FI L ED U.S. COURT OF APPEAL S EL EVENTHCI RCUI T NOVEMB ER 9, 2011 J OHN L EY CL ERK [DO N OT PUBLISH] IN THE UN ITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELE VENTH CIRCUIT

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ No. 1 1- 12 26 4 Non -Arg um en t Ca le nd ar

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ D.C. Dock etNo. 1 :1 0- cr-0 00 05 -MC R-GRJ -1

UNITED STAT ES OF AMERIC A, ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll Pl ai nt iff –Ap pe ll ee, ve rs us RICHAR D MITER, a.k .a. Ste ve Mi te r, a.k .a. Co ol io , ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll Defen da nt–Ap pe ll an t.

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ App eal fro m

th e Uni te d S ta te s Di st ric t Co urt forth e North ern Dis tri ctof F lo rid a

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ (No ve m be r 9, 2 01 1) Befo re CARNES, WILSON andKRAVITCH, Cir cu itJu dg es . PER CURI AM:Ri ch ardMi te r was fou ndgu il ty of co ns pi rin g t o p os se ss an d d is tri bu te m or e

th an50 0 g ram s o f co cai ne , invi ol at io n o f 21 U.S.C. §§ 84 1, 8 42 , and84 6. Be fo re Mi te r was tri ed , th e g ov ern m en t fi le d a n i nf orm at io n u nd er 2 1 U.S.C. § 85 1 t o en ha nc e h is sen te nc e b as edonanearl ie r drug co nv ic ti on . W it h t he en hanc em en t, Mi te r was sen te nc edto 12 0 m on th s’ im pr is on m en t t o b e fo ll owe d b y 8 years’ supe rv is edrel eas e. Mi te r ap pe al s h is sen te nc e, whi ch he arg ue s was im po se d i n vi ol at io n o f hi s s pe edy

tri al rig ht s u nd er the Six th Am en dm en t, as well as h is rig ht to be pro m

pt ly sen te nc edun de r Fed eral Ru le of C riminal Pro cedur e 3 2( b) (1 ) an d th e d is tri ctco urt’s l oc al rul es . Becau se we fin d t ha t M it er h as no t s uf fere d a ny pr ejud ic e, we affi rm . I. Sh ortl y aft er Mi te r was in di ct ed , th e g ov ern m en t fi le d a n i nf orm at io n u nd er 21 U.S.C. § 8 51 to en ha nc e h is sen te nc e b as edon a 19 95 fel on y co nv ic ti onfor po ss es si on an d s al e o f co cai ne . Butth atco nv ic ti onwas u nd er anali as , Ste ve Met er. The go ve rn m en t at te m pt edto pro ve th atth e 1 99 5 c on vi ct io n was Mi te r’s by com parin g fi ng erp rin t re co rd s fr om th atco nv ic ti on with M it er’s. Dur in g t he tri al , an e xp ertfro m

a st at e ag en cy

tes ti fie d t ha t the 19 95 fin ge rp rin ts were Mi te r’s, bu t tha t was ap pa ren tl y in su ffi ci en t t o e st ab li sh th atth e co nv ic ti on was Mi te r’s be y on d areas on ab le do ub t. A se co ndex pe rt, fr om th e Dru g En fo rcem en t 2Age nc y , cou ldno t t es ti fy ab ou t t he co m

pa ris on du rin g t he tri al du e to anag en cy po li cy . Thatpo li cy

ch an ge d, an d t he di st ric t co urt co nt in ue d t he Jan ua ry 28 , 20 11 se nt en ci ng he ari ng un ti l Ap ril 29 , 20 11 to all ow t he DEA exp ertto rev ie w th e fin ge rp rin ts an d o fferhe r op in io n. Mi te r ob jecte d t o t he co nt in uanc e. At the Apri l s en te nc in g h eari ng , th e DEA exp erttes ti fie d t ha t t he fin ge rp rin ts fro m

th e 1 99 5 c on vi ct io n wer e Mi te r’s. Mit er the n a dm it te d t ha t the 19 95 co nv ic ti on was h is . After M it er’s al lo cu ti on , th e d is tri ctco urt i m po se d a 12 0- m on th sen te nc e, th e st atut ory m in im um un de r 21 U.S.C. § 8 51 . Mit er n ow ap pe al s an d a rg ue s t ha t the co nt in ua nc e v io la te d h is rig htto a sp eedy tri al un de r th e Si xt h Am en dm en t, as well as h is rig htto be pro m pt ly sen te nc edun de r Fed eral Ru le of C riminal Pro cedur e 3 2 a ndth e d is tri ctco urt’s l oc al rul es . II. Ourrev ie w of aSix th Am en dm en t s pe edy tri al cla im

is m ix ed . W e rev ie w th e d is tri ctco urt’s l eg al co nc lu si on s de no vo an d i ts factua l fi nd in gs for cle ar erro r. Uni te d Sta tes v. Vi llar ea l , 61 3 F .3d13 44 , 13 49 (11 th Cir . 20 10 ). W e h av e reco gn iz edth atth e co ns ti tu ti on al sp eedy tri al rig htap pl ie s t o s en te nc in g. Uni te d St at es v. Howa rd , 57 7 F .2d26 9, 2 70 (5t h C ir. 1 97 8) . In tha t d eci si on we no te d 1

In Bonner v. City of Prichard, 661 F.2d 1206 ( 11th Cir. 1981) ( en banc ), weadopted the 1 decisions of the f

ormer F ifth Circuit as binding pr ece dent. 3th at , alt ho ug h t he ba la nc in g app ro ach fro m Barker v. W in go , 40 7 U.S. 5 14 (19 72 ), sh ou ldgu id e o uran al y si s o f se nt en ci ng -rel at edsp eedy tri al cla im s, d el ay ed se nt en ci ng im

pl ic at es di ffer en t co nc ern s t ha n m os t s pe edy tri al cla im s. Id
. Und er Barker a co urt ex am in es fou r fac to rs in de ci di ng whethe r a s pe edy tri al vi ol at io n oc cu rred . Firs t, the len gt h o f th e d el ay . Seco nd , th e rea so n fo r th e d el ay . Thi rd , th e d efen da nt ’s ass ert io n o f hi s s pe edy tri al rig ht s. An d l as t, the pre jud ic e to th e de fen da ntforth e d el ay . Barker , 40 7 U.S. at53 0. Here, ev enif M it er es tabl is he d t he fir stth ree f act or s i n the Barker te st , he i s un ab le to est ab li sh pre

jud ic e. Inhi s al lo cu ti on , Mit er ad m it te d t ha t t he 19 95 co nv ic ti on was h is , andth atjus ti fie d t he im po si ti on of the 12 0- m on th st atut ory m in im um sen te nc e und er 2 1 U.S.C. § 85 1. Th us Mi te r’s en ha nc edsen te nc e was no t at tri bu tabl e to th e d el ay , bu t ra th er t o h is adm is si on . For t ha t s am e rea so n, Mi te r’s cl ai m s t ha t h is de la y edsen te nc in g v io la te d t he Fed eral Ru le s o f Cri m in al Pro cedur e an d t he di stric t co urt’s l oc al rul es als o fa il . Non -co ns ti tu ti on al erro rs are h arm le ss when th ey

do no t af fecta de fen da nt ’s subs ta nt ia l ri gh ts . Uni te d St at es v. Gamo ry , 63 5 F .3d48 0, 4 92 (11 th Cir . 20 11 ). Andag ai n, h ere M it er’s adm is si on , rathe r th anth e d el ay , res ul te d i n h is enhanc edsen te nc e. AFFIRMED.

4