## In the



# U n ited S ta tes Co urt o f Ap p ea ls

F o rth eS e v e n th C ir cu it
N o. 08

- 1931 U NIT ED S TATE S OF A MERI CA, P la intif f-A pp ellee, v . A MEN E . J UMAH, D e f e ndan t

-Appe l l ant
.
A pp eal from the United S t ates Di strictC our t fo r the N o rthernDi stricto f Illino is, Eas tern Div isi on. No . 1:04- cr-00237- 1

—Jo hn W. Darrah, Judge .
A RGUED O CTOBER7, 2009

— D ECIDED A PRI L 1, 2010

Befo re R IPPLE, K ANN E a nd S YKES, C ircu it Judges . R IPPLE, C ircu it Judge. Am en E. Jum ah was con vic te d by a j ury of knowing posse ssi on ofa l i ste d chem i cal, kno w i ng, orhaving r eas onabl e ca use t o bel i eve , that the chem i cal w oul d be use d to m anufa cture a c ontr ol l ed substa nce i n vi ol ati on o f21 U
. S. C. § 8 41( c) ( 2)
. The di str i ct c ourt, acting witho ut the benefi t o fth e Sup re m e Cour t’ s s ubseque ntde ci si o n in D ixo n v . U nited Sta tes , 548 U
. S. 1 ( 2006 ), g r an te d a mot i o n for a ne w tr i alo n the g r o und tha t th e2 N o. 08

- 1931 j u ry h ad be en ins tr u c te d err on eo u sly ab ou t t h e p u b lic au th or i tyde fen se . W e r ev er se d the di st r i ctc o ur t’ s g r an t o fM r . J um ah ’ s m o ti o n f o r ne w tr i ala nd r emande d the case with instr ucti ons to re i nstat e the j u ry’ s v er dict

. See U ni t e d S t at e s v. Jum ah , 493 F. 3d 868, 870 ( 7th Cir. 20 07) (“Jum ah I”)
. On r em and, the dist ri ct c ou rt co nsi dered M r. J um ah ’s rem ai ni ng g ro und s fora new tr i al

. One of thos e a rgum ents w as that the Gov er n m ent had f ai l ed to com p ly w ith i t s o bli gations un d er Brady v . M aryl and, 37 3 U. S
. 8 3 ( 1 9 6 3 ) , a nd G igl io v. U nited Sta tes , 40 5 U.S
. 15 0 ( 1972 )
. The di str i c t co urt denie d the m oti on f ornew tri al and sentence d M r. J um ah to 15 1 m onths’ i m pri sonm ent. Fo r th e re as on s s et fort h in t h is op in ion, w e a f f i r m in part and rev erse i n partthe j ud gm ent o fthe dist ri ct c ou rtan d rem an d w ith ins tr u c tio n s fo r re -se n te n c in g.

I B AC KGR OUND A
. Fr om 20 01 to 2002 , M r. J um ah wo rk ed p eri odi cal l y a s a co nfi den tials o ur ce ( “CS ”) f o r the Dr ugEnf o r ce m en t A dm i ni str ati on ( “DE A ”)
. H e a ssi ste d w i th underco ver in ve st i gat i ons i nto pseudoe p h ed rin e t ra ffick in g in Ch i cago and Los An gel es. M r. Ju m ah so m eti m es provi ded i nfo rm ati on about past pse ud oephed rine tr ansact i o ns . Ho we v e r, Mr
. J umah u su a l l y b r o ughtt o the DE A i nfo rm ati on about a dealthatwas to o ccur i n the future. The DE A ask ed M r. J um ah to si gn a U ni ted S tat es Dep ar tm ent o fJ usti ce c onfi denti also urce agr eem ent.N o. 08

- 1931 3 U nd eri ts ter m s, the DE A authori zed hi m to purchase , whi l e unde r co ve r an d at th e di r ec ti o n o f th e D E A , contr ol l ed substa nces. The agr eem en t a lso req u i re d M r . J um aht o abi de bythe i ns tr uc tions ofhi s co nt r o l l i ng DEA i nv es ti gators a nd no t to t ak e an y i nde pen den t acti on o n behal fo fthe DE A
. M r. Jum ah si gned thr ee such ag re em ents i n 200 1 a nd 20 02. On M ay 8, 20 02, wh i l e M r. J um ah was deact iva te d as a CS, he c ontacte d a DE A ag ent a nd i nfo rm ed hi m thata pseudoephed rine deal er h ad approached hi m with a n offerto buy 300 case s o fpseudoephedri ne f or$1 50 ,00 0. DEA a g en ts i ns truct ed M r. Jum aht o meetwi ththe deal erata re sta urant cal l ed J i m m y’ s S hi sh ka bob to disc uss the deal

. W hi l e the DEA sur vei l l ed the m eeti ng, M r. J um ah o ffer ed to co nsum m ate the deal atan other l oca ti on, and the deal ersho w ed that he had the necessar y fund s t o do so

. W hen M r. J um ah and the deal er l eft the J i m m y’ s Sh ishkab ob re sta urant, the DE A st opped the c arcar ry i ng the m oneyand ar re ste d the s uspects. The DE A pai d M r. J um ah $2 9, 800 f orthe i nfo rm ati on and assi sta nce he provi ded

. The DE A f or m al l y r eact i vate d him as a CS sev eral days l ater. I n Feb ruar y 2004, M r. J um ah at tem pted to sel lA l iQasem p s e u d o e p h e d r i n e f o r th e p u r p o s e o fma k i n gme th a mp h et am in e. U n kn ow n to M r. Ju m ah , Qa se m w as h im se lf a C S w h o w or ke d w ith th e L os A n ge les , C alifo rn ia bra nch of the DE A
. A ccor ding to Qasem , M r. Ju m ah i ni ti ate d the deal

. On Febr uary10 , 20 04, wh i l e Qase m was e n r o ut e to Chi ca g o f or a m ee tingwi thM r . J um ah, M r . J um ahc o nt ac te d a DE A ag en t an d i nqui r ed ab o ut4 N o. 08

- 1931

re cei vi ng paym ent forp rior info rm ati on, unrel ate d to the develop ing Qase m deal, thatM r. J um ah had provi ded. M r . J um ah d i d no t i nf o r m the a g en t o fthe p e n d i n gd e a lw i th Q a s e m. W o r k i ngwi thQ ase m , the DEA l i st en ed to t el eph o ne co nv er sa tio ns b etwee n Mr. J um aha nd Qa se m a nd surve i l l ed m eet i ngs b etwee n t hem i n I l l i noi s fro m February13 to 16 , 20 04. Duri ng the se con versat i ons, M r . J um aht o l d Qa se m tha t he want ed to c o nduc t th e pseudoephed rine tr ansa c ti on o n a Sund ay orM onday because the DE A ag ents w oul d not be working o n thos e days. On Febr uary16 , the day thatM r. J um ah pl anned to meet Q as em, M r . J um ahc al l ed a DEA a g en t an d as ke d w h et h er th e a ge n t w as w or kin g t h at d ay bu t s aid no thingab o utthe p e nd i ngde a lwi th Qas e m. T he DE A su r ve i l l ed addi ti o na lmeet i ng s betw eenM r . J um aha nd Qasem i n I l l i noi s on M ar ch 1 and 2, 20 04. On M ar ch 2, M r . J um ahc al l ed a DEA a g en t, a sk ed whether the ag en t was w o r k i ngtha t daya nd s ai d tha t he was g o i ng to m ee t w ith an i n d ivid u al, bu t g av e n o d et ails ab o utthe i den ti tyo fthe i ndi vi dualo r the pur po se o fthe m ee ting . The DEA ag en t di d n ot i nqui r e fur th erabo ut th e m a t t e r . L a t e r th a t d a y, Mr
. J u ma h a g a i n c a l l e d t he DEA a g en t an d l eft a vo i ce m ai lme ss ag e st at i ng, “ he ca l l e d me b a c k, a nd h e i s g o i ngt o b e i n t o wn, i n Ch i cago t o n i g h t
. . . . An d I ’ l ll e ty o u kn o w w h a t ’ s g o i n go n . . . i fwe ha ve t o s etup so m ethi ngf or to m o r r o w orThu r sda y, uh, w e’ l ls e e wh a t ’ s g o i ngo n. ” T r . a t2 3 2 , 2 3 4 , J a n. 2 6 , 2 0 0 6. M r. J um ah al so sta ted o n the voi cem ai lm ess age , “Iam g o i ngt o meethi m a nd s ee a nd s ee [ si c] what ’ s g o i ngo n, i fhe’ s, uh, go t the ca sh o r not. ” Id. at23 5.N o. 08

- 1931 5 M r. J um ah m et w i th Qasem l ate r that day, bu t M r. J um ah d id n ot in for m th e D E A ag en t th at th e m ee tin g a c t u ally had oc c ur r e d. Du r i ngtha tme e t i ng, Mr
. J uma h g a ve Qasem 1, 016 pil l s co ntai ni ng pseudoephedri ne. Qasem p r o mpt l y tu r n e d th e ps eu d o e p h e d r i n e o v e r t o th e D E A, w hi ch had been conducti ng sur vei l l ance. The D EA then di r e c t e d Q a s e m t o p l a c e a l a r g e r o r de r o fpseudoe ph e dri ne wi th M r . J uma h. Mr
. J uma h a g r e e d t o s e l l3 0 0 b oxes ofpseudoephedri ne to Qase m f or$1 65, 000 l ate r that ni ght. A t app ro xi m ate l y 8: 00 p. m . o n M ar ch 2, 20 04, M r. J um ah an d Q ase m m et at a ca si no in J ol i et, I l l i noi s, to co m ple te the de a l

. T he DE A o b s e r v e d the me e t i nga nd wa t c hed M r. J um ah l eave t h e c asino to pi ck up the pseudoephedri ne. W hen M r. J um ah r etur ned , purpor tedl y with the ps eu do eph edr i ne , the DEA ar r es te d hi m a nd sea rche d h is vehicl e. Insi de, the DE A f ound roc k s al t that w as si m i l ari n qu an tity and appeara nce t o the pse ud oe p h e d r i n e Mr
. J u ma h h a d a g r e e d t o p r o v i d e Q a s e m. U po n hi s a rr est, M r. J um ah waive d his M i r anda r i ghts and ma de a s e r i e s o fi nc r i mi na t i ngs t a t e men t s . He fi rs t sta ted thato ne o fthe DE A ag ents w i th wh om M r. J um ah ha d s po k entha t dayha d a utho r i ze d hi m t o c o nduc t th e Qas e m t r a n s a c t i o n . He fu r th e r s t a t e d th a tth e D E A a g e nt had gi ven hi m the pseudoephed rine. L at er, M r. J um ah r et r ac te d tha t st at ementa nd s ai d tha t he h ad s to l enthe p se u d oe p h ed rin e fro m th e D E A se ve ra l m on th s e ar lier.

B. On M ar ch 11, 2004, a federa lgrand j ury re turned a onecount ind i ctm ent a gainst M r. J um ah char gi ng hi m with6 N o. 08

- 1931

Specific all y, on D ece m ber 8, 2005, M r. J um ah is sued two tr ial 1 s ubpoe nas to the DEA Kee per ofRec or ds

. The fi rs ts ubpoe na reques ted: ( 1) al l nam es ofD EA agents w ho had contac t w i th Mr
. J u mah ; ( 2 ) th e d a t e s o fth o s e c o n t a c t s ; a n d ( 3 ) i t e ms m e m or i a l i z i ngtho s e c on t a c t s . Th e s e c on d s ub po e na r e q ue s t e d: ( 1) al l doc um en t s r el at ed t o M r. J um ah; ( 2) al l doc um en ts relate d to Q asem b eco m ing a CS f or the D E A ; (3) p a y m e nts m ade t o Qas em by the DEA ; an d ( 4) Qas em ’ s c ri m i nalhi s t or y. O n D ece m ber 27, 2005, M r. Jum ah is sued f our tri al subp oenas to Cali f ornia DE A agents Brad le y Clem m er, Ted Sal am y, Efr en Lap uz and G eorge N ew land. The s ub poena t o Brad le y Clem m er sou g ht: (1) the su b stan ce of A g en t C lem m er’s testim on y at trial; an d ( 2) all d ocu m en ts m em or ializin g his con tacts w ith M r. J um ah, i ncluding the dates, ti m es , du rat ion, and nature (co n tin u ed ...) knowingl y a nd i ntenti onally p oss ess i ng and dis tr ibu tin g 1 ,0 1 6 t ab let s o f p se u d oe p h ed rin e, a L istI c h em ica l, knowing and havin g reaso n to bel i eve thatthe pseudoephedri ne would be used to m ake m etham phetam i ne, in viol ation of 21 U

. S. C
. § 841(c)(2)
. On A pri l1 9, 2004, M r. J um ah fi l ed a m oti on f ordi sco very . The Go ve r nm en t pr o vi ded so m e di sc o ve r y pur su an t to F ede r alRul e o fCr i m i na lPr o ce dur e 16
. Ov erth e ne xt yea r and a hal f, the tr i aldate w as continued se ver alti m es unti lit w as schedule d fi nal l y to begin on Januar y 23, 20 06. O n N ov em b er 8, 20 05 , M r. Ju m ah su b st itu t e d co u n se l; the di str i ct c ourtdeni ed the new co unsel ’ s r equest f or an addit i onalco nti nuance. M r. J um ah’ s newlysubst i tuted co unselthen b eg an i ssui ng tr i alsubpoena s t o DE A ag ents. On J anuary9, 1N o. 08

- 1931 7

(
. . . c on t i nu e d) 1 of the co nta cts, as w e l l a s M r. J u m ah ’ s d u ties. T he sub p oe na to T ed Sala m y sou g ht: ( 1 ) t h e sub stan ce of A g en t Sala m y ’ s testim on y at trial; ( 2) all d ocu m en ts m em o r i a lizing his con tacts w ith Q asem ; (3) an y stat e m e n t s m ad e b y Q asem ab ou t his cri m inal past; (4) al l do cum ents m em orial izi ng w hen Q ase m bec a me a C S f o r th e DE A; ( 5 ) a l l a g r e e me n t s wi th Qa s e m and c onfi denti al

- s our c e-estab lishm en t d ocu m en ts; an d ( 6) pa y m en ts t o Q ase m . Th e s ub po e na t o Efr e n La pu z s ou gh t : ( 1 ) the s ub

s t anc e ofAgen tLapuz ’ s t es t i m ony att ri al ; ( 2) al l doc u m en ts m em or ializin g his con tacts w ith Q asem ; an d ( 3) all d ocu m en ts rel ati ng to paym ents m ade to Q ase m by D EA i n the invest igation of M r. J u m ah

. T he sub p oe na to G eo rg e N e w l an d sou g ht: ( 1) al l do cum ents m em orial izi ng his contac ts w ith Q ase m rela t i ng t o the J um ah i nve s t i gat i on; an d ( 2) al l paym en ts m ade t o Qas em by DEA i n the J um ah i nve s t i gat i on. On J anu ar y 6 , 2006 , M r. J um ah i s s ued a nothe r t ri al s ubpoe na t o FBI Agent J ohn Diwik

. The s ubpoe na t o Age ntDiwi k s ought A g en t D iw ik’s te st i m o n y at trial reg ard ing : (1) the first d ate M r. J um ah act ed as a CS f or the F BI; (2) the num ber ofi nvesti gati ons M r. Jum ah w orked on ; ( 3) how m uch M r. J um ah w as pai d f or hi s work; ( 4) the m ethod, m ann eran d t i m es Agen t D iwik com m unicat ed with M r. J um ah; and (5) a l is t ofagenci es th a tMr
. J u ma h w o r k e d f o r a tth e d i r e c t i o n o fo r o n th e r e c o mm en dat i on ofAgen tDiwi k. 2 0 0 6 , Mr
. J u ma h ’ s c o u n s e l al s o fi l e d a mo t i o n f o r i mm edi ate di scl osur e o ff avo rabl e e vi dence, r equesting tha t th e G ov er n m en t t u rn ov er all Bradya nd G igli o ev id en c e. On Januar y 1 1, 20 06, the Gover nm ent filed a m oti on t o quash the subpoenas on the gr ound that the r equeste d do cument s wer e no t r equi r ed to b e di sc l o se d b y the8 N o. 08

- 1931 disc ove ryr ule s, were i rrele va nt to the case o r l acke d evi denti ar y val ue. R. 68. The Gover nm ent al so sta ted th at it had m et its obl igatio n s un d er Bradybut that i ts re vi ew f orthe Gigl i o m at er i alwas s ti l lo ng o i ng . S pec i fical l y, the Go v e r nme nts t a t e d, J u ma h wa s a DE A [ C S ] i n C h i c a g o a n d L o s Ang eles , Ca l i f o r ni a an d a n F BI[ CS ] i n Chi ca g o , a nd Qasem was a [ CS] i n Ri ver si de, Cal i f or nia ; S an Dieg o, Cal i f or ni a; and Chicag o, Il lin oi s. The go ver nm ent has pro du ced al l G igli o m at er i al s co nta in ed in Ju m ah ’ s a n d Q as em ’s D E A [C S] files in C h ica g o a n d w ill pr od u c e b y Ja n u ar y 1 2, 20 06 all Gigl i o m ate ri al s co ntai ned i n J um ah’ s F BI [ CS] fi l e. The [ CS] fi l es i n Los An geles, Riv er si de, and Sa n Di e g o , h o we v e r, h a v e n o tb e e n ful l y r e v i ewe d. These fi l es cannot be s ent t o Ch i cago and , ther ef or e, m us t b e rev i ew ed by att or neys i n thos e ci ti es. The go ver nm ent i s wo rk ing di l i gently t o ge t t h is re vie w co m p let ed , bu t ith as n otatth is ti m e be en done. R. 68 at 7. The Gover nm ent al so re quested , with M r. J um ah’ s co nsent, thattr i al be co nti nued to al l ow com ple ti on o fthe Gover nm ent’ s Gigl i o se ar ch

. T h e n ex t d ay , onJan u ar y 12 , 200 6, th e d ist ric t c ou rth eld a hea ring to cons ider th ese issue s. T he d is t r ict court de ni e d the r e qu e s t e d c o nt i nu a nc e . T he di s t r i c tc o u r ts t a t e d, “I ’ m am enabl e t o anyt h i ng tha t nee ds m y c oo perat i on to see thatthi s f avo rabl e e vi dence, i fi n f act th at ’ s what i ti s , i s p r o du c e d, b utwe a r e g o i ngt o t r i a lo n thi s cas e on J anuary23 rd. ” Tr
. at4, J an. 12 , 20 06.N o. 08

- 1931 9 A t the hear i ng, the Govern m en t a ssur ed the dist ri ct c ou rt t hat i t had pro du ced al lm ate ri al s i t was o bl i gat ed to pr o duce pur su an t to Rul e 16 , 1 8 U. S
. C. § 3 50 0 an d Brady . See Tr
. a t 7- 8, J an . 1 2, 2 00 6. H ow ever, the Go ve r nm ent r ei ter ate d that it nee ded m or e t i m e t o com ple te i ts Gigl i o s e a r c h a nd p r o du c t i o n. S pe c i fi c a l l y, i ts t a t e d, T h e [C S] files in C h ica go , b oth M r. Ju m a’s [sic ] file w ith th e FB Iand M r. J um ah [ sic] an d M r. Qa sem ’s file w ith th e D E A h av e b ee n r e v i e w e d an d all Gigl i o m ate ri als that w er e withi n thos e fi l es have be entur ne d o ve r t o the defen se . W i thre g ar d to the fi l e s i n C alifo rn ia, a D E A at to rn ey in C alifo rn ia is r e vie w in g, is go in g t o e ac h of th os e c itie s a n d is r ev i ewi ngtho se fi l es . Tha t i s cur r en tly b eing unde r ta k en . Id. at 8- 9. The dist ri ct cour t hel d that the Governm ent had com pli ed w i th i ts Brady o bl i g at i o ns a nd di r ec te d the Gover nm ent t o com ple te i ts sea rch f orany Gig lio r es po nsi ve do cument s i n i ts Ca l i f o r ni a o ffi ce s bythe f o l l o wi ng T u es d ay . Id. at12
. The dis tr i ct c ourt then too k up the Gove rnm ent’ s m oti on to qua shthe s ubpo en as . M r . J um ahmai nt aine d tha t he was e nt it l ed to the e nt i r e fi l e th atthe DEA ke pt co nc er n in g h im an d Q as em , in c lu d in g a ll rec or d s o f all sta tem ents m ad e by M r. J um ah and Qasem r el ate d to pr i o r i nv e s t i g a t i o ns i n whi c h the y h a d p a r t i c i pa t e d. M r. J uma h mai nt a i ne d tha t tho s e mat e r i a l s wo ul d be pr o ba ti ve o n the i ss ue o fhi s st at e o fmin d dur i ngthe February20 04 i nci dent and hi s co urse o f c ond uct as a DE A CS. M r. J um ah al so sugge ste d t h at he ne eded to10 N o. 08

- 1931

re vie w th e files to d isp ro ve t h e D E A ’s p os itio n th at it neverhad prov i ded sa m ple s of p seud oephedri ne to M r. J um ah f orhis w or k i n any i nvest i gat i on. The Gover nm ent o pp ose d t h e r equest and m ai ntai ned that M r. J um ah was not enti tl ed to m ate ri al s be yond tho se that q u alifie d as R u l e 1 6 , § 35 00 , Bradyor G igli o m at er ials and rei ter ate d that thi s m ate ri alalready had been pr odu ced f orthe m ostpart
. The Governm ent a l so sta ted that no docum ents exi ste d concer ni ng the di str ibut i on o fps eu do eph edr in e sa m pl es t o M r . J um ahb ec au se the DE A i n Chicag o had confi rm ed that such distr ibuti on ne v e r h a d o c c ur r e d. The district co ur t g r an te d the mot i o n t o qua sha l lthe tr i alsubpoenas , exce pt the subpoena of Agent DeW i tt because M r. J um ah i ntended to cal lh im a t t ri al

. Tr. at23

- 24, J an. 12 , 20 06. A s t o the o thersubpoenas , the dist ri ct c ou rtst at ed th at M r. Ju m ah w as m er ely se ek in g m at er ials

“ d e r i v a t i v e fr o m Brady a nd Gigl i o” m at er i al s tha t th e Gov ernm en t al r ea dy ha d pro duce d o r was i n the p ro c es s o f id en tify in g a n d p ro d u c i n g. Id. a t 11
. The dist ri ct c ourtst ate d that M r. J um ah wa s n ot enti tl ed to “e ve r y pi ec e o fmin ut i a i n the cond ucto fg o ve r nm en t age nts a nd peopl e work i ng f orthem i n the cour se ofan i nvest i gat i on. ” Id. at 19-20. H ow ever, the d istr ict court dir ecte d that the Governm ent c ontac t a nyone M r. J um ah had w or ked f oras an in for m ant, i ncl ud i ng the Chica go an d Ca l i f o r ni a DEA o ffi ce s, t o inq uire, a g ain, abo utthe exi ste nce o fany docum ents showing that the DEA had p ro v id ed M r. Ju m ah w ith p se u d oe p h ed rin e s am p les

. Id. at 17- 18. Final l y, the distri ct c ourtnot ed that M r. J um ahN o. 08

- 1931 11 had to “r el y o n the bona fides o fthe gov er nm ent” w i th resp ect t o i ts r epr es en ta ti o ns abo utthe e xi st en ce o fa ny re m ai ni ng Brady a nd Gigl i o m at er ial. Id. at16

- 17. On J an ua r y 1 7, 2 00 6, the Go ve r nm en t appa r en tly s en t M r. J um ah a l ett erco nfi rm i ng tha t i t had co m ple ted i ts s e a r ch f or Gigl i o m ate ri al s in the Cali f or ni a DEA o ffi ces an d fou n d n on e. See A pp el l ee’ s Br. 17. That l ett erwas not mad e p a r to fthe r e c o r d. A t a pre - tr ial confer ence on J anuary18 , 20 06, the Governm en t ag ain b r o ug htup th e su bpo en as i ss ue a nd the d istri ct cou rt for eclosed furt he r discu ssion o f th e m atter. Th e f o l l o wi ngc o l l o qu y o c c ur r e d: [ TH E G OV ER N M EN T]: A s the cour t poi nted out at th e last hearing, w ith regard to the d efense ’s su b p oe n as , th e in for m at ion th at w as req u es te d in tho s e s ub po e na s , a s the g o v e r nme ntu nd e r s t oo d i t fro m the cour t’ s r uling, was deter m i ned to be i rr el evantbec ause i n f act w hetherM r. J um ah

— T HE C O UR T : L e tme s a y t h i s , t h a tth e b a s i s o fmy rul i ng i s what Isa id i n the cour tr oo m l astweek, and both o fyo u have tak en a l i ttle bi t o fl iber ty i n char acteri zi ng to yo ur a dvantage wh at you bel i eve would be, Ithi nk, a l i ttl e e xtra pol ati on o f w hat Isa i d. So wh at Isa i d I sa i d, and that’s on th e r e c o r d l a s twe e k, a n d th o s e a r e th e r e a s o ns f orm y r uling. See Tr. at14, J an. 18 , 20 06. Lateri n that hear in g, th e G over nm ent r em i nd ed the dist ri ct c ourtthati t had di re cted th e Gov ernm en t to i nqui r e spe ci fi ca l l y i nt o whethe r any12 N o. 08

- 1931 federal ag ency had everpro vi ded M r. J um ah with p seud oephedri ne sa m ple s. The Governm ent r epres ented th ati ts r ev i ew o fM r . J um ah’s fil es i n Chi ca g o a nd Los An gel es produced no docum ents showing that M r . J u ma h e v e r h a d b e e n p r o v i d e d w i th p s e u d o e ph e drin e s am p les

. Id. at20
. On or ar ound J anuary20, 20 06, during an i nter vi ew with Qasem , the Gover nm ent l earned f orthe fi rs t t i m e that Qasem had cond ucted two pseudoephedri ne deal s with M r. J um ah i n 200 1. The G ove rnm ent c onsi dered that i nfo rm ati on t o be Gigl i o m ate ri aland dis c los ed it to M r. J um ah by f ax on J anuary21 , 20 06. See A pp el l ee’ s Br. 17; R. 10 7 at1 3. A lso , o n J an ua r y 2 0, 2 00 6, the Go ve r nm en t fi l ed a m oti on in l i m i ne to per m i t the adm i ssi on a t t ri alo f ev id en c e an d a rg u m en ts c on c er n in g th os e d ru g d ea ls

— i.e. , J u m ah ’ s pri oruncharg ed cr i m i nalact s

— as ine x tr ica b ly i nter tw i ned w i th the char ged offense. R. 87. The di str i ct co ur t co ndi ti o na l l y pr ec l ude d the e vi den ce wi th o ut p rej u d ice to ren ew al of t h e m ot i o n a t tria l. R .13 6-2 ; see al s o A pp el l ee’ s Br. 18
. Tri alwas hel d, beginning on e d ay ea rl y, o n J anuary25 , 20 06
. At tr i al, th e Gov ernm en t i nt r o duce d t es ti m o ny f ro m Ch i c a g o DEA a g e nt s tha t M r . J uma h wa s no t a n acti ve CS atthe ti m e o fthe d ea l w i th Qasem and that M r . J um ahha d a ct ed i nde pen den tly a nd wi th o ut author i ty fro m th e DE A to poss ess and sel lpseudoephedri ne. DE A ag ents tes ti fied about pri orst i ng o perati o ns i n whi chM r . J um ahha d pa r ti ci pat ed, i nclud i ngthe J i m m y’ s S hi shkabob i nci dent. The DE A a ge nts e xplained that un d erno ci rcum sta nces w oul d M r. J um ah have bee nN o. 08

- 1931 13

O n cross-exam inat ion ofQ ase m , def ense counselbegan 2 as ki ng aboutQas em ’ s pr i or r el at i ons hi p with M r. J um ah and how l ong the t w o m en had kn ow n each other. Trial Tr. at 414, J an. 27, 2006
. The at t or ne y f or the Gover nm en tobj ec t ed a nd stated , “I just w an t to no tify the cou rt tha t if[ d efense co u nsel is] goi ng to go i nt o th e f ac ttha t[ Qas em ] doe s n’ tt ru s t[ M r. J um ah] and why he does n’ t t ru s t [ M r. J um ah] , that ’ s what I intend o n a sk i n g o n c r o ss e x a m i n a t i o n [s i c ], a n d I b e l i e v e sh e ’s open ed the do or atthi s point. ” Id. at 415. The d is tr ic t c ourt o v er ru le d th e o b jec tio n . Id. H ow ever, def ense counselm oved on to ano ther l ine ofquest ioni ng and did not ask Qasem ad d ition al qu estion s ab ou t his p rior relatio nsh ip w ith M r. J um ah. all ow ed to sellps eu d oep he d rine w ithou t the DE A ’s knowle dge and then b enefi t fro m i nfo rm ati on pro vided ther efro m . The DE A ag ents al so descr ibed the eve nts that occur re d on and lea d in g up to M ar ch 2, 20 04. Qasem te st ifi ed as a Gove rnm ent witness about the M ar ch 200 4 eve nt s a nd s t a t e d tha t he ha d k no wn M r . J um ah f or ap p ro x im at ely fou rt ee n ye ar s. See Tri alTr. at31 2, J an. 26 , 2006
. On cross-exa m ination of Qa sem , M r. J um ah ’s co uns eldi d no t exp lo r e th ei r pr i o r r el at i o ns hi p i n a ny d et ail. 2 M r. J um ah’ s defense w as that he r eas onabl y b el i eve d he had author i ty t o en teri nto the pse ud oephedri ne deal w i th Qasem

. M r. J um ah r ead st i pu lat ions i nto evi dence showing that he was em plo yed as a DE A CS fro m ti m e- toti m e, that M r . J um ahmade se ve r alpho ne c al l s to the DE A ag ents on a nd ar ound M ar ch 1- 2, 20 04, and that M r. Ju m ah kn ew th at Q as em w as tra ve l in g t o Illino is in14 N o. 08

- 1931 February20 04. M r. J um ah d id notte sti fy a t t ri al

. N or di d he i nt ro duce e vi den ce s ho wi ngtha t th e Gov ernm ent pr ovi ded hi m with pse ud oe p hedri ne sa m ple s. N ei therparty o ffer ed evi dence showingthat M r. J um ah and Qasem pre vi ousl y had co nd ucted drug deal s w i th each other. On Januar y 2 7, 2 00 6, the j ury convi cted M r. J um ah o n th e o ne co unt o f di st r ibut i ng 1, 01 6 pi l ls cont aini ng pse udo eph edr i ne . As we ha ve no te d e ar l i er, the dist ri ct c ourtgr anted a new tr i albec ause i t believ ed th atthe j ur yha d b ee n ins truct ed er r o ne o us l y o n the p u b lic a u th or ity d efe n se . W e re ve rs ed t h at ru lin g, see Jum ah I , 4 93 F.3d a t 87 8- 79 , a nd, o n r emand, the dist ri ct c ourtpro ceeded to c on sid erM r. J um ah’ s o ther pr o ffer ed g r o unds f o r a ne w tria l

. Am o ngthe m was the c o nt e nt i o n tha tthe Go v e r nme nth a d f a i l e d t o di s c l ose d ocu m en ts p u r s u a nt to i ts obligati ons un d er Brady v . M aryl and , 373 U
. S
. 8 3 , 8 7( 1 9 6 3 ) , a nd G igl io v. U nited Sta tes , 405 U .S. 15 0, 15 3 (1 9 7 2). See R. 101. On J anuary29 , 2008 , the d ist ri ct c ourtdeni ed the m oti on, r uling tha t M r. J um ah f ai l ed to show that the Gover nm en t had w i thhel d any e vi dence thatqual i fi ed as Bradyor G igli o m at er ial. See R. 178 at 4. On Ap ri l 9, 2008 , the dist ri ct c ourtse ntenced M r. J um ah to 15 1 m on th s’ im p ris on m en t. See Tr. at23 , A pr. 9, 20 08; R. 183. The di stric t co urt cal cul ate d the Guidel i nes a cc o r d i n gt o th e g r o s s we i g h to fth e p s e u d o e p h e d r i ne pil l s , i ns t e a d o fthe we i g hto fthe p ur e drug s c o ntai ned ther ei n. N o party o bj ecte d to the di str i ct c ourt ’ s ca l cul ati ons, wh i ch w er e in acco rdance w ith the Pre sente nceN o. 08

- 1931 15 I nvest i gat i on Repor t ( “PSR”) c al cul ati ons. On A pri l16 , 2 0 0 8 , Mr
. J uma h t i mel y a pp e a l e d.

II DI S C US S I ON A. W e fi rs t co nsi der M r. J um ah’ s cl ai m that h is right to due pr o ce ss o fl aw a s g ua r an te ed bythe F i fthAm en dm en t w as v i ola te d by th e G ov er n m en t’s w ith h old in g of e vidence. W e r evi ew a dist ri ct cour t’ s deci si on that e vi dence ne ed not be p rod uc ed un d er Bra dy or G igl i o f oran abuse of d isc re tio n . Se eU ni t e d S t at e s v. O l of s on , 56 3 F
. 3d 652, 66 1 (7th C ir. 2009). M r . J um ah pri m ar i l y c o nt en ds th atthe Go ve r nm en t con d uc ted an inad eq ua te search f or Brady a nd G igli o m at e r i a l in its p os se ss ion, bot h in Illin ois an d in C alif or ni a . M r . J uma h mai nt a i ns tha t he wa s e nt i t l e d t o r e c e i v e h i s c o mpl e t e C S fi l e fr o m the DEA a n d F B I
. He a ls o c o nt en d s tha t he w as en titl ed to receive Qa sem ’s com ple te CS fi l e a nd the DE A ’s d ebr i efi ngs o fQasem i n c o nn e c t i o n wi th the i nv e s t i g a t i o n o fMr
. J uma h. Appel l ant’ s Br. 22, 29. M r. J um ah bel i eve s that the CS fil es w ou ld h ave shown thatthe DE A pro vi ded hi m with pseu d oe p h edri ne sa m ple s in the past. H e a l so sta tes that the CS fi l es w oul d ha ve s u p port ed hi s theor y that, ev en w h en h e w a s d ea c tiv at ed , he rou tin ely w ou ld ob ta in i nf o r m at i o n reg ar di ngpo ss ibl e cr i m i na lc o nduc t an d bring i t to the att enti on of the DE A age nts “after i t r i pened i nto a pos sibl e s ti ng. ” See i d. a t 22
. He b el i ev es tha t th e CS fi l es w oul d show that, pr i orto 20 04, M r. J um ah had16 N o. 08

- 1931

M r. J um ah als o int im ates thatthe dist ri ctcourt com m it ted 3 revers ible err or by d enying the G overnm ent’ s m oti on f or a co n tin u a n ce . S ee Ap p e l l a n t ’ s B r . 2 7
. Ho we v e r th i s a rg um en t i s n o tp u r s u e d s e r i o u s l y i n Mr
. J u mah ’ s b r i e fi n g ; th u s , we t re ati tas wai ved. Al s o, ator al ar gum en t s , M r. J um ah m ai nt ai ne d thatthe di s t ri c t c ou rt erre d by l i m i t i ng the s c ope ofthe G overnm ent’ s se arch ofi ts Cali f ornia files. W e c onsi der that arg u m en t to b e p art a nd p arc el of M r. J u m ah ’ s arg u m en t that h is r i g h tto d u e p r o c e s s o f l a w w a s v i o l a t e d b y th e G o v e r n m e n t ’s failure to tu rn ov er all Brady a nd G igl i o resp on sive m ater ials. parti ci pated i n i nvest iga tio ns i nto Qasem ’ s nar cot i cs deal i ngs a nd that“Qase m was a l ong- sta nd i ng targ et of J uma h’ s wo r ka s a CS
. ” Id. at22

- 23, 29
. 3 M r. Ju m ah co n te n d s t h at th e G ov er n m en t c an n otav oid its d u tie s b y a ss er tin g t h at rele va n t m at e r ials are n otin its p os se ss ion
. Id. at 27 ( ci ti ng C ri vens v. R oth , 17 2 F
. 3d 991, 996 (7th Cir. 1999)). H e furth er c o n t en d s tha t “[w ]here evi dence i s in the excl usi ve controlo fthe gov er nm ent o r ha s be ende st r o y ed bythe g o ve r nm en t, a de fend ant m ay es ta b lish th a t t h e g ov er n m en t s u p p re ss ed ex c u lpat o r y e vi den ce wi th o uts pec i fi ca l l y i den ti fy i ngthe al l ege dlysup press ed evi dence, i fthe defe nd ant m ake s s o me s ho wi ngtha te v i de nc e wa s s up pr ess ed
. ” Id. at28 ( ci tingU ni t e d S t at e s v. D r i ver, 7 98 F. 2d 248, 25 1 n. 1 ( 7th Ci r . 1 98 6) )
. M r . Ju m ah not es tha t i n Pen ns yl vani a v. R it chie, 480 U
. S. 39, 58 n
. 15 (1987), “th e Sup rem e C ou rt hel d that a defendant, char ged with the r ape and incest of hi s daughter, w as enti tl ed to have the sta te ’s C h il dren an d Yo uth S er vi ce s fi l e o n hi s daught er r ev i ewe d by the t r i a lc o ur tt o deter m i ne wh e the r i tc o nt a i ne d Bradyi nfor-N o. 08

- 1931 17

m ati on. ” Ap pel l ant’ s Br. 30 ( describi ng R it chie )
. F i na l l y, M r. J um ah co ntends thathe par ti cul ar l y dese rv ed to re cei ve Qasem ’s fi l e a nd the DE A ’ s debr i efi ngs o fQasem be ca us e Qas em pr o vi ded unv er i fi ed te st i m o ny abo ut w hat was sa i d i n the c on ve rsati ons between M r. J um ah an d Q as em . Id. at32 ( quoti ng U ni t e d S t at e s v. Wong, 78 F.3d 73, 79 ( 2d Cir. 1996)). The Gover n m en t rei ter ate s that i t co m ple ted i ts re vi ew of M r. J um ah ’s and Q asem ’s C S fi les, i nc lud ing the Ca li forni a fi l es, by J anuary17, 20 06, and f ound no Bradyor G igli o m a t e r ial other th an w ha t it tu rned over. A p p ell ee’s Br. 19. The Governm ent m ai ntai ns thatM r. J um ah now sp ec u lat es th at ad d itio n al re sp on siv e d oc u m en ts ex istin the CS fi l es. A l though the Gove rnm ent deni es that such d oc u m en ts ex ist, i t fu rt h er m ain ta in s t h at M r. Ju m ah “is not enti tl ed to scou r gover nm ent fi l es i n the hopes o f fi nd i ng Brady/ Gigl i o m ate ri al

. ” Id. ( c i t i ng U ni t e d S t at e s v. Phil l ips , 8 54 F
. 2d 2 73, 2 77( 7th Ci r . 1 98 8) )
. The Go ve r nm en t co nc ede s th ata n in ca m era i nspecti on o fGovernm ent fi l es i s s om eti m es appropri ate , but note s that M r . J um ahne ve r a sk ed f o r a n in ca m era i ns pec ti on ofthe re c or d s inth is c as e. Id. at20

- 21. Final l y, i n re sponse to M r. J um ah’ s a rgum ent with re spect to speci fi c docum ents, the Gove rnm ent a sse rt s that: ( 1) it n eve r gave pseudoep h ed rin e s am p les to M r. J u m a h an d d id n otw ith h old an y d oc u m en ts sh ow in g ot h er w ise , i d. at21 , 26 ; ( 2) i ts fi l es do not conta i n any docum ents sh ow i ng tha t M r. J um ah and Qasem had enga ged i n two p re vi ous pse ud oeph edr i ne de al s, pa r ti cul ar l y b ec au se the Go ve r nm en t l earned oftho se deal s fro m Q ase m onlyon the eve oftr i al a n d a l e r te d M r. Ju m ah ac c or d in gly , i d. at23 ; and ( 3) it18 N o. 08

- 1931 “gav e the de fend an t all d o c u m en ts related to Qas em ’s p ar tic ip at ion in t h e in ve st iga tio n of th e d efe n d an t,” i ncl ud i ng docum ents ti tl ed “debr i efi n gs ” and tho se ti tl ed “cas e s tatus r epor ts, ” i d. at24
. I n Brady, 3 73 U. S
. at8 7, the S upr eme Co ur t he l d tha t “the supp re ssi on by t he pro secuti on o fev i dence f avo rabl e t o an acc used upon reques t v i ol ate s due p ro c ess o fl aw wher e th e e vi den ce i s m at er i alei th ert o g ui l t o r t o puni sh

m en t i r r es pec ti ve o fthe g o o d f ai tho r b ad f ai tho fthe pr o se cut i o n. ” The S upr eme Co ur t fur th er h el d i n G igli o , 405 U
. S. a t 153, thatany m ate ri alev i dence w hi ch m i ght underm i ne the r el i abi l i ty ofa gov ern m ent wit

ness m ust be tur n ed overto a defe nd ant. In other w or ds, a new tri al i s requ ired ifthe evid en ce at issue i s (1) f avorabl e, ( 2) suppress ed and ( 3) m ateri alto the defe nse. Se eU ni t e d Sta tes v. Wi l s on , 237 F.3d 827, 832 (7th C ir. 20 01 )
. “ [ E] vi den ce i s m at er i alo nl y i fthe r e i s a r ea so nabl e pr obab i l ity that, had the evi dence bee n dis cl ose d to the defense, the re su l t o fthe proce edi ngs woul d have been differ ent. ” U ni t e d S t at e s v. Bagl ey , 4 73 U
. S. 66 7, 68 2 (19 85 ) (B lac km u n, J. , con c u rrin g); Kyles v . W hit ley, 514 U
. S. 419, 43 4 ( 1995 ) ( disc ussi ng the B agley s tandar d)

. “ Re as o nabl e pr obabil i ty” does notm ean s om ethi ng g re ate r than 50 % b utr athe r “ whethe r i n . . . [th e] ab se nc e [ o fthe evi dence, the defe nd ant] rece i ved a f ai r tr i al, understo od as a tr ial re su ltin g in a ve rd ict w or th y of c on fid en c e.” Kyles , 51 4 U.S
. at43 4. The defen d an t has the burden to es tabl i sh thata Brady or Gigl i o vio la t i o n o c c u rre d

. Se eWi l s on , 23 7 F
. 3d at 832. H owev e r, p r o s e c ut o r s “ ha v e a n a ffi r mat i v e du t y t o di s-N o. 08

- 1931 19

A tle a st w i th r e sp e c tto d o c u m e n t s c o n c e r n i n g Q a se m ’s 4 par t i c i pat i on i n the i nve s t i gat i on i nt o M r. J um ah, the Gover nm en t c la im s th a t it ac tu a lly p ro d u ce d its en t i r e file

. S eeA p p elle e’ s Br. 24- 25. c los e s u c hev id en c e a n d a d u ty to ‘lea rn ofa n y fa vo ra b le ev i den ce kn ow n to the o th er s ac tingo n the g o ve r nm ent’ s be hal fi n the case , incl ud i ng the pol i ce. ’ ” Cri ve ns v. R oth , 172 F. 3d 991, 996 ( 7th Cir
. 19 99 ) ( quoti ng Kyles , 514 U
. S. at43 2)
. Thus, w hi l e “ [ p]r ose cutor s m ay not sim p ly claim ig n o r an ce of Brady m ate ri al, ” i d. at99 6, a d efend an t c a n n ot d em an d a new tri al based on “m ere spe cul ati on” or“unsupp or ted as ser ti on[ s] thatthe gov er nm ent s up press ed evi dence, ” U nited St a tes v. D river, 798 F.2d 248, 251 (7th Cir. 1986). I n l i ght o fthi s s tandard, w e cannot a gr ee w i th M r. J um ah that th e Gove rnm ent c onducted an i nadequ ate se ar ch f orr esponsi ve Brady or Gigl i o m ate ri al

. A s a n i ni ti al m atter, M r. J um ah w as no t ent itl ed to r e ceive his en tire C S file or gov er n m en t files co n c er n in g Q as em . See U nited Sta tes v. Phi l ips , 8 54 F
. 2d 273, 2 78 ( 7th Ci r . 1 98 8) ( “[ W ]e haste n to poi nt o ut that Bradydoes notgr ant cr im i nal d efe nd an ts un fettered acces s to govern m en t fi les. ”). 4 R at h er , he w as e n tit led to rec eiv e a n y d oc u m en ts m at er ial l y f av o r ab l e to hi m o r whi chmightunde r m i ne the re l i abi l i ty ofwitnes ses . The Gover nm ent conducted a suffi ci ent sea rch of its fi l es f ordocum ents f al l i ng i nto that cate gory. A s o fthe pretr i alhear i ng o n J anuary12 , 20 06, the Gover nm ent r eprese n t e d t h at it h ad p ro d u c ed all Brady m ate ri ali n i ts p ossess ion. T he di s t r ict court ac cep ted the G overn m en t’s20 N o. 08

- 1931

W e have no ne ed t o c ons i der the Gover nm en t ’ s c onten tion, 5 m ade i n i t s br i efappa re nt l y f or the f irs tt i m e, thati ts en t M r. J um ah a l ett er c onfi rm ing that i t had com plet ed its s earc h f or G igl i o m ater ial s in the Cali f ornia DE A fil es on J anuary 17, (co n tin u ed ...) r epr es en ta ti o n a nd r emi nd ed M r . J um ahtha t, wi th o ut al l ega ti ons of speci fi c pie ces of evi dence that had been wi thhe l d, he ha d to r ely o n “ th e bo na fi des o fthe g o ve r nm ent. ” See Tr. at16

- 17, J an. 12, 2006. A t that hea ring, how ev er , the Gover nm ent ind i cate d that i t s ti l lneeded to com p lete a review of its Calif ornia fi les for G igli o m at er ial , a nd the di st r i ctc o ur t ur g ed th e Gov ernm en t to e xpe di te the s ea r ch

. The n, a t th e J an ua r y 1 8 co nfer en ce , the Go ve r nm en t ass ured the di str i ct c ourtthati t had com ple ted i ts re vi ew o fthe Ca l i f o r ni a fi l es a nd ha d f o und n o r es po ns i ve do cume n t s . T h e r e c o r d i s c l e a r th a tth e G o v e r n me n tc o mpl et ed i ts s ea r cho fthe Ca l i f o r ni a fi l es . The Govern m ent re fer re d t o its sear ch ofthe Cali f or ni a fi l es f ordocum ents speci fi cal l y r el ate d t o past instance s o fdi str ibuti on o f ps e u d o e p h e d r i n e t o Mr
. J u ma h a n d i n f o r me d t he di st r i ctc ou rt tha t i t ha d f o und n o ne . M o r eo ve r, the re cor d cannot b e f ai rl y r ead as r efl ecting t h at the Gove r nme nt, i n s e a r c hing f o r thi s i nfo r mat i o n i n i t s fi l e s, was ob livi o u s t o its br oa d er d u ty to d isc los e a n y ot h er ex c u lpat o r y o r i m p ea ch m en t m at er i al

. Inde ed, thr o ug ho ut i ts fi l i ng s before th e di st r i ctc o ur t an d thi s co ur t, the Gover nm ent has m ai ntai ned that i t co nd ucted a thor ough searc h of alli ts file s in all offices for Brady a nd G igli o m ate ri aland w i thhel d nothi ng. 5N o. 08

- 1931 21

(
. . . c on t i nu e d) 5 2004. S ee A p pel l ee ’ s Br. 17
. Thi s l et t eri s no ti n the r ec or d, an d w e base our d ec is ion only on the heari ng and conferenc e tran scrip ts av ailab le to u s. I n P en n sy lv a n ia v . R itc h ie, 4 8 0 U
. S
. 3 9 , 5 8 ( 1 9 8 7 ) , th e S u p r e me 6 C ou rt ou tlined a g en er al stan d ard f or d eterm inin g w he n to gr antan i n camer a i ns pec t i on ofg overn m en t al doc um en t s f or Brady/ G igl i o resp on sive m ater ial. Th e C ou rt exp lain ed tha t a defen dant“m ay notr equi re the t ri al c our tt o s ea rc h thr ough [a go v ern m en tal] file w itho u t first e st a b lishing a b asis f or his cl aim thati t c ontai ns m ater ial evidence. ” Id. a t 5 8 n .15 ; seeal so id. at 57 ( “ ’ [E]v id en ce is m ater ial on ly if t h e r e is a rea son ab le pro babi l i t y that, ha d the e vi denc e bee n d isc l os ed t o the defe nse, the res ult ofth e proceeding w ould hav e been differen t
. ’ ” ( quo t i ng U n i te d S tat es v. B agley, 47 3 U .S. 6 6 7, 68 2 (19 8 5 )). W he the r the d efendan te s t abl i s he s s uc h a bas i s m ay depe nd on “the degree ofs pecific ity of[th e d efend ant’ s] reques t. ” Id. at 58 n.15. A d efend an t m u st “ at least m ak e som e p lau sible s howi ng” thatthe withhe l d m at er i al i s “bo th m at er i al an d f avorab le to his def ense . ” Id. (in te rn a l q u o ta tio n m a rk s o m itt ed ). “[M ]ere spe c u lation tha t a go v ern m en t file m igh t con tain Brady m ater ial i s not s uffic ie nt. ” Uni t e d S t a t e s v. Bl a nd, 517 F
. 3d (co n tin u ed ...) I fM r . J um ahb el i ev ed th at he nee ded ac ce ss t o hi s an d Qasem ’ s e nti re DE A fi l es, he c oul d have r equest ed that th e d i s t r i c tc o ur t u n d e r t a k e a r e v i e w in ca m era o fthe G ov er n m en t’s files. C f. Ritchie, 4 80 U
. S
. a t 58 n. 15 ( ex pl aini ngtha t to o bt ain a n in ca m era i ns pec ti o n fr o m the d i s t r i c tc o u r t, th e d e fe n d a ntmu s t“ a tl e a s tma k e s o me p lausible s h ow ing” th at d ocu m en ts in the govern m en t’s p ossess ion con tain inform ation “both m aterial an d fa vorable to his d efense ” (i nt erna l qu otation m arks o m it t ed ))
. 622 N o. 08

- 1931

(
. . . c on t i nu e d) 6 93 0, 935 ( 7th C i r . 2 0 0 8). C ou rts ha v e ap p lied this “p lau sible s ho wi ng ” s t a nd a r d i n c a s e s whe r e the Go ve r nment op pos e d a defen dant ’ s r eques tf or an i n camera re v ie w . See, e . g. , D avis v. L i ts cher, 29 0 F .3d 94 3 , 94 7 -4 8 ( 7 t h C i r . 20 0 2 ); Un i t ed Sta t es v. R unyan , 29 0 F .3d 22 3 , 24 5 (5t h C ir . 20 0 2 ); Ri l ey v . Tayl or, 277 F .3d 2 6 1 , 3 0 1 (3 d C ir . 20 0 1 ); Love v. Johnso n , 57 F. 3d 1305, 1313- 15 (4 th C ir . 19 9 5 ). O f c o u r se, the d istrict cou rt is un d er n o in d ep en d en t d u ty 7 to rev iew go v ern m e n t f i les f or p ote ntia l Brady m a te ri a l. S ee Bl a nd, 517 F. 3d at 935. S ucha r ev i ew i s th e accept ed pr o ce dur e f o r r es o l ving leg i ti m ate doubt about the e xi ste nce o fundiscl ose d m at er i ala nd on e t ha t ba l an ce s th e defen dan t’ s i m po r ta nt need f oracc ess to pote nti al l y r el evant m ateri alwith th e G o v e r n me n t ’ s v a l i d i n t e r e s ti n p r o t e c t i n gc o n f i den

ti al files and the integr i ty ofpending i nvest i gat i ons. See Phil l ips , 85 4 F
. 2d at 278. M r. J um ah d id not m ake such 7 a r equest ofth e d i str i ct c ourtand appears to have dr o pp e d the ma t t e r a ft e r the J a nu a r y 1 8 , 2 0 0 4 c o nfe r ence. The dis tr i c t c ou rt cer tainl y was noto bl i gat ed to co nd uct an i n c am e r a r e v i e w sua s ponte
. M r. Ju m ah ’s t h eo ry th at t h e G ov er n m en t w ith h eld Brady a nd Gigl i o m ate ri al i s re nd er ed al lthe m or e s pecula

ti ve b y the e vi dence befor e us i n the re cor d. There w as no e vi dence thatthe DE A ev erpro vid ed M r. J um ah w i th pseudoephedri ne sa m ple s in the past

. M r. J um ah had am ple o pp or tuni ty to cr oss - exam i ne the DE A ag ents w h o t es tifie d as G ov er n m en t w itn es se s a b o u t t h is m att era nd was unabl e t o el i ci t a ny te sti m ony supp or ti veN o. 08

- 1931 23

o fhi s po si ti o n. Norwas M r . J um ahabl e to e st ab l i sha pattern ofo btaini ng i nfo rm ati on r ega rdi ng cr i m i nal c on d u c t a n d br in gin g it t o D E A a g en ts on ly a fte r it

“ r i pe ne d int o a p o s s ib l e s t i ng . ” See A pp el l ant’ s Br. 22
. I nd eed, the re cor d de m on str ate s that the DEA di d not p e r mi tMr
. J u ma h t o e n g a g e i n a c t u a lp s e u d o e p he dr i ne deal s without its cl ose superv i si on a nd di re cti on. Final l y, we ha ve no reason t o b el i ev e th atthe Go ve r nm en t m aintained re cor ds abo ut Qasem ’ s pastthatwould have been hel pfulto M r. J um ah. N otabl y, M r. J u m ah had an opportunity t o c ross- exam i ne Qasem abo ut thei r pri or re l ati o ns hi p a nd f a i l e d t o e s t ab l i s h tha tthe y h a d h a d a p at te rn of d ru g d ea lin gs in t h e p as t. See sup ra not e 2
. W e hav e s tat ed that, wh en evid en ce i s in the excl usi ve contr olo fthe Gover nm ent o r has be en d es tr oye d by th e Gov ernm en t, a defen dan t m aye st ab l i shtha t th e Gov ernm en t su ppr es se d e xc ul pat o r y e vi den ce wi th o ut speci fi cal l y i denti fyi ng the al l ege dlysuppress ed evi dence. See D river, 7 9 8 F
. 2 d a t2 5 1 n. 1. O n th e o th e r h a n d , we ha ve als o s tr es se d tha t uns uppo r te d a ss er ti o ns tha t th e Gover nm ent has sup press ed evi dence ar e insuffi ci ent t o m ake o ut a Bradyor G igli o v i o l a t i o n. Id. at25 1; see also U ni t e d S t at e s v. Andr us , 775 F. 2d 825, 843 ( 7th Ci r. 19 85) ( “A du e pr oce ss sta nd ar d w hi ch i s s ati sfi ed b y m er e s pecula

ti on w ould co n ver t Bradyi nt o a di sc o ve r y de vi ce a nd i m pose an und ue burden upon the dist ri ct c ourt
. ” ( i nter nal quo ta ti o n mar k s o m i tt ed) )
. W e m us t co nc l ude , o n the re c or d be for e u s, th at M r. Ju m ah ’s a ss er tio n s re m ain uns uppo r te d. His failur e to a skf o r a n in ca m era i nspecti on o fthe Gover nm ent’ s re cor ds furtherco unsel s a gainst24 N o. 08

- 1931 any r el i effro m thi s co urt. The di st ric t co urt com m i tte d no error.

B. M r. J um ah al so conte nd s that the di str i ct c ourter re d i n the i m posi ti on o fthe sente nce. W e r ev iew the dist ri ct cour t’ s app l i cati on o fthe Se ntenci ng Guidel i nes de novo a n d its fac tu al fin d in gs for c lea r er ro r. Se eU ni t e d S t at es v. Turn er, 400 F.3d 491 , 5 0 0 (7th C ir. 2005); see a lso Uni t e d S t at e s v. Ga rc ia , 41 3 F
. 3d 201, 22 1- 24 ( 2d Cir

. 20 05) ( expla i ni ng th e stand ar d ofr evi ew and w hy the cl ear er ror stand ar d ofr evi ew f orf actualfi nd i ngs a pp l i es eve n th o ug h the ul ti m at e i ss ue i s r easonabl en es s)
. W he n n o o bj e c t i o n t o s e nt e nc i ngg ui de l i ne s c a l c ul a t i o ns is ma de at trial, w e r e view those calculations f or plain error. See U nited Sta tes v. Jaim es-Jaim es , 40 6 F
. 3d 845, 84 7- 49 ( 7th Ci r . 2 00 5)
. U nde r pl ain- er r o r r ev i ew, the de fen dan t m u st sh ow th at (1) th er e w as e r r o r , ( 2 ) it w as p lain , (3) it affe c te d h is s u b st an tia l righ ts an d (4) th e c ou rts h ou ld ex er c ise its d isc re t ion to co rre c t t h e e rro r b ec au se it se riousl y a ffecte d the f ai rnes s, int egri ty orpubli c r eputati on of th e ju d icia l p ro c ee d in gs . See U nited Sta tes v. O la no , 507 U .S. 72 5, 73 2-3 5 (1 99 3); Ja im es-Jaim es , 40 6 F
. 3d at 847- 49.

1. A t tr i al, the parti es sti pu l ate d that M r. Ju m ah had dist ributed approxim atel y 1 009. 4 t abl ets o fpseudoep he d rine; th e pa rties al so a c c ep ted a chem ist’s rep ort w ei ghi ng the tabl ets atapproxi m ate l y 247 .9 gr am s. Tri alN o. 08

- 1931 25

T he p arties n ow ag ree th at the stipu lation w as sligh tly 8 i nc orrect. Bas ed o n the c he m i s t ’ s r epo rtf or m i ng the bas i s of th e st ip u la tio n, t h e t o ta l g ro ss w ei g h t o f th e t a b le ts w a s 2 5 3 .9 g ra m s. S ee Gov’ tApp. at25
. Des pi t e thi s i nac c ur ac y i n the st ipulati on, no add itional f actual heari ng is needed si nce thi s un ob j e c t e d t o, do c umen t a r y e vi de nc e i s i n the r e c or d. T he PS R utilize d the 2 00 7 v ersion of the G u id eline s. 9 Tr. at17 0- 71, J an. 25 , 20 06. In p re parat i on f orse ntenci ng, 8 the p r o b a t i o n o ffi c e r p r e pa r e d a P S R tha tc a l c ul ate d M r. J um ah’ s ba se o ffense l eve las 32
. Thi s ca l cul ati on was pur su an t to U. S
. S
. G. § 2 D1.11( d) ( 6) a nd b as ed o n the as s u mpt i o n th a tth e t o t a lwe i g h to fth e p s e u d o e p h edr i ne pi l l s was 2 53
. 9 g r ams. Howev er, the PS R di d no t co n- 9 si der the f act that the ch em i st’ s r epor t a l so cal cul ate d the t ota lweight o fpure dru g w ith in the pil l s t o be 6 0. 47 gr am s. See Gov’ t Ap p. at25
. Th e s e nt e nc i ngh e a r i ngwa s h e l d o n Apr i l 9, 2008
. On tw o occa si ons, M r. J um ah’ s counsel sta ted that he di d not ob j ec t t o th e c alc u lat ion s in th e P SR
. See Tr. at 3, 7, A pr. 9, 2008
. H ear i ng no obj ecti on, the distric t courtacc epted th e c alc u l a tio n s a n d find in gs of th e P SR
. Id. a t 7- 8. The dist ri ct c ourtdeter m ined that M r. J um ah’ s ba se offense l eve lwas 32 an d t h at the tw o- l eve lo bstr ucti on o fj usti ce enhancem ent a pp l i ed, br i ngi ng M r. J um ah ’s base offense lev el u p to 34 . B as ed on th at lev el a n d M r . Ju m ah ’s c rim inalh ist or y c ate gory o fI, the dist ri ct c ourtdeter m i ned that M r. Jum ah’ s Guidel i ne r ange w as 151 to 188 m onths’ im p ris on m en t. Id.26 N o. 08

- 1931 I n h i s se nt en cingmem o r an dum and a t th e se nt en cing he a r i ngMr
. J uma h ur g e d the di s t r i c tc o ur tt o i m pose a l ower s enten c e forse ver alr eas ons. M r. J um ah as ser ted that, bec ause ofhi s hi sto ryo f c oo perat i on with the Gover n m en t, h e w ou ld su ffer th e ris k of p h ys ica l ha rm in pr i so n. He u r g ed th e d istri ctc o ur t to de par t fr o m the Gu idelin es b ec au se , a fte r s er vinghi s pr i so n t er m , he l i k e l y wo u l d b e d e p o r t e d t o I s r a e l ; h e b e l i e v e d th a t he w ou ld f ace a par ti cul arphysi caldangerther e be cause of the pr ese nce o fi n d i vi du al s whom he ha d hel ped p ro secut e. He also a ske d the di st r i ctc o ur t to c o ns i dertha t he w oul d not be per m itted to ser ve the l astte n perce nt o f h is s en t e n c e in co m m u n ity co n fin em en t d u e t o h is im m igr an t s tatus. H e s tr ess ed hi s y ear s o fco oper ati on with t h e fe d e r a l g o v e r n m e n t a n d h i g h l i g h t e d a l e t t e r f r o m a DE A ag ent t o the d ist ric t co urt sta ti ng tha t M r. J um ah w as hardw or ki ng and “ a m an of hi s w or d,” w h o h ad earned the a gent’ s t rust
. R. 181, Ex. 1. Fi n al l y, M r. J um ah i nf o r m ed th e di st r i ctc o ur t tha t, duringhi s ti m e i n pr i so n, he had ta k ene duca ti o na lc o ur se s o ffer ed bythe pr i so n. The Go ve r nm ent dis put ed th e r el ev an ce o r f ac tu ala cc ura cy ofso m e o ftho se chara cter i sti cs. A ftercal cul ating the Guidel i nes s entence , the dist ri ct co ur t st at ed th ati t h ad co ns i der ed th e na tu r e o fthe offense and the f act that M r. J um ah’ s conduct “r esul ted o r coul d h av e re sul ted i n the i nj ury to othe r peopl e that w er e g oi ng to use these drugs that [M r. J um ah was] at te m ptingt o di st r ibut e. ” Tr
. a t 21 , Apr. 9 , 2 00 8. The dist ri ct courtthen sta ted thati t had co nsi dered “the nee d f ora sente nce t o provi de j ust punis hm ent, adequate det e r r e n c e a n d p r o t e c t i o n t o th e p u b l i c . . . [ a ndN o. 08

- 1931 27

I ni t i al l y, the Rule 35 m ot i on di d not s pec i fi c al l y re fer en c e the 10 di fferenc e betweenthe wei ghtofthe t ot al t abl et s an d the w ei g h t o f th e p u re d ru g s w ith in th em . S ee R
. 190. H ow ever, (co n tin u ed ...) M r. Jum ah’ s] hi sto ryand char acte ri sti cs. ” Id. Taki ng tho se consi derat i ons i nto ac c ou nt, the dist ri ct c ourtst ate d that “a se n te n c e w ith inth e s en te n c in g g u id elin e ra n ge is necess ar y. ” Id. T h e d i s t r i c tc o u r tth e n c o n s i d e r e d s o me o fth e u n i q u e c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s r a i s e d b y Mr
. J u ma h. M r. J um ah’ s a sse rt i on that he w oul d sufferthe ri sk of phy si ca lha r m i n pr i so n was not su ppo r te d b y “ an y re l i abl e info rm at ion .
. . [ and w as] co ntra ryto [ hi s] r ec en t hi st o r y s i nc e co m i ngt o the a tt en tion of the Cour t.” Id. M r. J um ah’ s a sse rt i on that he w oul d be deport ed to a pla ce that pr ese nted a physi caldan ge r to hi m was no t a pr o perc o nsi der at i o n in f as hi o ni nga s en ten ce an d , i n an y even t, w as a p roblem ofM r. J um ah ’s own m aking be cause he had vi ol ate d i m m i gr atio n l aw s. F i na l l y, the di st r i ctc o ur t st ated thati t th o ug httha t “the f ac t th at[ M r . J um ah ] wi l lno t be pe r m i tt ed to s er ve the l a s t te n p e r c e n to f[ h i s ] s e n t e n c e w i th s o me k i n d o fc o mm unity c onfi nem ent .
. . sup p or ts a sentence at the l ow end of t h e g uidel i nes. ” Id. at22
. There f or e, the dist ri ct cour t s entence d M r. J um ah to 151 m onths’ i m pri sonm ent. Id. at22

- 23. On A pr il 2 1, 2008, M r. J um ah fi l ed a pro seFe d er al R u le o fCr i m i na lPr o ce dur e 35 m o ti o n fo r c o r r ec ti o n o fa s en tence re sul ti ng fro m an ar i thm eti cal, techni cal, or oth er clear e r r o r . R. 19 0. On Augus t 26 , 2 00 8, the di st r i ctc ou rt 1028 N o. 08

- 1931

(
. . . c on t i nu e d) 10 M r. J um ah, thr ough appoi nt ed c ounsel, s uppl em en t ed the m oti on on A ugu st11, 2008, a n d t hereby d is pu ted the dis tr ic t c our t ’ s c al c ul at i on ofth e Guide l i ne s bas ed o n the wei ghtof th e p se u d o ep h ed ri n e t a b le ts. S ee R
. 212. In that s up plem ental m em orand um , M r. J um ah als o st ated that he had m ail ed h is o r i g i n a l R u le 35 m o tio n “w ith in th e p re sc ri b ed tim e l im it.” Id. at 1 n. 2. dism i sse d the m oti on f orl ack ofsubj ect m at te r j uri sdic

ti on. R. 216.

2. Mr
. J u m a h n o w s u b m i t s th a t th e d i s t r i c t c o u r t c o mm i tte d tw o re ver sibl e e rr or s duri ng se ntenci ng. Fi rs t, M r . J um ah co nt en ds th atthe di st r i ctc o ur t r el i ed o n the wro ngwei g hto fthe ps eu do eph edr i ne w he n c al cul at i ng hi s ba se offense l ev el; i nstea d ofusi ng the am ount o f tot alweight o fthe pseudoephed rine tabl ets, the di str i ct c ou rtsh ou ld h av e u se d th e w eig h t of p u re d ru g w ith in th e t ab let s p u rs u an t t o U .S.S.G . § 2D 1.1 1, n ot e (C ). See U ni t e d S t at e s v. Goodhu e, 486 F.3d 52, 59 ( 1st C ir. 2007). M r. J um ah co ntends th at h e obj ecte d to the di str i ct c o u r t ’ s c a l c u l a t i o n s i n h i s R u l e 3 5 mo t i o n . S e c o nd , M r . J u ma h c o n t e n d s th a tth e d i s t r i c tc o u r tg a v e n o mean i ng fulc o ns i d er at i o n t o the § 3 55 3( a) f ac to r s, i nc l udi ng th o se s pec i fi ca l l y r ai se d b y M r . J um ahi n h i s se nt en cing m em or andu m and at hi s s entencing hea ring. The Gover n m en t contends that M r. J um ah’ s Rul e 3 5 m oti o n wa s i mpr o pe r a nd u nt i mel y, a nd thu s h i s fi r stN o. 08

- 1931 29

o bj ec ti o n was no t pr es er ved. Nev er th el es s, the Go ve r nm en t a d m its th at th e d ist ric t c ou rtco m m itt ed p lain er ro r by basing i ts Gu i del i nes c al cul ati ons on the gr oss w ei ght o fthe tabl ets , i nstea d of the weight o fthe drugs w ithin them

. Th e G overn m en t op p oses M r. Jum ah ’s secon d cont en tion an d m aintain s tha t the district cou rt adequatel y c onsi dered the § 3553 (a) f acto rs , as wellas th e uni que f ac to r s M r . J um ah ra i se d i n h i s se nt en cing m em or andu m and at the s entencing hea ring.

a. W e be gi n by n oting tha t bo th par ti es now ag re e that i t was pl ain e rr orf orthe dist ri ct c ourtto use the g ro ss wei g hto fthe ps eu do eph edr i ne tabl et s i n c al cul at i ng M r. J um ah’ s s entence
. C o m pa re A p p elle e’s B r. 30 , w ith A pp el l ant’ s Rep ly Br. 2. W e a gr ee. The Guidel i nes re quir e di str i ct c ourt s t o cal cul ate the b ase offense l eve l us i ngthe wei g hto fthe r ec overed pse udo eph edr i ne con tained i n th e t a b le ts, not the w eight of the en tire ta b let

. See U .S. S. G. § 2 D1. 11, not e ( C). Thus, ther e was pla i n e rrori n the cal cul ati ons. The er ro r affecte d M r. J um ah’ s s ubstanti alr i ghts because , had t he di str i ct cour t ca l cul ate d the base offense l eve lusi ng the weight o f the pure drugs, M r. Ju m ah would have been enti tl ed to the b ase o ffense l eve lo f28 and, with the addit i on o f the t wo - l e v e le nh a nc e men t, a t o t a lo ffe ns e l e v e lo f30
. W i th a tot alo ffense l eve lo f30 and cr i m i nalhi sto rycat egory o fI, M r. J um ah’ s Guidel i ne r ange shoul d have be en 97 to 121 m on th s’ i m pri sonm ent, r atherthan the 1 51 to 188 m o nths ’ i m pr i so nm en t r an g e ca l cul at ed bythe30 N o. 08

- 1931 di st r i ctc o ur t. W e sh al l ex er ci se o urdi sc r et i o n a nd r emand th i s ca se t o the di st r i ctc o ur t f o r r es ent en cing b ec au se , as b ot h p ar tie s a gr e e, th e e rro r se riou sly affecte d the f ai rnes s a nd i nteg rit y o fthe j ud i ci alpro ceedi ngs b ef or e the di str i ct c ourt
.
b. Oure xam in at i o n o fthe r ec o r d c o nv i nc es us tha t th e dist ri ct c ourtdi d not e rro ther w i se w i th r es p ec t t o i ts calcu lation s o r its state m en t of reason s. T he district cou rt expli citly state d that i t had co nsi dered the § 3553 ( a) f acto rs duri ng th e sentencing hea ring. I t a l so consi dered M r. Ju m ah ’s his to ry an d p er so n al c h ar ac te ris tic s. See T r. at 21, A pr. 9, 20 08. A l though the di str i ct c ourtdi d not state sp ecifi cally t h a t it ha d cons idered M r. J um ah ’s hi s t o r y o fc o o pe r a t i o n wi th fe de r a la utho r i t i e s , the DE A age nt’ s l ett ero r M r. J um ah’ s co m ple ti on o fed u c atio nal c ou rs es w h ile in p ris on , w e b elie ve th e re c or d su fficie n tly i nd i cate s that the di str i ct c ourtto ok these f acto rs i nto c on sid er at ion in f as h ion in g its se n te n c e. See U nited Sta tes v. M a rtinez , 5 20 F
. 3d 74 9, 7 52

- 53 ( 7th Ci r . 2 00 8) ( ho l di ng th at t he di str i ct c ourtneed notm ake f actualfi nd i ngs a s t o e a c h o f the s e nt e nc i ng f a c t o r s b ut the r e c o r d m ust sh ow that the cou r t c o n s idered them ); U ni t e d S t at e s v. Dale, 49 8 F
. 3 d 6 0 4 , 6 1 1

- 1 2 ( 7 th Ci r . 2 0 0 7 ) ( s a me)
. Ind e e d, i ts consi derat i on of the per ti nent f acto rs appears co m prehe ns ive and thou gh tfu l. In l ight of the d istri ct cou rt’s expli ci t co nsi derat i on o fse ver alo fM r. Ju m ah’ s char acte ri sti cs a nd i ts sta tem ent that i t had co nsi dered M r. J um ah’ s “ hi sto ryand char acte ri sti cs, ” the di str i ctN o. 08

- 1931 31

c ou rt ’s s ta te m en t o f rea so n s w as ad eq u at e. See T r. at21 , A pr. 9, 20 08.
Conclusi on For the reas ons stated i n t h is opinion, w e affirm i n p art an d r ev er se i n pa r t th e j udg m en t o fthe d ist r i ctc o ur t an d r emand th i s ca se t o the di st r i ctc o ur t f o r r e- se nt en cing . The dist ri ct c ourtshal lr ecalcu late the Gu i del i nes b ase d on th e wei g hto fthe pur e dr ug s wi th i n the ps eu do eph edr i ne tabl ets and im p ose a sente nce ac cor dingl y. N o othe r as pec t o fthe s en te nc e i s su bj ec t to fur th era ct i o n. A FFI RMED i n part; R EVER S ED a nd R EMAND ED i n p art

wi thI NS T RUCT I ONS

4- 1- 10