FI L ED U.S. COURT OF A P P E A LS E LE V E N T H C IR C U IT April 16, 2008 THOMAS K. KAH

N CL ERK [ P U B L I S H ] IN TH E U

NI TE D S TA TE S CO URT OF AP PE AL S FO R T HE EL EV EN TH CIRC UI T

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ __ N o. 06- 1384 7

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ __ D.C. Dock etNo. 0 5- 00 20 6– CR-0 06 -WH S UNITED STAT ES OF AMERIC A, Plaintiff-Appellee, ve rs us CALVIN W ESTRY, a.k .a. Sn ap , MACK DAVID W OODYARD, W ILLIE MERER HINTON, a. k. a. Ch ill , a. k. a. Ch ill W ill , W ILLIE EARL CARTER JR., a.k .a. Bip , D ef en dants -Appe llants .

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ___ Appeals fr om

the United State s District Court f o r th e S o u t h e rn D i s t r i c to f

A l ab a ma

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ (A pr il 16, 200 8)Honora ble Cecilia M. Altonag a, United States District Judge f or the Southern District of * Florida , sitti ngby

desig nation. Th e oth e r D e fe nd ants we re Ros e Ma ry Wes tr y , L e on ard

Ed wa rd Wes tr y , Jr. , A sh ir 1 Abdullah I

bin Z uniga , Cy

nthia Denice Young , Christina Marie Hog ue, King ston Bodac ious Osborne, a

nd Edwar d Kenne th Ril ey . Wit h the exception of Osborne , all other De fenda nts pled guilty befor e trial, a

nd sever al testified for

the g overnme nt at the trial pursua nt to written plea ag ree ments. 2 Befo re EDMONDSON, Ch ie f Ju dg e, W ILSON, Cir cu it Ju dg e, an d ALTONAGA, * Dis tri ctJu dg e. PE R CU RIA M: O n F eb ru ar

y 24, 200 6, af

ed er al gr an d j ur

y in the S outhe rnD istri ct

of A la ba m a re tur

ne d aS ec ond Su

pe rs ed ing I ndi ctm en t c harg ing D ef en dants , Ca lvi n W es tr y ( “ W es tr y ”) , Ma ck

D av id W oody ar d ( “ W oody ar d” ), W ill ie Me re r H int on (“ H int on” ), and W ill ie E ar l C ar te r, Jr . ( “ Cart er ”) , in Co unt O ne , w ithc onsp ir ing w ithe ac h othe r an d othe r na m ed D ef en dants f ro m Marc h 19 98 t o June 30, 200 5, 1 to p oss es s w ithint en t t o di str ibu te S ch ed ule I , I I an d I II c ontro lle d su bst an ce s, towit: m orphine; Oxy codone, com m onlyknown as oxy contin; Hy drocodon e, co m m onl y kno w n a s lo rt ab ; H y dr om or phi ne , c om

m onl y kno w n a s di laudi d; Me tha done ; and m or e than 50 gr am s of am ixt ur e an d su

bst an ce c ont ai nin g a de te ct ab le a m ount

of c oc ai ne ba se , c om

m onl y kno w n a s c ra ck

c oc ai ne , in violatio n of 21 U. S. C. §§ 84 1 and 846 . The am ount of cra ck cocaine w as alleged to e xc ee d 50 gr am s, the re by sub j ec tin g D ef

en dants to the pe na lty

pr ovi sio n of

213

U . S. C. § 84 1( b) (1 )( A ). C ount O ne a lso a lle ge d th e of

fe nse oc curr ed

w ith in 1 , 000 fe et of asc hool , sub

j ec tin g D ef

en dants to the pe na lty

pr ovi sio ns o f 21 U . S. C. §§ 841( b) (1 )( A ) an d 86 0( a) and ( b) . F urthe rm or e, the e nhanc ed pe na lty pr ovi sio n of 21 U . S. C. § 84 1( b) (1 )( A ) w as a lle ge d to appl y , be ca use the N ove m

be r 27, 200 1 death of Jasen Johns (“ John s”) re sulted from the use of controlled sub stances di st rib ut eddu rin g t he co ns pi racy. D ef en dants w er e al so c harg ed w ithsub stanti ve of

fe nse s of pos se ssi on w ith the int en t t o di str ibu te in vio la tio n of 21 U . S. C. §§ 8 60 and 8 41( a) (1 ), and 1 8 U . S. C. § 2. W es tr

y w as c harg ed

in Co unt s E le ve n ( O xy co done ) an d T w el ve (H y dr oc odon e) w ithof

fe nse s c om

m itt ed on N ove m

be r 18, 200 2; and i n C ount s Thirty -O ne (O xy codone) and Thirty -T wo (H y drocodon e) w ith offenses com m itted on June 30, 200 5. W oody ar d w as c harg ed in Co unt s F our

( O xy co done ) an d F ive (O xy co done ) w ithof

fe nse s c om

m itt ed on O ct obe r 11, 200 2 and O ct obe r 12, 200 2, re spe ct ive ly . H int on w as c harg ed in Co unt T en( O xy co done ) w ithan of fe nse com m itted on Novem

ber 16, 2002. Carter w as charged in Count Fifteen ( M o r p h i n e ) wi t h an o f

f e n s e c o mm i t t e do n F e b r

u a ry 1 8 , 2 0 0 3 , an dC o u n tTw e n t yFo ur ( cr ac k c oc ai ne ) w ithan of fe nse c om

m itt ed on J anuary

6, 200 5. A ll co unt s, ex ce pt C ount s T en , E le ve n and T w el ve , w er e al le ge d to have oc curr ed w ith in 1, 000 fe et of asc hool , sub

j ec tin g th ose D ef

en dants to the pe na lty

pr ovi sio ns o f 21W e s tr y w a s f o un d n o tgu i l ty o f

th e o f f e n s e s c h ar g e d

i nC o un t s T h i rty- O n e an d T h i rty- 2 Two. The only

other De fenda

nt to procee d to trial with Appellants was King ston Bodac ious Osborne, who was found not guilty of all off enses f or which he was c harg ed. 4 U . S. C. §§ 8 41( b) (1 )( A ), ( B) , ( C) and ( D ), and 8 60( a) and ( b) . C ount s T enthr ough T w el ve w er e al le ge d to have oc curr ed w ith in 1 , 000 fe et

of apub lic hou sin g fa ci lity , sub

j ec tin g th ose D ef

en dants to the pe na lty

pr ovi sio ns o f 21 U . S. C. §§ 84 1( b) (1 )(A), (B) , (C), an d (D) , and 86 0( a) an d (b ). D ef en dants appe al the ir

c onvi ct ion s and s en te nc es on C ount O ne , f oll ow ing a jury tria l t ha t co m

m en cedon Marc h 6 , 20 06 an d c on cl ud edon Marc h 1 6, 2 00 6. A s to Co unt

O ne , the j ur

y f ound that the a m ount

of c ra ck c oc ai ne inv olv ed

in the co nspi ra cy

e xc ee de d 50 gr am s, a s c harg ed ; the D ef en dants w er e al l m em

be rs of the c onsp ir ac y

the day Ja se n Jo hns die d; and J ohns ’ de ath r es ult ed f ro m the use of the c ontro lle d su

bst an ce s D ef

en dants c onsp ir ed

to poss es s w iththe int en t t o distribu te. W estry

also appeals his conv ictions and sentences on Count s Eleven an d T w el ve , w ith in 1 , 000 fe et of apub lic hou sin g f

ac ili ty ; W oody ar d a

ppe al s hi s co nvi ct ion s and s en te nc es on C ount s F our and F ive w ith in 1 , 000 fe et of asc hool ; Hinton appeals his con viction and sentence on Count Ten within 1,000 feet of a publ ic hou sin g f

ac ili ty ; and C ar

te r ap pe al s hi s c onvi ct ion s and s en te nc es on C ount Fifteen ( within 1,000 feet of a school) and Cou nt Tw enty -Four. T he appeal raises 2 iss ue s c onc er

nin g th e suf

fi ci en cy of the e vid en ce , e rr or

in ev ide nti ar

y r uli ngs,After beingnamed in the f

irst Indictment filed on June 24, 2005, and while detaine d in a 3 Bur eau of Prisons medical fac ility

awa iting trial, L

ucious Westry

died at the a g e of 91. 5 er ro r in the r ef

usa l t o gi ve r eque ste d j ur y ins tr uc tio ns, and s ev er al se nte nc ing erro rs , so m e o f whi ch th e g ov ern m en t co nc ed es , as i s fu rth er ex pl ai ne d b el ow. A ft er c ar ef ul r ev ie w , w e af

fi rm in part and v ac at e in p ar

t, and r em an d th is c as e to the dis tr ic t c ourt f

or f urthe r pr oc ee din gs c onsi ste nt w iththi s op ini on. I. BACKG ROUND Mos t of the e ve nts in que sti on o cc ur re d inand aro und 406 Cl ay S tr ee t ( the

“ Cl ay Str eetho m e”), t he ho m e o f Luc io us “ Mam a” West ry (“ Luc io us ”), two

3 ne ar by hom es at 45 6 and 4 59 M ap le S tr ee t, and an a partm en t a t the Bo ykin T ow er s pu

bli c hous ing pr oj ec t. B etw ee n M ar ch18, 199 8 and June 30, 200 5, seven search w arrants were executed at the Clay Stree t hom e, and several sear ch warrants w ere also executed at the nearby residences, from

which controlled subs tances, drug paraphernalia, and firear m s wer e re covered. T he story that em erges fr om

the testim ony

and evidence is that of a m atriarc h, w ith several y oung er ge ne ratio ns, oc cu

py ing ahom e at

w hic h ve hic le s w oul d a

ppr oa ch , one af te r an oth er ; a

hom e fr om

w hic h f em al es w oul d w al k ou t t o w ai tin g c ar s, spe nd te n to f if te ense co nds, and w al k ba ck int o th e y ar d. T he sto ry , in oth er w or ds, co nsi sts of

a ct ivi tie s w hic h vi ew ed

tog ethe r ar e ind ic at ive of r ep eate d dr

ug6

tr an sa ct ion s. F oll ow ing the e xe cu tio n of f ed er al se ar chw ar

rants on June 30, 200 5, the dr ug d ea lin g a ct ivi tie s a t the Cl ay S tr ee t ho m e, the r el at ed

ne ar by hom es on Map le Str eet , and th e Bo yki n To wers ap art m en t ca m e to an en d. 406 Clay Str eet L oc al lawe nf

or ce m en t m ad e se ve ra l a tte m pts ove r the y ears to sto p th e ac tiv iti es obs er

ve d inand aro und the Cl ay S tr ee t ho m e. O n M ar ch18, 199 8, the Mobile Police De partm ent (“ MPD ”) e xecuted a sear ch warrant at the C lay Stree t hom e, and r ec ove re d c ra ck c oc ai ne , nin e pr es cr ipt ionpil l bo ttl es , a sso rt ed pil ls includi ng valiu m

and m orphine, and drug paraphernalia. Sever al m onth s later, following a controlled bu y of m orphine bya confidential inform ant at the Clay Stre et hom e, an M PD O ff

ic er e xe cu te d ase ar chw ar

rant o n O ct obe r 1, 199 8, and fo und a “ ple tho ra

of pil ls” in a zi ppe re d ba g inL uc iou s’ bos om . Mo rp hin e pil ls, as sorte d para

phe rn al ia , apis tol and c ra ck c oc ai ne w er e al so f

ound ins ide the hom e. P re se nt d

ur ing the se co nd s earc h w er e se ve ra l C o- D ef en dants , but

not Appe llants . T he MP D r et

ur ne d to the Cl ay

S tr ee t ho m e on D ec em

be r 29, 199 9, to execute y et another w arrant in search of prescr iptio n drugs. This tim e W estry wa s pr es en t. T he of

fi ce rs f ound f our unknow n pi lls and s ev er al bottle s of lor ta b and va li um pre sc rib edforW es try andLuci ou s.Some of the under cover buy s were rec orded by

use of a pole camera

installed to recor d 4 the ac tiviti es at the Clay

Street home. The pole camera was in oper ation from September 27, 2002 to Febr

uary 13, 2003. 7 On May 22, 2001, the Mobile Count y Sherif f’ s Of fice ( “ MCSO ”) r eturned to th e Cl ay

Str eetho m e to ex ecu te a se arch warran t fo ll owi ng a co nt ro ll edbu y . O ff ic er s f ound tw o sm al l ba ggi es ( one c ont ai nin g m isc el lane ous pil ls, one co nt ai ni ng two sm al l ro ck s) , a gl as s p ip e th ro wn o ut be si de a ba th ro om win do w, a ba g c ont ai nin g apil l bo ttl e, U . S. c ur re nc y , pr es cr ipt ionbottle s, gla ss s m oki ng devices, and oth er m iscellaneous pil l bottles with assorted pi lls. T he MCSO participated in another search at the C lay Stree t hom e on August 5, 2002. Money an d p il ls were re co ve red , and Luci ou s was arre st ed . O n S ep te m

be r 27, 200 2, MP D N ar co tic s O ff ic er P atri ck Mc K ean m ad e his fi rs t of se ve ra l un de rc ove r dr

ug p ur ch as es a t the Cl ay

S tr ee t ho m e, w eari ng a co nc ea le d m ic ro phon e an d stre et c lothe s. Many

of the e nsui ng dru g tr an sa ct ion s were capt ur edon au di ot ap e an d wer e p la y edto th e jury. He pu rch as edtwo 4 oxy contin p ills from

De fendant, R ose W estry (“ Rose”), and returned ap pr ox im at el y

fou r ho ur s l at er t o p ur ch as e two m or e o xycon ti n p il ls fro m he r. The f ollowing n ight, on Septem ber 28, 2002, O ffice r McK ean re turned to the Clay Stree t hom e and bough t four oxy contin p ills from Shannon Jo nes (“ Jones”), L uc iou s’ gr an ddaught er , and a ke y w itn es s f or the gov er

nm en t a t tri al . D ur ing8

that drug transaction, Le onard W estry (“ Le onard”) w as present. Tw o day s later, on S ep te m

be r 30, 200 2, O ff

ic er Mc K ean r et

ur ne d, buy ing tw o ox y co nti n pi lls from Rose. Again, on October 7, 2002 , O ffice r McK ean re turned, buy ing th ree m or ph in e tabl et s fr om

Ro se . O n O ct obe r 8, 200 2, O ff

ic er Mc K ean bo ught

dr ugs fr om Jon es , f ir st at the Cl ay S tr ee t ho m e an d, a ft er

takin g he r in h is c ar

“ ar ound the blo ck ” to the 456 Map le Str eetho m e, he ob ta in edm or e p il ls ret rie ve d fr om th atho us e. O n th e nig ht o f O ct obe r 11, 200 2, O ff ic er Mc K ean m ad e anund er co ve r buy fr om W oody ar d, w ho f

la gge d do w n th e of

fi ce r as he c ru ise d th ro ugh the neighb orhood in his vehi cle, after the officer

had not foun d any one at the Clay St reet ho m e. W oo dyard o ffer edto sel l, an d l at er Offi cer M cKean pu rch as edtwo oxy contin p ills from

W oody ard. D uring the transaction W oody ard y elled back at the Clay Stree t hom e to see if they had anything and was observed by McK ean walk in g t owa rdth atho us e. W oody ar d a ga in f

la gge d do w n O ff

ic er Mc K ean onO ct obe r 12, 200 2, asking th e office r if he had “been served.” When Off icer Mc Ke an responded that n o o n e w a s d o w n th e r e , Wo o d ya r dt o l dth e o f f i c e r t o “h i tth e b l o c k ” an d“c o me ba ck in a m inu te . ” Whe n th e of fi ce r re tur ne d, he sawW oody ar d c om ing out of the9

fro nt y ardof t he Cla y

Str eetho m e, an d Woo dyard t ol d t he off ic er h e h adtwo ox y co nt in pi ll s. O ff ic er Mc K ean purc ha se d th re e dil au did pil ls f ro m Ro se on O ct obe r 16, 20 02 at t he Cla y

Str eetho m e aft er s he in fo rm edhi m sh e was ou t o f ox y co nt in . He boug ht f our m etha done pil ls and o ne m or phi ne pil l f

ro m Jon es a ft er

pic kin g he r up at the Clay

Stree t hom e on October 22, 2002. Af ter the sale, W oody ard stopped the of fi ce r an d a ske d hi m

“ if the y too k c ar e of

[ him ] or if [ he ] got se rv ed . ” T he officer responded that Shanno n had taken care of him . W oody ard told the officer to r et ur n be fo re nin e, that W oody ar d w oul d be standi ng r igh t the re , and tha t the co st wou ldbe $3 0 api ece. O n N ove m

be r 13, 200 2, O ff

ic er Mc K ean m ad e co nta ct

w ithRo se out sid e the Cl ay S tr ee t ho m e, w as tol d to “ m ak e the blo ck , ” an d up on h is s ubse que nt return, purchased two oxy contin tabl ets and crac k cocaine. He observed her com ing and g oing from

the y ard at the Clay

Stree t hom e. T he next day , N ovem ber 14, O ff ic er Mc K ean purc ha se d an ox y co nti n pi ll fr om Jon es and tw o ox y co nti n pil ls f ro m Ro se . R ose w as a lso able to obt ai n c ra ck c oc ai ne f ro m D ef en dant, A shi r Z uni ga( “ Z uni ga ”) , w ho w as a lso in the y ar d. Z uni gaw as m ar ri ed to D ef en dant, Ch ri sti naMari e H ogue ( “ H ogue ”) , and the la tte r al so t es tif ie d f or the gove rn m en t a t tri al , f

oll ow ing aw ri tte n pl ea

a gr ee m en t w iththe gov er nm en t.10

O ff ic er Mc K ean r et

ur ne d onN ove m

be r1 8, 200 2, pur ch as ing one oxy co nti n pil l f ro m Ro se . R ose r ef

use d to dis co unt

the pur ch as e pr ic e, a s su gge ste d by the officer , to cover reim

bursem ent for a pr ior deal w here the off icer had overpaid her, ind ic at ing the dr

ugs w er e not

he rs to dis co unt . R ose , a s w el l a s Jo ne s, w oul d obt ai n dr ugs fr om oth er s to se ll to O ff

ic er Mc K ean w he ne ve r the w om endid not ha ve the m

to se ll. O ff

ic er Mc K ean a lso bou ght

oxy co nti n ta

ble ts f ro m Ro se on Nov em be r 22 at t he Cla y

Str eetho m e. MC SO D ep uty

Ja son Po w er s w en t t o th e Cl ay S tr ee t ho m e, inc lud ing co nduc tin g dr ive -b y

sur ve ill an ce , appr oxi m at el y

e igh t t o te n ti m es . E ve ry ti m e he rode by , he observed one or m ore persons on the po rch or in fr ont of the residence; he would see fe m ales w alking to the vehicles, spend m ay be 10 to 15 seconds, turn ar ound and w al k ba ck

int o th e y ar d. I n hi s r ole a ssi sti ng w iththe pol e cam er a, on Novem ber 22, 2002, D eputy

Powe rs reported that a white m ale w as observed leaving the Clay

Stree t hom e. When approached by De putyPowe rs, the subject th rew d own a m at ch bo x c on ta in in g a m or ph in e p il l. O ff ic er Mc K ean m ad e an oth er

und er co ve r buy

f ro m Jon es on D ec em

be r 13, 2 0 0 2 a tth e C l a y S t r e e th o me . T h e s a me d a y, P r i n c e t o n We s t ry a n dT a mmy Pe rr ym anw er e ar

re ste d f oll ow ing part ic ipatio n by ac onf ide nti al inf

orm an t, w ho in di cat edPri nc et on W es try was as so ci at edwit h t he Cla y Str eetres id en ce.11

O n January

10, 200 3, O ff

ic er Mc K ean, a cc om

panie d by an in fo rm an t, planne d to buy

dr ugs fr om L uc iou s in sid e the Cl ay

S tr ee t ho m e. B ef

or e he c oul d enter, he w as approached by W oody ard, who had two m orphine tablets. Of ficer Mc K ean r eque ste d f

our pil ls, and a ft er

r ec ei vin g paym en t, W oody ar d e nte re d th e Cl ay Str eetho m e an d s ho rtl y

th erea fte r returne d wi th th e o th er t wo p il ls . In April 2005, an MP D off icer m ade undercover drug buy s from the Clay Stre et hom e, c ap tur ing the tr an sa ct ion s onvid eo c am er a. T he of fi ce r boug ht oxy contin from

De fendant, S am

uel Beckham

(“ Beckham ”), at the Clay Stree t hom e on Apr il 14, 20, and 2 5, 200 5. B ec kham , too , te sti fi ed a t the tr ia l f

or the gove rn m en t. MP D Co rp or al Jos ep h W olf e w as a ssi gne d to the S tr ee t L ev el I nte rd ic tio n an d D ru g E nf

or ce m en t de ta il in 1 999 as aT as k F or ce O ff ic er , and w en t t o th e Clay Stree t hom e, one of the MPD “ hot sp ots,” near ly every day on drug-related calls. Beginning Septem ber 2002, W olfe becam e personally invol ved in an inv es tig at ionof

the Cl ay S tr ee t ho m e, “ in an a tte m pt t o c urta il the dr

ug a ct ivi ty that was going on th ere. ” U sing con fidential inform ants and un dercover police of fi ce rs , 23 unde rc ove r buy s to ok p la ce a t the Cl ay S tr ee t ho m e an d th e Bo ykin T ow er s a partm en t.Am on gthe pe op le arr e ste d w e re Luc iou s We str y , K im We str

y , Wil lie Cart e r, Ros e 5 Westry , and Pauline Westry . 12 InO ct obe r 2003 , f

oll ow ing e xe cu tio n of

ase ar chw ar

rant, arr es ts o n st at e ch ar ge s, and r en ew ed

dr ug a ct ivi ty

a ft er “ the ind ivi dua ls h it the str ee ts a ga in, ” the 5 U. S. Dr ug Enforce m ent Adm inistration (“ DE A” ) w as contacted and opened an in ve st ig at io n. Offi cer Wol fe was ass ig ne d t o t he DEA as a Tas k F or ce Offi cer. T he D E A or ch es tr at ed

ase ri es of

und er co ve r buy s f

ro m D ec em be r 2004 to Apr il 2005 . I n June 200 5, f

oll ow ing m or e unde rc ove r tr an sa ct ion s, lawe nf or ce m en t re tur ne d to the Cl ay

S tr ee t ho m e, e xe cu tin g se ar chw ar rants and f

ed er al arr es t w ar rants . D ru g e vid en ce , inc lud ing hy dr oc odon e, oxy co done and dru g paraphernalia w ere recovere d. P olice also recovere d a loaded Rossi .38 caliber rev ol ve r th atha d b een rep or te d s to le n. 456 a nd 45 9 Maple Street In addition to the activities not ed in or around the 406 Clay Stree t hom e, tr an sa ct ion s oc curr ed

a t the ne ar

by hom e loc at ed

a t 45 6 M ap le S tr ee t. O n Augus t 28, 199 8, the Mo bil e Co unty S he ri ff ’ s O ff ic e ex ec ute d ase ar chw ar rant at the re sid en ce of

Co -D ef en dant, E dw ar d K en ne th R ile y ( “ Ri le y ”) , loc at ed

a t 45 6 Ma ple S tr ee t ( 11⁄2 b loc ks f

ro m the Cl ay S tr ee t ho m e) , w he re 550 pil ls and nu m ero us pre sc rip ti on bo tt le s wer e rec ov ered .13

Ine ar ly 200 2, the MP D uti liz ed

ac onf ide nti al inf

orm an t t o buy

c oc ai ne powder fr om

Lucious’ brother, “ Lawy er C harlie, ” at 459 Maple Stre et. Ther eafte r, on February

28, 2002, a sear ch warrant w as executed at that address and office rs recovere d cocaine, m orphine, oxy contin p ills and, in the place w here L aw y er Ch arl ie was s it ti ng , crackco cai ne . O n O c t o b e r

8 , 2 0 0 2 , J o n e s t o o kO f

f i c e r M c K e a n f

r o m th e C l a y S t r e e th o me to 456 Maple Str eet to get m orphine. Of ficer McK ean and others used an inf orm an t t o pl ac e a ca ll to D ef en dant C ar

te r on F eb ru ar

y 18, 200 3. T he inf

orm an t pur ch as ed

m or phi ne f ro m Cart er la te r in the day

a ft er the y both w en t f

ir st t o 45 9 Map le to ob ta in th e p il ls . B oy ki n T ow er s A part m en t Appellant, C alvin W estry ’ s apartm ent was located at 1600 Michig an Avenue, in the pub lic housi ng project known as B oykin Tower s. C onfidential inform ant, S unnyFoxx (“ Foxx”), had bee n arre sted for buy ing drug s at the Clay Stre et hom e an d c oope rate d. F oxx se t up adr ug d ea l f or O ff ic er Mc K ean w ith W es tr y , kno w n a s “ Sn ap , ” in a

r ec or de d te le phon e co nve rs at ionthat oc curr ed on N ove m be r 16, 200 2. I n th e co nve rs at ion , W es tr y m en tio ne d th at

Appe llant H int on would need to be paid for gas as he would be driving to get the pills. When O ff ic er Mc K ean and the c onf

ide nti al inf

orm an t arr ive d a t the W es tr y apartm en t,14

H int on w as intro duc ed

to the m a s “ Ch ill . ” T he of

fi ce r ga ve the m one y

f or the pil ls to W es tr y , and p ai d H int on $ 5 f

or the ga sol ine . H int on i s he ar d onthe audi ota pe asking if the officer knewof any goodheroin out th ere. O ff ic er Mc K ean ha d te le phon e co nve rs at ion s w ithW es tr y se ve ra l t im es , tr y ing to ar range anothe r m ee tin g inor de r to p ur ch as e m or e oxy co nti n pi lls . T he of fi ce r al so s poke to Ch ill , or H int on. T he of

fi ce r re tur ne d to Bo ykinT ow er s on Novem ber 18, 2002 and pu rchased oxy contin andlortabs, af ter W estry ’ s daught er, Kim W es try, arran ge d t o m eet“ Fl y ” an d re tu rn edwit h t he pi ll s. Ja se n J oh ns ’ Dea th at

th e Cl ay St re et

Home T he part ie s st ipu la te d th at the c au se of

Ja se n Jo hns’ de ath w as a co m bin at ionof

m etha done and c oc ai ne . B ef or e his de ath, f

ro m on o r ab out

199 7- 98, Joh ns and h is f

ir st c ousi n, Mi ch ae l Jam es Carp en te r (“ Carp en te r” ), w oul d go

“ ev er y oth er day , e ve ry

day ” to the W es tr

y hou se on C lay

S tr ee t t o purc ha se dr

ugs, inc lud ing m or

phi ne , oxy co nti n, and m etha done . O n N ove m be r 26, 200 1, Carpenter and John s injec ted m ethadone into their arm s in a back room of the Clay Stre et r es ide nc e. C ar

pe nte r the n w en t t o C al vinW es tr y ’ s a partm en t a t B oykin Tow ers to spend the nig ht. Johns stay ed behind, waiting on Def endant Carter , also kno wn as “ Bip,” to com e w ith som e cocaine. When Carpenter left, Carter had alrea dy arr ived and Carter and John s went to the back of the re sidence.15

Juliu s Say ers, a w itness called by the defense, wa s present at the Clay Stree t hom e on Novem

ber 26 and found J ohns ’ body . Regarding the Clay Stree t hom e, Say er s a lso te sti fi ed

he obs er ve d “ w hit e pe opl e at

odd ti m es of the nig ht b ac k and fo rth .” He sa w “ ot he r pe op le ba ckan d fo rth co ns ta nt ly who di dn ’t li ve th ere.” He did not thi nk the y

w er e the re buy ing lotte ry ti ck et s. T he pe opl e w ho a ppe ar ed to be se lli ng dru gs a

ppe ar ed to be in co m

pe tit ion . D ona ld C ar

pe nte r (“ D ona ld” ), Mi ch ae l C ar pe nte r’ s br oth er

and J ohns ’ co usi n, a lso a cquir ed

his dr ugs (p ai n m ed ic at ion , m or phi ne , oxy co nti n, lor

ta bs, crac k cocaine) f

rom the Clay Stree t hom e. H e w ouldgo with John s “ pretty m uch onc e a w ee k. ” T he y

c oul d in j ec t the dr

ugs at the hom e if

the y w an te d, and w oul d al so h an g ou t the re f

ro m ti m e to t im e. S om et im es the y w oul d st ay

a t the hou se ove rn igh t i n th e ba ck

be dr oom or kit ch en . C ar

te r an d C al vinW es tr

y w er e som e of the pe opl e D ona ld w oul d ge t dr ugs fr om at the Cl ay

S tr ee t ho m e be tw ee n 19 88 t o 2005 . Although Carter stay ed at his own hom e, he w ouldalso be at the Clay Stre et hom e fr om

ti m e to t im e. B etw ee n hi s purc ha se s of dr ugs at the hou se on Ma ple S tr ee t and the Cl ay

S tr ee t ho m e (and whe ne ve r he w en t t o on e hous e he w oul d a lso go t o th e oth er ), D ona ld e sti m at es he m ad e ab out one hun dr ed

tr ips in ov er 2 0 years.16

T oni Joh ns, Ja se n Jo hns’ w ido w , som et im es a cc om panie d Jo hns w he n he wou ldst op by the Cla y

Str eetho m e to pi ckup dru gs . Testi fy ing Co -D ef en dant s an d P urc hase rs o

f N arc oti cs ( A ddi ct s) Fo ur Co -D ef en dants w ho p le d gu ilty

be fo re tr ia l w er e tr ia l w itn es se s f or the g o v e rn me n t . J o n e s r e me mb e r e ds e e i n g dr u g s s o l df r o m th e C l a y S t r e e th o me w he n sh e w as about

f ive y ea rs old , and s tart ed

se lli ng dru gs h er se lf

a t the a ge of sixteen. If

som eone wa s on the po rch at the Clay Stree t hom e, they

usuallyhad dr ugs to s el l. S he kne whe r unc le Ca lvi n w as inv olv ed in se lli ng dru gs f

ro m the Bo yki n To wers ap art m en t. Le onard W estry , R ose’ s son andLucious’ grandson, testified that Rose was i n v o l v e di n s e l l i n g dr

u g s , an dh i s u n c l e , C a l v i n , w h o l i v e da tth e C l a y S t r e e th o me from tim e to tim e, also solddrugs occasionally . Le onard also saw W oody ard se lli ng p ill s ( lorta

bs, oxy co nti n, m or

phi ne ) to p eo ple on v ar iou s oc ca sio ns n ear the Cl ay Str eetho m e. Leon ardsaw Woo dyard g etth e p il ls fro m Uncl e Cal vi n. Carte r, Le onard’ s uncle-in-law, also soldpills (lortabs and m orphine) at the Clay St reet ho m e. Hog ue an d Zu ni ga were m arri ed . Zun ig a is Luci ou s’ gre at -g ran ds on . H ogue e nte re d aw ri tte n pl ea of gui lty a ft er the tr ia l st ar

te d. H ogue obs er

ve d a vari ety of dr ug a ct ivi tie s a t the Cl ay

S tr ee t ho m e, inc lud ing tr an sa ct ion s by17

Zuniga. She observed Calvin W estry and W oody ard selling drugs out of the Clay Stre et hom e. W oody ar d w oul d c om e to h er be ggi ng f

or pil ls. S he sawW es tr

y se ll pills from Boykin Tower s. S he saw Carte r selling drugs . In 2003 Hogu e started su pp lying pi ll s t o p eo pl e. Bec kh am , Luci ou s’ nep he w, pl edgu il ty to co ns pi racy to d is tri bu te dru gs . H e w as inv olv ed

in dr ug d istri but ionf

ro m the Cl ay S tr ee t ho m e be gin nin g in 20 01 . He had see n C art er s el li ng dru gs at t he Cla y Str eetho m e si nc e 2 00 3. A cc or din g to Be ckha m , W oody ar d w as inv olv ed in se lli ng dru gs the re , “ but not very often.” Bec kham

knew W estry

wa s invo lved in drug distribu tion at the Clay St reet ho m e, an d s aw Ch il l (Hi nt on ) “ sh oo ti ng pi ll s” at t he Cla y Str eetho m e. Ina ddi tio n to the te sti fy ing Co -D ef en dants , se ve ra l purc ha se rs of the narc oti cs sup pli ed

by the e xte nde d W es tr

y f am ily te sti fi ed a t tri al . T he ir

te sti m ony co nc er ns dru g purc ha se s a s e ar ly a s 19 92 at the Cl ay

S tr ee t ho m e. S te phanie He aly , who after being arr ested worked undercover f or the police, testified that w he n th er e w er e no dru gs at the Cl ay S tr ee t ho m e, som eb ody

w oul d dr ive or

r ide with her to the house at 459 Maple Street. She bought m orphine from Carter

“ probably25, 30 tim es.” G ar y Br ow n bo ught

pil ls f ro m the Cl ay S tr ee t ho m e as of

te n a s th re e tim es a day , and pu rchased oxy contin o r m orphine from Carter approxim ately

20 tim es18

fr om 200 1 to 200 2. S te phe n A lle n bo ught dr ugs fr om W es tr y onc e or tw ic e, and ob ta in edpi ll s fr om

Cart er 1 5- 20 ti m es . He als o b ou gh t d ru gs at 4 59 Map le Str eet . Dis co ver y o f Fi re ar ms Guns possess ed by

m em bers of the conspiracy

we re f ound during th ree se ar ch es . O n O ct obe r 1, 199 8, a“ple tho ra of pil ls” w er e fo und in L uc iou s’ brassiere, and crac k cocaine and a pistol were discovered in Lucious’ bedroom at the Clay Stree t hom e during a search, following a controlled buy . Severa l y ears la te r, on July

27, 200 4, ase ar chw ar

rant w as e xe cu te d a t the r es ide nc e of Co De fendant, R iley , who Jon es identified as a supplier of drugs for herself and other conspirators, includin g Carter and W oody ard. A t the July 27 search, officer s fo und 20 p ill s inRi le y ’ s sh irt po ck et , anothe r es tim at ed 5, 755 pil ls i n th e residence (of

which approxim ately

1,500 wer e hy drocodon e tablets), and assorted m ethadone, m orphine, and oxy contin p ills. T wo rif les and a handgun we re r e c o v e r e da tR i l e y’s h o u s e th a td a y. La stly , on June 30, 2005, the day of the feder al raid at the C lay Stree t hom e, of fi ce rs se iz ed

aloa de d R oss i . 38 c al ibe r re vol ve r, vari ous dr ugs, and dru g para phe rn al ia . T he r ev olv er

ha d be enr ep orte d st ole n. A m ong the pe rs ons pr es en t i n an dar o u n dth e h o me w e r e L u c i o u s , R o s e , B e c kh a m, J o n e s , O s b o rn e , T a mmy Perrym an d, an d West ry .19 II. D ISCU SSION A s st at ed , Appe llants r ai se vari ous ch al le nge s to the ir c onvi ct ion s and se nte nc es . W e gr oup the iss ue s r ai se d onappe al w he re appr opr ia te . W oody ar d, H int on and C ar

te r ch al le nge the suf

fi ci en cy of the e vid en ce to supp ort the ir co nvi ct ion s. C ar

te r ar gue s th at

the dis tr ic t c ourt a

buse d it s di sc re tio n inove rr uli ng his he ar say

obj ec tio n to Carp en te r’ s te sti m ony that C ar te r pr ovi de d c oc ai ne to Jasen John s shortlybefore Johns’ death. W estry and Carter

assert the district court ab use d it s di sc re tio n by

r ef usi ng t o gi ve r eque ste d j ur y ins tr uc tio ns. A ll Defen da nt s ap pe al th ei r se nt en ces . A. App el la nt

s’Su ff ic ie nc y o f t he Eviden ce Cl ai ms W e re vie wthe dis tr ic t c ourt’ s de nia l of D ef en dants ’ m oti ons fo r j udgm en t of a cquitta l ba se d onsuf

fi ci en cy of the e vid en ce und er

Ru le 29, F ed er al Ru le s of Cri m in al Pro cedur e, de novo . U nit ed S ta te s v. E vans, 473 F . 3d 1 115, 111 8 ( 11th Cir. 2006 ). “ In determ ining whether the governm ent produced sufficient evidence, w e m ust r ev ie wthe e vid en ce in the li ght m ost f av or ab le to the gov er

nm en t and drawall rea sonable factual infere nces in favor of the j ury ’ s verdict.” United State s v. D ulc io, 441 F . 3d 1 269, 127 6 ( 11th C ir . 200 6) ( ci ta tio n om itt ed ). A ll that m ust be found is th at a “ reasonable fac t-finder could have determ ined that the evidence20

pr ove d” D ef

en dants ’ gui lt be y ond a re as ona ble doubt. U nit ed

S ta te s v. S m ith , 459 F.3 d 1 27 6, 1 28 6 (1 1t h C ir. 2 00 6) (ci ta ti on om it te d) . A ll D ef en dants , w iththe e xc ep tio n of W es tr y , c ha lle nge the suf

fi ci en cy of the e vid en ce to supp ort the ir c onvi ct ion s. A ll D ef

en dants a lso c ha lle nge the suf fi ci en cy of the e vid en ce sup portin g se ve ra l se nte nc ing e nhanc em en ts i m pose d, fo llo w ing int er

ro ga tor ie s answ er ed

by the j ur y , and the se are a ddr es se d inS ec tio n D of this op inion . W e now brief ly summ arize the evidence as to eac h of the three D ef en dants w ho c ha lle nge it s su ff ic ie nc y w ithr es pe ct

to the ir c onvi ct ion s f

or c o n s p i r a c y. W illie Carter Cart er li ve d a t the Cl ay

S tr ee t ho m e w ithhis w if e, Cy nth iaY oung , L uc iou s’ daught er, who also sold drug s. C o-De fendant Jones testified th at Carter (her unc le ) ha d be ense lli ng dru gs, inc lud ing pil ls and c oc ai ne , f or a s lo ng a s sh e co uld re m em be r. L eo nard

te sti fi ed he ha d se enCart er

( his unc le -i n- law ) se ll pil ls at the Cl ay Str eetho m e. Leon ardacco m pa ni edCart er o n t rip s t o b uy crackco cai ne . Hogue testified that Carte r w as involv ed in the distrib ution of drugs, and she had seen Carter sell cr ack, oxy contin, m orphine and o ther pills. A ccording to Hogue, she saw C arter

invol ved in the dis tributio n of drugs “ Ever y day , a ll day .”21

Be ckha m , Y oung ’ s c ousi n, kne wCart er w as inv olv ed

in the dr ug b usi ne ss an d ha d se enhim

se ll oxy co nti n and m or

phi ne pil ls s inc e 2003 . A cc or din g to Be ckha m , Cart er

use d and s old

c ra ck . B ec kham

obt ai ne d ox y co nti n and m or phi ne fro m Cart er an d s ol d t he pi ll s at th e Cl ay Str eetho m e. U nde r the dir ec tio n of

O ff ic er Mc K ean, c onf

ide nti al inf

orm an t, E lr od Mi ll er, m ad e a co nt ro ll edbu y of m or ph in e fro m

Cart er at 45 9 M ap le Str eet . Confidential inform ant, E ric Be verly , a lso pu rchased a $20.00 piece of crac k co cai ne fro m

Cart er. Dr ug addict, Stephanie He aly , te stified she obtain ed drugs at the Clay Stree t hom e fr om

Carter fr om

25 to 30 tim es. Addict, Cy nthia Sowell, identified Carter as one of he r re gul ar

sup pli er s a t C lay

S tr ee t. A ddi ct , G ar

y Br ow n, te sti fi ed

he boug ht drugs (oxy contin andm orphine) from Carter approxim ately

20 tim es at Clay Stree t. A ddict, Stephen D oy le A llen, testified he bought p ills from Carter fro m 15 to 20 ti m es . Mack W oody ard Co-D efendant Jones testified W oody ard sold drugs at the Clay Stree t hom e, obtaini ng the drug s, including crack, f rom other conspirators and “ whoever had it.” Le onard testified he saw W oody ard sell oxy contin andm orphine on the corner at 406 Cl ay S tr ee t. L eo nard

kne wW oody ar d a cquir ed his pil ls f

ro m Ca lvi n22

W es tr y . H ogue te sti fi ed

she sawW oody ar d se lli ng o xy co nti n, m or phi ne , lor ta b, m et ha do ne , and “ wha te ve r ki nd of p il ls he co ul d g ethi s h an ds on ” atCla y Str eet . H ogue state d W oody ar d ob ta ine d hi s pi lls f ro m H ogue and o the rs , inc lud ing Jones, Lucious, and Zuniga. Be ckham testified W oody ard sold drugs (m orphine, oxy contin) at the Clay

Stree t hom e, “ but no t very often.” T he und er co ve r ac tiv iti es of O ff ic er Mc K ean a lso c or

ro bor at ed the fo re goi ng t es tim ony

a s to W oody ar d. O ff

ic er Mc K ean bo ught

dr ugs fr om W oody ar d onO ct obe r 11, 200 2 ( Co unt F our ) an d onO ct obe r 12, 200 2 ( Co unt Five). Rec ordings of severa l of the drug deals wer e adm itted in evid ence. O n at le as t tw o oc ca sio ns whe n O ff ic er Mc K ean w en t by

the are a, W oody ar d a ske d th e officer if he had “been served.” W ill ie H int on Jone s te sti fi ed

that H int on l ive d w ithhe r unc le , Ca lvi n W es tr y , a t the Bo ykinT ow er s a

partm en t and dro ve W es tr y ’ s ve hic le s onoc ca sio n. B ef or e she saw H inton associated with her uncle, Jones would see Hinton on Clay Stree t

“ co m ing to buy

pil ls, ” spe ci fi ca lly , m or

phi ne . S he , too , sup pli ed H int on w ith m o rp h i n e p i l l s i f s h e h ad th em. Whi l e a tth e b eg i n n i n g th e p i l l s we re fo r H i n t o n ’s pe rs ona l us e, the a m ount he a cquir ed

inc re as ed , and s he ha d th e unde rs tandi ng the pi ll s wer e fo r Hin to n a nd so m eo ne els e.23

A cc or din g to H ogue , Ca lvi n W es tr y w as inv olv ed

in the dis tr ibu tio n of d r u g s f r o m th e B o yk i n To w e r s ap a rt men t , a s s h e a c c o mp a n i e dKi mb e r l y We s t ry, Ca lvi n’ s da

ught er , f or the pic k up of

pil ls ( oxy co nti n) . C al vinw oul d gi ve K im be rl y ins tr uc tio ns a s to w he re to go w iththe pil ls. A nd H int on “use d to be there. ” Be ckha m obs er ve d H int on at the Cl ay

S tr ee t ho m e “ [s ] hoot ing up p ill s, ” or using a needle, in the kitchen. Bec kham described Hinton as a “

j unki e. ” L eonard al so t es tif ie d to havin g se enH int on at the Cl ay S tr ee t ho m e an d kn ow ing him to be af ri en d of his unc le Ca lvi n. C onf

ide nti al inf

orm an t F oxx te sti fi ed

she som et im es gave H int on a r ide to a hous e on M ap le S tr ee t. H int on w oul d e xit the ve hic le and e nte r the hou se w hil e Fo xx dro ve aro und the blo ck . Whe n sh e re tur ne d, H int on w oul d ge t i n th e car, and the tw o w oul d tr av el ba ck to the Bo ykin T ow er s a partm en t. O ff ic er Mc K ean’ s un de rc ove r buy f ro m W es tr y on N ove m

be r 16, 200 2 invo lved Hinton. H inton appears in the telephone calls setting u p the und ercover dr ug d ea l a s w el l a s th e ta

pe r ec or din g of

the dr ug d ea l i tse lf

. D ur ing the c our se of that drug pu rchase ( three oxy contin tabl ets), Hinton asks the officer f or gas m one y , and the of

fi ce r pa id H int on f

ive dol lars . O ff

ic er Mc K ean a lso spo ke w ith24

H int on o ve r the te le phon e on N ove m be r 18, 200 2 w he n th e of fi ce r w as arr an gin g adr u g b u y a tth e B o yk i n To w e r s ap a rt men tth a twa s c o n s u mm a t e dl a t e r th a td a y. Su ff ic ie nt e vid en ce sup ports D ef en dants ’ c onvi ct ion s. A con vi ct io n fo r co ns pi racy to d is tri bu te dru gs in vi ol at io n o f 21 U.S.C. § 846 re qui re s e vid en ce that pe rs ua de s th e tr ie r of f ac t be y ond a re as ona

ble doubt, that (1) a c onsp iracy

(or agr eem ent) existed betwee n Def endants or between D ef en dants and o the rs ; ( 2) D ef en dants kne wthe e sse nti al obj ec ts o f the co nspi ra cy , w hic h are to do e ith er an un law fu l a ct

or alaw fu l a ct

by unl aw fu l m eans; and ( 3) D ef

en dants kno w ing ly

and v oluntari ly

part ic ipate d inthe conspiracy . See United States v. Calderon, 127 F.3d 1314 , 1326 (11th Cir. 1997); see also United State s v. T oler, 144 F.3d 142 3, 1426 n.3 (11th Cir. 1998); United St at es v. G ar ci a, 405 F . 3d 1 260, 126 9 ( 11th C ir . 200 5) ; U nit ed S ta te s v. T hom pson , 422 F . 3d 1 285, 129 0 ( 11th C ir . 200 5) . W e ha ve pr ev iou sly ac know le dge d th at

be ca use ac onsp ir ac y

is “ pr ed om inantl y

m en ta l i n co m posi tio n, ” ci rc um stanti al e vid en ce is fr eque ntl y r es orte d to in or de r to p ro ve it s el em en ts . Tole r, 14 4 F .3dat 1 42 6 (i nt ern al qu ot at io n m ark s o m it te d) . A conspiracy

m ay be inferr ed from

a “ concert of a ction.” U nited States v. Guerra, 293 F.3d 127 9, 1285 (11th Cir. 2002 ). See also Glasser v. U nited States, 315 U. S. 60, 80 (1942) (“ Participation in a crim inal conspi racy need not be proved bydirect25

ev ide nc e; ac om

m on p ur pose and p lan m ay

be inf er re d f ro m a‘ de ve lop m en t and co llo catio n of

c ir cum stanc es . ’ ”) ; U nit ed S ta te s v. F igu er oa , 720 F . 2d 1 239, 124 6 (1 1thCi r. 198 3) ( “ A c onsp ir ac y c onvi ct ionw ill be uph el d . . . w he n th e circum stances surroundi ng a person’ s presence at the sc ene of conspiratorial ac tiv ity are so o bvi ous that kn ow le dge of it s c hara ct er

c anf ai rl y be a ttr ibu te d to him .” ). T he gov er

nm en t a sse rt s th at

the e vid en ce pr es en te d a t tri al w as suf fi ci en t t o establish b ey ond a reasonable doub t that Def endants were engaged in a conspiracy t o d i s t ri b u t e c o n t ro l l ed s ub s t an ce s b et we en Ma rc h 1 9 9 8 an dJ u n e 3 0 , 2 0 0 5 . We agree. T he trial testim ony of severa l Co-D efendants, drug purchasers, and law en fo rc em en t ( 39 w itn es se s inove r fi ve day s of tr ia l) , and the audi o r ec or din gs, au di o a nd vi de o C Ds, an d a ud io an d v id eo DVDs o f drug tra ns act io ns , sh ow a long -standing conspiracy invol ving the distribu tion o f drugs (m orphine, oxy co done , hy dr oc odon e, hy dr om or phi ne , m etha done , and 5 0 gr am s or m or e of co ca ine ), a m ong ana sso rtm en t of f am ily m em be rs and a sso ci at es of

L uc iou s inand around the Clay

Stree t hom e, 456 and 4 59 Maple Street, and at the Boykin Tower s apartm ent. T his cons piracy , the var ious acts of dist ribution at these severa l locations p erfor

m ed by num erous interrelated individu als, survived several atte m pts by loc al lawe nf

or ce m en t, se ve ra l st at e ar re sts and s en te nc es se rv ed by it s26

m em be rs , se ve ra l se ar chw ar

rants that un co ve re d th e pr es en ce of dr ugs an d guns, all over a per iod of y ears, until th e June 30, 2005 arrests on federal c harges precipitated the charging docum ents filed in this case. T he testim ony and evidence s qu a r e l y p l a c e De f

e n d a n t s a s kn o w i n g memb e r s o f th e c o n s p i r a c y. Carte r and W oody ard, in particular, challenge the sufficiency of evidence supp orting th e existence of a conspiracy , pointing to testim ony and evidence sugg es tin g ahig h de gr ee of c om pe tit ive ne ss am ong m em

be rs to ef fe ct ua te the sa le of drugs. Consistent with the not ion of com petition , and hence, the lac k of an ag re em en t, W oody ar d a sse rt s th at the e vid en ce , a t be st, sho w s hi m to ha ve be ena street dealer

who took the op portuni ty to m ake sales to indivi duals who wer e destined to m ake their purchases at the C lay Stree t hom e, but who wer e interce pted by W oo dyard b efo re re ach in g t he ir d es ti na ti on . O the r co urts h av e co nsi de re d and r ej ec te d th is d ef en se of “ w e w er e not

in a co nspi ra cy , be ca

use the e vid en ce sho w ed

w e w er e co m

pe tit or s f or dr ugs or custom ers. ” In U nited States v. Johnson , the c ourt m ade an observation that ap pli es e qua lly

in the pr es en t c as e: “ Whil e the r ec or d de m onstrate s th at the pr inc ipa ls, inc lud ing Appe llants , share d m an y sourc es , dis tr ibu tor s, and c ust om er s, the f ac t tha t dr ug d ea le rs ‘ m ay

som et im es , or

e ve n a lw ay s, c om

pe te f or sup pli es or cu sto m er s inse rv ing that m ar ke t do es not

on t ha t a cc ount

a lon e dis pr ove . . . the27

existence of a single conspiracy to achieve the overall re sults of their severa l ef fo rt s. ’ ” 54 F . 3d 1 150, 115 4- 55 ( 4thCi r. 199 5) ( quot ing U nit ed S ta te s v. Banks, 10 F.3d 1044 , 1054 (4th Cir. 1993)). In Banks th e court identified a m ore signi ficant consideration than com petition in determ ining the m em bership of actors in a dr ug c onsp ir ac y

to be “ w he the r the a ct or

‘ de m onstrate d asub stanti al le ve l of co m m itm en t t o th e co nspi ra cy , [ fo r ex am ple ] by e nga gin g inac onsi ste nt s er ie s of sm aller transactions ’ that furthered its ultim ate obj ect of supply ing th e consum er de m an d of

the m ar ke t. ” Banks, 10 F . 3d at 10 54 ( quot ing U nit ed S ta te s v. E dw ar ds, 94 5 F .2d13 87 , 13 93 (7t h C ir. 1 99 1) . W e ag re e w iththe r ea soni ng o f John son an d B an ks. Whil e adm itt ed ly several of the c onsp irators w ere shown, through testim ony and the audio and v ideo sur ve ill an ce , to ha ve c om

pe te d w ithe ac h othe r in the sa le of dr ugs an d th e procurem ent of custom ers, their com bined efforts produced a haven for the illegal dis tr ibu tio n of

dr ugs at the Cl ay S tr ee t ho m e, 456 and 4 59 M ap le S tr ee t, and the Bo ykinT ow er s Apartm en t, a m ong ana sso rtm en t of L uc iou s’ f

am ily m em be rs and as soc ia te s. T he e vid en ce sho w ed the ir int er re la te dne ss; howone m em be r w oul d retrieve drugs for the sale by another. The e xistence of healthy com petition , a s ev ide nc ed

by W oody ar d a ch ie vin g sa le s in the vic ini ty

of the Cl ay S tr ee t ho m e an d w ay lay ing pur ch as er s de sti ne d f or the hom e, doe s no t ne ga te the ult im at e obj ec t of28

al l t he pa rti ci pa nt s: supp lying th e co ns um ers ’ de m an ds in an d a ro un d t he pro pe rty. In de ed , the m or e se lle rs of dr ugs the re w er e, the m or e ac tiv ity in an d aro und the loc at ion s. Hinton argues the evidence against him only showed him

to be a by stander at an apartm ent wher e drug activities occurred, not a m em ber of the char ged conspiracy . As to H inton ’ s argum ent, w e ar e sim ilarly not persuaded. First, m ere presence “ ‘ is m aterial, highl y probative, and not to be dis counted.’ ” U nited States v. G am boa , 166 F . 3d 1 327, 133 2 ( 11th C ir . 199 9) ( quot ing U nit ed S ta te s v. Fr ee m an , 660 F . 2d 1 030, 103 5 n. 1 ( 5thCi r. U nit B N ov. 198 1) ). S ec ond, he re the ev ide nc e show ed

m or e than H int on’ s m er e pr es en ce . I t sh ow ed him to be an a ct ive part ic ipant i n O ff

ic er Mc K ean’ s un de rc ove r buy on N ove m

be r 16, 200 2, a cc ep tin g a ca sh p ay

m en t f ro m the of fi ce r to c ove r the e xpe nse of havin g tr av el ed

to obt ai n the oxy contin W estry

sold to the officer , in H inton ’ s presence. T his evidence, coupled with Hinton’s association with W estry and residence at the B oykin Tower s ap ar tm en t, w he re dr

ug transa ct ion s w er e shown to have take n pl ac e, and the te sti m ony of oth er c o- co nspi rator s pl ac ing H int on at the Cl ay S tr ee t ho m e an d re la te d lo catio ns, c oul d gi ve “ ‘ ri se to a pe rmiss ibl e inf er en ce ’ ” by

the j ur y of Hin to n’s p art ic ip at io n i n t he co ns pi racy. Id . (qu ot in g C al de ro n, 1 27 F.3d at 1 32 6) . T he j ur y pla inl y c re dit ed the te sti m ony

and e vid en ce pr es en te d, and i t i s no t29

fo r us t o r e- w ei gh the f

ac tf ind er ’ s c re dib ili ty

c hoi ce s. U nit ed

S ta te s v. S im

pson , 228 F. 3d 1 294, 129 9 ( 11th C ir . 200 0) ( ci ta tio n om itt ed ). Whe n m ea sur ed a ga ins t the gov er nin g st an dard s, w e ar e pe rs ua de d th at suf fi ci en t e vid en ce w as pr es en te d to s u s t ai n th e c o n s p i ra cy co n v i ct i o n s , a n dac co rd i n g l y af fi rm th e d i s t ri ct co u rt ’s de ni al of t he m ot io ns forjud gm en t o f acq ui tt al . B . Ca rte r’

s H ea rsa y O bje ct ion Cart er ti m el y obj ec te d w he n th e pr ose cu tor a ske d M ic ha el Carp en te r ab out the events surround ing Jo hns’ death. T he following exchange tookplace: Q. And w hen y ou left, what was going on th ere at the house? A . H e w a s w a i t i n g , h e s a i dh e w a s w a i t i n g o n s o me b o d y t o c o me w ithsom e co ca ine , that he ha d – w ai tin g onsom e co ca ine to co m e in. Q . A nd d o y ou knoww ho?

* * * Q . D o y ou knoww ho h e w as w ai tin g on ? A . Bi p, he sa id. * * * Q . A nd whe n y ou l ef

t, ha d B ip arr ive d? A . Y eah. H e w as j ust c om ing in, and the y

w en t t o th e ba ck . Cart er m ai nta ins the dis tr ic t c ourt e rr ed in al low ing the gov er

nm en t t o e lic it inf orm at ionabout

the sourc e of

the c oc ai ne Joh ns u se d, and w ith out the30

obj ec tio nable answ er s c ont ai nin g th e w or ds J ohns spo ke to Carp en te r, the re w oul d have been no other evidence presented concerning the sou rce of the controlled subs tanc es that c au se d or c ontri but ed

to John s’ de ath. W e re vie wthe dis tr ic t c ourt’ s e vid en tiary r uli ngs fo r “ cl ear ab use of dis cr et ion . ” U nit ed

S ta te s v. P er ez -O liv er os, 479 F . 3d 7 79, 783 ( 11th C ir . 200 7) (c itatio n om itt ed ). Appe llant m ust de m onstrate that “ ‘ the dis tr ic t c ourt’ s de ci sio n rests upon a clearly

err oneous finding o f fa ct, an err ant conclusio n of law, or an im pr ope r ap pli catio n of

lawto fa ct . ’ ” U nit ed

S ta te s v. S m ith , 459 F . 3d 1 276, 129 5 (11th Cir. 2006) (quoting United State s v. Baker, 432 F.3d 1189 , 1202 (11th Cir. 20 05 )). T he gov er

nm en t a gr ee s th at

Carp en te r’ s st at em en ts c onc er nin g w ha t Jo hns tol d hi m are he ar say

state m en ts a dm itt ed

f or the tr uthof the m atte r as se rt ed , presum ptivelyinadm issib le under Rule 802 of the Federa l Rules of E vidence. S ee Fed. R. Evid. 802. Nonetheless, the governm ent sugg ests several hear say ex ce pti ons ap ply , m ost

not ab ly the Ru le 804 (b )( 3) e xc ep tio n. R ule 804 (b )( 3) pe rm its a dm iss ionof

ahe ar say

state m en t “ w hic h [ ] a t the ti m e of it s m ak ing . . . so far te nde d to sub

j ec t the de cl ar an t t o c ivi l or c ri m ina l l ia

bil ity . . . that a r ea sona ble pe rs on i n th e de cl ar an t’ s po sit ionw oul d no t have m ad e the state m en t un le ss be lie vin g it

to be tr ue . ” F ed . R. E vid . 804 (b )( 3) . “ T o be a dm iss ibl e unde r Ru le31

804(b)(3), a

statem ent m

ust satisfy

three e lem ents: “ (1) the declar ant [m ust be] unavailable; (2) the statem ent so far tends to subject the declarant to crim inal lia bil ity that a r ea sona ble pe rs on i n hi s po sit ionw oul d no t have m ad e the state m en t unl es s he be lie ve d it

to be tr ue ; and ( 3) the state m en t i s c or ro bor at ed by ci rc um stanc es c le ar ly

ind ic at ing it s tr

ustw orthi ne ss. ” U nit ed

S ta te s v. Co sta , 31 F. 3d 1 073, 107 7 ( 11th C ir . 199 4) ( ci ta tio ns o m itt ed ); se e al so Unit ed S ta te s v. Harre ll , 78 8 F .2d15 24 , 15 26 (11 th Cir . 19 86 ) (ci ta ti on s o m it te d) . While a determ ination of w hether a statem ent is against th e declar ant’ s penal int er es t i s pure ly

aque sti on o f lawsub

j ec t t o de nov o review , see Costa, 31 F. 3d at 1077 , c onsi de ratio n of

astate m en t’ s tr

ustw orthi ne ss r equir es ar ev ie wof f ind ing s of fact an d a rev ie w of t he tri al co ur t’s ap pl ic at io n o f a l eg al st an da rdto th e fac ts . See United States v. Bagley , 537 F. 2d 16 2, 166 (5th Cir. 1976). Beca use the trial court m ade no finding regar ding the applicabilityof the statem ent against penal int er es t e xc ep tio n, or

any oth er he ar say e xc ep tio n, w e “ ‘ de te rm ine w he the r an y re as ona ble vie wof

the e vid en ce , ’ ” U nit ed

S ta te s v. G oss ett, 877 F . 2d 9 01, 907 (1 1thCi r. 198 9) ( quot ing Ba gle y , 537 F . 2d at 16 7) , sup ports the tr ustw orthi ne ss o f Jo hn s’ st at em en ts . The f irst elem ent is easily

satisfied, a s John s was unavailable to testify at trial. The second elem ent, whether the statem ents wer e against John s’ penal32

in te res t, we al so res ol ve in th e aff irmativ e, al th ou gh no t wi th ou t s om e ex pl an at io n. Fo r a state m en t t o be “ ag ai nst pe na l i nte re st, ” it m

ust “ so f ar te nd t o su

bj ec t the de cl ar an t t o c ri m ina l l ia

bil ity that a r ea sona ble m anin his pos iti on w oul d no t have m ad e th e st at em en t u nl es s h e b el ie ve d i t t o b e true .” Harrel l, 7 88 F.2d at 1 52 7. In iti al ly , giv enJoh ns’ c los e re la tio nshi p to Carp en te r, it w oul d a ppe ar that Jo hns wou ldno t h av e b el ie ve d h is st at em en ts wou ldsu bjec t h im to cri m in al li ab il it y . H ow ev er , it

is unne ce ssary

that the de cl ar an t kn owhe w as spe ak ing to a pe rs on who c oul d c au se his pr ose cu tio n. I d. T hus, f or e xa m ple , c ourts h av e he ld that the m er e fa ct

that the r ec ipi en t of

the inf orm at ionw as ac onf

idante of the declarant does no t rule out adm issib ility of a statem ent as against interest. S ee Ba gle y , 537 F . 2d at 16 5 ( “ T he f ac t tha t the state m en t w as m ad e to a f ri en d and ce llm at e ha s no r el ev an ce to the de te rm inatio n w he the r the state m en t w as a ga ins t the declarant’ s penal interest.”) ; United States v. Mock, 640 F. 2d 62 9, 631 (5th Cir. 1981 ) (“ fa ct

that the state m en t w as m ad e to h is f orm er w if e doe s no t de str oy

it s cr ed ibi lity ”) ; H ar

re ll, 788 F . 2d at 15 27 ( re fu sin g to “ en gr af t” ont o th e se co nd el em en t of

the Ru le a“ re qui re m en t tha t a ppe llants m

ust kno wthat the y

w er e be ing re co rd ed and tha t the y

m ust kno wthat the y

w er e spe ak ing w ithpe rs ons w ho c oul d ha ve c au se d th ei r pr ose cu tio n” ); Co sta , 31 F . 3d at 10 78- 79 ( dis tin gui shi ng cu sto dia l st at em en ts i m

pli catin g se lf

and o the rs f

ro m “ spon tane ous de cl ar at ion s”33

mad e t o a c qu a i n t a n c e s , f

r i e n d s an dc o n f

e d e r a t e s ; th e l a t t e r

b e i n g mo r e tr

u s t w o rt h y) (c itatio ns o m itt ed ). U nde r the c ir cum stanc es pr es en te d he re , w e do n ot thin k a reasonable m an would falsely adm it to waiting for cocaine at the Clay Stree t hom e, a se ri ous cr im e, kno w ing the re w as ac hanc e, a lbe it sli ght , that the a dm iss ionc oul d be used to su bje ct him

to severe penalties. See Harrell, 788 F.2d at 1527; United St at es v. L an g, 589 F . 2d 9 2, 97 ( 2d C ir . 197 8) ( fa ct that st at em en t w as m ad e to friend and cellm ate not relevant to whether statem ent was a gainst declarant’ s penal interest). The la st elem ent to consid er, then, is w hether the statem ents are c orroborated by c ir cum stanc es c le ar ly

ind ic at ing the ir

tr ustw orthi ne ss. P ri or

to the a dm iss ionof the state m en ts, the gov er nm en t ha d e lic ite d te sti m ony f ro m Carp en te r that he and his c ousi n Jo hns use d dr

ugs tog ethe r fr om

about 199 8 un til Joh ns’ de ath in200 1, and that they

usuallyobtained th eir drugs at the Clay Stree t hom e. Car

penter had explained he and Jo hns were injec ting m ethadone in a back room of the Clay

Stree t hom e be fo re Carp en te r le ft , be fo re Joh ns s ta te d he w oul d w ai t on“ som eb ody to co m e w ithsom e co ca ine , ” an d th at the som eb ody

w as “ Bi p” or

Cart er . S uf

fi ci en t co rr obor at ing c ir cum stanc es w er e pr es en te d to sa tis fy the tr ustw orthi ne ss e le m en t, an d thus w e co nc lud e the state m en ts w er e adm iss ibl e as state m en ts a ga ins t Jo hns’ penal interest under Rule 804(b)(3), Federa l Rules of E vidence.34

C. W es tryand Ca rte r’ s R eq ueste d J

uryI nstruc tio ns W es tr y a ssi gns er

ro r to the tr ia l c ourt’ s r ef

usa l t o gi ve ar eque ste d in str uc tio n on withdrawa l from

the conspiracy . Te stim ony wa s presented that after W estry ple d gu ilty

to a state c ourt i ndi ctm en t, and r et ur ne d to the Cl ay

S tr ee t ho m e on pr oba tio n, he w as no l onge r inv olv ed in the f ed er al of fe nse s c harg ed

in Co unt s T hirty -O ne and T hirty -T w o. C ar te r subm its the tr ia l c ourt e rr ed in fa ili ng t o c harg e the j ury that it m ust determ ine the am ount of controlled sub stances that was fo re se ea ble to Cart er

w ith in the sc ope of

his part ic ipatio n inthe c onsp ir ac y , and i f the de ath of

Joh ns w as c au se d by

c ontro lle d su

bst an ce s f

or es ee ab le to Cart er

w ith in t h e s c o p e o f

h i s p a rt i c i p a t i o n i n th e c o n s p i r a c y. A tr ia l c ourt’ s r ef

usa l t o gi ve aj ur

y ins tr uc tio n r eque ste d by

the de fe nse is rev ie wedforab us e o f di sc ret io n. Se e Dul ci o, 4 41 F.3d at 1 27 5 (c it at io n o m it te d) . To constitute reversible err or, a defendant m

ust sh ow that the re quested jury instructio n “ ‘ (1) w as a corr ect statem ent of the law ; (2) w as not adequately covered in the ins tr

uc tio ns g ive n to the j ur

y ; ( 3) c onc er

ne d an is sue so s ubst an tiv e that i ts om issio n im

paired the acc used’ s ability to present a defense; and (4) dealt with an iss ue pr ope rl y

be fo re the j ur

y . ’ ” Id . ( quot ing U nit ed

S ta te s v. Br az el , 102 F . 3d 11 20 , 11 39 (11 th Cir . 19 97 )).Se e El e ve nth Cir c uit Patte rn Jury Ins tr uc tio ns , ( Cr imi na l Ca se s) (2 00 3) , O ff e ns e 6 Instruction 13.4, “Withdrawal F rom Conspiracy (F or Use With Gener al Conspiracy Charg e),” 18 USC § 371. 35 W es tr y c la im s th e fo llo w ing te sti m ony of S hannonJon es sup ports h is claim ed withdraw al from the conspiracy , and conseq uently , supports his requested ch ar ge on w ith dr aw al : 6 Q. Do y ou rem em

ber about when it w as that he [W estry ] m oved ba ck to Cl ay S tr ee t? A. It w as a little w hile after the State had indicted us the first tim e. Q . O kay . A nd w oul d th at have be ensom et im e ar ound the e nd o f 2003 , later? A . Pe rh ap s, y es . Q. Af ter Ca lvin m oved back to Clay Stree t, did y ou ever see w he the r or

not he w as inv olv ed

w iththe dis tr ibu tio n of

dr ugs? A. He real ly did n’t –no , he was n’t i nv ol ve d t he re, y ou kn ow. He w as on p ro ba tio n. B as ic al ly , he j ust sa id, e noug h. U nde r gove rn ing law , the f or eg oin g e xc hange , w ith out m or e, is ins uf

fi ci en t to s uppo rt

W es tr y ’ s r eque ste d in str

uc tio n. W e be ginw iththe ve ry langua ge of

the i n s t r u c t i o n : “[ I ]n o r d e r

f o r yo ut o d e c i d e th a taD e f

e n d a n t w i t h d r e wf

r o m a co nspi ra cy

y ou m ust f ind that the D ef

en dant t ook af

fi rm at ive a ct ionto dis av owor de fe at the pur pose of the c onsp ir ac y

. . . . ” O ff

en se I nstru ct ion13. 4. A s th e com m ents to the Instructio n m ake clear, withdraw al is an aff irm ative defense thatBe ckham testified the last time he had drugdealing s with W estry was in mid-J une of 7 2005, befor e the f

eder al ra id. 36 the de fe ndant h as the bur de n to pr ove . W e ha ve he ld tha t a de fe ndant m

ust pr ove

“ he und er too k a ff irm at ive ste ps, inc onsi ste nt w iththe obj ec ts o f the c onsp ir ac y , to di sa vo w or t o d efea t t he co ns pi rat or ia l o bjec ti ve s, and e ith er c om m uni cate d th ose ac ts i n am an ne r re as ona

bly c al cu la te d to r ea chhis c o- co nspi rator s or dis cl ose d th e ill eg al sc he m e to l awe nf or ce m en t auth or iti es . ” U nit ed S ta te s v. F ine sto ne , 816 F. 2d 5 83, 589 ( 11th C ir . 198 7) ( em pha sis in or igi na l) ; se e al so Unit ed S ta te s v. Y oung , 39 F . 3d 1 561, 157 1 ( 11th C ir . 199 4) . T he de fe ndant’ s burd ento es ta bli sh the de fe nse is subs tanti al ; he nc e, “ m er e ce ssatio n of a ct ivi ty in the c onsp ir ac y

is not suf fi ci en t t o e sta

bli sh w ith dr aw al . ” F ine sto ne , 816 F . 2d at 58 9 ( ci ta tio ns om it te d) . Jone s’ te sti m ony

is ins uf fi ci en t t o satis fy

W es tr y ’ s burd enof

sho w ing w i t h d r a w a l . At b e s t , h e r

t e s t i mo n y c o u l d

s up p o rtamer e c e s s a t i o n o f a c t i v i t y. 7 Co nse que ntl y , the tr ia l c ourt di d no t a buse it s di sc re tio n inr ef

usi ng t o gi ve W es tr y ’ s r eque ste d in str

uc tio n, a s th e iss ue w as not pr ope rl y be fo re the j ur

y on the re co rd de ve lop ed .As to the drugamounts, Carter pr oposed that the c ourt instruct the jury : “I f you find the 8 Def endant guilty

beyond a re asonable doubt of Count One, you must then find beyond a rea sonable doubt the amount of substances whic h wer e for esee able to the De fenda nt within the scope of his participation in the conspira cy .” As to the de ath enha nceme nt, he proposed: “ I f you find the De fenda

nt guilty beyond a re asonable doubt of Count One, you must then find beyond a rea sonable doubt whe ther the me thadone that c aused the death of J asen Johns was within the scope of the Def endant’ s participation in the conspira cy .” Pinkerton v. United States, 328 U.S. 640 (1946). 9 37 Cart er pr opos ed tw o in str uc tio ns c onc er

nin g f or es ee ab ili ty

of the dr ug am ount s invo lved in th e conspiracy and the death enhancem ent. T he trial court 8 de cl ine d to giv e the r eque ste d in str uc tio ns, f ind ing that the c om

bin at ionof

the spe ci al ve rd ic t f

orm and the c harg es , inc lud ing aP ink er ton c harg e, suf

fi ci en tly 9 co ve re d th e iss ue s so ught to be a ddr es se d inCart er ’ s r eque ste d in str uc tio ns. T he t r i a l c o u rti n s t e a d

i n s t r u c t e da s f o l l o w s o n th e i s s u e s o f

f o r e s e e ab i l i t y: If y ou f ind any de fe ndant g uil ty

a s to Co unt

O ne , y ou w ill the n be as ke d to spe ci fy

on the ve rd ic t f

orm y our unanim ous fi ndi ng co nc er nin g th e w ei ght

of the m ixt ur e or sub stanc e co nta ini ng c oc ai ne ba se that the G ove rn m en t ha s pr ove d be y ond a re as ona ble doubt. Y ou will not be required to determ ine the exact am ount ; rather, the verdict fo rm req ue st s t ha t you d et erm in e th e d ru g a m ou nt by rang es . Fo r ins tanc e, y ou m ay

ind ic at e by

r an ge , that i s, le ss than f ive gr am s, five gram s or m ore but less than 50 gram s, or 50 gram s or m ore. Such am ount s m

ust be pr ove n by

the G ove rn m en t be y ond a re as ona ble do ub t.38

T he P ink er

tonins tr uc tio n st at ed , in part , that i f a de fe ndant w as f ound gui lty of the c onsp ir ac y

of fe nse , the j ur

y c oul d f ind the de fe ndant g uil ty

of the subs tantive offense(s): even thoug h such Defe ndant di d not p ersonally participate in such of fe nse if y ou f ind be y ond a re as ona

ble doubt, f

ir st, that the of

fe nse ch ar ge d insuc h c ount

w as c om m itt ed by ac onsp ir at or

dur ing the ex ist en ce of

the c onsp ir ac y

and i n f urthe ranc e of

it s ob j ec ts; se co nd, that the D ef

en dant unde r co nsi de ratio n w as akno w ing and w ill fu l m em ber of the conspiracy

at the tim e of the com

m issio n of such of fe nse s; and thir d, that the c om m iss ionof

suc h of fe nse by ac oco nspi rator

w as ar ea sona

bly f or es ee ab le c onse que nc e of the co ns pi racy. W e ag re e w iththe tr ia l c ourt tha t the f or eg oin g c om

bin at ionof

ins tr uc tio ns pr ope rl y and s uf fi ci en tly ins tr uc te d th e j ur

y in its c onsi de ratio n of

the f or es ee ab ili ty of the drug am ount and John s’ death, tw o of the applicable enhancem ents. Se e U nit ed S ta te s v. D ohan, 508 F . 3d 9 89, 993 ( 11th C ir . 200 7) ( “ [T ] his c ourt w ill reverse the district court onlyif w e ar e left w ith a subs tantial, inera dicable doub t as to whether the j ury

wa s properly

guided in its deliberations in this regard.” ) (c itatio n om itt ed ). W e sim ilarl y f ind no a buse of dis cr et ionin the de nia l of the re que ste d in str

uc tio ns, w hic h du

pli cate d th e inf

orm at iona lr ea dy

pr ovi de d inthe Pi nk ert on in st ru ct io n g iv en . D. Sentencing Issu esPrior to trial, the g overnme nt filed “Informations,” pur suant to 21 U.S.C. § 851, 10 no tif yingDe fe nd ants it i nte nd e d to re ly on the ir pr ior fe lony c onvic tio ns fo r d

ru gof fe ns e s. 39 Appe llants r ai se se ve ra l c ha lle nge s to the ir se nte nc es , inc lud ing en hanc em en ts a

ppl ie d and the r ea sona

ble ne ss o f the ir

se nte nc es . T he gov er

nm en t ha s c onc ed ed

e rr or in se ve ra l i nst an ce s. W e re vie wthe dis tr ic t c ourt’ s a ppl ic at ion of the S en te nc ing G uid el ine s de novo , and its factual finding s for clear er ror. See Uni te d S ta te s v . W at ki ns , 47 7 F .3d12 77 , 12 79 (11 th Cir . 20 07 ). W e rev ie w de novo the le ga lity

of ase nte nc e. S ee U nit ed

S ta te s v. Mo ri ar

ty , 429 F . 3d 1 012, 102 5 (11th Cir. 2005). As to a c hallenge for rea sonablen ess, w e re view the sentences

“ unde r a de fe re nti al abuse -o f- dis cr et ionstandard . ” G al l v. U nit ed S ta te s, 128 S . Ct . 586, 591 ( 2007 ) . D ef en dants w er e se nte nc ed

a s f oll ow s. O n C ount

O ne , Co nspi ra cy , a ll D ef en dants r ec ei ve d se nte nc es of li fe im pr iso nm en t. O n th e subs tanti ve of fe nse s, D ef en dants w er e ea chse nte nc ed to lif e se nte nc es ( W es tr

y on C ount s E le ve n and T w el ve ; W oody ar d onCo unt s F our and F ive ; and H int on o n C ount T en ), w iththe ex ce pti on o f Cart er , w ho w as se nte nc ed to 60 y ears ’ im

pr iso nm en t one ac h of Co unt s F if

te enand T w en ty -F our , to run c onc ur re ntl y . D ef

en dants r ec ei ve d th e m axim um possi ble offense level under the G uidelin es on the bases that they had pr ior sim ilar co nvi ct ion s and a de ath r es ult ed

f ro m the c onsp ir ac y , pur suant t o 1040

U . S. S. G . § 2D 1. 1( a) (1 ) (the “ de ath e nhanc em en t” ). D ef en dants ’ of

fe nse le ve ls were al so en ha nc edba se d o n p os se ss io n o f a fi rear m , un de r U.S.S.G. § 2D 1. 1( b) (1 ). W iththe e xc ep tio n of Cart er ’ s c onvi ct ion s onthe tw o su bst an tiv e co unt s, a ll se nte nc es w er e en hanc ed to lif e on the ba sis that a

de ath r es ult ed

f ro m the of fe nse and D ef

en dants e ac h ha d apr ior

c onvi ct ionf

or af el ony dr ug o ff en se un de r 21 U.S.C. §§ 84 1( b) (1 )(A) an d (b )(1 )(C) . De fendants challenge application of the death enhancem ent to the consp iracy co nvi ct ion s ( Co unt

O ne ), and W es tr

y , W oody ar d and H int on c ha lle nge appl ic at ion of the death enhancem ent to the sub stantive offenses. Carter a sserts the drugs th at kil le d Jo hns did

not c om e fr om

the c onsp ir ac y , and tha t he did not have apr ior co nvi ct ionf

or asim ilar of

fe nse . H int on and W es tr y a lso m ai nta in J ohns ’ de ath w as not r ea sona bly f or es ee ab le . W oody ar d a sse rt s he w as not am em be r of the co nspi ra cy

w he n Jo hns die d, and tha t Jo hns’ de ath w as not ar ea sona

bly fo res eeab le actor o m is si on do ne in fur th eran ce o f th e co ns pi racy. Carte r and W estry

assert the district court err ed by apply ing th e fire arm en ha nc em en t, u nd er U.S.S.G. § 2 D1.1 (b )(1 ) to in crea se th ei r ba se off en se lev el s. W oody ar d c la im s hi s se nte nc es are gr oss ly dis pr opor

tio na te , in vio la tio n of

the E igh th A m en dm en t. L as tly , Cart er c la im s th e re le vant c ondu ct pe rt ai nin g to theSection 841(b)( 1)(C) pr ovides in part, “I f any person c ommits such a violation af ter a 11 prior convic tion for a f

elony drugoffe nse has be come f inal, such per son shall be sentenc ed to a term of imprisonment of not more tha n 30 y ear s and if death or serious bodily injury results from the use of suc h substance sha ll be sentenc ed to life imprisonment . . . .” 41 co nspi ra cy

c ount sho uld not have be enc onsi de re d inc al cu la tin g hi s gu ide lin e ran ge , and th athi s s en te nc e, to o, i s u nr eas on ab le . 1. T he Ja se n Jo hns D eath E nhanc em en t a s to Co unt O ne ( Co nspi ra cy ) fo r W es tr y , Cart er and H int on A s to appl ic ab ili ty

of the de ath e nhanc em en t t o th e co nspi ra cy c onvi ct ion s of W estry , C arter

and Hinton, w e find no error. T he guidelin es for off enses charged unde r 21 U . S. C. § 84 6, the c onsp ir ac y c ount ( Co unt O ne ), are f

ound a t U . S. S. G . §§ 2D1 .1 an d 1 D1.2 . If a de fen da nt is co nv ic te d fo r co ns pi racy to v io la te 21 U.S.C. § 841( b) (1 )( A ), the of

fe nse of c onvi ct ione sta

bli she s th at

de ath or se ri ous bodi ly inj ur y r es ult ed f ro m use of the il le ga l su

bst an ce , and the de fe ndant c om m itt ed the of fe nse a ft er

one or m or e pr ior

c onvi ct ion s f

or asim ilar of

fe nse , se ct ion 2D1 .1(a )(1 ) of

th e Sen te nc in g Gu id el in es set s t he ba se off en se lev el at 4 3, o r li fe. See also 21 U.S .C. § 841(b)(1)(C). 11

“ Inde te rm ini ng the ba se le ve l of the c harg ed

of fe nse , the dis tr ic t c ourt m ust consider as relevant all conduct actually undertaken by , or taken at the direction of, the defendant, § 1B1.3( a)(1) (A ), and in the case of a conspiracy , a ll acts by other part ic ipants that w er e both r ea sona bly f or es ee ab le and i n f

urthe ranc e of

the42

co nspi ra cy , § 1B 1. 3( a) (1 )( B) . ” U nit ed S ta te s v. Matth ew s, 168 F . 3d 1 234, 124 7 (11th Cir. 1999). Conspi rators ar e cer tainly “ ‘ onlyaccountable for [ co-conspirator] conduct th at w as rea sonablyforesee able and within the scope of the crim inal ac tiv ity that the de fe ndant a gr ee d to und er take . ’ ” U nit ed

S ta te s v. Ch ish olm , 73 F. 3d 3 04, 308 ( 11th C ir . 199 6) ( quot ing U nit ed S ta te s v. Re es e, 67 F . 3d 9 02, 906 - 08 ( 11th C ir . 199 5) ). C onse que ntl y , a lth ough“ a co nspi rator m ay r ea sona bly foresee other crim inal acts, he is not account able for those acts if they we re not part of the sc ope of

the c ri m ina l a ct ivi ty

he a gr ee d to und er

take . ” I d. ( ci tin g R ee se , 67 F.3 d a t 9 07 ). T he m ed ic al e xa m ine r’ s r ep ort i ntr oduc ed in ev ide nc e show ed

that Jo hns die d a t the Cl ay

S tr ee t ho m e on N ove m

be r 27, 200 1 f

ro m an ov er dose c au se d by inj ec tin g m etha done , w ithc oc ai ne a s ac ontri but ing f ac tor . P ri or

to his de ath, John s had frequently

obtained drug s from

the Clay Stree t hom e and from

m em bers of the c harg ed

c onsp ir ac y . T w o of

the dr ugs dis tr ibu te d duri ng the c our se of the co nspi ra cy

inc lud ed m etha done and c oc ai ne , and the j ur y spe ci fi ca lly

f ound the se drug s wer e o bjec ts of t he co ns pi racy. As to the cocaine, Johns ’ statem ents to Carpenter support the conclus ion th at C a rt e r s up p l i e dJ o h n s wi t h th e c o c a i n e th a tc o n t r i b u t e dt o J o h n s ’ d e a t h . We s t ry, however, suppl ied Carpenter with a place to stay , W estry ’ s apartm ent, so Car penterCarter also argues that he w as not convicte d of a pr ior similar offe nse, as r equire d for 12 application of the death e nhance ment. Carter had a pr ior felony

conviction in Alabama

for possession of pentazocine, which meets the r equire ments for the de ath enha nceme nt under 43 co uld spe nd the nig ht a ft er

havin g in j ec te d m etha done w ithJoh ns i n th e ba ck r oom of th e Cl ay Str eetho m e. Hin to n was pre se nt in W es try’ s ap art m en t t ha t n ig ht . T he iss ue pr es en te d is w he the r a de ath of one of the se ve ra l a ddi ct s w ho purchased drugs at the Clay Stree t hom e w as rea sonablyforesee able to the co nspi rator s. Whe re ac onsp ir at or is inv olv ed

in dis tr ibu tin g dr

ugs to a ddi ct s, som e of w hic h are e ve n a dm ini ste re d in tr av en ousl y , it is a re as ona

bly f or es ee ab le co ns eq ue nc e th aton e o r m or e o f th os e ad di ct s m ay ov erd os e an d d ie . See e.g ., Sp er o v. U nit ed

S ta te s, 375 F . 3d 1 285, 128 6 ( 11th C ir . 200 4) . I t i s of no m om en t that tw o of

the se c onsp ir at or s, a t the ti m e of Joh ns’ de ath, w er e not

r es ide nts of

the Cl ay S tr ee t ho m e, a s th e ev ide nc e show ed the ir a ct ivi tie s to be li nke d to the ac tiv iti es of

oth er s a t the Cl ay

S tr ee t ho m e, e ve n onthe nig ht i n qu es tio n. B ec au se John s di ed

f ro m adr ug o ve rd ose f

ro m dr ugs dis tr ibu te d by

am em be r of the co nspi ra cy

( Cart er ), and the goa l of

the c onsp ir ac y

w as to dis tr ibu te dr

ugs, Joh ns’ d e a t h wa s r e a s o n ab l y fo r e s e e ab l e an dwi t h i n th e s c o p e o f th e c o n s p i r a c y. Ther efore, we find no clear er ror in the j ury ’ s or trial court’ s conclusio n that the de ath w as r ea sona

bly f or es ee ab le , or

the tr ia l c ourt’ s a

ppl ic at ionof

the de ath en hanc em en t t o C ount

O ne a s to W es tr

y , Cart er , and H int on. 12section 841(b) (1)( A). See 21 U.S.C. § 802(13); Ala. Code § 13A- 12-212(b) . Thus, Carter ’s

ar gum en ti s un av ai l i n g. 44 2. T he Ja se n Jo hns D eath E nhanc em en t a s to Co unt O ne ( Co nspi ra cy ) fo r W oody ard L ike W es tr

y , Cart er , and H int on, W oody ar d c ha lle nge s th e de ath enhancem ent on his sentence in Count One, but for a differ ent reason. W oody ard as se rt s th e tr ia l c ourt e rr ed in ap ply ing the de ath e nhanc em en t t o in cr ea se his se nte nc e on C ount

O ne to a lif

e se nte nc e (c ha lle ngi ng the suf fi ci en cy of the ev ide nc e supp ortin g th e j ur y ’ s ve rd ic t onthi s e nhanc em en t a s w el l) , be ca use no ev ide nc e w as pr es en te d e sta bli shi ng tha t W oody ar d w as am em be r of the co ns pi racy pri orto Jo hn s’ dea th . W e ag ree. Regarding conspi rators in existence at the tim e of Johns’ death, Car penter ide nti fi ed Bi p ( Cart er ) an d C al vin( W es tr y ) as pe opl e fr om

w hom Carp en te r (and John s) w oul d buy

dr ugs. S hannonJon es te sti fi ed she w as in pr iso n w he n Jo hns overdosed and d ied, and further, that she m et W oody ard af ter she w as relea sed from prison. L eonard testified that W oody ard did not beg in livin g at the Clay Stree t hom e until som etim e in 2004 . Hogue testified she did no t supp ly W oody ard w ithpil ls f

or sa le unt il som et im e in 2 003. W oody ar d w as ne ve r ide nti fi ed a s be ing present during anyof the executions of the several sear ch warrants at the Clay Stree t hom e. Areviewof the evidence shows the ear liest W oody ard m ay be placed45

in o r ar ound

the Cl ay S tr ee t ho m e, and h en ce in the c onsp ir ac y , w as Marc h 20 02, uponJon es ’ r el ea se f

ro m pr iso n. T he gov er

nm en t’ s m ea ge r re spon se to the pauc ity of e vid en ce li nki ng W oody ar d to the c onsp ir ac y pr ior to John s’ de ath is to re fe re nc e Jone s’ te sti m ony in which she stated she had kno wn W oody ard since 2000, because he w ouldstay at the hom e on 4 59 M ap le S tr ee t. W oody ar d r en te d ar oom f ro m Jon es ’ unc le , Br ett, at 459 Maple Street, and Uncle B rett w ouldsell drugs “ [e] very now and then.” A nd whil e, a s w e ha ve state d, r ep eate d pr es en ce a t the sc en e of dr ug tra ff ic kin g is a ci rc um stanc e standi ng a lon e that c angiv e ri se to a pe rm iss ibl e inf er en ce of part ic ipatio n inthe c onsp ir ac y , se e, e . g. , Ca lde ro n, 127 F . 3d at 13 26, the onl y ev ide nc e of

W oody ar d’ s m em

be rs hip in the c onsp ir ac y pr ior to John s’ de ath is ev ide nc e of

W oody ar d’ s m er e pr es en ce and a sso ci at ionw ithone or m or e of the conspirators. See United State s v. Pe rez- Tosta, 36 F.3d 1552, 1557 (11th Cir. 1994 ). O n th e ba sis of

thi s po rt ionof

Jon es ’ te sti m ony

a lon e, w e cannot

c onc lud e that su ff ic ie nt e vid en ce w as pr es en te d sh ow ing W oody ar d to be am em be r of the co ns pi racy befo re No ve m be r 27 , 20 01 . A de fe ndant c an not

be he ld a cc ount ab le f

or c ondu ct that oc curr ed

pr ior to his e ntr y int o th e co nspi ra cy . U nit ed S ta te s v. H unt er , 323 F . 3d 1 314, 132 0 ( 11thIn c ontr a st t o th e jur y ’s de c isi on

on thi s is su e , th e tr ia l c ourt ’s c on c lus ion of re a so na ble 13 fore seea bility is based on the lesse r evide ntiary burden of

preponde ranc e of the evidenc e. See, e.g ., United States v. Cover, 199 F .3d 1270, 1274 (11th Cir. 2000). Be cause we c onclude a

pplication of the de ath enha nceme nt to W oody ard w as in err or, 14 we do not re ach Woody ard’ s argument that his sentence is gr ossly disproportionate in violation of the Eig hth Amendment. 46 Cir. 2003 ). T he j ury ’ s and the trial court’ s finding that W oody ard w as a m em ber 13 of the c onsp ir ac y

pr ior to John s’ de ath, a s it

is ba se d onins uf

fi ci en t e vid en ce , m

ust the re fo re be se t a sid e an d th e se nte nc e on C ount O ne va cate d. 14 3. The Jase n John s Death Enhancem ent as to the Substanti ve Of fenses T he gov er

nm en t ha s c onc ed ed

it w as e rr or

f or the dis tr ic t c ourt t o a

ppl y the de ath e nhanc em en t t o W oody ar d’ s, H int on’ s and W es tr y ’ s se nte nc es on the subs tanti ve dr

ug d istri but ionc ount s be ca use the c ri m ina l c ondu ct

giv ing r ise to the subs tanti ve c ount s oc curr ed a ft er Joh ns’ de ath. S ee 21 U . S. C. §§ 8 41( b) (1 )( C) and (b )( 1) (D ). W e ac ce pt the c onc es sio n. A cc or din gly , the se nte nc es on C ount s F our an d F ive ( W oody ar d) , Co unt T en( H int on) , and C ount s E le ve n and T w el ve (W es tr y ) ar e va cate d. 4. T he F ir earm

E nhanc em en t Cart er as si gn s erro r to th e fi rear m en ha nc em en t, u nd er U.S.S.G. § 2D 1. 1( b) (1 ), a sse rt ing the re w as no e vid en ce to pr ove the f ir earm r ec ove re d inthe Cl ay S tr ee t ho m e w as pos se sse d inf urthe ranc e of

the c onsp ir ac y , or

that po sse ssi on47

of the f ir earm by ac o- co nspi rator

w as r ea sona

bly f or es ee ab le . W es tr

y m ai nta ins he shoul d not h ave re ceived the fire arm enhancem ent because he w as not a m em ber of th e co ns pi racy at th e ti m e th e fi rear m was p os se ss ed . T o a ppl y the f ir earm e nhanc em en t of

U . S. S. G . § 2D 1. 1( b) (1 ) ba se d onac oco nspi rator ’ s gun po sse ssi on, the gov er nm en t m ust sho wby apr ep onde ranc e of

the ev ide nc e that “ (1 ) the pos se sso r of the f ir earm w as ac o- co nspi rator , ( 2) the poss es sio n w as in furthe ranc e of the c onsp ir ac y , ( 3) the de fe ndant w as am em be r of the c onsp ir ac y

a t the ti m e of

the pos se ssi on, and ( 4) the c o- co nspi rator pos se ssi on w as r ea sona

bly f or es ee ab le by

the de fe ndant. ” U nit ed

S ta te s v. G al lo, 195 F . 3d 1278 , 128 4 ( 11th C ir . 199 9) ( fo otn ote om itt ed ) (e m pha sis r em ove d) . O nc e the gove rn m en t sh ow s th at

af ir earm is pr es en t a t the sit e of

the c harg ed

c ondu ct , “ ‘ the ev ide nti ar

y bur de n sh if

ts t o th e de fe ndant t o sh owthat a c onne ct ionbe tw ee n th e fi re ar m and the of

fe nse is cl earl y

im pr oba ble . ’ ” U nit ed

S ta te s v. F ie lds , 408 F . 3d 1356 , 135 9 ( 11th C ir . 200 5) ( quot ing U nit ed S ta te s v. H al l, 46 F . 3d 6 2, 63 ( 11th Ci r. 19 95 )). W e find no error in the trial c ourt’ s conclusio n that the firear m rec overed at the Cl ay S tr ee t ho m e, asto le n R oss i . 38 c al ibe r re vol ve r, w as ar ea sona bly foresee able circ um stance arising from the long-stand ing op eration of a drug house, an d w as in the c onstru ct ive pos se ssi on o f a co nspi rator . S ee , e . g. , F ie lds , 408 F . 3d48

at 135 9 ( a co nne ct ionbe tw ee n se iz ed f ir earm and dru g c onsp ir ac y

w as not c le ar ly im pr oba ble w he re f

ir earm s w er e pr es en t a t l oc at ion s w he re c oc onsp ir at or s so ld ill eg al dr ugs) . D ef

en dants pr es en te d no e vid en ce that a c onne ct ionbe tw ee n th e fi re ar m and the of

fe nse w as im

pr oba ble . A nd, w e ha ve a lr ea dy a ddr es se d and reject edW es try’ s cl ai m

of wi th dr awal fro m

th e co ns pi racy. Inany e ve nt, be ca

use the f ir earm e nhanc em en t di d no t a ff ec t D ef en dants ’ ove ra ll se nte nc es , giv enappl ic at ionof the de ath e nhanc em en t ha d a lr ea dy pr oduc ed the m ax im

um pos sib le se nte nc es on C ount O ne , if the re w as any

e rr or , it wa s harm less. S ee, e. g., United State s v. Ra ad, 406 F. 3d 13 22, 1323 n .1 (11th Cir. 2005 ) (where a

district court correc tly

im poses th e statutory

m inim um sentence, an y e rr or in the gui de lin es c al cu la tio ns i s harm le ss and w e ne ed not a ddr es s th e gu id el in es cal cu la ti on s) . 5. Carte r’ s Sentence Carte r challenges his life sentence on the conspiracy count and th e 60-y ear se nte nc es on the sub stanti ve c ount s a s un re as ona ble . R ev ie wof

the r ea sona

ble ne ss of the le ngth of

ase nte nc e is unde rt ak enin lig ht o f the f ac ts and c ir cum stanc es of th e Defen da nt ’s cas e, as th ey rel at e to th e se nt en ci ng co ns id erat io ns of 1 8 U.S.C. § 35 53 (a). Un it edSta te s v . W il li am s, 4 56 F.3d 13 53 , 13 63 (11 th Cir . 20 06 ). A re m an d f or r es en te nc ing due to the unr ea sona ble ne ss o f a se nte nc e oc curs onl y “ if49

w e ar e le ft

w iththe de fi nit e an d f

irm c onvi ct ionthat the dis tr ic t c ourt c om m itt ed a clear err or of j udgm ent in weighing th e § 3553(a) fac tors by arr iving at a sentence that lies outs ide the range of re asonable sentences dictated by the fac ts of the case. ” Id. ( citations om itted). Cart er a dvanc es the arg um en t tha t i f the tr ia l c ourt ha d us ed the dr ugs as so ci at edwit h e ach su bs ta nt iv e o ffen se co nv ic ti on forCo un t Fi fte en (two m or phi ne ta ble ts o n F eb ru ar

y 18, 200 3) and C ount

T w en ty -F our

( . 08 g ram s of co ca ine ba se on J anuary

6, 200 5) , r athe r than c onsi de ri ng dru gs a sso ci at ed w ith co nduc t e xtr ins ic to the inc ide nts ( i. e. , c ondu ct a sso ci at ed

w iththe c onsp ir ac y ), the ba se of fe nse le ve ls f

or e ac h w oul d have be ensub stanti al ly low er ( ex cl udi ng the fi re ar m e nhanc em en t) . O n C ount F if te en , the gui de lin e range w oul d have be en12 m onths and o n C ount

T w en ty -F our , 12 t o 16 m onths. T he tr ia l c ourt’ s de ci sio n to im pose the m ax im

um statut or y im pr iso nm en t of

60 y ears on e ac h c onse que ntl y cannot be consid ered a s reasonable, argues Carter. Beca use Carter

did no t raise this issue below, w e re view f or plain error. See U nit ed S ta te s v. Be nne tt, 472 F . 3d 8 25, 831 ( 11th C ir . 200 6) ( obj ec tio ns t o se nte nc ing c al cu la tio n is sue s r ai se d f or f ir st t im e on a

ppe al are r ev ie w ed

f or pla in er ro r) . T he standard

r equir es that the re be e rr or , the e rr or be pla in, and the e rr or af fe ct asub stanti al r igh t. I d.50

He re there is no error, as the trial court properly grouped Carter’ s offenses tog ethe r unde r the G uid el ine s. T he of fe nse le ve ls f

or the c onvi ct ion s f

or poss es sin g w ithint en t t o di str ibu te dr ugs an d c onsp ir ing to poss es s w ithint en t t o distribu te drugs are deter m ined by looki ng to th e quantity

of the substances invo lved. Se e U .S .S .G . § 2D 1.1(c) . The base offense levels for the three off enses of co nv ic ti on are d et erm in edby loo ki ng at s ect io n 2 D1.1 , and U.S.S.G. § 3 D1.2 pr ovi de s th at

suc h of fe nse s are to be gr oupe d to ge the r. S ee U . S. S. G . § 3D 1. 2, App. A . Mo re ove r, the r el ev an t c ondu ct f or the c onsp ir ac y

w ithint en t t o di str ibu te m or phi ne and c oc ai ne ba se w as part of the sam e co ur se of

c ondu ct a s th e convictio ns for possess ion with intent to distrib ute m orphine and cocaine base, as the sub stanti ve of

fe nse s w er e co m

m itt ed dur ing the ti m e pe ri od c ove re d by the co nspi ra cy . T hus, the dis tr ic t c ourt pr ope rl y gr oupe d th e of

fe nse s to ge the r an d co nsi de re d th e co nspi ra cy c ondu ct r el ev an t t o th e subs tanti ve of fe nse c ondu ct

to de te rm ine Cart er ’ s to ta l of fe nse le ve l. S ee U . S. S. G . § 1B 1. 3( a) (2 ) an d c om m en t (n.9B) . T he dis tr ic t c ourt st at ed

it c onsi de re d th e se ct ion355 3( a) f ac tor s, and i n li ght of the fac ts and circum stances surroundi ng the offenses of conviction , a s the trial co urt art ic ulate d a t se nte nc ing , Cart er ha s no t satis fi ed

his bur de n of

de m onstratin g that hi s se nte nc es on the sub stanti ve of fe nse s are unr ea sona

ble . G ive n our pr ior51

an al y si s p ert ai ni ng to th e li fe s en te nc e m an da te d o n C ou nt One b y 21 U.S.C. § 84 1( b) (1 )(A), t ha t s en te nc e, to o, i s re as on ab le . III. C ONC LUS ION For the re asons stated abo ve, w e vacate the sentences on Count s One, Four, an d F ive a s to W oody ar d; C ount T ena s to H int on; and C ount s E le ve n and T w el ve as to W es tr

y , and r em an d f

or r es en te nc ing . I n a ll oth er r es pe ct s, w e af

fi rm the de nia l of the m oti ons fo r j udgm en t of a cquitta l, the tr ia l c ourt’ s e vid en tiary r uli ngs and rulings on propo sed jur y instruction s, and the re m aining sent encing issu es ad dr es se d. AFFI RMED i n p art , VACATED in pa rt, a nd REMANDED.