### FI LED U.S. COURT O F APP EALS ELEVENTH CIRCUIT JUN E 16, 20 05 THO MAS K. KAH N CL ERK [DO NOT PUBLISH] IN THE UN ITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FO R T HE EL EV EN TH CIRC UI T

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ N o. 04- 1284 2 Non-A rgum ent Calendar

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ D.C. Dock etNo. 0 3- 00 12 6- CR-F TM-2 9DNF UNITED STAT ES OF AMERIC A, Plaintiff-Appellee, ve rs us MAX CHARLOT, a. k. a. D em auntr i K ei tho n D um al s, D ef en dant- Appe llant.

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ __ Appe al f ro m the U nit ed

S ta te s D istri ct

Co urt f or the Mi ddl e D istri ct

of F lor ida

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ _ (June 16, 200 5) Be fo re T JO FL A T , D U BIN A and C A RN E S, Ci rc uit Jud ge s. PE R CU RIA M: Ma x C harl ot w as ind ic te d f or c onsp ir ac y

to poss es s w ithint en t t o di str ibu te2

fi ve kil ogr am s or

m or e of c oc ai ne , in vio la tio n of

21 U . S. C. § 84 6, and p oss es sio n of af ir earm dur ing and i n r el at ionto a dr ug tra ff ic kin g c ri m e, in vio la tio n of 18 U . S. C. §§ 9 24( c) (1 )( A ) & 2 . A ft er aj ur y tr ia l, he w as c onvi ct ed

and s en te nc ed

to 262 m onths i m

pr iso nm en t onthe c onsp ir ac y c harg e an d 60 m onths i m pr iso nm en t on th e fi rear m

ch arg e, to be ser ve d c on se cu ti ve ly. Ch arl ot ch al le ng es hi s co nv ic ti on an d h is sen te nc e o n t he co ns pi racy cou nt . H e co nte nds that the dis tr ic t c ourt a buse d it s di sc re tio n by

de ny ing his m oti on f

or a m istrial after

the governm ent elicited certain testim ony from Richard Z ay as, an A T F spe ci al a ge nt. C harl ot b el ie ve s th at the te sti m ony

w as ina dm iss ibl e be ca

use it w as he ar say , be ca

use it vio la te d hi s c onst itu tio na l r igh t t o c onf ro nt h is a cc use rs , an d be ca use it w as m or e pr ej udi ci al than pr oba tiv e. C harl ot a lso c ont en ds tha t the dis tr ic t c ourt pl ai nly

e rr ed in en hanc ing his c onsp ir ac y se nte nc e ba se d on im pe rm iss ibl e fa ct fi ndi ngs, spe ci fi ca lly about his r ole in the of

fe nse and the dr

ug qu an ti ty inv ol ve d. I. A. At tria l, A gent Zay as wa s the governm ent’ s first w itness. Z ay as testified that he part ic ipate d inan in ve sti ga tio n in vol vin g C harl ot. T he inv es tig at ion started when he and anoth er A TF agent rec eived inform ation from a confidential3

inform ant. T he governm ent asked Zay as what ty pe of inform ation he had received from the CI, and Charlot objec ted on hearsay grounds . The governm ent indicated that it was not try ing to elicit w hat the CI had said, only“ generally the subject m at te r of th e in fo rm at io n” pro vi de d b y th e CI. Do c. 19 7 a t 1 5. During a sidebar confe rence, Charlot argued that offer ing a general description o f the inform ation received fr om the CI w as j ust as dam aging as offer ing th e specifics of what the CI had told Zay as. The governm ent argued that it w as a tte m

pti ng t o e sta

bli sh tha t l awe nf

or ce m en t “be gan an in ve sti ga tio n of [C harl ot] r el at ed

to his w ill ing ne ss t o part ic ipate in hom e inv as ionr obbe ri es . ” I d. at 16. A ft er

som e furthe r dis cu ssi on, the dis tr ic t c ourt c onc lud ed that “ it’ s no t hearsay , [ it] j ust explain s what the agent did.” Id. at 17. T he court, how ever, instructed the go vernm ent to “ elicit that y ou received inform ation from a CI that le d to an in ve sti ga tio n and the n e xpl ai n w ha t the inv es tig at ionw as . ” I d. T he gov er

nm en t a ske d A ge nt Z ay as to ide nti fy the na tur e of

the investig ation. Z ay as responded that “ the nature of the investigatio n was ind ivi dua ls i nvol ve d inarm ed hom e inv as ionr obbe ri es . ” I d. a t 17 . C harl ot a ga in obj ec te d. T he gov er

nm en t a ske d Z ay as about his int en tio ns r eg ar din g th e inv es tig at ionand wha t he ult im at el y did . Z ay as r es pond ed : “ [m ] y int en tio n w as to be introduced to these indivi duals. A t that tim e determ ine if these individ uals are4

ac tua lly inv olv ed in thi s ty pe of c ri m e, ha d e xpe ri en ce in thi s ty pe of c ri m e an d w an te d to c om

m it thi s ty

pe of c ri m e. ” I d. a t 18 . C harl ot a ga in o bj ec te d, and the district court called for a sidebar. T he court indicated that the gov ernm ent had d i s re g ar d ed i t s i n s t ru ct i o n s b y el i ci t i n g th at th e C I h ad t o l dZa yas ab o u tCh ar l o t ’s inv olv em en t or

w ill ing ne ss t o part ic ipate in hom e inv as ion s. T he gov er nm en t state d th at

the inf orm at ionde sc ri be d th e na tur e of the of fe nse , but the j udge co unt er ed that “ the na tur e co m es f

ro m w ha t the CI sa id. A ny

idi ot w oul d kn ow w ha t the CI sa id. ” I d. a t 19 . Ch ar lot m ove d f or am istri al . H e as se rt ed

that, be ca

use of A ge nt Z ay as ’ state m en t, the j ur

y w oul d be lie ve that the CI ha d to ld Z ay as that C harl ot and the others wer e com

m itting m ultip le robberies even though they we re only

charged w ithone r obbe ry . T he j udge ind ic at ed that he w oul d stri ke Z ay as ’ te sti m ony and instruct the jury

not to con sider it. T he j udge foun d that a m istrial wa s unne ce ssary

be ca use , ba se d onZ ay as ’ oc cu pa tio n and the kin d of

inv es tig at ion , the inform ation would be som ew hat obvi ous to the j ury regar dless of what Z ay as said. N evertheless, the j udge ind icated that he w ouldinstruct the jury to disregard Z ay as ’ te sti m ony

be ca use of the m en tio n of

the “plura l” r obbe ri es . C harl ot re as se rt ed

his r eque st f

or am istri al and v oic ed

his doubt t

ha t the j ur

y ins tr uc tio n w oul d be suf

fi ci en t. T he dis tr ic t c ourt the n is sue d th e fo llo w ing ins tr uc tio n to the5

ju ry: L ad ie s and g en tle m en , the Co urt w ill ins tr uc t y ou t o di sr eg ar d, that i s to n ot c onsi de r the la st c oupl e of answ er s f

ro m the w itn es s w ith re gard to w ha t w as tol d to him

by ac onf ide nti al inf

orm an t. A ll y ou ne ed to knowis that he r ec ei ve d in fo rm at ionand b as ed upo n th at

he start ed an in ve sti ga tio n. Y ou d on’ t ne ed to co nc er n y our se lf

about w ha t w as sa id. T ha t’ s w ha t w e re fe r to a s he ar say and y ou s ha ll not co ns id er t ha t i n a ny way

at t hi s p oi nt or d ur in g you r de li be rat io ns . Id . at 2 2. Th e g ov ern m en t t he n p ro ceed edwit h i ts ex am in at io n o f Zay as . A ge nt Z ay as te sti fi ed

that, w hil e unde rc ove r, he ha d m et w ithCh ar lot

and his c o- co nspi rator s. Z ay as ha d po rtray ed him se lf a s adis gr

unt le d dr ug c our ie r an d propos ed that the m en steal 40 kilog ram s of cocaine fr om a stash house. Z ay as had toldthem

that som eone from

the stash hou se would page him , he would then co nta ct the c o- co nspi rator s, and h e w oul d have 20 m inu te s to ge t t o th e sta sh hous e. C harl ot h ad

dis cu sse d hi s pl an s to e xe cu te the r obbe ry and a ff irm ed his co m m it m en t t o d o s o. T he gov er

nm en t a lso pr es en te d th e te sti m ony of gov er nm ent a ge nts w ho h ad s ea rc h ed th e c o -c o n s p i ra t o rs ’ ca rs af t erth ei r a rr es t s an do f f

o u r o f C h ar l o t ’s co -c onsp ir at or s. E ac h of tho se f our c o- co nspi rator s te sti fi ed

that the obj ec t of

the conspiracy

had been to rob the stash h ouse of m ore than 40 kilo gram s of cocaine, ki ll in g t he gu ard s i n t he pro ces s. At the c lose of the governm ent’ s case, Charlot, am ong o ther things , r enewe d6

his m oti on f

or am istri al ba se d onA ge nt Z ay as ’ te sti m ony r eg ar din g m

ult ipl e hom e invasion rob beries because it w as both hearsay and prej udicial. T he court denied the m otion , stating that “ [t] he testim ony that cam e in from

Agent Z ay as a f t e r th e o b j e c t i o n an dw i t h o u tan y a d d i t i o n a l o b j e c t i o n w a s e s s e n t i a l l y t h e s a me an d, i n a ny even t, t he re was no m an ife stne ces si ty in my vi ew fo r a m is tri al .” Doc. 198 at 36 0. T he court further f oundthat “ [t] he instruction I gave w as straightforwar d and severe and told the jury what to do, what not to do with regard to th atev id en ce . . .” Id. Ch ar lot r es te d hi s c as e w ith out

pr es en tin g any

w itn es se s. H e pr es en te d hi s de fe nse thr oughhis ope nin g and c los ing state m en ts and thr oughhis que sti ons on cr oss -e xa m inatio n. C harl ot’ s de fe nse w as that whil e he part ic ipate d inthe co nspi ra cy , the obj ec t of

the c onsp ir ac y

w as to ro b A ge nt Z ay as , w ho h e tho ught w as adr ug c our ie r, of

the tw o ki log ram s th at

Z ay as w as to pic k up a t the sta sh hous e—not to rob th e stash hous e. Th e ju ry fo u n dCh ar l o tg u i l t y as ch ar g ed . It s p ec i al l y fo u n dth at Ch ar l o t ’s co nspi ra cy

of fe nse inv olv ed

a t l ea st f ive kil ogr am s of

c oc ai ne . C harl ot m ove d f or a ne wtr ia l ba se d onthe dis tr ic t c ourt’ s de nia l of his m oti on f

or am istri al . T he dis tr ic t c ourt de nie d hi s m oti on. B.7

In preparing the presentence investigation report, the probation o ffice r as sig ne d C harl ot a

ba se of fe nse le ve l of

34 b ec au se the of

fe nse inv olv ed

be tw ee n 15 and 50 kilog ram s of cocaine. The probation officer also determ ined that Ch arl ot was a n o rg an iz er o f th e co ns pi racy andin crea se d h is off en se lev el by fou r. W ithan a dj ust ed

of fe nse le ve l of

38 and a c ri m ina l hi sto ry

c at eg or y of I I, the ap pli ca ble gui de lin e range on the c onsp ir ac y c ount w as 262 –327 m onths im pr is on m en t. T he dis tr ic t c ourt a dopt ed the P SI . C harl ot r eque ste d th e co urt se nte nc e him to the low end of the guidelin e range, and the governm ent requested a longer se nte nc e. A ft er

som e dis cu ssi on, the c ourt se nte nc ed Ch ar lot to 262 m onths im pr iso nm en t a s to the c onsp ir ac y c ount and 6 0 m onths i m

pr iso nm en t a s to the f i r e a rm co u n t , t o b e s e rv e dc o n s e c u t i v e l y. II. Charlot argues that the district court erre d in deny ing hi s m otion for a m istri al . H e co nte nds that A ge nt Z ay as ’ te sti m ony c onc er nin g th e inf

orm at ionhe re ce ive d f ro m the CI w as he ar say

that vi olate d hi s S ixth A m en dm en t r igh t t o confront witnesses as explained in Craw ford v. W ashingt on, 541 U. S. 36, 124 S. Ct . 135 4 ( 2004 ). H e furthe r co nte nds that a m istri al w as w ar

rante d be ca

use the testim ony wa s inadm issib le on the groun ds that it was m ore prej udicial thanCharlot prese nts his C raw ford a rgument as if it is encompasse d in his hearsa y argument. 1 The pre sentation does not cha ng e the f act that a hear say objection is an evide ntiary objection, while Charlot’s Craw ford objec tion arises under the Confrontation Clause of the Constit ution. Thoug h we a

re se nsitive to the fact that Cra wford ha d not y et bee n decide d at the time of Charlot’s trial, the Confrontation Cl ause is not new. N or is it the same as he arsa y law. Ac c or din g ly , w e tr e at th e se a s tw o d ist inc t argume nts . 8 pr oba tiv e. A t tri al , Ch ar lot onl y arg ue d th e he ar say

and p re j udi ce poi nts ; hi s inv oc at ionof

the r ec en tly

de ci de d C raw fo rd

c as e to m ak e a Co nf

ro ntatio n C lause ar gum en t i s ne won a

ppe al . 1

“ A tr ia l j udge ha s di sc re tio n to gr an t a m istri al sin ce he or

she is in the be st posit ion to evaluate the prej udicial effec t of a statem ent or evidence on the jur y .” United States v. De lgado, 321 F.3d 1338 , 1346–47 (11th Cir. 2003) (internal m ar ks and c itatio ns o m itt ed ). “ [W ] he n adis tr ic t c ourt gi ve s ac ur at ive ins tr uc tio n, the r ev ie w ing c ourt w ill r ev er se onl y if the e vid en ce is so h igh ly pr ej udi ci al a s to be inc ur ab le by

the tr ia l c ourt’ s a dm oni tio n. ” I d. a t 13 47 ( int er na l m ar ks and citations om itted). A. T ur nin g f ir st t o C harl ot’ s he ar say

arg um en t, it

is unc le ar

w he the r the ch al le nge d st at em en ts are a ct ua lly he ar say . T he state m en ts w er e not of fe re d by t h e g o v e rn me n tt o p r o v e th a tC h a r l o tw a s a c tu a l l y i n v o l v e di n p r i o r arme dh o me inv as ion s, but

w er e of fe re d to e sta

bli sh the r ea son lawe nf

or ce m en t i nit ia te d it s inv es tig at ion . S ee F ed . R. E vid . 801 (c ) (“ ‘ H ears ay ’ is a state m en t, oth er than on e9

m ad e by the de cl ar an t whil e te sti fy ing a t the tr ia l or he ar ing , of

fe re d ine vid en ce to pr ov e th e trut h o f th e m at te r as se rte d.” ). Mor eo ve r, e ve n if

the state m en ts w er e he ar say , the pr ej udi ci al e ff ec t of st ric ke n h ears ay

tes ti m on y

is sl ig ht when itm erel y

su m m ari zes ot he r ev id en ce. United States v. Funt, 896 F.2d 1288, 1296 (11 th Cir. 1990 ). H ere, the court de nie d th e m istri al be ca

use the sam e ev ide nc e ha d e sse nti al ly c om e in, w ith out objec tion, through later questioning . Doc. 198 at 360 . Thus, the e vidence was no t “ so hi gh ly prejud ic ia l as to be in cu rab le by the tri al co ur t’s ad m on it io n.” D el ga do, 321 F . 3d at 13 47 ( int er na l m ar ks and c itatio ns o m itt ed ). T he c ourt di d not abuse it s di sc re tio n inr ef usi ng t o gr an t a

m istri al on h ears ay

gr ound s. B. Ch ar lot ’ s C raw fo rd

c ont en tio n w as not

r ai se d be low . A cc or din gly , our re vie wis onl y

f or pla in e rr or . S ee U nit ed

S ta te s v. O lano, 507 U . S. 725 , 731 –32, 113 S. Ct. 1770 , 1776–77 (1993). “ Under plain-er ror re view, the defendant has the bur de n to sho wthat the re is (1 ) er ro r (2 ) that i s pl ai n and ( 3) that a ff ec t[ s] subs tantial rights. If all three c ondi tions are m et, an appellate court m ay then ex er ci se it s di sc re tio n to not ic e a fo rf ei te d e rr or , but

onl y if ( 4) the e rr or

se ri ousl y affe ct[s] the fairness, integrity , or publ ic reputation of judicial procee ding s.” U nit ed S ta te s v. Mo nr oe , 353 F . 3d 1 346, 134 9 ( 11th C ir . 200 3) ( int er na l m ar ks10

and citations o m itted; alterations in o riginal). H er e, e ve n a ssu m ing the re w as aCo nf ro ntatio n C lause e rr or

that i s pl ai n under Craw ford, Charlot cannot sho w that his substant ial rights have been af fe ct ed . U sua lly , to af

fe ct sub stanti al r igh ts an “ er

ro r m ust have be enpr ej udi ci al : It m ust have a ff ec te d th e out co m e of

the dis tr ic t c ourt pr oc ee din gs. ” O lano, 507 U. S. at 734, 113 S. C t. at 1778 . Charlot’ s argum ent that he has been prej udiced de ri ve s f ro m his tr ia l de fe nse that he ha d in te nde d on ly to ro b A ge nt Z ay as of

the tw o ki log ram s of

c oc ai ne that he tho ught

Z ay as w oul d be ge tti ng f ro m the sta sh hous e; he ha d no t i nte nde d to r ob the sta sh h ouse of m or e than 40 kil ogr am s of cocaine and kill the guards, as alleged by the governm ent. C harlot think s that Z ay as ’ r ef

er en ce to pr ior

“ ar m ed hom e inv as ionr obbe ri es ” m ad e it m or e lik el y th atth e jury woul d c on cl ud e th atCh arl ot ha d i nt en de d t o ro b t he st as h h ou se . Inli ght of the ove rwhe lm ing e vid en ce of gui lt intro duc ed

a t tri al , Ch ar lot cannot m eet his burden of dem onstrating that the challenged testim ony aff ected the out co m e of

his tr ia l. C harl ot a dm itt ed that he ha d part ic ipate d inthe conspiracy , and bo th Agent Zay as and four co-conspirators testified that the object of the c onsp ir ac y

ha d be ento ro b th e sta sh h ouse . B ec au se Ch ar lot c an not sho w the e xis te nc e of

pla in e rr or

und er the S upr em e Co urt’ s C raw fo rd Co nf ro ntatio n Cl au se c as e, he c an not

sho wthat the dis tr ic t c ourt a buse d it s di sc re tio n by

r ef usi ngRule 403 provides that: “Althoug h rele vant, evidenc e may be excluded if its probative 2 value is substantially

outweig hed by

the dang er of

unfair pr ejudice, c onfusion of the issues, or misleadingthe jury , or by considerations of undue delay , waste of time, or nee dless prese ntation of cumulative e vidence .” 11 to grant a m istrial due to that alleged error. C. Third, we turn to Charlot’ s argum ent that a m istrial shou ld have been granted because the challenged testim ony wa s m ore prej udicial than prob ative, an d thus i na dm iss ab le und er F ed . R. E vid . 403 . A s an in iti al m atte r, it is not 2 entirely clear that the statem ent was inadm issib le. The statem ent was probative. It he lpe d to e xpl ai n w hy

A ge nt Z ay as appr oa ch ed Ch ar lot w iththe pr opos iti on t o rob a stash hou se. Cf. United State s v. W illiford, 764 F.2d 1493, 1499 (11th Cir. 1985 ) (“ E vid en ce , not

part of the c ri m e ch ar ge d bu t pe rt ai nin g to the c ha in o f events explaini ng the context , m otive and set-up o f the cr im e, is properly adm itted if linked in tim e and circ um stances with the charged c rim e, or form s an integral an d natur al part

of an a cc ount

of the c ri m e, or

is ne ce ssary

to co m ple te the sto ry

of the crim e for the j ury .” ). A dditi onally , w e have ca ution ed that “ Rule 403 is an extraordinary

rem edy which the district court should invok e sparingly .” U nited States v. Elkins, 885 F.2d 775, 784 (11th Cir. 1989). I ndeed, “ [t] he balance under Ru le 403 sho uld

be str uc k inf av or of a dm iss ibi lity . “ I d.12

The district court explicitly instructed the jury

that they we re to disregard the state m en t. Mo re ove r, Z ay as ’ f urthe r te sti m ony , w hic h w as a dm itt ed w ith out obj ec tio n, e nc om

pa sse d th e sam e inf

orm at iona s th e str ic ke n st at em en t. A nd, in lig ht o f Ch ar lot ’ s c onc ed ed inv olv em en t i n th e co nspi ra cy and the ove rwhe lm ing evidence that the objec t of the conspiracy wa s to rob the stash house, any potential pr ej udi ce f

ro m the c ha lle nge d te sti m ony is not sig nif ic an t. S ee U nit ed

S ta te s v. Ro dr igu ez -Are va lo, 734 F . 2d 6 12, 615 ( 11th C ir . 198 4) ( “ Pr ej udi ci al te sti m ony will not m andate a m istrial when there is other signi ficant evidence of guilt which reduces the likelihood that the otherwise im proper testim ony

had a substanti al im pa ct upo n th e ve rd ic t of

the j ur y . ”) . T he dis tr ic t c ourt di d no t a buse it s dis cr et ionin de ny ing am istri al on this gr ound . III . Charlot contends th at his sentence wa s uncons titutio nally enhanced based on j udi ci al f

ac tf ind ing s a s to his r ole in the of fe nse and the quanti ty

of c oc ai ne inv olv ed . C harl ot b as es thi s arg um en t onBl ak el y v. W as hin gto n, 542 U . S. ___ , 124 S. Ct. 2531 (2004). A fter C harlot filed his appeal, the Suprem e Court applied its Blakely

j urisprudence to the federal sentencing guid elines. S ee U nited States v. Booker, 543 U.S . ___, 125 S. Ct. 738 (200 5). Ch ar lot ’ s B ooke r ar gum en t i s r ev ie w ed onl y f or pla in e rr or

be ca use he did13

not r ai se it be fo re the dis tr ic t c ourt. S ee U nit ed S ta te s v. O lano, 507 U . S. 725 , 731– 32, 113 S . Ct . 177 0, 177 6–77 ( 1993 ). Ade fe ndant c annot m ee t the pla in er ro r standard

f or Bo oke r er

ro r unl es s he c ande m onstrate a“ re as ona ble probabilit y

of a diff erent re sult if the gui delines had been appli ed in an adviso ry instead of bind ing fashion by the sentencing judge.” United State s v. Rodriguez, 39 8 F .3d12 91 , 13 01 (11 th Cir . 20 05 ). In United State s v. Shelton, 400 F. 3d 13 25 (11th Cir. 2005 ), the district court indicated that the sentence “ wa s ‘ very , ver y severe’ ” and “ noted th at

‘ unf ortun at el y ’ the G uid el ine s c ri m ina l- his tor y c al cu la tio n” c onsi de re d pa st ch ar ge s, but

not the na tur e of

the c ri m es a s r ef

le ct ed in the se nte nc es im

pose d. I d. at 1328. Additionally , the district court expressed that the sentence w as “ m ore than [wa s] appropriate in this sit uation.” Id. (alter ation in o riginal). He re, there w as nothin g a

ppr oa ch ing that. Inthi s c as e, the dis tr ic t c ourt se t ou t the se nte nc ing gui de lin es r an ge of 262– 327 m onth s and asked if Charlot or defense c ouns el had anything to say before a sentence w as im

posed. De fense counsel asked that Charlot be sentenced to the lowe nd o f the gui de lin es r an ge , poi nti ng t o C harl ot’ s y outh and s ugge sti ng that he ha d f

al le n inw iththe w ro ng c ro w d. C harl ot h im se lf the n a pol ogi ze d to the co urts, the gov er

nm en t, and h is f

am ily . H e as ke d f

or the lowe nd o f the gui de lin e14

range and expressed hope that he would eventuallybe rele ased so that he could s et a g oo d e xa m

pl e fo r hi s s on . T he pr ose cu tor

r es pond ed

by e m pha siz ing Ch ar lot ’ s le ad er shi p r ole in the of fe nse and the se nte nc es be ing im pose d onCh ar lot ’ s c o- de fe ndants . T he p r o s e c u t o r

a l s o c o mm e n t e dth a t“ a n y s e n t e n c e i n th i s p a rt i c u l a r c a s e i s o b v i o u s l y a lon g on e an d on e that’ s c om m en sur at e w iththe of

fe nse . ” S en te nc ing T r. a t 8. D ef en se c ouns el the n arg ue d a ga in tha t the lowe nd o f the gui de lin es r an ge w oul d be “ suf

fi ci en t punis hm en t, ” an d th at the r an ge w as a s hi gh a s it w as be ca use of the role enhancem ent. S entencing Tr. at 8–9. T he district court confirm ed that the role enhancem ent had contribu ted to the hig her sentencing range, a s had Ch ar lot ’ s la ck

of a cc ep tanc e of

r es pons ibi lity . T he c our t the n sa id: It ’ s hard not to thi nk a

se nte nc e of

262 m onths f

or any one isn ’ t a

lon g se nte nc e, c er

ta inl y , som eo ne w ithac ri m ina l hi sto ry of onl y Cate gor y I I, so I ap pr ec ia te w ha t M r. Ca se s[ , the pr ose cu tor , ] is say ing about [ Ch ar lot ’ s] r ole [in the conspiracy ] . That has been a ccounted for under the guidelin es alrea dy . Unless som eone talks m e out of it, I do intendto im pose a sentence at the lowe nd o f the gui de lin es . Sen te nc in g Tr. at 9. Defe ns e co un se l s ai d “ I’ll b e qui etth en .” Sen te nc in g Tr. at 9. T he c ourt r es pond ed

a s f oll ow s: I d o n ’t mea n t o s h u ty o uup , b u tI w an ty o ut o kn o w t h at I t h i n kth at ’s a subs tanti al se nte nc e. T his is a sig nif ic an t c ri m e an d c oul d have r es ult ed in15

som e ve ry

se ri ous ac tiv ity

and i t di dn’ t. B ut, non ethe le ss, the Co urt f ee ls that 262 m onth s in the circum stances of the case is a sufficient sentence. Se nte nc ing T r. a t 9– 10. T he c ourt the n se nte nc ed Ch ar lot to 262 m onths. Although the district court in this case did note that the sentence wa s subs tanti al , it

a lso ind ic at ed

that the le ngthy

se nte nc e w as de se rv ed

be ca use of the s er i o u s n es s o f t h e c ri m e a n dCh ar l o t ’s ro l e i n co m m i t t i n g i t . In d ee d , t h e c o u rt ’s com m ents appear to be an explanation of why the court felt that a longer sentence w as not r equir ed . N oti ng tha t a

se nte nc e is “ suf

fi ci en t” is not

tantam ount

to charac terizing it as m ore than sufficient. W e do not read the com m ents as an expression o f concer

n that the sentence was too long. Cf . S helton, 400 F.3d at 1328 . W e re co gni ze that the dia log ue be tw ee n c ouns el and the c ourt r ef le ct s th ei r unde rs tandi ng tha t the gui de lin es w er e m an da tor y . B ut, de m onstratin g pl ai n e rr or under Booker “ takes som ething m ore than showing the dis trict court sentenced w ith in the G uid el ine s r an ge and f el t bo und to d o so , e spe ci al ly giv enthat the G uid el ine s r an ge r em ai ns an im portant f ac tor in se nte nc ing . ” I d. a t 13 32 (fo ot no te om it te d) . Mor eo ve r, de fe nse c ouns el w as not pr ev en te d f

ro m m ak ing any

arg um en ts that w oul d have inf

lue nc ed the c ourt t o im

pose ase nte nc e be lowthe appl ic ab le16

guid elines range. Prior to counsel’ s com m ent that he would “ be quiet,” he had alrea dy m ade all the ar gum ents he intend ed to m ake. W ith respect to the PSI, co unse l ha d a ske d th e co urt t o c onsi de r the f ac t tha t the re w er e no a ct ua l dr ugs inv olv ed and s ta te d th at

“ [t ] he re ’ s no oth er

le ga l arg um en ts o the r than th ose m ad e” in m oti ons he ha d pr ev iou sly f ile d. S en te nc ing T r. a t 3–4. A nd, a s w e’ ve alrea dy said, af ter the court set out the sentencing range, counsel asked that Ch ar l o t b e s en t en ce dt o th e l o w e n do f t h e g u i d el i n es ra n g e, p o i n t i n g t o Ch ar l o t ’s y outh and sugg esting th at he had fallen in w ith the wrong crowd. When couns el was do ne wit h t ho se arg um en ts , Cha rlo t al lo cu te d. Ch ar lot ha s no t sh ow n a“ re as ona ble pr oba bil ity of adif fe re nt r es ult

if the gui de lin es ha d be enappl ie d inan a dvi sor y ins te ad of bin din g f as hio n by the se nte nc ing j udge . ” Ro dr igu ez , 398 F . 3d at 13 01. AFFIRMED.17

T JO FL A T , Ci rc uit

Jud ge , c onc ur

ri ng: Count One of the indictm ent in this case c harged Charlot and five others w i t h c o n s p i r i n g t o p o s s e s s w i t h i n t e n tt o d i s t r i b u t e an dt o d i s t r i b u t e f i v e k i l o g r a ms or m or e of am ixt ur e or sub stanc e co nta ini ng a

de te ct ab le a m ount

of c oc ai ne . T he j ur y ’ s ve rd ic t e sta

bli she d f or Bl ak el y /B ooke r pur

pose s th at

the c ri m e inv olv ed

f ive or m or e kil ogr am s of

the dr ug. A cc or din g to U . S. S. G . § 2D 1. 1( a) (3 ), the ba se offense level f

or that drug quant ity

is 32. G iven Charlot’ s crim inal histo ry cate gor y of I I, the se nte nc e pr es cr ibe d f or that of fe nse le ve l w as 135 to 168 m onths’ im

pr iso nm en t. T he P SI , how ev er , he ld C harl ot a cc ount ab le f or 40 t o 50 kilog ram s of cocaine, which y ielded a base offe nse level of 34, and adj usted that le ve l by f our le ve ls p ur suant t o U . S. S. G . § 3B 1. 1( a) f or his r ole a s an or ganiz er

or l ea d ero f t h e c o n s p i ra cy. Th e r es u l t i n g o ff en s e l ev el o f 3 8 en h an ce dCh ar l o t ’s se nte nc e range to 262 to 3 27 m onths’ im pr iso nm en t, a s th e co urt’ s op ini on ind ic at es , ante a t __

__, and the c ourt se le ct ed the low er

f igure a s C harl ot’ s C ount One sentence. Ch ar l o td i dn o to b

je ct o n Si x t h Am en d m en tg ro u n d s t o th e c o u rt ’s en hanc em en t of

his of fe nse le ve l f

ro m 32 t o 38 . H en ce , a

c onst itu tio na l e rr or

didCha rl ot’ s in iti a l and

re ply br ie fs a sse rt

that th e dis tr ic t c ourt

c omm itt e d Si xth 1 Amendment er

ror be cause it enhance d the def endant’ s sentence on the basis of fa cts neither found by the jury nor admitted by

the def endant. My

rea ding of

the re cord le ads me to conc lude that Ch arl ot a dmi tte d a ll o f t he fa c ts r e c ite d in

the PSI and thu s a ll o f t

he fa c ts that g ave ri se to the enha nceme nts. 18 not oc cur in this c as e. T he onl y Bl ak el y /B ooke r er

ro r the c ourt c oul d have m ad e 1 w as to tr eat the S en te nc ing G uid el ine s a s m an da tor y r athe r than a dvi sor

y . C harl ot did no t objec t, howe ver, to the district court’ s treatm ent of the Guidelines as m an da to ry . Nor d idhe rai se th e is su e in hi s i ni ti al (orrep ly) bri ef o n app eal . N one the le ss, I giv e him

the be ne fi t of

the doubt and a ssu m e that the Bl ak el y /B ooke r obj ec tio n he pr es en ts i n hi s br ie fs sub sum es the m an da to ry

/a dv is ory is su e. The q ue st io n t hu s b eco m es whet he r he ha s s ho wn rev ers ib le pl ai n e rro r. Oper ating un der this assum ption , I conclude that Charlot has dem onstrated er ro r that i s pl ai n. H e fa ils , how ev er , to es ta bli sh p re j udi ce , the thi rd

pr ong of the pla in- er ro r te st. A s B ooke r ins tr uc ts, adis tr ic t c ourt’ s st ar tin g po int in fa shi oni ng a post -B ooke r se nte nc e is t o de te rm ine the appl ic ab le gui de lin e. T he c ourt di d that in thi s case, and then im posed a sentence at the bottom of the G uidelin es ran ge . Had t he co ur t t reat edth atran ge as a dv is ory , in st eadof m an da to ry , we would have to say

that the sentence w as not unreasonabl e. N othin g in the record of the sentencing proceeding suggest s that the court would have im posed a lesser19

se nte nc e ha d it

vie w ed the Guid el ine s r an ge a s a dvi sor y . T hus, no p re

j udi ce is sh own he re.