2005 D e c i sion s O p inion s of the U nit e d S t at e s C our t of Appe al s for the Thir d C ir c uit 9-15-2005 

# U SA v . D owdy P r e c e de n t i al or N on-P r e c e de n t i al : N on-P r e c e de n t i al D ocke t N o . 04-2421

F o l low thi s a nd a dd it ion al work s at : http://d i git alc ommon s .l a w . vi l l a no va . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2005

Thi s de c i sion i s br ou gh t t o you for f r e e a nd ope n a c c e s s b y the O p inion s of the U nit e d S t at e s C our t of Appe al s for the Thir d C ir c uit at V i l l a no va U nive r sity S choo l of L a

w Di git al Re posit or y

. It h as be e n a c c e pt e d for inclusion in 2005 D e c i sion s b y a n author i z e d a dmini s tr at or of V i l l a no va U nive r sity S choo l of L a

w Di git al Re posit or y

. F or mor e inform at ion, p le as e c on t a ct Be n j amin . C a rl s on@l a

w . vi l l a no va . e du . Re c omme nde d C it at ion " U SA v . D owdy " (2005). 2005 D e cisio n s . P ape r 545. http://d i git alc ommon s .l a

w . vi l l a no va . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2005/5451 NOT P RE CE DE NT I AL I N TH E 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 C as e N o: 04- 2421 UNI TE D ST ATE S OF AM ERI CA

v. KE VI N DOWDY, 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 M id d le D istric t o f P e n n sy lv a n ia D i s t r i ctC our tC r i m . N o. : 3- C R - 01- 0401- 02 D istric t Ju d g e : T h e H o n o ra b le E d w in M . K o sik Subm i t t ed Pur s uantt o T hi r d C i r cui tL A R 34. 1( a)

Sept ember 15, 2005 B e f o re : S L O V IT E R , B A R R Y , a n d S M IT H , C i r cui tJudges

( Fi l ed: Sept ember 15, 2005)

OP I NI ON S M IT H , C i r cui tJudge . K e v in D o w d yw a s c o n v icte d o f d istrib u tio n a n d p o ss e ss io n w ith th e in ten t to di s t r i but e 50 gr ams orm or e of c r ack c ocai ne, and of c ons pi r i ng t o do t he s ame. O n M ay 20, 2004, D ow dyw as s ent ence d undera mandat or yU ni t ed St at es Sent enci ng G ui del i nesTwo of Dow dy ’s claims on appe al dese rve no morethan summary treatment. Dowdy 1 contends that the D istrict Court erre d by ref using to hold an e videntiary hearing on D owdy ’s farfetc hed alleg ation that his ex -lover, D awn Phillips, bl ackmailed Dowdy into selling crack by thre ate nin gto i nterf

e rewi th D ow dy ’s re latio ns hip wi th M e lis sa Ma rtin i f h e did

no t. N e xt, Dowdy cites the inapposite Un ited S tates v . Cross , 308 F.3d 308 ( 3d Cir. 2002), for the prop os iti on

that th is C ourt

sh ou ld b e on

theloo ko ut f

or wi nn inga

pp e llatearguments ma deby his co-de fenda

nts, and that such arguments should “spill over” to his benef it. Dowdy ’s argument might b e a

pp lic a blein c o- de fend ant c a se s at th e tria l le ve l, whe rethedis tric t ju dg e is i nti mate ly familiar with the f

actual overlap of

the ca ses. When appropriate, a district c ourt ca n allow defendants to incorporate by ref ere nce thearguments of their c o-def endants. In non-consolidated appeals, however , eac h appellant is on their own, a nd issues not raised in one’ s openingbrief a re deeme d to be waive d. Laborers’ Int’l Union v. Foster W heele r Corp. , 26 F.3d 375, 398 ( 3d Cir. 19 94 ) ( “ An

iss ueis w a ive d unle ss a

pa rt y raise s it in i ts o pe nin gbrie f, and

fo r t ho sepurp os e s a pa ssi ngre ferenc e to a

n is su e . . . w illno t su ff

ic e to b ri ngthat is su e be fo rethi s c ourt ” ); See F ED . R. A PP . P R OC . 28(a) (5), ( 9) (statingthat the appe llant’s brief must contain a statement of issues pre se nte d f

or re view a nd arguments wi th a

uth oriti e s a

nd re c ord c itatio ns ). To besure , c ourt s strive for c onsistency

in applying thelaw, but other me chanisms of a ppellate c ourts – adherence to p re c e de nt, mul ti- me mber p ane ls, rehe ari ngproc e dure s, e tc . – and no t D ow dy ’s prop os e d “ a sto-one, so-to-all spil lover rule ” are designed for that job. 2 r egi m e t o 324 m ont hs ’ i m pr i s onm ent . I n addi t i on t o chal l engi ng hi s s ent ence , D ow dy ra ise s e ig h t issu e s h e c o n ten d s w a rra n t a n e w trial. T h e D istri ct C o u rth ad juri sd ict ion p u rsua n t t o 1 8 U . S . C . § 3 2 3 1 ; th is C o u rt ’s juri sd ict ion is un d er 1 8 U . S . C . § 3 7 4 2 (a) an d 2 8 U . S . C . § 1 2 9 1 . W e w il l up h o ld D o w d y ’s c o n v ictio n , b u t w ill v a c a te th e se n ten c e a n d re m a n d th e c a se f o r re se n ten c in g in acc or dance w i t h U

ni t ed Stat es v. B ooker , 5 4 3 U .S . _ _ , 1 2 5 S .C t. 7 3 8 (2 0 0 5 ). See U ni t ed S ta tes v . D a v is , 4 0 7 F . 3 d 1 6 2 , 1 6 4 -65 (3d C ir . 2 0 0 5 ) (en b an c). Suf f i ci ency of

the Evi dence D ow dy ’ s convi ct i on- r el at ed i s s ues ar e r epet i t i ve and mer i t l es s . D ow dys pi ns one 1 s uffi ci ency - of- t he- evi dence i s s ue i nt o fouri s s ues . Speci fi cal l y , D ow dycont ends t hat( 1) t he evi dence pr es ent ed byt he G overnm entw as i ns uffi ci entt o s us t ai n t he convi ct i on; ( 2)3

t he j ur yver di ctw as agai ns tt he w ei ghtof evi dence ; ( 3) t he cha i n of evi dence w as in su f f icie n t b e c a u se it w a s p h y sic a llya n d lo g ica llyim p o ss ib le; a n d (4 ) th e p h y sic a lly i m pos s i bl e evi dence compel l ed D ow dyt o di s cl os e t o t he j ur yt hathe w as bei ng det ai ned, p re ju d ic in g h is c o n s titu tio n a l r ig h t to a p re s u m p tio n o f in n o c e n c e . T o d isc re d it w h a t th e ju ryf o u n d to b e su f

f icie n t ev id e n c e , D o w d ya ttem p ts to u n d e rm in e th e f

a c ts d e v e lo p e d a t trial. F o r e x a m p le, D o w d yc o n ten d s th a t, co n tra ryto th e ir tes tim o n y , the p o lice c o u ld n o t h a v e f o u n d d ru g s in D o w d y ’s r ig h t f ro n t p a n ts pocketbeca us e t he pant s he w as w ear i ng att he t i m e of hi s arr es thad a s i ngl e fr ontpocket on t he l eft . I n a s i m i l arvei n, D ow dyar gues t hati tw as “phy s i cal l yi ncr edi bl e” a nd p e rh a p s e v e n im p o ss ib le th a t an a ss o c iate o f h is c o u ld c a rrya o n e -o u n c e b a r o f c ra c k in each o f her brass i ere cups, as she t est i fi ed she d i d o n d rug runs w i t h D ow dy . D ow dyal so ques t i ons t he r el i abi l i t yof t he t es t i m onyfr om D et ect i ve H aze n t hats he pur chas ed cr ack fr om D ow dyi n contr ol l ed buy s w i t h m ar ked moneybeca us e the moneyw as never re c o v e re d . D r aw i ng al l r eas onabl e i nfer ence s fr om t he evi dence and s how i ng defe r ence t o t he ju ry’s v e rd ic t, a s w e m u s t, U ni t ed Stat es v. A nders kow , 8 8 F . 3 d 2 4 5 , 2 5 1 (3d C ir . 1 9 9 6 ), m eans her e t hatw e w i l l noti ndul ge D ow dy ’ s at t empt t o l ever age mi nori ncons i s t enci es and al l egedl y“i m pos s i bl e” or“i ncr edi bl e” f act s t o i m pugn t he j ur y ’ s del i ber at i ons or a b ro g a te th e ir v e rd ict. Sep arate C on spi raci es Th eory4

D o w d ya rg u e s th a t th e D istric t C o u rt im p ro p e rlya llo w e d th e G o v e rn m e n t to p re s e n t e v id e n c e o f

tw o s e p a ra te c o n s p ir a c ie s c o v e ri n g d if f e re n t tim e p e ri o d s . Speci fi cal l y , D ow dyal l eges t hatt w o m ont hs s epar at ed the cons pi r aci es and thatt her e w as n o s in g le c o n s p ir a c ye n c o m p a s s in g th e e n tir e tim e f ra m e a s a lle g e d b yth e G o v e rn m e n t. C o n se q u e n tly , D o w d ya ss e rts th a t h e w a s e n tit led to a ju ryin stru c tio n o n h is “ se p a ra te c o n s p ir a c ie s ” th e o ry. D ow dyadmi t s t hatt he G overnm entpr es ent ed evi dence t hathe w as i nvol ved i n cons pi r aci es s panni ng M ar ch 2001 t o D ece m ber2001; he mer el yas s er t s t hatt he G ov ernm ent di d n ot s ho w i l l egal act i vityi n Jun e 20 01 or Jul y20 01 , and t hu s there w as a br eak w hi ch cr eat ed tw o s epar at e cons pi r aci es . D ow dyonl ynames, butdoes notci t e, cas es fort he gene r al pr opos i t i on t hatt he D i s t r i ctC our t“s houl d nothave c ons i der ed any evi dence on bot h cons pi r aci es . ” D ow dyfai l s t o expl ai n how he w as pr ej udi ced byt he D i s t r i ctC our t ’ s r efus al t o ent er t ai n hi s t heoryof t he ca s e, exce ptt o ar gue thata var i ance betw een the i ndi ct m entand t he G overnm ent ’ s evi dence w oul d have be en cr eat ed had the j ur yfound s epar at e cons pi r aci es . D ow dyat t empt s t o m anufa ctur e thi s var i ance by cont endi ng t hatt he compet i ng t heor i es of t he ca s e – the G overnm ent ’ s s i ngl e cons pi r acy t heoryand D ow dy ’ s s epar at e cons pi r aci es t heory– s houl d have be en pl ace d befor e the ju ry in th e in s tr u c tio n s . W e b eli ev e the D istri ct C o u rtw as w ell w ith in it s d iscreti o n in ref u sing D o w d y ’s pr efe r r ed j ur yi ns t ruct i on. T he tw o- m ont h evi dent i arygap hi ghl i ght ed byD ow dyi s notThough on our re adingof the a ffidavit wecould re adily rea ch the same conc lusion as 2 the mag istrate, our c onclusion is sealed by the substantial deferenc e weg ive to the mag istrate’s probablecausedeter

mination. Illinois v. Gates , 462 U.S. 213, 236 (1983). 5 ca u se f o r assign ing erro r t o the D istri ct C o u rto n ac co u n t of this asp ec t of

the ju ry i ns t ruct i ons . T he D i s t r i ctC our tl i m i t ed the cons pi r acycountputt o t he j ur yt o t hr ee m e m b e rs – D o w d y , Jo n e s, a n d Y o u n g – b e c a u se th e m a in G o v e rn m e n t w itn e ss o n th is countcoul d notpos i t i vel yi dent i fyt he four t h acc us ed mem beri n cour t . A l s o, t he evi dence w as cl ear l ys uffi ci entt o es t abl i s h t he el ement s of a na r cot i cs cons pi r acy , and i ncl uded mul t i pl e fa ctual l i nks among t he thr ee c o- cons pi r at or s . I n s hor t , t he D i s t r i ct C our tpr oper l yt ai l or ed the j ur ychar ge t o t he evi dence pr es ent ed, and D ow dyw as not ent i t l ed t o hi s pr opos ed i ns t ruct i on, w hi ch w as cr i bbed fr om t he N i nt h C i r cui tM odel C r i m i nal J ur yI ns t ruct i ons , w as i l l - fi t t i ng fort he fa ct s of t he ca s e, and mayhave c onfus ed t h e j u r y. Moti on t o S up

press D ow dynextar gues t hatt he s ear ch w arr antw as i m pr oper l yi s s ued, and, cons equent l y , hi s m ot i on t o s uppr es s t he evi dence found i n t he s ear ch of the Snow R i dge V i l l age a par t m enthe s har ed w i t h M el i s s a M ar t i n s houl d have be en gr ant ed and the c o n tra b a n d e v id e n c e e x c lu d e d . O u r re v iew o f th e su p p o rtin g a f

f id a v it co n v in c e s u s th a t it pr ovi ded an a m pl e bas i s fort he magi s t r at e’ s concl us i on t hatpr obabl e ca us e exi s t ed for t he is suance of the w arr ant. T he co rr ect ness of the m agis t rat e’s determ i nati on i s so 2 r eadi l yappar entt hatt he s ear ch nee d nots eek the r efuge of U ni t ed Stat es v. Leon , 4686

U . S. 897 ( 1984) , i n or dert o be dee m ed cons t i tut i onal . T he af fi davi tr ecount s s ever al co n tr o ll ed tr an sac ti o n s o f c rac k fro m D o w d yan d M arti n in w h ich th e d rug s w ere excha nged form ar ked curr ency . Fol l ow i ng eac h t r ans act i on, t he nar cot i cs s el l erw as fol l ow ed bya s ur vei l l ance offi cerback t o t he Snow V i l l age a par t m ents har ed byD ow dy and M ar t i n. Fur t her , t he af fi davi tnot ed thatD ow dyw as i m pl i cat ed bya conf i dent i al i nfor m antas bei ng a mem berof a na r cot i cs di s t r i but i on or gani zat i on fr om w hi ch 41 contr ol l ed buy s w er e made and w hi ch w as r es pons i bl e foran es t i m at ed s al es vol um e of 1 5 0 0 ro c k s o f

c ra c k p e r w e e k in M o n ro e C o u n ty , an d th a t D o w d yh a d p e rso n a llyso ld cra ck to u n d erc o v er o ff icers o n m u lt iple o cc asio n s in the p rev iou s fo rt y -eigh t ho u rs. In s hor t , t he af

fi davi tcont ai ned s uffi ci enti nfor m at i on fort he magi s t r at e t o concl ude that cr ack c ocai ne, m ar ked curr ency , orbot h, pr obabl yw oul d be found i n D ow dyand M a rtin ’s S n o w V ill a g e a p a rtm e n t. Sent enci ng I

s s ues T he D i s t r i ctC our ts ent ence d D ow dyon M ay20, 2004, s even mont hs befor e the S up rem e C ou rti ssued i t s B oo ker opi ni on. T he D i s t r i ctC our tbas ed i t s comput at i on of D ow dy ’ s G ui del i nes r ange i n par ton t he G overnm ent ’ s pos i t i on t hatD ow dyw as i nvol ved i n di s t r i but i ng betw een 500 gr ams and 1. 5 ki l ogr ams of cr ack c ocai ne, t hathe m a n a g e d a n a rc o tics d istrib u tio n o rg a n iza tio n , an d th a t h e p o ss e ss e d a f ire a rm in connec t i on w i t h t he drug offe ns es . N one of thes e det er m i nat i ons w er e eve rputt o t he ju ry.7

In lig h t o f

th e S u p re m e C o u rt’s s u b se q u e n t B oo ker opi ni on, w e bel i eve thi s and t he ot hers ent enci ng i s s ues r ai s ed byD ow dyar e bes tdet er m i ned byt he D i s t r i ctC our ti n t he fi r s ti ns t ance , and w e w i l l vaca t e t he s ent ence and r emand forr es ent enci ng i n acc or dance w ith in te rv e n in g p re c e d e n t.