FILED U.S. COURT OF AP P E A LS E LE V EN T HC IRC U IT JUNE 24, 2008 THOMAS K. KAH

N CLERK [ DO NO T P UB L I S H]

I N THE UN I TE D STATE S C OU RT OF APPE ALS F O R T H E E L E V E N T H C IR C U IT

________________________ N o. 07- 10485

________________________ D . C . D o c k e tN o . 0 5 - 2 0 9 1 5 - C R - D MM U N I T E D S T A T E S O F A M E R I C A , P la in tif f - A p p e lle e , v ersu s O R L A N D O A R I E L G O N Z A L E Z P E R E Z , D e f e n d a n t- A p p e lla n t.

________________________ A pp ea l fr om the U ni t ed S t at es D i stri ctC ou rt f orthe S outhe rn D i s tr i c tof F l or i da

_________________________ ( Ju n e 24, 2008) B efo re B IR C H , P R Y O R , an d K R A V IT C H , C i rcu i tJu d g es. P E R C U R I A M: D e f e nda nt - appe l l a ntO r l a ndo A r i e l G onz a l e z P e r e z w a s c onvi c t e d of co n sp i racy t o p o ssess w i th i n t en tt o d i stri b u t e co cai n e an d sen t en ced t o 6 0 m o n th s’Gonzalez Perez’s challeng e to his sentenceis without m erit. The jur y found Gonzalez 1 Pe re z to b ere sp on sib lefo r l e ss t ha n 5 00 gra ms o f c oc aine . Thee vide nc eat trial e sta bli sh e d h is involvement in close to 2 kilograms of coc aine. Thus, the c ourt did not err in de terminingthe amount of drug s to be betwe en 400 and 500 grams. We af firm the sentence without further discussion. Rua wa s eventu ally

dis mis se d f

ro m th eindic tment. I sa a c s p le a de d guilty to a sing le 2 count and testified f

or the g overnment. Followinga trial, Sanz was convic ted on all three c ounts . Roble s and

Rod ri gue z werec onvic te d o f c on sp ira c y to p os se ss withint e nt to dist ribute cocaine. Gonzalez Perez fled and w as tried separately . 2 i m p ri so n m en t . O n ap p eal , h e ch al l en g es (1 ) th e d en i al o f h i s m o t i o n t o su p p ress i nt e r c e pt e d phone c a l l s , ( 2) e vi de nt i a ry rul i ngs , ( 3) the j ury i ns truc t i ons , a nd ( 4) the am ou ntof drug s f

or w hi ch he w as hel d res po nsi bl e a tse nt enci ng . A ft eroral 1 a r g u me n ta n d a th o r o u g h r e v i e w o f th e r e c o r d , w e a f

f i r m. I. G on za l ez P er ez w as char ged al on g w i th Jai ro S anz de l a R osa ( “ S anz” ), W ilf r e d o R o b le s , R u d y R o d r ig u e z , J o r g e I s a a c s D ia z ( “I s a a c s ” ) , a n d H u m b e r to R ua i n a three -c ou nti nd i ctm ent . C ou nt1 charged al l defe nd ant s w i th con spi ra cy 2 t o i m por tf

i ve ki l ogr a m s of

m or e of c oc a i ne , i n vi ol a t i on of 21 U . S . C . §§ 952, 9 6 0 ( b ) , a n d 9 6 3 . C o u n t 2 a lle g e d th a t a ll d e f e n d a n ts e n g a g e d in c o n s p ir a c y to pos s e s s w i th i nt e ntt o di s tr i but e f i ve ki l ogr a m s orm or e of c oc a i ne , i n vi ol a t i on of 2 1 U .S .C . § 8 4 6 . C o u n t 3 c h a r g e d S a n z , I s a a c s , a n d R u a w ith p o s s e s s io n w ith i n t e n tt o d i s tr i b u t e f

i v e k i l o g r a ms o rmo r e o f c o c a i n e , i n v i o l a t i o n o f 2 1 U . S. C. § 841.3

A . P r e - tr i a l M ot i ons 1. M ot i on t o S up pres s W i re t ap E vi dence U n ite d S ta te s D E A A g e n ts b e g a n in v e s tig a tin g th e D e l T o r o d ru g r in g in 2004. W i r e t aps obt a i ne d by the U . S . gove rnm e nta s pa r tof tha ti nve s t i ga t i on i dent i fi ed D el T oro, W i l l i am de Je sus A ri as , Jorge N ei ro C uadra, and S anz a s s our c e s of

c oc a i ne i n the U ni t e d S t a t e s . T he s c he m e i nvol ve d a n e xt e ns i ve stru ctu re o f im p o rtatio n an d d istrib u ti o n “cells.” O n e s u ch ce ll w as u n d erS an z’s le a d e r s h ip . T h e p a r tic ip a n ts in th e s c h e m e u s e d m u ltip le p h o n e s to c om pa r tm e nt a l i z e the c e l l s a nd l i m i tl i a bi l i ty . I n D e c e m be r2004, a s a r e s ul tof i nt e r c e pt e d c a l l s , a uthor i t i e s w e r e a bl e t o s e i z e ove rtw e nty ki l ogr a m s of c oc a i ne th a t D e l T o r o im p o r te d u s in g c a r g o p la n e s . In F ebruary20 05 , D E A agent s obt ai ned i nform at i on fr om a c on fi dent i al i nform antre gardi ng i m po rt at i on of drug s throu gh M i am i Int ernat i on al A i rport u s in g a irp o r t e m p lo y e e s . T h e in f o r m a n t c o n f

ir m e d th a t S a n z w a s in v o lv e d in n a r c o tic s im p o r ta tio n u s in g I s a a c s , a n a irp o r t e m p lo y e e a n d S a n z ’s c o u s in , to r e m o v e d ru g s f

r o m in c o m in g p la n e s . I n J u n e 2 0 0 5 , C o lo m b ia n o f f ic ia ls i nt er ce pt ed a c al l , pu rs uantt o a C ol om bi an-i ss ued w i re t ap, w hi ch l ed U ni t ed S t at es D E A a g e n ts to b e lie v e th a t S a n z w a s p la n n in g to im p o r t n a r c o tic s w ith D e l T o r o . In A ug ust20 05 , C ol om bi an autho ri t i es i nt er ce pt ed a c al l t o D el T oro from S anz a t4

78 6-42 6-70 09 (t ar getph on e 1). D el T oro l at eri nform ed A ri as thatS anz’ s num ber w as 78 6-35 6-99 73 (t ar getph on e 2). T hrou gh ou tA ug ust , C ol om bi an autho ri t i es i nt er ce pt ed ca l l s on these tw o p ho nes c on ce rni ng narc ot i cs del i veri es . A gent s w er e a b le to in te r c e p t c a lls f

r o m G o n z a le z P e r e z a n d I s a a c s to ta r g e t p h o n e 1 . Int er ce pt ed ca l l s t o t ar getph on e 2 i dent i fi ed D el T oro, A ri as , and Isa ac s a s p a r tic ip a n ts . B as ed on thi s i nform at i on , the U . S . go vernm entre qu es t ed w i re t aps f or t ar get p h o n e s 1 a n d 2 in S e p te m b e r2 0 0 5 . A c c o r d in g to th e a f f id a v it, th e r e w a s p r o b a b le cause t o b el i eve a gent s w ou l d i nt er ce ptca l l s c on nect ed t o d rug t ra ff i cki ng by D el T or o, S a nz , A r i a s , I s a a c s , a nd othe r s , vi athe tw o t a r ge t e d phone s . T he g o v er n m en t also id en ti fied G o n za lez P er ez as a p ar ti cip an t i n D el T o ro ’s organi za t i on base d o n i nform at i on thathe had b ee n i nd i ct ed i n the W es t ern D i stri ct of P ennsyl vani a i n 1 99 2. T he charges had b ee n d i sm i ss ed i n 2 00 0 aft erautho ri t i es w e r e una bl e t o l oc a t e hi m . T he onl y othe rm e nt i on of G onz a l e z P e r e z i n the a f f i d a v i twa s e v i d e n c e th a th e s e n ttwo wi r e tr a n s f e r s a n d th a th e h a d m a d e two c a l l s t o t a r ge tphone 1. In i t s a ff i davi t , the go vernm entst at ed thatthe i nt er ce pt ed ca l l s w ou l d reveal evi dence of the part i ci pant s i n d rug t ra ff i cki ng offe nses , and t hatother norm al i nv es t i gat i ve t ec hn i qu es had fai l ed. S peci fi ca l l y, the af fi davi texpl ai ned t hat5

tr a d itio n a l m e th o d s s u c h a s s u r v e illa n c e , p e n r e g is te r s , a n d c o n f id e n tia l in f

o r m a n ts h ad b ee n o f lim it ed u se d u e to th e in tern atio n al sc o p e o f th e s ch em e a n d S an z’s a bi l i ty t o c onc e a l hi s l oc a t i on a nd i de nt i ty . T he a f f i da vi ta l s o c onf

i r m e d tha tthe confi dent i al i nform anthad b ee n arr es t ed and cou l d n o l on ger provi de new i nform at i on . T he af

fi antfurther e xp l ai ned w hy other t ec hn i qu es such as s ubpoe na s , i nt e r vi e w s , a nd unde r c ove rope r a t i ons w oul d notbe s uc c e s s f ul a nd w oul d dr a w a tt e nt i on t o the i nve s t i ga t i on. A c c or di ng t o the a f f i da vi t , the w i r e t aps w oul d e na bl e a ge nt s t o i de nt i f y a ddi t i ona l pa r t i c i pa nt s a nd the i rl oc a t i ons a nd p erm i tsu rv ei l l an ce w i th o u tal ert i n g th e p art i ci p an t s t o th e i n v est i g at i o n . F i n al l y, the a f f i da vi tc onf

i r m e d tha ta ge nt s w oul d t a ke a l l ne c e s s a ry s t e ps t o m i ni m i z e the in te r c e p tio n s . T h e d is tr ic t c o u r t c o n c lu d e d th a t th e a f f id a v it e s tab lis h e d p r o b a b le cau se an d i ssu ed th e w i ret ap au th o ri zat i o n fo r th i rty d ays. A s are sul tof the i ni t i al w i re t aps, agent s i nt er ce pt ed nu m er ou s c al l s i n w hi ch the t ar get s use d w hatagent s bel i eved t o b e c od e w ords t o d i sc uss del i veri es . T hey a l s o i nt e r c e pt e d num e r ous c a l l s i nvol vi ng G onz a l e z P e r e z . I n a S e pt e m be r30, 20 05 ca l l fr om G on za l ez P er ez t o S anz on t ar getph on e 1, the tw o d i sc usse d w hat a g e n ts b e lie v e d to b e a n a tte m p te d d e liv e ry o f d ru g s to W illie , w h ic h a c c o r d in g to a c r im in a l d a tab a s e , w a s R o b le s ’s a lia s . T he go vernm entprov i ded t he courtw i th u pd at es du ri ng the i ni t i al w i re t ap6

peri od . In on e of these up dat es , the go vernm enti nform ed the courtthatG on za l ez P e r e z w a s i n pos s e s s i on of t a r ge tphone 2. T he go vernm entob t ai ned a se cond w i re t ap i n N ov em ber 200 5 for t ar get ph on e 1 and a new nu m ber 786 -356 -267 6, w hi ch agent s bel i eved w as anot her ph on e a ss i gn ed t o S anz. T he go vernm enti nform ed the courtthatt ar getph on e 1 w as bei ng used by S anz a nd the form ert ar getph on e 2 (the 99 73 nu m ber) w as bei ng used by G on za l ez P er ez . A gent s i dent i fi ed abou t10 0 cal l s betw ee n t ar get ph on e 1 and form ert ar getph on e 2, l ea di ng them t o b el i eve thatG on za l ez P er ez w as a p art i ci p an ti n th e n arco t i cs sch em e. T h ro u g h th e seco n d au th o ri zat i o n s, a ge nt s e xpe c t e d t o i nt e r c e ptc a l l s f r om S a nz , G onz a l e z P e r e z , D e l T or o, A r i a s , a nd R o b l es, am o n g o th ers. A cco rd i n g t o th e affi d av i t , co n t i n u ed w i ret ap s co u l d assi st i n i de nt i f y i ng a ddi t i ona l pa r t i c i pa nt s a nd na r c ot i c s de l i ve r i e s . T he r e m a i nde rof the af fi davi tdet ai l ed the re as on s the w i re t ap w as nece ss ary, the fa i l ure of other i nv es t i gat i ve t ec hn i qu es , and t he m etho ds of m i ni m i za t i on . T he di stri ctcourt g r a n te d a u th o r iz a tio n . G on za l ez P er ez m ov ed t o sup pres s the w i re t ap evi dence on t he grou nd s that th e g o v e rn m e n t h a d , in te ra lia ( 1 ) f a ile d to s h o w p r o b a b le c a u s e w ith r e s p e c t to G onz a l e z P e r e z , ( 2) f

a i l e d t o s how ne c e s s i ty , a nd ( 3) f a i l e d t o c om pl y w i th the m i ni m i z a t i on r e qui r e m e nt s i n 18 U . S . C . § § 2515 a nd 2518. H e a l s o r e que s t e d aFranks v. De laware, 438 U.S. 154, 98 S.Ct. 2674, 57 L .Ed.2d 667 (1978). 3 7 F ra nk s hear i ng , al l egi ng thatthe af fi davi t s w er e c on tra di ct ory a nd fa l se . 3 F ol l ow i ng a hea ri ng , the di stri ctcourtdeni ed the m ot i on t o sup pres s a nd for a F ra n k s h ea rin g , co n clu d in g th at th er e w as p ro b ab le ca u se to in terc ep t S an z’s c onve r s a t i ons a nd the s t a tut e di d notr e qui r e pr oba bl e c a us e a s t o the l i ke l y or po ss i bl e i nt er ce pt ee s, as i nt er ce pt i on s nec es sa ri l y i nv ol ved o ther peopl e. T he court f u r th e rf o u n d th a t th e g o v e rn m e n t c o m p lie d w ith th e m in im iz a tio n r e q u ir e m e n ts because the st atut e di d n otre qu i re the go vernm entt o cea se i nt er ce pt i on s a ft er G on za l ez P er ez re ce i ved t he t ar getph on e f rom S anz. F i nal l y, the courtconcl ud ed tha tthe a f

f i da vi ta c c om pa ny i ng the S e pt e m be r2005 w i r e t ap appl i c a t i on suff i ci ent l y e xp l ai ned w hy tra di t i on al t ec hn i qu es w ou l d n otw ork and w as det ai l ed a nd s pe c i f

i c , a nd the r e w a s no a l l e ga t i on of de l i be r a t e f

a l s e hood i n the appl i c a t i on a nd no e vi de nc e tha tthe a f f i da vi tc ont a i ne d f

a l s e orde l i be r a t e l y m i s l e a di ng s ta te m e n ts . B . T ri al A t tr ia l, th e g o v e rn m e n t p r o f f e r e d e v id e n c e c o n n e c tin g G o n z a le z P e r e z to S anz’ s drug o rgani za t i on . Im erD i az t es t i fi ed thathe ac com pani ed R ob l es on three occa si on s i n w hi ch they m etG on za l ez P er ez . T he fi rs tm ee t i ng w as ata c ar de a l e r s hi p, w he r e G onz a l e z P e r e z a nd R obl e s s a ti n a truc k l i s t e ni ng t o m us i c a ndThe g overnment proffered te stimony from the tra

nscription service s reg ardingthe 4 manner of translating a

nd transcribing c alls. 8 Go n z a l e z P e r e z o f

f e r e d t o o b t a i n s o m e C Ds f o rR o b l e s . T h e f

o l l o wi n g two m e e tin g s o c c u rr e d a t G o n z a le z P e r e z ’s tr a ile r , w h e r e D ia z a n d R o b le s m e t w ith G o n zal ez P erez t o d i scu ss m o v i n g a b o at . A tth e fi rsto f th ese tw o m eet i n g s, R ob l es , D i az and G on za l ez P er ez w er e pre se nt . A tthe se cond tri p t o the tra i l er , a bouta w e e k l a t e r , S a nz w a s a l s o pr e s e nt . R obl e s a nd D i a z m e a s ur e d the boa ta nd di s c us s e d the ne e d f

ora f l a tbe d truc k. B e f

or e l e a vi ng, D i a z a nd R obl e s e nt e r e d the tr a i l e r , w he r e G onz a l e z P e r e z ha nde d R obl e s a pa c ka ge w r appe d i n e l e c tr i c a l t ape a n d to ld R o b le s to s e ll it f o rh im . D ia z c o u ld n o t s a y w h a t w a s in th e p a c k a g e . R ob l es di d n ott ake the package and l at ert ol d D i az thatG on za l ez P er ez w as cr az y a n d w a n te d to g e t h im in tr o u b le . A s a re su lto f th es e m ee ti n g s, D iaz w as ab le to re co g n ize G o n za lez P er ez ’s vo i ce . A tthe go vernm ent ’ s r equest , D i az l i st ened t o rec orded cal l s a nd i dent i fi ed G onz a l e z P e r e z ’ s voi c e . D e f e ns e c ouns e l obj e c t e d f

orl a c k of

f ounda t i on. 4 C ouns e l di d notobj e c tt o the a dm i s s i on of the t ape s orthe tr a ns c r i pt s , but c ha l l e nge d the voi c e i de nt i f i c a t i on. D e f

e ns e c ouns e l a l s o obj e c t e d t o the gove rnm e nt ’ s us e of

D i a z a s a c r e di bl e w i tne s s be c a us e , a c c or di ng t o c ouns e l , the gove rnm e ntha d que s t i one d D i a z ’ s c r e di bi l i ty i n the pr i ortr i a l dur i ng c l os i ngDuringRobles’s trial, the g overnment proffered evidencethat DEA ag ents surveilling 5 thetrailer o n September 3 0 obs e rv e d Roble s, Di az, a nd Go nzale z Pe re z waitingfo r S anz to arrive bec ause they

were locke d out of the trailer . Diaz, however , testified that he entere d in the trailer a nd saw theblac k p a c kag e . In c los ing , th eg ov e rnment q ue sti on e d D iaz’s c re dib ili ty beca use the surve illance c ontradicte d his testimony that he had be en in the trailer. The g overnment expl ained that there had be en conf usion as to the sequenc e of events, but that Diaz’s testimony in the instant trial clarifie d that he had be en at the trailer twic e but only inside once and there wa s no doubt that he had not entered thetrailer on September 30. 9 ar gu m ent . C ou nsel soug htt o stri ke the t es t i m on y, adm i tthe cl osi ng st at em ent , or,

5 al t ernat i vel y, t o rea d p ort i on s of i ti nt o the re cord un der F ed. R . E vi d. 80 1(d) as an a dm i s s i on of

a pa r ty . T he gove rnm e ntr e s ponde d tha ti tw a s nott a ki ng i nc ons i s t e ntpos i t i ons , a s the t e s t i m ony i n the tw o tr i a l s w a s c ons i s t e nta nd tha tthe prosec ut or, atm ost , m i ss po ke du ri ng cl osi ng ar gu m ent . T he go vernm entfurther as se rt ed thatadm i tt i ng the cl osi ng ar gu m entw ou l d b e pre j ud i ci al . T he court de ni e d the m ot i on t o s tr i ke , f i ndi ng the t e s t i m ony c ons i s t e nt , a nd de ni e d the r e que s tt o a dm i tc l os i ng a r gum e ntbe c a us e i tw oul d be pr e j udi c i a l a nd c onf

us i ng f o rth e ju ry . T h e c o u r t in s tru c te d th e ju ry , h o w e v e r , th a t it w a s u p to th e m to d e te r m in e th e id e n tity o f th e s p e a k e r s . A tthe cl ose of the evi dence, defe nse c ou nsel re qu es t ed the j ury be i nstruct ed pe rthe pa tt e rn j ury i ns truc t i ons , w hi c h i nc l ude d the t e r m “ w i l l f ul l y . ” T he g o v e rn m e n t r e q u e s te d th a t th e c o u r t u s e th e s a m e in s tru c tio n a s in th e p r io rtr ia l, w hi c h m i rr or e d the s t a tut ory l a ngua ge a nd e xc l ude d the t e r m “ w i l l f ul l y . ” T he courtgrant ed the go vernm ent ’ s m ot i on ov erdefe nse c ou nsel ’ s obj ec t i on . T he j ury10

c o n v ic te d G o n z a le z P e r e z o f c o n s p ir a c y to p o s s e s s w ith in te n t to d is tr ib u te c o c a in e , f

in d in g th a t th e a m o u n t o f c o c a in e in v o lv e d w a s le s s th a n 5 0 0 g r a m s . G o n z a le z P e r e z w a s a c q u itte d o f c o n s p ir a c y to im p o r t c o c a in e . T he court , i n k ee pi ng w i th the j ury’ s ver di ct , hel d G on za l ez P er ez re spon si bl e f

or betw ee n 4 00 and 5 00 gram s of drugs. T he re sul t i ng advi sory gu i del i nes r ange w as 51 t o 6 3 m on ths’ i m pri sonm ent . T he courtse nt ence d G onz a l e z P e r e z t o a t e r m of 60 m onths ’ i m pr i s onm e nt . G onz a l e z P e r e z now ap p eal s. III. In rev i ew i n g th e d en i al o f a m o t i o n t o su p p ress, w e rev i ew factu al fi n d i n g s for c l ea r e rr or and t he appl i ca t i on of the l aw t o tho se fa ct s de nov o. U ni t ed S t at es v. N e w s om e , 475 F . 3d 1221, 1223 ( 11th C i r . 2007) . A l l f a c t s a r e c ons true d i n the l i gh tm ostfa vo rabl e t o the prevai l i ng party, i n thi s c as e the go vernm ent . Id. at 1 2 2 3 - 1 2 2 4 . A d is tr ic t c o u r t’s f in d in g w ith r e s p e c t to w h e th e ra n a f f id a v it in supp ortof a w i re t ap adequat el y dem on stra t ed thatl aw enforce m enthad exh aust ed no rm al i nv es t i gat i ve t ec hn i qu es , as re qu i re d b y 18 U . S . C . § 2 51 8(1)(c ), i s s ubj ec t t o cl ea r e rr or re vi ew . U ni t ed S t at es v. W eber , 80 8 F . 2d 14 22 , 14 24 (11t h C i r. 1987) . A di s tr i c tc our t ’ s de t e r m i na t i on tha tl a w e nf or c e m e nta ge nt s ’ m i ni m i z a t i on pr oc e dur e s w e r e r e a s ona bl e unde rthe c i r c um s t a nc e s i s a f a c tua l de t e r m i na t i on11

s ubj e c tt o the c l e a r l y e rr one ous s t a nda r d of r e vi e w . U ni t e d S t a t e s v. M oody , 977 F . 2d 1425, 1433 ( 11th C i r . 1992) . E vi de nt i a ry i s s ue s a r e r e vi e w e d f ora bus e of d is c r e tio n . U n ite d S ta te s v . J im e n e z , 2 2 4 F .3 d 1 2 4 3 , 1 2 4 9 ( 1 1 th C ir . 2 0 0 0 ) . W e r e vi e w a tr i a l c our t ’ s r e

j e c t i on of

a pr opos e d j ur y i ns truc t i on f ora n a bus e of d is c r e tio n . U n ite d S ta te s v . G a r c ia , 4 0 5 F .3 d 1 2 6 0 , 1 2 7 3 ( 1 1 th C ir . 2 0 0 5 ) . W e r e vi e w a c ha l l e nge t o the s ubs t a nc e of a j ury i ns truc t i on de novo. U ni t e d S t a t e s v. S to n e , 9 F .3 d 9 3 4 , 9 3 7 ( 1 1 th C ir . 1 9 9 3 ) . I V. A . M o t i o n t o S u p p ress U nd er18 U . S . C . § 2 51 8, an appl i ca t i on for aw i re t ap m usti ncl ud e, i nt er a l i a : “ a f ul l a nd c om pl e t e s t a t e m e ntof the f a c t s a nd c i r c um s t a nc e s r e l i e d upon by the appl i ca nt. . . i ncl ud i ng det ai l s a s t o the part i cul aroffe nse . . . , a par t i cul ar d e s c r ip tio n o f

. . . th e ty p e o f

c o m m u n ic a tio n s s o u g h t to b e in te r c e p te d , th e id e n tity of the pe r s on . . . w hos e c om m uni c a t i ons a r e t o be i nt e r c e pt e d” , a nd “ a f ul l a nd com pl et e s t at em entas t o w hether or notother i nv es t i gat i ve procedures have bee n tr i e d a nd f

a i l e d orw hy the y r e a s ona bl y appe a rt o be unl i ke l y t o s uc c e e d i f tr i e d or t o b e t oo dang er ou s. ” 18 U . S . C . § 2 51 8(1)(b), (c ). T he c our tm a y the n i s s ue a n or de r“ i f the j udge de t e r m i ne s on the ba s i s of the fa ct s s ub m i tt ed by the appl i ca ntthat– (a) there i s probabl e c ause for bel i ef that12

an i nd i vi du al i s c om m i tt i ng , has c om m i tt ed, or i s abo utt o com m i ta par t i cul ar of f e ns e . . . ; ( b) the r e i s pr oba bl e c a us e f orbe l i e f tha tpa r t i c ul a rc om m uni c a t i ons concerni ng thatoffe nse w i l l be ob t ai ned t hrou gh such i nt er ce pt i on ; (c ) norm al i nve s t i ga t i ve pr oc e dur e s ha ve be e n tr i e d a nd ha ve f a i l e d orr e a s ona bl y appe a rt o be u n lik e ly to s u c c e e d if

tr ie d o rto b e to o d a n g e r o u s [ a n d ] ( d ) . . . th e r e is p r o b a b le c a u s e f o rb e lie f th a t . . . th e f

a c ilitie s f r o m w h ic h , o rth e p la c e w h e r e , th e . . . c om m uni c a t i ons a r e t o be i nt e r c e pt e d a r e be i ng us e d, . . . a r e l e a s e d t o, l i s t e d i n the nam e of, or com m on l y use d b y s uch p er son. ” 18 U . S . C . § 2 51 8(3). G on za l ez P er ez ar gu es thatthere w as no prob abl e c ause t o sup po rtthe i ni t i al i nt er ce pt i on of h is cal l s, th e g o v ern m en tfai l ed t o sh o w n ecessi ty o f an y w i re t ap s, a nd the gove rnm e nti m pr ope r l y i nt e r c e pt e d a l l of hi s c a l l s . H e e xpl a i ns tha the r e que s t e d a F r a nks he a r i ng be c a us e the gove rnm e nt ’ s f a l s e a nd m i s l e a di ng s ta te m e n ts c o n c e rn in g a n in d ic tm e n t in P e n n s y lv a n ia s e r v e d to ju s tif y p r o b a b le c a us e , a nd tha tthe gove rnm e ntdi d notpr oduc e a l l the a l l e ge d e vi de nc e s uppor t i ng i t s the ory . H e not e s tha tthe m a j or i ty of the a f f i da vi ts ubm i tt e d i n s uppor tof the w i re t ap ap p l i cat i o n referred t o S an z’ s act i v i t i es, an d h e w as n o tev en n am ed as a c o- c ons pi r a t orunt i l a f

t e rthe othe r s w e r e a rr e s t e d a nd c oope r a t e d w i th the g o v e rn m e n t. H e f

u r th e ra s s e r ts th a t th e g o v e rn m e n t s h o u ld n o t h a v e c o n tin u e d to i nt er ce ptal l the ca l l s on S anz’ s s ec on d p ho ne af t eri tl ea rned thatS anz had gi ven13

th e p h o n e to G o n z a le z P e r e z . T h e g o v e rn m e n t r e s p o n d s th a t th e a f f id a v its s u b m itte d e s tab lis h e d p r o b a b le c a us e a ga i ns tS a nz a nd i ndi c a t e d tha tG onz a l e z P e r e z w a s a pot e nt i a l t a r ge tf or i nt e r c e pt e d c a l l s on tha tphone . I tc ont e nds tha ti tw a s notobl i ga t e d, unde rthe m i ni m i za t i on re qu i re m ent , t o cea se i nt er ce pt i ng ca l l s w hen i tl ea rned thatG on za l ez P er ez w as usi ng the ph on e bec ause the t aps w er e i nt ended t o i dent i fy others i nvol ve d i n the c ons pi r a c y . T he gove rnm e ntdi s put e s tha ti tpr of f e r e d a ny f

a l s e or m is le a d in g in f

o r m a tio n , a n d c o n te n d s th a t n o F r a n k s h e a r in g w a s r e q u ir e d . 1 . P ro b ab l e C au se A n ap p l i c a t i o n f

o ra w i r e t ap a u th o r i z a t i o n mu s tb e s u p p o r t e d b y th e s a me pr oba bl e c a us e ne c e s s a ry f ora s e a r c h w a rr a nt . U ni t e d S t a t e s v. N i xon, 918 F . 2d 8 9 5 , 9 0 0 ( 1 1 th C ir . 1 9 9 0 ) . T h e is s u in g m a g is tr a te is to m a k e a “p r a c tic a l, c o m m o n - s e n s e d e c is io n ” a b o u t w h e th e rth e “to ta lity o f th e c ir c u m s ta n c e s ” in d ic a te th a t th e r e is p r o b a b le c a u s e th a t th e s o u g h t- f o re v id e n c e w ill b e o b ta in e d . I d . T h is c our t ’ s s t a nda r d f

orr e vi e w i s “ s i m pl y t o e ns ur e tha tthe m a gi s tr a t e ha d a

‘ s ubs t a nt i a l ba s i s f

or. . . c onc l ud[ i ng] ’ tha tpr oba bl e c a us e e xi s t e d. ” I d. ( c i t a t i on om i tt ed). M oreover, the pract i ca l nature of the m agi stra t e’ s dec i si on j ust i fi es

“ gr e a tde f

e r e nc e ” upon r e vi e w a nd c a l l s f oruphol di ng the m a gi s tr a t e ’ s f i ndi ngs e v e n in m a r g in a l o rd o u b tf u l c a s e s . I d .B e c a us ewec on c ludetheinitial w ire ta ps wereprop e rly

ob taine d, thereis n o merit to 6 Gonzalez Perez’s argument that the November wiretap was tainted by an illeg al interc eption. Even if there wa s no probable c ause to interc ept Gonzalez Perez’s phone, a uthorities were permitted to intercept Sanz’s calls, many of which involved c oded conversations with Gonzalez Perez. Onceauthorities interc epted thesecalls, they were ableto establish probable c ause f or the November

application. 14 A t is s u e is w h e th e rp r o b a b le c a u s e to in te r c e p t S a n z ’s c a lls e x te n d s to G on za l ez P er ez ’ s c on vers at i on s, es peci al l y once the go vernm entw as aw ar e that G o n z a le z P e r e z h a s p o s s e s s io n o f th e p h o n e , o rif

th e g o v e rn m e n t w a s r e q u ir e d to show prob abl e c ause t o i nt er ce pt i ng G on za l ez P er ez ’ s c al l s. G on za l ez P er ez co n ced es th atth ere w as p ro b ab l e cau se t o i n t ercep tS an z’ s cal l s. U p o n r e v ie w , w e c o n c lu d e th a t th e r e w a s s u f f ic ie n t p r o b a b le c a u s e to o b ta in wi r e t ap s i n S e p t e m b e r2 0 0 5 . C o n v e r s a t i o n s , b y th e r e v e ry n a tu r e , r e q u i r e two 6 pe opl e . T he gove rnm e ntha d i nf or m a t i on l i nki ng G onz a l e z P e r e z t o the drug o rg an i zat i o n . T h e co u rt ’ s o rd er au th o ri zi n g th e w i re t ap st at ed th ati t s p u rp o se w a s , i n pa r t , t o l oc a t e “ the i de nt i ty of the pa r t i c i pa nt s a nd c ons pi r a t or s of the o rg an i zat i o n . ” A n d th e affi d av i tsp eci fi cal l y i d en t i fi ed G o n zal ez P erez as a po ss i bl e i nt er ce pt ee . M oreover, G on za l ez P er ez do es no tdi sput e thatthere w as prob abl e c ause t o i nt er ce ptS anz’ s c al l s a nd m any of tho se prop er l y i nt er ce pt ed ca l l s i nv ol ved G on za l ez P er ez . T he gove rnm e nt ’ s l i ke l y m i s t a ke c onc e rni ng a pr i ori ndi c tm e ntdoe s not a l t e roura na l y s i s . T he of f i c e r s s e e ki ng the w a rr a nta c t e d i n good f a i th ba s e d onGo nzale z Pe re z cite s Unit e d St ate s v . Sa nta na , 3 42 F .3 d 6 0, 64 (1 st C ir . 2 00 3) , to 7 support his claim that probable c ause a s to the interceptee is re quired. We do not agree . As discussed, conversations nec essarily involve two persons. And thestatute requires the g overnment to mini miz e its interception of unrelate d calls; it does not requireexclusion. 15 i nform at i on fr om autho ri t i es i n P ennsyl vani a thatthere w as a pri or i nd i ctm ent . In any e vent , even w i tho utthe i nform at i on concerni ng the i nd i ctm ent , there w as s uf f i c i e ntpr oba bl e c a us e a r i s i ng f r om the e a r l i e ri nve s t i ga t i on a nd c om m uni c a t i ons i n t ercep t ed b y C o l o m b i an au th o ri t i es. 7 F i na l l y , e ve n i f

w e w e r e t o c onc l ude tha tpr oba bl e c a us e w a s l a c ki ng, s u p p r e s s i o n i s n o tth e p r o p e rr e me d y . Se e U n i t e d St a t e s v . D o n o v a n , 4 2 9 U . S. 413, 438, 97 S . C t . 658, 673, 50 L . E d. 2d 652 ( 1977) ( hol di ng tha ta vi ol a t i on of the r e q u i r e me n tth a tth e ap p l i c a t i o n i d e n t i f y a l l th o s e l i k e l y t o b e o v e rh e a r d , 1 8 U . S. C. § 2518( 1) ( b) ( i v) , di d notm a nda t e s uppr e s s i on be c a us e the r e qui r e m e ntdi d not pl ay a c entra l rol e i n the deci si on t o aut ho ri ze survei l l ance ); se e a l so U ni t ed S t at es v . V a n H o rn , 7 8 9 F .2 d 1 4 9 2 , 1 5 0 0 ( 1 1 th C ir . 1 9 8 6 ) .

2 . N e c e s s ity A n appl i c a t i on f

ora n or de ra uthor i z i ng a w i r e t ap m us ti nc l ude “ a f ul l a nd com pl et e s t at em entas t o w hether or notother i nv es t i gat i ve procedures have bee n tr i e d a nd f

a i l e d orw hy the y r e a s ona bl y appe a rt o be unl i ke l y t o s uc c e e d i f tr i e d or t o b e t oo dang er ou s. ” 18 U . S . C . § 2 51 8(1)(c ). T he af fi davi tsupp ort i ng an ap p lic a tio n n e e d n o t s h o w a “c o m p r e h e n s iv e e x h a u s tio n o f a ll p o s s ib le16

te c h n iq u e s ,” b u t n e e d e x p la in o n ly th e f a ilu r e o f th o s e te c h n iq u e s “th a t r e a s o n a b ly sugg es tthem se l ves. ” U ni t ed S t at e v. V an H orn, 78 9 F . 2d 14 92 , 14 96 (11t h C i r. 19 86 ). H e r e , the a f

f i a ntpr ovi de d e xt e ns i ve e xpl a na t i on a s t o the t e c hni que s a l r e a dy em p l o yed an d th e reaso n s w h y th e w i re t ap w as n ecessary.

3. M i ni m i z a t i on U nde rthe s t a tut e , “ [ e ] ve ry or de ra nd e xt e ns i on the r e of s ha l l . . . be c onduc t e d i n s uc h a w a y a s t o m i ni m i z e the i nt e r c e pt i on of c om m uni c a t i ons not o th e rw is e s u b

je c t to in te r c e p tio n u n d e rth is c h ap te r. . . .” 1 8 U .S .C . § 2 5 1 8 ( 5 ) . T he S upr e m e C our ti n S c ottv. U ni t e d S t a t e s , 436 U . S . 128, 98 S . C t . 1717, 56 L . E d. 2d 168 ( 1978) , s e tf or th the s t a nda r ds f

orr e vi e w i ng c ha l l e nge s t o the gove rnm e nt ’ s m i ni m i z a t i on e f f or t s : c our t s m us tm a ke a n obj e c t i ve a s s e s s m e ntof the m oni t or i ng a ge nt s ’ a c t i ons i n l i ghtof the f a c t s a nd c i r c um s t a nc e s c onf r ont i ng the m a tthe t i m e . I d. a t136. T he C our tc ouns e l e d tha t“ [ t ] he s t a tut e doe s not f orbi d the i nt e r c e pt i on of a l l nonr e l e va ntc onve r s a t i ons , butr a the ri ns truc t s the a ge nt s t o c onduc tthe s ur ve i l l a nc e i n s uc h a m a nne ra s t o ‘ m i ni m i z e ’ the i nt e r c e pt i on of

s uc h c onve r s a t i ons . ” I d. a t140. T he s t a nda r d t o be appl i e d t o the gove rnm e nt ’ s a c t i ons i s one of r e a s ona bl e ne s s . S e e U ni t e d S t a t e s v. V a n H orn, 78 9 F . 2d 14 92 , 15 01 (11t h C i r. 19 86 ).17

N ot a bl y , ne i the rs i de of f e r s a ny c a s e l a w s uppor t i ng i t s c l a i m s r e ga r di ng w hether the go vernm entcoul d con t i nu e t o i nt er ce ptca l l s once i tl ea rned that G onz a l e z P e r e z w a s the us e rof the phone . H e r e , the a f f i da vi ti n s uppor tof

the w i r e t ap c onf

i r m e d tha tthe gove rnm e ntw oul d a c tt o m i ni m i z e i nt e r c e pt i ons by c e a s i ng t o i nt e r c e ptc a l l s onc e i tw a s c l e a rtha tthe c a l l di d noti nvol ve a pa r t i c i pa nt i n the sc hem e or i nv ol ved an i nn ocentconv er sa t i on . T hu s, the go vernm entw as perm i tt ed t o i nt er ce ptca l l s t o d et erm i ne part i ci pant s a nd prop er l y c ea se d i nt e r c e pt i ons w he n the c a l l s di d noti nvol ve the drug or ga ni z a t i on.

4. F r a nks H e a r i ng I n or de rt o be e nt i t l e d t o r e l i e f , G onz a l e z P e r e z m us ts how ( 1) tha tthe a l l e ge d m i s r e pr e s e nt a t i ons orom i s s i ons w e r e know i ngl y orr e c kl e s s l y m a de by the a ge nt , a nd ( 2) tha tthe r e s ul tof e xc l udi ng the a l l e ge d m i s r e pr e s e nt a t i ons a nd i nc l udi ng the a l l e ge d om i s s i ons w oul d ha ve be e n a l a c k of pr oba bl e c a us e f

or i ss uance of the w arra nt s. U ni t ed S t at es v. Je nk i ns, 90 1 F . 2d 10 75 , 10 80 (11t h C i r. 1 9 9 0 ) . Up o n r e v i e w o f

th e m o t i o n t o s u p p r e s s a n d th e wi r e t ap ap p l i c a t i o n , we c onc l ude tha tG onz a l e z P e r e z ha s notm e tthi s bur de n. T he i nf or m a t i on c onc e rni ng the 19 92 i nd i ctm entca m e f rom autho ri t i es i n P ennsyl vani a. T he agent s di d n otac t r e c k le s s ly . G o n z a le z P e r e z h a s o f f e r e d n o th in g m o r e th a n c o n c lu s o ry s ta te m e n ts to e s tab lis h h is b u r d e n . W e f in d s u c h s ta te m e n ts in s u f f ic ie n t.The proponent who seeks to introducewritten transcripts of audio tape s must introduce 8 “some evidencethat the transc ripts areaccurate , that the words a re accurately

reproduced, a

nd the voices accurately

identified.” United States v. Rochan, 563 F .2d 1246, 1251 (5th Cir. 1977). Moreover, when the transc ript contains a tra nslation into English of conversations spoken in a fo re ign la nguag e , th eprop on e nt m

us t introd uc ethete stimony

of a qu alif ie d w itn e ss to authenticate and verify

the translation. See United States v. L linas, 603 F.2d 506, 509 n.3, 510 (5th Cir. 1979). However, this cour t later e xplained “[w]here there is suff icient independent evidenc e of theaccuracy

of the taperec ording s to insure their re liability , we will not disturb the trial court’ s decision to admit them even though at the time that judgment was madethe g overnment had not car

ried its particula

rized burden.”United States v. Hughes, 658 F .2d 317, 323 (5th Cir.1981). Here, however, G onzalez P ere z does not raise these issues a nd his argument is l imi te d towh e ther t

heg ov e rnment l aid a

prop e r f oundatio n f

or identi fi c atio n o f t

hesp e akers . 18 B . E vi dent i ary I ss ues 1. V oi c e I de nt i f

i c a t i on G on za l ez P er ez ar gu es thatthe di stri ctcourtshou l d n othave adm i tt ed tr a ns c r i pt s of

r e c or de d c onve r s a t i ons w i thoute vi de nc e tha the ha d m a de the i ncri m i nat i ng st at em ent s i n the re cordi ng s. H e e xp l ai ns thatno ne of the spea kers o n th e tap e s id e n tif

ie d th e m s e lv e s a n d th a t D ia z ’s te s tim o n y w a s in s u f f ic ie n t to m e e tthe gove rnm e nt ’ s bur de n t o e s t a bl i s h the i de nt i ty of the s pe a ke r s . T he g o v er n m en t res p o n d s th at th e c o u rt d id n o t ab u se it s d iscr etio n b ec au se D iaz’s t est i m o n y, al o n g w i th o th er ci rcu m st an t i al ev i d en ce, w as su ffi ci en tt o est ab l i sh i d en t i ty. T hi s c ou rthas pre vi ou sl y hel d that , t o adm i ti nt o evi dence a r ec orded c onve r s a t i on, the gove rnm e ntm us te s t a bl i s h, i nt e ra l i a , the i de nt i f i c a t i on of

the s pe a ke r s . U ni t e d S t a t e s v. H a rr e l l , 788 F . 2d 1524, 1527 ( 11th C i r . 1986) ( c i t i ng

8In B onner v . Ci ty of Pric ha rd , 6 61 F .2 d 1 20 6, 12 07 (1 1th Cir . 1 98 1) (en b anc ), thi s 9 c ourt he ld t hat all de c isi on s h and e d down b y thefo rm e r F if

th C irc uit be fo rethec los eof

bu sin e ss on September 3 0, 19 81 , a

rebin dingpre c e dent in th eEl e venth Circ uit . 19 U n ite d S ta te s v . B ig g in s , 5 5 1 F .2 d 6 4 , 6 6 ( 5 th C ir . 1 9 7 7 ) ( f o o tn o te a d d e d ) . 9 A s pe a ke r ’ s voi c e m a y be i de nt i f i e d by opi ni on t e s t i m ony “ ba s e d upon hear i ng the vo i ce atany t i m e und erci rc um st ance s c on nect i ng i tw i th the al l eged spea ker. ” F ed. R . E vi d. 90 1(b)(5). “ O nce aw i tness es t abl i shes fa m i l i ar i ty w i th an i de nt i f i e d voi c e , i ti s up t o the j ur y t o de t e r m i ne the w e i ghtt o pl a c e on the w i tne s s ’ s voi c e i de nt i f

i c a t i on. ” B r ow n v. C i ty of H i a l e a h, 30 F . 3d 1433, 1437 (11t h C i r. 19 94 ). H e r e , G o n z a le z P e r e z c h a lle n g e s o n ly w h e th e rth e g o v e rn m e n t p r o p e r ly id e n tif ie d th e s p e a k e r s . T h e g o v e rn m e n t u s e d te s tim o n y b y I s a a c s a n d D ia z to es t abl i sh thati tw as G on za l ez P er ez ’ s voi ce on the t ape. D i az st at ed thathe had spok en w i th G on za l ez P er ez three t i m es and recogni ze d h i s voi ce . Is aa cs t es t i fi ed tha the w a s w i th S a nz w he n S a nz c a l l e d G onz a l e z P e r e z a nd he he a r d the conv er sa t i on . T he ca se agent s f urther t es t i fi ed thatthe vo i ce s on the t apes bel on ged t o G on za l ez P er ez . T he ot her e vi dence s ub m i tt ed i ncl ud ed thatG on za l ez P e r e z ha d obt a i ne d S a nz ’ s phone , the phone w a s s ubj e c tt o the w i r e t ap, a nd G o n z a le z P e r e z a d m itte d u s in g th e p h o n e th a t w a s th e s u b je c t o f th e r e c o r d in g s . T he j ury w a s i ns truc t e d tha tthe i s s ue of i de nt i ty w a s w i thi n the i rdi s c r e t i on, a nd aGo nzale z Pe re z al so c ontend s th ec los ingstate ment w a s admi ssibleun der R ule 10 80 1( d) (2 )(B )( 2) a s an adoptivea dmi ssi on . H edid no t raisethi s is su eat trial. B ut n e vert he le ss, his argument fails bec ause thestatement’s admissibi lity is stil l subject to Rule 403's balancing te st. Thereis no merit to Gonzalez P ere z’s argument that the g overnment proffered

11 inconsistent arguments in the two trials requiringthis court strike the testimony under the doctrine of

judicial estoppel. “Judicial estoppel is an equitable doc trine invoked at a cour t’s discretion, designed to protec t the integrity of the judicial proc ess.” Stephens v. Tolbert, 471 F.3d 1173, 1177 ( 11th Cir. 2006) (citations omitted). A district court may invoke the doctrine “ to p revent a

pa rt y from a ssertinga

c laim in a

le g al proc e e dingthat is inc on sis tent witha c laim taken by that party

in a previous procee ding.”I d. “[T] he circumstance s under whic h judicial e stopp e l sh ould b einv oke d a reno t re du c ibl eto a

g e neral f or mul atio n o f p rinc ipl e ,”but c ourt s have traditionally

looked at thre e factors: (1) whether a later position asserted by

a par ty was 20 j ury’ s c re di bi l i ty det erm i nat i on s w i l l no tbe di sturbed b y thi s c ou rt . U ni t ed S t at es v. P arra do , 91 1 F . 2d 15 67 , 15 71 (11t h C i r. 19 90 ). A cc ordi ng l y, w e f i nd no error. 2. D i a z ’ s t e s t i m ony G o n z a le z P e r e z a r g u e s th a t th e c o u r t ab u s e d its d is c r e tio n b y r e f u s in g to strik e D iaz’s tes ti m o n y b ec au se th e p ro se cu to r in R o b les’s trial h ad attack ed D iaz’s t e s t i m ony a nd c r e di bi l i ty i n c l os i ng a r gum e nt . H e c ont e nds tha thi s c onvi c t i on ca n n o t stan d in li g h t o f th e f alse o r p er

ju re d testim o n y a n d th e g o v er n m en t’ s i ncon si st entpo si t i on s i n the tw o cas es . A l t ernat i vel y, G on za l ez P er ez as se rt s that the c our te rr e d by de ny i ng hi s r e que s ttha tthe c our tpe r m i thi m t o a dm i tthe g o v e rn me n t ’ s c l o s i n g s t a t e me n tf r o m Ro b l e s ’ tr i a l i n t o e v i d e n c e u n d e rFe d . R. E vi d. 80 1(d)(2)(B) and (d)(2)(D ). 10 T he go vernm entre spon ds thatthe t es t i m on y w as consi st entw i th the ea rl i er te s tim o n y , b u t th a t e v e n if th e c lo s in g s ta te m e n t w a s a d m is s ib le u n d e rR u le 11clea

rly inconsistent with an earlier position; (2) whether a par ty succe eded in persuadinga cour t to acc ept an e arlier

position, “so that judicial acceptanceof an inc onsistent posit ion in a later proce edingwould cre ate the perception that either the fir st or the sec ond court wa s misled”; and (3 ) whe ther t

hepa rt y wi th a n in c on sis tent p os iti on

wo uld derivean unf

air a dv antag eor

imp os e an unf air de triment o n th eoppo singpa rt y if no t e stopp e d. I d. Here , th e reis n o re a so n f or us to apply this doctrine. The g overnment’s statements were consistent and nothingabout the statements would mislead the c ourt or re sult in an unfair advantag e. 21 8 0 1 ( d ) , it w a s s u b

je c t to th e b a la n c in g te s t o f R u le 4 0 3 , a n d a s s u c h w a s p r o p e r ly ex cl u d ed as p o t en t i al l y co n fu si n g t o th e j u ry. I n U ni t e d S t a t e s v. D e L oa c h, 34 F . 3d 1001 ( 11th C i r . 1994) , the de f e nda nt s oughtt o ha ve the c our ta dm i tthe gove rnm e nt ’ s c l os i ng s t a t e m e ntf r om the tr i a l of a c ode f e nda nton the gr ounds tha tthe s t a t e m e ntw a s i nc ons i s t e ntw i th the go vernm ent ’ s posi t i on i n the curre nttri al . T hi s c ou rtexpl ai ned t hatsuch s t a t e m e nt s a r e a dm i s s i bl e w he r e the y a r e : “ ( 1) ‘ a s s e r t i ons of f a c t ’ tha ta r e the ‘e q u iv a le n t o f

a te s tim o n ia l s ta te m e n t b y th e [ c lie n t];’ a n d 2 ) ‘in c o n s is te n t w ith s i m i l a ra s s e r t i ons i n a s ubs e que nttr i a l . ’ ” I d. a t1005 ( quot i ng U ni t e d S t a t e s v. M c K e o n , 7 3 8 F .2 d 2 6 , 3 3 ( 2 d C ir . 1 9 8 4 ) . H e r e , the c our tdi d nota bus e i t s di s c r e t i on by de ny i ng the m ot i on t o s tr i ke D ia z ’s te s tim o n y . D ia z ’s s ta te m e n ts w e r e c o n s is te n t w ith h is te s tim o n y in R o b le s ’s tr ia l. U p o n r e v ie w o f th e r e c o r d s , w e a g r e e th a t th e s e q u e n c e o f e v e n ts w as co n fu sin g an d , as th e g o v er n m en t ex p lain ed , i t sim p ly m isu n d er sto o d D iaz’sGonzalez Perez’s relianc e on United States v. Kattar, 840 F .2d 118 (1st Cir. 1988), 12 does not persuade us otherwise. In that case , the Fir st Circuit was “troubled”by inconsistent positions t aken by

the prosecutor in different trials. Nevertheless, the c ourt conc luded that there was no c onstitut ional error where there w as no showingthat the false testimony influence d the verdic t and the evidence of guilt was overwhe lming. In the instant case , thereis no evidencethat Diaz’s testimony

was false, but rather

was the likely

result of a

confusion, and no evidencethat th eg o v e r nm e ntkn o w i n g l y e l i c i t e d f al s et e s t i m o ny.

22 t e s t i m ony i n the e a r l i e rtr i a l w he n i tm a de the s t a t e m e nt s dur i ng c l os i ng. 12 E v en i f th i s ev i d en ce w as ad m i ssi b l e u n d er R u l e 8 0 1 (d ), th e co u rtm u st ba l a nc e a dm i s s i bi l i ty w i th pot e nt i a l pr e j udi c e . H e r e , the c l os i ng a r gum e ntf r om R o b le s ’s tr ia l w o u ld h a v e c o n f u s e d o rm is le d th e ju ry . T h u s , u n d e rR u le 4 0 3 's bal anci ng t es t , the courtdi d n otabuse i t s di sc re t i on by excl ud i ng the evi dence. C . Ju ry In stru ct i o n s G onz a l e z P e r e z a r gue s tha t , a s a m a tt e rof l a w , the gove rnm e ntha d t o s how un der § 84 6 thathe ac t ed “ w i l l ful l y” i n add i t i on t o k no w i ng l y, and t hu s the court e rr e d by r e m ovi ng the e l e m e ntof w i l l f ul ne s s f r om the i ns truc t i ons . T he gove rnm e ntr e s ponds tha tthe i ns truc t i on w a s pr ope rbe c a us e i tm i rr or e d the s t a tut ory l a ngua ge . I tnot e s tha tthe pa tt e rn j ur y i ns truc t i on doe s nottrum p the pl ai n l angu age of the st atut e, and t hatother c i rc ui t s have c hang ed the pat t ern in s tru c tio n s to r e f

le c t th is . “ T he di stri ctcourthas broad di sc re t i on i n form ul at i ng j ury i nstruct i on s a s lo n g a s th o s e in s tru c tio n s a r e a c o rr e c t s ta te m e n t o f th e la w .” G a r c ia , 4 0 5 F .3 d a t 1273. T hi s c our tw i l l f

i nd r e ve r s i bl e e rr oronl y i f “ ( 1) the r e que s t e d i ns truc t i on23

corr ec t l y s t at ed the l aw ; (2) the ac tual char ge t o the j ury di d n otsubst ant i al l y c ov er th e p r o p o s e d in s tru c tio n ; a n d ( 3 ) th e f a ilu r e to g iv e th e in s tru c tio n s u b s ta n tia lly i m pa i r e d the de f

e nda nt ’ s a bi l i ty t o pr e s e nta n e f f e c t i ve de f

e ns e . ” U ni t e d S t a t e s v. F ul f or d, 267 F . 3d 1241, 1245 ( 11th C i r . 2001) ( c i t i ng U ni t e d S t a t e s v. M a r t i ne z , 83 F .3 d 3 7 1 , 3 7 6 ( 1 1 th C ir . 1 9 9 6 ) ) . V i ol at i on s of § 84 6 are spec i fi c i nt entcr i m es . S ee U ni t ed S t at es v. E tt i ng er , 344 F . 3d 1149, 1154 ( 11th C i r . 2003) ( c i t i ng U ni t e d S t a t e s v. C a m e r on, 907 F . 2d 1 0 5 1 , 1 0 6 3 ( 1 1 th C ir . 1 9 9 0 ) ) ; s e e a ls o U n ite d S ta te s v . S to n e , 139 F . 3d 822, 833 ( 11th C i r . 1998) ( “ [ t ] he w or ds ‘ [ i ] ts ha l l be unl a w f ul f ora ny pe r s on know i ngl y ori nt e nt i ona l l y t o pos s e s s a c ontr ol l e d s ubs t a nc e ’ i de nt i f y the m e n ta l s ta te a n d th e c o n d u c t C o n g r e s s in te n d e d to p r o h ib it.” ) . T o s u p p o r t a c onvi c t i on f

orc ons pi r a c y t o di s tr i but e c oc a i ne i n vi ol a t i on of § 846, the g o v e rn m e n t m u s t p r o v e , in te ra lia , th a t th e d e f e n d a n t k n o w in g ly a n d v o lu n ta r ily pa r t i c i pa t e d i n the c ons pi r a c y . U ni t e d S t a t e s v. A ndr e w s , 953 F . 2d 1312, 1318 ( 11th C i r . 1992) ( e m pha s i s a dde d) . T o pr ove know i ng a nd vol unt a ry pa r t i c i pa t i on,

“ the G ov ernm entm ustprov e bey on d a re as on abl e dou btthat[he] had a del i bera t e, know i ng, a nd s pe c i f

i c i nt e ntt o j oi n the c ons pi r a c y . ” U ni t e d S t a t e s v. J e nki ns , 779 F . 2 d 6 0 6 , 6 0 9 (1 1 th C i r. 1 9 8 6 ) (em p h asi s ad d ed ); see al so U n i t ed S t at es v . D av i s, 583 F . 2d 190, 193 ( 5th C i r . 1978) ( di s c us s i ng ge ne r a l c ons pi r a c y s t a tut e a nd24

expl ai ni ng that“ the re qu i re m entof w i l l ful ness conn ot es a vol un t ary, i nt ent i on al v io la tio n o f

a k n o w n le g a l d u ty ” ) . D is tr ic t c o u r ts a r e n o t r e q u ir e d to u s e th e P a tte rn J u ry I n s tru c tio n s , a n d th is courthas r ou t i nel y app roved j ury i nstruct i on s w hi ch di d n otexac t l y tra ck pat t ern i ns truc t i ons . S e e U ni t e d S t a t e s v. V e l tm a nn, 6 F . 3d 1483, 1492 ( 11th C i r . 1993) ( lis tin g c a s e s ) . M o r e o v e r , p a tte rn ju ry in s tru c tio n s c a n n o t tru m p th e s ta tu te ’s p la in l a ngua ge . U ni t e d S t a t e s v. P ol a r , 369 F . 3d 1248, 1252 ( 11th C i r . 2004) ( r e j e c t i ng w i l ful ness i nstruct i on w here st atut e i nd i ca t ed the el em entof the offens e w as k n o w i n g l y). T h u s, w e co n cl u d e th atth e d i stri ctco u rtp ro p erl y i n stru ct ed th e j u ry. V. In concl usi on , w e AF F I RM G on za l ez P er ez ’ s c on vi ct i on and sent ence .