FI LED U. S . COURT OF AP PE ALS E L E V E N T H C IR C U IT June 27, 2006 T HOM AS K. KAHN CL E RK [ 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- 16430 N on -A rgum entC al endar

________________________ D . C . D ocketN o. 05 -000 66 -C R -4 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 G E O R G E L . C R A Y , D e f e n d a n t- A p p e lla n t.

________________________ A pp ea l fr om the U ni t ed S t at es D i stri ctC ou rt f o rth e S o u th e rn D is tr ic t o f G e o r g ia

_________________________ ( Ju n e 27, 2006) B efo re A N D E R S O N , B IR C H an d B A R K E T T , C i rcu i tJu d g es. P E R C U R I A M: G e or ge L . C r a y appe a l s hi s 125- m onth s e nt e nc e f ordi s tr i but i on of

c oc a i ne2

b a s e , in v io la tio n o f

2 1 U .S .C . § 8 4 1 ( a ) ( 1 ) ,( b ) ( 1 ) ( B ) . C r a y a r g u e s th a t, p u r s u a n t to U ni t e d S t a t e s v. B ooke r , 543 U . S . 220, 125 S . C t . 738, 765, 160 L . E d. 2d 621 ( 2005) , the di s tr i c tc ourte rr e d by s e nt e nc i ng hi m ba s e d upon drug w e i ght s f r om tr a n s a c tio n s th a t w e r e p a rt o f d is m is s e d c o u n ts in th e in d ic tm e n t. W e r evi ew the drug qu ant i ty a ttri bu t abl e t o a defendantfoun d b y the di stri ct courtfor c l ear e rr or. U ni t ed S t at es v. Z apat a, 13 9 F . 3d 13 55 , 13 57 (11th C i r. 1998) . “ W he n ade f

e nda ntobj e c t s t o af

a c tua l f i ndi ng tha ti s us e d i n c a l c ul a t i ng hi s gui de l i ne s e nt e nc e , s uc h a s drug a m ount , the gove rnm e ntbe a r s the bur de n of es t abl i shi ng the di sput ed fa ctby a pre po nd er ance of the evi dence. ” U ni t ed S t at es v . R o d r ig u e z , 3 9 8 F .3 d 1 2 9 1 , 1 2 9 6 ( 1 1 th . C ir .) , c e r t. d e n ie d , 1 2 5 S .C t. 2 9 3 5 ( 2 0 0 5 ) . T he S up re m e C ou rt , i n B oo ker, concl ud ed thatthe S ent enci ng G ui del i nes v io la te th e S ix th A m e n d m e n t r ig h t to atr ia l b y ju ry to th e e x te n t th a t th e y p e rm it a ju d g e , u n d e ram a n d a to ry s y s te m , to in c r e a s e ad e f e n d a n t’s s e n te n c e b a s e d o n f a c ts th a tw e r e n e i th e rf

o u n d b y aj u ry , n o ra d mi tt e d b y th e d e f e n d a n t . Bo o k e r , 5 4 3 U . S. at24 4, 12 5 S . C t . at75 6. W e have found , po st -B oo ker, no const i tut i on al defe ct w i th the s e nt e nc i ng j udge f i ndi ng the a m ountof

drugs , e ve n though i ti nc r e a s e d the l e ngth of the s e nt e nc e . S e e R odr i gue z , 398 F . 3d a t1300. ( hol di ng, “ [ the ] r e a s on w e kno w thatthe use of e xtra -ver di ctenhancem ent s i n a no n-m andat ory gui del i nes3

s y s t e m i s notunc ons t i tut i ona l i s tha t . . . [ B ooke r ] s pe c i f i c a l l y pr ovi de s f

or extra -ver di ctenhancem ent s i n al l future s ent enci ng . . . . T he sa m e e xtra -ver di ct e n h a n c e m e n t p r o v is io n s ap p ly a f te rB o o k e ra s b e f

o r e .” ) . Up o n r e v i e w o f

th e r e c o r d a n d c o n s i d e r a t i o n o f th e p a r t i e s ’ b r i e f

s , we di s c e rn no r e ve r s i bl e e rr or . B e c aus e the r e w a s s uf f i c i e ntr e l i abl e e vi de nc e f orthe d i s tr i c tc o u rtt o f

i n dth a tC r a y wa s r e s p o n s i b l e f o r2 0 5 g r a m s o f

c o c a i n e , a n d we re peat edl y have hel d thatextra -ver di ctenhancem ent s are prop eri n an adv i sory s y s t e m a f

t e rB ooke r , the di s tr i c tc our tdi d notc l e a r l y e rri n us i ng tha tdrug a m ount to d e te rm in e C r a y ’s b a s e o f f e n s e le v e l. AF F I RME D.