### FI LED U.S. COURT O F APP EALS ELEVENTH CIRCUIT S eptember2, 20 04 THO MAS K. KAH N CL ERK

Honora ble Clay D. L and, United States District Judge f or the Middle District of * Geor g ia, sitting by

desig nation. [PUBLIS H] IN THE UN ITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FO R T HE EL EV EN TH CIRC UI T

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ N o. 03- 1311 7

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ D. C. Docket N o. 02-00154 CR-2- N- 1 UNITED STAT ES OF AMERIC A, Plaintiff-Appellee, ve rs us ERIC ORLANDO REESE, D ef en dant- Appe llant.

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ Appeal f rom the United State s District Court f o r th e M i d d l e D i s tr i c to f

A l ab a ma

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ _ (S ep te m be r 2, 200 4) Before AN DE RSO N and BIRCH , C ircuit Judg es, and LA ND , D istrict Judg e. * AN DE RSO N, Circuit Judge: E ri c O rl an do R ee se appe al s hi s c onvi ct ionand s en te nc e im pose d f or be ing a2

felon in pos session of a f irear m , in violation o f 18 U. S. C. § 922 (g)(1). Aj ury convicted Reese of this offense on De cem ber 16, 2002. A t sentencing, the district court im posed a four-level enhancem ent pursuant to US SG § 2K2.1(b)( 5), poss es sin g af

ir earm in co nne ct ionw ithanothe r fe lon y , be ca use of fi ce rs f ound 28. 40 g ram s of

c oc ai ne ba se , 1. 75 g ram s of m ar ij uana , and a

dig ita l sc al e in the glo ve c om

partm en t of

the auto m obi le in w hic h th e fi re ar m w as loc at ed . T he di st ric t co ur t al so im

po se d atwo -le ve l en ha nc em en t p ur su an t t o USS G § 2K2.1(b)( 4) because the fir earm wa s stolen. Reese tim ely appealed. He challenges on a ppe al : 1) the suf

fi ci en cy of the e vid en ce to supp ort hi s un de rl y ing c onvi ct ion ; an d 2) the f

ac t tha t the f

ac tua l f ind ing sup portin g hi s f

our -l ev el e nhanc em en t im pose d purs uant t o 2K2. 1( b) (5 ) w as m ad e by the dis tr ic t c ourt i nst ea d of by the ju ry. A ft er

or al arg um en t and c ar ef

ul c onsi de ratio n, w e re

j ec t w ith out

ne ed f or furthe r dis cu ssi on R ee se ’ s c ha lle nge to the suf fi ci en cy of the e vid en ce sup portin g his und er ly ing c onvi ct ionf or be ing af el on i n po sse ssi on o f a fi re ar m in vio la tio n of 18 U. S. C. § 922 (g)(1). Reese’ s rem aining argum ent in his in itial brief is that the district court inv ad ed the pr ovi nc e of

the j ur y by f ind ing that the f

ir earm w as pos se sse d in co nne ct ionw ithanothe r fe lon y of fe nse . R ee se suf

fi ci en tly and t im el y

r ai se d th isIn h is i nit ia l br ie f, Re e se ma de the Ap pr e nd i- ty pe argume nt o nly

wi th r e sp e c t to 1 the § 2K2.1(b) (5) e nhance ment (four levels bec ause the firea

rm was possesse d in connec tion with another f

elony ). He did not raise this issue with respec t to the stolen firea rm enha nceme nt 3 constitu tional ob

j ection based upo n Apprendi v. N ewJersey , 530 U. S. 466, 120 S. Ct . 234 8 ( 2000 ), in the dis tr ic t c ourt. S ee Unit ed S ta te s v. Cande lari o, 240 F . 3d 1300 , 1304 (11th Cir. 2001). B ecause Re ese m ade a tim ely constitu tional ob jecti on , he i s en ti tl edto th e b en efi t o f pr es erv ederro r rev ie w. See id . A ft er the ini tia l br ie fi ng i n th is c as e, the S upr em e Co urt de ci de d B lake ly v. W as hin gto n, ___

U . S. ___ , 124 S . Ct . 253 1 ( June 24, 200 4) . I n B lake ly , the Su pr em e Co urt a

ppl ie d th e ru le se t ou t i n Appr en di, and h el d th at the im posi tio n – ba se d so le ly

on the se nte nc ing j udge ' s f ac tua l f ind ing s – o f a se nte nc ing enhanc em en t a

bove the 53 m onth st an dard r an ge ind ic at ed

in the S ta te of W as hin gto n' s S en te nc ing Re fo rm A ct vio la te d B lake ly ' s S ixth A m en dm en t r igh ts be ca use the f ac ts s uppo rt ing the f

ind ing s w er e ne ith er

a dm itt ed by Bl ak el y nor found bya j ury

bey ond a reasonable doub t. B ecause Re ese ra ised in his initial br ie f a sim ilar ch al le nge to that r ai se d by Bl ak el y – nam el y that the f ac tua l f ind ing supp ortin g th e enhanc em en t sh oul d have be enm ad e by the j ur y be y ond a reasonable doubt in stead of by the sentencing judge – we ordered supplem ental briefing with respect to the im pact of Blakely

on the Federal S entencing Guidelines (" G uid el ine s" ) as appl ie d inthi s c as e. B ec au se Re es e pr es er ve d th is arg um en t 1imp os e d p ur su ant t o § 2K2. 1( b) (4 ). Re e se did no t c ha lle ng e the § 2 K2 .1 (b )( 4) e nh anc e me nt i n any wa y in h is i nit ia l br ie f, a

fa c t th at he c on c e de s in

his su pp le me nta l br ie f, statin gtha t th is e nh an c e m e n tw a s n o t“ s p e c i f i c a l l y r e f e r e n c e d o r c h a l l e n g e d

b y c o un s e l o na

p p e a l . ” A c c o r d i n g l y, Reese is not entitled to have this court enter tain any argument with respec t to the § 2K2.1(b)( 4) enhanc ement. See United States v. Nea ly , 232 F.3d 825, 830 ( 11th Cir. 2000) (" Def endant abandone d the [Apprendi] indi ctment issue by not raisingthe issue in his init ial brief." ); United States v. Ford, 270 F .3d 1346, 1347 (11th Cir. 2001) (" [O] ur we ll established rule is that issues and c onte nti on s n ot t ime ly

ra ise d in the br ie fs are de e me d a

ba nd on e d. " ); Un ite d St ate s v . Curt is,

__ _ F .3 d _

__ , 2 00 4 WL

17 74 78 5 ( 11 th C ir . Aug . 1 0, 20 04 ) ( or de r d e c lin ingto p e rm it a supplemental brief

raisinga B lakely

issue for the f

irst time, following Ne aly and F ord). 4 be low , w e m

ust de te rm ine the im

pa ct of the S upr em e Co urt' s op ini on i n B lake ly on th e Gui de li ne s. T he m ost sig nif ic an t a spe ct

of Bl ak el y w as the S upr em e Co urt' s c hange w ith re spe ct to the und er ly ing a ssum

pti on o f w ha t c onst itu te s th e re le vant m ax im um f or Appr en di p ur

pose s. T he Co urt i n B lake ly loo ke d to the standard

r an ge f or se co nd de gr ee kidna

pin g a s st at ed

in the W as hin gto n S en te nc ing G uid el ine s, 53 m onths, ins te ad of the 10 y ears auth or iz ed

und er anothe r W as hin gto n st at ute f or c la ss B felonies. B lakely , 124 S. Ct. at 2537. A s noted bythe Fifth Circ uit in United St at es v. P ine ir o, 377 F . 3d 4 64 ( 5thCi r. Jul y 12, 200 4) , the c onst itu tio na l f at e of the G uid el ine s a ft er

Bl ak el y de pe nds uponw he the r the y are vie w ed : 1) li ke the W as hin gto n st at

ute a s de fi nin g di ff

er en t of fe nse s w ithdif

fe re nt m ax im

um sentences, such that a Guidelin e sentencing range unenhanced byj udicial fact fi ndi ng s et s a"m ax im

um se nte nc e" f

or pur pose s of Appr en di; or

2) a s atoo l f

or ch anne lin g th e se nte nc ing c ourt' s di sc re tio n w ith in a spe ci fi c cr im e' s m ini m

um and5

m ax im um se nte nc e pr ovi de d inthe U nit ed S ta te s C ode , w iththat m ax im um be ing the onl y c onst itutio na lly

r el ev an t " m ax im

um se nte nc e. " P ine ir o, 377 F . 3d at 47 0. A ft er c an va ssi ng the r el ev an t S upr em e Co urt pr ec ed en t – inc lud ing Mi str etta v. U nited States, 488 U. S. 361, 396, 109 S. Ct. 647, 667 (198 9); Edw ards v. United States, 523 U.S . 511, 513-15, 118 S. Ct. 1475 , 1477-78 (1998 ), as w ell as U nited St at es v. Co tto n, 535 U . S. 625 , 633 n. 3, 122 S . Ct . 178 1, 178 6 n. 3 ( 2002 ); W itt e v. United States, 515 U.S . 389, 399, 115 S. Ct. 2199 , 2206 (1995); and United States v. W atts, 519 U . S. 148 , 156 -5 7, 117 S . Ct . 633 , 637 -3 8 ( 1997 ) – and e xpr es sin g doub t tha t the G uid el ine s w er e int en de d to c re at e hundre ds o f dif fe re nt “ Appr en di” of fe nse s c or

re spon din g to the m

yri ad pe rm utatio ns unde r the G uid el ine f ac tor s, the Fifth Circuit concluded that Suprem e Court prec edent prior to Blakely suppo rted the vie wthat the G uid el ine s w er e a too l f or c hanne lin g se nte nc ing dis cr et ionand that B lake ly

did not c om pe l de part

ur e fr om the lon g- em

br ac ed dis tin ct iondr awn in the pr ec ed en t be tw ee n th e G uid el ine r an ge s and the m ax im a es ta bli she d inthe United States C ode for the various offenses. Pineiro, 377 F.3d at 470-73. The very re ce nt e n banc de ci sio n of the S ixth C ir cu it not es a ddi tio na l and p er sua siv e re as ons supp orting th e view that Blakely does not g ive license to lower c ourts to d epart fr om thi s pr ev iou s S upr em e Co urt pr ec ed en t. U nit ed S ta te s v. K oc h, ___

F . 3d _ __, 2004 W L 1899930 (6th Cir. Aug. 26, 2004).6

W e agre e w ith the Fifth Circuit in Pineiro and the Sixth Circuit in Koch that Bl ak el y doe s no t c om

pe l a de part ur e fr om pr ev iou s S upr em e Co urt pr ec ed en t and the pr ec ed en t of

our ow n c ir cu it cu lm inatin g inU nit ed S ta te s v. S an ch ez , 269 F . 3d 1250 ( 11th C ir . 200 1) . W e ad d to the dis cu ssi on a lr ea dy e xtant i n th e opi nio ns o f th e Fi fth an d S ix th Cir cu it s o nl y th e fo ll owi ng co m

m en ts ab ou t Ed ward s. As we discuss ed in United States v. Duncan, ___ F.3d ___, 2004 W L 1838020 (11th Cir. Aug. 18, 2004), the petitioners/defendants in Edw ards challenged the district co urt' s f ind ing a t the ir

se nte nc ing he ar ing that the dr ug c onsp ir ac y

inv olv ed both cocaine and

c ra ck ; the y

c ha lle nge d th e j udge ’ s auth or ity to so f ind , be ca use the j ur y ha d r et ur ne d on ly age ne ra l ve rd ic t, and the dis tr ic t c ourt ha d in str uc te d th e j ury that the governm ent needed to prove the consp iracy invol ved cocaine or

crac k. E dw ar ds, 523 U . S. a t 51 3, 118 S . Ct . a t 14 76- 77. T he S upr em e Co urt qu ic kly dis m iss ed the arg um en t tha t the dis tr ic t c ourt w as not auth or iz ed

to m ak e thi s de te rm inatio n un de r the G uid el ine s. I d. a t 51 3- 14, 118 S . Ct . a t 14 77. T he Su pr em e Co urt the n di sm iss ed the pe tit ion er s' c la im s un de r the statut e an d th e Co nst itu tio n, inc lud ing aS ixth A m en dm en t c ha lle nge . S ee id. a t 51 4- 15, 118 S . Ct . at 147 7- 78; Br ie f fo r Pe tit ion er s a t 30 -3 9, E dw ar ds v . U nit ed S ta te s, 523 U . S. 511 , 1 1 8 S . C t . 1 4 7 5 ( 1 9 9 8 ) ( N o . 9 6 - 8 7 3 2 ) . A s p arto f th a td i s c u s s i o nth e S up r e me Co urt st at ed :7

O f co ur se , pe tit ion er s' statut or y and c onst itu tio na l c la im s w oul d m ake a diff

erence if it w ere poss ible to argue, say , that the se nte nc es im

pose d e xc ee de d th e m ax im um that the statut es pe rm it f o r ac o c a i n e - o n l y c o n s p i r a c y. T h a ti s b e c au s e ama x i mu m sentence set by

statute trum

ps a higher sentence set forth in the Gui de li ne s. USSG § 5G1 .1. Bu t, as th e Gov ern m en t p oi nt s o ut , the se nte nc es im

pose d he re w er e w ith in the statut or y li m its appl ic ab le to a c oc ai ne -o nly

c onsp ir ac y , giv enthe quanti tie s of that dr ug at tri bu te d t o e ach pe ti ti on er. Edwar ds , 52 3 U.S. at51 5, 1 18 S. Ct. at 14 77 -7 8. It is cl ear fr om

the a bove langua ge that the S upr em e Co urt i n E dw ar ds vie w ed the m ax im

um li ste d inthe U nit ed

S ta te s C ode a s th e re le vant m ax im um f or Si xthA m en dm en t purp ose s in ste ad of the r an ge li ste d inthe F ed er al S en te nc ing G uid el ine s. N ot o nly

is the langua ge of

the opi nio n it se lf

c le ar , it is al so tru e that i f the S upr em e Co urt ha d be enf oc usi ng o n th e G uid el ine s to pr ovi de the r el ev an t m ax im um , som e of

the E dw ar ds p et iti one rs ' se nte nc es ( inv olv ing c oc ai ne and cr ac k) w oul d have e xc ee de d th e range und er the G uid el ine s f

or ac oc ai ne -o nly co nspi ra cy . S ee Br ie f fo r Pe tit ion er s a t 4; E dw ar ds v . U nit ed S ta te s, 523 U . S. 511 , 118 S. Ct. 1475 (1998) (No. 96-8732 ) (listing for eac h petitio ner the district j udge's finding s with respect to drug ty pe and quantit y , the base offense level, the total of fe nse le ve l, the G uid el ine s r an ge , and the se nte nc e im pose d) ; B ri ef

f or the U nit ed S ta te s a t 5- 6, E dw ar ds v . U nit ed S ta te s, 523 U . S. 511 , 118 S . Ct . 147 5 (1 998) ( N o. 96- 8732 ) (l ist ing f or e ac h pe tit ion er

the dis tr ic t j udge ' s f

ind ing s w ith8

re spe ct to dr ug ty pe and quanti ty ); U nit ed

S ta te s S en te nc ing Co m

m iss ion , Gui de li ne s M an ua l, § 2D1 .1(c ) (No v. 1 99 4) . W e ar e aw are that Edw ards wa s decided prior to Apprendi; however, that d e c i s i o n s e e ms t o ap p r o v e E dw ar d s , n o tqu e s t i o ni t . I nAp p r e n d i th e S up r e me Court indicated in a footno te that the Guidelines we re not before the C ourt and that Apprendi therefor e expressed no view on the Guidelines other than what the Court ha d a lr ea dy

he ld. T he S upr em e Co urt the n c ite d E dw ar ds and i nc lud ed a pare nth et ic al quo tin g th e fo llo w ing langua ge f ro m E dw ar ds: O f co ur se , pe tit ion er s' statut or y and c onst itu tio na l c la im s w oul d m ake a diff

erence if it w ere poss ible to argue, say , that the se nte nc es im

pose d e xc ee de d th e m ax im um that the statut es pe rm it f o r ac o c a i n e - o n l y c o n s p i r a c y. T h a ti s b e c au s e ama x i mu m sentence set by

statute trum

ps a higher sentence set forth in the G uid el ine s. Appr en di, 530 U . S. a t 49 7 n. 21, 120 S . Ct . a t 23 66 n . 21. Although it is true that there w as no argum ent in Edwards to the effec t that the m ax im a se t ou t i n th e vari ous G uid el ine s pr ovi sio ns c onst itu te d th e re le vant m ax im um f or S ixth A m en dm en t purp ose s, ne ve rthe le ss, the S upr em e Co urt di d rej ect a S ixth Am endm ent challenge to the judicial fa ct finding th ere with respect to a sentence below the statutory m axim um set out in th e U nited States Code. In lig ht o f E dw ar ds and o ur

ow n pr ec ed en t i n S an ch ez , the a ddi tio na l c as es andThe Supreme Court has schedule d oral a rgument on this iss ue for

October 4, 2 2004. See United States v. B ooker, ___ S. Ct. ___, 2004 WL1713654 (U.S. Aug . 2, 2004); United States v. Fa

nfan, ___ S. Ct. ___, 2004 WL1713655 (U.S. Aug . 2, 2004). 9 reasoning dis cussed by

the Fifth Circ uit in Pineiro and th e Sixth Circuit in Koch, as w el l a s th e Su

pr em e Co urt' s e xpr es s avoi danc e of thi s is sue w ithr es pe ct

to the G uid el ine s inthe Bl ak el y opi nio n it se lf

, w e de cl ine to co nc lud e that B lake ly co m pe ls an a lte ratio n of

the e sta bli she d vi ewof

the G uid el ine s a s atoo l f or ch anne lin g th e se nte nc ing c ourt' s di sc re tio n w ith in a c ri m e' s m ini m

um and m ax im um se nte nc e pr ovi de d inthe U nit ed S ta te s C ode , w iththat m ax im um be ing the onlyconstitu tionallyrelevant m axim um sentence. T herefor e, the district court di d n ot err i n i m

po si ng th e fo ur -le ve l en ha nc em en t p ur su an t t o USS G § 2K2. 1( b) (5 ). W e hol d th at dis tr ic t c ourts s houl d c ont inu e to s en te nc e pur suant t o the G uid el ine s un til suc h ti m e as the S upr em e Co urt r ule s onthi s is sue . I n so 2 hol din g, w e j ointhe S ec ond, F ourth, F if th, and S ixth C ir cu its . S ee U nit ed S ta te s v. Mi nc ey , ___

F . 3d _ __, 200 4 W L 179 4717 ( 2d C ir . Aug. 12, 200 4) ; U nit ed S ta te s v. H am m oud, 378 F . 3d 4 26 ( 4thCi r. Aug. 2, 200 4) ; P ine ir o, 377 F . 3d 4 64; K oc h, ___ F.3 d _

__ , 20 04 W L 18 99 93 0. W e ac know le dge that tw o c ir cu its have he ld tha t B lake ly doe s a ppl y to the G uid el ine s, and tha t i t i s ve ry dif fi cu lt to p re dic t whe the r the S upr em e Co urt w ill ap ply Bl ak el y to the G uid el ine s, and, if it doe s, w he the r it w ill hol d th at the10

Gui de li ne s fa ll in th ei r en ti ret y or o nl y in pa rt. In li gh t o f th is in st ab il it y , we re co gni ze that di str ic t c ourts m igh t de em it w ise and a

ppr opr ia te to take pr ote ct ive st ep s i n c as e th e Gui de li ne s ar e la te r fo un d u nc on st it ut io na l i n wh ol e o r in pa rt. How ever, we are reluctant to provide specific advice w ith respect to what protective steps, if any , m ight b e appropriate to reduce confusion and protect against dup licative j udicial efforts shouldthe Suprem e Court so rule. W e re alize th atsu ch ap pr op ria te an d fe as ib le st ep s m ig ht va ry wit h e ach in di vi du al cas e. For the fore goin g reasons, Re ese’ s convictio n and sentence are AFFIR MED.