FI L ED U.S. COURT OF APPEAL S EL EVENTHCI RCUI T J UNE 4, 2010 J OHN L EY CL ERK [DO NOT PUBLISH]
IN THE UN ITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELE VENTH CIRCUIT

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ No. 0 9- 14 36 8 Non -Arg um en t Ca le nd ar

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ D. C. Dock etNo. 0 9- 00 34 8- CR-TC B-1 UNITED STAT ES OF AMERIC A,
Pl ai nt iff -Ap pe ll ee, ve rs us COREY RIEARA, a.k .a. Pret ty Black , Defen da nt -Ap pe ll an t.

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ App eal fro m

th e Uni te d S ta te s Di st ric t Co urt fo r th e North ern Dis tri ctof Ge or gi a

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ _ (J un e 4 , 20 10 ) Befo re TJ OFLAT, MARTIN andKRAVITCH, Cir cu itJu dg es . PER CURI AM:Co rey Ri eara ap pe al s fr om th e d is tri ctco urt’s i m

po si ti on of asen te nc e 1 ab ov e th e ad vi so ry

Sen te nc in g Gu id el in es ran ge forhi s v io la ti on of t he term s o f hi s s up erv is edrel eas e. He arg ue s t ha t t he di st ric t co urt erredby con si de rin g un pr ov enco nduc t an d u nr el iabl e h ears ay . He als o c on te nd s t ha t h is sen te nc e was subs ta nt iv el y

un reas on ab le . Havi ng co ns id eredth es e arg um en ts in li gh t o f th e reco rd , we affi rm . I In20 00 , Rie ara was sen te nc edto ni ne y ears ’ im pr is on m en t fo ll owi ng hi s gu il ty ple a to dru g- po ss es si on ch arg es un de r 21 U.S.C. § 8 41 (a)( 1) . The
se nt en ci ng co urt al so im

po se d ath ree- y ear t erm

of s up erv is edrel eas e u nd er 1 8 U.S.C. § 3 58 3. Ri earawas re le as edfro m pri so n i n 2 00 8. In20 09 , Rie ara was arre st edby pol ic e in San dy Spri ng s, Geo rg iafora de ad ly sho ot in g a t an ap art m en t co m pl ex . The ex te ntof R ie ara’s i nv ol ve m en t was
un cl ear, b uthe ha d b een sh otin th e le g, an d p ol ic e fo un d h is cel l p ho ne , on e o f hi s sh oe s, an d h is fin ge rp rin t n ear the ap art m en t wh ere t he sh oo ti ng oc curred
. Alt ho ug h s ta te au th or it ie s i ni ti al ly charg edRie ara wi th m ur de r an d fi rearm spo ss es si on off

en se s, h e was ne ve r in di ct ed . Upo n l earn in g o f th e st at e ch arg es , a

Rieara claims that his rea l name is J oseph Ellis, which is what his state par ole offic er 1 called him. F or the sake of consistenc y with our ca se ca

ption, we re fer

to him as Cory

Rieara
. 2fed eral pro ba ti on off ic er p et it io ne d fo r th e rev oc at io n o f Ri eara ’s supe rv is ed rel eas e o n the gro un ds th athe ha d c omm it te d c rimes, freque nt edpl aces wher e drug s wer e u se d o r di st rib ut ed , andass oc ia te d wi th pe rs on s en ga gi ng in cri m in al act iv ity . After c on si de rin g t he tes ti m on y of R ie ara’s s ta te pa ro le off ic er an d t he le adde te ct iv e in th e San dy Spri ng s i nv es ti ga ti on , th e d is tri ctco urt re vo ke d Ri eara ’s rel eas e an d s en te nc edhi m to th ree years i n p ris on an d a n a dd it io na l t wo y ears of s up erv is edrel eas e. Rie ara app eal s. II At Ri eara ’s rev oc at io n h eari ng , hi s at to rn ey co nc ed edth athe ha d v io la te d Geo rg ialaw b y

lying to th e p ol ic e ab ou t wh ethe r he ha d re nt eda car a ndgo ne to
work o n t he da y

of the sh oo ti ng . The Go ve rn m en t i nf orm edth e co urt t ha t t he se 2 li es co ns ti tu te d aGrad e C v io la ti on of R ie ara’s s up erv is edrel eas e u nd er U.S.S.G. § 7 B1 .1(a ), an d the parti es ag reedth atth e Sen te nc in g Gu id el in es ’ ad vi so ry ran ge was th ree t o n in e m on th s u nd er U.S.S.G. § 7 B1 .4. Rie ara’s at to rn ey ask edfora 3

SeeO.C.G.A. § 16-10- 20 (“Aperson who know ingly and willfully

. . . makes a

false, 2 fictitious, or fra

udulent statement or r epre sentation . . . in any matter within the jurisdiction of any depar tment or ag ency

. . . of the g overnme nt of any county , city , or other political subdivision of this state shall, upon conviction there of, be punished by a fine of not more than $1,000.00 or by imprisonment for not less than one nor more than f

ive year s, or both.”). On appe al, the Gove rnment has sug g ested for the first time that Rieara

committed a 3 more serious, Grade B violation. We dec line to consider this arg ument and assume, f

or our purposes, that the district c ourt sentenc ed Riear a for a Gr ade C violation. 3th ree- m on th sen te nc e, bu t t he Gov ern m en t re qu es te d ani ne -m on th sen te nc e

be cau se Rie ara h adbe en“ as so ci at ed ” wit h a“ drug de al go ne ba d.” Ri earade ni edan y

in vo lv em en t i n t he sh oo ti ng an d a rg ue d t ha t the ev id en ce ga th eredfro m

th e ap art m en t co m

pl ex was i ns uf

fic ie ntto co nn ecthi m

wit h a ny cri m in al act iv it y . Thro ug h h is att orne y , Rie ara c la im edth athe ha d b een sh otfor
un kn own reas on s o ut si de a ne arb y ga s s ta ti on . In re sp on se , th e Gov ern m en t pr of fere d t he tes ti m on y

of h is st at e p aro le off

ic er, wh o re co un te d ajail ho us e co nv ers at io n s he ha d h adwit h h im aft er h is arre st . Duri ng th atco nv ers at io n, Ri earaha d t ol d h er tha t h e h adbe ensh otat t he ap art m en t co m pl ex aft er g oi ng th ere t o b uy m ari

juan a. The Gov ern m en t al so in tro du cedth e te st im on y of Da vi d R om ero , th e le ad de te ct iv e atth e sc en e o f th e sh oo ti ng . After t he co urt o ve rru le d R ie ara’s h ears ay ob jecti on , Detec ti ve Ro m ero tes ti fie d t ha t Ri earaha d t ol d ano th er p ol ic e o ffi cer th e st ory ab ou t b ei ng sh otou ts id e th e g as st at io n. Ro m ero als o t es ti fie d t ha t al th ou gh hi s i nv es ti ga ti on ha d u nc ov eredev id en ce o f drug sal es an d ash oo to utat th e ap art m en t co m

pl ex , no ev id en ce o f an y

alt erca ti on ha d b een fou ndat t he ga s st at io n. Afte r rec ei vi ng th is tes ti m on y , th e co urt re vo ke d R ie ara’s s up erv is ed rel eas e. The c ou rt o bs erv edth atRie ara h adadm it te d l y in g t o t he po li ce ab ou t 4ren ti ng a car a ndgo in g t o wo rk . Andth e co urt n ot ed“pr et ty com pe ll in g”
ev id en ce t ha t t he sh oo ti ng “ was a drug de al th atwentba d.” Fin al ly, th e co urt fo un d tha t Ri earawas “ cl earl y gu il ty” of as so ci at in g wi th cri m in al s an d freque nt in g p la ces wher e il le ga l d ru gs were s ol d b ecau se hi s s to ry ab ou t b ei ng sh otat t he ga s s ta ti on“ di dn ’t addup .” Afte r en te rta in in g a rg um en t o n t he ap pr op ria te sen te nc e, th e co urt i m po se d ath ree- y ear p ris on sen te nc e an d t wo m or e y ears of s up erv is edrel eas e. III W e rev ie w th e se nt en ce i m po se d upo n t he rev oc at io n o f a d efen da nt ’s
supe rv is edrel eas e fo r an ab us e o f di sc ret io n. Se e Uni te d Sta te s v. Li ves ay , 58 7 F.3 d 1 27 4, 1 27 8 (1 1t h C ir. 2 00 9) . The que st io n i s wh ethe r th e se nt en ce was reas on ab le inli gh t o f th e co ns id erat io ns ou tl in edin 18 U.S.C. § 3 55 3( a). Uni te d 4 St at es v. Vela sq ue

z , 52 4 F .3d12 48 , 12 52 (11 th Cir . 20 08 ). W e rev ie w th e d is tri ct
co urt’s fa ctua l fi nd in gs forcle ar erro r, Uni te d Sta te s v. As kew , 19 3 F .3d11 81 ,

See U nited States v. Talley , 431 F.3d 784, 786 ( 11th Cir. 2005) (“[T]he district court 4 must consider seve ral fa ctors to deter mine a re asonable sentenc e: (1) the nature and circ umstances of

the offe nse and the history and cha rac teristics of the de fenda nt; (2) the nee d to ref lect the se riousness of the of fense , to promote respe ct for the law, and to pr ovide just punishment for the off

ense; (3) the nee d for de terre nce; ( 4) the ne ed to protec t the public; (5) the need to pr ovide the def

endant with nee ded educ ational or voc ational trainingor medica l car e; (6) the kinds of sentenc es ava ilable; (7) the Sente ncingGuidelines ra ng e; (8) pe rtinent policy statements of the Sente ncingCommi ssion; (9) the nee d to avoid unwanted se ntencing disparities; and (10) the nee d to provide re stitut ion to victims .” (c iting 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) )). 511 83 (11 th Cir . 19 99 ), an d R ie ara b ears th e b ur de n o f es tabl is hi ng th athi s

se nt en ce i s u nr eas on ab le , Uni te d Sta te s v. Cla y , 48 3 F .3d73 9, 7 43 (11 thCir
. 20 07 ). Ri eara ’s firs t ar gu m en t o n app eal is th atth e d is tri ctco urt i m pe rm is si bl y ba se d h is sen te nc e o n s pe cu la ti on an d u np ro ve n c on du ct . W e d is ag ree. Th e di st ric t co urt was requi redto co ns id er “ th e ci rcu m st an ces of t he off en se ” b efo re im po si ng sen te nc e. 18 U.S.C. § 3 55 3( a)(1 ). W e m ay no t l im it“ th e in fo rm at io n co nc ern in g t he ba ck gr ou nd , cha ract er, an d c on du ctof ape rs on co nv ic te d o f an of fen se [th at ] a co urt o f th e Uni te d S ta te s m ay rece iv e an d c on si de r fo r th e pu rp os e o f im

po si ng anap pr op ria te sen te nc e.” 1 8 U.S.C. § 36 61 . Accor di ng ly, we ha ve he ldth atdi st ric t co urts m ay ev enco ns id er co nduc t fo r whi ch a de fen da nt ha s b eenacqui tt edif t he Gov ern m en t h as pro ve d i t b y a pr ep on de ran ce o f th e ev id en ce. Uni te d Sta te s v. Fa us t , 45 6 F .3d13 42 , 13 47 (11 th Cir . 20 06 ). At an y rat e, th e d is tri ctco urt d idno t s en te nc e Ri earaforan y unpr ov edrol e in th e ap art m en t-c om

pl ex sh oo ti ng . On th e co nt rary, the c ou rt c on si de redth e ci rcu m st an ces su rro un di ng Rie ara’s l ie s t o t he po li ce dur in g am ur de r in ve st ig at io n. In li gh t o f Ri eara ’s st at em en ts to hi s p aro le off ic er an d t he ev id en ce li nk in g h im

to th e sc en e o f th e cri m e, th e d is tri ctco urt d idno t err by con cl ud in g th atRie ara’s m is co nduc t was m or e se rio us th ana si m pl e fal se st at em en t. 6The co urt d idrefe r to sev eral “ m is rep res en ta ti on s,” r eg ard in g the id en ti ty of

Ri eara ’s gi rlf

rie ndan d h is li vi ng arra ng em en ts , th athe ap pa ren tl y ne ve r m ad e. Bu t t he tra ns cri ptof R ie ara’s re vo cat io n h eari ng sh ows th atth e co urt re ferr edto th os e m is rep res en ta ti on s o nl y on ce, an d i n p as si ng . W e th eref or e co nc lu de th atit s erro r was ha rm le ss . Se e W il li ams v. Uni te d Sta te s , 50 3 U.S. 1 93 , 20 3 (1 99 2) (“ [A]
rem an d i s ap pr op ria te un le ss th e rev ie win g c ou rt c on cl ud es , on th e rec or d a s a who le , th atth e err orwas h arm le ss , i.e. , th atth e err ordi d n otaffe ctth e d is tri ct
co urt’s s el ect io n o f th e se nt en ce i m po se d.” ). Ri eara ’s sec on d a rg um en t i s t ha t t he di st ric t co urt i m pe rm is si bl y

rel ie d o n un rel iabl e h ears ay

when itco ns id eredDete ct iv e Ro m ero ’s tes ti m on y . “ Alt ho ug h th e Fed eral Ru le s o f Evi de nc e d o n otap pl y insupe rv is edrel eas e rev oc at io n he ari ng s, t he adm is si bi li ty of he ars ay is no t au to m at ic . Defen da nt s i nv ol ve d i n rev oc at io n p ro ceed in gs are en ti tl edto cert ai n m in im al du e p ro ces s re qu ire m en ts . Am on g the se m in im al requi rem en ts is th e ri gh t t o c on fro ntan d c ro ss -ex am in e ad ve rs e wit ne ss es .” Uni te d Sta te s v. Fr az ie r , 26 F.3d11 0, 1 14 (11 th Cir . 19 94 ) (ci ta ti on s o m it te d) . W e h av e th us he ldth atbe fo re adm it ti ng he ars ay ev id en ce i n rev oc at io n p ro ceed in gs , di st ric t co urts “ m us t b al an ce the de fen dant ’s rig htto
co nf ro ntadve rs e wit ne ss es ag ai ns t t he gro un ds ass ert edby the go ve rn m en t fo r de nyin g c on fro nt at io n.” Id
. 7It i s u nd is pu te d h ere t ha t t he co urt d idno t co nduc t t hi s b al an ci ng tes t.

Nev erthe le ss , we con cl ud e th atth e err or was h arm le ss . Se e Fra zi er , 26 F.3dat 11 4; Uni te d Sta tes v. Ha nd s , 18 4 F .3d13 22 , 13 29 (11 th Cir . 19 99 ) (“ An erro r is ha rm le ss un le ss th ere i s a r eas on ab le li ke li ho odth atitaffe ct edth e d efen dant ’s
subs ta nt ia l ri gh ts .” (quo ta ti on m ark s an d b rack et s o m it te d) ). The h ears ay te st im on y eli ci te d fr om

Dete ct iv e Ro m ero m erel y rep eat edth e g as -s ta ti on st ory th atRie ara, t hr ou gh co un se l, h adalr ead y to ldth e co urt. Even if t he co urt h ad 5
ex cl ud edth e h ears ay , it s co nc lu si on th atRie ara’s s to ry “ di dn ’t addup ” wou ld ha ve be enth e sa m e. Fi na ll y , Rie ara a rg ue s t ha t h is sen te nc e was subs tant iv el y un reas on ab le
un de r 18 U.S.C. § 3 55 3( a). Bu t “ [t]he weig htto be acco rd edan y gi ve n § 35 53 (a) fact or is a m at te r co m

m it te d t o t he so un d d is cret io n o f th e d is tri ctco urt,” a ndwe wil l o nl y va cat e a s en te nc e “ if we are l eftwith t he de fin it e an d fi rm co nv ic ti on th at th e d is tri ctco urt co m

m it te d acle ar erro r of

jud gm en t” by im

po si ng “ a se nt en ce

The Gove rnment argues that this was not hea rsay beca use it was not offe red to prove 5 that Rieara ’s story

was true . Cf. Fe d. R. Evid. 801(c) ( “‘H ear say ’ is a stateme nt, other than one made by the dec lara

nt while testifying at the trial or hea ring , offe red in e vidence to prove the truth of the matter

asser ted.”) . This argument relies on a faulty understandingof the re levant inquiry . Rieara ’s own stateme nts were not hear say beca use they wer e admissions by

a party –opponent. See id. 801(d)( 2). The he arsa y in this case consisted in the state ments of the nontestifying of

fice r who told Dete ctive Romero what Rieara ha d said. Romero’s testimony was offe red to prove the truth of the matter asser ted—namely , that Rieara

had g iven the other

office r a potentially

false a libi. 8th atli es ou ts id e th e ran ge of r eas on ab le sen te nc es di ct at edby the fact s o f th e

cas e.” Clay , 48 3 F .3dat 7 43 (qu ot at io n m ark s o m it te d) . Our rev ie w is de fere nt ia l: “ A di st ric t co urt m ay im po se a se nt en ce t ha t i s ei th er m or e se ve re o r le ni en t t ha n t he sen te nc e we wou ldha ve im po se d,” as l on g a s i ts sen te nc e is
reas on ab le
. Uni te d Sta tes v. Ta ll ey , 43 1 F .3d78 4, 7 88 (11 th Cir . 20 05 ). Ri eara ’s sen te nc e was be lo w th e st atut ory m ax im um of f iv e y ears , an d t he

6 di st ric t co urt ex pl ai ne d tha t al l o f th e § 35 53 (a) fa ct or s h adbe en“ care fu ll y co ns id ered .” Cf

. Tal le y , 43 1 F .3dat 7 86 (“ [W] he n t he di st ric t co urt co ns id ers th e fact or s o f se ct io n 3 55 3( a), i t n eedno t d is cu ss each of t he m .”). The c ou rt sp eci fic al ly addres se d R ie ara’s cr im in al hi st ory an d t he factth athe ha d o bs tru ct ed
a m ur de r in ve st ig at io n. Th atwe m ig htha ve im po se d am or e le ni en t s en te nc e is irr el ev an t; “ th ere i s a r an ge of r eas on ab le sen te nc es fro m whi ch th e d is tri ctco urt
m ay ch oo se ,” id
. at78 8, an d we c an no t s ay on th e rec or d b efo re u s tha t t he co urt ab us edit s d is cret io n. Ri eara ’s sen te nc e is th eref or e AFFIRMED.

See 18 U.S.C. § 3583(e)(3) (“[A] defenda nt whose term is re voked under this paragraph 6 may not be re quired to ser

ve on any such re vocation more than 5 year s in prison if the offe nse that resulted in the ter

m of supervised r elea se is a cla ss A felony . . . .”). Riea

ra’ s 2000 drug conviction was a

class A f elony
. See id. § 3559; 21 U.S.C. § 841(b)(1)(A )(iii).

9