[DO NOT PUBLISH]
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT FILED
________________________ U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
January 6, 2006
No. 05-10721 THOMAS K. KAHN
Non-Argument Calendar CLERK
________________________
D. C. Docket No. 03-00042-CR-MMP
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
RANDY L. HOLT,
Defendant-Appellant.
________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of Florida
_________________________
(January 6, 2006)
Before ANDERSON, DUBINA and HULL, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
Randy L. Holt appeals his 18-month sentence for mail fraud in violation of
18 U.S.C. § 1341. Holt argues that the district court erred in enhancing his
sentence under an advisory guidelines system based on facts that were neither pled
in his indictment nor admitted by him.
Holt was sentenced after the Supreme Court returned its decision in United
States v. Booker, 543 U.S. __, 125 S.Ct. 738 (2005). After Booker, we review
questions of law arising under the Guidelines de novo. United States v. Crawford,
407 F.3d 1174, 1178 (11th Cir. 2005). If the district court has calculated the
Guidelines correctly, we review the sentence for reasonableness. Crawford, 407
F.3d at 1179.
Booker holds 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.), cert. denied, 125 S.Ct. 2935 (2005) (emphasis in original). We
have also explicitly held that “[e]xtra-verdict enhancements are to be determined
and used in the post-Booker world.” Rodriguez, 398 F.3d 1301. See also, United
States v. Williams, 408 F.3d 745, 749 (11 th Cir. 2005).
In this case, the record shows that the district court was aware the Guidelines
were merely advisory. Consequently, any judicial fact-finding done by the district
2
court did not implicate the Sixth Amendment. The record indicates that the
applicable Guidelines range was accurately calculated and considered by the
district court. The sentence ultimately imposed by the district court was entirely
reasonable. Therefore, the judgment of the district court is
AFFIRMED.
3