FI L ED U.S. COURT OF A P P E A LS E LE V EN T H C IR C U IT DEC 18, 2007 THOMAS K. KAH

N CL ERK

Honora ble B ever ly

B. Ma rtin, United States District J udg e for the Northe rn District of * Geor g ia, sitting by

desig nation. [DO N OT PUBLISH] IN THE UN ITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FO R T HE EL EV EN TH CIRC UI T N os. 05- 1569 0 & 06- 1275 3 D. C. Docket N o. 93-00597 -CR- KMM UNITED STAT ES OF AMERIC A, Plaintiff-Appellee, ve rs us REYNALDO RODRIGUEZ, D ef en dant- Appe llant. Appeals fr om

the United State s District Court fo r the S outhe rnD istri ct

of F lor ida (D ec em be r 18, 200 7) Befo re EDMONDSON, Ch ie f Ju dg e, DUBINA, Cir cu itJu dg e, an d M ARTIN, * Dis tri ctJu dg e. PE R C U RI A M:Mr. Rodriguez also appea led the district cour t’s denial of his motion to sever his trial. 1 This Court affirme d the district court’s r uling on that issue. United States v. N ovaton, 271 F.3d 968, 990-91 (11th Cir. 2001). 2 I. Fact ual and P rocedu ral Back ground Ap p e l l a n tR e yn a l d o R o dr i g u e z , af o rme r o f f i c e r f o r th e C i t y o f

M i a mi Po lic e D ep ar

tm en t, w as c onvi ct ed

of c onsp ir ac y

to poss es s c oc ai ne w iththe int en t to d istri but e, in vio la tio n of 21 U . S. C. § 84 6, on D ec em be r 15, 199 4, in the Southern District of F lorida. Mr . R odriguez appealed to this Court, which rem an de d t he cas e o n Oct ob er 3 0, 2 00 1. The original appeal addressed an e videnti ary ruling m ade by

the district co urt at tri al , de ny ing Mr . Ro dr igu ez the use of tw o a ff idavit s a s im

pe ac hm en t m at er ia l. Mr . Ro dr igu ez w as tr ie d a lon g w ithanum be r of c o- co nspi rator s, 1 inc lud ing F ranc isc o N ovatonand O sc ar Cuni. N ei the r Mr . N ovatonnor Mr . Cuni te sti fi ed a t tri al , but

the gov er

nm en t i ntr oduc ed

num er ous he ar say

state m en ts m ad e by them and recorded by

investig ators’ wir etaps. T he wir etap conversations were intro duc ed

und er F ed er al Ru le of

E vid en ce 801 (d )( 2) (E ), w hic h pe rm its the adm iss ionof

out -o f- co urt c o- co nspi rator state m en ts m ad e in f

urthe ranc e of

the co nspi ra cy . F ed er al Ru le of E vid en ce 806 a llo w s aparty to im pe ac h st at em en ts adm itt ed und er Ru le 801 (d )( 2) (E ) by

m eans o f an y

e vid en ce that w oul d be ap pr opr ia te im

pe ac hm en t m at er ia l w er e the de cl ar an t t o te sti fy f ro m the w itn es s3

stand. Mr. Rodriguez proffer ed two af fidavits sworn by

Mr. Novaton and Mr. Cu ni (“ th e aff

id av it s” ) th atde ni edMr. Ro dr ig ue z’s pa rti ci pa ti on in th e co ns pi racy. He requested that he be allowe d to use the affidavits to im peach the hearsay statem ents of Mr. Novaton and Mr. Cuni introd uced at trial. T he district court de ni edhi s re qu es t. Mr. Ro dr ig ue z ch al le ng edth e ex cl us io n o f th e aff id av it s i n h is fir st ap pe al . T o a ssi st i ts d ec isi on, thi s C ourt r eque ste d th at Mr . Ro dr igu ez sub m it spe ci fi c citations to the trial re cord, pointing o ut statem ents that would have been im peached by

the aff idavits. It w as then discov ered that the re corded co nve rs at ion s a dm itt ed

a s tr ia l e xhi bit s, a lon g w itha cc om pany ing tr an sc ri pts and tr an slatio ns, ha d be enlos t. T his Co urt r em an de d th e ca se w ithins tr uc tio ns f or the dis tr ic t c ourt t o de te rm ine w he the r an y of the m iss ing tr ia l e xhi bit s w er e re le vant to Mr. Rodriguez’ s appeal. If ther e w ere relevant m issin g exhibi ts, the district co urt w as to atte m

pt t o r ec onstru ct

the m a s pr ovi de d in

F ed er al Ru le of

Appe llate Procedure 10(e). U nited States v. N ovaton , 271 F. 3d 96 8, 991-93 (11th Cir. 20 01 ). T he r em an d a lso gave the dis tr ic t c ourt the opp ortun ity to re co nsi de r its Rule 806 determ ination in ligh t of this Court’ s intervening decision in United St at es v. G rant, 256 F . 3d 1 146 (1 1thCi r. 200 1) . T he pane l e xpr es se d no vie won4

w he the r G rant w as c ontro lli ng a uth or ity . I t w as le ft

to the dis tr ic t c ourt t o a sse ss th e eff ectof Gra nt , if an y , and gra nt Mr. Ro dr ig ue z a n ew tr ia l as ap pr op ria te . Nov at on , 27 1 F .3dat 9 93 -9 4. On Se ptem

ber 9, 2005 , the district court, having con cluded that the record w as a de quate ly

r ec onstru ct ed

to re co nsi de r the Ru le 806 m atte r, a ff irm ed the exclusion of the aff

idavits (Dist. Ct. Or der of S ept. 9, 2005 , at 2-3). The district co urt f ound that “ the a ff

idavit s w er e in f

ac t i nte nde d to be use d a s su bst an tiv e ev ide nc e, and n ot f

or im pe ac hm en t” ( id. a t 4) . T he y w er e the re fo re ina dm iss ibl e hearsay and not prop er im

peachm ent m aterial under R ule 806. The court noted that it would have been within its di scretion to exclude the affidavits und er Fe de ra l R ule of E vid en ce 403 a s w el l, a s “ hig hly pr ej udi ci al ” to the gov er nm en t and likely to lead to “

j ury confusion as to the proper use of such evidence as im peachm ent as oppo sed to sub stantive eviden ce” ( id.). T o be thorou gh, the court an al y ze d w he the r a ne wtr ia l w oul d be w ar rante d inthe e ve nt tha t the a ff idavit s w er e er ro ne ousl y e xc lud ed . I t de te rm ine d th at the a ff idavit s ha d li ttl e im pe ac hm en t va lue , and tha t the re w as a m ple oth er e vid en ce pr es en te d a t tri al to supp ort the c onvi ct ion( id. a t 5- 6) . O n Apr il 26, 200 6, the dis tr ic t c ourt a lso de nie d M r. Ro dr igu ez ’ s M oti on f or N ewS en te nc ing H eari ng.5

Mr. Ro dr ig ue z ap pe al s fr om th e d is tri ctco ur t’s ru li ng s o n re m an d. He a l l e g e s an u mb e r

o f e rr o r s wi t h r e g a r dt o th e e x c l u s i o n o f th e a f f i d a v i t s , n a mel y, that the r ec or d w as not

a de quate ly

r ec onstru ct ed , that e xc lus ionof the a ff idavit s w as e rr or , and tha t he is en tit le d to ane wtr ia l. H e furthe r co nte nds that hi s du e pr oc es s r igh t t o ati m el y

appe al ha s be envio la te d by the “ le ngthy , pr otr ac te d and atte nuate d di re ct

appe al pr oc es s” in his c as e (Appe llant’ s B r. 49) . F ina lly , he ar gue s th at

his se nte nc e shou ld b e re co nsi de re d inli ght of U nit ed S ta te s v. Bo oke r, 543 U . S. 220 ( 2005 ), and tha t i t w as e rr or f or the dis tr ic t c ourt t o de ny hi m a ne w sen te nc in g h eari ng . II. A na lys is A. Re constru ction of t he R ecord Reconstruction of the m issin g trial exhibits wa s undertaken bythe United States A ttorney ’ s Of

fice, which located the audiotapes that wer e adm itted at trial an d r e- tr an slate d and r e- tr an sc ri be d th em , usi ng o ff ic ia l c ourt transl at or s and re porte rs ( Appe lle e’ s B r. 26) . Mr . Ro dr igu ez c ont en ds tha t the re are “ num er ous m aterial and sig nificant err ors, om issio ns and dis crepancies” in the reconstructed tr an sc ri pts , w hic h he ide nti fi ed by c om pari ng the r ec onstru ct ed

tr an sc ri pts w iththe ex ce rp ts o f the or igi na l transc ri pts that w er e av ai la ble f ro m the tr ia l transc ri pt (D ef . Re yna ldo Ro dr igu ez ’ s M em . Re gard ing E rr or s & O m iss ion s in6

Governm ent’ s “ Reconstructed” T rs. 2). The district court held a ser ies of five evidentiary

hearings to evaluate the reconstruction effort and concluded, over Mr . Ro dr igu ez ’ s ob

j ec tio n, that the gov er

nm en t ha d a de quate ly

r ec onstru ct ed

the m iss ing e vid en ce in ac co rd an ce w iththe r em an d in str uc tio ns ( D ist . Ct . O rd er

of Sep t. 9 , 20 05 , at 2 ). Federa l Rule of Appellate Procedure 10(e) provides that when reconstructing the trial record, “ [i] f any differ ence ar ises about whether the rec ord truly discloses what occurred in the district court, the differe nce m ust be sub m itted to and s ettle d by

that c ourt . . . . ” F ed . R. App. P . 10( e) (1 ). “ [S ] ubst an tia l and si gn ifi can t o m is si on s fr om th e v erb at im

tra ns cri pt do no t m an da te a rev ers al if . . . the record c an be adequately rec onstructed to accor d effe ctive appellate review .” U nit ed S ta te s v. Ca shw el l, 950 F . 2d 6 99, 704 ( 11th C ir . 199 2) . N or doe s th e re co nstru ct ed

r ec or d have to be ide nti ca l t o th e or igi na l transc ri pts and e xhi bit s us edin th e tr ia l. No va to n, 2 71 F.3dat 9 93 . Adis tr ic t c ourt’ s de ci sio n inr ec onstru ct ing the r ec or d sh oul d be uph el d

“ absent a showing of intent ional falsification or plain un reasonableness.” United St at es v. Mo ri , 444 F . 2d 2 40, 246 ( 5thCi r. 197 1) ; se e al so Unit ed S ta te s v. Z ic he tte llo , 208 F . 3d 7 2, 93 ( 2d C ir . 200 0) ; U nit ed S ta te s v. K es ke y , 863 F . 2d 4 7 4 , 4 7 8 (7 t h Ci r. 1 9 8 8 ). Th er e i s ce rt ai n l y n o ev i d en ce th at th e d i s t ri ct co u rt ’s7

ru lin g w as int en tio na lly

f al se . N ei the r is i t pl ai nly unr ea sona

ble . T he c ourt he ld num er ous ev ide nti ar

y he ar ing s onthe m atte r an d gave Mr . Ro dr igu ez a m ple oppo rt uni ty to pr es en t hi s arg um en ts, a ll of w hic h th e co urt c onsi de re d. T he dis tr ic t c ourt di d no t e rr

in ru lin g th at

the r ec or d r ec onstru ct ionw as suf fi ci en t t o affo rdMr. Ro dr ig ue z eff ect iv e rev ie w on th e ev id en ti ary qu es ti on . B. Exclusion of th e A ffidavits E vid en tiary

r uli ngs ar e re vie w ed

f or abuse of dis cr et ion , and w ill stand absent a “ reasonable likelihoo d that [an err or] aff ected the defe ndant’s substantial rig ht s.” Un it edSta te s v . Hawki ns , 90 5 F .2d14 89 , 14 93 (11 th Cir . 19 90 ). An er ro r is h ar m le ss “ if the e rr or ‘ ha d no sub stanti al inf

lue nc e on the out co m e an d suf fi ci en t e vid en ce uni nf

ec te d by e rr or sup ports the ve rd ic t. ’ ” U nit ed S ta te s v. H an ds, 184 F . 3d 1 322, 132 9 ( 11th C ir . 199 9) ( quot ing U nit ed S ta te s v. Fo rte nb erry, 971 F.2d71 7, 7 22 (11 th Cir . 19 92 )). The statem ents adm itted at Mr. Rodriguez’ s trial w ere num erous taped telephone conv ersations, involvi ng what the governm ent asserted w ere coded re fe re nc es to dr

ug transa ct ion s th at

e sta bli she d th e ex ist en ce of

the c onsp ir ac y

and Mr . Ro dr igu ez ’ s part ic ipatio n init . Astate m en t of fe re d f or im pe ac hm en t pur pose s m ust be inc onsi ste nt w iththe state m en t a lr ea dy in ev ide nc e. “ [T ] he poin t of adm itting inconsis tent statem ents to im peach is not to sh ow that they are8

tr ue , but to ai d th e j ur

y in de ci din g w he the r the w itn es s is c re dib le . ” G rant, 256 F. 3d at 115 6 (citing United States v. Gr aham , 858 F. 2d 98 6, 990 n.5 (5th Cir. 19 88 )). Mr . N ovaton ’ s a ff

idavit state s ge ne ra lly

that “ Re yna ldo Ro dr igu ez did not co nspi re w ithm e, or

to m y kno w le dge w ithany one e lse , to poss es s w ithint en t t o dis tr ibu te c oc ai ne a t any

ti m e in 1 993, ” an d th at

Mr . Ro dr igu ez “ did

not pr ovi de pr ote ct ion , se curi ty

or c ount er -s urve ill an ce f

or m e, or to m y kno w le dge f

or any one e l s e , a tan y t i me du r i n g 1 9 9 3 ” ( A f f . o f F r a n c i s c o No v a t o n ¶

3 ) . M o r e s p e c i f

i c a l l y,

“ on October 12, 1993, [M r. ] Rodriguez did no t provide security at m y residence

. . . w hil e ana lle ge d sa le of c oc ai ne too k pl ac e” ( id. ). “ [O ] n D ec em be r 5, 199 3, [M r. ] Ro dr igu ez did

not dis cu ss w ithm e an d O sc ar Cuni an a lle ge d narc oti cs de bt o we db y No v at o n t o Cu n i ” ( i d .) . Th e a ff i d av i td en i es Mr . R o dri g u ez ’s participation in o ther acts alleged in the indictm ent, and states that Mr. Rodriguez onl y c am e to the N ovatonhou se “ to e at , use the ba thr oom f ac ili tie s, e nga ge in Sante ri a w or shi p, and f

or oth er pe rs ona l r ea sons ” (i d. ). Mr . Cuni’ s a ff idavit re ite rate s th at

Mr . Ro dr igu ez did

not c onsp ir e to p oss es s c oc ai ne w iththe int en t t o dis tr ibu te , did

not pr ovi de se curi ty

or c ount er -s urve ill an ce to the c onsp ir ac y , and di d n ot di sc us s a n arco ti cs de bt on Decem be r 5, 1 99 3 (Af

f. of Osca r Cu ni ¶ 3) .On Mr. Rodriguez’s orig inal appea l, this C ourt agree d with the district court’s 2 a sse ssm e nt o f t

he a ff ida vit s at tr ia l, a

nd re fe rr e d to the m a s “ c on c lus or y de nia ls o f t

he c ha rg e s in the ind ic tme nt” that di d “ no t c onta in t he ty pe of sp e c if ic and e xone ra tiv e fa c ts whic h w ou ld establish that the district court a bused its discretion in denying the motions.” Novaton, 271 F.3d at 990 (rulingon Mr. Rodriguez’s motion to s ever the trials of the c o-conspirators). 9 The district court pointed out that any use of the aff

idavits b y Mr. Rodriguez was “ sim

ply a prete xt for their otherw ise im perm issib le use as subs tanti ve e vid en ce ” (D ist . Ct . O rd er of S ep t. 9, 200 5, a t 4) . W e ag re e that the af fi da vit s are “post -i ndi ctm en t, c onc lus or y , se lf -s er vin g st at em en ts m ad e in an tic ipatio n of

li tig at ion , ” w he n th e af

fi an ts h ad “ sig nif ic an t i nc en tiv e to m ak e fa lse e xc ulp at or

y state m en ts” ( id. ). T he a ff idavit s do not

a tta ck the c re dib ili ty

of 2 either Mr. Novaton or Mr. Cuni as Rule 806 would require. I nstead, they attack the gov er nm en t’ s in te rp re ta tio n of the state m en ts a s ac onsp ir ac y , and atte m pt t o ex on erat e Mr. Ro dr ig ue z. Su ch a us e d oe s n ot co ns ti tu te im pe ach m en t. G rant i s di sti ngui sha

ble f ro m thi s c as e. T he state m en ts a dm itt ed in G rant under Rule 801(d)(2)(E ) w ere co-conspirator W ilson ’ s statem ents to an un de rco ve r ag en t t ha t h e h ada pa rtn er wh o was in vo lv edin co cai ne di st rib ut io n. The governm ent produced oth er e vidence at trial suggestin g that the partner w as Gr ant. L ater, W ilson swore out an affidavit to the effec t that he did no t have a partne r an d ha d li ed

to the a ge nt a

bout havin g apartne r. G rant, 256 F . 3d at 11 52- 53. T his Co urt r

ule d th at W ils on’ s a ff

idavit w as a dm iss ibl e as im

pe ac hm en t10

m at er ia l un de r Ru le 806 . T he c o- co nspi rator state m en ts m ad e by

W ils on “ci r c u ms t a n t i a l l y l i n k [ e d ] G r a n tt o th e c o n s p i r a c y. A tth e v e ry l e a s t , [ t h e y] ind ic at ed that W ils on h ad

ac o- co nspi rator . . . . W ils on’ s st at em en ts i n th e proffer ed aff

idavit, however, indicate that he had no co-consp irator and, further, th atGran t h adno in vo lv em en t i n Wil so n’s d ru g t ran sa ct io ns .” Id . at 1 15 3- 54 . W ils on’ s st at em en ts t o th e unde rc ove r of fi ce r an d hi s st at em en ts i n th e af fi da vit di rect ly con tra di ct edon e an ot he r. T he c o- co nspi rator

state m en ts a dm itt ed

a ga ins t M r. Ro dr igu ez , by c ontra st, w er e co de d and w er e int er pr et ed a t tri al by

gov er nm en t a ge nts . S ee N ovaton , 271 F. 3d at 98 1- 82. Mr . Ro dr igu ez ’ s pr of fe re d a ff idavit s c ontra dic t on ly

the interpretation of the statem ents, not the statem ents them selves. F or exam ple, Mr . Nov at on ne ve r cal le d M r. Ro dr ig ue z an d e xp res sl y ask edhi m

to pro vi de sec ur it y . The a ffidavits contradict the governm ent’ s assertion of the existence of a conspiracy , but they

are not incon sistent with the statem ents the gov ernm ent used to establish the conspiracy . The a ffidavits are inadm issib le hearsay , off ered a s subs tantive evidence, and not im peachm ent m aterial. See Gr aham , 858 F. 2d at 99 0 & n.5 . T he dis tr ic t c ourt r el ie d inthe a lte rn at ive on F ed er al Ru le of E vid en ce 403 to e xc lud e the a ff

idavit s. U nde r the F ed er al Ru le s of E vid en ce , a ll ev ide nc e is11

subj ec t t o th e pr obativ e- pr ej udi ci al ba lanc ing te st o f Ru le 403 . U nit ed S ta te s v. He we s, 729 F. 2d 13 02, 1314 (11t h Cir. 1984 ). In prac tice, district court judges m ay iss ue the ir

r uli ngs on the ba sis of

one Ru le and, in the a lte rn at ive , on the ba sis of Ru le 403 . S ee , e . g. , U nit ed S ta te s v. A nde rs on, 872 F . 2d 1 508, 151 4- 15 ( 11th Cir. 1989 ); A lim enta (U .S .A .) , I nc. v. Stauff er, 598 F. Supp. 934, 941 (N .D . G a. 19 84 ). Tho ug h R

ul e 4 03 is an “ ex tra or di na ry ” rem edy to be us ed“ sp ari ng ly,” Un i t edSt at es v . B et an co u rt , 7 3 4 F. 2 d7 5 0 , 7 5 7 (1 1 t h Ci r. 1 9 8 4 ), a d i s t ri ct co u rt ’s ru lin g ba se d onRu le 403 w ill not be ove rt ur ne d un le ss i t c onst itu te s ac le ar abuse of di sc ret io n. Un it edSta te s v . Pom eran tz , 68 3 F .2d35 2, 3 53 (11 th Cir . 19 82 ). T he dis tr ic t c ourt f

ound that the a ff

idavit s w er e of

“ dubi ous” pr obativ e va lue , but we re highly

prej udicial to th e governm ent and likely would have confused the jury on the iss ue of im

peachm ent as oppo sed to sub stantive eviden ce ( Dist. Ct. Or der of S ep t. 9, 200 5, a t 4) . T he c ourt’ s ana ly sis of the ba lanc e w as w el l w ith in i ts dis cr et ion . T hus, w e fi nd n o a buse of dis cr et ionby

the tr ia l j udge in ex cl udi ng the pr of fere d a ffi da vi ts . T he dis tr ic t c ourt a lso c or re ct ly c onc lud ed

that M r. Ro dr igu ez w as not en tit le d to ane wtr ia l. T o c ha lle nge aj ur y ve rd ic t onthe ba sis of

an e rr one ous ev ide nti ar

y r uli ng b y the dis tr ic t c ourt, the c ha lle nge r m ust pr es er ve his obj ec tio n, de m onstrate an a

buse of dis cr et ionby

the dis tr ic t c ourt, and s howthat the e rr or12

af fe ct ed his sub stanti al r igh ts. U nit ed S ta te s v. S te phe ns, 365 F . 3d 9 67, 974 ( 11th Ci r. 200 4) . A n e rr or

a ff ec ts the de fe ndant’ s su

bst an tia l r igh ts i f it “ pr oba bly ha d a

‘ subs tanti al inf

lue nc e’ on the j ur

y ’ s ve rd ic t. ” I d. a t 97 6- 77 ( quot ing K ott eakos v. U nit ed S ta te s, 328 U . S. 750 , 765 ( 1946 )) . Mr . Ro dr igu ez ha s pr es er ve d hi s obj ec tio n to the dis tr ic t c ourt’ s e xc lus ionof his a ff idavit s, but

he ha s no t es ta bli she d th at

the dis tr ic t c ourt a

buse d it s di sc re tio n. E ve n if he w er e ab le to m ak e suc h asho w ing , the e xc lus ionc an not be sa id t o have sub stanti al ly influenced the jury ’ s verdict because there wa s sufficient other evidence, unrelated to the a ff idavit s, to supp ort hi s c onvi ct ion( D ist . Ct . O rd er of S ep t. 9, 200 5, a t 5- 6) . T he tr ia l e vid en ce sho w ed that O ff ic er s R odr igu ez and L ope z dr ove slo w ly by the Novaton residence severa l tim es a day . The N ovaton househo ld received ca l l s fr o m

a M i ami P o l i ce De p ar t m en tt el ep h o n e l o ca t ed v ery n ea r O ff i ce r L o p ez ’s of fi ce . O n O ct obe r 23, 199 3, f ed er al a ge nts arr es te d c oc ai ne pur ch as er s le av ing the Novatons’ and seized three kilogram s of cocaine. Mrs. Novaton called her husb and, who was w ith Mr. R odriguez at the tim e, to report that the purchaser had be en“ ca ught w iththr ee . ” Mr . Ro dr igu ezthe n a cc om panie d M r. N ovatonba ck to his hom e. O n N ove m

be r 9, 199 3, Mr s. N ovatona ske d M r. Ro dr igu ez f or in fo rm at io n abo ut an ot he r se iz ur e o f drug s t ha t h adoc cu rredth ree d ay s ea rli er.13

Mr. Ro dr ig ue z wen t t o t he Nov at on res id en ce wi th th e req ue st edin fo rm at io n. On Novem ber 17, 1993, Mr. Rodriguez reported a “phanto m drug delivery ” in order to id en ti fy

th e u nd erco ve r po li ce ca rs us edto in ve st ig at e d ru g d eal s. On Novem ber 20, 1993, another co-c onsp irator abandoned his car, in which he wa s transporting drug proceeds, beca use he fear ed he wa s being follo we d. H e called Mrs. Novaton, who in tu rn contacted her husband and th e tw o officer s. Mr . Rodriguez helped to recover the car and the drug proceeds, and w as treate d to free fo od, dr ink , and p oss ibl y pr ost itu te s th at

nig ht at a

bar ow ne d by

Mr . Cuni. B oth O ff ic er s R odr igu ez and L ope z w er e obse rv ed e sc ortin g vari ous ind ivi dua ls t o th e Nov at on ho us eh ol d o ve r th is pe rio d o f ti m e. Nov at on , 27 1 F .3dat 9 80 -8 2. Sufficie nt evidence unrelated to the affidavits was pre sented at trial to convict Mr. Ro dr ig ue z. Mr. Rodriguez argues that the length of the jury ’ s deliberations in dicates th atitwas aclo se cas e, an d t ha t t he affi da vi ts co ul d h av e swu ng th e b al an ce. H ow ev er , the re is no w ay of kno w ing w he the r the j ur y ha d tr oubl e re ac hin g a conclusio n on th e conspiracy charge f or which Mr . R odriguez was convicted, a s oppo se d to the c harg es of w hic h he w as a cquitte d ( D ist . Ct . O rd er of S ep t. 9, 200 5,Th e jur y a c qu itt e d M r. Rod

ri gue z of tw o c ounts of

po sse ssi on

of c oc a ine wi th i nte nt t o 3 distribute, in violation of 21 U.S.C . § 841(a) (1), a nd one count of

knowing ly

car rying a firea rm duringand in re lation to a drugtraff ickingoffe nse, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(1) . Novaton, 271 F .3d at 982-83. Most of the other c ircuits use the B arke r fa ctors to ana ly ze due proc ess claims of de lay 4 on appea l as well. See United States v. Smi th, 94 F.3d 204, 208 (6th Cir. 1996); United States v. Ha wk ins , 7 8 F .3 d 3 48 , 3 50 (8 th C ir . 1 99 6) ; U nit e d St ate s v . M oh awk , 2 0 F .3 d 1 48 0, 14 85 (9 th Cir . 1 99 4) ; Simmon s v . Re y no lds , 8 98 F .2 d 8 65 , 8 68 (2 d Ci r. 19 90 ); B ur ke tt v . Cunn ingham, 826 F.2d 1208, 1225 ( 3d Cir. 1987); United States v. J ohnson, 732 F.2d 379, 381-82 ( 4th Cir. 14 at 6) . T he re fo re , e ve n if

w e w er e to a ssum e that the e xc lus ionof the a ff idavit s 3 w as an a buse of the dis tr ic t c ourt’ s di sc re tio n ( w hic h w e ha ve he ld i t w as not ), it w oul d am ount

to harm le ss e rr or

and w oul d no t m er it a ne wtr ia l. S ee S te phe ns, 36 5 F .3dat 9 76 n.1 1. C . D el ay o n A pp ea l as a D ue P ro ce ss V iol at ion If astate of fe rs c onvi ct ed

c ri m ina ls a

r igh t t o a ppe al , the r igh t i s su

bj ec t t o the requirem ents of due process. Rheuar k v. Shaw , 628 F. 2d 29 7, 302 (5th Cir. 1980 ). “ [A ] ny

subst antial retar dation o f the appellate proce ss, including an ex ce ssi ve de lay

in the f ur nis hin g of

atr an sc ri pti on o f te sti m ony ne ce ssary

f or com pletion of an appellate r ecord, ” can c onsti tute a denial of due process. Id. at 302. To analy ze a due process claim , the R heuark court adopted the four factors use d to a sse ss s pe edy

tr ia l vi olatio ns: th e le ngth of the de lay ; the r ea son fo r the de lay ; de fe ndant’ s a sse rt ionof his r igh t; an d pr ej udi ce to the de fe ndant. I d. a t 30 3 & n.8; see B arker v. W ingo , 407 U. S. 514, 530 (197 2). 41984). The F irst Circuit hinges its inquiry on a showingof pre

judice alone . United States v. DeL eon, 444 F .3d 41, 56-57 (1st Cir. 2006). 15 T he f ir st B ar ke r fa ct or , the le ngth of

the de lay , se rv es a s a“ tr igg er ing m echanism .” T here m

ust be a “presum

ptively prej udicial” delay

before a court will consider the other fac tors. Barker, 407 U.S . at 530. W e assum e the 12 y ear span be tw ee n M r. Ro dr igu ez ’ s c onvi ct ionand h is c ur re nt a ppe al a m ount s to a pr es um pti ve ly pr ej udi ci al de lay . H ow ev er , not e ve ry de lay , “ ev enan in or din at e one , ” vio la te s du e pr oc es s. R he uark , 628 F . 2d at 30 3. A ll fo ur f ac tor s m ust be ev al ua te d. T he pr oc es s of

dis co ve ri ng tha t the tr ia l r ec or d w as inc om ple te and reconstructing that record are the m ain reasons for the delay in this case. I ncluded in this tim e period wa s the tim e it took for the governm ent to re-translate and retr an sc ri be the audi ota

pe s to r ep la ce the m iss ing e xhi bit s, ata sk tha t be gan on O ct obe r 31, 200 2, and w as c om ple te d onApr il 20, 200 4 ( Appe llant’ s B r. 7- 8; Appe lle e’ s B r. 11- 12) . T he dis tr ic t c ourt he ld e vid en tiary he ar ing s onO ct obe r 29, 2002 , Augus t 11 , 200 3, Marc h 22 , 200 4, Apr il 23, 200 4, and July 15, 200 4 ( D ist . Ct . Or d ero f S ep t . 9 , 2 0 0 5 , a t2 ). We fi n dth at th e d el ay i n th e g o v ern m en t ’s re co nstru ct ionof

the e vid en ce w as r ea sona ble giv enthe a m ount

of inf orm at ion th atne ed edto be so rte d, re -tr an sl at ed , andre-t ran sc rib ed(se e App el le e’s Br. 4 6) .16

T he num er ous status c onf er en ce s, he ar ing s, and m oti ons an d m em or an daf ile d by Mr . Ro dr igu ez dur ing thi s ti m e al so m ak e cl ear that the c as e did not li e idl e fo r lon g pe ri ods. T he le ngth of the de lay w as r ea sona

ble in li gh t o f th e n um

be r of is su es th atha d t o b e worke d o ut . The third Barker f

actor re quires that the defendant assert his right. Mr. Ro dr igu ez a sse rt s hi s r igh t he re in his ti m el y appe al of the dis tr ic t c ourt’ s m ost rece nt ord er, an d h as pro pe rly pres erv edhi s o bjec ti on s. T he f ourth f ac tor is pr ej udi ce , w hic h is a sse sse d “ in l igh t of the int er es ts o f tho se c onvi ct ed

of c ri m es to anappe al of

the ir c onvi ct ion s un en cum

be re d by ex ce ssi ve de lay . ” Rh eu ar k, 628 F . 2d at 30 3 n. 8. T he int er es ts are : “ (1 ) pr ev en tio n of opp re ssi ve inc ar ce ratio n pe ndi ng a ppe al ; ( 2) m ini m iz at ionof anxi ety and co nc er n of tho se c onvi ct ed

aw ai tin g th e out co m e of the ir appe al s; and ( 3) lim itatio n of

the pos sib ili ty

that a c onvi ct ed

pe rs on’ s gr ound s f

or appe al , and h is or her def enses in case of re versal and retr ial, m ight b e im paired.” Id. Mr. Rodriguez’ s incarcer ation is no t oppressiv e because his appeal has been evaluated an d f ound to be w ith out

m er it. S ee U nit ed

S ta te s v. T uc ke r, 8 F . 3d 6 73, 676 ( 9th Ci r. 199 3) ( “ [Appe llant’ s] inc ar ce ratio n w as not opp re ssi ve be ca

use his appe al is m eritless.” ); Muww akkil v. Hoke, 968 F.2d 284, 285 (2d Cir. 1992) (“ [Petitioner] ha s pr oduc ed

no e vid en ce that pr om

pt d isp osi tio n of

his appe al w oul d have17

y ie lde d adif

fe re nt o utc om e. ”) ; U nit ed S ta te s v. Joh nson , 732 F . 2d 3 79, 382 -8 3 (4 th C ir . 198 4) ( hol din g th at w he re “ the appe al ha s be enhe ar d and f ound la ck ing in m er it[ , ] the re is not

any sound r ea son to o rd er

de fe ndant’ s r el ea se ” ev entho ugh the delay m ay have violated due process). T here is no indication that Mr. Rodriguez’ s anxiety

over his appeal is greater than that of any other im prisoned appellant. Se e T ucker, 8 F. 3d at 676 . Finally , the delay has not im

paired Mr. Ro dr igu ez ’ s a

ppe al , or any de fe nse s onapos sib le r etri al , be ca use the re is no m er it to h is a ppe al in the f

ir st p la ce . S ee id. ; M uw w akkil , 968 F . 2d at 28 5; J ohns on, 732 F. 2d at 38 2- 83. Mr . Ro dr igu ez c an not sho wthat he ha s su ff

er ed pr ej udi ce due to th e d el ay , and th eref

or e h e is en ti tl edto no rel ie f. D. Re -Sen tenc ing in Light of Book er Based on the United States S entencing Guidelines, the district court im pose d ase nte nc e of

292 m onths o n M r. Ro dr igu ez . T he c ourt attr ibu te d a t l ea st 50 k ilo gr am s of

c oc ai ne to Mr . Ro dr igu ez , f or aba se le ve l of

36, a dde d tw o po int s fo r poss es sio n of

adange ro us w ea

pon, and tw o m or e fo r ab use of pub lic tr ust (Appellant’s Br . 53-55). O n October 30, 2001 , this Court rem anded Mr. Ro dr igu ez ’ s f

ir st a ppe al to the tr ia l c ourt. Whil e the c as e w as sti ll on r em an d, on January 12, 200 5, the U nit ed

S ta te s S upr em e Co urt de ci de d U nit ed S ta te s v. Bo oke r, 543 U . S. 220 ( 2005 ), w hic h in va lid at ed the m an da tor

y appl ic at ionof

the18

Se nte nc ing G uid el ine s. B ec au se the dis tr ic t c ourt j udge appl ie d th e Se nte nc ing G uid el ine s inam an da tor y f as hio n, Mr . Ro dr igu ez arg ue s th at he sho uld

be res en te nc edun de r th e n ow- co nt ro ll in g B oo ke r reg im e. Bo oke r w as de ci de d w he n M r. Ro dr igu ez ’ s c as e w as on a li m ite d r em an d to the tr ia l c ourt. I n hi s f

ir st a ppe al , Mr . Ro dr igu ez and h is c o- de fe ndants obj ec te d to the ir se nte nc es ba se d oniss ue s de ci de d by the U nit ed

S ta te s S upr em e Co urt i n App ren di v. New J ers ey , 53 0 U.S. 4 66 (20 00 ). See No va to n, 2 71 F.3dat 1 01 6. This Court considered those argum ents, re j ected them , and affirm ed Mr. Rodriguez’ s sentence. Id. at 1018 . Thus, Mr . R odriguez’ s 292 m onth sentence st an ds as t he law o f th e cas e. Appellate courts ar e still expected to apply“ ordinary prudential do ctrines.” Booker, 543 U. S. at 268. T he doctrine of lawof the case is generally ref erre d to as anor din ar

y pr ude nti al doc tr ine . S ee P atte rs on v . H as kin s, 470 F . 3d 6 45, 660 -6 1 (6th Cir. 2006 ); Brown v. Br y an County , 219 F. 3d 45 0, 475 (5th Cir. 2000); Sinaloa Lake Owners Ass’ n v. City of Sim i Va lley , 70 F. 3d 10 95, 1102 (9th Cir. 1995 ); Co m

m er ci al U nio n I ns. Co . v. W al br ook In s. Co . , 41 F . 3d 7 64, 770 ( 1st Ci r. 199 4) . L awof

the c as e bin ds b oththe dis tr ic t c ourt and the a ppe llate c ourt t o the f ac tua l f ind ing s and l eg al c onc lus ion s r ea ch ed by the appe llate c ourt ona pr ev iou s a

ppe al of the sam e ca se . U nit ed

S ta te s v. S tin son, 97 F . 3d 4 66, 469 ( 11th19

Cir. 1996 ). O n rem and, the district court is “ not to assert j urisdictio n over m atters ou ts id e th e sc op e o f a l im it edm an da te .” Uni te d S ta te s v . Tam ay o, 8 0 F .3d15 14 , 1520 ( 11th C ir . 199 6) . T he 200 1 r em an d in thi s c as e ga ve li m ite d j ur isd ic tio n to the dis tr ic t c ourt t o e xa m ine the r ec or d, and r ec onstru ct e xhi bit s if

ne ce ssary , w ith the opp ortun ity

to re vie wit s e ar lie r ru lin g un de r Ru le 806 . L awof the c as e dictates that the district court cannot revisit sentencing un der such a lim ited m an da te . A n e xc ep tio n to the lawof the c as e doc tr ine ari se s if c ontro lli ng a

uth or ity ha s si nc e m ad e a co ntr ar

y de ci sio n of

lawappl ic ab le to that i ssu e. S tin son, 97 F. 3d at 46 9. Mr . Ro dr igu ez arg ue s th at c ontrary and c ontro lli ng a

uth or ity , in the fo rm of B oo ke r, no w app li es to hi s ca se . T he 200 1 r em an d di d no t c onc er n se nte nc ing . T he “ onl y

iss ue s r em ai nin g re la te to [M r. ] Ro dr igu ez ’ s R ule 806 arg um en t. ” N ovaton , 271 F . 3d at 99 3. T he se nte nc ing , li ke oth er

f ac tua l and l eg al c onc lus ion s, is lawof the c as e an d w ill not be disturbed. Com

pare United States v. A m edeo, 487 F. 3d 82 3, 830 (11th Cir. 2007 ) (f indin g Booker to be “ an intervening chang e in the law of sentencing that m ad e a co ntr ar

y de ci sio n of

lawappl ic ab le ” w he n th e ca se ha d be enr em an de d f or re -s en te nc ing ); U nit ed

S ta te s v. P uc he , 155 F ed . Appx. 487 , 492 ( 11th C ir . 200 5) (r uli ng tha t r e- se nte nc ing w as appr opr ia te in lig ht o f Bo oke r be ca use the r em an d20

ha d in cl ude d sp ec if

ic ins tr uc tio ns t o th e dis tr ic t c ourt t o se nte nc e unde r the Guidelines); with U nited States v. Corr ea, 197 Fed. Appx. 857, 857-58 (11th Cir. 2006 ) (h old ing r ec onsi de ratio n un de r Bo oke r w as ina ppr opr ia te be ca

use the re m an d w as f

or the li m ite d purp ose of

c or re ct ing asc ri ve ne r’ s e rr or ); Burr el l v. United States, 467 F.3d 160, 165-66 , 166 n.4 (2d Cir. 2006 ) (c onclud ing th at de fe ndant’ s se nte nc e w as the lawof the c as e be ca

use the r em an d w as str ic tly f or m inisterial purpos es, though re-sentencing in lig ht of Booker m ay have been ap pr op ria te ha d t he rem an d b een forre-s en te nc in g) . This Court’ s 2001 rem and was unrelate d to Mr. R odriguez’ s sentence. Law of the case pre cludes Mr. Rodriguez from now challenging his sentence under Bo ok er. W e aff irm th e d is tri ctco ur t i n a ll res pe ct s. AFFIR MED.