FILED U.S. COURT OF AP P E A LS E LE V EN T HC IRC U IT NOVEMB ER 23, 2007 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. 05- 14974

________________________ D . C . D ocketN o. 04 -002 24 -C R -T W T -1 U N I T E D S T A T E S O F A M E R I C A , P la in tif f - A p p e lle e , v ersu s C H A L A N A C . M C F A R L A N D , 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 o rth e N o r th e rn D is tr ic t o f G e o r g ia

_________________________ ( N ove m b e r 23, 2007) B efo re B IR C H , P R Y O R an d F A Y , C i rcu i tJu d g es. P E R C U R I A M: C ha l a na C . M c F a r l a nd appe a l s he rc onvi c t i on a nd s e nt e nc e on 170 c ount s of m on ey l aund er i ng , bank fr aud, w i re fr aud and conspi ra cy t o com m i tsuch ac t s a s2

w el l as ob struct i on of j ust i ce and p er j ury. M cF ar l and ass ert s thatthe di stri ctcourt c om m i tt e d r e ve r s i bl e e rr orw i th r e ga r d t o the a dm i s s i on of opi ni on t e s t i m ony by c e r t a i n gove rnm e ntw i tne s s e s a nd of e vi de nc e tha ts he pos s e s s e d a f a l s e F l or i da dri ver’ s l i ce nse. S he al so as se rt s thatthe 36 0-m on th sent ence i m po se d w as pr oc e dur a l l y unr e a s ona bl e e i the rbe c a us e the di s tr i c tc our ttr e a t e d the S e nt e nc i ng G ui del i nes a s m andat ory, or becaus e the courtgave un du e w ei gh tt o the G ui del i nes r a nge a nd t o c e r t a i n f

a c t or s l i s t e d i n 18 U . S . C . § 3553( a ) w i thouts uf f i c i e nt c ons i de r a t i on of

s om e of the othe rf

a c t or s . W e a f

f i r m M c F a r l a nd’ s c onvi c t i on a nd se nt ence . I . B AC KG RO UN D M c F a r l a nd w a s c ha r ge d w i th c ons pi r a c y t o c om m i tva r i ous ty pe s of f r a ud a nd m one y l a unde r i ng, a l l i n vi ol a t i on of 18 U . S . C . § 371; ba nk f r a ud, i n vi ol a t i on of 18 U . S . C . §§ 1344 a nd 2; w i r e f r a ud, i n vi ol a t i on of

18 U . S . C . §§ 1343 a nd 2; m one y l a unde r i ng, i n vi ol a t i on of 18 U . S . C . §§ 1956( a ) ( 1) ( A ) ( i ) , ( B ) ( i ) , a nd 2; o b s tru c tio n o f

ju s tic e , in v io la tio n o f

1 8 U .S .C . § § 1 5 0 3 a n d 2 ; a n d p e r ju ry , in vi ol at i on of 18 U . S . C . § 1 62 3. T he charges ar ose f rom the al l egat i on that M cF ar l and and nu m er ou s c o-conspi ra t ors def raud ed m ort gage l enders and i nsured depo si t ory f

i nanci al i nst i tut i on s by i nfl at i ng the fa i r m arketval ues of propert i es w hi c h w e r e the n us e d t o s e c ur e f r a udul e ntl oa ns f

ors tr a w buy e r s . M c F a r l a nd, w ho3

w a s th e c lo s in g a tto rn e y f o rv a r io u s le n d e r s a n d a title in s u r a n c e a g e n t, w r o te title i nsurance a nd cl osed m ort gage l oans on these prop ert i es , al l egedl y kno w i ng that the proceeds w ou l d b e di vi ded am on g the co-conspi ra t ors r ather than d i sburse d as h a d b e e n a s d is c lo s e d to th e le n d e r s . A s a r e s u lt o f th is c o n s p ir a c y , le n d e r s lo s t in e x c e s s o f $ 1 0 m illio n o n m o r e th a n 1 0 0 p r o p e r tie s . A ttr i a l , a m ong othe re xt e ns i ve e vi de nc e , the gove rnm e ntpr e s e nt e d the t est i m o n y o f R o b b i e T ayl o r, w h o h ad b een E x ecu t i v e V i ce P resi d en to f A tt o rn eys’ T i t l e F un d atthe t i m e the fr aud t oo k p l ac e. A tt orneys ’ T i t l e F un d h ad prov i ded cl osi ng prot ec t i on l ett er s a nd al l ow ed M cF ar l and t o i ss ue t i t l e pol i ci es for a n u m b ero f h erclo sin g s d u rin g th e r elev an t p er io d . N ea r th e e n d o f T ay lo r’s t es t i m on y, af

t era s er i es of qu es t i on s abo utthe procedures a nd sa fe gu ar ds for r ea l e s t a t e c l os i ngs A tt orne y s ’ T i t l e F und e m pha s i z e s t o i t s a uthor i z e d c l os e r s , the fol l ow i ng i nt er change t oo k p l ac e:

Gove rnm ent: Haveyou becomefamiliar with the problems on the files c los e d b y Chalana Mc F arl and

in t hisc a sethrough th esu

bs e qu e nt c laims and

so forth? Taylor: Som e wh at. Gove rnm ent: Okay . Were the problems herecre ated by fra ud or create d by inexperience ? McF arland’s Attorney: Ob je c tio n your h on or ; c alls fo r a c on c lus ion . It, I th i nk , v e nture s i nt o th ere al mo f th ej ur y. Court: Wh at do yo us ay , M is s M c Ke nzi e[g o v e r nment atto r

n e y]? Gove rnm ent: Your honor, she ’s familiar with the transac tions, has gone behind the tra

nsactions, and I

believe . . . Court: You’reg oing to have to lay a whole lot morefoundation than that for that que stion. Gove rnm ent: L e t merephra sethequ e sti on . M ay besh ec an a

ns wer it4

specific ally . You’reawa

re that your firm re quested spec ific files of Chalana McF arla nd? Taylor: Ye s. Gove rnm ent: And haveyou deter mined through subsequent investig ation that so meof

tho sefi le s you

re qu e ste d at th etim ewere , in de e d, fl ip t ra ns a c tio ns ? Taylor: Ye s. R5 at 431-32. M c F a r l a nd’ s a tt orne y m a de no obj e c t i on t o the r e phr a s i ng of the qu es t i on or any r ef

er ence t o h i s pre vi ou s obj ec t i on on thi s poi nt . H e a sked a f ew que s t i ons i n r e - c r os s e xa m i na t i on a nd the w i tne s s w a s e xc us e d. L a t e r , the gove rnm e ntc a l l e d B r e nda B r ow n t o t e s t i f y . B r ow n ha d be e n a pa r a l e ga l f

orM c F a r l a nd dur i ng the r e l e va ntpe r i od. S he ha d w or ke d on m os tof th e tr a n s a c tio n s a t is s u e a n d , a t th e tim e o f tr ia l, h a d a lr e a d y p le d g u ilty to pa r t i c i pa t i on i n the m or t ga ge f r a ud s c he m e . I n the c our s e of que s t i ons c onc e rni ng a n a tt e m pt e d a udi tof

M c F a r l a nd’ s c l os i ngs by A tt orne y s ’ T i t l e F und, the fol l ow i ng i nt er change t oo k p l ac e:

Gove rnm ent: Was the condition of the che cks and thenon-availability of thec los ingfi le s d

ueto i gno ra

nc eon your – on thelaw f ir m’ s p art ? McF arland’s Attorney: Objection, your honor, c alls for speculation by th i s p art i c u l ar

w i tn e s s . Ite nt e r s i nt o th ep ro v i n c eo f th ej ur y. Court: Over

ruled. Go vernment: Or

wa s it du eto de lib e ra

tea c ts? Brown : De lib e ratea c ts. R 9 a t1025- 26. A tanot her poi nti n the tri al , du ri ng the t es t i m on y of L i saB el l am y, anot her of M c F a r l a nd’ s pa r a l e ga l s dur i ng the r e l e va ntpe r i od, the gove rnm e ntbe ga n a s ki ng q u est i o n s ab o u tfal se i d en t i fi cat i o n d o cu m en t s o b t ai n ed b y fi rm em p l o yees fo r u se5

in f lip tr a n s a c tio n s . B e f

o r e th e tr ia l, h o w e v e r , M c F a r la n d h a d f ile d a m o tio n in l i m i ne s e e ki ng t o e xc l ude e vi de nc e of M c F a r l a nd’ s pos s e s s i on of a f a l s e F l or i da d r iv e r ’s lic e n s e o n th e g r o u n d th a t, u n le s s d ir e c t r e le v a n c e to th e c a s e w e r e c le a r ly show n, i tm i gh tconst i tut e i m perm i ss i bl e c hara ct erevi dence i n v i ol at i on of F eder al R ul e of E vi de nc e 404( b) . F orthi s r e a s on, M c F a r l a nd’ s a tt or ne y obj e c t e d t o the que s t i on: “ D o y ou know of a ny i de nt i f

i c a t i on doc um e nt s c onne c t e d w i th the defe nd anti n thi s c as e? ” R 8 at92 8. T he courtov errul ed the obj ec t i on . H ow ever , as soon as B el l am y broug htup the F l ori da l i ce nse, and t he qu es t i on s began t o turn t o h ow B el l am y f

ou nd ou tabou tthe l i ce nse, the courtre vers ed i t s rul i ng , sust ai ned the previ ou sl y m ade obj ec t i on , and i m m edi at el y a dm on i shed the j ury t o d i sr egar d th e d is c u s s io n r e g a r d in g th e F lo r id a lic e n s e . S e e id . a t 9 2 9 . M c F a r la n d ’s a tto rn e y a s k e d to d is c u s s th e is s u e a t th e n e x t b r e a k in th e tr ia l. D uri ng the break, M cF ar l and’ s a tt orney m ov ed for am i stri al on the grou nd that e vi de nc e of

the F l or i da l i c e ns e , w hi c h w a s notc l e a r l y r e l e va ntt o the c a s e a tha nd, h a d b e e n p r e s e n te d to th e ju ry in v io la tio n o f F e d e r a l R u le o f

E v id e n c e 4 0 4 ( b ) . T he di stri ctj ud ge st at ed thathe “ bel i eve[ d] the curat i ve i nstruct i on s w er e adequat e” and d eni ed the m ot i on for am i stri al . Id. at93 5. M cF ar l and’ s a tt orney di d nota s k f

ora ny f ur the rc ur a t i ve i ns truc t i on orothe rw i s e a r gue tha tthe c ur a t i ve i ns truc t i on ha d be e n i na de qua t e . S e e i d.6

A tthe c onc l us i on of

M c F a r l a nd’ s tr i a l , the j ury f ound he rgui l ty of

a l l 170 c o u n ts o f th e in d ic tm e n t a g a in s t h e r . A tse nt enci ng , the di stri ctcourtfi rs tca l cul at ed the appl i cabl e G ui del i nes ra ng e, t o w hi ch ca l cul at i on M cF ar l and adm i tt ed no obj ec t i on . M cF ar l and t hen a r gue d the s e nt e nc e i m pos e d oughtt o be be l ow the G ui de l i ne s r a nge ( 360 m onths t o l i fe i n p ri son aft erthe do w nw ar d d epar ture f or coop er at i on ) bec ause ea ch of her co -d efen d an t s h ad b een sen t en ced t o t erm s ran g i n g fro m 5 t o 8 7 m o n th s an d , th u s, f ortha ta nd othe rr e a s ons a 360- m onth s e nt e nc e di d notm e e tthe r e qui r e m e nt s of 18 U . S . C . § 3 55 3(a) . T he go vernm entar gu ed for ase nt ence w i thi n the G ui del i nes r a n g e . T he c our tdi s t i ngui s he d M c F a r l a nd f r om he rc ode f

e nda nt s on the gr ound thatea ch of them had acce pt ed re spon si bi l i ty f or thei r a ct i on s w hi l e s he had

“ s how n no r e m or s e , . . . done nothi ng butt e l l one l i e a f t e ra nothe r [ , a nd] . . . done e v e ry th in g p o s s ib le to try to o b s tru c t th e in v e s tig a tio n in th is c a s e [ .]” R 1 6 a t 1 3 5 . Th e d i s tr i c tj u d g e th e n e x p l a i n e d h i s d u ty t o c o n s i d e ra l l f a c t o r s l i s t e d i n 1 8 U . S. C. § 3553( a ) , pa i ns t a ki ngl y e xpl a i ne d hi s c ons i de r a t i on of s e ve r a l of

the m a nd i m pos e d a s e nt e nc e a tthe l ow e nd of the G ui de l i ne s r a nge . R 16 a t172- 74, 178.7 I I . DI S CUS S I ON A . E vi dent i ary I ss ues M c F a r l a nd a s s e r t s tha tthe c our tc om m i tt e d pr e j udi c i a l e rr orby a l l ow i ng opi ni on t e s t i m ony a s t o M c F a r l a nd’ s i nt e ntby tw o gove rnm e ntw i tne s s e s a nd by a l l ow i ng e vi de nc e r e ga r di ng he rpos s e s s i on of a f a l s e F l or i da dr i ve r ’ s l i c e ns e . S he a ls o a r g u e s th a t e ith e rs e p a r a te ly o rc u m u la tiv e ly th e s e e v id e n tia ry is s u e s c o n s titu te re vers i bl e e rr or. W e r evi ew prop er l y pre se rved chal l enges t o a di stri ctcourt ’ s e vi dent i ary rul i ngs f ora c l e a ra bus e of

di s c r e t i on. U ni t e d S t a t e s v. T i noc o, 304 F . 3d 1088, 1119 ( 11th C i r . 2002) . I n c a s e s of a bus e of di s c r e t i on, w e w i l l r e ve r s e onl y i f a ny error “ af fe ct ed the defendant ’ s s ub st ant i al ri gh t s. ” I d. (c i t at i on om i tt ed). C ha l l e nge s t o e vi de nt i a ry rul i ngs tha ta r e nots pe c i f i c a l l y m a de a ttr i a l a r e not pr e s e r ve d a nd s o w e r e vi e w the m unde rthe pl a i n e rr ors t a nda r d. U ni t e d S t a t e s v. W i l l i ford, 76 4 F . 2d 14 93 , 15 02 (11t h C i r. 19 85 ). F e d. R . E vi d. 701 pe r m i t s a l a y w i tne s s t o t e s t i f y “ i n the f

or m of opi ni ons or i nf e r e nc e s . . . w hi c h a r e ( a ) r a t i ona l l y ba s e d on the pe r c e pt i on of the w i tne s s , ( b) hel pful t o a cl ea r und er st andi ng of the w i tness ’ t es t i m on y or the det erm i nat i on of a fa cti n i ss ue, and (c) no tbase d o n sci ent i fi c, t ec hn i ca l , or ot her s peci al i ze d know l e dge w i thi n the s c ope of R ul e 702. ” F e d. R . E vi d. 704 pe r m i t s l a y opi ni on8

t e s t i m ony tha ti s othe rw i s e a dm i s s i bl e e ve n i f “ i te m br a c e s a n ul t i m a t e i s s ue t o be de c i de d by the tr i e rof

f a c t . ” W e ha ve a l s o r e c ogni z e d tha tthe 2000 a ddi t i on of p art(c) t o R u l e 7 0 1 w as n o ti n t en d ed t o p ro h i b i tl ay w i tn ess t est i m o n y b y b u si n ess ow ne r s a nd e m pl oy e e s “ ba s e d upon the i rpa r t i c ul a r i z e d know l e dge ga rne r e d f r om y e a r s of e xpe r i e nc e w i thi n [ a gi ve n] f i e l d, ” w he n tha tt e s t i m ony i s he l pf ul t o the tri erof fa ctand rel evantt o the i ss ues pre se nt ed i n the ca se . T am pa B ay S hi pb ui l di ng & R epai r C o. v. C edarS hi pp i ng C o. , 32 0 F . 3d 12 13 , 12 23 (11t h C i r. 20 03 ). 1 . T

ay l or ’s T e s t i m ony M cF ar l and’ s obj ec t i on t o T ay l or’ s t es t i m on y w as sust ai ned b y the di stri ct courtand so n o i m perm i ss i bl e t es t i m on y w as adm i tt ed. M cF ar l and n ow ar gu es th a t th e te s tim o n y e lic ite d b y th e r e p h r a s e d q u e s tio n c o n s titu te s im p e r m is s ib le o p i n i o n t est i m o n y, b u th er at t o rn ey m ad e n o su ch o b j ect i o n attri al . A cco rd i n g l y, w e r evi ew thatadm i ss i on of t es t i m on y f or pl ai n err or. A rev i ew o f th e tran scri p trev eal s th atT ayl o r fu n ct i o n ed as a fact w i tn ess, nota s a n e xpe r tw i tne s s . T he ove rw he l m i ng m a j or i ty of que s t i ons pr e c e di ng the q u e s tio n a t is s u e h e r e f

o llo w a n a rr a tiv e o f

h e rp e r s o n a l b u s in e s s d e a lin g s w ith M c F a r l a nd a nd othe rm e m be r s of M c F a r l a nd’ s f

i r m . T hos e que s t i ons tha tdo not a s k onl y f

orc l a r i f i c a t i on of

bus i ne s s t e r m s orpe r s ona l bus i ne s s pr a c t i c e s ba s e d on9

h erp ar ti cu larize d ex p er ien ce in th e tit le in su ra n ce field . T h e g o v er n m en t’ s re ph ra si ng of i t s quest i on t o T ay l or and h erre spon se draw sol el y upo n h erpers on al obs e r va t i ons r e ga r di ng he rdi r e c te xpe r i e nc e s i n de a l i ng w i th M c F a r l a nd’ s c l os i ng files. T h is is fu rth ersu p p o rted b y th e g o v er m en t’ s r es p o n se to M cF ar lan d ’s o b je c tio n : th a t th e te s tim o n y s h o u ld b e a llo w e d b e c a u s e T a y lo rw a s “f a m ilia rw ith th e tr a n s a c t i o n s , h a [ d ] g o n e b e h i n d th e tr a n s a c t i o n s . ” R 5 a t4 3 1 . Ac c o r d i n g l y , we f in d th a t th e te s tim o n y f

a lls s q u a r e ly w ith in th a t p e r m itte d b y R u le s 7 0 1 a n d 7 0 4 . T here w as no error, pl ai n o r otherw i se . 2 . B r ow n’s T

e s t i m ony B r o w n ’s te s tim o n y w a s a llo w e d o v e rM c F a r la n d ’s o b je c tio n a n d th u s is re vi ew ed for abu se of di sc re t i on . W e f i rs tob se rve thatB row n w as al so qu es t i on ed a s a f a c tw i tne s s r a the rtha n a s a n e xpe r t . H e rt e s t i m ony dr e w f r om he rf

i r s t - ha nd ob se rvat i on s a nd experi ence s of the event s a nd tra nsac t i on s a ti ss ue – i n thi s c as e, p a r tic u la r ly w ith r e g a r d to h e ro w n in te n t, a n d th a t o f o th e rm e m b e r s o f

h e rf ir m , to e v a d e a n a u d i tb y Att o rn e y s ’ T i t l e F u n d . S e c o n d , wi th r e s p e c tt o h e ro wn pa r t i c i pa t i on, he ra ns w e rt o the que s t i on c a nnotbe c ons i de r e d a n opi ni on. T hi r d, t o the ext entthatshe a nsw er ed the qu es t i on as t o o thers atM cF ar l and’ s f i rm , her answ erw as base d o n h erow n fi rs t -hand i m pres si on of the si tuat i on . T hu s, her t e s t i m ony f

i t s s qua r e l y w i thi n tha tpe r m i tt e d by R ul e s 701 a nd 704. T he r e w a s noMcF arla nd asser ts that her lawyer a

rgued the curative instruc tion was insufficient at 1 trial, Appellant’s B rief at 46-47, but the portion of the trial tra nscript she c ites for that a ssertion does not ref

lect any such argument, nor does a ny other portion as f

ar a s we c an see . See R8 at 935. 10 abuse of di sc re t i on i n the court ’ s overrul i ng the obj ec t i on . T here i s no err or. 3 . D ri ve r’s L i ce nse E vi dence W e r evi ew a r ef

usal t o g ra nta m i stri al for abu se of di sc re t i on . U ni t ed S t at es v. R am i re z, 42 6 F . 3d 13 44 , 13 53 (11t h C i r. 20 05 ) ( per c uri am ). If a di stri ctcourt g iv e s a c u r a tiv e in s tru c tio n , w e w ill r e v e r s e o n ly if th e e v id e n c e is s o h ig h ly pr e j udi c i a l a s t o be i nc ur a bl e by the tr i a l c our t ' s a dm oni t i on. U ni t e d S t a t e s v. D e lg a d o , 3 2 1 F .3 d 1 3 3 8 , 1 3 4 7 ( 1 1 th C ir . 2 0 0 3 ) ( q u o ta tio n s o m itte d ) . M c F a r l a nd’ s obj e c t i on w i th r e s pe c tt o a dm i s s i on of t e s t i m ony r e ga r di ng the fa l se F l ori da dri ver’ s l i ce nse w as ul t i m at el y s ust ai ned. T he courtdeni ed M c F a r l a nd’ s m ot i on f

orm i s tr i a l on the gr ound tha ti tha d gi ve n a s uf f i c i e nt c ur a t i ve i ns truc t i on t o the j ury . M c F a r l a nd di d notthe n a nd doe s notnow a r gue 1 h o w th e in s tru c tio n w a s in s u f f ic ie n t to c u r e a n y h a r m c a u s e d b y th e e v id e n c e . W e f in d th a t a p a s s in g m e n tio n th a t M c F a r la n d p o s s e s s e d a f a ls e F lo r id a d r iv e r 's l i ce nse i n the cont extof al l the ot her t es t i m on y a nd evi dence i n thi s c as e a s t o h er s pe c i f i c c onduc ti n c onne c t i on w i th the f r a ud i s nots o hi ghl y pr e j udi c i a l a s t o be i nc ur a bl e by the tr i a l c our t ' s a dm oni t i on. W e f i nd no a bus e of

di s c r e t i on. T he cum ul at i ve ef

fe ctof m ul t i pl e e rr ors m ay re qu i re re vers al of an11

ap p ellan t’ s c o n v icti o n w h er e, in co m b in atio n , th o se er ro rs p re ju d ice a d ef

en d an t’ s r i ghtt o a f

a i rtr i a l . R a m i r e z , 426 F . 3d a t1353. O f the thr e e i s s ue s M c F a r l a nd r a i s e s , how e ve r , onl y one a c tua l l y r e s ul t e d i n e vi de nc e w r ongl y a dm i tt e d: the dri ver’ s l i ce nse t es t i m on y. A cc ordi ng l y, there ca n b e no cum ul at i ve error, and, as pr e vi ous l y di s c us s e d, a ny ha r m f r om the dr i ve r ’ s l i c e ns e t e s t i m ony w a s c ur e d by th e j u d g e’ s i n stru ct i o n t o th e j u ry. B . T he S ent ence M cF ar l and argues thatthe di stri ctj ud ge ef fe ct i vel y tre at ed the G ui del i nes a s m a n d a to ry . I n p a r tic u la r , s h e p o in ts to th e ju d g e ’s s ta te m e n t th a t h e f e lt it w a s h is

“ du ty” t o i m po se a G ui del i nes s ent ence . R 16 at17 2. S he al so ar gu es thather se nt ence i s unrea sonabl e bec ause even i f the courtdi d n ottre atthe G ui del i nes a s m a nda t ory , the j udge ga ve undue w e i ghtt o the G ui de l i ne s , the c onc e ptof det erre nce, and h erfa i l ure t o ackno w l edge her gui l t , and fai l ed prop er l y t o con si der o th er § 3 5 5 3 (a) factors. F i rs t , w e have re cogn i ze d thatappl i ca t i on of the G ui del i nes a s m andat ory, as o p p o s e d t o a d v i s o ry , i s s t a tu t o ry e rr o ru n d e rU n i t e d St a t e s v . Bo o k e r , 5 4 3 U . S. 220, 125 S . C t . 738 ( 2005) . U ni t e d S t a t e s v. S he l t on, 400 F . 3d 1325, 1330- 31 (11t h C i r. 20 05 ). A tse nt enci ng , the j ud ge di d say he w ou l d “ i m po se a G ui del i nes se nt ence i n thi s c as e . . . because [ he tho ug htthati tw as hi s] du ty i n thi s c as e. ”Be causeMcF arla nd failed to raise any

objection to her sentencebased on perce ived 2 mandatory

application of theGuidelines bef ore thedistrict court, wereview this issue under the plain error standard. United States v. Rodriguez, 398 F.3d 1291, 1298 (11th Cir.), c ert. denied 545 U.S. 1127, 125 S. C t. 2935 (2005). Under the plain error standard, Mc Fa

rland must show that (1) there wa s error; (2) that the error wa s plain; and (3) that the plain error af fec ted her su bs tanti al rights . I d. A de fendant’ s su bs tanti al rightsarea ff

e c te d when th e reis a

re a so na ble probability

that the district court would have imposed a diff erent sentenceif it had not believed theGuide lin e s tobemandator y . I d. at 12 99 . F inally, th ec ourt may no tic esu c h a

n error on ly if it seriously

aff ecte d the fairness, integrity or public reputation of the judicial proc eeding s. I d. at 12 98 . B e c a

us ewefind

no e rror , w eproc e e d n o f ur ther withthi s a

nalysis . 12 R 16 at17 2. H ow ever , the j ud ge i m m edi at el y c l ar i fi ed any a m bi gu i ty i n that st at em entby expl ai ni ng that ”[ i ] n t erm s of dec i di ng w hether or nott o i m po se a G ui de l i ne s s e nt e nc e , I ’ m r e qui r e d t o c ons i de rthe f a c t or s i n S e c t i on 3553( a ) of T itle 1 8 .” I d . T h e b r o a d e rc o n te x t o f th e ju d g e ’s r e m a r k s , h is e x p lic it r e f e r e n c e to a n obl i ga t i on a l s o t o c ons i de r§ 3553( a ) f a c t or s , a nd hi s de t a i l e d e xpl a na t i on of the re as on i ng behi nd the se nt ence i m po se d m ake i tcl ea r thathe di d n otbel i eve he w as r e q u ir e d to im p o s e a G u id e lin e s s e n te n c e . T h e c o u r t f e lt d u ty b o u n d - n o t le g a lly bo un d - t o sent ence w i thi n the G ui del i nes r ange. W e s ee no st atut ory e rr or un der B oo ker. 2 S ec on d, w e r evi ew se nt ence s i m po se d u nd erthe po st -B oo ker a dv i sory G ui de l i ne s c he m e f

orr e a s ona bl e ne s s . U ni t e d S t a t e s v. W i ni nge a r , 422 F . 3d 1241, 12 44 (11t h C i r. 20 05 ) ( per c uri am ). W e have hel d thati n sent enci ng , the di stri ct courtm ustfi rs tcorr ec t l y c al cul at e adefe nd ant ’ s G ui del i nes r ange. U ni t ed S t at es v. C r a w f or d, 407 F . 3d 1174, 1179 ( 11th C i r . 2005) . T he n, i n c ons i de r a t i on of the13

se nt enci ng fa ct ors l i st ed i n 1 8 U . S . C . § 3 55 3(a) , the court“ m ay i m po se a m ore s e v e r e o rm o r e le n ie n t s e n te n c e a s lo n g a s [ it] is r e a s o n a b le .” I d . O urr e vi e w f

orr e a s ona bl e ne s s i s de f e r e nt i a l . U ni t e d S t a t e s v. T a l l e y , 431 F . 3d 784, 788 ( 11th C i r . 2005) ( pe rc ur i a m ) . “ W e m us te va l ua t e w he the rthe se nt ence i m po se d b y the di stri ctcourtfa i l s t o achi eve the pu rposes of se nt enci ng as s ta te d in s e c tio n 3 5 5 3 ( a ) ,” a n d “w e r e c o g n iz e th a t th e r e is a r a n g e o f r e a s o n a b le se nt ence s f

rom w hi ch the di stri ctcourtm ay choo se . ” I d. W e have al so no t ed that

“ or di na r i l y w e w oul d e xpe c ta s e nt e nc e w i thi n the G ui de l i ne s r a nge t o be r e a s ona bl e . ” I d. T he S upr e m e C our tha s appr ove d e ve n the m or e f or m a l a dopt i on of a pre sum pt i on of re as on abl enes s f or se nt ence s i m po se d w i thi n the G ui del i nes r a nge . R i t a v. U ni t e d S t a t e s , ___ U . S . ___, 127 S . C t . 2456, 2462- 65 ( 2007) . T he C our te xpl a i ne d tha ts uc h a pr e s um pt i on i s e qua l t o a n appe a l s c our t ’ s r e c ogni t i on

“ tha tw he n the [ s e nt e nc i ng] j udge ’ s di s c r e t i ona ry de c i s i on a c c or ds w i th the [ S e nt e nc i ng] C om m i s s i on’ s vi e w of the appr opr i a t e appl i c a t i on of § 3553( a ) i n the mi n e ru n o f

c a s e s , i ti s p r o b a b l e th a tth e s e n t e n c e i s r e a s o n a b l e . ” I d . a t___ , 1 2 7 S. C t. a t 2 4 6 5 ( c itin g T a lle y a s a n e x a m p le ) . W e h a v e f u r th e rh e ld th a t “n o th in g in B oo ker or e l se w here re qu i re s the di stri ctcourtt o st at e on t he re cord thati thas expl i ci t l y c on si dere d eac h o f the § 3 55 3(a) fa ct ors or t o d i sc uss e ac h o f the § 3 5 5 3 ( a ) f a c to r s .” U n ite d S ta te s v . S c o tt, 4 2 6 F .3 d 1 3 2 4 , 1 3 2 9 ( 1 1 th C ir . 2 0 0 5 ) . A14

d is tr ic t c o u r t’s s ta te m e n t th a t it h a s c o n s id e r e d th e § 3 5 5 3 ( a ) f a c to r s a lo n e is s u f f ic ie n t. I d . a t 1 3 3 0 . A tthe s e nt e nc i ng he a r i ng, the di s tr i c tc our tf i r s tc or r e c t l y c a l c ul a t e d the G ui del i nes s ent ence . M cF ar l and d oes notchal l enge thatca l cul at i on . T he court th e n e x p lic itly r e c o g n iz e d a d u ty to c o n s id e rth e f a c to r s lis te d in 1 8 U .S .C . § 35 53 (a ). T he courtal so consi dere d M cF ar l and’ s a rgum entas t o w hy a s ent ence be l ow the G ui de l i ne s r a nge m i ghtbe appr opr i a t e . I n r e j e c t i ng he ra r gum e nt s , the c our te xpl a i ne d tha t , due t o s pe c i f i c f a c t or s l i s t e d i n §3553( a ) , he be l i e ve d a G ui de l i ne s s e nt e nc e t o be appr opr i a t e . W e a gr e e . A c c or di ngl y , w e f i nd the se nt ence t o b e r ea sonabl e. I I I . CONCL US I ON M c F a r l a nd appe a l s he rc onvi c t i on a nd s e nt e nc e on 170 c ount s of va r i ous ty pe s of f r a ud a nd m one y - l a unde r i ng. B e c a us e w e f i nd tha ta ny e vi de nt i a ry e rr or w a s c u r e d b y th e c o u r t’s a d m o n itio n a n d b e c a u s e w e f in d th e s e n te n c e im p o s e d to h a v e b e e n b o th p r o c e d u r a l l y a n d s u b s t a n t i v e l y r e a s o n a b l e , we AF F I RM M c F a r la n d ’s c o n v ic tio n a n d s e n te n c e .