FI L ED U.S. COURT OF APPEAL S EL EVENTHCI RCUI T J UNE 27, 2011 J OHN L EY CL ERK [DO NOT PUBLISH] IN THE U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- 13 43 3 Non -Arg um en t Ca le nd ar

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ D.C. Dock etNo. 9 :0 9- cr-8 00 53 -KAM-1 UNITED STAT ES OF AMERIC A, Pl ai nt iff -Ap pe ll ee, ve rs us ANDREW

STEINBERG, Defen 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 So ut he rnDis tri ctof F lo rid a

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ (J un e 2 7, 2 01 1) Befo re TJ OFLAT, CARNES andBARKETT, Circu itJu dg es . PER CURI AM: And rew St ei nb erg ap pe al s h is co nv ic ti on s an d s en te nc es forco m m it ti ng m ai l an d wi re fraudan d c on sp iri ng to do th e sa m e, invi ol at io n o f 18 U.S.C.§§ 13 49 , 13 41 , 13 43 , and2. St ei nb erg rai se s fo urarg um en ts on ap pe al . Firs t, h e

co nt en ds th atth e d is tri ctco urt p la in ly erredin advi si ng hi m th athe co ul d n ot pl eadgu il ty to a p orti on of t he m ul ti -co un t i nd ic tm en t an d tha t t he di st ric t co urt’s erro ne ou s ad vi ce p rev en te d h im fro m ob ta in in g a n a ccep ta nc e-o f-re sp on si bi li ty se nt en ce re du ct io n. Se co nd , Ste in be rg arg ue s t ha t the di st ric t co urt cl earl y erre d in fin di ng th athe co m

m it te d p erju ry

at t ria l an d t hu s ap pl y in g a n ob st ru ct io n- of

-jus ti ce en ha nc em en t u nd er U.S.S.G. § 3 C1 .1 o n t ha t b as is . Thir d, St ei nb erg arg ue s t ha t t he di st ric t co urt erredinde nyin g h is reque stfor a do wnwar d de pa rtu re u nd er U.S.S.G. § 5 K2.1 3 b as edon hi s d im in is he d m en ta l capa ci ty. Fi na ll y , Ste in be rg arg ue s t ha t h is 15 0- m on th , bel ow- Gui de li ne s- ran ge sen te nc e was un reas on ab le . W e ad dr es s ea ch cla im in tu rn . I. Ru le 11 (c) p ro vi de s t ha t an“ at to rn ey forth e g ov ern m en t an d t he de fen da nt ’s att orne y

. . . m ay di sc us s an d re ach a pl ea ag reem en t. The co urt m us t no t p art ic ip at e in th es e d is cu ss io ns .” Fed .R.Cri m .P. 11 (c)( 1) . This is a “br ig ht li ne rul e p ro hi bi ti ng th e p art ic ip at io n o f th e jud ge inpl ea n eg ot ia ti on s u nd er an y ci rcu m st an ces : i t i s a rul e th at. . . ad m it s o f no ex cep ti on s.” Uni te d Sta te s v. Jo hn so n , 89 F.3d77 8, 7 83 (11 th Cir . 19 96 ) (al te rat io n a ndqu ot at io n m ark s om it te d) . “ Thre e rat io na le s” un de rli e th is “ st ric t p ro hi bi ti on on jud ic ia l 2pa rti ci pa ti on : (1 ) jud ic ia l i nv ol ve m en t i n p le a n eg ot ia ti on s i ne vi tabl y carr ie s wi th itth e h ig h a ndun acce pt ab le ris k o f co erci ng a de fen da ntto acce ptth e p ro po se d ag reem en t an d p le adgu il ty; (2) th e p ro hi bi ti on pro te ct s the in te gr it y of t he jud ic ia l pr oc es s; an d (3 ) th e b anpre se rv es th e jud ge ’s im pa rti al it y aft er the ne go ti at io ns are c om pl et ed .” Id
. at 7 82 -8 3 (quo ti ng Uni te d Sta te s v. C as al la s , 59 F.3d11 73 , 11 78 (11 th Cir . 19 95 )) (quo ta ti on m ark s o m it te d) . Prio r to an y ag reem en t b y

th e pa rti es , “ a co urt s ho ul d n otoff er co m m en ts to uc hi ng up on pro po se d o r po ss ib le pl ea ag reem en ts ,” whi chgo be y on d aso ur ce o f in fo rm at io n t o p le a n eg ot ia to rs an d a m ou ntto “ in di cat io ns of wh atth e jud ge wil l ac cep t.” Uni te d Sta te s v. Di az , 13 8 F .3d13 59 , 13 63 (11 th Cir . 19 98 ) (quo ta ti onm ark s o m it te d)
. Vio la ti on s o f Ru le 11 (c) m os t co m m on ly resu ltfro m

im pr op er co m

m en ta ry by the di st ric t co urt b efo re ac cep ta nc e o f th e g ui lt y pl ea. Here, b y

co nt ras t, the 1
See, e .g. , Diaz , 138 F.3d at 1363 (holdingthat the district court violated Rule 11 whe n it 1 discussed the de fenda

nt’s probable sentenc e prior to c onviction and commented on theweight and natur e of the evidenc e ag ainst the defe ndant); Casallas , 59 F.3d at 1176, 1178 (holding that the district court violated Rule 11 whe n it compare d the minimum pl ea se ntence with the minimum trial sentenc e duringthe plea c olloquy and enc ourag ed the de fenda nt to discuss the sentenc ing dispa

rity with his attorney

); United States v. Corbitt , 996 F.2d 1132, 1133- 35 (11th Cir. 1993) (holdingthat the district court violated Rule 11 whe n it impos ed a noon de adline for the def endants to file a

plea a g ree ment, afte r which the y could either

“plea d straight up or . . . g o to trial,” and subse quently stated that the de fenda

nts would rece ive a f

air trial a nd a “f air sentenc e, fa irly

high” if convicte d); but cf. Johnson , 89 F.3d at 783 (holding that no violation occur red be cause the district court’s state ments did not “touch on the sentenc e” a nd wer e not otherwise c oerc ive, but corr ectly identified the “ obvious risk” of plea ding g uilty to the substantive offe nse and pr ocee ding to tria l on the conspirac y charg e and r eminded the de fenda nt of his right to choose betwe en the two c ourses). 3co urt’s co m

m en ts at a n ex p ar te he ari ng are b es t ch arac te riz edas m is le ad in g St ei nb erg to be li ev e h e h adto eit he r pl eadgu il ty to t he who le in di ct m en t o r to go to tri al —i n o th er wo rd s, t ha t St ei nb erg was n otall owe d t o p le adgu il ty to s om e ch arg es whi le co nt es ti ng hi s g ui lton ot he rs . Cf . Joh ns on , 89 F.3dat 7 79 , 78 1- 83 (n ot in g t ha t t he di st ric t co urt co rrec tl y advi se d t he de fen da ntth athe “ co ul d g o t o tri al on on e [co un t] andpl eadgu il ty to t he ot he r” co un t, Id
. at 7 81 ). Whi le th e co urt’s s ta te m en ts do no t co ns ti tu te th e typi cal Ru le 11 vi ol at io n t ha t p res su res a de fen da ntto ac cep t

a gu il ty ple a, th e co urt n on ethe le ss cro ss edRu le 11 ’s “br ig ht li ne ” in su gg es ti ng th atSte inbe rg co ul d n otpl eadgu il ty to o nl y so m e o f hi s ch arg es . St ei nb erg di d n otrai se th e is su e in th e co urt b el ow, an d s o we r ev ie w th e Ru le 11 cla im

for pl ai n e rro r. Uni te d Sta te s v. Mo nr oe , 35 3 F .3d13 46 , 13 49 (11 th Ci r. 20 03 ). Altho ug h we h av e h el d tha t, g en eral ly, “ [j] ud ic ia l p art ic ip at io n [i n pl ea n eg ot ia ti on s] is pl ai n e rro r, an d t he de fen da ntne ed no t sh ow ac tu al pr ejud ic e,” Uni te d Sta tes v. C or bi tt , 99 6 F .2d11 32 , 11 35 (11 thCir . 19 93 ) (em ph as is ad de d) , th e d efen da ntm ai nt ai ns th e b ur de n o f sh owi ng actua l p reju di ce whe n h e cl ai m s, n otth athe was c oe rcedin to a pl ea, b utth atjud ic ia l p art ic ip at io n pe rs ua de d h im

to go to tri al , Diaz , 13 8 F .3dat 1 36 3 (r equi rin g s ho win g o f actua l pr ejud ic e whe re d efen da ntcla im ed , in te r a li a , th athe wou ldha ve be enen ti tl edto 4anacce pt an ce-o f-re sp on si bi li ty redu ct io n o f hi s s en te nc e if he ha d p le d g ui lt y in st eadof g oi ng to tri al ). Thu s, St ei nb erg is no t en ti tl edto a ne w sen te nc in g he ari ng un le ss he can de m on st rat e actua l p reju di ce i n h is sen te nc in g. St ei nb erg cla im s tha t t he erro r pr ejud ic edhi m at s en te nc in g p rimaril y be cau se he wou ldha ve be enen ti tl edto up to a th ree- le ve l re du ct io n i n h is Gui de li ne s ca lc ul at io n fo r acc ep ti ng res po ns ib il it y . Ste in be rg do es no t s ay to 2 whi chch arg es he wo uld

ha ve pl edgu il ty abs en t t he co urt’s m is le ad in g s ta te m en t; he cla im s t ha t h e might

ha ve tak ento tri al on ly tho se ch arg es onwhi ch he was acqui tt ed , pl ead in g g ui lt y to th e o th ers , andth us earn in g a n a ccep ta nc e-o fres po ns ib il it y

reduc ti on . Butth e rec or d o f St ei nb erg ’s ob st ru ct io n o f jus ti ce co nt rad ic ts hi s cl ai m .

“ [A] defen da ntwho fal se ly den ie s . . . rel ev an t co nduc t t ha t the co urt de te rm in es to be tru e h as act edin a m an ne r in co ns is te ntwith a ccep ta nc e o f res po ns ib il it y .” U.S.S.G. § 3 E1.1 , cmt. (n .1(a )). Co nduc t re su lt in g i n a n ob st ru ct io n- of

-jus ti ce en ha nc em en t “ or di na ril y in di cat es th atth e d efen da ntha s n ot

The off ense le vel of a

defe ndant, who “c lear ly

demonstrates a cceptanceof re sponsibili ty 2 for his off ense,” should be dec rea sed by two levels. U.S.S.G. § 3E1.1(a) . Such a def endant is entitled to an additional one- level re duction if, amongother thing s, he has “ has assisted authorities in the investig ation or prose cution of his own misconduct by timely notifying authorities of his intention to enter a plea of guilty , thereby

permitting the g overnme nt to avoid prepa ringfor tria l and per

mitti ngthe g overnme nt and the cour t to allocate their

resour ces eff iciently .” Id. § 3E1.1(b). 5acce pt edres po ns ib il it y forhi s cr im in al co nduc t.” Id
. , cmt. (n .4). Attri al , St ei nb erg li edab ou t, am on g o th er thi ng s, wh ethe r he ha d a ctua ll y si gn edhi s co nf es si on , cla im in g v ari ou sl y th athe ha d s ig ne d abl an k d oc um en t t ha t FB I ag en ts lat er fi ll edin , or t ha t h e h adbe entri ck edin to si gn in g the co nf es si on by the FBI a ge nt s. St ei nb erg ’s cla im th athe wou ldha ve ful ly accep te d re sp on si bi li ty is no t v iabl e whe n v ie wedinli gh t o f hi s fa ls e acc us at io ns of g ov ern m en t m is co nduc t. Acco rd in gl y , alt ho ug h t he di st ric t co urt’s co m m en ts vi ol at edRu le 11 , St ei nb erg is no t en ti tl edto a ne w tri al or ane w sen te nc in g h eari ng be cau se he pr oc eed edto tri al on th e ch arg es bro ug htag ai ns t h im an d h as fai le d t o s ho w th at he was p reju di cedby doi ng so . Se e Dia z , 13 8 F .3dat 1 36 3- 64 . II. Sect io n 3 C1 .1 o f th e Gui de li ne s p erm it s a two- le ve l en hanc em en t fo r ob st ru ct io n o f jus ti ce i f “ th e d efen da ntwil 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 ad m 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 c on vi ct io n.” U.S.S.G. § 3 C1 .1. Cov eredco nduc t i nc lu de s “ co m m it ti ng , subo rn in g, o r 3 When a district court imposes an e nhance ment for obstruc tion of justice, we r eview the 3 district court’s fa ctual finding s for c lear err or and its application of the SentencingGuidelines to those fac ts de novo
. United States v. Masse y , 443 F.3d 814, 818 ( 11th Cir. 2006). Where the 6at te m

pt in g t o s ub orn p erju ry .” Id
. , cmt. (n .4(b )). Perju ry in th is co nt ex t i s d efi ne d as “ fal se tes ti m on y

co nc ern in g am at eri al m at te r wit h t he wil lfu l i nt en t t o p ro vi de fal se tes ti m on y , rathe r th anas ares ul t o f co nf us io n, m is ta ke , or faul ty m em ory .” Uni te d Sta tes v. Du nn ig an , 50 7 U.S. 8 7, 9 4, 1 13 S. Ct. 1 11 1, 1 11 6, 1 22 L. Ed. 2d 44 5 (1 99 3) , ab ro ga te d o n o th er gr ou nd s b y , Uni te d Sta te s v. Well

s , 51 9 U.S. 4 82 , 11 7 S . Ct. 9 21 , 13 7 L. Ed. 2 d 1 07 (19 97 ). W e fi ndno cle ar erro r in th e co urt’s fa ctua l fi nd in g t ha t St ei nb erg ’s te st im on y all eg in g t he FBI ag en ts ’ m is co nduc t re ga rd in g h is co nf es si onwas m at eri al an d wi ll fu ll y

fal se . Thu s, t he di st ric t co urt d idno t err in enha nc in g h is of fen se lev el un de r U.S.S.G. § 3 C1 .1. 4 III. Und er U.S.S.G. § 5 K2.1 3, “ [a] do wnwar d d ep artur e m ay be warran te d i f (1 ) th e d efen da ntco m

m it te d t he off

en se whi le su ffer in g fr om a si gn ifi can tl y reduc edm en ta l capa ci ty; an d (2 ) th e si gn ifi can tl y reduc edm en ta l capa ci ty co nt rib ut edsubs ta nt ia ll y

to th e co m

m is si on of t he off

en se .” Howev er, we l ack juri sd ic ti on , or s ta tu to ry

au th or it y , to rev ie w a di st ric t co urt’s d eci si on to de ny a district court base s an obstruction-of -justice enha

nceme nt on perjury , we “ acc ord great defe renc e to the district court’s c redibility deter minations.” United States v. Singh , 291 F.3d 756, 763 ( 11th Cir. 2002) (quotation marks omitted). Wit h this evidence of per jury to support the enhanc ement, weneed not a ddress the 4 support for the c ourt’s finding s of additional instance s of per jury
. 7do wnwar d d ep artur e u nl es s t he di st ric t co urt i nc orrect ly bel ie ve d t ha t i t l ack ed

au th or it y to gra ntth e d ep artur e. Uni te d Sta te s v. Du dl ey , 46 3 F .3d12 21 , 12 28 (1 1t h C ir. 2 00 6) . Mor eo ve r, “ whe n n ot hi ng in th e rec or d i nd ic at es ot he rwis e, we as su m e th e se nt en ci ng co urt u nd ers to oditha d aut ho rit y to de pa rt d own ward .” Id
. (quo ta ti onm ark s o m it te d) . W e fi ndno ev id en ce i n t he reco rdin di cat in g t ha t t he di st ric t co urt m is ta ke nl y

be li ev editlac ke d s uc h aut ho rit y . Thu s, we l ack juri sd ic ti on to rev ie w th e d is tri ctco urt’s d en ia l o f a d own wardde partu re u nd er U.S.S.G. § 5 K2.1 3. IV. Whe n re vi ewin g asen te nc e fo r reas on ab le ne ss , we m us t fi rs t d et erm in e 5 th atth e “ di st ric t co urt co m m it te d n o s ig ni fic an t p ro cedur al erro r, su ch as . . . fai li ng to co ns id er the § 3 55 3( a) fa ct or s . . . or f ai li ng to ad equa te ly exp la inth e ch os ensen te nc e—i nc lu di ng anex pl an at io n fo r an y de vi at io n fr om

th e Gui de li ne s ran ge .” Gal l v. Un it ed

St at es , 55 2 U.S. 3 8, 5 1, 1 28 S. Ct. 5 86 , 59 7, 1 69 L. Ed. 2d 44 5 (2 00 7) . The d is tri ctco urt i s n otrequi red“ to st at e o n the reco rdth atitha s ex pl ic it ly con si de redeach of t he § 3 55 3( a) fa ct or s o r to di sc us s ea ch of t he § 35 53 (a) fa ct or s.” Uni te d Sta tes v. S co tt , 42 6 F .3d13 24 , 13 29 (11 thCir . 20 05 ).

We reviewthe sentenc e imposed by the district court for

rea sonablene ss under a

n abuse 5 of discre tion standard. United States v. Rodriguez , 628 F.3d 1258, 1262 ( 11th Cir. 2010). 8Rat he r, itis su ffi ci en t fo r th e se nt en ci ng jud ge to setforth “ en ou gh to sat is fy th e ap pe ll at e co urt t ha t h e h as co ns id eredth e p art ie s’ arg um en ts an d h as a reas on ed ba si s fo r ex erci si ng hi s o wn l eg al de ci si on m ak in g aut ho rit y .” Rita v . Uni te d St at es , 55 1 U.S. 3 38 , 35 6, 1 27 S. Ct. 2 45 6, 2 46 8, 1 68 L. Ed. 2d20 3 (2 00 7)
. If we co nc lu de th atth e d is tri ctco urt m ad e n o p ro cedur al erro rs , we th en

“ co ns id er the subs ta nt iv e rea so nabl en es s o f th e se nt en ce.” Gal l v. Un it ed St at es , 55 2 U.S. at51 . W e wil l re m an d fo r res en te nc in g o nl y “ 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 the § 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 Sta tes v. Pugh , 51 5 F .3d11 79 , 11 91 (11 th Cir . 20 08 ) (quo ta ti on m ark s om it te d)
. St ei nb erg ’s to ta l s en te nc e was ne it he r pr oc edur al ly norsubs ta nt iv el y un reas on ab le . The d is tri ctco urt ad equa te ly con si de redth e § 35 53 (a) fa ct or s an d ex pl ai ne d i ts rat io na le forim po si ng th e to ta l s en te nc e o f 15 0 m on th s’ im pr is on m en t, wh ic h was well be lo w th e Gui de li ne s ra ng e. Acco rd in gl y , we affi rm

on all cla im s. AFFIRMED .

9