FI L ED U.S. COURT OF A P P E A LS E LE V EN T H C IR C U IT J ULY 28, 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N CL ERK [DO NOT PUBLISH] IN THE UN ITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FO R T HE EL EV EN TH CIRC UI T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- 1635 8 Non-A rgum ent Calendar

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ D. C. Docket N o. 02-00259 -CR- T- 26MSS UNITED STAT ES OF AMERIC A, Plaintiff-Appellee, ve rs us SYLVESTER EUGENE BENNET T, D ef en dant- Appe llant.

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

S tate s D istri ct

Co urt fo r the Mi ddl e D istri ct

of F lor ida

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ _ ( Ju ly 2 8, 200 5) Be fo re T JO FL A T , BL A CK and P RY O R, Ci rc uit

Jud ge s. PE R CU RIA M: T he dis tr ic t c ourt se nte nc ed S y lve ste r E uge ne Be nne tt to p ri son fo r 169 m onth s on a plea of guilty to the offense of bank robbery , in violation o f 18 U. S. C. § 211 3(a). Bennett now appeals, contendin g (1) that the district court infringedSee U.S.S.G. § 2B3.1(b)(3) (A). 1 We discern these g rounds from the Argu m en t s ec tion of Be nnett’s brief . The brie f’s 2 State me nt o f t

he I ssu e c a sts the iss ue on a pp e a l a s f oll ow s: Whether the sente nce imposed in Mr. B ennett’s case must be vacated based on the United States Supreme Court’s dec ision in United States v. Book er, 125 S. Ct . 738 (2005). 2 the S ixth A m en dm en t un de r U nit ed S tate s v. Bo oke r, 543 U . S. ___ , 125 S . Ct . 738 , 160 L.E d.2d 621 (200 5), by enhancing his sentence based on a fac t, that he c aused bodi ly inj ur y dur ing the c om

m iss ionof

the r obbe ry , w hic h th e ind ic tm en t di d no t

1 al le ge and h e did

not a dm it dur ing his F ed . R. Cr im . P . 11 g uil ty -p le a co llo quy ; ( 2) that the court sentenced him “pursuant to [a] m andatory , unconstitut ional se nte nc ing sc he m e” ; ( 3) that “ [i ] f the gui de lin es ha d no t be enm an da tor y , the dis tr ic t c ourt m igh t have take n in to c onsi de ratio n am ult itu de of

f ac tor s a bout [ his ] pe rs on al li fe (i nc lu di ng hi s d ru g a dd ic ti on an d d is ad va nt ag edba ck gr ou nd ),” w hic h m igh t have r es ult ed in a shor te r se nte nc e; and ( 4) that w e shou ld v ac at e his sentence and rem and the case for resentencing since it is unclear from the rec ord

“ w he the r the c ourt be lie ve d th at the gui de lin e range w as hars he r than ne ce ssary to sa ti sf y th e p ur po se s o f se nt en ci ng .” 2 Ci tin g th e ratio na le and h old ing s of Bl ak el y v. W as hin gto n, 542 U . S. ___ , 124 S. Ct . 253 1, 159 L . E d. 2d 4 03 ( 2004 ), w hic h B ooke r subs eque ntl y m ad e ap pli ca ble to the f

ed er al S en te nc ing G uid el ine s, Be nne tt obj ec te d a t se nte nc ing to3

th e d is tri ctco ur t’s u se of t he Sen te nc in g Gu id el in es in fas hi on in g h is sen te nc e. W e the re fo re a ff

or d hi s B lake ly -n ow - Bo oke r cl ai m pr es er ve d- er ro r re vie wand w ill r em an d hi s c as e fo r re se nte nc ing unl es s ( 1) no e rr or w as c om m itt ed , or ( 2) the erro r was ha rm le ss . See Un it edSta te s v . Paz, 4 05 F.3d94 6, 9 48 (11 th Cir . 20 05 ). Apot en tia l r ev er sib le c onst itutio na l e rr or oc curr ed in thi s c as e w he n th e co urt e nhanc ed

Be nne tt’ s ba se of

fe nse le ve l onthe ba sis of af ac t he did not adm it— that he c au se d bo dil y

inj ur y dur ing the r obbe ry . T he e rr or w as not harm ful in any

way , how ever, because the court tre ated Bennett as a c aree r o ff en d er , a s d ef

i n edi nU.S .S .G. § 4 B1 .1 . Ab s en tca re er -o ff en d ers t at u s , B en n et t ’s tot al of fe nse le ve l w as 23; tr eate d a s ac ar ee r of fe nde r, tho ugh, w hic h B enne tt adm its he is, his e nhanc ed of fe nse le ve l w as 29. T he c ar ee r of fe nde r status , and le ve l, tr um pe d B enne tt’ s to ta l of

fe nse le ve l, thu s r en de ri ng i rr el ev an t, and harm le ss, the c ourt’ s of

fe nse le ve l e nhanc em en t f or c au sin g bo dil y

inj ur y . T he que sti on thus be co m es w he the r the c ourt c om m itt ed Bo oke r statut or

y e rr or and, if so, w he the r the e rr or

w as harm le ss.

“ Anon -c onst itutio na l [ Bo oke r] e rr or is harm le ss i f, vie w ing the pr oc ee din gs in the ir e nti re ty , ac ourt de te rm ine s th at the e rr or did not a ff ec t the se nte nc e, or had but v ery

slighteff ect. If one can say

with fa ir assurance that the sentence wa s not su bstantiallysway ed by the err or, the sentence is due to be affirm ed evenOn re mand , th e dis tr ic t c ourt sh ou ld e ns ur e that it s ju dgme nt o nly reflec ts 1 8 U .S. C. 3 § 2113(a) as the off

ense of conviction, rather than § 2113( a) a nd (d). 4 tho ugh the re w as e rr or . ” U nit ed S tate s v. Mathe nia , N o. 04- 1525 0, sli p op . 232 6, 2328 ( 11th C ir . May

23, 200 5) ( m an da te w ith he ld) ( int er na l qu otatio ns and ci tatio n om itt ed ). “ T he non -c onst itutio na l harm le ss e rr or standard is not e as y f or the governm ent to m eet. It is as diffic ult for the governm ent to m eet that standard as it is fo r a de fe ndant t o m ee t the thi rd -p ro ng p re j udi ce standard

f or pla in e rr or re vie w . ” I d. The G overnm ent has not sh own (on the rec ord before the district court) that unde r the Mathe nia

te st, the dis tr ic t c ourt’ s st at uto ry Bo oke r er

ro r— tr eatin g th e Guidelines as m andatory

rather than adviso ry

—“ did no t affe ct the sentence, or had but very slighteff ect. ” In other w ords, the G overnm ent has not carried its burden of pr oof to de m onstrate harm le ss e rr or . A s ac onse que nc e, w e m ust va cate Be nne tt’ s se nte nc e an d r em an d th e ca se f or r es en te nc ing . 3 VACATED an d REMANDED.