FILED U.S. COURT OF AP P EALS E LEV EN T HC IRC U IT MAY 23, 2007 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. 06- 15178 N on -A rgum entC al endar

________________________ D. C . Do c k e tNo . 0 5 - 0 0 0 5 9 - C R - F T M- 2 9 - DN F 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 J E A N L O U I S , a .k .a . B la c k , a .k .a . J u n io r , 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 orthe M i ddl e D i s tr i c tof F l or i da

_________________________ ( M ay 23, 2007) B efo re B L A C K , C A RN E S an d M A R C U S , C i rcu i tJu d g es. P E R C U R I A M:In Bonner v. City of Prichard, 661 F.2d 1206, 1209 ( 11th Cir.1981) (en ba nc), the 1 El e venth Circuit a dopte d a s b indingpre c e dent all F if th C ircuit de c isi on s h ande d down p ri or to 2 Jean L o u i s ap p eal s h i s co n v i ct i o n s fo r o n e co u n to f co n sp i racy t o p o ssess w i th i nt e ntt o di s tr i but e f i f ty gr a m s orm or e of

c oc a i ne ba s e i n vi ol a t i on of 21 U .S .C . § § 8 4 1 ( a ) ( 1 ) , ( b ) ( 1 ) ( A ) ( iii) , a n d 8 4 6 a n d tw o c o u n ts o f p o s s e s s io n w ith i n t e n tt o d i s tr i b u t e f

i v e g r a ms o rmo r e o f

c r a c k c o c a i n e , i n v i o l a t i o n o f 2 1 U . S. C. § 841( a ) ( 1) , ( b) ( 1) ( B ) ( i i i ) . W e c ons i de rhi s tw o c ont e nt i ons i n turn. I. L o u is f ir s t c o n te n d s th a t th e d is tr ic t c o u r t e rr e d b y d e n y in g h is m o tio n to c om pe l the gove rnm e ntt o di s c l os e the i de nt i ty of a c onf i de nt i a l i nf

orm a ntw ho hel ped m ake a rr angem ent s f or L ou i s t o sel l drug s t o an u nd er cover l aw e n f o r c e m e n t a g e n t. I f

th e c o n f id e n tia l in f

o rm a n t h a d b e e n ab le to te s tif y , L o u is a s s e r t s , he w oul d ha ve s ubs t a nt i a t e d L oui s ’ e ntr apm e ntde f e ns e . W e r e vi e w the de ni a l of the m ot i on f

orabus e of

di s c r e t i on. U ni t e d S t a t e s v. G ut i e rr e z , 931 F . 2d 14 82 , 14 90 (11th C i r. 19 91 ). In det erm i ni ng w hether the go vernm entm ustdi sc l ose aconfi dent i al i nf orm a nt ’ s i de nt i ty , a di s tr i c tc our tm us tba l a nc e “ the publ i c i nt e r e s ti n pr ot e c t i ng the fl ow of i nform at i on agai nstthe i nd i vi du al ’ s r i gh tt o p re pare hi s def ense . ” U ni t e d S t a t e s v. G onz a l e s , 606 F . 2d 70, 74 ( 5th C i r . 1979) ( quot i ng R ovi a r o v. U ni t ed S t at es , 35 3 U . S . 53 , 77 S . C t . 62 3 (19 57 )) . W e have i dent i fi ed three 1the close of business on September 30, 1981. 3 f a c to r s th a t g u id e th a t in q u iry : ( 1 ) “th e e x te n t o f th e in f o rm a n t’s p a r tic ip a tio n in the c r i m i na l a c t i vi ty ” ; ( 2) “ the di r e c tne s s of the r e l a t i ons hi p be tw e e n the de f e nda nt ’ s a s s e r t e d de f

e ns e a nd the pr obabl e t e s t i m ony of the i nf orm a nt ” ; a nd ( 3)

“ the gove rnm e nt ’ s i nt e r e s ti n non- di s c l os ur e . ” G ut i e rr e z , 931 F . 2d a t1490 ( q u o tin g U n ite d S ta te s v . T e n o r io - A n g e l, 7 5 6 F .2 d 1 5 0 5 , 1 5 1 1 ( 1 1 th C ir . 1 9 8 5 ) ) . A f t e rL oui s a l l e ge d tha tthe gove rnm e nti nduc e d hi m t o s e l l the drugs , the d is tr ic t c o u r t c o n d u c te d a n in c a m e r a , e x p a r te in te rv ie w o f th e in f o rm a n t to s e e if h e w o u ld c o rr o b o r a te L o u is ’ s to ry . T h a t in te rv ie w le d th e d is tr ic t c o u r t to co n clu d e th at tw o o f th e th re e f ac to rs fa v o re d n o n -d isclo su re o f th e in fo rm an t’ s id e n tity . A lth o u g h th e d is tr ic t c o u r t f o u n d th a t th e in f

o rm a n t’s p a r tic ip a tio n in L o u is ’ d ru g s a le s w a s “n o t in s u b s ta n tia l,” it c o n c lu d e d th a t h is te s tim o n y “w o u ld nots uppor t[ L oui s ’ ] c l a i m of e ntr apm e nti n a ny of

the s pe c i f

i c s a l l e ge d i n the m o ti o n , o r in an y o th erfa sh io n ” a n d fu rth er m o re th at th e g o v er n m en t “ h a[ d ] a l egi t i m at e i nt er es ti n the no nd i sc l osure of the i nform ant ’ s t es t i m on y. ” L ou i s bea rs the “ heavy burden” of show i ng on appeal thatthe di stri ctcourt ab u s e d its d is c r e tio n . S e e , e .g ., U n ite d S ta te s v . C o s ta , 9 4 7 F .2 d 9 1 9 , 9 2 3 ( 1 1 th C i r . 1991) . N o tr a ns c r i ptw a s m a de of the di s tr i c tc our t ’ s i nt e rvi e w of the i nf orm a nt , a nd w i thouta ny tr a ns c r i pt , “ w e a r e l i m i t e d i n r e vi e w i ng thi s i s s ue t o the4

re pres ent at i on s m ade i n the bri ef s a nd the di stri ctcourt ’ s s t at em ent s . . . . ” G ut i e rr e z , 931 F . 2d a t1491. T he r e i s nothi ng i n the r e c or d tha tunde rm i ne s the di stri ctcourt ’ s c on cl usi on s a ft erthe i n cam er a i nt ervi ew w i th res pectt o the three di s c l os ur e f

a c t or s . A c c or di ngl y , w e ha ve no ba s i s t o di s turb L oui s ’ c onvi c t i on on the grou nd thatthe di stri ctcourtabused i t s di sc re t i on by deci di ng no tt o com pel th e d i scl o su re o f th e i n fo rm an t ’ s i d en t i ty. II. S e c ond, L oui s c ont e nds tha tthe di s tr i c tc our tvi ol a t e d hi s r i ght s unde rthe S i xth A m e ndm e nt ’ s C onf r ont a t i on C l a us e by a dm i tt i ng i nt o e vi de nc e a t ape r e c or di ng ( a nd i t s c orr e s pondi ng tr a ns c r i pt ) tha ti nc l ude d c e r t a i n s t a t e m e nt s by the confi dent i al i nform ant , w ho m L ou i s w as un abl e t o cross -e xam i ne. In part i cul ar , L ou i s’ cont ent i on ce nt er s on a conv er sa t i on i n w hi ch the tw o m en bri ef l y di sc usse d L o u is ’ p a y m e n t to th e in f o rm a n t o f

a f if ty - d o lla rc o m m is s io n th a t L o u is e a rn e d in th e s a le a n d h a d a g r e e d to p a y o v e rto th e in f o rm a n t. T hi s c on t ent i on fa i l s bec ause the i nform ant ’ s s t at em ent s on thi s t op i c w er e of f e r e d m e r e l y t o gi ve c ont e xtt o L oui s ’ ow n s t a t e m e nt s dur i ng the c onve r s a t i on (th e ad m i ssi o n o f w h i ch i s n o tco n t est ed h ere) an d n o tfo r th ei r tru th . A cco rd i n g l y, th e in f o rm a n t’s s ta te m e n ts d o n o t f a ll w ith in th e a m b it o f

th e C o n f r o n ta tio n C la u s e . S e e C r a w f

o r d v . W a s h in g to n , 5 4 1 U .S . 3 6 , 5 9 n .9 , 1 2 4 S . C t. 1 3 5 4 , 1 3 6 9 n .95

(200 4) (not i ng thatthe C on fr on t at i on C l ause “ do es no tbar the use of t es t i m on i al st at em ent s f

or pu rposes other than est abl i shi ng the truth o f the m att eras se rt ed”) . AF F I RME D.