F ILED U.S. COURT O F APP EALS EL EV EN TH C IRC UIT Dece mber 1 3, 2005 T HOMA S K. KA HN CLERK [DO N OT PUBLISH] IN THE UN ITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FO R T HE EL EV EN TH CIRC UI T

N o. 04- 1496 1 D. C. Dock et No. 0 3- 20 75 9 C R-M GC UNITED STAT ES OF AMERIC A, Plaintiff-Appellee, ve rs us W ILFREDO RODRIGUEZ, JULIO RODRI GUEZ, D ef en da nts -Appe llants . Appeals fr om

the United State s District Court fo r the S outhe rnD istri ct

of F lor ida (D ec em be r 13, 200 5) Before DU BIN A and KRA VI TC H, Circuit Judges, and ST ROM *, D istrict Judg e. PE R CU RIA M:

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ___ *Honora ble Lyle E. Strom, United States District J udg e for the District of Ne braska , sitti ng by desig nation.2

A ppe llants , W ilf

re do and J uli o R odr igu ez , appe al the ir c onvi ct ion s a nd se nte nc es f

or va ri ous dr

ug r el at ed

of fe nse s. Fo llo w ing the f

ive -d ay tr ia l, the j ur

y r et ur ne d ave rd ic t of

gui lty a ga ins t W ilfredo on Counts 1-6 and against Ju lio on Counts 1 -3. The c ourt sentenced Jul io t o li fe im

pr iso nm en t onCo unt

1 a nd 2 40 m onths i m

pr iso nm en t onCo unt s 2 an d 3, to be se rv ed

c onc ur re ntl y , f oll ow ed by c onc ur re nt t en -y ear te rm s of supe rv ise d r el ea se a nd a

$30 0 sp ec ia l a sse ssm en t. T he c ourt se nte nc ed W ilf re do t o l i f e i mp r i s o n men ta s t o C o u n t s 1 t h r o u g h 4 a n d6 , t o b e s e rv e dc o n c u rr e n t l y, and to life im

prisonm ent on Coun t 5, to be served consecutively to the other co unt s, f oll ow ed by c onc ur re nt f ive -y ear te rm s of

sup er vis ed r el ea se a nd a

$60 0 spe ci al a sse ssm en t. Appe llants ti m el y appe al ed . The issues presented for a ppellate revieware (1) w hether the district court er re d ina dm itt ing c o- co nspi ra tor sta te m en ts u nde r Fe d. R. E vid . 801 (d )( 2) (E ); ( 2) w he the r the dis tr ic t c ourt a buse d it s di sc re tio n by

a dm itt ing e vid en ce of ap pe llants ’ pr ior

c onvi ct ion s pu rs ua nt t o F ed . R. E vid . 404 (b ); a nd ( 3) w he the r the appellants’ se ntences we re in er ror in light of United States v. B ooker , 543 U. S. 220, 125 S. Ct. 738 (200 5). Whether a statem ent was m ade during the course and in furtherance of a co nspi ra cy

und er F ed . R. E vid . 801 (d )( 2) (E ) is a f ac tua l de te rm ina tio n th at

w ill be3

di st urbe d o nl y

forcle ar er ro r. United States v. L ampley , 68 F . 3d 1 296, 130 0 ( 11th Ci r. 199 5) . A dis tr ic t c ourt’ s de ci sio n to a dm it ev ide nc e of apr ior c onvi ct ion unde r Fe d. R. E vid . 404 (b ) is r ev ie w ed by thi s c ourt un de r anabuse of dis cr et ion st an da rd . U

nit ed Sta tes v . H

ogan , 986 F . 2d 1 364, 137 3 ( 11th C ir . 199 3) . Whe n, as he re , ade fe nda nt r ai se s inthe dis tr ic t c ourt an ob j ec tio n to the c onst itu tio na lity of the guidelin es, pr eserving a Booker claim , this court review s the case de novo bu t wi ll rev ers e an d re m an d o nl y forha rm fu l er ro r. U

nit ed Sta tes v . P az , 405 F . 3d 946, 948 ( 11th C ir . 200 5) . “ ‘ T o f ind ha rm le ss e rr or , [ thi s c ourt] m ust de te rm ine that the error did no t affe ct the substant ial rights of the parties.’ ” Id . ( quot ing United States v. H

ernandez , 160 F . 3d 6 61, 670 ( 11th C ir . 199 8) ); se e als o Fed. R. Crim . P . 52(a) (providing that “ [a] ny err or, def

ect, irregularity , or variance that does not aff

ect substantial righ ts m

ust be dis regarded”) . A lth oughit

is a cl ose que sti on w he the r the dis tr ic t c ourt e rr ed in adm itt ing the c o- co nspi ra tor s’ sta te m en ts u nde r Fe d. R. E vid . 801 (d )( 2) (E ) an d ina dm itt ing ev id en ce o f ap pe ll an ts ’ pr io r co nv ic ti on s p ur su an t t o F ed . R. Evi d. 4 04 (b ), we cannot say

that the district court comm itted reversible err or. Additionally , w e see no Booker

e rr or in ap pe llants ’ se nte nc es .4

A cc or din gly , a ft er

r ev ie w ing the r ec or d, r ea din g th e pa rt ie s’ br ie fs , a nd ha vin g th e be ne fi t of

or al a rg um en t, w e af

fi rm appe llants ’ c onvi ct ion s a nd se nte nc es . AFFIRMED.