FI LED U. S . COURT OF AP PE ALS E L E V E N T H C IR C U IT January 4, 2006 T HOM AS K. KAHN CL E RK [ 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. 05- 10303 N on -A rgum entC al endar

________________________ D . C . D ocketN o. 04 -000 48 -C R -O D E -1-1 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 E C E S I M S , 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 o rth e N o rth e rn D is tr ic t o f G e o r g ia

_________________________ ( J a nua ry 4, 2006) B efo re B L A C K , B A R K E T T an d K R A V IT C H , C i rcu i tJu d g es. P E R C U R I A M: M a r ie c e S im s ap p e a ls h is c o n v ic tio n s a n d s e n te n c e s f o rk id n ap p in g , inThe indictment also cha rg ed Sims with obt ainingthe labor of another by forc e or thre at 1 of force, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1589; conspiringto tamper with the victim-witness or o b s tru ctj u s ti ce , inv i o l at i o no f 1 8 U. S . C . § § 3 7 1 , 1 5 1 2 (b )( 1 ), an d 1 5 1 2 (c )( 2 ); wi tn es s t amp erin g, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1512(b)( 1); and obstruc tion of justice, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 15 12 (c )( 2) . Thejur

y ac quitte d Sims o f t

hea bo vec ha rg e s. 2 vi ol a t i on of

18 U . S . C . § 1201; s e x tr a f f i c ki ng of am i norby c oe r c i on a nd tr a n s p o rtin g o f

am in o rin in te r s ta te c o m m e r c e f o rp u rp o s e s o f

p r o s titu tio n , in vi ol a t i on of

18 U . S . C . §§ 1591 a nd 2423( a ) ; a nd tr a ns port i ng a nd c oe r c i ng a pers on for purpo se s of prost i tut i on , i n v i ol at i on of 18 U . S . C . §§ 24 21 and 2 42 2(a) . 1 S i m s a r gue s ( 1) tha tthe r e w a s i ns uf f i c i e nte vi de nc e t o c onvi c thi m be c aus e the gove rnm e ntf

a i l e d t o pr ovi de s uf

f i c i e nte vi de nc e tha the us e d f or c e a ga i ns tthe vi c t i m ortha the kne w the vi c t i m w a s am i nor ; ( 2) tha tthe di s tr i c tc ourte rr e d i n a llo w in g th e g o v e rn m e n t to in tr o d u c e e v id e n c e o f ap r io rs e x u a l a s s au lt b y h im b e c au s e h e w a s n o t c h a r g e d w ith s e x u a l a s s au lt a n d th e e v id e n c e w a s u n f a ir ly prej ud i ci al ; and (3) thathe shou l d b e r es ent ence d u nd erB oo ker. I . B a c kgr ound A ttr i a l , the e vi de nc e w a s a s f ol l ow s : S i m s a nd hi s c o- de f e nda nt , D w a y ne T hi gpe n, e nc ount e r e d the vi c t i m , E r i c aO w e ns , w hi l e s e l l i ng c l othe s i n E l D or a do, A rka ns a s . S i m s kne w O w e ns , a nd O w e ns e nt e r e d the i rc a rw i l l i ngl y . T he thr e e of the m dr ove a r ound a nd s m oke d m a r i j ua na ; O w e ns e ve ntua l l y f e l l a s l e e p i n the b a c ks e a t . Ow e n s t e s t i f i e d th a ts h e a wo k e t o d i s c o v e rth e y we r e n o l o n g e ri n ElThigpen p le ade d guilty to t ra nspo rtinga

minor ac ro ss s tatelin e s a

nd te sti fi e d a s a 2 c ooperatingg ov ernment witn e ss. 3 D o r a d o , a lth o u g h s h e b e lie v e d S im s w o u ld ta k e h e rh o m e . T h e th r e e w e r e in ac a ra c c id e n t in T e x a rk a n a . W h e n th e p o lic e r e p o rte d to th e a c c id e n t, O w e n s d id n o t te ll th e m s h e h a d b e e n k id n ap p e d ; n o rd id s h e try to e s c ap e . O w e n s te s tif

ie d th a t w h e n th e a c c id e n t o c c u rr e d , s h e d id n o t s e e kth e h e lp o f p o lic e b e c au s e s h e s till b e lie v e d th a t S im s w o u ld r e tu rn h e rto E l D o r a d o . O w e n s f u rth e rte s tif

ie d th a t S im s a n d T h ig p e n r ap e d h e rin th e irh o te l r o o m in T e xa rka na . T he thr e e ne xttr a ve l e d t o M i s s i s s i ppi , w he r e , a c c or di ng t o T hi gpe n, 2 S i m s t ol d O w e ns t o s e e i f s he c oul d m a ke s om e m one y a tthe hot e l ; O w e ns retu rn ed w i th $ 2 0 , w h i ch sh e g av e t o S i m s. S im s la te rd r o v e to atru c k s to p w h e r e h e in s tru c te d O w e n s to p r o s titu te h e r s e lf . O w e n s r e tu rn e d s e v e r a l tim e s w ith o u t m o n e y , a t o n e p o in t c la im in g th a t a truc ke rtr i e d t o c hoke he r . T he y ne xtdr ove t o A t l a nt a , a nd S i m s dr oppe d O w e ns o f f a t af le am a rk e t o n M e tr o p o lita n P a rk w a y , a n a r e ap o p u la rw ith p r o s titu te s . S i m s bou gh tO w ens tho ng s, a m i ni ski rtand som e s m al l shi rt s and agai n d ropp ed her off on M etropo l i t an P arkw ay . T hi gp en t es t i fi ed thathe and S i m s w at ched O w e ns a s s he w a i t e d f

orc us t om e r s . E ve ntua l l y , O w e ns r e turne d w i th m one y f or S im s . A t o n e p o in t, O w e n s d is ap p e a r e d . O w e n s te s tif ie d th a t s h e h a d tr ie d to es cape three t i m es . S he st at ed thatshe had go ne t o a po l i ce st at i on , w here she w as4

t o l d t o w a i t . Sh e b e c a me t i r e d a n d w e n to u t s i d e , w h e r e Si ms f o u n d h e r . Si ms s l appe d he r , t ol d he rnott o di s appe a ra ga i n, a nd c ont i nue d t o s e nd he routon the s tr e e t. T h ig p e n te s tif

ie d th a t h e to ld S im s th a t h e d id n o t th in kO w e n s w a n te d to p r o s titu te h e r s e lf

. S im s s a id O w e n s w a s “h is g ir l” a n d th a t h e w o u ld “h a n d le ” h e r . E v en tu al l y, O w en s w as p i ck ed u p b y A t l an t a P o l i ce O ffi cer F red d i e Jen k i n s, J r . J e nki ns t e s t i f

i e d tha the pi c ke d up O w e ns be c aus e s he l ooke d s o y oung a nd f u rth e rth a t h e s a w ad a rkS U V c ir c lin g th e b lo c kw h e r e O w e n s h a d b e e n s ta n d in g . O w e n s in itia lly to ld h im J e n k in s s h e w a s 1 4 y e a r s o ld , a lth o u g h s h e r e v is e d th a t to 16 y e a r s ol d w he n the ya rr i ve d a tthe pol i c e s t a t i on. J e nki ns t ook O w e ns t o the h o te l w h e r e s h e h a d b e e n s ta y in g w ith S im s a n d T h ig p e n , a n d s h e id e n tif ie d b o th S i m s a n d h i s S UV . C .R . W h itm ire, an in v es ti g ato r w ith th e c h il d ex p lo it atio n u n ito f A tl an ta’s p o lic e d e p a rtm e n t, te s tif ie d th a t O w e n s w a s s m e lly , s h a k in g a n d w o r e little cl othi ng w hen she w as pi cked up by po l i ce . W hi tm i re had a rape ki tadm i ni st er ed t o O w e ns . G e or gi aB ur e au of I nve s t i ga t i on e xpe rtL i s aH obgood t e s t i f i e d tha tthe s e m e n f r om O w e ns ’ s r ape ki tdi d notm a t c h e i the rS i m s orT hi gpe n. A f te rO w e n s r e tu rn e d h o m e , O liv iaG lo s s o n , S im s ’s g ir lf r ie n d , w h o is r e la te d to O w e n s b y m a rr ia g e , u r g e d O w e n s to d r o p th e c h a r g e s a g a in s t S im s .5

O w e ns a gr e e d a nd pr ovi de d tw o a f f i da vi t s t o the E l D or a do pr os e c ut orr e c a nt i ng the s t a t e m e nts he ha d m a de t o the A t l a nt apol i c e . A ttr i a l , O w e ns a dm i tt e d tha tthe a f f id a v its w e r e f

a ls e . T he di stri ctcourtadm i tt ed the t es t i m on y of S herl on D erks, the al l eged v ic tim o f ap r io rs e x u a l a s s au lt b y S im s , b u t in s tru c te d th a t th e w itn e s s c o u ld pr ovi de onl y ac ur s ory r e vi e w of the pr i orc r i m e . D e rks t e s t i f i e d tha tone ni ght w hi l e s he w a s da t i ng S i m s , he ha d “ s nappe d” a nd be a ta nd r ape d he r . A l though S im s w a s a rr e s te d , s h e r e q u e s te d th a t th e c h a r g e s b e d r o p p e d a f te rS im s a n d h is fa m i l y threa t ened her. S i m s f a i l e d t o m ove f

orj udgm e ntof

a c qui tt a l , e i the ra tthe c l os e of the gove rnm e nt ’ s c a s e ora f t e rthe de f

e ns e r e s t e d. I n a d d itio n to c o n v ic tin g S im s , th e ju ry m a d e th e f o llo w in g s p e c if

ic f i ndi ngs : tha tO w e ns w a s avul ne r abl e vi c t i m , tha ts he ha d be e n s e xua l l y e xpl oi t e d, thatthe offens e i nv ol ved the use of c oerc i on and i nv ol ved com m er ci al se x, that S i m s k n ew o r sh o u l d h av e k n o w n th atth e v i ct i m w as a m i n o r, an d th atS i m s w as a l ea der or organi ze r. T he prob at i on offi ce r pre pare d a pres ent ence i nv es t i gat i on re po rt(“ P S I” ), a s s ig n in g ab a s e le v e l o f 3 2 f o rth e k id n ap p in g o f

f e n s e . S e e U .S .S .G . § 2 A 4 .1 . B a s e d on the j ury ’ s s pe c i a l f i ndi ngs , thi s w a s i nc r e a s e d by one l e ve l be c aus e the6

v ic tim w a s n o t r e le a s e d b e f o r e s e v e n d a y s h a d e lap s e d , s e e U .S .S .G . § 2A 4. 1(b)(4)(B), by si x l evel s bec ause the vi ct i m w as se xu al l y e xp l oi t ed, se e U .S .S .G . § 2 A 4 .1 ( b ) ( 5 ) , b y tw o le v e ls b e c au s e O w e n s q u a lif ie d a s av u ln e r ab le vi ct i m un der U . S . S . G . § 3 A 1. 1, and b y an add i t i on al tw o l evel s bec ause S i m s w as a l ea der or organi ze r und erU . S . S . G . § 3 B 1. 1(c) . T he re m ai ni ng coun t s w er e gr oupe d t oge the ra nd a s s i gne d aba s e of f e ns e l e ve l of

19 unde rU . S . S . G . § 2G 1. 1, w i th a four-l evel i ncre as e f or i nfl uenci ng a m i no r r egar di ng com m er ci al se x u nd er U . S . S . G . § 2 G 1. 1(b)(4)(B), and ano ther tw o-l evel i ncre as e f or S i m s’ s r ol e a s l ea der unde rU . S . S . G . § 3B 1. 1( c ) . S i m s ’ s gui de l i ne s r a nge w a s l i f e i n pr i s on. A ts e nt e nc i ng, the di s tr i c tc ourts t a t e d tha t“ the c ourtdoe s ha ve t o gi ve y ou a l i fe se nt ence i n thi s c as e s o thati s w hatI’ m go i ng t o d o. ” T he courtfurther s t at ed th a t “[ i]f I h a d ac h o ic e , I m ig h t n o t g iv e y o u alif e s e n te n c e . B u t I h a v e to d o it un der the gu i del i nes. ” II . S t andard of R evi ew A l though thi s C ourtor di na r i l y r e vi e w s c ha l l e nge s ba s e d on s uf f i c i e nc y of the evi dence de nov o, U ni t ed S t at es v. S t arre tt , 55 F . 3d 15 25 , 15 41 (11th C i r. 19 95 ), w here , as here , a def endanthas f

ai l ed t o m ov e f

or j ud gm entof ac qu i tt al at th e cl o se o f th e g o v ern m en t ’ s case an d th e cl o se o f th e ev i d en ce, w e “ m ay rev erse onl y t o pr e ve ntam a ni f

e s tm i s c a rr i a ge of

j us t i c e . ” U ni t e d S t a t e s v. A da m s , 917

F . 3d 114, 116 ( 11th C i r . 1996) ( c i t i ng U ni t e d S t a t e s v. H a m bl i n, 911 F . 2d 551, 5 5 6 -5 7 (1 1 th C i r. 1 9 9 0 )). “ T h e m an i festm i scarri ag e o f j u st i ce st an d ard ‘ req u i re[s] af in d in g th a t th e e v id e n c e o n ak e y e le m e n t o f th e o f f e n s e is s o te n u o u s th a t a c onvi c t i on w oul d be s hoc ki ng. ’ ” I d. ( c i t i ng U ni t e d S t a t e s v. T api a , 761 F . 2d 1488, 14 92 (11th C i r. 19 85 )) . T hi s C ourtr e vi e w s adi s tr i c tc ourt ’ s e vi de nt i a ry rul i ngs f orabus e of di sc re t i on . U ni t ed S t at es v. M agl ut a, 41 8 F . 3d 11 66 , 11 77 (11th C i r. 20 05 ). I I I . D i s c us s i on A . S uffi ci encyof the E vi dence S i m s f i r s ta r gue s tha tno r e a s onabl e j ury c oul d ha ve f ound hi m gui l ty of u s in g f o r c e to k id n ap O w e n s b e c au s e th e e v id e n c e e s tab lis h e d th a t O w e n s f a ile d to a s kth e p o lic e f

o ra s s is ta n c e a f

te rth e a c c id e n t a n d th a t s h e h a d o p p o rtu n itie s to e s c ap e in A tla n taa n d f

a ile d to d o s o . H e a ls o a r g u e s th a t th e g o v e rn m e n t f a ile d to pr ove tha the kne w O w e ns w a s unde rthe a ge of 18. H e r e , th e e v id e n c e e s tab lis h e d th a t S im s th r e a te n e d to b e a t O w e n s if s h e d id n o tma k e mo n e y a n d th a tO w e n s g a v e mo n e y s h e ma d e t o Si ms . I n a d d i t i o n , Si ms s l appe d O w e ns a tl e a s tonc e . S i m s w a t c he d a s O w e ns pr os t i tut e d he r s e l f on M e tr opol i t a n P a rkw a y . A l though the e vi de nc e w a s notove rw he l m i ng on the coer ci on po i nt , the j ury’ s ver di ctdi d n otri se t o the l evel of m ani fe sti nj ust i ce .8

T o e s t abl i s h S i m s ’ s gui l ton the s e x tr a f f i c ki ng of am i norc ount , the go vernm enthad t o sho w thatS i m s benef i tt ed fi nanci al l y f

rom O w en’ s s exual act i v i ty an d th atS i m s k n ew th at(a) fo rce o r co erci o n w o u l d b e u sed t o cau se O w e n s to e n g a g e in ac r im in a l s e x a c t o r( b ) th a t O w e n s w a s u n d e rth e a g e o f 1 8 . 1 8 U .S .C . § 1 5 9 1 . M o r e o v e r , th e ju ry f o u n d O w e n s ’s a n d T h ig p e n ’s te s tim o n y to be c r e di bl e , w hi c h i s w i thi n the j ury ’ s e xc l us i ve pr ovi nc e . U ni t e d S t a t e s v. P arra do , 91 1 F . 2d 15 67 , 15 71 (11th C i r. 19 90 ). H er e, the re cord cont ai ned su ffi ci en tev i d en ce t o su p p o rtS i m s’ s co n v i ct i o n s. B . P ri or S exual A ss aul tE vi dence S i m s ne xta r gue s tha tthe di s tr i c tc ourtabus e d i t s di s c r e t i on by a dm i tt i ng D e rks ’ s t e s t i m ony r e ga r di ng a n a l l e ge d pa s ts e xua l a s s aul tunde rR ul e 413 of the F e de r a l R ul e s of

E vi de nc e be c aus e S i m s w a s notc ha r ge d w i th s e xua l a s s aul ti n the in s ta n t c a s e . H e a ls o a r g u e s th a t th e e v id e n c e w a s in a d m is s ib le p u r s u a n t to R u le 404( b) be c aus e i t s undul y pr e j udi c i a l e f

f e c ts ubs t a nt i a l l y outw e i ghe d a ny pr oba t i ve val ue i tm i gh thave. O the rc r i m e s e vi de nc e “ i s nota dm i s s i bl e t o pr ove the c ha r a c t e rof ape r s on in o r d e rto s h o w a c tio n in c o n f o rm ity th e r e w ith . I t m a y , h o w e v e r , b e a d m is s ib le f orothe rpurpos e s , s uc h a s pr oof of m ot i ve , opportuni ty , i nt e nt , pr e pa r a t i on, pl a n, k n o w le d g e , id e n tity , o rab s e n c e o f m is ta k e o ra c c id e n t. . . .” F e d . R . E v id . 4 0 4 ( b ) .9

T o d et erm i ne the adm i ss i bi l i ty of e vi dence pursuantt o R ul e 404 (b), thi s C ou rt re q u ires th at th e e v id en ce is “relev an t t o an issu e o th erth an th e d ef en d an t’ s c ha r a c t e r , ” tha tthe r e i s “ s uf f i c i e ntpr oof

s o tha taj ury c oul d f

i nd tha tthe de f

e nda nt c om m i tt e d the e xtr i ns i c a c t , ” a nd tha tthe e vi de nc e “ pos s e s s [ e s ] pr oba t i ve va l ue th a t is n o t s u b s ta n tia lly o u tw e ig h e d b y its u n d u e p r e ju d ic e ” a n d o th e rw is e m e e ts the r e qui r e m e nt s of

R ul e 404( b) . U ni t e d S t a t e s v. M i l l e r , 959 F . 2d 1535, 1538 (11th C i r. 19 92 ). H e r e , the tw o a f

f i da vi t s O w e ns f

i l e d i n a n a tt e m ptt o ha ve the c ha r ge s i n the i ns t a ntc a s e dr oppe d puthe rc r e di bi l i ty i n doubt . D e rks ’ s t e s t i m ony r e ga r di ng S im s ’s a n d h is m o th e r ’s c o n d u c t in c o e r c in g h e rto d r o p h e rc h a r g e s is th u s h ig h ly p r o b a tiv e w ith r e s p e c t to th e w itn e s s ta m p e r in g a n d o b s tru c tio n o f ju s tic e c h a r g e s . M or e ove r , the di s tr i c tc ourtl i m i t e d the pr e j udi c i a l e f

f e c tof D e rks ’ s t e s t i m ony by r e qui r i ng tha ts he notpr ovi de de t a i l s r e ga r di ng the a l l e ge d r ape . A c c or di ngl y , the pr oba t i ve va l ue of

D e rks ’ s t e s t i m ony w a s nots ubs t a nt i a l l y outw e i ghe d by undue prej ud i ce , and h ert es t i m on y w as adm i ss i bl e. C . S e nt e nc i ng F i na l l y , S i m s a r gue s tha thi s c a s e m us tbe r e m a nde d f orr e s e nt e nc i ng i n l i ght of B oo ker because the di stri ctcourtbel i eved i tw as ob l i gat ed t o g i ve hi m a l i fe sen t en ce u n d er th e g u i d el i n es.10

B ec ause S i m s di d n otpres erve thi s obj ec t i on , w e r evi ew for pl ai n err or. U ni t e d S t a t e s v. R odr i gue z , 398 F . 3d 1291, 1298 ( 11th C i r . ) , c e rt . de ni e d, 125 S .C t. 2 9 3 5 ( 2 0 0 5 ) . W e f in d p la in e rr o rw h e r e “( 1 ) th e r e is a n e rr o r ; ( 2 ) th a t is p la in or ob vi ou s; (3) a ff

ec t i ng the defendant ’ s s ub st ant i al ri gh t s i n thati tw as prej ud i ci al a n d n o t h a rm le s s ; a n d ( 4 ) th a t s e r io u s ly a f f e c ts th e f a irn e s s , in te g r ity , o rp u b lic r e p u ta tio n o f

th e ju d ic ia l p r o c e e d in g s .” I d . T hi s C ou rtre cogn i ze s tw o v ar i et i es of B oo ker e rr or: const i tut i on al errors tha ta r i s e w he n ade f

e nda nt ’ s s e nt e nc e i s e nha nc e d ba s e d on f a c t s notf ound by the j ury and st atut ory e rr ors thatar i se w hen the defendanti s s ent ence d u nd era m a n d a to ry g u id e lin e s r e g im e . U n ite d S ta te s v . S h e lto n , 4 0 0 F .3 d 1 3 2 5 , 1 3 3 0 ( 1 1 th C i r. 20 05 ). H er e, there i s no con st i tut i on alerror, as the j ury’ s s peci al fa ctual fi n d i n g s su p p o rt ed th e sen t en ci n g en h an cem en t s. T he di s tr i c tc ourt ’ s s t a t e m e nt s , how e ve r , m a ke c l e a rtha ti tappl i e d the gui de l i ne s a s m a nda t ory . A l though the e rr orw a s notpl a i n a tthe t i m e of s e n te n c in g , “w h e r e th e la w a t th e tim e o f tr ia l w a s s e ttle d a n d c le ar ly c o n tr a ry to the l a w a tthe t i m e of

appe a l . . . i ti s e nough tha tthe e rr orbe ‘ pl a i n’ a tthe t i m e of ap p e lla te c o n s id e r a tio n .” J o h n s o n v . U n ite d S ta te s , 5 2 0 U .S . 4 6 1 , 4 6 8 , 1 1 7 S .C t. 1544, 1549 ( 1997) . T he c ourt ’ s e rr ori s now pl a i n. T o e s tab lis h p la in e rr o r , ad e f e n d a n t a ls o m u s t s h o w th e r e is “ar e a s o n ab le11

prob abi l i ty of adi ff

er entre sul ti f the gu i del i nes had been appli ed i n an adv i sory i ns t e a d of

bi ndi ng f

a s hi on bythe s e nt e nc i ng j udge i n thi s c a s e . ” R odr i gue z , 398 F . 3d a t1300. A de f

e nda ntc a n e s t abl i s h thi s r e a s onabl e pr obabi l i ty w he r e the di s tr i c tc ourtha s m a de s t a t e m e nt s e xpr e s s i ng f rus tr a t i on a tthe s e ve r i ty of the gu i del i nes, U ni t ed S t at es v. M art i nez, 40 7 F . 3d 11 70 , 11 74 (11th C i r. 20 05 ), w here th e c o u rt in d ic a te d it w o u ld h a v e s e n te n c e d th e d e f e n d a n t to ale s s e rs e n te n c e if it had the autho ri ty t o d o so, U ni t ed S t at es v. D ac us, 40 8 F . 3d 68 6, 68 9 (11 th C i r. 2005) , a nd w he r e the c ourte xpr e s s e s di s s a t i s f a c t i on w i th the s e nt e nc e r e qui r e d by the gu i del i nes. U ni t ed S t at es v. H enders on , 40 9 F . 3d 12 93 , 13 07 -08 (11 th C i r. 20 05 ). H er e, the di stri ctcourtst at ed that , ac cordi ng t o the gu i del i nes, i tw as ob l i gat ed t o sent ence S i m s t o l i fe i m pri sonm entand thati tm i gh tno thave hand ed dow n tha ts e nt e nc e i f

i tw e r e nots o obl i ge d. T he s e s t a t e m e nt s e s t abl i s h tha tthe e rr ora f f e c t e d S i m s ’ s s ubs t a nt i a l r i ght s . A c c or di ngl y , w e va c a t e a nd r e m a nd f or re se nt enci ng un der a n adv i sorygu i del i nes s chem e. AF F I R ME D i n p a rt , VA C AT E D i n p a rt , a n d R E MAND E D.