### F I LE D U. S . COURT OF AP PE ALS E LEVE NTH CI RCUI T June 9, 2005 T HOM AS K. KAHN C L 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. 04- 14711 N on -A rgum entC al endar

________________________ D. C . Do c k e tNo . 0 4 - 0 0 1 5 6 - C R - T - 3 0 - E AJ 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 T H O M A S M C G O W A N , 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 orthe M i ddl e D i s tr i c tof F l or i da

_________________________ ( Ju n e 8, 2005) B efo re H U L L , W IL S O N an d K R A V IT C H , C i rcu i tJu d g es. P E R C U R I A M: T h o m a s M c G o w a n ap p e a ls h is s e n te n c e o f 1 8 8 m o n th s ’ im p r is o n m e n t,2

i m pos e d f

ol l ow i ng hi s gui l ty pl e a f orpos s e s s i on w i th i nt e ntt o di s tr i but e f i ve gr a m s orm or e of

c r a c k c oc a i ne , i n vi ol a t i on of 21 U . S . C . § 841. F orthe r e a s ons tha tf ol l ow , w e va c a t e a nd r e m a nd f orr e s e nt e nc i ng. I. Ba c k g r o und O n M a r c h 3 0 , 2 0 0 4 , M c G o w a n w a s in d ic te d f o rp o s s e s s io n w ith in te n t to d i s tr i b u t e f

i v e g r a m s o rm o r e o f

c r a c k c o c a i n e , i n v i o l a t i o n o f 2 1 U. S . C . § 8 4 1 . He agre ed t o p l ea d g ui l ty w i tho uta w ri tt en pl eaagre em ent . A thi s c hang e- of-pl ea he a r i ng, M c G ow a n c ons e nt e d t o a m a gi s tr a t e j udge . T he gove rnm e ntm a de the fol l ow i ng proffe r of the offens e: ac t i ng on i nform at i on fr om a c on fi dent i al i nf or m a nttha ta drug de a l e rw a s dr i vi ng a bl ue T oy ot a C a m ry , pol i c e s pott e d the ca r out si de an em pty l otand o bserved p eopl e app roac h the ca r, m ake a n exchang e, and w al k aw ay . P ol i ce w i tness ed M cG ow an dri ve off i n the bl ue T oyot a C am ry , at w h ic h tim e th e y in itia te d a tr a f f ic s to p a n d a rr e s te d M c G o w a n f o rd r iv in g w ith o u t a lic e n s e . U p o n q u e s tio n in g M c G o w a n a t th e p o lic e s ta tio n , M c G o w a n in itia lly d e n i e d h a v i n g a n y c o n tr a b a n d , b u tth e n a d m i tt e d th a th e h a d s o m e d ru g s . As M cG ow an w al ked t hrou gh the po l i ce st at i on , a bag cont ai ni ng 1. 97 gram s of c ra ck f e ll f r o m h is p a n ts . O f

f ic e r s la te rd is c o v e r e d a n a d d itio n a l 2 4 .6 2 g r a m s in M c G o w a n ’s s h o r ts , a s w e ll a s $ 1 ,1 0 2 . M c G o w a n a d m itte d th a t th is d ru g q u a n tity w a s c orr e c t , a nd he e nt e r e d a pl e a of gui l ty . T he m a gi s tr a t e j udge f ound tha ttheMc Go wa n’ s p ri or of fens e s w e re : a

19 94 c onvic tio n f

or attempt e d s aleof

c oc aine ; a 1 1995 conviction for posse ssion of cocaine with intent to sell; a 1998 conviction for saleof c ann a bis ; and a 20 02 c onvic tio n f

or ag gra vate d a ssa

ult . 3 pl eaw as m ade kno w i ng l y a nd vo l un t ar i l y, and recom m ended t hatthe di stri ctcourt a c c e p t th e p le a , w h ic h th e c o u r t d id . T he prob at i on offi ce r pre pare d a pres ent ence i nv es t i gat i on re po rt(“ P S I” ), a s s i gni ng a ba s e of

f e ns e l e ve l of

30 be c a us e of

the a m ountof

drugs i nvol ve d, w hi ch the prob at i on offi ce r des cr i bed as 24. 62 gram s f ou nd on M cG ow an, pl us an addi t i on al 15 . 5 g ra m s f

ou nd i n M cG ow an’ s c ar . T he prob at i on offi ce r f urther d et erm i n ed th atM cG o w an w as a career o ffen d er u n d er U . S . S . G . § 4 B 1 . 1 b ecau se he had fou r pri or fe l on y c on vi ct i on s f or cr i m es of vi ol ence and con trol l ed subst ance offe nses , w hi ch ra i se d the offe nse l evel t o 3 4. W i th a three -l evel 1 r e duc t i on f

ora c c e pt a nc e of

r e s pons i bi l i ty , M c G ow a n’ s t ot a l of f e ns e l e ve l w a s 31, w i th a cri m i n al h i st o ry cat eg o ry o f V I, fo r a sen t en ci n g ran g e o f 1 8 8 -2 3 5 m o n th s’ im p r is o n m e n t. M cG ow an obj ec t ed on F i fth and S i xth A m endm entgrou nd s, as se rt i ng that he shou l d n otbe re spon si bl e f or ov erforty gra m s of c ra ck because thatam ou ntw as n o tch arg ed i n th e i n d i ctm en tan d w as n o tad m i tt ed atth e ch an g e o f p l ea. H e al so a r gue d tha tthe appl i c a t i on of the c a r e e rof

f e nde rgui de l i ne vi ol a t e d hi s F i f th a nd S ix th A m e n d m e n t r ig h ts u n d e rB la k e ly v . W a s h in g to n , 1 2 4 S .C t. 2 5 3 1 ( 2 0 0 4 ) .4

M c G ow a n m a de no obj e c t i ons t o the f a c tua l a c c ur a c y of

the P S I . N ot a bl y , he s tip u la te d to th e d ru g q u a n tity in th e P S I a n d th a t h e w a s a t le a s t e ig h te e n y e a r s o ld w hen h e c om m i tt ed the pri or offe nses thatsupp ort ed the ca re eroffe nd er e nha nc e m e nt . T he di s tr i c tc our tof f e r e d t o c onve ne a j ur y t o a ddr e s s s e nt e nc i ng i ss ues, bu tM cG ow an decl i ned t hatoffe r. T he courtadop t ed the P S I a nd se nt ence d M c G ow a n t o 188 m onths ’ i m pr i s onm e nt . T he c our ta l s o i ndi c a t e d tha ts houl d the S u p r e m e C o u r t h o ld th e g u id e lin e s u n c o n s titu tio n a l, it w o u ld im p o s e a n a lte rn a te s e nt e nc e of

180 m onths ’ ( 15 y e a r s ) i m pr i s onm e nta f t e rc ons i de r i ng the f

a c t or s of the na tur e of

the c r i m e , the de f

e nda nt ’ s c r i m i na l hi s t or y , a nd the qua nt i ty of drugs in v o lv e d . I I . D i s c us s i o n W e r e vi e w a de f

e nda nt ’ s pr e s e r ve d B ooke rc ha l l e nge t o hi s s e nt e nc e de novo, butw i l l r e ve r s e a nd r e m a nd onl y f orha r m f ul e rr or . U ni t e d S t a t e s v. M atheni a, F . 3d , 20 05 W L 12 01 45 5, at*2 (11t h C i r. M ay 23 , 20 05 ). H er e, M c G o w a n a r g u e s th a t th e ap p lic a tio n o f th e c a r e e ro f

f e n d e rg u id e lin e v io la te s h is F i fth and S i xth A m endm entri gh t s a l l egi ng thati tw as “ base d u po n fac t s thatw er e notc ha r ge d i n the i ndi c tm e nt , notpr ove n t o a ny j ur y , a nd nots t i pul a t e d t o a tthe change of pl eahear i ng . ” A dd i t i on al l y, M cG ow an as se rt s thatthe cr i m i nal hi st ory ca l cul at i on s vi ol at ed B l akel y. F i nal l y, M cG ow an ar gu es thathi s s ent ence w as5

i nc r e a s e d ba s e d on a n a m ountof drugs notc ha r ge d i n the i ndi c tm e nt , i n vi ol a t i on o f B la k e ly , a n d th a t to ap p ly th e a lte rn a te s e n te n c e c r e a te s a n e x p o s t f a c to p r o b le m . A ft erM cG ow an fi l ed hi s bri ef , the U ni t ed S t at es S up re m e C ou rtdeci ded U n ite d S ta te s v . B o o k e r , 1 2 5 S .C t. 7 3 8 ( 2 0 0 5 ) , in w h ic h it h e ld th a t: “th e S ix th A m e ndm e nta s c ons true d i n B l a ke l y doe s appl y t o the S e nt e nc i ng G ui de l i ne s ” a nd r e a f f i r m e d i t s hol di ng i n A ppr e ndi tha t“ [ a ] ny f a c t( othe rtha n a pr i orc onvi c t i on) w hi c h i s ne c e s s a ry t o s uppor ta s e nt e nc e e xc e e di ng the m a xi m um a uthor i z e d by the f a c t s e s t a bl i s he d by a pl e a of gui l ty ora j ur y ve r di c tm us tbe a dm i tt e d by the defe nd antor prov ed t o a j ury bey on d a re as on abl e dou bt . ” B oo ker, 12 5 S . C t . at 746- 47, 757. T he C our tf ur the rhe l d tha tthe G ui de l i ne s w e r e m e r e l y a dvi s ory , but tha tdi s tr i c tc our t s m us ts t i l l c ons i de rthe gui de l i ne r a nge s w he n i m pos i ng s e n te n c e s . I d . a t 7 5 7 , 7 6 4 .

“ P os t - B ooke r , thi s C our tha s r e a f f i r m e d tha tthe r e i s no S i xth A m e ndm e nt vi ol at i on w hen a di stri ctcourtenhances ase nt ence d b as ed on pri or conv i ct i on s. . . . ” U ni t ed S t at es v. G al l egos-A gu er o, N o. 04 -142 42 m anuscr i ptop . at3 (11 th C i r. M ay 18 , 20 05 ); U ni t ed S t at es v. O rdun o-M i re l es , 40 5 F . 3d 96 0, 96 2-63 (11t h C i r. 2005) ; s e e a l s o U ni t e d S t a t e s v. S he l t on, 400 F . 3d 1325, 1329 ( 11th C i r . 2005) (e xp l ai ni ng thatthe S up re m e C ou rt ’ s hol di ng i n A l m endarez -T orre s v. U ni t edU.S.S.G. § 4B1.1(a) states that: “Adefendant is a ca reer off ender if (1) thedefendant 2 was at least eighteen year s old at the time the defendant committed the instant offense of conviction; (2) the instant off ense of conviction is a fe lony

that is either a crime of violenc e or a controlled substanc e off

ense; a nd (3) the de fenda

nt has at lea st two prior felony convictions of either a crime of violence or

a controlled substance of fense .” Notably, McGowa n admitted at both his chang e of ple a hea ringand at sentencingthat he wa s at least eighteen year s old when he committed the charg ed off ense. 6 S t a t e s , 523 U . S . 224 ( 1998) w a s l e f tundi s turbe d by A ppr e ndi , B l a ke l y , a nd B ooke r ) . A c c or di ngl y , the r e w a s no c ons t i tut i ona l e rr ori n the appl i c a t i on of the g u id e lin e s in s o f

a ra s th e c a lc u la tio n s d e r iv e d f r o m M c G o w a n ’s p r io rc o n v ic tio n s . I n a ddi t i on, w e f

i nd no m e r i ti n M c G ow a n’ s c ont e nt i on tha tthe S i xth A m e ndm e nt re qu i re s thata j ury, ra ther than a j ud ge, det erm i ne w hether hi s c on vi ct i on s a re w i thi n the ca t egory of offe nses spec i fi ed i n U . S . S . G . § 4 B 1. 1(a) . S ee U ni t ed 2 S t at es v. C ra w ford, F . 3d , 20 05 W L 10 05 28 0 (11 th C i r. M ay 2, 20 05 ); U ni t e d S t a t e s v. B l a s , 360 F . 3d 1268, 1272 ( 11th C i r . 2004) ( e xpl a i ni ng tha t“ the d is tr ic t c o u r t’s in te rp r e ta tio n o f th e S e n te n c in g G u id e lin e s is a q u e s tio n o f la w [ th is C o u r t] r e v ie w [ s ] d e n o v o ” ) ; s e e a ls o U n ite d S ta te s v . F a rr is , 7 7 F .3 d 3 9 1 , 3 9 8 ( 1 1 th C ir . 1 9 9 6 ) ( w h e th e rr o b b e ry is a “c r im e o f v io le n c e ” f

o rp u rp o s e s o f

U .S .S .G . § 4B 1. 1 i s aqu es t i on of l aw thatm ay be deci ded b y thi s C ou rt ). M or e ove r , t o the e xt e nttha tM c G ow a n c ha l l e nge s hi s s e nt e nc e ba s e d on the a m ountof

drugs , tha ta r gum e nti s w i thoutm e r i t . M c G ow a n s t i pul a t e d t o the am ou ntof drug s, and t here fore , the di stri ctcourtcoul d p roperl y r el y on that am o u n ti n d et erm i n i n g th e sen t en ce. S ee B o o k er, 1 2 5 S . C t . at7 5 6 . A d d i t i o n al l y,7

w e a re no tpers uaded b y M cG ow an’ s c l ai m thatB oo ker s ho ul d n otbe appl i ed re troac t i vel y, as the U . S . S up re m e C ou rti nstruct ed thatB oo ker app l i ed t o al l ca se s p e n d in g o n d ir e c t r e v ie w . S e e B o o k e r , 1 2 5 S .C t. a t 7 6 9 . T he onl y e rr ori n thi s c a s e w a s the di s tr i c tc our t ’ s m a nda t ory appl i c a t i on of th e s en ten cin g g u id elin es , an d w e c o n clu d e th at th e e rr o r w as n o t h ar m less . “ A n o n - c o n s titu tio n a l e rr o ris h a r m le s s if , v ie w in g th e p r o c e e d in g s in th e ire n tir e ty , a c our tde t e r m i ne s tha tthe e rr ordi d nota f f e c tthe s e nt e nc e , orha d butve ry s l i ght e f f e c t. I f o n e c a n s a y w ith f

a ira s s u r a n c e th a t th e s e n te n c e w a s n o t s u b s ta n tia lly sw ay ed by the error, the se nt ence i s due t o b e a ff i rm ed even tho ug h there w as erro r. ” M ath en i a, 2 0 0 5 W L 1 2 0 1 4 5 5 , at* 2 (q u o t at i o n m ark s, ci t at i o n s, el l i p ses, a n d b r a c k e ts o m itte d ) . T h e b u r d e n is o n th e g o v e rn m e n t to s h o w th a t th e e rr o rd id nota f f e c tthe de f

e nda nt ’ s s ubs t a nt i a l r i ght s . S e e U ni t e d S t a t e s v. D a vi s , F . 3d

, 2005 W L 1033422, a t*1 ( 11th C i r . M a y 4, 2005) ; s e e a l s o U ni t e d S t a t e s v. R o b le s , F .3 d , 2 0 0 5 W L 1 0 8 3 4 8 7 , a t * 3 ( 1 1 th C ir . M a y 1 0 , 2 0 0 5 ) . D uri ng se nt enci ng , the di stri ctcourti nd i ca t ed thati tw ou l d i m po se an a l t e rna t e s e nt e nc e of

180 m onths ’ ( 15 y e a r s ) s houl d the S upr e m e C our thol d the gui de l i ne s unc ons t i tut i ona l . S pe c i f i c a l l y , the di s tr i c tc our ts t a t e d: In the al t ernat i ve, i f the gu i del i nes a re deem ed t o b e uncon st i tut i on al b y th e E le v e n th C ir c u it, o rth e U .S . S u p r e m e C o u r t, th is C o u r t w o u ld ha ve i m pos e d a s e nt e nc e of 15 y e a r s [ 180 m onths ] a f t e rc ons i de r i ng th e fact o rs o f th e n atu re o f th e cri m e, th e d efen d an t ’ s cri m i n al h i st o ry,Thus, this case is different from those in which we f ound harmless error

beca use the 3 district court g ave a

n alternate sentenc e that wa s the same a s the sentenc e imposed. See M ath e n ia , 2 0 0 5 WL

1 2 0 1 4 5 5 , at * 3 ; Un it e d

St ate s v . Peth o , F . 3 d , 2 0 0 5 WL 1160640 at *1 (11th Cir. May 18, 2005); Robles, 2005 WL1083487, at *3.

8 a n d th e q u a n tity o f

d ru g s in v o lv e d . A s the go vernm entac kn ow l edges, thi s a l t ernat e s ent ence dem on stra t es that an y erro r i n th e ap p l i cat i o n o f th e g u i d el i n es w as n o th arm l ess. 3 Ac c o r d i n g l y , f

o rth e f o r e g o i n g r e a s o n s , we VA C AT E a n d R E MAND to th e d is tr ic t c o u r t f

o rr e s e n te n c in g . O n r e m a n d , th e d is tr ic t c o u r t, “w h ile notbound t o appl y the G ui de l i ne s , m us tc ons ul tthos e G ui de l i ne s a nd t a ke th e m in to a c c o u n t w h e n s e n te n c in g .” B o o k e r , 1 2 5 S . C t. a t 7 6 7 .