FILED U.S. COURT OF AP P E A LS E LE V EN T HC IRC U IT JULY 18, 2005 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. 04- 14390 N on -A rgum entC al endar

________________________ D . C . D ocketN o. 03 -004 31 -C R -B B M -1-4 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 E L E S T E R M I D D L E B R O O K , J O N A T H A N R E M O N M I D D L E B R O O K , 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

_________________________ ( Ju l y 18, 2005) B efo re T JO F L A T , A N D E R S O N an d D U B IN A , C i rcu i tJu d g es. P E R C U R I A M: E l e s t e rM i ddl e br ook ( “ E . M i ddl e br ook” ) a nd J ona tha n R e m on M i ddl e br ookThese c o-def endants were D arr

yl Shortt, L arr

y Preston, and Sal Mineo Simpson. They 1 pled guilty

to one or moreof the indictment’s thre e counts a nd testified as prose cution witnesses at the Middlebrooks’s trial. 2 (“ J. M i dd l ebrook ”) (c ol l ec t i vel y “ the M i dd l ebrook s” ) a nd three others w er e c ha r ge d i n a thr e e - c ounts upe r c e di ng i ndi c tm e ntw i th r obbi ng the W a c hovi a B a nk A t l ant a M on ey C ent er(the “ M on ey C ent er ”) , i n v i ol at i on of 18 U . S . C . §§ 21 13 (a ) a nd ( d) ( C ountO ne ) ; pos s e s s i on of a f i r e a r m dur i ng a ba nk r obbe ry , i n vi ol a t i on of 18 U . S . C . § 924( c ) ( C ountT w o) ; a nd c ons pi r a c y t o t a ke c ur r e nc y by thr e a tor vi ol e nc e , w hi c h obs truc t e d c om m e r c e , i n vi ol a t i on of 18 U . S . C . § 1951 ( C ount T hree ). T he M i dd l ebrook s pl ed no tgu i l ty a nd st oo d tri al before a j ury. T he j ury

1 f ound the m gui l ty a s c ha r ge d a nd the c our ts e nt e nc e d the m t o pr i s on. T he y now ap p e a l th e irc o n v ic tio n s a n d s e n te n c e s . T oge the r , the M i ddl e br ooks r a i s e the f ol l ow i ng i s s ue s : ( 1) w he the rthe G ove rnm e ntf

a i l e d t o e s t a bl i s h tha tthe F e de r a l D e pos i tI ns ur a nc e C orpor a t i on ( “ F D I C ” ) i ns ur e d the M one y C e nt e ra tthe t i m e of the r obbe ry ; ( 2) w he the rthe di s tr i c tc our te rr e d i n a dj udgi ng the m gui l ty of both 18 U . S . C . §§ 1951 a nd 2113; and (3) w hether the courterre d b y s ent enci ng them un der the (then) m andat ory F e d e r a l S e n te n c in g G u id e lin e s in d e r o g a tio n o f th e S u p r e m e C o u r t’s h o ld in g s in U ni t ed S t at es v. B oo ker, 54 3 U . S . ___, 12 5 S . C t . 73 8, 16 0 L . E d. 2d 62 1 (20 05 ). In addi t i on t o abo ve, E . M i dd l ebrook subm i t s these i ss ues: (1) w hether the di stri ct3

co u rt ab u se d it s d iscr etio n b y f aili n g to strik e F B I A g en t D an iel P h il li p S in d all’ s t e s t i m ony tha the kne w tha tE . M i ddl e br ook c om m i tt e d the ba nk r obbe ry ; ( 2) w he the rthe c our tvi ol a t e d B ooke rby s e nt e nc i ng hi m t o a s e ve n- y e a rc ons e c ut i ve s e nt e nc e f

orbr a ndi s hi ng a f

i r e a r m unde r18 U . S . C . § 924( c ) ( 1) ( A ) ( i i ) ; a nd (3) w hether the di stri ctcourtcl ea rl y e rr ed by fa i l i ng t o p rovi de a three -l evel r e d u c tio n f

o ra c c e p ta n c e o f

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 . W e b e g in i n P artI w i th the M i dd l ebrook s’ s j oi ntchal l enges t o thei r c on vi ct i on s. In P artII , w e a d d r e s s E . M id d le b r o o k ’s a d d itio n a l c h a lle n g e to h is c o n v ic tio n s . T h e n , in P a r t I I I , w e e x a m in e th e M id d le b r o o k s ’s s e n te n c e s u n d e rB o o k e r . I. A. T he M i ddl e br ooks c ont e nd tha tthe t e s t i m ony of a ba nk e m pl oy e e tha tthe F D IC i nsured the M on ey C ent erw as i nsuffi ci entt o est abl i sh thatthe F D IC a c tu a lly in s u r e d th e b a n k ; th e r e f o r e , th e d is tr ic t c o u r t s h o u ld h a v e g r a n te d th e ir m o tio n f o rju d g m e n t o f

a c q u itta l o n C o u n t O n e . T h e y c o n te n d th a t to e s tab lis h th is el em entof the offens e, the G ov ernm enthad t o p re se ntei ther the t es t i m on y of a bank offi ce r or ace rt i fi ca t e of i nsurance. W e r evi ew the deni al of a m ot i on for j ud gm entof ac qu i tt al de no vo . U ni t ed S t a t e s v. E va ns , 344 F . 3d 1131, 1134 ( 11th C i r . 2003) . W he n e va l ua t i ng the4

e vi de nc e , w e do notde f e rt o the di s tr i c tc our t ’ s de t e r m i na t i on tha ti tw a s s uf f i c i e nt t o c onvi c t . I ns t e a d, w e vi e w the e vi de nc e i n a l i ghtm os tf a vor a bl e t o the G ove rnm e nt , a nd dr a w a l l r e a s ona bl e i nf e r e nc e s a nd c r e di bi l i ty c hoi c e s i n f a vorof th e ju ry ’s v e r d ic t. I d . W e w ill n o t o v e r tu rn a ju ry ’s v e r d ic t “‘if a n y r e a s o n a b le c ons truc t i on of

the e vi de nc e w oul d ha ve a l l ow e d the j ur y t o f i nd the appe l l a nt gui l ty be y ond a r e a s ona bl e doubt . ’ ” U ni t e d S t a t e s v. V e ntur a , 936 F . 2d 1228, 1230 ( 11th C i r . 1991) ( quot i ng U ni t e d S t a t e s v. B ona vi a , 927 F . 2d 565, 569- 70 (11t h C i r. 19 91 )) . “T o es tab li sh fe d er al ju risd icti o n an d to p ro v e a v io lati o n o f [ 1 8 U .S .C .] § 2113, the G ove rnm e ntm us ts how tha tthe ba nk w a s i ns ur e d by the F D I C a tthe tim e o f th e r o b b e ry .” U n ite d S ta te s v . M a n e r , 6 1 1 F .2 d 1 0 7 , 1 0 8 ( 5 th C ir . 1 9 8 0 ) . A l th o u g h th e g o v ern m en tm ay p resen tsp arse p ro o f o f su ch i n su ran ce, “ [s] p arse evi dence . . . ca n b e e no ug h. ” U ni t ed S t at es v. B row n, 61 6 F . 2d 84 4, 84 8 (5t h C i r. 19 80 ). C on se qu ent l y, “ [u] ncon tra di ct ed t es t i m on y [ that ] the depo si t s w er e f e d e r a lly in s u r e d is s u f

f ic ie n t.” U n ite d S ta te s v . B a ld w in , 6 4 4 F .2 d 3 8 1 , 3 8 5 ( 5 th C i r. M ay 4, 19 81 ). W e c on cl ud e thatthe G ov ernm entprov i ded suffi ci entevi dence for the j ury t o f i nd tha tthe M one y C e nt e rw a s f e de r a l l y i ns ur e d a s a l l e ge d i n the i ndi c tm e ntby pres ent i ng the un cont ra di ct ed t es t i m on y of the bank m anager w ho st at ed thatF D IC5

i n su ran ce w as i n effect on th e d ay o f th e ro b b ery. B. T he M i dd l ebrook s c on t end t hatthe di stri ctcourterre d i n adj ud gi ng them g u ilty a n d s e n te n c in g th e m f o rv io la tio n o f

b o th 1 8 U .S .C . § 2 1 1 3 a n d 1 8 U .S .C . § 1951 be c a us e the ba nk r obbe ry s t a tut e , § 2113, i s a c om pr e he ns i ve s c he m e f or p u n is h in g th o s e w h o r o b f e d e r a lly in s u r e d b a n k s a n d th u s s h o u ld b e e x c lu s iv e ly used t o p rosc ri be cond uctw i thi n i t s c ov er age. O r di na r i l y , w e r e vi e w w he the rc ount s i n a n i ndi c tm e nta r e m ul t i pl i c i t ous de no vo . U ni t ed S t at es v. S m i th, 23 1 F . 3d 80 0, 80 7 (11 th C i r. 20 00 ). H ow ever , be c a us e the M i ddl e br ooks r a i s e thi s i s s ue f orthe f i r s tt i m e on appe a l , w e e xa m i ne the di s tr i c tc our t ’ s de c i s i on ( t o c onvi c ta nd s e nt e nc e the m unde rboth s t a tut e s ) f or p la in e rr o r . U n ite d S ta te s v . P e te r s , 4 0 3 F .3 d 1 2 6 3 ( 1 1 th C ir . 2 0 0 5 ) . “U n d e rp la in e rr o rr e v ie w , w h ic h is a u th o r iz e d b y F e d . R . C r im . P . 5 2 ( b ) , f e d e r a l ap p e lla te court s have onl y al i m i t ed po w ert o corre cterrors thatw er e f orfe i t ed because [they w e r e ] nott i m e l y r a i s e d i n [ the ] di s tr i c tc our t . ” I d. ( c i t a t i ons a nd i nt e rna l quot a t i on m a r ks om i tt e d) . P l a i n e rr ore xi s t s w he r e the r e i s ( 1) e rr ortha t( 2) i s pl a i n, ( 3) a f f e c t s the de f

e nda nt ’ s s ubs t a nt i a l r i ght s , a nd ( 4) “ a f f e c t s the f a i rne s s , i nt e gr i ty , or pu bl i c r eput at i on of j ud i ci al proceedi ng s. ” I d. at12 71 (c i t at i on and i nt ernal quot a t i on m a r ks om i tt e d) . “ I ti s the l a w of thi s c i r c ui ttha t , a tl e a s tw he r e the6

expl i ci tl angu age of a s t atut e or rul e does notspec i fi ca l l y r es ol ve an i ss ue, there c a n b e n o p la in e rr o rw h e r e th e r e is n o p r e c e d e n t f r o m th e S u p r e m e C o u r t o rth is C our tdi r e c t l y r e s ol vi ng i t . ” U ni t e d S t a t e s v. L e j a r de - R a da , 319 F . 3d 1288, 1291 (11t h C i r. 20 03 ). W e di s c e rn no pl a i n e rr orhe r e . N e i the rs t a tut e ( § 2213 or§ 1951) , nor E l e ve nth C i r c ui tc a s e l a w , norS upr e m e C our tpr e c e de ntpr ohi bi t s the s i m ul t a ne ous c o n v ic tio n u n d e r§ § 2 1 1 3 a n d 1 9 5 1 in th e f a c tu a l s c e n a r io th is c a s e p r e s e n ts . II . E . M id d le b r o o k c o n te n d s th a t th e d is tr ic t c o u r t ab u s e d its d is c r e tio n in ove rrul i ng hi s obj e c t i on t o, a nd m ot i on t o s tr i ke , A ge ntS i nda l l ’ s s t a t e m e ntf r om th e w i tn ess st an d th at“ I sh o w ed h i m [, i . e. , o n e o f th e co o p erat i n g co -d efen d an t s] these three ph ot og raph s purpo se l y hi di ng thei r nam es because I kn ew these w er e the i ndi vi dua l s i nvol ve d i n the ba nk r obbe ry . . . . ” A ge ntS i nda l l m a de the s t a t e m e nta f

t e rthe G ove rnm e ntha d r e c a l l e d hi m t o the s t a nd f ol l ow i ng c ode f e nda ntS i m ps on’ s t e s t i m ony a nd ha d c onc l ude d i t s di r e c t - e xa m i na t i on. P a r tof the t e s t i m ony S i m ps on ga ve dur i ng hi s f i r s tappe a r a nc e on the s t a nd c onc e rne d the f

i r s tt i m e A ge ntS i nda l l i nt e r vi e w e d hi m ( a bouts i x m onths a f t e rthe ro b b ery o ccu rred ). D u ri n g th ati n t erv i ew , S i m p so n i d en t i fi ed cert ai n p h o t o g rap h s, i ncl ud i ng the M i dd l ebrook s’ s pho t os. O n cross -e xam i nat i on , defe nse c ou nsel7

a tt e m pt e d t o l e a ve the j ury w i th the i m pr e s s i on tha tw he n S i m ps on i de nt i f i e d the ph ot og raph s, he sa w the nam es J. M i dd l ebrook and E . M i dd l ebrook w hi ch appe a r e d on the pape ron w hi c h the i rr e s pe c t i ve phot os ha d be e n pr i nt e d. T he G o v e rn m e n t r e c a lle d S im p s o n to c la r if y f o rth e ju ry th a t w h e n A g e n t S in d a ll s how e d S i m ps on the M i ddl e br ooks ’ s phot os , he f ol de d the pape r s s o tha tS i m ps on c oul d nots e e the M i ddl e br ooks ’ s na m e s . T he S i nda l l s t a t e m e ntE . M i ddl e br ook c ha l l e nge s , “ I s how e d hi m the s e phot ogr aphs . . . , ” c a m e on the c r os s - e xa m i na t i on b e in g c o n d u c te d b y J . M id d le b r o o k ’s a tto rn e y . A f te rS in d a ll m a d e th e s ta te m e n t, E . M i ddl e br ook’ s a tt orne y obj e c t e d a nd m ove d the c our tt o s tr i ke i ton the gr ound thatS i nd al l w as gi vi ng hi s opi ni on thatthe M i dd l ebrook s “ w er e the on es i nv ol ved i n the bank robb ery. ” I n o ther w ords, i n i nv es t i gat i ng the cr i m e, S i nd al l had concl ud ed— i tw as hi s opi ni on — thatthe M i dd l ebrook s had com m i tt ed i t . A s al ay w itn e s s , h o w e v e r , h e w a s p r e c lu d e d f r o m r e n d e r in g s u c h o p in io n b e c a u s e it tr e nc he d on the ul t i m a t e i s s ue the j ury ha d t o de c i de : w he the rthe M i ddl e br ooks p a r tic ip a te d in th e r o b b e ry . “T h e u ltim a te d e c is io n a s to th e a d m is s ib ility o f la y o p in io n te s tim o n y is com m i tt ed t o the soun d d i sc re t i on of the di stri ctcourtand w i l l no tbe ov erturned on appeal un l es s there i s acl ea r abu se of di sc re t i on . ” U ni t ed S t at es v. P i er ce , 1 3 6 F .3 d 7 7 0 , 7 7 3 ( 1 1 th C ir . 1 9 9 8 ) ( c ita tio n a n d in te rn a l q u o ta tio n m a r k s o m itte d ) .8

If the di stri ctcourtabused i t s di sc re t i on i n adm i tt i ng evi dence, w e m ay st i l l af fi rm i f the e rr orw a s ha r m l e s s . S e e U ni t e d S t a t e s v. F r a z i e r , 387 F . 3d 1244, 1267 n. 20 (1 1 th C i r. 2 0 0 4 ). “ E v i d en t i ary d eci si o n s d o n o tco n st i tu t e rev ersi b l e erro r ‘ u n l ess a s ubs t a nt i a l r i ghtof

the pa r ty i s a f

f e c t e d, ’ F e d. R . E vi d. 103( a ) , a nd e rr or s tha tdo not

‘ af fe ctsubst ant i al ri gh t s m ustbe di sr egar ded. ’ F ed. R . C ri m . P . 52 (a ). ” I d. “ E rr ors do a f f e c ta s ubs t a nt i a l r i ghtof a pa r ty i f

the y ha ve a ‘ s ubs t a nt i a l i nf l ue nc e ’ on the o u t c o me o f

a c a s e o rl e a v e ‘ g r a v e d o u b t ’ a s t o w h e th e rth e y a f f e c t e d th e o u t c o me of a c as e. ” I d. (c i t at i on s om i tt ed). T he G ov ernm enthas the bu rden of show i ng an e rr o rw a s h a r m le s s . S e e e .g ., U n ite d S ta te s v . M o n r o e , 3 5 3 F .3 d 1 3 4 6 , 1 3 5 2 ( 1 1 th C i r. 20 03 ). U n d e rF e d .R .E v id . 7 0 1 , I f th e w itn e s s is n o t te s tif y in g a s a n e x p e r t, th e w itn e s s ’ te s tim o n y in the f or m of opi ni ons ori nf

e r e nc e s i s l i m i t e d t o thos e opi ni ons or i nf e r e nc e s w hi c h a r e ( a ) r a t i ona l l y ba s e d on the pe r c e pt i on of the w i tne s s , ( b) he l pf

ul t o a c l e a runde r s t a ndi ng of the w i tne s s ’ t e s t i m ony or the det erm i nat i on of a f ac ti n i ss ue, and (c) no tbase d o n sci ent i fi c, te c h n ic a l, o ro th e rs p e c ia liz e d k n o w le d g e w ith in th e s c o p e o f R u le 7 0 2 . F e d. R . E vi d. 701. “ R ul e 403 [ of the F e de r a l R ul e s of

E vi de nc e ] pe r m i t s the e xc l us i on of

r e l e va nte vi de nc e ‘ i f

i t s pr oba t i ve va l ue i s s ubs t a nt i a l l y outw e i ghe d by the dang erof un fa i r pre j ud i ce . ’ ” P i er ce , 13 6 F . 3d at77 5 (ci t at i on om i tt ed. ). W e c onc l ude tha tthe di s tr i c tc our ta bus e d i t s di s c r e t i on by f a i l i ng t o s tr i ke9

S i nda l l ’ s s t a t e m e nttha the kne w E . M i ddl e br ook w a s i nvol ve d i n the ba nk r obbe ry ; the s t a t e m e ntw a s notba s e d on pe r c e pt i ons a s S i nda l l w a s notpr e s e nt w hen t he robb ery occ urre d. T he error w as harm l es s, ho w ever , because the great we i g h to f

e v i d e n c e — i n p a r t i c u l a r , th e t e s t i mo n y o f c o - c o n s p i r a t o r s — i mp l i c a t e d E. M id d le b r o o k in th e p la n n in g a n d c o m m is s io n o f th e r o b b e ry . II I. T h e M id d le b r o o k s c o n te n d th a t th e d is tr ic t c o u r t in f r in g e d th e irS ix th A m e ndm e ntr i ghtt o a tr i a l by j ur y unde rU ni t e d S t a t e s v. B ooke rby e nha nc i ng thei r s ent ence s bas ed on fa ct s the exi st ence of w hi ch the j ury di d n otfi nd and t hey di d nota dm i t . I n B ooke r , the S upr e m e C our the l d tha tthe S i xth A m e ndm e ntr i ght t o tri al by j ury i s deni ed w here “ [u] nd era m andat ory gui del i nes s ys t em , a s ent ence i s i ncre as ed because of an enhancem entbase d o n fac t s f ou nd by the j ud ge that w e r e ne i the ra dm i tt e d by the de f e nda ntnorf

ound by the j ur y . ” U ni t e d S t a t e s v. R odr i gue z , 398 F . 3d 1291, 1298 ( 11th C i r . 2005) , pe t i t i on f orc e r t . f i l e d, 73 U . S . L . W . 3531 ( F e b. 23, 2005) ( N o. 04- 1148) . T he s e nt e nc i ng c our tdoe s not err, ho w ever , w hen i t“ use[ s] extra -ver di ctenhancem ent s i n a no n-m andat ory gui de l i ne s s y s t e m . ” I d. a t1300. T hus , the r e a r e tw o ty pe s of e rr or s i n s e nt e nc i ng unde rthe F e de r a l G ui de l i ne s : ( 1) the c ons t i tut i ona l thr ough the us e of

“ e xtr a - ve r di c te nha nc e m e nt s t o r e a c h a gui de l i ne s r e s ul ttha ti s bi ndi ng on the10

s e nt e nc i ng j udge , ” a nd ( 2) the s t a tut or y thr ough the us e of the G ui de l i ne s i n a m andat ory f

as hi on . S ee U ni t ed S t at es v. S hel t on , 40 0 F . 3d 13 25 , 13 31 (11t h C i r. 2 0 0 5 ) .A ts e nt e nc i ng, the di s tr i c tc our tm a de f a c tua l f i ndi ngs ( uns uppor t e d by the j ury ’ s ve r di c torthe M i ddl e br ooks ’ s a dm i s s i ons ) i n de t e r m i ni ng the M i ddl e br ooks ’ s s e nt e nc e s , the r e by i nf r i ngi ng the i rS i xth A m e ndm e ntr i ghtt o a ju ry d e te r m in a tio n . S e e U n ite d S ta te s v . P a z , 4 0 5 F .3 d 9 4 6 , 9 4 8 ( 1 1 C ir . 2 0 0 5 ) . th T he qu es t i on thu s bec om es w hether the G ov ernm enthas s ho w n thatthe error w as ha r m l e s s be y ond a r e a s ona bl e doubt . S e e i d. A n e rr ori s ha r m l e s s i f i tdoe s not affect th e d efen d an t ’ s su b st an t i al ri g h t s. Id . In o th er w o rd s, th e G o v ern m en tm u st c onvi nc e us tha t“ i ti s c l e a rbe y ond a r e a s ona bl e doubttha tthe e rr orc om pl a i ne d of di d notc ontr i but e t o the [ s e nt e nc e ] obt a i ne d. ” I d. ( c i t a t i on a nd i nt e rna l quot a t i on m a r k s o m itte d ) . P u t a n o th e rw a y , th e e rr o ris h a r m le s s if “th e G o v e rn m e n t . . . s how [ s ] tha tthe m a nda t ory , a s oppos e d t o the a dvi s ory , appl i c a t i on of the g u i d el i n es d i d n o tco n tri b u t e t o th e d efen d an t ’ s sen t en ce. ” U n i t ed S t at es v . D av i s, 40 7 F . 3d 12 69 , ____ (11t h C i r. 20 05 ). W e c o n c lu d e th a t th e d is tr ic t c o u r t’s c o n s titu tio n a l e rr o rw a s n o t h a r m le s s . W e do notknow w ha tthe di s tr i c tc our tw oul d ha ve done ha d i ttr e a t e d the G ui de l i ne s a s a dvi s ory . T he i nf e r e nc e tha tthe di s tr i c tc our tw oul d gi ve theIn his brief, in addition to rasingthe Six th Amendment B ooker issue w e have 2 a dd re sse d, E. Middlebroo k c ontend s th at th edis tric t c ourt c le arly e rre d in re fu singto adju st his offense leve ls downward f or ac cepta

nce of responsibility . Appellant’s brief at 12. Since Middlebrook will rec eive a new sentencinghearing on remand, weneed not a nd do not reach the acc eptanc e-of

-re sponsibili ty

issue. 11 M id d le b r o o k s th e s a m e s e n te n c e s b a s e d o n th e c o u r t’s d e c is io n to s e n te n c e th e m to the hi gh es tse nt ence i n the G ui del i ne ra ng e does notm ee tthe beyond -a -r ea sonabl edoubts t a nda r d be c a us e i tdoe s note s t a bl i s h tha tthe c ons t i tut i ona l e rr ordi d not cont ri bu t e t o the defendant s’ se nt ence s. A cc ordi ng l y, w e va cate the M i ddl e br ooks ’ s s e nt e nc e s a nd r e m a nd the c a s e f orr e s e nt e nc i ng. 2 S O O RD E RE D.