FILED U.S. COURT OF AP P E A LS E LE V EN T HC IRC U IT JANUARY 14, 2008 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. 07- 11053 N on -A rgum entC al endar

________________________ D. C . Do c k e tNo . 0 6 - 2 0 3 8 6 - C R - F AM 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 K E N T R E L L J . M I L L E R , 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 S outhe r n D i s tr i c tof F l or i da

_________________________ ( Jan u ar y 14, 2008) B efo re H U L L , M A R C U S an d W IL S O N , C i rcu i tJu d g es. P E R C U R I A M: A f t e ra j ur y tr i a l , de f

e nda ntK e ntr e l l J . M i l l e rappe a l s hi s c onvi c t i on a ndL aboratory tests reve aled that the substanc e found in Miller’s poc ket was not c ocaine . 1 2 s e n te n c e f

o rb e in g a f

e lo n in p o s s e s s io n o f

a m m u n itio n in a n d a f

f e c tin g in te r s ta te c o m m e r c e , i n v i o l a t i o n o f 1 8 U. S . C . § § 9 2 2 ( g ) ( 1 ) a n d 9 2 4 ( e ) ( 1 ) . Af t e rr e v i e w, we a f f i r m. I . B AC KG RO UN D A . T r i al A t tr ia l, O f

f ic e rA la in C ru z , a d e te c tiv e w ith th e M ia m i P o lic e D e p a r tm e n t, t es t i fi ed thathe w entt o d ef endantM i l l er ’ s a dd re ss t o arr es tM i l l eron an out s t a ndi ng w a r r a nt . W he n M i l l e rs a w C ruz , M i l l e rr a n i ns i de a dw e l l i ng. C ruz c ha s e d M i l l e r , a nd w he n C ruz gott o the doorof the dw e l l i ng, M i l l e rc l os e d the doori n C ruz ’ s f

a c e . C ruz ki c ke d the doort o ope n i t , e nt e r e d the dw e l l i ng, t ook M i l l e ri nt o c us t ody , a nd the n s e a r c he d M i l l e r ’ s pe r s on. M i l l e rw a s w e a r i ng s w e a tpa nt s , butno s hi r t . I n the f r ontr i ghtpoc ke tof

M i l l e r ’ s s w e a tpa nt s , C ruz foun d a sm al l as saul tri fl e a m m un i t i on m agaz i ne w i th fou r bul l et s a nd a bag c ont a i ni ng a s ubs t a nc e tha tC ruz thoughtw a s c oc a i ne . C ruz vi s ua l l y i ns pe c t e d the 1 a r e a i m m e di a t e l y s ur r oundi ng M i l l e ra f t e rhe a r r e s t e d M i l l e r , butdi d nots e a r c h the d w e llin g . O n c r os s e xa m i na t i on, O f f i c e rC ruz c onc e de d tha the di d notr e m e m be rthe c o lo ro f d e f e n d a n t M ille r ’s s w e a tp a n ts . C ru z te s tif ie d th a t h e w r o te tw o r e p o r ts3

d e ta ilin g M ille r ’s a r r e s t: ( 1 ) a n a r r e s t f o r m , a n d ( 2 ) a n o f

f e n s e in c id e n t r e p o r t. D e f e ns e c ouns e l pr e s e nt e d the i nc i de ntr e por tt o C ruz on the w i tne s s s t a nd. C ruz a c know l e dge d tha the c om pl e t e d tha ti nc i de ntr e por ton the da y of the a r r e s ta nd th a t h is r e p o r t s ta te d th a t M ille rw a s w e a r in g s w e a tp a n ts . C ru z in itia lly d e n ie d p r e p a r in g a s e c o n d v e r s io n o f th a t in c id e n t r e p o r t. D e f e n s e c o u n s e l th e n p r e s e n te d C ru z w ith a s e c o n d v e r s io n o f th a t in c id e n t r e p o r t, w h ic h C ru z a d m itte d d id n o t c o n ta in a r e f e r e n c e to M ille rw e a r in g s w e a tp a n ts . C ruz t e s t i f

i e d tha ti tw a s pos s i bl e tha the c om pl e t e d a s e c ond r e por tunde rthe m i s t a ke n be l i e f

tha the ha d notc om pl e t e d the pr i orr e por tortha the m i ghtha ve a dde d thi s i nf

or m a t i on i f

he not i c e d i tw a s m i s s i ng f r om the r e por t , butw a s not sure i f e i ther w as the ca se . C ruz a dm i tt ed thatthe tw o i nci dentre po rt s w er e i dent i ca l , exce ptfor the re fe re nce t o M i l l erw ea ri ng sw ea tpant s, and con fi rm ed that it w a s h is h a n d w r itin g in th e r e p o r t n o tin g th a t M ille rw a s w e a r in g s w e a tp a n ts . O f f ic e rL u is R o

ja s , a d e te c tiv e w ith th e M ia m i- D a d e P o lic e D e p a r tm e n t, t e s t i f i e d tha the obs e r ve d M i l l e rbe i ng s e a r c he d a nd s a w a ba g c ont a i ni ng suspec t ed cocai ne and an am m un i t i on m agaz i ne cont ai ni ng four roun ds re m ov ed f r om the f r ontr i ghtpoc ke tof

M i l l e r ’ s s w e a tpa nt s . R oj a s f ur the rt e s t i f

i e d tha the di d nots e e a ny of

f i c e r s e nt e ra ny r oom s of the dw e l l i ng othe rtha n the l i vi ng r oom ors e a r c h the dw e l l i ng.4

O n c r o s s e x a m in a tio n , R o ja s te s tif ie d th a t h e d id n o t r e m e m b e ra n y d e ta ils abou tthe sw ea tpant s M i l l erw as w ea ri ng w hen h e w as arre st ed. R oj as com pl et ed the a r r e s ta f

f i da vi ta nd di d noti ndi c a t e the r e i n w he the rM i l l e rw a s w e a r i ng s w e a tp a n ts w h e n th e o f f ic e r s a r r e s te d h im . H o w e v e r , R o ja s s ta te d in th e a f

f id a v it th atth e sei zed i t em s w ere t ak en fro m M i l l er’ s fro n tri g h tp o ck et . A ft er d efen se coun se l show ed R oj as the tw o cop i es of the i nci dentre po rt s pre pare d b y C ruz, R oj a s t e s t i f

i e d tha tonl y the i nc i de ntr e por ts t a t i ng tha tM i l l e rw a s w e a r i ng s w e a tpa nt s w oul d ha ve be e n f i l e d i n the di s tr i c tof

f i c e be c a us e i tha d a s i gna tur e of ap p r o v a l f

r o m ar e v ie w in g s e r g e a n t. A f te rth e g o v e r n m e n t r e s te d its c a s e , d e f e n s e c o u n s e l m o v e d to a d m it in to e vi de nc e the tw o i nc i de ntr e por t s be c a us e the y s how e d tha tc ha nge s ha d be e n m a de t o the r e por t . A f

t e rde f e ns e c ouns e l a r gue d tha tthe r e por t s w oul d be us e d f or i m p each m en tp u rp o ses an d t o sh o w th atth ere w ere ch an g es i n th e rep o rt , d efen se c o u n s e l c o n c e d e d th a t th e s e p o in ts h a d a lr e a d y b e e n a d m itte d b y th e o f f ic e r s . D ef ense coun se l ar gu ed, ho w ever , thatthe re po rt s s ho w ed thatthe offi ce rs had fab ri cat ed “ so m e v ery i m p o rt an ti n fo rm at i o n . ” T h e co u rtd et erm i n ed th atd efen se c o u n s e l c o u ld a r g u e th a t p o in t, b u t th e r e p o r ts s till w e r e in a d m is s ib le h e a r s a y . W h en ask ed w h i ch h earsay ex cep t i o n ap p l i ed t o th e i n ci d en trep o rt s, d efen se coun se l re spon ded t hatthey w er e a dm i ss i bl e und erF eder al R ul e of E vi dence5

8 0 3 ( 1 5 ) , a h e a r s a y e x c e p tio n f o rs ta te m e n ts in d o c u m e n ts a f f e c tin g a n in te r e s t in prop er ty. T he di stri ctcourtre j ec t ed thi s a rgum ent . D ef ense coun se l al so ar gu ed thatthe i nci dentre po rt s w er e bei ng offe re d t o sho w thaton e r eporthad b ee n a l t e r e d, notf

orthe i rtruth, a nd tha tthe r e por tw a s he a r s a y onl y w he n us e d “ [ f ] or the pu rpose of prosec ut i on . ” T he go vernm entobj ec t ed thatthe copi es w er e e x c lu d e d u n d e rF e d e r a l R u le o f E v id e n c e 8 0 3 ( 8 ) , w h ic h g e n e r a lly e x c e p ts p u b lic re cords a nd re po rt s f

rom the hears ay rul e, bu texpl i ci t l y e xcl ud es re po rt s of m att er s ob se rved by l aw enforce m enti n cri m i nal ca se s f rom the except i on . T he di stri ct courtexcl ud ed the copi es of the i nci dentre po rt s f rom evi dence, bu ti nstruct ed d e f e n s e c o u n s e l th a t th e s ta te m e n ts th e r e in c o u ld b e u s e d f o rim p e a c h m e n t. T he de f e ns e pr e s e nt e d t e s t i m ony f r om T a ni ka P a c he c o, M i l l e r ’ s gi r l f r i e nd, tha tM i l l e rha d on s hor t s w he n he w a s a r r e s t e d. P a c he c o f ur the rt e s t i f

i e d tha ts he o b se rv ed o ff

icer s lo o k in g ar o u n d a h allw ay an d in a c lo se t an d se ar ch in g M il ler’s c a r . P a c he c o obs e r ve d tha ts e ve r a l i t e m s w e r e outof pl a c e a f t e rthe pol i c e l e f

t , but adm i tt ed thatshe di d n otkn ow i f M i l l er ’ s m ot her, w ho w as st i l l i nsi de the ho use, o rth e p o lic e o f

f ic e r s m o v e d th e s e ite m s . S el ea tha L ee , M i l l er ’ s m ot her w ho l i ved atthe dw el l i ng , t es t i fi ed thatM i l l er w a s w e a r i ng s hor t s on the da y of the a r r e s t . L e e a l s o t e s t i f i e d tha ts he ha d f

ound th e am m u n i t i o n m ag azi n e an d so m e o th er i t em s o n t o p o f a cab i n etw h en sh e fi rst6

m o v e d in to th e ap a r tm e n t a n d h a d p la c e d th e m in a s a f e ap p r o x im a te ly o n e m o n th b e f o r e M ille rw a s a r r e s te d . A ft erthe defense re st ed i t s c as e, the di stri ctcourti nstruct ed defense coun se l to r e m o v e th e s a f

e f r o m th e c o u r tr o o m b e c a u s e th e d e f e n s e h a d n o t in tr o d u c e d it in to e v id e n c e . D e f

e n s e c o u n s e l th e n m o v e d to r e o p e n th e c a s e in o r d e rto i nt rodu ce the sa fe i nt o evi dence. T he di stri ctcourtfoun d t hatthe on l y di sput e w as w h e th e rth e b u lle ts w e r e in th e s a f e a n d th e ju r y d id n o t n e e d to s e e th e s a f e in order t o d ec i de w hether t o b el i eve L ee ’ s t es t i m on y. T here fore , the di stri ctcourt d e n ie d th e m o tio n to r e o p e n . D ur i ng the j ur y ’ s de l i be r a t i ons , the j ur y r e que s t e d c opi e s of the i nc i de nt r e p o r ts . I n e x p la in in g to th e ju r y th a t th e r e p o r ts h a d n o t b e e n a d m itte d in to evi dence, the di stri ctcourtst at ed that“ [t ] here w as t es t i m on y abo utthe po l i ce r e por t s , buty ou a r e note nt i t l e d t o s e e the a c tua l r e por t s be c a us e the y w e r e not i nt rodu ce d, bu tyou can, of course , consi der the t es t i m on y abo utthe po l i ce r e p o r ts .” A f

te rf u r th e rd e lib e r a tio n , th e ju r y f o u n d M ille rg u ilty . B. Se nt e nc i ng T he pres ent ence i nv es t i gat i on re po rt(“ P S I” ) c al cul at ed a bas e off ense l evel of 24 , pu rs uantt o U . S . S . G . § 2 K 2. 1(a) (2). T he P S I s t at ed thatM i l l erqu al i fi ed as a n a r m e d c a r e e rc r im in a l u n d e r1 8 U .S .C . § 9 2 4 ( e ) b a s e d o n th e s e s ta te7

c o n v ic tio n s : ( 1 ) a 1 9 8 7 c o n v ic tio n f o rc a r r y in g a c o n c e a le d f ir e a r m b a s e d o n a n o lo cont endere pl ea ; (2) a19 88 conv i ct i on for tw o cou nt s of batt ery of apo l i ce offi ce r a nd tw o c ount s of

r e s i s t i ng a pol i c e of

f i c e rw i th vi ol e nc e ; ( 3) a 1990 c onvi c t i on f or b a tte r y o f

a p o lic e o f

f ic e r , r e s is tin g a n o f

f ic e rw ith v io le n c e , a n d d is o r d e r ly c o n d u c t; ( 4 ) a 1 9 9 0 c o n v ic tio n f o rtw o c o u n ts o f

a g g r a v a te d a s s a u lt o n p o lic e w ith a f i re arm ; and (5) a 199 2 con vi ct i on for a rm ed tra ff i cki ng i n cocai ne, att em pt ed ro b b ery, co n sp i racy t o traffi c co cai n e, an d u n l aw fu l p o ssessi o n o f a fi rearm b y a conv i ct ed fe l on . B as ed on an adj ust ed t ot al offe nse l evel of 34 and a cri m i nal hi s t or y c a t e gor y of

V I , M i l l e r ’ s gui de l i ne s r a nge w a s 262 t o 327 m onths . T he s ta tu to r y m in im u m s e n te n c e w a s 1 5 y e a r s ’ im p r is o n m e n t. M i l l e rm ove d t o c ont i nue the s e nt e nc i ng he a r i ng on the gr ounds tha tthr e e of hi s s t at e c on vi ct i on s w er e obt ai ned i n v i ol at i on of hi s r i gh tt o cou nsel . M i l l er re qu es t ed thi rty day s t o al l ow hi m t o o bt ai n t he prop erdo cum ent at i on for the court to r e s o lv e th is o b

je c tio n . M ille rin d ic a te d th a t th e g o v e r n m e n t d id n o t o p p o s e th is m o tio n . A t s e n te n c in g , d e f

e n s e c o u n s e l e x p la in e d to th e d is tr ic t c o u r t th a t it c o u ld exam i ne M i l l er ’ s pri or conv i ct i on s bec ause “ you k no w ho w these thi ng s w ork w h ere th ey b ri n g th em o v er, th ey o ffer th em , d o yo u w an tt o g o h o m e th atd ay, c r e di tt i m e s e r ve d, the y don’ tha ve a n oppor tuni ty t o ha ve a ny e f f e c t i ve8

re pres ent at i on . ” W hen t he di stri ctcourtas se rt ed thatthe st at e pub l i c def enders pr ovi de d good r e pr e s e nt a t i on, de f e ns e c ouns e l r e s ponde d, “ I ’ m notc om pl a i ni ng a boutthe qua l i ty of

the r e pr e s e nt a t i on. ” B utc ouns e l the n a s s e r t e d, “ I t ’ s not e f f e c tiv e r e p r e s e n ta tio n w h e n th r e e la w y e r s a r e , y o u k n o w , f ir s t ap p e a r a n c e h e g e ts o n e l a w y e r , th e s e c o n d ap p e a r a n c e f o ra p l e a h e g e t s a s e c o n d , a n d th e th i r d t i me he w al ks i nt o cou rtfor atri al dat e, there ’ s athi rd l aw ye r there . ” T he di stri ctcourtthen exam i ned M i l l er ’ s pri or conv i ct i on s a nd no t ed that th e reco rd i n d i cat ed th atM i l l er h ad b een rep resen t ed b y st at e p u b l i c d efen d ers, w ho m the di stri ctcourtpres um ed had p rovi ded effe ct i ve as si st ance . T he di stri ct courtno t ed thati tgeneral l y c ou l d n otexam i ne the const i tut i on al i ty of a n ear l i er s ta te c o n v ic tio n f

o rth e f ir s t tim e in c a lc u la tin g a d e f e n d a n t’s c r im in a l h is to r y . A c c or di ngl y , the di s tr i c tc our tde ni e d M i l l e r ’ s m ot i on t o c ont i nue the s e nt e nc i ng h e a r in g . T u rn in g to th e g u id elin es ca lcu lati o n s, th e p ar ti es ag re ed th at M il ler’s o f f e n s e le v e l s h o u ld b e r e d u c e d b y o n e le v e l b e c a u s e th e s u b s ta n c e f o u n d o n h is pers on w as no tcoca i ne and t hathi s c ri m i nal hi st ory s core shou l d b e I V , no tV I. B as ed on a t ot al offe nse l evel of 33 and a cri m i nal hi st ory s core of IV , the di stri ct c our tc a l c ul a t e d a gui de l i ne s r a nge of 188 t o 235 m onths . B oth the gove r nm e nt and d ef ense coun se l re com m ended a sent ence atthe bo tt om of the gu i del i nes9

r a n g e . W he n a l l ow e d t o s pe a k be f or e s e nt e nc i ng, M i l l e ronl y s a i d, “ I ha ve nothi ng to s a y , Y o u rH o n o r , b e s id e s I ’m n o t g u ilty f o rp o s s e s s io n o f

a m m u n itio n .” T he di stri ctcourtexpres se d con ce rn abou tM i l l er ’ s c on vi ct i on s f or bat t er i es on po l i ce offi ce rs , w hi ch i tob se rved w er e s er i ou s off ense s. T he di stri ctcourt det ai l ed on e of the pri or offe nses w here the po l i ce tri ed t o p ul l ov era c arthat M i l l erw as dri vi ng and, du ri ng the chas e, shot s w er e f i re d from the ca r a tpo l i ce an d M il ler tried to ra m v ar io u s p o li ce u n it s. T h e c o u rt also re v iew ed M il ler’s c o n v ic tio n f

o rc o n s p ir a c y to tr a f

f ic n a r c o tic s a n d a r m e d r o b b e r y . T h e d i stri ctco u rtst at ed th ati th ad co n si d ered al l o f th e § 3 5 5 3 (a) factors, p ar ti cu larly M il ler’s h isto ry , ch ar ac teristics, p rio r c rim in al re co rd , an d M il ler’s l ac k o f a cc ept ance of re spon si bi l i ty. T he di stri ctcourtdet erm i ned t hata s ent ence atthe bo tt om of the gu i del i nes r ange w as i nsuffi ci entbeca use M i l l erhad rece i ved a 15-ye arse nt ence before, had v i ol at ed parol e, and w as se rvi ng a 6-y ea r s ent ence a t th e tim e o f

th e s e n te n c in g h e a r in g . T h u s , th e d is tr ic t c o u r t s e n te n c e d M ille rto 2 2 8 m o n th s ’ im p r is o n m e n t. A ft erse nt enci ng , defe nse c ou nsel obj ec t ed thatM i l l er ’ s s ent ence w as un re as on abl e, part i cul ar l y i n l i gh tof the go vernm ent ’ s r ec om m endat i on thatM i l l er b e s e n te n c e d a t th e lo w e n d o f th e g u id e lin e s .This Court reviews de terminations of the admissibi lity of evidence f

or an a buse of 2 discretion. United States v. Miles, 290 F .3d 1341, 1351 (11th Cir. 2002). Even if a district court e rre d in an evide nti ary

rulin g , w ewi ll re vers eon ly if thee rror wa s n ot h arm le ss, i.e ., if

thereis a rea sonable likelihood that it affe cted the de fenda nt’s substantial rights. United States v. Khana ni, 502 F.3d 1281, 1292 (11th Cir. 2007). 10 I I . DI S CUS S I ON A . C u m u l at i ve E vi d e n t i ar y E r r or M i l l e ra r gue s tha the w a s de ni e d a f a i rtr i a l due t o the c um ul a t i ve i m pa c tof the di s tr i c tc our t ’ s e r r or s i n ( 1) nota dm i tt i ng the i nc i de ntr e por t s , a nd ( 2) de ny i ng hi s m ot i on t o reopen h i s c as e t o see k adm i ss i on of the sa fe . T he cum ul at i ve ef fe ct 2 o f m u ltip le e r r o r s m a y r e q u ir e r e v e r s a l o f a n ap p e lla n t’s c o n v ic tio n w h e r e , in com bi nat i on , tho se errors prej ud i ce a def endant ’ s r i gh tt o a fa i r tri al . U ni t ed S t at es v . R a m ir e z , 4 2 6 F .3 d 1 3 4 4 , 1 3 5 3 ( 1 1 th C ir . 2 0 0 5 ) . W e n eed n o tco n si d er w h eth er th e i n ci d en trep o rt s w ere ad m i ssi b l e b ecau se any a l l eged err or w as harm l es s. D uri ng cr oss- exam i nat i on , defe nse c ou nsel s how e d C ruz the tw o ve r s i ons of the i nc i de ntr e por ta nd e xpr e s s l y que s t i one d C ruz a s to w h y o n ly o n e v e r s io n o f th e r e p o r t s ta te d th a t M ille rw a s w e a r in g s w e a tp a n ts wh e n h e wa s a r r e s t e d . C ru z c o n c e d e d th a tth e r e wa s a d i s t i n c t i o n i n th e two r e p o r ts a n d th a t th e a d d e d in f o r m a tio n a b o u t th e s w e a tp a n ts w a s in h is ha ndw r i t i ng. C ruz a l s o c oul d note xpl a i n w hy he ha d m a de thi s pa r t i c ul a rc ha nge t o th e rep o rt . A l th o u g h th e d i stri ctco u rtd i d n o tad m i tth e tw o i n ci d en trep o rt s,“ Th ede c isi on to re op e n a

c a seto introd

uc ee vide nc ea ft e r t

hepa rtie s h avere ste d is 3 committed to the sound discretion of the district cour t.” United States v. Cohen, 888 F .2d 770, 11 M ille rw a s a llo w e d to p r e s e n t th e tw o d if f e r in g v e r s io n s o f

C ru z ’s in c id e n t r e p o r ts t o t he j ury a nd t o u se the re po rt s t o chal l enge C ruz’ s t es t i m on y thatM i l l erw as w e a r i ng s w e a tpa nt s a tthe t i m e of hi s a r r e s ta nd tha tthe a m m uni t i on c l i p w a s f ound in th e p o c k e t o f

h is s w e a tp a n ts . T h e j u r y wa s th u s a wa r e o f th e d i f f e r e n c e a b o u tth e s we a tp a n t s i n th e two i nc i de ntr e por t s a nd ha d t o de c i de w he the ri tf ound m or e c r e di bl e C ruz ’ s t e s t i m ony orthe de f

e ns e ’ s the or y tha tM i l l e rw a s w e a r i ng boxe rs hor t s w i thoutpoc ke t s a tthe t i m e of the a r r e s ta nd tha tthe pol i c e f ound the a m m uni t i on c l i p i n a s a f e dur i ng a s u b s e q u e n t s e a r c h o f

th e d w e llin g . F urther, the di stri ctcourtexpres sl y i nstruct ed the j ury thati tcoul d con si der al l of the t es t i m on y r egar di ng the re po rt s, even tho ug h t he re po rt s them se l ves had n o t b e e n a d m itte d in to th e r e c o r d . B e c a u s e M ille rw a s a llo w e d to u s e th e r e p o r ts f orc r os s - e xa m i na t i on a nd t o di s c us s the m dur i ng c l os i ng a r gum e nt , w e c onc l ude tha tthe r e i s no r e a s ona bl e l i ke l i hood tha te xc l us i on of the s e r e por t s f

r om the re co rd v io lated M il ler’s s u b stan ti al rig h ts. T h u s, an y e rr o r in th e d istrict co u rt’s ru lin g w a s h a r m le s s . T he di stri ctcourt ’ s deni al of M i l l er ’ s m ot i on t o reopen t o p utthe ph ys i ca l s a f e i nt o e vi de nc e a l s o pr e s e nt s no ba s i s f orr e ve r s a l of

M i l l e r ’ s c onvi c t i on. W e 3775 (11th Cir. 1989). When evaluating the district c ourt’s exerciseof discretion, we consider (1) the timeliness of the motion to reopen, ( 2) the c haracter of the testimony

to be offered, ( 3) the e ff e c t of gra ntingthemotion

to re op e n, and

(4 ) t here a so na

blene ss o f t

hee xcu sefo r t

here qu e st to reopen. See United States v. B y rd, 403 F .3d 1278, 1284 (11th Cir. 2005).

12 re cogn i ze thatL ee t es t i fi ed thatthe sa fe w as i n t he dw el l i ng and t hatshe had st ored th e a m m u n itio n c lip in it. I n d e e d , th e r e w a s n o e v id e n c e c o n tr a d ic tin g L e e ’s c la im tha tthe r e w a s a s a f

e i n the dw e l l i ng. R a the r , the c onf l i c ti n the c a s e w a s ove rthe lo c a tio n o f

a m m u n itio n . T h e ju r y h a d to d e te r m in e if it f o u n d L e e m o r e c r e d ib le tha n the t e s t i f

y i ng of f i c e r s a s t o w ha tM i l l e rw a s w e a r i ng tha tda y a nd w he the rthe a m m uni t i on w a s on hi s pe r s on. H a vi ng the s a f e i t s e l f i n the j ur y r oom w oul d not ha ve he l pe d the j ur y ’ s c r e di bi l i ty de t e r m i na t i on. T he r e f or e , w e c a nnots a y tha tthe courtabused i t s di sc re t i on i n d enyi ng the m ot i on t o reopen i n o rdert o i nt rodu ce th e s a f e its e lf in to e v id e n c e . T h u s , t o th e e x t e n tth a tth e r e wa s a n y e r r o rb y th e d i s tr i c tc o u r ti n th e two i s s ue s di s c us s e d a bove , w e c onc l ude tha tM i l l e rha s notc a r r i e d hi s bur de n t o s how th a t th e c u m u la tiv e im p a c t o f s u c h e r r o r s d e n ie d h im a f a irtr ia l. B. M o t i o n t o C o nt i nue Se nt e nc i ng W e r e vi e w a di s tr i c tc our t ’ s de ni a l of a m ot i on t o c ont i nue s e nt e nc i ng f or abuse of di sc re t i on . U ni t ed S t at es v. E do uard, 48 5 F . 3d 13 24 , 13 50 (11t h C i r. 2007) . A de f

e nda ntge ne r a l l y c a nnotc ol l a t e r a l l y a tt a c k pr i orc onvi c t i ons us e d by the di stri ctcourti n federa l se nt enci ng proceedi ng s, exce ptw here the defendantca n13

suff i ci ent l y dem on stra t e thatan ea rl i erconv i ct i on w as “ pres um pt i vel y voi d. ” U ni t e d S t a t e s v. R om a n, 989 F . 2d 1117, 1120 ( 11th C i r . 1993) ( e n ba nc ) . “ [ T ] he k in d s o f c a s e s th a t c a n b e in c lu d e d in th e ‘p r e s u m p tiv e ly v o id ’ c a te g o r y a r e s m a ll i n n u mb e ra n d a r e p e r h ap s l i mi t e d t o u n c o u n s e l e d c o n v i c t i o n s . ” I d . Th e Su p r e me C ou rthas c on si dere d a defendant ’ s a rgum entthathi s pri or conv i ct i on s w er e i nva l i d f ors e nt e nc i ng purpos e s on i ne f f e c t i ve - a s s i s t a nc e - of

- c ouns e l gr ounds a nd de c l i ne d t o “ e xt e nd the r i ghtt o a tt a c k c ol l a t e r a l l y pr i orc onvi c t i ons us e d f or s e nt e nc e e nha nc e m e ntbe y ond the r i ghtt o ha ve appoi nt e d c ouns e l . ” C us t i s v. U n ite d S ta te s , 5 1 1 U .S . 4 8 5 , 4 8 7 - 8 8 , 4 9 6 , 1 1 4 S . C t. 1 7 3 2 , 1 7 3 4 - 3 5 , 1 7 3 8 ( 1 9 9 4 ) . M i l l ersoug htt o con t i nu e the se nt enci ng hear i ng beca use he bel i eved that three of hi s pri or st at e c on vi ct i on s w er e obt ai ned i n v i ol at i on of hi s r i gh tt o cou nsel and sou gh tt i m e t o o bt ai n i nform at i on on them . A tse nt enci ng , defe nse c ou nsel sugg es t ed thatM i l l erhad n otre ce i ved eff ec t i ve re pres ent at i on beca use he w as pe r s ua de d t o pl e a d gui l ty qui c kl y a nd ha d a di f f e r e ntl a w y e ra te ve r y s t a ge of the cr i m i nal proceedi ng s. D es pi t e the cont ra ry as se rt i on s on app ea l , defe nse c ou nsel so u g h tt o ch al l en g e th e q u al i ty o f at t o rn ey rep resen t at i o n M i l l er received i n th ese pr i orc onvi c t i ons , nottha tM i l l e rdi d notha ve a ny a tt or ne y r e pr e s e nt a t i on. T he di stri ctcourtprop er l y deni ed the m ot i on t o con t i nu e s ent enci ng on a f eder al c onvi c t i on be c a us e M i l l e rc oul d notc ol l a t e r a l l y a tt a c k hi s pr i ors t a t e c onvi c t i onsOn a pp e a l, M ill e r re lie s o n in fo rm atio n h eob taine d f ro m a F lorida c ourt s’ webs iteto 4 arguethat th edis tric t c ourt sentenc e d h im a s a

n a rm e d c are e r crimin a l ba se d o n in c omp le te information about his prior state c onvictions. Specifically, Miller argues that (1) adjudication was withheld on his 1987 conviction and there is no indication online that he w as represented by counsel, (2) his 1988 conviction was re duced to a misdemeanor, a

nd (3) the disorderly

conduct count in his 1990 conviction was re duced to a misdemeanor a

nd thereis no indication online that hewa s repre sente d b y

c ouns e l. M ill e r, ho wever, did no t argueto t

hedis tric t c ourt

that it sh ould continue sentencingbeca

use he suspe cted that some of the prior c onvictions wereuncounsele d or not qualifying f

elonies. F urthermore, Miller does not off er a ny explanation as to why

he could not have obtained this information from the F lorida cour ts’ website e arlier

and pre sented these a rguments to the district court. Therefore, bec ause Miller did not objec t on these grounds to t heprior c onvic tio ns lis te d in

thePSI to s uppo rt

thearm e d c are e r crimin a l enh anc e ment, heis deeme d to have admitted these finding s. United States v. L indsey , 482 F.3d 1285, 1294 n.9 (11th Cir.), cert. denied, ___ U .S. ___, 128 S. C t. 438 (2007). 14 base d o n i neff

ec t i ve as si st ance of coun se l i n st at e c ou rt . S ee R om an, 98 9 F . 2d at 4 1 1 2 0 . C . R eason ab l en es s of 228 -M on th S en te n ce W e r evi ew the re as on abl enes s of afi nal se nt ence un der a n abu se -ofdi s c r e t i on s t a nda r d. G a l l v. U ni t e d S t a t e s , ___ U . S . ___, 128 S . C t . 586, 594 ( 2007) . “ [ T ] he pa r ty w ho c ha l l e nge s the s e nt e nc e be a r s the bur de n of e s t a bl i s hi ng th a t th e s e n te n c e is u n r e a s o n a b le in th e lig h t o f b o th [ th e ] r e c o r d a n d th e f a c to r s in [18 U . S . C . ] se ct i on 35 53 (a ). ” U ni t ed S t at es v. T al l ey , 43 1 F . 3d 78 4, 78 8 (11 th C i r. 2005) . U nde r§ 3553( a ) , “ [ t ] he c our ts ha l l i m pos e a s e nt e nc e s uf f i c i e nt , butnot grea t erthan n ec es sa ry . ” 18 U . S . C . § 3 55 3(a) . T he § 3 55 3(a) fa ct ors i ncl ud e, i nt er a l i a , ( 1) the na tur e a nd c i r c um s t a nc e s of the of f e ns e a nd the hi s t or y a nd c h a r a c te r is tic s o f

th e d e f e n d a n t, ( 2 ) th e n e e d f

o rth e s e n te n c e to a f

f o r d a d e q u a te det erre nce t o cri m i nal cond uct , and (3) the S ent enci ng G ui del i nes r ange. S ee15

i d. § 3 55 3(a) (1), (2)( B ), (4). W he n c ons i de r i ng w he the ra de f e nda nt ’ s s e nt e nc e i s r e a s ona bl e , w e ha ve com pare d t he se nt ence ac tual l y i m po se d t o t he st atut ory m axi m um . S ee U ni t ed S t a t e s v. W i ni nge a r , 422 F . 3d 1241, 1246 ( 11th C i r . 2005) . A l s o, w e ha ve re cogn i ze d t hat“ there i s ara ng e of r ea sonabl e s ent ence s f rom w hi ch the di stri ct c our tm a y c hoos e , a nd w he n the di s tr i c tc our ti m pos e s a s e nt e nc e w i thi n the a d v is o r y G u id e lin e s r a n g e , w e o r d in a r ily w ill e x p e c t th a t c h o ic e to b e a r e a s o n a b le o n e .” T a lle y , 4 3 1 F .3 d a t 7 8 8 . A ts e nt e nc i ng, the di s tr i c tc our ts t a t e d tha ti tha d c ons i de r e d a l l of the § 3 5 5 3 ( a ) f

a c to r s , p a r tic u la r ly M ille r ’s p e r s o n a l h is to r y a n d c h a r a c te r is tic s . S pe c i f i c a l l y , the di s tr i c tc our te xpr e s s e d c onc e r n ove r( 1) M i l l e r ’ s 1990 c onvi c t i on for a gg ra vat ed as saul tthati nv ol ved a vehi cl e c hase w i th p ol i ce w here shot s w er e f ir e d a t p o lic e o f

f ic e r s a n d M ille ra tte m p te d to r a m v a r io u s p o lic e u n its , a n d ( 2 ) h is 19 92 conv i ct i on w here M i l l erfi re d sho t s a tan un derc ov erpo l i ce offi ce r part i ci pat i ng i n an arr anged d rug t ra nsac t i on . T he di stri ctcourtno t ed thatM i l l er r e c e i ve d a f

i f t e e n- y e a rs e nt e nc e f

orthe 1992 c onvi c t i on. A l though the gove r nm e nt r e c om m e nde d a s e nt e nc e a tthe bott om of the gui de l i ne s r a nge ( 188 m onths ) , the di stri ctcourti m po se d a 22 8-m on th sent ence , w hi ch w as w i thi n t he gu i del i nes r a nge a nd be l ow the s t a tut or y m a xi m um t e r m of l i f e i m pr i s onm e nt , ba s e d on16

M i l l er ’ s c ri m i nal re cord, hi s f ai l ure t o acc eptre spon si bi l i ty f or hi s pre se ntoffe nse, a n d th e f a c t th a t h e w a s p r e s e n tly s e r v in g a s ta te c o u r t s e n te n c e f o rv io la tin g h is p a r o le . T he re cord revea l s thatthe di stri ctcourtconsi dere d t he ar gu m ent s a t s e nt e nc i ng a nd the § 3553( a ) f a c t or s , a nd i m pos e d a r e a s ona bl e s e nt e nc e w i thi n the g u i d e l i n e s r a n g e th a tw a s “ s u f f i c i e n t , b u tn o tg r e a t e rth a n n e c e s s a r y . ” 1 8 U . S. C. § 3 5 5 3 ( a ) . T h u s , w e c o n c lu d e th a t th e d is tr ic t c o u r t d id n o t a b u s e its d is c r e tio n in s e n te n c in g M ille rto 2 2 8 m o n th s ’ im p r is o n m e n t. AF F I RME D.