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 May 20, 2008 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N CL ERK [DO NOT PUBLISH] IN THE UN ITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FO R T HE EL EV EN TH CIRC UI T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. 07- 1379 9 Non-A rgum ent Calendar

--- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- -- D. C. Docket N o. 05-00498 -CR- T- 17MSS UNITED STAT ES OF AMERIC A, Pl ai nt iff -Ap pe ll ee, ve rs us SELESTINO SANCHEZ, SR., a. k. a. D on F el ix, a.k .a. Po ps , D ef en dant- Appe llant.

--- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- - Appe al f ro m the U nit ed

S ta te s D istri ct

Co urt fo r the Mi ddl e D istri ct

of F lor ida

--- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- - (M ay 2 0, 200 8) Be fo re E D MO N D SO N , Ch ie f Judg e, BI RC H a nd D U BIN A , Ci rc uit Jud ge s.2

PE R CU RIA M: De fendant-Appellant Sele stino Sanchez, Sr. appeals the 235-m onth sentence im pose d a ft er

he ple d gu ilty

to co ca ine a nd m etha m

phe tam ine dr

ug tra ff ic kin g o f f e n s e s . N o r e v e r s i b l e e rr o r h a s b e e n s h o w n ; w e a f

f i rm. A t se nte nc ing , D ef

en dant a dm itt ed

ge ne ra lly his r el ev an t c ondu ct

but too k e x c e p t i o n t o t w o f

a c tu a l p a rt i c u l a r s t o wh i c h h e h a da g r e e da th i s p l e ac o l l o qu y: (1 ) that he tr af

fi ck ed in m etha m

phe tam ine – he c la im ed

pe rs ona l us e onl y

of thi s drug ; an d (2 ) th athe ha d c oc ai ne de al in gs wit h c on fid en ti al in fo rm an t Nu ne z. D ef en dant t ook iss ue w iththe se part ic ular fa ct s on ly ; he a dm itt ed f ac ts s uf fi ci en t to su pp or t h is gu il ty ple a. Once De fendant placed in issue his relevant conduct, testim ony wa s taken from a Spec ial Agent w ho had worked the conspi racy . This testim ony included he ar say state m en ts o f a co -c onsp ir at or about D ef en dant’ s m etha m

phe tam ine tr af fi ck ing a ct ivi ty . T he S pe ci al A ge nt a lso te sti fi ed that he f ound inf orm at ion pr ov id edby the co -co ns pi rat orto be rel iabl e an d c orro bo rat edby oth er ev id en ce. Beca use Def endant failed to take responsib ility on these particulars, the district c o u rtd e n i e dDe f

e n d a n ta n a d

ju s t men tf

o r a c c e p t a n c e o f

r e s p o n s i b i l i t y. De fendant first ar gues that his Sixth Am endm ent confrontation righ ts wer e violated when the district court allowed the Special A gent to in clude hearsayDe fe nd ant c ite s us to Pr of fi tt v. Wai nwri g ht, 68 5 F .2 d 12 27 (1 1 Cir . 1 98 2) , in su pp or t of his th * argume nt t

hat Cr awf

or d’ s Co nfr on tatio n Cl a

us e ho ldi ngsh ou ld a

pp ly in s e nte nc ingpr oc e e din g s. Proffitt rec og nized a rig ht to cross-examination in the context of capital sentenc ing. I d. at 1254-55. To the e xtent De fe nd ant ar gue s that Prof fi tt is a pre c e de nt pr ior

to C ante lla

no and vit iate s th e va lid ity of the latter case , we disag ree . Proffitt is a capital sentenc ing case ; it intended to se t out – and ca n set out – no binding pre cede nt for non-c apital sentenc ing pr ocee dings. 3 state m en ts m ad e by

D ef en dant’ s c o- co nspi rator

in the A ge nt’ s te sti m ony in supp ort of

the dis put ed

c ondu ct . T his c ont en tio n is f or ec los ed by our de ci sio n in U nit ed S ta te s v. Cante llano, 430 F . 3d 1 142, 114 6 ( 11 Ci r. 200 5) . C an te llano th re j ec te d sp ec if

ic al ly the a rg um en t r ai se d by

D ef en dant tha t C raw fo rd

v. W as hin gto n, 124 S . Ct . 135 4 ( 2004 ), sho uld appl y to m ak e im

pe rm iss ibl e the use of out -o f- co urt st at em en ts at se nte nc ing . I d. I n C an te llano w e sa id the se thi ngs:

Cr aw fo rd de al t w ithtr ia l r igh ts and w e se e no r ea son to e xte nd Cr aw fo rd to se nte nc ing pr oc ee din gs. T he r igh t t o c onf ro ntatio n is not a se nte nc ing r igh t. T he se nte nc ing c ourt di d no t e rr , und er Cr aw fo rd , whe n i t co ns id ered he ars ay ev id en ce.... Id . W e ar e boun d by

the pr ior -p re ce de nt r

ule : “ [t ] he lawof

thi s c ir cu it is

‘ em pha tic ’ that on ly

the S upr em e Co urt or

thi s c ourt si tti ng en ban c c anj udi ci al ly overrule a prior panel dec ision .” Car gill v. Turpin, 120 F.3d 136 6, 1386 (11 Cir. th 1997 ). W e do n ot –

nor c oul d w e – a cc ep t D ef

en dant’ s in vit at ionto re vis it Cante llano. T he dis tr ic t c ourt c om m itt ed no e rr or – pl ai n or

oth er w ise – w he n it * adm itt ed he ar say te sti m ony

a t the se nte nc ing he ar ing .4

D ef en dant n ex t arg ue s th at

e ve n if the he ar say

pr ope rl y is co nsi de re d, the dis tr ic t c ourt w as c le ar ly

e rr one ous w he n it

de te rm ine d th at

D ef en dant s houl d be aw ar de d no a cc ep tanc e of r es pons ibi lity

a dj ustm en t. D ef

en dant p oin ts o ut tha t the onl y e vid en ce that he did

not a cc ep t r es pons ibi lity

w as the he ar say

te sti m ony of the Special A gent and that th is testim ony wa s insu fficient to counter D ef en dant’ s a cc ount . W e “ w ill not se t a sid e a dis tr ic t c ourt’ s de te rm inatio n th at a defendant is not enti tled to a § 3E1.1 adj ustm ent unless th e fa cts in the record cl earl y e sta bli sh tha t the de fe ndant h as a cc ep te d r es pons ibi lity . ” U nit ed S ta te s v. Mor iarty , 429 F . 3d 1 012, 102 2- 23 ( 11 Ci r. 200 5) . A nd the bur de n of e sta bli shi ng th en tit le m en t t o an a cc ep tanc e of r es pons ibi lity

downw ar d r ed

uc tio n r es ts u

pon the defendant. United States v. W illiam s, 408 F. 3d 74 5, 756 (11 Cir. 2005 ). th T ha t D ef en dant p le d gu ilty

is sig nif ic an t e vid en ce of

a cc ep tanc e of re spon sib ili ty . B ut “ a de fe ndant who f al se ly de nie s, or

f ri vol ousl y

c ont es ts, relevant conduct that the court determ ines to be true has acted in a m anner inc onsi ste nt w itha cc ep tanc e of r es pons ibi lity . ” U . S. S. G . § 3E 1. 1, c om m en t. (n . 1( a) ); W ill iam s, 408 F . 3d at 75 6. T he S pe ci al A ge nt t es tif ie d he f ound the inform ation provi ded by

the co-conspirator to be reliable or c orroborated by other ev ide nc e, inc lud ing int er ce pte d te le phon e co nve rs at ion s be tw ee n D ef en dant and the c o- co nspi rator . T he dis tr ic t c ourt f ound the S pe ci al A ge nt’ s te sti m ony about5

the dis put ed

c ondu ct to be c re dib le ; i t c onsi de re d D ef en dant’ s de nia ls t o be inc re dib le . D ef

en dant’ s c ouns el a cknow le dge d e xpr es sly that the gov er

nm en t wou ldbe ab le to pro ve th e d is pu te d c on du ctdu rin g h is Ru le 11 pl ea co ll oq uy. On this record, w e can not say the district court clearly

err ed when it deter

m ined that D ef en dant h ad

not sho w n hi s e nti tle m en t t o an a cc ep tanc e of r es pons ibi lity adj ustm ent. S ee Moriar

ty , 429 F. 3d at 102 2-23; see also W illiam s, 408 F. 3d at 756- 57. AFFIR MED.