WPC( GCJL7 :3&yL9/]r/2SS6OK=ڪ#}\GxAN.p51_a$Ԉ#SBpmZ6g OQ!<4=M͊rҙF+[fLB3wut<7eWB uZ)ap$)~ㆵهx*i4,,A -p<b֏Y0xK|Q6s mSBHYmQ΃& \Kܩ`e5NHKgDT+] a}A4-M=o厹 '^7yVyֆQʃZwgSҎbѻ.w7#F U> %M 0GS U:  ^ w 4   0c bl 0Dt t b E m N U 8 ** 0U8 0 0p 0P 0- 0 0 0 0 0CQ 0 0e 03 0 0 0 0M 0  0@ 0 0 0 0g! 0," 0" 0# 0i$ % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % B''''''''''' 0'HP LaserJet 4000 Series PCL 5e,,,,0<( 9Z+&Courier RegularX($XmTXXX,`  "CG Times Bold3  ʑ2 H3|x(;3$ !X2XXX  - -($  *  - -U<4 9Z+ Courier New   W#$X>&XXX    1    _Fed.R._Evid_.804(b)(3)readsinitspertinentpart:"A  statementtendingtoexposethe_declarant_Ԁtocriminalliabilityand  offeredtoexculpatetheaccusedisnotadmissibleunless \ corroboratingcircumstancesclearlyindicatethetrustworthinessof 2 thestatement."  W#$X>&XXX    3    _WhileinpretrialdetentionJimnezwasrecordedtryingto  persuadeRodrgueztotestifyfalselyatthesuppressionhearing.*+ (_2623  ..*D+J (_25   ," <DL,23  ..  2( 4 <DL2  *A+J (_24   ) <DL)23  ..  2( 4 <DL2  *>+J (_23  ` &<<DL&23  ..  2( 4 <DL2  *;+J (_22   #DL#23  ..  2( 4 <DL2  *8+J (_21    DL 23  ..  2( 4 <DL2  *5+J (_20  h DDL23  ..  2( 4 <DL2  *2+J (_19   L23  ..  2( 4 <DL2  */+J (_18    L23  ..  2( 4 <DL2  * (_1723  Ԁ*DJ (_16   ," <DL,23  Ԁ  2( 4 <DL2  *AJ (_15   ) <DL)23  Ԁ  2( 4 <DL2  *>J (_14  ` &<<DL&23  Ԁ  2( 4 <DL2  *;J (_13   #DL#23  Ԁ  2( 4 <DL2  *8J (_12    DL 23  Ԁ  2( 4 <DL2  *5J (_11  h DDL23  Ԁ  2( 4 <DL2  *2J (_10   L23  Ԁ  2( 4 <DL2  (/J &_9    L23  Ԁ  2( 4 <DL2  ( &_823  (DJ &_7   ," <DL,23   2( 4 <DL2  (AJ &_6   ) <DL)23   2( 4 <DL2  (>J &_5  ` &<<DL&23   2( 4 <DL2  (;J &_4   #DL#23   2( 4 <DL2  (8J &_3    DL 23   2( 4 <DL2  (5J &_2  h DDL23   2( 4 <DL2  (2J &_1   L23   2( 4 <DL2  &/J $_    L23   2( 4 <DL2    W#$X>&XXX    2    _Appellant'soriginalbriefwasfiledinJanuary2005,before  Bookerwasdecided,andwasthusbasedmostlyon_Apprendi_v.New  Jersey,530U.S.466(2000),and_Blakely_v.Washington,542U.S. \ Є,124S.Ct.2531(2004),althoughitdoesnotappearthatthese 2 issueswerepreserved.AfterBookerwasdecided,weaffordedthe X appellantanopportunitytofileasupplementalbrief. d(J2W#$ !X2XXX      0   !X>&XXX  _X"XXX>&L>XX"8>&XXdd8  *!@4 4 UnitedStatesCourtofAppeals  SL>@ FortheFirstCircuit  SX>&XAy) ` dE<C ` A D  No.041691  O @UNITEDSTATESOFAMERICA,   @&Appellee, W  @tt)v. S  @"FRANKJ._JIMNEZ_,   @ Defendant,Appellant. [ Ay) ` dE<` A - @ APPEALFROMTHEUNITEDSTATESDISTRICTCOURT  @0 0 FORTHEDISTRICTOFMASSACHUSETTS n @` ` [Hon.MichaelA._Ponsor_,U.S.DistrictJudge] j Ay) ` dE<` A  @'Before  @ Torruella,LynchandLipez, -}  @hh#CircuitJudges.  S! Ay) ` dE<!` A !#     DavidJ._Wenc_,withwhom_Wenc_ԀLawOfficeswasonbrief,for "% appellant. j#&   ThomasJ.O'Connor,Jr.,AssistantUnitedStatesAttorney, @$' withwhomMichaelJ.Sullivan,UnitedStatesAttorney,wereon %f ( brief,forappellee. %&XXdXXd8*,X` XX* ` TORRUELLA,CircuitJudge. AppellantFrankJ._Jimnez_Ԁwas  chargedinamultiplecountindictmentwithpossessionofafirearm x onJuly22,23,and24,2002(CountsThree,Six,andEight)in $t violationof18U.S.C.922(g)(1),andpossessionofafirearmin   furtheranceofadrugtraffickingcrimeonJuly22,2002(Count |  Five)inviolationof18U.S.C.924_(c_).Afterajurytrialin ( x  theU.S.DistrictCourtforMassachusetts,ajuryreturnedguilty $  verdictsonallofthesecharges.    ` _Jimnez_Ԁappealsonvariousgrounds:(1)heclaimserror ,|  inthedenialofhismotiontosuppressevidenceseizedduringa ( _warrantless_Ԁsearchoftheresidencewherehewasstaying;(2)he  allegesthatthetrialcourtabuseditsdiscretioninrefusinghis 0 requestforanevidentiaryhearingforhissecondmotionto , suppress;(3)heclaimsthatthetrialcourterredbyfailingto  admitintoevidencethewrittenstatementofRafael_Prez_,an 4 unavailablewitness;(4)heobjectstotheadmissionofthatsame 0 witness'sstatementscontainedinawrittenconfession;(5)he   claimsthatthetrialcourtshouldhavegivenaproffered"missing 8!" witness"instructiontothejury;(6)hechallengesthesufficiency "4$ oftheevidenceinsupportofhisconviction,and(7)intheevent $& allelsefails,heclaimsthatUnitedStatesv.Booker,125S.Ct. <&!( 738(2005),requiresremandofthiscaseforresentencing.Forthe '8#* reasonsstatedherein,werejectappellant'scontentionsandaffirm )$, hisconviction. @+&. @tt) I.    ` Essentially,thedisputeconcernsnotthefactsheardby x thejury,butrathertheapplicationofthelawtothem. $t  ` SometimeinMay2002,_ATF_ԀSpecialAgentPatrickBurns   learnedfromDavidSteward,theownerofTripleAGuns,agunstore |  inWestSpringfield,Massachusetts,thataRafael_Prez_Ԁhad ( x  purchasedanunusuallylargenumberoffirearmsduringtheSpring $  of2002.BurnsreviewedSteward'srecordsandconfirmedthisfact.   Thereafter,BurnsmetwithMichael_Veilleux_,theownerofanother ,|  gundealershipcalledGuns&GunParts,andlearnedthat_Prez_Ԁhad ( alsopurchasedanunusuallylargenumberoffirearmsfrom_Veilleux_  duringthatsameperiod.Burnsconcludedthat_Prez_Ԁwaspossibly 0 engagedinsomekindofillegalactivityandasked_Vellieux_Ԁto , contacthimif_Prez_Ԁreturned.   ` OnJuly22,2002,Burnsreceivedacallfrom_Veilleux_, 4 alertinghimtothepresenceof_Prez_Ԁathisstore._Prez_Ԁwasin 0 theprocessofpurchasinganotherfirearm.Burnsproceededtothe   storeandsetupsurveillance,whereuponheobserved_Prez_Ԁcoming 8!" outofthestorecarryingabagandaccompaniedbyachildanda "4$ man,whomBurnswaslaterabletoidentifyasappellant_Jimnez_. $& _Prez_ԀhadjustpurchasedaModelP85_Ruger_Ԁpistol._Prez_,the <&!( child,and_Jimnez_Ԁgotintoacarthatwasregisteredto_Prez_'s '8#* wifeatanaddressinSpringfield,anddroveaway,withagentBurns )$, attemptingtofollowthem. @+&. _ ` Burnslost_Prez_Ԁintrafficanddecidedtoproceedtothe  Springfieldaddresstosetupsurveillancethere.Atsomepoint \ _Prez_Ԁdroveup,gotoutwiththechildandwentintothehouseat X thataddress.Prezwasemptyhanded.    ` Burnsreturnedto_Veilleux_'sstoreandlearnedthatthe `  manwhohadaccompanied_Prez_Ԁhadtwotattoosonhisarm:onesaid  \  "Freaky"andtheother"LaFamilia."Burnsthencheckedwiththe   SpringfieldPoliceDepartment,wherehereceivedinformation d  connectingappellant_Jimnez_Ԁwiththosetattoos,obtaineda `  photographof_Jimnez_,andlearnedthathisstreetaliaswas   "Freaky"or"Freakytie." h  ` OnJuly23,2002,_Veilleux_ԀcalledBurnsagaintoindicate d that_Prez_Ԁwasbackathisstorewiththesamemanasbefore,to  purchaseanotherfirearm.Burnsproceededtothestoreandwas l abletoobservethe_Prez_/_Jimnez_Ԁduocomingoutofthestore h together.Theygotintoadifferentcarthanthedaybeforeand  droveaway,againwithBurnstailingthem,butwithnobetter p  results,losingthemintraffic. !l"  ` OnJuly25,2002,BurnsandSpringfieldPoliceDetective "$ RicardoOrtizinterviewed_Prez_Ԁregardinghisnumerousfirearms t$& purchases._Prez_Ԁtoldtheagentsthatafriendofhisnamed  &p!( "Frank"washoldingsomeofthefirearmsherecentlyhadpurchased. '#* _Prez_ԀstatedthathedidnotknowFrank'sfullname,butwouldshow x)$, themwhereFranklived.HethentookBurnsandOrtiztothe_place $+t&. whereFrankwasstayinginSpringfield,locatedat105Jefferson  Street. \  ` Uponarrival,thelesseeofthepremises,Elsa_Rodrguez_, X authorizedtheagentstosearchtheresidence.Whentheyreached   thesecondfloortheywereabletodetecttheodorofburning `  marihuanaemanatingfromthefrontbedroom,thedoortowhichwas  \  closedandlocked,andwhich_Rodrguez_Ԁindicatedwasbeingusedby   appellant_Jimnez_._Rodrguez_Ԁusedabutterknifetoforcethelock d  open,andtheagentsproceededtoenter_Jimnez_'sroom.Inside `  theyfoundahandguncase,ammunition,cash,marihuana,anda   digitalscale._Jimnez_Ԁwasnotintheroom.Next,theyproceeded h totherearbedroom,whichbelongedto_Rodrguez_,wheretheyfound d _Jimnez_Ԁhidingonthefloornexttoabed.Ortizdrewhisweapon  andcalledfor_Jimnez_Ԁtoshowhimself.Whenhestoodup,Ortiz l recognizedhimasbeing"Freaky,"puthimunderarrestandplaced h handcuffsonhim.Atthispoint,anothermanemergedfromthe  closetwherehehadbeenhidingandindicatedthat_Jimnez_Ԁhadput p  aguninsideapillowcasethatwasonthebed.Ortizlookedinside !l" thepillowcaseandfounda9millimeter_Ruger_,ModelP89,pistol, "$ bearingserialnumber31076049. t$&  ` _Jimnez_ԀwastransportedtotheSpringfieldpolicestation  &p!( whereupontheagentsreturnedtothebedroomthat_Jimnez_Ԁhadbeen '#*  usingandseizedtheevidencetheyhadfoundpreviously. x)$,  ` BurnsandOrtizreturnedtothepolicestationtotalkto   _Jimnez_,whomtheyadvisedofhisMirandarights._Jimnez_Ԁagreed \ towaivetheseandprovidedtheagentswithawrittenstatement. X Inhisstatement,_Jimnez_Ԁtoldtheagentsthat_Prez_Ԁcametohim   lookingforheroin"[_t]his_ԀpastMonday,"meaningJuly22,2002,but `  that_Prez_Ԁdidnothaveanymoneywithwhichtopayforthedrugs.  \  _Prez_Ԁofferedto"give[_Jimnez_]oneguninsteadofcashandwhen   hegotcashhewouldpaywithcashandgetthegunback."_Jimnez_ d  thenwentwith_Prez_ԀtoGuns&GunParts,where_Prez_Ԁpurchaseda `  gun,and_Jimnez_Ԁthengave_Prez_Ԁsomeheroin._Prez_Ԁgavehim"a9   mm.Ithinkitwasa_Ruger_."_Jimnez_Ԁfurtherstatedthat_Prez_ h "returnedwithcash,whichhesaidheearnedbyfindingabuyerfor d thegun.Igavehimthegunandhesaidhesoldit."Therecords  atGuns&GunPartsshowedthat_Prez_Ԁpurchaseda9millimeter l _Ruger_,ModelP85,pistol,withserialnumber30109664.Thisgun h wasnotrecovered.   ` _Jimnez_Ԁfurtherstatedthatheand_Prez_Ԁwentagainto p  thesamegunstorethefollowingday,July23,2002,where_Prez_ !l" purchasedanotherfirearm.Thestorerecordsshowthat_Prez_'s "$ purchaseonthatdaywasa9millimeter_Ruger_,ModelP89,pistol, t$& withserialnumber31076049.Thiswasthesamefirearmseized  &p!( fromthepillowcaseatthetimeof_Jimnez_'sarrest,and_Jimnez_ '#*  admittedtohidingthegunthere. x)$,  ` _Jimnez_Ԁalsostatedthat_Prez_Ԁgavehimtwomoregunson   oraboutJuly24,2002,oneofwhichwasa.380caliberfirearm, \ whichheinturngavetoanindividualcalled"_Jinxx_."_Jimnez_Ԁdid X notknow"_Jinxx_'s"realnameorexactaddress,butwasableto   providehisphysicaldescription,andagreedtotaketheagentsto `  wherehelived.OnJuly26,2002,_Jimnez_ԀshowedSpringfield  \  PoliceDetective_Misael_Ԁ_Rodrguez_Ԁwhere"Jinxx"residedat2718   MainStreetinSpringfield.Laterthatday,DetectiveRodrguez d  returnedtothataddressandknockedonthedooroftheapartment `  describedby_Jimnez_Ԁasbelongingto"_Jinxx_,"whereuponaman   fittingthephysicaldescriptionof"_Jinxx_"suppliedby_Jimnez_ h openthedoor."_Jinxx_"consentedtoasearchofhisapartment, d duringthecourseofwhichDetective_Rodrguez_Ԁfoundandseizeda  .380caliber_Bersa_,Model85,pistol,bearingserialnumber295197, l whichhadbeenhiddenabovethetilesofadropceilinginthe h bathroom.TherecordsofTripleAGunsshowedthat_Prez_Ԁhad  purchasedthisgunonJuly23,2004. p   ` Attrial,itwasstipulatedthatthetwofirearmsseized !l" Єthe9millimeter_Ruger_,ModelP89,pistolandthe.380caliber "$ _Bersa_ԀpistolweremanufacturedoutsideoftheCommonwealthof t$& Massachusetts,andthatonJuly6,2001,priortothecommissionof  &p!( thechargedoffensesinthiscase,_Jimnez_Ԁhadbeenconvictedof '#* assaultintheSpringfieldDistrictCourt,anoffensepunishableby x)$, atermofimprisonmentexceedingoneyear. $+t&. @88) II .   A.Theevidenceseizedfrom_Jimnez_'sroom  x  ` Wereviewadistrictcourt'sdecisionregarding @ suppressionofevidenceunderabifurcatedstandardofreview,  < UnitedStatesv.Charles,312F.3d10,18(1stCir.2000),whereby   factualfindingsareexaminedforclearerror,UnitedStatesv. D   Lee,317F.3d26,29(1stCir.2003),cert.denied,538U.S.1048, @  whilequestionsoflawreceivedenovoscrutiny,id.    ` _Jimnez_Ԁchallengestheseizureoftheevidencefoundin H  hisbedroomat105JeffersonStreetonthebasisthatRodrguezdid D nothavetheauthoritytoconsenttothewarrantlesssearchofhis  bedroom.Thegovernmentcontendsthattheevidenceseizedfrom L Jimnez'sroomwasproperlyadmissibleasevidencediscovered H pursuantto(1)aconsentsearch,or(2)aprotectivesweep.Upon  carefulexaminationoftherecord,weagreethatRodrguezdidnot P haveauthoritytoconsenttothesearchofthatparticularroom, L andwequestionwhethertheagentswerepermittedtoconducta   protectivesweepoftheroomunderthecircumstancesofthiscase. T!" Regardless,wecannotbutconcludethatanyerrorwhichmightexist #P$ inadmittingevidencefromthesearchofJimnez'sroomis $& harmless. X&!(  ` TheFourthAmendment'srighttobefreefromunreasonable (T#* searchesandseizuresisgroundedontheindividual'sexpectation )%, ofprivacy.SeeUnitedStatesv.Thornley,707F.2d622,624(1st \+&. Cir.1984)("WhethertheFourthAmendment'sprohibitionagainst  unreasonablesearchesandseizureshasbeenviolateddependson \ whetherthepersonassertingaFourthAmendmentviolationhada X reasonableexpectationofprivacyintheplacesearchedorthe   thingseized.")._Jimnez_Ԁwasentitledtosomeexpectationof `  privacyastothebedroomhewasusingin_Rodrguez_'shome.See  \  Minnesotav.Olson,495U.S.91,9697(1990)(holdingthatan   overnightguesthasanexpectationofprivacyinthehomeinwhich d  heisstaying). `   ` _Rodrguez_Ԁhadtheauthoritytoconsenttothesearchof   thecommonspacesofthehouse.SeeUnitedStatesv.Matlock,415 h U.S.164,171(1974)(Permissiontosearchmaybeobtainedfroma d thirdpartywhopossessescommonauthorityoverthepremises.).  Sheclearlyhadcommonauthoritytoconsenttothesearchofher l ownbedroom,whereJimnezwasfoundandarrested._Rodrguez_Ԁdid h not,however,havethecommonauthorityoverJimnez'sbedroomin  ordertogivethepoliceconsenttosearchit.Theauthoritywhich p  justifiesthirdpartyconsenttosearchrestsupon !l" 8 ` mutualuseofthepropertybypersons "$ generallyhavingjointaccessorcontrolfor #% mostpurposes,sothatitisreasonableto t$& recognizethatanyofthecohabitantshasthe J% ' righttopermittheinspectioninhisown  &p!( rightandthattheothershaveassumedthe &F") riskthatoneoftheirnumbermightpermitthe '#* commonareatobesearched.(#+` x` x QUnitedStatesv.Hyson,721F.2d856,859(1stCir.1983)(quoting N*%- Matlock,415U.S.at171n.7).Inhertestimony,_Rodrguez_ +J'/ characterized_Jimnez_'sbedroomas"hisspace."Shedidnotenter  theroomasaregularmatter,andshetoldpolicebeforethey \ enteredthatshewasnotsupposedtoentertheroom._Rodrguez_Ԁdid X notevenhaveakeytogointotheroomandinsteadhadtousea   butterknifetoprythedooropen.Wefind,therefore,that `  _Rodrguez_'sconsenttothesearchofthehousecouldnotextendto  \  thesearchoftheroom_Jimnez_Ԁwasusing.    ` Thefactthattheagentssmelledthescentofburning d  marihuanaemanatingfromtheroomwhentheyreachedthesecond `  floordoesnotcuretheproblem."'[_O]dors_Ԁalonedonotauthorize   asearchwithoutawarrant.'"UnitedStatesv.Sharpe,470U.S. h 675,699n.12(1985)(quotingJohnsonv.UnitedStates,333U.S. d 10,13(1948)).Wheretheodorofaforbiddensubstanceis  identifiedbysomeonefoundqualifiedtoknowtheodor,theremay l wellbeprobablecausetojustifyissuanceofasearchwarrant, h Johnson,333U.S.at13,butitisnotsufficienttojustifya  _warrantless_Ԁsearch.Hortonv.California,496U.S.128,137n.7 p  (1990)(collectingcasesontherulethat"noamountofprobable !l" causecanjustifya_warrantless_Ԁsearchorseizureabsent'exigent "$ circumstances'").Thegovernmentdoesnotargueotherwise. t$&  ` Thegovernmentalsocontendsthat_Jimnez_'sroomwas  &p!( properlysearchedbytheagentsastheywereconductinga '#* "protectivesweep."Thegovernmentarguesthatthesearchof x)$, _Jimnez_'sbedroomwasjustifiedbecausetheagentshadareasonable $+t&. basisforbelievingthat_Jimnez_Ԁwaspresentinthehome,wasusing  marihuana,waslikelyarmedwithagunhereceivedfromPrez,and \ thereforeposedapotentialdangertothemastheyconductedtheir X search.    ` TheSupremeCourthasdefineda"protectivesweep"as"a `  quickandlimitedsearchofpremises,incidenttoanarrestand  \  conductedtoprotectthesafetyofpoliceofficersorothers."   Marylandv._Buie_,494U.S.325,327(1990).Thisissetwithinthe d  contextofthelongstandingviewthat"[_t]he_Ԁtouchstoneofthe `  FourthAmendmentisreasonableness,andthereasonablenessofa   searchisdetermined'byassessing,ontheonehand,thedegreeto h whichitintrudesuponanindividual'sprivacyand,ontheother, d thedegreetowhichitisneededforthepromotionoflegitimate  governmentalinterests.'"UnitedStatesv.Knights,534U.S.112, l 11819(2001)(quotingWyomingv.Houghton,526U.S.295,300 h (1999)).Hence,"thesearchingofficer[must]possess[]a  reasonablebeliefbasedonspecificand_articulable_Ԁfactswhich, p  takentogetherwiththerationalinferencesfromthosefacts, !l" reasonablywarrant[]theofficerinbelieving...thatthearea "$ sweptharboredanindividualposingadangertotheofficeror t$& others."Buie,494U.S.at327(internalquotationmarksand  &p!(  citationsomitted). '#*  ` Thiscasepresentsthedifficultissueofdetermining  whetherornotaprotectivesweepwasobjectivelyreasonableunder \ thecircumstances. X   ` Although_Buie_concernsprotectivesweepsincidentto   arrest,thiscourthasextendedthisdoctrinetoincludeprotective `  sweepsinconjunctionwiththeexecutionofsearchwarrants,_Drohan_  \  v._Vaughn_,176F.3d17,22(1stCir.1999);UnitedStatesv.Doust,   916F.2d757,759(1stCir.1990),andrecentlytoinclude d  protectivesweepswheretheexistenceofexigentcircumstances `  promptstheentryofpolice,UnitedStatesv.Martins,F.3d,   No.041474,2005WL1502939(1stCir.June27,2005). h  ` Inthiscase,RodrguezdeniedthatJimnezwashome,but d gavetheagentspermissiontoenterthehouseandsearchfor  Jimnezandfirearms.Theagentsdidnothaveawarrantfor l Jimnez'sarrestorasearchwarrant.Noonewasunderarrestat h thetimetheagentssearchedtheroomJimnezwasusing,andno  exigentcircumstancesallowedfortheirentryintothehome.The p  governmentcontendsthatthesmellofsmokeemanatingfromthe !l" frontroomescalatedthethreattheagentswerefacingduringtheir "$ searchbecauseitwasreasonableforthemtosuspectthatJimnez t$& wasinthehouse,smokingmarihuana,likelyinpossessionofa  &p!( firearm,andpossiblylyinginwaitforthem. '#*  ` Giventhattheagentswereinthehomeforthepurposeof x)$, searchingforJimnez,theymusthavealreadyhadsomesuspicion $+t&. thathewasthere.Thefactthat_Rodrguez_Ԁopenedtheroomfor  themwithabutterknifesuggeststhatshewasnotafraidofwhat \ mighthavebeenontheothersideofthedoorandtheagentswere X notparticularlyconcernedforhersafety.Underthe   circumstances,andbasedonthelimitedrecitationofthefactswe `  arepresentedwithandthelackofreasonablenessdetermination  \  madebythedistrictcourtbelow,wearenotatallcertainwhether   aprotectivesweep,toincludeJimnez'slockedbedroom,was d  appropriateunderthesecircumstances. `   ` Intheinstantcase,however,thequestionofwhetherthe   protectivesweepjustifiesthewarrantlesssearchofJimnez's h bedroomisofnomoment,becausetheerrorofadmittingthe d evidenceseizedfromtheroom,ifany,isharmless.Where,as  here,theobjectionispreserved,erroneousadmissionofimproperly l seizedevidenceattrialisreviewedforharmlesserror.United h Statesv.Barone,114F.3d1284,1293(1stCir.1997).Under  harmlesserrorreview,theburdenisonthegovernmenttoshowthat p  thesupposederrordidnotaffecttheoutcomeoftrial.United !l" Statesv.Castellini,392F.3d35,52(1stCir.2004)(considering "$ factorssuchas"considering,amongotherthings,thecentralityof t$& thetaintedmaterial,itsuniqueness,itsprejudicialimpact,the  &p!( usestowhichitwasputduringthetrial,therelativestrengths '#*  oftheparties'cases"). x)$, _ ` ThephysicalevidenceseizedfromJimnez'sbedroompales   inlightoftheotherevidenceintroducedattrial,including \ Jimnez'sundoubtedlyvoluntaryandfullycorroboratedconfession, X inwhichheadmittedthat(1)heandPrezenteredintoagunsfor   heroinagreement,(2)theyconsumatedthatagreementonJuly22, `  2002,whenPrezpurchasedwhatwaslaterdeterminedtobea9  \  millimeterRugerModelP85pistol,whichheusedasadepositwith   Jimnezinexchangeforheroin,pendinglatersubstitutionfor d  cash,(3)Prezlaterreturnedtopaycashinexchangeforthe `  Ruger,and(4)hepossessedotherfirearmsobtainedfromPrez,   includingtheRugerModelP89pistolthatwasseizedfromthe h pillowcaseandtheBersapistolthatwaslaterrecoveredfrom d "Jinxx"athishome.FurtherevidenceagainstJimnez,both  testimonialanddocumentary,corroboratedJimnezandPrez's l presenceatGuns&GunPartsonJuly22and23,2004,andthe h purchaseofthegunswhichheconfessedtopossessing.This,  togetherwithcopiousotherdocumentary,physicalandtestimonial p  evidence,wasmorethansufficienttoconvictJimnez,irrespective !l" oftheevidenceseizedfromhisbedroom. "$  B.Thedistrictcourt'srefusaltoholdasecondsuppression t$& hearingregardingJimnez'sinculpatorystatementstoDetective X% ' _Rodrguez_  <&!( { ` OnJune3,2003,Jimnezfiledamotiontosuppresshis 'F#* postarreststatements,challenginghiswaiverofhisMiranda )$, rightsandthevoluntarinessofthewrittenconfessionhe_made N+&. shortlyafterhisarrest.OnJuly11,2003,thedistrictcourt  heldanevidentiaryhearinganddenied_Jimnez_'smotion,ruling \ that_Jimnez_'swaiverandsubsequentconfessionwerevoluntary.We X seenovalidreasonfordisagreeingwiththeserulings.    ` Shortlybeforetrial,_Jimnez_Ԁsoughttosuppressan `  additionalstatementhemadetoDetective_Rodrguez_Ԁregardinghis  \  heroinsourcesandhiscooperationwiththepoliceintherecovery   ofthe_Bersa_Ԁpistol,whichwerenotpartofhisearlierconfession. d  Hesoughtsuppressionagainonthebasisofalleged `  involuntariness,aswellastheallegedfailuretowaiveMiranda   rights.OnJanuary9,2003,thedistrictcourtheldanon h evidentiaryhearing,andrelyinginpartontheevidenceheardat d theoriginalsuppressionhearing,concludedthatthebrieflapseof  timefivetosixhoursbetweentheoriginalMirandawarnings l andconfession,andthelaterstatementstoDetective_Rodrguez_, h didnotvitiatethevoluntarinessofthestatements.   ` Wereviewthedistrictcourt'sdecisionnottoholdan p  evidentiaryhearingforabuseofdiscretion.UnitedStatesv. !l" _Calder;n_,77F.3d6,9(1stCir.1996)."Ahearingisrequired "$ onlyifthemovantmakesasufficientthresholdshowingthat t$& materialfactsareindoubtordispute,andthatsuchfactscannot  &p!( reliablyberesolvedonapaperrecord."UnitedStatesv._Staula_, '#* 80F.3d596,603(1stCir.1996).Thepurposeofavoluntariness x)$, hearingistoensurethatunreliable,coercedconfessionsarenot $+t&. usedtosecureadefendant'sconviction.Jacksonv._Denno_,378  U.S.368,37677(1964).NothinginJackson,orSimsv.Georgia, \ 385U.S.538(1967),anothercase_Jimnez_Ԁrelieson,makesthe X holdingofavoluntarinesshearingmandatorywherethefactsare   notdisputedandthedistrictcourtcanthereforereacha `  determinationaboutvoluntarinesswithouttheneedforadditional  \  evidence.Sucharethepresentcircumstances.    ` Thedistrictcourthadalreadyheardevidenceatthe d  previousevidentiaryhearingaboutthecircumstancessurrounding `  _Jimnez_'swrittenconfessionandhiswaiverofhisMirandarights.   Thecourtwasalsoonnoticeabout_Jimnez_'suseofalcoholand h liquor,andofthelapseoftimebetweenhiswrittenconfessionand d hisoralstatementstoDetective_Rodrguez_.Indenying_Jimnez_'s  request,thedistrictjudgemadespecificreferencetothese l matters.Thecourtthenconcludedthatthelapseoftimebetween h theMirandawaiverandthewrittenconfession,andthestatements  toDetective_Rodrguez_,wasinsufficienttonullifytheMiranda p  warningorrenderthelaterstatementsinvoluntary. !l"  ` Giventhesecircumstances,therewasnoabuseof "$ discretioninthecourt'srefusaltoholdasecondevidentiary t$& hearing.  &p!(  C.Therefusaltoadmit_Prez_'sconfession  '#*  ` OnJuly26,2002,Prezmadeawrittenconfessiontolaw )$, enforcementofficialsinwhichhespelledouthisrelationshipto @+&. _Jimnez_,andinwhichhestatedthathedidnotprovidegunsto  _Jimnez_Ԁinexchangeforheroin.Attrial,_Jimnez_Ԁattemptedto \ introduceintoevidencethispartof_Prez_'sstatement,alleging X thatthestatementwasadmissibleunderFederalRuleofEvidence   804(b)(3),asastatementagainstpenalinterest.   1      ׀Thecourt `  deniedadmission,rulingthatsaidportionofPrez'sstatementwas  \  notagainstpenalinterest,andthatinanyevent,corroboration   waslacking. d   ` Thestandardofreviewforanevidentiaryrulingisabuse `  ofdiscretion.UnitedStatesv._Otero_Ԅ_Mndez_,273F.3d46,53(1st   Cir.2001).Abuseofdiscretionoccurs"whenarelevantfactor h deservingofsignificantweightisoverlooked,orwhenanimproper d factorisaccordedsignificantweight,orwhenthecourtconsiders  theappropriatemixoffactors,butcommitsapalpableerrorof l judgmentincalibratingthedecisionalscales."UnitedStatesv. h Gilbert,229F.3d15,21(1stCir.2000)(quotingUnitedStatesv.  Roberts,978F.2d17,21(1stCir.1992)). p   ` Forastatementtobeagainstpenalinterestitmusttend !l" tosubjectthe_declarant_Ԁtocriminalliabilitytosuchanextent "$ thatareasonablepersonwouldnotmakethestatementunlessit t$& weretrue.Williamsonv.UnitedStates,512U.S.594,599(1994).  &p!(  ` Therewasclearlynoabuseofdiscretioninthedistrict  court'sevidentiaryruling._Prez_'sstatementthathenever \ exchangedgunsforheroinwith_Jimnez_Ԁdidnotinculpate_Prez_Ԁof X anycrime,butratherexculpatedhimofcriminalliabilityunder18   U.S.C.924_(c_).Thefactthatitalsoexculpated_Jimnez_Ԁofthat `  crimeisimmaterialtoitsadmissionunderRule804(b)(3).If  \  _Prez_Ԁwantedtoexculpate_Jimnez_Ԁontheinformationcontainedin   hisextrajudicialstatement,hehadtotestifyincourt,under d  oath,andsubjecttocrossexamination.Thisherefusedtodo,as `  waswithinhisrights.    ` Havingsodecided,weneednotdiscusstheissueof h whetherthestatementwasalsoinadmissibleforlackof d corroboration.   D.Theadmissionof_Jimnez_'sconfessiononthebasisofalleged l violationstotheConfrontationClause  P  ` Theconfessionof_Jimnez_Ԁthatwasadmittedintoevidence  Z recountsconversationsthathehadwith_Prez_Ԁaboutthesaleof  heroin,theuseoffirearmsascollateralforthesetransactions, b ! andthevariousspecificfirearmsthat_Prez_Ԁprovided.Although "^# _Jimnez_Ԁsoughtsuppressionofthesestatementsaspartofhis # % allegationofinvoluntarinessoftheconfession,amatterwehave f% ' previouslydiscussed,henowraises,forthefirsttime,an 'b") objectiontothestatementsmadeby_Prez_Ԁthatarerepeatedby ($+ _Jimnez_Ԁinthatconfession,claimingthatbyadmittingthesame, j*%- thedistrictcourtdeprivedhimofhisrighttoconfrontthat ,f'/ witness._Jimnez_ԀalsoobjectstothetestimonyofDetectiveOrtiz  andAgentBurns,previouslydetailed,inwhichtheytestifiedto \ statementsby_Prez_Ԁduringthecourseoftheirinvestigationof X _Jimnez_'sactivities.Sincenoobjectionwasmadetoanyofthis   evidenceduringtrial,wereviewthismatterforplainerror. `  Barone,114F.3dat1293.  \   ` Jimnez'srelianceonCrawfordv.Washington,541U.S.   36(2004),ismisguided."The[Confrontation]Clause[]doesnot d  bartheuseoftestimonialstatementsforpurposesotherthan `  establishingthetruthofthematterasserted."Id.at59n.9.   Thechallengedstatementswereproperlyadmissible,notfortheir h truth,buttoprovidecontextto(1)Jimnez'sadmissionsinhis d writtenconfession,and(2)theinvestigatorystepspursuedby  BurnsandOrtiz.UnitedStatesv.McDowell,918F.2d1004,1007 l (1stCir.1990)("[A]defendant,havingmadeadmissions,[cannot] h keepfromthejuryothersegmentsofthediscussionreasonably  requiredtoplacethoseadmissionsintocontext."). p   ` Suchisthepresentsituation.Notonlyisthereno !l" plainerror,thereisnoerroratall. "$  ` Furthermore,itcanbefairlysaidthatJimnezadopted t$& allofPrez'sstatementsinhisconfession.Therefore,evenwere  &p!( Prez'sstatementsthereinadmittedforthetruthofwhatPrez '#* said,theConfrontationClauseisnotimplicatedwhenthereis x)$, adoptionofsuchstatementsbythedefendant,whothusbecomesthe $+t&. _declarant_Ԁor"witness"himself.UnitedStatesv.Allen,10F.3d  405,413(7thCir.1993). \  E.The"missingwitness"instruction  X  ` JimnezsoughttocallPrezasawitnessattrial,but   PrezinvokedhisFifthAmendmentrighttorefusetotestify.At |  theconclusionofthetrial,Jimnezaskedthatthejurybegiven ( x  a"missingwitness"instructionunderthetheorythatPrezwas $  "peculiarlyavailable"tothegovernmentsinceitcouldhave   immunizedPrez.Thedistrictjudgerejectedtherequest,a ,|  decisionwhichwereviewunderanabuseofdiscretionstandard. ( UnitedStatesv._Otero_Ԅ_Mndez_,273F.3d46,55(1stCir.2001).   ` Again,therehasbeennoabuseofdiscretionbutrather, 0 thedistrictcourtfollowedthecircuitprecedentestablishedin , UnitedStatesv.St.Michael'sCreditUnion,880F.2d579,597(1st  Cir.1989),inwhichtheidenticalissueraisedbyJimnezwas 4 decidedintheidenticalmanneraswasdecidedbythedistrict 0 courtinthiscase.InSt.Michael's,weheldthatthe   government'spowertograntimmunityfromprosecutiontoawitness 8!" doesnotmakethatwitnessmoreavailable,or"peculiarly "4$ available"tothegovernment.Id. $&  F.Thesufficiencyoftheevidence  <&!(  ` Inanutshell,Jimnezchallengesthesufficiencyofthe (T#* evidencethathepossessedafirearminfurtheranceofadrug )%, traffickingcrime.Hiscontentionispredicatedontwopoints:(1) \+&. thathisconfessionastothatchargewasnotadequately  corroborated,and(2)thatthegovernmentdidnotprovethathe \ possessedafirearminfurtheranceofadrugtraffickingcrime. X  ` Wereviewthedistrictcourt'sdenialofamotionfor   acquittalforinsufficiencyofevidencedenovo._Staula_,80F.3d `  at604."Iftheevidencepresented,takeninthelightmost  \  agreeabletothegovernment,isadequatetopermitarationaljury   tofindeachessentialelementoftheoffenseofconvictionbeyond d  areasonabledoubt,thenthedefendant'sclaimfails."United `  Statesv.Valle,72F.3d210,216(1stCir.1995).Thecourtmust   "choosefromamongcompetinginferencestheonebestfittingthe h prosecution'stheoryofguilt."UnitedStatesv._Licausi_,167F.3d d 36,45(1stCir.1999)."Theevidencemaybeentirely  circumstantial,andthegovernmentneednotdisproveevery l hypothesisofinnocence."UnitedStatesv.EscobarDe_Jess_,187 h F.3d148,172(1stCir.1999).Weneed"onlysatisfy[ourselves]  thattheguiltyverdictfindssupportinaplausiblerenditionof p  therecord."_Licausi_,167F.3dat45(internalquotationmarks !l" omitted).SeealsoUnitedStatesv.Ortiz,966F.2d707,711(1st "$ Cir.1992)(same). t$&  ` _Prez_'suseoffirearmsascollateraltopurchaseheroin  &p!( from_Jimnez_Ԁiscorroboratedbeyonddoubt,bytestimonial, '#* documentary,andphysicalevidence,andisdetailedearlierinthis x)$, opinionatpagesfiveandsix.Weneednotrepeatourselves. $+t&.  ` Thecorroboratedevidenceestablishesthatfirearmswere  usedinfurtheranceofadrugcrime,becausetheuseofthe \ firearmsascollateralfacilitatedthesaleofheroinby_Jimnez_Ԁto X _Prez_.    G.BookerSentencingIssue  `   ` _Jimnez_Ԁappealsfromasentenceimposedpriortothe ( x  SupremeCourt'sdecisioninUnitedStatesv.Booker,543U.S., $  125S.Ct.738(2005).InhissupplementalBookerbrief,Jimnez   arguesthatthedistrictcourterredinsentencinghimundera ,|  mandatoryGuidelinessystemandthatheisentitledtoresentencing ( inconformancewithBooker._7   2      _ԀThegovernmentopposesaremand.   ` JimnezacknowledgesthathisclaimofBookererroris 0 unpreserved.SeeUnitedStatesv.Antonakopoulos,399F.3d68,76 , (1stCir.2005)(ABookererrorispreserved"ifthedefendant  belowarguedApprendiorBlakeleyerrororthattheGuidelineswere 4 unconstitutional"). 0  ` Followinghisconviction,Jimnezwassentencedin   accordancewiththethenmandatoryGuidelinesto110months' 8!"  imprisonmentforhisconvictionasafeloninpossessionofa "4$ firearm,tobefollowedbyanadditional60months'imprisonment  mandatedbyhis18U.S.C.924_(c_)conviction. \   ` Boththegovernmentand_Jimnez_Ԁobjectedtothe X _presentence_Ԁreport,with_Jimnez_Ԁseekingadownwarddeparture,and   thegovernmentwantinganupwardadjustmentbasedonallegationsof `  obstructionofjustice.   3      ׀Thedistrictjudgedeniedbothmotions.  \   ` Indecidingthesentencetobeimposed,thecourtadded   threeadditionalcriminalhistorypointsforasubtotalof9.To d  thatwereaddedtwopointspursuanttoU.S.SentencingGuidelines `  (U.S.S.G.)4A1.1(d),onthebasisthatJimnezwasunderthe   criminaljusticesentencesimposedonJune7,1999andJuly6,2001 h intheSpringfieldDistrictCourt.Anadditionalpointwasthen d addedpursuanttoU.S.S.G.4A1.1(c),becausethepresent  offenseswerecommittedlessthantwoyearsfollowingappellant's l releasefromcustodyonDecember21,2001(fortheJune7,1999and h July6,2001sentences).   ` AlthoughappellantrecognizesthatourAntonakopoulos p  decisionconcludedthatBookererrorisnot"structural," !l" Antonakopoulos,399F.3dat80,andthusdoesnotautomatically "$ requireresentencing,heasksustoreconsiderthatconclusion.We t$& cannot,however,oblige."Absentunusualcircumstancesnotpresent  &p!( here,panelsofthiscourtareboundbypriorcircuitdecisions." '#* UnitedStatesv.VillafaeJimnez,410F.3d74,85(1stCir.  2005). \  ` InAntonakopoulos,wedeterminedthatwereview X unpreservedBookerclaimsforplainerror.Antonakopoulos,399   F.3dat75.ForJimnez'sclaimtosurviveplainerrorreview, `  thiscourtmustfindareasonableprobabilitythatthedistrict  \  courtwouldimposeamorefavorablesentenceonJimnezunderthe   newadvisoryGuidelines.Id.at75. d   ` Jimnezarguesthatthedistrictcourtwouldlikelyhave `  imposedadifferentsentencewereitnotforthemandatory   Guidelinesregime,becausetheGuidelinescircumscribedthecourt's h abilitytoconsidermanyfactorsJimnezpresentedinsupportof d motionsfordownwarddeparture,includingsubstitutingcommunity  confinementforprison,cooperationwithstateandlocal l authorities,overrepresentationoftheseriousnessofcriminal h history,extraordinaryfamilycircumstances,diminishedcapacity,  emotionalandmentalhealthproblems,substanceabuseproblems,the p  disparityinhowJimnezwaschargedcomparedtoRodrguezand !l" Prez,andcreditforstatetimeserved.Itisapparentfromthe "$ recordthatthedistrictcourtfeltrestrictedbytheGuidelinesin t$& itsconsiderationofatleastsomeofthesearguments.For  &p!( example,atthesentencinghearing,thecourtstatedthat: '#* 8 `  Familycircumstancesarejust x)$, heartbreaking.Thenotionthattherewillbe N*%-  three[]childrenwhonowwillbegrowingup $+t&. withouttheirfatherthereforthemisjust  terribletoevencontemplate.` x` x  8 `  Butthisisnotthekindofsituation \ that!thecourtshavemadeclearthisisnot 2 thekindofsituationwhereIcandownward X depart..` x` x Thedistrictcourtwentontostate:   8 `  Iwilltellyou...thatIamnot 6   goingtoimposeasentencehigherthanthe170  \  monthswhichistheverybottomendofthe  2  Guidelinerange,andwhichunderfederallawI   believeisthelowestsentencethatIam   entitledtoimpose.d ` x` x 8 `  Ibelieveanysentencebelow170months :  wouldbeanerrorthatwouldbecorrectedby `  theCourtofAppealsandwouldbeasentence 6 thatI'msimplynotpermittedtoimposeasa   matteroflaw.` x` x  ` Whilethesestatementsclearlysuggestthatthedistrict > courtmighthaveimposedamorelenientsentenceiftheGuidelines : hadbeenadvisoryatthattime,hisnextstatementtearsthis  likelihoodasunder: B 8 ` EvenifIhadthediscretion,whichIdonot > believeIhave,butIwillsayevenifIhad  thediscretiontodepartdownwardunderthese  circumstances,I'mafraidIwouldnotexercise p  it.Ibelieve170monthsisthelowest F ! possiblesentenceunderthesecircumstances.!l"` x` x  ` Thus,Bookerisofnoavailto_Jimnez_Ԁinopeningthe "$ possibilityofalteringhissentence. t$& @( III.   &p!(  ` Forthereasonsstatedherein,theconvictionof '8#* appellantisaffirmed. )$,  ` Affirmed.