WPCX "b],-p4 *7^N_(0jqĺt $:R663+nr@ˬWITU6ћkqr\; u81H}6J3ȯ=6#uo4Wãs\AQvG^ۖ1]Jkq /t r^[Yb48LGuKh%'; ÝY,gKְ2 %J tU/BB4TGRzv ]T<0bb&+H, |t)1`.v!Z瓀K$xE"s S;No[ZQΌIz7U>~r _E89B7j[Ts{E2AF@2zsE2"T f.MV˹օȋiC K J 3o3#~ %? 0 DE 0G U: 0 U8 nT N>UN@U F^ w4Ef a  m!888UBbU> 0UM 0 0 0q 0T 04 0 0 B 0 0C 0 0 0 0r! 0@" 0 # 0# 0$ 0@X% 0% 0l& 0=' 0 ( 0( 0) 0c* 0%+ 00+ 0<, 0N, 0> - 0vJ- 0`- 0` . 0`. 0`. 0`@/ 08/ 0/ 020 00 0:1 0Y2 0_k2 0 2 0j3 0>5 B*6 D/6 D+7 0F7 D/8 08 069 09 0:; 0^?; 0<; 1e;U6><U>t<U*< 1u< 72Q=b===????????BERI :L:L:L:L:L:L:L:L:L:L:L:L:L:L:L:L:L:L:L:L:L:L:L:L:L:LWHP LaserJet 5/5M - Standard,,,,0X(#$  0  ($XXXX<6X9`("Courier NewTT(F:2$ !XQlXXX        0  <4 9Z+ Courier New <6X9`("Courier NewTTXXx6X@DQX@<6X9`(CourierTTXXw6X@QX@(A Z6Times New Roman RegularQ 9Z+.Courier New Regulard2s L=1y File3|xTABLE AU  $XZ\XXX      4    _=Z\XXdd=Duringthedrivetotransportthedrugs,Jumapulledoutthe  guntocleanitinplainview._Flecha_Ԅ_Maldonado_,373F.3dat173.  $XZ\XXX      2    _ XZ\XXXZ\=Z\XXdd=Serrano'ssentencewascomputedasfollows:Thestipulated  drugamountestablishedabaseoffenselevelof26._U.S.S.G._Ԁ  2D1.1(c)(7).Thisbaseoffenselevelwasenhancedbytwolevels \ becauseofhisroleasan"organizer,leader,manager,or 2 supervisor"andreducedbythreelevelsbecauseofhisacceptance X ofresponsibility,yieldingafinaloffenselevelof25.See . _U.S.S.G._Ԁ3B1.1(c),3E1.1(a)(b).Thebaseoffenselevelandthe   enhancementcalculationswereallmadeapartofthepleaagreement   signedbythedefendant.Hiscriminalhistoryscorewas3,which `  placedhimincriminalhistorycategoryII.TheGuidelinesrange 6   wastherefore6378months._U.S.S.G._ԀCh.5Pt.A.#XZ\XX XZ\#ԀThestatutory  \  minimumunder XZ\XXXZ\21U.S.C.841(b)(1)(B)#XZ\XX XZ\,#ԀfortheoffenseSerranopled  2  guiltytois60months.<6X9`(*Courier 12pt10cpi- -\( 9Z+&Courier Regular*+ (_2623  ..*G+M (_25   /%` ` hp x /23  ..  5+ ` hp x 5  *D+M (_24   ," hp x ,23  ..  5+ ` hp x 5  *A+M (_23  ` ) hp x )23  ..  5+ ` hp x 5  *>+M (_22   &hhp x &23  ..  5+ ` hp x 5  *;+M (_21   #p x #23  ..  5+ ` hp x 5  *8+M (_20  h  p x 23  ..  5+ ` hp x 5  *5+M (_19   pp x 23  ..  5+ ` hp x 5   d*2+M (_18    x 23  ..  5+ ` hp x 5  * (_1723  Ԁ*GM (_16   /%` ` hp x /23  Ԁ  5+ ` hp x 5  *DM (_15   ," hp x ,23  Ԁ  5+ ` hp x 5  *AM (_14  ` ) hp x )23  Ԁ  5+ ` hp x 5  *>M (_13   &hhp x &23  Ԁ  5+ ` hp x 5  *;M (_12   #p x #23  Ԁ  5+ ` hp x 5  *8M (_11  h  p x 23  Ԁ  5+ ` hp x 5  *5M (_10   pp x 23  Ԁ  5+ ` hp x 5  (2M &_9    x 23  Ԁ  5+ ` hp x 5  ( &_823  (GM &_7   /%` ` hp x /23   5+ ` hp x 5  (DM &_6   ," hp x ,23   5+ ` hp x 5  (AM &_5  ` ) hp x )23   5+ ` hp x 5  (>M &_4   &hhp x &23   5+ ` hp x 5  (;M &_3   #p x #23   5+ ` hp x 5  (8M &_2  h  p x 23   5+ ` hp x 5  (5M &_1   pp x 23   5+ ` hp x 5  &2M $_    x 23   5+ ` hp x 5  0.Normal<:Definition T<AA:Definition L , 5+ ` hp x 5  5+ ` hp x 586Definition(''&H1      (&H2  (&H3  (&H4 XXX (&H5  (&H6  20Address8MM6Blockquote , , 5+ ` hp x 5   5+ ` hp x 5,*CITE,dl*CODEK[<6X9`(Courier NewKS\\  `&Times New RomanS42Emphasis64Hyperlink    <:FollowedHype    4go2Keyboard K[<6X9`(Courier NewKS\\  `&Times New RomanS <:Preformatted/%  ,Kk %#/K[<6X9`(Courier NewKS\\  `&Times New RomanS/%  ,Kk %#/<:zBottom of 7P(X7  ?]%2A`Arial?  S\\  `&Times New RomanS7Q(X7&  d dO)1dxd'dxd<:zTop of For7S(X7  ?]%2A`Arial?  S\\  `&Times New RomanS7Q(X7O)2dxd0KS.SampleK[<6X9`(Courier NewKS\\  `&Times New RomanS0.Strong 8dl6TypewriterK[<6X9`(Courier NewKS\\  `&Times New RomanS42Variable: 8HTML MarkupB      2 0CommentB  )*+,-./0 35;AGMSY_11.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.<6X9`(Courier New\  `&Times New Roman%2A`Arial3#37=CIQYag1.a.i.(1)(a)(i)1)a)^i)- -  $XZ\XXX      1    _Rule11(b)(3)resultedfromtherecodificationofits  predecessor,Rule11(f),inDecemberof2002.SeeUnitedStatesv.  VenturaCruel,356F.3d55,60n.5(1stCir.2003).However,the \ changeinlanguagebetweenRule11(b)(3)andRule11(f)isonly 2 stylistic.Id.  $XZ\XXX      3    _=Z\XXdd=Withouttheroleenhancement,Serrano'sfinaloffenselevel  wouldhavebeen23,andcombinedwithacriminalhistorycategory  ofII,wouldhaveproducedaGuidelinessentencingrangeof5163 \ months._U.S.S.G._ԀCh.5Pt.A.Similarly,ifSerrano'scriminal 2 historycategoryhadbeenI,that,combinedwithafinaloffense X levelof25,wouldhaveproducedaGuidelinesrangeof5771 . months.Id. x $XZ\XXX      1    _=Z\XXdd=ӀIdonotconsiderthisapproachforeclosedbyJustice  _Breyer_'sclosingwordscommendingtothecourtsofappeal"ordinary  prudentialdoctrines,"likeplainerror.Booker,125S.Ct.at \ 769._Olano_discussedpresumptionofprejudiceinthecontextof 2 plainerrorreview.  $XZ\XXX      2    _=Z\XXdd=Ӏ XZ\XXXZ\TheThirdCircuithasalsopresumedprejudiceaftera  constructiveamendmentoftheindictment:  Similartotheplightofadefendantwhoisdeniedthe 2 rightof_ allocution_ ,itisverydifficultforadefendant X toproveprejudiceresultingfrommostconstructive . amendmentstoanindictment....Therefore,wewill   applyintheplainerrorcontexta_ rebuttable_ Ԁpresumption   thatconstructiveamendmentsareprejudicial(andthus `  thattheysatisfythethirdprongofplainerrorreview). 6   |<UnitedStatesv._ Syme_ ,276F.3d131,154(3dCir.2002).#XZ\XX XZ\# H $XZ\XXX      3    _=Z\XXdd=Ӏ"TheargumentthataBookererroroccurredispreservedif  thedefendantbelowargued_ Apprendi_ or_ Blakely_ errororthatthe  Guidelineswereunconstitutional."_ Antonakopoulos_ ,2005WL407365, \ at*6. $XZ\XXX      4    _=Z\XXdd=ӀTheSecondCircuithasreliedonaninterveningchangein  lawtojustifyshiftingtheprejudiceburdenfromthedefendantto  thegovernment:"InthisCircuit,whentheerrorresultsfroman \ interveningchangeinthelaw,wehaveappliedamodifiedversion 2 oftheplainerrordoctrinewherebytheburdenisontheGovernment X toshowthattheerrordidnotaffectsubstantialrights."United . Statesv.Williams,No.042882,2005WL425212,at*5n.7(2d   Cir.Feb.4,2005);seealsoUnitedStatesv.Viola,35F.3d37,   4142(2dCir.1994),abrogatedonothergroundsbySalinasv. `  # UnitedStates,522U.S.52(1997).Atthesametime,theSecond  Circuithaswonderedwhetherthatsocalled"modifiedversion"has  beenimplicitlyrejectedbyJohnsonv.UnitedStates,520U.S.461 \ (1997).SeeWilliams,2005WL425212,at*5n.7;UnitedStatesv. 2 Thomas,274F.3d655,688n.15(2dCir.2001)(enbanc). X   AlthoughIrespecttheSecondCircuit'sprudence,Ifindits . speculationpuzzling.InJohnson,thedistrictcourthaddecided   foritselftheissueofmaterialityinaperjurypersecution,   insteadofsubmittingittothejury.AfterJohnsonwasconvicted, `  andbeforeherappeal,theSupremeCourtdecidedUnitedStatesv. 6   _Gaudin_,515U.S.506(1995),whichrequiredmaterialitytobe  \  submittedtothejury.TheSupremeCourtheldthatanappellate  2  courtcancorrectanerrorthatwasnotplainattrial,butbecame   soonappeal.Johnsonconfineditsdiscussionofprejudiceto   addressingpetitioner'stheorythathererrorshouldbeconsidered d  structuralerrorandhenceoutsidetheambitofRule52(b) :  altogether.TheCourtwasdubious.Ultimately,theCourtdidnot `  needtodecidetheissuebecausehercasefailedanywayatthe 6 fourthstepoftheplainerroranalysisbecauseoftheoverwhelming   evidenceofmateriality.Johnson,520U.S.at470.Theissueof  presumedprejudicewhetherjustifiedbyachangeinlaworby h otherreasonswassimplynotbeforetheCourt. codefendantspresentence PSR recodification$mischaracterizescodefendant Jumaresentencing !XZ\XXX  _TRY,3'X3' Letter 3' Letter3'T ? * ! XXXXZ\ xX X     8Z\XXdd8UnitedStatesCourtofAppeals [ x  FortheFirstCircuit   [ XZ\X   A') ` dE< ` A      `     h No.0  022286K (#(#   022682 ! q @UNITEDSTATESOFAMERICA,  G  @&Appellee,      `     h      p   @tt)v. O  @  JOSESERRANOBEAUVAIX;MAHMUDJUMAPINEDA, K  @Defendants,Appellants.  A') ` dE<R` A S @` ` APPEALSFROMTHEUNITEDSTATESDISTRICTCOURT 8   FORTHEDISTRICTOFPUERTORICO 4 [Hon.JosAntonioFust,U.S.DistrictJudge]  A') ` dE<;` A < @@'Before !q @@((Torruella,Lynch,andLipez,CircuitJudges.  A') ` dE<x` A y!       MarkDiamondforappellantJoseSerranoBeauvaix. ^ #   GeorgeJ.WestforappellantMahmudJumaPineda. 4!$   ThomasF.Klumper,AssistantUnitedStatesAttorney,withwhom  "Z% H.S.Garcia,UnitedStatesAttorney,andNelsonPrezSosa, "0& AssistantUnitedStatesAttorney,SeniorAppellateAttorney,were #' onbrief,forappellee. $( *'ddd Xdd Xdd X(#(#,( dd ,( dd ,( dd +  8&!*8&! Z SI&!+ @38414@SMarch4,2005 r'"-  RHCH(#." @38414 @ R(&!/  (* !  *,X` XX*=Z\XXdd=XZ\XX XZ\  N)$/? 8Z\XXdXXd8=Z\XXdXXd= ` LYNCH,CircuitJudge .# XZ\XXXZ\ #ԀJoseSerranoBeauvaixandMahmud  JumaPinedawereparticipantsinalargeconspiracywhich x transporteddrugsundertheprotectionofcorruptpoliceofficers $t inthePuertoRicoPoliceDepartment.Theconspiracyisdescribed   inUnitedStatesv.FlechaMaldonado,373F.3d170,17274(1st |  Cir.2004),upholdingtheconvictionofoneofSerrano'sandJuma's ( x  coconspirators. $   ` Inbrief,Serrano,aformerpoliceofficerwhohadbeen   expelledfromtheforce,helpedtorecruitJuma,apoliceofficer ,|  atthetime,toprovidearmedescortforashipmentoften ( kilogramsofcocaineinOctober,2000.Jumarodewiththedrugs  andcarriedapistol.Serranorodeinanothercarandconducted 0 countersurveillanceandadvisedhiscodefendantsthroughcell , phones.Theyeachreceiveda$5000paymentfortheirservicesin  thecrime. 4  ` Eachdefendantpledguiltytochargesofconspiracyto 0 distributeinexcessoffivekilogramsofcocaineinviolationof   21U.S.C.841(a)and846(CountOne),andofcarryingfirearms 8!" (andaidingandabettingofsame)infurtheranceofadrug "4$ traffickingcrimeinviolationof18U.S.C.924(c)(1)(A)(i)and $& 2(CountThree).Eachdefendantstipulatedtobeingpersonally <&!( responsibleforonekilogramofcocaine.Inthepleaagreements, '8#*  eachalsoagreedtocertainsentencingenhancementsand )$, acknowledgedthateachdidnotqualifyforsafetyvalvetreatment  undertheSentencingGuidelines. \   ` Serranowassentencedto63months'imprisonmentfor X CountOneandaconsecutivetermof60monthsforCountThree.   Jumawassentencedto60months'imprisonmentforCountOneanda `  consecutivetermof60monthsforCountThree.  \   ` Serranoappealsfromhisconvictionforthefirearms   count,contendingthathisguiltypleawasprocedurallyflawed d  underFed.R.Crim.P.11(b)(3).b #  1      ׀Werejectthisargumentbecause `  therewasnoerrorduringtheRule11colloquy.SerranoandJuma   bothappealtheirsentences,raisingavarietyofarguments,most h ofwhichwerewaivedbytheirpleaagreements.Serranoalsoraises d aclaimofplainerrorastohissentenceunderUnitedStatesv.  Booker,543U.S.__,125S.Ct.738(2005).Werejectthis l argumentaswellbecauseSerranohasfailedtocarryhisburden h thatthereisa"reasonableprobability"thathewouldbesentenced  morelenientlyunderanadvisoryGuidelinessystem.SeeUnited p  Statesv.Antonakopoulos,No.031384,2005WL407365,at*4(1st !l" Cir.Feb.22,2005). "$   &p!(   I.   A.Serrano'sAppeal x 1.TheGuiltyPleaToCountThree $t = ` Serranoarguesforthefirsttimeonappealthatthe   districtcourterredprocedurallyinacceptinghisguiltypleato |  CountThree.Hisargumentisthatthedistrictcourtfailedto ( x  "explorethefactualbasisoftheguiltyplea"asrequiredbyFed. $  R.Crim.P.11(b)(3),whichstates:"Beforeenteringjudgmentona   guiltyplea,thecourtmustdeterminethatthereisafactualbasis ,|  fortheplea."Serranoarguesthathadthedistrictcourtdoneso, ( itwouldhavefoundthattherewasnofactualbasisforSerrano's  guiltypleabecauseSerranoonlyadmittedtoproviding"armed 0 transport"forthedrugshipment,butnottohavingpossesseda , firearm.Theadmissionthathewas"armed"wasinsufficient,he  nowargues,becauseitmighthavemeantthathewas"armedwitha 4 bigstick." 0  ` WereviewaRule11challengeraisedforthefirsttime   onappealonlyforplainerror.UnitedStatesv.Vonn,535U.S. 8!" 55,7476(2002);UnitedStatesv.Cheal,389F.3d35,40(1st "4$ Cir.2004);seealsoUnitedStatesv.Mills,329F.3d24,27(1st $& Cir.2003)("Anerrornotobjectedtoatthepleahearingis <&!( reversibleonlywheretheerrorisplain,affectsthedefendant's '8#* substantialrights,andseriouslyaffectsthefairnessofthe )$, proceeding.").Astotheunderlyingissueofcompliancewiththe @+&. Rule,"[o]naplea,thequestionunderRule11(f)[nowRule  11(b)(3)]isnotwhetherajurywould,orevenwouldbelikely,to \ convict:itiswhetherthereisenoughevidencesothattheplea X hasarationalbasisinfactsthatthedefendantconcedesorthat   thegovernmentproffersassupportedbycredibleevidence."United `  Statesv.GandiaMaysonet,227F.3d1,6(1stCir.2000).Inthis  \  case,therewasnoerror.    ` Serrano'sargumentmischaracterizeshispleacolloquyby d  ignoringtheaidingandabettingandinfurtheranceofthe `  conspiracyaspectsofthechargeagainsthiminCountThree.The   districtcourt'sRule11colloquyfocusedonthoseaspectsofthe h charge.Itisirrelevantwhethertherewerefactstoshowthat d Serranowaspersonallyarmedwithagunorabigstick.Duringthe  Rule11colloquy,Serranospecificallyagreedthatin"aidingand l abettingeachotheragunwaspossessedinfurtheranceofthe h conspiracy"(emphasisadded).Furthermore,Serrano'scounsel  explainedthatSerranounderstoodthatalthoughhe"didnotcarry p  thefirearm"(emphasisadded),hewasresponsibleforthe !l" firearm(s)carriedbyhiscodefendant(s)underPinkertonv.United "$ States,328U.S.640(1946).Rule11(b)(3)ismeantto"protecta t$& defendantwhoisinthepositionofpleadingvoluntarilywithan  &p!( understandingofthenatureofthechargebutwithoutrealizing '#* thathisconductdoesnotactuallyfallwithinthecharge." x)$, McCarthyv.UnitedStates,394U.S.459,467(1969)(footnoteand $+t&. internalquotationmarksomitted).Thedistrictjudgeascertained  thatSerranounderstoodthathecouldbeheldliableforthe \ firearmschargewithouthavingcarriedthegunhimselfandthat X SerranowasawareofthegunJumapossessedaspartofthe"armed   escort"theyprovidedforthedrugshipment. `  2.TheSentenceforCountOne   "- ` Serranobringsatrioofchallengestohissentenceasto d  CountOne, #  2      ׀andarguesthatweshouldremandtothedistrictcourt `  forresentencinginlightofUnitedStatesv.Booker,543U.S.__,   125S.Ct.738(2005).First,hechallengestheevidentiary h supportforhiscriminalrecordandhisorganizerrolesentencing d enhancement;second,hearguesthatthedistrictcourtwas  constrainedbythemandatorySentencingGuidelinesandso l sentencedhimtoabovethestatutoryminimum;third,hearguesthat h heshouldhavebeengiventhebenefitofthesafetyvalve.Wetake  upeachchallengeinturn. p  3,XX X,X` X3  i. ` WebeginwithSerrano'sargumentthattherewasno  factualsupportforeitherthefinding1)thatSerrano'srole \ duringtheoffensewasthatofan"organizer,leader,manager,or X supervisor,"justifyinganincreaseinhisoffenselevelbytwo   levels,seeU.S.S.G.3B1.1(c),or2)thatSerrano'scriminal `  historyplacedhimincriminalhistorycategoryII.c #  3      ׀Ifthe  \  districtcourterredinmakingthesefindingsand,asaresult,   misappliedsentencingenhancementsundertheGuidelinessoasto d  causeprejudicetoSerrano'ssentence,theerrorswouldjustify `  remandforresentencingevenunderpreBookercircuitprecedent.   See,e.g.,UnitedStatesv.Thiongo,344F.3d55,63(1stCir. h 2003);UnitedStatesv.McMinn,103F.3d216,219(1stCir.1997). d 7,X` X,XX X17 ` Serranohaswaivedhischallengetohisorganizerrole  enhancement.ThepleaagreementstipulatedthatSerrano"helped l [anothercodefendant]contactandrecruitapoliceofficerto h assistintheescortofthecocaineshipment."Thepleaagreement  alsoincludedthestipulationthatSerrano'soffenselevelwouldbe p  adjustedupwardsbytwolevelsunder3B1.1becausehe"recruited !l" oneofhiscodefendants."Thedistrictjudgeascertainedthat "$ Serranounderstoodandagreedtothisadjustment.Atsentencing, t$& Serranomadenoobjectiontothefindingthatherecruiteda  codefendant. \  ` AsforSerrano'scriminalhistory,"[o]ncethegovernment X establishestheexistenceofapriorconviction,theburdenshifts   tothedefendanttoshowthattheearlierconvictionwas `  constitutionallyinfirmorotherwiseinappropriatefor  \  consideration."UnitedStatesv.Barbour,393F.3d82,93(1st   Cir.2004).XZ\XX XZ\AtSerrano'sdetentionhearing,hiscounselstipulated d  toacriminalconvictioninHumacaoforviolatingPuertoRico `  weaponslaws.# XZ\XXXZ\:#Serrano'spresentencingreport(PSR),"whichcanbe   usedtosatisfythegovernment's'modest'burden,"id.(quoting h UnitedStatesv.Gray,177F.3d86,89(1stCir.1999)),detailed d Serrano'spriorconvictionincommonwealthcourtinHumacaofor  violatingPuertoRicoweaponslawsandcalculatedhiscriminal l historyscoretobe3.Serranomadenoobjectiontohiscriminal h historyscoreinthePSRathissentencinghearing.Serrano  concededthat"theprobationofficerhastofollowwhatconvictions p  [Serrano]hasinthepoliceofPuertoRicorecords."Infact,the !l" only"correction"thatSerrano'scounselwishedtomaketothePSR "$ wasto"reference...theactualnumberofthecriminalcasein t$& Humacao,"andthecourtagreed.Serranoadmittedtothis  &p!( convictionatthesentencinghearing,butsuggestedasa '#* "mitigatingargument"thathehada"solidalibidefense."The x)$, districtcourtproperlyrejectedthisargument. $+t&. 3,XX X,X` X3  ii. ` SerranonextarguesthathissentenceonCountOneshould  bevacatedandthecaseremandedforresentencingbecausethe \ districtcourtwasclearlyconstrainedbytheGuidelinesduring X sentencingandimposedthe63monthterm,whichwasabovethe   statutoryminimumof60months,andwasatthebottomofthe `  applicableGuidelinesrange.PostBooker,Serranoargues,the  \  districtcourtcouldhave(andwouldhave)sentencedhimtothe   statutoryminimumof60months.Serranomadenoargumentsinthe d  districtcourtquestioningtheconstitutionalityoftheGuidelines `  ortheapplicationoftheGuidelinestohissentenceunderApprendi   v.NewJersey,520U.S.466(2000),orBlakelyv.Washington,542 h U.S.__,124S.Ct.2531(2004),sotheBookerissuewasnot d preserved.SeeAntonakapolous,2005WL407365,at*6.  7,X` X,XX X@7 ` Wehaverecentlysetforththeapplicableframeworkfor l reviewofunpreservedBookerclaimsinAntonakopoulos.Utilizing h thefourprongtestinUnitedStatesv.Olano,507U.S.725(1993),  theremustbe(1)anerror(2)thatisplain,andit(3)affects p  substantialrightsand(4)seriouslyimpairsthefairness, !l" integrity,orpublicreputationofjudicialproceedings. "$ Antonakopoulos,2005WL407365,at*4.Thefirsttwoprongsofthe t$& plainerrortestaremetwheneverthedistrictcourttreatedthe  &p!( Guidelinesasmandatoryatthetimeofsentencing.Id.Butto '#* meetthethirdprongofthetest,thedefendantmustpersuadeus x)$, thatthereisa"reasonableprobabilitythatthedistrictcourt $+t&. wouldimposeadifferentsentencemorefavorabletothedefendant  underthenew'advisoryGuidelines'Bookerregime."Id."[I]tis \ thedefendantratherthantheGovernmentwhobearstheburdenof X persuasionwithrespecttoprejudiceunderplainerroranalysis."   Id.at*6(citationsandinternalquotationmarksomitted). `   ` Serranoreliesuponthedistrictjudge'sstatementatthe  \  sentencinghearing:"IhavetoconsiderthefactthatIcannot   sentencehimto60months.ThelowestIcansentencehimonthat d  particularsituationis63."Thisstatement,heargues,makesit `  "clearthatthedistrictcourtwouldhavesentenced[Serrano]to60   monthsinprisoninsteadof63oncountone."Notso.Given h Serrano'scriminalhistorycategoryandhisroleasrecruiter,and d theamountofdrugsinvolved,thecourt'sstatementwasasimple  statementoffact.Thestatutoryminimum,withoutthe l enhancements,was60months.Hewassentencedto63months,outof h apossiblerangeof63to78months.Serrano'sargumentamountsto  anassertionthattherewassuchareasonableprobabilitythatthe p  judgewouldhavetotallyignoredSerrano'sroleintheoffenseand !l" priorconvictionandthatourconfidenceintheoutcomeis "$ underminedbythefactthatthejudgeactuallyconsideredthesetwo t$& enhancements.EvenpostBooker,thedistrictcourt"mustconsult  &p!( thoseGuidelinesandtakethemintoaccountwhensentencing." '#*  Booker,543U.S.at__,125S.Ct.at767.Andsothecourthadto x)$, considerbothroleintheoffenseandhiscriminalhistory.  Serranohasfailedtomeethisburden. \  3,XX X,X` X3  iii. ` Serrano'sfinalargumentinhissentencingappealisthat X thedistrictcourtcommittederrorindenyinghimthebenefitof   theprovisionsofthesafetyvalveunder18U.S.C.3553(f)and `  U.S.S.G.5C1.2.Theargument,raisedforthefirsttimeon  \  appeal,isthatbutforthecourt'sfindingsthatSerranohadmore   thanonecriminalhistorypointandthatSerranowasanorganizer d  ofthecriminalactivity,hewouldhavequalifiedforsafetyvalve `  treatmentandthusbeentitledtosentencingwithoutregardtoany   statutoryminimum. h 7,X` X,XX XQ7 ` TheeffectofBooker,ifany,onthesafetyvalvehasnot d beendetermined.SeeAntonakopoulos,2005WL407365,at*6n.6.  ButSerrano'sargumentiswaivedbecauseSerranoexplicitlyagreed l inhispleaagreementthathedidnotqualifyforsafetyvalve h treatment,andconfirmedthatheunderstoodthathedidnotqualify  forthesafetyvalveduringhischangeofpleahearing. p   B.Juma'sAppealofHisSentence "$  ` Jumafirstarguesthatthedistrictcourterredby t$& equatinghiscarryingofhisofficialpolicepistolduringthe  &p!( crimewithdisqualificationfromhisentitlementtoadownward '#* departureunderthesafetyvalve.See18U.S.C.3553(f)and x)$, U.S.S.G.XZ\XX XZ\2D1.1(b)(7)# XZ\XXXZ\X#,5C1.2.Hearguesthatbutforthefinding $+t&. thathecarriedhispistolduringandinconnectionwiththecrime,  hewouldhavequalifiedforsafetyvalvetreatmentandbesentenced \ belowthestatutoryminimum.Althoughhestipulatedtohaving X "carriedapistol"duringtheescortinhispleaagreement,Juma   contendsthatthedistrictcourterredbynotconsideringthathe `  maynonethelessqualifyforthesafetyvalvebecausethefirearm  \  wasnotclearlyconnectedtotheoffense. #  4      ׀SeeUnitedStatesv.   Bolka,355F.3d909,914(6thCir.2004). d   ` ThisargumentiswaivedbecauseJumaexplicitlyagreedin `  hispleaagreementthathedidnotqualifyforsafetyvalve   treatment,andconfirmedthatheunderstoodthathedidnotqualify h forthesafetyvalveduringhischangeofpleahearing. d  ` Juma'ssecondargumentisthatajury,notajudge,  shouldhavemadethefactualdeterminationsunderlyinghis l disqualificationforthesafetyvalveandtheabuseofpublictrust h enhancement.Bypleadingguiltyhewaivedconsiderationofthe  issuesbyajury. p    III.  !l" _ ` Serrano'sconvictionandbothdefendants'sentencesare "4$  affirmed . $&   (Concurrencefollows.)  (T#* _`=Z\XXdXXd= ` LIPEZ,CircuitJudge,withwhomTORRUELLA,CircuitJudge,  joins,concurring . Recently,inUnitedStatesv.Antonakopoulos, x No.031384,2005WL407365(1stCir.Feb.22,2005),apanelof @ thiscourtexplainedforthefirsttimeourstandardsforreviewof  < unpreservedclaimsofsentencingerrorintheaftermathofUnited   Statesv.Booker,543U.S.__,125S.Ct.738(2005).That D   decisionisbindingonsubsequentpanels.Eulittv.Me.Dep'tof @  Educ.,386F.3d344,349(1stCir.2004)(inamultipanelcircuit,   newlyconstitutedpanelsareboundbypriorpaneldecisions).I H  agreewiththeresultoftheapplicationofAntonakopoulostothis D case.Iwriteseparately,however,toexplainwhy,ifIwerefree  todoso,Iwouldtakeadifferentapproachtoreviewing L unpreservedclaimsofBookererror. H  ` Beforeexplainingmydifferingviews,however,Iwantto  stressthatIagreewithmuchinAntonakopoulos.Iagreewithits P descriptionofBookererrorasinheringinthemandatorynatureof L thesentencingguidelines,regardlessofwhetherthesentencewas   premisedonanyjudgefoundfacts.Iagree,too,thatthe T!" defendanthaspreservedaclaimofBookererrorifhearguedbelow #P$ thathissentenceviolatedApprendiv.NewJersey,530U.S.466 $& (2000),orBlakelyv.Washington,542U.S.__,124S.Ct.2531 X&!( (2004),orthattheguidelineswereunconstitutional.Iagreethat (T#* weshouldnotremandcasesautomatically,eitherbecausea )%, defendant'ssentencewasenhancedonthebasisofjudgefoundfacts \+&. orbecausethesentencewasimposedonthebasisofmandatory  guidelines. \  ` MyonedisagreementwithAntonakopoulosiscrucial, X however.Idonotbelievethatweshouldrequiredefendants   invokingunpreservedBookererrortomakeaspecificshowingof `  prejudice(thereasonableprobabilityofadifferentoutcome)to  \  satisfythethirdstepofplainerrorreview.Rather,sucherror   shouldentitlethedefendanttoapresumptionofprejudice,which d  thegovernmentcanthentrytorebut.Thisapproach,adoptedbya `  paneloftheSixthCircuitinUnitedStatesv.Barnett,No.04   5252,2005WL357015(6thCir.Feb.16,2005),iswellgroundedin h SupremeCourtprecedentandhasbeenappliedbyoursistercircuits d inothercontexts"wheretheinherentnatureoftheerrormadeit  exceptionallydifficultforthedefendanttodemonstratethatthe l outcomeofthelowercourtproceedingwouldhavebeendifferenthad h theerrornotoccurred."Id.at*9.Iwishtoexplainfurthermy  reasonsforpreferringthisapproach. p     @` 1.Thedifficultyofreconstructing !l" ahypotheticalsentencingdecision  "P# JnVn ` Severalcourtsofappealsconsideringunpreservedclaims # % ofBookererrorhaveemphasizedthedifficultyofspeculatingabout f% ' whatadistrictcourtjudgewouldhavedonedifferentlyunderan 'b") advisoryguidelinesregime.TheFourthCircuitadmittedthat:"We ($+ simplydonotknowhowthedistrictcourtwouldhavesentenced j*%- Hugheshaditbeenoperatingundertheregimeestablishedby ,f'/ Booker."UnitedStatesv.Hughes,396F.3d374,381n.8(4thCir.  2005).Similarly,theSixthCircuitwrotethat"evenifwe \ concludethattheevidenceis'overwhelmingandessentially X uncontroverted'wecannotknowthelengthofimprisonmentthatthe   districtcourtjudgewouldhaveimposedpursuanttothisevidence `  followingBooker."UnitedStatesv.Oliver,No.032126,2005WL  \  233779,at*8n.3(6thCir.Feb.2,2005)(quotingUnitedStatesv   Cotton,535U.S.625,633(2002)). TheEleventhCircuit,too, d  afterwonderingwhatthedistrictcourtmighthavedone ,|  differently,answereditsownquestion: ( Theobviousansweristhatwedon'tknow.Ifthe  districtcourtjudgeinthiscasehadthelibertyof Z increasingordecreasingRodriguez'ssentenceaboveor 0 belowtheguidelinesrange,hemighthavegivenRodriguez V alongersentence,orhemighthavegivenashorter , sentence,orhemighthavegiventhesamesentence.The  recordprovidesnoreasontobelieveanyresultismore  likelythantheother.Wejustdon'tknow. ^ tzttUnitedStatesv.Rodriguez,No.0412676,2005WL272952,at*9  Z (11thCir.2005).   ` Indeed,theSecondCircuitfoundthisproblemsovexing b ! thatitchosetoaskthedistrictcourtsdirectlywhether,intheir "^# judgment,"anontriviallydifferentsentencewouldhavebeen # % imposed"underadvisoryguidelines.UnitedStatesv.Crosby,No. f% ' 031675,2005WL240916,at*12(2dCir.Feb.2,2005).TheSecond 'b") Circuitnotedthat ($+ inmanycases,itwillbeimpossibletotellwhetherthe j*%- judgewouldhaveimposedthesamesentencehadthejudge @+&. notfeltcompelledtoimposeaGuidelinessentence.It ,f'/ willalsobeimpossibletotellwhatconsiderations  counselforbothsidesmighthavebroughttothe  sentencingjudge'sattentionhadtheyknownthatthey \ couldurgethejudgetoimposeanon-Guidelinessentence. 2 yyyId.at*9.Thecourtchosetosolvetheproblembyremandingany . casewithunpreservedBookererrortothedistrictcourts,which   wouldthendecideifresentencingwasrequired.AlthoughIdonot 6   favortheSecondCircuit'sremandapproach,Iunderstandthe  2  concernsthatmotivatedit.So,too,didapaneloftheSixth   CircuitintheBarnettdecision. :     @` 2.BarnettandpresumedprejudiceinOlano  6 } ` InBarnett,thecourtemphasizedthedifficultyfacedby  defendantstryingtodemonstratetheprejudicethatresultedfrom Z thedistrictcourt'sapplicationofmandatoryguidelines,when V "wellestablishedcaselawsubstantiallyunderminedanyneedor  incentiveforsentencingcourtspreBookertonotetheirobjections ^ andreservationsinsentencingdefendantsunderthethenmandatory  Z Guidelines."2005WL357015,at*4.Consequently,  [i]twouldbeimproperforthisCourtnowtorequire b ! defendantssuchasBarnetttoproducethistypeof 8!" evidencethatsentencingcourtshadnoreasontoprovide "^# underourpreBookercaselawinordertoestablishthat "4$ theirsubstantialrightshavebeenaffected.... # % Insteadofspeculatingastothedistrictcourt's $& intentionsinthepreBookerworld,andtryingtoapply f% ' thoseintentionstopredictthesamecourt'ssentence <&!( underthepostBookerscheme,weareconvincedthatthe 'b") mostprudentcourseofactioninthiscaseistopresume '8#* prejudice.... ($+  րȀId. j*%-  ` BarnettreadsUnitedStatesv.Olano,507U.S.725   (1993),assuggestingthatifadefendantwouldhaveextraordinary \ difficultymakingaspecificshowingofprejudice,thena X presumptionofprejudicemaybeappropriate.Barnett,2005WL   357015,at*9.Thegovernment,ofcourse,cantrytorebutthat `  presumption.Id.at*12.ThedissentinBarnettmaintains,  \  however,that"theSupremeCourthasneverputitsimprimaturon   theideathatwemaypresumeprejudiceinplainerrorreview,"id. d  at*18.ItsupportedthatassertionbyobservingthatOlano `  devotesjustasentencetotheissueandthenrefusedtoconsider   itfurther. h  ` ThatisnotafairreadingofOlano.Afterfirst d positingacategoryofplainerrorsentitledtoapresumptionof  prejudice,theCourtfoundnoreasontoplacethespecificplain l errorcitedbythedefendant(thepresenceofalternatejurors h duringjurydeliberations)inthatcategory.507U.S.at735.  True,theCourtdeclinedtoofferastrictdefinitionofthe p  category,seeingnoneedto"addressthoseerrorsthatshouldbe !l" presumedprejudicialifthedefendantcannotmakeaspecific "$ showingofprejudice."Id.Later,however,theCourtdidconfront t$& thequestionofwhetherOlano'serrorwouldbelongtosucha  &p!( category,ifitexists;itdecidedthat"weseenoreasonto '#* presumeprejudicehere."Id.at737.Atthesametime,theCourt x)$, allowedthat"[t]heremaybecaseswhereanintrusionshouldbe $+t&. presumedprejudicial."Id.at739.Infact,theCourtframedthe  basicinquiryofitsdecisionas:"Thequestion,then,iswhether \ theinstantviolationofRule24(c)prejudicedrespondents,either X specificallyorpresumptively."Id.(emphasisadded).Ultimately,   theCourtdidnotthink"thatthemerepresenceofalternatejurors `  entailedasufficientriskof'chill'tojustifyapresumptionof  \  prejudiceonthatscore."Id.at741.Nevertheless,itsanalysis   forthrightlyexploredthepossibilitythatsomekindsoferrors d  wouldjustifysuchapresumption. `   ` Here,inappealswithunpreservedclaimsofBookererror,   wehavebeenpresentedwithsucherrors.k #  1       h    @` 3.Presumedprejudiceinothercontexts  d k ` Courtshavepresumedprejudiceforerrorsthat,bytheir , verynature,makeademonstrationofprejudiceexceptionally  difficult.TheSixthCircuithaspresumedprejudicewhere 4 alternatejurorsactuallyparticipatedinthejury'sdeliberations 0 (unlikeOlano,wheretheyweremerelypresent).SeeManningv.   Huffman,269F.3d720,726(6thCir.2001)("[T]heOlanocourtmade 8!" itquiteclearthatinsomesituationsapresumptionofprejudice "4$ isappropriate.").Afterall,thereare"strictevidentiary $& prohibitionsagainstinquiringintothementalprocessesofthe <&!( jury[that]wouldmakeitalmostimpossibleforadefendanttoshow  thatanalternatejurorinfactprejudicedhiscase."Id.at725 \ n.2.InBookercases,defendantsfacesimilarlyforbidding X speculationaboutthementalprocessesofadistrictcourtjudgeif   giventheopportunitytoapplyadvisorysentencingguidelines. `   ` Courtshavepresumedprejudicewherethedefendanthas  \  beendeniedhisrighttoallocution,thatis,hisopportunityto   presentmitigatingcircumstancestothecourtbeforebeing d  sentenced.Inthosecases,too,courtshavepresumedthatthe `  defendantwasprejudicedbecauseoftheextraordinarydifficultyin   discerningtheerror'sprejudicialeffect.SeeUnitedStatesv. h Reyna,358F.3d344,352-53(5thCir.2004)(enbanc),cert. d denied,124S.Ct.2390(2004).TheFifthCircuitnotedthatthis  approach"avoidsspeculationastowhatthedefendantmighthave l saidorarguedtomitigatehissentence."Id.at352.InUnited h Statesv.Adams,252F.3d276(3dCir.2001),theThirdCircuit  statedthatshowingprejudice p  wouldbeanonerousburdenforAdams[i.e.,the !l" defendant]tomeet.Inordertoprovethattheerror !B# actually"affectedtheoutcomeofthedistrictcourt "$ proceedings,"Adamswouldhavetopointtostatements #% thathewouldhavemadeatsentencing,andsomehowshow t$& thatthesestatementswouldhavechangedthesentence J% ' imposedbytheDistrictCourt....ButastheSupreme  &p!( CourtexplainedinOlano,theremaybesomeerrors"that &F") shouldbepresumedprejudicialifthedefendantcannot '#* makeaspecificshowingofprejudice."Olano,507U.S.at (#+ 735.Thusthequestionforusbecomes:shouldwepresume x)$, prejudicewhenadistrictcourtviolatesadefendant's N*%- rightofallocution? $+t&.  +J'/ Ùљ252F.3dat287.TheThirdCircuit'sanswerwasyes.l #  2      XZ\XX XZ\ԀInUnited  Statesv.AlbaPagan,33F.3d125(1stCir.1994),althoughwedid \ notexplicitlyuseOlano'sfourparttest,weobservedthat X relievingadefendantofhisburdentoshowprejudicecan   compensateforcaseswhereitwouldbeextraordinarilydifficult `  forthedefendanttodoso.Consequently,wewrotethatthedenial  \  ofrighttoallocution"ordinarilyrequiresvacationofthe   sentenceimposedwithoutaconcomitantinquiryintoprejudice. d  Thisissopreciselybecausetheimpactoftheomissionona `  discretionarydecisionisusuallyenormouslydifficultto   ascertain."Id.at130.# XZ\XXXZ\w# h    @` 4.Otherreasonsforpresumingprejudice  d   ` Inadditiontothedifficultyofreconstructinga , hypotheticalsentencingcourtdecision,therearethreeother  reasonsthatmakethepresumptionofprejudiceasensiblechoice 4 foraddressingunpreservedBookererror. 0     ` a.Difficultyofanticipatingtheerror   ` AlthoughsomedefendantspreservedtheirclaimsofBooker \ errorinthewaydescribedinAntonakopoulos,m #  3      ׀othersdidnot. X Perhapstheycanbefaultedfornotdoingwhatotherdefendants   did.YetthefactremainsthatthestatusoftheGuidelineswas `  uncertainuntilBookerwasdecided,andtheadoptionoftheremedy  \  choseninBookerfortheSixthAmendmentviolation(convertingthe   Guidelinesfrommandatorytoadvisory)surprisedmanyinthelegal d  profession.Placingtheburdenondefendantstoestablish `  prejudiceforunpreservederrorsordinarilymakessensebecause   theyignoredexistinglawthattheycouldhaveinvokedtoavoidthe h error.AstheSupremeCourthasexplained,the"burdenshouldnot d betooeasy"becausetheprejudicestandardhelps"toencourage  timelyobjectionsandreducewastefulreversalsbydemanding l strenuousexertiontogetreliefforunpreservederror."United h Statesv.DominguezBenitez,542U.S.__,124S.Ct.2333,2340  (2004). p   ` Here,however,the existinglaw(theavailabilityof !l" advisoryguidelines)isanartificeofourrulethat"anewrule "$ fortheconductofcriminalprosecutionsistobeapplied t$& retroactivelytoallcases...pendingondirectreview...,  &p!( withnoexceptionforcasesinwhichthenewruleconstitutesa  'clearbreak'withthepast."Griffithv.Kentucky,479U.S.314, \ 328(1987);seealsoJohnsonv.UnitedStates,520U.S.461,467 X (1997).Inactuality,ademandbydefendantspreBookerthat   districtcourtjudgestreattheguidelinesasadvisorywouldhave `  beenrejectedbymostofthemasanincorrectstatementofthelaw.  \  Frankly,"itseemsunfairtofault[thedefendant]forfailingto   raiseat[sentencing]anobjectionbaseduponarulethatwasnot d  announceduntilafterthe[sentencing]wasconcluded."United `  Statesv.Barone,114F.3d1284,1294(1stCir.1997)(citing   UnitedStatesv.Collins,60F.3d4,7(1stCir.1995)). h  ` Perhapsdefendantsshouldbegratefulthatourruleof d retroactivityforcasespendingondirectreviewallowsany  possibilityatallforresentencing.Butthefactremainsthata l greaterwillingnesstoacknowledgethelikelihoodofprejudicefrom h adramaticchangeinthelawlikeBookerdoesnotreward  "sandbaggers"whohoardtheirobjectionstohedgeagainstaresult p  nottotheirliking.Therewasnogameplayingwitharuleoflaw !l" notyetknown.n #  4       "$  ` b.Adminstrativeburden   ` Theadministrativeburdensofincreasedremandsfor \ sentencing(alikelyresultofthepresumptionofprejudice X approach),whilenotinsubstantial,wouldcertainlybemanageable,   giventhelimiteduniverseofcasesatissueandtherelativelylow `  costofcorrectingerrorsinsentencing.Forexample,theSecond  \  Circuitestimatedthat,whenBookerwasdecided,ithadabout200   casespendingondirectreviewwithsentencesthatmightbe d  erroneousundertheSupremeCourt'snewteaching: `  Manyofthesewilllikelyberemanded....Someof   theremandswilllikelyresultinresentencing.Wedo  notregardthatprospectasanundueburdenontheproper h functioningofthecriminaljusticesysteminthefederal > courtsofthisCircuit.Onthecontrary,weconsiderit d farpreferabletoleavingsomemateriallyerroneous : sentencesinplacesimplybecausewecannotguesswhat  sentencingjudgeswouldhavedone.  UnitedStatesv.Williams,No.042882,2005WL425212,at*8(2d 2 Cir.Feb.4,2005).Thesecasesareaclosedset.Assoonasthe . SupremeCourtissueditsopinioninBooker,districtcourtsknewto   stopsentencingdefendantsundermandatoryguidelines,thus 6   ensuringthatnomorecaseswillbetaintedwithBookererror.  2   ` Besidesthesimplenumbersinvolved,wemustconsider   thatresentencingincasesstillpendingondirectreviewdoesnot :  underminethejudicialsystem'shighstakesinfinality.By 6 definition,thecasesweaddressherearenotfinal.Moreover,  resentencingdoesnotposetheburdenofanewtrial,withits > considerablecostsintime,money,andotherresources.Asthe : SecondCircuitobservedinWilliams,"thecostofcorrectinga  sentencingerrorisfarlessthanthecostofaretrial.A B resentencingisabriefevent,normallytakinglessthanadayand > requiringtheattendanceofonlythedefendant,counsel,andcourt  personnel."Williams,2005WL425212,at*8.Givenwhatisat F ! stakeinsentencingdecisionsthepotentialforadditionalmonths !B# orevenyearsinprisonIbelievethattheincreased #% administrativeburdensareatolerablepricetopay. J% '  ` c.Possibilityofrebuttal &F")  ` Apresumptionofprejudicestillpermitsrebuttalbythe (#+ government,asBarnettacknowledges.2005WL357015,at*12. N*%- Thus,therewouldbenoautomaticremands,whetherbasedonthe +J'/ presenceofjudgefoundfactsandtheuseofmandatoryguidelines  oronthesimplefactthatmandatoryguidelineswereusedasthe \ basisforsentencingafterajurysfindingsoradefendants X admissions.Similarly,thisapproachalsoavoidstreatingBooker   errorasastructuralerrorthat"undermin[es]thefairnessofa `  criminalproceedingasawhole."DominguezBenitez,124S.Ct.at  \  2339;seealsoOlano,507U.S.at735;Arizonav.Fulminante,499   U.S.279,30910(1991)(providingexamplesofstructuralerror). d  Asincasesofpreservederrorthatwereviewforharmlessness,the `  governmentwillbeabletoarguetheabsenceofprejudicebasedon   theentiretyoftheexistingrecord. h  ` Indeed,thiscaseprovidesanaptexampleofthat d prospect.Here,Serranofacedastatutorymandatoryminimumof60  months'imprisonment.Aftertakingintoaccounthisroleinthe l offenseandhiscriminalhistory,theguidelinesrequired(now, h advise)asentencewithintherangeof63to78months,leaving  littleroomformodificationbetweenthemandatoryminimumofthe p  statuteandtheguidelinesminimum.ThejudgesentencedSerranoto !l" 63months.Evennow,thedistrictcourt"mustconsultthose "$ Guidelinesandtakethemintoaccountwhensentencing."Booker, t$& 125S.Ct.at767.Thecourtcouldhavesentencedhimbelowthe63  &p!( monthsoftheguidelinesonlybytotallyignoringthesentencing '#*  factorsthatitisstillrequiredtoconsider.Thus,the x)$, governmentcouldshowthatSerranowasnotharmedbythemandatory  natureoftheguidelines. \     @` 5.Conclusion  X : ` ApplyingapresumptionofprejudiceincasesofBooker   errorwouldnotbeaninnovation.AsBarnettexplains,theconcept |  iswellgroundedinOlanoandothercircuitdecisionsinavariety ( x  ofcontexts.Hence,thisapproachremainsfaithfultoBooker's $  directivetotheappellatecourtstoreviewunpreservedclaimsfor   plainerror;itavoidsautomaticremands;anditrespondsfairlyto ,|  theuniqueproblemsleftinBooker'swake.