FI L ED U.S. COURT OF APPEAL S EL EVENTHCI RCUI T J AN 12, 2010 J OHN L EY ACTI NG CL ERK [DO NOT PUBLISH] IN THE UN ITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELE VENTH CIRCUIT

__ __ __ __ __ __ _ No. 0 7- 11 99 7

__ __ __ __ __ __ _ D.C. Dock etNo. 0 6- 00 02 9- CR-OC -1 0- GRJ UNITED STAT ES OF AMERIC A, Pla in ti ff-Ap pe ll ee- Cro ss -Ap pe ll an t, ve rs us ALVIN DORSEY, a.k .a. Pee Wee, ERIC WILLIAMS, a.k .a. Lex, MIGUEL ORTIZ, a.k .a. Mex ic anMi ke , a.k .a. Mi ch ael Gon zal ez, MAURIC E BENN, a.k .a. Doo dl eb ug , DAVID JOHNSON, a.k .a. Bla ckDave , GREGORY GAINES, CARL ST. PREUX, a.k .a. Sh ort, Defen da nt s- App el la nt s, CHRIS TOPHER W ILDER, Defen da nt -Ap pe ll an t- Cro ss -Ap pe ll ee.__ __ __ __ __ __ App eal s fr om

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

__ __ __ __ __ __ (J anua ry 12 , 20 10 ) Befo re MAR CUS an d HILL, Ci rcu itJu dg es , andVOORHEES, Dis tri ctJu dg e. * HILL, Circ ui t J ud ge : Thi s i s a c on so li da te d app eal fro m fin al jud gm en ts of t he Uni te d S ta te s Dis tri ctCo urt fo r th e Mi dd le Dis tri ctof F lo rid a. Defen da nt s M au ric e Ben n, Al vi n Dor se y , Greg ory

Gain es , Davi d J oh ns on , Mig ue l Ort iz , Chr is to ph er Wild er, Eri c W il li am s, an d C arl St. Pr eu x app eal fro m th ei r co nv ic ti on s an d s en te nc es . The go ve rn m en t ap pe al s the sen te nc e g iv enCh ris to ph er Wild er. Fo r th e fo ll owi ng reas on s, we s ha ll affi rm . I. The ev id en ce attri al sh owe d t ha t the se eig htde fen da nt s an d o th ers 1 pa rti ci pa te d i n t he sel li ng of c oc ai ne an d c rackov er a fi ve -y ear p eri odincen tra l Fl or id a. On an y

gi ve n d ay , def

en da nt s s ol d o ne -fo urth to on e-h al f ki lo gr am of co cai ne ; s om et im es th ey

so ld$1 20 ,00 0 wo rth of c oc ai ne inon e week . In ad di ti on , Honora ble Richard L . Voorhe es, United States District Judge f or the Western D istrict of * North Carolina, sitting by designation. Four additional defe ndants wer e indicted, but ar e not pre sent in this consolidated appea l. 1 2de fen da nt s co ok edpo wde r an d s ol d t he res ul ti ng crac k t hr ou gh ou t the area . In

la te 20 03 , a law en fo rcem en t t as k fo rce e xe cu te d s earc h warran ts at t he ho us es of se ve ral of t he de fen da nt s an d s ub se qu en tl y all eig htwere arres te d. A gra ndjury in di ct edth e d efen da nt s fo r co ns pi racy to d is tri bu te fiv e o r m or e k il og ram s o f po wde r co cai ne an d fi fty or m or e g ram s o f cra ckco cai ne , in vi ol at io n o f 21 U.S.C. §§ 84 1( a)(1 ) an d (b )(1 )(A) an d 8 46 . The d efen da nt s p le d no t g ui lt y an d p ro ceed edto tri al . The tria l l as te d fo urte enda y s an d i nv ol ve d t hi rty go ve rn m en t wi tn es se s. Th e jury foundth atBen n, Do rs ey , Gain es , Jo hn so n, an d W il li am s h adco ns pi redto di st rib ut e fi ve ki lo gr am s o r m or e o f po wde r an d fi fty gr am s o r m or e o f cra ck ; Ort iz an d S t. Pre ux ha d c on sp ire d t o d is tri bu te fiv e ki lo gr am s o r m or e o f po wde r; a ndW il de r ha d c on sp ire d t o d is tri bu te les s t ha n 5 00 gr am s o f po wde r an d fi ve or m or e g ram s o f cra ck . The d is tri ctco urt d en ie d t he de fen da nt s’ m ot io ns forjud gm en ts of a cqui tt al or n ew tr ia l m ad e dur in g and ren ewedaft er tria l. The co urt s en te nc edW il de r to 14 4 m on th s; Orti z to 18 6 m on th s; W il li am s to 23 5 m on th s; Ben n, Do rs ey , andGain es to 30 0 m on th s; an d J oh ns on an d S t. Preu x t o l ife im

pr is on m en t. Ben n, Do rs ey , Gain es , Jo hn so n, Ort iz , W il de r, an d W il li am s ap pe al th ei r jud gm en ts of c on vi ct io n a ndsen te nc es an d t he go ve rn m en t cro ss -ap pe al s Wild er’s s en te nc e. 3II.

Defen da nt s ra is e n in e is su es reg ard in g t he ir c on vi ct io ns , andall eg e fi ve erro rs inco nn ect io n wi th th ei r se nt en ci ng s. Th e Uni te d S ta te s ra is es on e is su e in co nn ect io n wi th W il de r’s se nt en ce. We addres s t he se is su es intu rn . 1. All eg ed I na dequ ac y o f Pro of of S in gl e Con sp ir ac y Ben n, Do rs ey , Gain es , Jo hn so n, Wild er, Will ia m s an d S t. Pre ux m ov edfora jud gm en t o f acqui tt al , ass ert in g t ha t the go ve rn m en t fa il edto pro ve th e al le ge d co ns pi racy or th ei r kn owi ng pa rti ci pa ti on init . Som e o f th e d efen dant s as se rt t ha t th e g ov ern m en t’s ev id en ce es tabl is he d t wo co ns pi raci es – o ne in vo lv in g the go ve rn m en t’s wi tn es se s wh o h adbe enfou ndgu il ty in a p rev io us cas e an d a no th er se pa rat e co ns pi racy inv ol vi ng th e d efen dant s h ere. Othe r de fen da nt s ar gu e th at , at m os t, the ev id en ce s ho weda se rie s o f sub- ag reem en ts or m ere b uyer-s el le r ag reem en ts th atwere n otti edto ge th er i n o ne ov erar ch in g c on sp ira cy as c harg edin th e in di ctm en t. All de fen da nt s al le ge th atth ere was a m at eri al va ria nc e b etween th e ev id en ce attri al an d t he co ns pi racy char ge d i n t he in di ctm en t. Thi s co urt rev ie ws de no vo a di st ric t co urt’s d en ia l o f a m ot io n fo r jud gm en t o f acqui tt al , vi ewin g the ev id en ce i n t he li gh t m os t fa vo rab le to th e v erd ic t. Uni te d Sta tes v. Byrd , 40 3 F .3d12 78 , 12 88 (11 Cir . 20 05 ). th A m at eri al va ria nc e b etweenanin di ctm en t an d t he go ve rn m en t’s p ro of at 4tri al oc cu rs if t he go ve rn m en t p ro ve s m ul ti pl e co ns pi raci es un de r anin di ctm en t al le gi ng on ly a sin gl e co ns pi racy. Uni te d Sta tes v. C as tr o , 89 F.3d14 43 , 14 50 (1 1 Cir . 19 96 ). Becaus e th e jury det erm in es th e que st io n o f fac t as to whet he r th e th ev id en ce es tabl is he s a s in gl e co ns pi racy, the arg uabl e ex is te nc e o f m ul ti pl e co ns pi raci es do es no t co ns ti tu te a m at eri al va ria nc e fro m th e in di ctm en t i f, vi ewin g the 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, a re as on ab le tri er o f fac t co ul d h av e fo un d tha t a s in gl e co ns pi racy exi st edbe y on d areas on ab le do ub t. Uni te d Sta tes v. Ad ams , 1 F.3 d 1 56 6, 1 58 4 (1 1 Cir . 19 93 ). Acco rd in gl y , th th e d is tri ctco urt s ho ul d n otgra nta m ot io n fo r acqui tt al ba se d upo n a n a ll eg ed va ria nc e b etweenth e ev id en ce an d t he co ns pi racy char ge d i n t he in di ctm en t i f th ere was subs ta nt ia l ev id en ce i n t he reco rdfro m whi ch th e jury cou ldha ve fou nd th ata si ng le co ns pi racy exi st ed . Uni te d Sta tes v. C alde ro n , 12 7 F .3d13 14 , 13 27 (1 1 Cir . 19 97 ). th Inde te rm in in g wh ethe r th e jury in t hi s ca se co ul d h av e fo un d asi ng le co ns pi racy, w e rev ie w th e rec or d t o d et erm in e whe th er the re was subs ta nt ia l ev id en ce tha t (1 ) th ere was a co m m on go al am on g t he co ns pi rat or s; (2) th ere was anun de rlyin g a ndco m

m on sch em e am on gs t the co ns pi rat or s; an d t ha t (3 ) th ere was subs ta nt ia l o ve rlap o f pa rti ci pa nt s i n t ha t s ch em e. Id. W e h av e m ad e cl ear th at“ se pa rat e tr an sa ct io ns are n otne ces sa ril y sep arat e co ns pi raci es , so lo ng as t he 5co ns pi rat or s ac t i n c on certto furth er a co m m on go al .” Uni te d Sta tes v. C ha ndle r , 38 8 F .3d79 6, 8 11 (11 Cir . 20 04 ) (ci ta ti on om it te d) . If th e ev id en ce s ho ws tha t a th de fen da nt ’s act io ns “ faci li ta te d the ve ntur e as a who le ,” a s in gl e co ns pi racy is es tabl is he d. Id. It i s i rrel ev an t tha t the pa rti cu lar co -co ns pi rat or s d idno t pa rti ci pa te inev ery st ag e o r fac etof t he co ns pi racy. Uni te d Sta tes v. Alre d , 14 4 F.3 d 1 40 5, 1 41 5 (1 1 Cir . 19 98 ). th W e h av e h el d t ha t “ [i]t i s o fte n p os si bl e, es pe ci al ly w it h d ru g c on sp ira ci es , to di vi de a si ng le co ns pi racy int o s ub -ag reem en ts . . . . This do es no t, h owe ve r, m ean th atm or e th anon e co ns pi racy exi st s. Th e k ey is to de te rm in e whe th er the di ffer en t s ub -g ro up s ar e act in g i n fu rth eran ce o f on e o ve rarc hi ng pl an .” Ca lder on , 12 7 F .3dat 1 32 9 (i nt ern al qu ot at io n m ark s an d quo te d aut ho rit y om it te d) . W e lo okto see if a n “ act orde m on st rat eda subs ta nt ia l l ev el of c ommit m en t t o the co ns pi racy, [for ex am

pl e] by en ga gi ng ina co ns is te ntser ie s o f sm al le r tra ns act io ns th atfurth eredit s u lt im at e o bjec t o f supp lying th e co ns um er d em an d of th e m ark et .” Uni te d Sta tes v. Westry , 52 4 F .3d11 98 , 12 13 (11 Cir . 20 08 ) th (quo ti ng Uni te d Sta tes v. Ba nk s , 10 F.3d10 44 , 10 54 (4 Cir . 19 93 ) (i nt ern al th qu ot at io n m ark s an d c it at io ns om it te d) ). The re i s n o d oubtth atth e ev id en ce i n t hi s ca se sat is fie d t he se st an da rd s. The go ve rn m en t’s wi tn es se s t es ti fie d t o the wid e-ra ng in g a ndlo ng -la st in g 6co ns pi racy in wh ic h t he se de fen da nt s p art ic ip at ed . The jury fou ndan d t he di st ric t co urt af firm edth atth e ev id en ce s ho wedth atth e d efen dant s s hareda co m m on go al of ob ta in in g a ndsel li ng co cai ne , po wde r an d c rackincen tra l Fl or id a, an d tha t each of t he se de fen dant s p art ic ip at edas asupp li er, d is tri bu to r, an d/ orfaci li ta to r at di ffer en t t im es . The p art ic ip an ts kn ew on e an ot he r, li ve d t og ethe r orne ar o ne an ot he r, an d t he re was subs ta nt ia l o ve rlap a m on g t he pa rti ci pa nt s i n t ho se ch arg ed in th e ear li er i nd ic tm en t an d t ho se ch arg edhe re. Mo reo ve r, th e co urt i ns tru ct ed th e jury onsi ng le ve rs us m ul ti pl e co ns pi raci es , “ an d t he co nv ic ti on s o f th e de fen da nt s [t he refo re] ‘ are i m pl ic itfin di ng s t ha t the ev id en ce p ro ve d t he ex is te nc e of th e si ng le co ns pi racy all eg ed .’ ” Uni te d Sta tes v. J on es , 91 3 F .2d15 52 , 15 61 (1 1 Cir . 19 90 ) (ci ta ti onom it te d) . W e h av e n o d iff ic ul ty con cl ud in g t ha t the th go ve rn m en t p ro ve d t he co ns pi racy it ch arg edinth e in di ctm en t. 2. All eg ed Er ro r in Comm ent o n Ben n’s Rig ht to Rem ai n Si le nt Ben n a ll eg es th atth e d is tri ctco urt ab us edit s d is cret io n i n d en y in g h is m ot io n fo r m is tri al ba se d upo n ago ve rn m en t wi tn es s’ ans wer o n c ro ss ex am in at io n t ha t Be nn ass ert s was anim pr op er co m

m en t o n h is rig htto rem ai n si le nt . W e d is ag ree. Dur in g t he cro ss -ex am in at io n o f a g ov ern m en t ag en t, Be nn ’s cou ns el el ic it edth e fo ll owi ng tes ti m on y : 7Q. As a re su ltof your in ve st ig at io n, d o youkn ow wh ethe r orno t M r. Ben n e nc ou rag edothe r in di vi du al s i n t ha t ar ea t o d o l ik ewis e an d g et cl ear? A. He refu se d t o s pe akto m e, so I ha ve no id ea.

* * * * Q. Are y ouaware o f whe th er o r no t thr ou gh ou t yourin ve st ig at io n t ha t th ey us edto ga m

bl e o n t he se Nasc ar ra ces ? A. No i nd ic at io n. Ag ai n, M r. Ben n d idn’t s pe akto m e, so I ha ve – I do n’t kno w whatth e p ur

po se was. To d et erm in e whe th er the se two res po ns es were i m pe rm is si bl e co m

m en ts on Ben n’s ri gh t t o re m ai n s il en t, we m us t co ns id er wh ethe r th e st at em en t, i n c on te xt , was m an ife st ly int en de d o r was of s uc h c ha ract er tha t a jury wou ldna tu ral ly and ne ces sa ril y

tak e itto be a co m

m en t o n t he fai lu re o f anaccu se d t o t es ti fy . Uni te d St at es v. Ch as ta in , 19 8 F .3d13 38 , 13 51 -5 2 (1 1 Cir . 19 99 ). In t hi s ca se , th e th ag en t’s s ta te m en ts were d ire ctres po ns es to Ben n’s o wn co un se l’s p ers is te ntop en en de d que st io ns an d, as th e d is tri ctco urt n ot ed , “ were atlea stpa rti al ly inv it edby th e n atur e o f th e que st io ns .” As Be nn no te s, h im se lf i n h is bri ef, thi s co urt ge ne ral ly uph ol ds a di st ric t co urt’s re fu sa l t o g ran t a m is tri al wher e th e wit ne ss ’ al le ge dl y im pe rm is si bl e co m

m en t t o t he jury was “ sp on ta ne ou s an d s in gu la r.” Uni te d Sta tes v. Fu nt , 89 6 F .2d12 88 , 12 95 n.5 (11 Cir . 19 90 ). Fin al ly, th is th co m m en t ab ou t Be nn was re ferr in g t o ati m e p rio r to hi s b ei ng incu st od y . Acco rd in gl y , we fin d n o abu se of d is cret io n i n t he di st ric t co urt’s d en ia l o f a 8m is tri al forth is reas on .

3. All eg ed Er ro r in Precl us io n o f Cro ss -ex amina tio n o f Go ve rnment Wi tnes se s o n Fac tua l Ba se s i n thei r Ple a Ag reements Sev eral de fen da nt s ar gu e th atth e co urt ab us edit s d is cret io n andvi ol at ed th ei r Co nf

ro nt at io n C laus e ri gh ts by precl ud in g t he ir c ro ss -ex am in at io n o f so m e go ve rn m en t wi tn es se s ab ou t the factua l b as es of t ho se witne ss es ’ pl ea ag reem en ts . Defen da nt s ar gu e th atth e d is tri ctco urt i m pr op erl y li m it edcro ss -ex am in at io n reg ard in g c ert ai n o m is si on s i n t ho se factua l b as es . Whi le de fen da nt s h av e th e ri gh t t o c ro ss -ex am in e wit ne ss es effe ct iv el y , Poi nt er v. Texa s , 38 0 U.S. 4 00 , 40 4 (1 96 5) , th ey do no t h av e th e ri gh t t o c ro ss ex am in e wit ne ss es “ in what ev er way, an d t o wh at ev er ex te nt , th e d efen se m ig ht wis h.” Ken tu cky v . St in cer , 48 2 U.S. 7 30 , 73 9 (1 98 7) . Trial jud ge s re ta in “ wid e la ti tu de in so far a s t he Co nf ro nt at io n C laus e is co nc ern edto im po se reas on ab le li mit s o n s uc h c ro ss -ex am in at io n b as edon co nc ern s ab ou t, am on g o th er thi ng s, . . . co nf us io n o f th e is su es , . . . or i nt erro ga ti on th atis . . . on ly m arg in al ly relev an t.” Dela wa re v. Van Ars da ll , 47 5 U.S. 6 73 , 67 9 (1 98 6) . Inth is cas e, th e d is tri ctco urt l im it edth e cro ss ex am in at io n o f th e go ve rn m en t wi tn es se s as to whet he r th e si le nc e in th e fac tu al ba se s und erl y in g th ei r pl eas ab ou t the pa rti ci pa ti on of apa rti cu la r de fen da ntwas i nc on si st en t wi th

9th e wit ne ss ’ in cu lp at ory tes ti m on y

ab ou t tha t d efen danton di rectex am in at io n. The co urt’s ru li ng was p red ic at edon Ru le 40 3, Fe d. R. Ev id ., whi ch pe rm it s t he ex cl us io n o f ot he rwis e rel ev an t ev id en ce wh ere i ts pro ba ti ve va lu e is subs ta nt ia ll y ou twei gh edby the po ss ib il ity of m is le ad in g t he jury. The d is tri ctco urt n ot edth at th e fo cu s o f th e fac tu al ba si s fo r a p le a is on th e g ui ltof t he pl ead in g d efen da nt , no t o n e st ab li sh in g t he gu il t o f acc om pl ic es . The co urt h el d t ha t t o p erm itcro ss ex am in at io n abo utth e si le nc e o f th e d oc um en t co nc ern in g apa rti cu lar acc om pl ic e wou ldbe po te nt ia ll y

co nf us in g t o t he jury an d u nf

ai r to th e wit ne ss . Defen da nt s d idno t d em on st rat e th atth is rul in g was anab us e o f th e d is tri ct co urt’s d is cret io n o r th atitim pe de d t he ir abi li ty to cr os s- ex am in e th e g ov ern m en t witne ss es . The rec or d re ve al s tha t the di st ric t co urt p erm it te d e ach of t he de fen da nt s t o i nd iv idua ll y an d e xt en si ve ly cros s- ex am in e al l o f th e g ov ern m en t witne ss es co nc ern in g t he ir i nc en ti ve s t o t es ti fy , cri m in al hi st or ie s, b ia se s, an d op po rtu ni ti es to di sc us s t he cas e wit h o ne an ot he r. Furth er, the co urt p erm it te d de fen da nt s t o e xp lo re wh ethe r th ere wer e in co ns is te nc ie s b etweenth e wit ne ss es ’ tri al tes ti m on y

an d g ov ern m en t d eb rie fin gs . W e co nc lu de th atth ere was am pl e ev id en ce upo n wh ic h the de fen da nt s co ul d a nddi d a rg ue th atth e wit ne ss es ’ te st im on y was u nr el iabl e an d upo n wh ic h th e jury cou ldev al ua te th e wit ne ss es ’ cred ib il it y . Accor di ng ly, we fi ndno ab us e 10of

di sc ret io n o r co ns ti tu ti on al erro r he re. 4. All eg ed Pro se cuto ri al Mis co nduc t in Eli ci tin g T es timony Abou t Thr ea ts Dor se y , Gain es , andW il de r al le ge th atth e p ro se cu to r de li be rat el y an d im pe rm is si bl y

eli ci te d t es ti m on y

fro m a te st ifyin g c o- co ns pi rat or , aft er the co urt ha d s us ta in edanob

jecti on to su ch tes ti m on y , abo utth reat s m ad e ag ai ns t h is fam il y by one of t he de fen da nt s. Th e d efen da nt s ar gu e th atth e d is tri ctco urt ab us edit s d is cret io n b y

no t g ran ti ng a m is tri al . At s id eb ar, the go ve rn m en t an no un cedit s i nt en ti on to eli ci t o n re di rect ex am in at io n o f it s wi tn es s tha t b ot h t he witne ss an d h is fam il y ha d b een th reat en ed by un -n am edpe rs on s t o i nt im id at e h im fro m tes ti fy in g. Th e d efen se ob jecte d a s ou ts id e th e sc op e o f di rectex am in at io n a ndth e d is tri ctco urt s us ta in edth e ob jecti on . The co urt s ai d t ha t the rul in g d idno t “ fo recl os e [the go ve rn m en t] pu rs ui t o f th reat s i f [i t h ad ] ev id en ce o f it ” an d t ha t the co urt d idno t thi nkth e go ve rn m en t co ul d “ ge t i nt o t ha t s ub ject p res en tl y

with [t he witne ss ] bu t “ itdo es n’t fo recl os e [the ] pu rs ui t o f th e subjec t i n t he rem ai nd er o f [the go ve rn m en t’s] case .” Dur in g re -d ire ct , th e g ov ern m en t as ke d t he witne ss if h e o r hi s fa m il y had be enth reat en ed . As th e co urt was su st ai ni ng a ren ewedob jecti on , th e wit ne ss an swe red“ y es .” The c ou rt i ns tru ct edth e jury to d is reg ardth e an swe r. The go ve rn m en t ex pr es se d c on fu si on ov er the co urt’s ru li ng . The n ex t d ay , on e o f th e 11de fen da nt s m ov edfora m is tri al ba se d upo n a ll eg edpro se cu to ria l m is co nduc t.

The co urt d en ie d t he m ot io n, ru li ng th atth e d efen da nt s h adno t b een pre jud ic edby th e que st io n b ecau se th e wit ne ss ha d n otid en ti fie d wh ic h d efen da ntor d efen da nt s ha d m ad e th e th reat . W e d o n otrev ers e a co nv ic ti on on th e b as is of p ro se cu to ria l m is co nduc t un le ss th e p ro se cu to r’s rem ark s i n t he co nt ex t o f th e en ti re tria l i n l ig htof a ny cu rat iv e in st ru ct io n wer e b oth i m pr op er an d p reju di ci al to th e d efen da nt ’s subs ta nt iv e ri gh ts . Uni te d Sta tes v. O’K eef e , 46 1 F .3d13 38 , 13 50 (11 Cir . 20 06 ). th Inth is cas e, th e g ov ern m en t’s que st io n was bo thim pr op er an d i ne pt . Com in g di rect ly on t he he el s o f th e co urt’s ru li ng th atitwas n otpro pe r on re di re ct ex am in at io n, i t i s d iff

ic ul t t o und ers ta ndwhy itwas a sk ed . On the ot he r ha nd , we do no t b el ie ve th atth e p ro se cu to r de li be rat el y de fie d th e co urt. The go ve rn m en t ar gu es th atth e p ro se cu to r un de rs to odth e co urt t o m ean th atth e que st io n was , as the co urt s ai d, “pr es en tl y ” im pr op er, b utth atit m ig htbe co m e ap pr op ria te du rin g t he co ur se of t he red ire ct . This is no t an un reas on ab le in te rp ret at io n a ndth ere i s n o e vi de nc e o f im pe rm is si bl e in te nt . Inan y ev en t, we d o n otfin d t ha t the qu es ti on pre jud ic edth e d efen da nt s’ subs ta nt iv e ri gh ts . Se e O’Kee fe , 46 1 F .3dat 1 35 0. Th e que st io n andan swe r aro se in th e co nt ex t o f Ant ho ny Fiel di ng ’s in vo lv em en t i n t he co ns pi racy andth e jury 12ul ti m at el y

acqui tt edFie ld in g. Th is res ul t m il it at es ag ai ns t a c on cl us io n tha t the jury w as un du ly im

pr es se d b y

th e que st io n a ndth e an swe r. Add it io na ll y , th e an swe r di d n otass oc ia te an y pa rti cu la r de fen da ntwith t he th reat . Fin al ly, th e co urt i ns tru ct edth e jury to d is reg ardth e que st io n, an d t he jury is pre su m edto ha ve do ne so . Se e Ca lder on , 12 7 F .3dat 1 33 4. 5. All eg ed Er ro r in Deni al of Mi st ri al Ba se d Upo n a Clo si ng Argu m ent The de fen da nt s ar gu e th atth e co urt ab us edit s d is cret io n i n d en y in g t he ir m ot io ns form is tri al ba se d upo n o ne de fen da nt ’s clo si ng arg um en t tha t the othe r de fen da nt s wer e in vo lv edinth e ch arg edco ns pi racy, buthe was n ot . In the cl os in g a rg um en t atis su e, co un se l as se rte d t ha t the go ve rn m en t h adpro ve d t he ch arg edco ns pi racy with res pe ctto ot he r de fen dant s b utha d p ro ve d o nl y a se pa rat e, un ch arg edco ns pi racy with res pe ctto hi s cl ie nt . The o th er d efen dant s m ov edfora m is tri al , ass ert in g t ha t the clo si ng arg um en t p res en te d am utua ll y an ta go ni st ic de fen se . The d is tri ctco urt d en ie d the m ot io n. To g ran t a n ew tr ia l b as edup on a co -d efen da nt ’s clo si ng arg um en t, we m us t fin d t he arg um en t t o b e b ot h i m pr op er an d p reju di ci al to a subs tant ia l ri gh t o f th e de fen da nt . Uni te d Sta tes v. Ga rc ia , 40 5 F .3d12 60 , 12 72 (11 Cir . 20 05 ). Whe n a th cu rat iv e in st ru ct io n i s g iv en , th is co urt wi ll rev ers e “ on ly if th e ev id en ce i s s o hi gh ly prejud ic ia l as to be in cu rab le by the tri al co urt’s ad m on it io n.” Id. (quo ti ng 13Uni te d Sta tes v. Per ez , 30 F.3d14 07 , 14 10 (11 Cir . 19 94 )). th The di stric t co urt fo un d t ha t the clo si ng arg um en t d idno t p res en t an an ta go ni st ic de fen se . The co urt n ot edth atco un se l h adadm it te d h is cli en t was an ad di ctwho als o s ol d c rackco cai ne inord er t o s up po rt h is habi t. The co urt al so ag reedth atco un se l h adat l eas t i m pl ic it ly con ced edth atth e g ov ern m en t h ad pr ov edth e ex is te nc e o f th e co ns pi racy char ge d i n t he in di ctm en t an d t ha t the ot he r de fen da nt s (wi th two po ss ib le ex cep ti on s) were m em be rs of t ha t co ns pi racy. The co urt co nc lu de d, h owe ve r, th at“ th es e co nc es si on s wer e a p rel ud e to hi s p rin ci pa l arg um en t tha t the ev id en ce al so de m on st rat edth e ex is te nc e o f an ot he r, se pa rat e co ns pi racy, andth at[hi s cl ie nt ] was a m em be r of th at co ns pi racy, notth e o ne ch arg edinth e in di ctm en t.” Eve n a ss um in g t ha t thi s d efen se was i nc on si st en t wi th th e o th er d efen se s, th e d is tri ctco urt co rrec tl y co nc lu de d t ha t i t was no t an ta go ni st ic to th em be cau se it was no t “ m

utua ll y ex cl us iv e” o f th em . Se e Gar ci a , 40 5 F .3dat 1 27 2. Un de r th e la w of t hi s ci rcu it , th e “ es se nc e o r co re o f th e d efen se s m us t b e in co nf

li ct , su ch th atth e jury, in o rd er t o b el ie ve th e co re o f on e d efen se , m us t n eces sa ril y di sb el ie ve th e co re o f th e o th er.” Uni te d Sta tes v. Fa rr el l , 87 7 F .2d87 0, 8 76 -7 7 (1 1 Cir . 19 89 ). In t hi s ca se , cou ns el di d n otarg ue th athi s cl ie ntwas no t gu il ty th be cau se th e o th er d efen da nt s wer e gu il ty. He m erel y arg ue d t ha t the y

were al l 14gu il ty, bu t o f di ffer en t co ns pi raci es . There fo re, the de fen se s wer e n otm utua ll y ex cl us iv e, an d t he di st ric t co urt co rrec tl y so he ld . W e fi ndno m eri t t o a ny oth er al le ga ti on s o f tr ia l erro r. 2 6. All eg ed Se nten ci ng Erro rs Defen da nt s as se rt t ha t the di st ric t co urt m ad e a v ari ety of e rro rs inth ei r se nt en ci ng . Ben n, Do rs ey , Orti z, an d Wil li am s ar gu e th atth e co urt erredin de te rm in in g t he qu an ti ty of co cai ne att rib ut ab le to th em , con te nd in g t ha t the de te rm in at io ns were b as edon un rel iabl e tr ia l t es ti m on y an d e st im at io ns . W e h av e rev ie wedth e rec or d, an d fi ndth is ass ert io n t o b e u ns up po rte d. Th ere was am pl e ev id en ce i n t hi s re co rdsh owi ng th e av erag e fre qu en cy an d a m ou ntof a de fen da nt ’s dru g s al es ov er a g iv enpe rio d o f ti m e, al l re li ab le in di cat or s o f th e qu an ti ty of co cai ne att rib ut ab le to each . Se e Uni te d Sta tes v. Fr az ie r , 89 F.3d 15 01 , 15 06 (11 Cir . 19 96 ). The d is tri ctco urt i n t hi s ca se ba se d i ts sen te nc es on th fai r, accu rat e, an d c on se rv at iv e es ti m at es of t he qu an ti ty of drug s at tri bu tabl e to each de fen da nt . Se e Uni te d Sta tes v. Za pa ta , 13 9 F .3d13 55 , 13 59 (11 Cir . th 19 98 ). One or

more de fenda

nts alleg e that the tria l court abuse d its discretion by failingto 2 instruct the jury

on a buyer/seller

defe nse; admitting e vidence that coca ine was f ound in Ortiz’s room; admitting evide nce that marijuana w as found in Wilder’s room; and de nying St. Preux’s motion for sever ance and for mistrial based upon the fa ilure to disclose a pr evious statement by a co-de fenda

nt and g overnme nt witness. St. P reux also alleg es that the trial c ourt err ed in not grantinghim a new tria l due to ineffe ctive assistanc e of c ounsel. 15Nordi d the di st ric t co urt err in fin di ng th atW il li am s h adpo ss es se d agu n i n

co nn ect io n wi th th e co cai ne co ns pi racy. Afte r th e g ov ern m en t d em on st rat edth e pr ox im ity of t he fir earm

to th e si te of t he ch arg edoff en se , th e b ur de n s hi fte d t o W il li am s t o s ho w th atth e co nn ect io n was “ cl earl y im pr ob ab le .” Se e Uni te d Sta tes v. Aud ai n , 25 4 F .3d12 86 , 12 89 (11 Cir . 20 01 ). Thi s h e d idno t d o. Th e d is tri ct th co urt co rrec tl y

ad jus te d Wil li am s o ffen se lev el acco rd in gl y . Ben n a rg ue d t ha t the di st ric t co urt erredinfin di ng th athe co m m it te d the co ns pi racy les s t ha n t wo years fr om hi s Ap ril 25 , 19 96 , rel eas e fro m pri orcu st od y an d c on se qu en tl y

inass es si ng hi m

two ad di ti on al cri min al hi st ory po in ts pu rs ua nt to USSG § 4 A1.1 (e). He co nt en ds th atth e rec or d d oe s n otin di cat e in whi ch m on th in19 98 th e co ns pi racy beg an . As Ben n’s cr im in al hi st ory sco re wi thth e ad jus tm en t was si x, an d t he cat eg ory in to whi chhe fel l was fou r to si x p oi nt s, h is se nt en ce wo ul d n otch an ge ev enif h is arg um en t wer e m eri to rio us . Accor di ng ly, we sh al l n otad dr es s t hi s i ss ue . Se e Uni te d Sta tes v. Ra ad , 40 6 F .3d13 22 , 13 23 n.1 (11 Cir . 20 05 ).

th Neit he r di d t he co urt cl earl y err i n c on si de rin g Gai ne s’, Jo hn so n’s, an d W il de r’s pr io r st at e dru g c on vi ct io ns inde te rm in in g the ir c riminal hi st ory sco res . Defen da nt s cl ai m

th atth e d is tri ctco urt i nc orrect ly con si de redco nduc t tha t was pa rt o f th e ch arg edco ns pi racy in c al cu la ti ng th es e sc or es . The rec or d c le arl y 16de m on st rat es th atGain es ’ pr io r co nduc t o ccurredm or e th anon e y ear p rio r to th e

ch arg edco ns pi racy, tha t J oh ns on was s ub ject t o ast atut ory

li fe s en te nc e irr es pe ct iv e o f th e g ui de li ne s ra ng e, an d t ha t Wild er’s en ha nc em en t was fora se pa rat e cri m in al act . Se e Raa d , 40 6 F .3dat 1 32 3 n .1; Uni te d Sta tes v. Ha ns le y , 54 F.2d70 9, 7 17 (11 Cir . 19 95 ). Thu s, the re was no erro r he re. th Ben n a ndGain es co m

pl ai n t ha t the di st ric t co urt fa il edto co m pl y with i ts ob li ga ti on un de r 18 U.S.C. § 3 55 3( c)(1 ) to st at e th e rea so ns forth ei r 30 0- m on th se nt en ces . The d is tri ctco urt i m po se d t he sen te nc es , st at in g t ha t i t h adth e adva nt ag e o f ha vi ng pre si de d o ve r th e le ng th y tri al , th atth e 3 00 -m on th sen te nc es were re as on ab le inli gh t o f th e Sec ti on 35 53 (a) fa ct or s, i nc lu di ng th atth e co urt ha d a lre ady

im po se d t he same sen te nc e upo n Do rs ey , who ha d asi m il ar ba ck gr ou ndan d c ul pabi li ty. The c on te xtan d t he reco rdm ak e cl ear t ha t the co urt ha d c on si de redth e p art ie s’ arg um en ts an d h ada reas on edba si s fo r ex erci si ng hi s le ga l d eci si on -m ak in g aut ho rity . Se e Rita v . Uni te d Sta tes , 12 7 S . Ct. 2 45 6, 2 46 8 (2 00 7) ; se e a ls o Un it ed

Stat es v. Bon il la , 46 3 F .3d11 76 , 11 81 (11 Cir . 20 06 ) th (ap pr ov in g s im il ar s en te nc in g re as on s) ; Uni te d Sta tes v. Pa rr ad o , 91 1 F .2d15 67 , 15 72 -7 3 (1 1 Cir . 19 90 ) (s am e).

th

17W e fi ndno m eri t t o a ny oth er al le ga ti on s o f se nt en ci ng erro rs . 3

7. Go ve rnment’s All eg at io n o f Sent enci ng Erro r The go ve rn m en t al le ge s t ha t the di st ric t co urt erredinde te rm in in g Wil de r’s se nt en ci ng gu id el in es ran ge by usi ng th e jury’ s s pe ci al ve rd ic t fo rm to cap th e drug qu an ti ti es an d b y

refu si ng to co ns id er re le va ntco nduc t tha t the go ve rn m en t ha d e st ab li sh edby a prep on de ran ce o f th e ev id en ce. The law o f th is cir cu itis th at a d is tri ctco urt may ta ke in to acco un t the rel ev an t co nduc t o f whi ch a de fen da nt was acqui tt ed . Uni te d Sta tes v. Du nc an , 40 0 F .3d12 97 , 13 04 -0 5 (1 1 Cir . 20 05 ); th Uni te d Sta tes v. Ba ra ket , 13 0 F .3d14 48 , 14 52 (11 Cir . 19 97 ) (d is tri ctco urt fr ee th to co ns id er s uc h e vi de nc e). The di st ric t co urt was withi n i ts di sc ret io n i n de cl in in g t o d o s o. Id. III. Fo r th e fo reg oi ng reas on s, the co nv ic ti on s an d s en te nc es of a ll de fen da nt s are AFF IRM ED.

These a lleg ations of er

ror include that the district court: consider ed St. Preux ’s prior 3 drugconviction and tre ated the Sente ncingGuidelines as mandatory . Finally , sever al def endants urg e us to rema

nd their ca ses for the district court to reduc e their se ntence s pursuant to the cr ack sentenc ing guideline that bec ame e ffe ctive af ter their se ntencing s. See 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) . As this relief is discre tionary , see U nited States v. Vautier , 144 f.3d 756, 762 (11 Cir. 1998), the t h appropriate route to it is for de fenda nts to move the district court to reduc e their se ntence s after the disposition of thi s appea l. 18