T he H onor abl e A r thurL . A l ar cón, U ni t ed St at es C i r cui tJ udge forthe N i nth J udi ci al * C i r cui t , s i t t i ng bydes i gnat i on. NOT 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. 08- 2708 UNI T E D S T AT E S OF AM E RI CA

v. J O H N F E L D E R ,

A ppel l ant O n 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. 06- cr - 00079- 001 (H o n o rab le G en e E . K . P ratt er) Subm i tt ed Pur s uantt o T hi r d C i r cui tL A R 34. 1( a)

A pr i l 19, 2010 B e f o re : S C IR IC A , A M B R O a n d A L A R C Ó N , C i r cui tJudges . * Fi l ed: A ugus t6, 2010 OPI NI ON O F THE COURT S C IR IC A , C i r cui tJudge .O n February23, 2006, a gr and j uryi n the East ern D i s tr i ctof Penns y l vani a r eturned an 1 i ndi ctm entagai ns tJ ohn Fel der , char gi ng hi m w i th s i x count s of di s tr i but i on of cr ack co ca ine a n d aidin g an d ab ett ing , in v iolati o n o f 2 1 U . S . C . § 8 4 1 (a)(1), ( b )(1)(A ), ( b) ( 1) ( B ) , and ( b) ( 1) ( C ) , and 18 U . S. C . § 2 ( C ount s 4, 6, and 8–11) ; tw o count s of dis tri bu t i on of m ari

j uan a and ai ding and abett i ng , i n v i olat i on of 2 1 U . S . C . § 2 (C ou nts 5 and 7) ; one countof pos s es s i on of cr ack c ocai ne w i th i nt entt o di s tr i but e, i n vi ol at i on of 2 1 U .S .C . § 8 4 1 (a )(1 ), (b )(1 )(B ) (C o u n t 1 2 ); o n e c o u n t o f p o ss e ss io n o f

m a riju a n a w ith i nt entt o di s tr i but e, i n vi ol at i on of 21 U . S. C . § 841( a) ( 1) , ( b) ( 1) ( D ) ( C ount13) ; one count o f p o sses sion o f h ero in w ith inten t t o d istri b u te, in v iolati o n o f 2 1 U . S . C . § 8 4 1 (a)(1), ( b) ( 1) ( C ) ( C ount14) ; tw o count s of pos s es s i on of a f i r earm i n fur ther ance of a drug tra f f ick in g c rim e , in v io latio n o f 1 8 U .S .C . § 9 2 4 (c ) (C o u n ts 1 7 a n d 1 8 ); a n d tw o c o u n ts of pos s es s i on of a f

i r earm bya convi ct ed fe l on, i n vi ol at i on of 18 U . S. C . § 922( g) ( 1) ( C ount s 19 and 20) . B eca us e the j urydi d notr eac h a unani m ous ver di ctas t o C ount s 11, 1 9 , a n d 2 0 , th e D is tr ic t C o u rt d e c la re d a m is tr ia l a s to th o s e c o u n ts . 2 O n February4, 2008, J ohn Fel derw as convi ct ed bya j uryof s i x count s ( C ount s 4, 6, and 8– 10 ) of di stri bu t i on of an d p ossess i on w i th int ent t o d i stri bu t e coca i ne b ase ( “cr ack c ocai ne”) , thr ee c ount s ( C ount s 5, 7, and 13) of di s tr i but i on of and pos s es s i on w ith in ten t to d istrib u te m a riju a n a , o n e c o u n t (C o u n t 1 2 ) o f p o ss e ss io n w ith in ten t to d istrib u te to d istrib u te c ra c k c o c a in e , o n e c o u n t (C o u n t 1 4 ) o f p o ss e ss io n w ith in ten t to d istrib u te h e ro in , an d tw o c o u n ts (C o u n ts 1 7 a n d 1 8 ) o f p o ss e ss io n o f

a f ire a rm in fur ther ance of a drug tr aff i cki ng cr i m e. T he D i s tr i ctC our ts ent ence d Fel dert o 264

1 m onths ’ i ncar cer at i on, ei ghty ear s of s upervi s ed r el eas e, a $1, 100 fi ne, and a s peci al a s s e s s m e n t o f

$ 1 ,1 0 0 . F e ld e r t im e ly ap p e a ls b o th th e c o n v ic tio n a n d th e s e n te n c e . F e ld e r c h a llen g e s h is c o n v ictio n s, c o n ten d in g (1 ) th e e v id e n c e w a s in su f f icie n t to su p p o rt th e c o n v ictio n s b e y o n d a re a so n a b le d o u b t; (2 ) th e c o u rt e rre d in d e n y in g h is m ot i on t o di s m i s s the i ndi ctm entpur s uantt o R ul e 5( a) of the Feder al R ul es of C r i m i nalT h e D i s tr i c tC o u r th a d s u b j e c tm a t t e rj u r i s d i c t i o n p u r s u a n tt o 1 8 U . S . C . § 3 2 3 1 . We 2 have j ur i s di ct i on under28 U . S. C . § 1291 and 18 U . S. C . § 3742. G regoryL on g an d T heart i s H aynes, bo th co -defend ants of F el der, t est i fi ed ag ai nst 3 hi m . B oth L ong and H aynes acknow l edged a ttr i al thattheyhad ent er ed i nt o a c o o p e ra tiv e g u iltyp lea a g re e m e n t w ith th e G o v e rn m e n t. 3 Pr ocedur e; ( 3) the courterr ed i n deny i ng hi s couns el ’ s m ot i on t o w i thdr aw ; and ( 4) the jury ’s ve rdicts co n v ict ing h im w ere interna ll yinco n sist en t and the p rod u ct of jury c o n f u sio n . F e ld e r f

u rth e r c o n ten d s th e D istric t C o u rt e rre d in im p o sin g a n u n re a so n a b le s e n te n c e b yf

a ilin g to g iv e m e a n in g f u l c o n s id e ra tio n to th e f a c to rs s e t f

o rt h in 1 8 U .S .C . § 3 5 5 3 ( a ) . W e wi l l a f

f i rm. 2 I. R es pondi ng t o a compl ai ntof i l l egal drug s al es occurr i ng atthe cornerof 7th and M arketSt r eet s i n Phi l adel phi a, nar cot i cs offi cer s of the Phi l adel phi a Pol i ce D epart m ent began a n i nves t i gat i on i n A pr i l 2005 of G r egoryL ong and Fel der . O n the 900 bl ock of 3 4th St r eet , O ffi cerK enneth O gl es byt es t i fi ed that , w hi l e oper at i ng i n an under cover capa ci ty , he us ed pr e- r ecor ded “buym oney ” t o m ake c ontr ol l ed pur chas es of nar cot i cs f ro m L o n g . L o n g te s tif

ie d th a t b yM a y1 3 , 2 0 0 5 h e h a d in tr o d u c e d O g le s b yto F e ld e r. A ccor di ng t o O gl es by ’ s t es t i m ony , Fel ders ol d the under coveroffi cervary i ng amount s of c o c a in e a n d m a riju a n a a t F e ld e r’s re sid e n c e lo c a ted a t 1 7 4 1 S ig e l S tre e t in P h ilad e lp h ia betw een M ay13, 2005 and J une 10, 2005. A s O g les b yre q u e ste d m o re c o c a in e f ro m F e ld e r, O g les b ylea rn e d o f T h e a rtis H aynes , Fel der ’ s s uppl ys our ce. O gl es byt es t i fi ed thaton J une 1, 2005 and J une 10, 2005Og l e s b yh a d p r o v i d e d th e r e ma i n d e ro f th e “ b u ymo n e y ” t o F e l d e re a r l i e rth e s a me 4 d a y. 4 he w as t ol d byFel dert o w ai ti ns i de Fel der ’ s hom e unt i l H aynes arr i ved w i th a l ar ge d e l i v e ryo f

c r a c k c o c a i n e . Og e l s b yt e s t i f i e d th a th e o b s e r v e d Ha yn e s e n t e rF e l d e r ’ s h o me and del i verthe cr ack c ocai ne t o Fel der , w ho then s ol d s om e of the cr ack c ocai ne and m ar i j uana t o t he under coveroffi cer . A ttr i al , H aynes t es t i fi ed thathe had made del i ver i es of cr ack c ocai ne t o Fel der ’ s r es i dence . O gel s byal s o t es t i fi ed thathe pur chas ed a . 25 c a lib e r p is to l f

ro m F e ld e r f

o r $ 4 5 0 in p re -r e c o rd e d b u ym o n e yo n J u n e 1 0 , 2 0 0 5 . A ft erH aynes l eftFel der ’ s r es i dence on J une 10, 2005, H aynes w as fol l ow ed and arr es t ed athi s r es i dence at2215 M oor e Str eeti n Phi l adel phi a. O ffi cer s found $2, 400 of th e p r e - r e c o r d e d b u y m o n e y t h a tO g l e s b y h a d g i v e n t o F e l d e rth a td a y. C o n c u rr e n t l y, O ff icer C u jdik o f th e F iel d N arc o ti cs U n ito b tai n ed a se arc h w arran t fo r F elde r’s r es i dence . A tthe t i m e the s ear ch w arr antw as exec ut ed on J une 10, 2005, Fel derw as t he onl yone athi s hom e. T he off i cer s found Fel ders i t t i ng on the bed a l ong w i th a pl at e us ed t o cu tand pack age co cai ne, and $1 , 10 0 in pre- recor ded “bu ym on ey . ” O ffi cers al so 4 r ecove r ed a va r i etyof drug par aphernal i a, appr oxi m at el y$6, 602, r oughl yone ki l ogr am of m arij u an a, an d 6 . 5 g ram s o f h ero in p ac k ag ed fo r distr ibu ti o n . A d d it ion all y , o ff icers f o u n d a f u llylo a d e d G lo c k , M o d e l 1 7 , n in e m ill im e ter se m i-a u to m a tic p isto l, an d a f u lly lo a d e d C o lt, M o d e l “O f f icia l P o lice ,” .3 8 c a lib e r re v o lv e r c o n c e a led u n d e r th e b e d . B o th fi r earm s had obl i t er at ed s er i al num ber s . A tthe t i m e of the s ear ch, pol i ce f ound an5

addi t i onal s i x gr ams of cr ack c ocai ne and otherevi dence thr oughoutFel der ’ s hom e.6 II. W hen r evi ew i ng a cha l l enge t o the s uffi ci encyof evi dence , w e vi ew the evi dence i n the l i ghtm os tfavor abl e t o t he governm ent , and w i l l s us t ai n the ver di ct“i f anyr at i onal trier o f f a c t co u ld h a v e f

o u n d th e e ss e n tial e lem e n ts o f th e o f f e n se b e y o n d a re a so n a b le doubt . ” U

ni t ed Stat es v. G i bbs , 190 F. 3d 188, 197 ( 3d C i r . 1999) . T o det erm i ne w hether ther e w as s uffi ci entevi dence t o uphol d the convi ct i ons , w e exa m i ne the “t ot al i tyof the evi dence , both di r ectand ci r cumst ant i al . ” U ni t ed Stat es v. Spar r ow , 371 F. 3d 851, 852 ( 3d C i r . 2004) ( i nt ernal quot at i on m arks and ci t at i on om i t t ed) . T he s t andar d i s defe r ent i al a n d it is n o t o u r r o le to w e ig h th e e v id e n c e o r d e te rm in e th e c re d ib ility o f th e w itn e s s e s . U ni t ed Stat es v. Jones , 5 6 6 F .3 d 3 5 3 , 3 6 1 (3 d C ir. 2 0 0 9 ); U ni t ed Stat es v. C othr an , 286 F . 3d 17 3, 17 5 (3d C i r. 20 02 ). T hu s, “a cl ai m of insuffi ci encyof the evidence p l aces a veryheavybur den on an appel l ant . ” U ni t ed Stat es v. D ent , 1 4 9 F . 3 d 1 8 0 , 1 8 7 (3d C ir . 1 9 9 8 ) (i n terna l qu o tat ion m ark s an d cit ati o n o m itted). T h e e v iden ce ag ains t Fe lder c o n sist ed o f testi m o n yb ythe a rresti n g o ff icer, t es t i m onybycooper at i ng co- defe ndant s L ong and H aynes , and ci r cumst ant i al evi dence l i nki ng both t he drugs and the guns found i n Fel der ’ s hom e t o Fel der . Fel der ’ s chal l enge i s thr ee- fol d: ( 1) the governm entw i tnes s es ’ t es t i m onyw as i ncr edi bl e; ( 2) the evi dence w as i nsuff

i ci ent t o est abli sh t hat Fel der con struct i velypo sses sed t he d rugs and fi rearm s;C ount s 12–14 r equi r e pr oof thatthe def endantknow i ngl ypos s es s ed the drugs at 5 is s u e . See 21 U . S. C . § 841( a) ( 1) . U nderC ount s 17–20, the governm entm us tpr ove that th e 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 th e f ir e a rm s a t is s u e . See 1 8 U . S . C . § § 9 2 2 (g)(1 ), 924. See U nited S tates v. W

ei nb erg , 478 F. 2d 1351, 1355 ( 3d C i r . 1973) ( hol di ng the 6 d istric t co u rt d id n o t ab u se its d isc re tio n in p e rm itt in g a law e n f o rc e m e n t ag e n t to e x a m in e h is s u m m a ryre p o rt to re f re sh h is re c o llec tio n a n d th a t th e re p o rt w a s re f e rre d to b yth e a g e n t s o le ly f

o r t h a t p u rp o s e .) 7 a n d (3 ) th e e v id e n c e w a s in su f f icie n t to p ro v e th a t h e k n o w in g lyp o ss e ss e d f ire a rm s in fur ther ance of a drug tr aff i cki ng cr i m e. T h e se a ss e rtio n s la c k su f f icie n t m e rit. 5 A. Fel dercont ends the t es t i m onyof O ffi cerO gl es byw as i ns uffi ci entt o s uppor tt he convi ct i ons beca us e the t es t i m onyw as i ncons i s t entw i th hi s r eport . Fel deras s ert s thaton c r o s s e x a mi n a t i o n “ Og l e s b ya c k n o wl e d g e d th a ti twa s p o s s i b l e h e ma d e s o me uni nt ent i onal err or s i n hi s t es t i m onyabouti m por t antfac t s of the ca s e. ” A l l eged inco n sist en cies p ertain to w itn ess c red ibil ity , “a n are a p ec u li arlyw ith in the jury ’s dom ai n. ” C othr an , 286 F. 3d at176. D ur i ng tr i al , O gl es byr efe rr ed t o hi s i nves t i gat i ve r eportand us ed the r eportt o r efr es h hi s r ecol l ect i on as t o the det ai l s s urr oundi ng the c a s e . O g l e s b y’ s t e s t i m o n y w a s n o ts o i n c o n s i s t e n tth a ti tc o u l d n o tb e b e l i e v e d b y a 6 rati o n al j u ror. W e c o n clud e the ev iden ce w as m o re tha n su ff ici en t t o su p p o rtF elde r’s c o n v ic tio n . Fel deral s o cont ends the t es t i m onyof Long and H aynes , w ho s t ood t o benef i tby th e ir c o o p e ra tio n , w a s in su f f icie n t to su p p o rt h is c o n v ictio n . “T h e m e re f a c t th a t aSee U ni t ed Stat es v. U

r ban , 404 F. 3d 754, 782 ( 3d C i r . 2005) ( “[T] her e i s no ques t i on 7 thatthe fa ct fi nderi s ent i t l ed t o cons i dera party ’ s di s hones tyabouta mat er i al fac tas af firm ati v e e v iden ce o f g u il t. ”) (interna l qu o tat ion m ark s an d cit ati o n o m itted). 8 w i tnes s hopes t o r ece i ve a r educe d s ent ence byt es t i fy i ng forthe pr os ecut i on does not di s qual i fyhi m . ” U

nited S tates v. D eL arosa , 450 F. 2d 1057, 1060 ( 3d C i r . 1971) ( i nt ernal quot at i on m arks and ci t at i on om i t t ed) . W e have hel d that“uncorr obor at ed ac compl i ce t es t i m onym aycons t i tut i onal l ypr ovi de the exc l us i ve bas i s fora cr i m i nal convi ct i on. ” D eL arosa , 450 F. 2d 1057, 1060 ( 3d C i r . 1971) . B oth L ong and H aynes t es t i fi ed thatt hey h a d b e e n p re s e n t w h e n O f f ic e r O g le s b yc o n d u c te d d ru g tr a n s a c tio n s w ith F e ld e r. Fel der ’ s cont ent i ons ar e unper s us ai ve. B. O n C ount s 4–10, Fel dercont ends ther e w as i ns uffi ci entevi dence t o es t abl i s h he cons truct i vel ypos s es s ed the drugs . T her e i s cons truct i ve pos s es s i on 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 or contr ol overa thi ng, ei therdi r ect l yorthr ough anotherper s on orper s ons . ” U ni t ed Stat es v . G a rth , 1 8 8 F .3 d 9 9 , 1 1 2 (3 d C ir . 1 9 9 9 ) ( e m p h a s is o m itte d ). Fel dercont ends ther e w as i ns uffi ci entevi dence thathe had know l edge of the drugs and fi r earm s . H e t es t i fi ed the drugs w er e i n hi s hom e w i thouthi s know l edge, and th e tw o f ire a rm s b e lo n g e d to h is u n c le. B u t itis f o r th e ju ryto d e ter m in e th e c re d ib ili ty o f th e w itn e ss e s, in c lu d in g th e d e f e n d a n t. N o tw i th s t a n d i n g F e l d e r ’ s o w n t e s t i m o n y,

7 th e r e wa s s u b s t a n t i a l e v i d e n c e th a th e k n o wi n g l yp o s s e s s e d th e d ru g s a n d f i r e a r ms . He9

does notdi s put e that1741 Si gel St r eetw as hi s r es i dence , and thatatthe t i m e of the s ear ch he w as the onl yper s on atthe home. T he off i cer s found Fel deri n hi s bedr oom w her e the cr ack c ocai ne, m ar i j uana, her oi n, and tw o fi r earm s w er e r ecove r ed. O n the bed, offi cer s r ecove r ed a pl at e us ed t o cutcr ack c ocai ne and $1, 100 i n pr e- r ecor ded buy m oney . O gl es byt es t i fi ed t o s eei ng and hea r i ng Fel dergo i nt o the bedr oom dur i ng u n d erc o v er sa les tran sac ti o n s. M o reo v er, du ri n g the c o u rse o f th e inv esti g ati o n , o ff icers obs erved cr ack c ocai ne and mar i j uana tr ans act i ons atthe r es i dence betw een Fel derand the under coveroffi cer s . T he evi dence w as m or e than s uffi ci entfora j uryt o concl ude that Fel der kno w i ng l ypo sses sed t he d rugs and fi rearm s. O n C ount s 12–14 Fel deral s o cont ends ther e w as i ns uffi ci entevi dence thathe k n o w ing lyp o sses sed d rug s w ith inten t t o d istri b u te. B ase d o n the in v esti g ati o n , there w as overw hel m i ng evi dence t o s how Fel derhad know l edge of the drugs and w as engage d in d ru g tra f

f ick in g a c tiv iti e s. T h u s, th e re w a s s u f f icie n t ev id e n c e f

o r a ra tio n a l ju ryto con cl ud e t hat Fel der had po sses si on w i th the i ntentt o d i stri bu t e t he d rugs. C . F e ld e r a ss e rts th e re w a s in su f f icie n t ev id e n c e to sh o w h e p o ss e ss e d th e f ire a rm s in fur ther ance of a drug tr aff i cki ng cr i m e. Sect i on 924( c) r equi r es evi dence s peci fi c t o t he part i cul ardefe ndant , s how i ng thathi s “pos s es s i on actual l yfur ther ed the drug tr aff i cki ng offe ns e. ” Spar r ow , 371 F. 3d at853 ( ci t at i on om i t t ed) . “I n m aki ng thi s det erm i nat i on t he fol l ow i ng nonexcl us i ve fa ct or s ar e r el evant : the type of drug act i vi tythati s bei ng10

c o n d u c ted , ac c e ss ib ili tyo f th e f ire a rm s, th e typ e o f

th e w e a p o n , w h e th e r th e f ire a rm is s t ol en, the s t atus of the pos s es s i on ( l egi t i m at e ori l l egal ) , w hetherthe gun i s l oaded, pr oxi m i tyt o t he drugs ordrug pr ofi t s , and the t i m e and c i r cumst ance s underw hi ch the gun i s found. ” I

d. P oli ce of

fi cers fou nd tw o fir earm s conce al ed u nd er the b ed in cl ose p ro x im ityto th e d ru g s, d ru g p a ra p h e rn a lia, a n d p re -m a rk e d b ill s u se d in c o n n e c tio n w ith drug tr afficki ng act i vity . B oth fi rearm s w ere ful l yl oad ed w i th o bli t erat ed seri al nu m bers, and Fel dercoul d nothave pos s es s ed the fi r earm s l egal l y , as he had a pr i orfel ony c o n v ic tio n . See 18 U . S. C . § 922( g) ( 1) . T her e w as s uffi ci entevi dence t o concl ude Fel der po sses sed t he fir earm s i n fu rtherance o f F el der’ s drug acti vit i es. III . F el der con t end s the D i stri ctC ou rterr ed in den y i ng his pretri al m oti on t o d i sm i ss the i ndi ctm entbas ed on the governm ent ’ s al l eged vi ol at i on of Feder al C r i m i nal R ul e of Pr ocedur e 5( a) ( 1) ( A ) . W e di s agr ee. R ul e 5( a) ( 1) ( A ) s t at es that“a pe r s on m aki ng an arrest w ith in the U n it ed S tat es m u st t ak e the d ef en d an t w ith o u t un n ec essa ryd elayb ef o re a magi s tr at e j udge . . . . ” Fed. R . A pp. P. 5( a) ( 1) ( A ) . Fel derar gues the det ai nerpl ace d on h im w h ile in s ta te c u s to d yc o n s titu te d a n “ a rr e s t” s u f f ic ie n t to im p lic a te R u le 5 (a )( 1 )( A ). T he fe der al det ai nerl odged on Fel derw hi l e i n s t at e cus t ody , how ever , di d notactas an

“ a rre st.” A d e tain e r is a n u n e x e c u ted w a rra n t p lac e d o n a n in d iv id u a l w h ile in c u sto d yin a n o th e r j u ri s d ic tio n a n d is a m a tte r o f c o m ity. Mo o d

y v . D a g g e tt , 4 2 9 U .S . 7 8 , 8 1 n .2T he Supr eme C our ti n Moody fur therdefi ned a de t ai neras an “i nt ernal admi ni s tr at i ve 8 m echa ni s m t o as s ur e thatan i nm at e s ubj ectt o an unexpi r ed t erm of conf i nementw i l l not be r el eas ed fr om cus t odyunt i l the j ur i s di ct i on as s ert i ng a . . . vi ol at i on has had an o p p o rtu n ityto ac t i n this case . . . . ” 4 2 9 U . S . 7 8 , 8 1 n . 2 (19 7 6 ). C i t i ng t o U

ni t ed Stat es v. A lvar ez - Sanchez , Fel deras s ert s a det ai ners houl d be 9 c la s s if ie d a s “ o th e r d e te n tio n ” s u f f ic ie n t to tr ig g e r t h e p ro te c tio n s o f R u le 5 (a )( 1 )( A ). See 511 U . S. 350, 358 ( 1994) ( not i ng thatw hen an i ndi vi dual i s hel d on a fe der al char ge, ther e i s a duty , obl i gat i on, orr eas on t o br i ng hi m befor e a f eder al m agi s tr at e j udge) . B ut Fel derdoes notal l ege he w as i n s t at e cus t odyforthe s ol e purpos e of f aci ng fede r al char ges . W e agr ee w i th t he governm ent ’ s as s ert i on thatthe fe der al “det ai ner ” di d not convertFel der ’ s s t at e i ncar cer at i on i nt o a per i od of fe der al det ent i on. W e re v ie w f

o r a b u s e o f

d is c re tio n . O hntr up v. F i r ear em s C tr . I nc. , 802 F. 2d 676, 10 6 7 9 (3 d C ir. 1 9 8 6 ); U

nited S tates v. G oldberg , 6 7 F . 3 d 1 0 9 2 , 1 0 9 7 (3d C ir . 1 9 9 5 ). R ul e 1. 16 pr ovi des “a l aw y ers hal l notr epr es enta cl i entor , w her e r epr es ent at i on has 11 comm ence d, s hal l w i thdr aw fr om the r epr es ent at i on of a c l i enti f . . . the r epr es ent at i on (c o n tin u e d ...) 11 ( 1976) . Fel derw as arr es t ed bythe Phi l adel phi a Pol i ce D epart m enton s t at e nar cot i cs

8 and fi r earm s char ges on J une 10, 2005. O n J anuary20, 2006 the fe der al governm entfi l ed a c rim in a l co m p lain t ag a in st h im w h ile h e w a s h o u se d a t a s tate c o rre c tio n a l f a c ili ty aw ai t i ng a s t at e par ol e vi ol at i on hear i ng. Subse quent l y , the D i s tr i ctC our tt i m el yi s s ued a w ri t fo r F elde r’s ap p ea ran ce . T h ere fo re the re w as n o v iolati o n o f R u le 5(a )(1)(A ). 9 I V. F e ld e r c o n ten d s th e D istric t C o u rt e rre d in d e n y in g h is c o u n se l’s m o tio n to w i thdr aw fr om r epr es ent at i on, ci t i ng Penns y l vani a R ul e of Pr ofes s i onal C onduct1. 16. 10 Speci fi cal l y , Fel dercont ends the courts houl d have a l l ow ed hi s couns el , w ho had r eas on t o bel i eve Fel derw as pr epar ed t o comm i tper j ury , t o w i thdr aw fr om r epr es ent at i on. 11( . . . cont i nued) 11 wi l l r e s u l ti n a v i o l a t i o n o f th e Ru l e s o f

P r o f e s s i o n a l Co n d u c to ro th e rl a w . . . . ” P a . R. Pr of. C onduct1. 16. Fel der ’ s cont ent i on pert ai ns t o a vi ol at i on of Penns y l vani a R ul e of Pr ofes s i onal C onduct3. 3, w hi ch pr ovi des , “a l aw y ers hal l notknow i ngl y. . . offe r e v id e n c e th a t th e la w y e r k n o w s to b e f a ls e .” P a . R . P ro f. C o n d u c t 3 .3 . D e f e n se c o u n se l w a s in stru c ted b yth e c o u rt to p re se n t F e ld e r’s tes tim o n yin 12 narr at i ve fo rm and w as i nst ruct ed to m ake n o reference t o st at em ents that coul d b e fal se in c lo s in g a rg u m e n t. See Pa. R . Pr of. C onduct3. 3, comm ent s 6–7 ( “I f onl ya port i on of a w i tnes s ' t es t i m onyw i l l be fa l s e, the l aw y erm aycal l the w i tnes s t o t es t i fybutm aynot e licit o r o th e rw ise p e rm it th e w itn e ss to p re se n t th e tes tim o n yth a t th e law y e r k n o w s is fal s e. . . . [C ] our t s have r equi r ed couns el t o pr es entthe ac cus ed as a w i tnes s ort o gi ve a narr at i ve s t at ementi f the ac cus ed s o des i r es , even i f couns el know s thatthe t es t i m onyor sta tem e n t w ill b e f

a lse .”); see al

so A B A M odel R . Pr of. C onduct3. 3, comm ent s 6–7. A tthe t i m e of de fens e couns el ’ s m ot i on t o w i thdr aw , the j uryhad hea r d openi ng 13 s t at ement s , t es t i m onyfr om 13 governm entw i tnes s es , and the courthad admi t t ed and p u b l i s h e d o v e r5 0 e x h i b i t s t o th e j u ry. C o u n ts 4

– 1 0 c h a rg e d F e ld e r w ith d istrib u tio n o f a n d p o ss e ss io n w ith in ten t to 14 di s tr i but e cr ack c ocai ne and mar i j uana pr i ort o J une 10, 2005. C ount11 char ged Fel der (c o n tin u e d ...) 12 T hi s as s ert i on l acks m er i t . T he D i s tr i ctC ourthel d an ex pa r t e hea r i ng on the mot i on, conduct ed a thor ough i nqui r y , and det erm i ned thatdefe ns e couns el coul d pr ocee d w i thout comm i t t i ng anyethi cal vi ol at i on. Fur therm or e, the D i s tr i ctC our tdet erm i ned that 12 a l l o w i n g c o u n s e l t o w i th d r a w , f o u rd a ys i n t o tr i a l , w o u l d p r o d u c e a n i n o r d i n a t e d e l a y. 13 W e s ee no a bus e of di s cr et i on. V. Fel dercont ends the convi ct i ons w er e i nt ernal l yi ncons i s t entand the pr oductof j uryconfus i on. H e as s ert s thatthe j ury ’ s i nabi l i tyt o r eac h a ver di cton C ount11 w as i nt ernal l yi ncons i s t entw i th i t s gui l tyver di ct s on C ount s 4–10. H e ci t es t o U ni t ed Stat es 14( . . . cont i nued) 14 w i th hi s fi nal s al e of c r ack c ocai ne t o O gl es byon J une 10, 2005. C r i m i nal defe ndant s ar e af for ded a pr ot ect i on agai ns tj uryerr orbythe i ndepende nt 15 re v ie w o f

th e s u f f ic ie n c yo f

th e e v id e n c e o n a p p e a l. S e e P o w e ll , 469 U . S. at67 ( 1984) (“ T h is re v ie w s h o u ld n o t b e c o n f u s e d w ith th e p ro b le m s c a u s e d b yin c o n s is te n t v e rd ic ts . Suffi ci ency - of- the- evi dence r evi ew i nvol ves as s es s m entbythe court s of w hetherthe evi dence adduce d attr i al coul d s uppor tanyr at i onal det erm i nat i on of gui l tybey ond a re a s o n a b le d o u b t.” ). S e e a lso B o y a n o w sk i v. C a

p ita l A re a In ter m e d ia te U n it , 215 F. 3d 39 6, 40 7 (3d C i r. 20 00 ) ( “Incon si st ent j uryverdi ct s . . . shou l d n ot, i n an d o f t hem sel ves, b e u sed to o v erturn o therw ise v ali d v erd ict s. ”). W e re v ie w s e n te n c e s f

o r r e a s o n a b le n e s s u n d e r a n a b u s e o f d is c re tio n s ta n d a rd . 16 U ni t ed Stat es v. B ooker , 5 4 3 U .S . 2 2 0 , 2 6 1 (2 0 0 5 ); G al lv. U ni t ed Stat es , 552 U . S. 38, 49 (20 0 7 ). 13 v. Mes s er l i an f

o r th e p ro p o sitio n th a t an in c o n sis ten t v e rd ict m a yn e c e ss itate a n e w trial if there is i n su ff

ici en t evid en ce to su p p o rtthe ju ry ’s find ing s. 8 3 2 F . 2 d 7 7 8 , 7 9 7 (3d . C ir . 1 9 8 7 ). B u t Mes s er l i an is u n a v a ili n g h e re b e c a u se th e re w a s s u f f icie n t ev id e n c e to convi ctFel der . I ncons i s t entver di ct s do notnece s s ar i l ys how thatthe j uryw as not c o n v in c e d o f

th e d e f e n d a n t’s g u ilt . S e e U

n itedS ta tes v . P o w e ll , 469 U . S. 57, 64–65 15 (1 9 8 4 ). W ith a m p le e v id e n c e to s u p p o rt th e c o n v ic tio n s , F e ld e r’ s a s s e rt io n f a ils . V I. In c h a llen g in g h is s e n ten c e , F e ld e r c o n ten d s th e D istric t C o u rt a b u se d its di s cr et i on and appl i ed an unr eas onabl e s ent ence . U nderthe s ent enci ng gui del i nes , t he 16 courtappl i ed an of

fens e l evel of 37 and c r i m i nal hi s t orycat egoryof V I beca us e of Fel der ’ s fourpr i orfel onyconvi ct i ons . T he gui del i ne r ange w as 360 m onths t o l i fe im p ri s o n m e n t. T h e D is tr ic t C o u rt s e n te n c e d F e ld e r t o 2 6 4 m o n th s ’ i n c a rc e ra tio n . See 1814

U . S. C . § 3553( a) . D es pi t e the 96- m onth dow nw ar d departur e, Fel deras s ert s the s ent ence i s unr eas onabl e bec aus e the D i s tr i ctC our tfai l ed t o m eani ngful l ycons i deral l the r el evant § 3 55 3(a) sent encing factors . T he D i stri ctC ou rtproperl ycon si dered t he fa ct ors, in c lu d in g F e ld e r’ s f

a m ily sit u a tio n a n d h is e d u c a tio n a l, m e d ic a l, a n d v o c a tio n a l c o n c e rn s . I tbal ance d them w i th t he s er i ous nes s of the off ens es , Fel der ’ s cr i m i nal hi s t ory , hi s l ack of r emors e, and the conc ern forpubl i c s afe ty . W e di s cern no abus e of di s cr et i on, and have no r eas on t o fi nd the s ent ence unr eas onabl e. V I I . Forthe for egoi ng r eas ons , w e w i l l aff i r m the j udgm entof convi ct i on and s ent ence .