## 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. 07

- 1297 U NI T ED S TATE SOF A MERI CA, P la intif f-A pp ellee, v. R ICK EY C LARK, D ef endant-Appellant.

____________ A pp eal from the United S t ates Di strictC our t fo r the N o rthernDi stricto f Illino is, Eas tern Div isi on. No . 02 C R 1129

—Jo an B. G ott schall, Judg e.

____________ A RGUED A PRI L 15, 2008

— D ECIDED A UGUS T 19, 2008

____________
Befo re C UDAH Y, K ANN E , a nd S YKES, C ircu it Judges . K ANN E , Cir cu i tJudg e . Ri ckeyCl ar k e nter ed a b l i nd gui l ty ple a w i th re spect to one count of conspi ring to p os sess c oc ain e w ith int en t t o d ist rib u te , see 21 U. S
. C
. § 8 46 , a nd one count o fposs ess i ng co cai ne with i ntent to dis tr ibute, s e e id. § 8 4 1 ( a ) ( 1 )
. Th e di s t r i c t c o ur t de t e r mi ne d b y a preponderance o fthe evidence that Clar k had poss ess ed be twe en1 5 a nd 50 ki l o g r ams ofco ca i ne . A t th e se nt en cing h ea rin g, th e g ov er n m en t’s at to rn ey rep ea te d ly s ta te d , in2 N o. 07

- 1297

er r o r, tha t Cl ar kwas no t su bj ec t to a m an dat o r y min i m um sente nce. The j ud ge consi dered the 18 U
. S. C. § 3553( a) sente nci ng fac to rs and i m posed a sente nce o f48 m onths’ i mpr i s o nme nt
. T he v e r y n e xtda y, the g o v e r nme ntfi l e d a m ot ion to co rre c t t h e s en te n c e, see Fed
. R
. C rim
. P. 3 5 (a), base d on t h e f act that the c ourtwas re quir ed to i m pose a m an datory m i ni m um s en te nc e o ft eny ea r s due t o the quanti ty ofco cai ne Cl ar k pos ses sed, s e e 2 1 U. S
. C. § 841(b)(1)( A )( ii ). T h e cou rt agreed that the m an d atory m inim um ap p li ed , an d it am en d ed th e j ud gm en t to c orre c t t h e s en te n c e. B ec au se th e d ist ric t c ou rtac te d w ith in i ts pow eru nd erFe deralRule o fCri m i nalPro cedure 35( a) w he n it corrected Clark’ s s en ten ce to refl ect th e statu tory m andator y m i ni m um , we affi rm Cl ar k’ s s entence
.
I. H IS TORY Ri ck ey Cl ar kwas c ha r g ed i n a mul ti

- co unti ndi ct m en t f orhi s par ti ci pati on in a c oca i ne- dist ributi on co ns p iracy. W i thout a w ritten ple a a gr eem ent fro m the gov er nm ent, Cl ar kpl ed g ui l ty to two o f th e ch ar g ed co unt s: c o ns pi r i ng t o p os se ss co c ain e w ith int en t t o d ist rib u te , i d. § 8 4 6, a nd p os se ss in g coc ain e w ith in te n t to d ist rib u te , i d. § 841(a)( 1). Cl a r kdi d n o tadm i ttha th i s o ffe ns e s i nv o l v e d a par ti cul arqua nt i tyofc o ca i ne , a nd he mai nt aine d thr o ug ho utthe pr o ce edings tha t he po ss es se d l es s th ano ne ki l ogr am . H e a l so ar gued that the quanti ty ofdrugs at i ssue i s a n el em ent o fhi s 2 1 U.S
. C. § 8 41 offense, and that th e F i ftha nd S i xth Am en dm en ts pr ec l ude d s ubj ec ting hi m t o a n e nh a nc e d s e nt e nc e b a s e d o n a drugqua nt i tyN o. 07

- 1297 3 th at w as n otd et er m in ed b y a ju ry be yo n d a re as on ab le d ou bt. A t th e d rug-q ua nt ity he aring, th e d istri c t c o u rt poi nted out that the S eve nth Cir cui t has r ej ecte d si m i l ar co ns ti tu ti o na la r g um en ts , a nd pr o ce ede d to de ci de th e d rug quan ti tyb y a pr epo nde r an ce - o f

- th e- ev i den ce s ta nda r d. The go ve r n me n tc a l l e d J u a n C o r r a la s a wi tn e s s a tthe dr ug - qu anti tyhe ar i ng . Co r r alwas a c o ca i ne de al erwho had spent ti m e in pri son f ordrug-t ra ffi cki ng co nvi cti ons. Clar k was o n e o fCor ra l ’ s r epeat, m ult i ple

- ki l ogr am custo m er s be tw een the m onths ofFebruar y and J une, 20 02. Du ring th at ti m e per i od, Cor ra l ’ s s al es ofco cai ne to Clar k var i ed i n quanti ty and fr equency. Cor ra l ex p erie nc ed som e “d roug ht s,” du ring w hich Corral’s supp l i er s coul d not provi de hi m with c oca i ne. But, Cor ra l e x p l a i n e d , C l a r kw a s o ne o fh i s “ p r e fe r r e d ” c u s t o mers

— w h en eve r Corr alcam e o ffo fa drought, Cl ar k was on e o f th e firs t c u st om er s h e w ou ld ca ll. C o r r a l sh ar ed h ow h e a n d C lar k w ou ld arr an ge th eir m eet i ngs. They woul d tal k o verthe pho n e an d arr ange a me e t i n gp l a c e . T h e y u s e d c o d e w o r d s t o r e fe r t o k i l o g r a ms o fc o ca i ne , i nc l udi ngthe te r m s “b en ch pr es s, ” “r eps , ” an d “ti cket s. ” Cor ra lr eco unted one par ti cul arco nver sat i on h e h a d wi th C l a r k, o n J une 5, 2 0 0 2 , i n wh i c h th e t wo me n r e fe r r e d t o th e k i l o g r a ms o fc o c a i n e a s “ t i ck e t s . ” He sa i d tha t Cl ar kha d a sk ed f o r fi ve t i ck et s ( k i l o g r ams) , b ut th athe was t r y i ngt o g etCl ar kt o t ake six. Cor r als ai d he ha d no do ubti n h i s r ec o l l ec ti o n tha t o n J une 5 , he a nd Clar k t al ked ab out ki l ogr am s o fco cai ne. I n re cal l i ng hi s e ncounter s with Cla rk, Cor ra lst ate d that th e smal l es t amou nto fc o ca i ne he s o l d Cl ar ko n o ne4 N o. 07

- 1297

occa si on was thr ee ki l og ra m s; the l ar ges t a m ount was arou nd eight kil ogram s. T he am ou nt of coca ine th at C lark m os t fre q u en tly p u r c h as ed from C or ra l w as five to six ki l ogr am s. Cor ra lst ate d that he was “10 0 per cent sure ” that w hen Clar k bought coca i ne fro m hi m , he bo ught three orm or e k i l ogr am s at a ti m e. Corr al re cal l ed, “to the besto f [ hi s] kno w l edge, ” that he deal t w ith C lark about once a m onth. Based on thos e reco l l ecti ons, C or ra lesti m ate d that he sol d Cl ar k “m aybe 17 ki l os” ofco cai ne duri ng the fi vem o nth pe r i o d. Co r r altho ug httha t he dea l t wi thCl ar ko ne tim e in Fe b ru ar y, an d m ay b e t w ice in M ar c h . B u t h e c ou ld not gi ve est i m ate s for A p ril, M ay, o r J une. Cor ra ldi d not re m em berthe speci fi c dates o n w hi ch h e s ol d cocaine to Clar k. Cor ra lexpl ai ned how he a rr i ved atthe 17- ki l ogr am es tim at e, w h ich h e feltw as co n se rv at ive : “I d ea lt w ith h im fro m Februa ry 2 002 to J une 200 2. A nd I[ est i m ate d] three key s a m onth, thatwould com e o ut to 15
. A nd Iknow for su re th at h e p u rc h as ed attim es m or e t h an th re e k ey s.” W he n con side ring the tes tim ony , the d istri ct cou rt expla i ned that sta nd i ng al one, Cor ra l ’ s m em or y o fthe sal es to C lar k w as not “go od enough to send so m ebo dy away f o r . ” The c o ur t th ena sk ed th e g o ve r nm en t how m an y conve rs ati ons between Corr al and C l ar k they ha d re cor ded

— “h ow m an y d isc u s s i on s a b ou t t ra n sa c tio n s is th e G o v e r n me n ta c t u a l l y ab l e t o p r o v e wi th t e l e p ho ne ca l l s? ” The governm en t th enr efer r ed to the c o m pl aint affi dav i t, whi chde ta i l ed so m e o fthe wi r et appe d c o nver sat i ons. Duri ng on e su ch co nver sat i on, o n M ay 14, Corr aland Cla rkdi scusse d fiv e ki l ogr am s o fco cai ne. Anothe r s eto fwi r et appe d c o nv er sa ti ons de al t wi ththe J une 5 tra nsacti on t o w hi ch Corr alte sti fi ed and add re sse dN o. 07

- 1297 5 fi ve t o s ix kilogram s of coca ine. T he district cou rt de term i ned that these two phone co nver sat i ons cor robor ate d Co r r a l ’ s t e s ti mon y tha th i s drugde a l s wi th Cl a r kh a ppen ed o nc e a m o nth. The go vern m ent, however, di d not intro du ce into evi dence the actualtranscr i pts or tapes ofthe w i re tapped pho ne c al l s. T he c our t i ns te ad r el i ed o n s um m ar i es o fthe wi r et appe d c o nv er sa ti o ns c o nt aine d in a c o m pl aint affi dav i t th atwas a tt es te d t o b y a dr ug - tr affi ck i nga g en t i n the gov er nm ent’ s e ff or ts to show proba b l e ca use bef or e a m agi str ate j ud ge. Cl ar k obj ecte d to the di str i ct cour t’ s r el i ance o n the com pla i nt and its affi davi t, bec ause “de fen dan ts a r e no t i nc l ude d i n term s o fdr aftingthe com p lai nt, can ’t cross-exam ine th e d rafter ofi t, c a n ’t m ak e an y c ha ng es , c an ’ t m ak e an y s ug g es ti o ns . It’ s th e G ov er n m en t’s d oc u m en t w h ich th ey su b m it.” The di s t r i c tc o ur ts t a t e d tha tthe s ummar i z e d wir etapped conver sat i ons w er e “ i rr efutabl e e vi dence that [C lar k] w as d isc u ss in g re lat ive ly lar ge d ea ls, th at ’s d ea ls i n th e fi ve - to
- s i x k i l o g r a m r a n g e wi th Mr
. C o r r a lo n t wo occa si ons. ” Those co nver sations prove d to the j ud ge that Corr alwas “te l l i ng the tr uth i n ter m s o fthe ki nd o fcustom er th at M r. C lark w as.” E ven th ou gh th e tap e s w ere not i n evi dence, the di str i ct c ourt“a ssum [ ed] the Gover n m en t h a[d ] th is e vid en c e t h atit[w as ] d es c rib in g in th e co m pl aint
. ” The co ur t ex pl aine d tha t th e g o ve r nme n t ’ s s u mma r y o fth e t a pe d c o n v e r s a t i o n s w a s , t o s o me ex ten t, corroborat ed by C orral. A d d iti o n a ll y, th e cou rt ex p lai ne d , “ T his is an offici al court d ocu m en t. So I ’m ass um i ng, f orpurposes o fthi s drug quanti ty hear i ng,6 N o. 07

- 1297

w here the sta nd ar d i s a pre pond er ance o fthe evi dence, and I don’t thi nk rul es of evi dence str i ctl y apply, that Ic a nr e l y o n t he G o v e r n me n t ’ s a s s e r t i o n th a tth i s c o mp lain t is ba se d on su rv eilla n c e.” C lark also argu ed th at th e cou rt shou ld d iscred it Corral’s te st i m o ny b ec au se Co r r alwas a n a dm i tt ed perj ur erwho had a de a lwi th the g o v e r nme nttha twa s c o nt i ng e nto n hi m te sti fying t o cer tain thi ngs. The di str i ct c ourtdi d not ag r ee , a nd fou nd thatCo r r alwas “ try i ngt o b e truthful an d [ ] tr yin g to b e con se rv at ive ,” ev en th ou g h h i s p r ec ision w as less than satisfactory. T hu s, w hile Corral’s tes ti m ony al one w as not preci se enough, i n the dist ri ct cour t’ s vi ew , to j usti fy a 15

- ki l ogr am drug- quanti ty fi ndi ng, the c o m bina ti o n o fCo r r al ’ s te st i m o ny wi ththe su m m ariz ed w iretaps conv inced the cou rt that Clark’s offense i nvol ved m or e than 15 ki l ogr am s o fco cai ne. Shor tl y a fterthe drug- quanti ty hear i ng, Cl ar k a pp ear ed for sen ten cing on J an ua ry 17, 2007
. Th e d istri ct c ou rt be g anthe s en te nc i nghe ar i ngwi tha que st i o n abo ut m an dat o r y m i ni m um s: “I s th er e a m an datory m i ni m um that appli es in t hi s ca se?” The A ssi sta nt U ni ted S tat es Att o r ne y ( AU S A) r epl i ed, “The r e i s no t, J udg e, a nd the prese ntence i nvest i gat i on r epor t i s incor re ct in re gar d to th at.” Th e A U SA exp lai ne d that w ithou t the m an d atory m i ni m um , Cl ar k’ s s entencing r ange w as 1 0 8 t o 135 m onths’ i m pr i so nm en t; hi s Cr i m i na lHi st o r y Ca te g o r y was Ia nd hi s o ffen se l ev elwas 3 1. Th e c ou r t r epe at ed i ts que st i o n:
“ Ok a y . Wi th no ma n d a t o rymin i mu m? ” T h e AUS A r e pl i e d, “R igh t.” Clar k a rgued fo r a s entence bel ow the gui del i nes r ange because o f hi s per sonalchar acte ri sti cs, hi s s tea dy em plo y-N o. 07

- 1297 7

m ent b ackg ro und , and the f act th at he ha d no pri or cri m i nalco nvi cti ons. Cl ar k a l so ar gued that he deserved a s entence bel ow the gui del i nes ra nge because o fthe w eak ev i den ce de m o ns tr at i ngdr ugqua nt ity. I n r es po ns e, the govern m en t u r g ed the d istri ct cou rt to sente nc e C lark w ith inth e g u id elin es ra n g e: “t h e G ov er n m en t w ou ld j ust a rgue thata gui del i ne r ange i s a pp ro p ria te here , parti cul ar l y g i ven that the m and ato rym i ni m um does n otap p ly . .
. .” T h e d ist ric t c ou rtvie w ed C lar k’s co c ain e-s ellin g a c tiv iti es as a “ si gni fi cant m i sta ke, ” but sta ted thatthe “r esto f his li fe has b e e n p retty good
. ” Th e cou rt cited Clark’s m i no r c r i m i na lhi st o r y, hi s “h ug e j o b st ab i l ity, ” a nd the f ac t th athe i s a f amilyman, a s f ac to r s i ndi ca tingtha t he is a p er so n w h o “ ap p ea rs to h av e a goo d life a n d a p os iti ve l i fe. ” The co urt al so too k into consi de ra ti on neg ati ve factors

— su c h as C lar k’s ga m b lin g p ro b lem s a n d h is new convi cti on f or a ser i ous fel ony drug offense

— w hen anal yzingthe s e nt e nc i ngf a c t o r s u nd e r 1 8 U. S
. C. § 3 5 5 3. The j ud ge deci de d o n a s entence o f48 m onths, to r efl ect the “ ser i ousness o fthe offense, ” w h ile gi vi ng Cl ar k “ an opportunity t o re sum e the positive as pects ofhi s past life w h en h e is rele as ed .” The ver y nextday, the go ver nm ent s ubm i tte d a m oti on to cor re ct Cl ar k’ s s entence , pursuant to F edera lRule o f C rim in al P ro c ed u re 35 (a). T h e gov er n m en t a c kn ow ledged the m i sta ke i t m ad e at sente nci ng i n i nsi sting tha t no mandat o r y min i m um a ppl i ed to Cl ar k ’ s o ffen se . The gov er nm ent argued that the di str i ct c ourtwas re quir ed to i m pose the m andator y m i ni m um pre scr ibed by 218 N o. 07

- 1297 U. S
. C
. § 8 4 1 ( b ) ( 1 ) ( A) ( i i ) , be c a u s e o fth e 1 5 k i l o g r a ms attribu ted to Clark’s offense b y the cou rt. Th e d istri ct cou rt agr eed thatt h e cour t’ s drug- quanti ty fi nd i ng subj ecte d Clar k t o the s tatutor y m andator y m in im um . The di str i ct cou rt exp lai ne d that, w hile “the cou rt w as abl e to det erm i ne the dr ugqua nt i ty base d o n a pr epo nde r an ce o fthe evi dence, [ the c ourt ] does notbel i eve thatthe evi dence woul d h a v e b e e n s u ffi c i e n tt o s u s t a i n a d e c i s i o n b e y o nd a r e a s o nab l e do ub t
. ” T he c o ur te xe r c i s e d j ur i s di cti on u n der Rule 35( a) and r ese ntenced Clar k to ten yea rs in pr i so n.
II. A NA LYSIS On app eal, Cl ar k a rgues that the di str i ct courtwas not a u th o r i z e d u n d e r R u l e 3 5 ( a ) t o c h a n g e h i s s e n t e n c e . He al so ar gues that hi s F i fth and Si xth A m en dm ent r i ghts wer e vi o l at ed when th e di st r i ct co ur t f o und, b y a pr epo nde r a nc e o fthe e v i de nc e , f a c t s tha ts ubj e c t e d him to a m an dat o r y min i m um s en te nc e o ft eny ea r s. F i na l l y, he ar gues that the di str i ct c ourt ’ s ca l cul at ion o fthe quanti ty ofdrugs i nvol ved i n hi s o ffense w as cl ear l y e rr oneo us.
A
. The dis tr ictcourt ’s cor re ction of Clark’s se nte nce Clar ka r g ue s tha tthe di s t r i c tc o ur twa s n o ta utho r i zed to cor re ct hi s s entence under Rul e 3 5( a) to r efl ect th e statu tory m an d atory m inim um b ecau se, in C lark’s op in ion, the Rul e doe s no t a l l ow a co rr ecti on in a c ase wher e th e g o vernm en t wai ve d the a ppl i ca ti o n o fthe m an d at or y m in im u m atth e s en t e n c i n g h ea rin g. T h isN o. 07

- 1297 9 p r e s e n t s a qu e s t i o n o fl a w th a twe r e v i e w deno vo . See Un i t e d S t a t e s v . Me n doza , 5 10 F. 3d 749, 75 4 ( 7th Ci r. 20 07) ( “W hetherthe dis tr i ct c ourtf ol l owed the properpro ced ure s after U nited S ta tes v. B o o k er i n i m posi ng [ a] se ntence i s a que s t i o n o fl a w w e r e v i e w deno vo . ” ( i nt e r na lc i t a t i on om itted ))
. R u le 3 5(a ) allow s fo r “C or re c tin g C l ea r E rro r” : “W ith in 7 days afterse ntenci ng, the cour t m ay cor re ct a se ntence that re sul ted fro m ar i thm eti cal, te chnic al, or o thercl ear er ro r.” Fe d . R . C rim . P . 3 5(a ). T h e d ist ric t c ou rt ’s a c tio n in thi s ca se

— cor re cti ng the sentence the day afteri t was i m posed

— f al l s wi th i n the pa r amet er s o fRul e 35( a)
. The er ro r w as not ar ith m eti calo r techni cal, but i nstea d w as substa nti ve

— th e co ur t m i st ak en l y f ai l ed to ap pl y the m andator y m i ni m um se ntence f orC l ar k’ s co nvi cti on, as p re sc rib ed by C on gr es s. See 21 U
. S. C
. § 841(b)(1) (A )( ii ). T h e s c o p e o fRul e 3 5 ( a ) i s n a r r o w; th e a d v i s o r y c o mm i tte e no tes i nd i cate thatthe Rule shoul d “extend onl y t o thos e ca ses in w hi ch an obvi ous e rr oro r m i sta ke has oc c u rre d in t h e s en te n c e, th at is, err or s w h ich w ou ld al m ostcert ain ly re sul t in a r em and ofthe case to the tr i al cour t .
. . . ” F ed . R. Cri m . P. 35 advi sor y c om m i tte e’ s no te to 1991 A m en dm ents. The Rul e doe s no t g i ve the di str i ct cour t a se cond chance t o exer ci se i ts “dis cre ti on with re gar d t o the appli cati on of the sente nci ng gui del i nes, ” no r d oes it al low f or cha ng es to a sent en ce bas ed on th e cou rt’s c h an ge of m in d
. Id. A dd i ti onally , the Rule shoul d not be us ed i n a waytha t r el ax es “ any requi r ementtha t th e par ti es s ta te all ob j ec ti o ns t o a s en te nc e ato r b efo r e th e sente nci ng hea ring. ” Id.10 N o. 07

- 1297 Cl ar kc l i ng s to thi s l as t l i m itationo n Ru l e 35 ( a) , a nd cl ai m s th atthe g o ve r nm en t l o sti ts o ppo r tu ni tyt o ar g ue f orappli cati on o fthe m an dator y m i ni m um se ntence by not ra i si ng the i ssue at sente nci ng, and m or e s i gni fi cantl y, bya ffi r m at i ve l y s ta tingtha t no mandat o r y min i m um se nte nc e a ppl i ed to Cl ar k’ s co nvi cti on. W i th thi s a rgum ent, Cl ar ks ug g es ts tha t whene ve r the gover nm en t ( o r the defen dan t, f o r tha t m at ter) make s a m i st ak e ata s en te nc i nghe ar i ng, th e c o ur t i s bo und b y tha t m i st ak e an d m ay no tc o r r e c ta s e nt e nc i nge r r o r tha ts t e ms fr o m it
. Cl ar k ’ s po si ti o n m i g htm ak e s en se i fa ppl i ed to di sc r et i o nar yc o ns i der at i o ns a nd e nha nc ements o r r edu ct i o ns und erthe advi sor y guidel i nes

— parti es m u st st ate al lo f th ei r o bj ec ti o ns to the mul ti pl e f ac et s o fa s en te nc e atthe se nt en cinghe ar i ng . S e eUni t e d S t at e s v . Po rr et ta , 11 6 F
. 3d 296, 30 0 ( 7th Ci r. 19 97)
. A rguingafter
- th e-f act, vi a a R ule 35 ( a) mot i o n t o c o r r ec t a se nt en cinge r r o r, tha t th e dist ri ct c ourti m proper ly ap pli ed a s entencing enhanceme n to r r e d u c t i o n “ fl i e s i n the f a c e o fth e a d v i s o r y c o mm itt ee ’s a d m on itio n th at it ‘d id n otint en d t h at th e ru le r el ax a ny r equi r ementtha t th e par ti es s ta te a l lo bj ectio ns to a s entence ato r b efo re the sente nci ng hea ring. ’ ” Id. ( quotin g Fed
. R. Cri m . P. 35 advi sor y c om m i tte e’ s no te to 1991 A m en d m en ts). Bu t the si tuati on her e i s di ffer ent b ecause the m i sta ke w as m or e fund am ental

— the r e s ul t i ngs e nt e nc e v i o l a t e d a l egi sl ati ve m andate r equi ring t hat per sons convi cted o f C l a r k ’ s p a r t i c u l a r c r i me , wi th th e a mo u n to fd r u g s i nvol ved, be i m pri soned fo r a m i ni m um te rm o fte n yea rs . See 21 U
. S. C. § 8 41(b) ( 1)(A )(ii )
. The di str i ct c ourtr ep eated ly asked th e A U SA w he th er there w as a m an d atoryN o. 07

- 1297 11

m i ni m um i t sh o ul d f ac to r int o Cl ar k ’ s se nt en ce , b ut th e AU S A e r r o ne o us l y s ta te d tha t th er e was no t. To b in d th e c ou r t t o th e g ov er n m en t’s err or w ou ld n oton ly r es ul t i n a wi ndf al lt o thi s p arti cul arde fen dan t

— w h o is not unli ke other defe nd ants w ho were cor re ctl y s entence d to the mandat o r y m in i m um o ft eny ea r s’ i m pr i so nmen t

— but would al so dir ectly c ontr avene co ngre ssi onal in te n t. U n like th e s en te n c in g g u id e lin es , w h ich are ad viso ry , see U nited Sta tes v. B o o k er, 543 U
. S. 220, 264-65 (2005 ), st atut o r y mandat o r y min i m um s ar e j us t as they s o und

— m an d at or y, see U ni t e d St at e s v. Canno n , 42 9 F
. 3d 1158 , 11 60 ( 7th C i r. 20 05)
. To a l l ow a party’ s blund eratse ntenci ng to defuse the m andate o fCongr ess

— es pec i al l y wher e the Federal Rules o fCri m i nalPro cedure provi de a m eans f or dist ri c t c ourt s t o cor re ct s uch bl und er s withi n sev en days ofthe sente nce

— w ou ld con vert ind ivi d ua l law yers i nto l egi sl ato rs ea ch ti m e a cou rt m ista kenl y fol l ows an i l l eg i ti m at e r ec o m m en dat i on. The s ta te m en ts o fthe S upr eme Co urt i n B o z z a v. U nited Sta tes , are eq u ally pertinent here: “The Const i tuti on does notr equi re that sente nci n g sh ou l d be a ga m e in w hi ch a w ro ng m ove by th e j udg e m ea ns i m m uni tyf o r the pri so ne r . . . . The senten c e as cor re cted, i m poses a val i d pu ni shm ent for an o ffense i nstea d ofan inval i d p u n ishm ent forthat o ffen se . ” 33 0 U. S
. 1 60 , 1 66

- 16 7 ( 19 47 ) ( i nt erna lc i ta ti o ns om itted ). T h e m ist ak e in th is c as e t h at C la r k d es ire d to letlie w oul d have be en r ev er sed o n appeal

— dist ri ct c ourt s m ust abi de by sta tutory s entencing ran ges . See U nited St at e s v. Rob e rs on , 4 74 F
. 3d 432, 4 34 ( 7th Ci r . 2 00 7) ( “T he S upr eme Co ur t’ s dec i si o n in U nited Sta tes v . B o o k er, wh i ch12 N o. 07

- 1297

m ade the sent en c in g g u id elin es ad vis or y, d id n otau th or i ze d ist ric t jud ge s t o ign or e s t a t u t o r y se n te n c in g ra n ge s. . . . B o o k erco nfe rs n o author i ty on j ud ges to di sr ega rd st atut es.” ( intern al ci tation om itted ))
. A nd t h e district cou rt w as w el laware ofi ts author i ty and the r eperc ussio ns o f such a m i sta ke: “ba sed o n Se venth Ci rcui t pr ece d en t, Ihave n o c hoi ce b ut to i m pose the t en- yea r m andato r y min i m um , a nd Ithi nkthe f ai l ur e to do s o a nd the propri etyo fdoi ng so i s s o cl ear t h at it w oul d al m ost cer tainl y r esul t in a r em and, w hi ch, I tak e i t, i s what Ineed to fi nd i n or der t o have j uri sdic ti on under Rul e 3 5 t o c or re c t t h e s en te n c e.” Clar k c onti nues, however, thatthe A U SA’s den ou ncem e n t d uring the sen ten cing h earing of a m an d atory m i ni m um f or ecl ose d the poss ibi l i ty o fas e nte nc e c o r r e c t i on u n d er R u le 3 5(a ) by w ay o ft h e w aiv er d oc tr in e. H is ar gum ent i s s om ew ha t tenabl e in l i ght o fo ur l anguage i n Uni t e d S t at e s v . By e rl y , 4 6 F.3d 694, 699 (7th Cir. 1995). I n B yer ly, the gove rnm en t attorn ey told th e d istri ct cou rt that i t was withi n the cour t’ s di scr etion t o im pose a m an d at or y s en te n c e. Id. at69 6. The go ver nm ent was wron g, b utthe g o ve r nm en t di d no t br i ngthe e r r o r t o the co ur t’ s at te nt i o n un ti lo ve r t wo y ea r s l at er, a fte r the defe nd ant had ( unsuccessfully) appeal ed hi s s entence , and afterwe i ssued o ur m andate a ffi rm i ng hi s co nv ictio n . Id. at6 97
. The gov ernm entfi l ed a m o ti o n un derthe old version of Ru le 35(a) , w hich all ow ed the d istri ct cou rt to “co rr ect an i l l ega lse ntence at any t i m e a nd [ ] co rr ect a s e n t e n c e i mp o s e d i n a n i l l e g a lma n n e r wi t hi n th e t i me provi ded her ei n f orthe re du c tio n ofse ntence, ” that i s, w ith in12 0 d ay s o f an affirm an c e o fth e jud gm en t. Id.N o. 07

- 1297 13 (q u ot in g old R u le 3 5(a ) )
. T h e g ov er n m en t a c te d w ith in th e p r o p e r t i me fr a me u n d e r the ol d r u l e , b u twe dec i ded th atthe d istri ctc o ur t co ul d no t co r r ec t th e illeg al s en te n c e, n ot w ith st an d in g t h e l a n gu ag e o f old Rule 35( a) , because ofthe gov ernm ent’ s wai ver . Id. at 699- 700. An atto r ne y c anno t ag r ee i n o penc o ur t wi tha j ud ge’ s pro posed co urse o fco nd u ct a nd then charg e the co urt w i th er ror in fol l owing that co ur se . [ The ] AU S A [ ] b o und h i s pr i nc i pala nd cl i ent, the Uni te d S ta te s, t o the po si ti o n tha t th e ap p li cat io n of the G uid eli ne s and a m an d atory m i ni m um se ntence to Byer l ey’ s co nvi cti on was di sc r et i o na r y wi ththe di stric t co ur t. The g o ve r nme n tc a n n o tn o w u s e o l d R u l e 3 5 ( a ) t o o v e r c o me the e rr or s o fi ts age nt. Id. at 700 (i nt erna l citation an d qu otation m arks om itted ). Ol d Rul e 35 ( a) was mor e exp an siv e th anthe c ur r en t ve rs ion of th e ru le

— al l owing f orthe cor re cti on ofan i l l ega l sente nce “ at any t i m e” up to 1 20 d ays afteran a ffi rm ance or d ism i s s a l of th e a p p ea l. Id. at69 7. T h u s, th e R u le allo w ed for c or re c tio n s o fse n te n c es lon g a fte r th eir i m po si ti o n, a nd i n B yer ly, the i m pli cati ons ofsuch a br oad g r a n to fc o r r e c t i v e p o we rw e r e c l e a r . T h e R u l e c o n t e mp l ate d al l owing a par ty, the gov er nm ent, to si t ba ck thro ug h ou t the di re ct a pp ealpro cess with the poss ibi l i ty ofa Rule 35( a) co rr ecti on in re ser ve. I t m ade se ns e f orus, i n t er m s o fj udi ci ale co no m y a nd the fi nal i tye xpe ct at i o ns of c on vic te d d e f e n d an ts , to im p os e a lim ita tio n on old Rul e 35 ( a) i n a c as e wher e th e g o ve rnm en t r ev er se d the14 N o. 07

- 1297 posi ti on i t a dvocate d to the di str ict court, ye ar s a fter sente nci ng. B ut that fun c tional l im itation i s no longer n eces sary because Rule 35 ( a) ’ s r evis ion incl ud es a l i m i tat i on that pr o t e c t s th e d u a l c o n c e r n s o f j u d i c i a l e c o n o m y a nd fin alit y: th e d ist ric t c ou rtm u st co rre c t t h e s en te n c e w ith in se ve n d ay s, seeFe d. R. Cri m . P. 35 ( a) , an d i t m ay not c or re c t t h e s en te n c e a fte r th at tim e p er iod , see U nited Sta tes v. B aldw in , 4 1 4 F
. 3 d 7 9 1 , 7 9 7( 7 th C i r . 2 0 0 5 ) ( “ T h e S u p r e me C o u r t h as he ld th at th ese ru les [ includ ing Ru le 35(a) ] o per at e to de pr i ve the c o ur t o fa utho r i tyt o a cta fte r the ti m e per i o d s pec i fie d i n the r ul e ha s el aps ed. ” ( ci ting C a rlisle v. U nited Sta tes , 517 U
. S. 416, 428 (1996 )) ( o verru led in p a r t o n o ther g rou nd s by U nited Sta tes v. P a rker, 508 F. 3d 43 4, 4 41 ( 7th Ci r . 2 00 7) ). Unf o r tu na te l y f o r Cl ar k, the doctr i ne o fwaive r i s no l onge r necess ar y, norappli cabl e t o th e ne w Rul e. W he r e a par ty m akes a mis ta k e ata s en ten cing he aring, w hich i n tu rn lead s to the im p ositi on of a se nt en ce tha t is cl ea r l y wro ng

— f or ex am p le, a m ist ak e in co nt r av en ti o n o fc l ea r c o ng r es si o na li nt en t o r mandate

— th e di st r i ctc o ur t m ayc o r r ec t th e se nt ence s o l o ng as th e correction co m p li es w ith Ru le 35 (a ) an d occu rs w i thi n sev en days. W e e m phasize thatsuch m i sta kes m i ght b e m ade byei therparty
— i fa d efe n d ant di d not re al i ze at sente nci ng tha t he w as not su bj ect to a m an d atory m i ni m um se ntence, but the courterr oneo usl y a pp l i ed one, th e defen dan t co ul d m ak e a m o ti o n fo r a co r r ec te d s en tence wi thin the s e v e n- da y t i me pe r i o d. We a l s o r e i t e r a te th atthe s co pe o f Rul e 35 ( a) i s na r r o w, a nd o urr ea so ni ng sh o ul d no t be r ea d t o a l l o w par ties to r ai se , a fte r s en tenci ng, ar gum ents f oro r aga i nst enhancem ents orr educti ons und erthe gui delin es t hat s houl d have be en r ai sedN o. 07

- 1297 15

T his opi ni on has bee n c i rc ul at ed am ong al l j udges ofthis 1 co u rt in re g u la r a c tiv e se rv ic e p u rs u a n t to C ir cu it R u le 40 (e). N o j udge f avor ed a r eh ea ri ng e n ba nc . J udge Fl aum di d not parti ci pate i n the consi derati on of thi s cas e. at th e s e n t e n c in g h ea rin g. SeePo re tt a , 1 16 F
. 3d at3 00
. To th e ex te nt th at th i s dec i si o n i s i nc o ns i st en t with o ur pr i o r r ul i ngi n B yer ly, w e overr u le th at p ortion of B yer ly
. 46 F. 3d at 700. 1

B. The i m pos i t i on of

a m anda t ory mini m um s e nt e nc eb as e d on judge- found facts C lar k c on te n d s t h at th e q u an tit y of d ru gs inv olv ed in hi s o ffe ns e s s ho ul d h a v e b e e n de t e r mi ne d b e y o nd a re aso nabl e doubt, by a j ury. W e r evi ew thi s A pprendi i ss ue deno vo . U ni t e d S t at e s v. Seym our, 5 19 F.3d 70 0, 709 (7th Cir. 20 08 ); s e e al s o Appre ndi v. New Jersey, 53 0 U.S
. 46 6, 49 0 ( 2000 )
. Cl ar k w as convi cted under 2 1 U.S
. C. § 8 41, wh i ch presc ribes i n i ts subsect i ons es c al ating penal ti es f or defe nd ants depend in g o n the quanti ty ofa contr ol l ed su b st an c e t h e d efe n d an t k n ow i n gly or in te n tio n ally m an ufa cture d, dist ributed, di spensed, o r posse sse d w i th i nt e ntto ma nu f a c t ur e , di s t r ib ut e , o r di s pe ns e . 2 1 U. S
. C. § 8 41 (a)( 1), (b ); see also U nited Sta tes v. Hern a nd ez , 33 0 F. 3d 96 4, 97 9- 80 ( 7th Ci r. 20 03)
. Because the a m ount o f coca i ne i nvolved i n Cla rk ’ s co nvi cti on was ov erfi ve kil ogram s, he w as su bj ect to a m an d ato r y t e n -year term of i m pri sonm ent. 21 U
. S. C. § 841(b) ( 1) ( A ) ( i i )
. This m andatory ter m w as below the tw en ty-year m ax im um term16 N o. 07

- 1297 Cl ar kc o ul d ha ve r ec ei ve d f o r a § 8 41 c o nv i ct i o n abs en t an y d ru g-q u an tit y d et er m in at ion
. Se ei d. § 841(b)(1) (C). C lar k a c kn ow led ge s th at w e h av e h eld on m u ltip le occa si ons that j ud ges m ay fi nd f acts , bya preponderance of th e evid en ce, th at su bj ect a d efend an t t o a st atu tory m an d at or y m in im u m . SeeU nite d State s v. P ri ce, 51 6 F
. 3d 59 7, 60 5 (7 th C ir. 20 08 ); U nited Sta tes v. Jon es , 41 8 F
. 3d 726, 73 2 (7 th C ir. 20 05 ); U nited S ta t e s v. Knight, 34 2 F
. 3d 697, 714 (7th Cir. 2003); Herna nd ez , 3 30 F. 3d at 980- 82; see a lso U ni t e d S t at e s v. Col l i ns , 5 1 0 F
. 3 d 6 9 7, 7 0 1 ( 7 th C i r . 2 0 0 7 )
. We se e no reas on t o de par t fr o m o urpr ec ede nta nd c o nt i nue to hol d that “ A pprendi ha s no appl i ca ti o n wher e a d r ug dea l eri s g i ve n a s en te nc e ato r b el o w the maxi m um provi ded i n § 8 41(b) ( 1) ( C). ” Herna nd ez , 330 F .3d at90 8; s e eal s o United S ta te s v. Abd ul ahi, 52 3 F
. 3d 757, 76 0 ( 7th C ir. 2008) (“ Appre ndihas no a pp lica tion to case s l i ke th is on e w h er e t h e s en te n c e is be low th e s ta tu to ry m ax im um . ”). One ofCl ar k’ s a rgum ents on thi s t opi c warr ants bri ef consi derat i on. Cl ar k e ncoura ges us t o re thi nk o ur pre cedent beca use the Seco nd and N i nth C i rcui ts have adopted co nt r ar y a ppr o ac he s to dr ug - qua nt i tyde te r m i na ti ons unde r § 8 41
. In U nited Sta tes v. G o nz a lez , 42 0 F
. 3d 111, 13 3- 34 ( 2n d Ci r . 2 00 5) , the S ec o nd Ci r cui t co nc l ude d tha t th e “drug quanti ti es speci fied i n 21 U
. S. C. § 8 41 ar e e l em ents that m ust be ple aded a nd prove d t o a j ury oradm i tte d by a defendant to support any c onvi cti on o n an ag gr av ated drug o ffense, notsi m ply t h ose r esul ti ng i n sent ences that exceed the m axi m um o ther w i se ap p l i cabl e foran i den ti ca lunqua nt i fi ed dr ugcr i m e. ” And i n U ni t e d S t at e s v.N o. 07

- 1297 17 Velasco-Heredia , 3 19 F.3d 1 08 0, 1 08 5- 87( 9th Ci r . 2 00 3) , the N i nth Cir cui t deci ded thatf acts subj ecting defen dants to m andator y m i ni m um s under § 8 41 m ust be pro ven t o a f act- fi nd erbey ond a r eas onabl e doubt. “Whi l e we c ar efully a nd r es pec tful l y c o ns i derthe op in ion s o f ou r sis te r c irc u its , w e a re n otbo u n d by th em .” Un i t e d S t at e s v . Wi l l i a ms , 184 F.3d 666 , 671 (7th C ir. 1999). “Our du ty i s to i nd ependentl y deci de our own cas es, wh i ch som eti m es re sul ts in dis agr eem ents w i th deci si ons of th e o th er circ u its .” At ch i s on, Tope ka & Santa FeRy. Co. v. Pen a , 44 F .3d 43 7, 44 3 ( 7 t h C ir. 19 94 ). W e h av e c ar efu lly an aly ze d whethe r drugqua nt i tyc o ns ti tu te s ane l ement o fa n § 8 4 1 o ffe ns e tha t mus tb e p r o v e n t o a j ur y b e y o nd a re aso n ab le doubt, and have deci ded ti m e a fterti m e that ne ither th e statu te, nor A pprendi and i ts p rogeny, di ctat es such a re sul t. Se e, e . g. , U nited Sta tes v. M a rtinez , 30 1 F
. 3d 86 0, 86 3-6 6 (7 th C ir. 20 02 ); s e eal s o Ab dul ahi, 523 F. 3d at 760- 61 ; Herna nd ez , 33 0 F
. 3d at 980- 81.
C. Thedis t r i ctc our t ’s dr ug- q uan t i ty f i ndi ngs W e r ev i ew the di st r i ctc o ur t’ s det er m i na ti o n o fdr ug q u an tit y for cle ar err or . U nited Sta tes v. A rtley, 48 9 F
. 3d 813, 821 ( 7th Ci r. 20 07)
. “Thi s i s a hi ghl y defer enti alst andard of r ev i ew a nd we r efus e to ‘ se co nd- g ue ss th e se nt en cing j u d ge .’ ” U ni t e d S t at e s v. Hankt on , 4 32 F.3d 779 , 789 (7th C ir. 2005 ) ( quoti ng U nite d State s v. C leggett, 179 F. 3d 1051 , 10 59 ( 7th Ci r . 1 99 9) )
. The g o ve r nm en t ha d the b ur deno fpr o ving dr ugqua nt i tyt o the c o ur t bya pr epo nd eran ce o fthe ev id e n c e, U ni t e d S t at e s v. M cGowan , 47 8 F
. 3d 800, 80 2 ( 7th18 N o. 07

- 1297 C i r . 2 00 7); U nite d State s v. White, 3 6 0 F
. 3 d 7 1 8 , 7 2 0 ( 7th Cir. 20 04) , but the e vi dence supporting the drug- quanti ty deter m i nati on nee d not h ave bee n l i m i ted to ev i dence ad m iss ible attria l. White, 360 F.3d a t 72 0; U nited Sta tes v. G albraith , 200 F.3d 100 6, 1011 -12 (7th C ir. 2000). Clar k ar gues that the dist ri ct cour t shoul d no t hav e re l i ed on the te sti m ony ofJ uan Corr albecause Corr alwas an ad m itt ed p e rj u re r an d d ru g u se r w h o h ad lied p re viou sly to p ro te c t h i s o w n int er es ts . Th is a rg u m en t fa ils because the dist ri ct c ourtspeci fi cal l y found C or ra lto be a tr u th fu l w itn es s, d es p ite h is in ab ility to rem em b er sp ec ific d etails about his de als w ith C lark. A district cou rt’s deter m i nati on o fwitnes s cr edibi lity is “enti tl ed to gr eat defe re nce a nd ‘c an vi rtual l y nev erbe cl earer ro r. ’ ” White, 360 F. 3d 718, 72 0 ( 7th Ci r. 20 04) ( quoti ng U nite d S t at e s v. B lalock, 3 21 F
. 3d 68 6, 6 90 ( 7th Ci r . 2 003))
. F ur th er, a s en ten cing court m ay cred it testim ony that i s “ ‘totall y un corrobor ate d a nd com es fro m an adm i tte d l i ar, c onvi cted fel o n, o r l arge sc al e dr ug - dea l i ng, pa i d g o ve r nm en t i nfo rm ant. ’ ” Id. ( quotin g B lalock, 321 F.3d at69 0); see also G albraith , 20 0 F.3d at 10 12 ; U nited Sta tes v. R o dg ers , 24 5 F
. 3d 961, 96 8 (7t h Ci r. 20 01) ( “[ T]he dist ri ct j ud ge w as fre e t o cre ditDexter
. That Dexter w as a co nvi cted fel on wh o sto od to g ain fr o m hi s te st i m o ny ag ains t Ro dge r s i s byno mean s a r em ar kabl e ci rcum sta nce. ”)
. Fur ther m or e, i t i s cl earfro m th e record that Corral’s testim ony abou t his sales to Clark never w aver ed. H e m ai ntai ned thro ughout th e 17- kil ogram estim ate, and cons istent ly ex p lai ne d that Clark usual l y pu rchas ed fi ve ki l ogr am s, som eti m es p u rchased thre e, and at l eas t o nce purchase d e i ght. U nl i ke the s i tuati o n in U nited Sta tes v. B eler, 20 F.3d 1428, 1433 -34 (7th C ir.N o. 07

- 1297 19 19 94 ) , wher e th e wi tn es s wavered i n h i s te st i m o ny abo ut drug quanti ty, Cor ra l ’ s t est i m ony re m ai ned consta nt. T o c om p u te h is e st im at e o f co c ain e s ale s, C or ra l m u ltip li ed the m inim um nu m ber of kil ogram s he sold to Clark du ring a tr ansact i on ( thre e k i l ogr am s) bythe n um bero f m onths he deal t with Cla rk( fi ve m onths)

— 15 ki l ogr am s. Because h e re m em ber ed sel l i ng Cl ar k m or e than th r e e ki l o g r a ms “ a tt i me s , ” h e a d d e d a n a d d i t i o n a lt wo ki l ogr am s t o hi s t ota lcal cul ati on o f17kilog ra m s, wh i ch Corr alst ate d w as conse rv ati ve. T h is m etho d ofco m pu tation, as sum i ng cr edibi l i ty and rel i abi l i ty ofthe w i tness , i s per m i ss ibl e. A di st r i ctc o ur t m ay “c al cul at e dr ugqua nti ty by tak i ng a w i tness ’ s est i m ate ofthe am ount o fdrugs she usual l y purchas ed and m ult i ply i ng i t bythe num ber ofti m es she b ought drugs fro m the defe nd ant. ” White, 360 F. 3d at 720; s e ea l s o Un i t e d S t a t e s v . Du rh am , 211 F. 3d 437, 444 (7th C ir. 2000). Granted, Cor ra lco uld notr ecal lthe sp ec i fi c detai l s o f hi s dea l s wi thCl ar k, the e xa ctnumbe r o fo cc as i o ns he sol d cocaine to C lar k, orthe am ount o fco cai ne i nvol ved i n each sal e. Cl ar k a rgues that b ec ause Corr alco uld not re m em berdetai l s, hi s t est i m ony lacked the r equi re d “ind ici a of reli ability” th at w ou ld all ow the d istri ct cou rt to re l y o n hi s s tat em ents . See B eler, 2 0 F. 3 d a t14 3 3
. Ind e e d, th e d istrict cou rt agreed that Corral’s recoll ection s w ere vagu e an d n ot sp ecifi c en ou gh i n th em selves to su p p ort a d rug-q ua nt ity find ing of ov e r 15 kil ogram s. H ow ever, th e di st r i ctc o ur t dec i ded th atthe s um m ar i es o fthe wi r et appe d p hone c o nv er sa ti o ns

— co nt aine d i n the or i gi nalco m pla i nt affid av it that was subm i tte d to a20 N o. 07

- 1297

m agi str ate j ud ge

— co r r o bor at ed Cor r al ’ s te st i m o ny . The tw o ph one call s from M ay an d J un e corroborate d Corral’s tes ti m ony that Corr aldeal t with Cla rkabo ut o nce per m onth a nd thatCor ra lso l d C l ark ki l ogr am quanti ti es of coca i ne. The tr anscr i pts of thos e co nver sat i ons w er e no t a dm i tte d i nto evi dence, norwere the a ctualr ecord i ngs

— so C lark o bj ec ts t o the di st r i ctc o urt ’s rel i an ce o n the c o m pl aint affi davi t that s um m ar i zed the conve rs ati ons . T he di str i ct cour t e xplained that because the sta nd ard w as onl y a preponderance o fthe evi dence, a n d t he r ule s o fev i dence d id n ot ap p ly, it cou ld rely on the gov ernm en t’s asserti on in a n o ffi ci alc o ur t do cumenttha t th e “c o m pl aint [w as ] ba se d on su rv eilla n c e.” S ec ti o n 6 A1. 3( a) o fthe Gui del i ne s al l o ws s en te nc i ng cour ts to “co nsi der info rm ati on without r egard to i ts adm i ssibi l i ty und er the rul es of evi dence appli c ab le at tr i al, pro vi ded thatthe i nfo rm ati on has suffi ci ent ind i c ia o fr e l i ab i l i t y t o s u p p o r ti t s p r o b ab l e ac c u r a c y . ” T h e c o mpla i nt affi davi t w as a docum ent pr ese nted to a m agi str ate j udg e an d a tt es te d t o b y the dr ugt r affi ck i nga g en t. The dis tr ict court w as enti tl ed to cr edi t the co m pla i nt as an ac cur ate summ ar y o fthe g o ve r nm en t’ s ev i den ce abo ut C l a r k
. T h e r e w a s no th i n gs u g g e s t i n gth a tth e c o mpla i nt was unreli abl e o r that i t co ntai ned i nconsi ste nci es, w h ich w as th e c as e in B eler, i n w hi ch two sworn affi davi ts c on tr ad ict ed on e a n ot h er . 2 0 F .3d at14 33 -36 ; see also Hankt on , 43 2 F
. 3d at 790 ( sta ti ng that the defendant did not show how ag ent’ s t est i m ony about wir eta pp ed conve rs ati o ns was unr el i abl e, othe r tha n the f ac t th att es ti m o ny w as inad m issible hearsa y).N o. 07

- 1297 21 Th e s ummar i e s o fthe wi r e t a pped c o nv e r s a t i o ns s up p or ted Cor ra l ’ s t est i m ony, wh i ch neve r w aver ed w i th re sp ec t t o h ow m u c h c o c ain e C or ra l es tim at ed h e s old t o C l a r k
. We a g r e e w i th th e d i s t r i c tc o u r tth a tth e c o mp lain t a ffid av it c on ta in ed th e re q u isit e in d icia of re liab i l i tyf o r the d i st r i ctc o ur t to f ac to r i ts c o nt en ts i nt o the dr ug - qua nt i tyde te r m i na ti o n. Be twe enCo r r al ’ s te st i m o ny and the cor robor ating sum m ar i es ofthe w i re tapped c on ve rs at ion, th e d i st ric t c ou rtd id n otcle ar ly er r in fi nd ing by a p rep ond eran ce of the evid en ce th at C lark’s § 841 offense i nvol ved m or e than 15 ki l ogr am s o fco cai ne.

III. C ON CLU SI ON The a m en ded j udg m en t o fthe di st r i ctc o ur t co r r ec ting Clar k’ s s entence i s A FFI RMED .

8- 19- 08