FILED U.S. COURT OF AP P EALS E LEV EN T HC IRC U IT APRIL13 , 2006 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- 12614 N on -A rgum entC al endar

________________________ D . C. D o c k e tN o . 0 4 - 0 0 1 2 1 - CR- J - 3 2 - M CR 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 M O I S E S A R D I L L A - T E P E T A T E , I S R A E L A R D I L L A , D e f e n d a n ts - A p p e lla n ts .

________________________ A pp ea l s f

rom the U ni t ed S t at es D i stri ctC ou rt f orthe M i ddl e D i s tr i c tof F l or i da

_________________________ ( A p r i l13, 2005) B efo re M A R C U S , W IL S O N an d P R Y O R , C i rcu i tJu d g es. P E R C U R I A M:2

M oi s e s A r di l l a - T e pe t a t e a nd I s r a e l A r di l l a , br othe r s , appe a l the i rr e s pe c t i ve c o n v ic tio n s f

o rm u ltip le d ru g r e la te d o f f e n s e s . A r d illa - T e p e ta te ap p e a ls h is conv i ct i on s f

or conspi ri ng t o d i stri bu t e m etham ph et am i ne, 21 U . S . C . § 8 41 (a )( 1), ( b) ( 1) ( A ) , a nd di s tr i but i ng m e tha m phe t a m i ne w i thi n 1000 f e e tof a s c hool , 21 U . S . C . § 841( a ) ( 1) , ( b) ( 1) ( C ) ; 21 U . S . C . § 860( a ) . A r di l l aappe a l s hi s c onvi c t i on for c on spi ri ng t o d i stri bu t e m etham ph et am i ne, 21 U . S . C . § 8 41 (a )( 1), (b)( 1)(A ), and p osse ss i on w i th i nt entt o d i stri bu t e m etham ph et am i ne, 21 U . S . C . § 8 41 (a )( 1), ( b) ( 1) ( A ) ; 18 U . S . C . § 2. A r di l l a a l s o appe a l s hi s s e nt e nc e . O n appe a l , the brothers ar gu e thatthe di stri ctcourtpl ai nl y e rr ed w hen i tal l ow ed t es t i m on y that tw o c ode f

e nda nt s pl e a de d gui l ty a nd w he n i tdi d notgr a ntthe i rm ot i ons f or m is tr ia l, as p e c ia l in s tru c tio n to th e ju ry , o ra d m it ac o d e f e n d a n t’s p le aa g r e e m e n t. W ith r e g a r d to h is s e n te n c e , A r d illaa r g u e s th a t th e d is tr ic t c o u r t e rr e d w h e n it f a i l e d t o gi ve hi m c r e di tf ora c c e pt a nc e of

r e s pons i bi l i ty a nd the be ne f i tof the s a f e ty v a lv e r e d u c tio n a n d th a t th e m a n d a to ry m in im u m s e n te n c e is u n c o n s titu tio n a l. A r d illaa r g u e s in th e a lte rn a tiv e th a t h is c o u n s e l w a s in e f f e c tiv e . W e a f f irm . I . B AC KG RO UN D In A pri l 20 04 , a gra nd j ury i nd i ct ed A rdi l l a, A rdi l l a- T epet at e, S am uel A r d illa , J e s u s C a m p o s - R e y e s , a n d H ila r io n G a r c ia - A r z a te f o rc o n s p ir in g to3

di s tr i but e m e tha m phe t a m i ne a nd m ul t i pl e othe rdrug of f e ns e s . C a m pos - R e y e s a nd G a r c ia - A r z a te p le a d e d g u ilty . I n J a n u a ry 2 0 0 5 , th e A r d illab r o th e r s p r o c e e d e d to tr ia l. A ttr i a l , S pe c i a l A ge ntJ os e ph A gui l a rt e s t i f i e d a s the f

i r s tw i tne s s f

orthe gove rnm e nt . A gui l a rr e l a t e d the e ve nt s of the c ons pi r a c y a nd the s t i ng ope r a t i on th a t le d to th e a rr e s t o f

th e d e f e n d a n ts . T h e te s tim o n y in c lu d e d d e ta ils r e la tin g to the i nv ol vem entof C am po s- R ey es and G ar ci a- A rz at e, w ho A gu i l art es t i fi ed w er e n o t o n tr ia l b e c a u s e th e y h a d p le a d e d g u ilty . N o o b je c tio n w a s r a is e d to th is te s tim o n y . F or the defense , A rdi l l a- T epet at e a nd A rdi l l a t es t i fi ed and ass ert ed an e ntr apm e ntde f

e ns e . A r di l l a a l s o a tt e m pt e d t o c a l l G a r c i a - A r z a t e a s a w i tne s s f or the defense , bu tG ar ci a- A rz at e a ss ert ed hi s F i fth A m endm entri gh tagai nstse l fi ncri m i nat i on . B ec ause G ar ci a- A rz at e had no tye tbeen se nt ence d, the di stri ct f o u n d th a t G a r c ia - A r z a te h a d v a lid ly e x e r c is e d h is F if th A m e n d m e n t r ig h t. T he thr e e de f

e nda nt s the n m ove d f

ora m i s tr i a l ba s e d on the e l i c i t a t i on by the gove rnm e nttha tG a r c i a - A r z a t e a nd C a m pos - R e y e s ha d pl e a de d gui l ty . T he di stri ctcourtdeni ed the m ot i on . T he di stri ctcourtal so deni ed A rdi l l a’ s propo se d j u ry i n s tru c t i o n , w h i c h i n s tru c t e d th e j u ry me mb e r s th a tth e y s h o u l d a s s u me G a r c ia - A r z a te w o u ld h a v e te s tif ie d f a v o r ab ly f

o rth e d e f

e n s e . F in a lly , A r d illa4

m ov ed t o sub m i tG ar ci a- A rz at e’ s pl eaagre em enti nt o evi dence, and the di stri ct c our tde ni e d the m ot i on. T he j ury c onvi c t e d A r di l l aa nd A r di l l a - T e pe t a t e but ac qu i tt ed S am uel A rdi l l a. T he di stri ctcourtdeni ed A rdi l l a’ s m ot i on for ase nt ence be l ow the s t a tut ory m a nda t ory m i ni m um a nd s e nt e nc e d the de f e nda nt s t o the m a n d a to ry m in im u m s e n te n c e o f 1 2 0 m o n th s o f

im p r is o n m e n t. I I . STA N D A R D O F R EVI EW T hi s c ou rtre vi ew s the evi dent i ary rul i ng s of the di stri ctcourtand the deni al of a m ot i on f

ora m i s tr i a l f

orabus e of

di s c r e t i on. U ni t e d S t a t e s v. N ova t on, 271 F . 3d 968, 1005 ( 11th C i r . 2001) ; U ni t e d S t a t e s v. R a m i r e z , 426 F . 3d 1344, 1352 (11th C i r. 20 05 ). W e a l so re vi ew a c l ai m thatthe di stri ctcourtre fuse d t o g i ve a r e que s t e d i ns truc t i on f

orabus e of

di s c r e t i on. U ni t e d S t a t e s v. Z l a t ogur , 271 F . 3d 1025, 1030 ( 11th C i r . 2001) . W e r e vi e w f i ndi ngs of

f a c tunde rthe S e nt e nc i ng G u id e lin e s f

o rc le a re rr o ra n d le g a l c o n c lu s io n s o f th e d is tr ic t c o u r t d e n o v o . U ni t e d S t a t e s v. C r a w f

or d, 407 F . 3d 1174, 1177- 78 ( 11th C i r . 2005) . A n e rr or r a i s e d f orthe f i r s tt i m e on appe a l i s r e vi e w e d f orpl a i n e rr or . U ni t e d S t a t e s v. N a s h, 438 F . 3d 1302, 1304 ( 11th C i r . 2006) . T o e s t abl i s h pl a i n e rr or , a n appe l l a nt m ustshow (1) e rr or, (2) thati s pl ai n, and (3) thataf fe ct s s ub st ant i al ri gh t s. U ni t ed S t at es v. O l ano, 50 7 U . S . 72 5, 73 2, 11 3 S . C t . 17 70 , 17 76 (199 3). If al l three c ondi t i ons a r e m e t , w e m a y onl y r e c ogni z e the e rr ori f i t“ s e r i ous l y a f

f e c t [ s ] the5

fa i rnes s, i nt egri ty or pub l i c r eput at i on of j ud i ci al proceedi ng s. ” I d. (i nt ernal quot a t i ons om i tt e d) ( a l t e r a t i on i n or i gi na l ) . “ [ T ] he de f e nda ntbe a r s the bur de n of pers uasi on w i th res pectt o p re j ud i ce or the ef

fe cton subst ant i al ri gh t s. ” U ni t ed S ta te s v . M o n r o e , 3 5 3 F .3 d 1 3 4 6 , 1 3 5 2 ( 1 1 th C ir . 2 0 0 3 ) . I I I . DI S CUS S I ON A r di l l a a nd A r di l l a - T e pe t a t e m a ke s e ve r a l a r gum e nt s on appe a l . F i r s t , the d e f e n d a n t s a r g u e th a tth e c o u r tp l a i n l y e rr e d b y a l l o wi n g t e s t i m o n y th a ttwo codefendant s, C am po s- R ey es and G ar ci a- A rz at e, pl ea ded g ui l ty. B ec ause nei ther A r di l l a norA r di l l a - T e pe t a t e obj e c t e d t o the t e s t i m ony tha tC a m pos - R e y e s a nd G ar ci a- A rz at e pl ea ded g ui l ty, ou r r evi ew i s f or pl ai n err or. N as h, 43 8 F . 3d at 1 3 0 4 . U s e of

“ one pe r s on’ s gui l ty pl e aorc onvi c t i on a s s ubs t a nt i ve e vi de nc e of the g u ilt o f a n o th e ris im p r o p e r .” U n ite d S ta te s v . D e L o a c h , 3 4 F .3 d 1 0 0 1 , 1 0 0 4 ( 1 1 th C i r. 19 94 ). E vi dence thata c od ef endantpl ea ded g ui l ty m aybe adm i tt ed, ho w ever , i f “ 1) the evi dence s erves al egi t i m at e purpo se and 2 ) the j ury i s properl y i nstruct ed ab o u t th e lim ite d u s e th e y m a y m a k e o f it.” I d . a t 1 0 0 3 . O n e le g itim a te p u rp o s e is

“ t o pr e ve ntthe j ury f

r om r e a c hi ng the e rr one ous i nf e r e nc e tha ta c o- de f

e nda nt w ho m the evi dence s ho w [e d] w as al so cul pabl e had es caped p rose cut i on . ” I d. at 1 0 0 4 .6

“ [ T ] he a dm i s s i on of

gui l ty pl e a s orc onvi c t i ons of c ode f e nda nt s or c o c o n s p ir a to r s n o t s u b

je c t to c r o s s - e x a m in a tio n is g e n e r a lly c o n s id e r e d p la in erro r. ” U n i t ed S t at es v . E aso n , 9 2 0 F . 2 d 7 3 1 , 7 3 4 (1 1 th C i r. 1 9 9 0 ). B ecau se n e ith e rC a m p o s - R e y e s n o rG a r c ia - A r z a te te s tif ie d a t tr ia l, th e y w e r e n o t s u b je c t to c r o s s - e x a m in a tio n . T h e a d m is s io n o f th e irg u ilty p le a s w a s p la in e rr o r , b u t th a t is n o tth e en d o f o u r i n q u i ry. T h e d efen d an t s can n o test ab l i sh th atth e erro r affected the d efen d an t s’ s ubs t a nt i a l r i ght s , be c a us e the r e i s nota r e a s onabl e l i ke l i hood tha tthe e rr or a f f e c t e d the out c om e i n thi s c a s e . O l a no, 507 U . S . a t732, 113 S . C t . a t1776. T he de f e nda nt s a dm i tt e d the i ri nvol ve m e nti n the c ons pi r a c y . T he gui l ty pl e a s of C a m pos - R e y e s a nd G a r c i a - A r z a t e w e r e c ons i s t e ntw i th the de f e nda nt s ’ the ory of e ntr apm e nt , a nd the di s tr i c tc our ti ns truc t e d the j ury tha ti tc oul d notc ons i de rone p a r ty ’s g u ilty p le a a s e v id e n c e o f th e g u ilt o f

a n o th e rd e f

e n d a n t. S e c ond, the de f

e nda nt s a r gue tha tthe di s tr i c tc our ts houl d ha ve gr a nt e d a m i stri al base d o n the t es t i m on y thatC am po s- R ey es and G ar ci a- A rz at e pl ea ded g u i l ty. W e rej ectth i s arg u m en t . A s d i scu ssed p rev i o u sl y, th e d efen d an t s’ s ubs t a nt i a l r i ght s w e r e nota f f e c t e d by the a dm i s s i on of the t e s t i m ony , a nd the d is tr ic t c o u r t d id n o t ab u s e its d is c r e tio n w h e n it d e n ie d th e m o tio n f o ra m is tr ia l. R a m ir e z , 4 2 6 F .3 d a t 1 3 5 3 .7

T h ir d , A r d illaa r g u e s th a t th e d is tr ic t c o u r t e rr e d w h e n it r e f u s e d to g iv e h is pr opos e d c ur a t i ve i ns truc t i on t o i nf orm the j ury tha tG a r c i a - A r z a t e ha d i nf orm a t i on tha tw oul d t e nd t o s uppor tthe e ntr apm e ntde f e ns e . W e r e vi e w a c l a i m tha tthe di stri ctcourtre fuse d t o g i ve a r equest ed i nstruct i on for abu se of di sc re t i on . U ni t ed S t at es v. Z l at og ur, 27 1 F . 3d 10 25 , 10 30 (11th C i r. 20 01 ). T he appel l anti s e nt i t l ed t o r e l i e f onl y w he r e ( 1) the r e

j e c t e d i ns truc t i on w a s s ubs t a nt i ve l y c orr e c t , ( 2) the a c tua l c ha r ge t o the j ury di d nots ubs t a nt i a l l y c ove rthe pr opos e d i ns truc t i on, a nd (3) the fa i l ure t o g i ve i tsubst ant i al l y i m pai re d the defendant ’ s abi l i ty t o p re se ntan effecti v e d efen se. Id . B ecau se th e p ro p o sed i n stru ct i o n w o u l d h av e t o l d th e j u ry, w i thouta ny f

ounda t i on, tha tthe w i tne s s w oul d ha ve t e s t i f i e d f a vor abl y f

orthe de f e ns e a nd c ontr a ry t o e vi de nc e tha tha d be e n pr e s e nt e d, the di s tr i c tc our tdi d not ab u s e its d is c r e tio n . F o u r th , A r d illaa r g u e s th a t th e d is tr ic t c o u r t e rr e d w h e n it r e f u s e d to a d m it G ar ci a- A rz at e’ s pl eaagre em ent . “ E rr or m ayno tbe predi ca t ed up on a rul i ng w hi ch adm i t s or e xcl ud es evi dence unl es s asubst ant i al ri gh tof a party i s a ff ec t ed. ” F ed. R . E vi d. 10 3(a) . A rdi l l a has no tes t abl i shed ho w hi s s ub st ant i al ri gh t s w er e a f f e c te d b y th e e x c lu s io n o f th e p le aa g r e e m e n t. T h e d is tr ic t c o u r t d id n o t ab u s e its d is c r e tio n . F i f th, the de f

e nda nt s a r gue tha tw e s houl d r e c ons i de rU ni t e d S t a t e s v. K uku,8

12 9 F . 3d 14 35 , 14 37 -38 (11 th C i r. 19 97 ). W e c anno tdo so. Iti s w el l es t abl i shed thata panel of thi s C ou rtca nn otov errul e the deci si on of another panel . U ni t ed S t at es v. P etho , 40 9 F . 3d 12 77 , 12 80 (11th C i r. 20 05 ). F in a lly , A r d illam a k e s th r e e a r g u m e n ts r e g a r d in g h is s e n te n c e . F ir s t, A r d illa a r gue s tha tthe di s tr i c tc our te rr e d w he n i tc onc l ude d tha ti tw a s bound by the m a nda t ory m i ni m um s e nt e nc e a nd di d nots e nt e nc e hi m unde rthe s a f e ty va l ve pr ovi s i on, 18 U . S . C . § 3553( f ) . A r di l l aa r gue s tha tthe r e c or d s uppor t s the appl i c a t i on of

tha tpr ovi s i on. A r di l l ac ont e nds tha the pr ovi de d the gove rnm e nt w ith a ll r e le v a n t in f

o rm a tio n a n d th a t th e d is tr ic t c o u r t f o u n d th a t h e w a s n o t a l ea der or a n o rgani ze r a nd thatthe i nform at i on A rdi l l a gave t o the i nv es t i gat ors w a s tru e . B e c a u s e A r d illad id n o t r a is e th is is s u e in th e d is tr ic t c o u r t, o u rr e v ie w is f o rp la in e rr o r . N a s h , 4 3 8 F .3 d a t 1 3 0 4 . In drug tra ff

i cki ng cr i m es , the sa fe ty val ve, 18 U . S . C . § 3 55 3(f) , in c o rp o r a te d in to th e G u id e lin e s a t s e c tio n 5 C 1 .2 , d ir e c ts a s e n te n c in g c o u r t to im p o s e a G u id e lin e s s e n te n c e “w ith o u t r e g a r d to a n y s ta tu to ry m in im u m s e n te n c e ,” i f, “ af t erthe [g] ov ernm enthas bee n aff orded the op po rtun i ty t o m ake a r e c o mme n d a t i o n , ” th e c o u r tf i n d s th a tth e d e f

e n d a n tme e t s f

i v e c r i t e r i a . 1 8 U . S. C. § 3553( f ) . T hos e f

a c t or s r e qui r e tha t : ( 1) the de f e nda ntha s no m or e tha n one c r i m i na l hi s t ory poi nt ; ( 2) no vi ol e nc e w a s us e d i n the of f e ns e , a nd the de f

e nda nt9

di d notpos s e s s a f

i r e a rm “ ori nduc e a nothe rpa r t i c i pa ntt o do s o” i n c onne c t i on w ith th e o f

f e n s e ; ( 3 ) “th e o f

f e n s e d id n o t r e s u lt in d e a th o rs e r io u s b o d ily in ju ry to a ny pe r s on; ” ( 4) “ the de f e nda ntw a s nota n or ga ni z e r , l e a de r , m a na ge r , or s upe rvi s orof

othe r s i n the of

f e ns e . . . a nd w a s note nga ge d i n ac ont i nui ng c r i m i na l e nt e rpr i s e ; ” a nd ( 5) “ the de f e nda ntha s truthf

ul l y pr ovi de d t o the [ g] ove rnm e nta l l i nf

orm a t i on a nd e vi de nc e [ he ] ha s c onc e rni ng the of f e ns e or of f e ns e s tha tw e r e pa r tof

the s a m e c our s e of

c onduc torof

a c om m on s c he m e or pl a n. ” I d. “ T he bur de n i s on the de f e nda ntt o s how tha the ha s m e ta l l of the sa fe ty val ve fa ct ors. ” U ni t ed S t at es v. John son, 37 5 F . 3d 13 00 , 13 02 (11th C i r. 2 0 0 4 ) .A r di l l a m e e t s the f i r s ta nd thi r d r e qui r e m e nt s be c a us e he ha d onl y one c r im in a l h is to ry p o in t a n d n o d e a th o rs e r io u s b o d ily in ju ry o c c u rr e d , b u t h e f

a ils to sa t i sf y the other three cr i t er i a. A rdi l l a has no tes t abl i shed thathe di d n oti nd uce C am po s- R ey es , w ho w as carryi ng a f i re arm du ri ng the offens e, t o carrythe fi re arm no r has he show n thathe w as no tan organi ze r or l ea der or thathe w as no tengaged i n a c ont i nui ng e nt e rpr i s e . A r di l l aha s note s t abl i s he d tha the qua l i f i e d f orthe s a f e ty v a lv e . A l t ernat i vel y, A rdi l l a a rgues thatthe re cord i s s uffi ci ent l y devel op ed for a f in d in g th a t h is c o u n s e l w a s in e f f e c tiv e f o rf a ilu r e to r a is e e x p r e s s ly th e s a f e ty10

va l ve pr ovi s i on. W e w i l l notc ons i de ri ne f f e c t i ve a s s i s t a nc e of

c ouns e l c l a i m s on di r e c tappe a l unl e s s the r e i s s uf f i c i e nte vi de nc e on the r e c or d. S e e U ni t e d S t a t e s v. A ndr e w s , 953 F . 2d 1312, 1327 ( 11th C i r . 1992) . B e c a us e A r di l l adi d notr a i s e the is s u e o f th e s a f e ty v a lv e in th e d is tr ic t c o u r t, th e r e c o r d is n o t s u f f ic ie n tly c le a rto det erm i ne ho w the courtw ou l d h ave rul ed, and i ti s l i kew i se un cl ea r w hether c ouns e l w a s i ne f

f e c t i ve ora ny a l l e ge d i ne f f e c t i ve ne s s c a us e d A r di l l aha rm . W e do n o t a d d r e s s th is a r g u m e n t. T hi r d, A r di l l a a r gue s tha tthe di s tr i c tc our te rr one ous l y c onc l ude d tha the w a s n o t e n title d to a r e d u c tio n f o ra c c e p ta n c e o f

r e s p o n s ib ility u n d e rs e c tio n 3 E 1 .1 o f th e G u id elin es . S ec ti o n 3 E 1 .1 d irec ts th e d istrict co u rt to d ec re as e a d ef en d an t’ s o f f e n s e le v e l b y tw o p o in ts if h e “c le a r ly d e m o n s tr a te s a c c e p ta n c e o f r e s p o n s ib ility for hi s off

ense . ” U . S . S . G . § 3 E 1. 1(a) . A rdi l l a argues thatthe di stri ctcourt erroneou sl y c on cl ud ed thathe w as no tel i gi bl e f or the re du ct i on because he r ai se d a d efen se o f en trap m en tattri al . W i th a red u ct i o n fo r accep t an ce o f resp o n si b i l i ty, A r di l l a ’ s G ui de l i ne s s e nt e nc i ng r a nge w oul d ha ve be e n 121- 151 m onths of i m pri sonm ent . T he di stri ctcourtse nt ence d A rdi l l a t o the st atut ory m andat ory m in im u m s e n te n c e o f

1 2 0 m o n th s o f

im p r is o n m e n t. S e e 2 1 U .S .C . § 8 4 1 ( b ) ( 1 ) ( A ) . B ec au se an y a ll eg ed er ro r w o u ldb e h ar m less , w e d o n o t ad d re ss A rd il la’s a r g u m e n t.11

F i n al l y, A rd i l l a arg u es th atth e m an d at o ry m i n i m u m sen t en ce i n h i s case v i o l at es “ n o to n l y th e co n st i tu t i o n al d o ctri n e o f sep arat i o n o f p o w ers, b u tal so [ A r di l l a ’ s ] r i ght s t o due pr oc e s s a nd e qua l pr ot e c t i on a nd t o be f r e e f r om c rue l a nd unus ua l puni s hm e nt . ” A s A r di l l a a c know l e dge s , thi s a r gum e nti s f or e c l os e d by p r e c e d e n t. S e e , e .g ., U n ite d S ta te s v . R a a d , 4 0 6 F .3 d 1 3 2 2 , 1 3 2 4 ( 1 1 th C ir .) c e r t. de ni e d, 126 S . C t . 196 ( 2005) ; U ni t e d S t a t e s v. H ol m e s , 838 F . 2d 1175, 1177- 79 ( 1 1 th C ir . 1 9 8 8 ) . I V . CONCL US I ON T he conv i ct i on s a nd se nt ence ar e AF F I RME D.