FILED U.S. COURT OF AP P EALS E LEV EN T HC IRC U IT MARCH 21, 2008 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. 07- 11260 N on -A rgum entC al endar

________________________ D . C. D o c k e tN o . 0 6 - 0 0 0 8 6 - CR- CG 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 T O M M I E N A T H A N I E L W H I T E , 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 o rth e So u th e rn D i s tr i c to f A l ab a ma

_________________________ ( M ar c h 21, 2008) B efo re A N D E R S O N , B IR C H an d H U L L , C i rcu i tJu d g es. P E R C U R I A M: T o m m i e N ath an i el W h i t e ap p eal s h i s co n v i ct i o n s fo r co n sp i racy t o p o ssess2

w ith in te n t to d is tr ib u te c o c a in e a n d c r a c k c o c a in e , a n d p o s s e s s io n w ith in te n t to d i stri b u t e co cai n e. H e al so ap p eal s h i s 4 0 0 -m o n th sen t en ce as t o each o f th o se c o n v ic tio n s . W h ite 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 lim itin g th e s c o p e o f h is c r os s - e xa m i na t i on of

c e r t a i n w i tne s s e s a nd i n pe rm i tt i ng que s t i ons by the g o v e rn m e n t b o ls te r in g th e c r e d ib ility o f th o s e w itn e s s e s . H e a s s e r ts th a t th is d e p r iv e d h im o f

a f a irtr ia l in v io la tio n o f

th e S ix th A m e n d m e n t. H e a ls o c o n te s ts hi s s e nt e nc e , a r gui ng tha t( 1) the c our te rr e d i n appl y i ng the 100- t o- 1 c r a c k- t opow de rc oc a i ne di s pa r i ty i n c a l c ul a t i ng hi s s e nt e nc e ; ( 2) the c our tm i s appl i e d a th r e e - l e v e l m a n a g e r - s u p e r v i s o re n h a n c e m e n t ; a n d ( 3 ) h i s 4 0 0 - m o n th b e l o wG u i d e l i n e s s e n t e n c e w a s u n r e a s o n b l e . We A F F I R M. I . B AC KG RO UN D W h ite w a s in d ic te d o n f o u rc o u n ts : ( 1 ) c o n s p ir in g to k n o w in g ly p o s s e s s w ith i nt e ntt o di s tr i but e m or e tha n 5 ki l ogr a m s of c oc a i ne a nd m or e tha n 50 gr a m s of c r a c k c o c a in e , in v io la tio n o f 2 1 U .S .C . § 8 4 1 ( a ) ( 1 ) ( C o u n t 1 ) ; ( 2 ) k n o w in g ly p o s s e s s in g w ith in te n t to d is tr ib u te ap p r o x im a te ly 5 0 0 g r a m s o f c o c a in e , in vi ol a t i on of

21 U . S . C . § 841( a ) ( 1) , ( b) ( 1) ( B ) ( C ount2) ; ( 3) know i ngl y pos s e s s i ng w i th i nt e ntt o di s tr i but e appr oxi m a t e l y 4. 5 gr a m s of c oc a i ne , i n vi ol a t i on of 21 U . S . C . § 841( a ) ( 1) , ( b) ( 1) ( C ) ( C ount3) ; a nd ( 4) know i ngl y pos s e s s i ng w i th i nt e nt to d is tr ib u te ap p r o x im a te ly tw o o u n c e s o f c o c a in e , in v io la tio n o f 2 1 U .S .C . §The indic tm ent als o c o ntain e d a f o rf e it ure p ro v is io n , wh ich is n o t at is s u e in th eprese nt 1 a pp e al. 3 84 1(a) (1), (b)( 1)(C ) ( C ou nt4). W hi t e pl ea ded n otgu i l ty a nd the go vernm entfi l ed 1 an i nform at i on i nd i ca t i ng thatW hi t e had been previ ou sl y c on vi ct ed of another drug of f e ns e a nd w a s the r e f

or e s ubj e c tt o e nha nc e d pe na l t i e s a ts e nt e nc i ng. B ef ore tri al , the go vernm entfi l ed a m ot i on i n l i m i ne, i nform i ng the court thaton e of i t s w i tness es , F el t on D enham , had t aken a pol ygraph exam and h ad b e e n f o u n d to b e d e c e p tiv e ab o u t as in g le s ta te m e n t m a d e in c o n n e c tio n w ith

“ another s ubj ec t , un re l at ed t o h i s a nt i ci pat ed t es t i m on y a gai nst ” W hi t e. D oc. 24 at 1. T he gove rnm e ntr e que s t e d tha tW hi t e be pr ohi bi t e d f r om r e f e rr i ng t o the p o ly g r ap h e x a m a t tr ia l. I d . W h ite d id n o t r e s p o n d b e f o r e tr ia l. D uri ng i t s openi ng st at em entattri al , the go vernm entno t ed thatse vera l w i tne s s e s ha d e nt e r e d i nt o “ a gr e e m e nt [ s ] t o c oope r a t e a nd t o pr ovi de i nf orm a t i on t o th e g o v ern m en t . ” D o c. 6 9 at4 . T h e g o v ern m en tl at er st at ed th at“ j u stb ecau se th e y ’v e e n te r e d in to a n a g r e e m e n t w ith th e g o v e rn m e n t d o e s n o t im m e d ia te ly di s c ountthe i rt e s t i m ony , ” butm a de no r e f e r e nc e t o the s t a nda r d truth- t e l l i ng pr ovi s i ons i n the pl e a a gr e e m e nt s . I d. a t6. W hi t e m a de no obj e c t i on dur i ng the go vernm ent ’ s openi ng st at em ent . D uri ng W hi t e’ s openi ng st at em ent , he st at ed that th e g o v e rn m e n t’s o n ly e v id e n c e w o u ld s te m f r o m d ru g d e a le r s “w h o a r e w a n tin g to g e t o u t o f

ja il o rw a n tin g to c u t th e irs e n te n c e . A n d th e y k n o w w h a t th e y h a v e to4

d o to d o it.” I d . a t 8 . W h ite ’s c o u n s e l c o n c e d e d th a t W h ite h a d b e e n in tr o u b le before, bu tst at ed “ [t ] hatw as then. T hi s i s now . B utI w i l l subm i tt o you that th a t’s w h a t m a k e s h im a n e a s y ta r g e t f o rth e s e p e o p le . T h e y h a d to c o m e u p w ith s om e body , a nd he r e he s i t s . ” I d. a t8- 9. T he gove rnm e ntc a l l e d t e n w i tne s s e s : one l a w e nf or c e m e nta ge nta nd ni ne w itn e s s e s w h o h a d b e e n c o n v ic te d a n d w e r e c o o p e r a tin g w ith th e g o v e rn m e n t. T he a ge nt , T om m y L of

t i s , t e s t i f i e d tha the he l pe d e xe c ut e c ontr ol l e d pur c ha s e s of co ca in e a n d cr ac k co ca in e f ro m D en h am . In th e p ro ce ss o f e x am in in g D en h am ’s p h o n e r e c o r d s f

r o m a p e r io d o f

s e v e r a l m o n th s , L o f

tis h a d d is c o v e r e d th a t W h ite had cal l ed D enham 26 0 t i m es and D enham had cal l ed W hi t e 658 t i m es . D oc. 47 at 25- 26, 30. A ft erL oft i s f

i ni shed t es t i fy i ng , the go vernm entsoug htl ea ve t o i ntrodu ce in to e v id e n c e th e c o o p e r a tin g w itn e s s e s ’ p le a a g r e e m e n ts . W h ite o b je c te d to adm i tt i ng the fa ctual re sum e port i on s of the agree m ent s, bu tno tthe pl ea agre em ent s them se l ves. W hi t e des cr i bed the fa ctual re sum es as “ hear sa y s ta te m e n ts s a y in g th is is w h a t h ap p e n e d , w h e n in f a c t it is n o t a n is s u e in th is c a s e . ” I d. a t51. C la r e n c e R e e d th e n te s tif ie d th a t h e h a d p u r c h a s e d c r a c k c o c a in e f r o m W h ite on nu m er ou s occ as i on s i n 2 00 3. H e a l so t es t i fi ed thatD enham had p urchas ed5

d ru g s f r o m W h ite . R e e d d e s c r ib e d a tr ip to A tla n tah e h a d m a d e in 2 0 0 3 w ith W hi t e a nd a f

e m a l e c our i e r , dur i ng w hi c h the y ha d pur c ha s e d $10, 000 w or th of drugs f r om tw o f

e m a l e s a nd ha d the n duc tt ape d the drugs t o the f e m a l e c our i e rf

or tra nspo rtback t o A l abam a. D uri ng cr oss- exam i nat i on , defe nse c ou nsel as ked R ee d w hether he had prom i se d t o b e c om pl et el y truthful i n h i s pl eaagre em entand, af t er R ee d ac k n o w led g ed th at h e h ad , ask ed R ee d w h y h e h ad n o t m en ti o n ed W h it e’s d ru g d e a lin g d u r in g h is in itia l d e b r ie f in g in te rv ie w w ith la w e n f o r c e m e n t. B e f or e D e nha m t e s t i f

i e d, the di s tr i c tc our tgr a nt e d the gove rnm e nt ’ s m ot i on i n l i m i ne , rul i ng tha t“ the pr oba t i ve va l ue [ of e vi de nc e r e l a t e d t o the pol y gr aph e xa m ] i s w a y ove rw e i ghe d by c onf us i on on the i s s ue of

e ve ry thi ng e l s e . ” I d. a t87- 88. D e f e ns e c ouns e l a gr e e d nott o r a i s e the pol y gr aph e xa m di r e c t l y , buta s ke d f or perm i ss i on t o ask D enham w hether he had vi ol at ed the t erm s of hi s pl ea a gr e e m e nt . T he di s tr i c tc our te xpl a i ne d tha tthi s w oul d i ndi r e c t l y r a i s e the p o ly g r ap h r e s u lts a n d ru le d a g a in s t W h ite , s ta tin g “I d o n ’t th in k th a t’s a d m is s ib le s im p ly b e c a u s e th e g o v e rn m e n t d o e s n ’t h a v e a n o p p o r tu n ity to g o b a c k a n d e x p la in w hatthati s a nd i t ’ s l ef

tfor the j ury t o specul at e. A nd so I don ’ tthi nk . . . you n ee d t o g o i nt o that . ” I d. at88 . W hi t e di d n otra i se a C on fr on t at i on C l ause obj ec t i on at thatt i m e. D u r in g d ir e c t e x a m in a tio n o f D e n h a m , th e g o v e rn m e n t q u e s tio n e d h im6

abouthi s pl e a a gr e e m e nta nd the f ol l ow i ng di a l ogue oc c urr e d: [ G ove rnm e nt ] : A nd doe s thi s pl e a a gr e e m e ntpr ovi de y ou w i th the

o p p o r tu n ity to c o o p e r a te w ith th e g o v e rn m e n t? [ D e n h a m] : Y e s , ma ’ a m. [ G ove rnm e nt ] : A nd w ha ta r e y ou s uppos e d t o do i n c oope r a t i ng

w ith th e g o v e rn m e n t? [ D e n h a m ]: T e ll th e tru th a n d te ll th e r o le th a t I p la y e d , th a t I

t ook pl a c e i n. [ G o v e rn m e n t]: A n d h a v e y o u p r o v id e d th e g o v e rn m e n t w ith

i nform at i on abou tyour rol e i n thi s c as e? [ D e n h a m] : Y e s , ma ’ a m. I d. a t88- 90. W hi t e r a i s e d no obj e c t i on a nd D e nha m pr oc e e de d t o di s c us s hi s drug d ea li n g s w ith W h it e a n d o th er s. T h e g o v er n m en t l ateras k ed w h eth erD en h am ’s p le a a g r e e m e n t r e q u ir e d th a t h e te ll th e tru th a n d D e n h a m a c k n o w le d g e d th a t it d id . W hi t e di d notobj e c t . D e nha m t e s t i f i e d tha the ha d pur c ha s e d drugs r e gul a r l y f r om W hi t e begi nn i ng i n 2 00 3. A ft erW hi t e r eturned from drug bu yi ng tri ps t o A t l ant a – o nce w i th R ee d and on ce w i th an u ni dent i fi ed w om an – the drug s w er e di vi ded atthe ho m e of O . G . , on e of W hi t e’ s a ss oci at es . W hi t e had al so t augh tD enham h o w to c o n v e r t c o c a in e in to c r a c k c o c a in e . D ur i ng c r os s - e xa m i na t i on, D e nha m c onf i rm e d tha t , a f

t e rhe w a s a rr e s t e d, he had p rom i se d t o coo pera t e f ul l y w i th the i nv es t i gat i on and t o t el l “ the w ho l e truth. ”7

I d. a t121. T he f

ol l ow i ng di a l ogue the n oc c urr e d: [ W hi t e ’ s c ouns e l ] : Y ou l i e d, di dn’ ty ou? [D enham ] : N o, si r. [W hi t e’ s c ou nsel ] : O kay. Y ou t ol d M r. L oft i s the w ho l e truth; i s that

r ig h t? [D enham ] : Y es , si r. [ W hi t e ’ s c ouns e l ] : B e gi nni ng i n D e c e m be rof 2004? [D enham ] : Y es , si r. I d . D e n h a m th e n te s tif

ie d th a t, a lth o u g h th e s u m m a tio n o f h is in te rv ie w w ith A ge ntL of

t i s di d notm e nt i on W hi t e , he a nd W hi t e ha d be e n i nvol ve d w i th drug de a l i ng. W hen W hi t e a tt em pt ed t o i nq ui re abou tthe fa ctual re sum e i n D enham ’ s pl ea a gr e e m e nt , the gove rnm e ntobj e c t e d on he a r s a y gr ounds . W hi t e r e s ponde d tha tthe resu m e co u l d b e u sed t o d em o n strat e a p ri o r i n co n si st en tst at em en tb ecau se D e n h a m h a d te s tif

ie d to e n g a g in g in illic it a c tiv ity w ith W h ite , b u t th e r e s u m e d id notm e nt i on W hi t e . T he di s tr i c tc our trul e d tha tW hi t e c oul d notc ont i nue a s ki ng such qu es t i on s bec ause the re sum e c on t ai ned o nl y a n ackno w l edgm entby D enham tha tthe gove rnm e ntc oul d pr ove the f a c t s c ont a i ne d w i thi n. T he f ol l ow i ng di a l ogue the n oc c urr e d: [W hi t e’ s c ou nsel ] : I w antt o ask hi m : “ D i d you si gn thi s? W as there8 som e other i nform at i on you w ant ed t o p uti n h er e or no tw antt o p uti n h er e? W as thi s w hatyou p l ed g u i l ty t o ?” [ T h e C o u r t]: N o . T h is d o e s n o t p u rp o r t to b e a s ta te m e n t o f h is nori s thi s w ha the pl e d gui l ty t o. T hi s i s w ha tthe g o v e rn m e n t s a id th e y c o u ld p r o v e to s u p p o r t h is c onvi c t i on a nd doe s n’ tpurpor tt o be e ve ry thi ng they c ou l d p rove. S o u si ng i tfor thatpu rpose I th in k is im p r o p e r . . . .

. . . Y ou c a n c e r t a i nl y e s t abl i s h tha the ha s n’ tm a de any s t at em entabou tM r. W hi t e bef ore he ent er ed hi s gui l ty pl ea , i f thati n fac ti s true. I d . a t 1 3 2 - 3 3 . W h ite d id n o t r a is e a C o n f r o n ta tio n C la u s e o b

je c tio n . W h ite s u b s e q u e n tly a s k e d D e n h a m w h e th e rD e n h a m h a d m e n tio n e d h is d e a lin g s w ith W hi t e a tthe t i m e he pl ea ded g ui l ty a nd he re spon ded thathe had n ot . D enham i ndi c a t e d tha the ha d f

i r s tm e nt i one d W hi t e t o pol i c e appr oxi m a t e l y 13 m onths af t erhi s gui l ty pl ea . C harl es T ho m as t es t i fi ed nextthathe had p urchas ed cocai ne and crac k c o c a in e f r o m W h ite . A c c o r d in g to T h o m a s , O .G . s e rv e d a s a “ru n n e r ” a n d d id drug bus i ne s s e rr a nds f

orW hi t e . I d. a t147- 48. T hom a s w a s nota s ke d w he the rhe had p rom i se d t o t es t i fytruthful l y pursuantt o h i s pl eaagre em entor w hether he had fu l l y co m p l i ed w i th th e ag reem en t ’ s t erm s. A l f r e d J a m e s t e s t i f

i e d t o pur c ha s i ng m a r i

j ua na , c oc a i ne , a nd c r a c k c oc a i ne f r o m W h ite u n til la te 2 0 0 5 . A c c o r d in g to J a m e s , O .G . r a n e rr a n d s f o rW h ite .9

J a m e s a l s o s t a t e d tha tW hi t e ha d s poke n t o D e nha m “ aboutge tt i ng hi s m one y r i ght s o he c oul d . . . m a ke the tr i p” t o A t l a nt a . I d. a t175. D ur i ng c r os s - e xa m i na t i on, J a m e s t e s t i f

i e d tha the ha d notdi s c us s e d hi s de a l i ngs w i th W hi t e unt i l hi s s e c ond m e e tin g w ith A g e n t L o f tis . J o n e s w a s n o t a s k e d w h e th e rh e h a d p r o m is e d to t es t i fytruthful l y pursuantt o h i s pl eaagre em ent , al tho ug h h e w as as ked o n redi re ct w h e th e rth e p le a a g r e e m e n t c o n ta in e d h is o n ly a g r e e m e n t w ith th e g o v e rn m e n t. R ode r i c k G ul l e y , a c ous i n of W hi t e ’ s , t e s t i f

i e d tha the pur c ha s e d c oc a i ne fr om W hi t e s ever al t i m es i n 2 00 5. D uri ng cr oss- exam i nat i on , G ul l eyt es t i fi ed that h e h a d f ir s t to ldp o lic e ab o u t W h ite le s s th a n a m o n th e a r lie r . S e y m ourI rby t e s t i f

i e d tha the ha d he l pe d D e nha m di s tr i but e c oc a i ne a nd c r a c k c o c a in e . I rb y o b s e r v e d D e n h a m p u r c h a s e 5 0 0 g r a m s o f c o c a in e f

r o m W h ite i nsi de D enham ’ s tra i l er . A n ass oci at e of W hi t e’ s, “ [a ] t al l gu y nam ed A l i , ” w as a l s o pr e s e nt . D oc . 48 a t229. O n r e di r e c t , I rby s t a t e d tha thi s pl e a a gr e e m e nt p r o v id e d f

o rp u n is h m e n ts in th e e v e n t th a t h e te s tif ie d u n tru th f

u lly . D ou gl as H i l l t es t i fi ed thathe had sol d m ar i j uana, codei ne, prom ethazi ne, and cou gh sy rup t o W hi t e vi a athi rd party. H e had pu rc hase d cocai ne, cr ac k c oc a i ne , a nd m a r i

j ua na di r e c t l y f

r om W hi t e a nd ha d a c qui r e d appr oxi m a t e l y one ki l ogr a m of

c r a c k c oc a i ne i n t ot a l . I d. a t257. T erra nce D ort ch t es t i fi ed thathe had p urchas ed drug s f rom W hi t e a nd that10

W hi t e onc e s how e d hi m how t o c ook c r a c k c oc a i ne . D ur i ng c r os s - e xa m i na t i on, W h ite ’s c o u n s e l a s k e d w h e th e rD o r tc h h a d s ig n e d a f a c tu a l r e s u m e a s p a r t o f h is pl e a a gr e e m e nt . T he di s tr i c tc our ts us t a i ne d the gove rnm e nt ’ s obj e c t i on t o thi s l i ne of que s t i oni ng. P ha m ous H obbs t e s t i f

i e d tha the ha d pur c ha s e d c oc a i ne a nd c r a c k c oc a i ne f r o m W h i t e o n n u me r o u s o c c a s i o n s a n d a ts e v e r a l l o c a t i o n s , i n c l u d i n g a tth e h o me of a c ous i n of

H obbs . W hi t e w oul d gi ve the c ous i n “ a l i tt l e s om e thi ng f orc a l l i ng” hi m abou tH ob bs’ s i nt er es ti n p urchas i ng drug s. Id. at30 7. D ort ch al so pu rc hase d drugs f r om W hi t e a tthe hom e of H obbs ’ s c ous i n. D ur i ng c r os s - e xa m i na t i on, W hi t e a sked H ob bs w hether he had si gn ed a f ac tual re sum e a s partof hi s pl ea ag reem en tan d H o b b s an sw ered affi rm at i v el y. A f te rth e g o v e rn m e n t r e s te d , d e s p ite h is p r e v io u s o b je c tio n to th e ir a dm i s s i on, W hi t e a tt e m pt e d t o i ntr oduc e i nt o e vi de nc e the f a c tua l r e s um e s of D e n h a m , D o r tc h , a n d H o b b s . T h e c o u r t d e n ie d th e r e q u e s t, e x p la in in g th a t it s till rul ed that“ tho se [w e] re no tst at em ent s, they [ w e] re si m pl y f ac tual re sum es p r e p a r e d b y th e g o v e rn m e n t th a t th e d e f e n d a n ts a g r e e d th e g o v e rn m e n t c o u ld pr ove i n r e l a t i on t o the i rpa r t i c ul a rc a s e a tthe t i m e the y w e r e pl e a di ng gui l ty . ” I d. at32 7. W hi t e di d n otra i se a C on fr on t at i on C l ause obj ec t i on . W hi t e c al l ed se vera l w i tne s s e s dur i ng hi s c a s e - i n- c hi e f , butde c l i ne d t o t e s t i f

y on hi s ow n be ha l f

. T he11

g o v e rn m e n t c a lle d A g e n t L o f tis in r e b u tta l. D uri ng i t s c l osi ng ar gu m ent , the go vernm entno t ed thatthe evi dence supp ort i ng C ou nt2 h ad been est abl i shed by Irby. T he go vernm ental so st at ed that th e p le a a g r e e m e n ts h a d b e e n p u t in to e v id e n c e a n d th e ju ry w o u ld b e ab le to r e vi e w the m a nd “ s e e a l l of the c ondi t i ons a nd the c ons e que nc e s tha tr e s ul tf r om tho se pl eaagre em ent s. ” D oc. 70 at12 . T he go vernm entob se rved thatthe pl ea agre em ent s “ cr ea t e[ d] the need for tho se w i tness es , the absol ut e nec es si ty f or them to b e tru th fu l . . . .” Id . at 1 3 . W h it e’s c o u n se l d idn o t o b ject. D u rin g W h it e’s cl osi ng , defe nse c ou nsel st at ed that“ [y ] ou coul dn ’ tbel i eve these peop l e” and that

“ i f i t ’ s c om e the t i m e i n o ur soci ety w hen w e bri ng thi s type of e vi dence i n h er e a nd w e c om e i n he r e a nd s t a nd i n f r ontof ourc i t i z e ns a nd s a y c onvi c tthi s pe r s on of thi s e vi de nc e , y ou m i ghta s w e l l burn the c our thous e dow n be c a us e the r e ’ s no j us t i c e a ny m or e . . . . ” I d. a t32, 33. I n r e butt a l , the gove rnm e nts t a t e d tha tA ge nt L o f tis h a d y e a r s o f

e x p e r ie n c e a n d w a s “n o t g o in g to b e ju s t s u c k e r e d .” I d . a t 3 8 . T h e g o v ern m en tal so ex p l ai n ed th atA g en tL o ft i s w as t est i fyi n g i n th e case b ecau se “[ h ]e b e lie v e [ d ] in th is c a s e .” I d . a t 4 0 . W h ite ’s c o u n s e l d id n o t o b je c t. W hi l e w ai t i ng for the j ury t o rea ch a verdi ct , W hi t e’ s c ou nsel st at ed, “ Judg e, w e e nj oyed try i ng the ca se w i th you . Itw as a f ai r tri al and w e e nj oyed try i ng i t . ” D oc. 48 at41 2. W hi t e w as ul t i m at el y c on vi ct ed on C ou nt s 1 and 2 , and acqui tt ed12

o f C o u n ts 3 a n d 4 . B e f or e s e nt e nc i ng, a pr oba t i on of f i c e rpr e pa r e d a pr e s e nt e nc e i nve s t i ga t i on rep o rt(“ P S I”), sett i n g W h i t e’ s b ase o ffen se l ev el at3 8 b ecau se h i s o ffen se i nvol ve d m or e tha n 1. 5 ki l ogr a m s of c oc a i ne ba s e . S e e U . S . S . G . § 2D 1. 1( c ) ( 1) (200 5). B ec ause a dangerous w eapo n w as i nv ol ved, tw o l evel s w er e a dd ed un der § 2 D 1 . 1 (b )(1 ). T h ree l ev el s w ere th en ad d ed o n th e g ro u n d th atW h i t e w as a m a n a g e ro rs u p e r v is o ro f c r im in a l a c tiv ity th a t in v o lv e d f iv e o rm o r e p a r tic ip a n ts o r w as o th erw i se ex t en si v e. S ee § 3 B 1 . 1 (b ). W h i t e, a career o ffen d er, w as al so p la c e d in c r im in a l h is to ry c a te g o ry V I b a s e d o n h is c r im in a l h is to ry p o in ts . W ith an ad ju sted o ff

en se lev el o f 4 3 , an d a c rim in al h isto ry ca teg o ry o f V I, W h it e’s r e s u ltin g G u id e lin e s r a n g e w a s lif e im p r is o n m e n t. P r i ort o s e nt e nc i ng, W hi t e r a i s e d s e ve r a l obj e c t i ons t o the P S I , onl y one of w hi c h i s r e l e va ntt o the pr e s e ntappe a l – tha tappl i c a t i on of the 100- t o- 1 c r a c k- t op o w d e rc o c a in e s e n te n c in g d is p a r ity is irr a tio n a l. T h e d is tr ic t ju d g e a d d r e s s e d th is obj ec t i on atse nt enci ng by w ayof the fol l ow i ng i nt er change: [T h e C o u rt ] : W h atI w o u l d l i k e t o d o , M r. M ad d en , i s fi rst

c a l c ul a t e the gui de l i ne – [W hi t e’ s C ou nsel ] : Y es [ T h e C o u r t]:

–a n d g e t y o u ro b je c tio n s to th a t. [W hi t e’ s C ou nsel ] : Y es , that ’ s f i ne.13

[T he C ou rt ] : O kay. A nd then w e’ l l deal w i th any other

a r g u m e n ts y o u h a v e ab o u t w h a t is a r e a s o n ab le se nt ence i n thi s c as e. [W hi t e’ s C ou nsel ] : Y es [ T h e C o u r t]: S o in s o f a ra s y o u r1 0 0 - to - 1 r a tio is a n o b je c tio n to th e w a y th e g u id e lin e s a r e c a lc u la te d , I o v e rru le tha tobj e c t i on ba s e d upon the c urr e nts t a t e of the la w . D oc . 71 a t3. A ts e nt e nc i ng, W hi t e a l s o obj e c t e d t o the m a na ge r i a l r ol e e nha nc e m e nt i m po se d p ursuantt o§ 3B 1. 1(b). W hi t e a rgued thatthe go vernm enthad m i sc hara ct er i ze d b uyer -s el l erre l at i on shi ps as conspi ra t ori al re l at i on shi ps, and that W hi t e ha d nots upe r vi s e d f i ve i ndi vi dua l s . T he di s tr i c tc our tf ound tha tthe adj ustm entw as prop erbecause e ven i f D enham ’ s drug-deal i ng organi za t i on w er e e xc l ude d f

r om the c a l c ul a t i on, a tl e a s tf i ve i ndi vi dua l s – i nc l udi ng W hi t e , R e e d, D e n h a m , O .G . a n d th e f e m a le c o u r ie r–w e r e in v o lv e d in o n e o f th e tr ip s to A t l ant a “ and thatthe ac t i vi ty w as otherw i se ext ensi ve. ” D oc. 71 at10 -11. A ft er di sc ussi ng and rul i ng on these , and the go vernm ent ’ s obj ec t i on s, the di stri ctcourt im p lic itly a d o p te d th e G u id e lin e s c a lc u la tio n s m a d e b y th e p r o b a tio n o f f ic e . T hrou gh ou thi s c al cul at i on s of the G ui del i nes r ange, the di stri ctcourtre m i nd ed c ouns e l tha tthe gui de l i ne c a l c ul a t i on “ doe s n’ ts a y a ny thi ng aboutthe14

r e a s o n ab le n e s s o f

it.” D o c . 7 1 a t 6 . A fterca lcu lati n g th e G u id elin es ra n g e, th e d istrict co u rt as k ed W h it e’s c ouns e l t o pr e s e nthi s a r gum e nta s t o “ w ha t[ w oul d be ] a r e a s onbl e s e nt e nc e . ” I d. at15 . W hi t e’ s c ou nsel ar gu ed thatthe se nt ence w as skew ed base d o n the 10 0-t o-1 cr ac k-t o-po w der c ocai ne se nt enci ng di spar i ty, as se rt i ng thati m po si ng a l i fe se nt ence on these fa ct s w as “ cr az y” and “ the es se nce of unreas on abl enes s. ” I d. at 1 6 . H e r e q u e s te d a s e n te n c e o f 2 0 y e a r s , th e s ta tu to ry m in im u m . A ft erW hi t e’ s s i st erspok e on h i s behal f, W hi t e prot es t ed hi s i nn ocence st at i ng thathe “

j ustcoul dn ’ tpl eaou tt o som ethi ng [he] di dn ’ tdo ” a nd thathe had n o t e v e n r e c o g n iz e d f

o u ro f th e w itn e s s e s . I d . a t 1 8 - 1 9 . P o in tin g o u t th a t W h ite ha d de m ons tr a t e d no r e m or s e f orhi s a c t i ons , the gove rnm e ntr e que s t e d the i m pos i t i on of

a l i f e s e nt e nc e a nd not e d tha ti f W hi t e w e r e t o s e rve one y e a r“ f or e v e ry lif e th a t h e w r e c k e d b y p e d d lin g c r a c k c o c a in e in th is to w n , 3 0 y e a r s [ w o u ld notbe ] e nough. ” I d. a t21. H avi ng l i st ened t o the ar gu m ent s of both p art i es and st at i ng thati thad consi dere d the st atut ory purpo se s of s ent enci ng and the G ui del i nes, the di stri ct courtfoun d “ thati n thi s c as e the gu i del i nes a re t oo hi gh . ” I d. at22 . T he di stri ct c our ti ns t e a d s e nt e nc e d W hi t e t o 400 m onths on e a c h c ountof c onvi c t i on, t o be se rved concurrent l y. T he courtexpl ai ned thatal tho ug h i tdi d n ot“ bel i eve al i fe15

s e n te n c e to b e ap p r o p r ia te ,” a 4 0 0 - m o n th s e n te n c e a s to e a c h c o u n t w a s r e a s o n ab le a n d w a s w h a t w a s r e q u ir e d “to r e f le c t th e s e r io u s n e s s o f

th e o f f e n s e a n d to p r o m o te r e s p e c t f o rth e la w a n d to p r o v id e a ju s t p u n is h m e n t a n d to a f f o r d a d e q u a te det erre nce t o cri m i nal cond uct. . . es peci al l y t o p rot ec tthe pu bl i c f rom further c r im e s s in c e [ W h ite ’s ] f ir s t r o u n d in th e f

e d e r a l p e n ite n tia ry [ h a d ] n o t s e e m [ e d ] to sl ow [hi m ] do w n. ” I d. at22 -23. T he courtpart i cul ar l y c al l ed att ent i on t o the fa ct thatW hi t e “ [had] n’ tm i ss [e d] a bea tw hen [he] ca m e outof pri son g oi ng ri gh tback i nt o d ea l i ng . ” I d. at22 . W hi t e w as al so se nt ence d t o t en ye ar s of s up ervi se d re l ea se on C ou nt1 and ei gh tye ar s on C ou nt2, t o b e s erved con curr ent l y, and w as ordered t o p aya $20 0 speci al as se ss m ent . W hi t e r ai se d n o n ew obj ec t i on s. H e has t i m el y app ea l ed bo th h i s c on vi ct i on and h i s s ent ence . O n app ea l he ar gu es thatthe cum ul at i ve ef fe ctof the fol l ow i ng evi dent i ary er ro rs d ep riv ed h im o f th e c o n stitu ti o n al rig h t t o a f air trial: (1 ) th e d istrict j u d g e’s p r e v e n t i n g h i m f

r o m q u e s t i o n i n g D e n h a m ab o u tw h e th e rh e h a d v i o l a t e d th e t e r ms of hi s pl e a a gr e e m e nt ; ( 2) the di s tr i c tj udge ’ s pr e ve nt i ng hi m f r om que s t i oni ng D enham , D ort ch, and H ob bs abou tthe fa ctual re sum es un derl yi ng thei r pl ea a gr e e m e nt s ; a nd ( 3) the gove rnm e nt ’ s bol s t e r i ng of w i tne s s e s dur i ng i t s ope ni ng st at em entand cl osi ng ar gu m ent , and q uest i on i ng them abou tw hether thei r pl ea a gr e e m e nt s r e qui r e d the m t o t e s t i f y truthf ul l y . H e a l s o pr ot e s t s hi s s e nt e nc e on theWhit e has not challeng ed the evidentiar y ruling , apparently conce ding that the district court 2 did not abuse its di scretion by excluding evidence of

the polygraph ex am spec ifically . See United States v. Piccinonna, 885 F .2d 1529, 1536 (11th Cir. 1989) (en banc)(cla rifying that pol ygraph evide n ce is inadmissi ble in our circuit absent a stipulation by both parties as to the c ircumstance s of the test and the s cope of admissibili ty , unless it is used to impeach or cor roborate testimony

at trial, and then there must have been adequate notice provided to the opposing party of the intended use). Ne ither par

ty argues that any of the prerequisites for admission of polygraph evidencearemet in this case. 16 grou nd s that(a ) the di stri ctcourti m prop er l y app l i ed the three -l evel m anager supervi sor e nh ance m entpu rs uantt o U . S . S . G § 3 B 1. 1(b); (b) the di stri ctcourterre d by appl yi ng the 10 0-t o-1 crac k-t o-po w der c ocai ne se nt enci ng di spar i ty; and (c) a 40 0-m on th sent ence i s unrea sonabl e i n h i s c as e. I I . DI S CUS S I ON A . T r i a l / C onvi c t i on 1. Sc ope of

Cr os s - E x am i nat i on - D e nham W hi t e f i r s ta r gue s tha tbe i ng pr e ve nt e d f r om que s t i oni ng D e nha m about w he the rhe be l i e ve d he ha d vi ol a t e d hi s pl e a a gr e e m e nt( by l y i ng dur i ng a po l ygraph exam i nat i on ) pre vent ed the j ury f rom un ders t andi ng thatthe pl ea agre em ent ’ s r equi re m entof truthful ness w as no ta guarant ee . A “ di stri ctcourthas 2 di s c r e t i ona ry a uthor i ty t o l i m i tc r os s - e xa m i na t i on, ” but“ m us tpe rm i ts uf f i c i e nt cr oss- exam i nat i on t o sat i sf y the [C ] on fr on t at i on [C ] l ause of the si xth am endm ent . ” U ni t e d S t a t e s v. B ur ke , 738 F . 2d 1225, 1227 ( 11th C i r . 1984) . T he [ C ] onf r ont a t i on [C ] l au se “ i s sat i sfi ed w h ere su ffi ci en ti n fo rm at i o n i s el i ci t ed fro m th e w i tn ess17

[s uch that ] the j ury c an adequat el y gauge the w i tness es ’ cr edi bi l i ty. ” I d. W here the de f e nda ntf a i l s t o “ l odge a t i m e l y C onf r ont a t i on C l a us e obj e c t i on” be f or e the di s tr i c tc our t , r e vi e w i s f orpl a i n e rr or . U ni t e d S t a t e s v. A rbol a e z , 450 F . 3d 1283, 1291 ( 11th C i r . 2006) ( pe rc ur i a m ) . A n appe l l a t e c our tm a y , i n i t s di s c r e t i on, c o rr e c t p la in e rr o rw h e r e th e r e is “( 1 ) e rr o r , ( 2 ) th a t is p la in , a n d ( 3 ) th a t a f f e c ts su b st an t i al ri g h t s . . . b u to n l y i f (4 ) th e erro r seri o u sl y affects th e fai rn ess, in te g r ity , o rp u b lic r e p u ta tio n o f ju d ic ia l p r o c e e d in g s .” I d . W h ite r a is e s h is C o n f

r o n ta tio n C la u s e c h a lle n g e f o rth e f ir s t tim e o n ap p e a l, a n d s o o u rr e v ie w is f

o rp la in e rr o r . S e e id . A t tr ia l, W h ite ’s c o u n s e l w a s ab le to a s k D e nha m s e ve r a l t i m e s w he the rD e nha m ha d t ol d the i nve s t i ga t i ng a ge ntthe w ho l e truth, t o w hi ch D enham re spon ded thathe had. A l tho ug h W hi t e a rgues that a c o n c e s s io n b y D e n h a m th a t h e b e lie v e d h e h a d v io la te d h is p le a a g r e e m e n t w o u ld have po i nt ed ou tt o the j ury thatcl osersc rut i ny of hi s c re di bi l i ty w as re qu i re d ( s i nc e the vi ol a t i on m i ghtha ve c a us e d hi m t o w a ntt o c urry f a vorw i th the g o v e rn m e n t b y ly in g ab o u t W h ite ) , D e n h a m ’s r e s p o n s e th a t h e h a d to ld th e w h o le truth t o the i nve s t i ga t i ng of f i c e rde m ons tr a t e s tha the w oul d notha ve m a de a ny s uc h c onc e s s i on. A s W hi t e c onc e de s , be c a us e D e nha m de ni e d e ve rha vi ng l i e d, the di stri ctcourt ’ s rul i ng on the m ot i on i n l i m i ne – w hi ch has notbeen chal l enged

–fo re clo se d an y f

u rth erin q u iry in to th e m atter. S ee R ep ly B r. at 3 -4 . W h it e’sIt isno t c le ar whether Whitealsoargue s th at th ee xclu sio n o f D enh am’ s te stimony a s to 3 wh e th er h e h a d b re a c h e d h is p le a agre e ment c o n s titute s re v er s ib le er ro r a p art f ro m any Confrontati o n C l ause issue. To the extent that he does so argue, however, w e find no error . To preserve a

n objection to the district court’s ex clusion of evidence, the “substanc e of theevidenc e [must be] made known to the c ourt by offer or [be] apparent from the conte x t in which questions were aske d.” Proctor v. F luor Enters., Inc., 494 F.3d 1337, 1350 (11th Cir. 2007) . We then review an ex clusion of evidenc e for abuse of discretion. Id. at 1349. I f therewas a n abuse of

discretion, we rever se only

if the exclusion of evidenc e af fec ted a substantial right. I d. B e c a us eWhit e ’satto rn ey

e xplaine d tothejudg eex act ly wh at evidenc ehewa nte d to introduce a

nd why, the objection is preserved. H owever, as the judge explained, allowing a question a s tothestatus of Denh am’ s ple a agre e ment would have re quire d indire c t re ferenc eto t heprop erly excluded polygraph evidence . Acc ording ly , particula rly in l i ght o f the fact that White’s attorney was still ab l e t o elicit a re sponse to a similar question, we f ind no abuse of discretion in the exclusion. Thus, we find no error. 18 a tto rn e y w a s ab le to e lic it th e s a m e in f o rm a tio n b y w a y o f

a lte rn a tiv e q u e s tio n in g . F u rth er, th e j u ry w as ex p o sed t o fact s su ffi ci en tt o ev al u at e D en h am ’ s cred i b i l i ty, s p e c i f i c a l l y th a th e w a s a d ru g d e a l e ra n d th a th e h a d n o tme n t i o n e dW h i t e ’ s n a me t o the gove rnm e ntunt i l 13 m onths a f t e rhi s gui l ty pl e a . T hus , the C onf r ont a t i on C l a us e w a s s a t i s f

i e d a nd the r e w a s no e rr or . S e e B urke , 738 F . 2d a t1227. 3 2. Factua l

R es um es D e s p ite h a v in g o b

je c te d to th e ira d m is s io n a t a n e a r lie rp o in t in th e tr ia l, W hi t e nextar gu es thatthe fa ctual re sum es (i . e. , the se ct i on s of the w i tness es ’ pl ea agre em ent s des cr i bi ng the fa ct s provabl e by the go vernm entthatw ou l d sup po rt th e irc o n v ic tio n s ) s h o u ld h a v e b e e n a d m itte d b e c a u s e th e y w e r e in c o rp o r a te d in to the pl eaagre em ent s, w er e a dm i ss i bl e und erF eder al R ul e of E vi dence 106 , w er e r e l e va ntt o c r e di bi l i ty , a nd w e r e nothe a r s a y . “ W e r e vi e w e vi de nt i a ry rul i ngs f or a n abus e of

di s c r e t i on. ” U ni t e d S t a t e s v. H e nde r s on, 409 F . 3d 1293, 1297 ( 11th19

C i r . 2005) , c e r t . de ni e d, 126 S . C t . 1331 ( 2006) . “ A n e rr one ous e vi de nt i a ry rul i ng w i l l re sul ti n revers al on l y i f the re sul t i ng error w as no tharm l es s. ” U ni t ed S t at es v. H a nds , 184 F . 3d 1322, 1329 ( 11th C i r . 1999) . A n e rr ori s ha rm l e s s i f i tdi d not h a v e a s u b s ta n tia l in f

lu e n c e o n th e o u tc o m e a n d th e e v id e n c e w ith o u t th e e rr o ris s u f f ic ie n t to s u p p o r t th e c o n v ic tio n . I d . R el evantevi dence i s “ evi dence havi ng any t endency t o m ake the exi st ence o f a n y f a c t th a t is o f

c o n s e q u e n c e to th e d e te rm in a tio n o f th e a c tio n m o r e p r o b ab le o rle s s p r o b ab le th a n it w o u ld b e w ith o u t th e e v id e n c e .” F e d . R . E v id . 4 0 1 . A l tho ug h the bal ance shou l d al w ay s be “ struck i n favor of adm i ss i bi l i ty, ” U ni t ed S ta te s v . E d o u a r d , 4 8 5 F .3 d 1 3 2 4 , 1 3 4 4 n .8 ( 1 1 th C ir . 2 0 0 7 ) ( c ita tio n o m itte d ) , r e le v a n t e v id e n c e m a y b e e x c lu d e d if its p r o b a tiv e v a lu e is s u b s ta n tia lly outw e i ghe d by c e r t a i n f a c t or s s uc h a s the da nge r s of “ unf a i rpr e j udi c e , c onf

us i on o f th e i ssu es, ” o r p o t en t i al t o m i sl ead th e j u ry, o r, “ co n si d erat i o n s o f u n d u e d el ay, w a s t e of t i m e , orne e dl e s s pr e s e nt a t i on of c um ul a t i ve e vi de nc e . ” F e d. R . E vi d. 403; s e e a l s o H ol m e s v. S outh C a r ol i na , 547 U . S . 319, 326- 27, 126 S . C t . 1727, 1 7 3 2 ( 2 0 0 6 ) . W h ite ’s o n ly p u rp o s e in in tr o d u c in g th e f a c tu a l r e s u m e s w a s to d e m o n s tr a te th a t th e w itn e s s e s h a d n o t im m e d ia te ly in f o rm e d th e g o v e rn m e n t o f th e ir conn ec t i on s t o W hi t e a nd , there fore , thatthei r t es t i m on y a s t o W hi t e l ac ked20

cred i b i l i ty. E v en w i th o u tth e resu m es, d u ri n g h i s cro ss-ex am i n at i o n o f th ese w i tness es , W hi t e’ s def

ense coun se l w as perm i tt ed t o ask w hether a nd w hy they had e a c h de l a y e d i n i nf

or m i ng the gove rnm e ntaboutthe i rde a l i ngs w i th W hi t e . N one of the m de ni e d ha vi ng done s o. T he r e f or e , the r e s um e s c ons t i tut e d c um ul a t i ve e vi de nc e a nd ne e d notha ve be e n a dm i tt e d. S e e F e d. R . E vi d. 403. T he r e w a s no error. 3. T

r uth- te l l i ng P r ov is i ons - B ol s te r i ng W h ite a ls o 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 a llo w in g th e g o v e rn m e n t to in tr o d u c e a n d d is c u s s th e tru th - te llin g p r o v is io n s o f its w itn e s s e s ’ p le a a g r e e m e n ts . A l though w e ha ve he l d tha t“ the m e r e a dm i s s i on i n e vi de nc e of a pl e a a gr e e m e nt doe s notc ons t i tut e bol s t e r i ng by a pr os e c ut or. . . the c l a us e s of the pl e a a gr e e m e nt i n w hi c h the w i tne s s pr om i s e d t o t e s t i f y truthf ul l y s houl d be r e da c t e d be f or e the doc um e nti s a dm i tt e d i n e vi de nc e unl e s s the a dm i s s i on of the pl e a a gr e e m e nti s not qu es t i on ed. ” U ni t ed S t at es v. H i l t on , 77 2 F . 2d 78 3, 78 7 (11 th C i r. 19 85 ). If a w i tne s s ’ s c r e di bi l i ty i s a tt a c ke d dur i ng c r os s - e xa m i na t i on the n the gove rnm e nt m a y s how the w i tne s s ’ s pr om i s e t o t e s t i f ytruthf ul l y . I d. B ecau se W h i t e m ad e n o o b j ect i o n t o th e ad m i ssi o n o f th e p l ea ag reem en t s, any c on t ent i on thatthe truth-t el l i ng po rt i on s of the agree m ent s s ho ul d h ave been r e da c t e d i s m e r i t l e s s . S e e i d. ; D oc . 47 a t51. W hi t e a l s o obj e c t s t o theThe re cord shows th at th e go v ernment did not mention the truth-tellingprovisions in the 4 c ours eof itsop eningstatement. 21 g o v e rn m e n t’s e m p h a s is o n th e tru th - te llin g p o r tio n s o f th o s e a g r e e m e n ts in qu es t i on i ng i t s w i tness es . B ec ause W hi t e a tt ac ked the cr edi bi l i ty of the w i tness es dur i ng hi s ope ni ng s t a t e m e nt , the di s tr i c tc our tdi d note rri n a l l ow i ng the go vernm entt o i ntrodu ce the l angu age on d i re ctexam i nat i on of i t s w i tness es . S ee 4 H i l t on, 772 F . 2d a t787; s e e a l s o U ni t e d S t a t e s v. D e l ga do, 56 F . 3d 1357, 1368 ( 11th C i r . 1995) ( “ [ I ] f

de f e ns e c ouns e l a tt a c ks a w i tne s s ’ s c r e di bi l i ty dur i ng o p e n in g th e p r o s e c u to rm a y r e h ab ilita te th e w itn e s s o n d ir e c t e x a m in a tio n . S pe c i f i c a l l y , a pr os e c ut orm a y ‘ e l i c i tt e s t i m ony r e ga r di ng the truth- t e l l i ng por t i on of a c oo pera t i on agre em entdu ri ng di re ctexam i nat i on . ’ ”) (c i t at i on om i tt ed). 4. P r os e c utor i al

Mis c onduc t- V

ouc hi ng F i nal l y, w i th res pectt o h i s c on vi ct i on s, W hi t e a rgues thatthe di stri ctcourt a llo w e d th e g o v e rn m e n t im p r o p e r ly to v o u c h f o rth e c r e d ib ility o f

a g e n t L o f

tis d u r in g its c lo s in g a r g u m e n t. “A b s e n t ac o n te m p o r a n e o u s o b je c tio n , th e p r o p r ie ty o f th e G o v e rn m e n t's c lo s in g a r g u m e n t a n d a lle g e d p r o s e c u to r ia l m is c o n d u c t in i m pr ope r l y vouc hi ng f

ora w i tne s s ’ c r e di bi l i ty a r e r e vi e w e d unde ra pl a i n e rr or s ta n d a r d .” U n ite d S ta te s v . N e w to n , 4 4 F .3 d 9 1 3 , 9 2 0 ( 1 1 th C ir . 1 9 9 4 ) . W e r e v e r s e a d e f

e n d a n t’s c o n v ic tio n o n th e b a s is o f p r o s e c u to r ia l m is c o n d u c t o n ly w he r e the pr os e c ut or ’ s r e m a r ks “ ( 1) w e r e i m pr ope ra nd ( 2) pr e j udi c e d the22

de f e nda nt ’ s s ubs t a nt i ve r i ght s . ” U ni t e d S t a t e s v. H e rna nde z , 145 F . 3d 1433, 1438 ( 1 1 th C ir . 1 9 9 8 ) ; s e e a ls o U n ite d S ta te s v . A b r a h a m , 3 8 6 F .3 d 1 0 3 3 , 1 0 3 6 ( 1 1 th C i r. 2 0 0 4 ) (p er cu ri am ) (ex p l ai n i n g th atp ro secu t o ri al m i sco n d u ctj u st i fi es a r e v e r s a l o f

a d e f e n d a n t’s c o n v ic tio n o n ly w h e r e th e d e f e n d a n t’s s u b s ta n tia l r ig h ts m a y ha ve be e n pr e

j udi c e d “ i n the c ont e xtof the e nt i r e tr i a l i n l i ghtof a ny c ur a t i ve i ns truc t i on” ) . “ W he n r e vi e w i ng a de f e nda nt ’ s ‘ vouc hi ng’ c l a i m , w e e xa m i ne w he the r( 1) the pr os e c ut orpl a c e d the pr e s t i ge of the gove rnm e ntbe hi nd the w i tne s s by m a ki ng e xpl i c i tpe r s ona l a s s ur a nc e s of the w i tne s s ’ s c r e di bi l i ty , or( 2) the prosecut or i m pl i ci t l y vou ched for the w i tness ’ s c re di bi l i ty by i m pl yi ng that evi dence notform al l y pre se nt ed t o the j ury s up po rt s the w i tness ’ s t es t i m on y. ” U ni t e d S t a t e s v. A r i a s - I z qui e r do, 449 F . 3d 1168, 1177- 78 ( 11th C i r . 2006) . “ T he p ro h i b i t i o n ag ai n stv o u ch i n g d o es n o tfo rb i d p ro secu t o rs fro m arg u i n g cred i b i l i ty, w hi c h m a y be c e ntr a l t o the c a s e ; r a the r , i tf orbi ds a r gui ng c r e di bi l i ty ba s e d on the re pu t at i on of the go vernm entoffi ce or on evi dence notbefore the j ury. ” U ni t ed S t at es v. H ernand ez , 92 1 F . 2d 15 69 , 15 73 (11th C i r. 19 91 ).

“ I n o r d e rt o a s s e s s th e p r e j u d i c i a l i m p a c to f

a p r o s e c u t o r ’ s s t a t e m e n t s , we m u s t e v a lu a te th e m in th e c o n te x t o f th e tr ia l a s a w h o le a n d a s s e s s th e irp r o b ab le i m pacton the j ury. ” H ernand ez , 14 5 F . 3d at14 38 . T o m ee tthe subst ant i al p r e ju d ic e p r o n g , th e im p r o p e rc o m m e n ts m u s t h a v e “s o in f e c t[ e d ] th e tr ia l w ith23

unf a i rne s s a s t o r i s e t o the l e ve l of a de ni a l of

due pr oc e s s . ” U ni t e d S t a t e s v. E ys t er , 94 8 F . 2d 11 96 , 12 07 (11th C i r. 19 91 ). A s di sc usse d, W hi t e w as abl e t o cou nt erany a rgum entthe go vernm entm ay ha ve m a de tha tthe pl e a a gr e e m e nt s gua r a nt e e d the truthf ul ne s s of the ni ne coop er at i ng w i tness es by po i nt i ng ou tthei r c ri m i nal hi st ori es and the del ayof ea ch i n i nform i ng the go vernm entof thei r c on nect i on s t o W hi t e. A l tho ug h, i n h er c l os i ng a r gum e nt , the pr os e c ut ordi d a r gue tha tL of t i s w a s c r e di bl e ( a f

t e rthe cr ed ib il ity o f a ll g o v er n m en t w itn es se s h ad b ee n m ad e th e f o cu s o f th e d ef

en d an t’ s c lo s in g a r g u m e n t) , s h e d id n o t s u g g e s t th a t th e ju ry o u g h t to f in d h im c r e d ib le b e c a u s e h e w a s a g o v e rn m e n t a g e n t o rb e c a u s e th e g o v e rn m e n t f o u n d h im c r e d ib le . I ns t e a d, the pr os e c ut orr e m i nde d the j ury of L of t i s ’ s l e ngthy e xpe r i e nc e a s a n a ge nt a nd of the de t a i l s of

hi s i nve s t i ga t i on of

the c a s e , r e f

e rr i ng onl y t o e vi de nc e a l r e a dy ad m itted at trial. E v en if th e g o v er n m en t h ad im p ro p er ly v o u ch ed fo r L o ftis’s c r e d ib ility , th e te s tim o n y o f th e n in e o th e rg o v e rn m e n t w itn e s s e s a n d th e c e ll p h o n e lo g e v id e n c e c o n n e c tin g D e n h a m w ith W h ite w a s s u f f ic ie n t th a t, e v e n if there w er e a n err or, i tdi d n otaf fe ctW hi t e’ s s ub st ant i al ri gh t s a nd di d n otso i nfec t the tr i a l w i th unf

a i rne s s a s t o m a ke the r e s ul t i ng c onvi c t i ons a de ni a l of due p ro cess. S ee A rb o l aez, 4 5 0 F . 3 d at1 2 9 1 ; E yst er, 9 4 8 F . 2 d at1 2 0 7 . A cco rd i n g l y, w e di sc ern n o revers i bl e e rr or.24

5. C um ulat i ve E

f f ec t

“ I ti s true tha tthe c um ul a t i ve e f f e c tof s e ve r a l e rr or s tha ta r e ha rm l e s s by them se l ves c ou l d so p re j ud i ce the defendant ’ s r i gh tt o a fa i r tri al thata new tri al m i ghtbe ne c e s s a ry . ” U ni t e d S t a t e s v. P r e c i a do- C or doba s , 981 F . 2d 1206, 1215 n. 8 ( 11th C i r . 1993) . “ I n a ddr e s s i ng a c l a i m of c um ul a t i ve e rr or , w e m us te xa m i ne the tr i a l a s a w hol e t o de t e r m i ne w he the rthe appe l l a ntw a s a f f or de d a f u n d a m e n ta lly f

a irtr ia l.” 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 3 3 ( 1 1 th C i r . 1997) . H ow e ve r , w he r e the r e i s no e rr ororonl y a s i ngl e e rr or , “ the r e c a n be n o c u m u la tiv e e rr o r .” S e e U n ite d S ta te s v . W a ld o n , 3 6 3 F .3 d 1 1 0 3 , 1 1 1 0 ( 1 1 th C i r. 20 04 ) ( per c uri am ) ( ci t at i on om i tt ed). A s d is c u s s e d , w e h a v e f o u n d n o in d iv id u a l e rr o r s , h a rm le s s o ro th e rw is e . F urther, even i f the go vernm ent ’ s vou chi ng for L oft i s’ s c re di bi l i ty had const i tut ed harm l es s e rr or, i tw ou l d o nl y be asi ng l e e rr or and thu s c ou l d n otconst i tut ed c um ul a t i ve e rr or . I d. B . S e nt e nc i ng A f t e rB ooke r , w e r e vi e w s e nt e nc e s f orr e a s onabl e ne s s . U ni t e d S t a t e s v. B ooke r , 543 U . S . 220, 261, 125 S . C t . 738, 765 ( 2005) . “ [ A ] s e nt e nc e m a y be r e v ie w e d f

o rp r o c e d u r a l o rs u b s ta n tiv e u n r e a s o n ab le n e s s .” U n ite d S ta te s v . H u n t, 4 5 9 F .3 d 1 1 8 0 , 1 1 8 2 n .3 ( 1 1 th C ir . 2 0 0 6 ) . A s e n te n c e is p r o c e d u r a llyO na p p e al , Wh i t ed o e s n o tc h al l en g eth i s f i n di n go f f a c tre g ardi n gqu anti ty. 5 In November

2007, the SentencingCommi ssion amended § 2D1. 1 (c )( 1 ). Under the 6 amende d guideline, an of fense such as Whit e’s, involving 1.5 or more kilograms of crack-coc aine would have g enerated a

base of fenselevel of 36 rather

than 38. See § 2D1.1(c)( 1) (2007) . On 11 Dec ember

2007, the SentencingCommi ssion made this amended guide line retroactive as of 3 March 20 08 . Sentenc ingCommis sio n N ewsRe le a se , http :// www. us sc .g ov/PRESS/re l12 11 07 .htm ( la st v i s i t edFeb . 1 9 , 2 0 0 8 ). Ac co rd i n gly, Wh i t e m ay fi l e am o ti o nwi thth e d i s tri c t c o urtre qu es ti n g a reduc tion in his sentenc e, if a ppropriate , pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)( 2).

25 unr e a s onabl e i f

i ts t e m s f

r om a pr oc e dur e tha tf

a i l e d t o f ol l ow the r e qui r e m e nt s of B oo ker – e. g. , i f the di stri ctcourtdo es no tconsi der the 18 U . S . C . § 3 55 3(a) f a c t or s orr e l i e s on a n i m pe r m i s s i bl e f a c t or . I d. a t1182. A s e nt e nc e m a y be s u b s ta n tiv e ly u n r e a s o n ab le e v e n if it is p r o c e d u r a lly r e a s o n ab le . I d . a t 1 1 8 2 n .3 . F i n al l y, w h en rev i ew i n g a sen t en ce i m p o sed b y th e d i stri ctco u rt , w e m u stfi rst ensure thatthe di stri ctcourtcorr ec t l y c al cul at ed the gu i del i ne ra ng e. U ni t ed S t at es v. W i ni ng ea r, 42 2 F . 3d 12 41 , 12 45 (11th C i r. 20 05 ) ( per c uri am ). 1. G ui del i nes Cal culat i on - B ase O f f ense L ev el W h ite f ir s t c h a lle n g e s th e d is tr ic t c o u rt’s c a lc u la tio n o f h is G u id e lin e s r a n g e . T he di stri ctcourti m po se d a base offe nse l evel of 38 base d u po n i t s f i nd i ng that W h ite h a d b e e n in v o lv e d w ith m o r e th a n 1 .5 k ilo g r a m s o f c r a c k c o c a in e . W h ite 5 ar gu es thatthe gu i del i ne i n q uest i on , U . S . S . G . §2 D 1. 1(c) (1) ( 20 05 ) w as

“ unj us t i f abl y ha r s h. ” A ppe l l a nt ’ s B r . a t22. E s s e nt i a l l y , W hi t e ’ s a r gum e ntdoe s not c o n c e rn th e c a lc u la tio n , b u t th e c o n te n t o f th e g u id e lin e a t is s u e a t th e tim e o f h is s e nt e nc i ng. B e c a us e the di s tr i c tc our ti s bound f i r s tc orr e c t l y t o c a l c ul a t e the 626

G ui del i nes r ange, and b ec ause the courtfoun d thatW hi t e’ s off ense had i nv ol ved 1 . 5 k i l o g ram s o r m o re o f crack co cai n e, th e co u rt ’ s i m p o si t i o n o f a b ase o ffen se l evel of 38 atthe t i m e of W hi t e’ s s ent enci ng i n M ar ch 20 07 w as w i tho uterror. S ee W i ni nge a r , 422 F . 3d a t1245. 2. G ui de l i ne s C alc ulat i on - M anage r i al

R ol e E nhanc e m e nt W hi t e nextar gu es thatthe di stri ctcourti m prop er l y app l i ed a three -l evel in c r e a s e to h is b a s e o f

f e n s e le v e l, p u r s u a n t to U .S .S .G . § 3 B 1 .1 ( b ) , b a s e d u p o n its f i ndi ng tha tW hi t e w a s a m a na ge rors upe rvi s or . T he di s tr i c tc our t ’ s de t e rm i na t i on of a de f e nda nt ’ s r ol e i n a n of

f e ns e i s r e vi e w e d f

orc l e a re rr ora nd the appl i c a t i on of the G ui de l i ne s i s r e vi e w e d de novo. U ni t e d S t a t e s v. N j a u, 386 F . 3d 1039, 1041 (1 1 th C i r. 2 0 0 4 ) (p er cu ri am ). “ T h e g o v ern m en tb ears th e b u rd en o f p ro v i n g b y a pr e ponde r a nc e of

the e vi de nc e tha tthe de f e nda ntha d a n a ggr a va t i ng r ol e i n the offe nse. ” U ni t ed S t at es v. Y ea ger, 33 1 F . 3d 12 16 , 12 26 (11th C i r. 20 03 ). A th re e- lev el en h an ce m en t m ay b e a p p li ed u n d erU .S .S .G . § 3 B 1 .1 (b ), “[i] f the de f e nda ntw a s a m a na ge rors upe rvi s or( butnota n or ga ni z e rorl e a de r ) a nd the cri m i n al act i v i ty i n v o l v ed fi v e o r m o re p art i ci p an t s o r w as o th erw i se e xt e ns i ve . . . . ” “ A ‘ pa r t i c i pa nt ’ i s a pe r s on w ho i s c r i m i na l l y r e s pons i bl e f orthe c om m i s s i on of

the of f e ns e , butne e d notha ve be e n c onvi c t e d. ” U . S . S . G . § 3B 1. 1, c o m m e n t. ( n .1 ) ( 2 0 0 5 ) . I n N ja u , w e h e ld th a t th e d e f e n d a n t in a s o c ia l s e c u r ity27

fr aud schem e e xerc i se d sup ervi soryautho ri ty over a tl ea ston e per son w here , i nt er a l i a , he r e c rui t e d tw o i ndi vi dua l s t o r e c e i ve s oc i a l s e c ur i ty c a r ds tha tw e r e t o be ul t i m at el y i ss ued t o i l l egal al i ens. N j au, 38 6 F . 3d at10 40 -41. W e det erm i ned that both of thos e i ndi vi dua l s w e r e pa r t i c i pa nt s . I d. a t1041. “ I n a drug di s tr i but i on ca se . . . the m anagem entenhancem enti s app ropri at e f or a def endantw ho arra ng es drug tr a ns a c t i ons , ne got i a t e s s a l e s w i th othe r s , a nd hi r e s othe r s t o w or k f orthe conspi ra cy . ” U ni t ed S t at es v. M atthew s, 16 8 F . 3d 12 34 , 12 49 (11th C i r. 19 99 ). T he f a c t or s tha ta c our ts houl d c ons i de ri n de t e rm i ni ng the na tur e of the defe nd ant ’ s r ol e i ncl ud e: [ T ] he e xe r c i s e of

de c i s i on m a ki ng a uthor i ty , the na tur e of pa r t i c i pa t i on i n the c om m i s s i on of the of f e ns e , the r e c rui tm e ntof a c c om pl i c e s , the c l a i m e d r i ghtt o a l a r ge rs ha r e of the f rui t s of the c r i m e , the de gr e e of

pa r t i c i pa t i on i n pl a nni ng oror ga ni z i ng the of f e ns e , the na tur e a nd s c ope of the i l l e ga l a c t i vi ty , a nd the de gr e e of co n tro l an d au th o ri ty ex erci sed o v er o th ers. U . S . S . G . § 3 B 1. 1, com m ent . (n. 4).

“ I n a s s e s s i ng w he the ra n or ga ni z a t i on i s ‘ othe rw i s e e xt e ns i ve , ’ a l l pe r s ons i nvol ve d dur i ng the c our s e of the e nt i r e of

f e ns e a r e t o be c ons i de r e d. T hus , a f r a ud tha ti nvol ve d onl y thr e e pa r t i c i pa nt s butus e d the unknow i ng s e rvi c e s of m a ny o u ts id e r s c o u ld b e c o n s id e r e d e x te n s iv e .” U .S .S .G . § 3 B 1 .1 , c o m m e n t. ( n .3 ) . C ri m i nal ac t i vi ty m aybe “ otherw i se ext ensi ve” onl y i f a tl ea ston e other part i ci panti s i nv ol ved. U ni t ed S t at es v. W al ker, 49 0 F . 3d 12 82 , 13 01 (11th C i r.28

20 07 ). T he evi dence attri al show ed thatW hi t e e xerc i se d sup ervi soryautho ri ty over a tl e a s ttw o i ndi vi dua l s : a n e rr a nd runne rw hos e hom e w a s us e d f ordrug d is tr ib u tio n ( O .G .) , a n d th e f e m a le c o u r ie rto w h o m d ru g s w e r e d u c t- tap e d to a v o id det ec t i on . In addi t i on t o tho se tw o i nd i vi du al s a nd W hi t e, atl ea stfi ve other i nd i vi du al s w er e a l so i nv ol ved i n the offe nse: D enham , tw o o f the other w i tness es attri al , and the tw o fem al es w ho sol d the drug s t o them i n A t l ant a. F urtherm ore, W hi t e a rr a nge d drug tr a ns a c t i ons , ne got i a t e d s a l e s , a nd hi r e d othe r s t o w ork f orthe c ons pi r a c y . S e e M a tthe w s , 168 F . 3d a t1249. T he r e f or e , the di s tr i c tc our tdi d not err i n con cl ud i ng thatW hi t e w as a m anager or s up ervi sor a nd thatthe cr i m i nal ac t i vi ty i nv ol ved fi ve or m ore part i ci pant s or w as otherw i se ext ensi ve. S ee U . S . S . G . § 3B 1. 1, c om m e nt . ( n. 1) ; N j a u, 386 F . 3d a t1041. 3. R easona bl enes s of

Sent ence W hi t e a l s o a r gue s tha tthe 100- t o- 1 c r a c k- t o- pow de rc oc a i ne di s pa r i ty i n the S e n te n c in g G u id e lin e s m a d e th e 4 0 0 - m o n th s e n te n c e im p o s e d u p o n h im unr e a s onabl e . S i nc e W hi t e ’ s s e nt e nc i ng, the S upr e m e C our tha s i s s ue d i t s opi ni on in K im b r o u g h v . U n ite d S ta te s , __U .S .__ , 1 2 8 S . C t. 5 5 8 ( 2 0 0 7 ) . A t is s u e in K i m brou gh w as a di stri ctcourtdeci si on t o v ary bel ow the advi soryG ui del i nes ra ng e bas ed on a f

i nd i ng thatthe G ui del i nes provi ded a se nt ence grea t erthan29

nece ss ary t o acc om pl i sh the se nt enci ng go al s a dv ance d i n 1 8 U . S . C . § 3 55 3(a) . T he C ou rthel d that“ the cocai ne G ui del i nes, l i ke al l other G ui del i nes, ar e a dv i sory o n ly ,” a n d th a t “[ t]h e ju d g e m a y d e te rm in e . . . in [ a ] p a r tic u la rc a s e , a w i thi n- G ui de l i ne s s e nt e nc e i s ‘ gr e a t e rtha n ne c e s s a ry ’ t o s e rve the obj e c t i ve s of s e n te n c in g . I n m a k in g th a t d e te r m in a tio n , th e ju d g e m a y c o n s id e rth e d is p a r ity betw ee n the G ui del i nes’ tre atm entof cr ac k and po w der c ocai ne offens es . ” I d. at

__ , 12 8 S . C t . at56 4. T he S up re m e C ou rtconcl ud ed thatthe di stri ctcourthad

“ appr opr i a t e l y f

r a m e d i t s f

i na l de t e rm i na t i on i n l i ne w i th § 3553( a ) ’ s ove r a r c hi ng in s tru c tio n to ‘im p o s e a s e n te n c e s u f f ic ie n t, b u t n o t g r e a te rth a n n e c e s s a ry ’ to ac com pl i sh the se nt enci ng go al s a dv ance d i n § 35 53 (a )( 2). ” I d. at__ , 12 8 S . C t . at 5 7 5 . H e r e , j us ta s i n K i m br ough, the di s tr i c tc our ts e nt e nc e d W hi t e be l ow the a d v is o ry g u id e lin e s r a n g e , o n th e g r o u n d th a t th e a d v is o ry r a n g e w a s “to o h ig h ” to a c c om pl i s h the purpos e s of s e nt e nc i ng. D oc . 71 a t22. A c c or di ngl y , w e f i nd no e rr o rb a s e d o n K im b r o u g h . T h e s e n te n c e is th u s p r o c e d u r a lly r e a s o n ab le . B ec ause W hi t e has general l y c hal l enged the re as on abl enes s of hi s s ent ence w e a l s o r e vi e w the s e nt e nc e i n l i ghtof the 18 U . S . C . 3553( a ) f a c t or s t o de t e rm i ne w hether the se nt ence fa i l s t o achi eve the pu rposes of se nt enci ng se tforth i n that st atut e. U ni t ed S t at es v. M art i n, 45 5 F . 3d 12 27 , 12 37 (11th C i r. 20 06 ). W e r evi ew30

onl y the f

i na l s e nt e nc e f

orr e a s onabl e ne s s , r a the rtha n e a c h i ndi vi dua l de c i s i on m a d e d u r in g th e s e n te n c in g p r o c e s s . W in in g e a r , 4 2 2 F .3 d a t 1 2 4 5 . “[ T ]th e f a m ilia rab u s e - o f

- d is c r e tio n s ta n d a r d o f

r e v ie w n o w ap p lie s to appe l l a t e r e vi e w of

s e nt e nc i ng de c i s i ons . ” G a l l v. U ni t e d S t a t e s , __ U . S . __, __, 128 S . C t . 586, 594 ( 2007) ; s e e a l s o K i m br ough, __ U . S . a t__, 128 S . C t . a t576 ( s ta tin g th a t ap p e lla te c o u r ts s h o u ld g iv e “d u e r e s p e c t to [ a ] D is tr ic t C o u r t's r e a s one d appr a i s a l ” of

the pr ope rs e nt e nc e f

ora de f e nda nt ) . “ [ T ] he r e i s a r a nge of r e a s onabl e s e nt e nc e s f

r om w hi c h the di s tr i c tc our tm a y c hoos e . ” U ni t e d S t a t e s v. T al l ey , 43 1 F . 3d 78 4, 78 8 (11 th C i r. 20 05 ) ( per c uri am ). A l tho ug h, there ar e

“ s e nt e nc e s out s i de the r a nge of r e a s onabl e ne s s tha tdo nota c hi e ve the purpos e s of s e n te n c in g s ta te d in § 3 5 5 3 ( a ) a n d th a t th u s th e d is tr ic t c o u r t m a y n o t im p o s e ,” M art i n, 45 5 F . 3d at12 37 , “ [a ] di stri ctcourtm ayi m po se a s ent ence thati s e i ther m or e s e ve r e orl e ni e nttha n the s e nt e nc e [ w e ] w oul d ha ve i m pos e d. ” T a l l e y , 431 F . 3d at78 8. A l tho ug h “ [w ] e do n oti n thi s c i rc ui tpres um e r ea sonabl e ase nt ence w ith in th e p r o p e r ly c a lc u la te d G u id e lin e s r a n g e ,” th e S u p r e m e C o u r t h a s u p h e ld othe rc i r c ui t s ’ de c i s i ons t o do s o. U ni t e d S t a t e s v. C a m pbe l l , 491 F . 3d 1306, 1313 (11th C i r. 20 07 ). F i nal l y, “ the party w ho chal l enges the se nt ence bear s the bu rden of e s t abl i s hi ng tha tthe s e nt e nc e i s unr e a s onabl e i n l i ghtof both [ the ] r e c or d a nd the f a c t or s i n s e c t i on 3553( a ) . ” T a l l e y , 431 F . 3d a t788.31

H ere, th e d i stri ctco u rtco m p l i ed w i th th e req u i si t e p ro ced u ral req u i rem en t s, vi ew i ng the appl i cabl e gui del i ne ra ng e a s a dv i soryand exp l i ci t l y c on si deri ng the § 3553( a ) f a c t or s . T he c our te xpl a i ne d tha ta 400- m onth s e nt e nc e a s t o e a c h c ount wa s r e q u i r e d t o r e f

l e c tth e s e r i o u s n e s s o f

th e o f f e n s e s , p r o m o t e r e s p e c tf o rth e l a w, p r o v id e a ju s t p u n is h m e n t, a n d to a f f o r d a d e q u a te d e te rr e n c e to c r im in a l c o n d u c t. W e f i nd thatthe se nt ence i m po se d w as w i thi n the ra ng e of r ea sonabl e s ent ence s tha tthe di s tr i c tc our tc oul d ha ve i m pos e d, e s pe c i a l l y c ons i de r i ng tha ti tw a s be l ow the then-appl i cabl e G ui del i nes r ange un der w hi ch W hi t e f ac ed up t o l i fe i m pr i s onm e nta nd s t i l l f a l l s w i thi n the r a nge tha tw oul d ha ve r e s ul t e d unde rthe am ended g ui del i ne. S ee C am pb el l , 49 1 F . 3d at13 13 . A cc ordi ng l y, w e f i nd that W hi t e ha s notof

f e r e d a ny r e a s on – othe rtha n hi s be l i e f tha tthe or i gi na l gui de l i ne re sul t ed i n an u nrea sonabl e s ent enci ng ra ng e – thathi s c as e m er i t s al es se r se nt ence . H e has no tm ethi s burden o f e st abl i shi ng thathi s s ent ence w as procedural l y or s ub st ant i vel y unrea sonabl e. I I I . CONCL US I ON W hi t e app ea l s hi s c on vi ct i on and sent ence s f or tw o cou nt s of c ocai ne-r el at ed o ffen ses. W e fi n d n o rev ersi b l e erro r as t o th e d i stri ctco u rt ’ s l i m i t s o n cro sse xa m i na t i on ori t s e vi de nt i a ry rul i ngs . N ordo w e f i nd a ny e rr or , pl a i n or o th e rw is e , a s to b o ls te r in g , v o u c h in g o ro th e rp r o s e c u to r ia l m is c o n d u c t.32

A cc ordi ng l y, W hi t es conv i ct i on s a re AF F I RME D. S im ila r ly , w e f in d th a t W h ite h a s f a ile d to d e m o n s tr a te th a t h is s e n te n c e w a s p r o c e d u r a lly o rs u b s ta n tiv e ly un re as on abl e. T here fore , w e AF F I RM h is s e n te n c e a s to e a c h c o u n t.