F ILED U.S. COURT O F APP EALS EL EV EN TH C IRC UIT October 27, 20 06 T HOMA S K. KA HN CLERK [DO NOT PUBLISH] IN THE UN ITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FO R T HE EL EV EN TH CIRC UI T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- 1656 3 Non-A rgum ent Calendar

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ D. C. Dock etNo. 0 4- 00 00 6- CR-T-3 0EAJ UNITED STAT ES OF AMERIC A, Pl ai nt iff -Ap pe ll ee, ve rs us EDDIE LE E W OOTEN, Defen da nt -Ap pe ll an t.

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ Appeal f rom the United State s District Court fo r the Mi ddl e D istri ct

of F lor ida

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ _ (O ct ob er 27, 200 6) Be fo re T JO FL A T , BI RC H and P RY O R, Ci rc uit Jud ge s. PE R CU RIA M: E ddi e L ee W oot enappe al s hi s c onvi ct ion s and s en te nc es f or dr ug and2

fi re ar m of fe nse s. W oot enc ha lle nge s hi s c onvi ct ion s onthr ee gr ound s: p ro s ec u t o ri al m i s co n du ct , i n s u ff i ci en tev i d en ce , a n dtra n s cr i p to m i s s i o n s . We af fi rm W oot en ’ s c onvi ct ion s. B ec au se the dis tr ic t c ourt a ppl ie d th e Se nte nc ing G uid el ine s a s m an da tor

y w ithr es pe ct

to Co unt s O ne thr oughS ix and C ount s E igh t and N ine , w e va cate W oot en ’ s se nte nc es a s to tho se c ount s and r em an d f or re se nte nc ing . I. BACK GROUND O n O ct obe r 1, 200 3, pol ic e inf orm an t A ndr e Mc N ea l a tte m pte d to pur ch as e crac k cocaine fr om

W ooten in a controlled buy conducted bythe Lakeland Police De partm ent. W ooten di d not h ave any cra ck at the tim e, but he sold a . 44 caliber handgu n to McNea l. T he entire conversation betwee n McNe al and W ooten was reco rd ed , and McNea l g av e th e weap on to th e p ol ic e. O n O ct obe r 2, Mc N ea l purc ha se d $4 00 w orth o f cr ac k c oc ai ne f ro m W ooten. T heir conversation was again re corded. McN eal m ade further recorded pur ch as es of

c ra ck f ro m W oot en , on N ove m

be r 13 and D ec em

be r 9, a nd a reco rd edpu rch as e o f cra ckan d a ha nd gu n fr om W oo te n o n J an ua ry

5, 2 00 4. O n January

9, pol ic e ex ec ute d ase ar chw ar rant o n W oot en ’ s tr ai le r an d fo und thr ee handguns, c ra ck c oc ai ne , a nd c ur

re nc y . Ali ce nse plate on the w al l sa id “ G old ie , ” W oot en ’ s ni ckna m e. W oot en , w ho w as pr es en t duri ng the se ar ch ,3

ha d answ er ed

the doo r w ithone handgun inhis hand. H e de nie d ownin g on e of the handguns and thr ewathi rd int o th e y ar d, but

he a dm itt ed

that he ke pt g uns in the tr ai le r fo r pr ote ct ion . W oot ena lso a dm itt ed that the c ra ck

f ound in his r oom b e l o n g e dt o h i m. A f ederal grand jury

indicted W ooten on ten counts: po ssessio n of a fir earm by ac onvi ct ed

f el on, 18 U . S. C. §§ 9 22( g) (1 ), 924 (e ) (C ount s 1, 6, 9) ; di str ibu tio n of five gram s or m ore of cr ack cocaine, 21 U. S. C. § 841 (b)(1)( B) ( Counts 2, 8); dis tr ibu tio n of

c ra ck c oc ai ne , 21 U . S. C. § 84 1( b) (1 )( C) ( Co unt s 3, 4, 5) ; c ar ry ing a firearm during a drug trafficking crim e, 18 U. S. C. § 924 (c)( 1)(A )(1) ( Count 7); an d po sse ssi on o f thr ee f

ir earm s inf

urthe ranc e of

adr ug tra ff ic kin g c ri m e, 18 U.S.C. § 9 24 (c)( 1) (A)(I) , (C)(I ) (Co un t 1 0) . At tria l, the governm ent presented a variety of evidence. T he rec orded co nve rs at ion s w er e play ed f or the j ur y . Mc N ea l t es tif

ie d f or the gov er

nm en t, and on c ro ss- ex am inatio n he a dm itt ed that he e xpe ct ed

f av or ab le se nte nc ing recom m endations from

the governm ent on his own plea to possessio n of a fir earm by a convicted felon. De tective Nic holas Marolda of the Lakeland Police D ep ar tm en t t es tif

ie d th at he ha d kn ow n W oot enf

or te n y ears ; no doc um en ts sugg ested that W ooten liv ed in the trailer; and another person leased and resided in the tr ai le r. Maro lda

a lso a dm itt ed

that he did

not kno wthe ba sis f

or e ac h of the4

paym en ts f

ro m the pol ic e de partm en t t o M cN ea l. Maro lda a dm itt ed that he did not have an e xpe rt

ve ri fy that i t w as W oot en ’ s vo ic e on the r ec or din gs, the ba gs o f cr ac k c oc ai ne and the f

ir earm s w er e not

f ing er pr int ed , c lothin g f

or both m enand wom en wa s recovere d from W ooten’s r oom , and som e of the cr ack cocaine w as fo und in a

w om an ’ s sh oe s. O the r lawe nf or ce m en t of

fi ce rs a nd t ec hni ci an s a lso te sti fi ed f or the gov er

nm en t. D et ec tiv e Sh awn H ohns tr ei te r te sti fi ed that duri ng the r ai d onW oot en ’ s tr ai le r, S hir le y Re ddi ck tol d hi m that the w om en ’ s c lothin g and shoes were her s and she lived th ere. D etective D erek Re ed Gulledge testified that Christoph er E denfield, w ho leased and lived in the trailer, wa s also arrested fo r co ca ine pos se ssi on d

ur ing the r ai d. Inhis c los ing arg um en t, W oot ena rg ue d th at the gov er

nm en t ha d f

ai le d to m ee t i ts b ur de n of

pr ovi ng h is g uil t be y ond a re as ona ble doubt. I n it s r eb utt al , the gove rn m en t st at ed , “ I’ ll m ak e a br ie f state m en t i n r eb utt al of c ouns el ’ s arg um en t, as there is no evidence to rebut the Governm ent’ s evidence.” T he court overruled W oot en ’ s ob

j ec tio n and m oti on t o stri ke a nd i nstru ct ed the j ur y on the bur de n of pr oof . T he gov er

nm en t a lso r ep lay ed

part s of the r ec or din gs, w hic h w er e not ag ai n tr an sc ri be d in to the r ec or d. T he gov er nm en t arg ue d th at

it did not ne ed a voice recognition expert because the te stim ony of McL ean and Marolda proved that i t w as W oot en ’ s vo ic e. D ur ing the j ur y c harg e, the c ourt a ga in i nstru ct ed the5

j ur y that the gov er

nm en t bo re the bur de n of pr oof , W oot enw as not

obl igate d to present evidence, and the jury shoul d not con sider his failure to do so in arr iving at a ve rd ic t. T he j ur

y c onvi ct ed

W oot enon a ll co unt s. T he P SI se t the ba se of

fe nse le ve l a t 26 a nd a dde d an 11 -p oin t e nhanc em en t for W ooten’s career

offender status. Sentencing Guidelines § 4B1.1. The P SI pr ovi de d ac ri m ina l hi sto ry c at eg or y of V I, w hic h r es ult ed

in a G uid el ine r an ge of 360 m onths t o li fe im

pr iso nm en t. W oot enobj ec te d to the appl ic at ionof the Gui de li ne s as m an da to ry

bu t d idno t o bjec t t o t he in fo rm at io n i n t he PSI. On D ec em be r 2, 200 4, the c ourt i m

pose d ase nte nc e of

e igh t c onc ur

re nt t er m s of 360 m onths f or Co unt s 1 thr ough6, 8, a nd 9 ; a 60- m onth te rm

to run c onse cu tiv el y

f or Co unt 7; an d a300 -m onth te rm to run c onse cu tiv el y

f or Co unt 10. II. ST AN DA RD S OF RE VIEW W e re vie wiss ue s of

pr ose cu tor ia l m isc ondu ct de nov o. U nit ed

S ta te s v. N or ie ga , 117 F . 3d 1 206, 121 8 ( 11th C ir . 199 7) . W e re vie wase nte nc e fo r Si xth Am endm ent violatio ns de nov o, but reverse only for har m ful err or. United States v. P az , 405 F . 3d 9 46, 948 ( 11th C ir . 200 5) . W e re vie wthe suf fi ci en cy of the ev ide nc e de nov o, and w e vie wthe e vid en ce “ in the li ght m ost f av or ab le to the gove rn m en t, w itha ll re as ona ble inf er en ce s and c re dib ili ty

c hoi ce s m ad e in the governm ent’ s favor. ” U nited States v. K eller, 916 F.2d 628, 632 (11t h Cir. 1990 ).6

W e re vie wf

or harm fu l e rr or

an arg um en t tha t the c ourt r ep orte r fa ile d to tr an sc ri be a ll of

the tr ia l pr oc ee din gs. U nit ed S ta te s v. Upshaw , 448 F . 2d 1 218, 1224 (5th Cir. 1971 ). III. DIS CU SSION W oot enr ai se s f

our arg um en ts a ga ins t hi s c onvi ct ion s and s en te nc es . F ir st, he a rg ue s th at

the r eb utt al arg um en t of

the gov er

nm en t i m pr ope rl y shi ft ed the bu rd en of p ro of

, was p ro se cu to ria l m is co nd uc t, an d e nt it le s h im to a ne w tri al . Se co nd, he arg ue s th at

the e vid en ce w as ins uf

fi ci en t t o su

ppor t a c onvi ct ionf

or use of af ir earm dur ing adr

ug tra ff ic kin g of fe nse . T hir d, he a rg ue s th at sig nif ic an t om issio ns in th e trial tr anscript entitle him to a new trial. Fourth, he argues that the district court erred when it sentenced W ooten un der a m andatory Guidelines re gim e. W e ad dr es s e ac h arg um en t i n turn .

A . T he R eb uttal A rgum en t R egardi ng t he B urde n of

Proof D oes N ot E nti tle W oot en to a N

ewT ria l. W ooten argues that the rebuttal argum ent of the governm ent, which inv olv ed tw o st at em en ts, im

pr ope rl y shi ft ed the bur de n of

pr oof a nd r equir es a ne wtr ia l. “ Pr ose cu tor ia l m isc ondu ct r equir es ane wtr ia l on ly if w e fi nd the rem arks (1) w ere im

proper and (2) prej udiced the defendant’ s subs tantive rights .” United States v. He rnandez, 145 F.3d 1433 (11th Cir. 1998). W e consider7

Wo o t e n ’s ar g u men tr e g a r d i n g th e tw o s t a t e men t s o f th e g o v e rn men ts e p a r a t e l y. Th e f i rs ts t at emen t , “ [T ]h er e i s n o ev i d en ce t o re b u tth e G o v ern m en t ’s ev ide nc e, ” w as im

pr ope r but

did not r equir e a ne wtr ia l. T he state m en t i m pr ope rl y shifted the burden o f proof by im ply ing th at W ooten needed to p resent evidence, but no p re j udi ce oc curr ed . T he dis tr ic t c ourt pr om ptl y a nd c or re ct ly ins tr uc te d th e j ury on the burden o f proof, and we have no reason to do ubt th at the j ury followed those ins tructions. See United State s v. Sim on, 964 F.2d 1082 , 1087 (11th Cir. 19 92 ). T he se co nd s ta te m en t, that the gov er nm en t di d no t ne ed

a n e xpe rt to pr ove that i t w as W oot en ’ s vo ic e on the r ec or din gs, w as not im pr ope r. T he gov er

nm en t wa s respondin g to W ooten’s ar gum ent that the gov ernm ent had failed to produce ane xpe rt to te sti fy about the voi ce on the r ec or din gs. T he state m en t w as a co m m en tary on the e vid en ce , not

W oot en ’ s a

bse nc e of pr oof , a nd the gov er

nm en t di d n ot all ud e to th e b ur de n o f pr oo f. B . T he E vi de nc e W

as S uff ic ie nt to C

onv ic t W oot en of Ca rry ing

a F ire arm D uri ng and Possessin g a Firearm in F urthera nce of a Drug Trafficking Offense. W oot enarg ue s th at

the e vid en ce w as ins uf

fi ci en t t o su

ppor t hi s c onvi ct ion s on C ount s S ev enand T enund er 18 U . S. C. § 92 4( c) (1 )( A )( i) , w hic h a ppl ie s to

“ an y pe rs on who, dur ing and i n r el at ionto an y c ri m e of vio le nc e or

dr ug8

traff icking crim e . . . uses or c arrie s a fire arm , or who, in furtherance of any such crim e, possess es a fir earm . . . .” (em

phases added). Count Seven char ged that W ooten carried a firearm on January

5, 2004, w hen McNe al purchased cra ck cocaine and a handgun from W ooten. Count Ten char ged that W ooten po ssessed th ree f ire arm s o n J an ua ry

9, 2 00 4, wh en th e p ol ic e se arch edW oo te n’s t rai le r. W ooten cont ends that there wa s no eviden ce that he used the fire arm , and he cites Bailey v. U nited States, 516 U. S. 137, 144, 116 S. Ct. 501, 506 (199 5), which ad dr es se s th e “ use ” co m

pone nt o f the statut e but

ha s no be ar ing on c harg es of carry in g o r po ss es si on . Woo t en ’s ar g u m en t s fa i l . Wit h re s p ec tt o Co u n tSe v en , M cN ea l ’s testim ony and the recorded c onversation betwee n McNe al and W ooten establis hed that the handg un and th e cr ack cocaine w ere sold at the sam e tim e and W ooten carr ie d th e handgun to giv e it to M cN ea l. Ar ea sona ble j ur y c oul d c onc lud e be y ond a re as ona

ble doubt tha t W oot enc ar ri ed the gunin re la tio n to the dr ug t r a n s a c t i o n . Wi t h r e s p e c tt o C o u n tT e n , t e s t i mo n y e s t ab l i s h e dth a tth e f i r e a rms w er e in W oot en ’ s tr ai le r, W oot ena nsw er ed the doo r w ithapis tol in his hand be ca use he tho ught

he w as be ing r obbe d, W oot ena dm itt ed that anothe r of

the guns a nd the dr

ugs be lon ge d to him , W oot entoo k po sse ssi on o f the thi rd gunto dis card it , and the tr ai le r w as use d f or dr ug tra ff ic kin g. Ar ea sona

ble j ur y c oul d9

conclude bey ond a reasonable doub t that W ooten po ssessed the firearm s to protect h i s s up p l y o f

dr u g s an dc u rr e n c y. C. T he T rans cr ipt O m iss ion s D o N

ot E nti tle W oot en to a N

ewT ria l. W oot enarg ue s th at

the c ourt r ep orte r’ s f

ai lur e to transc ri be the r ec or din gs th atth e g ov ern m en t re pl ay eddu rin g i ts reb ut ta l ar gu m en t re qu ire s a n ew tr ia l. Whe n ane wa tto rn ey

r ep re se nts the de fe ndant o n a ppe al , w e re qui re ane wtr ia l i f there is a “ subs tantial and sign ificant” om issio n from the trial transcr ipt. U nited St at es v. Ch ar le s, 313 F . 3d 1 278, 128 3 ( 11th C ir . 200 2) . W oot endoe s no t e xpl ai n how the om issio ns were subst antial and sign ificant, and we c onclud e that they were n ot . The r ecordings were alrea dy adm itted in evid ence, and they we re tr an sc ri be d w he n th ey

w er e fi rs t pl ay ed

dur ing the c as e- in- ch ie f of the go ve rn m en t. Woot en all eg es “ se ve re[] pre jud ic e,” b ut an y

erro r was ha rm le ss . T he gov er

nm en t i de nti fi ed

e ac h of the f ive r ep lay ed

e xc er pts a nd quot ed

portio ns of the r ec or de d di al ogue , so W oot en ’ s c ouns el c oul d have f ull y r ec onstru ct ed

the re but ta l arg um en t. T his inc onve nie nc e is n ot an im pe dim en t t o m eanin gf

ul review , see id., and is not reversible error. D . Se nte nc ing

U nde r th e G uid

el ines, as M

anda tor y, W as H arm ful E rro r. W ooten argues and the go vernm ent concedes that the district court applied10

the G uid el ine s a s m an da tor y r eg ar din g th e se nte nc es f or Co unt s O ne thr oughS ix an d C ount s E igh t and N ine . T his Bo oke r er ro r is h ar m le ss “ if , vie w ing the pr oc ee din gs i n th ei r en tir ety , ac ourt de te rm ine s th at the e rr or did not a ff ec t the se nte nc e, or

ha d bu t ve ry

sli ght e ff ec t. ” U nit ed

S ta te s v. Mathe nia , 409 F . 3d 1 289, 1292 ( 11th C ir . 200 5) ( int er na l qu otatio n m ar

ks and a lte ratio ns o m itt ed ). T he governm ent concedes that it cannot m eet its burden of proving harm less error, be ca use nothin g inthe r ec or d su gge sts that the c ourt w oul d have im pose d th e sa m e se nte nc es und er

an a dvi sor

y G uid el ine s sy ste m . B ec au se “ [w ] e sim ply do not kno ww ha t the se nte nc ing c ourt w oul d have don e ha d it und er sto od the gui de lin es to be a dvi sor

y r athe r than m an da tor

y , a nd h ad

pr ope rl y c onsi de re d th e fa ct or s in18 U . S. C. § 35 53( a) , ” U nit ed S ta te s v. D av is, 407 F . 3d 1 269, 127 1 ( 11th Ci r. 200 5) , w e cannot

c onc lud e that the e rr or

w as harm le ss. A l t h o u g h w e r e man df

o r r e s e n t e n c i n g u n d e r

a n a d v i s o ry G u i d e l i n e s s ys t e m, w e re j ec t tw o a spe ct s of

W oot en ’ s arg um en ts a

bout his se nte nc es . F ir st, be ca use W oot ena dm itt ed

the f ac ts u se d to e nhanc e his se nte nc e by not obj ec tin g to the PS I, no c onst itu tio na l B ooke r er ro r oc curr ed . U nit ed

S ta te s v. S he lto n, 400 F . 3d 1325 , 1330 (11th Cir. 2005). S econd, beca use the district court sentenced W ooten to the statut or

y m ini m um se nte nc es w ithr es pe ct

to Co unt s S ev ena nd T en , no er ro r oc curr ed

w ithr es pe ct

to tho se se nte nc es . I d. a t 13 33 n . 10.11 IV. CO NC LUS ION W e AFFIRM W oo te n’s co nv ic ti on s, VA CA TE W oot en ’ s se nte nc es f or Co unt s O ne thr oughS ix and C ount s E igh t and N ine , a nd REMAND f or re se nte nc ing .