[DO N OT PUBLISH] IN THE UN ITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELE VENTH CIRCUIT

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ No. 1 2- 12 47 1 Non -Arg um en t Ca le nd ar

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ D.C. Dock etNo. 3 :1 1- cr-0 00 93 -RV-1 UNITED STAT ES OF AMERIC A, Pl ai nt iff -Ap pe ll ee, ve rs us TERRANCE JAR OME JOHNSON, 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 North ern Dis tri ctof F lo rid a

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ (J an ua ry 16 , 20 13 ) Befo re TJ OFLAT, HU LL andPRYOR, Ci rcu itJu dg es . PER CURI AM: Afte r en te rin g agu il ty ple a, Defen da ntTerran ce J oh ns on ap pe al s h is 97
- m on th sen te nc e o n fo urco un ts of s el li ng fir earm s an d a m m un it io n t o aco nv ic te d fel on , in vi ol at io n o f 18 U.S.C. §§ 92 2( d) (1 ) an d 9 24 (a)( 2) . After r ev ie w, we

Case: 12-12471 Date Filed: 01/16/2013 Page: 1 of 13affi rm . I. FACTUAL BACKG ROUND

Ina m ul ti -ag en cy

un de rco ve r op erat io n, u nd erco ve r ag en ts an d a
co nf id en ti al so ur ce o pe rat eda fak e se co nd ha ndth rif t s to re. Defen da ntJo hn so n was ch arg edwith, an d p le d g ui lt y to , fou r co un ts of s el li ng fir earm s an d
amm un it io n t o aco nv ic te d fe lo n a t the th rif t s to re. A. Pres ente nce I nv es tig at io n Repo rt Acco rd in g t o t he Pres en te nc e In ve st ig at io n R ep ort (“ PSI” ), Defen da nt Jo hn so n m ad e num ero us vi si ts to th e th rif t s to re. On m an y

of t he se oc cas io ns , Jo hn so n s ol d s m al l am ou nt s o f m ari juan a to un de rco ve r ag en ts . On o th ers , Jo hn so n m ad e le ga l s al es of f ire arm s. Howev er, o n t he fou r oc cas io ns in th e in di ct m en t, J oh ns on so ldfir earm s t o th e co nf id en ti al so ur ce, wh o was a co nv ic te d fe lo n. Th es e fo urfir earm sal es were th e b as is forJo hn so n’s ch arg es . Orlan ce Sa ng st er, an ass oc ia te of J oh ns on , acco m pani edJo hn so n dur in g t wo o f th e fo ur ch arg edfir earm

sal es . Inad di ti on to th e fo urch arg edsal es by Joh ns on , th e PSI a tt rib ut edeig ht ot he r il le ga l fi rearm

sal es m ad e b y

San gs te r as rel ev an t co nduc t o f Jo hn so n. Sp eci fic al ly, San gs te r al on e co nduc te d n um ero us il le ga l fi rearm sal es at t he th rif

t st or e, bu t dur in g s om e o f th es e sa le s, Sa ng st er s ai d h e was th ere o n b eh al f of 2 Case: 12-12471 Date Filed: 01/16/2013 Page: 2 of 13Jo hn so n. Atot he r ti m es , San gs te r vi si te d t he th rif t s to re an d t ol d u nd erco ve r ag en ts ab ou t g un s J oh ns on want edto sel l. Du rin g two o f San gs te r’s fir earm sal es , Jo hn so n wai te d o ut si de th e th rif t s to re. Dur in g t wo o th er fi rearm sal es , San gs te r us edhi s ce ll ph on e dur in g n eg ot ia ti on s. On e o f th e fi rearm s Sa ng st er s ol d t o t he th rif t s to re h adth e se ria l n um be r rem ov ed . After h is arre st , San gs te r to ldag en ts th athe go t al l t he fir earm s fr om Jo hn so n a ndso ldth em

at J oh ns on ’s di rect io n. Bas edon th es e fac ts , th e PSI r eco m m en de d t ha t J oh ns on rece iv e: (1) a ba se of fen se lev el of 2 0, p ur su an t t o U.S.S.G. § 2K2 .1(a )(4 )(B) ; (2 ) a fo ur -le ve l in crea se un de r U.S.S.G. § 2 K2.1 (b )(1 )(B) be cau se Jo hn so n’s o ffen se s i nv ol ve d be twee n 8 an d 2 4 fi rearm s; (3) a fo ur -le ve l i nc reas e und er U.S.S.G. § 2 K2.1 (b )(4 )(B) be cau se on e o f th e fi rearm s h adanob li te rat edser ia l n um be r; a nd (4 ) a fo ur -le ve l i nc reas e u nd er U.S.S.G. § 2 K2.1 (b )(6 )(B) for us e o r po ss es si on of a fi rearm in co nn ect io n wi th an ot he r fel on y off en se , nam el y

on e o f Jo hn so n’s s al es of m ari juan a to un de rco ve r ag en ts . Inad di ti on , th e PSI app li eda two -le ve l i nc reas e u nd er U.S.S.G. § 3 C1 .1 fo r ob st ru ct io n o f jus ti ce. The PSI s ta te d t ha t, i n areco rd edtel ep ho ne co nv ers at io n fro m th e jail , Jo hn so n i ns tru ct edhi s m othe r to co nt actSan gs te r’s m ot he r an d t el l he r th atSan gs te r sh ou ldno t co op erat e wit h the go ve rn m en t. J oh ns onto ldhi s m ot he r th atif Sa ng st er co op erat edhe was “ DOA.” Sang st er’s m ot he r to ld 3 Case: 12-12471 Date Filed: 01/16/2013 Page: 3 of 13in ve st ig at or s t ha t J oh ns on ’s m ot he r ha d m ad e rep eat edcal ls to he r as ki ng he r to

te ll San gs te r no t t o c oo pe rat e wit h t he go ve rn m en t an d i nc lu de d c omm en ts th at were n otov ertth reat s, b utth atSan gs te r’s m ot he r pe rcei ve d a s t hr eat en in g. The PSI re co m

m en de d n o re du ct io n fo r acc ep tanc e o f res po ns ib il it y un de r U.S.S.G. § 3 E1.1 (a) b ecau se Jo hn so n h adno t p le d g ui lt y un ti l t he da y

of t ria l. Bas edon a cri m in al hi st ory cat eg ory of I an d ato ta l o ffen se lev el of 3 4, t he PSI
reco m m en de d a n a dv is ory

gu id el in es ran ge of 1 51 to 18 8 m on th s. B. Defen da nt’s Obje cti on s Defen da ntJo hn so n o bjec te d t o, i nt er al ia : (1 ) th e PSI’s fa ctua l s ta te m en t th atth e fi rearm s Sa ng st er h adso ldwere p ro vi de d b y Jo hn so n a ndso ldat h is di rect io n; (2) th e fo ur -le ve l en ha nc em en t b as edonth e num be r of fir earm s; an d (3 ) th e fo ur -le ve l en ha nc em en t fo r th e o bl it erat edser ia l n um be r. Jo hn so n c on te nd ed th at : (1 ) he di d n otpro vi de San gs te r wit h t ho se fir earm s; (2) he was n otin vo lv ed in th os e San gs te r sa le s; an d (3 ) he sh ou ldbe he ldacco un tabl e fo r on ly the fou r fir earm s ch arg edinhi s i nd ic tm en t. Jo hn so n a ls o o bjec te d t o re cei vi ng th e fo ur -le ve l en ha nc em en t u nd er U.S.S.G. § 2 K2.1 (b )(6 )(B) forpo ss es si on or u se of afir earm “ in co nn ect io n wi th ”
an ot he r fel on y

be cau se he po ss es se d t he fir earm on ly to s el l i t t o t he th rif t s to re an d h adno t s ol d t he m ari juan a u nt il lat er tha t d ay . Jo hn so n a ls o o bjec te d t o t he

4 Case: 12-12471 Date Filed: 01/16/2013 Page: 4 of 13ob st ru ct io n- of -jus ti ce en ha nc em en t an d t o t he de ni al of a n a ccep ta nc e-o fres po ns ib il it y

reduc ti on . C. Sent enci ng Hea ri ng At the sen te nc in g h eari ng , th e d is tri ctco urt s us ta in edDefen dantJo hn so n’s ob jecti on s t o t he fou r-l ev el fir earm po ss es si on enhanc em en t und er U.S.S.G. § 2 K2.1 (b )(6 )(B) an d t o t he de ni al of atwo -le ve l ac cep ta nc e-o f-re sp on si bi li ty reduc ti on . This reduc edth e PSI’s t ot al off en se lev el by six lev el s, i .e., fro m 34 to 28
. The di stric t co urt, h owe ve r, ov erru le d J oh ns on ’s ob jecti onto th e two -le ve l ob st ru ct io n- of

-jus ti ce en ha nc em en t, s ta ti ng th attam pe rin g wi th a wit ne ss was ob st ru ct io n. Th e m ai n i ss ue at the sen te nc in g h eari ng was wh ethe r th e rel ev an t co nduc t o f Jo hn so n s ho ul d i nc lu de at l eas t fo urof t he fir earm s Sa ng st er h adsai d were p ro vi de d b y

Jo hn so n andso ldby Sang st er atJo hn so n’s d ire ct io n. The go ve rn m en t ca ll edSan gs te r as a witne ss . San gs te r te st ifi edth athe ha d
en te redin to a pl ea ag reem en t, p le d g ui lt y to a fi ve -co un t i nd ic tm en t an d was awai ti ng sen te nc in g. Sa ng st er s ta te d t ha t h e h adag reedto co op erat e wit h t he go ve rn m en t an d h adm etwith a n a ge ntan d t he pro se cu to r atth e jail . San gs te r in di cat ed , ho wev er, tha t h e h ad“ [j] us t n ow” ch an ge d h is m in d a ndwas n o l on ge r wil li ng to an swe r an y

qu es ti on s ab ou t h is in vo lv em en t an d wo ul d n ottel l t he co urt

5 Case: 12-12471 Date Filed: 01/16/2013 Page: 5 of 13ho w he o bt ai ne d a ny firea rm s.

San gs te r was ex cu se d, an d t he go ve rn m en t i nt ro du cedsev eral vi de ot ap e reco rd in gs of f

ire arm sal es at t he th rif

t s to re. One reco rd in g s ho wedth e fi rearm sa le in Jo hn so n’s Co un t 1 , whi ch de pi ct edbo thJo hn so n a ndSan gs te r parti ci pa ti ng in th e sa le . The s eco ndreco rd in g s ho weda sa le by Sang st er al on e, whi ch de pi ct ed San gs te r us in g acel l p ho ne to co m m un ic at e wit h s om eo ne pri orto co m pl et in g t he
sa le . The thi rdreco rd in g d ep ic te d S an gs te r wit h J oh ns on ’s hal f-b ro th er d is cu ss in g a ref un d fo r a p rio r fi rearm

sal e. The p ai r al so us eda cel l p ho ne to co m m un ic at e wit h s om eo ne pri or

to co m pl et in g t he refu nd
. The go ve rn m en t t he n c al le d Es cam bi a Co un ty Sheri ff’s Dep ut y Jas on Gil m or e, anun de rco ve r ag en t dur in g t he op erat io n, wh o was in vo lv edin fir earm tra ns act io ns with b oth Def en da ntJo hn so n a ndSan gs te r. Depu ty G il m or e te st ifi ed th aton on e o ccas io n, J oh ns on an d S an gs te r arri ve d a t t he lo cat io n t og ethe r, bu t on ly Sang st er en te redth e th rif t s to re an d c om

pl et edth e fi rearm

sal e. Depu ty Gil m or e st at edth athe be li ev edJo hn so n a ndSan gs te r were wo rk in g t og ethe r ba se d o n “ [t]he co m

m un ic at io n b etween th e two du rin g d iff eren t s al es .” On cr os sex am in at io n, Dep uty

Gil m or e ad m it te d t ha t h e d idno t kno w who San gs te r was co m m un ic at in g wi th du rin g h is fir earm sal es an d t ha t h e h adno t o bt ai ne d San gs te r’s ph on e rec or ds
. 6

Case: 12-12471 Date Filed: 01/16/2013 Page: 6 of 13Afte r Dep ut y Gil m or e fi ni sh edtes ti fy in g, t he pro se cu to r st at edth athe ha d

“ [n ]o furth er wi tn es se s.” J oh ns on ’s cou ns el th enarg ue d t ha t t he go ve rn m en t h ad fai le d t o p ro ve th atJo hn so n was in vo lv edin San gs te r’s il le ga l fi rearm sal es , and th us ha d fa il edto pro ve Jo hn so n’s o ffen se in vo lv edat l eas t ei gh t fi rearm s o r a fir earm with a n o bl it erat edser ia l n um be r. In r es po ns e, th e p ro se cu to r st at edth at he ha d “ ta lk edto Mr. San gs te r as lat e as Fri da y , andhe was o n b oa rd , he was
co m in g i n andgo in g t o t el l u s tha t t he gu ns th athe pu rch as edcam e fro m Mr. Jo hn so n. Ob vi ou sl y , ov er the week en d h e h ada ch an ge of h eart .” The fol lo win g e xc ha ng e th ento okpl ace b etween th e d is tri ctco urt an d t he pr os ecu ti on ab ou t t he ag en ts San gs te r ha d t al ke d t o abo utth e fi rearm s:

THE COURT: W el l, he te s ti fie d -- well , he di dn ’t te st ify he re, bu t h e ta lk edto anag en t? Whi ch ag en t? [PROSECUT OR]: He ta lk ed to Sp eci al Age nt Sai er on an ot he r oc cas io n, and he ta lk ed to a Sp eci al Age nt Geo rg e Bruno fro m ATF as well
. THE COURT: Do y ou wan t to br in g in an ag en t? I m ean , y ou ’ve go t t he rig htto do th at . [DEFENSE COUNSEL] : You r Hon or , if I -- go ah ead
. [PROSECUT OR]: Ju dg e, we can br in g in -- we can c a l l t he Res id en t Age nt in Ch arg e, Ran dy Bea ch , who al so ta lk ed t o S a ng st er ab ou t t he se fir earm s. Jo hn so n’s co un se l o bjec te d “ to th e Co urt s ug ge st in g t ha t t he Gov ern m en t ca ll
an ot he r wit ne ss ,” st at in g t ha t i t s eem ed“ to th e Defen se th atth e Co urt, i n d oi ng so , is no lo ng er a n eu tra l arbi te r of th e fac ts .” The d is tri ctco urt o ve rru le d t he

7 Case: 12-12471 Date Filed: 01/16/2013 Page: 7 of 13ob

jecti on , st at in g: [A]ll of th is is setou t i n t he Pres en te nc e Rep ort as a factua l reci ta ti on , in cl ud in g s ta te m en ts fro m Mr. San gs te r, whi ch ob vi ou sl y ha ve a ba si s in fact so m ewh ere. The Gov ern m en t is en ti tl edto est ab li sh th at . And we’ve go t a wit ne ss who co m es in an d who is supp os ed to co m e in an d te st ify an d th en sa y s he ’s no t. So th e Gov ern m en t is en ti tl ed to es tabl is h th atby oth er m ean s, s o I’m go in g to gi ve th em

anop po rtu ni ty to d o i t. Afte r a l un ch rece ss , th e g ov ern m en t ca ll edATF Spe ci al Agen t Geo rg e Bru no , who tes ti fie d t ha t wh enhe in te rv ie wedSan gs te r, San gs te r in di cat edth at Jo hn so n h adpro vi de d a ll th e fi rearm s Sa ng st er s ol d a t t he th rif t s to re. Age nt Bru no ha d v ie wedall th e v id eo reco rd in gs wit h S an gs te r, an d S an gs te r ad m it te d th ateach ti m e h e was sh own bri ng in g afir earm to th e th rif

t s to re, h e was act in g a s a m id dl em anforJo hn so n, wh o c oo rd in at edall th e sa le s, i nc lu di ng th e p ric e. San gs te r al so st at edth atwhen he was s ho wn t al ki ng or t ex ti ng on a cel l p ho ne , he
was co m m un ic at in g wi th Jo hn so n. The di stric t co urt o ve rru le d J oh ns on ’s ob jecti on s t o t he fou r-l ev el nu m be rof -fi rearm s an d t he fou r-l ev el ob li te rat ed -s eri al -num be r en ha nc em en ts , fin di ng th atall th e fi rearm s Sa ng st er s ol d t o t he th rif t s to re were att rib ut ab le to Jo hn so n a s rel ev an t co nduc t. As ares ul t o f th e d is tri ctco urt’s v ari ou s ru li ng s, t he di stric t co urt ca lc ul at eda to ta l o ffen se lev el of 2 8 a nda cri m in al hi st ory cat eg ory of I , whi chy ie ld edanadvi so ry gu id el in es ran ge of 7 8 t o 9 7 m on th s. Th e d is tri ctco urt

8 Case: 12-12471 Date Filed: 01/16/2013 Page: 8 of 13im

po se d a97 -m on th sen te nc e. Defen da ntJo hn so n fi le d t hi s ap pe al
. II . DISCUSSI ON On ap pe al , Jo hn so n ra is es a si ng le is su e. Jo hn so n arg ue s t ha t t he di st ric t co urt b reac he d i ts du ty of im parti al it y at h is sen te nc in g h eari ng an d t he reb y de ni ed hi m du e p ro ces s. A def en da ntis de ni eda co ns ti tu ti on al ly fair t ria l “ [w]henth e jud ge ’s
co nduc t s tra y s fr om

ne ut ral it y ,” an d t he di st ric t co urt “ ab us es it s au th or it y when it ab an do ns it s p ro pe r ro le an d a ss um es th atof a n a dv oc at e.” Un it edSta te s v . Wrig ht , 39 2 F .3d12 69 , 12 74 (11 th Cir . 20 04 ) (quo ta ti on m ark s an d b rack et s om it te d) . In t he co nt ex t o f a jury tri al , th e jud ge “ m us t b e ab ov e ev enth e ap pe aran ce o f be in g p art ia l t o t he pro se cu ti on .” Id . (qu ot in g M oo re v . Uni te d St at es , 59 8 F .2d43 9, 4 42 (5t h C ir. 1 97 9) ). Thi s i s s o “ be cau se juri es are ex tre m el y sen si ti ve to ev ery wor d a ndin ti m at io n g iv enby the jud ge .” Uni te d St at es v. Harr is to n, 3 29 F.3d77 9, 7 90 (11 th Cir . 20 03 ) (quo ta ti on m ark s an d br ack et s o m it te d)
. W e n ot e th atth e jud ic ia l co nduc t i n que st io n h ere o ccu rredinth e se nt en ci ng co nt ex t, an d n otbe fo re a ju ry . Man y of t he co nc ern s ab ou t ju di ci al in te rv en ti on or i napp ro pr ia te rem ark s ar e g reat ly dim in is he d o r ev eneli m in at ed whe n the jud ic ia l co nduc t o ccu rs ou ts id e a jury ’s pre se nc e. See Un it edSta te s v . 9 Case: 12-12471 Date Filed: 01/16/2013 Page: 9 of 13Hil l, 6 43 F.3d80 7, 8 49 (11 th Cir . 20 11 ) (co nc lu di ng th atdi st ric t co urt’s

co m m en ts when rul in g o n e vi de nt ia ry ob jecti on s wer e n otpre

jud ic ia l an d “ co ul d
no t h av e h adany

effe cton th e jury becaus e th ey were m ad e o ut si de it s p res en ce), cert . den ie d, 1 32 S. Ct. 1 98 8 (2 01 2) ; Un it edSta te s v . Pal m a, 51 1 F .3d13 11 , 13 17 (1 1t h C ir. 2 00 8) (co nc lu di ng th atdi st ric t co urt’s n eg at iv e rem ark s t o d efen se co un se l o ut si de jury’ s p res en ce d idno t warran t n ew tr ia l “ [b ]ecaus e a cl ear e ffec t on th e jury is re qu ire d t o re ve rs e fo r co m m en t b y th e tr ia l ju dg e” (quo ta ti onm ark s om it te d) ); Un it edSta te s v . Ste wart , 82 0 F .2d37 0, 3 74 (11 th Cir . 19 87 ) (co nc lu di ng th atde fen da nt ’s du e p ro ces s ri gh ts were n otvi ol at edby tria l ju dg e’s qu es ti on in g o f de fen se witne ss es be cau se it“ oc cu rredwhi le th e jury was ex cu se d; th us , eve n i f th e jud ge st rayed fro m ne ut ral it y

whi le qu es ti on in g t he se wit ne ss es , su ch erro r was ha rm le ss ”). Fu rth er, u nd er the Fed eral Ru le s o f Evi de nc e, th e d is tri ctco urt m ay no t o nl y qu es ti on witne ss es cal le d b y th e p art ie s, b utals o m ay cal l i ts own witne ss es . See Fed . R. Evi d. 6 14 . This Co urt h as reco gn iz edth atitm ay be ap pr op ria te at t im es fo r a jud ge to do su ch th in gs as c omm en t o n t he ev id en ce, que st io n wi tn es se s an d el ic itfact s n oty etad du cedor c la rif y th os e fac ts alr eady

pre se nt ed . See, e.g ., Uni te d S ta te s v . Day , 40 5 F .3d12 93 , 12 97 (11 th Cir . 20 05 ); Wrig ht , 39 2 F .3dat 12 75 . In Wrig ht , forex am pl e, we reject edth e arg um en t t ha t d is tri ctco urt h ad

10 Case: 12-12471 Date Filed: 01/16/2013 Page: 10 of 13“ di sc ard edit s n eu tra l ro le ” b y po in ti ng ou t t ha t t he go ve rn m en t’s wi tn es s h ad fai le d t o i de nt ify the de fen da ntin co urt an d d ire ct in g the pro se cu to r to askth e wit ne ss to de sc rib e th e d efen dant ’s han d g es tu re. Wrig ht , 39 2 F .3dat 1 27 5. In Day , we fou ndno ab us e o f di sc ret io n wh enth e d is tri ctco urt “ su gg es te d t o t he go ve rn m en t t he m an ne r in whi ch [a wit ne ss ’s con fu si ng tes ti m on y ] m ig htbe cl ari fie d.” Day , 40 5 F .3dat 1 29 7. We hav e sa idth at“ [t]he tri al co urt ab us es it s di sc ret io n o nl y

when th e jud ge ’s con du ctst rays fro m ne utral it y , andev enth en on ly whe n i ts rem ark s d em on st rat e p erv as iv e b ia s an d u nf ai rn es s t ha t ac tu al ly pr ejud ic e a p art y .” Hil l, 6 43 F.3dat 8 45 -4 6 (c it at io ns an d quo ta ti on m ark s om it te d)
. Here, Defe nd an t J oh ns on pu t t he go ve rn m en t t o i ts bu rd enby objec ti ng to th e two fir earm s en ha nc em en ts an d t he fact s s up po rti ng th em setforth in th e PSI. See Un it edSta te s v . Lawren ce, 4 7 F .3d15 59 , 15 66 (11 th Cir . 19 95 ) (“ Whe n a de fen da ntch al le ng es on e o f th e fac tu al ba se s o f hi s s en te nc e as setforth in th e PSR, t he Gov ern m en t h as th e b ur de n o f es tabl is hi ng th e d is pu te d fa ctby a pr ep on de ran ce o f th e ev id en ce.”) . By ob jecti ng , Jo hn so n a ls o t rig ge redth e d is tri ct co urt’s o bl ig at io n t o re so lv e th e fac tu al di sp ut e as to whet he r Jo hn so n was in vo lv edinSan gs te r’s il le ga l fi rearm sal es . See Fed . R. Cri m . P. 32 (i) (3 )(B) (requi rin g d is tri ctco urt t o e it he r ru le on di sp ut edpo rti on s o f th e PSI o r de te rm in e 11 Case: 12-12471 Date Filed: 01/16/2013 Page: 11 of 13th ata ru li ng is un ne ces sa ry ); Un it edSta te s v . Owen, 8 58 F.2d15 14 , 15 17 (11 th

Ci r. 19 88 ) (ex pl ai ni ng th atth e tr ia l ju dg e’s ob li ga ti on un de r Ru le 32 to m ak e a factfin di ng is tri gg eredby the de fen da nt ’s ob jecti on to th e PSI) . In an att em ptto carry it s b ur de n, t he go ve rn m en t ca ll edSan gs te r as a wit ne ss , bu t Sa ng st er un ex pe ct ed ly refus edto tes ti fy
. Giv enth atth e d is tri ctco urt h as th e ab il it y to bri ng ou t n eed edfact s, in cl ud in g t o c al l i ts own witne ss es if n eces sa ry , we can no t s ay th e d is tri ctco urt ab us edit s d is cret io n o r cro ss edin to im pr op er ad vo cacy m erel y

by ask in g t he pr os ecu to r whe th er, i n l ig htof S an gs te r’s la st -m inut e ref us al to tes ti fy , he wi sh ed to cal l o ne of the ag en ts who ha d i nt erv ie wedSan gs te r. The d is tri ctco urt’s qu es ti on di d n otin di cat e th atitha d p re-ju dg edth e se nt en ci ng is su es itwas c al le d up on to res ol ve or wa s p red is po se d t o ru le infav or of t he go ve rn m en t. In de ed , th e factth atth e d is tri ctco urt s us ta in edtwo of J oh ns on ’s ot he r se nt en ci ng ob jecti on s in di cat es th atth e d is tri ctco urt re m ai ne d abl e to ren de r a fai r jud gm en t an d t ha t Jo hn so n was no t d ep riv edof afai r se nt en ci ng he ari ng . At m os t, the di st ric t co urt’s que st io n t o t he pro se cu to r he re i s s im il ar t o the di st ric t co urt’s p ro m pt in g in Wrig ht , wher e th e g ov ern m en t h adfai le d t o e li ci t a s ta te m en t fr om a witne ss th atwas n eces sary

to it s ca se . See Wrig ht , 39 2 F .3dat 1 27 2. In sh ort, the di st ric t co urt’s que st io n t o t he pro se cu to r was wit hi n i ts di sc ret io n anddi d n ot 12 Case: 12-12471 Date Filed: 01/16/2013 Page: 12 of 13de m on st rat e th e k in d o f “pe rv as iv e b ia s” ne ed edto sh ow re ve rs ib le erro r.

AFFIRMED.

13 Case: 12-12471 Date Filed: 01/16/2013 Page: 13 of 13