FILED U.S. COURT OF AP P EALS E LEV EN T HC IRC U IT FEB 6, 2007 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. 05- 16267 N on -A rgum entC al endar

________________________ D. C . Do c k e tNo . 0 5 - 2 0 2 3 5 - C R - F AM 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 M A R C O S G A M I N O , D E N N I S G R E E N I D G E , 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 S outhe rn D i s tr i c tof F l or i da

_________________________ ( F e b r u ar y 6, 2007) B efo re A N D E R S O N , D U B IN A an d C A RN E S . C i rcu i tJu d g es. P E R C U R I A M: M a r c os G a m i no a nd D e nni s G r e e ni dge appe a l the i rc onvi c t i ons f or : ( 1)2

c o n s p ir in g to p o s s e s s w ith in te n t to d is tr ib u te f iv e o rm o r e k ilo g r a m s o f c o c a in e , in vi ol a t i on of

21 U . S . C . §§ 841( a ) ( 1) a nd 846; ( 2) a tt e m pt e d pos s e s s i on w i th i nt e nt t o d i s tr i b u t e f

i v e o rmo r e k i l o g r a ms o f c o c a i n e , i n v i o l a t i o n o f 2 1 U . S. C. § 8 4 1 ( a ) ( 1 ) ; ( 3 ) c o n s p ir in g to o b s tru c t, d e la y , a n d a f f e c t c o m m e r c e b y r o b b e ry , in vi ol at i on of 18 U . S . C . § 1 95 1(a) ; (4) a tt em pt i ng t o o bstruct , del ay , or af fe ct com m er ce by robb ery, i n v i ol at i on of 18 U . S . C . § 1 95 1(a) ; (5) c on spi ri ng t o u se , ca rry, and p osse ss a f

i re arm du ri ng and i n the furthera nce of a c ri m e of vi ol ence a nd a drug tr a f

f i c ki ng c r i m e , i n vi ol a t i on of 18 U . S . C . §§ 924( c ) ( 1) ( A ) a nd ( n) ; a nd ( 6) c a rry i ng a nd pos s e s s i ng a f i r e a rm dur i ng a nd i n the f ur the r a nc e of

a c r i m e of vi ol ence and a drug tra ff i cki ng cr i m e, i n v i ol at i on of 18 U . S . C . § 9 24 (c )( 1)(A ). F i r s t , G r e e ni dge a r gue s , f orthe f i r s tt i m e on appe a l , tha tthe “ r e ve r s e s t i ng” e m p lo y e d b y s ta te a n d f e d e r a l la w e n f

o r c e m e n t a g e n ts v io la te d h is F if th A m e ndm e ntdue pr oc e s s r i ght s , a s w e l l a s “ ba s i c c ons t i tut i ona l gua r a nt e e s of j us t i c e a nd f

a i rpl a y . ” H e a s ks us t o a dopta “ c orr obor a t i on rul e ” r e qui r i ng i nde pe nde ntc orr obor a t i on of the e l e m e nt s of

know l e dge a nd i nt e nta s t o the s pe c i f i c c ons pi r a c y a nd s ubs t a nt i ve of f e ns e s c ha r ge d i n c a s e s s uc h a s hi s . S e c ond, G a m i no a r gue s tha tthe di s tr i c tc our tde pr i ve d hi m of hi s r i ghtt o due pr oc e s s of la w b y f ir s t, w ith th e p r o s e c u to r , im p r o p e r ly in d u c in g a n in f o rm a n t to a s s e r t h is F i f th A m e ndm e ntr i ghta ga i ns ts e l f i nc r i m i na t i on, a nd the n r e f us i ng t o gr a ntGre enidg e did not join in Gamino’s arguments on this is sue bef ore thedistrict court. 1 Acc ording ly , with reg ard to Greenidg e, wewill review this issue only for plain error . United States v. Olano, 507 U.S. 725, 732, 113 S.Ct. 1770, 1776, 123 L .Ed.2d 508 (1993). Nevertheless, a s discussed infra , the standard of review is not disposit ive, bec ause even Gamino’s pre serve d arguments on the issue aremeritless. On appe al, Gre enidg e does not a ssert, as hedid beforethe district court, that the 2 g overnment failed to provethat the coc aine moved in inter state commerce. A ccordingly, that argument is waived. United States v. Jernig an, 341 F .3d 1273, 1284 n. 8 (11th Cir. 2003). 3 im m u n ity to th a t w itn e s s . W ith o u rp e rm is s io n , G r e e n id g e h a s a d o p te d th is ar gu m enton appeal . F i nal l y, G re eni dg e a rgues, fi rs t , thatthe evi dence attri al w as 1 i ns uf f i c i e ntt o s uppor thi s c onvi c t i ons , be c a us e the onl y e vi de nc e of hi s know l e dge an d in ten t t o co m m itth e o b ject o ff en se s w as h is p re se n ce in th e in fo rm an t’ s v eh icle, th e f

ac t th at h e w as w ea rin g a b u ll et-p ro o f v es t, an d a c o -c o n sp irato r’s unc orr obor a t e d t e s t i m ony . F ur the r , G r e e ni dge a r gue s tha te ve n i f thi s i s s uf

f i c i e nt e vi de nc e unde re xi s t i ng l a w , w e s houl d f a s hi on a ne w rul e of

l a w r e qui r i ng e xtr i ns i c , c orr obor a t i ve e vi de nc e of a de f e nda nt ’ s know l e dge a nd i nt e nti n a ddi t i on t o an y co o p erat i n g co d efen d an t ’ s t est i m o n y. 2 I. B e c a us e G r e e ni dge di d notr a i s e hi s F i f th A m e ndm e nta r gum e ntbe f or e the d is tr ic t c o u r t, w e r e v ie w it o n ly f o rp la in e rr o r . O la n o , 5 0 7 U .S . a t 7 3 2 , 1 1 3 S .C t. at17 76 . A cc ordi ng l y, G re eni dg e m ustshow : (1) e rr or, (2) thati s pl ai n, (3) that a f f e c t e d hi s s ubs t a nt i a l r i ght s , a nd ( 4) tha ts e r i ous l y a f f e c t e d the f

a i rne s s a nd i nt e gr i ty of

the pr oc e e di ngs . I d. “ A n e rr orc a nnotm e e tthe pl a i n r e qui r e m e ntof4

the pl a i n e rr orrul e i f

i ti s notc l e a runde rc urr e ntl a w . ” U ni t e d S t a t e s v. C ha u, 426 F .3 d 1 3 1 8 , 1 3 2 2 ( 1 1 th C ir . 2 0 0 5 ) ( q u o ta tio n m a rk s o m itte d ) . W e h a v e r e

je c te d c h a lle n g e s to r e v e r s e s tin g s o n n u m e r o u s o c c a s io n s . U ni t e d S t a t e s v. S a nc he z , 138 F . 3d 1410, 1413 ( 11th C i r . 1998) . “ W hi l e the S upr e m e C our ta nd thi s C our tha ve r e c ogni z e d the pos s i bi l i ty tha tgove rnm e nt i nv ol vem enti n a cr i m i nal sc hem e m i gh tbe so pervas i ve thati tw ou l d b e a const i tut i on al vi ol at i on , thatst andard has notye tbeen m eti n any ca se ei ther before the S upr e m e C our torthi s C our t . ” I d. G r e e ni dge a dm i t s tha the i s a s ki ng us t o de pa r tf r om pr e c e de nta nd f

a s hi on a ne w rul e . A c c or di ngl y , e ve n a s s um i ng tha tG r e e ni dge c oul d s how e rr or , he ha s not s h o w n th a t it is p la in e rr o r , a n d w e a f f irm h is c o n v ic tio n s u n d e rth is in d ic tm e n t in thi s r e s pe c t . S e e C ha u, 426 F . 3d a t1322 ( “ [ a ] n e rr orc a nnotm e e tthe ‘ pl a i n’ re qu i re m entof the pl ai n err or rul e i f i ti s not‘ cl ea r und ercurr entl aw ’ ”) . II . T o the ext entthatthey w er e pre se rved, w e r evi ew qu es t i on s of c on st i tut i on al law d e n o v o . U n it ed S tates v . B ro w n , 3 6 4 F .3 d 1 2 6 6 , 1 2 6 8 (1 1 th C ir. 2 0 0 4 ). “W e rev i ew a d i stri ctco u rt ’ s ru l i n g o n a d efen d an t ’ s i n v o cat i o n o f h i s p ri v i l eg e ag ai n st s e l f - i nc r i m i na t i on de novo. ” U ni t e d S t a t e s v. H e rna nde z , 141 F . 3d 1042, 1049 ( 1 1 th C ir . 1 9 9 8 ) .5

“ N o p erso n . . . sh al l b e co m p el l ed i n an y [c] ri m i n al [c] ase t o b e a w i tn ess agai nsthi m se l f. ” U . S . C on st . am end. V . “ T hi s provi si on . . . m ustbe ac corded l i be r a l c ons truc t i on i n f a vorof the r i ghti tw a s i nt e nde d t o s e c ur e . ” H of f m a n v. U n ite d S ta te s , 3 4 1 U .S . 4 7 9 , 4 8 6 , 7 1 S .C t. 8 1 4 , 8 1 8 , 9 5 L .E d . 1 1 1 8 ( 1 9 5 1 ) . W h ile thi s pr i vi l e ge c ove r s t e s t i m ony tha tw oul d e i the rdi r e c t l y “ s uppor ta c onvi c t i on un der afe dera l cr i m i nal st atut e” or m er el y “ furni sh a l i nk i n the chai n o f e vi dence n eed ed t o p ro secu t e th e cl ai m an tfo r a fed eral cri m e, ” i to n l y p ro t ect s th e w i tn ess w here he or she “ has r ea sonabl e c ause t o app re hend dang erfr om a di re ctansw er . ” I d. “ T o s us t a i n the pr i vi l e ge , i tne e d onl y be e vi de ntf r om the i m pl i c a t i ons of the que s t i on, i n the s e tt i ng i n w hi c h i ti s a s ke d, tha ta r e s pons i ve a ns w e rt o the que s t i on ora n e xpl a na t i on of w hy i tc a nnotbe a ns w e r e d m i ghtbe da nge r ous b e c a u s e in

ju r io u s d is c lo s u r e c o u ld r e s u lt.” I d . a t 4 8 7 , 7 1 S .C t. a t 8 1 8 .

“ [ A] c r i m i n a l d e f

e n d a n th a s a c o n s t i tu t i o n a l r i g h tt o p r e s e n th i s o wn w i tne s s e s t o e s t abl i s h a de f e ns e . ” U ni t e s S t a t e s v. T e r z a do- M a druga , 897 F . 2d 1099, 1108 ( 11th C i r . 1990) ( quot a t i on om i tt e d) . “ S ubs t a nt i a l i nt e r f e r e nc e w i th a d e f e n s e w itn e s s ’ f

r e e a n d u n h a m p e r e d c h o ic e to te s tif y v io la te s d u e p r o c e s s r ig h ts o f th e d e f e n d a n t.” D e m p s v . W a in w r ig h t, 8 0 5 F .2 d 1 4 2 6 , 1 4 3 3 ( 1 1 th C ir . 1 9 8 6 ) .

“ W he n s uc h a vi ol a t i on of due pr oc e s s r i ght s oc c ur s , a c our tm us tr e ve r s e the c o n v ic tio n w ith o u t r e g a r d to p r e ju d ic e to th e d e f

e n d a n t.” I d . N o tab ly , h o w e v e r , a6

w itn es s’s r ig h t n o t t o b e c o m p elled to in cr im in ate h im se lf tru m p s a d ef en d an t’ s r i ghtt o s ubpoe na w i tne s s e s i n hi s de f e ns e . S e e U ni t e d S t a t e s v. L a c outur e , 495 F . 2d 12 37 , 12 40 (5th C i r. 19 74 ) ( no t i ng thateven i f the defendanthad sub po enae d a w i tn ess, th atw i tn ess’ s p resen ce “ [w o u l d ] n o to v erri d e [h er] p ri v i l eg e ag ai n st com pu l soryse l f- i ncri m i nat i on ”) . T he S upr e m e C our tha s r e ve r s e d a de f e nda nt ’ s c onvi c t i on w he r e the “ the j ud ge’ s threa t eni ng re m arks, di re ct ed on l y a tthe si ng l e w i tness for the defense , e f f e c t i ve l y dr ove tha tw i tne s s of f the s t a nd. ” W e bb v. T e xa s , 409 U . S . 95, 98, 93 S .C t. 3 5 1 , 3 5 3 , 3 4 L .E d .2 d 3 3 0 ( 1 9 7 2 ) . I n th a t c a s e , a s ta te c o u r t ju d g e s u a s p o n te used very strong l angu age w i th a w i tness , as suri ng hi m , for e xam pl e, thati f he l i ed un der oath the j ud ge w ou l d “ pers on al l y s ee that[hi s] ca se [w ent ] t o the grand j ury and [thathe w ou l d] be i nd i ct ed for perj ury. ” I d. at96 , 93 S . C t . at35 2. T he C ou rt he l d tha t“ i n l i ghtof

the gr e a tdi s pa r i ty be tw e e n the pos tur e of the pr e s i di ng j udge a nd tha tof

a w i tne s s i n the s e c i r c um s t a nc e s , the unne c e s s a r i l y s tr ong t e rm s us e d by the j udge c oul d w e l l ha ve e xe r t e d s uc h dur e s s on the w i tne s s ’ m i nd a s t o pr e c l ude hi m f r om m a ki ng a f

r e e a nd vol unt a ry c hoi c e w he the rornott o t e s t i f y . ” I d. a t98, 93 S . C t . at35 3 (em ph as i s a dd ed). U nl i ke the c ourti n W e bb, othe rtha n a s s ur i ng the i nf or m a nttha thi s de c i s i on r e ga r di ng w he the rornott o a s s e r thi s F i f th A m e ndm e ntr i ght s di d m a tt e r , the7

di s tr i c tc our ti n thi s c a s e di d notm a ke a ny r e m a rks di r e c t e d a thi m a ta l l . M os tof the debat e r egar di ng the as se rt i on of hi s r i gh t s occ urre d b ef ore the i nform antw as e v e n p r e s e n t, a n d e v e n a f te rh e w a s p r e s e n t th e c o u r t n e u tr a lly in f o rm e d h im th a t it bel i eved he needed cou nsel t o adv i se hi m on hi s F i fth A m endm entri gh t s. N ei ther the c our tnorthe gove rnm e ntthr e a t e ne d the i nf orm a ntw i th the c ons e que nc e s of c om m i tt i ng pe r

j ury . U l t i m a t e l y , nothi ng the c our torthe gove rnm e ntdi d c oul d be s a id to h a v e “e x e r te d . . . d u r e s s ” o n th e in f o rm a n t o rc o m e a n y w h e r e c lo s e to prel ud i ng a “ fr ee and v ol un t ary c ho i ce w hether or nott o t es t i fy . ” I d. F urther, an un derc ov erl aw enforce m entagenti ntrodu ce d, throu gh t es t i m on y, the es se nt i al f a c t s tha tG a m i no i nt e nde d t o e s t abl i s h thr ough the i nf or m a nt . O n thi s ba s i s , the courtgave an entrapm enti nstruct i on , and G am i no ’ s c ou nsel w as abl e t o ass ertan e n tr ap m e n t d e f

e n s e in h is c lo s in g a r g u m e n t. B e f or e the di s tr i c tc our t , G a m i no poi nt e d t o no s uppor tf orhi s c ont e nt i on thatthe i nform antw ai ved h i s F i fth A m endm entri gh t s. E ven i f there w er e e rr or, w hi ch w e dou bt , i ti s notpl ai n err or. G am i no has notshow n thathi s s ub st ant i al r i ght s w e r e a f

f e c t e d ortha tthe f

a i rne s s of

the pr oc e e di ngs w a s s e r i ous l y a f f e c t e d. A ddi t i ona l l y , be c a us e the gove rnm e ntdi d notm ove t o gr a ntthe i nf or m a nt u se i m m u n i ty, th e co u rth ad n o d i scret i o n t o d o so . 1 8 U . S . C . § 6 0 0 3 . F i n al l y, be c a us e the c our tappoi nt e d c ouns e l i n a ne utr a l w a y , s how i ng onl y c onc e rn f orthe8

in f o r m a n t’s r ig h ts a n d w ith o u t s u g g e s tin g th a t th e a tto rn e y s h o u ld p e r s u a d e h im no tt o t es t i fy , and b ec ause there i s no evi dence thatthe att orney di d anythi ng other than enh ance the i nform ant ’ s vol un t ary dec i si on , G am i no ’ s a rgum enti n thi s r egar d i s m eri t l ess. A s to th e p r o p r ie ty o f

th e in f o rm a n t’s a s s e r tio n o f

h is r ig h t n o t to in c r im in a te hi m s e l f , the e xt e ns i ve de ba t e pr ovi de d the c our tw i th a de t a i l e d unde r s t a ndi ng of w ha tthe i nf

or m a ntw a s e xpe c t e d t o a ddr e s s i n hi s t e s t i m ony , i nc l udi ng i nf or m a t i on r e g a r d in g a n u n r e la te d c o c a in e tr a n s a c tio n . B e c a u s e th is c o u ld h a v e r e a s o n ab ly caused the i nform antt o “ apprehend d anger f rom a di re ctansw er , ” the court p r o p e r ly f

o u n d th a t h e w a s le g itim a te ly e x e r c is in g h is r ig h t n o t to te s tif y . H o f f m a n , 3 4 1 U .S . a t 4 8 6 , 7 1 S .C t. a t 8 1 8 . F ora l l the s e r e a s ons , the di s tr i c tc our tdi d note rrby f i ndi ng tha tthe i nf or m a nti n thi s c a s e ha d l e gi t i m a t e l y e xe r c i s e d hi s F i f th A m e ndm e ntr i ghta nd d id n o t d e p r iv e G a m in o o f h is r ig h t to d u e p r o c e s s o f la w in th is r e g a r d . II I.

B ec ause G re eni dg e di d n otas k the di stri ctcourtt o app l y anew l y f as hi on ed c orr obor a t i on rul e , w e r e vi e w tha tc l a i m onl y f orpl a i n e rr or . U ni t e d S t a t e s v. D udl e y , 463 F . 3d 1221, 1227 ( 11th C i r . 2006) . U nde rthi s s t a nda r d, G r e e ni dge9

m us ts how : ( 1) e rr or , ( 2) tha ti s pl a i n, ( 3) tha ta f f e c t e d hi s s ubs t a nt i a l r i ght s , a nd ( 4) tha ts e r i ous l ya f

f e c t e d the f

a i rne s s a nd i nt e gr i ty of

the pr oc e e di ngs . O l a no, 507 U . S . a t732, 113 S . C t . a t1776. W he n r e vi e w i ng the s uf f i c i e nc y of

the e vi de nc e , w e m us tvi e w the f a c t s , a nd dr a w a l l r e a s onabl e i nf

e r e nc e s the r e f

r om , i n the l i ghtm os tf

a vor abl e t o the g o v e rn m e n t . Un i t e d S t a t e s v . Ha n s e n , 2 6 2 F . 3 d 1 2 1 7 , 1 2 3 6 ( 1 1 th C i r . 2 0 0 1 ) . As l ong a s the j ury“ c oul d f i nd tha tthe e vi de nc e e s t abl i s he [ d] gui l tbe y ond a r e a s o n ab le d o u b t,” th e e v id e n c e a t tr ia l d id n o t n e e d to “e x c lu d e e v e ry r e a s o n ab le hy pothe s i s of

i nnoc e nc e orbe w hol l y i nc ons i s t e ntw i th e ve ry c onc l us i on e xc e pt th a t o f g u ilt.” U n ite d S ta te s v . Y o u n g , 9 0 6 F .2 d 6 1 5 , 6 1 8 ( 1 1 th C ir . 1 9 9 0 ) . T h is is s o be c a us e “ [ a ] j ury i s f r e e t o c hoos e a m ong r e a s onabl e c ons truc t i ons of the e v id e n c e .” U n ite d S ta te s v . V e r a , 7 0 1 F .2 d 1 3 4 9 , 1 3 5 7 ( 1 1 th C ir . 1 9 8 3 ) . S i m i l a r l y , “ w e r e s ol ve a l l r e a s onabl e i nf e r e nc e s a nd c r e di bi l i ty e va l ua t i ons i n f a vor of the j ury’ s ver di ct . ” U ni t ed S t at es v. G up t a, 46 3 F . 3d 11 82 , 11 94 (11th C i r. 20 06 ).

“ T o sup po rta c on vi ct i on of conspi ra cy , the go vernm entm ustprov e [ 1] that an agree m entexi st ed betw ee n tw o o r m ore pers on s t o com m i ta c ri m e a nd [2] that the defendant s kno w i ng l y a nd vo l un t ar i l y j oi ned o r part i ci pat ed i n the conspi ra cy . ” U n ite d S ta te s v . S ilv e s tr i, 4 0 9 F .3 d 1 3 1 1 , 1 3 2 8 ( 1 1 th C ir .) , c e r t. d e n ie d , 1 2 6 S .C t.10

77 2 (20 05 ). T he go vernm enti s notre qu i re d t o d em on stra t e the exi st ence of a

“ form al agre em ent , ” butm ayi nst ea d d em on stra t e by c i rc um st ant i al evi dence a m e e t i ng of

the m i nds t o c om m i ta n unl a w f ul a c t . U ni t e d S t a t e s v. A r i a s - I z qui e r do, 449 F . 3d 1168, 1182 ( 11th C i r . ) , pe t i t i on f orc e r t . f i l e d ( U . S . N ov. 13, 2006) ( N o. 06- 7829) . P r oof

tha tthe a c c us e d c om m i tt e d a n a c tw hi c h f ur the r e d the purpos e of the c ons pi r a c y i s r e l e va ntt o the e xi s t e nc e of a gr e e m e nt , i d. , a s i s e vi de nc e tha tthe defe nd ant“ kn ew the es se nt i al obj ec tof the conspi ra cy , ” S i l vestri , 40 9 F . 3d at 1 3 2 8 . “A lth o u g h m e r e p r e s e n c e a t th e s c e n e o f a c r im e is in s u f

f ic ie n t to s u p p o r t a conspi ra cyconv i ct i on , pres ence no nethel es s i s aprob at i ve fa ct or w hi ch the j ury m ayconsi der i n d et erm i ni ng w hether adefe nd antw as a kno w i ng and i nt ent i on al pa r t i c i pa nti n a c r i m i na l s c he m e . ” U ni t e d S t a t e s v. H e rna nde z , 433 F . 3d 1328, 1 3 3 3 ( 1 1 th C ir . 2 0 0 5 ) , c e r t. d e n ie d , 1 2 6 S .C t. 1 6 3 5 ( 2 0 0 6 ) . “T o s u s ta in a c o n v ic tio n f o ra tte m p te d p o s s e s s io n w ith in te n t to d is tr ib u te c o c a in e , th e g o v e rn m e n t m u s t p r o v e b e y o n d a r e a s o n ab le d o u b t th a t th e d e f e n d a n ts ( 1) a c t e d w i th the ki nd of c ul pabi l i ty r e qui r e d t o pos s e s s c oc a i ne know i ngl y a nd w i l ful l y a nd w i th the i nt entt o d i stri bu t e i t ; and (2) engaged in condu ctw hi ch const i tut es a s ub st ant i al st ep t ow ar d the com m i ss i on of the cr i m e und er c i r c um s t a nc e s s tr ongl y c orr obor a t i ve of the i rc r i m i na l i nt e nt . ” U ni t e d S t a t e s v. M cD ow el l , 25 0 F . 3d 13 54 , 13 65 (11th C i r. 20 01 ). T o p rove att em pt ed H ob bs A ct11

robb ery, the go vernm enthad t o p rove thatthe robb ery w ou l d h ave a ff ec t ed c om m e r c e ha d i tbe e n c om pl e t e d. U ni t e d S t a t e s v. K apl a n, 171 F . 3d 1351, 1354 ( 1 1 th C ir . 1 9 9 9 ) . “T o s u s ta in a c o n v ic tio n u n d e r§ 9 2 4 ( c ) , th e g o v e rn m e n t m u s t s h o w th a t, dur i ng a nd i n r e l a t i on t o the i rc ons pi r a c y t o r ob c oc a i ne , de f e nda nt s us e d, c a rr i e d, orpos s e s s e d a f

i r e a r m i n f

ur the r a nc e of

tha tc ons pi r a c y . ” U ni t e d S t a t e s v. G unn, 369 F . 3d 1229, 1234 ( 11th C i r . ) , c e r t . de ni e d, 543 U . S . 937 ( 2004) . “ P os s e s s i on m a y b e a c tu a l o rc o n s tru c tiv e , jo in t o rs o le . . . . [ a ]n d . . . a d e f e n d a n t m a y b e liab le f o ra c o - c o n s p ir a to r ’s p o s s e s s io n if p o s s e s s io n w a s r e a s o n ab ly f o r e s e e ab le .” I d . A s t o the conspi ra cycoun t s, fi rs t , a c o-conspi ra t or t es t i fi ed express l y that G am in o an d G re en id g e h ad co m e to an ag re em en t, an d h is d es cr ip ti o n o f G am in o ’s di s c us s i on r e c rui t i ng G r e e ni dge a nd the i ra gr e e m e ntt o s pl i tthe s t ol e n c oc a i ne show ed thatG am i no and G re eni dg e a l so had an agreement. N ext , ci rc um st ant i al e vi de nc e of

G r e e ni dge ’ s know l e dge a nd i nt e nti nc l ude d: ( 1) the c o- c ons pi r a t or t el l i n g h i m th ey w ere g o i n g t o ro b co cai n e; (2 ) G am i n o sp eak i n g t o h i m p ri v at el y, p o s s ib ly to d is c u s s th e p la n n e d c r im e ; a n d ( 3 ) G r e e n id g e ’s c o n d u c t in a c c o m p a n y in g th e o th e r s w h ile c a rry in g a w e ap o n a n d w e a r in g a b u lle t- p r o o f v e s t. A c c or di ngl y , the j ury c oul d r e a s onabl y ha ve c onc l ude d be y ond a r e a s onabl e doubt th atG reen i d g e h ad co m m i tt ed th e co n sp i racy ch arg es.Although thephotographer could not testify

that the revolver wa s found in Gre enidg e’s 3 pocket, the jur

y could re asonably

conclude , from the rest of his testimony and the photographs that he took at the sc ene, that it was found there . 12 F o rth e s e s a m e r e a s o n s , th e ju ry c o u ldh a v e c o n c lu d e d b e y o n d a r e a s o n ab le doubttha tG r e e ni dge ha d a c t e d w i th the c ul pabi l i ty ne c e s s a ry t o pos s e s s the c oc a i ne , a nd tha the ha d the i nt e ntt o di s tr i but e i t . F urthe r , the j ury c oul d ha ve concl ud ed beyond a r ea sonabl e dou btthathe t oo k a subst ant i al st ep t ow ar d c om pl e t i ng the of

f e ns e w he n he a rm e d hi m s e l f a nd r ode i n the ve hi c l e t o the w ar ehou se . F i nal l y, the j ury c ou l d h ave c on cl ud ed beyond a r ea sonabl e dou btthat the robb ery, i f c om pl et ed, w ou l d h ave e ff ec t ed com m er ce , as the un derc ov erl aw e nf or c e m e nta ge ntt e s t i f

i e d tha the t ol d G a m i no the c oc a i ne ha d c om e f r om C ol om bi a . A c c or di ngl y , the e vi de nc e w a s s uf f i c i e ntt o s uppor tthe a tt e m pt c h a r g e s . A s t o the s ubs t a nt i ve f

i r e a rm s c ha r ge , gi ve n the t e s t i m ony by the co-c on spi ra t or and the l aw enforce m entph ot og raph er , as w el l as the ph ys i ca l evi dence adm i tt ed throu gh the ph ot og raph er , the j ury c ou l d h ave c on cl ud ed be y ond a r e a s onabl e doubttha tG r e e ni dge ha d c a rr i e d a f i r e a rm i n r e l a t i on t o the conspi ra cyt o rob the cocai ne. F urther, the co-conspi ra t or adm i tt ed thathe had 3 carri ed a fi rearm , w h i ch al so co u l d h av e serv ed t o su p p o rtth e ch arg e ag ai n st G r e e n id g e , a s th is w a s r e a s o n ab ly f o r e s e e ab le .Appellants’ request for oral a rgument is denied. 4 13 F o r a ll th es e r ea so n s, th e e v id en ce w as su ff icien t t o su p p o rt G re en id g e’s c onvi c t i on on a l l c ount s a nd none of hi s c onvi c t i ons w e r e a m a ni f e s tm i s c a rr i a ge of j us t i c e . W e a l s o r e

j e c tG r e e ni dge ’ s a r gum e nttha tthe di s tr i c tc our ts houl d ha ve ap p l i e d a c o rr o b o r a t i o n ru l e . We n e e d n o ta d d r e s s th e l e g a l i s s u e b e c a u s e we concl ud e thatthere w as am pl e c orrobo ra t i on . M oreover, any e rr or by the court w a s notpl a i n a nd di d nota f f e c thi s s ubs t a nt i a l r i ght s orthe f a i rne s s of

the p r o c e e d in g . C h a u , 4 2 6 F .3 d a t 1 3 2 2 . A c c o r d in g ly , th is a r g u m e n t a ls o f a ils . A FFI R M ED 4