FI L ED U.S. COURT OF A P P E A LS E LE V EN T H C IR C U IT FEB 22, 2007 THOMAS K. KAH

N CL ERK

Honora ble J erome Fa

rris, United States Circuit J udg e for the Ninth Circuit, sitt ing by * desig nation. [ P U B L I S H ]

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

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ N o. 06- 1275 7

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ D . C. D oc ke t N o. 05- 0001 7- CR -0 02 UNITED STAT ES OF AMERIC A, Pl ai nt iff -Ap pe ll ee, ve rs us JUAN PEREZ-OLIVEROS, Defen da nt -Ap pe ll an t.

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ Appeal f rom the United State s District Court f o r th e S o u t h e rn D i s t r i c to f

A l ab a ma

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ _ (F eb ru ar y 22 , 200 7) Be fo re CA RN E S, P RY O R and F A RR IS , Ci rc uit Jud ge s. * FA RRIS , C ircuit Judg e:2

Fo llo w ing aj ur

y tr ia l, Juan P er ez -O liv er os w as c onvi ct ed of c onsp ir ac y

to po ss es s wi th in te nt to di st rib ut e m et ha m ph et am in e, in vi ol at io n o f 21 U.S.C. § 846, and p oss es sio n w ithint en t t o di str ibu te m etham phe tam ine , in vio la tio n of 21 U. S. C. § 841 (a)( 1). Pere z appeals his convictio n and 360 -m onth prison senten ce on th e b as is of a ll eg ederro rs by the di st ric t co ur t. We affirm . BACKGRO UND Shortly after m idnig ht on Janu ary

10, 2005, Ala

bam a State Tr ooper Charles Anderson pulled ov er a

Chevrolet A valanche for e rratic driving . Pere z, the driver, tol d A nde rs on tha t he and h is p as se nge r, Juv en al E spi noz a, ha d be endr ivi ng f or tw el ve hours and that P er ez w as ti re d. A nde rs on q ue sti one d P er ez and e ve ntu al ly is su edhi m

a warn in g t ic ke t. A nde rs on d et ec te d so m e inc onsi ste nc ie s inP er ez ’ s st or y , and h is s uspi ci ons w er e ra ise d f

urthe r w he n P er ez ’ s anxi ety did not sub sid e ev ena ft er

A nde rs on issued th e w arning. A nderson asked p erm issio n to search the vehicle, and Pere z co nse nte d. Upon not ic ing that the anc hor bol ts i n th e be d of

the tr uc k ha d r ec en tly b ee n t o o l ed , An d er s o n an dan o t h ertro o p erre m o v edth e b edl i n er , t h e t ru ck ’s bui lt- in t ool box, and r ec tangul ar pane ls tha t the y

dis co ve re d un de r adhe siv e m at s af fi xe d to the sid es of

the tr uc k be d. H idd enin co m

partm en ts b en eath the se pane ls w er e se ve ra l pa ck ag es late r de te rm ine d to hol d 30 . 22 k ilo gr am s, or 66. 483

po un ds , of 9 1% p ur e “ ic e” m et ha m ph et am in e. Pe re z w as ind ic te d ondr

ug- tr af fi ck ing c harg es on J anuary 27, 200 5 and pr oc ee de d to tr ia l on

January 23, 200 6. G ove rn m en t t es tim ony r ec ount ed

the tr af fi c sto p, the dis co ve ry

of the dr ugs, and P er ez ’ s arr es t. A n a ge nt o f Im m igr at ionand C ust om s E nf or ce m en t t es tif

ie d th at the tr uc k P er ez w as dr ivi ng had crossed the border from Mexico into the United States at L aredo, Te xas ap pr oxi m at el y

f ourte enhours be fo re P er ez w as pul le d ov er . T he a ge nt a lso te sti fi ed that dr ivi ng f

ro m L ar ed o to Mo bil e, w he re P er ez w as pul le d ov er , w oul d take about

tw el ve and a

ha lf hours . A s he ha d e xpl ai ne d to the arr es tin g of fi ce rs , P er ez c la im ed

a t tri al that a m an nam ed Jose Gar cia had approached him in a pool hall in Atlanta and offered to p ay him to dr ive G ar ci a’ s si ck

unc le , E spi noz a, and h is tru ck f ro m S anA nto nio to A tlanta . P er ez de nie d kn ow ing that dr ugs w er e co nc ea le d inthe ve hic le and te sti fi ed that he w oul d no t have dr ive n th e tr uc k ha d he kno w n. H e state d th at he w oul d have be enw ill ing to co nti nue the de liv er y to as sis t i n a

ppr eh en din g th e tr

ue cu lpr its but

that the arr es tin g of

fi ce rs ne ve r as ke d. Th e g o v e rn men ti n t r o du c e de v i d e n c e t e n d i n g t o c o n t r a d i c tP e r e z ’s s t o ry, inc lud ing tr av el doc um ents whose da te s di d no t r ec onc ile w ithP er ez ’ s ve rs ionof ev en ts and a

bus ine ss c ar d P er ez ha d pr ovi de d w ithw ha t w as pur porte d to be , but4

was no t, Garc ia ’s ph on e n um be r. Als o c on tra ry

to Pere z’s te st im on y , two governm ent agents testified in respon se to cross-exam ination by Per ez’ s counsel that they had given Perez an oppo rtunity to com plete the delivery , but Per ez refu se d. Pe re z atte m

pte d se ve ra l t im es to intro duc e his w al le t and i ts m any c ont en ts as ev id en ce t o e xp la in why he ga ve off ic ers th e wro ng bu si ne ss cardforGarci a. The district court sustained objections to the wallet’ s adm issio n each tim e under Fe d. R. E vid . 403 , ba se d onthe ir re le vanc e an d pr ej udi ci al e ff ec t of f am ily pictures and religious item s included in the wa llet’ s contents. The wa llet wa s ev en tu al ly adm it te d wi th ou t t he off en di ng co nt en ts . Th e ju ry co n v i ct edPe re z o f b o t h ch ar g es . Th e c o u rt d en i edPe re z’s subs eque nt m oti on f

or ane wtr ia l ba se d ona lle ge d di sc ove ry vio la tio ns b y

the pr os ecu ti on . Pe re z’ s pr es en te nc e inv es tig at ionr ep ort se t hi s ba se of fe nse le ve l at 38 pursuant to U. S. S. G. § 2D1.1(c )(1). T wo-level e nhancem ents wer e applied under § 3C 1. 1 f or obs tr uc tio n of j ust ic e an d un de r § 2D 1. 1( b) (4 ) be ca use the of fe nse inv olv ed the im porta tio n of

m etham phe tam ine . T he r es ult ing a dvi sor y gui de lin e ran ge forhi s o ffen se was 3 60 m on th s t o l ife im pr is on m en t. A t se nte nc ing , P er ez obj ec te d to the § 2D 1. 1( b) (4 ) enhanc em en t onthe5

gr ound s th at

the e vid en ce sho w ed

onl y that he pic ke d up the tr

uc k inS anA nto nio , and not th at he drove the drugs across the border. He also requested a downward ad jus tm en t fo r wha t h e arg ue d was hi s m in im al rol e in th e o ffen se . Th e c o u rt re

je ct edb o t h ar g u m en t s . It fo u n dth e p ro x i m i t y o f t h e t ru ck ’s bo rd er cr os si ng an d P erez ’s arres t s uf fic ie nt to in di cat e im

po rta ti on of t he dru gs . Th e c o u rt , f

i n d i n g n o c o mp a r a t o r s f

o r P e r e z ’s o f

f e n s e , d e c l i n e dt o ap p l y a downw ar d a dj ustm en t and s en te nc ed P er ez to tw o c onc ur

re nt 3 60 m onth te rm s of im pr iso nm en t. P er ez ti m el y appe al ed . DISC US SION I. Trial Issues A. Ru le16 a nd

P erez ’s Mo tio n fo r a N

ewT ria l Pere z appeals the district court’ s denial of his m otion for a new tr ial based on a lle ge d di sc ove ry

vio la tio ns b y

the gov er

nm en t. P er ez c ont en ds tha t the gove rn m en t w as obl igate d to dis cl ose to Pe re z his state m en ts r ef usi ng t o c ont inu e the dr ug d el ive ry

and tha t the f

ai lur e to d o so c onst itu te d avio la tio n of Ru le 16 o f the F ed er al Ru le s of

Cr im ina l P ro ce dur e. B ec au se the state m en ts t en de d to r ef ute Pere z’ s trial defense that he w as an unwitting participant in the drug-transport sc he m e, P er ez arg ue s th at the ir non dis cl osur e an d us e at tr ia l pr ej udi ce d hi s subs tantial rights, warranting a newtrial under U nit ed Sta tes v . No e , 821 F . 2d 6 046

(11th Cir. 1987). W e rev ie w th e d en ia l o f a m ot io n fo r a n ew tr ia l fo r ab us e o f di sc ret io n. See U nit ed Sta tes v . Ca m

pa , 45 9 F .3d11 21 , 11 51 (11 th Cir . 20 06 ). Th e r e c o r ds up p o rt s th e d i s t r i c tc o u rt ’s h o l d i n g th a tR u l e 1 6 d i dn o tap p l y. The district court did not abus e its discretion in den y ing Perez’ s m otion for a new tr ia l. R ule 16 r equir es the gov er nm en t t o di sc los e, upo n ade fe ndant’ s r eque st,

“ the sub stanc e of

any r el ev an t or al state m en t m ad e by the de fe ndant, be fo re or af te r ar re st, in re spon se to int er

ro ga tio n by

ape rs on the de fe ndant k ne ww as a governm ent agent if the governm ent intends to use the statem ent at trial. ” F ED . R. C R I M P. 16(a)(1)( A) . The district court deter m ined that Rule 16 was never tr igg er ed a s to the state m en ts i n qu es tio n be ca use the gov er

nm en t di d no t i nte nd t o use the m a t tri al . T he tr ia l pr oc ee din gs une qui voc al ly sup port this f

ind ing : the gove rn m en t ne ith er

ide nti fi ed

nor a llu de d to the e vid en ce in its ope nin g state m en ts, nor

did it a sk the a ge nts on d ir ec t whe the r the y ha d a ske d P er ez to co nti nue w iththe de liv er y . T he state m en ts w er e intro duc ed onl y a s ar es ult

of cr oss -e xam inatio n of

the gov er

nm en t a ge nts by

P er ez ’ s c ouns el . R

ule 16 w as not vio la te d, and No e do es no t ap pl y . B. Exclusion of P

erez’s Wallet Pe re z al so c ha lle nge s th e dis tr ic t c ourt’ s r ef usa l t o a dm it his w al le t i n it s7

en tir ety , arg uin g th at

thi s a lle ge d e rr or

pr ec lud ed

him f ro m de m onstratin g th at

his pr ovi din g aw ro ng p hone num be r fo r G ar ci a to p oli ce of fi ce rs m ay

have be ena re sul t of his w al le t havin g be entatte re d and o ve rf low ing w ithdoc um en ts and ot he r it em s. W e re vie wadis tr ic t c ourt’ s e vid en tiary r uli ngs fo r cl ear ab use of

dis cr et ion , U nit ed Sta tes v . Sm ith , 45 9 F .3d12 76 , 12 95 (11 th Cir . 20 06 ), an d fi ndno ne he re. Pere z’s wall etis ou ts id e th e p urvi ew of th e Ru le 10 6 d oc tri ne of c om pl et en es s. F ED . R. E V ID . 106. Further, Per ez w as perm itted to m ake his poin t: the court se le ct ive ly

e xc lud ed onl y the w al le t’ s r el igi ous ite m s and f am ily pic tur es w hil e al low ing P er ez to adm it the w al le t and i ts o the r co nte nts and t o purs ue ar el ev an t li ne of q ue st io ni ng . C. Im prop er V ou ch in g by th e P ros ec ut ion Pe re z fa ils to de m onstrate im pr ope r vouc hin g. I n no ne of the ins tanc es he ide nti fi es did

the gov er

nm en t pl ac e its pr es tig e be hin d aw itn es s by m ak ing expli ci t a ssuranc es of

the w itn es s’ s ve ra ci ty

or by im ply ing that e vid en ce not pr es en te d t o t he jury su pp or ts th e wit ne ss ’s tes ti m on y . See U nited Sta tes v. Ca str o , 89 F.3d14 43 , 14 57 (11 th Cir . 19 96 ). II. Sent encin g Issues A. Minor Role Adjustm ent8

W e re vie wadis tr ic t c ourt’ s de te rm inatio n w he the r a de fe ndant qua lif ie s f or ad jus tm en ts un de r th e se nt en ci ng gu id el in es forcle ar erro r. See U nited Sta tes v. Boyd , 291 F . 3d 1 274, 127 7 ( 11th C ir . 200 2) . I t i s P er ez ’ s burd ena s de fe ndant t o pr ov e h is m in orrol e in th e o ffen se by a prep on de ran ce o f th e ev id en ce. United Sta tes v . R odri

gue z D e V aron , 17 5 F .3d93 0, 9 39 (11 th Cir . 19 99 ). T he dis tr ic t c ourt’ s r ej ec tio n of am ino r ro le a dj ustm en t w as sup porte d by the r ec or d. P er ez ha s no t sh ow n th at he play ed

ar el at ive ly

m ino r ro le in the co nd uc t fo r whi ch he ha s b een he ldacco un tabl e. Se e id. a t 94 0- 45. H e ha s a lso fa ile d to ide nti fy

dis ce rn ab le a ddi tio na l part ic ipants in the r el ev an t c ondu ct a ga ins t who m th e d is tri ctco ur t m ig ht ha ve m eas ur edhi s re la ti ve rol e. Se e id. at 9 44 -4 5. B. Im porta tion Enhanc em ent Pere z al so ap pe al s h is sen te nc in g e nh an cem en t u nd er U.S.S.G. § 2D 1. 1( b) (4 ). W e re vie wde nov o th e dis tr ic t c ourt’ s in te rp re ta tio n and ap pl ic at io n o f th e Sen te nc in g Gu id el in es . Se e U nit ed Sta tes v . O we ns , 447 F . 3d 1345 , 1346 (11th Cir. 2006). Underly ing factual findings are review ed for cle ar erro r. Id . T he bur de n of

e sta bli shi ng e vid en ce of

the f ac ts n ec es sary

to supp ort a s e n t e n c i n g e n h a n c e men tf a l l s o n th e g o v e rn men t , an di tmu s td o s o b y a pr ep on de ran ce o f th e ev id en ce. United States v. A skew , 193 F . 3d 1 181, 118 3 (1 1thCi r. 199 9) . “ It

is the dis tr ic t c ourt’ s du ty to en sur e that the G ove rn m en t9

carr ie s th is b ur de n by

e sta bli shi ng a suf fi ci en t and r el ia

ble ba sis f

or it s r eque st f

or an enhancem ent.” Id

. Se ct ion2D 1. 1( b) (4 ) ca lls f or atw o- le ve l i nc re as e in a de fe ndant’ s of

fe nse le ve l i f “ (A) th e o ffen se in vo lv edth e im po rta ti on of . . . m et ha m

ph et am in e . . ., an d ( B) the de fe ndant i s no t su bj ec t t o an a dj ustm en t un de r § 3B 1. 2" fo r a m ino r or m iti ga tin g r ole . T he dis tr ic t c ourt pr ope rl y c onc lud ed

that P er ez w as not s ub je ct t o a § 3 B1 .2 m i n o r r o l e a d ju s t m en t . Th e q u es t i o n th en i s wh et h erPe re z’s of fe nse “ inv olv ed

the im porta tio n of

. . . m etham

phe tam ine ” w ith in the m eanin g of § 2D1.1(b)( 4)(A ). The r ecord dem onstrated that the truck Perez drove crossed the border fourteen hours prior to Perez ’ s arre st and that the drive from Laredo to Mobile, wher e Pe rez wa s arre sted, re quires approxim ately twe lve and a half hours. Atrier of fac t could prop erly

conclude that the tim e re quired to secrete the drugs as they w er e, c oupl ed

w ithdr ivi ng t im e, pr ovi de d su ff ic ie nt b as is t o c onc lud e that the m etham phetam ine was nec essarily im ported since it had to h ave been in the truck be fo re it c ro sse d th e bor de r. T he f ind ing of im porta tio n is not

c le ar ly e rr one ous. Pe re z m ai nta ins that e ve n if the dr ugs w er e im

porte d, the standard

of § 2D 1. 1( b) (4 ) is n ot s at isf ie d si nc e no e vid en ce c onne ct s hi s of fe nse s w iththe im porta tio n. H e ins ist s th at the gov er

nm en t pr es en te d no e vid en ce de m onstratin g10

his participation in the drugs’ border crossing or in arranging for their entry . In ad dit ion , P er ez poi nts out , the gov er nm en t c onc ed ed

a t se nte nc ing that P er ez did no t m eetth e truc k, an d t hu s t he dru gs , un ti l t he y reac he d S an Ant on io . Pe re z re ad s § 2 D 1. 1( b) (4 ) too narr ow ly . U nde r his int er pr et at ion , § 2D1.1(b)( 4) would apply to onlythose defendants who them selves transport m etham phetam ine across the border. If the Sentencing Com

m issio n intend ed such a lim ite d a

ppl ic at ion , it

w oul d have use d th e langua ge it use d inapr ior

sub se ct ion , w hic h a ppl ie s ase parate e nhanc em en t on ly “ [i ] f the de fe ndant unlaw fu lly im po rte d o r ex po rte d aco nt ro ll edsu bs ta nc e” u nd er ce rta in cir cu m st an ces . U . S. S. G . § 2D 1. 1( b) (2 ). F ac ed w iththe S en te nc ing Co m m iss ion ’ s de lib er at e ch oic e of the m or e inc lus ive langua ge “ inv olv ed the im porta tio n, ” w e giv e the en ha nc em en t a b ro ad er re ad in g t ha n d oe s Pe rez. Pe re z’ s arg um en t i s a lso ba se d onthe a ssum pti on – f or ec los ed by our pr ec ed en t – that the im

porta tio n of

the m etham

phe tam ine ha d e nde d by

the ti m e he be gan dr ivi ng the dr

ug- la de n ve hic le . W e have pr ev iou sly he ld tha t the c ri m e of im portation d oes not endthe m om ent the controlled su bstance enters the U nited St at es . United States v. M artin ez , 763 F. 2d 12 97, 1304 (11t h Cir. 1985 ). Rather , im portation “ is a continuo us crim e that is not com plete until th e controlled subs tance re aches its final destination point .” U nit ed Sta tes v . Co rbi n , 734 F . 2d11

643, 652 ( 11th C ir . 198 4) ( quot ing U nit ed Sta tes v . G ray , 626 F . 2d 4 94, 498 ( 5th Ci r. 19 80 ) (i nt ern al qu ot at io n m ark s o m it te d) ). Pere z’ s offenses involv ed the im portation o f m etham

phetam ine as required by § 2D 1. 1( b) (4 ). S anA nto nio w as not the f ina l de sti na tio n of

the m etham phetam ine, m eaning that the im portation was ongo ing when Pere z began dr ivi ng the dr

ug- la de n tr

uc k inS anA nto nio . H e co nti nue d to tr an spor t the dr ugs hundre ds o f m ile s to Mo bil e, A la bam a as part

of the ong oin g im

porta tio n. H is argum ent that he w as unaw ar e that the dr ugs w er e hid de n inthe tr uc k is fo re cl ose d, sin ce the j ur

y ne ce ssari ly

f ound in co nvi ct ing him

that he kne wof

the ir ex is te nc e. See 21 U . S. C. § 84 1( a) (1 ) (m ak ing it unl aw fu l t o “ know ing ly

or int en tio na lly ” poss es s w ithint en t t o di str ibu te ac ontro lle d su bst an ce ). W e de cl ine to d ef ine the e xa ct

c ont our s of

w ha t i t m eans f

or an of fe nse to “ inv olv e[ ] the im porta tio n of

. . . m etham

phe tam ine , ” but

the r equis ite le ve l of

inv olv em en t i s pr es en t h ere. AFFIRMED.