### FI LED U.S. COURT O F APP EALS ELEVENTH CIRCUIT May 2 8, 2004 THO MAS K. KAH N CL ERK

Honora ble Norma

n H. Stahl, United States Circuit J u d ge fo r t h e F irst Circuit, sit ting by * desig nation. [PUBLIS H]

IN THE UN ITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FO R T HE EL EV EN TH CIRC UI T

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ _ N o. 03- 1125 2

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ _ D.C. Dock etNo. 0 2- 80 05 0- CR-DTKH UNITED STAT ES OF AMERIC A, Plaintiff-Appellee, ve rs us DAMON AMEDEO, D ef en dant- Appe llant.

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ _ Appeal f rom the United State s District Court fo r the S outhe rnD istri ct

of F lor ida

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ _ (M ay 2 8, 200 4) Be fo re BL A CK , BA RKE T T and S T A H L , Ci rc uit Jud ge s. * ST A H L , Ci rc uit

Jud ge :2

D ef en dant- ap pe llant D am on A m ed eo appe al s f ro m his se nte nc e fo llo w ing a gui lty ple a to o ne c ount

of dis tr ibu tio n of

c oc ai ne to a pe rs on unde r tw en ty -o ne y ears of age, in vio lation of 21 U.S. C. § 859 (a). W e hold that th e district court er re d inupw ar dly

de part ing f

ro m the S en te nc ing G uid el ine s, and r em an d f or furthe r se nte nc ing pr oc ee din gs. I. BACKGROUND A. Fac tual histo ry Evidence pre sented at the sentencing h earing established the following: In May , 200 1, A m ed eo m et

D ougl as Ro ze lle I II . A t tha t t im e, A m ed eo w as a29- y ear- old attorney

and Rozelle w as an eighteen-y ear- old stu dent. Roze lle’ s father, ana tto rn ey , ha d hi re d A m ed eo to w ork a t hi s lawf irm be gin nin g th e pr ev iou s m onth . Af

ter Roze lle's ar

rest for possession o f m arij uana and Xanax, Rozelle' s fathe r ar range d f or A m ed eo to re pr es en t hi s so n. T he se c harg es r es ult ed in Rozelle' s enrollm ent in a pretrial intervention program . Am edeo accom panied Rozelle to his first drug treatm ent appoin tm ent, where the thera pist in form ed Am edeo that Rozelle had a “ serious probl em .” S ub s e qu e n t l y, A me d e o an dR o z e l l e b e g a n s p e n d i n g ag r e a td e a l o f t i me tog ethe r. R oz el le ’ s f

athe r, aw ar e of

onl y som e of the m ee tin gs, w as r ea ssure d by A m ed eo that he w oul d no t a llo wy oung Ro ze lle to use dr ugs. O ve r the ne xt3

several m onth s, howe ver, Am edeo and Rozelle together used cocaine, m arij uana, and various pi lls. A ccording to witnesses at the sentencing h earing, Rozelle often use d and d istri but ed

dr ugs in h is c oll eg e dor

m , som e of

w hic h w er e supp lie d by A m ed eo . R oz el le ha d in de pe nde nt s our ce s a s w el l. S ev er al of Ro ze lle ' s f

ri en ds, al l be tw ee n th e ag es of

nin et ee n and tw en ty -o ne , use d m ar ij uanaw ithA m ed eo and Ro ze lle a t A m ed eo ' s a

partm en t. During the fall of 2001, Roze lle's pare nts, who w ere divo rced, expressed concern that their son was using drugs again. In particular, Rozelle' s m other sus pe ct ed that R oz el le w as dr

ug- im pa ir ed w he n he and A m ed eo vis ite d he r on T hanksg ivi ng. S he tol d he r ex -husband o f he r co nc er ns, w ho i n turnspo ke to Am edeo. A m edeo assured Rozelle' s father than Roze lle wa s not us ing drug s. I n Novem ber, 2001 , R ozelle w as diagnos ed with depression and was prescr ibed Celexa. Ine ar ly January , 200 2, Ro ze lle inf orm ed his f athe r that he w an te d no thi ng furthe r to d o w ithA m ed eo . A cc or din gly , Ro ze lle ’ s f athe r as ke d A m ed eo to ce as e contact with Rozelle. N onetheless, on January 5, 2002, Rozelle appeared at Am edeo’ s apartm ent after telling hi s m other he wa s goin g there to "appease" Am ed eo be fo re a p ret ria l i nt erv en ti on m eet in g s ch edul edforth atweek . Two fr ie nds of A m ed eo , Ch ar le s W ils on and A nth ony Co stanz o, br ie fl y

w er e at the4

ap ar tm en t and t es tif

ie d th at Ro ze lle w as be ha vin g e rr at ic al ly and a ppe ar ed “pr etty wa sted.” A s they

left A m edeo's apartm ent around 7:5 0 p.m ., Am edeo said to them that he "wanted to fuck [Rozelle] ." So m et im e be tw ee n 1: 00 a . m and 7 :00 a . m . the f

oll ow ing m or

nin g, Ro ze lle di edof a dru g o ve rd os e in Am ed eo 's apa rtment. At around 10 :15 a.m . on January 6, A m edeo left his apartm ent to m eet W ils on and C ost an zo . A m ed eo w as in ana git at ed c ondi tio n; h e tol d th em

that he an d R oz el le ha d " pa rti edha rd " t he ni gh t b efo re an d t ha t Ro zel le m ig ht be de ad . A m ed eo a lso state d th at

he and R oz el le ha d ha d unpr ote ct ed se x tw ic e the pr ev io us ni gh t an d t ha t Ro zel le m ay ha ve be en asl eep th e se co nd ti m e. A ft er spe ndi ng t im e at

ar es taur an t and W ils on' s r es ide nc e, A m ed eo , W ilson , and Costanzo returned to Am edeo’ s apartm ent at around 12:3 5 p.m . that day . A m ed eo and C ost an zo c le an ed up the apartm en t, hid

dr ug p ar ap he rn al iaand too k ou t the tr as h. H ow ev er , W ils on t es tif ie d th at he doe s no t r ec al l any

c le an ing taking p lace. A round 12 :46, after attem pting to wake R ozelle, Am edeo called 911. P ar am ed ic s and l awe nf or ce m en t arr ive d, and a

pr el im inary

inv es tig at ion int o R oz el le ’ s de ath be gan. T ha t day , D et ec tiv e A m

y S inn ott arr ive d a t A m ed eo ' s a

partm en t t o inv es tig at e Ro ze lle ' s de ath. A m ed eo tol d S inn ott that he and R oz el le ha d se x,The district c ourt found that this wa s beca use Amedeo did not trust Costanzo as much a s he 1 did his long-time fr iend Wils on. 5 after which Roze lle fell aslee p in Am edeo’ s bedroom . Later, Am edeo had anal int er co ur se w ithRo ze lle , dur ing w hic h R oz el le w as br eathi ng and m ay have sa id Am edeo's nam e, but was "kind of out o f it." A t som e point after 12:30, Am edeo aw oke to a w et

spo t i n th e be d. C onc lud ing that R oz el le ha d ur inate d inthe be d, Am edeo tried unsuccessfullyto wake him . Am edeo stated that he then m oved Ro zel le to th e fl oo r an d wen t t o s le ep in th e o th er b ed ro om . Am edeo consented in writing to a search of his apartm ent. I n the m aster be dr oom , S inn ott

f ound ac ut s tr awc ont ai nin g w hit e pow de r an d aj ar c ont ai nin g m ar ij uana . L ic en se d f

ir earm s w er e fo und loc ke d inac as e. A m ed eo tol d S inn ott that on ly he and W ils on w er e in the apartm en t w he n th e body w as f ound ; he did not r ev ea l C ost an zo ' s pr es en ce . A m ed eo a lso did not r ev ea l tha t C ost an zo and W ilson had visited th e previous nig ht, stating onl y that a lawschool friend had sto ppe d by

in the a ft er

noon . Whe n S inn ott

not ed that the re w as no tra sh i n th e ap art m en t, Am ed eo de ni edrem ov in g i t b efo re ca ll in g 9 11 . At som e point after the police investigatio n began, A m edeo called Costanzo and toldhim

to say that he (Costanzo) w as not in th e apartm ent when Roze lle's body w as f ound . H e al so t old

Co stanz o it

w as im portant t o e xa gge rate the e xte nt 1Stepanek wa s Roz elle' s g irlfriend at the time. She testified that she did not r eca ll eng ag ing 2 in the sex acts depicted on the vide otape, a nd that at the time the tape was made , Roz elle had g iven her a n Ativan pill that he said belong ed to Amede o. 6 of A m ed eo ' s r om an tic r el at ion shi p w ithRo ze lle , to m ak e the r el at ion shi p so und "that it was a little m ore than it really wa s." On J an u ary 1 1 , 2 0 0 2 , afe d er al s ea rc h wa rr an twa s ex ec u t edat Am ed eo ’s ap ar tm en t. A ge nts of

the Bure auof

A lc ohol , T oba cc o and F ir earm s se iz ed six fi re ar m s f ro m the c as e dis co ve re d inthe e ar lie r se ar ch , a s w el l a s dr ugs an d dr

ug pa rap he rn al ia . The s earc h a ls o yiel de d a vi de ot ap e co nt ai ni ng th ree s eg m en ts . T he f ir st s eg m en t w as ta

pe d by Ro ze lle on the w ee ke nd o f O ct obe r 28, 200 1, and depicted a sexual encounter betwee n Rozelle and a w om an nam ed Megan St ep an ek . T he se co nd s eg m en t w as ta pe d by A m ed eo and s how ed

him 2 perform ing oral sex on Rozelle, w ho appeared to be uncons cious. T he third se gm en t, a lso ta

pe d by A m ed eo , sho w ed

him and R oz el le usi ng dru gs t oge the r on o r ab o u tN o v e mb e r

1 1 , 2 0 0 1 . T h e y s mo k e dmar i j u a n aan dc o c a i n e r e s i du e f r o m a bong and s norte d po w de re d c oc ai ne hy dr oc hlo ri de . I t w as the c oc ai ne use de pi ct edin th is seg m en t t ha t b ecame the ba si s fo r Am ed eo 's o ffen se of c on vi ct io n. T he dis tr ic t c ourt f

ound that the se co nd and thir d vi de ota pe d se gm en ts o cc ur

re d on th e sa m e n ig ht .The medic al examiner off ere d somewhat c ontradictory testimony

as to whethe r the 3 methadone w as pre sent at a le vel that alone w ould have c aused Rozelle' s death. 7 De tective Sinnott searched Rozelle' s m other's hom e, wher e Rozelle had been living . She found drug paraphernalia, thre e prescr iptio n bott les of Celexa, X an ax , m ar ij uanaand A tiv an . T he tox ic olo gy

r ep ort st at ed

that R oz el le ' s de ath w as ar es ult of dr ug overdose, specifica lly , "poly drug tox icity " resulting from cocaine, m ethadone, Ci tr al opam

( Ce le xa ) an d A lpr az olam ( X an ax ). T he m ed ic al e xa m ine r w ho pe rf orm ed the auto psy

te sti fi ed that de ath r es ult ed

f ro m the int er ac tio n of

a ll fo ur dr ugs, w hic h c om

bin ed to supp re ss R oz el le ' s c en tr al ne rv ous sy ste m to the e xte nt th athi s l un gs fil le d wi th flu idan d h is he artan d l un gs st op pe d fu nc ti on in g. A f orensic toxicolo gist testified th at there w as no active cocaine in Rozelle' s sy ste m ; r athe r, the re w as c oc ai ne m et ab oli te , w hic h r ef le ct ed c oc ai ne use a t l ea st tw el ve hours , and p oss ibl y up t o se ve ra l day s, be fo re his de ath. N ei the r the co ca ine nor

the X an ax , standi ng a lon e, w as suf fi ci en t t o c au se de ath. T he m et ha do ne an d t he Cel ex a in di vi du al ly w ere c on su m edat " to xi c" l ev el s. Nonetheless, neither expert testified unequiv ocally that either drug wa s ind ep en de ntl y

f at al . T he f

or en sic tox ic olo gis t t es tif ie d th at asm al l qu an tity

of 38

L or ez ep am

( A tiv an ) w as f

ound in Ro ze lle ' s bl ood, w hic h w as "a li ttl e bit a t the low end of the therapeutic r ange" rather than in th e "toxic" range. Am edeo's sem en wa s found in Rozelle' s underwear . Additional sem en wa s found in Rozelle' s anal canal, but its so urce c ouldnot be determ ined. T here w as no t eari ng o r sc ar

ri ng o f Ro ze lle ' s anus or

r ec tum . T he te sti m ony

a t the se nte nc ing he ar ing ind ic at ed

that the la ck

of tr aum a co uld

have r es ult ed

e ith er f ro m th e ab se nc e of

se xua l a ssa

ult ( i. e. , the se x w as c onse nsua l) or f ro m the r el ax ing e ff

ec ts of th e d ru gs on Ro zel le 's b od y . B. Procedural histo ry A m ed eo w as arr es te d onF eb ru ar y 7, 200 2. H e w as c harg ed in a nin e- co unt supe rc ed ing ind ic tm en t a lle gin g on e co unt of unl aw fu l dr

ug u se w hil e in poss es sio n of

af ir earm , 21 U . S. C. § 92 2( g) (3 ); one c ount of dis tr ibu tio n of cocaine to a m inor, 21 U. S. C. § 859 ; one count o f coca ine distribu tion, 21 U. S. C. § 84 1; f ive c ount s of

dis tr ibu tio n of

m ar ij uanato a m ino r, 21 U . S. C. § 85 9; and on e co un t o f po ss es si on wit h i nt en t t o d is tri bu te m ari juan a, 21 U.S.C. § 8 41 . A m ed eo and the gov er

nm en t e nte re d aple a ag re em en t i n w hic h A m ed eo a gr ee d to plead guilt y

to the count o f distributin g cocaine to a m inor, 21 U. S. C. § 859 (a), an d th e gove rn m en t a gr ee d to dr op the r em ai nin g c harg es .9

T he pr oc ed

ur al m an euve ri ng l ea din g up to the se nte nc ing w as unu sua lly co m ple x. AP re se nte nc e In ve sti ga tio n R ep ort ( PS I) w as iss ue d, the n r ep eate dly revised. T he governm ent recom m ended a reduction to Am edeo's sentence based on acceptance of responsib ility , pursuant to U. S. S. G. § 3E1.1( a). It also re quested enhancem ents on two groun ds: (1) that Am edeo had abused his positi on of trust as Ro ze lle ’ s a tto rn ey , pur suant t o § 3 B1 . 3; and ( 2) that R oz el le w as a“ vul ne ra ble vic tim ” be ca

use of his pr ior dr ug p ro ble m s, pur suant t o § 3 A 1. 1. L as tly , the gove rn m en t r ec om

m en de d an up w ar d de part ur e pur suant t o § 5 K 2. 0 onthe gr ound that Am edeo distribu ted drugs to m ultip le m inors. Pursuant to Burns v. U nited St at es , 501 U . S. 129 ( 1991 ), the dis tr ic t c ourt tw ic e iss ue d no tic es of int en t t o co nsi de r ad dit ion al gr ound s f or upw ar d de part

ur e. T he se nte nc ing he ar ing too k pla ce ove r fo ur

day s and i nvol ve d m

ult ipl e w itn es se s. O n F eb ru ar

y 13, 200 3, the dis tr ic t c ourt se nte nc ed A m ed eo to 216 m onths of im pr iso nm en t and e igh t y ears of sup er vis ed r el ea se . I t ba se d th is s en te nc e on anof fe nse le ve l of

37 and a c ri m ina l hi sto ry

c at eg or y of I . T he c ourt i nc re as ed

the se nte nc e ba se d onthe abuse of tr ust and v uln er ab le vic tim

gr ound s r ai se d by

the governm ent, and im

posed an addi tional enhancem ent on the grou nd that Am edeo obstru ct ed

j ust ic e by

inf lue nc ing w itn es se s, c onc ea lin g e vid en ce , and m ak ing f al se st at em en ts , pu rs ua nt to § 3 C1 .1.The c ourt noted that, had there been any err or in its calc ulation a s to the enhanc ements or 4 in applying §§ 5K2.0 or 5K2.8, the sa me offe nse level could have be en re ache d by alteringthe extent of the de parture s under §§ 5K2.1 a nd 5K2.9. Ad jus tme nts and

de pa rt ur e s are " dis tin c tl y di ffe re nt c on c e pts un de r t he Gu ide lin e s. 5 Adjustments are c hang es to a n offe nse level within the Guidelines. Depa rtures, on the other ha

nd, are se nte nc e s im

po se d o uts ide the Gu ide lin e s. " Un ite d St ate s v . Joe tzki , 952 F .2 d 1 09 0, 10 97 (9 th Cir. 1991). 10 Furtherm ore, the court departed upwar d on several ground s: (1) that A m ed eo c om

m itt ed the of fe nse to fa ci lit at e a se xua l a ssa ult on R oz el le , pur suant to U . S. S. G . § 5K2. 9; ( 2) that A m ed eo ' s of fe nse r es ult ed

in de ath, pur suant t o § 5K 2. 1; ( 3) that he e nga ge d ine xtr em e co nduc t by f ai lin g to se ek

m ed ic al he lp f

or Rozelle and by

having u nprotected sex despit e his illness with hepatiti s C, pur suant t o § 5 K 2. 8; and ( 4) that A m ed eo dis tr ibu te d dr ugs to m ult ipl e m ino rs , pur suant t o § 5 K 2. 0. T he dis tr ic t c ourt de nie d A m ed eo ’ s r eque st f or ar ed uc tio n 4 b as ed o n ac ce p t an ce o f r es p o n s i b i l i t y p u rs u an tt o § 3 E1 .1 (a ), ci t i n g Am ed eo ’s co nt in ue d a ss ert io ns of a co ns en su al sex ua l re la ti on sh ip . II. DISCUS SION A. Applicable law : standard of reviewand relevant conduct This case invo lves challenges to th e length of Am edeo's sentence im posed by the dis tr ic t c our

t, pur suant b othto en hanc em en ts and u pw ar d de part

ur es f ro m th e Sen te nc in g Gu id el in es . Whe n app eal is tak en fro m an en ha nc em en t, we 5 re vie wde nov o th e dis tr ic t c ourt' s in te rp re ta tio n and a ppl ic at ionof

the se nte nc ing11

gu id el in es . Uni te d S ta te s v . Lewis , 11 5 F .3d15 31 , 15 36 (11 th Cir . 19 97 ). Sp ec if ic al ly , "[ i] n th e co nte xt o f ap ply ing e nhanc em en ts t o sp ec if ic of fe nse ch ar ac te ri sti cs , thi s C ourt ha s he ld tha t our re vie wis de nov o. " Unit ed S ta te s v. Barakat, 130 F. 3d 14 48, 1452 (11t h Cir. 1997 ). T he district court's fac tual finding s related to the im posit ion of sentencing enhancem ents, however , are re vie w ed onl y f or c le ar e rr or . I d. Our r eview of

the district court's departures f rom the Guidelines is subject to a slight ly

differ ent standard. I n 200 3, Congress enacted the P rosecutorial Re m ed ie s and O the r T ool s to e nd the E xpl oit at ionof Ch ildre n T oday

A ct of 200 3 (PRO TE CT Ac t). Pub. L . N o. 108-21, § 1, 117 Stat. 650 (200 3). The P ROT EC T A ct a lte re d th e standard

of r ev ie wappl ie d to m ost

c ha lle nge s to se nte nc ing departures. 18 U. S. C. § 374 2. U nder the Ac t, w e re view de novo the dist rict court's application of the Guidelines to facts in deciding whether a departure wa s ba se d onaf

ac tor that: (1 ) advanc ed

the obj ec tiv es of

f ed er al se nte nc ing pol ic y ; ( 2) wa s authorized und er 18 U .S .C. § 3553 (b) (deta iling fac tors to be consid ered at sentencing); and (3) was j ustified bythe fac ts of the case. 18 U. S. C.A . § 3742(e); United States v. Pre ssley , 345 F. 3d 12 05, 1209 n .1 (11th Cir. 2003 ). O therwise, w e giv e "du e de fe re nc e" to the dis tr ic t c our t' s a ppl ic at ionof

the gui de lin es to the fa ct s. 18 U . S. C. A . § 37 42( e) . W e al so g ive "d ue r eg ar d to the opp ortun ity of the12

district court to judge the credibility of the w itnesses," and we acce pt the court's fin di ng s o f fac t u nl es s t he y are cl earl y

erro ne ou s. Id . W e next address the district court's upward departures from the Guidelines range. Bef

ore departing from

the Guidelines, a

district court m

ust determ ine that ana ggr av at ing f

ac tor e xis ts tha t pl ac es the c as e out sid e of the G uid el ine s' he ar tland. U nit ed

S ta te s v. Me lvi n, 187 F . 3d 1 316, 132 0 ( 11th C ir . 199 9) ( ci tin g K oon v. U nit ed

S ta te s, 518 U . S. 81, 98 ( 1996 )) . Whe the r a ca se is suf fi ci en tly unus ua l t o f

al l ou tsi de of

the he ar tland i s de te rm ine d larg el y by c om pari son w ith other Guidelines cases. Id. "Bec ause the district courts see so m any Guidelines ca se s, dis tr ic t c our

ts h av e anins tit

uti ona l a dvanta ge ove r ap pe llate c ourts i n determ ining whether

a ca se is outsi de the heartland, and thus their decisions are en tit le d to sub stanti al de fe re nc e. " I d. A c ourt m ay

depart on the basis of a fac tor enum erate d in the Guidelines un le ss th e Gui de li ne s al read y tak e th e fac to r in to acco un t. Ko on , 51 8 U.S. at 96 . If a fac tor is already

taken into account bythe applicable guidelin e, the court m ay depart only

if the fa ctor is "present to an exceptional degree or in som e other w ay m akes the case distingui shable from an ordinary

case where the f

actor is present. " Id .Amedeo' s offe nse of c onv i ct i o n , 2 1 U.S .C. § 859, is an offense for whic h § 3D1.2(d) 6 re qu ir e s g ro up ingof

mul tip le c ounts . 13 Inthi s c as e, a dj udi catin g th e upw ar d de part ur es de pe nds he av ily

on de te rm ini ng whic h of

A m ed eo ' s c ondu ct

pr ope rl y sho uld be c onsi de re d f

or se nte nc ing pur

pose s. T he dis tr ic t c ourt w as f ac ed w iththe dif

fi cu lt ta sk o f de lin eatin g th e re le vant c ondu ct pur suant t o U . S. S. G . § 1B 1. 3. T ha t se ct ion provides, in relevant part, that adj ustm ents shall be determ ined on th e basis of: (1 )( A ) al l a ct s and o m iss ion s c om m itt ed , a ide d, abe tte d, c ouns el ed , co m m an de d, ind

uc ed , pr oc ur ed , or

w ill fu lly c au se d by

the de fe ndant; * * * * (2 ) sol el y w ithr es pe ct

to of fe nse s of ac hara ct er

f or w hic h § 3 D 1. 2( d) w oul d r equir e gr oupi ng o f m ult ipl e co unt s, a ll ac ts and o m iss ion s de sc ri be d insub div isi ons (1 )( A ) an d ( 1) (B ) ab ove that w er e part of the sam e co ur se of

c ondu ct or c om m on s ch em e or

plan a s th e of

fe nse of c onvi ct ion ; ( 3) a ll harm that r es ult ed

f ro m the a ct s and o m iss ion s 6 specified in subs ections (a)(1) and (a)( 2) above, and all harm that wa s th e o bjec t o f su ch act s an d o m is si on s . . . W e rev ie w th e d is tri ctco ur t's ap pl ic at io n o f § 1 B1 .3(a ) to th e fac ts forcle ar erro r. United States v. White, 335 F.3d 1314, 1319 (11th Cir. 2003). H er e, the dis tr ic t c ourt f

ound that the e ve nts de pic te d onthe vid eo ta pe in early Novem ber, the events around Rozelle's death in January , and the acts that too k pl ac e "i n be tw ee n" al l c onst itu te d asin gle "c om m on s ch em e or

plan, " and thu s w er e re le vant c ondu ct w ith in the m eanin g of

§ 1B 1. 3. T he se a ct s, it

state d,14

w er e lin ke d by

A m ed eo ' s on goi ng m oti ve : t o pr ovi de inc ap ac itatin g dr ugs to R o z e l l e f o r th e p u r p o s e o f t a k i n g s e x u a l a d v a n t a g e o f h i m. Ina sse ssi ng whe the r co nduc t i s r el ev an t f or pur pose s of § 1B 1. 3, w e loo k to the "s im ilari ty , r eg ulari ty , and t em por al pr oxi m ity " b etw ee n th e of fe nse of co nvi ct ionand the unc harg ed c ondu ct . U nit ed

S ta te s v. Ma xw el l, 34 F . 3d 1 006, 1011 ( 11th C ir . 199 4) . "[ W ] e m ust c onsi de r ' w he the r the re are dis tin ct ive sim ilarities betwee n the offense of conviction and th e re m ote conduct th at signal that they are part of a singl e course of c ondu ct rather than isolated, unrelated ev en ts tha t ha

ppe n on ly

to be sim ilar in k ind . ' " I d. ( quot ing U nit ed S ta te s v. Sy ke s, 7 F . 3d 1 331, 133 6 ( 7thCi r. 199 3) ). T he c om m en tary to § 1B 1. 3 of

the G uid el ine s pr ovi de s: " [I ] n adr ug d istri but ionc as e, quanti tie s and ty pe s of dr ugs not spe ci fi ed in the c ount

of c onvi ct ionare to be inc lud ed in de te rm ini ng the of fe nse le ve l i f the y

w er e part

of the sam e co ur se of

c ondu ct or part of ac om m on schem e or plan as the count of conviction ." The Guidelin es com

m entary m akes clear , how ever, that § 1B1.3 is design ed to t ak e ac co unt

of "a pa tte rnof

m isc ondu ct

that c an not

r ea dil y be br oke n in to discrete, identifiable units that are m eaningful for purposes o f sentencing." U . S. S. G . § 1B 1. 3, c m

t. , ba ck gr ound . T hus, "whe n il le ga l c ondu ct doe s e xis t i n 'discrete, identifiable units ' apar t from the offense of c onvi ction, the G uidelin es15

an tic ipate ase parate c harg e fo r suc h c ondu ct . " M ax w el l, 34 F . 3d at 10 11 n . 32 (quotin g United States v. Hahn, 960 F.2d 903, 909 (9th Cir. 1992)) (internal quot at ionm ar

ks o m itt ed ). O the r ci rc uit s have not ed that a pr ef er en ce f or se parate charges fa cilitates a m ore uniform application of the Guidelines and m inim izes co nst itu tio na l c onc er

ns. S ee , e . g. , H ah n, 960 F . 2d at 90 9; Unit ed S ta te s v. W ood, 924 F. 2d 3 99, 404 ( 1st

Ci r. 199 1) ( "T he goa l of the pr ovi sio n, w e thi nk, is fo r the se nte nc e to r ef

le ct a cc ur at el y

the se ri ousn es s of

the c ri m e ch ar ge d, but

not to im pose a penalty

for the char ged crim e based on unrelated crim inal activity .") . W e begin with considering th e occasions on which Am edeo provided il legal dr ugs to R oz el le . S ee Ma xw el l, 34 F . 3d at 10 11 ( in c onvi ct ionf or c onsp ir ac y

to dis tr ibu te dil au did , pr ovi sio n of dif fe re nt dru gs t o di ff

er en t i ndi vid

ua ls w as not re le vant c ondu ct ); U nit ed S ta te s v. L awre nc e, 915 F . 2d 4 02, 408 ( 8thCi r. 199 0) (f ind ing de fe ndant' s c oc ai ne and m ar ij uanasa le s w er e part of sam e co ur se of co nduc t w he re de fe ndant h ad a t l ea st o ne c om

m on c ust om er

f or both ty pe s of d r u g s ) ; U n i t e dS t a t e s v . S a n t i a g o , 9 0 6 F . 2 d8 6 7 , 8 7 2 - 7 3 ( 2 dC i r . 1 9 9 0 ) ( s a me co ur se of c ondu ct f ound w he re de fe ndant s old

dr ugs to s am e pur ch as er ). F ir st, Co stanz o te sti fi ed

that he obs er

ve d R oz el le and A m ed eo sm oke m ar ij uana together on a half-dozen or fe we r occa sions . He stated that it appeared that Am edeo had provid ed the m arij uana on som e occasions, and that Rozelle a lso had16

brough t m arij uana "a couple of tim es." Costanzo further testified that he saw Ro ze lle and A m ed eo c onsum e co ca ine tog ethe r onc e or tw ic e, but

that he did

not kn ow wh o s up pl ie d i t. Co stanz o' s f

ri en d W ils on a lso obs er

ve d A m ed eo and R oz el le use m ar ij uana tog ethe r; on b othoc ca sio ns, Ro ze lle pr ovi de d th e m ar ij uana . W ils on d id n ot w itn es s any

c oc ai ne use on R oz el le ' s part . Se ve ra l othe r w itn es se s, hig h sc hool and c oll eg e fr ie nds of Ro ze lle , sa id the y part ic ipate d in

or obs er ve d sh ar ed

m ar ij uanause that i nc lud ed Ro ze lle and A m ed eo . T his dr

ug u se too k pl ac e in the sum m er and f al l of 200 1. T he te sti m ony collectively

indicated that bot h Rozelle and A m edeo, at differe nt tim es, pr ovid ed the m ar ij uana . T he se f

ri en ds d id n ot h av e know le dge of A m ed eo pr ovi din g Ro ze lle w ithc oc ai ne . T he ir te sti m ony

a lso e sta bli she d th at

Ro ze lle e xte nsi ve ly used m arij uana, c ocaine, X anax, and oth er pills in hig h school , bef ore he m et Am edeo, and in th e college dorm itory outsid e of A m edeo's presence . Rozelle' s college room

m ate testified that Rozelle stay ed at A m edeo's ap art m en t o n wee ke nd s an d o fte n re tu rn edwit h m ari juan a an d o ccas io na ll y

pi ll s. A nothe r co lle ge f

ri en d te sti fi ed

that R oz el le ha d ac oupl e of dif fe re nt s our ce s f

or pil ls, inc lud ing A m ed eo .Whe the r t he e vid e nc e e sta

bli sh e d th at A me de o in de e d d id s o is a qu e sti on we a dd re ss i n 7 sections I I (F -H), inf

ra. 17 Me gan S te pane k, Ro ze lle ' s gi rl fr ie nd, te sti fi ed that i n late O ct obe r she sm oke d m ar ij uanaa t A m ed eo ' s a partm en t w ithA m ed eo and R oz el le , and tha t bo th m en had supp lied som e of the drug. She also stated that Rozelle had given her an A tiv anpil l tha t he sa id w as A m ed eo ' s, and tha t i t m ad e he r los e he r m em or y and feel tire d. S tepanek testified that Rozelle told her that som etim es he and Am edeo used cocaine and ecstasy together. M oreover, on one occasion sh e sawAm edeo give Rozelle m oney

to buym arij uana. Rozelle' s m other testified that she susp ected that Rozelle wa s "high " when he and A m ed eo vis ite d he r on T hanksg ivi ng, and tha t sh e tol d he r ex -husband o f her concer

ns. N o specific drugs wer e re fere nced. O ne friend testified that he had he ar d th at

Ro ze lle use d c oc ai ne aro und T hanksg ivi ng, but did not li nk this use to Am ed eo . T ak ing int o a cc ount

the appl ic ab le c as e lawand the dis tr ic t c ourt' s f ind ing s, we conclude that here, the relevant conduct is lim ited to tho se occasions on which Am edeo provided p ills and cocaine to Rozelle for the purpose of taking sexual advantage of him . T he district court found th at circ um stantial evidence 7 supp orting th is schem e included the testim ony by one friend of Roze lle that18

Rozelle had said that at unspecified tim es, A m edeo had given hi m unspecified pil ls tha t ha d " knoc ke d hi m out . " T he c ourt a lso r el ie d onS te pane k' s te sti m ony that R oz el le tol d he r that the A tiv anhe gave he r se ve ra l day s e ar lie r, on the w ee ke nd o f O ct obe r 26- 28, be lon ge d to A m ed eo . T hus, the c ourt f ound , "the ev ide nc e es ta

bli she s th at

Mr . A m ed eo f

ull y und er sto od tha t the c om

bin at ionof the se pil ls, A tiv an , c oc ai ne , ult im at el y ha d th e ef

fe ct of sim ply kno ck ing the recipient out . . .". This com m on plan o r schem e excludes m ost of the shared drug use, which inv olv ed m ar ij uana . T he m ar ij uanause too k pl ac e w ithnum er ous dif fe re nt indiv iduals, and was not uniform ly suppl ied by

Am edeo. R ozelle often provided the dr ug tha t he , A m ed eo , and/ or the ir f ri en ds s m oke d. Mo re to the poi nt, the m ar ij uanaw as not

li nke d to w ha t the dis tr ic t c ourt de em ed the m oti ve be hin d A m ed eo ' s sc he m e: to take se xua l a dvanta ge of Ro ze lle . T he dis tr ic t c ourt di d no t fi nd, and the r ec or d do es not ind ic at e, that A m ed eo use d m ar ij uanato atte m pt t o incapacitate Roze lle. Mor eo ve r, the m ar ij uanadis tr ibu tio n or igi na lly w as c harg ed

se parate ly

in the indictm ent in the form of five counts of distribu tion o f m arij uana to a m inor, 21 U.S.C. § 8 59 ; t he se co un ts were d is m is se d a s a p artof Am ed eo 's p le a b arg ai n. Whil e w e do n ot h old

c at eg or ic al ly

that su chse parate ly

c harg ed c ondu ct c an not beSection 5K2.0 per mits upward depa

rtures " in the exceptional case in which there is present 8 a c ir c ums tanc e tha

t th e Commis si on has no t id e nti fi e d in the guid e lin e s b ut t

hat ne ve rt

he le ss i s rele vant to deter

mining the a

ppropriate sentenc e." At s en t en ci n g , the district court did not sp e c if ic a lly c ite thi s p ro vis ion , b ut i ts e mph a sis on the e xtra or din ary natur e of Am e de o' s r e latio ns hip with Roz elle makes clea

r t hat § 5K2.0 i s the re levant provision. Moreove r, neither party disputes th atth e d i s tri ctco urti n t en d edt o i n v o k e t h i s Gu i d el i n e a s an al t ern at i v e h o l d i n g. 19 de em ed "r el ev an t c ondu ct " f

or se nte nc ing pur

pose s un de r U . S. S. G . § 1B 1. 3, it doe s su gge st, in the se c ir cum stanc es , that A m ed eo ' s m ar ij uanac onsum pti on w ith m ino rs w as suf

fi ci en tly dis tin ct f ro m the of fe nse of c onvi ct ionthat i t w ar

rante d a se pa rat e ch arg e. See M ax well , 34 F.3d at 1 01 1 n .32 . W e now turn to the specific adj ustm ents and departures that Am edeo ch al le nge s. B. Abuse of

tr ust Am ed eo co nt en ds th atth e d is tri ctco ur t erredin en ha nc in g h is sen te nc e two le ve ls f or abuse of tr ust pur suant t o U . S. S. G . § 3B 1. 3. T he c ourt st at ed that i n th e ev en t tha t this e nhanc em en t di d no t ho ld u p onappe al , the re w as an " al te rn at ive ba ck up g ro und" f

or inc re as ing the se nte nc e: that the "f ac tua l sc en ar io i s so ex tr ao rd inary

and unusu al that . . . it

c le ar ly oug ht t o be ale git im at e ba sis f or de part ur e, " p re sum ab ly

und er U . S. S. G . § 5K2. 0. 8 Se ct ion3B 1. 3 pr ovi de s, in re le vant p ar t: "I f the de fe ndant a

buse d apos iti on of pub lic or pr ivate tr ust , or use d aspe ci al ski ll, in a m an ne r that si gni fi cantl y20

facilitated the com

m issio n or concealm ent of the offense, increase by 2 levels." T he appl ic at ionnot e to this pr ovi sio n st at es , "F or thi s e nhanc em en t t o a

ppl y , the posi tio n of

pub lic or pr ivate tr ust m ust have c ontri but ed

in som e sig nif

ic an t w ay to facilitating the com

m issio n or concealm ent of the offense. " W e have interprete d th e Gui de li ne 's re fere nc e to "t he off en se " t o m ean th e o ffen se of c on vi ct io n. Baraka t, 130 F . 3d at 14 55. Th e d i s t r i c tc o u rtd e t e rmi n e dth a tAme d e o u s e dth e " f a c a d e " o f th e a t t o rn e ycl ie nt r el at ion shi p to c onc ea l hi s dr ug u se w ithRo ze lle . I t he ld tha t i n li ght of Ro ze lle ' s a ge and d ep en de nc e, Ro ze lle ' s pare nts ha d ar el at ion shi p of pr ivate tr ust w ithA m ed eo in ad dit ionto an d a part f ro m the a tto rn ey -c lie nt r el at ion shi p be tw ee n R oz el le and A m ed eo . A m ed eo arg ue s th at

e nhanc em en t un de r thi s pr ovi sio n w as not appr opr ia te b e c au s e A me d e o ' s s t a tu s a s R o z e l l e ' s l aw ye r d i dn o tf a c i l i t a t e th e dr

u g c r i me de pic te d onthe vid eo . A m ed eo w as m er el y one of se ve ra l f ri en ds w ithw hom Rozelle share d drug us e. Moreover, he argues, the trust at issue here w as lim ited to h is atto rn ey -c lie nt r el at ion shi p w ithRo ze lle . T ha t r el at ion shi p w as not br ea ch ed , he c ont en ds, be ca use he c ap ab ly

r ep re se nte d R oz el le in the pr oc ee din gs fo r w hic h he ha d be enr et ai ne d.Am ed eo d o es co n t es tth i s p o i n ti nh i s re p l y b ri ef , t o n o av ai l . S ee T al l ah as s ee M em 'l R eg'l 9 Med. C t r. , 815 F.2d at 1446 n. 16 (" [A] party cannot a rgue an issue in its reply

brief that was not prese rved in its initial brief." ). 21 T his c as e doe s no t be ar

e as y appl ic at ionof

the e xa m ple s pr ovi de d inthe co m m en tary to the G uid el ine s. S ee U . S. S. G . § 3B 1. 3 n. 1. A m ed eo ' s r el at ion shi p w ithRo ze lle and h is p ar en ts w as qua lit at ive ly dif fe re nt, tho ugh ce rt ai nly

no l es s troublin g, than that of an attorney serving as guardian who em bezzles his client's fu nd s. See id . W e ne ed not de ci de thi s is sue , how ev er . A m ed eo pos ed no t im el y

c ha lle nge to the dis tr ic t c ourt' s a lte rn at ive f ind ing , that A m ed eo ' s c ondu ct r em ove d th is situatio n from

the heartland of ca ses invo lving drug dist ribution to a m inor. Se e U. S. S. G. § 5K2.0. A ccordingly , that argum ent is waived. T allahassee Mem 'l Reg'l Me d. Ctr . v. Bowe n, 815 F.2d 1435, 1446 n. 16 (11th Cir. 1987 ). W e agre e 9 that the circum stances of A m edeo's re lationsh ip with Rozelle and his fam ily are far rem oved from

the ty pical drug dist ributer-custom er profile. E xtraordinary fa ct s in cl ude A m ed eo ' s part ic ipatio n inand c onc ea lm en t of the sam e ty

pe of crim inal condu ct for which he was r etained to defend Rozelle; his intertwined pr of es sio na l and s oc ia l r el at ion shi ps w ithRo ze lle and R oz el le ' s pare nts ; and, not least, the r epeated m isrepresentations to Rozelle's parents concerning Rozelle' s22

(and his own) substance abuse. W e see no re ason to di sturb the dis trict court's al te rn at ive r

uli ng, and w e af

fi rm the e nhanc em en t purs uant t o § 5 K 2. 0. C. V uln er ab le vic tim T he dis tr ic t c ourt a

ppl ie d atw o- le ve l e nhanc em en t t o A m ed eo ' s se nte nc e on the gr ound

that he kne wor

sho uld have kno w n th at

Ro ze lle w as avul ne ra

ble victim , pursuant to U. S. S. G. § 3A1.1(b)( 1). It found that Rozelle wa s predispos ed to accept incapacitating drugs, that Am edeo knew of this we akness, and that A m ed eo gave him

suc h dr ugs to r en de r him

phy sic al ly

vul ne ra ble to a no nc on se ns ua l s ex ua l en co un te r. The district court' s application o f § 3A1. 1 presents a m ixed questi on of law an d f ac t, w hic h w e re vie wde nov o. U nit ed S ta te s v. A rg ue da s, 86 F . 3d 1 054, 1057 (11th Cir. 1996). "T he district court's determ ination of a victim 's

' vul ne ra bil ity ' is, how ev er , e sse nti al ly af ac tua l f ind ing to w hic h w e giv e due de fe re nc e. " I d. T he c om m en tary to § 3A 1. 1( b) pr ovi de s th at that su bse ct ionappl ie s to "o ffen se s i nv ol vi ng an un us ua ll y vu ln erab le vi ct im

in whi ch th e d efen da nt kn ows or shoul d have known of the victim 's unusual vu lnerability ." It cites the exam ples of a fr aud case in w hich the defendant m arketed an ineff ective cance r cure or aWe do not sugge s t t hat eve ry drugaddict is a vulner able victim within the meaningof § 10 3A 1. 1. Se e Un ite d St ate s v. Pav a o, 94 8 F .2 d 7 4, 78 (1 st C ir . 1 99 1) , a nd c a se s c ite d. Ap ply

ingthi s e nh anc e me nt i s h ig hly

fa c t- sp e c if

ic and mus t tak e int o a c c ount t he tot a lity

of the c ir c ums tanc e s. U n it e d St ate s v . F r an k , 2 4 7 F . 3 d 1 2 5 7 , 1 2 6 0 ( 1 1 th

Ci r . 2 0 0 1 ) . Inth is c a s e , th e unu s u a l a nd disturbing nature of Amedeo' s relationship with Roz elle – encompa ssing both lega l repre sentation on drugchar g es and illeg al drug use – remove s this c ase f rom the ordinar

y . Cf. Pavao, 948 F .2d at 78-79 (" in d i v i du al facts about [the victim] . . . combined with those of the c rime" supported vulnera ble victim finding) . 23 ro bb ery cas e in whi ch th e d efen da nt sel ect eda di sabl edvi ct im . U.S.S.G. § 3A1 .1(b ) cmt. n .2. Apply ing du e defe rence to the court's initial findin g of Rozelle' s vul ne ra bil ity , w e ag re e that the re w as suf fi ci en t e vid en ce to supp ort the c onc lus ion that Rozelle's drug addiction rendered him unusu ally

vulnerable to Am edeo's supp ly ing hi m

cocaine. Cf. United State s v. E vans, 272 F.3d 1069, 1095 (8th Cir. 2001 ) (a ppl y ing § 3A 1. 1 w he re de fe ndant e nc our ag ed and c ontri but ed

to dr ug addiction in Mann Act c ase); U nited States v. Br agg, 207 F.3d 394, 399 (7th Cir. 2 0 0 0 ) ( ap p l yi n g § 3 A 1 . 1 w h e r e d e f e n d a n te mp l o ye r

f r au du l e n t l y r e c r

u i t e dv i c t i ms fr om hom el es s sh el te r, w he re pos sib ly the y w er e se ek ing he lp w iththe ir dr ug pr obl em s) . A m ed eo , by vir tue of his r ep re se ntatio n of

Ro ze lle in the dr

ug- 10 related legal m atters and his conversation with Rozelle's therapist (who inform ed A m ed eo that R oz el le ha d a“ se ri ous pr obl em ”) , c er ta inl y w as aw ar e of

thi sFor the re asons discussed in section I I (F ), infra, we do not ba se our holding on the district 11 court' s determination that Amede o deliberat el y re n d ere d Roz elle vulner able to sexual assault by administering drug s. The sentenc ing enhanc ement pursuant to § 3A1.1 can be aff irmed solely

on the basis of the district c ourt' s other finding s. 24 pr ed isp osi tio n. A cc or din gly , w e af fi rm thi s se nte nc e en hanc em en t, a lbe it on 11 som ewha t di ff

er en t gr ound s th anthe dis tr ic t c ourt. D. Obstruction of Justi ce Ne xt, A m edeo challenges the district court's im posit ion of a two-level up wa rd ad

ju s t m en tfo r o b s t ru ct i o n o f ju s t i ce p u rs u an tt o U.S .S .G. § 3 C1 .1 . We rece ntly explained the different levels of defe rence accorded a district court's ap pli catio n of

thi s e nhanc em en t. U nit ed S ta te s v. Banks, 347 F . 3d 1 266, 126 8- 69 (1 1thCi r. 200 3) ( ci tin g U nit ed S ta te s v. W ill iam s, 340 F . 3d 1 231, 124 0- 41 ( 11th Ci r. 200 3) ). Whe re the dis tr ic t c ourt m ust m ak e a part ic ulari ze d a sse ssm en t of the cr ed ibi lity

or de m eanor

of the de fe ndant, w e ac co rd spe ci al de fe re nc e to the district court's credibility determ ination s, and w e re view f or clear err or. Id. at 1269 , and c as es c ite d. "C onve rs el y , w he re the de fe ndant' s c re dib ili ty or de m eanor is n ot at i ssu e, and the de fe ndant' s c ondu ct c anbe c le ar ly

se t f orth i n de ta ile d, non- co nc lus or

y f ind ing s, w e re vie wde nov o th e dis tr ic t c our t' s a ppl ic at ionof

the enhancem ent." I d. T he latter standard of r eview a pplies to this case.25

Sect io n 3 C1 .1 p ro vi de s, i n re le va nt pa rt, t ha t an up wardad jus tm en t o f two le ve ls i s a ppr opr ia te w he re the de fe ndant w ill fu lly obs tr uc te d or im pe de d, or atte m pte d to obs tr

uc t or im pe de , the a dm ini str at ionof j ust ic e dur ing the c our se of th e in ve st ig at io n, p ro se cu ti on , or s en te nc in g o f th e in st an t o ffen se of c on vi ct io n. U. S. S. G. § 3C1.1. The obstructive conduct m ust relate to (i) the def

endant's of fen se of c on vi ct io n a nd an y rel ev an t co nd uc t o r (i i) a clo se ly relat edoff en se . Id. Po te nti al ly

r el ev an t e xa m

ple s of obs tr uc tiv e co nduc t i nc lud e: (a) t hr eat en in g, i nt im id at in g, o r ot he rwis e u nl awfu ll y in flu en ci ng a . .

. w itn es s . . . dir ec tly

or ind ir ec tly , or

a tte m pti ng t o do so; * * * * (d ) de str oy ing or

c onc ea lin g or

dir ec tin g or

pr oc ur ing anothe r pe rs on to destroy or conceal e vidence that is m aterial to an off icial inv es tig at ionor

j udi ci al pr oc ee din g ( e. g. , shr ed din g adoc um en t or destroy ing ledg ers upon learning th at an officia l investig ation has co m m en ce d or

is ab out to co m m en ce ), or

a tte m pti ng t o do so; * * * * (g) providing a m aterially false statem ent to a law enforcem ent officer that si gni fi cantl y

obs tr uc te d or im pe de d th e of

fi ci al inv es tig at ionor pr os ecu ti on of t he in st an t o ffen se . . . . Id . a t c m t. 4. T he dis tr ic t c ourt f

ound that a ft er A m ed eo und er sto od tha t R oz el le ha d di ed , he "s et int o m oti on a

w el l thoug ht o ut p lan to obs tr uc t j ust ic e in this c as e. " I n it s finding s, it pointed to th e following pieces of evidence: Fir st, A m edeo m isi nf orm ed the pol ic e that he w as in a ro m an tic r el at ion shi p w ithRo ze lle , and h eL at er i nth e s en t en ci n g h ea ri n g, th e d i s tri ctc o u r t ap p ea re d t o fo cu s s o l el y

o nAm ed eo 's 12 mis re pr e se ntatio ns to O ff ic e r S inn ott . Se e U. S.S. G. § 3 C1. 1, c mt. 4( g ). We a re sk e pti c a l th at th e se state me nts su ff

ic e to gro un d the e nh anc e me nt in light of the re qu ir e me nt that a dis tr ic t c ourt mus t explain how a misrepre sentation s ig n if ic a ntl y obstructed or

impeded the investig ation or prose cution of the offe nse. United States v. Uscinski, --- F.3d -
--- , (NO. 03- 11377), 2004 WL1066605, at *2 (1 1 th C i r. M ay 1 2 , 2 0 0 4 ). Al th o u gh h er e th e di s tri ct co urt ex p re s s l y fo u n dt h a t A m ed eo 's misrepre sentations "did, in fa ct, obstruct the investig ation," it did not explain how they did so. Nor i s th e ob s tru ct i o n ap p ar en t fr o m th e re co rd . S ee i d . Ac co rd i n gl y , we d ec l i n e to b a s e A m e d eo 's enhanc ement on his misrepre sentations to Sinnot t. We may aff irm the enh an ce m en t on other g rounds rev ea led by

the re cord, how ever . See Power s v. United States, 996 F.2d 1121, 1123- 24 (11th Cir. 1993). 26 req ue st edth atCo st an zo li e to supp or t t hi s cl ai m if i nt erv ie wedby the po li ce. Se co nd, w he n C ost an zo , W ils on, and A m ed eo r et ur ne d to A m ed eo ' s a

partm en t, the y "s an iti ze d" it by

w as hin g c oc ai ne f

ro m the c ount er , r em ovi ng tra sh, and hid ing dr ug p ar ap he rn al ia . T hir d, A m ed eo li ed , and a ske d C ost an zo to lie , about Co stanz o' s pr es en ce in the apartm en t. F ourth, A m ed eo li ed to the pol ic e ab out w he the r the tr as h ha d be enc oll ec te d and thr ow n aw ay . T he dis tr ic t c ourt a lso fo und that the e ff

ort t o ob str

uc t j ust ic e co nti nue d th ro ugh the se nte nc ing he ar ing , in tha t A m ed eo stu ck

to his sto ry

about be ing in a co nse nsua l se xua l r el at ion shi p with Rozelle in order

to "cover up and negate" the seriousness of the crim e. 12 As an initial m atter, we consider whether any of the incidents described supr a ar e of

the natur e of

obs tr uc tio n of j ust ic e as se t f

or th i n § 3 C1 . 1. A t a m ini m um , it appe ar s th at

A m ed eo ' s ur gin g C ost an zo to lie about his pr es en ce in the apartm en t and m isr ep re se nt h is r el at ion shi p w ithRo ze lle to the pol ic e co uld beAcc ording ly , we ne ed not re ach the question of whethe r the other co n du ct re fer ence d by 13 the district court c onstitut ed obstruction of justice. The c ourt expli citly

declined to take a position on the question of whe ther a pplication of 14 § 3C 1.1 is appropriate wher e the de fenda nt's a cts of obstruction take place at a time that pre cede s an o ff ic ia l inve sti g atio n, but " [w]he n a de fe nd ant u nd e rs tand s th at a

po lic e inv e sti g atio n is a

bo ut t o 27 de em ed an un law fu l a tte m

pt t o " unl aw fu lly

inf lue nc [e ] " a

w itn es s w ith in the m eanin g of

§ 3C 1. 1, c m

t. 4( a) . Whil e the G uid el ine s c om m en tary doe s no t 13 define "unlawful influence, " our cases have applied this provi sion u nder re as ona bly c om para ble c ir cum stanc es . S ee , e . g. , U nit ed S ta te s v. Ru dis ill , 187 F. 3d 1 260, 126 3- 64 ( 11th C ir . 199 9) ( de fe ndant e nc our ag ed c o- de fe ndant and pot en tia l w itn es s to f

le e fr om lawe nf or ce m en t auth or iti es ); U nit ed S ta te s v. G ar ci a, 13 F . 3d 1 464, 147 1 ( 11th C ir . 199 4) ( de fe ndant a ske d w itn es s no t t o speak with FBI ). A m ed eo c ont en ds tha t the c ondu ct that the dis tr ic t c ourt de em ed obs tr uc tiv e to okpl ace a fte r Ro zel le 's d eat h a nd be fo re t he vi de ot ap e was di sc ov ered . He co nte nds that the re is no e vid en ce that he obs tr uc te d th e inv es tig at ionof the instant o ffense of convictio n, i. e. the distribu tion o f the line of coca ine to Rozelle, be ca use that i nve sti ga tio n di d no t be ginunt il af te r the dis co ve ry

of the vid eo ta

pe several day s later. In other w ords, he contends that the inv estigation into Rozelle's death shou ld be treated as distinct from the investig ation of drug us e that ensued af te r the vid eo ta

pe w as dis co ve re d and tha t l ed to his c onvi ct ion . 14be implemented." 28

T he f ac tua l r ec or d do es not

pinpoi nt the ti m ing of

A m ed eo ' s r el ev an t state m en ts t o C ost an zo , oth er than th at the y oc curr ed a ft er January 6. E ve n if these statem ents did precede the discovery of the videotape, w e think th at under the f ac tua l c ir cum stanc es pr es en te d he re , the dis tin ct ionbe tw ee n in ve sti ga tio ns i s artificial and inapt . Apposite cases fr om other circuits dem onstrate that condu ct occurring before a

form al investigatio n into the offense of c onvi ction m ay suppo rt a § 3C 1. 1 e nhanc em en t i f it fo re se ea bly r el at es to that of

fe nse . I n U nit ed

S ta te s v. N orm an , 129 F . 3d 1 393 (1 0thCi r. 199 7) , the de fe ndant c au se d ac ar a cc ide nt, and w hil e aw ai tin g th e pol ic e, a tte m pte d to c onc ea l dr

ugs. I d. a t 13 96. E ve ntu al ly he w as c onvi ct ed

of dr ug and f ir earm s of

fe nse s, and arg ue d a ga ins t the appl ic at ionof § 3C1.1 on the groun d that "the onl y investig ation he anticipated was an unrelated inv es tig at ionof

the c ar a cc ide nt. " I d. a t 13 99. T he c ourt di sa gr ee d, hol din g th at a car accident investigatio n routinelyinvol ves inqu iries into whether either driver w as "unde r the inf

lue nc e" and a sse ssm en t of c ar s' loc at ion s and c ondi tio ns, a s w el l as possib le inventory ing of cars' contents. Id. It concluded that the defendant's ac tio ns w er e "s uf

fi ci en tly r el at ed to the of fe nse f or w hic h he w as ult im at el y co nvi ct ed . " I d.29

The E ighth Circuit upheld a § 3C1.1 adj ustm ent under sim ilar ci rc um stanc es . U nit ed

S tate s v. D ortc h, 923 F . 2d 6 29 ( 8thCi r. 199 1) . I n D ortc h, the defendant threw cocaine out of the passenger window af ter being stopp ed for a traff ic offense. Id. at 631. T he court rej ected his argum ent that the offense under inv es tig at iona t the ti m e of his c ondu ct

w as m er el y

atr af fi c vio la tio n, not

adr ug of fe nse , not ing that " [t ] he of fe nse of c onvi ct ionm ay

or m ay not be the of fe nse whi ch in it ia ll y

att ract edth e at te nt io n o f th e p ol ic e." Id . at 6 32 , andcas es cit ed . Se e al so Unit ed

S ta te s v. G ac nik , 50 F . 3d 8 48, 852 ( 10th C ir . 199 5) ( cr iti ci zi ng D ortc h ho ldi ng a s to o br oa d, but a cknow le dgi ng tha t § 3C 1. 1 e nhanc em en t i s ap pr opr ia te w he re c ondu ct r el ie d up on t o su

ppor t e nhanc em en t r el at es to cr im e of convictio n). Si m ilarl y , the ini tia l m atte r inv es tig at ed r el at ed dir ec tly and f or es ee ab ly

to the offense of c onvi ction in th is case. D etective Sinnott searched A m edeo's ap ar tm en t and i nte rv ie w ed

him in the c ont ex t of

inv es tig at ing the c au se of Ro ze lle ' s de ath. I t w as r ea sona bly f or es ee ab le that su chan in ve sti ga tio n w oul d en co m pa ss i lle ga l dr

ug u se , e spe ci al ly

be ca use S inn ott

a lm ost im m ed ia te ly discovered evidence of drugs and drug paraphernalia in the apar tm ent. Mor eover, giv enthat R oz el le die d inA m ed eo ' s a partm en t, it

is log ic al that the inv es tig at ion int o th e de ath w oul d e nc om pa ss the r el at ion shi p be tw ee n th e tw o m enand the30

presence of any

other potential witnesses. Sure ly som eone with A m edeo's expe ri en ce a s ac ri m ina l de fe nse a tto rn ey w oul d f or es ee the sc ope of

the investig ation int o Rozelle's death. I ndeed, A m edeo's instructions to Costanzo in di cat e th atAm ed eo an ti ci pa te d t he ve ry di rect io n o f th e in ve st ig at io n. Ac cordingly , w e conclude that the enhancem ent pursuant to § 3C1.1 wa s proper. E . A cc ep tanc e of

Re spon sib ili ty Ne xt, A m edeo contends th at the district court err oneous ly deprived him

of a th ree- le ve l d own wardad

jus tm en t fo r acc ep ta nc e o f res po ns ib il it y . U.S.S.G. § 3E 1. 1( a) pr ovi de s: " If

the de fe ndant c le ar ly

de m onstrate s a cc ep tanc e of responsib ility

for his offense, decre ase the offe nse level by 2 levels." M oreover, the of fe nse le ve l m ay

be de cr ea se d by

an a ddi tio na l l ev el if the de fe ndant qua lif

ie s f or ade cr ea se und er

sub se ct ion( a) , the of fe nse le ve l de te rm ine d pr ior to the ope ratio n of

sub se ct ion( a) is level 16 or greater, and upon m otion of the governm ent stating th at the de fe ndant h as a ssi ste d auth or iti es in the inv es tig at ionor pr ose cu tio n of

his ow n m isc ondu ct

by ti m el y not if y ing auth or iti es of his int en tio n to e nte r a ple a of gui lty , the re by

pe rm itt ing the gove rn m en t t o avoi d pr ep ar ing f or tr ia l and p er

m itt ing the go ve rn m en t an d t he co ur t t o a ll oc at e th ei r res ou rces effi ci en tl y . . . Id. at § 3B1.1(b). W e re vie wthe dis tr ic t c ourt' s de te rm inatio n of a cc ep tanc e of

r es pons ibi lity on ly for cl ear e rro r. Uni te d S ta te s v . Dod d, 1 11 F.3d 86 7, 8 70 (11 th Cir . 19 97 ).31

"Adis tr ic t c ourt' s de te rm inatio n th at ade fe ndant i s no t e nti tle d to a cc ep tanc e of re spon sib ili ty

w ill not be se t a sid e unl es s th e fa ct s inthe r ec or d c le ar ly e sta bli sh that a defendant has acce pted personal respon sibili ty ." United States v. Sawy er, 180 F.3d 131 9, 1323 (11th Cir. 1999 ). The Guidelin es provide, "Conduct resulting in an enhancem ent under § 3C1.1 (O bstructing or Im peding the Adm inistration of Justice) ordinarily indicates that the defendant has not acce pted respons ibilityfor his crim inal condu ct." U . S. S. G . § 3E 1. 1, c m

t. n. 4; s ee a lso A rg ue da s, 86 F . 3d at 10 59- 60 ( ad j ustm en t f

or ac ce ptanc e of

r es pons ibi lity

not appr opr ia te w he re de fe ndant r ep eate dly m ad e m at er ia lly

f al se state m en ts t o auth or iti es and d istri ct c ourt, r es ult ing in en hanc em en t f

or obs tr uc tio n of j ust ic e) . I n li ght

of our a ff irm an ce of

the enhancem ent for obstruction o f j ustice, A m edeo would be entitled to an ac ce ptanc e of

r es pons ibi lity

a dj ustm en t on ly

if thi s w er e ane xtr ao rd inary c as e. I d. at § 3C 1. 1, c m

t. n. 4. The district court explicitly found that th is case w as not exception al as com pared to other cases involvin g obst ruction of justice, and denied Am edeo's m oti on f or adownw ar d a dj ustm en t. I t no te d th at the m isr ep re se ntatio ns co nc er nin g A m ed eo ' s r el at ion shi p w ithRo ze lle w er e "thoug htf ull y c onc ei ve d andAs dis c us se d in fr a , th e c ourt ba se d it s d e pa

rt ur e so le ly on the No ve mbe r e ve nts . 15 32 . . . pur pose fu lly im ple m en te d, so m

uc h so that I f

ind it ha s c ont inu ed

r igh t up un ti l t he ti m e o f se nt en ci ng ." Inli ght of the se f ind ing s and o ur

sta ndard of r ev ie w , w e fi nd n o ba sis f or upsettin g the district court's decision o n this p oint. W e af firm the denial of a downwar d adjustm ent pursuant to U. S. S. G. § 3E1.1( a). F. Fa ci lit at ing c om

m iss ionof

anothe r of

fe nse The f irst basis on which the district court upwar dly departed w as the fac t that the of

fe nse of c onvi ct ionw as c om

m itt ed to fa ci lit at e a se xua l a ssa ult on Ro ze lle , pur suant t o U . S. S. G § 5K2. 9. T ha t se ct ionpr ovi de s, "I f the de fe ndant com m itted the offense in order to fac ilitate or conceal the com m issio n of another offense, the court m ay

increase the sentence above the guidelin e range to reflect the actual seriousness of the defendant's conduct." A m edeo contests the court's ten-level upwar d departure. T he dis tr ic t c ourt f

ound that A m ed eo gave Ro ze lle A tiv anin co m bin at ion w ithc oc ai ne in or de r to " knoc k [ him ] out " s o a s to "a ch ie v[ e] the e nd g oa l of having a nonconsens ual sexual encount er, " and that this h appened at least twice : on the da te of

the of fe nse of c onvi ct ion , and s ev er al w ee ks l at er a t the ti m e of Ro ze lle ' s de ath. Mo re spe ci fi ca lly , the c ourt f ound that the of

fe nse of 1533

co nvi ct ion , on N ove m

be r 11, 200 1, "w as , in fa ct , c om m itt ed f or the pur pose of fa ci lit at ing . . . ac ri m e of se xua l a ssa

ult . . . I a m pr ep ar ed to m ak e thi s f

ind ing be y ond a re as ona

ble doubt, and I do s o be ca use thi s is r ef

le ct ed on the ta pe that i s in evidence, and there is no qu estion as to what is sho wn on that tape." W e af fi rm the c ourt' s f

ind ing that the se xua l e nc ount er de pic te d onthe videotape was not consensu al. Rozelle a ppears to be uncons cious, and Am edeo's conduct du ring that vid eo segm ent indicates an intenti on to k eep Rozelle unawar e of the se xua l a ct ivi ty . E ve n if , a s A m ed eo ins ist s, he and R oz el le ha d ar om an tic relationship , this does not p reclude an unlawf ul assault if one party

wa s uncons cious and u nable to consent . Ac cordingly , w e af firm the finding th at Am ed eo sex ua ll y

ass au lt edRo zel le in th e v id eo tape d e nc ou nt er. T he dis tr ic t c ourt c le ar ly

e rr ed , how ev er , in co nc lud ing that the of fe nse of co nvi ct ionw as c om

m itt ed to fa ci lit at e the se xua l a ssa ult . T his c onc lus ionr es ts he av ily on the dis tr ic t c ourt' s f

ind ing that the se co nd and thir d se gm en ts o f the vid eo ta pe – tha t i s, the or al se x and the m ar ij uanaand c oc ai ne use – oc curr ed on th e sa m e ev en in g. Th is fin di ng do es no t ap pe ar t o b e su pp or te d b y th e ev id en ce. Fi rs t, in the se gm en t de pic tin g th e se xua l a ssa ult , A m ed eo and R oz el le are w eari ng dif fe re nt c lothe s th anin the se gm en t de pic tin g th e dr ug u se , ind ic at ing that the se ev en ts t ook pla ce a t di ff

er en t t im es . I n th e se xua l a ssa ult se gm en t, Ro ze lle and34

A m ed eo are w eari ng j eans. I n th e dr ug- use se gm en t, Ro ze lle is w eari ng s horts and a T -shirt, and Am edeo is wearing sho rts and a tank top. If , a s the district court fo und, A m ed eo gave Ro ze lle dr ugs in o rd er

to "kn oc k hi m

out , " i t se em s hi ghl y im pla usi ble that R oz el le w oul d have c hange d hi s c lothe s – o r that A m ed eo w oul d ha ve put him , w hil e unc onsc iou s, int o di ff er en t c lothe s – p ri or

to the a ssa

ult . Se co nd, nothin g onthe vid eo ta pe it se lf , i. e. ac ount er

or ati m e/ da te stam

p, es tabl is he s o r ev en su gg es ts th e te m po ral pro xi m it y

th atth e co ur t fo un d a s fa ct . T he da te of

the of fe nse of c onvi ct ion , N ove m

be r 11, 200 1, w as e sta

bli she d by Am edeo's verbal r em arks during th e drug-use segm ent. T here is no verbal or other in di cat io n o f th e ti m e o r da te of t he pre ced in g s eg m en t. Indeed, the sequence of the videotape segm ents indi cates that the sexual en co un te r oc cu rredbe fo re t he co cai ne us e th atun de rli es th e co nv ic ti on . Moreover, there w as no evidence that any Ativan, Xanax or other pills were used at the ti m e of

the vid eo ta

pe d e nc ount er , m

uc h le ss tha t A m ed eo gave the m to Ro ze lle to fa ci lit at e the se xua l a ssa ult . Ine va luatin g th is e vid en ce , a s th e gove rn m en t ur ge s, w e take int o consideration th e events of January 5-6. T he January

evidence as to A m edeo's se xua l c ont ac t w ithan un co nsc iou s R oz el le , c oupl ed w ithhis state m en ts t o hi s fr ie nds be fo re and a ft er

Ro ze lle ' s de ath, sup ports the f ind ing that A m ed eo se xua lly35

as sault ed Ro ze lle in N ove m

be r. I t do es not , how ev er , ove rc om e the la ck of evidence ty ing th e N ovem ber sexual assault to the provi sion o f pills and cocaine. The district court held as a m atter of law that a § 5K2.9 upward departure can be pr em ise d on ly

on the of fe nse of c onvi ct ion , not

on r el ev an t c ondu ct . T hus, its de part ur e pur suant t o th is s ec tio n w as ba se d so le ly on i ts f ind ing s th at

the co ca ine dis tr ibu tio n de pic te d onthe vid eo ta pe oc curr ing on o r ab out

N ove m be r 11 w as to fa ci lit at e the se xua l a ssa ult a lso sho w n onthe vid eo ta pe . T he gov er

nm en t co nt en ds th atrel ev an t co nd uc t al so m ay be th e b as is forap pl ic at io n o f § 5 K2.9 . A cc or din gly , it

arg ue s, w e al te rn at ive ly

c oul d su sta in the upw ar d de part ur e on the dis tr ic t c ourt' s f

ind ing s th at

A m ed eo use d c oc ai ne and A tiv anto re nde r Ro ze lle unc onsc iou s so a s to se xua lly a ssa ult him on J anuary

5- 6. Whe the r a de part

ur e unde r § 5K2. 1 c anbe pr em ise d onr el ev an t c ondu ct is a legal question for which we have little guidance. W e need not resolve it, howe ver, because our conclusion that there w as insufficient evidence to find that Am edeo use d c oc ai ne and A tiv anto se xua lly a ssa ult Ro ze lle in N ove m

be r pr ec lud es a "com m on plan o r schem e" that w ouldencom pass the January

events. W ithou t an an ch or to the of fe nse of c onvi ct ion , the gov er

nm en t i s le ft

onl y w ithdis tin ct , un rel at edco nd uc t fo r whi ch sep arat e ch arg es sh ou ldha ve be en bro ug ht . A cc or din gly , w e do n ot c onsi de r A m ed eo ' s c ondu ct on J anuary

5- 6 - - ev enif

didAt oral a rgument, the g overnme nt alternatively contende d that even if section 5K2.1 doe s 16 not apply , R o z el l e's death was " resultingharm" and henc e should be take n into account f or se nte nc ingpurp os e s un de r the re le va nt c on du c t pr ov isi on s. Se e § 1B 1. 3( a )( 1) (3 )( se nte nc ingsh a ll include conside ration of " all harm that resulted from" rele vant conduc t). This argument was not set forth in the g overnme nt's br ief, a nd hence is n o t p re s er v ed. See F lanig an' s Enterprise s, Inc. of Ge or g ia v. F ult on County , 2 42 F .3 d 9 76 , 9 87 n. 16 (1 1th Cir . 20 01 ). In a ny e ve nt, our h old inga s to the limitations on rele vant conduc t in this case prec ludes the g overnme nt's position. 36 invo lve distribu ting cocaine and Ativan for the purpose of com m itting another of fe nse - - to b e re le vant w ith in the m eanin g of U . S. S. G . § 1B 1. 3. G . Re sul tin g de ath Am edeo also argues that the district court erred in apply ing a four-level upw ar d de part

ur e on the gr ound

that the of

fe nse of c onvi ct ionr es ult ed

in de ath pursuant to U. S. S. G. § 5K2.1. T hat section provi des, "I f death re sulted, the court m ay inc re as e the se nte nc e ab ove the auth or iz ed gui de lin e range . " I t go es on t o 16 expla in, in re le vant p ar

t: L oss of li fe doe s no t auto m at ic al ly sug ge st a se nte nc e at

or ne ar the statut or y m ax im um . T he se nte nc ing j udge m ust giv e co nsi de ratio n to m atters that w ouldnorm ally distin guish am ong levels o f hom icide, suc h a s th e de fe ndant' s st at e of m ind and the de gr ee of

planni ng o r pr ep ar at ion . O the r ap pr opr ia te f ac tor s are w he the r m

ult ipl e de aths re sul te d, and the m eans b y w hic h li fe w as take n. T he e xte nt o f the increase should depend on the dangerous ness of the defendant's co nduc t, the e xte nt t o w hic h de ath or se ri ous inj ur

y w as int en de d or know ing ly

r isk ed , and the e xte nt t o w hic h th e of fe nse le ve l f

or the of fen se of c on vi ct io n, as de te rm in edby the ot he r Ch ap te r Two gu id el in es , alr ead y

refl ect s t he ris k o f pe rs on al in jury. U . S. S. G . § 5K2. 1.37

Ro ze lle ' s de ath inJanuary did not dir ec tly r es ult , of c our se , f ro m the co nduc t i nvol ve d inthe of fe nse of c onvi ct ion , w hic h to ok p la ce tw o f ull m onths earlier . The district court sw ept Rozelle' s death into th e am bit of Am edeo's sentence by

invok ing th e re levant condu ct provisio ns at U. S. S. G. § 1B1.3(2). See United States v. Purchess, 107 F.3d 1261 , 1271 (7th Cir. 1997) ("an upward de part ur e unde r se ct ion5K2. 1 m ay be ba se d onharm

r es ult ing f

ro m r el ev an t conduct as op posed to conduct com prising the offense of c onvi ction"), and ca ses cited. The c ourt foundthat Am edeo supp lied Ativan and cocaine to Rozelle that "contributed s ubstant ially " to Rozelle's death on Janu ary 5-6. H ence, it concluded that de ath r es ult ed

f ro m A m ed eo ' s r el ev an t c ondu ct , w hic h w as the c om m on sc he m e o r pl an to pro vi de pi ll s an d c oc ai ne to tak e se xu al ad va nt ag e o f Ro zel le . Fo r the r ea sons dis cu sse d su pr a, se ct ionI I( F) , w e cannot a ff irm the co nc lus ionthat R oz el le ' s c ondu ct on J anuary

5- 6 in vol ve d a"s am e co ur se of c o n du c to r

c o mm o n s c h e me o r

p l a n a s th e o f

f e n s e o f c o n v i c t i o n . " Ac c o r d i n g l y, the r el ev an t c ondu ct

doc tr ine doe s no t pe rm it A m ed eo ' s se nte nc e to e nc om pa ss the ev en ts o f January

5- 6. W e do n ot s ugge st tha t A m ed eo c oul d no t be c ri m ina lly l i ab l e h ad h e f

ac ed s ep ar at e c h ar g es i n co n n ec t i o n wi t h Ro ze l l e' s d ea t h . We sim ply hold th at A m edeo's offe nse of conviction did no t encom pass Rozelle's de ath f or se nte nc ing pur

pose s.38

H. Upw ard departure under § 5K2.0: m ultip le m inors Purs uant t o U . S. S. G . § 5K2. 0, adis tr ic t c ourt m ay upw ar dly

de part if the ca se is aty

pic al . S uc h de part

ur es are "r es er

ve d f or ' unus ua l' c as es w he re the re is som ethin g a ty

pic al about

the de fe ndant o r the c ir cum stanc es sur ro undi ng the co m m iss ionof

the c ri m e w hic h si gni fi cantl y dif fe r fr om the nor m al or ' he ar tland' co nduc t i n th e co m

m iss ionof

the c ri m e. " Unit ed

S ta te s v. G onz al ez -L ope z, 911 F. 2d 5 42, 549 ( 11th C ir . 199 0) ( quot ing U nit ed S ta te s v. W ill iam s, 891 F . 2d 9 62, 964 (1st Cir. 1989 )). T he dis tr ic t c ourt de part ed on the gr ound

that A m ed eo ha d e nga ge d indr ug u s e w i t h mu l t i p l e mi n o r s . S p e c i f i c a l l y, i tf o u n d : " I n a d d i t i o n t o ma k i n g h i s h o me av ai la ble to Mr . Ro ze lle , Mr . A m ed eo m ad e his hom e av ai la ble to oth er

y oung ad ult s, that i s pe opl e be tw ee n th e ag e of 18 a nd 2 1, to w hom

he dis tr ibu te d dr

ugs, ill eg al dr ugs. " I t the n c onc lud ed

that a tw o- le ve l de part

ur e w as j ust if

ie d ba se d on "the num be r of pe opl e inv olv ed , the a ge of the pe opl e, the ti m ing , the r ea dy acce ss ib il it y

of t he dru gs an d s o o n." H er e, w e be ginour

ana ly sis by

e xa m ini ng § 2D 1. 2, the gui de lin e ap pli ca ble to A m ed eo ' s of

fe nse of c onvi ct ion , 21 U . S. C. § 85 9. T he ba se of fe nse le ve l i s determ ined by

the quantityof drugs dist ributed; it is enhanced if the drug wa s dis tr ibu te d to an un de ra ge d pe rs on. I t do es not , how ev er , take int o c onsi de ratio nEven if a fac tor, such as ag e, is alre ady taken into ac count by

the applica

ble guideline, the 17 court still may

depar t if the fac tor is " prese nt to an exceptional deg ree or in some other wa y makes the ca se distinguishable from an or dinary case wher e the fac tor is pr esent." Koon, 518 U.S. at 96. T h e d i s tri ctco urtd i d

n o t m ak e s p ec i fi c f

i n d i n gs o r o th erwi s e i n d i ca t e i twa s en h an ci n g Am ed eo 's s en t en ce o nth i s b as i s , h o we v er . I ts i mp l y s t at ed , "Ifi n d

i nth i s ca s e t h atth e d i s tri b u t i o no f d ru gs to people under

the ag e of 21 is not a f

actor considere d by

the guidelines." At se nte nc ing , th e dis tr ic t cour t als o a pp lie d § 5K2. 8 b a se d o n A me de o' s f a ilure to c a ll 18 emer g ency

service s after

Roz elle wa s unconscious. Amede o does not appe al from this depa rture. 39 the num be r of und er ag ed

vic tim s. A cc or din gly , the r el ev an t gu ide lin e doe s no t take into account at least som e of the cir cum stances upon which the district court ba se d it s c onc lus ion . 17 Fo r the r ea sons e xpl ai ne d su pr a, w e hol d th at

the m ar ij uanasm oki ng w ith m ino rs oth er

than R oz el le w as not

r el ev an t c ondu ct

and thus shou ld n ot b e incorporated into Am edeo's sentence. N one of the m inors at issu e here consum ed co ca ine , the dr

ug tha t f orm ed the of fe nse of c onvi ct ion . A s di sc uss ed sup ra , the ch ar ac te ri sti cs of

the m ar ij uanause w ithRo ze lle ' s f ri en ds d if fe re d m at er ia lly

f ro m the c oc ai ne use that R oz el le and A m ed eo e nga ge d in , and i t a ppe ar s th at

it w as the ba si s fo r a s ep arat e co un t i n t he in di ct m en t. I. Upw ard departure under § 5K2.8: extrem e conduct A m ed eo a lso c ont es ts the dis tr ic t c ourt' s on e- le ve l up w ar d de part ur e fo r "e xtr em e co nduc t, " i n th is c as e A m ed eo ' s unpr ote ct ed se xua l c ont ac t w ithRo ze lle during h is treatm ent for hepatitis C. 1840

Section 5K2. 8 allows upward departure "[i] f the defe ndant's condu ct w as unus ually heinous , c ruel, brutal, or degra ding to the victim ." W e have af firm ed use of thi s e nhanc em en t w he re an H IV -i nf ec te d a dul t de fe ndant e nga ge d in num er ous se x a ct s w ithaf if te en -y ear- old . U nit ed

S ta te s v. Bl as , 360 F . 3d 1 268, 1273 -7 4 ( 11th C ir . 200 4) ( af fi rm ing de part

ur e on the ba sis of

both §§ 5K2. 8 and 5K2.0). Inthi s c as e, how ev er , w e ha ve he ld that A m ed eo ' s se xua l e nc ount er s w ith Ro ze lle on J anuary

5- 6 are be y ond the r el ev an t sc ope of c ondu ct f or se nte nc ing p u r p o s e s . He n c e , th e e n h a n c e men tc a n n o tap p l y. O ne f ina l no te : A t se nte nc ing , the dis tr ic t c ourt st at ed that e ve n if

it e rr ed in its c al cu la tio ns a s to any

of the e nhanc em en ts o r the de part ur es pur suant t o §§ 5K 2. 0 or 5K2. 8, the sam e of

fe nse le ve l c oul d have be enr ea ch ed by appl y ing departures under §§ 5K2.1 and 5K2. 9. S ince we vacate the upw ard departures that we re a pplied p ursuant to § § 5K2.1 and 5K2. 9, those provisio ns cannot p rovide an al te rn at ive ba sis f

or the se nte nc e. T he dis tr ic t c ourt the re fo re m ust r ec al cu la te the se nte nc e in a cc or d w iththi s op ini on. III. CONCLUSI ON This is a difficult ca se, both in its legal com plexityand its tragic fac tual se tti ng. I t i s c le ar

the dis tr ic t c ourt c ondu ct ed the se nte nc ing pr oc ee din gs w iththe41

utm ost c ar e an d se nsi tiv ity

to the part ie s, and g ra

ppl ed r igo ro usl y

and conscientio usly

with the challenging iss ues presented. O ur opinio n today vacates the upw ar d de part

ur es pr em ise d onthe de fe ndant' s c ondu ct that f el l be y ond the appropriate scope of sentencing, but is no t intended to condon e or m inim ize that co nduc t. AF FIRM ED in part, V ACA TE D in part, and RE MAN DE D f or further pr oc ee din gs c onsi ste nt w iththi s op ini on.