FIL ED U.S. COURT OF APPEAL S EL EVENTHCI RCUI T OCTOB ER 19, 2011 J OHN L EY CL ERK [DO NOT PUBLISH] IN THE U

NITED STATE S COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELE VENTH CIRCUIT

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ No. 1 0- 14 90 2 Non -Arg um en t Ca le nd ar

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ D.C. Dock etNo. 1 :0 9- cr-0 01 58 -S-GGB- 1 UNITED STAT ES OF AMERIC A, Pl ai nt iff -Ap pe ll ee, ve rs us EDMOND HUDMOND SMITH, IV, a.k .a. Edd ie Sm it h, 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 forth e So ut he rnDis tri ctof Al ab am a

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ (Oct ob er 1 9, 2 01 1) Befo re EDMONDSON, CARNES an d KRAVITC H, Circ ui t J ud ge s. PER CURI AM:Edm on d S mit h, IV, ap pe al s h is co nv ic ti on s an d 7 80 -m on th sen te nc e fo r two

co un ts of r et al ia ti on ag ai ns t fe de ral off ic ia ls by thre at , invi ol at io n o f 18 U.S.C. § 11 5( a)(1 )(B) , two co un ts of s ol ic it at io n t o c omm itm ur de r, in vi ol at io n o f 18 U.S.C. § 3 73 (a), an d o ne co un t o f m ak in g fa ls e st at em en ts to fed eral ag en ts , in vi ol at io n o f 18 U.S.C. § 1 00 1. Sm it h c on te nd s tha t the di st ric t co urt ab us edit s di sc ret io n b y

adm it ti ng th e te st im on y

of t wo wi tn es se s re ga rd in g t he ir r eact io ns aft er h eari ng fro m

fed eral ag en ts ab ou t the th reat s tha t Sm it h h adm ad e ag ai ns t th em . Sm it h a ls o c on te nd s tha t h is sen te nc e is pro cedur al ly andsubs tant iv el y un reas on ab le . I. InMarc h 2 00 9 S m it h was co nv ic te d a fte r a jury tri al of b ei ng a fel on in po ss es si on of a m

m un it io n. As si st an t Un it edSta te s At to rn ey Greg ory Bo rd en ki rch er s erv edas l eadpro se cu to r fo r Sm ith’s ca se , andUni te d S ta te s Dis tri ctJu dg e Will iam

Ste el e p res id edov er the tri al . Whi le injail awai ti ng 1 se nt en ci ng forhi s co nv ic ti on , Sm it h m ad e m ul ti pl e th reat s o n t he li ve s o f Ju dg e St eel e an d AUSA Bo rd en ki rch er i n t he pre se nc e o f hi s ce ll m at e, Pau l Al be rt.

J udg e Steele ha d also preside d over a 2007 civil case in which a de fault judgment was 1 enter ed ag ainst Smi th for over $1 milli on. 2Alb ert , who was s ch edul edto be rel eas edfro m pri so n abo uta weekbe fo re Sm ith’s s en te nc e h eari ng , in fo rm edlaw en fo rcem en t au th or it ie s o f th e th reat s, an d th e n ex t d ay

a fed eral ag en t equi pp edhi m with areco rd in g d ev ic e. Thatde vi ce reco rd edtwo co nv ers at io ns be twee n Al be rt a ndSm it h i n wh ic h S mit h d is cu ss edin de ta il hi s p la ns to hi re a “ hi t m an ” th ro ug h Al be rt t o k il l J ud ge Ste el e, Bo rd en ki rch er, an d afew o th er i nd iv idua ls who were i nv ol ve d i n h is cas e. For 2 ex am pl e, in di sc us si ng ho w th e m ur de rs were t o b e carrie d o utSm ith s ta te d: The y ne ed to ne ve r be ab l e t o f u ck in ’ fi nd a ha ir, a sp la tt er, or fu ck in ’ bu ll etinth e wal l, fu ck in ’ no th in g. Th ey ne edto be wip ed of

f th e fac e of th e eart h. The y ne ed to go f u c k in ’ lo ok in fu ck in ’ Kath m an du , fu ck in g ki ng do m fu ck in ’ co m e, whe re the fuc k i n Afr ic a, Peru , Braz il , th e fu ck in ’ Him al ay an s, [s ic ] whe reev er [s ic ] th ey fu ck in ’ lo ok , an d lo ok , andlo ok , andlo ok , andlo ok , andlo ok , andlo ok , th ey do n’t fi nd an y fu ck in ’, ne ed s to be no fu ck in ’ he ad s. Need s to be no fu ck in ’ skul ls . No fu ck in ’ te eth. No bo ne s. The y ne ed to be , we’re no t pa y in ’ fo r th em jus t to fu ck in ’ b e ki ll ed . W e’re pa y in g fo r a pe rfec t fu ck in ’ eras in g. The on ly one lef

t i s g on nabe Curran . Und ers ta nd ? Whe n Al be rt que st io ne d S m it h abo utwhet he r Sm it h wo ul d a ctua ll y pa y for th e h it , Smit h re pl ie d: “ Yeah . Pos it iv e. Abs ol ut el y on e hun dr edan d t enpe rcen t su re. The on ly w ay , th e o nl y way th atth ey ’re no t fu ck in ’ ge t [s ic ] pa idis if I fu ck in ’, itdi dn ’t fuc ki n’ happ enor I fuc ki n’ di e.” Andwhen Alb ertwarn edSm it h of th e co ns eque nc es of n otpa y in g, Sm it h s ai d: “ Yeah , I un de rs ta ndit ’s m y li fe. I
Smith also planned to have thre e other s killed as part of his sche me—a loca l sheriff’ s 2 deputy , a for

mer business par

tner, a nd a new spaper

repor ter na med Eddie Curra

n. 3un de rs ta nd . Youdo n’t thi nkI un de rs ta ndth e se rio us ne ss of t hi s? Com e o n n ow. .

. . I com pl et el y un de rs ta ndth e se rio us ne ss . . . .” Sm it h a ls o a sk edAlb ertif h e was weari ng a wire to whi chAlb ertrep li ed : “No. Are you c razy?” Add it io na ll y , whenAlb ertwarn edSm ith o f th e b read th of t he in ve st ig at io n th atwou ldres ul t fr om

ki ll in g afed eral jud ge an d afed eral pro se cu to r, Sm it h rep li ed : “ I al read y

kn ew th at . That ’s why

I sa idfuc ki n’ Ste el e d on ’t nee d t o b e ki ll ed . He nee ds to ha ve a fu ck in ’ st ro ke . Bor de nk irc he r ne ed s t o fu ck in ’ di sapp ear . . . . Andth e o nl y on e th ey ne edto ha ve a bo dy for i s fu ck in ’ Cu rran .” Whe n Al be rt a sk edSm it h i f he was s ur e h e wan te d J ud ge Ste el e an d Bo rd en ki rch er k il le d, Sm ith s ta te d: It’s go t t o b e d on e p erfe ctan d we’re, we’re l os in ’ fu ck in ’ ti m e. Whe n th em m ot he rfu ck er s se nte nce m e on th e fu ck in ’ se ve nt een th , fu ck in ’ th at ju d g e de ni es al l of m

y at to rn ey ’s fu ck in ’ m ot io ns an d se nd s m y as s to fu ck in ’ fed eral pr is on , th e ga m e’s up . I’m , I’m le ft in th e fu ck in ’ ha nd s of so m e m ot he rfu ck ers in Atl an ta t h a t h a ve go t fu ck in ’ po li ti cal co nn ect io ns with t he se same son of abi tc he s h ere. Co m e o n. Inad di ti on to m ak in g t ho se th reat s an d s ev eral ot he r si m il ar thr eat en in g st at em en ts , Sm it h d is cu ss edth e as se ts he wou ldus e to pa y forth e m ur de rs , su ch as a Ro le x wat ch , a us edcar, an d P an ch o Vi ll a’s swo rd , whi chSm it h c la im edwere va lu edat o ve r $1 m il li on an d a ll of wh ic h wer e v eri fie d b y fed eral ag en ts as ex is ti ng ass et s Sm it h o wne d o r ha d a cces s t o. Sm it h a ls o d is cu ss edhi s p la n t o

4im

pl ic at e Ju dg e St eel e, Bo rd en ki rch er, an d t he ot he r in di vi du al s h e p la nn edto ha ve ki ll edina cri m in al co ns pi racy to fr am e h im th ro ug h s ev eral ph on y

em ai ls an d l et te rs he ha d p rep ared . The em ai ls were t o b e p la nt edon th e v ic ti m s’ co m pu te rs , andth e le tt ers , whi chAlb ertwas g oi ng to sn eakou t o f pr is on inhi s can e, were t o b e p la cedat t he m ur de r sc en es . Afte r hi s co nv ers at io ns with Al be rt, Sm it h m etwith a n u nd erco ve r po li ce of fic er p os in g a s an ass oc ia te of Al be rt a ndin qu ire d abo utob ta in in g acel l p ho ne , whi chSm it h n eed edto sh or e up t he fin al de ta il s o f hi s m ur de ro us pl otan d su cces sf ul ly orch es tra te itfro m

jail . Sm it h was lat er i nt erv ie wedby feder al ag en ts an d d en ie d e ve r m ak in g “ any co m m en ts ab ou t wan ti ng to in jure or h arm

Ju dg e St eel e o r . . . Bord en ki rch er.” Fe de ral ag en ts in fo rm edJu dg e St eel e an d Bo rd en ki rch er o f th e th reat s, b utitis no t cl ear f ro m th e rec or d wh atth e fed eral ag en ts to ldth em . After r ecei vi ng th atin fo rm at io n, b ot h J ud ge Ste el e an d Bo rd en ki rch er t oo k a dd it io na l s ecu rit y m eas ur es to pro te ctth em se lv es an d t he ir fam il ie s. Sm it h was in di ct edon two co un ts of r et al ia ti on ag ai ns t fe de ral off ic ia ls by th reat , two co un ts of s ol ic it at io n t o c omm itm ur de r, an d o ne co un t o f m ak in g fa ls e st at em en ts to fed eral ag en ts . At tri al , th e g ov ern m en t i nt ro du cedtes ti m on y fro m fed eral ag en ts an d o th er l aw en fo rcem en t o ffi ci al s i nv ol ve d i n t he un de rco ve r 5in ve st ig at io n o f Sm it h. Th e g ov ern m en t al so pl ay edfor th e jury the au di o reco rd in gs of S m ith’s co nv ers at io ns with Al be rt a ndhi s co nv ers at io n wi th th e un de rco ve r po li ce o ffi cer p os in g a s Al be rt’s a ss oc ia te . Over t he ob jecti on of Sm ith, the go ve rn m en t al so in tro du cedtes ti m on y fro m Bo rd en ki rch er an d J ud ge St eel e reg ard in g t he sec ur it y m eas ur es th ey

to okaft er h eari ng fro m

fed eral ag en ts ab ou t Sm it h’s thr eat s. Sm it h a ls o t oo k t he st an d a ndtes ti fie d t ha t h e d idno t in te ndto fol lo w th ro ug h o n h is th reat s. He t es ti fie d tha t h e was m erel y go in g al on g wi th Alb ertan d p ut ti ng on a sh ow b ecau se he was fe arfu l o f Alb ertan d h is ti es to a Lati n g an g. Aft er a two- an d- a-h al f da y tri al , th e jury fou ndSm it h g ui lt y on all fiv e co un ts . Sm it h’s g ui de li ne s ra ng e fo r al l fi ve co un ts was aco m bi ne d a dju st ed of fen se lev el of 4 4, wh ic h was ad jus te d d own to a to ta l o ffen se lev el of 4 3. Se e U.S.S.G. ch. 5 , pt . A , cm t. n .2. With a cri m in al hi st ory cat eg ory of V, the advi so ry sen te nc in g g ui de li ne s re co m m en de d asen te nc e o f li fe i m pr is on m en t. Afte r he ari ng arg um en ts fro m bo th si de s an d c on si de rin g t he 18 U.S.C. § 3 55 3( a) fact or s, the di st ric t co urt i m po se d c on se cu ti ve st atut ory m ax im um sen te nc es for each co un t re su lt in g i n ato ta l s en te nc e o f 78 0 m on th s i m pr is on m en t. Sm it h c on te nd s tha t the di st ric t co urt ab us edit s d is cret io n b y adm it ti ng th e te st im on y of J ud ge Ste el e an d B or de nk irc he r reg ard in g t he ir r eact io ns aft er b ei ng 6in fo rm edof t he th reat s Sm it h h adm ad e an d t ha t h is sen te nc e is pro cedur al ly and

subs ta nt iv el y

un reas on ab le . II. W e rev ie w a di st ric t co urt’s ev id en ti ary ru li ng s o nl y for anab us e o f di sc ret io n. Un it edSta te s v . W ethe ral d, 6 36 F.3d13 15 , 13 20 (11 th Cir . 20 11 ). Erro rs inev id en ti ary ru li ng s, h owe ve r, “ do no t co ns ti tu te gro un ds forrev ers al un le ss th ere i s a r eas on ab le li ke li ho odth atth ey affe ct edth e d efen da nt ’s subs ta nt ia l ri gh ts ; wh ere a n e rro r ha d n o s ub st an ti al in flu en ce o n t he ou tc om e, an d su ffi ci en t ev id en ce u ni nf ect edby errorsupp orts th e v erd ic t, re ve rs al is no t warra nt ed .” Uni te d S ta te s v . Arbo la ez, 4 50 F.3d12 83 , 12 90 (11 th Cir . 20 06 ) (quo ta ti onm ark s an d a lt erat io ns om it te d) . In o th er wo rd s, we wi ll no t re ve rs e a co nv ic ti on when th e d is tri ctco urt ab us es it s d is cret io n i n a dm it ti ng ev id en ce i f we de te rm in e th atth e err orwas h arm le ss . See Uni te d S ta te s v . Phakn ik on e, 60 5 F .3d 10 99 , 11 09 –1 1 (1 1t h C ir. 2 01 1) . For t ha t d et erm in at io n, “ we vi ew th e en ti re reco rd ” an d “ [t]he go ve rn m en t b ears th e b ur de n o f es tabl is hi ng th atanerro r is ha rm le ss .” Id . at 1 10 9. “ Ove rwh el m in g e vi de nc e o f gu il t i s o ne fact orth atm ay be co ns id eredinfin di ng ha rm le ss erro r.” Id . (qu ot at io n o m it te d) . Sm it h’s al le ge d e rro rs foc us on th e ad m is si on of t he tes ti m on y reg ard in g t he reac ti on s o f Ju dg e St eel e an d B or de nk irc he r aft er fe de ral off ic ers in fo rm edth em 7of

Sm it h’s thr eaton th ei r li ve s. Bu t ev enif we a ss um e th attes ti m on y sh ou ldno t ha ve be enadm it te d, the re i s n o re as on ab le li ke li ho odth atit s ad m is si on , gi ve n t he ot he r un ch al le ng edev id en ce, h ada subs ta nt ia l i nf lu en ce o n t he ou tc om e. The fed eral ag en t i n c ha rg e o f th e in ve st ig at io n t es ti fie d t ha t s he pu t a wi re o n Al be rt aft er re cei vi ng in fo rm at io n t ha t Sm it h was th reat en in g t he li ve s o f fed eral off ic ia ls , th atsh e fo un d the let te rs Sm it h h adwrit te n t o b e p la nt edon th e m ur de r vi ct im s ro ll edup inAlb ert ’s can e, an d t ha t s he ha d v eri fie d the ex is te nc e o f th e as se ts Sm ith h adsai d h e wou ldpu t up a s p aym en t fo r th e m ur de rs . The jury he ardau di o re co rd in gs of S m it h’s co nv ers at io ns with Al be rt i n whi chhe pl an ne d a ndpre pa redto ha ve th e jud ge an d the pro se cu to r ki ll ed . Add it io na ll y , Sm it h t es ti fie d a t tria l tha t h e h adno in te nt io n o f fo ll owi ng th ro ug h with h is m

ur de r-fo r-h ire sch em e. The ju ry by find in g h im

gu il ty neces sa ril y di sb el ie ve d h is tes ti m on y , andth atdi sb el ie f m ay be co ns id eredas s ub st an ti ve ev id en ce ag ai ns t h im . See Un it edSta te s v . Bro wn, 5 3 F .3d31 2, 3 15 (11 th Cir . 19 95 ) (“ [W] he n ade fen da ntch oo se s t o t es ti fy , he run s the ris k tha t i f di sb el ie ve d th e jury mig htco nc lu de th e o pp os it e o f hi s t es ti m on y is tru e.” (quo ta ti on m ark s om it te d) ). Ther e was am pl e unc ha ll en ge d e vi de nc e fo r th e jury to fi ndSm it h gu il ty bey on d areas on ab le do ub t, m ak in g t he all eg edev id en ti ary erro rs ha rm le ss . III. 8Sm it h a ls o c on te nd s tha t h is sen te nc e is pro cedur al ly andsubs ta nt iv el y

un reas on ab le . He arg ue s tha t the di st ric t co urt’s ex pl an at io n o f hi s s en te nc e was in ad equa te , ren de rin g t he sen te nc e p ro cedur al ly unr eas on ab le . Sm it h a ls o a rg ue s th athi s s en te nc e was subs ta nt iv el y un reas on ab le be cau se th e st atut ory m in im um se nt en ce fo r hi s co nv ic ti on s— 18 0 m on th s i m pr is on m en t—wou ldha ve be en ad equa te to de te r hi m

an d p ro te ctth e p ub li c fro m futur e h arm . W e rev ie w th e rea so nabl en es s o f a s en te nc e o nl y foranab us e o f di sc ret io n, us in g atwo -s te p p ro ces s. Un it edSta te s v . Tom e, 61 1 F .3d13 71 , 13 78 (11 th Cir . 20 10 ). Fir st , we m

us t “ en su re tha t the di stric t co urt co m m it te d n o s ig ni fic an t pr oc edur al erro r, su chas f ai li ng to cal cu la te (orim

pr op erl y cal cu la ti ng ) th e Gui de li ne s ra ng e, tr eat in g t he Gui de li ne s as m an da to ry , fai li ng to co ns id er the § 35 53 (a) fa ct or s, s el ect in g asen te nc e b as edon cle arl y erro ne ou s fa ct s, o r fai li ng to ad equa te ly exp la in th e ch os ensen te nc e.” Gal l v . Uni te d S ta te s, 5 52 U.S. 38 , 51 , 12 8 S .Ct. 5 86 , 59 7 (2 00 7) . Whe n t he di st ric t co urt “ li st en [s ] to th e ev id en ce an d arg um en ts an d [i s] aware o f th e v ari ou s fa ct or s [a ] de fen da ntpu t fo rwardfora le ss er s en te nc e” wh il e st at in g i t h as co ns id eredth e § 35 53 (a) fa ct or s, i t d oe s n ot pr oc edur al ly err by fail in g t o g iv e a d et ai le d e xp la na ti on of t he sen te nc e. Uni te d St at es v. Ire y , 61 2 F .3d11 60 , 11 94 –9 5 (1 1t h C ir. 2 01 0) (en ba nc ).

9If we fi ndth e se nt en ce t o b e p ro cedur al ly sou nd , th e se co ndst ep is to

rev ie w th e se nt en ce’s s ub st an ti ve reas on ab le ne ss , con si de rin g “ th e to ta li ty of th e fact s an d c irc um st an ces .” Irey, 61 2 F .3dat 1 18 9. We will va cat e a s en te nc e fo r subs ta nt iv e unr eas on ab le ne ss “ if, b uton ly if, we are l eftwith t he de fin it e an d fi rm co nv ic ti on th atth e d is tri ctco urt co m m it te d acle ar erro r of

jud gm en t i n wei gh in g th e § 35 53 (a) fa ct or s b y

arri vi ng at asen te nc e th atli es ou ts id e th e ran ge of reas on ab le sen te nc es di ct at edby the fact s o f th e cas e.” Id . at 1 19 0 (quo ta ti on m ark s o mit te d) . “ The pa rty chal le ng in g t he sen te nc e b ears th e b ur de n t o s ho w itis un reas on ab le inli gh t o f th e rec or d a ndth e § 35 53 (a) fa ct or s.” To m e, 61 1 F .3dat 13 78 . The di stric t co urt’s ex pl an at io n fo r Sm it h’s s en te nc e was ad equa te . The co urt l is te ne d t o e xt en si ve arg um en ts fro m Sm it h’s co un se l an d fr om Sm it h hi m se lf. Th e co urt al so st at edth atitha d re vi ewedth e rel ev an t p orti on s o f th e reco rd , th atitha d c on si de redth e § 35 53 (a) fa ct or s an d t he advi so ry na tu re o f th e se nt en ci ng gu id el in es , andth atth e se nt en ce re fle ct ed“ th e se rio us ne ss of the of fen se ” an d m etth e st atut ory go al s o f pu ni sh m en t an d g en eral an d s pe ci fic de te rren ce. See Irey, 61 2 F .3dat 1 19 4– 95 . Smit h h as no t s ho wn tha t h is sen te nc e was pro cedur al ly unr eas on ab le .

10He ha s al so fai le d t o s ho w th athi s s en te nc e was subs ta nt iv el y un reas on ab le . He arg ue s tha t the st atut ory m in im um of 1 80 m on th s i m

pr is on m en t wo ul d h av e be enad equa te to de te r hi m an d t o p ro te ctth e p ub li c, ev enth ou gh th e se nt en ci ng gu id el in es reco m

m en de d asen te nc e o f li fe i m pr is on m en t. The di st ric t co urt ex pr es se d c on cern ab ou t the ser io us ne ss of t he off en se an d t he ne edfor

jus t pu ni sh m en t an d d et erre nc e. Giv enth e g ui de li ne s re co m m en da ti on , th e se rio us ne ss of t he off

en se , th e n eedto de te r ot he rs fro m th reat en in g t he li ve s o f fed eral off

ic ia ls , andth e d is tri ctco urt’s ca refu l wei gh in g o f th os e fac to rs , Sm it h ha s n otlef

t u s wi th a de fin it e an d fi rm co nv ic ti on th atth e co urt co m m it te d acle ar erro r of jud gm en t b y

im po si ng a 78 0- m on th sen te nc e. AFFIRMED.

11