FI LED U.S. COURT OF APPEALS ELEV ENT H CI RCUI T APRI L 14, 201 1 J OHN LEY CLERK [DO NOT PUBLISH] IN THE U

NITED STATE S COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELE VENTH CIRCUIT

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ No. 1 0- 14 17 3 Non -Arg um en t Ca le nd ar

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ D.C. Dock etNo. 1 :1 0- cr-2 02 10 -PAS-1 UNITED STAT ES OF AMERIC A, ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll Pla in ti ff-Ap pe ll ee, vers us JULIO SANTIESTEBAN, ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll l 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 So ut he rnDis tri ctof F lo rid a

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ (Ap ril 14 , 20 11 ) Befo re TJ OFLAT, BARKETT an d B LACK, Circ ui t J ud ge s. PER CURI AM: Ju li o S an ti es te ba n app eal s h is co nv ic ti on an d 1 5- m on th sen te nc e fo r en co ur ag in g o r in du ci ng anali ento co m e to th e Uni te d S ta te s, i n v io la ti on of 8U.S.C. § 1 32 4( a)(1 )(A)(i v) . San ti es te ba n ra is es si x a rg um en ts on ap pe al ,

sp eci fic al ly tha t the di st ric t co urt: (1) sh ou ldha ve gra nt edhi s m ot io n fo r a jud gm en t o f acqui tt al , or i n t he alt ern at iv e, m ot io n fo r a n ew tr ia l; (2) erre d i n adm it ti ng , as e xp erttes ti m on y , Im m ig rat io n a ndCu st om s En fo rcem en t (“ ICE”) Sp eci al Agen t M at th ew Park er’s t es ti m on y as t o t he pri ce al ie ns pay to be sm ug gl edin to th e Uni te d S ta te s; (3) erredin res tri ct in g h is cro ss -ex am in at io n o f Sp eci al Agen t Pa rk er; (4) sh ou ldha ve gi ve n h is reque st edco op erat in g wi tn es s jury ins tru ct io n; (5) erro ne ou sl y ap pl ie d atwo -le ve l s pe ci al sk il l en ha nc em en t un de r U.S.S.G. § 3 B1 .3; an d (6 ) sh ou ldha ve ap pl ie d ath ree- le ve l re du ct io n u nd er U.S.S.G. § 2 L1.1 (b )(1 ) fo r co m m it ti ng th e o ffen se othe r th anforpro fit . I. SUFFIC IENCY OF THE EV IDENCE San ti es te ba n fi rs t ar gu es th atth e d is tri ctco urt erredin de nyin g h is m ot io n fo r a jud gm en t o f acqui tt al , or i n t he alt ern at iv e, m ot io n fo r a n ew tr ia l b ecau se th ere was in su ffi ci en t ev id en ce t o s up po rt h is co nv ic ti on . 1 To p ro ve th ata de fen da ntvi ol at ed8 U.S.C. § 13 24 (a)( 1) (A)(i v) , “ th e go ve rn m en t m

us t p ro ve be y on d areas on ab le do ub t t ha t t he de fen danten co ur ag ed orin du cedanali ento co m e to , ent er, o r res id e in th e Uni te d S ta te s, kno win g o r in
We reviewchalleng es to the suffic iency of the e vidence de novo. United States v. 1 W illiams , 527 F.3d 1235, 1244 ( 11th Cir. 2008). “We revie w the denia l of a motion for a new trial for a buse of discr etion.” United States v. He rnandez , 433 F.3d 1328, 1332 ( 11th Cir. 2005). 2reck le ss di sr eg ardof t he factth atsu ch co m in g t o, en try, or res id en ce i s o r wil l b e

in vi ol at io n o f th e la w.” Uni te d Sta tes v. Lo pe z , 59 0 F .3d12 38 , 12 48 (11 th Cir . 20 09 ), cer t. d

en ie d , 13 1 S .Ct. 4 13 (20 10 ) (quo ta ti onm ark s an d a lt erat io ns om it te d) . A defe nd an t m ay en co ur ag e o r in du ce an ali enby “he lp in g” th e al ie n co m e to th e Uni te d S ta te s. Id
. at 1 25 1. Inrev ie win g t he su ffi ci en cy of t he ev id en ce, we v ie w “ th e 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,” a ndwe wil l af firm a co nv ic ti on “ if a reas 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 a reas on ab le do ub t.” Uni te d Sta tes v. Will ia ms , 52 7 F .3d12 35 , 12 44 (11 th Cir . 20 08 ) (quo ta ti onm ark s o m it te d) . In thi s ca se , th ere was su ffi ci en t ev id en ce fo r a reas on ab le jury to fin d S an ti es te ba n g ui lty be y on d areas on ab le do ub t. The ev id en ce s ho wedth atSan ti es te ba n h el pe d a n a li en , Andrew Dav is , com e to th e Uni te d S ta te s fr om

th e Bah am as by driv in g Dav is to Flo rid a o n h is bo at . As to th e kn owl ed ge requi rem en t o f th e st atut e, a rea so nabl e jury cou ldha ve fou ndth at San ti es te ba n kne w or re ck le ss ly dis reg ard edth e fac t t ha t Dav is co ul d n otleg al ly en te r th e Uni te d S ta te s b as edon th e fac t t ha t Sa nt ie st eb anli edto th e Co as t Gu ard ab ou t the nu m

be r of pe op le who were o nb oa rdth e b oa t, an d t ol d Dav is to hi de in th e b oa t’s cabi n b ecau se of t he Co as t Gu ard .

3Norcanwe sa y th atth e d is tri ctco urt ab us edit s d is cret io n i n d en y in g San ti es te ba n’s m ot io n fo r a n ew tr ia l, b ecau se th e ev id en ce p res en te d a t t ria l d id no t p rep on de rat e ag ai ns t a g ui lt y ve rd ic t. Se e Uni te d Sta tes v. Her na ndez , 43 3 F.3 d 1 32 8, 1 33 5 (1 1t h C ir. 2 00 5) (a d is tri ctco urt m ay gra nta m ot io n fo r a n ew tri al wher e “ th e ev id en ce p rep on de rat es su ffi ci en tl y he av il y ag ai ns t t he ve rd ic t [s uc h] th ata se rio us m is carr ia ge of ju st ic e m ay ha ve oc cu rred .”) (quo ta ti on m ark s om it te d) . II. EVIDENTIARY RULINGS 1. Tes ti mon

y o f IC E Sp eci al Agen t Ma tthe w Parker San ti es te ba n n ex t ar gu es th atth e d is tri ctco urt erredin adm it ti ng th e te st im on y of I CE Sp eci al Agen t M at th ew Park er ab ou t t he pri ce i ll eg al ali en s p ay to be sm ug gl edin to th e Uni te d S ta te s, b ecau se Park er was no t qua li fie d t o t es ti fy as anex pe rt. Howev er, the reco rdrefl ect s t ha t the di stric t co urt d idno t m ak e an

2
ex pr es s fi nd in g tha t Park er was tes ti fy in g a s an ex pe rt wi tn es s, b utin st ead adm it te d P ark er’s t es ti m on y as l ay op in io n t es ti m on y

ba se d o n h is ex pe rie nc es as anICE ag en t. We fin d t ha t the di st ric t co urt d idno t ab us e it s d is cret io n i n adm it ti ng th is ev id en ce. Mo reo ve r, ev enif Pa rk er’s t es ti m on y sh ou ldno t h av e
We reviewa district cour t's e videntiary

ruling s for a

n abuse of

discretion and “ will 2 reve rse only

if the re sulting er

ror a ffe cted the de fenda

nt’s substantial rig hts.” United States v. Tinoco , 304 F.3d 1088, 1119 ( 11th Cir. 2002) (quotation marks omitted). 4be enadm it te d u nd er Ru le 70 1, Sa nt ie st eb anfai ls to ex pl ai n h ow h e was ha rm edor

pr ejud ic edby thi s al le ge d e rro r, an d t hu s fa il s t o e st ab li sh th atth e te st im on y affe ct edhi s s ub st an ti al rig ht s. 2. Cr os s ex ami na ti on of Sp eci al Agen t Pa rk

er San ti es te ba n a rg ue s t ha t the di st ric t co urt erredwhen itres tri ct edhi s cr os sex am in at io n o f Sp eci al Agen t Park er. W e fi ndno ab us e o f di sc ret io n. Fi rs t, San ti es te ba n a rg ue s h e sh ou ldha ve be enall owe d t o c ro ss -ex am in e Parke r ab ou t in co ns is te ntst at em en ts m ad e b y Davi s t o P ark er. Bef

or e a p arty

m ay im pe ach a wit ne ss us in g e xt rin si c ev id en ce, h owe ve r, “ th e co urt m us t b e p ers ua de d t ha t t he st at em en ts are i nd eedin co ns is te nt .” Uni te d Sta tes v. Ha le , 42 2 U.S. 1 71 , 17 6 (1 97 5) . Here, th e d is tri ctco urt d idno t err infin di ng th atth ere wer e n o in co ns is te ntst at em en ts ab ou t wh ic h S an ti es te ba n c ou ldim pe ach Davi s thr ou gh Park er’s t es ti m on y . Seco nd , San ti es te ba n arg ue s t ha t t he co urt s ho ul d h av e al lo wedhi m to qu es ti on Park er ab ou t h is affi da vi t i n s up po rt o f th e cri m in al co m pl ai nt , bec au se it co nt ai ne d S an ti es te ba n’s p os t- Mir an da st at em en ts ex pl ai ni ng th e so ur ce o f th e m on ey San ti es te ba n h adin hi s p os se ss io n a t t he ti m e o f hi s arres t. Ho wev er, the di st ric t co urt fo un d t ha t Pa rk er d idno t co nduc t o r wit ne ss th e p os t-Mir an da in te rv ie w des cri be d i n t he affi da vi t, an d t hu s h adno pe rs on al kn owl ed ge of 5San ti es te ba n’s al le ge d s ta te m en ts . Accor di ng ly, th e d is tri ctco urt d idno t err in

pr oh ib it in g S an ti es te ba n fr om qu es ti on in g P ark er ab ou t t ho se st at em en ts . III. J URY INSTRUCTIONS Nex t, Sa nt ie st eb anarg ue s t ha t t he di stric t co urt ab us edit s d is cret io n wh enit refu se d t o i ns tru ctth e jury tha t the tes ti m on y of aco op erat in g wi tn es s wh o h as rece iv eda be ne fitfortes ti fy in g s ho ul d b e co ns id eredwith m or e cau ti on th anth e te st im on y of o th er wi tn es se s. Acco rd in g t o S an ti es te ba n, t he di st ric t co urt s ho ul d ha ve gi ve n t hi s i ns tru ct io n b ecau se Davi s’s cr ed ib il it y was a t i ss ue , anda reas on ab le jury co ul d h av e co nc lu de d t ha t h e te st ifi edfal se ly becau se he was pr om is edth athe wou ldno t b e p ro se cu te d fo r il le ga l en try. 3 On t hi s re co rd , we can no t s ay th atth e fai lu re t o g iv e th e reque st ed in st ru ct io n s eri ou sl y

im pa ire d the de fen da nt ’s abi li ty to p res en t an effe ct iv e de fen se . As anin it ia l m at te r, Dav is tes ti fie d tha t h e was no t b ei ng pro m is ed an yth in g i n e xc ha ng e fo r hi s t es ti m on y in th is cas e. Mo reo ve r, th e d is tri ctco urt in st ru ct edth e jury abo utth e cre di bi li ty of wit ne ss tes ti m on y ge ne ral ly, in cl ud in g

We reviewa district cour t’s ref usal to g ive a r equeste d jury instruction for abuse of 3 discretion, United States v. Morris , 20 F.3d 1111, 1114 ( 11th Cir. 1994), and will reve rse a district court’s re fusal to g ive a r equeste d instruction “only if (1) the reque sted instruction was substantially

corr ect, ( 2) the re quested instruction is not addre ssed in the cha rg e ac tually

g iven, and (3) the fa ilure to g ive the re quested instruction seriously impaired the de fenda

nt’s ability

to prese nt an ef

fec tive defe nse.” United States v. She arer , 794 F.2d 1545, 1551 ( 11th Cir. 1986) (quotation marks a

nd alterations omi tted). 6th atth e jury sho ul d c on si de r whe th er the re was ev id en ce t en di ng to pro ve th ata

wit ne ss tes ti fie d fa ls el y . Fin al ly, San ti es te ba n’s co un se l was ab le to cal l Dav is ’s cred ib il it y

in to qu es ti on du rin g h is cro ss -ex am in at io n o f Dav is , andin clo si ng arg um en ts . Thu s, the di stric t co urt d idno t ab us e it s d is cret io n i n re fu si ng to gi ve San ti es te ba n’s re qu es te d ju ry in st ru ct io n. IV. SENTENCING 1. Two -le vel

en ha nc emen t u nder

U.S.S.G. § 3 B1.3 As t o s en te nc in g, Sa nt ie st eb anarg ue s tha t t he di st ric t co urt erredin ap pl y in g atwo -le ve l en ha nc em en t u nd er U.S.S.G. § 3 B1 .3 fo r th e u se of a“ sp eci al sk il l[] in a m an ne r th atsi gn ifi can tl y faci li ta te d t he co m

m is si on or c on ceal m en t o f th e o ffen se .” He arg ue s t ha t n o s pe ci al sk il l was requi redto dri ve hi s b oa t fr om th e Bah am as to Flo rid a b ecau se itwas asm al l p le as ur e b oa t, n o l ic en se was requi redto dri ve it , andhe was o nl y tra ve li ng ab ou t 5 0 m il es . 4 A sk il l i s “ sp eci al ” fo r th e p ur po se s o f U.S.S.G. § 3 B1 3 “ [i]f anav erag e pe rs on off

th e streetdo es no t p os se ss th e sk il l.” Uni te d Sta tes v. De L a C ruz Su ar ez , 60 1 F .3d12 02 , 12 19 (11 th Cir .) (quo ta ti on m ark s o m it te d) , cer t. d en ie d ,
“The district court’s leg al interpre tation of the term ‘ specia l skill s’ is review ed de novo , 4 but whether

the def endant possesse s a spec ial skill under § 3B1.3 of the SentencingGuidelines is a fa ctual findingrevie wed f or cle ar e rror .” United States v. DeLa CruzSuarez , 601 F.3d 1202, 1219 (11th Cir.), cert. de nied, 131 S.Ct . 393 (2010). 713 1 S .Ct. 3 93 (20 10 ). Thi s C ou rt h el d i n Uni te d Sta tes v. C alde ro n , 12 7 F .3d 13 14 (11 th Cir . 19 97 ) th at“ cap ta in in g ave ss el on th e h ig h s eas is th e type o f act iv ity th atrequi res sk il ls no t p os se ss edby m em be rs of t he ge ne ral publ ic an d, th eref or e, requi res ‘ sp eci al sk il ls ’ wit hi n the m ean in g o f se ct io n 3 B1 .3.” Id
. at 13 39 . Noton ly w as San ti es te ba n c ap ta in in g ave ss el on th e h ig h s eas , bu t h e was do in g s o a t n ig htwith o ne in op erab le en gi ne . On th is reco rd , we can no t s ay th e di st ric t co urt cl earl y

erre d i n c on cl ud in g t ha t Sa nt ie st eb anus eda “ sp eci al sk il l” in th e co m m is si on of t he off

en se , andth us th e co urt d idno t err inap pl y in g atwo le ve l en ha nc em en t u nd er U.S.S.G. § 3 B1 .3. 2. Th re e-l evel

reduc ti on un de r U.S.S.G. § 2L 1.1 (b )(1 ) Fi na ll y , San ti es te ba n a rg ue s t ha t h e sh ou ldha ve rece iv eda th ree- le ve l reduc ti on un de r U.S.S.G. § 2 L1.1 (b )(1 ) be cau se he di d n otco m m itth e o ffen se for pr of it . In h is po st -arr es t s ta te m en t, Sa nt ie st eb anst at edth athe ha d b ro ug ht 5 $1 ,20 0 t o B im in i an d, o nc e th ere, a f rie ndga ve hi m

$2 ,00 0 fo r bo atpa rts th athe ha d p ur ch as edfro m

San ti es te ba n.

A def endant r ece ives a thre e-le vel re duction to his offense le vel wher e “the offe nse wa s 5 committed other than for

profit.” U.S.S.G. § 2L 1.1(b)( 1). The de fenda nt bear s the burden of provingthat this section applies to him. United States v. Zaldivar , 615 F.3d 1346, 1352 ( 11th Cir. 2010), cert. de nied, 131 S.Ct . 959 (2011). 8On t hi s re co rd , we can no t s ay th e d is tri ctco urt cl earl y

erre d i n re fu si ng to ap pl y a th ree- le ve l re du ct io n u nd er U.S.S.G. § 2 L1.1 (b )(1 ). The ev id en ce attri al 6
supp orte d afin di ng th atDavi s p ai d $ 3,0 00 forhi s t rip on San ti es te ba n’s b oa t, an d
m or e th an$3 ,00 0 was fou ndinSan ti es te ban’s wal le t wh enitwas i nv en to rie d fo ll owi ng hi s arres t. Altho ug h S an ti es te ba n p res en te d a no th er ex pl an at io n fo r th e m on ey fou ndin hi s wal le t, the co urt was free to ch oo se be twee n t he pe rm is si bl e ex pl an at io ns of t he ev id en ce, an d t he co urt d idno t err in be li ev in g t he ev id en ce pr es en te d a t tria l ra th er tha n S an ti es te ba n’s ex pl an at io n. Se e Uni te d Sta tes v. Ndia ye , 43 4 F .3d12 70 , 13 05 (11 th Cir . 20 06 ) (h ol di ng th atwher e th ere i s “ m or e th anon e p erm is si bl e way to vi ew th e ev id en ce co nc ern in g p ro fit , th e d is tri ct co urt’s ch oi ce b etweenpe rm is si bl e v ie ws ca nn otbe cle ar erro r.”). Fo r th e fo reg oi ng reas on s, we af firm San ti es te ba n’s co nv ic ti on an d se nt en ce. AFFIRMED.

We reviewthe finding s of fa ct that support a se ntence enhanc ement for clea r er ror, a nd 6 the application of the SentencingGuidelines to those fa cts de novo . United States v. Ndiaye , 434 F.3d 1270, 1280 ( 11th Cir. 2006). 9