo re D U BIN A , BL A CK and P RY O R, Ci rc uit

Jud ge s. PE R CU RIA M: Appe llant B er

tli s E . Mc G ri ff

appe al s hi s 14 0- m onth se nte nc e fo r poss es sio n with intent to dis tribute five gram s or m ore of coca ine base within 1000 fee t of aThe district c ourt found that McGrif f qualified as a c are er of

fende r base d on his two prior 1 convictions for delivery of cocaine. At sentenc ing, McGriff admitted that delivery of a controlled substance satisfied the ca ree r off ender require ment of a “ controlled substanc e off ense” for U.S.S.G. § 4B1.1 purpose s. 2 play ground , in violation o f 21 U. S. C. § 860 . The district court enhanced McG riff’ s sentence pursuant to U.S. S. G. § 4B1.1(b) based on his status as a c aree r o f f e n d e r u n d e r U . S . S . G . § 4 B 1 . 1 ( a ) . O n ap p e a l , M c G r i f f ar g u e s th a tth e S up r e me 1 Co urt’ s de ci sio n in United States v. B ooker , 54 3 U.S._

__ , 12 5 S . Ct. 7 38 , 16 0 L. E d. 2d 6 21 ( 2005 ), r equir es his r es en te nc ing be ca use the dis tr ic t c ourt e rr one ousl y sentenced him

under the then-m andatory Feder al Sentencing Guidelines (“ federa l gu id el in es ”). Beca use McGr iff tim ely

raised a B lak

el yob jecti on in th e d is tri ctco ur t, we re vie whis Blakely

/Booker c la im on a ppe al de novo , but

w ill r ev er se onl y

f or ha rm fu l erro r. U

nit ed Sta tes v . P az , 405 F. 3d 94 6, 948 (11th Cir. 2005). T here are tw o harm le ss e rr or

standard s, one that a

ppl ie s to Booker

c onst itu tio na l e rr or s, and one that a ppl ie s to Booker

st atut ory erro rs on ly. U

nit ed Sta tes v . M

ath en ia , N o. 04-152 50, slip op. at 2328 (11 th Cir. May 23, 2005). “ [C] onsti tutio nal error s are harm le ss whe re the gov er nm en t c ansho w , be y ond a re as ona ble doubt, that the error did no t contribute to th e defe ndant’s ultim ate sentence. ” Id . ( ci ta tio n om it te d) . In co nt ras t, Booker statut or y e rr or s are sub

j ec t t o th e le ss d em an din g3

no n- co ns ti tu ti on al erro r te st . Id . A “ non-cons titutio nal error is harm less if, vie w ing the pr oc ee din gs i n th ei r en tir ety , ac ourt de te rm ine s th at the e rr or did not af fe ct the [ se nte nc e] , or

ha d bu t ve ry

sli ght e ff ec t. I f one c ansay

w ithf ai r as sur an ce . . . that the [ se nte nc e] w as not sub stanti al ly

sw ay ed by the e rr or , the [sentence] is due to be affirm ed even thoug h there w as err or.” Id . a t 23 28- 29 (i nte rn al quo ta tio ns o m itt ed ). T he gov er nm en t ha s th e bur de n of

pr oof und er both st an da rd s. See id . at 2 32 9. W ithr eg ar d to Booker

c onst itu tio na l e rr or s, an in div idu al ’ s S ixth Am endm ent right to trial by j ury is violated where a

j udge enhances an ind ivi dua l’ s se nte nc e ba se d so le ly on j udi ci al ly

f ound f ac ts p ur suant t o a m an da to ry

gu id el in es syste m . P az , 405 F . 3d at 94 8. I n M cG ri ff ’ s c as e, the district court enhanced his sent ence af ter deter m ining that he wa s a car eer offender unde r the f

ed er al gui de lin es . T he dis tr ic t c ourt ba se d th is d et er m inatio n on Mc G ri ff ’ s pr ior c onvi ct ion s. W e re pe at ed ly have he ld tha t a

dis tr ic t c ourt do es not vio la te the S ixth A m en dm en t, a s in te rp re te d in Booker , w he n it e nhanc es a de fen da nt ’s sen te nc e b as edon pri orco nv ic ti on s. See U nit ed Sta tes v . G all egosA gue ro , No. 0 4- 14 24 2, s li p o p. at 23 07 -0 8 (1 1t h C ir. M ay 18 , 20 05 ), United States
v. Orduno-Mireles , 4 0 5 F . 3 d9 6 0 , 9 6 2 ( 1 1 t h C i r . 2 0 0 5 ) . T h i s i s s o b e c au s e “a pr ior c onvi ct ionm

ust it se lf have be ene sta

bli she d th ro ugh pr oc ed

ur es sa tis fy ingMcGrif f also admitted that deliver y of a c ontrolled substance satisfied the ca ree r off ender 2 require ment of a “ control l ed s ub s tance offe nse.” See Ga lle go s- Ague ro , slip op. at 2308 (citing Booke r fo r t he pr op os iti on

that a dmi tte d f

a c ts ne ed no t be pr ov e d to a jur y be y on d a re a so na ble doubt). 4 the fair notice, rea sonable do ubt, and j ury trial guarantees. ” Orduno-Mireles , 405 F. 3d at 962 (quotation om itted). B ased on this we ll-established rule, the district co urt’ s e nhanc em en t of

Mc G ri ff ’ s se nte nc e ba se d onhis pr ior c onvi ct ion s di d no t violate the Sixth Am endm ent. T hus, the district court did n ot comm it a Booker constitu tional error in enhancing McGr iff’ s sentence. 2 Although the district court did no t com m it a Booker

co ns ti tu ti on al erro r, we co nc lud e that the dis tr ic t c ourt c om m itt ed Booker

statut or y e rr or by appl y ing the Gui de li ne s i n a m an da to ry fas hi on . A Booker

“ statut or y e rr or oc curs w he n th e district court sentences a defendant under a m andatory [g] uidelin es schem e, even in the absence of a S ixth Am endm ent enhancem ent violatio n.” M ath en ia , N o. 04- 1525 0, sli p op . a t 23 28 ( quot at ionom itt ed ). I n su chc as es , the gov er nm en t ha s th e bur de n th e showthat the e rr or did not a ff ec t, or ha d bu t a ve ry sli ght e ff ec t on , the se nt en ce. Id . at 2 32 9. In M ath en ia , w e co nc lud ed

that the gov er

nm en t ha d m et

thi s burd enby ci tin g to astate m en t by

the dis tr ic t c ourt tha t, if

the S upr em e Co urt w er e to h old the m andatory

application of the federal guidelines uncon stitut ional, the district5

co ur t n on et he le ss wou ldsen te nc e th e d efen da nt id en ti cal ly. Id . ; see als o United Sta tes v . P et

ho , N o. 04- 1541 2, sli p op . a t 23 11 ( 11th C ir . May 18, 200 5) ( hol din g Booker statut or y e rr or harm le ss i n li ght

of dis tr ic t c ourt’ s st at em en t tha t i ts sentence w ouldbe the sam e even if the guidelines wer e only advisory ). In co ntr as t, w e re ad ily

have r em an de d c as es f

or r es en te nc ing upo n asho w ing that the dis tr ic t c ourt de sir ed

to im pose ale sse r se nte nc e than th e one m an da te d by the fed eral gu id el in es . See U nit ed Sta tes v . D ac us , 408 F. 3d 68 6, 688-89 (11th Cir. 2005 ) (holding th at district court com m itted plain error in apply ing th e fe deral guid elines in ligh t of district court’ s express desire to im pose a lesser sentence); United States v. M

artin ez , 407 F . 3d 1 170, 117 4 ( 11th C ir . 200 5) ( sam e) ; P az , 405 F. 3d at 94 9 ( hol din g th at the dis tr ic t c ourt c om

m itt ed c onst itu tio na l e rr or

in ap pli catio n of

e xtr a- ve rd ic t e nhanc em en t un de r fe de ra l gu ide lin es in lig ht o f dis tr ic t c ourt’ s de sir e to i m pose ale sse r se nte nc e) ; U nit ed Sta tes v . She lto n , 400 F. 3d 13 25, 1333-34 (11th Cir. 2005) (holding that the district court comm itted pla in e rr or

in ap ply ing the f

ed er al gui de lin es in lig ht o f dis tr ic t c ourt’ s de sir e to im po se a le ss er s en te nc e). InMc G ri ff

’ s c as e, the dis tr ic t c ourt pr ovi de d tw o a lte rn at ive se nte nc es in the e ve nt the f

ed er al gui de lin es w er e de cl ar ed unc onst itu tio na l. B otha lte rn at ive se nte nc es f

el l be lowthe 140 m onths M cG ri ff a ct ua lly r ec ei ve d. I nde ed , the6

dis tr ic t c ourt e xpl ic itl y

tol d M cG ri ff

, “ if the S upr em e Co urt thr ow s ou t the Se nte nc ing G uid el ine s, the n y ou’ re goi ng t o ge t a low er se nte nc e . . . . ” A s th e gove rn m en t c onc ed es in its br ie f, the dis tr ic t c ourt’ s a lte rn at ive se nte nc es and above-quot ed language dem onstrates that the dis trict court sentenced McG riff unde r a m an da tor

y gui de lin es sc he m e. Mo re ove r, it de m onstrate s th at

the governm ent cannot m eet its burden in sh owing that this err or did not aff ect, or had a ve ry sli ght e ff ec t on , Mc G ri ff

’ s se nte nc e. B ec au se the r ec or d do es not sho w

“ wit h fa ir a ss ur an ce t ha t t he sen te nc e was no t s ub st an ti al ly sway edby the erro r,”
w e co nc lud e that the gov er nm en t ha s f

ai le d to m ee t i ts b ur de n in pr ovi ng tha t the Booker st atut ory erro r was ha rm le ss . See M ath en ia , N o. 04-15250 , slip op. at 2329 . T he re fo re , w e va cate and r em an d M cG ri ff ’ s se nte nc e fo r re se nte nc ing co nsi ste nt w ith Booker . VA CA TED AN D REMA ND ED .7