FI L ED U.S. COURT OF APPEAL S EL EVENTHCI RCUI T OCTOB ER 26, 2011 J OHN L EY CL ERK [PUBLIS H] IN THE UN ITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELE VENTH CIRCUIT

__ __ __ __ __ __ No. 0 9- 13 40 9

__ __ __ __ __ __ _ D.C. Dock etNo. 0 7- 20 71 4- CR-C MA UNITED STAT ES OF AMERIC A, Pl ai nt iff -Ap pe ll ee, ve rs us RENE GONZA LEZ PEREZ, a.k .a. Pip o, LUIS FERNANDEZ, a.k .a. Pach a, ROBERTO DAVILA, a.k .a. Ch in o, AMILKA DEL MONTE, a.k .a. Mi lk a, Defen da nt s- App el la nt s.

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ App eal s fr om

th e Uni te d S ta te s Di st ric t Co urt fo r th e So uthe rnDis tri ctof F lo rid a

__ __ __ __ __ __ _ (Oct ob er 2 6, 2 01 1) Befo re TJ OFLAT, BARKETT an d F AY, Circ ui t J ud ge s.PER CURI AM:

Thi s ca se in vo lv es co nv ic ti on s fo r two Hob bs Act co ns pi raci es an d re la te d 1 subs ta nt iv e o ffen se s. Th e fi rs t co ns pi racy, Cou nt1 o f th e supe rced in g i nd ic tm en t, ch arg edtwo of the ap pe ll an ts , Ren e Gon zal ez Pe rez a ndAm il kaDel M on te , with co ns pi rin g b etweenAug us t 2 an d 2 3, 2 00 7, t o ro b ach eck -cas hi ng st or e in Ft. Pi erce , Flo rid a. The s eco ndco ns pi racy, Cou nt5, g rew o utof t he fir stco ns pi racy 2 an d c harg edall fou r ap pe ll an ts —Pe rez, Del Mo nt e, Ro be rto Davi la , andLui s Fern an de z—a ndRei ni er Pe rei er with c on sp iri ng be twee n Au gu st8 an d Au gu st 3 23 , 20 07 , to rob a fi ct io na l co cai ne st as h h ou se inMi am i, Fl or id a. The re la te d of fen se s wer e ch arg edinCo un ts 6, 7 , and8. Co un t 6 all eg edth atall ap pe ll an ts at te m pt edto rob th e co cai ne st as h h ou se on Aug us t 2 3, 2 00 7 ; Co un t 7 all eg ed 4

The Hobbs Ac t, 18 U.S.C. § 1951(a) states, in per tinent part: “(a) Whoever in a ny way 1 or degreeobstructs, delays, or af fec ts commerce . . . by

robber y . . . or attempts or c onspires so to do . . . shall be fined unde r this titl e or imprisoned not more than twenty year s, or both.” The initial indictment charg ed One l Salga do with the crimes c harg ed in Counts 1, 5, 6 2 and 7 of the superc edingindictment. He pled guilty to the Hobbs Act a

nd car rying f irea rms offe nses on April 29, 2008, and, on O ctober 9, 2008, was sente nced to c oncurr ent prison terms of 120 months and a conse cutive ter m of 60 months, for a total of 180 months’ c onfinement. Appellants’ tria l beg an on Mar ch 9, 2009 and e nded with the re turn of the jury ’s ver dicts on Marc h 30, 2009. The district cour t sentence d on June 30, 2009. Salg ado wa s a prose cution witness at appe llants’ trial. On Oc tober 1, 2009, the district c ourt grante d the Gover nment’s Fe d. R. Cri. P . 35 motion and modified his sentence s to concurr ent prison terms of 70 months. Pereie r, Pere z’s nephew, wa s indicted and tried w ith appellants; he wa s acquitted on a ll 3 counts. See supra

note 1. 4 2th atth ey

carr ie d fi rearm s i n c on ne ct io n wi thsu chatt em pt . Cou nt8 ch arg edDel 5 Mo nt e wit h b ei ng a fel on inpo ss es si on of afir earm . 6 Inth is ap pe al , all ap pe ll an ts ch al le ng e th e su ffi ci en cy of t he ev id en ce t o supp ort the ir c on vi ct io ns . Alte rn at iv el y , th ey arg ue th atwe sh ou ldgranta ne w tri al be cau se of s ev eral pre jud ic ia l erro rs th e d is tri ctco urt p ur po rte dl y m ad e b ot h pr etria l an d a t tria l. Per ez an d Del Mo nt e al so ch al le ng e th ei r se nt en ces . 18 U.S.C. § 924(c) states, in pe rtinent part: 5 (1)( A) Except to the extent that a greater minimum sentence is other wise provided by . . . law, any

person who, during a

nd in relation to any

crime of violence or drugtraff ickingcrime . . . f

or which the person may

be prose cuted in a c ourt of the United States, uses or c arries a fir ear m, or who, in furthe ranc e of a ny such crime, posse sses a fir ear

m, shall, in addition t o the punishment provided for such crime of violence or

drugtraff

ickingcrime– (I ) be se ntence d to a term of imprisonment of not less than 5 year s[.] 18 U.S.C. § 922(g) states, in pertinent pa rt: 6 (g ) It shall be unlawful f

or any person– (1) who ha s been c onvicted in any court of, a

crime punishable by

imprisonment for a term excee ding one year ;

. . . . to . . . possess in or aff

ectingcommerc e, any

firea rm or ammunition; 18 U.S.C. § 924(e)(1) provides that anyone “who violates section 922(g ) . . . and ha s three previous convic tions . . . refe rre d to in sections 922(g )(1) . . . for a violent felony

or serious drugoffe nse, or both, committed on occ asions differ ent from one another , such per son shall be fined unde r this titl e and imprisoned not less than f ifteen year s[.] ” 3W e fi rs t ad dr es s ap pe ll an ts ’ su ffi ci en cy of t he ev id en ce ar gu m en ts . W it h th e ex cep ti on of De l M on te ’s cha ll en ge to hi s co nv ic ti on s o n C ou nt s 7 an d 8 , th es e arg um en ts are fr iv ol ou s an d re qu ire no di sc us si on . W e n on ethe le ss rel at e th e fac ts pe rta in in g t o C ou nt s 1 , 5, an d 6 be cau se th ey be ar o n o urdi sp os it io n o f Del M on te ’s cha ll en ge s t o C ou nt s 7 an d 8 an d t o P erez ’s sen te nc e ap pe al . I. The ap pe ll an ts di d n otm ov e fo r a jud gm en t o f acqui tt al pri or to th e d is tri ct co urt’s s ub m is si on of the cas e to th e jury or aft er the jury returne d i ts ve rd ic ts . See F ed . R. Cri m . P. 29 . As a res ul t, we wi ll up ho ldap pe ll an ts ’ co nv ic ti on s 7

“un le ss [] do [in g] so wou ldres ul t i n am an ife stm is carr ia ge of ju st ic e.” Uni te d St at es v. Th om

ps on , 61 0 F .3d13 35 , 13 38 (11 th Cir . 20 10 ) (quo ti ng Uni te d S ta te s v. Pa te , 54 3 F .2d11 48 , 11 50 (5t h C ir. 1 97 6) ). “ Thi s s ta nd ardrequi res th e ap pe ll at e co urt t o fi ndth atth e ev id en ce o n ake y ele m en t o f th e o ffen se is so te nu ou s t ha t a c on vi ct io n wo ul d b e sh oc ki ng .” Uni te d S ta te s v . Ben de r, 29 0 F .3d 12 79 , 12 84 (11 th Cir . 20 02 ) (ci ti ng Uni te d S ta te s v . Ham bl in , 91 1 F .2d55 1, 55 6– 57 (11 Cir . 19 90 )). To m ak e th is de te rm in at io n, “ we co ns id er al l o f th e

th ev id en ce p res en te d a t tria l,” Th om ps on , 61 0 F .3dat 1 33 8, drawi ng all reas on ab le Del Monte, joined by

the other a

ppellants, did move the district court f or a ne w trial 7 pursuant to Rule 33. The motion, howeve r, did not state that the evide nce w as insufficie nt to support the jury ’s ver dicts of guilt. 4in fere nc es an d c red ib il it y ch oi ces infav orof t he jury’ s v erd ic t. Un it edSta te s v . Tark of f, 24 2 F .3d99 1, 9 93 (11 th Cir . 20 01 ). W e n ow re la te th e sa li en t fa ct s i n thi s ca se un de r th e st an da rdde sc rib ed ab ov e. Inlat e Ju ly 200 7, a c on fid en ti al in fo rm an t (t he “ CI”) fora joi nt st at e/ fed eral tas k fo rce d is cu ss edpo te nt ia l ro bb ery ta rg et s wi th Onel Sal ga do , 8 in cl ud in g ach eck -cas hi ng st or e in Ft. Pi erce an d afic ti on al co cai ne st as h h ou se in Mi am i. Sal ga do ex pr es se d i nt eres t i n b ot h i de as , bu t the ir f oc us qu ic kl y

cen te red on th e ch eck -cas hi ng st or e. The C I de sc rib edit s o pe rat io ns an d s ta te d t ha t the own er fre qu en tl y

m ov edlar ge su m s o f m on ey to an d fr om

th e st or e. Fo ll owi ng th is co nv ers at io n, Sa lg ad o s ol ic it edap pe ll an t Pe rez f orass is ta nc e in rob bi ng th e ch eck -cas hi ng st or e. On Au gu st2, 2 00 7, Sa lg ad o i nt ro du cedPere z to th e CI, an d P erez st at edhi s d es ire to tak e p artinth e Ft . Pie rce h ei st . Cit in g h is cri m in al ex pe rti se , Perez th enbe ga n t o d ire ctth e ro bb ery’ s p la nn in g. Sp eci fic al ly, Pere z in si st edth athe workwith apa rti cu la r pa rtn er, l at er re ve al edto be ap pe ll an t Del M on te . Due t o t he CI’s ta skfor ce h an dl ers ’ co nc ern s ab ou t p ot en ti al in juri es th atco ul d re su ltfro m

anatt em pt edrob be ry

of t he st or e, th e CI al so en co ur ag ed Sal ga do to co ns id er ro bb in g t he fic ti on al co cai ne st as h h ou se . Salg ad o wi sh edto co nduc t b ot h ro bb eri es , bu t h e p utth e st as h h ou se rob be ry onho ldwhen a See supra

note 2. 8 5po te nt ia l co ns pi rat orrefu se d t o t ak e p art . W it h the co op erat io n o f Pere z an d Del

Mo nt e, ho wev er, p la nn in g fo r th e ro bb ery of th e ch eck -cas hi ng st or e co nt in ue d. On Au gu st16 , 20 07 , as t he pl an ne d d at e fo r th e ch eck -cas hi ng rob be ry ne ared , th e ta skfor ce re cei ve d ju di ci al au th or iz at io n t o i nt erce pttel ep ho ni c co m m un ic at io ns of S al ga do an d P erez . In a s eri es of i nt erce pt edcal ls , Perez , Del Mo nt e, Sal ga do , andth e CI fi na li zedth ei r pl an s fo r th e h ei st . The CI wou ldpa rk hi s ca r ne ar the ch eck -cas hi ng st or e. As the own er l eftth e st or e wit h alar ge su m of m on ey , th e CI wo ul d p oi nthi m ou t t o P erez an d Del Mo nt e; Sal ga do , dri vi ng th e g et away car, wo ul d b e p ark edne arb y . Perez an d Del Mo nt e wou ldth en as saul t the own er, s ei ze the cas h, an d fl ee the sce ne inSal ga do ’s car. The fol lo win g m orni ng , th e CI, Pe rez, Del Mo nt e, an d S al ga do m etina Mi am i s ho pp in g m al l p ark in g l otto pu t the ir p la n i nt o a ct io n. Pe rez a ndDel Mo nt e th enpu rch as edpe pp er s pr ay fro m a ne arb y gu n s ho p, wh ic h t he y

in te nd ed to do us e th e st or e o wne r wit h dur in g t he rob be ry . Afterwa rd s, Pe rez, Del Mo nt e, Sal ga do , andth e CI dro ve to ward s Ft . Pie rce i n t wo ca rs to co m pl et e th e ro bb ery. The CI’s ta skfor ce h an dl ers , con cern edab ou t i nju rie s t ha t co ul d o ccur du rin g t he ro bb ery, in st ru ct edth e CI t o aba nd on th e sc he m e. Ther efo re, p rio r to th ei r arri va l atth e st or e, th e CI t ol d h is co co ns pi rat or s tha t a c on ta ctha d i nf orm edhi m

th ata la rg e num

be r of po li ce h adarri ve d a t the st or e to bre akup a fi gh t. Tho ug h P erez 6an d Del Mo nt e arg ue d t ha t the rob be ry sh ou ldst il l g o fo rwardinso m e fo rm , th e pa rti es ul ti m at el y

de ci de d t o re tu rnto Mi am i. On the car ri de ba ck

fro m th e ab orte d c he ck -cas hi ng st or e ro bb ery, Sal ga do to ldPere z an d Del Mo nt e ab ou t the po te nt ia l co cai ne st as h h ou se rob be ry . The ho ld -up wo ul d b e m ad e p os si bl e b y th e co op erat io n o f a d is lo y al dru g c ou rie r

“ Ju an ,” who was a ctua ll y anun de rco ve r Mi am i-Da de de te ct iv e. “ Ju an ” wou ld rece iv e th e lo cat io n o f th e st as h h ou se aft er co ll ect in g h is bi m on th ly del iv ery of twen ty to thi rty kil og ram s o f co cai ne fro m th e Tam ia m i Ai rp ort. He wo ul d t he n co nv ey th is in fo rm at io n t o t he CI, al lo win g S al ga do an d h is co co ns pi rat or s t o s te al th e dru gs fro m

arm edgu ard s b ro ug htto th e st as h h ou se fro m Mex ic o. Pe rez a nd Del M on te em

br acedth e p ro po sa l, ad di ng th ataltho ug h m or e th anth ree i nt ru de rs wou ldbe ne ed ed , th ey

“ ha d t he pe op le forth at .” Prep arat io ns forth e ro bb ery m ov edqu ic kl y . On Aug us t 2 1, 2 00 7, the CI, Sal ga do , and“ Ju an ” m etto di sc us s t he ir p ro gr es s. Sal ga do rep orte d t ha t Pe rez an d Del Mo nt e wan te d t o o ve rp owe r an d i m m ob il iz e th e st as h h ou se gu ard s sh ortl y aft er the y

lea rn edth e st as h h ou se ’s lo cat io n. Th ey wou ldth enrel ie ve

“ Ju an ” o f th e co cai ne up on hi s arriv al . “ Ju an ” ag reedwith t he pl anan d a dv is ed Sal ga do th atth e n ex t s hi pm en t wo ul d a rri ve two day s l at er, o n Au gu st23 , 20 07 . Im m ed ia te ly foll owi ng th is m eet in g, Sa lg ad o c al le d P erez to in fo rm hi m of t he 7sh ip m en t’s arriv al . Perez st at edth athe wou ld“ cal l the gu y s” an d s ub se qu en tl y

co nt act edap pe ll an ts Fern an de z an d Dav il a. The n ex t ev en in g, Sa lg ad o c al le d Pere z to co nf

irm th atth e co cai ne wou ldarri ve th e fo ll owi ng aft ern oo n. Pe rez t he n cal le d an u ni de nt ifi edm al e to lo cat e fi rearm s fo r “ work” th e n ex t d ay . Inth e ear ly aftern oo n o f Aug us t 2 3r d, the day of the pl an ne d ro bb ery, Sal ga do , Perez , Fern an de z, Del M on te , andPere ie r m etat P erez ’s apartment t o di sc us s t he he is t; th ou gh Davi lawas n otpre se nt , he a ndFern an de z ex ch an ge d th ree p ho ne cal ls du rin g t hi s t im e. Pere z st res se d t he im po rta nc e o f co m

pl et in g th e ro bb ery th atni gh t, as th e n ex t co cai ne sh ip m en t wo ul d n otarri ve foran ot he r twen ty day s. Whil e th e ro bb ery crew al l ex pr es se d t he ir wi ll in gn es s t o g o fo rward , th ey

als o wi sh edto m eet“ Ju an ” b efo reh an d. Th eref or e, Sal ga do , Del Mo nt e, an d F ern an de z le ft P erez ’s apa rtment, p ic ke d up t he CI ata ne arb y res taur an t, an d re tu rn ed . At Pe rez’s ap art m en t, the CI ap ol og iz edfor “ Ju an ’s” ab se nc e an d re co un te d th e ro bb ery’ s d et ai ls . In p art ic ul ar, the co ns pi rat or s d is cu ss edth e n eedto be arm edgi ve n t he ne ar ce rta in ty tha t the sh ow o f de ad ly force wou ldbe ne ces sa ry to su ccee d. Fo r ex am

pl e, Fern an de z d es cri be d h ow the Mex ic angu ard s wo ul d “ ki ll y ou ” to pro te ctth e dru gs . Perez ask edFern an de z if Davi lawou ldsupp ly the ne ces sa ry weap on s. Ferna nd ez re pl ie d tha t Dav il a h ad“ fo urweap on s an d a 8sh ot gu n,” in cl ud in g am ach in e g un , andst at edth atth ey wou ldne edfiv e h oo ds an d p la st ic ha nd cu ffs . Perez no te d t ha t the m ach in e g un wou ldin ti m id at e th e gu ard s. Be cau se th e tr an sp orta ti on of g un s wo ul d i nc reas e th ei r ri skof d et ect io n, th ey de ci de d t ha t the fir earm s wo ul d b e tr an sp orte d i n asep arat e v eh ic le . If po li ce st op pe d t ha t v eh ic le , th e o th er ca r wou ldcrea te a di st ract io n t o a ll ow i t t o e sc ap e. Afte r th e CI s ta te d t ha t “ Ju an ” wou ldco nt acthi m withi n a n h ou r, Fern an de z an d Dav il a ex ch an ge d t wo t el ep ho ne cal ls ; Dav il a arr iv edsh ortl y th erea fte r. Whe n t he CI an no un cedth athe rece iv ed“ Ju an ’s” cal l, Pe rez a ndhi s n ep he w pl aceda lo ng fir earm

an d aha nd gu n i nt o abl ackba g. Dav il a, Fern an de z, an d t he CI ca rri edth is ba g fr om

th e ap art m en t an d p la ceditinth e rear of th e CI’s car. Dav il a to okad di ti on al fir earm s fr om hi s ca r an d p utth em

inth e CI’s v eh ic le . At thi s p oi nt , Sal ga do , Perez , Del Mo nt e, Fern an de z, Dav il a, an d P erei er en te redPere z’s SUV an d b eg anfol lo win g the CI t o t he pre -ro bb ery ren de zv ou s with “ Ju an .” Thro ug ho utth e 3 0 t o 4 0- m in ut e jou rn ey , Del Mo nt e, Fern an de z, an d Dav il a p ho ne d t he CI t o d is cu ss th e p la n. Tas k fo rce e nf or cem en t o ffi cers st op pe d th e ro bb ery crew’s ca r jus t s ho rt o f it s d es ti na ti on un de r th e p ret ex t o f co nt ro ll in g tra ffi c aro un d ave hi cu la r acc id en t. The off ic ers sea rch edth e caran d fo un d Del Mo nt e in po ss es si on of f

iv e kni t s to ck in g c ap s an d p ep pe r sp ray; Perez an d Dav il a bo th po ss es se d kni ve s. A se archof t he CI’s v eh ic le un co ve redfiv e lo ad ed 9fir earm s: a .12 gaug e sh ot gu n, an AK-47 rif le , a .38 cal ib er re vo lv er, a .9 m m Berr et ta , anda .44 m ag nu m . A. To o bt ai n aco nv ic ti on ag ai ns t an y of t he fou r ap pe ll an ts onCo un t 7 , for vi ol at in g 1 8 U.S.C. § 92 4( c), the Gov ern m en t h adto pro ve be y on d areas on ab le do ub t tha t the de fen da nt“ (1 ) kn owi ng ly (2) p os se ss eda fi rearm (3) infurth eran ce of an y dru g t raff

ic ki ng cri m e fo r whi chhe co ul d b e p ro se cu te d i n aco urt o f th e Uni te d S ta te s.” Un it edSta te s v . W oo da rd , 53 1 F .3d13 52 , 13 62 (11 th Cir . 20 08 ). To o bt ai n aco nv ic ti on ag ai ns t Del Mo nt e o n C ou nt8, fo r vi ol at in g 1 8 U.S.C. § 92 2( g) , th e Gov ern m en t h adto pro ve be y on d areas on ab le do ub t tha t the de fen da nt“ kn owi ng ly pos se ss eda fi rearm an d h adbe enpre vi ou sl y co nv ic te d o f a fel on y .” Uni te d S ta te s v . Gun n, 3 69 F.3d12 29 , 12 35 (11 th Cir . 20 04 ). Thu s, un de r bo th st atut es , th e Gov ern m en t h adto pro ve th e d efen da nt ’s kn owi ng po ss es si on of afir earm

as ake y ele m en t o f th e o ffen se . Po ss es si on of afir earm

m ay be eit he r actua l o r co ns tru ct iv e. Uni te d S ta te s v. Ig le si as , 91 5 F .2d15 24 , 15 28 (11 th Cir . 19 90 ). Co ns tru ct iv e p os se ss io n o f a fir earm ex is ts when a de fen da ntdo es no t h av e actua l p os se ss io n b utin st ead kn owi ng ly has th e p owe r orrig ht , andin te nt io n t o e xe rci se do m in io n a ndco nt ro l ov er the fir earm . See Gu nn , 36 9 F .3dat 1 23 5 (c it at io ns om it te d) . A defe nd an t’s 10pr es en ce i n t he vi ci ni ty of a fi rearm or m ere a ss oc ia ti on with a no th er wh o po ss es se s t ha t g unis in su ffi ci en t; ho wev er, atth e sa m e ti m e, “ [t]he fir earm ne ed no t b e o n o r ne ar the de fen dant ’s per so n i n o rd er t o a m ou ntto kn owi ng po ss es si on .” Uni te d S ta te s v . Wrig ht , 39 2 F .3d12 69 , 12 73 (11 th Cir . 20 04 ) (ci ti ng Uni te d S ta te s v . W in ch es te r, 91 6 F .2d60 1, 6 03 –0 4 (1 1t h C ir. 1 99 0) ) (h ol di ng th ata fi rearm

fou ndbe hi ndhi s co uc h wh enth e d efen da ntwas n otho m e was su ffi ci en t fo r a co nv ic ti on un de r 18 U.S.C. § 9 22 (g )). As l on g a s t he Gov ern m en t p ro ve s, thr ou gh eithe r di rector c irc um st an ti al ev id en ce tha t the de fen da nt(1) was a ware o r kn ew of th e fi rearm ’s pre se nc e an d (2 ) ha d t he ab il it y an d i nt en t t o l at er ex erci se do m in io n a ndco nt ro l o ve r th atfir earm , th e d efen da nt ’s co ns tru ct iv e p os se ss io n o f th atfir earm is sh own . Uni te d S ta te s v . Beck le s, 5 65 F.3 d 8 32 , 84 1 (1 1t h C ir. 2 00 9) . Si gn ifi can tl y , th e se co ndele m en t o f co ns tru ct iv e p os se ss io n i s s at is fie d i f th e d efen da ntin te nd edto ex erci se do min io n andco nt ro l o f th e g un th ro ug h an ot he r. Gun n, 3 69 F.3dat 1 23 5 (“ The de fen da ntm ay ex erci se [] do m in io n a nd co nt ro l ei th er d ire ct ly or th ro ug h o th ers .” (ci ta ti on s o m it te d) ). Thu s, a d efen da nt ’s kn owi ng pa rti ci pa ti on ina joi ntcri m in al ve ntur e in whi cha pa rti cu la r fi rearm is in te nd edto pl ay

a cen tra l p artpe rm it s t he jury to reas on ab ly con cl ud e th atth e de fen da ntco ns tru ct iv el y

po ss es se d t ha t g un . See, e.g ., Uni te d S ta te s v .

11McAn de rs on , 91 4 F .2d93 4, 9 47 –4 8 (7 th Cir . 19 90 ) (uph ol di ng a fi nd in g o f

co ns tru ct iv e p os se ss io n wh ere t he ga ng lea de r “ was aware o f th e v io le nc e th atha d be enpl an ne d andkn ew th atth e weap on s i n [aga ng m em be r’s] pos se ss io n wo ul d be us edto co m

m it[vi ol en t] act s.”) . This is tru e ev enif t he de fen da ntne ve r in te nd edto us e th e fi rearm hi m se lf—th e d efen da ntsh ares hi s co pa rti ci pa nt s’ in te ntan d jo in tl y

po ss es se s t he gu n a s p artof t he cri m in al en te rp ris e cen te rin g aro un d p os se ss io n o f th e g un . B. Del M on te arg ue s t ha t the ev id en ce p res en te d a t tria l d idno t i nd ic at e th athe co ns tru ct iv el y

po ss es se d t he fir earm s b ei ng tra ns po rte d b y th e CI t o t he pu rp orte d ro bb ery si te . Spe ci fic al ly, he cla im s t ha t the ev id en ce d idno t es tabl is h e it he r

9 el em en t o f co ns tru ct iv e p os se ss io n—th atDel M on te kn ew of th e g un s p res en ce i n th e CI’s v eh ic le or t ha t h e h adth e p owe r to ex erci se do m in io n a ndco nt ro l o ve r th em . Thu s, as he st at es inhi s re pl y bri ef, “ [t]he re was no ev id en ce upo n wh ic h a rat io na l trie r of

factco ul d fi ndth at[he ] kn owi ng ly pos se ss eda fi rearm , andhi s co nv ic ti on s fo r po ss es si onof aweap on by a con vi ct edfel on an d u se an d c arrying

It is undisput ed that De l Monte was not in actua l possession of the fire arms at the time 9 of their discove ry ; the firea rms wer e in the CI ’s vehicle .

12of

a fi rearm du rin g adru g o ffen se sh ou ldth eref or e b e v acat ed .” Del M on te Rep ly Br. at3. As the fol lo win g d is cu ss io n h ig hl ig ht s, h owe ve r, Del M on te ’s ch arac te riz at io n o f th e ev id en ce i s i nc orrect . The rec or d e vi de nc e supp orts a reas on ab le co nc lu si on th atDel M on te ha d b ot h (1 ) kn owl ed ge of t he gu ns be in g tra ns po rte d t o t he rob be ry si te an d (2 ) in te ntth atth os e g un s b e u se d— ei th er b y hi m or h is co parti ci pa nt s— in th e ro bb ery of th e fi ct io na l co cai ne st as h h ou se . Thu s, Del Mo nt e co ns tru ct iv el y an d jo in tl y

po ss es se d t he gu ns . 1. Acco rd in g t o Del Mo nt e, th e ev id en ce ad du cedat t ria l d oe s n otpe rm ita reas on ab le in fere nc e th athe kn ew ab ou t the gu ns fou ndinth e CI’s ca r. Ins te ad , th e Gov ern m en t o nl y

pro ve d h is “ m ere p res en ce” a t Pe rez’s ap art m en t, an d t ha t

“ m ere p res en ce” d idno t yieldth e in fere nc e th athe kn ew ab ou t the gu ns . Del Mo nt e n ot es th at , un li ke hi s co co ns pi rat or s, the Gov ern m en t d idno t p res en t an y tape reco rd in gs inwhi ch he ex pl ic it ly dis cu ss edth e u se of f ire arm s. In su m , “ th e go ve rn m en t p ro ve d n ot hi ng m or e th an[hi s] pro xi m it y an d m ere a ss oc ia ti on with so m eo ne els e who m ay

ha ve po ss es se d afir earm .” Del M on te Br. at27 . If th is was all th atth e Gov ern m en t’s ev id en ce es tabl is he d, Del Mo nt e m ig htpre va il

13be cau se , as d is cu ss ed , a de fen dant ’s pre se nc e in th e v ic in it y of f ire arm s, s ta nd in g al on e, do es no t p erm ita fi nd in g o f co ns tru ct iv e p os se ss io n. The Gov ern m en t, h owe ve r, di d p ro du ce s uf fic ie ntev id en ce fo r rea so nabl e fin de r of factto co nc lu de th atDel M on te kn ew of th e g un s’ pre se nc e. To s ta rt, Del M on te was wel l awa re o f th e d an ge ro us na tu re o f th e o pe rat io n: rob bi ng arm edgu ard s o f twe nty

to th irt y ki lo gr am s o f co cai ne . As th ey pl an ne d t o ov erco m e th e arm edgu ard s wi th for ce, Sal ga do to ldDel M on te an d P erez th at th ey wou ldne edad di ti on al pe op le . On th e d ay of t he op erat io n, wi th Del M on te pr es en t, Fe rn an de z st at edth at“ th in gs [wou ld ] ge t h ot ” if th ey ki ll edon e o f th e gu ard s i n t he rob be ry

att em pt . Less th ana m in ut e la te r, Del M on te ex pr es se d h is de si re t o t ak e p artde sp it e th e ri sk , st at in g: “ [W] e’re tal ki ng ab ou t g oo d d ou gh . A go odret ire m en t.” Th es e p ro jecti on s o f vi ol en ce were su ffi ci en t fo r th e jury to reas on ab ly con cl ud e th atth e co co ns pi rat or s i nt en de d t ha t the gu ns pl ay a cen tra l ro le incarry in g o utth e cri m in al ve ntur e; as S al ga do tes ti fie d a t tria l, “ [i]t’s as su m edif you a re g oi ng to rob pe op le who are arm ed , y ouha ve to tak e weap on s.” Thi s g en eral awaren es s o f th e n eedforgu ns bu tt res se s t he ev id en ce pr es en te d c on cern in g t he ev en ts th attra ns pi redwithi n P erez ’s “ ve ry sm al l” ap art m en t. Ferna nd ez, with Del Mo nt e p res en t, d is cu ss edth e sp eci fic guns th at 14Dav il a wou ldpro vi de forth e ro bb ery, in cl ud in g a n AK-4 7 m ach in e g un . 1 0

Marti ne z al so tes ti fie d t ha t g un s wer e d is pl ay edat t he ti m e th e g ro up be ga n t o

“ m ob il iz e[]” forth e ro bb ery. Mo reo ve r, th e tape reco rd in g o f th e p ro ceed in gs 1 1 in si de th e ap art m en t, as well as S al ga do ’s tes ti m on y , rev eal edth atth e g ro up co ns ci ou sl y

wait edto de pa rt f

or th e ro bb ery un ti l the y

rece iv edwordth atth e g un s ha d b een pl acedinth e CI’s ca r fo r tr an sp orta ti on to th e ro bb ery si te . The for eg oi ng ev id en ce, t ak enco ll ect iv el y , su ffi ci en tl y pe rm it te d t he jury to in fer t ha t Del Mo nt e kne w of t he pre se nc e o f th e fi rearm s b ei ng tra ns po rte d t o t he in te nd edcri m e sc en e. 2. Del M on te ’s awaren es s o f th e g un s was no t s uf fic ie nt , by it se lf, t o e st ab li sh hi s co ns tru ct iv e p os se ss io n o f th em . Rath er, the in qu iry m us t turn t o t he sec on d el em en t o f co ns tru ct iv e p os se ss io n: whet he r th e Gov ern m en t p ro ve d t ha t Del Mo nt e h adth e ri gh t an d i nt en ti on to lat er ex erci se do m in io n a ndco nt ro l o ve r th e Del Monte a

rgues that the Gove rnment’s re liance on his pre sence in Perez’s apa rtment 1 0 at the time the guns were discussed and displayed “ignores the f act that ther e we re ma

ny individuals present in the apa rtment that eve ning, c oming a nd g oing, smokingmarijuana and playing vide o g ames. Ac cordingto the CI , the apa rtment consisted of a

“ver y small” room. Given this circumstanc e, a r easona ble jury could havefound that De l Monte listened to the conver sation that took place while he wa s prese nt. Although Salg ado testified that he did not see any guns inside Perez’s apa

rtment, 1 1 cre dibilit y

deter minations li e with the jury and the jury

here rea sonably

could have relied upon the CI ’s testimony

as indicative of

whether guns were seen in Pere z’s apartment. 15gu ns , eithe r pe rs on al ly or th ro ug h o th ers . Reg ard le ss of wh ethe r Del Mo nt e

in te nd edto us e an y

of t he gu ns hi m se lf, t he Gov ern m en t m etit s b ur de n o n t hi s el em en t thr ou gh ev id en ce o f Del Mo nt e’s di rectin vo lv em en t i n acri m in al en te rp ris e cen te redaro un d t he us e o f th e fi rearm s. The tas k fo rce d is co ve redfiv e g un s wh enth ey m ad e th ei r arre st s. Fi ve is th e sa m e num

be r of st oc ki ng cap s d is co ve redon Del M on te ’s per so n. Th e jury co ul d re as on ab ly infe r fro m th is ev id en ce tha t fi ve of t he co ns pi rat or s—

pr es um ab ly all e xc ep t the CI— in te nd edto wear the st oc ki ng cap s, each us in g agu n. Bu t ev enif Del Mo nt e n ev er i nt en de d t o u se a gu n h im se lf, h is po ss es si on of t he fiv e st oc ki ng cap s d ire ct ly im pl ic at edhi m

inth e at te m

pt ed ro bb ery. Thi s fa ct , com

bi ne d wi th th e in te ntof h is co co ns pi rat or s t o u se gu ns to ov erco m e th e arm edgu ard s i n o rd er t o c arry outth e ro bb ery, was s uf fic ie ntto es tabl is h Del Mo nt e’s in te nt io n t o e xe rci se do m in io n a ndco nt ro l o f a fi rearm . Viewe d i n ali gh t m os t fa vo rab le to th e Gov ern m en t, the ev id en ce atDel Mo nt e’s tr ia l p erm it te d areas on ab le jury to co nc lu de th atDel M on te , join tl y with hi s co co ns pi rat or s, co ns tru ct iv el y po ss es se d the gu ns . Con se qu en tl y , we 1 2 The district cour

t properly instructed the jury

as to this meaningof construc tive 1 2 possession as follows: The lawrec ognizes severa l kinds of possession. A person may have a ctual possession or construc tive possession. A person may also have sole possession or joint possession. 16en co un te r no di ffi cu lt y inco nc lu di ng th ataffi rm in g Del Mo nt e’s co nv ic ti on s o n Co un ts 7 an d 8 wil l n otco ns ti tu te a m an ife stmis carr ia ge of ju st ic e. II. The ap pe ll an ts , as a lt ern at iv e rel ie f, arg ue th atth ey sh ou ldbe affo rd eda ne w tri al ba se d o n anu m be r of erro rs th e d is tri ctco urt al le ge dl y co m m it te d pr etria l an d a t tria l. On ly two re qu ire an y di sc us si on . The fi rs t i s ad vanc edby Fern an de z; th e se co ndby all fo urap pe ll an ts . 1 3

A per son who knowing ly has direc t phy sical control of something is then in actual possession of it. A pe rson who is not in actual possession, but who has both the power

and the intention to later take contr ol over something , either a lone or tog ether

with someone else, is in construc tive possession of it. I f one pe rson alone ha s possession of something, that possession is sol e. I f two or more pe rsons share possession, such possession is joint . Whenever

the word “possession” has be en used in theseinstructions, it includes construc tive as we ll as actua l possession and also joint as well as sole possession. The followingarg

uments are meritless and thus re quire no discussion. They are that 1 3 the district court e rre d or abuse d its discretion in the following r espec ts: 1. In denying the ir pretrial motion for sever ance ; 2. In overr

uling F erna

ndez’s objection as to the a dmission i nto evidence , under F eder al Rule of Evidenc e 404(b) , of his involvement in a pre vious home invasion in which he lef t a mask bearing his DNA and obtaine d one of the firea rms seized by

the task for ce a g ents when the y sear ched the CI ’s vehicle followingappellants’ a rre sts; 3. In denying the motions of Perez, Del Monte, and Da vila for se vera

nce be cause of the court’s a dmission of the evidence relating to F erna ndez’s involvement in the home invasion; 4. In admitting into evidenc e, through the testimony of a ta sk forc e ag ent, a video ta pe rec ordingof appe llants’ arr ests; 5. In overr

uling a ppellants’ objec tions to the cour t’s jury instructions on the elements of the Hobbs Ac t, espec ially the “a ffe cts commerc e” e lement; 6. In ref using to grant the de fense motion for a mistrial—made f ollowing c losing argument to the jury

and af ter the c ourt instructed the jury on the law—on the ground of prosec utorial misconduct. The a ppellants’ argued that the pr osecutor imprope rly bolstered the testimony of prose cution witness Salga do and commente d on the def endants’ invoc ation of F ifth 17A.

Fern an de z arg ue s t ha t the di st ric t co urt v io la te d h is Six th Am en dm en t ri gh t to co m pu ls ory pro ces s b y

de nyin g h is pre tri al m ot io n fo r anord er co m pe ll in g Erne st o R ojas to tes ti fy

as ade fen se witne ss at t he ap pe ll an ts ’ tri al . Rojas ha d be enco nv ic te d o f m ak in g afal se st at em en t t o afed eral ag en t. Whil e Ro jas was in cu st od y , Davi la ’s in ve st ig at orob ta in edanaffi da vi t fr om hi m whi chst at ed , in Sp an is h, tha t Sa lg ad o andJo el Trian a, bo th Gov ern m en t wi tn es se s, t ol d h im of th ei r wil li ng ne ss to pe rjure th em se lv es . Spe ci fic al ly, th ey wou ldfal se ly im

pl ic at e Dav il a in th e cri m in al act iv it y in vo lv edinth e cas e. Whe n i nf orm edof t hi s, Dav il a m ov edth e d is tri ctco urt p ur su an t t o F ed eral Ru le of C riminal Pro cedur e 1 5 fo r anord er re qu iri ng Ro jas t o app ear f

or de po si ti on . The co urt g ran te d t he m ot io n. Be fo re Ro jas ap pe aredforde po si ti on , 1 4 a m ag is tra te jud ge ap po in te d a n a tt orne y to rep res en t h im . After c on su lt in g wi th Ro jas, the att orne y

in fo rm edDavi la ’s cou ns el th atRo jas wo ul d i nv ok e th e Fi fth Amendment rights. Rule 15(a) (1) provides that: “A pa rty may move that a pr ospective w itness be depose d 1 4 in order to pr eser

ve testimony

for tria l. The cour

t may grant the motion bec ause of exceptional circ umstances a

nd in the interest of justice.” By the time Davila f

iled his Rule 15 moti on, Rojas had serve d his sentence for the f alse statement off

ense a nd was on super

vised rele ase. B eca

use he ha d been in the United States unlawfully , Rojas, though on supe rvised re lease , was be ing de tained by U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforc ement pendinghis removal fr om the United States. 18Am en dm en t an d re fu se to an swe r an y qu es ti on s. Ro

jas wo ul d d o s o, the att orne y sa id , bec au se he fear edth atif h e te st ifi edinco nf orm an ce wi th whathe sai d i n t he affi da vi t, h e wou ldbe pro se cu te d fo r pe rjury. The de po si ti on wentforwardas or de red , bu t Ro

jas, ci ti ng th e Fi fth Am en dm en t, re fu se d t o a ns wer co un se l’s qu es ti on s. Fern an de z, on be ha lf o f al l d efen da nt s, fi le d aren ewedRu le 15 m ot io n t o de po se Ro

jas. His m ot io n re ci te d R ojas ’s in vo cat io n o f th e Fi fth Am en dm en t an d as se rte d tha t Ro

jas h adno ba si s fo r th e in vo cat io n. Fe rn an de z th eref or e as ke d t he co urt t o c om

pe l Ro jas t o a ns wer co un se l’s que st io ns . The d is tri ctco urt re jecte d th e as se rti on an d d en ie d Dav il a’s m ot io n. W e rev ie w th e d is tri ctco urt’s d eci si on to ho no r a wit ne ss ’ in vo cat io n o f hi s Fi fth Am en dm en t ri gh t ag ai ns t s el f-i nc riminat io n fo r ab us e o f di sc ret io n. Un it ed St at es v.Van Deve er, 5 77 F.2d10 16 , 10 18 (5t h C ir. 1 97 8) ; see Uni te d S ta te s v . 1 5 Bo ot he , 33 5 F .3d52 2, 5 25 (6th C ir. 2 00 3) . Alth ou gha witne ss ’s in vo cat io n o f th is pri vi le ge co nf

li ct s wi th a de fen da nt ’s Six th Am en dm en t ri gh t t o c om pu ls ory pr oc es s, “ su ch co nf

li ctlo ng ag o was res ol ve d i n fa vo r of th e wit ne ss ’s rig htto si le nc e.” Uni te d S ta te s v . Cuthe l, 9 03 F.2d13 81 , 13 84 (11 thCir . 19 90 ) (ci ti ng In Bonne r v. City

of Prichar d, 661 F.2d 1206, 1209 ( 11th Cir.1981) (en ba nc), this 1 5 court a dopted as bindingprec edent a ll decisions of the for mer F ifth Circuit handed down prior to October 1, 1981. 19Alfo rdv. Un it edSta te s, 2 82 U.S. 68 7, 6 94 , 51 S. Ct. 2 18 , 22 0, 2 5 L. Ed. 6 24

(1 93 1) ). Whi le a witne ss m

us t h av e rea so nabl e cau se to in vo ke th e Fi fth Am en dm en t pr ot ect io n, Ho ffm anv. Un it edSta te s, 3 41 U.S. 47 9, 4 86 , 71 S. Ct. 8 14 , 81 8, 9 5 L. Ed. 1 11 8 (1 95 1) , we do no t re qu ire a hi gh sh owi ng to m eetth is reas on ab le cau se st an da rd . See Un it edSta te s v . Forti n, 6 85 F.2d12 97 , 12 98 (11 th Cir . 19 82 ) (uph ol di ng a witne ss ’s in vo cat io n o f th e p riv il eg e ag ai ns t s el f-i nc riminat io n u nl es s itis “ ‘perfe ct ly clear ’ fro m a care fu l co ns id erat io n o f al l the cir cu m st an ces th at th ei r te st im on y

co ul d n ot‘ po ss ib ly’ ha ve ha d aten de nc y to in cri m in at e” (e m

ph as is ad de d) (qu ot in g Ho ffm an , 34 1 U.S. at48 8, 7 1 S . Ct. at81 9) ). Fern an de z arg ue s t ha t the di st ric t co urt erredinfai li ng to ho lda he ari ng to de te rm in e whe th er Ro

jas h adreas on ab le cau se to refu se to an swe r co un se l’s qu es ti on s. We are n otpe rs ua de d; th e co urt h adsu ffi ci en t, u nc on te st edev id en ce be fo re i t o n wh ic h t o fi ndth atRo jas co ul d p laus ib ly fear th athi s an swe rs , in co nt rad ic ti ng hi s s ig ne d a ffi da vi t, co ul d l eadto a ch arg e o f pe rjury. Not ab ly, th e co urt fo un d t ha t the cir cu m st an ces un de r whi chDavi la ’s in ve st ig at orto okth e affi da vi t m ad e itli ke ly tha t Ro jas, i n a ns weri ng co un se l’s que st io ns , wou ld co nt rad ic t s ta te m en ts he m ad e in th e affi da vi t— so m e o f whi chwere in co m pl et e—a ndth us ris k p ro se cu ti on forpe rjury. See Oh io v. Re in er, 5 32 U.S. 2017 , 21 , 12 1 S . Ct. 1 25 2, 1 25 4, 1 49 L. Ed. 2d15 8 (2 00 1) (st at in g t ha t the Fif th Am en dm en t p ro te ct s t ho se “ who ot he rwis e m ig htbe en sn aredby am bi gu ou s ci rcu m st an ces .” (quo ti ng Grun ewal d v . Uni te d S ta te s, 3 53 U.S. 39 1, 7 7 S . Ct. 9 63 , 42 1, 1 L. Ed. 2d93 1 (1 95 7) ). Taki ng th es e in co m pl et e st at em en ts an d t he ci rcu m st an ces surro un di ng th e in ve st ig at or ’s tak in g o f Ro jas’s aff id av itin to acco un t, we fi ndno ab us e o f di sc ret io n i n t he co urt’s d en ia l o f Fern an de z’s m ot io n. B. App el la nt s ar gu e th atth e d is tri ctco urt erredinde nyin g, wi th ou t an ev id en ti ary he ari ng , Perez ’s pre tri al m ot io n t o s up pr es s al l ev id en ce the tas k fo rce ob ta in edth ro ug h c ou rt- or de redele ctro ni c su rv ei ll an ce o f cal ls to an d fr om cel lu la r ph on es own edby Perez an d S al ga do . They con te ndth atth is wire tap s urve il la nc e 1 6 sh ou ldno t h av e b een ord eredbe cau se th e Gov ern m en t fa il edto de m on st rat e, as requi redby 18 U.S.C. § 25 18 (1 )(c) , th atitne ed edsu chsurv ei ll an ce. The di st ric t 1 7 co urt d en ie d t he m ot io n, fi nd in g t ha t the tas k fo rce a ge nt ’s affi da vi t, s ub mit te d t o

Del Monte a

nd Fe rnande z formerly

joined in Perez’s motion; Davila’s counsel joined 1 6 Perez, Del Monte, a

nd Fe rnande z in obj ecting to the issuance of

the wire tap orde r. Section 2518(1)( c) r equire s eac h application for interception of elec tronic 1 7 communications to provide “a full and complete statement as to whe ther or not other investigative proce dures ha ve bee n tried and f

ailed or why

they rea sonably

appea r to be unlikely to succe ed if tried or

to be too dang erous.” 21th e co urt i n s up po rt o f th e ta skfor ce’s ap pl ic at io n fo r th e wir et ap ord er,

de m on st rat edth e n eedforele ctro ni c su rv ei ll an ce. 1 8

“ A di st ric t co urt’s d en ia l o f a m ot io n t o s up pr es s ev id en ce i s re vi ewedas a m ix edqu es ti onof l aw an d fa ct , with t he rul in gs of l aw rev ie wedde no vo an d t he fin di ng s o f fac t re vi ewedforcle ar erro r, in th e li gh t m os t fa vo rab le to th e pr ev ai li ng pa rty.” Unit edSta te s v . De la C ru z Su arez , 60 1 F .3d12 02 , 12 13 (11 th Ci r. 20 10 ) (ci ti ng Uni te d S ta te s v . Boyce, 35 1 F .3d11 02 , 11 05 (11 th Cir . 20 03 ). The “ ne ces si ty” requ ire m en t i n § 25 18 en su res th atlaw en fo rcem en t d oe s no t u se ele ctro ni c su rv ei ll an ce wh enles s i ntru si ve m etho ds wil l s uf fic e. See Uni te d S ta te s v . Kahn , 41 5 U.S. 1 43 , 15 3 n .12 , 94 S. Ct. 9 77 , 98 3, n .12 , 39 L. Ed. 2d22 5 (1 97 4) (St at in g t ha t § 25 18 “ is si m pl y de si gn edto ass ur e th atwire tapp in g is no t re so rte d t o i n s itua ti on s wh ere t rad it io na l i nv es ti ga ti ve tec hn ique s wo ul d su ffi ce t o e xp os e th e cri m e.”). Sec ti on 25 18 do es no t “ fo recl os e el ectro ni c su rv ei ll an ce u nt il ev ery ot he r im ag in ab le m etho d o f in ve st ig at io n h as be en The motion to suppress failed to a lleg e that the state ment(s) the ta sk forc e ag ent made 1 8 in his affidavit we re f

alse or w ere made with re ckless disreg ard f or the truth. As a

result, the district court did not err

in denying the reque st for an e videntiary hearing. See Fr anks v. Delaw are , 438 U.S. 154, 171, 98 S. C t. 2674, 57 L . Ed. 2d 667 (1978) ( “The re is, of c ourse, a presumption of validity

with respec t to the affidavit supporting the se arc h war rant. To mandate an evide ntiary

hearing, the challeng er' s attack must . . . [contain] allegations of deliberate falsehood or

of re ckless disreg ard f

or the truth”) .

22un su cces sf

ul ly atte m

pt ed ,” Uni te d S ta te s v . Alo ns o, 7 40 F.2d86 2, 8 68 (11 th Cir . 19 84 ) (quo ti ng Uni te d S ta te s v . Hy de , 57 4 F .2d85 6, 8 67 (5th C ir. 1 97 8) ); ho wev er, i t d oe s re qu ire th e Gov ern m en t t o s ho w why alt ern at iv e m eas ur es are in ad equa te for“ th is pa rti cu la r in ve st ig at io n.” Uni te d S ta te s v . Carra zan a, 92 1 F.2 d 1 55 7, 1 56 5 (1 1t h C ir. 1 99 1) (qu ot in g Un it edSta te s v . Ipp ol it o, 7 74 F.2d 14 82 , 14 86 (9t h C ir. 1 98 5) ) (em ph as is om it te d) . The ap pe ll an ts arg ue th atth e Gov ern m en t’s s uc ces s i n o bt ai ni ng ev id en ce pr io r to rece iv in g p erm is si on to in te rcep t el ect ro ni c co m m un ic at io ns de m on st rat es th atth e “ ne ces si ty” requ ire m en t was no t m et . The p art ia l s uc ces s o f al te rn at iv e 1 9 in ve st ig at iv e m eas ur es , ho wev er, d oe s n otne ces sa ril y ren de r el ect ro ni c su rv ei ll an ce u nn eces sa ry . See Un it edSta te s v . Fern an de z, 38 8 F .3d11 99 , 12 36 - 37 (9t h C ir. 2 00 4) (co nc lu di ng th atth e Gov ern m en t m etth e “ ne ces si ty” requi rem en t d es pi te “ two co nf id en ti al in fo rm an ts . . . [wh o] were ab le to pro vi de si gn ifi can t i nf

orm at io n” ). Ind eed , we hav e h el d t ha t d is tri ctco urts di d n oterr un de r si m il ar ci rcu m st an ces . See De l a Cru z Su arez , 60 1 F .3dat 1 21 4 n .7 (f in di ng

For example, a re corde r on the CI ’s per son rec orded se vera l discussions the 1 9 conspirator s had about illeg al ac tiviti es. In addition to this rec order , the task force a lso used phy sical surve illance, toll rec ords, ce ll cite information, and pe n reg ister information while investigating the c onspirators’ a ctivities. 23th atth e “ ne ces si ty” requ ire m en t was m etde sp it e th e Gov ern m en t’s u se of

co nf id en ti al in fo rm an ts an d c on se ns ua l m on it or in g) . The ag en t’s af

fid av itreco un te d n um ero us way s i n wh ic h t he Gov ern m en t’s in ve st ig at io n fa il edto rev eal im po rta ntev id en ce. Fo r ex am pl e, th e co m pa rtmenta li zat io n o f in fo rm at io n p rev en te d t he CI fro m lea rn in g the id en ti ty of po te nt ia l ro bb ery ta rg et s an d c rew m em be rs . Evenif the Gov ern m en t p os se ss ed su ffi ci en t ev id en ce t o p ro se cu te Sal ga do pri orto th e wir et ap , itha d o nl y li mit ed kn owl ed ge of t he ful l ex te ntof h is cri m in al act iv it ie s an d h is co co ns pi rat or s. As a res ul t, i t “ is un real is ti c to requi re the term in at io n o f anin ve st ig at io n b efo re the en ti re s co pe of the [co ns pi racy] is un co ve redan d t he id en ti ty of it s p art ic ip an ts le arn ed .” Hy de , 57 4 F .2dat 8 69 (qu ot in g Un it edSta te s v . Arm oc id a, 51 5 F .2d29 , 38 (3dCir . 19 75 )). Fu rth er, the Gov ern m en t’s s uc ces sf ul pro se cu ti on of m an y

si m il ar s ti ng op erat io ns witho utth e u se of awire tap d oe s n otde m on st rat e th atth ey fai le d t o m eetth e “ ne ces si ty” requ ire m en t i n t hi s ca se . By requi rin g t he Gov ern m en t t o de m on st rat e n eedineach in di vi du al cas e, § 2 51 8 i m pl ic it ly recog ni zes th atall in ve st ig at io ns of apa rti cu la r type d o n otne ces saril y requi re u se of t he same in ve st ig at iv e te ch ni qu es . The ag en t’s af fid av itde sc rib edth e li m it at io ns of al te rn at iv e su rv ei ll an ce m etho ds inth is pa rti cu la r in ve st ig at io n. Ba se d o n t hi s 24ev id en ce, the di st ric t co urt re as on ab ly con cl ud edth atth e Gov ern m en t n eed edto

co nduc t el ect ro ni c su rv ei ll an ce o n P erez an d S al ga do ’s cel lu la r ph on es . Acco rd in gl y , th e co urt d idno t err inde nyin g t he m ot io n t o s up pr es s ev id en ce o bt ai ne d fr om

th e co urt-o rd eredele ctro ni c su rv ei ll an ce.

III. As i nd ic at edpre vi ou sl y , th e jury fou ndPere z g ui lt y of t he co ns pi raci es ch arg edinCo un ts 1 an d 5 , th e at te m ptto rob th e st as h h ou se ch arg edinCo un t 6 , an d t he carry in g o f fi rearm s i n c on ne ct io n wi th th e st as h h ou se rob be ry ch arg edin Co un t 7 . The d is tri ctco urt s en te nc edPere z to co nc urren t p ris on term s o f 80 m on th s o n C ou nt s 1 , 5, an d 6 ; an d aco ns ecu ti ve pri so n t erm of 6 0 m on th s o n Co un t 7 . Pere z ap pe al s al l fo ursen te nc es on th e g ro un d t ha t the di st ric t co urt co m m it te d p la in erro r whe n i t fa il edto affo rdhi m hi s ri gh t o f al lo cu ti on as requi redby Feder al Ru le of C riminal Pro cedur e 3 2. 2 0 Rule 32(i)(4) , Opportunity to Speak, states: 2 0 (A) B y a Party . Be fore imposing sentenc e, the c ourt must: (I ) provide thedefe ndant’s attorne y an opportunity

to speak on the defe ndant’s beha lf; (ii) addr ess the def

endant pe rsonally

in order to pe rmit the defe ndant to speak or

prese nt any

information to mitigate the sentenc e; and (iii) provide a

n attorney for the g overnme nt an opportunity to speak 25Pere z al so ch al le ng es hi s s en te nc es for Co un ts 1, 5 , and6 o n t wo ad di ti on al gr ou nd s. Fi rs t, h e arg ue s t ha t the di st ric t co urt co m m it te d p la in erro r in en ha nc in g th e b as e o ffen se lev el of 2 0 b y anad di ti on al th ree l ev el s p ur su an t t o U.S.S.G. § 2B 3.1 (b )(2 )(E) fo r po ss es si on of ada ng ero us weap on—p ep pe r sp ray—du rin g t he co ns pi racy to ro b t he ch eck -cas hi ng st or e. Seco nd , Perez ass ert s t ha t the di st ric t 2 1 co urt co m

m it te d p la in erro r in fai li ng to art ic ul at e o n t he reco rd , as re qu ire d b y 18 U.S.C. § 3 55 3( c)(2 ), it s ra ti on al e fo r va ry in g upwa rdfro m th e Gui de li ne s s en te nc e ran ge of 5 7 t o 7 1 m on th s’ im pr is on m en t; th e co urt i m

po se d s en te nc es of 8 0 m on th s. See Gal l v . Uni te d S ta te s, 5 52 U.S. 38 , 50 , 12 8 S . Ct. 5 86 , 59 7, 1 69 L.

2 2 Ed. 2 d 4 45 (20 07 ) (s ta ti ng th atth e d is tri ctco urt “ m us t ad equa te ly exp la in th e equivalent to that of the defe ndant’s attorne y . (empha sis added). F ed. R. Crim. P. 32(i)(4)(A) . Section 2B3.1 a lso provided the base offe nse leve ls for the Counts 5 and 6 off enses. 2 1 The c ourt separ ated Counts 1, 5, and 6 into separ ate groups. Pursuant to the U.S.S.G. § 3D1.4 adjustment, the total offe nse leve ls for the thre e counts be came 25. That leve l coupled with a criminal history

cate g ory of I yielded a se ntence rang e of 57 to 71 months’ conf inement. Section 3553(c) states, in pertinent pa rt: 2 2 The c ourt, at the time of se ntencing , shall state in open cour t the rea sons for its imposit ion of the par

ticular sente nce, a

nd, if the sentenc e–

. . . . (2) is not of the kind, or is outside the ra ng e, desc ribed in subsection (a )(4) , the spec ific re ason for the impositi on of a sentenc e diffe rent fr om that describe d. 26ch os ensen te nc e to all ow fo r m ean in gf ul ap pe ll at e rev ie w andto pro m ot e th e pe rcep ti onof f

ai r se nt en ci ng ”) (c it in g R it a v . Uni te d S ta te s, 5 51 U.S. 33 8, 1 27 S. Ct . 24 56 , 16 8 L. Ed. 2 d 2 03 (U.S. 20 07 )). 2 3 Whe re a p arty

fai ls to sea so nabl y

ob ject t o adi st ric t co urt ru li ng , we rev ie w th e ru li ng on ly for p la in erro r. Uni te d S ta te s v . Straub , 50 8 F .3d10 03 , 10 10 –1 1 (1 1t h C ir. 2 00 7) . To fi ndrev ers ib le erro r un de r th e p la in erro r st an da rd , we m us t co nc lu de th at : (1 ) anerro r oc cu rred , (2) th e err orwas p la in , (3) th e err oraffe ct ed subs ta nt ia l ri gh ts inth atitwas p reju di ci al an d n otha rm le ss , and(4) th e err or se rio us ly affect edth e fai rn es s, i nt eg rity , or p ub li c rep ut at io n o f a jud ic ia l pr oc eed in g. Un it edSta te s v . Dorm an , 48 8 F .3d93 6, 9 38 (11 th Cir . 20 07 ). Whe re th e d is tri ctco urt, as requi redby Uni te d S ta te s v . Jo ne s, 8 99 F.2d10 97 , 11 03 (11 th Ci r. 19 90 ), ov erru le d o n o th er g ro un ds by Uni te d S ta te s v . Mo rri ll , 98 4 F .2d11 36 (1 1t h C ir. 1 99 3) (enbanc ), of fere d the de fen da ntth e o pp ortu ni ty to o bjec t t o h is se nt en ces , th is co urt wi ll no t en te rta in anun rai se d o bjec ti on “un le ss refu sa l t o d o so wou ldres ul t i n m an ife stin jus ti ce.” Id . W e b eg in ou r co ns id erat io n o f Pere z’s se nt en ce ap pe al s b y ad dr es si ng th e Ru le 32 is su e. W e co nc lu de th atth e d is tri ctco urt fa il edto affo rdPere z h is rig ht Perez argues that we should find plain error as indicate d in the above te x t beca use he 2 3 failed to c all the er

rors to the district cour

t’s attention afte r it imposed sentence , even though the court a sked for

the par ties’ objections, if they

had any . 27of

all oc ut io n a s R

ul e 3 2 re qu ire s. Th e fai lu re co ns ti tu te s p la in erro r an d a m an ife stin

jus ti ce, requi rin g t he va cat io n o f Pere z’s se nt en ces an d t he rem an d o f hi s ca se forres en te nc in g. In li gh t o f th is di sp os it io n, we n eedno t ad dr es s t he two ad di ti on al gro un ds on whi chPere z ch al le ng es hi s s en te nc es on Co un ts 1, 5 , and6. The rig htof a ll oc ut io n p ro vi de s a d efen da nt“ anop po rtu ni ty to p le ad pe rs on al ly to the co urt fo r le ni en cy inhi s s en te nc e b y

st at in g m it ig at in g fa ct or s an d t o h av e th atpl ea co ns id eredby the co urt i n d et erm in in g t he ap pr op ria te se nt en ce.” Un it edSta te s v .Tam ay o, 8 0 F .3d15 14 , 15 18 (11 th Cir . 19 96 ). “ As earl y as 1 68 9, i t was reco gn iz edth atth e co urt’s fa il ur e to askth e d efen da ntif h e ha d a nyth in g t o s ay

be fo re s en te nc e was im

po se d re qu ire d re ve rs al .” Green v. Uni te d S ta te s, 3 65 U.S. 30 1, 3 04 , 81 S. Ct. 6 53 , 65 5, 5 L. Ed. 2d67 0 (1 96 1) (Fra nk fu rte r, J., p lu ral it y

op in io n) . Alth ou gh cri m in al pro cedur es ha ve pro gr es se d si gn ifi can tl y

si nc e th e se ve nt een th cen tu ry , “ [n ]one of t he se m od ernin no va ti on s le ss en s t he ne edfor

th e d efen da nt , per so na ll y , to ha ve th e o pp ortu ni ty to p res en t t o th e co urt h is pl ea i n m it ig at io n.” Id. All oc ut io n c on ti nu es to “ en su re tha t se nt en ci ng refl ect s i nd iv idua li zedcir cu m st an ces ,” Uni te d S ta te s v . De Alb a Pag an , 33 F.3d12 5, 1 29 (1s t Ci r. 19 94 ) (ci ti ng Uni te d S ta te s v . Barn es , 94 8 F .2d32 5, 32 8 (7 thCir . 19 91 ), whi le m ax im iz in g t he “pe rcei ve d e qu it y of t he pro ces s.” Id . (quo ti ng Barn es , 94 8 F .2dat 3 28 ). Co ns eque nt ly, a d efen da nt ’s rig htof 28al lo cu ti on , whi ch is co di fie d i n F ed eral Ru le of C riminal Pro cedur e 3 2, re m ai ns

firm ly entren ch edinou r cri m in al juri sp ru de nc e. Pri orto sen te nc in g P erez , th e d is tri ctco urt as ke d, “ [w]ill th e d efen da ntbe al lo cu ti ng [? ]” Im

m ed ia te ly after t he di st ric t co urt p os edth e que st io n, Pe rez a nd hi s at to rn ey

co nf erre d p riv at el y

foranun sp eci fie d t im e p eri od . Defen se co un se l th enst at ed : “No, Yo urHon or . He do es n’t wi shto ad dr es s t he Co urt.” Th e rec or d in di cat es th atall st at em en ts fro m th e co urt an d c ou ns el were co nv ey edto Pere z th ro ug h a n i nt erp ret er. 2 4 Altho ug h t he co ldreco rddo es no t i nd ic at e whe th er the co urt d ire ct edit s qu es ti on to th e d efen da nt , hi s at to rn ey , or b ot h, Pe rez m ay reas on ab ly hav e v ie wed th e st at em en t— gi ve n i ts word in g— as a qu es ti on di rect edon ly to h is att orne y . Not ab ly, th e co urt’s que st io n u se d fo rm al leg al lan gu ag e an d d idno t re se m bl e co m m en ts th e co urt p rev io us ly addres se d t o the de fen da ntpe rs on al ly. The u se of 2 5 anin te rp ret er d oe s n otch an ge th is an al y si s, as we as su m e th atth e in te rp ret er’s tra ns la ti on m irr or edth e co urt’s s ta te m en t t o c ou ns el . The re cord doe s not indicate whe ther Pere z’s attorney was flue nt in Spanish. 2 4 For example, a prior state ment from by the cour t rea ds: “Mr. Gonzalez Perez, we’ re 2 5 here for your sentenc ing he aring . Have you had the oppor tunity to reviewthe pre sentenc e report, the adde ndum to that report, the Gove rnment’s re sponse and your attorne y ’s omnibus sentencing memorandum? ” I

n response to the court’s que stion, P ere z replied through an interpr eter . In contra st, the court’s state ment reg ardingallocution included the f ormal leg al term “ allocute,”was not directe d to the defe ndant per sonally and wa s answer ed by

defe nse counse l, not the defe ndant. 29On a n um be r of oc cas io ns , “ [w]e hav e ex pl ic it ly hel d t ha t the requi rem en t of Ru le 32 [(i )(4 )(A)(i i)] is no t s at is fie d wh enth e co urt d oe s n otad dr es s t he de fen da ntpe rs on al ly con cern in g t he de fen da nt ’s des ire to all oc ut e b utin st ead ad dr es se s d efen da nt ’s cou ns el on ly.” Uni te d S ta te s v . Gord on , 51 8 F .3d12 91 , 12 99 (11 th Cir . 20 08 ); Un it edSta te s v . Pro uty , 30 3 F .3d12 49 , 12 51 n.1 (11 th Cir . 20 02 ) (“ W e rejectth e Gov ern m en t's arg um en t tha t d ire ct in g c omm en ts to th e la wy ers su ffi ces to co m

pl y with [Rul e 3 2].”). Nev erthe le ss , th e Gov ern m en t ar gu es th atth e co urt’s que st io n a nd Pere z’s en su in g c on ve rs at io n wi th co un se l ad equa te ly alert edPere z o f hi s ri gh t t o al lo cu te ; n on e o f ou r pr io r cas es cit edab ov e co nt ai ne d asi m il ar co nv ers at io n wi th de fen se co un se l. The Gov ern m en t al so arg ue s t ha t Pe rez e xp res se d a n i nf orm ed de cl in at io n o f th e o pp ortuni ty to al lo cu te th ro ug h h is att orne y ’s po st -co nv ers at io n st at em en t t o t he co urt. We fin d t ha t the reco rddo es no t s up po rt t he Gov ern m en t’s arg um en ts . Tha t the di stric t co urt’s que st io n t o c ou ns el , whi chth e in te rp ret er re pe at ed ve rb at im to Pere z, di d n otin cl ud e th e wor ds “ sp eakor p res en t an y in fo rm at io n t o m it ig at e th e se nt en ce,” Fe d. R. C rim. P. 32 (i) (4 )(A)(i i), d oe s n ot , st an di ng alo ne , de te rm in e whe th er the di st ric t co urt d en ie d P erez hi s ri gh t o f al lo cu ti on . W e d o no t re qu ire th e d is tri ctco urts to m ech an ic al ly foll ow a s pe ci fic scr ip t. Se e De Alb a 30Pag an , 33 F.3dat 1 29 (st at in g t ha t “ we do no t at ta chtal is m an ic si gn ifi can ce t o a ny

pa rti cu la r st rin g o f wor ds ”). Wha t we re qu ire is th atth e d is tri ctco urt en su res th at th e d efen da ntkn ows of h is rig htto sp eakor p res en t i nf orm at io n t ha t m ig ht co nv in ce the co urt t o i m

po se a fav or ab le sen te nc e. Our i nqui ry , th en , is whethe r th e d is tri ctco urt’s co ll oquy with th e d efen da ntis th e “ fu nc ti on al equi va le nt ” o f wha t Ru le 32 (i) (4 )(A)(i i) p res cri be s. Id . If itis , we wil l n otfin d e rro r. To fi ndfun ct io na l equi va le nc y , th e rec or d m us t d em on st rat e th at“ th e co urt, th e p ro se cu to r, an d t he de fen da ntm us t atth e v ery le as t [h av e] int erac t[e d] ina m an ne r th atsh ows cle arl y an d c on vi nc in gl y

th atth e d efen da ntkn ew he ha d arig ht to sp eakon an y

subjec t o f hi s ch oo si ng pri orto th e im po si ti on of s en te nc e.” Uni te d S ta te s v . Riv era- Ro dr ig ue z, 61 7 F .3d58 1, 6 05 (1s t Ci r. 20 10 ) (quo ti ng Uni te d S ta te s v . Mes cu al -Cru z, 38 7 F .3d1, 1 1 (1 stCir . 20 04 ). Any “ do ub t” th at th is ha s t ak enpl ace “ sh ou ldbe res ol ve d i n the de fen da nt ’s fav or .” De Alb a Pag an , 33 F.3dat 1 29 . Inth e p res en t ca se , th e rec or d fa ll s fa r sh ort o f th is hi gh st an da rd . Ins te ad , th e rec or d s im

pl y de no te s t wo thi ng s. Fi rs t, d efen se co un se l co nf erre d p riv at el y with P erez foranun sp eci fie d p eri odof t im e aft er the co urt as ke d c ou ns el whet he r th e d efen da ntwou ld“be all oc ut in g.” W e d o n otkn ow wh atth ey sai d t o o ne

31an ot he r th ro ug h the in te rp ret er dur in g t ha t t im e. Seco nd , Perez di d n otob ject whe n h is att orne y

st at ed : “No, Yo urHon or . He do es n’t wi sh to ad dr es s t he co urt.” Ru le 32 (i) (4 )(A)(i i) r equi res th e d is tri ctco urt t o p ro te ctth e d efen da nt ’s rig htof a ll oc ut io n. Co un se l h as a Si xth Am en dm en t o bl ig at io n t o p ro vi de th e de fen da ntwith c om

pe te ntrep res en ta ti on , bu t wh ethe r co un se l s ho ul d a dd res s t he de fen da ntpre ci se ly as th e co urt s ho ul d wi ll de pe ndon th e ci rcu m st an ces of t he m om en t. We thu s d o n otass um e th atco un se l h as , ineffe ct , act edforth e co urt an d th atth e d efen dantrece iv es co un se l’s m es sa ge as i f itwere d el iv ereddi rect ly to hi m by the co urt. To av oi d l it ig at io n fr om

am bi gu ou s re co rd s, d is tri ctco urts sh ou ldlea ve “ no ro om fordo ub t tha t the de fen da ntha s b een is su eda pe rs on al in vi ta ti on to sp eak pr io r to sen te nc in g.” Gerro w, 23 2 F .3dat 8 33 -3 4 (quo ti ng Green v. Un it edSta te s, 36 5 U.S. 3 01 , 30 5, 8 1 S . Ct. 6 53 , 65 5, 5 L. Ed. 2d67 0 (1 96 1) ). In thi s ca se , th e reco rdlea ve s s ig ni fic an t d oubt s as to th e d efen dant ’s kn owl ed ge of h is rig htto al lo cu te . There fo re, we co nc lu de th atth e d is tri ctco urt co m m it te d e rro r. The di stric t co urt v io la te d t he ex pr es s l an gu ag e o f Ru le 32 (i) (4 )(A)(i i). In ad di ti on , Elev en th Cir cu itpre ced en t cl earl y est ab li sh es th atst at em en ts m ad e to co un se l d o n otad equa te ly pro te ctth e d efen da nt ’s rig htof a ll oc ut io n. Pro ut y , 30 3 F.3 d a t 1 25 1 n .1. As ares ul t, we al so fin d t ha t the erro r was pl ai n. Se e Uni te d 32St at es v. Ca rru th , 52 8 F .3d84 5, 8 46 n.1 (11 th Cir . 20 08 ) (s ta ti ng th at“ [f]or a p la in

erro r to ha ve oc cu rred , th e err orm us t b e o ne th atis ob vi ou s an d i s cl ear u nd er cu rren t l aw.”) (quo ti ng Uni te d S ta te s v . Hum ph rey, 16 4 F .3d58 5, 5 88 (11 th Cir . 19 99 )). Altho ug h P erez est ab li sh es th e fi rs t two p ro ng s o f th e p la in erro r ru le , he

“be ars th e b ur de n o f de m on st rat in g t ha t the pl ai n e rro r ‘affect ed[hi s] subs ta nt ia l rig ht s.’” Pro ut y , 30 3 F .3dat 1 25 2 (quo ti ng Uni te d S ta te s v . Olan o, 5 07 U.S. 72 5, 73 4, 1 1 S . Ct. 1 77 0, 1 23 L. Ed. 2d50 8 (1 99 3) . Deni al of t he rig htof a ll oc ut io n i s

“ ta nt am ou ntto de nyin g [t he de fen da nt ] hi s m os t p ers ua si ve an d e lo qu en t advo cat e.” Pro ut y , 30 3 F .3dat 1 25 3 (quo ti ng Uni te d S ta te s v . Adam s, 2 52 F.3d 27 6, 2 88 (3dCir . 20 01 )). Co ns eque nt ly, we pr es um e th atth e d en ia l o f a de fen da nt ’s rig htto all oc ut e was pre jud ic ia l wh en ev er the po ss ib il it y of alo wer se nt en ce ex is ts . Carru th , 52 8 F .3dat 8 47 n.4 (ci ti ng Pro ut y , 30 3 F .3dat 1 25 2- 53 ). Inth e p res en t ca se , th e co urt’s erro r affe ct edPere z’s subs ta nt ia l ri gh ts be cau se hi s se nt en ces of 8 0 m on th s fo r Co un ts 1, 5 , and6 ex ceed edth e lo wer en d o f th e Gui de li ne s s en te nc e ran ge , 57 m on th s. Fi na ll y , Perez sat is fie d t he fou rth pro ng of t he pl ai n e rro r ru le be cau se de ni al of t he rig htto all oc ut e aff ect s t he fai rn es s, i nt eg rit y , andpubl ic rep ut at io n of jud ic ia l p ro ceed in gs . Prou ty, 30 3 F .3dat 1 25 3 (“ Bec au se all oc ut io n p la y s a 33cen tra l ro le inth e se nt en ci ng pro ces s, the de ni al of t hi s ri gh t i s n otth e so rt o f

is ol at edor abs tra cterro r th atdo es no t i m pa ctth e fai rn es s, i nt eg rit y or p ub li c rep ut at io n o f jud ic ia l p ro ceed in gs ” (quo ti ng Adam s, 2 52 F.3dat 2 88 ) (i nt ern al qu ot at io n m ark s o m it te d) ). Whe re the ap pe ll an t m eet s al l fo urpro ng s o f th e p la in erro r st an da rd , “ we ha ve di sc ret io n t o o rd er co rrec ti on of t he erro r an d wi ll do so ‘ in th os e ci rcu m st an ces inwhi cha m is carr ia ge of ju st ic e wou ldot he rwis e res ul t.’” Id. at 12 52 (qu ot in g Ol an o, 5 07 U.S. at 7 36 , 11 3 S . Ct. 1 77 0) . “ [F]ail in g t o g iv e a de fen da ntth e o pp ortu ni ty to s pe akto th e co urt d ire ct ly whe n i t m ig htaffe cthi s se nt en ce i s m an ife st ly unju st .” Id . at 1 25 3. Acco rd in gl y , we con cl ud e th atth e di st ric t co urt co m

mit te d re ve rs ib le erro r whe n i t fa il edto in fo rm Pere z o f hi s ri gh t of all oc ut io n a nddi d n otim po se th e lo wes t p os si bl e se nt en ce wi th in th e ap pl ic ab le gu id el in es . The erro r requi res th e v acat io n o f Pere z’s se nt en ces an d t he rem an d o f hi s cas e so th athe canbe affo rd edhi s ri gh t o f al lo cu ti on . His s en te nc in g h eari ng wil l th eref or e res um e wit h the di st ric t co urt ad dr es si ng hi m pe rs on al ly, “ to pe rm it [h im ] to sp eakor p res en t an y in fo rm at io n t o m it ig at e th e se nt en ce.” Fe d. R. C rim. P. 32 (i) (4 )(A)(i i). IV. 34Del M on te , li ke Pere z, was fou ndgu il ty on C ou nt s 1 , 5, 6 , and7 an d

se nt en cedto co nc urren t p ris on term s o f 80 m on th s o n C ou nt s 1 , 5, an d 6 an d a co ns ecu ti ve pri so n t erm

of 6 0 m on th s o n C ou nt7. Del Mo nt e was als o c on vi ct ed on Co un t 8 , forbe in g afel on inpo ss es si on of afir earm , andsen te nc edto a co ns ecu ti ve pri so n t erm

of 1 80 m on th s, fo r a t ot al term of i m pr is on m en t o f 32 0 m on th s. Del Mo nt e n ow ap pe al s h is sen te nc es on Co un ts 7 an d 8 . A. Del M on te cla im s t ha t h is Co un t 8 sen te nc e sh ou ldbe setasi de be cau se th e jury didno t re cei ve ev id en ce an d d idno t fi ndth athe ha d b een co nv ic te d o f a vi ol en t fe lo ny or a s eri ou s dru g o ffen se on th ree d iff eren t o ccas io ns , so as t o ren de r hi m

subjec t t o i m

pr is on m en t fo r a m in im

um of f ift een y ears un de r 18 U.S.C. § 9 24 (e)( 1) . Del Mo nt e ci te s Ap pr en di v. New J ers ey , 53 0 U.S. 4 66 , 12 0 S. Ct . 23 48 , 14 7 L. Ed. 2 d 4 35 (20 00 ), fo r th e p ro po si ti onth ata pr io r co nv ic ti on fo r pu rp os es of § 92 4( e)(1 ) (wh ic h p res cri be s a m an da to ry min im um pri so n se nt en ce o f 15 y ears ), if n otadm it te d b y th e d efen da nt , has to be fou ndby a j ury , bu t p ro pe rly ackn owl ed ge s t ha t thi s co urt h as reject edth atpro po si ti on . See 2 6 Uni te d S ta te s v . Gib so n, 4 34 F.3d12 34 , 12 46 -4 7 (1 1t h C ir. 2 00 6) (“ The Del Monte pre sented the c laim to preser ve the issue f

or subseque nt review . Del Monte 2 6 Br . at 28-29. 35go ve rn m en t n eedno t . . . pro ve be y on d areas on ab le do ub t tha t a d efen da ntha d

pr io r co nv ic ti on s fo r a d is tri ctco urt t o u se th os e co nv ic ti on s fo r pu rp os es of en ha nc in g asen te nc e." (quo ti ng Uni te d S ta te s v . Bur ge , 40 7 F .3d11 83 , 11 88 (1 1t h C ir. 2 00 5) ). W e th eref or e aff irm th e Co un t 8 sen te nc e. B. Del M on te cla im s t ha t the “ ex cep t” claus e o f 18 U.S.C. § 9 24 (c) g av e th e co urt d is cret io n t o ru n h is Co un t 7 sen te nc e co nc urren tl y , rathe r th an co ns ecu ti ve ly, with t he sen te nc es forCo un ts 1, 5 , and6. We prev io us ly rejected th is arg um en t, co ns tru in g t he “ ex cep t” claus e to requi re co ns ecu ti ve sen te nc es . See Un it edSta te s v . Tate, 5 86 F.3d93 6, 9 47 (11 th Cir . 20 09 ) (rejec ti ng an arg um en t tha t the di st ric t co urt erredinco nc lu di ng th atitwas re qu ire d b y § 9 24 (c) to im po se co ns ecu ti ve sen te nc es ). The Supr em e Co urt, i n Ab bo ttv. Un it edSta te s,

__U.S. __ , 13 1 S . Ct. 1 8, 1 78 L. Ed. 2d34 8 (2 01 0) , agr eedwith t he in te rp ret at io n we ha d a do pt ed , con cl ud in g, “ [w]e ho ld , inacco rdwith t he co urts be lo w, andin li ne with t he m ajor it y

of t he Co urts of Ap pe al s, tha t a d efen da ntis subjec t t o a m an da to ry , con se cu ti ve sen te nc e fo r a § 92 4( c) co nv ic ti on , andis no t s pa redfro m th atsen te nc e b y

vi rtu e o f rec ei vi ng a hi gh er m an da to ry min im um on a di ffer en t co un t o f co nv ic ti on .” Id . at 2 3. We th eref or e aff irm th e d is tri ctco urt’s d eci si on im po si ng th e Co un t 7 sen te nc e co ns ecu ti ve ly. 36V.

Fo r th e fo reg oi ng reas on s, the co nv ic ti on s o f Pere z, Del M on te , Fern an de z an d Dav il a are AFFIRM ED. Del Mo nt e’s se nt en ces on Co un ts 7 an d 8 are al so AFFIR MED. Perez ’s sen te nc es on Co un ts 1, 5 , 6, an d 7 are VACATED, andhi s cas e is REMANDED so th atPere z m ay be affo rd edhi s ri gh t o f al lo cu ti on . SO ORDERED.

37