[DO N OT PUBLISH] IN THE UN ITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELE VENTH CIRCUIT

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ No. 1 2- 10 90 7 Non -Arg um en t Ca le nd ar

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ D.C. Dock etNo. 2 :0 6- cr-0 00 17 -WK W -SRW-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 Pl ai nt iff - App el le e, ve rs us THOMAS GROVE, JR., ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll Defen da nt- App el la nt .

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ 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 Al ab am a

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ (J anua ry 2, 2 01 3) Befo re BARKETT, MARTIN an d KRAVITC H, Circ ui t J ud ge s. PER CURI AM: Tho m as Grov e, Jr ., app eal s h is co nv ic ti on s an d 9 7- m on thto ta l s en te nc e fo r po ss es si on with i nt en t t o d is tri bu te crac k a ndpo wde r co cai ne , invi ol at io n o f 21

Case: 12-10907 Date Filed: 01/02/2013 Page: 1 of 9U.S.C. § 8 41 (a)( 1) . After c aref ul rev ie w, we affi rm . I. Gro ve was c ha rg edinanin di ctm en t wi thm ul ti pl e co un ts , dat in g fr om 20 05 an d 2 00 6, o f po ss es si on with i nt en t t o d is tri bu te fiv e g ram s o r m or e o f po wde r an d crac k c oc ai ne an d d is tri bu ti on of f iv e g ram s o r m or e o f cra ckco cai ne , all in vi ol at io n o f 21 U.S.C. § 8 41 (a)( 1) . He pl ead edno t g ui lt y an d was tri edby a j ury . Inclo si ng , cou ns el forth e g ov ern m en t m ad e se ve ral st at em en ts rel ev an t t o t hi s ap pe al . Cou ns el st at ed :

Thi s was a bu si ne ss . Thes e p eo pl e were i n t he bu si ne ss of de al in g d ru gs . It’s ru n ju stli ke an y ot he r bu si ne ss . Like I’ve s ai d, . . . thi s d efen da ntdo es n’t d o d ru gs . He justm ak es m on ey off of ot he r pe op le . He m ak es m on ey off of p oi so ni ng ou r co m

m un it y . * * * [H]e is m ak in g m on ey

off sel li ng dru gs to pe op le inth e co m m un it y . W e al l kno w th atdru gs are the de gr ad at io n o f th is co m m un it y . . . . [O] f al l co m

m un it ie s . . . . Butth e are as of Mo nt go m ery whe re the re’s h ig he r drug us e . . . . * * * W e al l kno w th atinth es e co m m un it ie s wh ere t he dru g u se is hi gh er, tha t’s wh ere t he cri m e g oe s up . . . . [W ]e’ ve all readth atin th e p ap er, h earditon th e n ews , . . . he ardTom Bro ka w tal ki ng ab ou t itor o n 60Min ut es . Andth is is y ou r op po rtu ni ty. * * * Mem be rs of t he jury, as I sai d, thi s i s yourop po rtu ni ty. You can he lp ou t the co m

m un it y . At ti m es , peo pl e te achil li te rat es to read , feedth e h om el es s. * * * Aga in , y oucanhe lp y ou r co m m un it y or h el p p eo pl e b y

. . . te ach in g s om eo ne to reador f eed in g t he ho m el es s, g oi ng to pa in t a 2 Case: 12-10907 Date Filed: 01/02/2013 Page: 2 of 9sc ho ol to he lp th e sc ho ol ou t, d on at in g your cel l p ho ne s t o t he

Su ns hi ne Cen te r. Bu t thi s i s yourop po rtu ni ty. You ’re here to serve . Andas I sai d wh enI st art edtal ki ng , y ou ’re here to serve y ou r co m m un it y as ju ro rs . Andinservi ce t o your co m m un it y , y ouno w ha ve th e o pp ortu ni ty to t ak e ita st ep fart he r an d c le anup y ou r co m m un it y . Becau se when y outak e a dru g d eal er l ik e Tho m as Grov e . . . off the st reet , y ouau to m at ic al ly cleanup y ou r co m m un it y . You au to m at ic al ly m ak e itsaf er. Gro ve ’s cou ns el ob

jecte d t o e ach of t he se st at em en ts , bu t the di st ric t co urt in it ia ll y all owe d c ou ns el forth e g ov ern m en t t o p ro ceed . At th e ch arg e co nf eren ce, ho wev er, the di stric t co urt ag reedth e st at em en ts were i m pr op er. Gro ve ’s cou ns el m ov edfora m is tri al , bu t the co urt d en ie d t he m ot io n, fi nd in g acu rat iv e in st ru ct io n wo ul d s uf

fic e to pre ve ntpre

jud ic e. Fir st , th e co urt i ns tru ct edth e jury th atitco ul d o nl y

co ns id er the ev id en ce ad m it te d, an d wh atth e lawy ers sai d was no t ev id en ce. The n, the co urt s pe ci fic al ly rem in de d t he jury of th e g ov ern m en t’s st at em en ts du rin g re bu tt al an d s ai d:

It app ears th atth e p ro se cu to r’s co m m en t i n t hi s ca se draws up on wid es pr eadco m

m un it y fears ab ou t dru gs an d i m pl ie s t ha t tho se fear s ca n o r sh ou ldin fo rm th e p ro ces s o f as se ss in g g ui ltof t hi s de fen da nt . In o th er wo rd s, the refer en ce i nv it es th e jury to ju dg e th e cas e upo n s ta nd ard s an d g ro un ds ot he r th anth e ev id en ce an d t he law of th e cas e an d i s, thu s, o bjec ti on ab le an d i m pr op er. AndI fin d tha t th atarg um en t i s i m

pr op er an d t ha t I s ho ul d h av e su st ai ne d t he sec on d ob jecti on to it . [I]t’s im pr op er es pe ci al ly whe n the arg um en ts ap pe ar cal cu la te d t o s hi ft the em ph as is fro m

ev id en ce t o e m ot io n . . . . I’ m in st ru ct in g youth atst at em en ts an d a rg um en ts of c ou ns el are n ot 3 Case: 12-10907 Date Filed: 01/02/2013 Page: 3 of 9ev id en ce an d t ha t tho se im pr op er s ta te m en ts are t o b e d is reg ard edby y ou . Tho se arg um en ts are t o b e d is reg ard edby y ouiny ou r de li be rat io ns . They were i m pr op er t o d raw at te nt io n t o a ny sup po se d du ty y ouha ve to , qu ot e, cl ean up th e co m m un it y . Your job is to de ci de whet he r th is de fen da ntinth is cas e is gu il ty of th es e ch arg es or no t. If . . . y oufin d h im

gu il ty, sa y

so . If y oufin d h im

no t g ui lty , say so . The jury fo un d Gro ve gu il ty of eac h c ha rg e ex cep t d is tri bu ti on of c rack co cai ne . Grov e’s co un se l fi le d am ot io n fo r a n ew tr ia l, wh ic h t he di st ric t co urt de ni ed . A pro ba ti on off

ic er p rep areda pr es en te nc e in ve st ig at io n re po rt ( PSI) cal cu la ti ng a to ta l o ffen se lev el of 2 6. Th is in cl ud eda two -le ve l en ha nc em en t un de r U.S.S.G. § 2 D1.1 (b )(1 ) fo r po ss es si on of ada ng ero us weap on du rin g t he of fen se , bas edup ontwo lo ad edfir earm s d is co ve redina be dr oo m du rin g asea rch of Grov e’s ho m e. The P SI as si gn edGrov e a cri m in al hi st ory cat eg ory III, wh ic h y ie ld edanadvi so ry

gu id el in e ran ge of 7 8 t o 9 7 m on th s’ im pr is on m en t. Gro ve ob jecte d t o t he da ng ero us -weap on en ha nc em en t, ar gu in g t ha t the fir earm s wer e n othi s an d wer e n otreas on ab ly fores eeab le to hi m be cau se th ey were n otfou ndinhi s b edro om . The d is tri ctco urt o ve rru le d Gro ve ’s ob jecti on , em ph as iz in g t ha t the gu ns were fo un d i n Gro ve ’s ho m e, al on g wi th th e dru gs for whi chhe was h el d re sp on si bl e. The c ou rt u lt im at el y sen te nc edGrov e to 97 m on th s’ im

pr is on m en t, fi nd in g e xp res sl y th atth e se nt en ce was reas on ab le ev en 4 Case: 12-10907 Date Filed: 01/02/2013 Page: 4 of 9witho utth e d an ge ro us -weap onen ha nc em en t b ecau se of Gro ve ’s cri m in al hi st ory

an d t he ser io us ne ss of t he off en se . Gro ve no w app eal s h is co nv ic ti on s an d s en te nc e. II. A. All eg at io ns of p ro se cu to ria l m is co nduc t p res en t m ix edqu es ti on s o f fac t an d la w th atwe rev ie w de no vo . Uni te d Sta tes v. N or ie ga , 11 7 F .3d12 06 , 12 18 (11 th Ci r. 19 97 ). W e rev ie w th e d en ia l o f a m is tri al an d am ot io n fo r ne w tri al for an ab us e o f di sc ret io n. Uni te d Sta tes v. McGa ri ty , 66 9 F .3d12 18 , 12 32 (11 th Cir .) (m is tri al ), cer t. d

en ie d , 13 3 S . Ct. 3 78 (20 12 ); Uni te d Sta tes v. Her na ndez , 43 3 F.3 d 1 32 8, 1 33 2 (1 1t h C ir. 2 00 5) (ne w tri al ).

“ [W] he n we r ev ie w an i ss ue of p ro se cu to ria l m is co nduc t, we m us t de te rm in e (1 ) whe th er the ch al le ng edco m m en ts were i m

pr op er an d (2 ) if

so , whe th er the y

pre jud ic edth e d efen da nt ’s subs ta nt ia l ri gh ts .” McGa ri ty , 66 9 F .3dat 12 46 . “ A def

en da nt ’s subs ta nt ia l ri gh ts are p reju di ci al ly affect edwhena reas on ab le pro babi li ty aris es th at , bu t fo r th e rem ark s, the ou tc om e o f th e tr ia l wou ldha ve be endi ffer en t.” Id. (in te rn al qu ot at io n m ark s o m it te d) . The p art ie s d o no t d is pu te th atgo ve rn m en t co un se l’s co m m en ts were i m

pr op er. Gro ve co nt en ds th atth e d is tri ctco urt’s cu rat iv e in st ru ct io n was m ad e to o l at e — af te r de fen se 5 Case: 12-10907 Date Filed: 01/02/2013 Page: 5 of 9co un se l o bjec te d m ul ti pl e ti m es — an d was in su ffi ci en t i n l ig htof the ex te ns iv e im pr op er co m

m en ts an d t he di st ric t co urt’s re pe at edde ci si on to ov erru le de fen se co un se l’s o bjec ti on s.

“ Inde te rm in in g t he lev el of p reju di ce s te m min g fr om

a pr os ecu to r’s co m m en t, we ex am in e th atco m m en t i n t he co nt ex t o f th e en ti re tria l an d i n l ig htof an y curat iv e in st ru ct io n.” McGa ri ty , 66 9 F .3dat 1 24 6. Here , th e g ov ern m en t pr es en te d a m

pl e ev id en ce o f Gro ve ’s gu il t. In20 05 , a co op erat in g wi tn es s arra ng eda crac k- co cai ne de al with Gro ve . Ju stbe fo re the sch edul edde al , age nt s ob se rv edGrov e g etin to hi s ca r. Agen ts st op pe d t he car, s aw Gro ve pu t s om ethi ng in or t ak e so m ethi ng ou t o f th e cen te r co ns ol e, an d c on du ct eda se arch . There was crac k c oc ai ne inth e co ns ol e. Agen ts th enex ecu te d asearch warran t fo r Gro ve ’s ho m e, whe re the y

fou ndpo wde r co cai ne inGrov e’s be dr oo m an d c rackco cai ne un de r th e k it ch enst ov e. In 2 00 6, ag en ts arrang edforan ot he r co op erat in g wi tn es s t o c on du cta co nt ro ll edcrac k- co cai ne bu y fro m Grov e atGrov e’s ho m e. Afte r th e b uy, agen ts ob ta in edan ot he r warra ntan d a ga in sea rch edGrov e’s ho m e. Ina be dr oo m , age nt s fo un d c rackan d p owd er co cai ne , a lo ad ed9 m il li m et er h an dg un , am m un it io n, a lo ad edm ag azi ne , anda .44 cal ib er p is to l. Ag en ts als o d is co ve redth e wit ne ss ’s bu y m on ey inGrov e’s be dr oo m , alo ng with 1 0.3 gra m s o f cra ckco cai ne . The 6 Case: 12-10907 Date Filed: 01/02/2013 Page: 6 of 9go ve rn m en t el ic it edall of t hi s ev id en ce attri al .

Fu rth er, the di stric t co urt i nf orm edth e jury tha t the co urt s ho ul d n otha ve in it ia ll y ov erru le d d efen se co un se l’s o bjec ti on s an d i ss ue d ade ta il edcu rat iv e in st ru ct io n t ha t s pe ci fic al ly addres se d t he go ve rn m en t’s i m pr op er co m

m en ts . W e

“pr es um e th atth e jury fol lo wedth e d is tri ctco urt’s cu rat iv e in st ru ct io ns .” Uni te d St at es v. Lo

pe z , 59 0 F .3d12 38 , 12 56 (11 th Cir . 20 09 ). In l ig htof t he ev id en ce pr es en te d a t tria l an d t he di st ric t co urt’s cu rat iv e in st ru ct io n, we ca nn otsay the re is a reas on ab le pro babi li ty tha t, b utforth e g ov ern m en t’s i m pr op er re m ark s dur in g cl os in g a rg um en ts , th e o ut co m e o f th e tr ia l wo ul d h av e b een di ffer en t. B. Gro ve als o app eal s h is sen te nc e — s pe ci fic al ly, th e two -le ve l d an ge ro us weap on en ha nc em en t. We revi ew th e d is tri ctco urt’s fa ctua l fi nd in gs un de rlyin g a se nt en ci ng en ha nc em en t fo r cl ear e rro r an d t he ap pl ic at io n o f th os e fac ts to th e gu id el in es de no vo . McGa ri ty , 66 9 F .3dat 1 23 2. If, h owe ve r, th e d is tri ctco urt m ad e cl ear tha t the de fen da nt ’s sen te nc e wou ldbe th e sa m e d es pi te th e err or , itis no t n eces sa ry

to de ci de whet he r th e en ha nc em en t was ap pl ie d i n e rro r so lo ng as th e se nt en ce i s s ub st an ti ve ly reaso nabl e und er 1 8 U.S.C. § 35 53 (a). Se e Uni te d 1 Section 3553(a) require s the district court to consider at sentenc ing: ( 1) the nature a nd 1 circ umstances of

the offe nse and the history and cha rac teristics of the de fenda nt; (2) the nee d to ref lect the se riousness of the of fense , to promote respe ct for the law, and to pr ovide just

7 Case: 12-10907 Date Filed: 01/02/2013 Page: 7 of 9St at es v. Keen e , 47 0 F .3d13 47 , 13 48 -4 9 (1 1t h C ir. 2 00 6) . W e rev ie w th e

reas on ab le ne ss of asen te nc e u nd er a d efer en ti al ab us e-o f-d is cret io n s ta nd ard . Gal l v. Un it ed

Stat es , 55 2 U.S. 3 8, 4 1 (2 00 7) . Inth is cas e, al th ou ghth e d is tri ctco urt ap pl ie d t he en ha nc em en t, i t al so st at ed : Mr. Gro ve , th e se nt en ce tha t I a m go in g t o i m

po se on y ouis go in g t o b e a g ui de li ne sen te nc e, bu t the sen te nc e th atI im po se up on y ouis a se nt en ce tha t I b el ie ve is reas on ab le inev ery res pe ct , andth at fo r rea so ns I’m

go in g t o e nu m erat e I thi nka se nt en ce an y les s t ha n th is wou ldbe un reas on ab le irr es pe ct iv e o f wha t yourgu id el in e ran ge is . Bec au se th e d is tri ctco urt i nd ic at edth atitwou ldim po se th e sa m e 9 7- m on th se nt en ce i rres pe ct iv e o f Gro ve ’s gu id el in e ran ge cal cu la te d wi th th e d an ge ro us weap on en ha nc em en t, we n eedon ly det erm in e whe th er tha t s en te nc e wou ld no ne th el es s b e rea so nabl e ev enwitho utth e en ha nc em en t; th atis , if Gro ve ’s gu id el in e ran ge were 6 3 t o 7 8 m on th s’ im pr is on m en t. Se e Kee ne , 47 0 F .3dat 13 50 . “ [T]he b ur de n i s o n the de fen da ntto pro ve th athi s s en te nc e is un reas on ab le in li gh t o f th e rec or d and§ 3 55 3( a).” Id. Here, Gro ve ha d a n e xt en si ve cri m in al -h is to ry reco rd : h e h adsev en punishment for the off

ense; (3) the nee d for de terre nce; ( 4) the ne ed to protec t the public; (5) the need to pr ovide the def

endant with educ ational or voc ational trainingor medica l car e; (6) the kinds of sentenc es ava ilable; (7) the Sente ncingGuidelines ra ng e; (8) the pertinent policy statements of the Sente ncingCommi ssion; (9) the nee d to avoid unwar rante d sentenc ing disparities; and (10) the nee d to provide re stitut ion to victims . 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a). 8 Case: 12-10907 Date Filed: 01/02/2013 Page: 8 of 9su sp en de d s en te nc es , at l eas t o ne fed eral co nv ic ti on , fiv e cas es di sm is se d o r no ll e

pr os se d (i nc lu di ng two fordru g t raff ic ki ng ), an d o ve r on e hun dr edtra ffi c o r ot he r m in oroff en se s. Th is , as t he di st ric t co urt ex pl ai ne d, s ho wedGrov e’s gr eat di sr es pe ctforth e law. Se e 18 U.S.C. § 3 55 3( a)(1 ) (requi rin g t he di st ric t co urt t o co ns id er “ th e h is to ry

an d c haract eri st ic s o f th e d efen da nt ”). The di stric t co urt al so em ph as iz edth atGrov e’s se nt en ce wo ul d “ refl ectth e se rio us ne ss of t he off en se ,”

“pr om ot e res pe ctfor

th e la w andpro vi de jus t p un is hm en t,” “ affo rdad equa te de te rren [ce] to cri min al co nduc t,” “ pr ot ectth e p ub li c fro m furth er cr im es ” b y Gro ve , pro vi de Grov e “ with c orrect io na l treat m en t,” a nd“ av oi d u nwa nt ed[ si c ] se nt en ce d is pa rit ie s among de fen da nt s.” B ecau se th e d is tri ctco urt s pe ci fic al ly ad dr es se d t he § 3 55 3( a) fa ct or s an d Gro ve ha s n otot he rwis e sh own th athi s se nt en ce i s u nr eas on ab le inli gh t o f th es e fac to rs , we con cl ud e th atth e se nt en ce im po se d was subs ta nt iv el y

reas on ab le . Andwe ne edno t ad dr es s Gro ve ’s arg um en t tha t the di st ric t co urt i m pr op erl y in cl ud edth e d an ge ro us -weap on en ha nc em en t i n c al cu la ti ng hi s g ui de li ne ran ge . III. Fo r th e fo reg oi ng reas on s, we af firm Grov e’s co nv ic ti on s an d s en te nc e. AFFIRMED.

9 Case: 12-10907 Date Filed: 01/02/2013 Page: 9 of 9