### FI LED U.S. COURT O F APP EALS ELEVENTH CIRCUIT Ma y 2 6, 2005 THO MAS K. KAH N CL ERK [DO NOT PUBLISH] IN THE UN ITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FO R T HE EL EV EN TH CIRC UI T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- 1497 7 Non-A rgum ent Calendar

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ D. C. Docket N o. 04-00036 -CR- W S-M UNITED STAT ES OF AMERIC A, Plaintiff-Appellee, ve rs us BENJAM IN EARL WALTON, D ef en da nt- Appe llant.

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

S ta te s D istri ct

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

A l ab a ma

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ _ (M ay 2 6, 200 5) Be fo re T JO FL A T , CA RN E S an d M A RC U S, Ci rc uit Jud ge s. PE R CU RIA M: Appe llant p le d gu ilty

to be ing af

el on i n po sse ssi on o f a fi re ar m , in vio la tio n of 18 U . S. C. § 92 2( g) (1 ) (C ount O ne ); pos se ssi on w ithint en t t o di str ibu te c oc ai ne2

ba se ( “ cr ac k c oc ai ne ”) , in vio la tio n of 21 U . S. C. § 84 1( a) (1 ) (C ount T w o) ; and po ss es si ng a fi rear m

du rin g a dru g t raff

ic ki ng off en se , in vi ol at io n o f 18 U.S.C. § 924( c) (1 ) (C ount

T hr ee ). T he dis tr ic t c ourt se nte nc ed him to co nc ur

re nt p ri son te rm s of 108 m onths o n C ount s O ne a nd T w o, a nd t o ac onse cu tiv e pr iso n te rm of 60 m onths o n C ount

T hr ee . H e nowappe al s hi s C ount T w o se nte nc e on the ground s that the dist rict court (1) clear ly err ed in determ ining , based on his written co nf es si on th athe so ld 2 o un ces of c rackco cai ne , th athe was re sp on si bl e fo r 56 .7 gr am s of the dr ug, a nd ( 2) vio la te d hi s S ixth A m en dm en t r igh ts b y r el y ing on f

ac ts not a dm itt ed by him to en ha nc e his se nte nc e, in vio la tio n of U nit ed S ta te s v. Bo oke r, 543 U . S. __, 125 S . Ct . 738 , 160 L . E d. 2d 6 21 ( 2005 ). W e co nsi de r the se gr ound s intur

n. I. Appe llant s ay s th at

the c ourt e rr ed

in fi ndi ng tha t he pos se sse d 50 gr am s of crac k cocaine because “ in a question able state of sobriety ,” he told law e n f o r c e me n to f

f i c e r s t h a th e h a dao n e h a l f o u n c e o f t h e d r u g i n h i s h o t e l r o o m, which w as an overstatem ent of the am ount . Beca use this st atem ent was an ex ag ge ratio n, his state m en ts t o th e of fi ce rs that he ha d pr ev iou sly de al t tw o ou nc es of c rackwas a ls o a n e xa gg erat io n.3

U nde r the S en te nc ing G uid el ine s, ade fe ndant who i s r es pons ibl e fo r at le as t 50 g ram s, but

not m or e than 15 0 gr am s of

c ra ck c oc ai ne r ec ei ve s aba se of fe nse level of 32. U .S .S .G . § 2D 1.1(c) (4). T he Guidelines further provide a Me as ur em en t C onve rs ionT ab le to fa ci lit at e co nve rs ion s to dr ug e qui va le nc es , w he re in i t st at es that on e ounc e equa ls 2 8. 35 g ram s. U . S. S. G . § 2D 1. 1, c om m en t. (n .10 ). The district court f

ound at a suppression hearing th at appellant’ s wr itten sta te m en t tha t he ha d so ld tw o ounc es of c ra ck w as not inv oluntary

be ca use he was no t s o i nt ox ic at edth athe was u na bl e to free ly andvo lu nt ari ly giv e it . Appe llant d oe s no t c ha lle nge thi s f ind ing . T he que sti on thus be co m es w he the r the co urt c le ar ly

e rr ed in de te rm ini ng tha t the tw o ounc es appe llant a dm itt ed that he had sold shoul d have converted to gram s at a conversation rate of one oun ce equa lin g a

ppr oxi m at el y

28 g ram s. A lth oughhe c ont en ds tha t be ca use he ove re sti m at ed

the a m ount

of c ra ck that the of

fi ce rs f ound in his m ote l r oom

in executing a search w arrant, he also overestim ated the two ounces that he had previousl y

sold, he adm itted in earlier pleadings that a “ street ounce” could total 28 gram s. T hus, his own adm issio n dem onstrates that it was possib le that each ou nc e h e so ld co ul d h av e to ta le d 2 8 g ram s.4

Mor eo ve r, be ca

use the tw o ounc es that he a dm itt ed se lli ng c oul d no t have been recover ed for lawenforce m ent officer s to properly we igh, and he never pr es en te d any

e vid en ce a s to the a ct

ua l w ei ght

of the tw o ounc es , oth er

than hi s adm issio n that he sold two ounces, the c ourt could o nly rely on his adm issio n that he sol d tw o ounc es . B ec au se he did not pr ovi de e vid en ce of

a n e xa ct a nd r el ia ble ca lc ula tio n r at e fo r a “ str ee t ounc e, ” but ins te ad onl y state d th at

it c oul d vary

f ro m 15 t o 28 oun ce s, the c ourt di d no t c le ar ly e rr in re ly ing on the Me as ur em en t Conversion Table in the Guidelines to determ ine the proper we ight o f the cr ack cocaine, in gram s, f

or which he w as responsibl e. U nder the Guidelines, one ounce equa ls 2 8. 35 g ram s; thus, the tw o ounc es appe llant s old e qua le d 56 . 7 gr am s, w el l ov er t he 50 gra m s n eed edfora ba se off en se lev el of 3 2. Se e U.S.S.G. § 2D 1. 1( c) (4 ), a nd c om

m en t. ( n. 10) . I n su m , the c ourt di d no t c le ar ly e rr in de te rm ini ng, ba se d onappe llant’ s a dm iss ion , that a ppe llant w as r es pons ibl e fo r tw o ounc es of

c ra ck c oc ai ne , w hic h to ta le d 56 . 7 gr am s.

II. Appe llant c ont en ds tha t the c ourt e rr ed und er Bo oke r be ca

use he did

not adm it in h is p le a ag re em en t or dur ing the ple a co llo quy the f ac ts t o su ppor t the U . S. S. G . § 2D 1. 1 dr

ug qua nti ty

a ttr ibu te d to him

a t se nte nc ing . W e ar e not persuaded. A fter he wa s arre sted, appellant adm itted that he had so ld two ounces5

of c ra ck , w hic h, a s no te d a

bove , e xc ee de d th e 50 g ram s ne ed ed to es ta bli sh h is ba se of fe nse le ve l a t 32 . T his state m en t w as not onl y r ea d in to the r ec or d duri ng his su ppression hearing by Mike Palm er, a detective w ith the Selm a Police De partm ent, but appellant him self entere d this written statem ent into evid ence dur ing the sup pr es sio n he ar ing . B ec au se he a dm itt ed that he ha d so ld o ve r 50 gr am s of c ra ck , the c ourt di d no t r el y on a f ac t no t a dm itt ed

by the de fe ndant t o en ha nc e his se nte nc e. I n sh ort, no B ooke r er ro r oc curr ed . Inhis r ep ly

br ie f (b ut n ot i n hi s in iti al br ie f) , appe llant a sse rt ed that the co urt e rr ed

in se nte nc ing him

und er am an da tor

y gui de lin es sy ste m . W e do n ot consider the issu e. See United State s v. D icter, 198 F.3d 1284 , 1289 (11th Cir. 19 99 ) (i ss ue s ra is edforth e fi rs t t im e in a rep ly brie f are waiv ed ). AFFIR MED.