[DO NOT PUBLISH]
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT FILED
________________________
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
No. 04-13099
JUNE 17, 2005
Non-Argument Calendar THOMAS K. KAHN
________________________ CLERK
D.C. Docket No. 01-00728-CR-1-1
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
ANTHONY DRAKE COLLETT,
Defendant-Appellant.
__________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of Georgia
_________________________
(June 17, 2005)
Before TJOFLAT, BIRCH and BARKETT, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
On July 31, 2002, a Northern District of Georgia jury found appellant guilty
on three counts of manufacturing counterfeit United States currency, in violation
of 18 U.S.C. § 471. On May 17, 2004, the district court sentence him to
concurrent prison terms of 30 months. He now appeals. He asks that we vacate
his convictions and remand the case for a new trial. If we affirm the convictions,
he asks that we vacate his sentences because the district court, in determining the
offense level, found as fact that he had obstructed justice—by testifying falsely at
trial—and enhanced his offense level by three levels pursuant to U.S.S.G. § 3C1.1.
Appellant submits that Blakely v. Washington, 542 U.S. ____, 124 S. Ct. 2531
(2004), and United States v. Booker, 543 U.S. ____, 125 S. Ct. 738 (2005),
precluded the court from making the enhancement because the fact was neither
admitted by him nor found by the jury beyond a reasonable doubt. We turn first to
appellant’s challenges to his convictions.
At trial, the Government presented as evidence the originals of the allegedly
counterfeit $20 notes. Many were printed only on one side and uncut from the
original 8 ½” by 11" paper on which they had been printed. Some of the notes
were printed on both sides, cut, and generally resembled genuine United States
currency.
Citing case law from other circuits—which holds that items so crude and
rudimentary that no one would consider them counterfeit— appellant contends
that the district court should have barred the jury from considering the single-sided
2
cut bills and the bills on a full sheet of paper. Because the court failed to exclude
these items, he submits, the jury’s verdicts may have rested on insufficient
evidence.
If, as a matter of law, the challenged bills could not have constituted
“counterfeit obligations,” the question becomes whether the error was “harmless.”
An “erroneous admission of evidence does not warrant reversal if the error had no
substantial influence on the outcome and sufficient evidence uninfected by error
supports the verdict.” United States v. Harriston, 329 F.3d 779, 788-789 (11th
Cir. 2003) (quoting United States v. Jones, 28 F.3d 1574, 1582 (11th Cir. 1994).
Section 471 provides for the imprisonment for not more than 20 years of
any individual who “counterfeits . . . any obligation . . . of the United States.” 18
U.S.C. § 471. The test for determining whether a replica item of currency is
counterfeit is “whether the fraudulent obligation bears such a likeness or
resemblance to any of the genuine obligations or securities issued under the
authority of the United States as is calculated to deceive an honest, sensible and
unsuspecting person of ordinary observation and care dealing with a person
supposed to be upright and honest.” United States v. Parr, 716 F.2d 796, 807
(11th Cir. 1983) (quoting United States v. Turner, 586 F.2d 395, 397 & n. 6 (5th
Cir. 1978).
3
Assuming, without deciding, that the district court erred in concluding that
one-sided and uncut replicas of United States currency could constitute counterfeit
obligations of the United States, the error was harmless. The conviction on each
court must be upheld if only one item of evidence supporting the count meets the
legal definition of “counterfeit.” Here, as to each count, the evidence included at
least one item that bears a likeness to a $20 Federal Reserve Note and was
calculated to deceive an honest, sensible and unsuspecting person of ordinary
observation and care dealing with a person, i.e., appellant, who was supposed to
be upright and honest. See Parr, 716 F.2d at 807. Such items approximate the
coloration and size of legitimate $20 Federal Reserve Notes and are printed on
both sides and cut, with a front and back side that resembles the front and back
side of a legitimate $20 Federal Reserve Note. In short, they are counterfeit, and
the court’s error, if error at all, had no substantial influence on the outcome of the
case. See Harriston, 329 F.3d at 788-789.
Putting this issue aside, appellant contends the testimony of a secret service
agent, concerning locations or situations where single-sided fake bills are passed,
was expert testimony that the prosecutor failed timely to disclose as required by
Fed. R. Crim. P. 16. To show that this discovery violation prejudiced his
4
substantial rights, he points to the fact that the prosecutor relied substantially on
the agent’s testimony to prove intent to defraud.
A violation of the disclosure requirements of the Federal Rules of Evidence
will result in a reversal of conviction only if it prejudices a defendant’s substantial
rights. United States v. Perez-Garcia, 904 F.2d 1534, 1546 (11th Cir. 1990). “The
degree to which a defendant’s rights suffer as a result of a discovery violation is
determined by considering how the violation affected his ability to present a
defense and, to a lesser degree, the weight of all the other evidence introduced.”
Id.
We find no prejudice to substantial rights in this case. The relevance of the
agent’s testimony only concerned the passing of one-sided fake bills as real by
folding them up. A defense against this testimony—consisting presumably of a
countering expert—would not have affected the Government’s case based on the
two-sided, cut bills.
We find no basis for setting aside appellant’s convictions and therefore turn
to his sentences.
Because Dyson did not present his Blakely objection to the district court, we
review the district court’s alleged Blakely, now Booker, error for plain error. See
Fed.R.Crim.P. 52(b); United States v. Rodriguez, 398 F. 3d 12191 (11th Cir.
5
2005), rehearing en banc denied, ___ F. 3d ____, 2005 WL 895174 (11th Cir. Apr.
19, 2005). To satisfy the plain-error standard, we must find that (1) the district
court committed “error,” (2) the error was plain or obvious, and (3) the error
“affected substantial rights” in that the error was prejudicial. United States v.
Olano, 507 U.S. 725, 730-32, 113 S.Ct. 1770, 1776, 123 L.Ed.2d 508 (1993).
Concerning the third prong, in most cases the error will be prejudicial if it
“affected the outcome of the district court proceedings.” Id. at 734, 113 S.Ct. at
1778. If these criteria are met, we may, in our discretion, correct the plain error if
it “seriously affect[s] the fairness, integrity, or public reputation of judicial
proceedings.” Id. at 736, 113 S.Ct. at 1779 (internal quotations and citation
omitted).
Rodriguez dictates our application of the plain error test in this case.
Following Rodriguez, we conclude that a Sixth Amendment error (the
enhancement of appellant’s base offense level based on facts not admitted by
appellant or found by a jury) occurred, Rodriguez, 398 F. 3d at 1299, and that it
was plain. Id. The question thus becomes whether the third prong of the plain
error test has been met in this case, i.e., whether the error affected appellant’s
substantial rights.
6
The defendant has the burden of showing such prejudice—that the error
affected his substantial rights. Id. at 1299.
[T]he . . . defendant [must] show that the error actually did make a
difference: if it is equally plausible that the error worked in favor of
the defense, the defendant loses; if the effect of the error is uncertain
so that we do not know which, if either, side it helped the defendant
loses. Where errors could have cut either way and uncertainty exists,
the burden is the decisive factor in the third prong of the plain error
test, and the burden is on the defendant.
Id. at 1300.
Appellant has failed to carry this burden. The Guidelines sentence range in
this case called for a prison term (as to each count) of 30 to 70 months duration.
The court imposed sentences at the bottom of this range. There is nothing in the
record of the sentencing hearing that would permit us to say that had the court
considered the Guidelines as discretionary rather than mandatory, it probably
would have imposed significantly lesser sentences. Appellant’s sentences are
therefore due to be affirmed.
AFFIRMED.
7
Tjoflat, Circuit Judge, concurring specially:
As I explain in my dissent to the court’s refusal to rehear Rodriguez en
banc, the error in a case such as this—where the district court enhances the
defendant’s sentence on the basis of facts not admitted by the defendant or found
by a jury—is structural error, and the third prong of the plain-error test is,
therefore, inapplicable. See United States v. Rodriguez, — F.3d —, 2005 WL
895174 (11th Cir. Apr. 19, 2005) (Tjoflat, J., dissenting from the denial of
rehearing en banc). Accordingly, the court should consider whether the error
“seriously affect[s] the fairness, integrity, or public reputation of judicial
proceedings.” United States v. Olano, 507 U.S. 725, 736, 113 S. Ct. 1770, 1779,
123 L. Ed.2d 508 (1993). I concur in the court’s judgment because we are
Rodriguez bound.
8