FI L ED U.S. COURT OF APPEAL S EL EVENTHCI RCUI T DECEMBER 9, 2010 J OHN L EY CL ERK [DO NOT PUBLISH] IN THE UN ITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELE VENTH CIRCUIT

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ No. 1 0- 10 40 5 Non -Arg um en t Ca le nd ar

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ D.C. Dock etNo. 1 :0 8- cr-2 10 97 -J AL-1 UNITED STAT ES OF AMERIC A, Plai nt iff -Ap pe ll ee,
ve rs us TERRANCE SCOTT, a.k .a. “ T”,
D efen da nt -Ap pe ll an t.

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ No. 1 0- 10 50 6 Non -Arg um en t Ca le nd ar

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ D.C. Dock etNo. 1 :0 8- cr-2 10 97 -J AL-5 UNITED STAT ES OF AMERIC A, Plai nt iff -Ap pe ll ee,
ve rs us TORRENCE HOLMES, a.k .a. Ton Ton ,D efen da nt -Ap pe ll an t.

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ App eal s fr om

th e Uni te d S ta te s Di st ric t Co urt fo r th e So ut he rnDis tri ctof F lo rid a

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ _ (Dece m be r 9, 2 01 0) Befo re TJ OFLAT, PRYOR an d ANDERSON, Ci rcu itJu dg es . PER CURI AM: Terran ce Sc ot t an d To rren ce Ho lm es ap pe al th ei r res pe ct iv e se nt en ces of 10 8 a nd14 4 m on th s o f im pr is on m en t fo r co ns pi rin g t o p os se ss wit h i nt en t t o di st rib ut e h ero in , 21 U.S.C. § 8 46 , andpo ss es si ng wit h i nt en t t o d is tri bu te he ro in , id . §§ 84 1( a)(1 ), (b )(1 )(C) . Sco ttarg ue s t ha t h e was en ti tl edto a on e-l ev el reduc ti on forhi s ac cep ta nc e o f res po ns ib il it y , U.S. Sent en ci ng Gui de li ne s M an ua l § 3 E1.1 (b ) (2 00 8) . Hol m es arg ue s t ha t h e was no t re sp on si bl e fo r fi ve ou nc es or
m or e o f he ro in an d h e sh ou ldno t h av e b een cla ss ifi edas acare er o ffen de r. W e affi rm . The di stric t co urt d idno t err by refu si ng to awardSco tta on e-l ev el reduc ti on foracce pt in g re sp on si bi li ty. If a d efen da ntqu al ifi es fora two -le ve l reduc ti on foracce pt an ce o f res po ns ib il ity , he m ay rece iv e anad di ti on al on e-l ev el reduc ti on up on m ot io n o f th e g ov ern m en t. U.S.S.G. § 3 E1.1 (b ). The Gu id el in es
2ve stth e g ov ern m en t wi th bro addi sc ret io n t o d et erm in e if th e ad di ti on al reduc ti on is warran te d: “ Bec au se th e Gov ern m en t i s i n t he be stpo si ti on to de te rm in e whe th er t he de fen da ntha s as si st edau th or it ie s i n am an ne r th atav oi ds pre pa rin g fo r tr ia l, an ad

jus tm en t u nd er s ub se ct io n (b ) m ay on ly be g ran te d upo n aform al
m ot io n b y

th e Gov ern m en t atth e ti m e o f se nt en ci ng .” Id . cmt. n .6. The go ve rn m en t d idno t m ov e fo r Sco ttto rece iv e th e o ne -le ve l re du ct io n. Sco ttarg ue s t ha t h e is si tu at edid en ti cal ly to h is co -d efen da ntHol m es an d, by pro ces s o f el im in at io n, t he go ve rn m en t m us t h av e ref

us edto gra ntth e ad di ti on al on e-l ev el reduc ti on ba se d o n a n u nc on st itut io na l m ot iv e, bu t we di sa gr ee. Sco ttfai ls to id en ti fy whatun co ns ti tu ti on al m ot iv e p ur po rte dl y li es be hi ndth e d eci si on to de ny the ad di ti on al reduc ti on , andth e g ov ern m en t p ro vi de d a le gi ti m at e ex pl an at io n fo r it s d eci si on . At th e se nt en ci ng he ari ng , th e go ve rn m en t s ta te d t ha t i t re fu se d t o m ov e fo r an ad di ti on al on e-l ev el reduc ti on be cau se Sco ttha d m ad e in co ns is te ntst at em en ts ab ou t t he am ou ntof d ru gs in vo lv edinhi s cr im es an d h adfil edpro se o bjec ti on s i n c on certwith c o- de fen da nt Hol m es , all of wh ic h s ug ge st edth atSco ttha d n otacce pt edres po ns ib il it y for hi s cri m es . Sco ttis no t en ti tl edto rel ie f. The di stric t co urt d idno t cl earl y err b y att rib ut in g t o Ho lm es 5 o un ces or
m or e o f he ro in . At th e se nt en ci ng he ari ng , coh ort Re gi na ldHol se y au th en ti cat ed
3tape reco rd edtel ep ho ne co nv ers at io ns in whi ch Hol m es pu rch as edon at l eas t fi ve

oc cas io ns si ng le -o un ce qua nt it ie s o f he ro infro m Hol se y . See Un it edSta te s v . Merti lu s, 1 11 F.3d87 0, 8 73 (11 th Cir . 19 97 ). Hol m es ch al le ng es Hol se y ’s cred ib il it y , bu t the di st ric t co urt was en ti tl edto cred itHol se y ’s tes ti m on y . See Uni te d S ta te s v . Ram ire z-Ch il el , 28 9 F .3d74 4, 7 49 (11 th Cir . 20 02 ). The re co rd
supp orts th e fi nd in g tha t Ho lm es ’s off en se s i nv ol ve d a t l eas t 5 ou nc es of h ero in
. The di stric t co urt al so di d n oterr i n s en te nc in g Ho lm es as acare er o ffen de r. Hol m es arg ue s t ha t h is pri orco nv ic ti on s ar e rel at edan d t reat edas asi ng le off en se fo r pu rp os es of e nh an cem en t, b uthe ackno wled ge s t ha t h is arg um en t i s fo recl os ed by ou r de ci si on in Uni te d S ta te s v . W il ks , 46 4 F .3d12 40 (11 th Cir . 20 06 ). In W il ks , we hel d t ha t p rio r fel on y co nv ic ti on s ar e co un te d s ep arat el y when th e de fen da ntis arre st edforhi s cr im es on di ffer en t d ay s. Id . at 1 24 4. Lik e th e de fen da ntin W il ks , Hol m es was arres te d o n s ep arat e o ccas io ns fortwo di ffer en t cri m es of p os se ss in g wi th in te ntto di st rib ut e h ero in
. W e AFFIRM th e se nt en ces im po se d o n S co ttan d Ho lm es .

4