FIL ED U.S. COURT OF APPEAL S EL EVENTHCI RCUI T NOV 14, 2008 THOMAS K. KAH

N CL ERK [DO NOT PUBLISH] IN THE UN ITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELE VENTH CIRCUIT

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ No. 0 5- 16 48 8

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ D. C. Dock etNo. 0 4- 20 48 7- CR-M GC UNITED STAT ES OF AMERIC A, Pl ai nt iff -Ap pe ll ee, ve rs us ANTHONYCOLLINS, a.k .a. Ant m an , GARY K. W ILSON, a.k .a. G, CHARLES W OOTEN, a.k .a. W oo , Defen da nt s- App el lant s,

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ App eal s fr om

th e Uni te d S ta te s Di st ric t Co urt fo r th e So uthe rnDis tri ctof F lo rid a

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ (No ve m ber 1 4, 2 00 8) Befo re TJ OFLAT andBLACK, Cir cu itJu dg es , andEVANS, Dis tri ctJu dg e. *

Honora ble Orinda Evans, District Court J udg e for the Norther n District of Georg ia, sitti ng * by designation.EVANS, Dist ric t J ud ge :

Ant ho ny Col li ns , Gary

K. W il so n a ndCh arl es W oo te n app eal th ei r co nv ic ti on s i n the So ut he rnDis tri ctof F lo rid a o n v ari ou s co un ts of afiv e-co un t
supe rs ed in g i nd ic tm en t i nv ol vi ng dru g- rel at edch arg es an d ach arg e o f co ns pi racy to co m m itrob be ry

an d e xt orti on invi ol at io n o f th e Hob bs Act, 1 8 U.S.C. § 19 51 (a). 1 W oo te n a ndW il so n c ha ll en ge sev eral pre tri al rul in gs by the di st ric t co urt. Co ll in s ra is eda su ffi ci en cy of t he ev id en ce cl ai m . W oo te n a ls o app eal s h is
se nt en ces . For t he reas on s tha t fo ll ow, we af firm th e d is tri ctco urt's rul in gs into to . On ap pe al W il so n c ha ll en ge s the di st ric t co urt's de ni al of h is m ot io n t o di sm is s the supe rs ed in g i nd ic tm en t. Wils onarg ue s tha t the Gov ern m en t ac te d i n ba d fa ith i n d is m is si ng th e o rig in al in di ctm en t i n t he face of h is pe nd in g m ot io n t o di sm is s i t. We revi ew th e d is tri ctco urt's de ni al for ab us e o f di sc ret io n. Un it ed
All three appellants wer e indicted for conspiring to possess with the intent to distribute five 1 k i l o gra m s or more of coca ine and 50 grams or more of coca ine base from about J anuar y 1994 to about October 2003, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 846 (Count I ); conspiring to obstruct commerc e by ro b b ery (of money and coca ine) and extorti on from on or about October 17, 2003, through o n o r about Octobe r 19, 2003, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1951(a) (Count I I ); and attempting t o possess with intent to distribute five kil ograms or more of coca ine in connec tion with the offense charg ed in Count I I , in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 846 and 18 U.S.C. § 2 (Count I I I ). Wooten was also indicted on two additional counts: Count IV charg ed Wooten with car rying a firea

rm during and in relation to a crime of violence and a dru g t raf ficking crime, as set forth in Counts I -I I I , in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 924(c) (1)( A)(i) ; Co u n t V c h a rg e d Wooten with possessing a firea rm afte r previously having been c onvicted of a felony , in violation of 18 U .S.C. § 922(g) (1). Collins was ac quitted on Count Ibut was found guilty on Counts I I and I I I
. Wil son was convic ted of Counts I , I Iand I I I . Wooten was c onvicted on all five counts. 2St at es v. J or dan, 3 16 F.3d12 15 , 12 48 -4 9 (1 1t h C ir. 2 00 3) . In as se ss in g wh ethe r

th e Gov ern m en t ac te d i n b adfai th , th e Co urt l oo ks to th e "the pro pr ie ty or im pr op rie ty of th e Gov ern m en t's effo rts to termin at e th e p ro se cu ti on–the go od fai th or l ackof g oo d fa ith o f th e Gov ern m en t i n m ov in g t o d is m is s." Uni te d S ta te s v. Sa li na s, 6 93 F.2d34 8, 3 51 (5t h C ir. 1 98 3) . There is , ho wev er, a p res um pt io n th atth e Gov ern m en t ac te d i n g oo d fa ith. Id . at 3 52 . W il so n h as off eredno ev id en ce t o re bu t thi s p res um pt io n a ndha s ce rta in ly fail edto de m on st rat e th atth e di st ric t co urt ab us edit s d is cret io n. Th e cas es W il so n c it es are fa ctua ll y di st in gu is habl e. InSal in as th e g ov ern m en t d is m is se d t he cas e aft er the jury was swo rn ; the go ve rn m en t was di ss at is fie d wi th th e jury. InUni te d S ta te s v . Derr, 72 6 F .2d61 7 (1 0th C ir. 1 98 4) , th e p ro se cu to r di sm is se d t he in di ctm en t wi th ou t pr ejud ic e o n the da y

of t ria l, ci ti ng di ss at is fact io n wi thth e st at e o f hi s ca se . Here, th e d is m is sa l o ccu rredm on th s b efo re the tri al . Accor di ng ly, we rejectW il so n's arg um en t an d a ffi rm

th e d is tri ctco urt's de ni al of h is m ot io n t o d is m is s. W il so n a ndW oo te n c on te ndth atth e Gov ern m en t v io la te d 1 8 U.S.C. § 25 17 (5 ) by dis cl os in g t o the gra ndjury in te rcep te d c omm un ic at io ns rel at in g t o the Octo be r 18 , 20 03 , ki dn ap in g tha t fo rm edth e b as is of t he Hob bs Act ch arg e. The Gov ern m en t d idno t o bt ai n the di st ric t co urt's pe rm is si on be fo re m ak in g t he di sc lo su re. Ove r th e o bjec ti on s o f se ve ral de fen da nt s, the di st ric t co urt ad op te d 3th e m ag is tra te jud ge ’s reco m m en da ti on th atco -d efen da ntGreen 's m ot io n t o di sm is s s ho ul d b e d en ie d. We revi ew fo r ab us e o f di sc ret io n t he di st ric t co urt's refu sa l t o d is mis s the supe rs ed in g i nd ic tm en t o n t he ba si s o f anall eg edvi ol at io n of th is st atut e an d a ffi rm . Jo rd an , 31 6 F .3dat 1 24 8- 49 . To th e ex te ntan y vi ol at io n o ccu rred , itwas s ub se qu en tl y curedwhen th e Gov ern m en t d is m is se d the
or ig in al in di ctm en t, o bt ai ne d the requi redauth or iz at io n a ndsubs eque nt ly pr es en te d the in te rcep te d c omm un ic at io ns to a ne w gra ndjury. The d is tri ctco urt di d n otab us e it s d is cret io n i n fi nd in g t ha t Wils on an d Woo te n s uf fere d n o pr ejud ic e. Nex t, Wils onan d Woo te n a rg ue th atth e d is tri ctco urt erredby refus in g t o supp res s ev id en ce o bt ai ne d thr ou gh th e wir et ap of Wil so n's tel ep ho ne ("Wils on wire tap" ). They argu e th atth e Gov ern m en t fa il edto de m on st rat e th e n eces si ty of th e Wils on wire tap a s re qu ire d u nd er 1 8 U.S.C. § 25 18 (1 )(c) . This st atut e requi res th atwire tap app li cat io ns in cl ud e a "f ul l an d c om

pl et e st at em en t as to whet he r or no t o th er i nv es ti ga ti ve pro cedur es ha ve be entri edan d fa il edor wh y th ey reas on ab ly app ear t o b e unl ik el y to su ccee d i f tr ie d o r to be to o d an ge ro us . . . ." 18 U.S.C. § 2 51 8( 1) (c). Th e p ur po se of t hi s s ta tu te is to en su re tha t wi ret ap pi ng is
no t re so rte d t o i n s itua ti on s i n wh ic h t rad it io na l i nv es ti ga ti ve tec hn ique s wo ul d

4su ffi ce t o e xp os e th e cri m e. "The affi da vi t n eedno t s ho w a co m pr eh en si ve 2
ex haus ti on of a ll po ss ib le tec hn ique s, b utm us t s im pl y ex pl ai n t he retro act iv e o r pr os pe ct iv e fai lu re o f se ve ral in ve st ig at iv e te ch ni qu es th atreas on ab ly sug ge st th em se lv es ." Uni te d S ta te s v . Van Ho rn , 78 9 F .2d14 92 , 14 96 (11 thCir . 19 86 ). Whe th er the Gov ern m en t s at is fie d 1 8 U.S.C. § 25 18 (1 )(c) is rev ie wedde no vo . The Co urt re vi ews th e d en ia l o f a m ot io n t o s up pr es s as a m ix edqu es ti on of l aw an d fa ct , with the rul in gs of l aw rev ie wedde no vo an d t he fin di ng s o f fac t
rev ie wedforcle ar erro r, inth e li gh t m os t fa vo rab le to th e p rev ai li ng pa rty. Uni te d St at es v. Bo y ce, 3 51 F.3d11 02 , 11 05 (11 th Cir . 20 03 ). W il so n a ndW oo te n's pri m ary arg um en t i s tha t the fai lu re o f tr ad it io na l in ve st ig at iv e te ch ni qu es whi chserve d t o d em on strat e th e n eces si ty of th e wir et ap of co -d efen da ntRo ss co ul d n otbe us edto de m on st rat e th e n eces si ty of th e subs eque ntW il so n wi ret ap . W il so n a ndW oo te n m ai nt ai n tha t the Gov ern m en t's ap pl ic at io n fo r th e Wils on wire tap was m is le ad in g b ecau se itreci te d t he fai lu re o f tra di ti on al in ve st ig at iv e te ch ni qu es whi chha d b eenus edearl ie r to jus ti fy th e Ro ss wire tap wi th ou t s pe ci fy in g tha t the y were the same inv es ti ga ti ve effo rts . Fin al ly, th ey all eg e th atth e Gov ern m en t's st at edreas on forth e Wils on wire tap- --t o l earn

Traditional investigative techniques include: phy sical surveillance , cooper ating witnesses, 2 informants, controlled dr

ugpurcha ses, pen r eg isters and tra p and tra ce de vices. 5th e id en ti ty of a co cai ne supp li er re ferr edto on ly as "G" ---was als o m is le ad in g

be cau se th e Gov ern m en t al le ge dl y alr eady kn ew "G" to be Gary

W il so n. Th e Co urt fi nd s the se arg um en ts unpe rs ua si ve . The i nv es ti ga ti on of " G" aro se fro m th e in ve st ig at io ns of R os s an d o th er as so ci at es . In ap pl y in g fo r th e Wils on wire tap, the Gov ern m en t was en ti tl edto co ns id er the les so ns lea rn edfro m it s earl ie r in ve st ig at io n o f "G" 's a ss oc ia te s. Mo reo ve r, th is Co urt i s n otpe rs ua de d th atth e Gov ern m en t h adco nf irmed th e id en ti ty of "G" pri or to see ki ng th e Wils on wire tap. Fi na ll y , th e ap pl ic at io n fo r th e Wils on wire tap was no t m is le ad in g be cau se th e fai lu re o f tr ad it io na l i nv es ti ga ti ve tec hn ique s p rio r to th e ap pl ic at io n fo r th e Ro ss wire tap was rel ev an t t o t he ap pl ic at io n fo r th e Wils on wire tap. We
acco rd in gl y

affi rm th e d is tri ctco urt's rul in g. W oo te n a ls o a ll eg es th e ex is te nc e o f a m at eri al va ria nc e b etweenth e in di ctm en t an d the ev id en ce p res en te d at tria l. The na tu re o f rev ie w of thi s cl ai m is si m il ar t o asu ffi ci en cy of t he ev id en ce ch al le ng e an d i s re vi ewedde no vo . Uni te d S tate s v . Gil , 20 4 F .3d13 47 , 13 49 (11 th Cir . 20 00 ). A vari an ce b etween th e o ffen se ch arg edan d the ev id en ce o ffer edat t ria l d oe s n otrequi re re ve rs al
un le ss th e v ari an ce i s m at eri al an d s ub st an ti al ly prejud ic edth e d efen da nt . Uni te d St at es v. Ma tthe ws, 1 68 F.3d12 34 , 12 44 (11 th Cir . 19 99 ). "Inde te rm in in g whe th er an y

va rianc e was m at eri al , we vi ew th e ev id en ce i n ali gh t m os t favo rab le 6to th e g ov ern m en t an d i nqui re wh ethe r a rea so nabl e jury cou ldha ve de te rm in ed

be y on d areas on ab le do ub t tha t a s in gl e co ns pi racy exi st ed ." Id . Here, th e ev id en ce attri al was s uf

fic ie ntto est ab li sh th at"Wils on an d [c o- de fen da nt ] Green were p artne rs an d the hub o f a co cai ne -d is tri bu ti on org an iz at io n t ha t o pe rat ed fro m 19 94 to Octo be r 20 03 inLib erty Cit y , Flo rid a," an d t ha t " W oo te n jo in edth e co ns pi racy in abo ut19 96
. . . ." (Go v. re sp . at 5 1) . Mor eo ve r, th e ev id en ce attri al al so sh owe d tha t " [a]ltho ug h the org an iz at io n o pe rat edon two fro nt s, Wils on an d Green m ai nt ai ne d d ire ctco nt act s wi th each othe r, an d Gre enco nt in ue d t o m ai nt ai n a p res en ce" inMi am i. Id . at 5 1- 52 . Accor di ng ly, we affi rm . Nex t, Co ll in s m ai nt ai ns th atth e ev id en ce was in su ffi ci en t t o s us ta in hi s co nv ic ti on s. Ch al le ng es to th e su ffi ci en cy of t he ev id en ce ar e rev ie wedde no vo . Uni te d S tate s v . McCr imm on , 36 2 F .3d72 5, 7 28 (11 thCir . 20 08 ) (i nt ern al ci ta ti on s o m itte d) . The ev id en ce i s v ie wedina li gh t m os t fa vo rab le to th e Gov ern m en t t o d et erm in e whe th er a ra ti on al jury co ul d h av e fo un d t he de fen da nt gu il ty bey on d areas on ab le do ub t. Id
. Co ll in s was acqui tt edof C ou ntI, ch arg in g abro adco ns pi racy from Jan ua ry 19 94 th ro ug h Oct ob er 2 00 3 t o p os se ss with t he in te ntto di st rib ut e co cai ne an d
co cai ne ba se . He was co nv ic te d o f Co un t II , cha rg in g aHob bs Act v io la ti on rel at in g t o the Octo be r 18 , 20 03 ki dn ap in g. Ina sp eci al ve rd ic t fo rm th e jury 7ex pr es sl y

fou ndth atth e p ur

po se of t he ki dn ap in g was to ob ta inm on ey bu t n ot
co cai ne . Col li ns was a ls o c on vi ct edof C ountIII, wh ic h c ha rg edhi m with at te m pt in g t o p os se ss with i nt en t t o d is tri bu te fiv e k il og ram s o r m or e o f co cai ne on Octo be r 18 , 20 08
. On ap pe al , Col li ns arg ue s tha t h is co nv ic ti on on Co un t II requi redpro of th at th e p ro ceed s wer e rel at edto co cai ne an d t ha t h e kne w of the rel at io ns hi p. Co ll in s co nt en ds th atab se ntsu cha sh owi ng , th ere c an no t ex is t the requi si te effe cton in te rs ta te co m

m erce . Col li ns ad ds th atth e al le ge d abs en ce o f pr oo f th athe kn ew th e m on ey

was re la te d t o c oc ai ne is bo ls te redby the jury's exp res s fi nd in g t ha t the Hob bs Act v io la ti on was t o o bt ai n m on ey bu t n otco cai ne . In ad di ti on , Col li ns ch al le ng es hi s co nv ic ti on on Co un t II I, whi chch arg edhi m with a tt em

ptto po ss es s co cai ne with the in te ntto di st rib ut e o n Oct ob er 1 8, 2 00 3, the da te of t he ki dn ap in g fo rm in g the ba si s o f th e Hob bs Act v io lati on . Col li ns arg ue s tha t i nc on si st en cy be twee n the jury's sp eci al ve rd ic t o n C ou ntII an d t he ve rd ic t o n C ou ntIII re qu ire s di sm is sa l o f Co un t II I. Bo th arg um en ts fai l. The Gov ern m en t p res en te d s uf fic ie ntev id en ce t o al lo w a reas on ab le jury to de te rm in e th atth e m on ey was re late d t o c oc ai ne . The Gov ern m en t d idno t h av e to pro ve th atCo ll in s kne w th e m on ey was re la te d t o co cai ne . Mor e to th e p oi nt , th ere was en ou gh ev id en ce t o s at is fy th e in te rs ta te 8co m

po ne ntof t he Hob bs Act. Th is Co urt h as rece nt ly hel d t ha t ev ena po te nt ia l im pa cton in te rs ta te co m

m erce is su ffi ci en t t o s up po rt aHob bs Act v io la ti on . See Uni te d S tate s v . Tay lo r, 48 0 F .3d10 25 , 10 27 (11 th Cir . 20 07 ) (i nt ern al qu ot at io ns an d c it at io ns om it te d) . Mor eo ve r, Co ll in s' " in co ns is te nc y ch al le ng e"- th atis , th at th e jury's sp eci al fin di ng on Co un t II pre ve nt edhi s co nv ic ti on on Co un t II I–m us t al so be reject edas t he Uni te d S ta te s Supr em e Co urt fo recl os edsu chatt ack s o n in co ns is te ntve rd ic ts inUni te d S ta te s v . Powe ll , 46 9 U.S. 5 7 (1 98 4)
. Fi na ll y , W oo te n c ha ll en ge s h is sen te nc in g b y arg ui ng th atth e fac tu al fin di ng s m ad e b y

th e d is tri ctco urt ju dg e rat he r th anby a j ury vi ol at edhi s Fi fth
an d S ix th Am en dm en t ri gh ts . This Co urt re vi ews co ns ti tu ti on al ch al le ng es de
no vo an d wi ll rev ers e h is sen te nc es on ly upo n afin di ng of h arm fu l erro r. Uni te d St at es v. Po pe , 46 1 F .3d13 31 , 13 33 -3 4 (1 1t h C ir. 2 00 6) . The d is tri ctco urt m ad e a num be r of factua l fi nd in gs . It fo un d Woo te n re sp on si bl e fo r th irt y -s ev en ki lo gr am s o f co cai ne . Seco nd , W oo te n's off en se lev el was e nh an cedtwo lev el s o n th e d is tri ctco urt ju dg e's fin di ng th atth e v ic ti m was re st rai ne d dur in g t he
co m m is si on of the Hob bs Act v io la ti on . Thir d, the di st ric t co urt fo un d t ha t W oo te n h ada pr io r fel on y dru g c on vi ct io n. Th es e d et erm in at io ns were fa ct or ed in to W oo te n’s s en te nc in g g ui de li ne s. Ho wev er, the re was no requi rem en t tha t th es e d et erm in at io ns be m ad e b y a jury rath er tha n b y

th e Co urt. Un li ke th e 9un us ua l s itua ti on pre se nt edinApp ren di v. New J ers ey , 53 0 U.S. 4 66 (20 00 ), he re

W oo te n’s s en te nc es on each of t he fiv e co un ts were wel l wi th in th e st atut ory m ax im um s. Thus , th ere was no co ns ti tu ti on al vi ol at io n. We affi rm W oo te n's
se nt en ces . Inco nc lu si on , aft er o ral arg um en t an d c aref ul rev ie w, we rejectall ch al le ng es by Col li ns , W il so n a ndW oo te n. Th ei r co nv ic ti on s ar e AFFIR MED. W oo te n's sen te nc es are AFF IRM ED.

10