### FI LED U.S. COURT O F APP EALS ELEVENTH CIRCUIT May 7 , 2 004 THO MAS K. KAH N CL ERK [PUBLIS H] IN THE UN ITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FO R T HE EL EV EN TH CIRC UI T

N o. 03- 1106 0
D. C. Docket N o. 02-00116 -CR- CG UNITED STAT ES OF AMERIC A, Plai nt iff -Ap pe ll ee,
ve rs us GERALD EUG ENE BENNE TT, a . k
. a . Wo o d y, D ef en da nt- Appe llant.
Appeal f rom the United State s District Court f o r t h e S o u t h e rn D i s t r i c to f

A l ab a ma (M ay 7 , 200 4) Before MAR CUS and W IL SO N, Circuit Judges, and D UP LA NT IE R , D istrict

* Judg e. DU PL AN TI ER , D istrict Judg e:

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ * Honora ble Adria n G. Duplantier , United S tates Dist rict J udg e for the Easter n District of L ouisiana, sitti ng by desig nation.2

G er al d E uge ne Ben ne tt ap pe al s f ro m his c onvi ct ion s and s en te nc e f or dr ug tr af fi ck ing , unl aw fu l f

ir earm s po sse ssi on, and a tte m pti ng t o ki ll anof

fi ci al in the pe rf orm an ce of

of fi ci al dut ie s w ith int en t t o in te rf er e the re w ith
. F or

the f oll ow ing
reasons we aff

irm his convi ctions and s entence.

BACKGROUND O n M ay 10, 200 2, L eo n H ic ks a tte m pte d to pa ss a

c ounte rf ei t $1 00 b ill a t a
re ta il sto re in Mob ile Co unty , A la ba m a. S uspe ct ing tha t the bil l w as c ount er fe it, the st a t i o n c l e rk c o n t a c t e d t h e U n i t e d S t a t e s S e c r e t S e rv i c e a n d t h e M o b i le Co unt y Sh er if f’ s Of fi ce . A ft er spe ak ing w iththe sta tio n c le rk , S ec re t S er vic e A ge nt J oe P au l identified the no te as o ne invo lved in an ong oing counterfeiting invest igation ; he then proceeded to the g as s t at i o n to inv estigate further. When Paul arr ived at the store, deputies from the Mobile County Sheriff ’ s Of fice w ere questio ning Hic ks. T hey had le ar ne d th at H ic ks h ad

r ec ei ve d th e counte rf

ei t bill fr om "W oody " at 8468 D au phi ne Is la nd Park way , in pa ym en t fo r pr ov id in g " W oo dy" wit h a nh y dr ou s amm on ia , a
ne ces sa ry co m po ne nt in th e m an uf

act ur e o f m et ha m

ph et am in e. A ft er c onf irm ing the loc at ionof

the hou se w he re H ic ks d el ive re d th e am m oni a
an d r ec ei ve d th e co unt er fe it bill, Dep uty Marv in W al ke r of

the Mo bil e Co unty Sh er if f’ s O ff ic e ex ec ute d an a ff

idavit in supp ort of a se ar chw ar rant f or the hou se a nd obt ai ne d aw ar

rant a uth or iz ing ase ar chf

or evide nc e of

dr ug m anuf

ac tur ing a nd3

co unt er fei ti ng . Age nt P au l, a lon g w ithse ve ra l de put ie s f ro m the Mo bil e Co unty Sh er if f’s O ff ic e the n w en t t o th e D au phi ne I sland P ar

kw ay loc at ionto ex ec ute the
w ar rant. A ft er vari ous de put ie s and A ge nt Paul w er e in p osi tio n to e xe cu te the w ar rant, sheriff’ s de pu t y

E dd i e B l a c kw e l l r app e d ont he d oo r o f t he h ou se w i t h hi s m e tal fl as h l i g h ts ev er al t i m es an dan n o u n ce dt h e p re s en ce o f d ep u t i es fr o m t h e s h er i ff

’s of fi ce . D ep uti es Marv in W al ke r an d R oy Cu thk el vinw er e equip pe d w ithaba tte ri ng
ram to open th e door, if necessary . Af ter announcing their presence, De putyW alker not ic ed m ove m en t of a tow el c ove ri ng the gla ss p ortio n of the doo r. D ep uty Bl ac kwe l l kn o ck ed ag ai n o n t h e d o o r an d ag ai n an n o u n ce dt h e p re s en ce o f s h er i ff ’s pe rs onne l. D ep uty

W al ke r not ic ed

the tow el f

lut te r onc e ag ai n. At that poi nt the de put ie s ba tte re d do w n th e door an d e nte re d th e hous e w ithD ep uty Cu thk el vin le ad ing the w ay . Im

m ed ia te ly upon en te ri ng the hous e, D ep uty Cu thk el vin w as sho t f r o m b e h i n dab l a n k e th a n g i n g i n a n i n t e r i o r d o o rw a y o f

t h e h o u s e . Wh i l e s o me of fi ce rs m ove d D ep uty

Cu thk el vinto sa fe ty , oth er s ent ere d th e hous e. O nc e the indiv iduals behi nd the blank et indicated that they w ant ed to surrender, D eputy W alker pulled d own the blanket, revealing Ge rald Bennett, C hris Brannon and Elrod Miller. T he law e nf

or ce m en t of

fi ce rs the n se ar ch ed

the hou se , se iz ing gun s and num er ous item s used in th e m anufacture and distrib ution of m etham phetam ine.The district judg e sente nced B ennett as f ollows: a 288 month term of imprisonment as 1 to Counts 1 and 2, a 240 month term of imprisonment as to Counts 3 and 5, a 120 month term of imprisonment as to Counts 6, 7, and 8. The judge order ed ea ch of those te rms to run concur rently . Additionally , the district judge sentenc ed B ennett to a 120 month term of imp ri so nme nt o n Co un t 4 t o b e se rv e d c on se c uti ve to t he oth e r s e nte nc e s. 4 A gr an d j ur

y in dic te d B en ne tt, Mi lle r an d B rannonon o ne c ount e ac h of
c o n s p i r a c y t o p o s s e s s w i t h i n t e n t t o d i s t r i b u t e a n d t o ma n u f a c tu r e 5 0 o r

mo r e g r a ms of m etham

phetam ine (21 U. S. C. §846 )(Count 1), attem pted m anufacture of m ore than 50 g ram s of m etha m

phe ta m ine (2 1 U. S. C. §84 6, 18 U
. S. C. §2) ( Co unt 2) , pos se ssi on
w i t h i n t e n tt o d i s t r i b u t e m e t h a m p h e t a m i n e ( 2 1 U
. S
. C
. § 8 4 1 ( a ) ( 1 ) ) ( C o u n t3 ) , a nd at te m pti ng t o ki ll anof

fi ci al in the pe rf

orm an ce of

of fi ci al dut ie s wi th inten t t o interfer e w ith such p erfor m ance o f o ff

i cial duties (18 U. S. C. §115 ) (C ount 5). Additionally , the grand jury indicted Be nnett f

or one count of poss ession of a firearm dur ing dr ug tra ff ic kin g c ri m es ( 18 U
. S. C. §92 4( c) (1 )) ( Co unt 4) , a nd late r in a supe rs ed ing ind ic tm en t a dde d on e co unt e ac h of be ing a co nvi ct ed f el on i n po sse ssi on of f i r e a rm s ( 1 8 U
. S
. C
. § 9 2 2 ( g ) ( 1 ) ) ( C o u n t 6 ) , b e i n g a dr u g a d d i c t i n p o s s e s sio n of firearm s (18 U. S. C. §933 (g)(3)) (Count 7), and poss essing an un registered, sawe d-off sh ot gu n (6 U.S.C. §5 86 1( d) ) (Co un t 8 ). Br an non an d Mill er en te re d in to p le a ag re em en ts w iththe gov er nm en t. Be nne tt pr oc ee de d to tr ia l, a nd a j ur y c onvi ct ed

him on a ll co unt s. T he dis tr ic t j udge
se nte nc ed Be nne tt to a

408 -m onth te rm of im

pr iso nm en t an d a sixty -m onth ter m of 1Ti tle 18 Un ite d St a te s Co de Se c tio n 3 10 9 p ro vid e s in pe rt ine nt p art

that: 2 The off

icer may brea k open any

outer or inne r door or window of a

house . . . to execute a

sear ch war rant, if, a fter notice of his authority and purpose , he is ref used admittance
. . . .

5 supervised release. Bennett appeals both his conviction s and his sent ence. EVIDENTIARY ISSUES A
. Mo tio n to S uppr es s Be nne tt co nte nds tha t the dis tr ic t c ourt er re d in de ny ing his m oti on t o su ppr es s the e vid en ce se iz ed

f ro m his hom e be ca

use th e la w e nf

or ce m en t of

fi ci al s w ho executed the searc h war

rant violated the "kno ck an d an n ounce" poli cy of 18 U. S. C. §310 9. Specific ally , B ennett asserts that the officer s failed to "announ ce" them selves

2
an d th e pur

pose of the ir vis it be fo re the y br ea ch ed the door of his hom e. I n e xa m ini ng the de nia l of

am oti on t o supp re ss, w e re vie w the dis tr ic t co urt’ s f ac tua l f ind ing s f or cl ear er ro r an d it s a

ppl ic at ionof

the law to the f

ac ts de novo
. U

nit ed Sta tes v. San ta , 23 6 F .3d 66 2, 6 68 (11 Cir . 20 00 ). th It is undi sput ed

tha t the pol ic e knoc ke d onthe doo r of the hou se prior

to breaching the door. H owever , the r ec o rd reveals that th e testim ony of the law enforcem ent officer s conflicted directly with t he testim ony of Benn ett and the others as to whether the poli ce anno unced who t hey we re prior to enter ing th e house. When
ev al ua tin g th e fa ct

ua l ve rs ion of

e ve nts "w e shou ld d ef er to the [ fa ct

f ind er ’ s]6

d et er m i n at i o n s u n l es s h i s u n d e r s t a n d i n g o f t h e f ac t s ap p ea rs t o b e ‘u n b el i ev ab l e. ’" United States v. R amirez-Chilel , 289 F. 3d 744, 749 (1 1 Ci r. 200 2) ( quot ing United th Sta tes v . R iv er a , 77 5 F .2d 15 59 , 15 61 (1 1t h C ir. 1 98 5) ), cert. denied , 537 U
. S. 111 4, 123 S. Ct
. 850 , 154 L
. E d. 2d 7 89 (20 03)
. T he dis tr ic t j udge c re dit ed the te sti m ony

of the law e nf

or ce m en t w itn es se s th at

the y kno ck ed an d an noun ce d th ei r pr es en ce a nd id en tity and that there w as then m ovem ent in the hou se alm ost imm ediately
. That fin di ng , bas edon fact s wh ic h wer e n ot "u nb el ie va bl e," i s n ot cle arl y erro ne ou s. T he w ar rant a uth or iz ed ase ar chf

or e vid en ce of

dr ug c ri m es . A s w e ha ve pr ev io us ly not ed , "[g ]uns an d v io le nc e g o h an d- in -h an d wi th il le ga l d ru g o pe rat io ns ." U nit ed Sta tes v . H

rom ada , 4 9 F
. 3 d6 8 5 , 6 8 9 ( 1 1 t h C i r . 1 9 9 5 )
. C o n sid er ing the c los e
re la tio nshi p be tw ee n gu ns and dr ug tra ff ic kin g and the f

ac t tha t, de spi te m ove m en t in the hou se , no one a nsw er ed the doo r af

te r the knoc k, the of

fi ce rs a ct ed

r ea sona bly in b re ac hin g th e door be fo re it w as ope ne d. T he dis tr ic t j udge did not er r in d en y ing the m oti on t o su

ppr es s. B. Mo tio n in

L im ine T he dis tr ic t j udge de nie d B en ne tt’ s m oti on i n li m ine se eking to e xc lud e te sti m ony by T im oth y Br ow n co nc er nin g his dr

ug tr af fi ck ing ac tiv iti es w ithBe nne tt from De cem ber 2001 - Janua ry

27, 2002, concludin g that the testim ony wa sRul e 40 4( b) of the F e de ra l Ru le s o f E vid e nc e pr ov ide s in pe rt ine nt p art

that: 3 Evidence of other c rimes, wrong s, or ac ts is not admis sible to prove the c h ar a c t e r o f a p e r s o ni no r d e r

t o s h o wa c t i o ni nc o n f

o r m i ty th e r e w i th
. It may , howeve r, be a dmissibl e for other purpose s, such as proof of motive, opportunity , intent, prepa ration, plan, knowle dg e, identify , or abse nce of mistake or ac cident, . . . . 7 adm iss ibl e unde r Ru le 404 (b ) of the F ed er al Ru le s of

Ci vil P ro ce dur e. Be nne tt as se rt s 3 tha t the e vid en ce w as hig hly pr ej udi ci al a nd tha t, bec au se it oc curr ed appr oxi m at el y fo ur m onths p ri or

to the unl aw fu l c ondu ct

c ha rg ed in the ind ic tm en t, it is too r em ote in tim e to be relevant. The indictm ent alleges that Bennett’ s illegal activity occurre d "i n o r ab ou t ea rly May , 2 00 2, to an d co nt in ui ng th ro ug h on or ab ou t M ay 10 , 20 02 ." A district j udge’s decision to adm it evidence under Rule 404(b) of the Federa l Ru le s of Ci vil P ro ce dur e is r ev ie w ed fo r ab us e of dis cr et ion
. U nited Sta tes v. G iordano , 2 6 1 F
. 3 d 1 1 3 4 , 1 1 4 0 ( 1 1 C i r . 2 0 0 1 )
. A tr ipa rtite te st a ppl ie s i n a

na lyzin g th whether the district j udge abused his discretion in adm itting the challenged evidence:

First, the evidence m

ust be relevant to an issue oth er than the defendant’ s charac ter. Sec ond, as part of the r elevance an al y sis , the re m

ust be suf fi ci en t pr oof so tha t a

j ur y c oul d fi nd tha t the de fe ndant c om m itt ed the ex tr ins ic ac t. T hir d, the e vid en ce m

ust pos se ss p ro ba tiv e va lue tha t i s no t subs tanti al ly

outw ei ghe d by

it s un due pre

jud ic e, a nd the ev ide nc e m

ust m ee t the oth er

r equir em en ts o f Ru le 403
. United States v. M

iller , 959 F. 2d 1535, 1538 (11 Cir. 1992 ) ( en ban c ) (f ootnot e an d th int erna l c ita tio ns o m itt ed ). R ule 403 of

the F ed er al Ru le s of

E vid en ce pr ovi de s:8

"[ a] lth oughr el ev an t, e vid en ce m ay be e xc lud ed

if its pr oba tiv e va lue is s ubst an tia lly outw ei ghe d by the da nge r of unf ai r pr ej udi ce , co nf

usi on of the iss ue s, or

m isl ea din g the j ur y , or by c onsi de ra tio ns o f undu e de lay , w as te of tim e, or ne ed le ss p re se nta tio n of cu m ul at iv e ev id en ce." Br ow n te sti fi ed tha t at Be nne tt’ s re que st h e pr ovi de d B en ne tt w itha nhy dr ous
am m oni a to " co ok" m etha m phe ta m ine , tha t B en ne tt ha d af orm ula f or c reat in g th e drug, that he w as present w hen Be n n ett "cooked" an oun ce of m etham phetam ine at Bennett’ s hous e, that Bennett probabl y " c oo ke d" m e tha

m phetam ine two to three tim es pe r w ee k, a nd tha t he ha d se enBe nne tt use m etha m phe ta m ine thr ee to fi ve ti m es . Br ow n a lso te sti fi ed

tha t B en ne tt ha d "a

bout te n gr am s" of

m etha m phe ta m ine f

or him wh i ch Br o wn n ev er re ce i v ed b ec au s e h e wa s ar re s t ed p ri o r t o re ce i v i n g i t . B en n et t ’s
ac ti v i t i e s , a s d e s c r i b e d b y B r o w n , a r e t h e s a m e t y p e o f c o n du c t a l l e g e d i n th e in di ct m en t, i .e., m an uf

act ur in g m et ha m

ph et am in e. Brow n’ s testim ony

is clearly probative of, and relevant to, e stablish ing m otive, oppo rt uni ty , int en t, a nd know le dge
. Mo re ove r, act ivi ty oc curr ing a t m ost

onl y f our
m onths p ri or

to the c ondu ct

c ha rg ed in the ind ic tm en t i s no t so r em ote f ro m the ch ar ge d a ct ivi ty

a s to be ir

re le va nt. N or

doe s th e fo ur -m on th la pse und er cu t the pr oba tiv e va lue of

the pr ior

a ct s ine sta

bli shi ng m oti ve , opp ortun ity , int en t, a nd kn owl ed ge . Se e U

nit ed Sta tes v . D ic ke rso n , 248 F. 3 d 1 0 3 6, 1047 (11 Cir. 2001 ), th9

cert. denied , 536 U. S. 957, 122 S.Ct. 2659 , 153 L. Ed. 2d 8 35 (2002 ). T he district j udge did not err in deny ing th e m otion in lim ine. MOTION TO SEVER Be nne tt m ove d t o seve r tr ia l on the co unt c ha rg ing him

a s ac onvi ct ed

f el on i n poss ession o f firearm s from trial on the rem aining counts of the indi ctm ent, urging that pr oof of his fe lon y co nvi ct ion w oul d pre j udi ce him be fo re the j ur

y w ithr es pe ct

to the oth er c ount s. T he dis tr ic t j udge de nie d th e m oti on. The de ni al of a m ot io n t o s ev er i s re vi ewedforab us e o f di sc ret io n. U ni ted States v. W

alser , 3 F. 3d 380, 385 (1 1 Ci r. 1993 ). "W e w ill not r ev er se the de nia l of th
a sev erance m otion absent a clear abuse of discretion resulting in com pelling prej udice against which the district court could o ffer no protection ." Id

. Fe d er al Ru l e o f C ri m i n al Pr o ce du re 1 4 , a s i tre ad at t h e t i m e o f B en n e t t ’s
m otion , provided that [i] f it appear s that a d efendant o r th e g overnm ent is prej udiced by aj oin de r of

of fe nse s . . . the c ourt m ay or de r an el ec tio n or se pa ra te tr ia ls o f co unt s,

. . . . " B en ne tt ha s fa ile d to carr y the he av y bur de n of

e sta bli shi ng tha t the de nia l of the m oti on r es ult ed

in "c om pe lli ng p re

j udi ce a ga ins t w hic h th e dis tr ict cou rt c oul d offer no protection ." United States v. W alser , 3 F. 3d a t 385. Se veral fa ctors m itigated any prej udice resulting from the ref usal to bifurcate the trial. Beca use the parties sti pul at ed to the pr ior

f el ony , the j ur

y did not he ar an y de ta ils about the pr ior ba d a ct ,10

the re by m ini m iz ing the po ss ib il ity tha t the j ur

y w oul d im

pr ope rl y c onsi de r the
ev id en ce o f th e p rio r co nv ic ti on when de li be rat in g a bo ut th e o th er fel on y ch arg es . See United States v. M

iller , 255 F. 3d 12 82, 1289 (11 Cir. 2001 ). A dditi onally , the dist rict th
c o u rtr e du c e dt h e p o t e n t i a l f o r p r e ju d i c e b y i n s t r

u c t i n g t h e ju ry: T he part ie s inthi s c as e ha ve sti pul at ed tha t the de fe ndant i s a co nvi ct ed

f el on. T he re fo re , it is n ot n ec es sa ry f or the G ove rn m en t t o of

fe r ad dit ion al pr oof

on this e le m en t. Y ou ar e to c onsi de r tha t a s a fa ct but onl y a s to the c ha rg e in this co unt of the ind ic tm en t. Y ou are not to co nsi de r thi s fa ct

in de te rm i n i n g t h e g u i l to r

i n n o c e n c e o f

t h e d e f e n d an ti n t he other counts o f the i n dictm ent. Y ou are to disregard that fa ct in co nsi de ri ng w he the r the de fe ndant is gu ilty or not gui lty of the oth er c ount s. W e p res um e th ata jury foll ows th e in st ru ct io ns gi ve n t o it by the di st ric t co ur t. United Sta tes v . She nbur

g , 89 F. 3d 14 61, 1472 (11 Cir. 1996 ). T here is no indication that th the j ur y f ai le d to f oll owthe quo te d in str

uc tio n. In ar el at ed

a tta ck on h is c onvi ct ion s, Be nne tt co nte nds tha t the dis tr ic t j udge
er re d in re fu sin g to a llo w his c ouns el to vo ir dire potential jurors as to w hether they
co uld se t a sid e the ir

kno w le dge tha t he w as ac onvi ct ed f el on i n c ons id er ing the evidence on the count s in which that fact w as not an elem ent o f the offense. Sp ec if ic al ly , Be nne tt soug ht t o a sk: Can y ou, and each of y ou, when considering th e e vidence on C ount s O ne , Two , T hr ee , F our , F ive , S ev en , a nd E igh t in this c as e, se t asi de y our kno w le dge of

the f ac t tha t the11 defendant is a convicted felon and consi der only t he other ev ide nc e pr es en te d te ndi ng t o pr ove tha t he c om m itt ed the ac ts ch ar ge d in Co unt s O ne , T w o, T hr ee , F our , F ive , S ev en , an d E igh t, in de te rm ini ng h is g uil t or in noce nc e on those counts? The reason I am

asking th is questi on is th at the fac t tha t the D ef

en da nt i s ac onvi ct ed

f el on h as absol ute ly noth ing to do with his gu ilt or inno cence on Counts One, T w o, T hr ee , Fo ur , F ive , S ev en , a nd E igh t. Y ou c an not consider in any

way his status as a c o n v i ct ed felon when co ns id eri ng th e ev id en ce o n t ho se co un ts
. Bennett urges that the propos ed questio n seeks inform ation concerning pos sible bias and prej udice of the potential jurors and is not design ed s o l el y t o as sess whether a potenti al j uror wa s willing to follo w the law a s instructed bythe district judge. As w ith the denial of a m otion to sever , we reviewthe ref usal to ask a propo sed
vo ir dire question for abuse of discre tion. See U nit ed Sta tes v . Ch astain , 19 8 F. 3d 1338 , 134 8 ( 11 Ci r. 199 9)
. It is w el l e sta bli she d th at

"[ t] he voi r dir e co nduc te d by th the tr ia l c ourt ne ed

onl y pr ovi de r ea sona

ble a ssu ran ce tha t pr ej udi ce w ill be discovered if present." U nit ed Sta tes v . V

er a , 701 F
. 2d 1 34 9, 13 55 (1 1 Ci r. 198 3) th (internal quotation and citation om itted). Although the district judge did not inqui re as to specific grounds for prej udice, the court did ask whether :

an y of y o u kn o w a n yt h i n g –

h a v e a n y

r e a s o n t o b e l i ev e based on y our personal experiences, your personal phi los ophy , or

r el igi ous be lie f or som ethin g abou t y our pa st ex pe ri en ce s go od or ba d w hic h m ay ha ve som e be ar ing on y ourab i l i t y t o s e rv e a s a j u r o r i n t h i s c a s e ? I ’ d a s k y o u to12 se ar chy our

c onsc ie nc e an d m em or

y , an d havin g do ne so, is there any one who knows of an y reason whatsoever that w oul d c au se y ou t o qu es tio n y our abil ity to se rv e as aj ur or in this case? Prior to com

m encing the voir dire process, the dis trict j udge advis ed the j ury venire that Bennett wa s charged with, am ong other cr im es, being a f elon in po ssessio n of a fi re ar m . B ec au se the pr ospe ct ive j ur or s w er e al re ady aw ar e tha t B en ne tt ha d apr ior felony conviction , the district j udge’s general inqu iry as to whether any of them had
an y r ea son to que sti on the ir ab ili ty to se rv e as j ur or s su ff ic ed to pr ovi de "r ea sona

ble
as sur an ce " tha t pre

j udi ce ag ai nst the de fe ndant bas ed on his p ri or f el ony c onvi ct ion
wou ld be di sc ov eredif i t was pre se nt
. Id

. Mo re ove r, a ssu m ing argu en do tha t a j ur or h a r b o r e d p r e ju d i c e a g a i n s t B e n n e t t b a s e d o n h i s p r i o r c o n v i c t i o n , a s n o t e dp r e v i o u s l y, the dis tr ic t j udge spe ci fi ca lly ins tru ct ed the j ur

y to dis re ga rd

Be nne tt’ s pr ior

f el ony
co nvi ct ionin re ac hin g ave rd ic t onall co unt s of the ind ic tm en t e xc ep t the c ount charging him

as a c onvi cted f

el o n i n p o ssessio n of a fir earm . Consid ering that ins tr uc tio n, a ny

e rr or re sul tin g fr om the dis tr ic t cour t’ s fa ilure to ask the r eque ste d vo ir dir e constitu tes harm less error. IN SU FFI CIENT EV ID EN CE Be nne tt co nte nds tha t hi s c onvi ct ionf or vio la tin g 18 U
. S. C. §11 5 m ust be
r e v e r s e db e c au s e t h e r e i s i n s u f f i c i e n te v i d e n c e t o c o n c l u d e t h a tD e p u t y C u thk el vin ,13

was am em

be r of the c la ss p ro te ct ed

by the sta tut e. T itl e 18 U
. S. C. §11 5( a) (1 ) pr ovi de s inpe rt ine nt p ar

t: (a )( 1) Whoe ve r– ( A ) as sault s, kidna

ps, or m ur de rs , or a tte m pts or c onsp ir es to kidnap or m

urder,
. . . a m em

ber of the im

m ediate fam il y

of a Uni te d S ta te s o ffi ci al , a Uni te d S ta te s ju dg e, a F ed er al law e nf

or ce m en t of

fi ce r, or a n of fi ci al w hose kil lin g w ou ld be a cri m e u nd er s ect io n 1 11 4 o f th is ti tl e; . . . .

. . . w ithint en t t o im

pe de , int im ida te , or

int er fe re w ithsuc h o ff ic ia l, j udge , or

law e nf or ce m en t of

fi ce r w hil e en ga ge d i n th e pe rf

orm an ce of

of fi ci al dut ie s, or

w ithint en t t o r et al ia te a ga ins t su chof fi ci al , j udge , or

law e nf or ce m en t o ff ic er on a cc ount

of the pe rf orm an ce of

of fi ci al dut ie s sha ll be pu ni sh ed
. . . . T itl e 28 U
. S. C. §11 14 m ak es it ac ri m e to k ill or

a tte m pt t o ki ll:
an y of fi ce r or e m plo y ee of the U nit ed St at es or

of a ny ag en cy in an y

br an chof

the U nit ed

S ta te s G ove rn m en t (i nc lud ing a ny

m em be r of the uni fo rm ed

se rv ic es) w hil e suc h of fi ce r or e m plo y ee is en ga ge d in or on ac co unt of the perform ance of official duties, or any person assistin g such anof fi ce r or e m plo y ee in the pe rf

orm an ce of

suc h du tie s or on acco un t o f th atass is ta nc e. . . . Be nne tt int er

pr et s §1 15( a) (1 ) to ap ply

to ac ts d ir ec te d a ga ins t on ly m em be rs of the f am ily of the enum er at ed of fi ci al s an d no t t o a ct s a ga ins t the of fi ci al s th em se lve s. T ak ing the oppo sit e vie w , the gove rn m en t inte rp re ts §115( a) (1 ) to inc lud e boththeThe statute would then r ead: " Whoever a ssaults, kidnaps, or murder s, or attempts or 4 conspires to kidnap or

murder, or

threatens to assault, kidnap, or murde r a me mber of the imm e diate fa

mil y of a Un ite d St a te s o ff

ic ia l, a Un ite d St a te s ju dg e , o r a F e de ra l la

w e nf or c e me nt, or an of ficial whose killing would be a crime unde r sec tion 1114 . . . shall be punished . . . ." 14 im m ed ia te fam ili es of the de sig na te d of fi ci al s a s w el l a s the of

fi ci al s th em se lve s. T he pr op er i nt erp ret at io n o f §1 15 (a)( 1) is a qu es ti on of f irs t i m pr es si on in th is cir cu it
. W e re view the district court’ s interpretation o f t he statute de novo
. United States v. E tting er , 3 4 4 F
. 3 d1 1 4 9 , 1 1 5 3 ( 1 1 C i r . 2 0 0 3 )
. "I n in t e r p re tin g th e m ea

nin g th of as t a tu t e , i ti s a x i o m a t i c t h a tac o u rtm u s tb e g i n w i t h t h e p l a i n l a n g u a g e o f the statute." United St a t es v. Prather , 205 F
. 3d 1 265, 126 9 ( 11 Ci r. 200 0)
. C ongr es s th included o nly

one "or" in the series defining the indiv iduals protected by the act: "a
m em be r of th e imm ed ia te fam il y

of a Uni te d S ta te s o ffi ci al , a Uni te d S ta te s ju dg e, a Federa l law enforcem ent officer or an o fficial whose killin g would be a crim e under section 1114 of t his title. . . ." (em phasis added). The use of a single "or" indicates tha t the enum er at ed of

fi ci al fo llo w ing the "or ", i. e. , "an of fi ci al w hose kil lin g w oul d be c ri m e unde r se ct ion 1114 of thi s ti tle , " i s si m

ply the la st g ro up i n th e lis t i de nti fy ing the c la ss o f pe opl e w hose f am ili es a re pr ote ct ed

by the sta tut e an d no t a dis tin ct gr oup of officials protected under the statute. Ha d Congress inserted a secon d "or" b efore "a F e d e r a l l a w e n f

o r c e m e n t o f

f i c e r " t h e n n o t o n l y f

a m i l i e s o f o f

f i c i a l s but a lso 4Th e Ni nth Cir c uit uti lize d th e same a

pp ro a c h in

c on c lud ingthat §1 15 (a ) p ro te c te d o nly 5 the family

members of

the enumer ated f

eder al offic ials. United States v. Gray , 809 F.2d 579, 582, vacate d, 484 U.S. 807, 108 S. C t. 54, 98 L .Ed.2d 18 (1987). A lthough the Supre me Court g rante d c e rti orar iin Gray and vac ated the judg ment on other g rounds, we none theless find the rea soning of

the Ninth Circuit to be persua sive. 15 of fi ci al s th em se lve s w oul d be c ove re d, a s c ont en de d by the gov er

nm en t. 5 The governm ent relies, in part, on the statute’ s legislative history in urging that the sta tut e ap pli es to the of fi ci al s th em se lve s. Whe n asta tut e’ s m eanin g is c le ar a nd
unam bigu ous, no further inquir y is necessary

and "[t] he plain langu age is presum ed t o e xp ress congressional int ent and will control a court’ s interpretation." Un i t ed St a tes
v. Fisher , 28 9 F .3d 13 29 , 13 38 (11 Cir . 20 02 ), cert. denied 537 U
. S. 111 2, 123 S
. Ct
. th 90 3, 1 54 L.Ed.2d 78 6 (2 00 3)
. Be ca use §11 5 pr ote ct s on ly

the f am ili es of the de sig na te d of

fi ci al s and n ot the officials them selves, it is clear that there w as i n s u ff

i cient evidence to supp ort Bennett’ s convictio n for violating § 1 15. T here is no evidence that Bennett engaged in any pr ohi bit ed

be ha vio r tow ar d "a m em be r of the im

m ed ia te fam ily " of an y of the d es i g n at ed o ff

i ci al s . Ho we v er , th at co n cl u s i o n d o es n o t m an d at e re v er s al o f B en n et t ’s
co nv ic ti on foratt em

pt in g t o m

ur de r Dep ut y

Cu th ke lv in
. Ru le 7( c) (3 ) of the Fe de ra l Ru le s of Cr im ina l P ro ce dur e pr ovi de s th at "[ u] nle ss the defendant was m isled and there by prej udiced, neither an err or in a citation nor a16

ci ta tio n’ s om iss ionis a gr ound to dis m iss the ind ic tm en t or inf orm at ionor

to re ve rs e
a co nvi ct ion
. " A lth ough Ru le 7( c) (3 ) is m ost fr eque ntl y ci te d in co nne ct ion with clerica l or inadvertent errors in statutory citations, the rule is not restricted to such
er ro rs . C iti ng W

i l l i am s v . U

ni ted States , 168 U
. S. 382 , 18 S. Ct
. 92, 42 L
. E d. 509 (1 897) , the A dvi sor

y Co m m itt ee N ote s f

or subs ec tio n (c )( 3) , sta te tha t " [a ] c onvi ct ion
m ay be sustained on t h e b as is of a statute or re gulatio n other than that cited." In W il li ams the S upr em e Co urt he ld:

It is w hol ly im m at er ia l w ha t st at

ute w as in the m ind

of the district attorney

when he drew the indictm ent, if the charges m ad e a re embr ac ed b y s o m es t at u t e [ s i c] i n fo rc e. . . . We m ust look to the indictm ent itself, and, if it properly charges anof fe nse und er

the law s of

the Uni te d S ta te s, tha t i s suf ficie nt to s ust ai n it , a lth oughthe r ep re se nta tiv e of the United States m ay

have suppo se d t h at the offense w as covered by

a diffe rent statute. Id
. a t 38 9, 18 S
. Ct
. a t 94 ; se e als o United States v. M assu et , 851 F. 2d 11 1, 115 (7 Cir. th 1988 ) (c onvi ct ion

uph eld wh ere p ro se cu to r in te nt io na ll y cit edina ppr opr iate sta

tut e but
a non- ci te d st at

ute pr osc ri be d th e ac ts charg ed in the ind ic tm en t)
. Su ch is the sit ua tio n inv olv ed he re. Appare ntl y , the gov er nm en t m isr ea d th e sta tut e an d m ist ak en ly
co nc lud ed

tha t §1 15( a) (1 ) cr im ina liz ed Be nne tt’ s a tte m

pt t o ki ll D ep uty

C uth ke lvi n,
an d th er ef

or e ci te d tha t sta tut e in the ind ic tm en t. D es pit e tha t m ist ak e, the ind ic tm en t
unam bigu ouslyalleges fac ts which constitu te a cr im e. T he indictm en t charges that17

Be nne tt:
w i t h mal i c e a f o r e t h o u g h t , d i du n l a w f u l l y, w i l l f

u l l y, de lib er at el y , m al ic iou sly an d w ithpr em ed ita tio n a tte m pt t o kil l an of fi ci al w hose kil lin g w oul d be ac ri m e pur suant t o T itl e 18, U nit ed

S ta te s Co de , Se ct ion 1114 , to- w it (s ic ) by shoo tin g M obi le Co unty

S he ri ff ’ s D ep uty Ro y

Cu thk el vin , w ho w as a ssi sti ng a

f ed er al law e nf

or ce m en t of

fi ce r . . . in the perform ance of off

icial duties, w ith int en t t o im pede, intim idate and interfer e with such law enforcem ent officer w hil e en ga ge d inthe pe rf orm an ce of of

fi ci al dut ie s, to- w it (s ic ), th e ex ecu ti on of a sea rch warran t. . . . . Se ct ion111 4 c ri m ina liz es a n a tte m pt t o kill an y pe rs on "a ssi sti ng an o ff ic er or
em plo y ee of the U nit ed St at es " i n th e pe rf orm an ce of

of fi ci al dut ie s or

on a cc ount

of tha t a ssi stanc e. " T he ind ic tm en t c ha rg es e ac h e le m en t re qui re d to pr ove avio la tio n of §1114 , and m akes it clear , despite the statute cited, that th e i l l eg al act f or which Bennett wa s being prosecuted is the attem pt to kill Deputy

Cuthkelvin while he w as assistin g Agent Paul during the execution o f the sear ch warrant. Nothing in th e re cord ind ic at es tha t Be nne tt w as m isl ed about w ha t a ct ivi ty

w as a lle ge d to be il le ga l; nor is the re an y i n d i c a t i o n t h a tB e n n e t tw a s p r e j u d i c e db y

t h e i n c o rr e c tc i t a t i o n t o § 115. The j ury instruction s fully

explained the elem ents of §111 4 which the governm ent was
re qui re d to pr ove be y ond a re as ona ble doubt. Having concluded that the erroneous citation to §115 (a) in the indictm ent does not pe r se r equir e re ve rs al of the a tte m

pte d m ur de r conv ic tio n, w e nowe xa m ineBe nnett’s brief specific ally

urg es that there was insuffic ient evidenc e to prove that 6 Deputy Cuthkelvin was assisting a fede ral off

icer in the perf

ormanc e of his off

icial duties as require d by

18 U.S.C. §115(a) a

nd §1114. 18 w he the r the re w as suf

fi ci en t e vid en ce to co nvi ct Be nne tt of at te m pti ng t o ki ll D ep uty Cuthkelvi n in violation of §11 14. W e re view a claim of insufficiency

of the evidence 6 de novo
. U

nit ed Sta tes v. D el

gado , 321 F
. 3d 1 338, 134 4 ( 11 Ci r. 200 3)
. I n ana ly zi ng th
a cl ai m tha t the e vid en ce w as suf fi ci en t t o su

ppor t a c onvi ct ionthe "[ e] vid en ce is viewed in the light m ost favorable to the gov ernm ent, with all reasonable infere nces and credibility

choi ce s m ade in the governm ent’ s favor. " Id

. (i nte rn al quo ta tio n and citation om itted). S e c r e tS e rvi c e A ge nt

J os e phP aul t e st i f

i e d t ha th e w a s c on du c t i ng af e deral inv es tig at ionint o c ount er fe iti ng, tha t he w as the onl y S ec re t S er

vic e ag en t i n M obi le
av ai la ble to ex ec ute the war

rant, a nd tha t a ge nc y

pol ic y pr ohi bit ed

the e xe cu tio n of
w ar rant b y a n a ge nt ac tin g alon e. In his of fi ci al ca pa ci ty A ge nt Paul par

tic ipa te d in
ex ec uti ng the se ar chw ar rant w hic h auth or iz ed

ase ar chf

or , a m ong oth er

thi ngs, "I te m s and E qu ip m en t used to Manuf

ac tur e Co unt er fe it Cu rr en cy . " B en ne tt shot De putyCuthkelvin while he, Agent Pa ul and oth er lawenforce m ent office rs we re at te m pti ng to e xe cu te the se ar chw ar rant. T he e vid en ce is m or e than su ff ic ie nt t o
co nc lud e tha t the gov er nm en t pr ove d be y ond a re as ona ble do ub t th at

D ep uty19

Cuthkelvi n was shot while assisting Agent Paul in the perform ance of his officia l dut ie s. CALCULATION OF DRUG QU ANTITY T he j ur y f ound tha t m or e than 50 gr am s of m etha m phe ta m ine w as inv olv ed

in
ea chof Be nne tt’ s dr

ug tr af fi ck ing c onvi ct ion s. A ddi tio na lly , f or pur pose s of de te rm ini ng B en ne tt’ s ba se of fe nse le ve l, the dis tr ic t j udge at tr ibu te d 40 3. 8 gr am s of
m etha m phe ta m ine to Be nne tt. B en ne tt ch al le nge s th e dr ug qua nti ty

c al cu la tio ns o n
se ve ra l gr ound s:

• Monica Price , the governm ent’ s expert witness, wa s not qu alified to t e st i f y abo ut t he a na l y si s of

m e t ham ph e t a m i ne a nd

t he or e t i c al dr ug y ie ld; a nd

• the district j udge im properly considered the m etham

phetam ine invo lved in B en ne tt’ s deali ng with T im oth y Br ow n to be r el ev an t c ondu ct f or pur pose s of de te rm ini ng B en ne tt’ s to ta l of fe nse le ve l. A
. E xpe rt

W itn es s A dis tr ic t c ourt’ s de ci sio n to a dm it ex pe rt te sti m ony

is re vie w ed fo r ab use of dis cr et ion. Ge n eral Elec. Co. v . J oiner , 522 U
. S. 136 , 143 , 118 S. Ct
. 512, 517 , 139 L
. E d
. 2 d 5 0 8 ( 1 9 9 7 )
. Ms
. Pr ic e ea rn ed a ba ch el or of sc ie nc e de gr ee in mi c r o b i o l o g y; t h a tc o u r s e o f s tu d y i n c l u d e dan u mb e r o f c o u r s e s i n c h e mi s t ry. Addit i o n al l y, after being hired by the A labam a D epartm ent of Forensics Ms. PriceRul e 70 2 p ro vid e s in pe rt ine nt p art

that : 7 I f s c ie nti fi c , te c hn ic a l, o r o the r s pe c ia lize d k no wl e dg e wi ll a ssi st the tr ie r o f f

a c t to un de rs tand

the e vid e nc e or

to d e te rm ine a

fa c t in iss ue , a wi tne ss q

ua lif ie d a s a n e xpe rt by kn ow le dg e , s kil l, experience , training , or educ ation, may testify there to in the form of an opinion or other

wise . . . ."

20 re ce ive d se ve n m onths o f tr ai nin g, incl udi ng tra ini ng i n ho w to ca lc ula te the the or et ic al y ie ld of m etha m phe ta m ine
. Ms
. Pr ic e is ce rt if ie d to inv es tig at e cl an de sti ne la bor at or ie s an d

ha s a tte nde d vari ous se m inars , inc lud ing D E A and f or en sic se m inars . Be nne tt ar gue s th at

Ms
. P ri ce ’ s br ie f pe ri od of em plo ym en t by the D ep ar

tm en t of F or en sic s, le ss tha n tw o y ears , a nd the f ac t tha t sh e ha d on lyse ve ra l m onths experience a ctually

"reporting cases" ar e in sufficient to warrant a finding that she was an expert in the analy sis of m etham phetam ine and theoretical drug y ield. E xperience is n ot the sol e m ethod of e sta bli shi ng an e xpe rt ’ s qu al if ic at ion s. R

ule 702 of

the Fe de ra l R ule s of E vid en ce pe rm its a n in div idu al to qua lif y a s an " ex pe rt " b as ed

on 7 knowledge, skill, experience , tr aining o r education. T hus, althoug h Ms. Price’ s actual
ex p e r i e n c e w a s l i m i t e d , t h e d i s t r i c tj u d g e d i dn o tab u s e h i s d i s c r e t i o n i n c o n c l u din g that based on h er e ducation and training she was an e xpert en t i t l ed t o s t at e her opi nio n. B. Relevant Conduct In determ ining Bennett’ s base offense level f or sentencing purposes, the district21

j udge held Bennett respon sible for 403.8 gram s of m etham phetam ine. I ncluded in that
am ount w a s 3 4 0
. 2 g r a m s i n v o l v e di n t h e e x t r i n s i c o f f e n s e t e s t i f

i e dt o b y T im oth y Bro wn an d a tt rib ut edto Ben ne tt un de r th e "re le va n t c o n d u ct " p or ti on of U.S.S.G. §1 B1 .3. We revi ew th atfin di ng of f act forcle ar error . U

nit ed Sta tes v . J

ac ks on , 276 F. 3d 1 231, 123 3 ( 11 Ci r. 200 1)
. B en ne tt as se rt s that his e xtr ins ic a ct ivi tie s w ith th Brow n are not properly

considered to be "relevant conduct" because the events were too r em ote in tim e fr om

the of fe nse of c onvi ct iona nd w er e not pa rt of a com

m on
sc he m e or

plan w iththe of

fe nse of c onvi ct ion
. "R el ev an t c ondu ct " i nc lud es : (1 ) (A) al l ac t s a n d om is si on s co m m it te d, ai de d, ab et te d, co unse le d, c om

m an de d, ind

uc ed , pr oc ur ed , or

w ill fu lly c au se d by

the de fe ndant

. . . tha t oc curr ed

dur ing the c omm is si on of the of fe nse of co nvi ct ion , in pr ep ar at ionf or tha t of fe nse , or in the c our se of attem pting to avoi d detection or responsib ility for that offense. "R el ev an t c ondu ct " inc lud es "a ll ac ts and om iss ion s ‘ tha t we re pa rt of the sa m e co ur se of co nduct or co m

m on schem e o r plan as the offe nse of conviction ." United States v. M ax we ll , 34 F
. 3d 1 006, 101 0 ( 11 Ci r. 199 4) ( quot in g U. S. S. G
. §1B 1. 3( a) (2 ))
. T he th
co m m en tary to §1B 1. 3 in dic at es tha t "r el ev an t cond uc t" is des ign ed to ta ke a cc ount of " ap a t t e rn o f

m i s c o n du c tt h a tc a n n o tr e a d i l y b e b r o k e n i n t o d i s c r e t e , i d e n tif ia ble uni ts tha t are m eanin gf

ul f or pur pose s of se nte nc ing
. " U
. S. S.G. § 1B 1. 3, c om m en t.22

(backg’ d.). Inde te rm ini ng w he the r the dr ug quanti tie s te sti fi ed

to by Br ow n are a ttr ibu ta

ble t o B e n n e t t a s " r e l e v a n tc o n du c t " we e x a mi n e t h e " s i mi l a r i t y, r e g u l a r i t y, a n dp r o x i mi t y" be tw ee n B en ne tt’ s c ount s of c onvi ct iona nd the e xtr ins ic off en se s te sti fi ed

to by Bro wn. M

ax we ll , 34 F
. 3d at

101 1. W e co nsi de r "w he ther t he re ar e dis tin ct ive sim ilarities betwee n the offense of convictio n and the rem ote conduct th at signal that they are part of a si ngle course of conduct rather than isolated, unrelated events that happen on ly to be sim ilar in kind ." Id
. ( int er na l qu ota tio n and c ita tio n om itt ed ). A ll of the of fe nse s inque sti on are sim ilar not onl y in tha t the y

inv olv e m etha m

phe ta m ine but a lso be ca use Be nne tt’ s r ole in ea ch w as the sa m e, i. e. , to loc at e a supp lie r fo r the
an hy dr ous am

m oni a an d to "c ook" the m etha m phe ta m ine
. T he co nsi ste nc y in both th e drug an dB e n n e t t ’ s r o l e f a v o r s ac o n c l u s i o n t h a tt h e r e a r e " d i s t i n c t i v e s i m i l a r i t i e s" be twee n t he off

en se s. The proxim ity

of the offenses further supp orts a conclusio n that the offenses are part of the sam e course of c ondu ct. Unlike M ax we ll , w he re the dr

ug s al es a t i ssu e
oc curr ed m or e than a y ear ap ar

t, he re onl y fo ur

to fi ve m onths s ep ar at ed the of fe nse s. T he of fe nse s of c onvi ct iona nd the e xtr ins ic of fe nse c onst itu te a sin gle c our se of conduct. T hus, the quantiti es of m etham phetam ine testified to by Bennett wereU. S.S. G. §3 C1. 1 ( 20 03 ) p ro vid e s in pe rt ine nt p art

that " [i]f ( A) the de fe nd ant w ill fu lly 8 obstructed or

impeded . . . the a dminist ration of justice dur ing the course of the . . . prose cution . . . of the instant offe nse of c onviction, and (B ) the obstruc tive conduct r elated to ( i) the d e f e n d an t ’ s o f

f e n s e o f c o n v i c t i o nan d

an y r e l e v an tc o n d

u c t ; . . . i n c r e a s e th e o f

f e n s e l e v e l b y 2 levels." 23 p ro p er l y co n s i d e r e d t o b e r el ev an tco n du ct fo r t h e p u rp o s e o f c al cu l at i n g Be n n et t ’s ba se of fe nse le ve l. Be nne t ta l s o u r g e s t h a tB r o w n ’ s t e s t i m o n y i s u n r e l i ab l e a n dt h e r e f o r e t he quanti tie s te sti fi ed

to by Br ow n sh oul d not be c ount ed in de te rm ini ng the ba se of fe nse level. The district j ud g e cr ed i t ed Brow n’ s testim ony , a s he wa s entitled to d o. T hat fact ua l fi nd in g i s n ot cle arl y erro ne ou s. ADDITIONAL SENT ENCING ISSUES A. E nhancem ent for O bstruction of Justice Ben ne tt ap pe al s t he di st ric t ju dg e’s de ci si on to en ha nc e h is off en se lev el by two le ve ls f or obs tr uc tio n of j ust ic e, pur suant t o U
. S. S. G
. §3C 1. 1. T he obs tr uc tio n of 8 j ustice enhancem ent applies when a def endant comm its, suborns, or attem pts to s uborn pe rj ur y . U .S.S.G. § 3C 1. 1, c om m en t. ( n. 4( b) ). " Pe rj ur y " i s " fa lse te sti m ony concerning a m aterial m atter w ith the w illful intent to provid e fa lse testim ony , r ather than a s a result of confusion , m istake, or f aulty m em ory ." U

nit ed Sta tes v. D unni

gan , 507 U.S . 87, 94, 113 S.C t. 1111, 1116, 122 L. Ed. 2d 44 5 (1993).24

W e re view f

or clear err or the district court’ s factual f indin g that Bennett offere d pe rjure d t es ti m on y at th e h eari ng on th e m ot io n t o s up pr es s. U nit ed Sta tes v . G re

gg , 179 F. 3d 1 312, 131 6 (11 Ci r. 1999 ). S pe ci al de fe re nc e is a cc or de d to the c re dib ili ty th de te rm in at io n m ad e b y th e d is tri ctco ur t. United States v. B anks , 347 F
. 3d 1 266, 126 9 (11 Cir. 2003 ). th The district j udge rej ected Bennett’s testim ony at the suppressio n hearing that he heard a knock on the door but did not hear the police announ ce the i r p resence. Be nne tt co nc ed es tha t his cha lle nge d test im ony is m at er ia l but cont en ds tha t it w as not fal se an d t ha t h e h adno wil lfu l i nt en t t o p ro vi de fal se tes ti m on y . T he dis tr ic t j udge spe ci fi ca lly f ound the c ite d te sti m ony

to be f al se : "I f ind it inc re dul ous tha t tho se ins ide co uld he ar the knoc k but c oul d no t he ar

the a nnounc em en t of w ho the se of

fi ce rs w er e. " H e furthe r sta te d th at he be lie ve d " that the de fe ndant
m an i pu l a t e d hi s t e st i m on y t o a vo i d r e sp on si bi l i t y f or a ny kno w l e dg e t ha tlaw
en fo rc em en t w as en te ri ng the hous e. " T ha t fi ndi ng es ta bli she s Be nne tt’ s " w ilf

ul i nte nt to provid e fa lse testim ony ." The dist rict j udge did not clearly err in concludi ng that Bennett’ s testim ony

concerning his failure to hear the police announ ce their presence qua lif ie d a s pe rj ur

y f or pur pose s of U
. S. S. G
. §3C 1. 1. B ec au se tha t t es tim ony in an d of itself w arrants the two level enhancem ent for ob struction o f j ustice, it is unnecessary25

to addre ss Be nne tt’ s cha lle nge to the dis tr ic t c ourt’ s othe r fi ndi ngs of f al se te sti m ony by Be nne tt. B. Ro le in the O ff

en se Bennett asserts that the district j udge erre d in enhancing his total offense level by th r e e l e v e l s b e c au s e t h e r e w e r e f i v e o r m o r e p a rt i c i p a n t s i n t h e o f f e n s e c o n du ct
. Be nne tt co nc ed es tha t i n a ddi tio n to him se lf , E lr od M ill er , Ch ri sto phe r Br an non, a nd Lore n Hi ck s p art ic ip at edin th e o ffen se , b ut he co nt en ds th atne it he r Tim ot hy Brown
nor S ha nnonMo ntg om er

y part ic ipa te d inthe of

fe nse c ondu ct
. W e re vie w the dis tr ic t c ourt’ s de te rm ina tio n of de fe ndant’ s ro le in the of fe nse fo r cl ear e rro r. U

nit ed Sta tes v. G arr iso n , 1 33 F.3 d 83 1, 84 3 (1 1 Ci r. 19 98 ). U.S.S.G. th § 3B1.1(b) provides a three- level increase in the offense level "[i] f the defe ndant was
a m an ag er or su pe rv iso r (b ut n ot an or ga niz er or le ad er ) an d th e cr im ina l a ct ivi ty inv olv ed f ive or m or e pa rt ic ipants or w as oth er w ise e xte nsi ve . . . . " I n a sse ssi ng a defendant’ s role in the offense, the elem ents and a cts in the counts of convictio n are
co ns id ered as we ll as a ll "rel ev an t co nd uc t" as def in ed in U.S.S.G. § 1B1 .3. U .S.S.G. Ch
. 3, P t. B, intro . c om

m en t. ; se e als o U

nit ed Sta tes v . H

olland , 2 2 F
. 3d 1 040, 104 5 (1 1 Ci r. 199 4)
. I n de term ining the sc ope of ade fe ndant’ s " re le va nt c ondu ct " " the th
co urt m ust c onsi de r, in ad dit ionto the cr im ina l a ct it se lf , the ind ivi dua ls’ inv olv em en t26

in the events su rrounding the crim inal act. " U nit ed Sta tes v . H

olland , 22 F
. 3d a t 10 46 (internal quotation and citation om itted). Fo r the sa m e re as ons de ta ile d pr ev iou sly , T im oth y Br ow n’ s a ct ivi tie s inthe
unc ha rg ed

of fe nse s ar e par

t of the sa m e co ur se of

c ondu ct a s th e of fe nse of c onvi ct ion
an d th er ef o re a r e p r o p e r l y c o n s i d e r e dt o b e " r e l e v a n tc o n du c t " i n d e t e rmi n i n g B e n n et t ’s
ro le in the of

fe nse . T ha t B ro w n w as inc ar ce ra te d th ro ugho ut the pe rio d of the conspiracy

alleged in the indictm ent does not preclude his conduct from qualify ing as "r el ev an t c ondu ct
. " B ec au se Br ow n’ s a ct ivi tie s c onst itu te "r el ev an t c ondu ct , " f or the pur pose of de te rm ini ng Be nne tt’ s ro le in the of fe nse , Br ow n is pr ope rl y

c onsi de re d to be apart ic ipant i n th e of fe nse of c onvi ct ion
. T he dis tr ic t c ourt di d no t e rr in concludin g that Bennett m anaged or s up e r vi se d c r i m i na l activity

invol ving five or m ore pa rt ic ipants
. C. E nhanc em en t f

or O ff ic ia l S ta tus Be nne tt ch al le nge s th e dis tr ic t j udge’ s a ppl ic at ionof

U
. S. S. G
. § 3 A 1. 2 in
ca lc ula tin g hi s of

fe nse le ve l, c ont en din g th at the e vid en ce do es not

sup port the
co nc lu si on th athe kn ew Dep ut y Cu th ke lv in ’s off

ic ia l sta tu s pri or to sh oo ti ng hi m . As al read y no te d, t he di st ric t co ur t’s fa ct ua l fi nd in gs are re vi ewed fo r cl ear e rro r. United Sta tes v . J

ac ks on , 276 F
. 3d a t 12 33.27

U .S .S .G . § 3A1.2 provides: "[i] f (1) the victim wa s (A ) a governm ent officer
or e m plo y ee . . . a nd ( 2) the of fe nse of c onvi ct ionw as moti vate d by suc h st at us, increase by

3 l ev els." N o extensive analy sis of this claim is necessary . T he district j udge did not e rr in co nc lud ing tha t B en ne tt pe rj ur ed him se lf in te sti fy ing tha t he did not he ar the pol ic e an noun ce the ir pr es en ce pr ior to en te ri ng his hom e to e xe cu te the search w arrant. For t h at re ason, the district j udge did not err in concluding th at B e n n e t tkn e w o f

C u t h k e l v i n ’s o f

f i c i a l s t a tu s p r i o r

t o s h o o t i n g h i m. AFFIR MED.