FI L ED U.S. COURT OF APPEAL S EL EVENTHCI RCUI T AUGUST 18, 2010 J OHN L EY CL ERK [DO NOT PUBLISH]
IN THE UN ITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELE VENTH CIRCUIT

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ No. 0 8- 12 82 9

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ D. C. Dock etNo. 0 5- 00 55 8- CR-4 -WSD-1 UNITED STAT ES OF AMERIC A,
Pl ai nt iff -Ap pe ll ee, ve rs us JOE LOUIS LOPEZ, a.k .a. Jo ll y , Defen da nt -Ap pe ll an t, JESUS HECTOR FLORES, a.k .a. Cai n, Defen da nt .

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ App eal s fr om

th e Uni te d S ta te s Di st ric t Co urt fo r th e North ern Dis tri ctof Ge or gi a

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ _ (Au gu st18 , 20 10 )Befo re TJ OFLAT andBARKETT, Circu itJu dg es , andBARZILAY, Ju dg e. * PER CURI AM: On No ve m

be r 15 , 20 05 , age nt s o f th e Dru g En fo rcem en t Ad m in is tra ti on (“ DEA”) an d o ffi cers of t he Fu lt on Co un ty, Geo rg iaSp eci al W eap on s an d Tac ti cs (“ SWA T”) te am

arre st edJo e Lou is Lop ez, Ro be rto Garci a, an d R om ero Ro el Marti ne z. Late r th atday , th e ag en ts arres te d J es us Hect orFlo res an d Lu is Fern an do Trev in o. OnDecem be r 15 , 20 05 , a Nort he rnDis tri ctof Ge or gi a g ran d jury retu rn eda te n- co un t i nd ic tm en t ag ai ns t t he se fiv e arr es te es an d F lo ren ti no 1 Vil la nu ev a-Ca st il lo . Lop ez, the ap pe ll an t h ere, was ch arg edin Co un ts 1, 6 , 7, an d 9. Co un t 1 ch arg edall de fen da nt s wi th vi ol at in g 2 1 U.S.C. § 84 6 b y co ns pi rin g t o po ss es s wi th in te ntto di st rib ut e atlea stfiv e k il og ram s o f co cai ne fro m Apri l 2 00 5 to Nov em be r 15 , 20 05 , invi ol at io n o f 21 U.S.C. § 8 41 (a). Co un t 6 ch arg ed Lop ez, Marti ne z, an d Vi ll anue vawith p os se ss io n wi th in te ntto di st rib ut e an d di st rib ut io n o f atlea stfiv e k il og ram s o f co cai ne onNov em be r 15 , 20 05 , in vi ol at io n o f § 8 41 (a). Co un t 7 ch arg edFlo res , Mart in ez, Lo pe z, an d Gar ci a wit h po ss es si on with i nt en t t o d is tri bu te at l eas t fi ve ki lo gr am s o f co cai ne on Nov em be r

Honora ble Judith M. Barzil ay , United States Court of International Trade J udg e, sitting * by designation. It was a supe rseding

indictment, which we r efe r to for c onvenienc e as the indictment. 1 215 , 20 05 , invi ol at io n o f § 8 41 (a). Co un t 9 ch arg edLop ez wi th po ss es si on of a

fir earm in furth eran ce o f a dru g t raff ic ki ng cri m e an d u si ng , carrying , and br an di sh in g s ai d fi rearm

in vi ol at io n o f 18 U.S.C. §§ 92 4( c)(1 )(A)(i ), 92 4( c)(1 )(A)(i i), and2. Garci a, Marti ne z, Trev in o, an d Vi ll anue va -Cas ti ll o p le d g ui lt y to sev eral
co un ts of t he in di ctm en t. Lop ez an d F lo res ele ct edto go to tri al ; i t b eg anon Ja nu ary 7, 2 00 8. Garc iaan d Tre vi no tes ti fie d a ga in stth em as p ro se cu ti on wit ne ss es . On Ja nu ary 11 , th e jury fou ndFlo res an d Lo pe z g ui lt y as c ha rg ed
. On M ay 7, 2 00 8, t he di stric t co urt s en te nc edLop ez t o c on cu rren t p ris on te rm s o f 29 2 m on th s o n C ou nt s 1 , 6, an d 7 , anda co ns ecu ti ve pri so n t erm of 6 0
m on th s o n C ou nt9. Fl or es was s en te nc edon Ju ly 11, 2 00 8, t o c on cu rren t p ris on te rm s o f 40 0 m on th s o n C ou nt s 1 , 4, an d 7 , and24 0 m on th s o n C ou nt2, an d a
co ns ecu ti ve pri so n t erm

of 6 0 m on th s o n C ou nt10
. Flo res ap pe al edhi s 2
co nv ic ti on s an d s en te nc es , bu t v ol un taril y di sm is se d t he ap pe al onNov em be r 30 , 20 09 . Lop ez al so ap pe al ed ; i t i s h is ap pe al th atwe de ci de to da y . He cha ll en ge s hi s co nv ic ti on on Co un t 9 an d h is sen te nc es on Co un ts 1, 6 , and7. I.
The district cour

t sentence d the re maining de fenda nts to the following prison terms on 2 multipl e counts: Ga

rcia 177 months, Martinez 322 months, Trevino 177 months, and Villanueva
Castillo 132 m onths. 3In20 02 , Flo res was c on du ct in g ahi gh ly suc ces sf ul co cai ne op erat io n i n Mem ph is , Tenn es se e. Garci a an d M art in ez b eg anwork in g fo r hi m th aty ear; Trev in o jo in edth em

withi n ay ear o r so . 3 The Mem ph is op erat io n was Flo res ’s foc us un ti l early 20 05 , when on e o f Fl or es ’s pri m ary cu st om ers was a rres te d. Atth is po in t, Fl or es setup sh op in Atl an ta , Geor gi a. Mart in ez, Garc ia , Trevi no , andLop ez ca m e to Atl an tato he lp hi m . The fo ur

m enli ve d i n a“ st as h h ou se ,” lo cat edat 5 04 0 Eri n R oa d i n At la nt a. The y wou ldrece iv e co cai ne in tru ck s fr om Mex ic o a ndst or e it . Per Fl or es ’s di rect io ns , th ey

wou ldde li ve r th e co cai ne to Flo res ’s cus to m ers an d c ol le ctcas h pa ym en ts in return. Th ey co m m un ic at edwith F lo res m

ul ti pl e ti m es th ro ug ho ut th e d ay . Alth ou gh Mart in ez, Garc ia , Trevi no , andLop ez m ix edres po ns ib il it ie s, each ha d p rimary

res po ns ib il it ie s. Ma rti ne z se rv edas F lo res ’s li eu te nantan d h ad th e p rimary

res po ns ib il it y

of c omm un ic at in g wi th Flo res . Lop ez h adth e p rimary
res po ns ib il it y

of m eet in g t he tru ck s d el iv eri ng th e co cai ne , tak in g t he co cai ne to
cu st om ers , andco ll ect in g p aym en ts fro m cu st om ers . Garci a an d Tre vi no ha d t he pr im ary res po ns ib il ity

of c ou nt in g a ndpro ces si ng th e p aym en ts th atLop ez co ll ect ed
.

L opez briefly

worke d for F lores in Memphis as we ll. 3 4Fro m

Ju ne 20 05 un ti l the Nov em be r 15 , 20 05 arre st s, DEA ag en ts pe rfo rm eda se rie s o f co urt-aut ho riz edwire taps , whi ch , by Nov em be r 11 , 20 05 , in cl ud edMart in ez’s p ho ne s an d acel l p ho ne Flo res us ed . On Nov em be r 11 , Marti ne z rec ei ve d a n i ns tru ct io n t o d el iv er 2 0 k il og ram s o f co cai ne to “ Tejano .” Lop ez p rep aredth e co cai ne an d d el iv ereditth atni gh t, u nd er the ag en ts ’
su rv ei ll an ce, an d re cei ve d acas h p aym en t. The wire taps in di cat edth atLop ez al so
m ad e a d el iv ery th atni gh t o f 20 ki lo gr am s o f co cai ne to “ th e Ma il m an ,” who ga ve hi m $2 00 ,00 0 fo r anearl ie r de li ve ry . On No ve m

be r 15 , DEA agen ts an d m em be rs of t he SWAT team

rai de d t he st as h h ou se at 5 04 0 Eri n R oa d. A SWAT tea m off ic er, wh il e cl im

bi ng th e st ai rs , sa w a m anst an di ng ou ts id e anup st ai rs be dr oo m an d p oi nt in g agu n i n h is di rect io n. Th e o ffi cer f

ire d t hr ee ro un ds at t he m anan d fe ll ba ckwarddo wn the st ai rs . Alth ou gh th e DEA age nt s i ni ti al ly ide nt ifi edth e m anho ld in g t he gu n a s Lop ez, i t was actua ll y

Garci a. The a ge nt s arres te d Lo pe z, Garci a, an d M art in ez i n th e h ou se . The ag en ts fou ndth ree g un s—two semiaut om at ic pi st ol s an d a
se m iaut om at ic ass au ltrif le —i n the st as h h ou se , as wel l as lo ad edam m un it io n cl ip s fo r th e p is to ls , bo xe s o f amm un it io n fo r th e as saul t ri fle , 12 0 k il og ram s o f
co cai ne , $1 .5 m il li on cas h, an d c el lu la r ph on es th atwere i nt erce pt eddu rin g t he 5wire taps . Accor di ng to Garci a’s te st im on y , eve ry on e li vi ng in th e st as h h ou se

wou ldha ve be enab le to us e th e g un s, wh ic h wer e th ere “ [f]or p ro te ct io n o f th e ho us e, [t o] m ak e su re we d id n’t g etrob be d, an yth in g o f th atna ture.” Trev in o a nd Fl or es were arres te d l at er tha t d ay . II. Lop ez ap pe al s h is co nv ic ti on on Co un t 9 . He arg ue s t ha t t he ev id en ce was in su ffi ci en t t o c on vi cthi m on th atco un t an d s eek s a ju dg m en t o f acqui tt al
. Co un t 9 of the in di ctm en t ch arg edLop ez as fol lo ws: On o r ab ou t No ve m

be r 15 , 20 05 , inth e North ern Dis tri ctof Geo rg ia , th e d efen da nt ,

JOE LOUIS LOPEZ, a.k.a. J OLLY; ai de d andab ette d b y

ot he rs kn own an d u nkno wn t o t he gra ndjury, di d kno win gl y

po ss es s a f

ire arm in furth eran ce o f a dru g t raff ic ki ng cri m e fo r whi ch th e d efen da ntm ay be pro se cu te d i n aco urt o f th e Uni te d S ta te s, tha t i s, a v io la ti on of Ti tl e 2 1, Un it edSta te s C od e, Sect io ns 84 1( a)(1 ) an d 8 46 as s etforthin Co un ts One a ndSev enof th is Ind ic tm en t, an d d idus e, carry , andbra nd is h s ai d fi rearm du rin g an d i n re la ti on to sai d d ru g t raff ic ki ng cri m e; all in vi ol at io n o f Tit le 18 , Uni te d S ta te s C od e, Sect io n 9 24 (c)(1 )(A)(i ), 92 4 (c )(1 )(A)(i i), an d 2
. Sect io n 9 24 (c)( 1) (A) p ro vi de s i n re le va ntpart: [A]ny pe rs onwho , du rin g a ndin rel at io n t o . . . [a] dru g t raff ic ki ng cri m e . . . for wh ic h t he pe rs on m ay be pro se cu te d i n aco urt o f th e Uni te d S ta te s, u se s o r carrie s a f ire arm , or wh o, i n fu rth eran ce o f an y su ch cri m e, po ss es se s a f ire arm , sh al l, i n a dd it io n t o t he pu ni sh m en t pr ov id edforsu ch
. . . drug tra ffi ck in g c rime— (i) be sen te nc edto a te rm of i m pr is on m en t o f no t l es s t ha n 5 y ears ; 6(ii ) if

th e fi rearm

is bra nd is he d, b e se nt en cedto a te rm of im pr is on m en t o f no t l es s t ha n 7 y ears ; an d (ii i) i f th e fi rearm

is di sc ha rg ed , be s en te nc edto a te rm of im pr is on m en t o f no t l es s t ha n 1 0 years. 4 Pri orto tri al , Lop ez m ov edth e d is tri ctco urt p ur su an t t o B rady v. Ma ry la nd , 37 3 U.S. 8 3, 8 3 S . Ct. 1 19 4 (1 96 3) , to ord er the Gov ern m en t t o p ro vi de hi m with in fo rm at io n p ert in en t t o C ou nt9, i n l ig htof t he Gov ern m en t’s adm is si on th atit
was Garci a, no t Lo pe z, who po in te d t he gu n a t t he off ic er dur in g t he st as h h ou se rai d. Atth e h eari ng on th e m ot io n, t he pro se cu to r ga ve de fen se co un se l t he in fo rm at io n: Cou nt9 re la te d t o t he po ss es si on of a ll th ree g un s fo un d a t t he st as h ho us e, no t ju stth e p is to l Gar ci a b ran di sh ed . The d is tri ctco urt t he n d en ie d Lop ez’s m ot io n a s m oo t. The di stric t co urt b eg anth e jury char ge co nf eren ce fo ll owi ng th e se co nd -to la stda y of t es ti m on y

an d re su m editin th e m orni ng be fo re the las t d ay of te st im on y . At th e ch arg e co nf eren ce, the Gov ern m en t co nc ed edth atth ere was no ev id en ce s ho win g t ha t Lo pe z u se d o r br an di sh eda fi rearm on Nov em

be r 15 . The pa rti es ag reedto red actth e “ us e” an d “ br an di sh ” lang ua ge fro m th e in di ct m en t
an d s tri ke th atlan gu ag e fro m th e jury ins tru ct io n o n C ou nt9, l eav in g t he off en se s
Section 924(c) (2) de fines “dr ugtraff ickingcrime” for pur

poses of the subse ction as 4 “any felony punishable under

the Controlled Substances Ac t (21 U.S.C. 801 et seq.), the Controlled Subst ance s Import and Export Act (21 U.S.C. 951 et seq.), or c hapter 705 of title 46.” 7of

carry in g afir earm

in rel at io n t o adru g t raff ic ki ng cri m e o r po ss es si ng th e fir earm in furth eran ce o f th e cri m e. 5 At the clo se of t he Gov ern m en t’s ca se in ch ie f, Lop ez m ov edth e co urt pu rs ua ntto Fed eral Ru le of C riminal Pro cedur e 2 9 fo r a jud gm en t o f acqui tt al on al l co un ts . Spe ci fic al ly on C ou nt9, h e arg ue d t ha t t he ev id en ce was in su ffi ci en t t o es tabl is h t he carry in g a ndpo ss es si ng all eg at io ns . The co urt g ran te d Lo pe z’s
m ot io n o nl y

with re sp ectto th e b ran di sh in g a sp ectof t he Co un t 9 off en se , whi ch th e p art ie s h adalr eady

ag reedto st rik e fro m

th e in di ct m en t, an d d en ie d h is m ot io n in all ot he r res pe ct s. Lo pe z ren ewedhi s R ul e 2 9 m ot io n a t t he clo se of a ll th e ev id en ce; itto o was de ni ed . Lop ez n ow co nt en ds th atth e co urt erredin de nyin g th e m ot io n a s t o t he rem ai ni ng all eg at io ns of t he Co un t 9 ch arg e. W e rev ie w de n ov o wh ethe r th ere i s s uf fic ie ntev id en ce t o s us ta in a co nv ic ti on . Uni te d S ta te s v . Gun n, 3 69 F.3d12 29 , 12 34 (11 th Cir . 20 04 ) (p er cu ria m) (ci ti ng Uni te d S ta te s v . Tarko ff, 2 42 F.3d99 1, 9 93 (11 th Cir . 20 01 )). In
co nduc ti ng th is rev ie w, we “ vi ew[] the ev id en ce i n t he li gh t m os t fa vo rab le to th e go ve rn m en t, re ve rs in g o nl y if n o re as on ab le tri er o f fac t co ul d h av e fo un d g ui lt be y on d areas on ab le do ub t.” Id . (ci ti ng Tark of f, 24 2 F .3dat 9 93 ). To s us ta in a The c arr ying a nd possessing c rimes re quired a five-year minimumthat could not run 5 concur rently with the drugtraff

ickingsentenc e; the bra

ndishing c rime would have require d a seven- year

minimum . See 18 U.S.C. § 924(c) (1)( A)(i) –(ii), (D) (ii). 8co nv ic ti on un de r Co un t 9 , th e Gov ern m en t m us t h av e p ro ve d e it he r th atLop ez carr ie d afir earm

“ in rel at io n t o . . . [a] dru g t raff ic ki ng cri m e” o r kn owi ng ly po ss es se d afir earm

“ in furth eran ce o f” s uc h c rime. See 1 8 U.S.C. § 92 4( c)(1 )(A). Lop ez’s co nv ic ti on s u nd er 2 1 U.S.C. § § 8 46 an d 8 41 co ns ti tu te th e dru g tra ffi ck in g c rimes. See 1 8 U.S.C. § 92 4( c)(2 ). W e fi ndth atth e ev id en ce was su ffi ci en t t o fi ndLop ez g ui lt y of t he po ss es si on ch arg e—areas on ab le jury co ul d fin d b ot h t ha t Lo pe z kno win gl y po ss es se d afir earm

an d t ha t h e d idso in fu rth eran ce o f a dru g t raff ic ki ng cri m e—s o we n eedno t re ach th e que st io n o f whe th er the ev id en ce was su ffi ci en t o n t he carry in g c ha rg e. 6 The go ve rn m en t ca n p ro ve po ss es si on th ro ug h a ctua l o r co ns tru ct iv e po ss es si on , andpo ss es si on canbe joi ntor s ol e. Gun n, 3 69 F.3dat 1 23 4 (c it in g Uni te d S ta te s v . Crawfo rd , 90 6 F .2d15 31 , 15 35 (11 th Cir . 19 90 )). “ To es tabl is h
co ns tru ct iv e p os se ss io n, the go ve rn m en t m us t s ho w th atth e d efen da ntex erci se d
own ers hi p, d om in io n, o r co nt ro l o ve r th e fi rearm or t he ve hi cl e co nc eal in g t he fir earm .” Id . (ci ti ng Crawfo rd , 90 6 F .2dat 1 53 5)
.

“[P] ossession has a broa der me aningthan . . . ca rries.” United States v. Timmons, 283 6 F.3d 1246, 1252 ( 11th Cir. 2002) (interna l quotations omi tted). 9The ev id en ce h ere— sp eci fic al ly, Garci a’s te st im on y —was su ffi ci en t fo r th e jury to co nc lu de th atLop ez p os se ss eda fi rearm co ns tru ct iv el y

an d jo in tl y . Garci a te st ifi edas f

ol lo ws: Q. Okay. Did[th e g un s] bel on g t o youor d idth ey be lo ng -- were th ey so rt o f co m

pa ny gu ns ? A. I m ean , we bo ug htth em , bu t we ju stlef t the m aro un d t he ho us e jus t i n c as e an y

bo dy need edto us e a weap onforan y so rt o f rea so n. Q. Did a ny of th os e g un s, d idth ey be lo ng or we re the y

bo ug htby Joe Lop ez? A. No, si r. Q. Did M r. Lop ez h av e acc es s t o t he m ? A. Yes, s ir. Q. Any an y bo dy [si c] in t he ho us e wou ldha ve be enab le to ge t t o th em if t he y ne ed edth em ? A. Yes, si r.

. . . . Q. They weren ’t lo ck edup ? A. No, si r. Garci a al so tes ti fie d t ha t “ on oc cas io ns [Lop ez] hada weap on inhi s ro om .” Giv en th is tes ti m on y

th atLop ez co ul d re ad il y acce ss th e weap on s i n the ho us e an d h ad do ne so , a reas on ab le jury co ul d i nf er tha t h e p os se ss eda fi rearm . 7

Count 9 of the indictment was likely brought ag ainst L opez beca use of the 7 Gover nment’s initial mis identification of L opez as the per son holding a gun at the top of the stairs when the ag ents and SWAT team offic ers e ntere d. The indictment, howe ver, did not specify that the cha

rg e wa s based on that gun or any particula r gun alleg edly

possessed by

L opez. It is our duty

to determine whether , based on the evidenc e, a jur y could have found that L opez possessed a gun, and we find that the jury could have ; it is not our duty to question whether the Gover nment should have dismissed Count 9 when it learne d that the per son holding the gun at the top of the stairs wa s Garc ia. 10To s ho w th atth e p os se ss io n was in furth eran ce o f a dru g t raff ic ki ng cri m e,

“ th e p ro se cu ti on [m

us t] est ab li sh th atth e fi rearm he lp ed , furth ered , pro m ot ed , or adva nc edth e dru g t raff

ic ki ng .” Uni te d S ta te s v . Tim m on s, 2 83 F.3d12 46 , 12 52 (1 1t h C ir. 2 00 2)
. The m ere p res en ce o f a fi rearm in anareawher e a cri m in al actoc cu rs is no t a s uf

fic ie ntba si s fo r im

po si ng th is pa rti cu la r m an da to ry se nt en ce. Rathe r, th e g ov ern m en t m us t i ll us tra te th ro ug h s pe ci fic fact s, wh ic h t ie th e d efen da ntto th e fi rearm , th atth e fi rearm was po ss es se d t o a dv an ce o r pr om ot e th e cri m in al act iv it y . Id . (qu ot in g Un it edSta te s v . Mack ey , 26 5 F .3d45 7, 4 61 (6th C ir. 2 00 1) ). Rathe r, [a]s the Seco ndCir cu itex pl ai ne d i n Un it edSta te s v . Fin le y , 24 5 F .3d 19 9, 2 02 (2dCir . 20 01 ), th ere m us t b e “ a sh owi ng of s om e n ex us be twee n t he fir earm

an d t he dru g s el li ng op erat io n.” Id. Th e n ex us be twee n t he gu n a ndth e dru g o pe rat io n c anbe est ab li sh edby the type of dru g a ct iv ity

th atis be in g c on du ct ed , acce ss ib il it y of the fir earm , th e type o f th e weap on , whet he r th e weap on is st ol en , th e st atus of t he po ss es si on (le gi ti m at e o r il le ga l), wh ethe r th e g un is lo ad ed , pr ox im it y to th e dru gs or dru g p ro fit s, an d t he ti m e an d c irc um st an ces un de r whi ch th e g un is fou nd . Whi le th es e fac to rs are n otex cl us iv e, th ey di st in gu is h p os se ss io n i n fu rth eran ce o f a cri m e fro m in no cen t po ss es si on of awall -m ou nt edan ti qu e o r anun lo ad edhu nt in g ri fle lo ck edin a cupb oa rd
. Id . at 1 25 3 (i nt ern al qu ot at io ns an d c it at io ns om it te d)
. InTimm on s, we fo un d t ha t t he di st ric t co urt erredin set ti ng asi de a gu il ty
ve rd ic t; th e ev id en ce ag ai ns t Ti m m on s— a “bu ll etpro of

ve st , crackco cai ne on th e st ov e an d u nd er the cu sh io ns of t he co uc h, t wo fu ll y lo ad edfir earm s o n t op of t he
11ov enan d a m m un it io n i ns id e th e o ve n i n t he li vi ng roo m of h is ap art m en t” —was su ffi ci en t t o s at is fy

th e “ in furth eran ce” e le m en t o f a § 92 4( c) v io la ti on . Id. Si m il arl y , we con cl ud e th e ev id en ce h ere was su ffi ci en t t o s us ta in a § 9 24 (c)
co nv ic ti on . The g un s wer e se m iaut om at ic pi st ol s an d asemiaut om at ic ass au lt rif le , andth e ag en ts als o fo un d l oa de d a m m un it io n c li ps forth e p is to ls an d b ox es of am m un it io n fo r th e as saul t ri fle . One hun dr edtwen ty kil og ram s o f co cai ne an d $1 .5 m il li on were al so fou ndinth e h ou se . The g un s wer e st or edin di ffer en t ar eas of th e h ou se an d re ad il y

acce ss ib le to Lop ez an d t he ot he r worke rs . Mor eo ve r, th e worke rs li ve d i n t he ho us e fo r th e p ur po se of c on du ct in g aco cai ne op erat io n. In
su m , a reas on ab le juro r co ul d c on cl ud e fro m th is ev id en ce tha t Lo pe z p os se ss eda gu n i n fu rth eran ce o f th e dru g t raff ic ki ng cri m e fo r whi ch he was c on vi ct ed
. 8 III. Lop ez al so ap pe al s t he sen te nc es he rece iv edon Co un ts 1, 6 , and7. As
no te d, t he di st ric t co urt s en te nc edLop ez t o 2 92 m on th s’ im pr is on m en t o n t ho se
Count 9 of the superse ding indictment c harg ed that L opez violated § 924(c) “aide d and 8 abetted by

others.” T o prove a iding a nd abetting , the prosec ution mustshow “that a substantive offe nse wa s committed, that the defe ndant associated himself with the criminal venture, a nd that he committed some ac t which furthe red the crime.”United States v. Hamblin, 911 F.2d 551, 557 (11th Cir. 1990). The de fenda nt must “share[] the same unlawful intent as the a ctual perpe trator.” I d. at 558. As explained in the text , a jury could have found L opez guilty of the substantive crime outlaw ed by § 924(c) . Ba sed on the same evidenc e, a jur y could also find L opez guilty

of the a iding a

nd abettingcharg e. 12co un ts . He see ks a ne w sen te nc in g h eari ng on th e g ro un ds th atth e d is tri ctco urt, 9 in de te rm in in g t he ad

jus te d o ffen se lev el forth e § 84 1( a) o ffen se un de r th e Sen te nc in g Gu id el in es , erredin de nyin g h is reque stfora m in orrol e reduc ti on un de r U.S.S.G. § 3 B1 .2(b ), an d t ha t h is sen te nc es were unr eas on ab le
. 1 0 Sect io n 3 B1 .2(b ) st at es , “ [i]f th e d efen da ntwas am in orparti ci pa ntin an y cri m in al act iv it y , dec reas e [the off en se lev el ] by 2 le ve ls .” The c omm en ta ry to th is gu id el in e d efi ne s a m in orpa rti ci pa ntas s om eo ne “ who is les s cu lp ab le th an
m os t o th er p art ic ip an ts , bu t wh os e ro le co ul d n otbe de sc rib edas m in im al .” U.S.S.G. § 3 B1 .2 co m

m en t. (n .5). Lo pe z arg ue d t o t he di st ric t co urt an d n ow arg ue s o n app eal th athe was e nt it le d t o am in orrol e se nt en ci ng reduc ti on be cau se he was m erel y

a co ur ie r who to okord ers , pro vi de d p hysic al lab or , andex erci se d rel at iv el y li tt le di sc ret io n; he was b ei ng he ldacco un tabl e fo r a quant it y of c oc ai ne Under the SentencingGuidelines, the total off ense le vel for Counts 1, 6, and 7 wa s 38, 9 and L opez’s criminal history cate g ory was IV. L opez reque sted a downw ard departure on his criminal history

cate g ory beca use he c ontended that a

cate g ory of IV over

repr esente d his criminal history . The district cour t agree d and depa

rted downw ard to a

criminal history

cate g ory of I I I
. This yielded a se ntencing rang e of 292 to 365 months’ imprisonment for the dr ugconvictions.
L opez also argues that the 21 U.S.C. § 851 sentenc ing e nhance ment he re ceive d based 1 0 on a 1994 convic tion for 5 roc ks of cr ack—which doubled L opez’s mandatory sentenc e from 10 year s to 20 y ear s—resulted in a violation of the E ighth Ame ndment’s prohibition of crue l and unusual punishment. We dispose of this argument in the marg in, as it is foreclose d by Har melin v. Michig an, 501 U.S. 957, 994–95, 111 S. Ct. 2680, 2701 (1991) (“Seve re, ma ndatory penalties may be cr uel, but they

arenot unusual in the constitutional sense, havingbeen e mploy ed in various for

ms throughout our

Nation’s history .”). We a lso note that the district court exerc ised its discretion to impose a sentenc e above the 20-year mandatory

minimum
. 13th athe di d n otown or c on tro l; he was re cei vi ng a 5- y ear s en te nc e fo r a fi rearm

th athe di d n otpo ss es s; he ha d l ow i nt el li ge nc e; he was i nv ol ve d i n the op erat io n fo r a rel at iv el y

sh ort t im e; an d h is rol e was rel at iv el y m in or . The co urt d is ag reed , fin di ng fro m

th e ev id en ce ad du cedat t ria l t ha t wh il e y oucanqu ib bl e ab ou t the rel at iv e cu lp ab il it y of M r. Lop ez v is -a-v is Mr. Garc ia , Mr. Trev in o, b uthe is no t en ti tl edto a 3B 1.2 (b) ad jus tm en t u nl es s h e was subs ta nt ia ll y les s cu lp ab le th anth e av erag e pa rti ci pant . AndI th in k t ha t the ev id en ce i s o ve rwh el m in g t ha t h e was equa ll y cu lp ab le with the av erag e p art ic ip an ts in th is en te rp ris e, an d th eref or e I o ve rru le th e o bjec ti on to th e g ui de li ne cal cu la ti onth at de ni edhi m

th e m in orrol e. W e rev ie w a di st ric t co urt’s d en ia l o f a ro le reduc ti on forcle ar erro r. Uni te d St at es v. Al va rez- Co ria , 44 7 F .3d13 40 , 13 43 (11 th Cir . 20 06 ) (p er cu ria m). “ Two pr in ci pl es gu id e a d is tri ctco urt’s co ns id erat io n: (1) th e co urt m us t co m pa re the de fen da nt ’s rol e in th e o ffen se with t he rel ev an t co nduc t at tri bu te d t o h im in cal cu la ti ng hi s b as e o ffen se lev el ; an d (2 ) th e co urt m ay co m pa re the de fen da nt ’s
co nduc t t o t ha t o f ot he r pa rti ci pant s i nv ol ve d i n the off en se .” Id . The d efen da nt
m us t p ro ve hi s m in or

rol e b y a pr ep on de ran ce o f th e ev id en ce. See Uni te d S ta te s v. Ro dr ig ue z De Varo n, 1 75 F.3d93 0, 9 39 (11 th Cir . 19 99 ) (en ba nc ). But, “ a de fen da ntis no t au to m at ic al ly ent it le d t o amin orrol e ad jus tm en t m erel y

be cau se

14sh e was so m ewh atles s cu lp ab le th anth e o th er d is cern ab le pa rti ci pa nt s.” Id . at

94 4. The di stric t co urt d idno t cl earl y err i n d en y in g Lo pe z’s reque stfora m in or ro le reduc ti on . Lop ez was anin st ru m en ta l p artof t he co cai ne op erat io n. He l iv ed in th e st as h h ou se an d was res po ns ib le form ak in g c oc ai ne de li ve rie s an d
co ll ect in g m on ey , as wel l as forot he r act iv it ie s—th e ev id en ce s ho wedth atth e worke rs in te rch an ge d dut ie s. Mo reo ve r, he was h el d a cco un tabl e o nl y for th e co cai ne he co nt ro ll ed . His a rg um en t re ga rd in g t he fir earm is als o wi th ou t m eri t fo r th e rea so ns di sc us se d i n p artII, supr a. The d is tri ctco urt t he refo re p ro pe rly de ni edLop ez’s m in orrol e reduc ti on reque st . 1 1 W e n ow turn t o Lo pe z’s arg um en t t ha t h is sen te nc es forth e dru g co nv ic ti on s ar e unr eas on ab le . Lop ez was subjec t t o a24 0- m on th m an da to ry

L opez asserts in his brief that “[t] he district cour t was re quired to examine the re lative 1 1 culpabilities, including the differing le ng th of time spent in the conspirac y by differ ent participa nts, prior to expanding to the more g ener alized ‘ave rag e par ticipant.’” The district court, howe ver, w as not requir ed eve n to conduct the inquiry of how L opez’s conduct c ompare d with that of his co-de fenda nts: First, and most importantly , the district court must measure the def endant’ s role ag ainst the rele vant conduc t for which she was he ld acc ountable at se ntencing ; we rec ognize that in many

case s this method of analy sis will be disposi tive. Second, the district court may

also measur e the de fenda nt’s role a g ainst the other participa nts, to the ex tent that they are discerna

ble, in that rele vant conduc t. Rodrigue z De Var on, 175 F.3d at 945 (emphasis adde d). 15m in im

um on th e dru g c on vi ct io ns , andth e Gui de li ne s ra ng e was 29 2 t o 3 65
m on th s. The d is tri ctco urt s en te nc edhi m to pri so n t erm s o f 29 2 m on th s—th e 1 2 bo tt om of the Gui de li ne s ra ng e. Lop ez ar gu es th athi s s en te nc es are p ro cedur al ly
an d s ub st an ti ve ly unr eas on ab le . Whe th er the di st ric t co urt i m po se d re as on ab le
se nt en ces is rev ie wedforab us e o f di sc ret io n. Gal l v . Uni te d S ta te s, 5 52 U.S. 38 , 51 , 12 8 S . Ct. 5 86 , 59 7 (2 00 7) . “ [T]he p arty who ch al le ng es th e se nt en ce b ears th e b ur de n o f es tabl is hi ng th atth e se nt en ce i s u nr eas on ab le .” Uni te d S ta te s v . Tall ey , 43 1 F .3d78 4, 7 88 (11 th Cir . 20 05 ) (p er cu ria m). Lop ez ar gu es th athi s s en te nc es are p ro cedur al ly unr eas on ab le be cau se th e di st ric t co urt b as edth em

on two cle arl y

erro ne ou s fa ct s: th atLop ez was anequa l pa rti ci pa ntto Trev in o a ndGarci a an d t ha t 2 92 m on th s was a m or e eff ect iv e de te rren t tha n 2 40 m on th s. Th e fi nd in g o n Lo pe z’s cu lp ab il it y was n otcle ar erro r gi ve n t ha t Lo pe z li ve d i n t he st as h h ou se an d s om et im es ch an ge d ro le s wi th th e ot he r worke rs . Lop ez o ffer edno ev id en ce t o s up po rt h is de te rren ce ar gu m en t, an d itth eref or e fai ls , bec au se he bo re the bu rd enof p ro of on it
. Lop ez ar gu es th athi s s en te nc es are s ub st an ti ve ly unr eas on ab le be cau se th ey are g reat er tha n n eces sa ry gi ve n h is in te ll ectua l capa ci ty, ro le in th e o ffen se , hi s

See supra

note 9. 1 2 16cri m in al hi st ory (hi s cr im in al hi st ory

was c at eg ory

III, ev enth ou gh he ha d o nl y on e p rio r fel on y

co nv ic ti on ), an d h is ag e. Reg ard in g h is cri m in al hi st ory , th e di st ric t co urt p ro pe rly con si de reditan d d ep art eddo wnwar d fr om a cri m in al hi st ory cat eg ory of I V to III. The sen te nc es im po se d wer e atth e b ot to m of t he Gui de li ne s ra ng e ev enaft er the do wnwar d d ep artur e. Altho ug h we a re n ot requi redto pre su m e Lop ez’s s en te nc es are re as on ab le be cau se th ey were i m po se d wit hi n t he Gui de li ne s s en te nc in g ra ng e, we “ or di na ril y . . . ex pe cta se nt en ce wit hi n t he Gui de li ne s ra ng e to be reas on ab le .” Id . W e are no t p ers ua de d tha t Lop ez’s i nt el le ctua l capa ci ty, ro le in th e o ffen se , or a ge de m an de d b el owGui de li ne s s en te nc es , or tha t the di st ric t co urt ab us edit s d is cret io n b y fai li ng to im po se su ch sen te nc es . IV. Fo r th e fo reg oi ng reas on s, Lo pe z’s co nv ic ti on onCo un t 9 an d h is sen te nc es on Co un ts 1, 6 , and7 ar e AFFIR MED.

17