FI L ED U.S. COURT OF APPEAL S EL EVENTHCI RCUI T SEPTEMBER 21, 2010 J OHN L EY CL ERK [DO NOT PUBLISH] IN THE U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 38 1 Non -Arg um en t Ca le nd ar

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ D.C. Dock etNo. 8 :0 9- cr-0 01 85 -J SM- TBM-2 UNITED STAT ES OF AMERIC A, ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll l Pl ai nt iff -Ap pe ll ee, ve rs us JAVIER HUERTA, 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 Mi dd le Dis tri ctof F lo rid a

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ (Sep te m be r 21 , 20 10 ) Befo re BARKETT, HULL andKRAVITCH, Cir cu itJu dg es . PER CURI AM: Ja vi er Hu ert a ap pe al s h is co nv ic ti on s an d s en te nc e fo r co ns pi racy to p os se ss an d p os se ss io n wi th in te ntto di st rib ut e m etha m ph et am in e. Afte r a tho ro ug hrev ie w of t he reco rd , we affi rm .

Hue rtawas i nd ic te d o n o ne co un t o f co ns pi racy to p os se ss with i nt en t t o di st rib ut e 5 0 g ram s o r m or e o f m etha m ph et am in e, in vi ol at io n o f 21 U.S.C. § 8 46 , an d t hr ee co un ts of d is tri bu ti on of 5 gra m s o r m or e o f m etha m ph et am in e, in vi ol at io n o f 21 U.S.C. § 8 41 . Manue l Ca m ach o B arce na s was ch arg edas aco co ns pi rat oran d p le ad edgu il ty; Huertapro ceed edto tri al . Acco rd in g t o t he ev id en ce attri al , Pet er Strau tm an , a co nv ic te d dru g d eal er who work edas aco nf

id en ti al in fo rm an t wi th th e DEA, arran ge d s ev eral co nt ro ll ed bu y s wi thHuertaan d B arce na s. Th e d eal s wer e cap turedon au di o a ndvi de o reco rd in gs . In the cal ls an d e xc ha ng es , Huertaact edas a n i nt erp ret er fo r Bar cen as an d a rran ge d t he de al s. An d dur in g o ne of t he bu y s, Hu ert a in fo rm edStr au tm an th athe ha d s up pl ie d d ru gs to a m annam edPaco , who was St rau tm an ’s pre vi ou s supp li er. Hue rtasai d t ha t h e an d B arce na s, “ [w]e m ak e a d eal so m et im es . Half an d h al f.” Strau tm anun de rs to odth is to m ean th atth e two m enso lddru gs to ge th er. Dur in g h is workforth e DEA, Strau tm anals o a rran ge d c on tro ll edbu y s with e ach de al er al on e. The c on tro ll edbuy Str au tm anatt em

pt edto arrang e wit h Hue rtawas u ns uc ces sf

ul be cau se , as Hu ert a la te r ex pl ai ne d t o S traut m an , Huerta ha d s eena su sp ic io us car an d c an cel le d t he m eet in g. St rau tm anwas u nabl e to res ch edul e th e b uy. 2Hue rtates ti fie d i n h is own de fen se . He exp la in edth athe an d B arce na s

were fr ie nd s an d t ha t h e h adbe enhe lp in g t ow ca rs to Barc en as ’s m ech an ic s s ho p. He st at edth athe ha d b een lying inth e rec or de d p ho ne cal ls to sh ie ldBarc en as , th athe was p res en t atth e b uys on ly to p ro te ctBarc en as , andth athe di d n ot rece iv e an y

m on ey fro m th e b uys. He de ni edth atth ere was an y co ns pi racy and ex pl ai ne d t ha t the de al s m en ti on edinth e rec or di ng s wer e carde al s. Hu ert a th en te st ifi edth athe ha d re cei ve d t wo l et te rs fro m Barc en as whi le th e cas e was pe nd in g. Th e g ov ern m en t o bjec te d t o t he adm is si onof t he se let te rs on he ars ay gr ou nd s. Defe ns e co un se l re sp on de d t ha t Ba rcen as was u na va il ab le be cau se , whe n c al le d a s a wi tn es s, h e h adin vo ke d h is Fif th Am en dm en t ri gh t n otto tes ti fy , an d t ha t the let te rs were tru st worth y be cau se Barc en as ha d a dm it te d t o t he go ve rn m en t tha t h e wro te th em . The co urt s us ta in edth e g ov ern m en t’s o bjec ti on an d e xc lu de d the let te rs . The jury co nv ic te d Hu ert a o n a ll co un ts an d t he co urt s en te nc edhi m to 12 0 m on th s’ im

pr is on m en t. Huertano w app eal s, ra is in g t wo ch al le ng es to hi s

1 co nv ic ti on s an d s en te nc e. Fir st , Huertaco nt en ds th atth e d is tri ctco urt ab us edit s
The court deter

mined that Huer

ta’s base offe nse level was 30, with a 2-leve l enhanc ement 1 for obstruc tion of justice and a 2-leve l r eduction for minor role. Wit h an adjusted of fenselevel of 30 and a criminal history cate g ory of I , the guideline ra ng e wa s 97 to 121 months’ imprisonment. Be cause the offe nse car

ried a mandatory minimum sentenc e of 120 months’ imprisonment, 120 months became the low end of the guideline ra

ng e. 3di sc ret io n b y ex cl ud in g t he he ars ay

ev id en ce. Sec on d, h e ch al le ng es th e reas on ab le ne ss of h is sen te nc e. W e ad dr es s ea ch inturn . I. Admiss io n o

f Hea rs ayStat emen ts W e rev ie w a di st ric t co urt’s ru li ng s o n t he adm is si bi li ty of he ars ay te st im on y forab us e o f di sc ret io n. Uni te d Sta tes v. Br ow n , 44 1 F .3d13 30 , 13 59 (1 1t h C ir. 2 00 6) . Here, Hu ert a tr ie d t o i ntro du ce two l et te rs Barc en as wrot e to Huertawhi le Hue rta ’s cas e was pe nd in g. In th e le tt ers , Barce na s wro te th athe was i nv ol ve d i n

“ de al s” an d tha t h e act ed“be cau se of t he co ns um pt io n o f al co ho l.” He fu rth er wro te th athe wou ldpl eadgu il ty, th athe “ sh ou ldbe res po ns ib le foritbe cau se no on e el se sh ou ldpa y

th e b ro ke n p la te s o f so m eo ne els e’s,” an d t ha t h e “ as su m e[d ] th e res po ns ib il it y

th aty ouha d n ot hi ng to do with t ho se ch arg es .” The Fed eral Ru le s o f Evi de nc e p erm itth e ad m is si on of ahe ars ay st at em en t if atth e ti m e o f it s m ak in g [t he st at em en t] so far . . . ten de d t o s ub ject th e d ecl aran t t o c iv il or c riminal li ab il it y . . . th ata reas on ab le pe rs on in th e d ecl aran t’s p os it io n wo ul d n otha ve m ad e th e st at em en t u nl es s be li ev in g i t t o b e true . A sta te m en t t en di ng to ex po se th e d ecl aran t t o cri m in al li ab il it y

an d o ffer edto ex cu lp at e th e acc us edis no t adm is si bl e u nl es s co rro bo rat in g c irc um st an ces cle arl y in di cat e th e tru st worth in es s o f th e st at em en t.

4Fed . R. Evi d. 8 04 (b )(3 ). Forhe ars ay ev id en ce t o b e ad m is si bl e u nd er thi s ru le ,

“ (1 ) th e d ecl aran t [m

us t b e] un av ai labl e; (2) th e st at em en t s o fa r te nd s t o s ub ject th e d ecl aran t t o c riminal li ab il it y th ata reas on ab le pe rs on inhi s p os it io n wo ul d no t h av e m ad e th e st at em en t u nl es s h e b el ie ve d i t t o b e true ; an d (3 ) th e st at em en t is co rro bo rat edby circu m st an ces cle arl y in di cat in g i ts tru st worth in es s.” Uni te d St at es v. W

es tr y , 52 4 F .3d11 98 , 12 14 (11 th Cir . 20 08 ) (ci ta ti on an d quo ta ti on om it te d) . Altho ug h b oth Hu ert a an d t he go ve rn m en t ag ree t ha t Ba rcen as was un av ai labl e u nd er Ru le 80 4( a)(1 ), Hue rtacan no t s ho w th atth e le tt ers were adm is si bl e. The s ta te m en ts are v ag ue an d d o n otin cu lp at e Bar cen as to th e ex te nt th athe reas on ab ly w ou ldno t h av e m ad e th e st at em en t u nl es s h e b el ie ve d i t t o b e tru e. Mo reo ve r, th e ev id en ce attri al sh owe d t ha t Hu ert a an d B arce na s wer e worki ng to ge th er. Thu s, the di st ric t co urt d idno t ab us e it s d is cret io n i n e xc lu di ng th e h ears ay

ev id en ce, an d we a ffi rm

Huerta ’s con vi ct io ns . II. Rea so na bl en es s o

f Hu er ta ’s Se nt en ce W e rev ie w a fin al sen te nc e fo r reas on ab le ne ss , app lying th e ab us e o f di sc ret io n s ta nd ard . Uni te d Sta tes v. Win in ge ar , 42 2 F .3d12 41 , 12 45 (11 th Cir . 20 05 ). Whe n ade fen da ntha s b een gi ve n t he op po rtu ni ty to ra is e anob jecti on an d fai le d t o d o s o, we re vi ew fo r pl ai n e rro r. Uni te d Sta tes v. C an ty , 57 0 F .3d12 51 , 512 56 -5 7 (1 1t h C ir. 2 00 9) (qu ot at io n m ark s o m it te d) . Und er p la in -err orrev ie w, th e

de fen da ntin it ia ll y

m us t es tabl is h t ha t the di st ric t co urt co m m it te d a n e rro r, th atth e erro r was pl ai n, an d t ha t the erro r affe ct edhi s s ub st an ti al rig ht s. Uni te d Sta tes v. Rod ri gu ez , 39 8 F .3d12 91 , 12 98 (11 th Cir . 20 05 ). Hue rtadi d n otob

ject t o h is sen te nc e as un reas on ab le an d h e can no t s ho w pl ai n e rro r in th e se nt en ce i m po se d. Hu ert a fac eda m an da to ry m in im um sen te nc e, whi chis pre ci se ly the sen te nc e th e co urt i m po se d. No th in g p erm it te d t he co urt t o se nt en ce Hu ert a b el ow t hi s m an da to ry m in im um , an d Hu ert a h as off

eredno th in g 2 to sh ow t ha t the co urt erredor t ha t h is sen te nc e is un reas on ab le . AFFIRMED.

Gene rally , a court is bound by the mandatory minimum sentenc e unless the defe ndant 2 qualified for a reduc tion under the safe ty -valve provision or the g overnme nt moved for a reduc tion based on substantial a ssistance. Ne ither circ umstance is pre sent here . 6