Opinion ID: 69925
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Slack’s Fine

Text: Slack argues that the district court erred by imposing a fine to compensate the government for some of its costs of prosecution. At sentencing, the government complained that because Slack had refused to stipulate to lab reports on the seized drugs, it had been forced to fly in a chemist and keep her on standby as a potential witness for an entire day of the trial. At the government’s request, the court fined Slack $1,770 to compensate for this expense. Slack argues that by imposing the fine, the court unconstitutionally penalized him for exercising his Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination. He also argues that because the 9 government did not actually need the witness and never called her to testify, it was error for the court to use this expense as the basis for a fine. Because Slack did not raise his constitutional argument before the district court, we review that claim for plain error only. See United States v. Aguillard, 217 F.3d 1319, 1320 (11th Cir. 2000) (sentencing argument raised for first time on appeal is reviewed for plain error). Plain error exists only where (1) there is an error; (2) the error is plain or obvious; and (3) the error affects the defendant’s substantial rights. United States v. Olano, 507 U.S. 725, 732, 113 S. Ct. 1770, 1776 (1993). We have held that “an error cannot meet the ‘plain’ requirement of the plain error rule if it is not clear under current law.” United States v. Castro, 455 F.3d 1249, 1253 (11th Cir. 2006) (citations and quotation marks omitted). “When the explicit language of a statute or rule does not specifically resolve an issue, there can be no plain error where there is no precedent from the Supreme Court or this Court directly resolving it.” Id. (quotation omitted). In United States v. Palmer, 809 F.2d 1504, 1507–08 (11th Cir. 1987), we rejected a defendant’s argument that a federal statute imposing costs of prosecution on a convicted defendant unconstitutionally burdened his exercise of his right to a jury trial. We noted that “not every burden on the exercise of a constitutional right, and not every pressure or encouragement to waive such a right, is invalid.” Id. at 10 1507 (quoting Corbitt v. New Jersey, 439 U.S. 212, 218, 99 S. Ct. 492, 497 (1978)). We held that recouping prosecution costs met “legitimate governmental ends” of recovering government expenses and imposing additional punishment, and that the statute “achieved these objectives without needlessly chilling the exercise of constitutional rights.” Id. at 1507–08. In light of Palmer, and because Slack has failed to present any binding precedent stating that a court may not consider the costs of prosecution in determining an appropriate fine, we cannot conclude that the district court plainly erred by imposing a fine to reimburse the government for the travel expenses of its witness. Slack also objects to the fine, as he did at sentencing, on the basis that the government’s expenses were unnecessary because the witness never testified. The government responded that it needed to have the witness available at trial, and it incurred travel expenses regardless of whether she actually testified. A district court’s determination of an appropriate fine is reviewed for clear error. United States v. Lombardo, 35 F.3d 526, 527 (11th Cir. 1994) (per curiam). The sentencing guidelines require the imposition of a fine in all cases, unless the defendant establishes that he is currently unable to pay a fine and is not likely to become able to pay one in the future. U.S.S.G. § 5E1.2(a). In determining the amount of the fine, the sentencing court must consider the following factors: (1) 11 the need to reflect the seriousness of the offense, promote respect for the law, and provide just punishment and adequate deterrence; (2) the defendant’s ability to pay in light of earning capacity and financial resources; (3) the burden on the defendant and his dependents; (4) whether restitution is ordered; (5) collateral consequences of conviction, including the defendant’s civil obligations; (6) previous fines for similar offenses; (7) the government’s expected costs for imprisonment and supervision; and (8) “any other pertinent equitable considerations.” U.S.S.G. § 5E1.2(d). For Slack’s offense, the guidelines recommended a minimum fine of $25,000, U.S.S.G. § 5E1.2(c), and the statute allowed a maximum fine of $4 million, 21 U.S.C. § 841(b)(1)(A). The district court adopted the PSI’s finding that although Slack could not pay a fine in that range, he did have the ability to pay a “modest” fine. Slack did not object to the PSI’s finding, so he has admitted it for sentencing purposes. See Wade, 458 F.3d 1277. Because the $1,770 fine was well below the recommended guidelines range and was not excessive in relation to Slack’s ability to pay, the district court did not clearly err in determining it. IV. Sufficiency of Evidence for Cawthon’s Conviction Cawthon argues that the government failed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that he was involved in a conspiracy to distribute or possess with intent to 12 distribute controlled substances. He contends that no direct evidence linked him to the conspiracy, because the government never made a controlled buy directly from him and never found any cocaine or crack in his possession. Cawthon also notes that he was in custody for two thirds of the time frame specified in the indictment for the conspiracy, and that the witnesses who testified to his own involvement did not give exact dates. Furthermore, nearly all of the evidence against him came from convicted felons testifying as part of plea deals and hoping to limit or reduce their own sentences. For all of these reasons, he says, the evidence was insufficient to prove his guilt. We review a sufficiency challenge de novo, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the government. United States v. Wright, 392 F.3d 1269, 1273 (11th Cir. 2004). We draw all reasonable inferences in the government’s favor, and accept credibility choices made by the factfinder. Id. We must affirm a conviction unless there is no reasonable construction of the evidence under which the jury could have found the defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. United States v. Garcia, 405 F.3d 1260, 1269 (11th Cir. 2005). An “unbroken stream of precedent” in this Circuit holds that “the uncorroborated testimony of a co-conspirator or accomplice is sufficient to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.” Craig v. Singletary, 127 F.3d 1030, 1044–45 13 (11th Cir. 1997) (citing cases). Determinations of the credibility of witnesses fall within the exclusive province of the jury, and may not be revisited unless the testimony is “incredible as a matter of law.” United States v. Calderon, 127 F.3d 1314, 1325 (11th Cir. 1997). For testimony to be incredible as a matter of law, it must be “unbelievable on its face,” consisting of events that the witness could not possibly have observed or that “could not have occurred under the laws of nature.” Id. (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). Self-serving motives do not make a witness’s testimony incredible. See id. A judgment of acquittal is not required simply because the government’s case relies on “an array of scoundrels, liars and brigands.” United States v. Rivera, 775 F.2d 1559, 1561 (11th Cir. 1985) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). To convict Cawthon under 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1), the government had to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that he (1) knowingly (2) possessed cocaine and crack (3) with the intent to distribute it. See United States v. Faust, 456 F.3d 1342, 1345 (11th Cir. 2006). To convict him of conspiracy under 21 U.S.C. § 846, the government had to establish beyond a reasonable doubt that (1) an illegal agreement existed; (2) Cawthon knew of it; and (3) Cawthon knowingly and voluntarily participated in the agreement. See United States v. McDowell, 250 F.3d 1354, 1365 (11th Cir. 2001). Direct evidence is not required to prove 14 participation in a conspiracy; a “common purpose and plan” may be inferred from circumstances. Id. Knowing participation may be established through proof of “acts committed by the defendant which furthered the purpose of the conspiracy.” United States v. Bain, 736 F.2d 1480, 1485 (11th Cir. 1984). Numerous witnesses testified to the purchase, processing, distribution, and sale of multiple kilograms of cocaine and crack by Cawthon and his co-defendants. Several of them directly observed Cawthon himself engaging in these activities. Cawthon was out of jail for about a year and a half of the period charged in the indictment for the conspiracy, and nothing suggests that the witnesses could not have observed him during this time. The first thing the jury heard from each of these witnesses was their admissions that they themselves had been convicted of drug crimes and hoped that their testimony would earn them a reduced sentence. Their testimony was not “incredible as a matter of law,” and the jury chose to believe it. Furthermore, not all of the evidence against Cawthon came from accomplices. A Texas police officer testified that during a traffic stop he had found Cawthon, Slack, and Christopher Watson with a loaded gun and over $62,000 in cash in their car, corroborating Watson’s testimony that they were on their way to Dallas to buy a large quantity of cocaine. Given all of this evidence, a 15 rational trier of fact could have found beyond a reasonable doubt that Cawthon participated in the conspiracy for which he was convicted. AFFIRMED. 16