FILED U.S. COURT OF AP P E A LS E LE V EN T HC IRC U IT SEPTEMBER 8, 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. 05- 10415 N on -A rgum entC al endar

________________________ D . C. D o c k e tN o . 0 4 - 0 0 1 8 9 - CR- T- 1 7 - TBM 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 V I C E N T E Z A R A B I A , a .k .a . V ic e n te Z a r a b ia - M iD u e n o , a .k .a . M a n u e l A c o s ta D e J e s u 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 M i ddl e D i s tr i c tof F l or i da

_________________________ ( S e p t e m b e r 8, 2005) B efo re B L A C K , H U L L an d P R Y O R , C i rcu i tJu d g es. P E R C U R I A M:2

V i c e nt e Z a r a bi a appe a l s hi s 77- m onth s e nt e nc e a f t e rpl e a di ng gui l ty t o be i ng a p re v io u sly d ep o rted alien fo u n d in th e U n it ed S tates w ith o u t th e g o v er n m en t’ s pe r m i s s i on, i n vi ol a t i on of 8 U . S . C . § 1326( a ) . R e l y i ng on U ni t e d S t a t e s v. B oo ker, 54 3 U . S . ___, 12 5 S . C t . 73 8 (20 05 ), Z ar abi a a rgues thatthe di stri ctcourt e r r e d w he n i te nha nc e d hi s s e nt e nc e ba s e d on f a c t s notc ha r ge d i n the i ndi c tm e ntor a dm i tt e d by hi m . A f

t e rr e vi e w , w e va c a t e Z a r a bi a ’ s s e nt e nc e a nd r e m a nd f or r e s e nt e nc i ng. I . B AC KG RO UN D Z ar abi a pl ed gu i l ty, w i tho uta pl eaagre em ent , t o b ei ng a pre vi ou sl y deport ed a l i e n f ound i n the U ni t e d S t a t e s w i thoutthe gove r nm e nt ’ s pe r m i s s i on. A . Pl e a C o l l o quy D u ri n g th e p l ea co l l o q u y, th e g o v ern m en tsetfo rth th e fo l l o w i n g fact s, w hi c h Z a r a bi a a dm i tt e d a s true . Z a r a bi a , a M e xi c a n c i t i z e n, w a s de por t e d f r om the U ni t ed S t at es on M ay 27 , 19 98 . T here af t er , Z ar abi a w as foun d i n the U ni t ed S t at es w ith o u t th e p e r m is s io n o f th e g o v e r n m e n t. A l s o dur i ng the pl e a c ol l oquy , the gove r nm e nts t a t e d tha tZ a r a bi a ha d pr i or f e l ony c onvi c t i ons f

orde l i ve r y of

a us a bl e qua nt i ty of

m a r i j ua na a nd f

or tr a ns por t i ng a c e r t a i n a l i e n w i thi n the U ni t e d S t a t e s . Z a r a bi a r e s ponde d tha the w a s s t i pul a t i ng onl y t o the f a c t s r e qui r e d t o pr ove the c ha r ge i n the i ndi c tm e nta ndAcc ordingto the PSI , in December 1997, Z ara bia pled guilty

in the Southern Districtof 1 Te xas to trans po rting a c e rt ain a lien wi thin the Unite d State s. Th is of fens e is se t fo rt

h in 8 U .S. C. § 1324(a) (1)(A)(ii), which provides f or punishment for a

ny person who knowingor in rec kless disreg ard of the fact that an alien has cometo, ent er ed, or remains in t

heUnite d St ate s in

vio latio n o f l aw, transpo rt s, or mov e s or atte mpt s to transport or movesuch alien within the United States by means of transportation or otherwise, in f

urthera nce of such violation of law. 8 U.S.C. § 1324(a)(1) (A)( ii). 3 n o tad m i tt i n g t o h i s p ri o r co n v i ct i o n s. B. PSI a nd Se nt e nc i ng T h e P resen t en ce In v est i g at i o n R ep o rt(“ P S I”) reco m m en d ed a b ase o ffen se l e ve l of 8, pur s ua ntt o U . S . S . G . § 2L 1. 2( a ) . T he P S I not e d tha tZ a r a bi a ha d a pr i or c o n v ic tio n f

o rtr a n s p o r tin g a c e r ta in a lie n w ith in th e U n ite d S ta te s a n d th a t th is c o n v ic tio n q u a lif

ie d a s a n a lie n s m u g g lin g o f f e n s e u n d e rU .S .S .G . § 2L 1. 2( b) ( 1) ( A ) ( vi i ) . T hus , the P S I r e c om m e nde d tha tZ a r a bi a ’ s of f e ns e l e ve l be 1 i ncre as ed by 16 l evel s bec ause Z ar abi a pre vi ou sl y had been depo rt ed af t er c o mmi tt i n g a n a l i e n s mu g g l i n g o f f e n s e . U . S. S. G . § 2 L1 . 2 ( b ) ( 1 ) ( A ) ( v i i ) . Th e PSI fu rth er reco m m en d ed a th ree-l ev el red u ct i o n fo r accep t an ce o f resp o n si b i l i ty, pu rs uantt o U . S . S . G . § 3 E 1. 1. W i th a t ot al offe nse l evel of 21 and a cri m i nal h i st o ry cat eg o ry o f V II, Z arab i a’ s G u i d el i n es ran g e w as 7 7 -9 6 m o n th s’ im p r is o n m e n t. P r i ort o s e nt e nc i ng, Z a r a bi a obj e c t e d, pur s ua ntt o B l a ke l y v. W a s hi ngt on, 54 2 U . S . 29 6, 12 4 S . C t . 25 31 (200 4), t o the P S I’ s r ec om m endat i on of a 16-l evel4

e n h a n c e m e n t. A t th e s e n te n c in g h e a r in g , Z a r a b ia r e n e w e d h is B la k e ly o b je c tio n . T h e d istrict co u rt o v er ru led Z ar ab ia’s B lak ely o b jectio n , ad o p ted th e P S I’s G ui de l i ne s c a l c ul a t i on, a nd s e nt e nc e d Z a r a bi a t o 77 m onths ’ i m pr i s onm e nta nd 3 ye ar s’ supervi se d rel ea se . I I . DI S CUS S I ON O n ap p e a l, Z a r a b ia a r g u e s th a t th e d is tr ic t c o u r t v io la te d h is S ix th A m endm entri gh t s by s ent enci ng hi m base d u po n a pri or conv i ct i on for a l i en sm ug gl i ng thathe di d n otadm i t , and b y s ent enci ng hi m un der am andat ory G ui del i nes s chem e. B e c a u s e Z a r a b i at i m e l y r a i s e d a B l a k e l y o b j e c t i o n i n th e d i s tr i c tc o u r t , we r e vi e w hi s B l a ke l y , now B ooke r , c l a i m de novo. U ni t e d S t a t e s v. P a z , 405 F . 3d 94 6, 94 8 (11 th C i r. 20 05 ) ( ci t at i on om i tt ed). I n B ooke r , the S upr e m e C our the l d tha tB l a ke l y appl i e d t o the S e nt e nc i ng G u id e lin e s . U n ite d S ta te s v . R o d r ig u e z , 3 9 8 F .3 d 1 2 9 1 , 1 2 9 7 - 9 8 ( 1 1 th C ir .) , c e r t. de ni e d, 125 S . C t . 2935 ( 2005) . “ U nde rB ooke r , the r e a r e tw o ki nds of s e nt e nc i ng e r r or s : one i s c ons t i tut i ona l a nd the othe ri s s t a tut or y . ” U ni t e d S t a t e s v. D a c us , 408 F .3 d 6 8 6 , 6 8 8 ( 1 1 th C ir . 2 0 0 5 ) . “[ T ]h e S ix th A m e n d m e n t r ig h t to tr ia l b y ju r y is vi ol at ed w here un der am andat ory gui del i nes s ys t em a s ent ence i s i ncre as ed because of a n enh ance m entbase d o n fac t s f ou nd by the j ud ge thatw er e nei therAcc ordingto the PSI , in December 1997, Z ara bia pled guilty

in the Southern District of 2 Te xas to trans po rtinga

c e rt ain alien w ith in t

heUnite d St ate s. 5 a dm i tt e d by the de f

e nda ntnorf

ound by the j ur y . ” R odr i gue z , 398 F . 3d a t1298 (em p h asi s o m i tt ed ). T h e st atu t o ry erro r o ccu rs w h en th e d i stri ctco u rtsen t en ces a d e f e n d a n t “u n d e ra m a n d a to r y G u id e lin e s s c h e m e , e v e n in th e a b s e n c e o f a S ix th A m e ndm e nte nha nc e m e ntvi ol a t i on. ” U ni t e d S t a t e s v. S he l t on, 400 F . 3d 1325, 13 30 -31 (11 th C i r. 20 05 ). In th is ca se , w e c o n clu d e th at th e d istrict co u rt d id n o t v io late Z ar ab ia’s S i xth A m endm entri gh t s. T hi s C ou rtre peat edl y has concl ud ed thatan e nha nc e m e ntba s e d on pr i orc onvi c t i ons doe s notc ons t i tut e a S i xth A m e ndm e nt vi ol a t i on unde rB ooke r . S e e , e . g. , U ni t e d S t a t e s v. G a l l e gos - A gue r o, 409 F . 3d 1274, 1277 ( 11th C i r . 2005) ( “ [ W ] e f i nd no m e r i ti n G a l l e gos - A gue r o’ s a r gum e nt thatthe S i xth A m endm entre qu i re s thata j ury, no ta j ud ge, m ustdet erm i ne w hether hi s pr i orc onvi c t i on i s w i thi n the c a t e gor y of of f e ns e s s pe c i f

i e d i n § 2 L 1 .2 ( b ) ( 1 ) ( A ) ( v ii) .” ) ; U n ite d S ta te s v . O r d u n o - M ir e le s , 4 0 5 F .3 d 9 6 0 , 9 6 2 ( 1 1 th C i r . 2005) . I n thi s c a s e , the di s tr i c tc our ti nc r e a s e d Z a r abi a ’ s of f e ns e l e ve l by 16 l e ve l s be c a us e of

a pr i orc onvi c t i on f

ortr a ns por t i ng a c e r t a i n a l i e n w i thi n the U ni t ed S t at es , w hi ch qu al i fi es as an al i en sm ug gl i ng offe nse. T hu s, the di stri ct 2 c our ti n thi s c a s e di d notvi ol a t e Z a r a bi a ’ s S i xth A m e ndm e ntr i ght s by e nha nc i ng hi s s e nt e nc e ba s e d on hi s pr i orc onvi c t i on.6

A l tho ug h there i s no S i xth A m endm entvi ol at i on i n thi s c as e, the di stri ct courtcom m i tt ed st atut ory B oo ker e rr or i n sent enci ng Z ar abi a und era m andat ory G u id e lin e s r e g im e . T h u s , w e m u s t d e te r m in e w h e th e rth e s ta tu to r y e r r o rin Z a r a b ia ’s s e n te n c in g is h a r m le s s . S e e P a z , 4 0 5 F .3 d a t 9 4 8 . “A n o n - c o n s titu tio n a l e r r o ris h a r m le s s if , v ie w in g th e p r o c e e d in g s in th e ir e nt i r e ty , a c our tde t e r m i ne s tha tthe e r r ordi d nota f f e c tthe s e nt e nc e , orha d but ve r y s l i ghte f

f e c t . I f one c a n s a y w i th f

a i ra s s ur a nc e tha tthe s e nt e nc e w a s not s ubs t a nt i a l l y s w a y e d by the e r r or , the s e nt e nc e i s due t o be a f f i r m e d e ve n though the r e w a s e r r or . ” U ni t e d S t a t e s v. M a the ni a , 409 F . 3d 1289, 1292 ( 11th C i r . 2005) ( in te r n a l q u o ta tio n m a r k s , b r a c k e ts , e llip s e s , a n d c ita tio n s o m itte d ) . T h e b u r d e n is on the gove r nm e ntt o s how tha tthe e r r orw a s ha r m l e s s a nd the s t a nda r d “ i s not e a s y f o rth e g o v e r n m e n t to m e e t.” I d . A f t e rbr i e f i ng, the gove r nm e ntf

i l e d ac onc e s s i on of

s e nt e nc i ng e r r ora nd co n ce d ed th at itco u ld n o t “ m ee t i ts b u rd en o f s h o w in g th at th e d istrict co u rt’s B o o k e re r r o rd id n o t a f

f e c t th e s e n te n c e o rh a d ‘b u t v e r y s lig h t e f f e c t.’” T h e r e is no e vi de nc e ora ny i ndi c a t i on i n the r e c or d r e ve a l i ng w ha te f f e c t , i f a ny , c ha ngi ng fr o m a m an d ato ry to an ad v iso ry ap p ro ac h w o u ld h av e h ad o n th e d istrict co u rt’s s e n te n c in g d e c is io n . “W e s im p ly d o n o t k n o w w h a t th e s e n te n c in g c o u r t w o u ld h av e d o n e h ad i tu n d erst o o d th e g u i d el i n es t o b e ad v i so ry rath er th an m an d at o ry,Although theg overnment conce ded that it could not meet its burden on the present re cord, 3 theg ov e rnment s ignif

ic antly a lso state d a s f

oll ow s: The United States does not c oncede , however, that the district c ourt’s B ooker error in this case wa s harmful or that any s en t en ce below the sentencethat the district court imposed would have been rea sonable under thecircumstances in this case . The United States ac knowledg es only that the United S tates cannot show on the pre sent rec ord that the district cour t would not h av e imposed a different sentence if the district court would have known that the sentencingguidelines were advisory rather tha n ma nd ator y and , c on sequen tl y , c ann ot m e e t it s b urden o f s ho wingha rm le ss error. (Internal citation omitt ed). As a re sult of our dispo sition of thi s ca se , w edis mis s a s mo ot t heg ov e rnment’ s mo tio n to 4 vacate and remand Z ara

bia’s sentence. 7 a nd ha d pr ope r l y c ons i de r e d the f a c t or s i n 18 U . S . C . § 3553( a ) . ” U ni t e d S t a t e s v. D avi s, 40 7 F . 3d 12 69 , 12 71 (11t h C i r. 20 05 ). 3 A c c or di ngl y , w e va c a t e Z a r a bi a ’ s s e nt e nc e a nd r e m a nd hi s c a s e t o the di stri ctcourtfor r es ent enci ng . B ec ause w e a re re m andi ng the ca se t o the di stri ct 4 court , w e not e thatthe di stri ctcourtcorr ec t l y c al cul at ed Z ar abi a’ s G ui del i nes r a nge . S e e U ni t e d S t a t e s v. C r a w f or d, 407 F . 3d 1174, 1178 ( 11th C i r . 2005) ( s ta tin g th a t a f

te rB o o k e r , d is tr ic t c o u r ts m u s t c o n s u lt th e G u id e lin e s a n d “[ t]h is c o n s u lta tio n r e q u ir e m e n t, a t a m in im u m , o b lig e s th e d is tr ic t c o u r t to c a lc u la te c o r r e c tly th e s e n te n c in g r a n g e p r e s c r ib e d b y th e G u id e lin e s ” ) . Ho we v e r , th e r e i s o n e Gu i d e l i n e s i s s u e th a tn e e d s t o b e a d d r e s s e d . On ap p e a l, Z a r a b ia a r g u e s th a t h e d id n o t s tip u la te to th e c h a r a c te r iz a tio n o f h is tr a ns por t i ng a c e r t a i n a l i e n a s a n “ a l i e n s m uggl i ng of f e ns e ” f orthe purpos e s of U .S .S .G . § 2 L 1 .2 ( b ) ( 1 ) ( A ) ( v ii) . H e f u r th e ra r g u e s th a t th e d is tr ic t c o u r t e r r e d inZ ara bia di d not make this argument in the di strict court. In the district court, Z ara bia argued 5 o n l y th atth e 1 6 - l e v e le nh an c e m e ntv i o l at e d h i s S i x thAm e n dm e ntri ght s p ur s u antt o B l ak e l y. There fore , we review Z ara bia’s argument for plain error . United Stat es v . Rodrigue z, 398 F.3d 1291, 1297-98 (11th Cir.), c ert. denied, 125 S. Ct. 2935 (2005). To establish plai n error, the de fenda nt must show “‘(1) error , (2) that is plain, and ( 3) that aff ects the de fenda

nt’s substantial rights.’” I d. (quoting United States v. Cotton, 533 U.S. 625, 631, 12 2 S. Ct. 17 81 , 1 78 5 ( 20 02 )) . “ ‘I f all thre e c on dition s are me t, a n a pp e llatec ourt

may then e xerc ise its dis c retio n to no tic e a fo rf e ite d e rror , but on ly if (4 ) the e rror seri ou sly a ff e c ts thefair

ne ss, integrity , or public reputation of judicial proce eding s.’” I d . (quotingCotton, 535 U.S . at 631, 122 S. Ct . at 1785). Se c tio n 1 10 1( a)(43 )(

N) prov ide s: 6 “ As us e d in

this chapte r –

[t]heterm

‘ag gra vate d f e lony ’ m e ans – a

n o ff e ns e described in paragraph ( 1)(A) or (2) of Section 1324(a) of this title (re lating to alien smugg ling) . . . .” 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(43) (N). 8 f in d in g th a t h is o f

f e n s e w a s a n a lie n s m u g g lin g o f f e n s e , a n d th e r e b y e r r e d in i ncre as i ng hi s off

ense l evel by 16 l evel s. W e di sa gree . 5 A c c or di ng t o the G ui de l i ne s , a n a l i e n s m uggl i ng of f e ns e “ ha s the m e a ni ng g iv e n th a t te r m in [ 8 U .S .C . § 1 1 0 1 ( a ) ( 4 3 ) ( N ) ].” U .S .S .G . § 2 L 1 .2 , c m t. 1 ( B ) ( i) . S e c t i on 1101( a ) ( 43) ( N ) r e f e r e nc e s the de f

i ni t i on of a l i e n s m uggl i ng s e tf

or th i n 8 U . S . C . § 1 32 4(a) . S ee 8 U . S . C . § 1 10 1(a) (43)(N ). In turn, 8 U . S . C . § 1 32 4(a) 6 p r o v id e s th a t a n a lie n s m u g g lin g o f f e n s e in c lu d e s tr a n s p o r tin g o ra tte m p tin g to tra nspo rtan al i en w i thi n the U ni t ed S t at es . S peci fi ca l l y, a per son com m i t s a l i en s m uggl i ng w he n tha tpe r s on “ tr a ns por t s , orm ove s ora tt e m pt s t o tr a ns por torm ove such al i en w i thi n the U ni t ed S t at es by m ea ns of tra nspo rt at i on or ot herw i se . . . . ” 8 U . S . C . § 1 32 4(a) (1)( A )( i i ). T hu s, by re fe re nci ng 8 U . S . C . § 1 10 1(a) (43)(N ),We do not mean to sug g est by our hol ding that the di strict court must impose any particula r 7 senten c e o n r e ma

n d . Rath e r , w e mer e ly h o ld th at th e g o v e r nment did n o t me e t its burde n of showingthat the B ooker statutory erro r wa s harmless. We also do not attempt to decidenow whether a par ticular sentence might be re asonablein this case. 9 w hi ch i n turn ref

er ence s 8 U . S . C . § 1 32 4(a) (1)( A )( i i ), the G ui del i nes def i ne an a lie n s m u g g lin g o f

f e n s e to in c lu d e tr a n s p o r tin g a n a lie n w ith in th e U n ite d S ta te s . S ee U . S . S . G . § 2 L 1 . 2 , cm t . 1 (B )(i ); see al so U n i t ed S t at es v . M art i n ez-C an d ej as, 34 7 F . 3d 85 3, 85 7 (10 th C i r. 20 03 ) ( “ [W ] e c on cl ud e thatconspi ra cy t o tra nspo rt a n d h a rb o rille g a l a lie n s c o n s titu te s ‘a n a lie n s m u g g lin g o f f e n s e ’ u n d e rU .S .S .G . § 2 L 1 .2 ( b ) ( 1 ) ( A ) ( v ii) .” ) ; U n ite d S ta te s v . S o lis - C a m p o z a n o , 3 1 2 F .3 d 1 6 4 , 1 6 7 ( 5 th C i r. 20 02 ) ( “ A cc ordi ng l y, ‘ an al i en sm ug gl i ng offe nse’ as used i n the G ui del i nes i ncl ud es tra nspo rt i ng al i ens w i thi n the U ni t ed S t at es . ”) . T here fore , the di stri ct c our tdi d note r r , l e ta l one pl a i nl y e r r , i n c ha r a c t e r i z i ng Z a r a bi a ’ s pr i orof f e ns e of tran sp o rt i n g a cert ai n al i en w i th i n th e U n i t ed S t at es as an al i en sm u g g l i n g o ffen se f o rth e p u rp o s e s o f

U .S .S .G . § 2 L 1 .2 ( b ) ( 1 ) ( A ) ( v ii) . T hu s, on re m and, the di stri ctcourti s r equi re d t o sent ence Z ar abi a und eran a dvi s or y G ui de l i ne s r e gi m e , a nd s ha l l c ons i de rthe G ui de l i ne s r a nge of 77- 96 m o n th s’ im p riso n m en t an d “o th erstatu to ry co n ce rn s a s w ell, se e [ 1 8 U .S .C .] § 3553( a ) ( S upp. 2004) . ” B ooke r , 125 S . C t . a t757. 7 VA C A TED A N D R EM A N D ED .