### FI LED U.S. COURT O F APP EALS ELEVENTH CIRCUIT J uly 27, 20 05 THO MAS K. KAH N CL ERK [DO NOT PUBLISH] IN THE UN ITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FO R T HE EL EV EN TH CIRC UI T

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ N o. 03- 1593 1 Non-A rgum ent Calendar

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ D. C. Docket N o. 03-00017 -CR- 1-1 UNITED STAT ES OF AMERIC A, Pl ai nt iff -Ap pe ll ee,
ve rs us REGINALD MOLDEN, a.k .a. Reg in al d Tro ut m an , Defen da nt -Ap pe ll an t.

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ Appeal f rom the United State s District Court fo r the N orthe rnD istri ct

of G eo rg ia

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ _ (J ul y 27 , 200 5) ON REM AN D F ROM THE SU PREME CO UR T OF THE U NITE D S TAT ES Be fo re BL A CK , BA RKE T T a nd M A RC U S, Ci rc uit Jud ge s. PE R CU RIA M:2

T his c as e is b ef

ore th e Co urt f

or c onsi de ra tio n inli ght

of U nit ed S ta te s v. Bo oke r , 5 4 3 U
. S
.

_

_ , 1 2 5 S
. C t . 7 3 8 ,

_

_ L
. E d
. 2 d

_

_ ( 2 0 0 5 )
. W e pr ev iou sly af fi rm ed Appe llant’ s c onvi ct iona nd 1 10- m onth se nte nc e fo r be ing ac onvi ct ed f el on in p oss es sio n of a fi re ar

m , in vio la tio n of

18 U
. S. C. § 92 2( g)
. S ee U nit ed S ta te s v. Molden, Case N o. 03-15931 , 1 1 2 Fe d . Appx. 3 (11th Cir. 2004) (T able) (unpub lis he d) ( “ Mol de n I ”)
. T he S upr em e Co urt va ca te d ou r pr io r de cisio n and
rem anded the case to us for further consideration in light of Bo oker. W e asked for,
an d have r ec ei ve d, sup ple m en tal br ie fs f ro m the pa rt ie s onthe e ff

ec t of Bo oke r on this case. O n r ec onsi de ra tio n, w e fi rs t no te tha t M old enis en ti tle d to pr es er ve d e rr or
re vie w be ca

use he obj ect ed to the se nte nc ing e nhanc em en t, ba se d onthe se m iau tom at ic w ea

pon, a t se nte nc ing
. S ee U nit ed S ta te s v. Pa z, 405 F. 3d 9 46, 948 ( 11th Cir. 2005 ). T hus, we will re view his claim de novo, but will reverse onlyfor a harm ful err or. I d. Th e governm ent bears the burden to prove that a preserved Bo oke r er

ro r w as harm le ss. I d. T he re a re two types of Bo oke r er ro r: ( 1) aS ixth Am endm ent error

-- that is, im

posin g a sentencin g en h an cem ent based on judicial fi ndi ngs tha t go be y ond the fa ct s adm itt ed by the de fe ndant o r fo und by the j ur y ; and (2) a statutory , or non-cons titutio nal error -- t h at is, being sentenced under a
m anda tor y se nte nc ing gui de lin es sc he m e tha t i s m an da tor y . S ee U nit ed

S ta te s v.T h e j ury fo un d M o l d en gu i l ty

o f b ei n g a f

el o ni np o s s es s i o no f afi re arm . At s en t en ci n g, 1 the district court made the additional findingthat Molden committed an ag g ravated assault in the course of the same incident.
3 Shelton, 400 F.3d 1325, 1330 -31 (11th Cir. 2005 ); s ee also United States v. Ma thenia, 2005 W L 120 1455 , *2 ( 11th C ir
. May 23, 200 5)
. A Bo oke r co nst itu tio na l e rr or is ha rm le ss w he re the gove rn m en t ca n show , be y ond a re as ona ble doub t, tha t the e rr or di d n ot co nt rib ut e to th e de fen da nt ’s ul ti m at e se nt en ce. Paz , 40 5 F .3d at 9 48 -4 9. A Bo oke r non- co nst itu tio na l e rr or “ is h ar m le ss i f, vie w ing the pr oc ee din gs i n th ei r
en tir ety , ac ou rt de te rm in es tha t the e rr or did not a ff ec t the [ se nte nc e] , ‘ or

ha d bu t very slight eff

ect. ”’ U nited States v . H ornaday , 392 F. 3d 130 6, 1315 (11th Cir. 2004 ) (c ita tio ns o m itt ed ) (quot ing K ott eakos v. U nit ed S ta te s, 328 U .S. 750 , 762 , 76 3, 6 6 S . Ct. 1 23 9, 1 24 6, 1 24 8, 9 0 L. Ed. 1 55 7 (1 94 6) ). Acco rd in g t o t h e PSI, M ol de n’s b as e o ffen se lev el was 2 0 u nd er U.S.S.G. § 2K2.1(a )(4)( A)
. The probation officer rec omm ended, and the district court im pose d, af our -l ev el upw ar d a dj ust m en t, pur suant t o § 2 K 2. 1( b) (5 ), f or pos se ssi ng a fire arm in connection with another fe lonyoffense ( an aggravated assault on a law enforcem ent officer ). As the governm ent concedes, in its supp lem ental letter brief , this case invol ves both Booker constitut ional error - - the dis t rict court enhanced Mol de n’ s se nte nc e ba se d onaf ac t no t f ound by the j ur y or c ha rg ed in the ind ic tm en t 14

-- a nd B ooke r non- co nst itu tio na l, or sta tut or y , e rr or - - af te r ad opt ing the P SI a nd i ts
recomm en d ed Guidelines range, the district court treated the re sultin g range as
m an da to ry . Mo reo ve r, ag ai n a s co nc ed edby the go ve rn m en t i n i ts su pp le m en ta l b rie f, we
cannot te ll w he the r the dis tr ic t co urt w oul d im pose the sa m e se nte nc e, ( 1) w ith out the im pe rm iss ibl e f

a c t f i n d i n g ( c o n s t i t

u t i o n a l e r r o r ), or ( 2) und er the a dvi sor

y sc he m e now
m an da te d by

Bo oke r (n on- co nst itu tio na l e rr or ). A c c o r d i n gly , the gov er nm en t ha s no t attem pted to, and thus cannot, satisfy its burden to show harm lessness. Cf . Un ited St at es v. D av is, 407 F. 3d 1 269, 1271 -7 2 (11th Cir
. 2005 ) (“ W e sim ply do n ot k now
w ha t the se nte ncin g c ourt w oul d have don e ha d it und er sto od the gui de lin es to be advisory rather than m andatory , and had properly considered the factors in 18 U. S. C. § 35 53( a)
. T he re fo re , the G ove rn m en t c an not m ee t i ts b ur den of sh owin g th at the
m an da tor y appl icati on of

the gui de lin es in vio la tio n of D av is’ s S ixth A m en dm en t rig ht was h arm le ss be y on d a reas on ab le do ub t.”)
. Be ca use the gov er

nm en t c an not

e sta bli sh the Bo oke r non- co nst itu tio na l e rr or
w as harm le ss unde r the K ott eakos standard , nor c anit sho w the c onst itu tio na l e rr or
w as harm le ss b ey ond a re as ona ble doubt, w e va ca te Mol de n’ s se nte nc e an d r em an dOn re mand, the district cour t is required to sente nce Molde n under a n advisory 2 Gu ide lin e s r e g ime , a

nd sh a ll c on sid e r t

he Gu ide lin e s r ang e and

“ oth e r s tatut or

y con cern s a s w e ll, see [18 U.S.C.] § 3553(a) (Supp.2004).” B ooker, 125 S. Ct. at 757. By this order, we do not mean to imply that on rema

nd the district court must impose a lesser sentenc e. Rather , we mer ely hold that the g ov e rnme nt h a s f

a ile d to me e t it s bur de n to sh owthat th e B oo ke r e rr or wa s h arm le ss. We a lso wi l l n o tat t em p tt o d ec i d e n o w w h et h er a p art i cu l ar s en t en ce b el o w o r ab o v e t h e G u i d el i n es ra n ge mig ht b e re a so na

ble in t his c a se , a s th a t is su e is n ot b e fo re us .

5 for re sentencing con sistent wi t h Bo oker. Finally , no re versible error occurred 2
re la tin g to Mo lde n’ s c onvi ct ionso w e re ins tate our o pin iona s to the c onvi ct ion

rel at edch al le ng es he pre vi ou sl y rai se d. OPI NIO N REINST ATED I N PART; SENTE NCE VACATED AND REMANDED.