FI LED U. S . COURT OF AP PE ALS E L E V E N T H C IR C U IT N ove m be r 28, 2005 T HOM AS K. KAHN CL 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. 05- 11411 N on -A rgum entC al endar

________________________ D. C . Do c k e tNo . 0 4 - 8 0 0 1 0 - C R - DT KH 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 W I L K E R S O N E S T E L A N , a .k .a . E s ta la n W ilk e r s o n , 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 S outhe r n D i s tr i c tof F l or i da

_________________________ ( N ove m be r28, 2005)

B efo re M A R C U S , W IL S O N an d F A Y , C i rcu i tJu d g es. P E R C U R I A M:2

W i l kers on E st el an appeal hi s c on vi ct i on s a nd t ot al 13 5-m on th sent ence fol l ow i ng a j ury tri al for bei ng a c on vi ct ed fe l on i n p osse ss i on of on e or m ore fi re arm s, i n v i ol at i on of 18 U . S . C . §§ 92 2(g)(1) and 92 4(a) (2) ( “ C ou nt1”); pos s e s s i on w i th i nt e ntt o di s tr i but e f i ve gr a m s orm or e of

c oc a i ne ba s e , i n vi ol a t i on o f 2 1 U .S .C . § 8 4 1 ( a ) ( 1 ) , ( b ) ( 1 ) ( B ) ( iii) ( “C o u n ts 2 & 7 ” ) ; p o s s e s s io n o f c o c a in e , in vi ol at i on of 21 U . S . C . § 8 44 (“ C ou nt3”); and p osse ss i on w i th i nt entt o d i stri bu t e a d e t e c t a b l e a mo u n to f

c o c a i n e b a s e , i n v i o l a t i o n o f 2 1 U . S. C. § 8 4 1 ( a ) ( 1 ) , ( b ) ( 1 ) ( C) (“ C ou nt s 4, 5 & 6”). E st el an ar gu es thatthe di stri ctcourt(1) app l i ed an i ncorrec t l eg al st an d ard i n d et erm i n i n g th atE st el an ’ s p o st -arrest s t at em en t s w ere v o l u n t ary; (2 ) a b u se d it s d iscr etio n in d en yin g E stelan ’s o b jectio n to th e g o v er n m en t’ s i ntr oduc t i on of

e xpe r tt e s t i m ony f

r om a D rug E nf

or c e m e ntA dm i ni s tr a t i on ( “ D E A ” ) a ge ntr e ga r di ng drug- di s tr i but i on a m ount s , pur s ua ntt o F e d. R . E vi d. 702; a nd ( 3) pl a i nl y e r r e d i n c ount i ng pr i ors t a t e c onvi c t i ons , w hi c h the c our tha d f ound t o be c ons t i tut i ona l l y i nva l i d f orpurpos e s of

e nha nc e m e ntunde r21 U . S . C . § 851, i n cal cul at i ng E st el an’ s c ri m i nal -hi st ory poi nt s. F or the re as on s s etforth m ore f u lly b e lo w , w e a f

f ir m . E st el an fi l ed th ree m o t i o n s t o su p p ress p o st -arrest s t at em en t s. In h i s fi rst s uppr e s s i on m ot i on, he a r gue d tha t , on D e c e m be r22, 2003, a f t e rhe w a s a r r e s t e d, a n d a f t e rh e i n v o k e d h i s r i g h tt o r e ma i n s i l e n tu n d e rM i r a n d a v . A r i z o n a , 3 8 4 U . S.Although themag istrate judg e in her repor t and re commendation construe d Estelan’s 1 third suppression motion as challeng ing post-a rre st statements Estelan madeon November 18, 2003, Estelan cla

rified in his objections to this report that his third suppression motion invol ved thepo st- arre st s tate ment h ema deon De c e mber 2 2, 20 03 . Thu s, to t hee xtent E ste lan is c halleng ingon

a pp e a l th epo st- arre st s tate ment h ema deon No vember 1 8, 20 03 , h eargua bly did no t raisethi s c halleng ein t hedis tric t c ourt . N e vert

he le ss, be c a

us ethemag istra

tea dd re sse d this state ment in h e r repo rt , a

nd be c a us etheg ov e rnment h a s n ot a rgue d th at th is c halleng eis n e wly raised on a

ppeal, wealso will treat Estelan’ s suppression motions as coveringstatements made on both dates. The district cour

t, in adopting the mag istrate’s report a nd rec ommendation, denied 2 Estelan’s motions to the ext ent he wa s arguing that they were obtained a fter heinvoked his right to remain silent. B eca

use Estelan ha s not challeng ed this determination on appe al, we de em any arguments on it abandoned. SeeUnited States v. L evy, 416 F.3d 1273, 1275 ( 11th Cir.) (explaining that a

n argument not raised in an a ppellant’s openingbrief is de emed a bandoned) , petition for cert. filed, (U .S. Oct. 6, 2005) (No. 05- 6930). 3 436, 444- 45, 86 S . C t . 1602, 1612, 16 L . E d. 2d 694 ( 1966) , l a w e nf or c e m e nt of f i c e r s ( 1) c ont i nue d t o que s t i on hi m , a nd ( 2) s e c r e t l y r e c or de d c onve r s a t i ons he had w i th fam i l y m em bers . In E st el an’ s s ec on d sup pres si on m ot i on , he cont ended th a t h is p o s t- a r r e s t s ta te m e n t o n D e c e m b e r2 2 , 2 0 0 3 , in w h ic h h e a d m itte d to p o s s e s s in g d ru g s r e c o v e r e d d u r in g th e e x e c u tio n o f a s e a r c h w a r r a n t, a ls o s h o u ld be s uppr e s s e d be c a us e i tw a s the pr oduc tof unl a w f ul thr e a t s a nd i nt i m i da t i on by la w e n f o r c e m e n t o f

f ic e r s , th a t is , th e p r o d u c t o f a n o f f ic e r ’s th r e a t to a r r e s t h is m o th eran d sisterif h e d id n o t ad m ito w n er sh ip o f th e d ru g s. F in ally, i n E stelan ’s thi r d s uppr e s s i on m ot i on, he a ga i n c ont e nde d tha tthe pos t - a r r e s ts t a t e m e nt s he m ade t o o ff

i ce rs on D ec em ber 22, 20 03 , shou l d b e s up pres se d b ec ause they w er e 1 ( 1) obt a i ne d i n vi ol a t i on of hi s r i ghtt o r e m a i n s i l e nt , a nd ( 2) the r e s ul tof unl a w f ul th reat s an d i n t i m i d at i o n b y o ffi cers. 24

T he gove r nm e ntr e s ponde d tha t , on N ove m be r18, 2003, of f i c e r s di d not th r e a te n to a r r e s t m e m b e r s o f E s te la n ’s f

a m ily if E s te la n r e f

u s e d to c la im ow ne r s hi p of

the drugs a nd f

i r e a r m s tha tthe of

f i c e r s ha d r e c ove r e d. T he go vernm ental so re spon ded t hatan offi ce r’ s s t at em enton D ec em ber 22, 20 03 , that i s , tha the m i ghta r r e s tE s t e l a n’ s m othe ra nd s i s t e rf orpos s e s s i ng drugs , w a s not u n d u ly c o e r c iv e b e c a u s e th e o f f ic e rh a d p r o b a b le c a u s e to m a k e th e s e a r r e s ts . A f te rc o n d u c tin g a n e v id e n tia r y h e a r in g , th e m a g is tr a te is s u e d a r e p o r t, r e c om m e ndi ng tha ta l l of E s t e l a n’ s s uppr e s s i on m ot i ons be de ni e d. A l though the re cord on appeal do es no tcont ai n a tra nscr i ptof thi s e vi dent i ary hea ri ng , E st el an d id n o t ch allen g e in h is o b jectio n s to th e m ag istrate’s r ep o rt th e m ag istrate’s f a c tu a l f in d in g s , a t le a s t a s th e y r e la te to E s te la n ’s a r g u m e n ts o n ap p e a l. M oreover, E st el an has f ai l ed t o argue on appeal thatthese fa ctual fi nd i ng s w er e e r r one ous , pl a i nl y orothe r w i s e . S e e U ni t e d S t a t e s v. W a r r e n, 687 F . 2d 347, 348 (1 1 th C ir. 1 9 8 2 ) ( ex p lain in g th at th e a b se n ce o f o b jectio n s to th e m ag istrate’s r e por t , pr e pa r e d pur s ua ntt o 28 U . S . C . § 636( b) ( 1) ( B ) , l i m i t s appe l l a t e r e vi e w of fa ctual fi nd i ng s t o p l ai n err or or m ani fe sti nj ust i ce ). W e, there fore , concl ud e that E s t e l a n ha s a ba ndone d a ny c ha l l e nge s t o the f ol l ow i ng f

a c tua l f i ndi ngs by the m a g is tr a te in h e rr e p o r t. O f f i c e rB r i a n H e r m a ns on, a n of f i c e rw i th the L a ke W or th P ol i c e D e pa r tm e nt5

s i nc e O c t obe r1991, a nd a m e m be rof a s pe c i a l i nve s t i ga t i on uni ttha tf oc us e s on n a r c o tic s a n d g a n g a c tiv ity , te s tif ie d th a t, o n N o v e m b e r1 8 , 2 0 0 3 , a t ap p r o x im a te ly 12: 26 p. m , he he l pe d e xe c ut e a s e a r c h w a r r a nta ta r e s i de nc e i n L a ke W or th, F l ori da. W hen t he offi ce rs arri ved atthi s r es i dence, they kno cked and ann ou nced thei r pre se nce. O n h ea ri ng a doo r s l am , the offi ce rs ent er ed the re si dence. A no ther of f i c e rf ound E s t e l a n i n the r e s tr oom , be ntove ra t oi l e tc ont a i ni ng a l a r ge pi e c e of c oc a i ne ba s e . E s t e l a n’ s m othe ra nd a nothe rpe r s on a l s o w e r e pr e s e nti n the r e s id e n c e . A f

te rE s te la n w a s a r r e s te d a n d a d v is e d o f h is M ir a n d a r ig h ts , h e to ld O f f i c e rH e r m a ns on tha tthe f i r e a r m s a nd drugs f

ound i n a dr a w e ri n the be dr oom of the r e s i de nc e be l onge d t o hi m . T he of f i c e r s ne i the rus e d f

or c e a ga i ns tE s t e l a n, nor threa t ened t o arr es thi s f am i l y m em bers . M oreover, E st el an w as l uci d, had n orm al s p e e c h p a tte r n s , a n d d id n o t ap p e a rto b e u n d e rth e in f lu e n c e o f d ru g s o ra lc o h o l. O f f i c e rS a nj a y R a

j a , a n of f i c e rw i th the W e s tP a l m B e a c h P ol i c e D e pa r tm e nt s i nc e F e brua r y 2004, t e s t i f i e d tha t , on D e c e m be r22, 2003, a s pa r tof hi s pr e vi ous e m pl oy m e ntw i th the L a ke W or th P ol i c e D e pa r tm e nt , he e xe c ut e d as e a r c h w a r r a nt of thi s s am e r es i dence. O n ent er i ng the re si dence, he ob se rved E st el an’ s m other, V i ol e tt e E s t e l a n, i n the l i vi ng r oom , i n c l os e pr oxi m i ty t o a s t a c k of boxe s , on t op of w hi c h of

f i c e r s ul t i m a t e l y r e c ove r e d i n pl a i n vi e w adi m e - s i z e pi e c e of c oc a i ne ba s e , w e i ghi ng appr oxi m a t e l y . 1 gr a m s . T he of f i c e r s e xe c ut i ng the s e a r c h w a r r a ntOffic er Raja also conc eded that, after

he spoke w ith Estelan’s mother a nd sister about 3 the possibility

of ar restingthem, and af

ter the of ficers transpor

ted Estelan to the policestation, hepermitt e d th e sefa

mily members to spe ak toEs te lan, wi th t he ir c onvers atio ns “ surrepti tio us ly videotaped,”with the hope that Estelan w ould admit to them that he owned the dr ug s. 6 a l s o r e c ove r e d c oc a i ne ba s e i n a c om pa c t - di s c c a s e a nd $725 i n a s m a l l r e f r i ge r a t or i n the no rth b edroom . E st el an’ s s i st er , W i l da E st el an, arri ved atthe re si dence dur i ng thi s s e a r c h, a tw hi c h t i m e s he i de nt i f i e d the nor th be dr oom a s he rbe dr oom a n d a g r e e d to c a ll E s te la n . O f f i c e rR a j a f ur the rs t a t e d tha t , w he n E s t e l a n r e s ponde d by c om i ng t o the r e s id e n c e , E s te la n w a s d e ta in e d , w a s a d v is e d o f h is r ig h ts , a n d w a iv e d h is r ig h t to re m ai n si l ent . O ff

i ce r R aj a then i nform ed E st el an w hatcont raband the offi ce rs had reco v ered fro m th e resi d en ce, al o n g w i th ex p l ai n i n g th atth ey d i d n o tw an tt o arrest a n y o n e w h o w a s n o t in v o lv e d w ith th e d ru g s . W h e n O f f ic e rR a ja a s k e d E s te la n if h e w a s in v o lv e d w ith th e d ru g s , E s te la n g a v e c o n f lic tin g a n s w e r s o v e rh is ow ne r s hi p of

the drugs . T he of

f i c e r s the n t ook E s t e l a n out s i de the r e s i de nc e a nd que s t i one d hi m w hi l e he w a s s i tt i ng ne xtt o hi s m othe ra nd s i s t e r . A l though E s t e l a n f i r s ts t a t e d tha tthe drugs be l onge d t o hi m , a nd nothi s m othe ra nd s i s t e r , he r e c a n te d th is s ta te m e n t w ith in m in u te s . D u r in g th is q u e s tio n in g , E s te la n a g a in appe a r e d l uc i d, ha d nor m a l s pe e c h, w a s c l e a re y e d, di d notappe a rt o be unde rthe i n fl u en ce o f d ru g s o r al co h o l , an d d i d n o treq u estan att o rn ey. 37

Es t e l a n , w h o w a s 2 1 y e a r s ’ o l d a n d h a d c o mp l e t e d th e 1 1 th g r a d e a tth e t i me of the evi dent i ary hea ri ng , al so t es t i fi ed, st at i ng , am on g o ther thi ng s, thatO ff i ce r H erm anson i nform ed hi m , af t erhi s N ov em ber 18, 20 03 , arre st , thatthe offi ce rs w oul d ha ve E s t e l a n’ s m othe ra nd gr a ndm othe rde por t e d a nd/ ora r r e s t e d f or p o s s e s s io n o f

th e d ru g s a n d g u n s if

E s te la n d id n o t a d m it to o w n in g th is co n trab an d . A l th o u g h b o th h i s m o th er an d g ran d m o th er w ere l eg al resi d en t s, E s t e l a n s t i l l f

e a r e d f orthe i rf r e e dom . E s t e l a n a l s o t e s t i f i e d tha t , on D e c e m be r22, 2003, he a dm i tt e d t o ow ni ng drugs r e c ove r e d f r om the r e s i de nc e onl y be c a us e he w a s s c a r e d tha thi s m othe ra nd s i s t e rw oul d be a r r e s t e d. A ddi t i ona l l y , the m agi stra t e not ed that , i n a vi deot ape of E st el an’ s N ov em ber i nt errogat i on , E st el an ap p e a r e d r e la x e d a n d “la id b a c k ,” a n d h e d id n o t a s k a b o u t h is f a m ily . T h e m ag i strat e d et erm i n ed , am o n g o th er th i n g s, th at , th e p o st -arrest st at em entm ade on N ov em ber 18, 20 00 3, w as no tcoer ce d b ec ause O ff i ce r H e r m a n s o n ’s te s tim o n y , th a t h e d id n o t th r e a te n to a r r e s t E s te la n ’s f a m ily m e m b e r s , w a s m o r e c r e d ib le th a n E s te la n ’s c o n tr a r y te s tim o n y . T h e m a g is tr a te a l s o c onc l ude d tha tE s t e l a n’ s w a i ve rof hi s r i ghtt o r e m a i n s i l e nton D e c e m be r22, 2003, w a s vol unt a r y , de s pi t e tha tE s t e l a n t e s t i f i e d tha tthe of

f i c e r s thr e a t e ne d, othe r w i s e , t o a r r e s thi s m othe ra nd s i s t e r , be c a us e the of f i c e r s ha d f

ound c oc a i ne ba s e i n pl a i n vi e w of

E s t e l a n’ s m othe ra nd drugs i n the be dr oom oc c upi e d byEs te lan o bje c te d tothi s repo rt , a rguingtha

t th efac t th at hema depo st- arre st s tate ments 4 did not establish that he voluntarily waived his right to remain silent. Estelan contended that he testified that he wa s threatened with the ar rest of f amily members on November 18, 2003, a nd that th eg ov e rnment did n ot c laim that th eof fi c e rs had p roba

blec a us eto a rre st m e mbers of

his fa mily on thi s d ate . H ea lso argue d th at th eof fi c e rs did no t ha veprob a blec a us eto a rre st h is mot her a nd sis ter o n D e c e mber 2 2, 20 03 , b e c a us e(1 ) t heprob a blec a us ea ff ida vit s f or bo th search wa rra nts werebased solely

on Estelan’s illeg al ac tivity , (2) his mother a nd sister were not arrested a fter thefirst search reveale d both drug s and guns in their residenc e, (3) the coc aine ba sere c ov e re d f

ro m th ec luttere d livingro om w a s a small amou

nt; and (4 ) t hec oc aineba se rec overe d from his sister’s room wa s in a closed c ontainer. Although theg overnment asked Of ficer Honkala about a se arc h on November 13, 5 2003, it, presumably , was re fer ringto the November

18, 2003, search. 8 E st el an’ s s i st er . T he m agi stra t e c on cl ud ed that , base d o n these fa ct s, the offi ce rs ha d pr oba bl e c a us e t o a r r e s tthe s e f a m i l y m e m be r s f

orpos s e s s i on of

drugs , a nd thei r threa tt o d o so, there fore , w as no tcoer ci ve. T he m agi stra t e a l so expl ai ned tha the rr e vi e w of

the vi de ot ape s of

the N ove m be ri nt e r r oga t i on of E s t e l a n, dur i ng w hi ch E st el an w as re l axed and d i d n otas k abo uthi s f am i l y, show ed thatE st el an vol unt a r i l y w a i ve d hi s r i ghtt o r e m a i n s i l e nt . T he c our ts um m a r i l y a dopt e d the 4 m a g is tr a te ’s r e p o r t a n d d e n ie d a ll o f E s te la n ’s s u p p r e s s io n m o tio n s . A ttri al , the go vernm entoffe re d the fol l ow i ng addi t i on al evi dence. O ff i ce r N e i l H onka l a , a n of

f i c e rw i th the L a ke W or th P ol i c e D e pa r tm e nt , t e s t i f i e d tha t , on N ov em ber 18, 20 03 , w hen h e e nt er ed the re si dence i n q uest i on t o execut e ase ar ch 5 w arra nt , he heard a t oi l etfl ushi ng and d et erm i ned t hatthe re stroom do or w as l oc ke d. W he n O f

f i c e rH onka l a a tt e m pt e d t o ki c k the r e s tr oom doorope n, E s t e l a n, w h o w a s in s id e th e r e s tr o o m , f o r c e f u lly s la m m e d th e d o o rs h u t. O f f ic e rH o n k a la9

e ve ntua l l y f

or c e d the doorope n, a tw hi c h t i m e he obs e r ve d the t oi l e tf l us hi ng a nd s e v e r a l la r g e p ie c e s o f

c o c a in e b a s e in s id e it. O ff i ce r H erm anson t es t i fi ed, and t he part i es st i pu l at ed, that , af t erthe offi ce rs arre st ed E st el an and sear ched the re si dence on N ov em ber 18, 20 03 , they r ec ov er ed m i s c e l l a ne ous doc um e nt s i n E s t e l a n’ s na m e on the di ni ng r oom t abl e a nd i n the t op dr a w e rof

a dr e s s e ri n the r e s i de nc e ’ s nor th be dr oom . T he of f i c e r s a l s o f

ound coca i ne base and p ow der i n the t op draw erof the sa m e dre ss er , as w el l as a l oaded s e m i a ut om a t i c pi s t ol on the t op s he l f of ac l os e ti ns i de the nor th be dr oom , a nd a lo a d e d a s s a u lt r if

le w r ap p e d in a f

o o tb a ll je r s e y in a n o th e rb e d r o o m . O f f i c e rR a j a a l s o t e s t i f

i e d a ttr i a l , e xpl a i ni ng tha t , on D e c e m be r22, 2005, i n add i t i on t o the di m e- si ze am ou ntof cocai ne base thatthe offi ce rs re covered fr om the l i vi ng room , they di sc ov er ed i n o ne of the bedroo m s asm al l un pl ug ged r e f r i ge r a t orc ont a i ni ng $725 i n c a s h a nd a n ope n C D c a s e c ont a i ni ng m or e c oc a i ne ba s e . W he n E s t e l a n’ s 14- y e a r - ol d s i s t e re nt e r e d the r e s i de nc e dur i ng thi s s e a r c h, the of f i c e r s i ns truc t e d he rt o c a l l E s t e l a n, ga ve he ra nd E s t e l a n’ s m othe rM i r a nda w a r ni ngs , a nd ha ndc uf

f e d the m out s i de the apa r tm e nt . W he n E s t e l a n a r r i ve d a tthe apar tm ent , he al so w as hand cuff ed and g i ven M i ra nd a w arni ng , af t erw hi ch E st el an w a s i nf or m e d tha t , ba s e d on the l oc a t i ons of the drugs f

ound i n the r e s i de nc e , the of f i c e r s ha d pr oba bl e c a us e t o a r r e s thi s m othe ra nd s i s t e r . A f t e rgi vi ng c onf

l i c t i ngAlthough O fficer Raja f irst stated that he a

rre sted Estelan in January 2, 2004, he 6 subsequently

clarified that the a

rre st occurred on January 22, 2004. 10 s t a t e m e nt s i ns i de the r e s i de nc e , E s t e l a n w a s t a ke n out s i de the r e s i de nc e , w he r e he s t a t e d, i n f

r ontof hi s m othe ra nd s i s t e r , tha the ow ne d the drugs a nd tha tthe o f f ic e r s s h o u ld r e le a s e th e s e f a m ily m e m b e r s . A f t e rbe i ng r e - s w or n, O f

f i c e rH e r m a ns on a ddi t i ona l l y t e s t i f i e d tha t , on J a nua r y 3, 2004, on tw o s e pa r a t e oc c a s i ons , a c onf i de nt i a l i nf

or m a nt( “ C I ” ) of

the L a ke W or th P ol i c e D e pa r tm e nt , w hi l e be i ng vi de ot ape d, m a de unde r c ove rbuy s of c oc a i ne ba s e f

r om E s t e l a n. E s t e l a n w a s nota r r e s t e d on thi s da t e be c a us e of the ongoi ng na tur e of

the i nve s t i ga t i on a nd the pol i c e de pa r tm e nt ’ s ne e d t o ke e p the C I ’ s i de nt i ty c onf

i de nt i a l . O f

f i c e rR a j a a l s o t e s t i f

i e d a ga i n, a f

t e rbe i ng r e - s w or n, s t a t i ng tha t , on J a nua r y 22, 2004, pur s ua ntt o a f e de r a l a r r e s tw a r r a ntf

orE s t e l a n, O ff i ce r R aj a a nd other off

i ce rs att em pt ed t o arr es tE st el an. W hen E st el an ra n 6 aw ay fr om them , O ff

i ce r R aj a observed E st el an throw a s m al l fl uo re sc entobj ec t ov era f ence . A ft erapprehendi ng E st el an and sear chi ng the ar eaw here E st el an th r e w th is o b

je c t, O f f ic e rR a ja d is c o v e r e d a f

lu o r e s c e n t g r e e n E x c e d r in b o ttle c o n ta in in g a s u b s ta n c e th a t th e g o v e r n m e n t la te rc o n f ir m e d w a s c o c a in e b a s e . F ur the r m or e , dur i ng tr i a l , the gove r nm e nts oughtt o qua l i f y S pe c i a l A ge nt R i c ha r d B onne r , a s pe c i a l a ge ntw i th the U . S . D rug E nf or c e m e ntA dm i ni s tr a t i on ( “D E A ” ) , a s “a n e x p e r t in s tr e e t le v e l n a r c o tic s a n d tr a f f ic k in g a n d s p e c if

ic a lly inIna d di t i o nt o rai s i n gattri a lh i s o b j e c t i o nt o S p e c i a lA g e ntB o nn e r ’ s e xp e rtt e s t i m o ny, 7 Es te lan f ile d p retrial a

motion to e xcludethi s te stimony . Thec ourt , h ow e ver, did no t a dd re ss this mot ion until the trial had commence d. 11 cr ac k cocai ne and cocai ne po w der. ” S peci al A gentB on ner t es t i fi ed that , as an agentw i th the D E A for app roxi m at el y f ou r y ea rs and fou r m on ths, he had (1 ) received sp eci al i zed trai n i n g i n th e d i stri b u t i o n an d traffi ck i n g o f i l l eg al d ru g s, p a r tic u la r ly w ith S c h e d u le I a n d I I c o n tr o lle d s u b s ta n c e s ; ( 2 ) p a r tic ip a te d in hundr e ds of

i nve s t i ga t i ons i nvol vi ng the di s tr i but i on of c oc a i ne ba s e ; a nd ( 3) i nt e r vi e w e d i n e xc e s s of 100 pe r s ons i nvol ve d i n the i l l e ga l di s tr i but i on of c oc a i ne a nd c oc a i ne ba s e . P r i ort o s e r vi ng i n hi s c ur r e ntpos i t i on, S pe c i a l A ge nt B on ner a l so had b ee n em pl oyed for app roxi m at el y e i gh tye ar s a s apo l i ce offi ce r, w o r k in g e x te n s iv e ly o n n a r c o tic c a s e s . O n q uest i on i ng by E st el an, S peci al A gentB on ner c on ce ded t hathe never h a d p u b lis h e d a r tic le s o n s tr e e t- le v e l d e a lin g o f c o c a in e b a s e , n o rb e e n s u b je c t to pe e rr e vi e w ore va l ua t i on. S pe c i a l A ge ntB onne ra l s o a gr e e d tha thi s m e thodol ogy f o rh is o p in io n s w a s b a s e d s o le ly o n h is tr a in in g , o b s e r v a tio n s , a n d e x p e r ie n c e s . E st el an th en o b

j ect ed t o S p eci al A g en tB o n n er t est i fyi n g as an ex p ertw i tn ess, ar gu i ng thatthe go vernm enthad fai l ed t o m ee tR ul e 702 ' s r equi re m ent s f or such t es t i m on y. T he courtov errul ed thi s obj ec t i on , sum m ar i l y e xp l ai ni ng that , af t er 7 exam i ni ng ca se l aw bo th from thi s C ou rtand t he S up re m e C ou rt , i thad con cl ud edTh ec ourt a lso denie d E ste lan’ s o bje c tio n totheint ro du c tio n o f t

his e xpe rt te stimony

to 8 the extent Estelan was re lying on F ed.R.Evid. 401 and 403. B eca use Estelan ha s not challeng ed this ruling on appe al, we de em any arguments on it abandoned. SeeL evy, 416 F.3d at 1275. The g overnment had filed a pretrial notice, pursuant to 21 U.S.C. § 851, notifying 9 Estelan of its intent to rely on threeof his prior state f elony drugconvictions in seekingan enhanc ed sentence in the instant off ense, a s require d in 21 U.S.C. § 851(b).

12 thatthi s e xp ertt es t i m on y w as adm i ss i bl e und erR ul e 702 . S peci al A gentB on ner 8 the n t e s t i f

i e d on how c oc a i ne ba s e ty pi c a l l y i s s ol d a nd w hy the a m ount s of c o c a in e b a s e th a t w e r e r e c o v e r e d f r o m th e to ile t, d r a w e r , a n d r e f r ig e r a to rin E st el an’ s r es i dence, and t he cocai ne base cont ai ned i n the E xcedri n p i l l bo tt l e that E st el an threw ov erthe fe nce, w er e i nd i ca t i ve of di stri bu t i on , i nst ea d o f per sonal u s e . O n M a y 5 , 2 0 0 4 , th e ju r y c o n v ic te d E s te la n o f a ll c o u n ts in h is in d ic tm e n t. P r i ort o s e nt e nc i ng, E s t e l a n f i l e d a de ni a l of

the thr e e pr i ors t a t e c onvi c t i ons o n w h ic h th e g o v e r n m e n t w a s r e ly in g in a tte m p tin g to s ta tu to r ily e n h a n c e h is s e n te n c e , p u r s u a n t to 2 1 U .S .C . § 8 5 1 . A tta c h in g c o p ie s o f th e tr a n s c r ip ts o f

h is 9 change-of-pl eahear i ng s, E st el an ar gu ed thatthese conv i ct i on s w er e const i tut i on al l y i nv al i d b ec ause (1) they w er e the re sul tof gu i l ty pl ea s thatw er e no tkn ow i ng and v ol un t ary, and (2) he di d n otre ce i ve ef fe ct i ve as si st ance of tri al coun se l . T he go vernm entop po se d E st el an’ s deni al , ar gu i ng thatthe pl ea tr a ns c r i pt s a nd the pl e a - w a i ve rf or m s s how e d tha tE s t e l a n r e c e i ve d e f f e c t i ve a s s is ta n c e o f

c o u n s e l, a n d th a t h is p le a s f o llo w e d th e r e q u ir e m e n ts o u tlin e d in B o y k in v . A la b a m a , 3 9 5 U .S . 2 3 8 , 8 9 S .C t. 1 7 0 9 , 2 3 L .E d .2 d 2 7 4 ( 1 9 6 9 ) .These prior convictions included thre e convic tions that Estelan had denie d and that the 10 court eventually

found at sentencingto be constitutionally invalid for purpose s of re lying on them to statutorily

enhanc e Estelan’ s sentenceunder 21 U .S.C. § 851, that is, (1) two c on so lidate d s tatec onvic tio ns in P a lm B e a c h Co unty, F lorida , f or fe lony saleof c oc aine , in

Ca se No s. 02 -1 45 69 CF A0 2 a

nd 02 -2 29 1CF A0 2, on

Ma y 30 , 2 00 3; a

nd (2 ) a statec onvic tio n in

Palm Be ach County, Florida , for f elony possession of marijuana , in Case No. 03-10472CF A02, on October 10, 2003. 13 A l s o pr i ort o s e nt e nc i ng, a pr oba t i on of f i c e rpr e pa r e d a P S I , r e c om m e ndi ng tha tE s t e l a n’ s of

f e ns e l e ve l be s e ta t28, pur s ua ntt o U . S . S . G . § 2D 1. 1( c ) ( 6) , a nd thati tbe i ncre as ed tw o l evel s, pu rs uantt o U . S . S . G . § 2 D 1. 1(b)(1), because E st el an pos s e s s e d a da nge r ous w e apon. T he P S I a l s o i nc l ude d tha tE s t e l a n ha d ni ne c r i m i n a l - h i s t o r y p o i n t s , wh i c h i n c l u d e d s e v e n p o i n t s , p u r s u a n tt o U. S . S . G. § 4 A 1 . 1 (c), b ased o n E st el an ’ s p ri o r co n v i ct i o n s, an d tw o ad d i t i o n al p o i n t s, 10 p u rsu an tt o U . S . S . G . § 4 A 1 . 1 (e), b ecau se h e co m m i tt ed th e i n st an to ffen se l ess tha n tw o y e a r s f

r om hi s da t e of

r e l e a s e f r om c us t ody f

ora pr i orof

f e ns e . W i th a t ot a l of f e ns e l e ve l of

30 a nd a c r i m i na l hi s t or y c a t e gor y of I V , E s t e l a n’ s gui de l i ne r a n g e w a s 1 3 5 to 1 6 8 m o n th s ’ im p r is o n m e n t. O n J a nua r y 19, 2005, a ts e nt e nc i ng, E s t e l a n r e ne w e d hi s obj e c t i on t o the c o u r t’s r e lia n c e o n th r e e p r io rc o n v ic tio n s f o rp u rp o s e s o f

s ta tu to r ily e n h a n c in g h is s e nt e nc e unde r§ 851. A f t e rhe a r i ng a r gum e nt s f

r om c ouns e l a nd e xt e ns i ve t e s t i m ony f

r om E s t e l a n, the c our tde t e r m i ne d tha tthe s e pr i orc onvi c t i ons c oul d not be us e d t o s uppor ta s t a tut or y s e nt e nc i ng e nha nc e m e ntunde r§ 851, be c a us e the

“ pl e a c ol l oqui e s [ di d not ] m e a s ur e [ ] up t o the r e qui r e m e nt s of due pr oc e s s , ” a nd14

th e g o v e r n m e n t h a d n o t s h o w n th a t E s te la n , d u r in g th e s ta te a llo c u tio n s , h a d f u lly un ders t oo d “ w hathe w as do i ng [a nd ] the nature of hi s a ct s. ” T he court , ho w ever , no t ed thati tw as no tfi nd i ng thatE st el an’ s tri al coun se l w as i neff ec t i ve. T he court a l s o r e s t a t e d, w i thoutobj e c t i on, the P S I ’ s c a l c ul a t i ons , i nc l udi ng tha tE s t e l a n ha d a c r i m i na l hi s t or y c a t e gor y of I V , a nd a r e s ul t i ng gui de l i ne s r a nge of 135 t o 168 m o n th s ’ im p r is o n m e n t. Th e c o u r tth e n c o n s i d e r e d th e s e n t e n c i n g f a c t o r s l i s t e d i n 1 8 U . S. C. § 3 55 3(a) , i ncl ud i ng E st el an’ s di sc re t i on ary gui del i ne ra ng e. In do i ng so, the court st at ed thati thad “ l oo ked care ful l y a t[E st el an’ s] pri or conv i ct i on s, w hatthey consi st ed of, the w ay they w er e tre at ed and so o n. ” T he courtul t i m at el y s ent ence d E st el an t o a t ot al se nt ence of 13 5 m on ths’ i m pri sonm ent , 4 yea rs ’ supervi se d re l ea se , and a $6 25 spec i al as se ss m entfe e. W hen t he courtas ked E st el an i f he had any new obj ec t i on s t o the court ’ s prono un ce m entof hi s s ent ence , E st el an answ er ed in th e n e g a tiv e . Is su e 1: E st el an ’s P ost- A rr es t S tate m en ts E s te la n a r g u e s th a t th e c o u r t e r r e d in d e n y in g h is m o tio n to s u p p r e s s p o s ta r r e s ts t a t e m e nt s he m a de t o l a w e nf or c e m e ntof

f i c e r s on N ove m be r18 a nd D e c e m be r22, 2003, be c a us e the c our tdi d notl ook a tthe t ot a l i ty of the ci rc um st ance s i n d ec i di ng w hether these st at em ent s w er e vol un t ary. E st el an15

cont ends thatthe court , i nst ea d, focuse d ent i re l y on i t s c on cl usi on thatthe offi ce rs h a d p r o b a b le c a u s e o n D e c e m b e r2 2 , 2 0 0 3 , to a r r e s t E s te la n ’s m o th e ra n d s is te r . W ith o u t id e n tif

y in g w h a t c ir c u m s ta n c e s th e c o u r t ig n o r e d , E s te la n a ls o a s s e r ts th a t, i f the c our tha d e xa m i ne d the t ot a l i ty of the c i r c um s t a nc e s , i tw oul d ha ve c onc l ude d tha thi s pos t - a r r e s ts t a t e m e nt s w e r e notthe pr oduc tof hi s f r e e a nd r a tio n a l c h o ic e . F in a lly , E s te la n c la im s th a t, b e c a u s e th e p o s t- a r r e s t s ta te m e n ts w e r e th e “ o n l y r e a l e v i d e n c e th a tth e g o v e r n me n th a d th a tth e d ru g s a n d f i r e a r ms b el o n g ed t o [h i m ] , ” an d b ecau se th e g o v ern m en tfai l ed t o sh o w th atth ese s ta te m e n ts d id n o t c o n tr ib u te to h is c o n v ic tio n s , th e e r r o rw a s n o t h a r m le s s .

“ [W e] re vi ew [] a di stri ctcourt ’ s f ac tual fi nd i ng s s up po rt i ng the deni al of a m ot i on t o s uppr e s s f

orc l e a re r r or , a nd i n the l i ghtm os tf a vor a bl e t o the [g] ov ernm ent . T he appl i ca t i on of the l aw t o the fa ct s i s r evi ew ed de no vo . ” U ni t e d S t a t e s v. T hom ps on, 422 F . 3d 1285, 1295 ( 11th C i r . 2005) ( c i t a t i on om i tt e d) . U nde rthe F i f th A m e ndm e ntt o the U ni t e d S t a t e s C ons t i tut i on, the gove r nm e ntm a y notus e a n i nvol unt a r y c onf e s s i on a ga i ns ta de f

e nda nti n a c r i m i na l tr i a l . I d. W e f oc us ourvol unt a r i ne s s i nqui r y “ on w he the rthe de f e nda nt w a s c oe r c e d by the gove r nm e nti nt o m a ki ng the s t a t e m e nt : T he r e l i nqui s hm e ntof the r i ght[ t o r e m a i n s i l e nt ] m us tha ve be e n vol unt a r y i n the s e ns e tha ti tw a s the pr oduc tof

a f r e e a nd de l i be r a t e c hoi c e [ , ] r a the rtha n i nt i m i da t i on, c oe r c i on or16

dece pt i on . ” I d. (i nt ernal m arks and q uo t at i on s om i tt ed). M oreover, “ [t ] he di stri ct courtm ustconsi der the t ot al i ty of the ci rc um st ance s i n ass es si ng w hether pol i ce c o n d u c t w a s ‘c a u s a lly r e la te d ’ to th e c o n f e s s io n .” I d . ( q u o ta tio n o m itte d ) . U n d erce rtain circ u m stan ce s, p o li ce d ec ep ti o n in v alid ates an ac cu se d ’s w a i ve rof

hi s r i ghtt o r e m a i n s i l e nt . T hom ps on v. H a l e y , 255 F . 3d 1292, 1296 ( 1 1 th C ir . 2 0 0 1 ) ( c itin g R o g e r s v . R ic h m o n d , 3 6 5 U .S . 5 3 4 , 8 1 S .C t. 7 3 5 , 5 L . E d. 2d 760 ( 1961) ( i n a ha be a s c a s e , a c onf e s s i on w a s i nvol unt a r y w he n the po l i ce pret ended t hat , i f the defendantdi d n otconfes s, the defendant ’ s a i l i ng w i fe w ou l d b e a rr es t ed)) . H ow ever , i n T ho m pson , w e det erm i ned t hata l aw e nf or c e m e ntof

f i c e r ’ s s t a t e m e ntt o a ha be a s pe t i t i one rtha thi s c ode f e nda nt g ir lf r ie n d m ig h t f

a c e th e e le c tr ic c h a irif

th e p e titio n e rd id n o t c o n f e s s to c om m i tt i ng a m ur de rdi d notr e nde rthe pe t i t i one r ’ s pos t - a r r e s ts t a t e m e nt in v o lu n ta r y b e c a u s e th e p e titio n e r ’s g ir lf r ie n d h a d v o lu n ta r ily im p lic a te d h e r s e lf in th e m u r d e rp r io rto th e d e f e n d a n t’s a r r e s t. T h o m p s o n , 2 5 5 F .3 d a t 1 2 9 6 . W e ex p l ai n ed th at , u n d er th ese ci rcu m st an ces, th e o ffi cer h ad p ro b ab l e cau se t o arrest the pet i t i on er ’ s gi rl fr i end and the offi ce r’ s s t at em entof thi s f ac tt o the pet i t i on er , the r e f or e , di d notc ons t i tut e c oe r c i on. I d. a t1297. S i m i l ar l y, i n M art i n v . K em p, 76 0 F . 2d 12 44 (11t h C i r. 19 85 ), w e e xam i ned a habeas pet i t i on er ’ s a rgum entthathi s gui l ty pl eaw as i nv ol un t ary bec ause i tw as17

pr om pt e d by pol i c e thr e a t s t o br i ng c ha r ge s a ga i ns tthe pe t i t i one r ’ s y oung, pregnantw i fe . Id. at12 47 -48. A l tho ug h w e ul t i m at el y det erm i ned t hatthe re cord w a s unc l e a ron w he the rthe pol i c e ha d pr oba bl e c a us e t o f i l e c ha r ge s a ga i ns tthe pet i t i on er ’ s w i fe atthe t i m e thi s threa tw as m ade a nd thatre m and, thu s, w as w a r r a nt e d, w e c l a r i f

i e d tha tw he the ra thr e a tt o pr os e c ut e a thi r d pa r ty i s c oe r c i ve depend s upo n w hether probabl e c ause exi st s t o b el i eve thatthe thi rd party has c o m m itte d a c r im e a t th e tim e th a t th e th r e a t is m a d e . I d . a t 1 2 4 8 - 4 9 . H er e, t o the ext entE st el an i s a rgui ng thatthe courtshou l d h ave c on cl ud ed tha thi s pos t - a r r e s ts t a t e m e nton N ove m be r18, 2003, w a s c oe r c e d be c a us e he te s tif ie d th a t h e m a d e th is s ta te m e n t o n ly b e c a u s e o f f ic e r s th r e a te n e d , o th e r w is e , to a r r e s t m e m b e r s o f

h is f a m ily , th e c o u r t, th r o u g h a d o p tin g th e m a g is tr a te ’s r e p o r t, d e te r m in e d th a t te s tim o n y d e n y in g s u c h th r e a ts w e r e m a d e w a s m o r e c r e d ib le . B e c a u s e “ [ t ] h e c r e d i b i l i ty o f a wi tn e s s i s i n th e p r o v i n c e o f th e f a c t f i n d e r , ” we

“ w i l l no tordi nari l y r evi ew the fa ct fi nd er ’ s det erm i nat i on of cr edi bi l i ty. ” S ee U ni t ed S t at es v. C op el and, 20 F . 3d 41 2, 41 3 (11 th C i r. 19 94 ). M oreover, E st el an ha s notc ha l l e nge d O f

f i c e rH e r m a ns on’ s c r e di bi l i ty on appe a l , a nd a r e vi e w of the r e c or d doe s nots how tha tthe c our tc l e a r l y e r r e d i n m a ki ng thi s f i ndi ng. I nde e d, the courtno t ed that , i n the vi deot ape of E st el an’ s N ov em ber i nt errogat i on , E st el an ap p e a r e d r e la x e d a n d “la id b a c k ,” a n d h e d id n o t a s k a b o u t h is f a m ily .18

In exam i ni ng E st el an’ s D ec em ber 22, 20 03 , po st -a rr es tst at em ent , O ff i ce r R a ja a d m itte d d u r in g th e e v id e n tia r y h e a r in g th a t h e in f o r m e d E s te la n o n th is d a te w h a t c o n tr a b a n d th e o f

f ic e r s h a d r e c o v e r e d f

r o m th e r e s id e n c e , a lo n g w ith e xpl a i ni ng tha tthe y di d notw a ntt o a r r e s ta ny one w ho w a s noti nvol ve d w i th the d ru g s . O f

f ic e rR a ja , h o w e v e r , a ls o te s tif

ie d th a t, w h e n h e e n te r e d th e r e s id e n c e in q u est i o n , h e o b serv ed E st el an ’ s m o th er i n th e l i v i n g ro o m , si tt i n g i n cl o se p r o x im ity to c o c a in e b a s e th a t w a s in p la in v ie w . M o r e o v e r , O f f ic e rR a ja re covered coca i ne base and $ 72 5 i n cas h from a s m al l re fr i gera t or i n the room that E s t e l a n’ s s i s t e ri de nt i f

i e d a s he rbe dr oom . T hus , s i m i l a rt o the f a c t s i n T hom ps on a nd M a r t i n, pr oba bl e c a us e e xi s t e d t o a r r e s tE s t e l a n’ s m othe ra nd s i s t e rf or p o s s e s s io n o f

d ru g s , a n d O f

f ic e rR a ja ’s s ta te m e n t to th a t e f f e c t d id n o t r e s u lt in E s t e l a n’ s D e c e m be rpos t - a r r e s ts t a t e m e ntbe i ng i nvol unt a r y . S e e U ni t e d S t a t e s v. C la y , 3 5 5 F .3 d 1 2 8 1 , 1 2 8 4 ( 1 1 th C ir .) ( e x p la in in g th a t “c o n s tru c tiv e ” p o s s e s s io n is s uf f i c i e ntt o pr ove the pos s e s s i on pr ong unde r§ 841( a ) , a nd tha tc ons truc t i ve pos s e s s i on i n drug c a s e s i s e s t a bl i s he d “ by s how i ng ow ne r s hi p ordom i ni on a nd c ontr ol ove rthe drugs orove rthe pr e m i s e s on w hi c h the drugs a r e c onc e a l e d” ( q u o ta tio n o m itte d ) ) , c e r t. d e n ie d , 1 2 5 S .C t. 6 2 6 ( 2 0 0 4 ) . F ur the r m or e , t o the e xt e ntE s t e l a n i s a r gui ng tha tthe c our te r r e d i n de ny i ng hi s s uppr e s s i on m ot i ons be c a us e the c our tf a i l e d t o e xa m i ne the t ot a l i ty of the19

c i r c um s t a nc e s , a nd tha tthe s e c om bi ne d c i r c um s t a nc e s s houl d ha ve c om pe l l e d the c our tt o rul e othe r w i s e , a s di s c us s e d a bove , a c our tm us tc ons i de rthe t ot a l i ty of the c i r c um s t a nc e s i n a s s e s s i ng w he the ra c onf e s s i on w a s vol unt a r y . S e e T hom ps on, 42 2 F . 3d at12 95 . E st el an, ho w ever , nei ther r ai se d thi s a rgum enti n the di stri ct c o u r t, n o rh a s h e id e n tif ie d o n ap p e a l o th e rf

a c to r s th a t r e n d e r e d h is s ta te m e n ts in v o lu n ta r y . R e ga r dl e s s , the r e c or d r e f l e c t s tha tthe c our t , a l though f oc us i ng pr i m a r i l y on E s t e l a n’ s a r gum e nt s r e l a t i ng t o thr e a t s t o a r r e s thi s f a m i l y m e m be r s , e xa m i ne d the o th e rc ir c u m s ta n c e s s u r r o u n d in g b o th o f th e p o s t- a r r e s t s ta te m e n ts . I n d e e d , in sum m ar i zi ng the t es t i m on y gi ven d uri ng the evi dent i ary hea ri ng , the court s pe c i f i c a l l y not e d tha t( 1) the N ove m be rs e a r c h w a s c onduc t e d a t12: 26 p. m . i n the a f te r n o o n ; ( 2 ) th e o f

f ic e r s o n th is d a te , in a d d itio n to n o t th r e a te n in g to a r r e s t h is fa m i l y m em bers , di d n otuse f orce agai nsthi m ; and (3) E st el an w as l uci d, had nor m a l s pe e c h pa tt e r ns , a nd di d notappe a rt o be unde rthe i nf l ue nc e of drugs or al coho l . T he courtal so i ncl ud ed that , du ri ng the D ec em ber i nci dent , E st el an appe a r e d l uc i d, ha d nor m a l s pe e c h, w a s c l e a re y e d, di d notappe a rt o be unde rthe i nf l ue nc e of drugs ora l c ohol , a nd di d notr e que s ta n a tt or ne y . I n a ddi t i on, the c our tnot e d tha tE s t e l a n w a s 21 y e a r s ’ ol d a nd ha d c om pl e t e d the 11th gr a de a tthe t i m e of the evi dent i ary hea ri ng . T hu s, w e c on cl ud e thatthe di stri ctcourtAs discussed above , the g overnment argues that, even if the cour t erre d in denying 11 Estelan’s suppre ssion moti ons and in admitting his post-ar rest statements, this error wa s harmless. TheSupreme Court has de termined that a n erroneous admission of a c oerc ed c on fe ssi on

c an b eha

rm le ss error . Se eArizon a v. F ulmina

nte , 4 99 U. S. 2 79 , 2 95 , 1 11 S.Ct . 1246, 1257, 113 L .Ed.2d 302 (1991). H owever, in deter mining whe ther a

coerced c onfession was ha rmless error, the SupremeCourt expl ained in Arizona that “[a] confe ssion is l ike no other evidenc e. Indeed, “the def endant’ s own confe ssion is probably the most probative and da mag ing evidenc e that ca

n be admitted ag ainst him.” See F ulminante, 499 U.S. at 296, 111 S.Ct . at 1257 (q uo tatio n a nd mark s o mitte d) . H e re , w ene e d n ot de terminetheiss ueof ha rm le ss error

be c a us e no error occurre d. Altho ugh E ste lan in c lude d in thehe a dingfo r t

his argument t

hat th ec ourt

e rre d in 12 failingto hold an evidentiar y hearing to de termine whether the “ fing erprint evidence ” met the requirements of Rule 702 for admission as scientific expert testimony , he failed in his discussion to expl ain or c ite to the rec ord in support of this contention. Thus, it appea rs that the inclusion of this contention was not intended. 20 consi dere d the t ot al i ty of the ci rc um st ance s, and i tdi d n oterr i n adm i tt i ng attri al E st el an ’ s p o st -arrest s t at em en t s. 11 I s s ue 2 : Ex pe r t Te s t i m o ny E s t e l a n a l s o a r gue s tha tthe c our ta bus e d i t s di s c r e t i on i n de ny i ng hi s m ot i on t o e xc l ude the e xpe r tt e s t i m ony of D E A A ge ntB onne rr e ga r di ng drug- di s tr i but i on a m ount s w he n the gove r nm e ntf a i l e d t o s how tha tthe t e s t i m ony m e tthe r e qui r e m e nt s f

ora dm i s s i on of

s c i e nt i f i c e xpe r tt e s t i m ony unde rR ul e 702 a nd D a ube r tv. M e r r e l l D ow P ha r m a c e ut i c a l s , I nc . , 509 U . S . 579, 113 S . C t . 2786, 125 L .E d .2 d 4 6 9 ( 1 9 9 3 ) . E s te la n e x p la in s th a t, in o v e r ru lin g h is o b je c tio n to th is 12 expertt es t i m on y on an i ss ue thatw as cr i t i ca l t o three of hi s c on vi ct i on s, the court i gnor e d the f

a c t s tha tthe e xpe r tc oul d noti de nt i f y the f a c t s a nd da t a tha tw e r e the b a s is f o rh is o p in io n , c o u ld n o t e x p la in w h a t m e th o d h e u s e d in r e a c h in g h is21

o p in io n , a n d c o n c e d e d th a t w h a te v e rm e th o d h e u s e d h a d n o t b e e n s u b je c te d to p e e rr e v ie w a n d p u b lic a tio n . W e w i l l re vers e w hen a di stri ctcourt ’ s D aubertrul i ng “ am ou nt [s ] t o an a bus e of di s c r e t i on tha ta f

f e c t e d the out c om e of

a tr i a l . ” U ni t e d S t a t e s v. B r ow n, 415 F . 3d 1257, 1266 ( 11th C i r . 2005) . A n a bus e of di s c r e t i on c a n oc c urw he r e the d is tr ic t c o u r t ap p lie s th e w r o n g la w , f o llo w s th e w r o n g p r o c e d u r e , b a s e s its d e c is io n o n c le a r ly e r r o n e o u s f a c ts , o rc o m m its a c le a re r r o rin ju d g m e n t. I d . H o w e v e r , “th e ta s k o f

e v a lu a tin g th e r e liab ility o f e x p e r t te s tim o n y is u n iq u e ly entrust ed t o the di stri ctcourtun der D aubert , ” and w e “ gi ve[s ] the di stri ctcourt c ons i de r a bl e l e e w a y i n the e xe c ut i on of i t s duty . ” I d. ( i nt e r na l quot a t i on a nd m a r ks om i tt ed). M oreover, thi s rul e i s app l i cabl e w hether the courtadm i t s or e xcl ud es e x p e r t te s tim o n y , a n d e v e n if th e D a u b e r t is s u e is o u tc o m e d e te r m in a tiv e . I d . R u l e 7 0 2 i n cl u d es as fo l l o w s: I f s c i e nt i f i c , t e c hni c a l , orothe rs pe c i a l i z e d know l e dge w i l l a s s i s tthe tri erof fa ctt o u nd er st and t he evi dence or t o d et erm i ne a f ac ti n i ss ue, a w i tness qu al i fi ed as an expertby kn ow l edge, ski l l , experi ence , tr a i ni ng, ore duc a t i on, m a y t e s t i f y the r e t o i n the f

or m of a n opi ni on or otherw i se , i f ( 1) the t es t i m on y i s bas ed up on suff i ci entfa ct s or dat a, (2 ) th e t est i m o n y i s th e p ro d u cto f rel i ab l e p ri n ci p l es an d m eth o d s, a n d ( 3 ) th e w itn e s s h a s ap p lie d th e p r in c ip le s a n d m e th o d s r e liab ly to the fa ct s of the ca se . F e d .R .E v id . 7 0 2 . In D aubert , the S up re m e C ou rtgeneral l y di sc usse d the di stri ctcourt ’ s r ol e a s22

a g a te k e e p e rin d e te r m in in g w h e th e re x p e r t te s tim o n y o n s c ie n tif ic m a tte r s is a dm i s s i bl e unde rR ul e 702. D a ube r t , 509 U . S . a t589, 113 S . C t . a t2794- 95. T he D aubertC ou rtal so se tou ta l i stof “ general ob se rvat i on s” for det erm i ni ng w hether e xpe r tt e s t i m ony i s s uf

f i c i e nt l y r e l i a bl e t o be a dm i tt e d unde rR ul e 702, i nc l udi ng (1) w hether i tca n and has bee n t es t ed; (2) w hether i thas bee n subj ec t ed t o p ee r re vi ew and p ub l i ca t i on ; (3) w hati t s kno w n o r pot ent i al ra t e of e rr or i s, and w hether s ta n d a r d s c o n tr o llin g its o p e r a tio n e x is t; a n d ( 4 ) w h e th e rit is g e n e r a lly a c c e p te d in the fi el d. Id. at59 3-94 , 11 3 S . C t . at27 96 -97. T he D aubertC ou rt , ho w ever , cl ar i fi ed thatfe dera l court s s ho ul d n otappl y these fa ct ors r i gi dl y, bu ti nst ea d shou l d u se them as “ fl exi bl e” gu i del i nes i n app l yi ng R ul e 702 . Id. (e xp l ai ni ng that “[ m ]a n y f

a c to r s w ill b e a ro n th e in q u iry , a n d w e d o n o t p r e s u m e to s e t o u t a defi ni t i ve checkl i stor t es t ”) . I n K um ho T i r e C o. , L t d. v. C a r m i c ha e l , 526 U . S . 137, 119 S . C t . 1167, 143 L .E d .2 d 2 3 8 ( 1 9 9 9 ) , th e S u p r e m e C o u r t s u b s e q u e n tly e la b o r a te d o n th e f le x ib le nature of thi s i nq ui ry , expl ai ni ng thatD aubert ’ s l i stof spec i fi c f ac t ors nei ther nece ss ar i l y nor excl usi vel y app l i es t o al l expert s or i n every ca se . Id. , 52 6 U . S . at 1 4 1 , 1 1 9 S .C t. a t 1 1 7 1 . W h e th e rth e D a u b e r t o p in io n f a c to r s a r e e v e n p e r tin e n t to as se ss in g re li ab il ity in a c as e w il l “ d ep en d [ ] o n th e n atu re o f th e iss u e, th e e x p er t’ s part i cul arexpert i se , and t he subj ec tof hi s t es t i m on y. ” I d. at15 0, 11 9 S . C t . at23

1175. T he K um ho C our tf ur the re xpl a i ne d tha ti tc oul d: ne i the rrul e out , norrul e i n, f ora l l c a s e s a nd f

ora l l t i m e the appl i c a bi l i ty of

the f a c t or s m e nt i one d i n D a ube r t , nor[ c oul d i t ] now do s o f ors ubs e t s of

c a s e s c a t e gor i z e d by c a t e gor y of e xpe r torby ki nd of e vi de nc e . T oo m uc h de pe nds upon the pa r t i c ul a rc i r c um s t a nc e s of the part i cul arca se ati ss ue. I d . W e have det erm i ned t hatthe S up re m e C ou rt ’ s hol di ng i n K um ho m ea ns that

“ expertt es t i m on y thatdo es no tm ee tal l or m ostof the D aubertfa ct ors m ay s o m e t i m e s b e a d m i s s i b l e . ” B r o wn , 4 1 5 F . 4 d a t1 2 6 8 . I n d e e d , i n B r o wn , we c onc l ude d tha ta c our tdi d nota bus e i t s di s c r e t i on i n a dm i tt i ng e xpe r tt e s t i m ony fr om tw o g ov ernm entw i tness es on the chem i ca l structure of c ert ai n d rugs, w hi ch t e s t i m ony the e xpe r t s e xpl a i ne d w a s “ ba s e d on the i rknow l e dge , s ki l l , a nd experi ence , ” a nd on “ suff i ci entfa ct s a nd dat a, ” e ven t ho ug h the go vernm entfa i l ed t o s how D a ube r tf

a c t or s s uc h a s “ t e s t a bi l i ty ” a nd pe e rr e vi e w . I d. a t1268- 69. I n the i ns t a ntc a s e , the c our tove r rul e d E s t e l a n’ s obj e c t i on t o S pe c i a l A ge nt B onne r ’ s t e s t i m ony , a s “ a n e xpe r ti n s tr e e tl e ve l na r c ot i c s a nd tr a f f i c ki ng a nd s p e c if ic a lly in c r a c k c o c a in e a n d c o c a in e p o w d e r ,” o n h o w c o c a in e b a s e ty p ic a lly is s o ld a n d w h y th e a m o u n ts o f c o c a in e b a s e th a t w e r e r e c o v e r e d f r o m th e to ile t, dr a w e r , a nd r e f

r i ge r a t orf

r om E s t e l a n’ s r e s i de nc e , a nd the c oc a i ne ba s e i n the E x c e d r in p ill b o ttle , w e r e in d ic a tiv e o f d is tr ib u tio n , in s te a d o f

p e r s o n a l u s e .24

S p e c ia l A g e n t B o n n e rc o n c e d e d th a t h e n e v e rh a d p u b lis h e d a n y a r tic le s o n s tr e e tle v e l d e a lin g o f

c o c a in e b a s e , n o rb e e n s u b je c t to p e e rr e v ie w o re v a lu a tio n . S peci al A gentB on ner a l so agre ed thathi s m etho do l og y f or hi s opi ni on s w as base d s o le ly o n h is tr a in in g , o b s e r v a tio n s , a n d e x p e r ie n c e s . T h u s , s im ila rto th e f a c ts in B r o w n , th e g o v e r n m e n t f a ile d to e s ta b lis h a ll o f

th e f a c to r s d is c u s s e d in D a u b e r t. R e ga r dl e s s , a s di s c us s e d a bove , “ e xpe r tt e s t i m ony tha tdoe s notm e e ta l l or m os tof the D a ube r tf

a c t or s m a y s om e t i m e s be a dm i s s i bl e . ” S e e B r ow n, 415 F . 4d a t1268. T he gove rnm e nte l i c i t e d f r om S pe c i a l A ge ntB onne rtha t , a s a n a ge nt w i th the D E A for app roxi m at el y f ou r y ea rs and fou r m on ths, he had (1) rec ei ved s p e c ia liz e d tr a in in g in th e d is tr ib u tio n a n d tr a f f ic k in g o f ille g a l d ru g s , p a r tic u la r ly w i th S c he dul e I a nd I I c ontr ol l e d s ubs t a nc e s ; ( 2) pa r t i c i pa t e d i n hundr e ds of in v e s tig a tio n s in v o lv in g th e d is tr ib u tio n o f c o c a in e b a s e ; a n d ( 3 ) in te r v ie w e d in e xc e s s of 100 pe r s ons i nvol ve d i n the i l l e ga l di s tr i but i on of c oc a i ne a nd c oc a i ne b a s e . S p e c ia l A g e n t B o n n e ra ls o s ta te d , w ith o u t a n y c h a lle n g e s , th a t h e p r e v io u s ly ha d be e n e m pl oy e d f

orappr oxi m a t e l y e i ghty e a r s a s a pol i c e of f i c e r , w or ki ng ext ensi vel y on n ar cot i c c as es , and t hat , as a r es ul tof thi s tra i ni ng and exp er i ence , he had b ec om e f

am i l i arw i th the cond uctand t ra ff i cki ng t ec hn i qu es of stre et -l evel n a r c o tic d is tr ib u to r s . F urtherm ore, “ [t ] he rul e i s w el l -e st abl i shed thatan experi ence d n ar cot i csAlternatively , as the g overnment contends, the reversal is not warra nted bec ause the 13 admission of this evidence did not af fec t the outcome of Este lan’s trial. SeeBrown, 415 F.3d at 1266; see also United States v. Sellers, 906 F.2d 597, 601 ( 11th Cir. 1990) (explaining that nonconstitutional evidentiary error not reversible under thereis a “re asonablelikelihood that the 25 a ge ntm a y t e s t i f

y a boutthe s i gni f

i c a nc e of c e r t a i n c onduc torm e thods of ope r a t i on uni que t o the drug di s tr i but i on bus i ne s s . ” S e e U ni t e d S t a t e s v. B ut l e r , 102 F . 3d 1191, 1199 ( 11th C i r . 1997) ( quot a t i on om i tt e d) . I n B ut l e r , w e c onc l ude d tha tthe di stri ctcourtdi d n otabuse i t s di sc re t i on i n al l ow i ng t es t i m on y thatm on ey se i ze d w a s p a c k a g e d in “d e a le rf o ld s ”

— a m a n n e ro f

p a c k a g in g p e c u lia rto d ru g d e a le r s . S e e i d . S i m i l a r l y , i n Un i t e d S t a t e v . R o b i n s o n , 8 7 0 F . 2 d 6 1 2 ( 1 1 th C i r . 1 9 8 9 ) , we det erm i ned, al bei tpri or t o D aubert , thatthe di stri ctcourtdi d n oterr i n adm i tt i ng as expertop i ni on a pol i ce offi ce r’ s t es t i m on y on d rug d ea l i ng i n T al l ahas se e, F l ori da, w he n the of

f i c e rha d be e n a pol i c e of f i c e rf orove rs i x y e a r s , ha d w or ke d f orthe m a j or i ty of thi s t i m e i n a n a r e a of

the c i ty w he r e the m a

j orl a w e nf

or c e m e nt pr obl e m w a s c oc a i ne ba s e , ha d a r r e s t e d appr oxi m a t e l y 100 s us pe c t s f orc oc a i ne ba s e of f e ns e s , a nd, f

or8 m onths pr i ort o hi s t e s t i m ony , a nd ha d be e n a m e m be rof a p o lic e u n it w h o s e s o le r e s p o n s ib ility w a s to in v e s tig a te c o c a in e b a s e o f f e n s e s . S e e i d. a t613. B e c a us e S pe c i a l A ge ntB onne ra l s o of f e r e d unc ont e s t e d t e s t i m ony th a th e h a d e x t e n s i v e tr a i n i n g a n d e x p e r i e n c e i n th e tr a f f i c k i n g o f c o c a i n e b a s e , we c onc l ude tha tthe c our tdi d note r ri n a dm i tt i ng hi s e xpe r tt e s t i m ony on drugtr a f f i c ki ng a m ount s . S e e B r ow n, 415 F . 3d a t1266. 13defendant’s substantial rights wereaff ecte d”). I n addition to Special Ag ent B onner’ s testimony on dr ug -distributio n amou

nts , evide nc eat trial th at demon strate d E ste lan’ s intent to distribute inc lude d ( 1) on

No vember 1 8, 20 03 , o ff

ic e rs re c ov e re d c oc aineba seand po wde r in th esame bedroom a s a loade d Glock model 30, .45 semiautomatic pistol; (2) on De cember 22, 2003, officers re covered from the same re frig erator coc aine ba se and $725 in c ash; and (3) on J anuar y 3, 2004, on two separate oc casions, a CI made undercover videotape d buys of coc aine ba se from Estelan. 26 IS S U E 3: C ri m i n al -H i st ory P oi n ts E s t e l a n l a s ta r gue s tha tthe c our tpl a i nl y e r r e d w he n i tus e d pr i orc onvi c t i ons thati thad d ec l ar ed const i tut i on al l y i nv al i d i n cal cul at i ng E st el an’ s c ri m i nal hi st ory c a t e gor y . C i t i ng t o U . S . S . G . § 4A 1. 1, c om m e nt . ( n. 6) a nd U ni t e d S t a t e s v. C or nog, 94 5 F . 2d 15 04 , 15 09 (11t h C i r. 19 91 ), E st el an cont ends that , w hen a di stri ctcourt fi nd s thata pri or conv i ct i on i s c on st i tut i on al l y i nv al i d for a purpo se other than c r i m i na l hi s t or y , i ta l s o m us te xc l ude tha tc onvi c t i on a nd i t s c or r e s pondi ng se nt ence “ fr om al l of i t s c ri m i nal hi st ory c al cul at i on s. ” E st el an al so as se rt s that thi s e r r orw a s pl a i n be c a us e hi s r e s ul t i ng hi ghe rgui de l i ne r a nge c r e a t e d a re as on abl e probabi l i ty of adi ff er entou t com e a tse nt enci ng . M oreover, E st el an s u m m a r ily a s s e r ts th a t u s e o f a c o n s titu tio n a lly in f

ir m c r im in a l c o n v ic tio n to e nha nc e a de f

e nda nt ’ s s e nt e nc e a f

f e c t s the f a i r ne s s , i nt e gr i ty , orpubl i c r e put a t i on o f th e ju d ic ia l p r o c e e d in g s . W hen a defendantra i se s a n argum entfor the fi rs tt i m e on app ea l , such as he r e , ourr e vi e w i s onl y f orpl a i n e r r or . S e e U ni t e d S t a t e s v. P e t e r s , 403 F . 3d 1263, 1270 ( 11th C i r . 2005) . “ U nde rpl a i n e r r orr e vi e w , w hi c h i s a uthor i z e d by27

F ed. R . C ri m . P . 52 (b), fe dera l appel l at e c ou rt s have onl y al i m i t ed po w ert o correc t errors thatw er e f

orfe i t ed because they w er e nott i m el y r ai se d i n the di stri ctcourt . ” I d . a t1 2 7 0 - 7 1 ( i n t e r n a l q u o t a t i o n s a n d m a r k s o m i tt e d ) . T h u s , we m ay no tcorr ec tan error the defendantfa i l ed t o rai se i n the di stri ct c o u r t u n le s s th e r e is : ( 1 ) e r r o r , ( 2 ) th a t is p la in , a n d ( 3 ) th a t a f f e c ts s u b s ta n tia l r ig h ts . . . . E v e n th e n , w e w ill e x e r c is e o u rd is c r e tio n to r e c t i f y the e r r oronl y i f

i ts e r i ous l y a f

f e c t s the f a i r ne s s , i nt e gr i ty , or p u b lic r e p u ta tio n o f

ju d ic ia l p r o c e e d in g s . I d . a t 1 2 7 1 ( in te r n a l q u o ta tio n s a n d m a r k s o m itte d ) . In C o rn o g — th e c as e r elied o n b y E stelan

— w e e x am in ed a d ef en d an t’ s chal l enge t o the di stri ctcourt ’ s i ncl usi on i n i t s c al cul at i on of hi s c ri m i nal -hi st ory poi nt s c onvi c t i ons tha tthe c our tha d de t e r m i ne d w e r e c ons t i tut i ona l l y i nva l i d f or p u rp o s e s o f

s e n t e n c i n g th e d e f

e n d a n ta s a c a r e e ro f

f e n d e r , p u r s u a n tt o U. S . S . G. § 4 B 1. 1. C orno g, 94 5 F . 2d at15 08 -09. W e c on cl ud ed that , “ i f the [di stri ct ] court pr ope r l y he l d tha tthe c onvi c t i ons w e r e i nva l i d— a nd the r e f or e c oul d notbe coun t ed— then i tw as bo un d t o excl ud e them fr om al l of i t s c ri m i nal hi st ory ca l cul at i on s. ” I d. at15 09 . W e f urther e xp l ai ned t hatthi s rul e w as true, even though the c ol l a t e r a l i nqui r y unde r t a ke n by the c our ti n de t e r m i ni ng the de f e nda nt ’ s c a r e e r - of

f e nde rs t a tus w a s di s c r e t i ona r y . I d. In the i nst antca se , bo th p ar t i es agre e that , al tho ug h the courtdet erm i ned t hat thr e e of E s t e l a n’ s pr i orf

e l ony c onvi c t i ons w e r e c ons t i tut i ona l l y i nva l i d f or28

p u rp o ses o f en h an ci n g h i s st atu t o ry sen t en ce u n d er § 8 5 1 , th e co u rtco u n t ed th ese c o n v i c t i o n s i n c a l c u l a t i n g E s t e l a n ’ s c r i m i n a l - h i s t o r y p o i n t s u n d e rU. S . S . G. § 4A 1. 1. M or e ove r , the gove r nm e nti s notc ha l l e ngi ng the f a c ttha tthe i nc l us i on of the three cr i m i nal -hi st ory poi nt s f rom these conv i ct i on s r es ul t ed i n E st el an ha vi ng a c r i m i na l hi s t or y c a t e gor y of I V , a nd a gui de l i ne r a nge of 135 t o 168 m onths ’ i m pr i s onm e nt , i ns t e a d of a c r i m i na l hi s t or y c a t e gor y of I I I , a nd a g u id e lin e r a n g e o f

1 2 1 to 1 5 1 m o n th s im p r is o n m e n t. I n s te a d , th e g o v e r n m e n t is a r g u in g th a t th is c a lc u la tio n w a s n o t e r r o n e o u s u n d e rth is C o u r t’s h o ld in g in C or nog be c a us e C or nog w a s de c i de d pr i ort o the S e nt e nc i ng C om m i s s i on’ s 1990 a m e ndm e ntt o U . S . S . G . § 4A 1. 2— the gui de l i ne tha ts pe c i f i e s w ha tc onvi c t i ons c o u n t in a d e f

e n d a n t’s c r im in a l h is to r y s c o r e . I n d e e d , w h e n w e d e c id e d C o r n o g in 1 9 9 1 , A p p lic a tio n N o te 6 to § 4 A 1 .2 r e a d in p a r t: “C o n v ic tio n s w h ic h th e d e f e n d a n t s h o w s to h a v e b e e n c o n s titu tio n a lly i nva l i d m a y notbe c ount e d i n the c r i m i na l hi s t or y s c or e . ” U . S . S . G . § 4A 1. 2, c om m e nt . ( n. 6) ( 1990) . N ot e 6, how e ve r , w a s a m e nde d i n N ove m be r1993 t o r e a d: S e nt e nc e s r e s ul t i ng f

r om c onvi c t i ons tha t( A ) ha ve be e n r e ve r s e d or v a c a te d b e c a u s e o f

e r r o r s o f la w o rb e c a u s e o f

s u b s e q u e n tly di sc ov er ed evi dence exonerat i ng the defendant , or (B ) have been rul ed c o n s titu tio n a lly in v a lid in a p r io rc a s e a r e n o t to b e c o u n te d . W ith r e s pe c tt o the c ur r e nts e nt e nc i ng pr oc e e di ng, thi s gui de l i ne a nd com m ent ary do n otconfer up on the defendantany r i gh tt o att ac k c o lla te r a lly a p r io rc o n v ic tio n o rs e n te n c e b e y o n d a n y s u c h r ig h ts otherw i se re cogn i ze d i n l aw (e . g. , 21 U . S . C . § 8 51 expres sl y provi desIn November 1990, Application Note 6 wa s amende d to read as follows: “[S] entenc es 14 re sultingfrom c onvic tio ns that a de fend ant s ho wsto h avebe e n p revio us ly rule d c on sti tution a lly invalid arenot to be counted. . . ..”See U.S.S.G. § 4A1.2, comment. (n.6) (1990) Section 851(c) (1) spe cifically provides that, if a

person f iles a written response to a 15 § 851 information, deny

ing a ny alleg ation of a prior conviction or c laiming that a prior conviction is invalid, “the cour t shall hold a hearing to de termine a ny issues raised by

the re sp on sewh ic h w ould e xcept t hepers on from inc re a se d p un ishment. ”Se e21 U. S.C. § 851(c) (1). 29 th a t a d e f

e n d a n t m a y c o lla te r a lly a tta c k c e r ta in p r io rc o n v ic tio n s ) . U . S . S . G . § 4 A 1. 2, com m ent . (n. 6) (199 3) & (200 3). B as ed on a s i m i l area rl i er a m e ndm e nt , thi s C our ts i tt i ng e n ba nc i n U ni t e d S t a t e s v. R om a n, 989 F . 2d 1117

14 ( 11th C i r . 1993) , he l d tha tthe r e vi s e d § 4A 1. 2 doe s nota uthor i z e a s e nt e nc i ng c our tt o i nqui r e i nt o the c ons t i tut i ona l va l i di ty of a pr i orc onvi c t i on, unl e s s the d e f e n d a n t a d d u c e s e v id e n c e s u f f ic ie n t to d e m o n s tr a te th a t th e c o n v ic tio n u s e d to e nha nc e hi s s e nt e nc e i s pr e s um pt i ve l y voi d, w hi c h c a s e s “ a r e s m a l l i n num be ra nd a r e pe r haps l i m i t e d t o unc ouns e l e d c onvi c t i ons . ” I d. a t1119- 20. U nl i ke the f

a c t s i n R om a n, how e ve r , E s t e l a n c ha l l e nge d a ts e nt e nc i ng the const i tut i on al val i di ty of three pri or conv i ct i on s und er§ 8 51

— a s t atut ory e xc e pt i on tha tthe a m e ndm e ntt o A ppl i c a t i on N ot e 6 e xpl i c i t l y di s c us s e d. ( S e e R 1- 6 6 ; R 6 a t5 6 2 ) ; s e e a l s o U. S . S . G. § 4 A1 . 2 , c o m m e n t . ( n . 6 ) ( 1 9 9 1 ) . I n d e e d , we ha ve e xpl a i ne d tha t§ 851( c ) s pe c i f i c a l l y s e t s f

or th a pr oc e dur e by w hi c h a de f e nda ntw ho i s s ubj e c tt o a s t a tut or y s e nt e nc e e nha nc e m e ntm a y c ha l l e nge the c o n s titu tio n a lity o f

a n e a r lie rc o n v ic tio n th a t is th e b a s is f o rth e e n h a n c e m e n t. 1530

S e e U ni t e d S t a t e s v. M i ke l l , 102 F . 3d 470, 477 ( 11th C i r . 1996) . T he 1991 a m e ndm e ntt o A ppl i c a t i on N ot e 6, the r e f or e , di d nota f

f e c tourhol di ng i n C or nog, atl ea stt o the ext entthatthe evi dent i ary hea ri ng i n w hi ch the se nt enci ng court exam i ned chal l enges t o the const i tut i on al val i di ty of pri or conv i ct i on s w as c o n d u c te d u n d e r§ 8 5 1 . T h u s , c o n tr a r y to th e g o v e r n m e n t’s r e s p o n s e o n ap p e a l, the c our t ’ s c ount i ng unde r§ 4A 1. 2 of thr e e c onvi c t i ons tha ti tha d f ound t o be c ons t i tut i ona l l y i nva l i d unde r§ 851 w a s e r r one ous unde rC or nog, a nd thi s e r r or w a s p la in . N e v e r th e le s s , E s te la n h a s f a ile d to s h o w th a t th is e r r o rs u b s ta n tia lly pr e j udi c e d hi m . T o e s t a bl i s h s ubs t a nt i a l pr e j udi c e , E s t e l a n ha s the bur de n of show i ng that“ there i s are as on abl e probabi l i ty of adi ff er entre sul t ” i f the courthad note r r e d i n c a l c ul a t i ng hi s c r i m i na l - hi s t or y poi nt s . S e e U ni t e d S t a t e s v. R odr i gue z , 398 F . 3d 1291, 1301 ( 11th C i r . ) ( appl y i ng pl a i n- e r r ort e s tt o e r r or unde rU ni t e d S t a t e s v. B ooke r , 543 U . S . ___, 125 S . C t . 738, 160 L . E d. 2d 621 ( 2005) ) , c e r t . de ni e d, 125 S . C t . 2935 ( 2005) . “ [ W ] he r e the e f f e c tof a n e r r oron the r e s u lt in th e d is tr ic t c o u r t is u n c e r ta in o rin d e te r m in a te

— w h e r e w e w o u ld h a v e to s p e c u la te

— th e ap p e lla n t h a s n o t m e t h is b u r d e n o f s h o w in g a r e a s o n a b le prob abi l i ty thatthe re sul tw ou l d h ave been di ff er entbu tfor the error. ” R od ri gu ez , 3 9 8 F .3 d a t 1 3 0 1 .31

H e r e , othe rtha n s t a t i ng tha thi s gui de l i ne r a nge s houl d ha ve be e n 121 t o 151 m on ths’ i m pri sonm ent , i nst ea d o f the 13 5 t o 1 68 m on th range thatthe court c ons i de r e d, E s t e l a n ha s notc i t e d t o a uthor i ty s how i ng, ore ve n e xpl a i ne d, w hy he w as su b st an t i al l y p rej u d i ced w h en th e co u rtsen t en ced h i m t o 1 3 5 m o n th s’ i m pri sonm ent . C f. U ni t ed S t at es v. R i char dson , 16 6 F . 3d 13 60 , 13 61 -62 (11 th C i r. 1 9 9 9 ) ( re v er sib le p lain er ro r o cc u rr ed w h er e th e d iffe re n ce in th e d ef en d an t’ s e n h a n c e d g u id e lin e r a n g e o f 1 8 0 to 1 8 8 m o n th s w a s m u c h g r e a te rth a n h is une nha nc e d r a nge of

70 t o 87 m onths ) . I nde e d, i n di s c us s i ng w hy i tw a s i m pos i ng po st -B oo ker a13 5-m on th sent ence , the courtexpl ai ned t hati thad con si dere d § 3553( a ) ’ s f

a c t or s , a nd tha ti tha d “ l ooke d c a r e f ul l y a t[ E s t e l a n’ s ] pr i or c o n v i c t i o n s , w h a tth e y c o n s i s t e d o f , th e w a y th e y w e r e tr e a t e d a n d s o o n . ” ( Se e R6 at63 8); se e a l so U . S . S . G . § 4 A 1. 2, com m ent . (n. 6) (i nstruct i ng that“ the cr i m i nal cond uctun derl yi ng any c on vi ct i on thati s notcoun t ed i n the cr i m i nal hi st ory s core m ay be consi dere d p ursuantt o § 4A 1. 3 (A dequ ac y of C ri m i nal H i st ory C a t e gor y ) ” ) . T hus , a l though the c our te r r e d i n c a l c ul a t i ng E s t e l a n’ s gui de l i ne r a n g e , Es t e l a n f

a i l e d t o e s t a b l i s h th a tth i s e r r o rs u b s t a n t i a l l y p r e j u d i c e d h i m. A c c or di ngl y , w e c onc l ude tha tthe di s tr i c tc our tdi d note r ri n de t e r m i ni ng th at E stelan ’s p o st-a rr es t statem en ts w er e v o lu n tary an d , th u s, in d en yin g E stelan ’s m ot i ons t o s uppr e s s the m . T he c our ta l s o di d nota bus e i t s di s c r e t i on i n de ny i ng32

E s t e l a n’ s obj e c t i on t o the gove r nm e nt ’ s i ntr oduc t i on of e xpe r tt e s t i m ony f

r om S pe c i a l A ge ntB onne rr e ga r di ng drug- di s tr i but i on a m ount s . F ur the r m or e , a l though the courtdi d p l ai nl y e rri n cal cul at i ng E st el an’ s c ri m i nal -hi st ory poi nt s, E st el an has f ai l ed t o est abl i sh thatsuch error r es ul t ed i n any prej ud i ce . W e , th e r e f o r e , a f f ir m E s te la n ’s c o n v ic tio n s a n d s e n te n c e s . AF F I RME D.