FI LED U. S . COURT OF AP PE ALS E L E V E N T H C IR C U IT Se pt e m be r 15, 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. 05- 11372 N on -A rgum entC al endar

________________________ D . C . D ocketN o. 04 -000 10 -C R -9-6 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 J E R M A I N E M C K E E V E R , 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 o rth e S o u th e r n D is tr ic t o f G e o r g ia

_________________________ ( S e pt e m be r15, 2005) B efo re T JO F L A T , D U B IN A 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: Je rm ai ne M cK ee ver app ea l s hi s 175 -m on th sent ence , i m po se d aft erhe pl ed gui l ty t o di s tr i but i ng ap p ro x i m a t e l y 12 gr a m s of c oc a i ne pow de r , i n vi ol a t i on of 21 U .S .C . § 8 4 1 ( a ) . O n ap p e a l, M c K e e v e r 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 i xth A m e ndm e nt r i ght s by e nha nc i ng hi s s e nt e nc e ba s e d on a qua nt i ty o f d ru gs2

n o t a d m itte d b y h im o re s ta b lis h e d b e y o n d a r e a s o n a b l e d o u b t to a ju r y , in vi ol a t i on of

U ni t e d S t a t e s v. B ooke r , 5 4 3 U . S .

_ _ _, 125 S . C t . 738, 160 L . E d. 2d 62 1 (20 05 ), w hi ch w as d ec i ded p ri or t o M cK ee ver’ s s ent enci ng hear i ng . A ft er c a r e f ul r e vi e w of

the pa r t i e s ’ br i e f

s a nd the r e c o rd , w i th pa r t i c ul a ra tt e nt i on t o the tr a n s c r i p to f

th e s e n t e n c i n g h e a r i n g , w e a f f i r m. B e c a us e M c K e e ve rpr e s e r ve d hi s B ooke rc l a i m i n the di s tr i c t co ur t , our re vi ew i s de nov o, bu tw e w i l l re v er se an d rem and o nl y f or harm ful error. S ee U ni t ed S t at es v. P az , 40 5 F . 3d 9 4 6, 94 8 (11 th C i r. 20 05 ). P re se rved const i tut i on al and st atut ory e rr ors u n d er B oo ker a re re vi ew ed for harml es s e rr or. S ee U ni t ed S t a t e s v. M a the ni a , 409 F . 3d 128 9 , 1 291- 93 ( 11th C i r . 2005)
. C ons t i tut i ona l e r r or i s “ ha r m l e s s ” w he n the gove r nm e ntc a n s how be y ond a r e a s ona bl e d o u b t t ha tthe
e r r o rd id n o t c o n t r i b u t e to th e d e f e n d a n t’s u ltim a te s e n te n c e . I d . a t 1 2 9 1 . W e r e vi e w s t a tut or y e r r orund er a l e s s de m a ndi ng t e s t : w he the ra r e vi e w of the pr oc e e di ngs , a s a w hol e , s how s tha tthe e r r ore i the rdi d nota ffect the s e nt e nc e or ha d onl y a s l i ghte f

f e c t . I d. a t1291- 92. “ If o n e 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 e r r or , the s e nt e nc e i s due t o be
a f f i r m e d e ve n though t h ere w as err or . ” I d. a t1292 ( i nt e r na l m a r ks om i tt e d)
. T he gove r nm e ntha s the bur de n of pr oof unde rboth s t a nda r ds
. I d. T he f a c t s r e l e va nt t o M c K e e ve r ’ s s e nt e nc i ng c l a i m a r e the s e . M c K eev er a nd3

ni n e c o d e f

e n d a n t s w e r e c h a r g e d i n a 1 4
- c o u n t i n d i c tme n t r e l a t e d t o a dr ug c ons pi r a c y . O f

the f our t e e n c ount s , M cK e e ve rw a s i ndi c t e d i n: ( 1) C ount1, pr i or t o an d fro m A p ri l 2 0 0 1 t o th e p resen t , p o ssessi n g w i th i n t en t to d i stri b u t e i n ex cess o f 5 0 g r a m s o f

c o c a in e b a s e , in v io la ti o n o f 2 1 U .S .C . § 8 4 6 ; ( 2 ) C o u n t 6 , o n A p r il 17 , 20 03 , di stri bu t i ng 86 gram s o f co ca ine bas e, i n v i ol at i on of 21 U . S . C . § 8 41 (a ); (3) C ou nt 12 , on Ja nu ary 8, 20 03 , di stri bu t i ng 55 gram s of co ca in e h ydrochl ori de, i n v i o l a t i o n o f

2 1 U . S. C. § 8 4 1 ( a ) ; a n d ( 4 ) Co u n t1 3 , o n J a n u a r y 8 , 2 0 03, di stri bu t i ng 12 gram s of c ocai ne h yd rochl ori de, i n v i ol at i on of 21 U . S . C . § 8 41 (a ). P ursuantt o a w ri tt en pl eaagre em ent , M cK ee ver pl ed gu i l ty t o C ou n t 1 3, w hi ch i nv o l v e d 1 2 g r a ms o f

c o c a i n e h y d r o c h l o r i d e , a n d th e g o v e r n me n td i s mi s s e d t he
r e m a i ni ng c ount s . M c K e e ve rpr oc e e de d t o s e nt e nc i ng. A c c or di ng t o the pr e s e nt enc e i nve s t i ga t i on r e por t( “ P S I ” ) , i n A pr i l 2001,
s pe c i a l a ge nt s of

the D ru g E nf

or c e m e ntA dm i ni s tr a t i on ( D E A ) be ga n i nve s t i ga t i ng fi ve of the ni ne defendant s a s s i gn i fi ca ntdi stri bu t ors of c ocai ne po w der a nd cr ac k
coca i ne. O n January 8 , 2 0 0 3 , D E A spec i al agent s m etw i th a confi dent i al i nf or m a nt( “ C I ” ) a s pa r to f an unde r c ove rope r a t i on s pe c i f i c a l l y i nve s t i ga t i ng M cK eev er. O n th atd at e, th e C I co n t act ed M cK eev er a n d r e q u est ed t o p u rch ase c oc a i ne . M c K e e v e rs ubs e que nt l y m e tthe C I a nd unde r c ove rS pe c i a l A ge ntV i ns on J e n k i n s . A f

t e rtr a v e l i n g t o s e v e r a l d i f f e r e n tl o c a t i o n s , M c K e e v e r pr ovi de d th e CI4

fi rs tw i th 5 5.6 g ra m s of c ocai ne po w der, i n exchang e f or $2 , 00 0, and t hen w i th an
a d d itio n a l 1 2 .4 g r a m s o f c o c a in e p o w d e r , in e x c h a n g e f o r$ 6 0 0 . O n A p ri l 1 7 , 2 0 0 3 , th e C I an d S p eci al A g en tJen k i n s ag ai n m etw ith M cK ee ver t o purchas e som e cr ac k c ocai ne. T hi s t i m e M cK ee ver w as ac co m p ani ed by a c od ef

endantw ho i nform ed the C I a n d A g en t J enki ns thatsom eone w as

“ cook i ng ” a nd tha t the pr od uc t s ho ul d be r e a dy i n a bo ut thi r ty mi nu t e s . W hi l e t hey
w er e w a i t i ng, M c K e e ve rs t a t e d tha t“ I ’ m , I ’ m onl y doi ng i t , c a us e I , c a us e I know y ou” a nd the n s t a t e d t o the c ode f e nda nttha t“ I gott o run he r e f ora m i nut e m a n. Y o u g o n e t ak e care o f th em ? ” t o w h i ch th e co d efen d an tresp o n d ed affi rm at i v el y. T he codefend antgave the C I hi s pho ne nu m ber, and t he C I a nd A gentJe nk i ns l ef t the l oc a t i on. S e ve r a l hour s l a t e r , the C I c ont a c t e d the c ode f e nda ntby phone , a nd th e c o d e f

e n d a n t s u b s e q u e n t l y p r o v id e d th e C I w ith 8 6 .5 g r a m s o f c r a c k c o c a in e in
e x c h a n g e f

o r$ 2 ,2 5 0 . T he P S I a ttr i but e d t o M c K e e ve rthe 55 . 6 g ram s and 12. 4 gr a m s of c oc a i ne pow de rs ol d on J a nua r y 8, 2003, a nd t h e 8 6 . 5 gr a m s of c r a c k c oc a i ne s ol d by M c K e e v e ra n d th e c o d e f e n d a n t o n A p r il 1 7 , 2 0 0 3 . T h e P S I s ta te d t h a t a c c o r d in g to the drug e qui va l e nc y t a bl e s f ound a tU . S . S . G . § 2 D 1 . 1, one gr a m of c oc a i ne pow de ri s the e qui va l e nto f 2 0 0 g ram s of m a r i j ua na a nd one gr a m of

c r a c k c oc a i ne i s the e qui va l e ntof

20 ki l ogr a m s of

m a r i j ua na , s o tha t , w h en t h e am ount s s ol d on5

Ja nu ary 8, 20 03 and A pri l 17 , 20 03 w er e c on vert ed and add ed t o g eth er , M cK ee ver w as attri bu t ed w i th the equi val entof 1, 74 3. 6 k i l og ra m s of m ar i j uana. T h e P S I cal cu l at ed a b ase o f f e n s e l ev el o f 3 2 , b ased o n a d ru g o ffen se i nv ol vi ng atl ea st1, 00 0 k i l og ra m s butl es s than 3 , 00 0 k i l og ra m s o f m ar i j uana, se e U . S . S . G . § 2D 1. 1( c ) ( 4) , a nd r e c om m e nde d a 3- l e ve l a dj us tm e ntf ora c c e pt a nc e of resp o n si b i l i ty, p u rsu an tt o U . S . S . G . § 3 E 1 . 1 (a)(b ). B ased o n a n ad j u st ed o ffen se l e ve l of 29 a nd a c r i m i na l hi s t or y c a t e gor y I I I , the G ui de l i ne s i m pr i s onm e ntr a nge w a s 108 t o 135 m onths ’ i m pr i so n m ent . M c K e e ve ra l s o f a c e d a s t a tut or y m a xi m um 2 4 0
- m o n th te r m o f

im p r is o n m e n t, p u r s u a n t to 2 1 U .S .C . § 8 4 1 ( b ) ( 1 ) ( C )
. M c K e e v e ro b

j e c t e d t o th e PSI , c i t i n g Bl a k e l y v . W a s h i n g t o n , 5 4 2 U . S. 2 9 6, 12 4 S . C t . 25 31 , 15 9 L . E d. 2d 40 3 (20 04 ), and argui ng th at the base offe nse l evel
w a s c a l c ul a t e d e r r one ous l y by i nc l udi ng the drug a m ount s a ttr i but a bl e t o C ou n t s 1, 6 a n d 1 2 , a ll o f

w h ic h t h e g o v e r n m e n t h a d a g r e e d to d is m is s in e x c h a n g e f o rh is g u ilty p le a o n C o u n t 1 3 . T h e p r o b a tio n o f f ic e rr e s p o n d e d th a t M c K e e v e rs h o u ld be a ttr i but e d w i th the qua nt i ty of c oc a i ne c ha r ge d i n thos e co u n t s p ur s ua ntt o the
r e le v a n t c o n d u c t p r o v is io n s o f U .S .S .G . § 1 B 1 .3 , a n d th a t B o o k e r , w h ic h o n ly
m a de the G ui de l i ne s a d v i sor y , s t i l l pe r m i tt e d the c our tt o i m pos e a s e nt e nc e a tor b e lo w th e s ta tu to ry m a x im u m f o rth e o f f e n s e . M c K e e ve ra l s o obj e c t e d t o the f a c tua l s t a t e m e nti n the P S I t h at , d u ri ng the6

A pri l 17 , 20 03 sa l e of c ra ck cocai ne, he spok e t o the C I. M cK ee ver m ai nt ai ned thaton l y hi s c od ef

en d an tspok e w i th the C I. M cK ee ver a l so ar gu ed thathe w as notpr e s e nta tthe t i m e the i l l e ga l drugs w e r e s ol d be tw e e n hi s c ode f e nda nta nd the C I a n d n o e v id e n c e e x is te d th a t h e w a s e v e n a w a r e th a t th e s u b s e q u e n t s a le
occu rre d ortha the pr of i t e d f r om i t . T he pr oba t i on of f i c e rr e s ponde d tha t , pur s ua nt t o the r e l e va ntc onduc tpr ovi s i ons of U . S . S . G . § 1 B 1. 3, B ooke r , a nd c ons i de r i ng thi s C ou rt ’ s dec i si on s i n U ni t ed S t at es v . R od ri gu ez , 39 8 F . 3d 12 91 (11t h C i r. ),
c e r t . de ni e d, 125 S . C t . 29 35 ( 2005) , a nd U ni t e d S t a t e s v. D unc a n, 400 F . 3d 1297, 1304 ( 11th C i r . 2005) , the r e w a s no r e qui r e m e nttha tM c K eev erpr of i tf r om orbe p r e s e n t d u r in g a d ru g tr a n s a c tio n t o b e a ttr ib u te d w ith th e q u a n tity o f d ru g s s o ld d u r in g th e tr a n s a c tio n . A t th e s en ten cin g h ea rin g , th e d is tr ic t c o u rt o v er ru led M cK ee v er ’s object i on s a nd adop t ed the P S I’ s r ec om m endat i on s a s t o rel evantcond uct , af t er consi dera t i on of B oo ker a nd thi s C ou rt ’ s dec i si on s i n R o d rig u ez and D un ca n. In
re vi ew i ng the G ui del i nes r ange of 10 8 t o 1 35 m o n ths’ i m pri sonm ent , the court
n o t ed th atth e m a x im u m st atu t o ry p en al ty fo r C o u n t1 3 w as 2 4 0 m o n th s’ im p riso n m en t. S ee 2 1 U .S .C . § 8 4 1 (b )( 1 )( C ). T h e c o u r t re jected M cK ee v er ’s B ooke robj e c t i ons , not i ng: I k n o w th e m is g iv in g s th a t [ M c K e e v e r ] h a s , th a t [ h e ] p le d g u ilty to s om e thi ng. B utw he n a [ c ] our ti s s e nt e n ci ng, y ou l ook a tthe pe r s on7

a nd s om e w ha tt a ke i nt o c ons i de r a t i on – nota l w a ys
– t h e t ot a l i ty of the c ir c u m s ta n c e s . B u t t h a t h a s b e e n r e a lly r e f in e d in r e le v a n t c o n d u c t. O bvi ous l y , y ou c a nnott a ke i nt o c ons i de r a t i on thi ngs tha t a r e not r el at ed
. H e i s notbe i ng c ha r ge d w i th ba nk r obbe r y . T ha tw oul d be co m p l et el y i r r e l e va nt , ortr e a s on, ora m i l l i on othe rthi ngs . B utI thi nk i ti s f a i rf orthe C our tt o c ons i de rw hen you e xa m i ne the tr a ns a c t i on, “ I’ ve gott o run ou tof

he r e f ora mi nu t e , ma n. Y ou go ne t a ke [ c a r e] o f th e m .” S o , I a c c e p t th e p r o b a tio n o f f ic e r ’s p o s itio n r e g a r d in g th a t. L a t e rdur i ng the he a r i ng, w he n M c K e eve rt e s t i f i e d a bouthi s pa r t i c i pa t i on i n the
c h a r g e d c r im e s , th e c o u r t in te r ru p te d h im a n d s a id , “M r . M c K e e v e r , I w a n t y o u to s a y a ny thi ng y ou w i s h. B utI w a ntt o t e l l y ou, y ou’ ve b een c onvi c t e d one t i m e of perj ury. . . . I val ue the truth. I s i there every day and I l i st en. I thi nk you are co m m i tt i ng pe r

j ur y now . N ow , I ’ m t e l l i ng y ou w ha tI be l i e ve . Y ou a r e w a l ki ng o v e rth e lin e w h e n y o u s ta r t ly in g to m e . Y o u c a n ’ t s o f t s o a p y o u rw a y b y m e . I have heard i tal l
. ” P ri or t o i m p o si ng se nt ence , the di stri ctcourti nd i ca t ed thati thad read B oo ker, as w el l as ou r dec i si on s i n D un ca n an d R o d ri gu ez . A l so before
a nnounc i ng M c K e e ve r ’ s s e nt e nc e , the c our tnot e d: [B ] etw ee n D ec em ber 25, 20 00 and A pri l 8, 20 01 , he [M cK eev er ] w as i ss ued 1 5 ci t at i on s f

or vi ol at ions of a l ocal beerand w i ne ordi nance. A nd he has aconv i ct i on of perj ury, w h ich I p re vi ou sl y not ed. H e has fa there d t en chi l dren fr om t en diff er entw om en. I’ m no tgo i ng t o try t o p art i cul ar [l y] bal ance ou tatthi s t i m e the go od and t he bad, base d u p o n h i s c r im in a l c o n d u c t, h is m is le a d in g th e C o u r t h e r e to d a y , h is c om pl e t e i r r e s pons i bi l i ty w i th br i ngi ng c hi l dr e n i nt o t h e w or l d a nd not s u p p o r t i n g th e m.Be c a u s e it is e a s ier f

o r th e g o v e r

nment to e s ta

b li s h th e h ar

ml e s s n e s s o f

Booke r 1 non-constitutional error

than the har

mlessness of Booker constituti onal error, see Unit ed States v. Rob le s, 40 8 F. 3d 13 24 , 132 7 (11 th Cir . 200 5) , when a dis tric t c ourt ' s c on sti tution al B oo ker error is harmless, a

ny non-constitutional Booker er ror also will be harmless. B ased on our conclusion that Booker constitutional erro r, i f any, in this case wa s harmless beyond a re asonabledoubt, we nee d not, and do not, addre ss Booker non-c onstitut ional error. 8 T he c our tthe n i m pos e d a 175- m onth t e r m of i m p ri so n m e nt , t o be f

ol l ow e d by f

i ve y e a r s of s up e r v i s e d r e l e a s e , o b s e r v i n g th a tth e 1 7 5 - mo n th t e r m w a s th e s a me s e nt e nc e tha tone of

M c K e e ve r ’ s c ode f

e nda nt s r e c e i ve d. T hi s appe a l f ol l ow e d. W e ha ve e num e r a t e d tw o ty pe s of B ooker erro r: ( 1) a S i xth A m e ndm e nt error - - the er ro r o f i m po si ng a s ent enci ng enhancem ent , un der am andat ory r e gi m e , ba s e d on j udi c i a l fi n d i ngs tha tgo be y ond the f a c t s a dm i tt e d by the de f e nda n t o r f

o u n d b y th e j u r y , a n d ( 2 ) a s t a tu t o r y e r r o r - - th e e r r o r o f be i ng s e nt e nc e d unde ra m a nda t or y G u i de l i ne s s y s t e m . U ni t e d S t a t e s v. S he l t on, 400 F . 3d 13 25 , 13 30 -133 1 (11 th C i r. 20 05 ). 1 I n R o d r ig u e z , w e r e v ie w e d a c l a i m o f B o o k e rc o n s titu tio n a l e r r o rth a t a de f e nda nt ’ s s e nt e nc e vi ol a t e d hi s S i xth A m e ndm e ntr i ght s be c a us e i tw as b as e d on
a ju d g e ’s f

in d in g o f f a c t s t h a t w e r e n e ith e rc h a r g e d in a n in d ic tm e n t n o rp r o v e n to a j ury. Id. at12 97 . W e not ed thatthe use of “ extra -ver di ctenhancem ent s, ” s uch as
r e l e va ntc onduc t , “ r e m a i ns a c ons t i tut i ona l pa r tof gui de l i ne s s e nt e nc i ng i n the pos t - B ooke re r a . ” R odri g u ez, 398 F . 3d a t1301; s e e a l s o U ni t e d S t a t e s v. D unc a n, 4 0 0 F .3 d 1 2 9 7 , 1 3 0 4 ( 1 1 th C ir . 2 0 0 5 ) ( n o tin g “[ o ]u rC ir c u it’s p r e c e d e n t u n if o r m ly9

s t a t e s , ‘ [ r ] e l ev an t co nduc tof w hi c h a de f

e nda ntw a s a c qui tt e d none the l e s s m a y be t a ke n i nt o a c c ount i n s e nt e nc i ng f orthe of

f e ns e of c onvi c t i on, a s l ong a s the gove r nm e ntpr ove s the a c qui tt e d c onduc tr e l i e d upon by a pr e ponde r a nc e of t he evi dence. ”” (c i t at i on om i tt ed))
. A s w e observed i n D un ca n, se n te nci ng j ud ges c an cont i nu e t o con si der r el evantac qu i tt ed cond uctw hen app l yi ng the G ui del i nes i n an a d v is o r y m a n n e r , “[ f

]o rw h e n a tr ia l ju d g e e x e r c is e s h is d is c r e tio n to s e le c t a spec i fi c s ent ence w i thi n a defi n ed ra n g e, the defendanthas no ri gh tt o a j ury de t e r m i na t i on of

the f a c t s tha tthe j udge de e m s r e l e va nt . ” 400 F . 3d a t1304- 1305. H e r e , th e d is tr ic t c o u r t c ite d o u r d e c is io n s in R o d r ig u e z a n d D u n c a n a n d d id note nha nc e M c K e e ve r ’ s s e nt e nc e ba s e d on “ e xtr a - ve r di c te nha nc e m e nt s ” i n a m a nda t or y s y s t e m . T he c our te xpl a i ne d a tl e ngth i t s r e a s oni ng f orgi vi ng M cK ee ver a se nt ence w i thi n the st atut ory ra ng e bu t exce edin g th e G ui del i nes r a n g e . O u ro w n th o r o u g h r e v ie w o f th e s e n te n c in g tr a n s c r ip t in d ic a te s th a t, in
a ddi t i on t o c ons i de r a t i on of the G ui de l i ne s r a nge , the c our tt o o k i n t o a c c ountm a ny of the fa ct ors e nu m er at ed i n 1 8 U . S . C . § 3 55 3(a) w hen sen ten cin g M cK ee ver, as d ir e c te d b y B o o k e r . S e e 1 2 5 S . C t. a t 7 6 4 ; 1 8 U .S .C . § 3 5 5 3 ( a ) ( “T h e c o u r t . . . shal l consi der .
. . (1) the nature a n d circ um st ance s of the offens e a nd the hi st ory a nd c ha r a c t e r i s t i c s of

the de f e nda nt ; . . . ( 3) the ki nds of s e nt e nc e s a va i l a bl e ; (4) the k in d s o f s e n te n c e a n d th e s e n te n c in g r a n g e e s ta b li s h e d f o r
– ( A ) th e ap p lic a b leCf. Robles, 408 F.3d at 1328 (stating that even if the de fenda nt “was sentence d post-Booker 2 and we were reviewing fo r re a so na blene ss, wewo uld

no t e xpe c t th edis tric t c ourt in every c a seto c on du c t an ac c ountingof e very § 355 3( a) fac tor . . . a nd e xpound up on ho w e a c h f

a c tor pla ye d a ro le in its sentenc ing decision”) . After the district court ha s accurate ly calculated the Guide line rang e, it “may impose a more severe or more lenient sentenc e” that we review for rea sonablene ss. United State s v . Crawf

ord, 40 7 F.3 d 1 17 4, 11 79 (1 1th Cir . 2 00 5) . A lth ough M c Ke e ver doe s n ot add re ss the re asonableness of his sentenc e if wehold, as we do, that there w as no reversible B ooker error , in the light of the fac tors outlined in section 3553(a) , we also would find the district court’s sentence wa s re as o n ab l e. C f. Un i t edS t at es v . W i n i n gear, -- - F . 3 d -- -- , 2 0 0 5 W L2 0 7 7 0 8 7 * 4 (1 1 thC i r. Au g. 30, 2005) (c onsidering§ 3553(a) fac tors, as applied to de fenda nt’s sentenc e, and f

inding sentence was re asonable ). 10 c a te g o r y o f o ffen se co m m i tt ed b y th e ap p l i cab l e cat eg o ry o f d efen d an tas setfo r th i n the gui de l i ne s . . . ( 6) the ne e d t o a voi d unw a r r a nt e d s e nt e nc e d i sp ari t i e s a m ong defe nd ant s w i th si m i l arre cords w ho have been foun d g ui l ty of s i m i l arcond uct ”)
. A f t e rB ooke r , “ al l g u i de l i ne s de c i s i ons a r e now a dvi s or y , ” U ni t e d S t a t e s v. M a gl ut a , - - - F . 3d -
- - - , 2005 W L 1750143 *13 ( 11th C i r . J ul
. 27 , 2 0 0 5 ), w hi c h the di s tr i c tc our tr e c ogni z e d i n t h e i n st a ntc a s e . W e c a n f i nd no i ndi c a t i on tha tthe di s tr i c t c ou r t c on s i de r e d, or app l i e d, the G ui de l i ne s a s ma nd a t ory , r a the r t han d is c r e tio n a r y . M o r e o v e r , e v e n if th e r e w a s B o o k e re r r o r , o f e ith e rty p e , w e w o u ld f i nd no e f

f e c ton M c K e e ve r ’ s s ubs t a nt i a l r i ght s s i nc e i ti s c l e a rbe y ond a ny re as on a bl e do ub t , gi ve n the c ou r t ’ s i mpos i t i on of a s e nt e nc e a bo ve the G ui de l i nes r a nge , i t s c ons i de r a t i on of B ooke r , R odr i gue z , a nd D unc a n, a nd i t s e num e r a t i on of
s o m e o f th e § 3 5 5 3 ( a ) f

a c to r s , th a t M c K e e v e rw o u ld r e c e iv e th e s a m e s e n te n c e a t a new se nt enci ng hear i ng . A cc ordi ng l y, w e a ff i rm hi s s ent ence . 2 AF F I RME D.