FIL ED U.S. COURT OF APPEAL S EL EVENTHCI RCUI T APRI L22, 2009 THOMAS K. KAH

N CL ERK [PUBLIS H] IN THE UN ITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELE VENTH CIRCUIT

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ No. 0 8- 10 51 3

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ D. C. Dock etNo. 0 6- 00 16 2- CR-T-2 7- MSS UNITED STAT ES OF AMERIC A, Pl ai nt iff -Ap pe ll ee, ve rs us ROBERT CURTIS COVINGTON, 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 fo r th e Mi dd le Dis tri ctof F lo rid a

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ _ (Ap ril 22 , 20 09 ) Befo re CARNES, HULL andCOX, Circ ui t J ud ge s. CARNES, Ci rcu itJu dg e:Ro be rt C ov in gt on ap pe al s h is sen te nc e an d c on vi ct io ns un de r 18 U.S.C. §

19 58 forus in g a n i nt ers ta te faci li ty w it h t he in te ntth ata m ur de r fo r hi re o ccu r. He rai se s s ix is su es : thr ee ch al le ng es to hi s co nv ic ti on s b as edon th e admis si bi li ty an d s uf fic ie nc y of t he ev id en ce ag ai ns t h im an d thr ee ch al le ng es to hi s s en te nc e ba se d o n t he ap pl ic ab il it y of t he Arm edCare er Cr im in al Act, 1 8 U.S.C. § 92 4( e), th e g ro up in g o f hi s co nv ic ti on s u nd er the sen te nc in g g ui de li ne s, an d the reas on ab le ne ss of h is co ns ecu ti ve sen te nc es . I. InOcto be r 20 05 Co vi ng to n b eatup hi s g irl fri en d Kri st y Co tt o a nd th reat en edhe r with agu n. Aft er a n ei gh bo r cal le d 9 11 , Cov in gt on was a rres te d. Bec au se of h is pri orreco rd , he e xp ect eda st iff sen te nc e fo r th e as saul t an d g un po ss es si on . From jail , Cov in gt on cal le d C ot to rep eat ed ly andwrot e h er atlea st on e le tt er u rg in g h er n ottes ti fy ag ai ns t h im . Afte r he was re le as edfro m jail on bo nd , Cov in gt on so ug htto have Co tt o ki ll ed . He con ta ct edhi s fr ie nd s Pu m pk in an d Wes (am arri edco up le ) in W es t Virg in iaab ou t h av in g C ot to m ur de red . Cov in gt on sen t $ 30 0 a ndso m e co cai ne to W es as ado wn p aym en t fo r th e job . W es cal le d S ta n, a dru g d eal er fro m Virg in ia , to sub- co nt ractth e h it . Stan en li st edth e h el p o f hi s ac qu ai nt an ce To wne r, who he kn ew ha d b eenin vo lv edwith dru gs . St anrep eat ed ly sol ic it edTown er t o d o a 2“

job ” fo r hi m

th atwou ldpa y

$5 ,00 0. On ce To wne r le arn edth atth e job was n ota drug run , as h e h adex pe ct ed , bu t i ns te ada m ur de r, he co nt act edth e FBI . Und er th e FBI ’s gu id an ce, To wne r be ga n re co rd in g h is ph on e co nv ers at io ns with S ta n an d l at er h is co nv ers at io ns with C ov in gt on . Dur in g re co rd edco nv ers at io ns , Cov in gt on an d To wne r di sc us se d v ari ou s am ou nt s o f co cai ne as p aym en t fo r th e m ur de r. They als o d is cu ss edde ta il s o f th e cri m e, in cl ud in g C ov in gt on ’s des ire th atCo tt o b e sh otinth e h ead , hi s o pi ni on th at a small- cal ib er g un was p refe rab le , andhi s b el ie f th ataft er the m ur de r Town er co ul d e sc ap e whi le Co vi ng to n was jail edas asu sp ect . Afte r Town er re qu es te d m on ey forhi s trav el to Flo rid a, Co vi ng to n g otPu m pk in to pa ss alo ng th e $ 30 0 Co vi ng to n h adearl ie r se ntto W es . InMarc h 2 00 6 To wne r tr av el edto Flo rid a an d, al on g wi thanun de rco ve r sh eri ff’s d ep ut y , m etwith C ov in gt on . At th e m eet in g C ov in gt on dre w th em a m ap to Co tt o’s h ou se an d s ta te d tha t h e h op edto esc ap e th e ch arg es pe nd in g a ga in st hi m on ce s he was d ead . He als o s ug ge st ed , th atth ey en te r he r ho us e b y

tel li ng Co tt o t ha t the y

were p ol ic e o ffi cers . After t he m eet in g C ov in gt on was a rres te d. Co nf ro nt edwith t ap e rec or di ng s o f hi m se lf, C ov in gt on co nf es se d t o p ol ic e, adm it ti ng th athe ha d c on ta ct edW es an d S ta n abo uthavi ng Co tt o k il le d a ndth at he ha d s en t $ 30 0 a nda ha lf- ki lo of c oc ai ne to W es as ado wn p aym en t. 3Co vi ng to n was in di ct edon th ree c ou nt s: Co un ts 1 an d 2 forco ns pi racy and

us in g i nt ers ta te faci li ti es with t he in te ntth ata m ur de r fo r hi re o ccu r, bo th in vi ol at io n o f 18 U.S.C. § 1 95 8, an d C ou nt3 fo r be in g afel oninpo ss es si on of a fir earm , invi ol at io n o f 18 U.S.C. § 9 22 (g ). Co un t 3 als o a ll eg edth atCo vi ng to n ha d t hr ee p rio r pr ed ic at e o ffen se s, wh ic h wer e sp eci fie d, an d fo r th atreas on was subjec t t o the Arm edCare er Cr im in al Act (AC CA), 1 8 U.S.C. § 92 4( e)(1 ). Co vi ng to n p le ad edgu il ty to Co un t 3 an d was co nv ic te d b y a jury on C ou nt s 1 an d 2. Th e d is tri ctco urt s en te nc edCo vi ng to n t o 1 20 m on th s o n e ach of C ou nt s 1 an d 2 t o ru n c on curren tl y

an d t o 3 60 m on th s o n C ou nt3 t o ru n c on se cu ti ve ly, fo r a to ta l s en te nc e o f 48 0 m on th s. He ap pe al s h is co nv ic ti on s an d s en te nc es . II . A. Fi rs t, Co vi ng to n c on te nd s tha t the di st ric t co urt ab us edit s d is cret io n a nd vi ol at edFed eral Ru le s o f Evi de nc e 4 04 (b ) an d 4 03 when itadmitte d t hr ee p ie ces of ev id en ce o n t he m

ur de r fo r hi re ch arg es : (1 ) Co tt o’s t es ti m on y de sc rib in g h ow Co vi ng to n b eathe r du rin g t he in ci de ntinOcto be r 20 05 ; (2 ) th e h an dg un th at Co vi ng to n t hr eat en edhe r with dur in g t ha t i nc id en t; an d (3 ) rec or de d p ho ne cal ls an d l et te rs be twee n C ov in gt on an d C ot to , m ad e whi le he was i n jai l, d is cu ss in g t he be at in g. 4Befo re tria l, Co vi ng to n p le ad edgu il ty to Co un t 3 , th e fel on inpo ss es si on of

a fi rearm ch arg e. At tri al th e rem ai ni ng co un ts were co ns pi racy andth e u se of a n

1 in te rs ta te faci li ty w it h t he in te ntth ata m ur de r fo r hi re o ccu r un de r 18 U.S.C. § 19 58 . The g ov ern m en t ai m edto pro ve th atCo vi ng to n h adarrang edto pa y forth e m ur de r of hi s ex -g irl fri en d Kri sty

Co tt o. Th e m ot iv e fo r Co vi ng to n’s cr im e, acco rd in g t o t he go ve rn m en t, was th atCo vi ng to n wan te d t o k eep Co tt o fr om te st ifyin g a ga in sthi m

ina do m es ti c v io le nc e cas e. The d is tri ctco urt ad mitte d t he gu n, the jail co m

m un ic at io ns , andCo tt o’s t es ti m on y ab ou t the ass au lt , bu t i t pr ov id eda li m it in g i ns tru ct io n t o t he jury. Evi de nt ia ry rul in gs are re vi ewedon ly fo r a “ cl ear abu se of d is cret io n.” Uni te d S ta te s v . Velt m an n, 6 F.3d14 83 , 14 91 (1 1t h C ir. 1 99 3) . Ru le 40 4( b) pro hi bi ts th e in tro du ct io n o f pu re p ro pe ns it y ev id en ce. The ru le st at es : “ Evi de nc e o f othe r cri m es , wron gs , or a ct s i s n otadm is si bl e to pro ve th e ch arac te r of

a pe rs on inord er t o s ho w act io n i n c on fo rm it y th erewi th . It m ay , ho wev er, b e adm is si bl e fo r ot he r pu rp os es , su chas p ro of of m ot iv e, op po rtu ni ty, in te nt , pre pa rat io n, p la n, kno wled ge , id en ti ty, orab se nc e o f m is ta ke or a cci de nt Covington’s ha

ndwritten motion asking the judge to allow him to plead guilty 1 expressed hope that his guilty plea to the possession cha rg e would make his gun posse ssion and his domestic assault on Cotto i rre levant and le ad to the exclusion of any evidenc e about them from his trial on the other § 1958 charg es. 5. . . . ” Und er Ru le 40 4( b) , evi de nc e th at“ [1 ] co nc ern s the co nt ex t, m ot iv e, an d

se t-up o f th e cri m e an d i s l in ke d i n t im e an d c irc um st an ces with the ch arg edcri m e, or[2] fo rm s an in te gr al an d n atur al pa rt o f anacco un t o f th e cri m e, or[3] is ne ces sa ry to co m pl et e th e st ory

of t he cri m e fo r th e jury” is adm is si bl e. Uni te d St at es v. Sm it h, 1 22 F.3d13 55 , 13 59 (11 th Cir . 19 97 ). Inde ci di ng to adm itth e g ov ern m en t’s p ro ffer edev id en ce, the di st ric t co urt ru le d t ha t the jail co rres po nd en ce was an“ in te gr al an d n atur al pa rt o f anacco un t” of th e o ffen se . See Sm it h, 1 22 F.3dat 1 35 9. As forth e g un an d C ot to ’s tes ti m on y ab ou t the ass au lt , th e d is tri ctco urt fo un d t ha t the y were al so adm is si bl e und er Ru le 40 4( b) as e vi de nc e o f Co vi ng to n’s i nt en t an d m ot iv e fo r th e m ur de r fo r hi re sc he m e. See Fe d. R. Ev id . 40 4( b) . Co vi ng to n c on te nd s tha t the di st ric t co urt ab us edit s d is cret io n i n fi nd in g th e jail co rres po nd en ce, Co tt o’s t es ti m on y , andth e g un adm is si bl e. He arg ue s tha t itwas i m pr op er p ro pe ns it y

ev id en ce— a way

forth e g ov ern m en t t o p ortra y hi m as a d es pe rat e, co nn iv in g, an d v io le ntm anwho was g en eral ly the so rt o f th ug who m ig htarrang e a m

ur de r fo r hi re. It i s cl ear, h owe ve r, th atth e jail co m m un ic at io ns were “ ne ces sa ry to co m pl et e th e st ory

of the cri m e,” Sm it h, 1 22 F.3dat 1 35 9, an d t he y als o p ro ve m ot iv e. The l et te rs an d p ho ne cal ls sh ow tha t Co vi ng to n fu ll y real iz edth at 6Co tt o’s t es ti m on y ag ai ns t h im

wou ldli ke ly leadto a lo ng pri so n s en te nc e. They al so sh ow tha t Co vi ng to n d es pe rat el y want edCo tt o n otto tes ti fy , bu t h e co ul d n ot as su re h im se lf t ha t s he wou ldno t an d s o h adreas on to wanthe r de ad . The gu n a ndCo tt o’s t es ti m on y ab ou t i t an d t he ass au ltwere al so “ in te gr al an d n atur al pa rt[ s] of a n a cco un t o f th e cri m e” u nd er Sm it h, 1 22 F.3dat 1 35 9. Th e tri al was abo uta m

ur de r fo r hi re. The m ot iv e was to si le nc e th e te st im on y of Co tt o a ga in stCo vi ng to n. Th e tr oubl e Co vi ng to n was inif C ot to di d t es ti fy is an im po rta ntpa rt o f th e st ory

ab ou t thi s cr im e. It was th e m ot iv e an d m ot iv e is an in te gr al pa rt o f an y

cri m e. As fo r adm is si on of the hand gu n wi th whi chCo vi ng to n ha d t hr eat en edCo tt o dur in g o r so on aft er the ass au lt , th e u se of i t i s p artof t he reas onCo vi ng to n h adto be li ev e th athe face d alo ng pri so n s en te nc e if Co tt o l iv ed to tes ti fy . Co vi ng to n a ls o a rg ue s tha t, ev enif the jail co m m un ic at io ns , Cot to ’s te st im on y , andth e h an dg un were ad mis si bl e und er Ru le 40 4( b) , th ey sh ou ldha ve be enex cl ud edun de r Ru le 40 3 b ecau se th ei r pr ob at iv e v al ue was “ subs ta nt ia ll y ou twei gh edby the da ng er o f un fai r pr ejud ic e.” Fed . R. Evi d. 4 03 . Obv io us ly do m es ti c v io le nc e, whe n i rrel ev an t t o t he ch arg e atha nd , has “ gr eatpo te nt ia l t o in ci te un fai r pr ejud ic e.” Uni te d S ta te s v . Hand s, 1 84 F.3d13 22 , 13 28 (11 th Cir . 19 99 ). In Han ds , wher e th e d efen da ntface d n arco ti cs ch arg es , we con cl ud edth at 7ev id en ce o f do m es ti c ab us e sh ou ldha ve be enex cl ud edbo th forirr el ev an ce an d

fo r un fai r pr ejud ic e und er Ru le 40 3. Id . at 1 32 9 (n ot in g t ha t s po us al ab us e is

“pa rti cu la rly lik el y

to in ci te th e jury to a n i rrat io na l d eci si on [es pe ci al ly whe re the te st im on y an d e vi de nc e were] graph ic an d a rres ti ng ”). Han ds is di st in gu is habl e. Evi de nc e o f do m es ti c v io le nc e is un fai r pr op en si ty evi de nc e in anord in ary na rco ti cs cas e. Bu t i n am ur de r fo r hi re ca se li ke th is on e, whe re the de fen da ntwant edhi s g irl fri en d d eadto ke ep he r fro m te st ifyin g abo uthi s p is to l-wa vi ng ass au lton he r, ev id en ce o f th e k ey ab us iv e ep is od e is a cri ti cal pa rt o f th e st ory . It h as si gn ifi can t p ro ba ti ve va lu e, an d a ny pr ejud ic e fl owi ng fro m

itis no t “ un fai r.” See Fed . R. Evi d. 4 03 ; Un it edSta te s v . Merril l, 5 13 F.3d12 93 , 13 01 (11 th Cir . 20 08 ) (n ot in g t ha t Ru le 40 3 i s “ an ex tra or di na ry

rem edy whi chsh ou ldbe us edon ly spa rin gl y ”) (quo ta ti on m ark s om itte d) . B. Seco nd , Cov in gt on co nt en ds th atth e g ov ern m en t p res en te d i ns uf fic ie nt ev id en ce t o p ro ve th e el em en t o f ‘use of i nt ers ta te faci li ti es ’ un de r 18 U.S.C. § 19 58 . The s ta tu te pro vi de s tha t wh oe ve r “ tra ve ls inor c au se s an ot he r . . . to trav el in in te rs ta te or f

or ei gn co m

m erce , or u se s o r cau se s an ot he r . . . to u se th e m ai l o r an y faci li ty of in te rs ta te or f

or ei gn co m

m erce , with i nt en t tha t a m ur de r be 8co m

m it te d [f orpa ym en t]” vi ol at es 18 U.S.C. § 1 95 8( a). The tel ep ho ne syste m is cl earl y a “ faci li ty of in te rs ta te . . . co m m erce .” 18 U.S.C. § 1 95 8( b) ; s ee al so Uni te d S ta te s v . Drury, 396 F.3d13 03 , 13 11 –1 2 (1 1t h C ir. 2 00 5) . Cov in gt on do es no t d is pu te th atbu t ar gu es th atitis no t “ us e” o f anin te rs ta te faci li ty to re cei ve a ph on e cal l fr om ou t o f st at e, whi chhe di d. He ci te s b y an al og y W at so n v. Un it edSta te s, 5 52 U.S. __ , 12 8 S . Ct. 5 79 , 58 1 (2 00 7) , whi chhe ldth at rece iv in g afir earm

ina drug tra ns act io n i s n ot“us in g” a gu n. The W at so n o pi ni on in st ru ct s tha t, i n i nt erp ret in g t he term “us e,” we s ho ul d lo okto it s “ or di na ry

or n atur al m ean in g.” 12 8 S . Ct. at58 1 (quo ta ti on m ark s om itte d) . In k eep in g wi th th atin st ru ct io n, the Co urt h as est ab li sh edth attra di ng a gu n fo r dr

ug s i s “ us e” o f a g un , Sm it h v . Uni te d S ta te s, 5 08 U.S. 22 3, 2 28 –3 0, 1 13 S. Ct . 20 50 , 20 53 –5 5 (1 99 3) , bu t s im pl e p os se ss io n o f a g un du rin g adru g d eal is no t “us e” o f it , Bai le y

v. Un it edSta te s, 5 16 U.S. 13 7, 1 43 , 11 6 S . Ct. 5 01 , 50 6 (1 99 5) , andrece iv in g agun i n e xc ha ng e fo r dr ug s i s n ot“us e” o f th e g un eit he r, W at so n, 1 28 S. Ct. at58 1. Th e b as ic pre m is e is th at“us e” o f anob ject r equi res th e “ act iv e em

pl oym en t” of t ha t o bjec t b y th e d efen da nt . Id. (empha si s o m it te d) . Ans weri ng a te le ph on e an d c on ve rs in g o n i t i s “ act iv e em pl oym en t” of t he te le ph on e. As the FBI’s re co rd in gs sh ow, Co vi ng to n a ct iv el y em pl oyed the ph on e to co nv ey in fo rm at io n, i nc lu di ng th e d et ai ls of t he cri m e an d h ow m uc h c oc ai ne 9wou ldbe pa idto th e in te nd edhi t m an , who was l oc at edfou r st at es away in Virg in ia . Co vi ng to n arg ue s tha t ev enif h e “ us ed ” th e p ho ne , he d idso on ly becau se th e FBI ’s in fo rm an t s ethi m up by int en ti on al ly call in g h im fro m ou t o f st at e. Co vi ng to n a ss ert s tha t k in d o f se t up was no t p erm it te d i n Un it edSta te s v . Coa te s, 94 9 F .2d10 4 (4 thCir . 19 91 ). In t he Co at es cas e anun de rco ve r de te ct iv e who li ve d i n the same sta te as C oa te s cr os se d ast at e li ne to pl ace aph on e cal l t o C oa te s jus t t o g ai n fe de ral juri sd ic ti on . Id. at10 5– 06 . The Fo urth Cir cu itrev ers ed Co at es ’ co nv ic ti on , ado pt in g t he vi ew th at“ fed eral juri sd ic ti on incri m in al pr os ecu ti on s s ho ul d n otbe reco gn iz edwhenpa te nt ly con tri ve d b y m ean s ad op te d so le ly for the pu rp os e o f cre at in g afed eral cri m e.” Id . at 1 06 . Co vi ng to n’s an al og y

to Co at es wil l n otwork . This cas e wou ldbe si m il ar to Co at es on ly if Town er, the FBI’s i nf orm an t, h adli ve d i n F lo rid a, li ke Co vi ng to n, an d h addri ve n t o a no th er s ta te inord er t o c al l Co vi ng to n s ol el y to m anuf actur e fed eral juri sd ic ti on . Buthe re the in fo rm an t To wne r li ve d i n Vi rg in ia , an d was so li ci te d re pe at ed ly in Vi rg in iaby one of C ov in gt on ’s co- co ns pi rat or s be fo re To wne r ev enbe cam e anin fo rm an t. Anin te rs ta te sch em e was un de rway in th is cas e wel l b efo re the FBI g otin vo lv ed . The FB I di d n otco nt riv e to m ak e th e ph on e cal ls inord er t o m anuf actur e th e in te rs ta te ele m en t as was t he cas e in

10Co at es , bu t o nl y co ll ect edm or e an d b et te r ev id en ce o f th e cri m e. Cov in gt on ’s

“us e” o f th e p ho ne syste m is su ffi ci en t t o s at is fy

th e in te rs ta te faci li ti es ele m en t un de r 18 U.S.C. § 1 95 8. Noton ly tha t, b utth ere wer e al so pl en ty of ot he r in te rs ta te faci li ti es th at Co vi ng to n u se d a ndpl en ty of act iv it ie s tha t cr os se d s ta te li ne s. Co vi ng to n or ig in al ly hire d Wes, wh o d idno t l iv e in Co vi ng to n’s h om e st at e o f Fl or id a, to ki ll Co tt o. Itals o app ears th atCo vi ng to n “ cau se d” Town er t o t rav el fro m Virg in iato Fl or id a, an d tha t Co vi ng to n “ cau se d” hi s co -co ns pi rat orPu m pk into sen d apo st al m on ey ord er fro m

W es t Vi rg in iato Town er i n Vi rg in ia .

C. Thi rd , Cov in gt on co nt en ds th atth e g ov ern m en t p res en te d i ns uf fic ie nt ev id en ce o f an y

pa y m en t t o, o r of

anag reem en t t o p ay , anyon e fo r th e m ur de r. 18 U.S.C. § 1 95 8( a) re qu ire s the go ve rn m en t t o s ho w “ in te ntth ata m ur de r be co m m it te d . . . as c on si de rat io n fo r th e rec ei ptof, o r as co ns id erat io n fo r a p ro m is e orag reem en t t o p ay , anyth in g o f pe cu ni ary va lu e . . . .” See al so Uni te d S ta te s v . Hern an de z, 14 1 F .3d10 42 , 10 57 (11 th Cir . 19 98 ) (ex pl ai ni ng th atth e st atut e

“un de ni ab ly con te m

pl at es a qu id -p ro -quo (or at l eas t the pro m is e o f su ch ) be twee n th e p art ie s t o t he tra ns act io n, the m ur de rer andth e so li ci to r”).

11Co vi ng to n arg ue s tha t n owh ere i n t he reco rd edph on e co nv ers at io ns di d h e

pr om is e to pa y

Town er an yth in g fo r th e m ur de r, ei th er i n dru gs or m on ey . He al so ch arac te riz es th e g ov ern m en t’s ev id en ce o f hi s p os si bl e fu ture p aym en t as “ li m it ed an d i nc on cl us iv e,” s ay s tha t the am ou ntof d ru gs to be pa idva rie d wi de ly from ha lf aki lo to si x k il os of c oc ai ne , andass ert s tha t To wne r ne ve r actua ll y rece iv ed an y m on ey or d ru gs . The ev id en ce p ro ve d t ha t To wne r rec ei ve d a$3 00 m on ey ord er fro m Pu m pk in , th e wif

e o f th e m anto who m

Co vi ng to n a dm it te d h e se nt$3 00 to th e h it m an . Co vi ng to n re ferr edto th e $ 30 0 i n areco rd edph on e co nv ers at io n i n wh ic h he to ldTown er tha t h e “ sh otth em th ree up t he re.” Th at$3 00 ev en tu al ly reach ed Town er thr ou gh Pu m

pk in aft er Co vi ng to n, i n a no th er re co rd edph on e co nv ers at io n, s ai d: “ [d ]on’t m ak e m e co m e to Virg in iato ge t my sh it .” FBI a ge nt Ri ve ra, wh o i nt erv ie wedCo vi ng to n a fte r hi s arres t an d M ira nd a warn in gs , te st ifi edth atCo vi ng to n t ol d h im th athe ha d s en t $ 30 0 t o P um pk in ’s hu sb an d Wes to pa y forth e h itm an ’s tra ve l t o F lo rid a. Age ntRiv era a ls o t es ti fie d t ha t Co vi ng to n t ol d h im he ha d p ai d Wes h al f a ki lo of c oc ai ne forki ll in g C ot to . Towne r co rro bo rat edCo vi ng to n’s co nf es si on by co nf irming th athe fir stex pe ct edto be pa id$5 ,00 0 fo r th e m ur de r, bu t tha t o ve r ti m e th e n eg ot ia ti on s fo cu se d o n k il os of c oc ai ne . Towne r te st ifi edth atne ar the 12en d o f th e co ns pi racy he an d C ov in gt on ha d d is cu ss edsi x k il os of c oc ai ne , val ue d

atbe twee n $ 90 ,00 0 a nd$1 50 ,00 0, as th e p ric e fo r th e m ur de r. Viewi ng th e ev id en ce i n t he li gh t m os t fa vo rab le to th e g ov ern m en t, s ee Uni te d S ta te s v . Orti z, 31 8 F .3d10 30 , 10 36 (11 thCir . 20 03 ), th e reco rd —i nc lu di ng Co vi ng to n’s o wn co nf es si on—s ho ws tha t fr om

da y on e Co vi ng to n t rie d t o c on tra ctforth e m ur de r of Co tt o u si ng m on ey

an d c oc ai ne . Pl en ty of ev id en ce s up po rts th e co ns id erat io n e le m en t o f § 1 95 8. II I. Hav in g re jecte d a ll of C ov in gt on ’s cha ll en ge s t o h is co nv ic ti on s, we turn t o hi s thr ee at ta ck s o n h is forty-y ear s en te nc e. A. Fi rs t, Co vi ng to n c on te nd s tha t the di st ric t co urt erredwhen itap pl ie d t he ACCA, 1 8 U.S.C. § 92 4( e)(1 ), insen te nc in g h im . Cov in gt on arg ue s tha t o ne of hi s thr ee p red ic at e o ffen se s, s pe ci fic al ly his co nv ic ti on forba tt ery in a de te nt io n faci li ty in 1 99 1, was co ns ti tu ti on al ly inv al id . Altho ug h a dm itti ng th athe pl ead ed gu il ty to tha t o ffen se , he c la im s h e h adin effe ct iv e co un se l an d was ab se ntfro m hi s o wn p le a co ll oquy in t ha t ca se . Two s ep arat e p ro bl em s d oo m Co vi ng to n’s ar gu m en t. Fi rs t, n ei th er a cl ai m th atpre di cat e co nv ic ti onco un se l was in effe ct iv e n ora cl ai m th atth e g ui lt y

pl ea 13le ad in g t o t ha t co nv ic ti on was n otkn owi ng an d i nt el li ge ntis co gn iz ab le un de r §

92 4( e). Cus ti s v . Uni te d S ta te s, 5 11 U.S. 48 5, 4 96 , 11 4 S . Ct. 1 73 2, 1 73 8 (1 99 4)

2 (rejec ti ng Cu st is ’ cl ai m s tha t h is pre di cat e o ffen se s i nv ol ve d i ne ffec ti ve ass is ta nc e of co un se l an d l ack eda kn owi ng an d i nt el li ge ntgu il ty ple a as in ap pr op ria te at te m pt s t o g ai n fe de ral rev ie w of s ta te co urt co nv ic ti on s thr ou gh § 9 24 (e)) . Mo reo ve r, Co vi ng to n p le ad edgu il ty to Co un t 3 of h is supe rs ed in g in di ctm en t i n t hi s ca se . Cou nt3 al le ge d t ha t h e h adpo ss es se d afir earm in vi ol at io n o f § 9 22 (g )(1 ); i t l is te d h is th ree p rio r fel on ie s fo r arm edpo ss es si on of co cai ne , bat te ry

ina de te nt io n fa ci li ty, an d ro bb ery; anditall eg edth athe qu al ifi ed fo r ACCA, § 92 4( e)(1 ). Co vi ng to n’s kno win g a ndin fo rm edpl ea o f gu il ty to Co un t 3 , whi chin cl ud eda pl ea co ll oquy tha t ad dr es se d the ACCA an d i ts po ss ib le pe na lt ie s, am ou nt edto anex pr es s ad m is si on th at§ 9 24 (e)( 1) ap pl ie d t o h is cas e. See Un it edSta te s v . Mo or e, 42 5 F .2d12 90 , 12 91 (5t h C ir. 1 97 0) (“ A pl ea o f gu il ty kno win gl y

an d u nd ers ta nd in gl y

m ad e is anadm is si on of a ll fact s al le ge d i n th e in di ctm en t o r in fo rm at io n . . . .”); Uni te d S ta te s v . Ben ne tt , 47 2 F .3d82 5, 8 33 3 Complete denial

of counse l is cognizable under Custis, see 511 U.S. at 496, 114 S. Ct. 2 at 1738, but Covington does not deny that he had c ounsel in the 1991 battery case , and the district court found that Coving ton was pre sent at the plea hearing be fore his conviction in that case . In Bonne r v. City of Prichar d, 661 F.2d 1206, 1209 ( 11th Cir. 1981) (en ba nc), w e 3 adopted a s binding pre cede nt all decisions of the for mer F ifth Circuit handed down prior to October 1, 1981. 14(1 1t h C ir. 2 00 6) (“ Afte r th e d is tri ctjud ge 's t ho ro ug h i ns tru ct io ns , Ben ne tt

adm it te d t ha t h e h adbe enco nv ic te d o f th ree p rio r vi ol en t fe lo ni es [be cau se th ey were al le ge d i n t he in di ctm en t an d d is cu ss edat t he pl ea co ll oquy] . Thi s al on e au th or iz edth e d is tri ctco urt t o s en te nc e Ben ne ttas a n a rm edcare er cr im in al un de r § 9 24 (e).” ). The fa ct s h ere a re v irtua ll y id en ti cal to th os e in th e Ben ne ttcas e. Und er tha t d eci si on , as wel l as Cu st is , Cov in gt on ’s cha ll en ge to hi s ACC Aen ha nc edsen te nc e is m eri tl es s. B. Seco nd , Cov in gt on co nt en ds th atth e d is tri ctco urt i m pr op erl y gro up edhi s th ree c on vi ct io ns . Afte r Co vi ng to n p le ad edgu il ty to Co un t 3 , th e fel on in po ss es si on ch arg e wit h t he ACCA p en al ty, he was t rie d a ndfou ndgu il ty of Co un ts 1 an d 2 , th e m

ur de r fo r hi re an d c on sp ira cy ch arg es un de r 18 U.S.C. § 19 58 . The d is tri ctco urt d idgro up Co un ts 1 an d 2 for sen te nc in g p ur

po se s, b utit co ns id eredCo un t 3 to be a se pa rat e g ro up . Cov in gt on arg ue s tha t thi s g ro up in g was im pr op er u nd er U.S.S.G. § 3 D1 an d tha t i t re su lt edina ba se off en se lev el of 37 rathe r th an36 . Thatdi ffer en ce al le ge dl y co nv ert edhi s ap pl ic ab le gu id el in es ran ge fro m

32 4 t o 4 05 m on th s i nt o 3 60 m on th s t o l ife . Sect io n 3 D1.2 st at es th atco un ts “ in vo lv in g s ub st an ti al ly the same harm ” m us t b e g ro up edto ge th er. U.S.S.G. § 3 D1.2 . Sub se ct io n 3 D1.2 (b ) sp eci fie s tha t 15th e p hr as e “ subs ta nt ia ll y th e sa m e h arm ” co ve rs co un ts th at“ in vo lv e th e sa m e vi ct im an d t wo o r m or e act s o r tr an sa ct io ns co nn ect edby a comm on cri m in al ob jecti ve or c on st itut in g p artof aco m m on sch em e o r pl an .” Id . § 3 D1.2 (b ). Co un ts 1 an d 2 in vo lv edCo vi ng to n’s s ch em e to hi re a h itm anto m ur de r hi s ex -g irl fri en d C ot to . Thatco nduc t b y Co vi ng to n o ccu rredinMarc h 2 00 6. Th e hi rin g o f th e h itm anan d t he co ns pi racy char ge foc us edon th e sam e v ic ti m an d were p artof a“ co m

m oncri m in al ob

jecti ve ” und er § 3D1 .2(b ). Thatis why th e di st ric t co urt g ro up edth os e two co un ts to ge th er. Bu t Co un t 3 was asi m

pl e fel on inpo ss es si on ch arg e st emm in g fr om a do m es ti c v io le nc e d is pu te inOcto be r 20 05 inwhi chCo vi ng to n t hr eat en edCo tt o with api st ol . To be gi n wi th , th e m ur de r fo r hi re an d p os se ss io n c ha rg es do no t ap pe ar t o “ in vo lv e th e sa m e v ic ti m ” und er § 3D1 .2(b ). The g ui de li ne s’ co m m en ta ry st at es th atso m e o ffen se s, s uc h a s dru g a ndimm ig rat io n o ffen se s, ha ve no id en ti fiabl e v ic ti m an d t ha t i n tho se cas es so ci ety at l arg e is co ns id ered th e v ic ti m . U.S.S.G. § 3D1 .2 n .2. Pre su m ab ly, th en , alt ho ug h C ot to was the in te nd edvi ct im

inth e m ur de r fo r hi re s ch em e, so ci ety as awho le was t he “ vi ct im ” of th e fi rearm

po ss es si on ch arg e. By

it se lf t ha t d is ti nc ti on wou ldpre ve ntth e di st ric t co urt fr om

gro up in g C ou nt3 wi th th e o th er two.

16Eve n i f Co tt o h adbe enth e v ic ti m of b ot h c rimes, Co un t 3 di d n otsh are a

“ co m m oncri m in al ob

jecti ve ” wit h t he ot he r two co un ts . The m ot iv e fo r hi s m ur de r fo r hi re s ch em e was to ke ep Co tt o fr om tes ti fy in g abo uthi s as saul t o n h er in Octo be r 20 05 . There i s n o re as on to be li ev e th atCo vi ng to n wan te d C ot to de ad un ti l af te r he go t i n t ro ub le forth e p is to l-wa vi ng ass au lton he r. Fro m jail , Co vi ng to n t rie d re pe at ed ly to t al k C ot to ou t o f te st ifyin g a ga in sthi m . Unab le to pe rs ua de he r, he un de rto oka ne wcri m in al sch em e fi ve m on th s l at er: he r m ur de r. The po ss es si on an d t he m ur de r fo r hi re were no t

pa rt o f th e sa m e p la n o r sc he m e, an d t he y di d n otsh are the same crim in al ob jecti ve . The d is tri ctco urt d idno t err in refu si ng to gro up all th ree o f th e co un ts to ge th er u nd er U.S.S.G. § 3 D1.2 . C. Thi rd , Cov in gt on co nt en ds th atth e d is tri ctco urt ab us edit s d is cret io n b y se nt en ci ng hi m

to forty y ears im

pr is on m en t. He arg ue s tha t the co urt’s ev id en ti ary ru li ng s s ho w th atitco ns id eredall th ree c ou nt s i ne xt ric ab ly int ertwin ed , andth at m ak es it“ m an ife st ly unju st ” to sen te nc e h im to a co ns ecu ti ve sen te nc e o f th irt y y ears forCo un t 3 on to p o f th e two ten -y ear c on cu rren t s en te nc es forCo un ts 1 an d 2. W e rev ie w th e d is tri ctco urt’s i m po si ti on of aco ns ecu ti ve sen te nc e o nl y for anab us e o f di sc ret io n. Un it edSta te s v . Andrews , 33 0 F .3d13 05 , 13 07 (11 th Cir . 1720 03 ). 18 U.S.C. § 3 58 4( b) au th or iz es th e d is tri ctco urt t o i m po se a co ns ecu ti ve se nt en ce p ro vi de d t ha t i t fi rs t co ns id ers th e § 35 53 (a) fa ct or s. On ce tho se fact or s are c on si de red , th e o nl y

li m it at io n o n ru nn in g s en te nc es co ns ecu ti ve ly is tha t the res ul ti ng to ta l s en te nc e m us t b e rea so nabl e, an d o rd in ari ly a sen te nc e wit hi n t he advi so ry gu id el in es ran ge is reas on ab le . Uni te d S ta te s v . Tall ey , 43 1 F .3d78 4, 78 8 (1 1th C ir. 2 00 5) . Cov in gt on be ars th e b ur de n o f de m on st rat in g t ha t h is to ta l se nt en ce i s u nr eas on ab le . See i d. Co vi ng to n d oe s n otdi sp ut e th atth e d is tri ctco urt co ns id eredth e § 35 53 (a) fact or s i n s en te nc in g h im . As the di st ric t co urt o bs erv ed , a nu m be r of th e § 35 53 (a) fa ct or s s up po rte d t he im po si ti on of aco ns ecu ti ve sen te nc e. They inc lu de : Co vi ng to n’s v io le ntcri m in al hi st ory , th e se rio us ne ss of h is m ur de r fo r hi re of fen se s, the ne edto pro m ot e res pe ctforth e la w, hi s b ro addi sr eg ardforth e sa fety of ot he rs , andev id en ce tha t h e p erjuredhi m se lf dur in g the tri al . The res ul ti ng se nt en ce t ot al ed48 0 m on th s, wh ic h i s wi th in th e 3 60 m on th s- to -li fe rang e se t b y th e g ui de li ne s. Co vi ng to n’s s en te nc e was reas on ab le , andth e d is tri ctco urt d idno t err in ap pl y in g t he ACCA, no r di d i t err in refu si ng to gro up Co un t 3 with C ou nt s 1 an d 2 u nd er the sen te nc in g g ui de li ne s. AFFIRMED. 18