FILED U.S. COURT OF AP P EALS E LEV EN T HC IRC U IT JANUARY 25, 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- 13284 N on -A rgum entC al endar

________________________ D. C . Do c k e tNo . 0 5 - 0 0 1 1 0 - C R - 3 - L AC 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 A M E S C L I N T O N M C C O R V E Y , 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 N or the rn D i s tr i c tof F l or i da

_________________________ ( Jan u ar y 25, 2007) B efo re B L A C K , M A R C U S an d K R A V IT C H , C i rcu i tJu d g es. P E R C U R I A M: J a m e s C l i nt on M c C or ve y appe a l s hi s c onvi c t i ons a nd s e nt e nc e s f or2

pos s e s s i on w i th i nt e ntt o di s tr i but e c oc a i ne , i n vi ol a t i on of 21 U . S . C . § 841, a nd p o s s e s s io n o f

a f ir e a r m b y a c o n v ic te d f

e lo n , in v io la tio n o f

1 8 U .S .C . § 9 2 2 ( g ) . A f te rath o r o u g h r e v ie w o f th e r e c o r d , w e a f

f irm . I . Ba c k g r o und P ri or t o tri al , the go vernm entgave no t i ce of i t s i nt entt o i ntrodu ce evi dence of M c C or ve y ’ s 2002 c onvi c t i on f ora c ontr ol l e d s ubs t a nc e of f e ns e a nd a 1994 conv i ct i on for posse ss i on of a f i re arm by a c on vi ct ed fe l on pri or conv i ct i on s und er F e d . R . E v id . ( “R u le ” ) 4 0 4 ( b ) . A l s o pr i ort o tr i a l , M c C or ve y m ove d t o s uppr e s s e vi de nc e a nd t o i de nt i f y the c onf i de nt i a l i nf

or m a ntw ho s uppl i e d i nf or m a t i on tha tf

orm e d the ba s i s of

the s e a r c h w a rr a n t f

o rh is r e s id e n c e th a t le d to th e d is c o v e ry o f th e d ru g s a n d f

ir e a r m . A cc ordi ng t o the af

fi davi tfor the se ar ch w arra nt , po l i ce used a c on fi dent i al in fo rm an t t o en g ag e in a c o n tro ll ed b u y o f d ru g s f ro m M cC o rv ey at M cC o rv ey ’s hom e . M c C or ve y s ubm i tt e d a s w orn a f f i da vi tde ny i ng a ny i nvol ve m e nti n the c ontr ol l e d buy . A ta he a r i ng, the of f i c e rw ho f

i l e d the a f

f i da vi tt e s t i f

i e d aboutthe c ontr ol l e d buy , a nd the c our tf ound tha tthe r e w a s no f a l s e s t a t e m e nti n the a f f i da vi t . T he c our tthe n de ni e d the m ot i ons t o s uppr e s s a nd t o i de nt i f y the in f o r m a n t. T he e vi de nc e a ttr i a l e s t abl i s he d the f ol l ow i ng: a s pa r tof

adrug3

in v e s tig a tio n , E s c a m b iaC o u n ty S h e r if f’s O f f ic e n a r c o tic s in v e s tig a to rR e g in a ld B ru s te re x e c u te d a s e a r c h w a rr a n t f o rM c C o rv e y ’s r e s id e n c e , w h ic h h e w a s ab le to i de nt i f y ba s e d on bi l l s f

ortha ta ddr e s s l i s t e d i n M c C orve y ’ s na m e . I n the be dr oom o f M cC o rv ey’ s h o u se, p o l i ce fo u n d M cC o rv ey’ s w al l et , cash , an d can s w i th fal se bott om s . T he c a ns c ont a i ne d l i tt l e ba ggi e s l i ke the one s us e d t o s t or e a nd pa c ka ge drugs f ordi s tr i but i on. P ol i c e a l s o f ound c oc a i ne a nd M a nni t ol , a c utt i ng a ge nt used t o d i l ut e drugs, enabl i ng se l l er s t o i ncre as e profi t s. In the l i vi ng room , po l i ce f ound m or e ba ggi e s a nd e l e c tr oni c s c a l e s . I n a nothe rr oom tha tappe a r e d t o be u s e d a s s t o r a g e , p o l i c e f o u n d c l o th e s , p i l l b o tt l e s w i th M c Co rv e y ’ s n a me o n th e m, a nd a l oa de d f

i r e a r m w i th tw o ty pe s of a m m uni t i on i n a dr e s s e rdr a w e r . T he a m o u n t o f

d ru g s f o u n d w a s 1 5 .9 g r a m s o f c o c a in e . B rust ert es t i fi ed thathi s i nv es t i gat i on di d n otun cover any l egi t i m at e s ou rc e of i nc om e f

orM c C or ve y . D e f

e ns e c ouns e l obj e c t e d t o the t e s t i m ony , w hi c h the co u rt o v er ru led . C o u n se l l aterclar ified th e b as is fo r h is o b jectio n - th at B ru ster ’s t es t i m on y c on ce rni ng M cC orvey’ s l ac k o f i ncom e w as base d o n h ea rs ay . C ou nsel m ove d f ora m i s tr i a l , w hi c h the c our tove rrul e d, not i ng tha tc ouns e l c oul d ha ve c r o s s - e x a m in e d B ru s te rto d e te r m in e th e b a s is o f h is k n o w le d g e . T h e g o v e rn m e n t r e ite r a te d th a t it in te n d e d to c a ll aw itn e s s to te s tif y toThe pa rties stipulated that McCorvey had a p ri or fe lony

conviction for pur

poses of the 1 instant § 922(g ) cha

rg e. Expert testimony

established that the f

irea rm and ammuniti on found in the house trave led in interstate or fore ign c ommerce . Th ec ourt

denie d M c Cor

vey ’smotion s f

or po st- verdic t judgment o f ac quitt al. 2 4 M c C o r v e y ’s p r io rc o n v ic tio n s . D e f e n s e c o u n s e l o b

je c te d to th e te s tim o n y in 1 general , bu tspec i fi ca l l y t o the use of aw i tness t o d i sc uss the conv i ct i on s. C ou nsel al so no t ed thatthe t es t i m on y w ou l d b e i rr el evantand p re j ud i ci al . T he court ov errul ed the obj ec t i on . A T F A gentP et erB on dj uk t es t i fi ed thatM cC orvey had pr i orc onvi c t i ons f

orpos s e s s i on of

c oc a i ne i n 2002 a nd pos s e s s i on of a f i r e a rm by a c o n v ic te d f

e lo n in 1 9 9 4 . M c C o r v e y c a lle d a s in g le w itn e s s a n d d id n o t te s tif y o n h is o w n b e h a lf

. L a w r e n c e C o k e rte s tif

ie d th a t h is s o n h a d b e e n liv in g in th e h o u s e w ith M c C o rv e y . A ft er C o k er’ s so n d i ed , C o k er n ev er rem o v ed h i s so n ’ s b el o n g i n g s. I n pr e pa r i ng the j ury i ns truc t i ons , de f e ns e c ouns e l r e que s t e d a n i ns truc t i on on the l es se r i ncl ud ed offens e of posse ss i on because the sm al l am ou ntof drug s w as c o n s is te n t w ith p e r s o n a l u s e . T h e c o u r t d e n ie d th e in s tru c tio n , f in d in g it unne c e s s a ry be c a us e the j ury c oul d f i nd M c C orve y notgui l ty i f i tbe l i e ve d the drugs w e r e f

orpe r s ona l us e . I n i t s i ns truc t i ons , the c our ti nf or m e d the j ury tha tthe pri or conv i ct i on s w er e a dm i ss i bl e f or the l i m i t ed pu rposes of det erm i ni ng w hether M c C or ve y ha d the r e qui r e d i nt e nta nd w he the rhe a c t e d w i thoutm i s t a ke or acci d en t . T h e j u ry co n v i ct ed M cC o rv ey o f b o th co u n t s. 25

P ri or t o sent enci ng , the go vernm entfi l ed an i nform at i on on enhanced p e n a ltie s u n d e rth e A r m e dC a r e e rC r im in a l A c t ( “A C C A ” ) , 1 8 U .S .C . § 9 2 4 ( e ) , in w hi ch i ti dent i fi ed the fol l ow i ng pri or conv i ct i on s: batt ery, batt ery on a l aw enforce m entoffi ce r, po ss es si on w i th i nt entt o d el i ver, and sal e of acontrol l ed s u b s ta n c e . T he prob at i on offi ce r pre pare d a pres ent ence i nv es t i gat i on re po rt(“ P S I” ), grou pi ng the tw o cou nt s t og ether a nd as si gn i ng a bas e off ense l evel of 20 un der U . S . S . G . § 2K 2. 1( a ) ( 4) ba s e d on the pr i orba tt e ry c onvi c t i on. T he pr oba t i on o ffi cer th en i n cl u d ed a 4 -l ev el i n crease u n d er U . S . S . G . § 2 K 2 . 1 (b )(5 ) b ecau se M c C or ve y pos s e s s e d the f i r e a r m i n c onne c t i on w i th a nothe rf e l ony of f e ns e , i . e . the c ontr ol l e d s ubs t a nc e of

f e ns e i n c ountone , a nd a 2- l e ve l i nc r e a s e f orobs truc t i on of ju s tic e , U .S .S .G . § 3 C 1 .1 , b a s e d o n th e f a ls e a f f id a v it M c C o rv e y s u b m itte d in h is ea rl i erm ot i on t o sup pres s. U nd erthe A C C A , M cC orvey’ s a dj ust ed offens e l evel w a s 34. T h e p ro b at i o n o ffi cer th en d et ai l ed M cC o rv ey’ s l en g th y cri m i n al h i st o ry, w hi ch i dent i fi ed m ore than 2 0 p ri or conv i ct i on s f or as saul tand b att ery, control l ed subst ance offe nses , and fi re arm offe nses . B as ed on M cC orvey’ s s t atus as a c ar ee r of f e nde r , hi s c r i m i na l hi s t ory c a t e gory w a s V I , w hi c h r e s ul t e d i n a gui de l i ne s r a nge of 262 t o 327 m onths i m pr i s onm e nt . T he pr oba t i on of f i c e rr e c om m e nde d aMcCorvey also challeng es the c onclusion that the firearm was “in conne ction with” drug 3 distribution and whether thecourt plainly erred in imposing a

sentenc e th at wa s sufficient and “a greater sentence should not be nece ssary .” Upon review, we a ffirm without further discussion. See United States v. Garcia- Delg ado, 184 Fe d. Appx. 851 (11th Cir. 2006)(unpublished) (holdingthat thec ourt ’sstatement t

hat th esentenc ewa s “ su ff ic ient, and

a gre ater s entenc eis n ot n e c e ssa ry”did not contradic t the requirements of § 3553(a)); United States v. Rhind, 289 F.3d 690, 695 ( 11th Cir. 2002) (holdingthat to apply the firearm enhancement, the firearm need onl y “re flec t the context of the def endant’ s possession,” and the defenda nt’s ability

to use the fire arm to promote the c ontrolled substance of

fense ). 6 s e nt e nc e i n the m i ddl e of the r a nge , butdi d notr e c om m e nd a f i ne be c a us e the r e c or ds i ndi c a t e d tha tM c C or ve y w oul d be unabl e t o pa y a f i ne due t o out s t a ndi ng d e b t a n d o v e r d u e c h ild s u p p o r t. T he c our tove rrul e d M c C or ve y ’ s va r i ous obj e c t i ons t o the e nha nc e m e nt s a nd a d o p t e d th e PSI . U p o n c o n s i d e r a t i o n o f th e s e n t e n c i n g f

a c t o r s i n 1 8 U . S. C. § 3 55 3(a) , i ncl ud i ng M cC orvey’ s pri or conv i ct i on s, the courtse nt ence d M cC orvey t o 2 94 m on ths i m pri sonm ent . T he courtal so i m po se d a fi ne of $8 00 , w hi ch w as be l ow the gui de l i ne s r a nge , f i ndi ng tha tM c C orve y w oul d notbe abl e t o pa y a f i ne w i th i n th e ran g e, b u tth atth e o p p o rtu n i t i es h e h ad i n p ri so n as w el l as u p o n rel ease w o u ld e n ab le h im to p a y a s m a lle rf in e . M c C o rv e y o b

je c te d to th e f

in e im p o s e d . M c C or ve y now appe a l s , c ha l l e ngi ng the a dm i s s i on of hi s tw o pr i or c onvi c t i ons , the t e s t i m ony r e ga r di ng hi s i nc om e , the f a i l ur e t o i ns truc tthe j ury on the l es se r i ncl ud ed offens e, and the i m po si t i on of a f i ne. 3 I I . M c C o r v e y ’ s A p p e a l W e r e vi e w a di s tr i c tc our t ’ s de c i s i on t o a dm i te vi de nc e f orabus e of7

d is c r e tio n . U n ite d S ta te s v . S m ith , 4 5 9 F .3 d 1 2 7 6 , 1 2 9 5 ( 1 1 th C ir . 2 0 0 6 ) . A di s tr i c tc our t ’ s r e f

us a l t o gi ve a pa r t i c ul a rj ury c ha r ge a l s o i s r e vi e w e d f orabus e of di sc re t i on . U ni t ed S t at es v. L ee , 68 F . 3d 12 67 , 12 73 (11th C i r. 19 95 ). W e r evi ew a di stri ctcourt ’ s det erm i nat i on thatthe defendanti s abl e t o p aythe fi ne for c l ea r error. U ni t ed S t at es v. M cG ui nn es s, 45 1 F . 3d 13 02 , 13 07 (11th C i r. 20 06 ); U ni t ed S ta te s v . S in g h , 3 3 5 F .3 d 1 3 2 1 , 1 3 2 3 n .1 ( 1 1 th C ir . 2 0 0 3 ) .

A . A dm i s s i on of

P r i orC onvi c t i ons M cC orvey a rgues thatthe courtm i sapp l i ed R ul e 404 (b) a nd adm i tt ed pr e j udi c i a l a nd i rr e l e va nte vi de nc e , l e a vi ng the j ury t o pi c tur e hi m a s a vi ol e nt r e pe a tof f e nde r . H e c ont e nds tha thi s pr i orc onvi c t i ons w e r e notr e l e va ntt o the i ss ue of i nt entbecause i nt entw as no tan el em entof the 92 2(g) offense . H e f urther not e s tha the s t i pul a t e d tha the ha d a pr i orf e l ony c onvi c t i on, a nd, the r e f or e , the p r io rc o n v ic tio n s w e r e n o t a d m is s ib le to p r o v e th is e le m e n t o f h is § 9 2 2 o f

f e n s e . A lth o u g h h e a c k n o w le d g e d th a t th is c o u r t p e rm its e v id e n c e o f a p r io rc o n v ic tio n to s how know i ng pos s e s s i on of a f i r e a rm , he a s s e r t s tha ti tw a s notpr oba t i ve i n the in s ta n t c a s e b e c a u s e th e r e w a s n o in f o rm a tio n ab o u t th e p r io rc o n v ic tio n a n d it is u n k n o w n w h e th e rth e p r io rc o n v ic tio n w a s s im ila r . M c C o rv e y a d m its th a t in te n t is a n e l e m e ntof

hi s c ontr ol l e d s ubs t a nc e of f e ns e , buthe a s s e r t s tha thi s pr i or c o n v ic tio n f

o rp 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 is n o t p r o b a tiv e o f h is in te n t toRule 403 provides, “[a]lthough re levant, evidence may be ex cluded if its probative value 4 is substantially outweighed by the dang er of unfair prejudice , confusion of theissues, or misleading the jury, or by

considerations of undue delay, waste of time, or needle ss presentation of cumulative evidenc e.” 8 c om m i tpos s e s s i on w i th i nt e ntt o di s tr i but e , a s the tw o of f e ns e s ha ve di f

f e r e nt el em en t s. U nde rR ul e 404( b) , “ [ 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 rm 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 , oppor tuni ty , i nt e nt , pr e pa r a t i on, pl a n, know l e dge , i de nt i ty , orabs e nc e of m i st ake or ac ci dent. . . . ” F ed. R . E vi d. 40 4(b). T he rul e i s one of “ i ncl usi on . ” U n ite d S ta te s v . J e rn ig a n , 3 4 1 F .3 d 1 2 7 3 , 1 2 8 0 ( 1 1 th C ir . 2 0 0 3 ) . A s thi s c ou rthas e xp l ai ned, evi dence i s a dm i ss i bl e und erR ul e 404 (b) i f:

“ (1) i ti s r el evantt o an i ss ue other than the defendant ’ s c hara ct er ; (2) the pri or ac t i s pr ove d s uf

f i c i e nt l y t o pe rm i ta j ury de t e rm i na t i on the de f e nda ntc om m i tt e d the a c t ; a nd ( 3) the e vi de nc e ’ s pr oba t i ve va l ue c a nnotbe s ubs t a nt i a l l y outw e i ghe d by i t s und ue prej ud i ce , and i tm ustsa t i sf y F eder al R ul e of E vi dence 403 . ” U ni t ed 4 S ta te s v . E c k h a r d t, 4 6 6 F .3 d 9 3 8 , 9 4 6 ( 1 1 th C ir . 2 0 0 6 ) ; J e rn ig a n , 3 4 1 F .3 d a t 1 2 8 0 . M cC orvey does notchal l enge w hether the pri or conv i ct i on s w er e proven suff i ci ent l y; thu s onl y the fi rs tand thi rd pron gs ar e a ti ss ue. A s to th e f

ir s t p r o n g , w e c o n c lu d e th a t th e p r io rc o n v ic tio n s w e r e r e le v a n t to9

show i nt entand absence of mis t ake. M cC orvey’ s def ense w as thathi s pri nt s w er e notf ound on the e vi de nc e , tha tthe e vi de nc e be l onge d t o a pr e vi ous r e s i de ntof the ho use, and thathe di d n otkn ow i ng l y posse ss the fi re arm . B as ed on thi s def ense , M cC orvey pl ac ed hi s i nt entand l ac k o f m i st ake a ti ss ue. Je rni gan, 34 1 F . 3d at 1281- 82. T hus , the e vi de nc e w a s a dm i s s i bl e t o pr ove i nt e nta nd abs e nc e of m i st ake. M oreover, the fa ctthatthe pri or conv i ct i on i nv ol ved p osse ss i on of a c o n tr o lle d s u b s ta n c e a n d th a t th e in s ta n t o f f e n s e in v o lv e d p o s s e s s io n w ith in te n t to di s tr i but e doe s notr e nde rthe pr i orc onvi c t i on i na dm i s s i bl e . S e e U ni t e d S t a t e s v. M a tthe w s , 431 F . 3d 1296, 1311 ( 11th C i r . 2005) ( e xpl a i ni ng tha ta pr i orc onvi c t i on f o rp o s s e s s io n w a s r e le v a n t to th e in s ta n t c h a r g e f o rp o s s e s s io n w ith in te n t to di stri bu t e) ; U ni t ed S t at es v. B ut l er , 10 2 F . 3d 11 91 (11th C i r. 19 97 ). F urtherm ore, e vi de nc e of

a pr i orpos s e s s i on of

a f i r e a rm i s a dm i s s i bl e t o s how know l e dge i n a prosec ut i on for kno w i ng l y posse ss i ng a s i m i l arw eapo n. Je rni gan, 34 1 F . 3d at 1281. W i th res pectt o the thi rd pron g, the prob at i ve val ue of the evi dence ou tw ei gh ed the prej ud i ci al val ue. D es pi t e M cC orvey’ s c l ai m thatthe evi dence c a us e d the j ury t o vi e w hi m a s a vi ol e ntr e pe a tof f e nde r , the j ury onl y he a r d about tw o p ri or conv i ct i on s - on e f or control l ed subst ance s a nd on e f or fi re arm p o ss es sio n . T h e ju ry d idn o t l ea rn an y d etails o f th e c o n v icti o n s, o r o f M cC o rv ey ’s10

l e ngthy c r i m i na l hi s t ory . T hus , the e vi de nc e w a s notpr e j udi c i a l . M or e ove r , the c our ti ns truc t e d the j ury tha tthe e vi de nc e w a s a dm i s s i bl e f orthe l i m i t e d purpos e of show i ng i nt entand absence of mis t ake, and n ott o d et erm i ne w hether M cC orvey com m i tt ed the i nst antoffe nse. Je rni gan, 34 1 F . 3d at12 83 . T here fore , the court d id n o t ab u s e its d is c r e tio n b y a d m ittin g th e p r io rc o n v ic tio n s . E ve n i f the c our te rr e d, a ny e rr orw a s ha rm l e s s i n l i ghtof the ove rw he l m i ng e v id e n c e a g a in s t M c C o r v e y . U n ite d S ta te s v . G u n n , 3 6 9 F .3 d 1 2 2 9 , 1 2 3 6 ( 1 1 th C i r . 2004) ; 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) ( s t a t i ng tha te rr ori 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 ” or“ the e rr or h a d n o s u b s ta n tia l in f

lu e n c e o n th e o u tc o m e a n d [ o th e r ] s u f f ic ie n t e v id e n c e . . . su p p o rts th e v er d ict”). P o li ce fo u n d d ru g s a n d d ru g p ar ap h er n alia in M cC o rv ey ’s b ed ro o m , i n a h o u se li sted in M cC o rv ey ’s n am e, an d o n th e b ed w ith M cC o rv ey ’s w a l l e t . I n l i ghtof

thi s e vi de nc e , pe rm i tt i ng the j ury t o he a rabouttw o pr i or co n v i ct i o n s w as h arm l ess.

B. M c Co r v e y ’ s I n c o me M cC orvey nextar gu es thatthe courti m prop er l y a dm i tt ed t es t i m on y that i nve s t i ga t or s f

ound no l e gi t i m a t e s our c e of i nc om e be c a us e the r e w a s no f o u n d a tio n f

o rth e te s tim o n y a s r e q u ir e d b y R u le 6 0 2 a n d 7 0 1 . U n d e rR u le 6 0 2 , “[ a ] w itn e s s m a y n o t te s tif y to a m a tte ru n le s s e v id e n c e is11

i ntrodu ce d suffi ci entt o i ntrodu ce a f i nd i ng thatthe w i tness has per sonal kn ow l edge of the m att er . E vi dence t o p rove pers on al kn ow l edge m ay , bu tneed no t , consi stof the w i tness ’ ow n t es t i m on y. ” F ed. R . E vi d. 60 2. A w i tness ’ s l ay opi ni on i s a dm i s s i bl e i f , i nt e ra l i a , i ti s “ r a t i ona l l y ba s e d on the pe r c e pt i on of the w i tne s s . ” F e d. R . E vi d. 701. H er e, the courtdi d n otabuse i t s di sc re t i on . B rust ert es t i fi ed thathe w as i nv ol ved i n the i nv es t i gat i on and thathe w as un abl e t o fi nd any l egi t i m at e s ou rc e of i nc om e . T hus , B rus t e rha d pe r s ona l know l e dge , ba s e d on hi s i nve s t i ga t i on, a nd hi s t e s t i m ony s a t i s f

i e d R ul e 602. M oreover, even i f there w as error, thaterror w as harm l es s bec ause , as di s c us s e d above , the e vi de nc e a ga i ns tM c C orve y w a s ove rw he l m i ng. H a rr i s t on, 3 2 9 F .3 d a t 7 8 9 . C . J ury I ns truc t i ons I n h is n e x t a r g u m e n t, M c C o rv e y a s s e r ts th a t th e c o u r t e rr e d b y r e f u s in g to i nstructthe j ury on the l es se r i ncl ud ed offe nse of posse ss i on because the evi dence w a s c o n s is te n t w ith th e o f f e n s e s o f s im p le p o s s e s s io n a n d a r a tio n a l ju r o rc o u ld h a v e f o u n d h im g u ilty o f

th e le s s e ro f

f e n s e . A defe nd anti s e nt i t l ed t o an i nstruct i on on a l es se r i ncl ud ed offens e i f “ there w a s a r e a s onabl e ba s i s on w hi c h the j ury c oul d f i nd the de f

e nda ntgui l ty of

[ the12

le s s e ro f f e n s e ] b e y o n d a r e a s o n ab le d o u b t y e t e n te r ta in a r e a s o n ab le d o u b t [ a s to the great eroffe nse] . ” U ni t ed S t at es v. C at chi ng s, 92 2 F . 2d 77 7, 78 0 (11 th C i r. 1991) . A s thi s c our tha s e xpl a i ne d, i n the c ont e xtof pos s e s s i on a nd di s tr i but i on of drugs , w he r e the f

a c tua l i s s ue s a r e the s a m e f orboth the l e s s e rof

f e ns e of p o s s e s s io n a n d th e g r e a te ro f f e n s e o f d is tr ib u tio n , th e in s tru c tio n o n p o s s e s s io n is no tre qu i re d. Id. at78 0-81 ; U ni t ed S t at es v. P i rol l i , 74 2 F . 2d 13 82 , 13 87 (11th C i r. 1 9 8 4 ) .H e r e , the f

a c t s i nvol ve d i n the tw o of f e ns e s w e r e the s a m e , a nd the r e f or e , the in stru ctio n w as n o t req u ired . S ee L ee , 6 8 F .3 d at 1 2 7 3 . M o re o v er , M cC o rv ey ’s re l i ance on U ni t ed S t at es v. G i bb s, 90 4 F . 2d 52 (D . C . C i r. 19 90 ), i s m i spl ac ed. In G i bbs , pol i c e f

ound onl y about15 gr a m s of drugs , butdi d notf

i nd a ny drug pa r aphe rna l i a . I n c ontr a s t , i n thi s c a s e , the r e w a s e vi de nc e tha tpol i c e f ound b a g g ie s , s c a le s , a n d c u ttin g a g e n ts , w h ic h w e r e c o n s is te n t w ith d ru g d is tr ib u tio n . M or e ove r , the r e w a s no e vi de nc e i n the i ns t a ntc a s e of pe r s ona l us e . L e e , 68 F . 3d a t1273. A c c or di ngl y , the c our tdi d notabus e i t s di s c r e t i on by de ny i ng the i ns truc t i on. D . I m pos i t i on of a F i ne F i na l l y , M c C or ve y a r gue s tha tthe c our te rr one ous l y de t e rm i ne d tha the w ou l d b e abl e t o p aya f i ne bel ow the gu i del i nes r ange because the re cord ref l ec t ed13

h is d e b t a n d th e P S I r e c o g n iz e d h is in ab ility to p a y . U nde rU . S . S . G . § 5E 1. 2, “ [ t ] he c ourts ha l l i m pos e a f i ne i n a l l c a s e s , e xc e pt w h e r e th e d e f

e n d a n te s t ab l i s h e s th a th e i s u n ab l e t o p a y a n d i s n o tl i k e l y t o b e c o me abl e t o p ayany f

i ne” “ even w i th the use of are as on abl e i nst al l m entsc hedu l e. ” U .S .S .G . § 5 E 1 .2 ( a ) & ( e ) ( 1 ) . M c C o rv e y h a s th e b u r d e n o f p r o v in g in ab ility to pa y . M c G ui nne s s , 451 F . 3d a t1307; U ni t e d S t a t e s v. H e rna nde z , 160 F . 3d 661, 6 6 5 ( 1 1 th C ir . 1 9 9 8 ) . H e r e , the di s tr i c tc our tf ound tha tM c C or ve y w oul d notbe abl e t o pa y a f i ne un der the gu i del i nes r ange, bu tthathe w as abl e t o p aya s m al l erfi ne, w hi ch c o n tr a d ic te d th e P S I ’s f in d in g s . T h e c o u r t m a d e n o o th e rf a c tu a l f in d in g s e x c e p t to a d o p t th e P S I . T h is c o u r t h a s h e ld th a t th e s e n te n c in g c o u r t is n o t r e q u ir e d to m a k e s p e c if ic f i ndi ngs of

f a c tw i th r e s pe c tt o the S e nt e nc i ng G ui de l i ne f a c t or s a s l ong a s “ ‘ the r e c o r d r e f

le c t[ s ] th e d is tr ic t c o u r t’s c o n s id e r a tio n o f th e p e r tin e n t f

a c to r s p r io rto im p o s in g th e f

in e .’” U n ite d S ta te s v . L o m b a r d o , 3 5 F .3 d 5 2 6 , 5 3 0 ( 1 1 th C ir .1 9 9 4 ) . T hese fa ct ors i ncl ud e: the defendant ’ s i ncom e; ea rni ng capaci ty; fi nanci al re source s; the bu rden on the defendantand h i s dependent s; pecuni ary l oss i nfl i ct ed o n o th e r s a s a r e s u lt o f

th e o f f e n s e ; w h e th e rr e s titu tio n is o r d e r e d ; th e n e e d to d e p r i v e th e d e f

e n d a n to f i l l e g a l g a i n s ; a n d th e n e e d t o p r o m o t e r e s p e c tf o rth e l a w,14

p r o v id e ju s t p u n is h m e n t, a n d a d e q u a te d e te rr e n c e . U .S .S .G . § 5 E 1 .2 ( d ) . I f it is un cl ea r f rom the re cord as t o the court ’ s r ea sons for i m po si ng a f i ne, thi s c ou rt s h o u ld r e m a n d th e c a s e s o th a t th e c o u r t c a n m a k e th e n e c e s s a ry f a c tu a l f in d in g s . U n ite d S ta te s v . R o w la n d , 9 0 6 F .2 d 6 2 1 , 6 2 4 ( 1 1 th C ir . 1 9 9 0 ) . H er e, the courtre vi ew ed and ado pt ed the P S I, bu tthen fou nd that e m p lo y m e n t o p p o r tu n itie s in p r is o n a n d a f te rr e le a s e w o u ld e n ab le M c C o rv e y to p a y a f in e in th e a m o u n t o f

$ 8 0 0 . M c C o rv e yh a s o f f e r e d n o th in g to s h o w h is i nabi l i ty t o p aythi s s m al l am ou nt . A s the courtno t ed, M cC orvey i s onl y 48 yea rs o ld , h a s a c o lle g e e d u c a tio n , a n d h a s n o m e d ic a l c o n d itio n s th a t w o u ld p r e v e n t h im fr om bei ng abl e t o w ork w hi l e i ncar ce ra t ed and aft erre l ea se . T hu s, i tappears that th e c o u r t s u f

f ic ie n tly c o n s id e r e d th e n e c e s s a ry f a c to r s b e f

o r e im p o s in g a f

in e . M c C or ve y ha s of

f e r e d nothi ng othe rtha n the P S I ’ s f i ndi ngs of

hi s out s t a ndi ng de bt as ev i d en ce o f h i s i n ab i l i ty t o p ay. I I I . C on c l u s i on F or the foregoi ng re as on s, w e AF F I RM M c C orve y ’ s c onvi c t i ons a nd sen t en ces.