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 OCTOB ER 17, 2006 THOMAS K. KAH

N CL ERK [DO NOT PUBLISH] IN THE UN ITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FO R T HE EL EV EN TH CIRC UI T

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ _ N o. 06- 1171 6 Non-A rgum ent Calendar

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ _ D. C. Docket N o. 03-00475 -CR- T- 24-MAP UNITED STAT ES OF AMERIC A, Pl ai nt iff -Ap pe ll ee, ve rs us TAMMI ANN ALLOW ITZ, Defen da nt -Ap pe ll an t.

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ __ Appeal f rom the United State s District Court fo r the Mi ddl e D istri ct

of F lor ida

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ __ (O ct ob er 17, 200 6) Befo re DUBINA, BARKETT an d HULL, Cir cu it Ju dg es . PE R CU RIA M: T am m i A nn A llo w itz appe al s he r 151 -m onth se nte nc e im pose d a ft er

r em an d fo r re se nte nc ing f

or usi ng the int er

ne t and the te le phon e to s oli ci t m ur de r an d2

tra ve li ng in in te rs ta te co m m erce to so li ci t m

ur de r, in vi ol at io n o f 18 U.S.C. § 19 58( a) . O n a

ppe al , A llo w itz f

ir st arg ue s th at

the tr ia l c ourt e rr ed

in al low ing the gove rn m en t t o r ea d in to e vid en ce a t the r es en te nc ing he ar ing e xc er pts f ro m pe rs ona l l ette rs that A llo w itz w ro te to he r daught er be ca use ( 1) the c ourt di d no t re qui re the gov er

nm en t t o pr oduc e co pie s of the le tte rs in the ir

e nti re ty so tha t the state m en ts i ntr oduc ed

c oul d be c onsi de re d inc ont ex t, in vio la tio n of the “ ru le of co m ple te ne ss, ” Fe d. R. E vid . 106 , and ( 2) the le tte rs ha d no t be enauth en tic at ed or adm itted into evidence. A district court * s e vid en tiary r uli ngs ar e re vie w ed

f or an a buse of dis cr et ion . U nit ed S ta te s v. Br ow n, 415 F . 3d 1 257, 126 4- 65 ( 11th C ir . 200 5) , c er t. de nie d, 126 S. Ct. 1570 (2006). H owever , where a defendant fails to raise an issu e in the district co urt, w e re vie wonl y

f or pla in e rr or . S ee U nit ed

S ta te s v. P et er s, 403 F . 3d 1 263, 1270 ( 11th C ir . 200 5) . I ssu es a sse rt ed in the appe llant * s “ St at em en t of I ssu es , ” but not arg ue d inthe te xt o f the appe llant * s brief ar e deem ed wa ived. Se e T ransam er ic a L ea sin g, I nc . v. I nst . of L ondo n U nde rwri te rs , 430 F . 3d 1 326, 133 1 n. 4 ( 11th C ir . 200 5) . H er e, A llo w itz r ai se s he r cl ai m s th at the le tte rs w er e not au the nti cate d or

a dm itt ed int o e vid en ce f

or the f ir st t im e on a

ppe al . F urthe r, the claim s wer e not properly

presented in her brief because she only argued them

in her

“ Statem ent of the Issues,” but no t in the text of her brief. Ther efore, she has waived3

the se arg um en ts. S ee T ransam er ic a L ea sin g, I nc . , 430 F . 3d at 13 31 n . 4. B ec au se Allowtiz raised her c laim that the district court erred in not consid ering the letters i n th e i r e n t i r e t y b e l o w , th e ab u s e - o f - d i s c r e t i o n s t a n d a r dap p l i e s t o th a tc l a i m. A s e n t e n c i n g c o u rtmay c o n s i d e r an y i n f o rmat i o n , i n c l u d i n g h e a r s a y, re gard le ss o f its a dm iss ibi lity a t tri al , a s lo ng a s ( 1) the e vid en ce ha s su ff ic ie nt i n d i c i ao f r e l i ab i l i t y; ( 2 ) th e c o u rtmak e s e x p l i c i tf i n d i n g s o f

f a c ta s t o c r e d i b i l i t y; an d ( 3) the de fe ndant h as the opp ortun ity to re but the e vid en ce . U nit ed

S ta te s v. Zlatogur, 271 F.3d 1025 , 1031 (11th Cir. 2001); see also U. S. S. G. § 6A1. 3(a) (n oti ng tha t the se nte nc ing c ourt, in re sol vin g adis put e co nc er nin g ase nte nc ing factor, “ m ay

consider relevant inform ation without regar d to its adm issib ility under the r ule s of e vid en ce appl ic ab le a t tri al , pr ovi de d th at the inf orm at ionha s su ff

ic ie nt ind ic iaof r el ia bil ity to supp ort i ts p ro bable a cc ur ac y ”) . H ow ev er , the se nte nc ing court is not required to m ake specific f indin gs regarding the reliability of hearsay state m en ts whe re the r el ia bil ity of the state m en ts i s a

ppare nt f ro m the r ec or d. U nit ed S ta te s v. G or don, 231 F . 3d 7 50, 760 -6 1 ( 11th C ir . 200 0) . Ase nte nc ing co urt m ay c onsi de r inf

orm at ion , e ve n if

it w oul d no t be a dm iss ibl e unde r the Federa l Rules of E vidence. Inthi s c as e, A llo w itz * s a tto rn ey a cknow le dge d th at

A llo w itz w ro te the le tte rs to he r daught er

be fo re she sou ght

m ed ic al tr eatm en t and A llo w itz e sse nti al ly4

acknowledged that she wrote the letter s when she apologized and expl ained that she ha d w ri tte n th em

be fo re she r ec ei ve d tr eatm en t. T he r el ia bil ity of the e xc er pts w as appare nt f

ro m the r ec or d. W e do n ot f

ind an a buse of dis cr et ion . A llo w itz a lso arg ue s th at the dis tr ic t c ourt f

ai le d to spe ci fi ca lly

art ic ulate it s re as ons fo r im

posi ng a se nte nc e at

the hig h e nd o f the gui de lin e range , in vio la tio n of 18 U . S. C. § 35 53( c) (1 ). “ T he que sti on o f w he the r a dis tr ic t c ourt c om pli ed w ith 18 U. S. C. § 355 3(c)( l) is review ed de novo, even if the defendant did not o bje ct below. ” U nited States v. Bonilla, No. 05-1685 7, m anuscript op. at 9 (11th Cir. Se pt. 5, 200 6) . “ Purs uant t o 18 U . S. C. § 35 53( c) (1 ), adis tr ic t c ourt i s r equir ed to state , in ope n c ourt, the r ea son fo r its part ic ular se nte nc e, and i f the se nte nc e ‘ is o f the kin d, and w ith in the r an ge [ re co m m en de d by

the G uid el ine s] and tha t r an ge ex ce ed s 24 m onths, the r ea son fo r im posi ng a se nte nc e at

apart ic ular poi nt w ith in the range. ” Se e 18 U. S. C. 3553 (c)( 1); Bonilla, N o. 05-16857 , m anuscript op. at 10. Wh e n s t a t i n g i t s r e a s o n s f o r i mp o s i n g ap a rt i c u l a r

s e n t e n c e a s r e qu i r e db y § 355 3(c)( 1), the c ourt sho uld “ tailor its comm ents to sh ow that the sentence im pose d is appr opr ia te , giv enthe f ac tor s to be c onsi de re d a s se t f orth i n § 35 53( a) . ” Bo nil la , N o. 05- 1685 7, m anusc ri pt o p. a t 10 . “ H ow ev er , the re qui re m en t of

§ 3 553( c) (l ) ‘ doe s no t m ean th at the se nte nc ing c ourt m

ust inc an t5

the spe ci fi c langua ge use d inthe gui de lin es w hic h a ppl ie s to e ac h r ea son giv en , nor doe s it m ean th at

ac ourt m

ust state that a

part ic ular fa ct or

is not appl ic ab le in a part ic ular ca se . ” I d. a t 11 ( quot ing U nit ed S ta te s v. P ar

ra do, 911 F . 2d 1 567, 157 2 (1 1thCi r. 199 0) ). N oth ing in our pr ec ed en t or

Bo oke r “ re qui re s th e dis tr ic t c ourt, in i ts e xpl an at ionof

se nte nc e unde r § 35 53( c) (1 ), to ar tic ulate it s c onsi de ratio n of each individu al § 3553 (a) factor, particularly wher e . . . it is obviou s the court considered m any

of the § 3553 (a) factors. ” Id. (em phasis in original). W e can consider the record of the e ntire sentencing hearing in evaluatin g the district court * s r ea sons f

or im posi ng a part ic ular se nte nc e, and n ee d no t r el y e xc lus ive ly

on the court * s sum

m ar y state m en t a t the c los e of

the se nte nc ing he ar ing . I d. a t 12 . (citing United States v. W ivell, 893 F.2d 156, 158 (8th Cir. 1990)). H er e, A llo w itz * s gu ide lin e range of 121 to 151 m onths s pans 3 0 m onths, m aking § 3 553(c)(1) applicable to her sentence. In considering the entire se nte nc ing he ar ing , the dis tr ic t c ourt c om pli ed w ith§ 35 53( c) (1 ) by

e xpl ai nin g th e im posi tio n of

A llo w itz * s se nte nc e in r el at ionto the § 35 53( a) f ac tor s and w as not re qui re d to a cc ount

f or e ve ry § 35 53( a) f

ac tor . A llo w itz * s c as e is c om para ble to Bo nil labe ca

use a s inBo nil la( 1) the c ourt he ar d te sti m ony and arg um en ts f

ro m the part ie s r eg ar din g th e 355 3( a) f ac tor s; ( 2) the c ourt a lso he ar d asum m ar y of the te sti m ony f ro m A llo w itz * s f

ir st s en te nc ing he ar ing r eg ar din g A llo w itz * s m ental6

state a t the ti m e she c om

m itt ed the of fe nse ; ( 3) the c ourt c onsi de re d th e gui de lin e range and the parties * argum ents regarding the appropriate sentence; (4) the court fo und that A llo w itz * s depression d id not cause her to comm it the offenses, which indicated the court * s consid eration of the “ nature and circum stances” of her of fe nse ; and ( 5) the c ourt pr ai se d A llo w itz * s e ff orts at r eh ab ili ta tio n w hil e incarce rated, indicating that it had consid ered her “ histo ry and charac teristics.” In ad dit ion , a t A llo w itz * s f

ir st s en te nc ing he ar ing , the c ourt e xpl ic itl y state d th at

it im pose d ase nte nc e at

the hig h e nd o f the gui de lin e range to ad equa te ly a ddr es s th e se ri ousn es s of

A llo w itz * s of

fe nse . T hus, the c ourt m et the § 35 53( c) (l ) re qui re m en ts. Finally , A llowitz argues that her sentence wa s unreasonable because it was gr eate r than ne ce ssary

to ac hie ve the statut or

y pur pose s of se nte nc ing , and the court failed to adequately consider the § 355 3(a) sentencing fac tors. A s noted above, the re cord revea ls that the dis trict court did properly considered all of the § 35 53( a) se nte nc ing f

ac tor s a s w el l the a dvi sor y gui de lin e range in se nte nc ing A llo w itz . W e fi nd tha t, on this r ec or d, A llo w itz ha s f ai le d to c ar

ry he r bur de n of showing th at her sentence wa s unreasonable. AFFIRMED.