FI LED U. S . COURT OF AP PE ALS E L E V E N T H C IR C U IT N ove m be r 13, 2006 T HOM AS K. KAHN CL E RK [ 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. 06- 11412 N on -A rgum entC al endar

________________________ D . C . D ocketN o. 05 -000 17 -C R -W C O -2 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 R O N A L D P E R R Y M O O N , a .k .a . R u n t, 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 o rth e N o r th e rn D is tr ic t o f G e o r g ia

_________________________ ( N ove m b e r 13, 2006) B efo re D U B IN A , C A RN E S an d K R A V IT C H , C i rcu i tJu d g es. P E R C U R I A M: R ona l d P e rry M oon appe a l s hi s c onvi c t i ons a nd l i f e s e nt e nc e s f

orpos s e s s i on2

w i th i n t e n tt o d i s tr i b u t e ( 1 ) mo r e th a n 5 0 g r a ms o f c r a c k , i n v i o l a t i o n o f

2 1 U . S. C. § 841( a ) a nd ( b) ( 1) ( A ) ( i i i ) ; ( b) c oc a i ne , i n vi ol a t i on of 21 U . S . C . § 841( a ) a nd ( b) ( 1) ( C ) ; a nd ( c ) m or e tha n 50 gr a m s of m e tha m phe t a m i ne , i n vi ol a t i on of 21 U. S . C . § 8 4 1 ( a ) a n d ( b ) ( 1 ) ( A) ( v i i i ) . Af t e rath o r o u g h r e v i e w o f th e r e c o r d , we a f f irm . T h e te s tim o n y a t tr ia l w a s a s f o llo w s : A r tis J o h n s o n a g r e e d to c o o p e r a te w i th a uthor i t i e s i nve s t i ga t i ng drug de a l e r s a f t e rpol i c e f

ound al a r ge a m ountof drug s i n h i s c ar . A l tho ug h Joh nson di d n otnam e M oo n as adeal er , John son m et w ith M o o n in a n a tte m p t to a rr a n g e s o m e d ru g s b u y s a s p a r t o f h is c o o p e r a tio n . M oo n, a f

orm erdrug addi ct , t ol d Joh nson he had b ee n cl ea n and sober f or three y e a r s a n d w a s w o rk i n g a s ap a i n t e r . J o h n s o n w a s l o o k i n g f o rag o o d p r i c e o n s o me c oc a i ne de a l s , a nd M oon t ol d J ohns on he c oul d he l p. M oon l a t e rde l i ve r e d c oc a i ne thatJohn son b ou gh tfor am an nam ed Juni or. John son coo ked the cocai ne, tr a ns f orm i ng i tt o c r a c k. M oon w a s c ur i ous aboutthe pr oc e s s a nd a s ke d J ohns on f orapi e c e , w hi c h J ohns on ga ve hi m . J uni orl a t e rga ve J ohns on $10, 500 t o buy ha l f aki l ogr a m of

c oc a i ne . J ohns on c a l l e d M oon be c a us e M oon ha d the conn ec t i on for the bu y. M oo n t ol d Joh nson hi s c on t ac tfor drugs w as a m an nam ed T w a n, butthe de a l ne ve rw e ntthr ough. M oon l a t e rs poke w i th J ohns on t o f i nd a m e th a m p h e ta m in e d e a le rb e c a u s e M o o n h a d a rr a n g e d ad e a l to s e ll3

m e th a m p h e ta m in e to a n u n d e r c o v e rD E A a g e n t id e n tif ie d a s “D a v e .” M o o n w a s a rr e s te d a n d q u e s tio n e d , a d m ittin g th a t h e s o ld m etham ph et am i ne, cr ac k, and cocai ne t o D ave. M oo n t ol d agent s thathe ob t ai ned th e c r a c k a n d c o k e f

r o m T w a n a n d th e m e th a m p h e ta m in e f r o m Q u in c y S tr ic k la n d . T h e to ta l a m o u n t o f

d ru g s M o o n s o ld to D a v e w a s : 1 2 2 .5 g r a m s o f c r a c k , 1 2 7 .7 gram s of c ocai ne, and 8 4. 2 g ra m s of m etham ph et am i ne. M oo n further a dm i tt ed p la n n in g to s e ll f

iv e k ilo g r a m s o f

c o c a in e f

o rT w a n , a n d h e a g r e e d to c o o p e r a te w i th agent s by c on t ac t i ng T w an. D es pi t e M oo n’ s a tt em pt s, ho w ever , he w as u n s u c c e s s f

u l in r e a c h in g T w a n . A tthe c l os e of

the gove rnm e nt ’ s c a s e , de f e ns e c ouns e l m ove d f

orj udgm e nt of a c qui tt a l , a s s e r t i ng tha tthe gove rnm e ntha d note s t abl i s he d the ty pe of drugs in v o lv e d . T h e c o u r t d e n ie d th e m o tio n . M oo n p re se nt ed t es t i m on y f rom hi s w i fe and h i s drug tre atm entprog ra m l e a de r , both of

w hom c onf

i rm e d tha tM oon w a s adrug a ddi c tw ho ha d unde r gone re habi l i t at i on se vera l t i m es , bu thad rel apse d eac h t i m e. M oo n’ s w i fe st at ed that she knew M oo n w as usi ng drug s w hen h e w as arre st ed, and she expl ai ned that s e llin g d ru g s w a s am e a n s f o ra n a d d ic t to f

e e d h is h ab it. M o o n te s tif

ie d th a t h e h a d b e e n u s in g d ru g s s in c e 1 9 8 2 a n d h a d g o n e to r e habi l i t a t i on s e ve r a l t i m e s . A tthe t i m e of the of f e ns e s , he ha d be e n c l e a n f or4

thr e e y e a r s unt i l J ohns on vi s i t e d hi m a nd ga ve hi m c r a c k. M oon di d notpl a n on ge tt i ng i nvol ve d w i th drugs a ga i n, butJ ohns on s how e d hi m api e c e of c r a c k a nd, a s a n a d d ic t, M o o n c o u ld n o t r e s is t. M o o n w e n t b a c k to r e h ab ilita tio n , b u t a f te rh is r e l e a s e , M oon a gr e e d t o m e e tw i th J ohns on t o di s c us s apa i nt i ng j ob. W he n M oon a rr i ve d a tJ ohns on’ s hous e , J ohns on of f e r e d M oon s om e c r a c k, a nd M oon got ho ok ed agai n. M oo n d eni ed offer i ng t o sel l drug s f or John son; he st at ed that J o h n s o n in itia te d th e d e a ls . M o o n s ta te d th a t h e w a s o n d ru g s w h e n h e s o ld to D a v e , a n d th a t h e o n ly p a r tic ip a te d in th e d e a ls to f e e d h is h ab it. H e f

u r th e rs ta te d th a t h e to ld th e a g e n ts tha the w a s hi gh w he n the y que s t i one d hi m a f t e rhi s a rr e s t , a nd he c oul d not r e m e m be rw ha the t ol d the a ge nt s a tthe t i m e . A c c or di ng t o M oon, he di d not in te n d to d e a l d ru g s , b u t D a v e a n d J o h n s o n c o n tin u e d to c a ll h im to a rr a n g e d e a ls . H e a c c u s e d th e g o v e rn m e n t a n d J o h n s o n o f e n tr ap p in g h im . M o o n r e s te d h is c a s e , a n d th e g o v e rn m e n t c a lle d o n e r e b u tta l w itn e s s to c ontr a di c tM oon’ s a l l e ga t i on tha the i nf orm e d a ge nt s he w a s hi gh dur i ng q u e s tio n in g . D e f

e n s e c o u n s e l r e n e w e d th e m o tio n f o rju d g m e n t o f

a c q u itta l, ar gu i ng thati thad p utforth an entrapm entdefe nse a nd the go vernm enthad n otm et i t s burden t o sho w thatM oo n w as predi sposed t o com m i tthe offens e. T he court d e n ie d th e m o tio n .5

T he courti nstruct ed the j ury on the entrapm entdefe nse, expl ai ni ng that th e r e is n o e n tr ap m e n t d e f e n s e w h e r e th e d e f

e n d a n t is r e a d y a n d w illin g to c o m m it the of f e ns e a nd the gove rnm e nts i m pl y pr e s e nt s the oppor tuni ty t o do s o. T he c our tf ur the ri ns truc t e d tha tthe de f e ns e w a s pr ope rw he r e the r e i s r e a s onabl e doubt tha tthe de f

e nda nti nt e nde d t o c om m i tthe c r i m e s w i thoutthe i nduc e m e ntor pers uasi on of the un derc ov eroffi ce r or c oo pera t i ng i nd i vi du al . T he j ury c on vi ct ed M oon of a l l thr e e c ount s , f

i ndi ng tha tthe a m ountof drugs e xc e e de d 50 gr a m s of c r a c k a n d 5 0 g r a m s o f

m e th a m p h e ta m in e . T he prob at i on offi ce r pre pare d a pres ent ence i nv es t i gat i on re po rt(“ P S I” ), ca l cul at i ng a gui del i nes r ange of 36 0 m on ths t o l i fe i m pri sonm ent ; ho w ever , un der 2 1 U .S .C . § 8 4 1 ( b ) a n d § 8 5 1 , th e r e w a s am a n d a to ry te rm o f lif e im p r is o n m e n t. T he gui de l i ne s a l s o l i s t e d the f i ne r a nge a s $20, 000 t o $8, 000, 000. T he pr oba t i on of f i c e rnot e d tha tM oon ow e d ba c k c hi l d s uppor tf orhi s s e ve n c hi l dr e n, of w hom thr e e w e r e unde rthe a ge of s i xt e e n. T he pr oba t i on of f i c e rf ound tha tM oon ha d no r e por t e d a s s e t s a nd w oul d be unabl e t o pa y af i ne w i thi n the gui de l i ne s r a nge , but c o u ld p a y af

in e u n d e rth e B u r e a u o f P r is o n s F in a n c ia l R e s p o n s ib ility P r o g r a m . M o o n o b je c te d to th e im p o s itio n o f af in e . T he c our ts e nt e nc e d M oon t o l i f e i m pr i s onm e nton e a c h c ount , t o run c onc urr e nt l y . T he c our tde t e rm i ne d tha tM oon di d notha ve the abi l i ty t o pa y theMoon also challeng es his li fe sentenc es as cruel a nd unusual punishment and the 1 enhanc ement under

21 U.S.C. § 851. Bec ause this cour t has rejected thesearguments, we do not discuss these issues further . See United States v. Wil lis, 956 F.2d 248, 250 (11 thC i r. 1992) (u ph oldingmandator

y lif esentenc eun der § 84 1 a

nd theenh anc e ment p ro vis ion s in § 8 51 ); se ealso United States v. Raad, 406 F.3d 1322, 1324 (11th Cir. 2005) (re cognizi ngWil lis’s holding); United States v. Wade, 458 F.3d 1273, 1278 ( 11th Cir. 2006) (upholding enhancement based on prior convictions); United States v. Dowd, 451 F .3d 1244 (11th Cir. 2006); United S tates v. Martinez, 434 F.3d 1318 ( 11th Cir. 2006); United States v. Taylor, 417 F.3d 1176 ( 11th Cir. 2005). We disagree with the g overnment’s asser tion that Moon abandoned theargument by failing 2 to raise it i n h i s motion for judgment of ac quittal at the close of theg overnment’s case -in-chie f. Although M oo n did not raise it at that tim e , he did raise it wh en he renewe d his motion at th ec los e 6 f i ne unde rthe gui de l i ne s r a nge , buttha the c oul d pa y a$2, 000 f i ne unde rthe B ureau o f P ri sons F i nanci al R es po nsi bi l i ty P rogram atw hat everra t e the prog ra m s e t. M o o n r e n e w e d h is o b je c tio n to th e f

in e . M oo n n ow appeal s, chal l engi ng (1) w hether he pres ent ed suff i ci entevi dence of hi s e ntrapm entdefe nse, and (2) the i m po si t i on of a f i ne. 1 A . E ntr apm e nt M oo n argues thatthe go vernm entused hi s drug add i ct i on t o entrap h i m , that th e r e w a s n o e v id e n c e h e w a s p r e d is p o s e d to c o m m it th e o f f e n s e s , a n d th e o n ly e v id e n c e th e g o v e rn m e n t p r e s e n te d w e r e h is p r io rc o n v ic tio n s . B e c a us e e ntr apm e nti s ge ne r a l l y aj ury que s t i on, r e vi e w of a n e ntr apm e nt c l a i m i s , a s am a tt e rof

l a w , as uf

f i c i e nc y of

the e vi de nc e i nqui ry . U ni t e d S t a t e s v. B row n, 43 F . 3d 61 8, 62 2 (11 th C i r. 19 95 ). W e r evi ew a j ury’ s r ej ec t i on of an e ntr apm e ntde f

e ns e de novo, vi e w i ng a l l of the e vi de nc e a nd i nf

e r e nc e s i n f

a vorof th e g o v e rn m e n t. U n ite d S ta te s v . F r a n c is , 1 3 1 F .3 d 1 4 5 2 , 1 4 5 6 ( 1 1 th C ir . 1 9 9 7 ) . 2of all the evidenc e. There fore , he preserved the issue. United States v. Rahim, 431 F.3d 753, 756

(11th Cir. 2005); United States v. Bichsel, 156 F.3d 1148, 1150 ( 11th Cir. 1998). 7 “ [T ] he fa ct -i nt ensi ve nature of the entrapm entdefe nse oft en m akes j ury consi dera t i on of dem ea no r a nd cr edi bi l i ty e vi dence a pi vo t al fa ct or. ” U ni t ed S t at es v. M i l l er , 71 F . 3d 81 3, 81 6 (11 th C i r. 19 96 ). W e c anno tov erturn the j ury’ s ver di ct if th e r e is a n y r e a s o n ab le c o n s tru c tio n o f th e e v id e n c e th a t w o u ld a llo w th e ju ry to have foun d the defendantgu i l ty bey on d a re as on abl e dou bt . F ra nci s, 13 1 F . 3d at 1456.

“ In th i s ci rcu i t , a su ccessfu l en trap m en td efen se co n si st s o f tw o el em en t s: 1) gove rnm e nti nduc e m e ntof the c r i m e , a nd 2) l a c k of pr e di s pos i t i on on the pa r tof the de f e nda nt . ” U ni t e d S t a t e s v. R y a n, 289 F . 3d 1339, 1343 ( 11th C i r . 2002) (quo t i ng U ni t ed S t at es v. B row n, 43 F . 3d 61 8, 62 3 (11 th C i r. 19 95 )) . If a j ury r e je c ts ad e f

e n d a n t’s c la im th a t h e w a s e n tr ap p e d , o u rr e v ie w is lim ite d to d e te rm in in g w h e th e rth e g o v e rn m e n t p r e s e n te d s u f f ic ie n t e v id e n c e to th e ju ry f o rit r e a s onabl y t o ha ve c onc l ude d tha tthe de f e nda ntw a s pr e di s pos e d t o t a ke pa r ti n the c r i m e . F r a nc i s , 131 F . 3d a t1456. T he pr e di s pos i t i on i nqui ry i s apur e l y s ubj e c t i ve o n e , r e q u ir in g th e ju ry to “c o n s id e rth e d e f e n d a n t’s r e a d in e s s a n d w illin g n e s s to e nga ge i n the c ha r ge d c r i m e abs e nta ny c ont a c tw i th the gove rnm e nt ’ s of f i c e r s or a g e n ts .” B r o w n , 4 3 F .3 d a t 6 2 4 . A l though the r e i s no s pe c i f i c l i s tof the f a c t or s tha te s t abl i s h pr e di s pos i t i on,8

th is co u rt h as ar ti cu lated se v er al p rin cip les to g u id e th e a n alys is: th e d ef en d an t’ s r e a d in e s s o re a g e rn e s s to p a r tic ip a te ; p o s t- c r im e s ta te m e n ts ; a n d th e o p p o r tu n ity to ba c k outof

the de a l a nd the r e f

us a l t o do s o. B r ow n, 43 F . 3d a t625. Vi e wi n g th e e v i d e n c e i n th e l i g h tm o s tf a v o r ab l e t o th e g o v e rn m e n t , we concl ud e thatthe evi dence s up po rt s the j ury’ s det erm i nat i on thatM oo n w as pr e di s pos e d t o c om m i tthe c r i m e s . F i r s t , M oon ha d pr i orc onvi c t i ons f ordrugre l at ed cr i m es . S ec on d, M oo n’ s w i fe t es t i fi ed thataddi ct s oft en sol d d rugs t o fee d the i rhabi t s . T hi r d, the gove rnm e nt ’ s w i tne s s e s t e s t i f i e d tha tM oon w a s aw i l l i ng p a r tic ip a n t a n d th a t h e c o n ta c te d th e u n d e r c o v e ra g e n t to n e g o tia te th e d e a ls . M or e ove r , J ohns on w a s noti nvol ve d i n the m e tha m phe t a m i ne de a l , a nd M oon i ni t i at ed thatdeal w i th D ave absentany a l l eged coerc i on . A l tho ug h M oo n d eni ed th is e v id e n c e , b y te s tif

y in g , h e r a n th e r is k th a t th e ju ry w o u ld d is b e lie v e h is t es t i m on y. U ni t ed S t at es v. R ud i si l l , 18 7 F . 3d 12 60 , 12 68 (11th C i r. 19 99 ). T he r e f or e , the r e w a s s uf

f i c i e nte vi de nc e f

orthe j ury t o c onc l ude tha tM oon w a s p r e d is p o s e d to c o m m it th e o f f e n s e s . F r a n c is , 1 3 1 F .3 d a t 1 4 5 6 . B . F i ne M oon a r gue s tha tthe c our tabus e d i t s di s c r e t i on by i m pos i ng af i ne w i thout consi deri ng hi s abi l i ty t o p ay , as re qu i re d u nd erU . S . S . G . § 5 E 1. 2(a) . M oo n n ot es thatthe courtdi d n otexpl ai n i t s r ea soni ng for i m po si ng a f i ne, and the re cord do es9

n o t r e f le c t th e f a c to r s th e c o u r t c o n s id e r e d . W e r evi ew a di stri ctcourt ’ s det erm i nat i on thatthe defendanti s abl e t o p ay th e f in e f o rc le a re rr o r . U n ite d S ta te s v . M c G u in n e s s , 4 5 1 F .3 d 1 3 0 2 , 1 3 0 7 ( 1 1 th C ir . 2 0 0 6 ) ; U n ite d S ta te s v . S in g h , 3 3 5 F .3 d 1 3 2 1 , 1 3 2 3 n .1 ( 1 1 th C ir . 2 0 0 3 ) . U nd erU . S . S . G . § 5 E 1. 2, “ [t ] he courtshal l i m po se a f i ne i n al l ca se s, exce ptw here th e d e f e n d a n t e s tab lis h e s th a t h e is u n ab le to p a y a n d is n o t lik e ly to b e c o m e ab le t o p ayany f

i ne” “ even w i th the use of are as on abl e i nst al l m entsc hedu l e. ” U .S .S .G . § 5 E 1 .2 ( a ) & ( e ) ( 1 ) . M o o n h a s th e b u r d e n o f p r o v in g in ab ility to p a y . M c G ui nne s s , 451 F . 3d a t1307; U ni t e d S t a t e s v. H e rna nde z , 160 F . 3d 661, 665 ( 1 1 th C ir . 1 9 9 8 ) . H e r e , the di s tr i c tc our tf ound tha tM oon w oul d notbe abl e t o pa y af i ne un der the gu i del i nes r ange, bu tthathe w as abl e t o p aya f i ne un der the F i nanci al R es p o n sib il ity P ro g ra m . In re ac h in g th is co n clu sio n , th e c o u rt ad o p ted th e P S I’s f a c tu a l f in d in g s b u t m a d e n o o th e rf a c tu a l f in d in g s . T h e s e n te n c in g c o u r t is n o t r e q u ir e d to m a k e s p e c if ic f in d in g s o f

f a c t w ith r e s pe c tt o the S e nt e nc i ng G ui de l i ne f a c t or s a s l ong a s “ ‘ the r e c or d r e f l e c t [ s ] the di stri ctcourt ’ s c on si dera t i on of the pert i nentfa ct ors pri or t o i m po si ng the fi ne. ’ ” U ni t ed S t at es v. L om bardo, 35 F . 3d 52 6, 53 0 (11 th C i r. 19 94 ). T hese fa ct ors i ncl ud e: the defendant ’ s i ncom e; ea rni ng capaci ty; fi nanci al re source s; the bu rden10

o n th e d e f

e n d a n t a n d h is d e p e n d e n ts ; p e c u n ia ry lo s s in f lic te d o n o th e r s a s ar e s u lt of the of f e ns e ; w he the rr e s t i tut i on i s or de r e d; the ne e d t o de pr i ve the de f e nda ntof ille g a l g a in s ; a n d th e n e e d to p r o m o te r e s p e c t f o rth e la w , p r o v id e ju s t p u n is h m e n t, a n d a d e q u a te d e te rr e n c e . U .S .S .G . § 5 E 1 .2 ( d ) . In thi s c as e, the courtre vi ew ed and ado pt ed the P S I, w hi ch i nd i ca t ed that M oo n’ s pre vi ou s c on vi ct i on s i nv ol ved fi nes, thathe ow ed chi l d sup po rt , thatthere w as no re st i tut i on or i l l egal gai ns fr om the offens es , and thathe had b ee n e m p lo y e d a s ah o u s e p a in te rf o rs e v e r a l y e a r s p r io rto th e in s ta n t a rr e s t. C ons i de r a t i on of

the P S I m a y be s uf

f i c i e ntt o s how tha tthe c our tc ons i de r e d the n e c e s s a ry f

a c to r s . U n ite d S ta te s v . K a h w a ji, 1 1 8 F .3 d 1 4 5 4 , 1 4 5 9 ( 1 1 th C ir . 1 9 9 7 ) . M o o n h a s o f

f e r e d n o th in g to s h o w h is in ab ility to p a y o th e rth a n th e f a c t o f h is in c a r c e r a tio n . F o rth e f o r e g o i n g r e a s o n s , w e A F F I R M.