FI L ED U.S. COURT OF A P P E A LS E LE V EN T H C IR C U IT May 23, 2008 THOMAS K. KAH

N CL ERK [DO NOT PUBLISH] IN THE UN ITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FO R T HE EL EV EN TH CIRC UI T

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ N o. 05- 1462 7

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ D. C. Docket N o. 03-00736 -CR- 2-CC-1 UNITED STAT ES OF AMERIC A, Plaintiff-Appellee Cro ss -Ap pe ll an t, ve rs us JEREM IAH PRATHER, D ef en dant- Appe llant Cro ss -Ap pe ll ee, TERRY OUTLAW , DWAN OUTL AW , Defen da nt s- App el la nt s.

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ Appeals fr om

the United State s District Court fo r the N orthe rnD istri ct

of G eo rg ia

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ _ (M ay 2 3, 200 8) Be fo re A N D E RS O N , BL A CK

and H IL L , Ci rc uit

Jud ge s. PE R C U RI A M:2

O n D ec em

be r 9, 200 3, the G ove rn m en t i ndi ct ed D ef en dants -Appe llants D w anO utl aw , Je re m iah P rathe r, T er ry O utl aw , and o the rs f

or pos se ssi ng and dis tr ibu tin g m ar ij uanaand c oc ai ne in the A tlanta , G eo rg iam etro pol itan are a. T he G ove rn m en t a lle ge d D w anO utl aww as the r ing le ad er of the c onsp ir ac y , and Pr athe r w as his se co nd- in- co m m an d. T er

ry O utl aww as a cc use d of

part ic ipatin g in th e co ns pi racy by

sel li ng dru gs . A t tri al , a ll thr ee appe llants w er e co nvi ct ed of vari ous co nspi ra cy , dr

ug, and
w ea pons -r el at ed

c harg es . T he y

nowappe al the ir

c onvi ct ion s and s en te nc es , ch al le ngi ng ( 1) the le ga lity of se ar chw ar

rants use d to obt ai n e vid en ce a ga ins t the m ; ( 2) the pr ose cu tor ’ s us e of pe re m pto ry str ike s to r em ove A fr ic an -A m er ic an s fr om the j ur y pane l; (3 ) the a dm iss ionof he ar say te sti m ony

f ro m anon -t es tif

y ing
w itn es s; ( 4) the suf

fi ci en cy of the e vid en ce use d to c onvi ct T er ry O utl awof co nspi ra cy

and P rathe r an d D w anO utl awof pos se ssi ng g uns in c onne ct ionw ith dr ug tra ff ic kin g of fe nse s; ( 5) the tr ia l c ourt’ s f ai lur e to i nstru ct

the j ur y it c oul d co nsi de r the pr ose cu tio n’ s f ai lur e to c al l a

ke y w itn es s inthe c as e; ( 6) the al le ge dly inf lam m at or y na tur e of the pr ose cu tor ’ s c los ing arg um en t; an d ( 7) the reas on ab le ne ss of P rat he r’s an d Terry Out la w’ s s en te nc es . Although we find no reversible err ors wer e com m itted at trial, the district co urt di d no t a de quate ly

e xpl ai n th e re as oni ng b eh ind the se nte nc es it

im pose d onPr athe r r e c ounts de ta ils re g ard ingse ve ra l ot he r s e arc he s in

his br ie f, but a

pp e ars to 1 argue only

the fruits of these three sear ches should have been suppr essed. 3 Pr athe r an d T er

ry O utl aw . T he re fo re , w e va cate both se nte nc es , and r em an d f or further proce edings. In all other re spects, w e af firm the j udgm ent of the district co urt. I. SEARCH WARRANTS Pr athe r ch al le nge s th e va lid ity of se ar chw ar

rants e xe cu te d by

pol ic e on O ct obe r 11, 199 9, O ct obe r 12, 200 0, and N ove m be r 14, 200 3. H e co nte nds the
w ar rants w er e not

sup porte d by

pr oba ble c au se , w er e ove rl y

br oa d, and d id n ot spe ci fi ca lly

auth or iz e pol ic e to s ei ze f ir earm s. F or

the se r ea sons , he arg ue s, the 1 district court erre d by

adm itting into evid ence the drugs, guns, and other para phe rn al iaobt ai ne d duri ng the se ar ch es . A. Searches W e be ginw ithabr ie f sum m ar y of the c ha lle nge d se ar ch es , and the f ac ts supp or ti ng each warran t i ss ue d. 1. O ctobe r 11 , 199 9 O n O ct obe r 11, 199 9, a ft er havin g ob se rv ed

m ar ij uanatr an sa ct ion s a t 39 5 W oodl awn A ve nue , U nit 1, on thr ee oc ca sio ns w ith in a pr ec ed ing f

our -m onth pe ri od, A tlanta

pol ic e of fi ce rs obt ai ne d aw ar

rant e nti tli ng the m

to se ar chthe4

prem ises. A lthou gh the warr ant did no t authorize a sear ch for handguns , off icers se iz eda gu n, ca sh , anda sm al l b ag of m ari juan a. 2. O ctobe r 12 , 200 0 O n O ct obe r 12, 200 0, pol ic e of fi ce rs obt ai ne d aw ar

rant t o a ga in s earc h 39 5 W oodl awn A ve nue , U nit 1, f or “ co ca ine , m one y

f ro m the sa le s of

c oc ai ne and any an d a ll ite m s us ed

f or the sa le , dis tr ibu tio n, and m anuf ac tur ing of

c oc ai ne . ” T he
w ar rant d id n ot a

uth or iz e a se ar chf

or w ea pons . A cc or din g to the a ff idavit supp ortin g th e w ar

rant, und er co ve r pol ic e of fi ce rs ha d m ad e a co ntr oll ed pur ch as e of crac k c oc ai ne at t he same loc at io n t wo wee ks earl ie r. Whe n th e w ar

rant w as e xe cu te d, pol ic e se iz ed m ar ij uanaand c oc ai ne , and ar re ste d anum

be r of pe rs ons, inc lud ing P rathe r an d c o- co nspi rator K el ly Ro be rt s. Atth at t i m e, k eys t o Un i t s 1 & 2 o f 3 9 5 Woo d l aw nwe re fo u n di nPr at h er ’s po ss es si on . A ft er se ar ch ing U nit

1, of fi ce rs not ic ed

the “ odor

of m ar ij uana ” em an at ing fr om U nit 2. O ff ic er s a ske d P rathe r fo r pe rm iss ionto se ar chthe uni t; w he n he re fu se d, the y

obt ai ne d aw ar

rant a uth or iz ing the se iz ur e of

m ar ij uana , m one y

f ro m sa le s of m ar ij uanaand any

and a ll ite m s us ed

f or the sa le , dis tr ibu tio n, and
m anufacturing of m arij uana from Unit 2. Of

ficer s entered the unit and seized
m ari juan a an d c oc ai ne .5

3. N ov em be r 14, 200 3 O n N ove m

be r 7, 200 3, pol ic e fi le d an a ff idavit se ek ing ase ar chw ar

rant f or 12 85 Nort h Av en ue in co nn ect io n wi th an on go in g i nv es ti ga ti on of Dwan Out la w. W ithin 72 hou rs of the af fidavit’ s filing, an undercover agent had m ade a co ntr oll ed

pur ch as e of

m ar ij uanaf

ro m D w anO utl awa t the N orth A ve nue re sid en ce . A cc or din g to the a ff idavit , the A tlanta

P oli ce D ep ar

tm en t ha d a lso rece iv eda rep or t i nd ic at in g Dwan Out la w was s el li ng dru gs at t he res id en ce. The w arrant issu ed on Novem ber 14, 2003, and authorized officer s to search fo r dr ug r ec or ds, dr

ug p ro ce ed s, c om

m uni catio ns r ec or ds, te le phon e re co rd s, dr ug scales, drug paraphernalia, and “ other indicia of illegal narcotics.” When law enforcem ent officer s executed the warrant, they found large quantiti es of hidden drug s, d ru g p arap he rn al ia(sc al es an d aco ok in g p ot ), a g un , andam m un it io n. B
. F ourt h A m en dm en t C

hal le nge W e re view the district court’ s denial of a m otion to supp ress under a m ixed standard , “ re vie w ing the dis tr ic t c ourt’ s f ind ing s of

f ac t f or c le ar e rr or and i ts ap pli catio n of

lawto tho se f

ac ts de novo .” U

nit ed Sta tes v . L

yo ns , 403 F . 3d 1 248, 1250 ( 11th C ir . 200 5) . A ll fa ct s m ust be vie w ed

in the li ght

m ost f av or ab le to the p r e v a i l i n g p arty, U

nit ed Sta tes v . H

ea rd , 367 F. 3d 12 75, 1278 (11t h Cir. 2004 ),
w hic h inthi s c as e is the G ove rn m en t.6

The F ourth Am endm ent requires sear ch warrants to “particularly describ[e] the pla ce to be se ar ch ed , and the pe rs ons or thi ngs to b e se iz ed , ” U . S. Co nst . am en d. I V , in or de r to p ro te ct ind ivi dua ls f

ro m be ing sub

j ec te d to ge ne ra l, ex pl or at ory

sea rch es . Co oli dge v . Ne w H am pshi re , 403 U . S. 443 , 467 , 91 S . Ct . 2022 , 203 8 ( 1971 ); U

nit ed Sta tes v . Kh anan i , 502 F. 3d 12 81, 1289 (11t h Cir. 2007 ). T herefor e, “ when a police off icer e ngages in a search outside of the proper scope (whether

that scope be defined by a w arrant or by

circum stances), evidence obtained in that search m ay be excluded.” U

nit ed Sta tes v . H

en dri xs on , 234 F . 3d 49 4, 4 97 (11 th Cir . 20 00 ). Pr athe r ar gue s th e se ar chw ar rants e xe cu te d O ct obe r 11, 199 9, O ct obe r 12, 2000 , and Novem

ber 14, 2003, w ere issued withou t probable cause and we re im pe rm is si bl y

bro adbe cau se th ey

di d n ot sp eci fy

th e it em s t o b e se iz ed . H ow ev er , e ac h w ar

rant w as sup porte d by

a ff idavit s whic h c ont ai ne d f ac ts re gard ing r ec en t c ontro lle d purc ha se s of dr ugs m ad e by

und er co ve r ag en ts o r, in the c as e of

the O ct obe r 11, 199 9 w ar rant, r ec en t arr es ts o f pe rs ons ex iti ng the residence who po ssessed m arij uana. T he fac ts detailed in the affidavits provi ded pr oba ble c au se to be lie ve dr

ug a ct ivi ty

w as oc curr ing a t the r es ide nc es in que sti on, an d j ust if ie d th e iss uanc e of

the w ar rants . T he w ar

rants w er e br oa d w ithr es pe ct to the ir inc lus ionof

a ll dr ug- re la te d it em s; h ow ev er , be ca use the pol ic e ha d pr oba

ble7

ca use to be lie ve dr

ug d ea lin g w as oc curr ing a t the loc at ion s be ing se ar ch ed , the sc op e o f th e warra nt s ap pr op ria te ly m at ch edth e sc op e o f po li ce s us pi ci on . Pr athe r co nte nds pol ic e al so e xc ee de d th e sc ope of the w ar rants by se iz ing guns dur ing the O ct obe r 11, 199 9, and N ove m be r 14, 200 3 se ar ch es . A lth ough ne ith er w ar rant s pe ci fi ca lly

auth or iz ed

the se iz ur e of

w ea pons , the pol ic e did

not er r in c onf isc at ing w ea

pons w he n th ey

f ound the m . Whe n lawe nf

or ce m en t officer s stum

ble across hidden gu ns durin g a law ful searc h for drugs, they are al low ed to dr awthe r ea sona

ble inf er en ce that the gun s m ay

be r el at ed

to dr ug tra ffi ck in g o ccu rri ng at t he lo cat io n. U nit ed Sta tes v . Sm ith , 918 F . 2d 1 501, 150 9 (11th Cir. 1990) (finding firearm s not nam ed in a warrant w ere properly seized dur ing se ar chof

dr ug h ouse a s “ too ls o f the tr ad e” ). T ha t i s pr ec ise ly w ha t the po li ce d idin th is cas e. T he dis tr ic t c ourt di d no t e rr by de ny ing P rathe r’ s m oti on t o su ppr es s th e fr uit of the se ar chw ar

rants e xe cu te d O ct obe r 11, 199 9, O ct obe r 12, 200 0, and N ove m be r 14, 200 3; the re fo re , w e af fi rm the dis tr ic t c ourt’ s de nia l of the supp ression m otion and the subs equent adm issio n at trial of evidence obtained fro m th e ch al le ng edsea rch es .

II. BATSON

CHALLENGE8

Ne xt, Pr ather and T erry

Outlawcontend their right to equal protection was vio la te d w he n th e G ove rn m en t e xe rc ise d si x of it s se ve n pe re m

pto ry str ike s to exclude five of the nine black j urors on the venire panel, along with one proposed al te rn at e juro r. See B atson v. Kentucky , 476 U. S. 79, 106 S. C t. 1712 (1986 ). Whe n ac ourt a sse sse s ade fe ndant’ s c ha lle nge to a pe re m pto ry str ike , it en ga ge s inathr ee -s te p in qui ry . F ir st, the tr ia l c ourt m ust de te rm ine w he the r the defendant has m ade a prima facie showing th e prosecutor exerc ised a perem ptory ch al le ng e o n t he ba si s o f rac e. R ic e v. Co lli ns , 546 U . S. 333 , 338 , 126 S . Ct . 969 , 973 (2 006) . S ec ond, if

the sho w ing is m ad e, the bur de n sh if ts t o th e pr ose cu tor

to pr es en t a r ace- ne ut ral ex pl an at io n fo r st rik in g t he juro r in qu es ti on . Id
. T hir d, the co urt m ust de te rm ine w he the r the de fe ndant h as c ar ri ed his bur de n of

pr ovi ng pu rp os efu l d is cri m in at io n. I d. T his f ina l st ep inv olv es e va luatin g “ the pe rs ua siv en es s of

the j ust if ic at ion ” pr of

fe re d by the pr ose cu tor , but

“ the ult im at e b u r d e n o f p e r s u a s i o n r e g ar d i n g r a c i a l mo t i v a t i o nr e s t s w i th , an dn e v e r s h i f t s f r o m, the oppo nent of the strike.” I d. ( quot ing Purkett v. Ele m , 514 U . S. 765 , 768 , 115 S. Ct . 17 69 , 17 71 (19 95 ). Du ri n g v o i r d i re , d ef

en d an t s o b

je ct edi m m ed i at el y t o th e p ro s ec u t o r’s pe re m pto ry str ike s of A fr ic anA m er ic an s, c ont en din g th ey w er e ra ci al ly

m oti va te d. Although the j udge didnot expli citly find Appellants had m ade a pri m a fa ci e9

show ing , he r equir ed

the pr ose cu tor

to pr ovi de an e xpl an at ionf or e ac h stri ke
m ad e. Inr es pons e to the tr ia l c ourt’ s in qui ry , the G ove rn m en t r ep re se nte d th e j ur or s ha d be enstr ic ke n f or the f oll ow ing r ea sons : o ne ha d asonand b ro the r w ho had been convicted of drug o ffenses; another w orked at the sam e G eneral Motors p l an ta s ap o t e n t i a l d e f

e n s e w i tn e s s i nth e c a s e ; an dath i r dh a dh e a l th p r o b l e ms and had fallen asleep during voi r dire. T he prosecutor explained sh e had stricken tw o a ddi tio na l j ur or s a ft er se nsi ng the y

m igh t be bia se d a ga ins t the G ove rn m en t ba se d onthe ir

de m eanor

w he n de sc ri bin g th ei r pe rs ona l hi sto ri es . Af ina l j ur or w as str ic ke n be ca

use he r onl y

hob by w as “ te ac hin g inthe m ini str y , ” ana ct ivi ty

the prosecutor believed m ight in dicate a c omm itm ent to rehabilitating crim inals rather th an pu ni sh in g t he m . Af ter hear ing th e G overnm ent’ s explanation for its strikes, the district court state d, “ T he gov er

nm en t ha s gi ve n no ndi sc ri m inator y r ac e- ne utr al r ea sons f

or ex er ci sin g it s stri ke s. ” T he de fe ndants did not pr of fe r any a ddi tio na l e vid en ce to rebut the Governm ent’ s explanation , and without further c omm ent from the court or c ouns el , the tr ia l c om

m en ce d. Appe llants take the pos iti on tha t this Co urt sh oul d r ev er se the ir c onvi ct ion s be ca use the dis tr ic t c ourt f

ai le d to m ak e on- the -r ec or d f ind ing s r eg ar din g th e10

credibility

of the prosecutor’ s explanation s. T hey argue the district court’ s failure to d isc uss the e xpl an at ion s pr of fe re d by the pr ose cu tor

a m ount s to af

ai lur e to determ ine whether their equal protection rights we re violated. W e disagree. Rece ntly , the S uprem e Court confronted a ca se in which a district court had al low ed atr ia l t o pr oc ee d w ith out “ m ak ing aspe ci fi c fi ndi ng o n th e re co rd ” co nc er nin g th e cr ed ibi lity

of apr ose cu tor ’ s pr of

fe re d r ea son fo r str iki ng a po te nt ia l ju ro r. Sny de r v . L oui sia na , — U. S. —, 128 S. Ct. 1203 , 1209 (2008). In that c as e, a ft er

the pr ose cu tor

of fe re d tw o r ac ia lly -n eu tr al r ea sons f or str iki ng a bl ackjuro r, th e tr ia l co ur t ac cep te d t he ex pl an at io ns wit ho ut co m m en t. Id
. at 1208 . Af ter deter m ining one of the two proff ered r easons was plainly

incredible, the S upr em e Co urt r ev er se d S ny de r’ s c onvi ct ion , c onc lud ing that i t c oul d no t t el l fr o m th e t ra n s cr i p th o w m

u ch we i g h tth e t ri al co u rth adp l ac edo nth e p ro s ec u t o r’s pr et ex tu al ex pl an at io n. Id
. a t 12 11- 12. T he S upr em e Co urt di d no t r ev er se S n yd e r ’s c o n v i c t i o n b e c au s e th e d i s tr i c tc o u rth a df a i l e dt o e x p l a i ni t s e l f

c l e ar l y, but be ca use it w as unc le ar

w he the r the dis tr ic t c ourt’ s f ind ing r es te d onapla

usi ble orim pl au si bl e ex pl an at io n fo r th e st rik e. N one of the r ea sons the G ove rn m en t of fe re d f or it s stri ke s inthi s c as e is inh er en tly

inc re dib le . Mo st j ur or s w er e str ic ke n f or pr ude nt r ea sons —ase ri ous he al th p ro ble m , kno w le dge of pot en tia l w itn es se s, or

c los e fam ili al c onne ct ion s to11

pe rs ons co nvi ct ed

of sim ilar cr im es . A lth oughthe pr ose cu tor ’ s r ea sons f or st rik in g o th er jur or s wer e le ss co nc ret e, th ey were n ot in he ren tl y

su sp ic io us . Pr athe r an d T er

ry O utl awf oc us o n th e dis tr ic t c ourt’ s f ai lur e to art ic ulate re as ons fo r its de ci sio n th at no d isc ri m inatio n ha d take n pl ac e; how ev er , onc e the G ove rn m en t ha d c om e fo rw ar d w ithar ac e ne utr al e xpl an at ionf or it s stri ke s, the Appe llants bor e the bur de n of pr ovi ng p ur

pose fu l di sc ri m inatio n. P urk et t , 514 U. S. at 768, S. Ct. at 1771. D uring jury selection, defe nse counsel m ade no effort to r eb ut the pr ose cu tor ’ s e xpl an at ion s w ithe vid en ce and d id n ot arg ue the r ea sons the G ove rn m en t pr ovi de d w er e pr et ex tua l. C ouns el a ske d to pr es er ve an ob j ec tio n to the perem

ptory strikes, but they

did no t argue the B ats on is su e fu rth er. Af ter listening to the prosecutor’ s explanation for her strikes, the district co ur t n ot edforth e rec or d t he pro se cu to r ha d o ffer edrace ne ut ral ex pl an at io ns . The c ourt then proceeded to im panel the j ury . In the absence of any addition al ar gum en t or

e vid en ce f

ro m Appe llants , the c ourt di d no t e rr in co nc lud ing Appe llants ha d no t m et

the ir bur de n of

pr ovi ng the str ike s w er e ba se d onthe pr ospe ct ive j ur or s’ r ac e, r athe r than onthe ir pe rs ona l c ir cum stanc es . III. CRAW

FORD CHALLENGE T er ry O utl awand D w anO utl awc ont en d th ei r Si xthA m en dm en t r igh t t o co nf ro ntatio n w as vio la te d w he n th e G ove rn m en t a ske d D et ec tiv e S. H . K im toThe Gove rnment ar gues Appe llants invit ed the a lleg ed er ror by askinganother

law 2 e nf or c e me nt o ff

ic e r, Al an Abe rc ro mbi e , whe the r H e a ds pe th h a d e ve r i mpl ic ate d D wa n O utl aw i n the sale of

drug s. Appellants’ c ounsel asked A berc rombie whe ther He adspeth ha d ever acc used Outlaw of se lling drug s, but specifica lly direc ted the witness not to repe at the conte nt of Hea dspeth’s statements. Give n the limited nature of de fense counsel’s inquiry , we c annot conclude the er

ror wa s invited. 12 re pe at the out -o f- co urt st at em en ts t o hi m m ad e by L y dia H ea dspe th ( a nontestify ing co-consp irator) r egarding the scope of the consp iracy and Dw an O utl aw ’ s r ole in it. Appe llants did not obj ec t t o K im ’ s te sti m ony in the tr ia l c ourt; th eref or e, we rev ie w forpl ai n e rro r on ly. United States v. R odrig uez , 398 F . 3d 1291 , 1298 (11th Cir. 2005). 2 A t tri al D et ec tiv e K im

te sti fi ed he int er vie w ed c o- de fe ndant L y dia He ad s p et h atp o l i ce h ea d qu ar t er s i nFe b ru ary 2 0 0 2 , r eg ar d i n g Dwa nOu t l aw ’s al le ge d in vol ve m en t i n th e co nspi ra cy . D ur ing dir ec t e xam inatio n, the G ove rn m en t e lic ite d de ta ils r eg ar din g w ha t transpi re d: G ov’ t: I’ m

not goi ng t o a sk y ou t o r ea d th e state m en t, it m ay be som ethin g w e en d up doi ng l at er , but ba se d onthi s state m en t tha t y ou t ook fr om Ms . H ea dspe th, w ha t di d y ou learn with re spect to 164 5 Der ry Avenue and Mr. Dwan Ou tl aw? Kim : Basically , c onfirm ed the inform ation that I rece ived. It

w as c onf irm ed thr oughL y dia

H ea dspe th i n th e state m en t that she had m ade. G ov’ t: D id s he te ll y ou anythi ng a bout D w anO utl awand h is connection to 1645 De rry Avenue?13

K im : Y es . G ov’ t: Wha t di d sh e te ll y ou? Kim : Based on her—our conversation, she advised that Mr.

Out la w wou ld , nu m

be r on e, pa y

forth e ren t o f th e h ou se . A lso he w ill [ sic ] br ing larg e quanti tie s of narc oti cs to that l oc at ion . I be lie ve on the state m en t i t say s e igh t t o t en k i l o s o f c o ca i n e. I d o n ’t k n o w t h e t i m e f ra m e, I d o n ’t knowif it ’ s aw ee k or

am onth. A nd h e w oul d a ct ua lly co ok the pow de r co ca ine int o c ra ck c oc ai ne and w oul d distribu te it from

that location and also from other l o ca t i o n th at i s o nth e c h art[s i c]. G ov’ t: D id s he m ak e any r ef er en ce s to 146 9 S im

psonRo ad

and the c onne ct ionthat l oc at ionha d to D er ry A ve nue and D w anO utl aw ’ s dr

ug d istri but ion ? K im : Y es . O n th e state m en t, li ke I sa id, he w oul d c ook the

powder coca ine to crack coca ine, c ook it at D erry Avenue. A nd he would also d istribut e or sell fr om that loc at ion . B ut a lso w oul d take it to, I be lie ve it ’ s 14 69 Si m psonRo ad , and h e w ill a lso dis tr ibu te or se ll fr om that location also . And then the statem ent is a little m ore de ta ile d a bout the ve hic le s and the pr oc es s of howhe w en t a bout , don e the w hol e ope ratio n. Gov’ t: Did y ou ask her about 39 5 W oodl aw n Avenue? K im : Y es . G ov’ t: A nd i n sum

and s ubst an ce w ha t di d y ou l earnabout 395 W oodl aw n Avenue? K im : If

I c oul d se e that st at em en t on e m or e tim e, but I be lie ve it’ s–A sec ond copy of the intervie w transc ript was admitted into evidenc e as G overnme nt 3 Ex hibit 57. Ex hibit 57 was a photocopy of the stateme nt police found duringa sea rch of Dwan Outlaw’s mother ’s home. B oth Ex hibits 17 and 57 were published and sent out with the jury duringtheir deliber ations. Appellants conte nd counsel did not object to the a dmission of the ex hibit or to Kim’s 4 te sti mony be c a us e the Go ve rnme nt h a d r e pr e se nte d it wo uld be c a lli ngHe a ds pe th a s a wi tne ss later in the pr ocee dings. 14 G ov’ t: H old

on, I ’ m sho w ing it

to y ou. K im : Y eah, r igh t f ro m the start , on the state m en t onthe f ro nt of the sheet, she a dvised th at she had gotten arrested from 395 W oodl aw n selling narcotics for D wan Outlaw an d a ft er ac er ta in p er iod

ha s pa sse d M r. O utl awf or the hous e on D er

ry A ve nue , the n sh e w as ba ck se lli ng na rco ti cs forhi m

ag ai n. Atr an sc ri pt o f the int er

vie wbe tw ee n K im

and H ea dspe th w as e nte re d in to ev ide nc e as G ove rn m ent’ s E xhi bit 17. D ef en dants ’ c ouns el did

not obj ec t t o 3 K im ’ s te sti m ony

or to the a dm iss ionof

E xhi bit 17. 4 U nde r pla in e rr or

r ev ie w , “ [a ] n a

ppe llate c ourt m ay

not c or re ct an e rr or the de fe ndant f

ai le d to r ai se in the dis tr ic t c ourt un le ss the re is: ( 1) e rr or , ( 2) that i s plain, and (3) that af

fects substantial right s.” Rodriguez , 39 8 F .3dat 1 29 8. T es tim oni al state m en ts o f ab se nt w itn es se s are a dm iss ibl e at tr ia l on ly w he n a de fen da nt ha s h ada pr io r op po rtu ni ty to co nf ro nt th e u na va il ab le wit ne ss . Craw ford v
. W ashi ngton , 541 U . S. 36, 59, 124 S . Ct . 135 4, 136 9 ( 2004 ). I t i s undi sput ed

that ne ith er

T er ry O utl awnor

D w anO utl aww as able to cr oss -e xam ine15

H ea dspe th b ef

or e or a t tri al and h er

state m en ts, giv ento a pol ic e of fi ce r dur ing a custodi al interview, we re incontrovertibly testim onial. Consequently , it w as pla inl y e rr one ous to a dm it the state m en ts i nto e vid en ce a t tri al . C f. U nit ed Sta tes v. Arbolaez , 450 F. 3d 12 83, 1291 (11t h Cir. 2006 ) (f indin g “ error ” that w as

“pla in” —bu t no t “pla in e rr or ”— in a dm iss ionof state m en t ob ta ine d th ro ugh cu st od ia l i nt erro ga ti on ). That leaves the questio n whether the e rror a ffec ted Dw an Outlaw ’ s or Te rry O utl aw ’ s su

bst an tia l r igh ts. F or

an e rr or to af fe ct sub stanti al r igh ts, “ the e rr or m ust have been prej udicial: It m ust have affec ted the outcom e of the district court proceedings.” U

nit ed Sta tes v . D e La G arz a , 516 F. 3d 12 66, 1269 (11t h Cir. 2008 ) (quot ing U

nit ed Sta tes v . O lan o , 507 U . S. 725 , 734 , 113 S . Ct . 177 0, 177 8 (1 99 3) ). W ithr es pe ct

to T er ry O utl aw , the re is little in H ea dspe th’ s st at em en ts t o pr ejud ic e h im . Heads pe th di d n ot m en ti on Terry Out la w to Dete ct iv e Kim at a ll . Sh e did , how ev er , ide nti fy T er ry O utl aw ’ s r es ide nc e, 395 W oodl awn A ve nue , a s a drug hou se. Bey ond th at tenuous li nk, there w as no connection betwee n He adspeth’s testim ony

and Te rry

Outlaw ’ s convictio n. A s we discuss at greater le ng th be lo w ( see § II I.A, inf ra ), T er ry O utl aww as c onvi ct ed

ba se d onthe testim ony of D etective K im

and co-conspirator Ke lly Roberts—not on the hearsay16

te sti m ony of L y dia H ea dspe th. H ea dspe th’ s st at em en ts, w hil e w ro ngl y a dm itt ed , did not pr ej udi ce T er

ry O utl aw ’ s su

bst an tia l r igh ts b y

a ff ec tin g th e out co m e of

his tr ia l. Sl igh tly

m or e dif fi cu lt is the que sti on whe the r H ea dspe th’ s st at em en ts m ad e the dif fe re nc e be tw ee n c onvi ct ionand a cquitta l f or D w anO utl aw . B ec au se He adspeth’s statem ents directly im plicated Dw an Outlawin the sale of narcotics at se ve ra l di ff

er en t l oc at ion s, he r te sti m ony w as pla inl y

pr ej udi ci al . I n or de r to decide whether

He adspeth’s statem ents determ ined the out com e of the trial—that is, w he the r the r es ult

w oul d have be endif

fe re nt b ut f

or the a dm iss ionof

the h ea rs ay s t at emen t s
—we m u s tco n s i d erwh at o th er

ev i d en ce o f D wa nOu t l aw ’s gu il ty w as pl aced be fo re t he jury. See A rbola ez , 45 0 F .3dat 1 29 1. Inthe c our se of

athr ee -w ee k tr ia l, the G ove rn m en t pr es en te d e vid en ce of num erous drug seizures linked to Dw an Outlaw . On N ovem ber 11, 2000, an of fi ce r sto ppe d D w anO utl aw ’ s ve hic le and r ec ove re d c ra ck c oc ai ne f ro m his poc ke t. O n M ar ch20, 200 2, of fi ce rs se ar ch ing 139 1 K enne sawD ri ve f ound docum ents sug gesting the residence belonged to Dw an Outlaw . From that loc at ion , of

fi ce rs se iz ed

larg e quanti tie s of

c oc ai ne , a lon g w ithw ea

pons and dru g para phe rn al ia . O n Apr il 25, 200 2, ase ar chof D w anO utl aw ’ s ho m e at 316 7 Su nn y fo rdLane ledto th e se iz ur e o f se ve ral fir earm s an d m ari juan a. On17

N ove m be r 6, 200 3, an un de rc ove r of fi ce r pur ch as ed

$50 0. 00 o f m ar ij uanaf

ro m D w anO utl aw , and o n N ove m be r 14, 200 3, D w anO utl aww as arr es te d a t 12 85 Nor th Aven ue , wher e o ffi cers fou nddru g c oo ki ng equi pm en t an d afir earm . Fi na lly , K el ly

Ro be rt s te sti fi ed

e xte nsi ve ly

r eg ar din g D w anO utl aw ’ s le ad ing r ole in the dr ug c onsp ir ac y . I n sh ort, the e vid en ce f ro m w hic h aj ur

y c oul d have f

ound O utl awgui lty

w as ove rwhe lm ing . I n li ght of that e vid en ce , w e cannot c onc lud e D w anO utl aw ’ s su

bst an tia l r igh ts w er e pr ej udi ce d by the im pr ope r adm iss ionof Head sp et h’s o ut -o f-co ur t s ta te m en ts .

IV . SU FFI CIENCYOF TH E E VI DENCE T er ry O utl awc ha lle nge s th e suf fi ci en cy of the e vid en ce use d to c onvi ct him of conspiracy ; Prather

and Dw an Outlawchallenge the sufficiency of the evidence supp ortin g th ei r co nvi ct ion s f or pos se ssi ng w ea

pons in co nne ct ionw ithadr ug traff icking o ffense. W e re view the suffic iency of the evidence de novo , vie w ing the e vid en ce in the li ght

m ost f av or ab le to the G ove rn m en t and draw ing a ll reas on ab le in fere nc es inth e Gov ern m en t’s fa vo r. United States v. Schlei , 122 F. 3d 94 4, 952-53 (11th Cir. 1997 ). W e m ust affirm unless no rea sonable jury co ul d h av e fo un d t he de fen da nt gu il ty bey on d areas on ab le do ub t. Id
. A. Conspira cy18

To p ro ve co ns pi racy, the Gov ern m en t m us t s ho w an a gr eem en t b et ween two orm or e p ers on s t o p os se ss an d d is tri bu te dru gs il le ga ll y . U nit ed Sta tes v . L

yo ns , 53 F . 3d 1 198, 120 1 ( 11th C ir . 199 5) . I t m ust a lso sho wT er

ry O utl awkno w ing ly an d v ol un ta ril y

joi ne d o r pa rti ci pa te d i n t he ag reem en t. Id
. A t tri al the G ove rn m en t pr es en te d e vid en ce T er ry O utl aww as pr es en t duri ng the Marc h 20 , 2002 se ar chof

390 W oodl awn A ve nue , w he re pol ic e fo und co ca ine ba se and
m arij uana hidden in a vent. Moreover, co-conspirator Ke lly Roberts testified Te rry Outlawwa s in charge of drug sales at the re sidence for alm ost on e y ear. Inarg uin g th e ev ide nc e w as ins uf fi ci en t t o pr ove his gui lt, O utl awdis co unt s Ro be rt s’ te sti m ony , c ont en din g th e j ur y w as not e nti tle d to be lie ve him

be ca use he
w as a“ host ile ” dr

ug a ddi ct . A lth oughO utl awa cknow le dge s th at c re dib ili ty

is a ma t t e r f o r th e j u ry t o a s s e s s , h e c o n t e n d s th a tR o b e rt s w a s s o u n r e l i ab l e , an ds o me of his testim ony

so absurd, that the Court shou ld find as a m atter of law the j ury was no t en ti tl edto be li ev e h im . W e ar e not

pe rs ua de d. A t tri al , de fe nse c ouns el im pe ac he d R obe rt s tho ro ughl y , poi nti ng o ut i nc onsi ste nc ie s inhis te sti m ony and h igh lig hti ng the reasons he m ay

have had for off

ering false testim ony . Ne vertheless, the j ury credited his testim ony , a s it was e ntitled to do. Further m ore, Outlaw ’ s sufficiency ch al le ng e ig no res co m

pl et el y th e ev id en ce re co ve redin th e Ma rch 20 sea rch . As19

the Governm ent properly notes, although “ m ere presence, guiltyknowledge, even sym pa the tic obs er

va tio n have a ll be enhe ld b y thi s c ourt t o f

al l sh ort of

the pr oof re qui re d” f

or c onsp ir ac y , O utl aw ’ s pr es en ce a t 39 0 W oodl awn a t the ti m e the se arch warran t was ex ecu te d i s n ot a fact wit ho ut leg al rel ev an ce. Ly ons , 53 F . 3d at 120 1. T he j ur

y w as f re e to i nf er f ro m T er ry O utl aw ’ s pr es en ce a t the dr ug ho us e th athe was aco ns pi rat or . Id
. (“ Prese nce at such drug traff icking . . . r aises a perm issib le infere nce of participation in the consp iracy .” ). While the inference al one w oul d be ins uf

fi ci en t t o c onvi ct

him , “ the inf

er en ce is a m at er ia l and probative factor that the j ury m ay consider in reaching its verdict.” Id
. Co m bin ing Ro be rt s’ s te sti m ony w iththe e vid en ce r ec ove re d duri ng the Marc h 20 se arch , th e ev id en ce was m or e th an ad equa te to supp ort t he jury’ s v erd ic t. Consequent ly , w e af

firm Te rry Outlaw ’ s convictio n on th e conspiracy charge. B
. G un P oss es sio n Prather and Dw an Outlawboth con tend the evidence adduced at trial w as insufficient to lin k their possess ion of gun s to drug trafficking offenses, a s re qui re d by

18 U . S. C. § 92 4( c) (1 )( A ). T ha t st at ute appl ie s to : any pe rs on who, dur ing and i n r el at ionto any c ri m e of vio le nc e or dr ug tra ff ic kin g c ri m e (i nc lud ing ac ri m e of vio le nc e or

dr ug tr af fi ck ing c ri m e that pr ovi de s f or an e nhanc ed

pun ish m en t i f co m m itt ed by the use of

ade ad ly or dange ro us w ea

pon or de vic e) f or w hic h th e pe rs on m ay

be pr ose cu te d inac ourt of the U nit ed

S ta te s,20

uses or carr ies a fir earm , or who, in furtherance of any such crim e, po ss es se s a f

ire arm . . . . United States v. Suarez , 313 F. 3d 12 87, 1291 (11t h Cir. 2002 ). Conviction under § 92 4( c) r equir es the pr ose cu tio n to e sta bli sh the f

ir earm “ he lpe d, f

urthe re d, prom oted, or advanced the drug traf ficking.” U

nit ed Sta tes v . T

im m ons , 283 F . 3d 1246 , 125 2 ( 11th C ir . 200 2) . I n othe r w or ds: T he gov er

nm en t m ust c le ar ly sho wthat a

f ir earm w as pos se sse d to advanc e or

pr om ote the c om

m iss ionof

the und er ly ing of

fe nse . T he m er e pr es en ce of

af ir earm in anare a w he re ac ri m ina l a ct oc curs is not a sufficient basis for im posin g this p articular m andatory sentence. Rather, the governm ent m ust illu strate through sp ecific facts, which tie the de fe ndant t o th e fi re ar m , that the f

ir earm w as pos se sse d to a d v an c e o r

p r o mo t e th e c r i mi n a l a c t i v i ty. Id
. a t 12 52. Pr athe r an d D w anO utl awc ont en d th er e w as ins uf fi ci en t e vid en ce to show the y pos se sse d guns “ in f

urthe ranc e of

” the dr ug c onsp ir ac y . T he y

c onc ed e the G ove rn m en t pr ove d P rathe r poss es se d aw ea pon an d D w anO utl awha d a cc es s to one ; ho w ev er , the y

c ont en d no e vid en ce w as a dduc ed sho w ing the y

use d th e fi re ar m s to f or w ar d, pr om ote , a dvanc e, or f ac ili ta te the c onsp ir ac y . W e as se ss the ev ide nc e ag ai nst

e ac h intur

n. 1. J erem iah Prather T he e vid en ce a ga ins t P rathe r cam e en tir el y f ro m K el ly Ro be rt s, w ho te sti fi ed he ha d se enP rathe r at

the dr ug h ouse s w ithgun s onthr ee to fi ve21

oc ca sio ns. A cc or din g to Ro be rt s, som et im e in 2 002, P rathe r be gan buy ing

“ Glocks,” which he w ouldwe ar in holsters over his sho ulders. O n several oc ca sio ns, P rathe r “play [e d] w ithf olk s” w ho c am e to 3 95 W oodl awn by c om ing up b eh ind

the m dr es se d inbla ck , pul lin g agunout of it s ho lst er , and w av ing it in the a ir . R obe rt s te sti fi ed

P rathe r w or e his gun s whe n he m ad e dr ug d el ive ri es and ha d t he weap on s av ai labl e to hi m at t he dru g h ou se s dur in g t ran sa ct io ns . I n th e fa ce of

thi s de ta ile d te sti m ony , P rathe r m er el y a sse rt s R obe rt s’ te sti m ony w as not c re dib le and the j ur

y sho uld not have be lie ve d it . H ow ev er , it is ax io m at ic th atcred ib il it y de te rm in at io ns are t he so le pro vi nc e o f th e jury, United Sta tes v . Ch astain , 198 F . 3d 1 338, 135 1 ( 11th C ir . 199 9) , and this Co urt m ust

“ re s o l v e a l l re as o n ab l e i n fe re n ce s an dcr ed i b i l i ty ev al u at i o n s i nfa v o r o f t h e ju ry’s ve rd ic t,” U

nit ed Sta tes v . M

edina , 485 F . 3d 1 291, 129 6 ( 11th C ir . 200 7) . D es pit e pot en tia l pr obl em s w ithRo be rt s’ c re dib ili ty , the j ur y w as e nti tle d to be lie ve Ro be rt s’ te sti m ony

that P rathe r ha d us ed

agunto sc ar e dr

ug c ust om er s a t the vari ous re sid en ce s—a

c le ar e xam ple of usi ng a w ea pon “ in f urthe ranc e” of

dr ug tra ffi ck in g. 2. D wa n O utlaw W it h re sp ectto Dwan Ou tl aw, th e Gov ern m en t p ro du cedev id en ce i n t wo fo rm s. F ir st, pol ic e te sti fi ed to re co ve ri ng tw o f

ir earm s duri ng a

se ar chof 316 7As a c onvicted fe lon, Dwan Outlaw could not leg ally

purcha se a w eapon. 5 22 Sunny fo rd

L an e. O ne gunw as f

ound on the top she lf

of abe dr oom

be lon gin g to Dwan a ndan ot he r gu n was fou ndbe twee n t he cu sh io ns of t he li vi ng roo m co uc h. B o thw e ap o n s w e r e r e g i s t e r e dt o D w anO u t l aw ’s f i an c e e , C i c e l y Wa r e . T h e s a me 5
se ar chy ie lde d e vid en ce of dr ug c ooki ng m at er ia ls and a sm al l am ount

of
m ari juan a. Seco nd , Kell y

Ro be rts tes ti fie d h e h adsee n Dwan Out la w wit h g un s o n t wo occasions. Roberts described one of these incidents in detail, explaining that when he onc e tr ie d to e xtr ic at e him se lf f ro m the c onsp ir ac y , O utl awdr ove pa st h im in a truck, holding a gu n aloft so Roberts would see it. R oberts und erstood the gestu re as a th reat .

“ Ac onvi ct ionm

ust be uph el d un le ss the j ur

y c oul d no t have f

ound the de fen da nt gu il ty und er an y reas on ab le co ns tru ct io n o f th e ev id en ce.” U nited States , 513 F . 3d 1 293, 129 9 ( 11th C ir . 200 8) ( quot ing U nit ed Sta tes v . B

yrd , 403 F. 3d 1 278, 128 8 ( 11th C ir . 200 5) ). T he e vid en ce that D w anO utl awuse d a
w ea pon in c onne ct ionw ithdr ug tra ff ic kin g m ay

not have be enove rwhe lm ing , but it was m ore than sufficient to supp ort the j ury ’ s verdict. From the evidence pr es en te d by

pol ic e of fi ce rs , the j ur

y w as f re e to c onc lud e D w anha d st or ed one or m or e g un s fo r pr ot ect io n a ndus e atth e lo cat io n wh ere h e co ok edcrac k c oc ai ne .23

Mor eo ve r, f

ro m Ro be rt s’ te sti m ony , the j ur y w as f re e to c onc lud e that, on at l ea st one oc ca sio n, D w anO utl awha d us ed aw ea pon to thr eate n R obe rt s, in or de r to pr ev en t h im

fro m ex tri cat in g h im se lf f

ro m th e co ns pi racy. Co ns eque nt ly, we affi rm Dwan Ou tl aw’s co nv ic ti on forvi ol at in g 1 8 U.S.C. § 92 4( c)(1 )(A). V. FAILURE TO PROVIDE JURY INSTRUCTION Ne xt, D wan Outlawchallenges the district court’ s failure to provide the j ur y w iththe f

oll ow ing pr opos ed

ins tr uc tio n r eg ar din g th e G ove rn m en t’ s f ai lur e to ca ll L y dia

H ea dspe th a s aw itn es s: Y ou h av e he ar d e vid en ce about aw itn es s who h as not

be enc al le d to testify . The def

ense has argued that the witness could have giv en m at er ia l t es tim ony

in thi s c as e an d th at

the gov er

nm en t w as in the be st p osi tio n to pr oduc e thi s w itn es s. If y ou find th at this uncalled witness couldhave been called by the governm ent and would have given im portant new testim ony , and that the gov er nm en t w as in the be st p osi tio n to c al l hi m [ sic ] , but f ai le d to do s o, y ou are pe rm itt ed , but y ou are not

r equir ed , to inf

er that the te sti m ony of the unc al le d w itn es s w oul d have be enunf av or ab le to the gove rn m en t. Inde ci din g w he the r to drawan in fe re nc e that the unc al le d w itn es s would have testified unfavorably to the gov ernm ent, y ou m ay consider whether the w itness’ te stim ony would have repeate d other te sti m ony and e vid en ce a lr ea dy

be fo re y ou. A t tri al , the G ove rn m en t t ook the pos iti on the ins tr uc tio n w as ina

ppr opr ia te b e c au s e th e wi tn e s s i n qu e s t i o n “ w e r e n o tn e c e s s ar i l y per se av ai la ble to theOn appe al, the Gove rnment conte nds for the f irst time that L ydia Hea dspeth could not 6 be ca lled as a tria l witness beca use she ha d committed a new c rime and w as on the lam whe n Appellants’ tria l took place. ( Red Br ief at 29, n. 1.) 24 governm ent” because “ [t] hey had Fifth Am endm ent rights and . . . it [would be] unl aw fu l and i m

pe rm iss ibl e to c al l a

w itn es s j ust

to have the m

[ sic ] inv oke the ir Fi fth A m en dm en t i n th e pr es en ce of the j ur y f or the m to dr awan in fe re nc e. ” T he 6
co urt de cl ine d to giv e the r eque ste d in str uc tio n. W e re vie wadis tr ic t c ourt’ s r ef usa l t o gi ve apart ic ular j ur y ins tr uc tio n f or ab us e o f di sc ret io n. U

nit ed Sta tes v . Eck

hard t , 466 F. 3d 93 8, 947-48 (11th Cir. 2006 ). U nder this deferential standard of re view, we will re verse only if “ we are le ft w ithasub stanti al and e ra dic ab le doubt a s to w he the r the j ur y w as pr ope rl y guid ed in its delib erations.” Id. Adis tr ic t c ourt’ s f

ai lur e to g ive ar eque ste d j ur y ins tr uc tio n is an a

buse of dis cr et ionw he n th e re que ste d in str uc tio n ( 1) w as c or

re ct , ( 2) w as not

sub stanti al ly co ve re d by

the c harg e ac tua lly

giv en , and ( 3) de al t w ithsom e poi nt i n th e tr ia l so im portant tha t f

ai lur e to g ive the r eque ste d in str uc tio n se ri ousl y

im pa ir ed the de fen da nt ’s abi li ty to co nd uc t h is de fen se . Eck hard t , 46 6 F .3dat 9 47 -4 8. Appe llants ’ pr opos ed

ins tr uc tio n w as dr awn f

ro m m ode l j ur

y ins tr uc tio ns, see San d e t al ., M

ode rn F ed
. J uryI nstruc tio ns- Cr im ina l § 6.04, Instruction 6-5 (2 007) ; ho w ev er , the c om m en tary to tho se ins tr

uc tio ns s ugge sts am iss ing w itn es s25

ins tr uc tio n w oul d have be enina ppr opr ia te und er

the c ir cum stanc es pr es en te d by this case: Whe n aw itn es s is e qua lly a va ila ble , or e qua lly unava ila ble to both part ie s, the j ust if

ic at ionf or giv ing am iss ing w itn es s in str uc tio n is subs tanti al ly

c hange d. I n su chc ir cum stanc es , the c ourt c le ar ly sho uld not ins tr uc t the j ur

y that an in fe re nc e m ay

be dr awn on ly

a ga ins t on e sid e. T his inc lud es sit

ua tio ns whe re the w itn es s ha s in dic at ed that he w oul d a sse rt

his F if th A m en dm en t r igh t no t t o te sti fy if c al le d. T hus, if a w itness is p hy sically

available to both p arties, but has been co ope ratin g w iththe de fe nse or is unde r gove rn m en t su

bpoe na , it is ina ppr opr ia te to giv e the m iss ing w itn es s in str uc tio n r ec om

m en de d in In str uc tio n 6- 5. Id
. § 6 .04 , Ins tru ct io n 6 -7 cmt. (c ol le ct in g c as es ). O ur Ci rc uit c as e lawsup ports the sam e re sul t. O nly “ [w ] he n aw itn es s is pe cu lia rlywi thi n th e co ntr ol o f on e part

y , and the w itn es s’ te sti m ony w oul d el uc idate f

ac ts i n is sue , [ is] an in str

uc tio n . . . a

ppr opr ia te r eg ar din g th e pe rm iss ibl e inf

er en ce w hic h th e j ur

y m ay dr awf ro m the party ’ s f

ai lur e to c al l the witness.” U

nit ed Sta tes v . Na hoom , 791 F . 2d 8 41, 846 ( 11th C ir . 198 6) ( em pha sis ad de d) . I n th is c as e, the dis tr ic t c ourt f ound H ea dspe th w as not

part ic ularl y

w ith in th e co nt ro l o f th e Gov ern m en t. Bec au se ne it he r pa rty call edhe r to tes ti fy , a m issin g witness instructio n would have invi ted the j ury to draw an im

proper inf er en ce in Appe llants ’ f

av or . C onse que ntl y , the dis tr ic t c ourt di d no t a buse his di sc ret io n b y

fai li ng to gi ve th e req ue st edin st ru ct io n. VI . PRO SE CUT ORI AL MISC ON DU CT26

Ne xt, Pr ather challenges the prosecutor’ s closing argum ent, during which she refe rred to the death of a local police officer and sugg ested to the jury that ad dit ion al of

fi ce rs ’ li ve s w oul d have be ene ndange re d ha d po lic e co nti nue d to ga the r ev ide nc e ag ai nst

Appe llants be fo re pr oc ee din g to tr ia l. P rathe r co nte nds he r state m en ts t ai nte d th e j ur y and tha t hi s c onvi ct ionsho uld the re fo re be rev ers ed . W e w ill reverse a

defendant’ s convictio n on th e basis of prosecutorial
m isc ondu ct

onl y w he re the pr ose cu tor ’ s “ re m ar ks ( 1) w er e im

pr ope r an d (2) prej udiced the defendant’ s subs tantive rights .” U nit ed Sta tes v . O ’K

ee fe , 461 F. 3d 13 38, 1350 (11t h Cir. 2006 ) (e m phasis add ed). Adefendant’ s subs tantial ri ght s are pr ej udi ci al ly

a ff ec te d on ly

w he n ar ea sona

ble pr oba bil ity ari se s th at , but fo r th e p ro se cu to r’s st at em en ts , th e o ut co m e o f th e tr ia l wo ul d h av e b een di ffer en t. Id
. T he G ove rn m en t do es not de fe nd the pr ose cu tor ’ s c om m en ts, but

poi nts out the tr ia l j udge , a ct ing sua spon te , a dm oni she d th e j ur y to dis re gard

the pr ose cu tor ’ s r em ar

k, and n ot a llo wit

to fa ct or int o th ei r de ci sio n. H av ing review ed the Governm ent’ s harm less error argum ent in the context o f the entire reco rd , United States v. B lakey , 14 F. 3d 15 57, 1561 (11t h Cir. 1994 ), we agree that th e ju d g e’s cu ra t i v e i n s tru ct i o n wa s s u ff i ci en t . Al th o u g h th e p ro s ec u t o r’s27

co m m en t w as of

f- ba se , it w as br ie f an d w as a lm ost im m ed ia te ly c or re ct ed by the dis tr ic t c ourt. T he pr ose cu tor did not m iss ta te the bur de n of

pr oof , w hic h sh e em pha siz ed r equir ed pr oof “be y ond a re as ona

ble doubt. ” Mo re ove r, in the c ont ex t of atr ia l i n w hic h th e j ur

y he ar d su bst an tia l e vid en ce of

P rathe r’ s gu ilt , the co m m en t w as not

one li ke ly

to have inf

lue nc ed the j ur y ’ s ve rd ic t, m

uc h le ss al te re d it . C onse que ntl y , the e rr or w as harm le ss; the dis tr ic t c ourt di d no t e rr by de nyin g P rat he r’s m ot io n fo r a m is tri al . VII. SENTENCING T he dis tr ic t c ourt i m

pose d ase nte nc e on T er

ry O utl awthat f

el l w ith in the re co m m en de d gu ide lin e range and i m pose d abe low -g uid el ine se nte nc e on Jerem iah Prather . Te rry

Outlawappeals his sentence, contending it was unreasonablyhigh; the Governm ent appeals Prather ’ s sentence, c ontend ing it was unreasonablylow. U nfortunately , w e cannot determ ine whether the sentences
w er e re as ona

ble be ca use the dis tr ic t c ourt f

ai le d to a de quate ly

e xpl ai n th e re as on for the sentences it selecte d. Consequently , w e re verse and rem and both sentences fo r fu rth er co ns id erat io n b y th e d is tri ctco ur t. In determ ining what sentence is reasonable in any given case, the district co urt m ust c onsi de r the c or

re ct ly c al cu la te d a dvi sor

y gui de lin e range and the fact or s s etfor th in 18 U.S.C. § 3 55 3( a). U nit ed Sta tes v . V

aln or , 451 F . 3d 7 44,28

749 (1 1thCi r. 200 6) . T he part ie s a gr ee the dis tr ic t c ourt pr ope rl y c al cu la te d th e re le vant g uid el ine r an ge s f or both P rathe r an d T er

ry O utl aw , the re fo re w e ne ed not co ns id er t ha t i ss ue . W e re vie wse nte nc es f

or tw o ki nds of

r ea sona ble ne ss: pr oc ed

ur al and subs tanti ve . F ir st, w e re vie wthe se nte nc e to ensure that the district court com m itted no si gnificant procedural er ro r, suc h a s f

ai lin g to c al cu la te ( or

im pr ope rl y c al cu la tin g) the G uid el ine s r an ge , tr eatin g th e G uid el ine s a s m an da tor y , f ai lin g to co nsi de r the § 35 53( a) f

ac tor s, se le ct ing ase nte nc e ba se d onc le ar ly erroneous facts, or failing to adequately explain the chosen se nte nc e— inc lud ing an e xpl an at ionf or any de viatio n f

ro m the Gui de li ne s ra ng e. Gall v. United States , — U . S. —, 128 S . Ct . 586 , 597 ( 2007 ); United States v. P ugh , 515 F. 3d 11 79, 1190 (11t h Cir. 2008 ). If no procedural err ors have been com m itted, w e assess the substant ive reasonableness of the sentence under an ab us e o f di sc ret io n s ta nd ard . G all , 12 8 S . Ct. at59 7. Inor de r fo r thi s C ourt t o a ff irm that a se nte nc e is r ea sona

ble , it m ust be cl ear that the dis tr ic t c ourt c onsi de re d r el ev an t se nte nc ing f ac tor s. A lth ougha sentencing judge need not m ake explicit his cons ideration of all rel ev an t fa ct or s, the j udge m

ust “ set forth enough to satisfy the appellate court that he has co ns id eredth e p art ie s’ arg um en ts an d h as a reas on edba si s fo r ex erci si ng hi s o wnRi ta was issued on June 21, 2007. Ga ll issued Dec ember

10, 2007, the day

befor e ora l 7 argument was he ld in this case . 29 legal decision m aking auth ority .” U nit ed Sta tes v . R ita , — U . S. —, 127 S . Ct . 2456 , 246 8 ( 2007 ); G all , 128 S . Ct . a t 59 7. The district court sentenced Jer em iah Prather on August 16 , 2005, and T erry Ou t l aw o n Se p t emb er2 1 , 2 0 0 5 , wi th o u tth e b en ef i to f t h e S up re m e C o u rt ’s gui danc e in R ita or G all . Havi ng rev ie wedth e tr an sc rip t o f bo th sen te nc es , we 7
co nc lud e the dis tr ic t c ourt f ai le d “ to a de quate ly

e xpl ai n th e ch ose n se nte nc e” f or ei th er Pra th er an d Terry

Out la w. G all , 128 S . Ct . a t 59 7. D istri ct c ourts d es er

ve gr eat de fe re nc e in d ec idi ng s en te nc es ; ho w ev er , the se nte nc es m ust be a de quate ly expla ine d. R ita , 127 S . Ct . a t 24 69 ( “ By art ic ulatin g r ea sons , e ve n if br ie f, the se nte nc ing j udge not

onl y a ssure s r ev ie w ing c ourts ( an d th e publ ic ) that the se nt en ci ng pro ces s i s a r eas on edpro ces s b ut als o h el ps th atpro ces s ev ol ve .”). By r em an din g th es e se nte nc es to the dis tr ic t c ourt, w e do n ot j udge the reas on ab le ne ss of e it he r se nt en ce’s l en gt h; we as k o nl y form or e ex pl an at io n. On re m an d, the dis tr ic t c ourt sh oul d e xe rc ise it s r ea sone d di sc re tio n and i m pose wha te ve r se nt en ce i t d eem s ap pr op ria te un de r § 3 55 3( a).30 VIII. CONCLUSION For the re asons di scussed abov e, we conclude the dist rict court did not err
w he n it a dm itt ed e vid en ce obt ai ne d th ro ugh va lid ly -e xe cu te d se ar chw ar rants ; found Appellants h ad failed to prove the Governm ent’ s use of perem ptory strikes wa s ra ci al l y m o t i v at ed ; d et erm i n eds u ff i ci en tev i d en ce s up p o rt edth e ju ry’s co nvi ct ionof

T er ry O utl awf or c onsp ir ac y

and P rathe r an d D w anO utl awf or poss essing g uns in connection with drug trafficking offenses; failed to provide a
m issin g witness instructio n; and denied Appellant’s m otion for a m istrial prem ised on th e al le ge dl y

in fla m m at ory na tu re o f th e p ro se cu to r’s cl os in g a rg um en t. Furthe rm or e, a lth oughthe dis tr ic t c ourt e rr ed by a dm itt ing he ar say

te sti m ony

f ro m a non- te sti fy ing w itn es s, the e rr or did not a ff ec t Appe llants ’ sub stanti al r igh ts and th er ef o re i s n o tg ro u n d s fo r r ev er s al . Th er ef o re , we af fi rm th e d i s tri ct co u rt ’s j udgm en t w ithr es pe ct

to ea chof

the se m atte rs . H ow ev er , w e va cate and r em an d th e se nt en ces of Terry

Out la w andJer em ia h P rat he r on pro cedur al gro un ds . On re m an d, the dis tr ic t c ourt sh oul d e xpl ai n m or e fu lly it s r ea sons f

or im posi ng the se nte nc es it

se le ct ed . AF FIRMED IN P AR T, REV ERS ED IN P AR T; REMA ND ED FOR FU RTH ER PR OCE EDIN GS.