Opinion ID: 41966
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Booker Violations

Text: Finally, Gomez avers that he was held responsible for 2,000 pounds of marijuana, which was 4 offense levels higher than the amount of marijuana charged in the indictment, thus violating his Fifth and Sixth Amendment rights under Booker, 543 U.S. at , 125 S. Ct. at 749. He argues that, at sentencing, the judge determined that the number 461 on the Yatzee sheet was pounds of marijuana in addition to the 1,522 pounds of marijuana found at the house, bringing the total amount of marijuana he was responsible for to 2,000 pounds, 33 which was not a fact that he admitted or that was found by a jury beyond a reasonable doubt. Gomez raises this issue for the first time on appeal. We review for plain error those issues in which timely objections were not made in the district court. United States v. Olano, 507 U.S. 725, 731, 113 S. Ct. 1770, 1776 (1993); see also FED. R. CRIM. P. 52(b). To prevail under a plain-error standard, the appellant must prove the following three requirements: (1) there must be an error; (2) that error must be plain; and (3) the plain error must affect substantial rights. Olano, 507 U.S. at 732, 113 S. Ct. at 1776. Once the appellant proves these three elements, we may notice the error only if it “seriously affect[s] the fairness, integrity, or public reputation of judicial proceedings.” Id. at 736, 113 S. Ct. at 1776 (quotation omitted). We have recently concluded that, in Booker, the Supreme Court held that “the Sixth Amendment right to trial by jury is violated where under a mandatory guidelines system a sentence is increased because of an enhancement based on facts found by the judge that were neither admitted by the defendant nor found by the jury.” United States v. Rodriguez, 398 F.3d 1291, 1298 (11th Cir. 2005) 34 (emphasis in original) reh’g denied, F.3d , (11th Cir. 2005) (en banc).2 A second error can also exist, under Booker, when the district court applies the Guidelines without considering them advisory. United States v. Shelton, 400 F.3d 1325, 1330-31 (11th Cir. 2005). If such error occurs, it is plain. Rodriguez, 398 F.3d at 1299; Shelton, 400 F.3d at 1331. Even if the district court plainly erred when it (1) determined that the 461 number on the Yatzee sheet was a drug amount, and used it to increase the amount of drugs Gomez was responsible for (from 1,522 pounds to 1,983 pounds), which was a fact that was neither admitted by Gomez nor found by the jury, and (2) sentenced Gomez under a mandatory Guidelines system, Gomez cannot demonstrate that the error affected his substantial rights, as required by the third prong of the plain error analysis. For a Sixth Amendment violation, the defendant has the burden of demonstrating that the error “affected the outcome of the district court proceedings.” Rodriguez, 298 F.3d at 1299 (quotation omitted). For a mandatory guidelines Booker error, the defendant has the burden of demonstrating that there was a “reasonable probability of a different result if the guidelines had 2 A petition for writ of certiorari was filed in Rodriguez. Rodriguez v. United States, No. 041148 (U.S. Feb. 23, 2005). On 20 May 2005, the Solicitor General of the United States responded that review is warranted to resolve a circuit split regarding the proper application of the plain-error standard to forfeited sentencing errors under Booker. 35 been applied in an advisory instead of binding fashion by the sentencing judge in this case.” Shelton, 400 F.3d at 1332 (quotation omitted). A reasonable probability means a probability “sufficient to undermine confidence in the outcome.” Id. (quotation omitted). During the sentencing hearing, the district court never indicated that, but for the Guidelines, it would have given Gomez a different sentence. On the contrary, the court noted that Gomez’s lack of education and ability to do a job caused him to turn to a life of crime. It also noted that the statutory minimum was 120 months and the government requested the Guidelines maximum of 135 months. However, the court stated that, because Gomez had “been a bad person,” it was sentencing him in the middle, at 127 months, only 7 months above the statutory minimum. Nothing in the record indicates that, if it had to re-sentence Gomez, the district court would have imposed a different sentence. Accordingly, Gomez cannot establish that his substantial rights were violated by the district court’s error. See Rodriguez, 298 F.3d at 1299; Shelton, 400 F.3d at 1332.