FILED U.S. COURT OF AP P EALS E LEVEN T HC IRC U IT JAN 31, 2007 THOMAS K. KAH

N CLERK [ DO NO T 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. 05- 15580 N on -A rgum entC al endar

________________________ D. C . Do c k e tNo . 0 5 - 6 0 0 5 0 - C R - AJ 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 K E L L Y C I N E U S , 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

_________________________ ( Jan u ar y 31, 2007) B efo re T JO F L A T , A N D E R S O N an d H U L L , C i rcu i tJu d g es. P E R C U R I A M: K e l l y C i ne us appe a l s hi s c onvi c t i on a nd 108- m onth t e rm of i m pr i s onm e nt2

a nd $2, 000 f

i ne f ori m port a t i on of

500 gr a m s orm or e of

c oc a i ne , i n vi ol a t i on of 21 U .S .C . § 9 5 2 ( a ) . O n ap p e a l, C in e u s a r g u e s th a t h e w a s d e n ie d h is r ig h t to af a ir a n d im p a r tia l ju ry a n d to e q u a l p r o te c tio n b e c au s e th e g o v e rn m e n t u s e d f o u ro f its pere m pt ory c hal l enges t o stri ke prospect i ve A fr i can-A m er i can j urors f rom the j ury w i thoutl e gi t i m a t e c aus e , i n vi ol a t i on of B a t s on v. K e ntuc ky , 476 U . S . 79, 106 S . C t . 17 12 , 90 L . E d. 2d 69 (198 6). S ec on d, C i neus ar gu es thatthe evi dence w as nots uf f i c i e ntt o s uppor thi s c onvi c t i on of i m por t a t i on of

c oc a i ne be c aus e the g o v e rn m e n t f

a ile d to p r o v e th a t h e h a d k n o w le d g e th a t th e c o c a in e w a s in h is l ug gage. F i nal l y, C i neus ar gu es thatthe $2 , 00 0 fi ne re nd er ed hi s s ent ence unr e a s onabl e , a nd c i t e s t o U ni t e d S t a t e s v. B ooke r , 543 U . S . 220, 125 S . C t . 738, 1 6 0 L. Ed . 2 d 6 2 1 ( 2 0 0 5 ) , a n d th e s e n t e n c i n g f a c t o r s s e tf

o r th i n 1 8 U . S. C. § 3553( a ) , a s the appr opr i a t e s t a nda r d of r e vi e w . U pon r e vi e w of the r e c or d, a nd up on consi dera t i on of the part i es ’ bri ef s, w e di sc ern n o revers i bl e e rr or. I. W e r e v ie w “th e r e s o lu tio n o f aB a ts o n c h a lle n g e g iv [ in g ] g r e a t d e f e r e n c e to a di stri ctcourt ’ s f

i nd i ng as t o the exi st ence of a pri m a f ac i e c as e. D e nov o revi ew i s i napp ropri at e. ” U ni t ed S t at es v. O choa-V as qu ez , 42 8 F . 3d 10 15 , 10 39 (11th C i r. 2 0 0 5 ). M o re o v er , as th e d istrict co u rt’s d eter m in atio n o f th e r ea so n fo r a ju ro r’s di s m i s s a l i s af

i ndi ng of f a c t , w e w i l l notove r turn i tunl e s s i ti s c l e a r l y e rr one ous3

orappe a r s t o ha ve be e n gui de d by i m pr ope rpr i nc i pl e s of l aw . I d. ( c i t a t i on a nd qu ot at i on om i tt ed). T h e S u p r e m e C o u rt h a s h e ld th a t “[ p ]u rp o s e f u l r a c ia l d is c r im in a tio n in s e l e c t i on of

the ve ni r e vi ol a t e s ade f e nda nt ’ s r i ghtt o e qua l pr ot e c t i on. ” B a t s on, 47 6 U . S . at86 , 10 6 S . C t . at17 17 . “ B at son est abl i shed the . . . three -parti nq ui ry f ore va l ua t i ng w he the rape r e m pt ory s tr i ke w a s m ot i va t e d by r a c [ e ] . . . . F i r s t , the di stri ctcourtm ustdet erm i ne w hether the party c hal l engi ng the peremp t ory s tri kes ha s e s t abl i s he d apr i m af a c i e c a s e of

di s c r i m i na t i on by e s t abl i s hi ng f a c t s s uf f i c i e nt t o sup po rtan i nfer ence of ra ci al di sc ri m i nat i on . ” O choa-V as qu ez , 42 8 F . 3d at 1 0 3 8 ( in te rn a l c ita tio n s o m itte d ) . If the obj ec t or m akes a pri m a f ac i e s ho w i ng , the bu rden then shi ft s a t s t e p tw o t o the s tr i ke rt o a r t i c ul a t e ar a c e - ne utr a l e xpl a na t i on f orthe c h a lle n g e d s tr ik e . H o w e v e r , th e u ltim a te b u r d e n o f p e r s u a s io n r e s ts w ith , a n d n e v e rs h if

ts f r o m , th e o p p o n e n t o f

th e s tr ik e . T h u s , e v e n if the [s tri ker] prod uces on l y afr i vo l ou s or utt er l y non se nsi ca l ju s tif ic a tio n f o rits s tr ik e , th e c a s e d o e s n o t e n d - it m e r e ly p r o c e e d s to s t e p thr e e . A ts t e p thr e e , the di s tr i c tc our tde t e rm i ne s the pers uasi veness of the j ust i fi ca t i on offe re d b y the stri ker a nd deci des w he the rthe obj e c t orha s c a rr i e d i t s bur de n of pr ovi ng purpos e f

ul di s c r i m i na t i on. Id. at10 38 -39 (ci t at i on s and qu ot at i on s om i tt ed). B ecau se th e d i stri ctco u rtel i ci t ed n o n d i scri m i n at o ry reaso n s fo r th e ex erci se of the pr os e c ut i on’ s pe r e m pt ory s tr i ke s , w e r e vi e w the pr os e c ut or ’ s a r t i c ul a t i on, a nd the j udge ’ s a c c e pt a nc e , of the s t a t e d j us t i f

i c a t i ons f orthe s tr i ke s . H e rna nde z v.4

N e w Y ork, 500 U . S . 352, 358, 111 S . C t . 1859, 1866, 114 L . E d. 2d 395 ( 1991) ( p lu r a lity o p in io n ) ; s e e U n ite d S ta te s v . H o u s to n , 4 5 6 F .3 d 1 3 2 8 , 1 3 3 5 - 3 6 ( 1 1 th C i r . 2006) . I n thi s c a s e , i tappe a r s tha tthe gove rnm e ntm e ti t s bur de n of p r o d u c tio n in s e ttin g f

o rth r a c e - n e u tr a l e x p la n a tio n s f o ru s in g f

o u ro f its s ix pe r e m pt ory s tr i ke s a ga i ns tpr os pe c t i ve A f r i c a n- A m e r i c a n j ur or s . S e e P urke ttv. E l em , 51 4 U . S . 76 5, 76 8, 11 5 S . C t . 17 69 , 17 71 , 13 1 L . E d. 2d 83 4 (19 95 ). A l th o u g h Ci n e u s a s s e rt e d th a tth e p r o s e c u t i o n ’ s r e a s o n s f o rs tr i k i n g s o me A fr i can-A m er i can j urors w er e pre t extual , he di d n oti ntrodu ce any e vi dence t en d i n g t o d i scred i tth e g o v ern m en t ’ s p ro ffered ex p l an at i o n s o r o th erw i se est ab l i sh pr e t e xt . S e e M i l l e r - E l v. D r e tke , 545 U . S . 231, 125 S . C t . 2317, 162 L . E d. 2d 196 (200 5). F urtherm ore, the re cord show s thatthe go vernm entdi d n otobj ec tt o at l e a s tthr e e pr os pe c t i ve A f r i c a n- A m e r i c a n j ur or s , a nd, ul t i m a t e l y , tw o A f r i c a nA m e r i c a n j ur or s s a ton the j ury . W i thoutm or e , C i ne us ’ s a l l e ga t i on ba s e d s ol e l y on the nu m ber of prospect i ve A fr i can-A m er i can j urors s tri cken from the veni re do es no tes t abl i sh thatthe go vernm entengaged i n rac i al di sc ri m i nat i on . S ee C entra l A l a. F ai r H ou si ng C tr, Inc. , v. L ow der R ea l ty C o. , 23 6 F . 3d 62 9, 63 6 (11 th C i r. 20 00 ) ( “ [T ] he m er e f

ac tof stri ki ng a j uror or a s etof j urors of apart i cul arra ce do es no tnece ss ar i l y c re at e an i nfer ence of ra ci al di sc ri m i nat i on . ”) . T here fore , C in e u s h a s f

a ile d to d e m o n s tr a te th a t th e d is tr ic t c o u r t c le a r ly e rr e d in th is r e s p e c t.5 II . W e r evi ew a c hal l enge t o the suff i ci encyof evi dence de nov o. U ni t ed S t at es v . G u n n , 3 6 9 F .3 d 1 2 2 9 , 1 2 3 4 ( 1 1 th C ir .) c e r t. d e n ie d , 5 4 3 U .S . 9 3 7 ( 2 0 0 4 ) . M or e ove r , c r e di bi l i ty de t e rm i na t i ons a r e l e f tt o the j ury , a nd a s l ong a s the testim o n y is n o t i n cr ed ib le as a m atter o f law , w e m u st ac ce p t th e ju ry ’s c o n c lu s io n s . U n ite d S ta te s v . C a ld e r o n , 1 2 7 F .3 d 1 3 1 4 , 1 3 2 5 ( 1 1 th C ir . 1 9 9 7 ) . W e m us tvi e w the e vi de nc e i n the l i ghtm os tf a vor abl e t o the j ury ’ s ve r di c t , a nd a c c e pt r e a s onabl e i nf

e r e nc e s a nd c r e di bi l i ty c hoi c e s by the f a c t - f i nde r . U ni t e d S t a t e s v. Q ui l c a - C a rpi o, 118 F . 3d 719, 720 ( 11th C i r . 1997) ( i nt e rna l quot a t i ons a nd c i t a t i on o m itte d ) . S e c t i on 952( a ) pr ohi bi t s the i m por t a t i on of a ny c ontr ol l e d s ubs t a nc e i nt o the U ni t e d S t a t e s . 21 U . S . C . § 952( a ) . A c ha r ge unde r§ 952( a ) r e qui r e s pr oof tha tthe defe nd anthad k no w l edge thathe w as i m po rt i ng a c on trol l ed subst ance . U ni t ed S ta te s v . P e a rt, 8 8 8 F .2 d 1 0 1 , 1 0 4 ( 1 1 th C ir . 1 9 8 9 ) . D ir e c t e v id e n c e o f in te n t is no tnece ss ary, ho w ever , as kn ow l edge can be i nferre d from ci rc um st ant i al e v id e n c e . Q u ilc a - C a rp io , 1 1 8 F .3 d a t 7 2 1 . C i neus’ s c on vi ct i on w as supp ort ed by the evi dence. A l tho ug h i ti s true that the gove rnm e ntdi d noti ntr oduc e di r e c te vi de nc e s how i ng tha tC i ne us kne w the tw o su it ca se s c o n tain ed co ca in e, th is ar g u m en t i s n o t fatal to th e g o v er n m en t’ s6

ca se . S ee Q ui l ca -C arpi o, 11 8 F . 3d at72 1. H er e, the surr ou nd i ng ci rc um st ance s prov i de am pl e c i rc um st ant i al evi dence t o sup po rtthe j ury’ s ver di ct . T he evi dence attri al sh o w ed th atC i n eu s’ s b eh av i o r atth e p ri m ary cu st o m s ch eckp o i n tw as so s us pi c i ous tha tthe c us t om s of f i c e rr e f e rr e d hi m f

orc us t om s i ns pe c t i on. I n the s e c onda ry i ns pe c t i on, C i ne us a dm i tt e d t o ow ni ng the tw o s ui t c a s e s a nd the cont ent s there i n, and h avi ng packed the sui t ca se s. W hen the cust om s off i ce rs n o tic e d th e u n u s u a l w e ig h t o f th e p a r titio n in C in e u s ’s lu g g a g e , C in e u s b e g a n to que s t i on the of

f i c e r s a nd m a ke s t a t e m e nt s tha tar e a s onabl e j ury c oul d unde r s t a nd w e r e m e a n t to d iv e rt th e o f f ic e r s ’ a tte n tio n f

r o m th e lu g g a g e u n d e rim m e d ia te i ns pe c t i on. T hr e e s e pa r a t e c om pa r tm e nt s c ont a i ni ng as i gni f i c a nta m ountof co cai n e— fo u r k i l o g ram s— w ere fo u n d i n C i n eu s’ s tw o su i t cases. B ased o n th ese f a c t s , ar e a s onabl e j ury c oul d c onc l ude be y ond ar e a s onabl e doubttha tape r s on w ho i s c aughtw i th l ugga ge c ont a i ni ng al a r ge a m ountof drugs kne w of

the p r e s e n c e o f

th e d ru g s . S e e Q u ilc a - C a rp io , 1 1 8 F .3 d a t 7 2 1 - 2 2 . I n a d d itio n , a r e a s onabl e j uryc oul d i nf e rf r om the qua nt i ty of

drugs s e i z e d tha ta“ prude nt s m uggl e r ” w a s notl i ke l y t o e ntrus ts uc h va l uabl e c a r go t o a n i nnoc e ntpe r s on w i tho utthatpers on ’ s kno w l edge and con se nt . S ee i d. M oreover, the t es t i m on i al e vi de nc e a ttr i a l r e ve a l e d tha tC i ne us ha d t ol d num e r ous c onf l i c t i ng s t or i e s , a nd the r e f or e ar e a s onabl e j ury c oul d c hoos e t o di s be l i e ve C i ne us ’ s t e s t i m ony tha the7

di d n othave kn ow l edge of the cocai ne i n h i s l ug gage. B ec ause a r ea sonabl e j ury c o u ld f in d b e y o n d ar e a s o n ab le d o u b t th a t C in e u s in te n d e d to im p o r t c o c a in e in to th e U n ite d S ta te s in v io la tio n o f § 9 5 2 ( a ) , w e a f

f irm h is c o n v ic tio n . II I. W e r e vi e w af

i ne s e tby the di s tr i c tc our tf orc l e a re rr or . U ni t e d S t a t e s v. L om ba r do, 35 F . 3d 526, 527 ( 11th C i r . 1994) . T he de f e nda ntha s the bur de n of pr ovi ng i nabi l i ty t o pa y af i ne . U ni t e d S t a t e s v. H e rna nde z , 160 F . 3d 661, 665 ( 1 1 th C ir . 1 9 9 8 ) . A s e n te n c e to p a y af

in e m a y b e im p o s e d in a d d itio n to a n y o th e rs e n te n c e . 1 8 U . S. C. A . § 3 5 5 1 ( b ) . Th e s t a tu t o ry ma x i mu m f i n e i s $ 2 , 0 0 0 , 0 0 0 . 2 1 U . S. C. § 9 6 0 ( b ) ( 2 ) ( B ) . S e c tio n 5 E 1 .2 ( a ) p r o v id e s th a t “[ t]h e c o u r t s h a ll im p o s e af in e in a l l c a s e s , e xc e ptw he r e the de f e nda nte s t abl i s he s tha the i s unabl e t o pa y a nd i s not l i ke l y t o be c om e abl e t o pa y . ” H e r e , C i ne us w a s s c or e d a n of f e ns e l e ve l of

30, f or w h ic h th e s e n te n c in g g u id e lin e s r e c o m m e n d af in e o f $ 1 5 ,0 0 0 to $ 2 ,0 0 0 ,0 0 0 . U .S .S .G . § 5 E 1 .2 ( c ) ( 2 - 4 ) . I f adi s tr i c tc ourtde t e rm i ne s , how e ve r , tha tthe de f e nda ntc oul d notpa y , a nd w ou l d n otl i kel y bec om e abl e t o p ay , a f i ne w i thi n the appl i cabl e r ange, the di stri ct c o u r tm a y i m p o s e as e n t e n c e o u t s i d e th e r e c o m m e n d e d g u i d e l i n e r a n g e . U. S . S . G. § 5 E 1 . 2 (f). T h e g u i d el i n es p ro v i d e a l i sto f sev en fact o rs th atth e co u rtm u st8

consi der w hen sett i ng a f i ne. U . S . S . G . § 5 E 1. 2(d). T hese fa ct ors i ncl ud e: de f e nda nt ’ s i nc om e ; e a rni ng c apa c i ty ; f i na nc i a l r e s our c e s ; the bur de n on the de f e nda nta nd hi s de pe nde nt s ; pe c uni a ry l os s i nf l i c t e d on othe r s a s ar e s ul tof the offe nse; w hether r es t i tut i on i s order ed; the need t o d epri ve the defendantof i l l egal ga i ns ; a nd the ne e d t o pr om ot e r e s pe c tf orthe l a w , pr ovi de j us tpuni s hm e nt , a nd a d e q u a te d e te rr e n c e . U .S .S .G . § 5 E 1 .2 ( d ) . E v id e n c e th a t ad e f e n d a n t h a s f

a ile d to d is c lo s e th e e x is te n c e o f a s s e ts to th e c o u r t m a y s u p p o r t ad e te rm in a tio n th a t h e is abl e t o pa y af

i ne w i th thos e undi s c l os e d a s s e t s . U ni t e d S t a t e s v. R ow l a nd, 906 F . 2d 621, 624 ( 11th C i r . 1990) . A l though the r e pr e s e nt a t i on of ade f e nda ntby ap p o in te d c o u n s e l m a y in d ic a te h is in ab ility to p a y , th a t f a c t is n o t d e te rm in a tiv e . U n ite d S ta te s v . L o n g , 1 2 2 F .3 d 1 3 6 0 , 1 3 6 6 n .8 ( 1 1 th C ir . 1 9 9 7 ) ; U .S .S .G . § 5 E 1 .2 , c o m m e n t. ( n .3 ) . W hi l e the di s tr i c tc ourtdi d notm a ke e xpl i c i tf i ndi ngs of

f a c tr e ga r di ng C in e u s ’s ab ility to p a y , th e h e a r in g d id p r o v id e a n a d e q u a te r e c o r d to e n ab le u s to c onduc tam e a ni ngf

ul r e vi e w . S e e U ni t e d S t a t e s v. A l s t on, 895 F . 2d 1362, 1374 ( 11th C i r . 1990) . F i r s t , the P S I s how e d tha tC i ne us c l a i m e d ow ne r s hi p of $2, 000 w or th of j e w e l ryw he n a rr e s t e d, a nd he a dm i tt e d, w he n obj e c t i ng t o the P S I , tha the had o ther i t em s of j ew el ryw i th an u nd et erm i ned v al ue. S ec on d, the di stri ctcourt r e l i e d on the f

a c ttha tC i ne us di d notpr ovi de the pr oba t i on of f i c e w i th s uf

f i c i e ntAfter United States v. Booker, 543 U.S. 220, 261, 125 S.Ct. 738, 765, 160 L .Ed.2d 621 1 (2005), wereview sentenc es under the advisory

guideline re g ime for “unrea sonable[ness].” 9 i nf orm a t i on r e ga r di ng hi s f i na nc i a l s t a tus w he n i ti m pos e d hi s f i ne . S e e R ow l a nd, 906 F . 2d a t624. T he di s tr i c tc our tde pa r t e d dow nw a r d f r om the gui de l i ne r a nge of $15, 000 t o $2, 000, 000 t o i m pos e a$2, 000 f i ne be c aus e the r e w a s nots uf f i c i e nt i nform at i on t o con fi rm C i neus’ s abi l i ty t o p ay . M oreover, the courtprov i ded that i f C i ne us — w ho w a s i n hi s m i d- thi r t i e s a nd good he a l th a ts e nt e nc i ng— c oul d not pa y the f i ne i m m e di a t e l y , he c oul d pa y i tove rt i m e by a rr a nge m e ntthr ough the I nm a t e F i na nc i a l R e s pons i bi l i ty P r ogr a m . T hus , ove rthe c our s e of C i ne us ’ s ni ne ye ar s of i ncar ce ra t i on and fou r y ears of supervi se d rel ea se , he w ou l d h ave t o p ay l e s s tha n $20 pe rm onth t o s a t i s f y the $2, 000 f

i ne . C f . L ong, 122 F . 3d a t1367 ( uphol di ng f

i ne a m ount i ng t o $56 pe rm onth ove rpe r i od of i m pr i s onm e nta nd supervi se d rel ea se ). F orthe r e a s ons s t a t e d above , the di s tr i c tc our tdi d notc l e a r l y e rri n i m pos i ng a $2, 00 0 fi ne as partof C i neus’ s s ent ence , and b ec ause no other c i rc um st ance s s u g g e s t th a t C in e u s ’s s e n te n c e w a s u n r e a s o n ab le , w e a f f irm h is s e n te n c e in th is 1 r e s p e c t. AF F I RME D.