FILED U.S. COURT OF AP P E A LS E LE V EN T HC IRC U IT JULY 27, 2005 THOMAS K. KAH

N CLERK

Honora ble Richard Mills, United States District Judg e for the Central District of * I llinois , sitti ngby

designation. [ P UB L I S H] I N THE UN I TE D STATE S C OU RT OF APPE ALS F O R T H E E L E V E N T H C IR C U IT

________________________ N o. 03- 10694

________________________ D. C . Do c k e tNo . 9 9 - 0 0 5 8 3 - C R - P AS U N I T E D S T A T E S O F A M E R I C A , P la in tif f - A p p e lle e , v ersu s S A L V A D O R M A G L U T A , a .k .a . S a l, D e f e n d a n t- A p p e lla n t.

________________________ A pp ea l fr om the U ni t ed S t at es D i stri ctC ou rt f orthe S outhe rn D i s tr i c tof F l or i da

_________________________ ( Ju l y 27, 2005) B ef ore C A RN E S and C O X , C i rc ui tJudg es , and M IL L S , D i stri ctJudg e. *2

C A RN E S , C i rc ui tJudg e: I n A u g u s t o f

2 0 0 2 , a ju ry c o n v ic te d S a lv a d o rM a g lu ta o f tw e lv e c o u n ts : e ig h t c o u n ts o f

la u n d e r in g d ru g p r o c e e d s , a n d o n e c o u n t e a c h o f c o n s p ir a c y to l a unde rdrug pr oc e e ds , c ons pi r a c y t o obs truc tj us t i c e , obs truc t i on of j us t i c e by b ri b i n g a w i tn ess, an d o b stru ct i o n o f j u st i ce b y b ri b i n g a j u ro r. T h e j u ry al so r e tu rn e d a s p e c ia l f

o r f e itu r e v e r d ic t r e q u ir in g M a g lu ta to f o r f e it $ 1 5 m illio n in c u rr e n c y , a n d a ls o s o m e r e a l p r o p e r ty . I n J a nua ry of

2003, the di s tr i c tc our ts e nt e nc e d M a gl ut a t o 2, 460 m onths ( 205 y e a r s ) i n pr i s on. T he t ot a l s e nt e nc e w a s r a ng up thi s w a y : 240 m onths on e a c h of the e i ghts ubs t a nt i ve drug pr oc e e ds l a unde r i ng c ount s ; 240 m onths on the c o n s p ir a c y to la u n d e rc o u n t; 6 0 m o n th s o n th e c o n s p ir a c y to o b s tru c t ju s tic e c o u n t; 120 m onths on the obs truc t i on by br i bi ng a j ur orc ount ; a nd 120 m onths on the o b s tru c tio n b y b r ib in g a w itn e s s c o u n t. E a c h s e n te n c e w a s m a d e c o n s e c u tiv e to e v e ry o th e ro n e . M a gl ut a a s s e r t s tha thi s c onvi c t i ons on anum be rof the c ount s m us tbe r e ve r s e d a nd a l s o tha thi s s e nt e nc e w a s i nc or r e c t l y c a l c ul a t e d. F i r s t , he c ont e nds tha thi s c onvi c t i ons on a l l ni ne of the m one y l a unde r i ng c ount s ( e i ghts ubs t a nt i ve a nd one c ons pi r a c y ) m us tbe r e ve r s e d on c ol l a t e r a l e s t oppe l gr ounds . T he ba s i s f or thi s c ont e nt i on i s tha ts i x y e a r s be f or e thi s tr i a l he w a s a c qui tt e d of s ubs t a nt i ve3

drug offe nses , and evi dence of tho se offe nses w as used t o p rove the m on ey l aund er i ng char ges i n thi s tri al . S ec on d, M agl ut a c on t ends thatthe evi dence w as i ns uf f i c i e ntt o s uppor thi s c onvi c t i ons on the e i ghts ubs t a nt i ve m one y l a unde r i ng c o u n ts . M a gl ut a ’ s thi r d a nd f

our th c ont e nt i ons a tt a c k hi s c onvi c t i on on the obs truc t i on of

j us t i c e thr ough j ur orbr i be ry c ount . H e a r gue s tha ti tm us tbe re vers ed because the di stri ctcourterre d i n adm i tt i ng ce rt ai n o ut -of- court s ta te m e n ts o f

a b r ib e d ju r o ru n d e rth e c o - c o n s p ir a to re x c e p tio n to th e h e a r s a y ru le co n t ai n ed i n F ed . R . E v i d . 8 0 1 (d )(2 )(E ). H e al so arg u es th atth i s co n v i ct i o n m u st be r e ve r s e d be c a us e the di s tr i c tc our tdi d notgi ve a s pe c i a l una ni m i ty i ns truc t i on ge a r e d t o the i de nt i ty of the j ur orw ho w a s a l l e ge dl y br i be d. F if th , M a g lu ta c o n te n d s th a t d o c u m e n ta ry e v id e n c e v ita l to s e v e r a l o f h is c onvi c t i ons w a s s e i z e d a nd a dm i tt e d a ttr i a l i n vi ol a t i on of hi s F our th A m e ndm e nt r i g h t s th e r e b y t a i n t i n g s o m e o f h i s c o n v i c t i o n s . I f

we a g r e e , h e a s k s th a twe r e m a n d to th e d is tr ic t c o u r t w ith in s tru c tio n s f o rit to d e te r m in e w h ic h o f h is c o n v ic tio n s w e r e ta in te d b y th is a s s e r te d ly e rr o n e o u s ly in tr o d u c e d e v id e n c e . F in a lly , M a g lu ta m a k e s s e v e r a l a r g u m e n ts th a t h is s e n te n c e w a s in c o rr e c tly c a l c u l a t e d . We wi l l a d d r e s s e a c h o f th e s e s i x m a

j o rc o n t e n t i o n s i n th e o r d e rwe h a v e l i s t e d th e m.4 I. M agl ut a’ s a tt ac k o n h i s m on ey l aund er i ng conv i ct i on s i n thi s c as e c ent er s a r o u n d h is 1 9 9 6 a c q u itta l o n a ll o f th e tw e n ty - f

o u rd ru g - r e la te d c o u n ts a g a in s t h im . In thatea rl i erca se the di stri ctcourtgrant ed j ud gm ent s of a cqui tt al on se ven c ount s , a nd the j ury a c qui tt e d M a gl ut a of a l l of the r e m a i ni ng one s . A m ong the c ha r ge s f orw hi c h M a gl ut a w a s a c qui tt e d i n the e a r l i e rtr i a l w e r e : ope r a t i ng a c ont i nui ng c r i m i na l e nt e rpr i s e f r om J a nua ry 1978 thr ough A pr i l 1991; c ons pi r i ng t o i m por ta nd di s tr i but e c oc a i ne dur i ng tha ts a m e pe r i od of t i m e ; a nd e nga gi ng i n a num be rof

s ubs t a nt i ve drug i m por t a t i on a nd di s tr i but i on of f e ns e s f r om 1986 th ro u g h 1 9 8 9 . T h e co n t i n u i n g cri m i n al en t erp ri se co u n ti n th atearl i er case i ncorpo ra t ed al l of the conspi ra cy and sub st ant i ve drug offe nses thatw er e s e p a r a te ly c h a r g e d in th a t c a s e . M a gl ut a c ont e nds tha tthe 1996 a c qui tt a l e s t a bl i s he d tha the w a s not i nv ol ved i n d rug o ff

ense s duri ng the peri od s of t i m e c harged i n thatca se , w hi ch in c lu d e th e tim e s w h e n th e c r im e s c h a r g e d in th is c a s e to o k p la c e . H is p o s itio n is th atth e g o v ern m en tw as co l l at eral l y est o p p ed fro m i n tro d u ci n g i n th i s case evi dence of drug o ff

ense s a l l egedl y c om m i tt ed du ri ng the peri od s of t i m e c ov er ed b y th e c h a r g e s in th e f

ir s t c a s e . T h e d is tr ic t c o u r t d is a g r e e d , a n d s o d o w e . T he gove rnm e ntdi d i ntr oduc e i n thi s c a s e e vi de nc e of c r i m i na l a c t i vi ty f

orAs we sa y in the text , Mag luta was acquitted in the 1996 trial of c harg es that he had 1 committed drugoffenses beg inning in 1978. Hesaid duringthat trial he had cea sed all illeg al dr uga c tiv iti e s in

19 80 . A s a

c on se qu e nc eof

hishavinga c kn ow le dg e d th at hehad eng ag e d in dr uga c tiv iti e s unti l so metim ein 1 98 0, Mag lut a ha s n arrow e d th eiss ueheis raisingin t hisc a se to whether

the g overnment was collaterally estopped from attempting to provethat he eng ag ed in illegal drugactivities betwe en 1980 and 1991. To prov ethat Mag lut a

e ng ag e d in

mon e y la un deringun der 1 8 U .S. C. 2 § 1 95 6( a)( 1) (B )( i) , th eg ov e rnment h a d toe sta bli shthat: ( 1) Mag lut a

c on du c te d o r attempt e d to c on du c t a fina nc ial trans a c tio n; ( 2) thetrans a c tio n invo lve d th eproc e e ds of a statutorily specifie d unlawful activity ; (3) Mag luta knew the procee ds werefrom some for m of illeg al activity ; and (4) Mag luta knew a purpose of

the transaction was to conc eal or disguise thenature , location, source , owner ship, or control of the procee ds. See United States v. Majors, 196 F .3d 1206, 1212 (11th Cir. 1999). Fe lony drugoffenses qualify

as a “ specifie d unlawful activity” as that term is used in § 1956. See 18 U.S.C. §§ 1956(c) (7)( B) (i) &(A), 1961( 1). 5 w hi c h M a gl ut a ha d be e n a c qui tt e d i n the e a r l i e rc a s e . T he m one y l a unde r i ng conspi ra cy char ged i n thi s c as e i nv ol ved cri m i nal ac t i vi ty begi nn i ng i n January 19 79 and ext endi ng throu gh D ec em ber 200 1, and t he subst ant i ve m on ey l a unde r i ng c ha r ge s i nvol ve d c r i m i na l a c t i vi ty tha toc c urr e d i n O c t obe ra nd D ec em ber 199 8. In prov i ng tho se char ges i n thi s c as e, the go vernm enti ntrodu ce d e vi de nc e of

i l l e ga l drug a c t i vi t i e s tha tha d t a ke n pl a c e be tw e e n 1978 a nd 19 91 , w hi ch i s the peri od of t i m e a l l eged i n i nd i ctm enti n the ea rl i erca se w here M a g lu ta w a s a c q u itte d . T h e g o v e rn m e n t u s e d e v id e n c e o f th a t c r im in a l a c tiv ity in 1 o r d e rt o e s t a b l i s h i n th i s c a s e th e “ s p e c i f i e d u n l a w f

u l a c t i v i ty ” e l e me n t , 1 8 U . S. C. § 1 95 6(a) (1)( B )( i ), of the m on ey l aund er i ng char ges a gai nstM agl ut a. 2 “ T he doc tr i ne of

c ol l a t e r a l e s t oppe l i s a na rr ow e xc e pt i on t o the G ov ernm ent ’ s r i gh tt o p rose cut e adefe nd anti n separ at e tri al s f or re l at ed cond uct . ”6

U ni t ed S t at es v. B row n, 98 3 F . 2d 20 1, 20 2 (11 th C i r. 19 93 ); se e a l so U ni t ed S t at es v . G arci a, 7 8 F . 3 d 1 5 1 7 , 1 5 2 1 (1 1 th C i r. 1 9 9 6 ). C o l l at eral est o p p el “ b ars a s ubs e que ntpr os e c ut i on onl y w he r e a f a c tori s s ue ne c e s s a r i l y de t e r m i ne d i n the de f e nda nt ’ s f

a vori n the f

or m e rtr i a l i s a n e s s e nt i a l e l e m e ntof c onvi c t i on a tthe s e c ond tr i a l . ” B r ow n, 983 F . 2d a t202; s e e a l s o G a r c i a , 78 F . 3d a t1521. A p p ly in g th e c o lla te r a l e s to p p e l d o c tr in e r e q u ir e s a tw o - s te p a n a ly s is : F i rs t , a c ou rtm ustdeci de w hether i tca n asc ert ai n the basi s of the ac qu i tt al at th e f irst trial. M o re p re cise ly, a co u rt m u st d eter m in e w h eth erth e ju ry ’s ve r di c tof

a c qui tt a l w a s ba s e d upon r e a s ona bl e doubta bouta s i ngl e e l e m e nt of the cr i m e w hi ch the courtca n i dent i fy . [S ec on d] , the courtm ustthen de c i de w he the rtha te l e m e nti s a l s o a n e s s e nt i a l e l e m e ntof the c r i m e f

or w h ic h th e d e f

e n d a n t w a s c o n v ic te d in th e s e c o n d tr ia l. B r ow n, 983 F . 2d a t202. “ ‘ [ T ] he i de nt i ty of ove r l appi ng e l e m e nt s r e qui r e d f or col l at er al es t op pel m ustext end b ey on d the l egal defi ni t i on of the el em ent s. ’ T here a l s o ha s t o be s uc h f

a c tua l i de nt i ty of

the i s s ue s tha t‘ [ t ] he s ubs e que ntve r di c tof conv i ct i on [i s] ra t i on al l y i ncon si st entw i th the pri or verdi ctof ac qu i tt al . ’ ” G ar ci a, 78 F . 3d a t1521 ( quot i ng B r ow n, 983 F . 2d a t202) . T he bur de n of pe r s ua s i on i s on the de f e nda nta s t o both s t e ps of the a na l y s i s . I d. ; B r ow n, 983 F . 2d a t202. A s f or the fi rs tst ep, M agl ut a a rgues thatthe basi s of hi s 199 6 acqui tt al w as tha the ha d c e a s e d a l l drug tr a f f i c ki ng a c t i vi t i e s i n M a y 1980. T hi s ha s t o ha ve be e n the ba s i s f

orhi s a c qui tt a l , M a gl ut a s a y s , be c a us e i tw a s the onl y de f e ns e he putf orw a r d t o the c r i m e s a l l e ge d i n hi s 1996 tr i a l . W e c a n a s s um e w i thout7

de c i di ng tha tM a gl ut a i s r i ghta boutthi s poi nt , a nd the r e by s a t i s f i e s the f i r s ts t e p of the col l at er al es t op pel t es t , because he does notsa t i sf y the se cond on e. T h e seco n d st ep o f th e co l l at eral est o p p el t estreq u i res M ag l u t a t o est ab l i sh th atth e el em en t s o f th e cri m e o n w h i ch th e p ri o r acq u i tt al w as b ased are al so es se nt i al el em ent s of the cr i m e f or w hi ch he w as conv i ct ed atthe se cond tri al . S ee G arci a, 7 8 F . 3 d at1 5 2 1 ; B ro w n , 9 8 3 F . 2 d at2 0 2 . T h ati s t o say, M ag l u t a m u st s how tha tthe e l e m e nt s of the drug of

f e ns e s w hi c h l e d t o hi s a c qui tt a l i n the 1996 tri al ar e e ss ent i al el em ent s of the m on ey l aund er i ng offe nses for w hi ch he w as conv i ct ed i n thi s c as e. E ve n i f w e a c c e ptf

orpr e s e ntpurpos e s M a gl ut a ’ s pr e m i s e tha thi s 1996 a c qui tt a l e s t a bl i s he d he w a s noti nvol ve d i n the i l l e ga l drug a c t i vi ty w i th w hi c h he h ad b een ch arg ed i n th atearl i er case, his argu m en tst i l l fai l s. Itfai l s b ecau se M a gl ut a ’ s pe r s ona l i nvol ve m e nti n, orgui l tof , the c r i m i na l a c t i vi ty c ha r ge d i n the e a r l i e rc a s e i s nota n e l e m e ntof the m one y l a unde r i ng c ha r ge he w a s c onvi c t e d of i n thi s c a s e . T hi s i ndi c tm e ntc ha r ge d M a gl ut a w i th m one y l a unde r i ng i n vi ol a t i on of 18 U . S . C . § 1956( a ) ( 1) ( B ) ( i ) , w i th the s pe c i f i e d unl a w f

ul a c t i vi ty be i ng f

e l ony d ru g o f f e n s e s . T h e g o v e rn m e n t h a d to p r o v e th a t M a g lu ta , w ith th e r e q u is ite know l e dge a nd i nt e nt , c onduc t e d a f i na nc i a l tr a ns a c t i on i nvol vi ng the pr oc e e ds of f e l ony drug of

f e ns e s . S e e M a

j or s , 196 F . 3d a t1212. T he gove rnm e ntdi d notha ve8

t o p r o v e , h o we v e r , th a tMa g l u t a c o m m i tt e d th e f e l o n y d ru g o f

f e n s e s . S e e i d . As fa r a s the m on ey l aund er i ng st atut e i s c on ce rned, l aund er i ng som eone el se ’ s i l l egal pr oc e e ds i s j us ta s ba d a s l a unde r i ng y ourow n— the r e i s no he l p- thy - ne i ghbor e xc e pt i on t o § 1956( a ) ( 1) ( B ) ( i ) . A c c or di ngl y , the c ol l a t e r a l e s t oppe l e f f e c tof M a gl ut a ’ s 1996 a c qui tt a l of i l l e ga l drug a c t i vi ty doe s note xt e nd t o a ny of the e s s e n tia l e le m e n ts o f

th e m o n e y la u n d e r in g c h a r g e s o n w h ic h h e w a s c o n v ic te d in th is c a s e . II. M a g lu ta c h a lle n g e s th e s u f f ic ie n c y o f

th e e v id e n c e to s u p p o r t h is c o n v ic tio n s o n th e e ig h t s u b s ta n tiv e m o n e y la u n d e r in g c o u n ts . W h ile p h r a s e d in s uf f i c i e nc y of

the e vi de nc e t e r m s , M a gl ut a ’ s a c tua l c ha l l e nge he r e r a i s e s the i s s ue of w hether the re l evantfa ct s, w hi ch ar e e ss ent i al l y und i sput ed, const i tut e m on ey l a unde r i ng. A s w e ha ve m e nt i one d, M a gl ut aw a s c onvi c t e d of m one y l a unde r i ng c onduc t e d f

orthe purpos e of

c onc e a l i ng the na tur e , l oc a t i on, s our c e , ow ne r s hi p, or c o n tr o l o f

th e ille g a l d ru g p r o c e e d s , in v io la tio n o f 1 8 U .S .C . § 1 9 5 6 ( a ) ( 1 ) ( B ) ( i) . T he charges and evi dence ce nt er ed on the fa ctthatM agl ut a had pai d h i s l aw ye rs w ith c h e c k s w r itte n f

r o m a n I s r a e li b a n k a c c o u n t h e ld u n d e ra f ic titio u s n a m e . O n S ept em ber 10, 19 98 , R i char d P as sapera , a M agl ut a a ss oci at e, del i vere d $1 . 2 m i l l i on i n i l l egal drug proceeds t o A nt on i o G ar ci a, anot her M agl ut a a ss oci at e,9

i n M i a mi . U n b e k n o w n s tt o Pa s s ap e r a a n d M a g l u t a , h o w e v e r , G a r c i a h a d b e c o me a n F B I in f

o r m a n t. G a r c ia tu rn e d th e m o n e y o v e rto th e F B I , w h ic h tr a n s p o r te d it t o N e w Y or k w he r e i tga ve the m one y ba c k t o G a r c i a i n or de rt o c om pl e t e the tra nsac t i on . In N ew Y ork, G ar ci a gave the m on ey t o H arry K ozl i k and Is aa c B enat ar , w ho w er e a l so M agl ut a a ss oci at es . K ozl i k tra nspo rt ed the m on ey t o Isr ae l and d eposi t ed i ti n an Isr ae l i bank un der the fi ct i t i ou s nam e of “ L eonard F ri edm an. ” K ozl i k eventual l y provi ded G ar ci a w i th ei gh tbl ank checks i ss ued f r o m th e a c c o u n t. G a r c ia , a t th e d ir e c tio n o f th e F B I , p a s s e d th e c h e c k s o n to P a s s ap e r a . M a g lu ta th e n u s e d th e c h e c k s to p a y h is la w y e r s . M agl ut a m akes three ar gu m ent s t o sup po rthi s posi t i on thatthe es t abl i shed f a c t s a boutw ha thappe ne d t o the drug pr oc e e ds a r e nots uf f i c i e ntt o m a ke out m on ey l aund er i ng . H i s f i rs tar gu m enti s that , because the proceeds had been un der the cont rol of l aw enforce m entbefore he used them t o p ay hi s l aw ye rs , the m on ey had l osti t s “ t ai nt ed” c hara ct erand w as no l on ger procee ds of a s peci fi ed i l l egal ac t i vi ty i n the se nse r equi re d b y § 19 56 (a )( 1)(B )( i ). U nabl e t o fi nd a m on ey la u n d e r in g d e c is io n o f

a n y c o u r t o n p o in t w ith h is p o s itio n , M a g lu ta a s k s u s to dr a w a n a na l ogy t o s t ol e n pr ope r ty c a s e s , w he r e pr ope r ty l os e s i t s “ s t ol e n” char ac t eron ce i ti s r ec ov er ed and con trol l ed by l aw enforce m ent . S ee , e. g. , U ni t ed S ta te s v . C o h e n , 2 7 4 F . 5 9 6 , 5 9 9 ( 3 d C ir . 1 9 2 1 ) . W e a r e n o t p e r s u a d e d to d o th a t.18 U. S.C. § 1 95 6( a)( 1) state s: 3 (a)( 1) Who e ver, kn ow ingthat th eprop e rt y inv olv e d in

a fina nc ial tra ns a c tio n repre sents the proc eeds of

some form of unla

wful ac tivity , conducts or attempts to conduct such a 10 T he pl a i n l a ngua ge of

the m one y l a unde r i ng s t a tut e r e qui r e s tha tthe

“ f i na nc i a l tr a ns a c t i on . . . i n f a c ti nvol ve s the pr oc e e ds of [ a ] s pe c i f

i e d unl a w f

ul a c tiv ity .” 1 8 U .S .C . § 1 9 5 6 ( a ) ( 1 ) . B u t th e r e is n o th in g in th e s ta tu to ry la n g u a g e to s ugge s ttha t , i n a ddi t i on t o be i ng f r om a s pe c i f

i e d unl a w f

ul a c t i vi ty , the pr oc e e ds m us tne ve rha ve be e n i n the c ontr ol of the gove rnm e ntbe f

or e the y r e a c he d the d efen d an t . Itseem s t o u s th atl au n d ered m o n ey d o es n o tb eco m e an y l ess la u n d e r e d b e c a u s e th e g o v e rn m e n t h e lp e d th e p r o c e s s a lo n g o rc h o s e n o t to s to p it. H a v in g s a id th a t, w e a r e n o t a s k e d to d e c id e w h e th e rg o v e rn m e n t in tru s io n in to l aund er i ng tra nsac t i on s e ver c ou l d ri se t o the l evel thatthe m on ey no l on ger q u a lif ie s a s th e “p r o c e e d s o f

[ a ] s p e c if

ie d u n la w f

u l a c tiv ity ” u n d e r§ 1 9 5 6 ( a ) ( 1 ) . A ll w e m u s t d e c id e h e r e is w h e th e rth e le v e l o f g o v e rn m e n t in v o lv e m e n t in th is c a s e w a s e n o u g h to c h a n g e th e n a tu r e o f th e p r o c e e d s . O n th e f a c ts o f th is c a s e , it w a s n o t. M agl ut a’ s s ec on d argum enti s thatal l ow i ng ac tual drug proceeds w hi ch ha ve be e n i n the pos s e s s i on of the gove rnm e ntt o f

or m the ba s i s f

ora c onvi c t i on u n d e r§ 1 9 5 6 ( a ) ( 1 ) w o u l d ma k e th e mo n e y l a u n d e r i n g “ s t i n g ” s t a tu t e , 1 8 U . S. C. § 1956( a ) ( 3) , s upe r f

l uous . S e c t i ons 1956( a ) ( 1) a nd 1956( a ) ( 3) c ove rdi f f e r e nt 3f

i n an c i altran s a c t i o nwh i c hi nf a c ti nv o l v e s th ep ro c e e d s o f s p e c i f i e d un l aw f u la c t i v i ty—

. . . . (B ) knowingthat the monetar y instrument or funds involved in the transpor tation, trans mis sio n, or

trans fer repre sent t

heproc e e ds of

so mefo rm

of un lawf ul ac tiv ity and kn ow ingthat suc h transpo rt atio n, trans mis sio n, or trans fer i s d e signe d in wh oleor in p art

— (i) to conc eal or

disguise thenature , the location, the sourc e, the owner ship, or the control of theproce eds of spe cified unla wful ac tivity ; or

. . . . sh all b esentenc e d toa

fineof no t mo retha

n $ 50 0, 00 0 o r t

wi c ethevalueof

theprop e rt

y involved in the transac tion, whichever is greater, or imprisonment for not morethan twenty year s, or both. I d. (empha sis added). 18 U. S.C. § 1 95 6( a)( 3) state s: Who e ver, wi th t

heint e nt—

. . . . (B ) to conc eal or

disguise thenature , location, source , owner ship, or control of proper ty believed to bethe proc eeds of specifie d unlawful activity ; or

. . . . c on du c ts o r attempt s toc on du c t a fina nc ial trans a c tio n invo lvingprop e rt y repre sente d to betheproc e e ds of

sp e c if ie d unla wf ul ac tiv ity, o r p ropert

y us e d toc on du c t or

fac ili tate specifie d unlawful activity , shall be fined under this titl e or imprisoned f or not more than 20 year s, or both. I d. (empha sis added). 11 s itu a tio n s . T h e ( a ) ( 1 ) s u b d iv is io n c o v e r s s itu a tio n s w h e r e th e p r o c e e d s a r e a c tu a lly f r om a s pe c i f

i e d unl a w f

ul a c t i vi ty . 18 U . S . C . § 1956( a ) ( 1) . T he ( a ) ( 3) s ubdi vi s i on c ove r s s i tua t i ons w he r e the gove rnm e nt , ors om e pe r s on a tthe di r e c t i on of the g o v e rn m e n t, r e p r e s e n ts th a t th e p r o c e e d s a r e f r o m a s p e c if

ie d u n la w f

u l a c tiv ity though i n r e a l i ty the y a r e not . I d. § 1956( a ) ( 3) . T he tw o pr ovi s i ons s e r ve di f f e r e nt pu rposes . N ei ther provi si on i s r endered s up er fl uo us by ou r hol di ng thatthe l evel o f g o v e rn m e n t in v o lv e m e n t in th e la u n d e r in g in th is c a s e w a s n o t e n o u g h to12

c l e a ns e the s e “ pr oc e e ds of s pe c i f i e d unl a w f

ul a c t i vi ty ” of

the i rt a i ntf

or § 1 9 5 6 (a)(1 )(B )(i ) p u rp o ses. M a gl ut a ’ s thi r d a r gum e nton thi s i s s ue i s tha tby the t i m e he w r ot e the c h e c k s to h is la w y e r s th e m o n e y h a d a lr e a d y b e e n la u n d e r e d ; th e r e f o r e , h e s a y s , h is a c ts a m o u n te d to m e r e s p e n d in g f o rh is p e r s o n a l b e n e f

it, n o t la u n d e r in g in v io la tio n o f

§ 1 9 5 6 ( a ) ( 1 ) ( B ) ( i) . W e h a v e s ta te d th a t p a y m e n ts f o rp e r s o n a l b e n e f

it ou tof previ ou sl y l aund er ed proceeds do no tthem se l ves c on st i tut e m on ey l au n d eri n g u n l ess th ey are d esi g n ed t o co n ceal th e n atu re o r so u rce o f th e m o n ey. S e e M a jo r s , 1 9 6 F .3 d a t 1 2 1 3 ( in te rn a l q u o ta tio n a n d m a r k s o m itte d ) . W e have s etou tse vera l fa ct ors thatar e hel pful i n d et erm i ni ng w hether a tra nsac t i on w as desi gn ed t o con ce al as re qu i re d b y § 19 56 (a )( 1)(B )( i ). “ E vi dence th a t m a y b e c o n s id e r e d w h e n d e te r m in in g w h e th e ra tr a n s a c tio n w a s d e s ig n e d to c o n c e a l in c lu d e s , a m o n g o th e r s , s ta te m e n ts b y a d e f e n d a n t p r o b a tiv e [ o ]f

in te n t to c onc e a l ; unus ua l s e c r e c y s urr ound[ i ng] the tr a ns a c t i on; s truc tur i ng the tr a ns a c t i on i n a w ay t o avo i d att ent i on ; depo si t i ng i l l egal profi t s i n the bank ac coun tof a l egi t i m at e busi ness ; hi gh l y i rr egul arfe atures of the tra nsac t i on ; usi ng thi rd part i es t o c onc e a l the r e a l ow ne r ; a s e r i e s of unus ua l f

i na nc i a l m ove s c um ul a t i ng i n the tr a ns a c t i on; ore xpe r tt e s t i m ony on pr a c t i c e s of c r i m i na l s . ” I d. a t1213 n. 18 (e m ph as i s om i tt ed).13

M a gl ut a pa i d hi s l a w y e r s w i th c he c ks w r i tt e n on a n I s r a e l i ba nk a c c ount h e ld in a f

ic titio u s n a m e . T h e s e v e r a l tr a n s f e r s o f c a s h b e tw e e n M a g lu ta a s s oc i a t e s , the m ove m e ntof the c a s h f

r om M i a m i t o N e w Y or k t o I s r a e l , a nd the use of afore i gn ac coun thel d i n a fa l se nam e a re “ a s er i es of un usual fi nanci al m ov es ” w hi ch cul m i nat ed i n M agl ut a w ri t i ng the checks. S ee i d. T here thu s w as an ai r o f “ u n u su al secrecy su rro u n d [i n g ] th e tran sact i o n [s] . ” S ee i d . M ag l u t a’ s u se o f h i s asso ci at es, as w el l as th e fi ct i t i o u s “ L eo n ard F ri ed m an , ” d em o n strat e h i s u se o f “th ir d p a r tie s to c o n c e a l th e r e a l o w n e r ” o f th e m o n e y in th e f

o r e ig n a c c o u n t. S e e i d. T he f

i na l tr a ns a c t i on i t s e l f

— M a gl ut a w r i t i ng c he c ks on a f or e i gn a c c ount h e ld in a f

a ls e n a m e — is “h ig h ly irr e g u la r .” S e e id . I n s um , M a gl ut a w e ntt o gr e a tpa i ns t o c onc e a l the f a c ttha the w a s us i ng drug proceeds t o p ay hi s l aw ye rs . H i s doi ng so m ee t s the defi ni t i on of m on ey l a unde r i ng f

orpurpos e s of

§ 1956( a ) ( 1) ( B ) ( i ) , e ve n i f the f i na l tr a ns f

e rof the l a unde r e d pr oc e e ds w a s a l s o f orM a gl ut a ’ s pe r s ona l be ne f i t . S e e M a

j or s , 196 F . 3d a t1213 & n. 18; c f

. U ni t e d S t a t e s v. A bbe l l , 271 F . 3d 1286, 1298 ( 11th C i r . 2001) ( “W e b e lie v e it is e n o u g h f o r[ § 1 9 5 6 ( a ) ( 1 ) ( B ) ( i) ] th a t [ th e ] D e f e n d a n ts e n g a g e d in tra nsac t i on s f

rom w hi ch R od ri gu ez -O re j uel a r ec ei ved a benefi t(a nd m on ey s w er e p a id o n b e h a lf

o f R o d r ig u e z - O r e

ju e la ) w h ile c o n c e a lin g th a t R o d r ig u e z - O r e ju e la w as the source of the fund s. ”) . M agl ut a’ s c on vi ct i on s on the subst ant i ve m on eyWe have no wa y of knowingexactly

how larg e the bribe was that Moya re ceive d. The 4 rec ord does show, how ever , that although Moya and his fa mily were of mode st means, they made $330,000 in ca sh expenditures and bank deposits in the twenty-seven months following the trial. 14 l a unde r i ng c ount s s t a nd. III. M a gl ut a ’ s thi r d m a

j orc ont e nt i on i s tha thi s c onvi c t i on f orobs truc t i on of ju s tic e th r o u g h ju r o rb r ib e ry m u s t b e r e v e r s e d b e c a u s e th e d is tr ic t c o u r t e rr e d in a dm i tt i ng tw o out - of

- c our ts t a t e m e nt s m a de by M i gue l M oy a , w ho ha d be e n the j ury f orem an i n the 19 96 tri al . T he go vernm entused tho se st at em ent s t o p rove that M a g lu ta h a d b r ib e d M o y a to p r o d u c e a n a c q u itta l in th a t e a r lie rc a s e . T he fi rs tof the tw o st at em ent s i n q uest i on w as m ade by M oya t o u nd er cover F B I A g e n t J o a q u in G a r c ia in a r e c o r d e d c o n v e r s a tio n th a t to o k p la c e in J u ly 1 9 9 8 . I n tha tc onve r s a t i on G a r c i a t ol d M oy a tha the ha d be e n s e ntby M a gl ut a ( a nd M ag l u t a’ s co -d efen d an ti n th e 1 9 9 6 tri al , A u g u st o F al co n ) t o en su re th atM o ya keptqu i etabou tthe bri be he had rece i ved t w o-and-a-hal f y ea rs ea rl i er . A ft er p r o d d in g b y G a r c ia , M o y a a c k n o w le d g e d h a v in g a c c e p te d th a t b r ib e f r o m M a g lu ta a n d h is c o - d e f

e n d a n t F a lc o n . M o y a a s s u r e d G a r c ia th a t o n ly h is w if e a n d p a r e n ts 4 kne w he ha d r e c e i ve d the br i be m one y , a nd he pr om i s e d G a r c i a tha the w oul d not co o p erat e w i th au th o ri t i es. T he c our ta dm i tt e d M oy a ’ s s t a t e m e nt s a s non- he a r s a y s t a t e m e nt s of a c o-15

co n sp irato r u n d erF ed . R . E v id . 8 0 1 (d )( 2 )( E ). “W e r ev iew th e d istrict co u rt’s e vi de nt i a ry rul i ngs f

ora n a bus e of

di s c r e t i on, ” U ni t e d S t a t e s v. H a s ne r , 340 F . 3d 1 2 6 1 , 1 2 7 4 ( 1 1 th C ir . 2 0 0 3 ) , a n d w e m a y o v e r tu rn f in d in g s o f

f a c t o n ly if

c le a r ly erroneou s, U ni t ed S t at es v. G ri gg s, 73 5 F . 2d 13 18 , 13 25 (11t h C i r. 19 84 ).

“ U nde rR ul e 801( d) ( 2) ( E ) , s t a t e m e nt s of c o- c ons pi r a t or s m a de dur i ng the c our s e a nd i n f

ur the r a nc e of

the c ons pi r a c y a r e nothe a r s a y . F ore vi de nc e t o be ad m i ssi b l e u n d er R u l e 8 0 1 (d )(2 )(E ), th e g o v ern m en tm u stp ro v e b y a pr e ponde r a nc e of

the e vi de nc e the s e thi ngs : ( 1) a c ons pi r a c y e xi s t e d; ( 2) the c o n s p ir a c y in c lu d e d th e d e c la r a n t a n d th e d e f e n d a n t a g a in s t w h o m th e s ta te m e n t is of f e r e d; a nd ( 3) the s t a t e m e ntw a s m a de dur i ng the c our s e a nd i n f ur the r a nc e of

the conspi ra cy . In det erm i ni ng the adm i ss i bi l i ty of c o-conspi ra t or st at em ent s, the tri al courtm ay consi der bot h the co-conspi ra t or’ s s t at em ent s a nd i nd ependentext ernal e vi de nc e . ” H a s ne r , 340 F . 3d a t1274. I n rul i ng on the a dm i s s i bi l i ty of the conv er sa t i on betw ee n M oya a nd A gentG ar ci a und erR ul e 801 (d)( 2)(E ), the di stri ct c o u r t f o u n d th a t: [ T ]h is c o n s p ir a c y c o n tin u e d to e x is t u p th r o u g h J u ly o f 1 9 9 8 , w h e n th is statem en t w as m ad e. T h e C o u rt d o es fin d th at alth o u g h M r. M o ya ’s p a r tic ip a tio n w a s in ju s t o n e c o m p o n e n t, h e w a s a p a r tic ip a n t in th e o v e r a ll sc hem e. H e w ou l d n othave kn ow n al l of the i ns and o ut s of the conspi ra cy tha t ’ s c ha r ge d i n thi s I ndi c tm e nt , but. . . i n a gr e e i ng t o . . . a c c e pt [ ] the br i be f o rc o n v in c in g th e o th e rju r o r s to r e tu rn a ju d g m e n t o f a c q u itta l, h e is s till a m em b er o f th e co n sp i racy.16 H e s a ta nd l i s t e ne d t o the e vi de nc e i n the c a s e . . . tha tM r . F a l c on a nd M r. M agl ut a w er e par t i ci pant s i n a m aj or drug tra ff i cki ng organi za t i on ; that the m oni e s tha tw e r e c onne c t e d w i th the m w e r e pr oc e e ds of a m a j ordrug traffi ck i n g o rg an i zat i o n . . . . I fi n d th atth e g o v ern m en th as p ro v ed b y a prepon dera nce of the evi dence that. . . [M oya] kn ew thatthe [bri be] m on ey w a s f r o m a s p e c if

ie d u n la w f

u l a c tiv ity a n d , th e r e f

o r e , h e to o k a c tio n s to c ove rup hi s s udde n f

ound w e a l th i n c r e a t i ng a l l of the va r i ous gi f

t s of f unds t o hi s r e l a t i ve s a nd ne a rr e l a t i ve s a nd f r i e nds . . . . S o hi s pa rt i c i pa t i on a nd hi s a c t i ons c ont i nue t o e vi de nc e e f f or t s t o c ove rup hi s c r i m i na l a c t s . T he l a w doe s f

i nd tha ts uc h c onduc tof c ove r i ng up the a c t s a r e pa r ta nd pa r c e l of th e c o n s p ir a c y . M a gl ut a a r gue s tha ti f

he a nd M oy a c ons pi r e d t o obs truc tj us t i c e thr ough j ur orbr i be ry , the c e ntr a l purpos e of tha tc ons pi r a c y e nde d, a tthe l a t e s t , onc e the v e r d ic t in th e e a r lie rc a s e w a s r e n d e r e d in F e b ru a ry 1 9 9 6 . A s a r e s u lt, a c c o r d in g to M a g lu ta , M o y a ’s c o n v e r s a tio n w ith th e u n d e r c o v e rF B I a g e n t, w h ic h to o k p la c e in J ul y 1998, w a s notm a de dur i ng the c our s e of the j ur orbr i be ry c ons pi r a c y but i ns t e a d c a m e w e l l a f

t e rthe c ons pi r a c y ha d e nde d. I n G rune w a l d v. U ni t e d S t a t e s , 353 U . S . 391, 77 S . C t . 963 ( 1957) , the S up re m e C ou rthel d that : “ [A ] ft erthe ce ntra l cr i m i nal pu rposes of a c on spi ra cy ha ve be e n a tt a i ne d, a s ubs i di a ry c ons pi r a c y t o c onc e a l m a y notbe i m pl i e d f r om c i r c um s t a nt i a l e vi de nc e s how i ng m e r e l y tha tthe c ons pi r a c y w a s ke pta s e c r e ta nd tha tthe c ons pi r a t or s t ook c a r e t o c ove rup the i rc r i m e i n or de rt o e s c ape de t e c t i on and p un i shm ent . ” 353 U . S . at40 1– 02 , 77 S . C t . at97 2. T he C ou rtal so re cogn i ze d th a t “a v ita l d is tin c tio n m u s t b e m a d e b e tw e e n a c ts o f c o n c e a lm e n t d o n e in17

f ur the r a nc e of

the m a i n c r i m i na l obj e c t i ve s of the c ons pi r a c y , a nd a c t s of co n ceal m en td o n e aft er th ese cen tral o b j ect i v es h av e b een att ai n ed , fo r th e p u rp o se o n ly o f c o v e r in g u p a f

te rth e c r im e .” I d . a t 4 0 5 , 7 7 S . C t. a t 9 7 4 . T he c e ntr a l purpos e of

the j ur orbr i be ry c ons pi r a c y be tw e e n M a gl ut a a nd M oya w as t o sec ure a n acqui tt al for M agl ut a i n return for cas h. O nce the verdi ct w a s r e n d e r e d , th a t c e n tr a l p u rp o s e w a s c o m p le te d . A lth o u g h it w a s m u tu a lly u n d e r s t o o d th a tM a g l u t a a n d M o y a w o u l d c o n c e a l th e b r i b e , i n th e Su p r e me C ou rt ’ s w ords, tho se “ [a ] ct s of c ov er i ng up , even tho ug h d on e i n the cont extof a m utual l y und er st oo d n ee d for se cr ec y, ca nn otthem se l ves c on st i tut e proof that c onc e a l m e ntof

the c r i m e a f

t e ri t s c om m i s s i on w a s pa r tof the i ni t i a l a gr e e m e nt a m o n g th e c o n s p i r a t o r s . ” I d . a t4 0 2 , 7 7 S . C t . a t9 7 2 . I n l i g h to f Gru n e wa l d , we ca nn oti nferthata s ub si di ary c on spi ra cy t o con ce al the bri be M agl ut a had gi ven M oya e xi st ed for a l m osttw o-and-a-hal f- ye ar s a ft erthe bri bery agre em enthad b ee n m ad e a n d ca rr ied o u t. S ee id . at 4 0 1

– 0 2 , 7 7 S . C t. at 9 7 2 . A s a re su lt , M o ya ’s st at em entt o A gentG ar ci a w as no ti n furthera nce of the conspi ra cy t o o bstruct ju s tic e th r o u g h ju r o rb r ib e ry . T he gove rnm e nta r gue s , a nd the di s tr i c tc our t ’ s f i ndi ngs i ndi c a t e i tbe l i e ve d, thatM oya’ s s t at em ent s a re adm i ss i bl e und erR ul e 801 (d)( 2)(E ) on t he grou nd that i tw as i n fu rth eran ce o f an o th er co n sp i racy. U n d er th i s th eo ry, th ere w as aThat this conspirac y was not cha

rg ed in the indictment in this case doe s not matter. 5 United States v. Salisbury , 662 F.2d 738, 740 ( 11th Cir. 1981) (“Statements of a coconspirator may be introduce d into evidenceeven though the g overnment has not charg ed [the c oc on sp irator] wit

h c on sp ira c y

a s lo nga s th ee xistenc eof thec on sp ira c y

ha s b e e n p roperly established.”) . 18 c ons pi r a c y be tw e e n M a gl ut a a nd M oy a t o l a unde rdrug pr oc e e ds i n vi ol a t i on of § 1956( a ) ( 1) ( B ) ( i ) . T ha tc ons pi r a c y w oul d ha ve be gun w he n M oy a a c c e pt e d the b r ib e f r o m M a g lu ta , w h ic h w a s p a id o u t o f ille g a l d ru g p r o c e e d s , a n d it w a s s till o n g o in g a t th e tim e M o y a a s s u r e d A g e n t G a r c ia th a t h e w o u ld k e e p q u ie t ab o u t it. 5 W e w i l l a s s um e f

orthe m om e nttha tM oy a ’ s a c c e pt a nc e of the br i be m a de hi m a nd M a gl ut a pa r t i c i pa nt s i n a c ons pi r a c y t o l a unde rdrug pr oc e e ds unde r18 U . S . C . § 1956( a ) ( 1) ( B ) ( i ) . C f . A bbe l l , 271 F . 3d a t1298 ( a f f i r m i ng the de f

e nda nt l a w y e r s ’ c onvi c t i ons f

orvi ol a t i ng § 1956( a ) ( 1) ( B ) ( i ) w he r e the l a w y e r s ga ve m one y t o c e r t a i n i nm a t e s w hi l e c onc e a l i ng tha tthe m one y w a s be i ng pa i d a tthe di r e c t i on of

a nd on be ha l f

of the l a w y e r s ’ c l i e nt ) . E ve n w i th tha ta s s um pt i on the ar gu m entfa i l s und erG runew al d, because M oya’ s s t at em ent s t o A gentG ar ci a w er e notm a de dur i ng the c our s e of a nd i n f ur the r a nc e of

tha tm one y l a unde r i ng co n sp i racy. A s w e m e nt i one d be f

or e , M oy a ’ s s t a t e m e nt s t o A ge ntG a r c i a oc c urr e d tw oa nd- a - ha l f

y e a r s a f t e rM oy a a c c e pt e d the br i be . A s s um i ng M a gl ut a ’ s pa y m e ntof the br i be t o M oy a c ons t i tut e d a c ons pi r a c y be tw e e n the m t o l a unde rdrug pr oc e e ds19

i n the a m ountof

the br i be , the e vi de nc e doe s nots uppor ta n i nf e r e nc e tha tthe i ni t i al conspi ra cy i ncl ud ed a “ subsi di ary c on spi ra cy t o con ce al ” w hi ch w as on go i ng so l on g aft erthe bri be— the si ng l e a ctof m on ey l aund er i ng — had o c c u rr e d . S e e G ru n e w a ld , 3 5 3 U .S . a t 4 0 1

– 0 2 , 7 7 S . C t. a t 9 7 2 . M oy a ’ s s t a t e m e nt s t o A ge ntG a r c i a do c ons t i tut e a n a tt e m ptt o ke e p a ny i ni t i a l c ons pi r a c y s e c r e t , buttha ta tt e m pti s note nough by i t s e l f t o e s t a bl i s h the coverup t w o-and-a-hal f y ea rs l at erw as partof the i ni t i al agre em entbetw ee n M a g lu ta a n d M o y a . A s th e S u p r e m e C o u r t e x p la in e d : “[ E ]v e ry c o n s p ir a c y is b y its ve ry na tur e s e c r e t ; a c a s e c a n ha r dl y be s uppos e d w he r e m e n c onc e r tt oge the rf or c r im e a n d a d v e r tis e th e irp u rp o s e to th e w o r ld . A n d a g a in , e v e ry c o n s p ir a c y w ill in e v itab ly b e f

o llo w e d b y a c tio n s ta k e n to c o v e rth e c o n s p ir a to r s ’ tr a c e s . S a nc t i oni ng the gove rnm e nt ’ s the or y w oul d f ora l l pr a c t i c a l purpos e s w i pe outthe s t a tu t e o f l i mi t a t i o n s i n c o n s p i r a c y c a s e s , a s w e l l a s e x t e n d i n d e f i n i t e l y th e t i me w ith in w h ic h h e a r s a y d e c la r a tio n s w ill b in d c o - c o n s p ir a to r s .” I d . a t 4 0 2 , 7 7 S . C t. a t972. T hatM oya tri ed t o h i de the source of the fund s he use d t o m ake purchase s f orhi m s e l f

a nd hi s f a m i l y doe s notbr i ng thos e a c t s i nt o a ny e a r l i e rdrug l aund er i ng conspi ra cy betw ee n M agl ut a a nd M oya. W hat evercr i m es M oya m ay h a v e c o m m itte d b y c o n c e a lin g th e s o u r c e o f th e f u n d s th a t h e u s e d to p a y f o rh is20

pu rc hase s, there i s no evi dence t o sug gestthatm aki ng them w as partof the i ni t i al c ons pi r a c y be tw e e n hi m a nd M a gl ut a . O the rw i s e , the gove rnm e ntc oul d ha ve c ha r ge d M a gl ut a w i th m one y l a unde r i ng f ore ve ry pur c ha s e M oy a m a de w i th the br i be pr oc e e ds ; tha tw oul d notbe a r e a s ona bl e i nt e rpr e t a t i on of the c ons pi r a c y a nd m on ey l aund er i ng l aw s. B ec ause the l at ertra nsac t i on s thatM oya e ng aged i n w er e notpa r tof

the “ i ni t i a l a gr e e m e nt ” be tw e e n hi m a nd M a gl ut a , s e e G rune w a l d, 353 U . S . a t402, 77 S . C t . a t972, the y do note xt e nd the l i f e of the m one y l a unde r i ng c o n s p ir a c y th a t b e g a n in J a n u a ry o f 1 9 9 6 to in c lu d e M o y a ’s J u ly 1 9 9 8 s ta te m e n ts to A g en t G ar cia. A s a re su lt , th e d istrict co u rt sh o u ld n o t h av e a d m itted M o ya ’s st at em ent s t o A gentG ar ci a pursuantt o R ul e 801 (d)( 2)(E ). T he gove rnm e nta r gue s tha t , e ve n i f the di s tr i c tc our te rr e d by a dm i tt i ng M oya’ s s t at em ent s t o A gentG ar ci a, the error w as harm l es s bec ause i tpres ent ed other e vi dence t o sup po rtthe ob struct i on of j ust i ce throu gh j uror bri bery c o n v ic tio n . A s w e h a v e p r e v io u s ly m a d e c le a r , a “n o n - c o n s titu tio n a l e rr o ris ha r m l e s s i f

, vi e w i ng the pr oc e e di ngs i n the i re nt i r e ty , a c our tde t e r m i ne s tha tthe e rr ordi d nota f

f e c tthe ve r di c t , ‘ orha d butve ry s l i ghte f f e c t . ’ ” U ni t e d S t a t e s v. H orna da y , 392 F . 3d 1306, 1315 ( 11th C i r . 2004) ( c i t a t i ons om i tt e d) ( quot i ng K ott e a kos v. U ni t e d S t a t e s , 328 U . S . 750, 762, 764, 66 S . C t . 1239, 1246, 1248 ( 1946) ) . F ur the r m or e , “ [ i ] f one c a n s a y ‘ w i th f

a i ra s s ur a nc e . . . tha tthe j udgm e ntMoya’s e x -wifetestified that on J anuar y 31, 1996 (which w as duringMag luta’s 6 previous trial) at approxim ately sixo’cloc k in the eveningMoya re ceive d a telephonecall at home from a

man named E ddy . In responseto the call Moya lef t the house, and two to thre e hours later

cameback c arr

ying a brown pa per bag . Ms. Moya aske d him what was in it. He s h o w e d h e r th ec o nt e nt s o f

th eb ag : b un dl e s o f

c a s h . S h et e s t i f

i e d th atwh e ns h ea s k e d

M o ya what the money

was for , “[h] e said it was g iven to him in order to per suade thejury in the trial that he wa s on.” Ac cordingto Ms. Moya, when she aske d her husba nd why he had taken the bribe, Moya told her that “[h] e had to do it,” a nd “he c ouldn’t g et out of what he was doing .” She did not testify

that Mag luta was mentioned. In light of this conc lusion, we haveno rea son to address the issue Mag luta has raised 7 involving the admission of the statements Moya madeto his wife at the time. 21 w as no tsubst ant i al l y s w ay ed by the error, ’ the j ud gm enti s due t o b e a ff i rm ed even th o u g h th e r e w a s e rr o r . ” I d . a t1 3 1 5

– 1 6 ( q u o t i n g K o tt e a k o s , 3 2 8 U . S. a t7 6 4 , 6 6 S. C t . a t1248) . T he gove rnm e ntha s notm e tthi s s t a nda r d. M oy a ’ s s t a t e m e nt s t o A ge ntG a r c i a c ons t i tut e d the e vi de nc e di r e c t l y ty i ng M a gl ut a t o the br i be . E ve n i f w e w e r e t o c ons i de rM oy a ’ s s t a t e m e ntt o hi s the nw i fe (the ot her s t at em entthatM agl ut a a ss ert s w as erroneou sl y i ntrodu ce d), w e a re l e f tonl y w i th the c onc l us i on tha tM oy a w a s br i be d, nottha ti tw a s M a gl ut a w ho pai d the bri be. A l tho ug h com m on se nse w ou l d sug gestthatM agl ut a w as 6 in v o lv e d , M a g lu ta w a s b e in g tr ie d w ith a c o - d e f e n d a n t w h o h a d a s m u c h r e a s o n to br i be j ur or s a s M a gl ut a di d. W i th no othe rdi r e c te vi de nc e l i nki ng M a gl ut a t o the br i be , w e “ c a nnots a y , w i th f a i ra s s ur a nc e , . . . tha tthe j udgm e ntw a s not subst ant i al l y s w ay ed by the error. ” S ee K ot t ea ko s, 32 8 U . S . at76 5, 66 S . C t . at 1 2 4 8 . T h e e rr o r, th er ef

o re , w as n o t h ar m less . F o r th es e r ea so n s, M ag lu ta’s c onvi c t i on f

orobs truc t i on of

j us t i c e thr ough j ur orbr i be ry i s due t o be r e ve r s e d. 722 I V. M a gl ut a ’ s f

our th c ont e nt i on i s tha thi s c onvi c t i on on the obs truc t i on of j u s t i c e th r o u g h j u r o rb r i b e ry c o u n tm u s tb e r e v e r s e d f o ra n a d d i t i o n a l r e a s o n . He arg u es th atth e d i stri ctco u rterred w h en i tfai l ed t o i n stru ctth e j u ro rs i n th i s case nott o c onvi c ton thi s c ountunl e s s the y una ni m ous l y a gr e e d on w hi c h j ur oror ju r o r s M a g lu ta h a d b r ib e d in th e e a r lie rc a s e . B e c a u s e w e h a v e a lr e a d y d e c id e d to r e v e r s e th e c o n v ic tio n o n th is c o u n t f o ro th e rr e a s o n s , w e n e e d n o t a d d r e s s th is cont ent i on any f

urther. V. M a g lu ta ’s f

if th c o n te n tio n is th a t th e d is tr ic t c o u r t e rr e d b y d e n y in g h is m o t i o n t o su p p ress certai n d o cu m en t s sei zed o n O ct o b er 1 5 , 1 9 9 6 . T h o se doc um e nt s w e r e f

ound i ns i de a box tha tw a s s e i z e d w i thouta w a rr a ntf r om the tru n k o f a c a rd r iv e n b y M a r ily n B o n a c h e a , a n a s s o c ia te o f M a g lu ta . M a g lu ta a r gue s tha tthe of

f i c e r s l a c ke d pr oba bl e c a us e t o s e a r c h the box of doc um e nt s a nd, a s a r e s u lt, h is F o u rth A m e n d m e n t r ig h ts w e r e v io la te d . O n O ct o b er 1 5 , 1 9 9 6 , w h i ch w as aft er M ag l u t a w as acq u i tt ed i n th e fi rst tri al , G uy L ew i s, then an A ss i st antU ni t ed S t at es A tt orney i n M i am i , re ce i ved an a nony m ous t e l e phone c a l l . T he c a l l e ra dvi s e d L e w i s tha tl a t e rtha tm or ni ng B ona c he a w oul d be tr a ns por t i ng c e r t a i n doc um e nt s f r om he rhom e t o the of

f i c e of23

M a gl ut a ’ s l a w y e r . L e w i s kne w B ona c he a w a s a c l os e a s s oc i a t e of M a gl ut a . T he ca l l ersa i d thatthe do cum ent s B on ac hea w ou l d b e tra nspo rt i ng cont ai ned i nf or m a t i on r e l a t i ng t o the ongoi ng M a gl ut a i nve s t i ga t i on, i nc l udi ng i nf or m a t i on a bouthow drug m one y ha d be e n us e d t o br i be i ndi vi dua l s t o gi ve f a l s e t e s t i m ony in th e e a r lie rtr ia l. T h e c a lle rs a id th a t B o n a c h e a w o u ld b e le a v in g h e rh o m e in s o u th D a d e C o u n ty a t a s p e c if ie d tim e a n d g a v e th e a d d r e s s . T h e c a lle ra ls o to ld L e w i s tha tB ona c he a w oul d be dr i vi ng a r e nt a l c a r , w hi c h the c a l l e rde s c r i be d, a nd tha tB ona c he a c om m onl y s m oke d m a r i j ua na w he n dr i vi ng. T hi s w a s the s e c ond c a l l A U S A L e w i s ha d r e c e i ve d f r om thi s a nony m ous c a l l e r . T he pr e vi ous c a l l ha d pr ovi de d L e w i s w i th a n a ddr e s s f orB ona c he a ’ s s on atB on ac hea’ s hom e, the sa m e a dd re ss fr om w hi ch the ca l l ersa i d thatB on ac hea w o u ld b e le a v in g la te rth a t d a y . Im m edi at el y a ft erre ce i vi ng the se cond ca l l , A U S A L ew i s c on t ac t ed S peci al A gentJa ne A ng l es t ea d o f the D rug E nforcement A gency a nd S er geantR ob ert F ie ld e ro f

th e M ia m i P o lic e D e p a r tm e n t, b o th o f w h o m w e r e in v e s tig a tin g M a g lu ta and k new of hi s i nt i m at e r el at i on shi p w i th B on ac hea. A ng l es t ea d h ad been in v o lv ed in p ro se cu ti o n s o f M ag lu ta sin ce 1 9 9 1 . S h e k n ew fr o m B o n ac h ea ’s te s tim o n y in th o s e c a s e s th a t s h e h a d b e e n a s s o c ia te d w ith M a g lu ta f o ra lo n g tim e . A ng l es t ea d w as al so aw ar e thatatsom e t i m e i n the 19 80 s B on ac hea had rec ei ved24

ap p r o x im a te ly $ 5 8 5 ,0 0 0 f r o m M a g lu ta f

o rth e p u r c h a s e o f

a h o u s e in S o u th F l ori da, a hou se thatw as l ocat ed adj ac entt o M agl ut a’ s property. A ng l es t ea d k new thattw o o f the checks us ed for the ho use had com e f rom a B aham i an ac coun tthat M agl ut a m ai nt ai ned u nd eranot her nam e. F urtherm ore, A ng l es t ea d w as aw ar e that B on ac hea had fre qu ent l y vi si t ed M agl ut a w hi l e he w as i ncar ce ra t ed i n a fe dera l det ent i on ce nt eraw ai t i ng tri al . B as ed on thi s kno w l edge, A ng l es t ea d surm i se d that B ona c he a m i ghtve ry w e l l ha ve the ki nd of doc um e nt s de s c r i be d by the anon ym ou s c al l er . S hor t l y a f

t e rbe i ng t ol d by A U S A L e w i s of the a nony m ous c a l l e a r l i e ri n the da y , A ge ntA ngl e s t e a d w e ntt o B ona c he a ’ s r e s i de nc e . T he r e s i de nc e w a s a tthe a ddr e s s the c a l l e rha d s a i d i tw a s . T he r e A ngl e s t e a d s a w ar e nt a l ve hi c l e m a t c hi ng th e c a lle r ’s d e s c r ip tio n , a n d w a tc h e d B o n a c h e a le a v e th e h o u s e w ith in tw e n ty m i n u t es o f th e t i m e th atth e cal l er h ad p red i ct ed . F l o ri d a H i g h w ay P atro l o ffi cers, w h o h a d b e e n c o n ta c te d b y S e r g e a n t F ie ld e r , f o llo w e d B o n a c h e a . A f te rd e te r m in in g th a t B o n a c h e a w a s s p e e d in g , th e o f f ic e r s p u lle d h e ro v e r . T hey c on fi rm ed w i th h erthatthe ca r w as a r ent al . O ne troop erno t i ce d w hat appe a r e d t o be m a r i

j ua na s e e ds i n the a s htr a y . A s a r e s ul t , he c a l l e d i n a drug dog w ho, a f t e re xa m i ni ng the c a r , a l e r t e d t o the c ons ol e a r e a w he r e tw o m a r i j ua na c i ga r e tt e s w e r e the n f

ound. B ona c he a w a s a rr e s t e d a nd the tr oope ri nve nt or i e d the25

vehi cl e, no t i ng the parce l s of paperw ork i n the trunk . S er geantF i el der then arri ved a t th e s c e n e a n d in f

o r m e d B o n a c h e a th a t h e w a s g o in g to in s p e c t th e v e h ic le . B on ac hea obj ec t ed, cl ai m i ng thatthere w er e docum ent s i n the trunk st am ped

“ a tt orne y - c l i e ntpr i vi l e ge . ” F i e l de rpr oc e e de d t o ope n the trunk a nd f ound a c a r d b o a r d b o x c o n ta in in g , a m o n g o th e rth in g s , w h a t h e r e c o g n iz e d a s d ru g le d g e r s . T h e m a g is tr a te ju d g e ’s r e p o r t r e c o m m e n d e d th a t M a g lu ta la c k e d s ta n d in g to o b je c t to a n y a lle g e d v io la tio n o f th e F o u rth A m e n d m e n t a n d th a t, in a n y e v e n t, la w e n f o r c e m e n t h a d p r o b a b le c a u s e to s e a r c h th e tru n k . T h e d is tr ic t c o u r t, w ith th e e x c e p tio n o f

tw o f a c tu a l d e ta ils n o t r e le v a n t h e r e , a d o p te d th e m a g is tr a te ju d g e ’s f a c tu a l f in d in g s a n d le g a l c o n c lu s io n s a n d d e n ie d M a g lu ta ’s m o tio n to s u p p r e s s . M a gl ut a c ha l l e nge s both the di s tr i c tc our t ’ s de c i s i on tha the l a c ke d s t a ndi ng an d it s d ec isio n th at law en fo rc em en t h ad p ro b ab le ca u se to se ar ch B o n ac h ea ’s trunk. “ [ W ] e appl y a m i xe d s t a nda r d of r e vi e w t o the di s tr i c tc our t ’ s de ni a l of the s u p p r e s s io n m o tio n , r e v ie w in g th e c o u r t’s f in d in g s o f

f a c t f o rc le a re rr o ra n d its appl i c a t i on of

the l a w t o thos e f

a c t s de novo. ” U ni t e d S t a t e s v. T i noc o, 304 F . 3d 1 0 8 8 , 1 1 1 6 ( 1 1 th C ir . 2 0 0 2 ) . B e c a u s e w e f in d th a t th e d is tr ic t d id n o t e rrin de t e r m i ni ng tha tthe l a w e nf or c e m e ntof

f i c e r s ha d pr oba bl e c a us e t o s e a r c h the cont ent s of B on ac hea’ s c ar , w e w i l l as sum e, w i tho utdeci di ng , thatM agl ut a has26

s t a ndi ng t o a l l e ge a F our th A m e ndm e ntvi ol a t i on. I n m o s t c ir c u m s ta n c e s , f o ra s e a r c h th a t is n o t b a s e d o n c o n s e n t to c o m p ly w i th the F our th A m e ndm e nt , l a w e nf or c e m e ntm us tobt a i n a w a rr a nts uppor t e d by pr oba bl e c a us e . T he r e a r e , how e ve r , e xc e pt i ons . U nde rthe a ut om obi l e e xc e pt i on t o the w arra ntre qu i re m ent , offi ce rs ca n sea rc h any cont ai ner i n an o pera t i on al ca r w i tho uta w arra ntas l on g as they have probable cause t o b el i eve thatthe cont ai ner h o l d s e v i d e n c e o f

a c r i me . Ca l i f

o rn i a v . A c e v e d o , 5 0 0 U . S. 5 6 5 , 5 7 9

– 8 0 , 1 1 1 S. C t . 19 82 , 19 91 (199 1); U ni t ed S t at es v. W att s, 32 9 F . 3d 12 82 , 12 86 (11t h C i r. 20 03 ). B ec ause there i s no d i sput e thatthe ca r B on ac hea w as dri vi ng w as o p e r a tio n a l, o u rin q u iry is lim ite d to d e te r m in in g w h e th e rth e o f f ic e r s h a d p r o b a b le cau se t o b el i ev e th atth e b o x i n h er car co n t ai n ed ev i d en ce o f a cri m e. S ee W att s, 329 F . 3d a t1286. “ P r oba bl e c a us e f ora s e a r c h e xi s t s w he n unde rthe t ot a l i ty of th e c i r c u ms t a n c e s ‘ th e r e i s a f a i rp r o b a b i l i ty th a tc o n tr a b a n d o re v i d e n c e o f a c r i me w i l l be f ound i n a pa r t i c ul a rpl a c e . ’ ” U ni t e d S t a t e s v. G odda r d, 312 F . 3d 1360, 1 3 6 3 ( 1 1 th C ir . 2 0 0 2 ) ( q u o tin g I llin o is v . G a te s , 4 6 2 U .S . 2 1 3 , 2 3 8 , 1 0 3 S . C t. 23 17 , 23 32 (198 3)). U n d e rth e c ir c u m s ta n c e s o f th is c a s e , th e a n o n y m o u s tip r e c e iv e d e a r lie rin the sa m e day i s e nt i t l ed t o sub st ant i al w ei gh ti n the anal ys i s of w hether l aw e nf or c e m e ntha d pr oba bl e c a us e t o be l i e ve tha tthe box i n B ona c he a ’ s trunk27

c ont a i ne d e vi de nc e of

c r i m i na l a c t i vi ty . S e e ge ne r a l l y G a t e s , 462 U . S . a t237–39, 1 0 3 S . C t. a t 2 3 3 2

– 3 3 ( n o tin g th a t a n o n y m o u s tip s a r e c o n s id e r e d in th e p r o b a b le ca u se d eter m in atio n ). In ad d it io n to n o ti fy in g law en fo rc em en t th at B o n ac h ea ’s c a rw oul d be c a rry i ng doc um e nt s e vi de nc i ng drug a c t i vi ty , the c a l l e rpr ovi de d the corr ec tl ocat i on of B on ac hea’ s r es i dence, an ac cura t e des cr i pt i on of the re nt al ca r s h e w o u ld b e d r iv in g , a n d p r e d ic te d th a t B o n a c h e a w o u ld d e p a r t w ith in tw e n ty m in u tes o f th e tim e s h e a ctu ally d id . T h e c aller w as also co rr ec t ab o u t B o n ac h ea ’s sm ok i ng m ar i

j uana i n the ca r. (A fa ctdi sc ov er ed af t erthe ca r w as l aw ful l y s t op ped for s peedi ng . ) A l l of thi s i nform at i on fr om the ca l l erw as corr ob orat ed by l aw e n f o r c e m e n t o f

f ic e r s b e f o r e th e b o x in th e tru n k o f B o n a c h e a ’s c a rw a s s e a r c h e d . S ee i d. at24 1, 10 3 S . C t . at23 34 (“ O ur deci si on s app l yi ng the t ot al i ty- of-thec i r c um s t a nc e s a na l y s i s . . . ha ve c ons i s t e nt l y r e c ogni z e d the va l ue of c orr obor a t i on of det ai l s of a n i nform ant ’ s t i p b y i nd ependentpo l i ce w ork. ”) . Fu r th e r mo r e , o n a p r e v i o u s o c c a s i o n , th i s s a me c a l l e rh a d p r o v i d e d A U SA Le w i s w i th th e a d d r e s s w h e r e Bo n a c h e a ’ s s o n w a s s t a y i n g . Th a tw a s th e s a me a ddr e s s tha tB ona c he a l e f tf r om on O c t obe r15, 1996, a s the c a l l e rha d s a i d s he w ou l d, and atabou tthe t i m e the ca l l erhad sai d. T he l aw enforce m entoffi ce rs w er e a l so aw ar e of B on ac hea’ s i nt i m at e r el at i on shi p w i th M agl ut a, thatshe knew hi s organi za t i on , and t hatshe oft en vi si t ed hi m i n j ai l . F rom these fa ct s, they28

r e a s o n a b ly in f

e rr e d th a t B o n a c h e a w a s a p e r s o n lik e ly to b e h o ld in g f o rM a g lu ta the ki nd of

doc um e nt s de s c r i be d by the a nony m ous c a l l e r . A l l of the s e pi e c e s of i n fo rm at i o n b o l st er th e cal l er’ s cred i b i l i ty. B a s e d o n th e t o t a l i ty o f

th e c i r c u m s t a n c e s l e a d i n g u p th e s e a r c h , we c onc l ude tha tthe di s tr i c tc our tdi d note rri n hol di ng tha tthe l a w e nf or c e m e nt of f i c e r s ha d pr oba bl e c a us e t o be l i e ve tha tthe box l oc a t e d i n the trunk of B o n a c h e a ’s r e n ta l c a rc o n ta in e d e v id e n c e o f a c r im e . V I. T h e r e m a in d e ro f

M a g lu ta ’s c o n te n tio n s a tta c k h is 2 0 5 - y e a rs e n te n c e . B e c a us e w e ha ve a l r e a dy de c i de d tha tM a gl ut a ’ s c onvi c t i on f orobs truc t i on of j us t i c e thr ough j ur orbr i be ry m us tbe r e ve r s e d, on r e m a nd i tw i l l be ne c e s s a ry f or the di s tr i c tc our tt o s tr i ke the 120- m onth s e nt e nc e i m pos e d f ortha tc ount . S tr i ki ng that12 0-m on th sent ence w i l l l ea ve M agl ut a w i th a se nt ence of 19 5 yea rs im p r is o n m e n t. M a gl ut a c ont e nds tha tthi s r e m a i ni ng port i on of hi s s e nt e nc e m us tbe v a c a te d f o ro th e rr e a s o n s . F o ro n e th in g , h e a r g u e s th a t th e d is tr ic t c o u r t e rr e d in det erm i ni ng thatthe val ue of the drug m on ey he had l aund er ed w as $ 3 5 ,4 9 8 ,9 5 7 .8 0 , a d e te r m in a tio n th a t a f f e c te d h is to ta l o f

f e n s e le v e l. A c c o r d in g to M agl ut a, the j ury’ s s peci al forf ei ture ver di ctof $1 5 m i l l i on shou l d h ave been a c ap29

on the va l ue of

the f unds tha tthe di s tr i c tc our tc oul d f i nd w e r e i nvol ve d i n the m o n ey l au n d eri n g sch em e fo r p u rp o ses o f cal cu l at i n g h i s sp eci fi c o ffen se char ac t er i st i cs pu rs uantt o U . S . S . G . § 2 S 1. 1(b)(2) (2000 ). If M agl ut a i s c orre ct a b o u tth i s , h i s t o t a l o f

f e n s e l e v e l s h o u l d h a v e b e e n 4 1 i n s t e a d o f 4 3 . S e e U. S . S . G. § 2 S 1. 1(b) (200 0). M a gl ut a c a s t s thi s a r gum e nti n c ol l a t e r a l e s t oppe l t e r m s , s a y i ng tha t“ [ t ] he di s tr i c tc our tvi ol a t e d pr i nc i pl e s of c ol l a t e r a l e s t oppe l by r e f us i ng t o a c c e ptthe j u ry’ s sp eci al fo rfei tu re v erd i cto f $ 1 5 m i l l i o n as a cap o n th e ‘ v al u e o f th e fu n d s’ l a unde r e d. ” A ppe l l a nt ’ s I ni t i a l B r . a t51. T he c our tw a s c ol l a t e r a l l y e s t oppe d, a c c or di ng t o M a gl ut a , be c a us e the j ur y ’ s f or f e i tur e i nqui ry m a t c he s e xa c t l y the § 2 S1 . 1 ( b ) ( 2 ) i n q u i ry th e j u d g e w a s t o ma k e a ts e n t e n c i n g , a n d th e s a me pr e ponde r a nc e of

the e vi de nc e s t a nda r d of pr oof w a s appl i c a bl e t o the j ury a nd the ju d g e . W e n ee d n o t d ec id e if th e d istrict co u rt er re d in ca lcu lati n g M ag lu ta’s offe nse l evel usi ng an am ou ntgrea t erthan t he $1 5 m i l l i on fi gu re thatthe j ury foun d i n i t s s peci al forf ei ture verdi ct , because w e w ou l d n otvaca t e the se nt ence e ve n i f the c our tdi d. H a vi ng r e vi e w e d the r e c or d, w e a r e c onvi nc e d tha ta ny e rr or of tha tna tur e w a s ha r m l e s s . S e e U ni t e d S t a t e s v. H e r s h, 297 F . 3d 1233, 1248 ( 11th C i r . 2002) ( s e nt e nc i ng e rr or s a r e r e vi e w e d f orha r m l e s s e rr or ) . D ur i ng the30

c o u r s e o f th e s e n te n c in g h e a r in g , th e d is tr ic t c o u r t s ta te d : “S h o u ld th e E le v e n th C ir c u it d e te r m in e th a t th e C o u r t’s r e a s o n in g [ in a rr iv in g a t th e g u id e lin e s r a n g e ] is i n e rr or , I w oul d e m pl oy a n upw a r d de pa r tur e t o i m pos e a s e nt e nc e out s i de of the G u i d el i n e ran g e u n d er th e ap p l i cab l e l aw t o reach th e sam e resu l t . A n d th ati s a departure t o o ff

ense l evel 43 re qu i ri ng a l i fe se nt ence . ” S ent enci ng T r. at69 1. In othe rw or ds , the di s tr i c tc our ts a i d tha ti tw oul d ge tt o a n of f e ns e l e ve l of

43 one w a y o rth e o th e r . T he di s tr i c tc our tr e c ogni z e d tha ti t“ m us ti m pos e a s e nt e nc e w i thi n the S e nt e nc i ng G ui de l i ne s unl e s s [ i t ] de t e r m i ne s tha tthe r e e xi s t s a n a ggr a va t i ng or m itig a tin g c ir c u m s ta n c e o f a k in d o rto a d e g r e e n o t a d e q u a te ly ta k e n in to consi dera t i on by the S ent enci ng C om m i ss i on i n form ul at i ng the G ui del i nes. ” S ent enci ng T r. at69 2. A ft erdi sc ussi ng the perm i ss i bl e groun ds for upw ar d departures , the di stri ctcourtconcl ud ed that , i f nec es sa ry t o g ett o an o ff ense l evel o f 4 3 , a n u p w a r d d e p a r tu r e w o u ld b e w a rr a n te d in th is c a s e b a s e d o n “th e a n o m a ly cr ea t ed by the ob struct i on ” r es ul t i ng i n M agl ut a’ s 199 6 acqui tt al , as w el l as other non- s pe c i f

i e d f a c t or s tha tw e r e pr e s e nti n thi s c a s e . A ppa r e nt l y , the a nom a l y the di stri ctcourtw as re fe rr i ng t o h ad t o d o w i th the fa ctthat , throu gh hi s i l l egal c onduc t , M a gl ut a e s c ape d the puni s hm e nthe de s e r ve d f orthe c r i m i na l c onduc the w a s tr i e d f

ori n hi s 1996 tr i a l . I n s um m i ng up, the di s tr i c tc our ts t a t e d tha t“ theOur reversal of Mag luta’s conviction for obstruction by

bribinga juror doe s not 8 undermine thefac tual premise of the district court’s preemptive departuredecision. Our rever sal was ba sed on our c onclusion that the juror’s out-of -cour t statements to the underc over ag ent werehe ars ay ; th at is , th estate mentsdid no t f it w ith in F e d. R. Evid . 8 01 (d)( 2) (E ). Ho wever, it i s well-e stablished that, in sentencing , a district cour t can c onsider hea

rsay even if it was not admissible in determiningguilt, so l ongas therearesufficient indicia of re liability . United States v. Wi lson, 183 F.3d 1291, 1301 (11th Cir. 1999) (“A cour t may consider a

ny information (inc ludinghe ars ay

), re g ardle ss o f its admi ssibil ity at trial, in d e terminingwh e ther f a c tor s e xist that w ould enh anc ea

de fendant’ s sentenc e , p ro vide d th at th einf or matio n issu ff

ic iently reliable .”); U.S.S.G. § 6A1.3(a) (“ [T] he cour t may consider releva

nt information without reg ard to its admiss ibility

under therules of evidenceapplicableat trial, provided that the information has suffic ient indicia of re liability to support its probable ac curacy .”); seealso 18 U.S.C.A. § 3661. The tape -re corde d statements of the juror to the underc over ag ent clea rly have suf ficient indicia of re liability

for this purpose. 31 bri bery of j urors, the bri bery of w i tness es , so go es t o the heartof ou r c ri m i nal j ust i ce sy st em w hi ch i s the foun dat i on of ou r dem ocra cy thatthe egregi ou s nature of the of f e ns e he r e c oul d onl y be r e c ogni z e d by a n upw a r d de pa r tur e , a nd tha tthe p resen tS en t en ci n g G u i d el i n es d o n o tt ak e i ti n t o co n si d erat i o n , an d th atfo r th o se r e a s ons the C our tw oul d upw a r d de pa r t . ” S e nt e nc i ng T r . a t694–95. 8 I f the di s tr i c tc our tha d upw a r dl y de pa r t e d, w e w oul d r e vi e w tha tde c i s i on o n ly f o ra b u s e o f

d is c r e tio n . U n ite d S ta te s v . M e lv in , 1 8 7 F .3 d 1 3 1 6 , 1 3 2 0 ( 1 1 th C i r. 19 99 ). F urtherm ore, “ [b] ec ause the di stri ctcourt s s ee so m any G ui del i nes c a s e s , d is tr ic t c o u r ts h a v e a n in s titu tio n a l a d v a n ta g e o v e rap p e lla te c o u r ts in det erm i ni ng w hether aca se i s out si de the heart l and, and t hu s thei r dec i si on s a re e nt i t l e d t o s ubs t a nt i a l de f e r e nc e . ” I d. ( c i t i ng K oon v. U ni t e d S t a t e s , 518 U . S . 81, 98, 116 S . C t . 2035, 2046 ( 1996) ) . W i th tha ti n m i nd, w e c a nnots a y tha tthe di stri ctcourtw ou l d h ave abu se d i t s di sc re t i on i n u pw ar dl y depar t i ng . S ee32

U . S . S . G . § 5 K 2 . 0 (d escri b i n g p erm i ssi b l e g ro u n d s fo r u p w ard d ep artu res). A s a resu l t , an y tw o -p o i n terro r i n M ag l u t a’ s o ffen se l ev el w as h arm l ess. M agl ut a a l so cont ends thatthe di stri ctcourterre d i n cal cul at i ng hi s c ri m i nal h is to ry s c o r e . S p e c if

ic a lly , h e a s s e r ts th a t th e d is tr ic t c o u r t im p e r m is s ib ly c o n s i d e r e d h i s p r e v i o u s c o n v i c t i o n s a s “ p r i o rs e n t e n c e s ” u n d e rU. S . S . G. § 4 A 1 .1 ( a ) . T h is is e rr o r , M a g lu ta s a y s , b e c a u s e h is p r e v io u s c o n v ic tio n s w e r e a ll

“ partof the i nst antoffe nse” un der § 4A 1. 2(a) (1), even tho ug h they occ urre d b ef ore thi s tri al began. If

M agl ut a w er e c orre ctabou tthi s, hi s c ri m i nal hi st ory s core w as m i sc al cul at ed. W e nee d n otdeci de w hether thi s a rgum enthas a ny m er i t , for m uch th e s a m e r e a s o n w e d id n o t h a v e to d e c id e w h e th e rM a g lu ta ’s a r g u m e n t ab o u t h is offe nse l evel had any m er i t . T he di stri ctcourtgave a val i d b as i s f or an up w ar d departure t o an o ff

ense l evel of 43 and t hatdeparture w ou l d n othave been an abuse of di sc re t i on . B ec ause an offe nse l evel of 43 m andat es a l i fe se nt ence r e ga r dl e s s of

the c r i m i na l hi s t ory c a t e gory , U . S . S . G . c h. 5, pt . A , a ny e rr ori n the cal cu l at i o n o f M ag l u t a’ s cri m i n al h i st o ry sco re i s h arm l ess. M a gl ut a ’ s ne xta s s e r t i on i s tha tthe di s tr i c tc our te rr e d by or de r i ng e a c h of th e s e n t e n c e s f

o rh i s c o n v i c t i o n s t o ru n c o n s e c u t i v e l y p u r s u a n tt o U. S . S . G. § 5 G 1. 2(d). H e c on ce des thatthi s posi t i on i s f orec l osed by ou r dec i si on i n U ni t ed S ta te s v . D a v is , 3 2 9 F .3 d 1 2 5 0 ( 1 1 th C ir . 2 0 0 3 ) ( p e rc u r ia m ) . T h a t d e c is io n h e ld33

§ 5 G 1 .2 ( d ) r e q u ir e s th a t s e n te n c e s ru n c o n s e c u tiv e ly to th e e x te n t n e c e s s a ry to reach th e p u n i sh m en tran g e setb y th e g u i d el i n es. Id . at1 2 5 3

– 5 4 . M ag l u t a arg u es, h o w e v e r , th a tD a v i s h a s b e e n i n v a l i d a t e d b y U n i t e d St a t e s v . Bo o k e r , 5 4 3 U . S.

___, 125 S . C t . 738 ( 2005) . I tha s notbe e n. B ooke ri nva l i da t e d ne i the r§ 5G 1. 2( d) n o rD a v is . I n s te a d , a s o n e o f o u rp o s t- B o o k e rd e c is io n s e x p la in e d , B o o k e rh e ld that“ the S i xth A m endm entri gh tt o tri al by j ury i s vi ol at ed w here un der a m a nda t ory gui de l i ne s s y s t e m a s e nt e nc e i s i nc r e a s e d be c a us e of a n e nha nc e m e nt ba s e d on f

a c t s f ound by the j udge tha tw e r e ne i the ra dm i tt e d by the de f e nda ntnor f o u n d b y th e ju ry .” U n ite d S ta te s v . R o d r ig u e z , 3 9 8 F .3 d 1 2 9 1 , 1 2 9 8 ( 1 1 th C ir .) ( e m p h a s is o m itte d ) , c e r t. d e n ie d , ___S . C t. _

__ , 2 0 0 5 W L 4 8 3 1 7 4 ( J u n e 2 0 , 2 0 0 5 ) . T h e B o o k e rd e c is io n a ls o e s tab lis h e d th a t it is “e rr o rf o rth e d is tr ic t c o u r t to se nt ence [adefe nd ant ] un der am andat ory G ui del i nes s chem e, even i n the abse nce of a S i xth A m e ndm e nte nha nc e m e ntvi ol a t i on. ” U ni t e d v. S he l t on, 400 F . 3d 1325, 13 30 –3 1 (11 th C i r. 20 05 ). T o rem edy the si tuat i on , the C ou rti n B oo ker e f f e c t i v e l y r e n d e r e d th e g u i d e l i n e s a d v i s o ry . Se e Bo o k e r , 5 4 3 U . S. a t___ , 1 2 5 S. C t. a t 7 6 4 . T h e B o o k e rd e c is io n a f f e c te d D a v is o n ly to th e e x te n t th a t a ll gui de l i ne s de c i s i ons a r e now a dvi s ory . D a vi s ’ hol di ng a s t o the pr ope rappl i c a t i on o f § 5 G 1 .2 ( d ) r e m a in s c o rr e c t a n d b in d in g . M a gl ut a a l s o m a ke s the br oa de ra r gum e nttha the i s e nt i t l e d t o r e s e nt e nc i ng34

u n d e rB o o k e rb e c a u s e h e w a s s e n te n c e d u n d e ra m a n d a to ry g u id e lin e s s y s te m . T h i s B o o k e ra r g u m e n twa s r a i s e d f o rth e f i r s tt i m e i n Ma g l u t a ’ s r e p l y b r i e f . As we i ndi c a t e d i n ourpr e vi ous or de rgr a nt i ng i n r e l e va ntpa r tthe gove rnm e nt ’ s m ot i on t o stri ke the po rt i on s of M agl ut a’ s r epl y bri ef ra i si ng thi s B oo ker a rgum ent , U ni t ed S t a t e s v. M a gl ut a , N o. 03- 10694 ( 11th C i r . N ov. 17, 2004) , a n appe l l a ntm a y not r a i s e a n i s s ue f

orthe f i r s tt i m e i n a r e pl y br i e f . S e e U ni t e d S t a t e s v. V a nor de n, ___ F . 3d ___, 20 05 W L 15 31 15 1, *1 (11t h C i r. June 30 , 20 05 ) ( per c uri am ); U ni t ed S t at es v. D ockery , 40 1 F . 3d 12 61 , 12 62 –6 3 (11 th C i r. 20 05 ) ( per c uri am ); U ni t ed S ta te s v . A r d le y , 2 4 2 F .3 d 9 8 9 , 9 9 0 ( 1 1 th C ir . 2 0 0 1 ) ( p e rc u r ia m ) . A s a r e s u lt, M a g lu ta h a s a b a n d o n e d th is a r g u m e n t. H ow ever , even i f M agl ut a’ s B oo ker a rgum enthad n otbeen abando ned b e c a u s e o f

h is f a ilu r e to r a is e it in h is in itia l b r ie f , h e w o u ld s till n o t b e e n title d to re se nt enci ng . H avi ng fa i l ed t o rai se thati ss ue i n the di stri ctcourt , ou r r evi ew w oul d be onl y f

orpl a i n e rr or . R odr i gue z , 398 F . 3d a t1298. A s pa r tof s a t i s f y i ng the pl a i n e rr ort e s t , a de f e nda nt“ m us te s t a bl i s h a r e a s ona bl e pr oba bi l i ty tha ti f the di stri ctcourthad con si dere d the gu i del i nes r ange i tarri ved atusi ng extra -ver di ct e n h a n c e m e n ts a s m e r e ly a d v is o ry , in s te a d o f m a n d a to ry , a n d h a d ta k e n in to ac coun tany otherw i se un consi dere d § 35 53 fa ct ors, the courtw ou l d h ave i m po se d a l es se r s ent ence than i tdi d. ” I d. at13 02 . T here i s no evi dence atal l i n the re cord35

to s u g g e s t th a t th e d is tr ic t c o u r t w o u ld h a v e im p o s e d a le s s e rs e n te n c e th a n it d id ha d i tappl i e d the gui de l i ne s i n a n a dvi s or y i ns t e a d of m a nda t or y m a nne r . T o the cont ra ry , the courtm ade i tabun dant l y c l ea r thati tw ou l d h ave gi ven M agl ut a al i fe s e n te n c e r e g a r d le s s . V II. F o rth e f o r e g o i n g r e a s o n s , a l l o f Ma g l u t a ’ s c o n v i c t i o n s a r e AF F I R ME D, e x c e p t f o rth e o n e f

o ro b s tru c tio n o f

ju s tic e th r o u g h ju r o rb r ib e ry , c o u n t 8 , w h ic h is R E V E R S E D . M a g lu ta ’s s e n te n c e is V A C A T E D , a n d th e c a s e is R E M A N D E D . If the go vernm entel ec t s t o d i sm i ss coun t8 i nst ea d o f r etry M agl ut a on t hat char ge, or i f are tri al on thatcoun toccurs and h e i s a cqui tt ed, the di stri ctcourt s ha l l , a ti t s di s c r e t i on, e i the rr e i m pos e M a gl ut a ’ s s e nt e nc e butw i th a r e duc t i on of 12 0 m on ths as a r es ul tof there bei ng no conv i ct i on for c ou nt8, or the courtm ay r e s e nt e nc e M a gl ut a on a l l the othe rc ount s f orw hi c h he r e m a i ns c onvi c t e d. I f the go vernm entel ec t s t o retry M agl ut a on cou nt8 and he i s r e- conv i ct ed of that ch arg e, th e d i stri ctco u rtsh al l th en re-sen t en ce h i m o n al l th e co u n t s. A FFI R M ED i n pa r t , R EVER SED i n pa r t , VA C A TED i n pa r t , a nd R EM A N D ED .