FILED U.S. COURT OF A P P E A LS E LE V EN T HC IR C U IT JULY 28, 2005 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. 04- 16568 N on -A rgum entC al endar

________________________ D . C. D o c k e tN o . 0 4 - 0 0 0 7 5 - CR- RV 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 R I C H A R D A N G E L O Z U C C O , a .k .a . R ic h Z u c c o , 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 N or the r n D i s tr i c tof F l or i da

_________________________ ( Ju l y 28, 2005) B efo re C A RN E S , H U L L an d W IL S O N , C i rcu i tJu d g es. P E R C U R I A M:2

R i c ha r d A nge l o Z uc c o a ppe a l s hi s tw e nty - f our - m onth s e nt e nc e f

ore s c a pi ng f r o m th e f e d e r a l p r i s o n c a mp t o w h i c h h e w a s a s s i g n e d , i n v i o l a t i o n o f 1 8 U . S. C. § 751( a ) . H e f

i r s tc ont e nds tha tthe di s tr i c tc our te r r e d i n de ny i ng hi m a s e ve nl evel re du ct i on i n h i s off ense l evel pu rs uantt o U . S . S . G . § 2 P 1. 1(b)(2). W e r evi ew th e d is tr ic t c o u r t’s f

a c tu a l f in d in g s f o rc le a re r r o ra n d th e a p p lic a tio n o f th o s e f a c ts t o the s e nt e nc i ng gui de l i ne s de novo. U ni t e d S t a t e s v. B r a df or d, 277 F . 3d 1311, 1 3 1 2 ( 1 1 th C ir . 2 0 0 2 ) . S ec ti o n 2 P 1 .1 (b )( 2 ) p ro v id es fo r a se v en -lev el re d u ctio n in a d ef en d an t’ s of f e ns e l e ve l i f

a de f e nda ntw ho e s c a pe s f

r om a f e de r a l f a c i l i ty vol unt a r i l y r e tur ns w i thi n ni ne ty - s i x hour s of the e s c a pe . W e ha ve r e c ogni z e d tha tthi s s e c t i on “c le a r ly a s s u m e s th a t th e e s c a p e e h a s r e c o n s id e r e d h is a c tio n s a n d in te n d s to s u r r e n d e r .” I d . In thi s c as e, short l y a ft eres capi ng Z ucco w as spot t ed by a pri son o ff i ci al a nd, i ns t e a d of

s ur r e nde r i ng, e va de d tha tof f i c i a l i n or de rt o a voi d be i ng a ppr e he nde d. O nl y a f

t e rtha ti nc i de ntdi d Z uc c o de c i de t o r e tur n t o the pr i s on ca m p. H e di d n otre turn b ec ause he re consi dere d h i s a ct i on s a nd deci ded t hey w er e w r o n g , h e r e tu r n e d b e c a u s e h e w a s s p o tte d o n th e o u ts id e a n d w a n te d to a v o id b ei n g p ro secu t ed fo r escap i n g b y p ret en d i n g th ath e n ev er l eft . B ased o n th ese fa ct s, the di stri ctcourtdi d n oterr i n d enyi ng Z ucco a re du ct i on un der3

§ 2 P 1 .1 ( b ) ( 2 ) . S e e id .; s e e a ls o U n ite d S ta te s v . P y n e s , 5 F .3 d 1 1 3 9 , 1 1 4 0

– 4 1 ( 8 th C i r . 1993) ( hol di ng tha ta § 2P 1. 1( b) ( 2) r e duc t i on i s notw a r r a nt e d w he r e the defe nd antre turned t o cust od y onl y a ft erbei ng spot t ed by l aw enforce m ent ). T he re stof Z ucco’ s c on t ent i on s r el y on t he S up re m e C ou rt ’ s dec i si on U ni t ed S t a t e s v. B ooke r , 543 U . S . ___, 125 S . C t . 738 ( 2005) . H e f i r s ta r gue s tha tthe d is tr ic t c o u r t’s d e n ia l o f th e § 2 P 1 .1 ( b ) ( 2 ) r e d u c tio n w a s a v io la tio n o f B o o k e r . A B oo ker e rr or occurs i n o nl y tw o si tuat i on s. T he fi rs ti s i f, un der a m andat ory gu i del i nes r egi m e, a def endant ’ s s ent ence w as i ncre as ed base d o n fac t s thatw er e nei ther proven t o a j ury nor adm i t t ed by hi m . T he se cond i s i f the defendantw as s e nt e nc e d unde ra m a nda t or y gui de l i ne s r e gi m e . S e e U ni t e d S t a t e s v. S he l t on, 400 F . 3d 1325 ( 11th C i r . 2005) . T he de ni a l of a r e duc t i on unde r§ 2P 1. 1( b) ( 2) i m pl i ca t es nei ther of tho se si tuat i on s. A s a re sul t , Z ucco’ s a rgum entthatthe deni al of a § 2P 1. 1( b) ( 2) r e duc t i on vi ol a t e s B ooke ri s w i thoutm e r i t . S e e U ni t e d S t a t e s v. B er m ud ez , 40 7 F . 3d 53 6, 54 5 (1stC i r. 20 05 ) ( ho l di ng thatthe deni al of a se nt enci ng re du ct i on do es no tre sul ti n an err or un der B oo ker) . Z ucco nextcont ends thatthe di stri ctcourtcom m i t t ed a B oo ker const i tut i on al error by i ncre as i ng hi s s ent ence base d o n fac t s thatw er e nei ther prov en t o a j ury nor adm i t t ed by hi m . H e a l so ar gu es thatthe di stri ctcourt com m i t t ed a B oo ker s t atut ory e rr or by se nt enci ng hi m un der a m andat ory4

gui de l i ne s s y s t e m . Z uc c o i s c or r e c ttha tthe di s tr i c tc our tc om m i t t e d both ki nds of B ooke re r r or . T he di s tr i c tc our tc om m i t t e d a B ooke rc ons t i tut i ona l e r r orby i m pos i ng, unde ra m a nda t or y gui de l i ne s s y s t e m , a tw o- l e ve l e nha nc e m e ntf or ob struct i on of j ust i ce base d o n fac t s thatw er e nei ther proven t o a j ury nor adm i t t ed by Z uc c o. S i m i l a r l y , the di s tr i c tc om m i t t e d a B ooke rs t a tut or y e r r orby s e nt e nc i ng hi m unde ra m a nda t or y gui de l i ne s r e gi m e . B e c a us e he m a de a t i m e l y obj e c t i on before the di stri ctcourt , w e r evi ew the B oo ker e rr ors t o d et er m i ne w hether they w er e har m l es s. S ee U ni t ed S t at es v. P az , 40 5 F . 3d 94 6, 94 8 (11 th C i r. 20 05 ); U ni t ed S t at es v. M atheni a, 40 9 F . 3d 12 89 , 12 91 (11t h C i r. 20 05 ). A n e r r ori s ha r m l e s s i f

i tdi d nota f

f e c tthe s ubs t a nt i a l r i ght s of the defe nd ant . P az , 40 5 F . 3d at94 8. “ A const i tut i on al error, such as a B oo ker e rr or, m u stb e d i sreg ard ed as n o taffecti n g su b st an t i al ri g h t s, i f th e erro r i s h arm l ess be y ond a r e a s ona bl e doubt . T hi s s t a nda r d i s onl y m e tw he r e i ti s c l e a rbe y ond a re as on abl e dou btthatthe error c om pl ai ned o f di d n otcont ri bu t e t o t he se nt ence ob t ai ned. ” I d. (quo t at i on s a nd m ar ks om i t t ed). I n s e n te n c in g Z u c c o , th e d is tr ic t c o u r t ju d g e s ta te d th a t h e h a d f u lly c ons i de r e d a l l the f

a c t or s f r om 18 U . S . C . § 3553( a ) a nd f ound tha tZ uc c o’ s 24- m on th sent ence m etthe se nt enci ng go al s of pun i shm entand speci fi c a nd general de t e r r e nc e . F ur the r m or e , the j udge a l s o s t a t e d tha the “ w oul d c e r t a i nl y ha veZuc c o also a ssert s th at B oo ker w a s v iol ate d when th edis tric t c ourt imp os e d h is 1 se ntenc eto r

un c on se c uti ve ly

to t hete rm hewa s alr e a dy

inc arc e rate d f

or . Thedis tric t c ourt , however, wa s bound to do so by the guidelines. See U.S.S.G. § 5G1.3(a). As a result, Zucco’ s argument is subsumed by his larg er a

rgument that the district court c ommitt ed a B ooker statutory error by sentenc ing him under

a mandatory

guidelines reg ime. 5 s e nt e nc e d M r . Z uc c o t o the s e nt e nc e of 24 m onths i f

the gui de l i ne s w e r e not othe r w i s e c ontr ol l i ng. I n f a c t , i tw oul d ha ve be e n a hi ghe rs e nt e nc e tha n 24 m o n th s f o rM r . Z u c c o .” G iv e n th o s e s ta te m e n ts , it is c le a rb e y o n d a r e a s o n a b le do ub tthatthe B oo ker c on st i tut i on al error di d n otcont ri bu t e t o t he se nt ence Z ucco r e c e i ve d. S e e U ni t e d S t a t e s v. R obl e s , 408 F . 3d 1324, 1327–28 ( 11th C i r . 2005) ( hol di ng tha tthe B ooke rc ons t i tut i ona l e r r ori n tha tc a s e w a s ha r m l e s s be y ond a r e a s o n a b l e d o u b tw h e r e th e d i s tr i c tc o u r ts t a t e d th a ti tw o u l d h a v e g i v e n th e s a me se nt ence even i f the gu i del i nes had been advis ory) . G iv e n th a t th e B o o k e rc o n s titu tio n a l e r r o ris h a r m le s s b e y o n d a r e a s o n a b le doubt , the B ooke rs t a tut or y e r r or , w hi c h i s s ubj e c tt o a l e s s one r ous ha r m l e s s e r r or st andard, i s a l so harm l es s. S ee M atheni a, 40 9 F . 3d at12 92 ; R ob l es , 40 8 F . 3d at 1 1327. AF F I RME D.6