FI L ED U.S. COURT OF A P P E A LS E LE V E N T H C IR C U IT NOVEMB ER 22 , 2005 THOMAS K. KAH

N CL ERK [D O N OT P UBL ISH] IN TH E U NITE D S TAT ES C OUR T OF AP PE ALS F OR TH E E LE V EN TH C IR C U IT

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ N o. 04- 1270 6

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ D.C. Dock etNo. 0 3- 00 11 1- CR-T-1 7M AP UNITED STAT ES OF AMERIC A, Plaintiff-Appellee, ve rs us EN RIQ UE BA LD ER

AS , ISRAEL GOMEZ, D ef en dants -Appe llants .

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ __ A ppeals fr om the Un ited S tates D istrict C ourt for th e Mid dle D istrict of Florida

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ _ ( N ove m be r 22, 200 5) Be fo re BI R C H, WI LS ON an d C OX , C ir cu itJu dg es . PE R C URIAM :2

E nr iqu e Ba lde ra s a

ppe al s hi s 97 -m onth se nte nc e fo r co nspi ra cy to poss es s w ithint en t t o di str ibu te 100 kil ogr am s or m or e of m ar ij uana , in vio la tio n of 21 U . S. C. §§ 8 41( a) (1 ), ( b) (1 )( B) (v ii) , a nd 8 46. I sr ae l G om ez appe al s hi s 12 7- m onth se nte nc es f

or ( 1) a idi ng and a

be tti ng the pos se ssi on o f w ithint en t t o di str ibu te 100 kilog ram s or m ore of m arij uana, in violation o f 21 U. S. C. § 841 (a)( 1), (b )( 1) (B )( vii ), 18 U . S. C. § 2, and ( 2) c onsp ir ac y to poss es s w ithint en t t o di str ibu te 100 k ilogram s or m ore of m arij uana, in violation o f 21 U. S. C. §§ 84 1(a)( 1), (b )( 1) (B )( vii ), and 8 46. T he appe llants both arg ue that the re w as ins uf fi ci en t ev ide nc e to c onvi ct

the m , and G om ez f

urthe r ar gue s th at

the dis tr ic t c ourt e rr ed

by de ny ing am istri al m oti on, giv ing im pr ope r j ur

y ins tr uc tio ns, a nd v iol at ing the Fifth and Sixth am endm ents und er U nited States v. Booker, 543 U.S . , 125 S. Ct . 738 ( 2005 ), w he n it

a dj ust ed his se nte nc ing r an ge upw ar d ba se d onadr ug quantit y not charged in the ind ictm ent. B ecause w e conclude that the district court lacked sufficient evidence to convict Balderas, we REV ERS E a nd REMAND in part , and AFFIRM in part . I. BACK GROUND A t tri al , Ch ey

vor y ea G ibs on, a n a ge nt w iththe F ed er al Bure auof Investigatio n ("FBI "), testified that on 1 October 2002 he was ordere d to cond uct surveillance on 904 Madison Street ("the r esidence"). H e state d th at , w he n he3

drove by the residence, he noted that there wa s a m inivan p arked by the side, r ear of the hou se , and G om ez appe ar ed to ha ve e xit ed

the r es ide nc e an d w as w al kin g tow ar d th e re ar

of the van. G ibs on t es tif

ie d th at , w he n he sawthe van le av e the re sid en ce , he f

oll ow ed it to anauto part s st or e. H e state d th at G om ez w as dr ivi ng the van and B al de ra s w as sittin g inthe pa sse nge r se at . G ibs on s ta te d th at he and D et ec tiv e D av id R ed

us, anarc oti cs de te ct ive w iththe H ill sbor oughCo unty Sh er if f' s O ff ic e, appr oa ch ed

the de fe ndants to que sti on the m . Upon que sti oni ng, G om ez did

not ind ic at e that he ha d j ust

de part ed the r es ide nc e an d de nie d be ing in that are a. G ibs on s ta te d th at , a ft er ge tti ng G om ez ' s c onse nt t o se ar chhis pe rs on, G ibs on f ound ake y and s om e pa

pe r ite m s inhis poc ke ts. G ibs on t es tif ie d th at one of the pa pe r doc um en ts w as aY ah tz ee gam e sc or e card w ithnum er ic al f

igure s and a total wr itten on it . Another piece of paper had nam es, num bers, and a total wr itten on it as w ell. Gibson stated that th ese papers w ere signi ficant because they we re c onsis tent with papers kept by indiv iduals who participate in narcotics transactions. H e also testified that, when questio ned about th e key , G om ez stated th athe di d n ot ha ve an y

id ea wh ere t he ke y

be lo ng ed , or t o wh atlo ckitfit . Gib so n s ta te d t ha t, dur in g a sea rch of t he va n, n o m ari juan a was reco ve red . G ibs on the n st at ed

that he and R ed

us dro ve G om ez a nd B al de ra s ba ck to the re sid en ce , and, a ft er

obt ai nin g ase ar chw ar

rant, the y e nte re d th e re sid en ce , a nd4

G ibs on s awalon g li ne of bla ck pla sti c ba gs c ont ai nin g m ar ij uanaon the f loo r from the front door to the end of the residence. He tes ti fie d t ha t h e al so saw a larg e quanti ty

of m ar ij uanasta ck ed

in ba le s, pa ck ag ing m at er ia l, dr ug s ca le s, and to ol s t o c ut up th e m ari

juan a in on e o f th e b ed ro om s. On cr oss-exam ination , G ibson testified that Balderas stated that G om ez picked him

up on Coll ege A venue, w hich was inconsistent with G ibson 's observation s during the surveillance. How ever, Gibson stated that he never saw Balderas at the hous e. H e al so t es tif ie d th at nothin g onthe ta lly

she et e xpl ic itl y ind ic at ed that the she et

r el at ed to dr ugs. G ibs on f

urthe r state d th at

the van w as not loo ke d a t by

ac ri m e sc en e uni t and w as not se ar ch ed f or dr ug r es idu e, but

w he n he an d R ed us m ad e co nta ct

w iththe de fe ndants , the y "h ad the f re sh s m el l of m arij uana em itting from

their persons." R4- 106 at 10 7. G ibson stated that the van did no t sm ell of m arij uana. Joseph W est, a

detective w ith the Hillsborou gh Coun ty Sherif f's O ffice , t e s t i f i e dth a th e a s k e dGo mez i f h e o w n e dth e k e y. W es t st at ed that G om ez tol d hi m th atth e k ey

was n ot hi s an d t ha t h e d idno t k no w ho w itgo t i nt o h is po ck et . H e furthe r te sti fi ed

that, w he n he la te r co nduc te d surv ei llanc e on the r es ide nc e, he w as inf orm ed by anothe r de te ct ive that a

w hit e pic kup tr

uc k ha d arr ive d a t the residence and left a

short while later. W es t s ta te d t ha t h e an d t he ot he r two5

de te ct ive s w ithhim

f oll ow ed the w hit e tr

uc k and a ppr oa ch ed

the dr ive r, A lf

re do Ponce, when he e xited the vehicle. H e te sti fi ed that he did

not obs er ve P onc e ex it th e res id en ce an d d idno t o bs erv e an y m ari juan a o n h is pe rs on . W illiam Sim s, a narcotics detective w ith Hillsborou gh Coun ty Sherif f's O f f i c e , t e s t i f i e dth a t , w h e n h e ap p r o a c h e dth e r e s i d e n c e , th e r e w a s as t r o n g a r o ma of m ari juan a co m in g fr om

th e h ou se . He stated that, af ter he obtained a sear ch w ar rant, he e nte re d th e re sid en ce usi ng the ke y the oth er de te ct ive s ha d f

ound in G om ez ' s po ck et . Sim s testified that they also found a bill inside the residence from Tr anSouth, in Gom ez' s nam e addressed to the residence. He further stated that i nsi de the hom e the y f ound ( 1) a n ov er due m obi le pho ne bil l no tic e, in Ba lde ra s' s nam e, a ddr es se d to the r es ide nc e, a nd ( 2) aV er iz on t el ep hone bil l, in the nam e of T any a H unt, addressed to the residence. Sim s also testified that approxim ately

1,522 pou nds of m arij uana we re f ound at the re sidence. Tany a H unt, the ex-fiancé of G om ez’ s cousin , R icardo G om ez, testified that Gom ez an d B al de ras were b es t fr ie nd s, an d t ha t Ba ld eras was a lways wit h Go m ez. Sh e state d th at

she and R ic ar do l ive d a t the r es ide nc e unt il G om ez tol d th em to m ove out so the hou se c oul d be r ep ai re d. H unt state d th at , one nig ht, w hil e she and Ricardo w ere stay ing at the Carroll Motel, Gom ez' s wife and sister visited H unt a nd R ic ar do and t old

the m not to go b ac k to the r es ide nc e. T he f oll ow ing6

day she a nd R ic ar do m ove d to T ex as . S he te sti fi ed that the m ar ij uanaa nd the dr ug para phe rn al iaw er e not

a t the r es ide nc e w he n th ey m ove d ou t. Hunt further testified that Gom ez and Ba lderas re ceived m ail at the re sidence, and Gom ez used to li ve in th e h ou se be fo re s he an d R ic ard o m ov edin . Redus testified that a stash hou se is "a location where drugs are stored for a short period o f tim e or a long period of tim e. " R5-107 at 116. H e also stated that "[ l] ed ge rs are use d by

dr ug tra ff ic ke rs to showhowm

uc h dr ugs the y a re puttin g ou t o n t he st reet or h ow m uc h m on ey

th ey 're t ak in g i n fr om

ot he r drug de al ers ," and that the drug d ealer

has to kno w the am ount of drugs given to other, lo wer-l ev el de al ers , so he kn ows ho w m uc h m on ey

to ge t b ackfro m

th em . Id. Furthe r, Re dus te sti fi ed

that he w as doi ng s urve ill an ce on the r es ide nc e w ith G ibs on, and, w he n he dr ove pa st the r es ide nc e, he sawG om ez ste p f ro m ase t of sta ir s be hin d th e re sid en ce ont o th e gr ound a nd w al k to w ar d th e van park ed ne xt to the residence. A ft er

doi ng a U -t ur n onthe str ee t, Re dus state d th at he dr ove pa st the r es ide nc e ag ai n and o bse rv ed Ba lde ra s’ s e nte ri ng the pa sse nge r sid e of the va n a nd Gom ez’s g et ti ng in to th e d riv er's si de of t he va n. H e state d th at w he n he fi na lly m ad e co nta ct

w ithG om ez a nd B al de ra s inthe park ing lot a t the auto part s sto re , he not ic ed

astr ong odor

of f re sh m ar ij uanaon B al de ra s. Redus testified that Balderas told him

that Gom ez had picked him up on Highway

41 where he had7

been hitchhik ing and d enied being at the residence. Further, Redus corroborated G ibs on’ s te sti m ony

that a Y ah tz ee she et

ha d be enr ec ove re d f

ro m G om ez ' s po ck et , an d th e she et

appe ar ed to be ata lly

she et w ithdr ug w ei ght s onit . When asked w hy he tho ught

tho se num

be rs w er e w ei ght s, Re dus te sti fi ed a s f oll ow s: Whe n I f ir st l ooke d a t i t kn ow ing that w e w er e de al ing w itham ar ij uana investig ation, m arij uana is usuallyannotated in po unds , and we know that thi s in ve sti ga tio n in vol ve d alarg e quanti ty of m ar ij uanaba se d onthe num be rs that w er e ne xt t o th e na m es . T hose nam es be ing nic knam es of known dr ug tra ff ic ke rs . Id . a t 12 5. B othde fe nse c ouns el obj ec te d to the c hara ct er iz at iona s " known dr ug tr af fi ck er s" and m ad e a m oti on f or am istri al . I d. T he y

a rg ue d th at

the c om m en t wa s inapprop riate f

rom the witness at that tim e, had no prob ative value, and was "s ol el y pre jud ic ia l, cl earl y

in fla m edth e jury." Id. at12 6. The governm ent responded th at it had laid a foundation concerning Redus's br ea dtha nd e xte nt o f his e xpe ri en ce , kno w le dge , tr ai nin g, a nd e xpe rt ise , a nd Re dus ha d on ly

de sc ri be d w hy

he tho ught

that i t w as adr

ug t al ly she et . The court ove rr ule d th e obj ec tio n and s ta te d th at onc e the nam es w er e el ic ite d, the governm ent could qu estion hi m about who these indi vidu als we re and if they we re spe ci fi ca lly

dr ug d ea le rs . T he c ourt a lso ins tr uc te d bo th d ef

en se c ouns el s th at

if the gov er nm en t di d no t pr oc ee d inapr ope r m an ne r, the y w er e fr ee to obj ec t and holdanother sidebar.8

Fo llo w ing the obj ec tio ns, Re dus te sti fi ed that w he n he f

ir st l ooke d a t the nam es they

appeared to be nicknam es or first nam es of people that law en fo rc em en t ha d pr ev iou sly ide nti fi ed

a s be ing in the bus ine ss o f se lli ng m arij uana. N am ing e ac h pe rs on i ndi vid ua lly , Re dus the n in dic at ed that f our of the six nam es w er e spe ci fi ca lly kno w n to lawe nf

or ce m en t a s in div idu al s w ho s old m ar ij uana . H e state d th at , a lth oughthe re w er e no l as t nam es li ste d onthe she et , dr ug t al ly she et s of te n di d no t l ist

both f ir st and l as t nam es a nd r ar el y ha d " 100 po un ds of m ari

juan a" wri tt en ou t o n t he sh eetne xt to th e n am es . Id. at 12 9. Redus testified that the total of the nu m bers on the tally

sheet wa s 461, and that num ber w as consistent with po unds of m arij uana. He also stated that, further down on the sheet, the 461 had been su btracted fr om 1,911 to reach another figure. H e state d th at

thi s w as c onsi ste nt w ithadr ug t al ly she et , be ca

use it w oul d have shown ho wm

uc h m ar ij uanaw as dis tr ibu te d c om pare d to w ha t the y

ini tia lly rece iv ed , and ho w m

uc h t he y sh ou ldha ve lef

t. Re dus te sti fi ed

that m ar ij uanais shi ppe d f ro m the T ex as /M ex ic o bo rd er in a big blo ck f orm , and o nc e it re ac he s it s f ina l de sti na tio n, the blo ck is unw ra ppe d, w ei ghe d, and b ro ke n do w n in to s m al le r ba gs o f vari ous siz es , de pe ndi ng o n th e needs of the custom er. H e state d th at the tr an spor

ta tio n, br eakin g do w n, a nd distribu tion o f the m arij uana invol ved "a w hole organization of m ultip le people."Th e Ya htze e sh e e t a lso c onta ine d n otatio ns fo r v ide o g ame c he at c od e s. 1 9 Id . a t 13 6. R ed

us t es tif ie d th at the or ganiz at ionc aninc lud e (1 ) pe opl e at the bor de r to l oa d th e tr ac tor -tra ile rs , ( 2) the ow ne r of the m ar ij uanaw ho s ee s th at the tr uc k ge ts o n it s w ay

and the n f

lie s to the f

ina l de sti na tio n and m ee ts the tr ac tor tr ai le r to e nsur e that a ll of the m ar ij uanaa rr ive d, ( 3) a nothe r pe rs on o r pe rs ons to take the trac tor trailer to anoth er location to offload it, and (4) people to transport th e m ari juan a to a st as h h ou se forfur th er d is tri bu ti on to ot he r cu st om ers . He furthe r state d th at

the pe rs on who i s c ar

ry ing the ta lly

she et w as r es pons ibl e fo r ensuring th at the m arij uana wa s broken do wn corr ectly , that e ach custom er re ce ive d th e co rr ec t am ount , and the c or re ct a m ount of m one y w as r et ur ne d to h i m. O n c ro ss- ex am inatio n, Re dus te sti fi ed that he c oul d no t st at e that the odo r of m ar ij uanac om ing f

ro m Ba lde ra s w as f

ro m the sam e m ar ij uanathat w as f ound in the residence, but he could tell that the sm ell did no t com e fr om the personal us e o f m ari

juan a. H e al so s ta te d th at , w he n th e van w as se ar ch ed a t the auto part s store, he did not find any significant am ount of m oney or m arij uana residue, however, the van did have an od or of m arij uana. H e al so s ta te d th at the 461 poun ds that were listed on th e Y ahtzee sheet we re the pounds o f m arij uana that 1 were al read y

di st rib ut edan d n ev er fo un d b y law en fo rcem en t.10

O n r ed ir ec t e xa m inatio n, Re dus w as a ske d w hy pe opl e in a

dr ug tra ff ic kin g or ga ni zat io n a re re lu ct an t t o c om e fo rwardto tes ti fy ag ai ns t t he ir p eers . He re spon de d: “ Inf

ear of r ep ri sa l. W e knowthat the Me xic andr ug tra ff ic kin g or ganiz at ion s are ve ry

vio le nt o rg an iz at ion s, a nd the r ep ri sa l a lot of ti m e is m ur de r." Id . at 1 85 . Bot h d efen se co un se ls ob jecte d a nd m ov edfora m is tri al . T he y arg ue d th at

Re dus portr ay ed

Me xic anA m er ic an s a s " be ing vio le nt and b ei ng kil le rs " whic h w as pr ej udi ci al and i rr el ev an t a s to w he the r the de fe ndants poss essed m arij uana. I d. at 186. They further c ontend ed that the governm ent had not alleged that th e defe ndants were m em bers of a broader

organization, and that Redus's statem ent im

plied that no one would testify against Gom ez and Ba lderas fo r fea r th atGom ez an d B al de ras wou ldki ll th em . The governm ent responded th at its intent was not to create the infe rence that G om ez and B al de ra s w er e kil le rs , but r athe r to c lari fy

w hy the pe opl e on the Yahtzee sheet had not been arre sted or com e forw ard. T he governm ent argued that it was entitled to show why the listed drug traffickers had not been arr ested be ca use G om ez ' s and B al de ra s' s th eo ry of the c as e se em ed

to be that the inv es tig at ionw ork w as ins uf fi ci en t. I t f

urthe r as se rt ed

that the na tio na lity

of the pe opl e lis te d w as ir

re le vant, and tha t de fe nse c ouns el , not the gov er

nm en t, br ough t up the na tio na lity

of the nam es . The governm ent also stated that it had evid ence11

of m ur de rs in T ex as that w er e re la te d to thi s c as e but did not w an t t o ge t i nto the crim es of violence. I t ave rr ed that i t thoug ht tha t the de te ct ive w oul d have sa id that the people had no t com e forw ard out of fear , but the detective w ent further th an th e g ov ern m en t h adan ti ci pa te d. T he c ourt the n de nie d th e m istri al m oti ons an d in str uc te d th e gove rn m en t t o pose tw o qu es tio ns t o th e de te ct ive to cl ar if y that the de te ct ive ha d no kno w le dge of any invol vem ent by

Gom ez and Ba lderas in crim es of violence and that they had never been involv ed in any threats of cr im es of violence or violence towar d w itn es se s. Re dus te sti fi ed that he ha d no kno w le dge that e ith er of the de fe ndants ha d c om m itt ed ac ri m e of

vio le nc e an d ha d no kno w le dge that e ith er of the de fen da nt s t hr eat en edan y on e wit h v io le nt act s. Fo ll owi ng th e g ov ern m en t’s p res en ta ti on of i ts cas e, Bal de ras res te d. Gom ez t he n c al le d, am on g o th er wi tn es se s, Al fred o P on ce t o t es ti fy on hi s b eh al f. Po nc e te sti fi ed

that, on 1 O ct obe r 2002 , he w en t t o th e re sid en ce to loo k f or aj ob at the tom at o c om

pany w he re G om ez a nd R ic ar do w orke d. H e state d th at he w en t to kno ck on the doo r, and when he sensed a sm ell "like a dead anim al," he rushed ba ck to his tr uc k and dro ve aw ay . I d. a t 27 9- 81. O n c ro ss- ex am inatio n, w he n th e gove rn m en t a ske d P onc e if it w as tr ue that w he n he f

ir st m et w ithD et ec tiv e Si m s, he told hi m

that he "sm elled we ed rea l bad" at the residence, Ponce stated it w as12

not tr ue . I d. a t 29 7. Whe n a ske d if it w as tr ue that he w as unc om fo rt ab le say ing in h is a ff idavit that he sm el le d m ar ij uana , a nd i nst ea d w ro te that the re w as a "strange sm ell," P once stated that it was not true. Id. at 298. T he governm ent then as ke d, "I sn' t i t tru e that y ou s ai d y ou d idn ' t w an t t o pu t i t sm el le d li ke m ar ij uanaon that pa pe r be ca use y ou s ai d th at

y ou w er e af

ra id o f the guy s th er e at

[ the residence] ." R6-108 at 18. Ponce r eplied that he never said that and also deni ed sa y in g t ha t t o Det ect iv e Si m s. Id . at 1 8- 19 . I n as i d e b a r

c o n f e r e n c e du r i n g r e d i r e c tb y Go mez , th e d e f e n s e a t t o rn e ys re ne w ed the ir e ar lie r m oti ons fo r a m istri al . T he y state d th at , a ft er

the de nia l of the ir e ar lie r m oti on f

or am istri al r eg ar din g R ed us' s st at em en t tha t " Me xic angangs w er e vio le nc e re la te d, " and R ed us’ s c ur at ive state m en t tha t the de fe ndants ha d no t threatened any one, the governm ent's question to Ponce insinu ated that Ponce w as scared of the defendants. I d. F urther, the defense attorney s stated that they thou ght th at the governm ent would call De tective Sim s as a re buttal witness to say that, "at the ti m e he sa id h e w as sc ar ed of the guy s inthat ho use w iththe im plication b eing our clients." Id. at 28. A ccording to th e defe nse, they had

“ un do ne ev erythi ng ” th atwas d on e to res ol ve th e ear li er m is tri al m ot io n. Id . The governm ent responded th at it did no t call Ponce to the stand, and it had Sim s's report wherein Sim s stated that Ponce told hi m that the residence sm elled13

str ongl y of m ar ij uanabut

he did not w an t t o pu t tha t f

ac t i nto his a ff

idavit be ca use "he w as a fr ai d of

the – of the se guy s ov er

he re . " I d. a t 28 -2 9. T he gov er nm en t m aintained that Gom ez ca lled Ponce to the stand and p resented evidence that Po nc e did not sm el l m ar ij uanaa t the loc at ionbut that he sm el le d ade ad

a nim al or b o d y. T he c ourt de nie d bo th m oti ons fo r a m istri al . On Ponce' s recr oss-exam ination , B alderas' s attorney asked Ponce if he had an y f ear of sittin g inthe c ourtr oom

w ithBa lde ra s, a nd P onc e re pli ed that he did not . Ba lde ra s' s a tto rn ey

a ske d hi m

if , on 1 O ct obe r 2002 , he w as e ve r in f ear of Ba lde ra s, and P onc e re pli ed that he w as not . Finally , B alderas' s attorney asked Po nc e if , sin ce 1 O ct obe r 2002 , a nythi ng h ad ha ppe ne d th at

le d hi m to be lie ve he had a rea son to fear "any

ty pe of repr isals" from

Baldera s, and Ponce r eplied that th ere d idno t. Id . A ft er G om ez r es te d, the gov er nm en t r ec al le d S im s a s ar eb utt al w itn es s. On cr oss -e xa m inatio n, Ba lde ra s' s a tto rn ey a ske d hi m

w he the r it w oul d be unu sua l f or a person who w as not inv olved in crim e to be scare d of som eone he thoug ht was in vo lv edin cri m e. Sim s re pl ie d t ha t i t wo ul d n ot be un us ua l. At the c lose of the governm ent's case, Baldera s and Gom ez m ade an oral m oti on f or aj udgm en t of

a cquitta l. The c ou rt d en ie d b ot h m ot io ns .14

Before closing argum ents, the court held a confer ence w ith all of the parties to d isc uss the j ur

y ins tr uc tio ns and the spe ci al ve rd ic t f orm . T he gov er

nm en t propos ed a special j ury

verdict form

for ea ch defendant that asked the jury , a fter they found the defendant gu ilty of count one, to determ ine if "the defe ndant's of fe nse c harg ed

in Co unt O ne inv olv e[ d] one hun dr ed ( 100) kil ogr am s or

m or e of a m ixture or subst ance containing a detectable am ount of m arij uana," and after fi ndi ng the de fe ndant g uil ty of c ount tw o, to de te rm ine if

"the de fe ndant' s of

fe nse charged in Count Tw o invo lve[d] one hund red (100) kilogram s or m ore of a m ix tu re o r su bs ta nc e co nt ai ni ng a de te ct ab le am ou nt of m ari juan a? " R1 -4 8. G om ez sub m itt ed

aspe ci al ve rd ic t f

orm , w hic h gave the j ur

y the opp ortun ity , f

or co unt one , to fi nd h im

gui lty or not gui lty a s to 100 kil ogr am s or

m or e of m ar ij uana , m or e than 50 kil ogr am s bu t l es s th an100 kil ogr am s of m ar ij uana , and le ss than 50 kil ogr am s of m ar ij uana . T he sam e thr ee opt ion s w er e av ai la ble to the jury for co un t t wo. T he gov er

nm en t arg ue d th at

to inc lud e anopt ionon the ve rd ic t f orm f or m or e than 50 kil ogr am s bu t l es s th an100 kil ogr am s of m ar ij uanaw as ir

re le vant be ca use the statut e br oke the se nte nc e dow n to 10 y ears to lif e im pr iso nm en t f

or 1,000 kilo gram s, 5 to 40 y ears f or 100 kil ogram s or m ore, 0 to 20 y ears f or a detectable am ount . The 50 kilogram lesser included opti on would have no eff ect15

on the pe na lty

pr ovi sio ns. The governm ent asserted that its special verdict form allowed the j ury

to determ ine if the defendant w as guiltyof the offe nse, and then determ ine if the offe nse invo lved m ore than 100 ki logram s. T hus, if the j ury fo und him

gui lty but did not f ind that the of

fe nse inv olv ed

m or e than 10 0 kil ogr am s, the y

w oul d have f

ound the de fe ndant g uil ty

of the of fe nse inv olv ing m ore than 0 but less th an 100 ki logram s of m arij uana. The governm ent contended t h a tt o h a v e an yth i n g mo r e wo u l db e c o n f u s i n g t o th e ju ry an du n n e c e s s a ry. Gom ez and Ba lderas both agreed that the 50 kilo gram instruction wa s unne ce ssary . T he de fe ndants arg ue d, how ev er , that, f or the pur pose s of Appr en di v. N ewJe rs ey , 530 U . S. 466 , 120 S . Ct . 234 8 ( 2000 ), it w as ne ce ssary

to giv e the j ur y the opt ionto se le ct

m or e than 0 b ut l es s th an100 kil ogr am s of m ar ij uana be ca use the re w as af

ac tua l ba sis f

or le ss than 10 0 ki log ram s. The court de te rm ine d th at

the gov er

nm en t' s sp ec ia l ve rd ic t f

orm w oul d st an d, the de fe ndants ' ob jecti on s wer e o ve rru le d, an d t he ir m ot io ns , if an y , were d en ie d. D ur ing it s c los ing arg um en t, the gov er nm en t st at ed

a s f oll ow s: Is ra el G om ez a lso li es about not c om ing f ro m 904 Ma dis on. Whe n th e pol ic e ap pr oa chthe m , pul l R ic ky a w ay , of c our se he ' s sm el lin g of m ar ij uana , pul ls R ic ky

aw ay . D oe s he say , y ou knoww ha t, y ou knoww ha t, D et ec tiv e, y ou' re not

goi ng t o be lie ve thi s, I w as down he re a t this hou se and it really

sm elled of m arij uana. G o by – we we re going to go collect som e re nt, go b y , go u

p to the hou se , the re ' s so m ethin g y ou m ay w an t t o know . D id I sr ae l G om ez say a nythi ng –

a nythi ng r em ote ly

li ke that? N o.16

R6-108 at 89-90 . The def ense attorney s objecte d to the go vernm ent's statem ent as to wha t the de fe ndants did not say or w ha t the y

c oul d have sa id b ec au se it w as a dir ec t c om

m en t onthe ir

sil en ce , a nd, thu s, the y

r eque ste d am istri al . T he gove rn m en t r es pond ed

that i t w as not

ac om m en t onthe ir

sil en ce , but

w as a com m ent about th eir statem ents to law enforc em ent at the tim e they we re qu es ti on ed . The co ur t d en ie d t he m ot io ns fora m is tri al . T he j ur y sub se que ntl y

f ound Ba lde ra s no t gu ilty

on c ount 1 and g uil ty

on co unt 2. F urthe rm or e, the j ur

y f ound the of fe nse in co unt

2 i nvol ve d 10 0 kil ogr am s or

m or e of m ar ij uana . T he dis tr ic t c ourt se nte nc ed Ba lde ra s to 97 m on th s o f im

pr is on m en t. T he j ur y f ound G om ez gui lty

on b othc ount s, a nd d et er m ine d th at

the offenses in counts 1 and 2 invo lved 100 kilog ram s or m ore of m arij uana. Following his conviction , the probation departm ent created a pre- sentence inv es tig at ionr ep ort ( "P SI ") , w he re in i t a ttr ibu te d to G om ez aba se of fe nse le ve l of 30 b ec au se he w as r es pons ibl e fo r 1, 983 poun ds o f m ar ij uana , w hic h c onve rt ed to 899. 49 k ilo gr am s. P ur suant t o U . S. S. G . § 2D 1. 1( c) (5 ), the ba se of fe nse le ve l f

or at le as t 70 0 ki log ram s bu t l es s th an1, 000 kil ogr am s of m ar ij uanais 30. Aba se of fe nse le ve l of

30 and a c ri m ina l hi sto ry

c at eg or y of I I re sul te d inagui de lin e range of 108 to 135 m onths. How ever, the PSI indicated that the gov ernm ent had17

fi le d am oti on f

or an e nhanc ed

pe na lty , pur suant t o 21 U . S. C. § 85 1( c) , be ca use G om ez ha d pr ev iou sly

be enc onvi ct ed , in state c ourt, of se ve ra l dr

ug c ri m es , includi ng drug trafficking. Ba sed on thi s prior convictio n, G om ez' s statuto ry m ini m um im pr iso nm en t t er

m w as 120 m onths, m ak ing his G uid el ine r an ge 120 to 135 m onth s of im

prisonm ent, pursuant to U. S. S. G. § 5G1.1(c )(2). G om ez obj ec te d to the P SI , and arg ue d th at he sho uld

be he ld r es pons ibl e fo r a dr ug quanti ty be tw ee n 40 0 and 7 00 k ilo gr am s, w hic h pl ac ed him a t an of fe nse le ve l of 28. T he gov er

nm en t a lso obj ec te d and s ta te d th at the a ct ua l am ount

of m ar ij uanathat w as part

of the dr ug s hip m en t w as appr oxi m at el y 2, 000 poun ds, w hic h w as aba se of

fe nse le ve l of

30 ( i. e. be tw ee n 70 0 and 1 , 000 kil ogr am s) . T his am ount wa s calculated fr om the drug ledger seized fr om Gom ez which reflec ted 461 p ound s of m arij uana, and a confidential inform ant ("CI" ) provided inf orm at ionthat Ju anT re vin o ha d di re ct ed G om ez a nd B al de ra s to m ove the m ar ij uanathat w as sto re d a t the r es ide nc e, a nd t old the CI that 2, 000 poun ds o f m ari juan a h adco m e in . A t se nte nc ing , G om ezarg ue d th at the a m ount

of m ar ij uanaf

ound in the re sid en ce w as 1, 522 poun ds. H e al so m ai nta ine d th at the le dge rs c ont ai nin g th e alleged m arij uana am ount s did no t add up to any one num ber because the 461 wa s18

subtra ct ed

f ro m tw o di ff er en t f igure s. Further, Gom ez asserted that the num bers that a lle ge dly

r ep re se nte d dr

ug am ount s ha d gam ing c ode s f or ac om put er gam e on the oth er sid e, so i t w as unc le ar

w ha t those num

be rs r ea lly

r ep re se nte d. The governm ent averre d that there m ay have been two drug loads, w hich w oul d a cc ount

f or the dif fe re nc e be tw ee n th e 1, 961 poun ds o n th e le dge r an d th e 1, 522 that w as se iz ed , w hic h w oul d th entot al up t o aro und 4, 000 poun ds f or whi ch Gom ez wo ul d b e acc ou nt ab le . T he gov er nm en t m ai nta ine d th at

the N int en do c ode s onthe ba ck of the she et did not r ef ute the f ac t tha t the 461 a m ount w as adr ug am ount

tot al . Gom ez r eplied that it was unclear from which num

ber, 1,9 61 or 1 ,52 2, t he 46 1 s ho ul d b e su bt ract edfro m . T he dis tr ic t c ourt ov er

ru le d th e obj ec tio n and c onc lud ed that the gove rn m en t e sta

bli she d th at

the re w er e at

le as t 2, 000 poun ds o f m ar ij uana , a nd, be ca use the j ur

y f ound both de fe ndants gui lty , it m ust r el y on the j ur

y ’ s e va luatio n of the f ac ts. T he c ourt the n no te d th at G om ez ' s la ck

of e duc at iona nd a

bil ity to do a j ob caused him

to turn to a life of cr im e. It noted that the statuto ry m inim um wa s 120 m onths and the gov er nm en t ha d r eque ste d th e G uid el ine s m ax im um of 135 m onths; how ev er , the c ourt st at ed that, be ca

use G om ez ha d " be enaba d pe rs on, " i t w as se nte nc ing him

in the m idd le , a t 12 7 m onths o f im pr iso nm en t f

or e ac h c ount to run co nc urren tl y . R7- 10 1a t 4 6.19 II. D ISCU SSION O n a ppe al , G om ez arg ue s th at ( 1) the dis tr ic t c ourt e rr ed in de ny ing his m istri al m oti ons re la tin g to ( a) the gov er nm en t’ s im

pr ope r ch ar ac te ri zatio n of him as a d ru g tra ff

i ck er , ( b ) i m

p l i ca t i o n s th at h e w as v i o l en t , a n d(c ) t h e g o v ern m en t ’s im properly com m enting o n his si lence during its clos ing argum ents, (2) the district court err ed in failing to gi ve the j ury the lesser included instructio n on th e special ve rd ic t f orm that he ha d po sse sse d le ss than 10 0 ki log ram s of m ar ij uana , a nd ( 3) his Fifth and Sixth Am endm ent rights were violated when his base offense level w as a dj ust ed

upw ar d e igh t l ev el s ba se d onaquanti ty of dr ugs not c harg ed in the ind ic tm en t, in vio la tio n of U nit ed S ta te s v. Bo oke r, 543 U . S. , 125 S . Ct . 738 (2005). Ba lderas ar gues that the dis trict court er red in concludin g that there w as suf fi ci en t e vid en ce pr es en te d a t tri al to sus ta in h is c onsp ir ac y c onvi ct iona nd de ny ing his m oti on f

or an a cquitta l. I n th ei r br ie fs , e ac h de fe ndant e xpr es sly ad op te d t he arg um en ts of h is co -d efen da nt . A. Sufficie ncy

of the E vidence O n a ppe al , the de fe ndants a rg ue that the c as e ag ai nst the m r eg ar din g th e co nspi ra cy

to poss es s w ithint en t t o di str ibu te m or e the n 10 0 ki log ram s of m arij uana wa s circum stantial, and that no direct or circ um stantial evidence existed of any illegal agreem ent betwee n them . They m aintain that (1) the detectives20

never sawthem

inside or leaving th e re sidence, ( 2) when the detec tives sto pped the m a t the auto part s st or e, the de te ct ive s di d no t f ind a ny m ar ij uanar es idu e in the van or on their persons even th ough both o f the defe ndants and the van sm el le d li ke f

re sh m ar ij uana , and ( 3) ne ith er of the m li ve d inthe r es ide nc e dur ing the nin e m onths p ri or

to the dis co ve ry

of the m ar ij uanaa nd the ir

a rr es t be ca

use Gom ez’ s cousin and his wife lived there. W e re view de novo the denial of a defendant's m otion for ac quitt al. United St at es v. Ry an , 289 F . 3d 1 339, 134 6 ( 11th C ir . 200 2) ( pe r curi am). I n c onsi de ri ng w he the r the e vid en ce a ga ins t the de fe ndant w as suf fi ci en t, w e dr awa ll re as ona ble inf er en ce s inthe gov er

nm en t' s f av or . I d. T he que sti on i s w he the r “ ‘ a re as ona ble tr ie r of f ac t c oul d f

ind that the e vid en ce e sta

bli she s gu ilt

be y ond a re as ona

ble do ub t.’” Id. (c it at io n o m it te d) . W e do not gi ve any

defer ence to the district court’ s decision o n sufficiency of th e ev id en ce. Uni te d S ta te s v . Tay lo r, 97 2 F .2d12 47 , 12 50 (11 th Cir . 19 92 ).

“ It is not ne ce ssary

that the e vid en ce e xc lud e ev er y r ea sona ble hy pothe sis of inn oc en ce or

be w hol ly

inc onsi ste nt w ithe ve ry

c onc lus ione xc ep t tha t of gui lt, pr ovi de d ar ea sona

ble tr ie r of

f ac t c oul d f

ind that the e vid en ce e sta

bli she s gu ilt bey ond a reasonable doub t.” United State s v. Y oung , 906 F. 2d 61 5, 618 (11th Cir. 1990 ). Further, we have stated that we will not reviewa defe ndant’s suffic iency21

cl ai m w he n he doe s no t su

bm it ind ep en de nt b ri ef

ing on the iss ue a nd m er el y ad opt s th e ar gum en ts o f his c o- de fe ndant. S ee U nit ed S ta te s v. K

hour y , 901 F . 2d 94 8, 9 63 n.1 3 (1 1t h C ir. 1 99 0) , m od ifi ed , 91 0 F .2d71 3 (1 1t h C ir. 1 99 0) . Inor de r fo r the de fe ndant t o be c onvi ct ed of c onsp ir ac y , the gov er

nm en t m ust e sta bli sh tha t ( 1) ac onsp ir ac y e xis te d, ( 2) the de fe ndant k ne wof the co nspi ra cy , and ( 3) the de fe ndant, w ithkno w le dge , vol unt ar ily j oin ed the co ns pi racy. Uni te d S ta te s v . Tol er, 1 44 F.3d 14 23 , 14 25 -2 6 (1 1t h C ir. 1 99 8) . A co nspi ra cy

is de fi ne d a s an “ ‘ ag re em en t t o c om m it anunl aw fu l a ct . ’ ” I d. a t 14 25 (citation om itted). Inhis br ie f, G om ez doe s no t arg ue that the e vid en ce w as ins uf fi ci en t t o sus ta in h is c onvi ct ion ; ho w ev er , he ind ic at es that he “ ad opt s th e iss ue s, state m en ts of f ac ts and arg um en ts s et

f orth i n Appe llant E nr iqu e Ba lde ra s’ br ie f. ” Appe llant G om ez ’ s B r. a t vi ii. B ec au se G om ez did not sub m it ind ep en de nt b ri ef ing on h is suf fi ci en cy arg um en t, w e do n ot r ev ie whis c la im . S ee K hour y , 901 F . 2d at 96 3 n.1 3. How ever, we find that the dist rict court er red in concludin g that there w as suf fi ci en t e vid en ce to supp ort B al de ra s’ s c onvi ct ion . I n U nit ed S ta te s v. V ill eg as , w e re ve rs ed

the c onvi ct ionof

an a lle ge d c onsp ir ac y

de fe ndant d

ue to ins uf

fi ci en t ev i d en ce . 9 1 1 F. 2 d6 2 3 , 6 2 8 (1 1 t h Ci r. 1 9 9 0 ). In th at ca s e, th e d ef en d an t ’s22

br oth er w as inv olv ed

in a co nspi ra cy

to dis tr ibu te c oc ai ne . I d. at 62 7. T he onl y evidence against the defendant was that he w as outsid e the house while his brother m ad e a co ca ine tr an sa ct ion , and h e fo llo w ed his br oth er

to a m al l w he re he w en t insid e the m all while f

urther transactions tookplace. Id. at 628. T he police de sc ri be d th e de fe ndant’ s a ct ivi tie s a s c ount er -s urve ill an ce , id. ; ho w ev er , w e he ld that his m ere presence at the transactions and asso ciation with his broth er w as ins uf fi ci en t t o e sta

bli sh the r equir em en ts f

or his kno w ing part ic ipatio n inthe co nspi ra cy . I d. a t 62 9. Co nve rs el y , in U nit ed

S ta te s v. G am

boa , w e he ld tha t the re w as suf fi ci en t ev ide nc e to s uppo rt

the de fe ndant’ s c onsp ir ac y c onvi ct ionbe ca

use the de fe ndant ro de in the tr

uc k w ithhis c o- de fe ndants to the sc en e of the dr ug transa ct ion , he wa s riding in the truck with the drugs, and he spent m ost of the day at a r esidence wh er e d ru g p ar ap h ern al i a w as fo u n d . 1 6 6 F. 3 d1 3 2 7 , 1 3 3 2 (1 1 t h Ci r. 1 9 9 9 ). We al so c ite d th e fa ct

that, be fo re a ll of

the de fe ndants dr ove to the sc en e of the dr ug t ra n s ac t i o n , t h e d ef

en d an twa l k ed t o th e t ru ckan dl ea n ed t o wa rd th e t ru ck ’s co nsol e, w he re the dr

ugs w er e la te r fo und, w hic h su gge ste d th at he a ct ive ly pa rti ci pa te d i n t he co nc eal m en t o f th e d ru gs . Id. In Uni te d S ta te s v . Ly on s, we found th at there w as sufficient evidence to suppo rt the defendant’ s conspi racy co nvi ct ionbe ca

use he w as w ithhis c o- de fe ndant whe n hi s c o- de fe ndant m et w ith23

the und er co ve r ag en t t o di sc uss adr ug b uy , he w en t w ithhis c o- de fe ndant t o th e cr ac k ho use to se cure c ra ck f or the tr an sa ct ion , a nd h e re tur ne d w ithhis c odefendant to giv e the cr ack to the undercover agent. 53 F.3d 1198 , 1202 (11th Cir. 1995 ). Further, in United States v. Catchings, w e also held that there w as suf fi ci en t e vid en ce to supp ort the de fe ndant’ s c onsp ir ac y c onvi ct ione ve n th ough he onl y part ic ipate d onone day

a nd e nte re d th e co nspi ra cy a ft er it s in ce pti on. 922 F. 2d 77 7, 781 (11th Cir. 1991) (per c uriam ). W e stated that he “ knew and aided [the c onsp ir ac y ’ s] e sse nti al pur pose . ” I d. H ow ev er , unl ike in G am

boa , L y ons, a nd C at ch ing s, Ba lde ra s w as se enonl y in G om ez ’ s van, the re w as no t es tim ony that B al de ra s w as in the r es ide nc e or , if he wa s insid e, how long he had been there. Gom ez and Ba lderas w ere goin g to an au to p ar ts s tor e, the van di d no t have a ny m ar ij uanar es idu e in i t, a nd the detectives did no t find any m oney in the van. Further , ther e w as no evidence at trial that Gom ez and Ba lderas w ere goin g to a drug transaction, and there w as noth ing th at suggested th at Baldera s actively participated in the conspiracy or that he a ide d th e dr

ug c onsp ir ac y ’ s e sse nti al pur pose . S ee L y ons, 53 F . 3d at 12 02; Catc hin gs, 922 F . 2d at 78 1. A lth oughBa lde ra s sm el le d li ke f re sh m ar ij uana , and T an y a H unt

te sti fi ed that B al de ra s w as be st f

ri en ds w ithG om ez a nd w as a t the re sid en ce be fo re , the re is nothin g inthe r ec or d to ind ic at e that B al de ra s di d24

anything other than be present at the residence with his close friend, G om ez. Mer e pr es en ce a t the sc en e of

ac ri m e, a lth oughaf

ac tor f or ac onsp ir ac y

c onvi ct ion , is not by it se lf suf fi ci en t t o su

ppor t a c onsp ir ac y

c onvi ct ion . S ee U nit ed

S ta te s v. McDo well , 25 0 F .3d13 54 , 13 65 (11 th Cir . 20 01 ); Vi ll eg as , 91 1 F .2dat 6 29 . L ike w ise , m er e as soc ia tio n w ithc onsp ir at or s is not suf fi ci en t t o su

ppor t the co nv ic ti on . See Vil le ga s, 9 11 F.2d at 6 29 . Furthe r, in U nit ed

S ta te s v. Mo ra le s, w e he ld tha t the re w as suf fi ci en t ev i d en ce t o s up p o rt th e d ef en d an t ’s co n s p i ra cy co n v i ct i o n b ec au s e t h e ap ar t m en t ’s le as e w he re the dr

ug transa ct ion s to ok p la ce li ste d th e de fe ndant and h is c ode fe ndant a s r es ide nts , the de fe ndant h ad sig ne d th e le as e fo r the apartm en t, a nd tw o r en ta l r ec ei pts , da te d si x day s be fo re the dr ug transa ct ion , ha d hi s nam e on them . 868 F.2d 156 2, 1573 (11th Cir. 1989 ). W e stated that this evidence proved that the defendant had dom inion and control ov er the a partm ent, and, because that w as w he re the dr

ug transa ct iontoo k pl ac e, the re w as suf fi ci en t e vid en ce to es ta bli sh h is r ole in the c onsp ir ac y . I d. H ow ev er , in the pr es en t c as e, a lth ougha bill in Balderas’ s nam e w as found at the residence, there is nothing to sugg est that he lived at the residence during the tim e that the m arij uana wa s stored there. In fa ct , both H unt

and G om ez ’ s w if

e te sti fi ed that B al de ra s di d no t l ive the re in the nin e m onths p re ce din g th e dis co ve ry of the m ar ij uana . Mo re ove r, the re is nothin g25

in the r ec or d to sug ge st tha t B al de ra s ha d do m ini on o r co ntr ol o ve r ei the r the re sid en ce or

the c ont en ts the re in. H unt te sti fi ed that the thi ngs fo und ins ide the hom e w er e he r an d R ic ar do’ s th ing s th at the y ha d le ft w he n th ey

m ove d ou t so the ho us e co ul d b e fi xe d. Ther efore, there w as nothin g in the record to indicate that Balderas vol unt ar ily

and know ing ly

j oin ed in the c onsp ir ac y , a nd the dis tr ic t c ourt e rr ed in de nyin g h is m ot io n fo r jud gm en t o f acq ui tt al . See To le r, 14 4 F .3dat 1 42 5- 26 . Whil e Ba lde ra s’ s a ct ion s and the li m ite d e vid en ce pr es en te d m ay c au se r ea son fo r susp icion, they

are insufficient to prove bey ond a reasonable doub t that he was ac tiv el y part ic ipatin g inthe c onsp ir ac y . A cc or din gly , w e re ve rs e the de ci sio n of th e d is tri ctco ur t o n t hi s i ss ue an d re m an d fo r en try of a jud gm en t o f acq ui tt al . Be ca use w e ar e or de ri ng the dis tr ic t c ourt t o e nte r a j udgm en t of a cquitta l, Bal de ras ’s rem ai ni ng arg um en ts th athe ad op te d fr om Gom ez’s b rie f are irr el ev an t. T hus, the r em ai nde r of

thi s op ini on ana ly ze s G om ez ’ s c la im s a s th ey r el at e to h im on ly. B. Mi str ia l Mot ion s On appeal, Gom ez asserts that the dis trict court er red in deny ing hi s m istrial m oti ons an d th er eb y

vio la tin g hi s du e pr oc es s r igh ts. S pe ci fi ca lly , he c ont en ds that (1) w hen Redus testified that the Yahtzee sheet found in Gom ez’ s pocket was26

a dr ug t al ly she et , and the ind ivi dua ls l ist ed on tha t sh ee t w er e known dr ug traff ickers, he im

properly im plied that Gom ez w as a drug traf ficker; ( 2) when Redus testified that peopl e do not ty pically com e forw ard in drug cases to testify be ca use dr ug tra ff ic kin g or ganiz at ion s are vio le nt and tha t pe opl e fe ar ed be ing kil le d, he im

pr ope rl y im pli ed that G om ez w as avio le nt p er son; ( 3) w he n, on cr oss -e xa m inatio n, the gov er nm en t a ske d P onc e if

it w as tr ue that he ind ic at ed

in his affidavit that he sm elled “ a strange sm ell” rather than the sm ell of m arij uana co m ing f ro m the r es ide nc e be ca

use he w as a fr ai d of

the guy s a t the r es ide nc e, it im pr ope rl y im pli ed that P onc e w as a fr ai d of

G om eza nd G om ez w as avio le nt pe rs on, a nd ( 4) w he n th e gove rn m en t st at ed dur ing c los ing that G om ez ne ve r tol d the officer

that the residence sm elled like m arij uana, that he w as at the re sidence an d sawthe m ar ij uana , or oth er w ise ind ic at e that the de te ct ive sho uld inv es tig at e th e res id en ce fo r drug act iv it y , itim pr op erl y co m m en te d o n h is si le nc e. W e re view f

or abuse of discretion a district court’ s denial of a m otion for a m is tri al . Uni te d S ta te s v . Etti ng er, 3 44 F.3d 11 49 , 11 61 (11 th Cir . 20 03 ). A defendant is entitled to a grant of a m istrial onlyupon showing that he was su bs ta nt ia ll y

pre jud ic ed . Id. Inor de r fo r a de fe ndant t o pr ev ai l onac la im of pr ose cu tor ia l m isc ondu ct , he m ust establis h (1) that the prosecutor’ s com m ents wer e im

proper, and (2) that27

tho se c om

m en ts p re j udi ci al ly a ff ec te d hi s su

bst an tia l r igh ts. S ee U nit ed S ta te s v. H er nande z, 145 F . 3d 1 433, 143 8 ( 11th C ir . 199 8) . I n or de r to m ee t the subs tanti al pr ej udi ce pr ong, the im pr ope r co m

m en ts m ust have “ so i nf

ec te d th e tr ia l w ithunf

ai rn es s a s to m ak e the r es ult ing c onvi ct ion[ or se nte nc e] ade nia l of due pr oc es s. ” P ar

ke r v. H ea d, 244 F . 3d 8 31, 838 ( 11th C ir . 200 1) ( quot at ion om itt ed ). T o a sse ss the pr ose cu tor ’ s st at em en ts’ im pa ct , w e m

ust e va luate the m

in the context of the entire trial and assess their probable im pact on the jury . See Hern an de z, 14 5 F .3dat 1 43 8. The F ederal R

ules of Evidence def

ine relevant evidence as “ evidence ha vin g any

te nde nc y to m ak e the e xis te nc e of a ny f ac t tha t i s of

c onse que nc e to the de te rm inatio n of

the a ct ionm or e pr oba

ble or le ss p ro bable than it

w oul d be without the evidence.” F ED . R. E V ID . 401. All re levant evidence is adm issib le, an d i rrel ev an t ev id en ce i s i na dm is si bl e. F ED . R. E V ID . 402 . H ow ev er , r el ev an t ev ide nc e m ay

be e xc lud ed

if “ its pr oba tiv e va lue is subs tanti al ly outw ei ghe d by the danger of unfair pre

j udice . . . .” F ED . R. E V ID . 40 3. In dir ec t r ef

er en ce s to ade fe ndant’ s si le nc e do n ot c onst itu te r ev er sib le e rr or pe r se , a nd w e m

ust c onsi de r the r ef

er en ce s’ im

pa ct on the j ur

y . U nit ed S ta te s v. E xarh os, 135 F . 3d 7 23, 728 ( 11th C ir . 199 8) . Ac om m en t i s no t an im

pe rm iss ibl e re fe re nc e “ unl es s ( 1) it

w as the gov er

nm en t’ s m an if

es t i nte nti on t o do so, or

( 2) it28

wa s of such a chara cter that a j ury would naturally

and necessarily

take it to be a co m m en t onthe de fe ndant' s si le nc e. ” I d. ( quot at ion s om itt ed ). “ Whe n th e use of a de fe ndant’ s si le nc e re sul ts i n ac onst itu tio na l vi olatio n, the c onvi ct ionc anstand onl y if the r ev ie w ing c ourt i s satis fi ed be y ond a re as ona

ble doubt tha t the e rr or was ha rm le ss .” Uni te d S ta te s v . Teno rio , 69 F.3d 11 03 , 11 06 (11 th Cir . 19 95 ). Ina ddr es sin g c um

ulativ e er ro r cl ai m s, w e m

ust e xa m ine the tr ia l a s aw hol e to determ ine if the defendant w as aff orded a fundam entally

fair trial. United St at es v. Ca lde ro n, 127 F . 3d 1 314, 133 3 ( 11th C ir . 199 7) . H ow ev er , w e ha ve a lso state d th at

if the re are no e rr or s onthe ind ivi dua l arg um en ts, the re c anbe no cum ulativ e er ro r. U nit ed

S ta te s v. W al don, 363 F . 3d 1 103, 111 0 ( 11th C ir . 200 4) (per c uriam ), cert. denied, __ U. S. __, 125 S. C t. 208 (2004). Th e d i s t ri ct co u rt d i dn o tab u s e i t s d i s cr et i o n wh en i td en i ed Go m ez ’s m oti ons fo r a m istri al . R ed us’ s te sti m ony

that ( 1) aY at ze e she et

that w as f

ound in G om ez ’ s po ck et

appe ar ed to be adr

ug t al ly she et , a nd ( 2) the nam es on the ta lly sheet we re those of known drug traffic kers, wa s not im proper. Redus explained that he knew that four of the six nam es we re people known to distrib ute m arij uana, and this in form ation was re levant to establis h why he believed that the Yatz ee she et w as a ct ua lly adr ug t al ly she et . S ee H er

nande z, 145 F . 3d at 14 38; F ED . R. E V ID . 40 1, 4 02 .29

Furtherm ore, the district court did no t abuse its dis cretion when it denied G om ez ’ s m istri al m oti on b as ed on R ed us’ s te sti m ony

that i ndi cate d th at

pe opl e do not ge ne ra lly c om e fo rw ar d inthe se ty pe s of dr ug c as es to te sti fy

be ca use dr ug tr af fi ck ing or ganiz at ion s are vio le nt and p eo ple f eare d be ing kil le d. T he gove rn m en t a tte m

pte d to e xpl ai n to the j ur

y that the pe opl e on the li st m ay not have com e forw ard to testify against the defendants ou t of fear, a question th at m any j urors m ay

have had regar ding the people on th e drug tally sheet. Further, an y pr obl em that m ay have ari se n be ca

use of the te sti m ony

w as c ur ed

w he n R ed

us specifically

testified that he had no kn owledge that either of the def endants had co m m it te d a cri m e o f vi ol en ce o r ha d t hr eat en edan y on e wit h v io le nt act s. Mor eo ve r, la te r in the tr ia l, the gov er nm en t a tte m

pte d to im

pe ac h P onc e by as kin g hi m

if it w as tr ue that he state d he sm el le d a“ str an ge sm el l” a t the re sid en ce in his a ff

idavit , and d id n ot wri te that he sm el le d m ar ij uana , be ca use he tol d th e de te ct ive s th at

he w as a fr ai d of

the guy s a t the r es ide nc e. T his que sti on did no t form

the basis for a m istrial because the defe ndants h ad set forth that Ponce had wr itten that he sm elled a strange sm ell because he, in fact, had sm elled a strange sm ell, and no t m arij uana. H owever , the detec tive who interviewe d Po nc e ha d in dic at ed

in his r ep ort tha t P onc e tol d hi m that he did

not w an t t o pu t m arij uana down because he w as afr aid of the people at the residence, and, under30

the F ed er al Ru le s of

E vid en ce , the gov er

nm en t w as e nti tle d to im

pe ac h P onc e w ith this in form ation. Se e F ED . R. E V ID . 607 ( “ T he c re dib ili ty of aw itn es s m ay

be attacked by

any party . . . .” ). L ater, Ponce testified that he did not fear B alderas before, during, or afte r the events on 1 October 2002, the day Gom ez and Ba lderas w er e ar re ste d. T he re fo re , the te sti m ony w as pr ope r an d r el ev an t t o th e tr ia l, a nd the defendants’ subst antial rights were not vio lated because any potential prob lem wa s cured w hen Ponce testified that he never f eare d Balderas. See He rnandez, 145 F. 3d at 14 38; F ED . R. E V ID . 40 1, 4 02 . Additionally , the district court did not abus e its discretion when it denied G om ez ’ s m istri al m oti on d ur ing the gov er

nm en t’ s c los ing a rg um en ts. D ur ing it s cl osi ng arg um en ts, the gov er nm en t c om

m en te d th at , w he n G om ez w as ta lki ng t o the detective at the auto parts store, he never told them or otherwise indicated that the residence sm elled like m arij uana, that he w as at the re sidence and saw m ari juan a, orth atth e p ol ic e sh ou ldgo in ve st ig at e th e res id en ce fo r drug act iv it y . How ever, Gom ez concedes in his brief that the com m ent refe rred to a tim e af ter Gom ez w as arr ested but before he w as given his Miranda rights. Under United States v. Rivera, such com m ents are a

ppropriate when the defe ndant’s silence oc curr ed a ft er arr es t bu t be fo re Mi randaw ar nin gs are giv en . 944 F . 2d 1 563, 156 8 (1 1t h C ir. 1 99 1) .31

Fi na lly , G om ez c ont en ds tha t, e ve n if the dis tr ic t c ourt di d no t e rr in de ny ing e ac h of

his m oti ons ind ivi dua lly , the c um ulativ e ef fe ct of the a lle ge dly prej udicial evidence war

rants a re versal of his conviction . How ever, because, as not ed above , G om ez c an not

de m onstrate that the dis tr ic t c ourt e rr ed in de ny ing any of his m otion s, there can be no cum ulative error. See W aldon, 363 F.3d at 1110 . T he re fo re , the dis tr ic t c ourt di d no t a buse it s di sc re tio n inde ny ing the m istri al m oti ons. C. Special V erdict Form Gom ez next contends that he was entitled to a lesser included jury instructio n which w ouldhave allowed the j ury to find him

guilty , on the special verdict form , of less than 10 0 kilo gram s of m arij uana. H e ar gues that the sp ecial verdict form s shou ld have includ ed an option for the j ury to chose whether he had poss es se d, and c onsp ir ed to poss es s, m or e than 0 b ut l es s th an100 kil ogr am s of m arij uana. W e re view f

or abuse of discretion a district court’ s refusal to give a j ur y ins tr uc tio n and i ts d en ia l of

ar eque st f

or aspe ci al ve rd ic t. U nit ed S ta te s v. Cornillie, 92 F. 3d 11 08, 1109 (11t h Cir. 1996 ) (per curiam) (j ury

instruction ); Uni te d S ta te s v . She nb erg , 89 F.3d 14 61 , 14 72 (11 th Cir . 19 96 ) (s pe ci al ve rd ic t). Su chabuse w oul d oc cur if the e vid en ce w oul d pe rm it a j ur y to fi nd the de fe ndant gu il ty of th e le ss er, b ut no t t he gre at er, o ffen se . Corni ll ie , 92 F.3d at 1 10 9.32

W e have stated that 21 U. S. C. § 841 (b) provides the penalties for 21 U. S. C. § 841 (a) and becom es applicable only after a defe ndant is con victed of a subs tanti ve § 84 1( a) vio la tio n. S ee U nit ed S ta te s v. S an ch ez , 269 F . 3d 1 250, 1264 -1265 (11t h Cir. 2001 ) (e n banc). Further, we have stated that “ [t] he nature an d qu an tity

of the c ontro lle d su

bst an ce a re r el ev an t on ly to se nte nc ing a nd d o no t co nst itu te e le m en ts o f a le sse r inc lud ed of fe nse . ” U nit ed

S ta te s v. W ill iam s, 876 F.2 d 1 52 1, 1 52 5 (1 1t h C ir. 1 98 9) . G om ez w as c onvi ct ed

f or a idi ng and a

be tti ng the pos se ssi on o f w ithint en t to dist ribute 100 k ilogram s or m ore of m arij uana, in violation o f 21 U. S. C. § 84 1( a) (1 ), ( b) (1 )( B) (v ii) , 18 U . S. C. § 2, a nd c onsp ir ac y to poss es s, w ithint en t t o di st rib ut e m ari

juan a, in vi ol at io n o f 21 U.S.C. § 8 41 (a)( 1) , (b) (1 )(B) (v ii ), an d 8 46 . Inor de r fo r the j ur

y to co nvi ct , it

did not have to de te rm ine the spe ci fi c am ount of m ar ij uanathat he c onsp ir ed to poss es s. A lth oughG om ez w as c harg ed a nd co nvi ct ed of § 84 1( b) (1 )( B) (v ii) , that su bse ct ionde al s on ly

w iththe pe na lti es f

or § 84 1( a) of

fe nse s. I t i s no t ne ed ed

f or pur pose s of the sub stanti ve c onvi ct ion u n d er§ 8 4 1 (a ). Se e S an ch ez , 2 6 9 F. 3 d1 2 5 0 , 1 2 6 4 -1 2 6 5 . Fu rt h er m o re , t h e ju ry’s de te rm inatio n of

w he the r G om ez ’ s of

fe nse s in vol ve d 10 0 ki log ram s or m or e of m ar ij uanais ne ed ed

onl y to de te rm ine his pe na lty

( se nte nc e) a nd d oe s no t co ns ti tu te ele m en ts of a les se r in cl ud edoff en se . See Will ia m s, 8 76 F.2d at 1 52 5.33

Moreover, the m anner in which the special ver dict form wa s constructed al low ed the j ur y to fi nd tha t G om ez w as gui lty of the of fe nse s, but

that the of fe nse s in cl ude d le ss than 10 0 ki log ram s of m ar ij uana . O n bo th c ount s, if the j ury concluded that he was guilty , then it had to determ ine if the offe nse invo lved m ore than 100 ki logram s by placing a m ark next to “ y es” or “ no.” I f the j ury fo und that G om ez w as gui lty , but se le ct ed “ no, ” thu s c onc lud ing that the of fe nse did not inc lud e m or e than 10 0 ki log ram s of m ar ij uana , the j ur

y ’ s ve rd ic t w oul d be that he was guilty

of the offe nse and the offense included m ore than 0 but less th an 100 kil ogr am s of

m ar ij uana . T he re fo re , the dis tr ic t c ourt di d no t a buse it s dis cr et ionin de ny ing G om ez ’ s r eque st t o in cl ude the le sse r inc lud ed of fe nse of m or e th an 0 b ut les s t ha n 1 00 ki lo gr am s o f m ari juan a o n t he sp eci al ve rd ic t fo rm . D. B ook

er V iol at ion s Fi na lly , G om ez a ve rs that he w as he ld r es pons ibl e fo r 2, 000 poun ds o f m ar ij uana , w hic h w as 4 of fe nse le ve ls h igh er

than th e am ount

of m ar ij uana ch ar ge d inthe ind ic tm en t, thu s vi olatin g hi s F if th and S ixth A m en dm en t r igh ts unde r Bo oke r, 543 U . S. a t , 125 S . Ct . a t 74 9. H e ar gue s th at , a t se nte nc ing , the j udge de te rmine d th at the num be r 461 on the Y at ze e she et w as pounds of m arij uana in additio n to the 1,522 p ound s of m arij uana found at the hou se, br ing ing the tot al a m ount of m ar ij uanahe w as r es pons ibl e fo r to 2 , 000 poun ds,34

w hic h w as not

af ac t tha t he a dm itt ed

or that w as f

ound by aj ur y be y ond a reas on ab le do ub t. G om ez r ai se s th is i ssu e fo r the f ir st t im e on a

ppe al . W e re vie wf

or pla in erro r th os e is su es in whi ch ti m el y ob jecti on s wer e n ot m ad e in th e d is tri ctco ur t. U nit ed S ta te s v. O lano, 507 U . S. 725 , 731 , 113 S . Ct . 177 0, 177 6 ( 1993 ); se e al so F ED . R. C R IM . P. 52( b) . T o pr ev ai l un de r a pla in- er ro r standard , the appe llant m ust pr ove the f

oll ow ing thr ee r equir em en ts: ( 1) the re m ust be a n e rr or ; ( 2) that e rr or m ust be pla in; and ( 3) the pla in e rr or m ust a ff ec t su bst an tia l r igh ts. O lano, 507 U . S. a t 73 2, 113 S . Ct . a t 17 76. O nc e the appe llant p ro ve s th es e thr ee e le m en ts, w e m ay not ic e the e rr or

onl y if it “ se ri ousl y

a ff ec t[ s] the f

ai rn es s, int eg ri ty , or publ ic r ep utatio n of

j udi ci al pr oc ee din gs. ” I d. a t 73 6, 113 S . Ct . a t 17 76 (quotation om itted). W e have re cently

concluded that, in Booker, the Supre m e Court held that

“ the Sixth Am endm ent right to trial by j ury is violated where unde r a m anda tor y gu idel in es sys te m a se nte nc e is i nc re as ed be ca use of a n e nhanc em en t ba se d on fa ct s f ound by the j udge that w er e ne ith er a dm itt ed by the de fe ndant n or

f ound by the j ur y . ” U nit ed

S ta te s v. Ro dr igu ez , 398 F . 3d 1 291, 129 8 ( 11th C ir . 200 5)A petition for writ of cer tiorari wa s filed in Rodrigue z. R odriguez v. United States, No. 04- 2 1148 (U.S. Fe b. 23, 2005). On 20 May 2005, the Solicitor Ge nera l of the United States re sponded that revie w is w arr anted to r esolve a cir cuit split reg ardingthe prope r application of the plain-er ror standard to f

orfe ited sentenc ing e rror s under B ooker. 35 (em phasis in original) reh’ g denied, F. 3d , (11th Cir. 2005) (en banc). 2 A se co nd e rr or

c ana lso e xis t, und er

Bo oke r, w he n th e dis tr ic t c ourt a ppl ie s th e G uid el ine s w ith out

c onsi de ri ng the m

a dvi sor y . U nit ed S ta te s v. S he lto n, 400 F . 3d 1325 , 133 0- 31 ( 11th C ir . 200 5) . I f suc h e rr or oc curs , it is pla in. R odr igu ez , 398 F. 3d at 12 99; S he lto n, 400 F . 3d at 13 31. E ve n if the dis tr ic t c ourt pl ai nly

e rr ed w he n it ( 1) de te rm ine d th at

the 461 num be r on the Y at ze e she et

w as adr ug am ount , a nd u se d it

to inc re as e the a m ount of drugs Gom ez w as responsibl e for ( from 1,522 pou nds to 1,983 pou nds), w hich w as af ac t tha t w as ne ith er

a dm itt ed by G om ez nor

f ound by the j ur y , a nd (2 ) se nte nc ed

G om ez und er

am an da tor

y G uid el ine s sy ste m , G om ez c an not dem onstrate that the error a ffec ted his su bstantial righ ts, as r equired by the third pr ong of the pla in e rr or

ana ly sis . F or

aS ixth A m en dm en t vi olatio n, the de fe ndant has the burden of dem onstrating that the error “ affe cted the outcom e of the district court proceedings.” Rodriguez, 298 F.3d at 1299 (quo tation om itted). F or a m an da tor y gui de lin es Bo oke r er

ro r, the de fe ndant h as the bur de n of de m onstratin g that there w as a “ reasonable probabilityof a diff erent re sult if the gui delines had36

be enappl ie d inan a dvi sor y ins te ad of bin din g f as hio n by the se nte nc ing j udge in thi s c as e. ” S he lto n, 400 F . 3d at 13 32 ( quot at ionom itt ed ). Ar ea sona ble pr oba bil ity m eans a pr oba bil ity “ suf fi ci en t t o un de rm ine c onf ide nc e in the ou tc om e.” Id . (qu ot at io n o m it te d) . D ur ing the se nte nc ing he ar ing , the dis tr ic t c ourt ne ve r ind ic at ed that, but f or t h e Gu i d e l i n e s , i two u l dh a v e g i v e n Go mez ad i f f e r e n ts e n t e n c e . On th e c o n t r a ry, the c ourt no te d th at

G om ez ’ s la ck

of e duc at iona nd a

bil ity to do a j ob c au se d hi m to t ur n to ali fe of

c ri m e. I t a lso not ed

that the statut or

y m ini m um w as 120 m onths and the gov ernm ent requested the Guidelines m axim um of 135 m onth s. H owever , the c ourt st at ed

that, be ca

use G om ez ha d “be enaba d pe rs on, ” it w as se nte nc ing hi m in th e m id dl e, at12 7 m on th s, o nl y 7 m on th s ab ov e th e st atut ory m in im um . Nothing in the rec ord indicates that, if it had to re- sentence G om ez, the district co urt w oul d have im

pose d adif

fe re nt s en te nc e. A cc or din gly , G om ez c an not establish th at his sub stantial rights we re violated by the district court’ s error. See Ro dr igu ez , 298 F . 3d at 12 99; S he lto n, 400 F . 3d at 13 32. III. CO NC LUS ION Upon re vie wof

the r ec or d and the part ie s’ br ie fs , w e dis ce rnno r ev er sib le er ro r as to G om ez and a ff

irm his c onvi ct ionand s en te nc e. A s to Ba lde ra s, how ev er , w e va cate his c onvi ct ionf or c onsp ir ac y

to dis tr ibu te 100 kil ogr am s or37

m ore of m arij uana due to ins ufficient evidence, and rem and for entry of a jud gm en t o f acq ui tt al . As we h av e ex pl ai ne d, we AF FIRM in p ar t and REV ERS E an dREMAND in part .