FILED U.S. COURT OF AP P E A LS E LE V EN T HC IRC U IT May 16, 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. 07- 12849 N on -A rgum entC al endar

________________________ D . C . D ocketN o. 06 -000 11 -C R -01-W C O -2 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 O S C A R R E N E D I A Z , a .k .a . O s c a rD ia z , R O D R I G O R A M I R E Z - C O N T R E R A S , a .k .a . R o d r ig o C o n tr e r a s R a m ir e z , D e f e n d a n ts - A p p e lla n ts .

________________________ A pp ea l s f

rom the U ni t ed S t at es D i stri ctC ou rt f o rth e N o r th e rn D is tr ic t o f G e o r g ia

_________________________ ( M ay 16, 2008) B efo re A N D E R S O N , H U L L an d K R A V IT C H , C i rcu i tJu d g es.Diaz was also indicted a nd tried on this charg e, but was acquitted. 1 2 P E R C U R I A M: O s c a rD ia z a n d R o d r ig o R a m ir e z - C o n tr e r a s s e p a r a te ly ap p e a l th e ir c onvi c t i ons a nd s e nt e nc e s f orpos s e s s i on w i th i nt e ntt o di s tr i but e c oc a i ne a nd conspi ra cy t o d o so, i n v i ol at i on of 21 U . S . C . §§ 84 1(a) (1) a nd 84 6. R am i re zC ontr e r a s a l s o appe a l s hi s c onvi c t i on f orpos s e s s i ng a f

i r e a r m dur i ng a drug tr a f f i c ki ng c r i m e , i n vi ol a t i on of 18 U . S . C . § 924( c ) . A f t e ra c a r e f

ul r e vi e w of

the 1 b r i e f s a n d th e r e c o r d , w e a f

f i r m. I . T he fi rs tcl ai m of error i s r ai se d b y D i az , w ho chal l enges the deni al of a m ot i on t o s uppr e s s e vi de nc e f r om a pol i c e s e a r c h of

a bus i ne s s c a l l e d O ne - S t op C on struct i on . W hen con si deri ng a m ot i on t o sup pres s, w e r evi ew the di stri ct c our t ’ s f i ndi ngs of

f a c tf orc l e a re rr or , buti t s appl i c a t i on of l a w t o f a c t , i nc l udi ng the ul t i m at e dec i si on abou tw hether t o sup pres s, i s r evi ew ed de no vo . U ni t ed S t at es v. B erval di , 22 6 F . 3d 12 56 , 12 62 (11t h C i r. 20 00 ). T he di sput ed se ar ch w as of O ne-S t op C on struct i on . O ne-S t op w as l ocat ed i n a bus i ne s s c om pl e x a nd, a c c or di ng t o the gove rnm e nt ’ s e vi de nc e , s ha r e d a com m on l oadi ng do ck w i th atl ea sttw o o ther t enant s, B A B S t ee ri ng H ydraul i cs a n d A m b it C o rp o r a tio n . T h e o th e rte n a n ts b e lie v e d O n e - S to p to b e s u s p ic io u s .3

O ne t e na ntc a l l e d the pol i c e a nd r e por t e d ( i ) tha tO ne - S t op r e c e i ve d l a r ge s h ip m e n ts o f

tile , b u t n e v e rs o ld a n y tile o ru n d e r to o k a n y tile c o n tr a c tin g , a n d ( ii) no c us t om e r s orothe rm e m be r s of the publ i c e ve rs e e m e d t o f r e que ntO ne - S t op, a n d e v e n its ap p a r e n t o w n e r , D ia z , w a s s e ld o m p r e s e n t. B A B S te e r in g a n d A m b it both ga ve the i rc ons e ntt o l a w e nf or c e m e ntt o s e a r c h the l oa di ng doc k, a nd ga ve th e in v e s tig a tin g o f

f ic e r , J e f f r e y S h u ll, a k e y . S h u ll a ls o c o n ta c te d M e tr o R e n ta ls , w h ic h r e n te d f o r k lif ts to O n e - S to p . M etro R ent al s r eport ed thatD i az w ant ed the re nt al forkl i ft s del i vere d o ut si de, r a the rtha n i ns i de , the O ne - S t op pr e m i s e s , a de m a nd M e tr o R e nt a l s thought u n u s u a l a n d s u s p i c i o u s . Sh u l l a s k e d M e tr o Re n t a l s t o c o n t a c th i m th e n e x tt i me O ne - S t op r e nt e d a f

or kl i f t , w hi c h i tdi d on J a nua ry 20, 2006. A ft erthi s r eportfr om M etro R ent al s, the l ocal sher i ff’ s off i ce began survei l l ance of O ne-S t op . O n January 22 , 20 06 , S hu l l w as i nform ed thata tra ct ortr a i l e rha d a rr i ve d a tO ne - S t op, a l ong w i th D i a z a nd R a m i r e z - C ontr e r a s i n a s e pa r a t e ve hi c l e . T he tr a c t ortr a i l e rw a s i ni t i a l l y br oughtt o the l oa di ng doc k, w here up on the survei l l i ng offi ce rs hear d the soun ds of heavy m ac hi nery ; the truck w a s th e n m o v e d to th e p a r k in g lo t. W i tho utob t ai ni ng a w arra nt , S hu l l and o ther l aw enforce m entoffi ce rs a rr i ve d a tO ne - S t op. T he y f i r s tdi r e c t e d a drug- s ni f f i ng dog t o s ni f

f the ba c k of

theMiranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (1966). 2 4 tr a c t or - tr a i l e r , w hi c h by tha tpoi ntha d be e n m ove d t o the publ i c pa r ki ng l ot . T he dog a l e r t e d the m tha tdrugs ha d be e n pr e s e nti n the truc k. O f f i c e r s the n e nt e r e d the l oadi ng do ck. T hey i m m edi at el y e ncou nt er ed R am i re z- C on tre ra s, w ho em er ged i nt o the com m on l oadi ng do ck fr om a doo r c on nect i ng the l oadi ng do ck w i th O neS t op’ s pr e m i s e s . T he of f i c e r s i de nt i f

i e d the m s e l ve s , a nd upon be i ng a s ke d, R am i re z- C on tre ra s s t at ed he had a gu n. H e w as then d et ai ned. R am i re z- C on tre ra s ha d l e f tthe doort o O ne - S t op ope n. A nothe rof f i c e re nt e r e d O ne - S t op a nd f ound D i az i nsi de. D i az w as det ai ned as par tof a prot ec t i ve sw ee p o f the i nt er i or of O neS to p . N e ith e rh e n o rR a m ir e z - C o n tr e r a s o f f e r e d a n y r e s is ta n c e . A n o ff i ce r M i ra nd i ze d D i az i n E ng l i sh. D i az then, w i tho utre qu es t i ng an 2 att orney, verbal l y c on se nt ed t o a se ar ch of O ne-S t op and al so si gn ed a f orm co n sen t i n g t o su ch a search . A l th o u g h D i az st at ed h e w as fl u en ti n b o th E n g l i sh and S pani sh, the consentform w as i n S pani sh, and a S pani sh-s peaki ng offi ce r re vi ew ed i tw i th D i az . O nce the consentform w as exec ut ed, the offi ce rs se ar ched the pr e m i s e s w i th the drug s ni f f i ng dog. T he dog i ndi c a t e d tha tdrugs w e r e pr e s e nt i n the pa l l e tof

t i l e ne xtt o D i a z . T he pa l l e tw a s ope ne d a nd a l m os t40 ki l ogr a m s of co cai n e w ere fo u n d . Iti s th i s ev i d en ce th atD i az so u g h tt o su p p ress. E v e n w h e n u n d e r ta k e n w ith o u t a w a rr a n t, a s e a r c h is c o n s titu tio n a lly5

r e a s o n ab le if

c o n d u c te d p u r s u a n t to c o n s e n t f r o m a th ir d p a r ty w ith a u th o r ity to autho ri ze i t , or w ho re as on abl y app ea rs t o an o ff i ce r t o h ave s uch aut ho ri ty. U ni t ed S t a t e s v. B r a z e l , 102 F . 3d 1120, 1148 ( 11th C i r . 1997) ( c i t a t i ons om i tt e d) . A nd a thi r d pa r ty ha s a uthor i ty t o c ons e ntt o a s e a r c h of a n a r e a “ i f

he ha s m utua l us e of i t , w i th j oi nta c c e s s orc ontr ol of the a r e a f

orm os tpurpos e s . ” I d. He r e , S h u l l o b t a i n e d c o n s e n tt o s e a r c h On e - S t o p ’ s l o a d i n g d o c k f r o m two source s: the ot her t enant s pri or t o the ra i d, and D i az hi m se l f a ft erw ar ds. D i az a r g u e s th a t th e o th e rte n a n ts la c k e d a u th o r ity to c o n s e n t to th e s e a r c h a n d th a t h is c ons e ntt o the s e a r c h w a s notknow i ng a nd vol unt a ry . W e c ons i de re a c h a r gum e nt in tu rn . A tthe supp re ss i on hear i ng , D i az cont es t ed thatthe ot her t enant s had a u th o r i ty t o c o n s e n tt o S h u l l ’ s e n try i n t o , a n d s e a r c h o f , th e l o a d i n g d o c k . He a r gue d tha tonl y O ne - S t op ha d a uthor i ty ove rthe l oa di ng doc k, a nd thus , ha d a r e a s onabl e e xpe c t a t i on of pr i va c y i n i t . T he di s tr i c tc our tc onc l ude d tha tthe l oadi ng do ck w as com m on t o al l t enant s of the prop erty, and t hu s thatthe ot her te n a n ts h a d b o th a c tu a l a n d ap p a r e n t a u th o r ity to c o n s e n t to S h u ll’s s e a r c h . T h is f a c tua l de t e r m i na t i on i s notc l e a r l y e rr one ous . F i r s t , the l e a s e s s i gne d by a l l the t e na nt s i n the bui l di ng di d nots pe c i f i c a l l y gr a nta c c e s s t o the l oa di ng doc k, nor othe rw i s e m e nt i on i t . S e c ond, the othe rt e na nt s ha d phy s i c a l a c c e s s t o the doc k,Diaz argues that Ge org ia v. Randolph, 547 U.S. 103 (2006), c ompels the conc lusion 3 that this searc h was unre asonablebeca use consent was not obtained from Ramirez-Contreras. This argument badly

over- reads Randolph. In Randolph, the defendant was present when police searched his home; his wifeconsente d to the search but he refuse d to do so. The Supreme Court held the sea

rch w as unre asonableas to the def endant be causeof his objection. There are two signif ic ant distinc tio ns be tw e e n this c a seand Randolp h. F ir st, thi s se arch w a s o f a bu sin e ss, where there is a significantly diminis hed expectation of privacy in comparison to a home. See United States v. Chaves, 169 F .3d 687, 690 (11th Cir. 1999) (c itations omi tted). Second, unlike in Randolph, there is no evidence that Ramirez-Contreras had any possessory

right over the one Stop premises or that he protested the sea rch of the loadingdock or of

One- Stop. 6 an d o n e t est i fi ed th ath i s b u si n ess u sed i t . T h i rd , an d p erh ap s m o sti m p o rt an t l y, both the l a ndl or d a nd the m a na ge r s of A m bi ta nd B A B w e r e gi ve n ke y s t o the l oadi ng do ck. S hu l l hi m se l f gothi s key fr om these other t enant s. T hatthe ot her bu si ness es had k ey s t o g i ve S hu l l i s i ncon si st entw i th the no t i on thatO ne-S t op had a n e xpe c t a t i on of

pr i va c y i n the doc k. T hus , the othe rt e na nt s ha d a uthor i ty t o gr a ntS hul l a c c e s s t o the l oa di ng do ck for ase ar ch. T hatm akes the w arra nt l es s e ntry i nt o the l oadi ng do ck const i tut i on al l y r ea sonabl e. O nce the offi ce rs ent er ed the do ck and R am i re z- 3 C ontr e r a s a nnounc e d he ha d a gun, the r e w a s a m pl e c a us e f orapr ot e c t i ve s w e e p of the doc k a nd i nt e r i orof O ne - S t op. B utconsentt o sea rc h the l oadi ng do ck i t se l f, pl us a prot ec t i ve sw ee p al on e, w oul d note nt i t l e the of f i c e r s t o c utope n the c l os e d pa l l e ti ns i de O ne - S t op. T he othe rt e na nt s ha d a uthor i ty onl y t o c ons e ntt o a s e a r c h of the c om m on l oa di ng doc k, nott o the i nt e r i orof O ne - S t op w he r e the pa l l e tof drugs w a s f

ound. T he7

pr ot e c t i ve s w e e p e nt i t l e d the of f i c e r s t o e nt e rO ne - S t op, butonl y t o the e xt e nt n ecessary to en su re th ey w ere n o ti n d an g er. S ee, e. g . , U n i t ed S t at es v . D el an cy, 502 F . 3d 1297, 1306 ( 11th C i r . 2007) . I n othe rw or ds , the c o- t e na nt ’ s c ons e nta nd p ro t ect i v e sw eep j u st i fi ed en t eri n g th e l o ad i n g d o ck , d et ai n i n g R am i rez-C o n treras, e nt e r i ng O ne - S t op thr ough the ope n door , a nd de t a i ni ng D i a z , butw oul d notha ve p e r m itte d th e o f

f ic e r s to b r in g a d ru g d o g to s n if f th e p a lle t a n d th e n c u t it o p e n . T hu s, w e m ustal so consi der w hether D i az ’ s c on se ntt o a se ar ch of O ne-S t op w as v o lu n ta ry . U n ite d S ta te s v . R a m ir e z - C h ile l, 2 8 9 F .3 d 7 4 4 , 7 5 2 ( 1 1 th C ir . 2 0 0 2 ) . V o lu n ta r in e s s is d e te r m in e d f r o m th e to ta lity o f

th e c ir c u m s ta n c e s ; p e r tin e n t f a c ts i ncl ud e w he the rthe de f

e nda ntw a s f

r e e t o l e a ve , w he the rthe r e w a s c oe r c i ve pol i c e pr oc e dur e , the e xt e ntof the de f e nda nt ’ s c oope r a t i on or a w a r e n e s s o f

a r ig h t to r e f

u s e to c o n s e n t, w h e th e rth e d e f e n d a n t c o u ld r e f us e t o c ons e nt , the e xt e ntof the de f e nda nt ’ s e duc a t i on a nd i nt el l i gence, and t he defendant ’ s bel i ef thatno i ncri m i nat i ng evi dence w oul d be f

ound. Id. (c i t at i on s om i tt ed). H er e, the di stri ctcourtw as corr ec ti n con cl ud i ng thatD i az vo l un t ar i l y c on se nt ed t o the se ar ch. T rue, D i az w as arre st ed i n a surpri se po l i ce ra i d. B utthi ng s c oo l ed off once the ar eaw as se cure d, and i tappears se vera l m i nut e s pa s s e d be f

or e D i a z s i gne d the c ons e ntf or m . T he r e i s no c l e a re rr ori n the di s tr i c tc our t ’ s f

a c tua l f i ndi ng tha tthe pol i c e di d notthr e a t e n ori nt i m i da t e D i a z , or o th erw i se treath i m co erci v el y i n p ro cu ri n g th e w ai v er. M o reo v er, D i az’ s E n g l i sh8

i s e xc e l l e nt , a nd i n a ny e ve nt , the c ons e ntf or m w a s pr i nt e d i n S pa ni s h a nd e x p la in e d to h im in S p a n is h – h e o b v io u s ly u n d e r s to o d w h a t h e w a s b e in g a s k e d to consentt o. U nd erthe ci rc um st ance s, w e a gree thatconsentt o sea rc h w as v o lu n ta r ily g iv e n . A c c o r d in g ly , th e s e a r c h d id n o t v io la te th e F o u r th A m e n d m e n t, and i t s f rui t s w er e a dm i ss i bl e. I I . N ext , D i az ar gu es thatthe di stri ctcourterre d b y denyi ng hi s m ot i on t o sever hi s tr i a l f r om R a m i r e z - C ontr e r a s ’ s . T he tw o w e r e i ndi c t e d t oge the ra nd thus pr e s um pt i ve l y s houl d be tr i e d t oge the r . U ni t e d S t a t e s v. C obb, 185 F . 3d 1193, 1197 ( 11th C i r . 1999) . W e r e vi e w the de ni a l of a s e ve r a nc e m ot i on f

orabus e of di s c r e t i on, a nd w e w i l l or de ra ne w tr i a l onl y i f D i a z c a n s how ( i ) c om pe l l i ng p r e ju d ic e f r o m jo in d e r , ( ii) w h ic h c a n b e r e m e d ie d o n ly b y s e v e r a n c e . S e e , e .g ., U n ite d S ta te s v . B r o w n e , 5 0 5 F .3 d 1 2 2 9 , 1 2 6 8 ( 1 1 th C ir . 2 0 0 7 ) ( c ita tio n s o m itte d ) . T h ere are o n l y tw o si tu at i o n s w h ere sev eran ce i s th e o n l y p erm i ssi b l e rem ed y: w he n the r e i s a s e r i ous r i s k tha ta j oi nttr i a l w oul d c om pr om i s e a s pe c i f i c tr i a l r i ght of a de f e nda nt , orw he n j oi nde rw oul d pr e ve ntthe j ury f r om r e l i abl y j udgi ng a de f e nda nt ’ s gui l tori nnoc e nc e . I d. D i a z a r gue s the j oi nde rpr e j udi c e d hi s abi l i ty t o m a ke hi s de f e ns e a nd prevent ed a r el i abl e j ud gm entabou tgu i l t . D i az ’ s theory of the ca se w as thatBr uton v. United States, 391 U.S. 123 (1968). 4 9 R a m i r e z - C ontr e r a s de l i ve r e d the “ t i l e ” pa l l e tt o the w a r e hous e a tO ne - S t op, but th a t D ia z d id n o t k n o w th a t th e p a lle t w a s f u ll o f c o c a in e . A f

te rh is a rr e s t, R am i re z- C on tre ra s a l l egedl y m ade ase l f- i ncri m i nat i ng st at em entt o O ff i ce r W al ker, w hi ch al so i m pl i ca t ed D i az by st at i ng thatan ea rl i erdrug shi pm entw as ope ne d i n D i a z ’ s pr e s e nc e . D i a z m ove d f ors e ve r a nc e pr i ort o tr i a l , a nt i c i pa t i ng tha tR a m i r e z - C ontr e r a s w oul d nott e s t i f y a nd a r gui ng tha ta dm i s s i on of the u n r e d a c te d s ta te m e n t th r o u g h W a lk e rw o u ld c o n s titu te B ru to n e rr o r . 4 In fa ct, R am irez -C o n trer as u lt im ately tes ti fied . P ar ts o f R am irez -C o n trer as ’s a l l e ge d s t a t e m e ntw e r e i ntr oduc e d dur i ng the gove rnm e nt ’ s c a s e i n c hi e f by W a l ke r , butthe e xa m i na t i on of W a l ke ra ttha tt i m e a voi de d r e f e r e nc e t o the s t a t e m e nt s i nc ul pa t i ng D i a z , e f f e c t i ve l y r e da c t i ng the s t a t e m e nt s t o a voi d B rut on error. O n cross -e xam i nat i on of R am i re z- C on tre ra s by the go vernm ent , R am i re zC ontr e r a s de ni e d m a ki ng a ny s t a t e m e nti nc ul pa t i ng hi m s e l f orD i a z i n drug a c t i vi ty . D i a z the n ha d a n oppor tuni ty t o c r os s - e xa m i ne R a m i r e z - C ontr e r a s about h i s st at em en t , o b v i at i n g an y p o t en t i al B ru t o n erro r. S ee U n i t ed S t at es v . A ri asI z qui e r do, 449 F . 3d 1168, 1184- 85 ( 11th C i r . 2006) ( c i t a t i ons om i tt e d) . T he n, dur i ng the gove rnm e nt ’ s r e butt a l c a s e , W a l ke rw a s r e c a l l e d t o the s t a nd a nd i n the p r o c e s s , d e s c r ib e d R a m ir e z - C o n tr e r a s ’s a lle g e d s ta te m e n t m o r e f u lly , e x p la in in g inIt appea rs no limiti nginstruction was g iven, but no reque st for such a n instruction was 5 made . Thefailureto g ivea lim itingins tr

uc tio n ise rror

on ly wh e n s uc h a

n in str uc tio n is reque sted. Fe d. R. Evid. 105; United St ates v. Mira nda, 197 F .3d 1357, 1360 (11th Cir. 1999). 10 pa r t i c ul a rtha tR a m i r e z - C ontr e r a s t ol d hi m tha tD i a z ha d be e n pr e s e ntw he n a pr i or shi pm entof drug s w as op ened. T hu s, R am i re z- C on tre ra s’ s s t at em entt o W al ker i m pl i c a t i ng D i a z w a s pr ope r l y a dm i s s i bl e a s i m pe a c hm e ntby pr i ori nc ons i s t e nt s ta te m e n t. 5 D i a z a l s o a r gue s tha ts e ve r a nc e w a s due be c a us e he w a s pr e j udi c e d by the a s s oc i a t i on w i th R a m i r e z - C ontr e r a s , w ho w a s a n i l l e ga l a l i e n, pos s e s s e d a w e apon du ri ng the drug tra nsac t i on , and h ad a pri or drug -r el at ed conv i ct i on . Y etthe j ury w a s dul y i ns truc t e d t o c ons i de re a c h de f e nda nts e pa r a t e l y , a nd i tdi d, a c qui tt i ng D ia z o f p o s s e s s in g a f

ir e a r m d u r in g a n d in r e la tio n to a d ru g c r im e , 1 8 U .S .C . § 9 2 4 ( c ) ( 1 ) ( A ) ( i) , w h ile c o n v ic tin g R a m ir e z - C o n tr e r a s o f th a t o f f e n s e . B e c a u s e n o B ru to n e rr o ro c c u rr e d a n d th e ju ry f o llo w e d its in s tru c tio n s to c ons i de re a c h de f

e nda nts e pa r a t e l y , D i a z ha s nots how n pr e j udi c e w a rr a nt i ng s e v e r a n c e a n d r e tr ia l. III. D i a z a l s o c ont e nds the di s tr i c tc our tabus e d i t s di s c r e t i on by l i m i t i ng the t i m e of hi s c l os i ng a r gum e nt . T he gove rnm e ntw a s gi ve n f or ty m i nut e s f

or c l os i ng; e a c h de f

e nda ntw a s gi ve n tw e nty . W e w i l l r e ve r s e onl y i f D i a z di d not11

ha ve the “ oppor tuni ty t o m a ke a l l l e ga l l y t e nabl e a r gum e nt s tha ta r e s uppor t e d by the f a c t s of the c a s e . ” U ni t e d S t a t e s v. G a i ne s , 690 F . 2d 849, 858 ( 11th C i r . 1982) ( c i t a t i ons om i tt e d) . A nd w e pr e vi ous l y ha ve r e j e c t e d c ha l l e nge s t o c l os i ng a r gum e ntt i m e i n m ul t i - de f e nda nttr i a l s w he r e the gove rnm e ntr e c e i ve d a r gum e nt t i m e e qu al t o al l the defendant s’ t i m e putt og ether. S ee U ni t ed S t at es v. C art er , 76 0 F . 2d 15 68 , 15 81 (11t h C i r. 19 85 ). A f t e ra r e vi e w of

the r e c or d, w e f

i nd no abus e of

di s c r e t i on i n l i m i t i ng D i a z ’ s c l os i ng a r gum e nt . T he e vi de nc e i n the c a s e w a s notvol um i nous , a nd co u n sel w as ab l e t o m ak e h i s essen t i al p o i n t s fai rl y. I V. F i na l l y , D i a z c ha l l e nge s hi s 292- m onth s e nt e nc e . T he di s tr i c tc our tf ound D i az l i ab l e fo r 1 2 9 . 5 5 k i l o g ram s o f co cai n e, resu l t i n g i n a G u i d el i n es b ase o ffen se l evel of 36 . U . S . S . G . § 2 D 1. 1(c) (2). T he di stri ctcourtthen (i ) app l i ed a tw o-l evel enhancem entfor obstruct i on of j ust i ce , U . S . S . G . § 3 C 1. 1, fi nd i ng thatD i az com m i tt ed perj ury w hen h e t es t i fi ed, (i i ) app l i ed a tw o-l evel enhancem entfor D i az ba s e d on R a m i r e z - C ontr e r a s ’ s pos s e s s i on of a w e apon i n f

urthe r a nc e of

the conspi ra cy , U . S . S . G . § 2 D 1. 1(b)(1), and (i i i ) dec l i ned t o g ra nta tw o-l evel m i no rrol e r educt i on , U . S . S . G . § 3 B 1. 2. T he di stri ctcourtthu s c om pu t ed D i az ’ s t ot al offe nse l evel as 40 , w hi ch, com bi ned w i th a cr i m i nal hi st ory c at egory of I , re sul t edDiaz’s brief is unc lear about his sentencingchalleng es. After reviewingit care fully , we 6 cannot c onclude hepreserved a ny argument concerninga minor role reduction.

12 i n an adv i sory G ui del i nes r ange of 29 2 t o 3 65 m on ths. U . S . S . G . § 5 A . D i az w as u ltim a te ly s e n te n c e d to 2 9 2 m o n th s . D i az fi rstch al l en g es th e ap p l i cat i o n o f th e G u i d el i n es, as t o b o th th e b ase offe nse l evel and t he tw o enh ance m ent s. W e r evi ew the di stri ctcourt ’ s f ac tual 6 f i ndi ngs f orc l e a re rr orbutr e vi e w de novo que s t i ons of l a w a r i s i ng unde rthe G u id e lin e s . S e e , e .g ., U n ite d S ta te s v . C r a w f o r d , 4 0 7 F .3 d 1 1 7 4 , 1 1 7 7 - 7 8 ( 1 1 th C i r. 20 05 ). W e be gi n w i th the ba s e of f e ns e l e ve l , w hi c h de pe nds on the a m ountof coca i ne attri bu t abl e t o D i az . T he di stri ctcourtadop t ed the P S I’ s c on cl usi on that D i a z s houl d be he l d a c c ount abl e f or129. 55 ki l ogr a m s of

c oc a i ne , a s f

ol l ow s . T he r a id o f O n e - S to p r e s u lte d in th e c o n f is c a tio n o f

3 9 .5 5 k ilo g r a m s o f

c o c a in e . M o reo v er, acco rd i n g t o W al k er, R am i rez-C o n treras ad m i tt ed t o recei v i n g atl east one othe rs hi pm e ntof

thi r ty ki l ogr a m s . I n a ddi t i on t o the s hi pm e nta dm i tt e d t o by R am i re z- C on tre ra s, the go vernm ent ’ s docum ent ary e vi dence re fl ec t ed thatO neS t op re ce i ved t w o add i t i on al shi pm ent s of t i l e f rom the sa m e M exi ca n fac t ory a s the shi pm entcont ai ni ng the cocai ne st as h sei ze d i n the ra i d. H ence , the fi nal c a l c ul a t i on i nc l ude d thr e e s hi pm e nt s e s t i m a t e d a tthi r ty ki l ogr a m s e a c h, pl us the 3 9 .5 5 k ilo g r a m s a c tu a lly s e iz e d .13

A base offe nse l evel of 36 i s app ropri at e f or any a m ou ntof cocai ne betw ee n 50 a nd 150 ki l ogr a m s . U . S . S . G . § 2D 1. 1( c ) ( 2) . B e c a us e the drugs s e i z e d i n the ra i d t ot al ed 39 . 55 ki l og ra m s, the j ud ge needed t o fi nd on l y t en and a hal f m ore ki l ogr a m s t o pr ope r l y be gi n the G ui de l i ne s c a l c ul a t i on w i th a ba s e of f e ns e l e ve l of 36. G i ve n W a l ke r ’ s s t a t e m e nttha tR a m i r e z - C ontr e r a s ’ s a dm i tt e d a pr i ors hi pm e nt o f th ir ty k ilo g r a m s , w h ic h it w a s n o t c le a re rr o rto c r e d it, it w a s e n tir e ly p r o p e rto a ttr ib u te o v e rf

if ty k ilo g r a m s to b o th d e f e n d a n ts . N o rw a s th e r e c le a re rr o rin es t i m at i ng the pri or shi pm ent s a tthi rty ki l og ra m s e ac h b as ed on R am i re zC o n trer as ’s statem en t. T h e r ec o rd am p ly su p p o rts th e d istrict j u d g e’s d e te r m in a tio n o f

th e b a s e o f

f e n s e le v e l. N e xt , w e a ddr e s s D i a z ’ s c ha l l e nge t o the tw o l e ve l e nha nc e m e ntf or po ss es si on of a w eapo n. D i az ar gu es thatthe enhancem entw as un w arra nt ed because he w as ac qu i tt ed by the j ury of hi s § 92 4(c) char ge. B utas the G ui del i nes c o m m e n ta ry m a k e s c le a r , th e e n h a n c e m e n t is ap p r o p r ia te w h e r e a w e ap o n is p r e s e n t u n le s s it is c le a r ly im p r o b ab le th a t aw e ap o n is c o n n e c te d w ith th e o f f e n s e . U . S . S . G . § 2D 1. 1, c om m e nt . n. 3. A nd w e ha ve he l d tha tthe e nha nc e m e ntm a y be approp ri at el y app l i ed base d o n a co-conspi ra t or’ s posse ss i on of a w eapo n, even w h ere th e d efen d an tw as acq u i tt ed o f a w eap o n s ch arg e. U n i t ed S t at es v . S t an l ey, 24 F . 3d 1314, 1322- 23 ( 11th C i r . 1994) . F ora n e nha nc e m e ntba s e d on a c o-14

c ons pi r a t or ’ s pos s e s s i on t o be w a rr a nt e d, the pos s e s s orof the w e apon m us tbe char ged and foun d t o h ave posse ss ed the w eapo n, and t he defendantm ustbe a m em b er o f th e co n sp i racy atth e t i m e h e d i d so . Id . A l l th ree o f th ese r e qui r e m e nt s a r e s a t i s f

i e d he r e : R a m i r e z - C ontr e r a s w a s c ha r ge d a nd c onvi c t e d of pos s e s s i ng a w e apon dur i ng the drug tr a ns a c t i on, a nd the e vi de nc e w a s s uf f i c i e nt t o i nferthatD i az w as i nv ol ved i n the conspi ra cy atthe t i m e of the ra i d o f O neS to p . N o ris it im p r o b ab le o ru n f o r e s e e ab le th a t f

ir e a r m s w ill b e p r e s e n t in unl oa di ng a l a r ge s hi pm e ntof na r c ot i c s . U ni t e d S t a t e s v. P e s s e f a l l , 27 F . 3d 511, 51 4 (11 th C i r. 19 94 ). T he fi re arm enhancem entw as approp ri at e. W e a l so consi der w hether the di stri ctcourterre d i n app l yi ng a tw o l evel enhancem entfor obstruct i on of j ust i ce . T he proffer ed basi s f or do i ng so w as that D i a z pe r j ur e d hi m s e l f

w he n he t e s t i f

i e d a ttr i a l . E s s e nt i a l l y , D i a z c l a i m e d tha the w as a l eg i t i m at e real -est at e ag en tan d th at , fo r al l h e k n ew , O n e-S t o p w as a l egi t i m at e busi ness . Y etthere w as pers uasi ve evi dence thatO ne-S t op had n o rea l bu si ness or pu bl i c vi si t ors of a ny sort . M oreover, there w as evi dence (i ) thatO neS t op di d n o t i l e c on tra ct i ng , (i i ) thatthe t i l e s hi pp ed there w as un usabl e i n G eorgi a, (i i i ) thatD i az kn ew thi s f rom att em pt i ng t o sel l som e of the t i l e O ne-S t op re ce i ved to a n e a rb y r e ta il o u tle t, a n d ( iv ) th a t d e s p ite its u n u s ab ility , D ia z c o n tin u e d to arra ng e f or m ore t i l e s hi pm ent s f rom M exi co. T hi s s trong l y s ug gest s D i az w as15

c om pl i c i ti n the drug i m por t a t i on, de s pi t e hi s pr ot e s t a t i ons unde roa th t o the c ontr a ry . T he e nha nc e m e ntf orpe r j ury w a s w a rr a nt e d. F i na l l y , D i a z appe a r s t o a r gue tha tthe di s tr i c tc our tm i s appl i e d the 18 U . S . C . § 3 55 3(a) fa ct ors. In un dert aki ng thi s s ub st ant i ve re vi ew of the se nt ence , w e m us tc ons i de rw he the r , unde rthe t ot a l i ty of the c i r c um s t a nc e s , the appl i c a t i on of the § 3553( a ) f

a c t or s w a s a n abus e of

di s c r e t i on. S e e U ni t e d S t a t e s v. P ugh, 51 5 F . 3d 11 79 , 11 90 -92 (11 th C i r. 20 08 ) ( ci t at i on s om i tt ed). W e f i nd no such abuse here ; the di stri ctcourtperm i ss i bl y bal ance d the § 3 55 3(a) fa ct ors. In p art i cu l ar, th e d i stri ctco u rt ’ s rel i an ce o n th e l arg e q u an t i ty o f d ru g s i n th i s case a n d o n Di a z ’ s l a c k o f

c o n tr i t i o n wa s n o ta n ab u s e o f d i s c r e t i o n . Ac c o r d i n g l y , we af fi rm D i az ’ s s ent ence . V . R am i re z- C on tre ra s r ai se s asol e a rgum enton appeal : w hether the di stri ct c o u r t e rr e d b y d e n y in g h is m o tio n to s u p p r e s s in c u lp a to ry s ta te m e n ts h e a lle g e d ly m a d e to A g e n t W a lk e ro n th e g r o u n d s th a t th e y w e r e in v o lu n ta r ily m a d e . R a m ir e z - C o n tr e r a s a r g u e s th a t h e r e q u e s te d a n a tto rn e y in th e m id d le o f h is i nt e rr oga t i on, be f

or e he m a de the i nc r i m i na t i ng s t a t e m e nt s . A c c or di ngl y , he c ont e nds he a de qua t e l y i nvoke d hi s r i ghtt o r e m a i n s i l e nt , f ur the ri nt e rr oga t i on s houl d ha ve c e a s e d, a nd s t a t e m e nt s m a de a f t e rhi s i nvoc a t i on s houl d beJ ackson v. D enno, 378 U.S. 368 (1964). 7 16 supp re ss ed, i ncl ud i ng the al l eged i ncri m i nat ory s t at em ent s ( w hi ch he deni es m a k in g in a n y e v e n t) . S e e , e .g , C o le m a n v . S in g le ta ry , 3 0 F .3 d 1 4 2 0 , 1 4 2 4 ( 1 1 th C i r. 19 94 ). T he go vernm entdi sput es thi s a cc ou ntof the fa ct s, ar gu i ng that R a m i r e z - C ontr e r a s di d nota s k f ora n a tt orne y unt i l a f

t e rthe i nc r i m i na t i ng s t a t e m e nt s w e r e m a de . A J a c ks on- D e nno s uppr e s s i on he a r i ng w a s he l d i n the 7 m i d d l e o f

tr i a l , o u t s i d e th e p r e s e n c e o f th e j u ry , t o r e s o l v e th i s q u e s t i o n . Ag a i n , we r e v ie w th e d is tr ic t c o u r t’s f a c tu a l f in d in g s f o rc le a re rr o ra n d c o n s tru e th e f a c ts in the l i gh tm ostfa vo rabl e t o the go vernm ent , bu tthe re sol ut i on of l egal and m i xed qu es t i on s, i ncl ud i ng the ul t i m at e c on cl usi on abou tthe vo l un t ar i ness of an al l eged c o n f e s s io n , is r e v ie w e d d e n o v o . U n ite d S ta te s v . B a rb o u r , 7 0 F .3 d 5 8 0 , 5 8 4 ( 1 1 th C i r. 19 95 ). I ti s undi s put e d tha tR a m i r e z - C ontr e r a s r e que s t e d a n a tt orne y a ts om e poi nt i n hi s i nt e rr oga t i on; the di s put e i s ove rw he n he di d s o. A tthe he a r i ng, A ge nt W a lk e rte s tif

ie d th a t a f

te rR a m ir e z - C o n tr e r a s w a s d e ta in e d a n d a rr e s te d in th e r a id on O ne-S t op , he re ad R am i re z- C on tre ra s hi s M i ra nd a r i gh t s a tsom e t i m e betw ee n 9: 00 and 9 : 30 A M , and t hathe di d so i n the pres ence of ot her off i ce rs . H e then q u e s t i o n e d Ra mi r e z - Co n tr e r a s a tO n e - St o p f o rtw o h o u r s o rs o , d u r i n g w h i c h t i me R a m i r e z - C ontr e r a s di d notr e que s ta n a tt orne y a nd a dm i tt e d t o e xt e ns i ve17

i nv ol vem enti n d rug t ra ff i cki ng . W al ker then asked R am i re z- C on tre ra s t o con t ac t cl i ent s t o w ho m he supp l i ed cocai ne, w hi ch R am i re z- C on tre ra s r ef used t o d o. It w as atthatpo i nt , W al ker t es t i fi ed, thatR am i re z- C on tre ra s a sked t o speak w i th an att o rn ey. R am i rez-C o n treras m ad e so m e cal l s i n an att em p tt o secu re an att o rn ey, bu tw as un abl e t o d o so. T he i nt errogat i on cont i nu ed. R am i re z- C on tre ra s s ubs e que nt l y a gr e e d t o m a ke r e c or de d phone c a l l s t o hi s drug c l i e nt s . W a l ke rt ook R am i re z- C on tre ra s t o a ho t el w here drug s w er e t o b e e xchang ed. R am i re zC on tre ra s m ade s ever al ph on e c al l s f rom the ho t el , w hi ch w er e r ec orded b y l aw enforce m entagent s, bu tno bu ye rs appeare d. T he st i ng ended w hen R am i re zC ontr e r a s r e c e i ve d a thr e a ta ga i ns thi s f a m i l y i n one phone c onve r s a t i on w i th a pot e nt i a l buy e r . W a l ke ra l s o t e s t i f i e d tha tR a m i r e z - C ontr e r a s w a s notthr e a t e ne d, c o e r c e d , o rp r o m is e d a n y th in g b y th e o f f ic e r s th r o u g h o u t th e in te rr o g a tio n . R am irez -C o n trer as p o in ts to in co n sisten cies in ce rtain as p ec ts o f W alk er ’s te s tim o n y . T h e in te rr o g a tio n w a s n o t r e c o r d e d a n d W a lk e ra d m itte d th a t h is m e m ory of

tha tda y ’ s e ve nt s w a s notve ry good, pa r t i c ul a r l y w i th r e s pe c tt o the t i m e s tha tthe va r i ous e ve nt s oc c urr e d. M or e ove r , W a l ke r ’ s t e s t i m ony about cert ai n d et ai l s o f th e att em p t ed st i n g w as co n trad i ct ed b y o th er ag en t s. T w o o th e ro f

f ic e r s , G r in d le a n d S h u ll, te s tif ie d a t th e s u p p r e s s io n h e a r in g . T he y a l s o s t a t e d tha tR a m i r e z - C ontr e r a s w a s M i r a ndi z e d e a r l y i n the i nt e rr oga t i on,Ramirez-Contrera s proffered records showing hemade two c alls from his cellular 8 phone; the first wa s made at 11:14 AM. Assuming, as Ramire z-Contreras would have us, that these represent the unsucce ssful calls to attorneys, it is apparent that the inter rog ation had been g oingon fo r a bo ut t woho ur s at th etim ethec alls weremade . Theg ov e rnment a rgue s this nece ssarily

implies the invocation of the right to counsel occurre d after the inculpatory state ment. B ut t

here c ords c ann ot s ho w whe ther Ramire z-C ontre ra s w a s tr uth ful when h esaid he invoked his rights earlier but was not allowed to makethe call until some time later.

18 a n d th a t h e d id n o t r e q u e s t a n a tto rn e y u n til a f te ra d m ittin g in v o lv e m e n t w ith d ru g s. U n l i k e W al k er, n ei th er w as p resen tfo r th e en t i re i n t erro g at i o n . T h ey al so a d m itte d th a t th e y to ld R a m ir e z - C o n tr e r a s h e s h o u ld c o o p e r a te , b u t s ta te d th e y d id notpr om i s e hi m a ny thi ng f orhi s c oope r a t i on. R a m i r e z - C ontr e r a s a l s o t e s t i f i e d a tthe s uppr e s s i on he a r i ng. H e s t a t e d he w as no tgi ven M i ra nd a w arni ng s a tthe ou t se tof the i nt errogat i on . H e s ai d that upon be i ng que s t i one d by W a l ke r , he de ni e d a ny i nvol ve m e ntw i th drugs a nd st at ed thathe w as bei ng pai d $ 10 per hou r t o u nl oad t he truck. R am i re z- C on tre ra s a ls o s a id th a t W a lk e rw a s y e llin g a t h im , a n d in te n tio n a lly m is r e p r e s e n tin g h is st at em ent s i n the no t es of the i nt ervi ew . A cc ordi ng l y, he as ked for an att orney e a r l y i n th e i n t e rr o g a t i o n , b u tw a s n o ta l l o w e d t o a tt e mp tt o c o n t a c to n e f o rs o me t i m e . E ve ntua l l y , the of f i c e r s br oughthi m a phone book a nd a l l ow e d hi m t o m a ke som e c al l s t o att orneys , bu the coul d n otre ac h o ne. T he i nt errogat i on then 8 cont i nu ed, i ncl ud i ng the att em ptt o setup a drug p urchas e. A c c o r d in g to R a m ir e z - C o n tr e r a s , W a lk e ra ls o to ld h im h e s h o u ld c o o p e r a te or he w ou l d spend the re stof hi s l i fe i n p ri son, a threa the re i t er at ed af t erR am i re z-19

C on tre ra s i ni t i al l y r ef

used t o m ake c al l s t o h i s drug cl i ent s a nd re qu es t ed an att orney. Indeed, R am i re z- C on tre ra s s ai d h e r equest ed an att orney m ore than t en t i m es . A ft ertw o t o three ho urs of quest i on i ng and p ho ne ca l l s, R am i re z- C on tre ra s w a s ta k e n f

r o m O n e - S to p to a p o lic e s ta tio n . W a lk e rw a s s till q u e s tio n in g h im . R a m i r e z - C ontr e r a s w a s r e c e i vi ng c a l l s on hi s c e l l phone a tthi s t i m e , butw a s not a l l ow e d t o di s c l os e tha the w a s i n pol i c e c us t ody . A f t e ra s t op a tthe pol i c e s t a t i on, R a m ir e z - C o n tr e r a s w a s ta k e n to th e h o te l f o rth e f a ile d s tin g a tte m p t. In short , there w as confl i ct i ng evi dence atthe heari ng as t o w hether R am i re z- C on tre ra s w as M i ra nd i ze d b ef ore or a ft ergi vi ng hi s i ncul pat ory s ta te m e n t, a n d w h e th e rh e r e q u e s te d a la w y e rb e f o r e o ra f te rg iv in g th e s ta te m e n t. R eso l v i n g th ese co n fl i ct s req u i red th e tri al j u d g e t o m ak e cred i b i l i ty assessm en t s, a nd w e a f

f or d thos e a s s e s s m e nt s s ubs t a nt i a l de f e r e nc e . S e e , e . g, U ni t e d S t a t e s v. P ham , 46 3 F . 3d 12 39 , 12 44 (11t h C i r. 20 06 ) ( ci t at i on om i tt ed). T he di stri ctcourt di d n otcl ea rl y e rri n res ol vi ng the evi dent i ary c on fl i ct s t o fi nd thatR am i re zC o n tr e r a s ( i) w a s p r o p e r ly M ir a n d iz e d a t th e b e g in n in g o f th e in te rr o g a tio n , ( ii) d id no tre qu es ta l aw ye r unt i l af t erm aki ng hi s i ncri m i nat i ng st at em ent , and (i i i ) w as no tthrea t ened by the offi ce rs i nt errogat i ng hi m . S ever al go vernm entw i tness es t es t i fi ed t o thi s ver si on of event s. A l tho ug h there ar e s om e m i no r i ncon si st enci es i n the offi ce rs ’ st at em ent s, the re cord do es no tl ea ve us w i th a defi ni t e a nd fi rm20

co n v icti o n th at er ro r h as o cc u rr ed , an d w e w il l n o t d istu rb th e d istrict j u d g e’s c r e di bi l i ty de t e r m i na t i ons a nd hi s f a c tua l f i ndi ngs abouthow the i nt e rr oga t i on p ro ce ed ed . A cc o rd in g ly, w e a g re e w ith h is d ec isio n th at R am irez -C o n trer as ’s i ncul pat ory s t at em ent s w er e vol un t ar i l y gi ven, and t here fore prop er l y a dm i ss i bl e. AF F I RME D.