FI L ED U.S. COURT OF A P P E A LS E LE V EN T H C IR C U IT MARCH 11, 2008 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N CL ERK [DO NOT PUBLISH]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. 07- 1081 1 Non-A rgum ent Calendar

--- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- -- D.C. Dock etNo. 0 6- 00 02 4- CR-1 -MP -AK UNITED STAT ES OF AMERIC A, Pl ai nt iff -Ap pe ll ee, ve rs us EDDIE LE E ANDERSON, Defen da nt -Ap pe ll an t.

--- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- - Appe al f ro m the U nit ed

S ta te s D istri ct

Co urt fo r the N orthe rnD istri ct

of F lor ida

--- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- -

(M ar ch 11, 200 8) Be fo re E D MO N D SO N , Ch ie f Judg e, A N D E RS O N and P RY O R, Ci rc uit Jud ge s. PE R CU RIA M: D ef en dant- Appe llant E ddi e L ee A nde rs on a ppe al s hi s c onvi ct ionf

or poss es sio n of

a m m uni tio n by

ac onvi ct ed

f el on, in vio la tio n of

18 U . S. C. §§Ander son also states that admission of the firea rm violated his rig ht to a fair tr ial under the Due 1 Process Clause. B ut he fa ils to elaborate on this cla im or provide le gal support for it; so, he has waived a ppellate r eview of

it. See United States v. Gupta, 463 F .3d 1182, 1195 (11th Cir. 2006), cer t. denied, 127 S.Ct. 2446 (2007) (whe re a party fails to provide a

rguments on the merits of an issue and make s only

passingref

ere nce to it in the initial brief, the a rgument is deemed w aived) . Th e g ov e rnme nt d id n ot c ha rg e the fi re arm

of fe ns e be c a

us e the fi rearm w a s ma

nu fa c tur e d in 2 Florida -- the state wher e the a

rre st occurr ed -- and had not tra veled in interstate commerc e. 2 922( g) , 924 (e ), and h is 2 94- m onth se nte nc e. N o r ev er sib le e rr or ha s be ensho w n; we affi rm . A nde rs on arg ue s th at

the dis tr ic t c ourt e rr ed , und er F ed . R. E vid . 403 , in adm itt ing e vid en ce of

an un ch ar ge d f

ir earm that w as dis co ve re d ne xt t o th e am m uni tio n be ca

use the pr obativ e va lue of the f ir earm w as outw ei ghe d by

it s undu ly pr ej udi ci al e ff

ec t. H e ar gue s th at

the f ir earm w as li ke ly

to inf lam e the ju ry. 1 A ft er

r ec ei vin g an anony

m ous tip about

A nde rs on and dru g a ct ivi ty a t a hot el , lawe nf

or ce m en t of

fi ce rs se ar ch ed

his hot el r oom . T he se ar chr ev ea le d, am ong oth er

thi ngs, ahandgun ne xt t o am ag az ine loa de d w ithse ve ra l r ound s of am m uni tio n inthe dr aw er

of anig ht s tand. A nde rs on f ile d am oti on i n li m ine to 2 ex cl ude e vid en ce of

the f ir earm a t tri al ; bu t the dis tr ic t c ourt de nie d th e m oti on, co nc lu di ng th atth e fi rear m ’s adm is si on wou ldno t v io la te Ru le 40 3. W e rev ie w a di st ric t co ur t’s ev id en ti ary ru li ng s fo r an ab us e o f di sc ret io n. U nit ed S ta te s v. E ckhardt, 466 F . 3d 9 38, 946 ( 11th C ir . 200 6) , c er t. de nie d, 1273

S. Ct. 1305 (2007). W e w ill reverse an evidentiary ruling on ly

when it has af

fecte d a de fe ndant’ s su

bst an tia l r igh ts. U nit ed

S ta te s v. Wri ght , 392 F . 3d 1 269, 127 6 (11th Cir. 2004). U nde r Fe d. R. E vid . 404 (b ), e vid en ce of unc harg ed

c ri m es “ is n ot a dm iss ibl e to p ro ve the c hara ct er

of ape rs on i n or de r to s howa ct ionin co nf orm ity the re w ith , ” but

it is adm iss ibl e to s how , a m ong oth er thi ngs, pr oof

of m oti ve and know le dge . F ed . R. E vid . 404 (b ). E vid en ce of unc harg ed

c ri m es is not

e xtr ins ic unde r Ru le 404 (b ) in thr ee sit ua tio ns: ( 1) the unc harg ed of fe nse aro se out

of the sam e tr an sa ct iona s th e ch ar ge d of fe nse , ( 2) it

is ne ce ssary

to co m ple te the sto ry

of the crim e, or (3) it inextricably is intertwined w ith the evidence about th e char ged o f f e n s e . Wr i g h t , 3 9 2 F . 3 da t1 2 7 6 ( c i t a t i o n o mi t t e d ) . A n dan u n c h a r g e dc r i me ab out the c ha in o f ev en ts e xpl ai nin g th e co nte xt p ro pe rl y is adm itt ed

if li nke d in tim e an d c ir cum stanc es w iththe c harg ed c ri m e, or if it f orm s an in te gr al and na tur al part

of an a cc ount

of the c ri m e to c om

ple te the sto ry

of the c ri m e fo r the jury. Id. (c it at io n o m it te d) . H er e, e vid en ce of

the f ir earm ine xtr ic ab ly

w as int er tw ine d w ithe vid en ce of the a m m uni tio n be ca

use the tw o w er e fo und tog ethe r in the sam e pla ce . I d. T he pr es en ce of

the f ir earm a lso te nds to s howA nde rs on’ s kn ow le dge of and m oti ve fo r poss es sin g th e am

m uni tio n and a ids in expla ini ng the c ont ex t of the c ri m e toAnder son argues that his situation is s imilar to the one in United States v. Hands, 184 F .3d 1322, 3 1327-28 (11th Cir. 1999), wher e we conclude d that spousal abuse e vidence was irr eleva nt in a drug tr a ff ic kin gc a se , a

nd e ve n if it w a s r e le va

nt, its min im al pr ob ativ e va lue wa s o utw e ig he d b y its pr e jud ic ia l n atu re. B ut H and s is ina pp os ite he re be c a

us e e vid e nc e of

the fi re arm

wa s r e le va

nt t o sh owmot ive to p os se ss t he ammunit ion . And

g ra ph ic sp ou sa l a

bu se e vid e nc e is mo re li kely to inflame a jury than a f irea rm. 4 the j ur y . E ve n th oughe vid en ce of the unc harg ed

f ir earm w as oth er

w ise adm iss ibl e, it

sho uld be e xc lud ed

“ if it s pr obativ e va lue 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, or m isl ea din g th e j ur

y . ” F ed . R. E vid . 403 . B ut R ule 403 is ane xtr ao rd inary r em edy that shou ld be used sp aringly . Wright, 392 F.3d at 1276 (citation om itted). H ere, the f ir earm did not c re at e a dange r of

unf ai r pr ej udi ce be ca

use it w as not li ke ly to inf lam e- -f or e xa m ple , hig hly

e xc ite ange r in- -the j ur

y . A nd n o is sue of

m isl ea din g the j ur y e xis te d be ca

use the dis tr ic t c ourt c au tio ne d th e j ur y that A nde rs on w as on tri al on ly for t he sp eci fic cri m e ch arg edin th e in di ct m en t. Acco rd in gl y , we 3 co nc lud e that e vid en ce of the unc harg ed

f ir earm w as a dm iss ibl e unde r Ru le s 40 3 an d 4 04 (b ). A nde rs on a lso arg ue s th at his 294 -m onth se nte nc e w as unr ea sona ble be ca use it w as gr eate r than ne ce ssary to ac co m pli sh the goa ls o f se nte nc ing , and he sub m its that the 15- y ear m an da tor y m ini m um se nte nc e w oul d have suf fi ci en tly addressed the sentencing factors of 18 U. S. C. § 355 3(a). In addition, he argues5

that the district court didnot adequately consider all the section 355 3(a) f actors an d, i ns te ad , un

jus ti fiabl y

rel ie d o n o nl y

th e p un is hm en t fa ct or . Be ca use A nde rs on w as se nte nc ed a ft er the S upr em e Co urt’ s de ci sio n in U nit ed S ta te s v. Bo oke r, 125 S . Ct . 738 ( 2005 ), w e re vie whis se nte nc e fo r reasonableness in the ligh t of the section 355 3(a) f actors. United State s v. W ining ear, 422 F.3d 1241 , 1244-46 (11th Cir. 2005 ). Brie fly stated, under section 355 3(a), a district court should consider, am ong o ther things , the nature an d c ir cum stanc es of

the of fe nse , the his tor

y and c hara ct er ist ic s of

the de fe ndant, the ne ed f or a de quate de te rr en ce and p ro te ct ionof the pub lic , pol ic y

state m en ts o f the S en te nc ing Co m

m iss ion , pr ovi sio n f

or the m ed ic al and e duc at ion al ne ed s of the de fe ndant, and the ne ed to av oid unw ar rante d se nte nc ing dis pari tie s. S ee 18 U . S. C. § 35 53( a) (1 )- (7 ). “ Re vie wf or r ea sona ble ne ss i s de fe re nti al ”; and “ the party w ho c ha lle nge s th e se nte nc e be ar s th e bur de n of e sta bli shi ng tha t the se nte nc e is unr ea sona

ble in the li ght

of [ the ] r ec or d and the f

ac tor s inse ct ion 35 53 (a).” Uni te d S ta te s v . Tall ey , 43 1 F .3d78 4, 7 88 (11 th Cir . 20 05 ). W e conclude that Anderson’ s sentence wa s reasonable. The district court co rr ec tly c al cu la te d hi s G uid el ine s im pr iso nm en t r an ge a s 26 2 to 327 m onths ba se d o n h is cla ss ifi cat io n a s an arm edcare er cr im in al un de r U.S.S.G. § 4B 1. 4( b) (3 )( A ); and the dis tr ic t c ourt se nte nc ed A nde rs on t o th e m idd le poi nt o f6

that r an ge . I d. ( not ing that “ or din ar ily w e w oul d e xpe ct

ase nte nc e w ith in the Guidelines range to be rea sonable”). T he Suprem e Court re cently has explained that “ a court of appeals m ay apply a presum ption of rea sonablen ess to a district court sentence that ref

lects a proper a

pplication of the Sentencing Guidelines.” Se e R i t a v . Un i t ed St at es , 1 2 7 S. Ct . 2 4 5 6 , 2 4 6 2 (2 0 0 7 ). In ad d i t i o n , An d er s o n ’s se nte nc e w as f

ar le ss than th e statut or

y m ax im um se nte nc e of

li fe im pr iso nm en t unde r 18 U . S. C. § 92 4( e) . S ee U nit ed S ta te s v. Br am e, 997 F . 2d 1 426, 142 8 ( 11th Ci r. 19 93 ). The district court explained that it had consid ered the sec tion 3 553(a) factors and all applicable gui delines, statem ents and po licies. I n concludi ng that t h e s en t en ce wa s ap p ro p ri at e, th e c o u rt n o t ed th e v i o l en tn at u re o f A n d er s o n ’s several previous offenses, which included a dom estic violence charge and other offenses involv ing weapons. T he district court’ s statem ent of rea sons wa s suf fi ci en t. S ee Ri ta , 127 S . Ct . a t 24 68- 69 ( a le ngthy e xpl an at ionis not

ne ce ssari ly required w hen a j udge decides to follo w the Guidelin es in a particular case, es pe ci al ly w he re ase nte nc ing j udge ha s li ste ne d to the arg um en ts o f the part ie s, co nsi de re d th e supp ortin g e vid en ce , and w as aw ar e of the spe ci al c ondi tio ns o f the de fe ndant) ; U nit ed

S ta te s v. S co tt, 426 F . 3d 1 324, 132 9 ( 11th C ir . 200 5) (explaining that Booker does not require the district court to state on the recordIn consideringAnder son’s violent criminal history , the district court did not rely on an 4 impermissible sentencingfac tor. See § 3553(a )(1) (cour t can c onsider th e h is tory

and cha rac teristics of the de fe nd ant whe n im

po sin gse nte nc e ) T hu s, his re lia nc e on Un ite d Stat e s v . A aro n Wil liams, 456 F.3d 1353, 1366 (11th Cir. 2006), wher e a district c ourt impermissibly considere d its personal disag ree ment with Congre ss’s judgme nt about how m uch har sher the pe nalties for c rac k offe nders sh ou ld b e , is mis pla c e d. An de rs on a lso c ite s Un ite d State s v . M arc us Willi ams, 43 5 F .3 d 1 35 0 ( 11 th Cir. 2006) wh er e we aff

irmed a se ntence less than half of the lowest sentenc e within the advisory Guideline ra

ng e; but this does not su gges t t h at the sentenc e in Ander son’s particula r ca se wa s unrea sonable. 7 that it has explicitl y

considered each section 3553 (a) factor) . Based on the factors outli ned in section 3553 (a) and our review of the rec ord, w e conclude that Anderson has not carried his burden of showing th at his sentence wa s unreasonable. 4 AFFIRMED.