FI LED U. S . COURT OF AP PE ALS E L E V E N T H C IR C U IT Se pt e m be r 20, 2005 T HOM AS K. KAHN CL E RK

Honora ble Arthur L . Alarc on, United States Circuit Judg e for the Ninth Circuit, sitt ing * by designation. [ 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. 03- 15131

________________________ D. C . Do c k e tNo . 0 2 - 0 0 1 2 2 - C R - T - 2 4 - E AJ U N I T E D S T A T E S O F A M E R I C A , P la in tif f - A p p e lle e , v ersu s A L B E R T T E R R I L L J O N E S , a .k .a . B e rto , E L G I N R A Y L O F T O N , a .k .a . E - L u v , L U T H E R F O R D , a .k .a . C h u c kF o r d , R O N A L D R A Y L A N G D O N , M I C H A E L W A Y N E C O B B , D e f e n d a n ts - A p p e lla n ts .

________________________ A pp ea l s f

rom the U ni t ed S t at es D i stri ctC ou rt f orthe M i ddl e D i s tr i c tof F l or i da

_________________________ ( S e pt e m be r20, 2005) B efo re T JO F L A T , P R Y O R an d A L A R C O N , C i rcu i tJu d g es. *2

P E R C U R I A M: I n th is ap p e a l, f

iv e d e f e n d a n ts , e a c h c o n v ic te d o f c o n s p ir a c y to p o s s e s s w ith in te n t to d is tr ib u te v a r io u s ille g a l d ru g s , a s s e rt n u m e r o u s c h a lle n g e s to th e ir c o n v ic tio n s a n d s e n te n c e s . B e c au s e th e te s tim o n y a t tr ia l a m p ly s u p p o rte d th e ir c onvi c t i ons , the de f

e nda nt s di d notha ve al e gi t i m a t e e xpe c t a t i on of pr i va c y i n t e xt m e s s a ge s s e ntt o orf

r om a nothe rtha tpr e c l ude d tha tothe rpe r s on f r om t e s t i f

y i ng, a n d th e d i s tr i c tc o u rtd i d n o te rrwh e n i tap p l i e d th e S e n t e n c i n g Gu i d e l i n e s , we af fi rm ea ch conv i ct i on and sent ence . I . B AC KG RO UN D A l be rtT e rr i l l J one s , E l gi n R a y L of t on, L uthe rF or d, R ona l d R a y L a ngdon, a n d M ic h a e l W a y n e C o b b w e r e in d ic te d o n c h a r g e s o f c o n s p ir a c y to p o s s e s s w ith i nt e ntt o di s tr i but e f

i ve ki l ogr a m s of

c oc a i ne , f

i f tygr a m s of

c r a c k c oc a i ne , a nd 100 ki l og ra m s of m ar i

j uana, i n v i ol at i on of se ct i on 84 1(a) (1) of T i t l e 21 o f the U ni t ed S t at es C od e. T he conspi ra cyi nv ol ved p art i ci pant s i n C al i forni a, N evada, T enness ee , and F l ori da w ho shi pp ed drug s and m on eyac ross the coun ty by par ce l se rvi ce s. T he conspi ra t ors use d t extm es sa ge pagers t o com m un i ca t e w i th eac h o th e r . A ft erthe conspi ra cyw as di sc ov er ed, go vernm entagent s i dent i fi ed M a r que tt e M c C a l e bb a s the l e a de roram a j orpa rtof

the c ons pi r a c y . S pe c i a l A ge nt3

K evi n M cL augh l i n o f the D rug E nforcement A gency l earned fr om a f orm er c o n s p ir a to rth a t th e c o n s p ir a to r s c o m m u n ic a te d th r o u g h te x t m e s s a g e p a g e r s . M c L au g h in c o n ta c te d S k y te l C o m m u n ic a tio n s , th e s e rv ic e p r o v id e rf o rth e p a g e r s . M cL augh l i n al so cont ac t ed F eder al E xp re ss , the U ni t ed S t at es P ost al S ervi ce , A irb o rn e E x p r e s s , a n d D H L r e g a r d in g s h ip m e n ts o f d ru g s b y m a il. M c C a le b b w a s a rr e s te d in C a lif o rn ia , a n d h is h o m e w a s s e a r c h e d . A g e n ts d i sco v ered a l arg e co n sp i racy ri n g th ati n v o l v ed n u m ero u s p art i ci p an t s: Jo n es, L a n g d o n , L o f

to n , F o r d , C o b b , a n d o th e r s . E a c h d e f e n d a n t h a d ad if

f e r e n t r o le in the c ons pi r a c y . F or d m a i l e d pa c ka ge s c ont a i ni ng drugs t o O c t a vi us H e nde r s on a nd J o n e s in F lo r id a . F o r d r e c e iv e d $ 5 0 to $ 1 0 0 f o re a c h p a c k a g e s h ip p e d . [R d . B r. 4]. L a n g d o n s u p p lie d M c C a le b b w ith f iv e to te n k ilo g r a m s o f

c o c a in e p e rw e e k . [R d . B r. 4]. L of

t on, i n L a s V e ga s , r e c e i ve d drug pr oc e e ds on be ha l f of M c C a l e bb. [R d . B r. 7]. C o b b a n d J o n e s , in F lo r id a , r e c e iv e d p a c k a g e s c o n ta in in g d ru g s . [ R d. B r. 8-9]. S ky t e l i nf

orm e d M c L aughl i n tha ti tm a i nt a i ne d r e c or ds of the a c tua l t e xt m es sa ges s entby pager, and S kyt el w ou l d d i sc l ose the re cords i f i tre ce i ved an a d m in is tr a tiv e s u b p o e n a . [R d . B r. 18 ]. M c L au g h lin , th e r e f o r e , s e rv e d S k y te l w ith as u b p o e n af

o rr e c o r d s o f

te x t m e s s a g e s s e n t o n th e d e f e n d a n ts ’ p a g e r s . [R d . B r. 18 ]. M c L aughl i n di d notobt a i n aw a rr a nt . M c C a l e bb, J one s , C obb, a nd L a ngdon4

m o v e d to s u p p r e s s th e te x t m e s s a g e r e c o r d s , [R d . B r. 17 ], and the di stri ctcourt d e te rm in e d th a t th e d e f

e n d a n ts e s tab lis h e d as u b je c tiv e e x p e c ta tio n o f

p r iv a c y in th e te x t m e s s a g e s a n d s u p p r e s s e d th e r e c o r d s . [ R d . B r . 1 9 - 2 0 ] . M c C a le b b p le a d e d g u iltyto c o n s p ir in g to p o s s e s s w ith in te n t to d is tr ib u te f i ve ki l ogr a m s orm or e of c oc a i ne i n a c c or da nc e w i th aw r i tt e n pl e aa gr e e m e nt , a nd a g r e e d to c o o p e r a te w ith th e g o v e rn m e n t. [R d . B r. 21 ]. A tthe r e que s tof the g o v ern m en t, M cC aleb b ’s atto rn ey o b tain ed re co rd s p er tain in g to M cC aleb b ’s pager fr om S kyt el , w hi ch w er e f orw ar ded t o the go vernm ent . O ver the other defe nd ant s’ obj ec t i on s, the di stri ctcourtrul ed thatM cC al ebb w ou l d b e perm i tt ed t o t e s t i f y r e ga r di ng t e xtm e s s a ge s he ha d s e ntt o a nd r e c e i ve d f r om hi s c od efen d an t s. [R d . B r. 21 ]. M c C a le b b w a s th e s ta rw itn e s s o f th e g o v e rn m e n t. A j ury f ou nd Jones, F ord, C ob b, L angd on , and L oft on gu i l ty of the charged c ons pi r a c y . T he di s tr i c tc ourts e nt e nc e d J one s t o 300 m onths , F or d t o the m a n d a to ry m in im u m s e n te n c e o f 1 2 0 m o n th s , C o b b to 1 5 1 m o n th s , L a n g d o n to 3 6 0 m o n th s , a n d L o f

to n to 1 8 8 m o n th s . E a c h d e f e n d a n t ap p e a le d .5 I I . STA N D A R D O F R EVI EW W e r evi ew for abu se of di sc re t i on the evi dent i ary rul i ng s of the di stri ct c o u rt. C h ry s le rI n te rn . C o rp . v . C h e m a ly , 2 8 0 F .3 d 1 3 5 8 , 1 3 6 0 ( 1 1 th C ir . 2 0 0 2 ) . W e r evi ew de no vo the deni al of a m ot i on for j ud gm entof ac qu i tt al . U ni t ed S t at es v. P e t e r s , 403 F . 3d 1263, 1268 ( 11th C i r . 2005) . W e r e vi e w f orabus e of

di s c r e t i on the de ni a l of

am ot i on f

orne w tr i a l . U ni t e d S t a t e s v. D a y , 405 F . 3d 1293, 1297 ( 1 1 th C ir . 2 0 0 5 ) . W hether the evi dence pres ent ed attri al i s s uffi ci entt o sup po rtthe cr i m i nal conv i ct i on i s aqu es t i on of l aw subj ec tt o d e nov o revi ew . U ni t ed S t at es v. D i az , 2 4 8 F . 3 d 1 0 6 5 , 1 0 8 4 (1 1 th C i r. 2 0 0 1 ). “ T h e ev i d en ce i s v i ew ed i n th e l i g h tm o st fa vo rabl e t o the go vernm entand al l re as on abl e i nfer ence s and cr edi bi l i ty c ho i ce s a r e m a d e in th e g o v e rn m e n t’s f a v o r .” I d . W e r e vi e w de novo the appl i c a t i on of the S e nt e nc i ng G ui de l i ne s by the di s tr i c tc ourt , a nd r e vi e w f orc l e a re rr ori t s f

i ndi ngs of

f a c t . U ni t e d S t a t e s v. C r a w f or d, 407 F . 3d 1174, 1177- 78 ( 11th C i r . 2005) . W e r e vi e w de novo a pres erved error r egar di ng the const i tut i on al i ty of ase nt ence , U ni t ed S t at es v. P az , 405 F . 3d 946, 948 ( 11th C i r . 2005) , butr e vi e w f orpl a i n e rr ora n e rr orr a i s e d f or th e f ir s t tim e o n ap p e a l. U n ite d S ta te s v . R o d r ig u e z , 3 9 8 F .3 d 1 2 9 1 , 1 2 9 8 ( 1 1 th C i r. 20 05 ).6 I I I . DI S CUS S I ON T h e f iv e d e f e n d a n ts e a c h r a is e an u m b e ro f is s u e s o n ap p e a l. O n e is s u e is c om m on t o J one s , L a ngdon, a nd C obb: the a dm i s s i on of t e s t i m ony by M c C a l e bb r e g a r d in g te x t m e s s a g e s . W e w ill f ir s t c o n s id e rth a t c o m m o n is s u e , a n d w e w ill th e n a d d r e s s th e u n iq u e a r g u m e n ts o f e a c h d e f e n d a n t in tu rn . A . T he D is tr i c t

C our t D i d N ot A bus e I t s D is c r e t i on W

he n I t A dm i t te d T

e s t i m ony B y Mc Cale bb R egardi ng T ex t Me s s age s H

e R e c e i v e d. J one s , L a ngdon, a nd C obb a r gue tha tthe di s tr i c tc ourtabus e d i t s di s c r e t i on w h e n it a d m itte d te s tim o n y r e g a r d in g th e te x t m e s s a g e s f r o m M c C a le b b ’s p a g e r . T he di s tr i c tc ourti ni t i a l l y s uppr e s s e d the t e xtm e s s a ge r e c or ds , w hi c h the go vernm enthad o bt ai ned b y a dm i ni stra t i ve subp oena from S kyt el . T he di stri ct c ourtne ve rthe l e s s a l l ow e d t e s t i m ony r e ga r di ng the t e xtm e s s a ge s w he n M c C a l e bb pl ea ded g ui l ty and agre ed t o t es t i fyattri al . T he di stri ctcourtconcl ud ed that M c C a le b b c o u ld w a iv e a n y p r iv a c y r ig h t h e h a d w ith r e g a r d to th e m e s s a g e s .

“ A pe r s on ha s a n e xpe c t a t i on of pr i va c y pr ot e c t e d by the F ourth A m e ndm e nt i f he has a s ubj ec t i ve expect at i on of pri vacy , and i f s oci ety i s pre pare d t o rec og ni ze tha te xpe c t a t i on a s obj e c t i ve l y r e a s onabl e . ” U ni t e d S t a t e s v. M i r a va l l e s , 280 F . 3d 1 3 2 8 , 1 3 3 1 ( 1 1 th Ci r . 2 0 0 2 ) ( c i t i n g K a t z v . U n i t e d St a t e s , 3 8 9 U . S. 3 4 7 , 3 6 1 , 8 8 S. C t. 5 0 7 , 5 1 6 ( 1 9 6 7 ) ( H a r la n , J ., c o n c u rr in g ) ) . A n in d iv id u a l’s r ig h t to p r iv a c y is l i m i t e d, how e ve r . “ [ T ] he F ourth A m e ndm e ntdoe s notpr ohi bi tthe obt a i ni ng of7

i nf orm a t i on r e ve a l e d t o athi r d pa rty a nd c onve y e d by hi m t o G ove rnm e nt author i t i e s , e ve n i f

the i nf orm a t i on i s r e ve a l e d on the a s s um pt i on tha ti tw i l l be us e d onl y f

oral i m i t e d purpos e a nd the c onf i de nc e pl a c e d i n the thi r d pa rty w i l l not be be tr a y e d. ” U ni t e d S t a t e s v. M i l l e r , 425 U . S . 435, 443, 96 S . C t . 1619, 1624 ( 1 9 7 6 ) lim ite d b y s ta tu te . W e ha ve nota ddr e s s e d pr e vi ous l ythe e xi s t e nc e of al e gi t i m a t e e xpe c t a t i on of pr i va c y i n t e xtm e s s a ge s ore - m a i l s . T hos e c i r c ui t s tha tha ve a ddr e s s e d the qu es t i on have com pare d e-m ai l s w i th l ett er s s entby po st al m ai l . A l tho ug h l ett er s ar e p ro tected b y th e F o u rth A m en d m en t, “i f a lett eris se n t t o an o th er , th e s en d er ’s e xpe c t a t i on of

pr i va c y or di na r i l y t e rm i na t e s upon de l i ve ry . ” U ni t e d S t a t e s v. K i ng, 55 F . 3d 11 93 , 19 95 -96 (6th C i r. 19 95 ) ( ci t at i on s om i tt ed). S i m i l ar l y, an i nd i vi du al se nd i ng an e- m ai l l oses “ a l egi t i m at e e xp ec t at i on of pri vacyi n an e-m ai l thathad al re ady r ea ched i t s r ec i pi ent . ” G uestv. L ei s, 25 5 F . 3d 32 5, 33 3 (6th C i r. 20 01 ); U ni t ed S t at es v. L i fs hi t z, 36 9 F . 3d 17 3, 19 0 (2d C i r. 20 04 ). S ee al so U ni t ed S t at es v . Ma x we l l , 4 5 M. J . 4 0 6 , 4 1 8 ( C . A. A. F . 1 9 9 6 ) ( “ Dr a wi n g f r o m th e s e p a r a l l e l s , we c a n s a y tha tthe tr a ns m i tt e rof a n e - m a i l m e s s a ge e nj oy s ar e a s onabl e e xpe c t a t i on tha tpol i c e of

f i c i a l s w i l l noti nt e r c e ptthe tr a ns m i s s i on w i thoutpr obabl e c aus e a nd as e a r c h w a rr a nt . H ow e ve r , onc e the tr a ns m i s s i ons a r e r e c e i ve d by a nothe rpe r s on, th e tr a n s m itte rn o lo n g e rc o n tr o ls its d e s tin y .” ) , c ite d in G u e s t, 2 5 5 F .3 d a t 3 3 3 .8

T he gove rnm e nte l i c i t e d t e s t i m ony f r om M c C a l e bb c onc e rni ng t e xt m e s s a g e s th a t h e s e n t o rr e c e iv e d th r o u g h h is p a g e r . B e c au s e th e d e f e n d a n ts d id notha ve ar e a s onabl e e xpe c t a t i on of pr i va c y i n the t e xtm e s s a ge s r e c e i ve d ors e nt by M c C a l e bb, the di s tr i c tc ourtc orr e c t l y pe rm i tt e d M c C a l e bb t o t e s t i f y r e ga r di ng th e c o n te n t o f

th o s e m e s s a g e s . T he defendant s a l so erroneou sl y argue thatthe earl i errul i ng of the di stri ct courtsupp re ss i ng the t extm es sa ges i s l aw of the ca se and p re cl ud es the l at er d e c is io n to p e rm it M c C a le b b to te s tif y . W he the rM c C a l e bb c oul d t e s t i f y r e ga r di ng t e xtm e s s a ge s tha the s e nta nd r e c e i ve d w a s as e pa r a t e i s s ue f r om w he the rthe gove rnm e ntw a s e nt i t l e d t o us e t e xtm e s s a ge s i tobt a i ne d w i thoutaw a rr a nt , a nd the e a r l i e rrul i ng w a s notl a w of the c a s e f

ortha ti s s ue . M c C a l e bb’ s t e s t i m ony di d not v io la te th e F o u rth A m e n d m e n t a n d s u p p r e s s io n w a s n o t w a rr a n te d . B . A lbert

T erri l l Jones 1. E ve n I f

T he D i s tr i c tC ourtA bus e d i t s D i s c r e t i on W he n i tA dm i tt e d R ul e 404( b)

E v i d en ce, A n y E rro r w as H arm l ess. Jones argues thatthe di stri ctcourtabused i t s di sc re t i on w hen i tadm i tt ed e v id e n c e o f

J o n e s ’s 1 9 9 5 c o n v ic tio n , u n d e rF e d e r a l R u le o f E v id e n c e 4 0 4 ( b ) , to pr ove hi s i nt e ntt o c ons pi r e t o di s tr i but e drugs . W e ne e d nota ddr e s s the adm i ss i bi l i ty of thatevi dence, ho w ever , because any error of the di stri ctcourtw as h a rm le s s .9

“ [ E ] vi de nt i a ry a nd othe rnonc ons t i tut i ona l e rr or s do notc ons t i tut e gr ounds f orr e ve r s a l unl e s s the r e i s ar e a s onabl e l i ke l i hood tha tthe y a f f e c t e d the de f e nda nt ’ s s ubs t a nt i a l r i ght s ; w he r e a n e rr orha d no s ubs t a nt i a l i nf l ue nc e on the ou t com e, and suffi ci entevi dence uni nfec t ed by error s up po rt s the verdi ct , re vers al i s notw a rr a nt e d. ” U ni t e d S t a t e s v. M a tthe w s , 411 F . 3d 1210, 1229 ( 11th C i r . J une 8 , 2 0 0 5 ). In M atth ew s, w e co n cl u d ed th atw e co u l d n o tsay th ati m p ro p erl yad m itted R u le 4 0 4 (b ) e v id en ce w as h ar m less b ec au se , “ [d ]esp it e th e d istrict co u rt’s l i m i t i ng i nstruct i on , i tse em s f ai rl y l i kel y t o u s thatthe G ov ernm ent ’ s w i tness es s e e m e d c r e di bl e t o the j ury onl y be c aus e M a tthe w s ha d be e n c aughtde a l i ng drugs o n c e b e f o r e .” 4 1 1 F .3 d a t 1 2 3 0 . T h is c a s e is d is tin g u is h ab le f r o m M a tth e w s . S ev eral o th er d efen d an t s w ere co n v i ct ed al o n g w i th Jo n es. T h e j u ry m u st h a v e f o u n d th e te s tim o n y a g a in s t th e o th e rd e f e n d a n ts s u f

f ic ie n tly c r e d ib le to co n v ict th em . It d o es n o t, th er ef o re , see m “fairly lik ely” th at th e “G o v ern m en t’ s w i tne s s e s s e e m e d c r e di bl e t o the j ury ” onl y be c aus e of J one s ’ s pr e vi ous c o n v ic tio n . B e c au s e th e r e w a s a m p le te s tim o n y a g a in s t J o n e s , a n y e rr o rin a dm i tt i ng the R ul e 404( b) e vi de nc e di d notha ve s ubs t a nt i a l i nf l ue nc e on the o u tc o m e a n d w a s , th e r e f o r e , h a rm le s s . 2 . T h e D i stri ctC o u rtD i d N o tC o m m i tP l ai n E rro r W h en ItS en t en ced Jo n es. J one s a r gue s tha tthe di s tr i c tc ourte rr e d, unde rU ni t e d S t a t e s v. B ooke r , 54310

U . S . ___, 12 5 S . C t . 73 8 (20 05 ), w hen i ttre at ed the S ent enci ng G ui del i nes a s m a n d a to ry in s e n te n c in g J o n e s . B e c au s e J o n e s d id n o t p r e s e rv e th is a r g u m e n t in the di s tr i c tc ourt , w e r e vi e w i tf orpl a i n e rr or . U ni t e d S t a t e s v. R odr i gue z , 398 F . 3d 12 91 , 12 98 -130 0 (11 th C i r. 20 05 ). A l tho ug h, un der B oo ker, the di stri ctcourt pl ai nl y e rr ed w hen i ttre at ed the G ui del i nes a s m andat ory, the pl ai n err or st andard a ls o r e q u ir e s as h o w in g th a t th e p la in e rr o ra ls o a f f e c te d J o n e s ’s s u b s ta n tia l r ig h ts . I d. a t1301. N othi ng i n the r e c or d s ugge s t s tha tthe di s tr i c tc ourtw oul d ha ve im p o s e d ale s s e rs e n te n c e if it h a d ap p lie d th e G u id e lin e s in a n a d v is o ry f a s h io n . J one s , the r e f

or e , c a nnots a t i s f

y the pl a i n e rr ors t a nda r d. I d. C . L u th er Fo rd 1 . T h e D is tr ic t C o u rt P r o p e r ly D e n ie d F o r d ’s M o tio n f o raJ u d g m e n t o f

A c q u itta l. F ord argues thatthe di stri ctcourterroneou sl y deni ed hi s m ot i on for a j udgm e ntof

a c qui tt a l , unde rF e de r a l R ul e of C r i m i na l P r oc e dur e 29, be c aus e the e vi de nc e w a s i ns uf

f i c i e ntt o pr ove hi s know l e dge of a nd i nt e ntt o j oi n the c o n s p ir a c y . [F ord B r. 7]. “ T o u ph ol d the deni al of a R ul e 29 m ot i on , w e nee d on l y det erm i ne thata r ea sonabl e f ac t -f i nd ercoul d con cl ud e thatthe evi dence e s t abl i s he d the de f

e nda nt ’ s gui l tbe y ond ar e a s onabl e doubt . ” U ni t e d S t a t e s v. D e s c e nt , 292 F . 3d 703, 706 ( 11th C i r . 2002) ( q u o ta tio n s a n d c ita tio n o m itte d ) .

“ T o p rove part i ci pat i on i n a conspi ra cy , the go vernm entm usthave prov en11

b e y o n d ar e a s o n ab le d o u b t, e v e n if o n ly b y c ir c u m s ta n tia l e v id e n c e , th a t a c ons pi r a c y e xi s t e d a nd tha tthe de f e nda ntknow i ngl y a nd vol unt a r i l y j oi ne d the c ons pi r a c y . ” U ni t e d S t a t e s v. G a r c i a , 405 F . 3d 1260, 1269 ( 11th C i r . 2005) ( c i t a t i on om i tt e d) . “ T o s a t i s f y thi s bur de n, the gove rnm e ntne e d notpr ove tha tthe de f e nda nt [ ] kne w a l l of

the de t a i l [ s ] orpa rt i c i pa t e d i n e ve ry a s pe c tof the c ons pi r a c y . R a the r , the gove rnm e ntm us tonl ypr ove tha tthe de f e nda nt [ ] kne w the e s s e nt i a l na tur e of

the c ons pi r a c y . ” I d. a t1269- 70 ( quot a t i ons a nd c i t a t i on om i tt ed). “ W hether [ the defendant ] kn ow i ng l y vol un t ee re d t o j oi n the conspi ra cy m a y be pr ove n by di r e c torc i r c um s t a nt i a l e vi de nc e , i nc l udi ng i nf e r e nc e s f r om the cond uctof the al l eged part i ci pant s or f rom ci rc um st ant i al evi dence of a s chem e. ” I d . ( q u o ta tio n s a n d c ita tio n o m itte d ) . F or d a r gue s tha tthe gove rnm e ntdi d noti ntr oduc e e vi de nc e tha the kn ow i ng l y and vo l un t ar i l y part i ci pat ed i n the conspi ra cyand k no w i ng l y posse ss ed ille g a l d ru g s . [F ord B r. 8]. T he go vernm enti ntrodu ce d evi dence thatF ord r o u t i n e l y s h i p p e d p a c k a g e s f o rM c Ca l e b b t o J o n e s a n d H e n d e r s o n u n d e rth e n a me o f F o r d ’s e m p lo y e r , a n d F o r d r e c e iv e d $ 5 0 to $ 1 0 0 f o re a c h p a c k a g e s h ip p e d . [ R. B r. 36 ]. T h is e v id e n c e w a s s u f f ic ie n t f o raju ry to c o n c lu d e b e y o n d ar e a s o n ab le doubttha tF or d know i ngl y a nd vol unt a r i l y pa rt i c i pa t e d i n the c ons pi r a c y , a nd the d is tr ic t c o u rt d id n o t e rrw h e n it d e n ie d th e m o tio n f o rju d g m e n t o f

a c q u itta l.12

2. T he D i s tr i c tC ourtD i d N otA bus e I t s D i s c r e t i on W he n i tD e ni e d

F o r d ’s M o tio n f

o raN e w T r ia l. F o rd arg u es th ata n ew tri al w as w arran t ed b ecau se th e v erd i ctw as ag ai n st the gr e a tw e i ghtof

the e vi de nc e . T o gr a ntam ot i on f orne w tr i a l be c aus e the v erd i cti s ag ai n stth e g reatw ei g h to f th e ev i d en ce, “ [t ] h e ev i d en ce m u st pr e ponde r a t e he a vi l y a ga i ns tthe ve r di c t , s uc h tha ti tw oul d be am i s c a rr i a ge of ju s tic e to le t th e v e r d ic t s ta n d .” U n ite d S ta te s v . C o x , 9 9 5 F .2 d 1 0 4 1 , 1 0 4 3 ( 1 1 th C i r . 1993) . “ M ot i ons f

orne w tr i a l s ba s e d on w e i ghtof the e vi de nc e a r e not f a v o r e d . C o u rts a r e to g r an t th e m s p a r in g ly a n d w ith c au tio n , d o in g s o o n ly in tho se re al l y e xcept i on al ca se s. ” I d. (quo t at i on s and ci t at i on om i tt ed). T he di s tr i c tc ourtde ni e d F or d’ s m ot i on a nd s t a t e d tha t , “ c ons i de r i ng the evi dence pres ent ed attri al , the C ou rtdo es no tfi nd thatthe w ei gh tof the evi dence c o n tr a d ic ts th e ju ry ’s v e r d ic t a s to [ F o r d ].” [R 52 :2]. A s di s c us s e d above , the e vi de nc e s how e d tha tthe othe rc ons pi r a t or s pa i d F or d t o s hi p pa c ka ge s f or M c C a l e bb t o J one s a nd H e nde r s on unde rthe na m e of F or d’ s e m pl oy e r . T he d is tr ic t c o u rt d id n o t ab u s e its d is c r e tio n . D . E l gi n R ay L of

ton 1 . T h e D i stri ctC o u rtC o rrect l y D en i ed L o ft o n ’ s M o t i o n s f o rJ u d g m e n t o f

A c q u itta l a n d N e w T r ia l. L o f to n a r g u e s th a t h is m o tio n s f o rju d g m e n t o f

a c q u itta l a n d n e w tr ia l s h o u ld13

h a v e b e e n g r a n te d b e c au s e th e te s tim o n y o f M c C a le b b w a s s o u n b e lie v ab le a s to in f e c t th e e n tir e tr ia l. [L ofton B r. 39 -40]. T he evi dence pres ent ed attri al e s t abl i s he d tha tL of

t on r e c e i ve d drug pr oc e e ds f r om othe rc ons pi r a t or s a nd d e liv e r e d th e m to M c C a le b b . [R d . B r. 37 -38]. L of t on di d notha ve apa ge r , buthe s p o k e w ith M c C a le b b r e g u la r ly . [ L o f t o n B r . 1 6 ] . L o f

to n r e c e iv e d e a c h m o n th $2 0, 00 0 from L os A ng el es and $ 30 , 00 0 t o $ 60 , 00 0 from T enness ee and F l ori da. [L ofton B r. 24 ]. T he evi dence w as suff i ci entt o sup po rtthe verdi ctand the di stri ct c ourtdi d note rrw he n i tde ni e d the m ot i on f orj udgm e ntof

a c qui tt a l . G a r c i a , 405 F .3 d a t 1 2 6 9 - 7 0 . A d d itio n a lly , th e d is tr ic t c o u rt d id n o t ab u s e its d is c r e tio n w h e n it deni ed the m ot i on for anew tri al because the verdi ctw as no tagai nstthe great w e i ghtof

the e vi de nc e . C ox, 995 F . 2d a t1043. 2 . T h e D is tr ic t C o u rt D id N o t C le a r ly E rrw h e n I t F o u n d th a t L of t on W a s N otE nt i t l e d t o aM i nor - R ol e R e duc t i on. L o f to n a ls o a r g u e s th a t th e d is tr ic t c o u rt e rr e d w h e n it r e f u s e d to g r a n t a re du ct i on because of L oft on ’ s m i no r r ol e i n the offens e, w hi ch he cont ends w as lim ite d to r e c e iv in g m o n e y . [L ofton B r. 42 ]. “ A di s tr i c tc ourt ’ s f i ndi ng r e ga r di ng ade f e nda nt ’ s r ol e i n the of

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

orc l e a re rr or . ” U ni t e d S t a t e s v. R yan, 28 9 F . 3d 13 39 , 13 48 (11th C i r. 20 02 ). “ A defe nd antw arrant s atw o-l evel red u ct i o n fo r p l ayi n g a m i n o r ro l e i n an o ffen se i f h e i s l ess cu l p ab l e th an m o st othe rpa rt i c i pa nt s , a l though hi s r ol e c oul d notbe de s c r i be d a s m i ni m a l . ” I d. ( c i t i ng14

U . S . S . G . § 3 B 1. 2, cm t . n. 1). T he anal ys i s e m pl oyed by the di stri ctcourtcom pare s th e d efen d an t ’ s ro l e b o th t o b o th th e rel ev an tco n d u ctu sed i n cal cu l at i n g h i s b ase o ffen se l ev el an d th e co n d u cto f th e o th er co n sp i rat o rs: T h e d istrict co u rt co n d u cts a tw o -p ro n g ed an a ly s is o f th e d ef en d an t’ s c o n d u c t to d e te rm in e w h e th e r th e d e f e n d a n t w a rr a n ts a m in o r - r o le ad ju stm en t. F irst , th e d istrict co u rt m u st as se ss w h eth era d ef en d an t’ s part i cular ro l e w as m i no r i n rel at i on t o the re l evantcond uctattri bu t ed t o h i m i n cal cul at i ng hi s bas e off ense l evel . O nl y i f the defendantcan e s t abl i s h tha t[ he ] pl a y e d ar e l a t i ve l y m i norr o l e i n the c onduc tf or w hi c h [ he ] ha s a l r e a dy b een he l d a c c ount abl e –notam i norr ol e i n a ny l a r ge rc r i m i na l c ons pi r acy–m a y adow nw a r d a dj us tm e ntbe appl i e d. T he se cond pron g o f the anal ys i s, i f r ea ched, re qu i re s th e d i stri ctcourt t o ass es s adefe nd an t’ s rel at i ve cul pabi l i ty vi s- a- vi s thatof any other p art i ci p an t s. I d. a t1348- 49 ( i nt e rna l quot a t i on m a rks a nd c i t a t i ons om i tt e d) . T he de f e nda nt b e a r s th e b u r d e n o f

s h o w in g h is e n title m e n t to th e r e d u c tio n . I d . a t 1 3 4 8 . T h e d is tr ic t c o u rt f

o u n d th a t L o f

to n d id n o t h a v e am in o rr o le in th e o f f e n s e . T he di stri ctcourtbase d thi s f i nd i ng on L oft on ’ s s ub st ant i al ac t i vi t i es , w hi ch i n cl u d ed L o ft o n ’ s recei p to f atl east2 4 p ack ag es o f d ru g p ro ceed s [ R d . B r . 59] that h e c h a n g e d in to s m a lle rb ills a n d lau n d e r e d . [L ofton S en t. T r. 32 ]. T he f i ndi ng o f th e d istrict co u rt w as n o t clear ly erro n eo u s, b ec au se th e e v id en ce b elies L o fto n ’s a r g u m e n ts . E . R onald R ay L angdon 1. T he D i s tr i c tC ourtD i d N otA bus e I t s D i s c r e t i on W he n i tA dm i tt e d

E vi dence S ei ze d F rom L angd on ’ s H ou se .15

L a n g d o n a r g u e s th a t th e d is tr ic t c o u rt e rr e d w h e n it d e n ie d h is m o tio n to s u p p r e s s e v id e n c e s e iz e d d u r in g a n ille g a l s e a r c h o f h is r e s id e n c e . [L an gd on B r. 22 -23]. A lth o u g h th e d istrict co u rt fo u n d th at th e w arra n t t o se ar ch L an g d o n ’s r e s i de nc e w a s nots upport e d by pr obabl e c aus e , the di s tr i c tc ourtf ound tha tagood f a ith e x c e p tio n ap p lie d to th e s e a r c h . [R 32 9:2]. “ U nde r[ the ] good f a i th e xc e pt i on t o the excl usi on ary rul e, supp re ss i on i s nec es saryon l y i f the offi ce rs w er e di shon es tor re ckl es s i n p re pari ng thei r a ff i davi tor coul d n othave harbored an obj e c t i ve l y r e a s onabl e be l i e f i n the e xi s t e nc e of

pr obabl e c aus e . ” U ni t e d S t a t e s v. R o b in s o n , 3 3 6 F .3 d 1 2 9 3 , 1 2 9 6 ( 1 1 th C ir . 2 0 0 3 ) ( q u o ta tio n s a n d c ita tio n o m itte d ) . A n a f f id a v it lis te d tw o p ie c e s o f e v id e n c e th a t s u p p o rte d th e w a rr a n t: ( 1 ) f o u rEx p r e s s M a i l l ab e l s a ddr e s s e d t o “ R. La n g d o n ” o r“ R. Lo n d o n ” wr i tt e n i n wh a t ap p e a r s t o b e th e s a m e h a n d wr i t i n g a s s o me of the l ab el s a ddr e s s e d t o M c C a l e bb a nd a ddr e s s e d t o adi f f e r e nt a ddr e s s tha n tha tw hi c h w a s ul t i m a t e l y s e a r c he d a nd ( 2) ast at e m e nt tha tD E A A g en t M cL aughl i n i nf orm e d hi m tha tt e xtm e s s a ge s s e ntby c o - d e f e n d a n t M c C a le b b id e n tif ie d L a n g d o n a s as u p p lie ro f s ix ki l og ra m s of c ocai ne t o P re st on D ent , an un i nd i ct ed co-conspi ra t or. [R 32 9:2]. T h e d is tr ic t c o u rt f o u n d th a t r e lia n c e o n th e w a rr a n t w a s in g o o d f a ith a nd r e a s onabl e , be c aus e “ the a f f i da vi tw a s notr e c kl e s s ordi s hone s tors o l a c ki ng in in d ic iao f

p r o b ab le c au s e a s to r e n d e ro f f ic ia l b e lie f

in its e x is te n c e e n tir e ly un re as on abl e. ” [R 32 9:3]. W e ne e d notde t e rm i ne w he the rpr obabl e c aus e e xi s t e d, be c aus e the good16

fai th ex cep t i o n ap p l i es h ere. T h ere i s n o ev i d en ce th atth e affi d av i tw as d i sh o n est orr e c kl e s s l y pr e pa r e d, a nd ar e a s onabl e of f i c e rc oul d ha ve be l i e ve d tha tba s e d on the a f f i da vi ttha tthe r e w a s pr obabl e c aus e t o s e a r c h L a ngdon’ s r e s i de nc e . T he di stri ctcourtdi d n otabuse i t s di sc re t i on w hen i tadm i tt ed the evi dence s ei ze d dur i ng the s e a r c h. 2 . T h e D is tr ic t C o u rt D id N o t E rrW h e n I t A p p lie d th e S e n te n c in g G u id e lin e s . L a ngdon a r gue s tha tthe di s tr i c tc ourte rr one ous l y e nha nc e d hi s s e nt e nc e f or us e of af i r e a rm a nd obs truc t i on of j us t i c e . A n e nha nc e m e ntf orobs truc t i on of ju s tic e is ap p r o p r ia te w h e n th e d e f e n d a n t h a s p e r

ju r e d h im s e lf

. U .S .S .G . § 3 C 1 .1 n. 2. L a ngdon t e s t i f

i e d a tthe s uppr e s s i on he a r i ng tha the di d notus e c ode w or ds w h e n c o m m u n ic a tin g w ith h is c o - c o n s p ir a to r s . [L an gd on S en t. T r. 11 -12]. T he d is tr ic t c o u rt f

o u n d th a t th e te s tim o n y w a s f a ls e a n d ap p lie d th e e n h a n c e m e n t. T h is f in d in g w a s n o t c le a r ly e rr o n e o u s . [L an gd on S en t. T r. 19 ]. U nd erse ct i on 2D 1. 1(b)(1) of the S ent enci ng G ui del i nes, a f i re arm enhancem entm ayappl y i f adefe nd antpo ss es se d a w eapo n d uri ng the offens e: [ I ] f ade f

e nda ntpos s e s s e d ada nge r ous w eapon dur i ng a d ru g - tr a f f i c k i n g o f f e n s e , h i s o f

f e n s e l e v e l s h o u l d b e i n c r e a s e d b y two l evel s. T he com m ent ary t o § 2D 1. 1 exp l ai n s th at thi s f i re arm e n h a n c e m e n t “s h o u ld b e ap p lie d if th e w e ap o n w a s p r e s e n t, u n le s s it i s c l e a r l y i m pr obabl e tha tthe w e apon w a s c onn ect e d w i th the offe nse. ” U n ite d S ta te s v . A u d a in , 2 5 4 F .3 d 1 2 8 6 , 1 2 8 9 ( 1 1 th C ir . 2 0 0 1 ) ( q u o tin g U .S .S .G . §17

2 D 1 . 1 , c o mme n t . n . 3 ) . D u r i n g th e s e a r c h o f La n g d o n ’ s r e s i d e n c e , tw o f i r e a rms w er e f ou nd , on e on the bed i n the m as t erbedroo m and o ne i n the cl oset . M on ey w a s f o u n d n e a rb y , a n d th e r e w e r e d ru g s in th e r e s id e n c e . [L an gd on S en t. T r. 33 ]. T h e d is tr ic t c o u rt d id n o t c le a r ly e rrw h e n it f o u n d th a t it w a s n o t c le a r ly i m prob abl e thatthe fi re arm s w er e c on nect ed t o the drug tra ff i cki ng offe nse. [L an gd on S en t. T r. 33 ]. F. Mi c hae l W ay ne C obb 1. T he E vi de nc e W a s S uf f i c i e ntt o S upportC obb’ s C onvi c t i on. C ob b argues thatthe evi dence pres ent ed w as i nsuffi ci entt o sho w thathe had k n o w le d g e o f

th e c o n s p ir a c y . [C ob b B r. 24 ]. T he evi dence attri al show ed that C obb he l pe d di s tr i but e the c oc a i ne a nd m a r i j ua na , pi c ke d up pa c ka ge s of drugs fro m tw o i n d i v i du al s, p ai d fo r th e d el i v ery serv i ces, d el i v ered d ru g p ro ceed s, m a ile d d ru g p r o c e e d s to L o f to n in L a s V e g a s , a n d s o ld c o c a in e to S u lliv a n . [ R d. B r. 37 ]. T h e te s tim o n y in th e r e c o r d a m p ly s u p p o rts C o b b ’s c o n v ic tio n . 2 . T h e D is tr ic t C o u rt D id N o t C le a r ly E rrW h e n I t D e te rm in e d th a t L of t on W a s N otE nt i t l e d t o aM i nor - R ol e R e duc t i on. T he di s tr i c tc ourtf

ound tha tC obb di d notha ve am i norr ol e i n the c o n s p ir a c y c o m p a r e d to th e o th e rc o n s p ir a to r s . [C ob b S en t. T r. 25 ]. B a s e d on the te s tim o n y a t tr ia l d e s c r ib e d ab o v e , th e f in d in g o f th e d is tr ic t c o u rt w a s n o t c le a r ly e rr o n e o u s . S e e R y a n , 2 8 9 F .3 d a t 1 3 4 8 - 4 9 .18 I V . CONCL US I ON E a c h of the a r gum e nt s of

the de f e nda nt s f a i l s . T he c onvi c t i ons a nd s e n te n c e s im p o s e d b y th e d is tr ic t c o u rt a r e , th e r e f o r e , AF F I RME D.19

T J O F L A T , C i r c ui tJ udge , s pe c i a l l y c onc urr i ng: I c on cur i n the court ’ s j ud gm ent . I w ri t e bri ef l y, and separ at el y, w i th res pect t o P artII I, B , 2 o f the court ’ s opi ni on , w hi ch address es A l bertJones’ s s ent ence , s pe c i f i c a l l y hi s B ooke rc l a i m . A dhe r i ng t o bi ndi ng pr e c e de nt

— U ni t e d S t a t e s v. R odr i gue z — a s i tm us t , the c ourtr e f us e s t o e nt e rt a i n the c l a i m be c aus e “ [ n] othi ng i n the re cord sugg es t s thatthe di stri ctcourtw ou l d h ave i m po se d a l es se r s ent ence i f i thad app l i ed the G ui del i nes i n an adv i soryfa shi on . ” A nt e a t___. In other w o r d s , J o n e s f

a ile d to e s tab lis h th e th ir d e le m e n t o f th e p la in - e rr o rte s t, i.e ., p r e ju d ic e th a t “a f

f e c te d h is s u b s ta n tia l r ig h ts .” I d . F o rth e r e a s o n s I e x p r e s s e d in U n ite d S ta te s v . T h o m p s o n , N o . 0 4 - 1 2 2 1 8 , 2 0 0 5 W L 2 0 9 9 7 8 4 , a t * 1 7 - 1 9 ( 1 1 th C i r . S e pt . 1, 2005) , w e s houl d note xpe c tt o f i nd a ny thi ng i n the r e c or d i ndi c a t i ng thatthe courtw ou l d h ave i m po se d a l es se r s ent ence i f i thad tre at ed the G ui del i nes as advi soryra ther than m andat ory. T o exp ec ta pre -B oo ker c ou rtt o say , at s e nt e nc i ng, tha ti tw oul d i m pos e al e s s e rs e nt e nc e w e r e the G ui de l i ne s not m andat ory w ou l d b e t o exp ec tthe courtt o h ave ant i ci pat ed B oo ker and the new s e nt e nc i ng m ode l i tf

a s hi one d. I s ugge s ttha tno one — s a ve the j us t i c e s of the S upr e m e C ourt

— c oul d ha ve a nt i c i pa t e d tha tm ode l . T hi s i s one of the r e a s ons w hy I c on t end thatR od ri gu ez w as w rong l y dec i ded. U ni t ed S t at es v. R od ri gu ez , 406 F . 3d 1261, 1281 ( 11th C i r . 2005) ( T j of l a t , J . , di s s e nt i ng f

r om the de ni a l of20

r e he a r i ng e n ba nc ) . B utR odr i gue z r e m a i ns the l a w ; thus , J one s ’ s s e nt e nc e m us tbe a f f irm e d .