FIL ED U.S . C OURT O F A PPE ALS ELE VEN TH CIRCUI T Jun e 2 7, 200 5 THO MAS K. KA

HN CLE RK [DO NOT PUBLISH] IN THE UN ITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FO R T HE EL EV EN THCIRC UI T

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ N o. 04- 1470 7 Non-Argum ent Calendar

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ D. C. Docket N o. 04-00220 -CR- T- 30-MSS UNITED STAT ES OF AMERIC A, Plaintiff-Appellee, ve rs us EMILIO ECHARTE, D ef en dant- Appe llant.

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ __ Appe al f ro m the U nit ed

S tate s D istri ct

Co urt f or the Mi ddl e D istri ct

of F lor ida

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ _ (June 27, 200 5) Befo re TJ OFLAT, AN DERSON an d DUBI NA, Circ ui t J ud ge s. PE R CU RIA M:2

E m ili o E ch ar

te appe al s hi s tw o and o ne -h al f y ear se nte nc e im pose d f or vio latin g th e te rm s of

his sup er vis ed r el ea se . O n a

ppe al , E ch ar

te r eque sts that hi s case be r em anded for rese ntencing b ased on the sentencing range being part of an unc onst itutio na l se nte nc ing sc he m e an d arg ue s f or the f ir st t im e that the hol din gs of Jones v. United State s, 526 U. S. 227, 119 S.Ct. 1215 , 143 L. Ed. 2d 31 1 (1999), Apprendi v. N ewJersey , 530 U. S. 466, 120 S.Ct. 2348 , 147 L. Ed. 2d 43 5 (2000), an d B lake ly

v. W as hin gto n, 542 U . S. , 124 S . Ct . 253 1, 159 L . E d. 2d 4 03 ( 2004 ) cas t s eri ou s d oubton th e co nt in ue d v al id it y of t he Fed eral Sen te nc in g Gu id el in es . Be ca use E ch ar te f ai le d to r ai se ac onst itutio na l c ha lle nge to his se nte nc e in the dis tr ic t c ourt, w e re vie whis c la im onl y f or pla in e rr or . S ee U nit ed

S tate s v. Ro dri g u ez , 3 9 8 F. 3 d1 2 9 1 , 1 2 9 8 (1 1 thCi r. 2 0 0 5 ). Un d erp l ai nerro r r ev i ew , “ [a ]n ap pe llate c ourt m ay

not c or re ct an e rr or [ that] the de fe ndant f

ai le d to r ai se in the dis tr ic t c ourt un le ss the re is ‘ (1 ) er ro r, ( 2) that i s pl ai n, and ( 3) that a ff ec ts subs tantial rights. If all three c ondi tions are m et, an appellate court m ay then ex er ci se it s di sc re tio n to not ic e a fo rf ei te d e rr or , but

onl y if ( 4) the e rr or

se ri ousl y af fe ct s th e fa ir

ne ss, int eg ri ty , or

pub lic r ep utatio n of

the j udi ci al pr oc ee din gs. ’ ” Id . at16 (in te rn al cit at io n o m it te d) . InAppr en di v . N ewJe rs ey , the S upr em e Co urt he ld that, “ [o ] the r than th e fa ct of apr ior c onvi ct ion , any

f ac t that i nc re as es the pe na lty f or ac ri m e be y ond the3

pr es cr ibe d st at

uto ry m ax im um m ust be sub m itt ed

to a j ur y , and p ro ve d be y ond a re as ona ble doubt. ” 530 U . S. at 49 0, 120 S . Ct . at 23 62- 63. I n B lake ly , the Su pr em e Co urt, e xam ini ng the state of W as hin gto n’ s s en te nc ing gui de lin es , he ld that the im

posit ion of a sentencing enh ancem ent m ust be sup ported by

fac ts that w er e ei the r adm itt ed

by the de fe ndant o r fo und be y ond a re as ona ble doubt b y

the j ur y . Bl ak el y , 542 U . S. at __ _, 124 S . Ct . at 25 38. A ft er the part ie s f

ile d th ei r briefs in the instant appeal, the Suprem e Court issued its op inion in Booker, extending the rea sonin g of Blakely to the federa l Sentencing Guidelines. United St at es v. Bo oke r, 543 U . S. ___ , ___ , 125 S . Ct . 738 , 749 ( 2005 ). I n so hol din g, the Court concluded th at it wa s the m andatory nature of the Se ntencing Guidelin es that re nde re d th em

inc om patib le w iththe S ixth A m en dm en t’ s gu ar an te e to the r igh t t o a j ury trial. Id. at ___, 125 S.C t. at 749-51 . Thus, it c onclud ed that the Guidelines re m ai n inf

or ce a s wri tte n, and, a lth oughm an dator y appl ic at ionno l onge r gove rn s, dis tr ic t c ourt j udge s st ill “ m ust c onsu lt tho se Guid el ine s and t ak e the m int o a cc ount whe n s en te nc in g.” Id. at__ _, 1 25 S.Ct . at 7 67 . Im portantly , a lthou gh the defendants in Booker rec eived sentences includi ng term s of supervised release, because they had j ust been sentenced, they we re not fac tually

postu red to fac e, or suffer from , r evocation of sup ervised re le as e. A cc or din gly , the S upr em e Co urt ha d no ins tanc e to a ddr es s th e Si xth4

A m en dm en t i m

pli catio ns o f 18 U . S. C. § 35 83( e) or of Ch ap te r 7 of

the se nte nc ing gu id el in es . T his Ci rc uit

a lso ha s y et

to ad dr es s se nte nc es im

pose d un de r Bo oke r fo r vio latio ns o f supe rv ise d r el ea se . H ow ev er , pr ior to Bo oke r, w e have he ld that the policy statem ents of Chapter 7 of the Se ntencing Guidelin es are m erely advisory in im posin g a sentence upon the revocation of sup ervised relea se. See United St at es v. Co ok, 291 F . 3d 1 297, 130 1 ( 11th C ir . 200 2) ( hol din g th at the S en te nc ing Co m m iss ionha s no t y et

pr om ulg at ed any bin din g pr obatio n r ev oc at iongui de lin es ; instead, the Sentencing Com m issio n has optedfor the f lexibili ty of advisory

policy state m en ts, whic h are nonbin din g onthe c ourts) ; Unit ed S tate s v. Br own, 224 F. 3d 12 37, 1242 (11t h Cir. 2000 ) (holding th at the district court m ust cons ider, but is not bound b y , the pol ic y

state m en ts o f Ch ap te r 7 of the S en te nc ing Gui de li ne s i n i m

po si ng a se nt en ce upo n t he rev oc at io n o f supe rv is edrel eas e). Ac cordingly , prior to Booker, so long as there wa s som e indication th at the district co urt ha d c onsi de re d th e gui de lin es be fo re im posi ng a se nte nc e out sid e of

the Ch ap te r 7 r ec om

m en de d r an ge , the se nte nc e w oul d be uph el d. Unit ed S tate s v. A gui llard , 217 F . 3d 1 319, 132 0 ( 11th C ir . 200 0) . M or eo ve r, j ust a s se nte nc ing for re vocation h as alw ay s been advisory , B ooker also allows for advisory5

se nte nc ing ba se d onf

ac tor s in§ 35 53( a) . S ee Bo oke r, 543 U . S. at __ _, 125 S . Ct . at74 3. Other circuits that have directly addressed sentences im

posed un der Booker for violations of supervised release gener ally have held that the im

posit ion of such sentences did no t result in Booker error because the sentencing gui delines associated with supervised release violations were considered adviso ry before Bo oke r. S ee Unit ed

S tate s v. E dw ar ds, 40 F . 3d 5 91, 592 -9 3 ( 8thCi r. 200 5) (g ranti ng Ande rs m oti on t o w ith dr awa ft er c onc lud ing that any

Bo oke r ch al le nge to a ppe llant’ s se nte nc e fo llo w ing r ev oc at ionof sup er vis ed r el ea se w as f

ri vol ous an d e xpl ai nin g th at

Bo oke r’ s e ff

ec t onse nte nc es im

pose d f or sup er vis ed r el ea se vio latio ns i s “ far le ss dram at ic ” be ca use the S en te nc ing Guid el ine s a sso ci at ed w ith supervised-release violations were c onsid ered a dviso ry even before Booker) ; United States v. Flem ing, 397 F.3d 95, 101 (2d Cir. 2005) (holding that defendant’ s two-y ear sentence for “ m assive” violatio ns of supervis ed relea se wa s

“ reasonable” under Booker, and that rem and was not necessary because, even thou gh the revocation sentence was im posed pre-Booker, the district court appreciated the f

act that the guideline sentencin g regim e w as advisory with re spect to revocation of sup ervised relea se).6

N o pl ai n e rr or

e xis ts i n th is c as e be ca

use the f ir st p ro ng o f the te st i s no t satis fi ed . T he gui de lin es sy ste m c onc er nin g r ev oc at ionof

sup er vis ed r el ea se unde r w hic h E ch ar

te ’ s se nte nc e w as im

pose d is a dvi sor

y , not m an dator

y . T hus, the re w as no B ooke r er

ro r. B ec au se the f

ir st p ro ng i s no t satis fi ed , w e do n ot re ac h th e oth er

pr ongs . Fo r the above state d r ea sons , E ch ar te ’ s se nte nc e is a ff

irm ed . AFFIRMED.