## FILED
U.S . C OUR T O F A PPE ALS E LEV ENT H C IRC UIT Jun e 2 7, 200 5 [DO NOT PUBLISH] IN THE UN ITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FO R T HE EL EV EN TH CIRC UI T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- 1564 7 Non-A rgum ent Calendar

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ D. C. Docket N o. 04-14038 -CR- DMM UNITED STAT ES OF AMERIC A, Plaintiff-Appellee,
ve rs us DE BRASU E WYN KO OP , 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 or the Southern District of F lorida

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ _ (June 27, 200 5)
Befo re TJ OFLAT, AN DERSON an d DUBI NA, Circ ui t J ud ge s. PE R CU RIA M:2

D eb ra S ue Wynkoo p a

ppe al s he r 87- m onth se nte nc e fo r poss es sio n w ith int en t t o di str ibu te at l ea st 3 5 gr am s of m etha m phe tam ine , in vio la tio n of 21 U . S. C. § 84 1( a) (1 ). S he arg ue s, in lig ht o f Bl ak el y v. W as hin gto n, 542 U . S. __, 124 S. Ct. 2531 (2004), w hich was extended to the federa l sentencing g uidelin es in United States v. Booker, 543 U. S. __, 125 S. C t. 738, 160 L. Ed. 2d 62 1 (2005), that the dis tr ic t c ourt e rr ed in se nte nc ing he r ba se d onpos se ssi on w ithint en t t o dis tr ibu te a ct

ua l m etha m

phe tam ine , af

ac t ne ith er

c harg ed in the ind ic tm en t no r fo und by aj ur y be y ond a re as ona

ble doubt. A s apr el im inary m atte r, she a sse rt s that be ca use the dis tr ic t c ourt f

or ce d he r to c hoos e be tw ee n m ai nta ini ng h er gui lty ple a an d m ai nta ini ng h er

se nte nc ing obj ec tio ns b as ed on B lake ly , the w ith dr aw al , an d t he refo re wai ve r, of

he r se nt en ci ng ob

jecti on s was in va li d a nd in vo lu nt ary. She ar gues that it is constitu tional error to force a defe ndant to choose between her
co nst itu tio na l r igh ts, and i t w as ade nia l of due pr oc es s f

or the c ourt t o f

or ce he r to ch oo se be twee n v acat in g h er p le a o r m ai nt ai ni ng he r ob jecti on s. A de fe ndant d oe s no t have ac onst itu tio na l r igh t or ar igh t un de r Ru le 11 t o have his or her guiltyplea acc epted by the court. United States v. Gom ez-G om ez, 822 F.2d 100 8, 1010 (11th Cir. 1987 ). When a defendant m akes an assertion that would negate his gu ilt, a district court, even afte r ac cepting a guilt y plea, m ay refu se to en te r jud gm en t upo n t ha t p le a. Id . at 1 01 1.3

G en er al ly , w ith dr aw al of a n ob j ec tio n is tantam ount

to a w ai ve r of

a n is sue fo r ap pe al
. S ee U nit ed

S ta te s v. Mo nto y a, 782 F . 2d 1 554, 155 6 ( 11th C ir
. 198 6) (h old ing that the de fe ndant f ai le d to pr es er

ve his obj ec tio n si nc e he w ith dr ewhis
m oti on f or m istri al , and the re w as no e xc ep tio na l c ir cum stanc es r equir ing the
co ur t t o c on si de r th e al le ge d e rro r). W e re vie ww ai ve d ob

j ec tio ns f or pla in e rr or . U nit ed

S ta te s v. N ee ly , 979 F. 2d 1 522, 152 3 ( 11th C ir
. 199 2) ; se e al so Unit ed S ta te s v. Burg e, __ F . 3d _ _, N o. 04-134 68 at *17 (11 Cir. May 2, 2005) (re viewing for plain err or abandoned th Bl ak el y arg um en t)
. A n a

ppe llate c ourt m ay

not c or re ct a n e rr or the de fe ndant fa ile d to r ai se in the dis tr ic t c ourt un le ss the re is: “ ‘ (1 ) er ro r, ( 2) that i s pl ai n, and (3) that af fects substantial right s.’ ” Rodriguez, 398 F.3d at 1298 (quo ting United States v. Cotton, 535 U.S . 625, 631, 122 S. Ct. 1781 , 1785 (2002)). “ ‘ If a ll three conditi ons are m et, an appellate court m ay then exercise its discretion to not ice a fo rf ei te d e rr or , but

onl y if ( 4) the e rr or

se ri ousl y a ff ec ts the f ai rn es s, int eg ri ty , or publ ic r ep utatio n of

j udi ci al pr oc ee din gs. ’ ” I d. ( quot ing Co tto n, 535 U . S. a t 63 1, 122 S.Ct. at 1785). InU nit ed S ta te s v. Ro dr igu ez , 398 F . 3d 1 291, 129 8 ( 11 Ci r. 200 5) , w e fi rs t th ad dr es se d pl ai n e rr or

r ev ie wund er

Bo oke r. I n th at

c as e, w e fo und that w hil e the defendant could m eet the fir st two prongs of the plain err or test, he could no t m eet4

the third prong because he could not sh ow an er ror that af

fecte d his su bstantial ri ght s. I d. a t 13 00. W e state d th at Bo oke r er

ro r is the m an da tor

y , a s op pose d to advis or y , appl ic at ionof

the G uid el ine s. I d. a t 12 99. W e co nc lud ed that the de fe ndant b ears the bur de n of pe rs ua sio n w ithr es pe ct

to pr ej udi ce , a nd tha t he
cannot sur viv e pla in e rr or

ana ly sis unl es s he c ansho w“ the re is a re as ona ble probabilit y

of a diff erent re sult if the gui delines had been appli ed in an adviso ry ins te ad of bin din g f as hio n by the se nte nc ing j udge in thi s c as e. ” I d. a t 13 01. At her change of plea hear ing, Wynkoo p argued that she did n ot believe that the indictm ent charged her w ith po ssessin g “ actual” m etham phetam ine, a s oppo se d to am ixt

ur e. S he ha d in iti al ly

be enind ic te d f

or pos se ssi on o f ove r 50 gr am s of “ a m ixt ur e or sub stanc e co nta ini ng a

de te ct ab le a m ount

of
m etha m phe tam ine ”; the G ove rn m en t, how ev er , iss ue d asup er ce din g in dic tm en t that c harg ed

he r w ithpos se ssi on o f at le as t 35 gr am s of

m etha m phe tam ine
. T he tr ia l c ourt r ej ec te d he r ar gum en t tha t the ind ic tm en t di d no t c harg e he r w ith poss ession o f ac tual m etham phetam ine, and tol d her at that hear ing th at she wa s fr ee to ch al le nge that i nte rp re ta tio n if she w en t t o tr ia l bu t tha t i t w oul d no t a cc ep t he r ple a if

she c ont inu ed

to as se rt he r ow n in te rp re ta tio n of w ha t the ind ic tm en t charged. Wynkoo p agreed and pleaded guilty
. How ever, she cast her argum ent as
a se nte nc ing obj ec tio n a t he r se nte nc ing he ar ing , a nd a ga in the dis tr ic t c ourt t oldAppellant’s r equest for oral a rgument is denied. 1 5 he r th atsh e co ul d wi th dr aw th e o bjec ti on or wi th dr aw he r pl ea an d g o t o t ria l. At
se nte nc ing , she c al le d it

aBl ak el y

a rg um en t, but

it w as the sam e ar gum en t tha t the indictm ent did no t specify “ actual” m etham

phetam ine, the substance upon which he r se nte nc ing r an ge w as c al cu la te d inthe P SI
. I n sh ort, Wynkoo p a tte m pte d to
am en d th e ind ic tm en t thr oughhe r obj ec tio ns, a nd the c ourt st at ed that i t w oul d no t pe rm it th is bo th at t he ch an ge of p le a h eari ng an d a ga in at t he sen te nc in g h eari ng . This does not cons titute error. Be ca use Wynkoo p kn ow ing ly a nd v oluntari ly

w ith dr ewhe r obj ec tio n, she
w ai ve d he r Bl ak el y

arg um en t. A nd, Wynkoo p is not e nti tle d to r el ie f unde r pla in
error reviewbecause she cannot show that the district court would have sentenced he r an y dif fe re ntl y . S ee Ro dr igu ez , 398 F . 3d at 13 01 ( hol din g th at de fe ndant fa ile d to sa tis fy

pla in e rr or

ana ly sis sin ce he c oul d no t sh owthat B ooke r er ro r affe ct edth e o ut co m e o f hi s s en te nc in g) . Accor di ng ly, we affi rm . AFFIRMED. 1