### F I LE D U. S . COURT OF AP PE ALS E LEVE NTH CI RCUI T M ay 24, 2005 T HOM AS K. KAHN C L E RK

Honora ble J . Owen F orre ster, United States District Judge f or the Nor

thern District of * Georg ia, sitting by

designation. [ 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- 13493

________________________ D . C . D o c k e tN o . 0 3 - 0 0 2 0 7 - C R - 0 0 2 - WS 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 J U L I E C H A R L E N E D A N I E L , 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 o rth e So u th e r n D i s tr i c to f A l a b a ma

_________________________ ( M ay 24, 2005) B ef ore C A R N E S and P R Y O R , C i rc ui tJudg es , and F O R R E S T E R , D i stri ctJudg e. * P E R C U R I A M:2

I n D e c e m be r2003, J ul i e C ha r l e ne D a ni e l pl e a de d gui l ty t o one c ountof c ons pi r a c y t o pos s e s s w i th i nt e ntt o di s tr i but e m or e tha n f i f ty gr a m s of m e tha m phe t a m i ne , i n vi ol a t i on of 21 U . S . C . §§ 846( a ) ( 1) , 846, a nd one c ountof po ss es si on w i th i nt entt o d i stri bu t e app roxi m at el y one ou nce of m etham ph et am i ne, in v io la tio n o f

2 1 U .S .C . § 8 4 6 ( a ) ( 1 ) . T h e d is tr ic t c o u r t s e n te n c e d D a n ie l to s e v e n ty m o n th s im p r is o n m e n t a n d f o u ry e a r s o f

s u p e r v is e d r e le a s e . D a n ie l a p p e a ls he rs e nt e nc e on tw o gr ounds . S he f i r s ta s s e r t s tha tthe di s tr i c tc our te r r e d by de ny i ng he rm ot i on t o c om pe l the gove r nm e ntt o f i l e a U . S . S . G . § 5K 1. 1 m ot i on f ora dow nw a r d de pa r tur e due t o he rs ubs t a nt i a l a s s i s t a nc e . A l s o, c i t i ng B l a ke l y v. W as hi ng t on , 54 2 U . S . __ _, 12 4 S . C t . 25 31 (200 4), and U ni t ed S t at es v. B oo ker, 54 3 U . S . __ _, 12 5 S . C t . 73 8 (20 05 ), D ani el cont ends thatthe di stri ctcourter re d by e nha nc i ng he rs e nt e nc e ba s e d on f a c t s tha tw e r e ne i the rf

ound by a j ur y nor adm i t t ed by her usi ng m andat ory gui del i nes. B ec ause the er ror of the di stri ctcourt unde rB ooke rw a s notha r m l e s s , w e va c a t e D a ni e l ’ s s e nt e nc e a nd r e m a nd t o the di s tr i c tc our tf

orr e s e nt e nc i ng. I . B AC KG RO UN D W i thoutthe be ne f

i tof a pl e a a gr e e m e nt , D a ni e l pl e a de d gui l ty t o both drug coun t s a gai nsther. D uri ng the pl ea col l oq uy, D ani el i nd i ca t ed thatshe had chosen nott o e nt e rthe pl e a a gr e e m e ntpr opos e d by the gove r nm e ntbe c a us e s he di d notDuringthe sentenc ing he aring , Daniel c hang ed her position som ewhat. She stated that 1 her only objection to the drug s discussed in the PSRwas to the purity of the drug s, not the quantity . Acc ordingto Daniel, “the re is no objec tion beforethe Court as to the finding s of the Probation Offic e as to the qua ntity .” 3 w a n t to w a iv e h e rr ig h t to a p p e a l th e d ru g q u a n tity f o u n d b y th e d is tr ic t c o u r t. D ani el di d, ho w ever , si gn and fi l e i n o pen cou rta docum entent i t l ed “ F ac tual R e s um e ” i n w hi c h s he “ a gr e e [ d] a nd s t i pul a t e [ d] tha tthe G ove r nm e ntc a n pr ove [ th e ] f a c ts [ c o n ta in e d in th e f

a c tu a l r e s u m e ] b e y o n d a r e a s o n a b le d o u b t.” T h e b u lk of tha tdoc um e ntr e c ount s D a ni e l ’ s i nvol ve m e nti n a drug c ons pi r a c y i nvol vi ng s e v e r a l o th e rp e o p le in c lu d in g h e rb r o th e r . I t e n d s w ith th e f o llo w in g s ta te m e n t: T he pa r t i e s a gr e e tha tthe C our tw i l l de t e r m i ne the drug a m ountf or w hi ch the defendanti s r es po nsi bl e a tthe se nt enci ng hear i ng and t hat the G ove r nm e ntc a n pr ove [ a ] drug a m ountbe y ond a r e a s ona bl e doubt of gr e a t e rtha n 50 gr a m s of m e tha m phe t a m i ne . T he G ove r nm e nt c o n t e n d s th a tth e d e f

e n d a n ti s a c c o u n t a b l e f

o rf r o m 1 . 5 t o 5 k i l o g r a ms o f m e th a m p h e ta m in e a s r e le v a n t c o n d u c t. D ur i ng the pl e a c ol l oquy , D a ni e l s t a t e d tha ts he a gr e e d w i th the i nf or m a t i on cont ai ned i n t he fa ctual re sum e, w i th t w o except i on s: (1) the drug qu ant i t i es m e n tio n e d to th e e x te n t th e y e x c e e d th e m in im u m s ta tu to r y a m o u n ts r e f e r r e d to in the i ndi c t m e nta nd ( 2) the pur i ty of the m e tha m phe t a m i ne t o the e xt e nttha tthe fa ctual re sum e hel d h erre spon si bl e f or “ i ce ” m etham ph et am i ne, a m ore pure vers i on of m etham ph et am i ne. A l so du ri ng the pl ea col l oq uy, D ani el 1 a c k n o w le d g e d th a t th e p r o v is io n in th e f a c tu a l r e s u m e w h e r e th e p a r tie s a g r e e d to4

ha ve the di s tr i c tc our tde t e r m i ne the drug qua nt i ty a c t e d a s a w a i ve rof a ny “A p p r e n d i a r g u m e n t w ith r e g a r d to th e d ru g a m o u n t.” D u r i n g D a n i e l ’ s s e n t e n c i n g h e a r i n g , w h i c h t o o k p l a c e b e f o r e th e Su p r e me C o u r t h a n d e d d o w n its d e c is io n in B o o k e r , s h e a r g u e d th a t B la k e ly e f f e c tiv e ly in v a lid a te d th e f

e d e r a l s e n te n c in g g u id e lin e s . T h o u g h r e c o g n iz in g th a t B la k e ly ha d c a s tdoubton the c ont i nui ng vi a bi l i ty of the f e de r a l s e nt e nc i ng gui de l i ne s , the di s tr i c tc our tnone the l e s s r e j e c t e d D a ni e l ’ s a r gum e nta nd c hos e t o a ppl y the gui de l i ne s a s w r i t t e n. A tth e cl o se o f th e sen t en ci n g h eari n g , th e d i stri ctco u rtfo u n d b y a pr e ponde r a nc e of

the e vi de nc e tha tD a ni e l w a s r e s pons i bl e f or221. 13 gr a m s of m e tha m phe t a m i ne , 2. 5 gr a m s of e c s t a s y , a nd 31 gr a m s of “ i c e . ” W i th a m a r i

j ua na eq u i v al en cy o f 1 , 0 6 3 . 2 5 k i l o g ram s, th e d i stri ctco u rtd et erm i n ed th atD an i el ’ s b ase offe nse l evel w as 32 . S ee U . S . S . C . § 2 D 1. 1(c) (4). A ft erappl yi ng a tw o-l evel de c r e a s e unde rthe gui de l i ne s s a f e ty - va l ve pr ovi s i on a nd a thr e e - l e ve l de c r e a s e f or ac ce p tan ce o f r es p o n sib il ity p u rs u an t t o U .S .S .G . § 3 E 1 .1 , th e c o u rt se t D an iel’ s adj ust ed offens e l evel at27 . W i th an o ff ense l evel of 27 and cri m i nal hi st ory c a t e gor y of

I , the gui de l i ne s pr oduc e d a s e nt e nc i ng r a nge of 70 t o 87 m onths im p r is o n m e n t. T h e d is tr ic t c o u r t s e n te n c e d D a n ie l to 7 0 m o n th s .Ev e n if wea c c epte d D anie l’ s c onte nti on that th e rewa s a

ve rb a l a c c ord, wea gre e wi th 2 the g overnme nt’s argument that it, like mostagree ments, would have ve sted the final de cision of whether to file a substantial assistancemotion in the g overnme nt’s sole discre tion. 5 I I . DI S CUS S I ON D ani el m akes tw o argum ent s on app ea l . S he fi rs tcont ends thatthe di stri ct c o u r t e r r e d w h e n it d e n ie d h e rm o tio n to c o m p e l th e g o v e r n m e n t to f ile a § 5 K 1 .1 m ot i on for a departure bas ed on her s ub st ant i al as si st ance . D ani el nextar gu es that th e d is tr ic t c o u r t e r r e d u n d e rB o o k e rw h e n it e n h a n c e d h e rs e n te n c e b a s e d o n f a c ts th a t w e r e n e ith e rf

o u n d b y a ju r y n o ra d m itte d b y h e ru s in g m a n d a to r y g u id e lin e s . W e d is c u s s e a c h a r g u m e n t in tu r n . A . Mot i on t o C om

pel D a ni e l c onc e de s tha ts he ne ve re nt e r e d i nt o a f or m a l w r i t t e n a gr e e m e nt un der w hi ch the go vernm entw ou l d fi l e a § 5 K 1. 1 m ot i on i f s he prov i ded s u b s ta n tia l a s s is ta n c e . N o n e th e le s s , s h e a r g u e s th a t in s e v e r a l c o n v e r s a tio n s w ith l a w e nf or c e m e ntpe r s onne l s he w a s pr om i s e d tha t , i f s he c oope r a t e d, the go vernm entw ou l d rec om m end a se nt ence bel ow the gu i del i nes r ange. 2 D ani el ar gu es thatthe as si st ance she provi ded t o t he go vernm entw as s ubs t a nt i a l a nd tha tthe gove r nm e ntbr e a c he d i t s a gr e e m e ntw i th he rby notf i l i ng a § 5K 1. 1 m ot i on. T he c oope r a t i on tha tD a ni e l a s s e r t s s he pr ovi de d i nc l ude s : ( 1) t e s t i f y i ng abouthe rbr othe r ’ s drug a c t i vi t i e s ; ( 2) pr ovi di ng i nf or m a t i on t o theHer testimony

ag ainst Marsh and Palmer was unne cessa

ry beca use they both pleaded 3 gu i l ty. The district cour t conjectured that the g overnme nt probably would have f

iled a 4 substantial assistance motion had Da niel not been c aught using illeg al drug s after beingput on conditional rele ase pending theresolution of this case . I f that we re themotive, it is not an unconstitutional one. 6 go vernm entabou ta A nn a M ar sh, a drug d ea l er , and con du ct i ng tw o con trol l ed bu ys w i th M ar sh; (3) pre pari ng t o t es t i fy agai nstM ar sh and R ya n P al m er , anot her drug deal er . 3 A s w e s t at ed i n U ni t ed S t at es v. N ea l y, 23 2 F . 3d 82 5 (11 th C i r. 20 00 ): U nd er18 U . S . C . § 3 55 3(e) and U . S . S . G . § 5 K 1. 1, the go vernm enthas “a p o w e r , n o t a d u ty , to f ile a m o tio n w h e n a d e f e n d a n t h a s s u b s ta n tia lly a s s i s t e d. ” W a de v. U ni t e d S t a t e s , 504 U . S . 181, 112 S . C t . 1840, 1843 (199 2). In W ade, the S up re m e C ou rtl i m i t ed the fr ee exer ci se of thatpo w er o n ly to th e e x te n t th a t th e g o v e r n m e n t c a n n o t e x e r c is e th a t p o w e r , o rf a il to exer ci se thatpo w er , for a n u ncon st i tut i on al m ot i ve. Id. at83 1. T hatm ea ns that“ j ud i ci al re vi ew i s app ropri at e w hen t here i s a n al l egat i on and a subst ant i al show i ng thatthe prosecut i on re fuse d t o fi l e a s u b s ta n tia l a s s is ta n c e m o tio n b e c a u s e o f a c o n s titu tio n a lly im p e r m is s ib le m ot i va t i on, s uc h a s r a c e orr e l i gi on. ” U ni t e d S t a t e s v. F or ne y , 9 F . 3d 1492, 15 02 –0 3 (11 th C i r. 19 93 ) ( em ph as i s om i t t ed). D ani el di d n otal l ege there w as an unc ons t i tut i ona l m ot i ve be hi nd the gove r nm e nt ’ s r e f us a l t o f i l e a § 5K 1. 1 m ot i on. 4 A s a r e s ul t , the di s tr i c tc our tc om m i t t e d no e r r ori n r e f us i ng t o c om pe l the gove r nm e ntt o f

i l e a § 5K 1. 1 s ubs t a nt i a l a s s i s t a nc e m ot i on.7 B . B ooke rE r r or U nd erB oo ker, there ar e tw o k i nd s of s ent enci ng er rors : on e i s c on st i tut i on al and t he ot her i s s t atut ory. “ [T ] he S i xt h A m endm entri gh tt o t ri al by j ury i s vi ol at ed w here un der a m andat ory gui del i nes s ys t em a s ent ence i s i ncre as ed because of an e nha nc e m e ntba s e d on f a c t s f ound by the j udge tha tw e r 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 odr i gue z , 398 F . 3d 1291, 1297 ( 11th C i r . 2005) . I n a ddi t i on, “ [ a ] s a r e s ul tof B ooke r ’ s r e m e di a l hol di ng, B ooke re r r ore xi s t s w he n the di s tr i c tc our tm i s a ppl i e s the G ui de l i ne s by c ons i de r i ng the m a s bi ndi ng a s oppos e d t o a dvi s or y . ” U ni t e d S t a t e s v. S he l t on, 40 0 F . 3d 13 25 , 13 30 -31 (11 th C i r. 20 05 ). D ani el cont ends thatthe di stri ctcourt com m i t t ed bo th con st i tut i on al and st atut ory e rr or. A l tho ug h an argum entca n b e m ade the D ani el w ai ved h erri gh tt o app ea l a n y c o n s titu tio n a l e r r o r , w e n e e d n o t a d d r e s s th a t is s u e . I t is c le a rth a t D a n ie l d id no tw ai ve her r i gh tt o app ea l the B oo ker s t atut ory e rr or. B y s ent enci ng D ani el unde ra m a nda t or y gui de l i ne s s c he m e , the di s tr i c tc our tc om m i t t e d s t a tut or y e r r or u n d e rB o o k e r . S e e id . B ecau se D an i el p reserv ed h er B o o k er o b j ect i o n , w e rev i ew fo r h arm l ess e r r o r . S e e U n ite d S ta te s v . M a th e n ia , ___ F .3 d ___ , N o . 0 4 - 1 5 2 5 0 , s lip a t * 5 ( 1 1 th C ir . M a y ___ , 2 0 0 5 ) . A s w e s ta te d in M a th e n ia :8

A n o n - c o n s titu tio n a l e r r o ris h a r m le s s if , v ie w in g th e p r o c e e d in g s in the i re nt i r e ty , a c our tde t e r m i ne s tha tthe e r r ordi d nota f f e c tthe s e n te n c e , o rh a d b u t v e r y s lig h t e f f e c t. I f o n e c a n s a y w ith f

a ir as sura nce thatthe se nt ence w as no tsubst ant i al l y s w ay ed by the er ror, th e s e n te n c e is d u e to b e a f f ir m e d e v e n th o u g h th e r e w a s e r r o r . Id. at*5 -6 (m ar ks and ci t at i on s om i t t ed). T he go vernm entfa i l ed t o m ee ti t s burden o f sh o w i n g th atth e B o o k er st atu t o ry erro r w as h arm l ess. T he di stri ctcourtdi d n otsa y thati tw ou l d h ave gi ven t he sa m e s ent ence re gardl es s of w hether the gu i del i nes w er e m andat ory or a dv i sory . T he di stri ct c our t , i ns t e a d, s t a t e d tha t“ the s e nt e nc e i m pos e d a ddr e s s e s the s e r i ous ne s s of the of f e ns e a nd the s e nt e nc i ng obj e c t i ve s of puni s hm e nt , de t e r r e nc e , a nd i nc a pa c i t a t i on. ” T ha ts t a t e m e ntdoe s l i t t l e t o i nf or m ourj udgm e nta boutw ha tthe di stri ctcourtw ou l d h ave don e had i ttre at ed the gu i del i nes a s a dv i sory ra ther than m andat ory. T he di stri ctcourtm ay very w el l have foun d t hata l ow erse nt ence w o u ld a ls o a d d r e s s th e s a m e c o n c e r n s . T he c om m e ntof

the di s tr i c tc our ttha t“ i f the gui de l i ne s a r e de t e r m i ne d t o be unc ons t i tut i ona l , w e ’ l l pr oba bl y be ba c k he r e f ora r e s e nt e nc i ng i n s om e f or m or fash i o n , o r th ere w i l l b e so m e p o t en t i al ad j u st m en tth atw i l l n eed t o b e m ad e as a re sul tof . . . any dec i si on thatw ou l d u nd er m i ne the gu i del i nes a s w e kno w them t oda y ” s ugge s t s tha tthe di s tr i c tc our tm i ghtbe a m e na bl e t o i m pos i ng a di f f e r e ntOn re mand, the district cour t must calculate theproper Guideline ra

ng e, which inc ludes 5 ag ain makingfinding s reg ardingthe quantity and quality

of the methamphetamine possessed by Daniel or adoptingthe pre vious findings, a nd then the district cour

t must apply

that Guideline ra ng e in a n a dv iso ry

mann e r. Se e Un ite d St ate s v . Crawf ord, F .3 d , No . 0 3- 15 13 6 ( 11 th Cir. May 2, 2005). 9 se nt ence un der a n adv i sory gu i del i nes r egi m e. In any e vent , the go vernm enthas 5 fa i l ed t o car ry i t s burden o f dem on stra t i ng “ w i th fai r a ss urance thatthe se nt ence w a s nots ubs t a nt i a l l y s w a y e d by the e r r or . ” M a the ni a , ___ F . 3d a t___. W e f i nd, the r e f or e , tha tthe B ooke rs t a tut or y e r r orc om m i t t e d by the di s tr i c tc our tw a s not h a r m le s s . I I I . CONCL US I ON F o r th e fo reg o i n g reaso n s, D an i el ’ s sen t en ce i s V A C A T E D an d th e case i s R E M A N D E D f

orr e s e nt e nc i ng i n a c c or d w i th the B ooke rde c i s i on.