[DO NOT PUBLISH]
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT FILED
________________________ U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
OCTOBER 13, 2005
No. 04-13885
THOMAS K. KAHN
________________________
CLERK
D. C. Docket No. 04-00021-CR-J-20-MCR
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
REYNALDO NAVARETTE-MELENDEZ,
Defendant-Appellant.
________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Middle District of Florida
_________________________
(October 13, 2005)
Before BLACK, WILSON and COX, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
Reynaldo Navarette-Melendez appeals his sentence for illegally reentering
the United States after removal, in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326. Navarette-
Melendez asserts the district court erred by sentencing him under a mandatory
Guidelines system. United States v. Booker, 125 S. Ct. 738 (2005). We vacate
Navarette-Melendez’s sentence and remand for resentencing under Booker.
Navarette-Melendez was charged with one count of illegal reentry of a
removed alien, in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326. A jury found him guilty as
charged. Navarette-Melendez’s base offense level was 8, pursuant to U.S.S.G.
§ 2L1.2. Due to a previous deportation and drug trafficking conviction, which
resulted in a sentence exceeding 13 months, Navarette-Melendez’s total offense
level included a 16-level enhancement under § 2L1.2(b)(1)(A)(i). Accordingly,
Navarette-Melendez’s total offense level was 24. His criminal history category
was IV, based on various prior convictions. With a total offense level of 24, and a
criminal history category of IV, his Guidelines range was 77 to 96 months
imprisonment.
Navarette-Melendez objected pursuant to Blakely v. Washington, 124 S. Ct.
2531 (2004), challenging his 16-level enhancement and arguing the jury should
have decided the question of whether his prior conviction met the definition of a
drug trafficking offense. At the sentencing hearing, Navarette-Melendez renewed
2
his objection, which the district court overruled. The district judge sentenced
Navarette-Melendez to 77 months’ imprisonment and 3 years’ supervised release.
Because Navarette-Melendez objected in the district court, we review his
sentence de novo, but reverse only for harmful error. United States v. Paz, 405
F.3d 946, 948 (11th Cir. 2005). We have established there are two types of error
under Booker: (1) Sixth Amendment, or constitutional, error based upon
sentencing enhancements, imposed in a mandatory Guidelines system and neither
admitted by the defendant nor submitted to a jury and proven beyond a reasonable
doubt; and (2) statutory error based upon sentencing under a mandatory
Guidelines system. United States v. Shelton, 400 F.3d 1325, 1329–30 (11th Cir.
2005).
In his supplemental brief, Navarette-Melendez concedes there is no
constitutional error, because a district court does not err in relying on prior
convictions to enhance a defendant’s sentence. See United States v. Orduno-
Mireles, 405 F.3d 960, 962 (11th Cir. 2005). Instead, he asserts the district court
committed statutory error when it sentenced him under a mandatory Guidelines
system.
Statutory error exists where the district court imposes a sentence under a
mandatory Guidelines system. See Shelton, 400 F.3d at 1330–31. The district
3
court sentenced Navarette-Melendez under a mandatory Guidelines system; thus,
statutory error exists. See id.
Such statutory error is harmless if, “viewing the proceedings in their
entirety, a court determines that the error did not affect the [sentence], ‘or had but
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.” United States v. Hornaday, 392 F.3d 1306, 1315–16
(11th Cir. 2004) (citations omitted) (quoting Kotteakos v. United States, 66 S. Ct.
1239, 1246, 1248 (1946)). It is the Government’s burden to show the error was
harmless. United States v. Mathenia, 409 F.3d 1289, 1292 (11th Cir. 2005).
The Government has not met its burden. The district court sentenced
Navarette-Melendez to the bottom of the Guidelines range, and the record is silent
as to what the district court would have done if it had treated the Guidelines as
advisory. We cannot say with fair assurance the error did not substantially sway
the sentence. Therefore, we vacate Navarette-Melendez’s sentence and remand for
resentencing in light of Booker.
We note the district court correctly calculated Navarette-Melendez’s
Guidelines range of 77 to 96 months’ imprisonment. See United States v.
Crawford, 407 F.3d 1174, 1178–79 (11th Cir. 2005) (stating after Booker, district
4
courts must consult the Guidelines and “[t]his consultation requirement, at a
minimum, obliges the district court to calculate correctly the sentencing range
prescribed by the Guidelines”). Thus, on remand the district court is required to
sentence Navarette-Melendez according to Booker, considering the Guidelines
advisory range of 77 to 96 months’ imprisonment and “other statutory concerns as
well, see [18 U.S.C.] § 3553(a) (Supp. 2004).” Booker, 125 S. Ct. at 757.1
VACATED AND REMANDED.
1
We do not mean to suggest by our holding that the district court must impose any
particular sentence on remand. Rather, we merely hold the Government did not meet its burden
of showing the statutory error was harmless. We also do not attempt to decide now whether a
particular sentence might be reasonable in this case.
5