FI L ED U.S. COURT OF A P P E A LS E LE V EN T H C IR C U IT AUGUST 10, 2006 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N CL ERK [DO NOT PUBLISH] IN THE UN ITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FO R T HE EL EV EN TH CIRC UI T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. 05- 1632 6 Non-A rgum ent Calendar

--- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- -- D. C. Docket N o. 04-00036-CR-OC -10-GRJ UNITED STAT ES OF AMERIC A, Pl ai nt iff -Ap pe ll ee, ve rs us HA RRYKE VIN B EC KE R, Defen da nt -Ap pe ll an t.

--- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- - Appeal f rom the United State s District Court for the Middle D istrict of Florida

--- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- -

(A ug us t 10, 200 6) Be fo re E D MO N D SO N , Ch ie f Judg e, D U BIN Aand H U L L , Ci rc uit Jud ge s. PE R CU RIA M: D ef en dant- Appe llant H ar

ry Be ck er appe al s hi s c onvi ct ion s and c onse cutiv e 90- m onth se nte nc es f

or ( 1) c onsp ir ac y

to dis tr ibu te and t o po sse ss w ithint en t t o dis tr ibu te he ro in, 21 U . S. C. §§ 8 41( b) (1 )( C) and 8 46; ( 2) dis tr ibu tin g and a idi ngJ ones acted as a “bookie” in prison; he acc epted be ts placed by other prisone rs who used postal 1 stamps a s th e ir

c ur r e n c y . Pr is o no f

f ic ia ls d is c o v e r e d

Jo n e s ’ s g amb li n go p e r ati o n ; a n d th ey confiscated the stamps in his possession. J ones later agree d to c ooperate with a n investigation run by the F B Iint o d

ru gtr a ff ic king at th e pris on

in e xch ang e fo r a

uth or izatio n to re sume his b o o km ak i n ga c t i v i ty. 2 and abetting th e distributi on of heroin, 18 U. S. C. § 2 and 21 U. S. C. § 841 (a)( 1), (b )( 1) (C ); ( 3) obt ai nin g and a idi ng and a be tti ng the obt ai nin g and atte m pt t o obtain h eroin by

an inm ate in feder al prison, 18 U. S. C. §§ 2 and 1 791(a)(2), (b)(1); and (4) providi ng and aidin g and abetting the providin g of heroin to an in m at e in fed eral pri so n, 1 8 U.S.C. § § 2 ; 1 79 1( a)(1 ), (b )(1 ), an d (d )(1 )(C) . No r e v e r s i b l e e rr o r

h a s b e e ns h o w n ; w e a f

f i rm. Be ck er f ir st arg ue s th at

the gov er

nm en t vi olate d du e pr oc es s by e nga gin g in outra ge ous co nduc t tha t r es ult ed in his c ri m ina l of

fe nse s be ca

use the gov er

nm en t al low ed E ri c Jone s, an in m at e in the f ed er al pr iso n whe re Be ck er w as hou se d, to run an il le ga l pr iso n gam bli ng o pe ratio n whil e as sis tin g th e gove rn m en t w ithit s inv es tig at ionof

dr ug tra ff ic kin g in sid e the pr iso n. B ec ke r fi le d am oti on t o 1 dis m iss his ind ic tm en t ba se d onthe gov er nm en t’ s ou tr ag eo us c ondu ct , w hic h th e dis tr ic t c ourt de nie d. W e re vie wde nov o “ [w ] he the r fa ct s sh owm isc ondu ct so o utr ag eo us tha t i t bars prosecution” by“ look ing at the totalit y of the circ um stances.” United State s v . E d e n f i e l d , 9 9 5 F . 2 d1 9 7 , 2 0 0 ( 1 1 th C i r . 1 9 9 3 ) ( i n t e rn a l qu o t a t i o no mi t t e d ) . “A3

convictio n m ay

be overturned when the governm ent is invo lved in . . . crim inal ac tiv ity onl y w he n th e gove rn m en t’ s in vol ve m en t vi olate s f undam en ta l f

ai rn es s an d sh oc ks the uni ve rs al c au se of j ust ic e. O the rw ise , the gov er nm en t’ s in fi ltr at ion of crim inal activity

is a rec ogni zed and perm issib le m eans of investigatio n.” United States v. Chastain, 198 F. 3d 13 38, 1352 (11t h Cir. 1999 ) (internal qu ot at io n a ndcit at io n o m it te d) . Inthi s c as e, the gov er

nm en t’ s c ondu ct

f al ls f ar sho rt of the e xtr em el y ou tra ge ou s an d s ho ck in g c on du ctne ces sa ry to est ab li sh a du e p ro ces s v io la ti on . The governm ent allowed Jones to contin ue his gam bling operation and autho rized Jones to purchase drugs and record his drug transactions in prison . Becker asked Jone s if Jon es w an te d to buy

he ro in; Jon es r ep lie d th at he did w an t t o buy

he ro in usi ng s tam

ps a s c ur re nc y f or the pur ch as e. B ec ke r an d Jo ne s c om ple te d th e tr an sa ct ion . Jon es the n gave the pur ch as ed he ro in and r ec or din gs o f his co nv ers at io ns wit h B eck er t o t he FBI. By perm itting Jones to con tinue his book m aking, the governm ent allowed him to m aintain his in terac tion with oth er prisoners and to have the financial m eans t o c om

ple te adr ug transa ct ion . S ee U nit ed S tate s v. O fs he , 817 F . 2d 1 508, 1516 ( 11th C ir . 198 7) ( co nc lud ing that the gov er nm en t’ s pl ac em en t of

ali ste nin g de vic e on d ef

en dant’ s law y er

did not pr ej udi ce de fe ndant and w as not so4

outra ge ous that i t vi olate d de fe ndant’ s du e pr oc es s r igh ts) ; Unit ed S tate s v. Sava ge , 701 F . 2d 8 67, 869 -7 0 ( 11th C ir . 198 3) ( de te rm ini ng tha t the gov er nm en t did not e nga ge in outra ge ous co nduc t whe n agov er nm en t a ge nt p re te nde d to sym pathize with defe ndant’s diffic ulty in m aking cocaine and sug gested that de fe ndant i nst ea d m ak e PC P, c ondu ct f or w hic h de fe ndant w as late r cr im ina lly ch ar ge d) . T he gov er

nm en t’ s c ondu ct

in thi s c as e did

not vio late due pr oc es s. Becker next argues that his cons ecutive 90-m onth sentences are unreasonable because the quantityof heroin that he sold to Jones, 0.12 gram s, w as so s m al l. B ec ke r co nte nds that, e ve n th oughhis se nte nc e w as 82 m onths b el ow the low es t po int

of his G uid el ine r an ge , his se nte nc e w as sti ll too hig h be ca use , in oth er dr ug o ff en se c as es , w e have a ff

irm ed se nte nc es that i m

pose d ate rm

of i m p ri s o n m en tth atwa s l es s th an h al f o f th e l o we s tp o i n to f t h e d ef en d an t ’s Guideline range. W e re vie wase nte nc e im pose d un de r ana dvi sor

y G uid el ine s sy ste m

f or reasonableness in the ligh t of the fac tors set forth in 18 U.S .C. § 3553 (a). U nited St at es v. W ini nge ar , 422 F . 3d 1 241, 124 4- 46 ( 11th C ir . 200 5) . T he se ct ion 3553 (a ) fa ct or s in cl ude ( 1) the natur e an d c ir cum stanc es of the of fe nse ; ( 2) the histo ry and charac teristics of the defendant; (3) the need f or the sentence im

posed to r ef le ct the se ri ousn es s of

the of fe nse , to pr om ote r es pe ct f or the law , and t oOn appe al B ecke r does not cha lleng e the district court’s ca lculation of his Guideline 2 imprisonment rang e. 5 provide just puni shm ent; (4) the need to protect the public; and (5) the Guidelines range. See 18 U. S. C. § 355 3(a). “ Reviewfor r easonableness is deferential.” U nit ed S tate s v. T al le y , 431 F . 3d 7 84, 788 ( 11th C ir . 200 5) . “ [T ] he party w ho ch al le nge s th e se nte nc e be ar s th e bur de n of e sta bli shi ng tha t the se nte nc e is unreasonable in the lig ht of both th[e] rec ord and the factors in section 355 3(a). ” Id . H er e, the dis tr ic t c ourt i m pose d r ea sona

ble se nte nc es a ft er

c onsi de ri ng the se ct ion355 3( a) f

ac tor s. B ec ke r’ s ba se of

fe nse le ve l of

26 w as inc re as ed

to 34 be ca use Be ck er

w as ac ar ee r of

fe nde r. W ithac ri m ina l hi sto ry c at eg or y of V I an d anof fe nse le ve l of

34, Be ck er ’ s Guid el ine im pr iso nm en t r an ge w as 262 to 327 m onth s. T he district court acknowledged that Becker’ s status as a care er off ender 2 s ub s t an t i al l y i n cr ea s edh i s s en t en ce ; an dth e c o u rtex p l ai n edth atBe ck er ’s Gui de li ne ran ge wentbe y on d t he sen te nc in g o bjec ti ve s s etou t i n 1 8 U.S.C. § 3553 . F or

that r ea son, the dis tr ic t c ourt se nte nc ed Be ck er to tw o c onse cutiv e 90- m on th sen te nc es , whi ch was wel l b el ow t he lo wes t p oi ntof h is Gui de li ne ran ge . N oth ing in the r ec or d c onvi nc es us tha t B ec ke r’ s se nte nc es w er e unr ea sona ble in th e li gh t o f th e se ct io n 3 55 3( a) fa ct or s.6

AFFIRMED.