FILED U.S. COURT OF AP P EALS E LEVEN T HC IRC U IT MAY 23 , 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- 13787 N on -A rgum entC al endar

________________________ D. C . Do c k e tNo . 0 5 - 8 0 0 3 0 - C R - KA M 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 E D D I E T H O M A S S T I G E , 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

_________________________ ( M ay 23, 2006) B efo re A N D E R S O N , B IR C H an d B L A C K , C i rcu i tJu d g es. P E R C U R I A M: E dd i e T ho m as S t i ge appeal s hi s 60-m on th sent ence i m po se d aft erhe pl ed2

g u ilty to c o n s p ir a c y to m a n u f a c tu r e a n d p o s s e s s w ith th e in te n t to d is tr ib u te m a r iju a n a , in v io la tio n o f 2 1 U .S .C . § § 8 4 1 ( a ) ( 1 ) , ( b ) ( 1 ) ( B ) , a n d 8 4 6 . S tig e a s s e rts the di stri ctcourtvi ol at ed hi s due proces s r i gh t s by i m po si ng a m andat ory m i ni m um s e nt e nc e tha te xc e e de d the a dvi s ory S e nt e nc i ng G ui de l i ne s , vi ol a t i ng U ni ted Stat es v. B oo ke r , 125 S . C t . 738 ( 2005) . T he di s tr i c tc our tdi d note rr , a nd w e a f f irm . W e r e v ie w c o n s titu tio n a l e rr o r s in s e n te n c in g d e n o v o , b u t w ill r e v e r s e o n ly f o rh a rm f u l e rr o r . U

ni te d State s v . P az , 4 0 5 F .3 d 9 4 6 , 9 4 8 ( 1 1 th C ir . 2 0 0 5 ) .

“ [ C ] ons t i tut i ona l e rr or s a r e ha rm l e s s w he r e the gove rnm e ntc a n s how , be y ond a r e a s o n ab le d o u b t, th a t th e e rr o rd id n o t c o n tr ib u te to th e d e f e n d a n t’s u ltim a te se nt ence . ” U

n ite d S ta te s v . M

a th e n ia , 4 0 9 F .3 d 1 2 8 9 , 1 2 9 1 ( 1 1 th C ir . 2 0 0 5 ) . I n B oo ke r , the S upr e m e C our the l d “ [ a ] ny f a c t( othe rtha n apr i orc onvi c t i on) w hi c h i s ne c e s s a ry t o s upportas e nt e nc e e xc e e di ng the m a xi m um author i z e d by the f a c t s e s t abl i s he d by apl e aof gui l ty oraj uryve r di c tm us tbe a dm i tt e d by the defe nd antor prov ed t o a j ury bey on d a re as on abl e dou bt . ” B oo ke r , 12 5 S . C t . at 75 6. T he C ou rtal so hel d the S ent enci ng G ui del i nes are advi sory , and d i stri ct c our t s s houl d t a ke the G ui de l i ne s i nt o a c c ountw he n c ons i de r i ng the s e nt e nc i ng f a c to r s s e t f

o rth a t 1 8 U .S .C . § 3 5 5 3 ( a ) . I d. a t 7 5 7 . H o w e v e r , B oo ke rdi d not d e c la r e m a n d a to ry m in im u m s e n te n c e s u n c o n s titu tio n a l.3

I n U n i ted S ta tes v. E

g g ersdo rf , 1 2 6 F . 3 d 1 3 1 8 , 1 3 2 0 ( 1 1 th C i r . 1 9 9 7 ) , we he l d the f

i ve - y e a rm a nda t ory m i ni m um s e nt e nc e appl i e d i n c a s e s i nvol vi ng 100 or m or e m a r i

j ua napl a nt s , r e ga r dl e s s of w e i ght , c ontr ol l e d ove rthe a m e ndm e ntt o the S e n te n c in g G u id e lin e s th a t r e d u c e d th e w e ig h t a ttr ib u tab le to am a r iju a n ap la n t. A ddi t i ona l l y , w e ha ve c ons i s t e nt l y he l d m a nda t ory m i ni m um s e nt e nc e s do not v io la te ad e f

e n d a n t’s d u e p r o c e s s r ig h ts . Se e e . g. , U ni ted Stat es v. H

olm es , 838 F . 2d 11 75 , 11 77 (11th C i r. 19 88 ) ( ho l di ng m andat ory m i ni m um se nt enci ng do es notde pr i ve the de f

e nda ntof a n i ndi vi dua l i z e d s e nt e nc i ng pr oc e s s i n vi ol a t i on of du e proces s r i gh t s) . I n U ni te d State s v . She l ton , 4 0 0 F .3 d 1 3 2 5 , 1 3 3 3 n .1 0 ( 1 1 th C ir . 2 0 0 5 ) , ap o s t- B oo ke rde c i s i on, w e not e d di s tr i c tc our t s r e m a i n bound by st atut ory m i ni m um se nt ence s des pi t e B oo ke r’s ho l di ng the S ent enci ng G ui del i nes a r e m e r e ly a d v is o ry . F u rth e r , in U ni te d State s v . R aad , 4 0 6 F .3 d 1 3 2 2 , 1 3 2 3 n .1 ( 11th C i r . 2005) , w e not e d the de f e nda nt ’ s s e nt e nc e f

ora l i e n s m uggl i ng di d not vi ol at e B oo ke rbecause the defendantre ce i ved the m andat ory m i ni m um se nt ence b ased o n th e fact s t o w h i ch h e p l ed g u i l ty. T he di s tr i c tc ourtdi d note rri n i m pos i ng the m a nda t ory 60- m onth m i ni m um se nt ence because E

g g ersdo rf re m ai ns go od l aw af

t er B oo ke r . T he S up re m e C ou rt h a s n o th e l d th a tm a n d a t o ry m i n i m u m s e n t e n c e s v i o l a t e th e C o n s t i tu t i o n , a n d we h a v e r e p e a te d ly up h e ld th e c o n s titu tio n a lity o f m a n d a to ry m in im u m s e n te n c e s . A F F I R M E D .