FILED U.S. COURT OF AP P EALS E LEVEN T HC IRC U IT JULY 09, 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. 06- 12609

________________________ D. C . Do c k e tNo . 0 4 - 6 0 0 9 0 C R - MGC UN I T E D S T AT E S OF AME R I C A, P l ai nt i ff -A pp el l ee , v ersu s D E V O N H O W A R D T O E P F E R , D e f e n d a n t- A p p e lla n t.

________________________ N o. 06- 12718

________________________ D. C . Do c k e tNo . 0 4 - 6 0 0 9 0 C R - MGC UN I T E D S T AT E S OF AME R I C A, P l ai nt i ff -A pp el l ee , v ersu s J E F F R E Y E R I C T O E P F E R , D e f e n d a n t- A p p e lla n t.Honora ble Pasco B owman, II , United States Circuit Judg e for the Eighth Circuit, sitting * by designation. 2 ________________________ A pp ea l fr om the U ni t ed S t at es D i stri ctC ou rt f orthe S outhe rn D i s tr i c tof F l or i da

_________________________ ( Ju l y 9, 2008) B efo re W IL S O N , C O X an d B O W M A N , C i rcu i tJu d g es. * P E R C U R I A M: I n thi s c ons ol i da t e d appe a l , D e von H ow a r d T oe pf e rc ha l l e nge s s e ve r a l of the di stri ctcourt ' s e vi dent i ary rul i ng s a s w el l as the 14 0-m on th sent ence the court i m p o sed aft er a j u ry fo u n d h i m g u i l ty o f co n sp i ri n g t o m an u factu re an d p o ssess w i th i nt e ntt o di s tr i but e m a r i j ua na , 21 U . S . C . §§ 841 a nd 846; m a nuf a c tur i ng a nd p o s s e s s i n g ma r i

j u a n aw i th i n t e n tt o d i s tr i b u t e , i d . § 8 4 1 ; a n d d i s tr i b u t i n g d i a z e p a m, i d. Je ff re y E ri c T oepfer app ea l s the 12 3-m on th sent ence the di stri ctcourti m po se d a f te rh e p le a d e d g u ilty to c o n s p ir in g to m a n u f a c tu r e a n d p o s s e s s w ith in te n t to di s tr i but e m a r i

j ua na , 21 U . S . C . §§ 841 a nd 846; m a nuf a c tur i ng a nd pos s e s s i ng m a r i j ua naw i th i nt e ntt o di s tr i but e , i d. § 841; a nd c ons pi r i ng t o l aunde rm one y , 18 U .S .C . § 1 9 5 6 . I . D e v on. W e r e vi e w adi s tr i c tc ourt ' s e vi de nt i a ry rul i ngs f orabus e of3

di sc re t i on , U ni t ed S t at es v. M i l es , 29 0 F . 3d 13 41 , 13 51 (11th C i r. ) ( per c uri am ), ce rt . deni ed, 53 7 U . S . 10 89 (200 2), and w e r evi ew qu es t i on s of c on st i tut i on al l aw de novo, U ni t e d S t a t e s v. B r ow n, 364 F . 3d 1266, 1268 ( 11th C i r . ) , c e r t . de ni e d, 5 4 3 U . S . 8 7 9 (2 0 0 4 ). D ev o n fi rstarg u es th atth e co u rt ' s refu sal t o su p p ress r e c or di ngs of

hi s c onve r s a t i ons w i th c onf i de nt i a l i nf

orm a ntM a rk H a s t i ngs a nd u n in d ic te d c o - c o n s p ir a to rD a n B o lle ra m o u n te d to av io la tio n o f h is S ix th A m e ndm e ntr i ghtt o c onf r ont a t i on a nd the S upr e m e C our t ' s hol di ng i n C r a w f or d v. W a s h in g to n , 5 4 1 U .S . 3 6 , 6 8 ( 2 0 0 4 ) . I n C r a w f o r d , th e C o u r t h e ld th a t th e S ix th A m e n d m e n t o p e r a te s to e x c lu d e o n ly " te s tim o n ia l" h e a r s a y o f ad e c la r a n t w h o is u n av ai l ab l e attri al an d w h o th e d efen d an th ad n o p ri o r o p p o rtu n i ty t o cro ssexam i ne. Id. at68 . M oreover, the S i xth A m endm entri gh tt o con fr on t at i on "does notba rthe us e of

t e s t i m oni a l s t a t e m e nt s f orpurpos e s othe rtha n e s t abl i s hi ng the truth of the m a tt e ra s s e rt e d. " I d. a t60 n. 9; s e e U ni t e d S t a t e s v. B y r om , 910 F . 2d 725, 737 ( 11th C i r . 1990) ( not i ng tha tac onf i de nt i a l i nf

orm a nt ' s s t a t e m e nt s i n a t ape d c onve r s a t i on w i th de f e nda nta r e a dm i s s i bl e t o pr ovi de c ont e xt , s o l ong a s the i nform ant ' s s t at em ent s are no tadm i tt ed for the truth ass ert ed). H er e, the re corded st at em ent s of H as t i ng s and B ol l erw er e notused t o p rove the truth o f the m att er s a s s e r t e d i n thos e s t a t e m e nt s . R a the r , the s t a t e m e nt s w e r e of f e r e d m e r e l y t o pr ovi de c ont e xtt o D e von' s a dm i s s i ons abouthi s a c t i vi t i e s , know l e dge , a nd i nt e nt , a nd thus4

di d notrun a f

oul of the C onf r ont a t i on C l aus e . S e e , e . g. , U ni t e d S t a t e s v. H e n d r ic k s , 3 9 5 F .3 d 1 7 3 , 1 8 3

– 8 4 ( 3 d C ir . 2 0 0 5 ) . A c c o r d in g ly , th e D is tr ic t C o u rt's a d m is s io n o f

th e r e c o r d in g s d id n o t v io la te D e v o n 's S ix th A m e n d m e n t r ig h t to c o n f r o n ta tio n o rth e S u p r e m e C o u r t's h o ld in g in C r a w f o r d b e c au s e th e s ta te m e n ts w e r e n o t o f

f e r e d f o rth e tru th o f

th e m a tte r s a s s e r te d th e r e in . D evon al so ar gu es thatthe court ' s r ef usal t o sup pres s the H as t i ng s and B ol l er r e c or di ngs vi ol a t e d hi s S i xth A m e ndm e ntr i ghtt o c ouns e l be c aus e a tthe t i m e of th e r e c o r d in g s , h e w a s r e p r e s e n te d in as ta te m a tte r . D e v o n 's a r g u m e n t is una va i l i ng. T he S i xth A m e ndm e ntr i ghtt o c ouns e l i s of f e ns e - s pe c i f

i c a nd doe s not a tt a c h t o u n c h a r g e d c r i me s — e v e n i f th o s e c r i me s a r e f

a c tu a l l y r e l a t e d t o th e c r i me f orw hi c h f

orm a l pr oc e e di ngs ha ve be e n i ni t i a t e d. T e xa s v. C obb, 532 U . S . 162, 17 3 (20 01 ). D evon w as arre st ed N ov em ber 8, 20 01 , on st at e m i sdem eano r c harges for posse ss i on of drug paraph ernal i a. W hen p rose cut i on on tho se char ges co m m en ced , h i s S i x th A m en d m en tri g h tt o co u n sel att ach ed w i th resp ectt o th o se c h a r g e s . S e e M c N e il v . W is c o n s in , 5 0 1 U .S . 1 7 1 , 1 7 5 ( 1 9 9 1 ) ( n o tin g th a t r ig h t to coun se l att ac hes " ator af t erthe i ni t i at i on of advers ary j ud i ci al cr i m i nal pr oc e e di ngs " ( c i t a t i ons om i tt e d) ) . W he n the s t a t e c ha r ge s w e r e di s m i s s e d on O ct o b er 2 4 , 2 0 0 2 , h o w ev er, D ev o n ' s S i x th A m en d m en tri g h tt o co u n sel o n th o se c h a r g e s w a s e x tin g u is h e d . S e e U n ite d S ta te s v . A lv a r a d o , 4 4 0 F .3 d 1 9 1 , 1 9 6 ( 4 th5

C i r . ) , c e r t . de ni e d, 127 S . C t . 81 ( 2006) . T he r e c or de d c onve r s a t i ons w i th H a s t i ngs o c c u rr e d o n J u n e 2 2 , 2 0 0 0 , b e f o r e D e v o n w a s r e p r e s e n te d b y c o u n s e l o n th e s ta te c ha r ge s . T he r e c or de d c onve r s a t i ons w i th B ol l e roc c urr e d on F e brua ry 13 a nd 25, 2003, a f t e rthe s t a t e c ha r ge s ha d be e n di s m i s s e d a nd D e von' s S i xth A m e ndm e nt r ig h t to c o u n s e l o n th o s e c h a r g e s h a d b e e n e x tin g u is h e d . A c c o r d in g ly , D e v o n 's S i xth A m e ndm e ntr i ghtt o c ouns e l w i th r e s pe c tt o the s t a t e c ha r ge s doe s not pr ovi de aba s i s f

ore xc l udi ng the H a s t i ngs a nd B ol l e rr e c or di ngs f r om hi s tr i a l on fed eral ch arg es. D e v o n a ls o c o n te n d s th a t a d m is s io n o f th e r e c o r d in g s v io la te d h is F if th A m e ndm e ntr i ghtt o c ouns e l . T he F i f th A m e ndm e ntr i ghtt o c ouns e l m a y be i nvoke d onl y dur i ng c us t odi a l i nt e rr oga t i on orw he n s uc h i nt e rr oga t i on i s i m m i ne nt bu t , un l i ke the S i xth A m endm entri gh tt o cou nsel , i ti s notoffe nse- spec i fi c. U ni t ed St a t e s v . G r i me s , 1 4 2 F. 3 d 1 3 4 2 , 1 3 4 8 ( 1 1 th Ci r . 1 9 9 8 ) , c e r t . d e n i e d , 5 2 5 U . S. 10 88 (199 9). B ec ause D evon ' s r ec orded st at em ent s t o H as t i ng s and B ol l erw er e no tthe prod uctof cust od i al i nt errogat i on , the F i fth A m endm entri gh tt o cou nsel do es no tprov i de a bas i s f or excl usi on of thi s e vi dence. T o the e xt e ntD e von a r gue s tha tthe gove rnm e nte nga ge d i n outr a ge ous m i s c onduc ta m ount i ng t o adue pr oc e s s vi ol a t i on a nd r e qui r i ng e xc l us i on of the re cordi ng s, he has f

ai l ed t o p rovi de any e vi dence t o sup po rttho se al l egat i on s. S ee6

U ni t ed S t at es v. R usse l l , 41 1 U . S . 42 3, 43 2 (19 73 ) ( re qu i ri ng proo f that gove rnm e ntc onduc tw a s avi ol a t i on of " f unda m e nt a l f

a i rne s s ors hoc ki ng t o the u n iv e r s a l s e n s e o f

ju s tic e " ( c ita tio n s o m itte d ) ) . D e von ne xta r gue s tha tthe di s tr i c tc our te rr e d i n r e f us i ng t o s uppr e s s the e vi de nc e s e i z e d f

r om hi s va n a nd hi s c ondom i ni um a f t e rhi s N ove m be r2001, a rr e s t o n s ta te c h a r g e s . W ith r e s p e c t to th e d ru g p a r ap h e rn a lias e iz e d f r o m D e v o n 's van, because D evon fa i l ed t o p rovi de any s ub st ant i ve ar gu m enton the m er i t s of thi s i s s ue i n hi s br i e f

i ng t o thi s C our t , e l e c t i ng i ns t e a d t o r e l y on the s uppr e s s i on m ot i on s he f

i l ed i n the di stri ctcourt , w e c on si der thi s argum entw ai ved. S ee G r e e nbr i a r , L t d. v. C i ty of A l aba s t e r , 881 F . 2d 1570, 1573 n. 6 ( 11th C i r . 1989) ( de e m i ng i s s ue w a i ve d w he r e pa r ty f a i l e d t o i nc l ude s ubs t a nt i ve a r gum e nta nd m ade onl y pas si ng re fe re nce t o the order appeal ed fr om ). A nd even i f D evon had notw a i ve d thi s a r gum e nton appe a l , the r e w a s pr obabl e c aus e t o s t op the va n a nd arre stD evon af

t eroffi ce rs ob se rved the van' s dri ver c om m i ta tra ff i c i nfra ct i on , se e U n i t e d St a t e s v . H o l l o ma n , 1 1 3 F. 3 d 1 9 2 , 1 9 4 ( 1 1 th Ci r . 1 9 9 7 ) ( p e rc u r i a m) (not i ng thatan otherw i se val i d tra ff i c s t op i s notm ade i l l egal w hen u se d as s u b te r f u g e to a d v a n c e d ru g in te r d ic tio n e f f o r ts ) , a n d s a w th e d ru g p a r ap h e rn a liain pl a i n s i ghtthr ough the va n' s w i ndow s , s e e H or t on v. C a l i f orni a , 496 U . S . 128, 130 ( 1 9 9 0 ) ( h o ld in g th a t o f

f ic e r s m a y s e iz e e v id e n c e in p la in v ie w w ith o u t aw a rr a n t) .7

A f t e rD e von w a s a rr e s t e d a nd the pa r aphe rna l i aw a s s e i z e d f r om hi s va n, offi ce rs soug hta s earc h w arrantfor D evon ' s c on do m i ni um . T he offi ce rs prepare d as e a r c h w a rr a nta f

f i da vi tde s c r i bi ng the i re xt e ns i ve e xpe r i e nc e i nve s t i ga t i ng m a r iju a n ag r o w h o u s e s , th e c ir c u m s ta n c e s o f D e v o n 's a rr e s t, th e d ru g p a r ap h e rn a lia re covered fr om the van, and the fa ctthata c ert i fi ed narcot i cs -det ec t i on do g h ad a l e r t e d t o the odorof

drugs a tthe f

r ontdoorof

D e von' s c ondom i ni um uni t . T he a f f i da vi tw a s s uf

f i c i e ntt o e s t abl i s h the pr obabl e c aus e ne c e s s a ry t o s uppor tthe i s s ua nc e of

as e a r c h w a rr a ntf

orD e von' s c ondom i ni um . S e e , e . g. , U ni t e d S t a t e s v. B an k s, 3 F . 3 d 3 9 9 , 4 0 2 (1 1 th C i r. 1 9 9 3 ) (p er cu ri am ) (h o l d i n g th atp ro b ab l e cau se i s e s t ab l i s h e d w h e n d ru g - tr a i n e d c a n i n e a l e r t s t o d ru g s ) , c e r t . d e n i e d , 5 1 0 U . S. 1129 ( 1994) . I n s hort , the di s tr i c tc our tdi d notabus e i t s di s c r e t i on by a dm i tt i ng th e e v id e n c e o b ta in e d f

r o m th e s e a r c h o f

D e v o n 's v a n a n d c o n d o m in iu m . D e von a r gue s tha tf

orpurpos e s of

c a l c ul a t i ng hi s s e nt e nc i ng r a nge unde rthe a dvi s ory gui de l i ne s , the di s tr i c tc our tw a s obl i ga t e d t o us e the num be rof m a r i j ua na pl a nt s f ound by the j ury i n i t s s pe c i a l ve r di c t . A f t e rc a r e f ul l y r e vi e w i ng the r e c or d, pa r t i c ul a r l y thos e pa ge s of the tr a ns c r i pti de nt i f

i e d i n D e von' s br i e f

, w e f i nd no supp ortfor D evon ' s a ss ert i on thatthe go vernm entand the di stri ctcourtconsent ed to b e b o u n d a t s e n te n c in g b y th e ju ry 's d e te rm in a tio n o f d ru g q u a n tity in D e v o n 's tr i a l . M or e ove r , e ve n i f the r e w a s a n a gr e e m e ntbe tw e e n D e von a nd the8

g o v e rn m e n t, th e a g r e e m e n t w o u ld n o t p r e c lu d e th e d is tr ic t c o u r t f r o m f u lf illin g its ob l i gat i on un der the S ent enci ng G ui del i nes t o con du cti nd ependentfi nd i ng s of f ac t ne c e s s a ry f

ori m pos i ng ar e a s onabl e s e nt e nc e . C f . U ni t e d S t a t e s v. F orbe s , 888 F . 2d 752, 754 ( 11th C i r . 1989) ( hol di ng tha ts e nt e nc i ng c our ti s notbound by s tip u la tio n s o f

f a c t in p le aa g r e e m e n t) . D e von c ont e nds tha tthe di s tr i c tc our tvi ol a t e d hi s c ons t i tut i ona l r i ght s by i m po si ng a s ent ence base d o n acqui tt ed cond uct , on cr i m i nal ac t s c om m i tt ed ou t si de the re l evantst atut e of l i m i t at i on s, and o n a drug qu ant i ty gre at erthan that foun d b y the j ury. W e di sa gree . B ec ause the di stri ctcourtappl i ed the gu i del i nes i n a n a dvi s ory m a nne ra s r e qui r e d unde rB ooke rv. U ni t e d S t a t e s , 543 U . S . 220, 26 4 (20 05 ), and D evon ' s s ent ence di d n otexce ed the st atut ory m axi m um al l ow ed by the j ury ve r di c t , s e e R i t av. U ni t e d S t a t e s , 127 S . C t . 2456, 2465–66 ( 2007) , the c o u r t d id n o t v io la te D e v o n 's F if th o rS ix th A m e n d m e n t r ig h ts b y c a lc u la tin g h is se nt ence base d o n j ud ge-f ou nd fa ct s, i ncl ud i ng ac qu i tt ed cond uct , se e U ni t ed S t a t e s v. D unc a n, 400 F . 3d 1297, 1304–05 ( 11th C i r . ) , c e r t . de ni e d, 546 U . S . 940 ( 2005) , c r i m i na l a c t s out s i de the s t a tut e of l i m i t a t i ons pe r i od, U ni t e d S t a t e s v. B ehr, 93 F . 3d 76 4, 76 5– 66 (11th C i r. 19 96 ), and a drug qu ant i ty gre at erthan that f ound by the j ury , U ni t e d S t a t e s v. C hau, 426 F . 3d 1318, 1323–24 ( 11th C i r . 2005) ( p e rc u r ia m ) .9

N o rd id th e c o u rt e rrb y e n h a n c in g D e v o n 's s e n te n c e b a s e d o n h is le a d e r s h ip rol e i n the conspi ra cybecause the go vernm entprov ed by a prepond er ance that D e von e xe r c i s e d s om e de gr e e of c ontr ol , i nf

l ue nc e , orl e a de r s hi p ove rthe or ga ni z a t i on. S e e U ni t e d S t a t e s v. Y a t e s , 990 F . 2d 1179, 1182 ( 11th C i r . 1993) ( p e rc u r ia m ) . W e a r e unpe r s ua de d by D e von' s a r gum e nttha tthe di s tr i c tc our te rr e d by f a i l i ng t o m a ke pa rt i c ul a r i z e d f i ndi ngs c onc e rni ng the drug qua nt i ty f orw hi c h he w a s r e s p o n s ib le . A " d e f e n d a n t is a c c o u n tab le f

o ra ll q u a n titie s o f

[ d ru g s ] w ith w hi ch he w as di re ct l y i nv ol ved and , i n the ca se of a j oi nt l y und ert aken cri m i nal a c t i vi ty , a l l r e a s onabl y f or e s e e abl e qua nt i t i e s of [ drugs ] tha tw e r e w i thi n the s c ope of the c r i m i na l a c t i vi ty tha the j oi nt l y unde r t ook. " U . S . S . G . § 1B 1. 3 c m t . n. 2. T he di s tr i c tc ourtge ne r a l l y m us tm a ke i ndi vi dua l i z e d f i ndi ngs c onc e rni ng the s c ope of cr i m i nal ac t i vi ty und ert aken by a defe nd antbefore det erm i ni ng the drug qu ant i t i es r e a s onabl y f

or e s e e abl e i n c onne c t i on w i th tha tl e ve l of a c t i vi ty . U ni t e d S t a t e s v. I s m ond, 993 F . 2d 1498, 1499 ( 11th C i r . 1993) . " I f the c our tdoe s notm a ke i nd i vi du al i ze d fi nd i ng s, the se nt ence m ayneverthel es s be uph el d i f the re cord supp ort s the am ou ntof drug s a ttri bu t ed t o a defendant . " I d. B as ed on ou r r evi ew o f th e r e c o r d , i n c l u d i n g th e tr i a l a n d s e n t e n c i n g tr a n s c r i p t s a n d th e P S I , we concl ud e thatthe di stri ctcourthad am pl e e vi dence t o sup po rti t s f i nd i ng s that10

D e v o n w a s d ir e c tly in v o lv e d w ith a n d r e s p o n s ib le f o rth e 3 ,7 4 4 m a r iju a n ap la n ts f o u n d b y th e d is tr ic t c o u rt. D evon ar gu es for the fi rs tt i m e on app ea l thatthe di stri ctcourtcom m i tt ed pr oc e dur a l s e nt e nc i ng e rr orunde rB ooke rbe c aus e the c our tf a i l e d t o c ons i de rthe 18 U . S . C . § 3553( a ) f

a c t or s i n c a l c ul a t i ng hi s s e nt e nc e . W e ha ve he l d tha t" i ti s the d e f e n d a n t's b u r d e n , i n th e d istri ct co u rt , t o o bj ec tt o p roce du ra l i rr egul ar i t i es base d o n B o o k er. A b sen tan o b j ect i o n , w e w i l l rev i ew su ch cl ai m s fo r o n l y p l ai n erro r. " U ni t ed S t at es v. O choa-G ar ci a, N o. 07 -117 40 , 20 07 W L 31 20 31 5, at*5 (11th C i r. O ct . 26 , 20 07 ) ( un pu bl i shed per c uri am ) ( adop t i ng the re as on i ng i n U ni t ed S t at es v . L o p e z - F lo r e s , 4 4 4 F .3 d 1 2 1 8 , 1 2 2 1 ( 1 0 th C ir . 2 0 0 6 ) , c e r t. d e n ie d , 1 2 7 S . C t. 3043 ( 2007) ) ; U ni t e d S t a t e s v. V i l l a f ue r t e , 502 F . 3d 204, 208 ( 2d C i r . 2007) ( c o n d u c tin g p la in - e rr o rr e v ie w o f a n u n p r e s e rv e d c la im th a t th e m e th o d u s e d to c a l c ul a t e ade f

e nda nt ' s s e nt e nc e w a s unr e a s onabl e ) ; U ni t e d S t a t e s v. G a r c i a , 233 F . A pp' x 311, 312 ( 4th C i r . 2007) ( unpubl i s he d pe rc ur i a m ) ( s a m e ) , c e r t . de ni e d, 1 2 8 S . C t. 1 1 0 8 ( 2 0 0 8 ) ; U n ite d S ta te s v . K n o w s H is G u n , 4 3 8 F .3 d 9 1 3 , 9 1 8 ( 9 th C ir .) ( s a m e ) , c e rt. d e n ie d , 5 4 7 U .S . 1 2 1 4 ( 2 0 0 6 ) . U nd erpl ai n-error r evi ew , the defendantm ustes t abl i sh thatthe di stri ctcourt c o m m itte d a n e rr o r , th a t th e e rr o rw a s p la in , a n d th a t th e e rr o ra f f e c te d h is subst ant i al ri gh t s. U ni t ed S t at es v. R od ri gu ez , 39 8 F . 3d 12 91 , 12 98 (11th C i r. ),11

c e r t . d e n i e d , 5 4 5 U. S . 1 1 2 7 ( 2 0 0 5 ) . I f th e d e f e n d a n tc a n e s t ab l i s h th e s e f a c t s , we m a y e xe r c i s e ourdi s c r e t i on t o not i c e the f or f e i t e d e rr or , butw i l l do s o onl y i f the error s er i ou sl y a ff

ec t s the fa i rnes s, i nt egri ty, or pu bl i c r eput at i on of j ud i ci al p r o c e e d in g s . I d . E ve n i f w e a s s um e tha tthe di s tr i c tc our tc om m i tt e d pl a i n e rr orby ne gl e c t i ng t o con si der the § 3 55 3(a) fa ct ors a tD evon ' s s ent enci ng , D evon cann otshow that th e e rr o ra f

f e c te d h is s u b s ta n tia l r ig h ts . F o ra n e rr o rto a f f e c t s u b s ta n tia l r ig h ts , it "m usthave been prej ud i ci al : Itm usthave aff ec t ed the ou t com e of the di stri ctcourt p r o c e e d in g s ." U n ite d S ta te s v . O la n o , 5 0 7 U .S . 7 2 5 , 7 3 4 ( 1 9 9 3 ) . D e v o n p o in ts to n o e v id e n c e in th e r e c o r d s h o w in g th a t if th e d is tr ic t c o u r t h a d e x p lic itly c ons i de r e d the § 3553( a ) f a c t or s , the c our tw oul d ha ve i m pos e d adi f f e r e nt sen t en ce. B ecau se D ev o n can n o tsh o w th atth e erro r affected h i s su b st an t i al ri g h t s, h is a r g u m e n t a s s e rtin g p r o c e d u r a l s e n te n c in g e rr o rm u s t f a il. F i na l l y , w e de c l i ne t o c ons i de rD e von' s c l a i m s of i ne f f e c t i ve a s s i s t a nc e of c o u n s e l a s th o s e c la im s a r e m o r e ap p r o p r ia te ly r a is e d in ac o lla te r a l p r o c e e d in g . S e e U ni t e d S t a t e s v. B e nde r , 290 F . 3d 1279, 1284 ( 11th C i r . ) , c e r t . de ni e d, 537 U .S . 1 0 3 7 ( 2 0 0 2 ) . II . Je f f re y. A thi s c hang e of pl eahear i ng , Je ff re y a dm i tt ed t o the offens es out l i ne d i n the s upe r s e di ng i ndi c tm e ntbutde c l i ne d t o a dm i tt o the num be rof12

m ar i j uana pl ant s f

or w hi ch he w as re spon si bl e, i nsi st i ng thatthere w er e notm ore than 1 , 00 0 p l ant s and thatthe di stri ctcourtm ustse nt ence hi m base d o n the nu m ber o f p la n ts f o u n d b y th e ju ry in D e v o n 's tr ia l. W ith th e g o v e rn m e n t's d ru g - q u a n tity w itn e s s e s p r e s e n t a n d p r e p a r e d to te s tif y , J e f f r e y 's a tto rn e y s ta te d a t th e s e n te n c in g h e a r in g , " B a s e d o n th e P S I in th is c a s e . . . , w e unde r s t a nd tha tthe r e w oul d be c e r t a i n t e s t i m ony f r om w i tne s s e s a nd w e a r e w illin g to . . . p e rm it th e C o u r t to ru le o n . . . w h a t is lis te d in th e P S I a s to both the a m ountof

pl a nt s , the l e a de r s hi p r ol e a nd the othe re nha nc e m e nt s . " T r . of S en t . at2

– 3 . In resp o n se, th e g o v ern m en td i d n o tcal l i t s d ru g -q u an t i ty w i tn esses, aba ndone d i t s a r gum e nt s f orathr e e - l e ve l e nha nc e m e ntunde rU . S . S . G . § 2J 1. 7, a nd c onc e de d t o athr e e - l e ve l de pa r tur e f ora c c e pt a nc e of

r e s pons i bi l i ty . T he di stri ctcourtthen fou nd thatthe drug qu ant i ty w as "c orre ct l y c om pu t ed at . . . 5 ,3 5 0 p la n ts . I r e c o g n iz e th a t th e d e f e n s e m a in ta in s th a t th e C o u r t s h o u ld a c c e ptthe j ury ve r di c ti n [ D e von' s ] c a s e of 661 pl a nt s , butI do not . " I d. a t8. B e c aus e J e f

f r e y i nvi t e d the di s tr i c tc our tt o rul e on drug qua nt i ty ba s e d on th e 5 ,3 5 0 p la n ts d e s c r ib e d in th e P S I , e le c tin g n o t to p u t th e g o v e rn m e n t to its bur de n of

pr oof a tthe s e nt e nc i ng he a r i ng, J e f f r e y c a nnotnow c om pl a i n tha tthe gove rnm e ntf

a i l e d t o pr e s e nte vi de nc e r e ga r di ng the num be rof pl a nt s f orw hi c h he w a s r e s pons i bl e . S e e U ni t e d S t a t e s v. S t one , 139 F . 3d 822, 838 ( 11th C i r . 1998)13

(percuri am ) ( no t i ng thatappel l at e c ou rtgeneral l y w i l l no tre vi ew an error i nv i t ed b y ad e f e n d a n t) . T o the e xt e nttha tJ e f

f r e y r a i s e s the s a m e a r gum e nt s r a i s e d by D e von r e g a r d in g th e d is tr ic t c o u rt's o b lig a tio n to u s e th e ju ry 's d ru g - q u a n tity f in d in g to i m po se Je ff

re y' s s ent ence , the court ' s c on si dera t i on atse nt enci ng of ac qu i tt ed cond uctand cri m i nal ac t s out si de the st atut e of l i m i t at i on s, and the court ' s f ai l ure t o m a ke pa rt i c ul a r i z e d f i ndi ngs r e ga r di ng the e xt e ntof J e f f r e y ' s i nvol ve m e nti n the c o n s p ir a c y , w e r e

je c t th o s e a r g u m e n ts f

o rth e r e a s o n s a lr e a d y e x p la in e d . T h e d is tr ic t c o u rt d id n o t e rrb y e n h a n c in g J e f f r e y 's s e n te n c e b a s e d o n h is l ea ders hi p rol e i n the conspi ra cy . B as ed on the fa ct s i n the P S I, the di stri ctcourt w as pres ent ed w i th am pl e e vi dence t o con cl ud e thatJe ff re y e xerc i se d som e degree of control , i nfl uence, or l ea ders hi p o ver the organi za t i on . S ee Y at es , 99 0 F . 2d at 1 1 8 2 . F in a lly , w e r e

je c t J e f f r e y 's a r g u m e n t th a t b e c au s e th e d is tr ic t c o u r t f a ile d to a de qua t e l y c ons i de rthe § 3553( a ) f a c t or s , hi s s e nt e nc e i s unr e a s onabl e . A s s um i ng thatJe ff re y pre se rved thi s argum entfor app ea l , w e c on cl ud e thatthe di stri ctcourt a d e q u a te ly c o n s id e r e d th e § 3 5 5 3 ( a ) f a c to r s a n d im p o s e d ar e a s o n ab le s e n te n c e . A thi s s e nt e nc i ng he a r i ng, J e f f r e y a r gue d f

oras e nt e nc e a tthe l ow e nd of the a dvi s ory gui de l i ne s r a nge ba s e d on hi s hi s t ory a nd c ha r a c t e r i s t i c s . T he14

go vernm entcoun t er ed thatthe se nt ence shou l d b e on the hi gh end o f the gu i del i nes rang e bas ed on Je ff

re y' s c ri m i nal cond uctw hi l e on sup ervi soryre l ea se and h i s l ac k of re habi l i t at i on . A ft er"c on si der[ i ng ] the st at em ent s of a l l the part i es , " the court i m po se d a se nt ence of 12 3 m on ths' i m pri sonm ent , a s ent ence w i thi n the advi sory gu i del i nes r ange. T r. of S ent . at14 . "[ A ] n ackno w l edgm entby the di stri ctcourt th a t it h a s c o n s id e r e d th e d e f e n d a n t's a r g u m e n ts a n d th e f a c to r s in [ § ] 3 5 5 3 ( a ) is suff i ci entun der B oo ker. " U ni t ed S t at es v. T al l ey , 43 1 F . 3d 78 4, 78 6 (11 th C i r. 2 0 0 5 ) ( p e rc u r ia m ) ; s e e a ls o R ita , 1 2 7 S . C t. a t 2 4 6 8 ( h o ld in g th a t ad is tr ic t c o u rt's b r ie f s ta te m e n t o f

r e a s o n s f

o raw ith in - g u id e lin e s s e n te n c e w a s s u f f ic ie n t) . C on traryt o Jef

fr ey ' s c on t ent i on s, the re cord ref l ec t s thatthe part i es pres ent ed evi dence and argum entaddres si ng the § 3 55 3(a) fa ct ors, w hi ch the di stri ctcourt adequat el y a ckno w l edged and consi dere d i n i m po si ng Je ff re y' s s ent ence . F or the re as on s s t at ed abov e, w e A F F IR M the conv i ct i on and sent ence of D e v o n H o w a r d T o e p f

e ra n d th e c o n v ic tio n a n d s e n te n c e o f J e f f r e y E r ic T o e p f

e r .