### FI LED U.S. COURT O F APP EALS ELEVENTH CIRCUIT A ugu st 15 , 2 005 THO MAS K. KAH N CL ERK [DO NOT PUBLISH] IN THE UN ITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FO R T HE EL EV EN TH CIRC UI T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- 1370 7

____ ____ ____ ____ ___ D.C. Dock et No. 0 4- 80 04 2- CR-DTKH UNITED STAT ES OF AMERIC A, Plaintiff-Appellee,
ve rs us JOHN KITZELMAN, D ef en da nt- A ppe llant.

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

of F lor ida

____ ____ ____ ____ __ (A ug us t 15, 200 5) Before DU BIN A and W IL SO N, Circuit Judges, and CO OG LE R*, D istrict Judg e. PE R CU RIA M:

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ *Honora ble L . Scott Coogler, United States District J udg e for the Northe rn District of Ala bama, sitti ng by desig nation.18 U. S.C. § 9 24 (e ) p ro vid e s f or a mand a tor

y min imum se nte nc e of

fi ft e e n y e ars . 1 United States v. Book

er , 125 S. Ct . 738 (2005). 2 2 John Kitze lm an appeals his 188 m onth sentence im posed after he pled gui lty to one c ount

of pos se ssi ng a

f ir earm a s ac onvi ct ed

f el on, in vio la tio n of

18 U. S. C. §§ 92 4(g)(1), 924(a)(2). K itzelm an originallycontended that th e district court’ s finding that he wa s subject to the A rm ed Care er C rim inal Act ( “ ACC A” ), 18 U. S. C. § 924 (e) violated the Sixth Am endm ent. At sentencing, K itzelm an 1 obj ec te d ba se d onboth Apprendi v. N ew Je rsey , 530 U
. S. 466 ( 2000 ) an d B lak el y v. W ashi ngt on , 542 U
. S. 296 ( 2004 ). K itz el m an ’ s A CC A e nhanc em en t arg um en t is without m erit; however , w e conclude that Kitzelm an’ s objections we re sufficient to preserve Booker erro r. Se e U nit ed Sta tes v . D ow lin g , 403 F
. 3d 1 242 2 (1 1t h C ir. 2 00 5)
. T he dis tr ic t c ourt de te rm ine d th at K itz el m an ’ s gu ide lin e range w as 188 - 235, m onths and the n a

ppl y ing the gui de lin es a s m an da tor y , se nte nc ed

him to 188
m onths. Whil e the dis tr ic t c ourt f oll ow ed the c or re ct pr oc ed ur e as it the n e xis te d, the district court’ s m andatory application of the gu ideline range constitu ted what t h i s C o u rth a s r e f

e r r e dt o a s as t a tu t o ry Booker erro r. See U

nited Sta tes v. M ath en ia , 40 9 F .3d 12 89 , 12 91 (11 th Cir . 20 05 ).3

W e w ill onl y

r ev er se K itz el m an ’ s se nte nc e if w e de te rm ine tha t the e rr or was ha rm fu l. Se e U

nit ed Sta tes v . P az , 40 5 F .3d 94 6, 9 48 (11 th Cir . 20 05 ). A

“ [statutory ] err or is harm less if, view ing th e proceedings in their entirety , a court d et er m i n es t h at t h e e rr o r d i dn o taf fe ct t h e v er d i ct , ‘o r h ad b u tv er y s l i g h tef fe ct .’ If one c ansay

‘ w ithf ai r as sur an ce . . . tha t the j udgm en t w as not sub stanti al ly sway ed by

the err or,’ the j udgm ent is due to be affirm ed even thoug h there w as error .” U nit ed Sta tes v . H

orna day , 392 F
. 3d 1 306, 131 5- 16 ( 11th C ir
. 200 4) (i nte rn al c ita tio ns o m itt ed ) (quot ing Kotteakos v. U nited Sta tes , 328 U
. S. 750 , 762-63 (1946)). Af ter re viewing the transcript of the sentencing hearing, w e cannot say that the Booker

sta tut or y e rr or w as ha rm le ss. E ve n th oughthe de fe ndant c an not be
se nte nc ed to le ss tha n 18 0 m onths, the dis tr ic t c ourt m ust r es en te nc e him , tr ea tin g t h e s e n t e n c i n g g u i d e l i n e s a s a d v i s o ry ra t h e r th a n man d a t o ry. VACATED AN D REMANDED.