FI L ED U.S. COURT OF A P P E A LS E LE V E N T H C IR C U IT SEPTEMBER 6, 2005 THOMAS 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N CL ERK [DO NOT PUBLISH] IN THE UN ITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FO R T HE EL EV EN TH CIRC UI T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. 04- 1669 4 Non-A rgum ent Calendar

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ D. C. Docket N o. 04-00112 -CR UNITED STAT ES OF AMERIC A, Plaintiff-Appellee, ve rs us THOMAS BOSWEL L GRACE, D ef en dant- Appe llant.

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

S ta te s D istri ct

Co urt f o r th e S o u t h e rn D i s t r i c to f

A l ab a ma

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ _ (S ep te m be r 6, 200 5) Be fo re BI RC H , BL A CK

and P RY O R, Ci rc uit

Jud ge s. PE R CU RIA M: T hom as Bo sw el l G ra ce appe al s hi s 42 -m onth se nte nc e fo r co nspi ra cy to poss es s w ithint en t t o di str ibu te 5 gr am s or m or e of c oc ai ne ba se ( cr ac k) , in violatio n of 21 U. S. C. §§ 84 1(a)( 1) and 846. W e AFFIRM .Ba sed on Gra ce’ s total of fense level of 23 and cr iminal hist ory cate g ory of I I I , the guideline 1 rang e for imprisonment was 57 to 71 months. However , beca use Gra ce’ s offe nse has a mandatory min i mump e n a l ty

o f 6 0 m o n th s , 2 1 U . S . C . § 8 4 1 ( b ) ( 1 ) ( B ) , th e P S Ic a l c u l at e d th e a pp lic able guideline ra

ng e as 60 to 71 months of imprisonment, pursuant to U.S.S.G. § 5G1.1. 2 I. BACKG ROUND A f ed er al gr an d j ur

y in the S outhe rnD istri ct

of A la ba m a ind ic te d G ra ce and co de fe ndant K el lie L ei gh B ra ckne r fo r co nspi ra cy to poss es s w ithint en t t o distribu te cocaine base, in viol ation of 21 U.S .C. §§ 841 (a)( 1) and 846. Gr ace pl edgu il ty to t he on ly cou nt in th e in di ct m en t. Inthe P re se nte nc e In ve sti ga tio n Rep or t (“ PSI” ), th e p ro ba ti on off ic er s ta te d t ha t Gra ce’s t ot al off en se lev el was 2 3. T he pr oba tio n of

fi ce r ca lc ulate d asub tot al of thr ee c ri m ina l hi sto ry

poi nts a nd indicated that, under U. S. S. G. § 4A1.1(d), two additional po ints sh ouldbe added to G ra ce ’ s c ri m ina l hi sto ry c al cu la tio n be ca

use he c om

m itt ed the ins tant o ff

en se while under a c rim inal justice sentence for a 3 May 1995 conviction for petit theft ("the 3 May

1995 conviction "). W ith the addit ion of these two crim inal histo ry poi nts , G ra ce ha d f

ive c ri m ina l hi sto ry

poi nts a nd a

c ri m ina l hi sto ry

c at eg or y of III. T he pr oba tio n of

fi ce r co nc lud ed

that the appl ic ab le gui de lin e se nte nc ing
range w as 60 t o 71 m onths o f im pr iso nm en t. 1 A cc or din g to the A dde ndum to the P SI , G ra ce f

ile d f our w ri tte n ob

j ec tio ns to the P SI . F ir st, G ra ce obj ec te d to the f ac tua l i nf orm at ionpr es en te d inf

ive3

para gr ap hs i n th e PS I' s se ct ionon h is o ff en se c ondu ct . S ec ond, he a rg ue d th at the probation officer

shoul d not h ave added one crim inal histo ry point for a 3 Novem ber 1994 conv iction because there w as no proof that Grac e had been re pr es en te d by

c ouns el . T hir d, G ra ce c ont en de d th at the pr obatio n of

fi ce r shou ld not have a dde d on e cr im ina l hi sto ry poi nt f or G ra ce ' s c onvi ct ionf

or dr ivi ng w itha revoked license. F ourth, Gr ace obj ected to the PSI ’ s assessm ent of two cr im inal his tor y poi nts pur suant t o U . S. S. G . § 4A 1. 1( d) on the gr ound s th at he w as not un de r a cri m in al jus ti ce s en te nc e whe n t he in st an t o ffen se was c omm it te d. A ddi tio na lly , G ra ce e xpl ic itl y “ de m an d[ ed ] that a ll fa ct or s w hic h e nhanc e his se nte nc e be pr ove n be y ond a re as ona ble doubt” in lig ht o f Bl ak el y v. W as hin gto n, 54 2 U.S. 2 96 , 12 4 S . Ct. 2 53 1 (2 00 4) . R1- 63 at 1 . A t hi s se nte nc ing he ar ing , G ra ce a ddr es se d a ll of obj ec tio ns h e ha d f

ile d in wr iting . First, Gr ace r eiterate d his ob j ection to the addit ion of two crim inal histo ry point s, pursuant to § 4A1.1(d), to reflec t the fact that he w as under a cri m in al jus ti ce s en te nc e whe n t he in st an t o ffen se oc cu rred . Gr ace e xplained th at he r ec ei ve d no se nte nc e of im pr iso nm en t i n r el at ionto the 3 M ay 199 5 c onvi ct ion , bu t ra th er was ord ered on ly to p ay co ur t fe es an d re st it ut io n. Gr ace m aintained that tw o a ddi tio na l c ri m ina l hi sto ry poi nts sho uld

not be a dde d be ca

use the se nte nc e im

pose d f or the pr ior c onvi ct ionw as e sse nti al ly af ine , a nd the pur

pose4

of the pr oba tio n w as to en sur e that he pa id tha t f ine . G ra ce f

urthe r obj ec te d to the ad dit ionof

the tw o c ri m ina l hi sto ry

poi nts und er

Bl ak el y a nd c ont en de d th at

the gove rn m en t c oul d no t “pr ove be y ond a re as ona ble doubt tha t tha t su

pe rv isi on [i m pose d a s ar es ult

of the pr ior c onvi ct ion ] w as f

or a ny oth er pur pose than to collect a sum

of m oney , whether y ou term it as a ‘ fine’ or ‘ costs’ and ‘ restitution .’ ” R4 a t 3. A ddr es sin g G ra ce ’ s arg um en ts, the dis tr ic t c ourt c onc lud ed that the ad dit ionof

the tw o c ri m ina l po int s w er e ad de d pr ope rl y be ca use the re w as ava lid outst anding warrant f

or Gr ace’ s probation violatio n when the instant offense wa s co m m it te d. Th e d is tri ctco ur t d idno t ad dr es s Gra ce’s Bl ak el y arg um en t. Sec ond, Gr ace r eiterate d his ob j ection to the factual inform ation presented in the PSI. T he district court declined to rule on th e truthfulness of the factual state m en ts b ut a gr ee d to "m ak e sur e that y our obj ec tio ns t o [ the P SI ] a nd y our ve rs ionof

the a lle ga tio ns, or

y our r es pons e to the a lle ga tio ns, a re inc lud ed , attached to the PSI that goes and follo ws [ Gr ace] ." Id. at 5. G race 's counsel stated th atth e d is tri ctco ur t's res po ns e was "s uf fic ie nt ." Id . T hir d, G ra ce state d th at

the pr oba tio n of

fi ce r co rr ec te d th e PS I in r es pons e to Gra ce' s objection that one crim inal histo ry point shoul d not h ave been assessed for G race 's prior conviction of drivin g with a re voked li cense. Fourth, G race ind ic at ed that he ha d " no n ee d to " p re ss at se nte nc ing his obj ec tio n to the a ddi tio n5

of one c ri m ina l hi sto ry

poi nt f or G ra ce ' s 3 N ove m

be r 1994 c onvi ct ionbe ca use his crim inal histo ry

category would not be affec ted even if he prevailed on that ob jecti on . Id. at 6. T he dis tr ic t c ourt c onc lud ed that G ra ce ’ s to ta l of

fe nse le ve l w as 23, a nd h is cr im ina l hi sto ry

c at eg or y w as I II . T he c ourt gr an te d th e gove rn m en t’ s m oti on f or a s ub s t an t i al as s i s t an ce re du ct i o n an di n d i ca t ed th at th e g o v ern m en t ’s recom m endation o f a 30% reduction in sent ence w as appropriate. T he district court sentenced Gr ace to 42 m onth s of im prisonm ent and 4 y ears of supervised rel eas e. It a ls o i m

po se d a sp eci al ass es sm en t o f $1 00 . Af ter stating Gra ce' s sentence, the district j udge asked Grac e if there we re an y obj ec tio ns t o th e se nte nc e. G ra ce ' s c ouns el r ep lie d, Y our hon or , a s f

ar a s th e dow nw ar d de part

ur e, the de gr ee , the re ' s no ob jecti on be cau se I th in k t ha t's ab so lu te ly w it hi n you r di sc ret io n. A nd a ct ua lly m y pr ev iou s ob

j ec tio ns are sor

t of r en de re d m oot because of, y ou kn ow, at the tim e I didn't know for sure if y ou were goi ng t o do w nw ar dly

de part , be ca

use y ou d on' t have to gr an t i t. S o I re al ly don ' t thin k w e ha ve a ny

obj ec tio ns tha t have a ny m eanin g a t a ll. Id. at 14 (em

phasis add ed). II. D ISCU SSION O n a ppe al , G ra ce a dvanc es tw o m ai n arg um en ts. F ir st, he a rg ue s th at the dis tr ic t c ourt e rr ed

in en hanc ing his c ri m ina l hi sto ry by tw o po int s, pur suant t oThe g overnme nt also argues that (1 ) the district cour t properly

conclude d that Gra ce 2 commi t t ed t h e i nstant offe nse while unde r a c riminal justice sentenc e; and ( 2) any Booke r er

ror c omm itt e d b y

the dis tr ic t c ourt

wa s h arm le ss. B e c a

us e we c on c lud e that G ra c e wi thdr e w h is objections, we ne ed not addr ess these a rguments. 6 U . S. S. G . § 4A 1. 1( d) , be ca use the se nte nc e im

pose d f or his 5 M ay

199 5 c onvi ct ion
w as m er el y

af ine and r es tit

uti on and d id n ot i nc lud e a te rm of im pr iso nm en t i n th e ev en t the f

ine w as not

pa id. S ec ond, G ra ce c ont en ds tha t he did not a dm it the facts supporting the im

posit ion of this enhancem ent, and, in light o f U nited States
v. Bo oke r, 543 U . S. ___ , 125 S . Ct . 738 ( 2005 ), a ny f ac t othe r than apr ior convictio n m

ust be either adm itted by

the defendant or established bythe j ury bey ond a reasonable doub t. I n response, the governm ent argues that Gr ace "es se nt ia ll y

wit hd rew" hi s o bjec ti on to th e en ha nc em en t. Bri ef o f App el le e at12 . 2 Whe re ade fe ndant r ai se s and the n kn ow ing ly w ith dr aw s an ob

j ec tio n to his sentence, we deem

the objec tion waived and will not review it on appeal. U nited St at es v. Ma ste rs , 118 F . 3d 1 524, 152 6 ( 11th C ir . 199 7) ( pe r curi am) (r ef usi ng t o apply the plain error doctrine where the def endant withdrew his ob

j ection at sentencing d espite his awar eness that the district court had comm itted error) ; U nit ed S ta te s v. Ro dr igu ez , 311 F . 3d 4 35, 437 ( 1st Ci r. 200 2) ( "[ a] party

w ho identifies an issu e, and then explicitl y withdraw s it, has w aived the issue"); see al so Unit ed

S ta te s v. O lano, 507 U . S. 725 , 733 , 113 S . Ct . 177 0, 177 7 ( 1993 )7

(discussin g the differe nce betwe en wa iver and forfe iture). In ruling on a district co urt' s f ai lur e to a ddr es s c er

ta in o bj ec tio ns, w e ha ve de te rm ine d th at ade fe ndant had waived his filed, written objec tions to the PSI when, at sentencing, his counsel stated (1) that his objections "'m ight b e m oot'" because the governm ent had m ade a section 5K.1 m otion , and (2) that the j udge could "'do som ething extraordinary '" by gr an tin g alowse nte nc e, w hic h w oul d m ean th at the de fe ndant " ' ne edn' t do an ythi ng w iththe P SI , ' and ' w ha t' s inthe P SI doe sn' t m atte r. ' " Unit ed S ta te s v. Mi lano, 32 F . 3d 1 499, 150 0 n. 1, 150 1 ( 11th C ir . 199 4) , sup er ce de d by statut e on oth er gr ound s, U nit ed

S ta te s v. Co ok, 291 F . 3d 1 297, 130 0 n. 3 ( 11th C ir . 200 2) (per c uriam ). In this case, Gr ace obj ected to the enhancem ent in bot h filed, written objec tions to the PSI and at the sentencing hearing. H owever , a fter the district co urt announc ed

his se nte nc e, G ra ce ' s c ouns el state d th at his "p re vio us o bj ec tio ns [w er e] sor

t of r en de re d m oot " and tha t he "r ea lly didn' t thin k [ the y ] ha [d ] a ny obj ec tio ns tha t ha [d ] any

m eanin g a t a ll. " R4 a t 14 . T he langua ge e m plo y ed by G ra ce ' s c ouns el c los el y

tr ac ks tha t w hic h w e ha ve de em ed pr ev iou sly

to co nst itu te a w ai ve r of

ade fe ndant' s ob

j ec tio ns at se nte nc ing . S ee Mi lano, 32 F . 3d at 15 00E v e n if G r a c e ’ s o b je c ti o n s w e r e o p e n to p la in e r r o r r e v ie w , h is ar gume n ts w o u ld f a il . We 3 may not corre ct an e rror

under the plain err or standar d unless there is “(1) err or, (2) that is plain, and (3) that a ffe cts substantial rig hts.” United States v. Cotton, 535 U.S. 625, 631, 122 S . Ct. 1781, 1785 (2002) ( citation and interna l quotations omi tted). I f these c onditions are met, we may exercise our dis c re tio n to re ve rs e the e rr or on ly if “ (4 ) the e rr or se ri ou sly a ff e c ts that fa ir

ne ss, int e g ri ty , o r p ub lic reputation of judicial proce eding s.” I d. (citation and inter nal quotations omitt ed). In this case, Gr ace ’s first ar gument would fail because the district court did not commit error in addingtwo points to Grace ’s criminal history calc ulation on the g round that Gra ce was under a “cr iminal justice sentenc e” when he c ommitt ed the instant off ense. When c alculatinga def endant’ s criminal history under the Guidelines, the district c ourt must a dd two points “ if the d ef en d ant committed the instant offense while under any criminal jus tice sente nce, inc luding pr obation, parole , supervised r elea se, imprisonment, work re lease , or esc ape status.” U.S.S.G. § 4A1.1(d). An outstanding violation wa

rra nt from a prior sentenc e is included in the definiti on of a “criminal justice sentenc e” so longas that prior se nt ence was “ otherwise c ountable,” e ven if the se ntence for the underlying cr i m e wo u ld have e x pired if not for the war rant. U.S.S.G. § 4A1.1, comment. (n.4) . Howeve r, the two-point incr ease is not appropriate if the pre vious conviction resulted in “ a sente nce to pay a fine , by itself.” I d. (empha sis added). Gra ce doe s not dispute that he committed the instant offense while subject to an outstanding war rant. W e re

ject Gr ace ’s contention that his sentenc e for the 5 May

1995 conviction does not qualify as a “ criminal justice sente nce” under the guidelines. The PSI indicates, and Gr ace does not dis pute , th at he re c e ive d a fi ne and six months of pr ob atio n f or the 5 M ay

19 95 c onvic tio n. Thus , the exception that the t wo-point incre ase is not appropr iate if the pre vious conviction resulted in “a sentenc e to pay

a fine , by itself,” U.S.S.G. § 4A1.1, comment. (n.4) , would not apply here . Second, as to Gr ace ’s B ooker a rgument, we have held that a defe n d ant ca

nnot satisfy

the third prongof the plain e rror test unless he ca

n prove that “there is a rea sonable proba bility of a differ ent re sult if the guide lines had bee n applied in an a dvisory i n s tead of

binding f ashion by the se nte nc ingjud g e in thi s ca se .” Un ite d Stat e s v. Rodr igue z, 398 F .3 d 129 1, 13 01 (1 1th Cir .) , c e rt . denied 125 S. Ct. 2935 ( 2005). In this c ase, Gra ce cannot prove that he would have r ece ived a lesse r sentenc e had the guidelines not been ma ndatory . Acc ording ly , his second ar gum ent would fail. 8 n. 1. A cc or din gly , w e co nc lud e that G ra ce w ith dr ewhis obj ec tio ns, a nd w e de cl ine to c onsi de r the m

on a ppe al . 3 III. C ONC LUS ION Bec au se we co nc lu de th atGrace wi th dr ew hi s o bjec ti on s atsen te nc in g, we AFFIRM hi s s en te nc e.