FI L ED U.S. COURT OF A P P E A LS E LE V EN T H C IR C U IT J ULY 18, 2008 THOMAS K. KAH

N CL ERK [DO N OT PUBLISH] IN THE UN ITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FO R T HE EL EV EN TH CIRC UI T

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ N o. 07- 1127 0 Non-A rgum ent Calendar

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ D. C. Docket N o. 06-14046 -CR- KMM UNITED STAT ES OF AMERIC A, Pl ai nt iff -Ap pe ll ee, ve rs us JOHN THOMAS BOLEN, D ef en dant- Appe llant.

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ Appeal f rom the United State s District Court fo r the S outhe rnD istri ct

of F lor ida

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ _ (J ul y 18 , 200 8) Be fo re MA RC U S, W IL SO N and P RY O R, Ci rc uit Jud ge s. PE R CU RIA M: John Thom as Bolen appeals his convi ctions and li fe sentence for conspiracy an d a tte m pt t o im port c oc ai ne , 21 U . S. C. §§ 9 52( a) , 960 (b )( 1) (B ), c onsp ir ac y w ith2

int en t t o di str ibu te c oc ai ne , 21 U . S. C. § 84 6, and p oss es sio n w ithint en t t o dis tr ibu te c oc ai ne , 21 U . S. C. §§ 8 41( a) (1 ), 841 (b )( 1) (A ). B ole n arg ue s th at the di st ric t co ur t erredin ad m it ti ng th e h ears ay tes ti m on y

of aco op erat in g wi tn es s, failing to giv e tw o jury

instruction s Bolen requested, deny ing Bolen’s m otion for a ne w tri al , andim

po si ng Bo le n’s s en te nc e. W e aff irm. I. T ESTIM ONYOF CO OPE RA TING WITNE SS Bolen contends that the district court erred when it denied hi s hearsay obj ec tio n to the te sti m ony of ac oope ratin g w itn es s. T he w itn es s te sti fi ed that the pr ose cu tor

tol d th e w itn es s to te ll the tr uth . B ole n a lso c ont en ds tha t the pur pose o f th i s h e ar s ay wa s t o v o u c h i mp e rmi s s i b l y fo r th e wi tn e s s ’s c r e d i b i l i ty. Bo le n’s ar gu m en t t ha t t he di st ric t co ur t erro ne ou sl y ad m it te d h ears ay

fai ls . Whe n ade fen da ntob

jects in th e d is tri ctco ur t t o t he ad m is si on of e vi de nc e, we re vie wthe r

uli ng f or abuse of dis cr et ion . U nit ed

S ta te s v. Jim ine z, 224 F . 3d 1 243, 1249 (11th Cir. 2000) (citation om itted). H earsay is defined as a “ statem ent, other than on e m ad e by

the de cl ar an t whil e te sti fy ing a t the tr ia l of he ar ing , of

fe re d in ev ide nc e to p ro ve the tr

uthof the m atte r as se rt ed . ” F ed . R. E vid . 801 (c ). T he problem with Bolen’ s objection is that the testim ony that the prosecutor instructed the cooperating witness to tell th e truth wa s not hearsay because it w as not offered to p ro ve the tr

uthof the m atte r as se rt ed . T he dis tr ic t c ourt di d no t a buse it s3

d i s c r e t i o nwh e ni ta d mi t t e dth e t e s t i mo n y. Be ca use Bo le n di d no t ob

j ec t t o th e te sti m ony

a s im pr ope r vouc hin g by

the gove rn m en t at tri al , w e re vie whis oth er arg um en t a

bout the te sti m ony

f or pla in error . See United States v. De verso, 518 F. 3d 12 50, 1255 (11t h Cir. 2008 ). T hat standard is de fe re nti al . T o e sta

bli sh p la in e rr or , ade fe ndant m ust e sta bli sh tha t the district court com

m itted “ (1) er

ror, (2) that is plain, ( 3) that aff ects substanti al ri ght s, and ( 4) that se ri ousl y a ff ec ts the f ai rn es s, int eg ri ty , or

pub lic r ep utatio n of jud ic ia l p ro ceed in gs .” Id . (ci ta ti on an d q uo ta ti on om it te d) . Bo le n’ s arg um en t f

ai ls. T he gov er

nm en t i m pr ope rl y vou ch es f

or the cr ed ibi lity

of aw itn es s whe n it

m ak es state m en ts tha t a

r ea sona ble j ur y c oul d be li ev e su gg es t a “ pe rs on al be li ef i n t he wit ne ss ’s cred ib il it y ” b y th e p ro se cu to r. United States v. Cano, 289 F. 3d 13 54, 1365 (11t h Cir. 2002 ). W e have explained that “ it is p er fe ct ly

pr ope r fo r a pr ose cu tor

to el ic it te sti m ony

r eg ar din g th e tr

uth te lli ng p ortio n of

aple a ag re em en t onr ed ir ec t on ce the c re dib ili ty of the w itn es s is atta ck ed on c ro ss- ex am inatio n. ” U nit ed S ta te s v. D ia z, 190 F . 3d 1 247, 125 4 ( 11th Cir. 1999 ). T he que sti ons by

the pr ose cu tor , on r ed ir ec t e xam inatio n, did not a m ount to im pr ope r bol ste ri ng. B ole n a tta ck ed the c re dib ili ty

of the w itn es s and h is inc en tiv es to te sti fy

f al se ly on c ro ss e xam inatio n. T he que sti ons of the pr ose cu tor4

did no t m ake personal rea ssurances of the cre dibil ity of the w itness no r im

ply that ev ide nc e not

be fo re the j ur

y sup porte d th e te sti m ony

of the w itn es s. S ee Cano, 289 F. 3d at 13 65. A ny

pos sib le pr ej udi ce w as dis pe lle d by the j ur y ins tr uc tio n to co nsi de r the te sti m ony

of ac oope ratin g w itn es s w ithe xtr a ca uti on. S ee D ia z, 190 F. 3d at 12 54. T he dis tr ic t c ourt di d no t pl ai nly e rr w he n it a llo w ed the pr ose cu tor to qu es ti on th e wit ne ss ab ou t h is ob li ga ti on to tel l t he tru th . II . JURY INST RUCTIO NS Bo le n c on te nd s t ha t t he di st ric t co ur t erredwhen itfai le d t o g iv e two requested instruction s to the jury . First, Bolen asked the court to ins truct the j ury about th e plea agr eem ents of his co-defendants that th e governm ent “ m ay file a m oti on f or adownw ar d de part

ur e or . . . se nte nc e re duc tio n” and “ w ith out suc h a m oti on . . . ahig he r se nte nc e is g uarante ed . ” T he dis tr ic t c ourt de nie d th e re que st and instructed th e j ury

that som e w itnesses had entered into p lea bargains, which pr ovi de d f

or “ the pos sib ili ty

of ale sse r se nte nc e than th e w itn es s w oul d othe rw ise be e xpos ed

to, ” an d ac oope ratin g w itn es s “ m ay have ar ea son to m ak e a fa lse state m en t be ca

use the w itn es s w an ts t o stri ke agoo d barg ai n w iththe governm ent.” The court further instructed that the j ury shoul d “ consider [the] te sti m ony [ of c oope ratin g w itn es se s] w ithm or e ca uti on than th e te sti m ony

of oth er w itn es se s. ” S ec ond, Bo le n a ske d th e co urt t o in str uc t the j ur

y r eg ar din g hi s5

de fe nse that he “ w as pe rf orm ing alaw fu l bu sin es s a ct ivi ty ” an d la ck ed kno w le dge that hi s bo at

w as be ing use d to tr an spor t dr ugs. T he dis tr ic t c ourt de nie d th e requested instruction because it w as “ not a legal defense. ” T he court instead ins tr uc te d th e j ur

y that, if it f ound Bo le n “ la ck ed

the r equis ite m en ta l st at e” to co m m itth e o ffen se , th e jury sho ul d a cqui t h im . W e rev ie w forab us e o f di sc ret io n t he de ni al of areque st edjury in st ru ct io n. U nit ed S ta te s v. K lop f, 423 F . 3d 1 228, 124 1 ( 11th C ir . 200 5) . T he r ef usa l t o gi ve a re que ste d in str

uc tio n w ar

rants ane wtr ia l “ onl y

if ( 1) the r eque ste d in str

uc tio n w as sub stanti ve ly

c or re ct , ( 2) the c ourt’ s c harg e to the j ur y did not c ove r the gis t of the instruction , and (3) the failure to give the instruction subst antially im paired the defendant's ability

to present an eff

ective defense. ” Id. (quoting United State s v. Roberts, 308 F.3d 1147 , 1153 (11th Cir. 2002)). In our determination whether a re que ste d in str

uc tio n w as sub stanti al ly

c ove re d by

the a ct ua l c harg e de liv er ed

to the j ury , w e “ need only

ascertain whether the c harge, when view ed as a whole, fa ir ly and c or re ct ly state s th e iss ue s and the law . ” I d. ( ci ta tio n and quot at ion om it te d) . Bolen’ s argum ent regarding the j ury instruction about coop erating witnesses fails. The requested instruction wa s erroneous because, under the adviso ry guid eline regim e, a higher sentence w as not “ guaranteed” absent a m otion for a6

downw ar d de part

ur e. S ee U nit ed

S ta te s v. Bo oke r, 543 U . S. 220 , 244 , 125 S . Ct . 738, 756 ( 2005 ). T he ins tr uc tio n gi ve n by

the dis tr ic t c ourt f

ai rl y and a cc ur at el y state d th e gove rn ing law . S ee id. a t 12 41. T he dis tr ic t c ourt di d no t a buse it s di sc ret io n. Bo le n’ s arg um en t r eg ar din g th e j ur y ins tr uc tio n f or his the or y of de fe nse al s o fa i l s . Th e i n s tru ct i o ng i v en b y th e d i s tri ctco u rtco v er edth e g i s to f B o l en ’s pr opos ed ins tr uc tio n, that i f Bo le n la ck ed the kno w le dge that hi s bo at w as be ing use d f or sm uggl ing , the j ur

y m ust a cquit him . S ee id. T he ins tr

uc tio n di d no t de pr ive Bo le n of

the abil ity

to advanc e the de fe nse that he w as unaw ar e of the sm uggl ing. See United State s v. G onzales, 975 F. 2d 15 14, 1517– 18 (11th Cir. 19 92 ). The d is tri ctco ur t d idno t ab us e it s d is cret io n.

II I. MOT IO N FOR NEW TRI AL Bo le n arg ue s th at

the dis tr ic t c ourt a

buse d it s di sc re tio n whe n it de nie d, w ith out an e vid en tiary

he ar ing , his m oti on f

or ane wtr ia l. B ole n ba se d hi s m oti on on a doc um en t purp orte dly

about the Baham ian c ri m ina l r ec or d of ac o- de fe ndant w ho t es tif

ie d a ga ins t B ole n. T his arg um en t f ai ls. T he lawgov er

nin g our re vie wof

thi s is sue is se ttl ed . W e re vie wade nia l of a m otion for a new tr ial based on newly discovered evidence or an alleged vio la tio n of

Br ady v. Mary land, 373 U . S. 83, 83 S . Ct . 119 4 ( 1963 ), f or abuse of7

d i s cr et i o n . Un i t edSt at es v . Va l l ej o , 2 9 7 F. 3 d1 1 5 4 , 1 1 6 3 (1 1 th Ci r. 2 0 0 2 ). We rev ie w th e d eci si on whet he r to ho ldan ev id en ti ary he ari ng forab us e o f di sc ret io n. U nit ed S ta te s v. Ma sse y , 89 F . 3d 1 433, 144 3 ( 11th C ir . 199 6) . “ [S ] uppr es sio n by the pr ose cu tio n of

e vid en ce f

av or ab le to ana cc use d up on r eque st v iol at es due pr oc es s whe n th e ev ide nc e is m at er ia l e ith er to gui lt or

to puni shm en t, ir

re spe ct ive of the goo d f

ai th o r ba d f

ai th o f the pr ose cu tio n. ” Br ady , 373 U . S. a t 87 , 83 S . Ct . at11 96 –9 7. Ev id en ce fa vo rab le to th e acc us edin cl ud es im pe ach m en t ev id en ce. Uni te d S ta te s v . Bag le y , 47 3 U.S. 6 67 , 68 2, 1 05 S. Ct. 3 37 5, 3 38 4 (1 98 5) . To obt ai n ane wtr ia l be ca

use of aBr ady vio la tio n, ade fe ndant m ust e sta bli sh (1 ) that the gov er

nm en t po sse sse d e vid en ce f av or ab le to the de fe ndant ( inc lud ing im

pe ac hm en t e vid en ce ); ( 2) that the de fe ndant did not pos se ss the e vid en ce nor c oul d he have obt ai ne d it him se lf w ithany r ea sona ble dil ige nc e; ( 3) that the pr ose cu tio n su ppr es se d th e favor ab le e vid en ce ; and ( 4) that ha d th e ev ide nc e be enr ev ea le d to the de fe nse , the re is a re as ona ble pr oba bil ity that the out co m e of

the pr oc ee din gs w oul d have be endif fe re nt. United States v. Spagnoulo , 960 F. 2d 99 0, 994 (11th Cir. 1992). Adefendant m ay es ta bli sh p oss es sio n by

the gov er

nm en t i f the e vid en ce w as “ in the pos se ssi on o f th e p ro se cu to r oran y on e o ve r who m th e p ro se cu to r ha d aut ho rit y .” Id . Bo le n f ai le d to e sta

bli sh s uf fi ci en t f ac ts f ro m w hic h th e dis tr ic t c ourt c oul d conclude that the prosecuto r possessed or sup pressed im peachm ent evidence be fo re tr ia l. A t the ti m e of tr ia l, the doc um en t w as in the pos se ssi on o f a fo re ign8

gove rn m en t, ove r w hom

the f ed er al pr ose cu tor

ha d no auth or ity . S ee id. T he pr ose cu tor

c oul d no t have r ea dil y

obt ai ne d th e cr im ina l hi sto ry of the c o- de fe ndant be ca use the se c onvi ct ion s w er e in the Baham as . C f. U nit ed S ta te s v. Aute n, 632 F. 2d 4 78, 480 -8 1 ( 5thCi r. U nit A198 0) . T he dis tr ic t c ourt di d no t a buse it s dis cr et ion . IV. SENT ENCING Bo le n r ai se s tw o se nte nc ing iss ue s onappe al . F ir st, Bo le n c ont en ds tha t hi s se nte nc e is unr ea sona

ble . S ec ond, Bo le n arg ue s th at the dis tr ic t c ourt vi olate d th e Fi fth and S ixth A m en dm en ts whe n it appl ie d th e Se nte nc ing G uid el ine s. T he re as ona ble ne ss o f a se nte nc e is r ev ie w ed f or an a buse of dis cr et ion . G al l v. U nit ed S ta te s, 128 S . Ct . 586 , 597 ( 2007 ). O ur r ev ie winv olv es an e xam inatio n of the tot al ity

of the c ir cum stanc es , inc lud ing w he the r the statut or y f ac tor s f or se nt en ci ng , 18 U.S.C. § 3 55 3( a), s up po rt t he ch al le ng edsen te nc e. Id . at 5 97 –6 00 . W e de fe r to the j udgm en t of the dis tr ic t c ourt i n th e w ei ght giv ento the f

ac tor s in se ct ion355 3( a) unl es s th e dis tr ic t c ourt ha s m ad e “ a cl ear er ro r of j udgm en t” and has im posed “ a sentence that lies outside the range of rea sonable sentences dic ta te d by

the f ac ts o f the c as e. ” U nit ed S ta te s v. Mc Br ide , 511 F . 3d 1 293, 12 97 –9 8 (1 1t h C ir. 2 00 7) (ci ta ti on s o m it te d) . Bo le n ha s f

ai le d to e sta

bli sh tha t hi s se nte nc e is unr ea sona ble . T he9

gui de lin e range w as li fe im pr iso nm en t. T he dis tr ic t c ourt he ar d f ro m Bo le n, w ho stated that he was innocent of the offenses, and his coun sel argued that a life se nte nc e w as ove rl y

se ve re be ca

use of his la ck of c ri m ina l hi sto ry

and the co m parativ el y

li ght se nte nc es of

his c o- de fe ndants . T he dis tr ic t c ourt w ei ghe d th e fa ct or s inse ct ion355 3( a) and d id n ot m ak e any c le ar e rr or of j udgm en t. T he disparity betwee n Bolen’ s sentence and those of his co-defendants is “ not an ap pr opr ia te ba sis f

or r el ie f on a

ppe al , ” U nit ed

S ta te s v. Re gue ir o, 240 F . 3d 1 321, 1325 -2 6 ( 11th C ir . 200 1) ( ci ta tio n om itt ed ), e spe ci al ly be ca use Bo le n is not sim ilarl y sit ua te d to tho se c o- de fe ndants w ho c oope rate d w ithauth or iti es sho rt ly aft er t he ir a rres t, p le ad edgu il ty, an d t es ti fie d fo r th e g ov ern m en t atBo le n’s t ria l. The district court r easonably determ ined that thi s sentence wa s not greater than ne ces sa ry to ach ie ve th e st atut ory

pu rp os es of s en te nc in g. Bo le n c onc ed es that hi s c onst itutio na l c ha lle nge to the appl ic at ionof the se nte nc ing gui de lin es is fo re cl ose d by pr ec ed en t. Adis tr ic t c ourt “ m ay sti ll im pose fact-based sentencing enhancem ents und er an adviso ry guidelin es sy stem w ith out vio la tin g th e Si xthA m en dm en t. ” U nit ed S ta te s v. D udl ey , 463 F . 3d 1 221, 1228 (11th Cir. 2006). V. CONCLUSIO N Bolen’ s convictio ns and sentence are AF FIRMED .