FIL ED U.S. COURT OF APPEAL S EL EVENTHCI RCUI T NOVEMB ER 8, 2011 J OHN L EY CL ERK [DO NOT PUBLISH] IN THE U

NITED STATE S COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELE VENTH CIRCUIT

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ No. 1 0- 15 12 7 Non -Arg um en t Ca le nd ar

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ D.C. Dock etNo. 8 :0 9- cr-0 02 48 -SDM- TGW -1 UNITED STAT ES OF AMERIC A, ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll Pla in ti ff-Ap pe ll ee,

ve rs us NEY AYBAR, ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll D efen da nt -Ap pe ll an t.

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ App eal fro m

th e Uni te d S ta te s Di st ric t Co urt forth e Mi dd le Dis tri ctof F lo rid a

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ (No ve m be r 8, 2 01 1) Befo re EDMONDSON, MARTIN, an d KRAVITC H, Circ ui t J ud ge s. PER CURI AM:Ney

Ay ba r ap pe al s h is co nv ic ti on an d 1 31 -m on th sen te nc e fo r co ns pi racy to po ss es s wi th in te ntto di st rib ut e co cai ne , 21 U.S.C. § 8 46 . Ay ba r arg ue s tha t: (1) de fen se co un se l was in effe ct iv e atva rio us st ag es of h is pro ceed in gs be fo re the di st ric t co urt; (2) th e ev id en ce was in su ffi ci en t t o c on vi cthi m as c ha rg ed ; (3 ) th e di st ric t co urt ab us edit s d is cret io n i n a dm it ti ng ev id en ce o f hi s p rio r drug tra ffi ck in g a ct iv it ie s; (4) th e d is tri ctco urt ab us edit s d is cret io n i n a dm it ti ng co co ns pi rat or s’ ou t-o f-co urt s ta te m en ts witho utass es si ng th ei r admis si bi li ty und er he ars ay rul es ; (5 ) th e d is tri ctco urt ab us edit s d is cret io n i n d en y in g h is m ot io n fo r subs ti tu te co un se l; an d (6 ) hi s s en te nc e was un reas on ab le . After c aref ul rev ie w of th e rec or d andth e p art ie s’ bri efs , we affi rm Ay ba r’s co nv ic ti on an d s en te nc e. I. Ay ba r fi rs t ar gu es th atde fen se co un se l, fo r a num be r of reas on s, was in effe ct iv e atva rio us st ag es of h is pro ceed in gs be fo re the di st ric t co urt. Where ap pr op ria te , we wil l re vi ew cl ai m s o f in effe ct iv e as si st an ce o f co un se l de no vo as m ix edqu es ti on s o f la w andfact . Cad ern o v . Uni te d S ta te s, 2 56 F.3d12 13 , 12 16 –1 7 (1 1t h C ir. 2 00 1) . The Supr em e Co urt h as ex pl ai ne d, h owe ve r, th atin m os t ca se s the reco rdwil l b e in ad equa te to rai se anin effe ct iv e-as si st an ce cl ai m on

2di rectap pe al be cau se th e tr ia l ev id en ce wo ul d b e d ev ot edto gu il t-o r-i nn oc en ce

is su es , as o pp os edto th e rea so ni ng be hi ndco un se l’s ac ti on s. Ma ss aro v. Un it ed St at es , 53 8 U.S. 5 00 , 50 4– 05 , 12 3 S . Ct. 1 69 0, 1 69 4 (2 00 3) . As su ch , th e rec or d

“ m ay co nt ai n n o e vi de nc e o f al le ge d e rro rs of o m is si on , m uc h l es s the reas on s un de rlyin g t he m .” Id . at50 5, 1 23 S. Ct. at16 94 . There fo re, as a ge ne ral m at te r,

“ anin effe ct iv e as si st an ce o f co un se l cl ai m is pro pe rly rais edina co ll at eral att ack on th e co nv ic ti on un de r 28 U.S.C. § 2 25 5,” as o pp os edto di rectap pe al . Uni te d St at es v. Me rri ll , 51 3 F .3d12 93 , 13 08 (11 th Cir . 20 08 ) (quo ta ti on m ark s an d al te rat io n o m it te d) . Here, th e m ajor it y of Aybar’s i ne ffec ti ve -as si st an ce cl ai m s al le ge erro rs of o m is si on , andth e rec or d p ro vi de s l it tl e in si gh t i nt o d efen se co un se l’s t act ic al jus ti fic at io ns , if an y , forth es e o m is si on s. Thu s, we d ecl in e to 1 reac h the m eri ts of Aybar’s i ne ffec ti ve -as si st an ce ch al le ng e. 2 Specifica lly , Ay

bar c ontends that his trial counsel wa s ineffe ctive for failingto: (a) c onduct an 1 adequate pre trial investigation of potentially exculpatory

evidenc e; (b) c ommunicate with him about the ca se; (c) obtain translations of trial re cording s; (d) move to suppre ss questions related to a traf fic stop in North Carolina; (e ) submit proposed voir dire que stions or inquire into juror bias; (f) obje ct to Rule 404(b) e vidence ; (g ) ef fec tively cross-e x amine the g overnme nt’s witnesses at trial; (h) move for judgment of ac quittal; (i) submitjury instructions; (j) move for a new tria l following the verdic t; (k) object to the PSI ; (l) file a sentenc ing me morandum; (m) support Ay

bar’ s motion for new c ounsel; and (n) advoca te for a guideline re duction or variance based on his minimal role. The g overnme nt argues that the re cord is suff iciently develope d for this Court to rejec t many of 2 Ay bar’ s ineffe ctive-a ssistance c laims on the merits. Given that most of these c laims alleg e er rors of omission, we are not convinced that the rec ord is adequately develope d to decide the m on the merits in this di rec t appea l. Howeve r, eve n if the re cord w ere sufficie nt to adjudicate some of these c laims, the g overnme nt conce des that others ne ed fur ther de velopment, and we decline to consider this cha lleng e piec emea l. 3II.

W e n ex t co ns id er Ay

ba r’s arg um en t tha t the ev id en ce attri al was in su ffi ci en t t o s up po rt h is co nv ic ti on . To supp ort a c on vi ct io n fo r co ns pi racy un de r 21 U.S.C. § 8 46 , th e g ov ern m en t m us t p ro ve be y on d areas on ab le do ub t th at : (1 ) a co ns pi racy exi st ed ; (2 ) th e d efen da ntkn ew of th e co ns pi racy; an d (3 ) he vo lu nt ari ly j oi ne d t he co ns pi racy. Uni te d S ta te s v . Freyre-Lazaro , 3 F.3 d 1 49 6, 15 02 (11 th Cir . 19 93 ). Ordi na ril y , we rev ie w th e su ffi ci en cy of the go ve rn m en t’s ev id en ce attri al de no vo as aqu es ti on of l aw, in qu iri ng whet he r a rea so nabl e jury co ul d fi ndth e d efen da ntgu il ty bas edon th e ev id en ce p res en te d. Un it edSta te s v . Sp oe rk e, 56 8 F .3d12 36 , 12 44 (11 thCir . 20 09 ). Bu t wh ere, as he re, a d efen da nt fai ls to ti m el y

m ov e fo r jud gm en t o f acqui tt al , we wil l re vi ew th e ev id en ce o nl y fo r a m an ife stm is carr ia ge of ju st ic e. Uni te d S ta te s v . Edward s, 5 26 F.3d74 7, 75 5– 56 (11 th Cir . 20 08 ). Und er thi s s ta nd ard , we wil l n otsetasi de a co nv ic ti on un le ss “ th e ev id en ce o n ake y ele m en t o f th e o ffen se is so tenuo us th ata co nv ic ti on wou ldbe sh oc ki ng .” Id . (qu ot at io n m ark s o m it te d) . W e co nc lu de th atAy

ba r’s co nv ic ti on was n ot“ sh oc ki ng .” Mu lt ip le go ve rn m en t wi tn es se s t es ti fie d t o fa ct s tha t es tabl is he d t he ele m en ts of t he § 8 46 co ns pi racy offen se forwhi chhe was c ha rg ed . Spe ci fic al ly, th es e wit ne ss es 4te st ifi edto Ay bar’s in vo lv em en t i n agro up th atatt em pt edto pu rch as e k il og ram qu an ti ti es of c oc ai ne fro m un de rco ve r la w enf

or cem en t o ffi cers in20 08 . In ad di ti on , sev eral go ve rn m en t wi tn es se s, i nc lu di ng in di ct edco -co ns pi rat or s, te st ifi edab ou t dru g t raff

ic ki ng act iv it ie s tha t Ay

ba r kn owi ng ly perfo rm edon be ha lf o f th is gro up pri orto th e und erco ve r op erat io n. The jury ap pa ren tl y

fou ndth is tes ti m on y

cred ib le , andth atcred ib il it y de te rm in at io n m

us t s tandun le ss th e te st im on y is in cred ib le as am at te r of law. See Uni te d S ta te s v . Ste el e, 17 8 F .3d12 30 , 12 36 (11 th Cir . 19 99 ). Test im on y is le ga ll y “ in cred ib le ” o nl y

if i t i s “ unbe li ev ab le onit s fa ce” a ndrel at es to fact s tha t th e wit ne ss “ co ul d n otha ve po ss ib ly obs erv edor e ve nt s tha t co ul d n otha ve oc cu rredun de r th e la ws o f na tu re.” Id . (qu ot at io n m ark s o m it te d) . Furth er, wh en a cri m in al de fen da ntch oo se s t o t es ti fy on hi s o wn b eh al f, hi s s ta te m en ts , “ if di sb el ie ve d b y

th e jury, m ay

be co ns id eredas su bs ta nt iv e evi de nc e of [hi s] gu il t,” m ean in g t ha t the jury m ay co nc lu de th atth e o pp os it e o f hi s t es ti m on y is tru e. Uni te d S ta te s v . Bro wn, 5 3 F .3d31 2, 3 14 (11 thCir . 19 95 ). Ay ba r ha s p ro vi de d n o b as is forho ld in g t ha t the se witne ss es were in cred ib le as am at te r of

law. To th e co nt rary, the t es ti m on y of t he go ve rn m en t’s witne ss es was g en eral ly con si st en t, an d i t d ire ct ly con tra di ct edAy ba r’s te st im on y th athe di d n otkn ow tha t h e was pa rti ci pa ti ng inhi s co -co ns pi rat or ’s dru g 5tra ffi ck in g s ch em e. As s ta te d, the jury was en ti tl edto di sb el ie ve Ay ba r’s te st im on y on hi s o wn b eh al f an d c on st ru e itas s ub st an ti ve ev id en ce o f hi s g ui lt . See B ro wn, 5 3 F .3dat 3 14 . Thu s, the jury ve rd ic t d idno t re pr es en t a m an ife st m is carr ia ge of ju st ic e. III. Ay ba r arg ue s t ha t the di st ric t co urt ab us edit s d is cret io n i n a dm it ti ng ev id en ce attri al of h is pri ordru g t raff ic ki ng act iv it ie s. We ord in ari ly revi ew ev id en ti ary ru li ng s, i nc lu di ng th e ad m is si on of e vi de nc e und er Fe de ral Ru le of Evi de nc e 4 04 (b ), fo r ab us e o f di sc ret io n. See Uni te d S ta te s v . Jerni ga n, 3 41 F.3d 12 73 , 12 80 (11 th Cir . 20 03 ). Howev er, wh ere, as he re, a p arty fai ls to ob

ject t o th e ad m is si on of e vi de nc e attri al , we rev ie w on ly for p la in erro r. Id. at12 89 . 3 Und er the pl ai n e rro r st an da rd , rev ers al is warran te d o nl y wher e th e d efen da nt de m on st rat es : “ (1 ) anerro r oc cu rred ; (2 ) th e err orwas p la in ; (3 ) itaffe ct edhi s subs ta nt ia l ri gh ts ; an d (4 ) itser io us ly affect edth e fai rn es s o f th e jud ic ia l pr oc eed in gs .” Id . (quo ta ti on m ark s o m it te d) . “ It i s the law o f th is cir cu itth at , at le as t wh ere t he ex pl ic itlan gu ag e o f a s ta tu te or rul e d oe s n otsp eci fic al ly reso lv e anis su e, th ere c anbe no pl ai n e rro r whe re the re i s n o p rece de ntfro m th e Supr em e Ay bar f iled a motion in lim ine to exclude some of this evidenc e, but did not rene w his objection 3 at trial, and the ref

ore f ailed to pre serve the issue. See United States v. G ari, 572 F .3d 1352, 1356 n.2 (11th Cir. 2009). 6Co urt o r th is Co urt d ire ct ly reso lv in g i t.” Un it edSta te s v . Lejarde -Rad a, 31 9 F .3d

12 88 , 12 91 (11 th Cir . 20 03 ). Und er Ru le 40 4( b) , evi de nc e o f a p rio r ba d a ctm ay no t b e ad m it te d a s p ro of of ba d c ha ract er. Of co ur se , th is Ru le do es no t b ar the adm is si on of e vi de nc e o f th e ch arg edcri m in al co nduc t atis su e dur in g t he tri al . See Un it edSta te s v . Lane , 32 3 F .3d56 8, 5 79 (7t h C ir. 2 00 3) . Sim il arl y , Rul e 4 04 (b ) do es no t ap pl y to ev id en ce o f un ch arg edcri m in al act iv it y th atis : “ (1 ) anun ch arg edoff en se whi ch aro se ou t o f th e sa m e tr an sa ct io n o r se rie s o f tr an sa ct io ns as t he ch arg edoff en se , (2 ) ne ces sa ry

to co m pl et e th e st ory

of t he cri m e, or(3) in ex tri cab ly int ertwin ed with t he ev id en ce re ga rd in g t he ch arg edoff en se .” Uni te d S ta te s v . Edo ua rd , 48 5 F .3d13 24 , 13 44 (11 th Cir . 20 07 ). As d ev el op edat t ria l, fro m 20 03 th ro ug h 2 00 7, Ay

ba r en ga ge d i n p rio r drug tra ffi ck in g a ct iv it y

on be ha lf o f th e sa m e in di vi du al s wi th who m he was a rres te d du rin g t he 20 08 un de rco ve r op erat io n. Th e in di ctm en t d idno t al le ge eit he r a s ta rt da te or a ny spe ci fic act s as pa rt o f th e ch arg edco ns pi racy. The go ve rn m en t ar gu es th atas ares ul t, the ev id en ce tha t Ay ba r no w cha ract eri zes as e vi de nc e o f pr io r cri m in al co nduc t was actua ll y ev id en ce o f th e ch arg edco ns pi racy its el f, an d th eref or e n otsubjec t t o R

ul e 4 04 (b ). Bu t, ev enass um in g tha t the ev id en ce was un ch arg edco nduc t, we ca nn otsay tha t the di st ric t co urt p la in ly erredinadm it ti ng 7th e ev id en ce. Giv enth e si m il ari ty andrel at iv el y sh ort t im e p eri odbe twee n Ay bar’s pr io r drug tra ffi ck in g a ct iv it y an d t he sch em e to pu rch as e co cai ne th at res ul te d i n h is arre st , th e d is tri ctco urt d idno t p la in ly err inco nc lu di ng th atth e pr io r cri m in al co nduc t was in ex tri cab ly relat edto th e ch arg edco ns pi racy, andth at Ru le 40 4( b) th eref

or e d idno t ap pl y . See Un it edSta te s v . Ram sd al e, 61 F.3d82 5, 82 9– 30 (11 th Cir . 19 95 ) (h ol di ng th atRu le 40 4( b) di d n otap pl y to ev id en ce rel at in g t o ast op wher e dru gs were u nc ov ered , du rin g t he ti m e fra m e o f th e co ns pi racy to d is tri bu te m etha m ph et am in e as ch arg ed , bec au se th atev id en ce was bo th in ex tri cab ly int ertwin edwith t he ch arg edoff en se an d n eces sa ry

to co m pl et e th e st ory of the de fen da nt ’s rol e). Eve n wh ere R

ul e 4 04 (b ) do es no t ap pl y , th e ev id en ce s ti ll m us t s at is fy

th e requi rem en ts of F ed eral Ru le of Ev id en ce 4 03 . Edo ua rd , 48 5 F .3dat 1 34 4. Si m il ari ty betweenth e p rio r co nduc t an d t he ch arg edco nduc t wi ll m ak e th e o th er of fen se hi gh ly pro ba ti ve of ade fen da nt ’s cri m in al in te ntinth e ch arg edoff en se . Uni te d S ta te s v . Ram ire z, 42 6 F .3d13 44 , 13 54 (11 thCir . 20 05 ). Here, the ev id en ce o f th e p rio r drug tra ffi ck in g was hi gh ly relev an t t o t he go ve rn m en t’s ca se an d v ery si m il ar t o t he ch arg edco nduc t. Thu s, we al so co nc lu de th atth e d is tri ct co urt d idno t p la in ly err inde te rm in in g t ha t the ev id en ce was no t p ro hi bi te d b y Ru le 40 3. Se e id . 8IV.

Ay ba r ne xtarg ue s t ha t the di st ric t co urt ab us edit s d is cret io n i n a dm it ti ng co -co ns pi rat or s’ ou t-o f-co urt s ta te m en ts witho utass es si ng th ei r admis si bi li ty un de r he ars ay

rul es . As a g en eral m at te r, he ars ay is in adm is si bl e infed eral tri al s, subjec t t o anu m

be r of ex cep ti on s. Fed . R. Evi d. 8 01 (c), 8 02 . Howev er, i f a

“ st at em en t i s o ffer edag ai ns t a p arty an d i s . . . [m ad e] by

a co co ns pi rat orof apa rty du rin g t he co ur se an d i n fu rth eran ce o f th e co ns pi racy,” it i s n otco ns id ered he ars ay . Fed . R. Evi d. 8 01 (d )(2 )(E). Ay ba r ap pe ars to arg ue th atth e d is tri ctco urt erre d i n a dm it ti ng hi s co -co ns pi rat or s o ut -o f-co urt s ta te m en ts witho utde te rm in in g whe th er tho se st at em en ts were “ du rin g t he co ur se an d i n fu rth eran ce o f th e co ns pi racy,” andth eref

or e in adm is si bl e h ears ay . Howev er, Ay ba r di d n otob

ject to th e ch al le ng edtes ti m on y at t ria l, s o we r ev ie w th e ad m is si on of t hi s ev id en ce on ly for p la in erro r. Je rn ig an , 34 1 F .3dat 1 28 9 . W it h re sp ectto he ars ay st at em en ts rev ie wedun de r th e p la in erro r st an da rd , ho wev er, we are “un wil li ng to sa y th ata tr ia l co urt’s fa il ur e to su a s po nt e red acta de fen da nt ’s st at em en t t o rem ov e h ears ay

is erro r.” Uni te d S ta te s v . Cam pb el l, 2 23 F.3d12 86 , 12 88 (11 th Ci r. 20 00 ). Thu s, we co nc lu de th atth e d is tri ctco urt d idno t p la in ly err by adm it ti ng all eg edhe ars ay st at em en ts to whi chAy

ba r di d n otob

ject. Se e id .

9V.

Ay ba r al so arg ue s t ha t the di st ric t co urt ab us edit s d is cret io n i n d eny in g h is m ot io n fo r subs ti tu te co un se l. “ Whe re, as he re, the di st ric t co urt co nduc ts an in qu iry int o t he m eri ts of acri min al de fen da nt ’s m ot io n fo r ne w cou ns el , we rev ie w th e d is tri ctjud ge ’s rul in g fo r ab us e o f di sc ret io n.” Uni te d S ta te s v . Cal de ro n, 1 27 F.3d13 14 , 13 43 (11 th Cir . 19 97 ). Ind ig en t cr im in al de fen da nt s or di na ril y “ m us t ei th er ac cep t the co un se l ap po in te d t o re pr es en t the m or r ep res en t th em se lv es .” Uni te d S ta te s v . Garey , 54 0 F .3d12 53 , 12 63 –6 4 (1 1t h C ir. 2 00 8) (enba nc ). Howev er, upo n ash owi ng of g oo d c au se , an i nd ig en t d efen dantm ay rece iv e subs ti tu te ap po in te d c ou ns el . Id. at12 63 . “ Goo d c au se inth is co nt ex t m ean s a f un dam en ta l p ro bl em , su chas aco nf li ctof i nt eres t, a co m

pl et e br eak do wn i n c omm

un ic at io n o r anirr eco nc il ab le co nf li ctwhi chlea ds to an ap pa ren tl y

un jus t v erd ic t.” Id . (quo ta ti onm ark s o m it te d) . “ Goo d c au se for subs ti tu ti on of c ou ns el can no t b e d et erm in edso le ly accor di ng to th e subjec ti ve st an da rdof wh atth e d efen da ntpe rcei ve s.” Th om as v. Wain wrig ht , 76 7 F .2d73 8, 74 2 (1 1th C ir. 1 98 5) (qu ot at io n m ark s o m it te d) . Thu s, “ [a] defe nd an t’s g en eral lo ss of c on fid en ce o r trus t i n h is co un se l, s tand in g a lo ne , is no t s uf fic ie nt .” Id . In st ead , when rev ie win g adi stric t co urt’s ru li ng ona m ot io n fo r subs ti tu te co urtap po in te d c ou ns el , we con si de r as esp eci al ly relev an t: “ [1 ] th e ti m el in es s o f th e 10m ot io n; [2] th e ad equa cy of t he co urt’s i nqui ry

in to m eri ts of t he m ot io n; an d [3 ] whe th er the co nf

li ctwas s o g reatth atitres ul te d i n ato ta l l ackof c omm un ic at io n be twee n the de fen da ntan d h is co un se l the reb y pre ve nt in g a n a de qu at e d efen se .” Cal de ro n, 1 27 F.3dat 1 34 3. Abo uta weekpri orto sen te nc in g, Ay ba r m ov edforsubs ti tu te co un se l. Dur in g the sen te nc in g h eari ng , th e d is tri ctco urt i nqui redin to Ay ba r’s m ot io n fo r subs ti tu te co un se l. The co urt co nc lu de d t ha t Ay ba r’s co un se l was ab le an d wi ll in g to rep res en t h im

effe ct iv el y

at t he sen te nc in g p ro ceed in g. Th e co urt’s i nqui ry in to Ay bar’s m ot io n re ve al edth atAy ba r ap paren tl y

be cam e d is sa ti sf

ie d wi th hi s co un se l’s p erfo rm an ce o nl y up on lea rn in g o f th e Uni te d S ta te s Se nt en ci ng Gui de li ne s ca lc ul at io n c on ta in edinth e p res en te nc e rep ort (“ PSR” ). The re co rdof th e se nt en ci ng he ari ng th us do es no t re fle cta “ co nf li ct. . . so gre atth atitres ul te d in a to ta l l ackof c omm

un ic at io n b etweenth e d efen da ntan d h is co un se l the reb y pr ev en ti ng anad equa te de fen se .” Id . Ins te ad , th atreco rdrefl ect s Aybar’s o wn un wil li ng ne ss to co m

m un ic at e an y

co nc ern s re ga rd in g t he PSR t o h is co un se l. Bec au se Ay

ba r’s “ ge ne ral lo ss of c on fid en ce o r trus t i n h is co un se l, s ta nd in g al on e, is no t s uf

fic ie nt ” to est ab li sh go odcau se forsubs ti tu ti on of c ou rt- ap po in te d co un se l, we co nc lu de th atth e d is tri ctco urt d idno t ab us e it s d is cret io n i n d en y in g Ay bar’s m ot io n t o s ub st itut e co un se l. Tho m as , 76 7 F .2dat 7 42 ; s ee al so 11Cal de ro n, 1 27 F.3dat 1 34 3 (h ol di ng th ata to ta l b reak do wn i n c omm un ic at io n d id no t o ccu r whe re the de fen da nt ’s accu sa ti on s s ho wedth athe was m erel y di sp le as ed with c ou ns el , andco un se l at te st edth athe di d n ottak e th es e acc us at io ns pe rs on al ly an d c ou ldeffe ct iv el y

arg ue sen te nc in g i ss ue s) .

VI. Fi na ll y , Ay

ba r arg ue s tha t h is sen te nc e was un reas on ab le . Whe re ap pr op ria te , we rev ie w a fin al sen te nc e im po se d b y th e d is tri ctco urt fo r

“ reas on ab le ne ss .” Uni te d S ta te s v . Gon zal ez, 5 50 F.3d13 19 , 13 23 (11 th Cir . 20 08 ). Ordi naril y , we exa m in e a d efen da nt ’s sen te nc e fo r bo th pro cedur al an d subs ta nt iv e rea so nabl en es s u nd er an ab us e o f di sc ret io n s ta nd ard , tak in g i nt o acco un t the to ta li ty of th e ci rcu m st an ces . Gall v. Un it edSta te s, 5 52 U.S. 38 , 51 , 12 8 S . Ct. 5 86 , 59 7 (2 00 7) . The p arty ch al le ng in g t he sen te nc e carrie s the bu rd en of est ab li sh in g u nr eas on ab le ne ss . Gon zal ez, 5 50 F.3dat 1 32 4. Ay ba r di d n ot ob ject t o t he reas on ab le ne ss of h is sen te nc e, ho wev er, s o we r ev ie w th is is su e o nl y fo r pl ai n e rro r. See Un it edSta te s v . Bon il la , 57 9 F .3d12 33 , 12 38 (11 thCir . 20 09 ). 4

Ay bar a rgues that plain er

ror r eview should not apply , beca use the district cour

t failed to elicit 4 objections to the sentenc e. The rec ord of the se ntencinghearing f latly ref utes this claim, as the district court aske d if either side had “a n objection to the sentenc e or ma nner of its announce ment.” Ay

bar’ s counsel re sponded: “No, your honor.” 12Ay

ba r ap pe ars to arg ue th athi s s en te nc e was pro cedur al ly unr eas on ab le be cau se hi s g ui de li ne cal cu la ti on sh ou ldha ve be enreduc edon th e b as is of h is

“ m in im al rol e in th e o ffen se .” A sen te nc e is pro cedur al ly unr eas on ab le if t he di st ric t co urt i m

pr op erl y cal cu la te s the gu id el in e ran ge . Uni te d S ta te s v . Liv es ay , 52 5 F .3d10 81 , 10 91 (11 th Cir . 20 08 ). The g ui de li ne s p ro vi de fora fo ur -le ve l reduc ti on if t he de fen da ntwas a“ m in im al ” p art ic ip an t, an d atwo -le ve l re du ct io n if t he de fen da ntwas a“ min or ” p art ic ip an t. U.S.S.G. § 3 B1 .2(b ). A m in or pa rti ci pa ntis so m eo ne “ who is les s cu lp ab le th anm os t o th er p art ic ip an ts .” Id . cmt. n .5. “ The factth ata de fen da nt ’s rol e m ay be les s tha n t ha t o f ot he r pa rti ci pa nt s en ga ge d i n t he rel ev an t co nduc t m ay no t b e d is po si ti ve of r ol e in th e of fen se , si nc e itis po ss ib le th atno ne are m in oror m in im al parti ci pa nt s.” Uni te d St at es v. Do cam

po , 57 3 F .3d10 91 , 10 99 (11 thCir . 20 09 ). The re co rdrev eal s tha t th e d is tri ctco urt d et erm in edth atAy ba r was m or e cu lp ab le th antwo of h is co co ns pi rat or s, b utles s cu lp ab le th anon e o f th em , andth e co urt at te m pt edto se nt en ce Ay

ba r to a te rm

of i m pr is on m en t tha t re fle ct edhi s cu lp ab il it y rel at iv e to th atof h is co -co ns pi rat or s. Th e d is tri ctco urt d idno t p la in ly err inrefu si ng to reduc e th e g ui de li ne ran ge su a sp on te ba se d s ol el y on th e fac t tha t Ay

ba r was no t th e m os t cu lp ab le m em

be r of th e co ns pi racy. See i d.

13Ay

ba r al so ap pe ars to arg ue th athi s s en te nc e is subs tant iv el y un reas on ab le be cau se itdi d n otful ly accou ntforhi s “ la ckof c riminal hi st ory an d m ed ic al si tu at io n,” an d b ecau se hi s s en te nc e was ul ti m at el y m uc h l on ge r th anhi s co co ns pi rat or s’ sen te nc es . A sen te nc e is subs ta nt iv el y un reas on ab le “ if i t d oe s n ot ach ie ve th e p ur

po se s o f se nt en ci ng st at edin[18 U.S.C.] § 3 55 3( a).” Un it edSta te s v. Pu gh , 51 5 F .3d11 79 , 11 91 (11 thCir . 20 08 ) (quo ta ti onm ark s o m it te d) . W e de fer t o t he di st ric t co urt’s jud gm en t re ga rd in g the weig htgi ve n t o e ach§ 3 55 3( a) fact or , un le ss th e d is tri ctco urt h as m ad e “ a cl ear e rro r of jud gm en t” un de r th e fact s o f a p art ic ul ar ca se . Gon zal ez, 5 50 F.3dat 1 32 4 (quo ta ti on m ark s o mit te d) . Ay bar rec ei ve d a13 1- m on th sen te nc e, whi chrep res en te d ado wnwar d v ari an ce fro m hi s ap pl ic ab le gu id el in e ran ge of 1 51 to 18 8 m on th s i m pr is on m en t. The di st ric t co urt ex pl ai ne d tha t i t i m po se d the be lo w-g ui de li ne sen te nc e b ecau se of Ay bar’s de te rio rat in g p hysic al co nd it io n, an d h is rel at iv e cu lp ab il it y co m pa redto hi s co nv ic te d c o- co ns pi rat or s. As su ch , we fin d n o m eri t i n Aybar’s arg um en ts th atth e d is tri ctco urt p la in ly erredinim po si ng a be lo w-g ui de li ne sen te nc e, pa rti cu la rly giv enth atth e co urt ex pr es sl y to okin to acco un t the same

14co ns id erat io ns Ay ba r adva nc es inth is ap pe al . W e co nc lu de th atth e d is tri ctco urt 5 di d n otpl ai nl y

err i n s en te nc in g Aybar t o 1 31 m on th s i m pr is on m en t. Fo r al l o f th es e rea so ns , Ay ba r’s co nv ic ti on an d s en te nc e are AFFIRM ED. AFFIRMED.

At the time of Ay

bar’ s sentencing , Rey

noldo L opez, the co-c onspirator that the district 5 court in this case found most culpable, ha d been se ntence d to 151 months i mprisonment by a differ ent district judge . Howeve r, shortly afte r Ay bar’ s sentencing , the g overnme nt moved under Fe dera l Rule of Criminal Procedure 35 to reduc e the se ntence s of two of Ay bar’ s coconspirator s, including L opez, in part, bec ause the y testified ag ainst Ay

bar. A s a re sult, the other district judge reduc ed L opez’s sentenc e to 70 months. W hile this development ce rtainly frustrated the attempt by

the district court in this caseto sentence Ay bar in a way that ref lected his culpability

relative to L opez and the other co-c onspirators, we cannot sa y that the district court plainly

err ed in fa iling to var

y more e x tensively

downwar d from the g

uideline ra

ng e in order to acc ount for a dif

fer ent district judge ’s later reduc tion of the co-c onspirators’ se ntence s under Rule 35. 15