WPC" ʚEEՏdn3-UV"4bgkG=dI{'r Oelo~L~vM0o㴨8 v֑e/T N-v0`q ~NR_07udY\ Rl /&[1k^kD{ boդHلaJL] hPo8n1|BKLS6Lݪ;.U<6iA좝bGX,}E_|? - lpknGNAIBbo֗ZԤX﶑* hKݽ{f.Q^BeswiŴ Z 62/: AF9^`7aŦ܃RƗ /܌'}|Y %r.݌,c8Cf~nѕ2tY:rܢ `EהfLؐyE# % 0D 0(& 0'  nTN^ w4( m*EAfCaENY>[?bUF B&&&&QCCvUF " " " " " " " " " " " " " " "U@P"HP LaserJet 4000 Series PCL 5e,,,,05X(#$  0  ($ RANGELP)rezGim)nezConsueloCerezoBoudinSelyaSchwarzerFernndezLahongraisPab;nFeltonDep'tGarc1aMaritzaGonzlezHobbsresentencingSepulveda EvidMeserveMaldonadoLondonoCardilloBerrioOcasioHolmquist(d:2$ !    =hXXdd=    0    $  =~XXdd=    4    _Inalettersubmittedfollowingoralargument,seeFed.R.  App.P.28(j),theappellant'scounselarguesthatourholdingin  UnitedStatesv.VegaMolina,407F.3d511(1stCir.2005), \  suggeststhat,incasesraisingSixthAmendmentconcerns,thereis  noneedtoattempttomakeanofferofproofortorephrase  questionsinordertoavoidproceduraldefault.VegaMolinadoes \ notstandforsoeccentricaproposition.Inembracingthat 2 opinion,theappellant'scounselseemstohaveoverlookedthatthe X claimatissuetherewas"dulypreserved."Id.at522.<6X9`("Courier NewTTXXx6X@DQX@<6X9`(CourierTTXXw6X@QX@͍Y5 556X,5 0backup3|xUTABLE Aq:\template\OPINIONS\SELYA.WPT 5 $  =~XXdd=    2    _Insomecontexts,awitness'scredibilityalsomaybe  underminedbytheveryexerciseofhisFifthAmendmentrightsin  thepresenceofthejury.SeeBerrioLondono,946F.2dat162. \ Here,however,thetrialjudgeinstructedthejurythatOcasio's 2 claimofFifthAmendmentprivilegewasirrelevant.- -.Courier New Regular d G $  =~XXdd=    1    _Therearethreeplacesinthetrialrecordthatcontainfaint  echoesofthe"willingparticipant"defense.Oneisabrief  allusioninclosingargumentsuggestingthatmultimillionaire \ developershadnothingtofearfromtheappellant.Incontext, 2 however,theclearimplicationofthisallusionwasthatthese X powerfulmenhadlittleneedfortheappellant'sassistanceand, . logically,wouldnothavebotheredtogreaseherpalm.Thesecond   isacrypticcommentduringamotionforajudgmentofacquittal   presentedafterthegovernment'scasewasconcluded,seeFed.R. `  _Crim_.P.29(a),inwhichcounselobservedthatthegovernmenthad 6   failedtointroduceevidenceof"fearorharm."Thethirdisan  \  attempttoaskOcasiooncrossexaminationifhefearedthe  2  appellant.Afterthecourtsustainedanobjectiontothis   question,counsel,withoutargumentorattempttorephrase,ended   hiscrossexamination.Noneofthesecansustaintheweightofan d  entiredefensetheory.Atanyrate,the_sockdolager_Ԁisthatall :  threeincidentsoccurredafterthejudgehaddeniedthemotionfor `  mistrialand,therefore,couldnothavealertedhimtowhatthe 6 appellantnowsaysisthepossiblerelevanceofOcasio'sprior   misconduct.  l $  =~XXdd=    3    _Thissinglefactdestroysanychancefortheappellantto  prevailonanargumentthatpermittingOcasiotoinvoketheFifth  Amendmentwasplainerrorwhenthe"willfulparticipant"defenseis \ takenintoaccount.Aswehavewritten,"[_t]estimony_Ԁthatis 2 cumulativeinnatureandlimitedinscopecannotconstituteplain X error."UnitedStatesv.Bailey,270F.3d83,88(1stCir.2001). . Inanefforttoparrythisthrust,theappellantassertsthat,had   Ocasio'sclaimofprivilegebeendenied,shewouldhaveelicited   testimonybeyondthescopeofVentura'srevelations.Appellant's `  ReplyBr.at45.Sincetheappellant'strialcounselneglectedto 6   makeacontemporaneousofferofproof,wecannotcreditthis  \   speculation.SeeFed.R.Evid.103(a)(2);seealsoUnitedStates  v._Mulinelli_Ԅ_Navas_,111F.3d983,992(1stCir.1997)(elucidating  crossexaminer'sburden,inthefaceofanobjection,to \ "adequatelyindicate[]tothedistrictcourtthetheoryofdefense 2 she_want[s_]topursue").<4 9Z+.Courier New Regular(@ Z(Times New Roman !  _TRXܐ3'X3' Letter3'Letter3'LetterT ?   5X5XD5UnitedStatesCourtofAppeal#5D##5X~X5#  5X5X~DOJ5FortheFirstCircuit#5DOJp##5X~X5Q#      `     h A') ` dE<` A 4 No.052042   @UNITEDSTATESOFAMERICA, K  @&Appellee,  G  @tt)v.   @ MARIADELOSANGELESRIVERARANGEL, O  @ Defendant,Appellant. K  A') ` dE<` A  @ APPEALFROMTHEUNITEDSTATESDISTRICTCOURT    FORTHEDISTRICTOFPUERTORICO 8 [Hon.JuanM.PrezGimnez,U.S.DistrictJudge] 4 [Hon.CarmenConsueloCerezo,U.S.DistrictJudge]@@*  A') ` dE<;` A < @@'Before !q @@((Boudin,ChiefJudge,  Selya,CircuitJudge,and   Schwarzer,*SeniorDistrictJudge. y! A') ` dE<$!` A %!u#       IgnacioFernndezdeLahongrais,withwhomEdgarVega_Pabon_  "Z% wasonbrief,forappellant. "0&   KathleenA.Felton,UnitedStatesDep'tofJustice,withwhom #' H.S.Garcia,UnitedStatesAttorney,GuillermoGilandMaritza $( GonzalezDeMiranda,AssistantUnitedStatesAttorneys,wereon b% ) brief,forappellee. 8&!* *'ddd Xdd Xdd X(#(#,( dd ,( dd ,( dd +  #'4#,'4# N#& SIH(#-  @39014 @S_October25,2006 )n$/ _ RHC)D%0"  @39014  @ R-#!H(#1 N  -    __________ + '2 *OftheNorthernDistrictofCalifornia,sittingbydesignation.  ,'3?N _    *,X` XX*8~XXdd8 ` SELYA,CircuitJudge. Thisisasequeltoanearlier  appeal.SeeUnitedStatesv.RiveraRangel,396F.3d476(1stCir. x 2005).Init,defendantappellantMariadeLosAngelesRivera $t Rangel(Rivera)triesonceagainto_defenestrate_ԀherHobbsAct   convictions.Thistimearound,shesubstitutesaseriesofSixth |  Amendmentclaimsforherpreviouslyunrequitedclaimsof ( x  evidentiaryinsufficiency.Hernewargumentsfarenobetterthan $  heroldarguments:althoughherappellatecounselhaspleadedher   caseably,thefreshlymintedargumentationlacksadequate ,|  groundinginthetrialrecord.Wethereforeaffirmtheappellant's ( convictions.Atthesametime,however,weaccepttheparties'  jointimportuningandremandforresentencing. 0  ` Werehearsethebackgroundonlytotheextentnecessary , toexplainourreasoning,urgingreaderswhohungerforamore  completeprofiletoconsultourearlieropinion.Seeid.at480 4 82. 0  ` Theappellantservedforsometimeasatopaidetothe   governorofPuertoRico.OnAugust23,2002"afterbothsheand 8!" thegovernorwhomsheservedhadleftoffice"afederaljury "4$ convictedherofonecountofconspiracytointerferewithcommerce $& byextortioninducedbyfearofeconomicharmand/orundercolorof <&!( officialright,18U.S.C.1951,andonecountofaidingand '8#* abettingtheunderlyingoffense,id.2.Theconvictionsrested )$, largelyonthetestimonyoftwobusinessmen,_Jos_ԀMiguelVentura @+&. _Asilis_Ԁ(Ventura)andAngelLuisOcasioRamos(Ocasio).Thesemen  testifiedthattheyhadgivenmoneytotheappellantinexchange \ foraccesstohighrankinggovernmentofficials. X  ` Thetrialjudgeorderedajudgmentofacquittal   notwithstandingthejuryverdictor,inthealternative,anew `  trial.Onappeal,wereinstatedtheverdict.SeeRiveraRangel,  \  396F.3dat486.Inthecourseofthatappeal,werejected   Rivera'spleathatthegovernmenthadfailedtodemonstratethat d  VenturaorOcasiofearedherbut,rather,werewillingparticipants `  inthespreadingaroundofmoney.Seeid.at483.    ` Pursuanttoourdirection,thecase,onremand,was h reassignedforthepenaltyphaseoftheproceedings.Thenewjudge d thereaftersentencedRiveratoa48monthincarcerativeterm.This  appealfollowed. l  ` Rivera,quaappellant,nowmaintainsthatvarious h curtailmentsofhereffortstocrossexaminewitnessesviolatedher  righttoconfrontheraccusers.SeeU.S.Const.,amend.VI;Davis p  v.Alaska,415U.S.308,320(1974).Shepointstonofewerthan !l" fiveoccasionsonwhichthetrialcourtthwartedproposedlinesof "$ inquiryandpositsthattheseinquires,ifpermitted,wouldhave t$& beenhighlyprobativeofthefactthatheraccusersfreelyelected  &p!( tomakepaymentstoher.Becausethegovernment'scasewasthin, '#*  herthesisruns,theseabridgmentsofherSixthAmendmentrights x)$, weredistinctlyprejudicialandrequirethatherconvictionsbeset  aside. \   ` But,thereisarub.Despitethefervorwithwhichthe X appellant'sargumentsarepresented,theyarebuiltonquicksand.   Weexplainbrieflywhywereachthatconclusion. `   ` Westartwiththeonegroundofcomplaintthatmerits  \  extendeddiscussion.Theappellant'strialcounselattemptedto   questionOcasioregardingpaymentsthathehadreceivedfrom d  Venturawhilehe(Ocasio)washimselfagovernmentofficial `  (paymentsthatallegedlyoccurredyearsbeforetheinceptionofthe   chargedconspiracy).Ocasiorespondedbyinvokinghisright h againstselfincrimination.SeeU.S.Const.,amendV.Atthat d juncture,theappellantmovedforamistrial,butthedistrict  courtdeniedthemotion.Theappellantassignserrortothis l _ruling._ h  ` Forpurposesofprecision,webeginthisphaseofour  discussionbyinquiringintowhatgroundofappealthemotionfor p  mistrialservedtopreserve.Itisbeyondperadventurethatthe !l" motionpreservedaclaimoferrorastothefailuretogranta "$ mistrial.Itislessclear,however,whethertheappellantcan t$& leveragethemotionintoafoundationforchallengingthefailure  &p!( totakeactionwithrespecttoOcasio'sprevioustestimony.After '#*  all,theappellantdidnotmovetostrikethetestimonytothat x)$, point.See,e.g.,UnitedStatesv.Sepulveda,15F.3d1161,1183  (1stCir.1993). \   ` Thisissignificantbecauseremonstrancesaboutrulings X thathavetheeffectofadmittingevidenceordinarilymustbe   preservedthrougheither"atimelyobjectionormotiontostrike," `  Fed.R.Evid.103(a)(1);seeUnitedStatesv.Meserve,271F.3d  \  314,325(1stCir.2001).Itisnotselfevident,asamatterof   logic,thatamotionformistrialqualifies. d   ` Bethatasitmay,thedenialofamotionforamistrial `  issubjecttoreviewforabuseofdiscretion,seeSepulveda,15   F.3dat1184,andthatgroundofappealplainlywaspreserved.The h samestandard"abuseofdiscretion"governsappellatereviewof d rulingsadmittingorexcludingevidence,seeUnitedStatesv.  MaldonadoGarcia,446F.3d227,231(1stCir.2006),andinthis l instancetheinquiriesseemtooverlap.Giventhissimilitude,we h electtotreatthisclaimoferroraspreservedwithregardto  Ocasio'sdirecttestimonybeingallowedtostand.  p   ` Inthelongrun,winningthatbattledoesnothelpthe !l" appellanttowinthewar.Theappellanteffectivelyconcedesthat "$ OcasiohadacolorableFifthAmendmentrighttoremainsilentasto t$& theseearlierunchargedtransactions(noneofwhichwerecoveredby  &p!( histestimonyondirectexamination).InUnitedStatesv.Berrio '#* Londono,946F.2d158(1stCir.1991),weobserved:"Indetermining x)$, whetherawitness'srefusaltoanswerquestionsposedduringcross $+t&. examinationconstitutesadenialofthedefendant'sconfrontation  rights...adistinctionmustbedrawnbetweendirectand \ collateralmatters."Id.at160. X  ` Thatprinciplepossessesparticularpertinencehere.If   theevidenceshelteredbehindOcasio's invocation oftheFifth `  Amendmentwasdirectlyrelevant,theappellant'srightsmayhave ( x  beencompromisedbytheearlieradmissionofOcasio'stestimony. $  See,e.g.,UnitedStatesv.Cardillo,316F.2d606,613(2dCir.   1963)(reversingconvictionswhenkeywitnessinvokedFifth ,|  Amendmentmidstreamand"[_t]he_Ԁanswerssolicitedmighthave ( establisheduntruthfulnesswithrespecttospecificeventsofthe  crimecharged"). If,however,theprofferedlineofquestioning 0 toucheduponmattersofonlycollateralimport,thecourthadbroad , discretiontopermitthedirecttestimonytostandwhileallowing  Ocasiotoinvokehisrighttosilenceoncertainsubjectsraisedby 4 thecrossexaminer.See,e.g.,BerrioLondono,946F.2dat161 0 (denyingreliefwhenthequestionsthatthewitnessrefusedto   answer oncrossexaminationservedonlyto"gild[]thelily"). As 8!" longasthecaseathandfallswithinthelattercategory,the #P$ motionformistrialwasproperlydenied.  $&  ` Theappellant'sbriefarguesforcefullythatthedesired X&!( crossexaminationwascentraltoherdefense.Specifically,she (T#* remonstratesthathadthejurybeenalertedtoVentura'shistoryof )%, dolingoutcashtopublicservants,itmighthaveconcludedthat \+&. thepaymentstotheappellantwerepartofanestablishedwayof  doingbusinessratherthantributeextortedthroughthreatsof \ reprisalorundercolorofofficialright(thestandardforHobbs X Actextortion,seeUnitedStatesv.CruzArroyo,461F.3d69,73   (1stCir.2006)). `   ` Thechiefdifficultywiththisargumentisthatitcomes  \  toolate.Thatistosay,eventhoughthedeniedlineofcross   examinationbearsadirectrelationshiptothe"willing d  participant"defense,thattheoryofdefensewasfirstclearly `  articulatedintheappellant'ssecondmotionforajudgmentof   acquittal,filedsixmonthsafterthejuryhadspoken._+ #  1      _ԀItwasnot h  assertedattrial.There,theappellant'stheoryofdefensewas d thatshehadnotactuallyacceptedanymoniesfromeitherOcasioor  Venturainreturnforaccesstogovernmentofficials. \   ` Notsurprisingly,then,whentheappellant'strial X counselarguedthemotionformistrial,hedidnotsuggest"or   evensomuchashint"thatthethrustofhisinquiryintomatters `  predatingtheconspiracywastodemonstratealackoffearonthe  \  partoftheallegedvictims.Rather,consistentwiththedefense   strategyrolledoutattrial,counselarguedthatthedeniedline d  ofcrossexaminationwasnecessarytoimpeachOcasio'scredibility `  byshowingspecificinstancesofbadcharacterunderFederalRules   ofEvidence404and608.Atnotimedidcounselalertthecourtto h thepossibilitythatthesepriorbadactsmightdodoubledutyas d evidenceofwillingparticipation.   ` Thefactthatapartyhaspreservedanobjectiondoesnot l meanthat,onappeal,thepartycanraiseanyconceivablegroundin h supportofthatobjection.Inthecontextofarulingadmitting  evidence,wehaveexplainedthata"lackofspecificitybarsthe p  partyaggrievedbytheadmissionoftheevidencefromraisingmore !l" particularizedpointsforthefirsttimeonappeal."UnitedStates "$ v.Holmquist,36F.3d154,168(1stCir.1994).Thislogicis t$& fullytransferabletoarulingexcludingevidence(or,ashere,a  &p!( rulingdenyingamotionforamistrialpremisedonarefusalto '#* allowaparticularlineofquestioning).Ineithercase,a x)$, contraryholdingwouldenableapartytoretrenchafteranadverse $+t&. juryverdictandaskanappellatecourttoviewthetrialjudge's  evidentiaryrulingsthroughanewanddifferentlens.Thissortof \ secondguessingisantithetictothecorepurposeofprocedural X defaultrules.Thus,wetreattheappellant'sobjectionas   preservedonlyastothetheorypresentedinsupportthereoftothe `  trialcourt,namely,thatthedeniedcrossexaminationwouldhave  \  beenusefulforimpeachmentpurposes.    ` Thateffectivelyendsthisaspectoftheappeal. d  Impeachmentthroughreferencetoawitness'spriorconductisoften `  aparadigmaticexampleofacollateralpursuit.Theadmissionof   thistypeofevidenceisalwayssubjecttothetrialjudge'ssound h discretion.SeeFed.R.Evid.608(b).Onseveralprioroccasions, d wehavefoundtheexclusionofsuchevidenceappropriateinthe  faceofSixthAmendmentchallenges.See, e.g.,BerrioLondono,946 l F.2dat161;UnitedStatesv.Barrett,766F.2d609,615(1stCir. h 1985).   ` ThetestimonyshieldedbyOcasio'sassertionofhisFifth p  Amendmentprivilegeisofthisgenre.Despitethemodest  !l" impedimentthattheexclusionofsuchtestimonymayhavecreated, "$ theappellantretainedaccesstoavarietyofeffectivewayswith t$&  whichtoattackOcasio'scredibility"nottheleastofwhichwas  &p!( thefactthatOcasiohadpleadedguiltytorelatedchargesandwas  hopingforalenientsentence. #  2      ׀Nomorewas_exigible_. \   ` Tobesure,theappellantarguesthattheunavailable X testimonyhadaddedsignificancebecauseitconcernedcriminal   conductwithwhichOcasiohadnotbeencharged,thussuggesting `  anotherpotentialreasonforOcasiotofurnishtestimonyfavorable  \  tothegovernment.Yet,thatsortofargumenthasheretoforebeen   triedandfoundwanting:an"inabilitytosuperimposeon[a d  witness's]admissionsthepossibilitythat[thewitness]mightalso `  beconcernedaboutpunishmentforotheroffensescanhardlybe   characterizedasanabridgementof[thedefendant's]rightto h effectivecrossexamination."BerrioLondono,946F.2dat161. d Here,moreover,eventhoughthelowercourtdeniedtheappellant  theopportunitytopressOcasioabouttheprevioustransactions, l Venturaalreadyhadconfirmedtheiroccurrence._- #  3      _ԀConsequently,the h juryhadavailabletoitalltheinformationneededtodiscount  Ocasio'scredibilityonthebasisofhisearlierunscrupulous \ dealings. X  ` TheSixthAmendmentassuresacriminaldefendantaright   ofeffectivecrossexamination,notarightofunrestrictedcross `  examination.SeeUnitedStatesv._Mulinelli_Ԅ_Navas_,111F.3d983,  \  987(1stCir.1997). Inthisinstance,theopportunityfor   effectivecrossexaminationwasnotforeclosedbythemistrial d  ruling.Consequently,weconcludethatthelowercourtactedwell `  withinitsdiscretioninprioritizingtheprobativevalueof   Ocasio'stestimonyoverthenecessarylimitationsoncross h examinationconcerningcollateralmattersthatupholdinghisFifth d Amendmentprivilegeentailed.   ` Theremainingclaimsoferrorneednotoccupyusfor l long.Ineachandalloftheseinstances,theappellant'strial h counseldidnotobject,didnotattempttorephrasechallenged  questions,anddidnotmakeanofferofproof.SeeFed.R.Evid. p  103(a)(2);Fed.R._Crim_.P.51(b).Accordingly,thesefour !l" assignmentsoferrorareprocedurallydefaulted. #  4      ׀ "$  ` Theproceduraldefaultrules,thoughsometimesharshin  theirapplication,"areessentialtothebalancedandorderly \ functioningofouradversarialsystemofjustice."UnitedStates X v.Griffin,818F.2d97,99100(1stCir.1987).Theydeserveour   allegiancehere.Thesefourclaimsare,therefore,reviewableonly `  undertheplainerrorstandard"astandardthatisnotoriously  \  difficulttosatisfy.    ` Theinquiryintoplainerroriselementary.Thetrial d  courtsustainedobjectionsonrelevancygroundstoquestionsanent `  (_i_)payments(unrelatedtotheappellant)allegedlymadetohigh   rankingpoliticalfigures;(ii)businessdealsbetweenVenturaand h Ocasio,includingpaymentstothelatterwhilehewasingovernment d service;and(iii)whetherOcasioactuallyfearedtheappellant.  Alloftheselinesofinquiryplayintotheappellant'stheoryon l appeal"willingparticipation"butaswealreadyhaveexplained, h thattheorywouldnothavebeenapparenttothenisipriuscourt.  Finally,thedistrictcourtdeniedtheappellanttheopportunityto p  pressOcasio,whohadtestifiedthathehadnopleaagreement,as !l" towhetherhehadanytypeofagreementwhateverwiththe "$ prosecution. t$&  ` Innoneoftheseinstancescantheappellantvaultthe  _quadrat_Ԁofhurdlesincorporatedintheplainerrorstandard.To \ prevailonanyoftheseforfeitedclaimsoferror,theappellant X mustmakefourshowings:"(1)thatanerroroccurred(2)whichwas   clearorobviousandwhichnotonly(3)affectedthedefendant's `  substantialrights,butalso(4)seriouslyimpairedthefairness,  \  integrity,orpublicreputationofjudicialproceedings."United   Statesv.Duarte,246F.3d56,60(1stCir.2001). d   ` Innoinstancehastheappellantsatisfiedeventhefirst `  ofthesefourprerequisites.Itiseasytoimaginethatthe   queriesatissuewouldhavebeenconfusingtothejuryand"given h thenatureofthedefensepresentedattrial"notparticularly d illuminating.Atanyrate,supplyingcontextdiveststhefour  claimsoferrorofeventheirinitialpatinaofplausibility.For l example,itmayseemtroublingatfirstblushthattheappellant h wasnotpermittedtoaskOcasioifhefearedher,butinthe  contextofthecrossexaminationtothatpointitwasnot p  unreasonabletothinkthatcounselwaseitherrepeatingaquestion !l" previouslyaskedandansweredorattemptingtocreatethe "$ appearanceofacontradictionwherenoneexisted. t$&  ` Evenwerewetoassumeforargument'ssakethatanyor  &p!( alloftheserestrictionsoncrossexaminationwereerroneous,the '#* appellantwouldnotgetveryfar.Basedonourreviewofthe x)$, recordasawhole,theselimitationsneitheraffectedthe $+t&. appellant'ssubstantialrightsnorimpairedtheintegrityofthe  proceeding.Therecordmakesmanifestthatthetrialjudgegave \ theappellantbroadlatitudetocrossquestionbothofthe X government'sstarwitnesses,andhertrialcounselvigorously   exploitedthatlatitude.And,finally,thejudgeaffordedthe `  appellantafullandfairopportunitytopresentthedefenseofher  \  choosingtothejury.TheSixthAmendmentdemandsnomore.   _Mulinelli_Ԅ_Navas_,111F.3dat987,992. d   ` Tocinchmatters,thefourthprongoftheplainerror `  testbarsreliefhere.Choiceshaveconsequencesand,foraught   thatappears,theappellantmadeastrategicchoiceastowhatline h ofdefensemightworkattrial.Fundamentalfairnessneither d requiresnorsuggeststhatanappellatecourtrelieveherofthe  consequencesofthatchoicebyreinterpretingtrialproceedingsin l lightofanalternatetheoryofdefensefirstclearlyarticulated h aftertheverdict.   ` Theabsenceofanyprincipledbasisforafindingof p  plainerrorintheexclusionofevidencebringsustothelast !l" issue.Thedistrictcourtsentencedtheappellantduringthe "$ twilightperiodbetweentheSupremeCourt'swatersheddecisionin t$& UnitedStatesv.Booker,543U.S.220(2005)(renderingthefederal  &p!( sentencingguidelinesadvisory),andourexplanatorydissertation '#* inUnitedStatesv._Jimnez_Ԅ_Beltre_,440F.3d514(1stCir.2006) x)$, (enbanc)(elucidatingBookerandprovidingguidancetosentencing $+t&. courtsonhowtoworkwithadvisoryguidelines).Thedecisionin  _Jimnez_Ԅ_Beltre_required,amongotherthings,thatintheabsenceof \ exceptionalcircumstances"notpresenthere"asentencingcourt X shouldbeginitsworkbycalculatingtheapplicableguideline   sentencingrange.See_Jimnez_Ԅ_Beltre_,440F.3dat518("Inmost `  cases,thiswillmeanthatthedistrictcourtwillhaveto  \  calculatetheapplicableguidelinesrange...beforedeciding   whethertoexerciseitsnewfounddiscretiontoimposeanon d  guidelinessentence.") ;seealsoUnitedStatesv._Pho_,433F.3d53, `  61(1stCir.2006)(explainingthat,postBooker,"theguidelines   remainpartandparcelofthesentencingalgorithm"). h  ` Here,thesentencingcourtdidnotpausetocalculatethe d applicableguidelinesentencingrange.Giventheuncertaintythat  existedintheroiledwakeofBooker,itisnotsurprisingthatthe l courtlackedtheclairvoyancetoforeseetheproceduresthatwe h woulddeemnecessaryforsentencingunderanadvisoryguideline  regime.Inlightofthisandotheromissions,thegovernmentand p  theappellant"whoagreeonlittleelse"bothrequestthatwe !l" vacatethesentenceandremandtothedistrictcourtfor "$ resentencingconsistentwiththestepslimnedin_Jimnez_Ԅ_Beltre_. t$& Theendsofjusticecounselthatweaccommodatethissensible  &p!( suggestion,andwedoso.Wecaution,however,thatwetakeno '#* viewofthelengthofthesentencepreviouslyimposed;thedistrict x)$, courtremainsfree,inlinewiththedictatesofBooker,_Jimnez_Ԅ $+t&. _Beltre_,and18U.S.C.3553,toimposeareasonablesentence  above,below,orequaltothatpreviouslyimposed. \  ` Weneedgonofurther.Procedurallapseslimitand X definewhatmaybereviewedonthisappeal.Forthemostpart,the   appellant'sclaimsoferrorareforfeit.Thelittlethatremains `  ofthoseclaimsisuntetheredfromthetrialproceedingsand,thus,  \  insufficienttoserveasafulcrumforoverturningtheconvictions.   Withal,theappellant'ssentencemustbevacated. d   Affirmedinpart,vacatedinpart,andremandedforresentencing .