United States v. Jorge Fernandez Martinez , 317 F. App'x 929 ( 2009 )


Menu:
  •                                                                        [DO NOT PUBLISH]
    IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
    FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
    FILED
    U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
    ________________________
    ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
    MARCH 3, 2009
    No. 07-13882                       THOMAS K. KAHN
    ________________________                      CLERK
    D.C. Docket No. 06-00466-CR-T-23-MAP
    UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
    Plaintiff-Appellee,
    versus
    JORGE FERNANDEZ MARTINEZ,
    Defendant-Appellant.
    __________________________
    Appeal from the United States District Court
    for the Middle District of Florida
    _________________________
    (March 3, 2009)
    Before TJOFLAT and CARNES, Circuit Judges, and HOOD,* District Judge.
    PER CURIAM:
    *The Honorable Joseph M. Hood, Senior United States District Judge for the Eastern District
    of Kentucky, sitting by designation.
    A Middle District of Florida jury found Defendant-Appellant Jorge
    Fernandez Martinez (“Martinez” or “Defendant”) guilty of conspiring to possess
    with intent to distribute 3,4-methylenedioxymethamphetamine (“MDMA”),
    marijuana, and 500 grams or more of cocaine, in violation of 
    21 U.S.C. §§ 846
    ,
    841(a)(1), and 841(b)(1)(B)(ii) (Count 1); possessing with intent to distribute
    MDMA and cocaine, in violation of 
    21 U.S.C. § 841
    (a)(1) and (b)(1)(C) (Count
    2); possessing a firearm (revolver) in furtherance of the drug trafficking offense
    charged in Count 2, in violation of 
    18 U.S.C. § 924
    (c) (Count 3); and distributing
    methamphetamine, in violation of 
    21 U.S.C. § 841
    (a)(1) and (b)(1)(C) (Count 4).
    The district court granted Martinez a judgment of acquittal on a fifth charge,
    possessing a firearm (shotgun) in furtherance of his Count 2 conduct. After
    accepting the jury’s verdicts, the district court sentenced Martinez to concurrent
    terms of 360 months imprisonment on Counts 1, 2, and 4, followed consecutively
    by a term of 60 months imprisonment on Count 3. Martinez was also sentenced to
    supervised release for concurrent periods of 96 months (Count 1), 72 months
    (Counts 2, 4), and 60 months (Count 3). Martinez appeals both his convictions
    and sentence on a multitude of grounds.
    I.    FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
    The investigation into Martinez’ criminal activities was assisted by one of
    his acquaintances, Jeffrey McCann (“McCann”), who became a confidential
    2
    informant for the Tampa Police Department’s drug trafficking investigation unit.
    Martinez rented a house from McCann. The house, owned by McCann’s
    stepfather, was located at 2919 North 16th Street in Tampa, Florida. McCann
    expressed concern that Martinez might turn the house into a party house, where
    visitors would come to consume drugs and engage in sexual acts. McCann
    admitted to smoking marijuana with Martinez in the house; however, McCann
    claimed that Martinez’ involvement in dealing other drugs, such as cocaine and
    methamphetamine, and Martinez’ practice of keeping firearms in the house,
    troubled him and he sought to evict Martinez from the property.
    In March 2006, McCann reported Martinez to authorities through a law
    enforcement hotline. Detective Gary Russ (“Detective Russ”) contacted McCann,
    at which time McCann agreed to work as a confidential informant against
    Martinez. McCann related to Detective Russ that he had seen Martinez dealing
    cocaine, methamphetamine, ecstasy, and marijuana from the house. He also told
    Detective Russ that Martinez kept a shotgun at the house. According to McCann,
    only Martinez and his girlfriend lived in the house. Detective Russ independently
    confirmed via the electric company that Martinez lived in the house.
    In April 2006, Detective Russ directed McCann to purchase
    methamphetamine from Martinez. Detective Russ frisked McCann before and
    after he entered the house. Martinez supplied McCann with a small sample of
    3
    methamphetamine to pass along because he was running short on supply. McCann
    was instructed to maintain contact with Martinez but to not do anything illegal.
    However, he sometimes used marijuana with Martinez without telling authorities.
    Later, McCann assisted in an independent investigation into Martinez’ supplier,
    Thanh Truong, by twice purchasing ecstasy from Truong. Truong was later
    convicted in state court and testified against Martinez.
    On May 26, 2006, authorities directed McCann to gather information about
    the layout of Martinez’ house and the occupants inside. McCann told police that
    Martinez and a few other people were in the house with a firearm, a bag, ecstasy,
    and possibly cocaine or methamphetamine. McCann also told police that Martinez
    was about to leave with the firearm and drugs. Law enforcement saw Martinez
    and another man leave the house carrying a package “of some sort.” Martinez
    entered the passenger side of a car waiting in the driveway and drove away. After
    a few blocks, police stopped the vehicle with Martinez in it after the driver
    completed a u-turn. On the floor of the passenger side, police found a bag with a
    .38-caliber revolver protruding from it in plain view, and, after a search, about
    $860 in cash, a plastic baggie containing ecstasy, and a pill bottle containing
    cocaine with Martinez’ name on the outside. The serial number on the revolver
    was “obliterated.”
    As the stop occurred, police applied for a search warrant for the house at
    4
    2919 North 16th Street. A judge authorized a search warrant after the vehicle was
    stopped but before the car was searched. The warrant permitted a search of the
    house, the curtilage, and any persons or vehicles found there, in order to find
    methamphetamine, cocaine, drug paraphernalia, firearms, and evidence of sexual
    battery. A separate investigation occurred concurrently regarding a woman who
    was allegedly sexually battered multiple times in Martinez’ house. The supporting
    affidavit set forth in detail both the information Detective Russ had learned
    through McCann and averments from a co-affiant regarding the sexual battery.
    While executing the warrant, Police found the house in disarray with drugs
    and drug paraphernalia scattered throughout. A disassembled shotgun was seen
    inside a partially-opened closet in the kitchen. Martinez’ social security card was
    found in a room containing most of the drugs, drug paraphernalia, a digital scale
    with cocaine residue, a cocaine spoon with residue, and a rolled-up dollar bill.
    Inside the house, police found bags and boxes filled with marijuana, crack cocaine
    pipes, marijuana pipes, and marijuana cigarette butts, much of which was in plain
    view.
    At the close of all the evidence, the district court heard Martinez’ arguments
    for a judgment of acquittal under Fed. R. Crim P. 29. Specifically, Martinez asked
    for a judgment of acquittal based on insufficiency of the evidence regarding his
    possession of the shotgun and revolver, his involvement in a drug trafficking
    5
    conspiracy, and his possession with intent to distribute MDMA. The district court
    granted Martinez’ motion as to the shotgun, but allowed the remaining counts to
    proceed to the jury.
    Martinez’ appeal raises many arguments for the reversal of his convictions
    or a reduction of his sentence. First, Martinez’ argues that the district court should
    have suppressed evidence from the car because there was no probable cause for
    the search. Second, Martinez argues that the warrant issued was defective because
    there was a lack of probable cause and it was overly broad. Third, Martinez
    argues that the Government’s use of McCann as a confidential informant
    constituted outrageous conduct worthy of acquittal. Fourth, Martinez claims that a
    letter sent to the presiding judge should have been excluded as part of plea
    negotiations. Fifth, Martinez argues that the court wrongly excluded two other
    letters containing exculpatory information. Sixth, Martinez argues the district
    court’s sentence was unreasonable and improperly calculated. Seventh, Martinez
    objects to the district court’s supplemental instructions to the jury after the jury
    asked whether they must ignore McCann’s testimony in light of his admission that
    he used marijuana. Eighth, Martinez argues the court erred in not allowing him to
    question McCann about his involvement in a kidnaping while acting as an
    informant or about a federal investigation for mortgage fraud prior to McCann
    becoming an informant. Finally, Martinez argues that evidence of his prior
    6
    convictions for possessing and delivering drugs and the fact that his right to
    possess a firearm had not been restored was unfairly prejudicial or lacked
    probative value.
    II. Sufficiency of the Evidence
    We review de novo a district court’s denial of a motion for judgment of
    acquittal based on sufficiency of the evidence. United States v. Yates, 
    438 F.3d 1307
    , 1311-12 (11th Cir. 2006). We must determine whether a reasonable jury
    could have found the defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. United States v.
    Garcia, 
    405 F.3d 1260
    , 1269 (11th Cir. 2005). In doing so, we view the evidence
    in the light most favorable to the government and all reasonable inferences and
    credibility choices are made in favor of the government and the jury’s verdict. Id.;
    United States v. Silvestri, 
    409 F.3d 1311
    , 1327 (11th Cir. 2005). To support a
    conviction, the government must prove an agreement between Martinez and one or
    more other persons to possess with intent to distribute MDMA, cocaine, and
    marijuana. “If there are only two members of a conspiracy, neither may be a
    government agent or informant . . . .” United States v. Arbane, 
    446 F.3d 1223
    ,
    1228 (11th Cir. 2006). The agreement may be proven circumstantially, using
    inferences from the alleged participants’ conduct or evidence of a scheme.
    Silvestri, 
    409 F.3d at
    1328 (citing United States v. Tamargo, 
    672 F.2d 887
    , 889
    (11th Cir. 1982)).
    7
    In this case, the evidence overwhelmingly supports the jury’s verdict on the
    conspiracy count. Martinez argues the government failed to prove his
    involvement in any conspiracy with “independent evidence.” Importantly, he does
    not dispute the sufficiency of the evidence to support the verdicts on the other
    counts. The record contains more than enough evidence of a conspiracy between
    Martinez and Truong, who was not a confidential informant or government agent.
    Cf. United States v. Wright, 
    63 F.3d 1067
    , 1072 (11th Cir. 1995) (“record reveals
    little conversation between [the supplier] and the Appellant, and no evidence that
    an actual agreement was consummated”). Specifically, there is testimony that
    Martinez and Truong entered into multiple buy/sell exchanges of drugs. Martinez
    and Truong also entered into longer term “fronting” transactions. In fact, in one
    transaction Truong fronted Martinez 2,000 ecstasy pills, which Martinez was to
    pay for as he dealt the pills. Martinez knew that Truong would give a per pill
    discount if he bought in bulk, but this required Truong to front the pills to
    Martinez. Additionally, there is evidence in the record that Martinez and Truong
    had agreed to divide selling territory within the city. Martinez became upset with
    McCann when he learned Truong had sold drugs to McCann on his turf. The
    record contains ample evidence to infer from Martinez’ conduct that he had an
    agreement with Truong to possess drugs, intending to distribute them. There is
    sufficient evidence to support Martinez’ conviction on Count 1. Jackson v.
    8
    Virginia, 
    443 U.S. 307
    , 313-319 (1979).
    III. Outrageous Government Conduct
    A motion alleging a defect in the indictment must be made before trial. Fed.
    R. Crim. P. 12(b)(3)(A). The government contends and Martinez does not dispute
    that he failed to seek dismissal of the indictment in the district court on the ground
    of outrageous governmental conduct, and his appeal of this issue is therefore
    barred. Martinez would not prevail even were we to reach the merits of his claim.
    “While the Supreme Court and this Court have recognized the possibility that
    government involvement in a criminal scheme might be so pervasive that it would
    be a constitutional violation, that standard has not yet been met in any case either
    before the Supreme Court or this Court.” United States v. Sanchez, 
    138 F.3d 1410
    , 1413 (11th Cir. 1998).
    Martinez argues that McCann’s reliability is undermined by his use of drugs
    and involvement in dealing drugs while working as an informant and that the
    Government’s use of McCann as an informant constituted outrageous conduct
    worthy of acquittal. Outrageous governmental conduct is a defense that focuses
    on the government’s tactics in obtaining a conviction. Sanchez, 
    138 F.3d at 1413
    .
    Dismissal of an indictment on the ground that the government engaged in
    outrageous conduct requires a defendant to show from the totality of the
    9
    circumstances that the government’s conduct and over-involvement “violated that
    fundamental fairness, shocking to the universal sense of justice, mandated by the
    Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment.” United States v. Russell, 
    411 U.S. 423
    , 432 (1973) (quotation marks omitted). The defense can be invoked only in
    the “rarest and most outrageous circumstances.” United States v. Nyhuis, 
    211 F.3d 1340
    , 1345 (11th Cir. 2000); United States v. Haimowitz, 
    725 F.2d 1561
    , 1577
    (11th Cir. 1984). The government may not “instigate the criminal activity, provide
    the place, equipment, supplies and know-how, and run the entire operation with
    only meager assistance from the defendant[] . . . .” United States v. Tobias, 
    662 F.2d 381
    , 386 (11th Cir. 1981) (citing United States v. Twigg, 
    588 F.2d 373
     (3d
    Cir. 1978)).
    In this case, McCann’s involvement as an informant does not constitute
    outrageous conduct. The investigation into Martinez began when McCann
    contacted authorities. McCann’s admitted use of drugs while working as an
    informant was unknown to the police at the time of the investigation and was done
    to avoid detection by Martinez. It can hardly be said that the government
    instigated McCann’s or Martinez’ criminal activity or ran any drug operations to
    catch Martinez. Martinez contends that the Government was simply going along
    with a plot by McCann against Martinez, but this assertion is not in accordance
    10
    with the facts presented. Moreover, other more egregious acts, have been found
    not outrageous. See United States v. Rogers, 
    701 F.2d 871
    , 872 n.1 (11th Cir.
    1983) (agents offered to lower price of drugs, furnish hotel rooms and women to
    “sweeten the deal”). Martinez’ argument that the government’s conduct was
    outrageous fails.
    IV. Motions to Suppress
    In reviewing a district court’s denial of a motion to suppress, we review its
    factual findings for clear error and its application of law to those facts de novo.
    United States v. Acosta, 
    363 F.3d 1141
    , 1144 (11th Cir. 2004). When considering
    a ruling on a motion to suppress, we construe all facts in the light most favorable
    to the party prevailing in the district court, here, the government. United States v.
    Mercer, 
    541 F.3d 1070
    , 1074 (11th Cir, 2008). In reviewing a denial of a motion
    to suppress, we review the entire record, including trial testimony. United States
    v. Newsome, 
    475 F.3d 1221
    , 1224 (11th Cir. 2007).
    A. Automobile Search
    Martinez’ first argument is that the district court should have suppressed
    evidence from the car because there was no probable cause for the search. “If a car
    is readily mobile and probable cause exists to believe it contains contraband, the
    Fourth Amendment . . . permits police to search the vehicle without more.”
    11
    Pennsylvania v. Labron, 
    518 U.S. 938
    , 940 (1996); United States v. Watts, 
    329 F.3d 1282
    , 1285 (11th Cir. 2003). Here, there is no dispute the car was mobile.
    If police have probable cause to believe a container containing contraband
    will be found in a car, then the police may search the car for the container without
    a warrant. California v. Acevedo, 
    500 U.S. 565
    , 580 (1991). Any contraband
    openly observed in searching for the container is also admissible under the plain
    view doctrine. Horton v. California, 
    496 U.S. 128
    , 142, 
    110 S. Ct. 2301
    , 2310-11,
    
    110 L. Ed. 2d 112
    , 126 (1990). Probable cause exists where the totality of the
    circumstances show a “fair probability that contraband or evidence of a crime will
    be found in a particular place.” Illinois v. Gates, 
    462 U.S. 213
     (1983); United
    States v. Brundidge, 
    170 F.3d 1350
    , 1352 (11th Cir. 1999). When probable cause
    is based on the statements of a confidential source, factors used to assess the
    source’s usefulness include his veracity and the basis of his knowledge. 
    Id. at 1352-53
    . Independent police corroboration is not a requirement. 
    Id. at 1353
    . In
    Brundidge, we gave the confidential source’s statements greater weight because he
    observed the defendant’s crimes firsthand and was capable of giving detailed
    information, finding that such a basis of knowledge overcame any shortcomings in
    the source’s veracity. 
    Id.
    Martinez argues that probable cause could not come from McCann’s
    12
    assistance because McCann was an unreliable and untruthful informant. In
    considering the totality of the circumstances, we note that McCann was not an
    anonymous tipster, and he had an abundance of firsthand knowledge. He
    described various quantities of drugs by type, how and where they were stored
    within the house, and the location of firearms and ammunition. Moreover,
    McCann was proven a reliable informant based on his assistance in the
    investigation of Martinez’ supplier, Thanh Truong, a fact overlooked by Martinez.
    Finally, although not required, McCann’s information was corroborated by the
    police when they verified he occupied the home using an electric bill and
    Detective Russ’ ability to acquire drugs from Martinez through McCann. We are
    also persuaded of McCann’s reliability by the fact that on the night of the arrest,
    he again described the state of the house in detail to police observers and told
    them Martinez would be leaving soon with a bag containing drugs and a gun. The
    police moved in a short time later after observing Martinez actually leave with
    such a bag in his possession and drive off in a waiting car. Certainly, the totality
    of the circumstances showed more than a fair probability that Martinez had drugs
    and a gun with him in the car. Thus, there was sufficient probable cause and the
    police did not need a warrant to search the car.
    B. Sufficiency of the Warrant
    13
    Martinez next argues that the warrant issued was insufficient because there
    was a lack of probable cause and it was overly broad. Police must have probable
    cause and a validly executed warrant to search a home absent some exigency.
    Payton v. New York, 
    445 U.S. 573
    , 576 (1980). An affidavit in support of a search
    warrant should “establish a connection between the defendant and the residence to
    be searched and a link between the residence and any criminal activity. United
    States v. Martin, 
    297 F.3d 1308
    , 1314 (11th Cir. 2002). Warrants must describe
    the people and places searched with particularity in order to avoid “exploratory
    rummaging.” Coolidge v. New Hampshire, 
    403 U.S. 443
    , 467 (1971); United
    States v. Khanani, 
    502 F.3d 1281
    , 1289 (11th Cir. 2007). The Supreme Court has
    held that, during a search of premises open to the public, police executing a valid
    warrant may search persons on the premises only if they have independent
    probable cause to do so. Ybarra v. Illinois, 
    444 U.S. 85
    , 91 (1979).
    In this case, as discussed above, the police had probable cause to support
    the search of Martinez’ home based on information from McCann. Additionally,
    the warrant contained the statements of the victim of a sexual assault who
    identified Martinez from a photograph. The police linked the house to the
    defendant’s alleged conduct by verifying his name with the electric company and
    the fact that McCann rented the home to Martinez. Thus, there was a clear link
    14
    between the drug and sexual assault crimes and Martinez’ home.
    Martinez wrongly argues that the warrant was overly broad because it
    permitted the search of vehicles at the home and all persons found in the home.
    The warrant was limited to a search of places where drugs or weapons might be
    found, which is not the same as authorizing exploratory rummaging. Police could
    look for drugs and drug paraphernalia in any containers in which they might be
    found. Finally, Martinez relies in part on Ybarra to challenge the warrant’s
    particularity, but that case involved the search of persons on premises open to the
    public, not a private residence. In any case, Martinez cannot challenge the
    officer’s authority to search all persons on the premises because he lacks standing
    to assert their Fourth Amendment rights. Similarly, Martinez cannot object to
    evidence found in plain view because the police had a right to be inside the home
    pursuant to the warrant, they viewed drugs and drug paraphernalia in the open, and
    it was immediately apparent that these items are illegal. See United States v.
    Smith, 
    459 F.3d 1276
    , 1290 (11th Cir. 2006).
    V. Evidentiary Rulings
    A district court’s evidentiary rulings are reviewed for abuse of discretion.
    Gen. Elec. Co. v. Joiner, 
    522 U.S. 136
    , 141-42 (1997); Smith, 
    459 F.3d at
    1295
    (citing United States v. Tinoco, 
    304 F.3d 1088
    , 1119 (11th Cir. 2002)); see
    15
    Sprint/United Mgmt. Co. v. Mendelsohn, 552 U.S. ___,
    128 S. Ct. 1140
    , 1144-45
    (2008) (courts of appeals afford broad discretion to a district court’s evidentiary
    rulings based on its “greater experience in evidentiary matters”). “‘An abuse of
    discretion arises when the district court’s decision rests upon a clearly erroneous
    finding of fact, and errant conclusion of law, or an improper application of law to
    fact.’” Smith, 
    459 F.3d at 1295
     (quoting United States v. Baker, 
    432 F.3d 1189
    ,
    1202 (11th Cir. 2005)). With these standards in mind, we address Martinez’
    evidentiary issues raised on appeal.
    A. Defendant’s Letter to Magistrate Judge
    Martinez claims that his letter to the magistrate judge should have been
    excluded as part of plea negotiations. Fed. R. Evid. 410 provides in part that “any
    statement made in the course of plea discussions with an attorney for the
    prosecuting authority which do not result in a plea of guilty” is inadmissible
    against the defendant participating in the plea discussions. Fed. R. Crim. P. 11(c)
    prohibits the court from participating in plea discussions. “An attorney for the
    government and the defendant’s attorney . . . may discuss and reach a plea
    agreement.” 
    Id.
     Where there are plea discussions between the prosecution and
    defendant, judicial pressure in the process is prohibited. United States v. Johnson,
    
    89 F.3d 778
    , 782 (11th Cir. 1996). Where portions of a writing, such as the letter
    16
    at issue here, are admitted, the rule of completeness permits a party adversely
    affected by the writing to require the introduction of any other part of the same
    writing when fairness requires its “contemporaneous consideration.” Fed. R. Evid.
    106. “‘It is well established . . . that to invite error is to preclude review of that
    error on appeal.’” United States v. Campa, 
    529 F.3d 980
    , 1000 (11th Cir. 2008)
    (quoting United States v. Silvestri, 
    409 F.3d 1311
    , 1337 (11th Cir. 2005)).
    In this case, Martinez’ argument fails because the district court was not
    involved in the plea discussions and any other error was invited by Martinez when
    he asked to introduce the entire letter. The Government sought to introduce a
    portion of the letter Martinez sent to the magistrate judge in order to rebut
    testimony from Martinez’ girlfriend about McCann’s involvement. Martinez is
    essentially arguing that his unilateral contact with the judge instituted plea
    negotiations. However, there were no plea negotiations because there was no
    negotiation and Martinez’ letter was not sent to the prosecution, as Fed. R. Crim P.
    11(e) requires. The magistrate judge was not involved in the plea discussions and
    did not exert any pressure on Martinez. Cf. United States v. Corbitt, 
    996 F.2d 1132
     (11th Cir. 1993) (court exerted pressure on defendant to take deal by
    assuring him of a “fairly high” sentence if case went to trial). Martinez cannot
    object to any portions of the letter beyond the part offered by the Government
    17
    because he invited the error by asking that more of the letter be admitted under the
    rule of completeness. The district court did not abuse its discretion in admitting
    this letter.
    B. Allegedly Exculpatory Letter
    Martinez argues that the court wrongly excluded two other letters that were
    allegedly exculpatory. A district court’s rulings on the admission of evidence will
    only be disturbed if there is a clear abuse of discretion. United States v. Jimenez,
    
    224 F.3d 1243
    , 1249 (11th Cir. 2000). The standard for harmless error is “whether
    the complaining party’s substantive rights were affected.” Goldsmith v. Bagby
    Elevator Co., Inc., 
    513 F.3d 1261
    , 1276 (11th Cir. 2008) (citing SEC v. Diversified
    Corp. Consulting Group, 
    378 F.3d 1219
    , 1228 (11th Cir. 2004)).
    In this case, Martinez alleges that two letters Martinez wrote after his arrest
    implicated McCann as the source of the drugs. Before trial, the Government
    sought to introduce the letters as evidence of Martinez’ consciousness of guilt or
    knowledge of drug trafficking. The district court questioned the relevance of the
    letters but withheld a ruling on admissibility until trial. At trial, and outside of the
    jury’s hearing, Martinez objected to the admission of these letters, but asked that if
    the court admitted the letters, the entire letters be admitted under the rule of
    completeness. The Government did not offer the letters into evidence and they
    18
    were not admitted by the district court. Martinez’ argument on appeal seems to be
    that portions of the letters implicating McCann should have been admitted because
    they tended to prove Martinez was set-up by McCann. Aside from the hearsay
    hurdle he faces in getting these letters admitted, Martinez cannot claim error here
    because his objection was granted by the district court. To the extent the district
    court failed to admit the letters, due in part to an objection by Martinez, its
    decision was not an abuse of discretion. The district court did not abuse its
    discretion because the government did not offer the letters into evidence and
    Martinez did not offer a valid justification for their admission.
    C. McCann’s Alleged Bad Acts
    Martinez argues the court erred in not allowing him to question McCann
    about either his involvement in a kidnaping while acting as an informant or about
    a prior federal mortgage fraud investigation involving McCann. Martinez argues
    the evidence was relevant to show McCann’s motives to lie about Martinez. A
    party cannot ask groundless questions of a witness. Michelson v. United States,
    
    335 U.S. 469
    , 481 (1948). A good-faith basis for questioning is required. See
    United States v. Crutchfield, 
    26 F.3d 1098
    , 1101-02 (11th Cir. 1994); Fed. R.
    Evid. 608.
    In a pre-trial motion, Martinez argued that McCann was unreliable because
    19
    McCann failed to report a kidnaping Martinez committed. This argument is
    eviscerated by Martinez’ admission at the suppression hearing that the kidnaping
    never occurred and by Martinez’ failure to explain the probative value of this
    evidence. The trial court responded to Martinez’ argument by suggesting this
    matter was better suited to be raised at trial. Martinez failed to raise this issue at
    trial and thus, it is waived.
    Martinez also argued before trial that McCann sought revenge against
    Martinez for Martinez reporting McCann to the FBI for money laundering and
    mortgage fraud. At trial and outside the presence of the jury, Martinez’ counsel
    questioned McCann about his involvement in any mortgage fraud and his
    knowledge of a federal investigation into his actions. McCann testified that he
    was unaware of any investigation. Under Fed. R. Evid. 608(b), Martinez was
    required to accept McCann’s answer and could not offer extrinsic evidence to
    contradict his testimony. The district court’s decision to not allow this line of
    questioning before the jury was in keeping with Fed. R. Evid. 608(b) and was not
    an abuse of discretion.
    D. Prior Convictions
    Martinez argues that evidence of his prior convictions for possessing and
    delivering drugs and the fact that his right to possess a firearm had not been
    20
    restored was unfairly prejudicial or lacked probative value. “Relevant evidence”
    is evidence having any tendency to make the existence of any fact that is of
    consequence more or less probable than without the evidence. Fed. R. Evid. 401.
    Evidence of predisposition is relevant when a defendant raises the defense of
    entrapment. Russell, 
    411 U.S. at 429
    ; United States v. Orisnord, 
    483 F.3d 1169
    ,
    1178 (11th Cir. 2007). “Evidence of prior drug dealings is highly probative of
    intent to distribute a controlled substance, as well as involvement in a conspiracy.”
    United States v. Matthews, 
    431 F.3d 1296
    , 1311 (11th Cir. 2005) (quoting United
    States v. Cardenas, 
    895 F.2d 1338
    , 1344 (11th Cir. 1990)).
    In this case, the district court determined that the probative value of the
    evidence concerning Martinez’ right to possess a firearm substantially outweighed
    any danger of unfair prejudice. Martinez’ possession of the revolver despite his
    status as a convicted felon tends to show that he kept the gun to further some
    unlawful purpose. The district court’s determination was not an abuse of
    discretion. The district court also found that the prior drug convictions were
    relevant not only to his intent to distribute drugs, but also to demonstrate
    predisposition and rebut Martinez’ entrapment defense. The district court’s
    determination that the probative value of this evidence substantially outweighed
    any danger of unfair prejudice was not an abuse of discretion. In any event, any
    21
    error by the district court in admitting this evidence was harmless due to the
    testimony of prosecution witnesses at trial, as well as the substantial amount of
    physical evidence gathered in support of the charges against Martinez.
    VI. Supplemental Jury Instructions
    Martinez objects to the district court’s instructions to the jury after the jury
    asked whether they could consider McCann’s testimony in light of his admission
    that he used marijuana. “A challenged supplemental jury instruction is reviewed
    as part of the entire jury charge, in light of the indictment, evidence presented and
    argument of counsel ‘to determine whether the jury was misled and whether the
    jury understood the issues.’” United States v. Johnson, 
    139 F.3d 1359
    , 1366 (11th
    Cir. 1998) (quoting Johns v. Jarrard, 
    927 F.2d 551
    , 554 (11th Cir. 1991)); see
    also Johnson v. Barnes & Noble Booksellers, Inc., 
    437 F.3d 1112
    , 1115 (11th Cir.
    2006). Jury instructions on the whole must accurately reflect the law. United
    States v. Prather, 
    205 F.3d 1265
    , 1270 (11th Cir. 2000). “We will reverse the trial
    court because of an erroneous instruction only if we are ‘left with a substantial and
    ineradicable doubt as to whether the jury was properly guided in its
    deliberations.’” Barnes & Noble, 
    437 F.3d at 1115
     (quoting Bearint ex rel. Bearint
    v. Dorell Juvenile Group, Inc., 
    389 F.3d 1339
    , 1351 (11th Cir. 2004)).
    In this case, the jury asked: “Does McCann’s admission that he committed a
    22
    crime, smoking marijuana, while acting as an informant mean that his testimony
    cannot be considered?” Martinez believes the court’s “no” answer was a directive
    to the jury to accept McCann’s testimony. Martinez would have required the court
    to only re-read the instructions regarding the level of caution a jury should have
    when considering the informant testimony, but this would not have answered the
    question, namely whether the commission of a crime by an informant excludes that
    informant’s testimony. The court’s answer did not misstate any substantive law
    and, when considered alongside the lengthy prior instructions regarding witness
    testimony, was not misleading. The court did not intrude into the jury’s province
    of weighing the evidence. There was no error in the court’s supplemental jury
    instruction.
    VII. SENTENCING
    Martinez appeals his sentences after a jury found him guilty of Counts 1
    through 4. With respect to Martinez’s controlled-substance convictions in Counts
    1, 2, and 4, the district court determined at sentencing that Martinez’s base offense
    level was 32 based on the quantity of drugs attributed to him, pursuant to U.S.S.G.
    § 2D1.1. The court also applied a two-level vulnerable-victim enhancement,
    pursuant to U.S.S.G. § 3A1.1(b)(1), giving him an offense level of 34. However,
    the court determined that Martinez was a career offender under U.S.S.G. § 4B1.1
    23
    and, because the statutory maximum penalty was life imprisonment, his offense
    level became 37, pursuant to § 4B1.1(b)(A). Because his status as a career
    offender automatically gave him a criminal history category of VI, his applicable
    guideline range became 360 months to life imprisonment.
    With respect to Counts 1, 2, and 4, the court imposed a sentence of
    360 months’ imprisonment as to each count, to run concurrently with each other.
    With respect to Count 3, the court imposed the mandatory minimum statutory
    sentence of 60 months’ imprisonment, to run consecutively with the court’s
    sentences as to Counts 1, 2, and 4.
    On appeal, Martinez challenges the court’s 360-month sentence imposed for
    his controlled-substance convictions. He does not dispute his status as a career
    offender. He argues that the court erred by calculating his applicable guideline
    range by: 1) determining the drug quantity for which he was responsible;
    2) applying the vulnerable-victim enhancement under U.S.S.G. § 3A1.1(b)(1); and
    3) declining to grant him a reduction for acceptance of responsibility under
    U.S.S.G. § 3E1.1. Martinez also appears to argue that his sentence was
    unreasonable because he was a drug addict with a history of drug abuse and was
    the victim of outrageous governmental conduct.
    After United States v. Booker, 
    543 U.S. 220
    , 
    125 S. Ct. 738
    , 
    160 L. Ed. 2d 24
    621 (2005), sentencing generally requires two steps: first, the district court must
    correctly calculate the guideline range; second, the district court must consider the
    factors listed in 
    18 U.S.C. § 3553
    (a) in arriving at a reasonable sentence. United
    States v. Talley, 
    431 F.3d 784
    , 786 (11th Cir. 2005).
    A. Drug Quantity and Vulnerable-Victim Enhancement
    “Section 2D1.1 of the guidelines provides that the base offense level for a
    possession or a conspiracy drug offense is ordinarily calculated by determining the
    quantity of drugs attributable to a defendant.” 
    Id.
    Section 2D1.1(e) to the Guidelines provides that, subject to an exception not
    applicable in this case, if “the defendant committed, or attempted to commit, a
    sexual offense against another individual by distributing, with or without that
    individual’s knowledge, a controlled substance to that individual, an adjustment
    under § 3A1.1(b)(1) shall apply.” U.S.S.G. § 2D1.1(e). Section 3A1.1(b)(1)
    provides for a two-level enhancement to the defendant’s offense level where “the
    defendant knew or should have known that a victim of the offense was a
    vulnerable victim.” U.S.S.G. § 3A1.1(b)(1).
    We decline to address whether the district court erred in determining the
    drug quantity attributable to Martinez or applying the vulnerable-victim
    enhancement because any such error was harmless. This is so because Martinez
    25
    does not dispute that he was sentenced as a career offender and, therefore, any
    error would not affect the calculation of his final applicable guideline range under
    § 4B1.1(b)(A).
    B. Acceptance of Responsibility
    We review the district court’s denial of a reduction for acceptance of
    responsibility for clear error. United States v. Moriarty, 
    429 F.3d 1012
    , 1022
    (11th Cir. 2005). “‘The sentencing judge is in a unique position to evaluate a
    defendant’s acceptance of responsibility. For this reason, the determination of the
    sentencing judge is entitled to great deference on review.’” 
    Id.
     (quoting U.S.S.G.
    § 3E1.1, comment. (n.5)). “Thus, we will not set aside a district court’s
    determination that a defendant is not entitled to a § 3E1.1 adjustment unless the
    facts in the record clearly establish that the defendant has accepted responsibility.”
    Id. at 1022-23.
    A defendant is entitled to a two-level reduction in his offense level if he
    “clearly demonstrates acceptance of responsibility.” U.S.S.G. § 3E1.1(a). An
    appropriate consideration in determining whether a defendant is entitled to a
    reduction is if he “truthfully admit[s] the conduct comprising the offense(s) of
    conviction . . . . However, a defendant who falsely denies, or frivolously contests,
    relevant conduct that the court determines to be true has acted in a manner
    26
    inconsistent with acceptance of responsibility.” U.S.S.G. § 3E1.1, comment.
    (n.1(a)).
    We conclude that the district court did not clearly err by declining to grant
    Martinez a reduction for acceptance of responsibility because he does not dispute
    that he maintained his innocence even after he proceeded to trial and was
    convicted.
    C. Reasonableness
    We review a defendant’s sentence for reasonableness under an abuse-of-
    discretion standard. Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. ___, 
    128 S.Ct. 586
    , 597, 
    169 L. Ed. 2d 445
    , 458 (2007); United States v. Pugh, 
    515 F.3d 1179
    , 1190 (11th Cir.
    2008). We decline to review the reasonableness of Martinez’ sentence in light of
    his history of drug abuse or the alleged outrageous governmental conduct because
    he did not sufficiently raise the issue in his brief. See United States v. Sanchez,
    
    269 F.3d 1250
    , 1293 n.7 (11th Cir. 2001) (failure to brief and argue issues on
    appeal means Defendant has abandoned claims).
    After a review of the record and the parties’ briefs, we discern no reversible
    error. Accordingly, we affirm Martinez’ sentences.
    VII. CONCLUSION
    For the reasons stated above, the decision of the district court is
    AFFIRMED.
    27