FI L ED U.S. COURT OF APPEAL S EL EVENTHCI RCUI T J UNE 22, 2011 J OHN L EY CL ERK [DO NOT PUBLISH] IN THE U

NITED STATE S COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELE VENTH CIRCUIT

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ No. 1 0- 10 99 3 Non -Arg um en t Ca le nd ar

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ D.C. Dock etNo. 0 :0 9- cr-6 02 49 -WJZ-1 UNITED STAT ES OF AMERIC A, ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll l Pla in ti ff-Ap pe ll ee,

ve rs us JASON CYR IL CUMM INGS, ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll 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 urt forth e So ut he rnDis tri ctof F lo rid a

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ (J un e 2 2, 2 01 1) Befo re TJ OJFLAT, CARNES an d ANDERSON, Ci rcu itJu dg es . PER CURI AM:Ja so n C y ril Cu m m in gs ap pe al s h is co nv ic ti on s, fo ll owi ng a jury tria l, fo r po ss es si on of c oc ai ne with i nt en t t o d is tri bu te an d p os se ss io n o f a fi rearm du rin g a drug tra ffi ck in g o ffen se , invi ol at io n o f 21 U.S.C. § 8 41 (a)( 1) an d 18 U.S.C. § 9 24 (c)( 1) (A). On ap pe al , Cumm in gs arg ue s t ha t the go ve rn m en t pr es en te d i ns uf

fic ie ntev id en ce attri al to ov erco m e h is de fen se of e nt rap m en t an d th atm ul ti pl e in st an ces of e rro r oc cu rredat h is tri al , whi ch , tak encu m ul at iv el y , de pr iv edhi m

of h is rig htto a fai r pr oc eed in g. I. Cu m m in gs fir starg ue s t ha t the ev id en ce attri al was i ns uf fic ie ntto est ab li sh hi s p red is po si ti on to co m m it ti ng bo th ch arg edoff

en se s b ey on d areas on ab le do ub t, as ne ces sa ry

to ov erco m e h is en trapm en t d efen se . Spe ci fic al ly, he ass ert s t ha t the go ve rn m en t’s s ol e ev id en ce o f pr ed is po si ti oncam e fro m a co nf id en ti al in fo rm an t (“ CI”) who se tes ti m on y

was v ag ue , un worth y

of b el ie f, an d c on fli ct edwith t he cas e ag en t’s ex pr es si on of s ho ckat h is arre st . W e rev ie w de no vo a d efen da nt ’s con vi ct io n n otwiths ta nd in g a n e nt rap m en t de fen se , vi ewin g a ll fact s an d drawi ng all in fere nc es in th e g ov ern m en t’s favo r. Uni te d Sta tes v. K

in g , 73 F.3d15 64 , 15 68 (11 th Cir . 19 96 ).

2An en trapm en t d efen se requi res pro of th at : (1 ) th e g ov ern m en t i nduc edth e de fen da ntto co m

m itth e cri m e an d (2 ) th e d efen da ntwas n otpre di sp os edto co m m itth e cri m e b efo re the go ve rn m en t’s i nv ol ve m en t. Uni te d Sta tes v. Demar es t , 57 0 F .3d12 32 , 12 40 (11 th Cir .), cer t. d en ie d , 13 0 S .Ct. 1 42 1 (2 00 9) . If the de fen da ntcanpro ve in du cem en t, the bu rd ensh ift s t o t he go ve rn m en t t o pr ov e b ey on d areas on ab le do ub t tha t the de fen da ntwas p red is po se d t o c omm it th e cri m e. Id

. Whe re, as he re, the jury reject edanen trapm en t d efen se an d g ov ern m en t in du cem en t i s n otat i ss ue , we li m itou r rev ie w to “whe th er the ev id en ce was su ffi ci en t fo r a rea so nabl e jury to c on cl ud e th atth e d efen da ntwas p red is po se d t o ta ke pa rt i n t he il li ci t tran sa ct io n.” Uni te d Sta tes v. Br ow n , 43 F.3d61 8, 6 22 (11 th Ci r. 19 95 ). Reg ard in g p red is po si ti on , th e Supr em e Co urt h as ob se rv edth atlaw en fo rcem en t m ay

no t “ im pl an t i n t he m in d o f anin no cen t p ers on th e d is po si ti on to co m m itth e al le ge d o ffen se an d i nduc e it s co m m is si on in ord er tha t the y m ay pr os ecu te .” Ja co bs on v. Uni te d Sta tes , 50 3 U.S. 5 40 , 55 3, 1 12 S.Ct . 15 35 , 15 43 (1 99 2) (qu ot at io n a ndem ph as is om it te d) . The Ja co bs on Co urt h el d, h owe ve r, th at anen trapm en t d efen se wil l n otsu ccee d wh ere t he ev id en ce s ho ws tha t the go ve rn m en t m erel y

pro vi de d t he de fen da ntwith an o pp ortu ni ty to co m m ita cri m e. Id. at 5 50 , 11 2 S .Ct. at15 41 . In s uc h c as es , “ th e en trapm en t d efen se is of l it tl e u se 3be cau se th e rea dy comm is si on of t he cri m e am pl y de m on st rat es th e d efen da nt ’s pr ed is po si ti on .” Id. Pred is po si ti on is a fact -in te ns iv e in qu iry, to wh ic h s ev eral “ gu id in g pr in ci pl es ” ap pl y . Tho se pri nc ip le s t o b e co ns id eredare: (1) a pr ed is po si ti on fin di ng is supp orte d b y

th e d efen da nt ’s po st -arr es t s ta te m en ts an d e vi de nc e th at th e d efen da ntfai le d t o t ak e ad va nt ag e o f op po rtu ni ti es to ba ckou t o f a tra ns act io n; (2) ev id en ce o f pr io r rel at edoff en se s i s re le vant , bu t n otdi sp os it iv e; an d (3 ) ev id en ce o f pe rti ne ntleg al act iv it y an d n on -cri m in al ten de nc ie s wi ll no t, st an di ng alo ne , supp ort a c on vi ct io n. Bro wn , 43 F.3dat 6 24 . Add it io na ll y , th e jury’ s cr ed ib il it y

de te rm in at io n i s a “ pi vo ta l fa ct or .” Id. As s uc h, a r eas on ab le jury co ul d b el ie ve th ata de fen dant ’s st at em en ts su gg es ti ng pri orin vo lv em en t i n dru g de al in g a ctua ll y

refe rredto real ev en ts , as o pp os edto “pu ffery .” Id. at62 6. The go ve rn m en t i ntro du cedev id en ce, p rimaril y th ro ug h the CI, th at Cu m m in gs ha d apre ex is ti ng kn owl ed ge of d ru g t raff ic ki ng , th athe carr ie d fir earm s wi th ou t an y

en co ur ag em en t, an d t ha t h e p ers is te d wi th th e co cai ne de al de sp it e a g ov ern m en t-p res en te d o pp ortu ni ty to b ackaway fro m it . Viewi ng th e ev id en ce wi th all in fere nc es inth e g ov ern m en t’s fa vo r, Cu m m in gs ’s own un di sp ut edst at em en ts si gn al edhi s i nv ol ve m en t wi th dru g d eal in g p rio r to th e in ve st ig at io n. He to ldth e CI t ha t h e o nl y “ fu ck [ed ] with . . . co ke ” an d “ m ov eda 4co up le of k ey s h ere a ndth ere.” Se e Bro wn , 43 F.3dat 6 26 . He com pa redpri ces be twee n F lo rid a an d t he Nort he as t, an d i nqui redab ou t the av ai labi li ty of lo cal te st ers . He di sc us se d t he qu al it y of h is co cai ne , rem ark in g t ha t i t co ul d b e cu t th ree t im es . Desp it e Cu m m in gs ’s ass ert io n t o t he jury th athe was s im pl y

“pr et en di ng ,” an d, ev enwhenco rro bo rat edwith Gra y ’s tes ti m on y th athe was a

“bi g t al ke r,” the jury was en ti tl edto co ns tru e h is st at em en ts to th e CI as tru th fu l in di cat io ns th atCu m

m in gs en ga ge d i n p as t dru g t raff ic ki ng an d was kn owl ed ge ab le ab ou t the tra de . Mo reo ve r, ev enwitho utth os e st at em en ts , Cumm in gs be ha ve d i n away th at si gn al edhi s p red is po si ti on . Rath er tha n re po rt t he CI t o p ol ic e o r ot he rwis e av oi d a dru g d eal , Cumm in gs m etwith t he CI, se arch edhi m fora wire , ask edhi m

if h e was a po li ce o ffi cer, an d s ho wedhi m a gu n. Se e Ki ng , 73 F.3dat 1 56 8. Co nv in cedof t he CI's tru st worth in es s, Cu m m in gs th enpro vi de d h im with a sa m pl e o f co cai ne in pre pa rat io n fo r a l arg er, fu ture d eal in vo lv in g k il og ram qu an ti ti es . He ul ti m at el y de li ve redne arl y

a ki lo gr am

of c oc ai ne , lat er ad m it ti ng to in ve st in g $ 20 ,00 0 o f hi s o wn m on ey in th e d eal , set ti ng a res al e p ric e o f $3 8,0 00 , an d wan ti ng to co m

pl et e th e d eal . Such act io ns supp orte d a n i nf eren ce tha t Cu m m in gs was wi ll in g andread y to pa rti ci pa te in a co cai ne de al —an d t o b rin g a gu n t o t he de al —atth e fi rs t o pp ortu ni ty, irr es pe ct iv e o f th e g ov ern m en t's 5pa rti ci pa ti on . Cumm in gs ha s fa il edto est ab li sh th atth e CI’s t es ti m on y was in cred ib le as am at te r of

law. Mo reo ve r, th e jury was en ti tl edto co ns id er Cu m m in gs ’s tes ti m on y

on hi s o wn b eh al f as subs ta nt iv e ev id en ce o f hi s pr ed is po si ti on . Accor di ng ly, we co nc lu de th atth e ev id en ce attri al was s uf fic ie nt to pro ve Cu m

m in gs ’s pre di sp os it io n t o c omm itbo thoff en se s b ey on d areas on ab le do ub t, n ot withs ta nd in g h is de fen se of e nt rap m en t. II. Cu m m in gs ne xtarg ue s tha t a n um be r of ev id en ti ary an d p ro cedur al de fect s attri al am ou nt edto cu m

ul at iv e err or . Cumm in gs id en ti fie s erro rs at t hr ee s ta ge s of hi s t ria l. Fi rs t, h e as se rts th atth e d is tri ctco urt m ad e err on eo us rul in gs du rin g th e p res en ta ti on of e vi de nc e b y : (i ) pe rm it ti ng th e g ov ern m en t t o e li ci t h ears ay te st im on y fro m a la w enf or cem en t ag en t, (i i) p erm it ti ng th e g ov ern m en t t o a skth e ag en t i nf la m m at ory qu es ti on s ab ou t the CI’s co nduc t, (i ii ) pe rm it ti ng a pr ejud ic ia l li ne of c ro ss -ex am in at io n re ga rd in g C umm in gs ’s m il it ary se rv ic e, an d (iv ) pr ecl ud in g h im

fro m cro ss -ex am in in g wi tn es se s ab ou t m at eri al m at te rs . Seco nd , he a ss ert s t ha t the go ve rn m en t i m pr op erl y vo uc he d fo r wit ne ss es du rin g it s o pe ni ng st at em en t an d c lo si ng arg um en t. Las t, Cu m m in gs ass ert s t ha t the di st ric t co urt i na de qu at el y an swe reda qu es ti onpo se d b y th e jury durin g de li be rat io ns . 6W e rev ie w de no vo th e cu m ul at iv e im

pa ctof m ul ti pl e, al le ge dl y

im pr op er tri al co urt ru li ng s. Uni te d Sta tes v. Ho ff man -Vai le , 56 8 F .3d13 35 , 13 40 (11 th Cir . 20 09 ). Und er the cum

ul at iv e err ordo ctrin e, ev enif i nd iv idua l ju di ci al erro rs or pr os ecu to ria l m is co nduc t wo ul d n otsu ffi ce t o warran t re ve rs al , th ei r effe ctm ay be ev al ua te d c um

ul at iv el y to de te rm in e if

th ey de ni edth e d efen da nta fai r tr ia l. Uni te d Sta tes v. Lo

pe z , 59 0 F .3d12 38 , 12 58 (11 th Cir . 20 09 ), cer t. d en ie d , 13 0 S.Ct . 41 3 (2 01 0) . “ Inad dr es si ng a cl ai m of c um ul at iv e err or , we m

us t ex am in e th e tri al as awho le to de te rm in e whe th er the ap pe ll an t was affo rd eda fu nd am en ta ll y fai r tr ia l.” Id. (quo ta ti onom it te d) . If th ere i s b uta si ng le erro r, th ere c an no t b e an y cu m ul at iv e err or . Uni te d Sta tes v. Waldo n , 36 3 F .3d11 03 , 11 10 (11 th Cir . 20 04 ). W it h re sp ectto Cu m

m in gs ’s all eg edev id en ti ary erro rs , th e Fed eral Ru le s o f Evi de nc e g en eral ly pro hi bi t ad m is si on of h ears ay , bu t i f he ars ay ev id en ce m ay

be po te nt ia ll y

off eredforbo thit s t ru th an d fo r ot he r pu rp os es , th e d is tri ctco urt m ay in st ru ctth e jury tha t i t m

us t n otco ns id er the ev id en ce fo r it s t ru th . Se e Fed .R.Evi d. 10 5, 8 02 . A j ury

is pre su m edto fol lo w a co urt’s i ns tru ct io ns . Uni te d Sta tes v. De La Cr uzSu ar ez , 60 1 F .3d12 02 , 12 18 (11 th Cir .), cer t. d en ie d , 13 0 S .Ct. 3 53 2 (2 01 0) . Thu s, “ [w]hena di st ric t co urt i ss ue s a c ur at iv e in stru ct io n, we wi ll rev ers e on ly if th e ev id en ce i s s o h ig hl y pre jud ic ia l as to be in cu rab le by the tri al co urt’s

7adm on it io n.” Uni te d Sta tes v. Tr uj il lo , 14 6 F .3d83 8, 8 45 (11 thCir . 19 98 )

(quo ta ti onom it te d) . An ex cep ti on to th e g en eral he ars ay rul es ex is ts fora “ st at em en t o f th e de cl aran t’s the n e xi st in g s ta te of m in d, em ot io n, s en sa ti on , or p hysic al co nd it io n.” Fed .R.Evi d. 8 03 (3 ). Thi s ex cep ti on , ho wev er, o nl y pe rta in s t o t he st at e o f m in d o f th e d ecl aran t, n otth e li st en er. De La Cr uzSu ar ez , 60 1 F .3dat 1 21 6. Itdo es no t ap pl y to th e d ecl aran t’s af

te r-the -fac t s ta te m en ts m ad e ab ou t h is pa stst at e o f m in d. Id. It s im il arl y

do es no t ap pl y

to th e “ de cl aran t’s s ta te m en ts as t o wh y he he ldth e pa rti cu la r st at e o f m in d.” Uni te d Sta tes v. Du ra n , 59 6 F .3d12 83 , 12 97 (11 th Cir .), cer t. d en ie d , 13 1 S .Ct. 2 10 (20 10 ).

“ A di st ric t co urt h as wid e d is cret io n t o c on tro l the cro ss -ex am in at io n o f witne ss es .” Uni te d Sta tes v. Guzma n , 16 7 F .3d13 50 , 13 52 (11 th Cir . 19 99 ). Cro ss -ex am in at io n i s l im it edby the rel ev an ce o f th e m at eri al . Uni te d Sta tes v. Max wel l , 57 9 F .3d12 82 , 12 96 (11 th Cir . 20 09 ). Gen eral ly, in fla m

m at ory tes ti m on y

is pro hi bi te d a ndm ay

be gro un ds for rev ers al if c on si de redun du ly prejud ic ia l. Uni te d Sta tes v. Ba ker , 43 2 F .3d11 89 , 12 30 -3 1 (1 1t h C ir. 2 00 5) (ho ld in g t ha t the adm is si onof “ hi gh ly infl amm at ory ” ev id en ce o f th e d efen da nt ’s parti ci pa ti onin a do ub le m ur de r cas t d oubten ou gh to warra ntrev ers al on th e d efen da nt ’s fire arm s co nv ic ti on s) . Butwher e a d efen da nt 8rai se s anen trapm en t d efen se , he p la ces hi s ch arac te r atis su e, an d, as su ch , can no t

co m pl ai n wh enth e g ov ern m en t i ntro du ces ch arac te r-re la te d re bu tt al ev id en ce. Dur an , 59 6 F .3dat 1 29 8- 99 ; Fe d.R .Evi d. 4 04 (a)( 1) . Im pr op er v ou ch in g, a f

orm of p ro se cu to ria l m is co nduc t, o ccu rs when th e pr os ecu to r, whi le arg ui ng , eit he r: ( 1) pl aces th e p res ti ge of t he go ve rn m en t b eh in d th e wit ne ss by m ak in g e xp li ci t p ers on al ass ur an ces of t he witne ss ’s cred ib il it y ; o r (2 ) im pl ic it ly vou ch es by im

pl y in g t ha t the witne ss ’s cred ib il ity is supp orte d b y ev id en ce o ut si de th e rec or d. De La Cr uzSu ar ez , 60 1 F .3dat 1 21 8. Im pr op er vo uc hi ng do es no t ex is t wh ere apro se cu to r “ si m pl y [m ak es ] ex pl ic itanin fere nc e th atth e jury cou ldha ve dra wn fr om th e ev id en ce.” Uni te d Sta tes v. Ep ps , 61 3 F .3d 10 93 , 11 01 (11 th Cir . 20 10 ) (quo ta ti on om it te d) , cer t. d en ie d 13 1 S . Ct. 1 52 6 (2 01 1) . Evenwher e v ou ch in g o ccu rs , iton ly w arra nt s re ve rs al if i t p reju di ci al ly affe ct s t he subs ta nt ia l ri gh ts of t he de fen da nt . Ca rg il l v. Tu rp in , 12 0 F .3d13 66 , 13 79 (11 th Cir . 19 97 ) (rec og ni zi ng th atth e d efen se ’s res po ns e arg um en t atclo si ng can am el io rat e th e im

pr op er p ro se cu to ria l co m m en ts ). Fi na ll y , with re sp ectto Cu m m in gs ’s ass ert io n t ha t the di stric t co urt’s an swe r to th e jury’ s que st io n was im pr op er, tria l co urts have “ so m e o bl ig at io n” to m ak e rea so nabl e eff

orts to an swe r jury que st io ns . Uni te d Sta tes v. Ro dr ig ue z , 76 5 F.2 d 1 54 6, 1 55 3 (1 1t h C ir. 1 98 5) . As su ch , “ [w]hena jury m ak es ex pl ic itit s 9di ffi cu lt ie s a t ria l ju dg e sh ou ldcle ar the m away with c on cret e acc ur acy.” Id. (quo ta ti onom it te d) . Nev erthe le ss , we hav e h el d t ha t n o e rro r oc cu rredwhen th e di st ric t co urt, thr ou gh no fau ltof i ts own , fai le d t o ans wer the jury’ s que st io n p rio r to th e v erd ic t. Id. at15 54 . Cu m m in gs ha s fa il edto est ab li sh m ul ti pl e err or s i n h is tri al pro ceed in gs . To th e ex te ntth e d is tri ctco urt al lo wedth e g ov ern m en t t o a skanag en t que st io ns ab ou t the CI’s o ut -o f-co urt s ta te m en ts an d c on du ct , itga ve sp eci fic li m it in g in st ru ct io ns , adm on is hi ng th e jury no t t o c on si de r th e d ecl aran t’s s ta te m en t fo r th e tru th of the m at te r. Mo reo ve r, Cu m m in gs lar ge ly fail s t o i de nt ify sp eci fic in st an ces of i na dm is si bl e h ears ay , rel y in g i ns te adon anall eg edcu m ul at iv e eff

ect . To the ex te ntsp eci fic in st an ces are i de nt ifi ed , any erro r is cle arl y harm le ss . And Cu m m in gs who ll y

fai ls to de m on st rat e an y

cu m ul at iv e h arm fu l ef

fect . Becau se th e g ov ern m en t’s cr os s- ex am in at io n re ga rd in g C umm in gs ’s m il it ary se rv ic e was pr op er re bu tt al to th e in fere nc es of g oo d c ha ract er h e at te m pt edto crea te ondi rect ex am in at io n, an d C umm in gs ’s owncro ss -ex am in at io n o f ot he r witne ss es im pl ic at edirr el ev an t i ss ue s, the di st ric t co urt ru li ng s re gard in g t he qu es ti on in g o f witne ss es were wi th in it s d is cret io n. In so far a s C umm in gs id en ti fie d a n e rro r in th e g ov ern m en t’s re fere nc e to law en fo rcem en t’s “ expe rie nc e” dur in g i ts clo si ng arg um en t, thi s erro r cau se d h im no un du e p reju di ce. Fi na ll y , Cumm in gs fai ls to

10supp ort h is pro po si ti on th atth e d is tri ctco urt’s re sp on se to th e jury’ s que st io ns was

in ad equa te . Error i n t hi s ca se , if an y , was h arm le ss in an y ev en t. Acco rd in gl y , we ho ldth athe rece iv eda fai r tr ia l. Upo n re vi ew of

th e rec or d, an d c on si de rat io n o f th e p art ie s’ bri efs , we affi rm . AFFIRMED. 1

Cummi ng s’s reque st for ora l argument is denied. 1 11