FILED U.S. COURT OF AP P EALS E LEVEN T HC IRC UIT DECEMBER 28, 2006 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. 06- 12506 N on -A rgum entC al endar

________________________ D . C. D o c k e tN o . 0 5 - 0 0 1 1 6 - CR- 3 - RV 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 Q U O C C O N G L E , D e f e n d a n t- A p p e lla n t.

________________________ A pp ea l fr om the U ni t ed S t at es D i stri ctC ou rt f orthe N orthe rn D i s tr i c tof F l or i da

_________________________ ( D e c e m b e r 28, 2006) B efo re T JO F L A T , B A R K E T T an d H U L L , C i rcu i tJu d g es. P E R C U R I A M: Q u o c C o n g L e ap p e a ls h is 9 6 - m o n th s e n te n c e f o rc o n s p ir a c yto d is tr ib u te2

an d p o ssess w i th i n t en tt o d i stri b u t e co cai n e an d 3 , 4 -M eth yl en ed i o x ym e tha m phe t a m i ne ( “ M D M A ” ) , i n vi ol a t i on of 21 U . S . C . §§ 846 a nd 8 4 1 ( b ) ( 1 ) ( A ) ( ii) a n d ( C ) . S p e c if ic a lly , L e a r g u e s th a t th e d is tr ic t c o u rt e rr e d in r e j e c t i ng hi s r e que s tf

oram i nor - r ol e r e duc t i on unde rU . S . S . G . § 3B 1. 2. F ol l ow i ng the S upr e m e C ourt ’ s de c i s i on i n U ni t e d S t a t e s v. B ooke r , 543 U .S . 2 2 0 , 1 2 5 S .C t. 7 3 8 , 1 6 0 L .E d .2 d 6 2 1 ( 2 0 0 5 ) , th e s e n te n c in g c o u rt m u s t s till

“ c ons ul tthe G ui de l i ne s a nd c orr e c t l yc a l c ul a t e the r a nge pr ovi de d bythe G ui del i nes. ” U ni t ed S t at es v. T al l ey , 43 1 F . 3d 78 4, 78 6 (11 th C i r. 20 05 ). In m a k in g th is c a lc u la tio n , th e d is tr ic t c o u rt’s f in d in g c o n c e rn in g th e d e f e n d a n t’s r o le in th e o f f e n s e is af

in d in g o f f a c t th a t w e r e v ie w f

o rc le a re rr o ru p o n ap p e a l. U ni t e d S t a t e s v. D e V a r on, 175 F . 3d 930, 937 ( 11th C i r . 1999) ( e n ba nc ) . T he de f e nda ntbe a r s the bur de n of pr ovi ng hi s m i norr ol e byapr e ponde r a nc e of the e v id e n c e . U n ite d S ta te s v . B o y d , 2 9 1 F .3 d 1 2 7 4 , 1 2 7 7 ( 1 1 th C ir . 2 0 0 2 ) . A cc o rd in g to U .S .S .G . § 3 B 1 .2 , a d istrict co u rt is to d ec re as e a d ef en d an t’ s o f f e n s e le v e l b ytw o le v e ls if it f in d s th a t th e d e f

e n d a n t w a s a“m in o rp a rtic ip a n t” in th e c r im in a l a c tiv ity . A “m in o rp a rtic ip an t” is ad e f e n d a n t “w h o is le s s c u lp ab le than m ostother part i ci pant s, bu tw ho se rol e c ou l d n otbe desc ri bed as m i ni m al . ” I d. a tc m t . n. 5. I n de t e rm i ni ng w he the ram i nor - r ol e r e duc t i on i s w a rr a nt e d, w e r e qui r e the3

di s tr i c tc ourtt o “ a s s e s s w he the rthe de f e nda nti s am i nor. . . pa rt i c i pa nti n r e l a t i on t o th e rel ev an tco n d u ctattri b u t ed t o th e d efen d an ti n cal cu l at i n g [h i s] b ase o ffen se l e ve l . ” D e V a r on, 175 F . 3d a t941. T he purpos e of thi s l i m i t a t i on i s t o pr e ve ntthe de f e nda ntf r om a r gui ng tha the de s e rve d ar e duc t i on be c aus e he pl a y e d am i nor r o le in th e la r g e rc r im in a l c o n s p ir a c yo f w h ic h h e w a s c o n v ic te d . S e e id . a t 9 4 4 . H ow e ve r , the r e i s a l s o the pos s i bi l i tytha tthe c onduc ta ttr i but e d t o the de f e nda nt f o rp u rp o s e s o f

c a lc u la tin g h is b a s e o f

f e n s e le v e l m a yb e le s s s e r io u s th a n h is ac tual part i ci pat i on . Id. at94 1. A cc ordi ng l y, “ [w ] here [the defendant ’ s] ac tual c onduc ti s m or e s e r i ous tha n [ hi s ] ba s e of f e ns e l e ve l s ugge s t s , ade f e nda ntw i l l not be abl e t o m e e tthi s bur de n. ” I d. T hi s rul e f ol l ow s f r om the S e nt e nc i ng G u id e lin e s ’ a c k n o w le d g m e n t th a t I f ade f e nda ntha s r e c e i ve d al ow e rof f e ns e l e ve l byvi rtue of

be i ng c onvi c t e d of

a n of f e ns e s i gni f

i c a nt l yl e s s s e r i ous tha n w a rr a nt e d by hi s a c tua l c r i m i na l c onduc t , ar e duc t i on f oram i t i ga t i ng r ol e . . . or di na r i l yi s notw a rr a nt e d be c aus e s uc h de f e nda nti s not subst ant i al l y l es s c ul pabl e than a defendantw ho se on l y c on du ct in v o lv e d th e le s s s e r io u s o f f e n s e . U .S .S .G . § 3 B 1 .2 c m t. n . 3 ( B ) . In the course of m aki ng the abov e i nq ui ry , the di stri ctcourtm ayconsi der r e liab le h e a r s a ye v id e n c e , e s p e c ia llyw h e r e th e d e f e n d a n t h a s h a d th e o p p o rtu n ity t o r e butthe e vi de nc e orge ne r a l l y c a s tdoubtupon i t s r e l i abi l i ty . U ni t e d S t a t e s v. C a nt e l l a no, 430 F . 3d 1142, 1146 ( 11th C i r . 2005) , c e rt . de ni e d, 126 S . C t . 16044

( 2 0 0 6 ) ; s e e U n ite d S ta te s v . C a s te lla n o s , 9 0 4 F .2 d 1 4 9 0 , 1 4 9 6 ( 1 1 th C ir .1 9 9 0 ) . S uc h he a r s a yi s notm a de unr e l i abl e s i m pl ybyvi rtue of the s our c e ’ s “ c oope r a t i on w i th the G ov ernm ent [. ] ” U ni t ed S t at es v. R i l ey , 14 2 F . 3d 12 54 , 12 58 (11th C i r. 1 9 9 8 ) .A f t e rc a r e f ul r e vi e w of

the r e c or d a nd the a r gum e nt s on appe a l , w e f i nd no rev ersi b l e erro r. T h e co n d u cto n w h i ch th e d i stri ctco u rtcal cu l at ed L e’ s b ase of f e ns e l e ve l i nc l ude d c ons pi r i ng t o di s tr i but e 6, 000 t abl e t s of M D M A a nd 30 pounds of

m a r i j ua na . S pe c i f

i c a l l y , L e pr ovi de d as a f e hous e f orthe de l i ve rya nd re p ac k ag in g o f th es e d ru g s. H o w ev er , th e e v id en ce d em o n stra tes th at L e’s p art i ci p at i o n w as actu al l y b ro ad er th an th i s co n d u ct . T h i s ev i d en ce i n cl u d es a re corded conv er sa t i on betw ee n L e and a c o-conspi ra t or i n w hi ch L e w as i nstruct ed t o d i stri bu t e 20 u ni t s of c ocai ne, a c o-conspi ra t or’ s s t at em entthathe bo ug htan a d d i t i o n a l 5 , 0 0 0 t ab l e t s o f M DM A f

r o m L e , ac o - c o n s p i r a t o r ’ s s t a t e me n tth a tLe di s tr i but e d 4. 5 ounc e s of c oc a i ne , ar e c or de d c onve r s a t i on i n w hi c h L e a s ke d ac oc ons pi r a t ori f

he ha d “ s om e s tuf

f on [ hi m ] ” a nd a s ke d the c o- c ons pi r a t ort o “ br i ng [ h im ] tw o ,” a n d ar e c o r d e d c o n v e r s a tio n in w h ic h ac o - c o n s p ir a to ra s k e d L e to h a n d o v e rh is d ru g m o n e y . B a s e d o n th is e v id e n c e , it is ap p a r e n t th a t L e a c tu a lly pa rt i c i pa t e d i n the c ons pi r a c ybydi r e c t l ydi s tr i but i ng drugs . A c c or di ngl y , the d is tr ic t c o u rt d id n o t e rrin f in d in g th a t L e w a s n o t e n title d to am in o r - r o le5

r e d u c tio n . S e e D e V a r o n , 1 7 5 F .3 d a t 9 4 4 ; U .S .S .G . § 3 B 1 .2 c m t. n . 3 ( B ) . F urthe rm or e , the di s tr i c tc ourt ’ s us e of he a r s a ye vi de nc e ba s e d on s t a t e m e nt s f r om c oope r a t i ng w i tne s s e s i n m a ki ng thi s f i ndi ng w a s noti m pr ope r . S e e C a nt e l l a no, 43 0 F . 3d at11 46 ; R i l ey , 14 2 F . 3d at12 58 . T hese co-c on spi ra t ors’ st at em ent s w er e m a de a ga i ns tthe i row n i nt e r e s t , a nd L e w a s gi ve n the opportuni tyt o r e butthe s ta te m e n ts . S e e C a s te lla n o s , 9 0 4 F .2 d a t 1 4 9 6 . AF F I RME D.