[DO NOT PUBLISH] IN THE U

NITED STATE S COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELE VENTH CIRCUIT

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ No. 1 1- 10 33 1 Non -Arg um en t Ca le nd ar

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ D.C. Dock etNo. 3 :1 0- cr-0 00 71 -WK W -WC-1 UNITED STAT ES OF AMERIC A, ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll Plai nt iff -Ap pe ll ee, ve rs us OYANGO L ANAR TOLBERT, ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll 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 Mi dd le Dis tri ctof Al ab am a

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ (J ul y 25 , 20 12 ) Befo re TJ OFLAT, CARNES andBLACK, Cir cu itJu dg es . PER CURI AM: Oy an go Lana r Tol be rt app eal s h is co nv ic ti on s an d s en te nc es im po se d fo r po ss es si on with i nt en t t o d is tri bu te 50 gra m s o r m or e o f co cai ne ba se an d

Case: 11-10331 Date Filed: 07/25/2012 Page: 1 of 5po ss es si on with i nt en t t o d is tri bu te .38 gra m s o f co cai ne hydro ch lo rid e. 21 U.S.C.

§ 8 41 (a)( 1) . Tolb ertco nt en ds th at : (1 ) th ere was in su ffi ci en t ev id en ce t o s up po rt hi s co nv ic ti on s; (2) th e d is tri ctco urt erredin no t ap pl y in g t he Fai r Sen te nc in g Act (FSA) dur in g s en te nc in g; an d (3 ) hi s s en te nc e is subs ta nt iv el y un reas on ab le . Afte r rev ie w, we affi rm

Tol be rt’s c on vi ct io ns , bu t v acat e an d re m an d fo r res en te nc in g. I. W e rev ie w a ch al le ng e to th e su ffi ci en cy of the ev id en ce d e n ov o, v ie win g th e ev id en ce i n t he li gh t m os t fa vo rab le to th e Gov ern m en t. Uni te d Sta tes v. Jo ne s , 60 1 F .3d12 47 , 12 67 (11 th Cir . 20 10 ). Res ol vi ng all cred ib il it y ch oi ces in supp ort o f th e jury's ve rd ic t, we d eci de "wh ethe r th e ev id en ce . . . was s uf fic ie ntto supp ort the jury's con cl us io n t ha t the de fen da ntwas g ui lty be y on d areas on ab le do ub t." Id
. “ To co nv ic t a d efen da ntof p os se ss io n wi thin te ntto di st rib ut e co nt ro ll ed subs ta nc es , th e Gov ern m en t m us t p ro ve th athe . . . po ss es se d dru gs with t he in te nt to di st rib ut e th em .” Uni te d Sta tes v. Mi ra nd a , 42 5 F .3d95 3, 9 59 (11 th Cir . 20 05 ). Po ss es si on m ay

be actua l o r co ns tru ct iv e. Uni te d Sta tes v. Ti no co , 30 4 F .3d10 88 , 11 23 (11 th Cir . 20 02 ). Co ns tru ct iv e p os se ss io n o ccu rs when th e "d efen da nt m ai nt ai ne d d om in io n o r co nt ro l o ve r th e dru gs or o ve r th e p rem is es wher e th e 2 Case: 11-10331 Date Filed: 07/25/2012 Page: 2 of 5drug s ar e lo cat ed ." Uni te d Sta tes v. Ha rr is , 20 F.3d44 5, 4 53 (11 th Cir . 19 94 ); se e

al so Uni te d Sta tes v. Le on ar d , 13 8 F .3d90 6, 9 09 (11 th Cir . 19 98 ) ("C on stru ct iv e po ss es si on ex is ts when a de fen da ntha s . . . do m in io n o r co nt ro l o ve r th e p rem is es orth e v eh ic le inwhi ch th e o bjec t i s co nc eal ed ." ). Viewi ng th e ev id en ce i n t he li gh t m os t fa vo rab le to th e Gov ern m en t, the Gov ern m en t p res en te d s uf fic ie ntev id en ce attri al to supp ort the jury’ s co nc lu si on th atTol be rt wa s g ui lt y

be y on d areas on ab le do ub t o f th e cri m es ch arg edin th e in di ct m en t. The ev id en ce attri al est ab li sh edth atTol be rt h addo m in io n a nd co nt ro l o ve r th e carwher e th e cra ckco cai ne was fo un d. To lb ertwas driv in g t he car wh enpo li ce at te m

pt edto pu ll hi m

ov er, an d t he re was tes ti m on y est ab li sh in g th e carbe lo ng edto Tol be rt’s g irl fri en d. Th ere was als o s uf fic ie ntev id en ce t o sh ow t ha t To lb ertkn owi ng ly pos se ss edth e .38 gra m s o f po wde r co cai ne fou ndon hi s p ers on . The co cai ne was fo un d i ns id e a wadof m on ey th atwas fo un d i ns id e Tol be rt’s fr on t p oc ke t. The lar ge am ou ntof d ru gs fou nd , com bi ne d wi th th e al le ge d d ru g l ed ge r an d t he lar ge am ou ntof c as h s up po rt t he jury’ s fi nd in g tha t Tol be rt i nt en de d t o d is tri bu te th e dru gs . There fo re, the re was su ffi ci en t ev id en ce to supp ort To lb ert ’s con vi ct io ns . II. The Supr em e Co urt re cen tl y he ldth e FSA ap pl ie s t o d efen dant s s en te nc ed 3 Case: 11-10331 Date Filed: 07/25/2012 Page: 3 of 5aft er the Act’s ef fect iv e d at e o f Aug us t 3 , 20 10 , bu t wh os e co nduc t o ccurred be fo re tha t d at e. Dor

se y v. Uni te d Sta tes , Nos . 11 -5 68 3, 1 1- 57 21 , 20 12 W L 23 44 46 3 (U.S. J un e 2 1, 2 01 2) . Tolb ertco m m it te d h is off

en se on Decem

be r 27 , 20 09 , bu t was sen te nc edon Jan ua ry 12 , 20 11 . Thu s, the di st ric t co urt erredin no t ap pl y in g t he FSA dur in g To lb ert ’s sen te nc in g. The Gov ern m en t co nt en ds th e d is tri ctco urt’s erro r in fai li ng to ap pl y th e FSA is ha rm le ss , ho wev er. Se e Fed . R. Cri m . P. 52 (a) (“ Any error , def ect , irr eg ul ari ty, orva ria nc e th atdo es no t af fectsubs ta nt ia l ri gh ts m

us t b e di sr eg ard ed .”). [N]on- co ns ti tu ti on al erro r is ha rm le ss if, v ie win g t he pro ceed in gs in th ei r en ti rety , a co urt d et erm in es th atth e err ordi d n otaffe ctth e [s en te nc e], or ha d b utve ry sl ig hteffe ct . If on e cansay with fai r as su ran ce . . . th atth e [s en te nc e] was no t s ub st an ti al ly sway edby the erro r, th e [s en te nc e] is due to be affi rm edev enth ou gh th ere was erro r. Uni te d Sta tes v. Ho rn ad

ay , 39 2 F .3d13 06 , 13 15 -1 6 (1 1th C ir. 2 00 4) (in te rn al qu ot at io ns an d c it at io ns om it te d) . Des pi te th e Gov ern m en t’s as se rti on , we can no t s ay th e d is tri ctco urt’s erro r in fai li ng to ap pl y

th e FSA was ha rm le ss be cau se we can no t s ay th e d is tri ctco urt wou ldha ve reac he d t he same resu ltev enif i t h adap pl ie d t he FSA. If th e FSA h ad be enap pl ie d, the Gui de li ne s ra ng e wou ldhave be en12 0- 15 0 m on th s’

4 Case: 11-10331 Date Filed: 07/25/2012 Page: 4 of 5im

pr is on m en t, ra th er than 2 40 m on th s’ im pr is on m en t. The di st ric t co urt’s upwa rd va ria nc e was 36 m on th s fr om th e p re-F SA Gui de li ne s ra ng e. Und er the FSA Gui de li ne s ra ng e, th e v ari an ce wo ul d b e 1 26 m on th s fr om th e h ig h e ndof t he Gui de li ne s ra ng e. Altho ug h t he di st ric t co urt ex te ns iv el y di sc us se d To lb ert ’s pri or cri m in al hi st ory

an d l ik el ih oo d o f rec id iv is m in de parti ng up wardfro m th e p reFSA Gu id el in es ran ge , th ere i s n ot hi ng in th e rec or d t o i nd ic at e th e d is tri ctco urt wou ldha ve im

po se d t hi s s am e se nt en ce wi th a lo wer rec omm en de d Gu id el in es ran ge . In fa ct , th e d is tri ctco urt ex pl ic it ly stat editha d “ co ns id eredth e g ui de li ne co m pu ta ti on s an d . . . tak enth em un de r advi se m en t” in arri vi ng at t he sen te nc e. Thu s, we cann otco nc lu de th e err orwas h arm le ss . III. The Gov ern m en t p res en te d s uf fic ie ntev id en ce t o s up po rt To lb ert ’s co nv ic ti on s an d we a ffi rm hi s co nv ic ti on s. Ho wev er, we v acat e an d re m an d fo r res en te nc in g. 1 AFFIRMED I N PART, VAC ATED AND REMANDED IN PART.

Be causewe va cateand re mand for r esente ncing , we do not re ach T olbert’s third issue 1 of whe ther his sentenc e wa s substantively rea sonable. 5 Case: 11-10331 Date Filed: 07/25/2012 Page: 5 of 5