FI L ED U.S. COURT OF A P P E A LS E LE V E N T H C IR C U IT NOVEMB ER 24, 2006 THOMAS K. KAH

N CL ERK [DO NOT PUBLISH]
IN THE UN ITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FO R T HE EL EV EN TH CIRC UI T

--- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- -

N o. 06- 1003 1 Non-A rgum ent Calendar

--- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- -- D. C. Docket N o. 04-00007 -CR- 3-MCR UNITED STAT ES OF AMERIC A, Plaintiff-Appellee,
ve rs us CHERYL LONNEL L COWAN, D ef en dant- Appe llant.

--- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- - Appeal f rom the United State s District Court for the N orthern District of Florida

--- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- -

(N ove m be r 24, 200 6) Be fo re E D MO N D SO N , Ch ie f Judg e, BL A CK a nd B A RKE T T , Ci rc uit

Jud ge s. PE R CU RIA M: D ef en dant- Appe llant C he ry l C ow anappe al s th e se nte nc e of his c onvi ct ion fo r poss es sio n of

af ir earm by ac onvi ct ed

f el on, a lle gin g th at

the dis tr ic t c ourt ( 1)
co m m itt ed Bo oke r er

ro r by im posi ng i na cc ur at e gui de lin e en hanc em en ts n ot2

pr ove d a t tri al or

a dm itt ed by Co w an , a nd ( 2) vio la te d 18 U
. S. C. § 35 53 b y f ai lin g to state its reasons for im posin g the sentence and by not giv ing a lesser sentence fo r D ef en dant’ s a cc ep tanc e of

r es pons ibi lity

a nd e xtr ao rd inary

r eh ab ili ta tio n
e f f o rt s . D i s c o v e r i n g n o r e v e r s i b l e e rr o r , w e a f f i rm. Co w anw as c harg ed

a nd c onvi ct ed

f or pos se ssi on o f a fi re ar

m a ft er ha vin g earlier been convicted of a felony
. The c harges arose a fter police off icers
ex ec ute d ase ar chw ar

rant at C ow an ’ s r es ide nc e. T he of fi ce rs f ound Co w anin his bedroom , and when they

announ ced them selves, Cow an rea ched for a loaded pisto l. A fter subduing Cowan, the offic ers sear ched Cowan’ s room and hall closet and founda bulletproof vest, an elec tronic scale used for m easuring illegal
narc oti cs that t es te d po sit ive f or c oc ai ne , a nd the pis tol ’ s bo x, w hic h c ont ai ne d a bil l of sa le ind ic at ing that P atri ci a Bi ed er m ansol d C ow anthe f

ir earm . A t tri al , Bi ed er m ansa id s he pur ch as ed

the guna t a

paw n sh op and s old

it to Co w anto cl ear a $200 de bt. T he gov er

nm en t pr es en te d e vid en ce - - w hic h in cl ude d r ec or de d te le phon e
co nve rs at ion s m ad e by

Co w ana t j ai l - - ind ic at ing that C ow ana tte m pte d to inf lue nc e Bi ed er

m an ’ s te sti m ony . O ne c onve rs at ionbe tw ee n C ow ana nd a pe rs on kn o w n a s “ K e v i n ” we n tt h i s wa y:3

COWAN : And if I can get Patty , I wr ote her in the letter, if I can get he r to . . . te sti fy

say in’ som ethin g a

bout
. . . y ou knowthat . 380 [g un] was he rs an d t ha t s he ha d l eft
... KEVIN: Yeah , y eah
. . . COWAN : . . . the m other fucker ther e w hile I w as asleep. T hen, then I c an g et o u t , d aw g , I ’ll b e o u twi t h i n t wo we ek s . Yo ukn o w, t h at ’s w ha t I ne ed

he r to d o. * * * CO WA N : I f y ou c ange t a

hol d he r, m an , I got , I got he r . . . I ga ve y ou her num

ber, if y ou could get a hold her and tell her, uh, tell her pretty m uch what I said. N ow she’ s not th e kind of person th at wou ld , y ou kn ow, wan t t o b e in vo lv edin so m e sh it li ke th at , bu t . . . KEVIN: Yeah , I kn ow. CO WA N : T el l he r howse ri ous it is. T he se m oth er f uc ke rs ta lki n’ about seven y ears, but . .
. um , I ’ m knowing I won’ t get no seven y ears. I’ ll fuck around tho ugh for real daw g and get it lik e three y ears if she don ’ t he lp m e out . T he gov er

nm en t a lso pr es en te d st at em en ts t ak enof Co w an ’ s r oom

m at es by the police officers during the searc h. T wo room m ates said they

suspected Cowan of se lli ng dru gs b ec au se the y ha d se enpe opl e co m e ove r an d m ee t w ithCo w anin the laundry

room and behind closed doo rs. Another room m ate said he sawCowan
m ee t w ithunknow n pe opl e in the laundr y r oom , a nd h e al so s awahandgun on C o w a n ’s d e s ki n h i s b e d r o o m. Ina ddi tio n, the gov er

nm en t of fe re d te sti m ony

of S pe ci al A ge nt S ai er

about the dr ug- re la te d in ve sti ga tio n of Co w anbe fo re the se ar ch- - spe ci fi ca lly r eg ar din g controlled pu rchases of c ocaine m ade by a confidential inform ant (“ CI”) at Co w an ’ s ho use . T he CI r ep orte d to S ai er that, w hil e the CI w as a t C ow an ’ s ho use4

to p ur ch as e co ca ine , Co w ansho w ed the CI thr ee f

ir earm s - - inc lud ing one ha nd gu n i n C owa n’s b ed ro om . The probation officer

assigned Cowan a base off ense level of 20 under U
. S. S. G
. § 2K2. 1( a) (4 )( A ), inc re as ed the ba se of

fe nse le ve l by

f our le ve ls pur suant t o U
. S. S. G
. § 2K2. 1( b) (5 ) be ca use Co w anuse d af

ir earm in co nne ct ion
w itha nothe r fe lon y

of fe nse , a nd g av e an oth er

tw o- le ve l i nc re as e fo r obstru ct ionof j ustice pursuant to U. S. S. G. § 3C1.1. For a total off ense level of 26 and a crim inal his tor y of c at eg or y V , the gui de lin e im

pr iso nm en t r an ge w as 110 -1 37 m onths. In sentencing Cowan, the district court conclud ed that Cowan did obstruct j ust ic e by a tte m pti ng t o in fl ue nc e Bi ed er m an ’ s te sti m ony

a nd d id u se af

ir earm in connection with anoth er f elony offense - - nam ely , drug traf ficking. T he court sentenced Cowan to 120 m onth s, noting th at 120 m onth s was the statutory
m axim um , but w as slight ly

below the m idpo int of the guid eline range. Cowan appealed his sentence to this Court, and we r em anded in the lig ht of United States v. Booker, 125 S.Ct. 738 (200 5), bec ause “ Cowan’ s sentence err oneous ly wa s based in part on extra-verdict enhancem ents und er a m andatory

guidelin es syste m .” O n r em an d, the dis tr ic t c ourt a ga in s en te nc ed Co w anto 120 m onths im pr is on m en t b ut no te d t ha t t he co ur t co ns id ered th e g ui de li ne ran ge as a dv is ory .5

Co w anappe al s th e re -s en te nc ing on f our gr ound s: ( 1) the dis tr ic t c ourt e rr ed in apply ing th e fire arm

enhancem ent because nothin g evidenced that a gun was pr es en t duri ng any

dr ug transa ct ion ; ( 2) the dis tr ic t c ourt e rr ed in ap ply ing the obstru ct ionof

j ust ic e en hanc em en t be ca use “ the re w as no e vid en ce that [ Co w an ] actually attem pted to persuade Ms. Bieder m an to change her testim ony , and that the Appellant’ s statem ents wer e “ j ust talk;” (3) the district court erre d und er Bl ak el y v. W as hin gto n, 124 S
. Ct
. 253 1 ( 2004 ), be ca use the f ac ts u se d f

or the enhancem ents wer e not put to a j ury or adm itted by

Cowan; and (4) the district
co urt e rr ed

und er 18 U
. S. C. § 35 53 i n se nte nc ing Co w anto 120 m onths i n th e lig ht o f his a cc ep tanc e of r es pons ibi lity

a nd e xtr ao rd inary

r eh ab ili ta tio n e ff

orts
an d innot

statin g it s r ea son fo r im

posi ng the 120 m onth se nte nc e. W e af fi rm on
ev er y gr ound
. W e re vie wthe dis tr ic t c ourt' s a ppl ic at ionof

the S en te nc ing G uid el ine s de
novo and the underly ing factual findings for cle ar e rror. U nited States v. P ope, 461 F. 3d 1 331, 133 3 ( 11th C ir
. 200 6)
. W e re vie wthe ult im at e se nte nc e fo r
re as ona ble ne ss. I d. A nd w e re vie wc onst itu tio na l c ha lle nge s to ase nte nc e de
novo , but w e w ill r ev er se onl y

upo n af ind ing of harm fu l e rr or . I d. Fi rs t, the dis tr ic t c ourt di d no t e rr in ap ply ing the f

ir earm e nhanc em en t. T he sentencing g uidelin es authorize a f our-level enhancem ent “ [i] f the defe ndant us edCow a

n a rgue s th at no e vid e nc e sh ow s h e ha d a gun wi th h im d

ur inga ny of his dr ugtr ans a c tio ns . 1 All drug s were sold in the l aundry room, and the guns were elsewhe re in the house . But a gun need not be within arm’s re ach of a cr iminal transaction to be use d in connec tion with the offense . See United States v. Flennor

y , 145 F.3d 1264, 1270 ( 11th Cir. 1998) (upholding a findingthat a we apon was used “ in connec tion with” drugtraff ickingwhen the dr

ug s were distributed in a

vaca nt lot and the wea pon was in a car acr oss the street) , superse ded on other g rounds, United States v. B rown, 332 F.3d 1341 ( 11th Cir. 2003). 6 or pos se sse d any

f ir earm or a m m uni tio n inc onne ct ionw itha nothe r fe lon y of fe nse . ” U
. S. S. G
. § 2K2. 1( b) (5 ). T he e vid en ce sho w s th at Co w anw as se lli ng dr ugs out of the laundr

y r oom in his hou se ; and at hi s ho use , he pos se sse d on e to thr ee f ir earm s. A nd C ow ansho w ed his f ir earm s to ac ust om er

- - the CI - - w ho
cam e to the house to purchase cocaine. T he district court was not clear ly m istaken in f ind ing that C ow anuse d af ir earm in co nne ct ionw ithdr

ug tra ff ic kin g. 1 Second, the district court did not err in apply ing th e obstruction of j ustice
en hanc em en t. T he gui de lin es auth or iz e a tw o- le ve l e nhanc em en t i f (1 ) “ the de fe ndant w ill fu lly

obs tr uc te d or im pe de d, or a tte m pte d to obs tr

uc t or im pe de , the adm ini str at ionof

j ust ic e dur ing the c our se of the inv es tig at ion , pr ose cu tio n, or sentencing o f the instant offense of conviction,” and (2) the obstructive condu ct rel at edto eit he r th e o ffen se of c on vi ct io n o r an y rel ev an t co nd uc t. U.S.S.G. § 3 C1 .1 . Th e e v i d en ce s h o ws t h at Co wa n at t emp t ed t o i n fl u en ce Bi ed er m an ’s testim ony on the ownership of the gun
. Cowan told “ Ke vin” to cont act Bieder m anCow an a rgue s th at hi s c omm e nts we re “ jus t ta lk” and

th at th ey were ne ve r c omm un ic ate d to 2 Bie derma n. But that the c omments were not co m m u n i ca t ed to Biederma n does not save Cowa

n. See United States v. B radf ord, 277 F .3d 1311 (11 t h Cir. 2002) (dec iding that indire ct threats of a witness made to third parties can constitute obs truction of justice e ven without a showingthat the threats were communicated to the ta rg et). 7 an d a sk h er

to say the gunw as he rs . T he dis tr ic t c ourt di d no t c le ar ly e rr in f i n d i n g t h a tC o w a n a t t e mp t e dt o i n f l u e n c e B i e d e rman ’s t e s t i mo n y. 2 T hir d, the dis tr ic t c ourt’ s f ind ing s th at

Co w anuse d af

ir earm in co nne ct ion
w ithaf el ony a nd tha t C ow anobs tr

uc te d j ust ic e did

not vio late Co w an ’ s S ixth A m en dm en t r igh t t o tr ia l by j ur y . I n m ak ing the se f

ind ing s ba se d up on the pr ep onde ranc e of

the e vid en ce , the dis tr ic t c ourt no te d th at it w as appl y ing the Se nte nc ing G uid el ine s a s a dvi sor y . T hus, Co w an ’ s r igh t t o aj ur y w as not vio la te d. S ee U nit ed

S ta te s v. Ro dr igu ez , 398 F
. 3d 1 291, 130 0 ( 11th C ir
. 200 5) (“ [T ] he use of extra- verdict enhancem ents in a non-m andatory guidelin es sy stem is not u nconsti tutio nal”). Fo ur th , th e d is tri ctco ur t u lt im at el y im po se d a reas on ab le sen te nc e. Pursuant to section 3 553(a) of T itle 18, a district court m ust cons ider several fa ct or s to de te rm ine ar ea sona ble se nte nc e. T hose “ fa ct or s in cl ude the na tur e an d ci rc um stanc es of

the of fe nse , the his tor

y a nd c hara ct er ist ic s of

the de fe ndant, the
ne ed f or a de qua te de te rr en ce a nd p ro te ct ionof the pub lic , pe rt ine nt S en te nc ing Co m m iss ionpol ic y

state m en ts, a nd the ne ed to av oid unw ar rante d se nte nc ingUnder Booke r, a court is not require d “to s tate on the record that it has ex plicitly considere d eac h 3 of the sec tion 3553(a) f

ac t o rs o r t o d iscuss eac h of the sec tion 3553(a) f actor s.” United States v. Talley , 431 F.3d 784, 786 ( 11th Cir. 2005). “[A] n acknow ledg ment by the district court that it has considere d the def

endant' s arguments and the fa ctors in sec tion 3553(a) is suffic ient.” I d. 8 dis pari tie s. ” U nit ed

S ta te s v. Bo nil la , 463 F
. 3d 1 176, 118 0 ( 11th C ir
. 200 6) ; 18 U. S. C. § 355 3(a). 3 H er e, the dis tr ic t c ourt e xpr es sly not ed that i t c onsi de re d th e fa ct or s and the ad v i s o ry g u i d el i n e r an g e i n s en t en ci n g Co wa n . Th e c o u rt co n s i d er ed Co wa n ’s

“ his tor y a nd c hara ct er ist ic s” a nd e xpl ic itl y a cknow le dge d C ow an ’ s r eh ab ili ta tio n ef fo rt s and a cc ep tanc e of

r es pons ibi lity . T he c ourt c onsi de re d “ the na tur e an d ci rc um stanc es of

the of fe nse ” an d e xpr es sly

c onc lud ed

that C ow an ’ s r eh ab ili ta tio n efforts did n ot lessen the serious ness of his crim e. T he court said it consid ered

“ the S en te nc ing Co m

m iss ion ’ s po lic y

state m en ts” a nd p oss ibl e upw ar d or downwar d departures, but said th at no departures we re w arranted. A fter
co nsi de ri ng a ll of

the se f ac tor s, the c ourt i m

pose d ase nte nc e sli ght ly be lowthe
m idp oin t of

the gui de lin e range . W e co nc lud e that the se nte nc e w as r ea sona ble
an d th at the dis tr ic t c ourt c onsi de re d th e fa ct or s and a de qua te ly e xpr es se d it s reasons for im

posin g the sentence. Fo r the f or eg oin g r ea sons , the dis tr ic t c ourt’ s j udge m en t i s AFFIRMED.