[DO N OT PUBLISH]

IN THE UN ITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELE VENTH CIRCUIT

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ No. 1 1- 15 93 2 Non -Arg um en t Ca le nd ar

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ D.C. Dock etNo. 8 :1 0- cr-0 00 19 -VMC- TBM-1

UNITED STAT ES OF AMERIC A, ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll Pl ai nt iff -Ap pe ll ee, vers us TRISTAN DAVIS, ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll D efen 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 forth e Mi dd le Dis tri ctof F lo rid a

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ (Oct ob er 2 6, 2 01 2) Befo re TJ OFLAT, BARKETT an d KRAVITC H, Circ ui t Jud ge s. PER CURI AM:

Case: 11-15932 Date Filed: 10/26/2012 Page: 1 of 3Tris ta n Dav is ap pe al s h is 57 -m on th sen te nc e, im po se d a fte r pl ead in g g ui lt y to co ns pi racy to p os se ss with i nt en t t o d is tri bu te , andto di st rib ut e o xycod on e, in vi ol at io n o f 21 U.S.C. §§ 84 1( a)(1 ), (b )(1 )(C) , and84 6 (“ Co un t 1 ”); an d a tt em ptto po ss es s wi th in te ntto di st rib ut e o xycod on e, in vi ol at io n o f 21 U.S.C. §§ 84 1( a)(1 ), (b )(1 )(C) , and84 6 (“ Co un t 2 ”). Dav is arg ue s t ha t t he di st ric t co urt cl earl y erre d i n ho ld in g h im

acco un tabl e fo r 4,6 00 ox y co do ne tab le ts , whi ch was t he qu an ti ty es ti m at edfro m

po st -arr es t s ta te m en ts fro m Davi s an d h is co de fen da ntreg ard in g th e week ly shi pm en ts th atDavi s re cei ve d dur in g t he co ur se of t he co ns pi racy. W e rev ie w a di st ric t co urt’s fa ctua l d et erm in at io n o f th e dru g qua nt it y at tri bu tabl e to a de fen da ntforcle ar erro r. Uni te d Sta tes v. Ro dr ig ue z , 39 8 F .3d 12 91 , 12 96 (11 th Cir . 20 05 ). W e can no t fi ndcle ar erro r un le ss we are l eftwith “ a de fin it e an d fi rm

co nv ic ti on th ata m is ta ke ha s b een co m m it te d.” Uni te d Sta tes v. Cr aw fo rd , 40 7 F .3d11 74 , 11 77 (11 thCir . 20 05 ) (quo ta ti on om it te d) . Whe n a de fen da ntob

jects to a factua l fi nd in g u se d t o c al cu la te hi s g ui de li ne sen te nc e, su ch as dru g a m ou nt , th e g ov ern m en t m us t es tabl is h t he di sp ut edfactby a pr ep on de ran ce o f rel iabl e an d s pe ci fic ev id en ce. Rod ri gu ez , 39 8 F .3dat 12 96 ; Uni te d Sta tes v. La wr en ce , 47 F.3d15 59 , 15 66 (11 th Cir . 19 95 ). Sen te nc in g erro rs are h arm le ss if t he y do no t s ub st an ti al ly affectth e d efen da nt ’s sen te nc e. Uni te d Sta tes v. Fo le

y , 50 8 F .3d62 7, 6 34 (11 th Cir . 20 07 ).

2 Case: 11-15932 Date Filed: 10/26/2012 Page: 2 of 3The Gui de li ne s d ire ctth e co urt t o app ro xi m at e th e qua nt it y of t he co nt ro ll ed
subs ta nc e whe n t he re i s n o dru g s ei zu re o r th e am ou ntsei zeddo es no t re fle ctth e sc al e o f th e o ffen se . U.S.S.G. § 2D1 .1, co m m en t. (n .12 ). W e h av e h el d t ha t,

“ [a]ltho ug h s en te nc in g m ay be ba se d o n fa ir, a ccu rat e, an d c on se rv at iv e es ti m at es of th e qua nt it y

of d ru gs att rib ut ab le to a de fen da nt , sen te nc in g c an no t b e b as edon cal cu la ti on s o f drug qu an ti ti es th atare m erel y sp ecu la ti ve .” Uni te d Sta tes v. Za pa ta , 13 9 F .3d13 55 , 13 59 (11 th Cir . 19 98 ). Und is pu te d s ta te m en ts fou ndin th e PSI c anbe co ns id eredto be adm is si on s o f fac t fo r se nt en ci ng pu rp os es . Uni te d Sta tes v. Bec kl es , 56 5 F .3d83 2, 8 44 (11 th Cir . 20 09 ). The di stric t co urt’s fi nd in g t ha t Dav is was a cco un tabl e fo r ab ou t 4,6 00 ox y co do ne pi ll s was supp orte d b y th e rec or d a ndno t cl earl y erro ne ou s. Alt ern at iv el y , Davi s was no t h arm edby any erro r th e co urt m ad e in de te rm in in g th e dru g qua nt it y

forwhi ch he was h el d re sp on si bl e, gi ve n Dav is ’s con ces si on th at th e p arce ls co ul d h av e co nt ai ne d ato ta l o f 4,3 00 ox y co do ne pi ll s. Upo n re vi ew of

th e en ti re re co rdon ap pe al , andaft er co ns id erat io n o f th e pa rti es ’ ap pe ll at e b rie fs , we affi rm . AFFIRMED.

3 Case: 11-15932 Date Filed: 10/26/2012 Page: 3 of 3