FI L ED
U.S. COURT OF APPEAL S

EL EVENTH CI RCUI T MAY 14, 2010

J OHN L EY
CL ERK [PUBLIS H]

IN THE UN ITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE ELE VENTH CIRCUIT

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __

No. 0 8- 11 65 5

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __

D. C. Dock et No. 0 7- 20 58 5- CR-J LK

UNITED STAT ES OF AMERIC A,

Pl ai nt iff -Ap pe ll ee,

ve rs us

LARON FRAZIER,

Defen da nt -Ap pe ll an t.

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __

No. 0 8- 12 13 6

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __

D. C. Dock et No. 0 7- 20 58 5- CR-J LK

UNITED STAT ES OF AMERIC A,

Pl ai nt iff -Ap pe ll ee,

ve rs us

GARY BERTRAM R OACH,

Defen da nt -Ap pe ll an t.__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __
App eal s fr om

th e Uni te d S ta te s Di st ric t Co ur t fo r th e So ut he rn Dis tri ct of F lo rid a

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ _
(Ma y 14 , 20 10 )

Befo re EDMONDSON, BLACK an d S ILER, Cir cu it Ju dg es

. *

SILER, Ci rcu it Ju dg e:

In th is co ns ol id at ed cri m in al cas e, Laro n Fraz ie r ap pe al s hi s co nv ic ti on s fo r

m ak in g fal se st at em en ts to a f i rear m s de al er in co nn ect io n wit h th e acq ui si ti on of

fir earm s in vi ol at io n of 18 U.S.C. § 92 2( a)(6 ), co un ts 4 an d 6, an d ex po rti ng fir earm s

in vi ol at io n of 18 U.S.C. § 55 4, co un t 17

, a n d arg ue s th at hi s co nv ic ti on s were no t

su pp or te d by su ffi ci en t ev id en ce. Gary Bert ram Ro a ch ap pe al s hi s co nv ic ti on fo r

co ns pi racy to co m

m it m on ey la un de rin g in vi ol at io n of 18 U.S.C. §§ 19 56 (a)( 1) (A)(i )

an d (h ), co un t 14

, al so on th e ba si s th at hi s co nv ic ti on was no t su pp or te d by su ffi ci en t

ev id en ce. Ro ach fu rth er ap pe al s hi s se nt en ce of 13 5 mo nt hs of im pr is on m en t an d

arg ue s th at hi s ad vi so ry Gui de li ne s se nt en c i n g ran ge was im pr op erl y cal cu la te d by

th e di st ric t co ur t. W e AFFIR M Fraz ie r’s an d Ro ach ’s c on vi ct i o n s a s su pp or te d by

su ffi ci en t ev id en ce. Bec au se we fi nd th at Ro ach ’s a dv is or y Gui de li ne s ran ge were

Honora ble Eug ene E . Siler, J r., United States Circuit J udg e for the Six th Circuit, sit ting * by desig nation.

2im

pr op erl y cal cu la te d, we REVERSE hi s se nt en ce an d REMAND to th e di st ric t co ur t

fo r res en te nc in g.

BACKGRO UND 1

A. In tro duct io n

Beg in ni ng in 20 06

, Fraz ie r a n d R o a c h be cam e in vo lv ed in a fir earm s

sm ug gl in g op erat io n fro m th e Uni t e d S t a t e s to Can ad a. Fraz ie r an d Ro ach wou ld

bu y , or ha ve so m eo ne el se bu y , fir earm s in th e Uni te d St at es an d hi re dr iv ers to

de li ve r th e fi rear m s i n re nt al cars to Can ad a an d e xc ha ng e th e fi rear m s for dru gs or

m on ey , whi ch were t ran sp or te d b ack to th e Uni te d S ta te s.

Afte r in di ct m en t an d tri al

, a ju r y fo un d Fraz ie r gu il ty of se ve n co un ts an d

fo un d R o ach gu il ty of te n co un ts of th e in di ct m en t. Fraz ie r was se nt en ced to 18 0

m on th s of im

pr is on m en t an d Ro ach was se nt en ced to 13 5 m on th s of im pr is on m en t.

Fraz ie r ap pe al s th e su ffi ci en cy of th e ev id en ce su pp or ti ng hi s co nv ic ti on s fo r

two co un ts of ai di ng an d ab et ti ng th e m ak in g of fal se st at em en ts in co nn ect io n wit h

th e pu rch as e of a fir earm , an d al so hi s co nv ic t i o n f or ex po rti ng fir earm s. Ro ach

ap pe al s hi s se nt en ce an d th e su ffi ci en cy of th e ev id en ce su pp or ti ng hi s co nv ic ti on fo r

m on ey lau nd eri ng

.

We limi t our discussion of the fa cts to those rele vant to this appeal, including fac ts 1

rela ted to counts 4, 6, 14, and 17 of the indictment, and fa cts rela ted to Roach’s se ntence

.

3B. Aidi ng an d Abetti ng Fal se Sta tements in Con nect io n w ith the Acqui si tio n o f Fire ar m s Co unts Aga in st Fraz ie r

In Sep te m

be r 20 0 6

, Fraz ie r pu rch as ed fo ur ha nd gu ns at Pan te ra Gun s &

Gui ta rs (“ Pan te ra”) in Mi am i, Fl or id a. The own er of Pant era, Sean Gil le y , te st ifi ed

th at Fraz ie r was a pr io r cu st om er wh om he ha d d eal t wi th on sev eral oc cas io ns

.

Late r th at m on th Fraz ie r r e t u r n e d to Pan te ra, th is ti m e acco m pa ni ed by

Cas sa nd ra Dav is

. Fraz ie r ga ve Dav is th e m on ey to pu rch as e th e fi r e a rm s, to ld he r

wha t to sa y , an d in st ru ct ed he r to ex pl ai n th at sh e was pu rch as in g th e gu ns as gi fts

.

Dav is or de red th e sa m e fir earm m od el s th at Fraz ie r ha d p u r c h a s ed fro m Pan te ra

earl ie r th at m on th

. Sh e fil le d ou t Alco ho l, Tob acco , F i r e a r m s, an d Exp lo si ve s

(“ ATF”) Fo rm 44 73 an d affi r med th at sh e was th e “ act ua l bu y er” of th e fir earm s.

Due to a wait in g pe rio d, Dav is pi ck ed up th e fir earm s fro m Pan te ra two da y s la te r an d

to ok th em to Fraz ie r’s wareh ou se

. Fraz ie r in st ru ct ed Dav is th at if sh e was ev er as ke d

wha t hap pe ne d to th e fir earm s, sh e sh ou ld sa y th ey were sto le n. Fraz ie r pa id Dav is

$1 50 0 fo r he r se rv ic es

.

Bec au se Dav is pu rch as ed m or e th a n o n e ha nd gu n wit hi n a fiv e-d ay pe rio d,

Gil le y was req ui red to rep or t th e pu rch as e to th e A TF

. Gil le y al so rep or te d th at

Dav is ’s pu rch as e was si m il ar to Fraz ie r’s pu rch as e m ad e earl ie r th a t mo n t h

. On

Sep te m be r 29

, 20 06

, ATF ag en ts co nt act ed Davi s ab ou t h er p ur ch as e. Sh e in it ia ll y

4to ld th e ATF ag en ts th at th ey w e r e g i ve n as gi fts

, bu t ev en tu al ly sh owe d Sp eci al

Age nt Bryan Mi ll er th e wareh ou se whe re sh e de li ve red th e fir earm s an d ad m it te d th at

th ey were p ur ch as ed for Fraz ie r.

In J a n ua ry 20 07

, Fraz ie r in fo rm ed Gil le y th at so m eo ne was in te res te d in

pu rch a s i n g M-1 1 or M-1 2 ha nd gu ns an d in qu ire d in to th ei r av ai la bi li ty. Alt ho ug h

no t acco m

pa ni ed by Fraz ie r, W el li ne Lub in en te red Pan te ra an d pu rch as ed a Kel- Tec

P-3 2 ha nd gu n. The ne xt da y , Fraz ie r t o l d Gil le y th at Lub in ha d no t pi ck ed up th e

fir earm s sh e wan te d an d wou ld ret ur n to th e st or e to pu rch as e an M-1 1 an d an M-1 2.

Lub in arri ve d at Pan te ra in a pi ck up tru ck reg is te red to a bu si ne ss own ed by Fraz ie r

an d was acco m

pa ni ed by Ned so n Je an ov il

. W hi le in Pan te ra, Je an ov il rece iv ed a cal l

fro m Fraz ie r on hi s cel l ph on e an d ha nd ed th e ph on e to Gil le y

. Fraz ie r in qu ire d as

to whe th er Gil le y ha d an M-1 1 or M-1 2 in st oc k. Lub in th en pa id fo r on e M-1 1 an d

on e M-1 2, bu t was req ui red to wait to pi ck th e fir earm s up

. Lu bi n fil le d ou t ATF

Fo rm 44 73 an d in di cat ed th at sh e was no t th e act ua l bu y er of th e fir earms

. U po n

Lub in ’s su bs eq ue nt ret ur n to pi ck up th e fir earm s, Gil le y no ti ced th e m is ta ke on ATF

Fo rm 44 73 an d Lub in am en de d th e fo rm to in di cat e th at sh e was th e act ua l bu y er. At

th at ti m e, Je an ov il to ok po ss es si on of a ll th ree f ire arm s.

C. Ex po rti ng Fire ar m s Co unt Ag ai ns t Fra zi er

5S e r e na Cl ark te st ifi ed th at fro m Sep te m be r th ro ug h Nov em

be r 20 06

, sh e

pu rch as ed nu m ero us fir earm s on be ha lf of Fra z i e r a n d Ro ach

. Fraz ie r or Ro ach

wou ld wire m on ey t o Cl ark ’s “ wire pl as ti c card ,” whi ch sh e wou ld us e to pu rch as e

th e fir earm s. Alt ho ug h Cl a r k h a d mo re co nt act wit h Fraz ie r, sh e us ua ll y rece iv ed

in st ru ct io ns fro m Ro ach

, whi le Fraz ie r en su red th at sh e was pa id

. Fraz ie r an d Ro ach

us ua ll y ha d so m eo ne pi ck up th e fir earm s fro m Cl ark ’s h o u s e , b ut Cl ark al so

de li ve red fir earm s t o R oa ch in pe rs on

.

Cl ark tra ns po rte d fir earm s to Can ad a fo r Fraz ie r an d Ro ach

. On two oc cas io ns

sh e tra ns po rte d fir earm s fro m Alab am a to Can ad a at Ro ach ’s req ue st

, in ret ur n fo r

$1 00 0 pe r tri p. F r a z i er to ld he r sh e was tra ns po rti ng gu ns to Can ad a fo r res al e

be cau se Can ad ia ns co ul d n ot eas il y ob ta in gu ns

.

Befo re he r fir st tri p to Can ad a, Ro ach pi ck ed up Cl ark ’s Old sm ob i l e an d

ret ur ne d it an ho ur la te r. W he n sh e arri ve d in Can ad a, sh e no ti fie d Roa ch who se nt

Ro dn ey Glo ud en , a Can ad ia n fir earm s pu rch as er, to pi ck up th e car. Cl ark al so cal le d

Fraz ie r to in fo rm hi m th at sh e ha d arri ve d in Can ad a. Cl ark le ft th e ve hi cl e in Can ad a

an d to ok a pl an e ho m e to Alab am a, whe re Fraz ie r a n d R o a c h p a i d fo r he r us e of a

ren ta l ca r.

In Decem be r 20 06

, Cl ark m ad e he r se co nd tri p to Can ad a. Fraz ie r to ld he r th e

pu r p o s e o f th e tri p was to de li ve r so m e m or e “ go od s” to Can ad a, whi ch

, Fraz ie r

6ex pl ai ne d to he r, co ns is te d of ta ki ng th e gu ns th at were pu rch as ed in th e Uni te d St at es

to Can ad a to be res ol d. On he r se co nd tri p, Cl ark dr ov e a gr ey Nis sa n ren ta l car th at

sh e pa id fo r wit h m on ey th at Fraz ie r an d Ro ach ha d wir ed to he r. Befo re sh e le ft,

Ro ach pi ck ed up th e Nis sa n fo r ab ou t an ho ur

. Afte r it was ret ur ne d, Cl ark dr ov e to

Can ad a an d o nc e ag ai n m et wit h Gl ou do n. Cl ark lef t t he Nis sa n with Glo ud on an d

dr ov e he r Old sm ob il e ho m e to Alab am a. Late r th at m on th

, Fraz ie r was ob se rv ed at

Glou don’ s Can ad ia n res id en ce dr iv in g th e Nis sa n an d was st op pe d by Toro nt o po li ce,

bu t was no t ar res te d a t t ha t t im e.

Dan ie l Ch ris ti e, on e of Ro ach ’s Can ad i a n co nt act s, te st ifi ed at tri al

. Ro ach

wou ld in st ru ct so m eo ne to dr iv e a ren ta l car co nt ai ni ng fir earms t o C hr is ti e in

Can ad a, an d Ch ris ti e wou ld rem ov e th e fir earm s an d pl ace m ari juan a or ecs ta cy in th e

car to be ret ur ne d to Ro ach

. In Can ad a, Ch ris ti e so ld se ve ral fir earm s to Glo ud en

.

D. Con sp ir ac y to Comm it Mo ney La unde ri ng Coun t Aga in st Roa ch

In 20 07

, Ro ach hi red Tash an a W at ts

, a res id en t of Can ad a, to dr iv e to an d fro m

Can ad a on hi s be ha lf. Ro ach wou ld wire he r m on ey , whi ch sh e wou ld us e to ren t cars

to dr iv e to th e Uni te d S ta te s. On th ree o ccas io ns , W at ts ren te d a car in Can ad a an d

dr ov e to Alab am a at Ro ach ’s di rect io n. Gen eral ly, W at ts wou ld m eet wit h Ro ach an d

Ro ach ’s as so ci at e, Geo co bi “ Co bi ” Nna di

, whe reb y Ro ach wou ld ta ke po ss es si on of

W at t s ’s ren ta l car, rem ov e an y dr ug s th at m ay ha ve be en se nt fro m Can ad a, pl ace

7fir earm s in th e d as hb oa rd or do or pa ne ls , a nd ret ur n th e car to W at ts

. W at ts wou ld

th en dr iv e th e car ba ck to Can ad a whe re a co n t a c t

, s uc h as he r si st er, wou ld ta ke

po ss es si on of th e c a r a n d d r i v e it to an un di sc lo se d lo cat io n. Ro ach pa id W at ts

ap pr ox im at el y

$1 50 0 fo r eac h t rip

.

In May 20 07

, W at ts ren te d a Toyota in Can ad a an d dr ov e to Alab am a, an d le ft

th e Toyota wit h Nna di an d Ro ach

. Ro ach rem ov ed th e do or pa ne ls of th e Toyota an d

ret rie ve d se ve ral pa ck ag es of m ari juan a an d ecs ta cy

. He rep la ced th e dr ug s w i th

fir earm s th at Nna di ha d pi ck ed up on Ro ach ’s be ha lf. Ro ach th en as k e d Wa t t s to

dr iv e th e Toyota to Mi am i in ex ch an ge fo r m or e th an he r us ua l $1 50 0 fee. W at ts

ag reed an d d ro ve to Mi am i wh ere s he m et Ro ach an d F razi er.

In Mi am i, Ro ach cal le d Nna di in Alab am a an d as ke d hi m to ob ta in m on ey fro m

an “ as so ci at e” of hi s an d wire it t o Wat ts in Mi am i. Nna di co m pl ie d, m et wit h

Ro ach ’s a ss oc ia te to pi ck up th e m on ey , and th en wire d it to W at ts in Mi am i ba se d

on pe rs on al in fo rm at io n th at Ro ach ob ta in ed fro m W at ts

. Ro ach an d W at ts wen t to

a gr oc ery st or e to rece iv e th e wire d m on ey

. S h e r ecei ve d $9 00 , $ 10 0 of whi ch sh e

ret ur ne d to Ro ach

. The ne xt da y , W at ts dr ov e fro m Mi am i to Can ad a whe re sh e was

st op pe d by Can ad ia n of

fic ers

. The o f

f i c e r s di sc ov ered fir earm s an d co cai ne in th e

pa ne ls of th e Toyota an d arre st ed W at ts

. Ro ach was reco rd ed vi a a wire ta p

di sc us si ng wit h Gl ou de n t he arre st of Watt s.

8E. Pro cedu re a nd Tr ia l

A f t e r i n d ic tm en t, Je an ov il pl ed gu il ty to hi s in vo lv em en t in th e cas e an d

Fraz ie r an d Ro ach pr oc eed ed to tri al

. The d i s t r i c t co ur t gr an te d a jud gm en t of

acq ui tt al as to co un t 18 of th e in di ct m en t, bu t de ni ed it as to al l ot he r co un ts

. A jury

fo un d F razi er g ui lt y

of s ev en co un ts an d R oa ch gu il ty of te n c ou nt s.

Fraz ie r ap pe al s hi s c o n v i c t io ns as to co un ts 4, 6, an d 17

, two co un ts of

vi ol at in g 18 U.S.C. §§ 92 2( a)(6 ) an d 2

, a n d o n e co un t of vi ol at in g § 55 4,

res pe ct iv el y , by ch al le ng in g th e su ffi ci en cy of th e ev id en ce to su pp or t hi s co nv ic ti on

.

Ro ach ap pe al s hi s con vi ct io n as to cou nt 14

, vi ol at in g 18 U.S.C. § 19 56 (a) and § 2,

al so on th e b as is of i ns uf fic ie nt ev id en ce.

F. Roa ch’s Sente nci ng Hea ri ng

At Ro ach ’s se nt en ci ng he ari ng on Mar ch 27

, 20 08

, th e di st ric t co ur t su st ai ne d

se ve ral of Ro ach ’s ob

jecti on s to hi s Pres en te nc e In ve st ig at io n Rep or t (“ PSI” ). Bas ed

on th e ru li ng s, th e pr ob at io n of fic er r e c a lc ul at ed Ro ach ’s ba se of fen se le ve l, bu t

erro ne ou sl y in fo rm ed th e co ur t th at Ro ach ’s to ta l of fen se le ve l was 31. Und er thi s 2

cal cu la ti on , Ro ach ’s rec om m en de d se nt en ci ng Gui de li ne s ran ge was 10 8 to 13 5

m on th s of im

pr is on m en t. Bas ed

, in pa rt, on th e erro ne ou sl y cal cu la te d of fen se le ve l,

The sente ncing transcr ipt and amende d PSI indicate that the pr obation office r cor rec tly 2

calc ulated the ba se off

ense le vel and the e nhance ments under the G uidelines, but merelymisadded the sum of the total offe nse leve l as 31 instead of 30.

9t h e d i st ric t co ur t se nt en ced Ro ach to 13 5 m on th s on co un ts 14

, 15

, 16

, to ru n

co nc ur ren tl y wit h se nt en c e s of 12 0 an d 60 m on th s th at he rece iv ed on th e ot he r

co un ts

.

Dur in g th e se nt en ci ng he ari ng , th e co ur t in fo rm ed Ro ach th at he ha d te n da y s

to ap pe al fro m th e jud gm en t ag ai ns t hi m an d as ke d if th ere were an y fu rth er m ot io ns

.

Ro ach ’s at to rn ey , The od or e Mas to s, in fo rm ed th e co ur t th at he in te nd ed to wit hd raw

an d t ha t Ro ach ne ed ed a co ur t-a pp oi nt ed att or ne y to co nd uc t h is ap pe al . The co ur t

st at ed th at a “ Tjofl at ” he ari ng wou ld be co nd uc te d by a m ag is tra te jud ge to de te rm in e

whe th er Mas to s co ul d wit hd raw an d in fo rm ed Ro ach th at it wou ld ta ke a nu m be r of

da y s be fo re th e m ag is tra te jud ge co ul d co nd uc t th e he ari ng

. The co ur t th en st at ed

th at Ro ach wou ld ha ve t en da y s fro m th e m ag is tra te ’s ru li ng on th e m ot io n to

wit hd raw to fil e hi s no ti ce of ap pe al

. Mas to s su bm it te d a writ te n m ot io n to wit hd raw

la te r th at da y

.

On Ap ril 4, 2 00 8, s ev en da y s af te r th e se nt en ce was en te red , th e go ve rn m en t

fil ed a no ti ce pu rs ua nt to Fed eral Ru le of C r i mi n a l Pro ced ur e 35 (a), st at in g th at

Ro ach ’s of

fen se le ve l ha d be en m is cal cu la te d at th e se nt en ci ng he ari ng

. The

go ve rn m en t cl ai m ed th at Ro ach ’s co rrec t of fen se le ve l was 30

, in st ead of 31

. Und er

th is cal cu la ti on , Ro ach ’s Gui de li ne s ran ge wou ld ha ve be en 97 to 12 1 m on th s,

in st ead of 1 08 to 13 5 m on th s.

10On Apr il 17 , 2 00 8, a m ag is tra te jud ge gra nt ed Mas to s’s m ot io n t o wi th dr aw.

Neal Gary Ro se ns weig was ap po in te d as co un se l fo r Ro ach th at sa m e da y

. On Apr il

18

, 20 08

, Ro se ns weig fil ed a m ot io n fo r an ex te ns io n o f t i m e fo r Ro ach to fil e th e

ap pe al pu rs ua nt to Fed eral Ru le of Ap pe ll at e Pro ced ur e 4 (b ) an d a ls o fi le d a no ti ce

of ap pe al

.

On May 2, 20 08

, th e di st ric t co ur t de ni ed Ro ach ’s m ot io n fo r ex te ns io n of ti m e

to fil e th e ap pe al

. The or de r st at ed

, “ [t]he Co ur t can no t be res po ns ib le fo r fai lu re of

c o u ns el to fil e a Not ic e of App eal , a nd th e acq ui si ti on of ne w c ou ns el on A p r i l 1 7

,

20 08

, aft er th e de ad li ne to fil e a Not ic e of App eal ha d pa ss ed

, ha s no be ari ng on th e

ti m e li m it to fil e th e Not ic e o f App eal .”

Ro ach arg ue s th at hi s ap pe al was ti m el y be cau se he rel ie d on an or al or de r of

th e co ur t g r a n t i n g h i m an ex te ns io n to fil e th e ap pe al un ti l te n da y s aft er hi s ne w

co un se l was ap po in te d. In it s ap pe ll at e br ie f, th e go ve rn m en t or ig in al ly ob jecte d to

Ro ach ’s n ot ic e of ap pe al as un ti m el y , b ut ha s no w wi th dr awn it s ob jecti on

. Ro ach

cl ai m s, th at if th is co ur t ha s juri sd ic ti o n , t h e d is tri ct co ur t co m m it te d pl ai n erro r in

m is cal cu la ti ng hi s s en te nc in g Gu id el in es ran ge

.

DISCUSS IO N

I. Ju ri sd ic tio n to hea r Roa ch’s Appea l

11Fed eral Ru le of App el la te Pro ced ur e 4( b) (1 ) req ui res a de fen da nt to fil e a

no ti ce o f a p p e al wit hi n te n da y s aft er th e en try of th e jud gm en t of co nv ic ti on , an d

Ru le 4( b) (4 ) al lo ws a di st ric t co ur t to ex te nd th e de ad li ne up to th irt y da y s if it fin ds

e x c u s a b l e ne gl ect or go od cau se

. Si nc e “ th e de ad li ne in Ru le 4( b) fo r cri m in a l

de fen da nt s is no t juri sd ic ti on al ,” Uni te d St at es v. Lop ez, 56 2 F.3 d 13 09

, 13 13 (1 1t h

Ci r. 20 09 ), an ob

jecti on to an un ti m el y no ti ce of ap pe al in a cri m in al cas e m ay be

fo rfei te d, se e id . a t 13 14

. Here, al th ou gh Ro ach fil ed hi s no ti c e o f a p p e a l on Apr il

18

, 20 08

, so m e el ev en da y s pa st th e fil in g de ad li ne , th e go ve rn m en t v o l u n t a r i ly

fo rfei te d it s ob

jecti on to th e un ti m el in es s of Ro ach ’s no ti ce of ap pe al by wit hd rawi ng

it s ob jecti on

. The refo re, we ha ve juri sd ic ti on to he ar hi s ap pe al

. Thu s, we do n ot

ne ed to di sc us s whe th er th e di st ric t co ur t’s or al or de r at se nt en ci ng co ns ti tu te d an

ex te ns io n o f th e ti m e to fil e th e n ot ic e o f ap pe al , or wh et he r it ab us ed it s d is cret io n

in lat er d ecl in in g t o e xt en d t he ti m e fo r fi li ng th e n ot ic e u nd er Ru le 4(b )(4 ).

II

. Suff

ic ie ncy of t he Ev id ence Argu m ents

1. St an da rd

of Revi ew

Fraz ie r an d Ro ach bo th ch al le ng e th e s u f f i c ie nc y of th e ev id en ce su pp or ti ng

th ei r co nv ic ti on s. The su ffi ci en cy of ev id en ce pr es en te d at tri al to su pp or t a cri m in al

co nv ic ti on is a qu es ti on of la w rev ie wed de no vo

. Uni te d St at es v

. D i az, 24 8 F.3 d

10 65

, 10 84 (1 1t h Ci r. 20 01 ) (ci ti ng Uni te d St at es v. Kell er, 91 6 F.2 d 62 8, 63 3 (1 1t h

12Ci r.19 90 )). In ev al ua ti ng th e su ffi ci en cy of th e ev id en ce, we “ vi ew th e ev id en ce in

th e li gh t m os t fav or ab le t o t h e g ov ern m en t, wit h al l reas on ab le in fere nc es an d

cred ib il it y ch oi ces m ad e in th e g ov ern m en t’s fa vo r.” Uni te d S ta te s v. Mar ti ne z, 83

F.3 d 3 71 , 37 4 (1 1t h C ir. 1 99 6)

.

2. Fra zi er ’s Co nv ic ti on s fo r Two Co un ts of Aid in g an d Abe tt in g th e Mak in g o f Fa ls e S ta te men ts to a Fi re ar ms Dea le r

Fraz ie r arg ue s th at th ere was in su ffi ci en t ev id en ce to su pp or t hi s con vi ct io ns

fo r ai di ng an d ab et ti ng m ak in g fal se st at em en ts to a fir e arm s de al er in co nn ect io n

wit h th e acq ui si ti on of fir earm s in vi ol at io n o f 1 8 U

. S.C. §§ 92 2( a)(6 ) an d 2.

Sp eci fic al ly, he arg ue s th at th e fal se s t a t e men ts m ad e by Dav is an d Lub in on ATF

Fo rm 44 73 were no t m at eri al to th e la wfu ln es s of th e sa le of th e fir earm an d,

th eref or e, th ere was no vi ol at io n o f § 9 22 (a)( 6)

. 3

Fo r a co nv ic ti on un de r § 9 22 (a)( 6) , th e g ov ern m en t m us t pro ve th at : “ (1 ) th e

de fen da nt kn owi ng ly m ad e; (2 ) a fal se or fic ti ti ou s writ te n [ o r o r a l ] st at em en t in

co nn ect io n wit h th e pu rch as e of fir earm s; (3 ) in te nd ed to de cei ve or li ke ly to de cei ve

a li cen se d fir earm s de al er; (4 ) an d th e fal se st at em en t was a fact m at eri al to th e

la wfu ln es s of th e sa le or di sp os i t i on of th e fir earm .” Orti z, 31 8 F.3 d at 10 36

. “ To

Fr azier also ar g ues that there was insuffic ient evidenc e that L ubine was pur chasing

the 3

firea rms on his behalf. This ar g ument is meritless, as the circ umstantial evidence that L ubine

was a cting on his behalf wa s overwhe lming. See U nited States v. Ortiz, 318 F.3d 1030, 1037 & n.14 (11th Cir. 2003).

13pr ov e gu il t un de r a th eo ry of ai di ng an d ab et ti ng , th e Gov ern m en t m us t pr ov e: (1 ) th e

su bs ta nt iv e of

fen se was co m

m it te d by so m eo ne ; (2 ) th e de fen da nt co m m it te d an act

whi ch co nt rib ut ed to an d fu rth ered th e of fen se ; an d (3 ) th e de fen da nt in te nd ed to ai d

in it s co m m is si on .” Uni te d St at es v. Cam ach o, 23 3 F.3 d 13 08

, 13 17 (1 1t h Ci r. 20 00 ).

Bo th pa rti es ag ree t ha t § 92 2( a)(6 ) is vi ol at ed whe n “ an un la wfu l p ur ch as er .

. . us es a la wfu l ‘stra w m an ’ pu rch as er

. . . to ob ta in a fir earm .” O r t i z , 3 1 8 F

. 3 d a t

10 37

. Howev er, Fraz ie r arg ue s t h a t § 9 2 2 ( a)(6 ) was no t vi ol at ed be cau se he was

e l ig ib le as a la wfu l pu rch as er to pu rch as e fir earm s, an d Dav is an d Lub in

, a c t i n g a s

hi s ag en ts , were al so lawf ul pu rch as ers

.

Fraz ie r’s arg um en t i s b as ed on a th eo ry m ad e po pu la r in a Fi fth Cir cu it cas e,

Uni te d St at es v. Po lk

, 11 8 F.3 d 28 6 (5 th Ci r. 19 97 ). In Po lk

, th e de fen da nt di rect ed

a “ st raw pu rch as er” to bu y se ve ral fir earm s on hi s be ha lf. Id

. at 29 5. In Po lk

, as he re,

a “ st raw pur ch as er” fals el y in di cat ed th at he was t he “ act ua l bu y er” of the fir earm s,

whe n in real it y he was pu rch as in g th e fir earm on be ha lf of th e de fen da nt

. Id

. at 28 9-

90

. Howev er, th e co ur t rev ers ed Po lk ’s co nv ic ti on an d he ld th at § 92 2( a)(6 ) was no t

vi ol at ed be cau se bo th th e de fen da nt an d h i s “stra w pu rch as er” were el ig ib le to

pu rch as e th e f

i r e a r m s le ga ll y

. Id

. at 29 6. Thu s, th e co ur t reas on ed

, th e fal se

st at em en t th e “ st raw pu rch as er” m ad e to th e fir earm s de al er was no t a fal se st at em en t

of a fact “ m at eri al to th e ‘ la wf ul ne ss of th e sa le ’ of fir earm s” an d, th eref or e, th ere was

14no li ab il it y un de r § 92 2( a)(6 ). Id

. at 29 5. The co ur t no te d th at li ab il it y un de r a

“ st raw pu rch as er” th eo ry on ly at ta ch es if ei th er th e act ua l pu rch as er, id

. at 29 5, or th e

“ st raw p ur ch as er,” i d. at 29 5 n .8, i s i ne li gi bl e to pu rch as e fi rear m s.

Thu s , t h e i s s ue be co m es whe th er Fraz ie r’s ai di ng in th e fal si fic at io n of th e

id en ti ty of th e “ ac t u a l p u r c h as er” st at em en t of Fo rm 44 73 was m at eri al to th e

la wfu ln es s of th e sa le of th e fir earm si n c e h e co ul d ha ve la wfu ll y pu rch as ed th e

fir earm s hi m se lf. W e fin d th at th e fal si fic at io n was m at eri al to th e la wfu ln es s of th e

sa le

. “ W he th er th e id en ti ty of th e pu rch as er is a fact m at eri al to th e la wfu ln es s of th e

tra ns act io n (th at is

, whe th er th e la wfu ln es s of a fir earm s sa le can hi ng e on th e id en ti ty

of th e pu rch as er) is pu rel y a qu es ti on of la w.” Uni te d St at es v. Klai s, 68 F.3 d 12 82

,

12 83 (1 1t h Ci r.19 95 ). W e rev ie w is su es of la w de no vo

. See Uni te d St at es v. Kell y ,

88 8 F .2d 73 2, 7 39 (11 th Cir . 19 89 ).

Deci si on s i n o t he r ci rcu it s ha ve in di cat ed th at fal se st at em en ts reg ard in g

ad dr es se s, na m es , an d ot he r in fo rm at i o n a r e m is rep res en ta ti on s m at eri al to th e

la wfu ln es s of th e sa le of fir earm s un de r § 92 2( a)(6 ). See Uni te d St at es v. Que en , 40 8

F.3 d 33 7, 33 9 (7 th Ci r. 20 05 ) (h ol di ng th at lying ab ou t a st reet ad dr es s on Fo rm 44 73

was a m at eri al m is rep res en ta ti on th at vi ol at ed § 92 2( a)(6 )); Uni te d St at es v. Cran da ll

,

45 3 F.2d 12 16

, 12 17 (1 st Ci r. 19 72 ) (h ol di ng th at m is rep res en ta ti on of on e’s na m e,

ag e, a n d p l a c e of res id en ce was m at eri al to th e la wfu ln es s of a sa le ). Lik ewis e,

15g i v i n g a fic ti ti ou s ad dr es s on Fo rm 44 73 is a vi ol at io n of § 92 2( a)(6 ) ev en if t h e

pu rch as er is a res id en t of th e st at e whe re he pu rch as ed th e fir earm

. See Uni te d St at es

v. Gru dg er, 47 2 F.2 d 56 6, 56 7- 68 (5 th Ci r

. 19 72 ) (u ph ol di ng th e co nv ic ti on of a

F l o r i da res id en t un de r § 92 2( a)(6 ) fo r li st in g a fic ti ti ou s Mi am i Bea ch ad dr es s in

co nn ect io n wi th th e p ur ch as e o f a fi rear m ). 4

Gru dg er no te s th at § 92 2( b) (5 ) m ak es a sa le un la wfu l un le ss th e se ll er reco rd s

th e na m e, ag e, a n d pl ace of res id en ce of th e pu rch as er. Id . a t 56 8. Thu s, whe n th e

de fen da nt lis te d a fal se ad dr es s, he vi ol at ed § 92 2( a)(6 ) be cau se hi s m is rep res en ta ti on

was m at eri al to th e la wfu ln es s of th e sa le

. Id

. Lik ewis e, in t h e in st an t cas e, Dav is

an d Lub in fal si fie d th e na m e of th e pu rch as er of th e fir earm s whe n th ey rep res en te d

th em se lv es as be in g th e act ua l bu y ers

. Thi s act io n was in vi ol at i o n o f § 92 2( b) (5 )

be cau se it cau se d Gil le y to reco rd th e in co rrec t na m e of th e bu y er. Co rres po nd in gl y ,

th e m is rep res en ta ti on al so m ad e th e sa le un la wfu l un de r § 92 2( a)(6 ). See Orti z, 31 8

F.3 d at 10 38 -3 9 (s tre ss in g th e im po rta nc e of th e “ act ua l bu y er” req ui rem en t in Fo rm

44 73 ).

The refo re, we fin d th e act of fal si fy in g th e id en ti ty of th e “ act ua l bu y er” on

Fo rm 44 73 to b e a vi ol at io n of § 92 2( a)(6 ). See Orti z, 31 8 F.3 d at 10 36 -3 7 (“ The

I n Bonne r v. City

of Prichar d, 661 F.2d 1206, 1209- 10 (11th Cir. 1981) (e n banc) , the 4 Eleventh Circuit adopte d the ruling s of the old Fif th Circuit (pre- October

1, 1981) as binding

prec edent.

16id en ti ty of th e act ua l pu rch as er is cl earl y ‘a fact m at eri al to th e la wfu ln es s of th e sa le ’

of a fir earm un de r 18 U.S.C. § 92 2( a)(6 ).” (ci ti ng Klai s, 68 F.3 d at 12 83 )). Alt ho ug h

th e co ur t in Orti z de cl in ed to “ ad dr es s th e si tu at io n whe re bo th th e ul ti m at e bu y er an d

th e ‘stra w pu rch as er’ are lawfu ll y el ig ib le to pu rch as e fir earm s,” be cau se th e act ua l

bu y er in th at cas e was in el ig ib le

, we no w ex te nd it s rat io na le to th e cu rren t in st an ce

whe re bo th th e act ua l pu rch as er an d th e “ st raw m an ” are e l i g ib le bu y ers

. 31 8 F.3 d

at 10 38 n.1 6 (c it in g P ol k, 1 18 F.3d 28 6)

. 5

Th e Fi fth Ci rcu it in Po lk ag rees th at th e id en ti ty of th e act ua l pu rch a s e r i s

m at eri al to th e la wfu ln es s of a sa le w h e n t h e a c tu al pu rch as er is an un la wfu l

pu r c h a s e r , s u c h as a co nv ic te d fel on

. 11 8 F3 d at 29 5 & n.8

. Howev er, Po lk ’s

ho ld in g al so as se rte d th at a m is rep res en ta ti on of th e id en ti ty of th e act ua l pu rch as er

is no t m at eri al to th e la wfu ln e s s o f a s a le if bo th pa rti es in a “ st raw pu rch as e”

tra ns act io n can la wfu ll y pu rch as e fir earm s. See id

. at 29 5 (“ Thu s, if th e tru e

pu rch as er can la wfu ll y pu rch as e a fir earm di rect ly, § 92 2( a)(6 ) li ab il it y (u nd er a

“ st raw p ur ch as e” t he or y ) do es no t at ta ch .”).

This court has y et to addre ss a § 922(a )(6) situation sim ilar to Polk, with t wo elig ible 5 buy ers e ffe cting a straw

purcha se. See U nited States v. Opoku, 210 F. A pp’x 848, 853-54 (11th Cir. 2006) (upholding the conviction of a lawful “ straw pur chase ” def endant unde r 18 U.S.C. § 924(a) (1)( A), a

nd contra sting it with § 922(a) (6), be cause § 924(a) (1)( A) did not requir e the
element of

materia lity

to the lawfulne ss of the sale)

.

17To sa y th at th e id en ti ty of th e act ua l pu rch as er is m at eri al to th e la wfu ln es s of

on e sa le bu t no t to an ot he r, is co un te rin tu it iv e. Alt ho ug h Pol k fo cu se d on whe th er

on e’s id en ti ty affe ct ed th e la wfu ln es s of a sa le un de r § 92 2( a)(6 ), 11 8 F.3 d at 29 5, we

fo cu s o n wh et he r on e’s id en ti ty is a fact th at is m at eri al to th e la wfu ln es s o f a s al e.

See 18 U.S.C. § 92 2( a)(6 ). The id en ti ty of th e pu rch as er is a co ns ta nt th at is al way s

m at eri al to th e la wfu ln es s of th e pu rch as e of a fir earm un de r § 92 2( a)(6 ). See Orti z,

31 8 F.3 d at 10 36 -3 7. Thu s, it can be reas on ed th at al th ou gh th e la wfu ln es s of a sa le

m ay ch an ge de pe nd in g on th e id en ti ty o f t h e p u rch as er, th e fact th at th e id en ti ty o f

th e pu rch as er is m at eri al to th e la wfu ln es s of th e sa le do e s n o t. See, e.g ., Uni te d

St at e s v

. Ph an ph il , 5 7 M.J . 6 , 9 (C.A.A.F. 20 02 ) (ad op ti ng th e ap pr oa ch th at un de r

§ 92 2( a)(6 ), “ th e id en ti ty o f th e tru e pu rch as er i s a ‘fac t’ m at eri al to th e la wfu ln es s

of th e sa le

, reg ard le ss o f t h e el ig ib il it y of th e tru e pu rch as er”)

. The refo re, un de r §

92 2( a)(6 ), Dav is ’s an d Lub in ’s fa l s e s t at em en ts of th e id en ti ty of th e act ua l bu y er

sa ti sf y th e “ fact m at eri al to th e la wfu ln es s of a sal e” elem en t, rega rd le ss of whe th er

th e act or s were al l la wfu ll y el ig ib le to pu rch as e a fir earm

. Fraz ie r’s pr oc ur em en t of

th e fal si fic at io n affe ct s hi s li ab il it y un de r th e ai di ng an d ab et ti ng st at ut e. The refo re,

th e di st ric t co ur t di d no t err in de nyin g Fraz ie r’s m ot io n fo r jud gm en t of acq ui tt al as

to th es e co un ts

.

3. Fra zi er ’s Co nv ic ti on fo r Exp or ti ng Fir ea rms

18Fraz ie r arg ue s th at th e ev id en ce pr es en te d at tri al was in su ffi ci en t to su pp or t

hi s co nv ic ti on un de r 18 U.S.C. §§ 55 4 an d 2, frau du le nt ly or kn o win gl y ex po rti ng

fir earm s. On e v io la te s § 55 4 i f th at pe rs on :

fr au du le nt ly o r kn owi ng ly ex po rts or se nd s fro m th e Uni te d St at es

. . .
an y m erch an di se , art ic le

, or ob ject c on tra ry to an y la w or reg ul at io n of
th e Uni t e d S t a t e s, or rece iv es , co nc eal s, bu y s, se ll s, or in an y m an ne r faci li ta te s th e tra ns po rta ti on , co nc eal m en t, or sa le of su ch m erch an di se , art ic le or ob

ject, pr io r to ex po rta ti on , kn owi ng th e sa m e to be in te nd ed
fo r ex po rta ti on co nt rary t o an y la w o r reg ul at io n o f th e Uni te d St at es

. . . .

18 U.S.C. § 5 54 (a).

Fraz ie r arg ue s th at th ere was in su ffi ci en t ev id en ce t h a t he pa rti ci pa te d in

t r an sp or ti ng , co nc eal in g, or he lp in g to tra ns po rt fir earm s fro m th e Uni te d St at e s t o

Can ad a. His arg um en t i s u nf ou nd ed

.

Fraz i e r w a s res po ns ib le fo r en su rin g Cl ark was pa id fo r tra ns po rti ng th e

fir earm s to Can ad a. On at le as t on e oc cas io n, Cl ark co nt act ed Fraz ie r as so on as sh e

en te red Can ad a to in fo rm hi m of he r st at us

. Fraz ie r al so ex pl ai ne d th e pu rp os e of th e

tri ps to Cla rk

.

Alt ho ug h Fraz ie r cl ai m s th at Cl ark ’s pa rti ci pa ti on in th e sh ip m en t of fir earm s

was so le ly at th e b e h es t of Ro ach

, th e fact s in di cat e ot he rwis e. Cl ark te st ifi ed th at

bo th Fraz ie r an d Ro ach were be hi nd th e sh ip m en t of th e fir earm s. Cl ark ’s te st im on y

do es di ffer as to whi ch de fen da nt sh e ha d m or e co nt act wit h, bu t it do es no t di ffer in

19th e ov eral l pr e mi s e t h a t bo th m en were wor ki ng to ge th er wit h he r to tra ns po rt th e

fir earm s to Can ad a. Si nc e Fraz ie r st ip ul at ed th at he di d no t ha ve a li cen se to ex po rt

fir earm s to Can ad a, th e jury reas on ab ly de te rm in ed th at he ha d vi ol at ed § 55 4( a)

be y on d a reas on ab le do ub t an d th e di st ric t co ur t di d no t err in de nyin g hi s m ot io n fo r

jud gm en t o f acq ui tt al

.

4. Roa ch ’s Co nv ic ti on fo r Co ns pi r a c y to Co mmit Mon ey La un de ri ng R oa ch arg ue s th ere was in su ffi ci en t ev id en ce to su pp or t hi s co nv ic ti on on

co un t 14

, co ns pi racy to co m m it m on ey la un de rin g in vi ol at io n 1 8 U

. S

. C. §

19 56 (a)( 1) (A)(i ) an d (h ). Ro ach arg ue s th at th ere was a la ck of ev id en ce to pr ov e two

el em en ts in th e cri m e, na m el y , t ha t th e fu nd s h e an d W at ts rece iv ed fro m Nna di on

May 18

, 20 07

, at W es te rn Uni on in Mi am i cam e fro m un la wfu l act iv it y or th at he

kn ew th e fu nd s wer e fro m un la wfu l ac ti vi ty.

To ob ta in a c o n vi ct io n on a § 19 56 (a)( 1) (A)(i ) ch arg e, th e go ve rn m en t m us t

pr ov e b ey on d a reas on ab le do ub t t ha t:

(1 ) th e de fen da nt co nd uc te d or at te m pt ed to c o n d uc t a fin an ci al

tra ns act io n; (2 ) th e de fen da nt kn ew th e pr op ert y in vo lv ed in th e
tra ns act io n rep res en te d th e pr oc eed s of un la wfu l act iv it y ; (3 ) th e
pr op ert y i n vo lv ed was in fact th e pr oc eed s of th e sp eci fie d un la wfu l

act iv it y ; an d (4 ) th e de fen da nt co nd uc te d th e fin an ci al tra ns act io n “ wit h
th e in te nt to pr om ot e th e carr y in g on of [th e] sp eci fie d un la wfu l

act iv it y .”

20Uni te d St at es v. Wi l l i a ms on , 33 9 F.3 d 12 95

, 13 01 (1 1t h Ci r. 20 03 ) (q uo ti ng §

19 56 (a)( 1) (A)(i )). Sect io n 19 56 (h ) su bjec ts an y on e who co ns pi res to co m m it a cri m e

un de r § 1 95 6 t o t he same pen al ti es as t he off en se co nd uc t.

Ro ach co nc ed es th at hi s en co un te r wit h W at ts sa ti sf ie d el em en ts (1 ) an d (4 ) of

th e st at ut e: a fin an ci al tra n s a c t i on th at was co nd uc te d wit h th e in te nt to pr om ot e

un la wfu l acti vi ty. Howev er, he arg ue s th at th ere was ins uf fic ie nt ev id en ce to sh ow

th at he ha d kn owl ed ge th at th e mo n e y t r an sf erre d fro m Nna di was th e pr oc eed s of

un la wfu l act iv it y , e le m en t (2 ), an d t he re was in su ffi ci en t ev id en ce to sh ow th at th e

m on ey tra ns ferr ed was, i n fa ct , th e p ro ceed s o f un la wfu l ac ti vi ty, el em en t (3 ).

A § 19 56 (a) co nv ic ti on can be su st ai ne d by ci rcu m st an ti al ev id en ce. Uni te d

St at es v. Kin g, 16 9 F.3 d 10 35 , 1 03 8- 39 (6 th Ci r. 1 9 9 9 )

. Th e go ve rn m en t ne ed no t

pr ov e th at th e fu nd s cam e fro m a sp eci fic il le ga l act io n. See Uni te d St at es v. Ja ck so n,

93 5 F.2d 83 2, 83 9 (7t h Cir. 19 91 ). Pro of th at th e fu nd s were dru g pro ceed s m ay be

es ta bl is he d by ci rcu m st an ti al ev id en ce. Uni te d Stat es v. Blac km an , 90 4 F.2 d 12 50

,

12 57 (8 th Ci r. 19 90 ). Ci rcu m st an ti al ev id en ce m ay be us ed to pr ov e a de fen da nt

kn ew th e fu nd s were dr ug pr oc eed s. Uni te d St at es v. Gall o, 92 7 F.2 d 81 5, 82 2 (5 th

Ci r. 19 91 ).

Here, th e fact s es ta bl is h th at th e $9 00 wire tra ns fer cam e fro m m on ey th at on e

of Ro ach ’s a ss oc ia te s in Alab am a owe d hi m

. Ro ach ’s a ss oc ia te ga ve th e m on ey to

21Nna di

, a m em be r of Ro ach ’s sm

ug gl in g o pe rat io n. Nna di wire d th e m on ey fro m

Alab am a, whe re a si gn ifi can t am ou nt of Ro ach ’s sm ug gl in g act iv it i e s t o o k pl ace.

The m on ey was th en us ed to faci li ta te th e il le ga l sm ug gl in g of fir earm s an d dr ug s in to

Can ad a. Fu rth er, th ere was no ev id en ce th at Ro ach ha d a so ur ce of in co m e ot he r th an

hi s sm ug gl in g op erat io n. Fro m th es e fact s, a reas on ab le jury wou ld be ab le to in fer

th at th e $9 00 in vo lv ed in th e wire tra ns act io n was th e pr oc eed s of un la wfu l acti vi ty

th at Ro ach ha d k no wled ge of.

Fu rth er, Ro ach wire d m on ey to W at t s w h i le sh e was in Can ad a to ren t th e

ve hi cl es th at sh e us ed to tra ns po rt th e fir earm s. Last ly, a s ub st an ti al am ou nt of

ev id en ce was pr es en te d at tri al th at Ro ach tra ns m it te d mo n e y th ro ug h wire

t r an sa ct io ns to faci li ta te il le ga l act iv it y or th at was th e pr oc eed s of il le ga l act iv it y

.

Alt ho ug h th e fact s do no t es ta bl is h th at th e $9 00 Nna di wire d to W at ts cam e di rect ly

fro m il le ga l act iv it y th at Ro ach kn ew of

, th ere was am

pl e ci rcu m st an ti al ev id en ce to

al lo w a reas on ab le jury to dr aw su ch an in fere nc e. Thu s, th e di st ric t co ur t di d no t err

in de nyin g R oa ch ’s m ot io n fo r jud gm en t o f acq ui tt al

.

II I. Roa ch’s Sente nci ng Offe ns e Lev el

W e rev ie w “ ob

jecti on s to se nt en ci ng cal cu la ti on is su es rai se d fo r th e fir st ti m e

o n a p p e a l fo r pl ai n erro r.” Uni te d St at es v. Ben ne tt

, 47 2 F.3 d 82 5, 83 1 (1 1t h C i r

.

20 06 ) (ci ti ng Uni te d St at es v. Harn es s, 18 0 F.3 d 12 32

, 12 34 (1 1t h Ci r.19 99 )). “ Thi s

22st an da rd req ui res th at th ere b e erro r, th at th e erro r be pl ai n, an d t ha t t he erro r affe ct

a su bs ta nt ia l rig ht .” Id

. at 83 1. “ A su bs ta nt ia l rig ht is affe ct ed if th e ap pe al in g pa rty

can sh ow th at th ere is a reas on ab le pr ob ab il it y th at th ere wou ld ha ve be en a di ffer en t

res ul t ha d th ere be en no erro r.” Id

. at 83 1- 32

. “ If th es e th ree co nd it io ns are m et

, th en

we m ay ex erci se ou r di sc ret io n to no ti ce th e fo rfei te d erro r if th e erro r se rio us l y

affe ct s th e fai rn es s, in te gr it y , or pu bl ic rep ut at io n of jud ic ia l pr oc eed in gs. ” Id

. at 83 2.

Here, Ro ach ’s bas e of

fen se le ve l was 24. His of fen se le ve l was inc reas ed by

two le ve ls fo r hi s co nv ic ti on of a m on ey la un de rin g of fen se , an d hi s lead ers hi p rol e

in th e cri m es res ul te d in a fo ur -le ve l en ha nc em en t, l eav in g R oa ch ’s cor rect off en se

le ve l as 30

. Howev er, th e di st ric t co ur t m is cal cu la te d Ro ach ’s to ta l of fen se le ve l as

31

.

A to ta l of

fen se le ve l of 31 res ul te d in a reco m m en de d Gui de li ne s ran ge of 10 8

to 13 5 m on th s’ im

pr is on m en t. Und er th e co rrec t of fen se le ve l of 30

, Ro ach ’s

Gui de li ne s ran ge wou ld ha ve be en 97 t o 1 2 1 m on th s. His se nt en ce of 13 5 m on th s

was at th e hi gh en d of th e Gui de li ne s ran ge un de r an of fen se le ve l of 31

, bu t ou ts id e

of th e Gui de li ne s ran ge un de r hi s co rrec t to ta l of fen se le ve l of 30

. Si nc e hi s se nt en ce

was ou ts id e of hi s co rrec t Gui de li ne s ran ge , th ere is a reas on ab le pr ob ab il it y th at th e

di st ric t co ur t wou ld ha ve se nt en ced Ro ach di ffer en tl y ba se d on t he co rrec t of fen se

le ve l of 30

. Thu s, th e m is cal cu la te d of fen se le ve l affe ct ed Ro ach ’s su bs ta nt ia l rig ht s.

23Si nc e th e m is cal cu la ti on erro r se rio us ly affe ct ed th e fai rn es s, in te gr it y , or pu bl ic

rep ut at io n of th e jud ic ia l pr oc eed in gs in th is cas e, s e e i d

. a t 83 4, we ho ld th at th e

di st ric t co ur t p la in ly erred in sen te nc in g R oa ch

.

The refo re, Ro ach ’s se nt en ce is v a c a t e d a nd rem an de d fo r th e pu rp os e of

res en t e n c i n g ba se d on th e co rrec t to ta l of fen se le ve l an d co rres po nd in g ad vi so ry

Gui de li ne s ra ng e.

Con cl us io n

Bo th co nv ic ti on s were su pp or te d by su ffi ci en t e v i d e n ce, so we affi rm th e

di st ric t co ur t’s ru li ng in th at reg ard

. Howev er, th e di st ric t co ur t pl ai nl y erre d in us in g

an of fen se le ve l of 31 in cal cu la ti ng Ro ach ’s se nt en c e

. The refo re, we va cat e an d

rem an d R oa ch ’s sen te nc e fo r th e li m it ed pu rp os e o f res en te nc in g h im

.

AFFIR MED in pa rt, VACATED an d R EMANDED in pa rt.

24