United States v. Wazny , 448 F. App'x 47 ( 2011 )


Menu:
  •                                                                    [DO NOT PUBLISH]
    IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
    FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT           FILED
    ________________________ U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
    ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
    No. 10-15289          NOVEMBER 28, 2011
    Non-Argument Calendar         JOHN LEY
    CLERK
    ________________________
    D.C. Docket No. 8:09-cr-00373-RAL-TGW-1
    UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
    lllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllll                              lPlaintiff-Appellee,
    versus
    MACIEJ WAZNY,
    lllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllll                            lDefendant-Appellant.
    ________________________
    Appeal from the United States District Court
    for the Middle District of Florida
    ________________________
    (November 28, 2011)
    Before HULL, MARCUS and BLACK, Circuit Judges.
    PER CURIAM:
    Maciej Wazny appeals his convictions and 240-month total sentence for
    conspiracy to import Gamma-Butyrolactone (“GBL”) for human consumption into
    the United States from outside of the United States, in violation of 
    21 U.S.C. §§ 963
    and 960(b)(3); of importation of GBL for human consumption into the United States
    from a place outside of the United States, in violation of 
    21 U.S.C. §§ 952
    , 802(32),
    813 and 960(b)(3); and possession and distribution of GBL, for human consumption,
    after unlawfully importing the substance into the United States from a place outside
    the United States, in violation of 
    21 U.S.C. §§ 959
    , 802(34)(X), 813, 802(32) and
    960(b)(3).1 On appeal, Wazny argues that: (1) the district court erred in admitting
    hearsay evidence under the statements of a co-conspirator exception; (2) his
    convictions were not supported by sufficient evidence; (3) the district court abused
    its discretion in giving a deliberate ignorance instruction; (4) and his sentence was
    procedurally and substantively unreasonable. After careful review, we affirm.
    We review a district court’s evidentiary rulings for abuse of discretion. United
    States v. Massey, 
    89 F.3d 1433
    , 1441 (11th Cir. 1996). We review a challenge to the
    sufficiency of the evidence de novo, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable
    to the government. United States v. Jones, 
    601 F.3d 1247
    , 1267 (11th Cir. 2010).
    While we review the legal correctness of a jury instruction actually given de novo,
    1
    “If taken for human consumption, common industrial chemicals such as gamma
    butyrolactone [GBL] . . . are swiftly converted by the body into GHB,” commonly known as the
    “date rape drug.” United States v. Fisher, 
    289 F.3d 1329
    , 1331, 1335 (11th Cir. 2002) (quoting
    Pub. Law No. 106-172, § 2(4) (2000)).
    2
    jury instructions are subject to harmless error review. United States v. Webb, __ F.3d
    __, 
    2011 WL 4011023
     n.8 (11th Cir. 2011); Fed.R.Civ.P. 61. An error is harmless
    unless “there is a reasonable likelihood that [it] affected the defendant’s substantial
    rights.” United States v. Hawkins, 
    905 F.2d 1489
    , 1493 (11th Cir.1990). We review
    the district court’s application and legal interpretations of the Guidelines de novo, and
    the district court’s factual determinations for clear error. United States v. Zaldivar,
    
    615 F.3d 1346
    , 1350 (11th Cir. 2010), cert. denied, 
    131 S.Ct. 959
     (2011). Lastly, we
    review the sentence a district court imposes for “reasonableness,” which “merely asks
    whether the trial court abused its discretion.” United States v. Pugh, 
    515 F.3d 1179
    ,
    1189 (11th Cir. 2008) (quoting Rita v. United States, 
    551 U.S. 338
    , 351 (2007)).
    First, we are unpersuaded by Wazny’s claim that the district court erred in
    admitting hearsay evidence. All relevant evidence is presumed to be admissible. See
    Fed.R.Evid. 402. While evidence may constitute hearsay -- an out-of-court statement
    introduced to prove the truth of the matter asserted -- certain exceptions to the hearsay
    rule exist. See Fed.R.Evid. 801, 802. Moreover, evidence which is not hearsay need
    not fit into any exception to the rule excluding hearsay. See Untied States v. Mateos,
    
    623 F.3d 1350
    , 1364 (11th Cir. 2010), cert. denied, 
    131 S.Ct. 1540
     (2011). One
    exception to the hearsay rule applies to statements of a co-conspirator. In order to
    introduce these statements under Fed.R.Evid. 801(d)(2)(E), the government must
    3
    prove by a preponderance of the evidence that (1) a conspiracy existed, (2) the
    conspiracy included the declarant and the defendant against whom the statement is
    offered, and (3) the statement was made during the course of and in furtherance of the
    conspiracy. United States v. Underwood, 
    446 F.3d 1340
    , 1345-46 (11th Cir. 2006).
    The Federal Rules of Evidence provide that evidence is properly authenticated
    when there is “evidence sufficient to support a finding that the matter in question is
    what its proponent claims.” Fed.R.Evid. 901(a). Authentication under Rule 901 only
    requires the presentation of “sufficient evidence to make out a prima facie case that
    the proffered evidence is what it purports to be. Once that prima facie showing has
    been made, the evidence should be admitted” and the trier of fact permitted to
    determine whether the proffered evidence is what it purports to be. United States v.
    Caldwell, 
    776 F.2d 989
    , 1001-02 (11th Cir. 1985). The district court’s determination
    of authenticity should not be disturbed unless there is no competent evidence in the
    record to support it. United States v. Munoz, 
    16 F.3d 1116
    , 1120-21 (11th Cir. 1994).
    The Confrontation Clause bars the admission of “testimonial” hearsay unless
    the declarant is unavailable and the defendant had a prior opportunity for
    cross-examination. Crawford v. Washington, 
    541 U.S. 36
    , 68 (2004). Hearsay
    statements are testimonial when, among other things, they are “made under
    circumstances which would lead an objective witness reasonably to believe that the
    4
    statement would be available for use at a later trial.” 
    Id. at 52
     (quotation omitted).
    Statements made in private conversation are generally nontestimonial because there
    is no reason to believe that the statements will be used at trial. See United States v.
    US Infrastructure, Inc., 
    576 F.3d 1195
    , 1209 (11th Cir. 2009).
    Here, the district court did not err in admitting hearsay evidence under the
    co-conspirator’s statements exception. As for the undated video and the statements
    contained therein, a co-conspirator’s t-shirt and the apparent container of GBL were
    enough to establish that the video was made during the course of and in furtherance
    of the charged conspiracy. This conclusion was further supported by the audible
    word “GBL” along with Wazny’s statement expressing concern about driving on it.
    As for the letter written by co-conspirator Brian Lang to Wazny, the letter was
    properly authenticated by a customs investigator, who testified as to how the letter
    was intercepted by prison officials and given to the investigator. Additionally, the
    introduction of Lang’s letter did not violate Wazny’s Sixth Amendment rights. The
    letter was comparable to a private conversation and there is no evidence whatsoever
    that Lang believed it would later be available for use at trial when he wrote it.
    Therefore, the letter was not testimonial in nature and Wazny’s inability to
    cross-examine Lang did not violate his Sixth Amendment rights. Accordingly, the
    district court did not abuse its discretion in admitting this evidence.
    5
    Next, we find no merit in Wazny’s argument that the evidence was insufficient
    to support his convictions. In considering the sufficiency of the evidence, we must
    decide whether any rational trier of fact could have found the essential elements of
    the crime beyond a reasonable doubt. United States v. Hernandez, 
    433 F.3d 1328
    ,
    1335 (11th Cir. 2005). “[A] statement by a defendant, if disbelieved by the jury, may
    be considered as substantive evidence of the defendant’s guilt.” United States v.
    Brown, 
    53 F.3d 312
    , 314 (11th Cir. 1995).
    “To sustain a conviction for conspiracy [under 
    21 U.S.C. § 963
    ], the
    government must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that (1) an illegal agreement
    existed; (2) the defendant knew of it; and (3) the defendant, with knowledge,
    voluntarily joined it.” Hernandez, 
    433 F.3d at 1333
    . The required elements of a
    conspiracy can be established by inference from the actions of the conspirators or by
    circumstantial evidence. United States v. Gianni, 
    678 F.2d 956
    , 959 (11th Cir. 1982).
    To sustain a conviction for possession and distribution of GBL for human
    consumption, the government must prove that the defendant sold the GBL with the
    intention that it be used for human consumption, or the knowledge that it was being
    purchased for human consumption. See 
    21 U.S.C. § 813
    .
    Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the government, there was
    sufficient evidence presented at trial to support the jury’s conclusion that Wazny was
    6
    guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. First, there is sufficient evidence to support the
    conspiracy conviction. Wazny himself testified that he ran his internet business
    Cleanstar Poland with the help of his brother, and undisputed evidence showed that
    his wife also assisted in the running of the business, which essentially started
    following dissolution of Cleanstar Germany, which had sold GBL as a purported glue
    remover. The evidence further showed that Wazny was involved in some way with
    Brian Lang and Cleanstar Germany, and either Wanzy or someone on the video asked
    about taking GBL while driving in the company of Brian Lang and two of Wazny’s
    cousins. Taken together, these things provided sufficient evidence for a rational trier
    of fact to find a conspiracy, since the fact that Wazny ran Cleanstar Poland with his
    family would be enough to satisfy the definition of a conspiracy.
    There was also sufficient evidence to support the jury’s conclusion that Wazny
    was selling his product for human consumption. Wazny himself admitted that he
    knew GBL could be used for human consumption, and the video established that he
    had personal knowledge of that fact. In addition, Wazny testified in his own defense,
    and the jury was entitled to use his testimony against him and conclude that he was
    lying and therefore guilty. Thus the evidence was sufficient to sustain his convictions
    on each of the substantive counts.
    7
    We are likewise unpersuaded by Wazny’s argument that the district court
    abused its discretion in giving a deliberate ignorance instruction. A deliberate
    ignorance instruction is warranted when the facts “support the inference that the
    defendant was aware of a high probability of the existence of the fact in question and
    purposely contrived to avoid learning all of the facts in order to have a defense in the
    event of a subsequent prosecution.” United States v. Rivera, 
    944 F.2d 1563
    , 1571
    (11th Cir. 1991) (quotation omitted). We have held that instructing the jury on
    deliberate ignorance is harmless error where the jury was also instructed and could
    have convicted on an alternative, sufficiently supported theory of actual knowledge.
    United States v. Kennard, 
    472 F.3d 851
    , 858 (11th Cir. 2006).
    On this record, the district court did not abuse its discretion by instructing the
    jury on deliberate ignorance. For starters, there was evidence that Wazny had actual
    knowledge that his product was being used for human consumption. Conversely,
    because he denied any intent to sell GBL for personal consumption, a jury could have
    concluded that he was avoiding the knowledge that his product was being used for
    human consumption. But even assuming arguendo that the evidence was insufficient
    to show purposeful avoidance, any error by the district court was harmless, since
    there was sufficient evidence in this case to support a finding that Wazny had actual
    knowledge that his product was being used for human consumption.
    8
    Finally, we reject Wazny’s argument that his sentence was procedurally and
    substantively unreasonable. In reviewing sentences for reasonableness, we perform
    two steps. Pugh, 
    515 F.3d at 1190
    . First, we “‘ensure that the district court
    committed no significant procedural error, such as failing to calculate (or improperly
    calculating) the Guidelines range, treating the Guidelines as mandatory, failing to
    consider the § 3553(a) factors, selecting a sentence based on clearly erroneous facts,
    or failing to adequately explain the chosen sentence -- including an explanation for
    any deviation from the Guidelines range.’” Id. (quoting Gall v. United States, 
    552 U.S. 38
    , 51 (2007)).2
    “[F]actual findings used to support a sentencing enhancement must be based
    on reliable and specific evidence and cannot be based on speculation.” United States
    v. Newman, 
    614 F.3d 1232
    , 1238 (11th Cir. 2010). The government bears the burden
    of proving the applicability of a Guidelines enhancement, while the defendant bears
    the burden of proving the applicability of a Guidelines reduction. United States v.
    2
    The § 3553(a) factors include: (1) the nature and circumstances of the offense and the
    history and characteristics of the defendant; (2) the need for the sentence imposed to reflect the
    seriousness of the offense, to promote respect for the law, and to provide just punishment for the
    offense; (3) the need for the sentence imposed to afford adequate deterrence; (4) the need to
    protect the public; (5) the need to provide the defendant with educational or vocational training
    or medical care; (6) the kinds of sentences available; (7) the Sentencing Guidelines range; (8) the
    pertinent policy statements of the Sentencing Commission; (9) the need to avoid unwanted
    sentencing disparities; and (10) the need to provide restitution to victims. 
    18 U.S.C. § 3553
    (a).
    9
    Belfast, 
    611 F.3d 783
    , 823 (11th Cir. 2010), cert. denied, 
    131 S.Ct. 1511
     (2011);
    Zaldivar, 
    615 F.3d at 1352
    .
    Under U.S.S.G. § 2D1.1, the base offense level for a drug offense is generally
    calculated by determining the quantity of drugs attributable to a defendant. In cases
    “[w]here there is no drug seizure or the amount seized does not reflect the scale of the
    offense, the court shall approximate the quantity of the controlled substance.” United
    States v. Frazier, 
    89 F.3d 1501
    , 1506 (11th Cir. 1996) (quotation omitted). The court
    may base its approximation on evidence of the average frequency and amount of the
    defendant’s drug sales. 
    Id.
     Nevertheless, the court’s approximation of the drug
    amount must be “fair, accurate, and conservative,” and not “merely speculative.”
    United States v. Zapata, 
    139 F.3d 1355
    , 1359 (11th Cir. 1998).
    Under U.S.S.G. § 3C1.1, the district court may increase the defendant’s
    guideline range by two levels if “(A) the defendant willfully obstructed or impeded,
    or attempted to obstruct or impede, the administration of justice with respect to the
    investigation, prosecution, or sentencing of the instant offense of conviction, and (B)
    the obstructive conduct related to (i) the defendant’s offense of conviction and any
    relevant conduct; or (ii) a closely related offense.” A “sentencing judge clearly has
    the authority to enhance a defendant’s offense level if the judge makes an
    10
    independent factual finding that the defendant willfully lied in trial testimony.”
    United States v. Husky, 
    924 F.2d 223
    , 224 (11th Cir. 1991).
    If we conclude that the district court did not procedurally err, we must consider
    the   “‘substantive   reasonableness     of    the   sentence   imposed    under    an
    abuse-of-discretion standard,’” based on the “‘totality of the circumstances.’” Pugh,
    
    515 F.3d at 1190
     (quoting Gall, 
    552 U.S. at 51
    ). This review is “deferential,”
    requiring us to determine “whether the sentence imposed by the district court fails to
    achieve the purposes of sentencing as stated in section 3553(a).” United States v.
    Talley, 
    431 F.3d 784
    , 788 (11th Cir. 2005). We will “vacate the sentence if, but only
    if, we are left with the definite and firm conviction that the district court committed
    a clear error of judgment in weighing the § 3553(a) factors by arriving at a sentence
    that lies outside the range of reasonable sentences dictated by the facts of the case.”
    United States v. Irey, 
    612 F.3d 1160
    , 1190 (11th Cir. 2010) (en banc) (quotation
    omitted), cert. denied, 
    131 S. Ct. 1813
     (2011). “The party challenging the sentence
    bears the burden to show it is unreasonable in light of the record and the § 3553(a)
    factors.” United States v. Tome, 
    611 F.3d 1371
    , 1378 (11th Cir. 2010), cert. denied,
    
    131 S.Ct. 674
     (2010).
    Wazny has not shown that his sentence was procedurally unreasonable. For
    starters, the district court did not clearly err in calculating the amounts of GBL
    11
    attributed to Wazny since this amount was undisputed, and derived from Wazny’s
    testimony and business records, which showed that he purchased 4600 kilograms of
    GBL from his supplier during the time period that he operated Cleanstar Poland.
    There was also no error in calculating this amount since, as noted above, the
    government presented sufficient evidence at trial to show that Wazny knew the
    product was being used for human consumption. Nor did the district court clearly err
    in applying the obstruction of justice enhancement. The district court’s finding that
    Wazny willfully lied at trial, in conjunction with the jury’s verdict of guilty, was
    enough for the district court to properly apply an obstruction of justice enhancement.
    Wazny’s sentence was also substantively reasonable. Wazny’s sentence, at the
    statutory maximum, was still 120 months below the guideline range. And while
    Wazny’s total sentence was higher than his co-conspirator’s, Wazny was also held
    accountable for a much larger quantity of GBL. Moreover, the record shows that the
    district court clearly considered all of the § 3553(a) factors when it imposed the
    sentence. Accordingly, his sentence was reasonable, and we affirm.
    AFFIRMED.
    12