FI L ED U.S. COURT OF A P P E A LS E LE V EN T H C IR C U IT J ULY 10, 2008 THOMAS K. KAH

N CL ERK [DO N OT PUBLISH]

IN THE UN ITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FO R T HE EL EV EN TH CIRC UI T

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ N o. 07- 1598 4 Non-A rgum ent Calendar

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ D. C. Docket N o. 07-00084 -CR- J-33-MCR UNITED STAT ES OF AMERIC A, Pl ai nt iff -Ap pe ll ee, ve rs us CHARLES JER OME THOMAS, Defen da nt -Ap pe ll an t.

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ Appeal f rom the United State s District Court fo r the Mi ddl e D istri ct

of F lor ida

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ _ (J ul y 10 , 200 8) Be fo re CA RN E S, BA RKE T T and P RY O R, Ci rc uit Jud ge s. PE R CU RIA M: Ch ar le s Je ro m e T hom

psonappe al s hi s se nte nc e of im pr iso nm en t f

or 52 m onths f or pos se ssi on o f a fi re ar

m by ac onvi ct ed

f el on. S ee 18 U . S. C. §§2

922(g)(1), 942(a)( 2). Thom as argues that the district court err ed when it enhanced his se nte nc e fo r poss es sio n of c ra ck c oc ai ne w he n he w as arr es te d. T hom as a lso a r g u e s th a th i s s e n t e n c e w a s s ub s t a n t i v e l y u n r e a s o n ab l e . We a f f i rm. W e re vie wthe appl ic at ionof the gui de lin es de nov o and f ind ing s of

f ac t f or cl ear er ro r. U nit ed

S ta te s v. L ee , 427 F . 3d 8 81, 892 ( 11th C ir . 200 5) . T he gove rn m en t m

ust e sta bli sh the f

ac ts n ec es sary

to supp ort a

se nte nc ing en hanc em en t by

apr ep onde ranc e of

the e vid en ce . U nit ed

S ta te s v. A ske w , 193 F.3 d 1 18 1, 1 18 3 (1 1t h C ir. 1 99 9) . T hom as arg ue s th at

the gov er

nm en t di d no t pr ove by

apr ep onde ranc e of

the evidence that the subst ance f oundin his po cket and backpack wa s crac k cocaine. T hom as c ont en ds tha t the gov er nm en t di d no t e sta

bli sh tha t the f

ie ld t es t us ed

on the sub stanc e w as r el ia

ble . T hom as ’ s arg um en t f ai ls. T he gov er

nm en t satis fi ed

it s burd enof

pr ovi ng b y

apr ep onde ranc e of

the evidence that the subst ance w as cra ck cocaine. See id. W e do not require ch em ic al ana ly sis of

pot en tia l c ontro lle d su

bst an ce s f

or ide nti fi catio n to sup port a co n v i ct i o n . Un i t edSt at es v . B ag g et t , 9 5 4 F. 2 d6 7 4 , 6 7 7 (1 1 t h Ci r. 1 9 9 2 ). We perm it the gov ernm ent to identi fy a controlled subs tance by circum stantial ev ide nc e. I d. B ec au se f ie ld t es tin g is c om

m onl y use d by lawe nf or ce m en t officer s to identi fy

drugs and is com

parable to evidence used to identify3

subs tanc es be y ond a re as ona ble doubt, the dis tr ic t c ourt di d no t c le ar ly e rr w he n it fo un d t ha t t he su bs ta nc e was , as d et erm in edby the fie ldtes t, cr ackco cai ne . W e re vie wthe sub stanti ve r ea sona ble ne ss o f a se nte nc e fo r anabuse of di sc ret io n. Gal l v . Uni te d S ta te s, 5 52 U.S. __ _, _ __ , 12 8 S . Ct. 5 86 , 59 7 (2 00 7) . T his r ev ie winv olv es an e xa m inatio n of the tot al ity

of the c ir cum stanc es , inc lud ing aninquir y int o w he the r the statut or y f ac tor s, 18 U . S. C. § 35 53( a) , sup port the ch al le nge d se nte nc e. I d. a t __ _, 128 S . Ct . a t 59 7- 600. W e de fe r to the j udgm en t of the dis tr ic t c ourt i n th e w ei ght giv ento the f

ac tor s inse ct ion355 3( a) unl es s th e district court has m ade “ a clear er ror of j udgm ent” and has im posed “ a sentence that l ie s ou tsi de the r an ge of r ea sona ble se nte nc es dic ta te d by the f ac ts o f the ca se . ” U nit ed

S ta te s v. Mc Br ide , 511 F . 3d 1 293, 129 7- 98 ( 11th C ir . 200 7) (citations om itted). Tho m as fai le d t o e st ab li sh th athi s s en te nc e was su bs ta nt iv el y un reas on ab le . The sentence of 52 m onth s is one m onth m ore than the m inim um sentence under the a dvi sor

y gui de lin e range of

51 t o 63 m onths. T he dis tr ic t c ourt w ei ghe d th e fa ct or s inse ct ion355 3( a) and d id n ot m ak e an y c le ar e rr or of j udgm en t. T he district court reasonably

determ ined that thi s sentence wa s not greater than ne ces sa ry to ach ie ve th e st atut ory

pu rp os es of s en te nc in g. T hom as ’ s se nte nc e is AF FIRMED .