Opinion ID: 42567
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Booker Statutory Error

Text: Next, Hernandez argues that it was Booker error for the district court to 6 sentence him under a mandatory Guidelines system. Because Hernandez objected to the use of the Guidelines in sentencing him, we review his sentence de novo. See United States v. Paz, 405 F.3d 946, 948 (11th Cir. 2005) (per curiam). We will reverse the district court only if the error was harmful. See United States v. Mathenia, 409 F.3d 1289, 1291 (11th Cir. 2005) (per curiam). The government has the burden of showing that non-constitutional error was harmless. Id. at 1292. 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), cert. denied, ___ U.S. ___, 125 S. Ct. 2935 (2005). However, it is not error to “use [] extra-verdict enhancements in a non-mandatory guidelines system.” Id. at 1300. Thus, there are two types of errors in sentencing: (1) the constitutional error of using “extra-verdict enhancements to reach a guidelines result that is binding on the sentencing judge”; and (2) the error of applying the Guidelines in a mandatory fashion. See United States v. Shelton, 400 F.3d 1325, 1331 (11th Cir. 2005). “A non-constitutional error is harmless if, viewing the proceedings in their entirety, a court determines that the error did not affect the [sentence], or had but 7 very slight effect. If one can say with fair assurance . . . that the [sentence] was not substantially swayed by the error, the [sentence] is due to be affirmed even though there was error.” Mathenia, 409 F.3d at 1292 (citations and internal quotation marks omitted). In the context of non-constitutional Booker error, we have found a district court’s sentence under the mandatory Guidelines system to be harmless error when the district court: (1) stated that it would impose the same sentence even if the Guidelines were advisory, Mathenia, 409 F.3d at 1292; and (2) sentenced the defendant to the highest sentence in the Guideline range and considered sentencing the defendant to the statutory maximum, see United States v. Gallegos-Aguero, 409 F.3d 1274, 1277 (11th Cir. 2005) (per curiam). We conclude that the district court’s mandatory application of the Guidelines was not harmless. As the government concedes, the district court committed statutory Booker error by applying the Guidelines as mandatory, and there is no evidence that the district court would have imposed the same sentence had it known the Guidelines were advisory. Accordingly, we vacate Hernandez’s sentence and remand to the district court for resentencing.