FILED U.S. COURT OF AP P E A LS E LE V EN T HC IRC U IT JULY 6, 2006 THOMAS K. KAH

N CLERK [ DO NO T P UB L I S H] I N THE UN I TE D STATE S C OU RT OF APPE ALS F O R T H E E L E V E N T H C IR C U IT

________________________ N o. 04- 15124 N on -A rgum entC al endar

________________________ D . C . D ocketN o. 02 -005 91 -C R -3-1 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 L E R O Y E V A N S , 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 o rth e N o r th e rn D is tr ic t o f G e o r g ia

_________________________ ( Ju l y 6, 2006) B efo re H U L L , M A R C U S an d W IL S O N , C i rcu i tJu d g es. P E R C U R I A M: D ef endantLer oy Ev ans app ea l s hi s c on vi ct i on s a nd concurr entthi rty- se ven2

m o n th s e n te n c e s f

o llo w in g a ju ry tria l f

o r th e f o llo w in g o f

f e n s e s : (1 ) c o n s p ira c y to ob t ai n f r audu l entstud entvi sa s a nd i nd uce a l i ens t o u nl aw f ul l y r es i de i n the U ni t ed S tates, in v io lati o n o f

1 8 U .S .C . § § 3 7 1 , 1 5 4 6 (a) an d 8 U .S .C . § 1 3 2 4 (a)( 1 )( A )( iv ), ( a ) ( 1 ) ( B) ( i ) ; ( 2 ) o b t a i n i n g f r a u d u l e n ts tu d e n tv i s a s , i n v i o l a t i o n o f 1 8 U. S . C. § 1 5 4 6 (a ); a n d (3 ) in d u c in g a lie n s to u n la w f u lly re s id e in th e U n ite d S ta te s , in v io lati o n o f

8 U .S .C . § 1 3 2 4 (a)( 1 )( A )( iv ), (a)( 1 )( B )( i) . A f ter r ev iew , w e a f

f irm Eva ns ’ s c onvi c t i ons , va c a t e hi s s e nt e nc e s , a nd r e m a nd f orr e s e nt e nc i ng. I . BA CK GR OU ND A . C onvi c t i ons B e c a us e Eva ns ’ s c onvi c t i ons i nvol ve s tude ntvi s a s , w e r e vi e w br i e f l y the stud entvi sapr oces s. I n o r derf ora f or ei gn nat i on al t o b e a dm i tt ed i nt o the U ni t ed St a t e s t o a tt e nd c ol l e ge , the f or e i gn na t i ona l m us tbe i s s ue d a n I - 20 f orm f r om the c ol l e ge t o w hi c h he ha s be e n a dm i tt e d. H e the n m us tappl y f ora s tude ntvi s a a tthe U n ite d S ta te s E m b a s s y in h is h o m e c o u n try . O n c e is s u e d , th e s tu d e n t v is a is v a lid f orthe dur a t i on of

the f or e i gn na t i ona l ’ s s tudi e s i n the U ni t e d St a t e s , us ua l l y l a s t i ng f o u r to f iv e y e a rs . I f the f or e i gn na t i ona l i s a l r e a dy pr e s e nti n the U ni t e d St a t e s , the f or e i gn na t i ona l , be f

or e appl y i ng f

ora vi s a , m us ts how tha the i s l a w f ul l y he r e by pr e s e nt i ng a n I - 94 c a r d, a nd the n m us tpe t i t i on the I m m i gr a t i on a nd N a tur a l i z a t i on S er v ice (“IN S ”) to ch an g e h is ex isti n g statu s to stu d en t statu s b y s u b m itti n g a f o rm3

I - 539. A tthe s a m e t i m e , the f or e i gn na t i ona l m us tha ve appl i e d f ora dm i s s i on t o a col l ege, and t he col l ege m ustappr ov e the col l ege a dm i ss i on appl i ca t i on and i ss ue an I - 20 f orm , w hi c h i s s i gne d by the s c hool ’ s de s i gna t e d s c hool of f i c i a l ( “ D SO ” ) a nd f orw a r de d t o the I N S. The I N S w oul d the n i s s ue a s tude ntvi s a . I f the f or e i gn na t i ona l doe s note nr ol l orw i thdr a w s f r om the c ol l e ge , the D SO not i f i e s the I N S, w hi ch then r evok es the stud entvi sa . D e f e nda ntE va ns w a s the D S O f orf or e i gn s tude nt s a tM or r i s B r ow n C ol l e ge ( “M B C ” ) in A tla n ta f

r o m J a n u a ry 1 9 9 8 th r o u g h S e p te m b e r2 0 0 1 . E v a n s a n d h is c o- de f e nda nt s c a rr i e d outa s c he m e t o ha ve M B C f r a udul e nt l y i s s ue I - 20 i m m i gr a t i on f

or m s on be ha l f

of undoc um e nt e d a l i e ns , orf or e i gn na t i ona l s pr e s e nt in th e c o u n try w ith o u t I - 9 4 c a r d s , w h ic h a llo w e d th e a lie n s to u n la w f u lly o b ta in s tude ntvi s a s f

r om the I N S e ve n though the y w e r e notappl y i ng t o ora tt e ndi ng M B C . C o- de f

e nda nt s w oul d pr e pa r e the ne c e s s a ry pape rw or k s o tha tthe I - 20 f o r m s c o u ld b e is s u e d . O nce the fr audu l entpaperw ork w as se ntt o h i m , defe nd antE vans’ s r ol e w as t o s i gn the f

a l s e c ol l e ge e nr ol l m e ntappl i c a t i ons i n hi s of f i c i a l D S O c apa c i ty a nd i s s ue the I - 20 f

or m s i ndi c a t i ng tha tthe f or e i gn na t i ona l s ora l i e ns w e r e t o be s tude nt s a tM B C e ve n though the y w e r e notgoi ng t o be . E va ns the n f or w a r de d the f r a u d u le n t f

o r m s to th e I N S , w h ic h is s u e d th e u n la w f u lly o b ta in e d s tu d e n t v is a s .4

E va ns a nd hi s c o- de f

e nda nt s c ha r ge d e a c h f

or e i gn na t i ona l be tw e e n $2, 500 a nd $ 5 ,0 0 0 , w h ic h th e y d iv id e d a m o n g th e m s e lv e s , to p r e p a r e th e p ap e rw o r k s o th a t a s tu d e n t v is a w o u ld b e is s u e d to th e m . A f te re x a m in in g a lis t o f

f o r e ig n n a tio n a ls w ho ha d r e c e i ve d I - 20 f or m s f r om M B C a nd the I N S f i l e s f ors om e of

the f or e i gn n at i o n al s o n th e l i st , th e IN S i d en t i fi ed m o re th an fi fty frau d u l en tv i sa ap p l i cat i o n s. A ttr i a l , W i l l i a m S he pa r d, a pr of e s s ora tM B C a nd i t s l e ga l c ouns e l f r om 1999 t o 2001, t e s t i f

i e d tha tM B C r e c e i ve d a gr a nd j ur y s ubpoe na f r om the g o v e rn m e n t in N o v e m b e r2 0 0 1 , r e q u e s tin g a d m is s io n ap p lic a tio n s , f in a n c ia l a id appl i ca t i on s, re gi stra t i on and at t endance re cords, cl as s s chedul es , tra nscr i pt s, and I2 0 f o r m s f o rap p r o x im a te ly 1 5 0 f

o r e ig n s tu d e n ts . T h e s u b p o e n a h a d a r e tu rn d a te o f D e c e m b e r1 8 , 2 0 0 1 . D e f e n d a n t E v a n s w a s r e s p o n s ib le f o ra s s e m b lin g a n d p r o v id in g th e r e c o r d s . E va ns i ndi c a t e d tha the w oul d ge tthe doc um e nt s t oge the r , butS he pa r d di d not re ce i ve them by the D ec em ber 18 d ea dl i ne. S hepard then con t ac t ed the U ni t ed S t a t e s A tt orne y ’ s O f

f i c e a nd w a s gr a nt e d a ddi t i ona l t i m e t o r e s pond t o the s ubpoe na . S he pa r d s t i l l di d notr e c e i ve the r e c or ds f r om E va ns a nd r e que s t e d a nd r e c e iv e d a s e c o n d a n d , la te r , p o s s ib ly a th ir d e x te n s io n . S h e p a r d m e t w ith de f e nda ntE va ns s e ve r a l t i m e s , a nd e a c h t i m e E va ns a dvi s e d tha the w a s w or ki ng o n g e ttin g th e r e c o r d s .5

O n J ul y 9, 2002, M B C r e c e i ve d a s e c ond s ubpoe na , w hi c h r e que s t e d the s a m e i nf or m a t i on a s the f

i r s ts ubpoe na f

ora n a ddi t i ona l 150 f

or e i gn s tude nt s a nd ha d a r e tur n da t e of

A ugus t20, 2002. O n S he pa r d’ s “ f i na l vi s i t ” t o de f

e nda nt E va ns ’ s of

f i c e , E va ns pr ovi de d S he pa r d w i th f or ty f ol de r s c ont a i ni ng the f

i l e s f or tw o s tude nt s l i s t e d on the s ubpoe na s . S he pa r d obs e r ve d de f e nda ntE va ns pr i ntout I - 2 0 f o rm s d a te d D e c e m b e r1 7 , 2 0 0 1 , p u t th e m in a f o ld e r , a n d h a n d th e m to S hepard. E vans t ol d S hepard thatthe form s had the sa m e dat e bec ause he w as havi ng prob l em s w i th h i s c om pu t ersoftw ar e. O n cross -e xam i nat i on , S hepard c oul d notr e m e m be rthe da t e E va ns pr ovi de d the I - 20 f or m s da t e d D e c e m be r17, 2001. A f t e rthe gove rnm e ntr e s t e d i t s c a s e , S he pa r d w a s r e c a l l e d by de f e nda nt E va ns a nd t e s t i f

i e d tha the a nd C a r ol y n J a c ks on, w ho w a s M B C ’ s r e gi s tr a ra tthe t i m e , de l i ve r e d the doc um e nt s t o the gr a nd j ury . S he pa r d s t a t e d tha t“ a s i gni f i c a nt a m ountof

t i m e pa s s e d” be tw e e n r e c e i ptof the s ubpoe na a nd de l i ve ry of the r e c or ds . S pe c i f

i c a l l y , S he pa r d t e s t i f

i e d: I d o n ’t r e c a ll th e d a te th a t w e w e n t to th e g r a n d ju ry . I w ill s a y a g a in w hatI have t o say on thi s i s very s i m pl e . . . and t hati s w e r ec ei ved th e s u b p o e n a d u c e s te c u m . I a tte m p te d o n a n u m b e ro f o c c a s io n s to getthe i nform at i on fr om M r. E vans, w as un succ es sf ul . I e ven asked f o ra n e x te n s io n o f

tim e . E v e n tu a l l y o n e n i g h tI r e c e i v e d i ta b o u t8 : 0 0 o ’ c l o c k . He pr i nt e d i touta nd puti ti n f ol de r s a nd ga ve i tt o m e , a nd w e br ought th a t in f o r m a tio n to th e g r a n d ju ry . I d o n ’t r e m e m b e rth e e x a c t d a te it6

w as. J a c ks on t e s t i f

i e d tha ts he , S he pa r d, a nd E va ns de l i ve r e d the r e c or ds t o the gr a nd j ury on a da y w he n “ [ i ] tw a s ve ry c ol d, l i ke i ti s t oda y [ , N ove m be r24, 2003] . ” S he c oul d notr e c a l l the s pe c i f i c da t e , othe rtha n the f

a c ttha ti tw a s c ol d out s i de a tthe t i m e. F ol l ow i ng the c l os e of e vi de nc e , the di s tr i c tc our tt ol d the j ury tha t“ [ d] ur i ng the tr i a l of

the c a s e , the r e ha s be e n t e s t i m ony c onc e rni ng r e c or d- ke e pi ng a nd re po rt i ng re qu i re m ent s c on ce rni ng stud ent s w i th F -1 vi sa s. T here fore , the court f i nds i tappr opr i a t e t o gi ve y ou i ns truc t i ons c onc e rni ng the s e m a tt e r s . ” B a s e d on 8 C . F . R . § 2 1 4 . 3 (g ), th e d i stri ctco u rtsp eci fi cal l y i n stru ct ed th e j u ry: F eder al R egul at i on s r equi re a s choo l t o k ee p rec ords re l at i ng t o eac h F - 1 s tu d e n t to w h o m it h a s is s u e d a F o r m I - 2 0 w h ile th e s tu d e n t is a tt e ndi ng the s c hool a nd unt i l i tnot i f i e s the I m m i gr a t i on a nd N a tu r a liz a tio n S e r v ic e , th e I N S , th a t th e s tu d e n t is n o t p u r s u in g a f u ll c our s e of s tudy i n a c c or da nc e w i th the r e por t i ng r e qui r e m e nt s a bout w h ic h I w ill n o w in s tru c t y o u . T he D e s i gna t e d S c hool O f f i c i a l m us tm a ke i nf

or m a t i on a va i l a bl e t o the I N S upon r e que s t . T he I N S w i l l pe r i odi c a l l y s e nd ea ch sc ho ol a l i stof al l F -1 stud ent s w ho , ac cordi ng t o i t s r ec ords, ar e a tt e ndi ng tha ts c hool . A D e s i gna t e d S c hool O f f i c i a l a tthe s c hool m us tnot e on the l i s tw he the rornote a c h s tude nton the l i s ti s pur s ui ng a f u ll c o u r s e o f

s tu d y . T h e D e s ig n a te d S c h o o l O f f ic ia l m u s t c o m p ly w i th the r e que s tw i thi n 60 da y s of the da t e of

the r e que s t . T he s c hool m us tke e p a r e c or d of

ha vi ng c om pl i e d w i th thi s r e por t i ng re qu i re m entfor a tl ea ston e y ea r. T h e j u ry co n v i ct ed E v an s o n al l co u n t s.7

A f t e rthe tr i a l , E va ns f

i l e d a m ot i on f

orne w tr i a l pur s ua ntt o F e de r a l R ul e of C r i m i na l P r oc e dur e 33, a r gui ng, a m ong othe rthi ngs , tha tthe di s tr i c tc our te rr e d by al l ow i ng the go vernm entt o rel y on S hepard’ s t es t i m on y, w hi ch E vans al l eged w as p e r ju r o u s . T h e d is tr ic t c o u r t d e n ie d th e m o tio n . B. Se nt e nc i ng T h e p resen t en ce i n v est i g at i o n rep o rt(“ P S I”) assi g n ed E v an s a t o t al o ffen se le v e l o f tw e n ty , c o n s is tin g o f

( 1 ) a b a s e o f

f e n s e le v e l o f

tw e lv e , p u r s u a n t to U . S . S . G . § 2L 1. 1; ( 2) a s i x- l e ve l i nc r e a s e unde rU . S . S . G . § 2L 1. 1( b) ( 2) ( B ) , f or harbori ng m ore than t w enty- fi ve bu tl es s than n i nety- ni ne i l l egal al i ens; and (3) a tw o- l e ve l upw a r d a dj us tm e ntunde rU . S . S . G . § 3B 1. 3 f ora bus e of

a pos i t i on of tru s t. E v a n s ’s c r im in a l h is to ry c a te g o ry o f I I a n d to ta l o f

f e n s e le v e l o f

tw e n ty p r o d u c e d a G u id e lin e s r a n g e o f th ir ty - s e v e n to f

o r ty - s ix m o n th s ’ im p r is o n m e n t. P ri or t o sent enci ng , E vans fi l ed a m ot i on t o d ec l ar e the G ui del i nes uncon st i tut i on al b a s e d o n B la k e ly v . W a s h in g to n , 5 4 2 U .S . 2 9 6 , 1 2 4 S . C t. 2 5 3 1 ( 2 0 0 4 ) . A t s e n te n c in g o n A u g u s t 3 1 , 2 0 0 4 , th e d is tr ic t c o u r t d e n ie d E v a n s ’s B la k e ly m ot i on , fi nd i ng thatthe di stri ctcourtw as bo un d b y the G ui del i nes. T he di stri ct co u rtn o t ed th atE v an s h ad b een i n v o l v ed i n a frau d sch em e i n th e l at e 1 9 8 0 s, tho ug h h e had al so been “ i nv ol ved i n w orthw hi l e e nd ea vo rs . ” T he di stri ctcourt det erm i ned t hata s ent ence atthe l ow end o f the G ui del i nes r ange w as “ fa i r und erWe reviewthe leg al cor rec tness of a jury

instruction de novo, but defer to the district 1 court on que stions of phrasingabsent a n abuse of

discretion. United States v. Prather, 205 F .3d 1265, 1270 (11th Cir. 2000). “We review the district cour t’s ref usal to g ive a requeste d instruction for abuseof discretion.” United States v. Sirang , 70 F.3d 588, 593 ( 11th Cir. 1995). “On a ppeal, weexamine whether the jury charg es, considered as a

whole, suff

iciently instructed the jury so that the jurors under stood the issues and were not misled. However, if no objec tion to the instructions was raised at trial, weonly review for plain error .” United States v. Starke , 62 F.3d 1374, 1380 ( 11th Cir. 1995) (citation and quotation mar ks omitt ed). 8 the c i r c um s t a nc e s , ” a nd s e nt e nc e d E va ns t o thi r ty - s e ve n m onths ’ i m pr i s onm e nt and t hree ye ar s’ supervi se d rel ea se on ea ch coun t , t o run concurrent l y. T he di stri ct courtdi d n otst at e w hether i tw ou l d h ave i m po se d a di ff er entse nt ence un der a n a dvi s ory G ui de l i ne s s c he m e . E va ns t i m e l y appe a l e d. I I . DI S CUS S I ON E va ns r a i s e s thr e e i s s ue s on appe a l . W e a ddr e s s e a c h i n tur n. A . Ju r y I n s t r u c t i on B as e d on 8 C . F . R . § 214. 3( g) E va ns a r gue s tha tthe di s tr i c tc our te rr e d by i ns truc t i ng the j ur y a boutthe c i vi l r e c or d ke e pi ng r e qui r e m e nt s s e tf or th a t8 C . F . R . § 214. 3( g) . E va ns c ont e nds tha tthe di s tr i c tc our ts houl d ha ve s pe c i f i e d tha ta vi ol a t i on of

the r e por t i ng r e qui r e m e nt s w a s notc r i m i na l t o pr e ve ntthe j ur y f r om c onvi c t i ng hi m f

or v io la tin g a c iv il r e g u la tio n . H e a ls o a s s e r ts th a t th e d is tr ic t c o u r t in a c c u r a te ly i nt e rpr e t e d the r e gul a t i on i n the i ns truc t i on a nd f a i l e d t o pr ope r l y e xpl a i n the reg u l at i o n t o th e j u ry. 1 T h e § 2 1 4 . 3 (g ) reg u l at i o n ati ssu e st at es:9

A n ap p r o v e d s c h o o l m u s t k e e p r e c o r d s c o n ta in in g c e r ta in s p e c if ic in f o r m a tio n a n d d o c u m e n ts r e la tin g to e a c h F - 1 o rM - 1 s tu d e n t to w h o m it h a s is s u e d a F o r m I - 2 0 A o rI - 2 0 M w h ile th e s tu d e n t is a tte n d in g th e s c h o o l a n d u n til th e s c h o o l n o tif ie s th e S e r v ic e , in a c c or da nc e w i th the r e qui r e m e nt s of pa r a gr aph ( g) ( 2) of

thi s s e c t i on, tha tthe s tude nti s notpur s ui ng a f ul l c our s e of

s tudy . T he s c hool m us tke e p a r e c or d of

ha vi ng c om pl i e d w i th the r e por t i ng re qu i re m ent s f

or atl ea ston e y ea r. . . . T he desi gn at ed sc ho ol offi ci al m us tm a ke the i nf

or m a t i on a nd doc um e nt s r e qui r e d by thi s pa r a gr aph a v a ilab le to a n d f

u rn is h th e m to a n y S e r v ic e o f f ic e ru p o n r e q u e s t. 8 C .F .R . § 2 1 4 .3 ( g ) ( 1 ) . In thi s c as e, the di stri ctcourti nstruct ed the j ury thatthe re gu l at i on re qu i re d th e D S O to m a in ta in r e c o r d s “w h ile th e s tu d e n t is a tte n d in g th e s c h o o l a n d u n til it n o tif ie s [ th e I N S ] th a t th e s tu d e n t is n o t p u r s u in g a f u ll c o u r s e o f

s tu d y in a c c or da nc e w i th the r e por t i ng r e qui r e m e nt s . ” I ts t a t e d tha tthe D S O “ m us tm a ke i nf or m a t i on a va i l a bl e t o the I N S upon r e que s t , ” a nd tha tthe “ s c hool m us tke e p a r e c or d of ha vi ng c om pl i e d w i th thi s r e por t i ng r e que s tf ora tl e a s tone y e a r . ” T he i ns truc t i on gi ve n by the di s tr i c tc our ta c c ur a t e l y de pi c t e d the l a ngua ge of the r e gul a t i on, s uc h tha ti tw a s a c orr e c ts t a t e m e ntof l a w , a nd the r e w a s no a bus e of di s c r e t i on a s t o the phr a s i ng. S e e U ni t e d S t a t e s v. P r a the r , 205 F . 3d 1265, 1270 (11t h C i r. 20 00 ). T h is le a v e s th e is s u e a s to w h e th e rth e in s tru c tio n c o n f u s e d th e ju ry . W e c onc l ude tha ti tdi d notbe c a us e the di s tr i c tc our ta l s o c l e a r l y i ns truc t e d the j ur y on the s pe c i f

i c e l e m e nt s of

the c ha r ge d of

f e ns e s , di d notr e f

e r e nc e the r e c or dke e pi ngAlthough Evans claims that he objected to the jury instruction in the district court, Evans 2 provides no cite to where heobjected be forethe instruction was g iven. Evans also argues that thedis tric t c ourt

sh ould h aveg iven a

n in str uc tio n th at § 2 14 .3 (g) w a s a c ivi l st atut e , n ot a c rimin al on e , b ut w ealsoc ann ot l oc atea re qu e st f or su c h a n in str uc tio n. Th is w ould n or

mally limitreview to plain error. However, even if objec tions were timely made or the instruction re qu e ste d, wereview o nly fo r a bu seof dis c retio n, and

our re view o f t

hejur y ins tr uc tio ns a s a whole leads us to conclude that the district c ourt ac ted within its di scretion. Specifically, the district court’s repeate d instructions reg ardingthe re asonabledoubt standard a nd the district court’s de lineation of the e lements of the of fense s listed in the indictment withoutfurther mention of § 214.3(g) or its requirements show that the district cour t impli citly

instructed the jur y that th ere quire mentsof

§ 2 14 .3 (g) w e reno t e le mentsof thec ha rg e d o ff e ns e s o r o therwise indicative of guilt. S ee Sira ng , 70 F.3d at 593 (ref

usal to g ive instruction is not abuse of discretion if, among other thing s, other instructions addre ssed the substanceof the re quested instruction). “We review the district cour t’s denial of a

motion for new trial under a n abuse of 3 discretion standa

rd.” United States v. Michael, 17 F .3d 1383, 1384 (11th Cir. 1994). 10 re qu i re m enti n con nect i on w i th the charged offe nses , and speci fi ed thatE vans w as bei ng tri ed as t o o nl y the offens es se tforth i n the i nd i ctm ent . T he di stri ctcourt a l s o r e pe a t e dl y i nf

or m e d the j ury tha ti tm us tf i nd E va ns gui l ty be y ond a r e a s o n a b l e d o u b t . T h e r e f o r e , a f t e rr e v i e wi n g th e j u ry i n s tru c t i o n s a s a wh o l e , we concl ud e thatthe j ury w as no tm i sl ed by the § 2 14 . 3(g) i nstruct i on . S ee U ni t ed 2 S t at es v. S t arke, 62 F . 3d 13 74 , 13 80 (11t h C i r. 19 95 ). B. M o t i o n f

o r N e w Tr i a l Ba s e d o n She pa r d’ s Te s t i m o ny E v a n s a r g u e s th a t th e d is tr ic t c o u r t ab u s e d its d is c r e tio n b y d e n y in g h is m ot i on for anew tri al i n l i gh tof al l egedl y kno w i ng l y per j urou s t es t i m on y e l i ci t ed f r o m S h e p a r d b y th e g o v e rn m e n t. 3

“ A co n v i ct i o n m u stb e o v ertu rn ed w h i ch rest s i n p artu p o n th e k n o w i n g u se11

of f a l s e t e s t i m ony i f

the r e i s a ny r e a s ona bl e l i ke l i hood tha tthe f a l s e t e s t i m ony c oul d ha ve a f

f e c t e d the j udgm e ntof

the j ur y . ” D e M a r c o v. U ni t e d S t a t e s , 928 F . 2d 1074, 1077 ( 11th C i r . 1991) . H ow e ve r , w e ha ve r e f us e d “ t o i m put e know l e dge of fa l si ty t o the prosecut or w here a key go vernm entw i tness ’ t es t i m on y i s i n con fl i ct w i th a nothe r ’ s s t a t e m e ntort e s t i m ony . ” U ni t e d S t a t e s v. M i c ha e l , 17 F . 3d 1383, 1385 ( 11th C i r . 1994) . “ T he f a c ttha tthe w i tne s s e s ’ r e c ol l e c t i ons va r i e d a s t o one a s p e c t o f th e [ c a s e ] f

a lls f a rs h o r t o f

e s tab lis h in g th a t th e g o v e rn m e n t k n o w in g ly pres ent ed fa l se t es t i m on y t o the j ury . . . . ” I d. A dd i t i on al l y, w here tw o w i tness es gi ve confl i ct i ng or cont ra di ct ory t es t i m on y, the j ury i s e nt i t l ed t o w ei gh them a ga i ns te a c h othe rt o de c i de w hi c h i s c r e di bl e . S e e U ni t e d S t a t e s v. K e l l e y , 412 F . 3d 1240, 1247 ( 11th C i r . 2005) . T he c r e di bi l i ty of w i tne s s e s i s the e xc l us i ve p r o v in c e o f

th e ju ry . I d . A r e v ie w o f

th e r e c o r d r e v e a ls th a t S h e p a r d d id n o t te s tif y in c o n s is te n tly w i th res pectt o h i s abi l i ty t o t i m el y c om pl y w i th the subp oena. W hen S hepard w as f i r s tque s t i one d aboutw he the rhe w a s a bl e t o r e tur n the s ubpoe na e d r e c or ds on t i m e , he i ndi c a t e d tha the w a s una bl e t o c om pl y w i th the s ubpoe na w i thi n the addi t i on al t i m e the go vernm entprov i ded. O n cross -e xam i nat i on , S hepard t es t i fi ed thathe coul d n otre m em ber the dat e on w hi ch E vans gave hi m the I- 20 form s dat ed D ec em b er1 7 , 2 0 0 1 . W h en E v an s r ec alled S h ep ar d , S h ep ar d testified th at “aWe note that in his closing argument Evans argued that Shepard’s testimony was 4 incre dib ledu eto inc on sis tenc ie s. 12 s i gni f i c a nta m ountof

t i m e pa s s e d” be tw e e n r e c e i ptof the s ubpoe na a nd de l i ve ry of the r e c or ds a nd tha the c oul d notr e m e m be rthe e xa c tda t e he de l i ve r e d the r e c or ds t o the grand j ury. Ja ckson al so coul d n otre m em ber the exactdat e the re cords w er e d e liv e r e d to th e g r a n d ju ry , b u t b e lie v e d it w a s a c o ld d a y . S he pa r d’ s t e s t i m ony doe s notne c e s s a r i l y c onf l i c tw i th J a c ks on’ s ow n va gue te s tim o n y r e g a r d in g th e d a te th e r e c o r d s w e r e d e liv e r e d to th e g r a n d ju ry . E v e n if S h e p a r d ’s te s tim o n y d id c o n f lic t w ith J a c k s o n ’s , th e c o n f lic t— s p e c if

ic a lly , th e ir r e c ol l e c t i ons a s t o w he n the y de l i ve r e d the r e c or ds

— doe s nots how tha tthe g o v e rn m e n t k n o w in g ly p r e s e n te d f a ls e te s tim o n y . M ic h a e l, 1 7 F .3 d a t 1 3 8 5 . F ur the r , the j ury , a s the s ol e a rbi t e rof c r e di bi l i ty , w a s e nt i t l e d t o be l i e ve one w i tn ess o v er an o th er an d o th erw i se reso l v e an y co n fl i ct i n g t est i m o n y. S ee K el l ey, 4 4 1 2 F .3 d a t 1 2 4 7 . T h e r e f o r e , w e c o n c lu d e th a t th e d is tr ic t c o u r t d id n o t ab u s e its d i scret i o n b y d en yi n g E v an s’ s m o t i o n fo r n ew tri al b ased o n S h ep ard ’ s t est i m o n y. C . S en te n ci n g U n d er B oo k er E vans ar gu es thatthe di stri ctcourtcom m i tt ed const i tut i on al error und er U n ite d S ta te s v . B o o k e r , 5 4 3 U .S . 2 2 0 , 1 2 5 S . C t. 7 3 8 ( 2 0 0 5 ) , b y e n h a n c in g h is se nt ence base d o n fac t s notprov en t o a j ury nor adm i tt ed by hi m . E vans w as se nt ence d o n A ug ust31 , 20 04 , un der am andat ory G ui del i nes s ys t em beforeWe do not sugg est that on rema nd the district court must impose any particula r sentenc e 5 or that the district cour

t is not free to impose the same sentenc e. Furthermore, as this is a limited rema nd to permit the district court to deter mine what sentence is re asonableand appropriate a fter consideringthe now-advisory Guidelines ra

ng e and thefac tors set forth in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a), Evans may

not re-a rgue issues alre ady

or nec essarily

decide d duringthe first sentenc ing which either ha ve been aff

irmed in this appeal or

could havebeen but were not raised by him during this appeal. SeeUnited States v. Davis, 329 F .3d 1250, 1252 (11th Cir. 2003) (e xplaining that when the a

ppellate c ourt issues a limited mandate, “the trial cour t is restricted in the rang e of issues it may

consider on remand” ). 13 B oo ker w as deci ded. T he go vernm entconcedes i n i t s bri ef thatthe di stri ctcourt c o m m itte d c o n s titu tio n a l B o o k e re rr o r , th a t it c a n n o t s h o w b e y o n d a r e a s o n a b le do ub tthatthe error w as harm l es s, and t hatE vans i s e nt i t l ed t o h ave hi s s ent ence v a c a te d a n d h is c a s e r e m a n d e d f o rr e s e n te n c in g . W e a g r e e . A l tho ug h w e vac at e E vans’ s s ent ence s, w e poi ntou tthatthe const i tut i on al B o o k e re rr o rs te m s n o t f r o m th e d is tr ic t c o u r t’s e x tr a - v e r d ic t e n h a n c e m e n ts in th is c a s e , butf

r om the us e of

thos e e xtr a - ve r di c te nha nc e m e nt s i n s e nt e nc i ng E va ns unde ra m a nda t ory G ui de l i ne s s c he m e . F ur the r , on appe a l E va ns doe s notc ont e nd th a t th e d is tr ic t c o u r t m is ap p lie d th e G u id e lin e s in c a lc u la tin g h is G u id e lin e s r a n g e . T hu s, on re m and t he di stri ctcourti s r equi re d t o sent ence E vans un der a n adv i sory G u i d el i n es reg i m e an d sh al l co n si d er th e G u i d el i n es ran g e o f th i rty-sev en t o fo rtys i x m onths a nd “ othe rs t a tut ory c onc e rns a s w e l l , s e e [ 18 U . S . C . ] § 3553( a ) ( S upp. 2004) . ” B ooke r , 543 U . S . a t246, 125 S . C t . a t757. 5 I I I . CONCL US I ON F o r th e ab o v e reaso n s, w e affi rm E v an s’ s co n v i ct i o n s, v acat e h i s sen t en ces,14

a nd r e m a nd thi s c a s e f

orr e s e nt e nc i ng. A FFI R M ED I N PA R T; VA C A TED A N D R EM A N D ED I N PA R T.