FI LED U. S . COURT OF AP PE ALS E L E V E N T H C IR C U IT A ugus t 31, 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- 15923 N on -A rgum entC al endar

________________________ D . C. D o c k e tN o . 9 9 - 0 0 0 0 3 - CR- 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 ,

ve r s us L A T R A V I S G A L L A S H A W , a .k .a . T r a v , 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 rn D i s tr i c tof F l or i da

_________________________ ( A ugus t31, 2005) B efo re B IR C H , C A RN E S an d M A R C U S , C i rcu i tJu d g es. P E R C U R I A M:2

L a tr a vi s G a l l a s ha w appe a l s hi s s e nt e nc e s , a m ount i ng t o s e ve nty y e a r s of i m pri sonm enti n t ot al , i m po se d aft erhe w as foun d g ui l ty by the j ury a nd se nt ence d on c ha r ge s of: ( 1) c ons pi r a c y t o di s tr i but e c oc a i ne a nd m a r i j ua na , 21 U . S . C . § 846 ( C o u n t O n e ) ; ( 2 ) p o s s e s s io n w ith in te n t to d is tr ib u te m a r iju a n a , 2 1 U .S .C . § 841( a ) ( 1) ( C ountT e n) ; a nd ( 3) pos s e s s i on w i th i nt e ntt o di s tr i but e c oc a i ne , 21 U . S . C . § 841( a ) ( 1) ( C ount s F oura nd E l e ve n) . U pon r e vi e w of the r e c or d a nd the ar gu m ent s of the part i es , w e VA C A TE G a l l a s ha w ’ s s e nt e nc e a nd RE MAND f or r e s e nt e nc i ng. I . B AC KG RO UN D A f e de r a l s upe r c e di ng i ndi c tm e nta l l e ge d tha tC or e y S m i th, A nt oni o A l l e n, E ri c S t ok es , A nt on i o G od fr ey , K ettri ck M aj or, and L atra vi s G al l as haw had co m m i tt ed v ari o u s n arco t i cs-rel at ed o ffen ses. A ft er sev eral p l ea ag reem en t s, G al l as haw w as char ged w i th: (1) c on spi ra cyt o d i stri bu t e c ocai ne and m ar i j uana, in v io la tio n o f

2 1 U .S .C . § 8 4 6 ( C o u n t O n e ) ; ( 2 ) p o s s e s s io n w ith in te n t to di s tr i but e m a r i

j ua na , i n vi ol a t i on of

21 U . S . C . § 841( a ) ( 1) ( C ount s S i x, N i ne , a nd Te n ) ; a n d ( 3 ) p o s s e s s i o n w i th i n t e n tt o d i s tr i b u t e c o c a i n e , i n v i o l a t i o n o f 2 1 U . S. C. § 8 4 1 ( a ) ( 1 ) a n d 1 8 U .S .C . § 2 ( C o u n ts F o u ra n d E le v e n ) . C ountO ne di d not a lle g e a q u a n tity o f

c o c a in e o rm a r iju a n a , a n d C o u n ts F o u r , T e n , a n d E le v e n d id n o t a lle g e a n y s p e c if

ic q u a n tity o f

c o n tr o lle d s u b s ta n c e .3

A j ury c onvi c t e d G a l l a s ha w of C ount s O ne , F our , T e n, a nd E l e ve n. T he di s tr i c tc our ts e nt e nc e d G a l l a s ha w t o l i f e i m pr i s onm e nta s t o C ount s O ne a nd E l e ve n, f or ty y e a r s a s t o C ountF ourt o run c onc urr e nt l y w i th C ount s O ne a nd E l even, fi ve ye ar s a s t o C ou ntT en t o run concurrent l y w i th al l other c ou nt s. In a d d itio n , th e d is tr ic t c o u r t im p o s e d s ix ty m o n th s o f s u p e rv is e d r e le a s e a s to C o u n ts O ne a nd E l e ve n, f

oury e a r s of

s upe rvi s e d r e l e a s e a s t o C ountF ourt o run concurrent l y w i th C ou nt s O ne and E l even, and tw o yea rs of supervi se d rel ea se as t o C o u n tT en t o ru n co n cu rren t l y w i th al l o th er co u n t s. [ R 2 - 6 3 2 a t 3 - 4 .] O n app ea l , w e vac at ed and rem anded G al l as haw ’ s s ent ence s f or C ou nt s O ne, F ou r, T en, and E l even. U ni t ed S t at es v. A l l en, 30 2 F . 3d 12 60 , 12 80 (11th C i r. 2002) . A s f

o rG a lla s h a w ’s s e n te n c e f o rC o u n t O n e , w e r e m a n d e d th e c a s e w ith i nstruct i on s thatthe go vernm entdeci de w hether t o (1) re se nt ence G al l as haw base d o n a m a x im u m s e n te n c e o f f iv e y e a r s , o r( 2 ) r e try o n e o rm o r e o f th e d e f e n d a n ts w i th a new tri al on C ou ntO ne. Id. A s f or G al l as haw ’ s s ent ence s f or C ou nt s F ou r, T e n, a nd E l e ve n, w e he l d tha tthe y vi ol a t e d A ppr e ndi v. N e w J e r s e y , 530 U . S . 466, 490, 120 S . C t . 2348, 2362- 63 ( 2000) , a nd w e va c a t e d thos e s e nt e nc e s a nd r e m a nde d the m f

orr e s e nt e nc i ng. I d. a t1278- 80. T he gove rnm e nte l e c t e d t o ha ve the di stri ctcourtre se nt ence the defendant s, i ncl ud i ng G al l as haw , on C ou ntO ne. [ R 3 0 a t 3 .]4

P r i ort o G a l l a s ha w ’ s r e s e nt e nc i ng, the S upr e m e C our tde c i de d B l a ke l y v. W as hi ng t on , 54 2 U . S . 29 6, 12 4 S . C t . 25 31 (200 4), and G al l as haw fi l ed w ri tt en obj e c t i ons t o the P S I ba s e d on the c a s e . G a l l a s ha w a r gue d tha tB l a ke l y ba rr e d the di stri ctcourtfr om enhanci ng hi s s ent ence for f i re arm po ss es si on or m anageri al r o le a n d r e q u ir e d th a t th e d is tr ic t c o u r t d e te rm in e h is b a s e o f f e n s e le v e l u s in g o n ly th e q u a n tity o f

d ru g s a c tu a lly s e iz e d . [R 2-11 82 at 7-8. ] C i t i ng U ni t e d S t a t e s v. R e e s e , 382 F . 3d 1308 ( 11th C i r . 2004) , va c a t e d by 125 S . C t . 1089 ( 2005) , the gove rnm e ntr e s ponde d tha tB l a ke l y w a s notappl i c abl e t o the f e de r a l s e nt e nc i ng g u id e lin e s in th e E le v e n th C ir c u it. [ R 2 - 1 1 8 3 ¶ 4 , a t 2 .] A tr e s e nt e nc i ng, G a l l a s ha w a r gue d tha t , unde rB l a ke l y , a ny e nha nc e m e nt w a s d e e m e d a n e le m e n t o f th e o f f e n s e th a t h a d to b e p r o v e d b e y o n d a r e a s o n ab le d o u b t. [ R 3 0 a t 9 .] A dd i t i on al l y, G al l as haw cont ended thatthe di stri ctcourt

“ shou l d o nl y a ttri bu t e the am ou ntof cocai ne as coca i ne po w der w hether i tw as c o c a in e b a s e o rc o c a in e p o w d e r ,” R 3 0 a t 1 0 , a n d th a t th e d is tr ic t c o u r t s h o u ld ap p ly a r ea sonabl e dou btst andard t o d et erm i ne the am ou ntof cocai ne for w hi ch he w as re spon si bl e [ i d . at 26] . C itin g R e e s e , th e d is tr ic t c o u r t c o n c lu d e d th a t B la k e ly d id n o t ap p ly to th e s e n te n c in g g u id e lin e s , a n d it o v e rru le d G a lla s h a w ’s o b je c tio n s . I d . a t 2 6 . T h e c o u r t n o te d th a t “if th e U n ite d S ta te s S u p r e m e C o u r t a ttr ib u te s B la k e ly t o [ the ] F e de r a l S e nt e nc i ng G ui de l i ne s , w e m a y be ba c k he r e on a thi r d r ound of5

s e nt e nc i ng. ” I d. A tthe cont i nu at i on of the se nt enci ng hear i ng , G al l as haw ar gu ed that , un der B l akel y, the go vernm entshou l d n otbe abl e t o enh ance G al l as haw ’ s s ent ence b e c a u s e h e a c te d a s a le a d e ra n d o r g a n iz e ro rb e c a u s e h e p o s s e s s e d a f ir e a rm in r e l a t i on t o hi s drug of

f e ns e s unl e s s the gove rnm e nts o a l l e ge d i n the i ndi c tm e nta nd s u b m itte d th o s e is s u e s to th e ju ry . [ R 3 1 a t 2 5 - 2 6 .] A gai n, ci t i ng R ee se , the di stri ct c o u r t o v e rru le d G a lla s h a w ’s o b je c tio n s . [ I d . a t 2 7 .] T he di stri ctcourtfurther s ta te d : A n d I w ill te ll y o u r ig h t n o w m y e x p e r ie n c e is th a t th e B la k e ly o p in io n , if

it’s g iv e n r e tr o a c tiv e ap p lic a tio n , is g o in g to a f f e c t a l a r ge pe r c e nt a ge of

c a s e s . Y ou y our s e l f

i n thi s c a s e ha ve ar gu ed thatyour i nt erpret at i on of B l akel y i s thatM r. G al l as haw s h o u ld s ta r t o f

f a t ale v e l 1 2 . N o w , I w ill te ll y o u r ig h t n o w I d o n ’t a g r e e w ith th a t i nt erpret at i on , bu ti f B l akel y i s gi ven app l i ca t i on t o [the] F eder al S ent enci ng G ui del i nes a nd i f y ou r i nt erpret at i on i s c orre ct , then M r. G al l as haw i s don e on thi s s ent ence . A nd I j ustw on der i f J ust i ce S t e ve ns w oul d be s urpr i s e d tha ts om e one w ho gota l i f e s e nt e nc e f

or thi s part i cul arcr i m e w ou l d h ave s erved m ore t i m e i n j ai l by no w than a B l akel y dri ven g ui del i nes w ou l d requi re . Id . at2 8 . A d d i t i o n al l y, th e d i stri ctco u rtst at ed th at“ G al l ash aw ’ s h o p e i n th i s case ha s gott o be tha tthe U ni t e d S t a t e s S upr e m e C our te xt e nds B l a ke l y t o hi s c a s e a nd th a t h e g e ts a w in d f

a ll.” I d . a t 3 4 . T he di s tr i c tc our tf

ound tha tG a l l a s ha w pl a y e d a s upe rvi s ory r ol e i n the o r g a n iz a tio n a n d im p o s e d a th r e e - le v e l e n h a n c e m e n t. [ I d . a t 3 6 .] A d d itio n a lly , itIn his reply brief, G allashawadditionally argues that he should be resentenced be forea 1 dif ferent distri c t judg ebe c a

us ethedis tric t judg estate d th at hewould re c e ivea “wind fall”if B lake ly wa s f ound to b ea pp lic a bleto t hesentenc ingguide lin e s. B e c a us eGalla sh aw raise d this argument for the f

irst time in his reply

brief, w e dec line to consider it here. See United States v. Fiallo-Jacome, 874 F .2d 1479, 1481 (11th Cir. 1989) (“An appe llant in a criminal ca se may not raise a n issue for the f

irst time in a reply

appellatebrief.” ) 6 de t e r m i ne d tha tG a l l a s ha w w a s r e s pons i bl e f or150 ki l ogr a m s of

c oc a i ne ba s e d on tr i a l t e s t i m ony tha tf

i ve t o s e ve n ki l ogr a m s pe rw e e k w e r e di s tr i but e d by the J ohn D oe O rgani za t i on fr om m i d-19 97 throu gh Ja nu ary 199 9, and o n the fa ctthat G al l as haw , as a s ec on d-i n-com m and, w as re spon si bl e f or the am ou ntof drug s that w e n t th r o u g h th e o r g a n iz a tio n a s a w h o le . [ I d . a t 3 7 - 3 8 .] F i nal l y, the di stri ctcourt im p o s e d a tw o - le v e l e n h a n c e m e n t f o rp o s s e s s io n o f

a f ir e a rm . [ I d . a t 3 8 .] B as ed on i t s f i ndi ngs , the di s tr i c tc our ti m pos e d s e nt e nc e s of f i ve y e a r s of

i m pr i s onm e nt a s t o C ountO ne , tw e nty y e a r s a s t o C ountF our , f i ve y e a r s a s t o C ountT e n, a nd f or ty y e a r s a s t o C ountE l e ve n, t o run c ons e c ut i ve l y , f ora t ot a l of

s e ve nty y e a r s of im p r is o n m e n t. [ I d . a t 3 9 - 4 0 .] T he di s tr i c tc our ta l s o i m pos e d f i ve y e a r s of s u p e r v is e d r e le a s e o n C o u n t E le v e n , a n d th r e e y e a r s o n o th e rr e m a in in g c o u n ts , to ru n c o n c u rr e n tly . [ I d . a t 4 0 .] I I . DI S CUS S I ON O n ap p e a l, G a lla s h a w f ir s t a r g u e s th a t th e d is tr ic t c o u r t v io la te d h is S ix th A m e ndm e ntr i ght s unde rU ni t e d S t a t e s v. B ooke r , 543 U . S . ___, 125 S . C t . 738 (200 5), w hen i tre se nt ence d h i m un der am andat ory gui del i nes s chem e. 17

B ecau se G al l ash aw o b

j ect ed u n d er B l ak el y t o th e en h an cem en t s t o h i s s e n te n c e in d is tr ic t c o u r t, w e r e v ie w h is s e n te n c e d e n o v o . W e w ill r e m a n d h is ca se for r es ent enci ng un l es s no err or occurre d, or the error w as harm l es s. U ni t ed 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 ) ( p e rc u r ia m ) . W hi l e G al l as haw ’ s c as e w as pend i ng on appeal , the S up re m e C ou rti ss ued its d e c is io n in B o o k e r . I n B o o k e r , th e S u p r e m e C o u r t h e ld “th a t th e S ix th A m endm entri gh tt o tri al by j ury i s vi ol at ed w here un der am andat ory gui del i nes s y s t e m a s e nt e nc e i s i nc r e a s e d be c a us e of a n e nha nc e m e ntba s e d on f a c t s f ound by the j ud ge thatw er e nei ther a dm i tt ed by the defendantno r f ou nd by the j ury. ” U ni t e d S t a t e s v. R odr i gue z , 398 F . 3d 1291, 1298 ( 11th C i r . ) ( c i t i ng B ooke r , __ U . S . a t__, 125 S . C t . 738, 749- 56) , c e r t . de ni e d 125 S . C t . 2935 ( 2005) . B a s e d on the S upr e m e C our t ’ s hol di ng, w e ha ve f ound tha ta di s tr i c tc our tc oul d ha ve com m i tt ed tw o types of B oo ker e rr ors. A di stri ctcourtcom m i tt ed the fi rs ttype, c ons t i tut i ona l B ooke re rr or , i f i t“ us e [ d] . . . e xtr a - ve r di c te nha nc e m e nt s t o r e a c h a gui de l i ne s r e s ul ttha ti s bi ndi ng on the s e nt e nc i ng j udge ; the e rr ori s i n the m andat ory nature of the gu i del i nes once the gu i del i nes r ange has been de t e r m i ne d. ” U ni t e d S t a t e s v. M a the ni a , 409 F . 3d 1289, 1291 ( 11th C i r . 2005) (percuri am ) ( ci t at i on s a nd i nt ernal qu ot at i on s om i tt ed). A di stri ctcourtcom m i tt ed the se cond type, st atut ory B oo ker e rr or, i f i tse nt ence d a defendant“ un der a8

m a nda t ory gui de l i ne s s c he m e , e ve n i n the abs e nc e of a S i xth A m e ndm e nt enhancem entvi ol at i on . ” I d. (c i t at i on s a nd i nt ernal qu ot at i on s om i tt ed). W e appl y di f

f e r e ntha r m l e s s e rr ors t a nda r ds t o B ooke rc ons t i tut i ona l a nd s t a tut ory e rr or s . A B ooke rc ons t i tut i ona l e rr ori s de e m e d ha rm l e s s i f “ the g o v e rn m e n t c a n s h o w , b e y o n d a r e a s o n ab le d o u b t, th a t th e e rr o rd id n o t c o n tr ib u te t o the defendant ’ s ul t i m at e s ent ence . ” I d. at12 91 . O n the other hand, a B oo ker st atut ory e rr or “ i s harm l es s i f, vi ew i ng the proceedi ng s i n thei r e nt i re ty, a c ou rt d e te r m in e s th a t th e e rr o rd id n o t a f f e c t th e s e n te n c e , o rh a d b u t v e rys lig h t e f f e c t. I f one c a n s a y w i th f

a i ra s s ur a nc e tha tthe s e nt e nc e w a s nots ubs t a nt i a l l y s w a y e d by the error, the se nt ence i s due t o b e a ff i rm ed even tho ug h there w as error. ” I d. at 12 92 (c i t at i on and i nt ernal qu ot at i on s om i tt ed). T he go vernm entca rr i es the bu rden of s how i ng tha ta ny B ooke re rr orw a s ha rm l e s s . S e e P a z , 405 F . 3d a t948. A s the go vernm entconcedes, the di stri ctcourtcom m i tt ed B oo ker const i tut i on al error i n thi s c as e by r es ent enci ng G al l as haw on the basi s of f ac t s that h e d id n o t a d m it a n d th a t w e r e n o t p r o v e d to a ju ry b e y o n d a r e a s o n ab le d o u b t. T h e d is tr ic t c o u r t f

o u n d b y a p r e p o n d e r a n c e o f th e e v id e n c e : ( 1 ) th e d ru g a m o u n ts i nv ol ved i n the offens e; (2) thatG al l as haw pl ay ed a l ea ders hi p rol e; and (3) that G a l l a s ha w pos s e s s e d a f i r e a r m i n c onne c t i on w i th drug of f e ns e s . T he j ury w a s not ask ed t o m ak e th ese fi n d i n g s, an d G al l ash aw d i d n o tad m i tt o th em . T h u s, b ecau se9

G al l as haw ’ s s ent ence w as enhanced, un der am andat ory gui del i nes s ys t em , base d f a c ts f o u n d b y a ju d g e a n d n o t a d m itte d b y G a lla s h a w , G a lla s h a w ’s S ix th A m e n d m e n t r ig h t to a tr ia l b y ju ry w a s v io la te d . S e e P a z , 4 0 5 F .3 d a t 9 4 8 . T he go vernm enthas notm eti t s burden o f provi ng thatthe const i tut i on al e rr o rw a s h a r m le s s b e y o n d a r e a s o n ab le d o u b t, i.e ., th a t th e e rr o rd id n o t c o n tr ib u te t o the de f

e nda nt ’ s ul t i m a t e s e nt e nc e . S e e M a the ni a , 409 F . 3d a t1291. O n the one h a n d , a s th e g o v e rn m e n t p o in ts o u t, th e d is tr ic t c o u r t ( 1 ) s e n te n c e d G a lla s h a w to the m axi m um perm i ss i bl e s ent ence on ea ch coun t , even tho ug h G al l as haw ap o lo g iz e d f

o rh is in v o lv e m e n t in th e c r im e a n d s ta te d th a t h e h a d c o o p e r a te d w ith p ro secu t o rs [ R 3 9 a t 3 1 , 3 9 ; A l l e n, 3 0 2 F. 3 d a t 1 2 7 9 , 1 2 8 0 ( s t a t i ng t he m a x i m um se n te n ce s al l ow ed for C ou n ts O n e, F ou r, T en an d E l even )] ; ( 2 ) ru le d a g a in s t a do w nw ar d d eparture [ R 34 at 39] ; ( 3 ) c h a r a c te r iz e d th e p o s s ib le b e n e f it to G al l ash aw i f B l ak el y w ere ap p l i ed t o th e fed eral sen t en ci n g g u i d el i n es as a

“ w i nd fa l l , ” R 31 at34 ; (4) i m po se d a three -l evel enhancem entfor r ol e, bu tno t ed tha t“ pr obabl y a f

our - l e ve l e nha nc e m e ntw a s appr opr i a t e , ” i d. a t36; ( 5) c o m m e n te d o n th e v io le n c e in v o lv e d in th e c o n s p ir a c y , [ i d . at 38] ; a nd ( 6) expres se d n o rem orse athavi ng i m po se d a l i fe se nt ence atG al l as haw ’ s ori gi nal s e nt e nc i ng a nd, a tr e s e nt e nc i ng, i m pos e d s e nt e nc e s t ot a l i ng s e ve nty y e a r s of im p r is o n m e n t [ i d . at 39- 40] . H o w e v e r , th e d is tr ic t c o u r t im p o s e d n o a lte rn a teIn his appellate brief, Gallashaw c ontends that, after the c ase is remanded f or 2 re sentenc ing , th edis tric t c ourt sh ould de terminethea

pp lic a bleguide lin e s rang eus ingonly fac ts a dmitte d b y G all a s h awo r

p ro v e d b eyo n d a re a s o n a b led o u b t. A s w ere c o gn iz e d

in Ro drigu e z, however, the use of

extra-verdict enhanc ements “remains a c onstitut ional part of theguidelines sentenc ingin t

hepo st- B oo ker era .”39 8 F .3 d at 13 01 . A c c ording ly, a dis tric t c ourt

ta ske d w ith resentencinga def

endant in light of Booker is “faced with . . . ex actly the same f

actual issues that it has already

resolved, a

nd it [ is] require d to at least consider exactly the same guideline enhanc ement provisions it has alre ady applied. No guidelines provisions have chang ed in any way . All that has cha

ng ed is that the guidelines rang e is now advisory . . . .” Id. at 1300-01. Additionally , beca

use werema

nd Gallasha

w’s sentences dueto the district court’s constitutional Booker

error, weneed not address Gallashaw’s a rgument reg ardingany

statutory Booker er ror. 10 s e nt e nc e i n the e ve ntB l a ke l y w a s appl i e d t o the f e de r a l s e nt e nc i ng gui de l i ne s , a nd to th e c o n tr a ry , s ta te d th a t “if th e U n ite d S ta te s S u p r e m e C o u r t a ttr ib u te s B la k e ly t o [ the ] F e de r a l S e nt e nc i ng G ui de l i ne s , w e m a y be ba c k he r e on a thi r d r ound of se nt enci ng . ” R 30 at26 . A cc ordi ng l y, w e c on cl ud e thatthe go vernm enthas f ai l ed t o d em o n strat e th atd i stri ctco u rt ’ s co n st i tu t i o n al B o o k er erro r w as h arm l ess be y ond a r e a s onabl e doubt . T hus , w e va c a t e a nd r e m a nd G a l l a s ha w ’ s s e nt e nc e f or r e s e nt e nc i ng. 2 I I I . CONCL US I ON In thi s app ea l , G al l as haw chal l enged h i s s ent ence s f or vari ou s drug rel at ed offe nses . B ec ause w e c on cl ud e thatthe di stri ctcourtcom m i tt ed const i tut i on al B o o k e re rr o ri n s e n t e n c i n g Ga l l a s h a w, a n d th a tth e e rr o rwa s n o th a rm l e s s , we VA C A TE G a l l a s ha w ’ s s e nt e nc e s a nd RE MAND f o rr e s e n te n c in g c o n s is te n t w ith thi s opi ni on.