### FI LED U.S. COURT O F APP EALS ELEVENTH CIRCUIT J uly 19, 20 05 THO MAS K. KAH N CL ERK [PUBLIS H] IN THE UN ITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FO R T HE EL EV EN TH CIRC UI T

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ N o. 04- 1066 7

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ D. C. Docket N o. 03-00079 -CR- 1-1 UNITED STAT ES OF AMERIC A, Plaintiff-Appellee, ve rs us DA VI D T AY LO R, D ef en dant- Appe llant.

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ Appeal f rom the United State s District Court fo r the N orthe rnD istri ct

of G eo rg ia

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ _ (J ul y 19 , 200 5) Be fo re BI RC H , CA RN E S an d R O N E Y , Ci rc uit Jud ge s. PE R CU RIA M: D ef en dant D av id T ay lor

appe al s hi s j ur

y c onvi ct ion s and 3 22- m onth se nte nc e ar isi ng f

ro m se ve ra l dr

ug p oss es sio n and f

ir earm c harg es . H e ra ise s e igh t int er tw ine d is sue s onappe al : f ive a lle ge d e rr or s onthe a dm iss ionor e xc lus ionof2

ev ide nc e; c um

ulativ e er ro r; ins uf fi ci en cy of the e vid en ce ; and a

vio la tio n of Booker/B lakely i n s e n t e n c i n g . We a f f i rm. The m arij uana, c rack and po wder cocaine upon which the charges w ere ba se d w er e fo und on T ay lor dur ing an arr es t. Ac en tr al c ont en tio n m ad e in Tay lor’ s defense and on this app eal is that prosecution witness Atlanta Police D ep ar tm en t O ff ic er Matth ewS tr ev el li ed

about f ind ing dr ugs on T ay lor . T he district court erre d, T ay lor argues, in not perm itting him to put in evidence of bad ch ar ac te r an d of

thi rt ee n pr ior

c om pla int s a ga ins t S tr ev el of pol ic e m isc ondu ct . Abr ie f re vie wof

the f ac ts s how s th e cr iti ca l natur e of S tr ev el ’ s te sti m ony before the j ury . On April 6, 2002, at approxim ately 12:45 a. m ., Atlanta P olice De partm ent Of

ficer s Randy

Sheen and MatthewStrevel w ere dispatched to an ove rp as s indownto w n A tlanta . O ff ic er S he enarr ive d f

ir st, sho ne his spo tli ght , an d sawT ay lor

sittin g ne ar

that ov er pa ss. H e park ed

his m ar ke d po lic e ve hic le an d be gan w al kin g to w ar d T ay lor . T ay lor the n r anf

ro m the ove rp as s in to a w oode d are a, and O ff

ic er S he enf oll ow ed him . O ff ic er S he enobs er

ve d, w iththe assistance of a “ very

powerf ul” hand-held flashlig ht, T ay lor “ drop down a black objec t.” Of

ficer Sheen ultim ately

captured T ay lor, e scorting hi m to the road wher e O ffice r Str evel had been wa iting near his separate police vehicle. Of ficer Sh ee n th enw al ke d ba ck

to the are a w he re he ha d ob se rv ed T ay lor thr owdown th e3

black object, discovering a black, loaded Sig Sauer, Model P-230, . 380 caliber fi re ar m . T he f ir earm w as c le anand d id n ot a

ppe ar to have be enon the gr ound f or a lon g ti m e. O ff

ic er S he enthe n r ad ioe d to O ff ic er S tr ev el that he ha d f

ound a firearm , and Offic er S trevel placed T ay lor under arre st for car ry ing a concealed weap on . Office r St rev el no ti cedth atTay lo r ha d abl eed in g c ut on hi s fo reh ead . Of ficer Strevel te stified that in searching Tay lor incident to th e ar rest, he located m ar ij uana , a s w el l a s in div idu al ly -p ac ka ge d c ra ck and p ow de r co ca ine ba gs, and a bla ck ski m as k. T he G eo rg iaBure auof I nve sti ga tio n C ri m e L ab or at or y te ste d th e drugs, revea ling 2 4.89 gram s of m arij uana and 8.34 gram s of cocaine. The possession o f the fir earm and those drug s form ed the basis of the fourco unt ind ic tm en t a ga ins t T ay lor : ( Co unt 1) f el on i n po sse ssi on o f a fi re ar m , 18 U . S. C. §§ 9 22( g) , 924 (e ); ( Co unt s 2 and 3 ) poss es sio n w ithint en t t o di str ibu te co ca ine and m ar ij uana , 21 U . S. C. §§ 8 41, 851 ; and ( Co unt 4) usi ng and c ar

ry ing a firearm during andin relation to a drug trafficking offense, 18 U. S. C. § 924 (c). A rg um en t 1: E xc lu di ng t es ti m on y an d ev id en ce r eg ar di ng p ri or co m pl ain ts aga in stOf

fi ce r St re ve l. T he day be fo re tr ia l, T ay lor

a dvi se d th e dis tr ic t c ourt tha t he int en de d to cr oss -e xam ine O ff

ic er S tr ev el , agov er

nm en t w itn es s, r eg ar din g pr ior c iti ze ns’ co m pla int s a ga ins t hi m

a lle gin g hara ssm en t, planti ng e vid en ce and b ru ta lity4

pursuant to either Fe deral Rules of E vidence 404(b) or 608 . The def ense provided the pr ose cu tio n w iththe A tlanta P oli ce D ep ar

tm en t I nte rn al A ff

ai rs Re ports, ind ic at ing the na tur e of

the c om pla int s a ga ins t O ff

ic er S tr ev el and the r es ult s of tho se inv es tig at ion s. T ay lor sub se que ntl y

f ile d ave ry

li m ite d “ Pr of

fe r of E vid en ce . ” T ay lor

pr of fe re d th at : ( 1) in Co m

pla int N o. 00- C- 499, ade fe ndant, Jos ep h T ay lor , a lle ge d th at O ff ic er S tr ev el ha d pl an te d c oc ai ne on h im , ke pt h is m one y and p ro pe rty ; and ( 2) a s st at ed in In te rn al A ff

ai rs I nve sti ga tio n c as e num be r 01- C- 0296 -UA F, O ff ic er S tr ev el ha d be en“ unde r inv es tig at ionby In te rn al A ff

ai rs f or br uta lity a t the ti m e of

[ his ] arr es t. ” T he pr of

fe r state d no thi ng el se . T ay lor ’ s pr of

fe r of e vid en ce onl y

r ef er en ce s on e ci tiz enc om

pla int , Com plaint No. 00-C- 499, against Off icer S trevel w hich includ ed an allegation that O ff ic er S tr ev el ha d “plant[ ed ] c oc ai ne on [ anarr es te e] , ke pt h is m one y and property .” T his com

plaint was determ ined to be “ unfoun ded” by the Internal A ff ai rs D ivi sio n of

the A tlanta

P oli ce D ep ar

tm en t. T he oth er

c om pla int re fe re nc ed

in the pr of

fe r, N o. 01- C- 0296 , onl y

state d, w ith out

any e xpl an at ion , that “ Of ficer Strevel w as under investig ation for brutality at the tim e of Mr . T ay lor ’ s arr es t. ” A ll of

the r em ai nin g c om

pla int s w er e de te rm ine d to be

“ unf ound ed ” by

the I nte rn al A ff

ai rs D ivi sio n a s w el l.5

T he gov er

nm en t arg ue d th at

be ca use I nte rn al A ff

ai rs ha d de te rm ine d th at

a ll of the a lle ge d in stanc es r eg ar din g hara ssm ent, planti ng e vid en ce and b ru ta lity w er e “ unf

ound ed ba se d onla ck

of e vid en ce , . . . the de fe ndant s houl d [ not ] be en tit le d to inquir e ab out

tho se ins tanc es . . . . ” T he dis tr ic t c ourt a gr ee d r uli ng: As to the other evidence the defe ndant seeks to introduce fo r use on c ro ss- ex am inatio n or r el at ive to bia s and m atters that w ere subject to internal af fairs . . ., that ev ide nc e is e xc lud ed

be ca use [ its ] pr obativ e va lue , if any , is subs tanti al ly

outw ei ghe d by

the dange r of

unf ai r pr ej udi ce , c onf

usi on o f the iss ue s, and m isl ea din g th e j ur y ; the re fo re , the j ur

y w ill not be pe rm itt ed

to pur sue these m atters either by

oral testim ony

or by docum entary evidence. Tay lor contends th at these thirteen com plaints o f police m iscondu ct w ere re le vant t o pr ove that O ff ic er S tr ev el w as “bia se d, ” ha d ate nde nc y f or

“ un tru th fu ln es s,” a ndth us m ay ha ve pl an te d t he dru gs on hi m du rin g t he arre st . T he dis tr ic t c ourt di d no t a buse it s di sc re tio n by

de ny ing T ay lor ’ s r eque st t o either re fere nce or adm it these thirteen com plaints o f police m iscondu ct under Ru le s 40 4( b) or

608 (b ). T ay lor ’ s a tte m

pt t o of fe r or r ef er en ce the se “ unf

ound ed ” co m pla int s in to e vid en ce a t tri al is sim ilar to the f ai le d de fe ndants ’ e ff

orts i n U nit ed Sta tes v . No va ton , 271 F. 3d 96 8 (11th Cir. 2001). T he No va ton de fe ndants atte m pte d to c ro ss- ex am ine one gov er nm en t a ge nt o n hi s po te nti al inv olv em en t i n the “ Miam i River Cops Scandal,” where that off icer had been suspended with pay6

fo r fo ur m onths b ut w as late r re ins ta te d and n o c ri m ina l c harg es w er e ev er br ough t ag ai nst that a ge nt, “ al tho ugh he w as f orm al ly r ep ri m an de d f

or f ai lin g to doc um en t a co nve rs at ionw ithan in fo rm an t. ” 271 F . 3d at 10 04. L ike T ay lor he re , the defendants had argued to the dis trict court that cross-exam ination of the office r re gard ing thi s m atte r shou ld b e pe rm itt ed be ca use it c oul d sh owthe a ge nt’ s bi as or m oti ve to lie . T he de fe ndants a lso sou ght to cr oss -e xam ine anothe r gove rn m en t ag en t c onc er

nin g on e pe ndi ng i nve sti ga tio n and o ne c om ple te d in ve sti ga tio n w he re the sam e sour ce ha d se nt the D ru g E nf or ce m en t A ge nc y

ale tte r al le gin g that the a ge nt h ad

sto le n c oc ai ne dur ing adr ug s ei zure . 271 F . 3d at 10 04- 05. T he dis tr ic t c ourt i n No va ton held that tho se investig ations were

“ ‘ irrelevant, and even if [they we re] relevant, [their] probative value is ou tweighed b y [t h ei r] p re

ju d i ce .’” 2 7 1 F. 3 dat1 0 0 5 . In af fi rmin g th e d i s tri ct co u rt ’s ev i d en t i ary ru l i n g s , t h i s Co u rtre as o n edth atth e “in s er t i o n ” o f o n e a g en t ’s inv olv em en t i n th e “ Mi am i R ive r Co ps S canda l, ” w he re the a ge nt “ w as tho ro ughl y inv es tig at ed

in co nne ct ionw iththat sc an da l, but w as ne ve r ch ar ge d w ithany cr im e an d on ly

r ec ei ve d ar ep ri m an d f

or f ai lin g to doc um en t a

c onve rs at ionw ith aninf orm an t, ” w as ir

re le vant and “ any

pot en tia l r el ev an ce ” w as sub stanti al ly outweighed by

the likeliho od of unfair prej udice and thus wa s properly excluded unde r Fe de ra l R

ule of E vid en ce 403 . 271 F . 3d at 10 07.7

Sim ilarly , the No va ton Court also affirm ed the exclusion of the “ unprov en al le gatio ns” that the se co nd a ge nt h ad sto le n c oc ai ne , r

uli ng tha t the inj ec tio n of the e vid en ce int o tr ia l “ ha d th e obvi ous pot en tia l t o c au se se ri ous an d un fa ir pr ej udi ce to the gov er

nm en t. ” 271 F . 3d at 10 07. T he Co urt r ea sone d, “ Inli ght of the f ac t tha t [ the a ge nt] w as c le ar ed dur ing the f

ir st i nve sti ga tio n and tha t the second inv estigation concerned the sam e allegations from the sam e source, inf orm at ionc onc er

nin g th ose inv es tig at ion s e lic ite d duri ng c ro ss- ex am inatio n w oul d no t have ha d m

uc h, if any , pr obativ e va lue . ” 271 F . 3d at 10 07. He re, like No va ton , T ay lor sou ght to adm it or

r ef er en ce e vid en ce of unpr ove n, c iti ze n c om

pla int s th at

w er e br ough t a ga ins t O ff ic er S tr ev el . A lso li ke the a ge nts in No va ton , ther e is no record evidence that O ffice r Str evel wa s discipli ned for, or convicted of, planting eviden ce or brutalizing any arr estee. See No va ton , 271 F. 3d at 100 7. N ext, e ven if there w as evidence that Of ficer Strevel ha d a ct ua lly inj ur ed arr es te es in the pa st, that e vid en ce w oul d be ir re le vant i n th is ca se , a s th is i s no t a

c ivi l r igh ts c as e w he re br uta lity ha s be ena lle ge d. T ay lor further f ailed to proffer the testim ony of any witness w ho m ight testi fy that Of ficer S tr e v e l h a de n g a g e di nan y o f th e a l l e g e da c t s b u ti n s t e a dc h o s e t o s i mp l y re fe r to Internal A ffair s docum ents to support his theory that Of ficer Strevel had a

history of planting evidence on arre stees and had a chara cter f or untruthfuln ess and racial8

bia s. I t i s a xio m at ic that the “ tr ia l c ourt ha s br oa d di sc re tio n inde te rm ini ng h ow and why bias m ay be proved and what collatera l evidence is m aterial to that purpos e. ” United States v. L ove , 599 F . 2d 1 07, 108 ( 5thCi r. 197 9) . W ith out these proffer s in the record, our reviewof the district court’ s discretionary ev ide nti ar

y de ci sio n to de te rm ine the e xis te nc e of an a buse of dis cr et ionis im po ss ib le . See, e. g., Love , 599 F . 2d at 10 9 ( af fi rm ing dis tr ic t c ourt’ s li m itatio n of testim ony

on cross-exam ination of a governm ent agent that another agent had al le ge dly plante d e vid en ce in dif

fe re nt i nc ide nt whe re “ no o ff er of pr oof w as m ad e at that tim e”). But unlik e No va ton , w hic h in vol ve d an e ff ort t o in tr oduc e ev ide nc e sol el y under Rule 608(b), T ay lor also attem pted to adm it these prior instances of “ racia l harassm ent, brutality

and evidence planting ” under Rule 404(b) as evidence that O ff ic er S tr ev el ha d “ ra ci al bia s” and thus ha d am oti va tio n to f ram e T ay lor

and l ie at tr ia l. R ule 404 (b ) au tho ri ze s th e adm iss ionof e vid en ce of

oth er w ro ngs to s how

“pr oof of m oti ve , opp ortun ity , int en t, pr ep ar at ion , plan, kno w le dge , ide nti ty , or absence of m istake or accident . . .. ” Fe d. R. Evid. 404(b). T ay lor’ s argum ents are tru m pe d u nd er Ru le 40 4( b) forsi m il ar rea so ns th atth ey were u nd er Ru le 60 8. See, e. g., United States v. F armer , 923 F . 2d 1 557, 156 7 ( 11th C ir . 199 1) ( statin g th at th e w o rd“ m o t i v e” i n th e t ex to f R u l e 4 0 4 (b ) d o es n o tre fe r t o th e w i tn es s ’s9

m ot iv e to tes ti fy

fal se ly, an d n ot in g t ha t “ [t]he wit ne ss ’s m ot iv e to tes ti fy fal se ly . .

. is m er el y

an a spe ct of c re dib ili ty

[ co ntr oll ed

by F ed . R. E vid . 608 ] ”) ( quot at ion and citation om itted). A s to opi nio n te sti m ony

r eg ar din g O ff

ic er S tr ev el , the dis tr ic t c ourt he ld,

“ y ou m ust sho wthat [ the w itn es s] ha d an op portun ity to ac qui re kno w le dge about the of fi ce r” and tha t “ the w itn es s’ s pe rs ona l op ini on c annot be ba se d so le ly

upo n iso la te d pe rs ona l c ont ac t w iththe of fi ce r. ” A t tri al , T ay lor

ne ith er c al le d any w itn es se s to te sti fy

a s to the ir

opi nio n a

bout O ff ic er S tr ev el ’ s tr

uth fu lne ss o r his re put at ionin the c om

m uni ty f or tr uth fu lne ss, nor

did he of fe r any pr of fe rs of ev ide nc e re gard ing the sam e. T ay lor ’ s arg um en t tha t the dis tr ic t c ourt e rr ed by fa i l i n g t o p erm i twi tn es s es t o t es t i fy as t o th ei r o p i n i o nas t o Of fi ce r S tre v el ’s reputation also fails because he never ca lled any witnesses to testify , never pr of fe re d th e te sti m ony

of any w itn es s a s to his or

he r opi nio n onthe tr

uth fu lne ss of O ff ic er S tr ev el , ne ve r nam ed

the pot en tia l w itn es se s, and n ev er r ep re se nte d to the c ourt tha t he ha d sp oke n to any w itn es se s and c oul d pr of fe r w ha t the y

m igh t say . O nc e m or e, w ith out apr of fe r or any r ec or d to r ev ie w , the va lue of the ir te st im on y an d t he di st ric t co ur t’s ru li ng can no t b e as se ss edon ap pe al . Ac cordingly , ther e w as no abuse of discretion in these evidentiary rulings u nder ei th er Ru le s 4 04 (b ) or60 8.10

The other issues raised on appeal re veal no reversible er ror. A rg um en t 2: Excluding t he h earsay testim ony of Dr . B arnanda Kerriu m Norwo od, a h ospital physician w ho had exam ined T aylo r afte r his arrest, and w as to testify t hat Taylor had t old her that t he inj ury to Taylor’s head w as caused w hen the arresting off icers had “steppe d on” h i m. Ther e w as no abuse of discretion byexcluding this testim ony because it w as ir re le vant. T ay lor ’ s st at em en t t o D r. K er ri um N or w ood dur ing he r post -arr es t treatm ent of him

wa s irrelevant beca

use where or how T ay lor rece ived the injury to his h ead w as not probativ e of whether or not he possess ed a fir earm and illegal narc oti cs , w hic h w as the sub j ec t of thi s c ri m ina l tri al . Ar gum ent 3: Lim iting the direc t exam ination of Gloria P ittm an, Taylor’s sister, t o exclude the back ground f acts that she be lieved led to Ta ylo r be co m in g h om el es s an d liv in g u nd er t he ove rp ass . T he re w as no a

buse of dis cr et ionby

li m iti ng the te sti m ony

of G lor ia Pittm an, T ay lor’ s sister, a defense w itness. A lthou gh the dis trict court perm itted Pi ttm anto te sti fy

that he r br oth er

w as hom el es s and l ivi ng unde r anove rp as s in At l an t a, as we l l as wh en h e b ec ame h o m el es s , i ts u s t ai n edth e g o v ern m en t ’s o b je ct i o n t o re s tri ct h erfr o m t es t i fyi n g ab o u tth e c i rc u m s t an ce s l ea d i n g t o Ta ylo r’s hom el es sne ss, suc h a s hi s f am ily his tor y and f ai le d bo xin g c ar ee r. T he de te rm inatio n of

the r el ev an ce of

thi s e vid en ce w as w ith in the br oa d di sc re tio n of11

th e d is tri ctco ur t. Se e U

nit ed Sta tes v . Na bors , 70 7 F .2d12 94 , 12 98 (11 th Cir . 1983 ). A rg um en t 4: P er m it ti ng C alv in Jon es t o t es ti fyas t o T ayl or ’s j ail ho us e co nf es sio n . T he day be fo re the start

of tr ia l, the gov er

nm en t no tif

ie d T ay lor

that i t would be introdu cing the testim ony of a f ederal prisoner, Calvin Jones, who had be enhou se d w ithT ay lor

in anA tlanta

pr etri al de te nti on c en te r, f or the pur pose of introdu cing Tay lor’ s ja ilhou se confession of the charged offenses. A lthou gh Jon es ha d c ont ac te d th e gove rn m en t a ge nt b y le tte r ab out

thi s in fo rm at ionsix m onths be fo re the start

of tr ia l, the gov er

nm en t di d no t i nte rv ie wJon es and d id n ot d ec ide to c al l hi m

a s aw itn es s un til O ct obe r 15, 200 3, the sam e day it not if ie d th e defense. Jones testified that Tay lor had confessed his charged crim es, a s well a s his plans to m ake fa lse allegations agains t the police because “ he wa s goin g to try to sue them .” T ay lor ha d ob j ec te d to Jon es ’ s te sti m ony be fo re ope nin g arg um en ts o n th e gr ound that the gov er

nm en t ha d no t no tif

ie d hi m pur suant t o F ed er al Ru le of Cr im ina l P ro ce dur e 16( a) ’ s no tif ic at ionpr oc ed

ur es and tha t this vio la te d “ the spi ri t of the r ule . ” T he re w as no a

buse of dis cr et ionin adm itt ing thi s te sti m ony be ca use T ay lor

m ad e tho se vol unt ar

y state m en ts t o an in div idu al w ho w as not a12

governm ent agent and the statem ents are thus not di scoverable under Feder al Ru le s of Cr im ina l P ro ce dur e 16( a) (1 )( A ) or ( B) . R ule 16( a) (1 ) state s: Upon a de fe ndant’ s r eque st, the gov er nm en t m ust dis cl ose to the de fe ndant the sub stanc e of any r el ev an t oral statem ent m ade by

the defendant, bef

ore or af ter arre st , in r es

pons e to i nte rro gat ion bya pe rso n th e de fe ndan t k ne w w as a gov ernm en t agen t if the gove rn m en t i nte nds to u se the state m en t at tri al . . . . [ an d] the portio n of

any w ri tte n r ec or d c ont ai nin g th e subs tanc e of

any r el ev an t or al state m en ts m ad e be fo re or af te r ar re st if the de

fe ndan t m ade thesta te m en t i n respon se to an i nte rro gat ion bya pe rso n th e de fe ndan t kn ewwa s a gov ernm en t agen t . . .. Fe d. R. Cr im . P . 16( a) (1 )( A ), ( B) (i i) ( em pha sis sup pli ed ); see U

nited Sta tes v. Bailey , 12 3 F .3d13 81 , 13 99 (11 th Cir . 19 97 ) (“ Bec au se Ru le 16 (a)( 1) (A)

“ re qui re s go ve rn m en t di sc los ur e onl y of ade fe ndant’ s or al state m en ts m ad e ‘ in re spon se to int er

ro ga tio ns b y

any pe rs on the n k

now n to the defendant to be a governm ent agent,’ a defe ndant’s voluntary statem ents m ade to indiv iduals th at the de fe ndant d id n ot k

noww er e gove rn m en t a ge nts do n ot c om e w ith in the a m bit of th is rul e.”) (c it at io n o m it te d) . Jo ne s was no t, atan y ti m e, a g ov ern m en t ag en t. T he re is no r ec or d e vid en ce that T ay lor w as e ve r “ int er

ro ga te d, ” as r equir ed

by the Ru le . A rg um en t 5: A dm it ti ng “R ul e 404( b) e vid en ce ” of h is p ri or c on vic ti on f o r b e i n g a f

e l o n i n p o s s e s s i o n o f

a f i r e a r m.13

T ay lor arg ue s th at

the dis tr ic t c ourt a

buse d it s di sc re tio n by

a dm itt ing evidence of his prior convictio n for being a felon in poss ession o f a f irear m be ca use , he c ont en ds, it

is “ not a dm iss ibl e unde r Fe d. R. E vid . 404 (b ). ” T ay lor ne ve r adm itt ed

to or sti pul at ed

to the f ac t tha t he kno w ing ly

and i nte nti ona lly poss es se d th e fi re ar

m f ound by O ff ic er S he en . T he gov er

nm en t ha d th e bur de n of proving knowing po ssessio n of a fir earm . To do so and satisfy the me ns rea el em en t of

thi s of fe nse , it sou ght a dm iss ionof

e vid en ce that T ay lor

ha d kn ow ing ly po ss es se d afir earm

at a no th er p oi nt in ti m e. Se e Uni te d S ta te s v. J er ni ga n, 341 F. 3d 1 273, 128 1 ( 11th C ir . 200 3) ( pe rm itt ing a dm iss ionof de fe ndant’ s pr ior

f el on i n p o s s e s s i o n o f

f i r e arm c o n v i c t i o nt o p r o v e “kn o w i n g p o s s e s s i o no f af i r e arm” elem ent of charged off

ense). T he district court instructed th e j ury of the lim ited use of thi s e vid en ce a s w el l. T he dis tr ic t c ourt di d no t a buse it s di sc re tio n in adm itting this evidence. Ar gum ent 6: C um ulative err or. Ther e being no error in any of the district court’ s rulings , the argum ent that cum ulativ e tr ia l e rr or

r equir es that this Co urt r ev er se T ay lor ’ s c onvi ct ion s is w ith out m er it. Ar gum ent 7: Su fficien cy of th e eviden ce.14

T he re w as suf

fi ci en t e vid en ce to supp ort the dr ug p oss es sio n and d i s tri b u t i o n , a s we l l as th e f i re arm ch ar g es co n v i ct i o n s . Th e t h ru s to f T ayl o r’s argum ents is no t that there w as insufficient evidence to m eet a prima facie ca se f or the c harg ed

of fe nse s bu t i nst ea d th at

the j ur y sho uld not have be lie ve d th e te sti m ony of O ff ic er s S he enand S tr ev el , w ho t es tif ie d th at the y f ound alarg e qu an t i ty o f i n d i v i du al l y-p ac k ag eddru g s , c o n s i s t en twi th d i s tri b u t i o n , o nTa ylo r’s person and a firearm

in an area

wher e they

had seen Tay lor “ drop down a black obj ec t. ” Be ca

use a ll fa ct

ua l and c re dib ili ty

inf er en ce s are dr awn inf

av or of the gove rn m en t, the j ur

y ’ s ve rd ic t m

ust stand unle ss n o r ea sona

ble f ac tf ind er c oul d ha ve fou ndTay lo r gu il ty bey on d areas on ab le do ub t. See U nited Sta tes v. Ca lde ron , 127 F . 3d 1 314, 132 4 ( 11th C ir . 199 7) . W iththe se f av or ab le c re dib ili ty an d f ac tua l i nf er en ce s inm ind , the r ec or d su ppor ts the j ur y ’ s c onvi ct ion s. Ar gum ent 8: Bo oke r/B lakel ysente ncing er ror. T he dis tr ic t c ourt di d no t c om m it Booker/B lakely er

ro r by e nhanc ing T ay lor ’ s se nte nc e ba se d onhis pr ior c onvi ct ion s. I n U

nit ed Sta tes v . She lto n , 400 F. 3d 1 325 (1 1thCi r. 200 5) , thi s C ourt he ld tha t a dis tr ic t c ourt di d no t vi olate the Si xthA m en dm en t by

usi ng the de fe ndant’ s pr ior c onvi ct ion s to e nhanc e his se nte nc e. 400 F . 3d at 13 29 ( “ T he S upr em e Co urt c onsi ste ntl y ha s r ej ec te d [ the de fe ndant’ s] arg um en t tha t a dis tr ic t c ourt e rr s whe n it c onsi de rs pr ior

c onvi ct ion s15

in s en te nc ing aD ef

en dant unde r the G uid el ine s. ”) . B ec au se the re w as no d isp ute as to Tay lor’ s prior convictio ns that were utilized by the district court to enhance his se nte nc e, the re w as no e rr or , pla in o r oth er w ise , f or the dis tr ic t c ourt t o have inc re as ed his c ri m ina l hi sto ry

sc or e ba se d onit s f

ind ing s c onc er

nin g pr ior co nvi ct ion s. A lth oughthe dis tr ic t c ourt di d no t c om m it a Si xthA m en dm en t vi olatio n in sentencing Tay lor, it did com m it a statutory

err or under

Booker . “ A s w e state d in She lto n , the dis tr ic t c ourt c om m its astatut or

y e rr or by se nte nc ing ade fe ndant

‘ unde r a m an da tor

y G uid el ine s sc he m e, e ve n in the abse nc e of

aS ixth A m en dm en t violatio n.’ ” United States v. C amacho-Ibarquen , _

_ _ F. 3 d _ _ _ , 2 0 0 5 WL 12 97 23 6, * 7 (1 1t h C ir. J un e 2 , 20 05 ) (quo ti ng Sh el to n, 4 00 F.3dat 1 33 0– 31 ). A s w e state d a

bove , be ca

use T ay lor

did not r ai se thi s arg um en t be fo re the di st ric t co ur t, o urrev ie w is on ly for p la in erro r. United States v. R odrig uez , 398 F. 3d 12 91, 1298 (11t h Cir. 2005 ). Bec ause the district court treated the guidelines as m an da to ry , itco m

m it te d a n e rro r th atis pl ai n. She lto n , 40 0 F .3dat 1 33 0– 31 . How ever, the defendant has the burden to dem onstrate that the plain error af fecte d his sub stanti al r igh ts. T ha t i s, he m ust sho wthat the re w as ar ea sona ble probabilit y

that he would have been given a lesser sentence had the guidelines be en ap pl ie d i n a n a dv is ory rat he r th an a m an da to ry

fas hi on . Id

. a t 13 31–3 2.16

H er e, T ay lor

ha s no t pr es en te d any

e vid en ce that the dis tr ic t c ourt w oul d have given him

a lesser sentence but for the Booker statut or y e rr or . Whe re that i s the c as e, w e have he ld tha t the de fe ndant f ai ls t o m ee t hi s burd enund er the su bs ta nt ia l p reju di ce p ro ng of t he pl ai n e rro r te st . Rodriguez , 398 F. 3d at 1300 –01. Thus, the district court did n ot plainl y err in sentencing Tay lor under a m andatory

guidelin es schem e. AFFIR MED.