FILED U.S. COURT OF AP P EALS E LEV EN T HC IRC U IT APRIL4, 2007 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- 11246 N on -A rgum entC al endar

________________________ D . C. D o c k e tN o . 0 5 - 0 0 0 2 1 - CR- FTM - 3 3 - 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 S H E R A L D D W I G H T D A N I E L S , 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

_________________________ ( A p r i l4, 2007) B efo re C A RN E S , W IL S O N an d P R Y O R , C i rcu i tJu d g es. P E R C U R I A M: S hera l d D w i gh tD ani el s app ea l s hi s c on vi ct i on and sent ence for c on spi ra cy t o i m por ti nt o the U ni t e d S t a t e s f i ve ki l ogr a m s orm or e of c oc a i ne , i n vi ol a t i on of2

2 1 U .S .C . § § 9 5 2 , 9 6 0 ( b ) ( 1 ) ( B ) ( ii) & 963. O n appe a l , D a ni e l s a r gue s tha tthe di stri ctcourtfa i l ed t o com pl y w i th F ed. R . C ri m . P . 11 by ac ce pt i ng hi s gui l ty pl ea e ve n though he r e f

us e d t o a dm i ttha the c ons pi r e d t o i m por tc oc a i ne , a r gui ng i nst ea d thathe tho ug hti tw as m ar i j uana. D ani el s a l so as se rt s thatthe di stri ctcourt erre d i n sent enci ng hi m base d o n the fa ctual fi nd i ng s of the P re se nt ence I n v e s tig a tio n R e p o r t, w h ic h a ttr ib u te d s e v e r a l th o u s a n d k ilo g r a m s o f c o c a in e to h im , w ith o u t r e q u ir in g th e g o v e rn m e n t to s u b m it e v id e n c e o f h is in v o lv e m e n t in the c ons pi r a c y a nd the ty pe a nd a m ountof drugs i m por t e d. U pon r e vi e w of the re cord and the part i es ’ bri ef s, w e di sc ern n o revers i bl e e rr or. F ir s t, th e d o c tr in e o f

in v ite d e rr o rp r e c lu d e s o u rr e v ie w o f D a n ie ls ’ c la im thatthe di stri ctcourterre d i n acc ept i ng hi s gui l ty pl eaw i tho utthe re qu i si t e f ac tual basi s. “ [I ] ti s aca rdi nal rul e of app el l at e r evi ew thata party m ayno tchal l enge as e rr o ra ru lin g o ro th e rtr ia l p r o c e e d in g ” if s u c h e rr o rw a s in v ite d b y th a t p a r ty . U ni t e d S t a t e s v. B a ke r , 432 F . 3d 1189, 1216 ( 11th C i r . 2005) ( quot a t i ons a nd c ita tio n s o m itte d , a lte r a tio n in o r ig in a l) , c e r t. d e n ie d , 1 2 6 S . C t. 1 8 0 9 ( 2 0 0 6 ) . W he n a pa r ty i nduc e s ori nvi t e s the di s tr i c tc our tt o m a ke a n e rr or , the doc tr i ne of i nvi t e d e rr ori s i m pl i c a t e d, a nd w e a r e pr e c l ude d f r om r e vi e w i ng tha te rr oron appeal . Id. ; U ni t ed S t at es v. H arri s, 44 3 F . 3d 82 2, 82 3– 24 (11th C i r. 20 06 ). A ny e rr ortha tm a y ha ve oc c urr e d i n a c c e pt i ng D a ni e l s ’ pl e aw he n he3

c h a l l e n g e d p o r t i o n s o f

th e g o v e rn m e n t ’ s f

a c tu a l b a s i s wa s i n v i t e d . I n h i s o wn m ot i on e nc our a gi ng the c our tt o a c c e pthi s gui l ty pl e a , D a ni e l s s t a t e d: I n th e p r e s e n t c a s e , M r . D a n ie ls is n o t a s s e r tin g f a c ts th a t w o u ld n e g a te h is g u ilt. . . . h e is s im p ly “r a is in g th e q u e s tio n o f h is s p e c if

ic k n o w le d g e o f

th e ty p e o f

d ru g in v o lv e d . . . . in a s m u c h a s M r . D a n ie ls adm i tt ed thathe kn ew he w as deal i ng w i th a control l ed subst ance , that he part i ci pat ed w i th atl ea sttw o o thers i n the un l aw ful pl an, and that he w i l l ful l y j oi ned the un l aw ful agre em ent , the C ou rtca n b e s at i sf i ed th a t th e r e e x is ts a f

a c tu a l b a s is f

o rth e g u ilty p le a . A c c o r d in g ly , it is r e s pe c t f ul l y r e que s t e d tha tthi s C our ta c c e ptthe pl e a , a nd a doptthe re po rtand recom m endat i on of the U ni t ed S t at es M agi stra t e J ud ge. D a ni e l s c a nnota s k the c our tt o a c c e pthi s pl e ai n one br e a th a nd the n c l a i m tha tthe c our te rr e d by doi ng s o i n a nothe r . E ve n pl a i n e rr orr e vi e w of thi s i s s ue w oul d be i m prop er . D ani el s pet i t i on ed the courtt o acc epthi s gui l ty pl ea , and the court o b lig e d . A n y e rr o rh e r e w a s in v ite d . A c c o r d in g ly , w e w ill n o t a d d r e s s th e m e r its of thi s i s s ue . S e e H a rr i s , 443 F . 3d a t823–24. S e c o n d , w e c o n s id e rD a n ie ls ’ a r g u m e n t th a t th e d is tr ic t c o u r t im p r o p e r ly de t e rm i ne d the a m ounta nd ty pe of drug i n c a l c ul a t i ng the gui de l i ne r a nge . T he P S I a ttri bu t ed se vera l tho usand k i l og ra m s of c ocai ne t o D ani el s, re sul t i ng i n an a dj us t e d ba s e of

f e ns e l e ve l of

35 a nd agui de l i ne r a nge of 188 t o 235 m onths im p r is o n m e n t. D a n ie ls f a ile d to o b

je c t to th e f

a c tu a l s ta te m e n ts s e t o u t in th e P S I . R e je c tin g D a n ie ls ’ te s tim o n y th a t h e th o u g h t h e w a s im p o r tin g m a r iju a n aa n d d id no tkn ow i tw as coca i ne un t i l he w as ac tual l y i nd i ct ed, the di stri ctcourtse nt ence d4

D a n ie ls to 2 0 0 m o n th s im p r is o n m e n t. U nde rthe S upr e m e C our t ’ s de c i s i on i n U ni t e d S t a t e s v. B ooke r , the s e nt e nc i ng gui de l i ne s a r e no l onge rm a nda t ory . 543 U . S . 220, 264, 125 S . C t . 738, 7 6 7 (2 0 0 5 ). A l th o u g h th e g u i d el i n es are m erel y ad v i so ry, a d i stri ctco u rtst i l l m u st ca l cul at e the advi soryse nt enci ng ra ng e c orre ct l y a nd consi der thatra ng e w hen de t e rm i ni ng a de f

e nda nt ’ s s e nt e nc e . U ni t e d S t a t e s v. C r a w f or d, 407 F . 3d 1174, 11 78 –7 9 (11 th C i r. 20 05 ). B oo ker does notal t erou r pre vi ou sl y e st abl i shed s ta n d a r d s o f

r e v ie w o f

th e d is tr ic t c o u r t’s in te rp r e ta tio n o f th e g u id e lin e s , s e e id ., a n d w e g e n e r a lly r e v ie w a d is tr ic t c o u r t’s d e te rm in a tio n o f th e d ru g q u a n tity i nv ol ved for cl ea r e rr or. U ni t ed S t at es v. Z apat a, 13 9 F . 3d 13 55 , 13 57 (11th C i r. 1998) . H ow e ve r , be c a us e D a ni e l s f a i l e d t o obj e c tt o the P S I , ourr e vi e w i s onl y f or pl ai n err or. S ee U ni t ed S t at es v. M un oz, 43 0 F . 3d 13 57 , 13 75 (11th C i r. 20 05 ), c e r t. d e n ie d , 1 2 6 S . C t. 2 3 0 5 ( 2 0 0 6 ) . I ti s e s t abl i s he d tha t“ [ t ] he di s tr i c tc our t ’ s f a c tua l f i ndi ngs f orpurpos e s of s e n te n c in g m a y b e b a s e d o n , a m o n g o th e rth in g s , e v id e n c e h e a r d d u r in g tr ia l, undi s put e d s t a t e m e nt s i n the P S I , ore vi de nc e pr e s e nt e d dur i ng the s e nt e nc i ng h e a r in g .” U n ite d S ta te s v . P o la r , 3 6 9 F .3 d 1 2 4 8 , 1 2 5 5 ( 1 1 th C ir . 2 0 0 4 ) . F urtherm ore, w hen a defendantdo es no tobj ec tt o the fa ctual fi nd i ng s i n the P S I, thos e f a c tua l f i ndi ngs a r e de e m e d t o be a dm i tt e d. U ni t e d S t a t e s v. S he l t on, 4005

F .3 d 1 3 2 5 , 1 3 3 0 ( 1 1 th C ir . 2 0 0 5 ) . D a n ie ls n e v e ro b

je c te d to th e f

a c tu a l s ta te m e n ts o f

th e P S I h o ld in g h im r e s p o n s ib le f

o rth e im p o r ta tio n o f

th o u s a n d s o f

k ilo g r a m s o f

c o c a in e . C on se qu ent l y, w e tre athi s c as e on app ea l as tho ug h h e a dm i tt ed tho se fa ct s. E ven s o, hi s a s s e r t i on tha the di d notknow the ty pe of drug i nvol ve d di d notpr e c l ude the d is tr ic t c o u r t f

r o m a ttr ib u tin g to h im th e f u ll m e a s u r e o f

th e c o c a in e h e h e lp e d to i m por tf ors e nt e nc i ng purpos e s . U ni t e d S t a t e s v. A l va r e z - C or i a , 447 F . 3d 1340, 1344 ( 11th C i r . 2006) ( hol di ng tha t“ [ t ] he f a c ttha t[ the de f

e nda nt ] di d notknow the ty pe orqua nt i ty of

the drugs [ i m por t e d] di d notpr e c l ude the di s tr i c tc our tf r om a ttr i but i ng the drugs t o hi m f ors e nt e nc i ng purpos e s ” ) . A ddi t i ona l l y , the c o m m e n ta ry to U n ite d S ta te s S e n te n c in g G u id e lin e § 1 B 1 .3 , w h ic h d e a ls w ith re lev an t co n d u ct fo r d eter m in in g th e a p p li ca b le g u id elin e r an g e, states : “ a defe nd antw ho tra nspo rt s asui t ca se kn ow i ng thati tcont ai ns a c on trol l ed subst ance . . . is a c c o u n tab le f

o rth e c o n tr o lle d s u b s ta n c e in th e s u itc a s e r e g a r d le s s o f h is kn ow l edge or l ac k o f kno w l edge of the ac tual type or a m ou ntof thatcontrol l ed s u b s ta n c e .” U .S .S .G . § 1 B 1 .3 , c m t. n .2 ( a ) ( 1 ) . A c c o r d in g ly , th e d is tr ic t c o u r t d id notpl a i nl y e rri n s e nt e nc i ng D a ni e l s ba s e d on the undi s put e d qua nt i ty of c oc a i ne s ta te d in th e P S I . AF F I RME D.