### FI LED U.S. COURT O F APP EALS ELEVENTH CIRCUIT Ma y 4 , 2 005 THO MAS 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- 1458 5 Non-A rgum ent Calendar

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ D. C. Docket N o. 04-00004 -CR- 5 UNITED STAT ES OF AMERIC A, Plaintiff-Appellee, ve rs us TI MMY DA VI S, D ef en dant- Appe llant.

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ Appeal f rom the United State s District Court fo r the S outhe rnD istri ct

of G eo rg ia

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ _ (M ay 4 , 200 5) Be fo re A N D E RS O N , CA RN E S an d M A RC U S, Ci rc uit Jud ge s. PE R CU RIA M: Inthi s c as e, w e ap ply

harm le ss e rr or

ana ly sis to a cl ai m

m ad e pur suant t o U nit ed S ta te s v. Bo oke r, 543 U . S. __, 125 S . Ct . 738 ( 2005 ). W e re j ec t the2

Governm ent's argum ent that the grant of its U. S. S. G. § 5K1.1 m otion elim inated or rendere d harm less any Booker err or. Ac cordingly , w e vacate Davis's sentence, an d r em an d f

or r es en te nc ing c onsi ste nt w iththe S upr em e Co urt op ini ons in Bo ok er. T im m y D av is p le ad ed

gui lty to poss es sio n of

pse udoe phe dr ine w ithint en t to m anuf ac tur e m etha m

phe tam ine , avio la tio n of 21 U . S. C. § 84 1( c) (1 ). I n hi s gui lty ple a, D av is d id n ot a dm it to any spe ci fi c dr

ug quanti ty . A t se nte nc ing , the dis tr ic t c ourt de te rm ine d th at 11. 82 g ram s of

pse udoe phe dr ine w as a ttr ibu ta ble to D av is, and f

oll ow ing the the n- m an da tor y F ed er al G uid el ine s, a ssi gne d hi m aba se le ve l of tw en ty -s ix. T he c ourt r ed uc ed thi s to le ve l tw en ty -thr ee a ft er giv ing him credit for acce ptance of re spon sibili ty . The c ourt com puted Davis's crim inal his tor y a s c at eg or

y tw o, and n ote d th at

the gui de lin es r ec om

m en de d ar an ge of

51- 63 m onth s' im

prisonm ent for cr im inal histo ry category two at off

ense level tw en ty -thr ee . T he G ove rn m en t m ad e a m oti on f or downw ar d de part

ur e pur sus an t to U . S. S. G . § 5K 1. 1 be ca use D av is c oope rate d w iththe G ove rn m en t, and h is co op erat io n h el pe d t he Gov ern m en t o bt ai n g ui lt y pl eas fro m

ot he r de fen da nt s. T he se nte nc ing c ourt gr an te d th e m oti on, de part ed downw ar d f

ro m the gui de lin es , an d i m po se d a sen te nc e o f 38 m on th s' i m pr is on m en t. While this case was pending on app eal, the Suprem e Court decided U nited3

S t a t e s v . B o o k e r , 5 4 3 U . S . _ _ , 1 2 5 S . C t . 7 3 8 ( 2 0 0 5 ) . I n B o o k e r , th e S up r e me Court did two thing s: first, f ollowing Blakely

v. W ashingt on, 542 U. S. ___, 124 S. Ct . 253 1 ( 2004 ), it

he ld tha t se nte nc e en hanc em en ts b as ed sol el y on j udi ci al ly fo und fa ct s purs uant t o th e m an da tor y F ed er al S en te nc ing G uid el ine s vi olate d th e Si xthA m en dm en t; an d se co nd, it r en de re d th e gui de lin es e ff ec tiv el y a dvi sor y in or de r to c om

port w iththe S ixth A m en dm en t by e xc isi ng those pr ovi sio ns o f the st atut e th atm ad e th e g ui de li ne s m an da to ry . Id. at __ _,1 25 S.Ct . at 7 49 -5 1, 7 64 . T he S upr em e Co urt st at ed that e ve n th oughthe gui de lin es w er e ef fe ct ive ly advis or y , the F ed er al S en te nc ing A ct "n one the le ss r equir es j udge s to take a cc ount of th e Gui de li ne s t og et he r wit h o th er s en te nc in g g oa ls " an no un cedin 18 U.S.C. § 3553 (a ). I d. a t _

_, 125 S . Ct . a t 76 4. Davis's sentence wa s enhanced, under a m andatory guidelin es sy stem , based on facts found bythe j udge and no t adm itted by him , and Book er indicates that w as avio la tio n of

D av is' s S ixth A m en dm en t r igh t. I d. a t _ _, 125 S . Ct . a t 75 6. In the district court and in his initial brief on appeal, D avis argued that the court's fi ndi ng w ithr es pe ct

to dr ug quanti ty

vio la te d hi s c onst itu tio na l r igh ts a cc or din g to the S upr em e Co urt' s de ci sio n inBl ak el y . D av is the re fo re ti m el y r ai se d hi s co nst itu tio na l ob

j ec tio n. A cc or din gly , w e re vie wthe c onst itu tio na l i ssu e de nov o, an d w e w ill r ev er se and r em an d un le ss the G ove rn m en t c ande m onstrate that the4

error wa s harm less bey ond a reasonable doub t. S ee U nited States v. P az, __F . 3d__ , 200 5 W L 757 876 (1 1thCi r. Apr il 5, 200 5) ( ap ply ing harm le ss e rr or reviewto a sentence im

posed us ing extra-verdict enhancem ents in a m andatory gu id el in e syst em ). In Paz , w e explained that harm less error analy sis pu ts the burden on the G ove rn m en t t o sh ow"' be y ond a re as ona ble doubt tha t the e rr or

c om pla ine d of

did not c ontri but e to the se nte nc e obt ai ne d. ' " I d. a t __ , 200 5 W L 757 876 at *2 (quotin g United States v. Candelario, 240 F.3d 1300 , 1307 (11th Cir. 2001)). In ca se s in vol vin g pr es er

ve d B ooke r er

ro r, the G ove rn m en t m

ust sho wthat the m an da tor y , a s op pose d to the a dvi sor y , appl ic at ionof

the gui de lin es did

not co ntr ibu te to the de fe ndant' s se nte nc e. I d. a t __ , 200 5 W L 757 876 at *2 ( hol din g that the G ove rn m en t c oul d no t m ee t i ts b ur de n un de r harm le ss e rr or ana ly sis because the re cord indicated that had the gu idelines been advis ory , his sentence w oul d have be ensho rt er ); se e al so Unit ed S ta te s v. Ro dr igu ez , 398 F . 3d 1 291, 1300 -0 1 ( 11th C ir . 200 5) ( ap ply ing pla in- er ro r re vie wand s ta tin g th e co nst itu tio na l e rr or

in Bo oke r de pe nde d onam an da tor y appl ic at ionof

the gui de lin es , and the que sti on o f pr ej udi ce tur ne d onthe pr oba

bil ity of adif fe re nt res ul t i n a n a dv is ory , as o pp os edto a m an da to ry , gu id el in es syste m ). InD av is' s c as e, the G ove rn m en t arg ue s th at the m an da tor

y appl ic at ionof5

the gui de lin es w as harm le ss b ec au se the G ove rn m en t r eque ste d, and the j udge ap pli ed , adownw ar d de part ur e pur suant t o U . S. S. G . § 5K 1. 1. U . S. S. G . § 5K 1. 1 is a provision of the guidelines th at allows the court to depart f rom the guidelin es ba se d onthe de fe ndant' s a ssi stanc e to a uth or iti es w he n th e G ove rn m en t m oti ons fo r suc h ade part

ur e. A cc or din g to the G ove rn m en t, it s § 5 K 1. 1 m oti on g av e the court "virtually

unfettered discretion to im pose a sentence outsid e the guidelines range . " T he G ove rn m en t r ea sons that this dis cr et ionr em ove d any Bo oke r er

ro r, or r e n d e r e dan y B o o k e r

e rr o r h a rml e s s b e c au s e th e g u i d e l i n e s we r e n o t" man d a t o ry" in th is pa rti cu la r cas e. W e cannot

c onc lud e that the se nte nc ing c ourt' s gr an t of the § 5K 1. 1 m oti on ei th er re m ov edBo ok er erro r orren de reditha rm le ss be y on d a reas on ab le do ub t. T he f lawin the G ove rn m en t' s arg um en t i s th at the gr an t of

§ 5K 1. 1 di d no t gi ve the sentencing cou rt "unfettere d" discretion, but rather, gave the court only lim ited discretion to con sider the assistance that Davis re ndered. This Court had pr ev iou sly

state d, "W

he n, on the G ove rn m en t' s m oti on, adis tr ic t c ourt gr an ts a dow nw ar d de part

ur e unde r U . S. S. G . § 5K 1. 1 . . . , the se nte nc e re duc tio n m ay be based onlyon factors re lated to the defendant's subst antial assistance." U nitedThe Gove rnment' s brief e mphasizes that Davis' s plea a g ree ment acknow ledg ed 1 "whether or not the sentenc ing c ourt dec ides to depar t downwar d below a guideline ra ng e or statutory minimum sentenc e, or r educe the def endant' s sentence , as we ll as the extent of any such do wnwa rd de pa rt ur e or re du c tio n, is c omp le te ly

wi thi n th e se nte nc ingc ourt ' s d isc re tio n. " Th is i s simply an ac knowledg ment of the sente ncingcourt' s limi ted discre tion to depart downwa rd on the basis of Da

vis's a ssistance. 6 States v. Luiz, 102 F.3d 466, 469 (11t h Cir. 1996 ). While the sentencing court 1 had discretion un der § 5K1. 1 in decidin g whether to depart f rom the guidelin es and the extent of that departure, it did n ot have the discretion to consider factors unr el at ed to the na tur e an d ty

pe of D av is' s a ssi stanc e. I m

portantl y , the se nte nc ing co urt c oul d no t pe rm iss ibl y c onsi de r the se nte nc ing f ac tor s announc ed

in 18 U.S.C. § 3 55 3( a) wh en ex erci si ng it s d is cret io n. W e sim ply do n ot k noww ha t the se nte nc ing c ourt w oul d have don e ha d it unde rs too d th e gui de lin es to be a dvi sor y r athe r than m an da tor

y , and h ad

pr ope rl y co nsi de re d th e fa ct or s in18 U . S. C. § 35 53( a) . T he re fo re , the G ove rn m en t c an not m ee t i ts b ur de n of

sho w ing that the m an da tor y appl ic at ionof

the gui de lin es in vio la tio n of

D av is' s S ixth A m en dm en t r igh t w as harm le ss b ey ond a re as ona ble doub t. C f. Ro dr igu ez , 398 F . 3d at 13 01 ( ap ply ing pla in e rr or ana ly sis , and s ta tin g that be ca use the de fe ndant b or e the bur de n of pe rs ua sio n and n o on e co uld kno w what w ouldhave happened in an advis ory sy stem , the def

endant couldnot m eet hi s b ur de n) . A cc or din gly , w e RE V E RS E and RE MA N D f or r e- se nte nc ing c onsi ste nt wit h B oo ke r.