FIL ED U.S. COURT OF APPEAL S EL EVENTHCI RCUI T OCTOB ER 12, 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 11 4 Non -Arg um en t Ca le nd ar

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ D.C. Dock etNo. 0 :1 0- cr-6 00 07 -WPD-1 UNITED STAT ES OF AMERIC A, Pl ai nt iff -Ap pe ll ee, ve rs us ALGIRDAS KRISC IUNAS, Defen da nt -Ap pe ll an t.

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ No. 1 0- 15 21 4 Non -Arg um en t Ca le nd ar

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ D.C. Dock etNo. 0 :1 0- cr-6 00 07 -WPD-4 UNITED STAT ES OF AMERIC A, Pl ai nt iff -Ap pe ll ee, ve rs usMARIA TERESA BULICH, Defen da nt -Ap pe ll an t.

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ App eal s fr om

th e Uni te d S ta te s Di st ric t Co urt forth e So ut he rnDis tri ctof F lo rid a

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ (Oct ob er 1 2, 2 01 1) Befo re HULL, PRYOR an d B LACK, Circ ui t J ud ge s. PER CURI AM: Alg ird as Kris ci un as an d M ari a Teres a Bu li chap pe al fol lo win g the ir co nv ic ti on s an d s en te nc es forco ns pi racy to d is pe ns e a co nt ro ll edsubs tanc e, ox y co do ne , witho utau th or iz at io n b y law, i n v io la ti on of 2 1 U.S.C. § 84 6 (C ou nt 1) an d d is pe ns in g o xycod on e wit ho utau th or iz at io n b y law, i n v io la ti on of 21 U.S.C. § 8 41 (a)( 1) (Co un ts 3-7 ). Kris ci un as ap pe al s h is 97 -m on th to ta l se nt en ce, co nt en di ng th e se nt en ce was subs tant iv el y un reas on ab le inli gh t o f hi s ag e, he al th , andot he rwis e la w-ab id in g h is to ry . Mari a Teres a Bu li chap pe al s h er co nv ic ti on s an d 7 8- m on th to ta l s en te nc e, arg ui ng (1) th e ev id en ce p res en te d a t tri al was i ns uf

fic ie ntto co nv ic t h er o n t he co ns pi racy or s ub st an ti ve ch arg es , and

2(2 ) th e d is tri ctco urt erredby app lying a m an ag eri al rol e en ha nc em en t at

se nt en ci ng , pu rs uantto U.S.S.G. § 3 B1 .1(c ). Afterrev ie w, we affi rm . I. Kris ci un as ch al le ng es th e subs tant iv e rea so nabl en es s o f hi s t ot al sen te nc e. 1 W e d et erm in e whe th er the sen te nc e im po se d i s s ub st an ti ve ly reaso nabl e in li gh t o f th e 1 8 U.S.C. § 35 53 (a) fa ct or s. Gal l v. Un it ed Stat es , 55 2 U.S. 3 8, 5 1 (2 00 7) . The sen te nc in g c ou rt s ha ll im po se a se nt en ce “ su ffi ci en t, b utno t g reat er tha n ne ces sa ry ” to co m

pl y with t he pu rp os es of s en te nc in g, n am el y , to refl ectth e se rio us ne ss of t he off

en se , pro m ot e res pe ctforth e la w, pro vi de jus t p un is hm en t fo r th e o ffen se , det er cr im in al co nduc t, p ro te ctth e p ub li c fro m furth er cr im in al co nduc t b y

th e d efen da nt , andpro vi de th e d efen da ntwith n eed ededuc at io na l tra in in g, v oc at io na l trai ni ng , m ed ic al care , or o th er co rrec ti on al tre atm en t i n t he m os t ef fect iv e m an ne r. 18 U.S.C. § 3 55 3( a)(2 ). In i m po si ng a pa rti cu lar se nt en ce, th e co urt m

us t al so co ns id er the na tu re an d c irc um st an ces of the off en se , th e hi st ory an d c ha ract eri st ic s o f th e d efen da nt , th e k in ds of s en te nc es av ai labl e, th e ap pl ic ab le Gui de li ne s ra ng e, th e p ert in en t p ol ic y st at em en ts of t he Sen te nc in g

By failingto challeng e the pr ocedur al re asonable ness of his sentenc e, Krisciunas has 1 abandone d this iss ue on appe al. See U nited States v. Je rnigan , 341 F.3d 1273, 1283 n.8 ( 11th Cir. 2003) 3Co m

m is si on , th e n eedto av oi d u nwa rran te d s en te nc in g d is pa rit ie s, an d the ne edto pr ov id e res ti tu ti on to vi ct im s. 18 U.S.C. § 3 55 3( a)(1 ), (3 )-(7 ). Kris ci un as ha s n otm etth e b ur de n o f sh owi ng th athi s 9 7- m on th to ta l se nt en ce was subs tant iv el y reas on ab le . It was withi n t he ap pl ic ab le Gui de li ne s

2 ran ge , andwe or di na ril y

ex pe ctsu cha se nt en ce t o b e rea so nabl e. Se e Uni te d St at es v. Ta ll ey , 43 1 F .3d78 4, 7 88 (11 th Cir . 20 05 ) (“ [W] he n t he di st ric t co urt im po se s a s en te nc e wit hi n t he advi so ry Gui de li ne s ra ng e, we or di naril y wil l ex pe ct th atch oi ce t o b e a rea so nabl e o ne .”). Altho ug h h e as se rts th e d is tri ctco urt fa il ed to pro pe rly con si de r hi s ag e, he al th , andpre vi ou s l aw-ab id in g h is to ry , th is arg um en t i s co ntrad ic te d b y th e fac t the co urt s pe ci fic al ly not editco ns id eredhi s ag e an d h eal th be fo re s en te nc in g, que st io ne d t he Gov ern m en t ab ou t the su ffi ci en cy

of asen te nc e fo r a m anof h is ag e, an d a cco un te d fo r hi s l ackof cri m in al hi st ory

by ascri bi ng hi m

a cri m in al hi st ory

cat eg ory of I . Mor eo ve r, th e di st ric t co urt d et erm in edth atpa in cli ni cs –i n wh ic h u ns crupu lo us do ct or s s uc h a s Kris ci un as pre sc rib eddru gs to ad di ct s–were a s eri ou s p ro bl em inth e co m

m un ity , an d i t was ap pr op ria te to fas hi on a se nt en ce tha t wo ul d a ctas ade te rren t t o o th ers

We reviewthe re asonable ness of a sentenc e “unde r a de fer ential abuse -of- discretion 2 standard.” Gall , 552 U.S. at 41. “[T] he par ty who cha lleng es the sente nce be ars the burden of establishing that the sentenc e is unrea sonable in the light of both [the] recor d and the f actor s in section 3553(a).” United States v. Talley , 431 F.3d 784, 788 ( 11th Cir. 2005). 4who m ig htot he rwis e co m m ita si m il ar o ffen se . Con se qu en tl y , Kris ci un as ’s se nt en ce was subs tant iv el y reas on ab le an d we a ffi rm hi s 9 7- m on th to ta l s en te nc e. II. A. Su ff ic ie nc y o f the evi de nc e Bu li chch al le ng es th e su ffi ci en cy of the ev id en ce wi th reg ardto he r co nv ic ti on s. “ W e rev ie w de no vo th e d en ia l o f a m ot io n fo r acqui tt al an d t he su ffi ci en cy

of t he ev id en ce t o s us ta in a co nv ic ti on .” Uni te d Sta tes v. Ta mpa s , 49 3 F.3 d 1 29 1, 1 29 7 (1 1t h C ir. 2 00 7) . W e wil l uph ol d ajury’ s v erd ic t i f a rea so nabl e 3 jury, vi ewin g the ev id en ce an d a ll reas on ab le in fere nc es inth e li gh t m os t fav or ab le to th e g ov ern m en t, co ul d fi ndth e d efen da ntgu il ty as ch arg edbe y on d a reas on ab le do ub t. Id. at 1 29 7- 98 . “ It i s n otou r fu nc ti onto m ak e cre di bi li ty ch oi ces or p as s upo n t he weig htof t he ev id en ce. In st ead , we m us t s us ta in th e ve rd ic t wh ere t he re i s a r eas on ab le ba si s fo r it .” Uni te d Sta tes v. Fa rl ey , 60 7 F .3d 12 94 , 13 33 (11 th Cir .), cer t.den ie d, 13 1 S . Ct. 3 69 (20 10 ) (quo ta ti on s an d c it at io n om itte d) . The ele m en ts of aco ns pi racy offen se un de r 21 U.S.C. § 8 46 are: “ (1 ) an ag reem en t b etweenth e d efen da ntan d o ne or m or e p ers on s, (2 ) th e o bjec t o f whi ch is to do eit he r anun lawfu l ac t o r a l awfu l ac t b y un lawfu l m ean s.” Uni te d Sta tes v. Bulich move d for a cquittal at the closeof the g overnme nt’s case , which the district cour t 3 denied, a nd she pre sented no e vidence in her own de fense . 5To le r , 14 4 F .3d14 23 , 14 26 (11 th Cir . 19 98 ). “ To s us ta in a co nv ic ti on un de r an

ai di ng an d abe tt in g t he ory , th e p ro se cu ti on m us t s ho w th atth e d efen da nt as so ci at ed[he r]sel f with acri m in al ve ntur e, pa rti ci pa te d i n i t as so m ethi ng [s]he wis he d t o b rin g abo ut , andso ug htby [her] act io ns to m ak e itsu ccee d.” Uni te d St at es v. Pan to

ja -S ot o , 73 9 F .2d15 20 , 15 25 (11 th Cir . 19 84 ) (quo ta ti on s o m it te d) . Prac ti ti on ers , su chas d oc to rs an d p ha rm aci st s, ar e aff or de d ali mit ed ex em pt io n t o t he co nt ro ll edsubs tanc es st atut e. Se e Uni te d Sta tes v. Ste el e , 14 7 F.3 d 1 31 6, 1 31 8 (1 1t h C ir. 1 99 8) (enba nc ). Pract it io ne rs canbe pro se cu te d, un de r § 8 41 , ho wev er, fo r di sp en si ng co nt ro ll edsubs tanc es “ whe n the ir a ct iv it ie s fal l o ut si de th e u su al co ur se of p ro fes si on al pra ct ic e” an d a re n otpre sc rib ed“ fo r a le gi ti m at e m ed ic al pu rp os e.” Uni te d Sta tes v. Mo or e , 42 3 U.S. 1 22 , 12 4 (1 97 5) (u su al co ur se of p ro fes si on al pra ct ic e); se e a ls o Un it ed Stat es v. Beta nc ou rt , 73 4 F.2 d 7 50 , 75 7 & n.7 (11 th Cir . 19 84 ) (l eg it im at e m ed ic al pu rp os e). Bu li ch ’s con vi ct io ns for

co ns pi racy, Cou nt1, an d a id in g a ndab et ti ng th e un lawfu l d is pe ns in g o f ox y co do ne , Cou nt s 3 th ro ug h 7 , were s up po rte d b y su ffi ci en t ev id en ce. Bu li chwork edina supp os edm ed ic al cli ni c te em in g wi th drug ad di ct s an d h adem

pl oyees u si ng dru gs on th e p rem is es . W itne ss es tes ti fie d Bu li chwas s pe ci fic al ly info rm edth e cl in ic ’s reco rd s wer e fal si fie d a ndpa ti en ts were ad di ct s. Witn es se s t es ti fie d B ul ic h b eg anto ord er a s pe ci fic bra ndof 6ox y co do ne aft er b ei ng to lditwas a dd ic t-p refe rred . Bas edonth e ev id en ce, a

reas on ab le jury co ul d i nf er an ag reem en t t o unl awfu ll y di sp en se ox y co do ne fro m th e fac t i t o ccu rredso op en ly. Mo reo ve r, th e ev id en ce en ti tl edth e jury to fi ndth at Bu li chsh areda co m

m un ity of p ur po se with Kri sc iu na s, i n wh ic h s he ass is te d h is cri m in al act io ns inth e h op es th atth ey wou ldsu ccee d, n am el y

by dis pe ns in g t he pr es cri pt io n dru gs he pre sc rib ed . Acco rd in gl y , th e Gov ern m en t es tabl is he d B ul ic h a gr eedto an d a ss is te d t he un lawfu l d is pe ns in g o f ox y co do ne . Bas edon ov erwh el m in g e vi de nc e, Bu li chwas no t o pe rat in g t he cli ni c as a le gi ti m at e m ed ic al off ic e, bu t i ns te adwas a ct in g a s a di sp en sa ry

for ox y co do ne to in di vi du al s wh o wer e n otinm ed ic al ne edof i t. The refo re, the Gov ern m en t p res en te d s uf fic ie ntev id en ce attri al to co nv ic t o n Co un ts 1 an d 3 th ro ug h 7 , andwe affi rm Bu li ch ’s con vi ct io ns . B. Man ag er ia l r ol e en ha nc emen t Bu li chch al le ng es th e d is tri ctco urt’s ap pl ic at io n o f a m an ag eri al rol e en ha nc em en t atsen te nc in g. “ A def en da nt 's ro le as a n o rg an iz er o r le ad er i s a factua l fi nd in g t ha t we re vi ew fo r cl ear e rro r to de te rm in e if th e en ha nc em en t un de r § 3 B1 .1 was ap pl ie d app ro pr ia te ly.” Uni te d Sta tes v. Ra mir ez , 42 6 F .3d 13 44 , 13 55 (11 th Cir . 20 05 ). A two- le ve l en ha nc em en t i s ap pr op ria te wher e “ th e de fen da ntwas an o rg an iz er, l ead er, m an ag er, o r supe rv is orinan y cri m in al 7act iv ity .” U.S.S.G. § 3 B1 .1(c ). “ The ass ert io n o f co nt ro l o r in flu en ce o ve r on ly

on e in di vi du al is en ou ghto supp ort a § 3B 1.1 (c) e nh an cem en t.” Uni te d Sta tes v. Perr y , 34 0 F .3d12 16 , 12 17 (11 th Cir . 20 03 ) (quo ta ti on s an d a lt erat io n o m it te d) . Thu s, wh ere t he de fen da ntarrang es dru g t ran sa ct io ns , neg ot ia te s s al es , andhi res ot he rs to workforth e co ns pi racy, a m an ag eri al -ro le en ha nc em en t i s warran te d. Uni te d Sta tes v. Ma tthe ws , 16 8 F .3d12 34 , 12 49 -5 0 (1 1t h C ir.1 99 9) . The di stric t co urt d idno t cl earl y err b y ap pl y in g atwo -le ve l m an ag eri al rol e en ha nc em en t atsen te nc in g. Attri al , evi de nc e was pre se nt edth atBu li chwas the own er an d p ro pr ie to r of

th e cl in ic , hadth e p owe r to hi re an d fi re em pl oyees, di ct at edord ers to em

pl oyees i nc lu di ng Kris ci un as , hadso le co nt ro l o ve r th e ox y co do ne , andord eredth e o xycod on e p il ls . Con se qu en tl y , sh e as se rte d c on tro l an d i nf lu en ce o ve r ot he r in di vi du al s, arran ge d dru g tran sa ct io ns , andot he rwis e le d th e cri min al act iv ity

afo otat the cli ni c. Acco rd in gl y , th e d is tri ctco urt d idno t err, cl earl y or o th erwi se , by as se ss in g B ul ic h am an ag eri al rol e en ha nc em en t, an d we affi rm . III. W e co nc lu de Kris ci un as ’s to ta l s en te nc e was subs tant iv el y reas on ab le . W e furth er co nc lu de Bu li ch ’s con vi ct io ns were s up po rte d b y su ffi ci en t ev id en ce, an d

8th e d is tri ctco urt d idno t err inap pl y in g am an ag eri al rol e en ha nc em en t t o B ul ic h

atsen te nc in g. AFFIRMED.

9