FI L ED U.S. COURT OF APPEAL S EL EVENTHCI RCUI T J UNE 15, 2011 J OHN L EY CL ERK [DO NOT PUBLISH] IN THE U

NITED STATE S COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELE VENTH CIRCUIT

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ No. 1 0- 13 41 9 Non -Arg um en t Ca le nd ar

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ D.C. Dock etNo. 0 :0 9- cr-6 03 01 -KAM-1 UNITED STAT ES OF AMERIC A, ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll l Pl ai nt iff -Ap pe ll ee,
ve rs us CRESTWEL L PHILLIP MIC KLEW HITE, ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll l 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 forth e So ut he rnDis tri ctof F lo rid a

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ (J un e 1 5, 2 01 1) Befo re EDMONDSON, CARNES an d ANDERSON, Ci rcu itJu dg es . PER CURI AM: Cres twel l M ic kl ewh it e p le ad edgu il ty to co ns pi racy to p os se ss wit h t he in te ntto di st rib ut e 5 00 gra m s o r m or e o f co cai ne , in vi ol at io n o f 21 U.S.C. §§84 1( b) (1 )(A) an d 8 46 . He was s en te nc edto 60 m on th s i m pr is on m en t, t he
m an da to ry

m in im um sen te nc e. He co nt en ds th atth e d is tri ctco urt erredwhen it de ni edhi m

saf ety -v al ve rel ie f un de r U.S.S.G. § 5 C1 .2(a ) an d 1 8 U.S.C. § 35 53 (f). Sp eci fic al ly, he arg ue s t ha t t he co urt erredwhen itfou ndth athi s s en te nc in g te st im on y was u nt ru th fu l an d t ha t i t erredwhen itpe rm it te d h ears ay tes ti m on y du rin g s en te nc in g. 1 I. Inearl y Octo be r 20 09 , a co nf

id en ti al in fo rm an t s etup a drug de al to pu rch as e a k il og ram

of c oc ai ne . Even tu al ly it was de te rm in edth atth e CI wo ul d
m eetwit h Eri c Will ia m s i n aLowe’s p ark in g l otto m ak e th e ex ch an ge . On 2 Octo be r 8, 2 00 9, t he CI an d Wil li am s m etin th e Lowe ’s parki ng lo t. Will ia m s
en te redth e CI’s ca r an d t he CI “ fla sh eda ro ll of c as h.” W il li am s t ol d t he CI t ha t he wou ldbe ab le to de li ve r th e co cai ne wit hi n a n h ou r. W il li am s t he n l eftth e CI’s
car a ndcal le d M ic kl ewh it e, who po ss es se d t he co cai ne . It was de ci de d t ha t 3
Micklewhite also argues t hat t he dis trict court viol ated his ri g hts under the Confrontation 1 Clause of the Six th Amendment by permitting that hear say testimony to be introduced at sentenc ing. He c oncede d, howeve r, that “a ny panel of this Court is bound t o reje ct [his] Confrontation Clause argume nt.” See United States v. Cantellano, 430 F.3d 1142, 1146 (11th Cir. 2005) (“The right to confr ontation is not a sentencingrig ht.”). We agree , and thus reje ct that argument. See id. Two other people, Pedro Quintero and Wil bert Be noit, wer e also involved in the transac tion, 2 but the y are not disc ussed further in this opinion be cause they are not rele vant to a ny of the issues. It is not cl ear when Micklewhite came into possession of the coca ine. It is undisputed, 3 howeve r, that Micklewhite ha d the coc aine a nd brought it to W illiams. 2Mi ck le whi te an d Den ni s Pi erre , who ha d alo ad edha nd gu n c on ta in in g 1 4 ro un ds

of am m un it io n, wo ul d b rin g t he co cai ne to a m al l p ark in g l otwher e th e tr an sa ct io n
wou ldbe co ns umm at ed
. Mi ck le whi te an d P ie rre d ro ve to th e m al l an d p ul le d up n ex t t o Wil li am s’ car. Will ia m s g otou t o f hi s ca r, ret rie ve d abl ackba g c on ta in in g the co cai ne fro m Mi ck le whi te ’s car, an d g otba ckin to hi s o wn ca r. W il li am s t he n d ro ve hi s ca r to th e o th er s id e o f th e m al l p ark in g l otwher e th e CI was wait in g. Mi ck le whi te dr ov e h is car t o the same area o f th e p ark in g l otan d p ark edne ar Will ia m s’ car. Whi le W il li am s g otin to th e CI’s v eh ic le wit h t he co cai ne , Mic kl ewh it e an d P ie rre st ay edin th ei r car . The p ol ic e th en arres te d t he m . Mi ck le whi te was c ha rg edwit h p os se ss in g wi th th e in te ntto di st rib ut e 5 00 gr am s o r m or e o f co cai ne an d c on sp ira cy to po ss es s wi th th e in te ntto di st rib ut e 50 0 g ram s o r m or e o f co cai ne . He pl ead edgu il ty to t he co ns pi racy char ge , andth e po ss es si on ch arg e was dro pp ed . Mic kl ewh it e’s gu id el in es ran ge was 4 6 t o 5 7
m on th s i m

pr is on m en t. Ho wev er, the m an da to ry m in im um sen te nc e fo r hi s cr im e
was 60 m on th s i m

pr is on m en t. Mi ck le whi te arg ue d t ha t h e was en ti tl edto saf et y va lv e rel ie f, whi ch un de r certa in cir cu m st an ces pe rm it s t he co urt t o s en te nc e a de fen da ntbe lo w th e m an da to ry m in im um . The g ov ern m en t ar gu edth at Mi ck le whi te was n oten ti tl edto th atrel ie f be cau se he ha d n ottru th fu ll y pro vi de d
3th e g ov ern m en t wi th all th e in fo rm at io n c on cern in g t he off en se . Spe ci fic al ly, th e go ve rn m en t ar gu edth atMi ck le whi te di d n otful ly div ul ge hi s i nv ol ve m en t i n t he tra ns act io n. Hi s l ackof c an do r in cl ud edhi s cl ai m th athe was n otact in g a s
su rv ei ll an ce fo r W il li am s wh il e Will ia m s was fin al iz in g t he sal e with t he CI an d th athe was n otco m

pe ns at edforhi s i nv ol ve m en t i n t he dru g d eal
. At t he sen te nc e h eari ng th e co urt h eardtes ti m on y onwhet he r th e requi rem en ts forsaf

et y -v al ve rel ie f ha d b een m et . Firs t, Mi ck le whi te tes ti fie d ab ou t the ev en ts of Oc to be r 8, 2 01 0. He s ai d tha t d ay W il li am s h adcal le d h im
an d a sk ed , “ Can y ou do m e a fav or ? Can y ou tak e th is th in g fr om m e unt il I cal l y ou when I’m

read y ? ” Eve n t ho ug h M ic kl ewh it e was un em pl oyed an d s us pe ct ed th atth is was adru g d eal , he c la im edth athe ag reedto do th is “ fav or ” fo r free
. Late r th atda y

W il li am s ca ll edhi m

an d s ai d, “ Okay , I’ m

read y . I bru ng [si c] the stuf f to th e Bro wardm al l.” Acc or di ng to Mi ck le whi te , th is was c on ve ni en t be cau se he was a lre ady

pl an ni ng to go to th e m al l t o b uy some sho es . Mi ck le whi te th enm etW il li am s ata ga s s ta ti on to ge t t he co cai ne fro m W il li am s,
an d h e wen t t o P ie rre’s h ou se to waitforW il li am s’ cal l. Acco rd in g t o M ic kl ewh it e, sh ortl y th erea fte r W il li am s ca ll edhi m to tel l h im to co m e to th e m al l wi th th e co cai ne . Mic kl ewh it e sa idth athe to ldW il li am s t ha t he di d n otwantto be pa rt o f th e d eal , so th ey sh ou ldm eeton th e “ eas t s id e” o f th e
4m al l. Mi ck le whi te dro ve to th atpa rt o f th e m al l an d g av e Will ia m s t he co cai ne .

W il li am s t he n dro ve to an ot he r co rn er o f th e m al l t o m eetwit h the CI. Eve n th ou gh Mi ck le whi te sai d t ha t h e wan te d s ta y away fro m th e dru g d eal , he c la im s th athe co in ci de nt al ly dro ve to th atsame corn er o f th e m al l wh ere the dru g d eal
was tak in g p la ce b ecau se th atareawas c lo se r to th e sh oe st or e h e wan te d t o v is it
. Andalt ho ug h M ic kl ewh it e st at edin hi s p le a ag reem en t t ha t h e “ dr ov e to th e sa m e
area. . . [an d] pa rk edin clo se pro xi m it y ” to W il li am s’ andth e dru g d eal , Mi ck le whi te tes ti fie d a t t he sen te nc e h eari ng th athe di d n otev en see W il li am s, W il li am s’ car, o r whe re t he dru g d eal was o ccu rri ng . Then , in st eadof g et ti ng ou t of th e caran d g oi ng to th e sh oe st or e, Mi ck le whi te cla im edth athe an d Pi erre —wh o was carry in g alo ad edgu n— co in ci de nt al ly deci de d t o s ta y in th ei r car f ora whi le ne xtto wher e th e dru g d eal was t ak in g p la ce. Acco rd in g t o Mi ck le whi te th ey

were n otact in g a s “ su rv ei ll an ce,” b utin st eadhe want edto
sm ok e a ci ga ret te be fo re g oi ng in to th e sh oe st or e. Jo hn Log es , a po li ce o ffi cer, t es ti fie d n ex t. Alt ho ug h h e was no t p ers on al ly atth e cri m e sc en e, he sp ok e wit h t he off ic ers who were t he re an d re adth ei r rep orts . He tes ti fie d t ha t atfir stMi ck le whi te pa rk edhi s ca r ne xtto W il li am s’ car in th e n orth eas t co rn er o f th e m al l p ark in g l ot . After Wil li am s’ retrie ve d abl ack ba g fr om Mi ck le whi te ’s car, Will ia m s d ro ve to a di ffer en t p artof t he pa rk in g l ot
5an d fa r away fro m th e en tra nc e o f th e m al l, wh ic h was wher e th e CI was wait in g. Mi ck le whi te imm ed ia te ly foll owe d Wil li am s’ car t o t he othe r pa rt o f th e p ark in g lo t an d p ark edab ou t 3 0 yards away . Office r Log es ex pl ai ne d t ha t ev enth ou gh th ere wer e p le nty

of p ark in g s po ts clo se r to th e en tra nc e o f th e m al l, Mi ck le whi te pa rk edne ar Will ia m s’ car, wh ic h was sev eral hu nd redy ard s fr om th e en tra nc e. The di stric t co urt d idno t t hi nkth atMi ck le whi te ’s tes ti m on y m ad e se ns e: He’s go in g to th e m al l to bu y s n e a ke rs . Why do n’t y ou sm ok e y ou r ci ga ret te rig ht th ere an d go in to th e m al l? No, he dr iv es th e car, jus t so happ en s, to an othe r pa rk in g a r e a , jus t so happ en s to be rig ht by wh ere th is de al is go in g do wn, an d th at ’s whe re he de ci de s to si t an d sm ok e hi s ci ga ret te an d go in to th e m al l. If y ou wan t to sm ok e y ou r ci ga ret te an d go in to th e m al l, y ou st ay whe re y ou are aft er y ou de li ve r a pa ck ag e, y ou sm ok e y ou r ci ga ret te an d go in to th e m al l. You do n’t dr iv e to th e sa m e area whe re th e dr

ug de al is go in g do wn an d th en sm ok e y ou r ci ga ret te an d th en g o i nt o th e m al l. You se e, it jus t do es n’t fit , do es n’t m ak e se ns e. Mi ck le whi te ’s att orne y

res po nd edby argu in g t ha t M ic kl ewh it e’s te st im on y
was so un be li ev ab le th atitm us t b e b el ie ve d: “ It d oe sn ’t m ak e se ns e. I ag ree wi th y ou itdo es n’t m ak e se ns e. . . ., whi ch fran kl y is why itha s t o b e trut hf ul , bec au se itdo es n’t m ak e an y

sen se .” The co urt d is ag reed . Foc us in g o n M ic kl ewh it e’s own tes ti m on y , th e co urt de ni edMi ck le whi te ’s reque stfor saf et y va lv e-re li ef. Itex pl ai ne d: I do n’t be li ev e hi s te st im on y ab ou t th e su rv ei ll an ce. It do es n’t m ak e an y se ns e. He l ie d ab ou t it
. He li ed ab ou t no t fo ll owi ng th e car, he li ed
6ab ou t ho w lo ng —you kn ow, why he pa rk ed th ere. Tha t’s jus t n ot

tru th fu l. Why, I do n’ t k no w. It do es n’t m ak e se ns e. Bu t I th in k th e reas on . . . [h ]e’ s no t ad m it ti ng to th in gs ab ou t th is li m it ed cas e an d th e li m it ed fact s in th is cas e th at wou ld ge t hi m Safe ty Val ve is be cau se it le ad s to ad m is s io ns ab ou t ot he r act iv it ie s th at he wan ts to so m eh ow pr ot ecthi m se lf f

ro m or n otad m itto . Mi ck le whi te ap pe al ed
. III.

“ The qu es ti on of wh et he r th e in fo rm at io n [ade fen da nt ] supp li edto th e go ve rn m en t [a t] hi s s en te nc in g was tru th fu l an d c om pl et e [] is afactua l fi nd in g fo r th e d is tri ctco urt.” Un it edSta te s v . Bro wnl ee, 2 04 F.3d13 02 , 13 05 (11 th Cir
. 20 00 ). W e rev ie w factua l fi nd in gs reg ard in g s afet y -v al ve rel ie f fo r cl ear e rro r. Uni te d S ta te s v . Cru z, 10 6 F .3d15 53 , 15 57 (11 th Cir . 19 97 ). W e wil l n otfin d cl ear e rro r un le ss th e rec or d l eav es us “ wit h t he 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 S ta te s v . Whi te , 33 5 F .3d13 14 , 13 19 (11 th Ci r. 20 03 ) (ci ta ti on an d q uo ta ti on om it te d)
. The saf et y -v al ve pro vi si on of U.S.S.G. § 5C 1.2 (a) e nabl es sen te nc in g wit ho utreg ardto th e st atut ory m in im um forcert ai n o ffen se s i f fi ve cri te riaare
m et . See Un it edSta te s v . Mil ki nt as , 47 0 F .3d13 39 , 13 44 –4 5 (1 1t h C ir. 2 00 6)
. The on ly iss ue he re i s wh et he r Mi ck le whi te m etth e fi fth cri te rio n, wh ic h re qu ire d hi m to ha ve “ tru th fu ll y

pro vi de d t o t he Gov ern m en t al l i nf orm at io n a ndev id en ce [h e] ha[d ] co nc ern in g the off en se . . . .” 18 U.S.C. § 3 55 3( f)(5 ); U.S.S.G.

7§ 5 C1 .2(a )(5 ). The b ur de n i s o n t he de fen da ntto sh ow t ha t h e m eet s al l t he

cri te ria . Uni te d S ta te s v . Jo hn so n, 3 75 F.3d13 00 , 13 02 (11 th Cir . 20 04 ). Bas edon Mi ck le whi te ’s own no ns en si cal an d i nc red ib le tes ti m on y , th e di st ric t co urt fo un d t ha t h e d idno t m eethi s b ur de n o f pr ov in g t ha t h e trut hf ul ly pr ov id edth e g ov ern m en t wi th all in fo rm at io n re la te d t o h is pa rti ci pa ti on in th e drug de al . Mic kl ewh it e res po nd edby argu in g t ha t h e h adm ethi s b ur de n b ecau se

“ fran kl y . . . itha s t o b e trut hf

ul , bec au se itdo es n’t m ak e an y sen se .” That arg um en t, l ik e th e te st im on y itde sc rib es , do es no t m ak e an y sen se . The d is tri ct
co urt d idno t cl earl y

err. IV. Mi ck le whi te di d n otob

ject t o t he di st ric t co urt’s d eci si on to pe rm itLog es ’ he ars ay tes ti m on y

at t he sen te nc e h eari ng . If a de fen da ntdi d “ no t ra is e [an ] arg um en t b efo re t he di stric t co urt, we re vi ew iton ly for p la in erro r.” Uni te d St at es v. Du dl ey , 46 3 F .3d12 21 , 12 27 (11 th Cir . 20 06 ). “ Und er p la in erro r
rev ie w, th ere m

us t b e (1 ) an erro r, (2 ) th atis pl ai n, an d (3 ) affe ct s s ub st an ti al rig ht s. Whenth es e th ree f act or s ar e m et , [th is Co urt] m ay ex erci se di sc ret io n a nd
co rrec t t he erro r if

itser io us ly affect s t he fai rn es s, i nt eg rit y , or p ub li c rep ut at io n o f th e jud ic ia l p ro ceed in gs .” Id . (ci ta ti on om it te d)
. The di stric t co urt d idno t err, m uc h l es s p la in ly err, by ad m it ti ng Log es ’
8te st im on y . “ A cou rt m ay co ns id er an y

in fo rm at io n (i nc lu di ng he ars ay ), reg ard le ss of it s ad m is si bi li ty at tri al , [atsen te nc in g] pro vi de d t ha t t he in fo rm at io n i s
su ffi ci en tl y

rel iabl e.” Uni te d S ta te s v . W il so n, 1 83 F.3d12 91 , 13 01 (11 th Cir
. 19 99 ). The t es ti m on y

of apo li ce o ffi cer t ha t i s b as edon po li ce re po rts an d di sc us si on s wi th ot he r of fic ers who were atth e ev en t i s s uf fic ie nt ly reli ab le . And
ev en if the di st ric t co urt erredby adm it ti ng Log es tes ti m on y , th aterro r di d n ot affe ctMi ck le whi te ’s subs ta nt ia l ri gh ts be cau se th e co urt d idno t re ly on t ha t te st im on y when itde ni edMi ck le whi te ’s saf ety -v al ve rel ie f. Ins te ad , th e co urt de ni edth atrel ie f ba se d o n M ic kl ewh it e’s in co ns is te ntan d n on se ns ic al tes ti m on y . The di st ric t co urt d idno t p la in ly err. AFFIRMED.

9