F ILED U.S. COURT O F APP EALS EL EV EN TH C IRC UIT May 31, 20 07 T HOMA S K. KA HN CLERK

Ho no ra ble Tom Stagg , United States District J udg e for the Western District of * L ouisiana, sitting by

desig nation. [DO N OT PUBLISH] IN THE UN ITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FO R T HE EL EV EN TH CIRC UI T

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ N o. 06- 1266 3

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ D. C. Docket N o. 05-20934 -CR- KMM UNITED STAT ES OF AMERIC A, Pl ai nt iff -Ap pe ll ee, ve rs us ALEJANDRO RAFAEL SANCHEZ, Defen da nt -Ap pe ll an t.

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ Appeal f rom the United State s District Court fo r the S outhe rnD istri ct

of F lor ida

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ _ (M ay 3 1, 200 7) Before CA RNE S and W IL SO N, and ST AG G, District Judge. * PE R CU RIA M:2

A ft er ple ad ing gui lty

to one c ount

of c onsp ir ing to poss es s w ithint en t t o dis tr ibute 5 or

m or e gr am s of

c oc ai ne ba se and 5 00 o r m or e gr am s of c oc ai ne po wde r, Alejan dr o R afae l Sa nc he z was sen te nc edto 70 m on th s i m pr is on m en t. He
ra ise s tw o is sue s onthi s a ppe al , one of

w hic h th e gove rnm en t c onc ed es . The governm ent acknowledges, a s it sho uld, that the district court
com m itted plain error in sentencing Sanchez based on an erroneous pre-sentence investig ation report that transpos ed the quantityof drugs for which Sanchez w as responsib le w ith the qu antity of drugs attributed to Roberto Per ez-P upo, another dr ug d ea le r. F or

that r ea son, w e m

ust va cate S an ch ez ’ s se nte nc e an d r em an d th e ca se to the dis tr ic t c ourt f or f urthe r pr oc ee din gs. T he se co nd i ssu e Sanc he z ra ise s invol ve s hi s c ont en tio n th at his r igh ts unde r U . S. S. G
. § 1B 1. 8 w er e vio late d. T his c ont en tio n is ba se d onhis a sse rt ion that the Mi am i D ad e Po lic e D ep ar tm en t of fi ce rs w ho arr es te d hi m

pr om ise d hi m that if he cooperated any

further e vidence that they discovered would not b e used ag ai nst him
. O the r dr

ugs w er e dis co ve re d a s ar es ult of S an ch ez ’ s c oope ratio n and he arg ue s th at

tho se dr ugs cannot

be c onsi de re d inc al cu latin g hi s ba se of fe nse le ve l. A s am atte r of

f ac t, tho se oth er

dr ugs w er e not

a ct ua lly c onsi de re d in de te rmini ng S an ch ez ’ s ba se of fe nse le ve l be ca

use , a s w e have e xpl ai ne d inthe pr ec ed ing para gr ap h, the dis tr ic t c ourt e rr one ousl y ba se d hi s se nte nc e on the dr ugsThis case was orig inally schedule d for or al ar gument, but it was decide d on the brief s ** and re cord a lone pursuant to 11th Cir. R. 34-3(f)
. 3 at tri bu tabl e to an ot he r de al er. Thatis anerro r whi ch wil l b e co rrec te d o n re m an d. T he § 1B 1. 8 is sue m ay

w el l c om e up a ga in i n th e re -s en te nc ing on r em an d, but it is not a ct ua lly be fo re us n owbe ca

use the onl y

se nte nc e that w e do h av e before us w as not actually aff ected by any asserted er

ror involvi ng that gu idelines pr ovi sio n. T he e rr or

in tr an spos ing the dr

ug quanti tie s pr ev en te d § 1 B1
. 8. f ro m affe ct in g t he sen te nc e th atwas a ctua ll y im po se d o n S an ch ez. W e do, how ev er , take thi s op portun ity to dir ec t the dis tr ic t c ourt t o m ak e fi ndi ngs co nc er

nin g what, if

anythi ng, the pol ic e of

fi ce rs sa id t o S an ch ezabout whether any

drugs foun d as a re sult of his cooperation would no t be considered against him

at sentencing. Sanchez m aintains that st atem ents of that nature we re m ad e, and the dis tr ic t c ourt a ssum ed that the y w er e an d r ej ec te d hi s arg um en t, anyway . If the issue is going to com e back to us in an appeal fromthe rese nte nc ing , a s it

m ay , w e w oul d pr ef

er to de ci de it

ba se d onf

ac ts i nst ea d of
as su m pt io ns . VA CA TED and REM AN DED . **