## In the



# U n ited S ta tes Co urt o f Ap p ea ls

F o rth eS e v e n th C ir cu it
N os. 10

- 3725 , 10

- 3726 , 11

- 2262 & 11

- 2439 U NIT ED S TATE S OF A MERI CA, P la intif f-A pp ellee, v. M ONT R EE CE K INDLE, N AT HANW ARD , D WAY NE W HIT E a nd L ESLIE M AYFI ELD, D efend a nts-A pp ella nts.

A pp ealsfr o m the United S t ates Di strictC our t fo r the N o rthernDi stricto f Illino is, Eas tern Div isi on. No . 09 C R 687— Harry D. L eine nwebe r,Judg e. A RG UE D M AY 30, 2012

— D ECI DE D S EP TE MBE R 26, 2012

Befo re E A S T E RB R OO K, C hief Judg e, a nd B AUERa nd P OSNER, C ircu it Judges . B AUER, Cir cu i tJudg e . T h is c as e re p re se n ts th e c on so lid ated a ppea l o ff o urde fen dan ts c ha r g ed wi th, a m o ng o th e r c r i me s , c o n s p i r i n gt o s t e a l c o c a i n e fr o m a fi c t i ti o us drug “s tas h house. ” The defen d ants al l pl eaded not g ui l ty, a nd th eywer e al l c o nv i ct ed o n the s ame fo ur counts: co nspir acy to posse ss w i th i ntent to dist ribute fi ve2 N os. 10

- 3725 , 10

- 3726, 11

- 2262 & 11

- 2439

S ee , for ex a m p le , U n ite d S ta te s v . L ew is , 64 1 F .3d 7 73 , 77 7 (7th 1 C ir . 2 0 11) ( describing a si m il ar s et off act s as “a rather sh o p w o rn sce n a ri o in th is c o u rt ” ); U ni t ed Sta t es v. Bl i t ch , 622, F. 3d 658, 661 ( 7th Cir
. 2010 ); U ni t ed Sta t es v. C orso n , 579 F. 3d 8 0 4 , 80 6 -0 9 (7t h C ir . 20 0 9 ). orm or e k i l ogr am s o fco cai ne in vi ol ati on o f21 U
. S. C. § 8 46 ( “Count O n e” ) ; at tem pted posses si on with i ntent to dist ribute fi ve orm or e k i l ogr am s o fco cai ne i n vi ol ati on o f 21 U. S
. C. § 84 6 ( “Co unt Two” ) ; po ss es si o n of f our fi r ea r m s d uringa nd i n r el at i o n t o a dr ugt r affi ck i ng o ff en se in vi o l at i o n o f1 8 U. S
. C. § 9 24 ( c) ( 1) ( A) ( “Co unt T h r e e ” ); an d p os se ss ion of a fire ar m aft er p re vio u sly ha v i ngb e e n c o nv i c t e d o f a fe l o ny i n v i o l a t i o n o f 1 8 U. S
. C. § 9 22( g) ( 1) ( “Count Fo ur”)
. The defend an ts appeal var i ous a spects o fthei r convi cti ons and sentence s.

I . B AC KGR OUND This case beg an with a n und er c over sti ng o perat i on c a r r i e d o u tb y th e B u r e a u o fA l c o h o l, T o b a c c o , F i r e a r ms and Ex plo si ves ( A TF) ; apparent l y, th e A TF has a sta nd ar d playboo k forsuch o perat i ons, and the f acts be twe enc as es a r e f r eque nt l y ne ar l y i den ti cal. The ATF 1 had a co nfi denti ali nfo rm an t n am ed J eff re y Po tts ( not an A T F ag en t hi m se l f ) who s ha r ed a wor k pl ac e wi tho ne ofthe defe nd ants, Lesl i e M ayfi el d
. Pot ts’ r ol e was to fun ne l p arties i nt erested i n arm ed robberies to an u nd ercove r A TF ag ent, f orwh i ch the A TF w oul d pay Pott s a f ee . S om eo ne

— eit h er P ot ts or M ay field

—br o ug htup the pos sib ili ty ofr obbi ng a drug “s tas h house. ” Po ttsN os. 10

- 3725 , 10

- 3726, 11

- 2262 & 11

- 2439 3

re f er re d M ayfi el d to und er cove r A TF A gent Dave Gom ez. A me e t i n g wa s a r r a n g e d f o r J u l y 2 3 , 2 0 0 9 , a m o ng M ayfi el d, Pott s, and Gom ez. A t t h e July23 m eet i ng, A gent Gom ez prete nd ed to be a di sg r unt l ed co urier fo r a M ex i ca n dr ugc ar te l ; the ATF’ s hi ddenr ec o rdi ngde vi ce s ca ptu r ed th i s an d fut u re m eet i ngs o fGom ez and the defendants. Gom ez l a i d o ut an i n i t i a l p l a n f o r a s t a s h

- h o u s e r o b b e r y . He expla i ned that he r an a shi pm ent o fabo ut 6 to 8 kil ogram s of coca ine to an un iden tified l ocat ion every m onth. He c l a i med tha t the l oca ti on

— the s tas h house

— al w ays co ntai ned about 20 to 30 ki l ogr am s o f c o c a i n e i n a d d i t i o n t o th e qu a n t i t y h e d e l i v e r e d
. No such st ash ho use ac tual l y e xi ste d, ofco urse ; Gom ez w as f ol l owing the sta nd ar d pl aybo ok f orA TF st i ng o perations of this k ind
. Go m ez told M ayfiel d that there w er e usual l y about thre e a rm ed gu ards i nsi de the sta sh house w hen he m ade hi s d eliv er y, and that he needed an o utsi de cr ew to as si st him t o rob the house
. M ayfi el d aske d seve ra l l og i sti calquesti ons. H e wanted to k no w, f o r e xa m pl e, ho w a c r ew c o ul d b r ea ki nt o the h o us e and w he re i n th e room the th ree gua rd s w ere usual l y s i tu ate d. M ayfi el d ult i m ate l y e xpresse d i nter est i n c a r r y i n g o u t th e r o b b e r y . He t o l d Go me z th athe w oul d asse m bl e hi s peo ple a n d agre ed to m eetl ate r wi ththe ful l t ea m pr es en t to ha sho utthe pl an . P rior to th e s e c o n d m ee tin g, th er e w as a p h on e c all be twe enM ay fi el d a nd Go m ez . Dur i ngthe i r s ho r t co nve rs at ion , M a y field co n firm ed th e m ee tin g for th e fo ll owing day and i nd i c ated an i m m edi ate need t o m ove4 N os. 10

- 3725 , 10

- 3726, 11

- 2262 & 11

- 2439

T his fou rth in d iv id u al, kn ow n o nly as “N ew Y or k ,” w ou ld 2 lat er dis app ear from the cr ew an d i s not othe rw is e i m plic ated in th is ap p eal. som e d rugs ; sp ecifi cally; he said that he w o u ld b e interest ed i n deal i ng cocai ne w i th G om ez pri orto the pl anned ro bber y. T h e p a r t i e s r e c o n v e n e d o n A u g u s t9 , 2 0 0 9 , th i s t i me wi tha ful l r o bb er y c r ew pr es en t. And a g ain, the y w ere al l bei ng r e c o r de d. May f i e l d, Mo nt r e e c e Ki nd l e, N athan W ar d, and an unidenti fi ed fou rth i nd i vi du al 2 al l m et w ith G om ez to disc uss the st ash- house ro bber y. Gomez de sc r ibe d the s etup o nc e ag ain, incl udi ngthe part about thre e a rm ed g uards i n the sta sh house
. M ayfi el d an d K in dle pre sse d G om ez on s peci fi cs, such as how lon g h e was usual l y pr ese nt i n the sta sh house f o r hi s pi ckups a nd whe th erthe pe r so n a ns wer i ngthe d oor w as eve r ar m ed. M ayfi el d str ess ed the i m port ance ofthe el em ent o fsur prise , and Kindle i nd i cate d that th eymightha ve t o k il l th e st as h- ho us e g ua r ds. The par ti es eve ntua l l y tur ne d t o po st
- r o bb er y pl an s, a nd disc ussed how they w oul d d i vvy up the shar es ofco c ain e. W ar d in p ar tic u l a r n ot ed th at th e s h ar es sh ou ld be di vi ded fi ve w ays , ev enly. T he par ti es disc ussed so m e m o r e logi st i cs a nd e ve ntua l l y a g r ee d t o r ec o nv en e on the day ofthe ro bber y. Gomez c o nt ac te d M ay fi el d to i nf o r m hi m tha t th e st as hhouse del i ver y would o ccur at a l oca ti on i n N aperv i l l e, I l l i noi s o n A ugust 1 0, 20 09. On that day, Gom ez m et M ay fi el d a nd hi s te am, whi chno w i nc l ude d Dway neN os. 10

- 3725 , 10

- 3726, 11

- 2262 & 11

- 2439 5 W hi te i n additi on t o K in d le and W ar d. M ayfi el d aske d w here the tea m w oul d g o after pu l l i ng off the rob ber y, and G om ez re sponded thathe cou l d show the tea m w h er e t h ey w ou ld be st or in g t h e s t ole n co c ain e. M ay field a g r e e d, t e l l i ng hi s c r e w t o f o l l o w Go mez i n a b r o w n van to th e s to ra ge sit e. M ay field ro d e i n G om ez ’s v eh icle an d , d uring the sh ort tri p , they review ed the robb ery pla ns. A fterev er yone ar riv ed atthe supp ose d sto ra ge si te , the y e xi ted the i r v eh i cl es ; Go m ez no ti ce d fo r the fi rst tim e that W hi te w as new to the cre w . Gom ez soughtand re cei ved as sura nces that W hi te k n ew wh at w as going d ow n. W hite sou gh t con fi rm at io n th at th ere w oul d be weapon s ins i de the sta sh house
. Final l y, havi ng sur vey ed the sto ra ge f aci l i ty, t he m em ber s o f M ayfi el d’s tea m i nd i cate d th ei r re adine ss to proceed with the r obbe ry ; Gom ez gave a si gn al, an d fe deral au th o r i ti es de sc en ded o n the pa r ty, a r r es tingthe de fen dants. Aft erthe a r r es t, fede r ala g en ts se ar ch ed th e cr ew’ s va n. T he y foun d seve ral w eap ons (i nc lud ing a sa w ed -off sh otgun), sk i m ask s, am m unit i on, bul l et- proo fve sts , l ate x gl ove s, and a duf felbagsui tabl e f orcar ry i ng a l a r g e a mou nto fdr ug s . An a g e nta l s o r e c o v e r e d a s ki m as k d ire c tly from W h ite ’s p oc ke t. K in d le w aiv ed h is M i r anda ri ghts and gave a sta tem ent t o the a uthor i ti es, i m pli c ating hi m sel fand the othe rs i n the conspi ra cy to ro b the fi cti ti ous s tas h house. A l l defendants p leaded not gui l ty and procee ded to a j ury tr i al
. M ayfi el d, W hi te, and W ar d w ere t ri ed tog ether, char ged with th e s am e f our cri m es. Kindle was6 N os. 10

- 3725 , 10

- 3726, 11

- 2262 & 11

- 2439

c h ar ge d w ith th e s am e c ri m e s, b u t w as trie d se p ar at ely be c a us e o fh i s p o s t
- a r r e s ts t a t e men ttha ti mpl i cate d th e o th er s. A l l d e fen d an ts w er e fo u n d gu ilty of th e fo ll owing cri m es: co nspir acy to p os sess with i ntent to distr ibute fi ve orm or e k i l og ra m s o fco cai ne i n vio l ati on o f 21 U
. S. C. § 8 46 ( “Count One”) ; at tem pted posses si on w i th i ntent to dist ribute fi ve orm or e kil ogr am s o f coca ine in v io la t ion of 21 U
. S. C
. § 846 (“Cou nt Tw o”); posse ssi on o ff ou r fire ar m s duri ng and i n re l ati on t o a dr ugt r a ffi c k i ngo ffe ns e i n v i o l a t i o n o f18 U. S
. C. § 9 24( c) ( 1) ( A ) ( “Count T hree ”) ; and posse ssi on o fa fi re ar m a fte r pr ev i o us l y ha vingb ee n c o nv i cted of a fel o ny in viol ation of 18 U
. S. C
. § 922(g)( 1) ( “C ou nt Four”).

I I . DI S C US S I ON The defe nd ants h ave m ounted se ver alchal l enges o n appeal
. M ayfi el d, W hi te, W ar d, and Ki nd l e al l ch all en g e th e su ffi ci en cyo fthe e vi den ce unde r Counts One an d T w o; W hi te a l so c ha l l en g es the s uffi ci en cyo fthe ev i den ce unde r Co untThr ee. M ay fi el d a r g ue s th atthe di s t r i c t c o ur t e r r e d whe n i t de ni e d hi m the r i g htto p re se n t a n en tr ap m en t d e fen se ; he als o c h alle n ge s h is s e n t e n c e o f 3 2 2 mo n th s . Wa r d ’ s c o u n s e l fi l e d a n A nd ers brief an d seeks to w ith d raw her rep resen tation; W ard r es po nde d. W e dea l wi the ac h o fthe se i ss ue s i n tur n.
A . Chal l enges t o t he Su f f i ci ency o ft he Evi den ce A ll of th e d efe n d an ts ch alle n g e t h e p ro se c u tio n ’s e viden ce o n v ar i o us c o unt s, a rgui ngtha t i t was i ns uffi ci en tN os. 10

- 3725 , 10

- 3726, 11

- 2262 & 11

- 2439 7 to prove thei r gui l t beyo n d a re aso nabl e doubt. They fac e a “fo r m i d ab le h u rd le” w ith th is a rg u m en t. See U nite d State s v. D ennis , 115 F.3d 5 2 4 , 5 34 (7th C ir. 1997). W hen cons i deri ng a c h al l enge to the s uffi ci ency of the ev i de nc e , we c o ns t r ue the r e c o r d “ i n the l i g htmo st f av o r ab l e to the prose cut i o n, makinga l l r ea so nabl e i nf er en ce s i n i ts f av o r, a nd a ff irm th e co nv i ct i o n s o l o ng as a ny r at i o na l t r i ero ff ac t co ul d h av e f o und the de f e nd a ntt o h a v e c o mm i t t e d the e s s e nt i a l e l e men t s o f the c ri m e. ” Uni t e d S t at e s v. M ota , 68 5 F
. 3d 644, 64 9- 650 ( 7th Ci r. 20 12) (q uoti ng U ni t e d S t at e s v. Val l ar, 63 5 F
. 3d 271, 28 6 ( 7th Ci r. 20 11) )
. Over turni ng a gui l ty ver dictf or lac k of e vid en c e is se r i o u s b u sin es s; w e a re es se n tia lly as k ed to t ak e th e case outo fthe j ur y ’ s ha nds , s o m ethi ng w e wil l do “ onl y ifthe re cor d contains no evi dence, rega rdless o

f ho w it is w e ig h ed, from w h ich th e jur y c ou ld fi nd gui l t beyo nd a re aso nabl e doubt. ” M ota , 68 5 a t 650 ( em phasi s a dd ed) ( quotin g U ni t e d S t at e s v. Fa s s nac ht, 332 F.3d 440, 447 (7th Cir. 2003 ))
.
1 . E v i de nc e f o rC o untOne A l l d efendants chall enge the s uffi ci ency ofthe evi dence f orthei r guil ty ver dict s under Count On e, co nspir acy to p os se ss co c ain e w ith int en t t o d i s tr ibu te
. See 2 1 U. S
. C. § 846. To est abl i sh the conspi ra cy, the gov er nm en t had to prove : (1 ) the exi ste nce o fan a gr eem ent b etween 2 or m or e per sons to posse ss w i th in tent to di str ibute co ca i ne ; ( 2) th at th e defen dan t k ne w ofthe a g r ee m en t; a nd ( 3) thatthe defe nd ant intended to j oi n the agr eem ent. U nite d State s v. Spag nola , 632 F.3d 981 , 986 (7th C ir. 2011).8 N os. 10

- 3725 , 10

- 3726, 11

- 2262 & 11

- 2439 Put si m ply, the Gover nm ent pres en ted a m ountai n of evi de nc e a g a i ns t the s e de fe nd a nt s t o pr o v e tha tthey agreed w ith each other to st e a l coca ine. W e nee d n’t detai l ea ch pi ece ofev i dence pro du ced a t the t ri al s; su ffice to say, the Gover nm ent was ab l e t o use the def en dan ts ’ o wn wor ds agai ns t the m b ec au se o fthe e xt en si ve re cor dings o fco nver sat i ons w i th A gent Gom ez. Addi t i o na l l y, Ki nd l e wa i v e d his M i r anda r i g ht s atthe ti m e o fh i s a r r e s ta nd ma de s t a t e men t s tha twe r e used at tr i al
. A nd o fco urse , a w eal th o fphysi calev i dence w as se ize d fro m the bro w n van that the defendants pla nned to use f orthe ro bber y. Keeping i n m i nd that w e v i ew thes e f acto rs i n the l i ght m ostf avo rabl e t o th e Gov ernm en t, a r at i o na l j ur y co ul d ea si l y fi nd that the defe nd ants agr eed with each othe r to ste alco cai ne. Bu t the re al gi st of the defe nd ants’ ar gum ent i s that eve n i f t h er e w as a co nspir acy between them to st eal coca i ne, there was no e vi dence ofan intent to dist ribute i t, a requi r ed el ementunde r Co untOne
. W e ha ve e ncou n ter ed thi s a rgum ent b ef or e in conte xts v er y s i m i l ar to th is on e, an d w e h a v e rejec te d it. See, e.g., U nited Sta tes v. Wa lk er, 6 73 F
. 3d 64 9, 6 54

- 55 ( 7th C ir. 2 01 2) ( r ej ec ting a l ack -of

- evi dence- to- dist ribute a rgum ent in another case i nvol vi ng the pl anned ro bber y of a fi cti ti ous s tas h h ou se ); U nite d State s v. Lewis , 6 4 1 F .3 d 773, 782 (7th Cir. 2011 ) (sam e). As w e ex pl aine d i n Lewis , 641 F.3d at 782 , there are s ev er al p er m iss ible infe re n c es a re as on ab le jur y c ou ld draw fro m the type ofev i dence presen ted her e. Fi rs t, the pl an was to r ob a s tash house co ntai ni ng a l ar geN os. 10

- 3725 , 10

- 3726, 11

- 2262 & 11

- 2439 9

am ount o fco cai ne ( probabl y s om ew here betw ee n 25 and 3 5 ki l ogr am s)
. Law enf or cem ent offi ci al s at trial tes ti fi ed that 25 to 35 ki l ogr am s o fco cai ne i s no t a perso nal

- use a m ount, and the j u ryco uld r eas onabl y infe r that gi ven the si zeab l e quanti ty, M ayfi el d a nd hi s c re w i nt en ded to di st r ibut e i t. Addi ti o na l l y, r ec o r di ng s o fthe c onver sat i ons between Gom ez and the r obbe rycr ew su g g es t th at th e st ak es wer e hi g h i n th i s op erati o n; the cre w m em ber s dem onst ra ted a p re occupati on w i th how to deal with the ar m ed guar d s in the fi cti onal sta sh house , and at one poi nt Kindle ev en sugg est ed th atthe y woul d k i l l the g ua r ds. I nde ed , th e wea po ns f ound in the v an sho w ed that the cre w m eant busi ness. A j u r y c o u l d i n fe r th a t, g i v e n th e h u g e r i skt he defe nd ants pla nned on exposi ng the m se lves to , they m us t ha ve ex pec te d a n e qua l l y hug e r ewa r d. S ucha r ewa r d woul d r equi r e di st r ibut i o n. I n shor t, the j ury had am ple rea so n for fi nd i ng tha t th e defen dan ts i nt en ded to di st r ibut e what ev era m o unt of cocaine th at th ey ex p ecte d to recover.

2 . E v i d e n c e f o rC o u n tT wo The de f en dan ts ne xtc ha l l en g e th e su ffi ci en cy o fthe evi den ce fora convi cti on under Count Tw o, the cri m e o f att em pti ng to poss ess co caine w i th i ntent to dist ribute. See 21 U
. S. C. § 8 46
. ( A l though the wordi ng o fCounts One and Tw o ar e hi ghl y s i m i lar , “co nspir acy” and “at

te m p t” are tw o s ep ar at e c rim in al off en se s.) To prove att em pt, the Gover nm ent had to show not j ust th at th e defen dan ts ac te d wi th th e i nt en t to po ss es s the10 N os. 10

- 3725 , 10

- 3726, 11

- 2262 & 11

- 2439

coca i ne, but al so that the defe nd ants too k a “substanti al st ep ” to w ar d p os se ss in g it. SeeU nite d State s v. D ennis , 11 5 F.3 d 52 4, 53 4- 3 5 ( 7 t h C ir. 19 97 ). A su b st an tia l st ep is “so m ethi ng m or e than m er e prepar ati on, but l ess than the lastactnece ssa rybefor e the actual co m m i ssi on o f the s ubs ta n ti ve cri m e. ” U nited Sta tes v. B a rnes , 23 0 F
. 3d 311, 31 5 ( 7th Ci r. 2 000) ( ci ti ng U nited Sta tes v. R o vetu so , 768 F. 2d 809, 821 ( 7th Ci r. 19 85) )
. To qual i fy a s s ubsta nti al, the st ep “m ust be o fsuch a natur e that a r eas o nab l e o b s e r v e r v i e wi ng it i n c o nt e xtc o ul d c o nc l ud e b ey on d a re as on ab le d ou b t th at it w as u n d er ta k e n in a c c o r da nc e wi th a de s i g n t o v i o l a t e the s t a t ute. ” B a rnes , 230 F. 3d at 315. H er e, M ay fi el d, Ki ndl e, a nd W ar d a tt en ded a m ee ting prior to the pl an ne d r o bb er y t o di sc us s th ei r pl an s i n de ta i l wi thGo m ez an d e ac h o th er . M ay fi el d a nd K i nd l e a ske d logi sti calquesti ons and W ar d com m ented o n h o w h e th o u g h tth e d r u g s s h o ul d b e d i v i d e d
. We ha ve pr ev i o us l y not ed th e i m po r ta nc e o fc o nv er sa ti o ns l i k e th es e i n e st ab l i sh i nga s ubs ta ntial st ep f o r a s ho wi ng of a tt em p t. S e e, e . g . , Un i t e d S t a t e s v . Magan a , 1 18 F. 3d 11 73 , 11 98 -99 (7t h C ir. 19 97 ); U ni t e d S t at e s v. Wi l ks , 46 F. 3d 640, 64 5 ( 7th Ci r. 19 95). Those case s invol ved at tem pted drug sa l es ra therthan an at tem pted st as h-ho use r obber y, but the pl anni ng i nvol ved i s s im i l arto that w hi ch oc curr ed i n thi s ca se. The G ov er nm ent’ s s tr onge st evi dence ofa substa nti al s t e p c a me o n the da y o f the pl a nn e d r o b b e r y . A l l f our of th e d efe n d an ts , no w inc lu d in g W h ite , m e t G om ez in thei r b ro w n van a nd i nd i cate d thei r re adine ss to pro-N os. 10

- 3725 , 10

- 3726, 11

- 2262 & 11

- 2439 11

M ayfi el d appe ar s t o a rg ue thatbe c aus e the re was no 3 known s t as h- hous e l oc at i on

— an d p erh a p s b eca u se the stash ho u se w as fictit iou s to b eg in w ith

— he c ann otb e fo und gui l t y. A l th o u g h th e a r g u me n ti s n o ta l t o g e th e r c l e a r , we a s s u me he m ea ns thathe c annotbe f ound gui l t y ofat t em pt i ng t o r ob a p lace th at d oe sn’t exist. T his w ou ld b e w ro ng ; im p o ssibility is n o t a d e f e n s e t o th e c ri m e o f at te m p t. S ee Un i te d S tat es v. M annava , 56 5 F .3d 41 2 , 41 6 (7t h C ir . 20 0 9 ). ce ed wi ththe r o bb er y . The y s ti l l did n’t k no w the exa c t l o c a t i o n o f the s t a s h ho us e , b ut tha t do e s n’ tm atter
. They a rr i ved arm ed with a n ass or tm ent o fguns, 3 skim as ks , and other i m ple m ents f ora ro bber y. They eve n f ol l owed Gom ez i n thei r bro w n van t o the s i te w here the y planned to st or e the drugs afterthe ro bber y. F ur th er, a l th o ug h W hi te w as r el at i ve l y ne w to the g r o up, he c o nfi rm ed w i thGo m ez tha t he kne w the pla n, and author i ti es re cove re d a skim askfro m hi s pock et. The de f en dan ts r el y he av i l y o n U nited Sta tes v. C ea , 914 F. 2d 881 ( 7th C ir. 1 990), i n thei r eff or t t o dow nplay th ei r s te ps to war d a ttempt. I n C ea , we o v e r t ur ne d a fi nd i ng of att em pt because ther e w as not am ple ev ide n c e of a su b st an ti alst ep to purchase drugs; speci fi cal l y, the au th or i ti es bot ched the invest i gat i on by arresting Ce a too soon (as soon as h e l eft his hou se). The Gover nm ent then f ai l ed to pro du ce a ny ev i dence at Cea’ s t ri alto sho w thatthe defe nd ant l eft hi s ho use i nt en di ngt o meethi s dr ugde al er . The r e was no th i ng to show that the defendant knew w h ere t o m eetwith hi s d ea ler o r w hetherhe e ven had the m oneyr equi re d to pu rchas e the drugs
. I n thi s ca se, the evi dence12 N os. 10

- 3725 , 10

- 3726, 11

- 2262 & 11

- 2439 sh o wed tha t th e defen dan ts a l l t o o k s evera l s te ps be y o nd l eaving the i r houses. They m et w i th Gom ez on the day ofthe pla nned robb er y a fterGom ez claim ed to have l ear ned the l oca ti on o fthe sta sh house
. They s poke of thei r re ad iness to proce ed w i th the i m m i nent r obbe ry . A nd o fco urse , theycar ri ed w i th the m the i m p lem en ts need ed to car r y o uta c r i m e. W e wi l l no t o ve r tu r n the j ur y ’ s fi ndi ngo fa tt empt; th e st eps t ak ent o war d the att em pt to posse ss here w er e m yr i ad and , t ake n to ge th er , qu ite su b st an tia l.

3. Ev i den ce f orCoun tThree W hi te i s the o nl y defenda n t w h o ar gues f ora re ver sal on C ou n t T h re e, p os se ss ion of f i r e a rm s d u rin g a n d in re l at ion to a drug tr affi cki ng o ffense. W e nee dn ’ t l i nger on this
. W hi te’ s a rgum ent fori nsuffi ci ent e vi dence on Cou ntThr ee i s pr emi se d o n the r e be i ngi ns uffici en t evi dence f orhi s co nvict ion un der Count One, wh i ch cons t i t ut e s the u nd e r l y i ngdr ugt r a ffi c k i ngo ffe ns e. H av in g e x p lain ed in d et ail w h y t h er e w as am p le evi den ce f o r W hi te ’ s co nv i ct i o n o n Cou nt One , we are al so sat i sfi ed that th er e w as enough t o convi ct hi m o n Count Three. H i s co nvi cti on under Count Thre e s tands.

B. M ayf i el d’s Entr apm ent D ef ense M ayfiel d argues that the di str i ct c ourter re d w hen i t g r an te d the Go ve r nm en t’ s m o ti o n i n l i m i ne to pre
clud e an en trap m en t d efense
. W e h ave h eld th at a cou rt m ayb ara de f en dan t f r o m a r g ui nge nt r apment at theN os. 10

- 3725 , 10

- 3726, 11

- 2262 & 11

- 2439 13 p re tr ial st ag e if th e d efe n d an t’s ev id en c e o f en tr ap m en t is in su fficie n t as a m at te r of law
. Se e U ni t e d St at e s v. Johns on , 32 F. 3d 304, 30 7 (7 th Ci r. 19 94)
. W e r evi ew the di str i ct cou rt’s dec isi on in th is m atter d en ovo . U ni t e d S t at e s v. Hall , 608 F.3d 340 , 343 (7th C ir. 2010). To have an e ntra pm ent defense, M ayfi el d needed to sh ow bo th th at th e G ov er n m en t in d u c ed h im to co m m it a cr i me a nd tha t he wa s no t o the r wi s e pr e di s po s ed to c om m it t h a t c rim e. See U nited Sta tes v. M illet, 51 0 F
. 3d 66 8, 67 5-7 6 (7 th C ir. 20 07 ). W e e m p h as iz e t h at M ay field had the i ni ti alburden o f p ro ofo n both ofthes e i ssu es . Id
. at67 5. Because w e fin d that he f ai l ed to pr o v i de a de qu a te evi de nc e tha th e wa s n o tp r e di s po s e d, we ne ed not a d dr es s i nduc ement
. I n de te r m i ni ng whethe r a de f en dan t was pr edi spo se d t o c om m i t th e cr i m e ati ss ue , we con si derthe f o l l o wi ngf ac to r s: ( 1) the defen dan t’ s ch ar acte r o r r epu ta ti o n; ( 2) whethe r the go v e r nme nti ni t i a l l y s ug g e s t e d the c r i mi na l a c t i v i t y; ( 3) wh etherthe de fen dant engag ed i n the cri m i nal a c t i v i t y f o r pro f i t; ( 4 ) wh e the r the de fe nd a nte v i de nc e d a re l uctance to c om m i t the o ffense that w as ove rco m e by gov er n m en t persuasi on; and ( 5) the nature o fthe i nd ucem en t or p er su as ion b y th e g o ve rn m en t. Id
. a t 67 6 ( ci ting Uni t e d S t a t e s v . B l a s s i n g a me, 1 97F
. 3d 27 1, 2 81 ( 7th Ci r. 1999 ) )
. N o one f acto r i s d isposi ti ve, but i t i s the fourth fac to r th at ca rrie s t h e m os t w eig h t. M illet, 51 0 a t 6 76. The Gover nm ent pr offer ed a weal th o fev i dence that M ayfi el d had a cr i m i nal r eputati on, i ncl ud i ng r efer ence to hi s s eve ra l pri orco nvi cti ons f orcr i m es such as burgl ar y, ar m ed r obbe ry, and ar m ed vehi cl e hij acking.14 N os. 10

- 3725 , 10

- 3726, 11

- 2262 & 11

- 2439 M ayfi el d tri ed to co unter thi s with evi dence thathe ha d be e n wo r k i ngh a r d, h a d r e c e i v e d s e v e r a l c e r t i fi cate s ofpro f ess i onalachi eve m ent, and had been t ry i ng to get hi s l i f e back on tr ack, but hi s own w or ds be tr ay hi s s up po se d honest i ntenti ons. I n extens i ve re cor ded conve rs ati ons w i th Gom ez, M ayfi eld descr ibed hi s past stash-ho us e r o bb er i es i n de ta i l, a nd ne ve r s ee m ed sh y about em bar ki ng o n a ne w cr i m i na l ve nture. H e a l so expressed a des i re to do a drug deal with Gom ez bef or e the r obbe ry had eve n bee n full y pl anned. These con ve rs ati ons cer tai nl y do not re vealany sor t o f re l uc t a nc e o n the p a r to fMay fi e l d; the fi r s ta nd f o ur th fac to rs ab ov e w eig h h ea vily ag ain st a lac k of p re d is p os iti o n. M ayfi el d counter s that i t was notGom ez but ins tead the c on fidenti ali nfo rm ant f orthe A TF, Pot ts, wh o press u r e d h i m in t o a cr i me h e w a s n o tp r e d i s p o s e d t o c o mm i t. Pot ts w or ked with M ay fiel d and w as the fi rs t perso n, acc or ding to M ayfi el d, to su ggest a s tas h-ho use ro b b er y. B u t h ow th e in for m a n t “ p re ss u re d ” M ay field i s no t en ti r el y c l ea r ; M ay fi el d c l ai m s th e i nf o r m an t showed hi m a gang tat too , and that thi s s om ehow am ou nt ed to du ress. Th ere is no allegation of a m ore sp ec ific t h re at . I t s e e m s a n od d n ot ion th at M ay field could b e bul l i ed i nto som ethi ng tha t he did not al re ad y w ant t o do. N ot onl y doe s he have a r eputati on f or com m i tti ng ser i ous cri m i nal acts , he w as able to quick l y a sse m bl e a te am o ffri ends ( w e r eferto the codefe nd ants ) w ho were al l pre pared to walki nto a guar ded drug house w i th hi m , guns blazi ng. That i s no t typi cal l y the so rto fper son w ho wilts a t the sugg est i on o fa g an ga ffi l i at i o n.N os. 10

- 3725 , 10

- 3726, 11

- 2262 & 11

- 2439 15

Th e di s s e ntbe l i e ve s tha tMay fi e l d wa s e nt it l e d t o a n e nt r a p- 4 m en tdefen s e. I tar gues tha ta j ur y c oul d have f ound the gove rn m en ti ndu cem en t“e xt ra or di nar y, ” be c aus e s t as hhouse robberies are parti cular ly l ucrati ve com pare d t o other s or t s ofr obb erie s . The di s s en tr ea s ons thatthe i nduc em en t w ou ld on ly b e extra or d ina ry to a n on -vete ran st a sh -hou se robb er, and that i t was f or the j ury to decide i fM ayfi el d had ro b b ed stash h ou ses be fore. W e can no t end o r se t his an aly sis. I te ff ec t i vel y c ol l aps es the i nduc em en tan d pred ispos i t i on elem en ts of en t r ap m en t an d w ou ld allow oth erw ise pr ed isposed cri m inal s to c lai m entr apm ent si m ply because they w ere ente ri ng a new , m ore l ucrat iv e field ofcr im e. W hether a gove rn m en tag en t ’ s off eri s e xt raor di nar y s houl d be c onsi dered in l ight o f t h e term s on w hich cri m es ofthi s sortare ty p ic a l l y co m m itt ed
. S ee U ni t ed Sta t es v. Pi l l ado , 656 F. 3d 754, 76 5 (7th C ir. 20 11 ). N oth ing in the reco rd sug g ests that th is pl a nne d s t a s h- ho us e r ob be r y wou l d b e a ny m or e l uc r a t i ve than the typ ic al st ash- house robbery. A nd as w e s tr es se d pre vi ous l y, the r i s k- adj us t ed r ew ard s for thi s c ri m e were no t s o gr ea t ; M ayfi el d p lan ne d t o r i s k hi s l i f e and t o r i s k pr os ec ut i onf orm ur de r i fh e l i ve d. O n e t h in g t h at w eig h s in M ay field ’s fa vo r is h is c laim that Pott s a pp ro ached hi m fi rs t about the s tash -h ou se j o b, a nd the n r epe at edl y a fter t hat. ButGo ve r nm en t so l i ci ta ti o n a l o ne do es no t en titl e a de fen dan t to a n e ntr a p m en t d efe n se . Se eU ni t e d S t at e s v. Pe r ez- Le on , 75 7 F. 2d 866, 87 2 ( 7th Ci r. 1985)
. W e ca nnot fi nd that M ayfi el d w as not predi spose d to com m i t the cr i m es w hen appr o ac he d b y the ATF. The re w as th us no e r r o r i n the di st r i ctc o ur t’ s dec i si o n t o b arM ayfi el d fr o m a r g ui ng entr apm ent. 416 N os. 10

- 3725 , 10

- 3726, 11

- 2262 & 11

- 2439 C. M ayf i el d’s Sen t ence T h e d ist ric t c ou rtse n te n c ed M ay field to 3 2 2 m on th s in pri son. T h is w as based on a n offense l eve l o f34 under the S entenci ng Guidel i nes, tr igg er ed beca use the j ud ge f ound that the o ff ense i nvol ved betw een 1 5 a n d 5 0 ki l ogram s of coca ine. U
. S. S. G
. § 2D 1.1( c)(3). Th e d istri ct cou rt th en ap p li ed a tw o-l evel enh an cem en t to M ayfiel d ’s sente nce be cause i t f ound that he obs tr ucted j u st i ce b y com m itti ng perjury at tri al. U
. S. S. G
. § 2D 1.1( b)(14)( D ). M ay field n ow ch alle n ge s b ot h th e c alc u lat ion of h is base o ff ense le veland the tw o- l eve l enhancem ent for obs tr ucti on o fj usti ce. W e r ev i ew a di st r i ctco ur t’ s f ac tu alf i ndi ng s abo utdr ug q u an tit ies for c lea r e r r o r. U nited Sta tes v. Lo ng street, 567 F. 3d 911, 92 4 ( 7th C ir. 20 09)
. W e a l so re vi ew f or cl earer ro r a fi nd i ng tha t a d efe n dant com m i tte d perj ury. U nite d States v. Spag nola , 632 F.3d 981 , 988 (7th C ir. 2011). To fi nd cl earer ro r, we m ust be “l eft with a defi ni te an d firm co n vic tio n th at a m ist ak e h a s b ee n co m m itt ed .” U ni t e d S t at e s v. Panaigua- Verdug o , 5 37 F. 3d 722, 72 4 ( 7th C i r . 2 0 0 8 )
. F i na l l y, we r e v i e w deno vo the a dequ acy of t h e d ist ric t c ou rt ’s e x p lan at ion of h is fin d in gs . U ni ted St at e s v. Sh e i kh , 367 F.3d 683 , 686 (7th C ir. 2004).

1. The Base O f f ense Lev elCal culat i on Forse ntenci ng purpose s, M ay fiel d i s r esponsibl e f or w ha t e v e r a mou nt o f c o c a i ne he k ne w ( o r s ho ul d have kn ow n ) w as th e o b j ec t o f h is c o n s p i r ac y. See U nited Sta tes v. M cKenzie, 6 56 F
. 3d 68 8, 6 91 ( 7th Ci r . 2 01 1)
. I ftheN os. 10

- 3725 , 10

- 3726, 11

- 2262 & 11

- 2439 17

am ount was 15 orm or e ki l ogr am s, a base o ffense l eve l of 34 w as ap p rop riate. U
. S. S. G
. § 2D 1.1( c)(3). A t t ri al, the pri m ar y thrust ofM ayfi el d’s defe nse was th athe ha d a ctua l l y t ea m ed up wi thPo tt s to s te alc o ca i ne f ro m Gom ez, and th at h e neverr eal l y intended to ro b an y stash h o us e. R ecall that G om ez claim ed to transp ort o nl y abo ut6 t o 8 k i l o g r ams o fc ocaine e ve r y month. Because Gom ez w as hi s s ol e t ar get, M ayfi el d argues that he never thought to re cove r an am ount lar ge r than 8 or so k i l o g r ams o fc o ca i ne , a nd s o he do es no t m ee t th e 15- ki l ogr am m i ni m um r equi re m ent fora base o ffense l e v e l o f3 4 u nd e r the Gu i de l i ne s . T hi s de fe ns e has g apinghol es; i t se ems n o ns en si ca l tha t anATF i nf o r m an t ( Pott s ) wo ul d h a t c h a s c he me t o r o b a n un de r c o ver A TF a g e nt ( Go mez ) o f a qu a nt i t y o f dr ug s tha t nev er re ally exi ste d. I t a l so str ai ns cr eduli ty to i m agi ne how M ayfi el d coul d have a gr eed with Po tts to r ob Gom ez w i thout expla i ni ng the r ealpl an to hi s co - defe nd ants. Su re enough, the j ury rej ecte d M ayfi el d’s ver si on o f ev en ts . W e k n ow th e jur y rej ec te d it be c au se M ay field w as c o nv i ct ed o fc o ns pi r ac y, whi chr equi r ed a fi ndi ng of an agreem en t w ith his co-con sp irators

— an d c o nspi ra cy i s l ega l l y i m possibl e byag re em ent with a gov er n m en t in for m an t ( l i k e P ot ts ) alon e. See U nited Sta tes v. D uff , 76 F. 3d 122, 12 7 ( 7th Ci r. 19 96). The j ury w as pr o per l y i ns tru cted o n thi s r ul e o fl aw: “ A defen dan t ca nno t en te r i nt o a n a g r ee m en t so l el y wi th, o r j o i n a conspi ra cy sol el y with, co nfi denti ali nfo rm ant J eff re y P ot ts or u n d er c ov e r ag en t D av id G om ez .” T h u s, it is disingenuous f orM ayfi el d to ar gue th at t h e j ury never18 N os. 10

- 3725 , 10

- 3726, 11

- 2262 & 11

- 2439

rej ecte d his defense about an ag re em ent with Pott s t o ro b Gom ez. They necess ar i l y r ej ecte d i t when they f ound him gui l ty ofco nspir acy. I n robbi ng the fi cti ti ous s tas h house , then, how m uch coca i ne di d M ay fi el d ex pec t to g ain? The r e i s su ffi ci ent e vi dence th at h e expected to r eco verm or e than 15 ki l ogr am s. In seve ra l co nver sat i ons between Gom ez and M ayfield, Gom ez re fer re d m ult i ple ti m es to an amoun t o f at l ea st 20 k i l o g r ams o f co ca i ne st o r ed i n the ho us e. M ay fi el d ne ve r s ai d a ny th i ngt o i nd ica te he thought there would be a l ess eram ount. S o ther e was suffi ci ent e vid en ce forthe dist ri ct c ourtto fi nd that M ayfi el d m et the 1 5- ki l og ra m m in im u m fora base l eve l cal cul ati on o f34
. But M ay fi el d ar g ue s th at, ev en i f th er e w as su ffi ci en t evi dence, the dist ri ct cour t f ai l ed to sta te ad eq uate gr ounds f ori ts fi nd i ng. W e hav e hel d that, atse ntenci ng, “a c o ur t m us t m ak e ane xpl i ci t fi ndi ng a s to the dr ug qua nt i tya nd o ff en se l ev ela nd ho w i t ar r i ve d a t th e sente nce. ” U ni t e d S t at e s v. Fu dge, 32 5 F
. 3d 910, 92 0 ( 7th Cir
. 20 03)
. The di str i ct c ourt did notr un af oulo fthi s r ule
. F i r st, the j udg e ac k no wl edg ed ha vingr ev i ewe d the Pres entence I nvest i gat i on Report ( PSR) , w hi ch detai l ed the a m ount of d ru gs i m pli cate d i n the offense and provide d Gu idelines su ggestion s. T he j ud ge also heard b oth parti es prese nt the i r ar gum ents; M ayfi el d’s att or ney basi cal l y r e- hashed the sam e i m p l ausibl e defense presente d at t ri alabo ut a supp ose d agr eem ent with Pott s to rob G om ez of 6 to 9 kil ogram s. W he n M ayfiel d ’s attorne y fin ished, the dist ri ct j ud ge sta ted, “Okay
. A l l r i ght.N os. 10

- 3725 , 10

- 3726, 11

- 2262 & 11

- 2439 19 Iag re e that the 6 to 9 was wh at M r. M ayfi el d test i fi ed h is in te n tio n [w as ], bu t t h e jur y d id n ’t b u y it, an d fran kly I real l y di dn ’ tb uyi te i the r, . . . s o I ’ m g o i ngt o fi nd tha t i t’ s 3 4. ” The o nl y e vi dence M ayfi el d had ofthe 6 to 9 k i l o g r am amoun t was hi s o wn te st i m o ny a t tr i al ; no othe r ev id en ce s up port ed hi s co ntenti on that he had m ade a secr et agr eem ent w ith Pot ts to ste althatam ount. S o we ar e sa ti sfi ed th at by ex pl i ci tl y r ej ec tingthi s ar g um en t, a nd b y a ckno wl edg i ngthe PS R s ug gesti o ns , the j ud ge adequatel y explai ned how i t a rr i ved atthe base offe n se lev el. I n su m , w e find no clear error in th e d is t r ict court’s sente nci ng M ayfi el d at a bas e o ffense l eve l o f34
.
2. Th e Tw o- LevelEnh anc em ent f orO bstructi on ofJ usti ce The dis tr ict j ud ge or dered a tw o- l eve l enhancem ent o f M ayfi el d’s sente nce f oro bstr ucti on o fj us tice bec ause he f o un d tha tMay fi e l d perj ure d h i mse l fa tt r i a l
. U. S
. S
. G. § 2 D1. 1( b) ( 14) ( D). S peci fi cal l y, the j ud ge f ound that M ayfi el d l i ed abo ut hi s pl an to r ob Gom ez, st ati ng, [ M ay fi el d] t es ti fi ed, w hich woul d ha ve b ee n a def en se t o the i ndi ct m en t. Now, he t es ti fi ed th athe co mm i t t e d a di ffe r e ntc r i me o r h e i nt e nd e d t o co m m i t a di ff er en t crim e, b uti t was a de fen se , a nd the j ur y di dn ’ t b uy i t, s o i t ’ s c l e a r that

— i n my m i nd , anyway

— that he did n ot tes ti fy t ruthfull y, so I ’ m go i ng to enhance tw o f orthat
. Forthe enhancem ent t o sta nd , the defe nd ant m ust hav e w i l full y pr ovi ded f als e t est i m ony about a m ate ri al20 N os. 10

- 3725 , 10

- 3726, 11

- 2262 & 11

- 2439

m at te r. U ni t e d S t at e s v. Johns on , 61 2 F.3d 889, 893 (7th Cir. 20 1 0 )
. M a y fi e l d a r g ue s tha t hi s t e s t i mon y wa s no tf al se and that i t di d no t even concern a m att erm ate ri alto the c ase . Fi r s t, ma t e r i a l i t y . T he r e i s n o do ub ttha tthe s ubj e ct on wh i ch M ayfi el d test i fi ed

— w ho he pla nned to s tea l f ro m

— w as m ate ri al
. I t went to the hear t o fthe case . W e hav e a l re ady expl ai ne d t h at i fj uror s had acc epted hi s t est i m ony, theyco uld not have f ound him gui l ty of conspi ra cy, since i t i s l ega l l y i m possibl e t o conspi re with a g o ve r nm en t inf o r m an t al o ne . S o a ny f al se t es ti m o ny on th e s u b j ec t w as ce rt ain ly m at er ial. Li k ewi se , w e n ee dn’ t l i ng ero n whe th erthe t es ti m o ny w as f al se. Fo r re aso n s w e hav e a l re ady di scusse d at l ength, M ayfield ’ s defense about a s ecr et pla n w i th Pot ts to rob G om ez w as fu ll of ho les . H is s to ry d ire c tly co nfli cted wi ththe t es ti m o ny o fo th er s an d wi ththe r ec o r di ng s th ats ug g es te d a co ns pi r ac y t o r o b th e fi cti ti ous s tas h house. Bu t we ar e no t qui te fi ni shed, bec ause M ayfi el d al so cl ai m s th e j ud ge f ai l ed to a dequa te l y e xpl ain a fi ndi ng ofperj ury. I t i s t rue that to apply an enhancem ent for obs tr ucti on of j usti ce, “the dist ri ct cour t m u st m ake i nd ependent fi nd i n gs n eces sar y t o est abl i sh al l o fthr ee f actualpred icates fora fi nd i ng o fperj ury. ” U nited Sta tes v. Sa vage, 50 5 F.3 d 754, 76 3 ( 7th Ci r. 20 07)
. But thi s r eq u i r e me n ti s n o ta s s t r i ng e n ta s Ma y fi e l d s u g g e s t s . We have onl y r eve rs ed obs tr ucti on e nhancem ents f or i nadequ a t e fi nd i ng s wh e n the s e nt e nc i ngj ud g e p r e s e nt e d a ba r e-bo ne s ex pl an at i o n, s ucha s, “ Itho ug hty o urt es ti m o nyN os. 10

- 3725 , 10

- 3726, 11

- 2262 & 11

- 2439 21

w as ri dd l ed w i th i naccurac ies a n d l i es. ” U nited Sta tes v . M cG iffen , 2 6 7 F
. 3 d 5 8 1 , 5 9 1 ( 7 th C i r . 2 0 0 1 )
. S uch a thi n expla nati on l eave s a d efe nd ant with a v er y poo r idea of how exac tly he p erj ure d him self. So al though s om e s peci fi ci ty i s r equi re d at s enten ci ng, “se para te fi nd i ngs a re notst ri ctl y nec ess ar y s o l ong as the c ourtdeter m i ned that the defendant l i ed to the j ud ge an d j ur y abo utmatt er s cr uc ial t o the que st i o n o fthe defe nd ant’ s guil t. ” U nite d State s v. White, 24 0 F .3d 65 6, 662 (7th Cir. 2001). A nd that i s exa c t ly w ha t the cou rt di d i n thi s ca se . The j udg e cl ea r l y s ta te d that th e perj ury i nvol ved M ayfield ’s defense, and as w e hav e al re ady not ed, t h at defense w ent t o the he ar t o f M ay field ’s c as e; it d ea lt d i r e c t l y w ith th e q u es tio n of h is gui l t. W e thus fi nd no er ro r i n the tw o- l eve l enhancem ent foro bstr ucti on o fj usti ce.
D . W ar d and t he Anders Br i ef W ar d’ s at to r ne y fi l ed an A nd ers b rie f in h is a p p ea l, r eque st i ngt o wi th dr aw b ec au se the ap pea l pr es en ts no n on -friv olo u s is su e. SeeAnd ers v. C alif ornia , 38 6 U.S
. 73 8 ( 1967 )
. One ofthe potenti al app eal abl e i ssues hi s a ttorney i denti fi ed

— the suffi ci ency of the evi dence for c o n v i c t i o n s o n C o u n t s O n e an d T wo

— we h a v e a l r e a dy c on sid er ed and rej ecte d. W ar d m ade furtherar gum ents in hi s r esponse to the A nd ers bri ef that ar e w h olly wi th o utmer i t. W e ag r ee wi th c ou ns eltha t th er e ar e no re m ain in g n on -friv olo u s is su es for a p p ea l.22 N os. 10

- 3725 , 10

- 3726, 11

- 2262 & 11

- 2439 I I I . C ONC L US I ON Forthe af or em enti oned r eas ons, we A FFIRM th e c onvictio n s o fM ay field , W h ite , an d K in d le, A FFIRM M ayfiel d ’s se n t e n c e, G RANTW ar d’s counsel ’ s m oti on t o w i thdraw a nd D ISMISSW ar d ’s a p p ea l.

P OSNER, Cir cu i tJudg e, co ncurr i ng and dis senting. Ij o i n the c o urt ’ s o pi ni o n a ffi r m i ngthe c o nv i ct i o ns a nd sente nces ofKindle and W hi te. But M ayfi el d i s e nti tl ed to a new tr i al
. A r eas onabl e j ury coul d find that h e had been entr ap p ed , and so the dist ri ct j ud ge shoul d have i ns tr uct ed th e j ur y o n e nt r apmentr athe r tha n b ar r i ng the defendant fro m pre senting an entr apm ent defense. The defe nse i s unusual
. Ordi nari l y the bur den ofper suasi o n wi thr es pec t to a n a ffi r m at i ve de fen se is o n the defe nd ant. But ifthe defe nd ant per suades the di str i ct cour t that a re aso nabl e j ury coul d fi nd that he h ad been en trap p ed , t h e ju d ge m us t sub m it the d efense to the j ury wi tha n i ns tr uct i o n tha t, to co nv i ct, the j ur y mustfi nd beyo nd a re ason ab le doubt thatthe defe nd ant was not en tr ap p ed
. Ja co bso n v . U nited Sta tes , 50 3 U.S
. 54 0, 54 9 ( 1992 ) ; U ni t e d S t at e s v. Pil l ado , 656 F.3d 754 , 763 (7th C ir. 20 11 ). T h er e w as en ou gh ev id en c e o f en tr ap m en t in th is ca se t o r equi r e th e j udg e to g i ve s ucha n i ns tr uct i o n.N os. 10

- 3725 , 10

- 3726, 11

- 2262 & 11

- 2439 23 W e sh o ul d di st i ng ui sha m o ngthr ee c as es i n whi chthe pol i c e c r e a t e a n o pp o r t un i t y f o r s o meo ne t o c o mm i t a c rim e an d h e d oe s s o. I w ill i llu st ra te w ith bic yc le t h eft . In case num bero ne, a m an i s a kno w n bi cycl e thi efo r str ongl y s uspected o fbeing o ne. The pol i ce pl ace an unlo cked bi cycl e in an area kno w n to be f re quented byhi m . S ur e en o ug h h e sees the b i k e, s ee s th ati t’ s unloc ke d , rid es off on it

— and i s pro m ptl y a rr est ed by police o ffi cer s who had been watchi ng the bi cycl e, unobser ved, fro m af ar . I n such a case ther e i s no entr apm ent. The pol i ce a rr anged f orthe suspect to com m i t hi s usual cri m e, o nl y in ci rcum sta nces i n w hi ch it w oul d be e asyto apprehend and convi ct hi m . “I t would be a case i n w hi ch the g ove rnm ent had m er ely furni shed the opportunity to com m i t the cr i m e t o som eo n e al re ady pre dispos ed to co m m i t i t
. . . . The g o ve r nm en t’ s i nducem enta ffec ts the ti m i ng o fthe off ense; i t d oe s not cre ate the offense by ex p loit in g t h e s u sc ep tib ilitie s o f a w ea k-m in d ed p er so n .” U nit ed St ates v. Holli ngswo rth , 27 F. 3d 1196, 1203 (7th C ir. 19 94 ) ( en ba nc )
. “[ T] he i nduc ement whi ch br o ug ht abo ut th e ac tu alo ff en ce was no m o r e th ano ne i ns ta nc e o fthe ki nd o fco nd uct i n w hi ch the ac c u se d was prepar ed to engag e; and the pro secuti on has notse du ced an i nno ce ntpe r so n, b utha s o nl y pr o vi d ed the mean s f o r the accused t o re al i ze his pre exi sti ng purpose . ” U nited Sta tes v. Sh e r m an , 200 F.2d 880 , 882 (2d Cir. 1952) (L. H an d , J
. ). I n case num bertwo , a m an i s know n to the pol i ce t o ha ve be en a bi cy cl e th i ef, but th at was y ea r s ag o an d he’s gone st ra i ght a nd becom e res pectabl e. But theywant an eas y c onvi cti on s o they ar ra nge a n extr aor dinar y ind ucem ent. Pret ending to be bi cycl e thi eve s they tel l h im24 N os. 10

- 3725 , 10

- 3726, 11

- 2262 & 11

- 2439 they’ l l pa y hi m $ 1 , 0 0 0 t o he l p the m s t e a l a b i k e tha t t hey describe a s unusual l y v al uabl e. H e a gr ees . H e had neve r m ade a profi t o f m or e than $50 perbi ke w hen he was a b icy c le t h ief. A n d h e n ee d s m on ey be c au se , giv e n h is cri m i nal r eco rd, he ha s be en unabl e t o obt ai n a j ob that pays a decent w ag e. T h e pol i ce s tag e the the ft a nd then ar re st h im . Th at is en tr ap m en t. Ja co bso n v . U nited Sta tes , sup ra , 503 U .S. at 5 53 -54 ; U nited S ta tes v. H olli ngswo rth , sup ra , 27F. 3d at 1199 -12 00 . H e would not, as f aras an yo n e k n ow s, h av e e ve r c o m m i tt ed an ot h er bic yc le th eft had the p oli ce n ot c o nfron ted him w ith an opp ortuni ty f arm or e luc rati ve than any he ha d encounter ed i n hi s no w aba nd oned cr i m i nal car eer . The pol i ce hav e thus cause d an i ncre ase i n the num bero f b icycl e thefts, w here as i n the fi rs t ca se they re du ced the num bero f bicycle the fts by term inating a bicyc le thief’s career, th o ug h i t woul d b e m o r e ac cur at e to s aythat t he s ting i n the fi rs t ca se m ay we l l hav e re du ced the num bero f bi cycl e thefts; the re aso n f orthe quali fi cati on i s that on c e t h e t h ief is t ak en ou t o fc irc u lat ion so m e fo rm er ly l aw - abi ding perso n m ay deci de to fi l l the re sul ti ng g ap i n the ra nks o fbi cycl e thi eve s. I n case num ber thre e, the pol i ce know th e m an has sto pp ed ste al i ng bi kes o nl y o ut o ffea r ofbeing ca ught, and hence thathe r em ai ns “pre dispos ed” to st eal bi kes i fc i r c ums t ance s i mpr o v e . S o the y a r r a ng e the s a me ty pe of sti ng as i n case num bertwo, r i ghtl y c onfi dent thatev en i f h e’ d gi ven up ste al i ng bi kes he c an be enti ced by a p rom ise of$1,0 0 0 t o st eal one m ore. A nd he d oes. T he re can be no confi dence thathad there been no such extr ao r d i n a r y i n d u c e me n th e n e v e r t he l e s s w o u l d h a v e c o m-N os. 10

- 3725 , 10

- 3726, 11

- 2262 & 11

- 2439 25

m i tt ed th e th eft. Ofte n c as es s aythate xt r ao r di na r y i nduce m en ts c r ea te en trapmente ve n i fthe de fen dan t w as predi spose d to com m i t the cr i m e. But re al l y what ex tr ao r d i n a r y i nduc ement s do i s sh o w tha t th e d efend an t’s com m issi on of the crim e for w hich he’s bei ng pro secute d i s no t r el i abl e evi dence thathe was predi spose d to com m i t i t. Thus, “ind ucem ent i s s i gni fi ca ntc hi efl y a s ev i den ce b ea r i ngo n pr edi spo si ti o n: the g re ate r the i nd ucem ent, the w eak erthe i nfe re nce thati n y i e l di ngt o i tthe de fe nd a ntde mon s t r a t e d that h e w as p re d is p o s e d to co m m it t h e c rim e in qu es tio n .” U nite d State s v. H olli ng sw o rth , sup ra , 27 F .3d at12 00 . In contr ast, an ind ucem ent i s “ or dinar y” w h en it i s “ som ethi ng close t o w hat unf ol ds w hen a sti ng o perat i on m irro rs th e c u st om ar y e x ec u tio n of th e c rim e c h ar ge d .” U ni t e d S t at e s v. Pillad o , sup ra , 65 6 F
. 3d at 765; se e a l so U ni t e d S t at e s v. Sh e r m an , sup ra , 20 0 F
. 2d at 882. A re as o nabl e j ur y c o ul d h ave fi t M ay fi el d’ s ca se t o o ur hypoth eti calse cond orthi rd cas es had i t be en per m i tte d to consi der an entr apm ent defe nse. So far as appears , he had neve r ro bbed a stash house
. I t’ s t rue that after ag r ee i ngt o pa r ti ci pat e i n the stash

- ho us e r o bb er y he br ag ged to the g o ve r nm en t’ s unde r co ve r a g en t th athe ha d ro bbed st ash ho uses. But he m ay j ust hav e be en tr ying to r ea ss ur e th e ag en t, who was t o l ea d the ro bber s in to t h e sta sh house ( the a gent prete nd ed to be a drug cour i erf orthe house) , thathe ( M ay field ) was com petent to parti ci pate in such a dangero us undertak

i ng. H e h ad neve r eve n bee n convi cted o fa drug o ffense, an d the r e i s no e vi den ce , o th ertha n h i s bo as ting, tha t he w as deal i ng drugs wh en ap p roached by the underco ver agen t. T he j ury co uld also ha ve foun d that M ayfield ’s26 N os. 10

- 3725 , 10

- 3726, 11

- 2262 & 11

- 2439 l as t m aj o r c r i m i na l a ct( anarm ed r o bb er y no t i nv o l ving drugs) had occ urred in the ea rl y 1 990s ; thatwh en re l eas ed fro m pris on in 20 05, f our yea rs befor e he agr eed to ro b the i m agi naryst ash ho use, he ha d tri ed t o go st r ai g ht

— m oving aw ay from the c ity in w hich he’d l i ved a nd had had cri m i nal as soc i ate s a nd ge tti ng a l ega l j o b. He h ad ea r ne d hi s GED, a n a ss o ci at e’ s d egr ee , a nd thre e v oca ti onalcer ti fi c a t e s in pri son, and upon re l eas e had d ev ot ed p er so n al tim e t o v olu n te er ac tiv itie s. T h er e is no e vi dence thath e had co m m i tte d any m or e r obbe ri es. H e was 41 atthe ti m e o fthe sti ng, an age atwh i ch m any c ri m i nal s hav e a ged o ut o fvi ol ent c ri m es. The se wer e al l f ac ts f o r the j ur y t o wei g h (butthe j ury w as not al l ow ed to do s o)
. The j ury coul d have f ound t hat the defendant had not been predi spose d to ro b a st as h h o u s e . I t c ou ld h av e fo u n d th is e ve n if it thought hi m pre dispos ed to co m m i t a rm ed rob b er i es, f orhe was o ff er ed an ext ra or dinar y ind u c em en t to ro b th e imag i na r y s ta shho us e. M o str o bb er i es , e ve n b an k ro b ber i es, net l i ttl e m oneyf orthe ro bber
. But a s tas h h ou se is a p ot en tia l g old m in e. T h e in for m an t t old M ay fi el d tha t th er e wer e 25 t o 3 5 kil o g r ams o fc o ca i ne in th e s ta s h h ou se . Th e c oc ain e w as to be d ivid ed ev en ly am on g h im , his th re e a ss oc iat es , an d th e i n st iga to r. T h is w oul d ne t hi m 5 to 7 ki l og ra m s of coca i ne, w ith a st re et va l ue of $1 35 , 00 0 to $ 18 9, 00 0. The po te nt i alg ain, coupl ed w i th the i nfo rm ant’ s e age rnes s t o betr ay hi s s up posed em plo yer s byr eve al i ng the l oca ti on o f the s tas h house, cr eat ed an i nd ucem ent t o c om m i t a cri m e that, so f aras a p pears , was unli ke any that M ayf i el d h a d e v e r c o mm i t t e d, o r tha th e wo ul d e v er have com m i tte d had itnotbee n f orthe sti ng.N os. 10

- 3725 , 10

- 3726, 11

- 2262 & 11

- 2439 27 The i nd ucem ent woul d not hav e be en t h ou gh t e xtra
or dinar y b y a st as h h ou se robber
. I fthati s what M a y fi e l d wa s , h e wo ul d h a v e b e e n pr e di s po s e d t o a c c e pt the info rm ant’ s o ffer . But a r eas onabl e j ury coul d have f o und that h e was no t a st as h h o us e r o bb er, o r e ve n a dr ugde a l e r o fa nys o r t, wa s n o tp r e di s po s e d t o a t t e mpt a stash house ro bber y, and acce pted the invi tat i on be ca us e o ffi na nc i alde spe r at i o n. N o t al l fi ct i ti o us st as h ho us e st i ng s j us ti fy a n e nt r apment in st ru c tio n, eve n th ou gh su c h st in gs are a d isr ep u ta b le ta ctic. Law e nf o r ce m en t us es the m t o i nc r ea se the amoun t of dr ug s th atc anb e at tr ibut ed to the pe r so ns stun g, so a s to j ac kup th ei r s en te nc es . Eda Katha r i ne Tinto, “Un derco ve r P olic in g, O ve rs ta te d Culpabi l i ty” 51

- 52 ( N YU S choolof Law , P ubl i c L aw R ese ar ch P aper N o. 12

- 04, Augus t 201 2; f o r th co m i ngi n C a rdo z o La w R eview , vo l
. 34 , 20 13 ), ht tp : //papers. ssr n. com /s ol 3/papers. cfm ?abst ra ct_ i d=20163 62 ( vi si ted S ept. 4 , 20 12)
. A nd such s ti ngs cre ate an incre ase d ri sk ofentr apm ent b ecause o f “the po te nt i alf o r the e xt en si ve us e o fi nduc ement s an d unreal i sti c tem ptati ons to encour age the suspects ’ cr i m i nal conduct. ” Id
. at52 ; se e a l so U nited St at e s v. Br iggs , 62 3 F. 3d 724, 72 9- 30 ( 9th Ci r. 20 10)
. “[ T]he gov er nm ent c an
‘ m i ni m i ze the obsta cl es a defe nd ant m ust o ver com e t o obt ai n the drugs. ’ Fo r exam ple , the pol i ce c an co nvi nce a s uspect t h at the sta sh house r obbe rywould be a s hocki ng l y s i mpl e a nd e a s y c r i me t o c o mm i tand canp r o v i de i tem s, such a s a car, needed to co m ple te the c ri m e. ” Ti nto, sup ra , at 5 2- 53. N eve rthel ess Iacc ept the r ej ecti on o fan entr apm ent defense i n the superfic ial l y s i m i l arcas e o f U nite d State s v. Hall , 608 F.3 d 3 4 0 , 343-44 (7th Cir.28 N os. 10

- 3725 , 10

- 3726, 11

- 2262 & 11

- 2439 2010 )
. The co urt thought the defendant predi spose d to ro b a st as h h ou se , a n d th e e x p ec te d p ro fit t o h im se emed mode st, whi chw as e vi den ce o fpr edi spo si ti o n. The evi dence ofpre dispos i ti on i n thi s ca se i s a l tog ether th inn er. T he govern m en t’s m aj or argum en t is th at M ayfiel d ’s whol eh ea r te d c o m m i tmentt o the s ch eme o nc e he deci de d to j oi n prov es predi sposi ti on

— th e govern m en t’s brief barely m en tions even ts before he agreed to p artic i pate in the ro bber y. But i t i s har dlysur pri si ng tha t ha vingy i el ded to a n e xt r ao r di na r y i nduc em enthe w oul d do eve ry thi ng poss ibl e t o earn the prom i sed re w ar d . I f th e d efe n d an t “ w as in d e e d en tr ap p ed , i t is irre l evantthatthe entr apm ent was so effecti ve as to m ak e h im n oton ly a w illing bu t a n ea ge r p ar t i c ip an t.” U ni t e d S t at e s v. Evans , 924 F.2d 714 , 716 (7th C ir. 19 9 1 ); cf. Sh erm a n v . U nited Sta tes, 3 56 U
. S
. 3 69 , 3 73

- 74 ( 19 58 ) ( th e sam e defendant as i n J ud ge H and’s case , wh i c h Ici ted ear l i er, but a s ubsequent ap p eal )
. M or eov er, r obbi ng a sta sh house i s a danger ous b usin ess ; the und er cove r age nt t old M ayfi el d that the r obbe rs would enco unter thre e a rm ed m en i nsi de, wh o w oul d ki l l to t h w ar t a ro b b er y. I t was natur althatM ayfi el d shoul d seekto re du ce the dangerto hi m sel fby r ecr uit i ng as soc i ate s. I t’ s no t a s i fhe’ d agr eed to the schem e w h en the fel on who was wor k i ngf o r the po l i ce a s ani nfo r m an t o n a co m m i ss i o n b as i s fi r stpr o p osed i t to hi m . The i n f o r ma n t, a c o wo r k e r, kn e w Ma y f i e l d h a d a c r i minal past, and m ay ha ve th ou g h t h im l ikel y to be pe rsu adabl e to c o m m i t a cr i m e be ca us e he e xpr es se d c o n-N os. 10

- 3725 , 10

- 3726, 11

- 2262 & 11

- 2439 29

ce r n abo uthi s l o w w ag e. A cc o r di ngt o M ay fi el d, the in for m an t’s first su gg es tio n w as th at M ay field j oin h im in se llin g c o c a i n e . H e re fu se d . N ex t t h e in for m an t t old h im th ath is (t h e in for m an t’s ) d ru g s u p p lier (a c tu ally i t was a g o vern m entunde r co ve ra g en t f o r who m the i nfo rm ant work ed) w ante d t o ro b a sta sh house and that i f M ay field j oi ned i n the caperhe woul d ear n tens o f th ou san d s of d oll ars. A gain M ayfiel d refus e d . Th e inform ant k ept ba dgering hi m , witho ut succe ss . Then M ayfi eld’s car w as d a m a g e d i n an accid en t, an d he d idn ’t ha ve e no ug h mone y to rep ai r i t. The i nf o r m an t l en t hi m $1 80

— and ke pt o n b adg er i nghi m t o j o i n i n r o bb i ng the s tash house. The i nfo rm ant pointed to the Gangster Di sc i pl es t at to o o n M ayf i el d’ s ar m a nd s ai d tha t he (th e in for m an t) w as st ill con n ec te d w ith th e g an g; a re as on ab le jur y c ou ld h av e a c c ep te d M ay field ’s c laim that he tho ught the i nfo rm ant was warni ng him that he’ d bett err epay the $1 80

— orel se. H e co uldn’ t r epay it w ithou t the proc eed s o f th e stash -hou se robbe ry. So fi na l l y he c av ed, a nd a g r ee d to j oi n the s ch eme. The m aj or i ty opi ni on o m i ts these cr i ti calf acts
. M ayfiel d ’s prolonged i nitial r e lu ctan ce, w hich ap p ears to h av e la st ed for w ee ks , s u gg es ts th at h e w as n ’t e ag er ly aw aiting an op p ortu nity to resu m e his aban d one d l ife o fc r i m e . I tw a s o n l y w h e n h i s n e e d f o r m o n e y b e c a me ac ut e an d he fea r ed th ata f ai l ur e to pa y hi s deb t to the i nfo rm ant would pl ace hi s li fe in dangerthatthe l ure of parti c ip ating i n a r obbe rythatwould net hi m a l ar ge amoun t o fmone y b ec ame i r r es i st ibl e. Ors o a t l ea stthe j ur y mi g hth a v e f o un d h a d i tb e e n a l l o we d t o c o ns i der hi s e ntra pm ent defense.30 N os. 10

- 3725 , 10

- 3726, 11

- 2262 & 11

- 2439 Cri m i nal s do som eti m es change and g et t hei r l i ves ba cko n t rack and we do n’ t wantthe g o ve r nm en t p u sh in g t h em ba c k i n t o a life of c rim e. Sh erm a n v . U nited Sta tes , sup ra , 35 6 U.S
. at37 5- 76. This m ay b e a ca se l i ke She r m an i n w hi ch “the Gover nm ent pl ays o n t he weakn e s s e s o fa n i n n o c e n tp a r t y an d b e g u i l e s h i m in t o c o mm i tti ng cr i m es w hi ch he ot herwis e would nothave at
tem pted. ” Id
. at37 6 ( f oo tnot e o m itt ed). S herm an l i ke M ay fi e l d ha d a c r i mi na l r e c o r d b ut wa s t r y i ng to go str ai ght. I d o no ts a y tha tMay fi e l d was e nt r appe d. Butthere i s c o ns i de r a b l e e v i de nc e tha t he may ha v e b e e n, a nd , co ns i der i ngthe sta k es ( he was s en te nc ed to 3 22 months i n pr i so n, c l o se t o a l i fe se nt en ce gi ve n h i s ag e) , he was e nt i tl ed to pres en t ane nt r apmentde fen se t o the j ury. The go ver nm ent wou l d have had a heavyburden ofdi spro vi ng the defense. I n c l o s i ngIwa ntt o s a y s o methingab o utthe s entence and about the c ri ticiz ed p ra cti ce o ffi cti ti ous s tas h house sti ngs; thes e a re r elated. Icannoti m agi ne the se nse o f i mpr i s o ning M a y fi e l d fo r 2 7y e a r s ( mi nu s mo de s tg o o dti m e cr edi t i fhe b ehave s hi m sel f ). I s h ou l d thi nk a sente nc e of 5 year s m or e than adequate. Can ther e be an y s er iou s c on c er n th at u p o n em er gin g h e w ou ld em b ar k on a c ar ee r o f rob b in g s ta sh h ou se s? T h at if appr o ac he d b y a ny o ne i nv i tinghi m t o l au nc h s ucha ca r ee r he woul d l i st ent o the p er so n? I s th er e an y th i ng in the recor d to m ake su ch a poss ibi li ty real? Be fore succum bi ng to the bl an dishm ents ofthe i nfo rm ant, M ayfi el d was wor k i nga t anho ne stj o b. He was s uppo r tingN os. 10

- 3725 , 10

- 3726, 11

- 2262 & 11

- 2439 31 hi m sel f
. H e was nota publi c char ge. N ow, as a r esul t o f the s ti ng, we the t axpayer s wil l be supp or ti ng hi m at consi derabl e e xpense f orthe next qua rt er century. Does that m ake anyse nse? A nd now consi der the ro l e of such sti ngs i n the “w aro n drugs. ” Are they l i kel y t o re du c e th e sal e a nd use of i l l ega l drugs? N o; theyar e l ike l y t o have the o pp osi te eff ec t. Sta shho us e r o bb er s do no t i nc r ea se the a m o unt of dr ug s i n c i r c ul a t i o n, s i nc e the y s t e a l the i r drugs instea d of m aking or i m p orting th em . Th e e ff e c t of a f i c t i t i o us s t a s h ho us e s t i ng, whe n the pe r s o n s t un g i s, un li ke M ayfiel d , a realstash hou se robbe r, i s the r e fore to m ak e s ta s h h ou se s m or e s ec u re by red u c in g t h e like lihood o fthei r bei ng robbe d. A st i ng bo th el i m i nates o ne po te nt i als ta shho us e r o bb er( unl es s th e defen dan t was e nt r appe d) and det er s o th erc r i m i na l s f r o m j o i ni ng sta sh ho u se r obberi es, since they m ay turn o ut to be sti ngs. The gr eat erse curi ty that fi cti tio us st ash ho use sti ngs c onfero n re alst ash ho uses

— secu ri ty obt ai ned at no co st to the o perat or s o fst ash ho uses

— re d u c es th eir co sto fs el f

- pr o te ct i o n, whi chi s a pr i nc i palc o sto fthe i l l eg al

- dr ugb us i ne ss . The l o wer a b us i ne ss ’ s co st s, the l owerthe p r i c e s c ha r g e d c o ns ume r s , a nd s o the g r e a t er th e demand fo r i l l eg aldr ug s an d the mor e sa l es a nd consum pti on o fthem
. The o p er ators o fst ash ho uses wo ul d payl aw enf or cem ent t o sti ng pote nti alst ash ho use ro bber s.

9- 26- 12