A ft erexami ni ng t he br i efs and appe l l at e r ecor d, t hi s panel has det er m i ned * unani m ous l yt o honort he part i es ’ r eques tfora dec i s i on on t he br i efs w i t houtor al a rg u m e n t. See F ed . R . A p p . P . 3 4 (f); 10 th C ir . R . 3 4 . 1 (G ). T h e c ase is th ere fo re s ubm i t t ed w i t houtor al ar gum ent . T hi s or derand j udgm enti s notbi ndi ng pr ece dent , exce ptundert he doctr i nes of l aw of t he ca s e, r es j udi cat a, and col l at er al es t oppel . T he courtgener al l ydi s favor s t he ci t at i on of or der s and j udgm ent s ; nevert hel es s , an or derand j udgm entm aybe ci t ed undert he t er m s and condi t i ons of 10t h C i r . R . 36. 3. 

## F I LED United States C ourt of Appeals Tenth Circuit 

### Ju ly18,2006 Elisab eth A. Shumaker C l erk of C ourt UNI TED S TATES CO URT O F AP PEALS

T E N T H C IR C U IT UNI T E D S T AT E S OF AM E RI CA ,

Pl ai nt i ff - A ppel l ee, N os . 05- 7063 and 05- 7069 v . E. D. Ok l a h o ma J E RE M Y WAYNE S T ANL E Y,

D e fe n d a n t - A p p e llan t. ( D . C. N o. 05 - CR - 3- P)

ORDE R AND J UDGM EN T * B efor e HA RTZ , EBEL , and TY M KOVI CH , C i rcui tJudg es. J er emy W ayne St anl eyw as char ged i n a thr ee- counti ndi ct m entw i t h ( 1) p o s s e s s io n w ith in te n t to d is tr ib u te m e th a m p h e ta m in e , s ee 2 1 U . S . C . § 8 4 1 (a)(1), (b )( 1 )( C ); (2 ) p o s s e s s io n o f a m a c h in e g u n , s ee 18 U . S. C . § 922( o) ; and ( 3) p o s s e s s io n o f

a fir e a rm d u ri n g th e c o m m is s io n o f a d ru g -t ra ffic k in g c ri m e , s ee id . § 924( c) ( 1) ( B ) ( i i ) . A j ur yfound hi m gui l t yon al l t hr ee c ount s , and he w as-2-

s ent ence d t o 372 m ont hs i n pr i s on. O n appea l he cont ends t hat( 1) hi s duepr oces s r i ghtt o pr es enta defens e w as deni ed bya w i t nes s ’ s r efus al t o t es t i fy ; and ( 2) t her e w as i ns uffi ci entevi dence t o s uppor tt he j ur y ’ s ver di cton t he § 924( c) count . W e affi r m , hol di ng t hata defendant ’ s r i ghtt o a fa i rt r i al does noti ncl ude t he r i ghtt o for ce a w i t nes s t o w ai ve hi s pr i vi l ege a gai ns ts el f- i ncr i m i nat i on, and th a t th e re w a s s u ffic ie n t e v id e n c e to s u p p o rt th e § 9 2 4 (c ) c h a rg e . I . BA CKGROUND A ft erJ ames G l odr eyw as arr es t ed on drug char ges , O ffi cerJ ohn B ynum of t he W apanuc ka Pol i ce D epart m entappr oache d hi m aboutcooper at i ng w i t h t he pol i ce. A ccor di ng t o G l odr ey ’ s t r i al t es t i m ony , O ffi cerB ynum t ol d hi m t hat“i f I w o u ld w o rk w ith th e m , . . . h e w o u ld m a k e a ll o f m ytro u b les d isa p p e a r.” R . V o l. I I at197. G l odr eyagr eed t o cooper at e and ga ve O ffi cerB ynum t he name of J e re m yS ta n le y , f

ro m w h o m h e h a d b o u g h t d ru g s o n a n u m b e r o f o c c a s io n s . A contr ol l ed buyw as conduct ed atM r . St anl ey ’ s hom e on Sept ember 11, 2004. T he off

i cer s w at ched f

r om abouta bl ock aw ayas G l odr eyw entt o t he hous e t o pur chas e drugs . M r . St anl eyw as s t andi ng out s i de hi s hom e hol di ng a bag w hen G l odr eyarr i ved. H e putt he bag dow n, s ay i ng, “‘ C heck thatout . ’ ” R . V ol . I I at210. G l odr eyopened the bag a nd s aw t hati tcont ai ned a machi ne gun. T he tw o t hen w enti nt o M r . St anl ey ’ s hom e ( w i t h M r . St anl eycarr y i ng t he b a g c o n t a i n i n g t h e g u n ) . Gl o d r e yt e s t i fi e d t h a tM r . S t a n l e ys h o we d h i m s o me cl i ps cont ai ni ng amm uni t i on fort he gun, butneverl oaded i t ; M r . St anl ey-3-

“[p] ul l ed up the fr ontof hi s pant s and s tuck [the gun] i n i t . . . . H e s ai d t hatt he cops had bee n dr i vi ng byt hatdayand he w as ki nd of w or r i ed aboutt hatand the fi r s tone i n t he doorget s 1200 r ounds a mi nut e. ” R . V ol . I I at216. G l odr ey pur chas ed a “ s i xt eenth” of met hamphet ami ne for$100, and then l eftw i t h t he drugs and r etur ned t o t he pol i ce s t at i on, w her e he t ol d t he off i cer s w hathad o c c u rr e d . M r. S ta n le yw a s lo c a te d a n d a rr e s te d tw o d a y s la te r. O n the eve o f t ri al M r. S t anleyfi l ed a m oti on t o d i sm i ss the ch arges agai nst him , con t end i ng “t hat he can n ot be afforded a fai r and i m part i al t ri al ” beca use B ynum had i nfor m ed the part i es t hathe w oul d i nvoke hi s pr i vi l ege a gai ns ts el fi ncr i m i nat i on i f ca l l ed t o t es t i fy . R . V ol . I D oc. 38. T he mot i on not ed that B yn u m w a s n o lo n g e r a la w -e n fo rc e m e n t o ffic e r, “ c u rr e n tly sta n d s c h a rg e d . . . w i t h t w o fel onycount s r el at i ng t o hi s act i vi t i es i n drug cas es w hi l e empl oy ed as W apanuc ka Pol i ce Chi ef, ” and ha d pr evi ous l ybeen pl ace d on pr obat i on for “I ndece ntE xpos ur e . . . , w hi ch i s a cr i m e of mora l turpi tude. ” Id . B ynum w as exami ned byt he courtout s i de the pr es ence of t he j ur yand, on t he advi ce of couns el , i nvoked hi s Fi ft h A m endment pr i vi l ege. A not herhear i ng w as hel d aft er t he governm entr es t ed i t s cas e, and B ynum agai n as s er t ed thathe w oul d i nvoke h is F if th A m e n d m e n t p riv ileg e if c a lled to tes tify . N e ith e r sid e a rg u e d th a t h e d id nothave the r i ghtt o do s o. B ynum w as notcal l ed t o t he s t and, and M r . St anl ey w a s c o n v ic te d o n a ll c h a rg e s .-4-

I I . DI S CU S S I ON A . R i gh t t o p resent a d efense M r . St anl eycont ends t hathi s due pr oces s r i ghtt o pr es enta defens e w as vi ol at ed byB ynum ’ s r efus al t o t es t i fy , w hi ch “pr event ed the D efe ndantfr om s how i ng t o t he j ur yt hat[B ynum ] w as char ged w i t h fel onycount s of gr and l ar cenyand embezzl ement ” and of “fa l s el yr epor t i ng a cr i m e, and pr obat i on for in d e c e n t ex p o su re .” A p lt. B r. at 1 2 . H e a ss e rts th a t th e a lleg e d m isc o n d u c t is “r el evantt o B ynum ’ s char act erand conduc tas an off i cerentrus t ed t o enfor ce the l aw , ” and “ t o B ynum ’ s deal i ngs w i t h i nfor m antJ ames G l odr ey . ” Id . at12- 13.

“ A c rim in a l d e fe n d a n t’s rig h t to p re se n t a d e fe n se is e ss e n tial to a fa ir t r i al . ” Uni t ed Stat es v. Ser r ano , 406 F. 3d 1208, 1214 ( 10t h C i r . 2005) . “The Fi ft h . . . and Si xt h A m endment s concomi t ant l ypr ovi de a c r i m i nal defe ndantt he r i ghtt o pr es enta defens e bycompel l i ng t he att endanc e, and pr es ent i ng t he t es t i m ony , of hi s ow n w i t nes s es . ” Id . at1215. B utt hi s r i ght“i s notabs ol ut e. ” Id . “The r i ghtt o pr es enta defens e . . . does notdi s pl ace t r adi t i onal t es t i m oni al p ri v il eg es. . . . S ev era l cou rt s o f a p p ea l, there fo re, ha v e h eld th at a d efen d an t’ s r i ghtt o pr es enta defens e does noti ncl ude the r i ghtt o compel a w i t nes s t o w ai ve hi s Fi ft h A m endment pr i vi l ege a gai ns ts el f i ncr i m i nat i on. ” Id . ( i nt ernal ci t at i ons o m itte d ). I n t hi s cas e M r . St anl eyconce ded thatB ynum had a r i ghtt o i nvoke the p riv ileg e , an d th e re is n o a lleg a tio n th a t th e c o u rt o r th e p ro se c u tio n im p ro p e rly-5-

in flu e n c e d B yn u m ’s d e c is io n . S e e id ., a t 1 2 1 5 -1 6 (rig h t to p re se n t a d e fe n se is viol at ed w hen “t he g ov ernm ent . . . subst anti al l yi nter fere[s] w i t h a d efen se w itn e ss ’s d e c isio n to tes tify .”). W e c o n c lu d e , the re fo re , tha t B yn u m ’s r e f u sa l to te s tif yd id n o t d e p ri v e M r. S ta n le yo f th e ri g h t to p re s e n t a d e fe n s e . B . I nsuffi ci ent E vi dence N ex t, M r. S tanleyco n tend s tha t th ere w as in su ffici en t evid en ce fo r t h e jury t o convi cthi m on t he § 924( c) char ge. W e r evi ew t hi s cl ai m de novo, “vi ew i ng t he evi dence and the r eas onabl e i nfer ence s t o be dr aw n t her efr om i n t he l i ght m os tfavor abl e t o t he governm ent , ” and r ever s i ng t he convi ct i on “onl yi f no r at i onal t r i erof fa ctcoul d have found t he es s ent i al el ement s of t he cr i m e bey ond a r eas onabl e doubt . ” Uni t ed Stat es v. Tol es , 297 F. 3d 959, 968 ( 10t h C i r . 2002) (i n terna l qu o tat ion m ark s o m itted). Sect i on 924( c) ( 1) ( A ) pr ovi des puni s hm entforanyper s on w ho ( 1) “dur i ng and i n r el at i on t o any. . . drug t r aff i cki ng cr i m e . . . us es orcarr i es a fi r earm , ” or (2 ) “ in f u rt h e ra n c e o f

a n ys u c h c ri m e , p o s s e s s e s a fir e a rm .” See Uni t ed Stat es v. L o tt , 310 F. 3d 1231, 1246 ( 10t h C i r . 2002) . Subse ct i on ( c) ( 1) ( B ) ( i i ) i ncr eas es t he penal t yi f t he fi r earm i s a machi ne gun. M r . St anl eydoes notdi s put e thathe

“ c a rrie [ d ] o r u se [ d ]” a m a c h in e g u n , as re q u ire d b ya ltern a tiv e (1 ) in § 924( c) ( 1) ( A ) . H e cont ends onl yt hathe di d notcarr yi t“i n r el at i on t o” the drug tr a n s a c tio n .-6-

[T ]he p h rase “in re lat ion to” “ at a m inim u m , clarifies t h at t h e fir ea rm m us thave s om e purpos e oreffectw i t h r es pectt o t he drug t r aff i cki ng cr i m e; i t s pr es ence ori nvol vement cannotbe the r es ul tof ac ci dentor coi nci dence . . . . I ns t ead, t he gun atl eas tm us tfac i l i t at e, orhave the p o te n tia l o f

fa c ilita tin g , th e d ru g tr a ffic k in g o ffe n s e .” Uni t ed Stat es v. Ii l and , 254 F. 3d 1264, 1271 ( quot i ng Sm i th v. Uni t ed Stat es , 508 U .S . 2 2 3 , 2 3 8 (1 9 9 3 ) (in ter n a l q u o tatio n m a rk s a n d b ra c k e ts o m itt e d )). “ T h e in re la tio n to c la u s e is in te n d e d to p re v e n t th e p u n is h m e n t o f p o s s e s s io n a lo n e . C ons equent l y , [i t ] r equi r es t her e t o be a ne xus betw een the fi r earm and the under l y i ng offe ns e. ” Unit ed S t ates v. A very , 2 9 5 F . 3 d 1 1 5 8 , 1 1 7 5 (10 th C ir . 2 0 0 2 ) (i n terna l qu o tat ion m ark s, cit ati o n , an d ell ipsis om itted). I n t hi s cas e the evi dence s how ed thatM r . St anl eyw as s el l i ng m et ham ph et am i ne from his ho m e; he k ept the g un on his person o r w i t hin easy rea ch ; th e g u n w as a n il lega l m ac h ine g u n ; th e g u n w as n o t l o ad ed , b u t th ere w ere t w o amm uni t i on cl i ps i n t he bag w i t h t he gun; and the avow ed purpos e of the gun w a s to inju re la w -e n fo rc e m e n t o ffic e rs w h o m ig h t s e e k e n tr yin to h is h o m e . C e rt a in ly, it w a s n o “ a c c id e n t o r c o in c id e n c e ” th a t th e g u n w a s p re s e n t. Ii l and , 254 F. 3d at1271 ( i nt ernal quot at i on m ar ks om i t t ed) . A nd, gi ven thatt he gun w as th e re to p ro tec t M r. S tan ley’s illi c it en ter p rise , ith a d a “ p u rp o se o r e ffe c t w ith re s p e c t to ” th a t c ri m e . Id . (i n te rn a l q u o ta tio n m a rk s o m itte d ). M r. S tan ley arg u e s th a t h e w a s u n a w a re th a t G lo d re yw a s c o m in g to pur chas e drugs , and thatt he “e vi dence i ndi cat ed thatt he D efe ndant ’ s i nt ent dur i ng t he i ni t i al encount erw i t h G l odr eyw as t o m er el ys how off the gun; t he-7-

De fe n d a n tc o u l d n o tb e i n t e n d i n g t o u s e t h e g u n d u r i n g a d ru g t r a ffi c k i n g c r i me w hi ch he w as unaw ar e w as aboutt o happen. ” A pl t . B r . at18. T hathe di d not k n o w th a t G lo d re yw a s c o m in g to p u rc h a se d ru g s is irre lev a n t; h e h a d th e g u n in hi s pos s es s i on beca us e the pol i ce ha d been dr i vi ng by . I f anyt hi ng, hi s havi ng t he gun i n hi s pos s es s i on even though he di d notknow t hatG l odr eyw as comi ng s ugges t s t hathe di d nothave i tm er el yt o s how i tt o a fr i end. W e hol d t hatt he e v id e n c e w a s s u ffic ie n t to s u s ta in th e v e rd ic t. I I I . CO NC L US I ON W e A F F IR M th e ju d g m e n t o f th e d is tr ic t c o u rt . ENT ERE D FOR T HE COURT H a rris L H a rtz C i r cui tJ udge