F ILED U.S. COURT O F APP EALS EL EV EN TH C IRC UIT July 20, 20 05 T HOMA S K. KA HN CLERK [DO NOT PUBLISH] IN THE UN ITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FO R T HE EL EV EN TH CIRC UI T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- 1623 7 Non-A rgum ent Calendar

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ D. C. Docket N o. 03-00348 -CR- J-32-MCR UNITED STAT ES OF AMERIC A, Plaintiff-Appellee, ve rs us WAYNE AN THONY MOORE, D ef en dant- Appe llant.

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

S tate s D istri ct

Co urt f or the Mi ddl e D istri ct

of F lor ida

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ _ (July 20, 200 5)

Be fo re T JO FL A T , D U BIN Aand P RY O R, Ci rc uit Jud ge s. PE R CU RIA M: W ay ne A nth ony

Mo or e ap pe al s hi s se nte nc e of 360 m onths’ im

pr iso nm en t fo r dis tr ibu tio n and p oss es sio n w ithint en t t o di str ibu te c oc ai ne ba se , in vio latio n2

of 21 U. S. C. sections 84 1(a)( 1) & (b)( 1)(B) . Moore argues that the district court er re d un de r U nit ed

S tate s v. Bo oke r, 543 U . S. __, 125 S . Ct . 738 ( 2005 ), w he n it se nte nc ed him und er m an da tor

y gui de lin es a s ac ar ee r of fe nde r ba se d onf

ac ts n ot pr ove d to aj ur

y be y ond a re as ona

ble doubt. B ec au se the gov er nm en t di d no t es ta bli sh tha t the statut or

y e rr or und er Bo oke r w as harm le ss, w e va cate and rem an d fo r res en te nc in g.

“ [A ] c onst itutio na l ob

j ec tio n th at

is tim el y , . . . r ec ei ve s th e be ne fi t of pr es er ve d e rr or r ev ie w . ” U nit ed

S tate s v. Cande lari o, 240 F . 3d 1 300, 130 5 ( 11th Ci r. 200 1) . Whe re , a s he re , an e rr or w as pr es er

ve d be low , w e re vie wde nov o and,

“ if e rr or is fo und, it

is ge ne ra lly

sub j ec t t o th e harm le ss e rr or ana ly sis of Fe d. R. Cr im . P. 52( a) . ” I d. a t 13 03 n . 3. R ule 52( a) state s th at

“ [a ] ny e rr or , de fe ct , ir re gul ar ity , or

vari an ce that do es not

a ff ec t su bst an tia l r igh ts m

ust be disregarded.” Fed. R. Crim . P . 52(a) . InBo oke r, the S upr em e Co urt he ld tha t “ [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 autho 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 itted by

the defendant or proved to a j ury bey ond a reasonable doub t.” Bo ok er, 5 43 U.S. at _

__ , 12 5 S . Ct. at75 6. We hav e ex pl ai ne d t ha t t he re ar e two kin ds o f se nte nc ing e rr or s ba se d onBo oke r. T he f ir st i s c onst itutio na l e rr or : “ the3

Sixth Am endm ent right to trial by j ury is violated where under a m andatory gui de lin es sy ste m

ase nte nc e is i nc re as ed

be ca use of an e nhanc em en t ba se d on fa ct s f ound by the j udge that w er e ne ith er a dm itt ed by the de fe ndant n or

f ound by the j ur y . ” U nit ed

S tate s v. Ro dr igu ez , 398 F . 3d 1 291, 129 7 ( 11th C ir . 200 5) (c i t at i o n s o m i t t ed ). Th e s ec o n di s s t at u t o ry erro r: “ [a ]s a r es u l to f B o o k er ’s re m ed ia l ho ldi ng, Bo oke r er ro r ex ist s whe n th e dis tr ic t c ourt m isa ppl ie s th e Guidelines by

considering th em

as bindin g as oppo sed to advis ory .” U nited States v. Sh el to n, 4 00 F.3d13 25 , 13 30 -3 1 (1 1t h C ir. 2 00 5) . E ac h ki nd o f Bo oke r er

ro r re qui re s adif

fe re nt s tandard

of r ev ie wto de te rm ine w he the r the e rr or w as harm le ss. B ooke r co nst itutio na l e rr or is harm le ss w he n th e gove rn m en t c ansho w , be y ond a re as ona ble doubt, that e rr or

did not co ntr ibu te to the ult im at e se nte nc e. B ooke r statut or y e rr or is subj ec t t o ale ss dem anding test. S ee United States v. Mathenia, 409 F.3d 1289, 1292 (11th Cir. 2 0 0 5 ) . A s t a tu t o r

y e rr o r i s h arml e s s i f

, v i e w i n g th e p r o c e e d i n g s i nth e i r e n t i r e ty, the e rr or did not a ff ec t the se nte nc e or

ha d on ly a“ ve ry sli ght e ff ec t. ” I d. I f the se nte nc e w as not

“ subs tanti al ly

sw ay ed ” by

the e rr or , the n th e se nte nc e is d ue to be aff irm ed in spite of the error. Id. T he harm less error standard for statutory er ro rs is not

e as y f or the gov er

nm en t t o m ee t, and i s a s di ff ic ult f or the gove rn m en t t o m ee t a s th e thi rd -p ro ng p re j udi ce standard

that a de fe ndant m

ust4

m eet under plain error

review . Id. In other wor ds, the governm ent has the burden to sh ow t ha t t he erro r di d n otaffe ctth e d efen da nt ’s subs ta nt ia l ri gh ts . See i d. T his appe al r equir es that w e ap ply e ac h of the se sta ndard s. M oor e ra ise d in the dis tr ic t c ourt bo th co nst itutio na l e rr or and s tatut or

y e rr or . W e ad dr es s e ac h in tur n. T he dis tr ic t c ourt di d no t c om m it co nst itutio na l e rr or

und er Bo oke r w he n it ap pl ie d t he care er o ffen de r en ha nc em en t b as edon Mo or e’s pr ev io us co nv ic ti on s. InA lm en dare z- T or

re s v. U nit ed

S tate s, 523 U . S. 224 118 S . Ct . 121 9 ( 1997 ), the Su pr em e Co urt c onc lud ed

that r ec idi vis m

is not ase parate e le m en t of

an of fe nse that the gov ernm ent is required to prove bey ond a reasonable doub t. 523 U. S. at 247, 118 S . Ct . a t 12 32- 33. B ooke r spe ci fi ca lly e xc ep te d pr ior

c onvi ct ion s f

ro m its hol din g. S ee Bo oke r, 543 U . S. a t __ , 125 S . Ct . a t 75 6. W e have r ep eate dly determ ined that the Suprem e Court has left its holding in Alm endarez- Torr es undi sturb ed , and tha t A lm en dare z- T or re s r em ai ns g ood lawand b ind ing pr ec ed en t unt il the S upr em e Co urt de ci de s othe rw ise . S ee U nit ed S tate s v. O rd

uno- Mi re le s, 405 F. 3d 9 60, 962 -6 3 ( 11th C ir . 200 5) ; S he lto n, 400 F . 3d at 13 29. Moo re ’ s r el at ed

arg um en t tha t the dis tr ic t c ourt vi olate d hi s r igh t a ga ins t se lf -i nc ri m inatio n un de r the F if th A m en dm en t i s f

ri vol ous. A t the se nte nc ing hearing, Moore adm itted his p revious conv ictions andthe district court5

al te rn at ive ly

r el ie d up on the j udgm en ts r eg ar din g th ose c onvi ct ion s f ile d by the governm ent. Moore did no t even attem pt to in voke his privilege against selfinc ri m inatio n. A lth oughthe re w as no c onst itutio na l e rr or , the dis tr ic t c ourt e rr ed w he n it sentenced Moore under a m andatory guidelin es sy stem . S ee S helton, 400 F.3d at 1330 -31. A ccordingly , w e m ust determ ine whether the governm ent showed that the error did no t affe ct the sentence or had only a “ very slighteff ect. ” Mathenia,409 F. 3d at 129 2. W e conclude that the gov ernm ent has not m et that heavy burden. T here is nothing in the record to suggest th at had the district court known th e gui de lin es w er e advis or y , the dis tr ic t c ourt w oul d have im pose d th e sam e se nte nc e. W e, the re fo re , va cate and r em an d f or r es en te nc ing c onsi ste nt w ith Booker. VACATED AND REMANDED.