FIL ED U.S. COURT OF APPEAL S EL EVENTHCI RCUI T OCTOB ER 26, 2011 J OHN L EY CL ERK [DO NOT PUBLISH] IN THE U

NITED STATE S COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELE VENTH CIRCUIT

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ No. 1 0- 15 56 6 Non -Arg um en t Ca le nd ar

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ D.C. Dock etNo. 8 :1 0- cr-0 01 02 -J SM- TBM-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 Pl ai nt iff -Ap pe ll ee, ve rs us NURULLAH Y ILDIRIM , ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll Defen da nt -Ap pe ll an t.

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ _ No. 1 0- 15 56 9 Non -Arg um en t Ca le nd ar

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ D.C. Dock etNo. 8 :1 0- cr-0 01 02 -J SM- TBM-3

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 Pl ai nt iff - App el le e, ve rs usBENLI HAKAN H USEYIN UMMAHANI,

ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll Defen da nt- App el la nt .

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

th e Uni te d S ta te s Di st ric t Co urt forth e Mi dd le Dis tri ctof F lo rid a

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ (Oct ob er 2 6, 2 01 1) Befo re EDMONDSON, BARKETT andKRAVITCH, Cir cu itJu dg es . PER CURI AM: Ben li Haka n Hu se y in Um m ah an i (“ Um

m ah an i” ) an d Nu ru ll ahYil di rim (“ Yil di rim”) app eal th ei r co nv ic ti on s an d s en te nc es for co ns pi rin g t o p os se ss fiv e ki lo gr am s o r m or e o f co cai ne with t he in te ntto di strib ut e, whi le on bo arda ve ss el subjec t t o the juri sd ic ti on of t he Uni te d S ta te s, i n v io la ti on of 4 6 U.S.C. § § 70 50 3( a)(1 ) an d 7 05 06 (a) and(b) an d 2 1 U.S.C. § 96 0( b) (1 )((B )(i i), andaid in g an d abe tt in g p os se ss in g fi ve ki lo gr am s o r m or e o f co cai ne with t he in te ntto di st rib ut e, whi le onbo arda ve ss el subjec t t o the juri sd ic ti on of t he Uni te d S ta te s, in vi ol at io n o f 46 U.S.C. §§ 70 50 3( a) an d 7 05 06 (a), 1 8 U.S.C. § 2, an d 2 1 U.S.C. § 9 60 (b )(1 )(B) (ii ). Um

m ah an i an d Yi ld iri m

arg ue th atth e g ov ern m en t co m m it te d pr os ecu to ria l m is co nduc t, tha t the di st ric t co urt erredinap pl y in g a n o bs tru ct io n o f

2jus ti ce en ha nc em en t t o t he ir s en te nc es ba se d o n p erjury , andth atth ei r se nt en ces

were u nr eas on ab le . W e ad dr es s ea chof t he ir a rg um en ts intu rn . I.

“ The Co urt re vi ews a pr os ecu to ria l m is co nduc t cl ai m de no vo be cau se itis a m ix edqu es ti onof l aw an d fa ct .” Uni te d S tate s v . Eckh ard t, 4 66 F.3d93 8, 9 47 (1 1t h C ir. 2 00 6) . Whe re the de fen da ntfai ls to ob ject t o the st at em en ts at t ria l, ho wev er, we rev ie w forpl ai n e rro r. Uni te d S ta te s v . Newto n, 4 4 F .3d91 3, 9 20 (1 1t h C ir. 1 99 4) . Und er p la in erro r rev ie w, th e ap pe ll an t m us t s ho w th atth e pr os ecu to r’s st at em en ts co ns ti tu te d e rro r, th atth e err orwas p la in , th atth e err or affe ct edth e ap pe ll an t’s s ub st an ti al rig ht s, an d t he erro r se rio us ly affect edth e fai rn es s o f th e jud ic ia l p ro ceed in gs . Uni te d S ta te s v . Sch m it z, 63 4 F .3d12 47 , 12 68 (11 th Cir . 20 11 ). Um m ah an i an d Yi ld iri m

fir stcla im

th atth e g ov ern m en t en ga ge d i n pr os ecu to ria l m is co nduc t dur in g i ts clo si ng arg um en t wh enth e p ro se cu to r st at ed , witho utob

jecti on : “ I’m

no t as ki ng y ou[th e jury] to [ru shto jud gm en t], bec au se m y bu rd enis pre tty

hi gh . My

bu rd enis be y on d areas on ab le do ub t, an d I kno w th atI ha ve est ab li sh edth at .” Um m ah an i an d Yi ld iri m

no w arg ue th at , inm ak in g th is st at em en t, the pro se cu to r im pr op erl y off eredhe r pe rs on al im

pr es si on of t he ev id en ce. Howe ve r, inUni te d S ta te s v . Tis da le , 81 7 F .2d15 52 , 15 56 (11 thCir . 319 87 ), we he ldth atanalm os t i de nt ic al st at em en t— “ I be li ev e th e g ov ern m en t h as

pr ov enit s ca se be y on d areas on ab le do ub t” —d idno t co ns ti tu te pro se cu to ria l m is co nduc t, as th e p ro se cu to r “ was m erel y att em pt in g t o a rg ue th e wei gh t o f th e ev id en ce.” Ba se d o n t hi s p rece de nt , we con cl ud e th atth e p ro se cuto r’s co m m en t i n th is cas e reg ard in g re as on ab le do ub t d idno t co ns ti tu te pl ai n e rro r. Um m ah an i an d Yi ld iri m

ne xtarg ue th atth e p ro se cu to r m is ch arac te riz ed ev id en ce an d a rg ue d fa ct s n otinev id en ce dur in g h er cl os in g a rg um en t. To an al yze thi s cl ai m , we m

us t b rie fly des cri be th e rel ev an t ev id en ce an d t he ir t he ory of de fen se . The ev id en ce s ho wedth atth e Co as t Gu ardbo ard edth e Carrib ean Dream off th e co as t o f SanAndreas Isl an d, an d d is co ve redalm os t a t on of Co cai ne , sev eral dru m s o f fu el an d wat er, an d t hr ee p eo pl e—Umm ah an i, Yi ld iri m , an d Leo ne l Lam adridLede sm a—o n b oa rd . Um m ah an i an d Yi ld iri m

tes ti fie d t ha t th ey were o n v acat io n, trav el in g b etweenPan am a an d C ol om bi a, whe n t he ir b oa t was ov ert ak enby Col om bi anpi rat es , who for cedth em to tak e o n t he co cai ne an d Led es m a (as a lo adgu ard ), an d t o a lt er the ir c ou rs e fro m Pan am a to SanAndreas Is la nd . In co nt ras t, Led es m a, who pl eadgu il ty, te st ifi edth atall th ree o f th em were wi ll in gl y

tas ke d wi th tra ns po rti ng th e co cai ne saf el y fro m on e d es ti na ti on to an ot he r. Duri ng he r cl os in g a rg um en t, the pro se cuto r po in te d o utth atth e de fen da nt s n ev er t es ti fie d t ha t the Co lo m bi an s b ro ug htth e dru m s o f fu el on th e 4bo at , andth e fac t tha t the de fen da nt s wer e carry in g t he dru m s o f fu el su gg es te d

th atth ey were p rep aredan d i nt en di ng to tra ve l a l on g d is ta nc e in th e m id dl e o f th e oc ean , rathe r th analo ng th e co as t fr om Co lo m bi a to Pan am a, whe re the re wo ul d be m any pl aces to st op forfue l. Um m ah an i an d Yi ld iri m

ob jecte d t o t hi s ar gu m en t attri al an d c ha ll en ge iton ap pe al . W e co nc lu de th atth e d is tri ctco urt d idno t err in ov erru li ng th ei r ob

jecti on , as the pro se cu to r di d n otm is ch arac te riz e th e ev id en ce o r as su m e fac ts no t i n e vi de nc e. A pro se cu to r m ay en co ur ag e th e jury to dr aw co nc lu si on s fr om

fact s i n e vi de nc e. Uni te d S ta te s v . Brai th wait e, 70 9 F .2d 14 50 , 14 56 -5 7 (1 1th C ir. 1 98 3) . Here, th e p ro se cu to r was m erel y en co ur ag in g t he jury to draw co nc lu si on s fr om th e ev id en ce co nc ern in g t he nu m be r of fue l dru m s an d t he di st an ce t o b e tr av el ed . Last ly, Um

m ah an i an d Yi ld iri m

arg ue th atth e p ro se cu to r im pr op erl y vo uc he d fo r th e cre di bi li ty of cert ai n C oa stGuar d wi tn es se s dur in g h er cl os in g arg um en t wh ensh e st at ed , witho utob jecti on : “ The pe tty

off ic ers ha ve no reas on to li e. They hav e n o re as on to co m e in he re an d t el l you s om ethi ng th atdi dn ’t happ en .” Howev er, i n Un it edSta te s v . Bern al -Ben it ez, 5 94 F.3d13 03 , 13 14 (11 th Ci r. 20 10 ), we he ldth ata si m il ar s ta te m en t— “ no bo dy has subm it te d any su gg es ti on as t o wh y

ag en ts wou ldha ve an y

m ot iv at io n t o fabr ic at e ev id en ce ag ai ns t [t he de fen da nt s]”—d idno t ri se to th e le ve l o f im pr op er v ou ch in g, as th e 5pr os ecu to r was m erel y “po in ti ng ou t the lac k o f ev id en ce t o s up po rt d efen se arg um en ts th atth e [g ov ern m en t] age nt s wer e fab ric at in g t he ir s to rie s an d the n dr awin g re as on ab le in fere nc es fro m th e ev id en ce p res en te d a t tria l as to why th e Gov ern m en t wi tn es se s h adno in cen ti ve to li e.” Bas edonth is pre ced en t, we can no t s ay

th atth e p ro se cu to r’s co m m en t i n t hi s ca se reg ard in g t he Co as t Gu ard of fic ers co ns ti tu te d p la in erro r. II. Um m ah an i an d Yi ld iri m

als o a rg ue th atth e d is tri ctco urt erredinfin di ng th atth e o bs tru ct io n o f jus ti ce en ha nc em en t u nd er U.S.S.G. § 3 C1 .1 ap pl ie d t o th em . Sect io n 3 C1 .1 s ta te s: If (A) the de fen dantwil lfu ll y ob st ru ct edor i m

pe de d, o r at te m

pt edto ob st ru ctor i m

pe de , th e adm in is tra ti on of ju st ic e wit h re sp ectto th e in ve st ig at io n, p ro se cu ti on , or s en te nc in g o f th e in st an t o ffen se of co nv ic ti on , and(B) the ob st ru ct iv e co nduc t re la te d t o (i ) th e de fen da nt 's o ffen se of c on vi ct io n a ndan y rel ev an t co nduc t; or ( ii ) a cl os el y rel at edoff

en se , in crea se th e o ffen se lev el by 2 lev el s. U.S.S.G. § 3 C1 .1. On e type o f co nduc t tha t warran ts th e o bs tru ct io n o f jus ti ce en ha nc em en t i s “ co m

m it ti ng , subo rn in g, o r at te m pt in g t o s ub orn p erjury .” U.S.S.G. § 3 C1 .1, co m

m en t. (n .4). W e rev ie w a di st ric t co urt’s fi nd in gs of f actrel at edto ap pl y in g a n ob st ru ct io n o f jus ti ce en ha nc em en t fo r pe rjury for cl ear e rro r. Uni te d S ta te s v . 6Ban ks , 34 7 F .3d12 66 , 12 69 (11 th Cir . 20 03 ). The d is tri ctco urt’s fi nd in g i s

cl earl y erro ne ou s wh enth e ap pe ll at e co urt’s re vi ew of th e ev id en ce l eav es it“ with th e d efi ni te an d fi rm

co nv ic ti on th ata m is ta ke ha s b eenco m m it te d.” Uni te d St at es v. Po iri er, 3 21 F.3d10 24 , 10 36 (11 th Cir . 20 03 ) (i nt ern al qu ot at io n m ark s om itte d) . Here, be cau se Yil di rim’ s an d Umm ah an i’s t es ti m on ie s wer e irr eco nc il ab le with the reco rdan d i nc on si st en t wi th th e fac ts cred it edby the jury, th e d is tri ctco urt d idno t co m m itcle ar err orinfin di ng th atth ey co m m it te d p erjury an d t ha t the ob st ru ct io n o f jus ti ce en ha nc em en t was ap pl ic ab le . See Un it edSta te s v. Will ia m s, 6 27 F.3d83 9, 8 45 (11 th Cir . 20 10 ). III. Fi na ll y , Yil di rim arg ue s tha t the 18 6- m on th im pr is on m en t s en te nc e th e di st ric t co urt i m

po se d was un reas on ab le , bec au se th e d is tri ctco urt s ho ul d h av e co ns id eredhi s h is to ry , th athe is no t a v io le ntno r rep eatoff en de r, an d tha t h e h as fo urch il dr ento supp ort. Um m ah an i al so m ak es a pa ss in g re fere nc e, inhi s st at em en t o f is su es on ap pe al , to hi s 1 20 -m on thsen te nc e b ei ng un reas on ab le , bu t do es no t el ab or at e o n t he sen te nc in g i ss ue inhi s b rie f. Reg ard in g Umm ah an i’s p as si ng refer en ce t o h is sen te nc e, we ha ve he ld th at , when anap pe ll an t i nc lu de s an is su e in th e st at em en t o f is su es bu t n owh ere el se inth e b rie f, th e is su e is ab an do ne d . Ted de r v. F.M .C. Co rp ., 59 0 F .2d11 5, 711 7 (5 thCir . 19 79 ). Becaus e Um m ah an i’s s en te nc in g a rg um en t i s o nl y 1 m en ti on edinhi s s ta te m en t o f is su es , he h as ab an do ne d t hi s i ss ue on ap pe al . Inrev ie win g t he reas on ab le ne ss of Yi ld iri m ’s sen te nc e, we ap pl y anab us e of di sc ret io n s ta nd ard . Gall v. Un it edSta te s, 5 52 U.S. 38 , 56 (20 07 ). W e wil l on ly rever se an d re m an d fo r res en te nc in g “ if we are l eftwith t he de fin it e an d fi rm co nv ic ti on th atth e d is tri ctco urt co m m it te d acle ar erro r of

jud gm en t i n wei gh in g th e [1 8 U.S.C.] § 3 55 3( a) fa ct or s b y arri vi ng at asen te nc e th atli es ou ts id e th e ran ge of r eas on ab le sen te nc es di ct at edby the fact s o f th e cas e.” Uni te d S tate s v . McB rid e, 51 1 F .3d12 93 , 12 97 -12 98 (11 thCir . 20 07 ) (i nt ern al qu ot at io n m ark s om itte d) . Here, th e d is tri ctco urt co ns id eredth e § 35 53 (a) fa ct or s an d e xp li ci tl y st at edth atit“ va rie d d own wardfro m th e advi so ry

gu id el in e b ecau se itco ns id ers th e se nt en ce o f 18 6 m on th s t o b e m or e ap pr op ria te gi ve n t he fact or s o f 18 U.S.C., Sect io n 3 55 3.” The d is tri ctco urt d et erm in ed , inYil di rim’ s favo r, th atth e Gui de li ne s m in im

um of 3 0 years’ im

pr is on m en t was to o h ig h a ndsen te nc ed Yil di rim to 18 6 m on th s (1 5.5 y ears ), whi chwas 6 6 m on th s m or e th anth e m an da to ry

m in im um sen te nc e o f 12 0 m on th s, an d wel l b el ow the st atut ory m ax im um of l ife im pr is on m en t. Onth is reco rd , we can no t s ay th atth e d is tri ct In Bonne r v. City

of Prichar d, 661 F.2d 1206, 1209 ( 11th Cir.1981) ( en ba nc ), w e 1 adopted a s binding pre cede nt all decisions of the for mer F ifth Circuit issued before October 1, 1981. 8co urt co m

m it te d acle ar erro r of

jud gm en t i n i m

po si ng a be lo w-Gui de li ne s se nt en ce. AFFIRMED.

9