FI L ED
U.S. COURT OF APPEAL S

EL EVENTH CI RCUI T
J UNE 29, 2009

THOMAS K. KAH

N
CL ERK [PUBLIS H]

IN THE UN ITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE ELE VENTH CIRCUIT

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

No. 0 8- 10 08 0

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

D. C. Dock et No. 0 2- 00 01 8- CR-C C-4 -1

UNITED STAT ES OF AMERIC A,

Pl ai nt iff -Ap pe ll ee,

ve rs us

JAVADO BARNER,

Defen da nt -Ap pe ll an t.

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __
App eal fro m

th e Uni te d S ta te s Di st ric t Co ur t fo r th e Nor th ern Dis tri ct of Ge or gi a

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ _
(J un e 2 9, 2 00 9)

Befo re BI RCH an d B ARKETT, Circu it Ju dg es , and KORMAN, Dis tri ct Ju dg e. *

KORMAN, Dis tri ct Ju dg e:

The Honor able Edw ard R. Kor man, Senior United States District Judge f or the Ea stern *

District of Ne w York, sitting by desig nation.Ja va do Barn er ap pe al s fro m a jud gm en t

, e n te red up on a jury ve rd ic t,

co nv ic ti ng hi m of on e c o u n t o f po ss es si on of MDMA, co m m on ly kn own as

ecs ta sy, wit h in te nt to di st rib ut e, in vi o l a ti on of 21 U.S.C. § 84 1( a)(1 ). The

ecs ta sy, whi ch was th e su bjec t of th e co un t of co nv ic ti on , w a s o bt ai ne d in on e of a

se rie s o f ho m e in va si on s i n t he Atl an ta area th at were co m m it te d b y Barn er an d h is

co -co ns pi rat or s. W hi le he d i d no t pe rs on al ly pa rti ci pa te in th e ho m e in va si on

fro m whi ch th is ecs ta sy was s t o le n, he was pr ov id ed wit h so m e of it fo r th e

pu rp os e o f di st rib ut io n.

The b a s i c fact s un de rlyin g Barn er’s co nv ic ti on are fai rly si m pl e.

Nev ert he le ss , th e cas e ha s ha d a lo ng an d co m pl ic at ed p r o c e d ur al hi st or y ,

in cl ud in g hi s wit hd rawal of a pl ea of gu il ty to th e fo ur th su pe rs ed in g in di ct m en t

an d a s u c c e s s f

u l ap pe al by th e Uni te d St at es fro m an or de r of th e di st ric t co ur t

di sm is si ng th e fif

th su pe rs ed in g in di ct m en t on th e gr ou nd th at “t h e f a c t s of th is

cas e warra nt ed a pr es um

pt io n th at [it ] res ul te d fro m pr os ecu to ria l vi nd ic ti ve ne ss .”

Uni te d St at es v. Bar ne r , 44 1 F.3 d 13 10

, 13 12 (1 1t h Ci r. 20 06 ). W e pr es um e

fam il ia r i t y w i t h t he fact ua l an d pr oc ed ur al hi st or y , an d de sc rib e it be lo w on ly to

th e ex te nt ne ces sa ry

to ad dr es s t he is su es rai se d i n t hi s ap pe al

.

DISCUSS IO N

Barn er ch al le ng es t h e di st ric t co ur t’s ad m is si on of cert ai n co nf es si on s an d

2st at em en ts

, th e de ni al of hi s m ot io n to di sm is s th e fif th su pe rs e d i n g in di ct m en t on

th e gr ou nd it was m ot iv at ed by act ua l vi nd ic ti ve ne ss , an d th e su f f i c i e n c y of th e

ev id en ce. H e al so rai se s fiv e se pa rat e cl ai m s of erro r rel at in g to hi s se nt en ce an d

th e ap pl ic at io n of th e Sen t e nc in g Gui de li ne s. W hi le we affi rm th e jud gm en t of

co nv ic ti on , we rem an d t he cas e fo r res en te nc in g.

A. The Pret ri al Mot io ns

B a r n er fir st arg ue s th at th e di st ric t co ur t erre d in de nyin g hi s m ot io n t o

su pp res s cert ai n co nf

es si on s an d ad m is s i o n s th at he ha d m ad e on Decem be r 19

,

20 01

, Decem

be r 31

, 20 01

, an d Feb ru ary 2 6

, 20 02

. Alt ho ug h hi s br ie f on ap pe al

arg ue s th at th e di st ric t co ur t erre d in ad m it ti ng “ f o u r of Barn er’s st at em en ts at

tri al ,” th e b rie f do es no t id en ti fy or ad dr es s th e fo ur th st at em en t th at he cl ai m s was

erro ne ou sl y ad m it te d. W e ob se rv e th at Barn er’s arg u men t s in su pp or t of th e

m ot io n to su pp res s were ad dr es se d in th e th or ou gh an d co m pr eh en si ve rep or t a nd

reco m m en da ti on o f t h e U.S. m ag is tra te jud ge , whi ch was fil ed aft er an ev id en ti ary

he ari ng an d whi ch th e di st ric t jud ge ad op te d. Bec au se we ag ree th at B a r n e r’s

m ot io n to su pp res s was pr op erl y d e n i e d, we ad dr es s he re on ly th os e arg um en ts

th at req ui re s om e ad di ti on al di sc us si on

.

The Dec ember 19 , 20 01 Sta tement

On D e c e m

be r 19

, 20 01

, whi le in carc erat ed fo r an un rel at ed cri m e, Ja va do

3Barn er was vi si te d at th e Cl ay to n Co un ty Ja il by Crai g Kail im ai

, of th e Atl an ta

Po li ce Dep art m en t, th en as si gn ed to th e Bu reau of Alco ho l, Tob acco & Fi rear m s.

Dur in g th i s i n t erv ie w Barn er pr ov id ed Kail im ai wit h in fo rm at io n ab ou t se ve ral

ho m e in va si on s in th e Atl an ta area an d ab ou t hi s own po ss es si on of ecs ta sy.

W hi le Barn er de ni ed p e r so na l in vo lv em en t in an y of th e ho m e in va si on s, he di d

ad m it to ha vi ng rece iv ed ecs t as y , ta ke n fro m th e ho m e of Mi ch ael Ogb ur n by on e

of th e ho m e in va si on pa rti ci pa nt s, whi ch Barn er in te nd ed to di st rib ut e. Alt ho ug h

Barn er was gi ve n hi s Mir an da warn in gs an d si gn ed an a c k n owl ed gm en t th at he

un de rs to od hi s rig ht s an d th at he was wil li ng to waiv e th em , he c l a i ms t h at he was

no t fu ll y ad vi se d of th e na tu re of th e cri m e ab ou t whi ch h e w o u l d be qu es ti on ed

.

Sp eci fic al ly, he co nt en ds t h a t t h e w a iv er of hi s Mir an da rig ht s was no t kn owi ng

an d vo lu nt a ry be cau se Kail im ai fai le d to ad vi se hi m th at he was act ua ll y

co nd uc ti ng a dr ug in ve st ig at io n, rat he r th an a ho m e in va si on in ve st i g a t io n. Thi s

arg um en t i s wi th ou t m eri t.

The d i c h o t o m

y be twee n th e ho m e in va si on in ve st ig at io n an d th e dr ug

in ve st ig at io n is art ifi ci al

. I n co m m it ti ng th e ho m e in va si on ro bb eri es , Barn er an d

hi s co -co ns p i r a t o r s ta rg et ed dr ug de al ers

. In de ed

, th e in di ct m en t al le ge d th at

“ [t]he co ns pi racy was to ob ta in

. . . dr ug s, fir earm s, m on ey a n d o t h er va lu ab le s,

an d to di st rib ut e th e dr ug s an d ot he r va lu a b l e s fo r pr of it .” Mo re si gn ifi can tl y , th e

4S u pr em e Co ur t ha s “ ne ve r read th e Co ns ti tu ti on to req ui re th at th e po li ce su pp ly a

su sp ect wit h a flo w of in fo rm at io n to he lp h i m cal ib rat e hi s se lf- in te res t in

de ci di ng whe th er to sp eak or st an d by hi s rig ht s.” Mor an v. Bur b i n e , 4 7 5 U.S.

41 2, 42 2 (1 98 6) ; se e al so Co lo ra d o v. Sp ri ng , 47 9 U.S. 56 4, 57 6- 77 (1 98 7)

.

Rat he r, he m

us t si m pl y be aware th at h e may rem ai n si le nt an d req ue st a la wy er,

an d th at hi s st at em en ts m ay be us ed ag ai ns t hi m

. Mor an , 47 5 U

. S

. a t 4 2 2- 23

.

The se rig ht s were ex pl ai ne d to Barn er in th e co ur se of a ta pe -rec or de d in te rv ie w.

Co ns eq ue nt ly, th e Decem be r 19 st at em en t was pr op erl y ad m it te d. Se e Age e v.

W hi te , 80 9 F .2d 14 87 , 14 94 -9 5 (1 1t h C ir. 1 98 7)

.

The Dec ember 31 , 20 01 Sta tement

Afte r th e Decem

be r 19

, 20 01 in te rv ie w, Barn er reg ul arl y cal le d Kail im ai to

pr ov id e fu rth er in fo rma t i on an d ex pr es s hi s co nt in ue d in te res t in co op erat in g. The

fo ll owi ng te st im on y cap tu res t h e f l a v or of wha t was es se nt ia ll y a di al og ue th at

co nt in ue d a fte r th e Dece m be r 19 in te rro ga ti on :

Ass is ta nt U.S. Att or ne y : And di d Mr. Barn er co nt i n u e t o try to gi ve y ou in fo rm at io n a bo ut Jo hn at ha n Dal e an d t he ot he r de fen da nt s i n t he cas e?

Kail im ai : Yes

, he ha d a wil l i n gn es s. He co nt in ue d to wan t to gi ve in fo r mat io n so m

uc h th at he ad vi se d m e th at he wou ld pr ov id e na m es or
po ss ib le —I th i n k it was po ss ib le na m es an d lo cat io ns of ot he r pe op le th at th e ro bb ery crew h ad do ne ho m e in va si on s o n.

Q: And

, so , aft er Mr. Barn er m ad e th at o f f er to pr ov id e y ou wit h na m es an d

5lo cat io ns , di d y ou th en go ta lk to hi m ag ai n at th e Cl ayt o n C ou nt y Ja il on

Decem be r 31 st of 2 00 1?

A: Yes

. I—d ur in g on e of th e co nv ers at io ns , whe n he sa id he co ul d pr ov id e th at

, I’d as ke d hi m to try an d wor k on it an d try to pr ep a r e s o meth in g, an d
th en I wou ld ret ur n. And

, th en , I di d ret ur n on Decem be r 31 st an d ob ta in
th at in fo rm at io n.

Barn er hi m se lf te st ifi ed th at th e Decem be r 31 m eet in g wit h Kail im ai to ok pl ace in

th e vi si to rs ’ bo ot h, an d t h a t th ey “ ta lk ed be twee n th e gl as s to each ot he r, an d th e

fir st th in g, li ke he sa id

, he as ke d m e di d I ha ve t h e l i s t

, an d I th in k I pu ll ed ou t th e

li st an d g av e h im

th e n am es th at were o n t he li st .” The m eet in g was “ real sh or t.”

Barn er al le ge s th at hi s Decem be r 31

, 20 01 st at em en t w as ta ke n im pr op erl y

wit ho ut Mir an da warn in gs an d in vi ol at io n of hi s Si xt h Am en dm en t rig ht to

co un se l. N e v e r t h e l e ss , he do es no t su pp or t th is cl ai m wit h an y le ga l arg um en t or

c i ta ti on of au th or it y

. W e reject hi s Mir an da cl ai m , be cau se Barn er ha d e a r l i e r

be en ad vi se d of hi s ri g h t s , a n d th ere was no ne ed to do so at a su bs eq ue nt

in te rv ie w whi ch he in it ia te d.

W hi le “ th ere is no req ui rem en t th at an accu se d b e c o n t i nu al ly rem in de d of

hi s rig ht s on ce he ha s in te ll ig en tl y waiv e d t h e m,” Bid dy v. Dia mon d

, 51 6 F.2 d

11 8, 12 2 (5 th Ci r. 1 9 7 5 )

, a de la y of twel ve da y s be twee n in te rro ga ti on se ss io ns

wit ho ut rep et it io n of th e Mir an da warn in gs wou ld gi ve us so me pa us e. In de ed

, in

Bid dy v. Dia mo n d

, up on whi ch th e U.S. Att or ne y rel ie s, th e de fen da nt was as ke d

6whe th er sh e re memb e r e d th e rig ht s th at ha d be en ad m in is te red twel ve da y s earl ie r,

an d s h e r e s p o n de d th at sh e di d. Id

. Bec au se of th is ack no wled gm en t, th e Fi fth

Ci rcu it he ld th at “ a fu rth er de li ne at io n

. . . of [th e de fen da nt ’s] rig ht s , w hi ch sh e

ha d s t a t e d th at sh e un de rs to od fro m pr io r ex pl an at io ns , wou ld ha ve be en

ne ed le ss ly repet it io us .” Id

.

Barn er m ad e no su ch ack no wled gm en t. Nev ert he le ss , ot h e r c i r cu m st an ces

ob vi at ed th e ne ed fo r th e re i t erat io n of th e Mir an da warn in gs

. Of pa rti cu la r

si gn ifi can ce is th e fact th a t t h e D e cem be r 31 in te rv ie w was in it ia te d by Barn er,

an d was co nd uc te d un de r ci r cu m st an ces th at wou ld no t or di na ril y req ui re Mir an da

warn in gs

. Alt ho ug h Barn er was in jail on an ot he r ch arg e at th e t i me, a f o rm of

cu st od y th at wou ld ge ne ral ly req ui re th e ad m in is tr a t i o n o f th e Mir an da warn in gs ,

Mat hi s v. Uni te d St at es , 39 1 U.S

. 1, 5 (1 96 8)

, “ in carc erat io n do es no t ip so fa ct o

ren de r an in te rro ga ti on cu st od ia l,” Levi st on v. Bla ck

, 84 3 F.2 d 30 2, 30 4 (8 th Ci r.

19 88 ). Se e al

so Ill in oi s v. Perk in s , 49 6 U.S. 29 2, 29 9 (1 9 9 0 ) ( “[t ]he ba re fact of

cu st od y m ay no t in ev ery in st an ce req ui re a warn in g ev e n w h e n th e su sp ect is

aware th at he is sp eak in g to an of fic ia l.”)

. O n t h e c o nt rary, “ in va rio us se tt in gs ,

th e in t e r r o g a t io n of jail an d pr is on in m at es ha s be en he ld no t to be su bjec t to

Mir an da .” 2 Way

ne R. LaFav e et al., Cr imi na l Pr oc ed ur e 72 4 (3 d e d. 2 00 7)

.

One su ch se tt in g is whe re an in carc er at ed de fen da nt “ in it ia te d th e po li ce

7in qu iry,” th e in te rv ie w “ aro se ou t o f [ h i s ] de si re to sp eak wit h th e po li ce ab ou t th e

[o ffen se ], ” an d th e in te rv ie w to ok pl ace, no t in a jai l c e l l

, bu t un de r ci rcu m st an ces

whi ch su gg es te d th at th e de fen da nt was free to te rm in at e t h e c o n v ers at io n.

L e v i s to n , 84 3 F.2 d at 30 4. The reas on fo r th is ex cep ti on de riv es fro m th e pu rp os e

of th e Mir an da warn in gs

. As th e Su pr em e Co ur t ha s ex pl ai ne d in an an al og ou s

c o nt ex t, Mir an da warn in gs are req ui red be cau se a “ [c]us to di al arre st is s a i d t o

co nv ey to th e su sp ect a m es sa ge th at he ha s n o ch oi ce bu t t o s ub m it to th e o ffi cers ’

w i l l an d to co nf

es s. It is un li ke ly th at a pr ob at io n in te rv ie w [to whi c h t h e

pr ob at io ne r was co m

pe ll ed to su bm it ], arra ng ed by ap p o in tm en t at a m ut ua ll y

co nv en ie nt ti m e, w o ul d gi ve ris e to a si m il ar im pr es si on .” Min ne so ta v. Mur ph y ,

46 5 U.S. 4 20 , 43 3 (1 98 4) (in te rn al cit at io n o m it te d)

.

W hi l e Barn er was in carc erat ed an d no t on pr ob at io n, he was no t co m pe ll ed

to su bm it to th e m eet in g wit h Kail im ai

. N o r di d th e ci rcu m st an ces co nv ey to

Barn er th e m es sa ge th at “ he ha [d ] no ch oi ce bu t to su bm it t o th e of fic ers ’ wil l an d

co nf es s.” Id

. On th e co nt rary, Barn er in it ia t ed th e in te rv ie w be cau se of hi s de si re

to co op erat e, th e in te rv ie w t oo k pl ace in th e v is it or s’ roo m wher e h e was se pa rat ed

fro m K a i l i mai by a gl as s win do w, an d th e in te rv ie w was br ie f. In de ed

, th e no nco erci ve at m os ph ere of th e in te rv ie w was ca p t u r ed by th e fo ll owi ng te st im on y of

Barn er:

8Q: Be si de s n o Mir an da , do y ou th in k t he re was an y th in g c oe rci ve or

in vo lu nt ary ab ou t t ha t m eet in g t ha t you wo ul d l ik e to ad d fo r th e co ur t?

A: No, it was real sh or t. Lik e I sa y , I jus t g a v e hi m a li st th at he cam e an d

as ke d fo r it an d he wen t on , to ld m e, if I’m no t mi s ta ke n, to ld m e ke ep in

co nt act , kee p c al li ng hi m

.

In su m , as w e h av e he ld in co m pa rab le ci rcu m st an ces , th ere was no ne ed fo r

Kail im ai to read m in is te r Mir an da warn in gs aft er he ha d pr ev io us ly do ne so o n

Dece mb e r 19

, 20 01

. Se e Huc kel bu ry v. W ai nw ri gh t

, 78 1 F.2 d 15 44

, 15 45 (1 1t h

Ci r. 19 86 ).

Nor is th ere an y m eri t to Barn er’s Si xt h A men d men t cl ai m

. On th is sc or e,

we ha ve li tt le to ad d to th e th o u g h tfu l di sc us si on of th is is su e by th e Uni te d St at es

m ag is tra te jud ge , who reject ed th is arg um en t on th e gr ou nd th at

, be cau se

“ ad ve rs ary jud ic ia l cri m in al pr oc eed in gs ” ag ai ns t Barn er ha d no t be en co m m en ced

,

h i s Si xt h Am en dm en t rig ht to co un se l ha d no t y et at ta ch ed

. Ki rb y v. Ill in oi s , 4 0 6

U.S. 68 2, 68 9- 90 ( 1 9 7 2 ) ; M c Nei l v. W

is co ns in

, 50 1 U.S. 17 1, 17 5 (1 99 1) (“ [t]he

Si xt h Am en dm en t rig ht

. . . is of fen se sp eci fic

. It can no t be in vo ke d on c e f o r al l

fu tu re p ro se cu ti on s, fo r it do es no t at ta ch un ti l a p ro se cu ti on is co m m en ced .”).

The Feb rua ry 26 , 20 02 Sta tement

On Feb ru ary 2 6, 20 02 , a fte r hi s at to rn ey ha d en te red in to a pr of fer ag reem en t

w i t h t h e U .S. Att or ne y , Barn er ro de aro un d th e Atl an ta area wit h fed eral ag en ts to

9p oi nt ou t se ve ral ho m es th e ro bb ery crew ha d in va de d, in cl ud in g th e ho m e o f

ecs ta sy d e a le r Mi ch ael Ogb ur n, fro m whi ch th e crew ha d ta ke n th e ecs ta sy g iv en to

Barn er to se ll

. Ba r ne r ch al le ng es th e us e of ev id en ce ob ta in ed du rin g th is dr iv earo un d. Sp eci fic al ly, he a r g ue s th at he ha d ne ve r be en pr ov id ed wit h a co py of th e

pr of fer a gr eem en t an d t ha t h is att or ne y was i nc om

pe te nt for ha vi ng ag reed to it

.

W e ne ed no t reac h th is is su e, be cau se ou r rev ie w of th e reco rd pe rs ua de s us

th a t Barn er’s co op erat io n pr eced in g th e Feb ru ary 26 dr iv e-ar ou nd pr ov id ed

co m pe ll in g ev id en ce of hi s g u i l t of po ss es si on of ecs ta sy wit h in te nt to

di st rib ut e—t he co un t of co nv ic ti on

. I nd eed

, in th e co ur se of arg ui ng th at th e

di st ric t jud ge erro ne ou sl y de ni e d h i m a th ree- po in t red uc ti on fo r acce pt an ce of

res po ns ib il it y, Barn er’s co un se l rel ie d on th e fact th at “ Barn er co nf es se d on

Dece mb er 19

, 20 01

, whi le crying

, to po ss es si ng MDMA— hi s cri m e of

co nv ic ti on .” Barn er al so d e s c r i b ed th e m an ne r in whi ch th e MDMA, or ecs ta sy,

was ob ta in e d b y hi s co -co ns pi rat or s, th e na m es of th e in di vi du al s who st ol e it

du rin g th e co ur se o f a h o me in va si on , an d th e ne ig hb or ho od in whi ch it oc cu rred

.

In de ed

, aft er th e in te rv ie w, Barn er cal l ed Kail im ai to ex pr es s hi s de si re to co nt in ue

t o pr ov id e ad di ti on al in fo rm at io n co nc ern in g th e ho m e in va si on s. Th i s

co op erat io n, as earl ie r no te d, i nv ol ve d t he pre pa rat io n o f a l is t o f ho m e in va si on s.

The on ly ev id en ce ob ta in ed du rin g th e Feb ru ary 26 dr iv e-ar ou nd th a t r e l a te d

10to th e cri m e of co nv ic ti o n w a s t he pr eci se ad dr es s of th e ho m e in va si on du rin g

whi ch th e ecs ta sy th at Barn er was ch arg ed wit h p o s s e ss in g was st ol en

. Thi s

in fo rm at io n was he lp fu l in en ab li ng Kail im ai to ob ta in a rep or t th at a bu rg la r y ha d

oc cu rred “ on th at s t r e et an d ad dr es s, th at th e de ta il s or th e it em s th at were ta ke n

fro m th e bu rg la ry

. . . wit h th e ex cep ti on , of c o u r s e , [ o f] th e m en ti on of dr ug s

. . .

al m os t sp eci fic al ly m at ch ed de ta il s th at we ha d fro m wha t was ta ke n d u rin g th e

ro bb eri es .” W hi le ev id en ce id e n t i f yin g th e sp eci fic ad dr es se s of th e ho m e

in va si on s m ay ha ve be en of pa r t i cu la r si gn ifi can ce to th e ov ert act s al le ge d in

fu rth eran ce of t h e co ns pi racy ch arg ed in Co un t One of th e fif th su pe rs ed in g

in di ct m en t, an d th e Hob bs Act co un ts to whi ch th ey co rres p o n d

, i t was no t of an y

gr eat co ns eq ue nc e to th e of fen se of co nv ic ti on

. In de ed

, th e on l y d e t a il th at Barn er

ap pe ars to ha ve pr ov id ed wit h reg ard to wha t was ta ke n in th e Ogb ur n

ro bb ery—th e am ou nt of ecs ta sy th at w a s s t ol en —was no t co rro bo rat ed in th e

po li ce re po rt t ha t Kai li m ai ob ta in ed

.

M or eo ve r, as id e fro m th e co nf es si on , th ree of Barn er’s acco m pl ic es , w h o

ha d pl e d g u i l t y to ch arg es co nt ai ne d in th e fo ur th su pe rs ed in g in di ct m en t, te st ifi ed

a g a i n s t B arn er at tri al

. Und er th es e ci rcu m st an ces , ev en if th e ev id en ce ob ta in e d

du rin g t h e Feb ru ary 26 dr iv e-ar ou nd ha d be en su pp res se d, th e ot he r ev id en ce

ag ai ns t Barn er was ov erwh el m in g. Nor was an y e v i d en ce of fere d on th e de fen se

11cas e to co nt ro ve rt i t. In de ed , refer rin g t o t he de fen se su m m at io n, th e Ass is ta nt U.S.

Att or ne y to ld th e jury “ th e r e ’s on e th in g [d efen se co un se l] di dn ’t te ll y ou

. He

ta lk ed fo r 41 m in ut es an d 25 se co nd s

. . . He ne ve r sa id th e Defen da nt di dn ’t d o it .”

Thu s, th e ad m is si on of th e dr iv e-ar ou nd ev id en ce, ev en if erro ne ou s, wa s p l a in ly

ha rm le ss

.

Nev ert he le ss , Barn er a rg ue s th at

, be cau se th e pr of fer ag reem en t pr ot ect ed

hi m ag a i n s t “an y ne w ch arg es ba se d up on

. . . in fo rm at io n” he pr ov id ed du rin g th e

dr iv e-ar ou nd

, Co un t Ten sh ou ld ha ve b e e n d i s mi ss ed pr io r to tri al

. Thi s arg um en t

fai ls fo r th e sa m e reas on a s B a r n er’s cl ai m th at th e ad m is si on of st at em en ts th at he

m ad e du rin g th e Feb ru ary 26

, 20 02 dr iv e-ar ou nd req ui red th e rev e r s a l of th e jury

ve rd ic t. Se e Ban k of No va Sc ot ia v. Uni te d St at es , 48 7 U.S. 25 0, 26 3

- 6 4 (1 98 8)

(h arm le ss erro r ru le em

bo di ed in Fed

. R. Cri m

. P. 52 ( a ) a pp li cab le to gr an d jury

pr oc eed in gs ). Ind eed , pri or to th e ho ld in g in Ban k of No va Sc ot ia we ha d h el d t ha t,

ev en if a gr an d jury he ard im mu n i z e d te st im on y , an in di ct m en t wou ld no t be

di sm is se d if th e us e of th e pr oh ib it ed ev id en ce was ha rm le s s

. U n i t ed St at es v.

Byrd

, 76 5 F.2 d 15 24

, 15 29 n.8 (1 1t h Ci r. 19 85 ); se e al so Un i t e d S ta te s v.

Sc hmi dg al l , 25 F.3d 15 23 , 15 29 (11 th Cir . 19 94 ).

In su m , be cau se of th e co m pe ll in g in de pe nd e n t e v i d e nc e be fo re th e gr an d

jury, Co un t Ten co ul d no t be sa id to ha ve be en ba s e d o n t he in fo rm at io n ob ta in ed

12fro m th e dr iv e-ar ou nd

. Nor is th is co nc lu si on un de rm in ed b y th e te st im on y of

Kail im ai , u po n whi ch Barn er rel ie s, th at “ so m e of th e in fo rm at io n” ob t a i n e d d u rin g

th e Feb ru ary 26

, 20 02 m eet in g was us ed to br i ng “ ad di ti on al ch arg es ” in

“ su bs eq ue nt in di ct m en ts ” ag ai ns t Barn er. The se st at em en ts di d no t di st in gu is h

be twee n Co un t Ten —t he co un t of co nv ic ti on —an d th e Hob bs Ac t a nd 92 4( c)

ch arg es th at were ad de d in th e fif t h s up ers ed in g in di ct m en t an d on whi ch Barn er

pr ev ai le d a t t ria l.

Thi s co nc lu si on al so co ns ti tu te s a su ffi ci en t an swe r t o B arn er’s arg um en t

th at th e ev id en ce was in su ffi ci en t to su st ai n hi s co nv ic ti on

. Thi s a r g um en t is

pr ed ic at ed on th e as su m

pt io n th at hi s co nf

es si on an d ad m is s i o n s sh ou ld ha ve be en

su pp res se d. It fai ls

, if on ly be cau se th e di st ric t co ur t pr op erl y de ni ed hi s m ot io n to

su pp res s th e Decem

be r 19 an d 31

, 20 0 1 co nf es si on s an d ad m is si on s. Mo reo ve r,

Barn er’s cl ai m of pr os ecu to ria l vi nd ic ti ve ne ss is al so wit ho u t m eri t, if on ly b ecau se

he w a s a c q ui tt ed of th e co un ts ad de d to th e fif th su pe rs ed in g in di ct m en t, at whi ch

hi s m ot io n was di rect ed

.

B. Sent enci ng Chal le ng es

Our rev ie w of se nt en ces aft er Uni te d St at es v

. Bo o k e r , 54 3 U.S. 22 0 (2 00 5)

,

co ns is ts of two el em en ts

. F i rs t, we co ns id er ch al le ng es to th e di st ric t co ur t’s

cal cu la ti on of th e ad vi so ry Sen te nc in g Gui de li ne s ran ge

. S e co nd

, we rev ie w th e

13s e n te nc e fo r reas on ab le ne ss

. Se e Uni te d St at es v. W il li ams , 43 5 F.3 d 13 5 0

, 1 3 5 3

(1 1t h Ci r. 20 06 ). “ [A]s w a s t h e cas e be fo re Boo ker

, th e di st ric t co ur t m us t

cal cu la te th e Gui de li ne s ran ge accu rat el y .” Uni te d St at es v. Cr aw fo rd

, 40 7 F.3 d

11 74

, 11 79 (1 1t h Ci r. 20 05 ). W e rev ie w th e d i s tri ct co ur t’s in te rp ret at io n of th e

Sen te nc in g G u i de li ne s de no vo an d acce pt it s fact ua l fin di ng s un le ss cl earl y

erro ne ou s. Uni te d St at es v. Jo rd i

, 41 8 F.3 d 12 12

, 12 14 (1 1t h Ci r. 20 0 5 )

. A n e rro r

in th e di st ric t co ur t’s cal cu la ti on of th e Sen te nc in g Gui de li ne s ran ge w arra nt s

va cat in g th e se nt en ce, un le ss th e erro r is ha r ml e s s. Se e Uni te d St at es v. Sc ot t

, 44 1

F.3 d 13 22

, 13 29 (1 1t h Ci r. 20 06 ). A Sen te nc i n g G u id el in es m is cal cu la ti on is

ha rm le ss if th e di st ric t c o ur t wou ld ha ve im po se d th e sa m e se nt en ce wit ho ut th e

erro r. Se e id

.

The U.S. Att or ne y arg ue s th at we ne ed no t reac h Barn e r ’s ch al le ng e to th e

m an ne r in whi ch th e Sen te nc in g Gui de l i n e s w ere ap pl ie d he re, be cau se an y erro r

was ha rm le ss . Spe ci fic al ly, he rel ie s o n t he di st ric t co ur t ju dg e’s st at em en t t ha t

ha vi ng weig he d an d co ns id ered th e im po si ti on of a se nt en ce in th is cas e

u n d e r b o t h th e [Sen te nc in g Gui de li ne s], as well as th e fact or s ou tl in ed in 18

U .S.C. 35 53

, an d th e Co ur t ha vi ng co nc lu de d th at a se nt en ce un de r e i t h e r

wou ld be ab ou t th e sa m e, th e Co ur t ha s de ci de d to imp o se a se nt en ce of 87

m on th s pu rs ua nt to th e gu id el in es be cau se t h e c u s t od y gu id el in e ran ge fo r th is cas e is fai r an d reas on ab le in li gh t of t h e f a c t s an d ci rcu m st an ces

su rro un di ng th e Defen da nt ’s rol e in th is co ns pi racy.

W he re a di st ric t jud ge cl earl y st at es th at h e w o u l d im po se th e sa m e se nt en ce,

14ev en if he e r r e d in cal cu la ti ng th e gu id el in es , th en an y erro r in th e cal cu la ti on is

ha rm le s s

. U

n i t e d St at es v. Kee ne , 47 0 F.3 d 13 47

, 13 49 (1 1t h Ci r. 20 06 ). The

di st ric t jud ge he re m ad e no su ch st at em en t. In st ead

, he i nd ic at ed th at th e se nt en ce

was “ pu rs ua nt t o t h e g u i d e li ne s,” an d th e fact or s ou tl in ed in 18 U.S.C. § 35 53

.

Thi s s ta te m en t d oe s n ot pro vi de th e b as is for a ho ld in g o f ha rm le ss erro r.

Obv io us ly, whe re th e di st ric t jud ge ch oo se s to se n t e n c e wit hi n th e ran ge

pr es cri be d by th e Sen te nc in g Gui de li n e s , a n erro r in th ei r cal cu la ti on can no t be

h a r ml es s. Mo reo ve r, ev en whe re he ch oo se s to im po se a se nt en ce ba se d on t h e

co ns id erat io ns pr es c rib ed in 18 U.S.C. § 35 53

, he m us t ta ke in to acco un t th e ran ge

pr es cri be d by th e Sen te nc in g Gui de li ne s. S ee 18 U.S.C. § 35 53 (a)( 4) (2 00 6)

.

Co ns eq ue nt ly, th e Gui de li ne s ran ge m us t be cal cu la te d co rrec tl y in th e fir st

in st an ce. Gal l v. Uni te d St at es , 55 2 U.S. 38

, 12 8 S.Ct

. 58 6, 59 6 (2 00 7)

. In de ed

,

“ [a] m is in te rp ret at io n o f th e Gui de li ne s by a di st ric t co ur t ‘effect iv el y m ean s th at

[th e di st ric t co ur t] ha s no t pr op e r l y co ns ul te d th e Gui de li ne s.’” Cr aw fo rd

, 40 7

F.3 d at 11 79

, qu ot in g Uni t e d S t a t e s v. Haz el wo od

, 39 8 F.3 d 79 2, 80 1 (6 th Ci r.

20 05 ) (al te rat io ns in or ig in al ). Bec au se we can no t sa y th at an erro r in th e

ap pl ic at io n of th e Sen te nc in g Gui de li ne s h ere wou ld be ha rm le ss , we pr oc eed to

ad dr es s B arn er’s ch al le ng es to hi s s en te nc e in tu rn

.

15The W ith dra w al of t he § 5K 1.1 Mot io n

W hi le fo ur of B a r n e r ’s fiv e arg um en ts wit h reg ard to th e se nt en ce in vo lv e

ob jecti on s to th e m an ne r in whi ch th e di st ric t jud ge cal cu la te d th e gu id el in es , h is

f i r s t ob jecti on do es no t di rect ly do so

. In st ead

, it go es to th e is s u e o f h i s

en ti tl em en t to a do wnwar d de pa rtu re. Sp eci fic al ly, Bar ne r arg ue s th at th e Ass is ta nt

U.S. Att or ne y ret al i a t ed ag ai ns t hi m fo r ex erci si ng hi s Si xt h Am en dm en t rig ht to a

jury tri al by wit hd rawi ng th e pr ev io us ly-fil ed § 5K1 .1 do wnwar d dep art ur e m ot io n.

Th e r e c o r d s ho ws th at

, on Ju ly 12

, 20 02

, Barn er pl ed gu il ty to two co un ts of

th e fo ur th su pe rs ed in g in di ct m en t— co ns pi racy t o p o s s es s dr ug s wit h in te nt to

di st r i b u t e , an d po ss es si on of fir earm s in fu rth eran ce of th at dr ug co ns pi racy. The

pl ea ag reem en t co nt ai ne d t he fol lo win g p ro vi si on s:

Bas ed on th e su bs ta nt ia l as si st a n c e t he de fen da nt ha s pr ov id ed in th is cas e,

an d p ur su an t t o S ect io n 5 K1.1 of th e Sen te nc in g Gui de li ne s, t he Gov ern m en t wil l fil e a m ot io n at se nt en ci ng reco mm en di ng th at th e Co ur t de pa rt do wnwar d fro m th e ot he rwis e a p p li cab le of fen se le ve l an d wil l reco m m en d
th at th e d efen da nt be sen te nc ed to a te rm of i m pr is on m en t o f 14 4 m on th s. * * *
The de fen da nt ag re e s to co nt in ue to co op erat e co m pl et el y an d tru th fu ll y wit h
th e g o ve rn m en t in cl ud in g bu t no t li m it ed to pr ov id in g te st im on y at tri al

. If

t h e de fen da nt fai ls to co op erat e tru th fu ll y an d co m pl et el y , o r if th e de fen d a n t

en ga ge s in ad di ti on al cri m in al co nd uc t or ot he r co nd uc t i n co ns is te nt wit h

co op erat io n, he wil l no t be e n t i t l e d to an y co ns id erat io n wha ts oe ve r pu rs ua nt

to th is an d t he pre ced in g p arag rap hs

.

On Decem

be r 4, 20 02

, Barn er m ov ed to wit hd raw hi s gu il ty pl ea, be cau se of

16th e in effe ct iv e as si st an ce of c o u n s e l

. Nev ert he le ss , two da y s la te r, th e Ass is ta nt

U.S. Att or ne y fil ed a § 5K1 .1 do wnwar d de pa rtu re m ot i o n ba se d up on Barn er’s

“ su bs ta nt ia l” as si st an ce to th e go ve rn m en t du rin g it s in ve st ig at io n. On Feb ru ary

18

, 20 03

, th e di st ric t co ur t p e r mi t t e d Barn er to wit hd raw hi s gu il ty pl ea. A fif th

su pe rs ed in g in di ct m en t, c on ta in in g th e fo ll owi ng ch arg es , was th en ret ur ne d:

Co un t One

, co ns pi racy to po ss es s, wit h in te nt t o d i s t r i bu te

, dr ug s; Co un ts Two,

Fo ur , Si x, a n d Ei gh t, at te m pt to affe ct in te rs ta te co m m erce by ro bb ery; an d Co un t

Ten

, po ss es si on wit h in te nt to di st rib ut e ecs ta sy. Barn er of fere d to pl ead gu il ty to

Co un t Ten

, bu t th e Ass is ta nt U.S

. A t t o r n ey refu se d to di sm is s th e rem ai ni ng

co un ts

.

Barn er p ro ceed ed to tri al

. Afte r th e cas e-i n- ch ie f, th e di st ric t co ur t di rect ed a

ve rd ic t of acq ui tt al on Co un ts Two th ro ug h Nin e, p erm it ti ng on ly Co un ts One an d

Ten to be su bm it te d to th e ju r y. Th e ju ry ret ur ne d ve rd ic ts of no t gu il ty on Co un t

One an d gu il ty on Co un t Ten

. O n Decem be r 6, 20 07

, th e Ass is ta nt U.S. Att or ne y

su cces sf ul ly m ov ed to wit hd raw hi s pr ev io us ly-fil ed § 5K1 .1 do wnwar d de pa rtu re

m ot io n.

It is well -es ta bl is he d th at

, “ [t]o pu ni sh a pe rs on be cau se he h as do ne wha t

th e la w pl a i n l y a l l o w s hi m to do is a du e pr oc es s vi ol at io n of th e m os t ba si c so rt.”

Un it ed St at es v. Goo dw in

, 45 7 U.S. 36 8, 37 2 (1 98 2) (in te rn al qu ot at io ns om it te d)

.

17Thu s, whi le th e U.S. Att or ne y m ay refu se t o f i l e a § 5K1 .1 m ot io n fo r se ve ral

reas on s an d ha s co ns id erab le di sc ret io n to do so , Uni te d St at es v. Nea l y , 2 3 2 F

. 3d

82 5, 83 1 (1 1t h Ci r. 20 00 ), “ fed eral di st ric t co ur ts ha ve au th or it y to rev ie w a

pr os ecu to r’s refu sa l to fil e a su bs ta nt ia l-a ss is ta nc e mo t i on an d to gr an t a rem ed y if

th ey fin d th at th e refu sa l was ba se d on an u n c on st it ut io na l m ot iv e,” W ad e v. Uni te d

St at es , 50 4 U.S. 1 81 , 18 5- 86 (19 92 ).

W he re an of

fer of a § 5K1 .1 m ot io n i s mad e “i n th e gi ve -an d- ta ke of pl ea

ba rg ai ni ng , in whi ch [th e de fen da nt ] w a s free to acce pt or reject th e pr os ecu ti on ’s

of fer,” bu t th e de fen da nt do es no t su bs ta nt ia ll y as si st th e pr os ecu ti on an d go es to

tri al

, “ th ere [is ] no

. . . el em en t of p u n i sh m en t or ret al ia ti on , an d th e go ve rn m en t’s

l a te r refu sa l to fil e a § 5K1 .1 m ot io n [is ] co ns ti tu ti on al ly pe rm is si bl e.” U n i t e d

St at es v. Dor

se y , 55 4 F.3 d 95 8, 96 1 (1 1t h Ci r. 20 09 ) ( i n t e r na l qu ot at io ns om it te d)

,

va ca ti ng Uni te d St at es v. Dor se y , 5 12 F.3 d 13 21 (1 1t h Ci r. 20 08 ). Bu t we h av e no t

y et ha d th e op po rtu ni ty to de te rm in e whe th er th e su bs eq ue nt wit hd rawal of a

pr ev i o u s l y- f

i l ed § 5K1 .1 m ot io n, as ret al ia ti on fo r a de fen da nt ha vi ng ex erci se d

hi s Si xt h Am en dm en t rig ht to a jury tri al

, is an “ un co n s t i t u t i o na l m ot iv e”

co ns ti tu ti ng a du e pr oc es s vi ol at io n un d e r Wa d e

. Dor se y , 55 4 F.3 d at 96 1. W e

ne ed no t re ach th e is su e h ere.

Bec au se th e pl ea ag reem en t ob li ga te d th e A s s i st an t U.S. Att or ne y to

18reco m

m en d a se nt en ce of 14 4 m on th s pu rs ua nt to § 5K1 .1, an d be cau se th e d i s t ric t

jud ge im po se d a se nt en ce of on ly 87 m on th s— a se nt en ce at th e bo tt o m of th e

Sen te nc in g Gui de li ne s ran ge of 87 to 10 8 m on th s— t h e wit hd rawal of th e § 5K1 .1

m ot io n was arg ua bl y ha rm le ss

. In de ed

, aft er Boo ker

, a jud ge ba si n g a s e nt en ce

un de r th e co n s i d e r a t io ns ou tl in ed in 18 U.S.C. § 35 53 m ay ta ke a de fen da nt ’s

su bs ta n t i a l a s si st an ce in to acco un t ev en if a pr os ecu to r wit hd raws (o r do es no t fil e)

a § 5 K1.1 m ot io n. Uni te d S ta te s v. Fer na nd ez , 44 3 F .3d 19 , 33 (2d Cir . 20 06 ).

Nev ert he le ss , what co nc ern s u s m or e th an th e d eci si on of t he di st ric t ju dg e to

pe rm it th e wit hd rawal of th e § 5K1 .1 m ot io n is th at th e Ass is ta nt U

. S

. A t t o r n ey

m ay ha ve m is le d th e di st ric t jud ge as t o th e na tu re an d ex te nt of Barn er’s

co op erat io n. Sp eci fic al ly, th e fo ll owi ng ex pl an at io n was of fere d fo r wit hd rawi ng

th e § 5K1 .1 m ot io n:

The Defen da nt di d s t o p c oo pe rat in g wit h th e Gov ern m en t on ce he wit hd rew hi s pl ea an d on ce he de ni ed hi s in vo lv e men t i n th es e arm ed ro bb eri es

. The
Defen da nt was no lo ng er c oo pe rat in g

. . . an d on ce th e Gov ern m en t st art ed

ta lk in g to ot he r co op erat or s an d ot he r co co ns pi rat or s an d de te rm in ed th at th e Defen da nt was in fact in vo lv ed in th e arm ed ro bb eri es whe n he was de nyin g th at he was earl y on , th e Defen da nt ’s as si st an ce to th e Gov ern m en t real ly is

no lo ng er v ia bl e.

Th e di st ric t jud ge res po nd ed on ly th at he “ ag ree[ d] wit h th e po si ti on ta ke n by t h e

Gov ern m en t,” an d th at

, “ in li gh t of th e fact th at t h e D efen da nt di d br each th e

. . .

pl ea ag reem e n t

, th e Co ur t is go in g to res ol ve th is is su e in fav or of th e

19Gov ern m en t.” The reco rd

, ho wev er, fla tl y co nt rad ic ts th e rep res en ta ti on s up on

whi ch th e d is tri ct jud ge rel ie d.

Fi rs t, as th e U.S. Att or ne y ob se rv ed in hi s m ot io n fo r a do wnwar d de pa rtu re,

whi ch he fil ed on Decem be r 6, 20 02 af

te r B a r n e r mo v e d to wit hd raw hi s gu il ty

pl ea:

The de fen da nt be g a n t o co op erat e wit h th e go ve rn m en t pr io r to hi s arre st by gi vi ng de ta il e d in fo rm at io n reg ard in g th e ho m e in va si on s to ag en ts of th e Bu reau of Alco ho l, Tob acco , an d Fi rear m s, (ATF). Afte r hi s in di ct men t

, th e de fen da nt co nt in ue d t o c oo pe rat e wit h t he go ve rn m en t.

The de fen da nt was de br ie fed ag ai n by ag en ts

. Mo re im po rta nt ly, th e de fen da nt to ok ag en ts to se ve ral lo cat io ns whe re ho m e in va si on s pr ev io us ly

un kn own to th e ag en ts ha d oc cu rred

. Th e de fen da nt al so ga ve sp eci fic
in fo rm at io n to th e ag en t s w h i ch im pl ic at ed se ve ral of hi s co -d efen da nt s. Eve n th ou gh th e de fen da nt di d no t te st ify in th e gr an d jury, th e in fo rma t i on he pr ov id ed was rel ie d on in ob ta in in g an in di ct m en t ag a i n s t s om e of hi s co

de fen da nt s. The de fen da nt al so d i s c u s s e d ot he r cri m es whi ch ha d be en

co m m it te d b y hi s co -d efen da nt s.

The Gov ern m en t co ns id ers th e d efen da nt ’s coo pe rat io n t o b e su bs ta nt ia l.

Seco nd

, whi le Barn er di d in it ia ll y de ny hi s pa rti ci pa ti on in th e ho m e

in va si on s, he ad mi t t e d h i s in vo lv em en t by Mar ch of 20 02

. The § 5K1 .1 m ot io n

was no t fil ed un ti l Decem be r 20 02 —n in e m on th s la te r—i nd ic at in g th at Barn er’s

in it ia l l ack of c an do r di d n ot un de rm in e h is “ su bs ta nt ia l” co op erat io n.

Mo reo ve r, no twi th st an di ng th e cl ai m th at Barn er “ s t o p[ pe d] co op erat in g

wit h th e Gov ern m en t on ce he wit hd rew hi s [ g u il ty] pl ea,” th e m ot io n to wit hd raw

20th e § 5K1 .1 ap pl ic at io n di d no t po in t to an y as si st an ce B a r n e r r efu se d to pr ov id e

aft er Decem

be r 20 02

. In de ed

, at or al arg um en t on th e in st an t ap pe al t h e A ss is ta nt

U.S. Att or ne y co nc ed ed th a t d o w nwa rd de pa rtu re m ot io ns su ch as th e on e in th is

cas e are no t typic al ly fi le d u n t i l co op erat io n is de em ed co m pl et e. Si gn ifi can tl y , t he

Ass is ta nt U.S. Att or ne y , who fil ed th e § 5K1 .1 m ot io n an d w h o t r i e d th e cas e,

te st ifi ed th at “ Mr. Barn er’s co op er a t i o n h a d be en co m pl et ed by th e ti m e he pl ed

gu il ty,” an d th at sh e “ fil ed a m ot io n on Mr. B a r n e r ’s be ha lf be cau se [s he ] th ou gh t

th at hi s co op erat io n wit h reg ard to h i s c o

- d e f en da nt s ha d be en su bs ta nt ia l.” Afte r

th e gu il ty pl ea was wit hd rawn , sh e ne ve r ap pr oa ch ed Barn er ab ou t fu rth er

co op erat io n.

Bec au se we are co nc ern e d th at th e st at em en ts ex pl ai ni ng th e reas on fo r

wi t h d r a w a l of th e § 5K1 .1 ap pl ic at io n cau se d th e di st ric t co ur t to ba se th e se nt en ce

on cl earl y erro ne ou s fact s wit ho ut su pp or t in th e r eco rd

, we va cat e an d rem an d fo r

res en te nc in g. Gal l

, 55 2 U.S. 38

, 1 2 8 S

. C t

. at 59 7 (“ [r]ega rd le ss of whe th er th e

se nt en ce im

po se d is in si de or ou ts id e th e Gui de li ne s ran ge ” th e co ur t o f ap pe al s

“ m us t fir st en su re th at th e di st ric t co ur t co m m it te d no si gn ifi can t pr oc ed ur al erro r,

su ch as

. . . se le ct in g a se nt en ce ba se d on cl earl y erro ne ou s fact s” ); se e al so Uni te d

St at es v. Liv es ay , 52 5 F .3d 10 81 , 10 94 (11 th Cir . 20 08 ).

21The App li ca tio n fo r Acce pta nce o f Res po ns ib il ity

A rem an d fo r res en te nc in g is al so req ui red be cau se we ag ree w i t h Barn er

th at th e di st ric t co ur t im

pr op erl y de ni ed hi m a th ree- po in t re d u c ti on fo r acce pt an ce

of res po ns ib il it y

. Pu rs ua nt to th e Sen te nc in g Gui de li ne s, a di st ric t co ur t m ay

red uc e a de fen da nt ’s of

fen se le ve l by two

, “ [i]f th e de fen da nt cl earl y de m on st rat es

acce pt an ce of res po ns ib i l i t y fo r hi s of fen se ,” U.S. Sen te nc in g Gui de li ne s Man ua l §

3E1 .1(a ) (2 00 8)

, an d by an ad di ti on al po in t if th e de fen da nt as si s t e d a u th or it ie s in

th e in ve st ig at io n or pr os ecu ti on of hi s own m i s c o n du ct by “ ti m el y pr ov id in g

co m pl et e in fo rm at io n to th e go ve rn m en t co nc ern in g h i s own in vo lv em en t in th e

of fen se ,” U.S. Sen te nc in g Gui de li ne s Man ua l § 3 E1

. 1 ( b) (2 00 1)

. Alt ho ug h a

m ot io n by th e U.S. A t to rn ey is no w req ui red in or de r fo r th e de fen da nt to ob ta in

th is ad di ti on al po in t, U.S. S e n t e n c in g Gui de li ne s Man ua l § 3E1 .1(b ) (2 00 8)

, it was

no t req ui red un de r th e 20 01 ve rs io n of th e Sen te nc in g Gui de li ne s i n e f fect whe n

th e cri m e was co m

m it te d.

W hi l e a n a dju st m en t fo r acce pt an ce of res po ns ib il it y is pr ot ot y pi cal ly

ap pl ie d to cas es in whi ch de fen da nt s ha ve pl ed gu il ty, “ [c]on vi ct io n by tri al

. . .

do es no t au to m at ic al ly pr ecl ud e a de fen da n t f r o m co ns id erat io n fo r su ch a

red uc ti on .” U.S

. S en te nc in g Gui de li ne s Man ua l § 3E1 .1 n.2

. In de ed

, a de fen da nt

m ay rece iv e an acce pt an ce o f res po ns ib il it y red uc ti on ,

22fo r exa m p l e , wh ere a de fen da nt go es to tri al to as se rt an d pr es erv e is su es th at do no t rel at e t o f

a c t u a l gu il t (e.g

., to m ak e a co ns ti tu ti on al ch al le ng e to a
st at ut e or a ch al le ng e to th e ap pl ic ab il it y o f a s t a t u te to hi s co nd uc t). In each

su ch in st an ce, ho wev er, a de te rm in at io n th at a de fe n d a n t ha s acce pt ed

res po ns ib il it y

wil l b e b as ed pri m ari ly upo n p re-t ria l s ta te m en ts an d c on du ct

.

Id

. (em ph as is ad de d) ; se e al

so Uni te d St at es v. Rod

ri gu ez , 97 5 F.2 d 9 9 9

, 1 0 0 9 (3 d

Ci r. 19 92 ).

W e ha ve a co m

pa rab ly un us ua l cas e he re. Barn er co n f e s s e d to th e fact ua l

el em en ts of th e cri m e of co nv ic ti on

— po ss es si on of ecs ta sy wit h in te nt to

di st rib ut e—d ur in g hi s fir st m e e ti ng wit h Kail im ai on Decem be r 19

, 20 01

, se ve ral

m on th s be fo re he was in di ct ed in th is cas e in Feb ru ary of 20 02

. Br i e f l y, a s we

ha ve di sc us se d earl ie r, B a r n e r vo lu nt eere d se ve ral ti m es th at co -d efen da nt Mar k

Hil l ga ve Ba r n e r ecs ta sy fro m th e Mi ch ael Ogb ur n ro bb ery fo r Barn er to se ll

, an d

r e co gn iz ed th at by m ak in g su ch st at em en ts he was im pl ic at in g hi m se lf. Aft e r t h i s

in it ia l an d le ng th y co nf

e s si on , Barn er pr oc eed ed to co op erat e wit h th e go ve rn m en t

to pr ov id e in fo rm at io n as to hi s c o

- d e f e n d an ts

, ev en al ert in g ag en ts to th e ho m e

in va si on of e cs ta sy deal er Mi ch ael Ogb ur n— th e ro bb ery whi ch res ul te d i n B arn er’s

so le co nv ic ti on for po ss es si on of e cs ta sy with in te nt to di st rib ut e.

Si gn ifi can tl y , in pr ep arat io n fo r Barn er’s or ig in al ly-sch ed ul ed se nt en ci ng

pu r s u a n t to hi s gu il ty pl ea, th e pr e-s en te nc e rep or t reco m m en de d th at Barn er

rece iv e cred it fo r acce pt an ce of res po ns ib il it y , r e co gn iz in g th at he “ st at ed

23co nt rit io n f

or hi s act io ns

. He was de br ie fed by ag en ts an d ag reed to co op erat e wit h

th e Gov ern m en t in it s in ve st ig at io n of th is cas e. ” Whi le Barn er ul ti m at el y

wit hd rew hi s gu il ty p l e a a nd ex erci se d hi s rig ht to a jury tri al

, hi s act io ns ha ve no t

b een in co ns is te nt wit h acce pt an ce of res po ns ib il it y fo r po ss es si on wit h in t e n t t o

di st rib ut e ecs ta sy.

Thu s, up on th e ret ur n o f th e fif th su pe rs ed in g in di ct m en t Barn er of fere d to

pl ead gu il ty t o th e so le co un t of co nv ic ti on —a fact whi ch th e di st r i c t ju d g e ap pe ars

no t to ha ve co ns id ered si gn ifi can t whe n im po si ng se nt en ce. Barn er ha d de cl in ed to

pl ead gu il ty to th e fu ll in di c t men t t o pu rs ue le ga l de fen se s as to th e rem ai ni ng

co un ts —n am el y , th at th e co ns pi racy in whi ch h e p a rti ci pa te d was no t a dr ug

co ns pi racy, an d th at th e Hob bs Act di d no t ap pl y to hi s co n d u c t

. H e was

vi nd ic at ed whe n th e di st ric t co ur t di rect ed a ve rd ic t i n hi s fav or on Co un ts Two

th ro ug h Nin e, an d th e jury acq u i t t e d h im on Co un t One

. Si gn ifi can tl y , Barn er di d

no t t a k e th e st an d in hi s de fen se , an d ne ve r de ni ed ha vi ng po ss es se d th e ecs ta sy.

In de ed

, as we ha ve pr ev io us ly ob se rv ed

, th e Ass is ta nt U.S. Att or ne y to ld th e jury

in hi s reb ut ta l su m

m at io n th at “ t h e r e ’s o ne th in g [d efen se co un se l] di dn ’t te ll y ou

.

He ta lk ed fo r 41 mi n u t e s a n d 25 se co nd s

. . . He ne ve r sa id th e Defen da nt di dn ’t d o

it .” Thu s, “ whe n th e tri al co ur t de ci de d whe th er to award th e

. . . r ed uc ti on , i t erre d

in fai li ng to co ns id er th e reas on s fo r whi ch [Bar ne r] refu se d to pl ead to th e en ti re

24in di ct m e n t

, a l on g wit h th e ap pa ren t va li di ty of th os e reas on s.” Rod ri gu ez , 97 5

F.2 d at 10 09

. W e th eref or e rem an d f

o r r e c on si de rat io n of th is is su e by th e di st ric t

co ur t. Id

.

The Adj us tm ent fo r Pos se ss io n o f a Fi rea rm

Barn er arg ue s th at th e di st ric t co ur t erre d in in crea si ng hi s of fen se le ve l,

ba se d up on th e us e o f fir earm s du rin g th e ro bb ery of ecs ta sy de al er Mi ch ael

Ogb ur n. Pu rs ua nt to Sen te nc in g Gui de li ne § 2D1 .1(b )(1 ), a de fen da nt rece i v e s a

two -le ve l en ha nc em en t if “ a da ng ero us weap o n ( in cl ud in g a fir earm ) was

po ss es se d.” U.S

. S e n t e n c in g Gui de li ne s Man ua l § 2D1 .1(b )(1 ) (2 00 8)

. A co

co ns p i r a t or ’s po ss es si on of a fir earm m ay res ul t in a de fen da nt rece iv in g a fir earm

en ha nc em en t i f th e g ov ern m en t p ro ve s b y a pr ep on de ran ce o f th e ev id en ce t ha t:

(1 ) th e po ss es so r of th e fir earm was a co -co ns pi rat or , (2 ) th e po ss es si on was in fu rth eran ce of th e co ns pi racy, (3 ) t h e d e f en da nt was a m em

be r of th e

co ns pi racy at th e ti m e of po ss es si on , an d (4 ) th e co -co ns pi rat o r p o s s e ss io n

was reas on ab ly fores eeab le by the de fen da nt

.

Uni te d S ta te s v. Ga ll o , 19 5 F .3d 12 78 , 12 84 (11 th Cir . 19 99 ).

W hi le th e jury acqu it te d B arn er o f th e d ru g t raff ic ki ng co ns pi racy char ge , t he

di st ric t jud ge fo un d by a pr ep on de ran ce of t h e e v i d e nc e th at th ere was a co ns pi racy

in whi ch Barn er was a pa rti ci pa nt

. Thi s fin di ng is am pl y su pp or te d b y t he reco rd

.

Alt ho ug h Barn er di d no t pe rs on al ly pa rti ci pa te in th e arm ed ro b b e r y of Mi ch ael

25Ogb ur n’s ho m e fro m whi ch th e ecs ta sy th at he was co nv ic te d of po ss es si ng was

st ol en , he ha d pa rti ci pa te d in fo ur or fiv e ho m e in va si on ro bb er i e s b e fo re th e

Ogb ur n ro bb ery, an d he pa rti ci pa te d wit h hi s co -c o n s p i r at or s in a se co nd ho m e

in va si on of th e Ogb ur n ho m e on e m on th la te r, wit h th e in te nt io n of st eal in g m or e

ecs ta sy an d m on ey

. Mo reo ve r, th ere is no di sp ut e t h a t al l of th e ho m e in va si on s

co m m it te d by th is gr ou p of co -d efen da nt s in vo lv ed th e us e of at le as t on e, an d

of te n se v e r a l fir earm s. Und er th es e ci rcu m st an ces , it was reas on ab ly fo res eeab le

th at hi s co -co ns pi rat or s us ed fir earm s in th e Ogb ur n ro bb ery du rin g whi ch th e

ecs ta sy un de rlyin g th e co un t of c o n v i c t i on was st ol en

. Co ns eq ue nt ly, th e di st ric t

co ur t di d no t cl earl y er r b y ap pl y in g a two -le ve l en ha nc em en t fo r po ss es si on of a

fir earm to Barn er.

Ba rner ’s Rol e in the Of fens e a nd Cri m in al Hi st or y Ca teg or y

Barn er al so ch al le ng es t h e d e ni al of hi s ap pl ic at io n fo r a do wnwar d

ad jus tm en t be cau se of hi s m in or ro le in th e o ffen se , a s well as th e cal cu la ti on of hi s

cri m in al hi st or y cat eg or y

. The se cl ai m s are wit ho ut m eri t an d do no t req ui re

ex te nd ed di sc us si on

. A di st ric t co ur t’s de te rm in at io n of a de fen da nt ’s r ol e in an

of fen se is a fin di ng of fact

, to be rev ie wed fo r cl ear erro r. Uni t e d S t a t e s v.

DeVar on , 17 5 F.3 d 93 0, 93 4 ( 1 1 t h Ci r. 19 99 ) (en ba nc ). Mo reo ve r, th e de fen da nt

se ek in g su ch a do wnwar d ad jus tm en t be ars th e bu rd en of pr ov in g h is m it ig at in g

26r o l e i n th e of fen se by a pr ep on de ran ce of th e ev id en ce. Id

. at 94 5. Afte r rev ie w i n g

th e reco rd

, we c o n c l u d e th at th e di st ric t co ur t’s de te rm in at io n on th is is su e di d no t

co ns ti tu te cle ar er ro r.

W e li ke wis e co nc lu de th at th e di st ric t co ur t di d no t err by as si gn in g cri m in al

hi st or y cat eg or y po in ts ba se d on a di sp os it io n o f a p r i o r of fen se in Geo rg ia

, in

whi ch Barn er rece iv ed wha t is ch arac te riz ed in Geo rg ia as a “ Fi rs t Offen de r”

di sc ha rg e. Und er th e Geo rg ia st at ut o r y s c h em e, “ on ce th e of fen de r co m

pl et es hi s

se nt en ce— whe th er on pr ob at io n or in pr is o n— he is di sc ha rg ed wit ho ut an

ad jud ic at io n of gu il t, an d co ns e q u e n tl y do es no t su ffer th e ci vi l di sa bi li ti es

no rm al ly su ffe r e d by th os e who ha ve be en ad jud ge d gu il ty of an of

fen se un de r

Geo rg ia la w.” Se e Moo re v. Kemp

, 80 9 F

. 2 d 7 0 2

, 72 7- 28 (1 1t h Ci r. 19 87 ) (en

ba nc ), ci ti ng O.C.G.A. § 42 -8 -6 0 (1 98 5)

. Nev ert he le ss , “ if he co m m it te d a n ew

c r i m e, [th e de fen da nt ] co ul d lo se th e be ne fit of hi s fir st of fen de r st at us , an d h i s

u n a dju di cat ed gu il ty pl ea

. . . wou ld be co ns id ered a pr io r co nv ic ti on fo r t h e

pu rp os es of th e ha bi tu al of fen de r act .” Id

. a t 8 0 9 F

. 2 d at 72 7- 28

, ci ti ng O.C.G.A.

§ 17 -1 0- 7( a) (Su pp

. 19 85 ). Und er th e s e c irc um st an ces , Barn er’s cl ai m th at “ [t]he

award in g of cri m in al hi st or y po in ts fo r th is of f e n se co m pl et el y co nt rad ic ts th e

or de r of th e Cl ayt o n C o u n ty jud ge an d th e Fi rs t Offen de r Act,” is pl ai nl y wit ho ut

m eri t. Mo reo ve r, th e Sen te nc in g Gui de li ne s m an da te th e im po si ti on of cri m in al

27hi st or y po in ts

, ev en if d o i n g so un de rm in ed th e pu rp os e of th e Geo rg ia ’s Fi rs t

Offen de r Act. U.S. Sen te nc in g Gui de li ne s Man ua l § 4A1 .2 & n.9 & n.1 0 (2 00 8)

.

In de ed

, we ha ve so he ld in co m pa rab le c i r c u msta nc es

. Se e Uni te d St at es v. Jo ne s ,

91 0 F.2 d 76 0, 76 1 (1 1t h Ci r. 19 90 ); se e al so Hag in s v. Uni te d St at e s , 2 6 7 F

. 3 d

12 02 , 12 07 -0 8 (1 1t h C ir. 2 00 1)

.

CONCLUSI ON

W e affi rm th e jud gm e nt of co nv ic ti on an d rem an d fo r res en te nc in g. W e

ha ve no t di sc us se d th e su bs ta nt iv e reas on ab le ne ss of th e se nt en ce, be cau se s u c h an

ex erci se can no t be un d e r t a ke n un ti l erro rs we ha ve id en ti fie d are ad dr es se d by th e

d i s t r i c t c ou rt. Se e Gal l

, 55 2 U.S. 38

, 12 8 S.Ct

. at 59 7 (“ [a]ss um in g th at th e di st ric t

co ur t’s se nt en ci ng de ci si on is pr oc ed ur al ly so un d, th e ap pe ll at e co ur t sh ou ld t h en

co ns id er t he su bs ta nt iv e rea so na bl en es s o f th e se nt en ce i m po se d un de r an ab us e-o fdi sc ret io n s ta nd ard .”).

28