FI LED U. S . COURT OF AP PE ALS E L E V E N T H C IR C U IT Se pt e m be r 14, 2005 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. 04- 14580 N on -A rgum entC al endar

________________________ D . C. D o c k e tN o . 0 4 - 0 6 0 2 7 - TP- W PD 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 U S T A V W A L T E R K L O S Z E W S K I , 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 r n D i s tr i c tof F l or i da

_________________________ ( S e pt e m be r14, 2005) B efo re B IR C H , B A R K E T T an d H U L L , C i rcu i tJu d g es. P E R C U R I A M : G us t a v W a l t e rK l os z e w s ki a ppe a l s hi s f i ve - y e a rs e nt e nc e s t e m m i ng f r om theAltho ugh Klos zew ski w a s o ri g inally c onvic te d in

theWes tern

Di stric t of

No rt h 1 Carolina, the g overnment moved to revokeKloszewski’s supervised re leasein the Southern District of F lorida af

ter jurisdiction was tra

nsfer red to the Southern D istrict of Florida . See 18 U.S.C. § 3605 (“A cour

t, after imposing a sentence , may transfer jurisdiction over a probationer or pers on on su perv ise d re le a seto t

hedis tric t c ourt

fo r a ny oth e r distri c t to wh ic h th epers on is require d to proce ed as a

condition of his probation or re lease , or is permitted to proce ed, with the concur renc e of suc h court.” ). 2 r e v o c a t i o n o f

h i s t e r m o f

s u p e r v i s e d r e l e a s e . A f t e rr e v i e w , w e a f

f i r m. I n A p r il 1 9 9 7 , K lo s z e w s k i w a s c o n v ic te d o f: ( 1 ) tw o c o u n ts o f c o n s p ir a c y to po ss es s c ocai ne w i th i nt entt o d i stri bu t e; (2) one coun tof bei ng an ac ce ss ory a ft er the f a c tt o a n a t t e m pt e d e xt or t i on; a nd ( 3) one c ountof c ons pi r a c y t o i m por tf

i ve k i l o g ram s o r m o re o f co cai n e. K l o szew sk i w as sen t en ced t o 9 6 m o n th s’ im p r is o n m e n t, f

o llo w e d b y th r e e y e a r s ’ s u p e r v is e d r e le a s e . O n O c to b e r1 6 , 2 0 0 2 , K lo s z e w s k i’s s e n te n c e w a s r e d u c e d to tim e s e r v e d . O n t he sa m e day , the di stri ctcourti ss ued an am ended j ud gm entshow i ng that K l os z e w s ki ’ s t e r m of

i m pr i s onm e ntw a s r e duc e d t o t i m e s e r ve d a nd tha t , upon re l ea se fr om i m pri sonm ent , K l osze w ski w ou l d b e on sup ervi se d rel ea se for three years o n each co u n tt o ru n co n cu rren t l y. O n Jun e 23, 20 04 , the P robat i on O ff i ce pet i t i on ed the di stri ctcourtfor a w arra ntfor K l osze w ski ’ s a rr es tand revocat i on of supervi se d rel ea se . A ft era 1 re vo ca t i on hear i ng , the di stri ctcourtconcl ud ed thatK l osze w ski com m i t t ed m ul t i pl e vi ol at i on s of the t erm s of hi s s up ervi se d rel ea se by i ss ui ng tw o forged chec ks and o peni ng a f

raud ul entl i ne of cr edi t . T he di stri ctcourtfurtherF or thefirs t ti mein his reply brie f, Kl os zew ski a ssert s th at hi s f ive -ye ar s e ntenc eis 2 illegal beca

use it violates ex postfac to principles and e x cee ds the statutory maxi mum term of supervised relea se as provided at the time of his convic tion. However , an appe llant may not raise a n issue for the f

irst time in a reply

brief. SeeUnited States v. Dockery, 401 F.3d 1261, 1262-1263 (11 Cir. 2005), pet. for cer t filed, No. 05-5714 (Aug . 5, 2005). As a result, we do th no t c on side r t

he searg uments . 3 d eter m in ed th at an y o r a ll o f th e v io lati o n s ju stified re v o ca ti o n o f K lo sz ew sk i’ s supervi se d rel ea se . U po n con cl ud i ng thatK l osze w ski vi ol at ed the t erm s of hi s s up ervi se d r e l e a s e , the di s tr i c tc our tnot e d tha tthe r e c om m e nde d gui de l i ne s r a nge w a s 21- 27 m on ths’ i m pri sonm ent . H ow ever , the di stri ctcourtal so no t ed “ thatthe chapt er s e v e n g u id e lin e s ( d e a lin g w ith v io la tio n s o f s u p e r v is e d r e le a s e ) a r e m e r e ly a d v is o r y a n d th a t th e y a r e n o t b in d in g o n th e c o u r t.” A ft erconsi deri ng the fa ct ors s etforth i n 1 8 U . S . C . § 3 55 3(a) , the di stri ct courtre vo ked K l osze w ski ’ s s up ervi se d rel ea se and sent ence d K l osze w ski t o a t ot al se nt ence of fi ve ye ar s’ i m pri sonm ent : fi ve ye ar s’ i m pri sonm entfor the conspi ra cy t o di s tr i but e of

f e ns e s a nd tw o y e a r s ’ i m pr i s onm e ntf orthe a c c e s s or y a nd co n sp i racy t o i m p o rto ffen ses, al l t o ru n co n cu rren t l y. O n ap p e a l, K lo s z e w s k i a r g u e s th a t th e d is tr ic t c o u r t la c k e d ju r is d ic tio n to re vo ke hi s s up ervi se d rel ea se . A cc ordi ng t o K l osze w ski , the di stri ctcourt 2 e lim in a te d a n y te r m o f

s u p e r v is e d r e le a s e w h e n it r e d u c e d h is o r ig in a l s e n te n c e to t i m e s e r ve d.In the district court Kloszewski challeng ed the c ourt’s ability to sentencehim in li ght of 3 Blakely v. Washington, 542 U.S. 296, 124 S. Ct. 2531 (2004), and, thus, we review his argument on appeal reg ardingBooker de novo. SeeUnited States v. Dowling , 403 F.3d 1242, 1245 ( 11 th Cir. 2005). 4 W e r e a di l y c onc l ude tha tthe di s tr i c tc our tha d j ur i s di c t i on t o r e voke K lo sz ew sk i’ s s u p er v ised re leas e. A lth o u g h th e d istrict co u rt re d u ce d K lo sz ew sk i’ s s e nt e nc e t o t i m e s e r ve d, the a m e nde d j udgm e nts pe c i f i c a l l y s t a t e d tha tK l os z e w s ki w a s s till s u b

je c t to th r e e y e a r s ’ s u p e r v is e d r e le a s e u p o n h is r e le a s e f r o m p r is o n . K l osze w ski w as i ni t i al l y r el ea se d from pri son o n O ct ob er16 , 20 02 . T here fore , K lo s z e w s k i w a s s till o n s u p e r v is e d r e le a s e w h e n th e P r o b a tio n O f f ic e s o u g h t to r e voke hi s s upe r vi s e d r e l e a s e on J une 23, 2004. N e x t, K lo s z e w s k i a s s e r ts th a t, in lig h t o f U n ite d S ta te s v . B o o k e r , 1 2 5 S . C t. 738 ( 2005) , both hi s or i gi na l s e nt e nc e i n 1997 a nd hi s f i ve - y e a rs e nt e nc e i n 2004 w e r e u n c o n s titu tio n a l. W e c o n c lu d e th a t b o th o f K lo s z e w s k i’s a r g u m e n ts f a il. 3 T o t he ext entK l osze w ski i s a t t em pt i ng t o chal l enge hi s ori gi nal se nt ence ba s e d on B ooke r , “ a de f e nda ntm a y notc ha l l e nge , f orthe f i r s tt i m e on a ppe a l f

r om the re vo ca t i on of supervi se d rel ea se , hi s s ent ence for the un derl yi ng offe nse. ” U ni t ed S t at es v. W hi t e, 41 6 F . 3d 13 13 , 13 14 (11 C i r. 20 05 ). th A s f o rK lo s z e w s k i’s c la im th a t th e d is tr ic t c o u r t v io la te d B o o k e rw h e n it se nt ence d h i m t o fi ve ye ar s’ i m pri sonm entfor vi ol at i on s of hi s s up ervi se d rel ea se , thi s C ou rthas notspec i fi ca l l y c on cl ud ed w hether B oo ker app l i es t o sent ence sThis Court has determined that there a re two ty pes of B ooker error : constituti onal er ror 4 and statutory

error. United States v. Mathenia, 409 F.3d 1289, 1291 ( 11 Cir. 2005). “The th c on sti tution a l error

is theus eof

e xtra -v e rdic t enh anc e ments to re a c h a guide lin e s re sult that is binding on the sentencingjudge ; the error is in the mandatory natureof the guidelines oncethe guidelines rang e has be en determined.” Id. (internal quotations omi tted). “Thestatutory error occur s when the district c ourt sentenc ed a de fenda nt under a mandatory

guidelines scheme , even in the absenc e of a

Six th Amendment enha

ncement violation.” I d. (internal quotations omi tted). 5 i m po se d for vi ol at i on s of s up ervi se d rel ea se . H ow ever , even i f w e a ss um e B oo ker appl i e s t o vi ol a t i ons of

s upe r vi s e d r e l e a s e , K l os z e w s ki i s note nt i t l e d t o a r e m a nd. In B oo ker, the S up re m e C ou rthel d “ thatthe S i xt h A m endm entri gh tt o t ri al b y ju r y is v io la te d w h e r e u n d e ra m a n d a to r y g u id e lin e s s y s te m a s e n te n c e is i ncre as ed because of an enhancem entbase d o n fac t s f ou nd by the j ud ge thatw er e ne i the ra dm i t t e d by the de f e nda ntnorf

ound by the j ur y . ” U ni t e d S t a t e s v. R od ri gu ez , 39 8 F . 3d 12 91 , 12 98 (11 C i r. ), ce rt . deni ed, 12 5 S . C t . 29 35 (200 5). th 4 T h e g u i d el i n e p ro v i si o n s ap p l i cab l e t o th e rev o cat i o n o f su p erv i sed rel ease w e r e a dvi s or y pr i ort o B ooke r , a nd the di s tr i c tc our ti n thi s c a s e r e c ogni z e d the a d v is o r y n a tu r e o f

th e a p p lic a b le g u id e lin e s in d e c id in g to s e n te n c e K lo s z e w s k i to a s e nt e nc e out s i de of

the r e c om m e nde d gui de l i ne s r a nge . T hus , the gove r nm e nt ar gu es thatB oo ker has no appl i ca t i on atal l t o revocat i on hear i ng s. H ow ever , even as sum i ng B oo ker app l i es , any a l l eged B oo ker e rr or i s harm l es s bec ause the di stri ct c o u r t s e n te n c e d K lo s z e w s k i u n d e ra n a d v is o r y g u id e lin e s s c h e m e a n d s p e c if ic a lly consi dere d t he fa ct ors i n § 35 53 (a ). S peci fi ca l l y, the di stri ctcourtconcl ud ed that th e n a tu r e a n d c ir c u m s ta n c e s o f K lo s z e w s k i’s o f

f e n s e s w e r e v e r y s e r io u s f e lo n ie s .6

F u rth erm o re, th e d i stri ctco u rtd et ai l ed K l o szew sk i ’ s ex t en si v e cri m i n al h i st o ry, de s c r i bi ng K l os z e w s ki a s “ a c on m a n, ” a nd f ound tha thi s hi s t or y a nd char ac t er i st i cs w er e a gg ra vat i ng ci rc um st ance s. T he di stri ctcourtal so i nd i ca t ed tha ti tbe l i e ve d K l os z e w s ki w oul d c ont i nue t o pr e y on the publ i c . F i na l l y , the di s tr i c tc our tc onc l ude d the r e w a s no ne e d t o m i t i ga t e K l os z e w s ki ’ s s e nt e nc e a nd thatthe gu i del i nes r ange w as i nadequ at e. F ora l l the a bove r e a s ons , w e a f f i r m K l os z e w s ki ’ s c onc ur r e ntf i ve - y e a ra nd tw o -year sen t en ces. AF F I R ME D.