### FI LED U.S. COURT O F APP EALS ELEVENTH CIRCUIT Ma y 1 9, 2005 THO MAS K. KAH N CL ERK [DO NOT PUBLISH] IN THE UN ITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FO R T HE EL EV EN TH CIRC UI T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- 1106 7 Non-A rgum ent Calendar

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ___ D . C. D oc ke t N o. 03- 0038 5- CR -T -3 0 UNITED STAT ES OF AMERIC A, Pl ai nt iff -Ap pe ll ee, ve rs us MAR IO LO PE Z- CON TR ER AS , a. k. a. Ram on, Defen da nt -Ap pe ll an t.

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ _ Appeal f rom the United State s District Court for the Middle District of Florida

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ _ (M ay 1 9, 200 5) Be fo re E D MO N D SO N , Ch ie f Judg e, H U L L a nd W IL SO N , Ci rc uit Jud ge s.In Blakely , the Supreme Court struc k down an upwar d depar ture imposed under

the State of 1 Washington’s sente ncingsy stem that was b as ed s olely on judicial fac tfinding, c larify ing that the rele vant “statutory

maxi mum for Appre ndi pur poses is the max imum a judge may impose solely

on the basis of the f

acts re flec ted in the jury

verdic t or admit ted by the defendant.” 124 S.Ct . at 2534-38 (empha sis omit ted). B ut the Court stated that it was expressing “no opinion” about the F eder al SentencingGuidelines. I d. at 2538 n.9. Then in B ooker v. United States, 125 S.Ct . 738 (2005), the Supreme Court conc luded that Blakely applied to the F eder al SentencingGuidelines. 125 S.Ct. at 755. The Court determined that the Six th Amendment is violated when a district c ourt, actingpursuant to the Sentenc ing Re form Ac t and the mandatory

fede ral guidelines, imposes a sentenc e g reater than the maxi mum authorized by the fa cts found by

a jury alone or established by

a guilty plea. Se e Bo o k er, 125 S.C t. at 749-50, 755-56. We thus consider L opez-Contrera s’s claim in the lig ht of Booke r. 2 PE R CU RIA M: Mari o L ope z- Co ntr er as appe al s hi s 21 0- m onth se nte nc e, im pose d purs ua nt to h is g uil ty

ple a, f or c onsp ir ac y

to poss es s w ithint en t t o di str ibu te 500 gr am s or m or e of m etha m phe ta m ine , in vio la tio n of 21 U . S. C. §§ 8 46 and 841( b) (1 )( B) (v iii ), a nd p oss es sio n w ithint en t t o di str ibu te 50 g ram s or m or e of
m et ha m ph et am in e, in vi ol at io n o f 21 U.S.C. § 8 41 (a)( 1) , (b) (1 )(B) (v ii i). He ar gue s th at

the dis tr ic t c ourt vi ola te d hi s S ixth A m en dm en t r igh ts unde r Bl ak el y v. W as hin gto n, 124 S . Ct . 253 1 ( 2004 ), by se nte nc ing him

ba se d ona ddi tio na l dr

ug qu a n t i t i e s a n df

i r e a rms n o tc h a r g e di n h i s i n d i c t men t , p r o v e dt o aju ry be y on d a reas on ab le do ub t, o r ad m it te d b y hi m du rin g h is gu il ty ple a h eari ng . No 1
r e v e r s i b l e e rr o r

h a s b e e n s h o w n ; w e a f

f i rm. At the guilty

plea hear ing, Lopez- Contreras agr eed to the governm ent’ s fact pr of fe r (1 ) tha t he ha d de liv er ed appr oxi m at el y

498 . 4 gr am s gr oss w ei ght ofL opez-Contrera s instead argued that his ba se offe nse level should have be en ca lculated by using 2 the low e r we ig ht of the “ mixture or su bs tanc e ” , a s o pp os e d to the ” a c tua l” me tha mph e tamin e we ig ht, which purportedly would have resulted in a lower equivalent we ight of

marijuana . And he did not 3 m etha m phe ta m ine to a co nf

ide nti al inf

orm an t and ( 2) that a

ppr oxi m at el y

3, 732 gram s gross weight of m etham phetam ine, over $135,000 in currency , and ov er 2 kilog ram s of a substance used in th e production of m etham phetam ine wer e seized fr om atr ai le r in whic h L ope z- Co ntr er as w as li vin g. T he gov er nm en t di d no t m en tio n f ac ts a bout f ir earm s. T he pr es en te nc e inv es tig at ionr ep ort ( PS I) c al cu la te d aba se of fe nse le ve l of 38, und er U . S. S. G . § 2D 1. 1( c) (1 ), ba se d onnot onl y the quanti tie s of

the
m etha m phe ta m ine a nd the c utt ing a ge nt m en tio ne d a t the gui lty ple a he ar ing , but al so o n ne winf

orm at ionabout

a ddi tio na l qu an tit ie s of

m etha m phe ta m ine a nd d
m etham phetam ine hy drochloride (“ ICE ”) seize d from the trailer. T he PSI co nve rt ed e ac h of the se sub stanc es int o th ei r m ar ij ua nae qui va le nts to ar ri ve a t the ba se off en se lev el . The PSI th en ad de d a two -le ve l en ha nc em en t, u nd er U.S.S.G. § 2D 1. 1( b) (1 ), ba se d onne winf orm at ionthat a ge nts ha d se iz ed tw o handguns and am m uniti on du ring the search of the tra iler. A t sentencing, the district court ad op te d t he PSI’s fac t d et erm in at io ns . L ope z- Co ntr er as a dm its that he did not r ai se ac onst itu tio na l ob

j ec tio n to the dis tr ic t c ourt’ s a

ppl ic at ionof

the S en te nc ing G uid el ine s. S o, w e re vie whis 2ob

je c t to the § 2 D1 .1 (b )( 1) fi re arm e nh anc e me nt.

4 cl ai m f or pla in e rr or . S ee U nit ed

S ta te s v. Ro dr igu ez , 398 F . 3d 1 291, 129 8 ( 11th Ci r. 200 5) , pe tit ionf

or c er t. f ile d, N o. 04- 1148 ( U . S. F eb . 23, 200 5) . O n pl ai n er ro r re vie w , ade fe ndant m ust sho w“ er ro r” that i s “pla in” a nd tha t “ af fe ct [s ] subs tanti al r igh ts. ” U nit ed S ta te s v. O lano, 113 S . Ct . 177 0, 177 6 ( 1993 ). I t i s onlyafter these conditio ns have been satisfied that an appellate court then m ay ex er ci se it s di sc re tio n and c or re ct the e rr or if it se ri ousl y a ff ec ts the f ai rn es s, int eg ri ty or pub lic r ep uta tio n of

the j udi ci al pr oc ee din gs. I d. InRo dr igu ez , w e sta te d th at Bo oke r er

ro r is the m an da tor

y , r athe r than th e advis or y , appl ic at ionof

the F ed er al S en te nc ing G uid el ine s. R odr igu ez , 398 F . 3d at 1298. And w e w rote that the defendant bears the burden of persuading us th at thi s e rr or c au se d hi m

pr ej udi ce : he c an not

sur viv e pla in- er

ro r an al y sis unl es s he can show “ a re asonable probabil ity of a diff erent re sult if the gui delines had been ap pli ed in ana dvi sor

y ins te ad of bin din g f as hio n by the se nte nc ing j udge . ” I d. at 129 9, 130 1. Lop ez-C on tre ras ha s n ot sat is fie d t he th ird ele m en t o f pl ai n e rro r rev ie w. N oth ing in the r ec or d in dic at es that the dis tr ic t c ourt m igh t have im pose d a dif fe re nt s en te nc e unde r the ne wa dvi sor y se nte nc ing sc he m e. W e ar e aw ar e tha t, af te r co unse l i ndi ca te d th at L ope z- Co ntr er as ha d no pr ior c ri m ina l r ec or d and5

certa inly would be deported after serving his sentence, the district court sentenced Lopez- Contreras at the bottom of the guideline range. B ut the dist rict court later sta te d th at

it w as im posi ng a se nte nc e at

the bot tom

of the gui de lin e range be ca use

“ it de te rm ine [d ] that tha t i s th e ap pr opr ia te pun ish m en t f or the of fe nse be ha vio r in this case because the defe ndant will be deported at the end of his sentence.” C f. Un i t ed St at es v . S h el t o n , 4 0 0 F. 3 d1 3 2 5 , 1 3 3 2 -3 4 (1 1 t h Ci r. 2 0 0 5 ) ( d i s t ri ct co u rt ’s sta te m en ts e xpr es sin g he sit at ionin ap ply ing the G uid el ine s a s m an da tor y c anbe evidence that sentencing result m ight h ave been diffe rent had district court applied G uid el ine s a s a dvi sor

y ). L ope z- Co ntr er as ha s no t sh ow n “ a re as ona ble pr oba bil ity of adif fe re nt r es ult

if the gui de lin es ha d be enappl ie d ina n a dvi sor y ins te ad of bin din g f as hio n by the se nte nc ing j udge . ” Ro dr igu ez , 398 F . 3d a t 13 01. AFFIR MED.