FILED U.S. COURT OF AP P E A LS E LE V EN T HC IRC U IT FEB RUARY 6, 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- 12685 N on -A rgum entC al endar

________________________ D . C . D ocketN o. 05 -000 10 -C R -6 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 V A N D A R R E L L E O N D O E , a .k .a . D w a n D e v o n D o e , a . k. a . B l a c k 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 S o u th e rn D is tr ic t o f G e o r g ia

_________________________ ( F e b r u ar y 6, 2007) B efo re B L A C K , M A R C U S an d F A Y , C i rcu i tJu d g es. P E R C U R I A M:2

V an d arrel L eo n D o e ap p eal s h i s co n v i ct i o n s fo r m an u factu re o f co cai n e b ase a nd c ons pi r a c y t o m a nuf a c tur e a nd di s tr i but e c oc a i ne ba s e , i n vi ol a t i on of 21 U . S . C . §§ 841( a ) ( 1) a nd 846. O n app ea l , D oe ar gu es thatthe di stri ctcourterre d by f a i l i ng t o f

i nd a vi ol a t i on of

the S pe e dy T r i a l A c t , a dm i tt i ng thr e e of hi s pr i or c o n v ic tio n s u n d e rR u le 4 0 4 ( b ) o f th e F e d e r a l R u le s o f

E v id e n c e , d e n y in g h is m ot i on f orj udgm e ntof

a c qui tt a l , gi vi ng a n e rr one ous j ury i ns truc t i on on the c ons pi r a c y of

f e ns e , a nd de ny i ng hi s m ot i on f ora ne w tr i a l ba s e d on the i nt e r e s t s of j u s t i c e . Fo rth e r e a s o n s s e tf o r th mo r e f

u l l y b e l o w , w e a f

f i r m. I. F acts D o e ’s c o d e f

e n d a n t, S tu a r t J o h n G r e g e r , p le d g u ilty p r io rto tr ia l. P r io rto tr i a l , the gove rnm e ntnot i f i e d D oe of

i t s i nt e ntt o of

f e ra ttr i a l e vi de nc e of

s i x pr i or f e l ony c oc a i ne c onvi c t i ons , oc c urr i ng be tw e e n 1989 a nd 2001, unde rF e d. R . E vi d. 4 0 4 (b ). T h e o l d estfi v e co n v i ct i o n s w ere fo r p o ssessi o n o f co cai n e. T h e m o st re ce ntconv i ct i on w as for “ P osse ss i on / P urchas e/ S el l / D el i very of cocai ne. ” A ttr i a l , K e ntM uns e y , a t a s k f or c e a ge ntw i th the D rug E nf or c e m e nt A dm i ni stra t i on (“ D E A ”) , t es t i fi ed that , on A pri l 6, 20 05 , a c on fi dent i al source ( “C S ” ) a n d a n u n d e r c o v e ra g e n t m e t w ith G r e g e r , a n d th e C S p u r c h a s e d 5 0 .9 gr a m s of c oc a i ne ba s e f

r om G r e ge r . O n A pr i l 8, 2005, G r e ge rs ol d the C S c oc a i ne ba s e a nd pow de rc oc a i ne . G r e ge rw a s t a ke n i nt o c us t ody f ol l ow i ng thi s tr a ns a c t i on3

a n d to ld M u n s e y th a t h e o b ta in e d h is c o c a in e b a s e f r o m a b la c k m a le k n o w n to h im a s “ B l a c k, ” w ho c ooke d the c oc a i ne ba s e . M uns e y r e c or de d a c a l l m a de by G r e g e r , w h ic h w a s p la y e d to th e ju ry . I n th is c o n v e r s a tio n , G r e g e rr e f e rr e d to

“ c i r c l e s . ” H e e xpl a i ne d t o the othe rs pe a ke rtha t“ the y ” c om pl a i ne d aboutthe c i r c l e s , butt ook a l l s e ve n a nd s a i d the y w oul d gi ve hi m a c ha nc e t o m a ke i tup l a t e r . T he othe rs pe a ke rr e s ponde d, “ I ’ l l do tha tthe r e . ” G r e ge rr e s ponde d tha the w as tryi n g t o g eti t , an d th e o th er sp eak er resp o n d ed , “ B u tyo u k n o w th atw i l l co st them m ore. ” M un se y t es t i fi ed that , base d o n a ph ot og raph of D oe, G re ger id e n tif ie d D o e a s th e p e r s o n w h o c o o k e d th e c o c a in e b a s e f o rh im . T h is ph ot og raph w as adm i tt ed i nt o evi dence. M un se y a l so t es t i fi ed thatD oe w as l i st ed a s th e s u b s c r ib e ro f

th e te le p h o n e n u m b e rc a lle d d u r in g G r e g e r ’s c o n v e r s a tio n . T he gove rnm e nta l s o i ntr oduc e d appr oxi m a t e l y f ourm onths of

t e l e phone r e c or ds for thi s pho ne. M un se y t es t i fi ed thatthe re cords s ho w ed consi st entcont ac t b e tw e e n th e th is n u m b e ra n d G r e g e r ’s n u m b e rb e tw e e n J a n u a ry a n d A p r il 8 , 2 0 0 5 . G r e g e r , w h o h a d p le d g u ilty to d is tr ib u tio n o f c r a c k c o c a in e , te s tif

ie d th a t, b e twe e n J a n u a ry 2 0 0 5 a n d Ap r i l 2 0 0 5 , h e s o l d c o c a i n e a n d c r a c k c o c a i n e . He i de nt i f i e d D oe , w ho he kne w a s B l a c k, a nd s t a t e d tha the m e tD oe a r ound the e nd of 20 04 and h e e st i m at ed thatD oe cook ed cr ac k cocai ne for hi m tw o o r three t i m es a m on th b egi nn i ng ar ou nd Ja nu ary. G re ger pai d D oe by gi vi ng hi m coca i ne, w hi ch4

D oe w oul d us e t o c ook, a nd D oe w oul d a l s o ke e p s om e f orhi m s e l f

. R e ga r di ng the t ape r e c or di ng, G r e ge re xpl a i ne d, i nt e ra l i a , tha tthe “ c i r c l e s ” r e f e rr e d t o the c oc a i ne c ooki e s , w hi c h w e r e c i r c ul a rbe c a us e the y w e r e c ooke d i n a r ound pot , a nd thatthe cook i es w ei gh ed l es s than they w er e s up po se d t o w ei gh . G re ger t es t i fi ed th a t B la c k ’s v o ic e w a s o n th e tap e . A ts i de ba r , the gove rnm e nte xpl a i ne d tha ti ta gr e e d t o e nt e rthr e e of the pr i orc onvi c t i ons a nd tha tthe y w e ntt o the i s s ue s of i nt e nt , l a c k of

m i s t a ke , a nd i dent i ty. T he courtperm i tt ed the i ntrodu ct i on of the evi dence, no t i ng thatthe j ury m i gh thave som e quest i on as t o i dent i ty a nd i nt ent . T he go vernm enti ntrodu ce d e vi de nc e of

tw o c oc a i ne pos s e s s i on c onvi c t i ons f r om A ugus t1989 a nd one f r om D e c e m b e r1 9 9 0 . D oe ca l l ed P am el a T i gn er , hi s f i ance e. T i gn ert es t i fi ed, i nt eral i a, that everybod y i n the ho use, i ncl ud i ng her c hi l dren (aged 9-19) and thei r f ri ends used the ce l l ph on e w hi ch w as ca l l ed by G re ger i n the re corded conv er sa t i on . T i gn er , w ho w orked as acook , t es t i fi ed thatshe w ou l d b e abl e t o t el l i f a nyon e w as cook i ng i n h erki t chen and d eni ed se ei ng si gn s of a nyon e doi ng so. T i gn erfurther te s tif ie d th a t th e v o ic e o n th e r e c o r d e d c a ll w a s n o t D o e ’s v o ic e . O n c r os s - e xa m i na t i on, the gove rnm e nta s ke d T i gne rabouthe rdrug c onvi c t i ons f

r om J a c ks onvi l l e , F l or i da i n 1994. T i gne rde ni e d be i ng c onvi c t e d or5

pl ea di ng gu i l ty t o the sa l e a nd m anufacture of c ocai ne, al tho ug h she adm i tt ed bei ng arre st ed i n Jac kson vi l l e. W hen t he go vernm entshow ed T i gn era c op y of her cr i m i nal hi st ory, the fol l ow i ng di sc ussi on t oo k p l ac e: T H E C O U R T : M s. T i gn er , l etm e r em i nd you thatyou t oo k an

oa th t o t e l l the truth. I f

y ou do nott e l l the truth, yo u w i l l h av e co m m i tt ed p erj u ry. P erj u ry i s a fed eral cri m e. L i st en t o th e q u est i o n s carefu l l y? A [T i g n er] O k ay. T H E C O U R T : T h e a n s w e r s a r e b e in g r e c o r d e d . T h e C o u r t w ill

di r e c tf ur the ri nve s t i ga t i on. A O k ay. U po n further quest i on i ng by the go vernm enti n ref er ence t o T i gn er ’ s c ri m i nal hi s t ory , s he de ni e d be i ng c onvi c t e d of a c r i m e , e xpl a i ni ng tha ts he w e ntt o c our tf or th e c h a r g e o f

th e s a le , m a n u f

a c tu r e , a n d d e liv e ry o f

c o c a in e , b u t th a t s h e w a s to ld it w o u ld n o t b e o n h e rr e c o r d b e c a u s e th e p e r s o n s h e w e n t to ja il w ith c la im e d it a ll a n d s h e w o u ld n o t s ig n a n y th in g . A f te rth is e x p la n a tio n , th e c o u r t s ta te d , “A ll r ig h t. Y o u w ill in v e s tig a te th is m a tte r , M r . K o n c h e , a n d ta k e ap p r o p r ia te a c tio n s .” T ig n e rth e n c la r if

ie d h e rp o s itio n th a t s h e w a s a rr e s te d a n d c h a r g e d , b u t w a s to ld tha tthe c ha r ge w oul d note nd up on he rr e c or d. D o e te s tif

ie d th a t h is n ic k n a m e w a s B la c k . D o e a d m itte d g e ttin g in to tr o u b l e i n th e p a s t , b u td e n i e d h a v i n g a n y c o n t a c twi th c o c a i n e i n Ge o r g i a . He6

onl y ha d c ont a c tw i th G r e ge ronc e be f or e A pr i l 2005, r e ga r di ng a j ob t o m ove pi ne s tr a w . H e de ni e d c ooki ng c oc a i ne f orG r e ge r , e ve rc ooki ng c oc a i ne , orknow i ng ho w t o coo k cocai ne. D oe expl ai ned t hateverybod y use d h i s pho ne and t hati tw as n o t h im o n th e tap e . O n c r os s - e xa m i na t i on, D oe a dm i tt e d t o c onvi c t i ons f ors e ve n pr i orf

e l ony d ru g co n v i ct i o n s i n v o l v i n g co cai n e b etw een 1 9 8 9 an d 2 0 0 1 . T h e g o v ern m en tal so r e pl a y e d a por t i on of

the t ape d c onve r s a t i on a nd a s ke d D oe t o s a y one of the s e n te n c e s . D o e c o m p lie d , a n d th e g o v e rn m e n t r e q u e s te d th a t D o e “try to s a y it n o r m a lly .” D o e th e n r e p e a te d th e lin e . T h e ju ry s u b s e q u e n tly r e tu rn e d g u ilty v e r d ic ts a s to b o th c o u n ts o f th e in d ic tm e n t. II . S tan d ard of re vi ew W e r evi ew a c l ai m un der the S peedy T ri al A ctde no vo and revi ew a di stri ct c our t ’ s f a c tua l de t e r m i na t i ons on e xc l udabl e t i m e f orc l e a re rr or . U ni t e d S t a t e s v. D u n n , 3 4 5 F .3 d 1 2 8 5 , 1 2 8 8 (1 1 th C ir. 2 0 0 3 ). W e r ev iew th e d istrict co u rt’s a dm i s s i on of

e vi de nc e unde rR ul e 404( b) f orabus e of

di s c r e t i on. U ni t e d S t a t e s v. M a tth e w s , 4 3 1 F .3 d 1 2 9 6 , 1 3 1 1 ( 1 1 th C ir . 2 0 0 5 ) , c e r t. d e n ie d , 1 2 7 S .C t. 4 6 ( 2 0 0 6 ) .

“ [ W] h e n e m p l o y i n g a n ab u s e - o f - d i s c r e t i o n s t a n d a r d , we m u s ta f f i r m u n l e s s we f i nd tha tthe di s tr i c tc our tha s m a de a c l e a re rr orof j udgm e nt , orha s appl i e d the w rong l egal st andard. ” U ni t ed S t at es v. F ra zi er , 38 7 F . 3d 12 44 , 12 59 (11th C i r.7

2 0 0 4 ) (en b an c), cert . d en i ed , 5 4 4 U . S . 1 0 6 3 (2 0 0 5 ). H o w ev er, w e w i l l n o trev erse D o e ’s c o n v ic tio n s if

th e a d m is s io n o f

th e p r io rc o n v ic tio n e v id e n c e w a s h a r m le s s . U ni t e d S t a t e s v. H a rr i s t on, 329 F . 3d 779, 789 ( 11th C i r . 2003) . W e r e vi e w the su ffi ci en cy o f th e ev i d en ce d e n o v o , “ v i ew i n g th e ev i d en ce i n th e l i g h tm o st f a v o r ab le to th e g o v e rn m e n t” a n d m a k in g a ll r e a s o n ab le in f e r e n c e s a n d c r e d ib ility choi ce s i n favor of the go vernm entand the j ury’ s ver di ct . U ni t ed S t at es v. G ar ci a, 40 5 F . 3d 12 60 , 12 69 (11th C i r. 20 05 ). “ W e r evi ew the l egal corr ec tness of a j ury i ns truc t i on de novo, butde f e ron que s t i ons of

phr a s i ng abs e nta n abus e of di sc re t i on . . . . ” U ni t e d S t a t e s v. P r a the r , 205 F . 3d 1265, 1270 ( 11th C i r . 2000) (c i t at i on s om i tt ed). W e r evi ew a di stri ctcourt ’ s deni al of a m ot i on for anew tri al f o rab u s e o f

d is c r e tio n . U n ite d S ta te s v . H e rn a n d e z , 4 3 3 F .3 d 1 3 2 8 , 1 3 3 2 ( 1 1 th C ir . 2 0 0 5 ) , c e r t. d e n ie d , 1 2 6 S .C t. 1 6 3 5 ( 2 0 0 6 ) . II I. S p ee d y T ri al A ct U n d e rth e S p e e d y T r ia l A c t: In any c as e i n w hi ch a pl eaof no tgu i l ty i s e nt er ed, the tri al of a de f e nda ntc ha r ge d i n a n i nf or m a t i on ori ndi c tm e ntw i th the c om m i s s i on of

a n of f e ns e s ha l l c om m e nc e w i thi n s e ve nty da y s f r om th e f ilin g d a te ( a n d m a k in g p u b lic ) o f th e in f o r m a tio n o rin d ic tm e n t, orf r om the da t e the de f

e nda ntha s appe a r e d be f or e a j udi c i a l of

f i c e rof th e c o u r t in w h ic h s u c h c h a r g e is p e n d in g , w h ic h e v e rd a te la s t o c c u r s . 18 U . S . C . § 3 16 1(c) (1). T he A ctal so prov i des f or the excl usi on of t i m e c ou nt edWe do not address the issue of the exclusion of an additional seven days under 1 § 3161(h)( 1)(J) as it does not affe ct the outcome of this case. 8 t ow a r d the 70- da y de a dl i ne unde rc e r t a i n c i r c um s t a nc e s i nc l udi ng de l a y r e s ul t i ng f r o m th e c o u r t ’ s c o n s i d e r a t i o n o f a p r o p o s e d p l e a a g r e e me n t . 1 8 U . S. C. § 3 1 6 1 ( h ) ( 1 ) ( I ) . I n a d d itio n , th e A c t p r o v id e s f o rth e e x c lu s io n o f

“[ a ] r e a s o n ab le p e r io d o f d e la y w h e n th e d e f

e n d a n t is jo in e d f

o rtr ia l w ith a c o d e f

e n d a n t a s to w ho m the t i m e f

or tri al has notrun and no m ot i on for s ever ance has bee n g ra nt ed. ” I d. § 3161( h) ( 7) . “ [ I ] n a m ul t i - de f e nda ntc a s e , t i m e e xc l ude d due t o one de f e nda nt r e s ul t s i n e xc l udabl e da y s f orhi s c ode f

e nda nt s . ” U ni t e d S t a t e s v. M e j i a , 82 F . 3d 10 32 , 10 35 (11th C i r. 19 96 ). I n thi s c a s e , r e s ol ut i on of the S pe e dy T r i a l A c tc l a i m turns on the e f f e c tof a n or de re nt e r e d on O c t obe r5, 2005, by the m a gi s tr a t e j udge f i ndi ng tha ta l l of D o e ’s p r e tr ia l m o tio n s , in c lu d in g h is m o tio n to s e v e rh is c a s e f r o m h is c ode f e nda nt , w e r e m oot . D oe a r gue s tha tthi s or de re f f e c t i ve l y gr a nt e d hi s m ot i on t o sever , and, there fore , hi s s peedy tri al cl ock con t i nu ed t o run du ri ng the t i m e that hi s c od ef endant ’ s pl eaagre em entw as un der a dv i se m ent . If D oe i s c orre ct , m ore tha n 100 non- e xc l udabl e da y s e l aps e d be f or e tr i a l . I f

, how e ve r , the O c t obe r5, 2 0 0 5 o rd er w as n o tan o rd er o f sev eran ce, a t o t al o f 6 0 n o n -ex cl u d ab l e d ays e lap s e d b e f

o r e tr ia l. 1 I n its o r d e r , th e m a g is tr a te s ta te d th a t it w a s a d v is e d b y c o u n s e l th a t a llOn September 8, 2005, codef

endant Greg er had a cha

ng e of ple a hea

ring . At the hea

ring 2 a plea agreement with the g overnment was pre sented. Thedistrict court took the matter under a dv isement a

nd did no t a c c ept t

heguilty ple a and agre e ment u

nti l D e c e mber 7 , 2 00 5. Th is period is excludable. 9 pretri al m ot i on s w er e c om pl i ed w i th o r m att er s r ai se d i n tho se m ot i on s w er e r e s ol ve d by a gr e e m e nta nd, the r e f or e , a l l pr e tr i a l m ot i ons w e r e m oot . B a s e d on the m a g is tr a te ’s e x p la n a tio n o f w h y D o e ’s m o tio n s w e r e m o o t, th e o r d e rc a n n o t f a ir ly b e r e a d to b e e f

f e c tiv e ly g r a n tin g a s e v e r a n c e . A c c o r d in g ly , th e d is tr ic t c o u r t d id 2 n o t e rrin f

in d in g n o v io la tio n o f

th e S p e e d y T r ia l A c t. I V. Pr i o r c o nv i c t i o ns D oe c ha l l e nge s the di s tr i c tc our t ’ s a dm i s s i on of thr e e c oc a i ne pos s e s s i on c onvi c t i ons f

r om A ugus t1989 a nd D e c e m be r1990 unde rR ul e 404( b) of the F eder al R ul es of E vi dence, ar gu i ng thatthe evi dence s ho ul d n othave been a dm i tt e d f

orthe purpos e s of

i de nt i ty a nd i nt e nt , the e vi de nc e l a c ke d pr oba t i ve v a lu e , a n d , in lig h t o f

th e e v id e n c e , th e p r o b a tiv e v a lu e w a s s u b s ta n tia lly o u tw e ig h e d b y th e d a n g e ro f u n f a irp r e ju d ic e . R ul e 404( b) pr ovi de s tha t“ [ e ] vi de nc e of othe rc r i m e s , w r ongs , ora c t s i s not a d m is s ib le to p r o v e th e c h a r a c te ro f a p e r s o n in o r d e rto s h o w a c tio n in c o n f o r m ity the r e w i th. I tm a y , how e ve r , be a dm i s s i bl e f orothe rpurpos e s , s uc h a s pr oof of m ot i ve, op po rtun i ty, i nt ent , prepara t i on , pl an, kn ow l edge, [or] i dent i ty . . . . ” F ed. R . E vi d. 40 4(b). T o b e a dm i ss i bl e:10

F i r s t , the e vi de nc e m us tbe r e l e va ntt o a n i s s ue othe rtha n the de f e nda nt ’ s c ha r a c t e r ; S e c ond, the a c tm us tbe e s t abl i s he d by suff i ci entproo f t o p erm i ta j ury f i nd i ng thatthe defendantcom m i tt ed the e xtr i ns i c a c t ; T hi r d, the pr oba t i ve va l ue of the e vi de nc e m us tnot be subst ant i al l y outw ei gh ed by i t s und ue prej ud i ce , and the evi dence m us tm e e tthe othe rr e qui r e m e nt s of R ul e 403. M a tthe w s , 431 F . 3d a t1310- 11 ( quot i ng U ni t e d S t a t e s v. D e l ga do, 56 F . 3d 1357, 1 3 6 5 ( 1 1 th C ir . 1 9 9 5 ) ) . W h e th e rth e p r o b a tiv e v a lu e is n o t s u b s ta n tia lly outw e i ghe d by undue pr e j udi c e i s a “ de t e r m i na t i on [ tha t ] l i e s w i thi n the di s c r e t i on of the di s tr i c tc our ta nd c a l l s f ora c om m on s e ns e a s s e s s m e ntof a l l the c i r c um s t a nc e s s urr oundi ng the e xtr i ns i c of f e ns e , i nc l udi ng pr os e c ut or i a l ne e d, ov er al l si m i l ar i ty betw ee n the extri nsi c a ctand the charged offe nse, as w el l as t e m por a l r e m ot e ne s s . ” U ni t e d S t a t e s v. P e r e z , 443 F . 3d 772, 780 ( 11th C i r . 2006) (c i t at i on and q uo t at i on m arks om i tt ed). B e c a us e D oe ’ s pl e a of

notgui l ty m a de i nt e nta n i s s ue , s e e i d. a t779, a nd D oe’ s pri or po ss es si on conv i ct i on s w er e r el evantt o the i ss ue of i nt ent , se e M a tth e w s , 4 3 1 F .3 d a t 1 3 1 1 , th e f ir s t p r o n g o f

th e te s t f o ra d m is s ib ility is s a tis f ie d . M or e ove rD oe ’ s de f

e ns e s tr a t e gy di d notm a ke i nt e nti rr e l e va nt , a s de ni a l of p a r tic ip a tio n is in s u f

f ic ie n t to r e m o v e th e is s u e o f in te n t in a c o n s p ir a c y c a s e . U ni t e d S t a t e s v. K opi tuk, 690 F . 2d 1289, 1334 ( 11th C i r . 1982) . H ow e ve r , the pri or conv i ct i on s w er e notprop er l y a dm i tt ed for the pu rposes of i dent i ty. S ee U ni t e d S t a t e s v. L a i l , 846 F . 2d 1299, 1301 ( 11th C i r . 1988) ( hol di ng tha t , f or11

404( b) e vi de nc e of

f e r e d t o e s t abl i s h i de nt i ty , “ the l i ke ne s s of the of f e ns e s i s the c ruc i a l c ons i de r a t i on. T he phy s i c a l s i m i l a r i ty m us tbe s uc h tha ti tm a r ks the o ffen ses as th e h an d i w o rk o f th e accu sed . In o th er w o rd s, th e ev i d en ce m u st dem on stra t e am od us op er andi . ”) (c i t at i on om i tt ed). E v e n th o u g h th e p r i o rc o n v i c t i o n s we r e r e l e v a n tt o th e i s s u e o f i n t e n t , we ne ve r the l e s s hol d tha tthe a dm i s s i on of the s e c onvi c t i ons w a s a n abus e of di sc re t i on du e t o the com bi ned effe ctof thei r r em ot enes s, thei r f ac tual d i s s i m i l a r i ty , a n d th e l a c k o f p r o s e c u t o r i a l n e e d f

o rth e i ri n tr o d u c t i o n . Wh i l e we do notf ol l ow a br i ght - l i ne rul e r e ga r di ng the r e m ot e ne s s of a c onvi c t i on, M a tthe w s , 431 F . 3d a t1311, the c onvi c t i ons a ti s s ue oc c urr e d appr oxi m a t e l y 14 a n d 1 5 y e a r s b e f

o r e th e b e g in n in g o f

th e c h a r g e d c o n s p ir a c y . W h ile “c ir c u it p r e c e d e n t r e g a r d s v ir tu a lly a n y p r io rd ru g o f f e n s e a s p r o b a tiv e o f

th e in te n t to e nga ge i n a drug c ons pi r a c y , ” the r e by pr e c l udi ng a n abus e of di s c r e t i on ba s e d on th e r e je c tio n o f

th e a r g u m e n t th a t f

a c tu a l d is s im ila r ity r e s u lte d in d is p r o p o r tio n a te pr e j udi c e , s e e i d. , the f

a c ttha tthe pr i orc onvi c t i ons w e r e f ors i m pl e pos s e s s i on of c o c a in e w h ile th e c o n s p ir a c y in v o lv e d a c o n s p ir a c y to m a n u f a c tu r e a n d d is tr ib u te coca i ne base l es se ns the prob at i ve val ue of the pri or conv i ct i on s. S ee U ni t ed S t a t e s v. R a m i r e z , 426 F . 3d 1344, 1354 ( 11th C i r . 2005) ( “ A s i m i l a r i ty be tw e e n the o th e ra c t a n d a c h a r g e d o f f e n s e w ill m a k e th e o th e ro f f e n s e h ig h ly p r o b a tiv e w ith12

r e g a r d to a d e f

e n d a n t’s in te n t in th e c h a r g e d o f f e n s e .” ) . M ostsi gn i fi ca nt l y, the go vernm ent ’ s nee d for these three conv i ct i on s w as nots ubs t a nt i a l . F i r s t , the gove rnm e ntc oul d ha ve s e l e c t e d the thr e e m os tr e c e nt p r io rc o n v ic tio n s . I n a d d itio n , th e m o s t r e c e n t c o n v ic tio n b o r e th e m o s t s im ila r ity to th e c o n s p ir a c y c h a r g e b e c a u s e , u n lik e th e s im p le p o s s e s s io n c o n v ic tio n s , th is co n v icti o n ap p ea rs to b e f o r th e d istrib u ti o n o f c o ca in e. S ec o n d , th e g o v er n m en t’ s othe re vi de nc e of

i nt e ntw a s s tr ong. U nl i ke c a s e s w hi c h r e s t e d on the t e s t i m ony of c o- c ons pi r a t or s orc a m e dow n t o a c r e di bi l i ty c hoi c e be tw e e n c o- c ons pi r a t or s a nd the de f e nda nta nd hi s w i tne s s , U ni t e d S t a t e s v. C a l de r on, 127 F . 3d 1314, 1332 (11th C i r. 19 97 ); U ni t ed S t at es v. M cM ahon , 59 2 F . 2d 87 1, 87 5-76 (5th C i r. 19 79 ), in th is ca se , th e ju ry h ad co rr o b o ra ti v e e v id en ce in th e f o rm o f A g en t M u n se y’s t e s t i m ony of

G r e ge r ’ s pr i orc ons i s t e nts t a t e m e nt s a nd the phone r e c or ds s how i ng consi st entcont ac tbetw ee n D oe and G re ger’ s t el epho ne nu m bers , and the j ury h ea rd a tap e o f a co n v er sa ti o n G re g erp lace d to “B lack ” a fterh is ar re st. D o e’s de f e ns e f ur the rl e s s e ne d the ne e d f orthi s e vi de nc e be c a us e D oe ’ s t e s t i m ony ga ve the j ury the op po rtun i ty t o d et erm i ne for i t se l f w hether D oe w as the ot her p a r tic ip a n t in th a t c o n v e r s a tio n . H ow ever , thi s e rr or do es no tre qu i re re vers al because w e hol d thati tw as h a r m le s s d u e to th e o v e rw h e lm in g e v id e n c e o f g u ilt in th is c a s e .13

W e of t e n ha ve c onc l ude d tha ta n e rr ori n a dm i tt i ng e vi de nc e of a pr i or c onvi c t i on w a s ha r m l e s s w he r e the r e i s ove rw he l m i ng e vi de nc e of gui l t . T hi s C our tf

ur the rha s i ns truc t e d tha te rr one ous a dm i s s i on of evi dence does notw arra ntre vers al i f the error had no subst ant i al 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 rr or s u p p o r ts th e v e r d ic t. T h e s e h a r m le s s - e rr o rd e te r m in a tio n s a r e h ig h ly fa ct -i nt ensi ve and w i l l vary fr om ca se t o cas e. H arri st on , 32 9 F . 3d at78 9 (ci t at i on s a nd qu ot at i on m arks om i tt ed). G re ger t es t i fi ed thathe prov i ded D oe cocai ne and D oe w ou l d coo k cra ck c oc a i ne f orhi m . G r e ge ra l s o i de nt i f i e d the voi c e on the phone a s tha tof B l a c k, w ho he i dent i fi ed as D oe, and exp l ai ned thatthe re corded conv er sa t i on concerned the s a l e of

the c oc a i ne ba s e . A ge ntM uns e y t e s t i f i e d t o G r e ge r ’ s pr i orc ons i s t e nt s ta te m e n t th a t B la c k , D o e ’s a d m itte d n ic k n a m e , c o o k e d a n d s u p p lie d h im w ith coca i ne base . T he re corded conv er sa t i on as a w ho l e, part i cul ar l y the ot her s p e a k e r ’s r e s p o n s e s to G r e g e rth a t “I ’ll d o th a t th e r e ” a n d , “B u t y o u k n o w th a t w ill c os tthe m m or e [ , ] ” w oul d a l l ow a j ury t o f i nd a n a gr e e m e ntt o m a nuf a c tur e a nd d i s tr i b u t e c o c a i n e b a s e . B e c a u s e Do e t e s t i f i e d , th e j u ry wa s ab l e t o m a k e i t s o wn com pari son o f D oe’ s voi ce and the vo i ce on the t ape. D oe prov i ded t he j ury f u r th e re v id e n c e b e c a u s e , b y ta k in g th e s ta n d a n d , in te ra lia , d e n y in g h is i nv ol vem entw i th cocai ne and d enyi ng thathe w as the pers on on the t ape, the j ury coul d i nferthatthe op po si t e of hi s t es t i m on y w as true. U ni t ed S t at es v. H as ner, 3 4 0 F .3 d 1 2 6 1 , 1 2 7 2 (1 1 th C ir. 2 0 0 3 ). T h e s am e is tru e r eg ar d in g T ig n er ’sF or the sere a so ns , w elike wi sere je c t D oe ’sc laim that th ee vide nc ewa s n ot s uf fi c ient to 3 su stain his c onvic tio ns . We disagreewith the g overnment’s contention that Doe invited a n error by the district 4 court, a s the doctrine is not implicated dueto Doe’s objec tion to the instruction af ter it was g iven to the jury . See United States v. Gray, 626 F.2d 494, 501 ( 5th Cir. 1980). 14 t est i m o n y th ati tw as n o tD o e’ s v o i ce o n th e reco rd i n g . In ad d i t i o n , th e j u ry al so ha d the phone r e c or ds s how i ng the e xt e ntof the c ont a c tbe tw e e n D oe ’ s phone a nd G re ger’ s pho ne. 3 V . Ju r y i n s t r u c t i on D oe a r gue s tha tthe r e c or d i s de voi d of a ny e vi de nc e tha ta ny one a s i de f r om he a nd G r e ge rw e r e pa r t i c i pa nt s i n the c ha r ge d c ons pi r a c y . A s a r e s ul t , D oe c ont e nds tha ti tw a s e rr orf orthe di s tr i c tc our tt o c ha r ge the j ury tha t : ( 1) the go vernm entneed no tprov e thatal l of the peop l e nam ed i n the i nd i ctm entw er e m em bers of the sc hem e; or (2) tw o o r m ore pers on s c am e t o the re qu i si t e m utual a g r e e m e n t. 4 G ener al l y, di stri ctcourt s “ have broad d i sc re t i on i n form ul at i ng j ury i ns truc t i ons pr ovi de d tha tthe c ha r ge a s a w hol e a c c ur a t e l y r e f l e c t s the l a w a nd the f

a c t s , ” a nd w e w i l l notr e ve r s e a c onvi c t i on on the ba s i s of a j ury c ha r ge unl e s s “ the i s s ue s of l a w w e r e pr e s e nt e d i na c c ur a t e l y , or th e c h a r g e im p r o p e r ly g u id e d th e ju ry in s u c h a s u b s ta n tia l w a y a s to v io la te d u e p r o c e s s .” P r a th e r , 2 0 5 F .3 d a t 1 2 7 0 ( c ita tio n o m itte d ) . D oe chal l enges the fol l ow i ng po rt i on of the conspi ra cy i nstruct i on , w hi chThe pattern instruction reads, in pertinent par t, 5 In order to establish a conspiracy offense it is not necessar y for the G overnment to prove that all of the people na med in the indictment were member s of the scheme. . . . What the evidencein the casemust show beyond a re asonabledoubt is: First: That two or more persons in some way or manner, ca

me to a mutual un ders tandingto t

ry to ac c omp lis h a

c omm on and un lawf ul p lan, a s c ha

rg e d in the indictment . . . 15 w a s a l m os tve rba t i m f

r om the pa tt e rn j ury i ns truc t i on: 5 I n or de rt o e s t abl i s h ac ons pi r a c y of f e ns e , i ti s notne c e s s a ry f orthe gove rnm e ntt o pr ove tha ta l l of the pe opl e na m e d i n the i ndi c tm e nt w e r e m e m be r s of

the s c he m e . . . . A de f

e nda ntc a n be f

ound gui l ty of the conspi ra cy offe nse onl y i f a l l of the fol l ow i ng fa ct s a re prov ed b e y o n d ar e a s o n ab l e d o u b t [ . ] . . . Fi r s t , tw o o rmo r e p e r s o n s i n s o me w a y orm a nne rc a m e t o a m utua l unde r s t a ndi ng t o try t o a c c om pl i s h a c o m m o n a n d u n la w f

u l p la n a s c h a r g e d in th e in d ic tm e n t. T h e p a tte rn ju ry in s tru c tio n a c c u r a te ly r e f le c ts th e e le m e n ts o f

a c o n s p ir a c y . U ni t e d S t a t e s v. T ruj i l l o, 146 F . 3d 838, 846 ( 11th C i r . 1998) . H ow e ve r , w he r e the i nd i ctm ental l eges thaton l y tw o p eopl e w er e i nv ol ved i n the conspi ra cy and d oes no tcont ai n l angu age t o the ef fe ctthatthe conspi ra cy i nv ol ved u nn am ed c ons pi r a t or s , the us e of

the c ha l l e nge d l a ngua ge m a y c ons t i tut e a c ons truc t i ve a m e n d m e n t o f

th e in d ic tm e n t. U n ite d S ta te s v . K e lle r , 9 1 6 F .2 d 6 2 8 , 6 3 4 - 3 6 ( 1 1 th C i r. 19 90 ); U ni t ed S t at es v. A nd re w s, 85 0 F . 2d 15 57 , 15 58 -60 (11 th C i r. 19 88 ) ( en ba nc ) . I n s uc h a c a s e , i ti s i nc orr e c tf orthe c our tt o i ns truc tthe j ury tha ti tne e d not fi nd thatal l tho se nam ed i n the i nd i ctm entw er e partof the conspi ra cy . S ee K el l er , 9 1 6 F .2 d a t 6 3 6 .16

I n th is c a s e , th e in d ic tm e n t d id n o t c h a r g e th a t th e c o n s p ir a c y w a s o n ly be tw e e n G r e ge ra nd D oe , buta l s o i nc l ude d othe rpe r s ons both know n a nd unknow n i n the c ons pi r a c y . T hus , the i ns truc t i on w a s nota n i nc orr e c ts t a t e m e ntof l a w ge ne r a l l y ori n r e l a t i on t o the c ons pi r a c y c ha r ge d i n thi s c a s e . S e e T ruj i l l o, 14 6 F . 3d at84 6; K el l er , 91 6 F . 2d at63 6. N or di d the charge s ub st ant i al l y m i sl ea d the j ury s o a s t o vi ol a t e due pr oc e s s . I n or de rf orthe j ury t o ha ve c onvi c t e d D oe of a c on spi ra cy i n acc ordance w i th i t s i nstruct i on s t o fol l ow the court ’ s i nstruct i on s a s a w ho l e a nd t o d ec i de the ca se on the basi s of the t es t i m on y a nd other e vi dence, w hi c h w e pr e s um e d i tf ol l ow e d, R a m i r e z , 426 F . 3d a t1352, i tm us tha ve f ound thatD oe conspi re d w i th G re ger. A s these addi t i on al i nstruct i on s provi de further c ont e xtf orthe i ns truc t i ons on the c ons pi r a c y c ha r ge , w e di s c e rn no abus e of d is c r e tio n in th e c o u r t’s p h r a s in g o f th e c o n s p ir a c y c h a r g e . V I . M ot i on f

or a n e w t r i al D oe m ov ed for anew tri al un der R ul e 33 o f the F eder al R ul es of C ri m i nal P r oc e dur e , a r gui ng tha tthe gove rnm e nt ’ s i m pr ope ri m pe a c hm e ntof T i gne r , a nd the c our t ’ s c om m e nt s i n the pr e s e nc e of the j ury c onc e rni ng the purpor t e d f e l ony c o n v ic tio n , d e s tr o y e d T ig n e r ’s c r e d ib ility a n d r e s u lte d in a m is c a rr ia g e o f ju s tic e . D oe prov i ded a cert i fi ed copy of the di sposi t i on i n T i gn er ’ s c as e, show i ng that T i gne re nt e r e d a pl e a of nol o c ont e nde r e t o the l e s s e ri nc l ude d of f e ns e ofRubin was rema nded for consideration of the g overnment’s position reg ardingthe 6 concur rent sentences doc trine. United States v. Rubin, 591 F.2d 278, 280 (5th Cir. 1979). O n rema nd, the Court otherwise a ffirme d based on its re asoningin its prior opinion. I d. at 283. 17 p o s s e s s io n o f

a c o n tr o lle d s u b s ta n c e a n d th a t a d ju d ic a tio n o f

g u ilt w a s w ith h e ld . T h e d i stri ctco u rtfo u n d th atth e g o v ern m en tw ro n g l y i m p each ed T i g n er b ecau se s h e w a s n o t c o n v ic te d u n d e rF lo r id a la w . H o w e v e r , it f u r th e rf o u n d th a t D o e d id note s t abl i s h a m i s c a rr i a ge of j us t i c e , r e a s oni ng tha tthe e vi de nc e i n the gove rnm e nt ’ s c a s e w a s s ubs t a nt i a l . O n appe a l , D oe a s s e r t s the i m por t a nc e of T i gn er ’ s c re di bi l i ty t o h i s c as e, ar gu i ng thatthe go vernm ent ’ s i m prop er i m peac hm entand the di stri ctcourt ’ s c om m ent s des troye d h ercr edi bi l i ty, w hi ch r e s u lte d in a m is c a rr ia g e o f ju s tic e . A di s tr i c tc our tm a y va c a t e a j udgm e nta nd gr a nta ne w tr i a l i f the i nt e r e s tof ju stice r eq u ires . F ed .R .C rim .P . 3 3 . W e c an n o t co n clu d e th at th e d istrict co u rt’s deci si on t o eval uat e D oe’ s new tri al m ot i on base d o n the stre ng th o f the ot her ev i d en ce ag ai n sth i m o r th e co n cl u si o n i treach ed i n d o i n g so co n st i tu t ed an ab u se of di sc re t i on . F i rs t , i m prop eri m peac hm enti s s ubj ec tt o revi ew for harm l es s e rr or, t a ki ng i nt o a c c ountthe s tr e ngth of the gove rnm e nt ’ s c a s e . U ni t e d S t a t e s v. R ubi n, 559 F . 2d 975, 984- 88 ( 5th C i r . 1977) , va c a t e d a nd r e m a nde d on othe rgr ounds , 439 U . S . 81 0 (19 78 ). S ec on d, i n eval uat i ng prej ud i ce st em m i ng fr om j ud i ci al 6 com m ent s s i m i l art o the com m ent s a ti ss ue i n thi s c as e, am on g the fa ct orsWe will not reversea conviction based upon comments of a trial judg e unless the 7 comments areso prejudicial a s to constitute denial of a f air trial. United States v. Morales, 868 F.2d 1562, 1576 ( 11th Cir. 1989). We have e x amined thre e factors we ighingin favor of a de terminatio n th at th ejudg e ’sc omm e ntswereno t re vers ibl ee rror , n ame ly “ (1 ) t hec omm e nts occupie d but a few sec onds of a lengthy trial; (2) the c omments weredirec ted to defense counse l rather than to the jury ; and (3) theTrial Judge advised the jury to disreg ard a

ny intimation by

the Court relatingto the fac ts of the ca se.” Id. (citation and quotation marks omitted). 18 c ons i de r e d w a s the s tr e ngth of the e vi de nc e a ga i ns tthe de f e nda nt . S e e H e l l m a n v. U ni t ed S t at es , 33 9 F . 2d 36 , 37 -38 & n. 2 (5th C i r. 19 64 ). In addi t i on , the fa ct ors w e c ons i de ri n de t e r m i ni ng w he the ra j udge ’ s c om m e nt s w e r e notr e ve r s i bl e e rr or 7 ar e notcl ea rl y w ei gh t ed i n favor of a fi nd i ng of re vers i bl e e rr or. A l tho ug h the tri al w a s n o t le n g th y , th e c o u r t’s th r e e c o m m e n ts in c lu d in g , “A ll r ig h t. Y o u w ill i nve s t i ga t e thi s m a tt e r , M r . K onc he , a nd t a ke appr opr i a t e a c t i ons [ , ] ” oc c upi e d a s hor tpe r i od of

the tr i a l . T he f

i na l c om m e ntw a s di r e c t e d t o the pr os e c ut ora nd not the j ury, and the j ury w as i nstruct ed t o d i sr egar d the court ’ s c om m ent s other than its in s tru c tio n s o n th e la w . No rwa s th e c o u r t ’ s e v a l u a t i o n o f th e e v i d e n c e a n ab u s e o f d i s c r e t i o n . As di sc usse d p re vi ou sl y, the prop er l y i ntrodu ce d evi dence of D oe’ s gui l tw as ov erw hel m i ng . In addi t i on , the court ’ s f i nd i ng thatD oe and T i gn erl ac ked c r e d ib ility r e g a r d le s s o f th e im p r o p e rim p e a c h m e n t w a s n o t a n im p e r m is s ib le fi nd i ng w hen eval uat i ng a m ot i on for anew tri al i n the i nt er es t s of j ust i ce . S ee H e rna nde z , 433 F . 3d a t1335 ( hol di ng tha t , on m ot i on f orne w tr i a l ba s e d on the w ei g h to f th e ev i d en ce, th e co u rtco u l d w ei g h ev i d en ce an d co n si d er th e w i tn esses’19

c r e d ib ility ) . In l i gh tof the foregoi ng , D oe’ s c on vi ct i on s a re AF F I RME D.