FI LED U. S . COURT OF AP PE ALS E L E V E N T H C IR C U IT January 11, 2006 T HOM AS K. KAHN CL E RK [ 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. 04- 15292

________________________ D . C . D ocketN o. 03 -002 29 -C R -F -N -2 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 A L P H O N S O N O R M A N , a .k .a . S c o o te r , C A P U L C O P E R A L T E , a .k .a . D e b b y B . B la c k , a .k .a . C a p p u c c in o , D e f e n d a n ts - A p p e lla n ts .

________________________ A pp ea l s f

rom the U ni t ed S t at es D i stri ctC ou rt f o rth e M i d d l e D i s tr i c to f A l a b a ma

_________________________ ( Jan u ar y 11, 2006)2

B efo re C A RN E S , H U L L an d P R Y O R , C i rcu i tJu d g es. P E R C U R I A M: A l p h o n so N o rm an (“ N o rm an ”) an d C ap u l co P eral t e (“ P eral t e”) (co l l ect i v el y,

“ appel l ant s” ) app ea l thei r c on vi ct i on s a nd se nt ence s f or thei r r ol es i n a three pe r s on c oc a i ne a nd c r a c k di s tr i but i on c ons pi r a c y . A f t e rr e vi e w of

the r e c or d a nd o r a l a r g u me n t , w e a f

f i r m. I . B AC KG RO UN D O n S e pt e m be r25, 2003, a n a nony m ous f e m a l e t i ps t e rt e l e phone d the N ar cot i cs B urea u o f the M on t go m ery, A l abam a P ol i ce D epar tm entand i nform ed C orpor a l J . T . C onw a y ( “ C onw a y ” ) tha tthe r e w a s drug a c t i vi ty ongoi ng a t2429 E a s t 4 th S tr e e t in M o n tg o m e r y . T h e tip s te ra d v is e d C o n w a y th a t a m a r o o n v e h ic le w i th F l ori da l i ce nse pl at es w as pres entatthe re si dence, and further a dv i se d C onw a y tha tthe pr e s e nc e of tha tve hi c l e w a s a n i ndi c a t i on tha tdrugs w e r e a tthe r e s i de nc e . T he t i ps t e rf ur the rs t a t e d tha ta bl a c k m a l e na m e d “ S c oot e r ” w a s a tthe re si dence, and i n res po nse t o an i nq ui ry fr om C on w ay , prov i ded a ph on e num ber for the re si dence. C on w ay w as previ ou sl y a w ar e thatN orm an, a bl ac k m al e, w as a s s o c ia te d w ith th a t a r e a o f 4 th S tr e e t a n d w a s n ic k n a m e d “S c o o te r .” A f t e rr e c e i vi ng the a nony m ous t i p, C onw a y a s s e m bl e d agr oup of M ont gom e r y pol i c e of

f i c e r s t o a c c om pa ny hi m t o the 4th S tr e e tr e s i de nc e f orTherewas testimony that this is an investigative tactic sometimes used by police to lure 1 individuals suspected to be involved with drugactivity out of a re sidence . Thereis evidencein the rec ord that the c orre ct phone number for the 4th Street residenc e 2 was (334) 264-3277, while the phonenumber actually dialed duringsurveillancewas (334) 262- 3477. 3 s ur ve i l l a nc e purpos e s . T he of f i c e r s obs e r ve d a m a r oon ve hi c l e ba c ke d up be s i de the ho use. C on w ay then asked anot her off i ce r t o cal l the t el epho ne nu m ber that had b ee n p rovi ded b y the anon ym ou s t i pst erand t o t el l w ho m everansw er ed that the po l i ce w er e c om i ng t o t he ho use. 1 T h e o th e ro f

f ic e rin f o r m e d C o n w a y th a t th e te le p h o n e c a ll h a d b e e n m a d e in ac cordance w i th C on w ay ’ s i nstruct i on s. H ow ever , un bekn ow nstt o t he offi ce rs at the s c e ne , the t e l e phone num be rtha tw a s a c tua l l y di a l e d w a s notthe t e l e phone nu m ber f or the re si dence. N ever thel es s, despi t e the fa ctthatthe w rong nu m ber 2 w a s d ia le d , ju s t a f

te rth e te le p h o n e c a ll w a s c o m p le te d , N o r m a n c o in c id e n ta lly exi t ed the 4t h S tre etre si dence. N orm an w al ked t o t he stre et , pl ac ed a w hi t e obj ec t in to a c u rb s id e tr a s h c a n lo c a te d o n th e s tr e e t in f r o n t o f th e h o u s e , a n d r e tu r n e d to the re si dence. T he offi ce rs w ai t ed a f

ew addi t i on al m i nu t es and o bserved n o further a c tiv ity . C o n w a y th e n d e c id e d th a t h e w o u ld in itia te a “k n o c k a n d ta lk ,” w h ic h is an i nv es t i gat i ve t ec hn i qu e w here by an offi ce r kno cks on t he do or t o a re si dence a nd a t t e m pt s t o ga the ri nf or m a t i on by e xpl a i ni ng t o the oc c upa nt s the r e a s on f or4

th e p o lic e in te r e s t. N orm an and A nd re w K enny Ja m es (“ Ja m es ”) answ er ed the do or. A ft er C onw a y e xpl a i ne d tha tthe pol i c e ha d r e c e i ve d a c om pl a i ntof drug a c t i vi ty a tthe r e s id e n c e , h e a s k e d to s e a r c h th e r e s id e n c e . N o r m a n a n d J a m e s r e f u s e d th is r e q u e s t. D ur i ng the i rdi s c us s i on w i th N or m a n a nd J a m e s , of f i c e r s obs e r ve d a y oung boy l oc a t e d i n the f

r ontr oom , vi s i bl e f

r om w he r e the of

f i c e r s w e r e s t a ndi ng o u ts id e th e d o o r . A ls o a t th is tim e , d e s p ite C o n w a y ’s in s tru c tio n s to k e e p h is h a n d s o u t o f

h is p o c k e ts , N o r m a n c o n tin u e d to p u t h is h a n d s in h is p o c k e ts . A cc ordi ng l y, C on w ay pl ac ed the youn g b oy— w ho w as l at eri dent i fi ed as N orm an’ s s on — behi nd C on w ay for the bo y’ s s af ety; drew hi s w eapo n o n N orm an and Jam es ; and con du ct ed a pat do w n sea rc h o f N orm an. T he se ar ch of N orm an rev eal ed a cel l p h o n e an d m o n ey i n N o rm an ’ s p o ck et s. A f t e rthe pa t dow n s e a r c h, C onw a y w e ntt o the c urbs i de tr a s h c a n l oc a t e d on th e s tree t i n fr o n t o f th e h o u se . In sid e th e tra sh ca n , sitti n g o n to p o f th e c an ’s c ont e nt s , C onw a y f

ound a w e tpa pe rt ow e l w i th a r e s i due tha ta ppe a r e d t o be c o c a in e . C o n w a y f

ie ld - te s te d th e p ap e rto w e l, a n d it te s te d p o s itiv e f o rc o c a in e . C on w ay then i nstruct ed the ot her off i ce rs t o d et ai n N orm an and Jam es , and h e l ef t to o b ta in a s e a r c h w a r r a n t f o rth e r e s id e n c e .5

W hi l e C onw a y w a s ty pi ng hi s a f f i da vi ti n s uppor tof

the s e a r c h w a r r a nt , he re ce i ved a cal l fr om on e of the offi ce rs atthe sc ene a dv i si ng hi m thatthe offi ce rs ha d l oc a t e d a thi r d pe r s on— P e r a l t e — i n the hous e . O f f i c e r s a ppa r e nt l y he a r d a n o is e in s id e th e h o u s e , d e s p ite h a v in g d e ta in e d N o r m a n a n d J a m e s a n d d e s p ite ha vi ng s e ntN or m a n’ s s on t o the c a r e of a ne i ghbor . O f

f i c e r s the n e nt e r e d the ho use a nd det ai ned P er al t e, and C on w ay re vi se d h i s a ff i davi tt o i ncl ud e P er al t e. C o n w ay’ s affi d av i ti n su p p o rto f th e search w arran tst at ed as p ro b ab l e cau se f o rth e s e a r c h , a mo n g o th e rth i n g s : ( 1 ) Co n w a y r e c e i v e d a t e l e p h o n e c a l l f r o m a s ubj e c t“ A ” a dvi s i ng tha tdrug a c t i vi ty w a s ongoi ng a tthe 4th S tr e e tr e s i de nc e ; ( 2) “A ” to ld C o n w a y th a t d ru g a c tiv ity a t th e r e s id e n c e in c r e a s e d w h e n a b la c k m a le dri vi ng a m ar oo n v ehi cl e a rr i ved atthe re si dence; (3) a ft erA ’ s pho ne ca l l , C on w ay sa w N o rm an ex itth e r es id en ce an d p lace an o b ject in th e tra sh ca n ; (4 ) C o n w ay ’s s ubs e que nts e a r c h of

the tr a s h c a n r e ve a l e d a pa pe rt ow e l c ont a i ni ng c oc a i ne r e s id u e ; a n d ( 5 ) N o r m a n a n d J a m e s w e r e k n o w n d ru g d e a le r s in M o n tg o m e r y . C onw a y br oughtthe a f

f i da vi tt o a M ont gom e r y M uni c i pa l C our tj udge a nd r e vi s e d the a f

f i da vi t( w i th the j udge ’ s pe r m i s s i on) t o i nc l ude the ve hi c l e s a tthe re sid en ce . T h e ju d g e th en issu ed a s ea rc h w ar ra n t th at in co rp o ra ted C o n w ay ’s a f f id a v it, a n d C o n w a y c a lle d th e o th e ro f f ic e r s a t th e s c e n e a n d in s tru c te d th e m to com m ence a s ea rc h o f the re si dence and the m ar oo n v ehi cl e.6

I n the r e s i de nc e , of

f i c e r s f ound a di gi t a l s c a l e on t op of the w a s hi ng m a c hi ne . I ns i de the w a s hi ng m a c hi ne , of f i c e r s l oc a t e d apl a s t i c ba g c ont a i ni ng com m er ci al packi ng grea se and $ 2, 90 0 i n cas h. In the drye r, offi ce rs l ocat ed three sol i d b ri cks of c ocai ne hydrochl ori de w i th a t ot al w ei gh tof approx i m at el y three ki l ogr a m s . T he c oc a i ne br i c ks w e r e y e l l ow - br ow n i n c ol ora nd appe a r e d t o ha ve b e e n p a c k e d in g r e a s e b u t s u b s e q u e n tly w ip e d c le a n . U nde rthe l i vi ng r oom c ouc h, of f i c e r s l oc a t e d a pa c ka ge c ont a i ni ng a ppr oxi m a t e l y one ki l ogr a m of c oc a i ne hy dr oc hl or i de . T hi s c oc a i ne w a s i ns i de one pl a s t i c z i p- l oc ba g, c ove r e d w i th pa c ki ng gr e a s e , a nd pl a c e d i ns i de a nothe rz i pl o c b ag . In th e k i t ch en , o ffi cers l o cat ed a tw o -g ram p ack ag e o f co cai n e b ase ( “c r a c k ” ) in a c a b in e t, a lo n g w ith a n o th e rd ig ita l s c a le . O f f ic e r s a d d itio n a lly di s c ove r e d a hol l ow e d- outbe dpos ttha tc ont a i ne d appr oxi m a t e l y $70, 000 i n c a s h, and a hand gu n i n a cl osetnearthe fr on tdo or. Invest i gat i on re veal ed thatthe m ar oo n v ehi cl e w i th F l ori da l i ce nse pl at es bel on ged t o P er al t e. T he se ar ch of the m ar oo n v ehi cl e r evea l ed thatthe pass enger s i de a i rba g ha d be e n r e m ove d i n or de rt o c r e a t e a hi dde n c om pa r tm e nt . I n the hi dde n c om pa r tm e nt , of f i c e r s f ound a z i p- l oc ba g of

the s a m e ty pe tha the l d the c o c a in e th a t o f

f ic e r s lo c a te d u n d e rth e liv in g r o o m c o u c h . T he re si du e on t he paper t ow el re tri eved from the curbsi de tra sh ca n w as7

u ltim a te ly d e te r m in e d to b e c r a c k r e s id u e . O n O c t o b e r2 9 , 2 0 0 3 , a g r a n d j u r y f r o m th e M i d d l e D i s tr i c to f A l a b a ma r e tur ne d a f

our - c ounti ndi c tm e nta ga i ns tN or m a n, P e r a l t e , a nd J a m e s . C ountO ne c h a r g e d th e d e f

e n d a n ts w ith c o n s p ir a c y to k n o w in g ly a n d in te n tio n a lly d is tr ib u te and p osse ss w i th i nt entt o d i stri bu t e 500 gram s or m ore of c ocai ne hydrochl ori de, in v io la tio n o f

2 1 U .S .C . § § 8 4 1 ( a ) ( 1 ) a n d 8 4 6 . C o u n t T w o c h a r g e d th e d e f e n d a n ts w i th c ons pi r a c y t o know i ngl y a nd i nt e nt i ona l l y di s tr i but e a nd pos s e s s w i th i nt e nt to d is tr ib u te a m ix tu r e o rs u b s ta n c e c o n ta in in g a d e te c ta b le a m o u n t o f c r a c k , a ls o in vi ol a t i on of

21 U . S . C . §§ 841( a ) ( 1) a nd 846. C ount s T hr e e a nd F ourc ha r ge d the de f e nda nt s w i th the a c t s of pos s e s s i on r e f

e r e nc e d i n C ount s O ne a nd T w o of the in d ic tm e n t— s p e c if

ic a lly , k n o w in g a n d in te n tio n a l p o s s e s s io n w ith th e in te n t to di s tr i but e 500 gr a m s orm or e of c oc a i ne ( C ountT hr e e ) , a nd know i ng a nd i nt e nt i ona l pos s e s s i on w i th i nt e ntt o di s tr i but e a m i xtur e ors ubs t a nc e c ont a i ni ng a d e te c ta b le a m o u n t o f

c r a c k ( C o u n t F o u r ) , in v io la tio n o f 2 1 U .S .C . § 8 4 1 ( a ) ( 1 ) . I n J u n e 2 0 0 4 , J a m e s p l e a d e d g u i l ty t o C o u n tOn e o f th e i n d i c tm e n t . He subsequent l y t es t i fi ed for the go vernm entatthe j oi nttri al of N orm an and P er al t e. B ot h N orm an and P er al t e f i l ed pretri al supp re ss i on m ot i on s. T he pri m ary ba s i s of the i rm ot i ons w a s tha tthe a nony m ous t e l e phone t i p w a s unr e l i a bl e a nd tha tpr oba bl e c a us e di d note xi s tf orthe s e a r c h w a r r a nt . A m a gi s tr a t e j udge8

c onduc t e d a s uppr e s s i on he a r i ng, a nd i s s ue d a r e por ta nd r e c om m e nda t i on tha tthe m ot i ons t o s uppr e s s be de ni e d. A m ong othe rf a c t s , the m a gi s tr a t e j udge f ound tha t , a s r e c ount e d by the pol i c e of f i c e r s , the r e ha d be e n a n a nony m ous t i p a bout drug a c t i vi ty a tthe 4th S tr e e tr e s i de nc e a nd C onw a y ha d obs e r ve d N or m a n e xi tthe 4 th S treetresi d en ce an d p l ace a p ap er t o w el co n t ai n i n g co cai n e resi d u e i n th e trash c a n. T he di s tr i c tc our ta dopt e d the m a gi s tr a t e ’ s r e por ta nd r e c om m e nda t i on a nd d e n ie d th e s u p p r e s s io n m o tio n s . T h e c a s e p r o c e e d e d to tr ia l in J u ly 2 0 0 4 . A ttr i a l , the a bove c i r c um s t a nc e s s ur r oundi ng the s ur ve i l l a nc e a nd s e a r c h of the 4t h S tre etre si dence w er e i nt rodu ce d i n evi dence. A dd i t i on al l y, Ja m es t es t i fi ed tha the m e tP e r a l t e i n 1998 a nd boughtl a r ge qua nt i t i e s of c oc a i ne f

r om hi m i n the la te 1 9 9 0 s , w h ic h J a m e s in tu r n s o ld . T h e r e la tio n s h ip b e tw e e n J a m e s a n d P e r a lte de t e r i or a t e d be c a us e J a m e s “ r a n of f ” w i th s om e of

P e r a l t e ’ s c oc a i ne i n 2000 or 2 0 0 1 , a n d J a m e s o w e d P e r a lte $ 1 2 ,0 0 0 a s a r e s u lt. N e v e r th e le s s , a c c o r d in g to J a m e s , in a p p r o x im a te ly A u g u s t 2 0 0 3 , P e r a lte r e in itia te d h is r e la tio n s h ip w ith J a m e s , a n d d ir e c te d J a m e s to m e e t h im a t th e 4 th S tr e e t r e s id e n c e . J a m e s w e n t to the 4t h S tre etre si dence w here Ja m es w ant ed t o sel l P er al t e hi s aut om ob i l e a s aw ay to g et so m e m o n ey an d to re p ay h is d eb t t o P er alte, b u t i n stea d , at P er alte’s i nsi st ence , Ja m es agre ed t o sel l coca i ne for P er al t e t o repay the debt . P er al t e w as di s trus t f ul of J a m e s be c a us e J a m e s “ r a n of f ” w i th P e r a l t e ’ s c oc a i ne i n 2000 orOn appe al, Norma n argues that this testimony was inadmissible hea

rsay . We reviewa 3 district court’s evidentiary ruling s for a

buse of discretion. See United States v. Lyons, 403 F.3d 1248, 1250 (11th Cir.), cert. denied, 126 S. Ct. 732 (2005). Winga rd testified without objection that Mo ntg omery

wa s th ea c tual re side nt o f t he4th Stre e t ho us e , b ut N or

man o bje c te d to Wingard’s testimony

that Montgomery

was Nor man’s g irlfriend. B eca

use James testified wi tho ut obje c tio n th at Mo ntg omery wa s N or man’ s g irlf

ri e nd , a nd thu s th at sa

mee vide nc ec ame i nthro u ghan o th e r

w i tn e s s , w en e e d

n o tr e s o l v eth eh e ar s ay i s s u ea s th ee v i d e nt i ar y e r ro r , i f any, wa s h arm le ss. 9 20 01 , and as are sul t , P er al t e a cc om pani ed Ja m es on a dri ve ar ou nd M on t go m ery t o ma k e th e a c tu a l c o c a i n e s a l e s . J a me s t e s t i f i e d th a th e s o l d “ a b o u ta [ k i l o g r a m] a nd a ha l f

” of P e r a l t e ’ s c oc a i ne a ttha tt i m e . T hi s oc c ur r e d appr oxi m a t e l y s i x or s e v e n d a y s p r io rto th e p o lic e s u r v e illa n c e a n d s e a r c h o f th e 4 th S tr e e t r e s id e n c e in thi s c as e. Ja m es al so t es t i fi ed thathe and P er al t e had “ m ade al otof m on ey t og ether. ” M or e ove r , J a m e s t e s t i f

i e d tha the ha d vi s i t e d the 4th S tr e e tr e s i de nc e on m u l t i p l e o ccasi o n s o th er th an th e d ay o f h i s arrest , an d th ato n th o se o ccasi o n s, som et i m es N orm an w as pres entand som et i m es , on l y N orm an’ s gi rl fr i end w as pr e s e nt . D e t e c t i ve C hr i s W i nga r d ( “ W i nga r d” ) t e s t i f i e d tha tthe a c tua l r e s i de ntof the 4t h S tre etho use w as a w om an nam ed T am m y M on t go m ery ( “ M on t go m ery” ), N or m a n’ s gi r l f

r i e nd. 3 Ja m es further t es t i fi ed thatN orm an and P er al t e had “ st ar t ed . . . se ei ng ea ch ot her, ” a nd “ st ar t ed deal i ng w i th eac h o ther, ” a nd thathe bel i eved the 4t h S tre et r e s i de nc e w a s N or m a n’ s r e s i de nc e . A ddi t i ona l l y , J a m e s t e s t i f i e d tha tbe c a us e he10

had “ ra n o ff

” w i th som e of P er al t e’ s c ocai ne and o w ed P er al t e m on ey , w hen Jam es w entt o t he 4t h S tre etre si dence i n t he days pri or t o t he se ar ch of the re si dence, b o th N o rm an an d P eral t e w ere “t el l i n g j o k es” ab o u tsn ak es. A cco rd i n g t o Jam es, and t aki ng al l i nfer ence s i n favor of the go vernm ent , atthe 4t h S tre etre si dence, N or m a n a nd P e r a l t e j oke d tha tJ a m e s w a s l i ke a s na ke be c a us e P e r a l t e w a s t a ki ng anot her “ chance on deal i ng [drugs] w i th [Ja m es ] , ” des pi t e the fa ctthat“ every t i m e” P er al t e had previ ou sl y bee n eng aged i n d rug act i vi ty w i th Jam es , Ja m es had ru n o ff w i th P eral t e’ s m o n ey o r d ru g s. F i n al l y, Jam es t est i fi ed th atP eral t e t o l d h i m th ath e co u l d “ g etso m e m o n ey” by get [t i ng ] [P er al t e] som e s al es for s om e pow der” coca i ne, and t hatJa m es had

“ sol d a l otof drug s f

or P er al t e. ” T h e ju r y c o n v ic te d N o r m a n a n d P e r a lte o n a ll f o u rc o u n ts o f

th e in d ic tm e n t. T he di s tr i c tc our tha d the j ur y c om pl e t e as pe c i a l ve r di c tf or m . F ore a c h c ountof c onvi c t i on, the j ur y w a s i ns truc t e d t o a ns w e ra m ul t i pl e - c hoi c e que s t i on r e ga r di ng th e q u a n tity o f

r e le v a n t d ru g s th a t e a c h d e f e n d a n t p o s s e s s e d o rc o n s p ir e d to p o s s e s s . T h e ju r y e x p r e s s ly f o u n d th a t b o th N o r m a n a n d P e r a lte c o n s p ir e d to po ss es s w i th i nt entt o d i stri bu t e betw ee n 3 . 5 and 5 k i l og ra m s of c ocai ne (C ou nt1); conspi re d t o p osse ss w i th i nt entt o d i stri bu t e betw ee n 2 and 3 gram s of c ra ck ( C ount2) ; pos s e s s e d w i th i nt e ntt o di s tr i but e be tw e e n 3. 5 a nd 5 ki l ogr a m s of11

c o c a i n e ( Co u n t3 ) ; a n d p o s s e s s e d w i th i n t e n tt o d i s tr i b u t e b e tw e e n 2 a n d 3 g r a ms of cr ac k (C ou nt4). B ot h N orm an and P er al t e m ov ed for j ud gm ent s of a cqui t t al an d j u d g m en t s n o tw i th st an d i n g th e v erd i ct s, an d th e d i stri ctco u rtd en i ed th o se m o t i o n s. O n O c to b e r1 , 2 0 0 4 , N o r m a n a n d P e r a lte w e r e s e n te n c e d . P r io rto se nt enci ng , a probat i on offi ce r pre pare d a P re -S ent ence Invest i gat i on re po rt ( “ P S I ” ) , ut i l i z i ng the N ove m be r2003 e di t i on of the U ni t e d S t a t e s S e nt e nc i ng G u id e lin e s . N o r m a n ’s P S I r e c o m m e n d e d a b a s e o f f e n s e le v e l o f

th ir ty , p u r s u a n t to U . S . S . G . §§ 2D 1. 1 and 3D 1. 2 and base d o n t he am ou ntof drug s thatthe j ury a ttr ib u te d to N o r m a n . T h e P S I a ls o r e c o m m e n d e d a tw o - le v e l in c r e a s e in N orm an’ s off

ense l evel base d o n t he fi re arm thatw as foun d i n t he re si dence, for a t ot al re com m ended o ff

ense l evel of thi rty- tw o. B as ed on N orm an’ s c ri m i nal hi s t or y c a t e gor y of

I I I , the P S I c a l c ul a t e d N or m a n’ s gui de l i ne s r a nge a t151- 188 m o n th s ’ im p r is o n m e n t. A tse nt enci ng , N orm an’ s c ou nsel obj ec t ed t o t he qu ant i ty of drugs attri bu t ed to h im b y th e ju r y a n d f u r th e ro b je c te d to th e p r o p o s e d f ir e a r m e n h a n c e m e n t. N orm an’ s c ou nsel al so em ph as i ze d t hatN orm an had n o con trol ov erthe prem i se s w he r e he w a s a r r e s t e d a nd onl y ha d a r i ghtt o go the r e be c a us e hi s gi r l f r i e nd a nd chi l d l i ved t here , such thata m i no r r ol e r educt i on w as approp ri at e. T he di stri ct12

c our ts us t a i ne d N or m a n’ s obj e c t i on r e ga r di ng the f i r e a r m e nha nc e m e nt , but ove r rul e d hi s obj e c t i on r e ga r di ng the qua nt i ty of drugs a nd r e

j e c t e d the r e que s tf

or a m in o rr o le r e d u c tio n . A f t e rr e j e c t i ng the f

i r e a r m e nha nc e m e ntr e c om m e nde d by the P S I , the di stri ctcourtca l cul at ed N orm an’ s off ense l evel atthi rty a nd hi s c ri m i nal hi st ory cat eg o ry atIII, w h i ch p l aced N o rm an ’ s g u i d el i n es ran g e at1 2 1 -1 5 0 m o n th s’ i m p ri so n m en t . T h e d i stri ctco u rtth en sen t en ced N o rm an t o 1 2 1 m o n th s’ i m pri sonm enton ea ch of the four coun t s, t o b e s erved con curr ent l y. T he di stri ct c our ts pe c i f

i c a l l y s t a t e d tha ti ts e nt e nc e d N or m a n t o a 121- m onth t e r m of im p r is o n m e n t d u e to th e n a tu r e o f th e o f f e n s e , to d e te rf

u tu r e w r o n g f

u l c o n d u c t, a nd t o puni s h N or m a n. J us ta s i n N or m a n’ s c a s e , P e r a l t e ’ s P S I r e c om m e nde d a ba s e of f e ns e l e ve l of thi r ty , pur s ua ntt o U . S . S . G . §§ 2D 1. 1 a nd 3D 1. 2 a nd ba s e d on the a m ountof drugs tha tthe j ur y ha d a t tr i but e d t o P e r a l t e . L i ke w i s e , P e r a l t e ’ s P S I a l s o r e c om m e nde d a tw o -lev el in cr ea se b as ed o n th e f irea rm fo u n d in th e r es id en ce , su ch th at P er alte’s P S I r ec o m m en d ed an ad ju sted o ff

en se lev el o f th irty-tw o . B ec au se P er alte’s c r i m i na l hi s t or y c a t e gor y w a s a l s o I I I , the P S I c a l c ul a t e d P e r a l t e ’ s gui de l i ne s r a nge a t 1 5 1 - 1 8 8 m o n th s ’ im p r is o n m e n t. P e r a l t e obj e c t e d t o the P S I , a r gui ng tha tpur s ua ntt o B l a ke l y v. W a s hi ngt on,We reviewthe denial of a motion to suppress evidenc e as a mix ed question of law

and 4 fac t. We review thedistrict court’s finding s of fact for c lear error and thedistrict court’s application of thelaw to those facts de novo. Thefac ts are c onstrued in favor of the pa rty that prevailed in the district court. See United States v. Perkins, 348 F.3d 965, 969 (11th Cir. 2003); United States v. Hall, 47 F .3d 1091, 1094 (11th Cir. 1995). 13 542 U . S . 296, 124 S . C t . 2531 ( 2004) , he c oul d notr e c e i ve a f i r e a r m e nha nc e m e nt beca use the enhancem entw as no tchar ged i n t he i nd i ctm ent . T he di stri ctcourt sust ai ned P er al t e’ s obj ec t i on t o t he fi re arm enhancem entatse nt enci ng , fi nd i ng that the evi dence di d n otsupp ortthe appl i ca t i on of the enhancem ent . T he di stri ctcourt subsequent l y c al cul at ed P er al t e’ s off ense l evel atthi rty, hi s c ri m i nal hi st ory c a t e gor y a tI I I , a nd hi s gui de l i ne s r a nge a t121- 151 m onths ’ i m pr i s onm e nt . T he di s tr i c tc our tthe n s e nt e nc e d P e r a l t e t o 145 m onths ’ i m pr i s onm e nton e a c h of the four coun t s, t o b e s erved con curr ent l y. T he di stri ctcourtst at ed thati tse nt ence d P e r a lte to 1 4 5 m o n th s ’ im p r is o n m e n t d u e to th e n a tu r e o f th e o f f e n s e a n d its se ri ou snes s, as w el l as t o p rom ot e r es pectfor the l aw base d o n P er al t e’ s “ cr i m i nal hi st ory i n t he drug cr i m e a re a. ” N o r m a n a n d P e r a lte tim e ly a p p e a le d . I I . DI S CUS S I ON O n ap p e a l, N o r m a n a n d P e r a lte a r g u e th a t: ( 1 ) th e d is tr ic t c o u r t e r r e d in denyi ng thei r m ot i on s t o sup pres s the evi dence re covered fr om the 4t h S tre et r e s id e n c e ; ( 2 ) th e e v id e n c e p r e s e n te d a t tr ia l w a s in s u f f ic ie n t to s u p p o r t th e ir 4We reviewthe denial of a motion for severanc e for abuse of discretion. United States v. 5 Talley, 108 F.3d 277, 279 ( 11th Cir. 1997). We reviewa district cour t’s reje ction of a proposed jury instruction for abuseof 6 discretion. United States v. Ga rcia , 405 F.3d 1260, 1273 ( 11th Cir. 2005).

14 co n v i ct i o n s; an d (3 ) th e d i stri ctco u rtsh o u l d h av e sev ered th ei r tri al s. 5 A dd i t i on al l y, N orm an ar gu es thatthe se ar ch w arra ntfor the 4t h S tre etre si dence w a s i nva l i d be c a us e i tw a s obt a i ne d i n vi ol a t i on of R ul e 41 of

the F e de r a l R ul e s of C r im in a l P r o c e d u r e , a n d P e r a lte a r g u e s th a t th e d is tr ic t c o u r t im p r o p e r ly f a ile d to granthi m a j ury i nstruct i on on the pu rport ed “ bu ye r- se l l er ” r el at i on shi p b etw ee n hi m se l f a nd Ja m es . F i nal l y, bo th app el l ant s r ai se se nt enci ng i ss ues. N orm an 6 pr i m a r i l y a r gue s tha tthe di s tr i c tc our te rr e d i n de ny i ng hi m a m i norr ol e r e duc t i on a n d in c o n c lu d in g th a t th e d ru g s a t th e 4 th S tr e e t r e s id e n c e w e r e a ttr ib u ta b le to h im (a s opp osed t o h i s c o-defendant s) . P er al t e a rgues thatthe di stri ctcourtcom m i t t ed st atut ory e rr or un der U ni t ed S t at es v. B oo ker, 54 3 U . S . 22 0, 12 5 S . C t . 73 8 (20 05 ), by se nt enci ng hi m un der am andat ory gui del i nes s chem e. A ft eroral ar gu m entand care ful re vi ew of the re cord i n t hi s c as e, as w el l as th e arg u m en t s o f th e p art i es i n th ei r b ri efs, w e co n cl u d e th atal l o f ap p el l an t s’ cl ai m s o f erro r l ack m eri t . F u rth er d i scu ssi o n i s w arran t ed o n l y as t o ap p el l an t s’ m ot i on s t o sup pres s, thei r a rgum entthatthe go vernm ent ’ s e vi dence w as i n su ffi ci en tt o est ab l i sh a co n sp i racy, an d th ei r sen t en ci n g cl ai m s.15

A . M o ti o n s to S u p p ress O n ap p e a l, ap p e lla n ts c h a lle n g e th e d is tr ic t c o u r t’s d e n ia l o f th e irm o tio n s to s u p p r e s s th e e v id e n c e o b ta in e d p u r s u a n t to th e s e a r c h w a r r a n t. A p p e lla n ts ’ m a in ar gu m enti s thatthe w arra ntw as no tsupp ort ed by prob abl e c ause .

“ P r oba bl e c a us e t o s uppor ta s e a r c h w a r r a nte xi s t s w he n the t ot a l i ty of the c i r c um s t a nc e s a l l ow a c onc l us i on tha tthe r e i s a f a i rpr oba bi l i ty of

f i ndi ng c ontr a ba nd ore vi de nc e a ta pa r t i c ul a rl oc a t i on. ” U ni t e d S t a t e s v. B rundi dge , 170 F .3 d 1 3 5 0 , 1 3 5 2 ( 1 1 th C ir . 1 9 9 9 ) . F u r th e r m o r e , “‘[ p ]r o b a b le c a u s e is a f lu id concept

— turni ng on the as se ss m entof prob abi l i t i es i n p ar t i cul arfa ctual c o n te x ts .’” I d . ( c ita tio n a n d a lte r a tio n s o m itte d ) . “S p e c if ic a lly , th e a f

f id a v it s houl d e s t a bl i s h a c onne c t i on be tw e e n the de f e nda nta nd the r e s i de nc e t o be se ar ched and a l i nk betw ee n t he re si dence and any cr i m i nal ac t i vi ty. ” U ni t ed S ta te s v . M a r tin , 2 9 7 F .3 d 1 3 0 8 , 1 3 1 4 ( 1 1 th C ir . 2 0 0 2 ) . In thi s c as e, C on w ay ’ s a ff i davi ti n sup po rtof the se ar ch w arra ntst at ed that pr oba bl e c a us e e xi s t e d be c a us e : ( 1) the pol i c e r e c e i ve d a n a nony m ous t e l e phone c a l l tha tdrug a c t i vi ty w a s ongoi ng a tthe 4th S tr e e tr e s i de nc e ; ( 2) the a nony m ous ca l l eri nform ed po l i ce thatdrug ac t i vi ty a tthe re si dence i ncre as ed w hen a bl ac k m al e dri vi ng a m ar oo n v ehi cl e a rr i ved atthe re si dence; (3) C on w ay ob se rved N o rm an ex itth e r es id en ce an d p lace an o b ject in th e tra sh ca n ; (4 ) C o n w ay ’sIn B onner v . Ci ty of Pric ha rd , 6 61 F .2 d 1 20 6, 12 09 (1 1th Cir . 1 98 1) (en b anc ), thi s 7 Court adopted as bindingprec edent all Fifth Circuit decisions rendered prior to October 1, 1981. 16 s ubs e que nts e a r c h of

the tr a s h c a n r e ve a l e d a pa pe rt ow e l c ont a i ni ng c oc a i ne r e s id u e ; a n d ( 5 ) N o r m a n a n d J a m e s w e r e k n o w n d ru g d e a le r s in M o n tg o m e r y . W e read i l y co n cl u d e th atth e affi d av i ti n th i s case w as m o re th an su ffi ci en tt o est ab l i sh pr oba bl e c a us e . S e e U ni t e d S t a t e s v. V a ha l i k, 606 F . 2d 99, 100 ( 5th C i r . 1979) 7 (“ T he garbage produ ce d syr i ng es , needl es , and o ther i m pl em ent s thatcont ai ned tr a c e s of m e tha m phe t a m i ne ; the s e i t e m s , s i f t e d f r om ga rba ge ba gs tha ta ppe l l a nt h ad p l aced atth e ed g e o f th e streetfo r co l l ect i o n , p ro v i d ed th e p ro b ab l e cau se b as is fo r iss u an ce o f th e w ar ra n t fo r th e s u b se q u en t sea rc h o f a p p ellan t’ s r e s id e n c e .” ) . A pp el l ant s a l so ar gu e thatC on w ay l i ed w hen h e c l ai m ed t o h ave di sc ov er ed c oc a i ne i n the tr a s h c a n. H ow e ve r , the m a gi s tr a t e j udge he a r d the e vi de nc e a nd m ade aspec i fi c f

ac t -f i nd i ng thatC on w ay w entt o t he tra sh ca n and foun d t he paper t ow e l , w hi c h “ l ooke d l i ke w ha t[ C onw a y ] ha d s e e n N or m a n dr op i n the ga rba ge c a n e a r l i e r . ” T he m a gi s tr a t e j udge a l s o m a de a s pe c i f i c f a c t - f i ndi ng tha ti ns i de the paper t ow el , C on w ay foun d shavi ng s of w hatappeare d t o b e c ocai ne. T he di stri ct co u rt ad o p ted th e m ag istrate ju d g e’s f in d in g s o f f

ac t an d th e m ag istrate ju d g e’s re com m endat i on thatthe m ot i on s t o sup pres s be deni ed. T he fi nd i ng s of f ac tw er e supp ort ed by the evi dence and w er e notcl ea rl y e rr on eous, and as s uch w e r ej ec tAppellants’ a rgument that the war

rant wa s improperly

signe d is also without merit and 8 is not discussed further . We rec ognize that Norman also argues that his initial detention and Conway ’s patdown 9 se arch w e reill e g a l. D uringhis se arch o f N or man’ s p e rs on , Co nw ay

remov e d N or

man’ s c e ll ph on eon thec ha nc ethat it wa s a we a po n. Up on

de terminingthat N or

man’ s p ho newa s n ot a wea pon, Conway

immediately

returne d the phone to Nor man. Additionally , Conway rec ognized the money

for wha t it was duringthe patdown, a nd as such Conwa

y did not remove the money from Nor man’s pocket duringthis ini tial search. We need not determine whe ther the detention and sea rch w ereillegal, beca

use no evidenc e—neither

Norman’ s cell phone, nor Norman’ s money , nor any statements made by Norman—w as used a s part of Conwa y ’s af fidavit in support of the sea rch w arrant. As outlined above, probable c ause e x isted for the se arc h war rant a nd that probablecauseconsisted of the anony mous tip and Norman’s plac ement of a paper towel with cocaine re sidue in the trash c an, all of which oc curred bef ore thedetention and patdown search. See United States v. Davis, 313 F.3d 1300, 1304 ( 11th Cir. 2002) (“[E]ven if we assume that the initial search w as invalid and that any thing related to that se arc h was the f ruit of the poisonous tree , the gun’s seizure wa s valid beca

use it had been purg ed of the‘taint’ of thealleg edly illegal search. In other words, the firea rm, which wa s rec overe d pursuant to an independent source , i.e., the third wa rra nt, was admissible . . . .”). We re view a

c halleng eto t

hesu ff ic ienc y of thee vide nc edeno vo , ta

kinga ll re a so na

ble 10 inferences in fa

vor of the g overnment and the jury ’s verdict of convic tion. United States v. Rudisil l, 187 F.3d 1260, 1267 (11th Cir. 1999). 17 a p p e lla n ts ’ a r g u m e n t th a t C o n w a y lie d a s w ith o u t m e r it. 8 B ec ause prob abl e c ause supp ort ed the se ar ch w arra nti n t hi s c as e, the di stri ct co u rtp ro p erl y d en i ed ap p el l an t s’ m o t i o n s t o su p p ress. 9 B. C o ns pi r a c y C o nv i c t i o ns 10 T he crux of appel l ant s’ att ac k o n t hei r c on spi ra cy conv i ct i on s i s thatthe tri al e vi de nc e a tbe s te s t a bl i s he d the i r“ m e r e pr e s e nc e ” a tthe 4th S tr e e tr e s i de nc e a nd thu s w as i nsuffi ci entt o est abl i sh ei ther par t i ci pat i on i n a drug conspi ra cy or an in te n t to d is tr ib u te th e d ru g s lo c a te d a t th e r e s id e n c e .18

In o rd er t o su st ai n a d ru g co n sp i racy co n v i ct i o n , th e g o v ern m en tm u st e s t a bl i s h tha ttw o orm or e pe opl e a gr e e d t o di s tr i but e the drugs ; tha tthe de f e nda nt k n e w o f th e g e n e r a l p u rp o s e o f

th e a g r e e m e n t; a n d th a t th e d e f e n d a n t k n o w in g ly a nd vol unt a r i l y j oi ne d the a gr e e m e nt . S e e U ni t e d S t a t e s v. S i m ps on, 228 F . 3d 1 2 9 4 , 1 2 9 8 ( 1 1 th C ir . 2 0 0 0 ) . “B e c a u s e th e c r im e o f c o n s p ir a c y is ‘p r e d o m in a n tly m ent al i n com po si t i on , ’ ” the cr i m e i s oft en prov abl e onl y vi a c i rc um st ant i al e vi de nc e . U ni t e d S t a t e s v. T ol e r , 144 F . 3d 1423, 1426 ( 11th C i r . 1998) ( c i t a t i on om i t t e d) . A ddi t i ona l l y , a l though a ppe l l a nt s a r e c or r e c ttha t“ [ m ] e r e pr e s e nc e a l one . . . is n o t in d ic a tiv e o f

a c o n s p ir a c y ,” it is a ls o tru e th a t a d e f e n d a n t’s “p r e s e n c e is m a t e r i a l a nd pr oba t i ve i n the t ot a l i ty of the [ ] c i r c um s t a nc e s . ” U ni t e d S t a t e s v. J e n k in s , 7 7 9 F .2 d 6 0 6 , 6 1 2 ( 1 1 th C ir . 1 9 8 6 ) . H e r e , v ie w in g th e e v id e n c e in th e lig h t m o s t f a v o r a b le to th e g o v e r n m e n t, th ere i s cl earl y su ffi ci en tci rcu m st an t i al ev i d en ce t o su st ai n b o th ap p el l an t s’ co n sp i racy co n v i ct i o n s. A m o n g o th er th i n g s, th e ev i d en ce, i n th e l i g h tm o st fa vo rabl e t o t he go vernm ent , show s the fol l ow i ng : A n ano nym ou s c al l eradvi se d C onw a y tha tthe r e w a s a m a r oon ve hi c l e pr e s e nta tthe 4th S tr e e tr e s i de nc e , a nd w he n tha tve hi c l e w a s pr e s e nt , the r e w e r e ge ne r a l l y drugs a tthe r e s i de nc e . T he a nony m ous c a l l e ra l s o t ol d C onw a y tha ta bl a c k m a l e na m e d “ S c oot e r ” w a s a tthe 4th S tr e e tr e s i de nc e , a nd N or m a n’ s ni c kna m e w a s “ S c oot e r . ” S hor t l y a f t e rthe19

ph on e c al l , base d o n survei l l ance cond uct ed as a r es ul tof the ph on e c al l , N orm an w a s s e e n t o e xi tthe r e s i de nc e a nd de pos i ta n obj e c ti n the tr a s h c a n di r e c t l y out s i de the re si dence. T he obj ec tthrow n aw ay by N orm an w as a w etpaper t ow el cont ai ni ng cr ac k res i du e. A subsequentse ar ch of the re si dence i t se l f r evea l ed s e ve r a l ki l ogr a m s of

c oc a i ne ( i nc l udi ng thr e e br i c ks of c oc a i ne w e i ghi ng a ppr oxi m a t e l y one ki l ogr a m e a c h) , a s m a l l a m ount( appr oxi m a t e l y tw o gr a m s ) of c r a c k, c oc a i ne pa c ka gi ng, di gi t a l s c a l e s , a nd ove r$70, 000 i n c a s h. P e r a l t e a nd Ja m es w er e a lso lo ca ted in th e r es id en ce . T h e r es id en ce b elo n g ed to N o rm an ’s g ir lf r ie n d . T h e m a r o o n v e h ic le w a s P e r a lte ’s , a n d in a h id d e n c o m p a r tm e n t in P e r a l t e ’ s ve hi c l e , the r e w a s c oc a i ne pa c ka gi ng s i m i l a rt o the c oc a i ne pa c ka gi ng foun d i n t he re si dence. W i th regard t o P er al t e’ s par t i ci pat i on i n t he conspi ra cy , Ja m es t es t i fi ed that N o r m a n a n d P e r a lte h a d “s ta r te d . . . s e e in g e a c h o th e r ” a n d “s ta r te d d e a lin g w ith each o th er, ” an d th ath e h ad m etP eral t e atth e 4 th S treetresi d en ce t o p u rch ase c o c a in e f r o m P e r a lte a b o u t s ix o rs e v e n d a y s p r io rto th e p o lic e s e a r c h o f th e 4 th S tre etre si dence. Ja m es further t es t i fi ed thatatthatt i m e, P er al t e a cc om pani ed J a m e s o n a c a rr id e a r o u n d M o n tg o m e r y to s e ll ap p r o x im a te ly o n e a n d a h a lf k ilo g r a m s o f

P e r a lte ’s c o c a in e to “v a r io u s p e o p le ,” a n d th a t p r e v io u s ly , in th e la te 1 9 9 0 s , J a m e s h a d p u r c h a s e d la r g e q u a n titie s o f c o c a in e f

r o m P e r a lte a n d s o ld it in20

c r a c k f o r m. J a me s a l s o t e s t i f

i e d th a tPe r a l t e t o l d h i m th a th e c o u l d “ g e ts o me m on ey ” by “ get [t i ng P er al t e] som e s al es for s om e pow der” coca i ne; thatJa m es had

“ s ol d a l otof

drugs f orP e r a l t e ” ; a nd tha tJ a m e s a nd P e r a l t e ha d “ m a de a l otof m on ey t og ether. ” A s f o rN o r m a n , th e e v id e n c e a ls o s h o w s m o r e th a n m e r e p r e s e n c e a t a re si dence w i th l ar ge am ou nt s of drugs. T he evi dence s ho w s pre se nce und era s et of ci rc um st ance s a nd w i th con vers at i on thatra i se s a n i nfer ence thatN orm an i n t en t i o n al l y an d k n o w i n g l y w as i n v o l v ed i n th e d ru g co n sp i racy. S p eci fi cal l y, agai n, Ja m es t es t i fi ed thatN orm an and P er al t e had “ st ar t ed . . . se ei ng ea ch ot her” an d “ st art ed d eal i n g w i th each o th er. ” Jam es al so t est i fi ed th atj u sta few d ays pr i ort o the pol i c e s e a r c h of the 4th S tr e e tr e s i de nc e , J a m e s ha d m e tP e r a l t e a tthe 4 th S tr e e t r e s id e n c e ( w h ic h J a m e s b e lie v e d to b e N o r m a n ’s r e s id e n c e ) in o r d e rto obt a i n c oc a i ne f

r om P e r a l t e t o s e l l , a nd tha the s ol d a bouta ki l ogr a m a nd a ha l f of P er al t e’ s c ocai ne atthatt i m e. A dd i t i on al l y, the anon ym ou s t el epho ne ca l l pl ac ed N orm an atthe re si dence atthe t i m e of drug act i vi ty, and i nd ee d, N orm an w as at the re si dence w i th d rugs. M ore i m po rt ant l y, on the day thatcoca i ne w as se i ze d f r om the r e s i de nc e , N or m a n e xi t e d the r e s i de nc e w i th a pa pe rt ow e l c ont a i ni ng coca i ne re si du e. F urther, Ja m es t es t i fi ed thatdu ri ng hi s t i m e a tthe 4t h S tre et r e s id e n c e in th e s ix o rs e v e n d a y s p r io rto th e p o lic e s e a r c h o f th e r e s id e n c e , b o th21

N orm an and P er al t e w er e j ok i ng thatJa m es w as l i ke a s nake i n t hatP er al t e w as on ce agai n w i l l i ng t o p ar t i ci pat e i n d rug act i vi ty w i th Jam es even aft erJa m es had p r e v io u s ly s to le n f

r o m P e r a lte . T h is c ir c u m s ta n tia l e v id e n c e w a s s u f f ic ie n t to s uppor tthe c onc l us i on tha tN or m a n a nd P e r a l t e w e r e i nvol ve d i n the di s tr i but i on o f d ru g s f r o m th e 4 th S tr e e t r e s id e n c e a n d th a t N o r m a n a llo w e d P e r a lte to u s e h is g ir lf r ie n d ’s r e s id e n c e to s e ll d ru g s a n d c o o k c r a c k . A s thi s C our tha s s a i d num e r ous t i m e s , “ [ a ] c ons pi r a c y c onvi c t i on w i l l be uphe l d i f the r e i s s uf

f i c i e ntpos i t i ve i ndi c a t i on tha ta n i l l e ga l a gr e e m e nte xi s t s , or w he n the c i r c um s t a nc e s s ur r oundi ng a pe r s on’ s pr e s e nc e a tthe s c e ne of c ons pi r a t or i a l a c t i vi ty a r e s o obvi ous tha tknow l e dge of i t s c ha r a c t e rc a n f

a i r l y be attri bu t ed t o h i m . ” U ni t ed S t at es v. F i gu er oa, 72 0 F . 2d 12 39 , 12 46 (11t h C i r. 1983) ( i nt e r na l c i t a t i on om i t t e d) ; s e e a l s o U ni t e d S t a t e s v. P a r r a do, 911 F . 2d 1567, 15 70 (11t h C i r. 19 90 ). M oreover, “ i n el aborat i ng on the m er e pre se nce defe nse, thi s [ C ] ou rthas s t at ed” that [ i ] n mo s t c a s e s . . . th e e v i d e n c e e s t a b l i s h e s n o t me r e p r e s e nc e but pr e s e nc e unde ra pa r t i c ul a rs e tof c i r c um s t a n ces. I n s uc h a c a s e the t a s k of de t e r m i ni ng t h e su f

f i c i e nc y of

the e vi de nc e i s nota i de d by the ri tual i st i c i nv ocat i on of the “ m er e pres ence ” rubri c. R ather, i tre qu i re s an exam i nat i on of al l of the prov ed ci rc um st ance s, i ncl ud i ng pres ence , t o de t e r m i ne w he the rf

r om them a reas ona bl e j ur y c oul d i nf e ra nd f i nd be y ond a r e a s ona bl e doubtknow i ng a nd i nt e nt i ona l pa r t i c i pa t i on. P a r r a do, 911 F . 2d a t1570 ( quot a t i on m a r ks a nd c i t a t i on om i t t e d) . H e r e , theWe reviewNorman’ s objection to the district court’s dr ugquantity

deter minations for 11 c le ar error . Unit e d St ate s v . Ro drigue z, 3 98 F .3 d 1 29 1, 12 96 (1 1th Cir .) , c e rt . d e nie d, 12 5 S. Ct. 2935 (2005). 22 e v id e n c e r e f

le c ts m o r e th a n ju s t b o th N o r m a n ’s a n d P e r a lte ’s p r e s e n c e a t th e 4 th S tre etre si dence; i nst ea d, the ci rc um st ance s of thei r pre se nce, as show n b y that e v id e n c e , a r e s u c h th a t a r e a s o n a b le ju r y c o u ld h a v e in f e r r e d th a t th e y w e r e b o th k n o w in g a n d in te n tio n a l p a r tic ip a n ts in a n a g r e e m e n t w ith e a c h o th e ra n d w ith J a m e s to d is tr ib u te c o c a in e a n d c r a c k . C . Se nt e nc i ng W e f ir s t a d d r e s s N o r m a n ’s a r g u m e n t th a t th e d is tr ic t c o u r t e r r e d in

“ a t tr i but i ng a l l r e l e va ntc onduc t ” t o hi m , pa r t i c ul a r l y w i th r e ga r d t o the drug q u a n tity d e te r m in a tio n s . A c c o r d in g to N o r m a n , th e e v id e n c e f a ile d to 11 dem on stra t e thathe had any “ autho ri ty, po ss es si on , or cont rol ov erthe re si dence” or kn ow l edge abou tthe drug s i n t he re si dence, such thathi s bas e off ense l evel s houl d notha ve e xc e e de d tw e l ve ( the a ppr opr i a t e ba s e of f e ns e l e ve l f

ora c oc a i ne of f e ns e f orw hi c h no drug qua nt i ty c a n be a t tr i but e d) . S e e U . S . S . G . § 2D 1. 1( c ) ( 14) (200 3). H ow ever , as di sc usse d abo ve, w e r ej ec tN orm an’ s a rgum entthathe w as “m e r e ly p r e s e n t” a t th e 4 th S tr e e t r e s id e n c e . M o r e o v e r , th e d ru g q u a n tity d e te r m in a tio n s w e r e m a d e b y th e ju r y , n o t b y th e d is tr ic t c o u r t, s u c h th a t B la k e ly a n d B o o k e ra r e n o t im p lic a te d b y N o r m a n ’s a r g u m e n t, a n d th e d ru g q u a n tityNo rm an’ s b ri e f also a ssert s th at th edis tric t c ourt c ommitt e d error

purs ua nt to B lake ly 12 and B ooker, by

enhanc ing his sentence ba sed on the firear m discovere d in the residenc e. The district court spec ifically

declined to impose a

firea rm enha ncement, and thus this sentencing argument is without m erit and not discussed f urther. We reviewa district cour t’s denial of a

minor role re duction for c lear error. United 13 States v. De Va

ron, 175 F .3d 930, 937 (11th Cir. 1999) (en banc) . 23 de t e r m i na t i ons the m s e l ve s w e r e a m pl y s uppor t e d by the t e s t i m ony of C l y de N o r w o o d ( “N o r w o o d ” ) , a f o r e n s ic c h e m is t. Indeed, N orw oo d t es t i fi ed attri al t o h i s a nal ys i s of e ac h o f the subst ance s s e iz e d b y th e p o lic e f

r o m th e 4 th S tr e e t r e s id e n c e w h e r e N o r m a n w a s a r r e s te d . S pe c i f i c a l l y , N or w ood t e s t i f

i e d tha t : ( 1) the pa pe rt ow e l c ont a i ne d c r a c k c oc a i ne resi d u e; (2 ) th e th ree b ri ck s t ak en fro m th e d ryer co n t ai n ed 2 , 9 5 0 g ram s, o r j u st un der three ki l og ra m s, of cocai ne; (3) the package t aken from un der the couch c ont a i ne d a ppr oxi m a t e l y 981 gr a m s of c oc a i ne ; a nd ( 4) the pa c ka ge t a ke n f r om the ki t c he n c ont a i ne d appr oxi m a t e l y 2. 1 gr a m s of c r a c k. A l l of

the s e s pe c i f

i c drug qu ant i ty c al cul at i on s w er e i ncl ud ed i n t he j ury’ s ver di ct . B ec ause the di stri ct c o u r t’s d ru g q u a n tity d e te r m in a tio n w a s b a s e d o n th e a m o u n t o f d ru g s a ttr ib u te d to N o r m a n b y th e ju r y , a n d b e c a u s e th e e v id e n c e s u p p o r ts th e ju r y ’s d ru g q u a n tity de t e r m i na t i on, the di s tr i c tc our tdi d notc l e a r l y e r ri n s e nt e nc i ng N or m a n ba s e d on th o se d ru g q u an t i ty d et erm i n at i o n s. 12 T he di s tr i c tc our tl i ke w i s e di d notc l e a r l y e r ri n r e f us i ng t o gr a ntN or m a n a m i n o r ro l e red u ct i o n . T h e sen t en ci n g g u i d el i n es p ro v i d e fo r a fo u r-l ev el d ecrease 1324

in o f f e n s e le v e l if

a d e f e n d a n t w a s a “m in im a l p a r tic ip a n t” ; a tw o - le v e l d e c r e a s e if a d e f e n d a n t w a s a “m in o rp a r tic ip a n t” ; a n d a th r e e - le v e l d e c r e a s e f o rc a s e s in betw ee n t he tw o. U . S . S . G . § 3 B 1. 2. A di stri ctcourti s r equi re d t o ass es s w hether a def endantw as a m i no r or m i ni m al part i ci pantw i th regard t o t he re l evantcond uct a t tr i but e d t o the de f

e nda nt , a nd i s f

ur the rr e qui r e d t o a s s e s s w he the rthe de f e nda nt w a s a m in o ro rm in im a l p a r tic ip a n t a s c o m p a r e d to o th e rid e n tif ia b le p a r tic ip a n ts in the r e l e va ntc onduc ta t tr i but e d t o the de f e nda nt . S e e U ni t e d S t a t e s v. D e V a r on, 175 F . 3d 930, 940- 44 ( 11th C i r . 1999) ( e n ba nc ) . I ti s pos s i bl e tha tthe r e w i l l be no m in o ro rm in im a l p a r tic ip a n ts . I d . a t 9 4 4 . H er e, the di stri ctcourtexpres sl y f ou nd that“ the t es t i m on y a nd the evi dence

. . . w ou l d n otsupp ort ” am i no r or m i ni m al part i ci pantre du ct i on for N orm an un der U . S . S . G . § 3 B 1. 2. A l tho ug h N orm an agai n argues thathe w as m er el y “ pres ent ” a t the 4t h S tre etre si dence and w as ent i t l ed t o a m i no r r ol e r educt i on , the evi dence es t abl i shed ot herw i se . Indeed, al tho ug h w e do n otagai n re- hash the evi dence a g a in s t N o r m a n , w e n o te th a t N o r m a n w a s th e o n ly o n e o f th e th r e e d e f

e n d a n ts a c tu a lly s e e n b y p o lic e w ith d ru g s in h is p o s s e s s io n ( s p e c if ic a lly , th e p ap e rto w e l) . M or e ove r , the a m ountof drugs a t tr i but e d t o N or m a n a s r e l e va ntc onduc tw a s the s a m e a m ountof

drugs tha tw a s l oc a t e d i n the r e s i de nc e a nd the s a m e a m ountof d ru g s th a t N o r m a n w a s u ltim a te ly c o n v ic te d o f c o n s p ir in g w ith P e r a lte to d is tr ib u teOn a pp e a l, N or

man also argue s in

pa ssingand

fo r t hefirs t ti methat, pur su ant to 14 B oo ker, hewa s enti tle d tohavea jur y de terminewh e ther h esh ould h avere c e ive d a min or ro le reduc tion. W e review Nor man’s B ooker c laim for plain er ror. Nor man’s claim fails beca

use (1) Booker did not cre ate a

ny right to jury

deter minations at sentencing , and (2) Booker involved the application of e x tra-verdict enha ncements in a mandatory

guidelines system, and not sentenc ing reduc tions in a mandatory guidelines system. See Rodriguez, 398 F.3d at 1300- 01. In any e vent, No rm an h a s n ot s ho wn that it wa s p lain error

fo r t hedis tric t c ourt , rather t

ha n th ejur y , to evaluate the appropriatene ss of the minor role reduction. We also note that Norman’ s counsel conc eded at oral argument that a claim of statutory Booker er ror wa s not raised on a

ppeal—in other

words, a c laim of error for Norman be ing sentenc ed under

a mandatory

guidelines scheme—beca use Norma

n was sentenced to the statutory mandatory

minimumsentenc e. F or the sakeof thoroughness, we notethat the statutory mandatory

minimumsentenc e for

a def endant c onvicted of violating21 U.S.C. §§ 841 and 846 is ten year s, or 120 months, when that def endant ha s a prior f

elony drugconviction and the offense at issue involves betwe en 500 grams and 5 kilograms of c ocaine . See 21 U.S.C. § 841(b)( 2)(B )(ii)(II). Norma n was sentenced to 121 months’ imprisonment, which wa s at the bottom end of his guide lines rang e, but one month more tha n his statutory

mandatory

minimum sentenc e . B e c a

us eNo rm an doe s n ot raisea statutor y B oo ker c laim, wedo no t re a c h th emeri ts of such a claim. 25 f r o m h is g ir lf

r ie n d ’s r e s id e n c e . A c c o r d in g ly , th e d is tr ic t c o u r t d id n o t c le a r ly e r rin r e f us i ng t o gr a ntN or m a n a m i norr ol e r e duc t i on. 14 F i nal l y, w e a dd re ss P er al t e’ s a rgum entthatthe di stri ctcourtcom m i t t ed B oo ker e rr or by se nt enci ng hi m un der am andat ory gui del i nes r egi m e. T here ar e tw o t ypes of B oo ker e rr or, const i tut i on al and st atut ory. U ni t ed S t at es v. M atheni a, 409 F . 3d 1289, 1291- 92 ( 11th C i r . 2005) . “ T he c ons t i tut i ona l e r r ori s the us e of e xtr a - ve r di c te nha nc e m e nt s t o r e a c h a gui de l i ne s r e s ul ttha ti s bi ndi ng on the s e nt e nc i ng j udge ; the e r r ori s i n the m a nda t or y na tur e of the gui de l i ne s onc e the gui de l i ne s r a nge ha s be e n de t e r m i ne d. ” U ni t e d S t a t e s v. R odr i gue z , 398 F . 3d 12 91 , 13 01 (11t h C i r. ), ce rt . deni ed, 12 5 S . C t . 29 35 (200 5). M ea nw hi l e, “ st atut ory26

error occurs w hen t he di stri ctcourtse nt ence s adefe nd ant‘ un der am andat ory gui de l i ne s s c he m e , e ve n i n the a bs e nc e of a S i xth A m e ndm e nte nha nc e m e nt vi ol at i on . ’ ” M atheni a, 40 9 F . 3d at12 91 (c i t at i on om i t t ed). G i ven t hatthe j ury de t e r m i ne d the drug qua nt i t i e s , a nd gi ve n tha tthe di s tr i c tc our tde ni e d the go vernm ent ’ s r equestfor afi re arm enhancem ent , there w er e no ext ra -ver di ct e n h a n c e m e n ts . T h u s , P e r a lte r a is e s a c la im o f B o o k e rs ta tu to r y e r r o r . B e c a us e P e r a l t e r a i s e d hi s B ooke rc l a i m i n the di s tr i c tc our t , w e r e vi e w the cl ai m de no vo . H er e, the go vernm entcorr ec t l y c on ce des thatthe di stri ctcourt com m i t t ed st atut ory B oo ker e rr or by se nt enci ng P er al t e und era m andat ory g u id e lin e s s y s te m . H o w e v e r , th e g o v e r n m e n t a r g u e s th a t s u c h e r r o rw a s h a r m le s s . T here ar e di ff

er entharm l es s e rr or st andards f or cl ai m s of c on st i tut i on al B o o k e re r r o ra n d c la im s o f s ta tu to r y B o o k e re r r o r . M a th e n ia , 4 0 9 F .3 d a t 1 2 9 1 . H e r e , w e ap p ly th e “le s s d e m a n d in g te s t th a t is a p p lic a b le to n o n - c o n s titu tio n a l” (i . e. , st atut ory) errors . Id. at12 92 . S t atut ory B oo ker e rr or i s harm l es s i f, v iew in g the proceedi ng s i n t hei r e nt i re ty, a c ou rt det erm i nes thatthe error di d n otaffe ct the s ent ence , or had b utvery sl i gh tef fe ct . If on e c an sa y w i th fai r a ss urance thatthe se nt ence w as not su b st a nt i a l l y s w a y e d by the e r r or , the s e nt e nc e i s due t o be af fi rm ed even tho ug h t here w as error. I d. ( quot a t i on m a r ks , a l t e r a t i ons , a nd c i t a t i ons om i t t e d) . T he gove r nm e ntbe a r s theFor preserved c laims of constitutional Booker error, the g overnment must m eet the 15 more demandingburden of showing“beyond a re asonabledoubt . . . that the error did not contribute to the de fenda

nt’s ultimate sentence .” Mathenia, 409 F.3d at 1291.

27 b u r d e n o f

s h o w in g th a t th e s ta tu to r y B o o k e re r r o rw a s h a r m le s s . I d . 15 T hi s C our tha s pr e vi ous l y f ound s t a tut or y B ooke re r r ort o be ha r m l e s s . F or i nst ance , i n U ni t ed S t at es v. G al l egos-A gu er o, 40 9 F . 3d 12 74 , 12 77 (11t h C i r. 20 05 ), w e f

ou nd st atut ory B oo ker e rr or harm l es s w here the di stri ctcourtse nt ence d the defendantt o t he hi gh es tse nt ence avai l abl e und erthe appl i cabl e gui del i nes ra ng e a nd expres sl y c on si dere d sent enci ng the defendantt o t he st atut ory m a xi m um . S i m i l a r l y , i n U ni t e d S t a t e s v. M e j i a - G i ova ni , 416 F . 3d 1323, 1326 ( 11th C i r . 2005) , w e f

ound s t a tut or y B ooke re r r orha r m l e s s w he r e the de f e nda nt w as se nt ence d i n t he m i dd l e of the appl i cabl e gui del i nes r ange and t he di stri ct courtexpres sl y s t at ed atse nt enci ng thatthe defendantw as atri sk for a n u pw ar d de pa r tur e ; tha ti t s pa t i e nc e w i th the de f e nda ntw a s runni ng thi n; a nd tha ti ts a w no pot e nt i a l be ne f

i ti n the de f

e nda nt ’ s a r gum e nttha tthe gui de l i ne s s houl d notbe a ppl i e d. C f

. U ni t e d S t a t e s v. G l ove r , __ F . 3d __, N o. 04- 16745, 2005 U . S . A pp. L E X I S 25675, a t*10- 14 ( 11th C i r . N ov. 29, 2005) ( s t a tut or y B ooke re r r ornot harm l es s w here di stri ctcourti m po se d sent ence i n m i dd l e of app l i cabl e gui del i nes ra ng e a nd there w er e no st at em ent s i n t he re cord sugg es t i ng thatthe di stri ctcourt w ou l d h ave i m po se d t he sa m e or gre at erse nt ence un der a n adv i sory gu i del i nesIn United States v. Cain, __ F.3d __, No. 04- 15754, 2005 U.S. App. LEXI S 28882, at 16 *5-9 (11th Cir. Dec . 29, 2005), this Court concluded that c onstitut ional Booker er ror wa s not ha rm le ss even th ough th edis tric t c ourt had im po se d a sentenc eat th etopof

thea pp lic a ble guide lin e s rang e . H ow e ver, in C ain, thedis tric t c ourt ma deno state ment indic atin gthat it wo uld have imposed thesame or a higher sentenc e if it had possesse d the discre tion to do so. Instead, the district court merely

stated that a sentenceat the high end of theguidelines was “‘a ppropriate .’” Id. at __, 2005 U.S. App. LEXI S 28882, at *9. Moreover , in Cain, we expressly declined to c onsider whe ther the outc ome might have differed if thedefendant had raised a claim of statutory

Booker er

ror instead of his claim of c onstitut ional Booker er ror. I d. at __, 2005 U.S. App. LEXI S 28882, at *8 n.3. 28 sc hem e) . 16 H e r e , w e c onc l ude tha tthe r e a r e s uf f i c i e nts t a t e m e nt s i n the r e c or d s how i ng thatthe di stri ctcourtw ou l d h ave i m po se d t he sa m e s ent ence un der a n adv i sory gu i del i nes s chem e. T he re cord show s thatP er al t e’ s f i nal gu i del i nes r ange w as 1 2 1 - 1 5 0 m o n th s ’ im p r is o n m e n t. T h e m id d le o f th e g u id e lin e s r a n g e w a s 1 3 5 .5 m on ths. N orm an and P er al t e had i dent i ca l offe nse l evel s a nd cr i m i nal hi st ory ca t egori es , and t he di stri ctcourtse nt ence d N orm an t o t he l ow end o f the i dent i ca l g u id e lin e s r a n g e ( 1 2 1 m o n th s ’ im p r is o n m e n t) . P e r a lte ’s c o u n s e l s p e c if ic a lly ar gu ed atP er al t e’ s s ent enci ng thatN orm an’ s j ust -i m po se d 1 21 -m on th sent ence fa vo re d an i dent i ca l (l ow end) se nt ence for P er al t e. H ow ever , the di stri ctcourt r e j e c t e d tha tr e que s ta nd s e nt e nc e d P e r a l t e t o the hi ghe re nd of the gui de l i ne s r a nge ( 1 4 5 m o n th s ’ im p r is o n m e n t) . I n i m pos i ng i t s s e nt e nc e , the di s tr i c tc our ts pe c i f i c a l l y s t a t e d tha tthe 145- m onth s e nt e nc e w a s “ i m pos e d due t o the na tur e of the of f e ns e a nd t o r e f

l e c ttheWe note that, in actuality , the PSIdid not recommend a mid-rang e sentence f

or Peralte. 17 29 s e r i ous ne s s of

the of f e ns e , ” a nd f

ur the rs t a t e d tha tthe s e nt e nc e w a s ba s e d on P e r a lte ’s “c r im in a l h is to r y in th e d ru g c r im e a r e a to p r o m o te r e s p e c t f o rth e la w .” I n a d d itio n , a f

te rth e d is tr ic t c o u r t im p o s e d its 1 4 5 - m o n th s e n te n c e , it sol i ci t ed fi nal obj ec t i on s. P er al t e’ s c ou nsel ar gu ed thi s t i m e thatP er al t e w as at w orstent i t l ed t o a se nt ence of 13 9 m on ths’ i m pri sonm ent , w hi ch P er al t e’ s c ou nsel te r m e d th e m id d le o f

th e g u id e lin e s r a n g e , b e c a u s e P e r a lte ’s P S I h a d in itia lly re com m ended t hathe re ce i ve a m i d-ra ng e s ent ence (a l bei tw i thi n t he hi gh er re com m ended g ui del i nes r ange of 15 1-18 8 m on ths’ i m pri sonm ent ). T he di stri ct 17 c our tr e j e c t e d thi s f

i na l a r gum e nta nd i m pos e d the 145- m onth s e nt e nc e a s s t a t e d. A cc ordi ng l y, the re cord cl ea rl y s ho w s thatthe di stri ctcourtre cogn i ze d t hat i th ad th e au th o ri ty an d d i scret i o n t o red u ce P eral t e’ s sen t en ce fro m 1 4 5 m o n th s’ i m p ri so n m en tt o ei th er th e m i d -ran g e sen t en ce o f ap p ro x i m at el y 1 3 5 m o n th s’ i m pri sonm entor the l ow end sent ence of 12 1 m on ths’ i m pri sonm ent . H ow ever , the di stri ctcourttw i ce re fuse d t o d o so. M ore i m po rt ant l y, the di stri ctcourt e xpl i c i t l y s t a t e d tha tthe 145- m onth s e nt e nc e w a s i m pos e d due t o the na tur e of the o f f e n s e , th e s e r io u s n e s s o f th e o f f e n s e , P e r a lte ’s c r im in a l h is to r y , a n d to p r o m o te re spec tfor the l aw . T hu s, the re cord adequat el y i nd i ca t es thatthe di stri ctcourt w ou l d h ave i m po se d t he sa m e 145 -m on th sent ence un der a n adv i sory gu i del i nes30

re gi m e, and w e c on cl ud e thatthe st atut ory B oo ker e rr or i n t hi s c as e “ di d n otaf fe ct [ P e r a l t e ’ s ] s e nt e nc e , orha d butve r y s l i ghta f f e c t . ” M a the ni a , 409 F . 3d a t1929 ( q u o ta tio n m a r k s , a lte r a tio n , a n d c ita tio n s o m itte d ) . I I I . CONCL US I ON F ora l l of

the a bove r e a s ons , w e a f f i r m a ppe l l a nt s ’ c onvi c t i ons a nd sen t en ces. AF F I RME D.