FILED U.S. COURT OF AP P E A LS E LE V EN T HC IRC U IT SEPT 3, 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. 08- 10709 N on -A rgum entC al endar

________________________ D . C. D o c k e tN o . 0 7 - 0 0 0 4 8
- CR- 5 - RS 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 T I M O T H Y L A M O N D S , D e f e n d a n t- A p p e lla n t.

________________________ A pp ea l fr om the U ni t ed S t at es D i stri ctC ou rt f orthe N or the rn D i s tr i c tof F l or i da

_________________________ ( S e p t e m b e r 3, 2008) B efo re T JO F L A T , B L A C K an d M A R C U S , C i rcu i tJu d g es. P E R C U R I A M: T i m othy L a m onds appe a l s f r om hi s c onvi c t i ons an d 300- m onth s e nt e nc e of im p r is o n m e n t f

o rc o n s p ir a c y to d is tr ib u te o rp o s s e s s w ith in te n t to d is tr ib u te2

coca i ne and co ca in e b as e, i n v i ol at i on of 21 U . S . C . §§ 84 1(a) (1), (b)( 1)(A )( i i i ), ( b ) ( 1 ) ( C ) , a n d 8 4 6 , p o s s e s s io n w ith in te n t to d i s t r ib u te c o c a in e a n d c o c a in e b a s e , in vi o l a t i o n o f

2 1 U . S. C. § 8 4 1 ( a ) ( 1 ) , ( b ) ( 1 ) ( B) ( i i i ) , ( b ) ( 1 ) ( C) a n d 1 8 U . S. C. § 2 , a nd p o s s e s s i o n o f

a f i r e a r m d u r i n g a d ru g tr a f f i c k i n g c r i me , i n v i o l a t i on of 1 8 U . S. C. § 9 24 (c )( 1) and (2). O n app ea l , L am on ds ar gu es that : (1) t he di stri ctcourtabused i t s di s c r e t i on i n de ny i ng hi s m o t i o n f orm i s tr i a l dur i ng hi s tr i a l , a f t e rthe go vernm enti m prop er l y c om m ent ed on hi s post -a rr es tsi l ence ; and (2) h is t ot al
s e n te n c e w a s u n r e a s o n ab le . A f te rc a r e f u l r e v ie w , w e a f

f ir m . W e revi e w f

orabus e of

di s c r e t i on a di s tr i c tc our t ’ s de ni a l of a m ot i on f

or m i stri al base d on a com m ent on a defe nd ant ’ s ri gh t t o r em ai n s i l ent . U n it ed S t at es v. D od d, 11 1 F . 3d 86 7, 86 9 (11 th C i r. 19 9 7 ). W e re v i ew the se nt ence a di stri ct courti m po se s f

or “ re as on abl enes s, ” w hi ch “ m erely asks w hether the tri al court abused i t s di sc re t i on . ” U ni t ed S t at es v. P ug h, 51 5 F . 3d 11 79 , 11 89 (11th C i r. 2 0 0 8 ) ( q u o tin g R ita v . U n ite d S ta te s , 1 2 7 S . C t. 2 4 5 6 , 2 4 6 5 ( 2 0 0 7 ) ) . F i rs t , w e f

i nd no m er i tt o L am on ds’ s a rgum entthatthe di stri ctcourtabused it s d iscr etio n in d en yin g h is m o ti o n f o r m istrial aftertw o o f th e g o v er n m en t’ s que s t i ons dur i ng di r e c te xa m i na t i on a nd i t s s t a t e m e nt s dur i n g cl o s i ng a r gum e nt a m ount e d t o a c om m e nton hi s c ons t i tu t i ona l r i ghtt o r e m a i n s i l e nt . “ A de f e nda nt is e n title d to a g r a n t o f m is tr ia l o n ly u p o n a s h o w in g o f s u b s ta n tia l p r e

ju d ic e .”3

U ni t ed S t at es v. C hast ai n, 19 8 F . 3d 13 38 , 13 52 (11th C i r. 19 99 ). “ Im prop er st at em en t s pr e

j udi c e the de f

e nda ntw he n the r e i s a r e a s onabl e pr obabi l i ty tha t , but f orth e p ros e c ut or ’ s of

f e ndi ng r e m a r ks , the out c om e of the pr oc e e di ng w oul d ha ve be e n di f f e r e nt . A r e a s onabl e pr obabi l i ty i s a pr obabi l i ty s uf f i ci en t t o unde r m i ne c o n f id e n c e in th e o u tc o m e .” U n ite d S ta te s v . B a k e r , 4 3 2 F .3 d 1 1 8 9 , 1 2 5 2 ( 1 1 th C ir . 2 0 0 5 ) ( a lte r a tio n s a n d e llip s e s o m itte d ) . A prosec ut or’ s “ use for i m peac hm ent pu rposes of [a defe nd ant ’ s] si l en ce , a t th e t i m e o f arrest and aft er rec e i v i n g M i ran d a w arn i n g s, v i o l at e[s] th e D u e P ro cess C l ause of the F ou rt ee n th A m endm ent . ” D oyl e v. O hi o, 42 6 U . S . 61 0, 61 9 (19 76 ). A D oy l e vi ol a t i on oc c ur s w he n “ the s t a t e m e ntw a s m a ni f e st l y i n t e nde d orw a s of
s uc h c ha r a c t e rtha ta j ury w oul d na tur a l l y a nd ne c e s s ari l y t ak e i tt o be a c om m e nt on the f a i l ur e of a n a c c us e d t o t e s t i f

y . ” C ha s t a i n, 198 F . 3 d a t1351. “ T he que s t i on is n o t w h e th e rth e ju ry p o s s i b ly o re v e n p r o b ab ly w o u ld v ie w th e r e m a r k in th is
m a nne r , butw he the rthe j ury ne c e s s a r i l y w oul d ha ve do n e so . ” U n i t e d S t a t e s v. K no w l es , 66 F . 3d 11 46 , 11 63 (11th C i r. 19 95 ) ( qu ot at i on an d em ph as i s om i tt ed). T he r e m a r k m us tb e co n s i de r e d i n c ont e xtt o de t e r m i ne the pr os e c ut or ’ s m ot i ve a nd the i m pa c tupon the j ury . I d. I n D odd, 111 F . 3 d at869, w e a f f i r m e d the di s tr i c tc our t ’ s de n i al o f the de f e nda nt ’ s m ot i on f

orm i s tr i a l be c a us e the p r o s e c u to r ’s c o m m e n ts ab o u t w h a t th e d e f e n d a n t d id n o t s a y c o u ld r e a s o n ab ly4

h av e b ee n in terp re ted as re fe rr in g to an in co n sisten cy b etw ee n th e d e f en d an t’ s th e o ry o f d e f e n s e a n d h is p o s t- a rr e s t s ta te m e n t. I d . a t 8 6 9
- 7 0 . A t L am o n ds’ s tri al , the prosecut or ar gu ed i n h i s openi ng st at em entthat L a m onds ha d m a de s om e c om m e nt s w he n he w a s g et t i ng hi s f i nge rpr i nt s t a ke n, i nc l udi ng the a dm i s s i on, “ i n e f f ect , ” t h at“ I ’ m s c r e w e d, I kne w be tt e rtha n t o be do i ng thi s s tuff. ” L am on ds’ s c ou nsel , i n h i s o p en ing st at em ent , i n turn argued t hat these com m ent s c ou l d b e i nt erpret ed as m ea ni ng thatL am on ds had m ade a “ bad
m i s t a ke ” i n ge tt i ng i nvol v ed w i th tw o drug de a l e r s , e ve n though he di d notha ve anythi ng t o do w i th the drug s. D rug E nforcement A dm i ni stra t i on A g en t M ichael C l ea r s ub se qu ent l y t es t i fi ed atthe tri al to th e co m m ent s thatL am on ds had m ade. A ft erthi s t es t i m on y, the go ve rn m entas ked A gentC l ea r, “ N ow , di d h e s ay a ny thi ng aboutbe i ng s orry h e c a m e dow n t o P a na m a C i ty on s pr i ng br e a k or
sum m erbrea k? ” C l ea r r epl i ed, “ N o, si r. ” T h e gov ernm entas ked, “ D i d h e s ay a n y th i n g ab o u t n o t b e i n g i n v o l v e d i n wh a t wa s g o i n g o n i n t he mot e l r o o m? ” C l e a rr e pl i e d, “ N o. ” T h e p ro secut orr e i t e r a t e d the s ubs t a nc e of the s e que s t i ons a nd
a n s w e r s in th e c lo s in g a r g u m e n t. I n th e c o n te x t o f

L a m o n d s ’s tr ia l, th e p r o s e c u to r ’s c o m m e n ts a r e r e a s o n ab ly i n t erp ret ed t o b e i n refer e n c e t o an i n co n si st en cy b etw een L am o n d s’ s p o st -arrest st at em ent s a nd hi s theory of defe nse. S ee D od d, 11 1 F .3 d at 8 6 9 -7 0. T here fore ,The § 3553(a) factors include: ( 1) the nature a nd circumstances o f th e off ense a nd the 1 history an dcharacteristics of the def endant; (2) the nee d for the sentenceimposed to refle ct the seriousness of theoffen s e, t o p ro m o te re spect for the law, a

nd to provide just punishment for the offense; (3) the need f

or the sentence imposed to a fford adequa te deter renc e; (4) theneed to protect the public; (5) the ne ed to provide thedefendant with educational or vocational trainingor medical care; (6) thekinds of sentenc es available; (7) the SentencingGuidelines ran ge; (8 ) the per tinent policy statements of the SentencingCommi ssio n ; (9) the ne ed to avoid unwa nted sentenc ing 5 th e p r o s e c u to r ’s s ta te m e n ts w e r e n o t p r o h ib ite d c o m m e n ts o n L a m o n d s ’s r ig h t to
r e m a i n s i l e nt . M or e ove r , e ve n i f w e w e r e t o c onc l ude tha ta D oy l e vi ol a t i on occurre d, L am on ds has notshow ed any r es ul t i ng subst ant i al prej u d ice, si nce there
wa s c l e a rt e s t i m o n y ab o u tL a m o n d s ’ s i n v o l v e me n ti n th e c o n s p i r a c y f r o m two c oope r a t i ng w i tne s s e s . S e e C ha s t a i n, 198 F . 3d a t1352; B a ke r , 4 3 2 F . 3 d a t1252. A c c or di ngl y , the di s tr i c t co u rt d i d notabus e i t s di s c r e t i on i n de c l i ni ng t o gr a nt L a m o n d s ’s m o tio n f

o rm is tr ia l. W e a l so re

j ec tL am on ds’ s c hal l enge t o the re as o nabl enes s of hi s s ent ence . I n r e vi e w i ng sent e nc e s f orr e a s onabl e ne s s , w e pe r f or m tw o s t e ps . P ugh, 515 F . 3d
a t1190. F i r s t , w e m us t“ ‘ e ns ure t h at t h e di s tr i c tc our tc om m i tt e d no s i gni f i c a nt pr oc e dur a l erro r, s uc h a s f a i l i ng t o c a l c ul a t e ( ori m pr ope r l y c a l c ul a t i ng) the G ui del i nes r ange, tre at i ng the G ui del i nes a s m andat ory, fa i l i ng t o con si der the § 3 5 5 3 ( a ) f

a c to r s , s e le c t i n g a s e n te n c e b a s e d o n c le a r ly e rr o n e o u s f a c ts , o rf a ilin g to a de qua t e l y e xpl a i n the c hos e n s e nt e nc e - - i nc l udi ng a n e xp l an at i on f ora ny de vi a t i o n f

r om the G ui de l i ne s r a nge . ’ ” I d. ( quot i ng G a l l v. U ni t e d S t a t e s , 128 S .C t. 5 8 6 , 5 9 7 ( 2 0 0 7 ) ) . I f w e c o n c lu d e th a t th e d is tr ic t c o u r td id n o t p r o c e d u r a lly 1disparities; and (10) the nee d to provide re stitut ion to victims . 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a). 6 e rr , w e m us tc ons i de rthe “ ‘ s ubs t a nt i ve r e a s on ab l e ne s s of the s e nt e nc e i m pos e d, unde ra n abus e - o f-d i sc r e t i on s t a nda r d, ’ ” ba s e d on the “ ‘ t ot a l i ty of the ci rc um st ance s. ’ ” I d . ( q u o t i ng G al l , 12 8 S . C t . at59 7). “ T he party w ho chal l enges th e s e n te n c e b e a r s th e b u r d e n o f e s tab lis h in g th a t th e s e n te n c e i s u n r e a s o n ab le in the l i ghtof

both th[ e ] r e c or d an d t h e fa c t or s i n s e c t i on 3553( a ) . ” U ni t e d S t a t e s v. T ho m as , 44 6 F . 3d 13 48 , 13 51 (11th C i r. 20 06 ) ( i nt ernal qu ot at i on om i tt ed). A s the r e c or d s how s , the di s tr i ct co u rtc orr e c t l y c a l c ul a t e d the gui de l i ne ra ng es , hear d the ar gu m ent s of the part i es , and sai d thati tconsi dere d the § 3 55 3(a) f a c to r s a n d th e a d v is o ry g u id e lin e r a n g e . T h e d is tr ic t c o u r t a ls o e x p la in e d th a t it
w as vary i ng bel ow the g u id elines ra ng e i n rec og ni t i on of L am on ds’ s l i m i t ed part i ci pat i on i n the offens e a nd the se nt enci ng di sparit y w ith hi s c o-conspi ra t or, w hi l e t aki ng i nt o acc ou ntL am on ds’ s s t atus as a c ar ee r off ender and the st atut ory se nt enci ng go al s of det erre nce a nd prot ec t i on of the pu bl i c. A l tho ug h the di stri ct courtdi d n otdi sc uss e ac h o f the § 3 5 53 (a ) f ac t ors i nd i vi du al l y, “ the di stri ctcourt ne e d onl y a c know l e dge tha ti tc ons i de r e d the § 3 5 5 3 (a) f a c t or s , a nd ne e d not di s c us s e a c h of

th ese f a c t or s i n e i the rthe s e nt e nc i ng he a r i ng ori n the s e nt e nc i ng or de r . ” U ni t e d S t a t e s v . A m ed e o, 487 F . 3d 823, 833 ( 11th C i r . ) , c e r t . de ni e d, 128 S . C t . 671 ( 2007) ( i nt e rnal quot a t i on a nd punc tua t i on om i tt e d) ; U ni t e d S t a t e s v.7

S cott , 42 6 F . 3d 13 2 4 , 1 32 9 (11 th C i r. 20 05 ) ( “ no thi ng i n B oo ker or el se w here
re qu i re s the di stri ct court t o s t at e on the re cord that i t has exp li citl y con si dere d each o f th e § 3 5 5 3 (a ) f a c to r s o r t o d i scu ss each o f th e § 3 5 5 3 (a) factors”). T h u s, L a m o n d s h a s n o t s h o w n th a t th e d is tr ic t c o u r t c o m m itte d a n y p r o c e d u r a l e rr o rin im p o s in g h is s e n te n c e . P u g h , 5 1 5 F .3 d a t 1 1 9 0 . N or has L am on ds show n th athi s s ent ence w as subst ant i vel y unrea sonabl e. A s no t e d ab o v e , th e d i s tr i c t c o u r t c o n s i d e r e d La mo n d s ’ s a r g u me n t s r e g a r d i ng t he
s e nt e nc i ng di s pa r i ty w i th h i s co -co ns pi r a t ora nd hi s l i m i t e d pa r t i c i pa t i on i n the of f e ns e , a nd the n va r i ed dow nw a r d 120 m onths f r om the l ow e nd of

the gui de l i ne r a nge be c a us e of

thos e f a ct o rs. In l i ghtof

the ne e ds f

orde t e rr e nc e a nd pr ot e c t i on of the publ i c c i t e d b y t h e d i str i c tc our ta nd L a m onds ’ s c r i m i na l hi s t ory , L a m onds h a s n o t d e m o n s tr a te d th a t h is b e lo w - g u id e lin e s s e n te n c e w a s u n r e a s o n ab le . T h is is
e s pe c i a l l y true gi ve n tha tr e a s onabl e ne s s r e vi e w i s deferent i a l , a nd the r e i s a “ r a nge of re as on abl e sen t ence s f rom w hi ch the di stri ctcourtm ay choo se . ” U ni t ed S t at es v . T a l l ey, 4 3 1 F . 3 d 7 8 4 , 7 8 8 (1 1 th C i r. 2 0 0 5 ). A cco rd i n g l y, th e d i stri ctco u rtd id
no tabuse i t s di sc re t i on i n i m po si ng L am on ds’ s 300 -m on th sent ence . AF F I RME D.