FI L ED U.S. COURT OF A P P E A LS E LE V E N T H C IR C U IT DE CEM B ER 13, 2005 THOMAS K. KAH

N CL ERK [ DO NOT PU BLISH] IN TH E U NITE D S TAT ES C OUR T OF AP PE ALS F OR TH E E LE V EN TH C IR C U IT

N o. 04- 1238 4
D. C. Dock etNo. 0 3- 60 03 0- CR-KAM UNITED STAT ES OF AMERIC A, Plaintiff-Appellee,
ve rs us WANDERSON DA SILVA, FIRAS HLEIHIL, a.k .a. Ph il Co op er, et c., et . al., D ef en dants -Appe llants . Ap peals from the Un ited S tates D istrict C ourt for th e Sout hern Distr ict of F lorida (D ec em be r 13, 200 5) Before DU BINAand KR AV ITCH, Cir cuit Jud ges, and STR OM*, Distr ict Judge.

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ *Honora ble Lyle E. Strom, United States District J udg e for the District of Ne braska , sitti ngby desig nation.2

PE R CU RIA M: A f ed er al gr an d j ur

y r et ur ne d ase co nd s upe rs ed ing ind ic tm en t c harg ing A ll Po int s R el oc at ionS y ste m , I nc . ( “ A ll Po int s” ) an d se ve ra l of it s of fi ce rs and
em ploy ees, includin g appellants Firas Hleihil (“ Hleihil”), Bar uch Shalit (“ Shalit”)
an d W an de rs on D a Si lva

( “ D a Si lva ”) , a lon g w ithMo she Ba ch ar ( “ Ba ch ar ”) and E dm ond Be n- A m i ( “ Be n- A m i” ), w ithf ra ud c harg es r el at ed

to A ll Po int s’
o p e r a t i o n s a s amo v i n g c o mp a n y. T he he ar t of the c as e is tha t a ll ap pe llants w er e ac cu se d of giv ing de ce pti ve ly

lowe sti m at es to cu sto m er s and the n si gni fi cantl y r ai sin g th e pr ic e of the m ove s a ft er

A ll Po int s ha d th e cu sto m er s’ goo ds i n it s po sse ssi on. A ll Po int s
w oul d th enr ef

use to co m

ple te de liv er

y of the goo ds unti l su chti m e as the
cu sto m er s pa id the inf

la te d m ovi ng p ri ce s. A ft er atr ia l by j ur y the de fe ndants w er e fo und gui lty a s c harg ed
. H le ihi l
re ce ive d ase nte nc e of

63 m onths i m

pr iso nm en t, D aS ilv a re ce ive d ase nte nc e of 60
m on th s i m

pr is on m en t, an d S ha li t re cei ve d a sen te nc e o f 84 m on th s i m pr is on m en t. T he de fe ndants the n pe rf ec te d th is a

ppe al
. T he iss ue s pr es en te d onappe al are ( 1) w he the r ev ide nc e w as suf fi ci en t t o supp ort the de fe ndants ’ c onvi ct ion s; ( 2) w he the r the gov er nm en t’ s us e, dur ing
cr oss -e xa m inatio n of

S ha lit and D aS ilv a, of

c ust om er c om pla int s th at

w er e al re ady3

in e vid en ce w as pla in e rr or ; ( 3) w he the r the dis tr ic t c ourt a buse d it s di sc re tio n regarding Hleihil’ s post -arr est statem ent; and (4) whether the district court
co m m itt ed pla in e rr or

a t se nte nc ing by

usi ng the se nte nc ing gui de lin es , or e rr ed in its appl ic at ionof

the gui de lin es . T he suf fi ci en cy of the e vid en ce is re vie w ed de novo
. United States v. H ass on , 333 F. 3d 12 64, 1270 (11t h Cir. 2003 ). Both the argum ents und er Craw ford v

. W ashi ngt on , 124 S. Ct. 1354 (2004), and und er United States v. B ooker , 125 S
. Ct
. 738 ( 2005 ), are r ev ie w ed f or pla in
erro r. United States v. F

oree , 43 F. 3d 15 72, 1577-78 (11th Cir. 1995). This court has the discretion to corre ct an er ror under the plain error

standard wher e (1) an
er ro r oc curr ed , ( 2) the e rr or w as pla in, ( 3) the e rr or

a ff ec te d su bst an tia l r igh ts, and (4) the er ror seriously

aff ects the fair

ness, integrity

or public reputation of j udicial pr oc eed in gs . United States v. R odrig uez , 398 F. 3d 12 91 (11th Cir. 2005 ). Thi s co ur t re vi ews ev id en ti ary ru li ng s fo r ab us e o f di sc ret io n. United States
v. A rgue das , 86 F. 3d 10 54, 1059 (11t h Cir. 1996 ). A ft er r ev ie w ing the r ec or d, r ea din g th e part ie s’ br ie fs and h av ing the be ne fi t of or al arg um en t, w e co nc lud e that the re is no m er it to any of the arg um en ts m ad e by the appe llants . A cc or din gly , w e af fi rm the ir c onvi ct ion s and s en te nc es . AFFIRMED.