[DO NOT PUBLISH]
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
________________________ FILED
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
No. 04-15461 September 2, 2005
Non-Argument Calendar THOMAS K. KAHN
________________________ CLERK
D.C. Docket No. 04-00093-CR-ORL-28JGG
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
LUIS HUMBERTO ARJON-SANDOVAL,
Defendant-Appellant.
__________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court for the
Middle District of Florida
_________________________
(September 2, 2005)
Before BLACK, CARNES and MARCUS, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
Luis Humberto Arjon-Sandoval appeals his sentence for conspiracy to
possess with intent to distribute 100 kilograms or more but less than 1,000
kilograms of marijuana, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 846. Arjon-Sandoval asserts
that, in light of Blakely v. Washington, 124 S. Ct. 2531, and United States v.
Booker, 125 S. Ct. 738 (2005), the district court erred in determining at sentencing
the quantity of drugs involved in the offense was greater than the quantity the jury
had indicated on a special verdict form. We affirm the district court.
I. BACKGROUND
The jury was given a special verdict form concerning the drug quantity that
contained the following options: (a) 1,000 kilograms or more; (b) 100 kilograms
or more but less than 1,000 kilograms; and (c) less than 100 kilograms. The jurors
selected choice (b), finding the conspiracy involved 100 kilograms or more but
less than 1,000 kilograms of marijuana. However, at sentencing, the district court
determined Arjon-Sandoval was responsible for 1,496 kilograms of marijuana.
II. DISCUSSION
Because Arjon-Sandoval raised a Blakely objection before the district court,
we review his sentence de novo, but will reverse only for harmful error. See
United States v. Paz, 405 F.3d 946, 948 (11th Cir. 2005). We have clarified there
are two types of Booker error: (1) Sixth Amendment, or constitutional, error based
2
upon sentencing enhancements imposed under a mandatory Guidelines system
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).
A. Constitutional Error
The district court committed Booker constitutional error by enhancing
Arjon-Sandoval’s sentence under a mandatory Guidelines system based on facts
not found by the jury. See United States v. Rodriguez, 398 F.3d 1291, 1300 (11th
Cir.), cert. denied, 73 U.S.L.W. 3730 (2005). This error “must be disregarded as
not affecting substantial rights if the error is harmless beyond a reasonable doubt.
This standard is only met where it is clear beyond a reasonable doubt that the error
complained of did not contribute to the sentence obtained.” Paz, 405 F.3d at 948
(punctuation omitted). The Government has the burden of showing the error did
not affect the defendant’s substantial rights. Id.
The Government has met its burden. At sentencing the court stated:
[T]he reason[s] for imposing the selected sentence are as follows: The
court has considered the nature and circumstances of the offense as
well as the history and characteristics of the defendant. And
elaborating on that, this was a relatively sophisticated and large
operation designed to bring controlled substances into this country
3
and the court acknowledges that the defendant has a record that
places him in category one. To the best of the court’s understanding
he has no prior criminal record. Furthermore, the court believes that
the sentence imposed reflects the seriousness of the offense involving
importation of a large amount of controlled substances. Also, the
court has considered the seriousness of the offense, the necessity to
protect the integrity of the law and promote respect for the law and
considers this punishment just. The court has considered other
options and the need to protect the public from such conduct in the
future. The court believes that this sentence to be an appropriate
deterrence to further crimes of this nature.
The district court’s statement shows it considered many of the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a)
factors,1 which is a requirement post-Booker. See Booker, 125 S. Ct. at 757. In
addition, Arjon-Sandoval’s Guideline range was 121 to 151 months’
imprisonment, and the district court rejected Arjon-Sandoval’s request for a
sentence at the bottom of the range, instead imposing a sentence of 130 months’
imprisonment. The district court’s consideration of the § 3553 factors, combined
1
18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) provides, in pertinent part, that the court, in determining the particular
sentence to be imposed shall consider–
(1) the nature and circumstances of the offense and the history and characteristics of the
defendant;
(2) the need for the sentence imposed–
(A) to reflect the seriousness of the offense, to promote respect for the law, and to
provide just punishment for the offense;
(B) to afford adequate deterrence to criminal conduct;
(C) to protect the public from further crimes of the defendant . . .
(3) the kinds of sentences available;
(4) the kinds of sentence and the sentencing range established for–
(A) the applicable category of offense committed by the applicable category of
defendant as set forth in the guidelines . . . .
4
with its rejection of Arjon-Sandoval’s request for a bottom of the Guidelines
sentence, convince us that it is clear beyond a reasonable doubt the error did not
affect the sentence obtained. See Paz, 405 F.3d at 948.
B. Statutory Error
Even in the absence of constitutional error, Booker error exists where the
district court imposes a sentence under a mandatory Guidelines system. Shelton,
400 F.3d at 1330–31. The district court sentenced Arjon-Sandoval under a
mandatory Guidelines system, thus statutory error exists. See id. “Booker
statutory errors . . . are subject to the less demanding test that is applicable to non-
constitutional errors.” United States v. Mathenia, 409 F.3d 1289, 1292 (11th Cir.
2005). “A non-constitutional error is harmless if, viewing all the proceedings in
their entirety, a court determines that the error did not affect the sentence, or had
but a 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.” Id. (internal quotation marks and brackets omitted).
Because the Government has met the higher burden of showing the constitutional
error was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt, it has also met the lesser burden of
showing the statutory error was harmless.
5
III. CONCLUSION
Although the district court erred in enhancing Arjon-Sandoval’s sentence
under a mandatory Guidelines system based on facts not found by the jury and in
sentencing him under a mandatory Guidelines scheme, the Government has met its
burden of showing these errors were harmless.
AFFIRMED.
6