F ILED U.S. COURT O F APP EALS EL EV EN TH C IRC UIT July 12, 20 05 T HOMA S K. KA HN CLERK [DO NOT PUBLISH] IN THE UN ITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FO R T HE EL EV EN TH CIRC UI T

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ N o. 04- 1446 9 Non-A rgum ent Calendar

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ D. C. Docket N o. 03-00291 -CR- RW S-1 UNITED STAT ES OF AMERIC A, Plaintiff-Appellee, ve rs us JANINE HARDSON, D ef en dant- Appe llant.

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ __ Appe al f ro m the U nit ed

S ta te s D istri ct

Co urt fo r the N orthe rnD istri ct

of G eo rg ia

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ (July 12, 200 5) Be fo re BI RC H , D U BIN A a nd B A RKE T T , Ci rc uit Jud ge s. PE R CU RIA M: Appellant Janine Har dson appeals her 15-m onth sentence im posed after pleading g uiltyto one count of m aking a false claim against the United States2

T re as ur y , in vio la tio n of

18 U . S. C. § 28 7. O n a

ppe al , H ar dsona rg ue s th at in lig ht of B lak eyv . W ashi ngt on , 542 U. S. ___, 124 S. Ct 2531, 159 L. Ed. 2d 403 (2004), the district court viol ated her F ifth and Sixth Am endm ent rights in enhancing her sentence based on the determ ination that the tax loss am ount is greater than $80, 000, but

le ss than $2 00, 000, r athe r than us ing the ta x lo ss c harg ed in the indictm ent and adm itted by her of $16,961. H ardson argues that because her se nte nc e w as e nhanc ed

ba se d up on a

f ac t no t c harg ed

in the ind ic tm en t or adm itt ed by he r, he r se nte nc e w as e nhanc ed be y ond the c onst itu tio na lly pe rm is si bl e st atut ory

m ax im um . A ft er H ar dsonf

ile d he r ap pe al , the S upr em e Co urt r en de re d it s de ci sio n in United States v. B ooker , 543 U . S. a t __ _, 125 S . Ct . 738 , 160 L . E d. 2d 6 21 (2 005) . I n th e re sul tin g op ini ons, the S upr em e Co urt he ld tha t “ ‘ the S ixth Am endm ent right to trial by j ury is violated where under a m andatory guidelin es sy ste m ase nte nc e is i nc re as ed

be ca use of a n e nhanc em en t ba se d onf ac ts f ound by t h e ju d g e t h at we re n ei t h erad m i t t ed b y t h e d ef en d an tn o r f

o u n db y t h e ju ry.” ’ U nit ed Sta tes v . M

ahe rni a , N o. 04- 1525 0, sli p op . a t 23 28 ( 11th C ir . May 23, 2005 ) (quot ing United States v. R odrig uez , 398 F . 3d 1 291, 129 8 ( 11th C ir . 200 5) (c iti ng United States v. B ooker , 54 3 U.S. _

__ , 12 5 S .C. 73 8, 7 49 -5 6 (2 00 5) ).3

W e ha ve r ec ogni ze d, ba se d onthi s ho ldi ng, that the dis tr ic t c ourts c oul d have m ade both a constit ution al and a statutory err or in sentencing d efendants preBooker . M

ahe rni a , N o. 04- 1525 0, sli p op . a t 23 28. “ T he c onst itu tio na l e rr or is the use of e xtr a- ve rd ic t e nhanc em en ts t o r ea chagui de lin es r es ult that i s bi ndi ng on the sentencin g judge. ” Id . “ The statutory err or occurs w hen the district court sentences a defe ndant un der a m andatory guidelin es schem e, even in the absence of a Sixth Am endm ent enhancem ent violatio n.” Id . (internal quotation om itted). Hardson prop erly

preserved her Booker

e rr or c la im by c iti ng Blakeyin her pre-sentencing m otion to declare the Federa l Sentencing Guidelines un co ns ti tu ti on al an d i n h er ar gu m en ts at t he sen te nc in g h eari ng . See United States v. M ahe rni a , N o. 04- 1525 0, sli p op . a t 23 28 ( 11th C ir . May 23, 200 5) ( hol din g that a ppe llant p ro pe rl y

pr es er ve d Booker

e rr or c la im by c iti ng Blakeyin his w ri tte n ob

j ec tio n to the P SI a nd r em ind ing the c ourt a t se nte nc ing of his Blakey obj ec tio n) . W e re vie wade fe ndant’ s pr es er ve d Blakey

/Booker c l a i m de novo but wil l re ve rs e an d re m an d o nl y forha rm fu l erro r. U

nit ed Sta tes v . P az , 405 F . 3d 94 6, 9 48 (11 th Cir . 20 05 ). T he re a re tw o harmle ss e rr or standard s, one appl ie s to Booker constitu tional er ro rs , the oth er

to Booker

st atut ory erro rs . M

ahe rni a , N o. 04-15250 , slip op. at 23 28 . “ [C]on st it ut io na l erro rs are h arm le ss wher e th e g ov ern m en t ca n s ho w,4

“ b eyo n da r ea s o n ab l e d o ub t , t h at t h e e rr o r d i dn o tco n t ri b u t e t o t h e d ef en d an t ’s ultim ate sentence. ” Id . On th e o th er h an d, Booker statut or y e rr or s are sub

j ec t t o the le ss d em an din g te st tha t i s a ppl ic ab le to non- co nst itu tio na l e rr or s, that i s,

“ error is harm less if, view ing th e proceedings in their entirety , a court determ ines that the error did no t affe ct the sentence, or had but very slight eff ect. ” Id . at 2328 -29 (internal quotatio ns om itted). T his c as e co nc er

ns b othc onst itu tio na l e rr or a nd Booker

st atut ory erro r. H ar dsondis put ed

a ny f ind ing that the ta x lo ss w as gr eate r than th e am ount charged in the indictm ent and adm itted by her of $16,961. T he district court ap pli ed af our -l ev el e nhanc em en t, pur suant t o U . S. S. G . § 2T 4. 1, be ca use it determ ined that the actual am ount of tax loss was m ore than $80,000 and less than $200 , 000. B ec au se H ar dsondis put ed alos s am ount

gr eate r than $1 6, 961, the en hanc em en t w as m ad e ba se d onf ac ts n ei the r pr ove n to aj ur y nor a dm itt ed by Hard so n, re su lt in g i n a Six th Am en dm en t v io la ti on of h er ri gh ts . See P az , 405 F. 3d at 948 (noting th at “ under Booker , the S ixth Am endm ent right to trial by j ury is viol ated wher e under a mand atory gu idelines system a sentence is incre ased because of enhancem ent based on facts found bythe j udge that were neither adm itted by

the defendant nor found bythe j ury .” ) (quotation om itted).Ha rd so n h a s a

ba nd on e d a ny c la im w ithre sp e c t to the g uid e lin e s r ang e . Thu s, we a g re e wi th 1 the g overnme nt that on remand the court should not reope n the ca lculations underlyi ngthe ra ng e. See Un ite d S

tates v . M esa , 247 F .3 d 116 5, 11 71 n. 6 ( 11 th C ir . 2 00 1) (n oti ngthat by fa ili ngto r a ise an issue duringfirst appe al, the def endant a bandoned that argument on rema nd). United States v. F iallo-Jacome , 8 7 4 F . 2 d

1 4 7 9 , 1 4 8 1 - 8 3 ( 1 1 th

Ci r . 1 9 8 9 ) ( r e f

u s in gto c o n s id e r

anis s u e w h e re criminal def

endant f ailed to r aise an issue on the defe ndant’s first appea l, a nd later tried to raise the iss ue in a su bs e qu e nt a

pp e a l, s tatin gthat th e de fe nd ant w ou ld n ot b e g ive n “ tw o b ite s at th e a pp e llate apple” ). The c ourt, howeve r, is not of course bound to sentence within this rang e. 5 W e m ust dis re gard

e rr or , how ev er , if

it is cl ear, be y ond a re as ona ble doubt, th atth e err ordi d n ot co nt rib ut e to th e se nt en ce i m po se d. Id . a t 94 8- 49. O n th is re co rd , w e cannot

hol d th e er

ro r to b e harm le ss. I t i s e vid en t f ro m the se nte nc ing tr an sc ri pt tha t, if

the dis tr ic t c ourt ha d no t be enbound b y the se nte nc ing guid elines, H ardson’ s sentence w ouldhave been shorter. H ardson was sentenced to 1 5 m onths i m

pr iso nm en t, but

the dis tr ic t c ourt i m

pose d an a lte rn at ive 10- m onth se nte nc e if

the gui de lin es w er e fo und to n ot a ppl y . I n P az , w e he ld tha t the governm ent could no t m eet its burden to sh ow harm less error wher e the district court stated that it would have im posed a sho rter se ntence if the guidelines were fo un d t o b e u nc on st it ut io na l. P az , 405 F. 3d at 949. Like P az , the c onsti tutio nal erro r in th e in st an t ca se was n ot ha rm le ss be y on d a reas on ab le do ub t. Thu s, we va cate the se nte nc e an d r em an d f or r es en te nc ing . 1 VACATED AND REMANDED.