FI LED U. S . COURT OF AP PE ALS E L E V E N T H C IR C U IT June 30, 2006 T HOM AS K. KAHN CL E RK [ 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- 15353 N on -A rgum entC al endar

________________________ D . C . D ocketN o. 02 -002 05 -C R -C A P -1 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 R O S A L I N D J O H N S O N , D e f e n d a n t- A p p e lla n t.

________________________ A pp ea l fr om the U ni t ed S t at es D i stri ctC ou rt f o rth e N o r th e r n D is tr ic t o f G e o r g ia

_________________________ ( Ju n e 30, 2006) B efo re B L A C K , B A R K E T T an d W IL S O N , C i rcu i tJu d g es. P E R C U R I A M: R os a l i nd J ohns on a ppe a l s he rc onvi c t i on a nd 48- m onth s e nt e nc e f or202

c ount s of m a ki ng f

r a udul e nta nd f

a l s e s t a t e m e nt s on a t a x r e tur n, i n vi ol a t i on of 26 U .S .C . § 7 2 0 6 ( 2 ) . O n app ea l , John son fi rs tar gu es thatthe di stri ctcourterre d b y overrul i ng her obj e c t i ons t o the a dm i s s i on of F e de r a l R ul e of

E vi de nc e 404( b) e vi de nc e . T he obj e c t i ons c onc e r ne d e vi de nc e a boutunc ha r ge d c onduc ta nd a l l e ge dl y f a l s e or a lte r e d d o c u m e n ts th a t J o h n s o n p r e s e n te d a t th e a u d its o f th e f r a u d u le n t r e tu r n s . S he a l s o a r gue s tha tthe di s tr i c tc our ts houl d ha ve gr a nt e d he rs e c ond m ot i on f or m i s tr i a l w he n the gove r nm e nt ’ s c a s e a ge ntt e s t i f i e d t o a m a t t e rtha tthe gove r nm e nt h a d c o n c e d e d w a s in a d m is s ib le . W e r evi ew the di stri ctcourt ’ s rul i ng s on t he adm i ss i on of evi dence for a n a b u s e o f d is c r e tio n . U

ni t e d Stat e s v . H

e nde rs on , 40 9 F . 3d 12 93 , 12 97 (11t h C i r. 2 0 0 5 ) , ce rt . deni ed , 1 2 6 S . C t. 1 3 3 1 , 1 6 4 L . E d . 2 d 4 7 ( 2 0 0 6 ) . R u le 4 0 4 “is a ru le of i nc l us i on, a nd . . . a c c or di ngl y [ R ul e ] 404( b) e vi de nc e , l i ke othe rr e l e va nt evi dence, shou l d n otbe excl ud ed w hen i ti s c entra l t o t he prosecut i on ’ s c as e. ” U ni t e d Stat e s v . J

e r ni gan , 341 F . 3d 1273, 1280 ( 11th C i r . 2003) ( i nt e r na l c i t a t i ons a n d q u o ta tio n s o m itte d ) . In order t o b e a dm i ss i bl e: (1) R ul e 404 (b) e vi dence m ustbe re l evantt o an i ss ue ot her than t he defendant ’ s c hara ct er ; (2) the pri or ac tm ustbe prov ed s u f f ic ie n tly to p e r m it a ju r y d e te r m in a tio n th a t th e d e f e n d a n t c o m m itte d th e a c t;3

a n d ( 3 ) th e e v id e n c e ’s p r o b a tiv e v a lu e c a n n o t b e s u b s ta n tia lly o u tw e ig h e d b y its u n d u e p r e

ju d ic e , a n d it m u s t s a tis f y R u le 4 0 3 . Id . T h e p a r tie s ’ m a in d is p u te c o n c e r n s th e th ir d p r o n g . W e h a v e s ta te d th a t,

“ the prob at i ve val ue of the evi dence m ustno tbe substan t i al l y outw ei gh ed by unf a i rpr e j udi c e . . . . [ T ] hi s de t e r m i na t i on l i e s w i thi n the s ound di s c r e t i on of the di stri ctj ud ge and cal l s f or a c om m on se nse a ss es sm entof al l the ci rc um st ance s s u r r o u n d in g th e e x tr in s ic o f f e n s e , in c lu d in g p r o s e c u to r ia l n e e d , o v e r a ll s im ila r ity betw ee n t he extri nsi c a ctand t he charged offe nse, as w el l as t em po ra l re m ot enes s. ” Id . a t1282 ( i nt e r na l c i t a t i ons a nd quot a t i ons om i tt e d) ( e m pha s i s i n or i gi na l ) . T he di s tr i c tc our tc a n a l s o gi ve a l i m i t i ng i ns truc t i on t o r e duc e the r i s k of undue p r e ju d ic e . U

ni t ed St at es v. R am i rez , 42 6 F . 3d 13 44 , 13 54 (11t h C i r. 20 05 ) ( per curi am ). F i rs t , the di stri ctcourtdi d n otabuse i t s di sc re t i on by adm i t t i ng evi dence re lated to u n ch ar g ed tax re tu rn s, an u n d er co v erin v es ti g atio n , an d Jo h n so n ’s subm i ss i on of al t er ed do cum ent s i n t he course of the Int ernal R evenue S ervi ce ( “ I R S ” ) a udi tbe c a us e the e vi de nc e w a s r e l e va ntt o s how i nt e nt , know l e dge , a nd a bs e nc e of

m i s t a ke , a nd pot e nt i a l undue pr e j udi c e di d nots ubs t a nt i a l l y outw e i gh th e e v id e n c e ’s p r o b a tiv e v a lu e . A dd i t i on al l y, the di stri ctcourt ’ s deni al of John son’ s m ot i on for m i stri al w as4

nota n a bus e of

di s c r e t i on. T he gove r nm e nta gr e e d nott o puti n e vi de nc e the r e s u lts o f th e a u d it o f

th e 1 3 0 0 ta x r e tu r n s , in c lu d in g ta x d e f ic ie n c y o f

$ 2 .6 m illio n . T he r e f or e , the c a s e a ge nt ’ s t e s t i m ony tha t“ the r e w e r e 1300 pe opl e , a l l w i th the s a m e a l l e ga t i on, ” di d notvi ol a t e tha ta gr e e m e nt , a nd the j ur y ne ve rhe a r d a ny e v id e n c e r e g a r d in g th e I R S ’s f in d in g s in th a t a u d it. N ex t, Jo h n so n ar g u es th at th e e v id en ce d id n o t su p p o rt th e d istrict co u rt’s del i bera t e i gn orance i nstruct i on . W e r evi ew a c hal l enge t o t he subst ance of j ury i n stru ct i o n s de no vo . U ni t e d Stat e s v . St one , 9 F .3 d 9 3 4 , 9 3 7 (1 1 th C ir. 1 9 9 3 ). “A de l i be r a t e i gnor a nc e i ns truc t i on i s a ppr opr i a t e onl y w he n the r e i s e vi de nc e i n the re cord show i ng the defendantpu rposel y c on tri ved t o avo i d l ea rni ng the truth. ” Id . ( c ita tio n o m itte d ) . S u c h a n in s tru c tio n is n o t ap p r o p r ia te w h e r e th e e v id e n c e o n ly p o in ts to e ith e rth e d e f

e n d a n t’s a c tu a l k n o w le d g e o rla c k th e r e o f . Id . T h e d is tr ic t c o u r t’s d e c is io n to g iv e a n in s tru c tio n r e g a r d in g d e lib e r a te ig n o r a n c e is s u b

je c t to h a r m le s s - e r r o ra n a ly s is . Se e id . T hu s, because j uri es ar e pres um ed t o fol l ow the j ud ge’ s i nstruct i on s, the error i s harm l es s a s am att erof l aw w he r e ( 1) “ the j ur y w a s c l e a r l y i ns truc t e d tha ta pr e c ondi t i on t o i t s a ppl i c a t i on of the de l i be r a t e i gnor a nc e i ns truc t i on w a s pr oof be y ond a r e a s ona bl e doubttha t[ the de f e nda nt ] de l i be r a t e l y ke pthi m s e l f i gnor a nt , ” a nd ( 2) the e vi de nc e w a s s uf f i c i e nt to s u p p o r t a c o n v ic tio n b a s e d o n a c tu a l k n o w le d g e , b u t n o t n e c e s s a r ilyIn o rde r to raisea c on sti tution a l ob

je c tio n, a de fend ant mus t e ith e r re fer to th eSixth 1 Amendment, Apprendi v. New Jersey , 530 U.S. 466, 120 S. Ct. 2348, 147 L . Ed. 2d 435 (2000) or o th er re l at edca s es , o r th e ri ghtt o h av e th e jury d ec i d e th e di s p ut ed fa ct , o r mu s tch al l en ge th e j u dge actingas fact-finder with reg ard to sentencing . United States v. Dowling , 4 0 3 F . 3 d 1242, 1245 (11th Cir.), cert. denied, 126 S. Ct . 462, 163 L . Ed. 2d 351 (2005). An obje ction to the sufficiency of the evidencedoes not preserve a constitutional error. Id. J ohnson did not adequately preserve her Booker claim. First, she stipulated to the amount of lo ss and never argued that a jur y was re quired to makethat findingor that the g overnment was require d to pr o v e th e am o unt beyond a re asonabledoubt. Further, she moved f or a downward depar ture ba sed on her

argument that the cour

t should reducethe “enormous” upwa rd dep arture beca use therewas substantial doubt as to the loss amount. In her motion, she mentioned the fact that 5 o v e r w h e lm in g . Id . a t 9 3 7 - 3 9 . W e d o n o t n e e d to d e c id e w h e th e rth e e v id e n c e s u p p o r te d a d e lib e r a te i ndi f f e r e nc e i ns truc t i on be c a us e e ve n i f s uc h a n i ns truc t i on w a s e r r one ous , the error w as harm l es s. T he j ury w as i nstruct ed thati thad t o fi nd del i bera t e i gn orance be y ond a r e a s ona bl e doubt . F ur the r m or e , the di s tr i c tc our ti ns truc t e d the j ur y on ac tual kn ow l edge, and t he evi dence s up po rt ed a c on vi ct i on base d o n actual k n o w le d g e . F i na l l y , J ohns on a r gue s tha tthe di s tr i c tc our te r r e d, pur s ua ntt o U ni t ed Stat es v. B oo ke r , 5 4 3 U .S . 2 2 0 , 1 2 5 S . C t. 7 3 8 , 1 6 0 L . E d . 2 d 6 2 1 ( 2 0 0 5 ) , in se nt enci ng her und era m andat ory gui del i nes s ys t em . John son d i d n otra i se a c ons t i tut i ona l obj e c t i on t o the di s tr i c tc our t ’ s a ppl i c a t i on of the gui de l i ne s , a nd th e r e f o r e w e r e v ie w th is is s u e o n ly f o rp la in e r r o r . See U

ni t ed St at es v. R odri

gu ez , 3 9 8 F .3 d 1 2 9 1 , 1 2 9 8 ( 1 1 th C ir .) , ce rt . deni ed , 125 S . C t . 2935, 162 L . E d. 2d 866 (200 5). U nd erpl ai n-error r evi ew , an appel l antm ustshow thatthere w as (1) a n

1the loss amount used to calculate her offense leve l was not proven at trial, but only in support of her argument t

hat th eamou

nt o f l os s f

or theun c ha

rg e d c on du c t w a s unc e rt ain a nd e xpon e nti a lly incre ased her off

ense level, which sheargued wa rra nted a depar

ture. These steps do not satisfy the Dowling standard. 6 error, (2) thati s pl ai n, (3) thataf fe ct s the appel l ant ’ s s ub st ant i al ri gh t s, and (4) that a f f e c ts th e f a ir n e s s , in te g r ity , o rp u b lic r e p u ta tio n o f th e ju d ic ia l p r o c e e d in g s . Id .

“ [I ] n app l yi ng the thi rd pron g, w e a sk w hether there i s are as on abl e probabi l i ty of a di f f e r e ntr e s ul ti f

the gui de l i ne s ha d be e n a ppl i e d i n a n a dvi s or y i ns t e a d of bi ndi ng fa shi on by the se nt enci ng j ud ge . . . . ” Id . at13 01 . T he defendantbear s the bu rden o f p e r s u a s io n w ith r e s p e c t to e s ta b lis h in g p r e ju d ic e u n d e rth e th ir d p r o n g . Id . at 1 2 9 9 . J ohns on c a nnotm e e the rbur de n t o s how pr e j udi c e unde rthe thi r d pr ong of pl ai n-error a nal ys i s bec ause no thi ng i n t he re cord i nd i ca t es thatthe di stri ctcourt m i ghtha ve i m pos e d a di f f e r e nts e nt e nc e unde ra n a dvi s or y s c he m e . I n f a c t , the di s tr i c tc our tf

ound tha tthe s e nt e nc e f ul f i l l e d the goa l s of

puni s hm e nta nd d e te r r e n c e . U p o n carefu l rev i ew o f th e reco rd , an d u p o n co n si d erat i o n o f th e p art i es’ br i e f s , w e f i nd no r e ve r s i bl e e r r or . A c c or di ngl y , w e a f f i r m J ohns on’ s c onvi c t i on and sent ence . AF F I RME D.