# U ni te d S ta te s Co ur t of A pp ea ls For the Eig hth Circu it

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ _
No. 1 6- 25 41

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ _
Uni te d S ta te s o f Am eri ca

ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll l Pla in ti

ff - App el le e

v.
Darryl Park er

ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll l Defe nd

an t - Ap pe ll an t

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ _
No. 1 6- 25 98

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ _
Uni te d S ta te s o f Am eri ca

ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll l Pla in ti

ff - App el le e

v.

Velt rez B la ck

ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll l Defe nd

an t - Ap pe ll an t

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ _
No. 1 6- 30 86

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ _
Uni te d S ta te s o f Am eri ca

ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll l Pla in ti

ff - App el le ev.

Ja ba ri J oh ns on

ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll l Defe nd

an t - Ap pe ll an t

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ _
No. 1 6- 33 34

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ _
Uni te d S ta te s o f Am eri ca

ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll l Pla in ti

ff - App el le e

v.

Ty win Ben de r

ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll l Defe nd

an t - Ap pe ll an t

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ _
No. 1 6- 33 35

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ _
Uni te d S ta te s o f Am eri ca

ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll l Pla in ti

ff - App el le e

v.

Ty win Ben de r

ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll l Defe nd

an t - Ap pe ll an t

__ __ __ __ __ __ App eal s fr om

Uni te d S ta te s Di st ric t Co ur t

-2

-fo r th e Dis tri ct of M in ne so ta - St. Pa ul

__ __ __ __ __ __
Su bm it te d: May 10, 2 01 7 Fil ed : Se pt em

be r 12 , 20 17

__ __ __ __ __ __
Befo re SM ITH, Chi ef J ud ge , COLLOTO N and KELLY , Cir cu it Ju dg es

.

__ __ __ __ __ __

SMI TH, Chi ef J ud ge

.

Thi s is th e co ns ol id at e d a p p eal of fo ur of el ev en in di vi du al s in di ct ed an d

co nv ic te d of co ns pi rin g to po ss es s fir earm s, in vi ol at io n of 18 U.S. C

. §§ 37 1 an d
92 2( g) (1 ). The co ns pi ra c y in vo lv ed ga ng m em be rs wit h fel on y co nv ic ti on s who

en li st ed “ st raw pu rch as ers ,” i.e., as so ci at es who co ul d pa ss th e req ui si te ba ck gr ou nd
ch eck s, to ob ta in gu ns le ga ll y

. The st raw pu rch as ers th en ga ve th e “ le ga l” gu ns to th e
ga ng fo r it s us e. Co de fen da nt s Darryl Park er, Velt rez Bl ack
, Ja ba ri Jo h n s o n , an d Ty win Ben de r ap pe al th ei r in di vi du al cas es to th is co ur t.

I. Bac kg ro un d
Nor th Mi nn eap ol is
, Mi nn es ot a, kn ows ga n g v i ol en ce. Two riv al st reet

ga ng s— th e Tali b a n an d th e One -Nin e Bl oc k Dip se t— ha ve tra de d hi gh -p ro fil e ho m ic id es in a deca de s- lon g co nf lic t. W he n Ty

ro ne “ Ty Crac k” W as hi ng to n, a le ad er 1
of “ th e One -Nin e,” was sh ot an d ki ll ed at Epi c ni gh tc lu b in Nov em be r 20 13
, th e Tali ba n rel eas ed a se rie s of vid eo s on Face bo ok an d You Tub e ta un ti ng m em be rs of
th e One -Ni n e a n d i t s de riv at iv e gr ou p, th e St ic k Up Bo y s (SUB). Ret al ia ti on so on be ga n.

Se e Mat t McKi nn ey , Th re e Ch ar ge d in Gan g S

h o ot in gs , St ar Trib un e, May 1 6, 20 14
, at B3 ; Mat t McKi nn ey & Dav id Ch an en , A Blo od y Su mmer of Gan g W

ar fa re Ahe ad ? , Sta r Trib un e, May 27 , 20 10 , at B1 , B5.

-3

-K i b bi e W al ke r, a Tali ba n m em be r pr es en t at Epi c ni gh tc lu b on th e ni gh t o f
W as hi ng to n’s m

ur de r, was sh ot by a One -Nin e m em be r as he le ft wor k in Apr il 20 14

. Tw o week s la te r, W al ke r fir ed m ul ti pl e sh ot s in to a ve hi cl e, hi tt in g SUB

- memb e r Mar qu is W oo ds

. W al ke r pl ead ed gu il ty to two co un ts of as sa ul t an d was im pr is on ed

. As th e feu d co nt in u e d
, memb ers of th e One -Nin e be ga n st oc kp il in g weap on s. To

acq ui re weap on s, th e One -Nin e recr ui te d fri en ds who di d no t ha ve fel on y reco rd s to le ga ll y pu rch as e fi rear m s t ha t wo ul d e ve nt ua ll y be co m e p art of t he ga ng ’s ars en al

.

In Nov em be r 20 14
, so m eo ne li ke ly affi li at ed wit h th e Tali ba n sh ot One -Nin em em be r Ja ba ri Jo hn so n m

ul ti pl e ti m es . To av oi d fu rth er re pr is al s, law en fo rcem en t in di ct ed th e le ad ers of th e O n e

- N in e an d SUB. Nin e ga ng m em be rs —i nc lu di ng V e l t r ez Bl ack
, Ty

win Ben de r, Darryl Park er, an d Ja ba ri Jo hn so n— an d two st ra w
pu r c ha se rs were in di ct ed fo r co ns pi racy to il le ga ll y po ss es s fir earm s. Each ga ng

m em be r was als o i nd ic te d o n a si ng le co un t o f fel on y gu n po ss es si on . W he n p ol ic e

cam e to a rres t Jo hn so n, he cred it ed th e po li ce arre st s fo r pr ev en ti ng a ga ng ba tt le
, st at in g th at hi s ga ng was “ jus t ab ou t to go sh oo t th em up

. ” J o h n s o n vo lu nt ari ly l ed
of fic ers to a st or ag e lo ck er co nt ai ni ng two Glo ck ha nd gu ns , a Si g Sau er .9 m m , two
AK-47 r i f

le s, an d hi gh -cap aci ty m ag azi ne s. All de fen da nt s ex cep t Bl ack pl ead ed

gu il ty.

At Bl ack ’s tri al
, th e go ve rn m en t p r es en te d ev id en ce th at th e op en ho st il it ie s

un de rlyin g th e pr es en t ga ng co nf li ct be ga n wit h th e m

ur de r of Tali ba n- m em

be r Ky le
Park er by One -Nin e-m em be r Ch ris top he r Bah tu oh in 20 09

. Thi s ki ll in g was fo ll owe d by th e m ur de r of SUB-m em

be r Dacar i “ Pu dd a Loc ” St arr an d Tal i b an -m em be r Derri ck “ D-Nic e” M a rti n. The go ve rn m en t di sc us se d W as hi ng to n’s m ur de r at th e ni gh tc lu b an d th e su bs eq ue nt dr iv e-b y sh oo ti ng s of res id en ces be lo ng in g to Tali ba n

m em be rs de em ed res po ns ib le fo r W as hi ng to n’s m ur de r. The go v ern m en t’s pr oo f pl a c e d B l ack in th e pr es en ce of One -Nin e m em be rs an d fir earm s on fiv e oc cas io ns du rin g th e co ns pi racy pe rio d. In on e in st an ce, Bl ack was se en in a ho us e wit h a la rg e
gr ou p of One -Nin e m em

be rs , whe re se ve n fir earm s were fo un d. Two of th e fir earm s,

-4

-a .45 m

m Kim be r an d a Cze ch 7.6 2 m

m rif le , we re di sc ov ered in t h e s a m e ro om as Bl ack

. Bo th gu ns h a d a mi x t u r e of DNA. A fo ren si c bi ol og is t wit h th e Hen ne pi n Co un ty Sh eri ff’s Offi ce Cri m e Lab te st ifi ed th at Bl ack ’s DNA co ul d no t be ex cl ud ed
fro m th e m ix tu res

. Fi rear m s ex am in er Kris ti n Reynol ds te st ifi ed th at gu n cas in gs fo un d at res id en ti al sh oo ti ng s of Tali ba n m e mb e r s , on Nov em be r 20 an d 26
, 20 13 (s ho rtl y aft er Wash in gt on ’s m

ur de r), were c on si st en t wi th th e sa m e Kim be r pi st ol

.

Th e g o v e rn m en t al so pr es en te d two le tt ers th at Bl ack wro te whi le in jail

. I n

on e, Bl ack m en ti on ed th e d e a th of Derri ck “ D-Nic e” Mar ti n. In th e ot he r, Bl ack
in st ru ct ed a f

e l l o w i n mat e to id en ti fy th e One -Nin e as “ 1- 9 pu sh up an d 1- 9 pi pe s”
whe n ta lk in g to o t h e r s

. The go ve rn m en t pr es en te d Face bo ok an d In st ag ram po st s sh owi ng Bl ack in th e co m pa ny of One -Nin e m em

be rs , weari ng cl ot hi ng refe ren ci ng th e ga ng , an d sh owi ng co nt em pt fo r th e Tali ba n. Ma n y o f th es e ph ot os ha d
in sc rip ti on s refe ren ci ng th e One -Nin e. Mi nn eap ol is Po li ce Offi cer Ja cl y n Tum a, who

sp eci al iz es in ga ng in te ll ig en ce, te st ifi ed th at the Mi nne ap oli s Po lic e Dep art m en t us es ni ne in di cat or s to id en ti fy g a ng m em be rs

. Bl ack m et se ve n. (A typic al ga ng id en ti fic at io n req ui res on ly th ree in di cat or s.) Add it io na ll y , th e go ve rn m en t pr es en te d

te st im on y fro m SUB-m em be r Ant on io Lewis an d Tali ba n- m em b e r K i bb ie W al ke r. Lewis an d W al ke r bo th pr ov id ed co nt ex t to th e ga ng war an d th e an im os it y be twee n
t h e Ta l i ba n an d th e One -Nin e. Afte r a si x- da y tri al
, th e jury co nv ic te d Bl ack o f
il le ga ll y po ss es si ng a fi rear m

an d c on sp iri ng to il le ga ll y po ss es s fi rear m s.

The da y aft er Black ’s con vi ct io n, Ty win Ben de r (al so kn own as F in n Win n)
,

a SUB-l ead er an d Bl ack ’s co de fen da nt , cal le d a fri en d fro m pr is on us in g a bo rro wed

te le ph on e id en ti fic at io n co de

. He in st ru ct ed th is fri en d to se nd e-m ai ls to two pe op le
in th e Ru sh Ci ty Co rrec ti on al Faci li ty, th e lo c at io n whe re wit ne ss es Lewis an d
W al ke r were h ou se d. He g av e th is in st ru ct io n:

-5

-@F in nWin n

ay e br o th e n[ ** ** ] bo gu s a rat he to ok th e st an d on ch ie f, sm as h hi m [ 2 ]

as so on as y ou se e hi m

. gr een li gh t. th e n[   ] ki bb y to ok th e st an d to o

on ch ie f. le t ev erybod y

kn ow. n o t al ki ng no ex pl an at io ns

. #n ev ers ni tc ho na n[ **  ** ]ona dr y ## Low-e nd ## #F REEDAREAL

The pr is on st aff in te rcep te d on e of th e e-m ai ls

. The ot he r e-m ai l reac he d it s in te nd ed
reci pi en t an d was fo un d in hi s be lo ng in gs

. Alt ho ug h al read y im pr is on ed f

or th e fir earm s co ns pi racy, Ben de r’s act io n dr ew a ne w ch arg e fo r co ns pi racy to ret al ia te

ag ai ns t th e go ve rn m en t wit n e s s e s

. Befo re jury de li be rat io ns be ga n, Ben de r so ug ht

se ve ral jury in st ru ct io ns , in cl ud in g on e reg ard in g hi s Firs t Am en dm en t rig ht to free

sp eech

. The di st ric t co ur t reject ed hi s pr op os ed in st ru ct io ns

. Ben de r was co nv ic te d,
al th ou gh hi s co ns pi racy cod efen da nt was a cq ui tt ed

.

At se nt e n c i ng , de fen da nt s Park er an d Jo hn so n each rece iv ed th e 60 -m on th

st at ut or y max i mu m se nt en ce fo r th e fir earm co ns pi racy, an d th ey each rece iv ed

co nc ur ren t 78 -m on th se nt en ces fo r th ei r res pe ct iv e il le ga l-p os se ss io n co un ts

. Ben de r

rece iv ed 60 m on th s on th e co ns pi racy co nv ic ti on an d an ad di ti on al 70 m on th s fo r th e
ret al ia ti on c o n v i c t io n. Bl ack al so rece iv ed 60 m on th s’ im pr is on m en t on th e

co ns pi racy ch arg e an d an add it io na l 12 0 m on th s fo r th e po ss es si on ch arg e. All fo ur de fen da nt s ap pe al

.

Test im on y rev eal ed th at “ Bo gu s” an d “ Ch ie f” are co m m on ni c k n a mes fo r 2 Ant on io Lewis an d Vel tre z Bl ack , res pe ct iv el y

.
-6

-II. Dis cu ss io n

Bl ack was co nv ic te d of, and Jo hn so n an d Park er ple ad ed gu il ty to , on e co un t of co ns pi rin g to il le ga ll y po ss es s f i r e a r ms , in vi ol at io n of 18 U.S.C. §§ 37 1

an d 9 22 (g )(1 ), an d o n e c o u n t of il le ga ll y po ss es si ng a fir earm , in vi ol at io n of 18
U.S.C. § 9 22 (g )(1 ). Ben de r pl ead ed gu il ty to on e c o un t of co ns pi rin g to il le ga ll y
po ss es s fir earm s, in vi ol at io n of §§ 37 1 an d 92 2( g) (1 ). Ben de r was al so co nv ic te d of

an ad di ti on al co un t of co ns pi rin g to ret al ia t e a g a i ns t a go ve rn m en t wit ne ss , in
vi ol at io n o f 18 U.S.C. § 1 51 3( f), ba se d on th e e-m ai l th at he se nt to res id en ts of th e Ru sh Cit y

Co rrec ti on al Faci li ty. W e wil l ad dr es s ea ch de fen da nt ’s cas e in tu rn

.

A. Velt re z Bl ac k
Velt rez Bl ack arg ue s th at th e di st ric t co ur t erre d by (1 ) de nyin g hi s m ot io n fo r

m i s t r ia l; (2 ) de nyin g hi s m ot io n fo r acq ui tt al on th e co ns pi racy co nv ic ti on ; an d (3 ) de nyin g hi s m ot io n fo r acq ui tt al on th e po ss es si on co nv ic ti on

. W e di sa gr ee wit h
hi s arg um en ts reg ard in g th e co ns pi racy co nv ic ti on an d hi s mo t i o n fo r m is tri al an d

acco rd in gl y affi rm th os e co nv ic ti on s. W e ag ree, th ou gh
, wit h hi s arg um en t reg ard in g hi s p os se ss io n c on vi ct io n a nd rev ers e. 3

1. Mis tr ia l Ba se d o n Pr ej ud ic ia l Evi de nc e

“ W e rev ie w th e de ni al of m ot io ns fo r m is tri al fo r ab us e of di sc ret io n,” Uni te d
St at es v. Peo

pl es , 25 0 F.3 d 63 0, 6 3 5 ( 8 t h C i r. 20 01 ), an d “ [w]e rev ie w a di st ric t

co ur t’s de ci si on to ad m it or ex cl ud e te st im on y fo r an ab us e of d i s c r e t i o n,” Uni te d
St at es v. Th un de r , 74 5 F.3 d 87 0, 87 6 (8 th Ci r. 20 14 ) (q uo ti ng Uni te d St at es v. Jew el l
, 6 1 4 F

. 3d 91 1, 91 8 (8 th Ci r.20 10 )). Bl ack arg ue s th at th e di st ric t co ur t ab us e d i t s di sc ret io n by pe rm it ti ng th e go ve rn m en t to in tro du ce ev id en ce sh owi ng th at th e One

Nin e an d th e Tali ba n ga ng s en ga ge d in on go in g act s of ret al ia ti on

. Bl ack arg ue s th at

Bl ack al so arg ue s th at hi s ov eral l se nt en ce is su bs ta nt iv el y un reas on ab le

. W e 3

ne ed no t ad dr es s th is arg um en t be cau se we are va cat in g hi s po ss es sion conv ic ti on an d

rem an di ng hi s ca se for res en te nc in g.

-7

-su ch ev id en ce was “ irr el ev an t, i n f la m m at or y , an d un du ly pr ejud ic ia l.” Bec au se we fin d t he ev id en ce re le va nt an d n ot un du ly prejud ic ia l, we af fir m

.

At tri al
, Bl ack pr es en te d a “ m ere pr es en ce” de fen se

. Alt ho ug h hi s br ot he r an d
hi s cou si ns be lo ng ed to th e One -Nin e, Bl ack arg ue d th at he in no cen tl y ha pp en ed to be in th ei r pr es en ce whe n th ey po ss es se d fir earm s. Bl ack arg ue d th at he di d no t ag ree
to joi nt ly po ss es s gu ns wit h th em , th at he was no t in vo lv ed as a m em be r of th e One

Nin e, an d th at he di d no t ta ke pa rt in th e ga ng warfa re. Bl ack arg ue s th at be cau se th e

ev id en ce m erel y de m on st rat ed as so ci at io n wit h th e One -Nin e an d no t hi s
pa rti c i p a ti on in th e co ns pi racy, th e ev id en ce of ga ng vi ol en ce m erel y se rv ed to

pr ejud ic e h im

an d c on vi ct hi m

of h av in g t he wron g fr ie nd s. We di sa gr ee.

“ [A] de fen da nt can no t be co nv ic te d be cau se of hi s as so ci at io n wit h a gr ou p,”
Uni te d St at es v. Lo ok in g Cl ou d , 4 19 F.3 d 78 1, 78 6 ( 8 t h C i r

. 2 0 05 ), bu t “ [w]e h av e ad m it te d ev id en ce of a de fen da nt ’s as so ci at io n wit h a gr ou p w h e r e th e as so ci at io n

es ta bl is he s m ot iv e or op po rtu ni ty to co m m it th e cri m e.” Id

. W e ha ve ad m it te d li m it ed

ga ng -rel at ed ev id en ce to di sp ro ve a “ m ere pr es en ce” de fen se

. Se e Uni te d St at e s v. Lemo n , 23 9 F.3 d 9 6 8
, 9 7 2 ( 8t h Ci r. 20 01 ). W e ha ve al so al lo wed ga ng -rel at ed

ev id en ce “ to es ta bl is h co ns pi racy or to reb ut co de fen da nt s’ in no cen t ex pl an at io ns of
th ei r rel at io ns hi ps wit h on e an ot he r.” Uni te d St at es v. St re et , 54 8 F.3 d 61 8, 63 2 (8 th
Ci r. 20 08 ). “ [G]ang -rel at ed ev id en ce is of te n ad m is si bl e whe re ‘the de fen da nt is

. . . a
ga ng m em

be r hi m se lf,’ th e is su es in th e cas e ‘con cern th e mer e fa ct of a de fen da nt ’s

ga ng m em

be rs hi p

. . . ,’ an d th e ev id en ce ‘is ge ne ral ly an un av oi da bl e i n c i d en t of

pr es en ti ng ot he r pe rm is si bl e ev id en ce.’” Uni te d St at es v. Gai ne s , 85 9 F.3 d 11 28
, 11 31 (8 th Ci r. 20 17 ) (in te rn al qu ot at i o n m ark s om it te d) (fi rs t el li ps is in or ig in al ) (q uo ti ng Uni te d S ta te s v. Pa yn e– Owen s , 84 5 F .3d 86 8, 8 73 (8t h C ir. 2 01 7) ).

In Lo ok i n g C l o u d
, we al lo wed ev id en ce of ga ng -rel at ed act iv it y be cau se th e de fen da nt ’s co nd uc t “ co ul d on ly be ex pl ai ne d wit hi n th e co nt ex t” of hi s gr ou p’s

act iv it y

. 41 9 F.3 d at 78 6. Evi de nc e ab ou t th e co nt ex t of th e ga ng act iv it y “ te nd ed to

-8

-m ak e th e go ve rn m en t’s th eo ry

. . . m or e pr ob ab l e

. ” Id

. Pro of of th e de fen da nt ’s

in vo lv em en t in th e gr ou p was “ cru ci al ” to ex pl ai n th e de fen da nt ’s m ot iv at io n. Id

. W e h el d th at th e “ ev id en ce of m ere m em be rs hi p” pr ov id ed “ a lo w ris k” th at t h e ju r y

wou ld fin d t he de fen da nt gu il ty of th e cri m e b y m ere a ss oc ia ti on

. Id

.

Bl ack arg ue s th at th e di st ric t co ur t erre d in al lo win g th e go ve rn m en t to di sc us s
ga ng act iv it y in it s op en in g an d cl os in g st at e men t s

. “Th e tri al co ur t ha s br oa d
di sc ret io n in co nt ro ll in g th e di rect io n of op en in g st at em en ts an d cl os in g arg um en ts , ‘and th is co ur t wil l no t rev ers e ab se nt a sh owi ng of a b u s e of di sc ret io n.’” Uni te d
S t a t e s v

. C on ra d
, 32 0 F.3 d 85 1, 85 5 (8 th Ci r. 20 03 ) (q uo ti ng Uni te d St at es v. Jo hn so n , 96 8 F.2 d 76 8, 76 9 (8 th Ci r. 19 92 )); bu t se e St r e e t , 54 8 F.3 d at 62 9 (rev ers in g th e di st ric t co ur t’s d e n i a l of m is tri al be cau se th e go ve rn m en t’s “ m ai n
pu rp os e” in it s cl os in g arg um en t was to il lu st rat e th e vi ol en ce of ga ng s an d no t th e de fen da nt ’s gu il t). In Bl ack ’s tri al
, th e go ve rn m e n t s t at ed it s in te nt to pr es en t

ev id en ce re la ti ng to ga ng vi ol en ce was for co nt ex t o nl y :

Now, le t m e ta lk a li tt le bi t ab ou t th is ga ng war th at I ha ve al lu de d
to

. And I wan t to cau ti on y ou rig ht no w. Thi s in fo rm at io n th at y ou ’r e go in g to ge t ab ou t th is ga ng war is be in g br ou gh t to y ou fo r a li m it ed
pu rp os e. Thi s In di ct m en t do es no t accu se Mr. Bl ack of ha vi ng m ur de red

an y bo dy or ha vi ng sh ot an y

bo dy, bu t it accu se s hi m of be in g a m em be r of a ga ng th at was in vo lv ed in a ga ng war. And th e In di ct m en t a ll eg es th at th e ex is te nc e of th at ga ng war was on e of th e reas on s t h e y a g r e ed
to ha ve all th es e g un s t og et he r: t o c arry on t he ga ng war.

So y ou ’re go in g to he ar ab ou t th is ga ng war as ki nd of co nt ex t an d ba ck gr ou nd an d in fo rm at io n th at m ig ht he lp y ou de ci de wha t th e pe op le ’s m ot iv at io n was fo r po ss es si ng th es e gu ns

. . . . Thi s in fo rm at io n is be in g br ou gh t to y ou as ba ck gr ou nd in fo rm at io n s o y ou can

un de rs ta nd th e co nt ex t o f wha t was go in g o n.

-9

-The go ve rn m en t di sc us se d th e ve ry pu bl ic an d no to rio us ga ng war be twee n th e One

Nin e an d th e Tali ba n, bu t it di d so wit h th e li m it ed pu rp os e of pu tt in g Bl ack ’s act io ns in co nt ex t.

On th is reco rd
, we co nc lu de th at th e di st ric t co ur t di d no t abu se it s di sc ret io n in al lo win g th e go ve rn m en t’s st at em en ts , n or di d it ab us e it s di s cret io n in al lo win g

ev id en ce to su pp or t th es e st at em en ts

. The ga ng in fo rm at io n ai de d th e jury in

un de rs ta nd in g Bl ac k’ s m oti va ti on s fo r in di rect ly acq ui rin g fir earm s. The go ve rn m en t li m it ed th e in fo rm at io n to rel at iv el y r e c en t vi ol en ce su ch as th e 20 09 m ur de r of
Tali ba n- m em

be r Ky le Park er by One -Nin e memb er Ch ris to ph er Bah tu oh

. A ph ot o
po st ed on so ci al m ed ia li nk ed Bl ack to th is in ci de nt by de pi ct in g Bl ack weari ng a sh irt as ki ng th e go ve rn m en t to “ fr e e ” B a ht uo h fro m pr is on

. Bl ack ad di ti on al ly
refe ren ced th e 20 10 m

ur de r of Derri ck “ D- N i ce” Mar ti n in hi s jail le tt er, fu rth er li nk in g Bl ack to th e One -Nin e ga ng

. In fo rm at io n reg ard in g th e m ur de r of One -Nin em em be r W as hi ng to n, Bl ack ’s o ld er br ot h e r , sh owe d a reas on ab le m ot iv e fo r Bl ack

to jo i n t h e co ns pi racy. Evi de nc e of th e two ho us e sh oo ti ng s in th e aft erm at h of
W as hi ng to n’s de at h was rel ev an t be cau se it co nn ect ed th e Kim be r fir earm to Bl ack

. In fo rm at io n rel at in g to Kib bi e W al ke r’s si gn ifi can t in vo lv em en t in th e ga ng vi ol en ce la id th e fo un da ti on to in tro du ce h is tes ti m on y . Inf or m at io n re ga rd in g t he act io ns of
Bl ack ’s co de fen da nt s Mar qu is W oo ds a n d Ja ba ri Jo hn so n wen t di rect ly to pr ov in g th e ov ert act s of th e co ns pi racy. The di st ric t co ur t acce pt ed th e go ve rn m en t’s us e of
th e in fo rm at io n to sh ow Bl ack ’s kn owl ed ge of th e co ns pi racy an d hi s m ot iv e to joi n it

. The in fo rm at io n di d no t un du ly im pl y th at Bl ac k act ua ll y to ok pa rt in vi ol en t

ret al ia ti on s. The jury was to ld to us e th e in fo rm at io n on ly fo r it s in te nd ed pu rp os e an d

no t t o c on vi ct Bla ck

ba se d o n h is ass oc ia ti on

.

Beyond ad m is si on of th e ga ng vi ol en ce ba ck gr ou nd in fo rm at io n, Bl ack arg ue s th at ot he r ev id en ti ary ru li ng s th at th e di st ric t c o u r t m ad e un fai rly pr ejud ic ed hi m

. Fi rs t, Bl ack ci te s Offi cer Tuma ’s t es ti m on y as un fai rly pr ejud ic ia l. Bl ack fil ed a
pr et ria l m ot io n in li m in e to e x c l u d e Tum a’s te st im on y

. The co ur t al lo wed Tum a’s

-1 0-te st im on y ov er ob jecti on , bu t it in st ru ct ed he r no t to te st ify ab o u t t h e “u lt im at e”

co nc lu si on of whe th er B la ck be lo ng ed to th e One -Nin e. Tum a ab id ed by th is

res tri ct io n. I n Gai ne s , we reject ed a si m il ar arg um en t ab ou t te st im on y fro m a ga ng

ex pe rt, sa y in g th at “ we ha ve rep eat ed ly h e l d ex pl an at or y ev id en ce li ke th is to be
ad m is si bl e.” 85 9 F.3 d at 11 32

. “ Evi de nc e is no t un fai rly pr ejud ic ia l be cau se it te nd s
to pr ov e gu il t, bu t be cau se it te nd s to en co ur ag e th e jury to fin d gu il t fro m im pr op er

reas on in g. W he th er th ere w a s un fai r pr ejud ic e de pe nd s on whe th er th ere was an

un du e te nd en cy to su gg es t d eci si on on an im pr op er b as is .” Uni te d S ta te s v. Ramo s , 85 2 F.3 d 74 7, 75 5 (8 th Ci r. 20 17 ) (in te rn al qu ot at io n m ark s o mi t t e d) (q uo ti ng Lo ok in g Cl ou d , 4 19 F.3d at 78 5) . Tu m a’s te st im on y was no t in fla m m at or y , n or di d
it su gg es t th at Bl ack ha d ta ke n pa rt in an y cri m e be y on d joi n i ng th e co ns pi racy. Tum a’s di sc us si on of th e fact or s r e l a ti ng to Bl ack ’s ga ng in vo lv em en t was no t

un fai rly preju di ci al

.

Seco nd
, Bl ack arg ue s th at th e di st ric t co ur t erre d by no t li m it in g th e te st im on y of ba ll is ti cs ex pe rt Kris ti n Reynol ds

. Befo re tri al
, th e co ur t pr oh ib it ed Reynol ds fro m
te st ifyin g t ha t s he was “ 10 0% su re” or “ cert ai n” th at th e rel ev an t g un s m at ch ed th e rel ev an t sh el l cas in gs

. On ap pe al
, Bl ack arg ue s th at Reynol ds vi ol at ed th at res tri ct io n by d e sc rib in g th e ge ne ral rel ia bi li ty o f th e ba ll is ti cs te st in g pr oc es s. Rev ie win g th e
t r i a l tra ns cri pt , we co nc lu de th at Reynol d’s te st im on y st ay ed wit hi n th e bo un d s s e t by the di st ric t co ur t.

Thi rd
, Bl ack arg ue s th at hi s Face bo ok an d In st ag ram ph ot os sh ou ld ha ve be en

e x cl ud ed

. He cl ai m s th at th e ph ot os were no t pr op erl y au th en ti cat ed an d th at t h e i r ad m is si on un fai rly pr ejud ic ed hi m

. To th e co nt rary, we fin d th at th ey were su pp or te d by a pr op er fo un da ti on an d pr ov id e pr ob at iv e, r e l e va nt ev id en ce su pp or ti ng th e

co ns pi racy char ge

.

Fi na ll y , Bl ack arg ue s th at th e “ cu m ul at iv e effe ct ” of al l th is in fo rm at io n m ad e th e tri al “ fu nd am en ta ll y un fai r. ” G a n g e v i de nc e can no t be us ed “ if it s pu rp os e is

-1 1-so le ly to pr ej u d ic e th e de fen da nt or pr ov e hi s gu il t by as so ci at io n wit h un sa vo ry

ch arac te rs .” Gai ne s , 85 9 F .3d at 11 31 (in te rn al qu ot at io n m ark s om it te d) (q uo ti ng Uni te d St at es v. Ell is on , 61 6 F. 3 d 8 2 9
, 8 3 3 (8 th Ci r. 20 10 )). “ W e ha ve pr ev io us ly

cau ti on ed ag ai ns t th e ‘relen t l e ss at te m pt to co nv ic t [a de fen da nt ] th ro ug h hi s

as so ci at io n’ wit h a ga ng

. . . ‘m erel y to sh ow th at [th e de fen da nt ] is a ba d pe rs on an d
th us m or e li ke ly to ha ve co m m it te d th e cri m e.’” Id

. at 11 31

– 3 2 ( a l t erat io ns in

or ig in al ) (q uo ti ng Uni te d St at es v. Roa rk
, 92 4 F.2 d 14 26
, 14 30 –3 4 (8 th Ci r. 19 91 )).
As no te d ab ov e, th e di st ric t co ur t fo un d th at th e go ve rn m en t di d no t pr es en t th e ga ng

ev id en ce fo r th e th is pu rp os e. Evi de nc e of th e ga ng war di rect ly rel at e d t o t he

co ns pi racy’ s mo t i v a t i on an d to Bl ack ’s m ot iv at io n to joi n it

. The ev id en ce of hi s

as so ci at io n wit h th e One -Nin e di rect ly rel at ed to hi s pa rti ci pa ti on in th at co ns pi racy.

“ Any un fai rly pr ejud ic ia l effe ct of t h e ga ng -rel at ed ev id en ce di d no t su bs ta nt ia ll y

ou t w e i g h it s pr ob at iv e va lu e.” Id

. at 11 32

. The di st ric t co ur t di d no t ab us e it s di sc ret io n i n a ll owi ng th is ev id en ce o r in de nyin g B la ck ’s m ot io n fo r m is tri al

.

2. Co ns pi ra cy Co nv ic ti on

“ In rev ie win g th e de ni al of a m ot io n fo r a jud gm en t of acq ui tt al
, we rev ie w th e

su ffi c i e n cy of th e ev id en ce de no vo , ev al ua ti ng th e ev id en ce in th e li gh t m os t fav or ab le to th e ve rd ic t an d dr awin g al l reas on ab le in fere nc es in it s fav or .” Th un de r , 74 5 F.3 d at 87 4 (q uo ti ng Uni te d St at es v. W ri gh t , 73 9 F. 3 d 1 1 60
, 11 67 (8 th Ci r. 20 14 )). “ The co ns pi racy’ s ex is te n c e m ay be pr ov ed by di rect or ci rcu m st an ti al

ev id en ce.” Uni te d St at es v. Rol on –Ra mos , 50 2 F.3 d 75 0, 75 4 (8 th Ci r. 20 07 ) (q uo ti ng Uni te d St at es v. Ca in
, 48 7 F.3 d 11 08
, 11 11 (8 th Ci r. 20 07 )). Fo r a c o n s p i r a c y

co nv ic ti on , th e go ve rn m en t ne ed no t pr ov e a fo rm al ag reem en t ex is te d, bu t rat he r “ a
ta ci t un de rs ta nd in g” be twee n th e pa rti es

. Uni te d St at es v. May
, 47 6 F

. 3 d 6 3 8
, 64 1 (8 th Ci r. 20 07 ). W e wil l no t rev ers e th e ve rd ic t if th e ev id en ce is su ffi ci en t fo r a jury

to fin d beyon d a reas on ab le do ub t th at th e de fen da nt pa rti ci pa te d in th e co ns pi racy. Se e id

.

-1 2-Bl ack arg ue s th at th e go ve rn m en t fai le d to pr oduc e suf fi cien t ev id en ce to pr ov e be y on d a reas on ab le do ub t th at he pe rs on al ly co ns pi red to ob ta in weap on s. Se e Rol on –Ra mos , 50 2 F.3 d at 75 4 (s ay in g “ a de fen da nt ’s m ere pr es en ce” or kn owl ed ge of a co ns pi racy is “i n s uf fic ie nt to es ta bl is h m em

be rs hi p in a co ns pi racy” (q uo ti ng Uni te d St at es v. Ji men ez –Vi ll as en or , 27 0 F.3 d 55 4, 55 8 (8 th Ci r. 20 01 )). The

go ve rn m en t ch arg ed Bl ack of co ns pi rin g wit h m em be rs of th e One -Nin e st reet ga ng
to po ss es s weap on s. To es ta bl is h th at co ns pi racy, th e go ve rn m en t ha d to pr ov e: (1 ) an
ag reem en t ex is te d; (2 ) Bl ack joi ne d it ; (3) Bl ack un de rs to od th e ag reem en t’s pu rp os e;

an d (4 ) a co ns pi racy m em be r co m pl et ed an ov ert act in fu rth eran ce of th e co ns pi racy. Se e Uni te d St at es v. Bas se tt , 76 2 F.3 d 68 1, 68 5 (8 th Ci r. 20 14 ). The go ve rn m en t m et th is bu rd en

.

The go ve rn m en t sh owe d th at Bl ack was in th e pr es en c e o f b o th One -Nin e

m em be rs an d fir earm s fi v e t i m es du rin g th e co ns pi racy ti m e fram e. Fo r ex am pl e, du rin g a se arch on Decem be r 12
, 20 13 —a few week s aft er W as hi ng to n’s de at h— la w

en fo rcem en t fo un d Bl ack in th e pr es en ce of kn own O ne -Nin e m em be rs an d se ve n fir earm s. Law en fo rcem en t di sc ov ered gu ns an d am m u ni ti on at va rio us pl aces th ro ug ho ut th e res id en ce, m an y of whi ch ha d DNA sa m pl es of m ul ti pl e in di vi du al s, im pl y in g c ol le ct iv e p os se ss io n. In fact
, Bl ack ack no wled ge d recei vi ng am m un it io n fro m hi s On e-Ni ne ass oc ia te s i m m ed ia te ly befo re t he sea rch :

Q. W el l, h ow i s i t t ha t you k ne w th ere wer e b ul le ts th ere?

A. Deo nt ae jus t to ld m e th at

. The re’s so m e [b ul le ts ]—he sa id
, “ You

ne ed so m e sh el ls in y ou r gu n? ” And I was, “ Yeah .”

Q. So Deon ta e to ld y ou th at ?

A. Co rrec t.

Q. Tha t i f y ou ne ed ed sh el ls for y ou r gu n t he y ha ve so m e?

-1 3-A. Co rrec t.

Bl ack ’s ad m is si on s de m on st rat e kn owl ed ge of th e gr ou p’s pr act ic e of

co ll ect iv el y sh ari ng am m un it io n. Bl ack ad m it te d po ss es si ng a .22 m m Mag nu m hi dd en in th e raft ers of th e ho us e. All th is ev id en ce is pr ob at iv e of hi s kn owl ed ge of
th e One -Nin e’s co ll ect iv e an d se cret st or ag e pr act ic es

. Of th e th ree gu ns fo un d in th e

ro om wit h Bl ack
, two co ul d no t be ex cl ud ed as ha vi ng hi s DNA—al l th ree ha d DNA
mi xt ur es of at le as t “ fo ur or m or e in di vi du al s” acco rd in g to DNA ex pe rt Kath e r i n e Kin gs l a n d . F ur th er, ev id en ce ab ou t th e ot he r in st an ces of po ss es si on sh ow Bl ack ’s
kn owl ed ge of th e ga ng ’s il le ga l po ss es si on of fir earm s an d pr ov id e a st ro ng in fere nc e of hi s ac ti ve pa rti ci pa ti on

.

The go ve rn m en t’s cas e wen t be y on d th e ci rcu m st an ti al ev id en ce placin g Bl ack
in th e pr es en c e of One -Nin e m em be rs wit h fir earm s. It al so pr es en te d ev id en ce of
Bl ack ’s m ot iv at io n to joi n th e One -Nin e’s ret al ia ti on ag ai ns t th e Tali ba n an d th at he
in de ed di d so

. The go ve rn m en t pr es en te d va rio us pi ct ur es fro m so ci al m ed ia sh owi ng Bl ack ’s pu bl ic al i g nm en t wit h th e One -Nin e. One ph ot o sh owe d Bl ack “ th ro win g do wn” th e Tali ba n ga ng si gn , whi ch is a st at em en t of di sr es pe ct

. The cap ti on read
, “On e ti m e fo r da 1- 9. Que en Bl oc k.” Ano th er ph ot o sh ows Bl ack weari ng a sh ir t

sa y in g “ I am m

y br ot he r’s ke ep er” in ho no r of W as hi ng to n, im pl y in g an in te nt io n to

ret al ia te fo r hi s br ot he r’s de at h. Ano th er p ho to in cl ud ed Bla ck weari ng th e nu m be r 19 an d th e ph ras e “ Lon g Li v e K i n g Crac k.” Bec au se so ci al m ed ia ha s pl ay ed a si gn ifi can t ro le in es cal at in g th e feu d be twee n th e One -Nin e an d th e Tali ba n, Bl ack ’s

pu bl ic po st s sh ow s u pp or t fo r hi s br ot he r’s ga ng be y on d m erel y watc hi ng on th e si de li ne s. Th es e p os ts de m on st rat e Bl ack th at pi ck ed a si de in th e co nf li ct

.

The ev id en ce pr es en te d a t t ria l s ho ws t ha t (1 ) Bl ack kn ew th at th e One -Nin e

m em be rs were fig ht in g wit h th e Tali ba n; (2 ) he in te nt io na ll y joi ne d th at fig ht ; (3 ) he
kn ew th e gr ou p was am as si ng weap on s fo r th e fig ht ; an d (4 ) Bl ack
, a fel on , pa rti ci pa te d in il le ga ll y sh ari ng weap on s wit h ot he r kn own fel on s. “ [V]iewed in th e

-1 4-li gh t m os t favo rab le to th e ve rd ic t,” th e ev id en ce pres en te d at tri al was su ffi ci en t to

su pp or t Bl ack ’s co nv ic ti on fo r co ns pi racy. Rol on –Ra mos , 50 2 F.3 d at 75 4; se e al so Uni te d St at es v. Her ra –He rr a , 86 0 F

. 3 d 1 1 2 8, 11 32 (8 th Ci r. 20 17 ) (“ Giv en ou r
st an da rd of rev ie w, th ere was en ou gh ci rcu m st an ti al ev id en ce at tri al to es ta bl is h th at th ere was a . . . con sp ira cy , th at [th e d efen da nt ] kn ew of th e co ns pi racy, an d th at he
in te nt io na ll y

be cam e a p art of i t.”)

.

3. Pos se ss io n C

on vi ct io n The go ve rn m en t in di ct ed Bl ack fo r il le ga l po ss es si on of a fir earm , in vi ol at io n of 18 U.S.C. § 9 22 (g )(1 ). Aut ho rit ie s fo un d th e al le ge dl y il le ga l fir earm aft er a po li ce ch as e in vo lv in g a ve hi cl e th at Bl ack oc cu pi ed

. Bl ack co nt en ds th at th ere is
in su ffi ci en t ev id en ce to su pp or t hi s c on vi ct io n. W e ag ree an d th eref or e va cat e th is

co nv ic ti on

.

On Apri l 22 , 20 14 , law en fo rcem en t ex ecu te d a warra nt fo r Bl ack ’s arre st on

a ch arg e of vi ol at in g su p e r v i se d rel eas e. Offi cers ob se rv ed Bl ack ret rie ve an

un id en ti fie d ob

ject fro m hi s own ve hi cl e an d t h e n en te r a ve hi cl e dr iv en by One

Nin e-m em

be r Om ar R us h. In an un m ark ed ve hi cl e, Offi cers Ry an Hjelm an d
Ben jam in Jo hn so n fo ll owe d Ru sh ’s ve hi c l e a n d at te m pt ed to m ak e a st op

. Ru sh

p u l l e d in to an ap art m en t co m pl ex an d st op pe d m om en ta ril y

. Offi cers sa w Bl ac k

“ be nd ov er li ke he was reac hi ng un de r th e [p as se ng er] se at .” W he n th e of fic ers ex it ed
th ei r ve hi cl e, Ru sh rap id ly sp ed away. The care en in g veh ic le m ad e a qu ic k left tu rn

an d c o l l i de d wit h an on co m in g pi ck up tru ck

. Ru sh co nt in ue d be fo re th e of fic ers
st op pe d th e car a few bl oc ks away. The of fic ers reco rd ed th e en ti re ch as e us in g th ei r da sh bo ard cam era. Unf

or tu na te ly, Ru sh ’s ve h i cl e is ou t of fram e fo r ab ou t th ree

se co nd s as it rou nd s a c or ne r an d i s o bs cu red by a bu il di ng

. 4

Thi s v id eo was s ub m it te d i nt o e vi de nc e, an d t he co ur t h as rev ie wed it

. 4

-1 5-After the ch as e en de d, a m ai nt en an ce wor ke r fo r th e ap art m en t co m pl ex arri ve d

on sc en e a n d n o t i ced a fir earm . Th e fir earm was lo cat ed al on g th e pa th tra ve le d by
th e ve hi cl e th at Bl ack oc cu pi ed . Th e m ai nt en an ce wor ke r a le rte d la w e nf or cem en t,

st at in g, “ Maybe th at ’s wha t y ou ’re lo ok in g fo r.” Unt il th en , la w en fo rcem en t di d no t

su sp ect th at a fir earm co ul d be in vo lv ed in th e ch as e. The da sh bo ard cam era do es no t sh ow a gu n le av in g th e ve hi cl e, no r do es it sh ow a do or op en or a ha nd reac hi ng ou t of th e win do w. Fo ren si c ex am in at io n o f t h e g u n di d no t rev eal an y DNA or fin ge rp rin t ev id en ce. Non e of th e of fic ers or o th er wit ne ss es te st ifi ed to se ei ng an y
act iv it y fro m in si de th e ve hi cl e to co nn ect it to th e weap on du rin g th os e m is si ng th ree

se co nd s o f fo ot ag e, as th e te st im on y of Off ic er Hjelm

il lu st rat es :

Q. [A]t an y po in t du rin g th is ch as e di d y ou se e an y of th e car d oo rs op en an d s om et hi ng be in g d ro pp ed ?

A. No.

Q. At t hi s p oi nt di d you see an y th in g b ei ng th ro wn o ut ?

A. No.

** *

Q. You ha ve no id ea h ow t ha t o bjec t g ot th ere, ri gh t?

A. I ha ve a sp ecu la ti on

.

“ W hi le reas on ab le in fere nc es fro m th e ev id en ce weig h ag ai ns t th e de fen da nt , sp ecu la ti on do es no t.” Uni te d St at es v. Pac e , 92 2 F.2 d 45 1, 45 3 (8 th Ci r. 19 90 ). The

go ve rn m en t arg ue s th at fiv e di st in ct in fere nc es rai se th e ev id en ce pres en te d ag ai ns t Bl ack ab o v e s p e c u l at io n, bu t th ey are no t pe rs ua si ve

. Fi rs t, th e go ve rn m en t arg ue s th at in a pr is on le tt er fro m 20 10
, Bl ack wro te th at he wou ld carr y a gu n “ at al l ti m es ,”

an d th e jury co ul d in fer th at he was li ke ly carr y in g a gu n in th is in st an ce— es pe ci al ly

no ti ng th at of

fic ers te st ifi ed th at Bl ack wen t to hi s ve hi cl e to ret rie ve an un id en ti fie d

-1 6-it em be fo re the ch as e be ga n. Bl ack ’s st at em en t in 20 10 th at he wou ld carr y a gu n at

al l ti m es do es no t su ffi ci en tl y su pp or t an in fere nc e th at he act ua ll y ha d on e on Apr il
22
, 20 14

. At b e s t , t he 20 10 st at em en t go es to pr op en si ty. Se e Uni te d St at es v. Jo hn so n , 43 9 F.3 d 88 4, 88 7 (8 t h Ci r. 20 06 ) (“ Pro pe ns it y ev id en ce, whe th er of a
pe r s o n ’s g e ne ral ch arac te r or ex am pl es of sp eci fic ba d act s, is or di na ril y ex cl ud ed
be cau se of t he li ke li ho od th e jury m ay m is us e it .”).

Seco nd
, th e go ve rn m en t rel ie s on th e “ fu rti ve m ov em en ts ” Bl ack m ad e whe n th e ve hi cl e in it ia ll y st op pe d be fo re th e ch as e, ci ti ng Uni te d St at es v. Ch at mon , 7 42
F.3 d 3 5 0
, 3 5 2 ( 8t h Ci r. 20 14 ), fo r th e pr op os it io n th at su ch m ov em en ts m ov e th e in fere nc e of po ss es si on be y on d sp ecu la ti on

. In Ch at mon , w e u p h el d a po ss es si on ch arg e fo r a gu n di sc ov ered by po li ce in a hi dd en co m pa rtment of th e ve hi cl e th at th e de fen da nt was dr iv in g be fo re hi s arre st

. I d

. a t 3 5 1. The de fen da nt ’s co ns tru ct iv e
po ss es si on of th e ve hi cl e, pl us hi s m ov em en ts in si de th e ve hi cl e im m ed ia te ly be fo re

arre st ne ar th e s ecre t co m pa rtment, am ou nt ed to su ffi ci en t ev id en ce to su pp or t th e

co nv ic ti on

. Id

. at 35 2– 53 . B la ck ’s mo v em en ts , h owe ve r, oc cu rred be fo re th e ch as e be ga n— an d un li ke th os e in Ch at mon , th ey are no t di rect ly co nn ect ed to th e gu n’s
lo cat io n o r to th e d efen da nt ’s con st ru ct iv e p os se ss io n o f th e v eh ic le

.

Thi rd
, th e go ve rn m en t po in ts to Bl ack ’s fli gh t fro m po li ce as pr oo f of gu n
po ss es si on

. Se e Uni te d St at es v. Gar re tt , 64 8 F.3 d 61 8, 62 2 (8 th Ci r. 20 11 ) (aff irming

a co nv ic ti on whe n d e f

e n d an t’s fli gh t ev id en ce was co up le d wit h ey e-wi tn es s
te st im on y ). Thi s fact do es no t ad va nc e th e qu an tu m of pr oo f fo r Bl ack ’s al le ge d gu n
po ss es si on be y on d sp ecu la ti on

. Bl ack was no t dr iv in g, an d th e de ci si on to fle e co ul d
ha ve be en Ru sh ’s al on e, hi m se lf a co nv ic te d fel on

. Bl ack al so kn ew th at a warra nt fo r hi s arre st ha d be en is su e d f o r v io la ti ng su pe rv is ed rel eas e. Thi s to o co ul d ex pl ai n Bl ack ’s fli gh t, re ga rd le ss of a ny firea rm po ss es si on . “ [T]he go ve rn m en t m us t s ho w

a su ffi ci en t ne xu s be twee n th e de fen da nt an d th e fir earm .” Id

. (q uo ti ng Uni te d St at es

v. Eva ns , 43 1 F.3d 34 2, 34 5 (8t h Cir. 20 05 )). In Gar re tt , a wit ne ss te st ifi ed th at sh e

“ ob se rv ed a ha nd th ro w a gu n ou t of th e win do w,” an d we up he ld th e ve rd ic t be cau se

-1 7-“ [t]h e ju r y co ul d in fer fro m Garre tt ’s a ct io ns of fle ei ng th e sc en e of th e tra ffi c st op

an d th e te st im on y ab ou t t h e g un th at he un la wfu ll y po ss es se d th e fir earm .” Id

. at
62 2– 23 . Wit h o u t t e s t im on y act ua ll y co nn ect in g th e gu n to th e fle ei ng ve hi cl e or to Bl ack
, th e go ve rn m en t’s pr oo f fal ls sh or t o f en ab li ng a jury to m ak e a reas on ab le
in fere nc e o f po ss es si on

.

F o u r t h , t he go ve rn m en t co nt en ds th at on ly Bl ack co ul d ha ve th ro wn th e gu n be cau se th e dr iv er of th e pi ck up tru ck st ru ck by Bl ack ’s ve hi cl e sa w Ru sh wit h “ hi s ha nd s on th e st eeri ng whe el .” Bu t, th e dr iv er al so ad m it te d th at he “ pr ob ab ly wou ld n’t
ha ve se en ” Ru sh th ro w t he gu n if Ru sh ha d do ne so . Ev en if th e dr iv er’s te st im on y

co m pl et el y pr ecl ud ed a fin di ng th at Ru sh to ss ed th e gu n, hi s te st im on y al on e do es no t

pr ecl ud e th e po ss ib il it y th at th e gu n was al read y on th e gr ou nd be fo re th e ve hi cl e

ev en arri ve d. Thu s, we are le ft wit h on ly sp ecu la ti ve in fere nc es to co nc lu de th at th e
gu n c am e fro m

Bla ck

.

Fi na ll y , th e go ve rn m en t arg ue s th at be cau se th e gu n was fo un d at “ th e ex act

sp ot ” whe re Bl ack was ou t of cam era vi ew an d be cau se th ere was as ph al t on th e gu n, th e on ly reas on ab le in fere nc e is th at th e fir earm cam e fro m Bl ack

. W e di sa gr ee. On
th es e fac ts , ass um in g t he fir earm cam e fro m

th e v eh ic le at a ll is sp ecu la ti ve

.

To es ta bl is h fir earm po ss es si on , th e go v e r n men t ha d to pr ov e act ua l or

co ns tru ct iv e po ss es si on be y on d a reas on ab le do ub t. Gar re tt , 64 8 F.3 d at 62 2. It is

po ss ib le th at Bl ack po ss es se d th e fir earm an d di sc ard ed it as th e go ve rn m en t al le ge d,
bu t ba se d on th e reco rd ev id en ce, we th in k “ a co ns ci en ti ou s m in d wou ld ha ve to ha ve

en te rta in ed a reas on ab le do ub t.” Ramo s , 85 2 F.3 d at 75 5 (q uo ti ng Uni t e d S ta te s v. Hal l
, 99 9 F.2 d 12 98
, 12 99 (8 th Ci r. 19 93 )). The refo re, we va cat e Bl ack ’s fir earm
po ss es si on co nv ic ti on du e to in su ffi ci en t ev id en ce an d re m an d fo r res en te nc in g. 5

Bec au se we va cat e Bl ack ’s co nv ic ti on , we ne ed no t ad dr es s hi s arg um en t th at 5 th e di st ric t co ur t erre d by fai li ng to d i s mi s s h is po ss es si on ch arg e fo r in accu rat e

-1 8-B. Tywi n Ben de r

Ty win Ben de r br in gs two arg um en ts on ap pe al

. Fi rs t, he arg ue s th at th e di st ric t

co ur t erre d in de nyin g hi s pr os pe ct iv e jury in st ru ct io ns

. I n t h i s res pe ct , we affi rm Ben de r’s co nv ic ti on

. Seco nd
, he arg ue s th at hi s se nt en ce is pr oc ed ur al ly un so un d an d

su bs ta nt iv el y un reas on ab le

. W e fin d th at Ben de r’s se nt en ce is pr oc ed ur al ly un so un d
be cau se of a Gui de li ne s cal cu la ti on erro r, an d we va cat e Be n d e r ’s se nt en ce an d

rem an d fo r res en te nc in g.

1. Ju ry Ins tr uc ti on s

“ W e rev ie w a di st ric t co ur t’s rejec t i o n of [a] de fen da nt ’s pr op os ed in st ru ct io n fo r ab us e of di sc ret io n, an d we reco gn iz e th at di st ric t co ur ts

are en ti tl ed to br oa d di sc ret io n in fo rm ul at in g th e jury in st ru ct io ns .”

“ W e wil l affi rm so lo ng as th e jury in st ru ct io ns gi ve n by th e di st ric t

co ur t , ‘t a ke n as a who le
, fai rly an d ad eq ua te ly su bm it te d th e is su es to th e jury.’ ”

Th un de r , 74 5 F.3 d at 87 3– 74 (al te rat io n in or ig in al ) (ci ta ti on s om it te d) (fi rs t qu ot in g Uni te d St at es v. Ir on i
, 52 5 F.3 d 68 3, 68 8 (8 th Ci r. 20 08 ); an d th en qu ot in g Ch at mon , 74 2 F.3 d at 35 4)

. Ben de r co nt en ds th a t th e di st ric t co ur t ab us ed it s di sc ret io n in
de nyin g hi s in st ru ct io ns ab ou t hi s free sp eech de fen se , th e el em en ts of c o n s p i r acy,

an d t he ti m e fra m e o f th e co ns pi racy.

a. Free Sp eech Ins tr uc ti on Ben de r arg ue s th a t t h e d i s tri ct co ur t erre d in reject in g hi s req ue st fo r a jury
in st ru ct io n reg ard i n g hi s de fen se ba se d on th e Free Sp eech Cl au se of th e Fi rs t
Am en dm en t of th e U.S

. C o n s t i tu ti on

. Se e Ca mre ta v. Gre en e , 56 3 U.S. 69 2, 72 7 (2 01 1) (Ken ne dy, J., di ss en ti ng ) (s ay in g th e Co ns ti tu ti on m ay be us ed “ as a de fen se
ag ai ns t cri m in al pr os ecu ti on ”). He arg ue s th at he ha d a Fi rs t Am en dm en t rig ht to st at e hi s di sa pp ro va l of the be ha vi or of th e two go ve rn m en t witn es se s vi a th e e-m ai l th at

in di ct m en t t es ti m on y

.
-1 9-he se nt to pr is on ers at th e Ru sh Ci ty Co rrec ti on al Faci li ty. He co nt en ds th at th e e-m ai l

di d n ot co ns ti tu te a tr

ue th reat bu t ra th er was pro te ct ed sp eech

.

In de nyin g B en de r’s free sp eech in st ru ct io n, t he di st ric t co ur t co nc lu de d t ha t

al l of th e pu rp or te d Fi rs t Am en dm en t is su es rai se d by Def e n da nt s are si m pl y an ot he r way of arg ui ng Defen da nt s di d no t act wit h i n t en t to ret al ia te

. Acco rd in gl y , th e Co ur t do es no t be li ev e th e jury ne ed be or sh ou ld be gi ve n se pa r a t e F irs t Am en dm en t in st ru ct io ns , as it wil l be

ex pr es sl y in st ru ct ed th at it m us t fin d th e Defen da nt s act ed wit h in te nt in

or de r to be fo un d gu il ty; fu rth er in st ru ct io ns m ay bo th co nf us e th e is su es

an d be un ne ces sa ril y co m pl ex

. Defen da nt s are free, of co ur se , to arg ue to th e jury th at th ey di d no t act wit h in te nt to ret al ia te (an d th e Co ur t wil l

co ns id er a th eo ry -o f-d efen se in st ru ct io n al on g th es e li ne s on ce su ch an in st ru ct io n h as be en su bm it te d)

. . . .

Ben de r rel ie s on Elo ni s v. Uni te d St at es , 13 5 S. Ct

. 20 01
, 20 13 (2 01 5)
, in whi ch th e Su pr em e Co ur t rev ers ed a de fen da nt ’s co nv ic ti on of th reat en in g h i s e x -wif e on Face bo ok be cau se th e co ur t’s in st ru ct io ns di d no t req ui re th e ju r y t o co ns id er th e de fen da nt ’s in te nt in m ak in g th e po st s bu t rat he r th e reas on ab le ob se rv er’s
in te rp ret at io n o f th em . W e fi nd Elo ni s in ap pl ic ab le to Ben de r’s cas e.

“ As in o t h e r Fi rs t Am en dm en t cas es , th e co ur t is ob li ga te d ‘to m ak e an in de pe nd en t ex am in at io n of th e who le reco rd in or de r to m ak e su re th at th e jud gm en t do es no t co ns ti tu te a fo rb id de n in tru si on on th e fie ld of free ex pr es si on .’ ” Sn yd er v. Phe lp s , 56 2 U.S. 44 3, 4 53 (20 11 ) (i nt ern al qu ot at io n m ark s o m it te d) (q uo ti ng Bos e C o r p

. v

. Co ns ume rs Uni on of Uni te d St at es , In c. , 46 6 U.S. 48 5, 49 9 (1 98 4) ). Th e Fi rs t Am en dm en t pro hi bi ts th e pu ni sh m en t of exp res si ng un po pu la r id eas , “ so lo ng

as th ere is no sh owi ng of an in te nt to in ci te di so be di en ce” to co n s t i t u t i o n a l la ws. Co he n v. Ca li

fo rn ia
, 40 3 U.S. 15
, 18 (1 97 1)

. Here, th e reco r d f a ct s do no t su pp or t
Ben de r’s cl ai m th at he was si m pl y ex erci si ng hi s Fi rs t Am en dm en t rig ht s. The fact s

-2 0-es ta bl is he d at tri al sh ow th at Ben der co ns pi red to th reat en go ve rn m en t wit ne ss es

. The

Fi rs t Am en dm en t d oe s n ot sh ie ld su ch sp eech

.

Ben de r arg ue s th at hi s e -m ai ls were m erel y “ id le ” th reat s, li ke rap lyrics
, whi ch —al th ou gh of

fen si ve to so m e—a re st il l en ti tl ed to pr ot ect io n un de r th e F r ee Sp eech Cla us e. Se e id

. at 25 (“ [O]ne m an ’s vu lg ari ty is an ot he r’s lyric.”). Th e fac ts be li e hi s arg um en t. Ben de r cl ai m s th at th e e-m ai ls were ne ve r m ean t to be de li ve red
, bu t in fact on e o f t h e m es sa ge s reac he d it s in te nd ed reci pi en t, an d th e ot he r wou ld
ha ve do ne so if it ha d no t be en in te rcep te d by co rrec ti on s of fic ers

. Ben de r cl ai m s th at he was on ly ex pr es si ng ne ga ti ve em ot io ns , y et th e e-m ai ls cl earl y in st ru ct hi s fel lo w
ga ng m em

be rs to “ sm as h” th e wit ne ss es wit h “ no ta lk in g” a n d “n o ex pl an at io ns .”
Ben de r at te m

pt ed to ach ie ve an o n ym i t y b y h av in g a fri en d se nd th e e-m ai ls vi a a di ffer en t pr is on er’s tele ph on e id en ti fic at io n nu m be r. Su ch se crec y su gg es ts th at th e

e-m ai ls were no t m erel y “ id le ” th reat s. “ Defen da nt s are en ti tl ed to a th eo ry of de fen se in st ru ct io n if it is ti m el y req ue st ed
, is su pp or t e d b y th e ev id en ce, an d is a co rrec t

st at em en t of th e la w.” Th un de r , 74 5 F.3 d at 87 4 (q uo ti ng Ch at mon , 74 2 F.3 d at 35 4)

. Ben de r’s de fen se was no t su pp or te d by th e ev id en ce. The di st ric t co ur t di d no t ab us e it s d is cret io n i n d en y in g h is Fir st Am en dm en t i ns tru ct io n.

b. Co ns pi ra cy El emen ts
Ben de r ne xt arg ue s th at th e di st ric t co ur t ab us ed it s di sc ret io n by no t acce pt in g th e fo ll owi ng jury in st ru ct io n: “ Fo r a co ns pi racy to ex i st th ere m us t be at le as t two

co -co ns pi rat or s, si nc e on e can no t co ns pi re wit h on es el f.” (ci ti ng Uni t e d S t a t e s v. Gis eh al tz , 27 8 F. Su pp

. 43 4, 43 7 (S.D.N.Y. 19 67 )). Ben de r’s co -co ns pi rat or was
acq ui tt ed
, an d th u s B e nd er arg ue s th at th e jury wro ng fu ll y co nv ic te d hi m fo r

co ns pi rin g wi th hi m se lf. We fin d t hi s ar gu m en t wi th ou t m eri t.

Fi rs t, it is n o t un us ua l fo r a co ns pi racy co nv ic ti on to st an d ev en if on e

co de fen da nt is acq ui tt ed . Ou r fo cu s cen te rs on th e st ren gt h of th e ev id en ce th at th e de fen da nt co ns pi red to co m m it th e o f

f en se

. The co nv ic ti on wil l be up he ld if it is

-2 1-su pp or te d by su ffi ci en t ev id en ce. Se e Bas se tt , 76 2 F.3 d at 68 5. Seco nd
, th e jury was

in st ru ct ed th at in ord er t o fi nd a co ns pi racy in B en de r’s cas e, th ey ha d t o a gr ee t ha t

“ two or m or e pe rs on s reac he d an ag reem en t to ret al ia t e a g a i n st wit ne ss es Ant on io
Lewis an d Kib bi e W al ke r.” The ev id en ce ag ai ns t Ben de r was su ffi ci en t to es ta bl is h
th at he co ns pi red wit h hi s co de fen da nt to ret al ia te ag ai ns t th e go ve rn m en t wit ne ss es

. The in st ru ct io n, li ke th e on e Ben de r req ue st ed
, req ui red at le as t two co co ns pi rat or s. And , i t accu rat el y de sc rib ed th e la w. Se e id

. (ap pr ov in g a si m il ar i n s t r u c ti on ). “ W e

co nc lu de th at th e d is tri ct co ur t’s i ns tru ct io ns ad eq ua te ly sub m it te d t he is su es to th e jury an d th at it di d no t ab us e it s di sc ret io n in de nyin g th e req ue st ed in st ru ct io n.” So o Li ne R.R. Co . v. W

er ne r En te rs

. , 82 5 F .3d 41 3, 4 22 (8t h C ir. 2 01 6)

.

c. Co ns pi ra cy Ti me Fra me Fi na ll y , Ben de r arg ue s t ha t t he jury in st ru ct io ns al lo wed hi m to be co nv ic te d
fo r act io ns ou ts id e of th e in di ct m en t be cau se th e in st ru ct io ns in cl ud ed th e fo ll owi ng

se nt en ce: “ The [co ns pi racy] ag reem en t m ay la st a lo ng ti m e or a sh or t ti m e.” Ben de r rel ie s on St ir on e v. Uni te d St at es , in whi ch th e Su pr em e Co ur t rev ers ed a de fen da nt ’s

co nv ic ti on be cau se th e co nv ic ti on “ no lo ng er [ref le ct ed ] th e in di ct m en t of th e gr an d jury.” 36 1 U.S. 21 2, 21 6 (1 96 0) (q uo ti ng Ex pa rt e Bai n , 12 1 U.S. 1, 13 (1 88 7) ); se e al so Uni te d St a t e s v. Sp en cer , 59 2 F.3 d 86 6, 87 3 (8 th Ci r. 20 10 ) (“ A co ns tru ct iv e

am en dm en t o f an in di ct m en t o ccu rs when jury in st ru ct io ns bro ad en th e sc op e of an in di ct m en t by pe rm it ti ng a co nv i c t i o n fo r an un ch arg ed of fen se .”). Ben de r’s cas e, ho wev er, i s d is ti ng ui sh ab le fro m St ir on e

.

Ben de r’s in di ct m en t al le ge d a co ns pi racy “ [f]rom on or ab ou t at le as t Octo be r 23
, 20 15 [,] th ro ug h on or ab ou t Octo be r 25
, 20 15
, . . . wit h in te nt to ret al ia te ag ai ns t [ Le w is ] an d [Walk er] fo r th ei r te st im on y

. . . gi ve n on Octo be r 19
, 20 15 .” Be n d e r
arg ue s th at it was im

po ss ib le fo r hi m to co ns pi re to ret al ia te wit h th e ot he r in m at es du rin g th e in di ct m en t ti m e fram e be cau se a se ve ral da y de la y in th e jail ’s m ai l syste m
pr ev en te d th e ot he r in m at es fro m rece iv in g hi s th reat en in g m es sa ge s du rin g th at ti m e. Se e Uni te d St at es v. Eas om , 56 9 F.2 d 45 7, 45 9 (8 th Ci r. 19 78 ) (rev ers in g a jury

-2 2-in st ru ct io n whe n no ev id en ce was pr es en te d to sh ow ex is te nc e of a co ns pi racy du rin g

th e rel ev an t dat e). T hi s argu m en t m is un de rs ta nd s th e fact s an d th e la w. Ben de r was in di ct ed fo r co ns pi rin g wit h hi s co de fen da nt ou ts id e of jail to se nd th e m es sa ge s t o hi s fel lo w in m at es

. Ben de r wa s in di ct ed fo r th e co ns pi racy wit h hi s no n- in m at e

co de fen da nt —n ot a co ns pi racy wit h th e ot he r in m at es

. All th e co m m un ic at io ns be twee n Ben de r an d hi s co de fen da nt , an d th e st ep s th at hi s co de fen da nt to ok to se nd
th e m es sa ge s, o ccu rred du rin g t he rel ev an t ti m e fram e. Fu rth er, ev id en ce p res en te d

at tri al co ve red on ly th e ti m e fram e as de sc rib ed in th e in di ct m en t. The go ve rn m en t

ne ed ed to sh ow on ly th at Ben de r co ns pi red wit h hi s co de fen da nt du rin g th e in di ct m en t ti m e fram e. Se e Sp en cer , 59 2 F.3 d at 87 6. The di st ric t co ur t di d no t ab us e it s d is cret io n b y

de nyin g B en de r’s ob

jecti on to th e ti m e-fr am e jury ins tru ct io n.

Fi nd i n g h is jury in st ru ct io ns arg um en ts wit ho ut m eri t, we affi rm Ben de r’s

co nv ic ti on

.

2. Ben de r’ s S en te nc e Add it io na ll y , Ben de r ap pe al s h is sen te nc e as su bs ta nt iv el y un reas on ab le an d

pr oc ed ur al ly uns ou nd . “ W e rev ie w a di st ric t cou rt’s sen te nc e in two st ep s: fir st , we

rev ie w fo r si gn ifi can t pr oc ed ur al erro r; an d s e co nd
, if th ere is no si gn ifi can t

pr oc ed ur al erro r, we rev ie w fo r su bs ta nt iv e reas on ab le ne ss .” Uni te d St at es v. Sa dl er , No. 16 -3 94 6, 20 17 W L 31 39 44 6, at *2 (8 th Ci r. Ju ly 25
, 20 17 ) (q uo ti ng Uni te d St at es

v. O’Co nn o r , 56 7 F.3 d 39 5, 39 7 (8 th Ci r. 20 09 )). Im pr op erl y cal cu la ti ng a de fen da nt ’s Gui de li ne s ran ge is a si gn ifi can t pr oc ed ur al erro r. Mol in a

– M a r t i n ez v. Uni te d St at es , 13 6 S

. C t. 13 38
, 13 45 –4 6 (2 01 6)

. W e rev ie w th e di st ric t co ur t’s

ap pl ic at io n o f th e Gui de li ne s d e n ov o. Uni te d St at es v. Mit ch el l
, 82 5 F .3d 42 2, 4 25 (8 th Cir . 20 16 ) (p er cu ria m ).

Ben de r pl ead ed gu il ty to th e fir earm co ns pi racy ch arg e in cl ud ed in th e in it ia l

gr ou p in di ct m en t. Late r, Ben de r was al so co nv ic te d of co ns pi rin g to ret al ia te ag ai ns t th e go ve rn m en t wit ne ss es

. The se two cas es , rel at ed an d cl os e in ti m e, were co m bi ne d

-2 3-f

o r s e nt en ci ng pu rp os es

. At se nt en ci ng , th e di st ric t co ur t cal cu la te d a Gui de li n e s

ran ge of 21 0 to 26 2 mo n t h s

. To se t th is ran ge , th e co ur t gr ou pe d Ben de r’s two

se nt en ces an d se le ct ed th e ran ge pr ov id ed by th e co nv ic t i o n w i t h th e hi gh es t Gui de li ne s ran ge —t he fir earm co ns pi racy. Thi s cal cu la ti on in cl ud ed a two -le ve l

en ha nc em en t pu rs ua nt to U.S.S.G. § 3 C1 .1 fo r ob st ru ct io n of jus tic e. Be nder ob

jecte d

to th is en ha nc em en t.

In Uni te d St at es v. Gal av iz
, we rev ers ed th e ap pl ic at io n of th e ob st ru ct io n- of

jus ti ce en ha nc em en t fo r a si m il arl y si tu at ed de fen da nt

. 68 7 F.3 d 10 42
, 10 43 (8 th Ci r. 20 12 ). Gala vi z, th e de fen da nt , pl ead ed gu il ty an d, aft er be in g im pr is on ed
, co ns pi red

to m ur de r th e co nf

id en ti al in fo rm an t (CI) in hi s cas e. Id

. Loo ki ng at th e la ng ua ge of § 3 C1 .1, we sa id th at “ be cau se Mr. Gala vi z ha d al read y pl ead ed gu il ty, he co ul d no t ha ve in t e n d e d t o o b st ru ct jus ti ce ‘w it h res pe ct to th e in st an t of fen se ’ by p lo tt in g to ki ll [th e CI] un le ss he th ou gh t th at [th e CI] was g o i n g t o t es ti fy ag ai ns t hi m at

se nt en ci ng .” I

d

. ( q u ot in g § 3 C1 .1(1 )). W he n “ th ere is no ev id en ce th at ret al ia ti on

wou ld im pe de th e pr og res s of

[th e d efen da nt ’s] cas e in an y way ,” th e en ha nc em en t

pu rs ua nt to § 3 C1 .1 ca nn ot be ap pl ie d. Id

.

Tho ug h Ben de r di d no t br in g Gal av iz to th e dis tri ct co ur t’s at te nt io n, it co nt ro ls
he re an d req ui re s t h a t we va cat e Ben de r’s se nt en ce. Alt ho ug h Ben de r co ns pi red

ag ai ns t wi t n e s se s in Bl ack ’s tri al
, th e go ve rn m en t di d no t es ta bl is h th at Ben de r be li ev ed th es e wit ne ss es wou ld be us ed ag ai ns t hi m du rin g se nt e n c i ng , a nd in fact
, th ey were no t. Eve n co ns tru in g Ben de r’s act io ns as rel at in g to “ an ot he rwis e cl os el y rel at ed cas e, s u c h a s th at of a co de fen da nt ,” se e § 3 C1 .1 cm t. n.1
, th e ret al ia ti on

oc c ur red aft er Bl ack ’s t ria l co nc lu de d. Thu s, un de r Gal av iz , B en de r’s act io ns were

no t “ in te nd ed to ob st ru ct jus ti ce on th e i n s t a n t o f fen se of co nv ic ti on .” 68 7 F.3 d at
10 43

. Ben de r was pr op erl y pr os ecu te d fo r ret al ia ti ng ag ai ns t a go ve rn m en t wit ne ss ,

an d th is ret al ia ti on oc cu rred aft er he an d hi s co de fen da nt s ha d al l be en fo un d gu il ty. Thu s, t he ob st ru ct io n- of

-jus ti ce en ha nc em en t d id no t ap pl y in cal cu la ti ng Ben de r’s

-2 4-Gui de li ne s ran ge reg ard in g hi s pr ev io us ly pl ead ed ch arg e. The r e f o re, we va cat e Ben de r’s se nt en ce an d re m an d h is cas e fo r res en te nc in g.

C. Ja ba ri Jo hn so n Ja ba ri Jo hn so n pl ead ed gu il ty to th e fir earm co ns pi racy ch arg e an d a se pa rat e

co un t o f fel on y po ss es si on

. Alt ho ug h th e pr ob at io n of fic e su gg es te d a Gui de li ne s

ran ge of 13 0 to 16 2 m on th s’ im pr is on m en t, at se nt en ci ng th e go ve rn m en t so ug ht to ho no r th e Gui de li ne s ran g e of 63 to 78 m on th s co nt ai ne d in Jo hn so n’s pl ea
ag reem en t. The di st ric t co ur t se nt en ced Jo hn so n to 60 m on th s fo r th e co n s p i r a c y ch arg e an d 78 m on th s fo r th e po ss es si on ch arg e. Jo hn so n arg ue s th at th e di st ric t co ur t

co m m it te d pr oc ed ur al er r or by fai li ng to ad eq ua te ly jus ti fy th e se nt en ce im po se d,
al th ou gh he fai le d to m ak e th is ob jecti on at se nt en ci ng

. He al so arg ue s th at th e di st ric t

co ur t im po se d a su bs ta nt iv el y un reas on ab le se nt en ce be cau se it fai le d to ad eq ua te ly

co ns id er t he fact or s u nd er 1 8 U.S.C. § 35 53 (a). We di sa gr ee.

W he n we rev ie w a de fen da nt ’s se nt en ce, we “ fir st en su re th at th e di st ric t co ur t

co m m it te d no si gn ifi can t pr oc ed ur al erro r,” su ch as “ fai li ng to ad eq ua te ly ex pl ai n th e ch os en sen te nc e.” Uni te d S ta te s v. Feemst er , 57 2 F.3d 45 5, 4 61 (8t h C ir. 2 00 9) (en
ba nc ) (q uo ti ng G a l l v

. Uni te d St at es , 5 52 U.S. 3 8, 51 (2 00 7) ). W he n th e de fen da nt fai ls to ob ject to th e ad eq ua cy ex pl an at io n of a se nt en ce, we rev ie w th e ex pl an at io n fo r pl ai n erro r. Se e Uni te d St at es v. Ch av ar ri a– Ort iz
, 8 2 8 F

. 3 d 66 8, 67 1 (8 th Ci r. 20 16 ). “ [W] he re a m at te r is co nc ep tu al ly si m pl e, an d th e reco rd m ak es cl ear th at th e

se nt en ci ng jud ge co ns id ered th e ev id en ce an d arg um en ts , th e la w do es no t req ui re th e jud ge to writ e or sa y m or e.” Id

. (ci ti ng Rit a v. Uni te d St a t e s , 5 5 1 U.S. 33 8, 35 9 (2 00 7) ). “ Sen te nc es wit hi n th e a d v i so ry Gui de li ne s ran ge are pr es um ed

reas on ab le

. . . .” Her ra –He rr a , 86 0 F .3d at 1 13 2.

In m em or an da to th e co ur t, Jo hn so n arg ue d th at th ree se pa rat e fact or s

su pp or te d a do wnwar d va ria nc e: (1 ) he su ffer ed ha rd sh ip in co un ty faci li ti es be cau se of hi s gu ns ho t wou nd ; (2 ) he ha d pr ov id ed as si st an ce to la w en fo rcem en t; an d (3 ) an d

-2 5-hi s cri m in al hi st or y was ov ers ta te d. At se nt en ci ng , th e di st ric t co ur t he ard st at em en ts

fro m co unse l, co m

m en te d on th e nu m ero us le tt ers su bm it te d by Jo hn so n’s fam il y , an d
th an ke d Jo hn so n’s su pp or te rs fo r at te nd in g th e he ari ng

. The co ur t al so ad m it te d in to

ev id en ce a le tt er th at Jo hn so n wro te . After co un se l ar gu ed th e v ari an ce m ot io n, th e

co u rt in di vi du al ly rejec te d al l th ree of Jo hn so n’s reas on s fo r a do wnwar d va ria nc e. The co ur t, reco gn iz i n g J oh ns on ’s co nt in ui ng m ed ic al ne ed s, st at ed
, “ I wil l

reco m m en d a m ed ic al faci li ty” for J oh ns on ’s pl acement.

W he n “ [t]he reco rd sh ows th at th e co ur t li st en ed to th e pa rti es ’ arg um en ts an d
de te rm in ed th at th e ci rcu m st an ces di d no t warra nt a do wnwar d va ria nc e,” we fin d no

erro r (m uc h le ss pl ai n) if th ere is “ no th in g to su gg es t a reas on ab le pr ob ab il it y th at th e di st ric t co ur t wou ld ha ve im po se d a m or e le ni en t se nt en ce if th e co ur t ha d el ect ed to di sc us s th e ap pr op ria te ne ss of th e se nt en ce at gr eat er le ng th .” Ch av ar ri a– Ort iz
, 82 8
F.3 d at 67 2. The reco rd de m on st rat es th at th e di st r i c t co ur t co ns id ered Jo hn so n’s

va ria nc e m ot io n, ev en as k i n g J o h ns on ’s co un se l to pr es en t fu rth er arg um en ts

. The

c o u r t r eject ed Jo hn so n’s th ree arg um en ts in di vi du al ly, bu t to ok in to acco un t
Jo hn so n’s m ed ic al arg um en t fo r reco m m en di ng hi m to a m ed ic al faci li ty. W e fin d no

erro r, pl ai n o r ot he rwis e, he re.

Fo r si m il ar reas on s, Jo hn so n arg ue s th at hi s se nt en ce was su bs ta nt iv el y

un reas on ab le be cau se th e di st ric t co ur t “ fai l[e d] to co ns id er

. . . rel ev an t fact or [s ] th at sh ou ld ha ve rece iv ed si gn ifi can t weig ht .” Feems te r , 57 2 F.3 d at 46 1 (q uo ti ng Uni te d
St at es v. Ka ne , 5 52 F.3 d 74 8, 75 2 ( 8 t h C i r

. 20 09 )). Jo hn so n arg ue s th at th e di st ric t

co ur t fai le d to co ns id er hi s m ed ic al ne ed s, hi s go od ch arac te ris ti cs , or hi s as si st an ce
to la w en fo rcem en t. The reco rd be li es th es e co nt en ti on s. As no te d ab ov e, in res po ns e
to Jo hn so n’s m ed ic al ne ed s, th e co ur t reco m m en de d a m ed i c a l f

a c il it y

. The co ur t

reco gn iz ed “ th e li ke li ho od th at [J oh ns on ’s fam il y ] su pp or t wil l be th ere” up on releas e fro m im pr is on m en t, bu t di d no t fin d th at hi s go od pe rs on al ch arac te ris ti cs warra nt ed
a lo wer s en te nc e:

-2 6-[W] el l, h e ha s an ex te ns iv e cri m in al reco rd . He has be en in tro ub le for

a lo n g t i m e; an d as I go th ro ug h th e se nt en ci ng reco m m en da ti on fro m th e Pret ria l Serv ic es , th ey ou tl in e—ju st it ’s ba si cal ly a li fe of cri m e. And he ha s s o me go od qu al it ie s, th ere’s no qu es ti on ab ou t th at

. Bu t

ev erythi ng in he re in di cat es th at he is li ke ly, un l e s s a se nt en ce is im po se d whi ch wil l ge t th e m es sa ge acro ss to hi m , he ’s li ke ly to co m m it fu rth er cr im es

. . . .

** *

So I ta ke al l th es e fact or s in to acco un t an d it ’s m y jud gm en t th at th e ap pr op ria te se nt en ce in th is cas e wil l be a se nt en ce of 78 m on th s. Th at ’s th e hi gh en d of th e gu id el in e ran ge , bu t I th in k i t ’s t h e ap pr op ria te en d o f th e g ui de li ne ran ge

.

Reg ard in g J oh ns on ’s ass is ta nc e to la w e nf or cem en t, th e co ur t st at ed : “ He pr ob ab ly
di d [h el p] in so m e way s, bu t th e G o ve rn m en t ha s no t co m e an d as ke d to ha ve a de pa rtu re on th at gr ou nd ; an d I th in k wit ho ut th e Gov ern m en t as ki ng fo r it
, I’m in no
po si ti on to ru le on th at in hi s fav or .” Jo hn s o n a l s o a r g u es th at th e di st ric t co ur t weig he d h is cri m in al hi st or y to o h eav il y , bu t t he di st ric t co ur t “ ha s wi de lat it ud e to weig h th e § 3 55 3( a) fact or s an d as si gn so m e fact or s gr eat er weig ht th an ot he r s in
de te rm in in g an ap pr op ria te se nt en ce.” U nit ed St at es v. Boy ki n , 85 0 F.3 d 98 5, 98 9 (8 th
Ci r. 20 17 ) (p e r c u r i a m) (q uo ti ng Uni te d St at es v. Dav id
, 68 2 F.3 d 10 74
, 10 77 (8 th
Ci r. 20 12 )). The tra ns cri pt sh ows th at th e co ur t di d co ns id er Jo hn so n’s arg um en ts , bu t jus t di d no t gi ve th em th e weig ht th at Jo hn so n pr efer red

. Th e r e f o r e , we affi rm Jo hn so n’s s en te nc e.

D. Dar ry l Pa rk er Darryl Park er rece iv ed an id en ti cal se nt en ce to hi s co de f e n d a n t Ja ba ri
Jo hn so n— 60 m on th s’ im pr is on m en t fo r th e co ns pi racy c h a rg e an d an ad di ti on al
78 m on th s fo r hi s in di vi du al po ss es si on ch arg e to ru n co nc ur ren tl y

. Bec au se Park er do es no t al le ge a pr oc ed ur al erro r, “ we co ns id er on ly th e su bs ta nt iv e reas on ab le ne ss of hi s se nt en ce fo r an ab us e of di sc ret io n.” Boy ki n , 85 0 F.3 d at 98 8. “ [I]t wil l be th e

-2 7-un us ua l cas e whe n we rev ers e a d i s t r i ct co ur t se nt en ce as su bs ta nt iv el y

u n r e a s o n a bl e.” Dav id
, 68 2 F.3 d at 10 77

. In th is rev ie w, we m ay pr es um e “ th at a wit hi n- Gui de li ne s se nt en ce is reas on ab le .” Peu gh v. Uni te d St at es , 13 3 S. Ct

. 20 72
, 20 80 (2 01 3)

. “ Thi s rev ie w is ‘narro w an d de fere nt ia l.’” Uni te d St at es v. Hai ry Ch in
, 85 0 F .3d 39 8, 4 03 (8t h C ir. 2 01 7) (qu ot in g Feems te r , 57 2 F .3d at 4 64 ).

Alt ho ug h Park er reco gn iz es th at he ag reed to a Gui de li ne ran ge o f 6 3 to
78 m on th s’ i m

pr is on m en t in hi s pl ea ag reem en t, he arg ue s t ha t an y se nt en ce ab ov e 63 m on th s wou ld be un reas on ab le

. Acco rd in g to Park er, un li ke hi s co de fen da nt s, he
“wa s no t th e pe rp et rat or of an y of [th e] in di vi du al act s of vi ol en ce,” an d he c l a i ms th at hi s cri m in al hi st or y , al th ou gh cal cu la te d at a Cat eg or y VI, la ck s th e “ se rio us act s of vi ol en ce” pe rp et rat ed by hi s co d e f e n d a n t s

. He al so po in ts to th e “ real an d
si gn ifi can t st ep s t o w a r d c ha ng in g hi s li fe fo r go od ” in ta ki ng cl as se s whi le
in carc erat ed

. Park er su gg es ts th at th e di st ric t co ur t ab us ed it s di sc ret io n in fai li ng to

gr an t hi m a do wnwar d va ria nc e be cau se hi s se nt en ce is “ gr eat er th an ne ces sa ry .” Se e 18 U.S.C. § 3 55 3( a). Park er m ad e al l th es e arg um en ts be fo r e t h e di st ric t co ur t, an d
th e co ur t re

jecte d t he m :

I do n’t th in k th ere’s gr ou nd s fo r [a va ria nc e] in th is cas e. I th in k t h e Defen da n t ’s co nd uc t he re an d hi s hi st or y wou ld in di cat e th at he is
pr op erl y in th e gu id el in e ran ge in whi ch he fin ds hi m se lf to da y

. I’m no t

co nv in ced th at he ha s m ad e a tu rn y et in hi s co nd uc t. He s ay s h e d oe s, he sa y s he wil l. He wan ts to go ba ck to th e fam il y

. Bu t I th in k it ’s al m os t to o la te fo r th at

. Not to o la te in th e se ns e of at so m e po in t in ti m e, bu t rig ht no w.

“ The Su pr em e Co ur t ha s i n s t r u ct ed th e se nt en ci ng co ur t to co ns id er th e § 3 55 3( a) fact or s in fo rmu l a t i n g it s se nt en ci ng de ci si on s to fit th e sp eci fic
ci rcu m st an ces of each de fen da nt .” Boy ki n , 85 0 F.3 d at 9 8 9

. Of th es e fact or s, th e di st ri c t c o ur t ha s to co ns id er whe th er th e se nt en ce “ affo rd [s ] ad eq ua te de te rren ce”

an d “ th e ne ed to av oi d un warra nt ed se nt en ce di sp ari ti es ” am on g si m il arl y si tu at e d

-2 8-de fen da nt s. 18 U.S.C. § 3 55 3( a). Fo r Park er, th e di st ric t co ur t im po se d th e ex act sa m e

se nt en ce th at it im

po se d on hi s co de fen da nt Jo hn so n, an d Park er’s se nt en ce typif ie s th os e of hi s ot he r co ns pi racy co de fen da nt s as a who le

. The di st ric t co ur t de te rm in ed
th at Jo hn so n’s se nt en ce w a s ap pr op ria te fo r hi s sp eci fic cri m e an d pe rs on al
ch arac te ris ti cs

. W e wil l n o t r ev ers e th e di st ric t co ur t si m pl y be cau se it as si gn ed

gr eat er weig ht to cert ai n fa ct or s t ha n o th ers in fas hi on in g th e de fen da nt ’s se nt en ce. Boy ki n , 85 0 F.3 d at 98 9. “ The di st ric t co ur t di d no t ab us e it s di sc r e t i o n ” ; P a r ke r’s

“ fin al sen te nc e is no t s ub st an ti ve ly unr eas on ab le .” Hai ry Ch in , 85 0 F .3d at 4 04

.

III. Co nc lu si on W e th eref or e affi rm th e se nt en ces of Darryl Park er an d Ja ba ri Jo hn so n; affi rm th e ret al ia ti on co nv ic ti on of Tywi n Ben de r; an d affi rm Velt rez Bl ack ’s co ns pi racy

co nv ic ti on

. W e va cat e Bl ack ’s po ss es si on co nv ic ti on fo r in su ffi ci en t ev id en ce an d

va cat e Ben de r’s se nt en ce as pr oc ed ur al ly un so un d. W e rem an d Bl ack an d Ben de r’s

cas es to th e d is tri ct co ur t fo r res en te nc in g.

COLLOTON, Ci rcu it Ju dg e, co nc ur rin g i n p art an d d is se nt in g i n p art

.

I co nc ur in al l bu t Part II.A.3, fo ot no te 3, an d Part III of th e co ur t’s op in io n. I wou ld affi rm

Velt rez B la ck ’s con vi ct io n fo r un la wfu l p os se ss io n o f a fi rear m

.

In rev ers in g Bl ack ’s co nv ic ti on ba se d on an as se rti on of in su ffi ci en t ev id en ce, th e m ajor it y pr es en ts an arg um en t o f t h e s or t th at on e m ig ht ex pe ct fro m cap ab le
de fen se co un se l at tri al

. The op in io n di sc us se s fiv e in cri m in at in g pi eces of ev id en ce

se pa rat el y , hypo th es iz es why each m ig ht be di sc ou nt ed or ex pl ai ne d away, an d th en

co nc lu de s th at th ere m

us t be reas on ab le do ub t. Su gg es ti ng a “ go tc ha ” m om en t, the

co ur t ci te s th e te st im on y of on e po li ce of fic er th at he pe rs on al ly ha d “ a sp ecu la ti on ”
ab ou t th e ge ne si s of th e se iz ed fir earm , an d im pl ie s th at th e ju ry —af

te r co ns id eri ng al l of th e ev id en ce in acco rd an ce wit h pr op er in st ru ct io ns —m erel y sp ecu la te d in

reac hi ng it s v erd ic t.

-2 9-Thi s is no t th e co rrec t ap pr oa ch to a p p e l l a t e rev ie w of a jury ve rd ic t. W e

rev ie w on ly th e le ga l qu es ti on “ whe th er, aft er vi ewin g th e ev id en ce in th e li gh t m os t fav or ab le to th e pr os ecu ti on , an y rat io na l tri er of fact co ul d ha ve fo un d th e es se nt ia l
el em en ts of th e cri m e be y on d a reas on ab le do ub t.” Mus ac ch io v. Uni te d St at es , 13 6
S. Ct . 7 09 , 7 15 (20 16 ) (q uo ti ng Ja cks on v. Vir gi ni a , 44 3 U.S. 3 07 , 31 9 (1 97 9) ). In

co nd uc ti ng th at rev ie w, we m us t ev al ua te th e ev id en ce co ll e c t i v el y , ta ki ng it al l

to ge th er as a un ifi ed who le
, no t di vi de i t i n t o d is cret e cat eg or ie s to be an al y zed

se pa rat el y

. And we m

us t rem em

be r th at “ ci rcu m st an ti al ev id en ce i s in tri ns ic al ly as
pr ob at iv e as di rect ev id en ce.” Uni te d St at es v. W il co x , 50 F.3 d 60 0, 60 2- 03 (8 th Ci r. 19 95 ) (q uo ti ng Dur ns v. Uni te d St at es , 56 2 F.2 d 54 2, 54 6 (8 th Ci r. 19 77 )). The re is

no req ui rem en t th at th e pr os ecu ti on pr od uc e a wit ne ss who sa w Bl ack wit h a gu n in
ha nd or t os si ng a fi rear m ou t t he win do w.

The go ve rn m en t he re pr es en te d a c on vi nc in g ci rcu m st an ti al cas e th at Bl ack

po ss es se d a fir earm th at he th rew fro m Om ar Ru sh ’s ve hi cl e du rin g fli gh t fro m po li ce

on Apr il 22
, 20 14

. Bl ack ack no wled ge d hi s in te nt to po ss es s fir earm s whe n he wro te

a le tt er fro m pr is on in 20 10
, sa y in g th at he ha d be en le av in g hi s gu n at ho m e, bu t th at

“ no w” it is go in g “ to be on m y hi p a t al l t im es .” Thi s i s n ot “ pr op en si ty” evi de nc e,

an te , at 17 ; it is an ad m is si on th at was rece iv ed in ev id en ce wit ho ut li m it at io n. The
is su e h ere i s n ot ad m is si bi li ty of ev id en ce, b ut su ffi ci en cy of p ro of

.

On th e da te of th e ch arg ed of fen se , po li ce co nd uc te d su rv ei ll an ce of Bl ack an d
hi s cou si n Om ar Ru sh

. The y sa w Bl ack ge t in to hi s own car bri efl y be fo re ent eri ng Ru sh ’s ve hi cl e as th e pa ss en ge r. Bl ack de ni ed th at he po ss e s s e d a g u n whi le wit h
Ru sh an d te st ifi ed th at he ha d ret rie ve d a ph on e ch arg e r f r o m h i s own car be fo re

en te rin g Ru sh ’s. Bu t an of fic er who la te r se arch ed Ru sh ’s ve hi cl e aft er th e ch as e sa id

po li ce di d no t fin d “ an y th in g” in th e car; an ot he r of fic er sa id th at t h e y f

o u nd

“ no th in g.”

-3 0-P o li ce th en fo ll owe d th e two m en an d at te m pt ed a tra ffi c st op of Ru sh a n d
Bl ack in th e pa rk in g lo t of an ap art m en t co m pl ex

. Afte r Ru sh an d Bl ack m om en ta ril y
pu ll ed ov er, an of

fic er sa w B la ck op en th e pa ss en ge r do or sl ig ht ly an d le an to ward
th e flo or

. A se co nd of

fic er te st ifi ed th at he al so sa w Bl ack le an fo rward “ li ke he was

reac hi ng un de r th e s e a t , ” an d th at ba se d on Bl ack ’s m ov em en ts , he be li ev ed th at Bl ack “ was po ss ib ly arm ed or hi di ng so m et hi ng .” A jury co ul d in fer th at Bl ack was ha nd li ng a fi rear m

or a tt em pt in g t o c on ceal it

.

Ru sh an d Bl ack th en fle d at a hi gh rat e of sp eed th ro ug h th e pa rk in g lo t. At

on e po in t, aft er a lo ng st r a i g h t a w ay , th e su sp ect ve hi cl e m ad e a ni ne ty-deg ree le ft

tu rn

. As Ru sh an d Bl ack tu rn ed th e co rn er, an on co m in g pi ck u p t r u c k b lo ck ed th e vi ew fro m th e tra il in g po li ce car, an d th e of fic ers co ul d no t se e th e su sp ect ve hi cl e fo r a fe w s e c o n d s. Afte r th e ch as e en de d, po li ce fo un d a fir earm —co ve red wit h

as ph al t-l ik e de br is an d di sp la y in g a m arre d rear si gh t as se m bl y —o n th e gr ou nd to th e rig ht of th e pa th whe re th e Ru sh /B la ck ve hi cl e ha d pa ss ed

. The gu n was fo un d in th e

ex act sp ot whe re th e pa ss en ge r si de of th e su sp ect ve hi cl e pa ss ed whi le it was ou t of
si gh t of th e po li ce of

fic ers du rin g th e ch as e. A jury co ul d i nf er t ha t Bl ack ch os e to di sc ard th e gu n a t t he pre ci se m om en t wh en he kn ew th at th e o ffi cers co ul d n ot see hi m

.

The dr iv er of th e tru ck
, who was an em pl o ye e of th e ap art m en t co m pl ex , te st ifi ed th at whe n th e Ru sh /B la ck ve hi cl e cam e aro un d th e co rn er, he sa w Ru sh wit h
bo th ha nd s on th e st eeri ng whe el

. The jury reas on ab ly co ul d co nc lu de th at th is

ev id en ce, t og et he r wit h t he lo cat io n o f th e fir earm on th e ri gh t s id e o f th e v eh ic le ’s

pa th , eli m in at ed Ru sh as t he pe rs on who to ss ed th e g un

.

The tru ck dr iv er di d no t se e a gu n on th e gr ou nd whe n he ap pr oa ch ed hi s tru ck ju s t b efo re Ru sh an d Bl ack dr ov e pa st

. Ano th er em pl oyee, who fir st sa w th e gu n aft er th e car ch as e, sa id th at he di d no t se e th e g u n w h e n he li ke ly pa ss ed th e sp ot earl ie r in th e da y

. Neit he r em pl oyee ha d ev er se en a fir earm on th e gr ou nd in se ve ral

-3 1-y ears of wor ki ng at th e co m pl ex

. The jury reas on ab ly co ul d in fer th at th e gu n cam e fro m Bla ck du rin g t he car ch as e, no t fr om an ot he r so ur ce.

B l a c k t e s t ifi ed at tri al

. He de ni ed do in g an y th in g wit h hi s ha nd s aft er th e
tra ffi c st op , an d de ni ed th ro win g a fir earm ou t th e win do w du rin g th e ch as e. In cro ss

ex am in at io n ab ou t hi s cred ib il it y , Bl ack ad m it te d to pr io r co nv ic ti on s fo r ai di ng an d
ab et ti ng a dr iv e-b y sh oo ti ng , ag gr av at ed ro bb ery, an d twi ce un la wfu l ly po ss es si ng a fi rear m , i n 20 11 an d 20 13

. He al so ad m it te d to at te m pt in g to br ib e a p ro se cu ti on wit ne ss to ch an ge hi s te st im on y in th e ag gr av at ed ro bb ery cas e. The jury reas on ab ly

co ul d d is cred it Bla ck ’s den ia ls

.

Tak in g al l of th is ci rcu m st an ti al ev id en ce to ge th er, a rat io na l jury co ul d

co nc lu de be y on d a reas on ab le do ub t th at Bl ack po ss es se d a fir earm on Apr il 22
, 20 14

. The jury rat io na ll y co ul d in fer be y on d a reas on ab le do ub t th at Bl ack br ou gh t

a fir earm (n ot a n u n di sc ov ered ph on e ch arg er) to Ru sh ’s c ar, th at th e two m en fle d
fro m po li ce aft er Bl ack co ns id ered whe th er to co nc eal th e gu n un de r hi s se at , th at Bl ack th rew th e gu n ou t th e win do w whe n he kn ew th at he co ul d no t be se en by

po li ce, an d t ha t Bl ack li ed at t ria l wh en he de ni ed po ss es si ng th e g un

.

In de ci di ng whe th er the re was pr oo f be y on d a reas on ab le do ub t, the jury was
pe rm it te d to co ns id er whe th er th e co nf lu en ce of al l th es e ci rcu m st an ces —t he pl ed ge
to carr y a gu n at al l ti m es , th e fu rti ve m ov em en ts aft er th e in it ia l st op , th e fli gh t fro m
po li ce, th e di sc o v e ry of th e da m ag ed gu n on th e ch as e ro ut e pr eci se ly whe re th e

v e h i c l e w e n t ou t of si gh t, an d th e em pl oyees’ te st im on y th at no gu n was se e n earl ie r—c ou ld reas on ab ly be ex pl ai ne d as m erel y an un lu ck y co in ci de nc e fo r Bl ack

. The m ajor it y ’s co nt rary ap pr oa ch of pr of feri ng in no cen t ex pl an at io ns fo r each pi ece of ev id en ce in is ol at io n an d co nc lu di ng th at th ere m us t be rea s on ab le do ub t is

-3 2-in co ns is te nt wit h th e pr op er st an da rd of rev ie w. The jury was no t irr at io na l to ret ur n

a v erd ic t o f gu il ty. I wou ld affi rm th e jud gm en t o f co nv ic ti on in Bla ck ’s cas e. 6

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __

I wou ld rej e c t B la ck ’s al te rn at iv e arg um en t th at in accu rat e te st im on y by a 6
po li ce of fic er be fo re th e gr an d jury warra nt ed di sm is sa l of th e in di ct m en t. Se e Uni te d St at es v. Ald

ri dg e , 56 1 F.3 d 75 9, 76 3- 64 (8 th Ci r. 20 09 ). I al so co n c l u d e t h at th e di st ric t co ur t d id no t ab us e it s d is cret io n i n i m po si ng Bla ck ’s sen te nc e.

-3 3-