FI L ED U.S. COURT OF APPEAL S EL EVENTHCI RCUI T AUGUST 15, 2011 J OHN L EY CL ERK [DO NOT PUBLISH] IN THE UN ITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELE VENTH CIRCUIT

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ No. 1 1- 10 08 6 Non -Arg um en t Ca le nd ar

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ D.C. Dock etNo. 1 :1 0- cr-2 03 84 -CM A-1 UNITED STAT ES OF AMERIC A, Pl ai nt iff -Ap pe ll ee, ver su s JOE FREEM AN MOORER, JR ., 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 fo r th e So uthe rnDis tri ctof F lo rid a

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ (Au gu st15 , 20 11 ) Befo re HULL, PRYOR an d KRAVITC H, Circ ui t J ud ge s. PER CURI AM: Jo e Fre em anMo or er, J r. ap pe al s h is co nv ic ti on s an d t he sen te nc e im po se d aft er a jury

fou ndhi m

gu il ty of po ss es si on with i nt en t t o d is tri bu te co cai ne , in vi ol at io n o f 21 U.S.C. § 8 41 (a)( 1) , andpo ss es si onof afir earm by a con vi ct edfel on , invi ol at io n o f 18 U.S.C. §§ 92 2( g) (1 ) an d 9 24 (e)( 1) . Moo rer ra is es two

is su es on ap pe al : Fi rs t, Mo or er co nt en ds th atth ere was in su ffi ci en t ev id en ce t o co nv ic t h im

forpo ss es si on with i nt en t t o d is tri bu te co cai ne . Seco nd , Mo or er arg ue s t ha t h is off

en se was t ha t o f si m

pl e dru g p os se ss io n a ndas ares ul t, the di st ric t co urt erredin tre at in g h is co nv ic ti onas a“ co nt ro ll edsubs tanc e o ffen se ” fo r pu rp os es of c al cu la ti ng th e ad vi so ry gu id el in e ran ge . After ath or ou gh rev ie w of th e rec or d, we af

firm . Mo or er was ch arg edwith p os se ss io n wi th in te ntto di strib ut e co cai ne an d po ss es si on of afir earm

by a con vi ct edfel on . At tri al , DEA agen t Dav idLee Hib bs tes ti fie d t ha t h e co nduc te d s urve il la nc e o f Mo or er b as edon all eg at io ns of drug tra ffi ck in g. Durin g asubs eque ntsea rch of M oo rer’s ca r an d h om e, ag en ts fo un d 1 4 g ram s o f co cai ne in th e caran d adi gi ta l s cal e an d c as h i n the ho us e. The sc al e was co ve redwith ali gh t dus ti ng of c oc ai ne . Hib bs th enex pl ai ne d t ha t b as ed on hi s t rai ni ng an d e xp eri en ce, a ty pi cal do se of c oc ai ne is ab ou t h al f a g ram an d th e typi cal us er wo ul d b uy on e o r two gra m s ata ti m e. Co cai ne de al ers us ua ll y so ldth e dru g i n s m al l zi pl oc k b ag s an d u se d s cal es to di vi de th e dru g i nt o in di vi du al do se s. Hib bs als o c on firm edth atth e cas h fo un d i n t he ho us e was co ns is te ntwith d ru g traff ic ki ng be cau se itis a cas h b us in es s.

2Whe n que st io ne d, M oo rer i ni ti al ly den ie d a ny kn owl ed ge of t he dru gs bu t

adm it te d t he gu n was hi s. Durin g alat er i nt erv ie w with ATF ag en t Th eres a Me za, Mo or er ad m it te d the co cai ne was h is as we ll . Mo or er s ti pu la te d t ha t h e h adpri orco nv ic ti on s fo r co cai ne tra ffi ck in g a nd in te ntto di st rib ut e co cai ne withi n 1 ,00 0 fe etof asch oo l. The co urt i ss ue d a li m it in g i ns tru ct io n t o t he jury th atth es e p rio r co nv ic ti on s wer e rel ev an t o nl y to th e is su e o f in te nt . The jury co nv ic te d M oo rer o f drug an d fi rearm po ss es si on . The pre se nt en ce i nv es ti ga ti on rep ort (P SI) g ro up edth e two off en se s to ge th er an d b as edth e o ffen se lev el on th e am ou ntof dru gs in vo lv ed , whi ch th e pr ob at io n o ffi cer i de nt ifi edas 4 3.2 gra m s o f co cai ne an d 5 4.9 gra m s o f co cai ne ba se . The p ro ba ti on off

ic er d et erm in edth is am ou ntba se d o n t he 14 gra m s s ei zed an d a dd it io na l am ou nt s tha t wer e p artof e arl ie r co nt ro ll edbu y s u si ng co nf id en ti al in fo rm an ts . The p ro ba ti onoff ic er fu rth er d et erm in edth atMo or er s ho ul d b e se nt en cedas a n Arm edCare er Cr im in al un de r 18 U.S.C. § 9 24 (e) a ndas acare er of fen de r un de r U.S.S.G. § 4 B1 .1. The res ul ti ng gu id el in e ran ge was 2 62 to 32 7 m on th s’ im

pr is on m en t. At s en te nc in g, M oo rer re qu es te d ado wnwar d v ari an ce, arg ui ng th ata se nt en ce o f 20 0 t o 2 10 m on th s wo ul d b e su ffi ci en t. The di st ric t co urt d is ag reed an d s en te nc edMo or er t o 2 62 m on th s’ im pr is on m en t. The co urt ex pr es se d c on cern 3ov er Mo or er’s cri m in al hi st ory an d s ta te d t ha t a s en te nc e wit hi n t he gu id el in e ran ge was n eces sa ry

un de r th e se nt en ci ng fact or s i n 1 8 U.S.C. § 35 53 (a). Mo or er no w app eal s h is co nv ic ti on s an d s en te nc e. I. Su ffi ci en cy

of t he Evi de nc e 1 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 , vi ewin g t he ev id en ce i n t he li gh t m os t fa vo rab le to th e g ov ern m en t. Uni te d Sta tes v. Ga rc ia , 40 5 F .3d12 60 , 12 69 (11 th Cir . 20 05 ). W e m us t af firm a de fen da nt ’s con vi ct io ns un le ss th ere i s n o re as on ab le co ns tru ct io n o f th e ev id en ce un de r whi ch th e jury cou ldhave fou ndth e d efen da ntgu il ty bey on d areas on ab le do ub t. Id. All reas on ab le in fere nc es an d c red ib il it y ch oi ces m

us t b e m ad e in fav orof t he jury’ s v erd ic t. Uni te d Sta tes v. Ma ss ey , 89 F.3d14 33 , 14 38 (11 th Cir . 19 96 ). To s up po rt aco nv ic ti on for po ss es si onwith t he in te ntto di st rib ut e a co nt ro ll edsubs ta nc e, th e g ov ern m en t m us t es tabl is h b ey on d areas on ab le do ub t th atth e d efen dantkn owi ng ly pos se ss edth e dru gs with t he in te ntto di st rib ut e th em . Uni te d Sta tes v. Ga rc ia -Ber co vi ch , 58 2 F .3d12 34 , 12 37 (11 th Cir . 20 09 ), cer t. d en ie d , 13 0 S .Ct. 1 56 2 (2 01 0) . Each o f th es e el em en ts canbe pro ve d b y

Moorer prese rved his cha lleng e by moving f or judg ment of ac quittal at the close of the 1 g overnme nt’s case . Moorer did not present any

defe nse witnesses or

evidenc e. 4di rector c irc um st an ti al ev id en ce. Uni te d Sta tes v. Mi ra nd a , 42 5 F .3d95 3, 9 59 (1 1t h C ir. 2 00 5) . W e al lo w an i nf eren ce o f th e in te ntto di st rib ut e b as edon th e am ou ntof t he dru g i nv ol ve d. Uni te d Sta tes v. Her na ndez , 43 3 F .3d13 28 , 13 33 (1 1t h C ir. 2 00 5) . Add it io na ll y , ‘ th e ex is te nc e o f im pl em en ts su ch as s cal es co m m on ly use d i n c on ne ct io n wi th th e d is tri bu ti on of c oc ai ne ’ m ay serve as ci rcu m st an ti al pro of

of t he in te ntto di st rib ut e co cai ne . Uni te d Sta tes v. Po ol e , 87 8 F.2 d 1 38 9, 1 39 2 (1 1t h C ir. 1 98 9) . A defe nd an t’s p rio r co nv ic ti on s fo r drug of fen se s ar e al so adm is si bl e fo r th e li m it edpu rp os e o f de te rm in in g wh ethe r th e de fen da ntform edth e requi si te in te ntto di st rib ut e. Uni te d Sta tes v. C ar de na s , 89 5 F.2 d 1 33 8, 1 34 4 (1 1t h C ir. 1 99 0) . Inth is cas e, we co nc lu de th atth e ev id en ce was su ffi ci en t t o s up po rt t he ve rd ic t. The ev id en ce attri al sh owe d t ha t M oo rer p os se ss edco cai ne in anam ou nt in co ns is te ntwith p ers on al us e. Sp eci fic al ly, au th or it ie s fo un d c oc ai ne , a fir earm , a d ig it al sca le with c oc ai ne res idue , andm ul ti pl e b un dl es of m on ey du rin g t he se arch es of M oo rer’s re si de nc e an d c ar. Fu rth erm or e, th e jury was pe rm it te d t o in fer t he in te ntto di st rib ut e b as edon th e qua nt it y of d ru gs in vo lv edan d M oo rer’s pr io r co nv ic ti on s fo r co nt ro ll edsubs ta nc e o ffen se s. Acco rd in gl y , th ere was su ffi ci en t ev id en ce t o c on vi ctMo or er o f th e ch arg e an d we a ffi rm hi s co nv ic ti on .

5II. Sen te nc in g

Mo or er ar gu es th atth e d is tri ctco urt erredin tre at in g h is co nv ic ti on as a

“ co nt ro ll edsubs ta nc e o ffen se ” fo r pu rp os es of c al cu la ti ng th e ap pl ic ab le advi so ry gu id el in e ran ge be cau se th e 1 4 g ram s o f co cai ne in vo lv edsupp orte d afin di ng of on ly sim pl e p os se ss io n, wh ic h d oe s n otco ns ti tu te a co nt ro ll edsubs ta nc e o ffen se un de r th e Arm edCare er Cr im in al pro vi si on or the care er o ffen de r gu id el in e.

“ [A] sen te nc e m ay

be rev ie wedforpro cedur al or s ub st an ti ve un reas on ab le ne ss ,” an d we r ev ie w bo th un de r anab us e o f di sc ret io n s ta nd ard . Uni te d Sta tes v. El liso r , 52 2 F .3d12 55 , 12 73 , n.2 5 (1 1t h C ir. 2 00 8) . In re vi ewin g whe th er a s en te nc e is reas on ab le , we m us t en su re, fi rs t, tha t the di st ric t co urt d id no t co m m ita si gn ifi can t p ro cedur al erro r, “ su ch as f ai li ng to cal cu la te (or im pr op erl y cal cu la ti ng ) th e g ui de li ne s ra ng e, tr eat in g t he gu id el in es as m an da to ry , fai li ng to co ns id er the § 3 55 3( a) fa ct or s, s el ect in g asen te nc e b as edon cle arl y erro ne ou s fa ct s, o r fai li ng to ad equa te ly exp la in th e ch os ensen te nc e.” Gal l v. Uni te d Sta tes , 55 2 U.S. 3 8, 5 1 (2 00 7) . “ [T]he se nt en ci ng jud ge sh ou ldsetforth en ou ghto sat is fy

th e ap pe ll at e co urt tha t h e h as 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 wn l eg al de ci si on m ak in g aut ho rit y .” Uni te d Sta tes v. Ag ba i , 49 7 F .3d12 26 , 12 30 (11 th Cir . 20 07 ) (ci ta ti onan d qu ot at io n o m it te d) . Butth e d is tri ctco urt n eedno t d is cu ss or e xp li ci tl y st at e o n t he 6reco rdeach § 3 55 3( a) fa ct or . Uni te d Sta tes v. S co tt , 42 6 F .3d13 24 , 13 29 (11 th Ci r. 20 05 ). “ Rat he r, anackno wled gm en t b y th e d is tri ctjud ge th athe or s he ha s co ns id eredth e § 35 53 (a) fa ct or s wi ll su ffi ce.” Uni te d Sta tes v. Amedeo , 48 7 F .3d 82 3, 8 32 (11 th Cir . 20 07 ). Onc e we en su re tha t the sen te nc e is pro cedur al ly sou nd , we m us t the n de te rm in e whe th er the sen te nc e is subs tant iv el y reas on ab le in li gh t o f th e § 3 55 3( a) fa ct or s. Gal l , 55 2 U.S. at51 . The s en te nc in g c ou rt s ha ll im po se a se nt en ce “ su ffi ci en t, b utno t g reat er tha n n eces sa ry ” to co m pl y with t he pu rp os es of sen te nc in g s etforthin § 3 55 3( a)(2 ), na m el y , to refl ectth e se rio us ne ss of t he of fen se , pro m ot e res pe ctforth e la w, pro vi de jus t p un is hm en t fo r th e o ffen se , det er cri m in al co nduc t, p ro te ctth e p ub li c fro m furth er cr im in al co nduc t b y th e de fen da nt , andpro vi de th e d efen da ntwith n eed ededuc at io na l trai ni ng , vo cat io na l tra in in g, m ed ic al care , or o th er co rrec ti on al tre at m en t i n t he m os t ef fect iv e m an ne r. 18 U.S.C. § 3 55 3( a)(2 ). In i m po si ng a pa rti cu la r se nt en ce, the co urt m us t al so co ns id er the na tu re an d c irc um st an ces of t he off en se , th e h is to ry

an d ch arac te ris ti cs of t he de fen da nt , th e k in ds of s en te nc es av ai labl e, th e ap pl ic ab le gu id el in e ran ge , th e p ert in en t p ol ic y st at em en ts of t he Sen te nc in g C omm is si on , th e ne edto av oi d u nwa rran te d s en te nc in g d is pa rit ie s, an d t he ne edto pro vi de res ti tu ti on to vi ct im s. 1 8 U.S.C. § 35 53 (a)( 1) , (3) -(7 ). 7“ The rev ie w forsubs ta nt iv e u nr eas on ab le ne ss in vo lv es ex am in in g the

to ta li ty of th e ci rcu m st an ces , in cl ud in g a n i nqui ry in to whet he r th e st atut ory fact or s i n § 35 53 (a) s up po rt t he sen te nc e in qu es ti on .” Uni te d Sta tes v. Go nz al ez , 55 0 F .3d13 19 , 13 24 (11 th Cir . 20 08 ). “ [T]he p arty who ch al le ng es th e se nt en ce be ars th e b ur de n o f es tabl is hi ng th atth e se nt en ce i s u nr eas on ab le in th e li gh t o f bo th [th e] reco rdan d t he fact or s i n s ect io n 3 55 3( a).” Uni te d Sta tes v. Ta ll ey , 43 1 F.3 d 7 84 , 78 8 (1 1t h C ir. 2 00 5) . To d et erm in e th e ap pl ic ab le ba se off en se lev el fora de fen da ntwho qu al ifi es as anarm edcare er cr im in al un de r 18 U.S.C. § 9 24 (e), the co urt s ho ul d c on si de r whe th er the de fen da ntpo ss es se d t he fir earm in co nn ect io n wi th a co nt ro ll ed subs ta nc e o ffen se . U.S.S.G. § 4B 1.4 (b )(3 )(A). The term “ co nt ro ll edsubs ta nc e 2 of fen se ” fo r pu rp os es of t he Arm edCare er Cr im in al pro vi si on is de fin edas “ an of fen se un de r fed eral or s ta te law, p un is habl e b y im pr is on m en t fo r a t erm ex ceed in g o ne y ear, tha t p ro hi bi ts th e . . . po ss es si on of aco ntro ll edsubs ta nc e . . . with i nt en t t o . . . di st rib ut e . . . .” U. S.S.G. § 4 B1 .2(b ).

The district cour

t alternatively

found that Moore r qualified a s a ca ree r off ender under 2 U.S.S.G. § 4B1.1. That guideline re quires that the instant off ense of conviction must be a fe lony that is either a c rime of violenc e or a controlled substanc e off

ense. U .S.S.G. § 4B1.1(a) . The definition of “c ontrolled substance offe nse” f or purpose s of the ca

ree r off ender guideline is the same a s that for the Armed Car eer Criminal provision.

8Co nt rary to M oo rer’s ar gu m en t, thi s was no t a c as e o f si m pl e p os se ss io n. As no te d abo ve , th e ev id en ce was su ffi ci en t t o e st ab li shth atMo or er p os se ss edth e co cai ne with t he in te ntto di st rib ut e it . This cri m e fal ls squa rel y withi n the de fin it io n o f a “ co nt ro ll edsubs ta nc e o ffen se ” u nd er § 4B 1.4 . Thu s, the di st ric t co urt p ro pe rly con si de redth e co nv ic ti on a “ co nt ro ll edsubs ta nc e o ffen se ” an d cal cu la te d t he advi so ry

gu id el in e im

pr is on m en t ra ng e acc or di ng to th e Arm ed Care er Cr im in al (oralt ern at iv el y , th e Car eer Off en de r) s en te nc in g p ro vi si on . The re was no pro cedur al erro r. Add it io na ll y , Mo or er’s s en te nc e is subs ta nt iv el y reas on ab le . The 2 62 - m on th sen te nc e is at t he lo w endof t he res ul ti ng gu id el in e ran ge , andsi gn ifi can tl y lo wer tha n t he 36 0- m on th st atut ory m ax im um pe rm it te d u nd er 2 1 U.S.C. § 8 41 (b )(1 )(C) as e nh an cedforMo or er’s p rio r fel on y dru g o ffen se s. Se e Gon za le z , 55 0 F .3dat 1 32 4 (c on cl ud in g t ha t s en te nc e was reas on ab le itpart be cau se itwas wel l b el ow s ta tu to ry m ax im um ). Furth erm or e, th e d is tri ctco urt de m on st rat edit s co ns id erat io n o f th e § 35 53 (a) fa ct or s, an d p art ic ul arl y Mo or er’s cri m in al hi st ory , when im po si ng Mo or er’s s en te nc e. Acco rd in gl y , we affi rm th e se nt en ce i m

po se d. AFFIRMED .

9