FILED U.S. COURT OF AP P EALS E LEVEN T HC IRC U IT JUNE 24, 2008 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. 06- 14154

________________________ D . C . D o c k e tN o . 0 5 - 2 0 9 1 5 - C R - D MM 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 W I L F R E D O R O B L E S , a .k .a . W illy , J A I R O R A F A E L S A N Z D E L A R O S A , R U D Y A L B E R T O R O D R I G U E Z , D e f e n d a n ts - A p p e lla n ts .

________________________ A pp ea l s f

rom 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

_________________________ ( Ju n e 24, 2008) B efo re B IR C H , P R Y O R 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: In th i s m u l t i -co u n td ru g co n sp i racy case, Jai ro R afael S an z d e l a R o saRua wa s eventually

dis mis se d f

ro m th eindic tment. I saa c s p le ade d guilty to a sing le 1 count and testified f

or the g overnment. Gonzalez-Perez fled and w as tried separa tely . 2 ( “ S a nz ” ) a nd W i l f

r e do R obl e s appe a l the i rc onvi c t i ons a nd s e nt e nc e s , a nd R udy R odr i gue z appe a l s hi s c onvi c t i on. A f t e rathor ough r e vi e w of the r e c or d a nd upon he a r i ng or a l a r gum e nt , w e a f f i rm the c onvi c t i ons of

a l l de f e nda nt s , butva c a t e a nd r e m a nd R obl e s appe a l f orr e s e nt e nc i ng. I. S anz, R ob l es , and R od ri gu ez w er e c harged al on g w i th Jorge Is aa cs D i az ( “ I s a a c s ” ) , O r l a ndo G onz a l e z - P e r e z ( “ G onz a l e z - P e r e z ” ) , a nd H um be r t o R uai n a three -c ou nti nd i ctm ent . C ou nt1 charged al l defe nd ant s w i th con spi ra cyt o i m po rt 1 f i ve ki l ogr a m s of

m or e of c oc a i ne , i n vi ol a t i on of 21 U . S . C . §§ 952, 960( b) , a nd 9 6 3 . C o u n t 2 a lle g e d th a t a ll d e f e n d a n ts e n g a g e d in c o n s p ir a c y to p o s s e s s w ith i n t e n tt o d i s tr i b u t e f

i v e k i l o g r a ms o rmo r e o f c o c a i n e , i n v i o l a t i o n o f 2 1 U . S. C. § 8 4 6 . C o u n t 3 c h a r g e d S a n z , I s a a c s , a n d R u aw ith p o s s e s s io n w ith in te n t to di s tr i but e f

i ve ki l ogr a m s orm or e of c oc a i ne , i n vi ol a t i on of 21 U . S . C . § 841. A . P r e - tr i a l M ot i ons 1. M ot i on t o S up pres s W i re t ap E vi dence U n ite d S ta te s D E A A g e n ts b e g a n in v e s tig a tin g th e D e l T o r o d ru g r in g in 2004. W i r e t aps i s s ue d a s pa r tof tha ti nve s t i ga t i on i de nt i f i e d D e l T or o, W i l l i a m de J e s us A r i a s , J or ge C ua dr a , S a nz , a nd G onz a l e z - P e r e z a s s our c e s of c oc a i ne i n the3

U ni t e d S t a t e s . T he s c he m e i nvol ve d a n e xt e ns i ve s truc tur e of i m por t a t i on a nd d is tr ib u tio n “c e lls .” O n e s u c h c e ll w a s u n d e rS a n z ’s le a d e r s h ip . T h e p a r tic ip a n ts in th e s c h e m e u s e d m u ltip le p h o n e s to c o m p a r tm e n ta liz e th e c e lls a n d lim it l i abi l i ty. In D ec em ber 200 4, as a r es ul tof i nt er ce pt ed ca l l s, U . S . autho ri t i es w er e abl e t o s e i z e ove rtw e nty ki l ogr a m s of c oc a i ne tha tD e l T or o i m por t e d us i ng c a r go p la n e s . I n Fe b ru a ry 2 0 0 5 , U . S. D EA a g e n t s o b t a i n e d i n f o rma t i o n f

r o m a confi dent i al i nform antre gardi ng i m po rt at i on of drug s throu gh M i am i Int ernat i on al A i rportusi ng ai rportem pl oyee s. T he i nform antconfi rm ed thatS anz w as i nv ol ved in n a r c o tic s im p o r ta tio n u s in g I s a a c s , a n a irp o r t e m p lo y e e a n d S a n z ’s c o u s in , to r e m o v e d ru g s f

r o m in c o m in g p la n e s . I n J u n e 2 0 0 5 , C o lo m b ia n o f f ic ia ls i nt er ce pt ed a c al l , pu rs uantt o a C ol om bi an-i ss ued w i re t ap, w hi ch l ed U ni t ed S t at es D E A a g e n ts to b e lie v e th a t S a n z w a s p la n n in g to im p o r t n a r c o tic s w ith D e l T o r o . In A ug ust20 05 , C ol om bi an autho ri t i es i nt er ce pt ed a c al l t o D el T oro from S anz a t 78 6-42 6-70 09 (t ar getph on e 1). D el T oro l at eri nform ed A ri as thatS anz’ s num ber w as 78 6-35 6-99 73 (t ar getph on e 2). T hrou gh ou tA ug ust , C ol om bi an autho ri t i es i nt er ce pt ed ca l l s on these tw o p ho nes c on ce rni ng narc ot i cs del i veri es . A gent s w er e ab le to in te r c e p t c a lls f

r o m G o n z a le z - P e r e z a n d I s a a c s to ta r g e t p h o n e 1 . Int er ce pt ed ca l l s t o t ar getph on e 2 i dent i fi ed D el T oro, A ri as , and Isa ac s a s4

p art i ci p an t s. B as ed on thi s i nform at i on , the U . S . go vernm entre qu es t ed w i re t aps f or t ar get p h o n e s 1 a n d 2 in S e p te m b e r2 0 0 5 . A c c o r d in g to th e a f f id a v it, th e r e w a s p r o b ab le cause t o b el i eve a gent s w ou l d i nt er ce ptca l l s c on nect ed t o d rug tra ff i cki ng by D el T or o, S a nz , A r i a s , I s a a c s , a nd othe r s , vi athe tw o t a r ge t e d phone s . T he gove rnm e nte xpl a i ne d tha tthe i nt e r c e pt e d c a l l s w oul d r e ve a l e vi de nc e of the pa r t i c i pa nt s i n drug tr a f f i c ki ng of f e ns e s , a nd tha tothe rnorm a l i nve s t i ga t i ve t e c hni que s ha d f

a i l e d. S pe c i f

i c a l l y , the a f

f i da vi te xpl a i ne d tha ttr a di t i ona l m e thods such as survei l l ance , pen regi st er s, and con fi dent i al i nform ant s had been of l i m i t ed u s e d u e to th e in te rn a tio n a l s c o p e o f th e s c h e m e a n d S a n z ’s ab ility to c o n c e a l h is l ocat i on and i dent i ty. T he af fi davi tal so confi rm ed thatconfi dent i al i nform anthad been arr es t ed and cou l d n o l on ger provi de new i nform at i on . T he af fi antfurther expl ai ned w hy other t ec hn i qu es such as subp oenas, i nt ervi ew s, and u nd er cover ope r a t i ons w oul d notbe s uc c e s s f ul a nd w oul d dr a w a tt e nt i on t o the i nve s t i ga t i on. A cc ordi ng t o the af

fi davi t , the w i re t aps w ou l d enabl e a gent s t o i dent i fyaddi t i on al pa r t i c i pa nt s a nd the i rl oc a t i ons , a nd pe rm i ts urve i l l a nc e w i thouta l e r t i ng the p a r tic ip a n ts to th e in v e s tig a tio n . F in a lly , th e a f f id a v it c o n f

irm e d th a t a g e n ts w o u ld t ake a l l nece ss ary s t eps t o m i ni m i ze the i nt er ce pt i on s. T he di stri ctcourtconcl ud ed tha tthe a f

f i da vi te s t abl i s he d pr obabl e c aus e a nd i s s ue d the w i r e t ap author i z a t i onThroughout the transcripts, W illie is spelled as both “Wil lie” and “Wil ly .” It is unclear 2 wh e ther t hedif ferenc eis spe llingis intende d todif ferenti atebetw e en Wil lieRob le s a nd Willi e Arias. F or purpose s of this opinion, we use the spellingWil lie for both. 5 fo r th i rty d ays. A s ar e s u lt o f

th e in itia l w ir e tap s , U .S . a g e n ts in te r c e p te d n u m e r o u s c a lls betw ee n Isa ac s a nd S anz, and D el T oro and S anz, w hi ch ca l l s a gent s bel i eved used code w ords t o d i sc uss del i veri es . In a S ept em ber 30, 20 05 ca l l , G on za l ez -P er ez ca l l ed S anz on t ar getph on e 1. A gent s bel i eved thi s c al l i nv ol ved an att em pt ed del i veryof drug s t o W i l l i e. A cc ordi ng t o a cr i m i nal dat abas e, R ob l es ’ s a l i as w as “W illie .” 2 T he go vernm entob t ai ned a se cond w i re t ap i n N ov em ber 200 5 for t ar get ph on e one and a new nu m ber 786 -356 -267 6, w hi ch agent s bel i eved w as another phone a s s i gne d t o S a nz . T he gove rnm e nti nf orm e d the c our ttha tt a r ge tphone one w as bei ng used by S anz a nd the form ert ar getph on e 2 (the 99 73 nu m ber) w as bei ng used by G on za l ez -P er ez . A gent s i dent i fi ed abou t10 0 cal l s betw ee n t ar get ph on e 1 and form ert ar getph on e 2, l ea di ng them t o b el i eve thatG on za l ez -P er ez w as a p art i ci p an ti n th e n arco t i cs sch em e. T h ro u g h th e seco n d au th o ri zat i o n s, a ge nt s e xpe c t e d t o i nt e r c e ptc a l l s f r om S a nz , G onz a l e z - P e r e z , D e l T or o, A r i a s , a nd R o b l es, am o n g o th ers. A cco rd i n g t o th e affi d av i t , co n t i n u ed w i ret ap s co u l d assi st i n i de nt i f y i ng a ddi t i ona l pa r t i c i pa nt s a nd na r c ot i c s de l i ve r i e s . T he r e m a i nde rof theFranks v. De laware, 438 U.S. 154, 98 S.Ct. 2674, 57 L .Ed.2d 667 (1978). 3 6 af fi davi tdet ai l ed the re as on s the w i re t ap w as nece ss ary, the fa i l ure of other i nv es t i gat i ve t ec hn i qu es , and the m etho ds of m i ni m i za t i on . T he di stri ctcourt g r a n te d a u th o r iz a tio n . R odr i gue z a nd S a nz m ove d t o s uppr e s s the w i r e t ap e vi de nc e on the gr ounds th a t th e g o v e rn m e n t h a d , in te ra lia( 1 ) f a ile d to s h o w n e c e s s ity , ( 2 ) u s e d b o ile rp la te a nd non- s pe c i f

i c l a ngua ge i n the a f

f i da vi t , a nd ( 3) f

a i l e d t o c om pl y w i th the r e qui r e m e nt s i n 18 U . S . C . § § 2515 a nd 2518. T he y a l s o r e que s t e d aF r a nks 3 hear i ng , al l egi ng thatthe af fi davi t s w er e c on tra di ct ory a nd fa l se . T he di stri ctcourt de ni e d the m ot i on t o s uppr e s s a nd f oraF r a nks he a r i ng, c onc l udi ng tha tthe a f f id a v it a c c o m p a n y in g th e S e p te m b e r2 0 0 5 w ir e tap ap p lic a tio n s u f f ic ie n tly e xpl a i ne d w hy tr a di t i ona l t e c hni que s w oul d notw ork a nd w a s de t a i l e d a nd s pe c i f i c . T he c our ta l s o f

ound tha tthe r e w a s no a l l e ga t i on of de l i be r a t e f

a l s e hood in th e ap p lic a tio n a n dn o e v id e n c e th a t th e a f f id a v it c o n ta in e d f

a ls e o rd e lib e r a te ly m is le a d in g s ta te m e n ts .

2. M ot i on for aC on t i nu ance P ri or t o tri al , the defendant s f i l ed se vera l m ot i on s f

or cont i nu ance s. In pa r t i c ul a r , R odr i gue z s oughtc ont i nua nc e s i n or de rt o obt a i n di f f e r e ntc ouns e l . T he courtgrant ed these m ot i on s. E l even days before tri al w as t o com m ence , R od ri gu ez7

fi l ed another m ot i on for acont i nu ance , agai n t o see k n ew coun se l . T he court de ni e d thi s m ot i on, s t a t i ng tha ti tw oul d pe rm i ts ubs t i tut i on of c ouns e l onl y on the c o n d itio n th a t in c o m in g c o u n s e l c o m p ly w ith th e c o u r t’s c a le n d a r . B . E vi dence atT ri al S anz a nd Is aa cs ea ch t es t i fi ed t o thei r r ol es i n the conspi ra cy . Is aa cs c onf i rm e d tha the a nd S a nz i m por t e d c oc a i ne by c a r go pl a ne . E a c h s hi pm e nt c o n s is te d o f

in d iv id u a l b a r s , o rb r ic k s , o f c o c a in e w r ap p e d in b la c ke le c tr ic a l tap e . E a c h br i c k w e i ghe d about200 gr a m s a nd e a c h s hi pm e ntc ont a i ne d be tw e e n 3 a nd 6 b ri cks. B etw ee n 2 00 4 and 20 05 , Is aa cs and S anz i m po rt ed abou tei gh t ee n such s hi pm e nt s . W he n S a nz a nd I s a a c s w e r e a rr e s t e d, a ge nt s di s c ove r e d j us tunde rone ki l ogr a m of

c oc a i ne i n the i rpos s e s s i on. I n S e pt e m be r2005, S a nz a nd I s a a c s w e r e a tt e m pt i ng t o unl oa d as hi pm e ntof 800 gr a m s of

c oc a i ne , butw e r e ha vi ng di f f i c ul ty due t o the poorqua l i ty of the d ru g s . A g e n ts b e lie v e d S a n z a n d I s a a c s w a n te d R o b le s to s e ll th e s e d ru g s . B oth S anz a nd Is aa cs deni ed i nv ol vem entw i th R ob l es . A nd Is aa cs deni ed any kno w l edge of ei ther R ob l es or R od ri gu ez . Is aa cs di d i dent i fytw o m en i nv ol ved i n the di stri bu t i on : on e w ho had a res tri ct ed dri vers l i ce nse a nd another w ho ow ned a used carl ot . T he evi dence es t abl i shed thatR od ri gu ez ow ned a used ca r l otand thatR ob l es had a res tri ct ed dri vers l i ce nse. S anz s t at ed thathe kn ew8

W illie A r ia s th r o u g h h is d e a lin g s w ith C u a d r aa n d th a t h e h a d s o ld W illie d ru g s in th e p as t. A rias also h ad a r es tricted d riv er s licen se . C u ad ra co n firm ed S an z’s i nvol ve m e nti n the i m por t a t i on a nd di s tr i but i on s c he m e , butde ni e d know i ng R o d r ig u e z o rR o b le s . H e a d m itte d th a t h e k n e w s o m e o n e n a m e d W illie , b u t h e d id n o t k n o w W illie ’s la s t n a m e a n d d id n o t s e e h im in th e c o u r tr o o m .

1. R ob l es T he D E A l e a rne d of

R obl e s w he n i ti nt e r c e pt e d c a l l s on S e pt e m be r29 a nd 30 a nd a ge nt s be l i e ve d the c ont e ntof the s e c a l l s c onf

i rm e d R obl e s ’ s r ol e i n the conspi ra cy . In a c al l on S ept em ber 29, R ob l es and G on za l ez -P er ez di sc usse d m ovi ng G onz a l e z - P e r e z ’ boa tf r om hi s tr a i l e r . R obl e s ow ne d atruc ki ng c om pa ny a nd ha d a c c e s s t o af

l a tbe d truc k a nd f

orkl i f tthr ough hi s pa r tne r . I n ac onve r s a t i on th a t s a m e a f

te rn o o n , G o n z a le z - P e r e z in f o rm e d S a n z th a t W illie w a s c o m in g o v e rto s e e aboutm ovi ng the boa ttha tda y orthe ne xt . O n the m orni ng of S e pt e m be r30, the go vernm enti nt er ce pt ed a c al l betw ee n R ob l es and G on za l ez -P er ez i n w hi ch R obl e s a s ke d G onz a l e z - P e r e z i f he ha d “ t a l ke d t o the pa r tne ry e t. . . the one i n the tr a i l e r . ” Go n z a l e z - Pe r e z r e s p o n d e d n o , th a th e h a d b e e n wa i t i n g f o rRo b l e s . DEA a ge ntS t e phe n K e ppe re xpl a i ne d tha tthe pa r tne rr e f e rr e d t o S a nz , w ho s ha r e d the tr a ile rw ith G o n z a le z - P e r e z . R o b le s th e n to ld G o n z a le z - P e r e z “I to ld y o u to c a ll hi m so you g uys c ou l d w ork thi ng s out ” a nd R ob l es offe re d t o g i ve G on za l ez -Luis’s identity is unclear . 4 9 P e r e z the pa r tne r ’ s num be r . T he r e w a s no e vi de nc e tha tR obl e s ha d S a nz ’ s phone n u m b e r . G o n z a le z - P e r e z in d ic a te d th a t h e w a s g e ttin g r e a d y to le a v e th e tr a ile rto m ee ta dea l erw i th L ui s and thatL ui s w as chec ki ng on the t ag. G on za l ez -P er ez 4 then t ol d R ob l es thathe w ou l d l ea ve the papers . K epper and Isa ac s, w ho t es t i fi ed a s ac o o p e r a tin g w itn e s s , e x p la in e d th a t “p ap e r s ” w a s ac o d e w o r d f o rd ru g s . R ob l es then refe rr ed t o the tra i l erand the fl atbed. G on za l ez -P er ez re spon ded that h e h a d th e C D s R o b le s w a n te d a n d h e w o u ld b r in g th e C D s to R o b le s in o r d e rto w ork som ethi ng ou t . R ob l es re spon ded “ T o see them . O kay, w el l , i t ’ s f i ne. ” K e p p e rto ld th e ju ry C D s w a s c o d e f o rd ru g s . T hataf t erno on , agent s i nt er ce pt ed another c al l betw ee n S anz a nd G on za l ez P e r e z th a t c o n f

irm e d th a t W illie w a s h e a d e d to th e tr a ile r . A u th o r itie s w a n te d to le a rn W illie ’s id e n tity a n d c o n d u c te d p h y s ic a l s u rv e illan c e o f th e tr a ile rp a rk . T hey observed R ob l es arri ve i n h i s M er ce des a nd w at ched as he and severa l uni de nt i f i e d m e n s t ood a r ound the trunk of the c a r . A l though a ge nt s not i c e d a br oke n- dow n boa ton the pr ope r ty , R obl e s ’ s c a rdi d notha ve the c apabi l i ty t o t ow a boat . G on za l ez -P er ez m etR ob l es atthe tra i l er , bu tac cordi ng t o an i nt er ce pt ed c a l l , c oul d notf

i nd hi s ke y t o the tr a i l e r . G onz a l e z - P e r e z c a l l e d S a nz , w ho i ndi c a t e d the tr a i l e rw a s ope n a nd tha the w a s on hi s w a y . B e c aus e R obl e s w a s notIn a call dated November 16, Gonzalez-Pere z informed Sanz that W illli e had be en 5 c allingand

had c omeby

theda y be fo re . Therewa s n o evidenc etha t Roble s h ad v isite d with Go nzale z-Pere z on

No vember 1 5, and

ag entsdid

no t interc ept a

ny c allsinv olvingRob le s in October or November. 10 p e rm itte d to d r iv e a t n ig h t, R o b le s le f t th e tr a ile rb e f

o r e S a n z a rr iv e d . L a te rth a t e v e n in g , a g e n ts in te r c e p te d ac a ll b e tw e e n I s a a c s a n d S a n z in w hi c h S a nz s t a t e d tha the ha d t o go t o H om e s t e a d, F l or i dat o t a ke a n i t e m t o the m a n w ho ha d be e n unabl e t o w a i tf orS a nz a tthe tr a i l e rbe c aus e he w a s not p e rm itte d to d r iv e a t n ig h t. R o b le s d id n o t r e s id e in H o m e s te a d . A ft erhi s a rr es t , R ob l es i nform ed agent s thathe kn ew G on za l ez -P er ez thr ough hi s j e w e l ry bus i ne s s a nd ha d be e n t o G onz a l e z - P e r e z ’ s tr a i l e rw he r e he o n c e o b s e rv e d a n u n k n o w n a m o u n t o f c o c a in e w r ap p e d in b la c ke le c tr ic a l tap e . A l though G onz a l e z - P e r e z of f e r e d R obl e s the drugs t o s e l l , R obl e s de c l i ne d. A nd a l though R obl e s a dm i tt e d tha tG onz a l e z - P e r e z s how e d hi m drugs , the r e w a s no e vi de nc e tha tR obl e s l e f tthe pr ope r ty w i th the drugs . R obl e s w a s nota rr e s t e d f or a l m os tthr e e m onths f

ol l ow i ng thi s i nc i de nt , butthe r e w a s no e vi de nc e tha the re tu rn ed at a laterd ate to p ick u p th e d ru g s, an d n o d ru g s w er e f o u n d at R o b les’s hom e w he n he w a s a rr e s t e d. 5 T he go vernm entpres ent ed F ed. R . E vi d. 40 4(b) evi dence thatR ob l es w as c onvi c t e d i n 2004 f

orc ons pi r a c y a nd m a r i

j ua natr a f

f i c ki ng a nd tha ti n 1997,The c ourt issued limit ing instruc tions on the proper useof this evidence . 6 11 R obl e s a tt e m pt e d t o pur c ha s e c oc a i ne f r om a n unde r c ove rof

f i c e r . W he n the 6 o f f ic e rr e f u s e d to f r o n t th e d ru g s , R o b le s d id n o t p u r s u e th e d e a l. I n h is d e f

e n s e , R o b le s c a lle d tw o w itn e s s e s : I m e rD ia z a n d I lia n aC a r d e n te y . T he s e tw o w i tne s s e s c onf i rm e d tha tR obl e s ow ne d aj e w e l ry bus i ne s s a nd a trucki ng com pany and w as kn ow n as W i l l i e. D i az expl ai ned thathe w as a dri ver for R ob l es ’ s trucki ng com pany and tw i ce had accom pani ed R ob l es t o G on za l ez P er ez ’ s tra i l ert o d i sc uss m ov i ng the bo at . O n the se cond tri p, R ob l es and D i az w enti nt o the tra i l ert o u se the bathroo m . D i az ob se rved G on za l ez -P er ez offe r R obl e s apa c ka ge . D i a z appa r e nt l y ove rhe a r d ac a l l be tw e e n G onz a l e z - P e r e z a nd S anz i n w hi ch S anz s ai d “ It ’ s okay i f he l ea ves, I w i l l bri ng i tt o h i m w here ver I need t o. ” A cc ordi ng t o D i az , the m en coul d n othave been t al ki ng abou tthe bo at be c a us e S a nz c oul d notha ve m ove d the boa t . D i a z a l s o a c c om pa ni e d R obl e s t o a c a rd e a le r s h ip o n a n o th e ro c c a s io n . T h e y m e t G o n z a le z - P e r e z a t th e d e a le r s h ip and, w hi l e R ob l es and D i az w er e l i st eni ng t o the ra di o and si tt i ng i n a truck R ob l es w an t ed t o b u y, G o n zal ez-P erez t o l d R o b l es h e h ad so m e C D s t o sel l t o R o b l es. In hi s c l osi ng ar gu m ent , R ob l es ar gu ed thathe w as the vi ct i m of m i st aken i dent i ty a nd the W i l l i e i nv ol ved i n d rugs w as A ri as , w ho al so had a suspended lic e n s e .12 2. R od ri gu ez R od ri gu ez al so w as no tan i ni t i al t ar getof the i nv es t i gat i on , bu tautho ri t i es i dent i fi ed R od ri gu ez as a part i ci pantaf t erthey i nt er ce pt ed se vera l ca l l s betw ee n S an z, G o n zal ez-P erez, and R o d ri g u ez i n O ct o b er an d N o v em b er 2 0 0 5 . In th o se ca l l s, the part i es re fe r t o “ sa t el l i t es , ” “ deep snow , ” a nd “ re m ot e c on trol s, ” w hi ch the gove rnm e ntpr of

f e r e d a nd c oope r a t i ng w i tne s s e s t e s t i f i e d w e r e c ode w or ds f

or coca i ne, and R od ri gu ez as ked i f they w er e “ sm al l on es , j ustl i ke the l as tt i m e. ” I n a nothe rc a l l , R odr i gue z a nd G onz a l e z - P e r e z di s c us s w he the rR odr i gue z s houl d go t o H om e s t e a d. R odr i gue z a s ks i f the r e i s a“ w hol e one the r e , ” w hi c h the gove rnm e ntpr of

f e r e d r e f e rr e d t o aqua nt i ty of

drugs . I n aN ove m be rc a l l , S a nz a s ke d R odr i gue z how i tw e ntw i th hi s f r i e nd w i th the c a r s a nd a s ke d i f the f r i e nd ha s a ny othe ri nt e r e s ti n “ abe auty of ac a r . ” S a nz l a t e rt e s t i f i e d tha the w a s try i ng t o sel l hi s ow n car . H e a dm i tt ed, ho w ever , thatthe ca l l w i th R od ri gu ez i n w hi ch th e tw o d is c u s s e d r e m o te c o n tr o ls w a s ab o u t d ru g s . O n N ove m be r23, 2005, a ge nt s i nt e r c e pt e d ac a l l be tw e e n R odr i gue z a nd S a nz i ndi c a t i ng tha tthe tw o pl a nne d t o m e e t . A ge nt s i ni t i a t e d s urve i l l a nc e a nd fol l ow ed S anz t o a w ar ehou se ar ea . T he agentcond uct i ng the survei l l ance w as dri vi ng a bl ue bu i ck. W hi l e w at chi ng S anz, agent s i nt er ce pta c al l fr om R od ri gu ez w a rni ng S a nz tha the w a s be i ng f ol l ow e d a nd gi vi ng the e xa c tl oc a t i on a nd13

de s c r i pt i on of

the a ge nt . T he tw o c a nc e l l e d the m e e t i ng a nd a ge nt s abor t e d the s urve i l l a nc e . I s a a c s c onf i rm e d tha tS a nz i nt e nde d t o de l i ve rdrugs t o am a n w ho ow ned a cardeal er shi p, bu tthe del i veryw as ca ncel l ed w hen the m en re al i ze d they w e r e b e in g f

o llo w e d . W hen R od ri gu ez w as arre st ed, he coop er at ed w i th autho ri t i es and p erm i tt ed a s ea rc h o f hi s hom e. R od ri gu ez adm i tt ed t o agent s thathe kn ew S anz a nd kn ew th a t S a n z w a s in v o lv e d in d ru g s , b u t h e d e n ie d th a t h e h a d a n y in v o lv e m e n t. M ar cus M i t chel l , R od ri gu ez ’ s c el l m at e duri ng pre- tri al det ent i on , t es t i fi ed thatR od ri gu ez adm i tt ed se l l i ng drug s a nd i dent i fi ed hi s partners as W i l l i e, O rl ando , R af

ae l , and Jorge. R od ri gu ez al so t al ked abo utan i nci denti n N ov em ber 20 05 , i n w hi ch R od ri gu ez w as supp osed t o m ee thi s c on t ac tbu tca l l ed i toff a ft er h e o b s e rv e d ab lu e b u ic kf o llo w in g th e c o n ta c t. T h e ju ry c o n v ic te d R o b le s o f c o n s p ir a c y to p o s s e s s w ith in te n t to d is tr ib u te c oc a i ne , f

i ndi ng tha tthe a m ountof drugs i nvol ve d a s l e s s tha n 500 gr a m s . T he j ury c on vi ct ed R od ri gu ez of conspi ra cyt o p osse ss w i th i nt entt o d i stri bu t e c ocai ne, f in d in g th a t th e a m o u n t o f d ru g s w a s a t le a s t 5 0 0 g r a m s b u t le s s th a n 5 k ilo g r a m s . B o th d e f e n d a n ts w e r e a c q u itte d o f th e c o n s p ir a c y to im p o r t c o c a in e o f f e n s e . R obl e s m ove d f

orane w tr i a l a nd f

orj udgm e ntof

a c qui tt a l , a l l e gi ng tha tthe e vi de nc e w a s i ns uf

f i c i e ntt o s us t a i n hi s c onvi c t i on. T he c our tde ni e d the m ot i on.14

R ob l es fi l ed a s ec on d m ot i on for anew tri al , thi s t i m e bas ed on new l y di sc ov er ed evi dence i n the form of af fi davi t s f rom G on za l ez -P er ez , S anz, and R od ri gu ez a v e rr in g th a t R o b le s w a s n o t in v o lv e d a n d th e W illie id e n tif ie da t tr ia l w a s A r ia s . T he c our tde ni e d the m ot i on, c onc l udi ng tha tR obl e s c oul d nots how tha tthe e vi de nc e w a s notdi s c ove r abl e e a r l i e rw i th the e xe r c i s e of due di l i ge nc e , ortha tthe e v id e n c e w a s lik e ly to p r o d u c e ad if f e r e n t o u tc o m e . A l though the j ury c onc l ude d tha tR obl e s w a s r e s pons i bl e f orl e s s tha n 500 gr a m s of c oc a i ne , the pr oba t i on of f i c e rc a l c ul a t e d the s e nt e nc i ng gui de l i ne s r a nge ba s e d on the gove rnm e nt ’ s a s s e r t i on tha tR obl e s w a s r e s pons i bl e f orbe tw e e n 5 a nd 15 ki l ogr a m s of

c oc a i ne . W i th ac orr e s pondi ng of f e ns e l e ve l of

32, no enhancem ent s or r educt i on s, and a cri m i nal hi st ory c at egory I II , the gu i del i nes r a nge w a s 151 t o 188 m onths ’ i m pr i s onm e nt . R obl e s obj e c t e d t o the a m ountof drugs , a r gui ng tha the w a s r e s pons i bl e f oronl y 200 gr a m s - orone br i c k - of coca i ne, w hi ch corre spon ded t o the tri al t es t i m on y thatG on za l ez -P er ez show ed hi m one br i c k w hi l e R obl e s w a s a tthe tr a i l e r . A ts e nt e nc i ng, the c our tr e j e c t e d the gove rnm e nt ’ s a s s e r t i on a nd de c l i ne d t o hol d R obl e s r e s pons i bl e f orm or e tha n 500 g r a m s o f c o c a in e . T h e c o u r t a ls o r e je c te d R o b le s ’s a r g u m e n t th a t h e b e h e ld re spon si bl e f

or on l y 200 gram s. T he courtexpl ai ned thati tfoun d R ob l es ac coun t abl e f

or j ustun der the 50 0 g ra m s a ttri bu t ed t o R ob l es by the j ury a sAfter a thorough review of the record, we c onclude the district c ourt properly applied 7 the sentenc ing guidelines and did not abuse its discretion in imposing a n 188-month term of imprisonment for Sanz’s sentence . We affir m without further discussion. In his a pp e llatebrie f, Sanz indic ate s th at headoptstheargumentsmadeby his 8 codef endants. Sanz cannot adopt an argument on the suffic iency of the evidence . See United States v. Khoury, 901 F.2d 948, 963 n.13 ( 11th Cir. 1990). The other issues presented are not re lev ant to Sa

nz. 15 r e a s onabl y f

or e s e e abl e a m ount s i n the c ons pi r a c y . W i th aba s e of f e ns e l e ve l of

24, th e r a n g e b e c a m e 6 3 to 7 8 m o n th s ’ im p r is o n m e n t. R ob l es re qu es t ed a s ent ence atthe l ow end o f the ra ng e, and, af t er consi deri ng the ar gu m ent s, the advi sorygu i del i nes r ange, and the § 3 55 3(a) f a c to r s , th e c o u r t im p o s e d as e n te n c e o f 6 3 m o n th s ’ im p r is o n m e n t. S a n z r e c e iv e d as e n te n c e o f 1 8 8 - m o n th s ’ im p r is o n m e n t o n e a c h c o u n t, to ru n c o n c u rr e n tly . R o d r ig u e z r e c e iv e d as e n te n c e o f 7 2 m o n th s ’ im p r is o n m e n t. S a nz now appe a l s , c ha l l e ngi ng the de ni a l of the m ot i on t o s uppr e s s a nd the s e nt e nc e i m pos e d. R obl e s c ha l l e nge s the s uf f i c i e nc y of

the e vi de nc e , the de ni a l of hi s m ot i ons f

orane w tr i a l , a nd hi s s e nt e nc e . R odr i gue z l i ke w i s e c ha l l e nge s the suff i ci encyof the evi dence. H e a l so ra i se s the deni al of the m ot i on for a c ont i nua nc e . W e a ddr e s s e a c h de f e nda nti n turn. 7 II. A . S a nz 8 W e r e v ie w f

in d in g s o f

f a c t f o rc le a re rr o ra n d th e ap p lic a tio n o f th e la w toIn Franks, the SupremeCourt held that where a de fenda nt makes a substantial 9 pre limina ry sh owingthat a

falsestatement k

no wing ly and intenti on ally, o r withre c kle ss disreg ard f

or the truth, wa s included by an af fiant in a sea

rch w arrant af

fidavit, and if the alleg edly false statement was ne cessa ry to the findingof proba

ble ca use, the F ourth Amendment re quire s th at a

he aringbehe ld at th ede fendant’ s re qu e st to de termineadmi ssibil ity of thefr uit s of the sea rch. 438 U .S. at 171-72. 16 tho se fa ct s de nov o. U ni t ed S t at es v. N ew som e, 47 5 F . 3d 12 21 , 12 23 (11th C i r. 2 0 0 7 ) . A ll f

a c ts a r e c o n s tru e d in th e lig h t m o s t f a v o r ab le to th e p r e v a ilin g p a r ty , in th is c a s e th e g o v e rn m e n t. I d . a t 1 2 2 3 - 2 4 . A d is tr ic t c o u r t’s f in d in g w ith r e s p e c t to w hether a n aff

i davi ti n sup po rtof a w i re t ap adequat el y dem on stra t ed thatl aw e nf or c e m e ntha d e xhaus t e d norm a l i nve s t i ga t i ve t e c hni que s , a s r e qui r e d by 18 U . S . C . § 2518( 1) ( c ) , i s s ubj e c tt o c l e a re rr orr e vi e w . U ni t e d S t a t e s v. W e be r , 808 F .2 d 1 4 2 2 , 1 4 2 4 ( 1 1 th C ir . 1 9 8 7 ) . S an z arg u es th atth e co u rterred b y d en yi n g th e m o t i o n t o su p p ress b ecau se th e g o v ern m en tfai l ed t o sh o w n ecessi ty fo r th e w i re t ap an d p ro ffered “ craft i l y” dr a f t e d a f f i da vi t s t o s uppor ti t s a l l e ga t i ons . S a nz c ont e nds tha t , unde rF r a nks , the 9 courtshou l d h ave s etas i de these re ckl es s a nd fa l se as se rt i on s a nd consi dere d w h e th e rth e r e m a in in g e v id e n c e s u p p o r te d th e w a rr a n t. T he go vernm entre spon ds thati thad sho w n n ec es si ty by e st abl i shi ng that other i nv es t i gat ory t ec hn i qu es had b ee n exh aust ed and con vent i on al t ec hn i qu es w e r e unl i ke l y t o pr oduc e r e s ul t s . I tf ur the ra s s e r t s tha tthe r e w a s no vi ol a t i on un der F ra nk s, as S anz f ai l ed t o argue i n h i s m ot i on thatthere w as any i nt ent i on al17

m is r e p r e s e n ta tio n o ro m is s io n in th e a f f id a v it. U nd er18 U . S . C . § 2 51 8, an appl i ca t i on for aw i re t ap m usti ncl ud e, i nt er a l i a : “ af ul l a nd c om pl e t e s t a t e m e ntof the f a c t s a nd c i r c um s t a nc e s r e l i e d upon by the appl i ca nt. . . i ncl ud i ng det ai l s a s t o the part i cul aroffe nse . . . , a part i cul ar d e s c r ip tio n o f

. . . th e typ e o f

c o m m u n ic a tio n s s o u g h t to b e in te r c e p te d , th e id e n tity of the pe r s on . . . w hos e c om m uni c a t i ons a r e t o be i nt e r c e pt e d” , a nd “ af ul l a nd com pl et e s t at em entas t o w hether or notother i nv es t i gat i ve procedures have bee n tr i e d a nd f

a i l e d orw hy the y r e a s onabl y appe a rt o be unl i ke l y t o s uc c e e d i f tr i e d or t o b e t oo dang er ou s. ” 18 U . S . C . § 2 51 8(1)(b), (c ). T he c our tm a y the n i s s ue a n or de r“ i f the j udge de t e rm i ne s on the ba s i s of the fa ct s s ub m i tt ed by the appl i ca ntthat– (a) there i s probabl e c ause for bel i ef that an i nd i vi du al i s c om m i tt i ng , has c om m i tt ed, or i s abo utt o com m i ta part i cul ar of f e ns e . . . ; ( b) the r e i s pr obabl e c aus e f orbe l i e f tha tpa r t i c ul a rc om m uni c a t i ons concerni ng thatoffe nse w i l l be ob t ai ned throu gh such i nt er ce pt i on ; (c ) norm al i nve s t i ga t i ve pr oc e dur e s ha ve be e n tr i e d a nd ha ve f a i l e d orr e a s onabl y appe a rt o be u n lik e ly to s u c c e e d if

tr ie d o rto b e to o d a n g e r o u s [ a n d ] ( d ) . . . th e r e is p r o b ab le c a u s e f o rb e lie f th a t . . . th e f

a c ilitie s f r o m w h ic h , o rth e p la c e w h e r e , th e . . . c om m uni c a t i ons a r e t o be i nt e r c e pt e d a r e be i ng us e d, . . . a r e l e a s e d t o, l i s t e d i n the nam e of, or com m on l y use d b y s uch p er son. ” 18 U . S . C . § 2 51 8(3).18

N e c e s s ity A n appl i c a t i on f

ora n or de ra uthor i z i ng aw i r e t ap m us ti nc l ude “ af ul l a nd com pl et e s t at em entas t o w hether or notother i nv es t i gat i ve procedures have bee n tr i e d a nd f

a i l e d orw hy the y r e a s onabl y appe a rt o be unl i ke l y t o s uc c e e d i f tr i e d or t o b e t oo dang er ou s. ” 18 U . S . C . § 2 51 8(1)(c ). T he af fi davi tsupp ort i ng an ap p lic a tio n n e e d n o t s h o w a“c o m p r e h e n s iv e e x h au s tio n o f a ll p o s s ib le te c h n iq u e s ,” b u t n e e de x p la in o n ly th e f a ilu r e o f th o s e te c h n iq u e s “th a t r e a s o n ab ly sugg es tthem se l ves. ” U ni t ed S t at e v. V an H orn, 78 9 F . 2d 14 92 , 14 96 (11th C i r. 19 86 ). H e r e , the a f

f i a ntpr ovi de d e xt e ns i ve e xpl a na t i on a s t o the t e c hni que s a l r e a dy e m p l o y e d a n d th e r e a s o n s wh y th e wi r e t ap wa s n e c e s s a ry . Ac c o r d i n g l y , we c onc l ude tha tthe di s tr i c tc our tpr ope r l y de t e rm i ne d tha tthe gove rnm e nt est ab l i sh ed n ecessi ty. F r a nks H e a r i ng In order t o b e e nt i t l ed t o rel i ef , S anz m ustshow (1) thatthe al l eged m is r e p r e s e n ta tio n s o ro m is s io n s w e r e k n o w in g ly o rr e c k le s s ly m a d e b y th e a g e n t, a nd ( 2) tha tthe r e s ul tof e xc l udi ng the a l l e ge d m i s r e pr e s e nt a t i ons a nd i nc l udi ng the a l l e ge d om i s s i ons w oul d ha ve be e n al a c k of pr obabl e c aus e f

ori s s ua nc e of

the w a rr a nt s . U ni t e d S t a t e s v. J e nki ns , 901 F . 2d 1075, 1080 ( 11th C i r . 1990) . U ponAt thec los eof

theg ov ernment’ s c a se , all de fendantsmov e d f or judgment o f ac quittal, 10 which the c ourt denied. Theparties renew ed the motions at the close of all evidenc e, and the court ag ain denied themotions. 19 re vi ew of the m ot i on t o sup pres s a nd the w i re t ap appl i ca t i on , w e c on cl ud e that S a nz ha s notm e tthi s bur de n. B . R ob l es 10 1. S uffi ci encyof the E vi dence S uf f i c i e nc y of

the e vi de nc e i s aque s t i on of l a w r e vi e w e d de novo, vi e w i ng th e e v id e n c e in th e lig h t m o s t f a v o r ab le to th e g o v e rn m e n t a n d m a k in g a ll i nf e r e nc e s a nd c r e di bi l i ty c hoi c e s i n the gove rnm e nt ’ s f a vor . A c onvi c t i on m us tbe uphe l d, “ unl e s s the j ury c oul d notha ve f ound the de f

e nda ntgui l ty unde ra ny r e a s onabl e c ons truc t i on of the e vi de nc e . ” U ni t e d S t a t e s v. C ha s t a i n, 198 F . 3d 1 3 3 8 , 1 3 5 1 ( 1 1 th C ir . 1 9 9 9 ) . “T h e p r o s e c u tio n n e e d n o t r e b u t a ll r e a s o n ab le hypothe s e s othe rtha n gui l t . T he j ury i s f r e e t o c hoos e be tw e e n ora m ong the r e a s onabl e c onc l us i ons t o be dr a w n f r om the e vi de nc e pr e s e nt e d a ttr i a l , a nd the c our tm us ta c c e pta l l r e a s onabl e i nf e r e nc e s a nd c r e di bi l i ty de t e rm i na t i ons m a de by the j ury. ” U ni t ed S t at es v. S el l er s, 87 1 F . 2d 10 19 , 10 21 (11th C i r. 19 89 ) ( i nt ernal q u o ta tio n s a n d c ita tio n s o m itte d ) . A d d itio n a lly , w itn e s s c r e d ib ility is th e s o le prov i nce of the j ury. U ni t ed S t at es v. P arra do , 91 1 F . 2d 15 67 , 15 71 (11th C i r. 19 90 ),20

B o th R o d r ig u e z a n d R o b le s w e r e c o n v ic te d o f c o n s p ir a c y to p o s s e s s w ith in te n t to d is tr ib u te c o c a in e . C o n s p ir a c y to p o s s e s s c o c a in e w ith in te n t to d is tr ib u te re qu i re s the go vernm entt o p rove beyond a r ea sonabl e dou bt“ (1) thata c on spi ra cy e x is te d ; ( 2 ) th a t th e d e f

e n d a n t k n e w o f

it; a n d ( 3 ) th a t th e d e f

e n d a n t, w ith know l e dge , vol unt a r i l y j oi ne d i t . ” U ni t e d S t a t e s v. M ol i na , 443 F . 3d 824, 828 ( 11th C i r . 2006) ( quot a t i on om i tt e d) . T he a gr e e m e ntf orm i ng the ba s i s of

the c ons pi r a c y c a n be pr ove d “ by c i r c um s t a nt i a l e vi de nc e , thr ough ‘ i nf e r e nc e s f r om the cond uctof the al l eged part i ci pant s or f rom ci rc um st ant i al evi dence of a s c he m e . ’ ” U ni t e d S t a t e s v. O br e gon, 893 F . 2d 1307, 1311 ( 11th C i r . 1990) ( c ita tio n o m itte d ) . “W h e r e th e g o v e rn m e n t’s c a s e is c ir c u m s ta n tia l, r e a s o n ab le i nfer ence s, and n otm er e s pecul at i on , m ustsupp ortthe j ury’ s ver di ct . ” U ni t ed S ta te s v . M e ija , 9 7 F .3 d 1 3 9 1 , 1 3 9 2 ( 1 1 th C ir . 1 9 9 6 ) . M o r e o v e r , a lth o u g h p r e s e n c e is ap e rm is s ib le f a c to rto b e c o n s id e r e d in det erm i ni ng w hether adefe nd antconspi re d w i th ano ther, “ i ti s w el l se tt l ed that m e r e pr e s e nc e w i l l nots uppor tac onvi c t i on. ” U ni t e d S t a t e s v. C ha r l e s , 313 F . 3d 1 2 7 8 , 1 2 8 4 ( 1 1 th C ir . 2 0 0 2 ) . “M e r e p r e s e n c e , g u ilty k n o w le d g e , e v e n s y m p a th e tic obs e rva t i on” a nd c l os e a s s oc i a t i on w i th ac o- c ons pi r a t ora r e i ns uf f i c i e nt , w i thout m or e , t o s uppor tac onvi c t i on f orc ons pi r a c y t o di s tr i but e drugs . U ni t e d S t a t e s v. L yons, 53 F . 3d 11 98 , 12 01 (11th C i r. 19 95 ). Y et , such fa ct ors m ayra i se a21

perm i ss i bl e i nfer ence of part i ci pat i on i n a conspi ra cy , w hi ch the j ury m ayconsi der a s a“ m a t e r i a l a nd pr oba t i ve f a c t or. . . i n r e a c hi ng i t s de c i s i on. ” U ni t e d S t a t e s v. H e rn a n d e z , 8 9 6 F .2 d 5 1 3 , 5 1 8 ( 1 1 th C ir . 1 9 9 0 ) . R ob l es ar gu es thatthere w as no evi dence of any a gree m entand n o evi dence t o con necthi m t o the cocai ne. H e a ss ert s thatthe evi dence s up po rt ed hi s c l ai m that h e w as in v o lv ed w ith G o n za lez- P er ez so lely to m o v e ab o at fr o m G o n za lez- P er ez ’s prop erty. T he go vernm entre spon ds thatthe S ept em ber 30 t el epho ne ca l l betw ee n R ob l es and G on za l ez -P er ez w as suff i ci entfor the j ury t o con cl ud e thatthere w as an agree m entt o p osse ss the drug s. T he go vernm entfurther e xp l ai ns thatthere w as othe re vi de nc e of

R obl e s ’ s i nt e nt : R obl e s ha d be e n i n the tr a i l e ra nd s e e n the c o c a in e , R o b le s h a d ap r io rc o n v ic tio n f o rd ru g s , a n d R o d r ig u e z ’s c e ll m a te i de nt i f i e d W i l l i e a s one of

the m e n R odr i gue z s t a t e d w a s i nvol ve d i n the drug di s tr i but i on. U p o n r e v ie w o f

th e r e c o r d , w e c o n c lu d e th a t th e e v id e n c e w a s s u f f ic ie n t to e s t abl i s h R obl e s ’ s pa r t i c i pa t i on i n ac ons pi r a c y t o pos s e s s c oc a i ne w i th the i nt e nt t o di s tr i but e i t . T he j ury l i s t e ne d t o the t e s t i m ony of R obl e s ’ s c o- c ons pi r a t or s a nd f o u n d th a t th e ird e n ia ls o f R o b le s ’s in v o lv e m e n t la c k e d c r e d ib ility , ad e c is io n w ith w hi c h w e do noti nt e r f

e r e . “ T he j ury i s f

r e e t o c hoos e be tw e e n ora m ong the reaso n ab l e co n cl u si o n s t o b e d raw n fro m th e ev i d en ce p resen t ed attri al , ” S el l ers,In B onner v . City of Pric ha rd , 6 61 F .2 d 1 20 6, 12 07 (1 1th Cir . 1 98 1) (en b anc ), thi s 11 c ourt he ld t hat all de c isi on s h ande d down b y thefo rm er F if

th C ircuit be fo rethec los eof

bu sin e ss on September 3 0, 19 81 , a

rebindingpre c e dent in th eEl e venth Circuit . 22 871 F . 2d a t1021, butw e a r e not . W e “ m us ta c c e pta l l r e a s onabl e i nf e r e nc e s a nd c r e d ib ility d e te rm in a tio n s m a d e b y th e ju ry .” I d . T he j ury w as ent i t l ed t o cre di tthe t es t i m on y of I sa ac s a nd agentK epper that

“ C D ” r ef erre d t o cocai ne and the t es t i m on y of a gentK epper that“ papers ” r ef erre d to n a r c o tic s a n d n a r c o tic s r e la te d ite m s . W e h a v e r e p e a te d ly h e ld th a t it is re as on abl e f

or a j ury t o fi nd thatconv er sa t i on s thatcont ai n cod ed l angu age a re aboutna r c ot i c s w he n a ge nt s orc oc ons pi r a t or s f a m i l i a rw i th the c ons pi r a c y ha ve t e s t i f i e d tha tthe c ode s r e f

e rt o na r c ot i c s . S e e U ni t e d S t a t e s v. G a r c i a , 447 F . 3d 1 3 2 7 , 1 3 3 9 ( 1 1 th C ir . 2 0 0 6 ) ; U n ite d S ta te s v . A tk in s , 6 1 8 F .2 d 3 6 6 , 3 6 9

– 3 7 0 ( 5 th C i r . 1980) . I f

w e a c c e ptthe c r e di bi l i ty de t e rm i na t i ons m a de by the j ury , a s our 11 s t a nda r d of

r e vi e w r e qui r e s , w e m us tr e a d the c onve r s a t i on be tw e e n G onz a l e z a nd R o b l es as an ex p ress ag reem en tfo r G o n zal ez t o b ri n g u n i t s o f co cai n e t o R o b l es.

“ C o n sp i raci es are rarely eviden ced b y ex p l i ci tag reem en t s, an d m u stal m o st a l w a y s be pr ove n by i nf e r e nc e s tha tm a y be f

a i r l y dr a w n f

r om the be ha vi orof

the a l l e ge d c ons pi r a t or s , ” D e L ong E qui pm e ntC o. v. W a s h. M i l l s A br a s i ve C o. , 887 F . 2d 1499, 1515 ( 11th C i r . 1989) , butboth e xpl i c i ta gr e e m e nta nd the c onduc tof the conspi ra t ors e st abl i shes the conspi ra cyati ss ue i n thi s app ea l . T he evi dence23

e s t abl i s he s R obl e s ’ s c ons pi r a c y by the e xpl i c i ta gr e e m e nttha tG onz a l e z m a de on th e t e l e p h o n e t o d e l i v e rc o c a i n e t o R o b l e s a n d i n f e r e n c e s th a tm a y b e f

a i r l y d r a wn f r om the be ha vi orof

R obl e s i n goi ng t o the tr a i l e rw he r e the de l i ve ry w a s t o oc c ur a n d S a n z in e x p la in in g to I s a a c s th a t ap e r s o n h a d c o m e to p ic ku p c o c a in e . T h e ev i d en ce o f p ri o r d ru g act i v i ty o n l y stren g th en s o u r co n cl u si o n , as th ese c o n v ic tio n s m a y e s tab lis h in te n t. U n ite d S ta te s v . R o b e r ts , 6 1 9 F .2 d 3 7 9 , 3 8 3 ( 5 th C i r . 1980) ( hol di ng tha tapr i orc onvi c t i on i nc r e a s e s the l i ke l i hood tha tthe d e f e n d a n t in te n d e d to c o n s p ir e to c o m m it s im ila rs u b s e q u e n t c r im in a l c o n d u c t) . F i nal l y, M i t chel l t es t i fi ed thatR od ri gu ez i dent i fi ed a m an nam ed W i l l i e a s an o th erp ar ti cip an t i n th e d ru g sc h em e. A cc o rd in g to th e c rim e d atab as e, R o b les’s a l i a s w a s W i l l i e . T he r e f or e , vi e w i ng the e vi de nc e i n the l i ghtm os tf a vor abl e t o the go vernm ent , the evi dence s uffi ci ent l y e st abl i shed thatR ob l es kn ew of an a g r e e m e n t a n d v o lu n ta r ily jo in e d it.

2. M ot i on for aN ew T ri al R ob l es ar gu es thatthe go vernm entfa i l ed t o d i sc l ose i nform at i on on W i l l i am A r i a s a nd A r i a s ’ s s us pe nde d l i c e ns e , a nd tha tthe r e i s ar e a s onabl e pr obabi l i ty the o u tc o m e o f

th e tr ia l w o u ld h a v e b e e n d if f e r e n t h a d th e d e f

e n s e b e e n g iv e n th is i nform at i on . R ob l es further a ss ert s thatthe courterre d b y denyi ng hi s m ot i on for a n e w tr ia l b e c au s e G o n z a le z - P e r e z ’s a f f id a v it w a s n e w e v id e n c e n o t a v a ilab le24

ea rl i ergi ven thatG on za l ez -P er ez w as a f ug i t i ve. T he go vernm entre spon ds that co u rts a re sk ep ti ca l o f p ro ff er s f ro m co d ef

en d an ts, an d th u s, G o n za lez- P er ez ’s af fid av itd o es n o t m ee t th e tes t fo r n ew ev id en ce . W ith re sp ec t t o A rias ’s i nf orm a t i on, the gove rnm e ntc ont e nds i tw a s a va i l abl e t o R obl e s be f or e tr i a l a nd w a s am a tt e rof

publ i c r e c or d. T h e d is tr ic t c o u r t m a y g r a n t am o tio n f o rn e w tr ia l b a s e d o n s u c h e v id e n c e if the i nt er es tof j ust i ce so re qu i re s a nd i f ( 1) the evi dence w as i n fac tdi sc ov er ed a f t e rtr i a l , ( 2) the de f

e nda nte xe r c i s e d due c a r e t o di s c ove rthe e vi de nc e , ( 3) the e v id e n c e w a s n o t m e r e ly c u m u la tiv e o rim p e a c h in g , ( 4 ) th e e v id e n c e w a s m a te r ia l, and (5) the evi dence w as of such a nature thata new tri al w ou l d p robabl y produ ce adi f f e r e ntr e s ul t . F e d. R . C r i m . P . 33( a ) ; U ni t e d S t a t e s v. L e e , 68 F . 3d 1267, 12 73 -74 (11 th C i r. 19 95 ). E ac h el em entof thi s t es tm ustbe sa t i sf i ed or el se a new tri al i s notw arra nt ed. L ee , 68 F . 3d at12 73 -74. F urtherm ore, m ot i on s f or new tri al a r e “ hi ghl y di s f

a vor e d, ” a nd di s tr i c tc our t s “ s houl d us e gr e a tc aut i on i n gr a nt i ng a ne w tr i a l m ot i on ba s e d on ne w l y di s c ove r e d e vi de nc e . ” U ni t e d S t a t e s v. J e rni ga n, 34 1 F . 3d 12 73 , 12 87 (11th C i r. 20 03 ) ( qu ot at i on om i tt ed). I n or de rt o obt a i n ane w tr i a l ba s e d on a n a s s e r t e d B r a dy vi ol a t i on, the de f e nda ntm us ts how tha t : ( 1) the gove rnm e ntpos s e s s e d e vi de nc e f a vor abl e t o the de f e nda nt ; ( 2) the de f

e nda ntdoe s notpos s e s s the e vi de nc e a nd c oul d notobt a i n the25

e vi de nc e w i th a ny r e a s onabl e di l i ge nc e ; ( 3) the pr os e c ut i on s uppr e s s e d the fa vo rabl e e vi dence; and (4) had the evi dence been di sc l osed t o the defendant , there i s are as on abl e probabi l i ty thatthe ou t com e w ou l d h ave been di ff er ent . U ni t ed S t a t e s v. V a l l e

j o, 297 F . 3d 1154, 1164 ( 11th C i r . 2002) . “ F a i l ur e t o m e e ta ny one of the s e e l e m e nt s w i l l de f e a tam ot i on f

orane w tr i a l . ” U ni t e d S t a t e s v. S t a rr e tt , 55 F . 3d 15 25 , 15 54 (11th C i r. 19 95 ). W here , as here , a def endantfa i l s t o rai se a B r a d y c la im a t tr ia l, w e r e v ie w f o rp la in e rr o r . a . G o n z a le z - P e r e z ’s a f

f id a v it G o n z a le z - P e r e z ’s a f

f id a v it a lle g e d ly c le a r e d R o b le s o f a n y p a r tic ip a tio n in the c ons pi r a c y . T he s e s t a t e m e nt s , how e ve r , w e r e c um ul a t i ve t o the t e s t i m ony g iv e n b y S a n z , I s a a c s , a n d C u a d r a . N o tab ly , n e w tr ia ls a r e d is f a v o r e d , e s p e c ia lly w h e n p r e m is e d o n s ta te m e n ts b y c o d e f e n d a n ts . A c c o r d in g ly , w e f in d n o e rr o rin the court ’ s r ef

usal t o g ra nta new tri al base d o n thi s e vi dence. b. A r i a s ’ s i nf

orm a t i on R ob l es chal l enges A ri as ’ s i nform at i on as bo th the basi s f or a new tri al and as a B ra dy vi ol at i on . T o the ext enthe ra i se s thi s a s new evi dence w arra nt i ng a new tr i a l , he ha s nots how n tha tthe i nf orm a t i on w a s una va i l abl e . T he gove rnm e nt d i scl o sed A ri as’ s ex i st en ce d u ri n g p re-tri al d i scl o su res an d A ri as w as l i st ed as a p o t en t i al t arg eti n th e w i re t ap affi d av i t s. R o b l es h ad th e o p p o rtu n i ty t o cro ss26

e x a m in e th e D E A a g e n ts a n d S a n z , w h o m e n tio n e d A r ia s in h is te s tim o n y . M o r e o v e r , R o b le s p u t f o r th h is th e o ry th a t h e w a s b e in g m is ta k e n f o rA r ia s , w h o w as i n v o l v ed i n S an z’ s o p erat i o n , w as al so k n o w n as “ W i l l i e, ” an d w h o se lic e n s e h a d b e e n s u s p e n d e d . B e c au s e th e ju ry h a d th is in f o rm a tio n a n d f

o u n d it u n p e r s u a s iv e , R o b le s c a n n o t s h o w th a t th e o u tc o m e w o u ld h a v e b e e n d if f e r e n t. T h u s, h i s cl ai m fo r a n ew tri al o n th i s g ro u n d fai l s. T o the e xt e nttha tR obl e s r a i s e s aB r a dyi s s ue , the r e i s no e vi de nc e tha tthe go vernm entsupp re ss ed the i nform at i on on A ri as . In any e vent , as di sc usse d ab o v e , R o b le s c a n n o t s h o w th a t th e o u tc o m e w o u ld h a v e b e e n d if f e r e n t. A c c o r d in g ly , th e d is tr ic t c o u r t p r o p e r ly d e n ie d th e m o tio n s f o ran e w tr ia l. 3. S e nt e nc i ng W e r e vi e w adi s tr i c tc our t ’ s de t e rm i na t i on a s t o the a m ountof drugs f or c le a re rr o r . U n ite d S ta te s v . S im p s o n , 2 2 8 F .3 d 1 2 9 4 , 1 2 9 8 ( 1 1 th C ir . 2 0 0 0 ) . W h e n ac o n v ic tio n s te m s f r o m ac o n s p ir a c y c h a r g e , th e d e f e n d a n t is r e s p o n s ib le f orthe a m ountof

drugs i n a l l r e a s onabl yf or e s e e abl e a c t s done i n f ur the r a nc e of the conspi ra cy . U . S . S . G . § 1 B 1. 3(a) (2). I n de t e rm i ni ng the appr opr i a t e drug qua nt i ty , the di s tr i c tc our tm us tm a ke pr ope rf i ndi ngs of

f a c t , na m e l y , “ i ndi vi dua l i z e d f i ndi ngs c onc e rni ng the s c ope of c r i m i na l a c t i vi ty unde r t a ke n by apa r t i c ul a rde f e nda nt ” a nd f

i ndi ngs c onc e rni ng the27

s pe c i f i c qua nt i t i e s a ttr i but abl e t o tha tde f e nda nt . U ni t e d S t a t e s v. I s m ond, 993 F . 2d 1498, 1499 ( 11th C i r . 1993) . I n the e ve nttha tthe di s tr i c tc our tdoe s notm a ke prop erfi nd i ng s of f

ac t , the se nt ence neverthel es s m aybe up hel d i f the re cord s uppor t s the a m ountof

drugs a ttr i but e d t o the de f e nda nt . I d. T he gove rnm e nt m ustprov e thi s a m ou ntby a pre po nd er ance of the evi dence. Id. T hi s c ou rthas he l d tha t“ the pr e ponde r a nc e s t a nda r d i s nott oothl e s s ” a nd tha ti t“ doe s notgr a nt di s tr i c tc our t s al i c e ns e t o s e nt e nc e ade f e nda nti n the abs e nc e of s uf f i c i e nt e v id e n c e .” U n ite d S ta te s v . L a w r e n c e , 4 7 F .3 d 1 5 5 9 , 1 5 6 6 - 1 5 6 7 ( 1 1 th C ir . 1 9 9 5 ) . R a th e r , th e b u r d e n r e q u ir e s “r e liab le a n d s p e c if ic e v id e n c e ” o f

th e d ru g a m o u n ts a ttr ib u tab le to th e d e f

e n d a n t. I d . H er e, the di stri ctcourtfa i l ed t o m ake app ropri at e f i nd i ng s of f

ac t . T he court m er ely a d o p ted th e ju ry ’s fin d in g s w ith o u t ex p lain in g th e s co p e o f R o b les’s ac t i vi ty or the fores ee abl e a m ou ntof drug s. M oreover, a r evi ew of the evi dence at tr i a l d o e s n o te s t ab l i s h th a tRo b l e s w a s i n v o l v e d i n a n y p a r to f Sa n z ’ s d ru g s c h e me a s i de f r om the S e pt e m be r30 tr a ns a c t i on, w he r e he obs e rve d as i ngl e br i c k of co ca in e. T h e g o v er n m en t h as n o t o ff er ed su ff icien t ev id en ce to sh o w th at R o b les’s in v o lv e m e n t e x c e e d e d as in g le 2 0 0 g r a m s tr a n s a c tio n . T h e r e w a s n o te s tim o n y to est ab l i sh th ata C D , w h i ch w as co d e fo r co cai n e, w as a sp eci fi c q u an t i ty o f d ru g s, a nd no e vi de nc e tha tR obl e s w a s i nvol ve d w i th the 800 gr a m s of c oc a i ne S a nz a nd28

I s a a c s w e r e try i ng t o s e l l . A c c or di ngl y , w e va c a t e R obl e s ’ s s e nt e nc e a nd r e m a nd f orr e s e nt e nc i ng. C . R od ri gu ez 1. M ot i on for C on t i nu ance W e r e v ie w th e d e n ia l o f am o tio n f

o rac o n tin u a n c e f

o rab u s e o f

d is c r e tio n . U n ite d S ta te s v . B a k e r , 4 3 2 F .3 d 1 1 8 9 , 1 2 4 8 ( 1 1 th C ir . 2 0 0 5 ) . T he S i xth A m e ndm e ntgua r a nt e e s tha t“ [ i ] n a l l c r i m i na l pr os e c ut i ons , the a c c u s e d s h a ll e n

jo y th e r ig h t ... to h a v e th e A s s is ta n c e o f C o u n s e l f

o rh is d e f

e n c e .” U .S . C o n s t. a m e n d . V I . “[ A ]n e s s e n tia l p a r t o f th a t r ig h t is th e a c c u s e d ’s ab ility to s e le c t th e c o u n s e l o f

h is c h o ic e .” U n ite dS ta te s v . R o s s , 3 3 F .3 d 1 5 0 7 , 1 5 2 2 ( 1 1 th C i r . 1994) ( c i t a t i on om i tt e d) . “ T hus , ac r i m i na l de f e nda ntha s apr e s um pt i ve r i ght to c o u n s e l o f

c h o ic e .” I d . N e v e r th e le s s , ad e f e n d a n t’s r ig h t to th e c o u n s e l o f h is c hoi c e i s notabs ol ut e . W he a tv. U ni t e d S t a t e s , 486 U . S . 153, 159, 108 S . C t . 1692, 1697, 100 L . E d. 2d 140 ( 1988) ( not i ng s om e of the c i r c um s t a nc e s i n w hi c h the r i ghtt o c ouns e l of

c hoi c e i s “ c i r c um s c r i be d” ) ; s e e a l s o R os s , 33 F . 3d a t1523. I n othe rw or ds , the S i xth A m e ndm e ntr i ghtt o c ouns e l of c hoi c e i s not i ne xor abl e . U ni t e d S t a t e s v. G onz a l e z - L ope z , 126 S . C t . 2557, 2565- 66, 165 L . E d. 2d 409 ( 2006) ; M orr i s v. S l appy , 461 U . S . 1, 11- 12, 103 S . C t . 1610, 1616, 75 L . E d . 2 d 6 1 0 (1 9 8 3 ). T h u s, a d en i al o f a co n t i n u an ce req u estw i l l n o tal w ays29

a m o u n t to aS ix th A m e n d m e n t v io la tio n o f ap a y in g d e f

e n d a n t’s c h o ic e o f

c o u n s e l. B a k e r , 4 3 2 F .3 d a t 1 2 4 8 ( c itin g U n g a rv . S a r a f ite , 3 7 6 U .S . 5 7 5 , 5 8 9 - 9 1 , 8 4 S .C t. 8 4 1 , 8 4 9 - 5 0 , 1 1 L .E d .2 d 9 2 1 ( 1 9 6 4 ) ) . A c o u r t m a y lim it ad e f e n d a n t’s r ig h t to c ouns e l of

hi s c hoi c e f

orm a ny r e a s ons i nc l udi ng “ the de m a nds of i t s c a l e nda r , ” or

“ f a i rne s s . ” G onz a l e z - L ope z , 126 S . C t . a t2565- 66. T h e d istrict co u rt, i n ex er cisin g it s d iscr etio n , m u st b alan ce a d ef en d an t’ s r i ghtt o a de qua t e r e pr e s e nt a t i on a ga i ns tthe ove r a l l i nt e r e s ti n the e f f i c i e nt adm i ni stra t i on of j ust i ce . B aker , 43 2 F . 3d at12 48 . “ C on se qu ent l y, broad di sc re t i on m ustbe grant ed tri al court s on m att er s of c on t i nu ance s; on l y a n un re as on i ng and arbi tra ryi nsi st ence up on expedi t i ou snes s i n the fa ce of a j u st i fi ab l e req u estfo r d el ay v i o l at es th e ri g h tt o assi st an ce o f co u n sel . ” M o rri s, 4 6 1 U .S . a t 1 1 - 1 2 . ( in te rn a l c ita tio n s a n d q u o ta tio n m a rk s e x c lu d e d ) . A n ap p e lla te co u rt, w h en re v iew in g w h eth erth e d en ial o f a co n ti n u an ce v io lated a d ef en d an t’ s

“ f a i rorr e a s onabl e oppor tuni ty ” t o c hoos e c ouns e l , s houl d c ons i de rthe f ol l ow i ng fa ct ors: (1) the l ength o f the del ay ; (2) w hether the coun se l w ho becom es un avai l abl e f

or tri al has a ss oci at es prepar ed t o trythe ca se ; (3) w hether other c o n tin u a n c e s h a v e b e e n r e q u e s te d a n d g r a n te d ; ( 4 ) th e in c o n v e n ie n c e to a ll in v o lv e d in th e tr ia l; ( 5 ) w h e th e rth e r e q u e s te d c o n tin u a n c e is f o rale g itim a te r e a s on; a nd ( 6) a ny uni que f a c t or s . B a ke r , 432 F . 3d a t1248 ( i nt e rna l quot a t i ons30

om i tt ed) ( ci t i ng U ni t ed S t at es v. B ow e, 22 1 F . 3d 11 83 , 11 90 (11th C i r. 20 00 )) . H er e, the courtal re ady had grant ed three previ ou s c on t i nu ance s w hen R o d r ig u e z s o u g h t a n o th e rc o n tin u a n c e e le v e n d a y s b e f o r e th e tr ia l w a s to b e g in . T he go vernm entand the other defe nd ant s w er e r ea dy t o p roce ed t o tri al . T he court i nstruct ed thatthe subst i tut i on of coun se l w as ac ce pt abl e a s l on g as new coun se l a dhe r e d t o the c our t ’ s tr i a l s c he dul e . W e f i nd no abus e of

di s c r e t i on. 2. S uffi ci encyof the E vi dence R od ri gu ez as se rt s thathi s i nv ol vem entw as consi st entw i th thatof a buyer s e lle rr e la tio n s h ip . A l though e xi s t e nc e of

as i m pl e buy e r - s e l l e rr e l a t i ons hi p a l one doe s not furni sh the re qu i si t e e vi dence of conspi ra t ori al agre em ent , w here the bu ye r kn ow i ng l y a ss um es a r ol e i nstrum ent al t o the succ es s of the conspi ra cy , a j ury m ay pr ope r l y i nf

e rtha the i s am e m be rof i t . U ni t e d S t a t e s v. B a s c a r o, 742 F . 2d 1335, 1359 ( 11th C i r . 1984) ; s e e a l s o U ni t e d S t a t e s v. M e r c e r , 165 F . 3d 1331, 1335- 36 (11th C i r. 19 99 ) ( concl ud i ng thata buyer -s el l erre l at i on shi p b y i t se l f w as i nsuffi ci entt o i nferthe exi st ence of a c on spi ra cy , bu tac kn ow l edgi ng thata patt ern o f r e p e a te d tr a n s a c tio n s a n d f r o n tin g d ru g s w o u ld b e s u f f ic ie n t) . H e r e , v ie w in g th e e v id e n c e in th e lig h t m o s t f a v o r ab le to th e g o v e rn m e n t, the evi dence w as suff

i ci entt o con vi ctR od ri gu ez . T he go vernm entpres ent ed31

se vera l i nt er ce pt ed ph on e c al l s i n O ct ob erand N ov em ber w hi ch R od ri gu ez , S anz, a nd G onz a l e z - P e r e z us e d c ode w or ds f ordrug tr a ns a c t i ons . T he s e c onve r s a t i ons a l s o c l a r i f

i e d tha tR odr i gue z ha d be e n i nvol ve d i n othe rtr a ns a c t i ons w i th S a nz a nd G on za l ez -P er ez pri or t o these i nt er ce pt ed ca l l s. A dd i t i on al l y, R od ri gu ez w arned S a nz tha the w a s be i ng f ol l ow e d a s S a nz w a s on hi s w a y t o m e e tR odr i gue z . A nd R od ri gu ez ’ s c el l m at e t es t i fi ed thatR od ri gu ez adm i tt ed hi s i nv ol vem entand n am ed th e o th er p art i ci p an t s. B ecau se w i tn ess cred i b i l i ty i s th e so l e p ro v i n ce o f th e j u ry, P a rr a d o , 9 1 1 F .2 d a t 1 5 7 1 , w e c o n c lu d e th is e v id e n c e w a s s u f f ic ie n t f o rth e ju ry to f in d th a t R o d r ig u e z c o n s p ir e d to p o s s e s s c o c a in e w ith th e in te n t to d is tr ib u te it. III. F or the foregoi ng re as on s, w e AF F I RM th e co n v i ct i o n s o f al l d efen d an t s, w e AF F I RM the se nt ence s of S anz a nd R od ri gu ez , and w e VA C A TE a nd RE MAND R obl e s ’ s s e nt e nc e f orf ur the rpr oc e e di ngs c ons i s t e ntw i th thi s opi ni on.