F ILED U.S. COURT O F APP EALS EL EV EN TH C IRC UIT Au gust 18, 20 05 T HOMA S K. KA HN CLERK [DO NOT PUBLISH] IN THE UN ITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FO R T HE EL EV EN TH CIRC UI T

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ N o. 04- 1550 0 Non-A rgum ent Calendar

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ D . C. D oc ke t N o. 04- 6002 9- CR -W JZ UNITED STAT ES OF AMERIC A, Plaintiff-Appellee, ve rs us KRYSTAL THOMPSON, D ef en dant- Appe llant.

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

S ta te s D istri ct

Co urt f or the So uth er n D istri ct of F lor ida

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ _ (Augus t 18 , 200 5)

Be fo re T JO FL A T , BL A CK a nd M A RC U S, Ci rc uit

Jud ge s. PE R CU RIA M:2

K ry sta l T hom

psonappe al s he r se nte nc e fo r tr af fi ck ing in at

le as t on e or m or e u na ut ho riz edacce ss de vi ces , in vi ol at io n o f 18 U.S.C. §§ 2, 1 02 9( a)(2 ). T hom psona sse rt s: (1 ) the dis tr ic t c ourt’ s a ppl ic at ionof

a n a buse -o f- tr ust en hanc em en t w as e rr or , a nd ( 2) he r se nte nc e vio la te s United States v. B ooker , 125 S. Ct . 738 ( 2005 ). W e va cate a nd r em an d f or r es en te nc ing . I. DISCUSSI ON A. A buse of Tr ust T hom psona sse rt s th e dis tr ic t c ourt e rr ed by im posi ng an a

buse -o f- tr ust en ha nc em en t b ecau se sh e h adli tt le , if an y , m an ag eri al or p ro fes si on al di sc ret io n, a ne ce ssary e le m en t t o qu al if

y a s on e w ithapub lic or

pr ivate pos iti on o f tr

ust . S he co nte nds she did

not oc cu py apos iti on o f tr

ust w ithr es pe ct

to cu sto m er s or

c re dit card co m pa ni es .

“ Ina sse ssi ng a

dis tr ic t c ourt’ s a

ppl ic at ionof

the abuse -o f- tr

ust e nhanc em en t under U. S. S. G. § 3B1.3, w e re view the district court’ s finding s of fac t for clear error , but reviewde novo th e district court’ s determ ination that the facts j ustify an abuse-of-trust enhancem ent.” U nit ed Sta tes v . B rit t , 388 F . 3d 1 369, 137 1 ( 11th Ci r. 20 04 ), petition for cert. filed , No. 0 4- 97 48 (Apr il 13 , 20 05 ). Sect io n 3 B1 .3 dir ec ts d istri ct

c ourts t o in cr ea se ade fe ndant’ s se nte nc ing le ve l tw o le ve ls “ [i ] f the de fe ndant a

buse d apos iti on o f publ ic or pr ivate tr ust , or use d aspe ci al ski ll, in a3

m an ne r that si gni fi cantl y f ac ili ta te d th e co m

m iss ionor

c onc ea lm en t of

the of fe nse . ” U . S. S. G . § 3B 1. 3. T he gov er nm en t m ust pr ove “ (1 ) that the de fe ndant held a place of public or private trust; and (2) that the defendant abused that posi tio n inaw ay

that si gni fi cantl y

f ac ili ta te d th e co m

m iss ionor

c onc ea lm en t of the offense. ” B rit t , 388 F . 3d at 13 71 ( quot at ionom itt ed ). Apos iti on o f tr ust is

“ ch ar ac te ri ze d by

pr of es sio na l or

m an ag er ia l di sc re tio n ( i.e. , substantial dis cr et ion ar

y j udgm en t tha t i s or din ar ily giv enc onsi de ra

ble de fe re nc e) , ” an d a pe rs on i n su chapos iti on o rd inari ly is “ subj ec t t o si gni fi cantl y le ss s upe rv isi on th an em pl oyees wh os e res po ns ib il it ie s ar e p rimaril y no n- di sc ret io na ry

in na tu re.” U. S. S. G. § 3B1.3, c omm ent. ( n.1). T his a dj ustm en t, f

or ex am ple , ap pli es in the c as e of

a n e m be zz le m en t of a c l i en t ’s fu n d s b y an at t o rn ey s er v i n g as a g u ar d i an , a b an kex ec u t i v e’s f r au d u l e n t l o a n s c h e me, o r t h e c r i mi n a l s e x u a l ab u s e o f ap a t i e n tb y a phy sic ian un de r the gui se of an ex am inatio n. T his a dj ustm en t do es not apply in the case of an em

bezzlem ent or theft by an ordinary bank teller or hot el c le rk

be caus e such p osi tio ns are not c hara ct er iz ed

by the ab ove -d es cr ibe d f

ac tor s. Id . “ A pos iti on o f tr

ust sig nif ic an tly f ac ili ta te s th e co m

m iss ionor

c onc ea lm en t of anof fe nse w he n th e pe rs on i n th e posi tio n of tr ust ha s an a dvanta ge in co m m itt ing the c ri m e be ca

use of that tru st and u se s th at

a dvanta ge in or de r to c om m it the crim e. ” B rit t , 388 F. 3d at 137 1 (quotatio n om itted).4

T he br ea ch -o f- tr

ust e nhanc em en t i s no t a

ppr opr ia te unl es s th e vic tim of the br each it se lf c on ferr edth e trus t. U nit ed Sta tes vG arr iso n , 133 F . 3d 8 31, 837 (1 1thCi r. 199 8) . I n th e fr au d c ont ex t, thi s C ourt ha s f ound apos iti on o f tr

ust to exist und er tw o circum stances: “ (1) w here the def endant steals from

his em ploy er, using his pos ition in the com pany to facilitate the off

ense, and (2) wher e a fi duc iary or pe rs ona l tru st r el at ion shi p e xis ts w ithoth er e nti tie s, a nd the de fe ndant takes advantage of the relationship to perpetrate or conceal the off ense.” Id . at 837– 38 (quot ation om itted). “ Since the prim ary concern of § 3B1. 3 is to penalize defendants who take advantage of a posi tio n that pr ovi de s th em f re ed om to co m m it or c onc ea l a

dif fi cu lt- to- de te ct

w ro ng, onl y

suc h ade fe ndant whose posi tio n e nable s or

sig nif ic an tly f ac ili ta te s th e of

fe nse is el igi ble f

or thi s enhancem ent.” Id

. at 8 38 (em

ph as is in ori gi na l) ( qu ot at io n o m it te d) .

“ T he de te rm inatio n of

w he the r a de fe ndant o cc upi ed apos iti on o f tr

ust is extrem ely fac t sensitiv e. ” B rit t , 388 F . 3d at 13 72. W e ha ve he ld tha t a security guard who stole m oney

being transpo rted in an arm ored car he wa s hired to protect did n ot hol d a positio n of trust w ith his em ploy er be ca use he ha d ve ry

li ttl e dis cr et ionin pe rf

orm ing his duty as a se curi ty guard , a nd h e w as c los el y , alb ei t not c onst an tly , sup er vis ed by his em plo y er . T he m one y he guard ed w as pr oc es se d . . . upo n de liv er y , a nd an y dis cr ep an cy be tw ee n the m one y re ce ive d an d de liv er ed would be —and w as —no tic ed .Pos t- Booke r , th e d i s tr i c tc o urti s s t i l l r e qu i r e d t o c a l c u l at e th e G u i d e l i n e s r an g e a c c ur at e l y. 1 Un ite d S tates v . Crawf

or d , 407 F.3d 1174, 1179 ( 11th Cir. 2005) (quotation omitted).

5 Id . ( quot at ionom itt ed ). Af ood se rv ic e fo re m anw ho s m uggl ed dr ugs int o th e pr iso n w he re he w orke d di d no t ho ld a pos iti on o f tr

ust “ be ca use hol din g otherwise w ouldextend [the application of § 3B1.3] to virtually every em ploym ent situatio n because em ploy ers ‘ trust’ their em

ploy ees. ” Id

. ( quot at ion om it te d) . T he dis tr ic t c ourt e rr ed

by e nhanc ing T hom

pson ’ s se nte nc e fo r ab use of trust. A s a w aitress, Thom pson did no t have professional or m anagerial 1 dis cr et ion , oth er

de fe re nc e, or

le ss s upe rv isi on; r athe r, she ha d li ttl e dis cr et ionin the execution of her duties as a server. H er position is m ore akin to a bank teller, hot el c le rk , or

se curi ty guard w ho s te al s m one y

f ro m his a rm or ed

c ar . A lth ough Thom pson ’ s em

ploy er and custo m ers trusted her not to steal credit card inform ation, that trust alone does no t create a f iduciary relationship o r provide her posit ion as a wa itress with the “ free dom to com m it or conceal a difficult-to-detect wro ng .” See G arr iso n , 133 F . 3d at 83 8. T he re fo re , the dis tr ic t c ourt e rr ed by im po si ng th e two -le ve l en ha nc em en t fo r ab us e o f trus t.6

B. Booker Thom pson preserved her B ook

er obj ec tio n by

obj ec tin g on B lak

el y v. W ashi ngt on , 124 S . Ct . 253 1 ( 2004 ), gr ound s to the dis tr ic t c ourt’ s im posi tio n of th e ab us e-o f-t ru st en ha nc em en t. Se e U nit ed Sta tes v . D ow lin g , 403 F . 3d 1 242, 1246 ( 11th C ir . 200 5) . Whe n ade fe ndant p re se rv es he r obj ec tio n, w e re vie wthe se nt en ce d e n ov o. U

nit ed Sta tes v . P az , 4 0 5 F. 3 d9 4 6 , 9 4 8 (1 1 t h Ci r. 2 0 0 5 ). We wil l re ve rs e th e d is tri ctco ur t o nl y if t he erro r was ha rm fu l. Id . T he G ove rn m en t c onc ed es the dis tr ic t c ourt c om m itt ed Booker

e rr or , a nd that error wa s not harm less. W e agre e. T he district court com m itted consti tutio nal Booker e rr or by se nte nc ing T hom

psonba se d onf

ac ts n ot a dm itt ed

by he r or pr ov en be y on d a reas on ab le do ub t u nd er a m an da to ry gu id el in es syste m . See United States v. R odrig uez , 39 8 F .3d12 91 , 13 00 (11 th Cir .), cert. denied , 73 U . S. L . W . 373 0 ( 2005 ). T his e rr or is not harm le ss b ec au se the G ove rn m en t c an not show bey ond a reasonable doub t that the error did no t contribute to th e sentence, an d t he reco rddo es no t re ve al an y su ch ev id en ce. Se e P az , 405 F . 3d at 94 8 (s ta tin g ac onst itu tio na l e rr or is harm le ss whe n it

is cl ear be y ond a re as ona ble do ub t t he erro r di d n ot co nt rib ut e to th e se nt en ce i m po se d) .7 II. CONCLUSION Ac cordingly , w e vacate and rem and with instruction s that the dist rict court ca lc ulate a n G uid el ine s a dvi sor y r an ge that do es not

inc lud e the abuse of

tr ust en hanc em en t. O n r em an d, the dis tr ic t c ourt i s r equir ed to se nte nc e T hom

pson ac co rd ing to Booker , c onsid ering the Guidelines adviso ry range and “ other statutory concerns as w ell, see [18 U. S. C.] § 3553 (a) (Supp. 2004).” Booker , 125 S. Ct . a t 75 7. VACATED AN D REMANDED.