FI L ED U.S. COURT OF APPEAL S EL EVENTHCI RCUI T NOVEMB ER 22, 2010 J OHN L EY CL ERK [DO NOT PUBLISH] IN THE U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- 10 26 4 Non -Arg um en t Ca le nd ar

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ D.C. Dock etNo. 1 :0 8- cr-0 04 46 -TCB-LTW-4 UNITED STAT ES OF AMERIC A, ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll l Pl ai nt iff - App el le e, ver su s HOMER LARIOS, a.k .a. Humm er, ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll l Defen da nt- App el la nt .

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ App eal s fr om

th e Uni te d S ta te s Di st ric t Co urt forth e North ernDis tri ctof Ge or gi a

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ (No ve m be r 22 , 20 10 ) Befo re BLACK, WILSON andPRYOR, Ci rcu itJu dg es . PER CURI AM: Hom er Lari os ap pe al s h is co nv ic ti on s an d 2 40 -m on th sen te nc e. Lario s wastri edan d c on vi ct edwith o th er d efen da nt s fo r act iv it ie s re la ti ng to a dr ug tra ffi ck in g o rg an iz at io n o pe rat edou t o f anAtl an tabu si ne ss . Lario s ra is es fou r 1 is su es on ap pe al . After ath or ou gh rev ie w of t he reco rdan d b rie fs , we affi rm hi s co nv ic ti on s an d s en te nc e. I. Lari os fir stass ert s t ha t the di st ric t co urt ab us edit s d is cret io n b y all owi ng adm it te dl y

in accu rat e tr an sc rip ts to be sen t i nt o d el ib erat io ns with t he jury. Thi s cas e in vo lv eda si gn ifi can t n um be r of reco rd edco nv ers at io ns in Sp an is h. Acco rd in gl y , th e g ov ern m en t s ub m it te d t ran sc rip ts of t he co nv ers at io ns , in ad di ti on to th e au di o, t o a ss is t juro rs in th e d el ib erat iv e p ro ces s. Du rin g d ire ct
ex am in at io n, a g ov ern m en t wi tn es s ad m it te d tha t o ne st at em en t i n o ne tra ns cri pt
m is id en ti fie d Lar io s as th e sp eak er. The st at em en t o ccu rreddu rin g aco nv ers at io n th atfoc us edon arra ng in g am eet in g b etweenm em be rs of t he dru g t raff

ic ki ng or ga ni zat io n a ndil lu so ry dru g a ss oc ia te s o f anun de rco ve r Fed eral Bu reauof In ve st ig at io n (“ FBI” ) ag en t. Itwas a ctua ll y m ad e b y Lario s’s co -d efen da nt br ot he r, Ri card o Lar io s- Truji ll o. Lari os -Tru jil lo m ad e th e st at em en t wh il e ex pl ai ni ng why hi s b ro th er, Lari os , wou ldm ak e th e tr ip in st eadof h im
.
L arios wa s convicted of conspirac y

to possess five or more kilogr ams of coc aine, with 1 intent to distribute, and attempted possession of five or more kilograms of c ocaine , with intent to distribute. 21 U.S.C. § 841 (a)(1) , (b)( 1)(A) (ii); 21 U.S.C. § 846. 2Sp eci fic al ly, th e tr an sc rip t m is take nl y att rib ut edth e fo ll owi ng to Lario s: Andth at ’s why

I to ldth is guy , [co nf

id en ti al in fo rm an t], an d I t ol d h im , ‘ Loo k, [c on fid en ti al in fo rm an t], it s eem s ve ry hardto m e, y oukn ow, jus t — be cau se rig htno w, be cau se m

y wife is work in g, i t’s a l it tl e b itha rdform e.’ I sa id , ‘ Talkto [un de rco ve r ag en t], or– .’ Andth atwas whe n h e to ldm e, ‘O h, [c on fid en ti al in fo rm an t] sen t m e he re.’ Becau se I’m

gi vi ng y oum

y word . He’ s my br ot he r; we are l ik e two bl oo d b ro th ers , y oukn ow wh atI m ean ? W e are bro th ers . W e rev ie w th e ev id en ti ary ru li ng s o f th e tr ia l ju dg e fo r cl ear abu se of di sc ret io n. Uni te d Sta tes v. Ha wki ns , 90 5 F .2d14 89 , 14 93 (11 thCir . 19 90 ). W e rev ers e su ch de ci si on s o nl y if t he re i s a r eas on ab le li ke li ho odth atth e ru li ng affe ct edth e d efen da nt ’s subs ta nt ia l ri gh ts . Id . “ [W] he re anerro r ha d n o subs ta nt ia l i nf

lu en ce o n t he ou tc om e, an d s uf fic ie ntev id en ce u ni nf

ect edby error
supp orts th e v erd ic t, re ve rs al is no t warran te d.” Id
. Fo r tr an sc rip ts to be adm it te d i nt o e vi de nc e, “ th ere m us t b e so m e ev id en ce th atth e tr an sc rip ts are ac cu rat e—t ha t the word s ar e acc ur at el y rep ro du cedan d t he
vo ic es accu rat el y

id en ti fie d.” Uni te d Sta tes v. Ro ch an , 56 3 F .2d12 46 , 12 51 (5t h Ci r. 19 77 ). “ [T]rans cri pt s ar e ev id en ce ad m is si bl e to ass is t the jury in id en ti fy in g

2 sp eak ers , and
. . . ab se ntan yth in g m or e th ana ge ne ral iz edcla im of p reju di ce, [t hi s
In Bonner v. City of Prichard, 661 F.2d 1206, 1209 ( 11th Cir. 1981) (en ba nc), w e 2 adopted a s prec edent a ll rulings of the former Fifth Circuit hande d down prior to Oc tober 1, 1981. 3Co urt] will no t fi nderro r in th e tr an sc rip ts be in g a ll owe d i n t he jury ro om .”

Uni te d Sta tes v. N

ix on , 91 8 F .2d89 5, 9 01 (11 th Cir . 19 90 ) (i nt ern al cit at io ns om it te d)
. Eve n a ss um in g t ha t the di st ric t co urt ab us edit s d is cret io n b y all owi ng th e jury to t ak e kno win gl y

in accu rat e Sp an is h- to -Eng li sh tra ns cri pt s i nt o de li be rat io ns , we fin d t ha t the ot he r ev id en ce p res en te d p ro vi de d s uf fic ie nt 3
ev id en ce o f gu il t an d t ha t the pre cau ti on ary st ep s t ak endu rin g t ria l m in im iz edan y effe ct . There fo re, an y

erro r was ha rm le ss an d d idno t i nf rin ge up onLario s’s
subs ta nt ia l ri gh ts . The go ve rn m en t’s ev id en ce was su ffi ci en t t o c on vi ctLario s an d o ve rco m e an y sl ig htpre jud ic e h e m ig htha ve su ffer edfro m th e ad m is si on of t he fau lt y tra ns cri pt . Lario s co nt en ds th atth e g ov ern m en t o ffer edon ly two p ie ces of

The tra nscript misidentified L arios as the speake r on only one occ asion. The 3 g overnme nt admitted this m istake and two othe r speaker- identification mistakes in other transcripts relatingto other def endants. The statement mistakenly attributed to L arios in this case , even if

it had g one unnoticed, c annot be c onsidered ove rly prejudicia l. Never

theless, we question the prac tice of a llowing anyknowing ly inacc urate transcript that mis identifies a spe aker to be allowed into the jury room duringdeliberations. S uch a mistake , when conc eded by the governm ent , could be e asily corr ecte d through the submission of an updated tra nscript. Though a “district cour

t need not find that the tra nscript is perf

ectly acc urateprior to its admission,” it seems that whe n an imperf ection is rec ognized by

all, corr ective a ction should be taken. See United States v. Hogan , 986 F.2d 1364, 1376 ( 11th Cir. 1993). This conce rn is not applicable to situati ons where the c ontents of a transcript ar e disputed . We have e stablished prec edent in this Court that cre ates a

clea r proc ess for r esolvingconflicts betwe en par ties who disagree on the contents of tra

nscripts. See, e .g., United States v. Hogan , 986 F.2d 1364, 1376 ( 11th Cir. 1993). 4ev id en ce ag ai ns t h im : (1 ) a p la nn edtri p t o M ia m i, Fl or id a an d (2 ) hi s p res en ce at

th e lo cat io n o f th e arr es ts durin g t he co ntro ll edsal e o f co cai ne . The rec or d re ve al s so m ethi ng di ffer en t. The g ov ern m en t p res en te d s uf fic ie ntev id en ce t o c on vi ctLario s no twi th st an di ng th e si ng le sen te nc e m is ta ke nl y att rib ut edto hi m , esp eci al ly in li gh t o f th e fac t tha t the st at em en t was no t i nc riminat in g. Th e g ov ern m en t in tro du cedreco rd edtel ep ho ne co nv ers at io ns in vo lv in g Lar io s an d i m pl ic at in g h im in th e dru g o rg an iz at io n. On e su ch co nv ers at io n t oo k p la ce the m orni ng of Lari os ’s arres t b etweenLario s an d t he co nf id ne it al in fo rm an t wh o u lt im at el y ex ecu te d t he co nt ro ll eddru g e xc ha ng e th atledto hi s arres t. Lari os ask edif t he in fo rm an t h adalr eady

go tt en“ it ,” whi ch th e in fo rm an t t es ti fie d re ferr edto sev eral ki lo gr am s o f co cai ne . Add it io na ll y , th atsame con fid en ti al in fo rm an t t es ti fie d t ha t he pe rs on al ly w it ne ss edLario s s el l co cai ne . Furt he rm or e, FBI a ge ntAni ba l Gon zal ez t es ti fie d t ha t h e en ga ge d i n m ul ti pl e d is cu ss io ns with Lar io s an d h is
co -d efen da ntbro th er re ga rd in g m ak in g atri p t o M ia m i, Fl or id a to m eetth e ag en t’s fic ti ti ou s dru g a ss oc ia te s. Th is ev id en ce, u nr el at edto th e si ng le erra nt ly attr ib ut ed st at em en t, al lo wedth e jury to c on vi ctLario s. The act io ns tak enby the go ve rn m en t an d t ria l co urt t o m in im iz e an y un jus t effe ctare ju stas s ig ni fic an t as th e o th er i nc riminat in g e vi de nc e in tro du cedag ai ns t 5Lari os . Firs t, the go ve rn m en t el ic it edfro m a wit ne ss th atth e m is ta ke nl y att rib ut ed st at em en t was anerro r. Ther efo re, the jury was m ad e aware of t he pro bl em an d i t
can no t b e as su m edth atittai nt edth ei r de li be rat io ns . Mor e im po rtant ly, th e d is tri ct
co urt i ns tru ct edth e jury onth e u se of a ll trans cri pt s dur in g d el ib erat io ns . Sp eci fic al ly, th e tr ia l ju dg e in fo rm edth e jury:

yo u ar e sp eci

fi ca ll y in stru ct ed th at wh ethe r th e tr an sc ri pt co rr ect ly or in co rr ect ly re fl ect s th e c o n te nt of th e co nv er sa ti on or th e iden ti tyof

th e sp ea ker

s is en ti re ly fo r yo u to de te rmi ne ba se d on y ou r own ev al ua ti on of th e te st im on y y ou ha ve he ard co nc ern in g th e pr ep arat io n of th e tra ns cri pt an d fro m y ou r own ex am in at io n of th e trans cri pt in rel at io n to y ou r he ari ng of th e tape reco rd in g it se lf as th e pr im ary ev id en ce o f it s o wn co nt en ts . (em ph as is ad de d) . In co m

bi na ti on , th e g ov ern m en t’s ac kn owl ed gm en t o f th e id en ti fic at io n e rro r an d t he co urt’s i ns tru ct io n t o t he jury to di sr eg ardin accu rat e tra ns cri pt s s up po rt the co nc lu si on th atth e jury gav e n o wei gh t t o t he st at em en t
m is ta ke nl y

att rib ut edto Lario s. In li gh t o f th e o th er ev id en ce, the no te d m is ta ke is a rel at iv el y

in si gn ifi can t p ie ce o f th e p uz zl e in th e g ov ern m en t’s ca se ag ai ns t Lari os , esp eci al ly whe n o ne real iz es th atth e st at em en t i s n otparti cu la rly in cri m in at in g. Des pi te hi s co nt en ti on th atwitho utth is st at em en t the go ve rn m en t’s ca se is te nu ou s, we co nc lu de th atan y ha rm ari si ng fro m

th e ad m is si on of t he in accu rat e

6tra ns cri ptdi d n otaffe ctLario s’s s ub st an ti al rig ht s. II. Lari os ne xtarg ue s t ha t the ap pl ic at io n o f a m an da to ry m in im um sen te nc e, pr es cri be d b y

21 U.S.C. §§ 84 1( b) (1 ) an d 8 51 , vi ol at edhi s Fi fth , Six th , andEig ht h Am en dm en t ri gh ts . He arg ue s t ha t, p ur su an t t o Uni te d Sta tes v. Bo ok er , 54 3 U.S. 22 0, 1 25 S. Ct. 7 38 (20 05 ), th is Co urt s ho ul d n otall ow t he im po si ti onof
m an da to ry

m in im um sen te nc es if t he y

res ul t i n asen te nc e g reat er tha n n eces sa ry to m eetth e se nt en ci ng go al s fo un d i n 1 8 U.S.C. § 35 53 (a). 4 W e rev ie w de n ov o t he leg al it y of c riminal sen te nc es . Uni te d Sta tes v. Maz arky , 49 9 F .3d12 46 , 12 48 (11 th Cir . 20 07 ). Thi s i nc lu de s co ns ti tu ti on al ch al le ng es to a se nt en ce. Uni te d Sta tes v. Ly on s , 40 3 F .3d12 48 , 12 50 (11 th Cir
. 20 05 ). W e are , ho wev er, b ou ndto fol lo w pre ced en t u nl es s i t h as be enov erru le d by thi s C ou rt s it ti ng enba nc or t he Supr em e Co urt. Uni te d Sta tes v. Vega- Ca st il lo , 54 0 F .3d12 35 , 12 36 (11 th Cir . 20 08 ) (p er cu ria m) (ci ta ti on om it te d)
. W e h av e p rev io us ly con si de redLario s’s ar gu m en t. See Uni te d Sta tes v. Ca st ai ng -S

os a , 53 0 F .3d13 58 , 13 61 (11 th Cir . 20 08 ) (p er cu ria m). Ther e, in

L arios ac knowledg es in his brief that this Court “has pr eviously held that mandator

y 4 minimumsentenc es for

drugoffe nses do not conflict with the trial c ourt’s statutory obligation to impose a re asonable sentenc e pursua nt to 18 U.S.C
. § 3553(a) .”

7co ns id eri ng whet he r § 3 55 3( a) al lo ws fo r a d is tri ctco urt t o s en te nc e b el ow a

m an da to ry

m in im um , we st at edth at“ § 3 55 3( a) p la in ly doe s n otco nf er upo n t he di st ric t co urt the au th or ity to sen te nc e a d efen da ntbe lo w th e st atut ory m an da to ry
m in im um ba se d o n i ts co ns id erat io n o f th e § 35 53 (a) fa ct or s.” Ca st ai ng -S os a , 53 0 F.3 d a t 1 36 1. Acco rd in gl y , we fin d tha t the di st ric t co urt d idno t err by im po si ng a se nt en ce co ns is te ntwith t he m an da to ry m in im um . 5 III. Lari os ch al le ng es th e co ns ti tu ti on al it y of 2 1 U.S.C. § § 8 41 an d 8 51 , al le gi ng th atth e st atut es vi ol at e th e due pro ces s, n ot ic e, an d ju ry tri al rig ht s lo cat edin th e Fi fth an d S ix th Am en dm en ts . He bel ie ve s t he se st atut es are un co ns ti tu ti on al , des pi te ackno wled gi ng Supr em e Co urt p rece de ntto th e co nt rary, be cau se th ey

all ow fo r en ha nc edsen te nc in g b as edon pri or co nv ic ti on s t ha t ar e n ot pr ov ento th e jury bey on d areas on ab le do ub t. Inhi s ca se , Lario s’s m an da to ry
m in im um sen te nc e was rai se d fr om 10 y ears to 20 y ears be cau se of h is pri or co nv ic ti on s.

We acknowle dg e L arios’s c ontention that there ma y be tension betwe en Booke r, 543 5 U.S. 220, 125 S. C t. 738, and Harris v. United States , 536 U.S. 545, 122 S. C t. 2406 (2002), as previously

noted by a number of cour ts. Only the Supreme Court, howe ver, ma y overr ule its previous dec isions. 8Pri orco nv ic ti on s ar e n otsubjec t t o t he ge ne ral rul e th atan y factth at in crea se s a d efen dant ’s m ax im um sen te nc e m

us t b e p ro ve n t o t he jury be y on d a
reas on ab le do ub t. Almen da re z- To rr es v. Uni te d Sta tes , 52 3 U.S. 2 24 , 22 6– 27 , 11 8 S. Ct . 12 19 , 12 22 (19 98 ). The Supr em e Co urt’s d eci si on in App re ndi v. Ne w Jer se y , 53 0 U.S. 4 66 , 12 0 S . Ct. 2 34 8 (2 00 0) , di d n otov erru le Almen da re z- To rr es . Se e, e.g . , Uni te d Sta tes v. Ma rese il le , 37 7 F .3d12 49 , 12 57 –5 8 (1 1t h C ir. 2 00 4)
.

“ Tho ug h wo un de d, Almen da re z- To rr es st il l m arch es on an d we a re o rd eredto fo ll ow. We will joi n t he fun eral pro ces si on on ly after t he Supr em e Co urt h as de ci de d t o b ury

it .” Uni te d Sta tes v. Gi bs on , 43 4 F .3d12 34 , 12 47 (11 th Cir . 20 06 ) (fo ot no te om it te d) . As th e Supr em e Co urt h as y etto cas t Almen da re z- To rr es in to th e fo rg ot te n ju ris prud en ti al ab y ss , itco nt inue s t o h av e a p ul se . Tho ug h Lar io s co nt en ds th at“ Almen da re

z- To rr es an d Har ris are in co ns is te ntwith App re nd i an d the Supr em e Co urt’s n ow- firm ly establ is he d S ix th Am en dm en t juris pr

ud en ce,” i t i s s qu arel y

withi n t he pro vi nc e o f th e Supr em e Co urt t o re achsu ch a co nc lu si on . Accor di ng ly, we m us t co nc lu de th atth e d is tri ct
co urt co rrec tl y

ap pl ie d b in di ng pre ced en t i n s en te nc in g Lar io s. IV. Fi na ll y , Lario s cl ai m s tha t 2 1 U.S.C. § § 8 41 an d 8 51 vi ol at e th e co ns ti tu ti on al ly m an da te d s ep arat io n o f po wers be twee n b ran ch es of t he fed eral
9go ve rn m en t. He b el ie ve s t he st atut es un co ns ti tu ti on al ly (1) u ni te th e se nt en ci ng

po wer (g ran te d t o t he jud ic ia ry ) an d t he pro se cu ti ng po wer (en tru st edto th e ex ecu ti ve ) in th e ex ecu ti ve branc h; an d (2 ) de le ga te s t he po wer t o c reat e se nt en ci ng pa ram et ers . W e h av e h el d t ha t the di sc ret io n n eces sa ril y gi ve n t o p ro se cu to rs un de r § 85 1 d oe s n otvi ol at e th e co ns ti tu ti on al sep arat io n o f po wers . See Uni te d Sta tes v. Ces pe de s , 15 1 F .3d13 29 , 13 30 (11 th Cir . 19 98 ) (“ [Defe nd an t] ass ert s t ha t 2 1 U.S.C. § 8 41 et . seq . is anun co ns ti tu ti on al de le ga ti onof l eg is la ti ve au th or it y to th e ex ecu ti ve bra nc h b ecau se itpl aces in th e h an ds of t he pro se cu to r un br id le d di sc ret io n t o d et erm in e whe th er o r no t t o fi le a se nt en ci ng en ha nc em en t p ur su an t to 21 U.S.C. § 8 51 witho utpro vi di ng an y ‘ in te ll ig ib le pri nc ip le ’ to gu id e th at di sc ret io n. We di sa gr ee . . . .”). 6 Onc e ag ai n, Lari os ’s arg um en t i s n otpe rs ua si ve in li gh t o f ou r pr io r ru li ng s. Each of h is sen te nc in g a rg um en ts are fo recl os edby ourpre ced en t an d t ha t o f th e Uni te d S ta te s Supr em e Co urt. Acco rd in gl y , we affi rm hi s 2 40 -m on th sen te nc e. AFFIRMED.

L arios ac knowledg es this binding pre cede nt and “r espec tfully maintains [t his] argument 6 for pur poses of fur

ther re view.” 10