FILED U.S. COURT OF AP P EALS E LEVEN T HC IRC UIT FEB RUARY 8 , 2006 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. 05- 12715 N on -A rgum entC al endar

________________________ D . C. D o c k e tN o . 0 3 - 0 0 0 7 3 - CR- O C- 1 0 - G RJ 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 G R E G O R Y M C K I N N I E S , 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 M i ddl e D i s tr i c tof F l or i da

_________________________ ( F e b r u ar y 8, 2006) B efo re T JO F L A T , A N D E R S O N an dW IL S O N , C i rcu i tJu d g es. P E R C U R I A M: G r e g o ryM c K in n ie s ap p e a ls h is c o n v ic tio n f o rc o n s p ir a c yto d is tr ib u te2

coca i ne base (c ra ck), i n v i ol at i on of 21 U . S . C . § 8 46 , ar gu i ng that : (1) he s uffe re d r e ve r s i bl e e rr ora s ar e s ul tof the di s tr i c tc ourta dm i tt i ng i nt o e vi de nc e hi s c oc ons pi r a t or ’ s s t a t e m e ntt o anon- c o- c ons pi r a t or ; a nd ( 2) 21 U . S . C . §§ 841 a nd 846 a r e unc ons t i tut i ona l i n l i ghtof A ppr e ndi v. N e w J e r s e y , 530 U . S . 466, 120 S .C t. 2 3 4 8 , 1 4 7 L .E d .2 d 4 3 5 ( 2 0 0 0 ) , a n dits p r o g e n y .

I . A dm i s s i o n o f

C o - C o ns pi r a t o r ’ s St a t e m e nt M c K in n ie s a r g u e s o n ap p e a l th a t th e d is tr ic t c o u rt e rr e din a d m ittin g in to e vi de nc e c o- c ons pi r a t orA a r on B os t i c ’ s ( A a r on’ s ) s t a t e m e ntt o non- c o- c ons pi r a t or E r ic aY o u n g , b e c au s e it w a s a lle g e d lyn o t m a d e in f u rth e r a n c e o f

th e c o n s p ir a c y . A a r o n ’s s ta te m e n t w a s : “Y e a h ‘c au s e lu c k ilyth a t th in g is I g u e s s th e yd id n ’t f in d it you k no w w hatI’ m t al ki ng abou t ? ” W e r e vi e w the di s tr i c tc ourt ’ s e vi de nt i a ryrul i ngs f ora“ c l e a rabus e of di sc re t i on . ” U ni t ed S t at es v. T i no co, 30 4 F . 3d 10 88 , 11 19 (11th C i r. 20 02 ). T here i s no r e ve r s i bl e e rr orw he r e the di s put e d e vi de nc e e s t abl i s he d the s a m e f a c t s f r om t e s t i m onya l r e a dypr ope r l ya dm i tt e d i nt o the r e c or d. S e e U ni t e d S t a t e s v. H oc k, 9 9 5 F .2 d1 9 5 , 1 9 7 ( 1 1 th C ir . 1 9 9 3 ) . F urther, w e r evi ew the di stri ctcourt ’ s f ac tual fi nd i ng thata s t at em entw as m ade i n furtherance of a c on spi ra cyun der the cl earl y e rr on eous st andard. U ni t ed S t at es v. T ok ar s, 95 F . 3d 15 20 , 15 38 (11th C i r. 19 96 ). A di stri ctcourt ’ s f ac tual3

f in d in g th a t as ta te m e n t w a s m a d e in f u rth e r a n c e o f

th e c o n s p ir a c yis c le a r ly erroneou s i f, af

t erre vi ew i ng the re cord, w e are “ l ef tw i th a defi ni t e and fi rm c onvi c t i on tha tam i s t a ke ha s be e n c om m i tt e d. ” U ni t e d S t a t e s v. V a n H e m e l ry c k, 945 F . 2d 1493, 1498 n. 3 ( 11th C i r . 1991) ( i nt e rna l quot a t i ons a nd c i t a t i on om i tt e d) . A l though othe rw i s e i na dm i s s i bl e a s he a r s ay , as t a t e m e ntbyac oc ons pi r a t ori s a dm i s s i bl e i f the gove rnm e ntpr ove s , byapr e ponde r a nc e of the evi dence, thatthe st at em entw as m ade duri ng the course of, and i n furtherance of, th e c o n s p ir a c y . F e d .R .E v id . 8 0 1 ( d ) ( 2 ) ( E ) ; V a n H e m e lry c k , 9 4 5 F .2 da t 1 4 9 7 - 9 8 . T h e d is tr ic t c o u rt d idn o t c le a r lye rrin f in d in g th a t A a r o n ’s s ta te m e n t to Y oung w a s m a de i n f

urthe r a nc e of

the c ons pi r a c ybe c aus e A a r on t e s t i f i e d tha tthe st at em entw as abou tthe cr ac k thathe had l oaned, or “ fr on t ed, ” M cK i nn i es . S ee T i noc o, 304 F . 3d a t1119; V a n H e m e l ry c k, 945 F . 2d a t1497- 98. A ddi t i ona l l y , the st at em entw as m er el y c um ul at i ve of other e vi dence es t abl i shi ng thatM cK i nn i es h a dk e p tth e c r a c ki n h i s i m p o u n d e dr e n t a l c a r , a s Aar o n t e s t i f i e dab o u ttwo c onve r s a t i ons tha the ha d w i th M c K i nni e s i n w hi c h M c K i nni e s t ol d hi m tha tthe p o lic e h a d n o t f

o u n d th e c r a c kin th e im p o u n d e dc a r . S e e H o c k , 9 9 5 F .2 da t 1 9 7 . A c c or di ngl y , the di s tr i c tc ourt ’ s a dm i s s i on of thi s s t a t e m e ntw a s nota n abus e of d is c r e tio n c o n s titu tin g r e v e r s ib le e rr o r .

I I . C on s t i t u t i on al i t y of §§ 841 an d 8464

M c K i nni e s f

urthe ra r gue s tha tw e e rr e d, i n U ni t e d S t a t e s v. S a nc he z , 269 F .3 d1 2 5 0 ( 1 1 th C ir . 2 0 0 1 ) ( e n b a n c ) , in h o ld in g th a t § 8 4 1 ( b ) is n o t f a c ia lly u n c o n s titu tio n a l in lig h t o f A p p r e n d i a n dits p r o g e n y . H e u r g e s u s , in s te a d , to a doptthe N i nth C i r c ui t ’ s r e a s oni ng i n U ni t e d S t a t e s v. B uc kl a nd, 259 F . 3d 1157, 1163- 68 ( 9th C i r . 2001) , r e ve r s e d, 289 F . 3d 558 ( 9th C i r . 2002) ( e n ba nc ) , a nd a s s e rt s tha tB l a ke l yv. W a s hi ngt on, 542 U . S . 296, 124 S . C t . 2531, 159 L . E d. 2d 403 ( 2 0 0 4 ) , s tr e n g th e n s h is a r g u m e n t. W e typi c a l l yr e vi e w c ons t i tut i ona l i s s ue s de novo, butw he r e , a s he r e , the de f e nda ntf a i l e d t o r a i s e hi s c ons t i tut i ona l c l a i m i n the di s tr i c tc ourt , w e ha ve di s c r e t i on w he the rt o a ddr e s s the i s s ue . S e e U ni t e d S t a t e s v. W r i ght , 392 F . 3d 12 69 , 12 80 (11th C i r. 20 04 ), ce rt . deni ed, 12 5 S . C t . 17 51 (200 5). A pri or panel deci si on i s bi nd i ng prec edentthaton l y c an be ov erturned b y our C ou rtsi tt i ng en banc. M orri son v . A m w ayC orp. , 32 3 F . 3d 92 0, 92 9 (11 th C i r. 20 03 ). I n A p p r e n d i, th e S u p r e m e C o u rt h e ldth a t a n yf a c t th a t in c r e a s e s th e p e n a lty for acr i m e bey on d the pres cr i bed st atut ory m axi m um m ustbe subm i tt ed t o a j ury and p roved b ey on d a re as on abl e dou bt . A pp re nd i , 53 0 U . S . at49 0, 12 0 S . C t . at 23 62 -63. In S anchez, w e l i m i t ed the sc op e of A pp re nd i t o w hen j ud ge-deci ded f a c ts in c r e a s e as e n te n c e ab o v e th e s ta tu to rym a x im u m , s ta tin g th a t “§ 8 4 1 is im p a c te db yA p p r e n d i b u t o n lyto th e lim ite de x te n t th a t ju d g e - d e c id e df a c ts5

ac tual l y i ncre as e adefe nd ant ’ s s ent ence abov e the pres cr i bed st atut ory m axi m um . ” S ee S anchez, 26 9 F . 3d at12 68 . W e a l so re l i ed on S anchez t o rej ec ta f ac i al c ha l l e nge t o 21 U . S . C . § 960 i n U ni t e d S t a t e s v. T i noc o, 304 F . 3d 1088, 1098- 99 ( 1 1 th C ir . 2 0 0 2 ) . W e r e je c t M c K in n ie s ’s r e q u e s t to d e c la r e § § 8 4 1 a n d8 4 6 u n c o n s titu tio n a l. F i r s t , M c K i nni e s ’ s s e nt e nc e w a s i m pos e d ba s e d upon the j ury ’ s f i ndi ng tha the conspi re d w i th i nt entt o d i stri bu t e 50 g ram s or m ore of c ra ck. S ec on d, S anchez and T i no co–o ur pri or deci si on s that§§ 84 1 and 96 0 are const i tut i on al af t er A p p ren d i

– are b i n d i n g p reced en t . S ee M o rri so n , 3 2 3 F . 3 dat9 2 9 . F o r al l o f th ese r e a s o n s , M c K in n ie s ’s a r g u m e n t th a t § § 8 4 1 a n d8 4 6 a r e u n c o n s titu tio n a l m u s t f a il. Up o n r e v i e w o f

th e r e c o r d a n du p o n c o n s i d e r a t i o n o f b o th p art i e s ’ b r i e f

s , we f in dn o r e v e r s ib le e rr o r . A FFI R M ED .