2007 D e c i sion s O p inion s of the U nit e d S t at e s C our t of Appe al s for the Thir d C ir c uit 7-31-2007 

# U SA v . B rown P r e c e de nt i al or N on-P r e c e de nt i al : N on-P r e c e de nt i al D ocke t N o . 05-3174

F o llow thi s and a dd it ion al work s at : http://d i git alc ommon s .l a w . vi ll anova . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2007

Thi s de c i sion i s br ou ght t o you for f r e e and ope n a c c e s s b y the O p inion s of the U nit e d S t at e s C our t of Appe al s for the Thir d C ir c uit at V i ll anova U nive r sity S choo l of L a

w Di git al Reposit ory

. It h as be e n a c c ept e d for inclusion in 2007 D e c i sion s b y an authori z e d a dmini s tr at or of V i ll anova U nive r sity S choo l of L a

w Di git al Reposit ory

. F or mor e inform at ion, p le as e c ont a ct Be n j amin . C arl s on@l a

w . vi ll anova . e du . Re c omme nde d C it at ion " U SA v . B r own" (2007). 2007 D e cisio n s . P ape r 679. http://d i git alc ommon s .l a

w . vi ll anova . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2007/679NOT PRECEDENTIAL U N IT E D S T A T E S C O URTO F AP P E ALS F O R T H ET H IRD C IRC U IT No. 05-3174 UNITED STATES OF AMERI CA,

v. SHAWN BROWN, aka Kenne th J enkins Shawn B rown, Appellant Appeal from the United States District Court fo r t heEa stern

Di stric t of

Pe nn sylva

nia D.C. No. 04-cr-00532 D i s tri c tJu dg e : H o n . H ar

v e y B art l e , III Submitted Under

Third Circuit LAR 34.1(a) July 12, 2007 B e fo re : SL OVI TE R, ALDI SERT a nd RO TH , Circuit

Judg e s. (F iled: July

31, 2007) OPI NI ONOF TH E CO URT2

ALDI SERT, Ci rcuit Judge. Th is a pp e a l by Sha wn B ro wn from a c onvic tio n a

nd sentenc ere quire s u s to de c ideif therewa s su ff

ic ient evidenc eto c onvic t him of po sse ssi on

wi th intent to dist

ributec oc aine , in v i o l at i o n o f 2 1 U . S . C . § 8 4 1 ( a) ( 1 ) , and w hetherthe D i s tr i ctC our tvi ol at ed R ul e 704( b) of th e F e d e ra l R u le s o f

E v id e n c e b ya d m ittin g c e rt a in te s tim o n yo f a p o lic e o f

f ic e r. W e wi l l a f f i r m th e d e c i s i o n o f

th e Di s tr i c tCo u r ta s t o th e s e ma t t e r s . S e p a r a t e l y , Br o wn ar gues thathi s s ent ence w as i m pr oper l yenhanc ed under18 U . S. C . § 924( e) , the A r m ed C a re e r C ri m in a l A c t ( “ A C C A ” ), a n d th a t h is 2 5 -ye a r s e n te n c e o n th e 2 1 U .S .C . § 841( a) ( 1) vi ol at i on exce eds the s t atut orym axi m um of 20 y ear s . W e agr ee w i th hi m on th e s e c o n te n tio n s a n d w ill r e m a n d f o r r e s e n te n c in g . I. O n February14, 2004, Phi l adel phi a Pol i ce O ffi cer s J os eph M cC aul eyand M ich a e l M a re sc a , m e m b e rs o f th e N a rc o tics S trik e F o rc e , o b se rv e d se v e ra l in d iv id u a ls g e t in to a c a r w ith B ro w n . T h e o f f ice rs th e n sa w th e in d iv id u a ls h a n d B ro w n m o n e yin excha nge fors m al l bags fi l l ed w i th a w hi t e pow der . B efor e the off i cer s coul d i nt ervene, B r ow n s pot t ed O ffi cerM ar es ca a nd fi r ed a gun a thi m . O ffi cerM ar es ca r an forcover and B r ow n s hotanotherr ound. B r ow n then s t art ed hi s carand fl ed the s cene . A ft er tr avel i ng l es s than a bl ock, he turned a c orner , l os tcontr ol of hi s vehi cl e, hi ta parked ca r a n d c ra sh e d h e a d -o n in to a p o lice v e h icle . B e f o re c ra sh in g , h o w e v e r, B ro w n m a n a g e d to f ir e h is g u n a t o f

f ic e rs a tte m p tin g to b lo c k h is e s c a p e .3

T he Pol i ce then conve r ged on B r ow n’ s s t opped ca rand s ubdued hi m . D ur i ng t he arr es t , O ffi cerC eza rN unez w r es t l ed a . 40 cal i berhandgun aw ayfr om B r ow n. O ffi cer L e o n a rd Jo h n so n , an e x a m in e r in th e F ire a rm s Id e n tific a tio n U n it o f th e P h ilad e lp h ia Pol i ce D epart m ent , l at erdet erm i ned thats hel l cas i ngs r ecove r ed atthe s cene came fr om B r ow n’ s gun. O ffi cerSean M cLaughl i n al s o r ecove r ed 58 bags cont ai ni ng 23. 166 gr ams of coc ai ne fr om B r ow n’ s j acke tpocketdur i ng the arr es t . B as ed on thi s evi dence , a ju ry c o n v ic te d B ro w n o f a ll th re e c h a rg e s a g a in s t h im . B ro w n a p p e a re d b e f

o re th e D istric t C o u rt f

o r se n ten c in g o n Ju n e 1 4 , 2 0 0 5 . In its Pr es ent ence I nves t i gat i on R eport( “PSR ”) , the U ni t ed St at es Pr obat i on O ffi ce det erm i ned thatB r ow n’ s cr i m i nal hi s t oryqual i fi ed hi m as an arm ed ca r eercr i m i nal underthe A C C A , bas ed on fourpr i orconvi ct i ons . Speci fi cal l y , the Pr obat i on O ffi ce r el i ed on tw o drug convi ct i ons and tw o r obberyconvi ct i ons . D ue t o thi s det erm i nat i on, the s t atut orym axi m um s ent ence forC ountT hr ee, pos s es s i on of a f i r earm bya convi ct ed fel on, beca m e l i fe. W i thoutthe A C C A det erm i nat i on, the s ent ence w oul d have be en no m o re th a n te n y e a rs . B efor e s ent enci ng, B r ow n obj ect ed t o hi s cl as s i fi cat i on as an arm ed ca r eer crim inal, co n tend ing there w as n o ev iden ce that h is tw o p ri o r dru g co n v ict ion s w ere “s er i ous drug offe ns es ” as defi ned i n 18 U . S. C . § 924( e) . B r ow n al s o obj ect ed thatt he

“ two p r i o rr o b b e r yc o n v i c t i o n s ” we r e n o t“ s e p a r a t e o f f e n s e s ” a s r e q u i r e d b yth e AC CA ,4

ar gui ng i ns t ead thattheyw er e partof one c r i m i nal epi s ode. H e s t at ed thathe had e v id e n c e to th a t e f

f e c t f o r t h e D is tr ic t C o u rt to c o n s id e r. A ts ent enci ng, the governm entnot ed thati thad fa i l ed t o fi l e an I nform at i on C har gi ng Pr i orO ffe ns e pur s uantt o 21 U . S. C . § 851. A s a r es ul tof thi s m i s s t ep, the pr os ecut orconce ded thatthe s t atut orym axi m um s ent ence forC ountO ne, pos s es s i on of coca i ne w i th the i nt entt o di s tr i but e, w as 20 y ear s , or240 m onths , w el l underthe r ange o f 3 2 4 -4 0 5 m o n th s c a lc u la te d b yth e P ro b a tio n O f f ic e . N o tw ith stan d ing the s tatu torym ax im u m o f 2 4 0 m o n ths, th e D istri ct C o u rt s ent ence d B r ow n t o concurr ents ent ence s of 300 m onths on the drug pos s es s i on and the fi r earm pos s es s i on char ges , t o run cons ecut i vel yw i th a 120- m onth s ent ence on C ount T w o, us e of a fi r earm dur i ng and i n r el at i on t o a drug tr aff i cki ng cr i m e. B r ow n’ s t ot al sen tenc e w as 4 2 0 m o n ths’ im p ri so n m en t. T h e D istri ct C o u rtd id n o t l o o k at B row n ’s ev iden ce as to h is prior co n v ict ion s, ap p are n tl yrejecti n g h is argu m en t th at th eyw ere comm i t t ed on the s ame occas i on, and i ns t ead r el i ed s ol el yon the PSR i n deci di ng that e n h a n c e m e n t u n d e r t h e A C C A w a s a p p ro p ri a te . B r ow n now chal l enges hi s convi ct i on and s ent ence .5 II. B row n fir stargues that the ev i den ce add uced attri al , view ed in the li gh tm ost favor abl e t o the governm ent , w as i ns uffi ci entt o al l ow a r eas onabl e j uryt o concl ude b e y o n d a re a so n a b le d o u b t th a t h e p o ss e ss e d c o c a in e w ith th e in ten t to d istrib u te in v io la tio n o f

2 1 U .S .C . § 8 4 1 (a )( 1 ). W e d is a g re e . W e a p p lya “ p arti cu larl yd ef ere n ti al st an d ard o f re v iew w h en d ec iding w h ethe r a j uryver di ctr es t s on l egal l ys uffi ci entevi dence . ” U ni t ed St at es v. D ent , 149 F. 3d 180, 1 8 7 (3 d C ir. 1 9 9 8 ). “I t is n o t f o r u s to w e ig h th e e v id e n c e o r to d e ter m in e th e c re d ib ili ty of the w i tnes s es . ” U ni t ed St at es v. V oi gt , 89 F. 3d 1050, 1080 ( 3d C i r . 1996) . W e vi ew the ev i den ce i n the l i gh tm ostfavo rabl e t o the gov ernm ent, see U nit ed S t at es v. T ho m as, 114 F. 3d 403, 405 ( 3d C i r . 1997) , and w i l l s us t ai n the ver di cti f “‘ anyr at i onal tr i erof fac tcoul d have f

ound the es s ent i al el ement s of the cr i m e bey ond a r eas onabl e doubt . ’ ” V o ig t, 89 F .3 d a t 1 0 8 0 (q u o tin g Ja c k so n v . V irg in ia, 4 4 3 U .S . 3 0 7 , 3 1 9 (1 9 7 9 )). A c laim of i ns uffi ci encyof the evi dence thus “‘ pl ace s a veryheavybur den on an appel l ant . ’ ” D en t, 1 4 9 F . 3 d at 18 7 (qu o ti n g U n it ed S tat es v . G o n za lez, 91 8 F . 2 d 1 1 2 9 , 1 1 3 2 (3d C ir . 1 9 9 0 )) . T h e e ss e n tial e lem e n ts o f p o ss e ss io n o f

a c o n tro lled su b sta n c e w ith in ten t to d istrib u te a re (1 ) k n o w in g p o ss e ss io n o f a c o n tro lled su b sta n c e a n d (2 ) in ten t to di s tr i but e i t . See 21 U . S. C . § 841( a) ( 1) . A ctual pos s es s i on can be es t abl i s hed by phy s i cal cus t odyoractual per s onal dom i ni on. U ni t ed St at es v. B at i m ana, 623 F. 2dA t trial, B ro w n o b jec ted w h e n th e p ro se c u to r a sk e d O f f ice r M a re sc a : “[ w ]h yd id 1 y ou bel i eve thatthe def endantw as s el l i ng drugs thateveni ng?” A pp. 31. W e, accordingl y , revi ew the D i stri ctC ou rt ’s adm i ssi on of the res ult i ng t est i m on yfor an ab use o f d iscreti o n . U n it ed S tat es v . G ibb s, 1 9 0 F . 3 d 1 8 8 , 2 1 1 (3d C ir . 1 9 9 9 ). 6 1366, 1369 ( 9th C i r . 1980) . T hi s C our thas found thata def endantpos s es s ed coc ai ne w i th the i nt entt o di s tr i but e w hen he w as arr es t ed w i th 62 bags of the drug i n hi s j acke t pocketand a l oaded f

i r earm . See U ni t ed St at es v. J ohns on, 302 F. 3d 139, 149- 150 ( 3d C ir . 2 0 0 2 ). I n the i ns t antcas e, the governm entpr es ent ed ade quat e evi dence fr om w hi ch a j urycoul d fi nd thatB r ow n pos s es s ed coc ai ne w i th the i nt entt o di s tr i but e. T he pol i ce se ize d f ro m B ro w n ’s ja c k e t p o c k e t a b a g th a t co n tain e d 5 8 sm a ller b a g s f ill e d w ith 2 3 .1 6 6 g ra m s o f

c o c a in e . T h e ya ls o w re s tle d a lo a d e d f ir e a rm f ro m h is h a n d . F u rth erm o re, O ff

icer M are sca test ifi ed that h e w itn esse d sev era l peo p le ge t i n to B row n ’s c a r a n d e x c h a n g e m o n e yf o r item s f

ro m th e sa m e b a g th a t w a s s e ize d u p o n h is a p p re h e n sio n . V iew e d in th e lig h t m o st f a v o ra b le to th e g o v e rn m e n t, th e e v id e n c e is m or e than s uffi ci entt o s uppor ta fi ndi ng of B r ow n’ s gui l tbey ond a r eas onabl e doubton the el ement s of pos s es s i on w i th i nt entt o di s tr i but e. III . B r ow n nextar gues thatthe D i s tr i ctC our tvi ol at ed R ul e 704( b) of the Feder al Ru l e s o f E v i d e n c e wh e n i ta l l o we d Of f i c e rM a r e s c a t o t e s t i f

ya s t o h i s b e l i e f

th a tBr o wn h a d so ld a n a rc o tic in th e m o m e n ts b e f o re h e w a s a rre ste d . B ro w n ’s a rg u m e n t is d e v o id o f m e rit. 17

R ule 704(b) of t he F ederal R ules of E vidence st at es: “[n]o ex pertw i tness t est i fy i ng w i th respectt o the m ental st at e or con dit i on of a d efen dan ti n a cri m i nal cas e m ays t at e an opi ni on ori nfer ence as t o w hetherthe def endantdi d ordi d nothave the m ent al s t at e orcondi t i on cons t i tut i ng an el ementof the cr i m e cha r ged . . . . ” Ti t l e 21 U . S. C . § 841( a) ( 1) has tw o pr ongs : ( 1) know i ng pos s es s i on of a c ontr ol l ed s ubs t ance and (2 ) in ten t to d istrib u te it. A n e x p e rt w itn e ss is th u s p ro h ib ited f ro m tes tify in g th a t a d e f e n d a n t k n o w in g ly p o s s e s s e d o r h a d th e in te n t to d is tr ib u te a c o n tr o lle d s u b s ta n c e . S e e R u le 7 0 4 (b ), F e d e ra l R u le s o f E v id e n c e ; 2 1 U .S .C . § 8 4 1 (a )( 1 ). B r ow n has notpr es ent ed anyevi dence orauthor i tythatw oul d l ead us t o concl ude thatO ffi cerM ar es ca t es t i fi ed as an expe r tforR ul e 704( b) purpos es . E ven i f O ffi cer M a re s c a d id te s tif

ya s a n e x p e rt , h o w e v e r, h is te s tim o n yw o u ld n o t v io la te R u le 7 0 4 (b ). In U n it ed S tat es v . D av is, 3 9 7 F . 3 d 1 7 3 , 1 7 9 (3d C ir . 2 0 0 5 ), w e h eld th at an o ff icer’s e x p e rt tes tim o n yd id n o t v io late R u le 7 0 4 (b ) w h e n h e sta ted th a t, ba se d o n h is e x p e rie n c e , the a c tio n s o f a d e f e n d a n t w e re c o n sis ten t w ith p o ss e ss io n w ith in ten t to di s tr i but e nar cot i cs . O ffi cerM ar es ca pr ovi ded eve n l es s t es t i m onyr egar di ng i nt ent wh e n h e s t a t e d th a th e wi tn e s s e d Br o wn h a n d s e v e r a l i n d i v i d u a l s “ s ma l l i t e ms ” f r o m a b a g i n e x c h a n g e f

o rmo n e ya n d th a th e b e l i e v e d h e s a w “ a n a r c o t i c s s a l e . ” Ap p . 3 1 . As i n D avi s , 397 F. 3d at179, the governm ent“di d notr epea t edl yr efe rt o the i ndi vi dual defe ndant ’ s s t at e of mi nd w hen ques t i oni ng the [w i tnes s ] . ” Fur therm or e, w hi l e the offi ceri n D avi s r efe r ence d “i nt ent , ” O ffi cerM ar es ca ne verm ent i oned B r ow n’ s “ment alW e e x erc ise p lena ryrev iew o v er this l eg al ch all en g e to th e D istri ct C o u rt ’s 2 ap p li ca ti o n o f th e A C C A . S ee U n it ed S tat es v . Jo n es, 33 2 F . 3 d 6 8 8 , 6 9 0 -69 1 (3d C ir . 2 0 0 3 ). 8 s t at e, ” “mens r ea, ” “i nt ent , ” or“know l edge” i n hi s t es t i m ony . See i d. ; U ni t ed St at es v. P ric e , 4 5 8 F .3 d 2 0 2 , 2 1 2 (3 d C ir. 2 0 0 6 ) (h o ld in g th a t an o f f ice r’s e x p e rt tes tim o n yd id notvi ol at e R ul e 704( b) beca us e he ne vers ai d a “w or d about[the def endant ’ s ] m ent al s ta te ” ). A ccor di ngl y , the D i s tr i ctC our tdi d notexce ed the perm i s s i bl e bounds of dis cret i on i n all ow i ng O ffi cer M ares ca t o tes t i fyas t o h i s observat i on s. I V. B r ow n nextar gues thatthe D i s tr i ctC our ti m pr oper l yenhanc ed hi s s ent ence as an a r me d c a r e e rc r i mi n a l u n d e r1 8 U. S . C. § 9 2 4 ( e ) . Br o wn c o n t e n d s th a th e h a d o n l ytwo p ri o r c o n v ic tio n s th a t c o u ld p o s s ib ly b e d e e m e d “ v io le n t” o r “ s e ri o u s ” f ro m th e P S R . W e agr ee. 2 T he A r m ed C ar eerC r i m i nal A cts t at es , “[i ] n the ca s e of a per s on w ho vi ol at es sec ti o n 9 2 2 (g) o f th is t it le an d h as th ree p rev iou s co n v ict ion s . . . fo r a v iolen t felon yo r a s er i ous drug offe ns e, orboth, comm i t t ed on occ as i ons di ffe r entfr om one another , s uch per s on s hal l be fi ned underthi s t i t l e and i m pr i s oned notl es s than fi ft een y ear s . . . . ” 18 U . S . C . § 9 2 4 (e)(1). B as ed on the PSR , the D i s tr i ctC our tfound thatB r ow n had four“s er i ous ” or “vi ol ent ” convi ct i ons — tw o drug offe ns es and tw o r obber i es — and s ent ence d hi m as an9

a rm e d c a re e r c rim in a l. T h e g o v e rn m e n t n o w c o n c e d e s th a t th e P S R w a s in su f f icie n t to det erm i ne w hethertw o of the fouroffe ns es w er e “s er i ous , ” s o thos e off ens es cannot qu a l i fya s c on vi c t i on s fo r§ 9 24 ( e ) ( 1) pu rpo s e s . Se e Tay l orv. U ni t e d St a t e s , 49 5 U. S. 57 5, 59 9 (199 0) ( ho l ding t hat the sentenci ng j ud ge m ustl oo k to chargi ng do cum ents , pl ea c ol l oqui es orj uryi ns truct i ons , w her e a s t at e’ s defi ni t i on of a c r i m e i s br oaderthan the def i ni t i on thats at i s fi es A C C A enhanc ement ) ; Shepar d v. U ni t ed St at es , 544 U . S. 13, 15 ( 2005) ( uphol di ng T ay l orbutrul i ng thata s ent enci ng j udge ca nnotl ook t o pol i ce re p o rt s ). T h is le a v e s B ro w n w ith o n ly tw o q u a lif y in g c o n v ic tio n s . O n a p p e a l, th e g o v e rn m e n t p o in ts to y e t an o th e r c o n v ictio n listed in th e P S R in th e h o p e o f

s a tis f y in g th e A C C A ’s th re e -c o n v ic tio n re q u ir e m e n t: a n a g g ra v a te d a s s a u lt. T hus , the governm entnow ar gues thatB r ow n qual i fi es as an arm ed ca r eercr i m i nal b e c a u s e h e h a s tw o p ri o r r o b b e ry c o n v ic tio n s a n d o n e c o n v ic tio n f o r a g g ra v a te d a s s a u lt. T h e g o v e rn m e n t, ho w e v e r, d o e s n o t p ro v id e u s w ith a n ya u th o rityth a t w o u ld a llo w u s to cons i derthe addi t i onal offe ns e. E ven i f w e w er e t o exami ne thes e thr ee c onvi ct i ons , t he g o v e rn m e n t’ s a tte m p t to q u a lif yB ro w n a s a n a rm e d c a re e r c ri m in a l w o u ld s till f a il. B as ed on the r ecor d as i ts t ands , i ti s i m pos s i bl e t o concl ude thatB r ow n w as convi ct ed of thr ee of

fens es “comm i t t ed on occ as i ons di ffe r entfr om one another. . . , ” as r equi r ed b yth e A C C A . 1 8 U .S .C . § 9 2 4 (e )( 1 ). A ts e n t e n c i n g , B r o w n o b j e c t e d th a th i s s e c o n d r o b b e ry c o n v i c t i o n w a s r e a l l y a convi ct i on forcons pi r acyt o comm i tr obberyand w as comm i t t ed atthe s ame t i m e as one10

of the otherconvi ct i ons . B r ow n s t at ed thathe had e vi dence t o thi s eff ectforthe D i s tr i ct C o u rt to c o n s id e r. T he PSR does notr efut e B r ow n’ s cont ent i on. T he arr es tdat es forthe aggr avat ed as s aul tand the s econd r obberyar e i dent i cal , s ugges t i ng a conne ct i on. W e al s o not e that the Pr obat i on O ffi ce di d notadd anyaddi t i onal cr i m i nal hi s t orypoi nt s t o B r ow n’ s t ot al as a r es ul tof the s econd r obberyconvi ct i on, ci t i ng U . S. S. G . § 4A 1. 2( a) ( 2) . T hats ect i on sta tes : Pr i ors ent ence s i m pos ed i n unr el at ed ca s es ar e t o be count ed

s epar at el y . Pr i ors ent ence s i m pos ed i n r el at ed ca s es ar e t o be tr eat ed as one s ent ence forpurpos es of § 4A 1. 1( a) , ( b) , and (c ). U . S. S. G . § 4A 1. 2( a) ( 2) . I ti s ther efor e conc ei vabl e thatthe s econd r obberym ayhave b e e n a “ p ri o r s e n te n c e im p o s e d in a re la te d c a s e .” Id . T he Supr eme C our thas author i zed di s tr i ctcourt s t o l ook atcert i fi ed r ecor ds of convi ct i ons , s t atut oryel ement s , char gi ng document s orj uryi ns truct i ons t o cl ar i fys uch a m b ig u iti e s. S e e T a y lo r, 4 9 5 U .S . at 6 0 2 ; S h e p a rd , 5 4 4 U .S . at 1 5 . T h e g o v e rn m e n t, h o w e v e r, d id n o t p re s e n t a n ys u c h a d d itio n a l e v id e n c e f o r t h e D is tr ic t C o u rt to c o n s id e r. T h e g o v e rn me n t , th e r e f o r e , h a s n o tme ti t s b u r d e n u n d e rth e AC CA t o p r o v e th a tBr o wn has been c onvi ct ed of thr ee s er i ous drug offe ns es orvi ol entfel oni es comm i t t ed on separat e occa si on s. W e w ill r e m a n d f

o r r e s e n te n c in g . V.T he i s s ue pr es ent ed i s a ques t i on of l aw , s o ourr evi ew i s pl enary . See U ni t ed 3 S ta te s v . H u g g in s , 4 6 7 F .3 d 3 5 9 , 3 6 1 (3 d C ir . 2 0 0 6 ). 11 F in a lly , B ro w n a rg u e s th a t th e D istric t C o u rt se n ten c e d h im to a ter m o f im p riso n m e n t in exce s s of the s t atut orym axi m um forcomm i t t i ng pos s es s i on w i th i nt entt o di s tr i but e,

pur s uantt o 21 U . S. C . § 841( a) ( 1) . W e agr ee. 3 T he governm entconce des thatthe D i s tr i ctC our t ’ s s ent ence of 25 y ear s on the 21 U. S . C. § 8 4 1 ( a ) ( 1 ) v i o l a t i o n e x c e e d s th e s t a tu t o ryma x i mu m o f 2 0 y e a r s . Ti t l e 2 1 U. S . C. § 841( b) ( 1) ( C ) s et s a maxi m um s ent ence of 20 y ear s unl es s the def endanthas a pr i or co n v ict ion fo r a f

elon yd rug o ff

en se, i n w h ich c ase the m ax im u m is 30 y ea rs. H o w ev er, 2 1 U .S .C . § 8 5 1 (a )( 1 ) s ta te s ,

[n ]o p erso n w h o stan d s co n v ict ed o f a n o ff en se u n d er this pa rt s hal l be s ent ence d t o i ncr eas ed puni s hm entbyr eas on of one orm or e pr i orconvi ct i ons , unl es s befor e tr i al . . . the U ni t ed St at es att orneyfi l es an i nform at i on w i th the court. . . s t at i ng i n w r i t i ng the pr evi ous convi ct i ons t o be r el i ed upon. T he pr os ecut ordi d notfi l e an i nform at i on w i th the D i s tr i ctC our t , s o B r ow n’ s s ent ence cannotexce ed 20 y ear s on hi s 21 U . S. C . § 841( a) ( 1) vi ol at i on. A ccor di ngl y , w e w i l l r emand t o the D i s tr i ctC our tforr es ent enci ng on thi s i s s ue a s w e ll. ****** W e have cons i der ed al l cont ent i ons of the part i es and conc l ude thatno fur ther d i s c u s s i o n i s n e c e s s a r y. T he convi ct i on w i l l be af fi r m ed and the s ent ence w i l l be r emanded.