## 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 os. 07

- 3830 and 07- 3831 U NI T ED S TATE SOF A MERI CA, P la intif f-A pp ellee, v. W ALT ER J. F OXAN D R O D NE Y S YKES, D efend a nts-A pp ella nts.

A pp ealsfr o m the United S t ates Di strictC our t fo r the Western Di stricto f Wisc onsin
. No . 07- CR-101- S

—Jo hn C. Sh abaz, Judge

.
A RG UE D S EP TE MBE R 9, 2008

— D ECI DE D N OVE MBE R 14, 2008

Befo re B AUER, C UDAH Y, a nd W OO D , C ircu it Judges. C UDAH Y, Cir cu i tJudg e . Rodney Sykes and W al terFo x ple aded gui l ty to conspi ra cy to dist rib ute a nd to posse ss w i th inte nt to di str ibute c ra ck coca i ne. Each disa gr ees with the appli cati on o fthe Se ntenci ng Guidel i n e s t o th e f a c t s o f h i s c a s e a n d c o n t e n d s th a t h i s se nten ce is un reason able. S y k e s a rgue s tha t the district cou rt im p ro p er ly in c re as ed h is b a s e o ffen se lev el on th e b as is tha th e wa s a n o r g a ni z e r o fthe o ffe ns e , a nd F o x c o nt e nd s th at th e d ru g q u an tit y for w h ich h e w as res p o n s i b le2 N os. 07

- 3830 and 07- 3831

T his co u rt ha s j u risd iction o v er th e ap p eal p u rsu an t to 1 2 8 U .S.C . §§ 12 9 1 , 12 9 4 an d 18 U .S.C . § 3 7 4 2 (a ). w as m i scal cul ate d. W e fi nd thatS yke s i s e n ti tl ed onl y t o a li m ited rem an d un d er Kim b r ough v. U ni t e d S t at es , 12 8 S. Ct
. 558, 564, 16 9 L. Ed

. 2d 481 (2007), bu t tha t Fox’s s e nt e nce mus tb e v a c a t e d a nd r e man de d fo r r e c o ns i der ati on o fthe appli cabl e drug quanti ty. 1

I . B a c kg r o und A . Facts T he ap p ell an ts, R od ne y Sykes an d W alter Fox, are selfdescribed cr ack coca i ne addict s who bought, so l d and used drugs tog ether

. T hey spent a l ot ofthei r ti m e g ett i ng hi gh at Sy kes ’ s h ou se . A t s om e point, S yke s, Fo x and thei r codefe n d an t J am es Sander son att ra cted the at tenti on o f th e au th o r i ti es a nd b ec ame t ar g et s o fa n inv es ti g at i o n. On J un e 1 , 2 0 0 7, a n un de r c o v e r o ffi c e r ( the UO) ma de ar ra ngem ents to pu rchas e cra ck coca i ne f ro m S yke s. S yke s m et the UO ata des i gnate d l oca ti on a nd so l d her 2. 541 g r a ms o fc r a c kc o c a i n e f o r $ 1 5 0
. O n J u n e 6 , th e U O ma de ar ra ngem ents to pu rchas e m or e cr ack coca i ne fro m Sy kes

. W hi l e the U O w as w ai ti ng atthe d esignated l oca ti on, S yke s ca l l ed herand a sk ed herto m eethi m ata gas sta ti on. There , the U O m et Sy ke s and an unknown asso ci at e; th e as so ci at e so l d he r 4. 74 3 g r ams o fc r ac kc o ca i ne f or$3 00. T he U O a gain m ad e arrang em en ts w ith Sykes to p urchase cra ck coca i ne o n J une 13, 20 07. Pol i ce o ffi cer s ob-N os. 07

- 3830 and 07- 3831 3

A n “ei ght-ball” is t y pical ly one e ighth ofan ounce ofcr ack 2 coc ain e, or 3.5 gr am s. se r ve d F o x l ea ve S y k es ’s r es i den ce a nd t r av elt o the d es ign ate d l oca ti on. Fo x so l d the UO o ne “e i ght-bal l ” o f 2 cr ac kc o ca i ne for $1 50
. The UO as k ed F o x i fhe ha d the othe r ei ght-bal l thatthe U O had request ed. Fo x did not, but he agr eed to r etr i eve i t. The pol i ce o ffi cer s obser ved F o x t r av elb ack to S y k es ’ s ho us e an d the n r etur n t o the desi gnate d l oca ti on wh er e the U O w as w ai ti n g. Fo x then p r o v i d e d th e U O w i th th e s e c o n d e i g h t
-b a l l

. T h e c o mbi ned w ei ght o fthe tw o ei ght-bal l s was 4. 138 gr am s. On J une 22, the U O once aga i n m ade ar ra ngem ents w i th Sykes to p urc ha se crac k cocain e . T his tim e Jam es San d erson m et the UO atthe desi gnate d l oca ti on a nd so l d her 5. 886 gr am s for$4 50. Fi nal l y, o n J une 27, i nvest i gat or s e xecuted a sea rch w ar ra nt at Syke s’ s res i dence. T hey found 40 g ra m s o fcr ack coca i ne and other i tem s in d ica tiv e ofthe use a nd sa l e o f dr ug s. S y k es w as ar r es te d a nd g av e a st at ementt o the pol i ce.

B . P roc ed u ral H is tory On J une 27, 20 07, th e g r an d j ur y r etur ne d a six- co unt i ndi ct m en t ag ainst Sy k es , F o x a nd S an der so n. Co untOne charg ed al l thr ee m en w i th conspir acy to d i str ibute a nd to p os se ss w i th i ntent to dist ribute fi ve gr am s o r m or e o f cr ac kco ca i ne f r o m on o r abo utJ une 1 , 2 00 7 to o n o r abo ut4 N os. 07

- 3830 and 07- 3831 J une 22 , 20 07
. Sy k es and Fo x pl ea ded g ui l tyto Co untOne of th e i nd i ctm ent o n Se ptem ber12 , 20 07 pu rs uant to w ri tte n ple a agr eem ents. S anderso n did notpl ead gui l ty a ttha tt i me; i ns t e a d, wh e n the pr e s e ntc a s e wa s a pp e a l e d, hi s ca se w as sti l l act i ve i n the dist ri ct c ourt
. I n S y k es ’ s Pr es en ten ce I nv es ti g at i o n Re po r t ( PS R) , the p robation officer recom m en d ed a tw o poin t up w ard adj ustm ent t o h is offe nse l eve l f orhi s r ol e in the offense “beca use [ Sy kes ] i nstr ucted M r. Fo x and M r. Sa n d erson o n the de l i v e r y o fc o c a i ne . ” S y k e s o bj e c t e d t o th e a ppli cati on o fthi s a dj ustm ent a nd ar gued that i t was base d on an incom ple te sum m ar y o fhi s pos t- ar re st sta tem ent t o i nvest i gat or s. Sy k e s a c k no wl e dg e d tha ti n hi s s t a t e men th e s a i d that offic er s w ou ld find m ar ij u an a a n d cr a c k c oc ain e in th eir se ar c h o fh is re sid en c e, th at an y d ru gs loc at ed in h is re si dence bel onge d t o hi m , that he had bee n sel l i ng drugs f o r a pp r o xi mat e l y f o uro r fi v e mo nths , tha th e s o l d d r ug s to m ake m oneyto buy m or e drugs , thathe usual l y obtained an ou nc e to an ou nc e an d a h a lfof d rugs every tw o orthr ee d ay s an d thathe s ol d the m aj or i ty ofthem but sm oke d about a quar terto a hal fo unce per day with F o x an d S an der so n. I n su ppo r t o f hi s o bj ec ti o n to th e enhancem ent forhi s r ole i n the offense, S yke s s ubm i tte d ane xt end ed ex ce r pt f r o m the s ta te m en t, i n whi chhe gave the f ol l owing answ er s t o questi ons: D et ect i ve L in s m ei er : H ow oft en d id you h av e Ja m ie [ S an der so n] a nd W al t [ F o x] r unningdo pe f o r y o u? Sykes : Running dope f orm e?N os. 07

- 3830 and 07- 3831 5 D et ect i ve Li nsm ei er : Ye ah, de l i ve r i ngdo pe f o r y o u. Sykes : W alt er d on ’t d eliv er n o d op e fo r m e. W alt do n’ t del i ve r no do pe ata l l

. He g et s hi g h. D et ect i ve Li nsm ei er : You’ re co ver i ng f orW al t, Rodney. Sykes : N o I’m not. I f W alt’s deliveri ng dop e, he ain’t del i v e r i ng i t f o r me. No w J a mi e , he may g o a nd dro p som et h in g o ff

. . . and theydon’ t be doi ng i t form e, they be doing i t forthem sel ves. D et ect i ve Li nsm ei er : S o i fso m eone cal l s you up to or d er so m e d op e . . . Sykes : Igo m yself. D et ect i ve Li nsm ei er : Ye ah , b u t w h at h ap p en s if you’ re notabl e t o? Sykes : J am i e wil l r un i t s om eti m es. D et ect i ve Li nsm ei er : H ow o f t e n d oe s Ja m ie ru n it f o r y o u? Sykes : Ev ery no w and th enJ ami e woul d m ak e a r un. D et ect i ve Li nsm ei er : H ow often? H ow m any t i m es a week? Sykes : M aybe thr ee orf our ti m es. D et ect i ve Li nsm ei er : A week? Sykes : Ye ah

.

. . . D et ect i ve Li nsm ei er : D id W alt er ev er d eliv er . . .6 N os. 07

- 3830 and 07- 3831 Sykes : I fW al terev erdel i ver ed, he’ d run hi s o w n shi t. H e won’tbe runni ng f orm e. D etect i ve Ch am ulak : S o i fs o m eb o dy ca l l ed y o u a nd said “hey, Ineed s om ethi ng, ” a nd yo u’d sa y, “Ok, I ’ l l ta ke car e o fyo u, ” but you didn’thave i t, and then you cal l ed so m ebo dy el se to tak e ca re o fi t? Sykes : Yeah, I ’ l l do that. D et ect i ve Li ns m eier : S o hy po th et i ca l l y s o m eo ne cal l ed yo u up and sa i d I want w hatev er, fi ve 8-b al l s, or w h at ev er , i f you d on ’t h av e it
. . . Sykes : Then I ’ l l se nd them to so m ebo dy el se. D et ect i ve Li nsm ei er : W h o h av e y ou se n t t h em to in the past ? Sykes : [Fox , San d er so n an d ot h er s.]

. . . Sykes : So m ebo dy’s cal l i ng m e, I m ay call J am i e; Imay ca l l W al t; Ima y cal l s o m eb o dy an d s ay, uh, som ebo dy w ant s om e, y ou w an t that? And theybe like , “I’ll go ge t it .” Det e c t i v e L i ns mei er : Okay, so wh er e di d Ja m i e o r W al t g et th e co ke f ro m ? Di d they geti t fro m yo u or thei r own so urce? Sykes : T he y a l r e a dy h a d i t
. T he y p r o b a b l y a l r e a dy had thei r own shi t. D et ect i ve Li nsm ei er : F r o m y o u o r f r o m th e i r o wn sour ce? Sykes : Fr om thei r own so urce.N os. 07

- 3830 and 07- 3831 7 Sy kes ar gued that, wh en h i s s tat em ent was co nsi dered a s a wh o l e , i t d i d n o t s u p p o r t a fi n d i n g th a tF o x a nd Sander son w er e d elivering drugs o n hi s be hal fo r that he was a l eadero r or gani zero fthe act i vi ty. H e a l so quoted an exc ha ng e betw een Fox an d th e d istri ct cou rt that occur re d du ring F ox’ s chang e o fpl ea hear i ng: C ou rt : M r. Fo x, wh at w as yourr ol e in the conspi ra cy? A nd were you a m em bero fi t? Fox : Ye s, Yo urHono r . Iwas a mem be r a cc o r di ng to C ou n t O n e, an d on th e 1 3 [ o fJu n e, 20 07 ] I d id th de l i v e r . . . t o the y o un g l a dy tha t s ho we d u p a tWo o dm an ’s p ar kin g lot w h o w as an u n d er c ov er . . .. C ou rt : W h er e d id you ge t th a t c ra c k? Y ou bo u gh t it orj ust s ol d i t? W ho w as y ou r sour ce? H ow d i d you get it ? W h o gave i t t o you? H ow d i d you g et i t for di st r ibut i o n? Fox : W el l, Iended up purchasing the cr ack coca i ne. At S y k es ’ s se nt en cing, the di st r i ctc o ur t f o und tha t he ha d o r g an i ze d the di st r ibut i o n o fc r ac kc o ca i ne a nd appli ed the tw o- poi nt upw ar d adj ustm ent t o hi s o ffense l e v e l

. T he c o ur tn o t e d tha ti t“ ha s r e a d [ S y k e s ’ s p o s tar re st sta tem en t] on s eve ra l o ccasi ons and find s that you can probabl y m ake 15 co ncl usi ons ou t ofi t, 14 o f w h ic h d o not ben efi t the de fend an t and the C ou rt i sn ’t going to take that 15th ste p. ” I t pointed to the und i sputed f act that the underco vero ffi cercal l ed Sy kes t o or der cr ac kc o ca i ne a nd tha t o n a t l ea stt wo oc ca si o ns the dr ug s we r e del i v e r e d b y s o meo ne o the r tha n S y k e s . On the s ubj e c to fthe J un e 1 3 , 2 0 0 7s a l e , the c o ur ts a i d,8 N os. 07

- 3830 and 07- 3831 [ T]he und er cove r offi cerm ade ar ran gem ents to o bt a i nt wo 8 b a l l qu a n t i t i e s o fc r a c kc o c a i n e fr o m t he defe nd ant. M r. S yke s did notr eferthe offi certo M r. Fo x beca use he w as out ofco caine; r ather, Fo x del i vered t h e d rugs afterhe was o bser ved by l aw enf or cem ent l eaving the defendant’s r esi dence. S y k e s mus th a v e p r o v i ded the l o c a t i o n a nd de s c r i pti on o fthe custo m erto Fox ; Sy ke s di d, i n or der t o com ple te the s al e. W hen Fox m et w i th the undercov er offi cer, he di d not hav e the r equeste d am ount o fdrugs. H e was o bser ved by l aw enf or cem ent driv i ng ba ck to defen dan t’ s r es i den ce , pr es um ab l y t o o bt ai n the addi ti ona l qua nt i ty, i m m edi at ely r etur n[ i ng ] t o the l o ca ti o n whe r e th e u nde r co ve r o ffi ce r was wai ting and provi d[i ng] the add i ti onalcr ack coca i ne. Based on the se c irc um sta nces, the cour t co ncl ud ed that th e g o v e r n me n t h a d p r o v e n b y a p r e p o n d e r a n c e o ft he evi dence thatS yke s h ad i nstr ucted Fo x to del i vercr ack co c a i n e a t l e a s t o n J u n e 1 3 , 2 0 0 7
. L a t e r i n th e h e ar i ng, t he c o ur tr e i t e r a t e d, A two- l eve l i ncre ase pursuant to Se cti on 3 B1. 1( c) is ap p lica b le b ec au se th e d efe n d an t o rg an ize d th e d ist ributi on o fcr ack coca i ne. M r. S yke s di d that. H e di d that o v e r a p e r i o d o ft i me . T h e e v i d e n c e c l e a r l y s h o ws the defendant ar ra nged to supply an undercov er offi cercr ack coca i ne o n J une 13, 2 007 and then pro

vi ded the c ra ck to Fox w ho m ade the del i ver y; atl eas tN os. 07

- 3830 and 07- 3831 9

The c our tm ay have be enr efer ri ng h er e t o a sta t em en tFox 3 m ade duri ng h i s debr i efi ng. I n Fo x’ s obj ec t i ons t o h i s PS R, he ch aract eri zed that st atem ent as f oll ow s: “M r. Fox provid ed det ai l abo ut[ the J une 1 3, 2 00 7 s al e] duri ng h i s debr i efi ng, ex pl ai ni ng t o pol i c e thathe want ed t o us e M r. Sy ke s ’ t ru c k a nd Sy k es w o u ld no t allow him to d o th at u nless F ox ag reed to do the drop off

. ” that’ s what Fo x apparentl y i s s ay i ng. Defendant al so 3 d ire c te d Fox an d Sa n d er so n to ot h er cu st om er s . . . . The c o ur t t he n c al cul at ed S y k es ’ s g ui del i ne s i m pr i so nm ent r ange. I t found him to be a ca re ero ffender und er U
. S. Sente nc ing G uid eli ne s M an ua l [U
. S. S.G .] § 4B 1.1( a), bu t, b ecause hi s a dj usted o ffense l eve l was hi gherunder Ch apter s 2 a nd 3 o fthe g ui de l i ne s , the c o ur ta pp l i ed thi s hi gheroffense l eve l

. Thi s r esul ted i n an o ffense l eve l of33 and a c ri m i nal hi sto rycat eg or y of si x, wh i ch co rr esponded to a gui del i nes i m pri sonm ent ra nge of 235 to 293 m onths. The cour t i m posed a sente nce of 250 m onths, base d i n l ar ge part on S yke s’ s cr i m in alhi sto ry, wh i ch i t re ferre d to as “the hor re nd ous a m ount o fcr i m e that th is d efe n d an t h as co m m itt ed .” I n F o x’ s PS R, the pr o ba ti o n o ffi ce r s ai d he b el i ev ed “the g o ve r nm en t ca n pr o ve b y a pr epon der an ce o fthe evi dence that[ Fox’ s] r el evant conduct i nvol ved 44. 138 gr am s o fcr ack coca i ne. ” Thi s incl ud ed bo th the 4. 138 g r ams fr o m the J une 1 3, 2 00 7 sa l e an d the 40 g r ams fo und i n Sy kes ’ s r esi dence on J une 22, 20 07. The pro bati on offi cer ’ s j ustific ati on f ori ncl ud i ng the 40 gr am s fro m Sy kes ’ s r esi dence w as th at “[ Fox] was aware M r. S yke s10 N os. 07

- 3830 and 07- 3831 st o r ed dr ug s atthi s l o ca ti o n b ec ause he tra ve l ed to the re sid en c e b et w ee n co n tr olle d bu ys on Ju n e 1 3, 20 07 .” F o x o bj e c t e d t o th e i n c l u s i o n o fth e a d d i t i o n a l 4 0 g r a ms on th e fol low ing base s: (1) th e r e c ord did not su p p ort the e xi ste nce o fa conspi ra cy b etw een F ox and S yke s beyo nd the o n e that s tar ted and ended on J une 13, 20 07; ( 2) ther e was no evi dence that the 40 gr am s were posse sse d ( a) i n further ance o ft h e j oi ntl y undert ake n cr i m i nal acti vi ty and (b ) duri ng the co m m i ssi on o fthe offense of con vi ct i o n, a s r equi r ed byU. S
. S
. G. § 1 B1. 3( a) ( 1) ( B) ; a nd ( 3) the re c or d did not supp or t a co ncl usi on that F ox s h o u l d h a v e f o r e s e e n S y k e s ’ s p o s s e s s i o n o fth e 4 0 g r a ms on J une 27, 20 07. At F o x’ s se nt en cingh ear i ng, a fte r F o x a nd the g o ve r nm en t m ade the i r a r g um en ts o n the e xt en t o frel ev an t con d uc t, th e ent irety ofthe cou rt’s com m en ts w ere the fol l owing: The de fen dan t i s r es pons ibl e f o r the c r ac kc o ca i ne l o ca te d a t [ S y k es ’ s] r es i den ce on the da te o fthe se ar chwar r an t. S y k es pro vi ded dr ugc us to m er s to the defe nd ant. De fendant w as aw ar e that S yke s s tor ed drugs in hi s r esi dence. Defendant w as obs er ved tr avel i ng to that re si dence to obt ai n add i ti onalcr ack co ca i ne o n the da te he d eli ve r ed cr ac kc o ca i ne t o the un d ercove r offi cer.

. . . [Fo x ] is, as a m em b er o fth at co n sp ira c y, re sp on sib le f or the c r ac kc o ca i ne l o ca te d a t th e r es i den ce o fthe codefenda n t Sy kes on the day ofthe sea rch. H e wasN os. 07

- 3830 and 07- 3831 11 pr o vi ded dr ugc us tom er s. He pr o vi ded th em to the defen dan t. He was a war e th atS y k es was stori ng drugs a t hi s r esi dence and w as obs er ve d tr avel i ng to th at res id en c e t o ob ta in ad d itio n al c ra c k c oc ain e . . . . The c o ur t th enc alculat ed F o x’ s g ui del i ne s i m pr i so nm en t r an g e us i ngthe 44
. 13 8 g r ams o fc r ac kc o ca i ne a nd the drug quanti ty tabl e in U
. S. S. G. § 2 D1. 1( c)
. Thi s pro cess re sul te d i n an adj usted o ffense l eve l o f23 , wh i ch w as pai re d to Fox’ s cr i m i nal hi sto rycat ego ryo fo ne to pr o duce a r an g e of4 6 to 5 7 m o nths

. Af te r c o ns i der i ng Fox ’s m iti gating p erson al ci rcu m stan ces, the cou rt i m posed a sente nce o f46 m onths’ i m pri sonm ent. Sy kes and Fo x both ti m el y a pp eal ed. On Sep te m b er 5, 2008 , S yke s s ubm i tte d a l ett erto t hi s co urt ci ti ng U nited St at e s v. Clan t on , 53 8 F
. 3d 65 2 (7th Ci r. 20 08) , as supplem en ta l au th or ity o n th e m od ified cr ac k p en alt y in su p p ort of his en titl em en t to a rem an d un d er Kim b r ough v. U nited Sta tes , 128 S. Ct
. 558, 169 L
. Ed

. 2d 481 (2007).

I I . Discussi on W e r ev ie w a di st r i ctc o ur t’ s det er m i na ti o ns o fa de fen dan t’ s r o l e i n the o ffen se unde r U. S
. S
. G. § 3 B1. 1, r el ev an t conduct und erU
. S. S. G. § 1 B1. 3 a nd drug qua n ti ty und er U
. S. S. G. § 2 D1. 1 f orcl earer ro r. U ni t e d S t at e s v. A rtley, 489 F.3d 813, 821 ( 7th Cir. 2007); U ni t e d S t at e s v. Johns on , 48 9 F
. 3d 79 4, 796 ( 7th Ci r . 2 00 7)
. W e wi l l a ffi r m the dist ri ct c ourt ’ s deci si on unl ess , afterco nsi deri ng al l o f the e vi dence, we are l eft with a defi ni te and fi rm co nvi ctio n th at a m i s t a ke h as be en m ad e. A rtley, 48 9 F
. 3d at12 N os. 07

- 3830 and 07- 3831

Sect ion 3B1.1( c) , und er which Sykes w as se ntence d, provides 4 the f ol l owin g: Bas ed o n the defen dant ’ s r ol e i n the offen s e, i nc re as e the offense lev el as follow s: I fthe defen dantwas anorga ni ze r, le ade r, m ana ge r, or s uper vi s or i n a ny c ri m i nalac t i vi t y other t han[ one i nv ol vi ng fi ve o r m ore p a r t i c i pa nt s ] , i nc r e a s e by 2 lev els. U .S. S.G
. § 3B 1.1(c)
. A p p lication N ote 2 the reto say s, To qualify fo r an adj us t m en tunde r thi s s ec t i on, the defen d antm us tha ve bee n the or gan i ze r, l ea der, m ana ge r, or supervis or of o n e or m ore other parti ci pants. An upw ard d ep a rt u re m a y b e w a rr a n te d , ho w ev er , in th e c a se o f a defen dantwho di d notor gan i ze , l ea d, m an age , or supervis e anotherparti ci pant, but w ho n everthel es s exe rcised m an ag em en t resp on sibility ov er th e p ro p erty , assets, or ac t i vi t i es ofa c ri m i nalor gan i za t i on. U .S. S.G
. § 3B 1.1(c) cm t. n.2. A nd A p p lication N ote 4 say s, I n di s t i ngui s hi ng a l ea der s hi p and or gan i za t i ona l r ol e f ro m one ofm ere m anag em ent or s up ervis ion, ti tl es s uch as 

### (continued...) 82 1 (c itin g, inte r alia , U ni t e d S t at e s v. B enne tt, 46 1 F
. 3d 910, 912 (7th C ir. 2006)).

A . Sykes’s R ol e i n the Off ense Sy ke s a rg u es th at th er e w as n otsu fficie n t e v i d e n c e in th e r ec o r d t o s uppo r t th e di st r i ctc o urt’ s fi ndi ngtha t he was a n o r g an i ze r o fthe o ffen se unde r U. S
. S
. G. § 3B1
. 1 an d that the e vi dence c ite d by the di str i ct c ourtwas not re liab l e. W e hav e s um m ar i zed the evi dence r el i ed on by

4N os. 07

- 3830 and 07- 3831 13



### (...continued) “kingp in” o r “b oss ” are not cont roll ing. Factor s the court s houl d co ns i der i nc l ude the exer c i s e ofdec i s i on m aki ng author i t y, the natur e of par t i c i pat i on i n the com m i s s i on ofthe offense , the rec ruit m en t o facc om plic es , the cl aim ed ri ght to a l arger s hare ofthe fru its ofthe cr im e, the degree ofpar t i c i pat i on i n pl ann i ng or or gan i zi ng the offen s e, the natur e and s c ope ofthe i l l eg al ac t i vi t y, an d the deg re e of c ont ro l an d author i t y e xercise d ove r othe rs . The re c an, of course , be m ore than o n e p er son wh o quali fie s as a l eader or org an izer o f a crim ina l a sso ciatio n o r con sp iracy
. T his ad justm en t d oe s no t ap p ly to a d efend an t w ho m erely suggest s com m it ti ng the offense . U
. S. S. G
. § 3B1. 1( c) cm t. n. 4. the di str i ct c ourt
. But w e m ay affirm the appli cati on o f Section 3B 1.1 on those groun d s or any oth ers tha t are su p p or te d by th e re c or d

. Sc huh , 28 9 F
. 3d at 973. The evi dence ava i l abl e t o the di str i ct c ou rti ncl ud ed th e st at ement s m ade t o l aw e nf o rcementb y S y k es a nd F o x: S y kes’s po st
- ar r es t st at ement, F o x’ s st at ement dur i nghi s pl ea he ar i nga nd F o x’ s r epr es en ta ti o ns t o the cour t i n hi s obj ecti ons to hi s PSR. These statem ents wer e i n c o n s i s t e n to n th e i s s u e wh e th e r F o x a nd S an der son de l i ve r ed dr ug s o n S y k es ’ s be ha l f

. The dist ri ct c ourtappears to have m ad e c re dibi l i ty fi nd i ngs wi thr es pec t to the se s ta te m en ts , s i ftinga nd wi nno wi ng th e true from the que st i o nabl e. The c o ur t f o und tha t th e bul ko fS y k es ’ s st at ementsu p po r te d a ppl i ca ti o n o fthe adj ustm ent, a nd t ha t F o x’ s s t a t e men t s pro vi ded a ddi t i o na l s up po r ti n tha tthe y s how ed th a tF o x mad e del i ver i es f orSyke s. A d i str i ct court ’ s find i ngs o n w i tness14 N os. 07

- 3830 and 07- 3831

I n A nderso n , the C ou rt exp lain ed , “t h e trial jud g e m ay [ no t] 5 ins ulate his findings from revi ew by d enom inat ing them c re di bi l i t y d eterm i nat i ons , f or f ac t or s othe r thandem ea nor a nd i nfl e c t i on go i nt o the de c i s i on whe the r or no t to bel i e ve a w itness . D ocum ents or obje ct ive evi dence m ay co n tr a d ic t the w itness’ story ; or the s t o r y itselfm ay b e so inte rn ally i n c o n sistent or im p lau sible on its face tha t a rea son ab le factfi nd er w o u l d n ot cre d it it. W he re su ch f acto rs are p resen t, the c our tofa ppea l s m ay wel l fi nd c l ea r er ro r eve n i n a fin d in g p u rp o rt ed ly b a se d o n a cr ed ib ili ty d e te rm in a tio n .” Id

. at 575. cre dibi l i ty ( eve n w hen onl y i m pli ed) ar e e nti tl ed to gr eat, al though no t abso l ute, defer ence. See A nders on v . C ity of Be s s e merCi ty, N. C. , 47 0 U.S . 5 64 , 5 73- 75 ( 1985 )
. H er e, 5 despit e obvi ous c onfl i cts i n the sta tem ents, i t was not cl earer ro r f orthe dist ri ct c ourtto fi nd thatthe sta tem ents of Sy kes and F ox supp or ted the concl usi on that S y k es was pr o vi di ngdirecti o n f o r F o x a nd S an der so n, an d tha tc o nc l us i o n s up po r t s the a pp l i c a t i o n o fthe a dj ustm ent. I n a ddi ti o n, the r e was c i r cumst an ti ale vi den ce r el at i ng to the dr ug sa l es on w h i ch to r el y. On at l eas t tw o occa si o ns , the UO c a l l e d S y k e s t o o r de r c r a c kc o c a i ne , S yke s agr eed to m ake the sal e a nd S yke s a nd the U O determ i ned a t i m e a nd l oca ti on f orthe sale , b u t som eone o therthan Sy kes sho w ed up to m ake the exchange. O n J une 13, 20 07, F o x a ppea r ed to make the s al e, was a ppar en tly una wa re that the dealwas f ortwo ei ght-bal l s and went back to S y k es’s resi den ce t o pi ckup th e o th ere i g ht

-ba l l

. One could m ake i nfe re nces f ro m thes e ci rcum sta nces that woul d no t su ppo r t th e appl i ca ti o n o fS ec ti o n 3 B1. 1, b utN os. 07

- 3830 and 07- 3831 15

Mo r e o v e r , th e p r e s e n tc a s e i s d i s t i n g u i s h a b l e fr o m Sc huh 6 b eca u se in tha t case, “ther e w as no ev id en ce tha t [ the d efend an t] o rg a n iz ed , led , or in an y w a y co n tr o lle d th e [d ru g d ea le rs ]. .
. . [ A ] ct ing as a ‘m id d le m an’ by d ir ect ing cus tom ers to dealers is insufficient for a § 3 B 1.1 ad justm en t.
. . . [Th e d efend an t] d id no t sup p ly th e coc ain e to th e d ealer s or co nt r o l w h o sold it, w hen they so ld i t, at w hat pri ce they s old it, how the y acquir ed i t, how m uch or t o w hom the y sol d, what type they s ol d, or ho w m a ny de a l e r s c ou l d s e l l a t [ hi s ba r ] a t a ny given ti m e. ” 289 F.3d a t 973. H ere, the dist ri ctcourt f ound that Sykes was m o re than justa m idd le m an and thathe did exer

cise con tro l ov er h is cod efend an ts. one not im pla usibl e infe re nce i s that S yke s was dir ecting hi s a cq uai ntances , and i t was notcl earer ro r f or the di str i ct c ourtto m ake thati nfe re nce. Sy kes ar gues that acting as a m i dd l em an o r a nar cot i cs br o k er i s al o ne i ns uffi ci en t to s uppo r t ana dj us tment und erS ecti on 3 B1. 1, ci ti ng U ni t e d S t at e s v. R ene sl acis , 3 49 F
. 3 d 4 1 2 , 4 1 7 ( 7 th Ci r . 2 0 0 3 ) , a nd U ni t e d S t at e s v. Sc huh , 28 9 F. 3d 968, 97 3 ( 7th Ci r. 20 02)
. T h ose cas es w er e cl ar i fi ed i n U ni t e d St at e s v. H o w ell, 527 F.3d 646, 649 (7th Cir. 20 08 ) , whenthe c o urt sai d, “ whi l e we e xa m i ne a l l o fthe f ac to r s, we emphas i ze both r el at i ve r es po ns ibi l i tya nd contr olo vero therpart i ci pants, and re cogni ze that m i dd l em ans ta tu s i s no t ne ce ss ar i l y i nc o ns istentwi thb eing a m an ag er or s u p er vis or .” 6 The r e i s mo r e e v i de nc e h e r e t o s up po r ta n o r g a ni z er adj us tmenttha n the r e was i n U ni t e d Sta tes v. M us t r e ad, 42 F. 3d 1097, 11 00- 01 ( 7th Ci r. 19 94) , o ne o fthe case s Sy kes c ite s in supp or t o fhi s a rgum ent that he did not ha ve m ore con trol over th e offen se th an did Fox or San d er-16 N os. 07

- 3830 and 07- 3831

so n. I n M us t r e ad, the o nl y ev idence tha t su ppo r te d the dist ri ct cou rt ’ s a pp l i cati on o fS ecti on 3 B1. 1 was the f act th ati n o ne i ns ta nc e, the de fen dan t as k ed a f r i en d’ s dr ug “m ule ” t o tr anspor t drugs f orhi m . The m u le a gr eed to do s o o nl y a ft era sk i ngpe r m i ss i o n fr o m hi s bo ss ( th e d efe n d a n t ’ s frien d ). Id

. Thi s co urt f ound that e vi dence to be ins u fficient to supp or t a l eader shi p adj ustm ent t o the defe nd ant’ s sente nce and there f or e that th e d istri ct c ou rtcle ar ly er re d in a p p lyin g Se c tio n 3 B 1.1
. Id

. at11 04- 0 5
. T he c o ur ts a i d, [ W ] e have re cogni zed that a key i nquir y, thoug h not th e onl y inquir y, i s whether the defendant exer ci sed som e co ntro l o ve r at l eas t o ne o therpart i ci pant. That does not m ean that o ther s m u st have pl aye d m ar i one tte to t h e d efend an t’s pu p p eteer. For th ese p urp os es , to c on tr ol an ot h er th e d efe n d an t m ay sim p ly ha ve o r g an i ze d o r i n s o m e way di r ec te d hi m . But how eve r controli s defi ned, M ustr ead l acke d adequate co ntro l o verany othe r parti ci pant .
. . . M us tread ’s ac tions d o n ot fi t t he res t o f th e seven -part fram ew ork, either. Id

. at 1104 (citations om itted ). Sykes ci te s ca se s f o r the pr o po si ti o n tha t he ha s a due p ro c es s rig h t t o b e s e n te n c ed on th e b as is of re liab le i nfo rm ati on, and “the hal l m ar k ofrel i abi l i ty i s co nsi ste ncy off acts and detai l s. ” U ni t e d S t at e s v. Johns on , 48 9 F
. 3d 794, 798 ( 7th Ci r. 20 07) ( quoti ng U ni t e d S t at e s v. Zeh m , 21 7 F
. 3d 50 6, 51 4 (7 th C ir. 20 00 ); Un i t e d S t a t e s v. G a lb raith , 20 0 F
. 3d 1006 , 10 12 ( 7th Ci r. 20 00) )
. The m er e e xi ste nce o fan incon s is t en cy, how ever, espec ial ly in the de fend an t’sN os. 07

- 3830 and 07- 3831 17

The rel evant condu ct sect ion ofthe Sent enci ng G uideli nes 7 p ro v id es as follow s: (a) [R elev a n t con d u ct] s ha ll be d eterm ined on the b asis ofthe f ol l owin g: (co n tin u ed ...) own st ate m ent, cannotfully thw ar t the co urt’ s r el i ance o n s uc h a s t a t e men t
. I n the pr e s e nt c a s e , S y k es’ s a dm iss ion th at Sa n d er so n so m et im es d eli v er ed for h im w as cor robor ate d b y th e f act that Sander son w as obs er ved m aking a sal e ( the June 22, 20 07 sal e) t h at w as or i gi nally ar ra nged by Sy kes

. The di str i ct c ourtdi d not cl ear l y e rri n adj usti ng S yke s’ s o ffen se l eve l bas ed on hi s s up er vi sor y r ol e.

B. Fox ’ s Relev ant Cond uct A s no ted, the dist ri ct c ourtf ound that the 40 gr am s o f crack coca i ne f ound in Sy kes ’ s r esi dence w er e par t o f Fo x ’s re lev a n t c on d u c t u n d er U .S.S.G . § 1B 1.3 (a)( 1)(B ). I t th er efo r e i nc l ud ed tha t amoun t i n a ppl y i ngthe dr ug quanti ty tabl e in Se cti on 2 D1. 1( c) to d et er m i ne Fo x’s bas e offe n se lev el. Fo x h as rep ea te d ly ob j ec te d to th is i ncl usi on but hi s obj ecti ons have thus f arf al l en o n deaf ear s. H e no w as ks us to vac ate hi s s entence , ar gu in g that the g ove rnm en t, the PS R and the di str i ct c ourtf ocuse d ex cl us i ve l y o n the f o r es ee ab i l i tyr equi r emento fr el ev an t co nduc t, i g no r i ngi ts o th err equi si te s, a nd tha t i n a ny eve nt, the re cor d did n ot s up portthe i ncl usi on. Fo r th e f o l l o wi ngr ea so ns , we ag r ee wi thF o x. 718 N os. 07

- 3830 and 07- 3831

(
. . . c on t i nu e d) 7

. . . (1)( B ) in th e case o f a join tly u nd erta k en cr i m ina l activ ity ( a cr im inal plan, s chem e, endeavo r, or e nter pris e und ert ake n by the defen danti n c onc er twith o the rs, w hethe r or not char ged as a c onspirac y ), a llreas on ab ly fores eea b le acts an d om i ssion s of

oth ers i n f

u rt heran ce of

t he j oi n tly u n dertaken cr im ina l activity , t hatoc curred duri ng t he comm i ss i on of t he of f ens e of co nvi ct i on , in p rep ara tion f or tha t offen se, or in the cou rse of attem p tin g to av o id d et ec tio n o r r es p o n sib ili ty for th a t o ffen se [.] U. S
. S
. G. § 1 B1
. 3 ( a ) ( 1 ) ( B) ( e mph a s i s a dd e d)

. An d r e l e vant ex c er pt s fro m Appli c at i on N ot e 2 s ay, In the case ofa j oint ly und ert aken cri m inal act ivity, s ub se ction ( a)(1) (B) p ro v id es tha t a d efend an t is acco u nta b le for the con d u ct (acts an d om issions) of othe rs tha t w as b oth : ( i) i n furtheranc e ofthe j oint ly und ert aken cr im in al ac t i vi t y; an d ( ii ) r e a s on a bl y f or e s e e a bl e i n c on ne c t i onwi th that c ri m i nalac t i vi t y. B eca us e a c ountm ay be worded br oadl y a nd i nc l ude the c onduc tofm any particip ant s ove r a pe ri od oft i m e, the s c ope ofthe c ri m i nalac t i vity joi nt l y unde rt ake n by the d efe n d a n t (th e “ jo in tly u n d er ta k en cr im in a l a ct iv ity ” ) i s not nece ss ar i ly t h e sa m e as t he sc opeof t he ent i reco nspi ra cy, an d hence r el evant cond uct is n ot neces sar il y the s am e f or every p articip an t. In or d er to d eterm ine th e d efend an t’ s acco u nta b ili ty for th e c o n d u ct o f ot h er s u n d er su b se ct io n (a)(1 )(B ), the cou rt m u st fi rst d eterm ine the sc op e of the crim ina l activity (co n tin u ed ...)N os. 07

- 3830 and 07- 3831 19

(
. . . c on t i nu e d) 7 the part i cu l ar def

end an t a g reed to joi n tly u n dertake ( i
. e. , the s c ope ofthe spe c i fi c conduc tand obj ec t i ves e m bra c ed by the d efend an t’ s ag reem en t). T he con d u ct of oth ers tha t w as b oth in fu rt h er a n ce o f, a nd r ea s onabl y f or es ee abl e i n c onn ec t i on with, the c ri m i nal ac t i vi t y j oi nt l y under t ake n by the defen dan t i s rel evant condu ctu nd er this p rovis ion. The cond uct of oth ers tha t w as no t in furth era nc e of the crim ina l activ ity jo in tly u n d er ta k en b y th e d efe n d a n t, orw as no t reaso na b ly f or es ee abl e i n c onn ec t i on with thatc ri m i nalac t i vi ty, i s no t re l eva ntc onduc tunde r thi s pr ovi s i on.

. . . . U .S.S .G . § 1 B 1 .3 c m t. n .2 (e m p h a sis ad d ed ). O ne of the p ro v id ed illustratio ns d em on strates th is po int: Def en dant s H and I e nga ge d i n a n o ngoi ng m ar i hua na im portati on conspir acy i n w hich D efend a n t Jw as hire d onl y t o h el p off

- l oad a s i ngl e s hi pm en t
. Defen dant s H, I , an d J are inclu d ed in a s i ng le cou nt ch arg ing con sp iracy to i m por tm ar i hua na. Defen d antJi s ac c ount abl e f or the enti re s ingle s hipm ent ofm ari huan a he h el ped i m port u nd er su b section ( a)(1) (A) an d an y acts an d om issions in furth er a nce ofthe i m portati on of thats hipm ent thatw ere reas onab ly f ores eeable ( se e the disc uss ion in exam ple ( a) ( 1) above )
. He i s no tac c ount able f or pr i or or s ubs equen t shi p m ents ofm ari huan a i m ported b y D efendan ts H or I b eca u se tho se acts w e r e n ot in fu rth era nc e of his jointly under t ake n c ri m i nalac t i vi t y ( the i m por t at i on ofthe sin g le sh ip m en t o f m a ri h u a n a ). U .S.S .G . § 1 B 1 .3 c m t. n .2, il lu s. (c)(3 ).20 N os. 07

- 3830 and 07- 3831 Fox fi rs t contends that the d i str i ct courtnegl ecte d to fi rs t det er m i ne the s co pe o fthe c r i m i na l a ct i vi tythat he a g r e e d t o j o i nt l y u nder tak e , a s i s p r e l i mi na r i l y r e qu i r e d. I n r es po ns e, the g o ve r nm en t

— as it d id j u st rec en tly in U ni t e d S t at e s v. So to -P iedra , 525 F.3d 527, 531 (7 th Cir. 20 08)

— s u g g e st s th ati t was no t r equi r ed to de m o ns tr at e th e sco pe ofFo x’s j oi ntl y undert ake n cri m i nal act i vi ty because he pl ea ded g ui l tyt o c o ns pi r ac y . But, a s we no te d i n Sot oP iedra , that pro posi ti on i s insupp or tabl e; S ecti on 1 B1. 3 was am en d ed in 1 99 2 s p ec ifica lly to d isa vo w it. Id

. “Conspi ra cy l i ab i l i ty, a s defi ne d i n Pinke r t on v. U nited Sta tes , 3 2 8 U
. S. 64 0, 64 6-4 8, 66 S. C t. 11 80 , 90 L
. E d

. 14 89 (19 46 ), is ge n er ally m uch bro ader than jointl y undert ake n cr i m i nal act i vi ty und er§ 1B1. 3. ” Id

. Se cond, Fo x conte nd s that the di str i ct c ourtdi d not c o n s i d e r w h e th e r S y k e s ’ s p o s s e s s i o n o fth e 4 0 g r a ms was i n fur th er an ce o f an y j o i ntc r i m i na l a ct i vi tyi nv o l ving Fox and Sykes. T he only si gn if icant f acts i n th e record i nvol vi ng the j oi nt cr i m i nal act i vi ty between the tw o m en ar e F o x’ s par ti ci pat i o n in the J une 1 3, 2 00 7 deal a nd the a g r e e d f a c tth a tF o x wa s a c r a c ka d d i c tw h o s p e n tt i me atS y k es ’ s r es i den ce g et tinghi g h. I t i s im p ossibl e f o r us to tel l from thi s r eco rd wh etherS yke s’ s pos ses si on o f 40 gram s of crac k coca ine on J un e 27, 2007 w as in furth eran ce o fa ny j o i ntc r i m i na l a ct i vi tyi nv o l vinghi m a nd F o x. Thir d, Fox poin ts o ut thatnei therthe gov er nm ent, nor th e PS R, no r the di st r i ctc o ur t addr es se d the f ac t t ha t th e 40 gr am s of cra ck coca i ne w as f ound in Sy kes ’ s re sidence on J une 2 7, 2007, fi ve days a fterthe end ofthe charg ed conspi ra cy between the m en. T h is c i rcum sta nce i s no tN os. 07

- 3830 and 07- 3831 21 dispositiv e, but i t s houl d be co nsi dered i n the tot al i ty of th e c i r c u ms t a n c e s . F o r e x a mpl e , th e r e i s e v i d e n c e i n t he re cor d that su gg es ts that thi s par ti cul ar40 gr am s was probabl y no t possessed by Sy kes duri ng the char ged conspi ra cy: S yke s t est i fi ed that he ty pica l l y ob tained an o unc e to a n o unc e an d a ha l fe ve r y t wo t o thr ee da y s, a nd ther ef or e i t i s a t l eas t pos sibl e that the 40 gr am s he posses sed o n J une 27 w as acqui re d afterJ une 22 ( the e nd o f th e ch arged cons p iracy). The cour t di d consi de r w hetherS yke s’ s pos ses si on w as f or ese eabl e t o Fox. But i t di d not co nsi der that quest i o n i n th e c o n t e x to fa c o n n e c t i o n w i th th e j o i n tc r i min al a c tiv ity be tw ee n Fox an d Syk es . See, e.g., U nited St at e s v. A rtley, 4 89 F
. 3d 813, 8 22

- 23 ( 7th Ci r . 2 00 7)
. The cour t stat ed that “[ Fox] was aware that S yke s s tor ed drugs at hi s r esi dence. ” W i thout c onsi derat i on o fwh ether that aw ar eness ar ose o ut o fFo x’s j oi nt cr i m i nal activity w i th S yke s, however, thi s fi nd i ng i s ins u ffi ci ent, bec ause re aso nabl e for ese eabi l i ty re quir es m or e than j ust s ubj ec tiv e a w ar en es s. U ni t e d S t at e s v. E dwar ds , 94 5 F
. 2d 1387, 1393 ( 7th Cir. 1991). I n F o x’ s ca se , the di st r i ctc our t’ s i nc l us i o n o fthe 40 gr am s ofcr ack coca i ne i n hi s drug quanti ty cal cul ati o n ins te ad o fo nl y the 4
. 138 grams inv o l ve d i n the J une 13, 20 07 tr ansact i on r esul ted i n a guideline s r ange ofi m pri sonm ent o f46

- 57 m onths i nstea d of24

- 30 m o nths , whi chi s a s ub st an ti ali nc r ea se . Al th o ug h a dist ri ct c ourt ’ s fi nd i ngs o fr el evantco nd uct ar e r evi ew ed on ly f orcl earer ro r, ev en such defer ence cannot cure an abse nce o ffi nd i ngs o n ke y e l em ents ofthe anal ysi s.22 N os. 07

- 3830 and 07- 3831 U ni t e d S t at e s v. Sc ha efer, 291 F.3d 9 3 2 , 9 3 9 (7th C ir. 2002). For thes e rea son s, w e w il l vac ate an d rem an d Fox’s sente nce f orr eco nsi dera tio n ofhi s r el evantco nd uct und erS ecti on 1 B1. 3 a nd appli cabl e drug quanti ty und er Se cti on 2 D1. 1.

C. Reasonable ness ofSentences Sykes an d Fox also con ten d that their s e n t en ces w ere both proc ed ura ll y un reason able (becau se th e d istri ct cou rt er re d i n apply i ng the S entencing Guidel i nes) and subst an ti ve l y unr ea so nable (be ca us e th eydo no t r efl ec t th e 18 U
. S. C. § 3 553( a) fac tor s)
. These ar gum ents re l ati ng to a pp l i c a t i o n o fthe g ui de l i ne s h a v e a l r e a dy b e e n a ddr e s s e d, and the a r g um en ts r el at i ngt o s ubs ta nt i ve r ea so nablen ess are n ot p ersu asive bec au se th e d istri ct cou rt car efully e xam i ned each o f t hei r si tuati ons and did not abuse i ts disc re ti on i n sel ecting the i r sente nces.

D . Kimb r ough Re ma nds The dis tr i ct c ourtse ntenced S yke s a nd Fo x on N ove m ber21 , 20 07 usi ng the 10 0- to- one pow der to c r a c kc o c a i ne r a t i o . O n D e c e mb e r 1 0 , 2 0 0 7, th e S u p r e me Co ur tde c i de d K im bro ug h v . U nited Sta tes , 12 8 S
. C t. 558, 56 4, 16 9 L
. E d . 2d 48 1 (2 00 7), in w h ich it h eld th at th is ra tio is n otd ict at ed by st at u te , bu t is m er ely ad vis or y. In U ni t e d S t at e s v. Taylo r, 520 F. 3d 746, 747-48 ( 7th C ir. 2008), w e hel d that a l i m i ted r em an d i s a pp ro pri ate i n case s wher e th e defen dan t di d no t o bj ec t to the r at i o i n the d i s t r i c t c o u r t
. Ad d i t i o n a l l y, i n U ni t e d S t at e s v. Clan t on ,N os. 07

- 3830 and 07- 3831 23 53 8 F
. 3d 65 2, 66 0 ( 7th Ci r . 20 08 ) , we he l d tha t a defen dan t w ho was char acte ri zed as a car eero ffender but w h ose offense l eve l c alculat ed und er§ 2D1. 1 was hi gherthan th atc al cul at ed unde r § 4 B1. 1(b) , w as ef fec ti ve l y s en ten ced u nde r the g ui del i ne ’ s cr ac k

- to
- po wder r at i o a nd w as al so enti tl ed to a Kim b r ough r e man d. S y k es di d no t waive the c r ac kpe na l tya r g um en t bec au se he did no t e x p r essly de cli ne to rai se it, and there is n o for feit u r e b e c au se it w as n otcle ar u n til Clan t on that he was enti tl ed to a Kim b r ough r em and. Theref or e, hi s ca se w i l l be re m an d ed forr ese ntenci ng i n l i ght o f Kim b r ough

.
I I I . Concl usio n Forthe f or ego i ng r eas ons, we V ACATE the sen tence s a nd R EMA ND S yke s’ s ca se f orr ese nt en c i ng i n l i ght o f Kim b r ough a nd F o x’ s ca se f o r r es en te nc i ngc o ns i st en t wi ththi s o pi ni o n.

11- 14- 08