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 5-24-2005 

# U SA v . C o oley 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 . 04-1592

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 ght 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 ept 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 . C oo ley " (2005). 2005 D e cisio n s . P ape r 1143. http://d i git alc ommon s .l a

w . vi l l a no va . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2005/11431 NOT P RE CE DE NT I AL UN I TED STATES CO UR T OF A PP EALS F O R T H E T H IR D C IR C U IT N o: 04- 1592 UNI TE D ST ATE S OF AM ERI CA

v. J OHN C OOL E Y, A ppel l ant 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 W e ste rn D istric t o f P e n n sy lv a n ia ( Cr i m. No. 0 2 - 4 0 E) D istric t Ju d g e : H o n . S e a n J. M c L a u g h lin Subm i t t ed Pur s uantt o T hi r d C i r cui tL A R 34. 1( a)

M ay5, 2005 Be f o r e : M c KEE, SM I TH an d VA N A NTW ERPEN ( O pi ni on fi l ed: M ay24, 2005)

OP I NI ON M cK E E , C i r cui tJ udge. J ohn C ool eyappea l s fr om a j udgm entof s ent ence and convi ct i on. For t he r eas ons t hatfol l ow , w e w i l l aff

i r m t he j udgm entof convi ct i on. H ow ever , w e w i l l vaca t e the s ent ence and r emand forr es ent enci ng pur s uantt o U ni t ed Stat es v. B ooker , U . S. , 125 S .C t. 7 3 8 (2 0 0 5 ). S e e U n itedS ta tes v . D a v is , F .3 d , 2 0 0 5 W L 9 7 6 9 4 1 (3 d C ir. A p ril 2 8 , 2 0 0 5 ).2 I. B eca us e w e w r i t e onl yfort he part i es , w e r eci t e onl yt he fa ct s and pr ocedur al h is to ry th a t a re n e c e s s a ry f o r t h e d is p o s itio n o f

th is a p p e a l. O n D e c e m b e r 1 0 , 2 0 0 2 , a gr and j ur yr etur ned a one - counti ndi ct m ent , char gi ng t hatfr om J anuary1992 and cont i nui ng unt i l D ece m ber2002, C ool eycons pi r ed t o di s t r i but e more t han 50 gr ams of cra ck co ca ine in v iolati o n o f 2 1 U . S . C . § 8 4 6 . T h e juryfo u n d h im g u il tyan d , there af ter, t he di s t r i ctcour ts ent ence d hi m t o l i fe i m pr i s onm ent . I n hi s appea l , C ool eyar gues t hat t he di s t r i ctcour terr ed i n cert ai n evi dent i aryrul i ngs and i n s ent enci ng hi m t o l i fe i m pri sonm ent unde r the S entenci ng G uidel i nes. II. C ool eym akes t w o chal l enges t o t he di s t r i ctcourt ’ s evi dent i aryrul i ngs . Fi r s t , he ar gues t hatt he di s t r i ctcour terr ed byexcl udi ng as hear s ayt he t es t i m onyof R i ckyPul l i am that C o o leytr ied to intr o d u ce o n the last d ayo f tri al. P u ll iam k n ew C u ras H en ry , H en ry w a s C o o ley’s f

o rm e r lo v e r a n d , ac c o rd in g to th e g o v e rn m e n t, on e o f th e m a n yp e o p le C ool eys uppl i ed cr ack c ocai ne t o. Pul l i am knew t hatH enryhad tr i ed t o bor r ow m oney fr om C ool ey . C ool eyei t herr efus ed t o l oan the moneyorr enege d on t he dea l . I n any event , Pul l i am t es t i fi ed thatH enryt ol d hi m , w i t h r es pectt o C ool ey : “I can’ ts t and that s on of a bi t ch. ” The gover nm entobj ect ed, cl ai m i ng t hatt he t es t i m onyw as hear s ayand the d istri ct co u rtsu stai n ed the o b jecti o n . C o o leyarg u es th at ruli n g w as e rror. H en ry ’s s t at ement i s hear s aybeca us e i ti s an out - of- cour ts t at ement offe r ed t o pr ove the trut h of3

H enry ’ s as s er t i on t hats he coul d nots t and C ool ey . A r guabl y , t he s t at ement s houl d have b e e n a d m itt e d u n d e r th e sta te o f m in d e x c e p tio n to th e h e a rsa yru le. H o w e v e r, ev e n if t he di s t r i ctcour terr ed bynotadmi t t i ng t he s t at ementundert hatexce pt i on, t he err orw as har m l es s . A non- cons t i tut i onal t r i al err ordoes not“w arr antr ever s al i n ci r cumst ance s w her e i ti s hi ghl ypr obabl e thatt he err ordi d notcontr i but e t o t he j udgm ent . ” U ni t ed St at es v. Mathi as , 264 F. 3d 321, 342 ( 3d C i r . 2001) ( ci t at i on and i nt ernal quot at i ons om i t t ed) . A l t hough t he governm enthas t he bur den of de m ons t r at i ng t hi s hi gh p ro b a b ility, Un i t e d

S t a t e s v . A da ms , 2 5 2 F .3 d 2 7 6 , 2 8 1 (3 d C ir. 2 0 0 1 ), itd o e s n o t h a v e to d is p ro v e e v e ry re a s o n a b le p o s s ib ility o f p re ju d ic e . M

athi as , 264 F. 3d at342 ( ci t at i on o m ittte d ). H er e, i ti s cl eart hatt he exc l us i on of Pul l i am’s t es t i m onydi d notcontr i but e t o t he j ury ’s verdi ct . H enryw as not a keyor cr i t i cal w i t ness againstC oo l ey . T here w as overw hel m i ng evi dence fr om ot herw i t nes s es t hatC ool eyw as a maj orcr ack c ocai ne tr a f f ic k e r a n d th a t h e re c e iv e d la rg e a m o u n ts o f m o n e yf ro m th a t tr a f

f ic k in g . C ool ey ’ s s econd e vi dent i aryar gum enti s t hatt he di s t r i ctcour terr ed byal l ow i ng th e g o v e rn m e n t to in tro d u c e th e tes tim o n yo f Jo h n V e rg o tz. V e rg o tz te stif ied th a t h is bus i nes s i s l ocat ed nextdoort o C ool ey ’ s hous e and thathe had know n C ool eyfor15 y ear s . C ool eyfr equent ed hi s bus i nes s . V er got z t es t i fi ed thatC ool eyhad bee n empl oy ed foronl yabout4 y ear s dur i ng t hei r15- y earfr i ends hi p. V er got z w as t r y i ng t o pur chas e a new hom e, butneede d an addi t i onal $10, 000 fort he cl os i ng. H e di s cus s ed the s i tuat i on4

w i t h hi s s ecr et aryone dayw hi l e C ool eyw as pr es enti n hi s s hop, al t hough V er got z di d not d ir e c tly d is c u s s it w ith C o o le y . C ool eyl at eri nvi t ed V er got z t o hi s hous e. W hen V er got z arr i ved, C ool eygave h im $ 1 0 ,0 0 0 in c a sh . T h e a c tu a l tran sf e r to o k p lac e in C o o ley’s c a r. V e rg o tz la ter re p a id C o o l e y. C ool eyar gues t hatV er got z’ t es t i m onyw as i nadmi s s i bl e bec aus e i tw as never l i nked t o a part i cul ardrug t r ans act i on. H e i s w r ong. A defe ndant ’ s acc es s t o unexpl ai ned orunacc ount ed forw eal t h i s s t r ong ci r cumst ant i al evi dence of i nvol vement i n i l l egal a c tiv ity. U

ni t ed Stat es v. C handl er , 326 F. 3d 210, 215 ( 3d C i r . 2003) . T hus , pos s es s i on of l ar ge amount s of ca s h w i t h evi dence of nar cot i cs t r aff i cki ng i s gener al l yr el evantand a d m is s ib le . U

ni t ed Stat es v. N

ew t on , 891 F. 2d 944, 948 ( 1s tC i r . 1989) . “The t ouchs t one of the admi s s i bi l i t yi nqui r yi s nott he amount of m oneyi n t he def endant ’ s pos s es s i on, but w h ethe r de fe n d an t’ s fa il u re to a cc o u n t fo r i ts sou rce tend s to su p p o rtthe g o v ern m en t’ s cl ai m t hatt he moneyw as obt ai ned thr ough i l l egi t i m at e means . ” C handl er , 326 F. 3d at 215. M or eover , t he governm entdoes nothave t o demonst r at e a c onnect i on betw een the f u n d s in q u e s tio n a n d a s p e c if ic ille g a l tr a n s a c tio n . U ni t ed Stat es v. Jack

s on- R andol

ph , 2 8 2 F . 3 d 3 6 9 , 3 7 9 (6th C ir . 2 0 0 2 ). H e re , the g o v e rn m e n t’s e v id e n c e e sta b lish e d th a t f ro m Ja n u a ryo f

1 9 9 2 u n til D ece m berof 2003, C ool eydi s t r i but ed mul t i pl e ki l ogr ams of cr ack. N um er ous w i t nes s es t es t i fi ed thatC ool eyw as pai d hundr eds of thous ands of dol l ar s fort hatcr ack. Sever al5

w itn e ss e s te stif

ied th a t C o o ley tra n sp o rte d b a g s f ill e d w ith c a sh to h is s iste r’s h o m e in V i r gi ni a fors afe keepi ng. V er got z t es t i fi ed thatC ool eyhad onl yt w o j obs and w as empl oy ed forappr oxi m at el y4 y ear s outof the 15 y ear s he had know n C ool ey . T he c irc u m sta n c e s s u rro u n d in g th e lo a n a n d th e n a tu re o f th e tra n sa c tio n w a s c e rta in ly p ro b a tiv e o f

C o o le y ’s in v o lv e m e n t in d ru g tr a f f ic k in g . For t he above r eas ons , w e w i l l aff i r m the j udgm entof convi ct i on. III . Ats e n t e n c i n g , t h e d i s t r i c tc o u r tf o u n d t h a tCo o l e yt r a f

f i c k e d i n o v e r1 . 5 k i l o g r a ms of cr ack c ocai ne, t hathe w as t he l eade roror gani zerof a c r i m i nal act i vi t yt hati nvol ved m or e than 5 cr i m i nal par t i ci pant s , t hathe pos s es s ed fi r earm s dur i ng t he cons pi r acyand t hathe att empt ed t o obs t ructt he admi ni s t r at i on of j us t i ce. Pur s uantt o t he Sent enci ng G ui del i nes , t he di s t r i ctcour ts ent ence d C ool eyt o l i fe i m pr i s onm ent– a s ent ence bey ond th e m a x im u m f

o r t h e c ri m e o f

c o n v ic tio n . In hi s appea l , C oo l eyargues t hat the d i stri ctcou rt ’s sent ence v i olat es U ni t ed Stat es v. B ooker , U . S . , 1 2 5 S . C t. 7 3 8 (20 0 5 ). U n d er B ooker , m andat or yenhanc ement of a se n ten c e u n d e r th e S e n ten c in g G u id e lin e s b a se d o n f a c ts f o u n d b yth e c o u rt a n d n o t a jury , v iolates t h e S ixth A m en d m en t. T h u s, af ter B ooker , the S en tenc ing G u idelines are “ef fec t i vel yadvi s or y . ” Id . at757. A ccor di ngl y , di s t r i ctcour t s w i l l now cons i dert he a p p lic a b le a d v is o ry G u id e lin e s in a d d itio n to th e f a c to rs s e t f

o rt h in 1 8 U .S .C . § 3 5 5 3 (a ). I d. a t 7 6 4 -6 5 . B ookeris a p p lic a b le to a ll c a s e s o n d ir e c t r e v ie w . I d. at769.6

C ool eydi d notr ai s e a Si xt h A m endment chal l enge t o hi s s ent ence i n t he di s t r i ct cour tand B ookerw as deci ded af t erhe w as s ent ence d. N onethel es s , pur s uantt o our r ece ntdeci s i on i n U

n itedS ta tes v . D a v is , F. 3d , 2005 W L 976941 ( 3d C i r . A pr i l 28, 2005) , w e w i l l r emand forr es ent enci ng pur s uantt o B ooker .