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

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ _
No. 1 1- 37 01

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

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

ff - App el le e

v.

Dan ie l M il le r

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

an t - Ap pe ll an t

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ _
No. 1 1- 37 37

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

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

ff - App el le e

v.

Reb ecca Mi ll er

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

an t - Ap pe ll an t

__ __ __ __ __ __ App eal s fr om

Uni te d S ta te s Di st ric t Co ur t fo r th e Weste rn Dis tri ct of Ark an sa s - Tex ark an a

__ __ __ __ __ __
Su bm it te d: Ju ne 12 , 20 12 Fi le d: Octo be r 31 , 20 12

__ __ __ __ __ __Befo re LOKEN, GRUEND ER, an d B ENTON, Ci rcu it Ju dg es

.

__ __ __ __ __ __ LOKEN, Ci rcu it Ju dg e.

Bet ween Octo be r an d Decem be r 20 10
, in fo rm an t Co li n Dor s e y m ad e fo ur

co nt ro ll ed m et ha m

ph et am in e bu y s fro m Dan ie l Mi ll er at th e ho m e of Dan ie l an d hi s wife
, Reb ecca Mi ll er. W h e n M r

. M il le r was arre st ed an d in te rv ie wed in Feb ru ary 20 11
, he ad m it te d di st rib ut in g en ou gh m et ha m ph et am in e be twee n 20 04 an d 20 10 to fil l th e co nf

eren ce ro om in whi ch th e in te rv ie w was be in g co nd uc te d, rece iv in g as

m uc h as two ki lo gr am s pe r week fro m hi s su pp li ers

. In te rv ie wed th at sa m e da y , Mrs

. Mi ll er ad m it te d th at on se ve ral oc cas io ns sh e an d he r 17 -y ear- ol d so n as si st ed in th e di st rib ut io n of m et ha m

ph et am in e, in cl ud in g th ree oc cas io ns wh e n sh e rece iv ed

m on ey fro m Dors ey at t he Mi ll ers ’ ho m e.

Mr. and Mrs

. Mi ll er were ch arg ed wit h con sp ira cy to di st rib ut e 50 0 gra m s or

more of a m et ha m

ph et am in e m ix tu re in vi ol at io n of 21 U.S.C. §§ 84 1( a)(1 )
, (b )(1 )(A)(v ii i), a nd 84 6. Ba se d o n C ol in Dors ey ’s fo ur co nt ro ll ed bu y s, M r. Mi ll er

was ch arg ed wit h fou r co un ts of a id in g a nd ab et ti ng th e d is tri bu ti on of m or e th an 5

gr am s of act u a l meth am ph et am in e in vi ol at io n of 21 U.S.C. §§ 84 1( a)(1 ) an d ( b ) ( 1 ) ( B)(v ii i), an d 18 U.S.C. § 2. Mrs

. Mi ll er was ch arg ed wit h th ree co un ts o f
ai di ng an d ab et ti ng ba se d on th e th ree bu y s in whi ch sh e pa rti ci pa te d. A jury fo un d
th e Mi ll ers gu il ty on al l c o u n t s , e x cep t it fo un d Mrs

. Mi ll er gu il ty of co ns pi rin g to di st rib ut e on ly 50 gr am s or m or e of m et ha m ph et am in e. Mr. Mi ll er was se nt en ced to 36 0 m on th s i n pr is on

. Mrs

. Mi ll er was se nt en ced to 18 8 m on th s in pr is on

. Bo th

ap pe al

. Mrs . Mil le r arg ue s t he ev id en ce was in su ffi ci en t to su pp or t her con vi ct io n. Mr. Mi ll er arg ue s th e di st ric t co ur t erre d in de nyin g pr et ria l di sc ov ery req ue st s. Bo th
ch al le ng e a two -le ve l se nt en ci ng en ha nc em en t fo r mai n t ai ni ng th ei r ho m e fo r th e
pu rp os e of di st rib ut in g a co nt ro ll ed su bs ta nc e. W e reject th es e co nt en ti on s an d affi rm bo th co nv ic ti on s an d M r

. M i l le r’s se nt en ce. Mrs

. Mi ll er fu rth er arg ue s th e di st ric t

-2

-co ur t co m

m it te d pr o c ed ur al se nt en ci ng erro r in de te rm in in g th at he r ad vi so ry
gu id el in es se nt en c i n g ran ge was 18 8- 23 5 m on th s in pr is on

. W e ag ree wit h th is

co nt en ti on , vac at e Mrs . Mil le r’s se nt en ce, an d re m an d fo r res en te nc in g.

I. Su ffi ci ency of t he Ev id ence

Mrs

. Mi ll er arg ue s th e tri al ev id e n ce was in su ffi ci en t to pr ov e be y on d a

reas on ab le do ub t th at sh e ai de d or ab et te d t he di st rib ut io n o f m et ha m ph et am in e or in te nt io na ll y joi ne d a co ns pi racy to di st rib ut e 50 gr am s or m or e of m et ha m phe ta m in e.

“ W e rev ie w th e s u ffi ci en cy of th e ev id en ce de no vo , vi ewin g ev id en ce in th e li gh t

m os t fav or ab le to th e go ve rn m en t, res ol vi ng co nf li ct s in th e go ve rn m en t’s fav or , an d

acce pt in g al l reas on ab le in fere nc es th at su pp or t th e ve rd ic t.” Uni te d S ta te s v. Gue nt he r, 47 0 F .3d 74 5, 7 47 (8t h C ir. 2 00 6) (qu ot at io n o m it te d)

.

The go ve rn m en t i nt ro du ced ev id en ce t ha t on Octo be r 8, 2 01 0, Do rs ey cal le d
Mr. Mi ll er to pu rch as e m et ha m ph et am in e. Mr. Mi ll er to l d Dor se y to co m e to hi s ho m e. W he n Dor se y arri ve d, Mr. Mi ll er was no t ho m e. Dor se y cal le d Mr. Mi ll er, who to ld Dor se y to gi ve th e $9 00 pu rch as e m on ey to Mrs

. Mi ll er. W he n Dor se y ga ve Mrs . Mil le r th e m on ey , sh e sa id “ Oka y .” Dor se y ag ai n c al le d M r. Mi ll er, wh o s ai d
Dor se y wou ld fin d th e m e t h a mp h e t am in e in a sh oe on th e raft er of th e fro nt po rch

. Thi s bu y in vo lv ed 14 .7 gr am s of act ua l m et ha m ph et am in e in a m ix tu re weig hi ng 21 .8

gr am s. On Octo be r 20 , Do rs ey cal le d Mr. Mi ll er an d arra ng ed an ot he r bu y . W he n Dor se y arri ve d at th e Mi ll ers ’ re s id en ce, ne it he r Mr. Mi ll er no r Mrs

. Mi ll er was ho m e. Mrs

. Mi ll er an d th ei r 17 -y ear- ol d so n so on arri ve d. Dor se y cal le d Mr. Mi ll er, who to ld Dor se y to gi ve Mrs

. Mi ll er th e m on ey

. The Mi ll ers ’ so n th en ret rie ve d th e

m et ha m ph et am in e an d ga ve it to Dor se y

. Thi s bu y in vo lv ed 17 .7 gr am s of act ua l

m et ha m ph et am in e in a m ix tu re weig hi ng 21 .6 gr am s. On Decem be r 2, Dor se y cal le d
Mr. Mil le r an d se t up an ot he r bu y at Mr. Mil le r’s ho m e. W he n Dors ey arri ve d, Mr.
Mi ll er was no t h om e; Mrs

. Mi ll er an swe red th e do or

. Mr. Mi ll er to ld Dor se y by ph on e to gi ve th e m on ey to Mrs

. Mi ll er an d th en sa id D o r s e y w o u l d fin d th e

-3

-m et ha m

ph et am in e ab ov e a ba rb eq ue pi t on th e pr op ert y

. Thi s pu rch as e in vo lv ed 17 .5

gr am s of act ua l m et ha m

ph et am in e in a m ix tu re weig hi ng 26 .2 gr am s. In ad di ti on to ad m it ti ng rece iv in g m on ey fro m Dor se y in th es e th ree tra ns act io ns , Mrs

. Mi ll er ad m it te d th at ov er th e pr io r t welv e m on th s sh e ha d acce pt ed m on ey fo r

m et ha m ph et am in e fro m

two ot he r in di vi du al s at th e Mi ll ers ’ res id en ce.

The el em en ts of ai di ng an d ab et ti ng th e di st rib ut io n of a co nt ro ll ed su bs ta nc e

are: “ (1 ) t h e de fen da nt as so ci at ed he rs el f wit h th e un la wfu l ve nt ur e; (2 ) th e de fen da nt pa rti ci pa te d in it as so m et h i n g s h e w i s he d to br in g ab ou t; an d (3 ) th e de fen da nt so ug ht by he r act io ns to m ak e it su ccee d.” Uni te d St at es v. Ell efs on , 41 9
F.3 d 85 9, 86 3 (8 th Ci r. 20 05 ) (q uo ta ti on om it te d)

. Mrs

. Mi ll er arg ue s th e go ve rn m en t fai le d to pr ov e sh e po ss es se d th e ne ces sa ry in te nt to be gu il ty of ai di ng an d ab et ti ng

. Sh e fu rth er argu es th e go ve rn m en t fa il ed to est ab li sh an es se nt ia l elem en t of a dr ug

co ns pi racy offen se , t ha t sh e “ in te nt io na ll y joi ne d t he co ns pi racy.” Unit ed Sta te s v

. Ji m in ez, 48 7 F.3 d 11 40
, 11 46 (8 th Ci r. 20 07 ) (q uo ta ti on om it te d)

. W e di sa gr ee. B a s e d on Mrs

. Mi ll er’s ad m is si on s th at sh e acce pt ed m on ey fo r dr ug s on pr io r

oc cas io ns an d rece iv ed m on ey fro m Dor se y on th ree oc cas io ns whe n he cam e to he r ho m e an d le ft wit h m et ha m ph et am in e, a reas on ab le jury co ul d fin d sh e in te nt io na ll y
pa rti ci pa te d in co m

pl et in g th ree m et ha m

ph et am in e tra ns act io ns

. Thi s sa m e ev id en ce

was su ffi ci en t for t he jury to fin d b ey on d a reas on ab le do ub t t ha t M rs . Mil le r was a kn owi ng m em

be r of t h e c o n s pi racy, ev en if sh e pl ay ed a rel at iv el y m in or ro le

co m pa red to Mr. Mi ll e r. See Uni te d St at es v. Lop ez, 44 3 F.3 d 10 26
, 10 30 -3 1 (8 th
Ci r.) (en ba nc ), cert . den ie d, 5 49 U.S. 89 8 (2 00 6)

.

Alt ern at iv el y , Mrs

. Mi ll er arg ue s th ere was in su ffi ci en t ev id en ce to su pp or t th e jury’ s fin di ng th at sh e co ns pi red to di st r ib ut e 50 gr am s or m or e of a m ix tu re

co nt ai ni ng m et ha m

ph et am in e. W e di sa gr ee. Mrs

. Mi ll er pe rs on al ly pa rti ci pa te d in
th ree tra ns act io ns in vo lv in g a to ta l of m or e th an 50 gr am s of a m et ha m ph et am in e

m ix tu re. The se tra ns act io ns cl earl y were “ reas on ab ly fo res eeab le dr ug qu an ti ti es th at

were in th e sc op e of th e cri m in al act iv it y th at [s he ] joi nt ly un de rto ok .” Uni te d St at es

-4

-v. Fox x, 54 4 F.3d 94 3, 9 51 (8t h C ir. 20 08 ) (q uo ta ti on om it te d)
, cert

. de ni ed
, 13 0 S.

Ct . 91 (20 09 ).

II . Mr. Mil le r’s Dis co ve ry Mot io n

Thre e week s befo re tria l, Mr. Mi ll er fi le d a Mo ti on for Add it io na l Disc ov ery Reg ard in g Co op erat in g W it ne ss req ue st in g, in twen ty nu m be red su bp arag rap hs
, th at th e go ve rn m en t pr od uc e fo r in sp ect io n an d co pyin g a va rie ty o f do cu m en ts

co nc ern in g “ co op era t i n g ” an d “ pr os pe ct iv e go ve rn m en t” wit ne ss es

. The m ot io n rel ie d on Ru le 16 of th e Fed eral Ru le s o f Cri m in al Pro ced ur e an d on Brad y v. Mar y la nd
, 37 3 U.S. 83 (1 96 3)

. In res po ns e, th e go ve rn m en t ob jecte d to be in g

r e q ui red to di sc lo se it s wit ne ss es pr io r to tri al an d st at ed th at it wou ld p r o v i d e

ex cu lp at or y an d im

pe ach m en t ev id en ce th at it was req ui red to di sc lo se un de r Brad y

“ pr io r to cro ss -ex am in at io n of th e co op erat in g wit ne ss sh ou ld he /s he be cal le d as a wit ne ss ” a t t r i a l

. F ou r da y s be fo re tri al
, th e di st ric t co ur t gr an te d th e m ot io n in

su bs ta nt ia l pa rt, or de rin g th e go ve rn m en t to pr ov id e th e req ue st ed in fo rm at io n “ pr io r
to th e cro ss -ex am in at io n of th e wit ne ss .” The r e i s n o c o nt en ti on th e go ve rn m en t fai le d t o c om

pl y wit h t hi s d ire ct iv e.

On ap pe al
, Mr. Mi ll er ch al le ng es on e po rti on of th e di st ric t co ur t’s ru li ng , th e de ni al of hi s req ue st fo r th e “ cas e na m es an d nu m be rs of an y tri al s or ev id en ti ary he ari ng s at whi ch an y c o o p e r a t i ng wit ne ss ha s te st ifi ed .” He arg ue s th is ru li ng vi ol at ed Brad y , Ru le 16 (a)( 1) (E)(i ), an d th e Si xt h Am en dme nt ’s Co nf ro nt at io n Cl au se . This co nt en ti on is wit ho ut m eri t; in de ed , it was n ot pro pe rly pres erv ed

.

Ru le 16 (a)( 1) (E)(i ) pr ov id es th at , up on a de fen da nt ’s req ue st , th e go ve rn m en t

m us t pr od uc e fo r in sp ect io n an d co pyin g do cu m en ts “ m at eri a l t o pr ep ari ng th e de fen se

. ” In 19 75
, Co ng res s am en de d Ru le 16 to el im in at e a req ui rem en t th at th e
go ve rn m en t di sc lo se it s wit ne ss es pr io r to tri al

. See Pu b. L. 94 -6 4, § 3( 23 ), 89 St at

. 37 0, 37 5; Ru le 16 Adv is or y Co m m it te e Not es to th e 19 75 Ena ct m en t rel at in g to

-5

-Ru le s 16 (a)( 1) (E) an d (b )(1 )(C)

. Mr. Mi ll er’s pr et ria l di sc ov ery m ot io n was a th in ly- 1
di sg ui se d att em

pt to le arn th ro ug h di sc ov ery who th e go ve rn m en t was lik el y to cal l

as tri al wit ne ss es . Th e g ov ern m en t p ro pe rly ob jecte d, an d t he di st ric t co ur t d id no t ab us e it s di sc ret io n by or de rin g th e go ve rn m en t to pr ov id e di sc ov ery “ pr io r to cro ss

ex am in at io n” of an y co op erat in g wit ne ss at tri al

. See Uni te d St at es v. Ro ach
, 28 F.3 d
72 9, 73 4 (8 th Ci r. 19 94 ); Uni te d St at es v. Ro ge rs , 54 9 F.2 d 49 0, 49 4 & n.4 (8 th Ci r. 19 76 ), cert

. de ni ed
, 43 1 U.S. 91 8 (1 97 7) ; Uni te d St at es v. Tay lo r, 5 4 2 F.2 d 10 23
, 10 26 & n.1 (8 th Ci r. 19 76 ), cert

. de ni ed
, 42 9 U.S. 10 74 (1 9 7 7 )

. N o r w a s th is a vi ol a t i o n of th e go ve rn m en t’s ob li ga ti on s un de r Brad y

. “ Brad y is no t a di sc ov ery

ru le
, bu t a ru le of fai rn es s an d m in im um pr os ecu to ria l ob li ga ti on .” Uni te d St at es v. Krau th , 76 9 F .2d 47 3, 4 76 (8t h C ir. 1 98 5) (qu ot at io n o m it te d)

.

At tri al
, th e on ly co op erat in g wit ne ss who te st ifi ed was Co li n Dor se y

. Dor se y
te st ifi ed on di rect ex am in at io n th at he co op erat ed wit h th e go ve rn m en t in m ak in g th e

co nt ro ll ed bu y s aft er he was arre st ed fo r dr ug po ss es si on , th at he di d so in ex ch an ge fo r th e go ve rn m en t’s pr om is e to m ak e hi s co op erat io n kn own to th e lo cal di st ric t

at to rn ey , an d th at he was pa id fo r th es e effo rts an d ha d be en pa id by la w en fo rcem en t fo r w o r k o n o t he r pa st cas es

. Mr. Mi ll er cro ss -ex am in ed Dor se y fo r bi as , an d th e di st ric t co ur t in no way li m it ed th is cro ss ex am in at io n. Mr. Mi ll er m ad e no sh owi ng th at he was be in g de ni ed effe ct iv e cro ss -ex am in at io n, or hi s rig ht to co nf ro nt Dor se y , be cau se th e go ve rn m en t ha d fai le d to pr ov id e ex cu lp at or y or im pe ach m en t m at eri al s
req ui red ei th er by Brad y or by th e di st ric t co ur t’s di sc ov ery or de r. Thu s, he fai le d to

es ta bl is h a Br ad

y vio la tio n by showin g “ th e go ve rn m en t su pp res se d ev id en ce th at was f av or ab le to th e de fen da nt an d m at eri al ei th er to gu il t or to pu ni sh m en t.” U n i t e d
St at es v. Hep pn er, 5 1 9 F.3 d 74 4, 75 0 (8 th Ci r.), cert

. de ni ed
, 55 5 U.S. 90 9 (2 00 8)

. Mr. Mi ll er arg ue s th at al l pr io r cas es at whi ch a co op erat in g wit ne ss te st ifi ed m us t be

Thi s ha d be en th e ru le be fo re a 19 74 am en dm en t req ui red th e go ve rn m en t to 1 di sc lo se it s wit ne ss es be fo re tri al

. See Uni te d St at es v. Co le
, 45 3 F.2 d 90 2, 90 5 (8 th Ci r.), cert . den ie d, 4 06 U.S. 92 2 (1 97 2)

.
-6

-di sc lo se d be cau se an “ in fo rm an t ’s c oo pe rat io n

. . . su gg es ts a m ot iv e fo r hi m to

en ga ge in im

pr op er co nd uc t.” He ci te s no ci rcu it de ci si on ap pl y in g Brad y so br oa dl y

.

Mr. Mi ll er fu rth er arg ue s th at th e di st ric t co ur t ab us ed it s di sc ret io n by de nyin g hi s req ue st fo r pr od uc ti on of an y pr es en te nc e in ve st ig at io n rep or t (PSR ) pr ep ared fo r

a co op erat in g wit ne ss wit ho ut co n d uc ti ng an in ca mer a rev ie w to de te rm in e if it

co nt ai ne d im

pe ach m en t ev id en ce. In it s res po ns e to Mr. Mi ll er’s pr et ria l m ot io n, th e
go ve rn m en t st at ed it wou ld pr ov id e “ an y ev id en ce whi ch is co nt ai ne d in su ch a rep or t whi ch is req ui red to b e d i s c l o s e d un de r Brad y v. Mar y la nd

. . . pr io r to th e cro ss

ex am in at io n of an y wit ne ss to whi ch s u c h i mp e a ch m en t ev id en ce ap pl ie s.” Mr.
Mi ll er di d no t ren ew th is req ue st be fo re cro ss ex am ining Dor se y , th e on ly co op erat in g wit ne ss who te st ifi ed at tri al

. W e ha ve he ld th at a di st ric t co ur t sh ou ld co nd uc t an in

ca mer a rev ie w of a PSR if “ th e go ve rn m en t ha s reco gn iz ed th e po ss ib il it y th at th e PSR co nt ai ns Brad y

/Gi gl io in fo rm at io n an d req ue st ed in ca mer a rev ie w.” Uni te d
St at es v. Hug ga ns , 65 0 F.3 d 12 10
, 12 26 (8 th Ci r. 20 11 ) (q uo t at io n om it te d)
, cert

. de ni ed , 1 32 S. Ct . 1 58 3 (2 01 2)

. Bu t he re, ne it he r pa rty as ke d th e co ur t to rev ie w a PSR in ca mer a

. Mo reo ve r, to ob ta in acce ss to a n o t h e r pe rs on ’s PSR, a de fen da nt

m us t m ak e a “ sh owi ng of sp eci al ne ed .” Uni te d St at es v. Je well
, 61 4 F.3 d 91 1, 92 1 (8 th Ci r. 20 10 ) (q uo ta ti on om it te d)
, cert

. de ni ed
, 13 1 S. Ct

. 16 77 (2 01 1)

. As Mr.
Mi ll er m ad e n o s uc h s ho win g, t he re was no ab us e o f di sc ret io n.

II I. Th e “ Cra ck

Ho us e” Sente nci ng Enha ncement

M r

. a n d Mrs

. Mi ll er bo th arg ue th e di st ric t co ur t co m m it te d pr oc ed u r a l

se nt en ci ng erro r by im

po si ng a two -le ve l in crea se fo r “ m ai nt ai n[ in g] a pr em is es fo r th e pu rp os e of m an uf

act ur in g or di st rib ut in g a co nt ro ll ed s u b s t an ce.” U.S.S.G. § 2D1 .1(b )(1 2)

. W e rev ie w fact ua l fin di ng s th at th e Mi ll ers m ai nt ai ne d th e pr em is es fo r th e p ur

po se of di st rib ut in g m et ha m

ph et am in e fo r cl ear e rro r. See Un it ed Sta te s v. Ba ke r, 20 0 F .3d 55 8, 5 63 (8t h C ir. 2 00 0) (st an da rd of r ev ie w).

-7

-In th e Fai r Sen te nc in g Act of 20 10
, Co ng res s di rect ed th e Sen te nc in g

Co m m is si on to ad d a t wo- le ve l en ha nc em en t if “ th e de fen da nt m ai nt ai ne d an

es ta bl is hm en t fo r th e m an uf act ur e or di st rib ut io n of a co nt ro ll ed su bs ta n ce, as
ge ne ral ly de sc rib ed in se ct io n 41 6 of th e Co nt ro ll ed Su bs ta nc es Act (2 1 U.S.C. 85 6) .”
Pu b. L. No. 11 1- 22 0, § 6( 2)
, 12 4 St at

. 23 72
, 23 73 (2 01 0)

. Thi s st at ut e, co m m on ly
kn own a s t h e “ crac k- ho us e” st at ut e, m ak es it un la wfu l to “ kn owi ng ly op en , le as e,

ren t, us e, or m ai nt ai n an y pl ace, whe th er pe rm an en tl y or te m po rari ly, fo r th e pu rp os e of m an uf act u r i ng , di st rib ut in g, or us in g an y co nt ro ll ed su bs ta nc e.” 21 U.S.C. § 8 56 (a)( 1) ; s ee Un it ed Sta te s v . Vern ers , 53 F.3d 29 1, 2 93 (10 th Cir . 19 95 ). 2

On ap pe al
, Mr. Mi ll er arg ue s th ere was in su ffi ci en t ev id en ce he “ m ai nt ai ne d”
th e pr em is es fo r th e di st rib ut io n of co nt ro ll ed su bs ta nc es be cau se hi s us e of th e ho us e
to de li v e r met h a mph et am in e on fo ur oc cas io ns in la te 20 10 “ do es no t qu al ify as

m ai nt ai ni ng pr em is es fo r dr ug di st rib ut io n.” Am on g th e fact or s a co ur t co ns id ers in
de te rm in in g whe th er a de fen da nt “ m ai nt ai ne d” pr em is es fo r dr ug di st rib ut io n are (A)
whe th er he or sh e own ed or ren te d th e pr em is es , an d (B) th e ex te nt to whi ch he or sh e

co nt ro ll ed acce ss to , or act iv it ie s at , th e pr em is es

. § 2D1 .1, co m m en t. (n .28 ). “ W he re th e de fen da nt li ve s in th e ho us e, th is el em en t is no rm al ly eas il y pr ov ed .” Vern ers , 53
F.3 d a t 2 96 (ci ta ti on om it te d)

.

Here, th ou gh it is un cl ear who own ed th e pr em is es , Mr. an d Mrs

. Mi ll er li ve d
th ere, us ed th e ho m e as th ei r pr im ary res id en ce, an d co nt ro ll ed acce ss to th e pr op ert y

. In ad di ti on to th e fo ur co nt ro ll ed bu y s, th e go ve rn m en t pr es en te d ev id en ce Mr. Mi ll er ad m it te d th at he di st rib ut ed mas si ve qu an ti ti es of m et ha m ph et am in e be twee n 20 04

an d 20 10 , t ha t he to ld cu st om ers th ey wou l d f i n d th e m et ha m

ph et am in e in un us ua l
lo cat io ns su ch as be si de a fen ce po st an d he wou ld co ll ect th e pu rch as e pr ic e at a la te r

Pri or to 20 03 , § 85 6( a)(1 ) m ad e it un la wfu l t o “ kn owi ng ly ope n o r m ai nt ai n 2

an y pl ace fo r th e pu rp os e of m an uf act ur in g, d i s tri bu ti ng , or us in g an y co nt ro ll ed

su bs ta nc e.” The 20 03 am en dm en t d id no t af fect th e is su e in th is cas e.

-8

-ti m e, an d th at he k e p t l ed ge rs wit h th e na m es an d lo cat io ns of su pp li ers an d

cu st om ers th at th e go ve rn m en t reco ve red an d pr es en te d at tr i a l

. O n Octo be r 22
, 20 10
, Mr. Mi ll er rep or te d to lo cal la w en fo rcem en t of fic ers th at so m eo ne ha d pl an te d

te n gr am s of m et ha m

ph et am in e in hi s ho m e an d tri ed to co nv in ce th e of fic ers to us e hi m as a co nf

id en ti al in fo rm an t, cl ai m in g to kn ow ev ery dr ug de al er in th e area

. The
di st ric t co ur t di d no t cl earl y err in fin di ng th at Mr. Mi ll er “ m ai nt ai ne d” th e pr em is es fo r dr ug di st rib ut io n.

Mrs

. Mi ll er ar g u e s t h a t sh e di d no t m ai nt ai n th e ho m e “ fo r th e pu rp os e of ”
di st rib ut in g c on tro ll ed su bs ta nc es . App li cat io n No te 28 to § 2 D1.1 in st ru ct s t ha t

Man uf act ur in g or di st rib ut in g a co nt ro ll ed su bs ta nc e ne ed no t be th e

so le pu rp os e fo r whi ch th e pr em is es was m ai nt ai ne d, bu t m us t be on e of th e d e f e nd an t’s pr im ary or pr in ci pa l us es fo r th e pr em is es , rat he r th an

on e of th e de fen da nt ’s in ci de nt al or co ll at eral us es fo r th e pr em is es

. In

m ak in g th is de te rm in at io n, th e co ur t sh ou ld co ns id er ho w freq ue nt ly th e pr em is es was us ed by th e de fen da nt fo r m an uf act ur in g or di st rib ut in g a

co nt ro ll ed su bs ta nc e an d ho w f req ue nt ly the pre m is es was u se d b y th e de fen da nt for lawf

ul pu rp os es

.

Fo cu si ng on th e freq ue nc y -o f-u se fact or an d he r m in im al ro le i n he r hu sb an d’s
cri m in al en te rp ris e, Mrs

. Mi ll er arg ue s th at he r pr im ary us e of th e pr em is es was as a fam il y h om e, whe re sh e res id ed wit h he r hu sb an d an d rai se d el ev en ch il dr en , th ei r

own an d c hi ld ren of M r. Mi ll er’s s is te rs

.

W e as su m e th at § 2D1 .1(b )(1 2)
, li ke th e 21 U.S.C. § 85 6( a)(1 ) of fen se th at it

pa ral le ls , req ui res pr oo f th at th e sp eci fic de fen da nt be in g s en te nc ed m ai nt ai ne d t he

pr em is es “ fo r th e pu rp os e of ” dr ug m an uf act ur e or di st rib ut io n. “ It is no t su ffi ci en t th at ot he rs po ss es s t he req ui si te pu rp os e.” Uni te d S ta te s v . Pay to n, 6 36 F.3d 10 27
, 10 43 ( 8 t h Ci r.) (q uo ta ti on om it te d)
, cert

. de ni ed
, 13 2 S. Ct

. 34 9 (2 01 1)

. Howev er,

c o n si st en t wit h de ci si on s ap pl y in g § 85 6, App li cat io n Not e 28 pr ov id es th at d r u g

-9

-man u f

a ct ur in g or di st rib ut io n ne ed on ly be “ on e of th e de fen da nt ’s pr im ary or
pr in ci pa l us es fo r th e pr em is es , rat he r th an on e of th e de fen da nt ’s in ci de nt al or

co ll at eral us es fo r th e pr em is es .” Here, the re was di rect ev id en ce M rs . Mil le r us ed
th e pr em is es fo r th e pu rp os e of act iv el y pa rti ci pa ti ng in at le as t th ree co nt ro ll ed bu y s

on th e pr op ert y , an d sh e ad m it te d acce pt in g pa y m en ts th at sh e kn ew were fo r

m et ha m ph et am in e pu rch as es on ot he r oc cas io ns

. In two of th e co nt ro ll ed bu y s, Mrs

. Mi ll er’s te en ag e so n he lp ed de li ve r th e m et ha m ph et am in e t o p ur ch as er Dor se y

. The se dr ug di st rib ut io n act iv it ie s were m or e th an an “ in ci de nt al or co ll at eral ” us e of
th e p rem is es by Mrs. Mi ll er.

W e are so m ewh at ba ffl ed by App li cat io n Not e 28 ’s in st ru ct io n to co m pa re th e freq ue nc y of la wfu l an d un la wfu l u s e s i n th is type of cas e. W he n th e pr em is es in

qu es ti on was t he de fen da nt ’s fam il y ho m e, by defi ni ti on it was us ed fo r th at lawf ul

pu rp os e 10 0% of th e ti me. Yet Co ng res s in en act in g § 85 6 an d in di rect in g th e Co m m is si on to ad op t § 2D1 .1(b )(1 2) su rel y in te nd ed to de te r th e m an uf a c t ur e an d
di st rib ut io n of il le ga l dr ug s in “ crac k ho us es ” whe re ch il dr en are be in g rai se d. Thu s,
pr io r de ci si on s ha ve up he ld § 85 6 co nv ic ti on s whe re de fen da nt us ed th e pr em is es in

qu es ti on as a pr im ary res id en ce as well as fo r su bs ta nt ia l dr ug tra ffi ck in g. See Uni te d
St at es v. Sh et le r, 66 5 F.3 d 11 50
, 11 63 (9 th Ci r. 20 11 ); Uni te d St at es v. McC ul lo ug h,
45 7 F.3 d 11 50
, 11 61 (1 0t h Ci r. 20 06 ), cert

. de ni ed
, 54 9 U.S. 11 36 (2 00 7) ; Uni te d
St at es v. C h u r c h
, 9 7 0 F.2 d 40 1, 40 6 (7 th Ci r. 19 92 ), cert

. de ni ed
, 50 6 U.S. 10 65 (1 99 3)

. Lik ewis e, we c on cl ud e, § 2D1 .1(b )(1 2) ap pl ie s whe n a de fen da nt us es th e
pr em is es fo r th e pu rp os e of su bs t an ti al dr ug -tr affi ck in g act iv it ie s, ev en if th e
pr em is es was al so he r fam il y ho m e at th e ti m es in qu es ti on

. Thu s, the di st ric t cou rt di d no t cl earl y err in fin di ng th at Mrs

. Mi ll er’s us e of th e pr em is es fo r th e di st rib ut io n of m et ha m ph et am in e warra nt ed a two -le ve l i nc reas e u nd er § 2D1 .1(b )(1 2)

.

-1 0-IV. Mrs . Mil le r’s Advi so ry Gui del in es Rang e

Mrs . Mil le r’s in it ia l PSR st at ed th at th e of fen se co nd uc t was thre e co nt ro ll ed
bu y s by a co nf

id en ti al in fo rm an t (Do rs ey ) an d th e rel ev an t co nd uc t was a fo ur th bu y ,
res ul ti ng in a ba se of

fe n s e l e v e l o f 32 ba se d on 64 to ta l gr am s of act ua l

m et ha m ph et am in e. Dan ie l Mi ll er’s in it ia l PSR li ke wis e reco m m en de d a ba se of

fen se le ve l of 32 ba se d on 64 gr am s of act ua l m et ha m ph et am in e, wit h al l fo u r c o nt ro ll ed
bu y s be in g of

fen se co nd uc t fo r Dan ie l. The go ve rn m en t ob jecte d th at Dan ie l’s ba se of fen se le ve l sh ou ld be 38 be cau se he ad m it te d di st rib ut in g m or e th an 15 ki lo gr am s of m et ha m

ph et am in e ov er a le ng th y pe rio d. The go ve rn m en t ob jecte d th at Mrs

. Mi ll er’s ba se of

fen se le ve l sh ou ld al so be 38 be cau se “ sh e was co nv ic te d as a pa rt of
th e sa m e co ns pi racy as Mr. Mi ll er.” Mrs

. Mi ll er ob jecte d th at th e fo ur th bu y sh ou ld

no t be in cl ud ed in h e r d ru g qu an ti ty. The pr ob at io n of fic er ag reed wit h th e
go ve rn m en t. Howev er, th e rev is ed PSR m is ta ke nl y li st ed a ba se of fen se le ve l of 38

“ ba se d on a to ta l of 64 gr am s of act ua l m et ha m ph et am in e,” rat he r th an on m or e th an 15 ki lo gr am s of m et ha m

ph et am in e. The rev is ed PSR reject ed Mrs

. Mi ll er’s ob jecti on
to in cl ud in g t he fou rth bu y be cau se sh e was “ co nv ic te d o f a co ns pi racy char ge .”

The rev is ed PSR al so reco m m en de d th e two -le ve l in crea se un d er § 2D1 .1(b )(1 2) pr ev io us ly di sc us se d, a two -le ve l in crea se un de r § 3B 1.4 fo r us in g he r

m in or so n to co m

m it th e of

fen se , an d no ad

jus tm en t fo r ro le in th e of fen se

. Mrs

. Mi ll er ob jecte d to bo th in crea se s an d ur ge d a fo ur -le ve l red uc ti o n b ecau se sh e was

a m in im al pa rti ci pa nt in th e co ns pi racy un de r § 3 B1 .2(a ).

At se nt en ci ng , th e di st ric t co ur t ru le d on th es e rev is io ns an d ob jecti on s ba se d

on th e tri al reco rd

. The co ur t up he ld th e rev is ed ba se of fen se le ve l of

38 . W it ho ut

m ak in g a sp eci fic qu an ti ty fin di ng or no ti ng th at th e rev is ed PSR’s to ta l of 64 gr am s of act ua l m et ha m

ph et am in e is lev el 32 , no t l ev el 38 , th e co ur t o bs erv ed :

-1 1-Th e co ns pi racy was m or e th an jus t th e co un ts as su ch

. It co ve red th e

who le ran ge of cri m in al co nd uc t un de r wha t we cal l “ rel ev an t co nd uc t.” So th e co ur t ru le d th at Mrs

. Mi ll er was co nv ic te d of co ns pi racy. Sh e sh ou ld be ch arg ed wit h t he en ti re am ou nt of t ho se dru gs

.

The co ur t t he n re

jecte d M rs . Mil le r’s ob

jecti on to in cl ud in g t he fou rth bu y be cau se

“ y ou were co nv ic te d of a co ns pi racy an d a co ns pi racy co ve rs th e en ti re ran ge of

co nd uc t.” Ho wev er, t he co ur t gr an te d a fo ur -le ve l red uc ti on , f in di ng Mrs . Mil le r a

m in im al pa rti ci pa nt in th e co ns pi racy, an d reject ed a two -le ve l in crea se for us e o f a

m in or in co m

m it ti ng th e of

fen se be cau se “ Mr. Mi ll er was m or e in vo lv ed in th e u se of y ou r so n th at y ou were.” The se fin di ng s res ul te d in a to ta l of fen se le ve l of 36 an d,
wit h a cri m in al hi st or y cat eg or y of I, an ad vi so ry gu id el in es ran ge of 18 8- 23 5 m on th s in pr is on

. The co ur t se nt en ced Mrs

. Mi ll er to th e bo tt om of th at ran ge , 18 8 m on th s.

Thi s reco rd pr es en ts two pr oc ed ur al se nt en ci ng is su es th at le ad us to co nc lu de

we sh ou ld rem an d fo r res en te nc in g. Fi rs t, it ap pe ars no on e at se nt en ci ng reco gn iz ed
th at th e di st ric t co ur t’s fin di ng th at Mrs

. Mi ll er was en ti tl ed to a fo ur -le ve l m in im al

ro le ad jus tm en t br ou gh t in to pl ay an am en dm en t to th e “ m it i g a t i n g r ol e cap ” in § 2D1 .1(a )(5 ) m an da te d by th e Fai r Sen te nc in g Act of 20 10 : “ If th e res ul ti ng of fen se le ve l is gr eat er th an le ve l 32 [aft er a § 3B 1.2 m it ig at in g r ol e ad jus tm en t] an d th e de fen da nt rece iv es th e 4- le ve l (“ m in im al pa rti ci pa nt ”) red uc ti on in § 3B 1.2 (a),
de crea se [th e ba se of

fen se le ve l] to le ve l 32 .” See U.S.S.G. App

. C, Vol

. III, Am en d.
74 8, at p.3 82 (2 01 1) ; Pu b. L. No. 11 1- 22 0, § 7( 1)
, 12 4 St at

. 23 72
, 23 74 (2 01 0)

. Here,
th e PSR reco m

m en de d no ro le ad

jus tm en t, so it di d no t co ns id er § 2D1 .1(a )(5 ). Mrs

. Mi ll er in ur gi ng a m in im al ro le ad jus tm en t di d no t br in g th e m it ig at in g ro le cap to th e di st ric t co ur t’s at te nt io n, ev en aft er th e co ur t an no un ced at se nt en ci ng it was gr an ti ng th e ad jus tm en t. Bec au se th e co ur t st a r t e d w i t h a ba se of fen se le ve l of 38
, it
de te rm in ed th at Mrs

. Mi ll er’s to ta l of fen se le ve l was 36 aft er th e ad jus tm en t (an d th e
pr em is es en ha nc em en t). Eve n un de r pl ai n erro r rev ie w, th e fai lu re to ap pl y am en de d § 2D1 .1(a )(5 ) res u l t e d i n a n erro ne ou s ap pl ic at io n of th e Gui de li ne s th at m ay ha ve

-1 2-su bs ta nt ia ll y in crea se d Mrs

. Mi ll er’s ad vi so ry gu id el in es ran g e, m ak in g rem an d

ap pr op ria te . See Un it ed Sta te s v . Jac ks on , 41 0 F .3d 93 9, 9 41 -4 2 (7 th Cir . 20 05 ).

Seco nd , t he co nf

us ed se nt en ci ng reco rd le av es u s w i t h do ub t co nc ern in g th e di st ric t co ur t’s dr ug qu an ti ty fin di ng

. The di st ric t co ur t co r r ect ly ru le d th at , in
de te rm in in g th e ba se of

fen se le ve l f

o r h er dr ug co ns pi racy of fen se , Mrs

. Mi ll er is

res po ns ib le fo r “ al l reas on ab ly fo res eeab le act s an d om is si on s of ot he rs in fu rt he ran ce of th e joi nt ly u nd ert ak en cri m in al act iv it y .” U.S.S.G. § 1B 1.3 (a)( 1) (B), ex pl ai ni ng Rel ev an t Co nd uc t pr in ci pl e s th at un de rly Gui de li ne s se nt en ci ng

. Howev er, “ th e

em ph as is un de r § 1 B1 .3 i s th e sc op e of th e in di vi du al de fe nd an t’s un de rta ki ng an d
fo res eeab il it y in li gh t of th at un de rta ki ng , rat he r th an th e sc op e of th e co ns pi racy as

a who le .” Uni te d St at es v. Sp ot te d Elk
, 54 8 F.3 d 64 1, 67 4 (8 th Ci r. 20 08 ) (em ph as is
in or ig in al ), cert

. de ni ed
, 55 6 U.S. 11 45
, 11 94
, 12 65 (2 00 9) ; se e § 1B 1.3
, co m m en t. (n .2). The refo re, be fo re at tri bu ti ng dr ug tra ns act ions cond uc te d by ot he r co ns pi rat or s
to th e d efen da nt , th e se nt en ci ng co ur t m us t fi nd th at th e tr an sa ct io ns were

in fu rth eran ce of th e co ns pi racy an d ei th er kn own to th a t d efen da nt or

reas on ab ly fo res eeab le to [h er]. Fact or s rel ev an t to fo res eeab i l i t y i nc lu de whe th er th e de fen da nt be ne fit ed fro m [h er] co -co ns pi rat o r ’s
act iv it ie s an d whe th er [s he ] de m on st rat ed a su bs ta nt ia l le ve l of

co m m it m en t t o t he co ns pi racy.

Uni te d St at es v. Bro wn, 14 8 F.3 d 10 03
, 10 08 (8 th Ci r. 19 98 ) (ci ta ti on om it te d)
, cert

. de ni ed
, 52 5 U.S. 11 69 (1 99 9)

. The ex te nt to whi ch sp eci fic fin di ng s are req ui red wil l

o f c o ur se va ry wit h th e ci rcu m st an ces su rro un di ng a pa rti cu la r de fen da nt an d h e r

co ns pi racy offen se

.

In th is cas e, th e dr ug q u a n t i t y i n t he in it ia l PSR was 64 gr am s of act ua l

m et ha m ph et am in e so ld to Dor se y in fo ur co nt ro ll ed bu y s ov er a th ree- m on th pe rio d.
Mrs

. Mi ll er ob

jecte d to in cl ud in g th e fo ur th bu y as rel ev an t co nd uc t. The di st ric t

co ur t’s ov erru li ng of th at ob jecti on req ui red no th in g m or e th an a crypti c refe ren ce to

-1 3-th e co ns pi racy n a t u r e o f he r of fen se

. Bu t th e rev is ed PSR ha d in crea se d th e ba se of fen se le ve l fro m 32 to 38
, acce pt in g th e go ve rn m en t’s ob jecti on th at Mrs

. Mi ll er’s
ba se of fen se le ve l sh ou ld be ba se d up on Mr. Mi ll er’s bo as tfu l ad m is si on s th at he
di st rib ut ed m or e th an 15 ki lo gr am s of m et ha m ph et am in e du rin g th e co ur se of hi s si xy ear co ns pi racy. No do ub t m or e th an 64 gr am s of act ua l m et ha m ph et am i n e c o u ld

reas o n a b l y b e at tri bu te d to Mrs

. Mi ll er. Not on ly was sh e Mr. Mi ll er’s wife who
li ve d wit h hi m in pr em is es t h e y us ed fo r dr ug di st rib ut io n, sh e al so ad m it te d

acce pt in g m on ey fo r m et ha m ph et am in e fro m two ot he r in di vi du al s in th e pr io r y ear. Bu t th e go ve rn m en t as se rte d sh e was res po ns ib le fo r th e en ti re 15 ki lo gr am s si m pl y be cau se sh e “ w a s c o n v i c te d as a pa rt of th e sa m e co ns pi racy as Mr. Mi ll er.” Thi s

was co nt rary to well -es ta bl is he d Eig ht h Ci rcu it pr eced en t. See Sp ot te d Elk
, 54 8 F.3 d

at 67 4 (“ a de fen da nt ’s co nv ic ti o n f o r c o n sp ira cy do es no t au to m at ic al ly m ean th at

ev ery co ns pi rat or ha s fo res een th e to ta l qu an ti ty of dr ug s in vo lv ed in th e en ti re

co ns pi racy”); Uni te d St at es v. Ro ge rs , 98 2 F.2 d 12 41
, 12 45 -4 6 (8 th Ci r.) (rem an di ng be cau se th e di st ric t co ur t at tri bu te d al l qu an ti ti es im pl ic at ed in th e co ns pi racy ba se d

so le ly on d efen da nt ’s con sp ira cy co nv ic ti on ), cert . den ie d, 5 09 U.S. 91 2 (1 99 3)

.

Our un cert ai nt y is am

pl ifi ed be cau se th e rev is ed PSR in crea se d th e ba se of fen se le ve l fro m 32 to 38 wit ho ut rev is in g t h e d r u g q ua nt it y fro m 64 gr am s of

a c t u a l m et ha m

ph et am in e to 15 ki lo gr am s of m et ha m ph et am in e. In up ho ld in g th e

r e v i s e d b a s e of

fen se le ve l, th e di st ric t co ur t m ad e no refe ren ce to dr ug qu an ti ty. It
si m pl y fo un d: “ Mrs

. Mi ll er was co nv ic te d of co ns pi racy. Sh e sh ou ld be ch arg ed wit h
th e en ti re am ou nt of th os e dr ug s

. ” As th e on ly rel ev an t co nd uc t is su e th e co ur t

ex pl ic it ly co ns id ered was to de ny Mrs

. Mi ll er’s ob jecti on to in cl ud in g th e fo ur th bu y , th e reco rd le av es in do ub t whe th er th e co ur t was aware th at th is crypti c co m m en t

res ul te d in a th irt y -fo ld in crea se in th e dr ug qu an ti ty fin di ng , ba se d pr im ari ly on Mr. 3
Mi ll er’s act iv it ie s, an d de sp it e th e jury’ s fin di ng of a le ss er qu an ti ty th an ch arg ed in
th e in di ct m en t an d th e co ur t’s gr an t of a m in im al ro le ad jus tm en t. In th es e

Co m pa re § 2D1 .1(c )(1 ) wit h § 2D1 .1(c )(4 ). 3

-1 4-ci rcu m st an ces , we co nc lu de th at th e in te res ts of jus ti ce are well -s erv ed by a rem an d

fo r res en te nc in g fo ll ow i n g a r ed et erm in at io n of Mrs

. Mi ll er’s ad vi so ry gu id el in es

ran ge

. Thi s se em s pa rti cu la rly ap pr op ria te be cau se , t h e d a y aft er Mrs

. Mi ll er’s

se nt en ci ng , th e di st ric t co ur t in se nt en ci ng Mr. Mi ll er ad op te d hi s arg um en t fo r ba se of fen se le ve l 32
, wit ho ut a sp eci fic dr ug qu an ti ty fin di ng , in or de r to red uc e hi s ad vi so ry gu id el in es ran ge fro m li fe to 36 0 m on th s- to -li fe. W he th er th is was a red uc ed dr ug qu an ti ty fin di ng or a de fa ct o do wnwar d va r i a nc e is in ou r vi ew

un im po rta nt

. It si m

pl y rei nf or ces ou r vi ew th at , in th is po st -Bo ok er wor ld
, a rem an d
fo r res en te nc in g i n t hi s ca se is ne ed ed

.

Fo r th e fo reg oi ng reas on s, we affi rm Dan ie l Mi ll er’s co nv ic ti on an d se nt en ce. W e affi rm Reb ecca Mi ll er’s co nv ic ti on , va cat e he r se nt en ce, an d rem an d to th e di st ric t co ur t fo r res en te nc in g n ot in co ns is te nt wit h t hi s o pi ni on

.

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

-1 5-