### F I LE D U. S . COURT OF AP PE ALS E LEVE NTH CI RCUI T June 7, 2005 T HOM AS K. KAHN C L E RK [ 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. 04- 14257 N on -A rgum entC al endar

________________________ D. C . Do c k e tNo . 0 4 - 0 0 0 3 7 - C R - OR L - 1 9 - J GG U N I T E D S T A T E S O F A M E R I C A , P la in tif f - A p p e lle e , v ersu s T R I S T A N S M I T H , D e f e n d a n t- A p p e lla n t.

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

_________________________ ( Ju n e 7, 2005) B efo re C A RN E S , B A R K E T T an d M A R C U S , C i rcu i tJu d g es. P E R C U R I A M: T r is ta n S m ith ap p e a ls h is s ix - m o n th s e n te n c e f o rp o s s e s s io n w ith in te n t to2

d is tr ib u te le s s th a n 5 0 k ilo g r a m s o f m a r iju a n a , in v io la tio n o f 2 1 U .S .C . § 84 1(a) (1) ( 20 05 ). S m i th argues on app ea l thatthe di stri ctcourtcom m i tt ed r e ve r s i bl e e rr orw he n i tr e f us e d t o appl y a tw o- l e ve l r e duc t i on f ora c c e pt a nc e of r e s p o n s ib ility , p u r s u a n t to U .S .S .G . § 3 E 1 .1 . B AC KG R OU ND A g r a n d ju ry r e tu rn e d a th r e e - c o u n t in d ic tm e n t a g a in s t S m ith , c h a r g in g h im w i th: ( i ) c ons pi r a c y t o pos s e s s f i ve orm or e ki l ogr a m of c oc a i ne , i n vi ol a t i on of 21 U .S .C . § 8 4 6 ( 2 0 0 5 ) ; ( ii) p o s s e s s io n o f f if ty k ilo g r a m s o rle s s o f

m a r iju a n a w ith i nt e ntt o di s tr i but e , i n vi ol a t i on of 21 U . S . C . § 841( a ) ( 1) a nd ( b) ( 1) ( d) a nd 18 U .S .C . § 2 ; a n d p o s s e s s io n a n d u tte r a n c e o f c o u n te r f e it c u rr e n c y w ith in te n t to defr aud, i n v i ol at i on of 18 U . S . C . § 4 72 . A ft erS m i th p l ed no tgu i l ty, hi s a tt orney r e pe a t e dl y t ol d the j ury tha tS m i th ha d a c c e pt e d r e s pons i bi l i ty f orhi s i nvol ve m e nt i n the m ar i

j uana, bu thad n o i nv ol vem enti n the cond uctchar ged i n the ot her c o u n ts . T h e ju ry r e tu rn e d a v e r d ic t f in d in g S m ith g u ilty o f

th e m a r iju a n a c o u n t, a n d n o t g u ilty o f

th e c o c a in e a n d c o u n te r f e itin g c o u n ts . A tse nt enci ng , S m i th o bj ec t ed t o the pre-s ent ence i nv es t i gat i on (P S I) r e por t ’ s r e c om m e nda t i on tha the be de ni e d a tw o- l e ve l dow nw a r d a dj us tm e ntf or ac ce pt ance of re spon si bi l i ty pursuantt o U . S . S . G . § 3 E 1. 1. T he di stri ctcourt deni ed the do w nw ar d adj ustm ent , fi nd i ng thatS m i th h ad no tm ade a n u nequ i vo ca lSeparately , Smith objected to the PSI ’s re commendation of a firea rms enhanc ement on 1 the basis of B lakely

v. Washington, 125 S.Ct. 2531 (2004), arguing that any fac ts relatingto a fire arm had n ot b e e n trie d b e fo rethejur y or a dmitte d b y

Smit h. Th edis tric t c ourt

su staine d this objection and did not impose a firear m enhanc ement. Smith has raised no B ooker- related c halleng eto t

hedis tric t c ourt ’ssentenc eon a pp e al. 3 d e m o n s tr a tio n o f

h is a c c e p ta n c e o f

r e s p o n s ib ility f

o rth e m a r iju a n a o f

f e n s e . S peci fi ca l l y, the di stri ctcourtfoun d thatst at em ent s S m i th’ s c ou nsel m ade a ttri al c o n c e rn in g th e m a r iju a n a o f f e n s e r e f le c te d o n ly a ta c tic a l d e c is io n d e s ig n e d to b o o s t S m ith ’s c r e d ib ility , w h ic h n e ith e ra m o u n te d to a c le a r - c u t a d m is s io n o f g u ilt norr e l i e ve d the gove rnm e ntof the e xpe ns e of

pr ovi ng S m i th’ s c ul pabi l i ty on the m ar i j uana coun t . T he di stri ctcourtal so foun d thatS m i th’ s i ni t i al offe r t o p l ea d gui l ty t o the m a r i

j ua na c ha r ge i n e xc ha nge f orthe gove rnm e nt ’ s a gr e e m e ntt o dr op the r e m a i ni ng c ha r ge s , pr ope r l y c ons true d, w a s a ne got i a t i on t a c t i c r a the rtha n a c l e a ra c c e pt a nc e of

r e s pons i bi l i ty . W i thoutthe dow nw a r d a dj us tm e nt , the 1 gu i del i nes r ange st oo d aton e t o seven m on ths, and t he di stri ctcourtse nt ence d S m ith to s ix m o n th s ’ im p r is o n m e n t a n d th r e e y e a r s o f s u p e r v is e d r e le a s e . ST AN DA RD OF RE VI EW F ol l ow i ng U ni t ed S t at es v. B oo ker, 12 5 S . C t . 73 8 (20 05 ), w e r evi ew s e nt e nc e s f

orunr e a s onabl e ne s s , gui de d by the s e nt e nc i ng f a c t or s f ound a t18 U . S . C . § 3553( a ) . T hi s s t a nda r d pe r m i t s r e vi e w f orr e a s ona bl e ne s s notonl y of the ul t i m a t e l e ngth of

the s e nt e nc e , buta l s o of l e ga l e rr or s i n the m e thod of the4

se nt ence ’ s s el ec t i on . S ee U ni t ed S t at es v. C rosby, 39 7 F . 3d 10 3, 11 4-11 5 (2d . C i r. 2005) ; U ni t e d S t a t e s v. W e bb, N o. 03- 6110, 2005 U . S . A pp. L E X I S 5420 a t*21- 22 (6th C i r. A pri l 6, 20 05 ). DI S C US S I ON T hough B ooke re xc i s e d the s t a tut ory pr ovi s i ons w hi c h m a de the s e nt e nc i ng gu i del i nes m andat ory a nd di ct at ed de no vo re vi ew of se nt ence s on app ea l , B oo ker l e f ta l l othe ra s pe c t s of

the s e nt e nc i ng gui de l i ne s i n pl a c e . U ni t e d S t a t e s v. S hel t on , 40 0 F . 3d 13 25 , 13 30 and n . 9 (11 th C i r. 20 05 ). T ho se gu i del i nes s t at e that a r e duc t i on f

ora c c e pt a nc e of

r e s pons i bi l i ty i s appr opr i a t e w he r e the de f e nda nt

“ cl ea rl y dem on stra t es ac ce pt ance of re spon si bi l i ty f or hi s [ or her] offe nse. ” U . S . S . G . § 3E 1. 1. T he c om m e nt a ry t o § 3E 1. 1 e xpl a i ns tha tbe c a us e the s e nt e nc i ng j udge i s i n a uni que pos i t i on t o e va l ua t e the de f e nda nt ’ s a c c e pt a nc e of r e s p o n s i b i l i ty , h i s o rh e rd e t e r m i n a t i o n i s e n t i t l e d t o d e f e r e n c e o n ap p e a l . U. S . S . G. § 3 E 1 .1 , c o m m e n t n . 5 . In thi s c as e, the di stri ctcourtfoun d thatS m i th’ s pre -tri al offe r t o p l ea d gui l ty t o the m a r i

j ua na c ounti n e xc ha nge f orthe gove rnm e nt ’ s a gr e e m e ntt o dr op th e r e m a in in g c o u n ts w a s m e r e ly a n e g o tia tio n ta c tic , n o t a n a d m is s io n o f g u ilt, w here S m i th i n fac tnever pl ed gu i l ty. S i m i l ar l y, the di stri ctcourtfoun d that s ta te m e n ts w h ic h S m ith ’s c o u n s e l m a d e a t tr ia l c o n c e rn in g S m ith ’s in v o lv e m e n t in5

m a r iju a n a o n ly r e f

le c te d tr ia l s tr a te g y a n d d id n o t r e lie v e th e g o v e rn m e n t o f its bur de n of

pr oof . T he di s tr i c tc our tvi e w e d the s e f a c t s a s i ns uf

f i c i e ntt o s how the re qu i si t e c l ea r dem on stra t i on of ac ce pt ance of re spon si bi l i ty und er§ 3 E 1. 1. U nd er th e s e c ir c u m s ta n c e s , w e c a n n o t s a y th a t e ith e rth e d is tr ic t c o u r t’s r e a s o n in g o rits ul t i m at e dec i si on t o d eny a§ 3 E 1. 1 adj ustm entw as un re as on abl e, and w e a ff i rm S m i th’ s s ent ence . A FFI R M ED .