FI L ED U.S. COURT OF A P P E A LS E LE V EN T H C IR C U IT MAY 18, 2005 THOMAS K. KAH

N CL ERK [PUBLIS H] IN THE UN ITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FO R T HE EL EV EN TH CIRC UI T

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ N o. 04- 1424 2 Non-A rgum ent Calendar

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ D.C. Dock etNo. 0 3- 00 46 7- CR-T-2 3- TGW UNITED STAT ES OF AMERIC A, Plaintiff-Appellee, ve rs us GUILLERMO GALLE GOS-AGUERO, D ef en dant- Appe llant.

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

S tate s D istri ct

Co urt fo r the Mi ddl e D istri ct

of F lor ida

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ _ ( May 18, 200 5) Be fo re BA RKE T T , H U L L and W IL SO N , Ci rc uit Jud ge s. PE R CU RIA M: Guillerm o Gallegos-A guero appeals his 96 -m onth sentence for illegal re -e ntr y int o th e U nit ed

S tate s f oll ow ing ac onvi ct ionf

or an a ggr av at ed

f el ony , in vio latio n of

8 U . S. C. § 13 26( a) and ( b) (2 ). G al le gos- A gue ro arg ue s th at theThe prese ntence repor t cites the 16-leve l enhanc ement as one under § 2L 1.2(b)( 1)(A) (vi), 1 which g overns e nhance ment for a prior “h u m an traff

ickingoffe nse.” B eca

use the PSIdescr ibes Ga lle g os -A gue ro ’s pr ior c onvic tio n a s an “ a lie n smu g g lin gof fe ns e ,” we pr e sume the re fe re nc e to § 2L 1.2(b)( 1)(A) (vi) is a ty pog raphic al err or, and will tre at the enha nceme nt as havingbeen ma de under § 2L 1.2(b)( 1)(A) (vii). This distinction i s irrele vant to our dec ision. Com po un din gthe c on fu sio n, ho weve r, Ga lle g os -A gue ro ’s br ie f r e pe ate dly state s h is complaint as direc t ed t owar ds what he ide ntifies as a 16- level enha nceme nt pursuant to § 2L 1.2(b)( 1)(A) (ii), which he claims was a pplied based on the charac terization of his prior conviction a s an “agg rava te d f

e lony .” In r e a lity , § 2L 1. 2( b) (1 )( A) (i i) pr ov ide s f or e nh anc e me nt f

or a “ c ri me of violence ” and does n o t ap p ear to have be en applied he re. We ther efor e construe Ga lle g os -A gue ro ’s B lake ly argume nt a s be ingdir e c te d to the 16 -l e ve l e nh anc e me nt b a se d u po n h is pr ior c onvic tio n fo r an a lie n smu g g lin g of fe ns e , purs ua

nt to § 2L 1. 2( b) (1 )( A) (v ii) , a s that is t he on ly cognizable targ et for his objec tion. 2 dis tr ic t c ourt vi olate d hi s S ixth A m en dm en t r igh ts b y im posi ng a 16- le ve l i nc re as e in his o ffense le vel pursuant to U. S. S. G. § 2L1.2( b)(1)(A )(vii), based on the fact 1 of his prior convictio n for “ an alien sm uggl ing offense” w hich was neither ad m it te d b y

hi m no r pr ov edto a jury bey on d areas on ab le do ub t. G al le gos- A gue ro arg ue s th at B lake ly v. W as hin gto n, 542 U . S. ___ , 124 S . Ct . 2531 , 253 7, 159 L . E d. 2d 4 03 ( 2004 ) ha s c as t do ubt on the c ont inu ed

va lid ity of the Suprem e Court’ s decision in Alm endarez- Torr es v. United States, 523 U. S. 224, 118 S.Ct. 1219 , 140 L. Ed. 2d 35 0 (1998). G allegos-Aguero also argues that his c as e is d ist ing uis hable f ro m A lm en dare z- T or

re s, be ca use he ne ve r sti pul at ed

to the charac terization of his prior offense as a qualify ing offense under § 2L 1. 2( b) (1 )( A )( vii ) an d be ca use he obj ec te d to the c ourt’ s us e of the pr ep onde ranc e of

the e vid en ce standard

to fi nd the e xis te nc e of

that a ggr av at ing factor.3

Be ca use G al le gos- A gue ro obj ec te d to the e nhanc em en ts t o hi s se nte nc e in the dis tr ic t c ourt, w e re vie whis se nte nc e de nov o. U nit ed S tate s v. P az , ___

F . 3d ___, ___, (11th Cir. 2005), 2005 W L 757876, at *2. W e w ill reverse the district co urt on ly

if the e rr or w as harm fu l. I d. W e fi nd tha t the dis tr ic t c ourt’ s us e of pr ior c onvi ct ion s to e nhanc e G al le gos- A gue ro ’ s se nte nc e did not vio late the S ixth Am endm ent. S ubsequ ent to the filing o f the brief s in this case, the Suprem e Court iss ue d it s op ini on i n U nit ed S tate s v. Bo oke r, 543 U . S. ___ , ___ , 125 S . Ct . 738 (2005), in which it held that Blakely applies to the federal S entencing Guidelines an d r ea ff irm ed it s Appr en di hol din g th at , “ [a ] ny f ac t ( oth er than apr ior co nvi ct ion ) w hic h is ne ce ssary to supp ort a

se nte nc e ex ce ed ing the m ax im um au tho ri ze d by

the f ac ts e sta bli she d by

aple a of gui lty or aj ur y ve rd ic t m

ust be adm itt ed by the de fe ndant o r pr ove d to aj ur y be y ond a re as ona

ble doubt. ” P ost Bo oke r, thi s C ourt ha s r ea ff irm ed that the re is no S ixth A m en dm en t vi olatio n w he n adis tr ic t c ourt e nhanc es ase nte nc e ba se d onpr ior c onvi ct ion s, inc lud ing tho se spe ci fi ed

in § 2L 1. 2( b) (1 )( A ). S ee U nit ed S tate s v. O rd

uno- Mi re le s, ___ F. 3d _ __, ___ , ( 11th C ir . 200 5) , 200 5 W L 768 134, a t *2 . S im ilarl y , w e fi nd n o m er it in G al le gos- A gue ro ’ s arg um en t tha t the S ixth A m en dm en t r equir es that a j ur y , not aj udge , m

ust de te rm ine w he the r his pr ior c onvi ct ionis w ith in the cate gor y of of fe nse s sp ec if

ie d in§ 2L 1. 2( b) (1 )( A )( vii ). S ee U nit ed S tate s v.4

Sh el ton , 400 F . 3d 1 325, 132 9 & n. 4 ( 11th C ir . 200 5) ; S he pard v. U nit ed

S tate s, 12 5 S .Ct. 1 25 4, 1 26 2- 63 (20 05 ). How ever, because G allegos-Aguero w as sentenced under the pre-Booker m an d at o ry s en t en ci n g s ch eme, t h er e i s erro r i nl i g h to f t h e S up re m e C o u rt ’s re m ed ia l ho ldi ng i n B ooke r. S ee U nit ed S tate s v. Ro dr igu ez , 398 F . 3d 1 291, 130 0 (1 1thCi r. 200 5) . T he use of the gui de lin es a s m an da tor y w as e rr or , e ve n inthe ab se nc e of

aS ixth A m en dm en t vi olatio n. S ee U nit ed S tate s v. S he lto n, 400 F . 3d 1325 , 133 0- 31 ( 11th C ir . 200 5) . B ec au se G al le gos- A gue ro pr es er ve d hi s Blakely /Booker claim

at sentencing, w e re view f or harm less error. See United St at es v. Pa z, __

_ F .3d__ _, _ __(11 th Cir . 20 05 ), 20 05 W L 75 78 76 , at * 2. Non-constituti onal error is harm less when it does not affect the substantial ri ght s of the part ie s. S ee 28 U . S. C. § 21 11; U nit ed S tate s v. G uz m an , 167 F . 3d 1350 , 135 3 ( 11th C ir . 199 9) . U nde r thi s st an dard , w e m ust r ev er se “ onl y

if [ the er ro r] r es ult ed

in ac tua l pr ej udi ce be ca

use it ha d su bst an tia l and i nj ur iou s e ff ec t or influence in determ ining the [re sult]. ” Id. (internal quotation m arks om itted); see al so K ott eakos v. U nit ed

S tate s, 328 U . S. 750 , 776 ( 1946 ). T he bur de n is on the go ve rn m en t t o s ho w th atth e err ordi d n otaffe ctth e d efen da nt 's s ub st an ti al rig ht s. See P az, _

__F.3dat _

__ , 20 05 W L 75 78 76 , at * 2.We d o n ot c on sid e r wh e the r the dis tr ic t c ourt jud g e wo uld

a c tua lly have ha d th e a

uth or ity 2 to i mpo se su ch a se nte nc e . We no te his c omm e nts on ly be c a us e the y pr ov ide an in dic atio n a s to wh e the r Ga lle g os -A gue ro might have re c e ive d a low e r se nte nc e ha d the jud g e be e n wor kin gwi th the g reater discr etion of the a dvisory scheme . 5 H av ing c ar ef

ull y r ev ie w ed the pr es en te nc e inv es tig at ionr ep ort and the transcript of G allegos-Aguero’ s sentencing h earing, we find that the dist rict court’ s use of the guid elines as m andatory constitu ted harm less error. T he district co urt j udge se nte nc ed

G al le gos- A gue ro to the hig he st s en te nc e av ai la ble und er the ap pli ca ble gui de lin e range , and c onsi de re d se nte nc ing G al le gos- A gue ro to 20 y ears, the m axim

um allowable under the statute of conviction. W e thus find th at 2 the use of the m an da tor

y gui de lin e sc he m e re sul te d inno a ct ua l pr ej udi ce to G al le gos- A gue ro . T he re fo re , his Bl ak el y /B ooke r ch al le nge m

ust f ai l. AF FIRMED .