FILED U.S. COURT OF AP P EALS E LEV EN T HC IRC U IT FEB RUARY 22, 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. 04- 12649 N on -A rgum entC al endar

________________________ D. C . Do c k e tNo . 0 3 - 0 0 3 4 7 - C R - T - 2 4 - MAP 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 P A T R I C K N E A L G I L L E S P I E , 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

_________________________ ( F e brua ry 22, 2006) O N R EM A N D FR O M TH E SU PR EM E C O U R T

O F TH E U N I TED STA TES B efo re T JO F L A T , D U B IN A an d B A R K E T T , C i rcu i tJu d g es. P E R C U R I A M: T h e ap p eal o f P atri ck N eal G i l l esp i e (“ G i l l esp i e”) i s ag ai n b efo re u s,2

pu rs uantt o a re m and from the S up re m e C ou rtof the U ni t ed S t at es for f urther consi dera t i on i n l i gh tof U ni t ed S t at es v. B oo ker, 12 5 S . C t . 78 3 (20 05 ). S ee G i l l es pi e v. U ni t ed S t at es , 12 6 S . C t . 27 6 (20 05 ). W e pre vi ou sl y a ff i rm ed G i l l es pi e’ s c on vi ct i on and tw el ve-m on th sent ence for w i l l ful fa i l ure t o p ay i nt e r s t a t e c hi l d s uppor t , i n vi ol a t i on of 18 U . S . C . § 228( a ) ( 3) . U ni t e d S t a t e s v. G i l l es pi e, 12 7 F ed. A pp x. 47 2 (11 th C i r. 20 05 ). B e c a u s e G ille s p ie r a is e d a B o o k e r - ty p e c la im in h is in itia l b r ie f o n ap p e a l, b u t r a is e d n o s u c h c la im b e f o r e th e d is tr ic t c o u r t, w e c a n r e v ie w h is s e n te n c e o n ly f orpl a i n e rr or . M or e ove r , be c a us e the r e c or d i ndi c a t e s tha tG i l l e s pi e c a nnot dem on stra t e are as on abl e probabi l i ty of adi ff er entre sul tun der the po st -B oo ker a d v is o ry g u id e lin e s s y s te m , w e a g a in a f f irm G ille s p ie ’s s e n te n c e a n d r e in s ta te in p a r t o u rp r io ro p in io n . B AC KG RO UN D G i l l es pi e pl ed gu i l ty t o o ne coun tof fa i l ure t o p ayi nt er st at e c hi l d sup po rt obl i ga t i ons i n e xc e s s of $10, 000. 00, i n vi ol a t i on of 18 U . S . C . § 228( a ) ( 3) . D ur i ng hi s pl e a he a r i ng, the gove rnm e nte s t abl i s he d the f a c tua l ba s i s f

orthe pl e a , de t a i l i ng G i l l es pi e’ s f

ai l ure t o p aychi l d sup po rtorders fr om F l ori da and O hi o cou rt s over the course of se vera l ye ar s. A s partof thi s f ac tual basi s, the go vernm entst at ed that as of F ebruary28 , 20 03 , st at e c ou rtre cords i nd i ca t ed thatG i l l es pi e w asB e c a us eof pa y mentsmadebetw e en th etim eof Gi lle sp ie ’sple a

and thedateof

his 1 sentenc ing, theloss amount at the time of sentenc ing w as re duced to $29,236.81. As discussed in our prior

opinion in thi s case , the district court’s Rule 11 c olloquy 2 technically

failed to a

pprise Gillespie of thedistrict court’s oblig ations to apply the sentenc ing guidelines. However, a s we previously held, Gillespie failed to object on this basis beforethe district court and c annot show that the error aff ecte d his substantial rights. The Supreme Court’s Booker remand does not af fec t our prior disposition of this Rule 11 issue.

3 $3 1, 15 8. 03 i n arr ea rs on hi s c hi l d sup po rtob l i gat i on s. T he di stri ctcourt

1 s pe c i f i c a l l y a s ke d both G i l l e s pi e a nd hi s c ouns e l w he the rthe y ha d a ny obj e c t i ons orc orr e c t i ons t o the f

a c t s r e c i t e d by the gove rnm e nt . B oth r e s ponde d i n the negat i ve. 2 P ursuantt o sec t i on s 2B 1. 1 and 2J1. 1 o f the G ui del i nes, the P re -s ent ence I nve s t i ga t i on R e por t( “ P S I ” ) c a l c ul a t e d a ba s e of f e ns e l e ve l of

s i x. B a s e d upon a $ 3 3 , 1 9 7 . 9 7 l o ss resu l t i n g fro m th e o ffen se, th e P S I ad d ed an ad d i t i o n al si x o ffen se le v e ls . S e e U .S .S .G . § 2 B 1 .1 ( b ) ( 1 ) ( D ) . T h e P S I f u r th e ra d d e d tw o o f

f e n s e le v e ls because the offens e i nv ol ved v i ol at i on of a pri or spec i fi c j ud i ci al order. S ee U . S . S . G . § 2B 1. 1( b) ( 7) . A f t e ra dow nw a r d a dj us tm e ntf ora c c e pt a nc e of re spon si bi l i ty und er§ 3 E 1. 1(b), the t ot al offe nse l evel st oo d at12 . W hen c om bi ne d w i th G i l l e s pi e ’ s c r i m i na l hi s t ory c a t e gory ( I V ) , the P S I i ndi c a t e d tha tthe g u i d el i n es i m p ri so n m en tran g e w as 2 1 t o 2 4 m o n th s. G il lesp ie filed se v er al o b jectio n s to th e P S I b as ed u p o n : (1 ) th e P S I’s ca l cul at i on of the st artdat e f or the offens e c on du ct ; and (2) the P S I’ s i ncl usi on of a4

D . U . I. o ffen se i n th e cri m i n al h i st o ry co m p u t at i o n . G i l l esp i e’ s o b j ect i o n s al so re qu es t ed a dow nw ar d d eparture bas ed up on ov er -r epre se nt at i on of cr i m i nal hi s t ory , unde rU . S . S . G . § 4A 1. 3. T he s e obj e c t i ons di d notr a i s e the r ol e of the ju d g e a s af

a c t- f in d e r , G ille s p ie ’s r ig h t to ju ry d e te rm in a tio n o f d is p u te d f

a c ts be y ond ar e a s onabl e doubt , ora ny c a s e i n the l i ne of A ppr e ndi v. N e w J e r s e y , 530 U . S . 46 6 (20 00 ). M oreover, G i l l es pi e’ s obj ec t i on s di d n otra i se any f ac tual d i sp u t es. A tsen t en ci n g , G i l l esp i e w i th d rew h i s o b j ect i o n rel at ed t o th e D . U . I. o ffen se s c o r in g . T h e d is tr ic t c o u r t th e n o v e rru le d h is o b je c tio n s c o n c e rn in g th e ap p r o p r ia te st artdat e f

or the offens e c on du ct , and ado pt ed the P S I’ s c ri m i nal hi st ory ca t egori za t i on . W hi l e s t at i ng thatthe “ ov erre pres ent at i on of the cr i m i nal hi st ory is alittle m o r e tr o u b lin g to m e a n d a little c lo s e rc a ll” , th e d is tr ic t c o u r t u ltim a te ly de c l i ne d t o de pa r tdow nw a r d. T he di s tr i c tc our ta c c e pt e d the P S I ’ s gui de l i ne cal cu l at i o n an d factu al b asi s, u l t i m at el y sen t en ci n g G i l l esp i e t o 2 1 m o n th s’ i m pri sonm ent– a se nt ence atthe l ow end o f the gu i del i ne ra ng e. G i l l es pi e t i m el y app ea l ed. In hi s i ni t i al bri ef on appeal , G i l l es pi e a rgued thathi s F i fth and S i xth A m endm entri gh t s w er e vi ol at ed w hen the di stri ctcourt enhanced his se nt ence base d o n b oth h i s pri or conv i ct i on s a nd the chi l d-supp ort a m o u n t, w h e r e n e ith e ro f th o s e f a c ts w e r e p r o v e n to a ju ry b e y o n d a r e a s o n ab le5

doubt . G i l l e s pi e ’ s a r gum e nt s i n thi s r e ga r d w e r e pr e di c a t e d on B l a ke l y v. W a s h in g to n , 1 2 4 S . C t. 2 5 3 1 ( 2 0 0 4 ) . R e ly in g o n th e n - b in d in g C ir c u it p r e c e d e n t, w e r ej ec t ed G i l l es pi e’ s s ent enci ng ar gu m ent s, ho l di ng thatB l akel y di d n otaf fe ct the fe dera l se nt enci ng gu i del i nes. G i l l es pi e, 12 7 F ed. A pp x. 47 2. G i l l es pi e then fi l ed a pet i t i on for aw ri tof ce rt i orar i w i th the S up re m e C ou rt . T he S up re m e C ou rt grant ed thatpet i t i on , vaca t i ng ou r opi ni on and rem andi ng the ca se for f urther c ons i de r a t i on i n l i ghtof B ooke r . G i l l e s pi e , 126 S . C t . 276. STA N D A R D O F R EVI EW T hough G i l l e s pi e r a i s e d s e nt e nc i ng obj e c t i ons be f or e the di s tr i c tc our t , none of tho se obj ec t i on s i m pl i ca t ed the rol e of the j ud ge as fa ct -f i nd er , G i l l es pi e’ s j ury tr ia l r ig h ts , o ris s u e s w h ic h c o u ld r e a s o n ab ly b e c o n s tru e d a s a B o o k e r - ty p e c la im . S ee U ni t ed S t at es v. D ow l i ng , 40 3 F . 3d 12 42 , 12 46 (11th C i r. 20 05 ) ( ho l di ng that appel l ant ’ s non -c on st i tut i on al se nt enci ng obj ec t i on fa i l ed t o p re se rve B oo ker e rr or, w he r e the obj e c t i on m a de no r e f e r e nc e t o the S i xth A m e ndm e nt , the r ol e of j udge a s f a c t - f i nde r , the r i ghtt o j ury de t e rm i na t i on of di s put e d f

a c t s , orthe A ppr e ndi l i ne o f c a s e s ) . H ow e ve r , be c a us e G i l l e s pi e di d e xpl i c i t l y r a i s e a c l a i m ba s e d on B l a ke l y v. W a s h in g to n , 1 2 4 S . C t. 2 5 3 1 ( 2 0 0 4 ) in h is in itia l b r ie f o n ap p e a l, w e r e v ie w h is s e n te n c e f

o rp 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 7 ( 1 1 th6

C ir . 2 0 0 5 ) . U n d e rp la in e rr o rr e v ie w , ap p e lla te c o u r ts h a v e a lim ite d p o w e rto c orr e c te rr or s tha tw e r e nott i m e l y r a i s e d i n the di s tr i c tc our t . U ni t e d S t a t e s v. O la n o , 5 0 7 U .S . 7 2 5 , 7 3 1 ( 1 9 9 3 ) . W e m a y n o t c o rr e c t s u c h a n e rr o ru n le s s : ( i) there i s e rr or; (i i ) i ti s pl ai n; and (i i i ) i taf fe ct s s ub st ant i al ri gh t s. Id. If these three c o n d itio n s a r e m e t, w e m a y e x e r c is e o u rd is c r e tio n to c o rr e c t th e e rr o rif it s e r io u s ly a f

f e c ts th e f a irn e s s , in te g r ity , o rp u b lic r e p u ta tio n o f ju d ic ia l p r o c e e d in g s . I d . DI S CUS S I ON F ol l ow i ng B oo ker, a def endant ’ s S i xth A m endm entri gh t s a re vi ol at ed w hen hi s s ent ence i s e nh ance d u nd era m andat ory gui del i nes s ys t em base d u po n any fa ct ( othe rtha n a pr i orc onvi c t i on) tha ti s ne i the ra dm i tt e d norpr ove n t o a j ury be y ond a r e a s onabl e doubt . B ooke r , 125 S . C t . a t756. F ur the rm or e , a de f e nda nt ’ s nonconst i tut i on al ri gh t s a re vi ol at ed w here he i s s ent ence d u nd erthe m andat ory gui de l i ne s s y s t e m tha tB ooke rha s r e nde r e d a dvi s ory , e ve n i n the abs e nc e of c ons t i tut i ona l B ooke re rr or . U ni t e d S t a t e s v. S he l t on, 400 F . 3d 1325, 1330- 31 ( 1 1 th C ir . 2 0 0 5 ) . T he s e nt e nc e i m pos e d he r e doe s noti m pl i c a t e G i l l e s pi e ’ s S i xth A m e ndm e nt r i ght s be c a us e both G i l l e s pi e a nd hi s c ouns e l i ndi c a t e d tha tthe y ha d no c orr e c t i ons orobj e c t i ons t o the l os s a m ounta s s t a t e d by the gove rnm e nt . A c c or di ngl y , the7

di stri ctcourt ’ s r el i ance on thatl oss a m ou nti n d et erm i ni ng G i l l es pi e’ s s ent ence doe s notc ons t i tut e c ons t i tut i ona l B ooke re rr or . U ni t e d S t a t e s v. B ur ge , 407 F . 3d 1 1 8 3 , 1 1 9 1 - 9 2 ( 1 1 th C ir . 2 0 0 5 ) ( w h e r e d e f e n d a n t a d m itte d th e f

a c ts c o n ta in e d in the P S I , the r e w a s no S i xth A m e ndm e ntB ooke re rr or ) . H ow e ve r , be c a us e the d is tr ic t c o u r t s e n te n c e d G ille s p ie u n d e rth e m a n d a to ry g u id e lin e s s c h e m e , h is se nt ence do es cont ai n st atut ory B oo ker e rr or. S hel t on , 40 0 F . 3d at13 30 -31. T hat e rr ori s now pl a i n. I d. a t1331. H o w e v e r , it d o e s n o t ap p e a rth a t u n d e rth e th ir d p r o n g o f th e p la in - e rr o rte s t, G i l l e s pi e ’ s s ubs t a nt i a l r i ght s ha ve be e n a f f e c t e d. T he thi r d pr ong of pl a i n e rr or r e vi e w r e qui r e s the de f

e nda ntt o de m ons tr a t e a r e a s onabl e pr obabi l i ty of a di f f e r e nt r e s u lt u n d e rth e a d v is o ryg u id e lin e s s y s te m . I d . W h e r e th e e f f e c t o f th e e rr o ris i nd et erm i nat e or i f w e w ou l d b e l ef tt o specul at e, thatbu rden has notbeen sa t i sf i ed. Id. at13 01 . S i m i l ar l y, the fa ctthatthe di stri ctcourti m po se d a se nt ence a t th e lo w e n d o f

th e g u id e lin e s r a n g e , s ta n d in g a lo n e , d o e s n o t s a tis f y th is b u r d e n . U n ite d S ta te s v . F ie ld s , 4 0 8 F .3 d 1 3 5 6 , 1 3 6 1 ( 1 1 th C ir . 2 0 0 5 ) . A f t e ra c l os e r e vi e w of

the r e c or d, w e c onc l ude tha tG i l l e s pi e ha s nots how n a r ea sonabl e probabi l i ty of al ow erse nt ence un der the po st -B oo ker a dv i sory s e n te n c in g s y s te m . W h ile G ille s p ie f o c u s e s o n th e d is tr ic t c o u r t’s c o m m e n t th a t it

“ coul d g o ei ther w ay ” on h i s m ot i on for ado w nw ar d d eparture, thi s s t at em entat8

be s tl e a ve s us t o s pe c ul a t e a s t o the e f f e c ttha tthe m a nda t ory na tur e of the gu i del i nes had on G i l l es pi e’ s s ent ence . M oreover, the fa ctthatthe di stri ctcourt s e nt e nc e d G i l l e s pi e a tthe l ow e nd of the gui de l i ne s r a nge doe s nota l one s a t i s f y the thi rd pron g o f pl ai n err or re vi ew . F i el ds, 40 8 F . 3d at13 61 . A s s uch, G i l l es pi e has fa i l ed t o d em on stra t e thatthe B oo ker e rr or af fe ct ed hi s s ub st ant i al ri gh t s. S ee U ni t ed S t at es v. C artw ri gh t , 41 3 F . 3d 12 95 , 13 01 (11th C i r. 20 05 ). A c c or di ngl y , w e r e i ns t a t e ourpr i oropi ni on w i th the e xc e pt i on of our d i s c u s s i o n c o n c e rn i n g B l a k e l y ’ s ap p l i c a t i o n t o th e Gu i d e l i n e s , f o rwh i c h we s u b s titu te th e f

o r e g o in g . O P I N I O N R E I N S T A T E D I N P A R T ; A F F I R M E D .9

T J O F L A T , C i r c ui tJ udge , s pe c i a l l y c onc urr i ng: I c on cur i n the court ’ s j ud gm entbecause G i l l es pi e f ai l ed t o sat i sf

y the thi rd pron g o f the pl ai n-error t es tas thatt es ti s a rt i cul at ed i n o ur prece dent , e. g. , U ni t ed S t a t e s v. S he l t on, 400 F . 3d 1325, 1332 ( 11th C i r . 2005) . T ha ti s , G i l l e s pi e ha s not dem on stra t ed “ a r ea sonabl e probabi l i ty of adi ff er entre sul tun der the advi sory gu i del i nes s ys t em , ” a s S hel t on re qu i re s. A nt e a t___. S hel t on ac kn ow l edges that

“ i tw i l l be di f

f i c ul tf ora de f e nda ntt o e s t abl i s h the thi r d pr ong i n B ooke r - e rr or ca se s. ” 400 F . 3d at13 32 n. 8. W hatthe defendantm ustdo t o est abl i sh the thi rd pr ong i s poi ntt o s om e thi ng the di s tr i c tc our ts a i d a tthe s e nt e nc i ng he a r i ng – spec i fi ca l l y, st at em ent s i nd i ca t i ng thatw er e the G ui del i nes a dv i soryra ther than m andat ory, the courtw ou l d i m po se a l es se r s ent ence . T he courtm ade s uch s t a t e m e nt s i n S he l t on, i nc l udi ng as t a t e m e nttha ta s e nt e nc e a tthe bott om of the G ui de l i ne s s e nt e nc e r a nge w a s “ ‘ m or e tha n appr opr i a t e . ” I d. a t1332. “ A l l of [ the d i stri ctco u rt ’ s] co m m en t s t ak en t o g eth er co n v i n ced [th i s co u rt ] th atth ere i s a re as on abl e probabi 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 n S he l t on’ s c a s e i f

i tha d notf

e l tbound by the G ui de l i ne s . ” I d. a t1332- 33. I n U ni t e d S t a t e s v. T hom ps on, I r e f e rr e d t o ours e a r c h f

orthe s or tof st at em ent s thatsa t i sf

i ed the thi rd pron g i n S hel t on as a s ea rc h for “ m agi c w ords. ” 4 2 2 F .3 d 1 2 8 5 , 1 3 0 2 ( 1 1 th C ir . 2 0 0 5 ) ( T jo f la t, J . s p e c ia lly c o n c u rr in g ) . I th e n s a id10

th a tad i s tr i c tj u d g e wh o m a k e s th e s o r to f s t a t e m e n t s –u s e s th e m a g i c wo r d s –we l oo k for i s i n a very re al se nse “ fost er [i ng ] di sr es pectfor the rul e of l aw . ” I d. at 1304. T ha ti s , i n a ddi t i on t o t e l l i ng the de f e nda nttha ti ti s di s s a t i s f i e d w i th the p u n is h m e n t th e C o n g r e s s h a s p r o v id e d , ap u n is h m e n t th e c o u r t is b o u n d b y its o a th o f o f f ic e to im p o s e , th e d is tr ic t c o u r t is e n c o u r a g in g th e d e f e n d a n t to “p e r s is t in att ac ki ng hi s s ent ence on di re ctappeal and col l at er al re vi ew , no tw i thst andi ng that i t s s ubs t a nc e a nd the m a nne rof i t s i m pos i t i on a r e l e ga l l y c orr e c t . A f t e ra l l , w hy s houl d the de f

e nda ntnotappe a l a s e nt e nc e tha te ve n the j udge c r i t i c i z e d a s t oo se vere ? ” I d. at13 03 -04. U nd erou r thi rd-prong t es t , “ [a ] defe nd anti s r ew ar ded w ith an e w s e n te n c in g h e a r in g o n ly if th e s e n te n c in g ju d g e to o k th e e n tir e ly i nappr opr i a t e s t e p of

publ i c a l l y c r i t i c i z i ng the l a w tha tr e qui r e d hi m t o i m pos e the s e nt e nc e . I n c ontr a s t , a de f e nda ntw hos e s e nt e nc e w a s i m pos e d w i thoutgr a tui t ous co m m en tb y th e sen t en ci n g j u d g e i s d en i ed a n ew h eari n g . ” Id . at1 3 0 5 . A s I obs e rve d i n T hom ps on, ha vi ng de f e ns e c ouns e l a nd the U . S . A tt orne y qui bbl i ng ov erw hether the se nt enci ng j ud ges’ s w ords ar e m agi ca l enou gh t o w arra nta new s e n te n c in g h e a r in g “is a s a rb itr a ry a s it is ab s u r d .” I d .