FI L ED U.S. COURT OF A P P E A LS E LE V E N T H C IR C U IT MAR 12, 2007 THOMAS K. KAH

N CL ERK [DO NOT PUBLISH] IN THE UN ITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FO R T HE EL EV EN TH CIRC UI T

N o. 06- 1110 9
D. C. Docket N o. 04-00254 CR-5- 1 UN IT ED ST AT ES OF AME RICA Plaintiff-Appellee,
ve rs us RENATO JIMI NEZ, a. k. a. RJ , a. k.a. Andrea , D ef en da nt- Appe llant.
Appeal f rom the United State s District Court fo r the N orthe rnD istri ct

of G eo rg ia (M ar ch 12, 200 7) Before DU BIN A and COX , C ircuit Judg es, and SCHL ES IN GE R,* D istrict Judg e. PE R CU RIA M:

_____________________________ *Honora ble Har vey E. Schlesing er, United States District J udg e for the Middle District of Florida , sitti ng by

desig nation.2

Appe llant R en at o Ji m ine z w as c ha rg ed by af ed er al gr an d j ur

y w ith conspiracy

to poss ess with the intent to di stribute cocaine and m etham phetam ine, in v iol at ionof

21 U
. S. C. § 84 6, a nd a tte m pt t o po sse ss w iththe int en t t o di str ibu te atlea st 50 0 g ram s o f co cai ne , in vi ol at io n o f 18 U.S.C. § 2 an d 2 1 U.S.C. § 841( b) (1 )( B) (i i)
. A ft er

af ive -d ay tr ia l, Jim ine z w as f

ound gui lty on b othc ount s. A ft er atw o- da y

se nte nc ing he ar ing the dis tr ic t c ourt se nte nc ed Jim ine z to 120 m onth s of im

prisonm ent on each count, to be served concurre ntly
. Jim inez the n pe rf ec te d th is a

ppe al
. Ji m in ez p res en ts th e fo ll owi ng is su es forap pe ll at e rev ie w: 1. Whether the district court properly denied Jim inez’ s request to inst ruct the j ur y on m ult ipl e co nspi ra ci es , a nd w he the r the c ourt a buse d it s di sc re tio n in deny ing a requested instructio n that the purchase of sm all drug quant ities to sh are
w i t h o t h e r

p e o p l e d o e s n o te s t ab l i s h p a rt i c i p a t i o n i n ad r u g c o n s p i r a c y. 2. Whe the r the dis tr ic t c ourt c le ar ly e rr ed in fi ndi ng tha t the pr ose cu tor s’
co m m uni ca tio ns w ithS an ta cr

uz w er e en tir el y

appr opr ia te a nd d id n ot v iol at e Jim ine z’ s r igh ts. 3. Whe the r the dis tr ic t c ourt c om m itt ed pla in e rr or

by e xc lud ing the
a f f i d a v i to f c o - d e f e n d a n tS a n t a c r

u z a s i n a d mi s s i b l e h e a r s a y.3

4. Whether the district court abused its d iscretion in adm itting evidence showing Ji m inez’ s invo lvem ent in the charged offenses, or in adm itting the expert te sti m ony of S pe ci al A ge nt H ad aw ay

a nd I nte rp re te r Ca sti llo
. 5. Whe the r the dis tr ic t c ourt c om m itt ed c le ar e rr or in ca lc ula tin g th e quanti tie s of

dr ugs at tr ibu ta

ble to Jim ine z unde r the S en te nc ing G uid el ine s, a nd
co rr ec tly appl ie d th e Se nte nc ing G uid el ine s to the se f ac tua l f ind ing s. 6. Whether the district court’ s application o f the Se ntencing Guidelin es violated th e Sixth Am endm ent under United States v. B ooker , 543 U
. S. 220 , 125 S. Ct. 738 (200 5). 7. Whe the r the dis tr ic t c ourt pr ope rl y im pose d se nte nc e af

te r co nsi de ri ng the 18 U
. S. C. § 35 53 f

ac tor s. A ft er r ev ie w ing the r ec or d, r ea din g th e pa rt ie s’ br ie fs , a nd h av ing the be ne fi t of or al a rg um en t, w e co nc lud e tha t the re is no m er it to any of the
ar gum en ts J im ine z m ak es on a ppe al
. A cc or din gly , w e af fi rm his c onvi ct ion s and
se nte nc es . AFFIRMED.