[DO N OT PUBLISH] IN THE UN ITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELE VENTH CIRCUIT

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ No. 1 0- 14 66 4

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ D.C. Dock etNo. 2 :0 9- cr-0 00 77 -J ES-SPC -2 UNITED STAT ES OF AMERIC A, Pl ai nt iff -Ap pe ll ee, ve rs us HERMAN TORRES, a.k .a. Pu nt i, a.k .a. Pu nt , a.k .a. El In di o, Defen da nt -Ap pe ll an t.

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

th e Uni te d S ta te s Di st ric t Co urt fo r th e Mi dd le Dis tri ctof F lo rid a

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ (Au gu st9, 2 01 3) Befo re DUBINA, J ORDAN andBALDOCK, Cir cu itJu dg es . *

Honora ble B obby

R. Baldoc k, United States Circuit J udg e for the Tenth Circuit, sitting * by designation. Case: 10-14664 Date Filed: 08/09/2013 Page: 1 of 26BALDOCK, Circ ui t Jud ge :

A jury co nv ic te d Def

en dantHerm anTorr es of o ne co un t o f co ns pi racy to m anuf actur e o r po ss es s m ari

juan a wit h i nt en t t o d is tri bu te an d t wo co un ts of m anuf actur in g o r po ss es si ng m ari juan a wit h i nt en t t o d is tri bu te . Defen da ntno w ap pe al s h is co nv ic ti on on all th ree c ou nt s, as well as h is sen te nc e. Exer ci si ng juri sd ic ti on pu rs ua ntto 28 U.S.C. § 1 29 1 and18 U.S.C. § 3 74 2( a), we aff irm. I. In20 02 , Defen da ntjoi ne d am ari juan a g ro win g o pe rat io n i n s ou th ern Fl or id a h ead edby Jos e Dia z. He ag reedto workas c aret ak er fo r a g ro w ho us e o n 20 th Aven ue in Co ll ie r Co un ty in ex ch an ge for30 pe rcen t o f th e in co m e fro m each ha rv es t. Defe nd an t re cru it edMan ue l To rres (hi s b ro th er) andRo be rto Pin ed a to he lp ha rv es t m ari

juan a. Defen da ntact edas c aret ak er atth is ho us e fo r le ss th an a y ear, co m

pl et in g o nl y

two m ari juan a h arv es ts , bef

or e h e b ro ug htina fri en d t o te ndth e h ou se . In 2 00 4, Def en da ntrecru it edhi s s is te r, Vero ni ca To rres , to pu rch as e a h ou se on Ever gl ad es Bo ul ev ardforus e as a gr ow h ou se . He supp li ed th e $ 17 ,00 0 d own pa ym en t an d p ai d h is si st er b etween$2 ,00 0 and$4 ,00 0 p er ha rv es t. Defe nd an t’s b ro th er Manu el Torr es act edas c aret ak er atth e Eve rg la de s Bo ul ev ardho us e fo r ab ou t a year an d aha lf, t hr ou gh fiv e o r si x m ari juan a h arv es ts th ateach y ie ld edab ou t 2 00 pl an ts . Defen da ntov ers aw th e o pe rat io n a ndpa idhi s 2 Case: 10-14664 Date Filed: 08/09/2013 Page: 2 of 26br ot he r fo r eac h c ro p. Aft er Ma nu el Torr es lef t, Defe nd an t h ire d t wo m or e su cces si ve care ta ke rs foran ot he r se ve n t o n in e cro ps . The o rg an iz at io n s to pp ed us in g t he Ever gl ad es Bo ul ev ardho us e in lat e 2 00 6 o r ear ly 200 7 b ecau se th ey su sp ect edsu rv ei ll an ce, b utth ey res um edcu lt iv at io n t he re i n e arl y 20 08 . Defen da ntsupe rv is edth e h ou se th ro ug h a no th er fi ve ha rv es ts . Defen da nt so m et im es supp li edch em ic al s an d p la ntfoo d t o a no th er o f Dia z’s gr ow h ou se s, whi chwas s up erv is edby Carlo s Gra ha m . Defen dantfreque nt ly vis it edGrah am , so m et im es in co m

pa ny with Diaz . Defen da ntals o s up erv is eda gr ow h ou se on VanCam p S tre etin Nort h P ort fo r a s ho rt t im e. Inlat e 2 00 8 o r ear ly 200 9, Defen da nttu rn eda ho us e h is wife ha d p ur ch as edon8t h Av enue in to a gr ow ho us e. Manue l To rres serve d a s ca ret ak er the re. As i t turne d o ut , lo cal au th or it ie s an d the Drug Enfo rcem en t Adm in is tra ti on (DEA) were awar e o f th e o rg an iz at io n. Th e DEA ob ta in edco urt au th or iz at io n t o tap Di az’s t el ep ho ne an d re co rd edm ul ti pl e co nv ers at io ns he ha d wi th Defen da nt . Po li ce arres te d M anue l To rres at t he 8t h Av enue ho us e in Apri l 2 00 9 a ndfou nd 16 2 m ari juan a p la nt s. Au th or it ie s arres te d Def en dantin Sep te m

be r 20 09 . Diaz te st ifi edth atDefen dantha d p art ic ip at edin a to ta l o f 25 to 30 m ari juan a h arv es ts du rin g h is ass oc ia ti on with Di az’s o rg an iz at io n.

3 Case: 10-14664 Date Filed: 08/09/2013 Page: 3 of 26A gra ndjury in di ct edDefen da ntwith the fol lo win g: (1) co ns pi racy to

m anuf actur e o r po ss es s wi th in te ntto di st rib ut e 1 ,00 0 o r m or e m ari juan a p la nt s an d t o d is tri bu te 10 0 o r m or e k il og ram s o f m ari juan a b etween20 02 an d 2 00 9, (2 ) m anuf actur in g a ndpo ss es si ng with i nt en t t o d is tri bu te 10 0 o r m or e m ari juan a pl an ts on Apri l 2 9, 2 00 9, an d (3 ) m anuf actur in g a ndpo ss es si ng with i nt en t t o di st rib ut e 1 00 or m or e m ari juan a p la nt s o n S ep te m

be r 29 , 20 09 . The s up ers ed in g in di ct m en t al so so ug htfor fei tu re o f pr oc eed s fr om th e m ari juan a tr affi ck in g. Defen da ntan d fo urof h is co -d efen da nt s wen t t o t ria l. Du rin g t he co ur se of th e tr ia l, the di st ric t co urt m ad e se ve ral ev id en ti ary ru li ng s t ha t Def en da ntno w ch al le ng es . Firs t, the di st ric t co urt s us ta in edth e Gov ern m en t’s o bjec ti on when Defen da nt ’s cou ns el ask eda DEA agen t wh ethe r Vero ni ca To rres ha d “ li ed ” to hi m in anin ve st ig at iv e in te rv ie w. Seco nd , th e co urt al lo wedth e ag en t t o t es ti fy th athe wou ld“ as su m [e]” an y m on ey pa ss in g b etweenDefen dantan d h is co de fen da ntRo be rto Pin ed a was dru g m on ey . Doc. 4 46 at 1 69 . Thi rd , th e co urt 1 al lo weda sh eri ff’s d et ect iv e to tes ti fy reg ard in g the m atur it y

of m ari juan a p la nt s. Fo urth , th e co urt al lo wedCarl os Grah am to est im at e h ow m an y

pl an ts were Def endant a ppeale d alongwith three of his co-def

endants, with ea ch def

endant f iling a 1 separ ate r ecor d on appea l in their corr espondingcase numbers. Only one of the co-de fenda

nts, howeve r, included the trial transc ripts from their joint trial. This cre ates some c onfusion in the pag e numbering. A ccor dingly , when we cite the tria l transcripts in this case, w e will cite the district court docke t. See Fe d. R. App. P. 10(a)(2) . When we cite the“Rec ord,” w e mea n the four- volume rec ord filed in this case , appellate number 10-14664. 4 Case: 10-14664 Date Filed: 08/09/2013 Page: 4 of 26ha rv es te d a t o ne ho us e, ev enth ou gh he co ul d “ [n ]ot ex act ly” recal l t he nu m be r. Doc . 44 9 a t 1 04 . Fin al ly, whe n t he Gov ern m en t i ntro du cedreco rd in gs of Di az’s te le ph on e co nv ers at io ns , th e co urt al lo wedth e jury to v ie w Eng li sh -la ng ua ge tra ns cri pt s o f th e co nv ers at io ns . The co urt o ve rru le d Def en da nt ’s ob

jecti on th at th e tr an sc rip ts were i m

pr op erl y au th en ti cat ed . Defen da nt ’s cou ns el m ov edforjud gm en t o f acqui tt al on th e b as is th at“ th e Gov ern m en t h as fai le d t o p ro ve a pr im a fac ie cas e ag ai ns t [De fen da nt ] atth is ti m e.” Doc . 45 5 a t 7 , 75 . The d is tri ctco urt d en ie d t hi s m ot io n, an d t he jury co nv ic te d Def

en da ntonall th ree c ou nt s. Defe nd an t’s g ui de li ne ran ge un de r th e Uni te d S ta te s Se nt en ci ng Gui de li ne s was in it ia ll y 97 –1 21 m on th s. Bu t t he co ns pi racy cou ntcarr ie d am an da to ry m in im um of t eny ears . See 2 1 U.S.C. § 84 1 (b )(1 )(A)(v ii ). So t he co urt s en te nc edDefen dantto co nc urren t 1 20 -m on th se nt en ces on each co un t. The co urt al so en te reda joi ntan d s ev eral for fei tu re jud gm en t ag ai ns t Def

en da ntin th e am ou ntof $ 85 0,0 00 . Defen da ntno w app eal s, ra is in g fo uris su es . Firs t, h e arg ue s t he ev id en ce was in su ffi ci en t t o c on vi cthi m of t he ch arg edco ns pi racy. Seco nd , he a rg ue s t he di st ric t co urt ab us edit s d is cret io n i n m ak in g t he ev id en ti ary ru li ng s m en ti on ed ab ov e. Thi rd , he a rg ue s t he di stric t co urt erredinno t s ub m it ti ng th e fo rfei tu re is su e to th e jury. Fo urth , he a rg ue s h is sen te nc e was un reas on ab le . 5 Case: 10-14664 Date Filed: 08/09/2013 Page: 5 of 26II.

W e tu rnfir stto Defen da nt ’s cha ll en ge to th e su ffi ci en cy of t he ev id en ce. 2 Ord in ari ly, we rev ie w a ch al le ng e to th e su ffi ci en cy of t he ev id en ce de no vo , vi ewin g the ev id en ce i n t he li gh t m os t fa vo rab le to th e Gov ern m en t. Un it edSta te s v. Do m in gu ez, 6 61 F.3d10 51 , 10 61 (11 th Cir . 20 11 ). Bu t th e Gov ern m en t ar gu es we m ay on ly revi ew Defen da nt ’s su ffi ci en cy ch al le ng e fo r pl ai n e rro r be cau se hi s m ot io n fo r jud gm en t o f acqui tt al “ was no t s uf fic ie nt ly spe ci fic to pre se rv e fo r ap pe al th e p art ic ul ar ar gu m en ts he ass ert s i n h is bri ef.” Ap pe ll ee’s Br. a t 4 9– 50 . The Gov ern m en t i s co rrec t tha t Def en da nt ’s m ot io n fo r jud gm en t o f acqui tt al was ge ne ral , rathe r th ansp eci fic . W e h av e, on oc cas io n, re vi ewedon ly for p la in erro r whe n the de fen da nt“ fai le d t o m ov e attri al fora di rect edve rd ic t o f acqui tt al on [th e sp eci fic ] ba si s” rai se d o n app eal . Uni te d S ta te s v . Hurn , 36 8 F .3d13 59 , 13 68 (1 1t h C ir. 2 00 4) . See al so Uni te d S ta te s v . Hun erl ach , 19 7 F .3d10 59 , 10 68 (11 th

Def endant’ s brief c ontains a sepa rate argument that the district court e rre d in deny ing 2 Def endant’ s Rule 29 motion. A Rule 29 motion is by definition a cha lleng e to the suff iciency of the evidenc e. F ed. R. Crim. P. 29(a) (“ [T] he cour t on the defe ndant’s motion must enter a judgme nt of ac quittal of any offe nse for

which the e vidence is insufficient to sustain a conviction.”) . See also United States v. Jones, 102 F.3d 804, 807 (6th Cir. 1996) ( “A Rule 29 motion is a cha lleng e to the suff iciency of the e vidence .”). So we will not treat the Rule 29 motion as a separ ate issue on a ppeal. 6 Case: 10-14664 Date Filed: 08/09/2013 Page: 6 of 26Ci r. 19 99 ) (“ Si nc e th e rec or d d oe s n otsh ow t ha t Ap pe ll an t ra is edth is is su e to th e

di st ric t co urt, o urrev ie w of t he di st ric t co urt’s d eci si on to de ny the m ot io n fo r jud gm en t o f acqui tt al on th atba si s i s o nl y for‘ pl ai n e rro r.’”). In tho se cas es , ho wev er, the de fen dant s ra is edsp eci fi c su ffi ci en cy -rel at edarg um en ts in th e di st ric t co urt an d the n ra is edot he r sp eci fic arg um en ts on ap pe al . See Bri ef o f App el le e at*1 2, Un it edSta te s v . Hurn , 20 03 W L 24 19 14 31 (11 th Cir . 20 03 ); Bri ef o f App el le e at*3 4– 35 , Uni te d S ta te s v . Hun erl ach , 19 98 W L 34 07 89 52 (1 1t h C ir. 1 99 8) . In co nt ras t, Defe nd an t h ere r ai se d a ge ne ra l su ffi ci en cy ch al le ng e in th e d is tri ctco urt. A nu m be r of ou r si st er ci rcu it s h ol d t ha t a g en eral su ffi ci en cy ch al le ng e is ad equa te to pre se rv e sp eci fic su ffi ci en cy arg um en ts on ap pe al , bu t t ha t a d efen da nt who m ov es forjud gm en t o f acqui tt al on sp eci fic gro un ds for fei ts all ot he r sp eci fic gr ou nd s o n app eal . See Un it edSta te s v . Coo pe r, 65 4 F .3d11 04 , 11 17 (10 th Cir . 20 11 ); Un it edSta te s v . Cha nc e, 30 6 F .3d35 6, 3 71 (6t h C ir. 2 00 2) ; Un it edSta te s v. Sp in ne r, 15 2 F .3d95 0, 9 55 (D.C. Cir . 19 98 ); Un it edSta te s v . Hoy , 13 7 F .3d 72 6, 7 29 (2dCir . 19 98 ). Bu t s ee Un it edSta te s v . Clark e, 56 4 F .3d94 9, 9 53 –5 4 (8 th Cir . 20 09 ) (ap pl y in g p la in erro r rev ie w to a sp eci fic arg um en t o n app eal ev en whe n the de fen da ntfil eda ge ne ral m ot io n fo r jud gm en t o f acqui tt al ). W e n eedno t

7 Case: 10-14664 Date Filed: 08/09/2013 Page: 7 of 26de ci de th e ap pr op ria te st an dardof r ev ie w, ho wev er, b ecau se Defen dant ’s cla im

fai ls ev enun de r de no vo rev ie w. Defen da nt ’s m ai n s uf

fic ie nc y arg um en t i s tha t t he ev id en ce d idno t s ho w he co ns pi redto po ss es s m or e th an1,0 00 m ari juan a p la nt s. Bu t t he ev id en ce was m or e th anad equa te . Diaz t es ti fie d t ha t t he 20 th Aven ue ho us e whe re Defe nd an t act edas c aret ak er thr ou gh two ha rv es ts ha d 3 3 l ig ht s, wi th be twee n t hr ee an d fi ve pl an ts pe r li gh t. Eve n a fte r Defen da ntbro ug htin an ot he r car et ak er, h e co nt in ue d

“ supe rv is in g t he ho m e,” wh ic h i nc lu de d b rin gi ng in fert il iz er an d m ak in g s ur e th e op erat io n ra n s m oo th ly. Doc. 4 50 at 8 6. Th e h ou se op erat edth ro ug h s ix m or e ha rv es ts . So dur in g t he eig htha rv es ts at t he 20 th Avenue ho us e, Defen da ntwas res po ns ib le forbe twee n 7 92 an d 1 32 0 p lant s. Th en , Defen da ntov ers aw th e Eve rg la de s B ou le va rdho us e th ro ug h ato ta l o f 17 to 20 harv es ts of 2 00 pl an ts , m ean in g h e o ve rs aw th e cu lt iv at io n o f be twee n 3 ,40 0 a nd4,0 00 pl an ts th ere, i n ad di ti on to th e 1 65 pl an ts sei zedat t he ho us e upo n e xe cu ti on of t he sea rch warra nt . Furt he rm or e, po li ce s ei zed16 2 p lant s fr om th e 8 th Aven ue ho us e th at Defen da ntov ers aw. Thi s ev id en ce am pl y supp orte d the jury’ s fi nd in g t ha t Defen da ntco ns pi redto m anuf actur e an d p os se ss m or e th an1,0 00 m ari juan a pl an ts .

8

Case: 10-14664 Date Filed: 08/09/2013 Page: 8 of 26Defen da ntm ak es sev eral ot he r fri vo lo us arg um en ts reg ard in g the

su ffi ci en cy

of t he ev id en ce. He arg ue s t ha t t he co op erat in g wi tn es se s wer e n ot cred ib le be cau se th ey

rece iv edlen ie nc y

inex ch an ge forth ei r te st im on y . He go es so far as to say, “ The tes ti m on y cle arl y sh ows th atne it he r Grah am , Loren zo no r Diaz were t el li ng th e trut h wh enitcam e to an yth in g . . . .” App el la nt ’s Br. at44 . Thi s b raze n a ss ert io n i s u ns up po rte d b y th e rec or d; Defen da ntdi d n otpre se nt ev id en ce co nt rad ic ti ng an y of t he se witne ss es ’ st at em en ts . Mor e im po rtant ly, whe n re vi ewin g t he su ffi ci en cy of t he ev id en ce, we are bo un d b y th e jury’ s cred ib il it y

de te rm in at io ns un le ss th e te st im on y is “ in cred ib le as am at te r of law.” Uni te d S ta te s v . Flo res , 57 2 F .3d12 54 , 12 63 (11 th Cir . 20 09 ) (p er cu ria m) (quo ti ng Uni te d S ta te s v . Cal de ro n, 1 27 F.3d13 14 , 13 25 (11 th Cir . 19 97 )).

“ Test im on y

is on ly inc red ib le if i t re la te s t o fa ct s tha t t he witne ss co ul d n otha ve po ss ib ly obs erv edor e ve nt s tha t co ul d n othave oc cu rredun de r th e la ws o f na tu re.” Id . (in te rn al qu ot at io n m ark s o m it te d) (qu ot in g C al de ro n, 1 27 F.3dat 13 25 ). “ The factth ata wit ne ss ha s co ns is te nt ly liedin th e p as t, en ga ge d i n va rio us cri m in al act iv it ie s, an d tho ug htth athi s t es ti m on y wou ldbe ne fithi m

do es no t m ak e h is tes ti m on y

in cred ib le .” Uni te d S ta te s v . Tho m ps on , 42 2 F .3d12 85 , 12 92 (11 th Cir . 20 05 ) (b rack et s an d e ll ip si s o m it te d) (qu ot in g Un it edSta te s v . Crav ero , 53 0 F .2d66 6, 6 70 (5t h C ir. 1 97 6) ). 9 Case: 10-14664 Date Filed: 08/09/2013 Page: 9 of 26Defen da ntals o qui bb le s wi th th e Gov ern m en t’s fa il ur e to co nduc t DNA or

fin ge rp rin t t es ti ng on th e p hysic al ev id en ce s ei zedat t he gro w ho us es . He arg ue s th is wou ldha ve be en“be tt er ev id en ce tha n t he tes ti m on y of c o- co ns pi rat or s.” App el la nt ’s Br. at47 . This m is se s t he po in t. The law d oe s n otcare whatev id en ce th e Gov ern m en t p res en ts —ci rcu m st an ti al , di rect , tes ti m on ia l, p hysic al , sci en ti fic , oran yth in g e ls e ad m is si bl e—a s l on g a s the ev id en ce i s s uf fic ie ntfora reas on ab le jury to co nv ic t the de fen da nt . See Un it edSta te s v . Kend ric k, 6 82 F.3d97 4, 9 84 (1 1t h C ir. 2 01 2) (no di st in ct io n b etweencir cu m st an ti al an d d ire cttes ti m on y ); Fl or es , 57 2 F .3dat 1 26 2– 63 (ph y si cal ev id en ce n otne ces sary ); Un it edSta te s v . Mi lk in ta s, 4 70 F.3d13 39 , 13 44 (11 th Cir . 20 06 ) (p er cu ria m) (“ [T]he un co rro bo rat edtes ti m on y of a n a cco m

pl ic e is su ffi ci en t t o s up po rt aco nv ic ti on if itis no t o n i ts face in cred ib le or o th erwi se in subs ta nt ia l.”) . The ev id en ce was su ffi ci en t h ere. III. W e n ex t turn t o Def

en da nt ’s evi de nt ia ry

arg um en ts . W e rev ie w pro pe rly pr es erv edch al le ng es to ev id en ti ary ru li ng s fo r ab us e o f di sc ret io n. Un it edSta te s v. Gam ory , 63 5 F .3d48 0, 4 92 (11 th Cir . 20 11 ). Bu t ev enif we fi nderro r, we wil l no t re ve rs e if

th e err or do es no t af

fectth e d efen da nt ’s subs ta nt ia l ri gh ts . Id.; Fed . R. Cri m . P. 52 (a). 10

Case: 10-14664 Date Filed: 08/09/2013 Page: 10 of 26A.

Defen da ntfir starg ue s t he co urt s ho ul d h av e al lo wedDEA Agen t Gol df in ge r to an swe r de fen se co un se l’s que st io n, “ Is n’t i t a f actth atdu rin g t he co ur se of t ha t i nt erv ie w, th atVero ni ca To rres in it ia ll y li edto y ouab ou t h er in vo lv em en t wi th th e . . . Diaz o rg an iz at io n? ” Doc . 44 6 a t 1 59 –6 0. Th e Gov ern m en t o bjec te d t o t hi s que st io n a s i rrel ev an t an d b ey on d t he sco pe of d ire ct . The di st ric t co urt s us ta in edth e o bjec ti on an d s tru ckth e que st io n. On ap pe al , th e Gov ern m en t ar gu es th e que st io n was im pr op er, p oi nt in g u s to ou r st at em en t i n Un it edSta te s v . Sch m it z, 63 4 F .3d12 47 , 12 69 (11 th Cir . 20 11 ), th at“ were- th ey -lyin g que st io ns in va de th e p ro vi nc e o f th e jury.” The Gov ern m en t al so cit es Uni te d S ta te s v . Hend ers on , 40 9 F .3d12 93 , 12 99 (11 th Cir . 20 05 ), whe re we s ai d, “ The Fed eral Ru le s o f Evi de nc e p recl ud e a wit ne ss fro m te st ifyin g a s t o t he cred ib il it y of a no th er wi tn es s.” Th es e cas es , ho wev er, are no t ex act ly on p oi nt . They bo th de al t wi th qu es ti on in g o ne witne ss reg ard in g t he ve raci ty of an ot he r wit ne ss ’s tri al tes ti m on y . Veron ic a Torres tes ti fie d a t Defen da nt ’s tri al , bu t d efen se co un se l’s que st io n t o Ag en t Go ld fin ge r was no t whe th er Vero ni ca To rres li ed at tr ia l . Ins te ad , th e que st io n was whet he r sh e h ad to ldon e st ory

to Agen t Go ld fin ge r bu t t he n c ha ng edth atst ory , a qu es ti on th at wou ldbe rel ev an t t o h er cr ed ib il it y . 11

Case: 10-14664 Date Filed: 08/09/2013 Page: 11 of 26Nev erthe le ss , th e d is tri ctco urt ac te d wi th init s d is cret io n wh enitex cl ud ed

th e que st io n a s b ey on d the sco pe of d ire ct . The Go ve rn m en t’s d ire ctex am in at io n of th e DEA age ntdi d n otto uc h o n Ver on ic a Torres ex cep t wh enth e ag en t au th en ti cat eda pi ctur e o f he r. Furth erm or e, ev enif t he di st ric t co urt h aderre d, t he erro r wou ldha ve be enharm le ss be cau se Vero ni ca To rres he rs el f ad m it te d o n cro ss -ex am in at io n tha t s he li edto th e DEA cas e ag en ts . See Do c. 44 9 a t 2 29 –3 0, 23 3. B. Nex t, Defe nd an t ch al le ng es Agen t Go ld fin ge r’s st at em en t t ha t h e as su m ed

“ m on ey co m in g fr om

[Defen da nt ] to Mr. Pi ne da ” wou ldbe dru g p ro ceed s. Do c. 44 6 a t 1 69 . The t es ti m on y cam e ab ou t i n t hi s way. On d ire ctex am in at io n, Ag en t Gol df in ge r te st ifi edth athe ob se rv edDefen da ntm eetwith c o- de fen da ntRo be rto Pi ne daina W al m artpa rk in g l ot . After De fen da ntlef t, Ag en t Go ld fin ge r ob se rv ed Pi ne dago in to th e st or e an d re tu rnwith a n e nv el op e fu ll of c as h. Oncro ss ex am in at io n, Pi ne da ’s cou ns el (no t Def en da nt ’s) as ke d Ag en t Go ld fin ge r if he kn ew th atan y

dru g p ro ceed s ch an ge d h an ds th atday . Agen t Go ld fin ge r res po nd ed , “ If i t was m on ey co m in g fr om

[Defen da nt ] to Mr. Pi ne da , th atwou ld be m y ass um pt io n a s a t rai ne d i nv es ti ga to r.” Id . Defen da nt ’s cou ns el ob jecte d th atth e que st io n was sp ecu la ti ve an d m ov edto st rik e th e an swe r, bu t the di st ric t 12 Case: 10-14664 Date Filed: 08/09/2013 Page: 12 of 26co urt o ve rru le d t he ob jecti on . Pin ed a’s co un se l t he n a sk ed , “ You r as su m pt io n i s no t [t he ] equi va le ntof e vi de nc e; is it , Mr. Gol fin ge r? ” Id . at 1 70 . Gol df in ge r res po nd edth atne it he r Defen da ntno r Pi ne daha d a ny em pl oym en t o th er tha n d ru g tra ffi ck in g. Pi ne da ’s cou ns el fin al ly gotGol df in ge r to adm itth athi s

“ as su m pt io ns ” were n otev id en ce fo r th e jury to c on si de r, bu t m erel y hi s

“ op in io n.” Id. Defen da ntcla im s t he di st ric t co urt s ho ul d h av e ex cl ud edth is tes ti m on y un de r Fed eral Ru le of Ev id en ce 4 03 , whi ch all ows a co urt t o “ ex cl ud e rel ev an t ev id en ce i f it s p ro ba ti ve va lu e is subs ta nt ia ll y ou twei gh ed ” b y

th e d an ge r of

un fai r pr ejud ic e. Bu t Def

en da nt ’s cou ns el on ly objec te d o n t he ba si s t ha t t he qu es ti on

“ cal l[e d] forsp ecu la ti on .” Doc. 4 46 at 1 69 . Becau se Defen da ntdi d n otob ject ba se d o n R

ul e 4 03 , we canon ly revi ew hi s R ul e 4 03 arg um en t fo r pl ai n e rro r. Uni te d S ta te s v . Tob in , 67 6 F .3d12 64 , 12 73 (11 th Cir . 20 12 ). Exc lu si on of e vi de nc e u nd er Ru le 40 3 “ is anex tra or di na ry rem edy whi ch th e d is tri ctco urt s ho ul d i nv ok e sp ari ng ly, an d t he ba la nc e sh ou ldbe st ru ckin fav orof a dm is si bi li ty.” Uni te d S ta te s v . Lop ez, 6 49 F.3d12 22 , 12 48 (11 th Cir . 20 11 ) (quo ti ng Uni te d S ta te s v .Alfa ro -Mo nc ad a, 60 7 F .3d72 0, 7 34 (11 th Cir . 20 10 )). Here, the ag en t d id no t say any m on ey

pa ss edfro m

Defen da ntto Pin ed a. He on ly saidth at if

m on ey ch an ge d h an ds be twee n Def en da ntan d P in ed a, he 13 Case: 10-14664 Date Filed: 08/09/2013 Page: 13 of 26wou ldass um e itwas d ru g p ro ceed s. In li gh t o f Age ntGol df in ge r’s subs eque nt adm is si on th atth is ass um pt io n was no t “ ev id en ce,” t hi s was no t re ve rs ib le erro r, if erro r atall . C. Defen da ntne xtch al le ng es th e te st im on y of ash eri ff’s d et ect iv e who he lp ed ex ecu te th e se arch warran t atth e 8 th Aven ue gro w ho us e. The d et ect iv e te st ifi ed th atth e 1 62 pl an ts in th e h ou se were ab ou t a wee k a way fro m cu tt in g. Defe ns e co un se l m ad e a v ag ue ob jecti on , saying , “ Object io n a s t o wh athe th in ks , You r Hon or .” Doc. 4 48 at 6 6. Th e d is tri ctco urt o ve rru le d t he ob jecti on . On ap pe al , Defen da ntarg ue s t he tes ti m on y was p reju di ci al un de r Ru le 40 3. Bu t b ecau se Defen da ntdi d n otrai se a Ru le 40 3 o bjec ti on at tria l, we can o nl y rev ie w forpl ai n e rro r. Tob in , 67 6 F .3dat 1 27 3. Th e Gov ern m en t es tabl is he d t ha t th e d et ect iv e h adsp en t t eny ears in th e n arco ti cs bu reau , hadpa rti ci pa te d i n o ve r 10 0 i nd oo r m ari

juan a g ro win g i nv es ti ga ti on s, an d was fam il ia r wit h m ari juan a cu lt iv at io n. Th is was asu ffi ci en t fo un da ti onforhi m to tes ti fy reg ard in g t he pl an ts ’ m atur it y . Eve n i f th e co urt erredin adm it ti ng th e te st im on y , th e err orwou ldbe ha rm le ss . Diaz, wh o o ve rs aw th e en ti re m ari juan a-g ro win g o pe rat io n, t es ti fie d th atth e p la nt s atth e “ ho m e whe re Ma nu el Torr es was n eed edon e m or e weekto 14 Case: 10-14664 Date Filed: 08/09/2013 Page: 14 of 26be ha rv es te d.” Doc. 4 51 at 2 8. Be cau se Diaz pro vi de d c om pe te nttes ti m on y reg ard in g e xa ct ly the same fact, we ca nn otim ag in e a m or e h arm le ss erro r. D. Defen dantarg ue s t he di st ric t co urt co m m it te d re ve rs ib le erro r by all owi ng Carl os Grah am

to tes ti fy reg ard in g h is “ es ti m at e” tha t h e h el pe d h arv es t 7 5 p la nt s atanun sp eci fie d g ro w ho us e. Grah am in it ia ll y sai d h e co ul d “ [n ]ot ex act ly” rem em be r th e am ou ntof m ari

juan a an d c ou ld“ no t re al ly” rem em be r th e num

be r of pl an ts . Doc. 4 49 at 1 04 . The Go ve rn m en t t he n a sk edif h e h ad“ an y est im at e” reg ard in g t he nu m

be r of pl an ts . Id. Defe ns e co un se l o bjec te d t ha t t hi s ca ll edfor sp ecu la ti on , bu t the di st ric t co urt o ve rru le d t he ob jecti on . Graha m

an swe red ,

“ Maybe ab ou t 7 5 p la nt s, s om ethi ng li ke th at .” Id . Defen dantha s ci te d n o au th or it y pro hi bi ti ng witne ss es fro m est im at in g n um

be rs when th ei r m em ory

is sh aky . So we ar e n otco nv in cedth atGrah am ’s ans wer was im pe rm is si bl e sp ecu la ti on . E. Defen da nt ’s fin al ev id en ti ary arg um en t re la te s t o t he Eng li sh -la ng ua ge tra ns cri pt s. Th e Gov ern m en t p la y edreco rd in gs of t he wire taps to th e jury. So m e of th e rec or de d c on ve rs at io ns in vo lv edDiaz sp eak in g t o Def en dant . Becau se m os t o f th e co nv ers at io ns were i n S pa ni sh , th e Gov ern m en t p ro vi de d t he jury wit h 15 Case: 10-14664 Date Filed: 08/09/2013 Page: 15 of 26Eng li sh -la ng ua ge tra ns cri pt s b utdi d n otid en ti fy who ha d p rep aredth e tr an sc rip ts . In st ead , th e Gov ern m en t as ke d Di az, wh o was ab le to readan d s pe akbo th Eng li sh an d S pani sh , whet he r th e tr an sl at edtra ns cri pt s wer e a tru e an d a ccu rat e ref le ct io n of th e rec or di ng s. Defe nd an t’s co un se l s ai d, “ I’m go in g t o o bjec t t o t ru e an d accu rat e. Agai n, p red ic at e. Agai n, ca ll s fo r a co nc lu si on th atth is witne ss is no t qu al ifi edto pro vi de .” Doc. 4 50 at 1 27 . ButDefen da ntdi d n otpo in t o utany erro rs in th e tr an sc rip ts or p ro po se analt ern at iv e tr an sl at io n. Th e d is tri ctco urt ov erru le d t he ob

jecti on . On ap pe al , Defen da ntarg ue s t he tra ns cri pt s’ adm is si on was “pr ejud ic ia l t o the ap pe ll an t” be cau se “ th e tr an sc rip ti on s an d tran sl at io ns were no t v eri fie d b y

th e actua l p ers on who di d s ai d tran sl at io ns an d t ran sc rip ti on s.” App el la nt ’s Br. at53 . Defen da nton ly argu es th atth e tr an sc rip ts lac ke d a n ad equa te fou nd at io n; he do es no t ar gu e th ey vi ol at edth e Co nf

ro nt at io n C laus e. Thi s ci rcu itha s es tabl is he d apro cedur e fo r “ ch al le ng in g t he accu racy of an Eng li sh -la ng ua ge tra ns cri ptof aco nv ers at io n c on du ct edin a fo rei gn lan gu ag e.” Uni te d S ta te s v . Le, 25 6 F .3d12 29 , 12 38 (11 th Cir . 20 01 ). If th e p art ie s ca nn ot ag ree o n ast ip ul at edtra ns cri pt , “ th eneach si de sh ou ldpro du ce i ts own ve rs io n o f a tr an sc rip t o r it s o wn v ers io n o f th e d is pu te d p orti on s.” Id . (qu ot in g Un it edSta te s v. Cruz , 76 5 F .2d10 20 , 10 23 (11 th Cir . 19 85 )). Whe n ade fen da ntdo es no t av ai l hi m se lf o f th is pro cedur e, he “waiv e[s ] hi s ri gh t t o c ha ll en ge th e tr an sl at io n and 16 Case: 10-14664 Date Filed: 08/09/2013 Page: 16 of 26th e tr an sc rip ts .” Id . Becau se Defen da ntdi d n otpro du ce an y alt ern at iv e tra ns cri pt s, h e h as waiv edth is arg um en t. Eve n i f Defen dantha d p res erv edth e arg um en t, the Gov ern m en t ad du cedan ad equa te fou nd at io n fo r th e tr an sc rip ts . Und er Fe de ral Ru le of Ev id en ce 9 01 (a), th e p ro po ne ntne edon ly “pr oduc e ev id en ce s uf fic ie ntto supp ort a f

in di ng th atth e it em is whatth e p ro po ne ntcla im s i t i s.” Her e, Diaz tes ti fie d t ha t h e was flu en t i n bo th Sp an is h a ndEng li sh , was ab le to readbo th lan gu ag es , hadli st en edto th e wire tap re co rd in gs , andbe li ev edth e tr an sl at edtra ns cri pt s ac cu rat el y refl ect edth e reco rd edco nv ers at io ns . Becau se Defen dantha d h im se lf b een a pa rty to e achof th e co nv ers at io ns , he was ina ve ry go odpo si ti on to au th en ti cat e th e tr an sc rip ts . See Un it edSta te s v . Hog an , 98 6 F .2d13 64 , 13 76 (11 th Cir . 19 93 ) (fi nd in g n o erro r whe n apa rty to aEng li sh -la ng ua ge co nv ers at io n aut he nt ic at edth e tra ns cri pt s) . So ev enif Def en da ntha d n otwaiv edth is arg um en t, the di st ric t co urt di d n otab us e it s d is cret io n b y adm it ti ng th e tr an sc rip ts .

IV. Defen da ntne xtcla im s t he di st ric t co urt erredwhen itde ni edhi s re qu es t t o subm itth e fo rfei tu re al le ga ti on s t o ajury. Fed eral Ru le of C riminal Pro cedur e 32 .2 g ov ern s cr im in al for fei tu re ac ti on s. Th e Gov ern m en t ar gu es th e ru le do es no t gi ve Defen da nta ri gh t t o ajury de te rm in at io n o f th e fo rfei tabi li ty of a m on ey 17 Case: 10-14664 Date Filed: 08/09/2013 Page: 17 of 26jud gm en t as op po se d t o s pe ci fic pro pe rty. Becau se th is qu es ti on hi ng es onth e

pr op er i nt erp ret at io n o f a p ro cedur al rul e, ou r rev ie w is de no vo . Uni te d S ta te s v . Bea ch , 11 3 F .3d18 8, 1 89 (11 th Cir . 19 97 ). Fed eral Ru le of C riminal Pro cedur e 3 2.2 (b )(1 )(A) s ay s, If th e g o v e rn m en t se ek s fo rfei tu re of sp eci fic pr op erty , th e co urt m us t de te rm in e whe th er th e go ve rn m en t ha s es tabl is he d th e re q u i si te ne xu s be twee n th e pr op erty an d th e of fen se . I f th e go ve rn m en t se ek s a pe rs on al m on ey jud gm en t, th e c o u rt mu st de te rm in e th e am ou nt of m on ey th atth e d efen da ntwil l b e o rd eredto pa y . Subs ect io n (b )(5 ) th ensays, (A) Ret ai ni ng th e Ju ry . In an y cas e tri ed be fo re a jury, if th e in di ct m en t or in fo rm at io n st at es th at th e go ve rn m en t is se ek in g fo rfei tu re, th e co urt m us t de te rm in e be fo re th e jury be gi ns de li be rat in g whe th er ei th er pa rty reque st s th at th e jury be ret ai ne d to de te rm in e th e fo rfei tabi li ty of sp eci fic pro pe rty if itreturns a gu il ty verd ic t. (B) S p e c i a l V e r di ct Fo rm . If a pa rty ti m el y reque st s to ha ve th e jury de te rmi n e fo rfei tu re, th e go ve rn m en t m us t subm it a pr op os ed Sp eci al Verd ic t Fo rm li st in g each pr op erty subjec t t o fo rfei ture an d as ki ng th e jury to de te rm in e whe th er th e go ve rn m en t ha s es tabl is he d th e requi si te ne xu s be twee n th e pr op erty an d th e of fen se co m m it te d by th e de fen da nt . Fed . R. Cri m . P. 32 .2(b )(5 ). Alt ho ug h t he rul e’s st ru ctur e is so m ewh atco nf us in g, i ts subs ta nc e is no t. Subs ect io n (b )(1 )(A) t as ks th e d is tri ctco urt wi th two fun ct io ns . Firs t, the co urt

“ m us t d et erm in e . . . the requi si te ne xu s b etweenth e p ro pe rty andth e o ffen se ” fo r

18 Case: 10-14664 Date Filed: 08/09/2013 Page: 18 of 26fo rfei tu re o f sp eci fic pro pe rty. Secon d, t he co urt m us t “ de te rm in e th e am ou ntof m on ey ” fo r a m on ey

jud gm en t fo rfei tu re. Cl ear e no ug h s o fa r. Bu t the n Subs ect io n (b )(5 ) cre at es anex cep ti on injury cas es . In ca se s, “ tri edbe fo re a jury,” the di st ric t co urt’s i ni ti al tas k i s t o “ de te rm in e . . . whethe r ei th er p arty reque st s t ha t the jury be ret ai ne d t o d et erm in e th e fo rfei tabi li ty of sp eci fic pro pe rty

. . . . ” Fed . R. Cri m . P. 32 .2(b )(5 )(A). If n ei th er p arty m ak es su ch a reque st , th e di st ric t co urt wi ll do th e fac tfi nd in g fo r bo th sp eci fic pro pe rty andm on ey jud gm en t fo rfei tures . Butif apa rty requ es ts th ata jury det erm in e th e fo rfei tabi li ty of sp eci fi c p ro pe rt y , th e d is tri ctco urt m

us t s ub m itth atqu es ti on to th e jury by way of a sp eci al ve rd ic t fo rm . The rul e sa y s n ot hi ng ab ou t a ju ry de te rm in in g the am ou ntof am on ey jud gm en t. By ne ga ti ve im pl ic at io n, a p arty

is no t en ti tl edto a jury find in g reg ard in g am on ey

jud gm en t. In st ead , “ th e co ur t m us t d et erm in e th e am ou ntof m on ey th atth e d efen da ntwil l b e o rd eredto pa y .” Fed . R. Cri m . P. 32 .2(b )(1 )(A) (em ph as is ad de d) . Defen da nt ’s arg um en t i gn or es th e n eg at iv e im pl ic at io n c an on , of te n e xp res se d i n t he Lati n p hr as e in cl us io un iu s es t ex lu si o a lt er iu s . This can on ap pl ie s wh ere “ it em s ex pr es se d a re m em be rs of a n a ss oc ia te d g ro up or s eri es , jus ti fy in g t he in fere nc e th atit em s n otm en ti on edwere ex cl ud edby del ib erat e ch oi ce, n otin adve rte nc e.” Barnh artv. Pe ab od y Co al Co ., 53 7 U.S. 1 49 , 16 8 19 Case: 10-14664 Date Filed: 08/09/2013 Page: 19 of 26(2 00 3) (in te rn al qu ot at io n m ark s o m it te d) . The Ru le ’s in cl us io n o f bo th m on ey

jud gm en ts an d s pe ci fic pro pe rty forfe itur es insubs ect io n (b )(1 )(A) an d i ts ex cl us io n o f m on ey

jud gm en ts in subs ect io n (b )(5 ) was ob vi ou sl y de li be rat e. So we can no t re adsubs ect io n (b )(5 )’s jury pr oc edur es as app lying to m on ey jud gm en ts . Ourread in g o f th e ru le acco rd s wi th pre ced en t. We hel d i n an u np ub li sh ed op in io n t ha t Ru le 32 .2 d oe s n otcrea te a ri gh t t o ajury de te rm in at io n fo r m on ey jud gm en t fo rfei tures . Uni te d S ta te s v . Gray , 44 3 F . App ’x 51 5, 5 23 (11 th Cir . 20 11 ) (rejec ti ng th e arg um en t “ th atFed eral Ru le of C riminal Pro cedur e 32 .[2](b )(5 ) sh ou ldbe readto ap pl y to pe rs on al m on ey

jud gm en ts ”). The ot he r ci rcu it s t o a dd res s t he qu es ti onha ve reac he d t he same con cl us io n. Un it edSta te s v. Ph il li ps , 70 4 F .3d75 4, 7 71 (9t h C ir. 2 01 2) ; Un it edSta te s v . Greg oi re, 6 38 F.3d 96 2, 9 72 (8t h C ir. 2 01 1) ; Un it edSta te s v . Tedd er, 4 03 F.3d83 6, 8 41 (7th C ir. 20 05 ). W e rem ai n p ers ua de d t ha t t he co urt, n ota jury, sh ou ldde te rm in e th e am ou ntof am on ey

jud gm en t fo rfei tu re. 3

V.

Def endant did not ra ise the Six th Amendment, but we note that “the right to a jury 3 verdic t on foref

eitability does not fall within the Six th Amendment’s constitutional protection.” L ibretti v. United States, 516 U.S. 29, 49 (1995). 20 Case: 10-14664 Date Filed: 08/09/2013 Page: 20 of 26Defen da ntrai se s s ev eral arg um en ts reg ard in g h is sen te nc e. W e rev ie w all

se nt en ces forreas on ab le ne ss “un de r a d efer en ti al ab us e-o f-d is cret io n s ta nd ard .” Gall v. Un it edSta te s, 5 52 U.S. 38 , 41 (20 07 ). Reas on ab le ne ss co nt ai ns bo th a pr oc edur al an d s ub st an ti ve co m po ne nt . “ A sen te nc e m ay be pro cedur al ly un reas on ab le if t he di st ric t co urt i m pr op erl y cal cu la te s the Gui de li ne s rang e, tr eat s th e Gui de li ne s as m an da to ry rathe r th anadvi so ry , fai ls to co ns id er the ap pr op ria te st atut ory fact or s, s el ect s a s en te nc e b as edon cle arl y erro ne ou s fa ct s, o r fai ls to ad equa te ly exp la in th e ch os ensen te nc e.” Uni te d S ta te s v . Gon zal ez, 5 50 F.3d 13 19 , 13 23 (11 th Cir . 20 08 ) (p er cu ria m). A sen te nc e is subs ta nt iv el y un reas on ab le on ly if th e d is tri ctco urt i m po se d asen te nc e “ th atli es ou ts id e th e ran ge of r eas on ab le sen te nc es di ct at edby the fact s o f th e cas e.” Uni te d S ta te s v . McGa rity , 66 9 F .3d12 18 , 12 64 (11 th Cir . 20 12 ) (quo ti ng Uni te d S ta te s v . Irey, 61 2 F .3d11 60 , 11 90 (11 th Cir . 20 10 )). All of De fen da nt ’s arg um en ts ap pe ar t o b e di rect edat h is sen te nc e’s pr oc edur al reas on ab le ne ss . A. Defen da ntfir starg ue s h e was en ti tl edto a two -le ve l m it ig at in g ro le reduc ti on to hi s o ffen se lev el un de r U.S.S.G. § 3 B1 .2. The Gov ern m en t in co rrec tl y

cla im s Def

en da nt“ di d n otass ertth is arg um en t i n t he di st ric t co urt,” an d t ha t we s ho ul d o nl y

rev ie w forpl ai n e rro r. App el le e’s Br. at82 . In fa ct ,

21 Case: 10-14664 Date Filed: 08/09/2013 Page: 21 of 26Defen da nt ’s sen te nc in g m em or an du m sp eci fic al ly addres se d Gu id el in e § 3B 1.2 an d a ss ert edth atDefen da nt“ sh ou ldrece iv e a m it ig at in g ro le reduc ti on .” Reco rd , se al edvo l., Att ach m en t t o Ad de ndum to Pres en te nc e Rep ort at8. Bu t ev en th ou gh Defen da ntrai se d t hi s ar gu m en t, h e can no t p rev ai l. A two -le ve l re du ct io n un de r Gui de li ne § 3 B1 .2 i s o nl y warran te d i f th e d efen da nt“ is les s cu lp ab le th an m os t o th er p art ic ip an ts .” U.S.S.G. § 3 B1 .2 cmt. n .5. The ev id en ce s ho wed Defen da ntwas Di az’s “ rig htha ndm an ,” th athe recrui te d a t l eas t fo urpe op le in to th e o rg an iz at io n, t ha t h e supp li edth e $ 17 ,00 0 d own pa ym en t fo r a m ari juan a g ro w ho us e, th athe was re sp on si bl e fo r pa y in g s ev eral co -co ns pi rat or s, tha t h e se rv edas a car et ak er o r supe rv is orat f ou r ho us es , andth athe pa rti ci pa te d i n 2 5 t o 3 0 m ari juan a h arv es ts hi m se lf. In li gh t o f th is ev id en ce, h e was no t “ subs tant ia ll y le ss cu lp ab le th anth e av erag e p art ic ip an t.” U.S.S.G. § 3B 1.2 cmt. n .3(A) . B. Nex t, Defe nd an t cl ai m s t he di st ric t co urt erredinde nyin g h is reque stfora two -le ve l re du ct io n fo r acc ep ta nc e o f res po ns ib il it y un de r U.S.S.G. § 3 E1.1 . But Defen da nt ne ver

adm it te d h is factua l g ui ltan d wen t t o t ria l i ns te ad . The co m m en ta ry to § 3 E1.1 says th e ad

jus tm en t “ is no t i nt en de d t o app ly to a de fen da ntwho pu ts th e g ov ern m en t t o i ts bu rd enof p ro of at t ria l b y

de nyin g t he es se nt ia l fa ctua l el em en ts of g ui lt , is co nv ic te d, an d o nl y th enadm it s g ui ltan d 22 Case: 10-14664 Date Filed: 08/09/2013 Page: 22 of 26ex pr es se s re m or se .” U.S.S.G. § 3 E1.1 cmt. n .2. The co m m en ta ry says in “ rare si tu at io ns ” a d efen da nt“ m ay cle arl y de m on st rat e anacce pt an ce o f res po ns ib il it y ” de sp it e g oi ng to tri al . Id. The ex am pl e itgi ve s i s “ whe re a d efen da ntgo es to tri al to ass ertan d p res erv e is su es th atdo no t re la te to factua l g ui lt .” Id . This is no t o ne of th os e rar e cas es , ho wev er, b ecau se Defen da ntne ve r ad m it te d h is gu il t, ev en aft er tria l. Hi s co un se l co nc ed ed , “ I’m ask in g fo r acc ep ta nc e o f res po ns ib il it y , bu t, cl earl y , m y cli en t h as no t p ro vi de d ast at em en t o f acc ep ta nc e o f res po ns ib il it y .” Rec or d, v ol . 3 at19 56 . The d is tri ctco urt s ai d, “ The Co urt i s awa re tha t [g ran ti ng a reduc ti on un de r § 3 E1.1 ] is leg al ly pos si bl e, bu t fi nd s n o fa ct s i n t hi s ca se th at wou ldsupp ort d oi ng th at .” Id . at 2 2. Th e co urt was qu it e ri gh t. We hav e h el d th ata § 3 E1.1 sen te nc e reduc ti on is in ap pr op ria te when a de fen da nt“pu t t he go ve rn m en t t o i ts pro of

an d c on si st en tl y

att em pt edto m in im iz e h is rol e.” Uni te d St at es v. Rubi o, 3 17 F.3d12 40 , 12 44 (11 th Cir . 20 03 ). Defen da nt ’s on ly argu m en t o n app eal is th atde nyin g t he reduc ti on im pe rm is si bl y

pu ni sh edhi m

forex erci si ng hi s co ns ti tu ti on al rig htto a jury tria l. Thi s i s cl ev er, b utun co nv in ci ng . For o ne th in g, “ [o ]ur cas e la w perm it s a d is tri ct co urt t o d en y

a de fen danta reduc ti on un de r § 3 E1.1 ba se d o n c on du ctin co ns is te nt wit h a ccep ta nc e o f res po ns ib il it y , eve n wh enth atco nduc t i nc lu de s t he ass ert io n o f a co ns ti tu ti on al rig ht .” Uni te d S ta te s v . Sm it h, 1 27 F.3d98 7, 9 89 (11 th Cir . 23 Case: 10-14664 Date Filed: 08/09/2013 Page: 23 of 2619 97 ). Foran ot he r, if we a ccep te d Def en da nt ’s arg um en t, co urts wou ldha ve to gi ve a § 3 E1.1 reduc ti on to ever yde fen da ntwho wentto tri al , no m at te r ho w vi go ro us ly he de ni ed res po ns ib il it y . This wou ldst rip th e te rm “ acce pt an ce o f res po ns ib il it y ” of all m ean in g. We th eref

or e rejectth is arg um en t.

C. Nex t, Defe nd an t cl ai m s t he di st ric t co urt erredinde nyin g h is reque stfora do wnwar d d ep artur e u nd er U.S.S.G. § 5 K2.0 ba se d o n h is cu ltur al ass im il at io n in to th e Uni te d S ta te s. Defe nd an t i s a r es id en t al ie n wh o h as be enin th e Uni te d St at es si nc e th e ag e o f ni ne . “ [A] dis tri ctco urt’s re fu sa l t o app ly a do wnwar d de pa rtu re i s wi th inth e co urt’s d is cret io n a ndm ay no t b e ap pe al ed , pro vi de d t he co urt re co gn iz edth atitha d t he po wer t o s o d ep artfro m th e g ui de li ne ran ge .” Uni te d S ta te s v . W il li s, 6 49 F.3d12 48 , 12 58 –5 9 (1 1th C ir. 2 01 1) . Here, th e di st ric t co urt re co gn iz ed“ th e Co urt d oe s, i nd eed , hav e th e au th or it y to de pa rt do wnwar d,” bu t i t d ecl in edto do so . Reco rd , vo l. 3 at 1 96 9. So we ha ve no juri sd ic ti on to rev ie w it s d eci si on . 4 We note that cultural a ssimil ation is ordinarily only rele vant in prosec utions for illeg al 4 ree ntry of a r emoved a lien. See U.S.S.G. § 2L 1.2 cmt. n.8. In fac t, the Eig hth Circuit rever sed a district court’s downw ard departure for c ultural assimilation when the def endant ha d been convicted of

a drug offe nse. United States v. Ag uilar-Portillo, 334 F.3d 744, 750 (8th Cir. 2003). The c ourt observe d, “A downw ard departure for ‘ cultural a ssimil ation’ could simply have no r ole in sentence s for drugcrimes . . . .”I d. So, although we have no oc casion to dec ide the issue, 24 Case: 10-14664 Date Filed: 08/09/2013 Page: 24 of 26D.

Defen da ntarg ue s t he di stric t co urt erredby den y in g h im a va rianc e b as ed on in ad equa te pro of

reg ard in g t he nu m

be r of m ari juan a p la nt s. As di sc us se d ab ov e, am

pl e ev id en ce s up po rte d t he jury’ s fi nd in g t ha t t he co ns pi racy inv ol ve d m or e th an1,0 00 pl an ts . So the di st ric t co urt d idno t ab us e it s d is cret io n i n de nyin g ava ria nc e. E. Fi na ll y , Defen dantarg ue s t he di st ric t co urt i m pr op erl y cal cu la te d h is gu id el in e ran ge as 1 20 –1 21 m on th s, wh enth e p ro pe r ran ge was a ctua ll y 97 –1 21 m on th s. Defe nd an t m is un de rs ta nd s t he Sen te nc in g Gu id el in es . Ordi na ril y , Defen da nt ’s cri m in al hi st ory cat eg ory an d o ffen se lev el wou ldha ve pro du ceda gu id el in e ran ge of 9 7– 12 1 m on th s. Bu t Def en da ntwas c on vi ct edof acri m e th at carr ie s a m an da to ry

m in im um of 1 20 m on th s, 2 1 U.S.C. § 84 1( b) (1 )(A)(v ii ), an d th e Gui de li ne s i nc or

po rat e m an da to ry

m in im um s i nt o t he gu id el in e ran ge . Und er U.S.S.G. § 5 G1.1 (c)( 2) , th e lo w endof t he gu id el in e ran ge can no t b e “ le ss th an an y st atut or il y

requi redm in im

um sen te nc e.” Thu s, Defe nd an t’s g ui de li ne ran ge

Def endant may

have be en out of luck e ven if the district c ourt had granted the depa rture a nd if the Gover nment had appe aled. 25 Case: 10-14664 Date Filed: 08/09/2013 Page: 25 of 26was , in de ed , 12 0– 12 1 m on th s. See Uni te d S ta te s v . Cas ta in g- So sa , 53 0 F .3d

13 58 , 13 60 (11 th Cir . 20 08 ) (p er cu ria m). AFFIR MED.

26 Case: 10-14664 Date Filed: 08/09/2013 Page: 26 of 26