FI L ED U.S. COURT OF APPEAL S EL EVENTH CI RCUI T NOVEMB ER 28, 2011 J OHN L EY CL ERK [DO N OT PUBLISH]

IN THE UN ITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE ELE VENTH CIRCUIT

__

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __
No. 1 0- 15 28 9 Non -Arg um en t Ca le nd ar

__

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __
D.C. Dock et No. 8 :0 9- cr-0 03 73 -RAL-TGW -1

UNITED STAT ES OF AMERIC A,

ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll l l Pl ai nt iff -Ap pe ll ee,

vers us

MACIEJ MAREKWA ZNY,

ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll l l Defen da nt -Ap pe ll an t.

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ App eal fro m

th e Uni te d S ta te s Di st ric t Co ur t for th e Mi dd le Dis tri ct of F lo rid a

__

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ (No ve m be r 28 , 20 11 )

Befo re HULL, MARCUS an d B LACK, Circ ui t J ud ge s.

PER CURI AM:

Mac ie j W azn y ap pe al s hi s co nv ic ti o n s a nd 24 0- m on th to ta l se nt en ce fo r

co ns p i racy to im

po rt Gam m a-Bu tyrol act on e (“ GBL”) fo r hu m an co ns um pt io n in toth e Uni te d St at es fro m ou ts id e of th e Uni te d St at es , in vi ol at io n of 21 U.S.C. §§ 96 3

an d 96 0( b) (3 ); of im

po rta ti on of GBL fo r hu m an co ns um pt io n in to th e Uni te d St at es

fro m a pl ace ou ts id e of th e Uni te d St at es , in vi ol at io n of 21 U.S.C. §§ 95 2, 80 2( 32 ),

81 3 an d 96 0( b) (3 ); an d po ss es si on an d di st rib ut io n of GBL, fo r hu m an co ns um pt io n,

aft er un la wfu ll y im

po rti ng th e su bs ta nc e in to th e Uni te d St at es fro m a pl ace ou ts id e

th e Uni t e d St at es , in vi ol at io n of 21 U.S.C. §§ 95 9, 80 2( 34 )(X), 81 3, 80 2( 32 ) an d

96 0( b) (3 ). O n a p p e a l
, W azn y arg ue s th at : (1 ) th e di st ric t co ur t erre d in ad m it ti ng

1

he ars ay ev id en ce un de r th e st at em en t s of a co -co ns pi rat or ex cep ti on ; (2 ) hi s

co nv ic ti on s wer e n ot su pp or te d by s uf fic ie nt ev id en ce; (3 ) th e d is tri ct co ur t ab us ed

it s di sc ret io n in gi vi ng a de li be rat e i g n o ran ce in st ru ct io n; (4 ) an d hi s se nt en ce was

pr oc ed ur al ly and su bs ta nt iv el y un reas on ab le . After c aref ul rev ie w, we affi rm

.

W e rev ie w a di st ric t co ur t’s ev id en ti ary ru li ng s fo r ab us e of di sc ret io n. Uni te d

St at es v. Mas se y , 89 F.3 d 14 33
, 14 41 (1 1t h Ci r. 19 96 ). W e rev ie w a ch al le ng e to th e

su ffi ci en cy of th e ev id en ce de no vo , vi ewin g th e ev id en ce in th e li gh t m os t fav or ab le

to th e go ve rn m en t. Uni te d St at es v. Jo ne s, 6 0 1 F

. 3 d 12 47
, 12 67 (1 1t h Ci r. 20 10 ).

W hi le we rev ie w th e le ga l c or rect ne ss of a jury in st ru ct io n act ua ll y gi ve n de no vo ,

“I f take n for human c onsumption, common i ndustrial chemica ls such as g amma 1 buty rolac tone [GBL ] . . . are swiftly conver ted by the body into GHB,” commonly

known as the “date rape drug .” United States v. F isher, 289 F .3d 1329, 1331, 1335 (11th Cir. 2002) (quoting Pub. L aw No. 106- 172, § 2(4) ( 2000)).

2jury in st ru ct io ns are su bjec t to ha rm le ss erro r rev ie w. Uni te d St at es v. W eb b,

__ F.3 d

__ , 2 01 1 W L 4 01 10 23 n.8 (1 1t h Ci r. 20 11 ); Fed .R.Ci v.P . 6 1. An e r r or is ha rm le ss

un le ss “ th ere is a reas on ab le li ke li ho od th at [it ] affe ct ed th e de fen da nt ’s su bs ta nt ia l

rig ht s.” Uni te d St at es v. Hawki ns , 90 5 F.2 d 14 89
, 14 93 (1 1t h Ci r.19 90 ). W e rev ie w

th e dis tri ct co ur t’s ap pl ic at io n an d le ga l in te rp ret at io ns of th e Gui de li ne s de no vo , an d

th e d is tri ct co ur t’s fa ct ua l det erm in at io ns fo r cl ear e rro r. Uni te d S ta te s v . Zald iv ar,

61 5 F.3 d 13 46
, 13 50 (1 1t h Ci r. 20 10 ), cert

. de ni ed
, 13 1 S.Ct

. 95 9 (2 01 1)

. Last ly, we

rev ie w th e se nt en ce a di st ric t co ur t im po se s fo r “ reas on ab le ne ss ,” whi ch “ m erel y as ks

whe th er th e tri al co ur t ab us ed it s di sc ret io n.” Uni te d St at es v. Pu gh
, 51 5 F.3 d 11 79
,

11 89 (11 th Cir . 20 08 ) (q uo ti ng Rit a v . Uni te d S ta te s, 5 51 U.S. 33 8, 3 51 (20 07 )).

Fi rs t, we are un pe rs ua de d by W azn y ’s cl ai m th at th e di st ric t co ur t erre d in

ad m it ti ng he ars ay ev id en ce. All rel ev an t ev id en ce is pr es um ed to be ad m is si bl e. See

Fed .R.Evi d. 40 2. W hi le ev id en ce m ay co ns ti tu te he ars ay -- an ou t-o f-co ur t st at em en t

in tro du ced to pr ov e th e tru th of th e m at te r as se rte d -- cert ai n ex cep ti on s to th e he ars ay

ru le ex is t. See Fed .R.Evi d. 80 1, 80 2. Mo reo ve r, ev id en ce whi ch is no t he ars ay ne ed

no t fit in to an y ex cep ti on to th e ru le ex cl ud in g he ars ay

. See Unt ie d St at es v. Mat eo s,

62 3 F. 3 d 1 3 5 0
, 1 3 6 4 (1 1t h Ci r. 20 10 ), cert

. de ni ed
, 13 1 S.Ct

. 15 40 (2 01 1)

. One

ex ce p t i o n to th e he ars ay ru le ap pl ie s to st at em en ts of a co -co ns pi rat or

. In or de r to

in t r o d u c e th es e st at em en ts un de r Fed .R.Evi d. 80 1( d) (2 )(E), th e go ve rn m en t m us t

3pr ov e by a pr ep on de ran ce of th e ev id en ce th at ( 1 ) a c o ns pi racy ex is te d, (2 ) th e

co ns pi racy i nc lu de d th e de cl aran t an d th e de f e n d a n t ag ai ns t who m th e st at em en t is

of fere d, an d (3 ) th e st at em en t was m ad e du rin g th e co ur se of an d in fu rth eran ce of th e

co ns pi racy. Uni te d St at es v. Und erwo od
, 44 6 F.3 d 13 40
, 13 45 -4 6 (1 1t h Ci r. 20 06 ).

The Fed eral Ru le s of Evi de nc e pr ov id e th at ev id en ce is pr op erl y au th en ti cat ed

whe n th ere is “ ev id en ce su ffi ci en t to su pp or t a fin di ng th at th e m at te r in qu es ti on is

wha t it s pr op on en t cl ai m s.” Fed .R.Evi d. 90 1( a). Aut he nt ic at io n un de r Ru le 90 1 on ly

req ui res th e pr es en ta ti on of “ su ffi ci en t evi de nc e to m ak e ou t a pr im a faci e cas e th at

th e pr of fere d evi de nc e is what it pu rp or ts to be

. Onc e th at pr im a faci e sh owi ng ha s

be en m ad e, th e ev id en ce sh ou ld b e a d mi t t e d ” an d th e tri er of fact pe rm it te d to

de te rm in e whe th er th e pr of fere d ev id en ce is wha t it pu rp or ts to be

. Uni te d St at es v.

Cal dwe ll
, 77 6 F.2 d 98 9, 10 01 -0 2 (1 1t h Ci r. 19 85 ). The di st ric t co ur t’s de te rm in at io n

of au th en ti ci ty sh ou ld no t be dis tu rb ed un le ss th ere is no co m pe te nt ev id en ce in th e

reco rd to su pp or t it

. Uni te d St at es v. Mu no z, 16 F.3 d 11 16
, 11 20 -2 1 (1 1t h Ci r. 19 94 ).

The Co nf ro nt at io n Cl au se ba rs th e ad m is si on of “ te st im on ia l” he ars ay un le ss

th e de cl aran t is u n a v a i l ab le an d th e de fen da nt ha d a pr io r op po rtu ni ty fo r

c ro ss -ex am in at io n. Crawf or d v. W as hi ng to n, 54 1 U.S. 36
, 68 (2 00 4)

. H e a r s a y

st at em en ts are te st im on ia l whe n, am on g ot he r th in gs , th e y a re “ m ad e un de r

ci rcu m st an ces whi ch wou ld le ad an ob jecti ve wit ne ss reas on ab ly to be li ev e th at th e

4st at e men t wou ld be av ai la bl e fo r us e at a la te r tri al .” Id

. at 52 (q uo ta ti on om it te d)

.

St at em en ts m ad e in pr iv at e co nv ers at io n are ge ne ral ly no nt es ti m on ia l be cau se th ere

is no reas on to be li ev e th at th e st at em en ts wil l be use d at tria l. See Uni te d Stat es v.

US In fras tru ct ur e, In c., 57 6 F .3d 11 95 , 12 09 (11 th Cir . 20 09 ).

Here, th e di st ric t co ur t di d no t err in ad m it ti ng he ars ay ev id en ce un de r th e

co -co ns pi rat or ’s st at em en ts ex cep ti on

. As for th e un da te d vi de o an d th e st at em en ts

co nt ai ne d th erei n, a co -co ns pi rat or ’s t-s hi rt an d th e ap pa ren t co nt ai ne r of GBL were

en ou gh to es ta bl is h th at th e vi de o was m ad e du rin g th e co ur se of an d in fu rth eran ce

of th e ch arg ed co ns pi racy. Thi s co nc lu si on was fu rth er su pp or t e d b y t h e au di bl e

wor d “ GBL” al on g wit h W azn y ’s st at em en t ex pr es si ng co nc ern ab ou t dr iv in g on it

.

As fo r th e le tt er writ te n by co -co ns pi rat or Bri an Lan g to W azn y , th e le tt er was

pr op erl y au th en ti cat ed by a cu st om s in ve s t i g at or , who te st ifi ed as to ho w th e le tt er

was in te r c e p te d by pr is on of fic ia ls an d gi ve n to th e in ve st ig at or

. Add it io na ll y , th e

in tro du ct io n of Lan g’s le tt er di d no t vi ol at e W azn y ’s Si xt h Am en dm en t rig ht s. The

le tt er was co m

pa rab le to a pr iv at e co nv ers at io n an d th ere is no ev id en ce wha ts oe ve r

th at Lan g be li ev ed it wou ld la te r be av ai la bl e fo r us e at tri al whe n he wr o t e i t

.

The refo re, th e le tt er was no t te st im on ia l in na tu re an d W azn y ’s in ab il it y to

cro ss -ex am in e Lan g di d no t vi ol at e hi s Si xt h Am e n d men t r ig ht s. Acco rd in gl y , t he

di st ric t co ur t d id no t ab us e it s d is cret io n i n a dm it ti ng th is ev id en ce.

5Nex t, we fin d no m eri t in W azn y ’s arg um en t th at th e ev id en ce was in su ffi ci en t

to su pp or t h is co nv ic ti on s. In co ns id eri ng th e su ffi ci en cy of t he ev id en ce, we m

us t

de ci de whe t h e r an y rat io na l tri er of fact co ul d ha ve fo un d th e es se nt ia l el em en ts of

th e cri m e be y on d a reas on ab le do ub t. Uni te d St at es v

. H e r n a n de z, 43 3 F.3 d 13 28
,

13 35 (1 1t h Ci r. 20 05 ). “ [A] st at em en t by a de fen da nt , if di sb el ie ve d by th e jury, m ay

be co ns id ered as su bs ta nt iv e ev id en ce of th e de fen da nt ’s g u i l t

. ” Uni te d St at es v.

Bro wn, 5 3 F .3d 31 2, 3 14 (11 th Cir . 19 95 ).

“ To su st ai n a co nv ic ti on fo r co n s p i r a c y [u nd er 21 U.S.C. § 96 3], th e

go ve rn m en t m

us t pr ov e be y on d a reas on a b l e d ou bt th at (1 ) an il le ga l ag reem en t

ex i s t ed ; (2 ) th e de fen da nt kn ew of it ; an d (3 ) th e de fen da nt , wit h kn owl ed ge ,

v o l u n t a r il y joi ne d it .” Hern an de z, 43 3 F.3 d at 13 33

. The req ui red el em en ts of a

co ns pi racy can be es ta bl is he d by in fere nc e fro m th e act io ns of th e co ns pi rat or s or by

ci rcu m st an ti al ev id en ce. Uni te d St at es v. Gian ni
, 67 8 F.2 d 95 6, 95 9 (1 1t h Ci r. 19 82 ).

To su st ai n a co nv ic ti on fo r po ss es si on an d di st r ib ut io n of GBL fo r hu m an

co ns um pt io n, th e go ve rn m en t m

us t p ro ve th at th e d efen da nt so ld th e GBL wit h th e

in te nt io n th at it be us ed fo r hu m an co ns um pt io n, or th e kn owl ed ge th at it was be in g

pu rch as ed for hu m an co ns um pt io n. Se e 2 1 U.S.C. § 81 3.

Viewi ng th e ev id en ce in th e li gh t m os t fav or ab le to th e go ve rn m en t, th ere was

su ffi ci en t ev id en ce pr es en te d at tri al to su pp or t th e jury’ s co nc lu si on th at W azn y was

6gu il ty be y on d a reas on ab le do ub t. Fi rs t, th ere is su ffi ci en t ev id en ce to su pp or t th e

co ns pi racy co nv ic ti on

. W azn y hi m se lf te st ifi ed th at he ran hi s i n t e r n e t bu si ne ss

Cl ean st ar Po la nd wit h th e he lp of hi s br ot he r, an d un di sp ut ed ev id en ce sh owe d th at

hi s wife al so as si st ed in th e ru nn in g of th e bu si ne s s , whi ch es se nt ia ll y st art ed

fo ll owi ng di ss ol ut io n of Cl ean st ar Germ an y , whi ch ha d so ld GBL as a pu rp or te d gl ue

rem ov er. The ev id en ce furt he r sh owe d th at W azn y was in vo lv ed in so m e way wit h

Bri an Lan g an d Cl ean st ar Germ an y , an d ei th er W an zy or so m eo ne on th e vi de o as ke d

ab ou t tak in g GBL whi le dr iv in g in th e co m pa ny of Bri an Lan g an d two of W azn y ’s

co us in s. Tak en to ge th er, th es e th in gs pr ov id ed su ffi ci en t ev id en ce fo r a rat io na l tri er

of fact to fin d a co ns pi racy, si nc e th e fact th at W azn y ran Cl ean st ar Pol an d with hi s

fam il y wou ld be en ou gh to sat is fy th e d efi ni ti on of a co ns pi racy.

The re was al so su ffi ci en t ev id en ce to su pp or t th e jury’ s co nc lu si on th at W azn y

was se ll in g hi s pr od uc t fo r hu m an co ns um pt io n. W azn y hi m se lf ad m it te d th a t h e

kn ew GBL co ul d be us ed fo r hu m an co ns um pt io n, an d th e vi de o es ta bl is he d th at he

ha d pe rs on al kn owl ed ge of th at fact

. In ad di ti on , W azn y te st ifi ed in hi s own de fen se ,

an d t he jury was en ti tl ed to us e h is tes ti m on y ag ai ns t h im

an d c on cl ud e th at he was
lying an d th eref

or e gu il ty. Thu s th e ev id en ce was su ffi ci en t to su st ai n hi s co nv ic ti on s

on each of t he su bs ta nt iv e co un ts

.

7W e are li ke wis e un pe rs ua de d by Wa z n y’s arg um en t th at th e di st ric t co ur t

ab us ed it s di sc ret io n in gi vi ng a de li be rat e ig no ran ce in st ru ct io n. A de li be rat e

i gn or an ce in st ru ct io n is warra nt ed whe n th e fact s “ su pp or t th e in fere nc e th a t t h e

de fen da nt was aware of a hi gh pr ob ab il it y of th e ex is te nc e of th e fact in qu es ti on an d

pu rp os el y co nt riv ed to av oi d le arn in g al l of th e fact s in or de r to ha ve a de fen se in th e

ev en t o f a su bs eq ue nt pr os ecu ti on .” Uni te d St at es v. Ri ve ra, 94 4 F.2 d 15 63
, 15 71

( 1 1 t h Ci r. 19 91 ) (q uo ta ti on om it te d)

. W e ha ve he ld th at in st ru ct in g th e ju r y o n

de li be rat e ig no ran ce is ha rm le ss erro r whe re th e jury was al so in st ru ct ed a n d co ul d

ha ve co nv ic te d on an al te rn at iv e, su ffi ci en tl y su pp or te d th eo ry of act ua l kn owl ed ge

.

Uni te d S ta te s v . Kenn ard , 47 2 F .3d 85 1, 8 58 (11 th Cir . 20 06 ).

On th is reco rd
, th e di st ric t co ur t di d no t ab us e it s di sc ret io n by in st ru ct in g th e
jury on de li be rat e ig no ran ce. Fo r st art ers , th ere was ev id en ce th at W azn y ha d act ua l

kn owl ed ge th at hi s pr od uc t was be in g u s e d fo r hu m an co ns um pt io n. Co nv ers el y ,

be cau se he de ni ed an y in te nt to se ll GBL fo r pe rs on al co ns um pt io n, a jury co ul d ha ve

co nc lu de d th at he was av oi d i n g t h e k no wled ge th at hi s pr od uc t was be in g us ed fo r

hu m an co ns um

pt io n. Bu t ev en as su m in g arg ue nd o th at th e ev id en ce was in su ffi ci en t

to sh ow pu rp os efu l av oi d a n c e , a n y erro r by th e di st ric t co ur t was ha rm le ss , si nc e

th ere was su ffi ci en t ev id en ce in th is cas e to su pp or t a fin di ng th at W azn y ha d act ua l

kn owl ed ge th at hi s p ro du ct was b ei ng us ed for hu m an co ns um pt io n.

8Fi na ll y , we reject W azn y ’s arg um en t th at hi s se nt en c e was pr oc ed ur al ly an d

su bs ta nt iv el y un reas on ab le

. In rev ie win g se nt en ces fo r reas on ab le ne ss , we pe rfo rm

two st ep s. Pu gh
, 51 5 F.3 d at 11 90

. Fi rs t , we “ ‘ens ur e th at th e di st ric t co ur t

co m m it te d no si gn ifi can t pr oc ed ur al erro r, su ch as fai li ng to cal cu la te (o r im pr op erl y

cal cu la ti ng ) th e Gui de li ne s ran ge , tre at in g th e Gui de li ne s as m an da to ry , fai li ng to

co ns id er th e § 35 53 (a) fact or s, se le ct in g a se nt en ce ba se d on cl earl y erro ne ou s fact s,

or fai li ng to ad eq ua te ly exp la in th e ch os en sen te nc e -- i nc lu di ng an ex pl an at io n fo r

an y de vi at io n fro m th e Gui de li ne s ran ge .’ ” Id

. (q uo ti ng Gall v. Uni te d St a t e s , 55 2

U.S. 38 , 51 (20 07 )). 2

“ [F]actu al fin di ng s us ed to su pp or t a se nt en ci ng en ha nc em en t m us t be ba se d

on rel ia bl e an d sp eci fic ev id en ce an d can no t be ba se d on sp ecu la ti on .” Uni te d St at es

v. Newm an , 61 4 F.3 d 12 32
, 12 38 (1 1t h Ci r. 20 10 ). The go ve rn m en t be ars th e bu rd en

of pr ov in g th e ap pl ic ab il it y of a Gui de li ne s en ha nc em en t, whi le th e de fen da nt be ars

t h e b ur de n of pr ov in g th e ap pl ic ab il it y of a Gui de li ne s red uc ti on

. Uni te d St at es v.

The § 3553(a ) fa ctors include: ( 1) the na ture a nd circ umstances of

the offe nse and the 2 history and cha rac teristics of the de fenda nt; (2) the nee d for the se ntence imposed to refle ct the seriousness of the offe nse, to promote re spect for the law, a

nd to provide just punishment for the offe nse; (3) the need f

or the sente nce imposed to a ffor d adequa te deter renc e; (4) the need to protec t the public; (5) the ne ed to provide the defe ndant with educational or voca tional training or medica l car e; (6) the kinds of sentenc es ava ilable; (7) the Sente ncing Guidelines ra ng e; (8) the pertinent policy

statements of the Sente ncing Commi ssion; (9) the nee d to avoid unwanted
sentenc ing dispa

rities; and (10) the need to pr ovide re stitut ion to victims . 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a).

9Bel fas t, 61 1 F

. 3 d 7 8 3
, 8 23 (1 1t h Ci r. 20 10 ), cert

. de ni ed
, 13 1 S.Ct

. 15 11 (2 01 1) ;

Zald iv ar, 6 15 F.3d at 1 35 2.

Und er U.S.S.G. § 2D1 .1, th e ba se of fen se le ve l fo r a dr ug of

fen se is ge ne ral ly

cal cu la te d by de te rm in in g th e qu an ti ty of dr ug s at tri bu ta bl e to a de fen da nt

. In cas es

“ [w]here th ere is no dr ug se iz ur e or th e am ou nt se iz ed do es no t refl ect th e sc al e of th e

of fen se , th e co ur t sh al l ap pr ox im at e th e qu an ti ty of th e co nt ro ll ed su bs ta nc e.” Uni te d

St at es v. Fraz ie r, 89 F.3 d 15 01
, 15 06 (1 1t h Ci r. 19 96 ) (q uo ta ti on om it te d)

. The co ur t

m ay ba se it s ap pr ox im at io n on ev id en ce of th e av erag e freq ue nc y an d am ou nt of th e

de fen da nt ’s dr ug sa l e s

. I d

. Nev ert he le ss , th e co ur t’s ap pr ox im at io n of th e dr ug

am ou nt m

us t be “fa i r , a c cu rat e, an d co ns erv at iv e,” an d no t “ m erel y sp ecu la ti ve .”

Uni te d S ta te s v . Zapa ta , 13 9 F .3d 13 55 , 13 59 (11 th Cir . 19 98 ).

Und er U.S.S.G. § 3C 1.1
, th e di st ric t co ur t m ay in crea se th e de fe n da nt ’s

gu id el in e ran ge by two le ve ls if “ (A) th e de fen da nt wil lfu ll y ob st ru ct ed or im pe de d,

or at te m pt ed to ob st ru ct or im

pe de , t he ad m in is tra ti on of jus ti ce wit h res pe ct to th e

in ve st ig at io n, pr os ecu ti on , or se nt en ci ng of th e in st an t of fen se of co nv ic ti on , an d (B)

th e ob st ru ct iv e co nd uc t rel at ed to (i) th e d e f e nd an t’s of

fen se of co nv ic ti on an d an y

rel ev an t con du ct ; or (ii) a cl os el y rel at ed of fen se .” A “ se nt en ci ng jud ge cle arl y ha s

th e au th or it y to en ha nc e a de fen da nt ’s of fen se l e ve l if th e jud ge m ak es an

10i nd ep en de nt fact ua l fin di ng th at th e de fen da nt wil lfu ll y li ed in tri al te st im on y.”

Uni te d S ta te s v . Hus ky, 924 F.2d 22 3, 2 24 (11 th Cir . 19 91 ).

If we co nc lu de th at th e di st ric t co ur t di d no t pr oc ed ur al ly err, we m us t co ns id er

t h e “‘s u b s t a n t i v e r e a s o n a b l e n e s s o f t h e s e n t e n c e i mp o s e d u n d e r a n

ab us e-o f-d is cret io n st an da rd ,’ ” ba se d on th e “ ‘tot al it y of th e ci rcu m st an ces .’ ” Pu gh
,

51 5 F.3 d at 11 90 (q uo ti ng Gall
, 55 2 U.S. at 51 ). Thi s rev ie w is “ de fere n t i a l ,”

req ui rin g us to de te rm in e “ whe th er th e se nt en ce im po se d by th e di st ric t co ur t fai ls to

a c h ie ve th e pu rp os es of se nt en ci ng as st at ed in se ct io n 35 53 (a).” Uni te d S t a t e s v

.

Tall ey , 43 1 F.3 d 78 4, 78 8 (1 1t h Ci r. 20 05 ). W e wil l “ va cat e th e se nt en ce if, bu t on ly

if, we are left wit h th e de fin it e an d firm co nv ic ti on th at th e di st ric t cou rt com m it te d

a cl ear erro r of jud gm en t in weig hi ng th e § 35 53 (a) fact or s by arri vi ng at a se nt en ce

th at li es ou ts id e th e ran ge of reas on ab le se nt en ces di ct at ed by th e fact s of th e cas e.”

Uni te d St at es v. Irey, 61 2 F.3 d 11 60
, 1 1 9 0 ( 1 1 t h Ci r. 20 10 ) (en ba nc ) (q uo ta ti on

om it te d)
, cert

. de ni ed
, 13 1 S. Ct

. 18 13 (2 01 1)

. “ The pa rty ch al le ng in g th e se nt en ce

be ars th e bu rd en to sh o w i t is un reas on ab le in li gh t of th e reco rd an d th e § 35 53 (a)

fact or s.” Uni te d St at es v. Tom e, 61 1 F.3 d 13 71
, 13 78 (1 1t h Ci r. 20 10 ), cert

. de ni ed
,

13 1 S .Ct. 6 74 (20 10 ).

W azn y ha s no t sh own th at hi s se nt en ce was pr oc ed ur al ly u n r e a s on ab le

. Fo r

st art ers , th e di st ric t co ur t di d no t cl earl y err in cal cu la ti ng th e am ou nt s of GBL

11at tri bu te d to W azn y si nc e th is am ou nt was un di sp ut ed
, an d de ri v e d f r o m W azn y ’s

te st im on y an d bu si ne ss reco rd s, whi ch sh owe d th at he pu rch as ed 46 00 ki lo gr am s of

GBL fro m hi s su pp li er du rin g th e ti m e pe r i od th at he op erat ed Cl ean st ar Po la nd

.

The re was al so no erro r in cal cu la ti ng th is am ou nt si n c e , as no te d ab ov e, th e

go ve rn m en t pr es en te d su ffi ci en t ev id en ce at tri al to sh ow th at W azn y kn ew th e

pr od uc t was be in g us ed fo r hu m an co ns um pt io n. Nor di d th e di st ric t co ur t cl earl y err

in ap pl y in g th e ob st ru ct io n of jus ti ce en ha nc em en t. The di st ric t co ur t’s fin di ng th at

W azn y wil lfu ll y li ed at tri al
, in co n ju n c t i o n wit h th e jury’ s ve rd ic t of gu il ty, was

en ou gh fo r th e di st ric t co ur t to pr op erl y ap pl y an ob st ru ct io n of jus ti ce en ha nc em en t.

W azn y ’s se nt en ce was al so su bs ta nt iv el y reas on ab le

. W azn y ’s se nt en ce, at th e

st at ut or y m ax im

um , was st il l 12 0 m on th s be lo w t h e gu id el in e ran ge

. And whi le

W azn y’s t o t a l se nt en ce was hi gh er th an hi s co -co ns pi rat or ’s, W azn y was al so he ld

acco un ta bl e fo r a m

uc h la rg er qu an ti ty of GBL. Mo reo ve r, th e reco rd sh ows th at th e

di st ric t co ur t cl earl y co ns id ered a l l of th e § 35 53 (a) fact or s whe n it im po se d th e

se nt en ce. Acco rd in gl y , hi s s en te nc e was reas on ab le , and we affi rm

.

AFFIRMED

.

12