FILED U.S. COURT OF AP P E A LS E LE V EN T HC IRC U IT MARCH 20, 2006 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. 05- 11745 N on -A rgum entC al endar

________________________ D . C . D o c k e tN o . 0 4 - 2 0 2 0 3 - C R - D MM 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 F A B I A N C O R R I E T T E , a .k .a . F a b e , a .k .a . F a v e , D A R R A N L A M A R M O O R E , a .k .a . B la c k , a .k .a . D , 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 orthe S outhe r n D i s tr i c tof F l or i da

_________________________ ( M ar c h 20, 2006)2

B efo re B L A C K , B A R K E T T an d H U L L , C i rcu i tJu d g es. P E R C U R I A M: A p p e lla n ts F a b ia n C o r r ie tte a n d D a r r a n L a m a rM o o r e ap p e a l th e ir conv i ct i on s f

or conspi ra cy t o p osse ss w i th i nt entt o d i stri bu t e 5 ki l og ra m s or m ore of c oc a i ne a nd 50 gr a m s orm or e of c oc a i ne ba s e , i n vi ol a t i on of 21 U . S . C . §§ 84 1(a) (1), (b)( 1)(A )( i i ), (i i i ) a nd 84 6. M oo re al so appeal s hi s s ent ence . A ft er r e v i e w , w e a f

f i r m. I . B AC KG RO UN D T he F e de r a l B ur e a u of

I nve s t i ga t i on be ga n i nve s t i ga t i ng a l a r ge drug di s tr i but i on ope r a t i on tha ts ol d c oc a i ne a nd c r a c k f r om “ drug hol e s ” i n the C a r ol C i ty a re a of M i am i . A l l en R oss w as the i ni t i al t ar getof the i nv es t i gat i on , w hi ch i nvol ve d s ur ve i l l a nc e , c onf i de nt i a l i nf

or m a nt s a nd w i r e t aps . T he i nve s t i ga t i on r e s ul t e d i n a 24- de f

e nda nti ndi c tm e nt , i nc l udi ng R os s a nd A ppe l l a nt s C or r i e tt e a nd M oo re . R oss pl ed gu i l ty and agre ed t o coo pera t e w i th the go vernm entand t es t i fy a g a in s t C o r r ie tte a n d M o o r e . A ttri al , R oss t es t i fi ed t o h i s dea l i ng s w i th A pp el l ant s C orri ett e a nd M oo re dur i ng the drug c ons pi r a c y . T he di s tr i c tc our ta l s o a dm i tt e d e vi de nc e of w i r e t appe d t e l e phone c onve r s a t i ons a m ong va r i ous m e m be r s of the drug c ons pi r a c y , i nc l udi ng R os s , C or r i e tt e a nd M oor e , a nd e vi de nc e of C or r i e tt e ’ s a ndWe reviewde novo the leg al s u ff i ci en cy of a w iretap a

pplication presented to a district 1 court. SeeUnited States v. Butler , 102 F.3d 1191, 1198 ( 11 Cir. 1 9 9 7) (reviewingde novo the th su ff ic ienc y of an a ff ida vit su pp orti ng a sear ch w arrant) . Wereview t hedis tric t c ourt ’s failureto grant a n evidentiar

y hearing on a

motion to s uppress for

an abuseof discret i o n . United States v. Cooper, 203 F .3d 1279, 1285 (11 Cir. 2000). th 3 M oor e ’ s pr i ordrug c onvi c t i ons . T he j ur y f ound C or r i e tt e a nd M oor e gui l ty . T he di stri ctcourtse nt ence d C orri ett e t o 1 21 m on ths’ i m pri sonm entand M oo re t o l i fe i m pr i s onm e nt . T hi s appe a l f ol l ow e d. I I . DI S CUS S I ON A . M oti on to S u p p re ss W i re tap E vi d en ce O n ap p e a l, C o r r ie tte a n d M o o r e 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 ir m ot i on t o sup pres s the w i re t ap evi dence. A n app l i ca t i on t o i nt er ce ptw i re 1 c o m m u n ic a tio n s s u b m itte d to a ju d g e m u s t b e a u th o r iz e d b y o n e o f th e o f f ic ia ls l i st ed i n 1 8 U . S . C . § 2 51 6. T hi s l i sti ncl ud es “ any D eput y A ss i st antA tt orney G ener al . . . i n the C ri m i nal D i vi si on spec i al l y des i gn at ed by the A tt orney G ener al . ” S ee 18 U . S . C . § 2 51 6(1). In O rderN o. 24 07 -200 1, the A tt orney G e ne r a l s pe c i a l l y de s i gna t e d “ a ny D e puty A s s i s t a ntA tt or ne y G e ne r a l of the C ri m i nal D i vi si on ” t o aut ho ri ze w i re t ap appl i ca t i on s. H er e, the w i re t ap appl i ca t i on s w er e autho ri ze d b y B ruce S w art z, the D eput y A ss i st antA tt orney G ener al of the C ri m i nal D i vi si on . T hu s, the w i re t ap appl i ca t i on s w er e autho ri ze d b y a n o f f ic ia l d e s ig n a te d in § 2 5 1 6 ( 1 ) .4

A p p el l an t s arg u e th atS w art z’ s w i ret ap au th o ri zat i o n s w ere fl aw ed b ecau se S w a r t z ’ s s i gna tur e s w e r e a f f i xe d w i th a rubbe rs t a m p. O n the tw o a uthor i z a t i on m e m or a nda , S w a r t z ’ s s i gna tur e s appe a ra bove the s t a m p be a r i ng hi s na m e a nd t i t l e. T he tw o si gn atures ar e vi si bl y di ff er entfr om ea ch ot her a nd on e s i gn ature o v erl ap s th e st am p w h i l e th e o th er d o es n o t . E v en a cu rso ry rev i ew o f th ese s ig n a tu r e s in d ic a te s th a t th e y w e r e n o t a f f ix e d w ith a ru b b e rs ta m p . A ppe l l a nt s s tr e s s tha tthe m e m or a nda appe a rt o ha ve be e n a uthor e d by a nd/ orpr e pa r e d f

orthe s i gna tur e of

C hr i s t ophe rW r a y , the A c t i ng A s s i s t a nt A tt or ne y G e ne r a l i n the C r i m i na l D i vi s i on. W e s e e no m a t e r i a l s i gni f i c a nc e t o the fa ctthatW ra y’ s nam e a l so appears on the m em oranda because W ra y’ s s i gn ature li n es re m ain ed b lan k . S w ar tz’s sig n atu re , n am e a n d ti tl e a p p ea re d b elo w W ra y’s s ig n a tu r e lin e s . T h u s , S w a r tz d id n o t s ig n f o rW r a y , b u t f

o rh im s e lf

, a n d S w a r tz w a s one of

the de s i gna t e d of

f i c i a l s w ho m a y a uthor i z e a w i r e t ap appl i c a t i on. W e a ls o r e

je c t A p p e lla n ts ’ c o n te n tio n th a t th e w ir e tap s w e r e n o t n e c e s s a r y . A n ap p lic a tio n f

o ra n o r d e ra u th o r iz in g a w ir e tap m u s t in c lu d e “a f u ll a n d c o m p le te s t a t e m e nta s t o w he the rornotothe ri nve s t i ga t i ve pr oc e dur e s ha ve be e n tr i e d a nd f a i l e d orw hy the y r e a s ona bl y appe a rt o be unl i ke l y t o s uc c e e d i f tr i e d ort o be t oo dang er ou s. ” 18 U . S . C . § 2 51 8(1)(c ). T he af fi davi tsupp ort i ng an appl i ca t i on need no tshow a “ com prehensi ve exhaust i on of al l po ss i bl e t ec hn i qu es , ” butneed5

expl ai n o nl y the fa i l ure of tho se t ec hn i qu es “ thatre as on abl y s ug gestthem se l ves. ” U n ite d S ta te v . V a n H o r n , 7 8 9 F .2 d 1 4 9 2 , 1 4 9 6 ( 1 1 C ir . 1 9 8 6 ) . th H er e, the go vernm ent ’ s s t at em ent s a tt ac hed t o the w i re t ap appl i ca t i on s w er e s u f f ic ie n t. I n th e a f

f id a v its a tta c h e d to th e ap p lic a tio n s , F B I S p e c ia l A g e n t K e v in O ’ R our ke a c c ount e d f

orthe f a i l ur e of m ul t i pl e a l t e r na t i ve t e c hni que s , i nc l udi ng ( 1) confi dent i al source s, (2) s urvei l l ance , (3) pen regi st eranal ys i s, (4) gra nd j ury su b p o en as, (5 ) u n d erco v er ag en t s, (6 ) search w arran t s, (7 ) i n t erv i ew s o f th e t arg et s, and (8) “ tra sh pu l l s. ” A gentO ’ R ou rke s peci fi ca l l y s t at ed thatthe confi dent i al s our c e s w e r e unl i ke l y t o a s c e r t a i n the s c ope of the c ons pi r a c y orthe i de nt i t i e s of th e p art i ci p an t s as n o n e w ere tru st ed m em b ers o f th e o rg an i zat i o n i n w h o m R o ss w ou l d con fi de. S urvei l l ance al so had fai l ed, as l oo ko ut s s po tt ed the offi ce rs c onduc t i ng the s ur ve i l l a nc e . T he s e c ond a f f i da vi ts e e ki ng c ont i nue d a uthor i z a t i on not e d tha tthe w i r e t ap ha d y i e l de d r e c or di ngs of R os s di s c us s i ng hi s obs e r va t i on of p o lic e o f f ic e r s a tte m p tin g s u r v e illa n c e . F i na l l y , the A ppe l l a nt s ha ve nots how n tha tthe di s tr i c tc our te r r e d by not hol di ng a he a r i ng. A m ot i on t o s uppr e s s “ m us ta l l e ge f a c t s w hi c h, i f

pr ove n, w ou l d p rovi de a bas i s f or re l i ef . A courtneed no tac tup on general or concl usory a s s e r tio n s f

o u n d e d o n m e r e s u s p ic io n o rc o n je c tu r e , a n d th e c o u r t h a s d is c r e tio n in de t e r m i ni ng the ne e d f

ora he a r i ng. ” U ni t e d S t a t e s v. R i c ha r ds on, 764 F . 2d 1514,F e deral Ruleof Ev idenc e40 4(b) prov ide s in re le va nt p art that: 2 [e] videnceof other crimes, wrongs, or acts is notadmissible to prove the c haracter of a person in order

to show action in conformity therewith. It may , however, be a dmi ssible fo r o ther pur po se s, su c h a s p ro of

of motive , opp or

tunity, intent, prepa ration, plan, knowle dg e, identity , or absence of mistake or ac cident . . . . Fe d. R. Evid. 404(b). W e review a district court’s admission of Rul e 404(b) evidenc e for abuse of discretion. United States v. Jim inez, 224 F.3d 1243, 1249 (11 Cir. 2000). th 6 1527 ( 11 C i r . 1985) ( c i t a t i on om i tt e d) . T he onl y s pe c i f i c f a c tua l a l l e ga t i on th c o n ta in e d in A p p e lla n ts ’ m o tio n to s u p p r e s s d e a lt w ith th e g o v e r n m e n t’s f a ilu r e to h a v e th e a u th o r iz a tio n m e m o r a n d a s ig n e d . A s n o te d a b o v e , th a t c o n te n tio n is c l e a r l y w i thoutm e r i t . T he r e m a i nde rof the m ot i on c ont a i ne d l e ga l a r gum e nt s a nd c o n c lu s o r y s ta te m e n ts . T h e r e f o r e , th e d is tr ic t c o u r t d id n o t a b u s e its d is c r e tio n in n o t h o ld in g a h e a r in g . W e c on cl ud e thatA pp el l ant s have s ho w n n o revers i bl e e rr or i n the di stri ct co u rt ’ s d en i al o f A p p el l an t s’ m o t i o n t o su p p ress. B. A dm i s s i o n o f

Pr i o r C o nv i c t i o ns D u r in g its c a s e in c h ie f

, th e g o v e r n m e n t in tr o d u c e d e v id e n c e th a t C o r r ie tte and M oo re ea ch had a pri or cocai ne conv i ct i on . A pp el l ant s have notshow n that the di stri ctcourtabused i t s di sc re t i on i n adm i tt i ng thei r pri or conv i ct i on s und er R ul e 404 (b). 2 T o be a dm i s s i bl e unde rR ul e 404( b) , the e xtr i ns i c of f e ns e : ( 1) m us tbe r e l e va ntt o a n i s s ue othe rtha n the de f e nda nt ’ s c ha r a c t e r ; ( 2) m us tbe pr ove d; a nd ( 3) m us tpos s e s s pr oba t i ve va l ue tha ti s nots ubs t a nt i a l l y outw e i ghe d by i t s undueAp e lla nts do no t c ontend

that th eoth e r re quire ments of Rul e40 3 h aveno t be e n met. 3 “W e re v i ew a dis trict court’ s ref usal to g ive a requeste d jury instruction for abuseof 4 discretion.” United States v. Trujillo, 146 F.3d 838, 846 (11 Cir. 1998). th 7 pr e j udi c e a nd m us tm e e tthe othe rr e qui r e m e nt s of R ul e 403. U ni t e d S t a t e s v.

3 M atthew s, 43 1 F . 3d 12 96 , 13 10 -11 (11 C i r. 20 05 ). th F i r s t , A ppe l l a nt s w e r e c ha r ge d w i th c ons pi r a c y a nd pl e d notgui l ty , m a ki ng i nt enta m at er i al i ss ue. S ee i d. at13 11 (c on cl ud i ng that , i n the cont extof a c o n s p ir a c y c h a r g e , w h e n th e d e f e n d a n t p le a d s n o t g u ilty , h e m a k e s h is in te n t a m a t e r i a l i s s ue s a t i s f

y i ng the f

i r s tpr ong of

the R ul e 404( b) t e s t ) ; U ni t e d S t a t e s v. D e l ga do, 56 F . 3d 1357, 1365- 66 ( 11 C i r . 1995) . S e c ond, A ppe l l a nt s do not th di s put e tha tthe gove r nm e ntpr ove d the i rpr i orc oc a i ne c onvi c t i ons . T hi r d, A pp el l ant s have notshow n thatthe prob at i ve val ue w as subst ant i al l y outw ei gh ed by undue pr e

j udi c e . I n f

a c t , the gove r nm e nts how e d a ne e d f orthe pr i orc onvi c t i on e vi de nc e , a nd the di s tr i c tc our tga ve a l i m i t i ng i ns truc t i on. S e e M a tthe w s , 431 F . 3d at13 12 ; U ni t ed S t at es v. D i az -L i za ra za , 98 1 F . 2d 12 16 , 12 25 (11 C i r. 19 93 ). th C . “B u y e r / S e l l e r ” Ju r y I n s t r u c t i on M o o re arg u es th atth e d i stri ctco u rterred i n refu si n g t o g i v e th e j u ry a

“ bu ye r/ se l l er ” i nstruct i on . “ E ven i f are qu es t ed j ury i nstruct i on i s proper, the tri al 4 courthas s om e di sc re t i on i n fra m i ng the i nstruct i on . If the charge t o the j ury a d e q u a te ly a n d c o r r e c tly c o v e r s th e s u b s ta n c e o f th e r e q u e s te d in s tru c tio n , th e r e is8

no r e ve r s i bl e e r r or . ” U ni t e d S t a t e s v. L i ve l y , 803 F . 2d 1124, 1128 ( 11 C i r . 1986) th ( a f f i r m i ng di s tr i c tc our t ’ s r e f us a l t o gi ve a “ buy e r/ s e l l e r ” i ns truc t i on w he r e the di stri ctcourthad i nstruct ed the j ury on t he el em ent s of adrug conspi ra cy ). H er e, the di stri ctcourtgave a patt ern j ury i nstruct i on on drug conspi ra cy tha ti ns truc t e d the j ur y on the e l e m e nt s of the c r i m e . A s i n L i ve l y , the drug conspi ra cy i nstruct i on adequat el y a dd re ss ed the subst ance of M oo re ’ s r equest ed “b u y e r/s e lle r ” in s tru c tio n b e c a u s e it n o te d th a t a s in g le a c t d o e s n o t c o n s titu te p a r tic ip a tio n in th e c o n s p ir a c y . S e e id . a t 1 1 2 8 - 2 9 . T h e r e f o r e , th e d is tr ic t c o u r t d id no tabuse i t s di sc re t i on w hen i tre fuse d t o g i ve M oo re ’ s r equest ed “ bu ye r/ se l l er ” i ns truc t i on. D . C u m u l at i ve E f

f e c t of E vi d e n t i ar y R u l i n gs M oo re al so ar gu es thatthe cum ul at i ve prej ud i ce of se vera l of the di stri ct court ’ s e vi dent i ary rul i ng s w arra nt s r ever sa l of hi s c on vi ct i on . S peci fi ca l l y, M oo re p o in ts to : (1 ) th e f

ailu re to co rr ec t “ im p ro p erin n u en d o ” d u e to a w itn es s’s r e f e r e nc e t o the i ndi c tm e nt ; ( 2) the a dm i s s i on of he a r s a y s t a t e m e nt s ; a nd ( 3) the a dm i s s i on of

hi s pr i orc oc a i ne tr a f

f i c ki ng c onvi c t i on. A s di s c us s e d a bove , the pr i orc onvi c t i on w a s a dm i s s i bl e . W e a l s o c onc l ude tha tthe di s tr i c tc our tdi d not e r rw i th r e ga r d t o the othe re vi de nt i a r y rul i ngs M oor e r e l i e s upon. A s t o the i ndi c tm e ntr e f e r e nc e , D a nny M a y na r d, one of M oor e ’ s c o-9

de f e nda nt s w ho pl e d gui l ty , t e s t i f i e d f orthe gove r nm e ntdur i ng the tr i a l . T he gove r nm e nta s ke d M a y na r d w he the rhe kne w a ny othe ri ndi vi dua l s na m e d i n the i ndi c tm e nt . M oor e obj e c t e d, a r gui ng tha ti tw a s i m pr ope rt o a s k w i th w hom M a y na r d ha d be e n i ndi c t e d, a nd r e que s t e d a l i m i t i ng i ns truc t i on. I ns t e a d, the di stri ctcourtas ked t he go vernm entt o rephras e i t s quest i on . T he go vernm entthen as ked M ay nard w hether he knew the vari ou s peopl e i n h i s c as e. M oo re obj ec t ed a ga i n, butw a s ove r rul e d. O n appe a l , M oor e c ont e nds tha tthe di s tr i c tc our ts houl d ha ve gi ve n a lim itin g in s tru c tio n to r e m e d y th e g o v e r n m e n t’s r e f e r e n c e to th e in d ic tm e n t. H ow ever , M oo re do es no texpl ai n h ow the re fe re nce t o the i nd i ctm entw as i m prop eror prej ud i ce d h i m . M ore i m po rt ant l y, atthe ou t se tof the ca se , the j ury w a s i ns truc t e d tha tthe i ndi c tm e ntw a s onl y a n a c c us a t i on a nd w a s notpr oof of gui l t . T he di s tr i c tc our tl a t e rr e i t e r a t e d tha tpoi ntdur i ng i t s j ur y i ns truc t i ons . T he di stri ctcourt ’ s f

ai l ure t o g i ve a l i m i t i ng i nstruct i on as a r es ul tof thi s s tra y r e f e r e nc e t o the i ndi c tm e ntw a s note r r or . S e e U ni t e d S t a t e s v. S ny de r , 291 F . 3d 1 2 9 1 , 1 2 9 4 ( 1 1 C ir . 2 0 0 2 ) ( c o n c lu d in g th a t d is tr ic t c o u r t d id n o t a b u s e its th di sc re t i on i n d enyi ng defe nd ant ’ s m ot i on for am i stri al af t erprosec ut or qu es t i on ed w i tness abou tthe defendant ’ s i nd i ctm ent ). A s to th e h e a r s a y is s u e , R o s s te s tif ie d a b o u t c o n v e r s a tio n s th a t h e h a d w ithWe re view a dis tric t c ourt ’s de c isi on

to admit state ments of

c o- c on sp irator s und e r R ule 5 801(d)( 2)(E) for abuse of discretion. Hasner, 340 F.3d at 1274. We review for c lear error whe ther a statement was m ad e in furtheranceof a c onspiracy . United States v. By rom, 910 F.2d 725, 734 (11 Cir. 1990). th The g overnment’s brief points out that Moore’ s brief fails to identify sufficiently

the hea rsay statements that the district cour t improperly

admitted except in one or two instance s. We need not a dd re ss t his iss uea s w edis c e rn

no revers ibl ee rror

in a ny e vent. 10 other s up pl i er s and se l l er s of drugs w i th w ho m he di re ct l y di d b usi ness even though M oor e w a s notpr e s e ntdur i ng the c onve r s a t i ons . T he gove r nm e ntc ont e nds thati tshow ed a drug con spi ra cy and t hatthe di stri ctcourtprop er l y a dm i tt ed R o s s ’s te s tim o n y a s n o n - h e a r s a y c o - c o n s p ir a to rs ta te m e n ts u n d e rR u le 80 1(d)(2)(E). U nde rR ul e 801, s t a t e m e nt s of c o- c ons pi r a t or s m a de dur i ng the c our s e a nd i n the f ur the r a nc e of

the c ons pi r a c y a r e nothe a r s a y . S e e F e d. R . E vi d. 8 0 1 (d )(2 )(E ). T o ad m i tev i d en ce u n d er R u l e 8 0 1 (d )(2 )(E ), th e g o v ern m en tm u st s how by a pr e ponde r a nc e of the e vi de nc e tha t“ ( 1) a c ons pi r a c y e xi s t e d; ( 2) the c o n s p ir a c y in c lu d e d th e d e c la r a n t a n d th e d e f e n d a n t a g a in s t w h o m th e s ta te m e n t is of f e r e d; a nd ( 3) the s t a t e m e ntw a s m a de dur i ng the c our s e a nd i n f ur the r a nc e of

the conspi ra cy . ” U ni t ed S t at es v. H as ner, 34 0 F . 3d 12 61 , 12 74 (11 C i r. 20 03 ). th 5 O n app ea l , M oo re cont ends thatR oss’ s t es t i m on y w as i nadm i ss i bl e hea rs ay because the go vernm entfa i l ed t o sho w thatthe decl ar ant s of the ou t -of- court s ta te m e n ts w e r e m e m b e r s o f th e d ru g c o n s p ir a c y c h a r g e d in th e in d ic tm e n t. W e di s a gr e e . F i r s t , m uc h of R os s ’ s c ha l l e nge d t e s t i m ony c onc e r ne d c onduc tofWe will not reversean er roneous ev identiary

rulingthat is harmless. United States v. 6 Dicker son, 248 F.3d 1036, 1048 (11 Cir. 2001) An erro r i s h arm l ess if it “had no substantial th influence on the outcome a nd sufficient evidenceuninfec ted by error supports the verdict.” I d. (citation and inter

nal quotation marks omitted). 11 p u rp o r te d c o - c o n s p ir a to r s a n d n o t s ta te m e n ts b y th e m a n d th u s is n o t h e a r s a y . S e c ond, R os s t e s t i f

i e d tha tM oor e ga ve hi m ( 1) m one y t o pur c ha s e c oc a i ne f r om s u p p lie r s , w h ic h R o s s th e n d is tr ib u te d , a n d ( 2 ) “c u t,” w h ic h R o s s u s e d in r e p a c k a g in g th e c o c a in e f o rr e s a le . T h e d e c la r a n ts o f th e o u t- o f

- c o u r t s ta te m e n ts to w hi c h R os s t e s t i f

i e d a l s o e i the rs uppl i e d R os s w i th c oc a i ne or“ c ut ” ors ol d c oc a i ne th a t R o s s p r o v id e d . B a s e d o n th is te s tim o n y , th e r e w a s s o m e e v id e n c e th a t th e o u tof - c our tde c l a r a nt s w e r e i nvol ve d i n a n e xi s t i ng c ons pi r a c y t o di s tr i but e c oc a i ne i nv ol vi ng R oss a nd M oo re and t hatR oss’ s c on vers at i on s w i th the decl ar ant s w er e m a d e in f

u r th e r a n c e o f

th a t c o n s p ir a c y . T h e r e f o r e , th e d is tr ic t c o u r t d id n o t e r rin ad m i tt i n g R o ss’ s t est i m o n y ab o u tco n v ersat i o n s h e h ad w i th o th er co -co n sp i rat o rs. A l t e r na t i ve l y , e ve n a s s um i ng the r e w a s i ns uf f i c i e nte vi de nc e l i nki ng the d ecl aran t s t o th e ch arg ed co n sp i racy, th e ad m i ssi o n o f th e st at em en t s w as h arm l ess er ro r. T h e s tatem en ts d id n o t i n cr im in ate M o o re . F u rth er m o re , th e g o v er n m en t’ s 6 evi dence of M oo re ’ s gui l tw as subst ant i al gi ven t he si gn i fi ca ntw i re t ap evi dence an d th e t est i m o n y o f co -co n sp i rat o rs R o ss an d M ayn ard . U n d er th ese ci rc um st ance s, w e c anno tsa y thatthe adm i ss i on of the part i cul arst at em ent s a t is s u e h e r e h a d a s u b s ta n tia l in f lu e n c e o n th e o u tc o m e o f th e tr ia l.We reviewthe ade quacy of a § 851 noticede n o v o . Un ited States v. McL ean, 138 F .3d 7 1398, 1406 (11 Cir. 1998). th 12 E . M oo re ’s S en te n ce M o o r e c o n te n d s th a t th e g o v e r n m e n t f a ile d to g iv e a d e q u a te n o tic e o f its in te n t to s e e k a lif

e s e n te n c e . U n d e r2 1 U .S .C . § 8 4 1 ( b ) ( 1 ) ( A ) , w h e n a d e f e n d a n t is c onvi c t e d of

vi ol a t i ng 21 U . S . C . § 846 a nd ha s tw o pr i orc onvi c t i ons f orf e l ony drug of f e ns e s , the de f

e nda ntf a c e s a m a nda t or y l i f

e s e nt e nc e . 21 U . S . C . §§ 8 4 1 (b )(1 )(A ) & 8 4 6 . B efo re th e g o v ern m en tm ay seek th atl i fe sen t en ce, i tm u st ( 1 ) f ile a n in f o r m a tio n a n d s e r v e a c o p y o f s u c h in f o r m a tio n o n th e d e f

e n d a n t o rh is co u n se l; an d (2 ) p ro v id e n o ti ce to th e d ef en d an t sp ec ifyin g th e d ef en d an t’ s p r e v io u s c o n v ic tio n s b e f o r e th e tr ia l c o m m e n c e s o rth e d e f e n d a n t e n te r s a g u ilty pl ea . S ee 21 U . S . C . § 8 51 (a )( 1). M oo re cl ai m s thatthe go vernm ent ’ s § 85 1 n ot i ce w a s de f i c i e ntbe c a us e i ti de nt i f

i e d one of

hi s tw o pr i orf

e l ony drug c onvi c t i ons by the w rong ca se nu m ber. 7 T he gove r nm e nt ’ s § 851 not i c e s t a t e d tha tM oor e ha d be e n c onvi c t e d on or a boutF e brua r y 18, 1992 i n the N i ne t e e n J udi c i a l C i r c ui tof F l or i da f

ortr a f f i c ki ng in c o c a in e , c a s e n u m b e r9 1 - 0 0 0 7 6 6 - F A . T h e c o r r e c t c a s e n u m b e rw a s 9 1 - 7 5 8 C F C . M oor e doe s notdi s put e tha the w a s c onvi c t e d of c oc a i ne tr a f

f i c ki ng i n the N i ne t e e nth J udi c i a l C i r c ui tof F l or i da on the s pe c i f

i e d da t e a nd doe s nota l l e ge a ny confusi on as t o w hatconv i ct i on the go vernm entw as re fe rr i ng , despi t e the i ncorrec tInP er ez , th e go v ernm ent ’s § 8 5 1 n o t i ce co rr ec t l y l i s t edth e p ri o r c o nv i c t i o nas b ei n g a 8 cocaine conviction in Fl o ri d a. Thenotice also c orre ctly identified the da

y and month of the c o nv ic ti o n , b ut i d e nti f

ie d th e ye ar a s 1 9 9 2 , wh e n it w a s in f a c t 1 9 9 1 . Per e z, 2 4 9 F . 3 d at 1 2 6 3 . We c o n c lu d e d

th atth e g o v e r

nm e nt ’ s n o t i c e “ s at i s f

i e d th e r e qu i r e m e nt s o f § 8 5 1 ( a) ( 1 ) . ”Id . at1 2 6 6 . In Moore’ s case , the § 851 notice c orre ctly listed the offense as c ocainetraff icking , the jurisdictional dis tric t inF lo rida an d th e d ate o f c o nv ic ti o n . G iv e n a ll o f th e s e it e ms w e r e c o r r e c t an d g iv e nPer e z, wec ann ot s ay

herethat th e§ 8 51 no tic ewi th a wron gc a senumber w a s in su ff ic ient. 13 ca se nu m ber. W e c on cl ud e thatthe i nform at i on cont ai ned i n the § 8 51 no t i ce w as s uf f i c i e ntt o i ndi c a t e una m bi guous l y the pr i orc onvi c t i on on w hi c h the gove r nm e nt w oul d r e l y i n s e e ki ng the e nha nc e d s e nt e nc e . S e e P e r e z v. U ni t e d S t a t e s , 249 F . 3d 12 61 , 12 66 -67 (11 C i r. 20 01 ) ( concl ud i ng that§ 8 51 no t i ce w as suff i ci entw here th gove r nm e nti de nt i f

i e d pr i orc onvi c t i on, bute r r one ous l y s t a t e d the w r ong y e a rf or the conv i ct i on ). 8 W e a ls o r e

je c t M o o r e ’s c o n te n tio n th a t th e § 8 5 1 n o tic e w a s in a d e q u a te b e c a u s e th e g o v e r n m e n t c ite d a ll th r e e s e n te n c in g p r o v is io n s o f 2 1 U .S .C . § 8 4 1 . T he go vernm enti ncl ud ed a c i t at i on t o 2 1 U . S . C . § 8 41 (b)( 1)(A ), w hi ch w as suff i ci entt o p utM oo re on no t i ce thathe fa ce d a po ss i bl e m andat ory l i fe se nt ence upon c onvi c t i on. F o ra ll o f th e s e r e a s o n s , w e a f

f ir m th e c o n v ic tio n s a n d s e n te n c e s o f C o r r ie tte and M oo re . A F F I R M E D .