FILED U.S. COURT OF AP P EALS E LEV EN T HC IRC U IT JULY 17, 2007 THOMAS K. KAH

N CLERK [ P U B 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. 06- 11876 N on -A rgum entC al endar

________________________ D. C . Do c k e tNo . 0 5 - 2 0 3 9 2 - C R - J AG 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 D O M I N I Q U E L E W I S , 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

_________________________ ( Ju l y 17, 2007) B e f o r e E DMON DS ON , C h i e f J u d g e , T J OF L AT , AN DE R S ON , B I R C H, D U B I N A , B L A C K , C A RN E S , B A R K E T T , H U L L , M A R C U S , W I L S O N a nd P R Y O R , C i rcu i tJu d g es.L ewi s alsoa sserte d ( 1) hisc onvic tio n under § 92 4( c ) viol ate d th eCommerc eCla us e 1 and (2 ) t hedis tric t c ourt

erre d in denyinghim

a U. S.S. G. § 3 E. 1. 1 ac c epta nc e -o f- re sp on sib ility reduc tion. Our en ba

nc review does not a ffe ct the prior opinion’s resolution of these issues. 2 B L A C K , C i rc ui tJudg e: D o m in iq u e L e w is ap p e a le d h is c o n v ic tio n f o rb r a n d is h in g a f

ir e a rm in furthera nce of a c ri m e of vi ol ence i n v i ol at i on of 18 U . S . C . § 9 24 (c )( 1)(A )( i i ), a s s e r t i ng hi s tr i a l vi ol a t e d the D oubl e J e opa r dy C l a us e i n the F i f th A m e ndm e ntof the U ni t ed S t at es C on st i tut i on . R el yi ng on ou r pre ce dent , a panel of thi s C ou rt 1 hel d L ew i s w ai ved h i s dou bl e j eopardy cl ai m by no tas se rt i ng i tbefore the di stri ct c o u r t. U n ite d S ta te s v . L e w is , 207 F . A pp’ x 943, 945 ( 11th C i r . 2006) ( c i t i ng Un i te d S ta te s v . Wi l l i a ms , 4 4 5 F .3 d 1 3 0 2 , 1 3 0 6 n .4 ( 1 1 th C ir . 2 0 0 6 ) ) . L e w is pe t i t i one d thi s C our tt o r e he a rhi s c a s e e n ba nc a s s e r t i ng ourpr e c e de ntdoe s not c om por tw i th U

ni te d State s v . O lano , 5 0 7 U .S . 7 2 5 , 1 1 3 S . C t. 1 7 7 0 ( 1 9 9 3 ) . L e w is ar gu es hi s f

ai l ure t o ass ertthe do ub l e j eopardy defe nse bef ore the di stri ctcourt c ons t i tut e d a f

or f e i tur e , nota w a i ve r , a nd, pur s ua ntt o O lano , hi s c l ai m w as ent i t l ed to p la in e rr o rr e v ie w o n ap p e a l. W e a gree d t o h ea r L ew i s’ s c l ai m en banc and w i l l no w deci de w hether a defe nd ant ’ s f

ai l ure t o rai se a dou bl e j eopardy cl ai m before the di stri ctcourt c ons t i tut e s a f

or f e i tur e , i n w hi c h c a s e w e w oul d r e vi e w the c l a i m f orpl a i n e rr or , or a w a iv e r , in w h ic h c a s e w e w o u ld n o t r e v ie w th e c la im a t a ll.3 I . DI S C US S I ON L e w is f a ile d to r a is e h is d o u b le je o p a r d y c la im b e f o r e th e d is tr ic t c o u r t. U n d e rF e d e r a l R u le o f

C r im in a l P r o c e d u r e 5 2 ( b ) , th is C o u rt m a y c o rr e c t a“p la in e rr ortha ta f

f e c t s s ubs t a nt i a l r i ght s . . . e ve n though i tw a s notbr oughtt o the [ di s tr i c t ] c our t ’ s a tt e nt i on. ” F e d. R . C r i m . P . 52( b) . I n O lano , the S up re m e C ou rt cl ar i fi ed that“ [m ] er e f

orfe i ture, as op po se d t o w ai ver, do es no text i ng ui sh an

‘ error’ un der R ul e 52(b). ” O lano , 507 U . S . a t733, 113 S . C t . a t1777 ( c i t a t i on o m itte d ) . T h u s , w h ile f o r f e ite d c la im s a r e r e v ie w e d u n d e rR u le 5 2 ( b ) f o rp la in e rr o r , w a iv e d c la im s a r e n o t. Se e i d a t733, 113 S . C t . a t1777 . T he S up re m e C ou rt al so expl ai ned the di ff

er ence betw ee n w ai ver of aconst i tut i on al ri gh tand forfei ture o f ac o n s titu tio n a l r ig h t. T h e C o u r t e x p la in e d , “W h e r e a s f o r f e itu r e is th e f

a ilu r e to m a ke the t i m e l y a s s e r t i on of a r i ght , w a i ve ri s the i nt e nt i ona l r e l i nqui s hm e ntor abando nm entof a kno w n ri gh t . ” I d. a t 7 3 3 , 1 1 3 S . C t. a t 1 7 7 7 ( q u o ta tio n o m itte d ) . T h is C ir c u it’s p r e c e d e n t c o n c e rn in g w h e th e ra d o u b le je o p a r d y c la im n o t r a is e d in th e d i s tr i c tc o u r ti s c o n s i d e r e d f o r f e i t e d o rw a i v e d i s i n c o n s i s t e n tw i th th e Su p r e me C our t ’ s a na l y s i s i n O lano . B ef ore O lano , w he n pr e s e nt e d w i th doubl e j e opa r dy c l a i m s r a i s e d f orthe f ir s t tim e o n d ir e c t ap p e a l, th is C o u r t c o n c lu d e d s u c h c la im s w e r e “w a iv e d ,” w i thouta ddr e s s i ng the di f f e r e nc e be tw e e n w a i ve ra nd f or f e i tur e . I n G roga n v.In Bo nn e r v. Ci ty of Pricha rd, 6 61 F .2 d 1 20 6, 12 09 (1 1th Cir . 1 98 1) (en b anc ), thi s 2 Court adopted as bindingprec edent all decisions of the for mer F ifth Circuit handed down prior to close of business on September 30, 1981. 4 U ni ted Stat es , 394 F . 2d 287, 289 ( 5th C i r . 1967) , f ore xa m pl e , the de f

e nda nt 2 ra i se d a do ub l e j eopardy cl ai m for the fi rs tt i m e on app ea l . A panel of thi s C ou rt s t a t e d tha tthe de f

e ns e “ s houl d ha ve be e n a f f i rm a t i ve l y r a i s e d a ts om e poi nti n the p r o c e e d in g s in th e d is tr ic t c o u r t a n d w a s th u s w a iv e d b y ap p e lla n t’s f a ilu r e to as se rti tatthe tri al . ” I

d. N e ve r the l e s s , the pa ne l pr oc e e de d t o r e vi e w the m e r i t s of tha tc l a i m , w i thoutc i t i ng a s t a nda r d of r e vi e w , a nd ul t i m a t e l y c onc l ude d the d e f e n d a n t h a d n o t b e e n p la c e d in d o u b le je o p a r d y . I d. a t 2 8 9 - 9 0 . R e l y i ng on G r ogan , i n U n i ted S ta tes v. B a sca ro , 7 4 2 F .2 d 1 3 3 5 , 1 3 6 5 ( 1 1 th C i r . 1984) , thi s C our tde c l i ne d t o r e a c h the m e r i t s of a de f e nda nt ’ s doubl e j e opa r dy c la im r a is e d f

o rth e f ir s t tim e o n ap p e a l, h o ld in g th a t th e d e f e n d a n t w a iv e d h is d e f e n s e b y f a ilin g to a s s e r t it b e f

o r e th e tr ia l c o u r t. I

d. ( c i t i ng G r ogan , 39 4 F . 2d at 2 8 9 ) . A f t e rthe S upr e m e C our te xpl a i ne d the di f f e r e nc e be tw e e n w a i ve ra nd f or f e i tur e i n O lano , thi s C ou rtcont i nu ed t o h ol d thatdo ub l e j eopardy cl ai m s r ai se d f orthe f i r s tt i m e on di r e c tappe a l w e r e w a i ve d, w i thoutdi s c us s i ng the di s t i nc t i on b e tw e e n w a iv e ra n d f

o r f e itu r e . Se e Wi l l i a ms , 4 4 5 F .3 d a t 1 3 0 6 n .4 . I n Wi l l i a ms , the de f e nda nta r gue d f

orthe f i r s tt i m e on appe a l tha ts e ve r a l of hi s c onvi c t i ons5

v io la te d th e D o u b le J e o p a r d y C la u s e . I d. T he C our tde c l i ne d t o c ons i de rthe m e r i t s of the de f e nda nt ’ s doubl e j e opa r dy c l a i m , s t a t i ng “ the doubl e j e opa r dy defe nse i s w ai ved b y f

ai l ure t o ass erti tattri al . ” I d. ( c i t i ng B a sca ro , 74 2 F . 2d at 1 3 6 5 ) . S i nce O lano , othe rC i r c ui t s c onf r ont e d w i th the i s s ue of w he the ra de f

e nda nt w ai ves or f

orfe i t s ado ub l e j eopardy defe nse by notas se rt i ng i tbefore the tri al c o u r t h a v e h e ld th e d e f

e n s e is f o r f e ite d . See, e. g . , U

n i ted S ta tes v. H

ern a n dezG uar dado , 228 F . 3d 1017, 1028- 29 ( 9th C i r . 2000) ( hol di ng, a f t e ra di s c us s i on on the di f f e r e nc e be tw e e n w a i ve ra nd f or f e i tur e , “ af

a i l ur e t o a s s e r tdoubl e j e opa r dy b e f o r e th e d is tr ic t c o u r t w a s a f o r f e itu r e o f th a t r ig h t, n o t aw a iv e r ” ) ; U ni ted Stat es v . B r anham , 97 F . 3d 835, 842 ( 6th C i r . 1996) ( hol di ng tha tbe c a us e the de f e nda nt to o k n o a f

f irm a tiv e s te p s to v o lu n ta r ily w a iv e h is c la im , h is f a ilu r e to a s s e r t d o u b le je o p a r d y c o n s titu te d af o r f e itu r e ) ; U

ni te d State s v . P e nny , 6 0 F .3 d 1 2 5 7 , 1 2 6 1 ( 7 th C i r . 1995) ( hol di ng, a f

t e rdi s c us s i ng O lano , “ f a i l ur e t o a s s e r tthe doubl e j e opa r dy d e f e n s e in th e tr ia l c o u r t c o n s titu te d a f o r f e itu r e ” ) ; U

n ite d S ta te s v . J

a r v is , 7 F . 3d 404, 409 ( 4th C i r . 1993) ( c onc l udi ng the de f e nda nt“ f or f e i t e d c ons i de r a t i on of

the me r i t s o f h i s f o rme rj e o p a r d y c l a i m . . . w h e n h e f a i l e d t o r a i s e th e d e f

e n s e a ts o me po i ntdu ri ng the proceedi ng s” ). W e now hol d, c ons i s t e ntw i th O lano , thata w ai ver i s the i nt ent i on al6

r e lin q u is h m e n t o f

a k n o w n r ig h t, w h e r e a s th e s im p le f a ilu r e to a s s e r t ar ig h t, w i thouta ny a f

f i rm a t i ve s t e ps t o vol unt a r i l y w a i ve the c l a i m , i s a f or f e i tur e t o be r e v ie w e d u n d e rth e p la in e rr o rs ta n d a r d e m b o d ie d in R u le 5 2 ( b ) . Se e O lano , 507 U . S . a t733, 113 S . C t . a t1777. I n the i ns t a ntc a s e , L e w i s t ook no a f f i rm a t i ve s t e ps to w a iv e h is r ig h t a g a in s t d o u b le je o p a r d y ; h e s im p ly f a ile d to a s s e r t h is r ig h t. A c c o r d in g ly , L e w is f

o r f e ite d h is r ig h t to a d o u b le je o p a r d y d e f e n s e , a n d h is c la im is e n title d to p la in e rr o rr e v ie w . W e w i l l c orr e c ta pl a i n e rr orw he n ( 1) a n e rr orha s oc c urr e d, ( 2) the e rr or w a s p la in , a n d ( 3 ) th e e rr o ra f f e c te d s u b s ta n tia l r ig h ts . U ni te d State s v . Z i nn , 321 F .3 d 1 0 8 4 , 1 0 8 7 ( 1 1 th C ir . 2 0 0 3 ) . “I f a ll th r e e c o n d itio n s a r e m e t, a n ap p e lla te c our tm a y the n e xe r c i s e i t s di s c r e t i on t o not i c e a f or f e i t e d e rr or , butonl y i f

. . . the error s er i ou sl y a ff

ec t s the fa i rnes s, i nt egri ty, or pu bl i c r eput at i on of j ud i ci al proceedi ng s. ” U

ni ted Stat es v. R odri

gu ez , 398 F . 3d 1291, 1298 ( 11th C i r . 2005) ( q u o ta tio n o m itte d ) . I n th is c a s e , w e n e e d n o t a n s w e rw h e th e rth e e rr o rw a s p la in or w hether the error a ff ec t ed subst ant i al ri gh t s bec ause L ew i s c an show no error. L e w is p le d g u ilty to c o n s p ir a c y to in te r f e r e w ith c o m m e r c e b y r o b b e ry , in v io la tio n o f

1 8 U .S .C . § 1 9 5 1 ( a ) , a n d in te r f e r e n c e w ith c o m m e r c e b y r o b b e ry , in v io la tio n o f

§ 1 9 5 1 ( a ) . T h e ju ry f

o u n d L e w is g u ilty o f

b r a n d is h in g a f

ir e a rm in f u r th e r a n c e o f

a c r i me o f

v i o l e n c e ( r o b b e ry ) , i n v i o l a t i o n o f 1 8 U . S. C.L ewi s e xplic itly state s h eis n ot raisinga

c laim re g ardingtheprote c tio n ag ains t 3 multip lepunis hments . Even if hewere , his c laim w ould f ail b e c a us e18 U. S.C. § 924(c) (1)(A)(ii) explicitly require s imposit ion of a seven-year sentenc e “in addition to” whatever sentenc e is due for the crime of violence . Se eUn ited S tates v. D owd, 451 F.3d 1244, 1251-52 (11th Cir. 2006) (holdingwhere Congress ha s authorized the impositi on of conse cutive sentenc es, it is irreleva

nt for Double Jeopardy

purposes whether oneof the crimes is a lesserincluded off

ense of the other crime). 7 § 924( c ) ( 1) ( A ) ( i i ) . L e w i s now a s s e r t s hi s gui l ty pl e at o the r obbe ry c ount f or e c l os e d atr i a l on the f i r e a rm c ountbe c a us e he w a s a l r e a dy puti n j e opa r dy f or th e r o b b e ry c h a r g e , w h ic h is a le s s e r - in c lu d e d o f f e n s e o f th e f ir e a rm c h a r g e . S pe c i f i c a l l y , L e w i s a s s e r t s the tr i a l a nd c onvi c t i on vi ol a t e d the pr ot e c t i on unde rthe D o u b le J e o p a r d y C la u s e a g a in s t as e c o n d p r o s e c u tio n a f te rc o n v ic tio n . “ W h i l e th e D o u b l e Jeo p ard y C l au se m ay p ro t ecta d efen d an tag ai n st c um ul a t i ve puni s hm e nt s f orc onvi c t i ons on the s a m e of f e ns e , the C l a us e doe s not pr ohi bi tthe S t a t e f

r om pr os e c ut i ng [ ade f

e nda nt ] f ors uc h m ul t i pl e of

f e ns e s i n a s in g le p r o s e c u tio n .” O hi o v . J ohns on , 467 U . S . 493, 500, 104 S . C t . 2536, 2541 3 ( 1984) . T ha tc a s e , l i ke thi s c a s e , i nvol ve d a n i ni t i a l pl e aof gui l ty t o onl y a por t i on o f as in g le m u lti- c o u n t in d ic tm e n t. I d. a t 4 9 6 , 1 0 4 S . C t. a t 2 5 3 9 . T h e C o u r t h e ld th a t th e D o u b le J e o p a r d y C la u s e d id n o t p r e v e n t tr ia l o n th e r e m a in in g c h a r g e s in th e in d ic tm e n t a s to w h ic h th e d e f e n d a n t h a d n o t p le d g u ilty . I d. a t 5 0 2 , 1 0 4 S . C t. a t 2 5 4 2 . T h e C o u r t tr e a te d th e p le aa n d th e tr ia l a s a s in g le p r o s e c u tio n . I d. a t502, 104 S . C t . a t2542. L e w i s ’ s c l a i m f a i l s , the r e f

or e , be c a us e hi s gui l ty pl e at o the r obbe ry c ountdi d notpr ohi bi tthe G ove rnm e ntf r om pr os e c ut i ng the f

i r e a rm c ount8

in th e s a m e in d ic tm e n t. Se e J ohns on , 467 U . S . a t500- 02, 104 S . C t . a t2541- 43; U ni ted Stat es v. Schlaen , 3 0 0 F .3 d 1 3 1 3 , 1 3 1 7 ( 1 1 th C ir . 2 0 0 2 ) ( “[ T ]h e D o u b le J e o p a r d y C la u s e . . . p r o te c ts d e f e n d a n ts a g a in s t succ es si ve pr os e c ut i ons , not s i m ul tane ous one s . . . . ” ) . T hus , the r e i s no e rr orr e ga r di ng doubl e j e opa r dy , a nd L e wi s ’ s c l a i m f

a i l s u n d e rp l a i n e rr o rr e v i e w.

I I . C ON C L US I ON W e h o ld th a t ad e f

e n d a n t w h o s im p ly f

a ile d to r a is e a d o u b le je o p a r d y c la im be f or e the di s tr i c tc our t , a nd t ook no a f f i rm a t i ve s t e ps t o vol unt a r i l y r e l i nqui s h the c la im , f o r f e ite d th a t c la im . O n ap p e a l, w e r e v ie w a f o r f e ite d c la im f

o rp la in e rr o r . In thi s c as e, ho w ever , no error occurr ed. T here fore , L ew i s’ s c l ai m fa i l s und er p la in e rr o rr e v ie w . A F F I R M E D .