FILED U.S. COURT OF AP P E A LS E LE V EN T HC IRC U IT DECEMBER 17, 2007 THOMAS K. KAH

N CLERK

Honora ble B everly

B. Ma rtin, United States District Judg e for the Northern District of * Georg ia, sitting by

designation. [ 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- 11566

________________________ D. C. Do c k e tNo . 0 4 - 2 0 1 3 9 - CR - J EM 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 M A R I O M E L O , 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

_________________________ ( D e c e m b e r 17, 2007) B e f o r e E DMON DS ON , C h i e f J u d g e , a n d DU B I NA , C i r c u i tJ u d g e , a n d MAR T I N, * D i stri ctJudg e. P E R C U R I A M:2

M a r io M e lo ap p e a ls th e s e n te n c e h e r e c e iv e d a s a r e s u lt o f h is p le a o f

g u ilty to o n e c o u n t o f

c o n s p ir a c y to c o m m it m o n e y la u n d e r in g . F o rth e r e a s o n s s e t f o r th be l ow , w e va c a t e M r . M e l o' s s e nt e nc e a nd r e m a nd t o the di s tr i c tc our tf or r e s e nt e nc i ng. I . Ba c k g r o und M r . M e l o, hi s w i f

e , a nd othe r s w e r e c ha r ge d w i th c r i m e s r e l a t e d t o the l aund er i ng of drug m on ey . A bo ut15 m on ths af t erhe w as fi rs ti nd i ct ed, and j ustat the t i m e hi s tri al had fi rs tbeen se t , M r. M el o p l ed gu i l ty t o o ne coun tof conspi ra cy t o c om m i tm one y l a unde r i ng i n vi ol a t i on of 18 U . S . C . § 1956( a ) ( 1) ( B ) ( i ) a nd 18 U .S .C . § 1 9 5 6 ( h ) . T h e r e m a in in g c h a r g e s w e r e d is m is s e d . I n c o n n e c tio n w ith pl e a di ng gui l ty , M r . M e l o e nt e r e d i nt o a w r i tt e n pl e a a gr e e m e ntw i th the go vernm ent . T hatpl eaagre em entcont ai ned n o d et ai l s abo utthe cr i m e t o w hi ch M r . M e lo p le d g u ilty . D uri ng the pl eahear i ng , ho w ever , the A ss i st antU ni t ed S t at es A tt orney ta lk e d a b o u t a J a n u a ry 2 8 , 2 0 0 2 m o n e y la u n d e r in g tr a n s a c tio n in w h ic h M r . M e lo w a s i nvol ve d, a s w e l l a s a tr a ns a c t i on tha toc c ur r e d on A ugus t26, 2003. T he e nt i r e de s c r i pt i on of

the A ugus t26, 2003 tr a ns a c t i on gi ve n by the A U S A a tthe p l ea h eari n g w as as fo l l o w s:3

D uri ng the l as ttra nsac t i on , an un derc ov erD E A T as k F orce agentw as i n c om m uni c a t i on w i th a bl a c k m a r ke tpe s o br oke ri n C ol om bi a . T he b r o k e rp u t th e u n d e r c o v e rD E A T a s k F o r c e a g e n t in c o n ta c t w ith M a r io M e lo a n d h is w if e , O lg a M e lo . T

hey agreed to a rr an ge a pi c kup of

$200, 000 (e m ph as i s a dd ed). O n A ugus t26th, M a r i o a nd O l ga M e l o dr ove t o a l oc a t i on i n the M ia m i a r e a to p ic k u p a n u n d e r c o v e rv e h ic le . A t th a t tim e O lg a M e lo e nt e r e d tha tunde r c ove rve hi c l e t o a nothe rl oc a t i on w he r e $200, 000 w as tra nsfe rr ed fr om the M el os’ vehi cl e t o the un derc ov ervehi cl e. O l ga M el o t hen d rove the un derc ov ervehi cl e bac k t o the ori gi nal l oc a t i on. A ge nt s f

r om D E A the n r e tr i e ve d the unde r c ove rve hi c l e a nd reco v ered th e ag reed $ 2 0 0 , 0 0 0 i n U n i t ed S t at es cu rren cy. (T r. of C hang e of P l ea s P roce edi ng B ef ore the H on . Jose E . M art i nez, U ni t ed S t at es D i stri ctJudg e, O ct . 3, 20 05 (“ P l eaT r. ”) at22 . ) N o m ent i on w as m ade of an $800, 000 a m ounta s s oc i a t e d w i th thi s A ugus t23, 2003 tr a ns a c t i on. A f t e rM r . M e l o pl e d gui l ty , a pr e s e nt e nc e i nve s t i ga t i on w a s pr e pa r e d a nd a re po rtw as w ri tt en. M r. M el o' s pre se nt ence i nv es t i gat i on re po rt(“ P S R ”) re fe rr ed t o hi s i nvol ve m e nti n ( 1) a tr a ns a c t i on w hi c h t ook pl a c e on S e pt e m be r24, 2002 and i nv ol ved $ 59 , 80 0 i n l aund er ed fund s ( P S R ¶ 1 7); and (2) a tra nsac t i on w hi ch t o o k p l a c e o n N o v e mb e r8 , 2 0 0 2 a n d i n v o l v e d $ 1 9 9 , 1 2 0 i n l a u n d e r e d f u n d s ( PSR ¶ 18) . T he P S R di d notm e nt i on w ha ta m ountof m one y w a s a s s oc i a t e d w i th the A u g u s t 2 6 , 2 0 0 3 tr a n s a c tio n , o ra n y d e ta ils a b o u t th a t tr a n s a c tio n . H o w e v e r , it s u m m a r ily c o n c lu d e d th a t M r . M e lo s h o u ld b e a c c o u n ta b le f o rla u n d e r e d f

u n d s in th e a mo u n to f

$ 1 , 4 2 6 , 0 1 0 . ( PSR ¶ 2 4 . ) A f t e rap p l y i n g o th e ra d

j u s tme n t s , th e PSRThereis a discrepancy as to the PSR’s calculation of Mr. Me lo’s offense leve l. The 1 briefs of the par ties say that the PSR

established Mr. Me lo’s offense leve l as a 33, with a criminal history

cate g ory of V, re sulting in a guideline ra ng e of 210 to 262 months. However, the PSR in the rec ord bef

ore this Court assigns an off ense level of 32 to Mr. Melo, with a c rimin a l hi sto ry

c ate g or y of V, wi th a re sultingguide lin era

ng eof 18 8 to23 5 mo nth s. We n ote that the paragraphs of

the PSRthat compute the of fenselevel are inconsistent with the descriptive paragraphs of the PSR . The PSR clearly states that Mr. Melo wa s a leader or org anizer o f t

hec rime(P SR ¶

24 ), but do e s n ot f

a c tor in a ny a dju stm e nt f

or that role . ( PSR ¶ 36.) Similarly , the g overnment agree d in the PSRto rec ommend a 3-level re duction for a c c epta nc eof re sp on sib ili ty

(P SR ¶ 4) , b ut ag ain, thePSR doe s n ot f a c tor that into i ts computation. (PSR ¶ 40.) The Addendum to the PS R states “[t] he def endant denies that he knew or be lieved the 2 laundered funds were procee ds of an unlaw ful ac tivity .” (A ddendum to PSR2.) B ut this i s not consistent with the position t aken by Mr. Melo at the time heentered his guilty plea. At that time, Mr. Melo’s counse l stated that “Mr. Me lo did not know they were narcotics proc eeds, but he did know they

were from some unlawful ac tivity .” (Plea Tr. at 19.) 4 ul t i m at el y e st abl i shed a gui del i ne ra ng e app roac hi ng the st atut ory m axi m um t erm of i m pr i s onm e ntof

tw e nty y e a r s unde r18 U . S . C . § 1956. 1 B e f o r e h e w a s s e n te n c e d , M r . M e lo f ile d f o u ro b je c tio n s to th e P S R . F ir s t, he a r gue d tha tthe P S R i nappr opr i a t e l y c l a s s i f i e d hi m a s a l e a de roror ga ni z e rof the m on ey l aund er i ng sc hem e. S ec on d, he obj ec t ed t o a paragraph i n the P S R that c a l c ul a t e d the a m ountof f unds l a unde r e d a tm or e tha n $1, 000, 000. T hi r d, w hi l e he a c know l e dge d tha the w a s a w a r e the m one y be i ng l a unde r e d c a m e f r om unl a w f

ul act i v i ty, h e assert ed h e h ad n o k n o w l ed g e th atth e fu n d s w ere n arco t i cs p ro ceed s. 2 F i na l l y , M r . M e l o a r gue d tha thi s c r i m i na l hi s t or y c a t e gor y ove r r e pr e s e nt e d the s e r io u s n e s s o f

h is p a s t c r im e s a n d o v e r e s tim a te d th e p r o b a b ility th a t h e w o u ld com m i tcr i m es i n t he future.Mr. Rey nolds was called as a w itness at the first of two sentencinghearings f or Mr. 3 Melo, on Februar

y 24, 2006, however, the he aringwas stopped be causeMr. Rey nolds neede d an interpre ter, a

nd none wa s in attendanc e. When the sentencinghearing reconvened on Februar y 27, 2006, Mr. Rey

nolds was not called a s a witness. Thus the re cord inc ludes no substantive testimony

from Mr. Rey

nolds. 5 A t sen ten cin g , th e U n it ed S tates p re se n ted ev id en ce o f M r. M elo ’s i nvol ve m e nti n the m one y l a unde r i ng c ons pi r a c y . T he gove r nm e ntc a l l e d the f o llo w in g w itn e s s e s : ( 1 ) M r . I v a n T a b a r e s , M r . M e lo ’s c o - d e f e n d a n t; ( 2) H ol l y w ood, F l or i da pol i c e of f i c e rB or i s M i l l a r e s ; ( 3) F l or i da H i ghw a y P a tr ol O f f ic e rJ o s e p h M o s c a ; ( 4 ) S u n r is e , F lo r id a P o lic e D e p a r tm e n t D e te c tiv e E d d ie M ar i l l ; (5) N orth M i am i B ea ch po l i ce offi ce r G re go ry T am bu ro; (6) P edro R eyn o l d s, an o th er co -d efen d an t ; an d (7 ) IR S A g en tC arl o s T o rres. 3 A . M r . M e l o’ s K now l e dge of M one y a s D rug P r oc e e ds D uri ng the heari ng on M r. M el o’ s gui l ty pl ea , hi s c ou nsel advi se d the court M r . M e lo k n e w th e m o n e y h e w a s c a r r y in g c a m e f r o m u n la w f

u l a c tiv ity , b u t d id n o t k n o w th a t it w a s p r o c e e d s f r o m d ru g s a le s . W h ile th e c o u r t a d v is e d M r . M e lo tha tthe gove r nm e ntw oul d be r e qui r e d t o pr ove he kne w the m one y w a s the p r o c e e d s o f

n a r c o tic s s a le s , th e A U S A d id n o t in d ic a te th a t th e g o v e r n m e n t w o u ld u n d ert ak e su ch p ro o f. S p eci fi cal l y, th e ex ch an g e w as as fo l l o w s: C ouns e l f

orM e l o: Y ourH onor , a s I t ol d [ a n A U S A ] e a r l i e r , M r . M e l o di d not

kn ow they w er e nar cot i cs proceeds, bu the di d k no w they w er e fro m so m e u n l aw fu l act i v i ty.6

T he C our t : I thi nk tha t ’ s a l l the e l e m e nt s r e qui r e , i s tha the know s i ti s f r om som e unl aw ful ac t i vi ty. I don ’ tthi nk he has t o k no w w hat spec i fi c unl aw ful ac t i vi ty, do es he? A U S A : N o . H e j u stn eed s t o k n o w th ati t ’ s an u n l aw fu l act i v i ty. T he C our t : O ka y . T ha t ’ s f i ne , the n. B utothe rtha n tha t , y ou unde r s t a nd tha ttha t ’ s w ha ty ou’ r e pl e a di ng gui l ty t o? M r. M el o: Y es , Y ou r H on or. T he C ou rt : O kay. T hey a re al l egi ng thati tw as narc ot i cs ac t i vi ty. T hey

ha ve t o pr ove tha ti tw a s a n unl a w f ul a c t i vi ty . Y ou don’ tha ve t o know w hi c h pa r t i c ul a runl a w f ul a c t i vi ty i tw a s . D o y ou u n d e r s ta n d th a t? M r. M el o: Y es , si r. ( P le a T r . a t 1 9 .) A s thi ngs de ve l ope d a tthe s ubs e que nts e nt e nc i ng he a r i ng, the gove r nm e nt di d unde r t a ke t o pr ove tha tM r . M e l o’ s s e nt e nc e s houl d be e nha nc e d be c a us e he ha d know l e dge tha ti tw a s drug pr oc e e ds . T he gove r nm e ntpr e s e nt e d t e s t i m ony f r om H ol l y w ood, F l or i da pol i c e of f i c e rB or i s M i l l a r e s . O n J a nua r y 28, 2002, D et ec t i ve M i l l ar es w at ched an i nd i vi du al i dent i fi ed as G i ra l do pu ta bag i nsi de M r. M e l o’ s c a rw hi l e the c a rw a s s t oppe d out s i de a W a l - M a r t . W he n M r . M e l o dr ove aw ay , D et ec t i ve M i l l ar es fol l ow ed hi m t o h i s hom e, and t here soug htand rece i ved p e r m is s io n to g o in s id e . W h ile D e te c tiv e M illa r e s w a s s p e a k in g w ith M r . M e lo i ns i de hi s hous e , H i ghw a y P a tr ol m a n J os e ph M os c a a r r i ve d on the s c e ne w i th a7

dog tr a i ne d t o a l e r tt o the pr e s e nc e of na r c ot i c s . T he dog a l e r t e d t o the e xt e r i orof M r . M e l o’ s ve hi c l e . A ge nt s s e a r c he d the ve hi c l e a nd r e tr i e ve d a ba g c ont a i ni ng ap p r o x im a te ly $ 1 2 5 ,2 8 0 . D e t e c t i ve M i l l a r e s t e s t i f i e d tha the w a s i nt e r vi e w i ng M r . M e l o i ns i de the M e lo h o m e a t th e tim e th a t th e d ru g d o g a le r te d o n th e m o n e y f o u n d in h is c a r . H ow e ve r , i n the i rdi s c us s i ons D e t e c t i ve M i l l a r e s e xpl a i ne d t o M r . M e l o tha t“ [ t ] he f a c ttha tthe dog ha d hi ton the ve hi c l e l e d us t o be l i e ve tha ttha tw a s c ontr a ba nd, thatthere w as i l l egal proceeds, m on ey fr om i l l egal proceeds i nsi de the vehi cl e. ” (T r. of S ent enci ng P roce edi ng s B ef ore the H on . Jose E . M art i nez, U ni t ed S t at es D i stri ctJudg e, F eb. 24 , 20 06 (“ S ent enci ng T r. I” ) a t24 . ) D et ec t i ve M i l l ar es al so t es t i fi ed thatw hi l e he w as i n the M el o h om e that day, he pres ent ed M r. M el o w i th a form ent i t l ed A ff i davi tand S t i pu l at i on U nd er the F l or i da C ontr a ba nd F or f e i tur e A c t . M r . M e l o s i gne d the f or m , the r e by a c k n o w le d g in g th a t th e s e iz e d c u r r e n c y w a s c o n tr a b a n d , b u t d is c la im in g o w n e r s h ip of i t . H e i ni t i a l e d a pa ge of the f or m tha tr e c i t e d the de f

i ni t i on of “ c ontr a ba nd ar t i cl e” un der the F l ori da C on traband F orfe i ture A ct . T he defi ni t i on l i st ed se ven types of prop er ty thatconst i tut e c on traband un der the st atut e, the fi rs tof w hi ch w as any c on trol l ed subst ance or curr ency used as proceeds for acont rol l edThe fir st of seven items delineated on the for m as contra

band wa s “[a]ny

controlled 4 substance a s defined in c hapter 893 or any

substance, device, pa

raphernalia, or

currency or other me ans of e xch ang ethat w a s u se d, wa s attempt e d tobeus e d, or wa s intend e d tobeus e d in violation of any

provision of cha

pter 893.”Fla. Stat. § 932.701(2) (a) (1). The g overnment also proffered evidenceat the sentencinghearing show ing that Mr. 5 Melo participated in laundering transac tions on S eptember 24, 2002, November

8, 2002, and M ar ch2 6 , 2 0 0 3 , i nv o l v i n g $ 6 0 , 0 0 0 , $ 1 9 9 , 1 2 0 , an d $ 4 0 , 0 0 0 , re s p ec t i v el y . (T r. o f P ro ce ed i n gs Held B efrore [sic] the Honorable Julio [ sic] Maartinez [ sic], a United States District Court, [ sic] Judg e (“ SentencingTr. II ”) at 11.) Theseamounts arenot disputed by Mr. Melo, and theref

ore they will not be part of this discussion. 8 subst ance . A s s etforth abo ve, thi s i nt er ac t i on betw ee n D et ec t i ve M i l l ar es and M r.

4 M e l o happe ne d on J a nua r y 28, 2002, i n the c ons pi r a c y tha tw a s , a c c or di ng t o the in d ic tm e n t, o n g o in g u n til A u g u s t 2 6 , 2 0 0 3 . B . T he A m ountof

F unds A ttr i but a bl e t o M r . M e l o f orthe A ugus t26, 2003 T r a ns a c t i on 5 A tthe se nt enci ng hear i ng , the go vernm ental so pres ent ed evi dence s pe c i f i c a l l y a boutthe a m ountof m one y a ttr i but a bl e t o the A ugus t26, 2003 tr a n s a c tio n . T h e o n ly s u c h e v id e n c e c a m e f r o m th e te s tim o n y o f

D e te c tiv e E d d ie M ari l l w h o t est i fi ed th at , i n h i s u n d erco v er cap aci ty, h e w as co n t act ed b y a C ol om bi a n m one y br oke rna m e d J ua n C a r l os P e r a l t a . M r . P e r a l t a t ol d D e t e c t i ve M a r ill th a t h e “h a d $ 8 0 0 ,0 0 0 in th e M ia m i a r e a th a t n e e d e d to b e la u n d e r e d b a c k to C ol om bi a f

or hi m . ” ( S ent enci ng T r. I a t49 . ) A shortt i m e l at er , a w om an ca l l ed D e te c tiv e M a r ill a n d to ld h im s h e h a d p ap e r s r e a d y f o ra d e liv e r y o f

$ 2 0 0 ,0 0 0 . A m a n la te rd e te r m in e d to b e M r . M e lo c a m e to th e te le p h o n e . D e te c tiv e M a r ill to ldUnless otherw ise specif ied, sec tion numbers in this opi nion refer to the United States 6 Se ntenc ingGuide lin e s, ba se d o n th e20 05 Se ntenc ingGuide lin e s Ma nu a l. (S e ntenc ingTr . IIat 57 .) 18 U. S.C. § 1 95 6(h) prov ide s th at anyon ewh o c on sp ire s to 7 launder money is subject to the same penalties as one who commits the substantive offenseof money laundering. U .S.S.G. § 2S 1.1(a) (2) se ts the base of fenselevel at “ 8 plus the number of offense leve ls from the table in § 2B 1.1 . . . correspondingto the value of the laundered funds . . . .” F inally , § 2B1.1(b)(1) (I) states that the c ourt should add 16 levels if the value of the laundered funds amounted to more than $1,000,000. 9 M r . M e l o tha the e xpe c t e d ade l i ve r y of $800, 000. M r . M e l o r e s ponde d tha the onl y ha d $200, 000 “ a ttha tt i m e ” a nd the r e w a s no di s c us s i on of a ny l a r ge ra m ount of m on ey t o com e l at er . (I d. at50 -51. ) D et ec t i ve M ar i l l and M r. M el o arr anged f o rth e d e liv e r y , a n d th e r e w a s , in f a c t, $ 2 0 0 ,0 0 0 d e liv e r e d a n d u ltim a te ly s e iz e d . U po n h ea ri ng the t es t i m on y off er ed du ri ng the tw o d ay s of the s e n te n c in g h e a r in g , th e d is tr ic t c o u r t c a lc u la te d M r . M e lo 's b a s e o f f e n s e le v e l a t 8 w i th a 16- l e ve l e nha nc e m e ntpur s ua ntt o §§ 2S 1. 1( a ) ( 2) & 2B 1. 1( b) ( 1) ( I ) . T he 6 courtarri ved atthe 16 -l evel enhancem entbase d o n i t s f i nd i ng thatthe i nt ended l oss f rom the conspi ra cy , i ncl ud i ng the addi t i on al $6 00 , 00 0 w hi ch had b ee n m ent i on ed, bu tno tdel i vere d i n t he A ug ust26 , 20 03 tra nsac t i on , w as ap p r o x im a te ly $ 1 ,4 0 0 ,0 0 0 . T h e c o u r t a d d e d a 2 - le v e l e n h a n c e m e n t p u r s u a n t to 7 § 2S 1. 1( b) ( 2) ( B ) be c a us e the c onvi c t i on w a s a vi ol a t i on of 18 U . S . C . §1956. T he courtal so added a 6-l evel enhancem entpu rs uantt o § § 2 S 1. 1(b)(1)(A ) & 2 S 1 .1 ( b ) ( 1 ) ( B ) ( i) b e c a u s e it f o u n d th a t M r . M e lo k n e w th e m o n e y h e c o n s p ir e d to l aund erre pres ent ed proceeds of acont rol l ed subst ance . T he di stri ctcourtdecl i nedT h atgu i d e l i n ep ro v i d e s th ati f th ed e f e n d ant ’ s o f

f e n s ei s a c o n s p i ra c y, “ d e c r e a s eb y 3 8 levels, unless the de fenda nt or a c o-conspirator completed all the acts the c onspirators believe d nece ssary on their par

t for the suc cessf

ul completion of the substantive off ense or the circumstances demonstrate that the c onspirators were a bout to complete all such acts but for apprehension or interr

uption by some similar event beyond their control.”U.S.S.G. § 2X1.1(b)( 2). Th ewritt e n s e ntenc ere fl e c ts a term of 18 8 mo nth s im

priso nment, wh ic h c on fl ic ts w ith 9 th eo ra lp ro n o un c e m e nto f 1 8 0 m o nth s r e f

l e c t e d i nth es e nt e n c i n gtran s c rip t . ( S e nt e n c i n gT r . II at 77.) “ When a sentenc e pronounc ed orally and unambiguously

conflicts with the written order of judgment, the oral pronouncement g overns.”United States v. Bates, 213 F.3d 1336, 1340 (11th Cir. 2000). However, w e suspec t that the 180 month sentenceref lected in the sentencing transcript may

have resulted from an er

ror in tra nscription, or a simple slip of the tongue by the court, be cause180 months is l ower than the applica

ble guideline ra

ng e, and thedistrict court expressly noted that it did not find sufficient re ason to “g o outside” the guideline ra ng e. (Sentenc ing Tr. IIat 76.) In any event, weneed not a sk the district court to re solve this issue beca use wevacate Mr. Melo’s sentenceon other grounds, and the district c ourt will have the opportunity

to restate his sentence. 10 to f o llo w th e P S R ’s r e c o m m e n d a tio n to ap p ly a 4 - le v e l in c r e a s e p u r s u a n t to § 3 B 1. 1(a) , base d u po n t he court ’ s f i nd i ng thatthe go vernm enthad n otes t abl i shed thatM r. M el o w as an organi ze r or l ea der of the conspi ra cy . T he courtal so deni ed M r . M e l o a ny r e duc t i on i n the gui de l i ne c a l c ul a t i on f ora c c e pt a nc e of r e s p o n s ib ility d u e to M r . M e lo ’s o b je c tio n s to s o m e o f

th e f a c tu a l f in d in g s s e t f

o r th in th e P S R . T h e d is tr ic t c o u r t f o u n d th a t M r . M e lo h a d n o t a c c e p te d r e s p o n s ib ility f o rh is c r im e , a n d th e r e f

o r e a n y r e d u c tio n p u r s u a n t to § 3 E 1 .1 w a s n o t ap p r o p r ia te . M r . M e l o di d notr e que s t , a nd the di s tr i c tc our tdi d notgr a nt , a r e duc t i on on the gr ound tha thi s c r i m e w a s a c ons pi r a c y of f e ns e pur s ua ntt o § 2X 1. 1( b) ( 2) . T he 8 di s tr i c tc our t ’ s c a l c ul a t i ons r e s ul t e d i n a gui de l i ne r a nge of 188 t o 235 m onths i m p ri so n m en t , an d th e co u rtsen t en ced M r. M el o o ral l y t o 1 8 0 m o n th s. 9Mr . M e lo emph a size s th at hi s sentenc ewa s disp ropo rtion ateto t hesentenc e s o f his 10 c o- c on sp irator s. Mr . M e lo f ile d a n unopp os e d M oti on

to S upplement [the ] Re c ord o n App e a l to demonstrate that none of his co- conspirator s rec eived a sentenc e compa

rableto his. W e grant the Motion and havereviewed Mr. Me lo’s supplemental materials, but the materials do not a ff e c t ou r de c isi on . Se einf

ra at 21 (c itingUnite d St ate s v . Ch ota s, 96 8 F .2 d 1 19 3, 11 98 (1 1th Cir. 1992)). 11 M r. M el o app ea l s on v ar i ou s groun ds. F i rs t , he cont ends thatthe di stri ct c our tc l e a r l y e r r e d i n f

i ndi ng hi m r e s pons i bl e f ora n a m ountof

l os s e xc e e di ng $ 1 ,0 0 0 ,0 0 0 b a s e d o n u n r e liab le h e a r s a y te s tim o n y w ith o u t a f in d in g o f c r e d ib ility . H e a r gue s tha ti f

thi s C our tuphol ds the di s tr i c tc our t ’ s c a l c ul a t i on on a m ountof l oss, the di stri ctcourtpl ai nl y e rr ed w hen i tdi d n otre du ce hi s off ense l evel pur s ua ntt o § 2X 1. 1( b) ( 2) , be c a us e he w a s c onvi c t e d of c ons pi r a c y a nd ha d not c o m p le te d th e a c ts n e c e s s a r y to la u n d e ro v e r$ 1 ,0 0 0 ,0 0 0 . S e c o n d , M r . M e lo ar gu es thatthe di stri ctcourtcl ea rl y e rr ed i n fi nd i ng thathe kn ew the l aund er ed f u n d s w e r e d ru g p r o c e e d s . T h ir d , M r . M e lo a r g u e s th a t th e d is tr ic t c o u r t c le a r ly e r r e d i n de ny i ng a r e duc t i on i n hi s of f e ns e l e ve l ba s e d on a c c e pt a nc e of r e s pons i bi l i ty . F i na l l y , he a r gue s tha tthe di s tr i c tc our ts houl d notha ve appl i e d the p r e p o n d e r a n c e o f

th e e v id e n c e s ta n d a r d to d e te r m in e r e le v a n t c o n d u c t. 10

I I . D i s c u s s i on W e r e v ie w th e d is tr ic t c o u r t’s f in d in g s o f

f a c t f o rc le a re r r o ra n d its ap p l i cat i o n o f th e S en t en ci n g G u i d el i n es t o th e fact s de no vo . U ni t e d S t a t e s v. L ozano, 49 0 F . 3d 13 17 , 13 21 (11t h C i r. 20 07 ). C l ea r e rr or i s a“ hi gh l y def er ent i alIn it s re sp on sebrie f, theUnite d St ate s st ate d th esta nd ard fo r l os s c a lculatio n b a se d in 11 part on two F ifth Circuit cases it er roneously attributed to the Eleventh Circuit, United States v. Tansley, 986 F.2d 880, 884 ( 5th Cir. 1993), and United States v. F uller, 974 F .2d 1474, 1484 (5th Cir. 1992). (SeeBr . for the United States 28.) Those c ases may serveas per suasive a uth ority, b ut do n ot c arr

y thesamewe ight a s a

de c isi on of thi s Co ur t. 12 s ta n d a r d ,” id . a t 1 3 2 2 , a n d w e f in d c le a re r r o ro n ly if

“w e a r e le f

t w ith a d e f

in ite a nd f i r m c onvi c t i on tha ta m i s t a ke ha s be e n c om m i tt e d. ” U ni t e d S t a t e s v. C r a w f or d, 407 F . 3d 1174, 1177 ( 11th C i r . 2005) ( c i t a t i on a nd i nt e r na l quot a t i ons o m itte d ) . A . A m ountof

L os s C a l c ul a t i on T he U . S . S e nt e nc i ng G ui de l i ne s pr ovi de tha ta de f e nda nti s r e s pons i bl e f

or th e g r e a te ro f

th e a c tu a l o rth e in te n d e d p e c u n ia r y lo s s r e s u ltin g f r o m h is c r im e . § 2 B 1. 1 cm tn. 3(A ). T o cal cul at e the am ou ntof l oss a ttri bu t abl e t o a conspi ra cy de f e nda nt , the di s tr i c tc our t“ f i r s tde t e r m i ne [ s ] the s c ope of c r i m i na l a c t i vi ty the d e f e n d a n t a g r e e d to jo in tly u n d e r ta k e , a n d th e n c o n s id e r [ s ] a ll r e a s o n a b ly fore se eabl e a ct s a nd om i ss i on s of others i n the j oi nt l y und ert aken cri m i nal a c t i vi ty . ” U ni t e d S t a t e s v. M c C r i m m on, 362 F . 3d 725, 731 ( 11th C i r . 2004) ( c ita tio n a n d in te r n a l q u o ta tio n s o m itte d ) . T h e b u r d e n is o n th e g o v e r n m e n t to 11 s u p p o r t th e a m o u n t o f

lo s s a ttr ib u ta b le to a d e f e n d a n t w ith “r e liab le a n d s p e c if ic e vi de nc e . ” S e e U ni t e d S t a t e s v. L a w r e nc e , 47 F . 3d 1559, 1566 ( 11th C i r . 1995) (des cr i bi ng the go vernm ent ’ s burden u nd era pre po nd er ance st andard); U ni t ed13

S t at es v. M edi na, 48 5 F . 3d 12 91 , 13 04 (11t h C i r. 20 07 ) ( ci t at i on and i nt ernal qu ot at i on s om i tt ed) ( st at i ng the bu rden i n the cont extof a c ri m e i nv ol vi ng fr aud); U ni t e d S t a t e s v. R e ni c k, 273 F . 3d 1009, 1025 ( 11th C i r . 2001) ( c i t a t i on a nd in te r n a l q u o ta tio n s o m itte d ) ( s a m e ) . I n e s s e n c e , th e e v id e n c e s u p p o r tin g th e d is tr ic t c o u r t’s f in d in g th a t M r . M e lo w a s r e s pons i bl e f

ora t ot a l of

$800, 000 f

r om the A ugus t26, 2003 i nc i de nt c o n s is te d o f

th r e e w o r d s a n d th r e e w o r d s o n ly : “a t th a t tim e .” M r . P e r a lta p r o v id e d th e o n ly r e f

e r e n c e to $ 8 0 0 ,0 0 0 w h e n h e to ld D e te c tiv e M a r ill to e x p e c t a c a l l a bouta n $800, 000 de l i ve r y . W he n M r . M e l o c ont a c t e d D e t e c t i ve M a r i l l a bout a d e liv e r y , D e te c tiv e M a r ill a s k e d h im a b o u t th e $ 8 0 0 ,0 0 0 f ig u r e in a n a tte m p t to corr ob orat e i t , bu tM r. M el o res po nd ed thathe on l y had $2 00 , 00 0 “ atthatt i m e. ” ( S e nt e nc i ng T r . I a t50. ) A uthor i t i e s r e c ove r e d onl y $200, 000 f r om the tr a ns a c t i on, a n d M r . M e lo w a s a r r e s te d a s h o r t tim e la te r . E ve n unde rthe de f

e r e nt i a l c l e a re r r ors t a nda r d of r e vi e w , thi s e vi de nc e i s not suff i ci entt o est abl i sh thatM r. M el o w as l i kel y r es po nsi bl e f or the addi t i on al $ 6 0 0 ,0 0 0 . M r . M e lo d id n o t m e n tio n o ro th e r w is e in d ic a te a n y in te n t o rc ap a c ity to d e liv e r$ 8 0 0 ,0 0 0 . R a th e r , h e e x p la in e d th a t “a t th a t tim e ” h e h a d o n ly $ 2 0 0 ,0 0 0 . O ne coul d rea sonabl y c on cl ud e f rom the ph ra se thatM r. M el o m i gh tdel i ver a d d itio n a l f

u n d s a t s o m e tim e in th e f u tu r e , b u t it w o u ld r e q u ir e im p e r m is s ib leTh is C ourt re c e ntly state d th at a

dis tric t c ourt ’s e rror

in l os s c a lculatio n is ha

rm le ss 12 error if the district cour

t would have imposed the same sentenc e re g ardle ss of the Sentenc ing Guidelines’ recommenda tions on the amount of loss. United States v. Tampas, 493 F .3d 1291, 1305 (11th Cir. 2007). We cannot sa y the er ror here w as har

mless. Be causewe have conc luded that th eprop e r c a lculatio n o f t heamou nt o f l os s attributa

bleto Mr. Me lo s ho uld

havere sulte d in a 14 -l e ve l in c re a serather t ha n a 16 -l e ve l in c re a seun der t heGuide lin e s, thedis tric t c ourt wo uld probably have imposed a

shorter sentence . The district cour t stated that it would have imposed approximately

the same sentenceeven if it had grante d Mr. Melo a 3- level re duction for ac c e pta nc eof resp onsib ili ty , but it assumed the same amount of loss. (SentencingTr. IIat 14 s pe c ul a t i on t o i nf

e rtha t“ $200, 000 a ttha tt i m e ” i n r e s pons e t o a n i nqui r y a bout $ 8 0 0 ,0 0 0 a c k n o w le d g e d a n a d d itio n a l $ 6 0 0 ,0 0 0 to b e la u n d e r e d in th a t tr a n s a c tio n . S e e R e ni c k, 273 F . 3d a t1026 ( “ ‘ [ T ] he di s tr i c tc our tm us tnots pe c ul a t e c onc e r ni ng the e xi s t e nc e of

a f a c tw hi c h w oul d pe r m i ta m or e s e ve r e s e nt e nc e unde rthe g u id e lin e s . . . .’” ( q u o tin g U n ite d S ta te s v . D o m in g u e z , 1 0 9 F .3 d 6 7 5 , 6 7 6 ( 1 1 th C i r . 1997) ) ) . N othi ng e l s e a s i de f r om the phone c a l l ’ s t e m por a l pr oxi m i ty t o the c onve r s a t i on be tw e e n M r . P e r a l t a a nd D e t e c t i ve M a r i l l c onne c t s M r . M e l o t o the c l a i m e d a m ountof

$800, 000. T he gove r nm e ntbe a r s the bur de n t o s how by a pr e ponde r a nc e of the e v id e n c e th a t M r . M e lo w a s r e s p o n s ib le f o ra n a m o u n t o v e r$ 1 ,0 0 0 ,0 0 0 , a n d it d id no tpres entre l i abl e a nd spec i fi c e vi dence s uffi ci entt o m ee tthatst andard. S ee L aw re nce, 47 F . 3d at15 66 . T hu s, the di stri ctcourtcl ea rl y e rr ed i n h ol di ng M r. M el o res po nsi bl e f

or an aggregat e l oss e xcee di ng $1 , 00 0, 00 0 b ec ause the evi dence di d notpr ove tha the w a s r e s pons i bl e f or$800, 000 f

r om the A ugus t26, 2003 tra nsac t i on . T he t ot al am ou ntof l oss w hen com bi ned w i th the am ou nt s f rom M r. 1277-78.) 15

M el o’ s other c on spi ra cytra nsac t i on s e qu al s m ore than $ 40 0, 00 0 b utl es s than $1 , 00 0, 00 0, so M r. M el o’ s c ri m e w arra nt s a14 -l evel i ncre as e r ather than a 16 -l evel in c r e a s e u n d e r§ 2 B 1 .1 ( b ) . B ec ause w e c on cl ud e thatthe evi dence w as i nsuffi ci entt o est abl i sh thatM r. M e l o w a s r e s pons i bl e f

ora n a m ountof

l os s ove r$1, 000, 000, w e ne e d not det erm i ne w hether the di stri ctcourti m prop er l y bas ed i t s f ac tual fi nd i ng on M r. P e r a l t a ’ s he a r s a y s t a t e m e nt s . S e e U ni t e d S t a t e s v. B a ke r , 432 F . 3d 1189, 1253- 54 (11t h C i r. 20 05 ) ( st at i ng thata s ent enci ng courtm ay consi der hear sa y e vi dence

“ pr ovi de d [ i t ] ha s s uf

f i c i e nti ndi c i a of

r e l i a bi l i ty , the c our tm a ke s e xpl i c i tf i ndi ngs of f a c ta s t o c r e di bi l i ty , a nd the de f e nda ntha s a n oppor tuni ty t o r e butthe e v id e n c e ” ) . N e ith e rd o w e c o n s id e rw h e th e rth e d is tr ic t c o u r t p la in ly e r r e d in d e n y in g M r . M e lo a r e d u c tio n u n d e r§ 2 X 1 .1 ( b ) ( 2 ) f o rth e o f f e n s e o f c o n s p ir a c y to la u n d e rm o r e th a n $ 1 ,0 0 0 ,0 0 0 . T h e r e c o r d u n a m b ig u o u s ly s h o w s th a t M r . M e lo c o m m itte d th e n e c e s s a r y a c ts to c o m p le te th e m o n e y la u n d e r in g tr a n s a c tio n w ith r e s p e c t to a ll o f

th e la u n d e r e d f

u n d s e x c e p t th e a d d itio n a l $ 6 0 0 ,0 0 0 a ttr ib u te d to hi m by the di s tr i c tc our tf r om the A ugus t2003 tr a ns a c t i on. B e c a us e the r e m a i ni ng a m ount s of

m one y a ttr i but e d t o M r . M e l o r e l a t e d t o c om pl e t e d tr a ns a c t i ons , he16

w o u ld n o t b e e n title d to a § 2 X 1 .1 ( b ) ( 2 ) r e d u c tio n f o rth e o f f e n s e o f c o n s p ir a c y to l a unde rbe tw e e n $400, 000 a nd $1, 000, 000. B . K now l e dge of

I l l e ga l N a r c ot i c s P r oc e e ds T he di s tr i c tc our tdi d notc l e a r l y e r ri n f i ndi ng tha tM r . M e l o kne w tha tthe la u n d e r e d f

u n d s w e r e p r o c e e d s o f

ille g a l n a r c o tic s tr a n s a c tio n s . I m p o r ta n tly , it foun d t hatM r. M el o w as on no t i ce ea rl y i n the conspi ra cy thatdrug s w er e i nv ol ved because ado g t ra i ned t o al er tt o n ar cot i cs al ert ed t o M r. M el o’ s c ar , and o ff i ce rs su b se q u en tl y f

o u n d an d se ized m o n ey fr o m th e c ar . T o p ro v e M r. M elo ’s kn ow l edge, the courtre l i ed i n p arton the forf ei ture w ai ver he s i gn ed a c know l e dgi ng the m one y w a s c ontr a ba nd. A l though the w a i ve rdi d not d e f in itiv e ly s ta te th a t th e f

u n d s w e r e p r o c e e d s f

r o m d ru g s , th e d is tr ic t c o u r t c o u ld re as on abl y f

i nd thatM r. M el o w ou l d k no w thatdo gs do no tal ertt o currency re pres ent i ng proceeds deri ved from any of the ot her c ri m es l i st ed on the w ai ver, s u c h a s g a m b lin g . A f

te rh e s ig n e d th e f

o r f e itu r e w a iv e r , M r . M e lo c o n tin u e d to pa r t i c i pa t e i n the c ons pi r a c y f orove ra y e a runt i l hi s a r r e s tf ol l ow i ng the A ugus t26, 2003 i nc i de nt . T he c our ta l s o he a r d t e s t i m ony f r om c o- c ons pi r a t or I va n T a ba r e s a boutf

a c t s tha tl e d M r . T a ba r e s t o be l i e ve the m one y w a s drug pr oc e e ds , s uc h a s the m e thod of de l i ve r y a nd the us e of s m a l l bi l l s . ( S e nt e nc i ng17

T r . I a t 1 2 .) T h e d is tr ic t c o u r t m ig h t r e a s o n a b ly h a v e f o u n d th a t M r . M e lo , a f o r m e rc o c a in e u s e r , a r r iv e d a t th e s a m e u n d e r s ta n d in g a s M r . T a b a r e s . G i ven t he ci rc um st ant i al nature of the evi dence as t o M r. M el o’ s kno w l edge, w e do notthi nk hi s c ha l l e nge t o tha te vi de nc e f r i vol ous . B ut , de f

e r r i ng t o the d is tr ic t c o u r t to th e e x te n t th a t is p r o p e ru n d e rth e c le a re r r o rs ta n d a r d , w e u p h o ld the di s tr i c tc our t ’ s f

i ndi ng. C . A c c e p ta n c e o f

R e s p o n s ib ility U pon r e s e nt e nc i ng, the di s tr i c tc our tm a y w i s h t o r e vi s i tthe que s t i on of w h e th e r§ 3 E 1 .1 e n title s M r . M e lo to a 3 - le v e l a c c e p ta n c e o f r e s p o n s ib ility r e duc t i on. T he P S R pr ovi de d tha tthe gove r nm e nta gr e e d t o r e c om m e nd the a c c e pt a nc e of

r e s pons i bi l i ty r e duc t i on “ c ondi t i one d upon the de f e nda ntm a ki ng a f u l l a n d c o mp l e t e d i s c l o s u r e t o th e p r o b a t i o n o f f i c e r e g a r d i n g th e o f

f e n s e . ” ( PSR ¶ 4. ) M r . M e l o pr ovi de d a w r i tt e n s t a t e m e nta c c e pt i ng r e s pons i bi l i ty a nd e xpr e s s i ng r e m or s e . ( I d. ¶ 31. ) A ts e nt e nc i ng, the di s tr i c tc our tm a de the fo l l o w i n g st at em en treg ard i n g accep t an ce o f resp o n si b i l i ty: H e w as grant ed ac ce pt ance fr om re spon si bi l i ty, I don ’ tse e how he ca n a n d a r g u e a b o u t e v e r y little p o in t. H o w d o e s th a t w o r k th a t h e a c c e p ts re sp o n sib il ity, I d id all o f th is, b u t I re ally d id n ’td o it . I [s ic] w as n ’t n a r c o tic s a n d it w a s n ’t o v e ra m illio n d o lla r s , a n d it w a s n ’t th is a n d it w as n’ tthat , I have f

ou nd thati tw as ov era m i l l i on , I have f ou nd that h e d i d k n o w th ati tw as a co n tro l l ed su b st an ce, h e d en i ed b o th o f th o se th in g s s o I a m tak in g aw ay th e a cc ep tan ce o f r es p o n sib il ity. I d o n ’t b el i ev e h e h as accep t ed resp o n si b i l i ty.18

( S e n te n c in g T r . I I a t 4 5 - 4 6 .) T h e d is tr ic t c o u r t n o te d th a t th e a r g u m e n ts M r . M e lo ra i se d atse nt enci ng t oo k a si gn i fi ca ntam ou ntof t i m e, and m ay have l as t ed l on ger th a n a tr ia l o n th e s e is s u e s . ( I d . a t 5 4 .) E ve n w he r e a de f

e nda ntpl e a ds gui l ty , he i s note nt i t l e d t o a r e duc t i on f or a c c e pt a nc e of

r e s pons i bi l i ty i f

he a c t s i n a w a y i nc ons i s t e ntw i th a c c e pt a nc e of r e s pons i bi l i ty , U . S . S . G . § 3E 1. 1 c m tn. 3, f ore xa m pl e , w he n he “ f a l s e l y de ni e s , or f r i v o l o u s l y c o n t e s t s , r e l e v a n tc o n d u c tth a tth e c o u r td e t e r mi n e s t o b e tru e . ” I d . c mt n. 1( a ) ; s e e a l s o U ni t e d S t a t e s v. S m i th, 127 F . 3d 987, 989 ( 11th C i r . 1997) ( “ [ F ] r i vol ous l e ga l c ha l l e nge s c oul d s ugge s tt o the di s tr i c tc our ttha tthe de f e nda nt ha s nota c c e pt e d r e s pons i bi l i ty f orhi s c onduc t. . . a di s tr i c tc our tm a y c ons i de rthe nature of s uch chal l enges a l on g w i th the ot her c i rc um st ance s i n the ca se w hen de t e r m i ni ng w he the ra de f e nda nts houl d r e c e i ve a s e nt e nc e r e duc t i on f or a c c e pt a nc e of

r e s pons i bi l i ty . ” ) . T he c om m e nt s t o § 3E 1. 1 pr ovi de tha tthe s e n te n c in g ju d g e ’s d e c is io n is e n title d to g r e a t d e f e r e n c e o n r e v ie w . I d . c m t n .5 . W e ha ve a l s o s t a t e d tha t“ ‘ [ a ] di s tr i c tc our t ' s de t e r m i na t i on tha ta de f e nda nti s not e nt i t l e d t o a c c e pt a nc e of r e s pons i bi l i ty w i l l notbe s e ta s i de unl e s s the f a c t s i n the re co rd clea rly e stab li sh th at a d ef en d an t h as ac ce p ted p er so n al re sp o n sib il ity.’” U ni t e d S t a t e s v. A m e de o, 370 F . 3d 1305, 1320- 21 ( 11th C i r . 2004) ( quot i ng U ni t ed S t at es v. S aw ye r, 18 0 F . 3d 13 19 , 13 23 (11t h C i r. 19 99 )) .19

W e c anno tsa y thatthe di stri ctcourtcl ea rl y e rr ed i n ref usi ng t o aw ar d ac ce pt ance of re spon si bi l i ty und erthi s s t andard. H ow ever , w e not e thatthe di stri ct c o u r t b a s e d its d e c is io n to d e n y th e r e d u c tio n o n M r . M e lo ’s c h a lle n g e s to th e P S R . M r. M el o chal l enged t he P S R on a t ot al of four grou nd s. T he di stri ctcourt r e s ol ve d one of

the s e gr ounds i n M r . M e l o’ s f a vorw he n i tf

ound tha tthe gove r nm e ntha d note s t a bl i s he d tha tM r . M e l o w a s a l e a de roror ga ni z e rof the c ons pi r a c y . W e now rul e i n hi s f a voron a nothe rgr ound, na m e l y tha the w a s not r e s p o n s ib le f

o ra n a m o u n t o f

lo s s e x c e e d in g $ 1 ,0 0 0 ,0 0 0 . O f M r. M el o’ s r em ai ni ng tw o chal l enges t o the P S R , on e w as a r equestfor a do w nw ar d d epar ture bas ed on hi s C at egory V cr i m i nal hi st ory, w hi ch he argued

“ ove rr e pr e s e nt s the s e r i ous ne s s of the de f e nda nt ’ s c r i m i na l hi s t or y orthe l i ke l i hood the de f

e nda ntw i l l c om m i tf

ur the rc r i m e s . ” ( A dde ndum t o P S R 3. ) T he di stri ctcourtst at ed thati t“ [di d] no tbel i eve there [w as ] suff i ci entre as on t o j ust i fy go i ng ou t si de the gu i del i ne ra ng e” (S ent enci ng T r. II at76 ), bu tM r. M el o d evot ed no t i m e t o thi s obj e c t i on a ts e nt e nc i ng. F i nal l y, M r. M el o o bj ec t ed t o the P S R ’ s 6-l evel enhancem entun der §§ 2S 1. 1( b) ( 1) ( A ) & 2S 1. 1( b) ( 1) ( B ) ( i ) ( a nd a r gue d tha the di d notknow orbe l i e ve tha tthe f unds he c ons pi r e d t o l a unde rw e r e pr oc e e ds of na r c ot i c s . W e ha ve c o n c lu d e d th a t th e d is tr ic t c o u r t d id n o t c le a r ly e r rw h e n it ap p lie d th is20

e n h a n c e m e n t. H o w e v e r , w e d o n o t s a y M r . M e lo ’s a r g u m e n t w a s f r iv o lo u s . T h is i s pa r t i c ul a r l y s o gi ve n tha tM r . M e l o’ s a r gum e nta ts e nt e nc i ng ( tha the di d not r e a l i z e the f

unds he w a s ha ndl i ng w e r e drug pr oc e e ds ) w a s c om pl e t e l y c ons i s t e nt w i th t he st at em entm ade by hi m , and acce pt ed by the courtand t he go vernm entat h is p le a h e a r in g . ( P le a T r . a t 1 9 .) I n c o n c lu s io n , th e d is tr ic t c o u r t d id n o t c le a r ly e r rin d e n y in g M r . M e lo a c c e p ta n c e o f

r e s p o n s ib ility c r e d it. H o w e v e r , th e c o u r t m a y v ie w th e f a c ts d if f e r e n tly a t r e s e n te n c in g , n o w th a t a n o th e ro f th e is s u e s w h ic h M r . M e lo c o n te s te d h a s b e e n d e c id e d in h is f a v o r . I f s o , it is f r e e to g r a n t M r . M e lo th is r e duc t i on. D . P re po nd er ance S t andard F i na l l y , w e r e

j e c tM r . M e l o’ s a r gum e nttha tthe di s tr i c tc our te r r e d by f i ndi ng f a c t s e s t a bl i s hi ng r e l e va ntc onduc ta c c or di ng t o a pr e ponde r a nc e of the evi dence s t andard. C ou rt s r ou t i nel y hol d thatun der the advi sory gu i del i nes s y s t e m , a j udge m a y f

i nd f a c t s by a pr e ponde r a nc e of the e vi de nc e dur i ng se n ten cin g , co n sisten t w ith th e S ix th A m en d m en t an d th e S u p re m e C o u rt’s de c i s i on i n U ni t e d S t a t e s v. B ooke r , 543 U . S . 220 ( 2005) . E . g. , U ni t e d S t a t e s v. S m i th, 480 F . 3d 1277, 1281 ( 11th C i r . 2007) ; U ni t e d S t a t e s v. S t e ve ns , 487 F . 3d 232, 245- 46 ( 5th C i r . 2007) ; U ni t e d S t a t e s v. L a w s on, 494 F . 3d 1046, 1057- 5821

( D .C . C ir . 2 0 0 7 ) ; U n ite d S ta te s v . G a llim o r e , 4 9 1 F .3 d 8 7 1 , 8 7 7 ( 8 th C ir . 2 0 0 7 ) . A ddi t i ona l l y , tha tM r . M e l o w a s s e nt e nc e d di s pr opor t i ona t e l y t o hi s c oconspi ra t ors does noti t se l f pre se nta bas i s f or re vers al , part i cul ar l y w here M r. M el o’ s c ri m i nal hi st ory c on tri bu t ed t o the l engt h o f hi s s ent ence . S ee U ni t ed S t at es v. C ho t as , 96 8 F . 2d 11 93 , 11 98 (11t h C i r. 19 92 ) ( “ [T ] o adj ustthe se nt ence of a c o-defendanti n o rdert o cure an appare nt l y unj ust i fi ed di spar i ty betw ee n defe nd ant s i n an i nd i vi du al ca se w i l l si m pl y c re at e a no ther, w ho l l y unw arra nt ed di spar i ty betw ee n t he defendantre ce i vi ng the adj ustm entand al l si m i l aroffe nd er s i n o ther c as es . ”) . I I I . C on c l u s i on F orthe f or e goi ng r e a s ons , w e va c a t e M r . M e l o’ s s e nt e nc e a nd r e m a nd t o the di stri ctcourtt o res ent ence hi m i n acc ordance w i th thi s opi ni on . In ca l cul at i ng M r. M el o ’ s g u i d el i n e ran g e, th e d i stri ctco u rti s d i rect ed t o red u ce M r. M el o ’ s o ffen se l evel by tw o l evel s bec ause the evi dence s ho w s thathe w as re spon si bl e f or an am ou ntof m on ey grea t erthan $ 40 0, 00 0 b utl es s than $ 1, 00 0, 00 0. T he di stri ct c our tm a y , i n i t s di s c r e t i on, a l s o gr a ntM r . M e l o a r e duc t i on f ora c c e pt a nc e of resp o n si b i l i ty. V AC AT E D A ND RE MAND E D.