## 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

- 3015 U NI T ED S TATE S OF A MERI CA, P la intif f-A pp ellee, v. E XI E T AT UM, J R . , al so known as E R I C T AT UM, D ef endant-Appellant.

A pp eal from the United S t ates Di strictC our t fo r the E astern Di stricto f Wisc onsin
. No . 06 C R 231

—Rudo lphT. Rand a, Chief Ju dge

.
A RG UE D A PRI L 7, 2008

— D ECIDED N OVE MBE R 24, 2008

Befo re R IPPLE, W I L L I A MS, a nd S YKES, C ircu it Judges . W I L L I A MS, Ci r c u i tJu dge . Exie Tatum was convi cted of vari o us dr uga nd wea po ns c ha r g es . On appe al, he cl ai m s that the di str i ct c ourt er re d by a dm i tti ng thr ee bagg i es of coca i ne re cove re d duri ng hi s boo ki ng because the g ove rnm ent di d not l ay a pro per fou n d atio n f or the a dm i ssi on o fthe evi de n c e. W e fi nd thatthe dist ri ct did not a buse i ts disc re ti on byadm i tti ng the ev i dence be ca us e th e g o ve r nm en t l ai d a pr o per f o undation a nd2 N o. 07

- 3015 any g aps i n the chai n ofcustody were m i ni m al

. There f or e, w e a f fi rm Tatum ’ s co nvi cti ons.

I . B AC KGR OUND Tatum was i nd i cted f orposs ess i on with i ntent to dist r i b u t e c o n t r o l l e d s u b s t a n c e s i n v i o l a t i o n o f2 1 U

. S

. C. §§ 84 1(a )(1) an d 84 1(b )(1) (c ); p os se ss ion of a fire ar m in further ance o fa drug- tr affi cki ng cr im e i n vi ol ati on o f 18 U

. S. C. § 924 ( c) ( 1) ( A ) ( i ) ; and bei ng a f el on i n posse ssi on o fa fi r ea r m i n v i o lationo f1 8 U. S

. C. § § 92 2( g ) ( 1) a nd 924( a)(2 ). The te sti m ony at Tatum ’ s t w o- day tr i al foc u s e d on d rugs and pa rap he rna li a tha t po li ce offi cers re cove red fr om Tatum ’ s r esi dence and f ro m hi s per son aft er h is a rre s t
. T h e it em s re c ov er ed from T at u m ’s re sidence i ncl ud ed num er ous c ontr ol l ed substa nces ( coca i ne, hero i n, m ar ij uana, as w el l as presc ri pti on drugs ) , packa gi ng m ate ri al s, a com m on cutt i ng ag ent f orco cai ne, d igit al s c ale s, gla ss be ak er s w ith w h ite res id u e, ce ll phones, a gun , a nd l ar ge am ounts ofcas h. W i tness es at the t ri ali ncl ud ed M i l w aukee Pol i ce Depar tm ent ( “M PD ”) Det e c t i v e Ma r kWa g n e r, th e o ffi c e r wh o r e c o v e r e d many ofthe f or ego in g i tem s a nd i nventor i ed al l o fthe evi dence in th e ca se ; a form er M P D offic er n am ed M ich ae l C a p at i, w ho booked T atu m th e nigh t he w as arrested ; and Sand ra K or esch, a f or ensi c chem i st f ro m the W i sco nsi n sta te cri m e l ab. Capa titest i fi ed th athe was the b o o k i ngo ffi ce r a t th e M PD ’ s dow ntown adm i ni str ati on bui l ding on the ni ght o f Ta tu m ’ s ar r es t. He was i n c ha r g e o fs ea r ch i ngmal e pr i so ner s a nd “ba ggi ng” pr operty r eco ver ed f ro m them

. Capati tes ti fi ed that he r eco ver ed a c learpl ast i c ba ggi e fro mN o. 07

- 3015 3 Tatum ’ s l eft paj am a pock et. O n c e thi s e vi dence w as re cove re d, he st at ed t h at he passe d i t o ffto the detect i ve oro f fi cerr espon sib l e f orthe ar re st. H owever, o n cr oss exam i nati on, Capati adm i tte d that he r ev i ew ed another offi cer ’ s r epor t pr i orto te sti fyi ng and, wh i l e he re cal l ed that Tatum was w ear i ng paj am as und er neath his pants, he ha d no i nde penden t r ec o l l ec ti o n o fr ec o ve r i ngthe drugs fro m Tatum

. Duri ng hi s t est i m ony, Capati al so w as neveras ked to i denti fy a ny drug exhibi ts. Detecti ve W agnerand another detect i ve in vento ri ed th e na r co ti cs r ec o ve r ed f r o m Ta tu m ’ s person. The evid en ce w as p u t i n to a l arge brow n en velop e w ith selfsea l i ng l ock s, se cured i n a v aul t, and eve ntual l y g i ven to the c ri m e l ab f orte sting . A t tri al, Detect i ve W agner i denti fi ed the bro w n envel ope, but he was not as ked to i denti fy a ny o fi ts conte nts. Fur th er m or e, he c oul d not i nde p en d en tl y r ec al l i nv en to r y i ngthe dr ug s, a nd the g o ve r nm en t r efr es he d his r ec o l l ec ti o n wi ththe M PD N ar co ti cs i nv en to r y . Kor es ch, the c r i m e l ab t ec hni ci an, i d en tifi ed the envel ope a nd te sti fi ed abo ut the tes ts that sh e r ano n i ts c o nt en ts
. The se t es ts r ev ea l ed th atthe drugs in the envel ope co nsi ste d of4. 024 gr am s o fcr ack co ca i ne . A fte r Kor es chc o m pl et ed he r t es ti m o ny, the gov er nm ent m ove d to adm i t the nar cot i cs r eco ver ed f ro m Tatum duri ng bo oking, wh i ch w er e m ar ked f ortr i al as exhibi ts 68, 69 , and 70. Ta tu m obj ec te d to the adm i ss i o n o fthe se e xhibi ts o n the gr ound that the go ver nm ent di d not l ay a pro per f oundatio n . A c c or d in g to T at u m , W ag n er d id n ot p er so n ally re cove r the dr ugs. M or eover, Capati, wh o tes ti fi ed that h e re c ove re d the drugs , was not ask ed w hetherhe c ould4 N o. 07

- 3015 i denti fy the exhibi ts and had no i nd ependent re col l ecti on of re cove ri ng the drugs f ro m Tatum

. Tatum further ar g ue d tha t th e st at e c rim e l ab t ec hni ci andi d no t se e th e drugs unti l m onths aftertheyal l eg ed ly w er e r eco ver ed f ro m hi m duri ng bo ok ing. Tatum m ai ntai ned that these gap s in t h e chain ofcusto dy re prese nted a f atalfl aw that pr ev en ts the g o ve r nm en t f r o m us i ng ex hi bi ts 6 8, 6 9, a nd 70 a s par t o fi ts c as e. The di st r ic t co ur t, a fte rhe ar i ng ar gum ents, o ver rul ed thi s o bj ecti on. The co urt rule d that th e ex hibits w ere ad m issible bec au se th e de fend an t’s ch ai n o fc us todyc ha l l en g e wentt o the wei g hto fthe evi dence, and not i ts adm i ssibi l i ty. Tatum was convi cted o n al l char ges . The presente nce i nv es ti g at i o n r epo r t ( “P S R” ) co nv er te d th e va r i o us c o ntr olle d su b st an c es in to a m ar ij u an a e q u iva len t o f ap p ro x im ate l y 8 20 ki l ogr am s a nd co ncl ud ed thatTatum had an off ense l eve l o f30 , w hi ch yi el ded a sente nci ng r ange of 151 to 188 m ont hs f or the d rug co un t. T he district cou rt se nt enced T atum t o 1 51 months o n c o unt s o ne ( dr ug di st r ibut i o n) a nd thr ee ( f el o n i n possess i o n) t o r un c o ncurr entl y, and 60 m onths on co unt two ( fi re ar m to fur th erdr ugt r affi ck i ng ) to r un c o ns ec ut i ve l y . Ta tu m appeal s.

II. A N A L Y S IS A. Th e di s t r i c tc o urtdi d n o ta bus e i t s di s c r e t i o n b y adm i t t i ng t he cr ack coca i ne i nto evi den ce. On app eal, Tatum cl ai m s the di str i ct c ourtabus ed i ts di sc r et i o n b y a dm i tt i nge xh ibi ts 6 8- 70 b ec au se no w i tnes s i denti fi ed and authenti cate d the drug exhibi ts.N o. 07

- 3015 5 W e r evi ew the dist ri ct c ourt ’ s e vi denti ar y ru lin gs f oran abuse ofdi scr eti on. U n i t ed S ta tes v. Luster, 48 0 F

. 3d 551, 556 ( 7th Ci r. 20 07 ). “Because we gi ve gr eatdefer ence to the t ri alj ud ge’ s e vi denti ar y r uling s, w e w i l l notr eve rs e unl es s th e r ec o r d c o nt ai ns no e vi d en ce o n whi chthe tr ial jud ge rat ion ally c o u ld h av e b as ed its d ec isio n .” U ni t e d S t at e s v. Em e rs on , 501 F.3d 804 , 813 (7th C ir. 2007). U nd erRule 104 (a) o fthe Feder alRule s o fEvi dence, “prel i m i naryquesti ons concernin g the a dm i ssibi l i ty of evi dence shal l be d et er m i ned by the co urt, ” a nd “s uch m at te rs m u st b e e st ab lish ed by a p re p on d er an c e o f p ro of.” U ni t e d S t at e s v. Tho m as , 29 4 F

. 3d 899, 90 4 ( 7th Ci r. 20 02) ( i nter nalquotat i ons om i tte d). Physi cal exhib i ts m ay be a dmi t t e d s o l o n ga s th e y a r e i n “ s u b s t a n t i a l l y th e s a me c on d itio n a s w h en th e c rim e w as co m m itt ed .” U nited Sta tes v. Scott, 19 F. 3d 12 38, 12 45 ( 7th Ci r. 19 94) ( i nter nal quotati o ns o m i tt ed)

. I n mak i ngthe a dm i ss ibi l i tyde te r m i na ti o n, the di str i ct c ourtem plo ys a “ presum pti on o fr egul ar i ty” and assum es that the g ove rnm ent o ffi ci al s who had custo dy ofthe exhibi ts disc harg ed thei r du ti es pro perl y. T h e go ve rn m en t d oe s n ot n ee d t o p ro ve a “ p er fec t” ch ain o f c u s t o d y , a n d a n y g a p s i n th e c h a i n “ g o t o th e wei g ht ofthe evi dence and not i ts adm i ssibi l i ty. ” Id. H er e, the g o ve r nm en t l ai d a p ro perf o unda ti o n f o r the admi ss i o n o f th e th r ee ex hibi ts o f cr ac k co ca i ne . Tatum m ai nt ai ns tha t Det ec ti ve W agne r, w ho i nv en to r i ed th e drugs, co uld noti nd ependentl y r ecal l thath e did so ; h ow eve r, the gov er nm ent was e nti tl ed to r efre sh his rec o lle ction d uring his testim ony w ith th e inven tory sh ee t t h at h e p re p ar ed atth e t im e o ft h e in c id en t. See6 N o. 07

- 3015 Fed. R. Evi d. 803( 5)

. M or eov er, Capati te sti fi ed that evi dence re cove re d fro m a suspect i s bagg ed an d p as sed off t o t h e c on ve yin g office r, an d W ag n er id en tifie d , at tria l, the b ro w n paper ba g ( al so re f er re d to as a “nar cot i cs envel ope”) that conta i ned the drugs re cove re d fro m Ta tu m . Underthe pr es um pti o n o fr egul ar ity, the di st r i ctc o ur t was e nt i tl ed to pr es um e th atthe b agc o nta i ne d t he dr ug s th atha d b ee n r emov ed f r o m Ta tu m d uring booking. Th at W agn er w as no t asked to i d e n tify th e dr ug s co nt ai ne d wi th i n the b agd oes no t per su ade us th atth e s e we r e n o tth e d r u g s r e c o v e r e d fr o m T a t u m. T he c r i me t e c h n i c i a n i d e n t i fi e d th e c o n t e n t s o fth e b r o wn pape r bag as co nt ai ni ngc r ac kc o ca i ne , a nd the r e i s no e v i d en c e t h at its co n te n ts h ad be en alt er ed , esp ec ially sinc e th e ba gha d s el f

- seal in gl o ck s to pr ev en t ta m per i ng p rior to tra n sp or t t o t h e c rim e la b

. Se eThom as , 29 4 F

. 3d at 90 5 (“m er ely ra isin g th e po ss ibilit y (ho w ev er h yp ot h et ical ) of t am peri ng i s no t s uffi ci ent t o re nd erev i dence inad m issible”) ( intern al quo tations om itted ). Even i f ther e i s a gap i n the chai n of custod y b ec au se th e booking o f fi ce r c o ul d no t r ememberr ec o ve r i ngthe d ru gs from T a t u m , th e b oo kin g off ice r d id te st ify th at it w as his r o ut i ne t o g i ve a ny dr ug s f o und o n a s us pec t’ s perso n to the ar re sti ng o ffi cer

— i n th i s ca se , W agne r, who te st ified th at h e in ve n to rie d th e d ru gs . SeeScott, 19 F. 3d at 1244 -45 (app lyi n g t h e pres um p tion of regu lari ty w he re ther e was a m i nor ga p i n the c hai n ofcusto dy). There f or e, th e fa ilu re of th e b oo kin g off ice r to rec all sp ec ifica lly r e c o v e r i n g e v i d e n c e f r o m T a t u m d o e s n o t r e n d er t he d ru gs ina d m iss ible

. Cf. Thom as , 29 4 F

. 3d at 90 5 ( “W hen ch ai n o fc us to dy i s ca l l ed i nt o que st i o n wi th o uta nyN o. 07

- 3015 7 evi dence ofta m peri ng, and i fthe tap es w er e i n offi ci al c u st ody a t a l l ti m es, a presum pti on a ri ses thatthe tapes w ere han d led p rop erly. ”). I n any eve nt, i fther e w as an er ro r adm i tti ng the drugs, i t was ha r m l es s. Ev eni fthe 4

. 02 4 g r am s o f crac kc o ca i ne th at w e re taken from Tat um f oll ow ing his arrest are i na dmi s s ib l e , the o v e r a l l dr ugqua nt i t y a mou ntdr o ps dow n to a m arij uana equi val ent o fapproxi m ate l y 740 k i l o g r ams. Tha t r edu ct i o n i s no t en o ug h t o a l te r Ta tum ’s c u rre n t g u id elin es ran ge of 15 1 t o 1 88 m on t h s. See U nite d State s v. Fri th , 46 1 F

. 3d 914, 91 8 ( 7th Ci r. 20 06) ( di s t r i c t c o u r t ’ s e r r o r i n d e t e r mi n i n g th e a mo u n t o ft he l oss f ordefendant’s se curi ti es law vi ol ati ons w as harm l ess bec ause eve n i fthater ro neous am ount was excl ud ed f ro m the loss ca l cul ati on, defendant’s o ff ense l ev elr emai ne d the s ame)

. W e fi nd tha t th e g o ve r nm en t laid a p ro p er fou n d at ion for t h e d ru gs th ro u gh th e t es tim o ny o fW agne r a nd the c r i m e l ab t ec hni ci an ; tha t an y g aps i n the c ha i n o fc us tod y wer e l i k el y min i m al ; a nd the di st r i ctc o ur t di d not abus e i ts di sc r et i o n b y a dm i tt i ng the dr ugs.

B . Ta t um i s f r e e t o f i l e a § 3582 ( c) ( 2) m ot i o n i n t he d is tric t co u rt. Tatum se eks a re m and t o pu rs ue re tr oac ti ve appli cati on ofthe r e v i s e d c r a c kg ui de l i ne t o h i s s e nt e nc e . Eff ecti ve N ove m ber1, 2007, the U ni ted S tat es Se ntenci ng Com m i ssi on r educed off ense l eve l s i n m ost cra ck coca i ne cas es by tw o lev els

. See U n ite d Sta tes S entenci ng Com m i ssi on Gu i del i nes M anual, S up ple m ent t o A pp endix C, 22 6- 318 N o. 07

- 3015 ( 2 0 0 7 ) ( Am e nd men t7 0 6 )

. T he Co mm i s s i o n the n mad e the changes re tr oac ti ve, eff ecti ve M ar ch 3, 2008, which perm i t t e d d e f e nd a nt s t o r e l y o n the a men de d c r a ck g ui de l i ne s t o s e e ks e nt e nc e r e du c ti ons un de r 1 8 U. S

. C. § 3 58 2(c )(2)

. See S up ple m ent t o the 2 007 U ni ted S tat es Se ntenci ng Guidel i nes M anu al at 1

- 4 ( M ar . 3, 20 08) ( U. S

. S

. G. § 1 B 1

. 1 0 ( c ) )

. T h e g o v e r n m en t c o n t e n d s th a twe need not vacate and rem and Tatum ’ s s entence bec ause th e r ec en t g ui del i ne a m en dm en ts do no t r en derTa tum ’s sente nce e rr oneo us, and i t would be m or e ap propri ate for T atum to fi l e a m oti on in the dist ri ct c ourtr ather th an ch alle n ge h is s en te n c e o n ap p ea l. W e a gr ee w i t h t h e g ov er n m en t t h at th e p ro p er ve h icle f orTatum to se ek re tr oac tiv e rel i efunder the r evi sed gui del i ne i s a m ot ion to the di str i ct c ourtpursuant to § 3 582( c) ( 2)

. W e nee d not co nsi der w h et her Tatum can receive an y rel iefun d er K im bro ug h v . U nited Sta tes, 12 8 S. Ct. 55 8, 16 9 L. E.2d . 4 81 ( 2007 ) , bec ause du ri ng o ra l ar g um en t defen se c o uns els ta te d he was no t se ek i ng reli ef un d er Kim b r ough i n thi s a pp e a l

. We d i d no tde c i de i n U ni t e d S t at e s v. Tayl or, 52 0 F

. 3d 746 ( 7th Ci r. 2008) , nor do we to day, whethe r a de fend an t m ayr ec ei ve the ben efi t o f Kim b r ough i n a § 3 58 2( c) ( 2) mot i o n t o the dist ri ct c ourt
.
I I I . C ONC L US I ON For the r eas ons setf or th abo ve, we A F F I R M the j ud gm ent o fthe dist ri ct c ourt
.
11- 24- 08