### FI LED U.S. COURT O F APP EALS ELEVENTH CIRCUIT S eptember 1, 20 05 THO MAS K. KAH N CL ERK

Honora ble Arthur L . Alarc ón, United States Circuit J udg e for the Ninth Circuit, sitt ing * by desig nation. [PUBLIS H]

IN THE UN ITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FO R T HE EL EV EN TH CIRC UI T

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ N o. 04- 1221 8

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ D. C. Dock etNo. 0 3- 00 02 4- CR-F TM-2 9- DNF UNITED STAT ES OF AMERIC A, Pl ai nt iff -Ap pe ll ee, ve rs us ELIZABETH MARIE MORSE THOMPSON, JOSEP H JAMES S TRATTON, Defen da nt s- App el la nt s.

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ Appeals fr om

the United State s District Court fo r the Mi ddl e D istri ct

of F lor ida

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ _ (S ep te m be r 1, 200 5) Be fo re T JO FL A T , P RY O R and A L A RC Ó N , Ci rc uit Jud ge s. *2

AL ARC ÓN , C ircuit Judg e: Jos ep h Jam es S tr attonappe al s f ro m the j udgm en t e nte re d f

oll ow ing his co nvi ct ionf

or c onsp ir ac y

to poss es s w iththe int en t t o di str ibu te c oc ai ne a nd cocaine base in violation of 21 U. S. C. § 846 . H e contends that th e evidence w as insufficient to su pport the judgm ent. H e also m aintains that th e D istrict Court co m m itt ed r ev er sib le e rr or

in de ny ing his m oti on f

or ase ve ranc e, a nd i n r ef

usi ng to g rant h is m oti on f

or ane wtr ia l. Eliza beth Marie Morse Thom

pson seeks rever sal of the j udgm ent entered fo llo w ing he r co nvi ct ionf or c onsp ir ac y

to poss es s c oc ai ne a nd c oc ai ne ba se in vio la tio n of

21 U . S. C. §84 6, and tw o c ount s of pos se ssi on w ithint en t t o di str ibu te cocaine base in violation of 21U. S. C. § 841 . S he contends th at the D istrict Court erre d in deny ing her m otion to supp ress her c onfession and her m otion for a m istrial based upo n the alleged m iscondu ct of the prosecutor in arguing to th e j ury t h a ts h e h a dth e r i g h tn o tt o t e s t i f y. W e af firm Mr. Stratton’ s judgm ent of conviction because w e conclude that the evidence wa s sufficient to sust ain it. W e also determ ine that the District Court did not abuse it s di sc re tio n inde ny ing Mr . S tr atton ’ s m oti on f or a se ve ranc e an d his m otion for a new tr ial. W e also aff irm the j udgm ent of conviction entered ag ai nst Ms . T hom

psonbe ca

use w e co nc lud e that the D istri ct Co urt di d no t e rr

in3

deny ing th e m otion to supp ress her c onfession , a nd rej ecting her m otion for a m istri al , or

ac ur at ive ins tr

uc tio n. W e vacate the District C ourt’ s sentencing d ecisions regarding each Appe llant. T he G ove rn m en t ha s c or re ct ly a nd f orthr igh tly

c onc ed ed

the se nte nc ing de ci sio n e rr or

ba se d onthe sub se que nt d ec isi on o f the S upr em e Co urt i n United Sta tes v . B ook

er , 125 S. Ct . 738 ( 2005 ), a nd this Co urt’ s de ci sio n in United States v. She lto n, 400 F.3d 1325 , 1332-33 (11th Cir. 2005 ). I Ms . T hom

pson ’ s and M r. S tr atton ’ s c ri m ina l a ct ivi tie s c am e to the a tte nti on of lawenforce m ent through a telephone call to Margar ita Ne lson, a V ice N arcotics Investigator of the Collier CountySherif f’ s Of fice. At that tim e, she wa s assigned to a D ru g E nf

or ce m en t A dm ini str at ion( “ D E A ”) T as k F or ce . S om et im e dur ing Se pte m be r of 200 2, T im oth y

Mc N ulty tol d O ff ic er N el son that M s. T hom

psonand Mr. Stratton we re involved in distribu ting cocaine and crack coca ine. H e inform ed O ff ic er N el son that M s. T hom

psonw as se lli ng dru gs o ut o f he r ap ar tm en t i n th e Berm uda Isle subdi visio n in Naples, Florida. O ffice r N elson was given sim ilar inf orm at ionf

ro m G ar y Bl oom in D ec em

be r of the sam e y ear. Mr . Mc N ulty a nd Mr. Bloom

provided th e inform ation in an attem pt to help their m

utual param our, Anita Choquette, who was in j ail on unrelated charges, to receive a lesser4

se nt en ce. As a result of these tips, O ffice r N elson ini tiated an investig ation. Mem bers of the D E A T as k F or ce int er m itt en tly sur ve ill ed the Be rm udaI sle apartm en t f

ro m O ct obe r of

200 2 to Marc h of

200 3. T he y

obs er ve d se ve ra l i ndi vid

ua ls e nte ri ng the ap ar t m en tan dl ea v i n g af

t ero n l y a s h o rt p er i o d–

ac t i v i t y t h at , i n Of

fi ce r N el s o n ’s expe ri en ce , w as c onsi ste nt w ithhe r inf orm an ts’ r ep orts tha t dr

ug s al es w er e takin g pla ce a t the apartm en t. O ff ic er s a lso obs er

ve d M r. S tr attonin the vic ini ty of the ap ar tm en t onthr ee oc ca sio ns. Ine ar ly 200 3, the D E A T as k F or ce c ar ri ed out c ontro lle d purc ha se s of co ca ine f ro m Ms . T hom

psonusi ng M r. Bl oom

a s apur ch as er . Mr . Bl oom te le ph on edMr. St rat to n’s h om e se ve ral ti m es bu t was un ab le to reac h h im . On Fe br uary 14, 200 3, Mr . Bl oom

suc ce ssf ull y c ont ac te d M s. T hom

psonby te le phon e. H e tol d he r that he ha d ha d a“ hard day . ” Mr . Bl oom

te sti fi ed that a

“ hard day ” w as ac ode d r eque st f or c ra ck c oc ai ne . Ms . T hom

psontol d M r. Bl oom to co m e o ve r to he r ap art m en t l at er t ha t d ay . The off ic ers ou tfi tt edMr. Bl oo m wit h t wo el ect ro ni c rec or di ng de vi ces . He w en t t o M s. T hom

pson ’ s a partm en t. W ill iam

I nge rs oll , w ho w as stay ing w ithMs . Thom pson , answere d the doo r and let Mr. Bloom enter the a

partm ent. I nside, Mr. Bl oom e nc ount er ed

Ms . T hom

pson . H e tol d he r that he ne ed ed $40 0 w orth o fMr. B loom testified that he purc hased $400 of cra ck coc aine with ca sh provided by 1 office rs. Ms. Thompson ga ve him an additional $250 of c rac k as pay ment for wor

k Mr. B loom had per formed on Ms. Thompson’s br other’s house . Of fi c e r N e lso n te sti fi e d th at th e ne t w e ig ht o f t he c ra c k w a s 8 8 mi lli g ra

ms. 2 5 crac k cocaine. Mr. Bloom wa ited while Ms. Thom

pson cooked som e powder co ca ine int o c ra ck . Upon pay ing f or the c ra ck c oc ai ne , Mr . Bl oom

le ft the ap ar tm en t and t

ur ne d th e dr

ugs ove r to O ff

ic er N el son. O n F eb ru ar

y 25, 200 3, Mr . Bl oom

m ad e a se co nd c ontro lle d purc ha se of crac k cocaine fr om

Ms. T hom

pson at the Ber

m uda Isle apartm ent. Mr . B loom wa s w eari ng an e le ctro nic m oni tor ing de vic e. Mr . Bl oom pur ch as ed

$62 5 w orth o f cr ac k c oc ai ne f

ro m he r. A ft er

pur ch as ing the c ra ck

c oc ai ne , Mr . Bl oom

le ft the 1 ap ar tm en t and g av e the c ontro lle d su bst an ce to O ff

ic er N el son. Me m be rs of the D E A T as k F or ce e xe cute d ase ar chw ar rant o n th e Be rm

uda Isle apartm ent on March 6, 2003. When the officers e ntered the apartm ent, they en co unt er ed

Mr . I nge rs oll and M s. T hom pson . T he of

fi ce rs se ar ch ed

the ap ar tm en t. T he y

dis co ve re d asm al l am ount of c ra ck c oc ai ne , thr ee dig ita l sc al es ,

2 and various item s of drug paraphernalia. The officer s also seized several d o cu m en t s , i n cl u d i n g jew el ry s al es re ce i p t s , c el l u l arp h o n e b i l l s i n Mr . S t ra t t o n ’s n ame i n ca re o f M s . Th o m p s o n , a n da “ca l l eri d ” l i s tth at i n cl u d ed Mr . S t ra t t o n ’s nu m be r.Offic er N elson testified at trial that the two pie ces of paper seized on Mr. Stratton 3 ref lected dr ugtransac tions. Mr. St ratton testified that the f igur es on one pie ce of

paper rec orded the amou nts of fr e on he ha d r e mov e d a

nd re pla c e d in

a uto mot ive a ir

c on dit ion ingun its at hi s work. He testified that he ha d made the notations on another piec e pape r whe n helpingDea nna Prince c alculate pay

roll figures at her job. 6 A t the c onc lus ionof

the se ar ch , of

fi ce rs a rr es te d M r. I nge rs oll on s ta te ch ar ge s of

pos se ssi ng dru g para

phe rn al iaa nd t ook him

to Co lli er

Co unty j ai l. T he of fi ce rs too k M s. T hom

psonto the D E A of

fi ce in N ap le s. A t the D E A of fi ce , the officer s read Ms. Thom

pson her M

ira nda ri ght s. S he sig ne d aw ri tte n w ai ve r of tho se r igh ts. Ms . T hom

psontol d th e of

fi ce rs that sh e ha d us ed

c oc ai ne sin ce 199 6. Sh e adm itt ed

that sh e start ed

se lli ng c oc ai ne in 1999 . S he sa id tha t sh e w oul d se ll up t o aha lf

oun ce of c oc ai ne da ily

a nd tha t sh e re ce ive d tw o to thr ee shi pm en ts o f co cai ne fro m

he r su pp li er, wh om

sh e id en ti fie d a s M r. Str at to n. On Mar ch 20, 2003, officer s arre sted Mr. Stratton. T he officer s searched Mr. Stratton and found a cell phone, a pager, two chec ks, two piece s of paper that ap pe ar ed to co nta in a

r ec or d of f inanc ia l transa ct ion s, a nd a m onthly state m en t fr om ase lf -s tor ag e fa ci lit

y in Ms . T hom

pson ’ s nam e. T he of

fi ce rs did not f ind 3 any drugs on Mr. Stratton’ s person or in his car . T hey also did no t search Mr . Stratton’ s hom e. Ms . T hom

psonand M r. S tr attonw er e ch ar ge d w ithc onsp ir ac y to poss es s w ithint en t t o di str ibu te c oc ai ne a nd c ra ck c oc ai ne . Ms . T hom

psonw as a lso7

ch ar ge d w ithtw o c ount s of pos se ssi on w ithint en t t o di str ibu te a nd d istri but ionof c r a c kc o c a i n e . M s . Th o mp s o n an dM r . S t r a t t o n we r e tr i e djo i n t l y b e f o r e aju ry. Mr . S tr attonte sti fi ed

in his ow n de fe nse . Ms . T hom psondid not te sti fy . F oll ow ing a fi ve -d ay

tr ia l, the j ur

y f ound Ms . T hom

psona nd M r. S tr attongui lty on a ll co un ts . T he D istri ct

Co urt se nte nc ed

Mr . S tr attonto 292 m onths i n pr iso n to be fo llo w ed by f our y ears of sup er vis ed r el ea se . Ms . T hom

psonw as se nte nc ed

to 360 m onths i n pr iso n one ac h of he r thr ee c onvi ct ion s, to be se rv ed c onc ur re ntl y , and w as giv ene igh t y ears of

sup er vis ed r el ea se . T his ti m el y

appe al f oll ow ed . I Mr . S tr attona tta ck s th e suf fi ci en cy of the G ove rn m en t’ s e vid en ce to supp ort his consp iracy

conviction in two respects. First, Mr. Stratton protests that the onl y e vid en ce the G ove rn m en t pr es en te d a ga ins t hi m c onsi ste d of

the te sti m ony of “ co nvi ct ed

dr ug d ea le rs , dr

ug a ddi ct s, li ar s, c he at s, a nd thugs w ho w er e co ope ratin g f

or the ir ow n pe rs ona l i nte re sts . ” Se co nd, Mr . S tr attonc ont en ds that, e ve n if

the te sti m ony

of the G ove rn m en t’ s w itn es se s w er e cr ed ite d, the G ove rn m en t e sta

bli she d a t m ost

that M r. S tr attonha d abuy er -s el le r re la tio nshi p with Ms. Thom

pson and others, w hich is ins ufficient to supp ort a finding of a co nspi ra cy

to dis tr ibu te dr

ugs.8

W e rev ie w a ch al le ng e to th e su ffi ci en cy of t he ev id en ce d e n ov o. United Sta tes v . M

ajo rs , 196 F . 3d 1 206, 121 0 ( 11th C ir . 199 9) . “ Whe n aj ur y ve rd ic t i s ch al le nge d onthe gr ound of suf fi ci en cy of the e vid en ce , the r ev ie w ing c ourt m ust vie wthe e vid en ce in the li ght m ost f av or ab le to the gov er

nm en t and d et er

m ine w he the r the j ur

y c oul d have f

ound the de fe ndant g uil ty

be y ond a re as ona

ble doub t.” U nit ed Sta tes v . Young , 39 F. 3d 15 61, 1565 (11t h Cir. 1994 ). In co nduc tin g th is r ev ie w , w e “ ac ce pt[ ] a ll re as ona ble inf er en ce s and c re dib ili ty ch oic es m ad e in the gov er nm en t’ s f av or , to de te rm ine w he the r a re as ona ble tr ie r of fact co ul d fi nd th atth e ev id en ce es tabl is he s g ui lt be y on d a reas on ab le do ub t.” U nit ed Sta tes v . Ca lho un , 97 F . 3d 5 18, 523 ( 11th C ir . 199 6) . “ Fo r the e vid en ce to supp ort a c onvi ct ion , it

ne ed not ‘ ex cl ude e ve ry

r ea sona ble hy pothe sis of inn oc en ce or

be w hol ly

inc onsi ste nt w ithe ve ry

c onc lus ione xc ep t tha t of gui lt, providedthat a re asonable trier of f act could find that the evidence establish es guilt bey ond a reasonable doub t.’ ” U nit ed Sta tes v . P er ez -C

osta , 36 F . 3d 1 552, 1556 -5 7 ( 11th C ir . 199 4) ( quot ing U nit ed Sta tes v . B el l , 678 F . 2d 5 47, 549 ( 5th Ci r. Uni t B 1 98 2) ). Af ter re viewing the record, we conclude that the evidence presented at trial wa s s u ff i ci en tt o s up p o rt Mr . S t ra t t o n ’s co n v i ct i o n . To s u s t ai n Mr . S t ra t t o n ’s co nvi ct ionf

or c onsp ir ac y

to poss es s c oc ai ne a nd c ra ck c oc ai ne w ithint en t t oMr. Kahlmorg an testified that his business with Mr. Stratton was “ve ry steady” and 4 estimated that he pur chase d about seve n kilogr ams of coc aine f rom Mr. Stratton from Nove mber of 2000 to Fe bruar

y of 2002. 9 dis tr ibu te , the G ove rn m en t w as r equir ed to “ pr ove be y ond a re as ona ble doubt ( 1) that a c onsp ir ac y

e xis te d; ( 2) that the de fe ndant k ne wof it ; and ( 3) that the defendant, w ith kn owledge, volu ntarily j oined it.” United States v. L opez-Ram irez , 68 F.3d 438, 440 (11th Cir. 1995 ). “ The e xistence of a conspiracy m ay be proved by circum stantial evidence and m ay be inferr ed from

concert of a ction.” United Sta tes v . G ue rre , 29 3 F .3d12 79 , 12 85 (11 th Cir . 20 02 ). A para de of

G ove rn m en t w itn es se s te sti fi ed to Mr . S tr atton ’ s in vol ve m en t in c oc ai ne dis tr ibu tio n. G ar y Bl oom te sti fi ed that be gin nin g in200 0, he r eg ularl y pur ch as ed

sm al l qu an tit ie s of

c oc ai ne f ro m Mr . S tr attona nd M s. T hom psonf or his pe rs ona l us e an d sa le . Ch ri s K ah lm or gan, a n a dm itt ed dr ug d ea le r, te sti fi ed

that he m et Mr . S tr attonabout

O ct obe r of

200 0, a t w hic h po int

Mr . S tr attonw as a lr ea dy invo lved in th e distributi on of cocaine. Ac cording to Mr. K ahlm organ, Mr . Stratton had a reputation in Collier Countyof supply ing hi gh qu ality cocaine. Fr om N ove m be r of 200 0 to F eb ru ar

y of 200 2, Mr . K ah lm or gan purc ha se d c oc ai ne from Mr. Stratton on a regular basis, which he converted to cr ack for his personal use or sa le . O n se ve ra l oc ca sio ns, Mr . K ah lm or gan c onve rt ed pow de r co ca ine to 4 crac k in Mr. S tratton’ s presence. Mr. Kahlm organ further testified that he tw iceMr. Kahlmorg an testified that Mr. Stratton and Ms. Prince worke d toge ther distributing 5 coca ine, althoug h in his view Ms. Prince’s role was a minor one. 10 delivered cocaine to Ms. Thom pson on behalf of either Mr . S tratton or Mr. Stratton’ s live-in girlfriend, D eanna Pr ince. 5 Re n e B en i t ez , M r. Ka h l m o rg an ’s g i rl fr i en d , c o rr o b o ra t ed Mr . Ka h l m o rg an ’s testim ony . S he testified that starting aroundThanksgivin g of 2000 , she and Mr. K ah lm or gan w oul d purc ha se c oc ai ne f ro m Mr . S tr attonon n earl y

ada ily ba sis . Sh e sa id tha t sh e an d M r. K ah lm or gan w oul d us e som e of thi s c oc ai ne a nd co nv ertth e res t t o c rackan d s el l i t. Anthony Alphonse, a drug dealer

and friend of Mr . K ahlm organ, testified that he a cc om

panie d M r. K ah lm or gan to Mr . S tr atton ’ s ho use to pur ch as e co ca ine on f our oc ca sio ns, tho ugh he did not pe rs ona lly

w itn es s th es e tr an sa ct ion s. Ro na ld W at son te sti fi ed that he pur ch as ed

about one or tw o gr am s of co ca ine f ro m both M r. S tr attona nd M s. T hom pson“ a co upl e of

ti m es am onth” ov er a p eri od of t wo years. T im oth y Mc N ulty te sti fi ed that he li ve d w ithMs . T hom psonf ro m about June to A ugus t of

200 2. D ur ing thi s pe ri od, Mr . Mc N ulty se rv ed a s M s. Thom pson ’ s “ do bo y ,” which Mr . Mc Nulty explained m eant that he delivered co ca ine on M s. T hom

pson ’ s be ha lf

. Mr . Mc N ulty

te sti fi ed that he w oul d pi ck

up11

po wde r co cai ne fro m

Mr. St rat to n, an d d el iv er t he co cai ne to Ms . Tho m ps on . He pic ke d up c oc ai ne f

ro m Mr . S tr attonon ave ra ge six or se ve n ti m es aw ee k. H e an d Ms . T hom

psonw oul d th enc onve rt

the pow de r co ca ine to cr ac k. Mr . Mc N ulty de liv er ed m ost of thi s c ra ck

to Ms . T hom

pson ’ s c ust om er s. H e an d M s. T hom pson sm oke d th e re st. Mr . Mc N ulty te sti fi ed that M s. T hom

pson ’ s dr ug d istri but ion busi ne ss w as a ct ive “ [e ] ve ry sin gle day , 24 h our s aday , ” an d th at Ms . T hom

pson m ai nt ai ne d a run ni ng tab wit h M r. Str at to n. View ed in the ligh t m ost favorable to the Governm ent, this evidence supp orts the j ur

y ’ s f ind ing that M r. S tr attona nd M s. T hom psonc onsp ir ed

to distribu te substant ial am ount s of cocaine in the Collier County are a. The evidence de m onstrate s th at

Mr . S tr atton ’ s r ole in the c onsp ir ac y w as to supp ly

Ms . Thom pson , a professional drug d ealer , a steady source of high-qualitypowder co ca ine , m ost

of w hic h sh e co nve rt ed

int o c ra ck

c oc ai ne a nd s old . Mr . S tr atton oc cupi eda si m il ar ro le wit h re sp ectto sev eral ot he r drug de al ers . Mr . S tr attonc ont en ds tha t the G ove rn m en t’ s e vid en ce w as ins uf fi ci en t be ca use it de pe nde d onthe te sti m ony of ase ri es of

uns av or y c hara ct er s. Whil e acknowledging th at cre dibil ity determ ination are generally the exclusive provin ce of the j ury , Mr . S tratton argues that the testim ony of the G overnm ent’ s witnesses was “ un be li ev ab le on it s fa ce an d i nc red ib le as a m at te r of law.” We di sa gr ee.12

“ T he f ac t tha t [ a w itn es s] ha s c onsi ste ntl y li ed in the pa st, e nga ge d in va rio us cri m in al act iv it ie s, [a nd ] th ou gh t t ha t h is tes ti m on y wou ldbe ne fit hi m

. . . does not m ake his testim ony incredible.” U

nit ed Sta tes v . Crav er o , 530 F . 2d 6 66, 67 0 (5 th Cir . 19 76 ). Fo r te st im on y to be co ns id ered in cred ib le as a m at te r of law,

“ it m ust be unb el ie vable on i ts f

ac e, i. e. , te sti m ony

a s to f ac ts tha t [ the w itn es s] co uld not have pos sib ly

obs er ve d or e ve nts that c oul d no t have oc curr ed und er the laws of nature.” U

nit ed Sta tes v . R iv era , 775 F . 2d 1 559, 156 1 ( 11th C ir . 198 5) (quotation m arks om itted) (alter ation in o riginal). Mr . S tr attonc ite s in stanc es in w hic h th e te sti m ony of c er ta in G ove rn m en t w itn es se s w as inc onsi ste nt w iththe te sti m ony of w itn es se s w ho t es tif

ie d onhis behalf. As this argum ent represents nothing m ore than an invitatio n to thi s Court t o re v i s i tth e c re d i b i l i t y d et er m i n at i o n s o f t h e ju ry, we re je ct Mr . S t ra t t o n ’s ar gum en t tha t the te sti m ony of the G ove rn m en t’ s w itn es se s w as inc re dib le a s a m atte r of law . “ It is w el l- es ta

bli she d th at

‘ [c ] re dib ili ty

de te rm inatio ns are the exclusive provi nce of the j ury .’ ” U nit ed Sta tes v . Ca lde ron , 127 F . 3d 1 314, 132 5 (1 1thCi r. 199 7) ( quot ing U nit ed Sta tes v . P arrado , 911 F . 2d 1 567, 157 1 ( 11th Ci r. 19 90 )) (al te rat io n i n o rig in al ). M r. St ra t t o n co n t en d s th at , e v en i f t h e t es t i m o n y o f t h e G o v ern m en t ’s witnesses we re c redited, the e vidence establishes at m ost the exist ence of a buy er-13

se lle r re la tio nshi p be tw ee n hi m se lf a nd M s. T hom

pson . W e dis ag re e. Whil e “ the ex ist en ce of

asim ple buy er -s el le r re la tio nshi p a lon e doe s no t f ur nis h th e re qui sit e evidence of a c onsp iratorial agre em ent,” U nit ed Sta tes v . B asc aro , 742 F . 2d 1 335, 1359 ( 11th C ir . 198 4) , an a gr ee m en t t o di str ibu te dr ugs “ m ay be inf er re d w he n th e ev ide nc e show s ac ont inu ing r el at ion shi p th at r es ult s inthe r ep eate d tr an sf er of illegal drugs to [a] purchaser. ” U nit ed Sta tes v . J

ohns on , 889 F. 2d 10 32, 1035-6 (1 1t h C ir. 1 98 9) . T he G ove rn m en t e sta

bli she d a t tri al the e xis te nc e of ac ont inu ing re la tio nshi p be tw ee n M r. S tr attona nd M s. T hom psonin w hic h M r. S tr attonw oul d supp ly Ms . T hom

psonc oc ai ne , the bul k of w hic h sh e w oul d di str ibu te to cu sto m er s inCo lli er

Co unty . F ro m

thi s e vid en ce , aj ur

y c oul d f ind be y ond a re as ona ble doubt tha t M r. S tr attona gr ee d w ithMs . T hom pson to dis tr ibu te co cai ne an d c rack . See , e.g ., U nit ed Sta tes v . B urr ough s , 830 F . 2d 1 574, 158 1 (11th Cir. 1987) (re

j ecting the defendant’ s argum ent that he was a “ m ere supp lier” of cocaine where e vidence showed that the defendant knew his purchasers we re co ur ie rs f ro m Ja ck sonv ill e, he m ai nta ine d a“ co nti nue d in te re st i n th e dr ugs up t o an d be y ond the ir

sa le in Ja ck sonv ill e, ” an d he som et im es sol d to his pur ch as er s on cred it ). II14

Mr . S tr attonarg ue s th at

the D istri ct

Co urt e rr ed

in de ny ing his m oti on t o sever his trial fr om

Ms. T hom

pson ’ s. “ [B] ecause of the ‘ we ll-settled principled that it is preferr ed that persons who are c harged together shou ld also be tried together,’ particularly

in conspi racy

cases, the denial of a m otion for sever ance will be re versed only

for abuse of discre tion.” U nit ed Sta tes v . Sm ith , 918 F . 2d 1551 , 155 9 ( 11th C ir . 199 0) ( quot ing United States v. M orales , 868 F . 2d 1 562, 1571 ( 11th C ir . 198 9) ). T o de m onstrate that the D istri ct Co urt a buse d it s dis cr et ionin de ny ing his se ve ranc e m oti on, Mr . S tr attonm ust e sta bli sh “ that he w as som eh owpr ej udi ce d by aj oin t tri al ” an d th at

se ve ranc e w as the appr opr ia te

“ rem edy for that prej udice.” U

nit ed Sta tes v . B lan ke nshi

p , 382 F . 3d 1 110, 112 2 (1 1thCi r. 200 4) . S ev er an ce is m an da tor y onl y if ( 1) “ the re is a se ri ous ri sk tha t a j oin t tri al w oul d c om

pr om ise aspe ci fi c tr ia l r igh t of one of the de fe ndants , ” or

( 2) if aj oin t tri al w oul d “pr ev en t the j ur y f ro m m ak ing ar el ia

ble j udgm en t a

bout gui lt or innocence.” Zafiro v. U nited Sta tes , 50 6 U.S. 5 34 , 53 9 (1 99 3) .

“ T he f ir st s ce nari o f

or m an da tor

y se ve ranc e (o r m istri al ) de sc ri be d by the [Suprem e] Court exists on ly wher e a j oint trial leads to th e denial of a constitu tional right .” B lan ke nshi p , 382 F . 3d at 11 23. A s f or the se co nd s ce nari o, thi s C ourt ha s e xpl ai ne d th at aj oin t tri al m ay

pr ev en t a j ur y f ro m r el ia bly as se ssi ng g uil t whe re “ co m pe lli ng e vid en ce that i s no t a dm iss ibl e ag ai nst one orWhil e Mr. Stratton asse rts that Offic er N elson indirectly ref err ed to Mr. Stratton by 6 ref err ing to Ms. Thompson’s sourc e of supply , this assertion finds no support in the rec ord. 15 m ore of the co-def

endants is to be introduced against ano ther co-defe ndant.” Id. Mr . S tr attonarg ue s th at

the D istri ct

Co urt a buse d it s di sc re tio n inde ny ing his m otion for sever ance f or two r easons. First, Mr. Stratton m aintains that se ve ranc e w as r equir ed

be ca use the D istri ct

Co urt a dm itt ed

Ms . T hom

pson ’ s po star re st s ta te m en ts i m

pli catin g hi m

a s he r supp lie r of

narc oti cs . Be ca

use Ms . Thom pson did no t testify , Mr . S tratton argues that the adm issio n of this evid ence vio la te d hi s S ixth A m en dm en t r igh t of c onf ro ntatio n a s c onstru ed

in Bruton v. United States , 391 U. S. 123 (196 3). W e re j ec t this arg um en t be ca

use the a dm iss ionof

Ms . T hom

pson ’ s po starre st statem ents did n ot result in a B rut on vio la tio n. F oll ow ing he r ar re st, Ms . T hom psona dm itt ed

to of fi ce rs that sh e ha d be en

a ddi ct ed to co ca ine sin ce 199 6. She told officers that her

addiction g radually

increased and that in 1999 she began se lli ng c oc ai ne . Ms . T hom psonide nti fi ed

Mr . S tr attona s he r co ca ine sup pli er . T he G ove rn m en t i ntr oduc ed

Ms . T hom

pson ’ s c onf

es sio n a t tri al thr oughthe te sti m ony of Of ficer Ne lson. Of

ficer Ne lson’s testim ony

did no t contain any

ref erence to Mr. Stratto n or

to Ms . T hom

pson ’ s “ sour ce of

sup ply . ” T he dis tr ic t c ourt a lso gave the

6 j ur y an a ppr opr ia te li m iti ng i nstru ct ion , a dm oni shi ng i t tha t t es tim ony c onc er nin gThe District Court cha rg ed the jury

that “the c ase of

eac h defe ndant should be consider ed 7 separ ately and individually . The fa ct that you may find any one of the defe ndants guilty or not guil ty of any of the of fe ns e s c ha

rg e d s ho uld

no t e ff e c t [ sic ] y our ver dict as to the other of fense or any other de fenda

nt.” 16 a defe ndant’s post-arr est statem ent “ shou ld not be considered in any way whatever as e vid en ce w ithr es pe ct

to an y oth er de fe ndant o n tr ia l. ” A cc or din gly , the 7 ad m i s s i o n o f M s . Th o m

p s o n ’s p o s t -a rr es t

s t at emen t s d i dn o tv i o l at e M r. St ra t t o n ’s rig ht of c on fro nt at io n. Se e R ic hard son v. M ars h , 481 U . S. 200 , 211 ( 1987 ) (holdin g that “ the Confrontation Clause is n ot vio lated by the adm issio n of a no nt es ti fy in g c od efen da nt ’s con fes si on wit h a pro pe r li m it in g i ns tru ct io n wh en . . . the c onf es sio n is r ed ac te d to e lim inate not onl y the de fe ndant’ s nam e, but a ny re fe re nc e to h is o r he r ex ist en ce ”) ; Se e U nit ed Sta tes v . W

ill iam son , 339 F . 3d 1295 , 130 3 ( 11th C ir . 200 3) ( “ In R ic hard son , the S upr em e Co urt c le ar ly authorized the adm issio n of a nontestify ing codefendant’s confe ssion wher e such co nf es sio n om itt ed

r ef er en ce to the de fe ndant and w as c oupl ed w ithali m iti ng in st ru ct io n.” ). Mr. Stratton’ s second argum ent for severance is that while there wa s ove rwhe lm ing e vid en ce that M s. T hom psonw as inv olv ed

in dr ug tra ff ic kin g, the ev ide nc e ag ai nst

him c onsi ste d on ly

of the se lf -s er vin g te sti m ony

of “ cr im ina ls, dr ug a ddi ct s, li ar s, c he at s and thugs . ” Mr . S tr attonm ai nta ins that “ it is p ro bable17

t h a tth e o v e rw h e l mi n g e v i d e n c e p r o du c e da g a i n s tT h o mp s o n s p i l l e do v e r t o ” h i m. Mr. Stratton’ s concluso ry assertion that he was pre j udiced by

the “ spillo ver ef fe ct ” of the e vid en ce a dm itt ed

a ga ins t M s. T hom

psonf al ls w el l sh ort of sa tis fy ing his bur de n to e sta bli sh tha t he suf

fe re d “ spe ci fi c an d c om

pe lli ng pr ejud ic e to th e co nd uc t o f hi s d efen se ” as a res ul t o f th e joi nt tri al . United States v. L iss , 265 F . 3d 1 220, 122 7 ( 11th C ir . 200 1) . E vid en ce of the c ontro lle d buy s of drugs from

Ms. T hom

pson as w ell as the drugs and drug p araphernalia seized at he r ap ar tm en t w oul d have be ena dm iss ibl e at ase parate tr ia l of

Mr . S tr attonto pr ove that M r. S tr attonha d m or e than abuy er -s el le r re la tio nshi p w ithMs . T hom pson . Whil e the e vid en ce of Ms . T hom

pson ’ s po st- ar

re st s ta te m en t w oul d not have been adm issib le in a separate trial of Mr . S tratton, “ [t] he m ere fact that the re m ay be an ‘ en orm ous dis pari ty in the e vid en ce a dm iss ibl e ag ai nst [ one de fen da nt ] co m

pa redto th e o th er d efen da nt s’ is no t a s uf fic ie nt ba si s fo r rev ers al .” United States v. Schlei , 122 F. 3d 94 4, 984 (11th Cir. 1997). Beca use Mr. Stratton has failed to dem onstrate that he suffere d prej udice fr om his j oin t tri al w ithMs . T hom pson , w e co nc lud e that the D istri ct Co urt di d no t ab us e it s d is cret io n i n d en y in g M r. Str at to n’s m ot io n fo r se ve ran ce. III Mr . S tr atton ’ s th ir d c la im of e rr or is that the D istri ct

Co urt a buse d it sRul e 33 of the F e de ra l Ru le s o f C ri min a l Pr oc e dure pr ov ide s in re le va nt p art : 8 (a) Def

endant’ s Motion. Upon the de fenda nt’s motion, the court may va c ate any

jud g me nt a

nd g ra nt a ne w tri a l if

the int e re st o f j us tic e so requ ir e s . I f th e c a s e w a s tr ie d w it h o u t a ju r y , th e c o urt ma

y take a dd iti on a l te sti mony

and e nte r a ne w j ud g me nt. (b ) T ime to F ile (1) Newly Discover ed Evidence. Any motion for a new tria l g rounded on ne wly discovere d evidenc e must be filed within 3 y ear s afte r the verdic t of finding of guilty . I f an appea l is pending, the court may n o t g r an t a mo ti o n f o r a n e w tr ia l un ti l th e a p p e ll ate court rema nds the ca se. 18 discretion in d eny ing hi s m otion for a new tr ial. F ollowing h is convictio n, Mr . Stratto n m ove d f

or ane wtr ia l purs uant t o R ule 33 o f the F ed er al Ru le s of Cr im ina l P ro ce dur e on the ba sis of ne w ly dis co ve re d e vid en ce . Mr . S tr atton 8 ar gue d th at

he ha d un earthe d e vid en ce that Ja son O sc eo laa nd G ove rn m en t witnesses, C hris Kahlm organ and AnthonyAlphonse, had conspired to fram e Mr. Stratton in order to protect Anthony Alphonse’ s father, Ron Alphonse, w ho was th e act ua l s ou rce o f th ei r co cai ne . Mr . S tr atton ’ s a lle ge d ne w ly dis co ve re d e vid en ce c onsi ste d of a n a ff idavit fr om T ra cy Cure w ho atte ste d th at

in 2002 , she w as li vin g inN ap le s, F lor ida w ith he r boy fr ie nd, Mr . O sc eo la . Ms . Cure state d th at in 2002 Mr . O sc eo law as se lli ng co ca ine that he obt ai ne d f ro m Mr . A nth ony

A lph onse . Mr . A lph onse ’ s so ur ce of supp ly , in tur

n, w as his f

athe r, Ro n A lph onse . Ms . Cure a lle ge d th at she w as tol d by Mr . A nth ony

A lph onse , Mr . K ah lm or gan, a nd M r. O sc eo lathat i n th e ev en t19

the y w er e ar re ste d, the y

w oul d te ll the pol ic e that M r. S tr attonw as the ir c oc ai ne supp lier. She asserted that she recalled a party at w hich she ov erhear d Mr. A nth ony A lph onse and M r. K ah lm or gan di sc uss ing se tti ng u p M r. S tr atton . S he al so o ve rh eard

Mr . A nth ony

A lph onse state that hi s f athe r w as not

goi ng t o “ go down” and that they

we re going to “ take Joe Stratton down.”

“ Whe n ade fe ndant d isc ove rs ne we vid en ce a ft er tr ia l tha t w as unknow n to the gov er nm en t a t the ti m e of

tr ia l, ane wtr ia l i s w ar

rante d on ly

if : ‘ (1 ) the ev ide nc e w as in fa ct

dis co ve re d a ft er

tr ia l; (2 ) the de fe ndant e xe rc ise d du e care to dis co ve r the e vid en ce ; ( 3) the e vid en ce w as not m er el y c um ulativ e or im pe ac hin g; (4) the evidence w as m aterial; and (5) the evidence w as of such a nature that a new trial w ouldprobably

produce a differ ent result.’ ” U nited Sta tes v . Sta rre tt , 55 F . 3d 1525 , 155 4 ( 11th C ir . 199 5) ( quot ing U nit ed Sta tes v . G arc ia , 13 F . 3d 1 464, 147 2 (1 1thCi r. 199 4) ). “ T he f

ai lur e to s at isf

y a ny one of the se e le m en ts i s f

at al to a m otion for a new tr ial.” United States v. L ee , 68 F. 3d 12 67, 1274 (11t h Cir. 1995 ). The D istrict Court denied Mr. Stratton’ s m otion for a new tr ial, r uling that Mr. Stratton failed to establish the last four elem ents. W e re view this ruling for an ab us e o f di sc ret io n. Sta rre tt , 55 F.3d at 1 55 4. Th e D i s t ri ct Co u rt d i dn o tab u s e i t s d i s cr et i o n i n d en yin g Mr . S t ra t t o n ’s m oti on f or ane wtr ia l. T he r ec or d sh ow s th at Mr . S tr attonw as a w ar e of Ms .20

Cure ’ s e xis te nc e an d of

he r inv olv em en t i n dr

ugs be fo re his tr ia l be gan. I nde ed , Ms . Cure state s inhe r af

fi da vit that M r. S tr atton“ en co ur ag ed [ he r] to ge t of

f dr ugs and relocate away

from Na ples so th at [she] would not be aroundthe people that we re using drugs .” The onlyrea sons Mr. Stratton offer s for the fa ilure to interview Ms . Cure be fo re his tr ia l w as that sh e liv ed in N orth C ar oli naa nd tha t no one kn ew th atsh e h adin fo rm at io n re le va nt to hi s ca se . W e ag re e w iththe G ove rn m en t tha t a de fe ndant d oe s no t de m onstrate due dil ige nc e by

sho w ing that he f

ai le d to int er

vie wapot en tia l w itn es s be ca use he or she lived in ano ther state. While Mr. Stratton asserts that he w as not awar e that Ms . Cure ha d us ef

ul i nf orm at ion , he w as a w ar e of he r inv olv em en t i n dr

ug ac tiv iti es . T he D istri ct

Co urt di d no t a

buse it s di sc re tio n inde te rm ini ng tha t the ne we vid en ce Mr . S tr attonpr es en te d w as not of suc h natur e that i t w oul d pr oba bly produce a differ ent result at a newtrial. Mr. McN ulty ’ s testim ony provided co m pe lli ng e vid en ce of

ac onsp ir ac y

be tw ee n M r. S tr attona nd M s. T hom psonto distribu te cocaine. Mr. McN ulty wa s subjected to extensive cross-exam ination at tr ia l w hic h r ev ea le d hi s m oti va tio n f or c oope ratin g w ithauth or iti es . T es tim ony that Mr. Kahlm organ and Mr. Anthony Alphonse had consp ired to fram e Mr. Stratto n w oul d no t i m

pe ac h M r. Mc N ulty ’ s te sti m ony . F urthe r, w e fi nd i t im plausib le that a j ury

would acce pt Mr. Stratton’ s contentio n that Mr.21

Kahlm organ was c overing for Ron Alphons e w hen Mr. Kahlm organ testified at trial that Mr. Anthony

Alphonse had a reputation am ong d rug dealers in Collier Countyfor supply ing excellent cocaine. Be ca use Mr . S tr attonha s no t de m onstrate d tw o of the f ive r equir em en ts f

or a newtrial based on newly discovered evidence, w e conclude that the District Co urt di d no t a

buse it s di sc re tio n inde ny ing his m oti on f or ane wtr ia l. IV Ms . T hom

psona sse rt s th at

he r co nf es sio n w as inv oluntary

be ca use the of fi ce rs w ho i nte rr oga te d he r de nie d he r re que st f or L or ce t, apr es cr ipt ionnarc oti c drug that was re m oved from her hom e, until after she m ade an inculpatory state m en t. T his Co urt r ev ie w s adis tr ic t c ourt’ s f ac tua l f ind ing s su

ppor tin g th e de nia l of am oti on t o su

ppr es s f or c le ar e rr or , a nd i n th e lig ht m ost f av or ab le to the Gov ern m en t. Th e ap pl ic at io n o f th e la w to th e fac ts is rev ie wedde no vo . United States v. H

olloway, 29 0 F .3d13 31 , 13 4 (1 1t h C ir. 2 00 2) . T he F if th A m en dm en t pr ohi bit s th e use of a n in vol unt ar

y c onf es sio n a ga ins t a d efen da nt in a cri m in al tri al . Bram v. United States , 168 U. S. 532, 542 (189 7); U nit ed Sta tes v . V

era , 701 F . 2d 1 349, 136 5 ( 11th C ir . 198 3) . W e fo cu s our vol unt ar ine ss i nqui ry

“ on whe the r the de fe ndant w as c oe rc ed by the gov er

nm en t into m aking th e statem ent: ‘ The r elinqui shm ent of the right m ust have been22

volu ntary in the sense that it was the product of a fr ee and deliberate choice rather than inti m idation , c oercion or deception.’ ” U nit ed Sta tes v . M

en doza -C ec el ia , 963 F. 2d 1 467, 147 5 ( 11th C ir . 199 2) ( quot ing Co lorado v. Co nne lly , 479 U . S. 157 , 170 (1 986) ). “ T he dis tr ic t c ourt m ust c onsi de r the tot al ity

of the c ir cum stanc es in assessing whether

police conduct was ‘ causally relate d’ to the confession .” Id . (quot ing Miller v. Dugger , 838 F . 2d 1 530, 153 6 ( 11th C ir . 198 8) ). “ Su ff ic ie ntl y co er ci ve c ondu ct

nor m al ly inv olv es sub

j ec tin g th e ac cu se d to a n e xhaust ing ly lon g int er ro ga tio n, the appl ic at ionof phy sic al f

or ce or the thr eat t o do so, or

the m ak ing of a prom ise that indu ces a c onfession .” Id . Governm ent coercion is a nece ssary pr ed ic at e to a fi nd in g o f in vo lu nt ari ne ss un de r th e Fi fth Am en dm en t. “ Abse nt pol ic e co nduc t c au sa lly

r el at ed to the c onf

es sio n, the re is . . . no b as is f or co nc lud ing that any

state a ct or

ha s de pr ive d ac ri m ina l de fe ndant o f due pr oc es s of law. ” Co lorado v. Co nne lly , 479 U. S. 157, 164 (198 6). At the suppression h earing, Of ficer Ne lson and Ms. T hom

pson testified ab out the r ai d onMs . T hom

pson ’ s a partm en t, he r ar

re st, a nd h er

sub se que nt state m en ts t o po lic e. O ff

ic er N el son te sti fi ed

that w he n of

fi ce rs e xe cu te d th e w ar rant o n M ar ch6, 200 3, Ms . T hom psona nd M r. I nge rs oll w er e pr es en t i n th e apartm ent. Both w ere detained while office rs conducted a search, which lasted about two hou rs. Of

ficer s read Ms. Thom

pson her M

ira nda ri ght s. N ei the r Ms .23

T hom psonnor Mr . I nge rs oll inv oke d th es e ri ght s. T ow ar d th e en d of the se ar ch , Ms . T hom

psonstate d th at

she w as havin g ba ck

pa in. O ff ic er s th entoo k M s. Th o m p s o n t o th e D EA o ff

i ce fo r q u es t i o n i n g . Of

fi ce rs b ro u g h tMs . Th o m p s o n ’s L or ce t pi lls w iththe m

to the D E A of

fi ce be ca use the y tho ught that the j ai l w oul d wan t t o k no w what m ed ic at io n M s. Th om ps on was t ak in g. At the D EAoffice, Of

ficer Ne lson again read Ms. T hom pson her M

ira nda ri ght s. Ms . T hom

psonsig ne d aw ri tte n w ai ve r of the se r igh ts. O ff

ic er N el son testified that at the beginni ng of the interview, Ms. T hom pson wa s visib ly

upset an d ne rv ous but

did not appe ar to be und er

the inf lue nc e of dr ugs or a lc ohol . Ms . T hom psongave c ohe re nt answ er s to the of fi ce rs ’ que sti ons. S he a lso a tte m pte d to reac h Mr. Stratton by

phon e to set up a controlled purchase of cocaine. Of ficer N el son sa id tha t of

fi ce rs gave Ms . T hom

psonsom e L or ce t a t the e nd o f the int er vie ww he n M s. T hom

psonw as about

to be take n to j ai l. A ske d w hy she gave Ms. T hom

pson the m edication, O ffice r N elson testified that Ms. Thom pson “ stated that sh e ha d ba ck

pa in, that i t w as pa st d

ue f or he r m ed ic at ion . ” O ff

ic er N el son denied that the m edication was w ithheldfrom Ms. T hom

pson to coerce her co ope ratio n, or

that the m ed ic at ionw as giv ento Ms . T hom psona s ar ew ar d f

or he r st at em en ts . Ms . T hom

psonte sti fi ed

that sh e w as pr es cr ibe d L or ce t by apod ia tr ist

to24

tr eat pa in i n he r ba ck , le g, and ankl e. S he sa id tha t sh e as ke d a ge nts to ge t he r pil ls as the y w er e le av ing the apartm en t. S he a lso state d th at the a ge nts pla ce d he r pil ls directly in front of her during the interrogation. She stated that she m ade severa l requests for her m edication while at the D EAoffice but in each c ase, the officer s tol d he r to w ai t. S he f

urthe r te sti fi ed

that the of

fi ce rs did not giv e a re as on f

or de ny ing he r the pil ls. Ms . T hom psonstate d th at , a lth oughthe of fi ce rs did not expr es sly c ondi tio n he r re ce ipt

of he r m ed ic at ionon p ro vid ing astate m en t, she inferre d from

the officer s’ actions that she would need to coo perate if she wanted he r m ed ic at io n. Ms. T hom

pson also testified that she had taken so m e L orcet shortly before officer s executed the searc h war rant but that at the tim e of her interview she w as no l onge r unde r the inf

lue nc e of the dr ug. S he state d th at , de pe ndi ng o n th e dosa ge , L or ce t c oul d di m ini sh h er c om pr eh en sio n of

w ha t w as goi ng o n aro und he r. Ms . T hom

psona lso sa id tha t sh e w as und er the inf lue nc e of c oc ai ne dur ing the int er vie w . Upon furthe r que sti oni ng, how ev er , she te sti fi ed that sh e co uld

not spe ci fi ca lly

r ec al l w he the r she w as und er the inf lue nc e of c oc ai ne dur ing the interview and that sh e probably wa s not un der the influence. Inhis Re port and R ec om m en da tio n, the m ag istrate j udge f ound that a ge nts did not ind uc e Ms . T hom

psonto m ak e a state m en t by w ith hol din g he r pa in25

m edication. T his findi ng is su pported bythe rec ord. T he only evidence that of fi ce rs w ith he ld M s. T hom pson ’ s m ed ic at ionin ane ff ort t o c oe rc e a state m en t from her consists of Ms. T hom pson ’ s vague testim ony

that the officer s’ behavior – na m el y , the ir

a lle ge d “ ru de ge sture s” a nd l au ght er in re spon se to he r re que st f or her m edicine – im

plied such a qui d pr o qu o arra n g emen t . M s . Th o m p s o n ’s testim ony wa s contradicted by

that of Of

ficer Ne lson, who denied that the Lorce t w as giv ento Ms . T hom

psonin ex ch an ge f

or he r co ope ratio n. T he dis tr ic t c ourt a dopt ed the m ag istrate j udge ’ s c re dib ili ty de te rm inatio n reg ard in g t he co nf

li ct in g t es ti m on y

on th e v ol un ta rin es s q ue st io n. United States v. Kreczm er , 63 6 F .2d10 8, 1 10 (5t h C ir. Un it B 19 81 ). Se e U nit ed Sta tes v . R adda tz, 447 U . S. 667 , 680 -8 1 ( 1980 ) (h old ing that a dis tr ic t c ourt m ay

a dopt a s th e cr ed ibi lity

f ind ing s c ont ai ne d inam ag istrate j udge ’ s r ep ort and r ec om m en da tio n re gard ing the vol unt ar ine ss o f a co nf es sio n w ith out

r eh eari ng the te sti m ony

of the wit ne ss es who tes ti fie d a t a s up pr es si on he ari ng be fo re t he m ag is tra te jud ge ).

“ Abse nt any

e vid en ce of

psy ch olo gic al or

phy sic al c oe rc ionon the part of the ag en ts, the re is no b as is f or de cl ar ing [ a de fe ndant’ s] state m en ts and c onse nt t o se arch in vo lu nt ary. ” U

nit ed Sta tes v . B arbo ur, 70 F.3d 580, 585 (11th Cir. 1995 ). The D istrict Court did no t err in deny ing Ms. Thom pson ’ s m otion to supp ress her post -arr es t st at em en ts.26 V Ms. T hom

pson contends th at the prosecutor’ s com m ents to the jury re gard ing he r ri ght

not to te sti fy vio la te d he r Fi fth A m en dm en t r igh t t o r em ai n silent at trial. T his Court review’ s a district court’ s denial of a m otion for a m istrial ba se d onapr ose cu tor ’ s st at em en ts d ur ing c los ing a rg um en t f

or abuse of di sc ret io n. U

nit ed Sta tes v . B rook

s, 67 0 F .2d14 8, 1 52 (11 th Cir . 19 82 ). To determ ine that a prosecutor com m itted m iscondu ct in his or her argum ent to a j ury

“ (1) the re m arks m

ust be im proper, and (2) the rem arks m ust prejudicially

aff ect the subs tantial rights o f the defe ndant.” U nit ed Sta tes v . G onza les, 122 F . 3d 1 383, 1389 (11th Cir. 1997) (quotation m arks om itted). Mr . S tr attonte sti fi ed

in his de fe nse . Ms . T hom psonc hose to re m ai n si le nt. D ur ing his arg um en t t o th e j ur y , Mr . S tr atton ’ s law y er

c om m en te d a s f

oll ow s: By the w ay , Mr . S tr attonte sti fi ed under oath b ef

or e y ou, j ust li ke e ve ry

oth er w itn es s and s ubj ec te d him se lf to cr oss ex am inatio n j ust

li ke e ve ry

oth er w itn es s.

. . . . Jos ep h S tr atton took th e stand and t old y ou h e did

not do w ha t he is ac cu se d of

. D oe s he have ape rs ona l i nte re st i n the out co m e of

the c as e? Absolute ly . T he gov er nm en t i s goi ng t o te ll y ou tha t he ha s ar ea son not to te ll the trut h. Bu t i f he ’ s in noc en t, te lli ng the tr uthw orks, too .

. . . . H e too k th e stand and t es tif ie d inhis ow n de fe nse th at he didn’ t do thi s. I t’ s a ll y ou c ando i n atr ia l. T he y don ’ t do trial by com bat anym or e. [H] e took the stand , subj ected27 him se lf to cr oss -e xa m inatio n and t old y ou wha t hi s, his si de of t he st ory

is . In his rebuttal argum ent, the prosecutor re spon ded to these comm ents as fo llo w s: A nd d on’ t r ew ar d th e de fe ndant fo r te sti fy ing in this

ca se . Whil e he ha s ar igh t, she ha s ar igh t t o te sti fy or not te sti fy . T he re sho uld be no re w ar d fo r the f ac t tha t so m eo ne doe s take the stand. Y ou’ re to ass es s the cr ed ibi lity of the de f e n d a n t j u s t a s y o u a r e t o a s s e s s t h e c r e d i b i l i t y of a ny other witnesses. T he fact that they ’ re w illing to subject th em se lv es to cro ss -ex am in at io n, n o re wardforth at . Ms . T hom

pson ’ s c ouns el im

m ed ia te ly obj ec te d. H e ar gue d th at the pr ose cu tor ’ s arg um en t r ep re se nte d an im pe rm iss ibl e co m

m en t onhe r de ci sio n no t to t es tif y . Ms . T hom

psonm ove d f

or am istri al or , in the a lte rn at ive , a n in str uc tio n to the j ur y to dis re gard

the pr ose cu tor ’ s r em ar

ks. T he D istri ct

Co urt de nie d bo th m oti ons. Ms . T hom

psonr en ew s th is arg um en t onappe al . W e co nc lud e that the pr ose cu tor ’ s r em ar

ks d id n ot v iol at e Ms . T hom pson ’ s F if

th A m en dm en t r igh t ag ai nst se lf -i nc ri m inatio n. I n G rif fin v . Ca lif

orni a , 380 U. S. 609 (196 5), the S uprem e Court declar ed that the F if

th A m en dm en t “ fo rb ids e ith er c om m en t by the pr ose cu tio n onthe ac cu se d’ s si le nc e or

ins tr uc tio ns b y

the c our t tha t su chsil en ce is ev ide nc e of guilt .” Id. at

615 . “ A lth ough G rif

fin can be r ea d to pr ohi bit a ny dir ec t r ef er en ce to28

a defe ndant’s f

ailure to testify ,” in subs equent decision s the Suprem e Court

“ declined to adop t such a broad reading of G rif fin .” U nit ed Sta tes v . W

ing , 104 F.3 d 9 86 , 99 0 (7 th Cir . 19 90 ). In La kesid

e v. O re gon , 435 U . S. 333 ( 1978 ), the de fe ndant arg ue d th at his Fifth Am endm ent right against com pulso ry self-incrimination wa s violated when the tr ia l c ourt i nstru ct ed

the j ur y , ove r de fe nse c ouns el ’ s ob j ec tio n, that i t c oul d no t d raw an ad ve rs e in fere nc e fro m th e d efen da nt ’s refu sa l t o t es ti fy . Id. at 336 -3 8. Re j ec tin g th is arg um en t, the Co urt e xpl ai ne d th at G rif fin w as “ co nc er

ne d on ly w itha dve rs e co m

m en t, w he the r by

the pr ose cu tor

or the tr ia l j udge – ‘ co m

m en t by the prosecution on the accused’ s silence or instruction s by the court that such silence is evidence of guilt.’ ” Id. at 338 -3 9 ( quot ing G rif

fin , 380 U. S. at 615). Be ca use the tr ia l c ourt ha d no t a ske d th e j ur y to dr awa n a dve rs e inf

er en ce f ro m the de fe ndant’ s f

ai lur e to t ak e the w itn es s st an d, the Co urt c onc lud ed that the de fen da nt ’s pri vi le ge ag ai ns t co m pu ls ory sel f-i nc riminat io n was no t v io la te d. Id . at 339 -3 41 T he S upr em e Co urt a ga in d ec lin ed to re ad G rif

fin br oa dly

in United States v. R obi nson , 485 U . S. 25, 31- 32 ( 1987 ). I n R obi nson , the def endant’ s counsel com plained to th e j ury

in his clos ing argum ent that the Governm ent had not g iven hi s cl ie nt an op po rtu ni ty to ex pl ai n h is act io ns . Id. at 28. O n r eb utt al , theIn United States v. Frazier , 944 F.2d 820 ( 11th Cir. 1991), this C ourt rec og nized that 9 “the Supre me Court has limited the prohibitions pl ace d upon the prosec utor’s use of a (continued...) 29 prosecutor responded th at the defendant “ could have taken the stand and explained i tt o yo u , an yt h i n g h e w a n t e dt o . T h e U n i t e dS t a t e s o f A me r i c ah a s g i v e n h i m, through out, the oppo rtunity to explain.” Id. at 2 9 . C o n cl u d i n g th at th e p ro s ec u t o r’s ar gum en t “ w as ac le ar

vio la tio n of

the de fe ndant’ s c onst itu tio na l r igh t no t t o te st ify,” th e Si xt h C irc ui t re ve rs edth e d efen da nt ’s con vi ct io n. United States v. R obi nson , 79 4 F .2d11 32 , 11 34 -3 7 (6 th Cir . 19 86 ). T he S upr em e Co urt r ev er se d, hol din g th at the pr ose cu tor ’ s c om

m en ts d id no t v io la te th e Fi fth Am en dm en t. R obi nson , 485 U. S. at 31-32. T he Court rej ected the arg um en t tha t “ an y

‘ dir ec t’ r ef

er en ce by the pr ose cu tor

to the f ai lur e of the de fe ndant t o te sti fy

vio la te s th e Fi fth A m en dm en t a s c onstru ed in G rif fin .” Id. at 31. Rather , the C ourt inst ructed that the G rif fin ru le onl y

“pr ohi bit s th e j udge and prosecutor from

suggest ing to the j ury

that it m ay

treat the def

endant’ s silence as subs tantive evidence of guilt.” Id. at 32 (quotatio n m arks om itted). T he Court stressed that whether a

prosecutor’ s com

m ent on a defendant’ s refusal to testify violates the defendant’s F ifth Am endm ent right against com pulso ryselfinc ri m inatio n c anbe de te rm ine d on ly by e xa m ini ng the c ont ex t i n w hic h th e st at em en t was m ad e. Id. at 31- 33. 9(...continued) 9 defe ndant’s silence at trial” in Robinson . Id. at 826. 30 T his Ci rc uit

a ppl ie s th e fo llo w ing standard in re vie w ing c la im s th at

a pr ose cu tor ’ s c om

m en ts v iol at ed

ade fe ndant’ s F if

th A m en dm en t r igh t a ga ins t co m pul sor y se lf -i nc ri m inatio n: A pr ose cu tor ’ s st at em en t vi olate s th e de fe ndant’ s r igh t t o re m ai n si le nt i f ei the r (1 ) the state m en t w as m an if es tly int en de d to be ac om

m en t onthe de fe ndant’ s f ai lur e to te sti fy ; or ( 2) the state m en t w as of

suc h ac hara ct er

that a j ury would naturally

and necessarily

take it to be a c o mm e n to n th e f

a i l u r e o f th e a c c u s e dt o t e s t i f

y. United States v. K

nowles , 66 F . 3d 1 146, 116 2- 63 ( 11th C ir . 199 5) ( quot at ion m ar ks and c itatio ns o m itt ed ). A lth oughthi s C ourt a dopt ed thi s te st i n United Sta tes v . Stu art-C

abe lle ro , 686 F. 2d 89 0, 892 (11th Cir. 1982), bef ore R obi nson w as de ci de d, the standard is sti ll ap pr opr ia te , if

r ea d inli ght

of the li m itatio n in R obi nson on the S upr em e Co urt’ s ho ldi ng i n G rif fin . T hus, in apply ing th e Stu artCa be lle ro te st, w e m

ust de te rm ine w he the r a pr ose cu tor ’ s r em ar ks w er e m an if

es tly int en de d to ur ge the j ur

y to dr awa n in fe re nc e fr om the de fe ndant’ s si le nc e that he or she is gui lty , or

w he the r a j ur

y w oul d natur al ly

a nd n ec es sari ly

c onstru e the prosecutor’ s rem arks as inviting such an im perm issib le infere nce. Ms. T hom

pson argues that the prosecutor indirectly invited th e j ury

to draw aninf er en ce of gui lt fr om

he r sil en ce w he n he a dvi se d th e j ur y that M r. S tr atton31

shou ld n ot b e re w ar de d f or te sti fy ing . S he c la im s th at in of fe ri ng s uc h di re ct ionto the j ur y , the pr ose cu tor

im pli ed that the re w oul d be c as es in w hic h ade fe ndant shou ld be rew arded for testify ing and th ereby encouraged the j ury

to pun ish her for not te st ifyin g. W e dis ag re e. T he pr ose cu tor in thi s c as e did

not dir ec tly or ind ir ec tly encourage the j ury

to consid er Ms. Thom

pson ’ s decision to rem ain silent as ev ide nc e of

he r gui lt. Rathe r, in re spon se to the a rg um en t of Mr . S tr atton ’ s de fe nse co unse l, the pr ose cu tor

c or re ct ly inf orm ed the j ur y that a de fe ndant s houl d no t be rew arded sim

ply because he testifies and that a testify ing defendant is n ot entitled to s pe ci al c re de nc e as aw itn es s si m ply be ca use he sub

j ec te d hi m se lf

to cr oss ex am inatio n. T he pr ose cu tor ’ s arg um en t w as c le ar ly r es pons ive to the a rg um en t of Mr . S tr atton ’ s c ouns el and w as not int en de d ina ny

r es pe ct to co m m en t a dve rs el y on Ms . Tho m

ps on ’s dec is io n t o re m ai n s il en t. N or did the pr ose cu tor

vio la te Ms . T hom

pson ’ s c onst itu tio na l r igh ts b y poi nti ng o ut t o th e j ur

y that M s. T hom

pson ha d ar igh t no t t o te sti fy . T he prosecutor’ s com

m ent was m ade in the context of rebutting the argum ent of Mr. Stratto n’ s a tto rn ey

that hi s c lie nt s houl d be giv enc re dit f or te sti fy ing . V ie w ed

in this cont ext, w e think th at it is plain that th e prosecutor did not intend to drawan adverse infer ence f

rom Ms. T hom

pson ’ s silence. R ather, the prosecutor was32

dis co ur ag ing the j ur

y f ro m dr aw ing apos iti ve inf

er en ce in Mr . S tr atton ’ s f av or si m pl y be cau se Mr. St rat to n t es ti fie d. Finally , w e note that the prosecutor’ s rem arks in his closi ng argum ent wer e both le ga lly

c or re ct and c onsi ste nt w iththe D istri ct Co urt’ s j ur

y ins tr uc tio ns. T he j ur y w as ins tr uc te d th at ade fe ndant h as ar igh t no t t o te sti fy a nd tha t i t c oul d no t dr awan a dve rs e inf

er en ce f ro m ade fe ndant’ s f

ai lur e to t es tif

y . T he Co urt a lso adm onish ed the j ury

that if a def

endant does testi fy , it should assess h is or her cr ed ibi lity

in the sam e w ay

that i t di d any

oth er w itn es s. Co unse l f

or both de fe ndants inf

orm ed the c ourt tha t the y

did not have a ny obj ec tio ns t o th is in st ru ct io n. Be ca use the pr ose cu tor ’ s c los ing a rg um en t di d no t di re ct ly or ind ir ec tly en co ur ag e the j ur

y to co nsi de r Ms . T hom

pson ’ s si le nc e as e vid en ce of he r gui lt, Ms . T hom

pson ’ s r igh t a ga ins t c om

pul sor y se lf -i nc ri m inatio n a s c onstru ed in G rif fin an d R obi nson w as not vio la te d. A cc or din gly , the D istri ct Co urt di d no t ab use it s di sc re tio n inde ny ing Ms . T hom pson ’ s m oti on f

or a m istri al or

ac ur at ive in st ru ct io n. VI Ms. T hom

pson and Mr. Stratton argued in their opening briefs to this Court that, in light of B lak

el y v. W ashi ngt on , 124 S. Ct. 2531 (2004), the D istrict Court33

com m itted reversible constitut ional error by im posin g sentences that had been en hanc ed on the ba sis of

f ac ts whic h th ey

did not a dm it an d w hic h w er e not re fl ec te d inthe j ur

y ’ s ve rd ic ts. A ft er

the appe llants sub m itt ed the ir br ie fs , the Su pr em e Co urt de ci de d United States v. B ooker , 125 S . Ct . 738 ( 2005 ). I n Booker , the Suprem e Court

he ld tha t Blakely ap pli es to the f ed er al S en te nc ing G uid el ine s and r ea ff

irm ed it s A ppre ndi hol din g th at , “ [ a ] ny fa ct ( oth er than a pr ior

c onvi ct ion ) w hic h is ne ce ssary to supp ort a se nte nc e ex ce ed ing the m ax im um auth or iz ed

by the facts established by a plea of guilt y or a j ury v erdi ct m ust be adm itted by

the defendant or proved to a j ury be y on d a reas on ab le do ub t.” U nit ed Sta tes v . G all egos-

A gue ro , 409 F . 3d 1 274, 127 6 ( 11th C ir . 200 5) (quot at ionm ar

ks o m itt ed ) (a lte ratio n inor igi na l) . T he S upr em e Co urt i n Booker re dr es se d th e Se nte nc ing G uid el ine s’ c onst itu tio na l i nf irm ity by e xc isi ng those po rti on s o f th e Sen te nc in g R efo rm Act m ak in g t he Gui de li ne s m an da to ry . Booker , 125 S. Ct . a t 76 4- 68. Bec au se ap pe ll an ts di d n ot rai se a Si xt h Am en dm en t o bjec ti on be lo w, we rev ie w forpl ai n e rro r. United States v. R odrig uez , 398 F. 3d 12 91, 1298 (11t h Cir. 2005 ); Booker , 125 S. Ct. at 125; Fed. R . C rim . P . 52(b). “ An appellate c ourt m ay not c or re ct an e rr or the de fe ndant f

ai le d to r ai se in the dis tr ic t c ourt un le ss the re is: (1) er ror, (2) that is plain, and (3) that affe cts subst antial rights.” Rodriguez , 39834

F. 3d at 129 8 (quotatio n m arks om itted). “ If a ll three condition s are m et, an ap pe llate c ourt m ay

the n e xe rc ise it s di sc re tio n to not ic e a fo rf ei te d e rr or , but

onl y if ( 4) the e rr or

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 j udicial proceedings.” Id. (quot at ionm ar ks o m itt ed ). T he G ove rn m en t c onc ed es , an d we a gr ee, t ha t b ot h Ap pe ll an ts can sh ow p la in erro r in th is cas e. T he j ur y c onvi ct ed

Ms . T hom

psonof c onsp ir ac y

to poss es s w ithint en t t o dis tr ibu te 500 gr am s or

m or e of c oc ai ne a nd 5 gr am s or

m or e of c oc ai ne ba se and tw o c ount s of

pos se ssi on w ithint en t t o di str ibu te ade te ct ab le a m ount of c oc ai ne ba se . O ve r Ms . T hom

pson ’ s ob j ec tio n, the D ist

ri ct Co urt f ound that M s. T hom psonw as r es pons ibl e fo r 500 gr am s of c ra ck c oc ai ne , w hic h gave he r a ba se offense level of 36. U. S. S. G. § 2D1.1(c )(2). The district court applied a two-level upward adj ustm ent after

finding –again, over Ms. T hom pson ’ s objection – that Ms . Tho m

ps on was a n o rg an iz er, l ead er, m an ag er, o r su pe rv is orun de r U.S.S.G. § 3B 1. 1( c) . W ithMs . T hom pson ’ s c ri m ina l hi sto ry

c at eg or y of V , thi s r es ult ed

in a guid eline range of 360 m onth s to life. Absent the District Court’ s extra-ver dict enhancem ents, the guideline range for Ms. Thom pson ’ s offenses w ouldhave been 11 0- 13 7 m on th s. Beca use the District Court enhanced Ms. Thom pson ’ s sentence under a m an da tor y gui de lin e sy ste m

on the ba sis of

f ac tua l f ind ing s no t m ad e by

aj ur y or35

adm itted by

Ms. T hom

pson , Ms. Thom

pson ’ s Sixth Am endm ent rights were vi ol at ed . Rodriguez , 398 F . 3d at 12 98. T he e rr or w as pla in b ec au se w e ap ply the law as it exists “ at the tim e of appellate c onsid eration.” Johnso n v. United States , 52 0 U.S. 4 61 , 46 8 (1 99 7) . Mr . S tr attonw as c onvi ct ed of c onsp ir ac y

to dis tr ibu te 500 gr am s or m or e of cocaine and five gram s or m ore of coca ine base. T he Pre sentence Report (“ PSR” ) ch ar ge d th at

Mr . S tr attonw as r es pons ibl e fo r at le as t 1. 5 ki log ram s of

c oc ai ne ba se , whi ch wou ldgi ve Mr. St rat to n a ba se off en se lev el of 3 8. U.S.S.G § 2 D1 .1 (c )( 1 ). Ov erMr . S t ra t t o n ’s o b je ct i o n , t h e D i s t ri ct Co u rt ac ce p t ed th e P SR ’s dr ug quanti ty

de te rm inatio n. A ft er

appl y ing atw o- le ve l up w ar d a dj ustm en t f or obstructio n of j ustice, the D istrict Court determ ined that Mr. S tratton’ s adjusted of fe nse le ve l w as 40. S inc e Mr . S tr attondid not have ac ri m ina l hi sto ry , his guid eline range w as 292-365 m onth s. I f the D istrict Court had not m ade extrave rd ic t e nhanc em en ts, Mr . S tr atton ’ s gu ide lin e range w oul d have be en63- 78 m o n t h s . F o r t h e s ame r ea s o n s we d i s cu s s ed wi t h re g ar dt o Ms . Th o m p s o n ’s se nte nc e, Mr . S tr atton ’ s se nte nc e vio la te d hi s S ixth A m en dm en t r igh ts, a nd the erro r was pl ai n. W e al so c onc lud e that bo th Appe llants have m et the ir he av y bur de n of de m onstratin g th at

the se se nte nc ing e rr or s a ff ec te d th ei r subs tanti al r igh ts i n th e36

se ns e th atth e err or s “ affe ct edth e o ut co m e o f th e d is tri ctco ur t p ro ceed in gs .” U nit ed Sta tes v . Co tto n , 53 5 U.S. 6 25 , 63 2 (2 00 2) (qu ot at io n m ark s o m it te d) . At se ve ra l po int s th e D istri ct Co urt e xpr es se d it s di ssatis fa ct ionw iththe se nte nc e it w as im posi ng o n M s. T hom

pson , not ing that the se nte nc e w as “ se ve re ” an d a ski ng

“ w he the r thi s is r ea lly

the kin d of

de fe ndant C ongr es s in te nde d to be loo k a t 36 0 m onths a s am ini m

um . ” A t the c onc lus ionof Ms . T hom

pson ’ s se nte nc ing he ar ing , the D istri ct

Co urt st at ed : T he se nte nc e I am

goi ng t o im

pose is not a fa ir se nte nc e in m y vie w . T he se nte nc e that I have im pose d alr ea dy

a nd w ill r ed uc e on g ove rn m en t’ s m oti on wi ll m ak e it ev enle ss fa i r. I t h i n kMs . Tho m

p s o n d es er v es t o b e in p ri s o n . I d o n ’t t h i n ks h e d es er v es t o b e i m p ri s o n ed fo r 3 6 0 m o n t h s . Th at ’s a choice Congress and the g o vernm ent has taken away fr om the Co ur t. Whe n se nte nc ing Mr . S tr atton , the D istri ct Co urt e xpr es se d si m ilar se nti m en ts, an noun ci ng tha t i t “ co nti nue [d ] to ha ve [ the ] sam e co nc er ns o r sim ilar co nc er

ns w ithr eg ar d to the le ngth of ase nte nc e fo r a fi rs t of

fe nde r. ” T he D istri ct

Co urt a lso stated that althou gh the sentence it would im pose would be sub stantial, it had

“ de ci de d lo ng a go n ot t o f udge w iththe gui de lin es j ust to fi nd a r es ult that I f ind m or e pa la ta

ble . ” Furthe r, the D istri ct Co urt se nte nc ed

both Appe llants to the low en d of the ir r es pe ct ive gui de lin e range s. W e ar e thu s satis fi ed that “ the re is a re as ona ble pr oba bil ity ” that bo th Appe llants w oul d have r ec ei ve d adif fe re nt37

se nte nc e “ if

the gui de lin es ha d be enappl ie d ina n a dvi sor y ins te ad of abin din g fashion bythe sentencing judge in this case. ” Rodriguez , 39 8 F .3dat 1 30 1. W e also conclude that the sentencing err ors in this case “ seriouslyaff ected the fairness, integrity

or public reputation of j udicial proceedings.” United States v. She lto n , 40 0 F .3d13 25 , 13 33 (11 th Cir . 20 05 ) (q uo ta ti on m ark s o m it te d) . As the e xc er pts quo te d a

bove m ak e cl ear, the D istri ct Co urt e xpr es se d it s de sir e to im pose a m ore lenient sentence on both Appellants than it was perm itted und er a m an da tor y gui de lin e re gim e. A cc or din gly , the f ourth p ro ng o f the pla in e rr or st an da rdis sat is fie d i n t hi s ca se . Id. at13 34 . CON CLU SION W e AF FIRM each j udgm ent of conviction . W e VA CA TE an d REMAND both Appe llants ’ se nte nc es and r em an d to the D istri ct Co urt f or r es en te nc ing .38

T JO FL A T , spe ci al ly

c onc ur ri ng: I. I co nc ur in the c ourt’ s j udgm en t. I w ri te se parate ly be ca use I dis ag re e w ith the c ourt’ s r at ion al e fo r va catin g a ppe llants ’ se nte nc es . T he c ourt va cate s th e se nte nc es be ca

use , in the langua ge of

Ro dr igu ez , “ ‘ the re is a re as ona ble pr oba bil ity ’ that bo th Appe llants w oul d have r ec ei ve d a dif fe re nt s en te nc e ‘ if

the gui de lin es ha d be enappl ie d inan a dvi sor y ins te ad of bin din g f as hio n by the sentencing judge in this case. ’ ” A nte at ____ (qu oting Rodriguez, 395 F. 3d at 1301 ). In other w ords, the court is satisfied that appellants have satisfied the thi rd el em en t of

the pla in- er

ro r te st; the y

have e sta bli she d pr ej udi ce —tha t the e rr or

“ af fe ct s th ei r subs tanti al r igh ts. ’ ” A nte a t __ __ ( quot ing Rodrig uez, 398 F.3d at 12 98 ) (i nt ern al qu ot at io n m ark s o m it te d) . I do not fault the court for having required appellants to show such prej udice because Rodriguez is the law of this circuit. I subm it that Rodrigu ez w as w ro ng whe n de ci de d and c ont inu es to be ba d law . S ee U nit ed S ta te s v. Ro dr igu ez , 406 F . 3d 1 261, 128 1 ( 11th C ir . 200 5) ( T j of la t, J. dis se nti ng f

ro m the de nia l of r eh eari ng e n banc ). A s I have e xpl ai ne d, “ Bo oke r co nst itu tio na l e rr or isBooke r established a new se ntencingmodel, marke dly and structur ally

differ ent from 1 the pre -B ooker mode l under whic h appellants we re se ntence d. Iexplained the differ ence betwee n the two models in considera ble detail in dissenting f

rom the cour

t’s ref usal to rehe ar Rodrigue z en banc. Rodriguez, 406 F.3d at 1286- 91 (Tjoflat, J., dis sentingfrom the de nial of re he ari nge n b anc ). B e c a us e the B oo ke r m od e l is mate ri a lly dif fe re nt f ro m th e pr e vio us mod e l, the ef fec ts of Booke r er

ror “ are nece ssarily

unquantifiable a

nd indeterminate .” I d. at 1298 (quotingSulli van v. L ouisiana, 508 U.S. 275, 281-82, 113 S. Ct. 2078, 2083, 124 L . Ed. 2d 182 (1993)) (interna l quotation marks omitted). 39 str uc tur al e rr or . ” Id . a t 12 91. A s su ch , it is “ not sub j ec t t o su bst an tia l- ri ght s 1 an al y sis . . . . ” I d. a t 12 92. Inde ci din g w he the r to v ac at e a de fe ndant’ s se nte nc e in a c as e of co nst itu tio na l e rr or , a s w e ha ve he re , Ro dr igu ez a nd i ts p ro ge ny r equir e us t o ex am ine the r ec or d ( cr eate d, of c our se , und er

the pr e- Bo oke r se nte nc ing m ode l) for som e indication th at the district court would have im posed a lesser sentence ha d t he law p erm it te d i t t o t reat th e g ui de li ne s as ad vi so ry rat he r th an m an da to ry . We l o o kt o wh at th e c o u rt s ai dp ri o r t o o r i n th e c o u rs e o f i m p o s i n g s en t en ce . We lookfor what I ca ll “ m agic wor ds.” I n this case, the court f inds th em . It discovered that “ [a] t several points [during the sentencing hearing] the D istrict Co urt e xpr es se d it s di ssatis fa ct ionw iththe se nte nc e it w as im posi ng o n M s. T hom pson , not ing that the se nte nc e w as ‘ se ve re ’ a nd a ski ng ‘ w he the r thi s is r ea lly the kin d of

de fe ndant C ongr es s in te nde d to be loo k[ ing ] a t 36 0 m onths a s a m inim um .” A nte at ___. T he District C ourt contin ued, “ I don’ t thinkshe deserves to be im pr is on edfor36 0 m on th s.” An te at _

__(in te rn al qu ot at io n m ark s o m it te d) .40

Subsequentl y , “ [w ] hen sentencing Mr. Stratton, the D istrict Court expressed sim ilar se nti m en ts, announc ing that i t ‘ co nti nue [d ] to ha ve [ the ] sam e co nc er ns o r sim ilar co nc er

ns w ithr eg ar d to the le ngth of ase nte nc e of

af ir st o ff en de r. ’ T he D istri ct Co urt a lso state d th at , a lth oughthe se nte nc e it w oul d im pose w oul d be subs tanti al , it

ha d ‘ de ci de d lo ng a go n ot t o f udge w iththe gui de lin es j ust to fi nd a re sul t tha t I f

ind m or e pa la ta

ble . ’ ” A nte a t __

_. A nd s o, f

ind ing the se m ag ic w or ds, the c ourt va cate s a ppe llants ’ se nte nc es a nd r em an ds the c as e fo r re se nte nc ing und er

the ne wBo oke r m ode l.

II. The c ourt’ s opin ion illu strates one of m any problem s with the Rodriguez standard or, a s I coin it, the “ m agic wor ds” approach to plain-error r eview. U nder Rodriguez, w e do not generally rever se a sentence unless the district court has state d onthe r ec or d th at

the gui de lin e se nte nc e is t oo h igh —and, by im pli catio n, unf ai r an d un j ust —tha t i t w oul d se le ct

alow er se nte nc e if

the lawa llo w ed

it to do so, and tha t i t i s inge ne ra l di ssatis fi ed w iththe pun ish m en t pr ovi de d f or by dem ocratically

em powere d lawm akers. T hat is, w e vacate a sentence only wher e the j udge has sp oken som e com binatio n of these “ m agic wor ds.” T hus, at oral ar gum en t, if

de fe nse c ouns el be gin s apla in- er ro r Bo oke r ar gum en t, I im m ed ia te ly as k wh et he r we wil l fi nd an y “ m ag ic word s” in th e rec or d; if t he an swe r is “ no ,”41

th en th ere i s n o re as on forco un se l t o p ur su e th e is su e fu rth er. A district j udge who m akes such com m ents m ay

do so in the sincere belief that ov er ti m e he or

she , a lon g w ithoth er

li ke -m ind ed

j udge s, w ill pe rs ua de the Se nte nc ing Co m

m iss ionor

Co ngr es s to r ev ise se ve re m an da tor y se nte nc es . T he j udge m ay

a lso thi nk h e or

she is sim

ply giv ing the de fe ndant o r his f am ily abit of encouragem ent. S ee, e. g., United State s v. A m eline, 409 F. 3d 10 73, 1082 (9th Cir. 2005 ) (e n banc ) (“ D istri ct c ourt j udge s of

te n m ak e re m ar

ks at se nte nc ing f

or p u r p o s e s o t h e r

th a n f a c t - f i n d i n g . Ad i s t r i c tc o u rtj u d g e may c h o o s e t o s a y s o me en co ur ag ing w or ds f

or the be ne fi t of

the de fe ndant’ s f

am ily . . . . ”) . O r the j udge m ay sim ply hop e that the de fe ndant w ill not hol d ale ngthy

se nte nc e ag ai nst

the j udge pe rs ona lly . T he le as t c hari ta ble vie w , how ev er , is that the j udge is j ust shoo ting th e bree ze and, in the process, doing th e defe ndant and s ociety a great di ss erv ic e. Whe n aj udge te lls ade fe ndant tha t hi s se nte nc e is unj ust a nd unf ai r, the de fe ndant i s in cl ine d to be lie ve him . T he de fe ndant i s, the re fo re , unl ike ly to a c c e p tth e j u s t i c e o f

h i s p u n i s h me n ta n d“‘e n t e r th e c o rr e c t i o n a l s ys t e m i n af r a me o f mi n dth a ta f

f o r d s h o p e f

o r s u c c e s s i n r e h ab i l i t a t i o n o v e r as h o rt e r p e r i o do f t i me than m ight o therwise be necessary .’ ” McK une v. L ile, 536 U. S. 24, 36-37, 122 S. Ct. 2017 , 2026, 153 L. Ed. 2d 47 (200 2) (quoting Bra dy v. U nited States, 397 U. S.Suc h c omm e nts are qu int e sse nti a lly po lit ic a l st ate me nts . I

do no t su g g e st that th e re is 2 never a time or plac e for

them. The time and pla ce f or them, howe ver, is outside the judicial role, in letters or

testimony

to the SentencingCommi ssion or Congr ess. When a judg e make s such statements in spec ific ca ses and to spec ific def endants, the judg e’s potential f or positive inf lue nc e is n ot o nly

g re atly dim ini sh e d, but is in f

a c t f ar o utw e ig he d b y

the dis se rv ic e do ne to

(continued...) 42 74 2, 7 53 , 90 S. Ct. 1 46 3, 1 47 1, 2 5 L. Ed. 2 d 7 47 (19 70 )); see als o 1 8 U.S.C. § 3553 (a )( 2) (D ) (“ T he c ourt, in de te rm ini ng the part ic ular se nte nc e to b e im pose d, sha ll co nsi de r the ne ed

f or the se nte nc e im

pose d to pr ovi de the de fe ndant w ith ne ed ed [ re habil itatio n] in the m ost e ff ec tiv e m an ne r . . . . ”) . T he j udge m ay a lso unwitting ly

encourage the defe ndant to persist in attacking h is sentence on direct ap pe al and c oll at er al r ev ie w , notw ith standi ng tha t i ts s ubst an ce a nd the m an ne r of its im posi tio n are le ga lly

c or re ct . A ft er

a ll, w hy sho uldn’ t the de fe ndant a ppe al a se nte nc e that e ve n th e j udge c ri tic iz ed a s to o se ve re ? Fi na lly , by ope nly dis para gin g th e de fe ndant’ s se nte nc e, the j udge f ost er s di sr es pe ct

f or the r ule of law. See 18 U. S. C. § 355 3(a)( 2)(A ) (“ The c ourt, in determ ining the particular se nt en ce t o b e im

po se d, s ha ll co ns id er t he ne edforth e se nt en ce i m po se d t o... pr om ote r es pe ct

f or the law. . . . ”) . I f the j udge doe s no t r es pe ct the lawthat he ap pli es , the n w hy

sho uld soc ie ty a t l ar ge ? A j udge ’ s r ole is to a ppl y the lawa s it is wri tte n, not

to of fe r his or he r ow n op ini ons of

it s w isd om

or f ai rn es s. B y

his oa th o f of fi ce , the j udge ha s sw or

n to uph old

the law , inc lud ing law s im posi ng m an da tor y se nte nc es . 2(...continued) 2 rule-of -law va lues, to the criminal justice sy stem in ge nera l, and to the def endant in par

ticular. In Shepard v. United States, U.S. , 125 S. C t. 1254, 161 L . Ed. 2d 205 (2005), 3 J ustice Thomas, a

member of

the majority

in the 5-4 Almenda

rez-Torr es dec ision, wrote that “Almenda

rez-Torr es . . . has be en er oded by [t he] Court’s subsequent Six th Amendment jur isp ru de nc e , a

nd a ma jor ity of the Cou rt no w r e c ognize s th at A lme nd are z-T or re s w a s wro ng ly decide d.” Shepar d, U.S. , 125 S. C t. at 1264 (Thomas, J., concurring ) (c iting, inter a lia, Appre ndi v. New Jersey , 530 U.S. 466, 520-21, 120 S. Ct. 2348, 2379, 147 L . Ed. 2d 435 (2000) (T ho ma s, J., c on c ur

ri ng )) . H e fu

rt he r s ug g e ste d th at, “ in a

n a pp ro pr iate c a se , [th e ] Court sh ou ld c on sid e r A lme nd are z-T or re s’ c ontin

uin gvia bil ity” be c a

us e “ [i]nnume ra

ble c ri min a l de fe nd ants have be e n unc on sti tut ion a lly se nte nc e d und e r [i ts] f

lawe d r ule .. .. ” She pa

rd , U .S. ,1 25 S. Ct . at 1264 (Thomas, J., concurr ing) . 43 The R odriguez rule encourages j udges to continu e opinin g on th e re cord as to the f ai rn es s of se nte nc es the y

im pose in ind ivi dua l c as es . P ost -B ooke r, of co ur se , the re is no r ea son fo r j udge s to c ont inu e doi ng s o inthi s pr ec ise c ont ex t because the G uidelin es are now advisory —if the j udge thi nks a guid eline sentence is un fai r, th en he or s he pre su m ab ly w il l ex erci se th e p rero ga ti ve to no t i m po se it . But Suprem e Court prec edents uph oldin g m andatory m inim um s based on extrave rd ic t j udi ci al f

ind ing s and e xtr a- ve rd ic t e nhanc em en ts b as ed on p ri or co nvi ct ion s are nowtho ught by som e to b e in d oubt . S ee H ar ri s v. U nit ed

S ta te s, 536 U . S. 545 , 567 -6 8, 122 S . Ct . 240 6, 241 9- 20, 153 L . E d. 2d 5 24 ( 2002 ) (m an da tor

y m ini m um s) ( 5- 4 de ci sio n) ; A lm en dare z- T or re s v. U nit ed

S ta te s, 523 U. S. 224, 226-27, 118 S. Ct. 1219 , 1222, 140 L. Ed. 2d 350 (1998) (5-4 decision). 3 Judg es who ar e re quired to im pose what they

deem to be unfair or unj ust sentences as the r es ult

of suc h law s are e nc our ag ed by Ro dr igu ez to state the ir

c ri tic ism s on44

the record. Moreover, bey ond th ese im m ediate issues, there will alw ay s be a poss ibi lity

that so m e unanti ci pa te d r uli ng w ill , pos t- se nte nc ing , c al l i nto que sti on a se nte nc e on a

gr ound not a dvanc ed

in the dis tr ic t c ourt, the re by tr igg er ing Ro dr igu ez ’ s “ m ag ic w or ds” r equir em en t. T hus, a ny ti m e a j udge is re qui re d to im pose an “ unj ust ” se nte nc e, he sho uld , a cc or din g to Ro dr igu ez , te ll the de fe ndant al l a bout the inj ust ic e be ing don e to h im so tha t the de fe ndant c anr ec ei ve the benefit of any

subsequ ent appellate decisions. Finally , e ven putt ing aside Ro dr igu ez ’ s im

pa ct on f uture se nte nc ing he ar ing s, I f ind it tr oubl ing that our de ci sio ns a

ppl y ing it s st an dard

appe ar to giv e pa st c om

m en ts o f thi s so rt

the im prim atur of this court. T he logical im plication o f our case s is that such state m en ts are a t l ea st h ar m le ss— if not de sir ab le —be ca

use w e re w ar d th e de fe ndant b as ed

on the ir pr es en ce in the r ec or d. I ad d th es e ad dit ion al tho ught s onthe Ro dr igu ez standard a ft er li ste nin g to a series of ora l argum ents in which the Booker/Rodrigu ez debate has c onsis ted e n t i r e l y o f

d e f e n s e c o u n s e l ar g u i n g th a tth e r e c o r dd o e s i n d e e dc o n t a i n s o me

“ m ag ic w or ds” and the A ssi stant U . S. A tto rn ey r es pond ing that the w or ds j ust ar en ’ t m ag ic al e noug h. T his pr oc es s is a s arb itr ar y a s it is ab sur d. Ade fe ndant i s re w ar de d w ithane wse nte nc ing he ar ing onl y if the se nte nc ing j udge too k th e en tir el y ina ppr opr ia te ste p of

pub lic ly c ri tic iz ing the lawthat r equir ed him toAs the Ninth Circuit observe d, 4 District court judg es often ma ke re marks at se ntencingfor pur poses other tha

n fac t-finding . A district court judg e may choose to say

some enc ourag ing w ords fo r t he be ne fi t of

the de fe nd ant’ s f

amil y ; a dis tr ic t c ourt

jud g e may

de c ide to lecture the def

endant with a w arning . District court judg es have also bee n known to make stray

comments about the Guide lines duringsentenc ing, w ithout nece ssarily

intending f

or them to be interpr eted a s meaningthat a diffe rent s e n t e n c e w o u l d

h av e b e e ni mp o s e d

un d e r a d i s c r e t i o n ar

y s e n t e n c i n gs c h e m e . It would be a mistake for us to attribute f resh mea ning to c omments made in an entirely differ ent context. I t would also be a mistake to infe r fr om a district court’s silenc e that the district cour t would not have made a diffe rent de cision un de r a dif fe re nt s e nte nc ingsc he me . In s um, in t his unus ua l c onte xt, ou

r a bil ity to assess plain er

ror ba sed on the c old rec ord is signific antly impaired. Ameline, 409 F .3d at 1082. 45 im pose the sentence. I n contrast, a def endant whose sentence w as im posed without gratuito us comm ent by the sentencing judge is denied a new hear ing. “ It [i s] am ist ak e to i nf

er f ro m adis tr ic t c ourt’ s si le nc e that the dis tr ic t c ourt w oul d not have m ade a diff

erent decision under a differ ent sentencing schem e. ” Am eline, 409 F. 3d at 108 2. S ilence often m eans nothin g m ore than that an experienced j udge un derstands his or her proper role in the crim inal justice sy ste m . T hus, the j udge ’ s c om m en ts o r sil en ce ine vit ab ly tur ns o ut t o be poo r ci rc um stanti al e vid en ce of w ha t the j udge w oul d do if f re ed f ro m the c onstra int s im pose d by the Guid el ine s. 4