FILED U.S. COURT OF AP P EALS E LEVEN T HC IRC UIT OCT 24 , 2006 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. 06- 12068 N on -A rgum entC al endar

________________________ D . C. D o c k e tN o . 0 5 - 0 0 0 8 6 - CR- FTM - 2 9 - SPC 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 F R E D D I E L E E J O H N S O N , J R ., 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 M i ddl e D i s tr i c tof F l or i da

_________________________ ( O c t ob e r 24, 2006) B efo re A N D E R S O N , B IR C H an d F A Y , C i rcu i tJu d g es. P E R C U R I A M:2

F r e ddi e L e e J ohns on, J r . , appe a r i ng pr o s e , appe a l s hi s s e nt e nc e s f ol l ow i ng h i s g u i l ty p l e a , wh i c h wa s m a d e p u r s u a n tt o awr i tt e n p l e aa g r e e m e n t , t o two c ount s of pos s e s s i on w i th the i nt e ntt o di s tr i but e a nd di s tr i but i on of f i ve gr a m s or m or e of c r a c k c oc a i ne , i n vi ol a t i on of 21 U . S . C . § 841( a ) ( 1) , ( b) ( 1) ( B ) ( i i i ) . T he p le aa g r e e m e n t c o n ta in e d as e n te n c e ap p e a l w a iv e rs ta tin g th a t J o h n s o n w a iv e d h is r i ghtt o appe a l hi s s e nt e nc e orc ha l l e nge i tc ol l a t e r a l l y on a ny gr ound, i nc l udi ng the g r o u n d th a t th e d is tr ic t c o u rt e rr e d in d e te rm in in g th e g u id e lin e r a n g e , e x c e p t: ( 1) tha tthe s e nt e nc e e xc e e de d hi s appl i c abl e gui de l i ne r a nge a s de t e rm i ne d by the c ourt ; ( 2) tha tthe s e nt e nc e e xc e e de d the s t a tut ory m a xi m um ; a nd ( 3) tha tthe s e nt e nc e vi ol a t e d the C ons t i tut i on. A tJ ohns on’ s c ha nge - of - pl e ahe a r i ng, he a d m itte d th a t h e s o ld c r a c kc o c a in e , a n d , w h e n th e m a g is tr a te ju d g e q u e s tio n e d h im r e g a r d in g th e w a iv e r , h e in d ic a te d th a t h e u n d e r s to o d th e te rm s o f th e w a iv e r . O n ap p e a l, J o h n s o n a r g u e s th a t th e d is tr ic t c o u rt v io la te d h is F if th A m e ndm e nta nd S i xth A m e ndm e ntr i ght s be c aus e the gove rnm e ntdi d notpr ove beyond a r ea sonabl e dou btthatthe subst ance he di stri bu t ed w as cr ac k cocai ne, as op po se d t o som e other f orm of cocai ne. W e r e v ie w c o n s titu tio n a l e rr o r s in s e n te n c in g d e n o v o , b u t w ill r e v e r s e o n ly f o rh a rm f u l e rr o r . U n ite d S ta te s v . P a z , 4 0 5 F .3 d 9 4 6 , 9 4 8 ( 1 1 th C ir . 2 0 0 5 ) . H ow e ve r , i f

the de f e nda ntf a i l s t o obj e c tbe f

or e the di s tr i c tc ourt , w e r e vi e w f or3

p la in e rr o r . U n ite d S ta te s v . R o d r ig u e z , 3 9 8 F .3 d 1 2 9 1 , 1 2 9 8 ( 1 1 th C ir .) , c e rt. deni ed, 12 5 S . C t . 29 35 (200 5). U nd erthi s s t andard of revi ew , there m ustbe (1) an error, (2) thati s pl ai n, and (3) thataf fe ct s s ub st ant i al ri gh t s. Id. If these three c ondi t i ons a r e m e t , w e m a y not i c e the e rr oronl y i f “ the e rr ors e r i ous l y a f

f e c t s the f a i rne s s , i nt e gr i ty , orpubl i c r e put a t i on of j udi c i a l pr oc e e di ngs . ” I d. ( c i t a t i on a nd q u o ta tio n m a rk s o m itte d ) . In B oo ker, the S up re m e C ou rthel d thatthe fe dera l se nt enci ng gu i del i nes v io la te th e S ix th A m e n d m e n t r ig h t to atr ia l b y ju ry to th e e x te n t th a t th e y p e rm it a j udge t o i nc r e a s e ade f

e nda nt ’ s s e nt e nc e ba s e d on f a c t s tha ta r e ne i the rf

ound by th e ju ry n o ra d m itte d b y th e d e f e n d a n t. B o o k e r , 5 4 3 U .S . a t 2 4 4 , 1 2 5 S .C t. a t 7 5 6 . T he C ou rthel d thatthe fe dera l se nt enci ng gu i del i nes are advi sory , and d i stri ct c ourt s s houl d t a ke the gui de l i ne s i nt o a c c ountw he n c ons i de r i ng the s e nt e nc i ng f a c to r s s e t f

o rth in 1 8 U .S .C . § 3 5 5 3 ( a ) . I d . a t 2 4 5 - 4 6 , 1 2 5 S .C t. a t 7 5 6 - 5 7 . H ow ever , i f the di stri ctcourtappl i es the gu i del i nes a s a dv i sory , no thi ng i n B oo ker proh i bi t s di stri ctcourt s f rom m aki ng , un der aprepon derance- of-the-e vi dence s ta n d a r d , a d d itio n a l f

a c tu a l f in d in g s th a t g o b e y o n d ad e f e n d a n t’s a d m is s io n . U ni t e d S t a t e s v. C hau, 426 F . 3d 1318, 1324 ( 11th C i r . 2005) . I n U ni t e d S t a t e s v. B u r g e , 4 0 7 F . 3 d 1 1 8 3 , 1 1 9 1 ( 1 1 th C i r . ) , c e rt . d e n i e d , 1 2 6 S . C t . 5 5 1 ( 2 0 0 5 ) , we he l d tha t“ B ur ge w a i ve d hi s obj e c t i ons t o the f a c tua l s t a t e m e nt s abouthi s r e l e va nt4

cond ucti n the [pres ent ence i nv es t i gat i on re po rt(“ P S I” )] and there fore , adm i tt ed the fa ct s i n the re po rt . ” T h e s e n te n c in g g u id e lin e s d e f in e “c o c a in e b a s e ” a s “c r a c k ” c o c a in e . U . S . S . G . § 2 D 1. 1 n (D ). “ ‘ C ra ck’ ” i s the stre etnam e f or a f orm of cocai ne base , usual l y pre pare d b y proce ss i ng coca i ne hydrochl ori de and sod i um bi carbon at e. ” I d . W e rev i ew Jo h n so n ’ s cl ai m fo r p l ai n erro r b ecau se h e rai ses i tfo r th e fi rst t i m e on app ea l . T he di stri ctcourtcorr ec t l y c al cul at ed John son’ s off ense l evel ba s e d on hi s pos s e s s i on a nd di s tr i but i on of c oc a i ne ba s e , w hi c h i s de f i ne d a s c r a c k, b e c au s e ( 1 ) J o h n s o n a d m itte d a t h is p le ah e a r in g th a t h e s o ld c r a c k ; ( 2 ) h e f a ile d to obj e c tt o the P S I ’ s f

a c tua l s t a t e m e nttha the di s tr i but e d c oc a i ne ba s e ; ( 3) he in d ic a te d th a t h e a g r e e d w ith th e f a c tu a l b a s is f

o rth e p le a , w h ic h s ta te d th a t h e s o ld c r a c k t o ac onf

i de nt i a l s our c e ; a nd ( 4) the i ndi c tm e ntc ha r ge d hi m w i th di s tr i but i ng

“ coca i ne base , cr ac k cocai ne, ” a s opp osed t o som e other f orm of cocai ne. F urther, hi s r el i ance on B oo ker i s m i spl ac ed because the courtdi d n oti ncre as e hi s s ent ence b a s e d o n f

a c ts th a t w e r e n o t a d m itte d b y h im . A c c o r d in g ly , th e d is tr ic t c o u rt d id n o tv i o l at e Jo h n so n ’ s F i fth an d S i x th A m en d m en tri g h t s. J ohns on a l s o a r gue s tha tthe di s tr i c tc ourts houl d ha ve appl i e d the rul e of le n ity a n d c a lc u la te d h is g u id e lin e r a n g e u s in g c o c a in e r a th e rth a n c r a c kc o c a in e .5

H ow e ve r , f

orthe r e a s ons s e tf

orth m or e f

ul l y be l ow , J ohns on ha s w a i ve d hi s r i ght to ap p e a l th is is s u e . W e r e vi e w the va l i di ty of a n appe a l w a i ve rpr ovi s i on of apl e aa gr e e m e ntde n o v o . Un i t e d S t a t e s v . We a v e r , 2 7 5 F . 3 d 1 3 2 0 , 1 3 3 3 n . 2 1 ( 1 1 th C i r . 2 0 0 1 ) . An appeal w ai ver i s val i d i f i tw as ent er ed i nt o k no w i ng l y and vo l un t ar i l y. U ni t ed S ta te s v . B u s h e rt, 9 9 7 F .2 d 1 3 4 3 , 1 3 5 0 ( 1 1 th C ir . 1 9 9 3 ) . F o ra n ap p e a l w a v ie rto be enforce d, the go vernm entm ustshow thatei ther: (1) the di stri ctcourt s pe c i f i c a l l y que s t i one d the de f e nda ntc onc e rni ng the s e nt e nc e appe a l w a i ve rdur i ng the pl e ahe a r i ng, or( 2) i ti s m a ni f e s t l y c l e a rf

r om the r e c or d tha tthe de f e nda nt o th e rw is e u n d e r s to o d th e f u ll s ig n if ic a n c e o f th e w a iv e r . I d . a t 1 3 5 1 .

“ T h e ‘ ru l e o f l en i ty’ req u i res th atactu al am b i g u i t i es i n cri m i n al st atu t es, i ncl ud i ng se nt enci ng prov i si on s, be re sol ved i n favor of cri m i nal defe nd ant s. ” U ni t e d S t a t e s v. L a z o- O rt i z , 136 F . 3d 1282, 1286 ( 11th C i r . 1998) . W e appl y the rul e of l eni ty “ on l y i f the prov i si on bei ng construed i s s t i l l am bi gu ou s a ft er appl i c a t i on of

the norm a l rul e s of

[ s t a tut ory ] c ons truc t i on. U ni t e d S t a t e s v. C a m a c ho- I ba r que n, 410 F . 3d 1307, 1315 ( 11th C i r . ) , c e rt . de ni e d, 126 S . C t . 457 ( 2 0 0 5 ) . J o h n s o n ’s c la im th a t th e d is tr ic t c o u rt e rr e d b y n o t ap p ly in g th e ru le o f le n ity i s c ov er ed by the appeal -w ai ver provi si on i n h i s pl eaagre em entbecause w hether6

21 U . S . C . § 841( b) a nd the s e nt e nc i ng gui de l i ne s a r e a m bi guous i s am a tt e rof st atut ory i nt erpret at i on , ra ther than a const i tut i on al i ss ue. T he appeal w ai ver w as know i ng a nd vol unt a ry be c aus e the di s tr i c tc ourtque s t i one d J ohns on aboutthe appe a l w a i ve rdur i ng the R ul e 11 c ol l oquy , a nd J ohns on i ndi c a t e d tha the u n d e r s t o o d th e w a i v e r . A c c o r d i n g l y , w e d i s mi s s J o h n s o n ’ s ru l e o f l e n i ty c l a i m. A F F I R M E D I N P A R T , D I S M I S S E D I N P A R T .