### F I LE D U. S . COURT OF AP PE ALS E LEVE NTH CI RCUI T JU N E 14, 2005 T HOM AS K. KAHN C L 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. 04- 10439 N on -A rgum entC al endar

________________________ D . C. D o c k e tN o . 0 3 - 0 0 0 1 6 - CR- 4 - SPM 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 H E RN A N D E Z L O P A Z D A N I E L S , 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 orthe N or the rn D i s tr i c tof F l or i da

_________________________ ( J une 14, 2005) B efo re A N D E R S O N , C A RN E S an d H U L L , C i rcu i tJu d g es. P E R C U R I A M: H e rna nde z L opa z D a ni e l s w a s c onvi c t e d by a j ury of one c ountof c o n s p ir in g to p o s s e s s a n d d is tr ib u te m o r e th a n 5 0 g r a m s o f c o c a in e b a s e , in2

v io la tio n o f

2 1 U .S .C . § 8 4 6 , a n d o f tw o c o u n ts o f

d is tr ib u tin g c o c a in e b a s e , in vi ol a t i on of

21 U . S . C . §§ 841( a ) ( 1) a nd ( b) ( 1) ( C ) . H e w a s s e nt e nc e d t o c onc urr e nt t erm s of l i fe i n p ri son and 36 0 m on ths i n p ri son, re spec t i vel y, t o b e f ol l ow ed by t en y e a r s o f s u p e r v is e d r e le a s e . D a n ie ls ap p e a ls b o th h is c o n v ic tio n a n d h is s e n te n c e . W e a ff i rm hi s c on vi ct i on , bu tvaca t e a nd re m and h i s s ent ence i n l i gh tof U ni t ed S t at es v. B oo ker, 54 3 U . S . ___, 12 5 S . C t . 73 8 (20 05 ). I. Fa c t ua l Ba c k g r o und C o n s ta n c e D u p o n t w a s a rr e s te d in H a v a n a , F lo r id a ( a s m a ll to w n in F lo r id a ’s p a n h a n d le n e a rT a lla h a s s e e ) f o rp o s s e s s in g c r a c k c o c a in e . I n o r d e rto a voi d a l ong pr i s on s e nt e nc e , D uponta gr e e d t o a c ta s a c onf i de nt i a l i nf

or m a ntf or th e p o l i ce w i th reg ard t o l o cal d ru g act i v i ty. A s pa r tof

he rw or k a s a C I , D uponta rr a nge d t o m e e tD a ni e l s a tthe T a l l a ha s s e e M a l l t o buy c r a c k c oc a i ne . W i th l a w e nf or c e m e ntof

f i c e r s w a t c hi ng, D a ni e l s pul l e d up t o the c a rof a n uni de nt i f

i e d c oupl e w a i t i ng a tthe m a l l . T he c oupl e ga ve D a ni e l s the i rc a ra nd he t ook i tt o a nothe ra r e a of the m a l l t o pi c k up D u p o n t. D a n ie ls d r o v e D u p o n t b a c k to h is c a ra n d th e tw o th e n w e n t e ls e w h e r e to c o m p le te th e tr a n s a c tio n . D u p o n t b o u g h t 3 .5 g r a m s o f c r a c k c o c a in e f

o r$ 2 5 0 .0 0 . S he re corded the tra nsac t i on on a hi dd en t ape r ec order.3

A ft erD ani el s dropp ed D up on tback ather c ar , w here the un derc ov eroffi ce r w a s w a itin g f

o rh e r , D a n ie ls c a lle d D u p o n t o n h e rc e ll p h o n e , w h ic h w a s a c tu a lly the borr ow e d c e l l phone of the unde r c ove rof

f i c e r . T he of

f i c e ra ns w e r e d by m i st ake. A w e e k l a t e r , D uponttr i e d t o a rr a nge d a nothe rdrug de a l w i th D a ni e l s . S he c a lle d D a n ie ls o n th e u n d e r c o v e ro f f ic e r ’s c e ll p h o n e , b u t D a n ie ls d id n o t a n s w e r . D ani el s a nd hi s gi rl fr i end, Ir ai m a G re en (w ho w as D up on t ’ s c ou si n and w ho had in tro d u ce d D u p o n t an d D an iels), th en ca ll ed D u p o n t n in etee n ti m es o n th e o ff icer ’s c e ll p h o n e u s in g a n o p tio n o n h is p h o n e th a t d is g u is e d h is n u m b e rto th e c a ll r e c ip ie n t. A c c o r d in g to G r e e n , D a n ie ls d id th is to g e t th e p h o n e ’s r e a l o w n e rto a n s w e ra n d c o n f

ir m h is s u s p ic io n th a t D u p o n t w a s a n in f o r m a n t f o rth e p o lic e . T he ne xtda y , D upontw a s f ound s hotde a d. A f e w m onths l a t e r , the pol i c e a s ke d a nothe rC I , N a n C a m pbe l l , w ho a l ong w i th h erhu sband h ad previ ou sl y purchas ed drug s f rom D ani el s, t o b uy m ore c ra ck coca i ne fr om hi m . C am pb el l and h erhu sband m etD ani el s a nd G re en atan ab a n d o n e d c o n v e n ie n c e s to r e in C h a tta h o o c h e e , F lo r id a , w h e r e th e y b o u g h t 0 .9 gr a m s of c r a c k c oc a i ne f

or$200. 00. C a m pbe l l , l i ke D upont , r e c or de d the c onve r s a t i on.4

D a ni e l s w a s a rr e s t e d a f e w m onths l a t e ron M a r c h 11, 2003. A f t e rs e a r c hi ng hi s hom e , l a w e nf

or c e m e ntof

f i c e r s f ound l e dge r s r e c or di ng D a ni e l s ’ s drug tr a ns a c t i ons f

r om N ove m be r1997 t o J ul y 1999, i nc l udi ng thos e w i th C a m pbe l l a nd her husband . V i ncentB urgess , a f ri end o f D ani el s, t ol d the po l i ce thathe had b ee n D a ni e l s ’ s c oc a i ne s uppl i e rdur i ng tha tpe r i od. W hi l e D a ni e l s w a s a w a i t i ng tr i a l , he w a s hous e d a tthe F e de r a l D e t e nt i on C e nt e ri n T a l l a ha s s e e a nd s ha r e d a c e l l w i th G a ry J os e ph. D a ni e l s t ol d J os e ph d u ri n g th e co u rse o f th ei r co n v ersat i o n s th ath e h ad k i l l ed th e i n fo rm an ti n h i s case t o e l i m i na t e a ny pot e nt i a l pr os e c ut i on. D a ni e l s s a i d tha the ha d m e tthe i nf or m a nt i n h i s c as e throu gh the i nform ant ’ s c ou si n, w ho w as hi s gi rl fr i end, and t hathe had di sc ov er ed the i nform antw as w orki ng for l aw enforce m entw hen h e had cal l ed her ce l l ph on e a nd a w hi t e m an answ er ed. D ani el s a l so sa i d thathe w as a drug d ea l er an d th ath e so l d d ru g s t o a n u m b er o f l o n g -t erm cu st o m ers. B a s e d on D a ni e l s ’ s c onve r s a t i ons w i th J os e ph, hi s de a l i ngs w i th the confi dent i al i nform ant s, and t he evi dence col l ec t ed athi s hom e, D ani el s w as i n d i c t e d f

o ro n e c o u n to f

c o n s p i r i n g t o p o s s e s s a n d d i s tr i b u t e mo r e th a n f i f ty g r a ms of cr ac k cocai ne and t hree coun t s of di stri bu t i ng cr ac k cocai ne. A ft era three -day tr i a l , a j ury c onvi c t e d D a ni e l s of the c ons pi r a c y c ounta nd tw o c ount s of di s tr i but i on. H e w a s s e nt e nc e d t o l i f e i n pr i s on f

orthe c ons pi r a c y c ounta nd 3605

m onths i n pr i s on f

orthe tw o di s tr i but i on c ount s , a l l f ol l ow e d by t e n y e a r s of s u p e r v is e d r e le a s e . D a n ie ls ap p e a ls h is c o n v ic tio n a n d s e n te n c e o n m u ltip le g r o u n d s . I I . Suf f i c i e nc y o f

t he I ndi c t m e nt D a n ie ls f ir s t c o n te n d s th a t th e d is tr ic t c o u r t e rr e d b y d e n y in g h is m o tio n to di s m i s s the gove rnm e nt ’ s i ndi c tm e nta s t o the c ons pi r a c y c ount . H e a r gue s tha tthe in d ic tm e n t w a s in s u f

f ic ie n t b e c a u s e it d id n o t id e n tif y w ith w h o m h e c o n s p ir e d to po ss es s a nd di stri bu t e drugs. W e r evi ew the deni al of a m ot i on t o d i sm i ss an i ndi c tm e ntf

ora n abus e of

di s c r e t i on. U ni t e d S t a t e s v. P i e l a go, 135 F . 3d 703, 707 (11th C i r. 19 98 ). W e ha ve he l d, w he n f

a c e d w i th a s i m i l a rc ha l l e nge by a de f e nda ntw ho soug htt o d i sm i ss hi s i nd i ctm enton conspi ra cy char ges, that“ abse nta di sc ov ery or de r , the [ gove rnm e nt ] ha s no ge ne r a l obl i ga t i on t o di s c l os e the na m e s of uni ndi c t e d c o- c ons pi r a t or s w ho w i l l notbe c a l l e d a s w i tne s s e s . ” U ni t e d S t a t e s v. W hi t e , 846 F . 2d 678, 693 ( 11th C i r . 1988) ; c f . U ni t e d S t a t e s v. M a r t i ne z , 96 F . 3d 473, 477 ( 11th C i r . 1996) ( uphol di ng a de f e nda nt ’ s c onvi c t i on w he r e the i nd i ctm ental l eges thatthe defendantconspi re d w i th “ un kn ow n p er sons”) . H er e, D a ni e l s di d nots e e k t o obt a i n the na m e s of the uni ndi c t e d c o- c ons pi r a t or s a nd the di s tr i c tc our tdi d notor de rthe i rdi s c l os ur e . N e i the rdi d the gove rnm e ntc a l l the6

u n in d icted co -c o n sp irato rs as w itn es se s. A cc o rd in g ly, th e g o v er n m en t’ s i ndi c tm e nti n thi s c a s e w a s s uf f i c i e nt , de s pi t e i t s f

a i l ur e t o na m e the c oc ons pi r a t or s . S e e W hi t e , 846 F . 2d a t693.

II I. A d m i ss i b i l i ty of E vi d en ce C on ce rn i n g D u p on t’ s M u rd er D ani el s nextcont ends thatthe di stri ctcourterre d b y a dm i tt i ng evi dence ab o u t D u p o n t’s m u r d e rb e c a u s e th e e v id e n c e ’s p r e ju d ic ia l e f

f e c t s u b s ta n tia lly outw e i ghe d i t s pr oba t i ve va l ue . S pe c i f i c a l l y , D a ni e l s a r gue s tha tthe e vi de nc e of D u p o n t’s m u r d e rw a s n o t e s s e n tia l to th e g o v e rn m e n t’s c a s e a n d o n ly s e r v e d to c onf us e the j ury . W e r e vi e w the di s tr i c tc our t ’ s e vi de nt i a ry rul i ngs f orabus e of di sc re t i on . U ni t ed S t at es v. C hu rc h, 95 5 F . 2d 68 8, 70 0 (11 th C i r. 19 92 ). D a n ie ls is r ig h t th a t e v id e n c e r e le v a n t to h is g u ilt m a y b e e x c lu d e d if “its prob at i ve val ue i s s ub st ant i al l y outw ei gh ed by the dang erof un fa i r pre j ud i ce . ” F e d. R . E vi d. 403. H ow e ve r , the di s tr i c tc our t ’ s di s c r e t i on t o e xc l ude r e l e va nt evi dence und erR ul e 403 i s “ narr ow l y c i rc um sc ri bed. ” I d. “ R ul e 403 i s a n extra ordi nary re m edy w hi ch shou l d b e use d o nl y s pari ng l y s i nce i tperm i t s the tri al courtt o excl ud e c on ce dedl y probat i ve evi dence. ” I d. (quo t at i on om i tt ed). T hi s i s e s pe c i a l l y true w i th r e ga r d t o c ons pi r a c y c a s e s . “ T he appl i c a t i on of R u l e 4 0 3 i n co n sp i racy cases to ex cl u d e p o t en t i al l y rel ev an tev i d en ce . . . b ecau se it m ig h t c a u s e ju ry c o n f u s io n w ill u s u a lly b e in c o n s is te n t w ith th e g e n e r a l ru le7

f a v o r in g a d m is s io n o f

s u c h e v id e n c e a n d a llo w in g th e ju ry to d e c id e if it r e la te s to the i nd i ct ed conspi ra cy . ” U ni t ed S t at es v. C ost a, 94 7 F . 2d 91 9, 92 4 (11 th C i r. 19 91 ). F or exam pl e, i n U ni t ed S t at es v. M ee st er , 76 2 F . 2d 86 7 (11 th C i r. 19 85 ), th e d efen d an t s, w h o w ere ch arg ed w i th co n sp i racy t o i m p o rtan d d i stri b u t e d ru g s, chal l enged u nd erR ul e 403 the adm i ss i on of evi dence thatthe pi l otw ho had tr a n s p o r te d th e ird ru g s a n d m o n e y h a d b e e n m u r d e r e d p r io rto tr ia l. I d . a t 8 7 3

– 7 4 . W e he l d tha tthe pr e

j udi c i a l e f

f e c tof the e vi de nc e of

the pi l ot ’ s m ur de rdi d not s ubs t a nt i a l l y outw e i gh i t s pr oba t i ve va l ue t o the gove rnm e ntt o s how the de f e nda nt s ’ pa r t i c i pa t i on i n a nd f ur the r a nc e of

the c ons pi r a c y , e s pe c i a l l y w he r e the di s tr i c tc our tga ve a l i m i t i ng i ns truc t i on t o the j ury e xpl a i ni ng the pr ope rus e of the e vi de nc e i n the j ury ’ s de l i be r a t i ons . I d. a t875–76. H e r e , th e e v id e n c e o f

D u p o n t’s m u r d e rw a s u s e d f o rth e s a m e p u rp o s e . D up on t ’ s i nv ol vem enti n D ani el s’ s c on spi ra cy t o sel l cr ac k cocai ne w as es se nt i al t o the go vernm ent ’ s c as e a nd the go vernm entneeded t o exp l ai n w hy D up on tw as no tt es t i fy i ng hers el f. M oreover, D ani el s’ s s t at em ent s t o Joseph thathe had k i l l ed D upontw e r e pr oba t i ve of hi s f ur the r a nc e of

the c ons pi r a c y by e l i m i na t i ng s om e one w ho c oul d ha ve br oughti tt o a n e nd. A nd, l i ke the c our ti n M e e s t e r , the d is tr ic t c o u r t h e r e in s tru c te d th e ju ry th a t th e e v id e n c e o f D u p o n t’s m u r d e r“s h o u ld onl y be c ons i de r e d f

orthe drug of

f e ns e s c ha r ge d i n the i ndi c tm e nt . T he de f e nda nt8

i s noton tr i a l i n thi s c a s e f orhom i c i de . ” ( R . 3: 424–25) . A c c or di ngl y , w e c onc l ude thatthe di stri ctcourtdi d n otabuse i t s di sc re t i on by adm i tt i ng thi s e vi dence.

I V . M ot i on f

or Ju d gm e n t of

A c q u i t t al D a n ie ls ’s th ir d c o n te n tio n is th a t th e d is tr ic t c o u r t im p r o p e r ly d e n ie d h is m ot i on f orj udgm e ntof

a c qui tt a l be c a us e the r e w a s i ns uf f i c i e nte vi de nc e tha the c ons pi r e d w i th othe rpe r s ons t o s e l l c r a c k c oc a i ne , a ne c e s s a ry e l e m e ntof the c ons pi r a c y c ha r ge . W e w i l l a f f i r m the di s tr i c tc our t ’ s de c i s i on t o de ny a m ot i on f orj udgm e ntof

a c qui tt a l “ i f

a r e a s onabl e tr i e rof

f a c tc oul d c onc l ude tha tthe evi dence es t abl i shes the defendant ’ s gui l tbeyond a r ea sonabl e dou bt . ” U ni t ed S ta te s v . R o d r ig u e z , 2 1 8 F .3 d 1 2 4 3 , 1 2 4 4 ( 1 1 th C ir . 2 0 0 0 ) . “T h e e v id e n c e is vi ew ed i n the l i gh tm ostfa vo rabl e t o the go vernm entand al l re as on abl e i nfer ence s a nd c r e di bi l i ty c hoi c e s a r e m a de i n the gove rnm e nt ’ s f a vor . ” U ni t e d S t a t e s v. M a r tin e z , 8 3 F .3 d 3 7 1 , 3 7 3

– 7 4 ( 1 1 th C ir . 1 9 9 6 ) ( c ita tio n s o m itte d ) . W i th regard t o the conspi ra cy char ge, the go vernm entm ustprov i de evi dence such thata r ea sonabl e j ury c ou l d con cl ud e bey on d a re as on abl e dou btthatthere w as an agree m entbetw ee n the defendantand o ne or m ore pers on s, and t he obj ec t of the a gr e e m e ntw a s t o do e i the ra n unl a w f ul a c tora l a w f

ul a c tby unl a w f

ul m e a ns . U ni t e d S t a t e s v. S m i th, 289 F . 3d 696, 706 ( 11th C i r . 2002) . “ T he9

e xi s t e nc e of

the c ons pi r a c y a nd the de f e nda nt ’ s pa r t i c i pa t i on i n i tm a y be e s t abl i s he d thr ough c i r c um s t a nt i a l e vi de nc e . ” I d. H er e, the evi dence thatD ani el s had ent er ed i nt o and furthere d a conspi ra cy w ith o th e rp e r s o n s w a s o v e rw h e lm in g . I t s h o w e d th a t h e : ( 1 ) p a r tn e r e d w ith h is f r i e nd B ur ge s s f

r om m i d- 1998 unt i l A pr i l 1999 t o s e l l B ur ge s s ’ s drugs a nd s pl i tthe p r o f its ; ( 2 ) a d v a n c e d la r g e s u m s o f c o c a in e to H e n ry W a s h in g to n f r o m 1 9 9 8 to 20 00 and t ri ed t o coo k sever al ou nces of cr ac k cocai ne for hi m ; (3) w as i ntrodu ce d t o D upontby G r e e n, w ho a l s o a c c om pa ni e d hi m on s e ve r a l drug de a l s ; ( 4) us e d the c a rof a n uni de nt i f

i e d c oupl e t o f

a c i l i t a t e the c r a c k c oc a i ne de a l w i th D uponta tthe T al l ahas se e M al l ; and (5) used G re en and h i s brother t o fi nd ou ti f D up on tw as w o r k in g f

o rth e p o lic e , w h ic h le d to D u p o n t’s m u r d e r . V ie w in g a ll th e e v id e n c e in the l i ghtm os tf

a vor abl e t o the gove rnm e nt , i ti s c l e a rtha tD a ni e l s a gr e e d w i th one orm or e pe r s ons t o f

ur the rhi s c r a c k c oc a i ne bus i ne s s . I tw a s note rr orf orthe d is tr ic t c o u r t to d e n y h is m o tio n f o rju d g m e n t o f

a c q u itta l. V . Ju r y I n s t r u c t i on D a ni e l s a l s o c ont e nds tha ti tw a s e rr orf orthe di s tr i c tc our tnott o ha ve i n stru ct ed th e j u ry th atw i th o u ta sh o w i n g o f k n o w l ed g e, a si n g l e, i so l at ed actb y a d efen d an td o es n o tco n st i tu t e p art i ci p at i o n i n a co n sp i racy. In o th er w o rd s, D ani el s a rgues thatthe courtshou l d h ave s ua spon t e gi ven t he j ury abu ye r- se l l er10

r e l a t i ons hi p i ns truc t i on. B e c a us e D a ni e l s f a i l e d t o r a i s e thi s obj e c t i on be f or e the di s tr i c tc our t , w e r e vi e w i tnow f orpl a i n e rr or . U ni t e d S t a t e s v. P r i e t o, 232 F . 3d 81 6, 81 9 (11 th C i r. 20 00 ). “ W e f i nd pl ai n err or on l y w here (1) there i s a n err or; ( 2 ) th e e rr o ris p la in ; ( 3 ) th e e rr o ra f f e c ts th e d e f

e n d a n t's s u b s ta n tia l r ig h ts in th a t it w as p rej u d i ci al an d n o th arm l ess; an d (4 ) th e erro r seri o u sl y affects th e fai rn ess, i nt e gr i ty orpubl i c r e put a t i on of a j udi c i a l pr oc e e di ng. ” I d. ( c i t i ng U ni t e d S t a t e s v. O l ano, 50 7 U . S . 72 5, 73 0– 32 , 11 3 S . C t . 17 70 , 17 75 –7 6 (19 93 )) . D ani el s has no tm etthe fi rs tpron g o f pl ai n err or re vi ew because the di stri ct court ’ s a ctual i nstruct i on w as no ti n err or. A di stri ctcourt ’ s dec i si on t o d eny aj ury i nstruct i on re qu es t ed by the defendanti s noterroneou s i f the i nstruct i on the court a c tu a lly g a v e th e ju ry “a d e q u a te ly c o v e r e d ” th e d e f e n d a n t’s r e q u e s te d in s tru c tio n . U ni t e d S t a t e s v. B r a z e l , 102 F . 3d 1120, 1139 ( 11th C i r . 1997) . T ha ti s , i f the in stru ctio n th e d istrict co u rt g av e in clu d ed o r p ar ap h ra se d th e d ef en d an t’ s re qu es t ed i nstruct i on , re fusi ng t o g i ve the du pl i ca t e i nstruct i on i s noterror. I n B r a z e l , the di s tr i c tc our ti ns truc t e d the j ury tha t“ m e r e pr e s e nc e or a s s oc i a t i on di d notne c e s s a r i l y pr ove a c ons pi r a c y , a nd tha ta pe r s on w ho ha s no k n o w l e d g e o f

a c o n s p i r a c y , b u tw h o h ap p e n s t o a c ti n a w a y w h i c h a d v a n c e s s o me p u rp o s e s o f

o n e , d o e s n o t th e r e b y b e c o m e a c o n s p ir a to r .” I d . a t 1 1 3 9

– 4 0 . T h isAs a c orollary to this contention, Daniels also argues that his counsel wa s ineffe ctive for 1 failingto re qu e st a

sp e c if icbuye r- se ller re latio ns hipins tr uc tio n. Ho wever, wedo no t “ g e nerally consider c laims of ineffe ctive assistanc e of c ounsel raise d on direc t appeal wherethe district court did not enter

tain the claim nor develop the factual re cord.”United States v. Bender, 290 F.3d 1279, 1284 ( 11th Cir. 2002). Even if wedid, though, Da niels’s contention would not meet the Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 104 S. Ct. 2052 (1984), standard for inef fec tive a ssi sta nc eof c ouns e l. D anie ls’ s c ouns e l w a s n ot de fi c ient, id. at 68 7, 10 4 S. Ct. at 20 64 , b e c a us e the instructions he consented to, the “mere pre sence ” and “no knowledg e” instruc tion cited above, w eresubstantively identical to the buyer- seller relationship instruction, see B razel, 102 F .3 d at 11 39 –4 0. An d, Da nie ls w a s n ot p re

judic e d b y

no t ha vingthebuye r- se ller re latio ns hip instruction, see Strickland, 466 U.S. at 687, 104 S. Ct. at 2064, beca use the substanc e of that instruction was ade quately covered by

the instruction the district court actually g ave a nd the evidenc e of D aniels’s pa

rticipation and fur

thera nce of the conspiracy

was overwhe lming. 11 i ns truc t i on, w e he l d, a de qua t e l y c ove r e d the buy e r - s e l l e rr e l a t i ons hi p i ns truc t i on the de f e nda nti n tha tc a s e r e que s t e d. I d. H e r e , the di s tr i c tc our tga ve a j ury i ns truc t i on m a t e r i a l l y s i m i l a rt o the one the c our tga ve i n B r a z e l : “ O f c our s e , m e r e pr e s e nc e a tthe s c e ne of a tr a ns a c t i on or event , or the m er e f

ac tthatce rt ai n p er sons m ay have as soci at ed w i th eac h o ther, and m ay have as se m bl ed t og ether a nd di sc usse d com m on ai m s a nd i nt er es t s, do es notne c e s s a r i l y e s t abl i s h pr oof of a c ons pi r a c y . A l s o, a pe r s on w ho ha s no k n o w l e d g e o f

a c o n s p i r a c y , b u tw h o h ap p e n s t o a c ti n a w a y w h i c h a d v a n c e s s o me purpos e of

one , doe s notthe r e by be c om e a c ons pi r a t or . ” ( R . 1: 40: 9) . W e f i nd, l i ke the B ra ze l C ou rt , thatthi s i nstruct i on adequat el y c ov er ed D ani el s’ s pre fe rr ed bu ye r- se l l erre l at i on shi p i nstruct i on , the sa m e one the defendanti n B ra ze l r e q u e s te d . A c c o r d in g ly , th e d is tr ic t c o u r t’s f a ilu r e to g iv e s u c h a n in s tru c tio n to th e j u ry w as n o tp l ai n l y erro n eo u s. 1In B onner v . Ci ty of Pric ha rd , 6 61 F .2 d 1 20 6, 12 09 (1 1th Cir . 1 98 1) (en b anc ), thi s 2 Court adopted as bindingprec edent all decisions of the for mer F ifth Circuit handed down prior to the close of busine ss on September 30, 1981. Daniels also contends that his counsel wa s ineffe ctive for not raisingthe statute of 3 limit ations objection at trial. As weexplained above, weg enerally do not consider inef

fec tive a ssi sta nc eof c ouns e l c laims on

dire c t a pp e al. B e nd e r, 29 0 F .3 d at 12 84 . H ow e ver, e ven if Daniels had timely

objected, hewould not have prevailed. “ The g overnment satisfies the requirements of the statute of limitations for a non- overt act conspiracy if it alleg es and proves that the conspiracy

continued into the limitations period.”United States v. Arnold, 117 F .3d 1308, 1313 (11th Cir. 1997). That is, as longas par t of the conspiracy

took place within five year s of the indictment, the statute of limitation is satisfied. Here , as wedetailed a bove, the 12 V I . M ot i on f

or N e w T r i al D a n ie ls ’s f

if th c o n te n tio n is th a t th e d is tr ic t c o u r t e rr e d in d e n y in g h is m ot i on for anew tri al because the i nd i ctm ent , w hi ch al l eged thatD ani el s c on spi re d t o sel l drug s f

rom M ar ch 1, 19 98 t o M ar ch 5, 20 03 , i ncl ud ed t i m e out si de the fi veye arst atut e of l i m i t at i on s, m aki ng i tdefe ct i ve. D ani el s f i l ed hi s m ot i on for anew tr i a l on A pr i l 19, 2004, a l m os ts i x m onths a f t e rthe j ury ve r di c tw a s e nt e r e d. W e h av e h el d th at“ th e st atu t e o f l i m i t at i o n s i s a m att er o f d efen se th atm u st be a s s e r t e d a ttr i a l by the de f e nda nt . ” U ni t e d S t a t e s v. N a jj a r , 283 F . 3d 1306, 1308 ( 11th C i r . 2002) ( e m pha s i s a dde d) ( c i t i ng C apone v. A de rhol d, 65 F . 2d 130, 131 ( 5th C i r . 1933) ) . W he r e the de f e nda ntha s nota s s e r t e d hi s s t a tut e of l i m i t a t i ons 2 d e f e n s e a t tr ia l, h e is d e e m e d to h a v e w a iv e d th e d e f e n s e a n d c a n n o t la te rb r in g it u p o n ap p eal . S ee N ajj ar, 2 8 3 F . 3 d at1 3 0 8

– 0 9 ; C ap o n e, 6 5 F . 2 d at1 3 1 . B ecau se D a ni e l s di d notr a i s e hi s s t a tut e of l i m i t a t i ons obj e c t i on a ttr i a l , he ha s w a i ve d the i ss ue here. 3evidenc e cle arly demonstrates that Daniels par ticipated in the conspiracy from 1998 until 2003, when hewas a

rre sted. 13

V I I . B ook e r E r r or F i na l l y , D a ni e l s c ont e nds tha thi s s e nt e nc e vi ol a t e d B l a ke l y v. W a s hi ngt on, 542 U . S . ___, 124 S . C t . 2531 ( 2004) , a s appl i e d t o the f e de r a l s e nt e nc i ng gu i del i nes i n U ni t ed S t at es v. B oo ker, 54 3 U . S . ___, 12 5 S . C t . 73 8 (20 05 ), be c a us e the di s tr i c tc our te nha nc e d hi s s e nt e nc e ba s e d on the f a c t , f ound by the d istrict co u rt b y a p re p o n d er an ce o f th e e v id en ce , th at h e w as in v o lv ed in D u p o n t’ s m urder. B ec ause D ani el s t i m el y obj ec t ed t o the B oo ker i ss ue attri al , se e U ni t ed S t at es v. D ow l i ng , 40 3 F . 3d 12 42 , 12 45 (11th C i r. 20 05 ) ( B oo ker c on st i tut i on al e rr o ri s p r e s e r v e d i f

d e f e n d a n to b

j e c t s th a ta n i s s u e s h o u l d g o t o th e j u ry ) , we re vi ew the const i tut i on al error t o d et erm i ne “ i f the error w as harm l es s, ” U ni t ed S t at es v. P az , ___ F . 3d ___, 20 05 W L 75 78 76 , *2 (11th C i r. A pr. 5, 20 05 ).

“ T o f i nd ha r m l e s s e rr or , w e m us tde t e r m i ne tha tthe e rr ordi d nota f f e c tthe subst ant i al ri gh t s of the part i es . A const i tut i on al error, such as a B oo ker e rr or, m u stb e d i sreg ard ed as n o taffecti n g su b st an t i al ri g h t s, i f th e erro r i s h arm l ess be y ond a r e a s onabl e doubt . T hi s s t a nda r d i s onl y m e tw he r e i ti s c l e a rbe y ond a re as on abl e dou btthatthe error c om pl ai ned o f di d n otcont ri bu t e t o the se nt ence obt a i ne d. T he bur de n i s on the gove rnm e ntt o s how tha tthe e rr ordi d nota f f e c tthe defe nd ant ’ s s ub st ant i al ri gh t s. ” I d. (c i t at i on s, qu ot at i on s, and al t er at i on s om i tt ed).14

H e r e , D a n ie ls w a s c o n v ic te d b y th e ju ry o f c o n s p ir in g to s e ll m o r e th a n f if ty gr a m s of c oc a i ne , w hi c h, w he n c om bi ne d w i th hi s tw o pr i orf e l ony drug conv i ct i on s, re qu i re d the di stri ctcourtt o sent ence hi m t o a m andat ory t erm of l i fe i n pr i s on. 21 U . S . C . § 841( b) ( 1) ( A ) . T he e xtr a - ve r di c te nha nc e m e nt s a s a r e s ul tof th e d i stri ctco u rt ’ s fi n d i n g th atD an i el s w as i n v o l v ed i n D u p o n t ’ s m u rd er b y a p r e p o n d e r a n c e o f

th e e v id e n c e d id n o t a f f e c t D a n ie ls ’s s u b s ta n tia l r ig h ts w ith re gard t o thi s m andat ory s ent ence . T h e e n h a n c e m e n ts d id , h o w e v e r , a f f e c t D a n ie ls ’s s u b s ta n tia l r ig h ts w ith r e ga r d t o hi s c onvi c t i on f ortw o c ount s of

di s tr i but i ng c r a c k c oc a i ne . U s i ng the g u i d el i n es t o cal cu l at e D an i el s’ s sen t en ce, th e d i stri ctco u rtassi g n ed a b ase o ffen se le v e l o f th ir ty e ig h t b e c a u s e , th r o u g h o u t th e c o u r s e o f h is c o n s p ir a c y , D a n ie ls p o s s e s s e d a n d s o ld m o r e th a n 1 .5 k ilo g r a m s o f c o c a in e b a s e . U .S .S .G . § 2 D 1 .1 ( c ) ( 1 ) . T h e c o u rt th e n e n h a n c e d D a n ie ls ’s s e n te n c e f o u rle v e ls b a s e d o n its fin d in g b y a p re p o n d er an ce o f th e e v id en ce th at h e w as in v o lv ed in D u p o n t’ s m ur de r : tw o f

orus i ng a gun i n the de a th of D upont , i d. § 2D 1. 1( b) ( 1) , a nd tw o f or obs truc t i ng j us t i c e by m ur de r i ng a c onf i de nt i a l i nf

or m a nt , i d. § 3C 1. 1. G i ve n tha tD a ni e l s ’ s s e nt e nc e w a s “ i nc r e a s e d be c a us e of a n e nha nc e m e nt ba s e d on f

a c t s f ound by the j udge tha tw e r e ne i the ra dm i tt e d by the de f e nda ntnor f ound by a j ury ” unde ra m a nda t ory gui de l i ne s s y s t e m , hi s S i xth A m e ndm e ntr i ght15

t o a j ury tr i a l w a s vi ol a t e d. S e e U ni t e d S t a t e s v. R odr i gue z , 398 F . 3d 1291, 1297 ( 11th C i r . 2005) . B e c a us e the r e c or d i s unc l e a rw ha tthe di s tr i c tc our tw oul d ha ve done ha d the s e nt e nc i ng gui de l i ne s be e n a dvi s ory r a the rtha n m a nda t ory , the go vernm enthas notdem on stra t ed beyond a r ea sonabl e dou btthatthe di stri ctcourt w oul d ha ve gi ve n D a ni e l s the s a m e 360- m onth s e nt e nc e f orthe tw o di s tr i but i on coun t s und eran advi sory gu i del i nes r egi m e. W e, there fore , vaca t e hi s s ent ence and rem and for res ent enci ng i n l i gh tof the S up re m e C ou rt ’ s dec i si on i n B oo ker. V I I I . C on c l u s i on F orthe f or e goi ng r e a s ons , w e A F F I R M D a ni e l s ’ s c onvi c t i on f orone c ount of c ons pi r i ng t o pos s e s s a nd di s tr i but e c oc a i ne a nd f ortw o c ount s of

di s tr i but i ng c o c a i n e . We a l s o VA C AT E Da n i e l s ’ s s e n t e n c e i n s o f a ra s i ti n v o l v e s th e two di s tr i but i on c ount s a nd R E M A N D f orr e s e nt e nc i ng c ons i s t e ntw i th thi s opi ni on.