FILED U.S. COURT OF AP P E A LS E LE V EN T HC IRC U IT AUGUST 29, 2007 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. 07- 11407 N on -A rgum entC al endar

________________________ D . C. D o c k e tN o . 0 6 - 0 0 1 2 5 - CR- O RL- 1 9 - K RS 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 R O L A N D E R C H A R L E S W E A V E R , a .k .a . R o e , D e f e n d a n t- A p p e lla n t.

________________________ A pp ea l fr om the U ni t ed S t at es D i stri ctC ou rt f orthe M i ddl e D i s tr i c tof F l or i da

_________________________ ( A u gu s t 29, 2007) B efo re D U B IN A , W IL S O N an d P R Y O R , C i rcu i tJu d g es. P E R C U R I A M: A ppe l l a ntR ol a nde rC ha r l e s W e a ve rappe a l s hi s 102- m onth s e nt e nc e f or2

c ons pi r i ng t o pos s e s s w i th i nt e ntt o di s tr i but e a s ubs t a nc e c ont a i ni ng c oc a i ne hydrochl ori de. W ea ver a rgues thathi s s ent ence shou l d n othave been enhanced ba s e d on pos s e s s i on of

a f i r e a r m , unde rU . S . S . G . § 2D 1. 1, be c a us e the gove rnm e nt v io la te d h is p le a a g r e e m e n t b y a d d in g th e e n h a n c e m e n t in r e ta lia tio n f o rh is obj e c t i on t o the pr e s e nt e nc e i nve s t i ga t i on r e por t( “ P S I ” ) . H e a l s o a r gue s tha the s houl d notha ve r e c e i ve d the f i r e a r m e nha nc e m e ntbe c a us e the j ur y di d notf i nd th a th e h a d p o s s e s s e d a f i r e a r m. We r e v i e w de no vo the l e ga l que s t i on of w he the ra pr e s um pt i on of p r o s e c u to r ia l v in d ic tiv e n e s s a r is e s u n d e rth e S u p r e m e C o u r t’s c a s e la w . U ni t ed Stat es v. B arner , 441 F . 3d 1310, 1315 ( 11th C i r . 2006) . I n a ddi t i on, w e r e vi e w the di stri ctcourt ’ s f

i nd i ng s of f

ac tconcerni ng prosec ut ori al vi nd i ct i veness for c l ea r e rr o r . See i d. I n B la ckl ed

g e v. P erry , the S upr e m e C our the l d tha ti tw a s a vi ol a t i on of the de f e nda nt ’ s due pr oc e s s r i ght s f orthe gove rnm e ntt o br i ng ne w a nd m or e s e r i ous c h a r g e s a g a in s t h im a f

te rth e d e f

e n d a n t w a s g r a n te d a tr ia l de no vo . 417 U . S . 21, 28- 29, 94 S . C t . 2098, 2103 ( 1974) . T he S upr e m e C our tnot e d, “ A pe r s on c onvi c t e d of

a n of f e ns e i s e nt i t l e d t o pur s ue hi s s t a tut or y r i ghtt o a tr i a l de novo, w i thoutappr e he ns i on tha tthe S t a t e w i l l r e t a l i a t e by s ubs t i tut i ng a m or e s e r i ous char ge for the ori gi nal on e, thu s s ubj ec t i ng hi m t o a si gn i fi ca nt l y i ncre as ed3

po t ent i al peri od of i ncar ce ra t i on . ” I d. a t 2 8 , 9 4 S . C t. a t 2 1 0 2 - 0 3 . T h e r e f o r e , a prosec ut or vi ol at es a def endant ’ s due proces s r i gh t s w hen add i t i on al char ges a re added as r et al i at i on “ for e xerc i si ng st atut ory or c on st i tut i on al ri gh t s. ” U ni t ed Stat es v. Sp ence , 7 1 9 F .2 d 3 5 8 , 3 6 1 ( 1 1 th C ir . 1 9 8 3 ) ; se e B ordenki rc her v . H ayes , 4 3 4 U . S . 3 5 7 , 3 6 3 , 9 8 S . C t . 6 6 3 , 6 6 8 (1 9 7 8 ). A p resu m p t i o n o f v i n d i ct i v en ess ap p li es w h en a p ro se cu to r b rin g s m o re se rio u s c h ar g es fo ll o w in g th e d ef en d an t’ s e xe r c i s e of

pr oc e dur a l r i ght s a nd the ci rc um st ance s dem on stra t e e i ther a ctual vi nd i ct i veness or a real i st i c fear o f v i n d i ct i v en ess. W h ere th e ci rcu m st an ces sh o w o n l y a r e a l i s t i c f

e a rof vi ndi c t i ve ne s s , how e ve r , the s tr e ngth of the pres um pt i on i s det erm i ned b y abal anci ng t es tw hi ch w ei gh s the need t o gi ve de f

e nda nt s f r e e dom t o de c i de w he the rt o appe a l a ga i ns tthe need t o g i ve the prosecut ors f re edom t o d ec i de w hether t o p rose cut e. Sp ence , 719 F . 2d a t361- 62 ( quot a t i on a nd a l t e r a t i on om i tt e d) . W he r e the pr e s um pt i on of

vi ndi c t i ve ne s s appl i e s , the gove rnm e ntm a y pr ove , thr ough o b je c tiv e e v id e n c e , th a t th e r e w a s n o a c tu a l v in d ic tiv e n e s s . I d. a t 3 6 2 ; B arner , 441 F . 3d a t1317 n. 6. “ V i ndi c t i ve ne s s i n thi s c ont e xtm e a ns the de s i r e t o puni s h a pers on for e xerc i si ng hi s r i gh t s. ” B arner , 441 F . 3d a t1315. T he S upr e m e C our ta l s o ha s he l d tha t“ w he n a pl e a r e s t s i n a ny s i gni f i c a nt degree on a prom i se or agre em entof the prosec ut or, so thati tca n b e s ai d t o b e par t of the i nd ucem entor consi dera t i on , such prom i se m ustbe ful fi l l ed. ” Sa nt ob el l o v. N ew Y o rk , 404 U . S . 257, 262, 92 S . C t . 495, 499 ( 1971) . F ur the r m or e , w he the rtheAlthough Wea ver’ s argument that he should not have rece ived the fire arm enhancement 1 beca use the g overnment sought the enhancement in order to retaliate ag ainst him for exercising hisri ghtsmay

beba rre d b y hissentenc ea

pp e al w aiver, wede c lin eto add re ss t heiss uebe c a

us e the g overnment has not made this argument on appeal. See Un ited S tates v. F or d, 270 F.3d 4 g o v er n m en t v io lated a p lea a g re em en t “ is ju d g ed ac co rd in g to th e d ef en d an t’ s re as on abl e und er st andi ng atthe t i m e he e nt er ed hi s pl ea . ” U ni t e d Stat e s v . T

ay l or , 77 F . 3d 36 8, 37 0 (11 th C i r. 19 96 ) ( qu ot at i on om i tt ed). H ow ever , w e w i l l enforce a n y s e n te n c e ap p e a l w a iv e r s c o n ta in e d w ith in a v a lid p le a a g r e e m e n t. U ni t ed S ta t es v. B u sh ert , 99 7 F . 2d 13 43 , 13 50 -51 (11 th C i r. 19 93 ). A s a n in itia l m a tte r , w e c o n c lu d e f r o m th e r e c o r d th a t th e g o v e rn m e n t d id notvi ol a t e W e a ve r ’ s pl e a a gr e e m e nt . T he pl e a a gr e e m e nts t a t e d tha tthe gove rnm e ntr e s e r ve d the r i ghtt o r e por t “ r e l e va ntf a c tua l i nf

or m a t i on, i nc l udi ng the t ot al i ty of the defendant ’ s c ri m i nal ac t i vi t i es , ” t o the courtand t he prob at i on offi ce , a nd di d noti ndi c a t e tha tthe gove rnm e nta gr e e d nott o hol d W e a ve rr e s pons i bl e f or the f i r e a r m . T he r e f

or e , w e c onc l ude tha tthe gove rnm e ntdi d notvi ol a t e the a g r e e m e n t b y p r e s e n tin g in f o r m a tio n to th e p r o b a tio n o f f ic e th a t r e s u lte d in W e a v e rb e in g h e ld a c c o u n tab le f o rth e f ir e a r m . See T

ay l or , 77 F . 3d a t370. W e a v e r ’s c la im th a t th e g o v e rn m e n t v in d ic tiv e ly r e ta lia te d a g a in s t h im f a ils because he has no tshow n thatthe di stri ctcourtcl ea rl y e rr ed i n fi nd i ng thathe had note s t a bl i s he d tha tthe f i r e a r m e nha nc e m e ntw a s appl i e d a s a r e s ul tof pr os e c ut or i a l vi ndi c t i ve ne s s . W e ne e d notde t e r m i ne w he the ra pr e s um pt i on of 11346, 1347 (11th Cir. 2001) (statingthat this court has a “well established r ule . . . that issues and contentions not t imely raised in the briefs are deemed aba ndoned.”) . 5 prosec ut ori al vi nd i ct i veness appl i es t o thi s c as e bec ause W ea ver’ s c l ai m fa i l s e ven i f apres um pt i on of vi nd i ct i veness appl i es . H er e, the go vernm entpres ent ed e vi de nc e tha tthe r e s ul t s of the s e a r c h of

W e a ve r ’ s hous e w e r e tur ne d ove rt o the pr oba t i on of

f i c e be c a us e the pr oba t i on of f i c e r e que s t e d a ddi t i ona l de t a i l s a boutthe c a s e i n r e s pons e t o W e a ve r ’ s obj e c t i ons t o the P S I . T hus , the gove rnm e nt p r e s e n te d e v id e n c e th a t th e in f o r m a tio n w a s n o t tu rn e d o v e ro u t o f v in d ic tiv e n e s s . See B arner , 4 4 1 F .3 d a t 1 3 1 7 n .6 . A ddi t i ona l l y , w e hol d tha tW e a ve r ’ s a r gum e nttha the s houl d notha ve re ce i ved t he fi re arm enhancem entbecause the j ury di d n otfi nd thathe had po ss es se d a fi re arm i s barre d b y the se nt ence appeal w ai ver provi si on of hi s pl ea a g r e e m e n t. See B u sh ert , 9 9 7 F .2 d at 1 3 5 0 -5 1 . A cc o rd in g ly, w e a ff irm W ea v er ’s se nt ence . AF F I RME D.