FILED U.S. COURT OF A P P E A LS E LE V EN T HC IR C U IT APRIL27, 2005 THOMAS K. KAH

N CLERK [ 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. 03- 15141 N on -A rgum entC al endar

________________________ D . C. D o c k e tN o . 9 7 - 1 4 0 1 0 - CR- J CP 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 E RN S L E Y T O N Y , a .k .a . E ie n s le y T h o n y , e tc ., 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

_________________________ ( A pr i l 27, 2005) B efo re A N D E R S O N , B IR C H an d D U B IN A , C i rcu i tJu d g es. P E R C U R I A M:2

F o llo w in g r e s e n te n c in g , A p p e lla n t E r n s le y T o n y a p p e a ls h is 2 1 0 - m o n th s e n te n c e s f

o rc o n s p ir a c y to p o s s e s s w ith in te n t to d is tr ib u te c o c a in e b a s e , in v io la tio n o f

2 1 U .S .C . § 8 4 6 ( C o u n t O n e ) , a n d p o s s e s s io n w ith in te n t to d is tr ib u te coca i ne base , i n v i ol at i on of 21 U . S . C . § 8 41 (a )( 1) (C ou ntT hree ). T on y r ai se s three i ss ues on app ea l . F i rs t , T on y a ss er t s thatthe di stri ctcourterre d u nd er B lake l y v . W as hi ngt on , 542 U . S . ___, 124 S . C t . 2531, 159 L . E d. 2d 403 ( 2004) , by en h an ci n g h i s sen t en ces b ased o n fact s n o tal l eg ed i n th e i n d i ctm en tn o r fo u n d b y a j ur y . S e c ond, he a r gue s tha tthe di s tr i c tc our te r r e d by de ny i ng hi s r e que s tf or fund s t o ret ai n a m ent al heal th exp er tpri or t o res ent enci ng beca use he gave proper not i c e a nd he w a s e nt i t l e d t o a ps y c hi a tr i s t ’ s a s s i s t a nc e . T hi r d, he c ont e nds tha tthe di stri ctcourterre d i n app l yi ng the ob struct i on -of- j ust i ce enhancem entun der U . S . S . G . § 3 C 1. 1 b ec ause bo th t he re vi se d p re se nt ence i nv es t i gat i on re po rt ( “R P S I ” ) a n d th e d is tr ic t c o u r t f a ile d to id e n tif

y th e s p e c if

ic p e r ju r e d s ta te m e n ts T o n y m a d e a t tr ia l th a t w e r e m a te r ia l a n d s ig n if ic a n tly o b s tru c te d th e p r o s e c u tio n . A s di s c us s e d f

ur the rhe r e i n, be c a us e w e va c a t e a nd r e m a nd a s t o the f i r s ti s s ue , the s e c o n d a n d th ir d is s u e s a r e m o o t. T ony a r gue s tha tthe di s tr i c tc our te r r e d by s e nt e nc i ng hi m a bove the m a xi m um s e nt e nc e a l l ow e d by l a w ba s e d on f a c t s nota l l e ge d i n the i ndi c tm e ntnor foun d b y aj ury. H e c on t ends that , un der B la ke ly , a j ud ge m ay no ti m po se a gre at er3

puni s hm e nta f

t e rf i ndi ng a ddi t i ona l f

a c t s tha n the m a xi m um s e nt e nc e tha tc oul d be i m pos e d w i thouta ny a ddi t i ona l f i ndi ngs . T ony a s s e r t s tha tthe j ur y di d notde c i de w h e th e rh e o b s tru c te d ju s tic e . H e f u r th e rc o n te n d s th a t, b e c a u s e h is in d ic tm e n t d id nota l l e ge a qua nt i ty of

c r a c k c oc a i ne , a nd the j ur y di d notde t e r m i ne the drug am ou ntor thathe ob struct ed j ust i ce , hi s off ense l evel shou l d h ave been 12, w hi ch w o u ld h a v e y ie ld e d a g u id e lin e r a n g e o f 2 1 to 2 7 m o n th s ’ im p r is o n m e n t. A c c o r d in g to T o n y , h e p r e s e r v e d th e is s u e o f d ru g q u a n tity b y o b

je c tin g d u r in g h is a l l oc ut i on a thi s r e s e nt e nc i ng he a r i ng. H e a r gue s tha tthe e r r one ous a ppl i c a t i on of the gu i del i nes a ff

ec t ed hi s s ub st ant i al ri gh t s bec ause the j ury c ou l d h ave a t tri bu t ed t o h i m l e s s th a n th e t o t a l c r a c k i n v o l v e d b e c a u s e h e h a d two c o d e f e n d a n t s . He cont ends thatthe di stri ctcourtpl ai nl y e rr ed i n app l yi ng the ob struct i on -of- j ust i ce en h an cem en tb ecau se th e co u rt ’ s factu al fi n d i n g s i n v ad ed th e p ro v i n ce o f th e j u ry, w h i ch affected the fairness, i n t eg ri ty, an d p u b l i c rep u t at i o n o f th e p ro ceed i n g s. B e c a us e T ony f

a i l e d t o pr ope r l y pr e s e r ve thi s obj e c t i on, w e r e vi e w onl y f or pl ai n err or. T o sat i sf

y the pl ai n-error s t andard, w e m ustfi nd that(1) the di stri ct c our tc om m i t t e d “ e r r or , ” ( 2) the e r r orw a s pl a i n orobvi ous , a nd ( 3) the e r r or “a f f e c te d s u b s ta n tia l r ig h ts ” in th a t th e e r r o rw a s p r e ju d ic ia l a n d n o t h a r m le s s . U ni t e d Stat e s v . O lano , 507 U . S . 725, 731- 32, 113 S . C t . 1770, 1776, 123 L . E d. 2d 5 0 8 ( 1 9 9 3 ) . I f

th e s e c r ite r ia a r e m e t, w e m a y , in o u rd is c r e tio n , c o r r e c t th e p la in4

error i f i t“ se ri ou sl y a ff

ec t [s ] the fa i rnes s, i nt egri ty, or pu bl i c r eput at i on of j ud i ci al proceedi ng s. ” I

d. a t736, 113 S . C t . a t1779 ( i nt e r na l quot a t i ons a nd c i t a t i on om i t t ed). W h ile th e in s ta n t c a s e w a s p e n d in g o n a p p e a l, th e S u p r e m e C o u r t is s u e d its de c i s i on i n U

ni t ed St at es v. B oo ke r , 543 U . S . ___, 125 S . C t . 738, 160 L . E d. 2d 621 (200 5), fi nd i ng that“ [a ] ny fa ct(other than a pri or conv i ct i on ) w hi ch i s nec es sa ry t o sup po rta s ent ence exce edi ng the m axi m um autho ri ze d b y the fa ct s e st abl i shed b y a p le a o f

g u ilty o ra ju ry v e r d ic t m u s t b e a d m itte d b y th e d e f e n d a n t o rp r o v e d to a j ury bey on d a re as on abl e dou bt . ” I d. a t___, 125 S . C t . a t756. I n U ni t ed St at es v. R odri

gu ez , ___F . 3d ___, N o. 04- 12676 ( 11th C i r . F e b. 4, 2 0 0 5 ), w e rej ect ed a d efen d an t ’ s B oo ke rc l a i m unde rpl a i n- e r r orr e vi e w , hol di ng tha tthe “ e r r or ” i n B oo ke rw as the use of e xt ra -ver di ctenhancem ent s und era m andat ory s ys t em , no tthe use of e xt ra -ver di ctenhancem ent s t o i ncre as e a d e f e n d a n t’s g u id e lin e r a n g e . I d. a t___. W e s t a t e d tha t , t o s a t i s f y the thi r d pr ong of the pl a i n- e r r ort e s t , a de f e nda nt m ustes t abl i sh a r ea sonabl e probabi l i ty thati f the di stri ctcourthad consi dere d t he gu i del i nes r ange i tarri ved atusi ng extra -ver di ct enhancem ent s a s m er el y a dv i sory , i nst ea d o f m andat ory, and h ad t a ke n i nt o a c c ounta ny othe r w i s e unc ons i de r e d [ 18 U . S . C . ] § 3553 f a c t or s , the c our tw oul d ha ve i m pos e d a l e s s e rs e nt e nc e tha n i tdi d. I d.5

I n U ni t e d Stat e s v . She l t on , ___F . 3d ___, N o. 04- 12602 ( 11th C i r . F e b. 25, 20 05 ), w e hel d t hata def endantw ho fa i l s t o o bj ec tt o t he fa ct s i n t he P S I has a dm i t t e d t o the f

a c t s a nd, c ons e que nt l y , the r e i s no S i xth A m e ndm e ntvi ol a t i on un der B oo ke r . She l t on , ___ F . 3d at___. W e a l so hel d t hata B oo ke rerror occurs w hen a di stri ctcourtse nt ence s adefe nd ant“ un der a m andat ory G ui del i nes s chem e, even i n t he abse nce of a Si xt h A m endm entvi ol at i on . ” I d. at___. F urtherm ore, B oo ke r“ m ade pl ai n t he di stri ctcourt ’ s e rr or i n sent enci ng [the defendant ] un der a m andat ory G ui del i nes s chem e thati s now advi sory . ” I d. a t___ . I n a d d i t i o n , we he l d i n She l t on that , w here the di stri ctcourthad i nd i ca t ed thatthe se nt ence w as

“ t oo s e ve r e , ” s e nt e nc e d the de f e nda ntt o the l ow e s tpos s i bl e s e nt e nc e unde rthe G ui de l i ne s , a nd s t a t e d tha tthe s e nt e nc e w a s “ m or e tha n a ppr opr i a t e , ” the de f e nda nt had est abl i shed a r ea sonabl e probabi l i ty thatthe di stri ctcourtw ou l d h ave i m po se d a le s s e rs e n te n c e . I

d. a t _

__ . F u r th e r m o r e , w e h e ld th a t th e f o u r th p r o n g o f

p la in erro r an al ysi s w as sat i sfi ed as w el l , b ecau se th e d i stri ctco u rt“ i n d i cat ed an ex p ress de s i r e t o i m pos e a s e nt e nc e l e s s e rtha n the l ow e nd of the G ui de l i ne s r a nge . . . a nd the S upr e m e C our ti n B oo ke rpl a i nl y i ndi c a t e d tha tthe di s tr i c tc our tnow ha s the di s c r e t i on t o do s o, pr ovi de d the r e s ul t i ng s e nt e nc e i s r e a s ona bl e i n l i ghtof the § 3 55 3(a) fa ct ors. ” I

d. a t___.6

A ft erre vi ew i ng the re cord, w e c on cl ud e thatT on y has show n a B oo ke re r r or f orboth the drug qua nt i ty a nd the obs truc t i on- of - j us t i c e e nha nc e m e ntbe c a us e the di stri ctcourt“ m i sapp l i e[ d] the G ui del i nes by c on si deri ng them bi nd i ng as op po se d t o adv i sory . ” See i d. at___. A dd i t i on al l y, thi s e rr or w as pl ai n u nd er B oo ke r . See i d. B ec ause the di stri ctcourt(1) s t at ed thati tw i shed t o con si der T on y’ s per sonal ba c kgr ound, butw a s pr e ve nt e d f r om doi ng s o by the G ui de l i ne s , ( 2) s t a t e d tha tthe se nt ence w as “ t oo heavy” for the cr i m e T on y had com m i t t ed, and (3) se nt ence d T o n y to th e lo w e s t p o s s ib le s e n te n c e u n d e rth e G u id e lin e s , th e r e is a “r e a s o n a b le prob abi l i ty thatthe di stri ctcourtw ou l d h ave i m po se d a l es se r s ent ence . ” I d. at

___. T he di stri ctcourt ’ s i nd i ca t i on of a des i re t o sent ence T on y t o a l es se r se nt ence and t o con si der hi s per sonal hi st ory a nd char ac t er i st i cs , w hi ch ar e f ac t ors s e t f o r th f o rc o n s id e r a tio n u n d e r§ 3 5 5 3 ( a ) , s a tis f ie s th e f o u r th p r o n g o f

th e p la in e r r o rte s t. I

d. a t___. T he r e f

or e , the di s tr i c tc our tpl a i nl y e r r e d i n s e nt e nc i ng T ony u n d e ra m a n d a to r y G u id e lin e s s c h e m e , a n d th is e r r o ra f f e c te d h is s u b s ta n tia l r ig h ts a s w e ll a s th e f

a ir n e s s , in te g r ity o rp u b lic r e p u ta tio n o f th e ju d ic ia l p r o c e e d in g s in hi s c as e. F o r th e fo reg o i n g reaso n s, w e v acat e T o n y’ s sen t en ces an d rem an d th i s case f orr e s e nt e nc i ng. V AC AT E D A ND RE MAND E D.7