### F I LE D U. S . COURT OF AP PE ALS E LEVE NTH CI RCUI T N ove m be r 29, 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- 14217 N on -A rgum entC al endar

________________________ D . C . D o c k e tN o . 0 3 - 1 4 0 0 6 - C R - D MM 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 R E N A L D O C A S S I N O V A J O N E S , 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 S outhe rn D i s tr i c tof F l or i da

_________________________ ( N ove m b e r 29, 2005) B efo re T JO F L A T , D U B IN A an d W IL S O N , C i rcu i tJu d g es. P E R C U R I A M: R e n a ld o C a s s in o v a J o n e s ap p e a ls h is 2 3 5 - m o n th s e n te n c e f o rc o n s p ir a c y to2

p o s s e s s wi th i n t e n tt o d i s tr i b u t e 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 6 . On appeal , Jones a rgues that , un der U ni t ed Stat es v. B oo ke r , 5 4 3 U .S . ___ , 1 2 5 S . C t. 738, 160 L . E d. 2d 621 ( 2005) , the di s tr i c tc our tc om m i tt e d c ons t i tut i ona l e rr orby e n h a n c in g h is s e n te n c e u n d e rU n ite d S ta te s S e n te n c in g G u id e lin e s M a n u a l § 4 B 1 .1 b ased u p o n j u d i ci al l y-fo u n d fact s, sp eci fi cal l y th e fact s su rro u n d i n g h i s 1 9 8 9 arrest a n d s u b s e q u e n t g u ilty p le a , s te m m in g f r o m a h o m e in v a s io n . J o n e s c o n te n d s th a t, i n r e l a t i on t o the 1989 hom e i nva s i on, he pl e d gui l ty t o a m i s de m e a norba tt e ry , not a s e x u a l b a tt e ry , a s s t a t e d i n th e P r e s e n t e n c e I n v e s t i g a t i o n R e p o r t( “ P S I ” ) . He a s s e r t s tha tthe c ha r a c t e r i z a t i on of hi s c onvi c t i on a s a s e xua l ba tt e ry l e d t o the P S I’ s d et erm i n at i o n th ath e w as a career o ffen d er, w h i ch resu l t ed i n a t o t al o ffen se l evel of 34 , ra ther than 2 6. Jones a rgues that , i n l i gh tof Sh epard v. U ni t ed Stat es ,

___U .S . ___ , 1 2 5 S . C t. 1 2 5 4 , 1 6 1 L . E d . 2 d 2 0 5 ( 2 0 0 5 ) , th e d is tr ic t c o u r t e rr e d in det erm i ni ng the nature of hi s pri or conv i ct i on base d o n an arr es taf fi davi t . Jones al so assert s th atth e d i stri ctco u rtco m m i tt ed st atu t o ry B oo ke re rr orby s e nt e nc i ng hi m unde ra m a nda t ory gui de l i ne s s c he m e , a nd tha tthe gove rnm e ntc a nnots how thatthe error w as harm l es s. F i nal l y, Jones a rgues thathi s s ent ence w as un re as on abl e. B ec ause Jones di d n otra i se a B oo ke rc ha l l e nge t o the gui de l i ne s c a l c ul a t i ons b e lo w , w e r e v ie w h is c la im o n ly f o rp la in e rr o r . U

ni t e d Stat e s v . D ow l i ng , 4033

F .3 d 1 2 4 2 , 1 2 4 6 - 4 7 ( 1 1 th C ir . 2 0 0 5 ) , ce rt. deni ed ( U . S . O c t . 11, 2005) ( N o. 05- 6 2 3 4 ) . U n d e ra p la in e rr o ra n a ly s is , a d e f e n d a n t m u s t s h o w ( 1 ) a n e rr o r , ( 2 ) th a t is p la in , a n d ( 3 ) th a t a f

f e c ts s u b s ta n tia l r ig h ts . Id . a t1247 ( i nt e rna l quot a t i on om i tt e d) . I f

the de f e nda nts a t i s f

i e s thi s bur de n, w e m a y the n e xe r c i s e our di s c r e t i on t o not i c e the e rr ori f the e rr or“ s e r i ous l y a f

f e c t s the f a i rne s s , i nt e gr i ty , or pu bl i c r eput at i on of j ud i ci al proceedi ng s. ” Id . ( i nt e rna l quot a t i ons a nd c i t a t i ons om i tt ed). In the cont extof B oo ke rerrors , the pl ai n err or t es ti s s at i sf i ed on l y w hen the defendantca n sho w that“ there i s are as on abl e probabi l i ty of adi ff er entre sul t . ” Id . (i nt ernal qu ot at i on om i tt ed). I n B oo ke r , the S upr e m e C our tc onc l ude d tha tthe m a nda t ory na tur e of the S en ten cin g G u id elin es re n d er ed th em in co m p atib le w ith th e S ix th A m en d m en t’ s g u a r a n te e to th e r ig h t to a ju ry tr ia l. B oo ke r , 5 4 3 U .S . a t _

__ , 1 2 5 S . C t. a t 7 4 9 - 5 1 . T here ar e tw o types of B oo ke rerrors : (1) aconst i tut i on al error, w hi ch occurs w hen a n i ndi vi dua l ’ s s e nt e nc e i s e nha nc e d ba s e d on j udi c i a l f i ndi ngs tha tgo be y ond the fa ct s a dm i tt ed by the defendantor foun d b y the j ury; and (2) a s t atut ory e rr or, w h ic h o c c u r s w h e n a d e f e n d a n t is s e n te n c e d u n d e ra m a n d a to ry g u id e lin e s s y s te m . U ni t e d Stat e s v . She l ton , 4 0 0 F .3 d 1 3 2 5 , 1 3 3 0 - 3 1 ( 1 1 th C ir . 2 0 0 5 ) . I n th is c a s e , a n y c o n s titu tio n a l e rr o rth a t th e d is tr ic t c o u r t c o m m itte d in de t e r m i ni ng tha tJ one s ’ s c r i m i na l hi s t ory i nc l ude d a s e xua l ba tt e ry a s oppos e d t o a4

si m pl e batt ery i s notre vers i bl e pl ai n err or because the ca re eroffe nd er e n h a n c e m e n t s till w o u ld h a v e ap p lie d , e v e n w ith o u t in c lu s io n o f th is c o n v ic tio n . F u rth erm o re, al th o u g h th e d i stri ctco u rtco m m i tt ed st atu t o ry B oo ke re rr orby s e n te n c in g h im a t th e h ig h e n d o f th e g u id e lin e r a n g e , J o n e s c a n n o t s h o w th a t h is subst ant i al ri gh t s w er e a ff ec t ed. In fa ct , the di stri ctcourtre fe rr ed t o “ the cr i m i nal hi s t ory a s the r e a s on f

ori m pos i ng a s e nt e nc e a tthe hi gh e nd of the gui de l i ne r a nge , ” a nd e m pha s i z e d J one s ’ s r e c or d of “ s e r i ous c r i m e , ” i nc l udi ng m ul t i pl e drug o ffen ses, an d h i s p ro p en si ty t o th reat en v i o l en ce an d co m m i tv i o l en tact s. B ecau se Jones c anno tshow a r ea sonabl e probabi l i ty of adi ff er entre sul t , the di stri ctcourt di d n otcom m i tre vers i bl e pl ai n err or w hen i tse nt ence d h i m un der the m andat ory gu i del i nes s chem e. Jones nextar gu es that , du e t o the fa ct s of hi s c as e a nd the “ l ac k o f e vi dence pr e s e nt e d a ts e nt e nc i ng, ” hi s s e nt e nc e w a s unr e a s ona bl e . H ow e ve r , w he n a defe nd anti s s ent ence d p re - B oo ke ra nd f a i l s t o pr e s e r ve the i s s ue be l ow , w e do not r e v ie w f o rr e a s o n ab le n e s s ; r a th e r , w e r e v ie w f o rp la in e rr o r . See U

ni t ed Stat es v. R ob l es , 4 0 8 F . 3 d 1 3 2 4 , 1 3 2 7 - 2 8 ( 1 1 th C i r . 2 0 0 5 ) . Un d e rs u c h a n a n a l y s i s , a s we ha ve a l r e a dy s t a t e d, J one s ’ s c l a i m tha tthe di s tr i c tc our tc om m i tt e d r e ve r s i bl e e rr or in d e te r m in in g h is s e n te n c e is w ith o u t m e r it. 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 , we5

d i s c e rn n o r e v e r s i b l e e rr o r . A c c o r d i n g l y , w e a f f i r m. AF F I RME D.