FI L ED U.S. COURT OF APPEAL S EL EVENTHCI RCUI T MAY 26, 2011 J OHN L EY CL ERK [DO NOT PUBLISH] IN THE U

NITED STATE S COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELE VENTH CIRCUIT

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ No. 1 0- 12 80 1 Non -Arg um en t Ca le nd ar

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ D.C. Dock etNo. 5 :0 9- cr-0 04 41 -RDP-R RA-1 UNITED STAT ES OF AMERIC A, ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll l Pla in ti ff-Ap pe ll ee, ve rs us ALPHONSO BRONTAY BENFORD, a.k .a. Alp ho ns o B ro nt ay

Harri s, ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll l Defen da nt -Ap pe ll an t.

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ App eal fro m

th e Uni te d S ta te s Di st ric t Co urt forth e North ernDis tri ctof Al ab am a

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ (Ma y 26 , 20 11 )

Befo re BARKETT, MARTIN, an d ANDERSON, Ci rcu itJu dg es . PER CURI AM:Alp ho ns o B ro nt ay Ben fo rdap pe al s h is co nv ic ti on s an d s en te nc es fortwo co un ts of b ei ng a fel on in po ss es si on of afir earm , invi ol at io n o f 18 U.S.C. § 9 22 (g )(1 ). Ben fo rdarg ue s: (1) th atth e d is tri ctco urt erredinadm it ti ng ch arac te r ev id en ce i n v io la ti on of F ed eral Ru le s o f Evi de nc e 4 04 (b ) an d 4 03 ; (2 ) th atth e di st ric t co urt erredin adm it ti ng he ars ay ev id en ce, an d t ha t thi s ev id en ce v io la te d hi s ri gh ts un de r th e Co nf ro nt at io n C laus e; (3) th atth e jury’ s fi nd in g t ha t Be nf or d
un la wfu ll y

po ss es se d t he fir earm

di sc ov eredinhi s v eh ic le was n otsupp orte d b y su ffi ci en t ev id en ce; (4) th atth e g ov ern m en t’s fa il ur e to pro vi de a wit ne ss es ’s te st im on y fro m a pr ev io us tri al vi ol at edBrad y v. Ma ry la nd , 37 3 U.S. 8 3, 8 3 S . Ct. 11 94 (19 63 ) an d t he Jen ck s Act , 18 U.S.C. § 3 50 0; (5) th atth e cu m ul at iv e eff

ect of th es e err or s d en ie d B en fo rda fai r tr ia l; an d (6 ) th atth e d is tri ctco urt erredin ap pl y in g atwo -le ve l o bs tru ct io n o f jus ti ce en ha nc em en t u nd er Un it edSta te s Sen te nc in g Gu id el in es § 3 C1 .1 (No v. 2 00 9) an d afou r-l ev el en ha nc em en t fo r po ss es si ng a fi rearm

in co nn ect io n wi th an othe r fel on y off en se un de r U.S.S.G. § 2 K2.1 (b )(6 ). Aftercare fu l re vi ew of th e rec or d a ndth e p art ie s’ bri efs , we affi rm Ben fo rd ’s con vi ct io ns an d s en te nc es . I. Ben fo rdarg ue s t ha t the di st ric t co urt erredinadm it ti ng im pe rm is si bl e ch arac te r ev id en ce i n v io la ti on of Rul es 40 4( b) an d 4 03 . Spe ci fic al ly, he co nt en ds 2th atth e d is tri ctco urt ab us edit s d is cret io n i n a dm it ti ng (1) ev id en ce o f th ree

Sp rin g 2 00 8 d ru g tran sa ct io ns , (2) My Sp ace p ho to s s ho win g B en fo rdho ld in g fir earm s, (3 ) a wit ne ss ’s tes ti m on y th atBen fo rdpre vi ou sl y

pu rch as edco cai ne fro m hi m , and(4) a va rie ty of ot he r ev id en ce tha t Be nf or d c on te nd s was un du ly pr ejud ic ia l. We con si de r eac h i n turn. A. Fi rs t, Be nf

or d c ha ll en ge s t he adm is si on of t es ti m on y ab ou t thr ee co nt ro ll ed drug buy s i n S pr in g 2 00 8. No rm al ly, “ [w]e revi ew ev id en ti ary ru li ng s o f th e di st ric t co urt fo r anab us e o f di sc ret io n.” Uni te d S ta te s v . Hoffm an -Vai le , 56 8 F.3 d 1 33 5, 1 34 0 (1 1t h C ir. 2 00 9) . “ [B]utwhen a party rais es a cl ai m of
ev id en ti ary erro r fo r th e fi rs t t im e o n app eal , we rev ie w itforpl ai n e rro r on ly.” Id. (quo ta ti onm ark s o m it te d) . Alth ou gh Ben fo rdob jecte d t o t hi s ev id en ce i n h is pre tri al m ot io n i n l im in e, he fai le d t o re ne w hi s o bjec ti on when th e ev id en ce was pr es en te d a t tria l. Becaus e “ th e o ve rru li ng of am ot io n i n l im in e d oe s n otsu ffi ce” 1 to pre se rv e anob

jecti on onap pe al , we rev ie w th e ad m is si on of t hi s ev id en ce o nl y fo r pl ai n e rro r. Uni te d S ta te s v . Kho ury , 90 1 F .2d94 8, 9 66 (11 th Cir . 19 90 ).

“ Pl ai n e rro r oc cu rs wher e (1 ) th ere i s an erro r; ( 2) th atis pl ai n o r ob vi ou s; (3)

Be nford did objec t to some of this testim ony on hear say

grounds. That issue is 1 considere d in Part I Ibelow. 3affe ct in g t he de fen da nt ’s subs tant ia l ri gh ts inth atitwas p reju di ci al an d n ot

ha rm le ss ; an d (4 ) th atser io us ly affect s t he fai rn es s, i nt eg rit y or p ub li c rep ut at io n of th e jud ic ia l p ro ceed in gs .” Hoff m an -Vai le , 56 8 F .3dat 1 34 0 (quo ta ti on m ark s om it te d) . “ It i s t he law o f th is cir cu itth at , at l eas t wh ere t he ex pl ic itlan gu ag e o f a st atut e o r ru le do es no t s pe ci fic al ly reso lv e anis su e, th ere c anbe no pl ai n e rro r whe re the re i s n o p rece de ntfro m th e Supr em e Co urt o r th is Co urt d ire ct ly
res ol vi ng it .” Uni te d S ta te s v . Lejarde -Rad a, 31 9 F .3d12 88 , 12 91 (11 th Cir
. 20 03 ). Gen eral ly, Ru le 40 4( b) “pr oh ib it s ev id en ce o f of fen se s o r il le ga l ac ts ex tri ns ic to a de fen da nt ’s in di ctm en t t o s ho w th e d efen da nt ’s badch arac te r.” 2 Uni te d S ta te s v . Cos ta , 69 1 F .2d13 58 , 13 61 (11 th Cir . 19 82 ). W e ap pl y a th reepa rt t es t t o d et erm in e whe th er ex tri ns ic ev id en ce o f pr io r ba d a ct s i s ad m is si bl e un de r Ru le 40 4( b) :

Fi rs t, the ev id en ce m

us t b e rel ev an t t o an is su e ot he r th an th e de fen da nt ’s c h a ract er; Seco nd , th e act m us t be es tabl is he d by su ffi ci en t pr oo f to pe rm it a jury fin di ng th at th e de fen da nt co m

m it te d th e ex tri ns ic act ; [an d] Thi rd , th e pr ob at iv e va lu e of th e ev id en ce m us t no t be subs ta nt ia ll y Specifica lly , Rule 404(b) provide s that “[e]vi dence of other c rimes, wrong s, or ac ts is 2 not admissible to prove the cha rac ter of a

person in orde r to show ac tion in conformity there with,” but “may

. . . be admissible for othe r purpose s, such as proof of motive, opportunity , intent, prepa

ration, plan, knowle dg e, identity , or abse nce of mistake or ac cident.”

4ou twei gh ed by it s un du e pr ejud ic e, an d th e ev id en ce m us t m eetth e o th er re qu ire m en ts of Rul e 4 03
. Uni te d S ta te s v . Mat th ews , 43 1 F .3d12 96 , 13 11 –1 2 (1 1t h C ir. 2 00 5)
. Ru le 40 3 p ro vi de s t ha t “ [a]ltho ug h re le vant , evi de nc e m ay be ex cl ud edif i ts pr ob at iv e v al ue is subs ta nt ia ll y ou twei gh edby the da ng er o f un fai r pr ejud ic e, co nf us io n o f th e is su es , or m is le ad in g t he jury, or b y co ns id erat io ns of u ndue de la y , wast e o f ti m e, or

ne ed le ss pre se nt at io n o f cum ul at iv e ev id en ce.” Al th ou gh th e d is tri ctco urt h as a gr eatde gr ee o f di sc ret io n i n wei gh in g p ro ba ti ve va lu e an d pr ejud ic e u nd er Ru le 40 3, “ we ha ve als o re co gn iz edth atRu le 40 3 i s an ex tra or di na ry

rem edy whi ch th e d is tri ctco urt s ho ul d i nv ok e sp ari ng ly, an d the ba la nc e . . . sho ul d b e st ru ckinfav orof a dm is si bi li ty.” Uni te d S ta te s v . Dod ds , 34 7 F .3d89 3, 8 97 (11 th Cir . 20 03 ) (quo ta ti on m ark s o m it te d) . The ri skof u ndue pr ejud ic e can be reduc edby a dis tri ctco urt’s l im it in g i ns tru ct io n. Un it edSta te s v . Ram ire z, 42 6 F .3d13 44 , 13 54 (11 th Cir . 20 05 ). Inth is cas e, th e d is tri ctco urt ad m it te d e vi de nc e o f th ree c on tro ll eddru g tra ns act io ns in Marc h a ndApri l o f 20 08 , inwhi chBen fo rdso ldco cai ne to a co nf id en ti al in fo rm an t. The co urt i ns tru ct edth e jury tha t thi s ev id en ce co ul d o nl y be us edforth e p ur

po se of d et erm in in g wh ethe r Ben fo rdkn owi ng ly pos se ss edth e

5fir earm s t ha t wer e d is co ve redup on hi s arres t i n Au gu st20 08
. In Un it edSta te s v . 3 Tho m as , 24 2 F .3d10 28 (11 th Cir . 20 01 ), th is Co urt h el d t ha t ev id en ce o f drug de al in g i s re le va ntto pro vi ng th ata de fen da ntkn owi ng ly pos se ss edweap on s, s o lo ng as “ th e ev id en ce o f . . . dru g t raff ic ki ng [i]s i n s uf

fic ie nt ly clo se pro xi m it y , te m po ral ly andph y si cal ly,” to t he fact s s up po rti ng th e weap on s ch arg e. Id . at 10 32 . Whi le we di d n otelabo rat e o n wh atwas “ su ffi ci en tl y clo se pro xi m it y , te m po ral ly andph y si cal ly,” we exp la in edth atev enth ou gh
no drug s w e r e fo un d du rin g th e Ju ly 1 7 se arch of hi s res id en ce du rin g whi ch th e weap on s were fo un d.
. . . [t]he fact th at Tho m as was en ga ge d in se ll in g crac k fro m hi s ho m e [o n Ju ne 29 an d Ju l y 8 w a s ] rel ev an t ev id en ce from whi ch to in fer th athe kn owi ng ly pos se ss ed rif le s fou nd in th e cl os et of th at ho m e an d in hi s tru ck pa rk ed in th e dr iv eway of th at ho m e. Id
. As i n Th om as , no co cai ne was fo un d dur in g the sea rch es th atres ul te d i n t he weap on s ch arg es in th is cas e. Als o a s i n Th om as , th is ev id en ce was adm it te d 4
subjec t t o ali m it in g i ns tru ct io n t ha t i t was to be us edon ly for d et erm in in g wh ethe r
Specifica lly , the district court instructe d the jury not to “consider a

ny of this evidence in 3 decidingif [Benfor d] poss essed a wea pon unlawfully

in this case,” but state d: “[i] f you find beyond a re asonable doubt that the defe ndant did possess[] a we apon, then you may consider the evidenc e of the se other ba d acts . . . in dete rmining whether or not he knowing ly

possessed the wea pon.” Severa l Ecstasy

pills were f

ound in Be nford’ s bedroom and ma rijuana w as found in 4 another bedroom duringthe sea

rch of Be nford’ s home followinghis arre st.

6Ben fo rdkn owi ng ly pos se ss edth e weap on s. Id . at 1 03 3. Nev erthe le ss , Ben fo rd

arg ue s t ha t h is cas e is di st in gu is habl e fro m Tho m as , bec au se th e dru g t ran sa ct io ns to okpl ace m on th s b efo re an d a t d iff eren t l oc at io ns th anth e ev en ts gi vi ng ris e to th e weap on s ch arg es . Butbe cau se we rev ie w th is is su e o nl y forpl ai n e rro r, we ne edno t d eci de whet he r th e ev id en ce o f narco ti cs sal es inth is cas e was in

“ su ffi ci en tl y

clo se pro xi m it y , tem

po ral ly andph y si cal ly,” to c om e wit hi n t he
sc op e o f Tho m as ’s ho ld in g. 2 42 F.3dat 1 03 2. In st ead , we si m pl y ho ldth aton th es e fac ts , andin li gh t o f Tho m as , th e d is tri ctco urt d idno t p la in ly err in adm it ti ng th e ev id en ce o f th e ear li er co ntro ll eddru g b uys as in tri ns ic ev id en ce o f Ben fo rd ’s kn owi ng po ss es si on . B. Seco nd , Ben fo rdch al le ng es th e ad m is si on of two p ho to gr ap hs tak enfro m hi s M y Sp ace p ag e, whi ch sh owe d h im po si ng with t wo o f th e p is to ls ch arg edin th e in di ctm en t. The di stric t co urt d en ie d B en fo rd ’s m ot io n i n l im in e to ex cl ud e th e im ag es , bu t d ire ct edth e g ov ern m en t t o re da cta pr ejud ic ia l capt io n p res en te d with Ex hi bi t 1 5. Th e o th er i m ag e, Exh ib it17 , was ad m it te d i nt o e vi de nc e wit h t he cap ti on : “ Strap pe d i n t he st reet s an d i n t he bo ot h, b it ch es .” At tria l, Be nf or d ob jecte d t o t he adm is si on of Ex hi bi t 1 7, b utno t Ex hi bi t 1 5. We th eref or e rev ie w

7th e ad m is si on of Ex hi bi t 1 7 fo r ab us e o f di sc ret io n, b utrev ie w th e ad m is si on of

Exh ib it15 on ly for p la in erro r. See Ho ffm an -Vai le , 56 8 F .3dat 1 34 0. Ben fo rdarg ue s t ha t the ph ot os an d c ap ti on s wer e ex tri ns ic ev id en ce tha t

“ di d n ot hi ng ot he r th anrep res en t [h im ] as a ga ng st er an d c riminal ,” an d the refo re ou gh t t o h av e b een ex cl ud edun de r Ru le s 4 04 (b ) an d 4 03 . Ben fo rdrel ie s o n Uni te d S ta te s v . Pha kn ik on e, 60 5 F .3d10 99 (11 th Cir . 20 10 ), in whi ch th is Co urt co nc lu de d t ha t “ th e d is tri ctco urt ab us edit s d is cret io n b y adm it ti ng th e p ro fil e pa ge , subs cri be r rep ort, an d p ho to gr ap hs fro m th e MySpac e.co m

acco un t o f [the de fen da nt ] to pro ve th athe co m m it te d ast rin g o f ba nkrob be rie s ‘li ke a ga ng st er.’” Id . at 1 10 1, 1 10 9. Bu t u nl ik e in Ph akni ko ne , th e p ho to gr ap hs he re d idno t s im pl y sh ow Be nf

or d a ct in g “ li ke a ga ng st er.” In st ead , th ey sp eci fic al ly sho wedBen fo rd ho ld in g t wo o f th e p is to ls ch arg edinth e in di ctm en t. At t ria l, the go ve rn m en t el ic it edtes ti m on y

fro m anATF sp eci al ag en t tha t o ne of t he pi st ol s d is pl ay edin Exh ib it15 ha d m ark in gs id en ti fy in g i t as a te nt h a nn iv ers ary go ld -p la te d Lo rci n pi st ol , th e sa m e type fo un d i n asaf e in Ben fo rd ’s res id en ce. The ag en t t es ti fie d th atth e g un s i n Ex hi bi t 1 7 a ls o h adm ark in gs co ns is te ntwith t ho se Lorc in pi st ol s. 5 Thu s, unl ik e in Ph akni ko ne , th e p ho to gr ap hs were n otex tri ns ic ev id en ce. See 60 5

Indeed, later in the trial, B enford admitted that the guns in the photogr aphs we re the 5 same one s rec overe d from his home. 8F.3 d a t 1 10 7– 08 . Ins te ad , th is ev id en ce was di rect ly pro ba ti ve of B en fo rd ’s

kn owi ng po ss es si onof t he ve ry weap on s ch arg edinth e in di ctm en t. Bec au se th is
was in tri ns ic ev id en ce, i t was no t s ub ject t o t he li m it at io ns of Rul e 4 04 (b ). See Uni te d S ta te s v . Chu rch , 95 5 F .2d68 8, 7 00 (11 th Cir . 19 92 ) (“ [B]ecau se th e ev id en ce i s i nt rin si c, no t ex tri ns ic , we do no t en ga ge ina Ru le 40 4( b) an al y si s.”)
. W e al so no te th atth e ATF sp eci al ag en t t es ti fie d t ha t the term “ st rap pe d” in th e cap ti on to th e p ho to gr ap h i n Ex hi bi t 1 7 m ean t “ carry in g afir earm .” As s uc h, whi le th is cap ti on m ay

ha ve be enpre

jud ic ia l, we ca nn otsay tha t the di st ric t co urt ab us edit s d is cret io n i n c on cl ud in g t ha t an y pre jud ic e d idno t s ub st an ti al ly
ou twei ghit s p ro ba ti ve va lu e. Fo r th es e rea so ns , we con cl ud e th atth e d is tri ctco urt di d n oterr i n a dm it ti ng th es e ex hi bi ts . C. Ben fo rdne xttak es is su e wit h t he di st ric t co urt’s ad m is si on , ov er o bjec ti on , of Tagg etW il li am s’s t es ti m on y th athe reg ul arl y

so ldlar ge qu an ti ti es of c oc ai ne to Ben fo rdin Atl an tafro m

20 04 to 20 07 . The d is tri ctco urt h adin it ia ll y ex cl ud ed th is tes ti m on y

fro m th e g ov ern m en t’s ca se -in -ch ie f whe n ru li ng onBen fo rd ’s
m ot io n i n l im in e, bu t l at er al lo wedth e g ov ern m en t t o p res en t the tes ti m on y init s reb ut ta l ca se aft er Be nf

or d d en ie d h av in g e ve r de al t dru gs or h av in g e ve r pu rch as eddru gs fro m

W il li am s. 9“ The de te rm in at io n o f wha t i s ad m is si bl e o n re bu tt al is pri m ari ly for the

di sc ret io n o f th e tr ia l co urts , andth e ap pe ll at e co urts wil l n otrev ers e in th e ab se nc e o f anab us e o f di sc ret io n.” Uni te d S ta te s v . Plo tk e, 72 5 F .2d13 03 , 13 09 (1 1t h C ir. 1 98 4) (qu ot at io n m ark s o m it te d)
. Bu t Fe de ral Ru le of Ev id en ce 6 08 (b )

“pr ov id es , inpa rt, tha t s pe ci fic in st an ces of t he co nduc t o f a wit ne ss forth e pu rp os e o f at ta ck in g o r supp orti ng th e wit ne ss ’ cred ib il it y . . . m ay no t b e p ro ve d by extrin si c ev id en ce.” Un it edSta te s v . Cou si ns , 84 2 F .2d12 45 , 12 49 (11 th Cir
. 19 88 ) (quo ta ti onm ark s o m it te d) . “ Thi s ru le pro hi bi ts a pa rty from in tro du ci ng ex tri ns ic ev id en ce o f sp eci fic in st an ces of m is co nduc t i n o rd er t o i m pe ach th e ge ne ral cred ib il it y

of awitne ss .” Id
. Bu t “ ev id en ce m ay be adm it te d t o p ro ve or di sp ro ve m at eri al fact s i n acas e, ev enth ou gh a pr ev io us witne ss ha s t es ti fie d t o th e co nt rary.” Id. The go ve rn m en t ap pe ars to arg ue th atth e te st im on y was m at eri al be cau se Ben fo rd ’s pri ordru g d eal in g i s p ro ba ti ve of h is kn owi ng po ss es si onof afir earm . See Th om as , 24 2 F .3dat 1 03 2– 33 & n .7. We dis ag ree. In Tho m as , th e dru g s al es to okpl ace l es s t ha n am on th be fo re the weap on s wer e fo un d andat t he same res id en ce i n wh ic h t ho se weap on s wer e fo un d. Id . at 1 03 0. Here , th e te st im on y co nc ern eddru g p ur ch as es th atto okpl ace years earl ie r th anth e ev en ts gi vi ng ris e to th e weap on s ch arg e, an d i n adi ffer en t s ta te . W e co nc lu de th atth is ev id en ce 10was no t re le va ntto pro vi ng th atBen fo rdkn owi ng ly pos se ss edth e weap on s.

See i d. at10 32 (requi rin g “ th atth e ev id en ce o f . . . dru g t raff ic ki ng [be ] in
su ffi ci en tl y

clo se pro xi m it y , tem

po ral ly andph y si cal ly” to th e fac tu al ba si s o f th e weap on s ch arg e). Bec au se W il li am s’s t es ti m on y was n otrel ev an t t o a ny m at eri al is su e o th er tha n B en fo rd ’s cred ib il it y , th e d is tri ctco urt ab us edit s d is cret io n b y pe rm it ti ng th is ex tri ns ic ev id en ce o f sp eci fic in st an ces of m is co nduc t. See Fed . R. Evi d. 6 08 (b ). Altho ug h we c on cl ud e th atth e d is tri ctco urt erredinadm it ti ng W il li am s’s te st im on y , we m

us t s ti ll co ns id er wh ethe r th aterro r was harm le ss . See Ph akni ko ne , 60 5 F .3dat 1 10 9. We do so inPartIV, afte r fi rs t ad dr es si ng Ben fo rd ’s ot he r ch al le ng es to hi s co nv ic ti on s. 6 D. Ben fo rdals o c la im s t ha t the di st ric t co urt erredinadm it ti ng a va rie ty of ot he r ev id en ce tha t was un du ly prejud ic ia l. Sp eci fic al ly, Ben fo rdch al le ng es (1)
ev id en ce s ug ge st in g h is in fid el it y , (2) ev id en ce tha t o ne fir earm was s to le n, (3 )
ev id en ce ab ou t the co m

m on pra ct ic e o f drug de al ers , an d (4 ) te st im on y th ata

As we ha

ve now c oncluded that it was e rror to admit W illiams’s testim ony in the first 6 place , we ne ed not addr ess B enfor d’s furthe r argument that the g overnme nt’s failureto provide Wil liams’s testimony

from a pr evious trial violated B rady , 373 U.S. 83, 83 S. C t. 1194, and the J encks A ct, 18 U.S.C. § 3500, by impeding his a

bility to impeach or

rebut Willi ams’s testimony
. 11pa ck ag e co nt ai ni ng $1 00 ,00 0 s m el le d l ik e co cai ne an d was wrap pe d i n am an ne r

co ns is te ntwith c oc ai ne pa ck ag in g. 1. Ben fo rddi d n otob

ject t o a ny tes ti m on y

reg ard in g i nf

id el it y or h is sex ua l
co nduc t, an d t he refo re we re vi ew on ly for p la inerro r. See Ho ffm an -Vai le , 56 8 F.3 d a t 1 34 0. Th e g ov ern m en t re sp on ds th atth is ev id en ce was in ex tri cab ly in te rtwi ne d wi th th e ev id en ce o f th e ch arg edoff en se s. We agre e. Ben fo rd ’s de fen se was t ha t the weap on s i n t he ho us e b el on ge d t o h is m ot he r orto wom en with wh om

he ha d i nt im at e rel at io ns hi ps . The n atur e o f th os e rel at io ns hi ps was th eref or e rel ev an t t o the jury’ s u nd ers ta nd in g o f ho w andwhy th e weap on s wer e in si de Ben fo rd ’s ho m e. To the ex te ntth atth e ev id en ce o f Ben fo rd ’s var io us in ti m at e rel at io ns hi ps m ig htst il l h av e b een pre jud ic ia l, we n ot e th atBen fo rd hi m se lf r el ie d o n t he se rel at io ns hi ps to ex pl ai n wh y he di d n otpo ss es s t he weap on s fo un d i n t he ho m e. W e co nc lu de th atth e d is tri ctco urt d idno t co m m it 7 pl ai n e rro r in adm it ti ng th is ev id en ce. 2. Specifica lly , Be nford e x plained that the guns were “all for when my wives or e x -wife 7 or ex-g irlfriends or

whoeve r come over the re. Just l ike when the jurors g o sit in their seats, they rea d their tablets, that’s their tablet. B ut at some point they ’re g oing to c ome bac k to it. S o at some point, Iknow they

stay in rotation all the time; they are g oing to c ome bac k over my house.” 12Nex t, Be nf or d c ha ll en ge s t he go ve rn m en t’s que st io ni ng on cro ss ex am in at io n abo uta st ol enfir earm . On cro ss -ex am in at io n, the go ve rn m en t as ke d Ben fo rdif h e wou ldbe su rp ris edto kn ow t ha t a p art ic ul ar fi rearm fou ndinhi s ho m e was st ol en . Ben fo rdob jecte d t ha t the qu es ti on ass um eda factno t i n ev id en ce—th atis , th atth e fi rearm was i n fa ctst ol en . At si de ba r, th e g ov ern m en t pr ov id edth e n am e o f th e in di vi du al who was c la im in g t he gu n was st ol en , andth e di st ric t co urt p erm it te d t he li ne of que st io ni ng onth e as su m pt io n tha t the go ve rn m en t wo ul d l at er i nt ro du ce ev id en ce tha t the gu n was st ol en . But , as t he go ve rn m en t co nc ed es , th atev id en ce was no t o ffer edun ti l the sen te nc in g h eari ng . Nev erthe le ss th e g ov ern m en t ar gu es th atbe cau se Ben fo rddi d n otreque sta cu rat iv e in st ru ct io n, the di st ric t co urt d idno t p la in ly err infai li ng to gi ve on e su a sp on te . W e ag ree. “ [T]he d eci si on no t t o g iv e a cu rat iv e in st ru ct io n was well withi n t he di st ric t co urt’s d is cret io n” inth is in st an ce. Uni te d S ta te s v . Em m anue l, 56 5 F .3d13 24 , 13 35 (11 th Cir . 20 09 ) (fi nd in g n o abu se of d is cret io n i n d is tri ct co urt’s fa il ur e to is su e su a sp on te a cu rat iv e in stru ct io n t o awitne ss ’s stray pr ejud ic ia l re m arkwhen “ th e co m m en t was bu t a b rie f refe ren ce . . . anda curat iv e in st ru ct io n c ou ldha ve dra wn u nwa rran te d a tt en ti on to th e co m m en t” (qu ot at io n m ark s o m it te d) ). 3. 13Nex t, Be nf or d c ha ll en ge s s ta te m en ts off ic ers m ad e ab ou t the typic al
co nduc t o f drug de al ers . Spe ci fic al ly, Ben fo rdch al le ng es : (1 ) Offi cer Terry Luc as ’s tes ti m on y

ab ou t the hi gh rat e o f tu rn ov er o f dr ug pro ceed s; (2) Offic er Hen ry And ers on ’s tes ti m on y

th atdru g d eal ers oft entry to k eep th e lo cat io ns whe re m on ey

or d ru gs are s to reda se cretfro m th ei r co m

pe ti ti on ; an d (3 ) Offi cer And ers on ’s tes ti m on y

th atdru g d eal ers us ua ll y ha ve fir earm s. Fi rs t, wi th res pe ctto Offic er Lu cas ’s tes ti m on y , Ben fo rdob jecte d o n t he ba si s o f he ars ay

an d re le va nc e. Bec au se Ben fo rddi d n otob ject t o Off

ic er 8 Luc as ’s tes ti m on y

ab ou t the tu rn ov er rat e o f drug pro ceed s o n p reju di ce g ro un ds , we rev ie w th atis su e o nl y forpl ai n e rro r. See Ho ffm an -Vai le , 56 8 F .3dat 1 34 0. Inli gh t o f th e li m it in g i ns tru ct io n g iv enby the di st ric t co urt, we ca nn otsay tha t th e d is tri ctco urt p la in ly erredin adm it ti ng th is tes ti m on y . See Ra m ire z, 42 6 F .3d at13 54
. Seco nd , Ben fo rdob

jecte d t o Off

ic er An de rs on ’s tes ti m on y ab ou t the
am ou ntof t raff

ic at d ru g d eal ers ’ res id en ces as i na dm is si bl e o pi ni on ev id en ce. The di st ric t co urt o ve rru le d t he ob jecti on , andall owe d t he tes ti m on y as l ay witne ss op in io n u nd er Ru le 70 1. Gi ve n t ha t Offi cer An de rs on ’s tes ti m on y was ba se d o n h is pe rcep ti on s an d o bs erv at io ns as apo li ce o ffi cer, an d was he lp fu l t o That objec tion is considered be low in Part I I . 8 14th e jury in u nd ers ta nd in g the si gn ifi can ce o f th e lo w-le ve l o f tr affi c th atOffic er

And ers onob se rv edat B en fo rd ’s res id en ce b efo re h is arre st , we can no t s ay th atth e di st ric t co urt ab us edit s d is cret io n i n a ll owi ng th is lay op in io n t es ti m on y . See Un it edSta te s v . LeCro y , 44 1 F .3d91 4, 9 27 (11 th Cir . 20 06 ). Thi rd , Ben fo rdob

jecte d t o Off

ic er An de rs on ’s tes ti m on y th atdru g d eal ers us ua ll y carry weap on s o n h ears ay

gro un ds . Becau se Ben fo rdfai le d t o o bjec t o n th e b as is of r el ev an ce o r pr ejud ic e, an d d oe s n otren ew hi s h ears ay ch al le ng e to th is tes ti m on y

on ap pe al , we rev ie w on ly for p la in erro r. See Ho ffm an -Vai le , 56 8 F.3 d a t 1 34 0. We con cl ud e th atth e d is tri ctco urt d idno t p la in ly err inadm it ti ng th is tes ti m on y , bec au se itwas re le va ntto th e g ov ern m en t’s the ory th atBen fo rd , as a dru g d eal er, kno win gl y po ss es se d t he ch arg edweap on s, an d i t was su ffi ci en tl y ba se d o n Off

ic er An de rs on ’s per cep ti on s an d o bs erv at io ns as apo li ce o ffi cer t o b e pr op er l ay

witne ss op in io n u nd er Ru le 70 1. 4. Ben fo rdsi m il arl y

ch al le ng es (1) Offic er Lu cas ’s tes ti m on y th atth e $1 00 ,00 0 fo un d i n ave hi cl e in th e g arag e smelle d l ik e co cai ne , and(2) Offic er Ch aff Sh anno n’s t es ti m on y th atth e b un dl e was wrap pe d l ik e a k il og ram of
co cai ne wou ldbe wrap pe d andsm el le d l ik e co cai ne .

15In it ia ll y , we no te th atBen fo rdfai le d t o o bjec t t o a ll of t he se st at em en ts , and

we th eref or e rev ie w on ly for p la in erro r. See Ho ffm an -Vai le , 56 8 F .3dat 1 34 0. W e can no t s ay

th atth e d is tri ctco urt p la in ly erredinadm it ti ng th e two off ic ers ’ te st im on y th atth e p ack ag e smelle d l ik e co cai ne , bec au se th is tes ti m on y was cl earl y ba se d o n t he off

ic ers fir st -h an d p erce pt io n. Se e Fed . R. Evi d. 7 01 . W e li ke wis e co nc lu de th atitwas n otpl ai n e rro r to adm itOffic er Sh an no n’s t es ti m on y th atth e b un dl e was wrap pe d l ik e a k il og ram of c oc ai ne forth e sa m e rea so n. Id
. Thi s t es ti m on y

was b as edon Offic er Sh an no n’s p erce pt io ns an d o bs erv at io ns as a po li ce o ffi cer. II. Ben fo rdne xtarg ue s t ha t the di st ric t co urt erredinadm it ti ng Offic er Lu cas ’s he ars ay tes ti m on y

ab ou t the Sp rin g 2 00 8 d ru g tran sa ct io ns . Spe ci fic al ly, Ben fo rd ta ke s i ss ue with Off

ic er Lu cas ’s tes ti m on y

th at(1) th e co nf

id en ti al in fo rm an t t ol d hi m th atBen fo rdwas s el li ng dru gs an d t ha t the in fo rm an t h adpl acedph on e cal ls to Ben fo rddu rin g adru g d eal ; (2 ) th ere i s a h ig h turno ve r rat e fo r drug pro ceed s; (3 ) th e in fo rm an t wo rk edat an a du ltbo ok st or e; an d (4 ) ot he r of fic ers fol lo wed Ben fo rdto a pa rti cu la r lo cat io n a fte r on e o f th e co nt ro ll eddru g t ran sa ct io ns . In it ia ll y , we no te th atBen fo rddi d n otob ject t o t he las t two ca te go rie s o f st at em en ts , andth eref

or e we rev ie w th ei r adm is si on on ly for p la in erro r. See

16Hof

fm an -Vai le , 56 8 F .3dat 1 34 0. To est ab li sh pl ai n e rro r, Ben fo rdm us t s ho w th atth e as se rte d e rro r affe ct edhi s s ub st an ti al rig ht s. Un it edSta te s v . Pat te rs on , 59 5 F .3d13 24 , 13 26 (11 th Cir . 20 10 ). “ Fo r anerro r to affe ctsubs ta nt ia l ri gh ts , it ge ne ral ly m

us t h av e b een pre

jud ic ia l: It m

us t h av e aff

ect edth e o ut co m e o f th e di st ric t co urt p ro ceed in gs .” Id . (qu ot at io n m ark s o m it te d) . Ben fo rdha s n otsh own th atth e te st im on y

th atth e in fo rm an t wo rk edat a n a du ltbo ok st or e o r th atot he r la w enf or cem en t ag en ts fol lo wedBen fo rdto a pa rti cu la r ad dr es s af fect edth e ou tc om e o f hi s t ria l. We the refo re co nc lu de th atitwas n otpl ai n e rro r to adm it th is tes ti m on y . The di stric t co urt ad m it te d t he ot he r te st im on y ov er o bjec ti on , subjec t t o a li m it in g i ns tru ct io n t ha t the jury was on ly to “ co ns id er thi s ev id en ce . . . for what effe ctitwou ldha ve on [Offi cer Lu cas ] in term s o f wha t ac ti on s h e to okinli gh t o f th is .” W e h av e h el d t ha t [s ]tate m en ts by ou t of co urt witne ss es to la w en fo rcem en t of fic ia ls m ay be adm it te d as no n- he ars ay if th ey are rel ev an t to ex pl ai n th e co ur se of th e of fic ia ls ’ subs eque ntin ve st ig at iv e act io ns , and th e pr ob at iv e va lu e of th e ev id en ce’s n on -h ears ay pu rp os e is no t subs ta nt ia ll y ou twei gh ed by the da ng er of un fai r pr ejud ic e cau se d by the im pe rm is si bl e h e a rs ay us e o f th e st at em en t. Uni te d S ta te s v . Bak er, 4 32 F.3d11 89 , 12 08 n.1 7 (1 1th C ir. 2 00 5)
.

17Offi cer Lu cas ’s tes ti m on y th atth e co nf

id en ti al in fo rm an t t ol d h im th at Ben fo rdwas s el li ng dru gs was re le va ntto ex pl ai n Off ic er Lu cas ’s subs eque nt in ve st ig at ory

act io ns in set ti ng up th e th ree c on tro ll eddru g b uys th atul ti m at el y res ul te d i n t he sea rch th atpro du cedth e weap on s B en fo rdis ch arg edwith po ss es si ng in th is cas e. Sim il arl y , th e te st im on y th atth e in fo rm an t p la cedcal ls to Ben fo rddu rin g t he fir stco nt ro ll eddru g b uy was rel ev an t t o e xp la in in g Off ic er Luc as ’s con du ctin m on it or in g t he dru g b uys, be cau se th e lo cat io n o f th atpu rch as e ch an ge d fo ll owi ng th e p ho ne cal ls . Becau se th es e st at em en ts ex pl ai ne d Off ic er Luc as ’s subs eque ntin ve st ig at ory co nduc t, the di st ric t co urt was withi n i ts di sc ret io n t o c on cl ud e th atth e ev id en ce was adm is si bl e fo r no n- he ars ay pu rp os es . See Bak er, 4 32 F.3dat 1 20 8 n .17
. W e al so co nc lu de th atth e d is tri ctco urt d idno t ab us e it s d is cret io n i n adm it ti ng Offic er Lu cas ’s tes ti m on y on re-d ire ctth at , bas edon hi s ex pe rie nc e an d
co nv ers at io ns with d ru g d eal ers , th ere i s a h ig h turno ve r rat e fo r drug pro ceed s. On cr os s- ex am in at io n, Offi cer Lu cas adm it te d t ha t the m ark edbi ll s g iv ento th e in fo rm an t fo r th e co nt ro ll eddru g p ur ch as es inMarc h andApri l o f 20 08 were n ot fo un d dur in g t he sea rchof B en fo rd ’s res id en ce fo ll owi ng hi s arres t i n Au gu st 20 08 . The d is tri ctco urt al lo wedOffic er Lu cas to tes ti fy ab ou t wh y

he wou ldno t ne ces sa ril y

ha ve ex pe ct edto fin d t he dru g p ro ceed s atBen fo rd ’s res id en ce s ev eral 18m on th s af

te r th e co nt ro ll eddru g b uys. As thi s ev id en ce was rel ev an t t o e xp la in in g Offi cer Lu cas ’s act io ns in m ark in g t he bi ll s g iv ento in fo rm an t, the di st ric t co urt di d n otab us e it s d is cret io n i n a dm it ti ng th e te st im on y ov er Be nf

or d’s h ears ay ob jecti on . See Ba ke r, 43 2 F .3dat 1 20 8 n .17 . Mor eo ve r, th e d is tri ctco urt was care fu l t o i ns tru ctth e jury on ce ag ai n t ha t the tes ti m on y was o nl y to be us edto ex pl ai n “ why [Office r Luc as ] di d wh athe di d.” Thi s l im it in g i ns tru ct io n re du ced th e ri skof a ny un du e p reju di ce. See Ram ire z, 42 6 F .3dat 1 35 4. We con cl ud e th at th e d is tri ctco urt d idno t err inadm it ti ng any of Off ic er Lu cas ’s tes ti m on y

ov er Ben fo rd ’s hea rs ay

ob jecti on s. Ben fo rdals o c on te nd s t ha t ad m is si on of t he he ars ay ev id en ce v io la te d h is rig ht s und er the Co nf

ro nt at io n C laus e. Whi le we rev ie w a di stric t co urt’s
ev id en ti ary ru li ng s fo r ab us e o f di sc ret io n, s ee Ho ffm an -Vai le , 56 8 F .3dat 1 34 0,
we no rm al ly revi ew de no vo qu es ti on s o f co ns ti tu ti on al law, Un it edSta te s v . Bro wn, 3 64 F.3d12 66 , 12 68 (11 th Cir . 20 04 ). But as Ben fo rdon ly objec te d t o t he te st im on y on he ars ay

gro un ds , we rev ie w th is is su e fo r pl ai n e rro r. Uni te d S ta te s v. Ch au , 42 6 F .3d13 18 , 13 21 –2 2 (1 1t h C ir. 2 00 5) (ex pl ai ni ng th ata he ars ay ob jecti onis in su ffi ci en t t o p res erv e anob jecti on th atev id en ce i s b ei ng adm it te d i n vi ol at io n o f th e Co nf

ro nt at io n C laus e). W e fi ndno erro r, pl ai n o r ot he rwis e, be cau se we have co nc lu de d t ha t the se st at em en ts were n othe ars ay , andth eref or e 19th ei r in tro du ct io n a t tria l d idno t v io la te Ben fo rd ’s Con fro nt at io n C laus e ri gh ts .

Uni te d S ta te s v . Ji m in ez, 5 64 F.3d12 80 , 12 86 (11 th Cir . 20 09 ) (“ The re ca n b e n o do ub t tha t the Co nf

ro nt at io n C laus e p ro hi bi ts on lyst at em en ts th atco ns ti tu te im pe rm is si bl e h ears ay .”). III. Ben fo rdarg ue s t ha t the di st ric t co urt erredinde nyin g h is m ot io ns for jud gm en t o f acqui tt al on Co un t On e atth e en d o f th e g ov ern m en t’s ca se -in -ch ie f
an d a t the clo se of a ll th e ev id en ce, b ecau se th e ev id en ce i nt ro du cedat t ria l was in su ffi ci en t t o s up po rt h is co nv ic ti on forpo ss es si ng a fi rearm di sc ov eredinth e ve hi cl e h e was dri vi ng when arre st ed . “ W e rev ie w de n ov o whe th er the re i s su ffi ci en t ev id en ce i n t he reco rdto supp ort a ju ry ’s ver di ctina cri m in al tri al , vi ewin g the ev id en ce i n t he li gh t m os t fa vo rab le to th e g ov ern m en t, an d d rawi ng al l re as on ab le factua l i nf

eren ces infav orof t he jury’ s v erd ic t.” Un it edSta te s v . Bec kl es , 56 5 F .3d83 2, 8 40 (11 th Cir . 20 09 ). “ Acco rd in gl y , th e ev id en ce wi ll be
su ffi ci en t t o s up po rt aco nv ic ti on if areas on ab le tri er o f fac t co ul d fi ndth atth e ev id en ce es tabl is he d g ui ltbe y on d areas on ab le do ub t.” Id . (qu ot at io n m ark s om it te d)
.

“ Und er 1 8 U.S.C. § 92 2( g) (1 ), itis un la wfu l fo r a fel onto po ss es s a fir earm .” Uni te d S ta te s v . Wrig ht , 39 2 F .3d12 69 , 12 73 (11 th Cir . 20 04 ). 20“ To es tabl is h avi ol at io n o f 18 U.S.C. § 9 22 (g )(1 ), th e g ov ern m en t m us t p ro ve th ree e le m en ts : (1 ) th atth e d efen da ntwas aco nv ic te d fe lo n, (2 ) th atth e d efen da nt was inkn owi ng po ss es si on of afir earm , and(3) th atth e fi rearm was i n o r affe ct in g i nt ers ta te co m

m erce .” Beck le s, 5 65 F.3dat 8 41 (qu ot at io n m ark s om it te d) . Here, Ben fo rdch al le ng es on ly the sec on d e le m en t, an d a rg ue s tha t h e di d n otkn owi ng ly pos se ss th e fi rearm inth e truc k.

“ The go ve rn m en t n eedno t p ro ve actua l p os se ss io n i n o rd er t o e st ab li sh kn owi ng po ss es si on ; i t n eedon ly sho w con st ru ct iv e p os se ss io n t hr ou gh di rector ci rcu m st an ti al ev id en ce.” Id . (qu ot at io n m ark s o m it te d) . “ Inord er t o e st ab li sh
co ns tru ct iv e p os se ss io n, the go ve rn m en t m us t p ro du ce ev id en ce s ho win g own ers hi p, d om in io n, o r co nt ro l o ve r th e co ntrab an d i ts el f . . . or th e v eh ic le in whi chco nt rab an d i s co nc eal ed .” Wrig ht , 39 2 F .3dat 1 27 3 (quo ta ti on m ark s om it te d) . But“ a d efen da nt ’s m ere p res en ce i n t he areaof [ anob ject] or a waren es s of it s l oc at io n i s n otsu ffi ci en t t o e st ab li sh po ss es si on .” Beck le s, 5 65 F.3dat 8 41 (quo ta ti onm ark s o m it te d)
. Here, the ev id en ce i n t he go ve rn m en t’s ca se -in -ch ie f, vi ewedinth e li gh t
m os t fa vo rab le to th e g ov ern m en t, wo ul d a ll ow a r eas on ab le jury to co nc lu de th at Ben fo rdco ns tru ct iv el y

po ss es se d t he fir earm . Office r Luc as tes ti fie d tha t as he ap pr oa ch edth e truc k, wi th Ben fo rdst il l i n t he dri ve r’s se at , he “ ob se rv ed 21[Ben fo rd ] le an in g t owa rd s t he dri ve r’s si de do orwith h is sh ou ld er d own .” Offic er

Edd ie McDan ie l l ik ewis e te st ifi edth athe ob se rv edBen fo rd“ m ov in g a ro un d a li tt le bi t i n t he sea t o nc e h e was st op pe d.” Offic er Mc Dan ie l t es ti fie d t ha t as Ben fo rdgo t o utof t he tru ck , he o bs erv eda fi rearm inth e driv er’s s id e d oo r. Offi cer M cDan ie l fu rth er t es ti fie d t ha t the fir earm was v is ib le an d re ad il y acce ss ib le fro m

th e driv er’s s eat , as i t was “ st ic ki ng st rai gh t up” inth e d oo r po ck et . Thes e fac ts are s uf fic ie ntto est ab li sh th atBen fo rdkn ew of th e ex is te nc e of th e weap on . As su ch , a jury co ul d re as on ab ly findth atBen fo rdha d a t l eas t co ns tru ct iv e p os se ss io n o f th e fi rearm by virtue of h is ab il it y

to tak e actua l po ss es si on of i t an d h is co nt ro l o ve r th e carinwhi ch itwas l oc at ed . See Wrig ht , 39 2 F .3dat 1 27 3– 74 (ho ld in g tha t a d efen dantha d c on st ru ct iv e p os se ss io n o f a fir earm th atwas i n acar h e o wne d a ndwas driv in g) ; cf . Uni te d S ta te s v . Pedro , 99 9 F .2d49 7, 5 02 (11 th Cir . 19 93 ) (co nc lu di ng th atev id en ce was in su ffi ci en t whe re the “ reco rd[was ] de vo idof a ny evi de nc e o f [the de fen da nt ’s] kn owl ed ge of th e fi rearm

carr ie d b y

[hi s p artne r in a joi ntburg la ry ]”). W e th eref or e co nc lu de th atth e ev id en ce i s s uf

fic ie ntto supp ort Be nf

or d’s co nv ic ti on on Co un t On e. IV. Hav in g fo un d o ne erro r wit h re sp ectto Ben fo rd ’s con vi ct io ns —the adm is si on of Wil li am s’s t es ti m on y co nc ern in g d ru g t ran sa ct io ns inAtl an tafro m 2220 03 to 20 07 —we n ow co ns id er wh ethe r th aterro r was ha rm le ss . “ The 9 go ve rn m en t b ears th e b ur de n o f es tabl is hi ng th atanerro r is ha rm le ss .” Ph akni ko ne , 60 5 F .3dat 1 10 9. “ Rev ers al is warran te d o nl y if [t he erro r] resu lt ed in actua l p reju di ce b ecau se itha d s ub st an ti al an d i nju rio us effe ctor i nf lu en ce i n de te rm in in g t he jury’ s v erd ic t.” Id . (qu ot at io n m ark s o m it te d) (al te rat io ns in
or ig in al ). “ Ove rwh el m in g e vi de nc e o f gu il t i s o ne fact orth atm ay be co ns id eredin fin di ng ha rm le ss erro r.” Id . (qu ot at io n m ark s o m it te d) . In d eci di ng whet he r an erro r is ha rm le ss , we rev ie w th e en ti re rec or d. Id
. Inth is cas e, ou r rev ie w of t he en ti re re co rdrev eal s s tro ng ev id en ce as to bo th co un ts . W it h re sp ectto Co un t On e, as di sc us se d abo ve inPartIII, the
ev id en ce s ho ws Be nf

or d d riv in g atru ckwher e a ch arg edfir earm was re ad il y acce ss ib le an d v is ib le fro m th e driv er’s s eat . W it h re sp ectto Co un t Two , whi ch in vo lv edth e se ve n fi rearm s fo un d i ns id e th e res id en ce, the ev id en ce i s ov erwh el m in g. Fo r ex am pl e, in ad di ti on to th e MySpac e p ho to gr ap hs sh owi ng Ben fo rdho ld in g t he two Lorc in pi st ol s fo un d i n asaf e, th ere was als o e vi de nc e th atm an y of t he gu ns were n ear o r m in gl edwith B en fo rd ’s per so na l i te m s. On e

Be nford a lso argues that, eve n if we f ind that some of the district cour t’s err ors wer e 9 harmless, the c umulative eff ect of those err ors violated his constitutional rights and r equire s a reve rsal of his convic tion. But bec ause w e have identified only a sing le er

ror, ther e ca

n be no cumulative er

ror. See United States v. Waldon, 363 F.3d 1103, 1110 (11th Cir. 2004). 23was fou ndun de r hi s m at tre ss . Ano th er was ina ni gh t s ta nd , ly in g o n t op of a

wall et . There was o ne on a sh el f in th e b edro om . Yet a no th er was fou ndon to p o f a ch in a cab in et . Ano th er was on to p o f a dres se r. Mo reo ve r, as we ex pl ai ne d abo ve , W il li am s’s t es ti m on y was n otrel ev an t t o sh owi ng Ben fo rd ’s kn owi ng po ss es si onof t he weap on be cau se th e dru g tra ns act io ns W il li am s t es ti fie d t o wer e n ot“ in su ffi ci en tl y clo se pro xi m it y , te m po ral ly andph y si cal ly” to th e fac ts supp orti ng th e weap on s ch arg es . Tho m as , 24 2 F .3dat 1 03 2. As th is tes ti m on y was o f no pro ba ti ve va lu e to a m at eri al is su e in th e cas e, an d g iv enth e o th er ev id en ce o f Ben fo rd ’s gu il t o n b ot h c ou nt s, we d o no t b el ie ve W il li am s’s t es ti m on y “ ha d s ub st an ti al an d i nju rio us effe ctor i nf lu en ce in de te rm in in g t he jury’ s v erd ic t.” Ph akni ko ne , 60 5 F .3dat 1 10 9. We reco gn iz e th atth is ev id en ce was pro ba ti ve of B en fo rd ’s gen eral cred ib il it y , andpre jud ic ia l in so far a s i t d ep ic te d h is ex tri ns ic cri m in al act s. Bu t the jury was alr eady pr es en te d wi th am

pl e ev id en ce tha t Be nf

or d was a drug de al er, d es pi te hi s te st im on y to th e co nt rary, thro ug h Off ic er Lu cas ’s des cri pt io n o f th e co nt ro ll ed drug buy s. As su ch , W il li am s’s t es ti m on y was l arg el y

cu m ul at iv e o n t he se po in ts , an d t he refo re was un li ke ly to s ig ni fic an tl y in flu en ce the jury. Forall th es e reas on s, we co nc lu de th atwhi le th e d is tri ctco urt erredinadm it ti ng W il li am s’s te st im on y , th is erro r was ha rm le ss . 24V.

Ben fo rdne xtarg ue s t ha t h is sen te nc es were unr eas on ab le be cau se th e di st ric t co urt erredin ap pl y in g t wo en ha nc em en ts to hi s g ui de li ne s ca lc ul at io n. Fi rs t, Be nf

or d c on te nd s t ha t h is tri al tes ti m on y di d n otwarran t a two- le ve l in crea se forpe rjury or o bs tru ct io n o f jus ti ce u nd er U.S.S.G. § 3 C1 .1. Sec on d, Ben fo rdarg ue s t ha t the di st ric t co urt erredinap pl y in g afou r-l ev el in crea se un de r U.S.S.G. § 2 K2.1 (b )(6 ) fo r po ss es si ng a fi rearm inco nn ect io n wi th an ot he r fel on y of fen se . W e co ns id er ea ch in tu rn . A. Whe n c on si de rin g a n o bs tru ct io n o f jus ti ce en ha nc em en t u nd er § 3C 1.1 , we

“ rev ie w th e d is tri ctco urt’s fi nd in gs of f actforcle ar erro r an d t he ap pl ic at io n o f th e Gui de li ne s t o t ho se fact s d e n ov o.” Uni te d S ta te s v . Bradbe rry , 46 6 F .3d12 49 , 12 53 (11 th Cir . 20 06 ). “ Fo r a fac tu al fin di ng to be cle arl y erro ne ou s, thi s co urt, aft er re vi ewin g a ll of t he ev id en ce, m us t b e le ft wi th a de fin it e an d fi rm co nv ic ti on th ata m is ta ke ha s b een co m m it te d.” Uni te d S ta te s v . Rod rig ue z-Lo pe z, 36 3 F .3d 11 34 , 11 37 (11 th Cir . 20 04 ) (quo ta ti on m ark s o m it te d)
. An o bs tru ct io n o f jus ti ce en hanc em en t i s ap pr op ria te if “ th e d efen da nt wil lfu ll y ob st ru ct ed
. . . th e ad m in is tra ti on of ju st ic e wit h re sp ectto 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.” 25U.S.S.G. § 3 C1 .1. Ob st ru ct iv e co nduc t i nc lu de s t he co m m is si on of p erjury . Id. at
cmt. n .4(B ). Perjury

oc cu rs when a wit ne ss , tes ti fy in g u nd er o ath, “ gi ve s fa ls e te st im on y co nc ern in g am at eri al m at te r wit h t he wil lfu l i nt en t t o p ro vi de fal se te st im on y , rathe r th anas ares ul t o f co nf us io n, m is ta ke , or faul ty m em ory .” Uni te d S ta te s v . Dun ni ga n, 5 07 U.S. 87 , 94 , 11 3 S . Ct. 1 11 1, 1 11 6 (1 99 3)
. Mat eri al m at te rs in cl ud e th os e th at“ wou ldten d t o i nf lu en ce o r affe ctth e is su e un de r de te rm in at io n.” U.S.S.G. § 3C 1.1 cmt. n .6. “ [I]f a de fen da ntob jects to a se nt en ce en ha nc em en t re su lt in g fr om he r tr ia l t es ti m on y , a di st ric t co urt m us t rev ie w th e ev id en ce an d m ak e in de pe nd en t fi nd in gs ne ces sary to est ab li sh a wil lfu l i m pe di m en t t o o r ob st ru ct io n o f jus ti ce . . . .” Dunni ga n, 5 07 U.S. at 9 5, 11 3 S . Ct. at11 17 . Becau se “ [a]n ap pe ll at e co urt i s n otina po si ti on to ass es s a de fen da nt ’s dem ean or , app aren t s in ceri ty, in to na ti on , exp res si on , ges ti cu la ti on s, an d awid e ran ge of o th er co ns id erat io ns th atare p ert in en t i n d et erm in in g wh ethe r he ha s p erjuredhi m se lf,” we ha ve ex pl ai ne d t ha t “ itis no t o nl y ap pr op ria te , bu t ne ces sa ry , forus to acco rdsp eci al de fere nc e to th e d is tri ctco urt ru li ng s u nd er . . . § 3C 1.1 when m at te rs su ch as p erjury are atis su e.” Uni te d S ta te s v . W il li am s, 34 0 F .3d12 31 , 12 40 –4 1 (1 1t h C ir. 2 00 3)
. Here, af te r li st en in g t o t he pa rti es ’ arg um en ts an d p res id in g o ve r th e tr ia l, th e d is tri ctco urt fo un d t ha t Be nf or d o ffer edpe rjure d t es ti m on y du rin g t he tri al
. 26Sp eci fic al ly, th e d is tri ctco urt b el ie ve d t ha t Be nf or d h adli edab ou t (1 ) no t kn owi ng th e co m

bi na ti on to th e sa fe co nt ai ni ng th e Lor ci n p is to ls an d (2 ) why the
va rio us gu ns reco ve redfro m hi s re si de nc e were l oc at edindi ffer en t p la ces th ro ug ho utth e h ou se . This tes ti m on y was m at eri al be cau se itdi rect ly relat edto whe th er Be nf

or d kno win gl y

po ss es se d t he fir earm s. Be nf or d a rg ue s t ha t h e m erel y ex erci se d h is rig htto tes ti fy on hi s o wn b eh al f, bu t the rig htto tes ti fy do es no t i nc lu de a ri gh t t o c omm itpe rjury. See Du nn ig an , 50 7 U.S. at96 , 11 3 S . Ct. at 11 17
. W e co nc lu de th atth e d is tri ctco urt d idno t cl earl y err i n fi nd in g t he two le ve l o bs tru ct io n o f jus ti ce en ha nc em en t ap pl ic ab le inth is cas e. B. Und er the Sen te nc in g Gu id el in es , a fo ur -le ve l i nc reas e is ap pl ie d i f a fel on po ss es se s a f

ire arm “ in co nn ect io n wi than ot he r fel on y off en se .” U.S.S.G. § 2 K2.1 (b )(6 ). “ Inco nn ect io n wi th ” is de fin edby the gu id el in es to m ean th e fir earm “ faci li ta te d, o r ha d the po te nt ia l o f fac il it at in g, an ot he r fel on y off en se .” U.S.S.G. § 2 K2.1 cm

t. n .14 (A). “ Ano th er fe lo ny offen se ” is “ an y fed eral , st at e, or lo cal off en se . . . pu ni sh ab le by im pr is on m en t fo r a t erm

ex ceed in g o ne y ear, reg ard le ss of wh ethe r a cri m in al ch arg e was bro ug ht , or aco nv ic ti on ob ta in ed .” Id . at cmt. n .14 (C). Und er Al ab am a la w, po ss es si on of aco nt ro ll edsubs ta nc e is a Cl as s C fel on y

off en se puni sh ab le by up t o t eny ears im pr is on m en t. See Ala. 27Co de §§ 13 A-5 -6 , 13 A-1 2- 21 2. W e rev ie w th e d is tri ctco urt’s d et erm in at io n t ha t

a d efen da ntus eda fi rearm “ in co nn ect io n wi th ” an ot he r fel on y off en se forcle ar erro r. Uni te d S ta te s v . Whi tfi el d, 5 0 F .3d94 7, 9 49 n.8 (11 th Cir . 19 95 ) (i nv ol vi ng th e subs ta nt iv el y

id en ti cal U.S.S.G. § 2K2 .1(b )(5 ) (1 99 4) ). At s en te nc in g, the go ve rn m en t el ic it edtes ti m on y th atoff ic ers reco ve red Ecst as y tab le ts , app ro xi m at el y

$1 00 ,00 0, an d thr ee l oa de d fi rearm s— on e in th e ni gh t s ta nd , on e u nd er the m at tre ss , andon e o n ash el f—i n t he m as te r be dr oo m of Ben fo rd ’s res id en ce. Ma riju an a was fou ndinan ot he r be dr oo m , inwhi chth e sa fe
co nt ai ni ng th e two Lorc inpi st ol s was als o fo un d. Offi cer Lu cas tes ti fie d, b as ed
on hi s t rai ni ng an d e xp eri en ce, tha t d efen da nt s i nv ol ve d i n d ru g fe lo ni es wou ld
us e fi rearm s fo r pr ot ect io n, an d t ha t h e b el ie ve d tha t the m ul ti pl e g un s wer e la id
ou t i n t he ho m e whe re an y bo dy ins id e th e h om e wou ldha ve qu ic k a cces s t o a fir earm . In ap pl y in g t he en ha nc em en t, the di st ric t co urt fo un d b y a pr ep on de ran ce of th e ev id en ce tha t the $1 00 ,00 0 was dru g p ro ceed s. Giv enth e ev id en ce attri al , in cl ud in g t es ti m on y

th atan ot he r bu nd le of $ 10 0,0 00 incas h fo un d o n t he pro pe rty ha d b een wrap pe d i n apa ck ag e th at“ ha d t he st ro ng od orof c oc ai ne ,” we can no t sa y th atth is fin di ng was c le arl y erro ne ou s. As Ben fo rd ’s fire arm po ss es si on was in clo se pro xi m it y

to dru gs an d d ru g p ro ceed s, the di st ric t co urt d idno t cl earl y err in de te rm in in g t ha t Be nf

or d u se d afir earm

inco nn ect io n wi th an ot he r fel on y 28of

fen se . See § 2K2 .1 cmt. n .14 (B) (e xp la in in g tha t the en ha nc em en t i s ap pl ic ab le

“ in th e cas e o f a dru g traff ic ki ng off en se inwhi ch a fi rearm

is fou ndinclo se pr ox im ity to dru gs , dru g- m anuf

actur in g m at eri al s, o r drug parap he rn al ia [,]
. . . be cau se th e p res en ce o f th e fi rearm ha s t he po te nt ia l o f fac il it at in g a no th er fe lo ny of fen se ”).

VI. Fo r al l o f th es e rea so ns , we con cl ud e th atth e d is tri ctco urt co m m it te d n o rev ers ib le erro r, an d we t he refo re af firm Ben fo rd ’s con vi ct io ns an d s en te nc es . AFFIRMED.

29