FILED U.S. COURT OF AP P E A LS E LE V EN T HC IRC U IT SEPTEMBER 21, 2006 THOMAS K. KAH

N CLERK [ 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- 16440 N on -A rgum entC al endar

________________________ D . C. D o c k e tN o . 9 8 - 0 6 0 0 6 - CR- A SG 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 A L E J A N D R O C O R R E A , a .k .a . A le x C o rr e a , a .k .a . A le x A lv a r e z , 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 orthe S outhe rn D i s tr i c tof F l or i da

_________________________ ( S e p t e m b e r 21, 2006) B efo re D U B IN A , C A RN E S an d H U L L , C i rcu i tJu d g es. P E R C U R I A M:2

W h en th is ca se w as in it iall y b ef o re u s, w e a ff

irm ed A lejan d ro C o rr ea ’s c o n v i c t i o n a n d s e n t e n c e i n a l l r e s p e c t s e x c e p tth a t , o n o u ro wn m o t i o n , we r e m a n d e d th e c a s e “f

o rth e s o le p u rp o s e o f

c o rr e c tin g th e ju d g m e n t to a c c u r a te ly re fl ec tthe cr i m i nal hi st ory c at egory a nd gu i del i ne ra ng e und erw hi ch C orre a w as s e n te n c e d .” W e d id th a t b e c a u s e th e d is tr ic t c o u r t h a d m a d e a s c r iv e n e r ’s e rr o rin the j ud gm ent . A l tho ug h i tadop t ed the pres ent ence re po rtand i t s r ec om m ended fi nd i ng s a nd used them t o sent ence C orre a, the courthad m i ss t at ed i n the ac tual ju d g m e n t th e c r im in a l h is to ry a n d th e g u id e lin e s r a n g e r e c o m m e n d e d in th e r e p o r t. W e m a d e it c le a rin o u rp r io ro p in io n th a t e x c e p t f o rth a t o n e s c r iv e n e r ’s e rr o rin the j ud gm ent , “ C orre a’ s c on vi ct i on s a nd se nt ence s a re A F F IR M E D . ” O n rem and t he di stri ctcourtcorr ec t ed the sc ri vener’ s e rr or, as w e had di r e c t e d i tt o do, butC orr e a a s ke d f orm or e . H e w a nt e d a ne w s e nt e nc e he a r i ng w hi c h the di s tr i c tc our tde c l i ne d t o gi ve hi m be c a us e ourl i m i t e d m a nda t e di d not pe r m i ti tt o c ha nge C orr e a ’ s s e nt e nc e . T he di s tr i c tc our tw a s c or r e c t . T he l a w of th e c a s e d o c tr in e a n d th e m a n d a te ru le c ir c u m s c r ib e d its a u th o r ity o n r e m a n d . “T h e la w o f

th e c a s e d o c tr in e , s e lf

- im p o s e d b y th e c o u r ts , o p e r a te s to c r e a te e f f i c i e nc y , f i na l i ty a nd obe di e nc e w i thi n the j udi c i a l s y s t e m . A n appe l l a t e de c i s i on b i n d s al l su b seq u en tp ro ceed i n g s i n th e sam e case n o to n l y as t o ex p l i ci tru l i n g s, bu tal so as t o i ss ues dec i ded n ec es sa ri l y by i m pl i ca t i on on the pri or appeal . ”3

U ni t e d S t a t e s v. T a m a y o, 80 F . 3d 1514, 1520 ( 11th C i r . 1996) ( quot a t i on a nd c i t a t i ons om i tt e d) . “ T he m a nda t e rul e i s s i m pl y a n appl i c a t i on of the l a w of

the ca se do ctri ne t o a spec i fi c s etof fa ct s. O ur se tt l ed ci rc ui tl aw ob l i gat es a di stri ct c our tt o f ol l ow ourm a nda t e s , a nd nott o a s s e r tj ur i s di c t i on ove rm a tt e r s out s i de the s c ope of a l i m i t e d m a nda t e , w hi c h c ons t i tut e s a bus e of di s c r e t i on. ” I d. ( quot a t i on a n d c ita tio n s o m itte d ) . C orre a c on t ends thatan except i on t o the m andat e rul e app l i es for three r e a s ons . F i r s t , he s a y s tha tthe S upr e m e C our t ' s de c i s i on i n U ni t e d S t a t e s v. B ooke r , 543 U . S . 220, 125 S . C t . 738 ( 2005) , c ons t i tut e s a c ha nge i n the gove rni ng l aw . W e n eed n o td eci d e th atb ecau se th e d i stri ctco u rti n d en yi n g C o rrea’s requ est t o b e r e s e n t e n c e d e x p l i c i t l y s t a t e d th a ti tw o u l d h a v e i mp o s e d e x a c t l y th e s a me s e nt e nc e unde rthe B ooke rr e gi m e i tha d i m pos e d be f or e tha tde c i s i on. A r e m a nd f o rth e p u rp o s e o f

h a v in g th e c o u r t r e s ta te th a t c o n c lu s io n w o u ld b e p o in tle s s . S e c ond, C orr e a c ont e nds tha tthe di s tr i c tc our ts houl d ha ve de vi a t e d f r om ourm a nda t e be c a us e tw o of the s t a t e c our tc onvi c t i ons c ons i de r e d i n c a l c ul a t i ng hi s c r i m i na l hi s t ory ha ve s i nc e be e n va c a t e d a nd tha tc ons t i tut e s a c ha nge i n the fa ct s. Iti s nota c hang e i n the fa ct s r el evantt o the on l y m att erop en t o the di stri ct c o u r t d u e to th e n a rr o w s c o p e o f th e r e m a n d . W e a f

f ir m e d th e s e n te n c e in a ll re spec t s e xceptthatw e di re ct ed the di stri ctcourtt o correc tthe j ud gm entt o ref l ec tCorrea ’s motion to file his reply brief out of time is grante d. His motion to supplement the 1 re c ord a nd hismotion

to f ilea su pp le mental reply

brie f a rebo th de nie d a s mo ot. 4 the cr i m i nal hi st ory a nd gu i del i nes r ange thatw er e s etou ti n the pres ent ence re po rt w hi ch i thad ado pt ed. A subsequentchange i n the st atus of C orre a’ s s t at e c ou rt c onvi c t i ons doe s notc ha nge w ha tthe pr e s e nt e nc e r e por ts how e d a tthe t i m e of s e nt e nc i ng. T hi s i s nota c a s e i n w hi c h w e va c a t e d the s e nt e nc e a nd r e m a nde d f or re se nt enci ng . W e e xp re ss l y a ff i rm ed the se nt ence s e xceptfor the sc ri vener’ s e rr or, and t he di stri ctcourthad n o aut ho ri ty t o g o b ey on d correc t i on of thaton e t ec hn i ca l e rr o ro n r e m a n d . C orr e a ’ s thi r d c ont e nt i on i s tha tbe c a us e of B ooke ra nd the c ha nge i n s t a tus of hi s s t a t e c our tc onvi c t i ons i tw a s a m i s c a rr i a ge of j us t i c e f orthe di s tr i c tc our tnot t o e x c e e d o u rm a n d a t e a n d r e s e n t e n c e h i m . T h a ta r g u m e n tp r o v e s t o o m u c h . I f we adop t ed thatdefi ni t i on of m i sc arri age of j ust i ce , coun t l es s pre -B oo ker s ent ence s w o u ld h a v e to b e r e o p e n e d a s w o u ld a ll th o s e in w h ic h a d e f e n d a n t s u c c e e d s in havi ng on e or m ore s t at e c ou rtconv i ct i on s s etas i de af t erhi s f eder al se nt ence w as im p o s e d . T h e la w d o e s n o t r e q u ir e th a t. AF F I RME D. 1