FI L ED U.S. COURT OF APPEAL S EL EVENTHCI RCUI T APRI L26, 2011 J OHN L EY CL ERK [DO NOT PUBLISH] IN THE U

NITED STATE S COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELE VENTH CIRCUIT

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ No. 1 0- 13 21 6 Non -Arg um en t Ca le nd ar

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ D.C. Dock etNo. 8 :0 9- cr-0 03 99 -SCB -AEP-1 UNITED STAT ES OF AMERIC A,

Pl ai nt iff -Ap pe ll ee, ve rs us NATHANIEL HARGROVE, a.k .a. Fro g, 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 urt forth e Mi dd le Dis tri ctof F lo rid a

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ (Ap ril 26 , 20 11 ) Befo re HULL, MARTIN an d KRAVITC H, Circ ui t J ud ge s. PER CURI AM:Nath an ie l Har gr ov e ap pe al s h is co nv ic ti on s an d s en te nc es for fou r co un ts of kn owi ng ly andin te nt io na ll y di st rib ut in g c rackco cai ne , invi ol at io n o f 21 U.S.C. § 8 41 (a)( 1) . After ajury fo un d Har gr ov e g ui lt y , th e d is tri ctco urt i m po se d co nc urren t s en te nc es of 2 40 m on th s. Onap pe al , Harg ro ve arg ue s t ha t (1 ) th e di st ric t co urt erredby den y in g h is m ot io n fo r a jud gm en t o f acqui tt al be cau se he reas on ab ly bel ie ve d h e act edun de r th e au th or ity of l aw en fo rcem en t; an d (2 ) hi s se nt en ce i s s ub st an ti ve ly unr eas on ab le . After arev ie w of t he reco rd , we affi rm . I. Back gr ou nd On Ap ril 9, 2 00 9, t he Hil ls bo ro ug h C ou ntry Sh eri ff’s o ffi ce p la ced Dete ct iv e Ro be rto Ram ire z an d Dep ut y Gus Garci a in th e Pl an t Ci ty area as un de rco ve r of

fic ers . An u ni de nt ifi edm anap pr oa ch edth e o ffi cers at a co nv en ie nc e st or e an d R am ire z as ke d t o p ur ch as e m ari juan a. The m anto okth e un de rco ve r of

fic ers to a res id en ce wh ere h e in tro du cedth em to “ Fro g,” who m po li ce l at er i de nt ifi edas Ha rg ro ve . Hargr ov e o ffer edto sel l Ra m ire z cra ck co cai ne an d R am ire z ag reed . Ram ire z an d Gar ci a acc om pani edHarg ro ve to an ot he r lo cat io n wh ere Harg ro ve ex ch an ge d R am ire z’s $2 00 forcrac k. Harg ro ve als o re qu es te d a br ok er’s fee of $ 20 , whi ch Ram ire z p ai d. Th e m enreturne d t o t he res id en ce wh ere Harg ro ve an d R am ire z ex ch an ge d p ho ne nu m be rs . At no ti m e d idth e o ffi cers 2in fo rm

Harg ro ve th atth ey

were wi th th e p ol ic e. On Ap ril 14 , Ram ire z cal le d Har gr ov e to pu rch as e m or e cra ck . Ram ire z an d u nd erco ve r of

fic er Dav idEvarts m etHarg ro ve an d e xc hang ed$5 00 forcrac k. Alt ho ug h R am ire z h adreque st ed14 gra m s o f cra ck , th e p art ie s ag ree tha t t he am ou ntRam ire z rec ei ve d i n thi s t ran sa ct io n was 7 g ram s. To acco un t fo r th e sh orta ge , Harg ro ve di d n otch arg e h is bro ke r’s fee. Harg ro ve als o p ro m is edto supp ly mor e cra ck

to m ak e up fo r th e sh orta ge . Thro ug ho utth e in te ract io n wi th Harg ro ve , th e u nd erco ve r of fic ers co nt in ue d t o a ctas d ru g d eal ers . Duri ng th e m eet in g, Har gr ov e ex pr es se d c on cern ab ou t p ol ic e su rv ei ll an ce an d p oi nt edto th e lo ok ou ts he us ed . Hargr ov e as ke d qu es ti on s ab ou t Ra m ire z’s dr ug bu si ne ss an d e nc ou rag edth em to ke ep th ei r bu si ne ss co m in g. Harg ro ve als o s ho wedth e o ffi cers a bl oc k o f cra ckhe ke ptfor hi s o wn p ers on al us e. On Ap ril 22 , Ram ire z cal le d Har gr ov e to m ak e an ot he r pu rch as e o f cra ck . Ram ire z, Garci a, an d Ev art s ac co m pani edHarg ro ve to a ne w lo cat io n b ecau se Harg ro ve ’s us ua l s ou rce was un av ai labl e. Afte r wai ti ng forth e dru gs to be read y , th e o ffi cers watc he d a s Har gr ov e ex ch an ge d t he m on ey forth e dru gs . Garci a p ai d Harg ro ve hi s b ro ke r’s fee. Harg ro ve th ento okth e o ffi cers to an ot he r res id en ce whe re the off

ic ers ob se rv edHarg ro ve sel l m etha do ne pi ll s. 3On M ay 12 , Evart s co nt act edHarg ro ve to pu rch as e cra ckforhi s cu st om ers . Whe n Ev art s m etHarg ro ve to m ak e th e p ur ch as e, he was a cco m pa ni edby two ot he r un de rco ve r of

fic ers th atHarg ro ve di d n otkn ow. Harg ro ve be cam e un co m fo rtabl e u nt il Evarts in tro du cedth e two off ic ers as h is gi rlf

rie ndan d h er br ot he r. Evarts no te d tha t Har gr ov e’s be ha vi orwas d iff eren t t hi s t im e, bu t h e at tri bu te d i t t o t he ne w peo pl e in vo lv ed . The off ic ers wentwith Har gr ov e to th e sa m e res id en ce as th e la st tra ns act io n t o m ak e th e ex ch an ge , bu t Har gr ov e in st ru ct edth em to dri ve to a ga s st at io n a ndwaitforhi s ca ll . At th e g as st at io n, Ev art s re cei ve d acal l fr om Harg ro ve th atth ere was anex tra$5 0 wo rth of c rackav ai labl e. Evarts in st ru ct ed Harg ro ve to pu rch as e it . After t he tra ns act io n, Har gr ov e as ke d Ev art s fo r so m e o f th e cra ckEvarts ha d p ur ch as ed . He als o s ho wedEvarts so m e m ari juan a an d t ol d Eva rts to bu y

hi s m ari juan a fro m

Harg ro ve on ly. The se pu rch as es ledto Harg ro ve ’s fou r-co un t i nd ic tm en t. At t ria l, Harg ro ve tes ti fie d t ha t h e h ada drug pro bl em an d s uf fere d fr om

m en ta l h eal th is su es . He exp la in edth athe ha d b el ie ve d t he m enwere u nd erco ve r of fic ers fro m th e b eg in ni ng be cau se th ey ad dr es se d h im

by his st reetna m e an d kne w he h adan ou ts ta nd in g warran t. He s ta te d t ha t h e b el ie ve d h e h adno ch oi ce b utto co op erat e wit h p ol ic e. Acco rd in g t o Har gr ov e, th e o ffi cers wou ldpa y hi m an d h e wou ld 4ke ep so m e o f th e cra ck forhi m se lf. He b el ie ve d tha t as lo ng as h e co op erat ed , th e of fic ers wou ldno t arres t h im . Hargr ov e ad m it te d t ha t h e h adth irt y -two pri or fel on ie s an d h adpl ead edgu il ty to al l o f th em . But , he e xp la in ed , he was no t gu il ty thi s t im e an d h e h adon ly part ic ip at edin th e d eal s t o a vo idpri so n. 1 The off ic ers tes ti fie d t ha t t he y

were u na ware o f Harg ro ve ’s ou ts tand in g warra ntwhen th ey

fir stm ethi m

an d tha t Har gr ov e was no t ac ti ng as apo li ce in fo rm an t. The y

ex pl ai ne d t ha t t he y

us edno ne of the no rm al pro cedur es to ha nd le Harg ro ve li ke anin fo rm an t; th ey di d n otob ta in ap pr ov al fro m th ei r supe rv is or , th ey di d n otsea rch hi m

forco nt rab an d b efo re o r aft er ea ch tra ns act io n, t he y di d no t re ta in co nt ro l o ve r Harg ro ve at a ll ti m es , andth ey wou ldno t h av e p erm it te d Harg ro ve to pu rch as e o r po ss es s d ru gs forhi s o wn u se . The co urt i ns tru ct edth e jury tha t i f itfou ndHarg ro ve ha d areas on ab le be li ef tha t h e was act in g u nd er the au th or ity of t he po li ce, i t co ul d c on si de r th at fact . The jury

co nv ic te d Har gr ov e o n a ll fou r co un ts . At s en te nc in g, t he co urt g ro up edall fou r co un ts to ge th er an d s eta ba se of fen se lev el of 2 4 g iv enth e 1 6.4 gra m s o f cra ckin vo lv edinth e fo urtra ns act io ns . Alt ho ug h Har gr ov e h adnu m ero us pri orfel on ie s –th irt y -two of t he m – t he di st ric t Har grove move d for judgment of ac quittal at the close of theg overnme nt’s case -in- 1 chief and ag ain at the c lose of all the e vidence , thus preser ving his c halleng e to the suff iciency of the evidenc e. 5co urt co nc lu de d t ha t h e d idno t qua li fy as acare er o ffen de r un de r U.S.S.G. § 4 B1 .1. Bu t Co un t 2 of the co nv ic ti on , whi ch rel at edto th e Apr il 14 tra ns act io n, carr ie d am an da to ry

m in im um sen te nc e o f te n years’ im pr is on m en t. The di st ric t co urt ca lc ul at edHarg ro ve ’s gu id el in es ran ge as 1 20 to 12 5 m on th s. Nei th er p art y ob jecte d t o t he cal cu la ti on s. The co urt t he n turne d t o t he sen te nc in g fa ct or s i n 1 8 U.S.C. § 35 53 (a). Th e co urt n ot edHarg ro ve ’s len gt hy crim in al hi st ory an d t he factth athe ha d s pe ntm os t of hi s l ife in carc erat edan d e xp la in edth atitbe li ev edHarg ro ve was the type o f pe rs on who sh ou ldbe sen te nc edto a te rm of i m pr is on m en t h ig he r th anth e advi so ry gu id el in e ran ge . Thu s, the co urt s ta te d, i t was co ns id eri ng anup ward de pa rtu re u nd er § 4A1 .3(b ). In r es po ns e, de fen se co un se l n ot edHarg ro ve ’s dru g de pe nd en cy

an d m en ta l-h eal th st atus an d a rg ue d t ha t t he ten -y ear m an da to ry m in im um sen te nc e wou ldbe su ffi ci en t d et erre nt . Hargr ov e h im se lf apo lo gi zedto th e co urt an d re qu es te d t he m an da to ry m in im um sen te nc e. Afte r co ns id eri ng th e pa rti es ’ arg um en ts an d t he § 3 55 3( a) fac to rs , th e co urt d et erm in edth ataneig ht le ve l upwa rdde pa rtu re i n t he off en se lev el was warran te d t o p ro vi de de te rren ce an d t o p ro te ctso ci ety . The res ul ti ng gu id el in es ran ge was 2 10 to 26 2 m on th s’ im pr is on m en t, t o wh ic h Har gr ov e o bjec te d. Th e co urt s en te nc edHarg ro ve to 24 0 m on th s’ im

pr is on m en t. Harg ro ve no w app eal s. 6II. Dis cu ss io n A. Suff ic ie nc y of t he Evi de nc e W e rev ie w de no vo whet he r th e ev id en ce was su ffi ci en t t o s us ta ina co nv ic ti on . Uni te d Sta tes v. J imi ne z , 56 4 F .3d12 80 , 12 84 (11 th Cir . 20 09 ). A co nv ic ti on m ay

no t b e rev ers edun le ss no rat io na l ju ry co ul d fi ndth atth e ev id en ce es tabl is he d t he de fen da nt ’s gu il t b ey on d areas on ab le do ub t. Uni te d Sta tes v. W ri gh t , 39 2 F .3d12 69 , 12 73 (11 th Cir . 20 04 ). All ev id en ce m us t b e v ie wedin a li gh t m os t fa vo rab le to th e g ov ern m en t, an d a ll co nf li ct s o f ev id en ce m

us t b e res ol ve d i n i ts fav or . Se e Uni te d Sta tes v. Fran k, 59 9 F .3d12 21 , 12 33 (11 th Cir . 20 10 ). W e wil l ac cep t al l re as on ab le in fere nc es ten di ng to supp ort t he go ve rn m en t’s ca se . Uni te d Sta tes v. Will ia ms , 39 0 F .3d13 19 , 13 24 (11 th Cir . 20 04 ). Harg ro ve arg ue s t ha t h e la ck edth e requi si te in te ntto di st rib ut e cra ck be cau se he be li ev edhe was wo rk in g fo r law enf or cem en t atth e ti m e o f th e tra ns act io ns . To co nv ic t Har gr ov e u nd er § 84 1( a)(1 ), th e g ov ern m en t was requi redto pr ov e Harg ro ve ’s kn owi ng an d wi ll fu l p os se ss io n a ndhi s i nt en t t o d is tri bu te th e co nt ro ll edsubs ta nc e, as well as h is actua l t ran sf er the reo f. Uni te d Sta tes v. Ba ker , 43 2 F .3d11 89 , 12 33 (11 th Cir . 20 05 ). W e h av e rec og ni zedan“ in no cen t i nt en t” 7de fen se in res pe ctto § 8 41 (a)( 1) ch arg es . Uni te d Sta tes v. Ba pt is ta -Rod

ri gu ez , 17 F.3 d 1 35 4, 1 36 8 n .18 (11 th Cir . 19 94 ). To p rev ai l i n t hi s d efen se , th e d efen da nt m us t s ho w th athe lac ke d t he ne ces sa ry cri m in al in te ntto di st rib ut e th e co nt ro ll ed subs ta nc e b ecau se he ho ne st ly bel ie ve d h e p erfo rm edth e il le ga l ac ts un de r la wfu l au th or it y . Inn oc en t i nt en t i s n otanaffi rm at iv e d efen se , bu t a m ean s o f ne ga ti ng th e men s r ea requi rem en t o f th e o ffen se . Id . Inth is cas e, we co nc lu de th atth e ev id en ce was su ffi ci en t t o p ro ve th at Harg ro ve in te nd edto di st rib ut e cra ckco cai ne . All o f th e in vo lv edoff ic ers op erat edun de rco ve r an d n ev er g av e Harg ro ve an y reas on to su sp ectth ey

were l aw en fo rcem en t. The y

act edas i f th ey

were dru g d eal ers att em

pt in g t o o bt ai n c rack co cai ne in ord er t o re se ll itto th ei r cu st om ers . Furt he r, th ey di d n otfol lo w any of th e n orm al reg ul at io ns or p ro cedur es when ut il iz in g aco nf id en ti al in fo rm an t. Mo reo ve r, Harg ro ve ’s ownco nduc t was in co ns is te ntwith abe li ef tha t h e was op erat in g u nd er the au th or it y of l aw en fo rcem en t. He reg ul arl y in te ract ed wit h t he off

ic ers as i f th ey

were dru g d eal ers . On atlea sttwo oc cas io ns he to ok crac k c oc ai ne forhi m se lf t ha t h adbe enin te nd edfor th e o ffi cers . Hargr ov e al so so ldm etha do ne pi ll s wh il e in th e o ffi cers ’ pr es en ce an d s ho wedth em va rio us drug s tha t wer e in te nd edforsal e o r pe rs on al us e. Cred ib il it y

qu es ti on s ar e th e ex cl us iv e p ro vi nc e o f th e jury, andwe wil l 8as su m e th e jury ans weredth em all in a m an ne r supp orti ng it s v erd ic ts . Uni te d St at es v. Th omp so n , 47 3 F .3d11 37 , 11 42 (11 th Cir . 20 06 ). A defe nd an t’s o wn te st im on y , if d is be li ev edby the jury, m ay be co ns id eredas s ub st an ti ve ev id en ce o f hi s g ui lt . Se e, e.g ., id . at 1 14 3. Th us , th e jury was free to di sb el ie ve Harg ro ve ’s te st im on y th athe be li ev edhe act edun de r la wfu l au th or it y , andfin d t ha t t he te st im on y supp orte d h is gu il t. Th omp so n , 47 3 F .3dat 1 14 3. Acco rd in gl y , we affi rm Harg ro ve ’s con vi ct io ns . B. Subs ta nt iv e Rea so nabl en es s 2 W e rev ie w sen te nc es forreas on ab le ne ss un de r a d efer en ti al ab us e o f di sc ret io n s ta nd ard , Gal l v. Un it ed St at es , 55 2 U.S. 3 8, 4 1 (2 00 7) , andth e p art y ch al le ng in g t he sen te nc e h as th e b ur de n t o d em on st rat e th atitis un reas on ab le , Uni te d Sta tes v. Ta ll ey , 43 1 F .3d78 4, 7 88 (11 thCir . 20 05 ). Whe n c on du ct in g t hi s rev ie w, we m

us t co ns id er the sen te nc e, in cl ud in g t he ex te ntof a ny dep artur e, in li gh t o f th e rec or d a ndth e 1 8 U.S.C. § 35 53 (a) fa ct or s. Ta ll ey , 43 1 F .3dat 7 88 ; Uni te d Sta tes v. Blas , 36 0 F .3d12 68 , 12 74 (11 th Cir . 20 04 ). W e wil l re ve rs e o nl y if we are l eftwith t he de fin it e an d fi rm co nv ic ti on th atth e d is tri ctco urt co m m it te d

Har grove doe s not argue that the c ourt committed any proce dural e rror

in determining 2 his sentence . There fore , he has a bandoned a

ny such cla im. United States v. Smith , 416 F.3d 1350, 1354 (11th Cir. 2005). We never theless conc lude that the district cour t did not abuse its discretion by

depar ting upwa rd under § 4A1.3 base d on Har grove’ s ext ensive c riminal history .

9a cl ear e rro r of jud gm en t i n wei gh in g the § 3 55 3( a) fa ct or s s o t ha t t he sen te nc e fai ls to ach ie ve th e st atut e’s pu rp os es . Uni te d Sta tes v. Ir ey , 61 2 F .3d11 60 , 11 90 - 94 (11 thCir . 20 10 ) ( en ba nc ), pe ti ti on fo r ce rt . fi le d (U.S. Nov . 24 , 20 10 ) (No . 10 - 72 7) . Extr ao rd in ary jus ti fic at io ns are n otrequi redforsen te nc es ou ts id e th e Gui de li ne ran ge . Gal l , 55 2 U.S. at47 . Harg ro ve ’s 24 0- m on th to ta l s en te nc e is subs ta nt iv el y reas on ab le . The reco rdin di cat es th atth e d is tri ctco urt co ns id eredan d h eardarg um en ts reg ard in g th e § 35 53 (a) fa ct or s. Itba se d i ts sen te nc e o n Har gr ov e’s ex te ns iv e cri m in al hi st ory an d t he ne edto pro te ctth e p ub li c fro m futur e cri m in al co nduc t. Fu rth er, it s t ot al sen te nc e was be lo w th e st atut ory m ax im um sen te nc e o f li fe i m

pr is on m en t. III. Co nc lu si on Bas edon th e fo reg oi ng , we con cl ud e th atth e d is tri ctco urt p ro pe rly den ie d Harg ro ve ’s m ot io n fo r a jud gm en t o f acqui tt al an d t ha t t he 24 0- m on th sen te nc e is subs ta nt iv el y

reas on ab le . AFFIRMED.

10