FI L ED U.S. COURT OF APPEAL S EL EVENTHCI RCUI T J ULY 28, 2011 J OHN L EY CL ERK [DO NOT PUBLISH] IN THE U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- 12 72 0 Non -Arg um en t Ca le nd ar

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ D.C. Dock etNo. 2 :0 9- cr-1 40 07 -KMM -7 UNITED STAT ES OF AMERIC A, ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll l Pl ai nt iff -Ap pe ll ee, vers us FRANK PIERR E, ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll l D efen 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 So ut he rnDis tri ctof F lo rid a

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ (J ul y 28 , 20 11 )

Befo re HULL, PRYOR an d B LACK, Circ ui t J ud ge s. PER CURI AM:Fran k P ie rre app eal s h is co nv ic ti on s an d h is to ta l s en te nc e o f li fe

im pr is on m en t af

te r be in g fo un d g ui lt y

of c on sp iri ng to po ss es s wi th in te ntto di st rib ut e 5 ki lo gr am s o r m or e o f co cai ne (Co un t 1 ), an d p os se ss in g wi th in te ntto di st rib ut e 5 00 gra m s o r m or e o f co cai ne (Co un t 5 ), in vi ol at io n o f 21 U.S.C. §§ 84 1( a)(1 ) an d 8 46 . Pierre was in di ct edalo ng with s ev eral ot he r co co ns pi rat or s, i nc lu di ng Quen ti n Di xo n a ndJea n C laud y Po la nc o. Pi erre rai se s se ve ral is su es on ap pe al whi chwe ad dr es s i n turn. Aft er re vi ewin g the reco rdan d br ie fs , we affi rm

Pie rre’s co nv ic ti on an d s en te nc e.

I. Pi erre fir stass ert s t he Flo rid a st at e co urt ju dg e who is su edth e o rd er t o wire tap P ie rre’s ce ll ph on e la ck edau th or it y to do so be cau se Pie rre re si de d ou ts id e th e jud ge ’s territ or ia l juris di ct io n. Pie rre fu rth er co nt en ds th e is su an ce o f 1 th e st at e an d fe de ral wire tap o rd ers were i m pr op er b ecau se th e p ol ic e h adot he r m etho ds of i nv es ti ga ti on av ai labl e to th em . Con se qu en tl y , Pie rre c la im s al l ev id en ce g athe redas ares ul t o f th e wir et ap s s ho ul d h av e b een supp res se d. 2
The issuing judge sat in St. Lucie County , which is part of the Ninetee nth J udicial Circuit. 1 Pierre (and the phone) resided in Br owar d County , which is part of the Seventee nth J udicial Circuit. In revie wing a denial of a motion to s up p re s s evidenc e, we revie w the district court’s 2 “finding s of fa ct for clea

r err or and its application of law to those fa cts de novo .” United States v. Ramirez , 476 F.3d 1231, 1235 (11th Cir. 2007) . We c onstrue all fac tual finding s in the light most favor able to the pr evailingparty —in this case, the Gove rnment. Id. at 1236.

2A. Ju risdic ti on of Iss ui ng Ju dg e Und er Fl or id a la w, up on a pr op er warr an t ap pl ic at io n, a ju dg e m ay en te r an or de r au th or iz in g t he “ in te rcep ti on of wi re, o ral , or e le ctro ni c co m m un ic at io ns withi n t he territ or ia l juris di ct io n o f th e co urt i n wh ic h the jud ge is si tt in g, an d ou ts id e su ch juri sd ic ti onbu t wi th in th e St at e o f Fl or id a in th e cas e o f a m ob il e in te rcep ti on de vi ce au th or iz edby the jud ge withi n s uc h ju ris di ct io n.” Fla . Sta t. § 9 34 .09 (3 ). The Fl or id a Fi fth DCA ha s p rev io us ly hel d t ha t “ th e ‘int erce pt io n’ of a cel lu la r cal l o ccu rs bo th at the lo cat io n o f th e tapp edtel ep ho ne an d a t the si te whe re l aw en fo rcem en t au th or it ie s h ear a ndreco rdth e cal l.” Se e Sta te v. McCo rmi ck , 71 9 S o. 2 d 1 22 0, 1 22 2 (F la . 5th DCA 1 99 8) . In McCo rmi ck, th e 3 co urt co nc lu de d t ha t a l aw en fo rcem en t o ffi cer h adau th or it y to see k a ndex ecu te a wire tap o rd er wh ere t he li st en in g p os t was lo cat edwithi n the off ic er’s juri sd ic ti on de sp it e th e fac t the tel ep ho ne ’s subs cri be r res id edou ts id e th e o ffi cer’s juri sd ic ti on . Id
. at 1 22 1, 1 22 3. Here, d es pi te th e fac t tha t Pi erre an d the ph on e res id edin Bro wardCo un ty, ou ts id e th e is su in g ju dg e’s juri sd ic ti on , th e li st en in g p os t was lo cat edat a ll ti m es Pierre argues McCormick conflicts with a Florida Supreme Court case , State v. Mozo , 655 3 So. 2d 1115 (F la. 1995), which hel d t h at an actua l interception of a communication occurs where the communication originate s. McCormick distinguished Mozo , specific ally noting privacy

rights (and not jurisdiction) wer e at issue in that case . See McCormick , 719 So. 2d at 1222 (“

Mozo should be limit ed to its fac ts; the court was d iscussing the right to privac y , rathe r than the issue of jurisdiction.”). 3withi n S t. Lu ci e Co un ty. Acco rd in gl y , un de r McCo rmi ck , th e st at e jud ge ha d

juri sd ic ti on to is su e th e wir et ap warran t fo r Pi erre ’s cel l p ho ne . Se e Fl a. St at . § 9 34 .09 (3 ); McCo rmi ck , 71 9 S o. 2 d a t 1 22 2. B. W ir etap W ar ra nt App li ca ti on Und er the fed eral an d F lo rid a wir et ap st atut es , an app li cat io n fo r a wir et ap warra ntm

us t co nt ai n, am on g o th er thi ng s, a “ fu ll an d c om pl et e st at em en t as to whe th er o r no t o th er i nv es ti ga ti ve pro cedur es ha ve be entri edan d fa il edor wh y th ey reas on ab ly app ear t o b e u nl ik el y to su ccee d i f tr ie d o r to be to o d an ge ro us .” 18 U.S.C. § 2 51 8( 1) (c); Fla . Sta t. § 93 4.0 9( 1) (c). Sim il arl y , a jud ge m ay 4 au th or iz e th e wir et ap if “ no rm al in ve st ig at iv e p ro cedur es ha ve be entri edan d h av e fai le d o r rea so nabl y

ap pe ar t o b e u nl ik el y

to su ccee d i f tr ie d o r to be to o da ng ero us .” 18 U.S.C. § 2 51 8( 3) (c); Fla . Sta t. § 93 4.0 9( 3) (c). Ho wev er, “ th e st atut e d oe s n otrequi re an in it ia l ex haus ti on of a ll co nc ei vabl e in ve st ig at ory te ch ni qu es ,” bu t was si m pl y in te nd ed“ to in fo rm

th e is su in g ju dg e o f th e di ffi cu lt ie s i nv ol ve d i n the us e o f co nv en ti on al tec hn ique s.” Uni te d Sta tes v. Alo ns o , 74 0 F .2d86 2, 8 68 (11 th Cir . 19 84 ) (quo ta ti onom it te d) ; se e a ls o Hu ds on v. St at e , 36 8 S o. 2 d 8 99 , 90 2- 03 (Fl a. 3dDCA19 79 ) (s ta ti ng th e Fl or id a wir et ap

The rele vant provisions of the fede ral and Florida wireta p statutes are essentially identical. 4 CompareFla. Stat. § 934.09, with 18 U.S.C. § 2518. 4st atut e d oe s n otrequi re “ a co m pr eh en si ve ex haus ti on of a ll po ss ib le tec hn ique s” ). Thu s, the affi da vi t ac co m pa nyin g t he ap pl ic at io n d oe s n otne edto reci te “ ev ery po ss ib le li ne of i nqui ry ” in th e in ve st ig at io n, b utne edon ly exp la in “ th e pr os pe ct iv e o r ret ro act iv e fai lu re o f se ve ral in ve st ig at iv e te ch ni qu es th at reas on ab ly sug ge stth em se lv es .” Alo ns o , 74 0 F .2dat 8 68 (qu ot at io n o m it te d) . Here, b ot h t he st at e an d fe de ral wire tap warran t ap pl ic at io ns de sc rib edin de ta il ho w m

ul ti pl e co nv en ti on al in ve st ig at iv e te ch ni qu es , in cl ud in g s urve il la nc e, subp oe na s, i nt erv ie ws, u nd erco ve r po li ce o ffi cers , andtra sh pu ll s, h adeit he r be en us edor wo ul d b e u nh el pf ul in th e fu tu re. Bec au se th e fac tu al co nt en t o f th e ap pl ic at io ns is no t i n d is pu te , itap pe ars th e o ffi cers su ffi ci en tl y ex haus te d n on wire tap m etho ds of i nv es ti ga ti on , all owi ng th em to ob ta in wire tap warran ts un de r th e st at e an d fe de ral wire tap s ta tu te s. Se e Alo ns o , 74 0 F .2dat 8 68 ; Hud so n , 36 8 So . 2dat 9 02 -0 3. Acco rd in gl y , th e d is tri ctco urt d idno t err in de nyin g P ie rre’s m ot io n t o s up pr es s ev id en ce g athe redas ares ul t o f th e wir et ap s. II. Pi erre ne xtco nt en ds th e ev id en ce attri al was i ns uf fic ie ntto est ab li sh hi s gu il t fo r Co un t I. Sp eci fic al ly, Pi erre co nt en ds th e ev id en ce attri al di d n ot es tabl is h aco ns pi racy betweenhi m an d Di xo n, o r be twee n h im an d P ol an co .

5Rat he r, th e ev id en ce m erel y ev in ceda bu y er-s el le r rel at io ns hi p. Pi erre als o a rg ue s th e ev id en ce es tabl is he d m ul ti pl e co ns pi raci es rathe r th ana si ng le on e. 5 W e rev ie w de no vo th e su ffi ci en cy of t he ev id en ce t o s up po rt acri m in al co nv ic ti on . Uni te d Sta tes v. Fr az ie r , 60 5 F .3d12 71 , 12 78 (11 th Cir . 20 10 ). In m ak in g thi s d et erm in at io n, “ we vi ew th e 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, wi thall reas on ab le in fere nc es an d c red ib il it y ch oi ces m ad e in th e go ve rn m en t’s fa vo r.” Id
. (qu ot at io n o m it te d) .

“ To s up po rt aco nv ic ti onof c on sp ira cy , th e g ov ern m en t m us t p ro ve [1] th at anag reem en t ex is te d b etweentwo or m or e p ers on s t o c omm ita cri m e an d [2 ] th at th e d efen da nt s kno win gl y an d v ol un ta ril y

joi ne d o r pa rti ci pa te d i n t he co ns pi racy.” Uni te d Sta tes v. Silves tr i , 40 9 F .3d13 11 , 13 28 (11 th Cir . 20 05 ) (quo ta ti onom it te d) . The ex is te nc e o f a co ns pi racy “ m ay be pro ve n b y ci rcu m st an ti al ev id en ce, i nc lu di ng in fere nc es fro m th e co nduc t o f th e al le ge d

Pierre also appea

rs to challeng e the sufficie ncy of the evidenc e on Count 5. Howeve r, Pierre 5 acknow ledg es in his brief th at h e possessed (with intent to distribute) more than 500 grams of coca ine, and trial testimony clea rly established that fa ct. To the extent Pierre argues the jury must have found the total amount of coca ine attributed to him at sentenc ing, we have held that drug quantity need only be proven by a preponde ranc e of the evidenc e at s en t encing . United States v. Rodriguez , 398 F.3d 1291, 1296 ( 11th Cir. 2005). Pierre does not a rgue the Gover

nment failed to prove the drug amounts by a preponde ranc e of the evidenc e, and, thus, he has abandone d any claims to that eff ect. See United States v. Jernigan , 341 F.3d 1273, 1283 n.8 (11th Cir. 2004) (holding that issues on appea l are deeme d abandone d if not “fa irly and plainly

prese nted” to this Court). 6pa rti ci pa nt s o r fro m cir cu m st an ti al ev id en ce o f a s ch em e. ” Id. (qu ot at io n om it te d) . A. Buy er -S

el le r Rel at io ns hi

p A sal e an d p ur ch as e o f drug s d oe s n otest ab li sh a co ns pi racy “ [w]here t he bu y er’s p ur

po se is m erel y

to buy an d t he sel le r’s pu rp os e is m erel y to sel l, an d n o pr io r orco nt em

po ran eo us un de rs ta nd in g e xi st s b etweenth e two be y on d t he sal es ag reem en t.” Uni te d Sta tes v. Mer cer , 16 5 F .3d13 31 , 13 35 (11 th Cir . 19 99 ) (quo ta ti onom it te d) . Howev er, a co ns pi racy “ m ay be in ferr edwhen th e ev id en ce sh ows a co nt in ui ng rel at io ns hi p t ha t re su lt s i n t he rep eat edtra ns fer o f il le ga l dru gs to th e p ur ch as er.” Id
. W e h av e p rev io us ly con cl ud edth ata co ns pi racy exi st ed be twee n asel le r an d b uyer wher e th e b uyer bo ug htcrac k c oc ai ne fro m th e se ll er on sev eral oc cas io ns , wher e th e se ll er s om et im es fro nt edth e co cai ne to th e b uyer, whe re b ot h i nd iv idua ls arra ng edfora supp li er t o b rin g t hr ee k il og ram s o f co cai ne to th em , andwher e th ey

di vi de d t ha t co cai ne am on g the m se lv es . Uni te d Sta tes v. Bea sl ey , 2 F.3 d 1 55 1, 1 56 0- 61 (11 th Cir . 19 93 ). Reg ard le ss of wh ethe r a co ns pi racy was es tabl is he d b etweenPie rre, Di xo n an d t he ot he r sm al l-t im e d eal ers , th e Gov ern m en t p res en te d s uf fic ie ntev id en ce o f a co ns pi racy betweenPie rre a ndPo la nc o. Acco rd in g t o P ol an co ’s tes ti m on y , Pi erre bo ug htin crea si ng ly larg e am ou nt s o f co cai ne fro m Po la nc o, wh o fr on te d 7th e co cai ne to Pie rre o n m an y , if n otall , occ as io ns . Furthe rm or e, Po la nc o wo ul d

go to so m e le ng th s t o o bt ai n t he co cai ne forPie rre. A reas on ab le jury co ul d i nf er Po la nc o was Pie rre’s s ol e supp li er, Pi erre was Po lanc o’s m ai n p ur ch as er, an d t he y worke d t og ethe r to pro pa ga te th ei r bu y in g a ndsel li ng op erat io n. Ev id en ce o f su ch a st ro ng rel at io ns hi p b etweenth e two was s uf fic ie ntto est ab li sha co ns pi racy to po ss es s wi th th e in te ntto di st rib ut e dru gs . Se e Bea sl ey , 2 F.3 d a t 1 56 0- 61 ; se e al so Uni te d Sta tes v. Br ow n , 58 7 F .3d10 82 , 10 89 (11 th Cir . 20 09 ) (“ [A]s is well -es tabl is he d i n t hi s C irc ui t, wh ere the re ar e rep eat edtra ns act io ns buy in g a nd se ll in g l arg e qua nt it ie s o f il le ga l dru gs , th atis su ffi ci en t ev id en ce tha t the pa rti ci pa nt s wer e in vo lv edin a co ns pi racy to d is tri bu te th os e dru gs inth e m ark et .”). B. Mul ti pl e Co ns pi ra ci es W e wil l n otrev ers e a co nv ic ti on “be cau se a si ng le co ns pi racy is ch arg edin th e in di ct m en t wh il e m

ul ti pl e co ns pi raci es m ay

ha ve be enrev eal edat tria l unl es s th e v ari an ce i s [1 ] m at eri al an d [2] subs ta nt ia ll y

pre jud ic edth e d efen da nt [].” Bro wn , 58 7 F .3dat 1 09 2 (quo ta ti on om it te d) . In d eci di ng whet he r an y va ria nc e was m at eri al , “ we vi ew th e ev id en ce i n ali gh t m os t fa vo rab le to th e g ov ern m en t an d i nqui re wh ethe r a rea so nabl e jury cou ldha ve de te rm in edbe y on d areas on ab le

8do ub t tha t a s in gl e co ns pi racy exi st ed .” Id
. To d em on st rat e subs ta nt ia l p reju di ce,

a d efen da ntm

us t es tabl is h o ne of t wo p ro ng s: 1) th atth e p ro of

at t ria l d iff

eredso gre at ly from

th e ch arg es th at[he ] was un fai rly surp ris edan d was un ab le to pre pa re an ad equa te de fen se ; or

2) tha t the re ar e so m an y de fen da nt s an d s ep arat e co ns pi raci es be fo re the jury th atth ere i s a s ub st an ti al li ke li ho odth at th e jury tran sf

erre d p ro of

of o ne co ns pi racy to ade fen da ntin vo lv ed in an ot he r. Uni te d Sta tes v. Ri ch ar ds on , 53 2 F .3d12 79 , 12 86 -8 7 (1 1t h C ir. 2 00 8) (qu ot at io n om it te d) .

“ A ‘ hub- an d- sp ok e’ con sp ira cy oc cu rs wher e “ a cen tra l co re o f co ns pi rat or s recrui ts sep arat e g ro up s o f co -co ns pi rat or s t o c arry outth e v ari ou s fu nc ti on s o f th e il le ga l en te rp ris e.” Uni te d Sta tes v. Hu ff , 60 9 F .3d12 40 , 12 43 -4 4 (1 1t h C ir. 2 01 0) (quo ta ti onom it te d) . Howev er, “ whe re the ‘ sp ok es ’ of a co ns pi racy hav e n o kn owl ed ge of o r co nn ect io n wi th an y ot he r, de al in g i nd ep en de nt ly w it h t he hub co ns pi rat or , th ere i s n ota si ng le co ns pi racy, butrathe r as m an y co ns pi raci es as th ere a re s po ke s.” Id

. at 1 24 4 (q uo ta ti on om it te d) . Here, Co un t 1 of t he in di ct m en t ch arg eda si ng le co ns pi racy, butth e ev id en ce attri al sh owe d t he ex is te nc e o f atlea sttwo co ns pi rat or ia l g ro up s: on e in cl ud in g Di xo n a ndot he r sm al l-t im e dru g d eal ers , andon e in cl ud in g P ol an co an d th e h ig he r-l ev el supp li ers . Pierre ac te d a s t he “ hub” be twee n t he two gro up s, bu y in g t he dru gs fro m

th e supp li ers an d s el li ng th em to th e d is tri bu to rs . Becau se 9in th is “hub- an d- sp ok e” co ns pi racy, not hi ng , asi de fro m Pie rre, ap pe ars to ha ve co nn ect edth e Po la nc o “ sp ok e” wi th th e Dix on sp ok e, atlea sttwo co ns pi raci es ex is te d ra th er tha n asi ng le on e. Se e Huf f , 60 9 F .3dat 1 24 3- 44 . Thi s v ari an ce b etweenth e in di ctm en t an d p ro of at t ria l d oe s n otwarran t a rev ers al be cau se Pie rre fa il edto sh ow s ub st an ti al pre jud ic e. Reg ard in g t he fir st pr on g o f subs ta nt ia l p reju di ce, n ot hi ng su gg es ts , andPie rre d oe s n otcla im , th athe was surp ris edor u nabl e to pre pa re an ad equa te de fen se . The s eco ndpro ng wou ld no t ap pl y he re b ecau se Pie rre was th e h ub of t he co ns pi racy andth e o nl y de fen da ntin th e tr ia l. Se e Ric ha rd so n , 53 2 F .3dat 1 28 7 (h ol di ng th atth e se co nd pr on g o f subs ta nt ia l p reju di ce was irr el ev an t b ecau se th e d efen da nt“ was th e h ub of th e co ns pi racy andwas t rie d a lo ne ”). III. Last ly, Pi erre rai se s v ari ou s cl ai m s re ga rd in g h is sen te nc e. He fir stass ert s th athi s p os t-a rres t i nc riminat in g s ta te m en ts sh ou ldha ve be enex cl ud edfro m hi s PSI b ecau se th ey

were o bt ai ne d i n v io la ti on of Mir an da an d the ir r el iabi li ty w as 6 no t es tabl is he d. Pi erre furth er co nt en ds th e d is tri ctco urt erredin ap pl y in g atwo le ve l fi rearm

in crea se un de r U.S.S.G. § 2 D1.1 (b )(1 ) be cau se th e Gov ern m en t pr es en te d n o e vi de nc e attri al th athe po ss es se d afir earm . Pierre n ex t cl ai m s t he
Miranda v. Arizona , 384 U.S. 436 (1966). 6 10co urt erredin ap pl y in g afou r-l ev el rol e en ha nc em en t u nd er U.S.S.G § 3 B1 .1(a )

be cau se th e Gov ern m en t n ev er es tabl is he d t ha t h e was a le ad er o r or ga ni zer a s de fin edby the Gui de li ne s. Fi na ll y , Pie rre c on te nd s t he di st ric t co urt erredwhen it fai le d t o c on si de r hi s m ot io n fo r a v ari an ce, i n wh ic h h e arg ue d t ha t i m po si ng a li fe s en te nc e wou ldvi ol at e th e Eig ht h Am en dm en t’s p ro hi bi ti on on cru el an d un us ua l p un is hm en t. 7 W e rev ie w a di st ric t co urt’s co ns id erat io n o f in adm is si bl e ev id en ce i n se nt en ci ng de no vo . U.S. v. Ni ch ol s , 43 8 F .3d43 7, 4 39 (11 th Cir . 20 06 ). Furth er, we rev ie w th e d is tri ctco urt’s fa ctua l fi nd in gs rel at edto th e im po si ti on of se nt en ci ng en ha nc em en ts forcle ar erro r. Uni te d Sta tes v. Ro be rt so n , 49 3 F .3d 13 22 , 13 29 (11 th Cir . 20 07 ). “ Thi s s ta nd ardrequi res us to affi rm a di st ric t co urt’s fin di ng s o f fac t u nl es s ‘th e rec or d l ack s s ub st an ti al ev id en ce’ to supp ort tha t de te rm in at io n.” Dre w v. Dep t. o f Co rr ect io ns , 29 7 F .3d12 78 , 12 83 (11 thCir . 20 02 ) (ci ta ti on om it te d) . Last ly, “ [w]e revi ew fo r rea so nabl en es s t he ul ti m at e se nt en ce a d is tri ctco urt i m po se s o n ade fen da nt .” Se e U.S. v. Will is , 56 0 F .3d

Pierre a lso appea

rs to challeng e the district cour t’s consideration of paragraphs 18 and 25 7 of the PSI on the sole ground that acquitted conduct may not be considere d at sentenc ing. We have previously held that acquitted conduct may be considere d at s en t encing, provided the conduct is proved by a preponde ranc e of the evidenc e. See United States v. Faust , 456 F.3d 1342, 1348 (11th Cir. 2006). There was ad equ at e ev i dence prese nted at Pierre’ s trial to meet this standard. Acc ording ly , the district court did not err in consideringthe ac quitted conduct. 1112 46 , 12 50 -5 1 (1 1th C ir. 2 00 9) (de nyin g ade fen da nt ’s m ot io n fo r a Gu id el in e

va ria nc e o n re as on ab le ne ss gro un ds ). A. Pos t-Ar rest

St at emen ts

“ A sen te nc in g c ou rt m ay

co ns id er an y

in fo rm at io n, (i nc lu di ng he ars ay ), reg ard le ss of i ts adm is si bi li ty at tri al , inde te rm in in g wh ethe r fac to rs ex is t tha t wou lden ha nc e a d efen da nt ’s sen te nc e, pr ov id edth atth e ev id en ce h as su ffi ci en t in di ci a o f rel iabi li ty, th e co urt m ak es ex pl ic itfin di ng s o f fac t as to cred ib il it y , and th e d efen da ntha s an op po rtu ni ty to re bu t the ev id en ce.” Uni te d Sta tes v. Ba ker , 43 2 F .3d11 89 , 12 53 (11 th Cir . 20 05 ). W e h av e h el d tha t the ex cl us io na ry rul e d id no t ap pl y to sen te nc in g p ro ceed in gs an d e vi de nc e se iz edin vi ol at io n o f th e Fo urth Am en dm en t co ul d b e in tro du cedat s en te nc in g a s l on g a s i t was rel iabl e. Uni te d St at es v. Lyn ch , 93 4 F .2d12 26 , 12 35 -3 7 (1 1th C ir. 1 99 1) . The di stric t co urt d idno t err in co ns id eri ng Pie rre’s p os t-a rres t s ta te m en ts at se nt en ci ng be cau se th ere was no ev id en ce tha t the st at em en ts were i nv ol un ta ry or un rel iabl e. Se e Lyn ch , 93 4 F .2dat 1 23 5- 37 . Pierre’s s ta te m en ts sh owe d o nl y th at he bo ug htlar ge qu an ti ti es of c oc ai ne fro m Po lanc o a ndso ldso m e co cai ne to Dix onan d o th ers . Becau se all of t he se act io ns were p ro ve d a t tria l, the in cl us io n of Pie rre’s o wn co rro bo rat in g a dm is si on s d idno t af fectth e d is tri ctco urt’s se nt en ce. 12B. Th e Two -Lev el Fir ea rm En ha nc emen t

“ Whe n ade fen da ntob

jects to a factua l fi nd in g t ha t i s u se d i n c al cu la ti ng hi s gu id el in e se nt en ce . . . th e g ov ern m en t b ears th e b ur de n o f es tabl is hi ng th e di sp ut edfactby a prep on de ran ce o f th e ev id en ce.” Id
. Sect io n 2 D1.1 (b )(1 ) of th e Gui de li ne s p ro vi de s fo r a two- le ve l i nc reas e if “ a d an ge ro us weap on (in cl ud in g a fir earm ) was po ss es se d.” U.S.S.G. § 2D1 .1(b )(1 ). “ To jus ti fy a fi rearm s en ha nc em en t, the go ve rn m en t m us t ei th er es tabl is h b y

a pr ep on de ran ce o f th e ev id en ce tha t the fir earm

was p res en t atth e si te of t he ch arg edco nduc t o r pr ov e th atth e d efen dantpo ss es se d afir earm du rin g c on du ctass oc ia te d wi th th e o ffen se of co nv ic ti on .” Uni te d Sta tes v. Sta ll in gs , 46 3 F .3d12 18 , 12 20 (11 th Cir . 20 06 ). At the sen te nc in g h eari ng , Agen t Tamm y Ro an e o f th e Fl or id a Dep art m en t of Law Enfo rcem en t t es ti fie d t ha t Po la nc o t ol d h er tha t h e sa w Pie rre wi th a gu n du rin g t wo dru g t ran sa ct io ns . Becau se th e d is tri ctco urt h adbro addi sc ret io n t o be li ev e Ro an e an d P ol an co , itdi d n otcle arl y err i n fi nd in g t ha t Pi erre qu al ifi edfor th e two -le ve l fi rearm

in crea se . Se e Sta ll in gs , 46 3 F .3dat 1 22 0; Uni te d Sta tes v. Gre gg , 17 9 F .3d13 12 , 13 16 (11 th Cir . 19 99 ) (“ W e acc or d g reatde fere nc e to th e di st ric t co urt’s cr ed ib il it y de te rm in at io ns .”).

13C. Th e Fou r-Leve l Ro le Adj us tmen t

Sect io n 3 B1 .1 o f th e Gui de li ne s p ro vi de s a f ou r-l ev el en ha nc em en t “ [i]f th e de fen da ntwas a n o rg an iz er o r le ad er o f a cri m in al act iv it y th atin vo lv edfiv e o r m or e p art ic ip an ts or wa s o th erwi se ex te ns iv e.” U.S.S.G. § 3 B1 .1(a ). The Gui de li ne s p ro vi de a th ree- le ve l en ha nc em en t i f “ th e d efen da ntwas am an ag er o r supe rv is or(bu t n otanorg an iz er o r le ad er).” Id
. § 3 B1 .1(b ). 8 The “ m ere s ta tu s o f a m id dl em anor adi st rib ut ordo es no t s up po rt en ha nc em en t u nd er Se ct io n 3 B1 .1 fo r be in g asupe rv is or , m an ag er, o r le ad er. Sect io n 3 B1 .1 re qu ire s t he ex erci se of s om e au th or it y in th e o rg an iz at io n, the ex ert io n o f so m e d eg ree o f co nt ro l, i nf lu en ce, o r le ad ers hi p.” Uni te d Sta tes v. Y at es , 99 0 F .2d11 79 , 11 82 -8 3 (1 1t h C ir. 1 99 3) (qu ot in g Uni te d Sta tes v. Br ow n , 94 4 F .2d13 77 , 13 85 (7t h C ir. 1 99 1) ). W e h av e uph el d ath ree- le ve l i nc reas e un de r U.S.S.G. § 3 B1 .1(b ) whe re a d efen da nt“ fro nt ed ” co cai ne to a co de fen da nt , th enacco m

pa ni edth e co de fen da ntto a lo cat io n wh ere t he co de fen da ntso ldth e co cai ne to an ot he r in di vi du al , and , when th e sa le was c om pl et ed , th e co de fen da nt tu rn edth e m on ey

ov er t o the de fen da ntin pa y m en t fo r th e co cai ne . Se e Uni te d St at es v. Howa rd , 92 3 F .2d15 00 , 15 02 -0 3 (1 1t h C ir. 1 99 1) . W e h av e al so he ld Although the court applie d a four- level role enhanc ement, we note that Pierre’ s offe nse level 8 and Guideline rang e would rema in the same reg ardle ss of whether the court applied a four- level or a three -leve l enhanc ement. His base offe nse level of 38, coupled with a 2-leve l and a 3-leve l incre ase would still yield a total offe nse leve l of 43 and a Guideline ra

ng e of life . 14th at“ ev id en ce o f fro nt in g, wi th ou t mo re , is in su ffi ci en t t o s at is fy th e m an ag em en t requi rem en t.” Uni te d Sta tes v. Alre d , 14 4 F .3d14 05 , 14 22 (11 th Cir . 19 98 ) (quo ta ti onom it te d) . As a p rel im in ary m atte r, th ere i s n o d is pu te th e cri m in al act iv ity in th is cas e in vo lv edfiv e o r m or e p art ic ip an ts or wa s o th erwi se ex te ns iv e. The e vi de nc e pr es en te d a t tria l an d s en te nc in g e st ab li sh edm or e th anm ere f ro nt in g o f co cai ne be twee n P ie rre, Di xo n, an d t he lo wer-l ev el di st rib ut or s. Ba se d o n t he am ou ntof drug s Pi erre purch as edfro m Po la nc o, an d P ie rre’s co m m un ic at io n wi thnu m ero us in di vi du al s re ga rd in g t he dru gs , on e co ul d i nf er tha t Pi erre was am ajorco cai ne supp li er i n t he areaan d p la y edanin flu en ti al rol e inth e d is tri bu ti on of t hi s dru g. Acco rd in gl y , th e d is tri ctco urt d idno t cl earl y err i n fi nd in g P ie rre p la y eda le ad ers hi p ro le an d qua li fie d fo r a fo ur -le ve l en ha nc em en t. 9 D. Mot io n f

or a S en te nc in g Va ri an ce Last ly, th e d is tri ctco urt d idno t err whe n i t re fu se d t o h ear P ie rre’s u nt im el y m ot io n fo r a s en te nc in g v ari an ce b as edon Eig ht h Am en dm en t g ro un ds . As Pi erre

Even if the evidence did n o t s up p ort Pierre having an orga nizational or l eade rship role in 9 the conspirac y , the evidenc e did show he played a manag eria l or supervisory role war ranting a three
level incre ase. See Howard , 923 F.2d at 1502-03 . Acc ording ly , any err or committed by the district court in applying a four- level rathe r than a three -leve l enhanc ement was harmless. See United States v. Mejia-Giov ani , 416 F.3d 1323, 1327 (11th Cir. 2005) (stating that a sentenc ing error is harmless wher e “the err or did not aff ect the se ntence , or had but ve ry slight ef fec t”). 15ackno wled ge d i n h is Bri ef, the m ot io n “ was in ess en ce m or e o f anall oc [u ]tio n t ha t

[h e] ou gh t n otbe sen te nc edto li fe.” Th e co urt d id , infact , all ow Pi erre an d h is co un se l an op po rtu ni ty to al lo cu te an d a rg ue fora varianc e, whi ch th e co urt de ni ed . Furt he rm or e, Pi erre ’s m ot io n l ack edm eri t as Gra ha m v. Flo ri da do es no t ap pl y to adul t o ffen de rs su ch as P ie rre. Se e Gra ha m v. Flo ri da , 13 0 S . Ct. 2 01 1, 20 34 (20 10 ) (h ol di ng th at“ [t]he Co ns ti tu ti on pro hi bi ts th e im po si ti on of ali fe witho utpa ro le sen te nc e o n ajuv en il e o ffen de r who di d n otco m m itho m ic id e.”); se e a ls o Harmeli n v . Mich ig an , 50 1 U.S. 9 57 , 10 02 -0 9 (1 99 1) (pl ur al it y op in io n) (fi nd in g n o Ei gh th Am en dm en t v io la ti onwher e th e d efen dantwas s en te nc edto a m an da to ry

term of l ife im pr is on m en t wi th ou t the po ss ib il ity of p aro le for po ss es si ng m or e th an65 0 g ram s o f co cai ne ). Acco rd in gl y , we affi rm Pie rre’s co nv ic ti on s an d s en te nc e. AFFIRMED.

16