Opinion ID: 705174
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Krout

Text: 44 The district court denied the jury's request during deliberations to replay the testimony of the officers involved in the surveillance and stop of Krout on March 15. Generally, rereading or replaying testimony is disfavored. United States v. Nolan, 700 F.2d 479, 486 (9th Cir.), cert. denied, 462 U.S. 1123, 103 S.Ct. 3095, 77 L.Ed.2d 1354 (1983); United States v. Keys, 899 F.2d 983, 988 (10th Cir.), cert. denied, 498 U.S. 858, 111 S.Ct. 160, 112 L.Ed.2d 125 (1990). Denial of such a request is proper when the court finds that replaying the testimony would take an inordinate amount of time or create a risk that the jury would place an undue emphasis on that evidence. United States v. Schmitt, 748 F.2d 249, 256 (5th Cir.1984), cert. denied, 471 U.S. 1104, 105 S.Ct. 2333, 85 L.Ed.2d 850 (1985). 45 This request from the jury encompassed four to six hours of testimony. The parties themselves were unable to focus the request into a more manageable segment of the testimony. Further, because the testimony was audiotaped it would have required redaction prior to playing before the jury. At this time, the jury had already deliberated into the fifth day, and had previously requested two other lengthy replays of testimony. No abuse of discretion occurred in denying this request.
46 Detective Martinez testified during the playing of three recorded conversations in which Cowboy Gonzalez was a participant or was discussed. The district court denied Krout's objections to questions soliciting the officer's opinion that references to the people and the driver of the truck indicated that Gonzalez was acting with others to bring heroin into the area. Although this court has held that an undercover agent may interpret the argot or seemingly secret jargon of [ ]alleged criminals, United States v. Fuller, 974 F.2d 1474, 1482 (5th Cir.1992), 18 expert testimony regarding the meaning of ordinary words, which the jury is in as good a position as the expert to interpret, must be excluded. United States v. Allibhai, 939 F.2d 244, 250 (5th Cir.1991). Here the excerpts of conversation which Martinez was asked to comment on were not alleged by the United States to be code--as is often the case in wiretapped conversations. 47 Nonetheless, erroneous admission of expert testimony is subject to harmless error analysis. United States v. Weiner, 3 F.3d 17, 21-22 (1st Cir.1993). The testimony objected to by counsel did little to incriminate Krout. First, other evidence introduced at trial established that the people referred to in this conversation about the December 28 transaction did not include Krout. 19 Gonzalez's own testimony confirmed this fact. For the exact opposite reason, testimony concerning the March 14 conversation was also harmless to Krout; it was cumulative of other incriminating evidence: Gonzalez testified that Krout delivered the heroin to a Mr. Saldana on March 15. Significantly, this testimony was corroborated by surveillance of the exchange of packages between Krout's and Saldana's vehicles, the seizure of heroin from a box of laundry detergent in Saldana's car, and 1-2 cupfuls of laundry detergent from Krout's Blazer.
48 Krout's challenge to his sentence, however, merits extended discussion. Krout complains that the district court failed to apply the methodology provided by the commentary to Sec. 5G1.3(c), a policy statement, and that if it had, the district court would have imposed the sentence to run concurrent with a sentence imposed in the Southern District of Texas. 49 At sentencing, the district court informed Krout that it would impose the sentence for this offense consecutive to a 97-month term imposed for a prior drug offense in the Southern District of Texas. (Krout was a fugitive when he committed the offenses involved in this case.) Both Krout and his attorney asked the district judge to reconsider this decision, and noted an objection for the record. However, Krout's objection offered no particular legal basis. 20 The government contends that Krout's imprecise objection is insufficient to preserve the claimed error for review. We agree. 50 Krout's objection was in the manner of a simple plea for leniency. Indeed, nothing in Krout's objection gave any indication of the sentencing error now claimed. A party must raise a claim of error with the district court in such a manner so that the district court may correct itself and thus, obviate the need for our review. United States v. Bullard, 13 F.3d 154, 156 (5th Cir.1994). By failing to properly object at sentencing, the defendant waives his right to full appellate review. This Court will remedy errors so forfeited only in the most exceptional case. United States v. Torrez, 40 F.3d 84, 86 (5th Cir.1994). In other words, we review only for plain error. 21 51 In order to show plain error, the appellant must show that there was an error, that it was plain (meaning clear or obvious) and that the error affects substantial rights. This Court lacks the authority to relieve an appellant of this burden. United States v. Olano, --- U.S. ----, ---- - ----, 113 S.Ct. 1770, 1777-81, 123 L.Ed.2d 508 (1993). In addition, even when the appellant carries this burden, this Court is not required to correct the error. The Supreme Court has directed that such a forfeited error should be corrected if the error seriously affect[s] the fairness, integrity or public reputation of judicial proceedings. Id. at ----, 113 S.Ct. at 1779 (quoting United States v. Atkinson, 297 U.S. 157, 160, 56 S.Ct. 391, 392, 80 L.Ed. 555 (1936)). 52 In the written judgment of commitment the district court explained its decision to impose consecutive sentences: 53 According to U.S.S.G. Sec. 5G1.3, the sentence for the instant offense should result in an appropriate incremental punishment that most nearly approximates the sentence that would have been imposed had both sentences been imposed at the same time. Based upon the purity of the heroin, the defendant's obstructive behavior, and the fact that the defendant was not prosecuted for bond jumping in the Southern District of Texas, the court finds that the consecutive sentence in this case is appropriate. 54 The actual sentence imposed for this offense was at the low end of the guideline range of imprisonment: 168 months in a range of 168-210 months. 55 Guideline section 5G1.3(c) provides that, in any case other than those covered under subsections (a) and (b), 22 the sentence for the instant offense shall be imposed to run consecutively to the prior undischarged term of imprisonment to the extent necessary to achieve a reasonable incremental punishment for the instant offense. U.S.S.G. Sec. 5G1.3(c), p.s. The commentary to this section, application note 3, provides that to the extent practicable, the court should consider a reasonable incremental penalty to be a sentence for the instant offense that results in a combined sentence of imprisonment that approximates the total punishment that would have been imposed ... had all of the offenses been federal offenses for which sentences were being imposed at the same time. 56 Although the district court has the ultimate discretion to impose a sentence consecutively, see United States v. Bell, 46 F.3d 442, 446 (5th Cir.1995), it is required to consider the applicable sentencing guidelines and policy statements. See 18 U.S.C. Secs. 3584(a), (b); 18 U.S.C. Secs. 3553(a)(4), (5); United States v. Parks, 924 F.2d 68, 72 (5th Cir.1991). In addition, the Supreme Court has held that commentary that interprets or explains a guideline is authoritative. Stinson v. United States, --- U.S. ----, ----, 113 S.Ct. 1913, 1915, 123 L.Ed.2d 598 (1993). In United States v. Hernandez, 64 F.3d 179 (5th Cir.1995), this Court held that a sentencing court is bound to consider Sec. 5G1.3(c) as well as the implications of the methodology suggested by application note 3. [T]he district court must consider the suggested methodology before determining whether a sentence should run consecutively or concurrently. Id. at 183. The judgment entered by the district court, quoted above, clearly reflects that it considered both Sec. 5G1.3(c) and the commentary to that section. 57 Krout argues, however, that the district court's failure to apply the methodology provided by the commentary to Sec. 5G1.3(c) was error. We cannot agree. As we noted in Torrez, 58 the methodology proposed by note 3 is permissive only. The specific formula ... is conspicuously preceded by the language [t]o the extent practicable, the court should consider.... This language denotes merely one possible manner of determining the appropriate incremental penalty. Thus, even if the district court had considered this provision, it would have been free to decline to follow the suggested methodology. In other words, the district court would not have violated this provision if it had considered it and then determined that imposing the sentence consecutively provided the appropriate incremental punishment. 59 40 F.3d at 87 (internal citation omitted). In Hernandez, this Court held that the suggested methodology is advisory only. 64 F.3d at 183-84. Therefore, failure to apply the methodology provided cannot constitute error. 60 Krout also argues that the reasons given by the district court for imposing the sentence consecutively were insufficient to justify that decision in light of the policy concerns underlying Sec. 5G1.3. In Hernandez, we held that [i]f the district court chooses not to follow the methodology, it must explain why the calculated sentence would be impracticable in that case or the reasons for using an alternate method. Thereafter, the district court is left with discretion to impose a sentence which it believes provides an appropriate incremental punishment. Id. (internal citations omitted). 61 Although it is not clear from the district court's judgment why it did not follow the recommended methodology or why it used an alternate method, it is clear that the district court considered the relevant commentary and, with reasons, decided on what it believed to be an appropriate incremental penalty. We need not decide whether under Hernandez the district court's reasons were insufficient because any error in the district court's judgment could not be considered so clear or obvious as to be deemed plain error. 23