2010 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 9-20-2010 

# U SA v . Mich a el B arrett 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 . 09-1378

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_2010

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 2010 D e c i sion s b y an author i 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 . Mich a e l B arr e tt " (2010). 2010 D e cisio n s . P ape r 579. http://d i git alc ommon s .l a

w . vi ll anova . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2010/579NOT P RE CE DE NT I AL UN I TED STATES CO UR T OF A PP EALS F O R T H E T H IR D C IR C U IT N o. 09- 1378 UNI TE D ST ATE S OF AM ERI CA

v. M I CH AEL B AR RETT, A ppel l ant A p p ea l from the U n it ed S tat es D istri ct C o u rt f o r th e E a ste rn D istric t o f P e n n sy lv a n ia ( D . C . C r i m i nal N o. 2- 07- cr - 00001- 002) D i s t r i ctJ udge: H onor abl e J . C ur t i s J oyner Subm i t t ed U nderT hi r d C i r cui tL A R 34. 1( a)

Sept ember13, 2010 B efore: R E N D E L L , F ISH E R and G A R T H , C i rcui tJudg es.

( Fi l ed: Sept ember20, 2010) OPI NI ON O F THE COURT R E N D E L L , C i r cui tJ udge. D efe ndantM i chae l B arr et tappea l s hi s convi ct i ons and s ent ence on drug and gun char ges s t emm i ng fr om t w o s epar at e arr es t s , the fi r s ti n connec t i on w i t h a pol i ce s ear ch o f a n a p a rt m e n t a n d th e s e c o n d in c o n n e c tio n w ith a p o lic e s e a rc h o f B a rr e tt’ s c a r.T he D i s t r i ctC our thad j ur i s di ct i on pur s uantt o 18 U . S. C . § 3231. O ur 1 juri sd ict ion arises u n d er 2 8 U . S . C . § 1 2 9 1 an d 1 8 U . S . C . § 3 7 4 2 (a). 2 B arr et tw as convi ct ed of pos s es s i on of her oi n, coca i ne bas e, and mar i j uana; pos s es s i on of a fi r earm i n fur t her ance of drug t r aff i cki ng; pos s es s i on of a f i r earm bya convi ct ed fe l on; a n d re la te d s c h o o l- p ro x im ity c o u n ts b a s e d o n c h a rg e s a ri s in g o u t o f th e a p a rt m e n t s e a rc h . T h e D istric t C o u rt h e ld a se p a ra te tria l f o r th e c h a rg e s a risin g o u t o f th e c a r se a rc h , in w hi ch B arr et tw as convi ct ed of pos s es s i on of a f i r earm bya convi ct ed fe l on butacqui t t ed of m ar i j uana pos s es s i on, pos s es s i on of a f i r earm i n fur t her ance of drug tr aff i cki ng, and a re la te d s c h o o l- p ro x im ity c o u n t. B arr et t ’ s appea l r ai s es fouri s s ues : 1) he cha l l enges the D i s t r i ctC our t ’ s admi s s i on of the t es t i m onyof tw o di ffe r entpol i ce of fi cer s underFeder al R ul es of Evi dence 701( c) and 704( b) ; 2) he cha l l enges t he s uffi ci encyof the evi dence us ed t o es t abl i s h cons t ruct i ve pos s es s i on i n bot h t r i al s and t o es t abl i s h t hatpos s es s i on of a f i r earm i n t he fi r s ttr i al w as i n fur t her ance of drug t r aff i cki ng; 3) he cha l l enges the r eas onabl enes s of hi s s ent ence ; and 4) he as ks t o pr es erve hi s r i ghtt o m ove fora new tr i al pendi ng the out come of l aw e n f o rc e m e n t in v e stig a tio n s o f O f f ice r Je f f re yC u jd ik . W e f

in d th a t n o n e o f

h is a rg u m e n ts h a s me r i t , a n d we wi l l a f f i r m. 1 I. B arr et tfi r s tar gues t hatt he D i s t r i ctC our terr ed w hen i tadmi t t ed ( a) the t es t i m ony of Phi l adel phi a Pol i ce Ser geantM i chae l G or m an thatthe evi dence found i n t he apa r t m entB arr et tobj ect ed t o G or m an’ s t es t i m ony , butonl yon r el evanc e gr ounds , even 2 th o u g h th e D istric t C o u rt sp e c if ica llyra ise d th e q u e stio n o f G o rm a n ’s q u a lific a tio n s to offe rt he t es t i m ony . U ndert hes e ci r cumst ance s , w e ca nnotconcl ude thatthe s ubs t ance of B arrett ’s R u le 70 1 an d 7 0 4 o b jecti o n s “w ere m ad e k n o w n to the co u rtb yo ff er” o r w ere “ a p p a re n t f

ro m th e c o n te x t w ith in w h ic h q u e s tio n s w e re a s k e d .” F e d . R . E v id . 1 0 3 (a )( 2 ). 3 i n w hi ch B arr et tw as arr es t ed w as cons i s t entw i t h a l ar ge- s cal e drug oper at i on and ( b) t he t e s t i mo n yo f

De t e c t i v e F r e d d i e Ch a v e s c o n c e r n i n g th e c o n n e c t i o n b e t we e n th e f i r e a r ms found i n t he apa r t m entand the drug oper at i on. S erg ea n t G o rm an test ifi ed that the e v iden ce rec o v ere d fro m the a p artm en t w h ere B arr et tw as arr es t ed r efl ect ed “a l ar ge- s cal e oper at i on forthe s al e of he r oi n and coc ai ne” and thatt he “i ndi vi dual s t hatw er e i ns i de of thi s l ocat i on w er e runni ng a l ar ge- s cal e” o p e ra tio n . B a rre tt arg u e s th a t th is te stim o n yw a s im p e rm iss ib le la yo p in io n tes tim o n yin vi ol at i on of Feder al R ul e of Evi dence 701 or , al t ernat i vel y , thatthe t es t i m onypr ovi ded an i m perm i s s i bl e expe r topi ni on as t o the def endant ’ s m ent al s t at e i n vi ol at i on of Feder al R u le o f E v id e n c e 7 0 4 (b ). B e c a u se B a rre tt fa iled to p re se rv e th e se iss u e s a t trial, w e re v iew th e m f o r p lain erro r. See U

ni t ed Stat es v. B oone , 279 F. 3d 163, 174 n. 6 ( 3d C i r . 2002) . T h u s, B a rre tt 2 m u st s h o w th a t th e D istric t C o u rt e rre d , tha t th e e rro r is s o o b v io u s u n d e r th e law so a s to b e p la in , a n d th a t th e e rr o r a f f e c te d s u b s ta n tia l r ig h ts . See J ohns on v. U

ni t ed Stat es , 520 U .S . 4 6 1 , 4 6 7 (1 9 9 7 ). B arr et tcannots at i s fyt hi s s t andar d. H i s fi r s tar gum entfai l s beca us e Ser geant G o rm a n ’s o p in io n th a t th e e v id e n c e re c o v e re d f ro m th e tra sh p u lls re f

lec ted a lar g e -sc a le4

drug oper at i on w as notbas ed on any“s ci ent i fi c, t echni cal , orot hers peci al i zed know l edge. ” Fed. R . E vi d. 701. I n l i ghtof uncontr over t ed t es t i m onythatthe pol i ce ha d, on s ever al occa s i ons , r ecove r ed bags cont ai ni ng coca i ne and he r oi n r es i due and other m a ter ials c o m m o n lyu se d to p a c k a g e d ru g s (r u b b e r g lo v e s, a su rg ica l m a sk , an d e m p ty baki ng s oda boxes ) fr om t r as h t hatcame fr om i ns i de the apa r t m ent , G or m an’ s concl us i on t hatt he apa r t m entw as us ed t o conducta “l ar ge- s cal e” drug oper at i on w as the s or tof concl us i on t hatanyr eas onabl e l ayper s on coul d have r eac hed; i tdi d notr efl ectany p a rt ic u la r e x p e rt is e . See Fed. R . E vi d. 701 advi s orycomm i t t ee not es ( expl ai ni ng that tes tim o n yth a t “‘ re su lts f ro m a p ro c e ss o f

re a so n in g f

a m ili a r in e v e ry d a ylife ’” is perm i s s i bl e undert he R ul e) ( quot i ng S ta t e v . Br o wn , 8 3 6 S . W . 2 d 5 3 0 , 5 4 9 (T en n . 1 9 9 2 )). S im ilarly , G o rm a n ’s te stim o n yth a t “th e in d iv id u a ls th a t w e re in sid e o f th is lo c a tio n ” w e re ru n n in g a la rg e -s c a le d ru g o p e ra tio n d id n o t v io la te R u le 7 0 4 (b ). G or m an’ s t es t i m onyconce r ned a c ts thatw er e occ urr i ng i ns i de the apa r t m entand di d not offe ran opi ni on on any one’ s m ent al s t at e. M or eover , the cont extof G or m an’ s t es t i m ony m akes cl eart hathe w as s peaki ng gener al l yaboutw hoeverw as oper at i ng outof the apart m ent , notaboutB arr et ti n par t i cul ar . T hus , G or m an w as not“t es t i fy i ng w i t h r es pect t o t he ment al s t at e orcondi t i on of” the def endant , Fed. R . E vi d. 704( b) , and the D i s t r i ct C o u r td i d n o tp l a i n l y e r ri n a d m i t t i n g h i s t e s t i m o n y. B arrettalso arg u es th at D etec ti v e C h av es’s testi m o n yv iolated R u le 70 4 (b). B eca us e B arr et tpr oper l ypr es erved hi s obj ect i on t o C haves ’ s t es t i m ony , w e r evi ew forO u r sta n d a rd o f re v iew f o r c h a llen g e s to th e su f f icie n c yo f

e v id e n c e p re se n ted to 3 a ju ry is p a rt ic u la rl yd e f e re n tia l. U

ni t ed Stat es v. D ent , 1 4 9 F .3 d 1 8 0 , 1 8 7 (3 d C ir . 1 9 9 8 ). W e vi ew t he evi dence i n t he l i ghtm os tfavor abl e t o the governm ent , and w i l l s us t ai n t he v e r d i c ti f a n yr a t i o n a l t r i e ro f

f a c tc o u l d h a v e f

o u n d th e e s s e n t i a l e l e me n t s o f th e c r i me b e y o n d a re a s o n a b le d o u b t. Id . (c ita tio n s o m itte d ). 5 a b u s e o f d is c re tio n . U

ni t ed Stat es v. W

at s on , 2 6 0 F .3 d 3 0 1 , 3 0 6 (3 d C ir . 2 0 0 1 ). D et ect i ve C haves w as qual i fi ed and t es t i fi ed as an expe r ton t he conne ct i on betw een drugs and guns . H e des cr i bed the gene r al connec t i on betw een drugs and guns and t es t i fi ed thatt he pr es ence of guns i n t he apa r t m enti n w hi ch B arr ettw as arr es t ed w as

“ c o n sis ten t” w ith th e u se o f g u n s f o r p ro tec tio n in a d ru g o p e ra tio n . T h e tes tim o n yd id notr efe r ence B arr et t( and, i n fac t , C haves el s ew her e made cl earthathe w as noti nvol ved in the inv esti g ati o n an d h is t esti m o n yh ad “[ n ]oth ing to d o w ith the p erso n s w h o w ere arr es t ed”) orpr ovi de anyi ns i ghti nt o anypart i cul ari ndi vi dual ’ s s t at e of mi nd. T her efor e, th e D is tr ic t C o u rt ’s d e c is io n to a d m it th e te s tim o n yw a s n o t a n a b u s e o f d is c re tio n . See U n itedS ta tes v . D a v is , 397 F. 3d 173, 179 ( 3d C i r . 2005) ( fi ndi ng no abus e of di s cr et i on w h e re d istric t co u rt a d m itt e d e x p e rt tes tim o n yth a t p ro v id e d “ n o p o ten tial f o r th e ju ryto concl ude” thatt he w i t nes s “had a nys peci al i ns i ghti nt o t he thought s ori nt entof the d ef en d an ts”). II. B arr et t ’ s s econd a r gum enti ncorpor at es thr ee s uffi ci encyof the evi dence chall eng es. 3 F irst, B a rre tt co n ten d s th a t th e g o v e rn m e n t p re se n ted in su f f icie n t ev id e n c e to6

es t abl i s h t hathe cons t ruct i vel ypos s es s ed the drugs and fi r earm s found i n t he s ear ch of t he apa r t m ent . “C ons t ruct i ve pos s es s i on exi s t s i f an i ndi vi dual know i ngl yhas both t he pow erand the i nt ent i on ata gi ven t i m e t o exer ci s e domi ni on orcontr ol overa thi ng, ei t herdi r ect l yort hr ough anotherper s on orper s ons . ” U ni t ed Stat es v. I

af el i ce , 978 F. 2d 92, 96 ( 3d C i r . 1992) ( i nt ernal quot at i ons om i t t ed) . D om i ni on and contr ol need notbe excl us i ve, butt heym us tbe es t abl i s hed bys om ethi ng m or e than “[ m ] er e pr oxi m i t y . ” U nited S tates v. Introcaso , 5 0 6 F .3 d 2 6 0 , 2 7 0 -7 1 (3 d C ir . 2 0 0 7 )( c ita tio n s o m itte d ). H er e, i n addi t i on t o havi ng been f ound i n an apa r t m entcont ai ni ng drugs and p a c k a g i n g ma t e r i a l i n p l a i n v i e w i n th e k i t c h e n a n d g u n s h i d d e n i n th e l i v i n g r o o m, B arr et thad a ke yt o t he apa r t m enti n hi s pocket ; he w as obs erved bythe pol i ce di s pos i ng of tr as h fr om t he apa r t m entt hatw as found t o cont ai n drugs and drug packa gi ng par aphernal i a; and he f

l ed t o t he s econd f

l oorw hen the pol i ce a r r i ved t o exec ut e the w arr ant . T hus , t he governm entdi d notr el ys ol el yon B arr ett ’ s pr oxi m i t yt o t he drugs or guns , and evi dence of B arr et t ’ s cons t ruct i ve pos s es s i on of the drugs and guns w as suffici ent t o sup po rtt he jury ’s con vict i on s. Second, B arr et tar gues t hatt he evi dence pr es ent ed w as i ns uffi ci entt o s uppor tt he j ur y ’ s convi ct i on forpos s es s i on of the guns i n fur t her ance of drug tr aff i cki ng act i vi t i es under18 U . S. C . § 924( c) . I n U ni t ed Stat es v. Spar r ow , 3 7 1 F . 3 d 8 5 1 , 8 5 3 (3d C ir . 2 0 0 4 ), w e s etfor t h t he fol l ow i ng, nonexcl us i ve l i s tof fa ct or s thatar e r el evantt o es t abl i s h a connec t i on betw een guns and drug t r aff i cki ng act i vi t i es forpurpos es of cha r ges br ought7

under§ 924( c) : t he type of drug act i vi t y , the ac ces s i bi l i t yof the w eapon, w hetherthe w eapon i s s t ol en, w hetherpos s es s i on of the w eapon i s l egi t i m at e ori l l egal , w hethert he w eapon i s l oaded, pr oxi m i t yt o drugs r ecove r ed, and the t i m e and c i r cumst ance s of r ecove r y . A l l of thos e fa ct or s s uppor tthe convi ct i on i n t hi s cas e, w her e the evi dence sh o w e d th a t th e p re m ise s w e re u se d to p a c k a g e d ru g s; th e g u n s w e re e a silya c c e ss ib le to anyper s on i n t he apa r t m ent ; one of the w eapons di d nothave a s er i al num berand the ot herw as s t ol en; B arr et tdi d nothave a perm i tforthe guns and, as a convi ct ed fe l on, w as pr ohi bi t ed fr om ow ni ng a fi r earm ; the w eapons w er e l oaded; and the guns w er e r ecove r ed dur i ng t he exe cut i on of a dul yauthor i zed w arr ant . T hus , on t hi s char ge, t oo, the evi dence s uppor t ed the j ur y ’ s convi ct i on. T hi r d, B arr et tchal l enges t he s uffi ci encyof the evi dence pr es ent ed i n t he s econd tr ial to es tablish tha t he p o sses sed the g u n that the p o li ce fo u n d in h is ve h icl e. H ere agai n, t he evi dence w as s uffi ci entt o s uppor tthe j ury ’ s ver di ct . B arr ettow ned, and w as t he onl ypas s engeri n, t he ca rt hatw as the s ubj ectof the s ear ch. T he governm entoffe r ed tes tim o n yth a t B a rre tt w a s u n d e r p o lice su rv e ill a n c e , tha t h e w a s o b se rv e d e n g a g in g in w hatappea r ed t o be nar cot i cs s al es , and thathe r an a r ed l i ghtt o avoi d pol i ce su rv e ill a n c e , af

ter w h ich h e w a s s to p p e d a n d a rre ste d . T h e p o lice se c u re d a w a rra n t to s e a rc h th e c a r, a n d f

o u n d th e g u n , w h ic h w a s lo a d e d , u n d e r t h e f ro n t p a s s e n g e r f

lo o r m a t. T aken t ogether , B arr et t ’ s ow ner s hi p and oper at i on of the ca rand the ci r cumst ance s su rro u n d in g B a rre tt’s a rre st p ro v id e su f f icie n t ev id e n c e th a t B a rre tt co n stru c tiv e ly8

p o s s e s s e d th e g u n . See U ni t ed Stat es v. I

af el i ce , 9 7 8 F .2 d 9 2 , 9 7 (3 d C ir . 1 9 9 2 ). A c c o rd in g ly , w e w ill n o t d istu rb th e ju ry ’s v e rd ict. III . Ba r r e t t ’ s t h i r d i s s u e o n a p p e a l c h a l l e n g e s th e r e a s o n a b l e n e s s o f h i s s e n t e n c e . As B a rr e tt d id n o t r a is e h is o b je c tio n a t s e n te n c in g , o u r r e v ie w is f o r p la in e rr o r. See U

ni t ed Stat es v. C ouch , 2 9 1 F .3 d 2 5 1 , 2 5 2 -5 3 (3 d C ir . 2 0 0 2 ). B arr et tar gues t hatt he D i s t r i ctC our terr ed i n adopt i ng a s ent enci ng cal cul at i on t hat i ncorpor at ed the por t i on of U . S. Sent enci ng G ui del i nes § 2D 1. 1 t hattr eat s 1 gr am of cr ack c ocai ne as t he equi val entof 100 gr ams of pow dercoca i ne forpurpos es of ca lculati n g an o ff

en d er’s B ase O ff

en se L ev el. A cc o rdin g to B arrett , the D istri ct C o u rt “s houl d have s t ar t ed the s ent enci ng anal y s i s w i t h a gui del i nes r ange thatw as cal cul at ed us i ng a l ow err at i o t han 100: 1. ” A pp. B r . 45. T hi s chal l enge f

ai l s , fort w o r eas ons . Fi r s t , the D i s t r i ctC our tdi d noterri n us i ng t he r at i o s etfor t h i n § 2D 1. 1 t o cal cul at e B arr ett ’ s B as e O ffe ns e Level . I n K i m br ough v. U ni t ed Stat es , 552 U . S. 85 ( 2007) , and Spears v. U ni t ed Stat es , 129 S. C t . 840 ( 2009) , t he S u p re m e C o u rt h e ld o n lyth a t a s e n ten c in g c o u rt m ay d e p a rt f ro m th e G u id e lin e s’ 1 0 0 :1 ra tio , n o t th a t it m ustd o s o . See, e. g. , U nited S tates v. W

ise , 5 1 5 F . 3 d 2 0 7 , 2 2 3 (3d C ir . 2 0 0 8 ) (ho lding , af

ter K i m br ough , t hats ent ence i m pos ed bas ed on r ange c al cul at ed us i ng 1 0 0 :1 ra tio w a s n o t s u b s ta n tiv e ly u n re a s o n a b le ). Second, even a s s um i ng t hatB arr ett ’ s B as e O ffe ns e Level had bee n cal cul at ed9

in c o rre c tly(a lth o u g h , as d isc u ss e d a b o v e , itw a s n o t), th a t w o u ld n o t h a v e a f f e c ted h is g u id e lin e se n ten c in g ra n g e . B a rre tt’s se n ten c in g ra n g e w a s d e ter m in e d b a se d o n h is st atus as careeroff

end er unde r Sentenci ng G uidel i ne § 4B 1. 1, w hich y i el ded an o ffen se lev e l o f 3 4 a n d su p e rse d e d h is § 2 D 1 .1 B a se O f f e n se L e v e l o f

2 8 . C h a n g in g th e ra tio u s e d to c a lc u la te B a rr e tt’ s § 2 D 1 .1 B a s e O f f e n s e L e v e l w o u ld n o t c h a n g e h is § 4 B 1 .1 c a re e r o f f e n d e r o f f e n se lev e l an d , the re f

o re , w o u ld n o t lo w e r B a rre tt’s u lti m a te s e n te n c in g ra n g e . C

f. U ni t ed Stat es v. Mat eo , 560 F. 3d 152, 154- 55 ( 3d C i r . 2009) ( w her e def

endant ’ s s ent enci ng r ange w as det erm i ned bythe al t ernat i ve ca r eeroffe nder lev e l se t f

o rth in § 4 B 1 .1 , d istric t co u rt d id n o t er r in d e n y in g d e f e n d a n t’s m o tio n to red u ce h is B ase O ff

en se L ev el). I V. F in a lly , B a rre tt as k s th is C o u rt to p re se rv e h is rig h t to c h a llen g e h is c o n v ictio n a t a futur e dat e pendi ng t he out come of ongoi ng s t at e and f eder al i nves t i gat i ons of Phi l adel phi a Pol i ce O ffi cerJ eff r eyC uj di k. O ffi cerC uj di k i s underi nves t i gat i on bas ed o n a lleg a tio n s th a t h e e n g a g e d in m isc o n d u c t in th e p re p a ra tio n o f se a rc h w a rra n ts i nvol vi ng a part i cul arconfi dent i al i nform ant . O ffi cerC uj di k w as notthe af fi anton t he w arr antus ed t o s ear ch the apa r t m entthatl ed t o B arr ett ’ s arr es t , and the conf i dent i al i nform anti m pl i cat ed i n t he i nves t i gat i ons i s notthe conf i dent i al i nform anton w hom t he pol i ce r el i ed i n B arr et t ’ s cas e. I n fac t , B arr ettdoes notal l ege w r ongdoi ng byC uj di k or anyot heroffi ceri n connec t i on w i t h t hi s cas e; he ar gues onl ythatthe i nves t i gat i ons m i ght10

tur n up evi dence t hathe coul d us e t o chal l enge hi s convi ct i on ata l at erdat e. W e denyB arr et t ’ s r eques t . B arr ettdoes nots eek a nyi m m edi at e r el i ef, and does notpoi ntus t o anyauthor i t yt hatw oul d al l ow us t o hol d hi s cas e i n abey ance pendi ng t he out come of t he ongoi ng i nves t i gat i ons . Shoul d t he i nves t i gat i ons uncoverany i nform at i on t hati m pact s B arr et t ’ s convi ct i on, B arr ettm ayappl yt o t he D i s t r i ctC our tfor a p p ro p ri a te p o s t- c o n v ic tio n re lie f. See 2 8 U .S .C . § 2 2 5 5 . V. F o r t h e f o re g o in g re a s o n s , w e w ill a f f ir m th e ju d g m e n t o f

th e D is tr ic t C o u rt .