FILED U.S. COURT OF AP P EALS E LEV EN T HC IRC U IT FEB 21, 2007 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- 13037 N on -A rgum entC al endar

________________________ D . C . D o c k e tN o . 0 4 - 0 0 0 0 6 - C R - 1 - MMP 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 T I M O T H Y W I M S , a .k .a . T im o th y D e rr in a d o D a v is , a .k .a . J o h n D a rr e n D e lg a d o , 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 or the rn D i s tr i c tof F l or i da

_________________________ ( F e b r u ar y 21, 2007) B efo re B IR C H , D U B IN A an d F A Y , C i rcu i tJu d g es. P E R C U R I A M:Wim s was also c harg ed with (1) attempting to use physical force ag ainst another person 1 with the intent to influence, de lay, and prevent the per son from testifying in a n official proce edingbefore a c ourt of the United States, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1512(a) (2)(A), (a) (3)( B) (ii); and (2) threateningand attemptingto causebodily injury to another person with the intent of retaliating ag ainst that person for g iving infor

mation to a police off

icer relating to the commission of a federal off ense, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1513(b)(2) . However, those cha rg es were later dismiss ed upon the g overnment’s motion. 2 T im o th yW im s ap p e a ls h is 3 6 0 - m o n th s e n te n c e f o rc o n s p ir a c y to m a n u f a c tu r e , d is tr ib u te , a n d p o s s e s s w ith th e in te n t to m a n u f a c tu r e a n d d is tr ib u te m o r e th a n 5 k ilo g r a m s o f c o c a in e a n d m o r e th a n 5 0 k ilo g r a m s o f c o c a in e b a s e , in v i o l a t i o n o f

2 1 U. S . C . § § 8 4 1 ( a ) ( 1 ) , ( b ) ( 1 ) ( A) ( i i ) , ( b ) ( 1 ) ( A) ( i i i ) , a n d 8 4 6 . On 1 appeal , W i m s a rgues thathi s s ent ence w as un re as on abl e bec ause he had renou nced c r i m i na l a c t i vi ty , w a s notthe l e a de rof the c ons pi r a c y , a nd ha d c oope r a t e d w i th the g o v er n m en t. F o r th e r ea so n s s et fo rth m o re fu ll y b elo w , w e a ff irm W im s’s se nt ence . I . Ba c k g r o und T h e in s ta n t c a s e a r o s e o u t o f a n in v e s tig a tio n o f

C le v e la n d F e r g u s o n , J r ., a drug deal eri n G ai nesvi l l e, F l ori da. W i m s a nd F er gu son p re vi ou sl y had been i nv ol ved i n the sa l e of c ocai ne i n the G ai nesvi l l e a re a. In 19 91 , W i m s w as c o n v ic te d o f

c o c a in e d is tr ib u tio n a n d s e n te n c e d to 1 2 0 m o n th s ’ im p r is o n m e n t. W i m s w as re l ea se d from cust od y i n 1 99 5, bu thi s s up ervi se d rel ea se w as re vo ked i n 1 99 6 b ec ause he com m i tt ed a hom e i nv as i on . W i m s w as subsequent l y r el ea se d fr om cust od y i n 2 00 2. F ol l ow i ng thatre l ea se fr om pri son, W i m s c on t ac t ed3

F e r g u s o n r e g a r d in g h is d e s ir e to s e ll d ru g s a g a in . F e r g u s o n p r o v id e d m o n e y to W im s , w ith w h ic h W im s b o u g h t c o c a in e in M ia m i a n dtr a n s p o r t it b a c k to F erg u so n i n G ai n esv i l l e. W i m s al so p u rch ased co cai n e fo r h i m sel f d u ri n g th ese tr a n s a c tio n s a n d c o n v e r te d it in to c o c a in e b a s e f o rf u r th e rd is tr ib u tio n . In S ept em ber 200 3, W i m s w as i nv ol ved i n a drug tra nsac t i on w i th h i s hal fbrother. D uri ng thattra nsac t i on , W i m s’ s hal f- brother s ho tW i m s tw i ce i n the back of the he a d a nd l e f

thi m t o di e . W i m s s ur vi ve d a nd, a c c or di ng t o hi s gi r l f r i e nd, W im s th e r e a f

te ra tte m p te d to r e e s tab lis h h im s e lf a s a d ru g d e a le rin V ir g in ia . W im s m a d e ap p r o x im a te ly f o u rtr ip s f

r o m M ia m i to V ir g in ia to b u y a n d s e ll co ca in e. W im s w as later a rr es ted in V irg in ia. D u rin g th e tim e b etw ee n W im s’s a rr e s ta nd s e nt e nc i ng, W i m s m a de s e ve r a l thr e a t s t o c oope r a t i ng de f e nda nt s a nd w itn e s s e s a g a in s t h im . W im s a ls o r a n a f te ra n d th r e a te n e d a w itn e s s a g a in s t h im w h ile th e y w e r e b o th im p r is o n e d in T a lla h a s s e e , F lo r id a . A tse nt enci ng , W i m s’ s c ou nsel re qu es t ed that , i f the courtw as go i ng t o st ay w i thi n the gui de l i ne r a nge , the c our ts e nt e nc e W i m s t o 360 m onths ’ i m pr i s onm e nt because W i m s w as no tthe l ea der of the conspi ra cy . W i m s’ s c ou nsel further s t at ed tha tW i m s ha d s t oppe d e nga gi ng i n c r i m i na l a c t i vi ty the da y tha the w a s s hotby hi s ha l f - br othe r . T he gove rnm e ntr e s ponde d tha tW i m s c ont i nue d t o s e l l drugs af ter h e h ad b ee n sh o t. W im s th en stated o n h is o w n b eh alf th at h e “d id n ’tTh edis tric t c ourt c alculate d Wim s’ s guide lin era ng eba se d u

po n his adju ste d o ff

ens e 2 level of 38 a

nd his criminal history

cate g ory of VI . Wim s does not challeng e the c ourt’s guide lin ec alculatio n o n a pp e al. 4 i m m e di a t e l y i nvol ve [ hi m s e l f ] ba c k i n a drug ga ng a f t e r[ he ] gots hoton S ept em ber 13, 20 03 , bu teventual l y [ he] coul dn ’ tgetno as si st ance . ” A ft erhear i ng the ar gu m ent s f rom the part i es , the courtst at ed thatW i m s had engaged i n a l i fe of cr i m e a nd every t i m e he w as re l ea se d from cust od y he r eturned t o c r i m e a nd drugs . T he c our ta l s o f ound tha tW i m s ha d “ a ve ry l ong, l ong, l ong c r i m i na l r e c or d. ” T he c our tthe n de t e r m i ne d tha tW i m s ’ s gui de l i ne r a nge w a s 360 m o n th s ’ to lif

e im p r is o n m e n t, a n d s e n te n c e d W im s to 3 6 0 m o n th s ’ im p r is o n m e n t. 2 T he courtno t ed thati tw as the l ow -e nd of the gu i del i ne ra ng e a nd that , even th o u g h th e c o u r t w a s n o t b o u n d b y th e g u id e lin e s , th e r a n g e w a s ap p r o p r ia te in W im s ’s c a s e . I I . D i s c u s s i on O n ap p e a l, W im s a r g u e s th a t h is 3 6 0 - m o n th s e n te n c e w a s u n r e a s o n ab le in l i ghtof the f a c t s a nd c i r c um s t a nc e s of hi s c a s e , a nd tha tthe c our ts houl d ha ve s e n te n c e d h im b e lo w th e a d v is o ry g u id e lin e r a n g e . W im s m a in ta in s th a t h is se nt ence shou l d h ave been bel ow the gu i del i ne ra ng e bec ause he: (1) r enou nced c r i m i na l a c t i vi ty a f

t e rhe w a s s hota nd l ong be f or e he w a s a rr e s t e d f

orthe i ns t a nt offe nse; (2) w as no tthe l ea der of the conspi ra cy ; and (3) coop er at ed w i th l aw5

e n f o r c e m e n t e v e n th o u g h h e d id n o t q u a lif y f o ra U .S .S .G . § 5 K 1 .1 r e d u c tio n . O r di na r i l y , w e r e vi e w f i na l s e nt e nc e s f

orr e a s onabl e ne s s . U ni t e d S t a t e s v. T alley, 4 3 1 F .3 d 7 8 4 , 7 8 6 (1 1 th C ir. 2 0 0 5 ). W e d o n o t rea ch th e m er it s o f W im s’s a r gum e nt s , how e ve r , be c a us e w e c onc l ude tha tW i m s i nduc e d ori nvi t e d the rul i ng he no w cl ai m s w as error. W e have hel d that“ a party m ayno tchal l enge as error a rul i ng orothe rtr i a l pr oc e e di ng i nvi t e d by tha tpa r ty . ” U ni t e d S t a t e s v. L ove , 449 F . 3 d 1 1 5 4 , 1 1 5 7 (1 1 th C i r. 2 0 0 6 ) (q u o t at i o n o m i tt ed ). “ W h ere i n v i t ed erro r ex i st s, i tpr e c l ude s a c our tf

r om i nvoki ng the pl a i n e rr orrul e a nd r e ve r s i ng. ” I d. ( q u o ta tio n o m itte d ) . A tse nt enci ng , W i m s’ s c ou nsel expl i ci t l y r equest ed that , i f the court i nt ended t o sent ence W i m s w i thi n the gu i del i ne ra ng e, the courtshou l d sent ence h im to 3 6 0 m o n th s ’ im p r is o n m e n t. E v e n th o u g h W im s ’s c o u n s e l p r e f a c e d h is re q u es t b y s tati n g “i f th e c o u rt is in clin ed to fo ll o w ” th e g u id elin e r an g e, W im s’s c ouns e l ne ve re xpl i c i t l y r e que s t e d tha tthe c our ti m pos e a be l ow - gui de l i ne se nt ence , no r di d cou nsel di re ctthe courtt o ano ther t erm of i m pri sonm entthat w ou l d b e app ropri at e i n W i m s’ s c as e. A s s uch, W i m s’ s c ou nsel i nv i t ed the court t o sent ence W i m s t o 3 60 m on ths’ i m pri sonm ent , w hi ch se nt ence the court i m po se d. T hu s, W i m s i s pre cl ud ed fr om cl ai m i ng thathi s s ent ence w as u n r e a s o n ab le . S e e L o v e , 4 4 9 F .3 d a t 1 1 5 7 . A c c o r d in g ly , W im s ’s 3 6 0 - m o n thWereweto re view thissentenc efo r re a so na blene ss w ewould

havenodif

fi cult y in 3 aff irming ba sed upon the instant criminal activity , the extensive criminal re cord of Wim s, the tho rough re view m a deby thesentenc ingjudg eand hisc on sidera

tio n o f t hele g al pre c e dents co ntro l l i n g s ent en ci ng. 6 sen t en ce i s AF F I RME D. 3