FI L ED U.S. COURT OF APPEAL S EL EVENTHCI RCUI T OCT 15, 2008 THOMAS K. KAH

N CL ERK [DO NOT PUBLISH] IN THE UN ITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELE VENTH CIRCUIT

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ No. 0 7- 11 99 6 Non -Arg um en t Ca le nd ar

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ D. C. Dock etNo. 0 6- 00 20 6- CR-C G-0 01 UNITED STAT ES OF AMERIC A, Pl ai nt iff -Ap pe ll ee, ve rs us QUANG VA

N NGUYEN, Defen da nt -Ap pe ll an t.

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

th e Uni te d S ta te s Di st ric t Co urt fo r th e So ut he rnDis tri ctof Al ab am a

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ _ (Oc to ber 1 5, 2 00 8) Befo re ANDERSON, HULL an d WILSON, Circu itJu dg es . PER CURI AM: Qua ng Van Ng uyen ap pe al s h is co nv ic ti on forco ns pi racy to p os se ssm etha m

ph et am in e wit h i nt en t t o d is tri bu te , 21 U.S.C. § 8 46 , andhi s 3 64 -m on th se nt en ce. On app eal , he f irs t ar gu es th e ev id en ce was in su ffi ci en t t o s ho w any ag reem en t t o d is tri bu te m etha m ph et am in e. He arg ue s t ha t, atbe st , th e ev id en ce sh ows a se rie s o f bu y -s el l re la ti on sh ip s, wh ic h s ho w no ob jecti ve be y on d t ha t imm ed ia te ly accompli sh edby the tra ns act io n. Fu rth er, h e as se rts th e te st im on y of th e in ve st ig at in g p ol ic e o ffi cer was no t s up po rte d b y th e witne ss es who co op erat edwith t he go ve rn m en t i n e xc hang e fo r le ni en cy . Nguy enarg ue s t ha t, t o pr ov e co ns pi racy, the go ve rn m en t m us t p ro ve m or e th ana se rie s o f arm s- le ng th drug trans act io ns . W e rev ie w de n ov o c ha ll en ge s t o the su ffi ci en cy of t he ev id en ce i n c riminal tri al s, v ie win g t he ev id en ce i n t he li gh t m os t fa vo rab le to th e g ov ern m en t. Uni te d St at es v. Futre ll , 20 9 F .3d12 86 , 12 88 (11 th Cir . 20 00 ) (p er cu ria m). To p ro ve a co ns pi racy un de r 21 U.S.C. § 8 46 , th e ev id en ce m us t s ho w “ (1 ) anag reem en t be twee n the de fen da ntan d o ne or m or e p ers on s, (2 ) th e o bjec t o f whi chis to do ei th er an un la wfu l ac t o r a l awfu l ac t b y un la wfu l m ean s.” Uni te d Sta te s v. To le r , 14 4 F .3d14 23 , 14 26 (11 th Cir . 19 98 ). Co ns pi racy is p rimaril y a m en ta l o ffen se , so “ itis freque nt ly neces sa ry to res ort t o c irc um st an ti al ev id en ce t o p ro ve it s el em en ts .” Id. Agre em en t t o c on sp ire m ay be in ferr edfro m

a co nt in ui ng rel at io ns hi p t ha t re su lt s i n t he rep eat edtra ns fer o f drug s t o t he pu rch as er. Uni te d 2St at es v. Merc er , 16 5 F .3d13 31 , 13 35 (11 th Cir . 19 99 ) (p er cu ria m). Howev er,

bu y er-s el le r tr an sa ct io ns in th em se lv es do no t s up po rt aco ns pi racy con vi ct io n. Se e Uni te d Sta tes v. Dekle , 16 5 F .3d82 6, 8 29 -3 0 (1 1t h C ir. 1 99 9) (no ti ng th at

“ ev id en ce t ha t t he pa rti es un de rs to odth ei r tr an sa ct io ns to do no m or e th ansupp ort th e b uyer’s per so na l d ru g h ab itis an ti th et ic al to a fi nd in g o f co ns pi racy”). “ If the ev id en ce s ho ws o nl y

a bu y -s el l re la ti on sh ip , th e fac t t ha t s al es are re pe at ed , wit ho utm or e, do es no t s up po rt a n i nf eren ce t ha t t he bu y er an d t he sel le r ha ve th e sa m e joi ntcri m in al ob

jecti ve to di st rib ut e dru gs .” Id. at 8 30 . Test im on y by the de fen da nt , if d is be li ev edby the jury, m ay be co ns id eredas s ub st an ti ve ev id en ce o f gu il t. Uni te d Sta tes v. Will ia ms , 39 0 F .3d13 19 , 13 25 (11 th Cir . 20 04 ). A jury is free to ch oo se am on g re as on ab le co ns tru ct io ns of t he ev id en ce. Id. at 1 32 3. The di stric t co urt d idno t err by fin di ng su ffi ci en t ev id en ce t o s ho w Ngu y en co ns pi redto di st rib ut e m etha m ph et am in e b ecau se th ere was tes ti m on y fro m th e in ve st ig at in g o ffi cer tha t Ng uyen h el pe d C u Hu nyh se ll m etha m ph et am in e, an d t he jury cou ldreas on ab ly hav e co ns id eredNguy en ’s den ia ls as e vi de nc e ag ai ns t h im . Ngu y enals o a rg ue s t ha t t he di st ric t co urt p la in ly erredby fail in g t o i ns tru ct th e jury tha t a b uyer-s el le r rel at io ns hi p d oe s n otalo ne est ab li sh a co ns pi racy. Sp eci fic al ly, he cla im s t he st an da rdjury in st ru ct io ns on th e el em en ts of c on sp ira cy fai l t o i nf orm th e jury tha t t he bu y er-s el le r rel at io ns hi p d oe s n ot , by it se lf, 3es tabl is h t he in te ntto ag ree r equi redfora co ns pi racy. Ngu y enarg ue s t ha t t he

di st ric t co urt’s u se of t he pl ur al word“pu rp os es ” in th e p at te rnjury in st ru ct io n al lo wedth e jury to fi nda co ns pi racy even if n o p ot en ti al m em be r of th e co ns pi racy agre edwith a ny oth er as to th e g oa l o f th e co ns pi racy. Fu rth er, h e cl ai m s t ha t t he weakne ss of t he go ve rn m en t’s ca se requi redth e d is tri ctco urt t o gi ve a bu y er-s el le r in st ru ct io n. Here, wh ere t he de fen dantass ert s t ha t t he di st ric t co urt erredby notgi vi ng a jury ins tru ct io n t ha t the de fen dantdi d n otreque st , rev ie w is forpl ai n e rro r. Uni te d Sta tes v. Bea sl ey , 2 F.3 d 1 55 1, 1 56 1 (1 1t h C ir. 1 99 3) . Plai n e rro r ex is ts if th ere was “ (1 ) erro r, (2 ) th atis pl ai n, an d (3 ) affe ct s s ub st an ti al rig ht s. If a ll th ree co nd it io ns are m et , an app el la te co urt m ay th enex erci se it s d is cret io n t o n ot ic e a fo rfei te d e rro r, bu t o nl y

if (4 ) th e err orser io us ly affect s t he fai rn es s, i nt eg rit y , or publ ic rep ut at io n o f jud ic ia l p ro ceed in gs .” Uni te d Sta te s v. Hea th , 41 9 F .3d13 12 , 13 14 (11 th Cir . 20 05 ) (p er cu ria m) (i nt ern al qu ot at io n m ark s an d c it at io n o m it te d) . W e fi ndrev ers ib le erro r in th e refu sa l t o g iv e a req ue st edjury in st ru ct io n on ly if “ (1 ) th e reque st edin st ru ct io n c orrect ly stat edth e la w; (2 ) th e actua l ch arg e to th e jury didno t s ub st an ti al ly cov er the pro po se d i ns tru ct io n; an d (3 ) th e fai lu re to gi ve th e in st ru ct io n s ub st an ti al ly im pa ire d the de fen da nt ’s abi li ty to p res en t an effe ct iv e d efen se .” Uni te d Sta tes v. Pa lma , 51 1 F .3d13 11 , 13 15 (11 th Cir . 20 08 ) 4(p er cu ria m), pe ti ti on fo r ce rt . fi le d , No. 0 8- 50 67 (Apr il 2, 2 00 8) (in te rn al

qu ot at io n m ark s o m it te d) . Ina cas e in vo lv in g the us e o f th e sa m e p at te rnin st ru ct io n a s u se d i n Ngu y en ’s tri al , we hel d t he in st ru ct io n “ ad dr es s[ ed ] th e subs tanc e o f th e reque st ed [b uyer-s el le r] ins tru ct io n.” Uni te d Sta te s v. Li vel y , 80 3 F .2d11 24 , 11 28 -2 9 (1 1th Ci r. 19 86 ). W e ex pl ai ne d t ha t t he in stru ct io n a de qu at el y ad dr es se s t ha t t he de fen da ntm

us t kno win gl y

an d wi ll fu ll y

be co m e a m em

be r of th e co ns pi racy. Id . at11 29 . W e fu rth er ex pl ai ne d t ha t “ a p ers on who ha s n o kno wled ge of a co ns pi racy, butwho happ en s t o a ctin a way whi chadva nc es so m e p ur po se of o ne , do es no t t he reb y

be co m e a co ns pi rat or .” Id . Thu s, t he in st ru ct io n “ ad equa te ly and co rrec tl y co ve red ” th e reque st edbu y er-s el le r in st ru ct io n. Be cau se th e co ns pi racy in st ru ct io n c ov eredth e subs ta nc e o f th e b uyer-s el le r in st ru ct io n, we fi ndno pl ai n erro r. Inad di ti on , Nguy enarg ue s t ha t t he di stric t co urt p la in ly erredby usi ng fact s fo un d b y a jud ge an d n otby the jury in de te rm in in g h is sen te nc e. Ngu y enass ert s th e st atut ory

m ax im um was t he gu id el in e ran ge th atwou ldha ve be encal cu la te d wit ho utth e u se of t ho se fact s, an d t he refo re, h is Six th Am en dm en t ri gh ts ha ve be envi ol at ed . Whe n ade fen da ntdo es no t o bjec t t o fa ctfin di ng by the di stric t co urt, 5rev ie w is forpl ai n e rro r. Uni te d Sta te s v. C ar tw ri gh t , 41 3 F .3d12 95 , 13 00 (11 th Ci r. 20 05 ) (p er cu ria m). Whe n ade fen dantdo es no t o bjec t t o t he fact s i n the pre se nt en ce i nv es ti ga ti on rep ort, the de fen da ntadm it s t ho se fact s. Uni te d Sta te s v. W il li ams , 43 8 F .3d12 72 , 12 74 (11 th Cir . 20 06 ) (p er cu ria m). Dis tri ctco urts are pe rm it te d t o fi ndfact s b y a pr ep on de ran ce o f th e ev id en ce t o u se in cal cu la ti ng th e ad vi so ry gu id el in e ran ge . Uni te d Sta te s v. Do ug la s , 48 9 F .3d11 17 , 11 29 (11 th Ci r. 20 07 ) (p er cu ria m), cer t. d en ie d , 12 8 S . Ct. 1 87 5 (2 00 8) . The di stric t co urt d idno t p la in ly err bec au se Ngu y enadm it te d t o t he fact s i n th e p re-s en te nc e in ve st ig at io n re po rt u se d t o c al cu la te hi s s en te nc e an d d is tri ct co urts are p erm it te d t o fi ndfact s fo r us e insen te nc in g i n a n a dv is ory syste m . Fi na ll y , Ngu y enarg ue s t ha t t he di st ric t co urt i m po se d apro cedur al ly and subs ta nt iv el y

un reas on ab le sen te nc e. Pro cedur al ly, he arg ue s t he di st ric t co urt d id no t re sp on d t o h is arg um en ts th athe was n ota m ajordru g d eal er an d h is cri m in al hi st ory sco re d idno t ac cu rat el y

refl ecthi s t ru e cri m in al hi st ory . Furthe r, he cla im s th atth e d is tri ctco urt d idno t s uf fic ie nt ly exp la in it s re as on s fo r se nt en ci ng . Subs tant iv el y , he arg ue s h is sen te nc e was ab ov e th e av erag e se nt en ce i n thi s Ci rcu itfordru g t raff

ic ki ng an d abo ve th e n at io na l av erag e se nt en ce fo r m ur de r an d k id napp in g. Ng uyen ar gu es th e d is tri ctco urt was to o c redul ou s o f th e dru g tra ns act io ns de sc rib edby the go ve rn m en t’s co op erat in g wi tn es se s, an d s ho ul d 6on ly hav e as cri be d t o Ng uyen an am ou ntof m etha m ph et am in e th atwou ldno t requi re a m an da to ry

m in im um sen te nc e. Add it io na ll y , he m ai nt ai ns th atth e di st ric t co urt’s ca lc ul at io n o f th e dru g qua nt it y fai le d t o c on si de r th e eff ectof a lo ng di st rib ut io n p eri odonth e qua nt it y of d ru gs . W e rev ie w th e fi na l s en te nc e im po se d b y th e d is tri ctco urt fo r reas on ab le ne ss . Uni te d Sta tes v. Ag ba i , 49 7 F .3d12 26 , 12 29 (11 th Cir . 20 07 ) (p er cu ria m). Rece nt ly, th e Supr em e Co urt cl ari fie d t ha t t he reas on ab le ne ss st an da rd m ean s re vi ew of

sen te nc es forab us e o f di sc ret io n. Gal l v. Un it ed St at es , 55 2 U.S.

__ , 12 8 S . Ct. 5 86 , 59 7, 1 69 L. Ed. 2d44 5 (2 00 7) . The di stric t co urt m

us t i m po se a se nt en ce t ha t i s b ot h p ro cedur al ly and subs ta nt iv el y

reas on ab le . Gal l , 55 2 U.S. at__ , 12 8 S . Ct. at59 7. Th e Supr em e Co urt h as ex pl ai ne d tha t a s en te nc e wou ldbe pro cedur al ly unr eas on ab le if t he di st ric t co urt i m

pr op erl y cal cu la te d t he gu id el in e im pr is on m en t ra ng e, tr eat edth e Gui de li ne s as m an da to ry , fai le d t o c on si de r th e ap pr op ria te st atut ory fact or s, b as ed th e se nt en ce o n c le arl y

erro ne ou s fa ct s, o r fai le d t o a de qu at el y expl ai n i ts reas on in g. Id. If th e d is tri ctco urt m ad e n o p ro cedur al erro rs , th enwe rev ie w th e subs ta nt iv e rea so nabl en es s o f th e se nt en ce i m po se d t o d et erm in e whe th er the se nt en ce i s s up po rte d b y

th e 1 8 U.S.C. § 35 53 (a) fa ct or s. Id. at _ _, 1 28 S. Ct . at 6 00 . The § 35 53 (a) fa ct or s i nc lu de : 7(1 ) th e n atur e an d c irc um st an ces of t he off en se an d t he hi st ory

an d ch arac te ris ti cs of t he de fen da nt ; (2 ) th e n eedto refl ectth e se rio us ne ss of th e o ffen se , to pro m ot e res pe ctfor th e la w, andto pro vi de jus t pu ni sh m en t fo r th e o ffen se ; (3 ) th e n eedforde te rren ce; (4) th e n eed to pro te ctth e p ub li c; (5) th e n eedto pro vi de th e d efen da ntwith ne ed ededuc at io na l o r vo cat io na l t rai ni ng or m ed ic al care ; (6 ) th e ki nd s o f se nt en ces av ai labl e; (7) th e Sen te nc in g Gu id el in es ran ge ; (8 ) pe rti ne ntpo li cy

st at em en ts of t he Sen te nc in g C omm is si on ; (9 ) th e ne edto av oi d u nwa nt edsen te nc in g d is pa rit ie s; an d (1 0) th e n eedto pr ov id e res ti tu ti on to vi ct im s. Uni te d Sta tes v. Ta ll ey , 43 1 F .3d78 4, 7 86 (11 thCir . 20 05 ) (p er cu ria m) (ci ti ng 18 U.S.C. § 3 55 3( a)). Th ere i s a “ ran ge of r eas on ab le sen te nc es fro m whi ch th e di st ric t co urt m ay

ch oo se .” Id. at 7 88 . “ [T]he p arty who ch al le ng es th e se nt en ce be ars th e b ur de n o f es tabl is hi ng th atth e se nt en ce i s u nr eas on ab le in li gh t o f bo th [th e] reco rdan d the fact or s i n s ect io n 3 55 3( a).” Id . The wei gh t g iv ento pa rti cu la r se nt en ci ng fact or s i s co m m it te d t o t he so un d d is cret io n o f th e d is tri ctco urt. Uni te d Sta tes v. Cla

y , 48 3 F .3d73 9, 7 43 (11 th Cir . 20 07 ). W e h av e h el d t ha t a d is tri ctco urt i s n otrequi redto st at e th atitha s ex pl ic it ly co ns id eredeach § 3 55 3( a) fa ct or . Uni te d Sta te s v. S co tt , 42 6 F .3d13 24 , 13 29 (1 1t h C ir. 2 00 5) . In ad di ti on , “ whe n t he di st ric t co urt i m po se s a s en te nc e wit hi n th e ad vi so ry

Gui de li ne s ra ng e, we or di na ril y wil l ex pe ctth atch oi ce t o b e a reas on ab le on e.” Ta ll ey , 43 1 F .3dat 7 88 . The di stric t co urt’s s en te nc e was pro cedur al ly reaso nabl e b ecau se it co ns id eredNgu y en ’s arg um en ts in m it ig at io n. Th e d is tri ctco urt’s s en te nc e was 8subs ta nt iv el y reas on ab le be cau se itco ns id eredth e se nt en ci ng fact or s, i nc lu di ng th e se rio us ne ss of Ng uyen’s co nduc t, h is hi st ory of v io le ntbe ha vi or , andth e n eed to pro te ctth e p ub li c fro m a he av il y arm eddru g d eal er. Mo reo ve r, Ngu y en ’s 36 4- m on th sen te nc e was well withi n t he 32 4- 40 5 m on th s ad vi so ry gu id el in e ran ge . Upo n re vi ew of

th e rec or d a ndco ns id erat io n o f th e p art ie s’ bri efs , we affi rm Ngu y en ’s con vi ct io n a ndsen te nc e. AFFIRMED.

9