FILED U.S. COURT OF A P P E A LS E LE V EN T HC IR C U IT AUGUST 29, 2005 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. 04- 15734 N on -A rgum entC al endar

________________________ D . C . D ocketN o. 03 -004 36 -C R -P -E 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 E A R N E S T W . S M I T H , D e f e n d a n t- A p p e lla n t.

________________________ A pp ea l fr om the U ni t ed S t at es D i stri ctC ou rt f o rth e N o r th e r n D i s tr i c to f A l a b a ma

_________________________ ( A u gu s t 29, 2005) B efo re T JO F L A T , D U B IN A an d K R A V IT C H , C i rcu i tJu d g es. P E R C U R I A M:2

A ppe l l a ntE a r ne s tW . S m i th w a s c onvi c t e d of ba nk r obbe r y , i n vi ol a t i on of 18 U . S . C . § 2 11 3(a) . T hi s app ea l ra i se s tw o i ss ues: (1) w het her the di stri ctcourt abused i t s di sc re t i on by adm i t t i ng as evi dence a f i ng erpri ntca rd; and (2) w het her the di stri ctcourtprop er l y c al cul at ed S m i th’ s s ent ence i ncl ud i ng a tw o-l evel enhancem entun der U . S . S . G . § 2 B 3. 1(b)(2)(F) on the basi s thatthe cr i m e i nv ol ved a th r e a to f

d e a th . Fo rth e r e a s o n s th a tf o l l o w , w e a f

f i r m. I. T he re l evantfa ct s f

or t he pu rposes of thi s app ea l ar e a s f ol l ow s. Je nn i fe r B al l ew , a t el l eratF ar m er s a nd M er chant s B ank i n O xford, A l abam a, t es t i fi ed at tri al thattw o m en ent er ed t he bank , w entt o the i sl and w here the depo si tsl i ps w er e ke pt , a nd w r ot e s om e thi ng dow n. O ne of the m e n the n a ppr oa c he d he rbooth a nd h an d ed h er a n o t e w h i ch read : “ I w an tal l th e cash , b i t ch o r I’ l l k i l l al l ; yo u say, you d i e. ” S he gave hi m $1 , 84 0 from her c as h d ra w erand act i vat ed t he al ar m as th e tw o m e n le f

t th e b a n k . N a ve on T a y l ora l s o t e s t i f i e d, a dm i t t i ng he w a s one of the r obbe r s a nd i de nt i f y i ng A ppe l l a ntS m i th a s the s e c ond r obbe r . A c c or di ng t o T a y l or , he a nd S m i th l i ve d t oge the ra tthe t i m e of the r obbe r y a nd the y w or ke d outa pl a n t o r ob th e b a n k b e c a u s e th e y n e e d e d m o n e y f o rd ru g s . T a y lo rte s tif

ie d th a t S m ith w r o te the de m a nd not e be f

or e the r obbe r y a tthe hom e of S m i th’ s gi r l f

r i e nd. T a y l orTherewas e videncethat Smith’s g irlfriend g ot the car from a ne arby

car deale rship by 1 askingthe dealership to allow her to take the c ar on a

test drive. FB Iag ent Phyllis Garcia also testified that she compared prints lifted from the front 2 passeng er side of

the ca r to those on the fing erprint card a nd the prints matched. 3 f u r th e re x p la in e d th a t w h e n in s id e th e b a n k , h e a n d S m ith p r e te n d e d to w r ite s o m e th in g o n a p ie c e o f p a p e rto e n a b le th e m to s e e w h a t w a s g o in g o n in th e b a n k . T a y lo rte s tif

ie d th a t h e h a n d e d th e d e m a n d n o te to th e te lle ra n d to o k th e m o n e y . H e a n d S m ith th e n le f

t th e b a n k in a c a rd r iv e n b y S m ith ’s g ir lf r ie n d , w ith S m ith r id in g in th e f

r o n t p a s s e n g e rs e a t. 1 T he go vernm entsoug htt o i nt rodu ce a f i ng erpri ntca rd t hatcont ai ned S m i th’ s s i gna tur e , s oc i a l s e c ur i ty num be r , a nd da t e of bi r th, thr ough the t e s t i m ony o f B r ia n C la y , th e o f

f ic e rw h o to o k th e p r in ts , a n d F B I a g e n t B r ia n T a lle n t. A l though C l a y w a s una bl e t o i de nt i f y the de f e nda nta s the pe r s on w hom he f i nge rpr i nt e d, he s t a t e d tha t , a tthe t i m e of the a r r e s t , he a r r a nge d f ora f i nge rpr i nt c a r d t o be t a ke n a nd tha the e nt e r e d c e r t a i n i nf or m a t i on on the c a r d, i nc l udi ng S m i th’ s na m e , s oc i a l s e c ur i ty num be ra nd da t e of bi r th. H e a l s o t e s t i f

i e d tha tthe c a r d w a s s i gne d E a r ne s tS m i th. F B I a ge ntB r i a n T a l l e ntt e s t i f i e d tha the i nt er vi ew ed S m i th atthe po l i ce st at i on on the sa m e day the fi ng erpri ntca rd w as m a de . A c c or di ng t o T a l l e nt , dur i ng the i nt e r vi e w , S m i th ga ve hi m hi s na m e a nd s oc i a l s e c ur i ty num be r , w hi c h m a t c he d the i nf or m a t i on on the f

i nge rpr i ntc a r d. 24

D ef ense coun se l obj ec t ed t o t he adm i ss i on of t he fi ng erpri ntca rd on the basi s that T a lle n t h a d n o p e r s o n a l k n o w le d g e th a t th e p r in ts o n th e c a r d b e lo n g e d to S m ith . T he di stri ctcourtov er rul ed t he obj ec t i on . A tthe concl usi on of t he t ri al , S m i th w as c o n v ic te d . F ol l ow i ng the t ri al , the prob at i on offi ce r pre pare d a pres ent ence in v e s tig a tio n r e p o r t ( “P S I ” ) , a s s ig n in g a b a s e o f f e n s e le v e l o f

2 0 u n d e rU .S .S .G . § 2B 3. 1, w i th a 2- l e ve l i nc r e a s e f orpr ope r ty t a ke n f

r om a f i na nc i a l i ns t i tut i on, U . S . S . G . § 2 B 3. 1(b)(1), and ano ther 2-l evel enhancem entbeca use the no t e handed t o the t e l l e rpr e s e nt e d a thr e a tof de a th, U . S . S . G . § 2B 3. 1( b) ( 2) ( F ) . A ts e nt e nc i ng, S m i th ’ s co u n sel o b

j ect ed t o th e 2 -l ev el i n crease fo r t h e t h reato f d eat h b ecau se T a y l or , notS m i th, ha nde d the not e t o the t e l l e r . T he c our tove r rul e d the obj e c t i on a n d n o te d th a t, b a s e d o n th e e v id e n c e a t tr ia l, th e ju r y h a d c o n c lu d e d th a t S m ith pl ay ed a r ol e i n t he death t hrea t . W i th a t ot al offe nse l evel of 24 and a cri m i nal h is to r y c a te g o r y I V , S m ith ’s g u id e lin e s r a n g e w a s 7 7 to 9 6 m o n th s im p r is o n m e n t. T he courtse nt ence d S m i th t o 8 6 m on ths i m pri sonm ent , 3 yea rs supervi se d rel ea se , a n d r e s titu tio n in th e a m o u n t o f $ 1 ,8 4 0 . T h is a p p e a l f

o llo w e d . II. S m i th argues thatthe di stri ctcourter re d b y a dm i t t i ng the fi ng erpri ntca rdThereis no merit to Sm ith’s argument that the introduction of the f ingerprint ca

rd 3 vio late d h is c on frontatio n c la us e ri ghts un de r t

heSixth Ame ndme nt. Smit h h a d a n o pp or tun ity to cross-e x amine both Clay and Tallent. Additionally , to the extent that S mith challeng es the chain of custody , that argument has no merit, as suc h a challeng e g oes to the we ight of the evidenc e and not its admissibili ty . United States v. L opez, 758 F.2d 1517, 1521 (11th Cir. 1985). 5 b e c a u s e th e r e wa s i n s u f f i c i e n te v i d e n c e t o l a y a p r o p e rp r e d i c a t e . We r e v i e w a 3 d is tr ic t c o u r t’s ru lin g o n th e a d m is s ib ility o f e v id e n c e f

o ra b u s e o f

d is c r e tio n . U ni t ed S t at es v. Ji m i nez, 22 4 F . 3d 12 43 , 12 49 (11t h C i r. 20 00 ). “ E vi dent i ar y e r r or s do notc ons t i tut e gr ounds f orr e ve r s a l unl e s s the r e i s a r e a s ona bl e l i ke l i hood tha tthe y a f

f e c t e d the de f

e nda nt ’ s s ubs t a nt i a l r i ght s ; w he r e a n e r r orha d no s ubs t a nt i a l i nf

l ue nc e on the out c om e , a nd s uf f i c i e nte vi de nc e uni nf

e c t e d by e r r or s uppor t s the ve r di c t , r e ve r s a l i s notw a r r a nt e d. ” U ni t e d S t a t e s v. D rur y , 396 F . 3d 1 3 0 3 , 1 3 1 5 ( 1 1 th C ir . 2 0 0 5 ) . F e de r a l R ul e of

E vi de nc e 901 pr ovi de s tha tthe “ r e qui r e m e ntof aut hent i ca t i on or i dent i fi ca t i on as a c on di t i on prec edentt o adm i ss i bi l i ty i s s at i sf i ed b y e v id e n c e s u f

f ic ie n t to s u p p o r t a f

in d in g th a t th e m a tte rin q u e s tio n is w h a t its pr opone ntc l a i m s . ” F e d. R . E vi d. 901. T he gove r nm e ntm a y s how the c onne c t i on b e tw e e n th e p h y s ic a l e v id e n c e a n d th e d e f e n d a n t b y c ir c u m s ta n tia l e v id e n c e . U n ite d S ta te s v . L o p e z , 7 5 8 F .2 d 1 5 1 7 , 1 5 2 0 ( 1 1 th C ir . 1 9 8 5 ) . H e r e , the di s tr i c tc our tdi d nota bus e i t s di s c r e t i on, a s the gove r nm e nt pr of f e r e d s uf f i c i e ntc i r c um s t a nt i a l e vi de nc e f orthe j ur y t o c onc l ude tha ttheUnder U.S.S.G. § 2B3.1(b) (2)( F) , the offense leve l is increase d by two if a thre at of 4 de ath w a s ma de . Athre at of de ath c ou ld b e ora l or

in wri tin g . U .S. S.G . § 2B 3. 1, c omm e nt. (n .6 ). Af te r Unit e d St ate s v . B oo ke r, 54 3 U .S. –, 12 5 S. Ct. 73 8 ( 20 05 ), wea pp ly thesame standards of

revie w to guidelines applications. S ee United States v. Crawford, 407 F.3d 1174 (11th Cir. 2005). Additionally , afte r B ooker, thesame e x tra-verdict enha nceme nts remain, and the district court c onsiders the samefac tual evidenc e in applying theguidelines enha nceme nts as it w ou ld u

nd e r t hemand ator

y guid e lin e s sc he me . Unit e d St ate s v . Wil liams, 40 8 F .3 d 7 45 (1 1th Cir. 2005). 6 f i nge rpr i nt s on the c a r d be l onge d t o S m i th. C l a y t e s t i f i e d tha the t ook the f in g e rp r in ts o n th e d a y o f S m ith ’s a r r e s t a n d th a t S m ith ’s s ig n a tu r e , s o c ia l s e c u r ity num be r , a nd othe ri de nt i f y i ng i nf or m a t i on w e r e r e c or de d on the c a r d. I n a ddi t i on, S m i th g ave T al l enthi s s oci al se curi ty num ber duri ng an i nt er vi ew on the sa m e day the f i nge rpr i nt s w e r e t a ke n a nd tha tnum be rm a t c he s the num be ron the f i nge rpr i nt c a r d. V i e w e d t oge the r , the t e s t i m ony of the s e tw o w i tne s s e s pr ovi de d a s uf f i c i e nt f ounda t i on f

orthe a dm i s s i on of

the f i nge rpr i ntc a r d. S e e L ope z , 758 F . 2d a t1520- 2 1 . S m ith a ls o a r g u e s th a t th e tw o - le v e l e n h a n c e m e n t o f h is s e n te n c e p u r s u a n t to U . S . S . G . § 2 B 3. 1(b)(2)(F) thatw as i m po se d o n t he basi s thatthe robb er y i nv ol ved 4 a thr e a tof

de a th vi ol a t e s hi s c ons t i tut i ona l r i ght s i n l i ghtof B l a ke l y v. W a s hi ngt on 542 U . S . 296 ( 2004) . I n pa r t i c ul a r , S m i th a r gue s tha tthe e nha nc e m e ntw a s i m pr ope rbe c a us e T a y l or , notS m i th, pr e s e nt e d the not e t o the te lle r . Smi th d i d n o tp r e s e r v e h i s Bl a k e l y ( n o w U n i t e d St a t e s v . Bo o k e r , 5 4 3 U . S.7

–, 125 S . C t . 738 ( 2005) ) a r gum e nt . I n the di s tr i c tc our t , S m i th di d notc i t e t o a ny c a s e la w in o b

je c tin g to th e e n h a n c e m e n t n o rd id h e c o n te n d th a t th e is s u e s h o u ld have been subm i t t ed t o t he j ury. Inst ea d, S m i th m er el y obj ec t ed on the basi s that T a y lo r , n o t S m ith , h a n d e d th e d e m a n d n o te to th e te lle r ; th is is in s u f f ic ie n t to pres er ve a B oo ker c l ai m . S ee U ni t ed S t at es v. D ow l i ng , 40 3 F . 3d 12 42 (11t h C i r. 20 05 ) ( ho l di ng that , t o p re se rve a const i tut i on al obj ec t i on , the defendantm ustre fe r to th e S ix th A m e n d m e n t, th e A p p r e n d i/B la k e ly /B o o k e rlin e o f c a s e s , o rth e r ig h t to ha ve a j ur y de c i de a di s put e d f a c t , buttha ta c ha l l e nge t o the s uf f i c i e nc y of

the e v id e n c e d o e s n o t p r e s e r v e th e e r r o r ) . B e c a u s e S m ith d id n o t p r e s e r v e h is B o o k e rc la im , w e r e v ie w f o rp la in e r r o r . U n ite d S ta te s v . R o d r ig u e z , 3 9 8 F .3 d 1 2 9 1 , 1 2 9 8 ( 1 1 th C ir . 2 0 0 5 ) , c e r t. d e n ie d , – S . C t . – ( N o. 04- 1148) ( J une 20, 2005) . T o e s t a bl i s h pl a i n e r r or , S m i th m us ts how there i s: (1) e rr or ; (2) thati s pl ai n; (3) thataf fe ct s the defendant ’ s s ub st ant i al r i ght s i n tha ti tw a s pr e

j udi c i a l a nd notha r m l e s s ; a nd ( 4) tha ts e r i ous l y a f f e c t s the f a i r ne s s , i nt e gr i ty , orpubl i c r e put a t i on of the j udi c i a l pr oc e e di ngs . R odr i gue z , 398 F .3 d a t 1 2 9 8 . H e r e , the di s tr i c tc our ti m pos e d a 2- l e ve l e xtr a - ve r di c te nha nc e m e nt pur s ua ntt o U . S . S . G . § 2B 3. 1( b) ( 2) ( F ) . T he r e f or e , S m i th’ s B ooke rc ha l l e nge pres ent s a n err or t hati s pl ai n. S ee R od ri gu ez , 39 8 F . 3d at12 98 -99. T he t hi rdBe causeSmith cannot show that his sentence w ould have be en different but for the 5 mandatory

application of theguidelines, any claim of statutory

error fails as well. See United States v. Shelton, 400 F.3d 1325, 1330-31 (11th Cir. 2005); Rodriguez, 398 F.3d at 1301. See also United States v. Will iams, 408 F.3d 745 (11th Cir. 2005) ( stating that Wi lliams could not show his sentencewould have be en different where his sente nce f ell at the high end of the guideline ra

ng e); United States v. Curtis, 400 F.3d 1334 ( 11th Cir. 2005) (noting that there w as nothing in the record to sugg est the district court would have imposed a lower sentenc e under an advisory guidelines sy stem, espec ially in light of the f

act that the c ourt alre ady

had sente nced him at the top of the guideline ra ng e). 8 p r o n g o f th e p la in e r r o rte s t, h o w e v e r , p la c e s a h ig h b u r d e n o n a d e f e n d a n t; S m ith m ustshow thathi s s ent ence w ou l d h ave been di ff er entbu tfor the m andat ory a p p lic a tio n o f

th e g u id e lin e s . I d . a t 1 2 9 9 - 1 3 0 1 . S m i th ha s notm e tthi s bur de n. A l though S m i th di d notobj e c tt o the enhancem enton B oo ker groun ds, the di stri ctcourti nd i ca t ed t hatthe j ury had foun d t hatS m i th p l ay ed a r ol e i n t he use of the dem and l ett er . T hu s, the di stri ct c o u r t d e te r m in e d th a t th e e x tr a - v e r d ic t e n h a n c e m e n t h a d b e e n d e c id e d b y th e ju r y . Id. at13 01 . M oreover, i f f ac ed w i th t he sa m e i nform at i on on re m and, the court w oul d s t i l l c ons i de rthe s a m e gui de l i ne a nd the s a m e f a c t s . S e e U ni t e d S t a t e s v. W i l l i am s, 40 8 F . 3d 74 5 (11 th C i r. 20 05 ). T here i s no i nd i ca t i on thatthe di stri ct courtw ou l d h ave s ent ence d S m i th d i ff er ent l y i f i thad i tkn ow n t he gu i del i nes w er e o n ly a d v is o r y . T h u s , S m ith c a n n o t m e e t th e th ir d p r o n g o f th e p la in e r r o rte s t. 5 U ni t e d S t a t e s v. S he l t on, 400 F . 3d 1325, 1330- 32 ( 11th C i r . 2005) ; R odr i gue z , 398 F .3 d a t 1 3 0 1 . A c c o r d in g ly , f

o rth e f o r e g o in g r e a s o n s , w e a f f ir m .9

AF F I RME D.