FILED U.S. COURT OF AP P EALS E LEV EN T HC IRC U IT AUG 9 , 2006 THOMAS K. KAH

N CLERK [ DO NO T P UB L I S H] I N THE UN I TE D STATE S C OU 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- 14638 N on -A rgum entC al endar

________________________ D . C . D ocketN o. 04 -600 54 -C R -J IC U N I T E D S T A T E S O F A M E R I C A , P l ai nt i ff -A pp el l ee , v ersu s B L A D I M I R O P A R R A - M E R C A D O , a .k .a . C a r lo s P o s a d a s , D e f e n d a n t- A p p e lla n t.

________________________ A pp ea l fr om the U ni t ed S t at es D i stri ctC ou rt f orthe S outhe rn D i s tr i c tof F l or i da

_________________________ ( A u gu s t 9, 2006) B e f o r e A N D E R S O N , M A R C U S a n d W I L S O N , C ir c u it J u d g e s . P E R C U R I A M: B l a di m i r o P a rr a - M e r c a do ( “ P a rr a ” ) appe a l s hi s c onvi c t i ons a nd c onc urr e nt 360- m onth s e nt e nc e s f

or : ( 1) c ons pi r a c y t o i m por tc oc a i ne , i n vi ol a t i on of 21 U . S . C . § 9 63 ; (2) i m po rt at i on of cocai ne, i n v i ol at i on of 21 U . S . C . § 9 52 (a );2

( 3 ) c o n s p i r a c y t o p o s s e s s w i th i n t e n tt o d e l i v e rc o c a i n e , i n v i o l a t i o n o f 2 1 U . S. C. § 846; a nd ( 4) pos s e s s i on w i th i nt e ntt o di s tr i but e c oc a i ne , i n vi ol a t i on of 21 U . S . C . § 8 41 (a )( 1). P arrara i se s f i ve i ss ues on app ea l , i ncl ud i ng thathi s s ent ence u n c o n s t i tu t i o n a l l y w a s e n h a n c e d , p u r s u a n tt o U n i t e d St a t e s v . Bo o k e r , 5 4 3 U . S. 22 0, 12 5 S . C t . 73 8, 16 0 L . E d 6 21 (200 5), w hi ch w as deci ded aft erP arraw as s e nt e nc e d. I . L i m i t a t i on of C r os s - E xa m i na t i on F i r s t , P a rr ac ont e nds tha tthe di s tr i c tc our tvi ol a t e d hi s S i xth A m e ndm e nt r ig h t to c o n f

r o n t w itn e s s e s b y p r e v e n tin g h im f r o m c r o s s - e x a m in in g A n g e l C h a in (“ A n g el ”) an d P atri ci a C h ai n (“ P atri ci a”), k ey g o v ern m en tw i tn esses w h o se t e s t i m ony w a s e s s e nt i a l t o the gove rnm e nt ’ s c a s e , aboutthe i rw i tne s s pr ot e c t i on ag reem en tw i th th e g o v ern m en t . H e arg u es th atth ei r t est i m o n y o n cro ssexam i nat i on : (1) w ou l d h ave e st abl i shed thatthei r f am i l y m em bers ac tual l y w er e n o t in f e a rf o rth e irs a f

e ty , in c o n f

lic t w ith th e irte s tim o n y ; a n d ( 2 ) w a s e s s e n tia l to h is d e f e n s e , w h ic h c e n te r e d o n im p e a c h in g th e irc r e d ib ility . P a rr ap o s its th a t, be c a us e othe re vi de nc e i n the r e c or d s how e d the untrus tw or thi ne s s of A nge l a nd P a tr ic ia , h e s h o u ld h a v e b e e n a llo w e d to in q u ir e f u r th e rab o u t th e a g r e e m e n t w ith the gove rnm e nti n or de rt o bol s t e rhi s a r gum e nttha tthe y w e r e m ot i va t e d by h id d e n a g e n d a s .3

W e rev i ew th e d i stri ctco u rt ’ s restri ct i o n s o n cro ss-ex am i n at i o n fo r an ab u se o f d is c r e tio n . U n ite d S ta te s v . B ap tis ta - R o d r ig u e z , 1 7 F .3 d 1 3 5 4 , 1 3 7 0 - 7 1 ( 1 1 th C ir. 1 9 9 4 ). T h e C o n fr o n tati o n C lau se o f th e U .S . C o n stitu ti o n p ro v id es th at, “ [i]n al l cr i m i nal prosec ut i on s, the ac cuse d shal l enj oy the ri gh t. . . t o b e c on fr on t ed w ith th e w itn e s s e s a g a in s t h im .” U .S . C o n s t. a m e n d . V I . T h e r ig h t to c r os s - e xa m i ne w i tne s s e s i s i nc l ude d i n the C onf r ont a t i on C l a us e . P oi nt e rv. T e xa s , 380 U . S . 400, 404, 85 S . C t . 1065, 1068, 13 L . E d. 2d 923 ( 1965) . T he C onf r ont a t i on C l a us e , how e ve r , “ gua r a nt e e s onl y ‘ a n oppor tuni ty f ore f f e c t i ve c r o s s - e x a m in a tio n , n o t c r o s s - e x a m in a tio n th a t is e f f e c tiv e in w h a te v e rw a y , a n d to w ha t e ve re xt e nt , the de f e ns e m i ghtw i s h. ’ ” K e ntuc ky v. S t i nc e r , 482 U . S . 730, 739, 107 S . C t . 2658, 2664, 96 L . E d. 2d 631 ( 1987) ( c i t a t i on om i tt e d) . “ [ W ] he r e the w i tne s s s oughtt o be c r os s - e xa m i ne d i s the gove rnm e nt ' s ‘ s t a r ’ w i tne s s , pr ovi di ng a n e s s e nt i a l l i nk i n the pr os e c ut i on’ s c a s e , the i m por t a nc e of f ul l c r os s - e xa m i na t i on t o di s c l os e pos s i bl e bi a s i s ne c e s s a r i l y i nc r e a s e d. ” U ni t e d S t a t e s v. L a nkf or d, 955 F .2 d 1 5 4 5 , 1 5 4 8 ( 1 1 th C ir . 1 9 9 2 ) ( in te rn a l q u o ta tio n s a n d c ita tio n s o m itte d ) .

“ Un l e s s th e d e f

e n d a n th a s b e e n p e rm i tt e d s u f f i c i e n tc r o s s - e x a m i n a t i o n t o a l l o w a j ury t o a de qua t e l y a s s e s s the w i tne s s ’ c r e di bi l i ty , the di s tr i c tc our t ’ s l i m i t a t i on of c r os s - e xa m i na t i on w i l l be i n e rr or . ” I d. O nc e the r e i s s uf f i c i e ntc r os s - e xa m i na t i on t o sat i sfy th e C o n fro n t at i o n C l au se, th e d i stri ctco u rtm ay l i m i tfu rth er cro ss-4

e x a m in a tio n w ith in its d is c r e tio n . U n ite d S ta te s v . D ia z , 2 6 F .3 d 1 5 3 3 , 1 5 3 9 ( 1 1 th C i r. 19 94 ). I n L a n k f o r d , w e n o te d th a t: [ T ] he S i xth A m e ndm e ntdoe s notr e qui r e unl i m i t e d i nqui ry i nt o the pot e nt i a l bi a s of

a w i tne s s . . . [ a nd a ] s l ong a s s uf f i c i e nti nf orm a t i on i s el i ci t ed fro m th e w i tn ess fro m w h i ch th e j u ry can ad eq u at el y assess p o s s ib le m o tiv e o rb ia s , th e S ix th A m e n d m e n t is s a tis f ie d . W h e r e . . . a w i tne s s ’ m ot i ve f

ort e s t i f y i ng m a y be e xpos e d thr ough a l t e rna t i ve l i nes of quest i on i ng , the di stri ctcourt ' s r ef usal t o al l ow prej ud i ci al i nqui ry i nt o m ot i ve tha ti s gr ounde d i n nothi ng m or e tha n s pe c ul a t i on i s noti n err or. L an k fo rd , 9 5 5 F . 2 d at1 5 4 9 n . 1 0 . M o reo v er, w e h av e fo u n d th atl i m i t i n g th e cro ssexam i nat i on of w i tness es , re gardi ng thei r a dd re ss es , w as no terroneou s, w here the r e w a s r e a s on t o be l i e ve tha tthe di s c l os ur e of the i nf orm a t i on w oul d putthe w i tn esses i n p h ysi cal d an g er, b ecau se th ey w ere i n a g o v ern m en tw i tn ess prot ec t i on prog ra m . U ni t ed S t at es v. C rockett , 50 6 F . 2d 75 9, 76 2-63 (5th C i r. 19 75 ). B ec ause P arrahad a ful l and fai r opp ortun i ty t o extra cti m peac hi ng evi dence f r om the ke y gove rnm e ntw i tne s s e s , no abus e of di s c r e t i on oc c urr e d r e ga r di ng the di stri ctcourt ’ s l i m i t at i on of P arra ’ s c ross -e xam i nat i on . T he di stri ctcourtperm i tt ed P a rr a t o e l i c i tt e s t i m ony f r om A nge l a nd P a tr i c i atha tthe gove rnm e ntbr ought fi ft ee n o f thei r f

am i l y m em bers t o the U ni t ed S t at es , i n an eff ortt o p rot ec tthem f r om the m e m be r s of

the c ons pi r a c y , butdi d nota l l ow f ur the rque s t i oni ng about5

th e d e ta ils r e g a r d in g th e r e la tiv e s ’ p a r tic ip a tio n in th e w itn e s s p r o te c tio n p r o g r a m . A ddi t i ona l l y , P a rr aw a s pe rm i tt e d t o c ha l l e nge the C ha i ns ’ c r e di bi l i ty thr ough va r i ous othe ra ve nue s , s uc h a s que s t i oni ng the i rm ot i va t i on t o pr ovi de s a f e ty f or the i rf a m i l y m e m be r s , a nd e l i c i t i ng tha tthe y hope d t o r e c e i ve l e s s e rs e nt e nc e s a nd tha tthe gove rnm e nta l l ow e d the m t o a voi d the i rde bt s i n C ol om bi a . F i na l l y , the l i ne of qu es t i on i ng m i gh thave endang er ed the fa m i l y m em bers because i tm ay have revea l ed thei r w here abou t s. A cc ordi ng l y, w e c on cl ud e thatthe di stri ctcourt di d abus e i t s di s c r e t i on.

II . A dm i ss i on of E vi dence N e xt , P a rr aa r gue s tha tthe di s tr i c tc our te rr e d by a dm i tt i ng e vi de nc e of c om m uni c a t i ons be tw e e n A nge l a nd P a rr a ’ s br othe r , O r l a ndo P a rr a - M e r c a do ( “ O r l a n d o ” ) , o c c u rr i n g b e f o r e A n g e l b e c a me i n v o l v e d i n th e c o n s p i r a c y a ta t i me w hen h e w as ac t i ng as an att orney f or O rl ando , and i nv ol vi ng O rl ando ’ s a l l eged pri or cr i m i nal ac t i vi t i es . P arrapo si t s thatthe evi dence es t abl i shed thatA ng el r e pr e s e nt e d O r l a ndo. P a rr af ur the ra r gue s tha tthe di s tr i c tc our te rr e d by a dm i tt i ng evi dence of the threa t s m ade by O rl ando because: (1) the threa t s w er e m ade w hen O r l a n d o w a s i n Co l o mb i a , a n d th e r e w a s n o e v i d e n c e th a tPa rr ak n e w ab o u tth e m; (2 ) h ad P arra b een al l o w ed t o cro ss-ex am i n e A n g el an d P atri ci a ab o u tth e w i tn ess6

pr ot e c t i on pr ogr a m , i tw oul d ha ve be e n r e ve a l e d tha tthe thr e a t s w e r e f abr i c a t e d; a nd ( 3) the thr e a t s w e r e unf or e s e e abl e t o P a rr a . P a rr aa l s o a r gue s tha t , be c a us e the i ndi c tm e ntdi d noti de nt i f y hi s c o- c ons pi r a t or s , the s t a t e m e nt s of hi s c oc o n s p ir a to r s , s u c h a s e v id e n c e ab o u t th e a rr e s t o n e c o - c o n s p ir a to r , R ic a r d o L in a r e s , and the com pu t erdi sk foun d i n h i s r es i dence, shou l d n othave been adm i tt ed w i tho utthe court ’ s e xp l i ci tdet erm i nat i on thatthey w er e a dm i ss i bl e und erF eder al R u le o f E v id e n c e 8 0 1 ( d ) ( 2 ) ( E ) . H e p o s its th a t “th e r e c o r d is r e p le te w ith i na dm i s s i bl e he a r s a y t e s t i m ony , ” i nc l udi ng s t a t e m e nt s m a de by O r l a ndo. I n the c onc l us i on s e c t i on of

hi s br i e f , P a rr aa s s e r t s tha tthe c um ul a t i ve e f f e c tof a l l of the e rr o r s w a rr a n te d th e r e v e r s a l o f h is c o n v ic tio n . W e r e v ie w e v id e n tia ry ru lin g s o f th e d is tr ic t c o u r t f

o ra n ab u s e o f

d is c r e tio n . Un i t e d S t a t e s v . De l g a d o , 3 2 1 F . 3 d 1 3 3 8 , 1 3 4 7 ( 1 1 th C i r . 2 0 0 3 ) . “ On ap p e a l , we lo o k a t th e e v id e n c e in a lig h t m o s t f a v o r ab le to its a d m is s io n , m a x im iz in g its pr oba t i ve va l ue a nd m i ni m i z i ng i t s undue pr e j udi c i a l e f

f e c t . ” U ni t e d S t a t e s v. E l ki ns , 885 F . 2d 775, 784 ( 11th C i r . 1989) . H ow e ve r , “ [ w ] he n the oppone ntof evi dence fa i l s t o o bj ec tt o i t s a dm i ss i on and thu s deni es the tri al courtan op po rtun i ty t o cure i m m edi at el y a ny error c re at ed by the adm i ss i on , ” w e r evi ew on l y f or pl ai n err or. U ni t ed S t at es v. C hi l cot e, 72 4 F . 2d 14 98 , 15 03 (11th C i r. 1 9 8 4 ) . U n d e rp la in e rr o rr e v ie w , w e “c o rr e c t o n ly f o re rr o r s th a t a r e p a r tic u la r ly7

e gr e gi ous a nd tha ts e r i ous l y a f f e c tthe f a i rne s s , i nt e gr i ty orpubl i c r e put a t i on of j ud i ci al proceedi ng s, and then o nl y w hen a m i sc arri age of j ust i ce w ou l d res ul t . ” U ni t ed S t at es v. Je rni gan, 34 1 F . 3d 12 73 , 12 80 (11th C i r. 20 03 ) ( i nt ernal q u o ta tio n s a n d c ita tio n s o m itte d ) . a . A tt orne y - C l i e ntc om m uni c a t i ons B e c a us e the onl y e vi de nc e tha tP a rr apoi nt s t o on appe a l a s vi ol a t i ve of the att o rn ey-cl i en tp ri v i l eg e i s ev i d en ce th ath i s o w n co u n sel so l i ci t ed o n cro sse x a m in a tio n , P a rr ac a n n o t n o w c o m p la in th a t th e d is tr ic t c o u r t p la in ly e rr e d in adm i tt i ng the evi dence. b . E v id e n c e o f

T h r e a ts P ursuantt o F ed. R . E vi d. 40 2, al l re l evantevi dence i s a dm i ss i bl e. U nd er F e d .R .E v id . 4 0 3 , h o w e v e r , r e le v a n t e v id e n c e is e x c lu d e d if th e d a n g e ro f

u n f a ir prej ud i ce subst ant i al l y outw ei gh s i t s probat i ve val ue. “ R ul e 403 i s a n ex trao rd i n ary rem ed y w h i ch th e d i stri ctco u rtsh o u l d i n v o k e sp ari n g l y. ” E l k i n s, 8 8 5 F .2 d a t 7 8 4 .

P a rr aha s f

a i l e d t o e s t abl i s h tha tthe a dm i s s i on of e vi de nc e of

thr e a t s m a de by hi s c o- c ons pi r a t ors ubs t a nt i a l l y a f f e c t e d hi s r i ght s , ortha te rr oroc c urr e d i n the8

c our t ’ s c om pl i a nc e w i th R ul e 801. P a rr adi d notobj e c tbe l ow t o the t e s t i m ony r e ga r di ng the thr e a t s a nd i de nt i f i e s no l e ga l r e a s on w hy the t e s t i m ony ’ s a dm i s s i on w a s a n abus e of

di s c r e t i on. c . C o - c o n s p ir a to r s ’ s ta te m e n ts R ul e 801( d) ( 2) ( E ) pr ovi de s tha t“ s t a t e m e nt s of c o- c ons pi r a t or s m a de dur i ng the c our s e a nd i n f

ur the r a nc e of

the c ons pi r a c y a r e nothe a r s a y . ” U ni t e d S t a t e s v. H a s n e r , 3 4 0 F .3 d 1 2 6 1 , 1 2 7 4 ( 1 1 th C ir . 2 0 0 3 ) , c e r t. d e n ie d , 5 4 3 U .S . 8 1 0 ( 2 0 0 4 ) . In o rd er t o ad m i tev i d en ce u n d er R u l e 8 0 1 (d )(2 )(E ), th e g o v ern m en tm u stest ab l i sh by apr e ponde r a nc e of

the e vi de nc e tha t“ ( 1) a c ons pi r a c y e xi s t e d; ( 2) the c o n s p ir a c y in c lu d e d th e d e c la r a n t a n d th e d e f e n d a n t a g a in s t w h o m th e s ta te m e n t is of f e r e d; a nd ( 3) the s t a t e m e ntw a s m a de dur i ng the c our s e a nd i n f ur the r a nc e of

the c o n s p ir a c y .” I d . B e c a u s e P a rr aid e n tif

ie s n o s p e c if

ic c o - c o n s p ir a to rs ta te m e n t th a t s h o u ld ha ve be e n e xc l ude d f

r om e vi de nc e , a nd, i n the i ns t a nc e s w he n P a rr aobj e c t e d t o the in tr o d u c tio n o f

c o - c o n s p ir a to r s ’ s ta te m e n ts , th e d is tr ic t c o u r t m a d e s p e c if ic f i ndi ngs , the di s tr i c tc our tdi d note rri n a dm i tt i ng e vi de nc e of s t a t e m e nt s m a de by P a rr a ’s c o - c o n s p ir a to r s . I I I . R e que s t e d J ury I ns truc t i on N e xt , P a rr aa r gue s tha t , be c a us e hi s de f e ns e w a s t a i l or e d t ow a r d s how i ng9

tha tthe gove rnm e ntf

a i l e d t o i nve s t i ga t e the c ha r a c t e rof R a y B a y ona a nd the M el od i co com pany and t o corrobo ra t e the key w i tness es ’ st at em ent s, the di stri ct courterre d b y denyi ng hi s r equest ed “ theory of defe nse” i nstruct i on . T he prop osed i ns truc t i on s t a t e d: “ T he [ g] ove rnm e nti n thi s c a us e ha s the bur de n of pr ovi ng the [ d ]e f e n d a n t g u ilty b e y o n d a r e a s o n ab le d o u b t. I f y o u f in d th a t th e f

a ilu r e to in v e s tig a te a n d c o rr o b o r a te th e a lle g e d c o - c o n s p ir a to r s ’ d e c la r a tio n s c a u s e s y o u to h a v e r e a s o n ab le d o u b t, th e n y o u m u s t f in dth e [ d ]e f

e n d a n t n o t g u ilty .” P a rr ap o s its tha tw hi l e s om e of

the gove rnm e nt ’ s ove r s i ght s c oul d be c ove r e d by the

“ reaso n ab l e d o u b t ” i n stru ct i o n , h i s i n stru ct i o n n o n eth el ess w as req u i red b ecau se som e overs i gh t s w er e t oo si gn i fi ca ntt o b e c ov er ed, and the addi t i on of se vera l s m a lle ro v e r s ig h ts b y th e g o v e rn m e n t h a d a c u m u la tiv e im p a c t. W e “ r e vi e w a di s tr i c tc our t ’ s r e f us a l t o gi ve a r e que s t e d j ury i ns truc t i on f or abuse of di sc re t i on . ” U ni t ed S t at es v. F ul ford, 26 7 F . 3d 12 41 , 12 45 (11th C i r. 2 0 0 1 ) ( in te rn a l q u o ta tio n s a n d c ita tio n s o m itte d ) . W e w ill o n ly f in d r e v e r s ib le e rr ori f: “ ( 1) the r e que s t e d i ns truc t i on c orr e c t l y s t a t e d the l a w ; ( 2) the a c tua l c ha r ge t o the j ury di d n otsubst ant i al l y c ov erthe prop osed i nstruct i on ; and (3) the fa i l ure t o g i ve the i nstruct i on subst ant i al l y i m pai re d the defendant ’ s abi l i ty t o p re pare an e f f e c t i ve de f

e ns e . ” I d. M or e ove r , a di s tr i c tc our ti s “ ve s t e d w i th br oa d di s c r e t i on i n f orm ul a t i ng [ i t s ] c ha r ge t o the j ury s o l ong a s i ta c c ur a t e l y r e f l e c t s the l a w a nd10

th e f a c ts .” U n ite d S ta te s v . S ilv e rm a n , 7 4 5 F .2 d 1 3 8 6 , 1 3 9 5 ( 1 1 th C ir . 1 9 8 4 ) . A

“ d efen d an ti s en t i t l ed t o h av e p resen t ed i n stru ct i o n s rel at i n g t o a th eo ry o f d efen se for w hi ch there i s a ny foun dat i on i n the evi dence, even tho ug h the evi dence m ay be w e a k, i ns uf

f i c i e nt , i nc ons i s t e nt , orof doubt f ul c r e di bi l i ty . ” U ni t e d S t a t e s v. L i vel y, 80 3 F . 2d 11 24 , 11 26 (11th C i r. 19 86 ) ( em ph as i s i n o ri gi nal ) ( i nt ernal q u o ta tio n s a n d c ita tio n s o m itte d ) . A s P arraconceded attri al , and the di stri ctcourtfoun d, P arra ’ s propo se d j ury in s tru c tio n w a s s u f

f ic ie n tly c o v e r e d b y th e in s tru c tio n d e f in in g r e a s o n ab le d o u b t. P a rr a w a s ab le to p r e s e n t h is th e o ry o f th e d e f e n s e in h is c lo s in g a r g u m e n t. U p o n carefu l rev i ew o f th e reco rd an d co n si d erat i o n o f th e p art i es’ b ri efs, we d i s c e rn n o r e v e r s i b l e e rr o rr e g a r d i n g P a rr a ’ s c o n v i c t i o n s a n d , a c c o r d i n g l y , we a f f irm th e m . IV . P arra ’ s s ent ence F i nal l y, P arraar gu es thathi s s ent ence vi ol at es B oo ker, because i tw as e nha nc e d ba s e d on hi s r ol e i n the of f e ns e a nd the drug qua nt i ty , w hi c h w e r e not c ha r ge d i n the i ndi c tm e nt , a dm i tt e d by hi m , orpr ove n t o a j ury . H e a s s e r t s tha tthe di stri ctcourtcom m i tt ed const i tut i on al error w hen i tenhanced hi s s ent ence base d on i t s f ac tual fi nd i ng s a s t o the drug am ou ntand h i s r ol e, and st atut ory e rr or w hen i tappl i e d the gui de l i ne s i n am a nda t ory f a s hi on. H e c ont e nds tha tthe gove rnm e nt11

c o u ld n o t s h o w th a t th e e rr o r s w e r e h a rm le s s , s in c e th e d is tr ic t c o u r t: ( 1) s pe c i f

i c a l l y not e d tha ti tw a s i m pos i ng the l ow e s tpos s i bl e s e nt e nc e i n the gu i del i ne ra ng e; (2) l i m i t ed P arra ’ s s ent ence s t o con curr ent , i nst ea d o f c on se cut i ve, t e rm s of i nc a r c e r a t i on; a nd ( 3) r e j e c t e d the gove rnm e nt ’ s r e que s tf ora n a l t e rna t i ve s e n te n c e . P a rr aa ls o c o n te n d s th a t th e d is tr ic t c o u r t e rr e d b y e n h a n c in g h is se nt ence base d o n h i s l ea ders hi p rol e i n the offens e, ar gu i ng thatthe evi dence e s t abl i s he d tha tO r l a ndo w a s the l e a de rw ho or ga ni z e d the a c t i vi t i e s of the c oc ons pi r a t or s a nd tha thi s r ol e w a s tha tof a pe r s on w ho r a n e rr a nds a nd m a de d e liv e r ie s f

o rO r la n d o . H e p o in ts o u t th a t O r la n d o r e c ru ite d a n d a d v is e d A n g e l, organi ze d A ng el ’ s del i veryof m on eyt o cert ai n co-conspi ra t ors, prov i ded A ng el w i th c e l l phone s , r e c rui t e d P a tr i c i a , c onduc t e d the ne c e s s a ry tr a ns a c t i ons f orthe m ove m e ntof

the c oc a i ne i nt o the U ni t e d S t a t e s , ove rr ode P a rr a ’ s de c i s i on t o ha ve P a tr i c i a m ove outof

the s t a s h hous e , c onduc t e d the l e a de r s hi p of the or ga ni z a t i on on the day of the se i zure , se ntA ng el ’ s s i st ert o v i si thi m i n p ri son t o con vey th r e a ts , a n d p r o v id e d s u p p o r t f o rA n g e l’s f

a m ily . a . B ooke r e rr or B e c a us e P a rr aobj e c t e d t o hi s s e nt e nc e ba s e d on B l a ke l y v. W a s hi ngt on, 542 U .S . 2 9 6 , 1 2 4 S .C t. 2 5 3 1 , 1 5 9 L .E d . 4 0 3 ( 2 0 0 4 ) , w e r e v ie w h is s e n te n c e d e n o v o in lig h t o f B o o k e r . S e e U n ite d S ta te s v . P a z , 4 0 5 F .3 d 9 4 6 , 9 4 8 ( 1 1 th C ir . 2 0 0 5 ) .12

U n d e rth is s ta n d a r d , w e w ill r e v e r s e o n ly if a n y e rr o rw a s h a rm f

u l. I d . I n A ppr e ndi v. N e w J e r s e y , 530 U . S . 466, 490, 120 S . C t . 2348, 2362- 63, 14 7 L . E d. 2d 43 5 (20 00 ), the S up re m e C ou rthel d that , “ [o] ther than the fa ctof a pr i orc onvi c t i on, a ny f

a c ttha ti nc r e a s e s the pe na l ty f ora c r i m e be y ond the pr e s c r i be d s t a tut ory m a xi m um m us tbe s ubm i tt e d t o a j ury , a nd pr ove d be y ond a r e a s onabl e doubt . ” T he S upr e m e C our ta l s o he l d, i n B l a ke l y , tha tthe i m po si t i on — base d sol el y on the se nt enci ng j ud ge’ s f ac tual fi nd i ng s— of a sen t en ci n g en h an cem en tv i o l at ed th e d efen d an t ’ s S i x th A m en d m en tri g h t s b ecau se the f a c t s s uppor t i ng the f

i ndi ngs ne i the rw e r e a dm i tt e d by the de f e nda nt , norf

ound by a j ury. B l akel y, 54 2 U . S . at29 6-97 , 12 4 S . C t . at25 34 -38. A ft erP arraw as s e n te n c e d a n d w h ile h is c a s e w a s p e n d in g o n d ir e c t ap p e a l, th e S u p r e m e C o u r t, in B ooke r , e xt e nde d B l a ke l y t o the S e nt e nc i ng G ui de l i ne s a nd he l d tha tthe m a n d a to ry n a tu r e o f

th e G u id e lin e s r e n d e r e d th e m in c o m p a tib le w ith th e S ix th A m e ndm e nt ’ s gua r a nt e e of a r i ghtt o a j ury tr i a l . B ooke r , 543 U . S . a t231- 36 , 125 S . C t . at74 9-51 . T he C ou rtrul ed thatse nt enci ng court s neverthel es s m ustconsi der the G ui de l i ne s t oge the rw i th the f a c t or s s e tf

or th i n § 3553( a ) w he n i m pos i ng s e n te n c e s . I d . a t 2 4 4 , 1 2 5 S .C t. a t 7 6 5 . I n U ni t e d S t a t e s v. R odr i gue z , 398 F . 3d 1291, 1298 ( 11th C i r . 2005) (e m ph as i s i n o ri gi nal ), ce rt . deni ed, 12 5 S . C t . 29 35 (200 5), w e s t at ed that , un der13

the ho l di ng i n B oo ker, “ the S i xth A m endm entri gh tt o tri al by j ury i s vi ol at ed w here un der am 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 tt e d by the de f e nda ntnorf

ound by the j ury . ” W e s i nc e ha ve he l d tha tthe r e a r e tw o ty pe s of B ooke re rr or s : ( 1) c ons t i tut i ona l e rr orr e s ul t i ng f r om e nha nc e m e nt s ba s e d on j udi c i a l f a c t - f i ndi ng; a nd ( 2) non- c ons t i tut i ona l s t a tut ory e rr orr e s ul t i ng f r om m a nda t ory appl i c a t i on of the S e nt e nc i ng G ui de l i ne s . U ni t e d S t a t e s v. S he l t on, 400 F . 3d 1325, 1330- 31 ( 11th C i r . 2005) . W e ha ve he l d tha t , w he r e the de f e nda nt a dm i tt e d t o the f

a c t s tha te nha nc e d hi s s e nt e nc e , the r e w a s no S i xth A m e ndm e nt v io la tio n u n d e rB o o k e r . I d . a t 1 3 3 0 . A di f f e r e nts t a nda r d of

r e vi e w i ng f

orha rm l e s s e rr orappl i e s de pe ndi ng on the ty pe of

B ooke re rr or . S e e U ni t e d S t a t e s v. M a the ni a , 409 F . 3d 1289, 1291 (11th C i r. 20 05 ). “ W hen the error i s of the const i tut i on al vari ety, a hi gh er [ ha rm l e s s - e rr or ] s t a nda r d i s appl i e d a nd i tm us tbe c l e a rbe y ond a r e a s onabl e doubt thatthe error c om pl ai ned o f di d n otcontri bu t e t o the se nt ence ob t ai ned. ” U ni t ed S t a t e s v. R obl e s , 408 F . 3d 1324, 1327 ( 11th C i r . 2005) ( i nt e rna l quot a t i ons om i tt e d) . “ T he bur de n t o pr ove the e rr orw a s ha rm l e s s be y ond a r e a s onabl e doubt r e s ts s q u a r e ly o n th e g o v e rn m e n t.” I d . P a rr aobj e c t e d t o the di s tr i c tc our t ’ s f a c tua l f i ndi ng tha the w a s l e a de ra nd14

appl i c a t i on of

the e nha nc e m e nt . T he r e f or e , he m a de a n obj e c t i on t o a c o n s titu tio n a l e rr o r . T h e g o v e rn m e n t c o n c e d e s th a t it c a n n o t s h o w th a t th e e rr o ris harm l es s a nd w e a gree : base d o n st at em ent s the di stri ctcourtm ade, i ti s uncl ea r w h a t it w o u ld h a v e d o n e h a d th e r e n o t b e e n a m a n d a to ry s e n te n c in g s c h e m e . T he r e f or e , P a rr a ’ s s e nt e nc e i s va c a t e d. b. R ol e E nha nc e m e nt W e r ev iew fo r c learer ro r a d istrict co u rt’s d eter m in atio n o f a d ef en d an t’ s r ol e i n the of

f e ns e . U ni t e d S t a t e s v. D e V a r on, 175 F . 3d 930, 937 ( 11th C i r . 1999) ( e n ba nc ) . S e c t i on 3B 1. 1( a ) pr ovi de s f ora f our - l e ve l e nha nc e m e nti f a “ de f e nda nt w as an organi ze r or l ea der of acr i m i nal ac t i vi ty thati nv ol ved fi ve or m ore pa r t i c i pa nt s orw a s othe rw i s e e xt e ns i ve . ” U . S . S . G . § 3B 1. 1( a ) . “ T he gove rnm e nt be a r s the bur de n of

pr ovi ng bya pr e ponde r a nc e of the e vi de nc e tha tthe de f e nda nt ha d a n a ggr a va t i ng r ol e i n the of f e ns e . ” U ni t e d S t a t e s v. Y e a ge r , 331 F . 3d 1216, 12 26 (11th C i r. 20 03 ). In det erm i ni ng the nature of the defendant ’ s r ol e, the court m a y c ons i de r“ the e xe r c i s e of de c i s i on m a ki ng a uthor i ty , the na tur e of pa r t i c i pa t i on i n the c om m i s s i on of

the of f e ns e , the r e c rui tm e ntof a c c om pl i c e s , the c l a i m e d r i ght t o al a r ge rs ha r e of

the f rui t s of the c r i m e , the de gr e e of pa r t i c i pa t i on i n pl a nni ng or organi zi ng the offens e, the nature a nd sc op e of the i l l egal ac t i vi ty, and the degree o f c o n tr o l a n d a u th o r ity e x e r c is e d o v e ro th e r s .” U .S .S .G . § 3 B 1 .1 , c o m m e n t. ( n .4 ) .Parra ’s re quest for oral argument is denied. 1 15 In ad d i t i o n , “ [t ] h ere can , o f co u rse, b e m o re th an o n e p erso n w h o q u al i fi es as a le a d e ro ro r g a n iz e ro f

a c r im in a l a s s o c ia tio n o rc o n s p ir a c y .” I d . T he di s tr i c tc our tdi d notc l e a r l y e rrby appl y i ng af our - l e ve l e nha nc e m e nt ba s e d on P a rr a ’ s r ol e a s a n or ga ni z e rorl e a de r . W hi l e the e vi de nc e m a y ha ve es t abl i shed O rl ando as a l ea der i n the organi za t i on , i tal so es t abl i shed thatP arra w as the l ea der a nd organi ze r of operat i on s i n the U ni t ed S t at es , w hi l e O rl ando w as i n C ol om bi a . T he r e c or d doe s nots uppor tP a rr a ’ s c l a i m s of be i ng onl y a c our i e ror erra nd bo y butra ther s ho w s hi s pl anni ng and o rgani zi ng of the U ni t ed S t at es si ze of the ope r a t i on. A s the go vernm entconcedes, because P arra ’ s s ent ence w as enhanced, un der a m a nda t ory gui de l i ne s s y s t e m , ba s e d on f a c t s tha tw e r e notc ha r ge d i n the i nd i ctm ent , adm i tt ed by P arra , or foun d b y aj ury, the di stri ctcourtcom m i tt ed const i tut i on al and st atut ory e rr or i n sent enci ng hi m , and, because i ti s notcl ea r b e y o n d ar e a s o n ab le d o u b t th a t th e s e e rr o r s w e r e h a rm le s s , P a rr a ’s s e n te n c e is vaca t ed and rem anded for res ent enci ng i n l i gh tof B oo ker. W e not e, ho w ever , that th e d is tr ic t c o u r t d id n o t e rrf a c tu a lly b y ap p ly in g th e r o le e n h a n c e m e n t. CO NV I CT I ON S AF F I RME D, S E NT E NC E V AC AT E D A ND RE MAND E D. 1