2008 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 9-23-2008 

# U SA v . Gr ant P r e c e de nt i al or N on-P r e c e de nt i al : N on-P r e c e de nt i al D ocke t N o . 06-4231

F o llow thi s and a dd it ion al work s at : http://d i git alc ommon s .l a w . vi ll anova . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2008

Thi s de c i sion i s br ou ght t o you for f r e e and 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 ll anova U nive r sity S choo l of L a

w Di git al Reposit ory

. It h as be e n a c c ept e d for inclusion in 2008 D e c i sion s b y an author i z e d a dmini s tr at or of V i ll anova U nive r sity S choo l of L a

w Di git al Reposit ory

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

w . vi ll anova . e du . Re c omme nde d C it at ion
" U SA v . Gr ant " (2008). 2008 D e cisio n s . P ape r 502. http://d i git alc ommon s .l a

w . vi ll anova . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2008/502T he H onor abl e J os eph H
. R odr i guez, Seni orD i s t r i ctJ udge, U ni t ed St at es D i s t r i ct * C our tfort he D i s t r i ctof N ew J er s ey , s i t t i ng bydes i gnat i on. 1 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. 06- 4231 UNI TE D ST ATE S OF AM ERI CA

v. RO GEL G RA NT,

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 E a ste rn D istric t o f P e n n sy lv a n ia ( C r i m . N o. 04- cr - 00749) D i s t r i ctJ udge: H on. J ames K nol l G ar dner 

### B ef o re: M cKE E an dG A R T H , C ircu it Ju d g es, and RODRI GUEZ, Di s tri c t Judge * 

### Subm itte d p ursuant t o T hird Circ uit LAR34 .1(a)

May 15, 2008 ( Opi ni on fi l e d: Sept e m

be r 23, 2008) OP INI ON McKE E, Circ uit Jud ge. R ogel G r antappea l s t he di s t r i ctcour t ’ s j udgm entof convi ct i on and s ent ence
e n t e r e d o n S e p t e mb e r1 9 , 2 0 0 6
. F o rt h e r e a s o n s t h a tf o l l o w, we wi l l a f

f i r m.T he s uper s edi ng i ndi ctm entchar ged thatG r antw as a mem berof the “W el m aker 1 C ra c k C o c a in e D is tr ib u tio n O rg a n iz a tio n .” See n. 1, supra . 2
2 B eca us e w e w r i t e pr i m ar i l yfort he part i es , w e nee d notr eci t e the fa ct s or pr ocedur al hi s t or yof thi s cas e exc epti ns ofaras m aybe nec es s aryforourbr i ef di s cus s i on. O n A pr i l 5, 2005, a gr and j ur yr etur ned a s uper s edi ng i ndi ctm entchar gi ng R ogel G r ant and ni ne co- defe ndant s w i t h cons pi r acyt o di s t r i but e cr ack c ocai ne, i n vi ol at i on of 21 U . S. C
. § 846, and r el at ed off ens es . I n addi t i on, G r antw as char ged w i t h fourcount s of 1 di s t r i but i on of cr ack c ocai ne and one countof pos s es s i on of cr ack c ocai ne w i t h t he i nt ent to d is tr ib u te , in v io la tio n o f 2 1 U .S .C . § 8 4 1 (a )( 1 ). O n J anuary3, 2006, G r antw entt o t r i al w i t h co- defe ndantA nt oi ne Shi r l ey . A tt he
c lo se o f th e g o v e rn m e n t’s e v id e n c e , G ra n t m o v e d f o r ju d g m e n t o f

a c q u itt a l p u rsu a n t to Fed. R . C r i m . P. 29. T he di s t r i ctcour tgr ant ed the mot i on as t o t he cons pi r acychar ge but 2 deni ed i tas t o t he r emai ni ng char ges . O n J anuary11, 2006, t he j ur yr etur ned a ve r di ct fi ndi ng G r antgui l t yof tw o count s of di s t r i but i on of cr ack c ocai ne and one countof p o s s e s s i o n o f

c r a c k c o c a i n e wi t h t h e i n t e n tt o d i s t r i b u t e . T h e j u r ya c q u i t t e d Gr a n to f t wo
c o u n ts o f d is tr ib u tio n o f

c ra c k c o c a in e . O n Sept ember19, 2006, t he di s t r i ctcour toverrul ed G r ant ’ s obj ect i ons t o t he governm ent ’ s i nform at i on char gi ng pr i orconvi ct i ons forfel onydrug offe ns es , pur s uant t o 21 U
. S. C
. § 851, and i m pos ed a s ent ence of l i fe i m pr i s onm ent , a t erm of s upervi s ed3

r el eas e of t en y ear s , and a s peci al as s es s m entof $300. T hi s appea l fol l ow ed. II. G r antm akes fourar gum ent s i n s uppor tof hi s appea l
. E ach i s cons i der ed
s e p a r a t e l yb e l o w.

A . T he G overnm ent ’ s C l os i ng A rgum ent W as I m proper. G r antcont ends t hatt he A s s i s t antU ni t ed St at es A t t or neyi m pr oper l ys um m ar i zed th e tes tim o n yre latin g to th e f o u rth d ru g tra n sa c tio n d u rin g c lo sin g a rg u m e n t. Speci fi cal l y , t he A U SA s ai d: A n d then , O ctob er 2 6 , 2 0 0 4
. A g ain, a c all to the sam e telep h o n e n u m b er, a r r a n g e t o me e ti n t h e Bu r g e rKi n g l o t , th e v i d e o i s s e tu p , b u tt h i s t i me t her e’ s a di ffe r entpl an. T hi s t i m e the det ect i ves pl an t o arr es tt he per s on t hathas been de l i ver i ng, overt hes e pas tt hr ee oc cas i ons , t o D et ect i ve K arnes . A nd t heys etup, t heyor derup, t heyor dert hr ee ounc es . T hey or der , actual l y , t hr ee orfourounces , I bel i eve the t es t i m onyof D et ect i ve K arnes w as. T heyordered t hree or four ou nces. W hen y ou ’r e do i ng t his , y ou’ l l w ants om ebodyt o come up w i t h as m uch drugs as y ou can ge t , s o, y ou know , have a r eal s ol i d cas e, y ou or derup, and that ’ s w hatt heydi d. A p p . 8 1 . G ra n t su b m its th a t th e A U S A im p e rm iss ib lyv o u c h e d f o r h is w itn e ss e s in
ar gui ng: “W hen y ou’ r e doi ng t hi s , y ou’ l l w ants om ebodyt o come up w i t h as m uch drugs
as y ou can ge t , s o, y ou know , have a r eal s ol i d cas e, y ou or derup, and that ’ s w hatt hey di d. ” G r antcl ai m s t hi s s t at ement“i nvi t [ed] t he j ur yt o r el yupon ‘ s peci al know l edge uni que t o t he pr os ecut or ’ t o dr aw t he conc l us i on t hatt he i ncr eas i ngl yl ar ge under cover drug pur chas es s om ehow r ender ed the ca s e aga i ns t[hi m ] and hi s co- defe ndant‘ r eal
s o lid .’” G ra n t’ s B r. a t 2 4 . T h e a rg u m e n t is m e ri tle s s .4

G eneral l y , a prosecutorm ayno tvo uch for the credibi l i t yof a g ov ernm ent w i t ness
o r e x p re s s h is p e rs o n a l o p in io n c o n c e rn in g th e g u ilt o f th e d e f e n d a n t. U

ni t ed Stat es v. B e a ty , 7 2 2 F . 2 d 1 0 9 0 , 1 0 9 7 ( 3 d Ci r . 1 9 8 3 )
. I n o r d e rt o f i n d i mp r o p e rv o u c h i n g , t wo
cr i t er i a mustbe met : “( 1) the pr os ecut orm us tas s ur e the j ur yt hatt he t es t i m onyof a G o v ern m en t w itn ess is cre d ible; and (2) this assu ran ce is ba sed o n eith er the p rose cu tor’s per s onal know l edge, orot heri nform at i on notcont ai ned i n t he r ecor d. ” U ni t ed Stat es v. W alker , 155 F. 3d 180, 187 ( 3d C i r . 1998)
. “[I ] ti s notenough fora def endanton appea l t o as s er tt hatt he pr os ecut oras s ur ed the j ur yt hata w i t nes s ’ t es t i m onyw as cr edi bl e. ” I d. “The defe ndantm us tbe abl e t o i dent i fyas t he bas i s fort hatcomm entan expl i ci tor i m pl i ci tr efe r ence t o ei t hert he per s onal know l edge of t he pr os ecut i ng at t or neyor i nform at i on notcont ai ned i n t he r ecor d. ” Id
. M or eover , t he pr os ecut orm ay“ar gue
r eas onabl e i nfer ence s bas ed on the evi dence
. ” U ni t ed Stat es v. N

ecoe chea , 986 F. 2d 1273, 1276 ( 3d C i r . 1993)
. I n addi t i on, t her e i s a di s t i nct i on betw een e xpr es s i ons of p e rs o n a l o p in io n b a s e d o n th e e v id e n c e a n d th o s e b a s e d o n f a c ts n o t in e v id e n c e . U ni t ed Stat es v. G al l agher , 576 F. 2d 1028, 1042 ( 3d C i r . 1978)
. I f the s t at ement s ar e bas ed on th e e v id e n c e , p re

ju d ic e m u s t b e s h o w n b e f o re re v e rs a l is w a rr a n te d
. Id
. H er e, t he A U SA ’ s s t at ementw as a fa i rs um m aryof the evi dence , w hi ch s how ed t haton Sept ember28, 2004, t he det ect i ves had pur chas ed 6 gr ams of cr ack c ocai ne; on O ct ober12, 2004, t heyhad pur chas ed 5. 2 gr ams of cr ack c ocai ne; and on O ct ober14, 2 0 0 4 , the yh a d p u rc h a se d 2 8 .3 g ra m s o f c ra c k c o c a in e f

ro m th e in d iv id u a l id e n tifie d to5

t hem as “ B r adl ey , ” an a l i as us ed byG r ant . H ow ever , on O ct ober26, 2004, t he dat e on
w hi ch theyi nt ended t o arr es t“B r adl ey , ” the det ect i ves had a ne w pl an. D et ect i ve M ei t zl ert es t i fi ed: Q : . . . N o w , D e tec tiv e o n O c to b e r 1 6 o f 2 0 0 4 , w a s th e re a n o th e r e v e n t in t hi s i nves t i gat i on? A : O ct ober26t h? Q : I ’ m s orr y . O ct ober26t h – A : Y es. Q : – of ‘ 04? A : A gai n, m y s el f and D et ect i ve K arnes , and otherdet ect i ves , T as k For ce me mb e r s i n t h e Re a d i n g p o l i c e me ta to u ro f f i c e . I twa s d e c i d e d t h a twe w e r e g o i n g t o a t t e m p tt o a r r e s tM r . R o g e l G r a n tt h a td a y. Q : A n d d i d t h a tc a u s e yo u t o d o a n yt h i n g d i f f e r e n t l y? A : A few di ffe r entt hi ngs t hatday
. W hen w e metw i t h Scot tFi t zcha r l es [th e c o n fid en ti al i n fo rm an t]
. I ad v ised h im that w e w ere g o ing to arres t M r. G ra n t th a t d a y . I als o a d v ise d h im th a t w e w o u ld h a v e a listen in g d e v ice in t he vehi cl e fort he off

i cer ’ s s afe t y , and w e al s o had r eques t ed a l ar ger am ou nt of drugs. Q : D o y ou recal l w hat am ou nt y ou request ed, am ou nt of drugs? A : T hr ee t o fourounces w or t h of cr ack c ocai ne. Q : A nd w hatw oul d y ou expec tt o have t o payfort hr ee orfourounces of cr ack c ocai ne i n R eadi ng? A : B etw een thr ee t o $4, 000, s o i tw as a s i gni fi cantpur chas e. S u p p . A p p . 5 0 -5 1
.W e n o te th a t G ra n t d id n o t o b je c t to th e A U S A ’s s ta te m e n t in th e d is tr ic t c o u rt . 3 T h u s , it is h is b u rd e n to e s ta b lis h p la in e rr o r. U ni t ed Stat es v. O l ano , 507 U
. S. 725, 734- 35 ( 1993)
. I n or dert o m eethi s bur den, G r antm us tpr ove that( 1) t he courterr ed; ( 2) t he err orw as obvi ous undert he l aw att he t i m e of r evi ew ; and ( 3) t he err oraff ect ed s u b s ta n tia l r ig h ts , th a t is , th e e rr o r a f f e c te d th e o u tc o m e o f

th e tr ia l. U

ni t ed Stat es v. Johns on , 5 2 0 U . S
. 4 6 1 , 4 6 7 (19 9 7 ). H ere , G ran t can n o t sho w erro r, letalon e p lai n erro r. 6 I n l i ghtof thi s t es t i m ony , t he A U SA ’ s s t at ementw as cl ear l ybas ed on the evi dence
. T he pr os ecut ordi d notvouch foranyw i t nes s . I tw as r eas onabl e t o i nfer , and there fo re to a rgu e, th at th e d ec isi o n b ythe d etec ti v es o n O ctob er 2 6 , 2 0 0 4 , to o rde r a quant i t yof drugs t hatw as t hr ee t o fourt i m es t he amountof the pr evi ous pur chas e, and at lea st 1 4 tim e s th e q u a n tityin v o lv e d in th e f irst tw o p u rc h a se s, w a s b a se d o n th e ir d e sire to obt ai n a s i gni fi cantor“s ol i d” ca s e aga i ns tG r ant . M or eover , t he s t at ementw as not p re ju d icia l, giv e n th a t G ra n t w a s a rre ste d in th e B u rg e r K in g p a rk in g lo t im m e d iate ly
a f ter h e g a v e th re e o u n c e s o f c ra c k c o c a in e to D e tec tiv e K a rn s, a n d w h ile h e w a s in pos s es s i on of an a ddi t i onal ounce of cr ack c ocai ne. 3 G r antal s o ar gues t hatt he A U SA i m pr oper l yar gued i n cl os i ng t hat , des pi t e the fa ct t hatt he di s t r i ctcour tgr ant ed hi s m ot i on fora j udgm entof ac qui t t al on t he W el m aker
con spi racycharge, G rantw as l i kelyi nv olved i n a co nspir acyw i t h som eon e el se becau se h e w a s n o t ar re ste d in p o ss e ss io n o f th e c e ll p h o n e th a t th e u n d e rc o v e r o f f ice rs c a lled to
a rr a n g e th e d ru g b u y s . In c lo sin g , the A U S A sa id , in r e lev a n t p a rt: N ow , i tm aybe ar gued t o y ou t hat , W el l , w ai ta mi nut e, w hen R ogel G r ant i s caughtatt he B ur gerK i ng l ot , he does n’ thave a cel l phone, 484- 400-7

6 4 9 1 , h e ’s g o t s o m e o th e r c e ll p h o n e , s o it m u s t h a v e b e e n s o m e b o d ye ls e . W e ll, th in k a b o u t th a t. R o g e l G ra n t m a yn o t b e p a rt o f a c o n sp ira c yw ith t h e W e l m a k e r s , b u th e ’ s c l e a r l y i n a c o n s p i r a c y w i t h s o m e b o d y. A pp. 83. G r antobj ect ed t o t hi s att r i al , cl ai m i ng t hatt he governm ent ’ s ar gum entw as not b a s e d o n e v id e n c e in th e re c o rd
. In re sp o n se , the d istric t co u rt g a v e a c u ra tiv e in stru c tio n , rem in d in g th e ju ryth a t it h a d d is m is s e d th e c o n s p ir a c yc h a rg e a g a in s t G ra n t in v o lv in g th e W e lm a k e r o rg a n iz a tio n . H ow ever , t he di s t r i ctcour ts t at ed thatw hetherG r antcons pi r ed w i t h ot her s m i ghtbe
r el evantt o t he r emai ni ng di s t r i but i on char ges , and thati tw as fort he j ur yt o deci de
w h e th e r G ra n t c o n s p ir e d w ith a n y o n e a n d to a c c e p t o r r e je c t th e g o v e rn m e n t’ s a rg u m e n t. T he di s t r i ctcour ts ai d: A l l r i ght
. L adi es and gent l emen of t he j ur y , R ogel G r anthas been – the char ge of c ons pi r acyagai ns tR ogel G r anthas been di s m i s s ed, t he cha r ge t hathe cons pi r ed w i t h peopl e i n t he or gani zat i on, t he al l eged or gani zat i on th a t h a s b e e n re f

e rre d to a s th e W e lm a k e r o rg a n iza tio n , y o u h a v e n o th in g to d e ter m in e c o n c e rn in g th a t. W h e th e r o r n o t R o g e l G ra n t co n sp ire d w ith ot herper s ons , i tw oul d appea rt o m e, w oul d be i r r el evantt o anycons pi r acy c h a r g e a g a i n s th i m. I tm i ght , how ever , be r el evantt o char ges of di s t r i but i on agai ns tR ogel G r ant . T her e’ s a di s put e betw een the part i es as t o w hethert her e i s any evi dence t hatR ogel G r antcons pi r ed w i t h any one, w hetheri n oroutof the W el m akeror gani zat i on. T hat ’ s goi ng t o be fort he j uryt o det erm i ne. I f y ou concl ude thatther e i s evi dence t o s uppor ts uch an a r gum ent , y ou m ay cons i dert he G overnm ent ’ s ar gum ent . I f y ou concl ude thatt her e’ s no evi dence t hathe cons pi r ed w i t h any one, y ou s houl d r ej ectand notcons i der th e G o v e rn m e n t’s a rg u m e n t. A nd, s o, t he obj ect i on i s s us t ai ned i n par tand overrul ed i n par t , cons i s t ent8

w i t h t hati ns t ruct i on. A pp. 84. G r antdi d notobj ectt o t hi s i ns t ruct i on. T h e A U S A th e n re su m e d h is d isc u ss io n o n th is iss u e b yre f e rrin g to e v id e n c e th a t, on pr i orocca s i ons , G r anthad bee n dr i ven t o t he B ur gerK i ng parki ng l ot( w her e he then del i ver ed drugs t o t he conf i dent i al i nform ant ) i n t w o di ffe r ence vehi cl es , bya dr i veror dr i ver s unknow n. T he A U SA i nt i m at ed thatt he ce l l phone i n ques t i on m ayhave
re m a in e d w ith th e p e rso n o r p e rso n s in th e v e h icle . A p p . 8 5 . G ra n t d id n o t o b jec t. In h is a p p e a l, G ra n t co n ten d s th a t th e d istric t co u rt’s c u ra tiv e in stru c tio n “ c o u ld
o n lyh a v e o b f

u sc a ted th e f

a c t th a t [ h e ] w a s n o lo n g e r b e in g c h a rg e d w ith c o n sp irin g w ith t he W el m akeror gani zat i on, i ns ofaras i ts ugges t ed thatt he j ur ycoul d fi nd ot herw i s e. ” G ran t’ s B r. at 26
. W e d isag ree an d fin d that the A U S A ’s arg u m en t w as p rop er. A tt he t i m e of hi s arr es t , G r antw as noti n pos s es s i on of the ce l l phone thathad been us ed t o arr ange the drug pur chas es . T he governm entant i ci pat ed thatG r antw oul d,
as he di d, ar gue thatt he fa ctt hathe di d nothave the ce l l phone us ed t o or dert he drugs at t he t i m e of hi s arr es tunderm i ned the ca s e aga i ns thi m . T hus , i tw as appr opr i at e fort he governm entt o ar gue thatt he abs ence of the ce l l phone coul d be expl ai ned byt he evi dence t hatG r antw as w or ki ng w i t h ot her s w ho m ayhave ha d t he phone. A nd, t he governm ent ’ s ar gum entw as s uppor t ed byt he governm ent ’ s evi dence t hat
s ugges t ed thatG r antw as notw or ki ng al one. T hatevi dence cons i s t ed of the t es t i m onyof
s ur vei l l ance offi cer s w ho obs erved G r antarr i ve att he B ur gerK i ng parki ng l oton9

Sept ember28, 2004 i n a C hr y s l erdr i ven byan uni dent i fi ed per s on, and on O ct ober12, 2 0 0 4 in a n E a g le V isio n d riv e n b ya p e rso n id e n tifie d b yO f f ice r K e rr a s G a rc ia N e sta V e n so n . O n O c to b e r 1 4 , 2 0 0 4 , G ra n t d ro v e th e E a g le V isio n to th e m e e tin g w ith D et ect i ve K arns and the conf i dent i al i nform ant . O n O ct ober26, 2004, appr oxi m at el yan hourbefor e G r ant ’ s arr es t , D et ect i ve V ega vi deot aped G r antarr i vi ng att he B ur gerK i ng l otas a pas s engeri n t he Eagl e V i s i on, dr i ven byan uni dent i fi ed per s on. G r antw as s een lea v in g th e v e h icle , m e e tin g w ith a n o th e r u n id e n tifie d p e rso n , g o in g w ith th a t p e rso n to t he men’ s r oom of the B ur gerK i ng, and l eavi ng t he men’ s r oom a s hor tt i m e l at er . G r ant
w a s th e n se e n re e n ter in g th e E a g le V isio n w h ich lef t th e p a rk in g lo t. T hi s t es t i m onys uppor t ed the governm ent ’ s i nfer ence t hatG r antw as w or ki ng w i t h, i.e., co n sp irin g w ith – o th e rs in th e d istrib u tio n o f d ru g s. T h u s, th e A U S A ’s a rg u m e n t to t hateff ectw as noti m pr operorpr ej udi ci al
. M or eover , bot h t he A U SA ’ s s t at ementand the d istri ct co u rt ’s cu rati v e ins tru cti o n m ad e itclea r t o the ju rythat the g o v ern m en t’ s arg u m en t did n o t sug g est th at G ran t w as in v o lved in the W elm ak er c o n sp ir ac y . In addi t i on, anypos s i bl e pr ej udi ce w as gr eat l yl es s ened byt he cur at i ve i ns t ruct i on, t o w hi ch G ran t did n o t object. N o r did h e re q u est an yfu rth er c u rati v e ins tru cti o n . F inally , w e a re har d- pr es s ed t o under s t and how t he j ur ycoul d have be en conf us ed byt he cur at i ve i ns t ruct i on, orhow G r antcoul d have be en pr ej udi ced byi t , beca us e ther e w as no char ge
o f c o n s p ir a c yp e n d in g a g a in s t G ra n t.

B. The D i s t r i c t C our t ’ s C har ge D i d N ot Fai r l y A nd“I n r evi ew i ng w hethera di s t r i ctcour ti n i t s char ge t o t he j ur ycorr ect l ys t at ed the 4 appr opr i at e l egal s t andar d, ourr evi ew i s pl enary . ” U ni t ed Stat es v. Johns t one , 107 F. 3d 200, 204 ( 3d C i r . 1997)
. “A j ur ychar ge mustcl ear l yar t i cul at e the r el evantl egal s t andar ds
. ” Id
. “I tm us t , t her efor e, be s t ructur ed i n s uch a w ayas t o avoi d confus i ng or m i s l eadi ng t he j ur y . ” Id
. “T o en sure that the d i stri ctcou rtm ett his requi rem ent, w e m ust exami ne the cha r ge i n i t s ent i r etyand notl i m i tour s el ves t o par t i cul ars ent ence s or par agr aphs i n i s ol at i on. ” Id
. O u r re v iew o f

th e p a rticu lar lan g u a g e e m p lo y e d b yth e d istric t co u rt in its c h a rg e is f o r a b u s e o f

d is c re tio n . I

d. W here, as here, an all egati on of errori n a juryi nst ruct i on t hat i s r ai sed on t he fir st tim e o n a p p e a l is s u b

je c t to p la in e rr o r r e v ie w . U ni t ed Stat es v. Turc ks , 41 F. 3d 893, 897 (3 d C ir . 1 9 9 4 ). 10

Ade qu a t e l y Su bmi t t he I s s ue s To Th e J ur y. 4 G r antar gues t hatt he di s t r i ctcour t ’ s char ge i ncorr ect l yand pr ej udi ci al l ys ugges t ed t hathe coul d be found gui l t yof a c ons pi r acychar ge thatt he di s t r i ctcour thad al r eady di s m i s s ed. H e cont ends t hatt he us e of the w or d “def endant s ” byt he di s t r i ctcour ton f iv e o c c a sio n s d u rin g its e x p lan a tio n o f th e c rim e o f

c o n sp ira c yw a s p re

ju d icia l b e c a u se it
s ugges t ed thathe part i ci pat ed i n t he W el m akercons pi r acy , des pi t e the fa ctt hatt he W el m akercons pi r acychar ge w as di s m i s s ed as t o hi m . W e di s agr ee be caus e i ti s cl ear t hatt he i ns t ruct i ons on t he cons pi r acychar ge appl i ed onl yt o G r ant ’ s co- defe ndant S h i r l e y. T he di s t r i ctcour tbegan i t s i ns t ruct i ons on cons pi r acybynot i ng t hatC ountO ne of the s u p erse d ing ind ict m en t cha rge d that “K elvin W elm ak er, Jam arr D elm o n t W elm ak er, Ju lian A c o sta , M ich a e l K e ith B o w e n , D a n te J a c k so n , R a n d yD a le J a c k so n a n d L u is D ani el M ar err o, and A nt oi ne Shi r l ey , cons pi r ed and a gr eed t ogether ” t o di s t r i but e coc ai ne11

bas e. A pp. 171. Si gni fi cant l y , G r antw as notm ent i oned. A s hor tt i m e l at ert he di s t r i ct
cour tm ade i teven mor e cl eart hatG r antw as noti nvol ved w hen i ts t at ed: “The al l eged
co- cons pi r at or s , K el vi n W el m aker , J amar rD el m ontW el m aker , J ul i an A cos t a, M i chae l K ei t h B ow en, D ant e J acks on, R andyD al e J acks on and Lui s D ani el M ar err o, and A nt oi ne L a m a r S h ir e ly, but not R og e l G r ant , are a c c u se d o f p a rticip a tin g in a c o n sp ira c yf ro m in
oraboutJ anuary2002, t hr ough i n oraboutM ar ch 2005, t o di s t r i but e appr oxi m at el y30 k ilo g ra m s o f

c ra c k .” A p p . 1 7 4 (e m p h a s is a d d e d ). T he di s t r i ctcour tagai n emphasi zed thatthi s char ge appl i ed onl yt o co- defe ndant Shi r l eyw hen i tdes cr i bed the el ement s of the cons pi r acyoffe ns e. I ts ai d: T o pr ove cons pi r acyt o di s t r i but e cr ack, as char ged i n C ount1, t he G overnm entm us tpr ove the fol l ow i ng t w o es s ent i al el ement s bey ond a re a so n a b le d o u b t. Fi r s t , t he cons pi r acyagr eementorunder s t andi ng t o di s t r i but e cr ack, as des cr i bed i n t he i ndi ctm ent , w as form ed byt w o orm or e per s ons , and w as e x istin g a t o r a b o u t th e tim e c h a rg e d in th e in d ictm e n t. A n d , tw o , D e f

e n d a n t A n to in e S h irley kn e w th e p u rp o se o f th e a g re e m e n t, and del i ber at el yj oi ned i tw i t h t he i nt entt o fur t heri t s unl aw ful purpos e. A pp. 175. O nce a gai n, t he di s t r i ctcour texcl uded G r antfr om t he cons pi r acychar ge. A p p are n tl y , G ran t’ s arg u m en t i s tha t th e d istri ct co u rtsh o u ld h av e u sed the term “con spi rat ors” i n ch argi ng t he jurycon cerni ng t he co nspir acycou nt pending ag ai nst Shi r l ey , and nott he t erm “def endant s . ” H ow ever , G r ant ’ s ar gum enti s pr emi s ed on a readi ng of the i nst ruct i on ou tof co ntext . W hen t he d i stri ctcou rtm enti on ed “d efen dan t s” itw as o b v iou slyref

erring to the all eg ed co -co n sp ir ators: K elvin W elm ak er, Jam arr12

D e lm o n t W e lm a k e r, Ju lian A c o sta , M ich a e l K e ith B o w e n , D a n te J a c k so n , R a n d yD a le J acks on, L ui s D ani el M ar err o, and A nt oi ne Lam arShi r l ey . I n fac t , atone poi nt , t he di s t r i ctcour texpl ai ned: “I f the evi dence es t abl i s hes bey ond a r eas onabl e doubtt hatt he defe nd ants , or that the co -conspi rat ors, I s ho uld say , kn ow i ng l y. . . . ” A pp . 17 7. T hu s, in th e c o n tex t o f

th e c h a rg e a s a w h o le, it is c lea r th a t th e d istric t co u rt’s r e f e re n c e to defe ndant s m eantdefe ndantShi r l eyand the othernamed defenda nt s , notG r antand S h i r l e y. F i nall y , even i f i ti s ass um ed fo r ar gu m ent’ s sake that the ch arge w as erroneou s, G r ant , w ho fai l ed t o obj ectt o i tbel ow , cannots how pl ai n err or . H e ca nnots how how t he char ge af

fec t ed the j ur y ’ s ver di ct . T he cons pi r acychar ge aga i ns thi m w as di s m i s s ed and h e w as n ev er c o n v ict ed o f c o n sp ir ac y . T h u s, the c h arg e d id n o t violate G ran t’ s
s u b s ta n tia l r ig h ts o r r e s u lt in a m is c a rr ia g e o f ju s tic e . See U

ni t ed Stat es v. G am bone , 314 F. 3d 163, 183 ( 3d C i r . 2003) ( err oneous us e of phr as e notpr ej udi ci al i n cont extof cha r ge
a s a w h o le ). G rantal so argues t hat the d i stri ctcou rtun fai rl yem ph asi zed the go vernm ent’ s case d u ri n g its s u m m a ry o f

th e c o n te n tio n s o f

th e p a rt ie s a n d th e c h a rg e s in th e in d ic tm e n t. W e f in d th is a rg u m e n t to b e w ith o u t m e rit. A ju d g e is n o t f

o rb id d e n f

ro m p a rt ic ip a tin g in th e c o n d u c t o f a tr ia l. U

ni t ed Stat es
v. W i l ens ky , 757 F. 2d 594, 597 ( 3d C i r . 1985)
. H ow ever , the j udge mustnot“aba ndon hi s pr operr ol e and a s s um e thatof an a dvocat e. ” U ni t ed Stat es v. G r een , 544 F. 2d 138,13

1 4 7 (3 d C ir. 1 9 7 6 ). “T h e ju d g e ’s p a rticip a tio n m u st n e v e r re a c h th e p o in t w h e re ‘it appea r s cl eart o t he j ur yt hatt he courtbel i eves t he ac cus ed i n gui l t y . ’ ” U ni t ed Stat es v. N obel , 6 9 6 F .2 d 2 3 1 , 2 3 7 (3 d C ir. 1 9 8 2 ) (c itatio n ). E a c h c a se m u st b e e v a lu a ted o n its
o w n f a c ts to d e ter m in e w h e th e r th e d istric t co u rt’s c o n d u c t w a s s o p re ju d icia l as to d e p ri v e th e d e f

e n d a n t o f

a f a irtr ia l a s o p p o s e d to a p e rf e c t tr ia l. U

n itedS ta tes v . B e a ty , 7 2 2 F . 2 d 1 0 9 0 , 1 0 9 3 (3d C ir
. 1 9 8 3 ). H e re , the d istric t co u rt re c o g n ize d a n d a d h e re d to th e se lim itatio n s. It c a re f u lly expl ai ned t o t he j ur yt he l i m i t ed purpos e fort he s um m aryand made i tcl eart hati tdi d not i nt end t o i nt rude upon the j ur y ’ s fac t - fi ndi ng r ol e. I ts ai d: I ’ m notgoi ng t o r evi ew al l of the evi dence w i t h y ou, ors um m ar i ze i t , or at t empt t o s um m ar i ze a l l of i t . T he tr i al w as r el at i vel ys hor t , and y ou have been a n at t ent i ve j ur y . M or eover , t he att or ney s have e xt ens i vel yr evi ew ed t he evi dence i n t hei rcl os i ng ar gum ent s . I ti s y ourdut yt o r eca l l al l of the admi s s i bl e evi dence , w hi ch has been pr es ent ed, and I i ns t ructy ou t o do s o. H ow ever , I w i l l r evi ew w i t h y ou s om e of the cont ent i ons – I w i l l r evi ew w i t h y ou s om e of the cont ent i ons of the part i es i n t hi s cas e, i n or dert o gi ve y ou a cont exti n w hi ch t o bet t erunder s t and the pr i nci pl es of l aw , w hi ch m us tgui de y ou i n y ourdel i ber at i ons , and i n w hi ch I w i l l i ns t ructy ou. I do noti nt end t o s um m ar i ze a l l of the cont ent i ons and count er - cont ent i ons of the part i es , butonl ys om e of the cont ent i ons of ea ch part y . T i m e w i l l not perm i tm e t o di s cus s i n det ai l everym aj orand mi norcont ent i on of the par t i es i n t hi s cas e. I f I do notcovers om e of the cont ent i ons , t hatdoes not m ean thatt hos e cont ent i ons ar e uni m por t ant . I ti s y ourdut yt o r eca l l , as bes ty ou can, al l of the cont ent i ons and admi s s i bl e evi dence w hi ch has been pr es ent ed, and I i ns t ructy ou t o do s o. I f y ourr ecol l ect i on of anyof the cont ent i ons of the part i es , oranypor t i ons of the evi dence di ffe r s w i t h m ys um m ary , di s r egar d w hatI have s ai d, and r el yupon y ourow n m emoryof thos e cont ent i ons and thatevi dence , not14

m i ne. I w oul d noti nt ent i onal l ym i s s t at e the evi dence , ort he cont ent i ons of the par t i es . H ow ever , i ti s y ourr ecol l ect i on of the evi dence , and the cont ent i ons , on w hi ch y ou m us tr el y , notm i ne. Fi nal l y , i n s um m ar i zi ng t he cont ent i ons of the part i es , I am not at t empt i ng to in d ica te, b yin f

e re n c e o r o th e rw ise , w h ich c o n ten tio n s to a c c e p t o r re jec t, w h ic h e v id e n c e to b e lie v e o r d is b e lie v e , o r w h a t v e rd ic t to re n d e r. D e ter m in in g e a c h o f

th o se th in g s is y o u r f

u n c tio n , n o t m in e , an d y o u w o u ld be m i st aken i f y ou fel tI w ere i nd i cat i ng anypreference i n those r egards. A p p . 1 5 8 -5 9
. T he di s t r i ctcour tt hen bega n eac h cont ent i on w i t h t he pr efa t or ys t at ement s “the g o v e rn m e n t co n ten d s” o r “ th e g o v e rn m e n t av e rs.” It is a p p a re n t, vie w e d in th is c o n tex t, th a t th e c o m m e n ts to w h ic h G ra n t o b je c ts a re m e re ly th e g o v e rn m e n t’ s c o n te n tio n s . I ndeed, t he one s ent ence t o w hi ch G r antpoi nt s as evi dence of the di s t r i ctcour t ’ s al l eged bi as i s s i m pl ya s t at ementof one of t he governm ent ’ s cl ai m s . I n t hats ent ence , and the one bef or e i t , t he di s t r i ctcour ts ai d: T he governm entcont ends t hatD efe ndantG r antdel i ver ed the or derof cr ack t hatday[O ct ober26, 2004] t o t he pol i ce i nform antand an unde r cover B e rk s C o u n tyd e tec tiv e , in th e B u rg e r K in g p a rk in g lo t in R e a d in g . T h is t i m e, how ever , R ogel G r antw as arr es t ed. A p p . 1 6 1
. V i ew ed i n t he cont extof the di s t r i ctcour t ’ s caut i onarys t at ement s att he begi nni ng
o f th e su m m a ryo f

th e c o n ten tio n s a n d th e sta tem e n t in th e p re c e d in g se n ten c e , this
rem ark is plainlyinten d ed to b e a p art of the c o u rt ’s su m m aryo f th e g o v ern m en t’ s cont ent i ons and notan expr es s i on of the court ’ s opi ni on. I ndeed, t he i m pl i cat i on t hatt heSect i on 841( b) ( 1) ( A ) pr ovi des i n r el evantpar t : “I f anyper s on comm i t s a vi ol at i on 5 o f th is s u b p a ra g ra p h [ p ro h ib itin g th e d is tr ib u tio n o f 5 0 g ra m s o r m o re o f

c o c a in e b a s e ] . .

. aft ert w o orm or e pr i orconvi ct i ons fora fe l onydrug offe ns e have become fi nal , s uch p e rs o n s h a ll b e s e n te n c e d to a m a n d a to ry te rm o f lif e im p ri s o n m e n t w ith o u t r e le a s e . . . .” 15 di s t r i ctcour t ’ s s t at ement“thi s t i m e, how ever , R ogel G r antw as arr es t ed” i m pl i ed that G r antw as i nvol ved i n t he ea r l i ert r ans act i ons i s r efut ed byG r ant ’ s acqui t t al of tw o of the th re e d is tr ib u tio n c h a rg e s in v o lv in g s a le s a lle g e d to h a v e o c c u rr e d o n e a rl ie r d a te s . Fi nal l y , t he di s t r i ctcour t ’ s comm ent s w er e notone- s i ded. A ft ers um m ar i zi ng t he governm ent ’ s cont ent i ons , t he di s t r i ctcour tr evi ew ed i n det ai l G r ant ’ s pos i t i on on eac h of the c ri m es c h arg ed an d h igh li g h ted a ll the a ll eg ed d ef ici en cies in th e g o v ern m en t’ s
e v id e n c e . A p p . 1 6 5 -6 7 . Foral l t hes e r eas ons , i ti s cl eart hatt he di s t r i ctcour tdi d notunfai r l yemphasi ze the g o v e rn m e n t’ s c a s e .

C . T he D i s t ri ct C ourt E rre d In M aki ng F i ndi ngs Reg a r di ng G r a nt ’ s Cri mi na l H i s t o r y. G r antcont ends t hatt he di s t r i ctcour ti m pr oper l yfound thathe w as s ubj ectt o t he enh anced pen al t i es pursuant t o 2 1 U
. S
. C
. § 8 41 (b) (1) (A ) based on his his t oryof at l east tw o p ri o r co n v ict ion s fo r un related d rug o ff en ses. A s set fo rth in the g o v ern m en t’ s

5 i nform at i on char gi ng pr i oroffe ns es , G r anthad thr ee pr i ors t at e drug di s t r i but i on convi ct i ons ar i s i ng fr om t hr ee s epar at e arr es t s , r es ul t i ng i n t hr ee pr os ecut i ons undert hr ee
s epar at e, unr el at ed docke tnum ber s . G r antdoes notdi s put e the val i di t yof the pr i or convi ct i ons . I ns t ead, he ar gues t hatt he exi s t ence of pr i orunr el at ed fe l onydrug16

convi ct i ons w hi ch i ncr eas e a s t atut or ym axi m um orm andat or ym i ni m um t erm m us tbe p ro v e n to a ju ryb e y o n d a re a so n a b le d o u b t. H e c o n c e d e s th a t h is a rg u m e n t is c o n tra ryto t he pr es ent l yes t abl i s hed l aw . I n A lm endar ez - Torr es v. U ni t ed Stat es , 523 U
. S. 224, 239- 44 ( 1998) , t he Supr eme C our thel d t hatt he fa ctof a pr i orconvi ct i on, w hi ch i ncr eas es t he
s t atut or ym axi m um s ent ence , m aybe det erm i ned byt he j udge ats ent enci ng and nee d not be al l eged i n t he i ndi ctm entores t abl i s hed as an el ementof the off ens e. A nd, w e have acknow l edged the cont i nui ng author i t yof A lm endar ez - Torr es , ev en af ter U ni t ed Stat es v. B ooker , 543 U
. S. 220 ( 2005) , i n U ni t ed Stat es v. O r daz , 3 9 8 F . 3 d 2 3 6 , 2 4 1 (3d C ir
. 2005) , w her e he he l d t hatt he us e of j udge- found fa ct s conce r ni ng pr i orconvi ct i ons does
n o t v io la te th e S ix th A m e n d m e n t. N ev erthe less, h e a rgu es th at “p erm itti n g a d istri ct co u rtto d eterm ine w h ethe r a defe ndant ’ s pr i ors ent ence s ar e r el at ed vi ol at es t he r equi r ementof A ppr endi v. N ew J er s ey that an yfa ct th at i n cre ase s the p en altyfo r a c ri m e b ey o n d the p resc ri b ed statu tory
m a x im u m m u st b e su b m itt e d to a ju ry .” G ra n t’s B r. at 3 5 . H o w e v e r, h e h a s n o a u th o rity to s u p p o rt th a t a rg u m e n t. I n d e e d , Appr endiv. N ew Jer s ey , 530 U
. S. 466 ( 2000) , does not ap p lyto this ca se a t al l. In Appr endi , t he Supr eme C our thel d: “O t hert han the fa ctof a pr i orconvi ct i on, anyfac tthati ncr eas es t he pena l t yfora cr i m e bey ond t he pr es cr i bed
s t atut or ym axi m um m us tbe s ubm i t t ed t o a j ur y , and pr oved bey ond a r eas onabl e doubt
. ” Id
. a t4 9 0
. He r e , t h e p e n a l t yf o ra v i o l a t i o n o f

2 1 U. S
. C. § 8 4 1 ( a ) ( 1 ) , i n v o l v i n g 5 0 g r a ms
o r m o re o f c o ca ine b ase , w h ere n o p ri o r co n v ict ion s are all eg ed , is “n o t l ess th at 10 y ea rs17

orm or e than l i fe. ” 21 U
. S. C
. § 841( b) ( 1) ( A )
. T he ef fec tof the governm ent ’ s § 851 not i ce w as t o r ai s e the mandat or ym i ni m um t o l i fe i m pr i s onm ent ; how ever , t he maxi m um
w a s u n a f f e c ted . G ra n t ar g u e s th a t w h e re th e “ sta tu to rym in im u m p u n ish m e n t is life in pr i s on . . . t her e i s no bas i s fordi s t i ngui s hi ng betw een e nhance m ent s t hati ncr eas e the
m axim um , versus the m i nim um , pu nis hm ent. ” G rant ’s B r. at37 n. 4. H ow ever, t he case l aw i s t o t he contr ary . T he Supr eme C our thas hel d t hata j udge, r athert han a j ur y , m ay
m a k e f a c tu a l f in d in g s w h ich d e ter m in e a sta tu to rym a n d a to rym in im u m se n ten c e (w ith in th e m a x im u m s e n te n c e a llo w e d b yth e ju ry’s v e rd ic t)
. H ar r is v. U

ni t ed Stat es , 53 6 U. S. 545 ( 2002)
. A nd, w e have hel d t hathi s rul e “r emai ns bi ndi ng l aw i n t he w ake of t he B ookerdeci s i on. ” Un i t e d S ta t e s v . Wi l l i a ms , 4 6 4 F .3 d 4 4 3 , 4 4 9 (3 d C ir . 2 0 0 6 ). A c c o rd in g ly , w e f

in d th is a rg u m e n t to b e w ith o u t m e rit. D . T he Sent ence I s U nreas onabl e. In h is S u p p lem e n tal B rie f , G ra n t co n ten d s th a t th e “ d istric t co u rt e rre d in
s ent enci ng [hi m ] t o an unr eas onabl e s ent ence bas ed upon i m pr oper l yhar s h penal t i es for i nvol vementw i t h cr ack c ocai ne. ” G r ant ’ s Suppl ement al B r . at11. H ow ever , G r ant off ers no exp l anati on as t o h ow or w hyt he sentence w as unreasonab l e othert han t o just
a s s e rt it a s a f

a c t. III . Foral l of the above r eas ons , w e w i l l aff i r m t he di s t r i ctcour t ’ s j udgm entof convi ct i on and s ent ence .