
    UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee Cross-Appellant, v. James HENDRICK, Defendant-Appellant Cross-Appellee.
    No. 07-12660.
    United States Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit.
    April 27, 2009.
    Harriett R. Galvin, Miami, FL, for Plaintiff-Appellee Cross-Appellant.
    Edward R. Shohat, Bierman, Shohat, Loewy & Perry, P.A., Miami, FL, for Defendant-Appellant Cross-Appellee.
    Before BIRCH, DUBINA and WILSON, Circuit Judges.
   PER CURIAM:

James Hendrick was convicted of conspiracy, 18 U.S.C. § 371; obstructing justice, 18 U.S.C. § 1503(a); and witness tampering, 18 U.S.C. § 1512(b)(1). Instead of sentencing Hendrick to prison within the applicable guidelines range, the district court imposed a sentence of five years’ probation; directed Hendrick to pay a $50,000 fine; prohibited him from participating in any business related to government contracting or lobbying; and ordered him to perform 2,500 hours of community service at a rate of 500 hours per year.

Hendrick appeals his convictions, challenging the sufficiency of the evidence and some of the court’s evidentiary rulings. The government cross-appeals Hendrick’s sentence, arguing that the sentence is both procedurally and substantively unreasonable. We address each appeal in turn.

I. Convictions

Hendrick argues that the government did not present sufficient evidence at trial to prove that he conspired with Jack London to obstruct justice or to tamper with a witness. In a related argument, he contends that the government failed to meet its burden of proof as to these charges. He further argues that the district court abused its discretion by admitting into evidence: (1) the lay opinion testimony of Randall Hilliard, who received immunity from prosecution; (2) the surprise expert testimony of former IRS Agent Dennis Donnell; and (3) the hearsay testimony of Elaine London, Jack London’s widow.

After carefully reviewing the record, studying the parties’ briefs, and having the benefit of oral argument, we conclude that the government presented sufficient evidence to support Hendrick’s convictions. We further conclude that the district court did not abuse its discretion by admitting the testimony of Hilliard, Donnell, or Elaine London. Thus, we affirm all of Hendrick’s convictions.

II. Sentence

The government cross-appeals Hen-drick’s below-guidelines sentence. After carefully reviewing the record and considering the arguments that the parties briefed and orally argued, we agree with the government that the sentence is both procedurally and substantively unreasonable. We accordingly vacate it and remand for resentencing.

III. Conclusion

We AFFIRM all of Hendrick’s convictions. We VACATE his sentence and REMAND for resentencing.  