FILED U.S. COURT OF AP P EALS E LEVEN T HC IRC U IT March 21, 2008 THOMAS K. KAH

N CLERK [ DO NO T P UB L I S H] I N THE UN I TE D STATE S C OU RT OF APPE ALS F O R T H E E L E V E N T H C IR C U IT

________________________ N o. 07- 11967 N on -A rgum entC al endar

________________________ D. C . Do c k e tNo . 0 6 - 0 0 1 8 7 - C R - OR L - 3 1 - J GG U N I T E D S T A T E S O F A M E R I C A , P la in tif f - A p p e lle e , v ersu s E D D I E J E R A L D B R O O K S , a .k .a . R o d , C H A R L E S C L A R E N C E B R O O K S , D e f e n d a n ts - A p p e lla n ts .

________________________ A pp ea l s f

rom the U ni t ed S t at es D i stri ctC ou rt f orthe M i ddl e D i s tr i c tof F l or i da

_________________________ ( M ar c h 21, 2008) B efo re B IR C H , D U B IN A an d B L A C K , C i rcu i tJu d g es. P E R C U R I A M:2

C h a r le s B r o o k s ap p e a ls h is c o n v ic tio n s a n d s e n te n c e s f o r : ( 1 ) c o n s p ir a c y to po ss es s w i th i nt entt o d i stri bu t e 50 g ra m s or m ore of c ra ck cocai ne (C ou ntI) ; ( 2) pos s e s s i on w i th i nt e ntt o di s tr i but e c r a c k c oc a i ne on J a nua ry 13, 2006 ( C ount I V ) ; a nd ( 3) pos s e s s i on w i th i nt e ntt o di s tr i but e 5 gr a m s orm or e of c r a c k c oc a i ne o n J a n u a ry 2 4 , 2 0 0 6 ( C o u n t V ) . C h a r le s ’s s o n , E d d ie B r o o k s , ap p e a ls h is c o n v ic tio n s a n d s e n te n c e s f o r : ( 1 ) c o n s p ir a c y to p o s s e s s w ith in te n t to d is tr ib u te 5 0 g r a m s o rm o r e o f

c r a c k c o c a in e ( C o u n t I ) ; ( 2 ) p o s s e s s io n w ith in te n t to d is tr ib u te c r a c k c o c a in e o n J a n u a ry 1 3 , 2 0 0 6 ( C o u n t I V ) ; a n d ( 3 ) p o s s e s s io n w ith i nt entt o d i stri bu t e c ra ck cocai ne on F ebruary3, 20 06 (C ou ntV II ). C ha r l e s a nd E d d ie e a c h a s s e r t th r e e is s u e s o n ap p e a l, a n d E d d ie a d o p ts C h a r le s ’s is s u e s . W e a ddr e s s e a c h of

the i s s ue s on appe a l i n turn, a nd a f f i rm the i rc onvi c t i ons a nd sen t en ces. I. B oth C ha r l e s a nd E ddi e a s s e r tthe di s tr i c tc our tabus e d i t s di s c r e t i on by not gr a nt i ng C ha r l e s ’ s m ot i ons t o s e ve r . C ha r l e s c ont e nds the di s tr i c tc our te rr e d by n o tg ran t i n g h i s m o t i o n s fo r rel i ef fro m p rej u d i ci al j o i n d er. A cco rd i n g t o C h arl es, the di stri ctcourtadm i tt ed se vera l pi ec es of evi dence, adm i ss i bl e a gai nstE dd i e, tha tdi d notne c e s s a r i l y r e l a t e t o C ha r l e s a nd tha tw e r e hi ghl y pr e j udi c i a l , i nc l udi ng E d d ie’s testim o n y r eg ar d in g th e f irea rm s th at w er e f

o u n d in E d d ie’s an d C h ar les’s3

M a the r s S tr e e thous e pr i ort o the s t a r tof the c ons pi r a c y . F i na l l y , C ha r l e s c ont e nds th e ju ry ’s s p lit v e r d ic t d e m o n s tr a te s its la c ko f c o n f id e n c e in th e e v id e n c e . E d d ie a d o p te d th is a r g u m e n t in h is b r ie f .

“ W e r e vi e w adi s tr i c tc our t ’ s rul i ng on as e ve r a nc e m ot i on onl y f orabus e of di sc re t i on . ” U

n i ted S ta tes v. Ken n a rd , 4 7 2 F .3 d 8 5 1 , 8 5 9 ( 1 1 th C ir . 2 0 0 6 ) , c e r t. deni ed , 12 7 S . C t . 30 04 (200 7). In order “ [t ] o revers e aconv i ct i on because of a n i m pr ope rde ni a l of

as e ve r a nc e , ade f

e nda ntm us tc a rry the ‘ he a vy bur de n’ of d e m o n s tr a tin g th a t h e ‘s u f f e r e d c o m p e llin g p r e

ju d ic e ’ a n d r e c e iv e d a n u n f a irtr ia l.” I d. a t 8 5 8 - 5 9 .

“ T he pe rm i s s i bi l i ty of

j oi nttr i a l s i s gove rne d by R ul e s 8 a nd 14 of the F eder al R ul es of C ri m i nal P roce du re . ” U n ite d S ta te s v . B la n ke n s h ip , 382 F . 3d 11 10 , 11 20 (11th C i r. 20 04 ). P ursuantt o R ul e 8(b): T h e in d ic tm e n t o rin f

o rm a tio n m a y c h a r g e 2 o rm o r e d e f e n d a n ts if the y a r e a l l e ge d t o ha ve pa r t i c i pa t e d i n the s a m e a c tortr a ns a c t i on, or i n the s a m e s e r i e s of

a c t s ortr a ns a c t i ons , c ons t i tut i ng a n of f e ns e or o f f e n s e s . T h e d e f

e n d a n ts m a y b e c h a r g e d in o n e o rm o r e c o u n ts t og ether or s epar at el y. A l l defe nd ant s nee d n otbe charged i n eac h c o u n t. F e d. R . C r i m . P . 8( b) . R ul e 14( a ) pr ovi de s : “ I f the j oi nde rof

of f e ns e s or d e f e n d a n ts in a n in d ic tm e n t, a n in f o rm a tio n , o rac o n s o lid a tio n f o rtr ia l ap p e a r s to p r e ju d ic e ad e f

e n d a n t o rth e g o v e rn m e n t, th e c o u r t m ay or de rs e pa r a t e tr i a l s of4

coun t s, se ver the defendant s’ tri al s, or prov i de any other r el i ef thatj ust i ce re qu i re s. ” F ed. R . C ri m . P . 14 (a ) ( em ph as i s a dd ed). In general , defe nd ant s w ho ar e j oi nt l y i nd i ct ed, part i cul ar l y i n con spi ra cy c a s e s , s h o u ld b e tr ie d to g e th e r . U ni ted States v. B aker , 4 3 2 F .3 d 1 1 8 9 , 1 2 3 6 ( 1 1 th C i r. 20 05 ). H ow ever , “ [s ] ever ance m aybe grant ed atthe di sc re t i on of the di stri ct courti f the courtdet erm i nes thatprej ud i ce w i l l re sul tfr om the j oi nd er . ” I d. “ [ A] di s tr i c tc our tm us tba l a nc e the r i ghtof the de f e nda ntt o af

a i rtr i a l a ga i ns tthe pu bl i c’ s i nt er es ti n eff

i ci entand econo m i c a dm i ni stra t i on of j ust i ce . ” I d. I n Zaf i ro v. U ni ted Stat es , 11 3 S . C t . 93 3 (19 93 ), the S up re m e C ou rt e s t abl i s he d atw o- pa r tt e s tf orde t e rm i ni ng w he the rthe de f e nda nti s e nt i t l e d t o a n e w tr ia l. B la n ke n s h ip , 3 8 2 F .3 d a t 1 1 2 2 . “F ir s t, ad e f e n d a n t m u s t d e m o n s tr a te thathe w as som ehow prej ud i ce d b y aj oi nttri al . ” I d. “ T hi s i s done by s how i ng thatthe j ury w as un abl e t o m ake a n i nd i vi du al i ze d g ui l tdet erm i nat i on for e ac h defe nd ant . ” U

n ite d S ta te s v . Fr a n c is , 1 3 1 F .3 d 1 4 5 2 , 1 4 5 9 ( 1 1 th C ir . 1 9 9 7 ) .

“ ‘ T hi s i s ahe a vy bur de n, a nd one w hi c h m e r e c onc l us ory a l l e ga t i ons c a nnot ca rry. ’ ” I

d. (c i t at i on om i tt ed). “ ‘ [C ] aut i on ary i nstruct i on s t o the j ury t o con si der the evi dence s epar at el y a re pres um ed t o g uard adequat el y a gai nstprej ud i ce . ’ ” I d. (c i t at i on om i tt ed). Im po rt ant l y, “ a def endantdo es no tsuff

er‘ com pel l i ng prej ud i ce s im p ly b e c a u s e m u c h o f th e e v id e n c e a t tr ia l is ap p lic ab le o n ly to h is5

codefendant s, ’ . . . even w hen the di spar i ty i s ‘ enorm ou s. ’ ” B aker , 43 2 F . 3d at 12 36 (c i t at i on s om i tt ed). “ A ft erfi nd i ng thata def endanthas s uffe re d p re

j ud i ce un der s t ep on e of the Za f i ro t e s t , w e the n turn t o the s e c ond s t e p–de t e rm i ni ng w hether s ever ance . . . i s the prop erre m edy f or thatprej ud i ce . ” B la n ke n s h ip , 382 F .3 d a t 1 1 2 2 . T he di s tr i c tc our tdi d notabus e i t s di s c r e t i on by de ny i ng C ha r l e s ’ s a nd E ddi e ’ s m ot i ons t o s e ve r . B oth C ha r l e s a nd E ddi e w e r e j oi nt l y i ndi c t e d f orthe sa m e c on spi ra cy . B ec ause a j oi nttri al i s gener al l y app ropri at e i n such a cas e, C harl es and E dd i e bore the “ heavy burden” of dem on stra t i ng thatse vera nce w as no nethel es s app ropri at e bec ause he “ suff er ed com pel l i ng prej ud i ce and rece i ved an un fa i r tri al . ” See Ken n a rd , 4 7 2 F .3 d a t 8 5 8 - 5 9 ; B aker , 43 2 F . 3d at12 36 . C harl es cl ai m s asi gn i fi ca ntpo rt i on of the evi dence pres ent ed by the G ov ernm entw as hi gh l y pre

j ud i ci al and m ai nl y i m pl i ca t ed E dd i e a nd no thi m . H ow ever , C harl es ca nn otdem on stra t e c om pel l i ng prej ud i ce by cl ai m i ng the evi dence used attri al w a s o n ly ap p lic ab le a g a in s t E d d ie . See B aker , 4 3 2 F .3 d a t 1 2 3 6 . F u r th e r , th e b u lk o f th e ev i d en ce t o w h i ch C h arl es co m p l ai n s w as rel ev an tan d ad m i ssi b l e ag ai n st hi m t o d em on stra t e the exi st ence and scope of the conspi ra cyand p rove the fi re arm c h a r g e s in C o u n t V I I I o f th e in d ic tm e n t.6

C ha r l e s a l s o c ont e nds he w a s pr e j udi c e d by E ddi e ’ s t e s t i m ony , a s w e l l a s the G ov ernm ent ’ s r ebut t al evi dence, w hi ch concerned w eapo ns foun d i n the M athers S tr e e th o u s e p r i o rt o th e c o n s p i r a c y ’ s s t a r td a t e . Ho we v e r , C h a r l e s h a s n o ts h o wn he suff er ed com pel l i ng prej ud i ce w i th regar d t o thatevi dence because the j ury a c q u itte d C h a r le s o f

th e c h a r g e r e la tin g to th e f ir e a rm s . See Fr a n c is , 13 1 F . 3d at 1 4 5 9 . I n a d d itio n , a lth o u g h E d d ie a d o p te d th is a r g u m e n t in h is b r ie f , h is w h o le s a le a d o p tio n o f

th e s e a r g u m e n ts , m a n y o f w h ic h w e r e p a r tic u la rto C h a r le s , f a ils to m ee tE dd i e’ s burden o f dem on stra t i ng thathe t oo suff er ed com pel l i ng prej ud i ce and rece i ved an u nfai r tri al . T hu s, because nei ther C harl es no r E dd i e has d em o n strat ed th ey su ffered co m p el l i n g p rej u d i ce, th ey h av e fai l ed t o p ass th e fi rst st ep of the Za

f i ro te s t, a n d w e n e e d n o t g o to th e s e c o n d s te p . See B la n ke n s h ip , 3 8 2 F .3 d a t 1 1 2 2 . C o n s e q u e n tly , th e d is tr ic t c o u r t d id n o t ab u s e its d is c r e tio n . II . C harl es nextar gu es the cum ul at i ve ef fe ctof the di stri ctcourt ’ s e vi dent i ary e rr o r s a n d th e d e n ia l o f

h is m o tio n s to s e v e rr e n d e r e d h is tr ia l f u n d a m e n ta lly unf a i r . C ha r l e s a s s e r t s he w a s pr e j udi c e d by the a dm i s s i on of s e ve r a l pi e c e s of e v id e n c e a n d te s tim o n y , a n d h e a ls o c o n te n d s th e d is tr ic t c o u r t e rr e d w h e n it a l l ow e d the e xpe r tt e s t i m ony of D E A A ge ntB a e r . C ha r l e s c ont e nds a l though the c onf i de nt i a l i nf

orm a nt“ L l oy d” ne ve rm e nt i one d tha the pur c ha s e d c r a c k c oc a i ne7

fr om C harl es or E dd i e pri or t o N ov em ber 200 5, L l oyd d i d t es t i fythathe pu rc hase d the c r a c k c oc a i ne f

r om “ E a u G a l l i e , ” a nd he t e s t i f i e d tha t“ E a u G a l l i e ” w a s the hom e of both C ha r l e s a nd E ddi e . I n a ddi t i on, a c c or di ng t o C ha r l e s , c oc ons pi r a t or Ja sperR i l es “ gave the i m pres si on ” thathe pu rc hase d cra ck cocai ne fr om C harl es p r io rto N o v e m b e r2 0 0 5 , e v e n th o u g h h e n e v e rm e n tio n e d as p e c if ic tim e p e r io d . E d d ie a d o p te d th is a r g u m e n t in h is b r ie f . A d is tr ic t c o u r t’s e v id e n tia ry ru lin g s a r e r e v ie w e d f o rab u s e o f

d is c r e tio n . B aker , 432 F . 3d a t1202. I n a ddi t i on, “ [ w ] e r e vi e w f orabus e of

di s c r e t i on the di s tr i c tc our t ’ s de c i s i ons r e ga r di ng the a dm i s s i bi l i ty of e xpe r tt e s t i m ony a nd the re l i abi l i ty of a n exp ertop i ni on . ” U ni ted Stat es v. Frazi er , 387 F . 3d 1244, 1258 (11th C i r. 20 04 ). “ T he cum ul at i ve i m pactof m ul t i pl e e vi dent i ary a nd i nstruct i on al e rr or s a r e r e vi e w e d de no vo , a l though s om e of the e rr or s m i ghti ndi vi dua l l y be re vi ew ed for pl ai n err or. ” U ni te d State s v . D ohan , 50 8 F . 3d 98 9, 99 3 (11 th C i r. 2 0 0 7 ) .A s di s c us s e d above , the di s tr i c tc our tdi d notabus e i t s di s c r e t i on by f a i l i ng to g ra n t eith erC h ar les’s o r E d d ie’s m o ti o n s to se v er . A sid e f ro m A g en t B ae r’s e x p e r tt e s t i mo n y , Ch a r l e s c o mp l a i n s o f tw o c a t e g o r i e s o f

e v i d e n c e th a th e c l a i ms w e r e i m pr ope r l y a dm i tt e d: ( 1) e vi de nc e tha tc r a c k c oc a i ne a nd w e apons w e r e be i ng s ol d a tthe M a the r s S tr e e thous e dur i ng the c our s e of the c ons pi r a c y ; a nd8

(2) e vi dence thatcr ac k cocai ne and w eapo ns w er e bei ng sol d atthe M athers S tre et h o u s e p r i o rt o th e s t a r to f th e c o n s p i r a c y . B e c a u s e , a s d i s c u s s e d b e l o w, we concl ud e the di stri ctcourtdi d n otabuse i t s di sc re t i on by adm i tt i ng the evi dence aboutw hi c h C ha r l e s c om pl a i ns , w e a l s o c onc l ude the r e w a s no c um ul a t i ve e rr or th a t r e n d e r e d C h a r le s ’s o rE d d ie ’s tr ia l f u n d a m e n ta lly u n f

a ir . A . E v i de nt i ar

y r ul i ngs R ul e 404( b) pr ovi de s “ [ e ] vi de nc e of othe rc r i m e s , w r ongs , ora c t s i s not a d m is s ib le to p r o v e th e c h a r a c te ro f ap e r s o n in o r d e rto s h o w a c tio n in c o n f o rm ity th e r e w ith .” F e d . R . E v id . 4 0 4 ( b ) . S u c h e v id e n c e “m a y , h o w e v e r , b e a d m is s ib le f orothe rpurpos e s , s uc h a s pr oof of m ot i ve , oppor tuni ty , i nt e nt , pr e pa r a t i on, pl a n, kn ow l edge, i dent i ty, or abse nce of m i st ake or ac ci dent . ” I d. F o re v id e n c e o f

o th e rc r im e s o ra c ts to b e a d m is s ib le u n d e rR u le 4 0 4 (b ), (1 ) it m u st b e r elev an t t o an issu e o th erth an d ef en d an t’ s c ha r a c t e r ; ( 2) the r e m us tbe s uf f i c i e ntpr oof

t o e nabl e aj uryt o f

i nd by apr e ponde r a nc e of

the e vi de nc e tha tthe de f e nda ntc om m i tt e d the a c t ( s ) i n que s t i on; a nd ( 3) the pr oba t i ve va l ue of the e vi de nc e c a nnot be subst ant i al l y outw ei gh ed by un du e pre j ud i ce , and the evi dence m u s t s a tis f

y R u le 4 0 3 . B u tev i d en ce o f cri m i n al act i v i ty o th er th an th e ch arg ed o ffen se i s not e xtr i ns i c unde rR ul e 404( b) , a nd thus f a l l s out s i de the s c ope of the Ru l e , w h e n i ti s ( 1 ) a n u n c h a r g e d o f f e n s e w h i c h a r o s e o u to f th e s a me tr a n s a c tio n o rs e r ie s o f

tr a n s a c tio n s a s th e c h a r g e d o f f e n s e , ( 2 ) n e c e s s a ry to com pl et e the st ory of the cr i m e, or (3) i nextri cabl y i nt ertw i ned w i th the evi dence r e g a r d in g th e c h a r g e d o f f e n s e .9

U n i ted S ta tes v. E do u a rd , 485 F . 3d 1324, 1344 ( 11th C i r . 2007) ( quot a t i ons om i tt e d) . “ A de f

e nda ntw ho e nt e r s anotgui l ty pl e am a ke s i nt e ntam a t e r i a l i s s ue w h ic h im p o s e s as u b s ta n tia l b u r d e n o n th e g o v e rn m e n t to p r o v e in te n t, w h ic h it m a y pr ove by qua l i f

y i ng R ul e 404( b) e vi de nc e abs e nta f f i rm a t i ve s t e ps by the defe nd antt o rem ov e i nt entas an i ss ue. ” U n ite d S ta te s v . Za

p a ta , 139 F . 3d 1355, 1 3 5 8 ( 1 1 th C ir . 1 9 9 8 ) . 1. E v i de nc e of

Cr ac k C oc ai ne and F i r e arm T r ans ac t i ons D ur i ng the C ou rs e of

the C on spi racy T he i ndi c tm e nta l l e ge d tha tbe gi nni ng “ on oraboutN ove m be r18, 2005, a nd cont i nu i ng throu gh on or abou tF ebruary3, 20 06 , ” C harl es and E dd i e c on spi re d w i th R i l es t o d i stri bu t e a nd po ss es s c ra ck cocai ne. T he i nd i ctm ental so char ged thatbo th E dd i e a nd C harl es po ss es se d a fi re arm i n furthera nce of the conspi ra cy char ges i n C ou ntI. T hu s, the evi dence thatC harl es i dent i fi es i n h i s bri ef c onc e rni ng drug a nd f

i r e a rm tr a ns a c t i ons tha toc c urr e d dur i ng the c our s e of the conspi ra cyw as no t“ [e ] vi dence of other c ri m es , w rong s, or ac t s, ” a nd the di stri ct c o u r t d id n o t ab u s e its d is c r e tio n in a d m ittin g th e e v id e n c e . 2. E v i de nc e of

Cr ac k C oc ai ne and F i r e arm T r ans ac t i ons P r i orto the Start of the C on spi racy T he di s tr i c tc our tdi d notabus e i t s di s c r e t i on by a dm i tt i ng L l oy d’ s t e s t i m ony r e ga r di ng pur c ha s i ng drugs f r om “ E a u G a l l i e , ” w hi c h he i de nt i f i e d a s E ddi e a nd10

C h a r le s ’s h o m e d u r in g 2 0 0 4 a n d 2 0 0 5 . L lo y d ’s te s tim o n y w a s n o t e x tr in s ic to ei ther E dd i e or C harl es because i tw as nece ss ary t o com pl et e the st ory of the cr i m e, the t e s t i m ony w a s pr oba t i ve t o e s t abl i s h L l oy d’ s hi s t ory of pur c ha s i ng drugs , a nd th e te s tim o n y w a s n o t s u b s ta n tia lly o u tw e ig h e d b y th e d a n g e ro f u n f a irp r e ju d ic e . See E do u a rd , 4 8 5 F .3 d a t 1 3 4 4 . T h e d istrict co u rt also d idn o t ab u se it s d iscr etio n b y a d m itti n g L lo yd ’s te s tim o n y r e g a r d in g p u r c h a s in g f ir e a rm s f r o m C h a r le s a n d h a v in g b e e n in C ha r l e s ’ s be dr oom on pr i oroc c a s i ons f orthe purpos e of

obt a i ni ng f

i r e a rm s a nd c o c a in e . L lo y d ’s te s tim o n y w a s n o t e x tr in s ic e v id e n c e b e c a u s e it w a s b o th ne c e s s a ry t o c om pl e t e the s t ory of the c r i m e a nd i ne xtr i c abl y i nt e r tw i ne d w i th the e vi de nc e r e ga r di ng the c ons pi r a c y a nd the f i r e a rm c ha r ge s tha toc c urr e d dur i ng the c o u r s e o f th e c o n s p ir a c y . Se e i d. F u rth er , th e d istrict co u rt d idn o t ab u se it s d iscr etio n b y a d m itti n g R il es ’s testim o n y r eg ar d in g o b tain in g cr ac kco ca in e f ro m C h ar les p rio r to th e c o n sp irac y’s s ta r t d a te b e c a u s e ( 1 ) C h a r le s p la c e d h is in te n t a t is s u e , ( 2 ) C h a r le s f a ile d to pr e s e nta ny e vi de nc e t o r e butR i l e s ’ s t e s t i m ony , a nd, the r e f or e , aj ury c oul d ha ve f ound by apr e ponde r a nc e of the e vi de nc e tha the c om m i tt e d the e xtr i ns i c a c t , a nd ( 3) the pr oba t i ve va l ue of the e vi de nc e w a s nots ubs t a nt i a l l y outw e i ghe d by undue p r e ju d ic e . Se e Za

p a ta , 1 3 9 F .3 d a t 1 3 5 8 .11

B . E x pe r t te s t i m ony F ed eral R u l e o f E v i d en ce 7 0 2 p ro v i d es: I f s c i e nt i f i c , t e c hni c a l , orothe rs pe c i a l i z e d know l e dge w i l l a s s i s tthe tri erof fa ctt o u nd er st and the evi dence or t o d et erm i ne a f ac ti n i ss ue, a w i tness qu al i fi ed as an expertby kn ow l edge, ski l l , experi ence , tr a i ni ng, ore duc a t i on, m a y t e s t i f y the r e t o i n the f

orm of a n opi ni on or otherw i se , i f ( 1) the t es t i m on y i s bas ed up on suff i ci entfa ct s or dat a, (2 ) th e t est i m o n y i s th e p ro d u cto f rel i ab l e p ri n ci p l es an d m eth o d s, a n d ( 3 ) th e w itn e s s h a s ap p lie d th e p r in c ip le s a n d m e th o d s r e liab ly to the fa ct s of the ca se . F e d. R . E vi d. 702. “ ‘ T he ope r a t i ons of na r c ot i c s de a l e r s a r e apr ope rs ubj e c tf or expertt es t i m on y und erR ul e 702 . ’ ” U n ite d S ta te s v . G a r c ia , 447 F . 3d 1327, 1335 ( 11th C i r . 2006) ( c i t a t i on om i tt e d) . F ur the r , w e ha ve “ r e c ogni z e d the

‘ w el l -e st abl i shed’ ‘ rul e’ that‘ an experi ence d n ar cot i cs agent ’ m ayt es t i fyas an e xpe r tt o he l p aj ury unde r s t a nd ‘ the s i gni f i c a nc e of c e r t a i n c onduc torm e thods of op er at i on un i qu e t o the drug di stri bu t i on bu si ness . ’ ” I d. ( c ita tio n o m itte d ) . M oreover, w e have “ af

fi rm ed the adm i ss i on un der R ul e 702 of the expert t es t i m on y of apo l i ce offi ce r i nt erpret i ng ‘ drug codes a nd j ar go n. ’ ” I d. ( c i t a t i ons om i tt ed). T h e d is tr ic t c o u r t d id n o t ab u s e its d is c r e tio n b y p e rm ittin g A g e n t B a e rto t e s t i f y a s a n e xpe r tw i tne s s . A ge ntB a e rw a s a n “ e xpe r i e nc e d na r c ot i c s a ge nt , ” a nd hi s t e s t i m ony c oul d ha ve he l pe d the j ury unde r s t a nd the e vi de nc e . F ur the r , A ge nt B a e r ’s te s tim o n yw a s p r o b a tiv e b e c a u s e it w a s th e typ e o f te s tim o n y th a t c o u ld12

he l p the j ury unde r s t a nd “ the s i gni f i c a nc e of c e r t a i n c onduc torm e thods of op er at i on un i qu e t o the drug di stri bu t i on bu si ness . ” Se e i d. II I. C harl es ’ s f

i nal ar gu m enti s thatm andat ory m i ni m um se nt ence s a re unc ons t i tut i ona l w he n the y pr ovi de f ore xc e pt i ons tha tc a n onl y be appl i e d by m o tio n f r o m th e e x e c u tiv e b r a n c h . T h e r e f o r e , C h a r le s c o n te n d s 2 1 U .S .C . § 8 4 1 is un const i tut i on al and v i ol at es the do ctri ne of se para t i on of po w er s. C harl es st at es h e is “[ c ]o g n iz a n t o f

c u rr e n t p r e c e d e n t c o n tr a ry to h is p o s itio n ,” b u t w is h e s to p r e s e rv e th e is s u e f

o rf u r th e rr e v ie w . E d d ie a d o p te d th is is s u e in h is b r ie f . I n U ni ted Stat es v. H

olm es , w e he l d tha ts t a tut ory m a nda t ory m i ni m um s e nt e nc e s do notvi ol a t e the s e pa r a t i on of pow e r s doc tr i ne , s t a t i ng “ [ i ] ti s f or C ongr e s s t o s a y w ha ts ha l l be ac r i m e a nd how tha tc r i m e s ha l l be puni s he d. ” 838 F . 2d 1175, 1178 ( 11th C i r . 1988) ( c i t a t i on om i tt e d) . I n l i ghtof ourbi ndi ng p r e c e d e n t, th is a r g u m e n t is w ith o u t m e r it. I V. E ddi e a s s e r t s the di s tr i c tc our te rr e d by f a i l i ng t o gr a nthi s m ot i on f or j udgm e ntof

a c qui tt a l f

orthe c ons pi r a c y c ha r ge i n C ountI be c a us e the G ov ernm ent ’ s e vi dence s ho w ed on l y thatthere w as coca i ne i n the ho use thatw as oc c upi e d a tva r i ous t i m e by E ddi e a nd othe r s . A c c or di ng t o E ddi e , i n or de rf orthe13

j ury t o h ave c on cl ud ed thatthere w as a c on spi ra cyam on g h i m and the other d e f e n d a n ts , th e ju ry m u s t h a v e a s s u m e d f a c ts th a t w e r e n o t in e v id e n c e . We r e v i e w de no vo adi s tr i c tc our t ’ s de ni a l of j udgm e ntof

a c qui tt a l on s u f f ic ie n c y o f

e v id e n c e g r o u n d s . U

ni ted Stat es v. Y

at es , 438 F . 3d 1307, 1311- 12 (11th C i r. 20 06 ) ( en banc). In consi deri ng the suff i ci encyof the evi dence, w e vi ew a ll o f th e e v id e n c e “in th e lig h t m o s t f a v o r ab le to th e g o v e rn m e n t, w ith a ll i nfer ence s a nd cr edi bi l i ty c ho i ce s dra w n i n the go vernm ent ’ s f avor. ” U ni ted Stat es v . L e Cr oy , 441 F . 3d 914, 924 ( 11th C i r . 2006) . W e “ c a nnotr e ve r s e ac onvi c t i on for i nsuffi ci encyof the evi dence unl es s . . . w e c on cl ud e thatno re as on abl e j ury coul d fi nd proo f bey on d a re as on abl e dou bt . ” U ni ted Stat es v. Jones , 913 F . 2d 1552, 1557 ( 11th C i r . 1990) . I n a ddi t i on, a tl e a s tw he r e s om e c orr obor a t i ve e v id e n c e o f

g u ilt e x is ts f

o rth e c h a r g e d o f

f e n s e , “as ta te m e n t b y ad e f e n d a n t, if d i sb el i ev ed b y th e j u ry, m ay b e co n si d ered as substan t i ve ev i dence of the defe nd ant ’ s gui l t . ” U

n i te d S ta te s v . Br o wn , 53 F . 3d 312, 314 ( 11th C i r . 1995) ( e m pha s i s i n or i gi na l ) . “ T o be m or e s pe c i f i c , w e ha ve s a i d tha t , w he n ade f e nda nt c hoos e s t o t e s t i f

y , he runs the r i s k tha ti f di s be l i e ve d ‘ the j ury m i ghtc onc l ude the op po si t e of hi s t es t i m on y i s true. ’ ” I d. ( c ita tio n o m itte d ) . T o s uppor tac onvi c t i on f orc ons pi r a c y t o di s tr i but e c r a c k c oc a i ne , the gove rnm e ntm us te s t abl i s h ( 1) a n i l l e ga l a gr e e m e nte xi s t e d t o pos s e s s w i th the14

i nt e ntt o di s tr i but e c r a c k c oc a i ne , ( 2) the de f e nda ntkne w of

the a gr e e m e nt ; a nd ( 3 ) th e d e f

e n d a n t k n o w in g ly a n d v o lu n ta r ily jo in e d in th e a g r e e m e n t. See U ni ted Stat es v. Cha rles , 313 F . 3d 1278, 1284 ( 11th C i r . 2002) . F ur the r , “ [ b] e c a us e the c r im e o f c o n s p ir a c y is ‘p r e d o m in a n tly m e n ta l in c o m p o s itio n ,’ it is f r e q u e n tly nece ss ary t o res ortt o ci rc um st ant i al evi dence t o p rove i t s e l em ent s. ” U ni ted Stat es v. T ol er , 1 4 4 F .3 d 1 4 2 3 , 1 4 2 6 ( 1 1 th C ir . 1 9 9 8 ) ( c ita tio n s o m itte d ) . V i e w i ng the e vi de nc e i n the l i ghtm os tf a vor abl e t o the G ove rnm e nt , the ju ry ’s d e te rm in a tio n th a t E d d ie w a s g u ilty o f c o n s p ir a c y to p o s s e s s w ith in te n t to d is tr ib u te c r a c k c o c a in e is s u p p o r te d b y th e e v id e n c e . T h e ju ry r e a s o n ab ly c o u ld h av e fo u n d th ata co n sp i racy t o sel l crack co cai n e fro m th e M ath ers S treeth o u se exi st ed am on g C harl es , E dd i e, and R i l es because R i l es t es t i fi ed he ob t ai ned crac k co cai n e fro m C h arl es atth e M ath ers S treeth o u se, an d , o n th ree o r fo u r o ccasi o n s, R i l es sol d cra ck cocai ne ou tof the ho use on C harl es ’ s behal f. R i l es al so t es t i fi ed th ato th ers cam e t o th e M ath ers S treeth o u se t o b u y crack co cai n e fro m C h arl es. E ddi e pa r t i c i pa t e d i n c ons pi r a c y be c a us e : ( 1) L l oy d boughtc r a c k c oc a i ne f r om E ddi e on a tl e a s tthr e e s e pa r a t e oc c a s i ons ; ( 2) L l oy d boughtc r a c k c oc a i ne f r om both E ddi e a nd C ha r l e s on tw o oc c a s i ons ; a nd ( 3) R i l e s a c t e d a s al ookoutf or E dd i e duri ng the F ebruary3, 20 06 tra nsac t i on . R i l es al so t es t i fi ed he ob se rved E d d ie “c o o k in g ” c o c a in e a t th e M a th e r s S tr e e t h o u s e “af e w tim e s .” D e t.Af ter t hebrie fswerefi le d, Eddiefi le d a letter o f supplemental a

uth ority, pur su ant to 1 Fe d. R. App. P. 28(j). Acc ordingto Eddie, application of the cha ng es contained in Amendment 70 6 o f t he20 07 vers ion

of theGuide lin e s re sultsin a tw o- leve l re duc tio n o f his b a seof fens e level. Although Eddie might be elig ible for a reduc tion of his base off

ense level, this issue is not before us on this appeal as the district court ha s made no de cision on whether Eddie is or is not entitled to a re duction. 15 M er ca l do ’ s t es t i m on y thathe ob se rved nu m er ou s peopl e, i ncl ud i ng l ocal p ro stitu tes, fr eq u en t th e M ath er s S tree t h o u se , co rr o b o ra ted L lo yd ’s an d R il es ’s t es t i m on y thatthe ho use w as bei ng used by E dd i e, C harl es , and R i l es t o sel l cr ac k c oc a i ne . A l though E ddi e t e s t i f i e d he di d notl i ve a tthe M a the r s S tr e e thous e , a nd he de ni e d e ve rha vi ng c ooke d ors ol d c r a c k c oc a i ne , the j ury w a s f r e e t o di s be l i e ve h im a n d c o n s id e rh is te s tim o n y a s s u b s ta n tiv e e v id e n c e o f h is g u ilt. Se e Br o wn , 53 F .3 d a t 3 1 4 . T h u s , b a s e d o n th e e v id e n c e p r e s e n te d , aju ry c o u ld h a v e r e a s o n ab ly in f e rr e d th a t: ( 1 ) a n ille g a l a g r e e m e n t e x is te d to p o s s e s s w ith in te n t to d is tr ib u te c r a c k c oc a i ne : ( 2) E ddi e kne w of the a gr e e m e nt ; a nd ( 3) E ddi e know i ngl y a nd v o lu n ta r ily jo in e d in th e a g r e e m e n t. See Cha rles , 313 F . 3d a t1284. T he r e f or e , the di s tr i c tc our tdi d note rrby f a i l i ng t o gr a ntE ddi e ’ s m ot i on f orj udgm e ntof a c q u itta l. V . E ddi e c ont e nds the di s tr i c tc our te rr e d by hol di ng hi m r e s pons i bl e f or50 g r a m s o rm o r e o f

c r a c k c o c a in e b e c a u s e th e e v id e n c e s h o w e d h e w a s r e s p o n s ib le for onl y 35 t o 5 0 g ra m s of c ra ck cocai ne. 116

W e rev i ew a sen t en ci n g co u rt ’ s ap p l i cat i o n o f th e S en t en ci n g G u i d el i n es de no vo . U ni te d State s v . E dm onds , 3 4 8 F .3 d 9 5 0 , 9 5 2 - 5 3 ( 1 1 th C ir . 2 0 0 3 ) . W e r e v ie w ad is tr ic t c o u r t’s d ru g - q u a n tity d e te rm in a tio n f o rc le a re rr o r . U

ni ted Stat es v . Me r t i lus , 1 1 1 F .3 d 8 7 0 , 8 7 3 ( 1 1 th C ir . 1 9 9 7 ) . E d d ie ’s a s s e r tio n h e is r e s p o n s ib le f o rle s s th a n 5 0 g r a m s o f c r a c kc o c a in e is w i tho utm er i t . T he G ov ernm entpres ent ed evi dence attri al thatE dd i e w as r e s pons i bl e f

orm or e tha n 50 gr a m s of c oc a i ne , i nc l udi ng t e s t i m ony f r om pe r s ons w h o b o u g h tcrack co cai n e, th e crack co cai n e i t sel f, t ap e reco rd i n g s o f d ru g sal es, a n d e x p e r tt e s t i m o n y e s t ab l i s h i n g th e n a tu r e a n d we i g h to f th e c r a c kc o c a i n e . As p a r t o f its v e r d ic t d e te rm in a tio n , th e ju ry s p e c if ic a lly f o u n d b e y o n d ar e a s o n ab le do ub tthat50 gram s or m ore of c ra ck cocai ne w er e i nv ol ved i n the conspi ra cy o f f e n s e f o rw h ic h th e y f

o u n d E d d ie g u ilty . T h u s , th e d is tr ic t c o u r t d id n o t c le a r ly e rri n f i ndi ng hi m r e s pons i bl e f orm or e tha n 50 gr a m s of c r a c k c oc a i ne f

or p u rp o s e s o f

s e n te n c in g . V I. F i nal l y, E dd i e c on t ends the di stri ctcourterre d b y e nh anci ng hi s s ent ence u n d e rU . S. S. G . § 2 D 1 . 1 ( b ) ( 1 ) b e c a u s e th e j u ry a c q u i tt e dh i m o f th e 1 8 U . S. C. § 9 2 4 ( c ) ( 1 ) c h a r g e s c o n ta in e d in C o u n ts V I I I a n d I X .17

“ W e r e vi e w the di s tr i c tc our t ’ s f i ndi ngs of

f a c tunde rU . S . S . G . § 2D 1. 1( b) ( 1) f o rc le a re rr o r , a n d th e ap p lic a tio n o f th e S e n te n c in g G u id e lin e s to th o s e f a c ts de no vo . ” U

n ite d S ta te s v . G a llo , 1 9 5 F .3 d 1 2 7 8 , 1 2 8 0 ( 1 1 th C ir . 1 9 9 9 ) .

“ P osse ss i on of a f

i re arm for s ent enci ng pu rposes i s afa ctual fi nd i ng . ” U ni ted S ta tes v. G ef

f ra rd , 8 7 F .3 d 4 4 8 , 4 5 2 ( 1 1 th C ir . 1 9 9 6 ) . A defe nd ant ’ s off

ense l evel shou l d b e i ncre as ed by tw o l evel s “ [i ] f a d a n g e r o u s w e ap o n ( in c lu d in g af ir e a rm ) w a s p o s s e s s e d .” U .S .S .G . § 2 D 1 .1 ( b ) ( 1 ) . “T h e a d ju s tm e n t s h o u ld b e ap p lie d if th e w e ap o n w a s p r e s e n t, u n le s s it is c le a r ly i m pr obabl e tha tthe w e apon w a s c onne c t e d w i th the of f e ns e . ” U . S . S . G . § 2D 1. 1, c o m m e n t. ( n .3 ) . “T h e g o v e rn m e n t h a s th e b u r d e n u n d e r§ 2 D 1 .1 to d e m o n s tr a te the prox i m i ty of the fi re arm t o the si t e of the charged offe nse by aprepon dera nce of the evi dence. ” U

n ite d S ta te s v . A u da in , 2 5 4 F .3 d 1 2 8 6 , 1 2 8 9 ( 1 1 th C ir . 2 0 0 1 ) . T he gove rnm e ntne e d notpr ove tha tthe f i r e a rm w a s us e d t o f

a c i l i t a t e the d is tr ib u tio n o f

d ru g s . I d. “ If the go vernm enti s s ucce ss ful , the evi dent i ary burden s hi f t s t o the de f

e nda ntt o de m ons tr a t e tha tac onne c t i on be tw e e n the w e apon a nd the offens e w as ‘ cl ea rl y i m prob abl e. ’ ” I d. “ R e l e va ntc onduc tof w hi c h ade f

e nda nt w a s a c qui tt e d . . . m a y be t a ke n i nt o a c c ounti n s e nt e nc i ng f orthe of f e ns e of c onvi c t i on, a s l ong a s the gove rnm e ntpr ove s the a c qui tt e d c onduc tr e l i e d upon by18

a pre po nd er ance of the evi dence. ” U ni te d State s v . B ar akat , 130 F . 3d 1448, 1452 ( 1 1 th C ir . 1 9 9 7 ) . E dd i e’ s a rgum entthe fi re arm enhancem enti s i napp l i cabl e bec ause the j ury a c q u itte d h im o f

th e § 9 2 4 ( c ) c h a r g e s is w ith o u t m e r it. T h e G o v e rn m e n t w a s o n ly re qu i re d t o d em on stra t e by aprepon dera nce of the evi dence thatthe fi re arm w as p r e s e n t d u r in g th e d ru g tr a n s a c tio n . See A u da in , 25 4 F . 3d at12 89 . L l oyd t es t i fi ed attri al thatE dd i e usual l y c arri ed a gun i n h i s pocket , and h e bel i eved E dd i e w as carryi n g a g u n i n h i s fro n tp o ck etd u ri n g th e F eb ru ary 3 , 2 0 0 6 , tran sact i o n b ecau se L l oy d s a w abul ge i n E ddi e ’ s f r ontpoc ke t . L l oy d m a de ac ontr ol l e d pur c ha s e of cr ac k cocai ne fr om E dd i e thatday usi ng $1 , 90 0 w orth o f bi l l s thatw er e provi ded by D e t . M e r c a l do. D e t . M e r c a l do t e s t i f i e d the bi l l s w e r e phot oc opi e d pr i ort o the tr a ns a c t i on. E ddi e w a s a rr e s t e d s hor t l y a f t e rthe tr a ns a c t i on, a nd he w a s f ound w ith alo a d e d f

ir e a rm in h is p o c k e t a n d $ 1 ,9 0 0 w o r th o f b ills in h is h a n d . A c c or di ng t o D e t . M e r c a l do, the s e r i a l num be r s f r om the bi l l s E ddi e w a s hol di ng m at ched tho se i n the ph ot ocop i es . T hu s, because the G ov ernm entm eti t s burden of s how i ng by apr e ponde r a nc e of the e vi de nc e as uf

f i c i e ntne xus be tw e e n the lo a d e d f ir e a rm a n d th e F e b ru a ry 3 , 2 0 0 6 , d ru g tr a n s a c tio n , E d d ie w a s r e q u ir e d to d e m o n s tr a te th a t ac o n n e c tio n b e tw e e n th e w e ap o n a n d th e o f f e n s e w a s c le a r ly im p r o b ab le . Se e i d. E ddi e f a i l e d t o m e e thi s bur de n. M or e ove r , e ve n though19

E dd i e w as ac qu i tt ed of the § 9 24 (c )( 1) char ges i n C ou nt s V II I a nd IX , hi s c on du ct w i th r e ga r d t o the f

i r e a rm f ound i n hi s pos s e s s i on tha tda y w a s r e l e va ntf or p u rp o s e s o f

s e n te n c in g . See B ar akat , 13 0 F . 3d at14 52 . T here fore , the di stri ct c o u r t d id n o t c le a r ly e rrin ap p ly in g th e § 2 D 1 .1 ( b ) ( 1 ) e n h a n c e m e n t. V II . T h e d is tr ic t c o u r t d id n o t ab u s e its d is c r e tio n b y d e n y in g th e m o tio n s to s e ve rbe c a us e ne i the rC ha r l e s norE ddi e de m ons tr a t e d the y s uf f e r e d c om pe l l i ng pr e j udi c e f r om the j oi nttr i a l . S e c ond, ne i the rC ha r l e s norE ddi e w a s e nt i t l e d t o a ne w tr i a l be c a us e the c um ul a t i ve e f f e c tof e vi de nt i a ry e rr or s a nd the de ni a l of the m o ti o n s to se v erd idn o t ren d erth e trial fu n d am en tall y u n fa ir. T h ird , th is C o u rt’s bi nd i ng prec edentprec l ud es C harl es ’ s a nd E dd i e’ s a rgum entthatthe m andat ory m i ni m um pr ovi s i ons of 21 U . S . C . § 841 a r e unc ons t i tut i ona l on the gr ound the p r o v is io n s v io la te th e d o c tr in e o f s e p a r a tio n o f

p o w e r s . A ddi t i ona l l y , the r e w a s s uf f i c i e nte vi de nc e t o s upportE ddi e ’ s c onvi c t i on f or c o n s p ir a c y b e c a u s e ar e a s o n ab le ju ry c o u ld h a v e c o n c lu d e d b e y o n d ar e a s o n ab le d o u b t th a t: ( 1 ) a n ille g a l a g r e e m e n t e x is te d to p o s s e s s w ith in te n t to d is tr ib u te c r a c k c o c a in e ; ( 2 ) E d d ie k n e w o f it; a n d ( 3 ) E d d ie k n o w in g ly a n d v o lu n ta r ily jo in e d th e a g r e e m e n t. N e x t, th e d is tr ic t c o u r t d id n o t c le a r ly e rrin h o ld in g E d d ie re spon si bl e f

or 50 gram s of c ra ck cocai ne because the j ury s peci fi ca l l y f ou nd that20

50 gr a m s orm or e of

c r a c k c oc a i ne w e r e i nvol ve d i n the c ons pi r a c y of f e ns e f or w h ic h E d d ie w a s c o n v ic te d . T h ir d , th e d is tr ic t c o u r t d id n o t c le a r ly e rrin its appl i ca t i on of the § 2 D 1. 1(b)(1) fi re arm enhancem ent , because E dd i e di d n otm ee t hi s bur de n of

s how i ng tha tac onne c t i on be tw e e n the f i r e a rm he pos s e s s e d a tthe tim e o f h is a rr e s t a n d th e d ru g tr a f f ic k in g o f f e n s e w a s c le a r ly im p r o b ab le . A cco rd i n g l y, w e affi rm C h arl es’ s an d E d d i e’ s co n v i ct i o n s an d sen t en ces. AF F I RME D.