FI LED U. S . COURT OF AP PE ALS E L E V E N T H C IR C U IT A U G U ST 15, 2007 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- 15163 N on -A rgum entC al endar

________________________ D. C . Do c k e tNo . 0 4 - 6 0 1 9 2 - C R - MGC 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 E D W A R D M E L V I N , D e f e n d a n t- A p p e lla n t.

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

_________________________ ( A u gu s t 15, 2007) B efo re T JO F L A T , B IR C H an d H U L L , C i rcu i tJu d g es. P E R C U R I A M:2

T h is ap p e a l is th e th ir d tim e th is c a s e h a s b e e n b e f o r e u s . E d w a r d M e lv in appe a l s hi s 100- m onth s e nt e nc e i m pos e d on r e m a nd f ordi s tr i but i on a nd pos s e s s i on w i th i nt e ntt o di s tr i but e c oc a i ne ba s e w i thi n 1, 000 f e e tof apl a y gr ound. A tthe m o st re ce n t res en ten cin g h ea rin g , th e d istrict co u rt n eith erv io lated M elv in ’s const i tut i on al ri gh tt o con fr on t at i on by adm i tt i ng l ab re po rt s, no r a ff orded di sposi t i ve w ei gh tt o the se nt enci ng gu i del i nes. A cc ordi ng l y, for the re as on s s et o u tb e l o w , w e A F F I R M. I . B AC KG RO UN D A f e de r a l gr a nd j ury i ndi c t e d M e l vi n on thr e e c ount s of di s tr i but i on a nd pos s e s s i on w i th i nt e ntt o di s tr i but e c oc a i ne ba s e w i thi n 1, 000 f e e tof apl a y gr ound, in v io la tio n o f

2 1 U .S .C . § § 8 4 1 ( a ) ( 1 ) , 8 4 1 ( b ) ( 1 ) ( C ) , a n d 8 6 0 . M e lv in p le d g u ilty t o al l th ree co u n t s. A c c o r d in g to th e p r e s e n te n c e in v e s tig a tio n r e p o rt ( “P S I ” ) , th e H a lla n d a le B ea ch P ol i ce D epartm ent , i n con j un ct i on w i th the D rug E nforcement A gency ( “ D E A ” ) , e xe c ut e d thr e e c ontr ol l e d pur c ha s e s of c oc a i ne ba s e f

r om M e l vi n. T he p r o b a t i o n o f

f i c e ra s s i g n e d Me l v i n ab a s e o f f e n s e l e v e l o f

2 8 , p u r s u a n tt o U. S . S . G. § 2D 1. 2( a ) ( 1) , be c aus e the of f e ns e i nvol ve d m or e tha n 5 gr a m s , butl e s s tha n 20 gram s, of cocai ne base w i thi n a prot ec t ed l ocat i on . M el vi n rec ei ved a three -l evel re du ct i on , pu rs uantt o U . S . S . G . §§ 3E 1. 1(a) and (b), because he a cc ept ed3

re spon si bi l i ty and pl ed gu i l ty i n a t i m el y m anner. A cc ordi ng l y, M el vi n’ s t ot al of f e ns e l e ve l w a s 25. M e l vi n’ s c r i m i na l hi s t ory c a t e gory w a s V . B a s e d on the to tal o ff en se lev el o f 2 5 an d th e c rim in al h isto ry ca teg o ry o f V , M elv in ’s r e c o m m e n d e d s e n te n c in g r a n g e w a s 1 0 0 to 1 2 5 m o n th s o f im p r is o n m e n t. M el vi n rai se d sever al obj ec t i on s t o the P S I, i ncl ud i ng thathe had n otpl ed gui l ty t o, norha d the i ndi c tm e nta l l e ge d, as pe c i f i c drug qua nt i ty a s r e port e d i n the P S I . T he di s tr i c tc ourtove rrul e d M e l vi n’ s obj e c t i ons a nd s e nt e nc e d hi m t o 100 m onths of

i m pr i s onm e nt . M e l vi n appe a l e d hi s s e nt e nc e , a nd w e he l d tha t : ( 1) the di stri ctcourtconst i tut i on al l y e rr ed by enhanci ng M el vi n’ s s ent ence , un der a m a nda t ory gui de l i ne s s c he m e , ba s e d on f a c t s ne i the ri nc l ude d i n the i ndi c tm e ntnor adm i tt ed by hi m ; (2) the di stri ctcourt ’ s tre atm entof the gu i del i nes a s m andat ory const i tut ed st atut ory e rr or; and (3) because i tw as un cl ear w hatse nt ence the di stri ct c o u rt w o u ld h a v e im p o s e d u n d e ra n a d v is o ry s y s te m , th e g o v e rn m e n t f a ile d to m eeti t s b u rd en o f sh o w i n g th atth e erro r w as h arm l ess. A cc ordi ng l y, w e vac at ed and rem anded M el vi n’ s s ent ence “ for r es ent enci ng un der a n adv i sorygu i del i nes sc hem e. ” U ni t ed S t at es v. M el vi n, 15 2 F ed. A pp ’ x 7 92 , 79 5 (11 th C i r. 20 05 ). A tre se nt enci ng , M el vi n rei t er at ed hi s c on t ent i on thathi s bas e off ense l evel shou l d b e 12, the l ow es toffe nse l evel for a n o ff ense i nv ol vi ng coca i ne base , be c aus e the drug qua nt i ty pr of f e r e d by the gove rnm e ntw a s ne i the ra dm i tt e d t o by4

M el vi n n or prov en t o a j ury. T he go vernm entre spon ded thatthe di stri ctcourt coul d d et erm i ne the drug qu ant i ty by aprepon dera nce of the evi dence und eran a dvi s ory gui de l i ne s s c he m e . M e l vi n a r gue d tha tl ab r e port s w oul d be i ns uf f i c i e nt t o est ab l i sh th e d ru g q u an t i ty b ecau se h e w o u l d o b j ectt o th e am o u n t . H e al so re m i nd ed the di stri ctcourtthati thad i nd i ca t ed atthe i ni t i al se nt enci ng hear i ng that M e l vi n’ s gui de l i ne r a nge w a s t oo hi gh. T he di s tr i c tc ourtthe n s t a t e d: I b e lie v e la s t s u m m e r , a t le a s t f o rm e , w e w e r e a ll try in g to n a v ig a te the ki nd of roug h w at er s of B oo ker, B l akel y, and R ee se . I bel i eve, a nd the r e ar e c e rt a i n of

the s e r e s e nt e nc e s tha tI ha ve done a nd the s e n t e n c e s r e ma i n th e s a me . Bu ti n th i s c a s e I b e l i e v e th e r e a r e s o me a d ju s tm e n ts th a t n e e d to b e m a d e g iv e n th e w a y th a t th e in d ic tm e n t in thi s c a s e w a s w r i tt e n. R 4 a t7. T he di s tr i c tc ourtthe n c onc l ude d tha tthe ba s e of f e ns e l e ve l w a s 12, the c r i m i na l hi s t ory c a t e gory w a s V , a nd the r e s ul t i ng gui de l i ne s r a nge w a s 27 t o 33 m on ths of i m pri sonm ent . P ri or t o i m po si ng the se nt ence , the di stri ctcourtno t ed tha t“ thi s de f

e nda ntde s e rve s a n i nc a r c e r a t e d s e nt e nc e . W i th ac r i m i na l hi s t ory of fi ve, he hasn’ tl earned hi s l es son. . . . your cl i enti s no b abe i n the w oo ds, M r. L aut e nba c h. ” I d. a t8. T he di s tr i c tc ourts e nt e nc e d M e l vi n t o 33 m onths of i m pri sonm ent . T he go vernm entappeal ed M el vi n’ s s ent ence . W e vac at ed and rem anded for res ent enci ng . W e hel d thatthe di stri ctcourt e rr e d w he n i tc onc l ude d tha t“ i tc oul d notc a l c ul a t e the gui de l i ne r a nge by us i ng a drug qu ant i ty nei ther i ncl ud ed i n the i nd i ctm entno r a dm i tt ed t o b y M el vi n. ”5

U ni t ed S t at es v. M el vi n, 19 0 F ed. A pp ’ x 8 65 , 86 9 (11 th C i r. 20 06 ). W e hel d that the di stri ctcourthad an o bl i gat i on “ t o d et erm i ne the drug qu ant i ty und era p r e p o n d e r a n c e o f

th e e v id e n c e s ta n d a r d .” I d . A t th e th ir d s e n te n c in g h e a r in g , th e d is tr ic t c o u rt b e g a n b y e x p lic itly re fe rr i ng t o the gu i del i nes a s a dv i sory . T he go vernm entoffe re d fou r D E A l ab r e p o rt s th a ti n d i c a t e d th a tM e l v i n ’ s d ru g tr a n s a c t i o n s i n v o l v e d at o t a l o f 5 . 6 3 g r a ms of cocai ne base . R el yi ng on U ni t ed S t at es v. F ra zi er , 26 F . 3d 11 0 (11 th C i r. 19 94 ), M e lv in o b

je c te d to th e lab r e p o rts . H e a r g u e d th a t h e a r s a y w a s n o t au to m a tic a lly a d m is s ib le in as e n te n c in g h e a r in g w ith o u t ac o u rt- c o n d u c te d b a la n c in g te s t to d et erm i n e th e g o v ern m en t ’ s reaso n fo r n o tp resen t i n g a w i tn ess. T h e g o v e rn m e n t c a lle d C a r lo s D ia z , aD E A f o r e n s ic c h e m is t. D i az expl ai ned h i s c re dent i al s and the proces s use d b y the D E A t o w ei gh control l ed subst ance s. H e per sonal l y c on du ct ed tw o o f the l ab re po rt s bef ore the di stri ct c o u rt. H e d e s c r ib e d th e te s tin g p r o c e d u r e s , a n d h e te s tif ie d th a t th e a m o u n ts doc um e nt e d i n the r e port s w e r e a c c ur a t e . I n a ddi t i on, he t e s t i f i e d a s t o the c o n c lu s io n s r e a c h e d in th e tw o lab r e p o rts th a t h e d id n o t p e r s o n a lly p e r f o rm . Me l v i n a g a i n o b

j e c t e d , a n d th e d i s tr i c tc o u rto v e rru l e d th e h e a r s a y o b j e c t i o n s . On c r os s - e xa m i na t i on, D i a z a c know l e dge d tha the ha d notpe r s ona l l y c onduc t e d, norThe factors to be reviewe d in imposi nga sentence a re f ound at 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a). The 1 most plausible explanation i s that the district court ac cidentally cited § 3553(c ), as it did ref erence 6 obs e rve d, tw o of

the t e s t s . H e r e vi e w e d thos e l ab r e port s , a nd he s t a t e d tha tthe c orr e c tpr oc e dur e s w e r e f ol l ow e d. M e l vi n a r gue d tha tthe l ab r e port s notc onduc t e d by D i a z s houl d notbe c ons i de r e d be c aus e the di s tr i c tc ourtha d f a i l e d t o f ol l ow F r a z i e r , r e s ul t i ng i n the adm i ss i on of hear say and the vi ol at i on of hi s due proces s r i gh t s. H e a ss ert ed that the di s tr i c tc ourts houl d onl y t a ke i nt o a c c ount1. 7 gr a m s , w hi c h i s w ha tthe gove rnm e ntw a s abl e t o pr ove . T he gove rnm e ntc ont e nde d tha t : ( 1) i tha d t o pr ove th e d ru g q u a n tity b y ap r e p o n d e r a n c e o f th e e v id e n c e , a n d h e a r s a y w a s a d m is s ib le i n sent enci ng proceedi ng s; and, (2) D i az adequat el y e xp l ai ned the D E A ’ s s t andard procedures. M el vi n argued thatthe anal ys tw ho perf orm ed the cont es t ed t es t s w as a v a ilab le , a n d h e s h o u ld h a v e b e e n p r e s e n te d to th e d is tr ic t c o u rt. T h e d is tr ic t c o u rt o p in e d th a t it c o u ld u s e lab r e p o rts if it f o u n d th e r e p o rts rel i ab l e. A cco rd i n g l y, th e d i stri ctco u rtfo u n d th atth e g o v ern m en th ad p ro v en b y a pr e ponde r a nc e of

the e vi de nc e tha tM e l vi n w a s a c c ount abl e f or5. 63 gr a m s of coca i ne base . M el vi n’ s t ot al offe nse l evel w as 25 , hi s c ri m i nal hi st ory c at egory w a s V , a nd hi s s e nt e nc i ng r a nge w a s 100 t o 125 m onths of i m pr i s onm e nt . T he di stri ctcourtbegan t o i m po se i t s s ent ence , st at i ng , “ [h] avi ng re -r evi ew ed the prese nt ence re po rt , as w el l as the fa ct ors i n 3 55 3(c) , ” w hen M el vi n request ed an 1reviewing“the f actor s.” See R5 at 29. 7 o p p o rtu n ity to in f

o rm th e c o u rt o f

s o m e a d d itio n a l f

a c ts . R 5 a t 2 9 . H e c la im e d to h a v e “tu rn e d o v e rth e p r o v e rb ia l n e w le a f ,” c itin g h is c le a n d is c ip lin a ry r e c o r d in p r is o n a n d h is s u c c e s s f

u l c o m p le tio n o f

n u m e r o u s “p r o g r a m s .” I d . a t 2 9 - 3 0 . M e l vi n pe r s ona l l y a ddr e s s e d the di s tr i c tc ourt , s t a t i ng tha the ha d “ be e n w a l ki ng w ith G o d ” a n d w a s ac h a n g e d m a n . I d . a t 3 1 . T h e d is tr ic t c o u rt s e n te n c e d h im to 1 0 0 m o n th s o f i m p ri so n m en tan d a su p erv i sed rel ease t erm o f 6 years. M e lv in rei t erat ed h i s d u e p ro cess o b j ect i o n s. I I . DI S CUS S I ON O n app ea l , M el vi n argues thatthe 67 -m on th i ncre as e i n h i s s ent ence i ndi c a t e s tha tthe di s tr i c tc ourtpl a c e d “ undue w e i ght ” on the gui de l i ne s , the r e by vi ol a t i ng U ni t e d S t a t e s v. B ooke r , 543 U . S . 220, 125 S . C t . 738 ( 2005) . D ur i ng the f i r s tr e s e nt e nc i ng he a r i ng, the di s tr i c tc ourts t a t e d tha tM e l vi n “ de s e rve d” a33- m onth s e nt e nc e , R 4 a t8, a nd, thus , M e l vi n c ont e nds tha tthe onl y e xpl a na t i on f or the i ncre as ed pri son t erm i s thatthe courtbel i eved i thad t o i m po se a s ent ence w i thi n the gui de l i ne s r a nge . H e a s s e rt s tha tthe gui de l i ne s w e r e gi ve n “ di s pos i t i ve w e ig h t” a n d h a d a“d is p o s itiv e e f f e c t” o n h is s e n te n c e in v io la tio n o f B o o k e r . A ppe l l a nt ’ s B r . a t5.8

“ [ A ] s e nt e nc e m a y be r e vi e w e d f orpr oc e dur a l ors ubs t a nt i ve un re as on abl enes s. ” U ni t ed S t at es v. H un t , 45 9 F . 3d 11 80 , 11 82 n. 3 (11 th C i r. 20 06 ). “ A se nt ence m aybe un re as on abl e i f i ti s the prod uctof a procedure that d o e s n o t f

o llo w B o o k e r ’s r e q u ir e m e n ts , r e g a r d le s s o f th e a c tu a l s e n te n c e .” I d . N orm al l y, w e r evi ew such l egal i ss ues c on ce rni ng the gu i del i nes de nov o. Id. at 1183 ( c i t a t i on om i tt e d) . W he r e the B ooke robj e c t i on i s notr a i s e d be f or e the di s tr i c tc ourt , how e ve r , w e r e vi e w f orpl a i n e rr or . U ni t e d S t a t e s v. S he l t on, 400 F . 3d 1325, 1328 ( 11th C i r . 2005) ( c i t a t i on om i tt e d) . “ A n appe l l a t e c ourtm a y not c orr e c ta n e rr orthe de f

e nda ntf a i l e d t o r a i s e i n the di s tr i c tc ourtunl e s s the r e i s : ( 1) e rr or , ( 2) tha ti s pl a i n, a nd ( 3) tha ta f f e c t s s ubs t a nt i a l r i ght s . ” I d. a t1328- 29 (c i t at i on and i nt ernal qu ot at i on om i tt ed). “ If al l three cond i t i on s are m et , an ap p e lla te c o u rt m a y th e n e x e r c is e its d is c r e tio n to n o tic e af o r f e ite d e rr o r , b u t o n ly i f ( 4) the e rr ors e r i ous l y a f f e c t s the f a i rne s s , i nt e gr i ty , orpubl i c r e put a t i on of ju d ic ia l p r o c e e d in g s .” I d . a t 1 3 2 9 ( c ita tio n a n d in te rn a l q u o ta tio n o m itte d ) . In B oo ker, the S up re m e C ou rt(1) hel d thatse nt ence enhancem ent s bas ed s ol e l y on j udi c i a l f

a c t - f i ndi ng pur s ua ntt o the m a nda t ory F e de r a l S e nt e nc i ng G ui de l i ne s vi ol a t e d the S i xth A m e ndm e nt , a nd ( 2) e xc i s e d the pr ovi s i ons of the Se n t e n c i n g Re f

o rm A c tth a tma d e th e g u i d e l i n e s ma n d a t o ry - 1 8 U . S. C. §§ 3553( b) ( 1) a nd 3742( e ) - the r e by e f f e c t i ve l y r e nde r i ng the S e nt e nc i ng9

G u id e lin e s a d v is o ry o n ly . 5 4 3 U .S . a t 2 3 2 - 3 5 , 2 5 8 - 5 9 , 1 2 5 S .C t. a t 7 4 9 - 5 1 , 7 6 4 . W e ha ve e xpl a i ne d tha tthe r e a r e tw o type s of B ooke re rr or : ( 1) S i xth A m e ndm e nt e rr orba s e d upon s e nt e nc i ng e nha nc e m e nt s unde rabi ndi ng gui de l i ne s s y s t e m ; a nd ( 2) e rr orba s e d upon s e nt e nc i ng unde ram a nda t ory gui de l i ne s s y s t e m . S he l t on, 400 F . 3d a t1329- 31.

“ [ A ] di s tr i c tc ourtm a y de t e rm i ne , on ac a s e - by - c a s e ba s i s , the w e i ghtt o gi ve the G ui de l i ne s , s o l ong a s tha tde t e rm i na t i on i s m a de w i th r e f e r e nc e t o the r e m a i ni ng s e c t i on 3553( a ) f a c t or s tha tthe c ourtm us ta l s o c ons i de ri n c a l c ul a t i ng the de f e nda nt ’ s s e nt e nc e . ” H unt , 459 F . 3d a t1185. “ [ N ] othi ng i n B ooke ror e ls e w h e r e r e q u ir e s th e d is tr ic t c o u rt to s ta te o n th e r e c o r d th a t it h a s e x p lic itly consi dere d eac h o f the § 3 55 3(a) fa ct ors or t o d i sc uss e ac h o f the § 3 55 3(a) f a c t or s . ” U ni t e d S t a t e s v. S c ott , 426 F . 3d 1324, 1329 ( 11th C i r . 2005) . W e ha ve further not ed thata di stri ctcourt ’ s e xp l i ci tac kn ow l edgm entthati thad con si dere d the de f e nda nt ’ s a r gum e nt s a nd the f a c t or s s e touti n § 3553( a ) w oul d a l one be s u f f ic ie n t. I d . a t 1 3 3 0 . I n d e te rm in in g if th e d is tr ic t c o u rt h a s a d e q u a te ly c ons i de r e d the de f

e nda nt ’ s a r gum e nt s a nd the § 3553( a ) f a c t or s , w e c a n l ook t o the di s tr i c tc ourt ’ s s t a t e m e nt s ove rthe e nt i r e s e nt e nc i ng he a r i ng. S e e U ni t e d S t a t e s v. W i l l i am s, 43 5 F . 3d 13 50 , 13 55 (11th C i r. 20 06 ) ( per c uri am ).10

He r e , wh e th e rr e v i e wi n g u n d e rap l a i n e rr o ro rd e n o v o s t a n d a r d o f r e v i e w, th e d is tr ic t c o u rt’s im p o s itio n o f s e n te n c e w a s n o t p r o c e d u r a lly u n r e a s o n ab le . M e lv in ’s ap p e a l is p r e d ic a te d u p o n h is a r g u m e n t th a t th e 6 7 - m o n th d if f e r e n c e in hi s s e nt e nc e be tw e e n the f i r s tr e s e nt e nc i ng he a r i ng a nd the s e c ond r e s e nt e nc i ng he a r i ng c a n onl y be e xpl a i ne d by the di s tr i c tc ourtgi vi ng undue ordi s pos i t i ve w ei gh tt o the gu i del i nes. T he di stri ctcourt , ho w ever , st at ed thati tconsi dere d the § 3553 f a c t or s , a nd i tgr a nt e d M e l vi n the opportuni ty t o pr e s e nte vi de nc e on w hy he shou l d rec ei ve a s ent ence bel ow the gu i del i nes r ange. S ee H u n t, 4 5 9 F .3 d a t 1 1 8 5 . I n a d d itio n , th e d is tr ic t c o u rt b e g a n th e s e c o n d r e s e n te n c in g h e a r in g b y e x p lic itly re fe rr i ng t o the gu i del i nes a s a dv i sory . M el vi n’ s argum entre gardi ng the di stri ct court ’ s r em ark thathe “ dese rved” a 33-m on th sent ence i s m i sl ea di ng . T he di stri ct c o u rt o b s e rv e d th a t h e d e s e rv e d a n in c a r c e r a te d s e n te n c e , a n d its 3 3 - m o n th s e nt e nc e w a s i m pos e d unde ra n i m pr ope r l y c a l c ul a t e d gui de l i ne s r a nge . T he d is tr ic t c o u rt’s s e n te n c e w a s n o t p r o c e d u r a lly u n r e a s o n ab le a s th e c o u rt c le a r ly u n d e r s to o d it w a s s e n te n c in g u n d e ra n a d v is o ry g u id e lin e s s c h e m e a n d it c ons i de r e d the § 3553 f a c t or s . S e e S c ott , 426 F . 3d a t1330. M e l vi n of f e r s no a r g u m e n t a s to th e s u b s ta n tiv e r e a s o n ab le n e s s o f th e 1 0 0 - m o n th s e n te n c e . A c c or di ngl y , the r e w a s no pr oc e dur a l e rr ori n the di s tr i c tc ourt ’ s i m pos i t i on of s e n te n c e , a n d it d id n o t tr e a t th e g u id e lin e s a s d is p o s itiv e o rm a n d a to ry .11

M e lv in a r g u e s th a t th e d is tr ic t c o u rt e rr e d in r e ly in g o n lab r e p o rts to es t abl i sh the drug qu ant i ty a ttri bu t abl e t o h i m . M el vi n argues thatthe di stri ct court ’ s dec i si on t o cre di ttw o report s w i tho uthear i ng t es t i m on y f rom the l ab a n a ly s t w h o p r e p ar e d th e r e p o rts d e p r iv e d h im o f h is r ig h t to c o n f

r o n t th e a n a ly s t. H e c on t ends thatthe go vernm entcoul d n otsa t i sf y aprepon dera nce of the evi dence st andard because the re po rt s w er e notauthent i ca t ed or corroborat ed. H e argues th a t th e te c h n ic ia n ’s ab s e n c e d e p r iv e d h im o f h is r ig h t to c o n f

r o n ta tio n . W e r e vi e w c ons t i tut i ona l c ha l l e nge s t o as e nt e nc e de novo. U ni t e d S t a t e s v. C ant el l ano, 43 0 F . 3d 11 42 , 11 44 (11th C i r. 20 05 ) ( per c uri am ) ( ci t at i on om i tt ed), c e rt . de ni e d, 126 S . C t . 1604 ( 2006) . “ [ R ] e l i abl e he a r s a y c a n be c ons i de r e d dur i ng se nt enci ng . ” U ni t ed S t at es v. Z l at og ur, 27 1 F . 3d 10 25 , 10 31 (11th C i r. 20 01 ) ( per c ur i a m ) ( c i t a t i ons om i tt e d) . T he di s tr i c tc ourtc a n r e l y on s uc h e vi de nc e “ a s l ong a s th e e v id e n c e h a s s u f

f ic ie n t in d ic iao f

r e liab ility , th e c o u rt m a k e s e x p lic it f i ndi ngs of

f a c ta s t o c r e di bi l i ty , a nd the de f e nda ntha s a n opportuni ty t o r e butthe e vi de nc e . ” I d. ( c i t a t i on a nd i nt e rna l quot a t i on om i tt e d) . I n a ddi t i on, w e ha ve not e d tha tthe S upr e m e ’ s C ourt ’ s hol di ng i n C r a w f or d v. W a s hi ngt on, 541 U . S . 36, 68, 124 S . C t . 1354, 1374 ( 2004) ( hol di ng tha tt e s t i m oni a l he a r s a y c a nnotbe i ntr oduc e d a ttr i a l unl e s s the de c l a r a ntw a s una va i l abl e a nd the de f e nda ntha s ha d a pr i oropportuni ty t o c r os s - e xa m i ne the de c l a r a nt ) , di d nota ddr e s s the us e of12

h earsay d u ri n g sen t en ci n g p ro ceed i n g s, m ean i n g th atco u rt s co u l d st i l l b ase s e nt e nc i ng de t e rm i na t i ons on r e l i abl e he a r s a y . U ni t e d S t a t e s v. B a ke r , 432 F . 3d 1190, 1254 n. 68 ( 11th C i r . 2005) , c e rt . pe t i t i on f i l e d, N o. 06- 11248 ( A ug. 24, 2 0 0 6 ) . T h e r ig h t to c o n f r o n ta tio n is atr ia l r ig h t a n d n o t as e n te n c in g r ig h t. C a n te lla n o , 4 3 0 F .3 d a t 1 1 4 6 . I n F r a z i e r , w e he l d tha tm i ni m a l due pr oc e s s r e qui r e m e nt s , s uc h a s the r i ght t o con fr on tadvers e w i tness es , ar e app l i cabl e t o revocat i on proceedi ng s. 26 F . 3d at 1 1 4 . I n th e c o n te x t o f

s u p e rv is e d r e le a s e r e v o c a tio n p r o c e e d in g s , d is tr ic t c o u rts m us t“ ba l a nc e the de f

e nda nt ’ s r i ghtt o c onf

r onta dve r s e w i tne s s e s a ga i ns tthe gr ounds a s s e rt e d by the gove rnm e ntf orde ny i ng c onf

r ont a t i on. ” I d. ( c i t a t i ons om i tt e d) . I f

the di s tr i c tc ourta dm i t s he a r s a y , the n i tm us tbe r e l i abl e . I d. ( c i t a t i on o m itte d ) . M e l vi n’ s a r gum e nti s pr e c l ude d by ourpr e c e de nt . H e f r a m e s the a r gum e nt a s av io la tio n o f

h is c o n f r o n ta tio n r ig h ts , c la im in g th a t th e d is tr ic t c o u rt f a ile d to bal ance hi s c on fr on t at i on ri gh t s w i th the re as on s thatthe go vernm entdeni ed c onf r ont a t i on. W e ha ve s pe c i f i c a l l y he l d, how e ve r , tha tthe r i ghtt o c onf r ont a t i on i s nota s ent enci ng ri gh t . C as t el l ano, 43 0 F . 3d at11 46 . H i s r el i ance up on F ra zi er fo r th e arg u m en tth ath i s co n fro n t at i o n ri g h t s w ere v i o l at ed i s m i sp l aced b ecau se tha tc a s e de a l tw i th r e voc a t i on pr oc e e di ngs . I ti s w orth not i ng, e ve n though13

M elv in d o es n o t ap p ea l o n th es e g ro u n d s, th at th e d istrict co u rt cr ed it ed D iaz’s te s tim o n y r e g a r d in g th e lab r e p o rts a n d a llo w e d M e lv in to c h a lle n g e th e r e p o rts . T h u s , ah e a r s a y c h a lle n g e f a ils a s w e ll. S e e Z la to g u r , 2 7 1 F .3 d a t 1 0 3 1 . I I I . CONCL US I ON M el vi n chal l enges hi s s ent ence up on tw o g roun ds: (1) the se nt enci ng court a f f or de d the gui de l i ne s t oo m uc h w e i ghti n vi ol a t i on of B ooke r ; a nd, ( 2) the s e nt e nc i ng c ourte rr e d i n r e l y i ng upon c e rt a i n l abor a t ory r e port s t o e s t abl i s h doi ng q u an t i ty. F o r th e reaso n s seto u tab o v e w e fi n d n o rev ersi b l e erro r. A cco rd i n g l y, w e A F F I R M.