FILED U.S. COURT OF AP PEALS ELEV ENT HC IR C UIT MAY 09 , 2006 THOMAS K. KAHN CLERK 

### CO RR ECTED [ 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- 11926 N on -A rgum entC al endar

________________________ D . C . D ocketN o. 99 -006 94 -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 M A R I O L U N A

- M O R A , a .k .a . M a r io L u n aM o r a , a .k .a . H e c to rB e r n a l- S o to , D e fe n d a n t- A p p e lla n t.

________________________ N o. 05- 11928 N on -A rgum entC al endar

________________________ D . C . D ocketN o. 04 -005 63 -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 H E C T O R B E R N A L - S O T O , a .k .a . M a r io L u n aM o r a , D e fe n d a n t- A p p e lla n t.2 _________________________ A pp ea l s f

rom the U ni t ed S t at es D i stri ctC ou rt fo rth e N o r th e r n D is tr ic t o f G e o r g ia

_________________________ ( M ay 9, 2006) B efo re A N D E R S O N , D U B IN A an d H U L L , C i rcu i tJu d g es. P E R C U R I A M: T hi s opi ni on c ons ol i da t e s a nd de c i de s t w o a ppe a l s pe r fe c t e d by H e c t or B er nal -S ot o a. k. a. M ar i on L un a- M ora ( “ B er nal ”) . In U ni t ed S t at es v. L un a- M ora, N o. 05- 11928, B e r na l a ppe a l s hi s for ty - s i x m onth s e nt e nc e fori l l e ga l l y r e e nt e r i ng the U ni t e d S t a t e s w i thouta uthor i z a t i on a f t e rde por t a t i on s ubs e que ntt o a conv i cti on for a n agg ra vat ed fe l on y, i n v i ol ati on of 8 U . S . C . § 1 32 6(a) and (b). In U n ite d S ta te s v . H e c to rB e r n a l- S o to , N o . 0 5

- 1 1 9 2 6 , B e r n a l a p p e a ls h is e ig h t m o n th se nt ence t o b e s er ved con se cut i vel y w i th the fi rs t , for vi ol ati on of supervi se d re l ea se fr om hi s ori gi nal 20 00 conv i cti on for bei ng an al i en previ ou sl y deport ed a n d p r e s e n ti n th e U n i t e d St a t e s w i th o u ta u th o r i z a t i o n , i n v i o l a t i o n 8 U . S. C. § 1 3 2 6 . O n app ea l , B er nal ar gu es w i th res pectt o N o. 05 -119 28 thatthe di stri ctcourt de pr i ve d hi m of

hi s S i xth A m e ndm e ntr i ghtt o aj ur y tr i a l a nd as t a nda r d of pr oof be y ond ar e a s ona bl e doubton e ve r y e l e m e ntof the of fe ns e , i nc l udi ng the fa c tof3

the pr i orc onvi c t i on fora n a ggr a va t e d fe l ony . W i th r e s pe c tt o N o. 05- 11926 a nd hi s e i gh tm on th sent ence for vi ol ati on of supervi se d rel ea se , he ar gu es thatthat s e nt e nc e w a s unr e a s ona bl e be c a us e i tfa i l e d t o c r e di thi m w i th s i xt e e n m onths he had ser ved for an al l egedl y i m prop erre vo ca t i on se nt ence . H e f urther argues that the di stri ctcourtdeni ed hi m du e proces s a nd i m po se d an u nrea sonabl e s ent ence b e c a u s e th e c o u r t fa ile d to c o n s id e ro rs p e c if y th e fa c to r s lis te d in 1 8 U .S .C . § 3 5 5 3 ( a ) . I. A tse nt enci ng , B er nal w i thd re w hi s c hal l enge un der U ni t ed S t at es v. B oo ker, 543 U . S . 220, 125 S . C t . 738, 160 L . E d. 2d 621 ( 2005) a s i ta ppl i e d t o how hi s pr i or c o n v ic tio n w a s c h a r a c te r iz e d . A s ar e s u lt, d ir e c t r e v ie w is lim ite d to p la in e rr o r . S e e U ni t e d S t a t e s v. R odr i gue z , 398 F . 3d 1291, 1298 ( 11th C i r . ) , c e r t . de ni e d, 125 S .C t. 2 9 3 5 ( 2 0 0 5 ) . P la in e rr o rr e v ie w a s k s w h e th e rth e r e is : ( 1 ) a n e rr o r , ( 2 ) th a t is p l ai n , an d (3 ) th ataffects s u b st an t i al ri g h t s. If al l th ree are fo u n d , w e m ay ex erci se d is c r e tio n o n ly if

th e e rr o rs e r io u s ly a f

fe c ts th e fa ir n e s s , in te g r ity , o rp u b lic r e put a t i on of

j udi c i a l pr oc e e di ngs . R odr i gue z , 398 F . 3d a t1298. In U ni t ed S t at es v. O rdun o-M i re l es , 40 5 F . 3d 96 0, 96 1 (11 th C i r. ), c e r t. deni ed, 12 6 S . C t . 22 3 (20 05 ), w e c on si dere d a defendant ’ s c l ai m thatthe di stri ct c our te rr e d w he n i te nha nc e d hi s s e nt e nc e unde rU . S . S . G . § 2L 1. 2( b) ( 1) ( A ) , a nd4

(2), beca use the enhancem entpu rs uantt o § 13 26 w as base d o n fac t s thatw er e n e i th e rc h a r g e d i n th e d e fe n d a n t ’ s i n d i c t m e n tn o rp r o v e n t o aj u r y . I n th a tc a s e , we r e i t e r a t e d ourvi e w tha tthe S upr e m e C our t , i n B ooke r , “ l e f tundi s turbe d i t s hol di ng in A lm en d ar ez – T o rr es [5 2 3 U .S . 2 2 4 , 1 1 8 S .C t. 1 2 1 9 , 1 4 0 L .E d .2 d 3 5 0 (1 9 9 8 )], th a t r e c id iv is m is n o t as e p a r a te e le m e n t o f a n o f fe n s e th a t th e g o v e r n m e n t is r e q u ir e d to p r o v e b e y o n d ar e a s o n a b le d o u b t.” O r d u n o - M ir e le s , 4 0 5 F .3 d a t 9 6 2 . I n d e e d , w e h a v e h e l d th a t“ A l me n d a r e z – To rr e s r e ma i n s th e l a w u n t i l th e Su p r e me C o u r t d e te r m in e s th a t A lm e n d a r e z – T o rr e s is n o t c o n tr o llin g p r e c e d e n t,” a n d th a t it w as no tpl ai n err or for the di stri ctcourtt o app l y i t . O rdun o-M i re l es , 40 5 F . 3d at 9 6 3 . B e r na l ’ s c l a i m 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 ntr i ghtt o a j u r y tr i a l b y s e n t e n c i n g h i m u n d e r8 U. S . C . § 1 3 2 6 ( b ) ( 2 ) , a n d U. S . S . G. § 2 L 1 .2 ( b ) ( 1 ) ( B ) , b a s e d o n th e fa c t o f ap r io rc o n v ic tio n th a t n e ith e rw a s a lle g e d in the i ndi c t m e ntnorpr ove n t o aj ur y be y ond ar e a s ona bl e doubt , fa i l s be c a us e the p ri o r co n v i ct i o n w as n o tan el em en to f h i s i l l eg al reen try ch arg e. B ecau se A lm e n d a r e z - T o rr e s is s till c o n tr o llin g la w , th e d is tr ic t c o u r t d id n o t e rrw h e n it i m p o s e d as e n t e n c e p u r s u a n tt o 8 U. S . C . § 1 3 2 6 ( b ) ( 2 ) , a n d U. S . S . G. § 2 L 1 . 2 (b )(1 )(B ). U p o n rev i ew o f th e b ri efs o f th e p art i es an d th e rel ev an tcase la w , w e d is c e r n n o r e v e r s ib le e rr o ra n d a f f ir m .5 II. a. C re d i t f

or ti m e s er ved T o th e e x ten t th at B er n al is attem p ti n g to ch allen g e th e d istrict co u rt’s r e f u s a l to g r a n t h im c r e d it fo rtim e s e r v e d in aD e k a lb C o u n ty ja il fo rv i o l a tin g h is t er m o f supervi se d rel ea se i m po se d for hi s 200 0 con vi cti on (U ni t ed S t at es v. L un aM ora, N o. 1: 99 -C R -694 ), h e m ay no tdo so here . T he B urea u o f P ri sons, as op po se d t o the di stri ctcour ts , i s a utho ri ze d t o com pu t e s ent ence cr edi taw ar ds af t er s e nt e nc i ng. U ni t e d S t a t e s v. W i l s on , 5 0 3 U . S . 329, 333- 35, 112 S . C t . 1351, 1354- 55, 117 L . E d . 2 d 593 ( 1992) ( c ons tr ui ng 18 U . S . C . § 3585( b) ( 2) , the r e l e va nt st atut e r e gar di ng c r e di tfort i me s e r ve d) . A s ar e s ul t , " afe de r a l pr i s oner di s s a t i s f i e d w i th c om put a t i on of hi s sen t e nc e m us tpur s ue the a dm i ni s tr a t i ve re m edy a vai l abl e throu gh the fe dera l pri son sys tem b efore s ee ki ng j ud i ci al re vi ew of hi s s e nt e nc e . " U ni t e d S t a t e s v. F l a na ga n, 868 F . 2d 1544, 1546 ( 11th C i r . 1989) (i nt erpreti ng § 3 58 5(b)' s pre dece ss or, § 3 56 8). "A cl ai m for c re di tfor ti m e s er ved i s br oughtunde r28 U . S . C . § 2 2 41 a f t e rthe e xha us t i on of a dm i ni s tr a t i ve re m ed ies." U ni t ed S t at es v. N yhui s, 21 1 F . 3d 13 40 , 13 45 (11th C i r. 20 00 ). "E xh austi on of adm i ni stra t i ve re m edi es i s j uri sdi cti on al . " G on za l ez v. U ni t ed S t at es , 95 9 F . 2d 21 1, 21 2 (11 th C i r. 19 92 ) ( addres si ng de n ial o f a § 2 24 1 p eti t i on ). B e c a us e the r e c or d fa i l s t o s how tha tB e r na l ha s e x h au s t e d hi s a dm i ni s tr a t i veWe need not dec ide in thi s casewhether our review of thedistrict court sentenc e 1 upon revoc ation is for abuseof discretion, or for rea sonablene ss pursuant to Booker. If the former, we c onclude there is no abuse of discretio n ; i f th e latter, weconcludethat the sentenc e wa s not unrea sonable. For simplicity , we refer hereaf ter to abuseof discretion. 6 r e m e di e s forr e vi e w of c r e di tr e c e i ve d fort i m e s e r ve d, thi s i s s ue i s notr i pe for j udi c i a l r e vi e w . A c c or di ngl y , w e de c l i ne t o e xe r c i s e j ur i s di c t i on i n thi s r e ga r d.

b . S en ten ce fo r rev o ca ti o n o f su p erv i sed rel ea se U po n fi nd i ng thata def endantvi ol at ed supervi se d rel ea se , the di stri ctcourt m a y r e voke the t e r m of s upe r vi s e d r e l e a s e a nd i m pos e at e r m of i m pr i s onm e nt a f t e rc o n s i d e r i n g v a r i o u s fa c t o r s s e to u ti n 1 8 U . S. C. § 3 5 5 3 ( a ) . 1 8 U . S. C. § 3 5 8 3 (e). T h e t erm i m p o sed can n o t ex ceed th e st atu t o ry m ax i m u m , w h ic h is

1 d et erm i n ed b y g rad e o f th e v i o l at i o n . S ee i d . W h ere th e o ri g i n al o ffen se w as a C l as s B felo n y, a co urtm ay no tre qu i re a def endantt o ser ve m ore than three ye ar s i n pr i s on. 18 U . S . C . § 3583( e ) ( 3) . A G r ad e B v i ol a t i on i s one c ons t i tut i ng a ny fed eral , st at e, o r l o cal o ffen se, n o td escri b ed i n U . S . S . G . § 7 B 1 . 1 (a)(1 ), p u n i s h a b le b y ate r m o f

im p r is o n m e n t e x c e e d in g o n e y e a r . U .S .S .G . § 7 B 1 .1 ( a ) ( 2 ) . T h e sen t en c i ng c our t“ s ha l l s t a t e i n ope n c our tthe r e a s ons fori t s i m pos i t i on of apa r t i c ul a rs e nt e nc e , a nd i f the s e nt e nc e . . . i s notof the ki nd, ori s o u t si d e the ra ng e, desc ri bed i n [§ 3 5 5 3 (a )( 4 )] , the spec i fi c r ea son for i m po si t i on of a s ent ence d iffe re n t fro m th a t d e s c r ib ed .” 1 8 U .S .C . § 3 5 5 3 (c )( 2 ). In re v iew in g a d efen d an t’ s s e nt e nc e forunr e a s ona bl e ne s s , how e ve r , w e ha ve he l d tha t“ nothi ng i n B ooke ror7

e ls e w h e r e r e q u ir e s th e d is tr ic t c o u r t to s ta te o n th e r e c o r d th a ti th a s e x p lic itly consi dere d eac h o f the § 3 55 3(a) fa ct ors or t o d i sc uss e ach o f the § 3 55 3(a) fa c to r s .” U n ite d S ta te s v . S c o tt, 4 2 6 F .3 d 1 3 2 4 , 1 3 2 9 ( 1 1 th C ir . 2 0 0 5 ) . T he di s tr i c tc our tdi d nota bus e i t s di s c r e t i on by s e nt e nc i ng B e r na l t o e i ght m o n th s in p r is o n fo rv io la tin g th e te r m s o f h is s u p e r v is e d r e le a s e . F ir s t, B e r n a l d id no tobj ec tt o the i nd i ctm entchar gi ng hi m w i th b ei ng an al i en foun d i n the U ni t ed S t at es af t erhavi ng been remo ved from the coun try af t era c on vi cti on for a n a ggr a va t e d fe l ony . S e c ond, C ha pt e rS e ve n pr ovi de s fora12 t o 18 m onth t e r m of i m pr i s onm e ntw he n ade fe nda nt ’ s s upe r vi s e d r e l e a s e i s r e voke d forc om m i tt i ng a G r a d e B v io la tio n a n d th e d e fe n d a n t h a s ac r im in a l h is to r y c a te g o r y o f I V . U . S . S . G . § 7 B 1. 1(a) (2), and § 7B 1. 4(a) . B er nal ’ s e i gh tm on th sent ence w as th erefo re w el l w i th i n th e co u rt ’ s st atu t o ry p o w er as B ern al ’ s o ri g i n al o ffen se w as a C l as s B fe l on y. S ee 18 U . S . C . § 3 58 3(e) (3). T hi rd, al tho ug h the di stri ctcourt be ga n w i th a n e i ght e e n m onth s e nt e nc e , w hi c h w a s w i thi n the a dvi s or y gui de l i ne r a nge forB e r na l ’ s pa r t i c ul a rof fe ns e , ul t i m a t e l y B e r na l w a s gi ve n t e n m onths c r e di tforthe s i xt e e n m onths he s e r ve d i n D e ka l b C ounty j a i l , a nd the r e m a i ni ng e i ghtm onth s e nt e nc e w a s t o be s e r ve d c ons e c ut i ve t o the s e nt e nc e forthe 2004 i l l e ga l r e e ntr y c onvi c t i on. S e e 18 U . S . C . § 3553( a ) ( 1) . A s ar e s ul t , the e i ght m o n th c o n s e c u tiv e s e n te n c e w a s w e ll b e lo w th e r e c o m m e n d e d 1 2 to 1 8 m o n th8

gu i del i ne ra ng e. F urtherm ore, the re cord re fl ec t s thatthe di stri ctcourtconsi dere d th e g o a ls o f

a n d th e a d v is o r y n a tu r e o f g u id e lin e r a n g e . S e e 1 8 U .S .C . § 35 53 (a )( 4); U . S . S . G . § 7 B 1. 4(a) . T hu s, the re cord suff i ci ent l y dem on stra t es that the di stri ctcourtconsi dere d the § 3 55 3(a) se nt enci ng fa ct ors a nd the advi sory g u id e lin e s r a n g e . I n s um , w e c onc l ude tha tthe e i ghtm onth s e nt e nc e w a s be l ow the s e nt e nc i ng ra ng e, the courthad the st atut ory a utho ri ty t o i m po se the se nt ence , the courtst at ed i t s r e a s ons forde pa r t i ng dow nw a r d w he n i tc r e di t e d B e r na l w i th t i m e s e r ve d, a nd the s e nt e nc e w a s s uppor t e d by the r e c or d. W e f i nd ne i the ra n a bus e of

di s c r e t i on n o ra n y u n r e a s o n a b l e n e s s i n th e v e r d i c t . A c c o r d i n g l y , w e a f f i r m. AF F I RME D.