### F I LE D U. S . COURT OF AP PE ALS E LEVE NTH CI RCUI T JU N E 13, 2005 T HOM AS K. KAHN C L E RK [ DO NO T P UB L I S H] I N THE UN I TE D STATE S COU RT OF APPE ALS F O R T H E E L E V E N T H C IR C U IT

________________________ N o. 04- 14326 N on - A r gu m entC al endar

________________________ D . C . D oc ke tN o. 04- 00031- C R - 003 U N IT E D S T A T E S O F A M E R IC A , P la in tif f -A p p e lle e , v er su s M A R A N D A S T A R R D A V IS , a .k .a . M a n d y , D e f e n d a n t-A p p e lla n t.

________________________ A p p ea l f ro m th e U n it ed S tates D istr ict C o u rt f o rth e S o u th e rn Di s tr i c to f Al a b a ma

_________________________ ( J une 13, 2005) B ef o r e T JO F L A T , H U L L an d W IL S O N , C i rcu i tJu d g es. P E R C U R I A M: O n A pri l 29 , 20 04 , a S ou thern D i stri ctof A l abam a gra nd j ury i nd i ct edAcc ordingto the prese ntenceinvestigation report (“ PSI ”) prepared by the cour t’s 1 probation off

ice, a ppellant told the probation off ice that sheand Cooper had share d a commonlaw re lationship for the past fiveyear s, datingback to 1999. 2 a ppe l l a nt , T hom a s R a y C oope r , G a r y A . G e or ge , a nd B e ve r l y W a ddl e on va r i ous d ru g ch arg es. A p p el l an tw as ch arg ed i n C o u n tO n e w i th co n sp i racy t o p o ssess w i th i nt e ntt o di s tr i but e m or e tha n 50 gr a m s of m e tha m phe t a m i ne , i n vi ol a t i on of 2 1 U .S .C . § 8 4 6 , a n d in C o u n t T w o w ith p o s s e s s io n w ith in te n t to d is tr ib u te 1 1 .6 gram s of m etham ph et am i ne, i n v i ol at i on of 21 U . S . C . § 8 41 (a )( 1). A pp el l antpl ed no tgu i l ty a nd w entt o t ri al . O n M ay 13 , 20 04 , the j ury f ou nd her gui l ty a s c ha r ge d, a nd on A ugus t12, 2004, the di s tr i c tc our ts e nt e nc e d he rt o c onc ur r e nt pr i s on t e r m s of

121 m onths . S he now a ppe a l s , c ha l l e ngi ng he rc onvi c t i ons a nd s e n te n c e s . T he c onvi c t i ons 1) O n M a y 26, 2004, a f

t e rthe j ur y f

ound a ppe l l a ntgui l ty a s c ha r ge d, c odefe nd antC oo per pl ed gu i l ty t o C ou ntO ne of t he i nd i ctm ent(a nd w as sc hedu l ed t o b e s ent ence d o n A pri l 5, 20 05 ). O n A ug ust9, 20 04 , three days pri or t o h er 1 s e nt e nc i ng he a r i ng, a ppe l l a ntm ove d the di s tr i c tc our tf ora ne w tr i a l ba s e d on ne w l y di s c ove r e d e vi de nc e — i n the f or m of C oope r ’ s t e s t i m ony . T he m ot i on r e p r e s e n te d th a t C o o p e r , w h o w o u ld h a v e in v o k e d h is F if th A m e n d m e n t r ig h t to s ta n d s ile n t h a d h e b e e n c a lle d to te s tif y a t a p p e lla n t’s tr ia l, w o u ld te s tif y inWe reviewthe denial of a motion for new

trial based on newly

discovere d evidenc e for 2 a bu seof dis c re tio n, Un ite d St ate s v . Jer nig an, 34 1 F . # d 1 27 3 ( 11 Cir . 2 00 3) , a nd fi nd no a bu se th here . 3 appel l ant ’ s def

ense and p rovi de excul pat ory e vi dence w er e app el l antgrant ed a new tr i a l . T he di s tr i c tc our tde ni e d the m ot i on i n a w r i t t e n or de ri s s ue d on A ugus t25, 2004. W e a gr e e w i th the c our t ’ s a na l y s i s of a ppe l l a nt ’ s m ot i on a nd f i nd no r e a s on for s ett i ng as i de i t s order . 2 2) A pp el l antas ks thatw e vac at e herconv i ct i on s a nd re m and t he ca se for a ne w tr i a l on the gr ound tha tthe di s tr i c tc our ta bus e d i t s di s c r e t i on i n s us t a i ni ng a he a r s a y obj e c t i on a nd thus pr e c l udi ng C oope r ’ s gr a ndm othe r , G l a dy s C oope r , f r om t el l i ng the j ury w hy she w i re d m on ey (f rom A l abam a) t o co-conspi ra t or C harl es D ea n (w ho ent er ed i nt o a pl ea agre em entand t es t i fi ed as a prose cut i on w i tness at a ppe l l a nt ’ s tr i a l ) i n T e xa s . D e f e ns e c ouns e l w a nt e d he rt o s a y tha ts he w i r e d the m one y t o D e a n— a f

t e rhe phone d he r— be c a us e he s a i d he w a s s tr a nde d a nd ne e de d the m one y . E a r l i e r , i n the pr os e c ut i on’ s c a s e , D e a n ha d t e s t i f i e d tha the n ev er cal l ed G l ad ys C o o p er— th ath e cal l ed C o o p er an d C o o p er h ad G l ad ys C oo per w i re hi m m on ey t o p urchas e m etham ph et am i ne. T he courtprec l ud ed G l adys C oo per f rom st at i ng w hy she s entD ea n m on ey b e c a u s e h e rs ta te m e n t w o u ld c o n s titu te r a n k h e a r s a y , o f f e r e d f o rth e tru th o f

itsDe fens e c ouns e l c onte nd e d th at th e state me nt w a s a dmi ssibleon tw o gro un ds : ( 1) to 3 sh owGl a dys Co op e r’ s st ateof min d a nd (2 ) a s res gestae . We agreewith the district court that Coo pe r’ s st ateof

min d w a s ir

re le va nt a nd that th e state me nt w a s n ot res gestae . 4 cont ent s, i . e. , thatD ea n n ee ded m on ey beca use he w as stra nd ed. W e a gree . 3 D ef ense coun se l no w cont ends thather s t at em ent , re l at i ng w hatD ea n sai d, w as adm i ss i bl e bec ause i tw ou l d h ave i m peac hed D ea n’ s s t at em entthathe never ca l l ed he r . C ouns e l di d notpr e s e ntthi s gr ound t o the di s tr i c tc our t ; w e the r e f or e do not c o n s id e rit. T he se nt ence s B l a ke l y v. W a s hi ngt on, 542 U . S . ___, 124 S . C t . 2531, 159 L . E d. 2d 403 ( 2004) , a nd U ni t e d S t a t e s v. B ooke r , 543 U . S . ____, 125 S . C t . 738, 160 L . E d. 2d 62 1 (20 05 ), consi dere d t og ether, ho l d t hatthe S i xt h A m endm entbars the di stri ct courtfr om enhanci ng a def endant ’ s s ent ence un der a m andat ory gui del i nes se nt enci ng sy st em on the basi s of f ac t s the defendantnei ther a dm i t s nor the j ury f i nds be y ond a r e a s ona bl e doubt . S e e U ni t e d S t a t e s v. R odr i gue z , 398 F . 3d 1291, 12 98 (11t h C i r. 20 05 )( the S i xt h A m endm entri gh tt o a j ury tri al i s vi ol at ed “ w here un der a m andat ory gui del i nes s ys t em , a s ent ence i s i ncre as ed because of an e nha nc e m e ntba s e d on f a c t s f ound by the j udge tha tw e r e ne i the ra dm i t t e d by the defe nd antno r f

ou nd by the j ury. ”) . A ther s ent enci ng hear i ng , appel l antobj ec t ed to th e d is tr ic t c o u r t’s e n h a n c e m e n t o f h e ro f f e n s e le v e l ( 1 ) o n th e b a s is o f 1 1 .65

gram s of m etham ph et am i ne for w hi ch the courthel d h erac coun t abl e a nd (2) f or ob struct i on of j ust i ce pu rs uantt o U . S . S . G . § 3 C 1. 1. , bu tshe di d n otbase her obj e c t i on on the S i xth A m e ndm e nt . W e the r e f or e r e vi e w he rc l a i m s of e r r orf or p la in e r r o r . T o fi nd pl ai n err or, w e m ustconcl ud e that(1) the di stri ctcourtcom m i t t ed erro r th at(2 ) w as p l ai n o r o b v i o u s, (3 ) affected the d efen d an t ’ s “ su b st an t i al ri g h t s” i n tha ts he s uf

f e r e d pr e j udi c e , a nd ( 4) “ s e r i ous l y a f f e c t [ s ] the f

a i r ne s s , i nt e gr i ty , or publ i c r e put a t i on of

j udi c i a l pr oc e e di ngs . ” U ni t e d S t a t e s v. O l a no, 507 U . S . 725, 7 3 0 - 3 6 , 1 1 3 S .C t 1 7 7 0 , 1 7 7 6 - 1 7 7 9 , 1 2 3 L .E d .2 d 5 0 8 ( 1 9 9 3 ) . W e f in d n o S ix th A m endm entvi ol at i on re gardi ng the 11 . 6 g ra m s of m etham ph et am i ne because , as not e d s upr a , the a m ountw a s a l l e ge d s pe c i f i c a l l y i n C ountT w o of

the i ndi c t m e nt a nd f ound by the j ur y i n r e a c hi ng i t s ve r di c tof gui l ty on tha tc ount . S uc h i s notthe ca se , ho w ever , w i th res pectt o t he ob struct i on of j ust i ce enhancem entw hi ch i ncre as ed appel l ant ’ s off ense l evel fr om 30 t o 3 2 and thu s hert er m -ofim p r is o n m e n t s e n te n c e r a n g e ( g iv e n h e rc a te g o r y I c r im in a l h is to r y ) f r o m 9 7 to 12 1 m on ths t o 1 21 t o 1 51 m on ths. A s m ent i on ed abov e, the cond uctw as nei ther a d m itte d b y a p p e lla n t n o rf o u n d b y th e ju r y . A cc ordi ng l y, as i n R od ri gu ez , w e hol d t hatthe di stri ctcourterre d and that the er ror w as pl ai n— the fi rs ttw o p rong s of the pl ai n-er ror s t andard. A pp el l anthas6

nots how n tha the rs ubs t a nt i a l r i ght s w e r e a f f e c t e d, though, be c a us e s he ha s not e s t a bl i s he d f

r om the r e c or d be f

or e the di s tr i c tc our ttha ts he w oul d ha ve r e c e i ve d a l es se r s ent ence had t he courtconsi dere d t he S ent enci ng G ui del i nes a dv i sory ra ther than m andat ory. R od ri gu ez , 39 8 F . 3d at13 01 . B ec ause appel l antfa i l s t o sat i sf y pl ai n err or’ s thi rd el em ent , w e nee d n otconsi der the fourt h el em ent ; hence, her s e nt e nc e s , l i ke he rc onvi c t i ons , a r e due t o be a f f i r m e d. AF F I R ME D.7

T JO F L A T , C i rcu i tJu d g es, co n cu rri n g sp eci al l y: A s the c our tpr ope r l y hol ds , i n e nha nc i ng the de f e nda nt ’ s s e nt e nc e s , the di s tr i c tc our tc om m i t t e d B ooke re r r ortha ti s pl a i n. A nt e a t___. T ur ni ng t o the th ir d p r o n g o f

th e p la in - e rr o rin q u ir y , th e c o u r t c o n c lu d e s th a t a p p e lla n t f a ile d to es t abl i sh thatthe courtw ou l d l i kel y have i m po se d l es se r s ent ence s had i ttre at ed th e G u id e lin e s a s a d v is o r y r a th e rth a n m a n d a to r y . A n te a t _

__ . A s I expl ai n i n m y di ss entt o t he court ’ s r ef usal t o rehearR od ri gu ez en banc, the e nha nc e m e ntof

a de f e nda nt ’ s s e nt e nc e on the ba s i s of f a c t s the de f

e nda nt nei ther a dm i t s nor the j ury f i nd s bey on d a re as on abl e dou bti s s tructural error; he nc e , the thi r d pr ong of the pl a i n- e r r ort e s ti s i na ppl i c a bl e . S e e U ni t e d S t a t e s v. R o d r ig u e z , — F .3 d — , 2 0 0 5 W L 8 9 5 1 7 4 ( 1 1 th C ir . A p r . 1 9 , 2 0 0 5 ) ( T jo f la t, J ., di ss ent i ng fr om the deni al of re hear i ng en banc). A cc ordi ng l y, w e s ho ul d con si der w he the rthe e r r or“ s e r i ous l y a f f e c t [ s ] the f

a i r ne s s , i nt e gr i ty , orpubl i c r e put a t i on of j udi c i a l pr oc e e di ngs . ” U ni t e d S t a t e s v. O l a no, 507 U . S . 725, 736, 113 S . C t . 1770, 1779, 123 L . E d. 2d 508 ( 1993) . W e de c l i ne t o t a ke tha ts t e p, how e ve r , be c a us e the p r io r - p a n e l ru le r e q u ir e s th a t w e a d h e r e to R o d r ig u e z ’s h o ld in g s .