The H onorab le G ary S. Feine rm an ofthe N orther n D is tr ic t  ofI l l i noi s , i s s i t t i ng by des i gna t i on.



## 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. 11

- 1208 U NI T ED S TATE SOF A MERI CA, P la intif f-A pp ellee, v. R AY MOND M. M ARTIN , D ef endant-Appellant.

A pp eal from the United S t ates Di strictC our t fo r the S outhernDi stricto f Illino is. No . 09 -CR-400 37 -JPG

—J. Phil Gilbert, Judge
.
A RGUED D ECE MBE R 2, 2011

— D ECI DE D A UGUS T 28, 2012

Befo re R IPPLE an d R OVNER, C ircu it Judges , a nd F EI NE R MAN, D i s t r i ctJudg e .  R OV NER, Cir cu i tJudg e . R ay m o nd M

. M arti n was the Sh er iff of G a llat in C ou n ty , I llin ois , from 19 90 u n til h is convi cti on o n fi ftee n counts i n cl ud i ng m ar ij uana di stribution, pos session of a fi rearm du ring a dru g traf-2 N o. 11

- 1208 fi cki ng cri m e, conspir acy to d i str ibute m ar ij uana, witnes s tam per i ng, c o ns pi r ac y t o t amperwi thwi tn es se s, a nd at te m pte d s tr uctur i ng offi na nc i alt r an sa ct i o ns . The evi dence attr i aldem onst ra ted thatM ar ti n so licited J er em y Po tts to se l l m ar ij uana suppli ed by M ar ti n, with M ar t in ta kin g a cu t o f th e p ro fits from th atsa le. M ar tin obta in ed the m ar ij uana fro m o therper sons and al so obt ai ned m ar ij uana fro m the Gall ati n Count y evi dence sto ra ge f aci l i ti es. W hen Pott s s ou gh t t o end the r el atio nshi p and d i sco nti nue sel l i ng the m ar ij uana, M ar tin th r ea te ne d hi m us i ng hi s co unty - i ss ue d s er vi ce wea po n. The g o v e r nme nto b t a i ne d a ud i o a nd v i de o r e c o r di ngs o fthr ee de l i ve r i es o fmar ij ua na b y M ar tin t o Po tt s, a nd M ar ti n w as i n unif or m , i n hi s patr olve hi cl e, and i n posses si on o fhi s s er vi ce r evo l verf ortho se del i ver i es. M ar ti n w as then ar re ste d and charge d w i th thr ee counts o fmar ij uana di st r ibut i o n a nd t wo c o unt s o fc ar r y i ng a fi re ar m i n re l ati on t o a drug tr affi cki ng cr i m e. W hi l e i ncarc er ate d at the j ail, M ar ti n separ ate l y s ol i ci ted two i nm at es t o k i l l Po tt s an d a nothe r wi tn es s, a nd M ar t in t o ok step s to obtain p aym en ts for th e m urd ers an d t o pr o vi de di r ec ti o ns t o the ho m es o ftho se i nten d ed v i ct i m s. Tho se a ct i o ns f o r m ed th e ba si s f o r the co nv i ct i o ns f o r wi tn es s ta m per i ng an d i l l eg alstr uctur i ng offi nanci altr ansact i ons to avo i d C urr ency T ra nsacti on Report s. M ar tin r ai se s o nl y t wo c ha ll en g es o n a ppea l

. F i r st, he ar gues that the pr ese nce o fa non-j urorin t h e j ury ro om f ora sh or t p er i od ofti m e depri ved hi m o fhi s r i ght t o an i m parti alj ury. S eco nd , he ass er ts that the di str i ct court co m m i tte d plai n er ro r i n re l yi ng o n an i ncor re ct G u i d e l i n e s c a l c u l a t i o n i n s e n t e n c i n gh i m.N o. 11

- 1208 3 The j ury i ssue ar i ses from a ra therbi zar re se quence ofev ents on the se cond day o ftr i al

. The fi rs t day had been devote d enti re l y to juryse l ecti on a nd o pening sta tem en ts. T he m orning of th e s econ d da y, one of th e j urors

— w h o h aile d from C h ris to p h er, I llin ois

— w as late for j ury du ty. A co urt secur i ty offi cerwait i ng f orthe l ate j uror saw a woman, who m we wi l l c al l CM , dr i ve up, a nd ask ed C M i fshe w as com i ng fro m Chri sto pher. W hen CM r epl i ed i n the affi rm ati ve, the securi ty offi cer esco rt ed herto the j ury ro om , bel i evi ng t h at CM was th e la te j u ro r fro m C h ris to p h er . N o on e a p p ar en tly ask ed CM i fshe w as a j uror . CM was i n t h e j u ry r oo m f o r no mor e th an5 min ut es whenthe j ur o r s li ned up to proce ed i nto the cour tr oo m . CM then inform ed a s e c ur i t y o ffi c e r tha ts he di d n o tthinks he wa s s up posed to be ther e. Wh e n o n l y 1 3 o fth e 1 4 j u r o r s fi l e d i n t o th e c o u r t r o o m, it bec a m e ap p aren t to the d istri ct cou rt j ud ge th at th ere w as a probl em . The j u d ge w as i nfo rm ed that a no n-j uror ha d b ee n mi st ak en l y t ak ento th e j ur y r o o m , a nd the cou rt began an inve stigation into th e m atter. I n r e s po ns e t o que s t i o ningb y the c o ur tma r s ha l, CM ha d i ndi ca te d that s he h ad no c o nne ct i o n t o the c as e, a nd that she l i ved i n J uncti on, I l l i noi s. That was a cause of c on c e r n to th e c ou rtan d th e p ar tie s, b ec au se it appeared t o confl i ct w i th the st ate m ent that s he was fro m C h ris to p h er , Illino is. In a d d itio n, sh e h ad be en in th e cour tr oo m ta ki ng not es the pr evi ous day as an obse rv er , an d h ad a p ad an d p en c il on th is d ay as w ell. W i th the ag re em ent ofthe parti es, the j ud ge deci ded to4 N o. 11

- 1208 questi on e ach j urori nd ivid ual l y t o deter m i ne wh ether CM ha d co m m uni ca te d wi th th em i n an y way i n the j ur y r o o m, a n d t o qu e s t i o n C M. T h e p r o s e c u t o r a nd defe nse att or ney el ecte d t o be prese nt f or the questi oni ng o fCM but not f orthe i nd i vi du alj uror s. W i thout ex cepti on, ea ch j urorte sti fi ed that CM di d not sp ea k t o a n yo n e in th e jur y ro om . Th e c on sis te n t t es tim ony w as that she e nter ed the j u ry r oo m and, after us i n g th e r e s t r o o m, we n t t o a s e a t a t th e f a r e n d o ft he j ur y t ab l e an d sat qui et l y the r e. M ar tin s ei ze s upo n the i ni ti alr em ar ks of on e j urorthati t was “a l i ttl e s car y” w he n sh e ent ered

. Th at p erson ackn ow ledge d , how ever, th at he did n ot talk to her or see an yon e else tal k to her, and w hen the j ud ge queri ed as to w hetherCM r eal i zed th at sh e w as in the w rong p lac e w h e n th e j urors w al ked o ut, thatj uroracknow l edged “Igues s s o. ” An othe r j uror c oncurr ed w i th thatas ses sm ent, st ati ng “[ y] ou cou ld tell sh e w as feeling the sam e w ay. T ha t she w asn ’t

— h ad be en se n t t o t h e w ro n g p lac e.” The sol e co m m unica tio n that CM had w i th a j uror c o ns i s t e d o fa b r i e fi nt e r a c t i o n i n the h a l l wa y a s CM w as bei ng es cor ted fro m the j ury ro om a n d t h e la te j ur o r was c o m i ngt o the j ur y r o o m . Thatl at e j ur o r, s ee i ng CM, a s k e d C M i fs he w a s a l a t e j ur o r t o o a nd CM re pli ed “N o. ” Ther e was no othe r tes tim on y o fany othe r com m un ication betw een CM and any j uror. T he j ud ge, w it h the gove rnm en t and de fense at torneys prese nt, the n q u est i oned CM

. S he te sti fi ed that she did not speak w i th anyo ne i n the j ury ro om and e ven as ke d w h et h er t h e re w er e s ec u rit y c am er as th at co u ldN o. 11

- 1208 5

con fi rm her testim ony ( th ere w ere n o t .) Th e cou rt th ene xpl o r ed he r c o nne ct i o n t o the c as e, a sk i ng why sh e ha d s ta te d tha t sh e was no t co nnected wi ththe tr ia l

. T h e c ou rtd et er m in ed th at C M w as n ot h er se lf connect ed to the case , but that her husband w as an uni ndi ct ed co co ns pi r at o r . S he a lso cl ar i fi ed th atthe cour t s ecuri ty offi cerhad ask ed herwh ethershe had com e fro m Chri sto p h er, notwh ethershe w as f ro m th er e, an d sh e re sp on d ed affirm at ive ly b ec au se th at is w here she had com e fro m thatday. Final l y, CM te sti fi ed that she ini ti al l y thought that the se c u ri ty offi cerwas tak i ng herto a hol ding r oo m as parto fthe cour t s ecuri ty f o r v i s i t o r s t o th e c o u r t r o o m. O n c e s h e r e a l i z e d th ats he did notbel ong ther e, she i nfo rm ed the cour t s ecuri ty offi cero fthatf act. Aft e r h e a r i n gth e t e s t i mon y fr o m th e j u r o r s a n d C M, the c o ur tn o t i fi e d the p a r t i e s tha ti ti nt e nd e d t o p ro c ee d with the tr i al

. Def ense counseldi d not o bj ect to th at deter m i nati on. M ar ti n now co m pla i ns o n appeal th at t h e br i efenco unter ofthe j uror s with CM depri ved hi m o fhi s r i ght t o an i m parti alj ury. Because M ar ti n did notr ai se any s uch ob j ec ti on a t tr ial, w e re vie w for p lain err or . U ni t e d S t at e s v. Am b rose , 66 8 F.3d 94 3, 96 3 (7 th C ir. 20 12 ); U ni t e d St at e s v. Thi b ode aux , 7 5 8 F

. 2 d 1 9 9 , 2 0 2 ( 7 th C i r . 1 98 5 )

. Ac c o r d i n g l y, we w i l l r everse o nl y i fwe fi nd an e rr orthati s pl ai n, that aff e c t s the de f e nd a nt ’ s s ub s t a nt i a l r i g ht s , a nd that ser i ousl y a ff ects the f ai rnes s, i ntegr i ty orpubli c rep utati ono fj ud i c i a l p r o c e e di ng s , e ff e c t ua t i nga mi s c a r r i a ge of jus tic e. Id. ; Un i t e d S t a t e s v . Ol a no , 5 07 U

. S. 72 5, 73 2- 346 N o. 11

- 1208 ( 1993 )

. M ar tin fi rs t a rg u es that the cour t f ai l ed to re m edy ac tu al j ury bi as, as ser ti ng tha t s uch an er ro r i s a str ucturalerrorthati s a utom ati cal l y r eve rs ibl e. S ee U nited Sta tes v. Wa rner, 498 F. 3d 666, 679 ( 7th C ir. 2007 ) ( disc ussi ng st ructur aler ro rs notsubj ect to harm l ess error analysis); U nite d State s v. H arbi n , 250 F. 3d 532, 54 2- 43 ( 7th Ci r. 20 01)

. Th e basi s f orthi s a rgum ent i s the st ate
men tb y o ne j uror tha ti twa s “ a l i t t l e s c a r y ” wh e n CM en tered the j ury roo m i n s t ead of th e actu al 14th j uror. M ar tin a r g ue s tha t be ca us e th e tr i ali nv o l ve d a l l eg at i o ns ofwitnes s t am peri ng, it w as r eas onabl e t o ass um e that the j urorco uld m ake the connect i on be tw een witness ta m per i nga nd potent i alj ur y t amper i ng, a nd tha t th e ju r o r w as th erefore prej ud iced by tha t enc ou nt er. M ar tin r ea ds f art o o muc h i nt o the r el at i ve l y i nno cuo us s t a t e me n tth a ti tw a s “ a l i t t l e s c a r y ” w h e n C M c a me i n t o th e r o o m. S h e h a d b e e n e s c o r t e d th e r e b y t he cour t s ec u rit y o ffi cerwh o bel i eve d her to be the 14 th j uror, and the j u ro r w ho m ade the sta tem ent knew that she was nota j uror . I n tha t c ontext the j urordescr ibed the s i tuati on a s “ a l i ttl e s car y. ” That sam e j uror a pp e a r e d t o a g r e e wi th the j ud g e’ s s t a t e men ttha tCM th enr ea l i ze d tha t sh e di d no t be l ong the r e. No f o l l o w-u p sta tem ents by the j urori nd i cate d any c on cer ns o nce CM s epa r at ed he r se l ffr o m the j ur o r s. M o r eo ve r, the cour t r epeated t o m any o fthe j uror s that CM ’ s pre sence ther e was the f aul t o fthe cour t s ec u rity o ffi cer, not CM

. Al th o ug h the c ou rta l l o wed CM t o r emai n i n the cou rtroom as a s p e c t a tor afterw ard to take note s, th ere i s no r eas on t o bel i eve thatherpre sence w oul d cause concern am ong the j uror s. I n f act, CM ’s c ontinuedN o. 11

- 1208 7 p resen ce in th e cou rtro o m w ou ld ind icate to the j ury th at t h e cour t a t l eas t di d not per cei ve her to prese nt a thre at. There i s s i m plyno evi dence ofactual bi as here

. W e ar e l eft then w i th M ar ti n’s m or e gener alcla im o f i m prop er ju ryta m peri ng. W e hav e r epeate dly hel d that al l ege d err or s r el ate d to i m p roper com m unica ti on with j urors d o not const i tute str ucturaler ro rs subj ect to autom atic reversal, bu t rath er are th e typ e of trial er r o rs subj e c tt o the h a r ml e s s e r r o r s t a nd a r d. Wa rner, 4 9 8 F

. 3d at 67 9; Whi t e he ad v

. Cowan , 263 F.3 d 7 0 8 , 722 (7th C ir. 2001 ) ; se e a l so O l ano , 507 U .S

. at73 7- 38. Because M ar ti n f ai l ed to o b j ect, as poi nted out ear l i erhe m ust mee tthe p l a i n e r r o r s t a nd a r d. M art in ’s argum en t in this area relates to the cou rt’s ha n d l i n go fth e a l l e g e d l y i mpr o p e r c o n t a c twi th the j uror s. M ar ti n ar gues that the c ourtappli ed the i ncor re ct legal stan d ard un d er R em m er v. U nited S t a tes , 347 U

. S. 227, 229 (1 95 4) , i n that i t pr esum ed that the c ontac t was not prej ud i ci al, and that t h e co urt i m proper l y f ocuse d only on the facts of th e con tact an d fai led to in q uire as to the e ff ect ofthatco ntact on the j uror s. I n R em m er, the S upr eme Co ur t he l d tha t “ [ i ] n a c rim i nal cas e, any pri vate co m m unica ti on, co ntact, o r tam peri ng di re ctl y o r i nd i re ctly, with a j urorduri ng a tr i alabo ut the m att erpending bef or e the ju ry is, f or ob vio u s re as on s, d ee m ed p re su m p tiv ely p rej u d icia l, if no t m ade i n pur su an ce o fkno wn r ul es o f th e c ou r t an d th e i ns tr uct i o ns a nd di r ec ti o ns o fthe c our t m ade dur i ng the t ria l, w i th fullkno w l edge o fthe parti es. ” Id. at 229. Tha t pr es um pti o n o fpr ej ud ice may b e r eb ut te d i fthe8 N o. 11

- 1208 g o v e r n me n td e mo n s t r a t e s th a tth e c o n t a c tw a s h a r ml es s. Id. Th e Co ur t fur the r he l d tha t i n c a s e s ofsuch tam peri ng, the tr ial cour t s houl d conduct a hea ri ng to d eterm ine th e circum stan ces, the im p act u p on th e j uror, an d w h et h er or n ot it w as p rej u d icia l. Id. at 229- 30. Dist ri ct c ourt s nev er thel ess r eta i n so m e fl exibil i ty i n deter m i ni ng the ty pe o f inquir y a pp ro pri ate i n a c ase al l egi ng such i m properco m m unica ti ons. Wa rner, 49 8 F. 3d a t 6 8 0
. W he r e a c o mm e nt he a r d b y a j ur o r w as am bi guous ori nnocuous, no R em m er hear i ng m ay be n ec es sa ry . Id. ; Whi t e he ad, 263 F.3d at72 5-6

. Fo r in st an c e, in Whi t e he ad, t h e defendant com pla i ned ofan o utburst ove rhea rd by the j ury du ri ng the tr i al . Th e judge, counsel, and cour t r epor terhad re ti re d to cha m ber s, but the j ury re m ai ned prese nt i n the cour tr oo m wh en the m othe r ofthe vi cti m r ose and b ega n shouti ng at th e d efend an t ask in g h im w hy he kil led h er da ug ht er. Id

. at7 23

. W e no te d i n Whi t e he ad th at th e m ot h er d id no ta t t e mptt o p e r s ua de the j ur y, n o r di d s he p r o v i de th e j ur y wi tha ny e xt r an eo us i nf o r m at i o n about th e fac ts of th e c as e. Id. at7 24

. Be ca us e o nl y a n i nn ocuou s com m ent was i nvol ved, we hel d that no Remm e r he ar i ng w as n ec es sa ry . Id. at 724-25. N o r w as th e off-the-record n at u re of th e c om m u n ica tio n d isp os itiv e. Id. at 72 5 . A lth o ug h the abs en ce of the j udg e atthe t i m e m ea nt the j ud ge coul d not o bser ve th e im p act ofthe outbur st on th e jur y, Whi t e he ad he l d tha tthe c o nt e nta nd dur ati on of t h e o u tb u r s t w a s su c h th at it w as n ot rea so n ab le to i m ag i ne tha t i t woul d a ffec t th e j ur y ’ s del ibe r at i o n. Id. M er e specul ati on concerni ng prej ud i ce to th e d efen d an t w as ins u fficie n t t o w ar ra n t re ve rs al. Id. at 726.N o. 11

- 1208 9 Simi l ar l y, i n Brown v. Fi nna n , 5 98 F

. 3d 41 6, 4 19 ( 7th Cir. 20 1 0 ) , th e j u r y p o t e n t i a l l y c o u l d h a v e o v e r h e a r d an i ncour t s tat em ent b y the v icti m ’ s m othe r to the e ff ect that “the si tuati on [ w as] r aci st.” W e no ted i n that case that th e m ea ni ng o fthe sta tem ent was e quivo cal b e c a u s e th e v i c t i m a n d th e a c c u s e d w e r e o fth e s a me ra c e, an d th at it w as u n c lea r h ow th e jur y c ou ld perce i ve the c om m ent in a m an ner i nj uri ous t o the defen d an t. Id. at4 22. B ecaus e th e co m m en t was no t o ne that w oul d rea sonab l y a ff ect a r eas onabl e j uror ’ s del iber ati on a s t o gui l t o r i nnocence, we hel d t h at no R em m er h ea rin g w as n ec es sa ry . Id. a t 4 2 3

. We n o t e d th a ta c o mm un icati o n mustb e r ea d i n i ts c o nt ex t, a nd tha t no R em m er he a r i n gi s n e e d e d w h e n th e c h a l l e n g e d c o mm u n ica tio n is bo th am b i g u o u s a n d inn oc u ou s. Id.; see als o U n i t e d S t a t e s v . L iX i n Wu , 6 6 8 F

. 3 d 8 8 2 , 8 8 7( 7th C ir. 2011); Thi b ode aux , 75 8 F

. 2d at 202. T h os e c as es st an d in c on tr as t t o t h e fa c ts p re se n te d in R em m er, i n w hi ch a p erson had i nfo rm ed a j urorthat he c o ul d pr o fi t by retur ni nga v er di ctf av o r ab l e to the pet i ti o ne r . 3 47U. S

. a t 22 8. The s i tu at i o n i n R em m er pres e nt e d a n un a utho r i z e d inv a s i o n o fthe j ur y, j e o par dizin g the i ntegr i ty ofthe j ury proce edi ngs. The Whit ehe ad a nd Brown c a s e s , o n th e o th e r h a n d , i nv o l v e d c o mm unica ti ons that did n ot thre ate n such an a dvers e i m pac t o n the j ur y pr o ce eding s; the c o m m uni ca ti o ns did not p ro vi de any new i nfo rm ati on about the c ase to th e j uror s, nordi d the nature ofthe com m unica

ti ons cre ate any l i kel i hood thati t would aff ect the del iber ati ons.10 N o. 11

- 1208 There i s e ven l ess ev i den c e of any pot enti ali m pact o n th e jur y in th e p re se n t c as e t h a n w as ev id en t in White he ad a nd Br own . Th e only j ury “c ont act” here was CM ’ s m er e pr es en ce i n the j ury roo m whi l e th e j ur y was wai tingt o b e ca l l ed i nt o the c o ur tr o o m forthe m o r ni ngs es si o n. Be ca us e th e i m pr o perc o nt ac t wi ththe j ur ors oc cur r ed o ut si de th e pr es en ce o fthe j udg e an d counsel, the j ud ge proper l y chose to questi on e ach o f the j uror s a s wel l as CM to as cer tai n th e nature of the conta ct and whether any i napp ro pri ate com m unica

ti o ns ha d ta k en pl ac e. The unc o nt r adi ct ed te st i m o ny w as that no co m m unica ti on was m ade ofany k in d , with the e xcepti on o fthe one- w or d res ponse to a quest i on by a la te j u ro r as to w h et h er sh e w as a l a te j u ro r as w ell. The r e i s no e vi den ce a t al l o fa ny “ com m uni ca ti o n, co nt ac t o r t amper i ng. . . ab o utthe matt erpe ndi ng bef or e the j ury. ” S ee R em m er, 34 7 U .S. at 2 29 . M ar tin c an n ot co n te st th at co n c lu sio n . A c c or d in gly , M ar tin cannot succee d on hi s cl ai m th at t h e co urt shoul d have ta k enthe ne xts te p t o de te r m i ne w he th er the g o ve r nm ent had o ver com e the presum pti on that the c om m unica

ti on w as p rej ud i ci al ; ther e was in f act no co m m unica ti on at al l her e, and ther ef or e no thi ng tha t co uld have bee n prej ud i ci al

. Even i fm er e p re se n ce was deem ed to be a c o mmun i c a t i o n o f s o r t s u n d e r th e s e f a c t s , th e r e was no ne ed f o r a fur th eri nqui r y b ec au se i t was a n a m bi g uo us and i nnocuou s c om m unica ti on i fany, wh i ch w e hav e re p ea te d ly h el d m er its n o fu rt h er inq u iry
. Br own , 59 8 F

. 3d at4 23

. I n O l ano , the Suprem e Cour t r ej ecte d an ar gum ent t h at the m er e pr ese nce o fan a l ter nate j uror i n de l ibe r at i o ns pr es en te d a s uffi ci en t r i skofa c hi l l i ngN o. 11

- 1208 11 eff ect to j usti fy a pre sum pti on ofp rej ud i ce. 507 U

. S. at74 0- 41

. W e have a l ess si gni fi cant i napp ro pri ate prese nc e in th e j ur y r o o m he r e as the pr es en ce was fl ee tinga nd d i d no t o cc ur at a ti m e dur i ng whi ch th e j ur o rs w ere disc ussi ng the cas e. There was abso l utel y no i nd i cati on that the inci dent had any l ast i n g im p act on the j ury. T he refore, the d istri ct c o u r t did not err i n its i nq uiry i nto the p o t e nt i a l j ur y t a mpe r i nga nd i n i t s de t e r minati on that no i m prop er co m m unica ti on o r i nfl uence ha d o c c ur r e d. T he di s t r i c tc o ur t ’ s de c i s i o n t o p r o c eed w i th the tr i al w as propergi ven the undisputed f acts concerni ng the co ntact w i th the j uror s. The sente nce, however, i s m or e pr obl em ati c , a nd r equ ire s a r emand f o r r es en te nc i ng . The g o ve r nm en t co nced es t h a t the cou rt w as op erating u nd er a m isun d ersta nd i ng r ega rdi ng the Guidel i ne s r ange f orCounts 4 and 5, i nvol vi ng vio l ati ons of18 U

. S. C. § 9 24( c) f or ca r r y i nga fi r ea r m i n c o nne ct i o n wi tha d rugt r affi ck i ng crim e. T h e P re se n te n c e In ve st iga tio n R ep or t (“ PSR”) st ate d that the Gui del i nes r ange f or C ou nt 4 w as 5 y ear s t o l i f e, a nd the r an g e f o r Co unt5 was 2 5 y ea r s to l i fe, a nd M ar ti n did n ot o bj ect to thos e ca l cul ati ons. The di str i ct cour t then adopted the PSR fi nd in gs a nd se ntenced M artin to li fe on b o t h c ou nt s. T he PSR range, how ever, w as incorrec t. Pu rsu an t to U

. S. S. G

. § 2K 2.4 (b ), f or a co nv i ct i o n un der§ 9 24 ( c) the g ui del i ne s en te nc e i s th e m i ni m um te rm o fi m pri sonm ent r equi re d by s tatute. Se e U ni t e d S t at e s v. Lu ca s , 6 7 0 F

. 3 d 7 8 4 , 7 8 8 n. 3 ( 7th Cir

. 20 12) . T he m i ni m um te rm o fi m pri sonm ent for C ount 4 was 5 y ear s a nd f orCount 5 w as 25 yea rs . A ccor din gly , the Guidel i nes r ange f orCounts 4 and 5 was12 N o. 11

- 1208 5 y e a r s a n d 2 5 y e a r s r e s p e c t i v e l y, n o t 5 y e a r s t o l i f e an d 25 yea rs to l i f e. Bec au se M ar tin f ai l ed to o bj ec t to the c al cul at i o n a t th e t i me o fs e n t e n c i n g, we r e v i e w o n l y f o r p l a i n e r r o r . As s t a t e d e a r l i e r, u n d e r th e p l a i n e r r o r s t a n d a r d , we re ver s e o nl y i fwe fi nd a n e r r o rtha ti s p l a i n, tha taf f ects th e d efe n d an t’s su b st an tia l righ ts , an d t h a t s er iou sly aff ects the f ai rnes s, i ntegr i ty orpubli c r eput at i on o f j u d icia l p ro c ee d in gs . A m bro se, 668 F .3 d at96 3; O l ano , 50 7 U. S

. a t 7 3 2

- 3 4

. We h a v e r e p e a t e d l y h e l d th a t “ [ a ] s en te nc i ngb as ed o n a n i nc o r r ec t Gui del i ne s rang e co nsti tutes pl ai n er ro r an d w ar ra nts a r em and fo r r es en te nc i ng, unl es s we ha ve r ea son to b el i ev e th atthe er ro r i n no way aff ecte d the di str i ct c ourt ’ s s el ecti on o f a par ti cul arse ntence .” U nited Sta tes v. Fa rm er, 54 3 F.3 d 36 3, 3 7 5 (7t h C ir. 20 08 ); U nite d State s v. G arre tt, 528 F .3 d 5 25, 527 ( 7th Cir. 2008); U ni t e d S t at e s v. P ined a -B uen a ven tura , 622 F.3d 761 , 767 (7th C ir. 2010). H er e, we have no r ea son to bel i eve thatthe er ro r had no i m pac t o n the s enten ce. The c o ur t ex pl i ci tl y t i ed th e sente nce t o the Gui del i nes r ange, m aki ng i t cl earthat i t w a s i mpo s i nga s e nt e nc e a tthe h i g h e nd o fthe Gu i del i nes r ange w he n it g ave the c onse cuti ve l i f e s entence s. Theref or e, we cannot ass um e th at the c ourtwould have i m po sed th e sa m e se nt en ce ha d i t unde r st o o d tha t th e con secu tive Gu idelines ran ge ex ten d ed to 30 years ra therthan l i f e. A l though the cou rtcl ear l y wanted to im p os e a si gni fi cant s entence , ther e i s no way to kno w w hetherthat would have been 30 yea rs , a l ower o r hi gher num bero fye ar s, o r l i f e. There f or e, we m ust r em and fo rN o. 11

- 1208 13 th e co ur t to de te r m i ne the s en te nc e i n l i g hto fthe pr o perGui del i ne s r ec o m m en dat i o n. The convi cti on i s A FFI RMED and the sen te n c e is V ACATED
. The cas e i s R EMAND ED f or resent en cing in con side rati on o fthe properGuidel i nes r ange.

8- 28- 12