Opinion ID: 2620565
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: standard of review

Text: Harakaly preserved his Alleyne claims by objecting to the imposition of a mandatory minimum sentence based upon judicial findings, by a preponderance of the evidence, of drug quantity and his managerial role. This court reviews unpreserved Apprendi errors for plain error and preserved Apprendi errors for harmless error. See United States v. Pérez-Ruiz, 353 F.3d 1, 14, 17 (1st Cir. 2003). Since Alleyne is an extension of the Apprendi 3 We note that Alleyne did not reach the question of the continued vitality of Almendarez-Torres v. United States, 523 U.S. 224 (1998), in which the Court recognized a narrow exception to this general rule for the fact of a prior conviction. Alleyne, 133 S. Ct. at 2160 n.1. Likewise, we need not do so today. 4 Because Alleyne was decided before Harakaly's case became final, it applies to his direct appeal to this court. See Griffith v. Kentucky, 479 U.S. 314, 328 (1987). -10- doctrine, the same standards should apply to Alleyne errors. Accord United States v. Hall, ___ F. App'x ___, 2013 WL 5226994, at –2 (11th Cir. Sept. 18, 2013) (unpublished per curiam opinion) (reviewing unpreserved Alleyne error for plain error); United States v. Hernandez, ___ F.3d ___, 2013 WL 4804323, at  (7th Cir. Sept. 10, 2013) (same); United States v. Mack, ___ F.3d ___, 2013 WL 4767176, at –12 (6th Cir. Sept. 6, 2013) (same); United States v. Baylor, ___ F. App'x ___, 2013 WL 3943145, at  (4th Cir. Aug. 1, 2013) (unpublished per curiam opinion) (applying harmless-error review to preserved Alleyne/Apprendi error). In his reply brief, Harakaly suggests that the harmless-error standard does not apply because Alleyne established a constitutional error. However, he does not elaborate on this claim; it is contained entirely in a heading preceding a section that makes no mention of the standard of review an appellate court should apply to an Alleyne error, focusing instead on the reasonable-doubt standard that the district court must apply, in the first instance, to all elements of the offense. [I]ssues adverted to in a perfunctory manner, unaccompanied by some effort at developed argumentation, are deemed waived. United States v. Zannino, 895 F.2d 1, 17 (1st Cir. 1990). In any event, the Supreme Court has made abundantly clear that most constitutional errors are subject to harmless-error review; only in rare cases will they be deemed structural errors that would always require reversal. See, -11- e.g., Washington v. Recuenco, 548 U.S. 212, 222 (2006) (holding that preserved Apprendi/Blakely error is not structural and is subject to harmless-error review); United States v. Cotton, 535 U.S. 625, 631 (2002) (treating unpreserved Apprendi error as non-structural error subject to plain-error review). In light of the long line of cases subjecting preserved Apprendi errors to harmless-error review, there would appear to be no basis for finding Alleyne error to be one of those rare cases to which harmless-error review does not apply.5 Under harmless-error review, because an Apprendi (and therefore Alleyne) error is of constitutional dimension, the government must prove that the error was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt, or, put another way, that it can fairly be said beyond any reasonable doubt that the assigned error did not contribute to the result of which the appellant complains. Pérez-Ruiz, 353 F.3d at 17. 5 We recognize that some courts have summarily vacated sentences, without any discussion of the appropriate standard of review, where there was Alleyne error below. See, e.g., United States v. Donovan, ___ F. App'x ___, 2013 WL 4792866, at  (6th Cir. Sept. 9, 2013) (unpublished) (vacating sentence, with no discussion of harmlessness or plain error, based on judicial finding that firearm was discharged where jury convicted only of using firearm); United States v. Lira, 725 F.3d 1043, 1044–45 (9th Cir. 2013) (same). With respect, absent any indication that these courts even considered the appropriate standard of review, the cases do not persuade us that a different standard should apply to Alleyne error than to Apprendi error. -12-