FI L ED U.S. COURT OF APPEAL S EL EVENTHCI RCUI T AUGUST 15, 2011 J OHN L EY CL ERK [DO NOT PUBLISH] IN THE U

NITED STATE S COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELE VENTH CIRCUIT

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ No. 1 0- 15 77 1 Non -Arg um en t Ca le nd ar

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ D.C. Dock etNo. 1 :0 8- cr-0 03 51 -J EC-J FK-4 UNITED STAT ES OF AMERIC A, ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll Pl ai nt iff -Ap pe ll ee, ve rs us CHIDEBE ORIZU, a.k .a. Cap ta in , ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll Defen da nt -Ap pe ll an t.

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ App eal fro m

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

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ (Au gu st15 , 20 11 ) Befo re BARKETT, MARCUS an d F AY, Circ ui t J ud ge s. PER CURI AM:Ch id eb e Ori zuap pe al s h is co nv ic ti on an d s en te nc e fo r co ns pi racy to

co m m itm on ey

lau nd eri ng , 18 U.S.C. § 1 95 6( h) . Orizuarg ue s t ha t the di st ric t co urt erredby refus in g t o a ll ow h im to cro ss -ex am in e a g ov ern m en t wi tn es s, Raym on d Ns oe do , con cern in g o ut -o f-co urt s ta te m en ts th atNso ed o h adm ad e ex cu lp at in g Ori zu . Orizuals o c on te nd s t ha t t he di st ric t co urt erredin im po si ng a si x- le ve l s en te nc in g e nh an cem en t u nd er U.S.S.G. § 2 S1 .1(b ) be cau se th ere was in su ffi ci en t ev id en ce t o p ro ve th athe kn ew th atth e laun de redfun ds were the pr oc eed s o f drug tra ffi ck in g. Fo r th e rea so ns st at edbe lo w, we affi rm . I. Oriz u was ch arg edin a se co ndsupe rs ed in g i nd ic tm en t wi thco ns pi racy to co m m itm on ey

lau nd eri ng , invi ol at io n o f 18 U.S.C. § 1 95 6( h) . Nso ed o, a co op erat in g c od efen dant , was a k ey witne ss at Ori zu ’s tri al . Nso ed o t es ti fie d t ha t he m etOriz u a t a s oc ia l ev en t fo r Nig eri an s l iv in g i n At lant a. The t wo m en di sc ov eredth atth ei r fam il ie s wer e fro m th e sa m e v il la ge in Nig eri a, an d t he y so on be cam e cl os e fri en ds . At th e ti m e, Nso ed o was work in g a s a t ax i driv er. In19 92 , Nso ed o b eg anto trans po rt h ero in inord er t o s up pl em en t h is in co m e. A few y ears la te r, Nso ed o l oc at edhi s o wn s ou rce o f he ro in an d s etup a di st rib ut io n n etwork i n Detr oi t, Mi ch ig an . Chi ka od in ak a Aha no nu was Ns oe do ’s chi ef l ie ut en an t an d was res po ns ib le forsel li ng Nso ed o’s h ero in in th e Detro itarea . 2Nso ed o e xp la in edth athe us edso m e o f hi s d ru g p ro ceed s t o p ur ch as e

ve hi cl es . He setup a co m pa ny, Atl an ti c Im

po rts , th atbo ug htcars at auc ti on s i n th e Atl an taarea . Orizuals o o wne d ave hi cl e-b uyin g b us in es s, Val u- Aut o, an d o n va rio us oc cas io ns , Orizu pu rch as edve hi cl es forNso ed o u si ng Valu -Au to ’s li ne of cred it . Nso ed o wo ul d the n re pa y Oriz u wi th pro ceed s fr om th e sa le of h ero in . Oriz u a ls o s ol d v eh ic le s t o Ah an on u, wi th Nso ed o a ct in g a s an in te rm ed ia ry . Nso ed o a ndAhan on u p ai d fo r th e v eh ic le s u si ng cas h a ndm on ey ord ers . Orizu al so ass is te d Ns oe do an d Ah an on u t hr ou gh in fo rm al m on ey tra ns fers . He wou ld acce ptU.S. curren cy

fro m th em an d wo ul d d ep os itanequi va le ntam ou ntof cu rren cy in acco un ts inNig eri a. On o ne oc cas io n, Ah an on u’s as si st an t, Uch en naObi , was s to pp edby the po li ce wh il e try in g t o d el iv er a b ag of c urren cy to Oriz u’s o ffi ce. Ori zudro ve by th e sc en e to fin d o utwhatwas h ap pe ni ng . Orizucal le d Ns oe do an d t ol d h im th at th e p ol ic e were s earc hi ng Obi ’s veh ic le . He als o re m ark edth atNso ed o n eed edto te ll Ahan on u “ to lo okforso m ethi ng els e m or e p ert in en t t o d o t o e arn a li vi ng .” On cr os s- ex am in at io n, Ns oe do ackno wled ge d t ha t h e k ep t h is dru g tra ffi ck in g a ct iv it ie s a s ecre t fr om ev eryone , in cl ud in g Ori zu . Once, wh enOriz u as ke d wh ere Ns oe do ha d re cei ve d am on ey ord er, Nso ed o l ie d t ha t h e h ad ob ta in edth e m on ey

fro m fri en ds . Nso ed o a ls o c on ced edth athe ex pe ct edto

3rece iv e a s en te nc e reduc ti on in ex ch an ge forhi s t es ti m on y . Defen se co un se l t he n

so ug htto qu es ti on Nso ed o c on cern in g s om e le tt ers th atNso ed o h adwrit te n t o Oriz u fo ll owi ng hi s arres t. In th e le tt ers , Nso ed o d ecl aredth atOriz u was in no cen t an d t ha t Ori zuha d n o kno wled ge of Ns oe do ’s dru g t raff ic ki ng act iv it ie s. Th e le tt ers als o d is cu ss edNso ed o’s Se nt en ci ng Gui de li ne s ca lc ul at io ns an d h ow h is pl ea ag reem en t wo ul d a ffec t h is sen te nc e. The g ov ern m en t o bjec te d t o a ny cro ss -ex am in at io n c on cern in g t he let te rs . The di stric t co urt ru le d t ha t Ns oe do ’s let te rs were i na dm is si bl e h ears ay . The co urt p oi nt edou t tha t the let te rs co ul d n otco m e in as p rio r in co ns is te nt st at em en ts be cau se th ey

were co ns is te ntwith Ns oe do ’s tes ti m on y on cro ss -ex am in at io n tha t Ori zuha d n o kno wled ge of Ns oe do ’s dru g a ct iv it ie s. Th e di st ric t co urt fu rth er o bs erv edth atth e d efen se co ul d n otin tro du ce t he let te rs as pr io r co ns is te ntst at em en ts un le ss th e g ov ern m en t wer e to im pe ach th e rel ev an t po rti on s o f Nso ed o’s t es ti m on y . Defen se co un se l o bjec te d t ha t t he ex cl us io n o f an y cro ss -ex am in at io n c on cern in g t he let te rs vi ol at edOriz u’s Si xth Am en dm en t rig htto co nf

ro nt at io n a ndhi s Fi fth Am en dm en t ri gh t t o due pro ces s. Offi cer Tre vo r Pri m o o f th e Ro swe ll , Geor gi a, Po li ce Dep art m en t t es ti fie d th athe in te rv ie wedOriz u fo ll owi ng hi s arres t. Ori zuackno wled ge d t ha t h e h ad pr ov id edcu rren cy

ex ch an ge servi ces forin di vi du al s wh o wan te d t o s en d m on ey to 4Nig eri a. He als o a dm it te d t ha t h e h adco nduc te d v eh ic le tra ns act io ns with

Nso ed o. When Offic er Pri m o a sk edab ou t Ns oe do ’s in vo lv em en t wi th dru gs , Oriz u re sp on de d t ha t Ns oe do “ was a co us in , fam il y , andth athe co ul d n ottel l o n fam il y .” Oriz u e xp la in edth athe ha d t ol d Ns oe do th athe ne ed edto st op whathe was do in g. He co nc ed edth athe kn ew whe n s om eo ne was d oi ng so m ethi ng wron g an d wh enth ei r m on ey

was n ot“ st rai gh t.” Ori zuadm it te d t ha t h e n ev er as ke d ab ou t Ns oe do ’s act iv it ie s b ecau se th atwou ldha ve m ad e h im in vo lv ed . The go ve rn m en t al so in tro du cedev id en ce tha t Ori zukn ew th athe was re qu ire d t o rep ort ca sh tra ns act io ns wort h o ve r $1 0,0 00 to th e In te rn al Rev en ue Serv ic e, bu t ha d fa il edto rep ort an y

of h is tra ns act io ns with Ns oe do or Ah an on u. Th e jury co nv ic te d Ori zuof c on sp ira cy to co m m itm on ey

lau nd eri ng . The pre se nt en ce i nv es ti ga ti on rep ort (“ PSI” ) de te rm in edth atOriz u h ada ba se off en se lev el of 2 2 u nd er U.S.S.G. § 2 S1 .1(a )(2 ). The PS I ad de d s ix lev el s un de r § 2 S1 .1(b )(1 ) be cau se Oriz u kne w or b el ie ve d tha t t he lau nd eredfun ds were th e p ro ceed s o f, orwere i nt en de d t o p ro m ot e, a co ntro ll edsubs ta nc e o ffen se . Afte r im po si ng ad di ti on al en ha nc em en ts , th e PSI a rri ve d a t a t ot al off en se lev el of 32 , a cri m in al hi st ory

cat eg ory of I , anda gu id el in e ran ge of 1 21 to 15 1 m on th s’ im pr is on m en t.

5Oriz u o bjec te d t o t he si x- le ve l en hanc em en t u nd er § 2S 1.1 (b )(1 ). He

arg ue d t ha t t he re was in su ffi ci en t ev id en ce t o s ho w th athe kn ew th e laun de red fu nd s t o b e th e p ro ceed s o f drug tra ffi ck in g. He p oi nt edto Nso ed o’s t es ti m on y th atNso ed o h adke pthi s d ru g t raff ic ki ng act iv it ie s a s ecre t. He o bs erv edth atth e am ou ntof m on ey

in vo lv edwas n otso lar ge as t o s ug ge stth atdru gs were in vo lv ed . He ass ert edth atth e fu nd s co ul d h av e b een de riv edfro m ot he r fo rm s o f il le ga l ac ti vi ty, su ch as f

rau d. The di stric t co urt o ve rru le d Ori zu ’s ob jecti on to th e § 2S 1.1 (b )(1 ) en ha nc em en t. The di st ric t co urt o bs erv edth atOriz u “ is anin te ll ig en t m anan d I th in k a ny int el li ge ntpe rs on un de r th es e ci rcu m st an ces wou ldha ve de du cedwhat was go in g o n.” The c ou rt n ot edth atOriz u d eal t m os tl y with s m al l am ou nt s o f cas h an d m on ey

ord ers , whi ch su gg es te d tha t t he fun ds were d eri ve d fr om dru g tra ffi ck in g ra th er tha n fr om a frau d s ch em e. The d is tri ctco urt al so cit edth e

“ co de d n atur e” o f th e co nv ers at io ns be twee n Ori zuan d Ns oe do an d t he factth at Oriz u b ecame pers on al ly inv ol ve d wh enObi ’s veh ic le was s to pp edin Atl an ta . Alt ho ug h i t was po ss ib le th atNso ed o n ev er d ire ct ly tol d Ori zuab ou t t he he ro in , th e co urt o bs erv ed , itwas “ jus t co m m on sen se . . . th athe wou ldhave kn ownth at wha t was go in g o n h ere was dru g d eal in g a ndth atis whatth e p ro ceed s wer e.”

6Afte r th e d is tri ctco urt o ve rru le d Ori zu ’s ob jecti on , itgra nt eda do wnwar d va ria nc e an d s en te nc edOriz u t o aterm of 7 2 m on th s’ im

pr is on m en t. II. Oriz u ra is es two arg um en ts with re sp ectto Nso ed o’s l et te rs . Firs t, h e as se rts th athe sh ou ldha ve be enpe rm it te d t o a skNso ed o wh ethe r he was wi ll in g to ad op t t he let te rs . Becau se Oriz u d idno t ra is e th atarg um en t b el ow, we ar e rev ie win g i t fo r pl ai n e rro r. Se e Uni te d Sta tes v. Ba ker , 43 2 F .3d11 89 , 12 02 (11 th Ci r. 20 05 ) (“ [W] he n apa rty rais es a cl ai m of e vi de nt ia ry

erro r fo r th e fi rs t t im e o n ap pe al , we rev ie w itforpl ai n e rro r on ly.”). Und er the pl ai n e rro r st an da rd , a de fen da ntm

us t es tabl is h (1 ) erro r, (2 ) th atis pl ai n, an d (3 ) th ataffe ct s h is subs ta nt ia l ri gh ts . Id. at 1 20 2- 03 . An erro r affe ct s a d efen dant ’s subs ta nt ia l ri gh ts if t he re i s a r eas on ab le pro babi li ty tha t i t al te redth e o ut co m e o f th e cas e. Uni te d St at es v. Rod

ri gu ez , 39 8 F .3d12 91 , 12 99 (11 th Cir . 20 05 ). If th e d efen da ntcan sa ti sf y th e fi rs t t hr ee p ro ng s o f th e p la in erro r st an da rd , we m ay ex erci se ou r di sc ret io n t o c orrectanerro r th at“ se rio us ly affect s t he fai rn es s i nt eg rit y , or p ub li c rep ut at io n o f jud ic ia l p ro ceed in gs .” Bak er , 43 2 F .3dat 1 20 3 (q uo ta ti onom it te d) . Oriz u’s s eco ndarg um en t i s tha t t he di st ric t co urt’s ru li ng vi ol at edhi s ri gh t t o due pr oc es s b ecau se th e le tt ers were es se nt ia l t o h is de fen se an d wer e acc om pa ni edby ad equa te ass ur an ces of r el iabi li ty. Becaus e Ori zurai se d t ha t ar gu m en t b el ow, we 7are r ev ie win g i t de no vo . Se e Uni te d Sta tes v. Un de rw oo d , 44 6 F .3d13 40 , 13 45

(1 1t h C ir. 2 00 6) (no ti ng th atwe rev ie w qu es ti on s o f co ns ti tu ti on al law de no vo ). Hears ay is anou t-o f-co urt s ta te m en t o ffer edto pro ve th e tr ut h o f th e m at te r as se rte d. Fe d.R .Evi d. 8 01 (c). A pr io r co ns is te ntst at em en t b y a wit ne ss is no t co ns id eredto be he ars ay

if i t “ is off

eredto reb utanex pr es s o r im pl ie d c ha rg e ag ai ns t t he de cl aran t o f rec en t fabr ic at io n o r im pr op er i nf

lu en ce o r m ot iv e.” Fed .R.Evi d. 8 01 (d )(1 ). In ad di ti on , th e Adv is ory Co m m it te e n ot es to Ru le 80 1 ex pl ai n t ha t a wi tn es s’s o ut -o f-co urt s ta te m en t i s n othe ars ay if t he witne ss ad op ts th e st at em en t dur in g h is tes ti m on y . Se e Fed .R.Evi d. 8 01 Adv is ory Co m m it te e Not es , Not e to Subd iv is io n (d ) (“ If the witne ss adm it s o n t he st an d t ha t h e m ad e th e st at em en t an d t ha t i t was tru e, he ad op ts th e st at em en t an d the re i s n o h ears ay pr ob le m .”). The Supr em e Co urt h as expl ai ne d t ha t ev id en ti ary ru li ng s ca n v io la te du e pr oc es s i f th ey

ha ve th e eff

ectof d ep riv in g t he de fen da ntof afai r tr ia l. Ch amb er s v. Mis siss ip

pi , 41 0 U.S. 2 84 , 30 2- 03 , 93 S.Ct . 10 38 , 10 49 , 35 L.Ed.2d29 7 (1 97 3) . In Ch amb er

s , a de fen da ntwho was c ha rg edwith m ur de r so ug htto pro ve th at an ot he r in di vi du al , McDo na ld , hadco nf es se d t o the m

ur de r. Id. at 2 87 -9 1; 93 S.Ct . at 1 04 1- 44 . The tria l co urt, h owe ve r, ex cl ud edbo th McDo na ld ’s writ te n co nf es si on an d aser ie s o f wit ne ss es to who m McDo na ldha d c on fes se d. Id. at 829 1- 94 , 93 S.Ct . at 1 04 4- 45 . The Supr em e Co urt co nc lu de d t ha t the cu m ul at iv e effe ctof t ho se ev id en ti ary ru li ng s v io la te d C ha m be rs ’ rig htto du e p ro ces s. Id. at 30 2- 03 , 93 S.Ct . at 1 04 9. Th e Co urt o bs erv edth atdu e p ro ces s re qu ire s t ha t a de fen da ntbe gi ve n “ a fai r op po rtu ni ty to d efen d a ga in stth e St at e’s acc us at io ns ” by cros s- ex am in in g a dv ers e witne ss es an d b y cal li ng witne ss es on hi s o wn b eh al f. Id. at 2 94 , 93 S.Ct . at 1 04 5. Be cau se th e tr ia l co urt h adpre ve nt edCh am be rs fro m pr es en ti ng ev id en ce t ha t was bo th rel iabl e an d c rit ic al to hi s d efen se , th e Supr em e Co urt d et erm in edth atCh am be rs was e nt it le d t o ane w tri al . Id. at 3 02 -0 3, 9 3 S.Ct . at 1 04 9. Inth is cas e, Oriz u n ev er as ke d t o s ho w th e le tt ers to Nso ed o t o s ee i f Nso ed o was wil li ng to ad op t t he m . There fo re, the di st ric t co urt d idno t p la in ly err by no t g iv in g h im

anop po rtu ni ty to d o s o. Ev enif Ori zuwere ab le to sat is fy th e fir sttwo pro ng s o f pl ai n e rro r rev ie w, he ca nn otsh ow tha t t he ex cl us io n o f th e le tt ers vi ol at edhi s s ub st an ti al rig ht s. In th e le tt ers , Nso ed o d es cri be d h is reas on s fo r co op erat in g wi th th e g ov ern m en t, an d h e al so ex pl ai ne d t ha t Ori zuha d n o kn owl ed ge of h is dru g t raff ic ki ng act iv it ie s. Th is was c on si st en t wi th Nso ed o’s te st im on y on cro ss -ex am in at io n. Bec au se th e le tt ers si m pl y co rro bo rat ed Nso ed o’s t es ti m on y , whi ch th e g ov ern m en t d idno t i m pe ach , th ere i s n o reas on ab le pro babi li ty tha t t he ou tc om e o f th e cas e wou ldha ve be endi ffer en t i f 9th e d is tri ctco urt h adall owe d Ori zuto cro ss -ex am in e Nso ed o abo utth e le tt ers .

Se e Rod ri gu ez , 39 8 F .3dat 1 29 9. Th us , Orizuha s n otest ab li sh edpl ai n e rro r wit h res pe ctto hi s ad op ti on arg um en t. Oriz u’s due pro ces s cl ai m fai ls forsi m il ar re as on s. Be cau se th e le tt ers m erel y co rro bo rat edNso ed o’s t ria l t es ti m on y , th ey were n otcru ci al to Oriz u’s de fen se . There fo re, the ex cl us io n o f th e le tt ers di d n otris e to th e le ve l o f a due pr oc es s v io la ti on . Se e Ch amb er s , 41 0 U.S. at30 2- 03 , 93 S.Ct . at 1 04 9. III. W e rev ie w th e d is tri ctco urt’s fa ctua l fi nd in gs at s en te nc in g fo r cl ear e rro r, an d t he di st ric t co urt’s ap pl ic at io n o f th e Sen te nc in g Gu id el in es to th os e fac ts de no vo . Uni te d Sta tes v. Gu pt a , 57 2 F .3d87 8, 8 87 (11 th Cir . 20 09 ). “ A factua l fin di ng is cle arl y

erro ne ou s wh enalt ho ug h the re i s ev id en ce t o s up po rt i t, the rev ie win g c ou rt o n t he en ti re ev id en ce i s l eftwith t he de fin it e an d fi rm co nv ic ti on th ata m is ta ke ha s b een co m m it te d.” Id. (qu ot at io n o m it te d) . Sect io n 2 S1 .1(b )(1 ) of th e Sen te nc in g Gu id el in es pro vi de s t ha t a d efen da nt ’s off en se lev el sh ou ldbe in crea se d b y

si x l ev el s i f th e d efen da ntkn ew orbe li ev edth atth e laun de redfun ds were t he pro ceed s o f, orwere i nt en de d t o p ro m ot e, a dru g t raff ic ki ng off en se . U.S.S.G. § 2 S1 .1(b )(1 ).

10Inth is cas e, th e d is tri ctco urt d idno t cl earl y err b y fin di ng th atOriz u kne w th atth e laun de redfun ds were the pro ceed s o f drug tra ffi ck in g. Ori zuen ga ge d i n a se rie s o f se cret iv e d eal s i nv ol vi ng cas h a ndnu m ero us m on ey ord ers . As th e di st ric t co urt o bs erv ed , curren cy -b as edtra ns act io ns are m or e su gg es ti ve of d ru g tra ffi ck in g t han o f ot he r fo rm s o f il le ga l ac ti vi ty suc h a s fr au d. Ori zu ’s kn owl ed ge al so can be in ferr edfro m hi s re la ti on sh ip with Ns oe do . The two m enwere cl os e fri en ds , andNso ed o h adbe enin vo lv edin he ro in tra ffi ck in g fo r m an y y ears . Even if Ns oe do ne ve r ex pl ic it ly tol d Ori zuth athe was i nv ol ve d wi th dru gs , Orizu ’s st at em en ts to th e p ol ic e su gg es t t ha t h e h adso m e kno wled ge of Ns oe do ’s act iv it ie s. Whenth e p ol ic e as ke d Ori zuab ou t Ns oe do ’s in vo lv em en t i n dru gs , Oriz u re sp on de d t ha t Ns oe do was fa m il y an d t ha t h e co ul d n ottel l o n fa m il y . Oriz u a ls o a ckno wled ge d t ha t h e kne w when so m eo ne was d oi ng so m ethi ng wro ng an d wh enth ei r m on ey was n ot“ st rai gh t.” He ad m it te d t ha t h e n ev er as ke d Nso ed o abo utth e so ur ce o f th e m on ey be cau se th atwou ldha ve m ad e h im in vo lv ed . W e co nc lu de th atth e d is tri ctco urt p ro pe rly app li edth e si x- le ve l en ha nc em en t u nd er U.S.S.G. § 2 S1 .1(b )(1 ). Acco rd in gl y , aft er re vi ew of th e rec or d a ndth e p art ie s’ bri efs , we affi rm Oriz u’s co nv ic ti on an d s en te nc e. AFFIRMED. 11