FI LED U.S. COURT OF APPEALS ELEV ENT H CI RCUI T OCT OBER 26, 2010 J OHN LEY CLERK [DO NOT PUBLISH]

IN THE UN ITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE ELE VENTH CIRCUIT

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ No. 0 9- 16 37 3 Non -Arg um en t Ca le nd ar

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ D.C. Dock et No. 0 9- 00 28 6- CR-T-2 4EAJ

UNITED STAT ES OF AMERIC A,
Pl ai nt iff -Ap pe ll ee,

ve rs us VITALI MAKARENKOV,
Defen da nt -Ap pe ll an t.

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ App eal fro m

th e Uni te d S ta te s Di st ric t Co ur t fo r th e Mi dd le Dis tri ct of F lo rid a

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ (Oct ob er 2 6, 2 01 0)
Befo re EDMONDSON, MARTIN, an d C OX, Circ ui t J ud ge s.
PER CURI AM:
Vit al i Mak aren ko v an d St an is la w Sat ari no v were joi nt ly ch arg ed i n a t woco un t i n d i c t m en t. Co un t One ch arg ed co ns pi racy to po ss es s wit h th e in te nt to
di st rib ut e fiv e ki lo gr am s or m or e of c o c a i n e , i n vi ol at io n of 21 U.S.C. §§ 84 6 an d84 1( b) (1 )(A). Co un t Two ch arg ed po ss es si on wit h in te nt to di st rib ut e 50 0 gr am s or

m or e o f co cai ne , in vi ol at io n o f 21 U.S.C. §§ 84 1( a)(1 ) an d (b )(1 )(B)

. Mak aren ko v was tri ed al on e. The jury fo un d hi m gu il ty on Co un t One , bu t of
th e le ss er-i nc lu de d of

fen se of co ns pi racy to po ss es s wit h th e in te nt to di st rib ut e 50 0

gr am s o r m or e o f co cai ne . He was fo un d gu il ty as ch arg ed on Co un t Two . He was

se nt en ced to se v en ty-two m on th s on each co un t, wit h th e se nt en ces to ru n

co nc ur ren tl y , an d a fo rty-eig ht m on th te rm of su pe rv is ed rel eas e on each co un t, to ru n

co nc ur ren tl y . He app eal s.
On ap pe al , Mak aren ko v a r g u e s th at th e di st ric t co ur t erre d in ad m it ti ng

reco rd ed co nv ers at io ns be twee n Sat ari no v, a co -co ns pi rat or , an d a co nf id en ti al

in fo rm an t be cau se ad m is si on of th ei r st at em en ts vi ol at ed th e Si xt h Am en d men t ’s

Co nf ro nt at io n Cl au se an d th e st at em en ts were no t ad m is si bl e un de r Fed

. R. Evi d.

80 1( d) (2 )(E). He al so a rg ue s— an d th e Gov ern m en t co nc ed es —t ha t th e di st ric t

co ur t’s writt en jud gm en t in hi s case co nt ai ne d a fu nd am en ta l cler ic al erro r in th at it
refl ect ed th at on Co un t One he was co nv ic te d un de r 21 U.S.C. § 84 1( b) (1 )(A) whe n
he was co nv ic te d of a le ss er-i nc lu de d § 84 1( b) (1 )(B) vi ol at io n. W e affi rm , bu t va cat e

an d re m an d fo r th e d is tri ct co ur t t o c or rect th e cl eri cal erro r in th e jud gm en t.

2I.

W e rev ie w qu es ti on s of co ns ti tu ti on al la w d e n o vo

. Uni te d St at es v.
Und er wo od , 44 6 F.3d 13 40 , 13 45 (11 th Cir . 20 06 ) (ci ta ti on om it te d) . W e rev ie w a
di st ric t co ur t’s ru li ng on th e ad m is si bi li ty of ev id en ce fo r ab us e o f di sc ret io n. Id

. (ci ta ti on om it te d)

. Mak aren ko v arg ue s th at th e di st ric t co ur t erre d in a d mi t t in g ou t-o f-co ur t

st at em en ts m ad e by a co -co ns pi rat or an d a co nf id en ti al in fo rm an t in vi ol at io n of hi s rig ht s un de r th e Si xt h Am en dm en t. Und er th e Co nf ro nt at io n Cl au se , a cr i mina l
de fen da nt “ sh al l en

joy th e rig ht

. . . to be co nf ro nt ed wit h th e wit ne ss es ag ai ns t hi m .”

U.S. Co ns t. am en d. VI. In Cr aw fo rd v. W as hi ng to n , 54 1 U.S. 36 , 50 -5 1, 12 4 S. Ct

. 13 54 , 13 64 , (2 00 4) , th e Su pr em e Co ur t he ld th at th e C o n f ro nt at io n Cl au se ap pl ie d
wit h eq ua l fo rce to in -co ur t te st im on y an d “ te st im on ia l” ou t

- of -co ur t st at em en ts

. H owe ve r, in Und er wo od we sa id th at te st im on ia l st at em en ts are “ st at em en ts mad e

un de r ci rcu m st an ces whi ch wou ld le ad th e de cl aran t to be li ev e th at th e s t a t e men t

wou ld be av ai la bl e fo r us e at a la te r tri al .” 44 6 F.3 d at 13 47 (ci ta ti on om it te d)

. And ,

we up he ld th e in tro du ct io n of a c o - co ns pi rat or ’s st at em en ts to a co nf id en ti al

in fo rma n t, reas on in g th at th e co -co ns pi rat or ’s st at em en ts ne ve r wou ld ha ve be en

m ad e if he ha d re al iz ed th at th e in fo rm an t wo rk ed for law en fo rcem en t. Id

.

3A s i n Und er wo od , th e st at em en ts m ad e by Sat ari no v to th e co nf id en ti a l

in fo rm an t were no t te st im on ia l be cau se th e st at em en t s w e r e no t m ad e un de r
ci rcu m st an ces in whi ch he wou ld ex pe ct hi s st at em en ts to be us ed in co ur t– he
be li ev ed he was sp eak in g to a tru st ed acco m pl ic e in cri m e. The refo re, th e ad m is si on
of Sat ari no v’s st at em en ts di d no t vi ol at e Mak aren ko v’s rig ht s u n d e r t he

Co nf ro nt at io n C la us e.
Mak aren ko v arg ue s in th e al te rn at iv e th at “ ev en if th e ad m is si on of th e al le ge d

co -co ns pi rat or ’s st at em en ts di d no t vio la te Cr aw fo rd , th e st at em en ts were im pr op erl y

co ns id ered co -co ns pi rat or st at em en ts un de r Fed eral Ru le of Evi de nc e 80 1( d) (2 )(E),

as th e [G]ove rn m en t fai le d to es ta bl is h th at a co ns pi racy in vo lv in g Mr. Mak aren ko v

ex is te d at th e ti m e th e st at em en ts were m ad e.” ( App el la nt Br. at 18 .) Und er
Mak aran ko v’s reas on in g, “ pr io r to a pa rty’ s en tra nc e in to a c on sp ira cy , st at em en ts

m ad e by a su bs eq ue nt co -co ns pi rat or do no t fal l wit hi n [th e 80 1( d) (2 )(E)] ex cep ti on

to th e he ars ay ru le .” (

Id

. a t 26 -2 7.) Bu t it is se tt le d la w in th is ci rcu it th at “ a
‘decl arat io n of on e co -co ns pi rat or is ad m is si bl e ag ai ns t m em be rs of th e co ns pi racy
who joi ne d aft er th e st at em en t was m ad e.’” Uni te d St at es v. La mpl ey , 68 F.3 d 12 96 , 13 01 (1 1t h Ci r. 19 95 ) (q uo ti ng Uni te d St at es v. To mbr el lo , 66 6 F.2 d 48 5, 49 1 (1 1t h
Ci r. 19 82 )). Co ns eq ue nt ly, Mak aren ko v’s ar gu m en t i s m eri tl es s.

4Mak aren ko v al s o a r g ue s th at th e in fo rm an t’s st at em en ts were in ad m is si bl e

he ars ay be cau se th ey were of fere d to pr ov e th e tru th of th e m at te r as se rte d. The

in fo rm an t’s s ta te m en ts , ho wev er, were no t of fere d fo r th ei r tru th , bu t on ly to pl ace
th e in ve st ig at io n an d Sat ari no v’s st at em en ts in co nt ex t. The refo re, th ey were no t
he ars ay , a nd were ad m is si bl e. Uni te d St at es v. Pri ce , 7 92 F.2 d 99 4, 99 7 (1 1t h Ci r.
1 98 6) (h ol di ng th at an in fo rm an t’s ha lf of a ta pe d co nv ers at io n was no t h e a r s a y
be cau se “ [t]he si ng le pu rp os e fo r ad m it ti ng th e [ t h e in fo rm an t’s] s ta te m en ts was to

m ak e un de rs ta nd ab le to th e jury th e st at em en ts m ad e by [th e de fen da nt ] hi m se lf,” an d

no t to pr ov e th at th e in fo rm an t’s st at em en ts were tru e). Acco rd in gl y , we ho ld th at th e
di st ric t co ur t di d no t ab us e it s di sc ret io n in ad m it ti ng th es e reco rd ed co nv ers at io ns

. Mak aren ko v arg ue s fu rth er th at th e di st ric t co ur t fai le d to pr ov id e a li mi t i n g
in st ru ct io n as to th e in fo rm an t’s st at em en ts ; on e te ll in g th e jury th at th e in fo rm an t’s

st at em en ts were no t ad mi t t e d to pr ov e th at wha t he sa id was tru th fu l. Bu t,
Mak aren ko v fai le d to req ue st th e li m it in g in st ru ct io n at t r i a l an d “ th e fai lu re of th e

co ur t to pr ov id e on e, su a sp on te , [is ] no t pl a i n e r r o r

. ” Uni te d St at es v. Cr os s , 92 8

F.2 d 10 30 , 10 51 n.6 9 (1 1t h Ci r. 19 91 ) (ci ta ti on s om it te d)

. “ The fai lu re to g i v e a
li m it in g in st ru ct io n is erro r on ly w h e n s u c h a n in st ru ct io n is req ue st ed .” Uni te d

St at es v. Mir an da , 19 7 F .3d 13 57 , 13 60 (11 th Cir . 19 99 ) (ci ta ti on om it te d)

.

5II.

W he n face d wit h a cl eri cal erro r in th e writ te n jud gm en t, we m ay rem an d wit h

in st ru ct io ns to co rrec t th at erro r. Uni te d St at es v. Dia z , 1 90 F.3 d 12 47 , 1 25 2 (1 1t h
Ci r. 19 99 ) (rem an di ng be cau se th e jud gm en t refl ect ed t h e w r o n g of fen se ). “ It is
fu nd am en ta l erro r fo r a co ur t to en te r a jud gm en t of co nv ic ti on ag ai ns t a d efen da nt
who ha s no t be en ch arg ed , tri ed or fo un d gu il ty of th e cri m e reci te d in th e jud gm en t.”
Id

. Bo th pa rti es ag ree, an d we ha ve co nf irmed, th at th e writ te n jud gm en t refl ect ed
th at Mak aren ko v’s Co un t One co nv ic ti on was pu ni sh ab le un de r 21 U.S.C. § 841( b) (1 )(A), whe n he act ua ll y was co nv ic te d of a le ss er-i nc lu de d of fen se pu ni shabl e

un de r § 84 1( b) (1 )(B)

. Acco rd in gl y , we va cat e t h at pa rt of th e jud gm en t whi ch
de sc rib es th e ti t l e a n d s ect io n of whi ch he was co nv ic te d an d rem an d wit h

in st ru ct io ns to co rrec t t he cle ric al erro r in th e jud gm en t.
AFFIR MED IN PART; VACATED AND REMANDED IN PART.

6