FILED U.S. COURT OF AP P EALS E LEV EN T HC IRC U IT APR 11, 2007 THOMAS K. KAH

N CLERK [ P U B 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- 14659

________________________ D . C. D o c k e tN o . 0 5 - 6 0 0 2 2 - CR- W PD 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 E D N E R T O R I S N O R D , T H E O D O R E W I T H E R S P O O N , B E RN A R D D O N J O I E , a .k .a . J e a n P ie rr e , J O N I E L P O L Y N I C E , D e f e n d a n ts - A p p e lla n ts .

________________________ A pp ea l fr om the U ni t ed S t at es D i stri ctC ou rt f orthe S outhe rn D i s tr i c tof F l or i da

_________________________ ( A p r i l11, 2007) B efo re B L A C K , M A R C U S an d K R A V IT C H , C i rcu i tJu d g es.2

K R A V IT C H , C i rc ui tJudg e: D ef endant s- A pp el l ant s, B ernard D on j oi e ( “ B ernard”), F ednertO ri snord ( “ O r i s nor d” ) , J oni e l P ol y ni c e ( “ P ol y ni c e ” ) , a nd T he odor e W i the r s poon (“ W i thers po on ”) appeal thei r c on vi ct i on s f or conspi ra cyt o com m i ta H ob bs A ct r obbe ry , i n vi ol a t i on of

18 U . S . C . § 1951( a ) ( C ount1) ; c ons pi r a c y ( C ount2) a nd a tt e m pt( C ount3) t o pos s e s s w i th i nt e ntt o di s tr i but e c oc a i ne , both i n vi ol a t i on of 2 1 U .S .C . § 8 4 6 ; u s in g , c a rry in g , a n d p o s s e s s in g af ir e a rm d u r in g a n d in r e la tio n to ac r i me o f

v i o l e n c e a n d ad ru g tr a f f i c k i n g c r i me , i n v i o l a t i o n o f 1 8 U . S. C. § 9 2 4 ( c ) ( 1 ) ( A ) ( C o u n t 4 ) ; a n d p o s s e s s in g af ir e a rm a s ac o n v ic te d f

e lo n , in v io la tio n o f

1 8 U .S .C . § 9 2 2 ( g ) ( C o u n t 5 ) , a ll in c o n n e c tio n w ith ac o n s p ir a c y to r o b an a r c o tic s s ta s h h o u s e . P o ly n ic e , W ith e r s p o o n , a n d B e rn a r d a ls o ap p e a l th e ir se nt ence s. F or the re as on s thatfol l ow , w e r ever se W i thers po on ’ s f i re arm c o n v ic tio n s , v a c a te h is s e n te n c e , a n d r e m a n d to th e d is tr ic t c o u r t f o rr e s e n te n c in g . W e affi rm th e co n v i ct i o n s an d sen t en ces o f th e rem ai n i n g A p p el l an t s. I . Ba c k g r o und In D ec em ber of 200 4, a c on fi dent i al i nform ant(“ C I” ) i nform ed fe dera l agent s f rom the B ureau o f A l coho l , T ob ac co, and F i re arm s ( “ A T F ”) thatO ri snord and o thers w er e i nt er es t ed i n com m i tt i ng ho m e i nv as i on robb er i es of narc ot i cs st as h h ou se s. B as ed on thi s t i p, A T F S peci al A gentM i chae l C on no rs (“ C on no rs ”) ,3

ac t i ng un derc ov er , m etw i th O ri snord and the C I i n S un ri se , F l ori da on D ec em ber 29, 2004. C onnor s t ol d O r i s nor d tha the pe r f orm e d s e c ur i ty f

oraC ol om bi a n drug organi za t i on , thathi s e m pl oyer s ow ned a cocai ne st as h h ou se i n F ortL auderdal e, an d th ath e w as l o o k i n g fo r p eo p l e t o h el p h i m ro b th e st ash h o u se. C o n n ers al so t ol d O r i s nor d tha tthe s t a s h hous e us ua l l y c ont a i ne d 20 t o 25 ki l ogr a m s of c oc a i ne a n d th a t h is C o lo m b ia n b o s s e s o f te n m o v e d th e “s ta s h ” to d if f e r e n t lo c a tio n s . I n d ic a tin g th a t h e h a d p e r f o rm e d s e v e r a l r o b b e r ie s in th e p a s t, O r is n o r d a g r e e d to a s s e m bl e at e a m t o r ob the s t a s h hous e . H e a l s o a gr e e d t o gi ve C onnor s f our k i l o g ram s o f co cai n e as h i s sh are o f th e ro b b ery p ro ceed s. O n J a nua ry 6, 2005, C onnor s a nd the C I m e tw i th O r i s nor d a nd S onny H i l a i r e , w ho O r i s nor d i ntr oduc e d a s one of hi s “ boy s ” w ho w oul d be pe r f orm i ng the “ l i ck” w i th h i m . D uri ng a t el epho ne conv er sa t i on a f ew days l at er , O ri snord t ol d C on no rs thatthere w as a probl em w i th H i l ai re ’ s part i ci pat i on , bu tthathe w as st i l l i nt er es t ed i n p er form i ng the robb ery. O n January 18 , 20 05 , C on no rs ca l l ed O ri snord and t ol d h i m thata s hi pm entof cocai ne w as arri vi ng the nextday. A ft er O r i s nor d i ndi c a t e d tha thi s t e a m w a s r e a dy , O r i s nor d a nd C onnor s s c he dul e d the r obbe ry f orthe ni ghtof

J a nua ry 19, 2005. T he pl a n c a l l e d f orthe C I t o pi c k up O r is n o r d ’s r o b b e ry te a m in av e h ic le o s te n s ib ly b e lo n g in g to C o n n o r s ’ g ir lf r ie n d . T hey w ou l d m ee tw i th C on no rs atan un spec i fi ed l ocat i on t o revi ew the fi nalAsdis cus se d a bo ve , O ri sn ord a

nd Conno rsorig inally

agre e d th at Co nn or s w ould 1 rec eive f our kilograms of c ocainefor his par ticipation. Other than this sing le re ferenceto “three 4 de t a i l s a nd w a i tf

orC onnor s ’ C ol om bi a n e m pl oy e r s t o c a l l a nd gi ve hi m the st as h-ho use a dd re ss . T he t ea m w ou l d then d ri ve t o the st as h h ou se i n a re nt al ca r p ro v i d ed b y C o n n o rs. O n January 19 th, dri vi ng a B M W supp l i ed by C on no rs thatw as equi pp ed w i th v i deo and audi o rec orders as w el l as a gl ob al -posi t i on i ng -s ys t em tra nsm i tt er , the C I pi c ke d up O r i s nor d a nd W i the r s poon i n F or tL a ude r da l e . T he y the n dr ove t o P om pano B ea ch t o p i ck up P ol yni ce . W hi l e i n rou t e t o P om pano , the C I a sked W i the r s poon i f

he w a s “ r e a dy t o ge tdow n. ” W i the r s poon r e s ponde d by s a y i ng

“ Y ea h, dam n ri gh t . [O ri snord] had t ol d m e abo uti tl i ke a c ou pl e of w ee ks ago. ” W i the r s poon l a t e rs a i d tha the di d notha ve api s t ol , buttha tO r i s nor d t ol d hi m not to w o rry b e c a u s e “w e g o t th a t.” O nc e i n P om pa no, P ol y ni c e goti nt o the B M W a nd both he a nd W i the r s poon a s k e d O r is n o r d to e x p la in th e p la n . A f te rO r is n o r d r e s p o n d e d th a t C o n n o r s w o u ld e x p la in e v e ry th in g , P o ly n ic e s a id th a t h e w a s “r e a d y to r o ll” a n d a s k e d O r is n o r d if O ri snord h ad procured a gun for hi m . O ri snord res po nd ed thatthey w ou l d g et pi st ol s a ta l at ert i m e a nd thatthey w ou l d n ee d three . O ri snord then exp l ai ned that th e p l a n wa s t o “ g o o v e rth e r e , we g o n n ag e tth e m o n e y a n d th e d o p e , th e n we gonnage t[ C onnor s ] . W e gonnagi ve [ C onnor s ] thr e e ke y s a nd w e gonnake e p the 1keys,” both Orisnord a nd Connors continued to repe at the four-kilogram figure. 5 r e s t.” P o ly n ic e r e s p o n d e d , “R ig h t n o w , w e s ta n d a s o n e .” A f t e rr e turni ng t o F or tL a ude r da l e , the C I , O r i s nor d, P ol y ni c e , a nd W i the r s poon m e tC onnor s a taH e s s ga s s t a t i on. C onnor s r e i t e r a t e d tha tthe robb ery w as t o o cc ur thatni gh t , thatthe t ea m w as t o fol l ow hi m t o an u nd i sc l osed lo c a tio n to a w a it th e c a ll f r o m th e C o lo m b ia n s , a n d th a t th e y s h o u ld h a v e th e ir fi rearm s read y. O ri sn o rd st at ed th atth e t eam d i d n o th av e th ei r fi rearm s b ecau se h e b el i ev ed C o n n o rs m erel y w an t ed t o m eetth e o th er t eam m em b ers atth e H ess st at i on . O ri snord al so i nd i ca t ed thathe tho ug htthe t ea m w ou l d b e gi ven ano ther vehi cl e a nd w ou l d then h ave achance t o p rocure thei r f i re arm s. O ri snord then a s ke d C onnor s t o e xpl a i n the r obbe ry pl a n t o P ol y ni c e a nd W i the r s poon, a nd C onnor s di d s o. P ol y ni c e a s ke d how m a ny m e n w oul d be i n the s t a s h hous e , a nd C on no rs expl ai ned thatthere w ou l d b e tw o arm ed m en. P ol yni ce re spon ded that C o n n o r s h a d to ld h im a ll h e n e e d e d to k n o w . O r is n o r d r e ite r a te d th a t th e y w o u ld need three gu ns and sai d h e nee ded fi ve m i nu t es t o g ethi s. P ol yni ce st at ed that they had t o g et“ the fi re ” a nd “ the t oo l s. ” D uri ng thi s e xchang e, C on no rs ob se rved W ith e r s p o o n n o d d in g in ap p a r e n t u n d e r s ta n d in g . W h e n W ith e r s p o o n g o t b a c k in to the B M W , the C I a sked hi m w hatw as happ eni ng . W i thers po on re spon ded that C on no rs ’ bo ss es w er e t o “ bri ng i n d op e, ” thatthere w as a “ ho use, ” a nd thatthere6

w ou l d b e “ 20 t o 2 5 k ey s” i nsi de the ho use. A f t e rthe m e e t i ng w i th C onnor s , the C I , O r i s nor d, W i the r s poon, a nd P ol yni ce drov e t o P om pano . U po n arr i vi ng ata hou si ng proj ec t , O ri snord ent er ed an apartm entoccupi ed by approx i m at el y t en peop l e a nd as ked i f a nyon e had se en

“ S onny . ” A ppr oxi m a t e l y 20 m i nut e s l a t e r , the C I e nt e r e d the s a m e apa r tm e nta nd a s k e d if a n y o n e h a d s e e n “F a c e ” ( w h ic h w a s o n e o f O r is n o r d ’s a lia s e s ) . A dd re ss i ng everyone i n the apartm ent , i ncl ud i ng brothers H enryand B ernard D on j oi e, the C I s t at ed thata “ bi g d ea l ” w i th “ a l otof m on ey ” w as go i ng do w n, that h e w a s d r iv in g aB M W b e lo n g in g to h is b o s s ’s w if e , a n d th a t a n y o n e in te r e s te d in the “ de a l ” s houl d a c c om pa ny hi m t o m e e thi s bos s t o l e a rn the de t a i l s . H e nry a nd B ernard acc ept ed the i nv i t at i on and j oi ned the other t ea m m em bers t o l ea rn m ore aboutthi s “ de a l . ” S om e t i m e l a t e r , the C I , O r i s nor d, W i the r s poon, P ol y ni c e , a nd th e D o n jo ie s g o t in to th e B M W a n d tr a v e le d b a c k to F o r t L a u d e r d a le to m e e t w ith the C I’ s boss ( C on no rs ) a nd di sc uss the “ deal . ” A l tho ug h n o o ne m ent i on ed f i r e a rm s dur i ng the dr i ve , O r i s nor d phone d C onnor s a nd s a i d tha tthe y w e r e now

“ al l se t . ” U p o n a rr iv in g in F o r t L a u d e r d a le , th e te a m s to p p e d a t aC itg o g a s s ta tio n . O ri snord exi t ed the B M W and con vers ed w i th the occupants of a B ui ck parked at the s t a t i on. O r i s nor d the n r e turne d t o the B M W , a nd both ve hi c l e s tr a ve l e d t o a7

H e s s s t a t i on w he r e C onnor s a w a i t e d. W he n the ve hi c l e s e nt e r e d the H e s s pa rki ng l ot , C on no rs pu l l ed hi s c ari n frontof the B M W and the B ui ck, and b oth v ehi cl es f ol l ow e d C onnor s t o aw a r e hous e . C onnor s ’ ve hi c l e a nd the B M W pa rke d i n the w a r e hous e pa rki ng l ot , w hi l e the B ui c k pa rke d a c r os s the s tr e e t . T he C I a nd the o th er o ccu p an t s o f th e B M W en t ered th e w areh o u se w i th C o n n o rs. B ec ause the D on

j oi e brothers w er e the l as tt o m ee tC on no rs , O ri snord i nstruct ed C on no rs t o “ [t ] el l tho se tw o w hat ’ s goi ng on . E xp l ai n t o them the deal . ” C o n n o rs ex p l ai n ed th ath e w o rk ed secu ri ty fo r C o l o m b i an s w h o h ad a st ash h o u se co n t ai n i n g 2 0 t o 2 5 “ k eys, ” th atth ere w ere tw o o r th ree arm edg u ard s i n th e st ash hous e , tha tthe C ol om bi a ns m ove d the s t a s h a r ound s uc h tha the di d noty e tknow the a ddr e s s , a nd tha tonc e the C ol om bi a ns phone d hi m t o pr ovi de the a ddr e s s , the t ea m w ou l d d ri ve t o the ho use a nd perf orm the robb ery. C on no rs further e xp l ai ned th a t to c o n c e a l h is in v o lv e m e n t in th e r o b b e ry , o n e o f th e c r e w m e m b e r s s h o u ld s tr i ke hi m on the he a d. H e nry a s ke d C onnor s s e ve r a l que s t i ons aboutthe pl a n, s uc h a s how m a ny a rm e d gua r ds w oul d be i n the hous e ; w he r e “ i t ” w oul d be l ocat ed; w hether there w er e “ m ore peopl e t o p i ck up m ore packages ; ” a nd w here th ey w o u l d n eed t o l eav e C o n n o rs’ sh are. O n ce C o n n o rs an sw ered th o se q u e s tio n s , H e n rys a id th a t th e “g a r a g e is th e o n ly w a y to g o ,” a n d th a t th e “s h it is al read y i n th e h o u se. ” A tso m e p o i n t , O ri sn o rd ask ed C o n n o rs h o w m an y “ k eys”8

h e w a n te d , C o n n o r s r e s p o n d e d th a t h e w a n te d f o u r , a n d H e n ry r e p lie d : “F o u r . T hat ’ s f i ne. T hat ’ s y ou rs . T hat ’ s guara nt ee d. ” B ernard al so re spon ded that C o n n o r s w a s “g u a r a n te e d th a t.” A f te rC o n n o r s in s tru c te d th e te a m to p la c e h is f ourke y s unde rthe B M W , H e nry s a i d the y w oul d “ puti ti n atr a s h ba g” unde rthe ca r. B ernard sa i d thatthey w ou l d b e “ In and o utand that ’ s i t . ” C on no rs then as ked i f the t ea m “ had eno ug h fi re t o t ake c ar e of i t , ” a nd on e of the t ea m m em bers r e s p o n d e d “[ d ]o n ’t y o u w o rry ab o u t th a t” b e c a u s e th e “f ir e is in th e c a r .” B as ed on these di sc ussi on s, A gentC on no rs det erm i ned thatthe t ea m m em bers w er e c apabl e of, and com m i tt ed t o, ca rryi ng ou tthe robb ery, and that n o n e o f th e m h a d e v in c e d ac le a rd e s ir e to w ith d r a w . H e g a v e th e a rr e s t s ig n a l, a nd aS W A T t e a m m ove d i n. A ppr oxi m a t e l y t e n m i nut e s a f t e rthe a rr e s t s , A ge nt L eonard C oy ent er ed the w ar ehou se and sea rc hed the defendant s, fi nd i ng a l oaded pi s t ol , bl a c k gl ove s , a nd akni tha ton H e nry ; al oa de d pi s t ol a nd bl a c k gl ove s on P o l yn i ce; an d a l o ad edp i st o l an d b l ack g l o v es o n B ern ard . O ffi cers al so di sc ov er ed tw o b l ac k st ocki ng caps i n the fr on tpass enger s ea tof the B M W w here O r i s nor d ha d be e n s i tt i ng. W h i l e si tt i n g t o g eth er i n th e b ack o f a p o l i ce car fo l l o w i n g th ei r arrests , O r i s nor d a nd B e rna r d di s c us s e d the i rpl i ght . B e rna r d bl a m e d O r i s nor d, a nd O ri sn o rd ag reed th ath e w as atfau l t . B ern ard al so co m p l ai n ed th atO ri sn o rd w as aBe foretrial, Henr y Donjoie’s ca se wa s severed. In his separate trial, he w as convic ted 2 on all c ountsc ha

rg e d in theindic tment. 9 “ r ooki e . ” O r i s nor d s a i d tha the w oul d e xone r a t e B e rna r d by c l a i m i ng tha tthe ent i re sc hem e w as hi s i dea, thatal l of the pi st ol s w er e hi s, and thatB ernard kn ew nothi ng. A grand j ury r eturned an i nd i ctm entagai nstthe defendant s, char gi ng them w i th c o n s p i r a c y t o c o mmi taH o b b s A c tr o b b e ry , i n v i o l a t i o n o f 1 8 U . S. C. § 1 9 5 1 ( a ) ( C o u n t 1 ) ; c o n s p ir a c y ( C o u n t 2 ) a n d a tte m p t ( C o u n t 3 ) to p o s s e s s w ith i nt e ntt o di s tr i but e c oc a i ne , both i n vi ol a t i on of 21 U . S . C . § 846; us i ng, c a rry i ng, a n d p o s s e s s in g af

ir e a rm d u r in g a n d in r e la tio n to ac r im e o f v io le n c e ( r e f

e rr in g to C ount1) a nd adrug tr a f f i c ki ng c r i m e ( r e f

e rr i ng t o C ount s 2 a nd 3) , i n vi ol a t i on of 18 U . S . C . § 924( c ) ( 1) ( A ) ( C ount4) ; a nd pos s e s s i ng af i r e a rm a s ac onvi c t e d f

e l on, in v io la tio n o f

1 8 U .S .C . § 9 2 2 ( g ) ( C o u n t 5 ) . F o llo w in g atr ia l, th e d e f e n d a n ts w ere co n v i ct ed o n al l co u n t s. T h e en su i n g sen t en ces ran g ed fro m 3 8 7 m o n th s’ 2 i m pr i s onm e ntf

orW i the r s poon t o 420 m onths ’ i m pr i s onm e ntf orthe r e m a i ni ng d e f e n d a n ts . I I . D i s c u s s i on O n ap p e a l, A p p e lla n ts a r g u e th a t th e e v id e n c e w a s in s u f f ic ie n t to s u s ta in th e irc o n v ic tio n s . I n a d d itio n , P o ly n ic e , W ith e r s p o o n , a n d B e rn a r d a r g u e th a t:Although App e lla ntsprop erly

pre serv e d th e ir

su ff ic iency-o f- the -evidenc ec halleng e s, 3 they failed to pre servetheir due process a nd closing -argument challeng es. Thus, the standa rd of review for the se unpre serve d issues is plain error . United States v. Wil liams, 445 F.3d 1302, 1307 (11th Cir. 2006). B ased on a thorough review of the record, Appellants havefailed to meet the plain er

ror standa rd. 10 the y w e r e e ntr appe d by gove rnm e nta ge nt s ; the G ove rnm e ntvi ol a t e d the i rdue pr oc e s s r i ght s bye nga gi ng i n outr a ge ous c onduc t ; the di s tr i c tc our tvi ol a t e d the C onf r ont a t i on C l a us e by i m pr ope r l y r e s tr i c t i ng the c r os s - e xa m i na t i on of A ge nt C onnor s ; a nd i m pr ope rc om m e nt s m a de by the G ove rnm e ntdur i ng c l os i ng a r gum e nt s de ni e d the m af a i rtr i a l . P ol y ni c e a nd W i the r s poon a l s o c ha l l e nge the d i s tr i c tc o u r t ’ s d e n i a l o f th e i rm o t i o n s t o c o n d u c tp o s t - v e r d i c ti n t e rv i e ws o f two ju r o r s . F in a lly , P o ly n ic e , W ith e r s p o o n , a n d B e rn a r d c h a lle n g e th e irs e n te n c e s . B a s e d o n c a r e f

u l r e v i e w o f

th e r e c o r d a n dth e p a r t i e s ’ a r g u m e n t s , we c o n c lu d e th a t th e e v id e n c e w a s s u f f ic ie n t to u p h o ld th e d ru g c o n s p ir a c y , a tte m p t, an d fi rearm co n v i ct i o n s o f B ern ard , O ri sn o rd , an d P o l yn i ce, an d w e affi rm th o se co n v i ct i o n s w i th o u tfu rth er d i scu ssi o n . W e l i k ew i se co n cl u d e th atth e d u e p ro cess and cl osi ng ar gu m entchal l enges r ai se d b y B ernard, P ol yni ce , and W i thers po on ar e w i tho utm er i t , and w e do n otdi sc uss them further. W e a l so ho l d that 3 W i the r s poon’ s drug c ons pi r a c y a nd a tt e m ptc onvi c t i ons a r e s uppor t e d by s uf f i c i e nt e vi de nc e a nd do notw a rr a ntf ur the rdi s c us s i on. B a s e d on the r e c or d a nd the G ov ernm ent ’ s c on ce ss i on , ho w ever , w e c on cl ud e thatthe evi dence w as11

in s u f f ic ie n t to s u s ta in W ith e r s p o o n ’s f ir e a rm s c o n v ic tio n s ( C o u n ts 4 a n d 5 ) . A c c o r d in g ly , w e r e v e r s e th o s e c o n v ic tio n s w ith o u t f u r th e rd is c u s s io n , v a c a te W ith e r s p o o n ’s s e n te n c e , a n d r e m a n d to th e d is tr ic t c o u r t f o rr e s e n te n c in g . W e now a ddr e s s A ppe l l a nt s ’ a r gum e nt s r e ga r di ng ( A ) the i rc onvi c t i ons f or conspi ra cyt o v i ol at e the H ob bs A ct , (B ) e ntrapm ent , (C ) the C on fr on t at i on C l ause , ( D ) j ur ori nt e rvi e w s , a nd ( E ) s e nt e nc i ng. A . H ob b s A ct C on sp i racy P ol y ni c e , W i the r s poon, a nd B e rna r d a r gue tha tthe e vi de nc e w a s i ns uf f i c i e nt t o s us t a i n the i rH obbs A c tc ons pi r a c y c onvi c t i ons . W e r e vi e w the s uf f i c i e nc y of the e vi de nc e de novo, vi e w i ng “ the e vi de nc e i n the l i ghtm os tf a vor abl e t o the gove rnm e nt , w i th a l l r e a s onabl e i nf e r e nc e s a nd c r e di bi l i ty c hoi c e s m a de i n the go vernm ent ’ s f

avor. ” U ni t ed S t at es v. M art i nez, 83 F . 3d 37 1, 37 4 (11 th C i r. 1996) . W e w i l l uphol d adi s tr i c tc our t ’ s de ni a l of am ot i on f

oraj udgm e ntof a c qui tt a l unl e s s the r e i s no r e a s onabl e c ons truc t i on of the e vi de nc e unde rw hi c h a r e a s o n ab le tr ie ro f

f a c t c o u ldh a v e f

o u n d th e d e f

e n d a n t g u ilty b e y o n d ar e a s o n ab le d o u b t. U n ite d S ta te s v . G a r c ia , 4 0 5 F .3 d 1 2 6 0 , 1 2 6 9 ( 1 1 th C ir . 2 0 0 5 ) .

“ T he H ob bs A ctproh i bi t s r ob beryor ext ort i on , and att em pt s or c on spi ra ci es t o com m i trobb ery or e xt ort i on , thati n any w ayor degree obstruct , del ay , or af fe ct com m er ce or the m ov em entof any a rt i cl e or c om m od i ty i n com m er ce . ” U ni t ed12

S t at es v. D i az , 24 8 F . 3d 10 65 , 10 84 (11th C i r. 20 01 ) ( ci t at i on and i nt ernal p u n ctu at i o n m ark s o m i tt ed ). B ecau se th e H o b b s A ct , b y i t s o w n t erm s, e nc om pa s s e s the i nc hoa t e of f e ns e s of a tt e m pta nd c ons pi r a c y , the i nt e r s t a t e ne xus re qu i re d t o p rove a H ob bs A ctconspi ra cym aybe es t abl i shed up on evi dence that had the conspi ra t ori al obj ec t i ve been acc om pl i shed, i nt er st at e c om m er ce w o u ld hav e be e n af

fe ct ed. U ni t ed S t at es v. L e, 25 6 F . 3d 12 29 , 12 33 (11th C i r. 20 01 ); U ni t e d S t a t e s v. K apl a n, 171 F . 3d 1351, 1354 ( 11th C i r . 1999) ( hol di ng tha t“ the g o v e rn m e n t n e e d o n ly s h o w ar e a lis tic p r o b ab ility o f a n e f f e c t” o n in te r s ta te c o m m e r c e ) . T h u s , to p r o v e aH o b b s A c t c o n s p ir a c y , th e im p a c t o n in te r s ta te c om m e r c e i s m e a s ur e d f r om the t i m e the obj e c t i ve o f th e c o n s p ir a c y is e s tab lis h e d . S e e L e , 256 F . 3d a t1232, 1232 n. 3 ( c i t i ng U ni t e d S t a t e s v. N guy e n, 246 F . 3d 52, 5 4 (1 stC i r. 2 0 0 1 )). A n d factu al i m p o ssi b i l i ty i s n o d efen se t o an i n ch o at e o ffen se un der the H ob bs A ct . U ni t ed S t at es v. R od ri gu ez , 36 0 F . 3d 94 9, 95 5-57 (9th C i r. 20 04 ); U ni t ed S t at es v. C l em ent e, 22 F . 3d 47 7, 48 0-81 (2d C i r. 19 94 ); U ni t ed S t a t e s v. D i C a r l a nt oni o, 870 F . 2d 1058, 1061 ( 6th C i r . 1989) ; U ni t e d S t a t e s v. Ja nn ot t i , 67 3 F . 2d 57 8 (3d C i r. 19 82 ). A cc ordi ng l y, thi s c ou rtre ce nt l y hel d that th e i n t erst at e n ex u s w as sat i sfi ed w h en th e d efen d an tco n sp i red t o ro b th e st ash hous e of ana r c ot i c s or ga ni z a t i on, e ve n though both the na r c ot i c s a nd the or ga ni z a t i on w e r e f

i c t i ona l . U ni t e d S t a t e s v. T a y l or , - - - F . 3d - - - - , - - - , N o.13

05 -145 62 , 20 07 W L 65 21 60 , at*2 (11th C i r. M ar . 6, 20 07 ). H er e, af t era tho roug h revi ew of the re cord, w e c on cl ud e thatthe evi dence w a s s u f f ic ie n t to e s tab lis h b e y o n d ar e a s o n ab le d o u b t th a t a n a g r e e m e n t e x is te d to r ob the s t a s h hous e of

ana r c ot i c s or ga ni z a t i on; P ol y ni c e , W i the r s poon, a nd B e rn a r d k n e w o f

th a t a g r e e m e n t; a n d w ith th a t k n o w le d g e , th e y v o lu n ta r ily part i ci pat ed i n h el pi ng t o acc om pl i sh the obj ec t i ve of thatagre em ent . S ee D i az , 248 F . 3d a t1084. W e a l s o c onc l ude tha tthe i nt e r s t a t e ne xus w a s s uf f i c i e nt because, as i n T ay l or, the conspi ra t ori al ai m w as t o rob the st as h h ou se of a n a r c o tic s o r g a n iz a tio n . T h a t n e ith e rth e n a r c o tic s n o rth e in te n d e d v ic tim s a c tu a lly ex i st ed i s i rrel ev an t . T ayl o r, --- F . 3 d at---, 2 0 0 7 W L 6 5 2 1 6 0 , at* 2 . A cco rd i n g l y, w e hol d thatthe evi dence w as suff i ci entt o sust ai n A pp el l ant s’ H ob bs A ct co n sp i racy co n v i ct i o n s. B . E n tra p m en t D efen se P o ly n ic e , W ith e r s p o o n , a n d D o n jo ie a r g u e th a t th e d is tr ic t c o u r t e rr o n e o u s ly d e n ie d th e m ju d g m e n ts o f a c q u itta l o n th e g r o u n d th a t th e g o v e rn m e n t f a ile d to re bu tthei r e ntrapm entdefe nse, as there w as i nsuffi ci entevi dence t o est abl i sh that they w er e pre di sposed t o com m i tthe charged offe nses . W e r evi ew thi s pre se rved c l a i m de novo, vi e w i ng a l l f a c t s a nd m a ki ng a l l i nf

e r e nc e s i n f

a vorof the G ov ernm ent . U ni t ed S t at es v. K i ng , 73 F . 3d 15 64 , 15 68 (11th C i r. 19 96 ).14

E ntr apm e nti s a n a f

f i rm a t i ve de f

e ns e . U ni t e d S t a t e s v. Q ui nn, 123 F . 3d 1 4 1 5 , 1 4 2 3 ( 1 1 th C ir . 1 9 9 7 ) . T h e r e a r e tw o e le m e n ts to a n e n tr ap m e n t c la im : ( 1) gove rnm e nti nduc e m e ntof the c r i m e a nd ( 2) the de f e nda nt ’ s l a c k of pr e di s pos i t i on t o c om m i tthe c r i m e be f or e the i nduc e m e nt . U ni t e d S t a t e s v. R y a n, 289 F . 3d 1339, 1343 ( 11th C i r . 2002) . “ [ T ] he de f e nda ntbe a r s the i ni t i a l bur de n of pr oduc t i on a s t o gove rnm e nti nduc e m e nt [ , ] ” a nd he m a y m e e tthi s “ bur de n by p ro d u cin g an y e v id en ce su ff icien t t o ra ise a ju ry issu e th at th e g o v er n m en t’ s c onduc tc r e a t e d as ubs t a nt i a l r i s k tha tthe of f e ns e w oul d be c om m i tt e d by ape r s on othe rtha n one r e a dy t o c om m i ti t . ” I d. a t1343- 44 ( c i t a t i on om i tt e d) . “ T he d e f e n d a n t m a y m a k e s u c h as h o w in g b y d e m o n s tr a tin g th a t h e h a d n o t f a v o r ab ly re ce i ved the go vernm entpl an, and the go vernm enthad t o ‘ pu sh i t ’ on hi m or that s e ve r a l a tt e m pt s a ts e tt i ng up a n i l l i c i tde a l ha d f a i l e d a nd on a tl e a s tone oc c a s i on he ha d di r e c t l y r e f

us e d t o pa r t i c i pa t e . ” U ni t e d S t a t e s v. A ndr e w s , 765 F . 2d 1491, 14 99 (11th C i r. 19 85 ) ( i nt ernal ci t at i on s om i tt ed). O nce the defendantprod uces s uf f i c i e nte vi de nc e of

i nduc e m e nt , the gove rnm e ntm us tpr ove be y ond a r e a s o n ab le d o u b t th a t th e d e f e n d a n t w a s p r e d is p o s e d to c o m m it th e o f f e n s e . I d . H e r e , th e r e w a s n o e v id e n c e th a t e ith e rth e C I o rA g e n t C o n n o r s d id a ny thi ng t o “ i nduc e ” A ppe l l a nt s ’ pa r t i c i pa t i on i n the r obbe ry pl a n. N othi ng i n the re cord dem on stra t ed thatei ther the C I or C on no rs had t o “ pu sh” the robb ery15

sc hem e on them , thatm ul t i pl e a tt em pt s a tse tt i ng up the robb ery had fa i l ed, or that an y o f th e d efen d an t s h ad cl earl y ev i n ced a refu sal t o p art i ci p at e. B ecau se A ppe l l a nt s di d notm e e tthe i rbur de n of de m ons tr a t i ng gove rnm e nti nduc e m e nt , the g o v e rn m e n t w a s n o t r e q u ir e d to p r o v e b e y o n d ar e a s o n ab le d o u b t th a t A p p e lla n ts w e r e p r e d is p o s e d to c o m m it th e c h a r g e d o f f e n s e s . S e e A n d r e w s , 7 6 5 F .2 d a t 1 4 9 9 . T hu s, the di stri ctcourtdi d n oterr i n rej ec t i ng A pp el l ant s’ entrapm entdefe nse. C . C o n fro n ta ti o n C l a u se P ol y ni c e , W i the r s poon, a nd B e rna r d a r gue tha tthe di s tr i c tc our tvi ol a t e d the S i x th A m en d m en t ’ s C o n fro n t at i o n C l au se b y i m p ro p erl y restri ct i n g cro ssexam i nat i on of A gentC on no rs re gardi ng S W A T t ea m arre stm etho ds. W e r evi ew th e d is tr ic t c o u r t’s d e c is io n s lim itin g c r o s s - e x a m in a tio n f o rab u s e o f

d is c r e tio n . U ni t ed S t at es v. T ok ar s, 95 F . 3d 15 20 , 15 31 (11th C i r. 19 96 ). T he C on fr on t at i on C l ause i s vi ol at ed i f acr i m i nal defe nd antca n d e m o n s tr a te th a t h e w a s p r o h ib ite d f r o m e n g a g in g in o th e rw is e ap p r o p r ia te c r o s s - e x a m in a tio n d e s ig n e d to s h o w “b ia s o n th e p a r t o f th e w itn e s s , a n d th e r e b y to expo se t o the j ury the fa ct s f rom w hi ch j urors c ou l d app ropri at el y dra w i nfer ence s r e l a t i ng t o the r e l i abi l i ty of the w i tne s s . ” D e L i s i v. C r os by , 402 F . 3d 1294, 1300 (11th C i r. 20 05 ) ( ci t at i on and i nt ernal pu nctuat i on m arks om i tt ed). “ N otevery lim ita tio n o n c r o s s - e x a m in a tio n v io la te s th e C o n f r o n ta tio n C la u s e .” I d . a t 1 3 0 1 .16

T h u s , a lth o u g h “c r o s s - e x a m in a tio n o f ag o v e rn m e n t ‘s ta r ’ w itn e s s is im p o r ta n t, a n d ap r e s u m p tio n f

a v o r s f r e e c r o s s - e x a m in a tio n o n p o s s ib le b ia s , m o tiv e , ab ility t o p er ce i ve and rem em ber, and g ener al char ac t erfor truthful ness , ” the m er e f ac t tha tde f e ns e c ouns e l s oughtt o e xpl or e apr os e c ut i on w i tne s s ’ s bi a s doe s not aut om at i ca l l y i nv al i dat e “ the court ’ s abi l i ty t o l i m i tcr oss- exam i nat i on . ” U ni t ed S t a t e s . v. L y ons , 403 F . 3d 1248, 1256 ( 11th C i r . 2005) ( c i t a t i ons om i tt e d) . “ T he t es tfor the C on fr on t at i on C l ause i s w hether are as on abl e j ury w ou l d h ave r ec ei ved a s i gn i fi ca nt l y di ff

er enti m pres si on of the w i tness ’ cr edi bi l i ty had coun se l pu rs ued the pr opos e d l i ne of

c r os s - e xa m i na t i on. ” U ni t e d S t a t e s v. G a r c i a , 13 F . 3d 1464, 1 4 6 9 ( 1 1 th C ir . 1 9 9 4 ) ( c ita tio n s o m itte d ) . “A s lo n g a s s u f f ic ie n t in f o rm a tio n is e lic ite d f r o m th e w itn e s s f

r o m w h ic h th e ju ry c a n a d e q u a te ly a s s e s s p o s s ib le m ot i ve orbi a s , the S i xth A m e ndm e nti s s a t i s f i e d. ” D e L i s i , 402 F . 3d a t1301 (quo t i ng U ni t ed S t at es v. L ankford, 95 5 F . 2d 15 45 , 15 49 n. 10 (11th C i r. 19 92 )) . H er e, A gentC on no rs t es t i fi ed thatthe vi deo cam er a i n the w ar ehou se w as turne d of f j us tbe f or e A ppe l l a nt s ’ a rr e s t s i n or de rt o pr ot e c tthe c onf i de nt i a l i ty of S W A T te a m a rr e s t m e th o d s . W h e n d e f e n s e c o u n s e l a s k e d th e d is tr ic t c o u r t to di re ctC on no rs t o answ erqu es t i on s abo utthe preci se t ac t i ca l m etho ds he cl ai m ed the A T F w a s try i ng t o pr ot e c t , the c our tr e f us e d on the gr ounds tha tthe s e m e thods c o n s titu te d ac o lla te r a l is s u e . A c c o r d in g to A p p e lla n ts , h a d th e y b e e n a llo w e d to17

m o r e th o r o u g h ly c r o s s - e x a m in e C o n n o r s ab o u t th e s e ta c tic a l m e th o d s , th e y w o u ld have dem on stra t ed thatC on no rs w as l yi ng abou tw hy the vi deo cam er a w as turned off, there by i m peac hi ng the cr edi bi l i ty of the G ov ernm ent ’ s s t arw i tness . T hey al so ar gu e thataddi t i on al qu es t i on i ng w ou l d h ave dem on stra t ed thatthe “ re al re as on ” the vi deo cam er a w as turned o ff w as thata vi deo w ou l d h ave s ho w n that A p p e lla n ts d id n o t p o s s e s s g u n s a t th e tim e o f th e ira rr e s ts . In ou r vi ew , defe nse c ou nsel had el i ci t ed am pl e e vi dence t o enabl e the j ury to a s s e s s A g e n t C o n n o r s ’ c r e d ib ility . G iv e n P o ly n ic e ’s te s tim o n y th a t th e a rr e s ts i nvol ve d nothi ng outof the or di na ry a nd A ge ntC oy ’ s t e s t i m ony tha the w a s not i ns i de the w a r e hous e dur i ng the a rr e s t s ( a l though he t e s t i f i e d une qui voc a l l y tha the f ound guns on P ol y ni c e , B e rna r d, a nd H e nry ) , de f e ns e c ouns e l ha d as uf

f i c i e nt e vi de nt i a ry ba s i s t o a r gue tha tthe vi de o r e c or de rw a s s t oppe d f orne f a r i ous r e a s ons ra th erth an to p re se rv e a rr es t t ac ti cs . W e th er ef o re co n clu d e th at th e d istrict co u rt’s l i m i t at i on on the cr oss e xam i nat i on di d n otvi ol at e the C on fr on t at i on C l ause .

D . P ost- T ri al R eq u es ts to In te rvi ew Ju rors P o ly n ic e a n d W ith e r s p o o n 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 s t o i nt ervi ew ce rt ai n j urors f ol l ow i ng the verdi ct . W e r evi ew a di stri ct c our t ’ s r e f

us a l t o pe rm i tj ur ori nt e rvi e w s f orabus e of

di s c r e t i on. U ni t e d S t a t e s v. H oo shm and, 93 1 F . 2d 72 5, 73 7 (11 th C i r. 19 91 ).In B onner v . City 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 4 court adopted as bindingprec edent all decisions handed down by the former F ifth Circuit before the close of

business on September 30, 1981. 18 U n d e rS o u th e rn D is tr ic t o f F lo r id aL o c a l R u le 1 1 .1 E , a f te rth e ju ry is d is c h a r g e d , u p o n ap p lic a tio n in w r itin g , th e d is tr ic t c o u r t m a y a llo w c o u n s e l to i nt ervi ew j urors t o d et erm i ne i f the verdi cti s s ubj ec tt o l egal chal l enge. S . D . F l a. R . 1 1 .1 E . I n H o o s h m a n d , th is c o u r t h e ld th a t th e d is tr ic t c o u r t d id n o t ab u s e its d is c r e tio n w h e n , u n d e rth e p r e d e c e s s o ro f S .D . F la . R . 1 1 .1 E , it r e f u s e d to p e rm it de f e ns e c ouns e l t o i nt e rvi e w aj ur orw ho ha d t ol d the di s tr i c tc our t“ I vot e d f or[ the ve r di c t ] , buti tw a s notm y ve r di c t . . . . I ha d no c hoi c e . I tw a s 11 t o 1. I tha d t o be un ani m ou s. . . . T hey w ant ed t o g eton w i th o ther tri al s. ” H oo shm and, 93 1 F . 2d at 73 7. In U ni t ed S t at es v. C uthel , 90 3 F . 2d 13 81 , 13 82 (11th C i r. 19 90 ), thi s c ou rt u p h el d a d i stri ctco u rt ’ s au th o ri ty, u n d er th e sam e l o cal ru l e, t o d en y d efen se c ouns e l ’ s r e que s tt o i nt e rvi e w j ur or s w he r e one j ur orha d t e l e phone d the de f e nda nt a nd s a i d “ w e w e r e pr e s s ur e d i nt o m a ki ng ourde c i s i on. ” I d. A nd i n O ’ R e a rv. F ru e h a u f C o rp ., 5 5 4 F .2 d 1 3 0 4 , 1 3 0 9 - 1 0 ( 5 th C ir . 1 9 7 7 ) , th e f o rm e rF if

th C ir c u it 4 a f f i rm e d the di s tr i c tc our t ’ s de ni a l of de f e ns e c ouns e l ’ s i nt e rvi e w r e que s tw he r e the de f e nda nta l l e ge d tha taj ur orw a s s e e n s pe a ki ng w i th c our tr oom s pe c t a t or s dur i ng ar e c e s s butpr e s e nt e d no e vi de nc e de m ons tr a t i ng i m pr ope rc onve y a nc e of in f o rm a tio n to th e ju ry . I d .19 1 . Mo tio n to I

n te r v ie w J

u r o rCe to u te A ppr oxi m a t e l y tw o m onths a f t e rthe ve r di c tw a s r e nde r e d, P ol y ni c e f i l e d a se al ed m ot i on t o i nt ervi ew Juror C et ou t e r egar di ng an al l eged extri nsi c c on t ac t w i th anon-

j ur ordur i ng de l i be r a t i ons . D ur i ng P ol y ni c e ’ s s e nt e nc i ng he a r i ng, the d is tr ic t c o u r t a llo w e d P o ly n ic e ’s c o u n s e l to d is c u s s th e m o tio n to in te rv ie w C e to u te and t o p re se nta w i tness i n sup po rtof the m ot i on . T he w i tness , C el i a M et ay er (P ol yni ce ’ s s i st er ), t es t i fi ed thatdu ri ng j ury del i bera t i on s, she s aw Juror C et ou t e a t aM c D ona l d’ s r e s t a ur a nt . M e t a y e rc l a i m e d tha ts he ove rhe a r d C e t out e s a y t o a no n-j uror: “ W el l you k no w tho se bo ys — tho se bo ys go tfe l on y a nyw ay , ” a nd that

“ W e a s ke d the J udge f

orque s t i ons — w e ha ve al otof que s t i ons . W e a s ke d hi m f or h e lp . H e w o n ’t h e lp u s . A n d th o s e b o y s g o t f e lo n ie s . W e a r e g o in g to ta k e av o te on i t . ” A c c or di ng t o M e t a y e r , the non- j ur orr e s ponde d “ W ha ta r e y ou t a l ki ng about ? ” M e t a y e rc oul d notr e m e m be rthe pr e c i s e da y on w hi c h thi s e xc ha nge o c c u rr e d , a n d s h e c la im e d th a t s h e d id n o t im m e d ia te ly r e p o r t th e in c id e n t to d e f e n s e c o u n s e l b e c a u s e s h e w a s “a f r a id o f th e la w .” S h e d id n o t r e la y th is i nform at i on t o h erbrother, P ol yni ce , un t i l af t erthe verdi ct , atw hi ch t i m e P ol yni ce in f o rm e d h is c o u n s e l. In a w ri tt en order, the di stri ctcourtdeni ed P ol yni ce ’ s m ot i on t o i nt ervi ew Juror C et ou t e, concl ud i ng thatthe evi dence “ di d n otri se t o the l evel needed for a20

j uror i nt ervi ew . ” T he courthel d thateven acc ept i ng M et ay er ’ s t es t i m on y a s true, the r e w e r e no a l l e ga t i ons of e xt e rna l i nf

l ue nc e on the j ur or s , the r e w a s no i ndi c a t i on tha ta n out s i de i nf l ue nc e a f f e c t e d the ve r di c t , a nd the r e w a s no s ubs t a nt i a l a nd i nc ontr ove r t i bl e e vi de nc e tha tas pe c i f i c , nons pe c ul a t i ve i m prop ri ety occ urre d thatcoul d h ave prej ud i ce d P ol yni ce . O n app ea l , P ol yni ce a r g u e s th a t th e d is tr ic t c o u r t ab u s e d its d is c r e tio n b y d e n y in g h is m o tio n . W e d is a g r e e . A s the di stri ctcourtconcl ud ed, even i f M et ay er ’ s a cc ou nti s a cc ept ed, at m o s t, it d e m o n s tr a te s th a t J u r o rC e to u te d is o b e y e d th e d is tr ic t c o u r t’s in s tru c tio n to no tdi sc uss the ca se . P ol yni ce do es no tar gu e thatextra neou s pre j ud i ci al i nf orm a t i on w a s br oughtt o J ur orC e t out e ’ s a tt e nt i on, tha te xtr a ne ous i nf orm a t i on e nt e r e d i nt o he rde c i s i onm a ki ng, ortha ts he w a s s ubj e c tt o i m pr ope rout s i de in f lu e n c e . U n d e ro u rc a s e la w , th e d is tr ic t c o u r t d id n o t e rrw h e n it r e f u s e d to al l ow P ol yni ce ’ s c ou nsel t o i nt ervi ew Juror C et ou t e.

2. Motion to I

n te r v ie w Ju r orW

h ite h e ad A ft erthe verdi ctw as re ad, the courtcl erk p ol l ed the j ury a s t o w hether they c onc urr e d i n the ve r di c t . D ur i ng the pol l i ng, W i the r s poon e nga ge d i n adi s rupt i ve ou tbu rs tcausi ng the courtt o suspend po l l i ng m i dw aythrou gh the process . A ft er the po l l i ng w as com pl et ed and the j ury di sm i ss ed, W i thers po on ’ s c ou nsel m ade a21

m ot i on t o i nt ervi ew Juror W hi t ehea d, no t i ng thatW hi t ehea d h ad hesi t at ed before af fi rm i ng hi s c on curr ence i n the verdi ct . T he di stri ctcourtdeni ed thi s m ot i on as w e ll a s as u b s e q u e n t m o tio n f o ram is tr ia l, s ta tin g th a t a lth o u g h W h ite h e a d “d id hesi t at e f or a f ew se cond s, he eventual l y s ai d ‘ Y es . ’ ” T he courtexpl ai ned that

“ M y guess i s the re as on thathe hesi t at ed w as because i tw as an em ot i on al e x p e r ie n c e to h e a ra ll th a t s c r e a m in g g o in g o n in th e c o u r tr o o m f r o m w h a t I a s s um e w e r e r e l a t i ve s of the de f e nda nt s . S o ha d w e gone s i de ba rI w oul dn’ tha ve i nq ui re d any m ore of J uror [W hi t ehea d] . ” A p p r o x im a te ly th r e e m o n th s la te r , W ith e r s p o o n f ile d aw r itte n m o tio n to in terv iew Ju ro r W h it eh ea d , w h ich P o lyn ice laterad o p ted , b as ed o n W h it eh ea d ’s hesi t antaf

fi rm at i on of the verdi ctand the fa ctthatthe j ury’ s ori gi nal j ury f orm r e f le c te d a“n o t g u ilty ” v e r d ic t f o rW ith e r s p o o n o n th e f ir e a rm s c o u n ts . I n h is w r i tt e n m ot i on, W i the r s poon r e f e r e nc e d c ode f

e nda ntP ol y ni c e ’ s a l l e ga t i on of extri nsi c c on t ac tw i th Juror C et ou t e a nd ar gu ed thatthi s e xtri nsi c c on t ac tcoup l ed w i th W hi t e he a d’ s he s i t a t i on “ tr i gge r [ e d] the ne e d f ora n i nve s t i ga t i on thr ough j ur or i nt e rvi e w . ” I n aw r i tt e n or de r , the di s tr i c tc our tde ni e d W i the r s poon’ s m ot i on. T he courtst at ed thataf

t erre vi ew i ng the audi ot ape of the proceedi ng s, i tdet erm i ned tha tthe r e w a s at i m e - gap “ of a tl e a s t1. 5 a nd notm or e tha n 3 s e c onds ” be tw e e n the c l e rk a s ki ng J ur orW hi t e he a d t o a f f i rm hi s ve r di c ta nd W hi t e he a d’ s r e s pons e . T heWitherspoon a rgues that the district cour t erre d in denying a

mitigating -role reduction 5 of hissentenc eand

that hi s to tal sentenc ewa s unre a so na ble . Wedono t add

re ss t he seissue s, ho wever, be c a

us e , a s discus se d a

bo ve , w erevers eWith erspo on ’sfire arm s c onvic tio ns (C ounts4 and 5), vacatehis sentence , and remand to the district court for resentencing . 22 courtal so no t ed thatW i thers po on ’ s outbu rs tbegan even b ef ore the cl erk h ad pol l e d J ur or#1 ( W hi t e he a d w a s J ur or#3) . T he c our the l d tha t“ aj ur orw ho al l egedl y vi ol at ed the court ’ s a dm on i t i on by t al ki ng abou tthe ca se t o a no n-j uror at M cD on al d’ s duri ng an eveni ng re ce ss . . . and a j uror w ho pauses l es s than three s e c onds be f

or e a f f i rm i ng hi s ve r di c tdur i ng apol l , do noti ndi vi dua l l y nor c u m u la tiv e ly m e r it” g r a n tin g W ith e r s p o o n ’s m o tio n to in te rv ie w J u r o rW h ite h e a d . I n as u b s e q u e n to r d e r , th e c o u r td e n i e d Po l y n i c e ’ s a d o p t e d mo t i o n f o rth e s a me r e a s ons i tde ni e d W i the r s poon’ s m ot i on. I n o u rv ie w , W ith e r s p o o n a n d P o ly n ic e ’s a lle g a tio n o f ju r o rim p r o p r ie ty is w e a ke rtha n the a l l e ga t i ons i n the c a s e s di s c us s e d above . S e e H oos hm a nd, 931 F . 2d at73 7; C uthel , 90 3 F . 2d at13 82 ; O ’ R ea r, 55 4 F . 2d at13 09 -10. G i ven that W h ite h e a d ’s h e s ita tio n w a s , a t m o s t, th r e e s e c o n d s a n d w a s p la u s ib ly a ttr ib u tab le t o W i the r s poon’ s e m ot i ona l outbur s t s , w e c onc l ude tha tthe di s tr i c tc our tdi d not abus e i t s di s c r e t i on i n de ny i ng the m ot i ons t o i nt e rvi e w J ur orW hi t e he a d. E . T h e S en te n ce s W i the r s poon, P ol y ni c e , a nd B e rna r d c ha l l e nge the i rs e nt e nc e s on va r i ous

5 grou nd s. W e r evi ew a def endant ’ s overa l l se nt ence for r ea sonabl enes s, U ni t ed23

S t at es v. W i ni ng ea r, 42 2 F . 3d 12 41 , 12 46 (11th C i r. 20 05 ), the di stri ctcourt ’ s l egal i nt e rpr e t a t i on of

the S e nt e nc i ng G ui de l i ne s de novo, U ni t e d S t a t e s v. G unn, 369 F .3 d 1 2 2 9 , 1 2 3 7 -3 8 (1 1 th C ir. 2 0 0 4 ), an d fa ctu al fin d in g s, su ch as a d ef en d an t’ s r ol e i n the of

f e ns e , f orc l e a re rr or , U ni t e d S t a t e s v. D e V a r on, 175 F . 3d 930, 934 ( 1 1 th C ir . 1 9 9 9 ) . 1 . Po l y nic e ’s Ca r e e r- O

f f e nde rEnha nc e m e nt In se nt enci ng P ol yni ce , the di stri ctj ud ge i m po se d a ca re er -off ender e nha nc e m e ntba s e d on P ol y ni c e ’ s tw o pr e vi ous f e l ony c onvi c t i ons — one f or re si st i ng arre stw i th v i ol ence and the other f or fl ee i ng and el ud i ng l aw e nf or c e m e nt , both i n vi ol a t i on of F l or i dal a w . O n appe a l , P ol y ni c e c ha l l e nge s the e n h a n c e m e n t. U n d er th e G u i d el i n es, a d efen d an ti s a career o ffen d er i f (1 ) h e w as atl east 18 y e a r s ol d a tthe t i m e of the i ns t a ntof

f e ns e ; ( 2) the i ns t a ntof

f e ns e i s af

e l ony thati s e i ther acr i m e of vi ol ence or i nv ol ves acontrol l ed subst ance ; and (3) he has atl ea sttw o p ri or fe l on y c on vi ct i on s of e i ther acr i m e of vi ol ence or a c on trol l ed s u b s ta n c e o f

f e n s e . U .S .S .G . § 4 B 1 .1 ( a ) . A “c r im e o f v io le n c e ” is af

e d e r a l o rs ta te offe nse c arry i ng a s ent ence of m ore than o ne ye ari m pri sonm entand, i nt eral i a,

“ i nv ol ve[i ng ] cond uctthatp r e s e n ts a s e r io u s p o te n tia l r is k o f p h ys ic a l in ju r y to an other . ” U . S . S . G . § 4B 1. 2( a ) ( 2) ( e m pha s i s a dde d) . T he f i r s tpr e di c a t e c r i m e ofPoly nice doe s not dispute that he was at least 18 year s old at the time of the instant 6 offenses or that some or

all of the instant offenses were crimes of violence .

24 v io le n c e r e lie d u p o n b y th e d is tr ic t c o u r t, r e s is tin g a rr e s t w ith v io le n c e , is n o t in di s put e . P ol y ni c e doe s c ha l l e nge , how e ve r , the di s tr i c tc our t ’ s c ha r a c t e r i z a t i on of the F l or i daof

f e ns e of f e l ony f l e e i ng a nd e l udi ng l a w e nf or c e m e nta s ac r i m e of v io le n c e f

o rp u rp o s e s o f

th e G u id e lin e s ’ c a r e e r - o f f e n d e re n h a n c e m e n t. 6 A tthe t i m e of P ol yni ce ’ s c on vi ct i on for f l ee i ng and el ud i ng , F l ori da l aw p r o v id e d th a t o n e c o m m its as e c o n d - d e g r e e f e lo n y if h e “w illf

u llyf le e s o ra tte m p ts t o e l ude al a w e nf

or c e m e ntof

f i c e r. . . a nd dur i ng the c our s e of the f l e e i ng or att em pt ed el ud i ng . . . [d] ri ves a thi gh spee d, or i n any m anner w hi ch dem on stra t es aw a n to n d is r e g a r d f

o rth e s a f e ty o f p e r s o n s o rp r o p e r ty .” F la . S ta t. § 3 1 6 .1 9 3 5 ( 3 ) . T h e i ssu e o f w h eth er “ fl eei n g an d el u d i n g ” u n d er th i s p ro v i si o n co n st i tu t es a “c r im e o f

v io le n c e ” f

o rp u rp o s e s o f

§ 4 B 1 .2 is o n e o f

f ir s t im p r e s s io n in th is c i r c ui t . B uta tl e a s tthr e e othe rc i r c ui t s ha ve a ddr e s s e d the i s s ue r e ga r di ng “ f l e e i ng a nd e l udi ng” unde rthe l a w s of othe rs t a t e s . F oc us i ng on the “ pot e nt i a l r i s k” of i nj ury a s the t ouc hs t one of § 4B 1. 2’ s de f

i ni t i on of a“ c r i m e of

vi ol e nc e , ” the S i xth, S e v e n th , a n d E i g h th C i r c u i t s , c o n s tru i n g Mi c h i g a n , Wi s c o n s i n , a n d Or e g o n l a w, r e s pe c t i ve l y , ha ve he l d tha tf e l ony f l e e i ng i s a“ c r i m e of

vi ol e nc e ” f

orpurpos e s of § 4B 1. 2. S e e U ni t e d S t a t e s v. K e ndr i c k, 423 F . 3d 803, 809 ( 8th C i r . 2005) ( hol di ng tha tf

e l ony f l e e i ng unde rO r e gon l a w c ons t i tut e s ac r i m e of vi ol e nc e f

or25

purpos e s of

§ 4B 1. 2) ; U ni t e d S t a t e s v. R os a s , 410 F . 3d 332, 335- 36 ( 7th C i r . 2005) (hol di ng thatbecause S eventh C i rc ui tprec edentprov i des thatfl ee i ng l aw enforce m entand end angeri ng the op er at i on of a pol i ce vehi cl e, i n v i ol at i on of a W i sc on si n l aw , i s, by defi ni t i on , a “ vi ol entfe l on y, ” i ti s a l so a “ cr i m e of vi ol ence ” for purpo se s of § 4B 1. 2); U ni t ed S t at es v. M art i n, 37 8 F . 3d 57 8, 58 2-84 (6th C i r. 2004) ( hol di ng tha t“ f

l e e i ng a nd e l udi ng” unde rM i c hi ga n l a w i s ac r i m e of vi ol ence for purpo se s of § 4B 1. 2 b ec ause i ti nv ol ves ase ri ou s pot ent i al r i s k of p h y s ic a l in

ju ry ) . C on vers el y, the N i nth C i rc ui thas hel d that“ fl ee i ng and el ud i ng ” und era W ash i n g t o n st atu t e si m i l ar t o th e st atu t e ati ssu e h ere i s n o t ac r i m e of vi ol e nc e f

or purpos e s of

§ 4B 1. 2 be c a us e , i nt e ra l i a , the s t a tut e di d notr e qui r e tha ta ny one ac tual l y be e ndange r e d by the defendant ’ s c on du ctt o sust ai n a conv i ct i on . U ni t ed S t at es v. K el l y, 42 2 F . 3d 88 9, 89 6 (9th C i r. 20 05 ). W e f in d th e r e a s o n in g o f

th e S ix th , S e v e n th , a n d E ig h th C ir c u its p e r s u a s iv e . A s not ed abov e, the l angu age of the G ui del i nes m akes cl ea r thatthe “ po t ent i al ri sk” of i nj ury, ra ther than actual vi ol ence or ac tual i nj ury, i s the t ou chst on e of a

“ cr i m e of vi ol ence . ” U . S . S . G . § 4 B 1. 2(a) . T he dang er ou s c i rc um st ance s s urr oundi ng ape r s on’ s a tt e m ptt o f l e e f r om l a w e nf

or c e m e ntc oupl e d w i th the pe r s on’ s ope r a t i on of

am ot orve hi c l e m os ta s s ur e dl y pr e s e nt s a“ pot e nt i a l r i s k of26

p h y s ic a l in

ju ry ” to o th e r s . A n d th e s tr e s s a n d u r g e n c y o f th e s itu a tio n w ill lik e ly cause the pers on fl ee i ng t o d ri ve re ckl es sl y, turni ng any pursui ti nt o a hi gh -s peed c ha s e w i th the pot e nt i a l f ors e r i ous ha rm t o pe de s tr i a ns , othe rdr i ve r s , a nd the p u r s u in g o f

f ic e r s . S e e K e n d r ic k , 4 2 3 F .3 d a t 8 0 9 ; M a r tin , 3 7 8 F .3 d a t 5 8 2 . Indeed, col l i si on s betw ee n fl ee i ng vehi cl es and p edes tri ans or other vehi cl es shar i ng the road are com m on . U ni t ed S t at es v. H ow ze , 34 3 F . 3d 91 9, 92 2 (7th C i r. 2003) . M or e ove r , by de l i be r a t e l y di s obe y i ng al a w e nf or c e m e ntof

f i c e r , the f

l e e i ng m o to r is t p r o v o k e s a n in e v itab le , e s c a la te d c o n f r o n ta tio n w ith th e o f

f ic e rw h e n h e is f in a lly ap p r e h e n d e d . M a r tin , 3 7 8 F .3 d a t 5 8 2 . “S u c h ac o n f r o n ta tio n in h e r e n tly p r e s e n ts th e s e r io u s p o te n tia l r is k o f p h y s ic a l in

ju ry b e c a u s e th e f

le e in g d r iv e r [ ,] i nt enton hi s goal of el ud i ng the offi ce r[ , ] fa ce s the deci si on of w hether t o d i spel the of f i c e r ’ s i nt e r f

e r e nc e ory i e l d t o i t . ” I d. a t583 ( c i t a t i on a nd quot a t i on m a rks om i tt ed). In thi s r egar d, fl ee i ng and el ud i ng re se m bl es the offens e of e sc ape, i d. at 582; H ow z e , 343 F . 3d a t921- 22, w hi c h s e ve r a l c i r c ui t s ( i nc l udi ng thi s one ) ha ve a gr e e d c ons t i tut e s a“ c r i m e of vi ol e nc e ” unde rthe G ui de l i ne s , e ve n w he r e the e s c ape i nvol ve s m e r e l y w a l ki ng a w a y f r om anon- s e c ur e f

a c i l i ty . U ni t e d S t a t e s v. A de w a ni , 467 F . 3d 1340, 1341 ( D . C . C i r . 2006) ; U ni t e d S t a t e s v. T urne r , 285 F . 3d 90 9, 91 6 (10 th C i r. 20 02 ); U ni t ed S t at es v. Ja ckson, 30 1 F . 3d 59 , 63 (2d C i r. 2002) ; U ni t e d S t a t e s v. G a y , 251 F . 3d 950, 955 ( 11th C i r . 2001) ; U ni t e d S t a t e s v.Poly nic ewa s sentenc e d to24 0 mo nth s’ imp ri so nment o n Count 1, 36 0 mo nth s’ 7 imprisonment on Count s 2 and 3, and 180 months’ imprisonment on Count 5, all to run concur rently . In addition, he re ceive d a conse cutive 60-month sentenc e for Count 4. B ern ard wa s sentenc e d to24 0 mo nth s’ imp ri so nment f or Count 1 , 3 60 months ’ imprisonment for Counts 2 and 3, and 120 months’ imprisonment for Count 5, all to run concur rently . He also rece ived a c onsecutive sentenceof 60 months’ imprisonment for Count 4. 27 N a t i on, 243 F . 3d 467, 472 ( 8th C i r . 2001) ; U ni t e d S t a t e s v. H a rr i s , 165 F . 3d 1062, 10 68 (6th C i r. 19 99 ). A cc ordi ng l y, w e hol d thatfe l on y f l ee i ng and el ud i ng , i n v i ol at i on of F l a. S t at . § 3 16 . 19 35 (3), i s a“ cr i m e of vi ol ence ” f or pu rposes of the ca re er -off ender enhancem entun der U . S . S . G . § 4 B 1. 2. A s s uch, w e c on cl ud e thatthe di stri ctcourt di d note rri n hol di ng tha tP ol y ni c e qua l i f i e d a s ac a r e e rof

f e nde runde rthe G u id e lin e s . 2. T

h e R eason ab len es s of P ol yn ice& B ern ard’s S en ten ce P o l yn i ce an d B ern ard arg u e th atth ei r resp ect i v e sen t en ces o f 4 2 0 m o n th s’ i mp r i s o n me n t a r e u n r e a s o n ab l e i n l i g h to f th e f a c t o r s s e tf

o r th i n 1 8 U . S. C. 7 § 3553( a ) . W e r e vi e w the s e nt e nc e i m pos e d f orr e a s onabl e ne s s . U ni t e d S t a t e s v. C as tro, 45 5 F . 3d 12 49 , 12 51 (11th C i r. 20 06 ). A ft ercorr ec t l y c al cul at i ng the advi soryG ui del i nes r ange, a “ di stri ctcourt m a y im p o s e as e n te n c e th a t is e ith e rm o r e s e v e r e o rle n ie n t th a n th e s e n te n c e ” th is courtw ou l d h ave i m po se d, “ bu tthatse nt ence m ustst i l l be re as on abl e. ” U ni t ed28

S t a t e s v. T a l l e y , 431 F . 3d 784, 788 ( 11th C i r . 2005) . T hi s c our t ’ s “ [ r ] e vi e w f or re as on abl enes s i s def

er ent i al [, ] ” a nd “ the party w ho chal l enges the se nt ence bear s th e b u r d e n o f

e s tab lis h in g th a t th e s e n te n c e is u n r e a s o n ab le in th e lig h t o f b o th [ the ] r e c or d a nd the f

a c t or s i n s e c t i on 3553( a ) . ” I d. H er e, the di stri ctcourtcorr ec t l y c al cul at ed the G ui del i nes r ange for P ol yni ce a nd B e rna r d t o be 420 m onths t o l i f e i m pr i s onm e nt . A f

t e re xpr e s s l y c ons i de r i ng the § 3553( a ) f

a c t or s , the di s tr i c tc our tf ound tha t420 m onths ’ i m pr i s onm e nt ( w h ic h w a s a t th e lo w e n d o f th e G u id e lin e s r a n g e ) w a s ap p r o p r ia te . N o th in g in the re cord dem on stra t es that42 0 m on ths w as un re as on abl e. I I I . C on c l u s i on F or the foregoi ng re as on s, w e R EVER SE W i th e r s p o o n ’ s f i r e a rms c o n v ic tio n s ( C o u n ts 4 a n d 5 o f th e in d ic tm e n t) , VA C A TE hi s s e nt e nc e , a nd RE MAND for r es ent enci ng . In al l other r es pect s, w e AF F I RM th e d is tr ic t c o u r t.