FILED U.S. COURT OF AP P E A LS E LE V EN T HC IRC U IT FEB 27, 2007 THOMAS K. KAH

N CLERK [ DO NO T P UB L I S H] I N THE UN I TE D STATE S C OU RT OF APPE ALS F O R T H E E L E V E N T H C IR C U IT

________________________ N o. 06- 11959 N on -A rgum entC al endar

________________________ D . C. D o c k e tN o . 0 5 - 0 0 2 0 5 - CR- CG U N I T E D S T A T E S O F A M E R I C A , P la in tif f - A p p e lle e , v ersu s R I C H A R D M O R R I S O N , D e f e n d a n t- A p p e lla n t.

________________________ A pp ea l fr om the U ni t ed S t at es D i stri ctC ou rt f o rth e So u th e rn D i s tr i c to f A l ab a ma

_________________________ ( F e b r u ar y 27, 2007) B efo re A N D E R S O N , B IR C H an d B A R K E T T , C i rcu i tJu d g es. P E R C U R I A M:Morrison also wa s convicted on onecount of fo rf ei ture, however , he has a

bandoned a

ny 1 argument with respec t to this conviction by not challeng ing it on appeal. See United States v. Ford, 270 F.3d 1346, 1347 ( 11th Cir. 2001) (per curiam). 2 R i c ha r d M orr i s on appe a l s hi s c onvi c t i on a nd 78- m onth s e nt e nc e f orone coun tof m al i ci ou sl y des troyi ng by m ea ns of a f i re a bui l di ng , B ronco B i l l ’ s D ance C lu b , a .k .a . M o b ile ’s P u b ( “B r o n c o B ill’s ” ) , in M o b ile , A lab a m a , th a t w a s u s e d in a n a c t i vi ty a f

f e c t i ng i nt e r s t a t e c om m e r c e , i n vi ol a t i on of 18 U . S . C . § 844( i ) . T he gove rnm e nt , how e ve r , pr ove d be y ond a r e a s onabl e doubthi s gui l t , i nc l udi ng the e l e m e nttha tthe bui l di ng ha d a s uf f i c i e ntne xus t o i nt e r s t a t e c om m e r c e . T he di stri ctcourtdi d n otabuse i t s di sc re t i on i n d enyi ng M orri son’ s m ot i on for new tr i a l ba s e d on ne w l y di s c ove r e d e vi de nc e , orf ornothol di ng a n e vi de nt i a ry he a r i ng on thatm ot i on , because the evi dence ati ss ue w as no tadm i ss i bl e und erF eder al R u le o f E v id e n c e 6 0 8 ( b ) a n d , th u s , n o t m a te r ia l. F in a lly , th e d is tr ic t c o u r t p r o p e r ly c a l c ul a t e d M orr i s on’ s a dj us t e d of f e ns e l e ve l , i nc l udi ng the e nha nc e m e ntf or obs truc t i on of

j us t i c e be c a us e he r e t a l i a t e d a ga i ns ta gove rnm e ntw i tne s s by th r e a t e n i n g h i m d u r i n g a p o s t - tr i a l t e l e p h o n e c o n v e r s a t i o n . We A F F I R M. I . B AC KG RO UN D R i c ha r d M orr i s on w a s i ndi c t e d f orm a l i c i ous l y de s tr oy i ng B r onc o B i l l ’ s by fi re and, throu gh att orney D w i gh tR ei d, ent er ed a pl eaof no tgu i l ty. R ei d l at er 1 w i thd re w as M orri son’ s c ou nsel and att orney N ei l H anl ey ent er ed an appeara nce a s3

M orr i s on’ s c ouns e l . H a nl e y f i l e d a not i c e of

i nt e ntt o us e the pr i orc onvi c t i ons of T e rry F r e dr i ks e n, a gove rnm e ntw i tne s s , f ori m pe a c hm e ntpurpos e s . T he go vernm entobj ec t ed thatbecause the pri or conv i ct i on s w er e m ore than t en ye ar s o ld , th e y f

e ll o u ts id e o f

th e te n - y e a rlim ita tio n in F e d e r a l R u le o f E v id e n c e 6 0 9 . T he di stri ctcourtagre ed w i th the go vernm entand h el d thatthe conv i ct i on s w er e i na dm i s s i bl e unde rR ul e 609. A ttr i a l , the gove rnm e ntc a l l e d, a m ong othe r s , a f i r e s c e ne r e s ponde ra nd i nve s t i ga t or s ; a r s on e xpe r t s ; the f or m e row ne rof

the pr ope r ty , R a c he l V a l l a s , w ho pr e vi ous l y s ol d the pr ope r ty t o M orr i s on vi a a ve ndor ’ s l i e n de e d; a nd the S hant az i os, w ho w er e l ea si ng the prop erty f rom M orri son atthe t i m e of the fi re . In defe nse, M orri son cal l ed as w i tness es , am on g o thers , D w i gh tR ee d, an att orney w ho ha d r e pr e s e nt e d hi m pr i orthe f i r e i n othe rm a tt e r s a nd a tthe be gi nni ng of the c r im in a l tr ia l; a n d a r s o n e x p e r t C h a r le s B u tle r . T o est abl i sh a p r im a fa c ie c a s e of a vi ol a t i on of

§ 844( i ) , ora r s on, the gove rnm e ntc a l l e d F r a nk B y r d, C apt a i n of the M obi l e F i r e D e pa r tm e nt , w ho t e s t i f i e d tha thi s uni tr e s ponde d t o a c a l l a t4: 32 A . M . on 6 O c t obe r2004 r e ga r di ng an o n g o i n g fi re atB ro n co B i l l ’ s an d h ad t o fo rce en try i n t o th e b u i l d i n g b ecau se the do ors w er e l ocked. O nce i nsi de, B yr d h ea rd a l ou d exp l osi on , fe l tthe fi re in te n s if y , a n d c o m m a n d e d th e f ir e f ig h te r s to e v a c u a te th e b u rn in g b u ild in g .4

S hor t l y the r e a f

t e r , the r oof

of the bui l di ng pa r t i a l l y c ol l aps e d. T he go vernm ental so pres ent ed the t es t i m on y of S am uel S t ephens, an i nve s t i ga t orf

orthe C i ty of

M obi l e F i r e D e pa r tm e nt ’ s B ur e a u of F i r e P r e ve nt i on; H a r ve y D ougl a s C r a nf

or d, a f ol l ow - up i nve s t i ga t orw i th the M obi l e F i r e R e s c ue D epartm ent ; D ani el H ebert , a s peci al agentfor the B ureau o f A l coho l , T ob ac co a nd F i r e a r m s ( “ A T F ” ) w ho ha d be e n r e c ogni z e d by the I nt e rna t i ona l A s s oc i a t i on o f A r s o n I n v e s tig a to r s a s th e in v e s tig a to ro f th e y e a r ; a n d R . H a r o ld D e e s e , a c e r tif ie d f ir e a n d e x p lo s iv e s in v e s tig a to r , a ll o f w h o m in d e p e n d e n tly o p in e d th a t, ba s e d on the burn pa tt e rns , the f i r e ha d be e n i nt e nt i ona l l y s e tus i ng s om e ty pe of f la m m ab le liq u id a n d h a d n o t b e e n ig n ite d a c c id e n tly o rb y a n a tu r a l c a u s e . S t e phe ns , C r a nf

or d, a nd D e e s e be l i e ve d tha tthe f i r e or i gi na t e d on the da nc e f l oor a r e a , w hi l e H e be r tc onc l ude d tha tthe f i r e or i gi na t e d e l s e w he r e i n the bui l di ng, s i nc e the da nc e f

l oorha d a non- por ous s ur f a c e a nd the r e w a s no da m a ge unde rne a th i t . A l though f or e ns i c t e s t s on thr e e s a m pl e s t a ke n f r om the bui l di ng a f te rth e f ir e te s te d n e g a tiv e f

o ra c c e le r a n ts , th e g o v e rn m e n t w itn e s s e s u n if o r m ly agre ed thatthe negat i ve re sul t s di d n otprov e thata f l am m abl e l i qu i d h ad no tbeen used, consi deri ng the am ou ntof t i m e thatthe fi re bu rned and t he am ou ntof w at er tha tw a s pum pe d i nt o the bui l di ng. I n or de rt o e s t abl i s h i t s the ory on how the f i r e ha d be e n s e t , the gove rnm e nt5

e lic ite d f r o m H e b e r t th a t it w a s p o s s ib le th a t th e b u rn p a tte rn w a s c o n s is te n t w ith an i gn i t abl e l i qu i d b ei ng po ured fr om a hei gh t , and from D ee se thathe had i nve s t i ga t e d a r s on c a s e s i n w hi c h a pe r s on ha d pour e d f l a m m abl e l i qui ds i nt o the bui l di ng f

r om ahol e i n the r oof

. H e be r ta nd D e e s e ’ s t e s t i m oni e s w e r e c ons i s t e nt w ith th a t o f

D e te c tiv e M a r k H e n d e r s o n ’s te s tim o n y th a t h e d is c o v e r e d “s e v e r a l” hol e s i n the s outh w a l l of the bui l di ng, di r e c t l y above the da nc e f l oora r e a , dur i ng hi s i nve s t i ga t i on of

the f i r e , a nd hi s opi ni on tha tthe s e hol e s , i f the y e xi s t e d a tthe t i m e of the f i r e , c oul d ha ve be e n us e d t o i ntr oduc e i gni t abl e l i qui d i nt o the b u i l d i n g . Do c . 7 4 a t7 9 9 - 8 0 1 , 8 0 5 . T h e s e h o l e s we r e “ b a s i c a l l y c r a c k s wh e r e two bo ar ds ha[d] been pl ac ed t og ether a nd then a cover board w as pl ac ed ov erthem a n d th e y h a [ d ] b e e n p r ie d ap a r t.” I d . a t 8 0 1 . T o est abl i sh a m ot i ve for the cr i m e, the go vernm entel i ci t ed fr om C ra nford that , du ri ng an i nt ervi ew w i th M orri son aroun d 6 : 00 P . M . on the day of the fi re , M o rr i s o n a c k n o w l e d g e d th a tBr o n c o Bi l l ’ s w a s b e i n g f o r e c l o s e d u p o n a tth a tt i me be c a us e he ha d m i s s e d tw o m onthl y pa y m e nt s a nd w a s i n br e a c h of c ontr a c tby perm i tt i ng i nsurance on the bu i l di ng t o l apse . T hi s t es t i m on y w as l at er corr ob orat ed by tw o o ther gov ernm entw i tness es , R ac hel V al l as and h erneph ew an d att o rn ey, P et e V al l as. A cco rd i n g t o R ach el an d P et e, R ach el so l d th e b u si n ess t o M orri son i n D ec em ber 200 1 v i a avend or’ s l i en deed, bu thad i ni t i at ed6

f or e c l os ur e pr oc e e di ngs on the pr ope r ty a f t e rs he r e c e i ve d a w or thl e s s c he c k f r om hi m i n J une 2004 a nd ha d notr e c e i ve d a ny c he c ks f r om hi m f

orthe m onths of A ug ustor S ept em ber. T he forec l osure s al e w as se tfor 7 O ct ob er20 06 , the day af t erthe fi re , bu tbecause of the fi re and con ce rns abo uti nsurance c ov er age, i tw as pos tpone d. R ach el al so t est i fi ed th atsh e o b t ai n ed m o rt g ag ee i n su ran ce o n th e p ro p erty, be c a us e M orr i s on ha d pe r m i tt e d the i ns ur a nc e on B r onc o B i l l ’ s t o l aps e f orthe se cond t i m e on 8 A ug ust20 04 . W i th res pectt o the l apse d i nsurance, P et e t es t i fi ed tha t , dur i ng a t e l e phone c onve r s a t i on w i th M orr i s on on 1 O c t obe r2004, he m i st ak en l y i n fo rm ed M o rri so n th atR ach el h ad “ rei n st at ed ” th e i n su ran ce p o l i cy, w he n s he a c tua l l y ha d pur c ha s e d m or t ga ge e i ns ur a nc e , w hi c h w a s l i m i t e d t o the a m ountof

the ve ndor ’ s l i e n a nd nott o the e xt e ntof the t ot a l l os s . D oc . 73 a t558- 60 , 56 9-70 . A ft erthe fi re , the i nsurance com pany pai d h erthe am ou ntof her ve ndor ’ s l i e n a nd, c ons e que nt l y , M orr i s on be c a m e the f e e s i m pl e ow ne rof

the p r o p e r ty . T h e g o v e rn m e n t a ls o p r e s e n te d te s tim o n y f r o m S h a w n M ic h a e l S h a n ta z io a n d h is w if

e , A lic ia S h a n ta z io , to p r o v e th a t th e b u ild in g w a s u s e d in a n a c tiv ity th a t a f f e c te d in te r s ta te c o m m e r c e a n d th a t M o rr is o n h a d th e o p p o r tu n ity to c o m m it the c r i m e . S ha w n t e s t i f i e d tha the a nd M orr i s on ha d e xe c ut e d a one - y e a rl e a s e f or7

B r onc o B i l l ’ s on 7 J ul y 2004, a nd tha the a nd A l i c i a w e r e runni ng a r e s t a ur a nton the pr ope r ty na m e d “ M obi l e ’ s P ub” a tthe t i m e of the f i r e . I d. a t571- 72, 574- 76, 582- 83. S ha w n a l s o t e s t i f i e d tha tM orr i s on ha d a rr i ve d a tthe r e s t a ur a nta r ound 1: 00 A . M . on 6 O ct ob er20 04 , a f ew ho urs bef

ore the fi re st art ed, w ea ri ng dark c lo th e s a n d b o o ts a n d h a d s ta y e d u n til c lo s in g a r o u n d 1 :4 5 A .M . to 2 :0 0 A .M .. S h a w n f u r th e rte s tif

ie d th a t h e h a d c h a n g e d a ll o f th e lo c k s o n th e b u ild in g in S e p te m b e r2 0 0 4 w ith o u t M o rr is o n ’s k n o w le d g e , a n d th e r e w e r e o n ly f o u rk e y s to th e n e w l o c k s , o n e f

o rh i m s e l f

, o n e f o rh i s wi f

e , a n d o n e f

o re a c h o f

th e two ba r t e nde r s . S ha nt a z i o s t a t e d tha the ha d l oc ke d a l l of the door s t o the bui l di ng on the ni gh tof the fi re . A l i c i a t e s t i f

i e d tha ts he pe r s ona l l y s ol d a nd s e r ve d J a c k D a ni e l ’ s bourbon, D e w a r ’ s s c o t c h w h i s k e y , a n d A r i s t o c r a tv o d k a t o p a tr o n s o f M o b i l e ’ s Pu b . A my G i l be r t , a m a na ge rw i th the A l aba m a B e ve r a ge C ontr ol ( “ A B C ” ) B oa r d, corr ob orat ed A l i ci a’ s t es t i m on y by s t at i ng that , ac cordi ng t o A B C re ce i pt s, B ronco B i l l ’ s ha d pur c ha s e d J a c k D a ni e l ’ s bourbon m a nuf a c tur e d i n L y nc hbur g, T e nne s s e e , on 26 A ugus t2004; D e w a r ’ s s c ot c h w hi s ke y m a nuf a c tur e d i n P e r th, S c ot l a nd on 6 A ugus t2004; a nd A r i s t oc r a tvodka m a nuf a c tur e d i n B a r ds t ow n, K e ntuc ky , on 10 S e pt e m be r2004. T o e s tab lis h o p p o r tu n ity , th e g o v e rn m e n t p r e s e n te d th e te s tim o n y o f E m ily8

K ay e D avi s, an em pl oyee ata B P gas s t at i on i n L ox l ey , A l abam a, w ho t es t i fi ed tha tM orr i s on pur c ha s e d tw o ga l l ons of ga s ol i ne f

r om he rbe tw e e n 7: 00 P . M . a nd 7: 30 P . M . on 5 O c t obe r2004, the ni ghtbe f or e the f i r e . D a vi s a dm i tt e d tha tm a ny peop l e w er e f

i l l i ng gasol i ne cont ai ners atthatt i m e, because H urri ca ne Ivan had r e c e n tly s tru c k th a t a r e a o n 1 6 S e p te m b e r2 0 0 4 . N e v e r th e le s s , s h e r e m e m b e rth is pu rc hase as un i qu e bec ause M orri son, w ho w as dres se d i n al l bl ac k atthe t i m e, parked hi s c aron the no rth si de of the bu i l di ng , ou tof vi ew of the survei l l ance ca m er a, and w al ked o ver t o the pu m ps t o fi l l hi s gas ol i ne cont ai ner. T he go vernm ental so pres ent ed the t es t i m on y of R ob ertC um bi e, a s oci al ac qu ai nt ance of M orri son, w ho som et i m es hel ped o utatthe cl ub . C um bi e t es t i fi ed th a t M o rr is o n h a d d is c u s s e d th e p r o b le m s h e w a s h a v in g in m a k in g th e m o n th ly m or t ga ge pa y m e nton the B r onc o B i l l ’ s pr ope r ty , a nd w i th the f or e c l os ur e s of o th e rp r o p e r tie s h e h a d o w n e d b e f o r e h e le a s e d B r o n c o B ill’s to th e S h a n ta z io s . C u m b ie a ls o te s tif

ie d th a t h e n o tic e d th a t M o rr is o n w a s h a v in g p r o b le m s w ith h is e y e s d u r i n g th e s p r i n g o f 2 0 0 4 . W h e n Cu mb i e a s k e d ab o u tth e e y e p r o b l e m, M orr i s on i ni t i a l l y pr ovi de d one e xpl a na t i on, butl a t e rga ve a di f f e r e nte xpl a na t i on, s pe c i f i c a l l y , s t a t i ng tha the ha d hur thi s e y e s w hi l e a tt e m pt i ng t o burn dow n the bui l di ng w i th ga s . T hi s por t i on of C um bi e ’ s t e s t i m ony w a s c orr obor a t e d by another gov ernm entw i tness , B ob by M cL em ore, w ho t es t i fi ed thathe checkedIn th esamec onvers atio n, Mo rriso n co mmente d that the ag e nts had not bot here d h im w ith 2 further questions beca

use they neede d proof “beyond a shadow of a doubt” and that therewas “no proof like that. B eca

use it ain’t happened.” D oc. 73 at 688. 9 patrons’ i dent i fi ca t i on s a tthe do or atM orri son’ s baron on e part i cul arT hu rs day and F ri day ni gh tbecause, as he l at erl ea rned fr om M orri son, M orri son’ s e ye s had b e e n in ju r e d w h ile a tte m p tin g to b u rn d o w n th e b u ild in g w ith g a s . T he go vernm ental so ca l l ed as a w i tness T erry F re dri ksen, w ho t es t i fi ed that M orr i s on ha d r e que s t e d tha ts he pr ovi de hi m w i th a n a l i bi , s i nc e he ha d be e n a l one a thom e on the ni ghtof

the f i r e . B a s e d on thi s r e que s t , F r e dr i ks e n t e s t i f i e d tha ts he i ni t i a l l y t ol d A T F a ge nt s tha tM orr i s on a rr i ve d a the rhous e a r ound 1: 00 A . M . on the ni ghtof

the f i r e , tha ts he w e ntt o be d a r ound 3: 00 A . M . , a nd tha the w a s not there w hen she w ok e up l at erthatm orni ng . A pp roxi m at el y one m on th l at er , how e ve r , F r e dr i ks e n r e c a nt e d a nd t ol d the A T F a ge nt s tha tM orr i s on ha d not st ay ed ather hou se on the ni gh tof the fi re . T he A T F agent s r equest ed that F r e d r ik s e n s e c r e tly r e c o r d c o n v e r s a tio n s w ith M o rr is o n to s e e if h e w o u ld a d m it tha the burne d dow n B r onc o B i l l ’ s ortha the w a s nota the rhom e on the ni ghtof f ir e . T he go vernm entthen p l ay ed tw o t aped conv er sa t i on s betw ee n F re dri ksen a nd M orr i s on. M orr i s on ne ve ra dm i tt e d t o burni ng dow n the bui l di ng, de c l a r i ng tha the “ di dn’ tburn no f uc ki ng bui l di ng, ” D oc . 73 a t672, dur i ng one 2When Fre driksen asked Morrison “where w ereyou that night? ,” Morrison responded that 3 he wa s “[h] ome. After I

went by your house.”Doc. 73 at 707.

10 c o n v e r s a tio n , a n d “I a in ’t b u rn e d d o w n n o f u c k in g b u ild in g ,” id . a t 6 8 3 , in a n o th e r . M orr i s on a l s o ne ve ra dm i tt e d tha the w a s nota tF r e dr i ks e n’ s hous e on the ni ghtof f ir e a n d s ta te d d u r in g o n e o f th e c o n v e r s a tio n s th a t h e h a d n o t “h a d n o n o b o d y lie fo r [h i m ] . I w as th ere atyo u r h o u se an d th atw as th at . . . . I co m e b y yo u r h o u se a nd f e l l a s l e e p on y ourc ouc h. A nd I a i n’ tgoi ng t o t e l l i tno othe rw a y , e ve r . B ut thateventhapp ened. T hat ’ s w hathapp ened. ” I d. at67 1. H e e m ph as i ze d that

“ the r e a i n’ tne ve rgoi ng t o c om e a da y i n l i f e tha tI ’ m goi ng t o s a y tha tI w e nt a n y wh e r e o th e rth a n y o u rh o u s e , ‘ c a u s e th a t ’ s wh e r e I we n t . ” I d . a t6 7 5 . He e xpl a i ne d tha the di d not“ e ve n know w he n [ F r e dr i ks e n] w e ntt o s l e e p. B ut [ M o rr is o n ] f

e ll a s le e p s ittin g o n th e c o u c h .” I d . a t 6 7 6 . I n the s e c ond c onve r s a t i on, M orr i s on a ga i n m a i nt a i ne d tha the ha d notdone a ny thi ng w r ong. W he n F r e dr i ks e n e xpl a i ne d tha ts he w a s be i ng pr e s s ur e d by the ag en t s, M o rri so n resp o n d ed th ath e d i d n o tu n d erst an d w h ath i s v i si tt o h er h o u se ha d “ t o do w i th a ny of

i t . Y ou c a n’ tve r i f

y w ha tI di d ordi dn’ tdo w hi l e y ou w e nt to b ed .” Id . at 6 9 9 . H e e m p h as ized th at h e h ad “sto p p ed b y y o u r h o u se an d th at’s a s s i m pl e a s tha t . I m e a n, tha t ’ s the w a y i ti s . ” I d. a t700. H e s t a t e d tha the 3

“ di dn’ tburn the pl a c e dow n t o s t a r tw i th a nd the y a i n’ tgotno e vi de nc e I di d. A nd I di dn ’ tdo i t , t o b egi n w i th . . . they a i n’ tgo i ng t o p rove I di d d o i t , because IMorrison also said “I didn’t fucking do it.” Doc. 73 at 701. He e xplained to Fredriksen 4 that th eag e ntswere“ loo kingfo r . . . so mebo dy Itol d I fuc king did it to . And

they ain’ t g oingto find that, bec ause I

ain’t fuc king done i t to start with.” I d. at 705. L ater in the same c onversation, Morrison stated that he“ain’ t had nothing to do with that fuc king f ire.”I d. at 707. It is apparent that, based on the a rguments made by

the g overnm ent and Morrison’s 5 attorne y , the transc ript of the re cording s indicated Morrison used the word “hadn’t”rather than “had,”see D oc. 73 at 662- 64; Doc. 74 at 743, even though the re cord indicated that he use d the word “had”and not “hadn’t.” SeeDoc. 73 at 684. Morrison did not, how ever , argue that § 844(i) was unconstitutional, that the district court 6 la c ke d s ub

je c t matter j urisdic tio n und e r t heCommerc e Clau se , o r t hat th edis tric t c ourt

sh ould consider theSupreme Court’s decision in United States v. L opez, 514 U.S. 549, 115 S. C t. 1624, (1995), in dealing with constitutional claims under § 844( i). 11 d id n ’t d o it.” I d . a t 6 9 9 .

4 T he tr a ns c r i ptof

the c onve r s a t i on i ndi c a t e d, a nd the gove rnm e ntc ont e nde d, th a t M o rr is o n s ta te d th a t h e w o u ld “h a v e b e e n a w h o le lo t b e tte ro f f if I h a d lie d in a n o th e rd ir e c tio n . . . . I ’d h a v e b e e n b e tte ro f f if I h a d n ’t to ld s o m e f

u c k in g lie s .” 5 Id . at 6 6 2 -6 4 , 6 8 4 . D ef en se co u n se l m ain tain ed th at M o rr iso n ac tu ally stated , “ I’d ha ve be e n be tt e rof

i f I ha d t ol d s om e of

thos e l i e s , ” butF r e dr i ks e n di s a gr e e d, s t a t i ng, “ T ha ti s notthe w a y I t ook i ta ta l l . ” D oc . 74 a t743. A ft erthe go vernm entre st ed, M orri son m ov ed for a n acqui tt al , ar gu i ng that the go vernm entdi d n otprov e ( a) a pri m a f ac i e c as e of a rs on , (b) thathe w as in v o lv e d in th e f

ir e , o r( c ) th a t th e b u ild in g h a d as u b s ta n tia l im p a c t o n in te r s ta te c om m e r c e . T he di s tr i c tc our tde ni e d the m ot i on.

6 M orr i s on’ s f

i r s tw i tne s s w a s D w i ghtR e e d, hi s i ni t i a l de f e ns e a tt orne y , w ho te s tif ie d th a t h e h a d e x p la in e d to M o rr is o n s o m e tim e b e f o r e th e f ir e th a t h e w o u ld12

have a s t atut ory r i gh tof re dem pt i on i n w hi ch he coul d redeem t he forec l osed p r o p e r ty w ith in o n e y e a ro f th e f o r e c lo s u r e . M o rr is o n a ls o c a lle d C h a r le s B u tle r , a re t i re d fi re i nv es t i gat or for the M ob i l e P ol i ce D epar tm ent , as a w i tness . B ut l er te s tif ie d th a t th e “b u rn p a tte rn s [ w e r e ] a b s o lu te ly u s e le s s ,” b e c a u s e d is to r tio n s to the pa tt e rns w oul d ha ve oc c urr e d w he n i t e m s w e r e f a l l i ng t o the gr ound dur i ng the f i r e . D oc . 75 a t952. B ut l e ropi ne d tha t , ba s e d on the f i r e ’ s or i gi n, w hi c h he c o n te n d e d w a s a r o u n d th e p a tr o n a r e a w h e r e b o o th s w e r e lo c a te d , ap p r o x im a te ly fi ve t o si x fee taw ay fr om the dance fl oo r a re a, a s m ol deri ng ci gare tt e dropp ed fr om on e of the bo oths, no tar son, caused the fi re . B u tle rf u r th e rte s tif

ie d th a t it w as “ no tconcei vabl e” thatsom eone coul d d ri l l a hol e i n the roof and d rop an i gn i t or t o st arta f

i re and, m oreover, he foun d n othi ng t o sup po rtsuch a theory d u r in g h is in v e s tig a tio n . I d . a t 9 8 7 . B u tle ra d m itte d th a t th e n e g a tiv e te s t r e s u lts di d n otprov e thatno ac ce l er antw as pres ent , and that , even i f aci gare tt e had bu rned do w n the bu i l di ng , he coul d n otdi sc ou ntthe po ss i bi l i ty thatM orri son w as th e p e r s o n w h o d r o p p e d th e c ig a r e tte o n to th e f lo o r . B u tle ra ls o a d m itte d th a t o n ly f o u ro f th e o n e th o u s a n d f

ir e s h e h a d in v e s tig a te d p r e v io u s ly w e r e d e f in ite ly caused by a c i gare tt e. M orri son then m ov ed for are new ed j ud gm entof ac qu i tt al o n th e s a m e g r o u n d s a s b e f o r e , a n d th e d is tr ic t c o u r t a g a in d e n ie d th e m o tio n . M o rr is o n w a s s u b s e q u e n tly f o u n d g u ilty b y th e ju ry a s c h a r g e d .13

M o rr is o n ’s c o u n s e l a ls o f ile d a m o tio n f

o ra n e w tr ia l b a s e d o n n e w ly di s c ove r e d e vi de nc e . C ouns e l r e c ount e d tha thi s r e que s tt o us e F r e dr i ks e n’ s pr i or c onvi c t i ons f

ori m pe a c hm e ntw a s de ni e d. H e s t a t e d tha t , w i thi n tw o w e e ks of fi l i ng the m ot i on , he had l ea rned that , atthe t i m e of hert es t i m on y a s a“ key pr os e c ut i on w i tne s s , ” F r e dr i ks e n “ w a s unde ri nve s t i ga t i on by the D rug E nf or c e m e ntA dm i ni s tr a t i on a nd the U ni t e d S t a t e s A tt orne y O f f i c e f orthe S outhe rn D i s tr i c tof

A l aba m a f

orm a j ordrug c r i m e s , ” i nc l udi ng the di s tr i but i on of

“ l ar ge am ou nt s of m etham ph et am i ne, ‘ i ce , ’ M D M A or ec st ac y, and m ar i j uana. ” D oc. 49 at1, 2. C ou nsel al so al l eged thatthe U ni t ed S t at es A tt orney’ s O ff i ce p o s s e s s e d d o c u m e n ts r e la tin g to F r e d r ik s e n ’s c r im in a l a c tiv itie s in r e la tio n to s ix n a m e d d e f

e n d a n ts . T h e d is tr ic t c o u r t d e n ie d th e m o tio n b e c a u s e M o rr is o n f a ile d to e s t abl i s h tha the e xe r c i s e d di l i ge nc e i n di s c ove r i ng the e vi de nc e , s i nc e the m ot i on w a s s i l e nta s t o pr e c i s e l y w he n he l e a rne d of the i nve s t i ga t i on a ga i ns tF r e dr i ks e n; the e vi de nc e , a tbe s t , w oul d ha ve be e n us e d f ori m pe a c hm e ntpurpos e s ; a nd the evi dence w ou l d n othave res ul t ed i n an acqui tt al , si nce i tw as i nadm i ss i bl e und er F e d. R . E vi d. 608, a nd, thus , notm a t e r i a l . M orr i s on’ s m ot i on f orr e c ons i de r a t i on and for prod uct i on of do cum ent s, w hi ch ar gu ed thatthe i nform at i on coul d b e use d to im p e a c h F r e d r ik s e n ’s c r e d ib ility u n d e rF e d . R . E v id . 6 0 8 , w a s a ls o d e n ie d . T he pr oba t i on of

f i c e ra s s i gne d M orr i s on a ba s e of f e ns e l e ve l of

24, a nd14

r e c o m m e n d e d a tw o - le v e l e n h a n c e m e n t f o ro b s tru c tio n o f

ju s tic e f o rth r e a te n in g , i nt i m i d at i ng , or otherw i se un l aw ful l y i nfl uenci ng a w i tness because M orri son h ad co n tacted an d th re aten ed a g o v er n m en t w itn es s w h o h ad d iscr ed it ed M o rr iso n ’s al i bi on the ni gh tof the fi re . W i th an adj ust ed offens e l evel at26 and a cri m i nal hi s t ory c a t e gory of

I , M orr i s on f

a c e d a G ui de l i ne s s e nt e nc i ng r a nge of 63- 78 m on ths i n p ri son. M orri son fi l ed w ri tt en obj ec t i on s t o the pres ent ence i nve s t i ga t i on a nd a r gue d, i n pa r t , tha ta n obs truc t i on of j us t i c e e nha nc e m e nt r e c o m m e n d a tio n w a s n o t w a rr a n te d . A tthe s e nt e nc i ng he a r i ng, M orr i s on r e ne w e d hi s w r i tt e n obj e c t i ons , a r gui ng tha tthe obs truc t i on of

j us t i c e e nha nc e m e ntw a s i nappl i c abl e be c a us e he c oul d not ha ve ha d the s pe c i f

i c i nt e ntt o obs truc tj us t i c e w he n he a l l e ge dl y c ont a c t e d the gove rnm e ntw i tne s s a s the tr i a l ha d a l r e a dy c onc l ude d a nd the w i tne s s ha d a l r e a dy t e s t i f i e d. I n r e s pons e t o thi s obj e c t i on, the gove rnm e ntpr e s e nt e d the t e s t i m ony of C um bi e w ho t e s t i f

i e d, i n pa r t , tha tM orr i s on t e l e phone d hi m on the ni ghta f t e rthe v e r d ic t w a s r e n d e r e d a n d “th r e a te n e d [ h is ] lif e a c o u p le o f

tim e s ” b e c a u s e C u m b ie

“ di dn’ tha ve t o s a y w ha tI s a i d” a nd, i n M orr i s on’ s w or ds , “ f r i e nds don’ tdo f

r i e nds th a t w a y .” D o c . 1 0 4 9 - 5 0 , 1 0 8 3 - 8 5 , 1 0 8 7 - 8 8 . T he go vernm ental so ar gu ed thatthe ob struct i on of j ust i ce enhancem entw as ju s tif ie d b e c a u s e C u m b ie c o u ld h a v e b e e n c a lle d a s a s e n te n c in g w itn e s s w ithMorrison was at his ex -wife ’s home at the time of this telephone call, attending what he had 7 hoped would be a “victory party,” and had the telephoneconver sation on a speaker phonewith a number of pe ople in the same room. Doc. 76 at 1097- 1100. Morrison was remande d into custody and reported to the Federal Corre ctional Institut ion 8 in Oakdale , L ouisiana on 8 May 2006. 15 r e s pe c tt o othe rout s t a ndi ng i s s ue s . T he gove rnm e nta l s o a r gue d tha tthe enhancem entw as w arra nt ed base d o n F re dri ksen’ s t es t i m on y thatM orri son asked her t o p rovi de hi m w i th a fa l se al i bi on the ni gh tof the fi re . M orri son res po nd ed by pr e s e nt i ng the t e s t i m ony of hi s e x- w i f

e , M e l i s s a M orr i s on, w ho s t a t e d tha ts he ov erhear d the conv er sa t i on ati ss ue, and thatM orri son n everthrea t ened C um bi e. 7 T he di stri ctcourtconcl ud ed thatthe ob struct i on of j ust i ce enhancem entw as w a rr a n te d b e c au s e M o rr is o n ’s te le p h o n ic th r e a t w a s in r e ta lia tio n o f C u m b ie t es t i fy i ng agai nsthi m , a vi ol at i on of 18 U . S . C . § 1 51 3 and a proper re as on un der § 3C 1. 1 for appl yi ng the enhancem ent . T he di stri ctcourtst at ed thati thad

“ c ons i de r e d the s t a tut ory purpos e s of s e nt e nc i ng a nd . . . the s e nt e nc i ng gu i del i nes, ” f

ou nd thatthe gu i del i nes provi de for a n app ropri at e s ent ence un der th e ci rcu m st an ces, an d th atth e sen t en ce th ath e i n t en d ed t o i m p o se w as “ o th erw i se r e a s onabl e unde rthe s t a tut ory pr ovi s i ons of s e nt e nc i ng. ” I d. a t1107. M orr i s on w as th en sen t en ced t o a t erm o f 7 8 m o n th s i n p ri so n b ased o n an ad j u st ed o ffen se l evel of 26 and a cri m i nal hi st ory c at egory of I . 8 O n app ea l , M orri son rai se s f ou r i ss ues: (1) w hether the evi dence attri al16

prov ed beyond a r ea sonabl e dou btthathe m al i ci ou sl y des troye d a bu i l di ng by fi re ; (2) w hether the tri al evi dence s uffi ci ent l y s ho w ed thatthe bu rned bu i l di ng had an e f f e c ton i nt e r s t a t e c om m e r c e ; ( 3) w he the rthe di s tr i c tc our tabus e d i t s di s c r e t i on by de ny i ng hi s m ot i on f ora ne w tr i a l ba s e d on ne w l y di s c ove r e d e vi de nc e w i thout ho l di ng an evi dent i ary hea ri ng ; and (4) w hether the di stri ctcourtcl ea rl y e rr ed at se nt enci ng by enhanci ng hi s bas e off ense l evel for a n o bstruct i on of j ust i ce . I I . DI S CUS S I ON A . P roof of M orri son’ s m al i ci ou s des truct i on of a bui l di ng by m ea ns of a f i re M o rr is o n a r g u e s th a t th e r e w a s in s u f f ic ie n t e v id e n c e to p r o v e h is g u ilt be y ond a r e a s onabl e doubtf orvi ol a t i ng § 844( i ) . H e c ont e nds tha tthe gove rnm e nt di d n otproffe r a ny di re ctevi dence of hi s gui l t , and i t s c i rc um st ant i al evi dence–that a f orec l osure s al e w as se tfor the day a ft erthe fi re ; thathe pu rc hase d g as the day b efo re th e fi re; an d th atF red ri k sen t est i fi ed th atsh e p ro v i d ed h i m w i th a fal se a lib i- - w a s in a d e q u a te to c o n v ic t h im f o rth is s u b s ta n tiv e c r im e , e s p e c ia lly c ons i de r i ng tha t , be c a us e the S ha nt a z i os ha d c ha nge d a l l of the l oc ks t o the bu i l di ng , he w as un abl e t o ent erthe bu i l di ng atthe t i m e of the fi re . H e not es that he r e pe a t e dl y t ol d F r e dr i ks e n dur i ng the t ape d c onve r s a t i ons tha the di d nots e tthe fi re ; that , al tho ug h h e purchase d g as ol i ne on the day before the fi re , H urri ca ne Ivan r e c e nt l y ha d s truc k; tha thi s a tt orne y ha d i nf or m e d hi m be f

or e the f i r e tha the ha d a17

ri gh tof re dem pt i on for one ye araf t erthe fore cl osure; and thatthe go vernm entw as un abl e t o fi nd i gn i t abl e l i qu i ds on the bu i l di ng sa m pl es t aken aft erthe fi re . A defe nd ant ’ s m ot i on for aj ud gm entof ac qu i tt al fol l ow i ng the go vernm ent ’ s c as e a nd re new al of thi s m ot i on atthe cl ose of a l l of the evi dence w ill p r o p e r ly p r e s e r v e th e c h a lle n g e to th e s u f f ic ie n c y o f

th e e v id e n c e o n ap p e a l. C la r k v . U n ite d S ta te s , 2 9 3 F .2 d 4 4 5 , 4 4 8 ( 5 th C ir . 1 9 6 1 ) . W e r e v ie w a p r o p e r ly p r e s e r v e d s u f

f ic ie n c y o f

th e e v id e n c e c la im d e n o v o . U n ite d S ta te s v . M c D o w e ll, 2 5 0 F .3 d 1 3 5 4 , 1 3 6 1 ( 1 1 th C ir . 2 0 0 1 ) . In det erm i ni ng w hether the evi dence i s s uffi ci entt o sup po rta c on vi ct i on , w e vi ew the evi dence i n the l i gh tm ostfa vo rabl e t o the go vernm entand d ec i des w he the ra r e a s onabl e j ur orc oul d ha ve r e a c he d a c onc l us i on of gui l tbe y ond a r e a s o n ab le d o u b t. U n ite d S ta te s v . C a ld e r o n , 1 2 7 F .3 d 1 3 1 4 , 1 3 2 4 ( 1 1 th C ir .1 9 9 7 ) . W e r e s ol ve a l l r e a s onabl e i nf e r e nc e s a nd c r e di bi l i ty e va l ua t i ons i n f a vorof the j ury’ s ver di ct , U ni t ed S t at es v. S t arke, 62 F . 3d 13 74 , 13 80 (11th C i r. 19 95 ), w he the rthe e vi de nc e i s di r e c torc i r c um s t a nt i a l . U ni t e d S t a t e s v. A w a n, 966 F . 2d 14 15 , 14 34 (11th C i r. 19 92 ). T o su p p o rta co n v i ct i o n u n d er 1 8 U . S . C . § 8 4 4 (i ), th e g o v ern m en tm u st e s t abl i s h, a m ong othe re l e m e nt s , tha ta de f e nda nt( 1) m a l i c i ous l y da m a ge d or destroye d; (2) by m ea ns of a f i re or an expl osi ve; (3) abu i l di ng , vehi cl e, or otherThe g overnment must also establish a fourth element, namely that the building, vehicle, or 9 other real or personal proper ty was used in interstate or fore ign commerc e or in an ac tivity aff ecting interstate or

fore ign c ommerce . 18 U.S.C. § 844(i). This element is separately discussed. 18 re al or pers on al prop erty. A l tho ug h § 84 4(i ) does notdefi ne the t erm 9

“ m al i ci ou sl y, ” s ever al ci rc ui t s have s peci fi ca l l y hel d that , base d o n com m on l aw a n d th e le g is la tiv e h is to ry o f th e s ta tu te , th e te r m in c lu d e s a c ts d o n e “in te n tio n a lly or w i th w i l l ful di sr egar d o f the l i kel i ho od thatdam age or i nj ury w ou l d res ul t . ” S ee U ni t e d S t a t e s v. W i kt or , 146 F . 3d 815, 818 ( 10th C i r . 1998) ( pe rc ur i a m ) ( c i t i ng s uppor t i ng de c i s i ons f

r om s e ve r a l s i s t e rc i r c ui t s ; c i t a t i ons a nd quot a t i on m a r ks om i tt ed). T he gove rnm e ntpr e s e nt e d s uf f i c i e nte vi de nc e a ttr i a l t o s uppor tthe c o n c lu s io n th a t M o rr is o n m a lic io u s ly d e s tr o y e d B r o n c o B ill’s b y m e a n s o f a f ir e . T h e g o v e rn m e n t p r o f

f e r e d f o u rin d e p e n d e n t e x p e r ts , S te p h e n s , C r a n f o r d , H e rb e r t, and D ee se , al l of w ho m op i ned that , base d o n the part i cul arbu rn patt erns, the fi re w as i nt ent i on al l y s et . A l tho ug h the go vernm entdi d n otprod uce a ny di re ct evi dence tyi ng M orri son t o the ar son, i tprod uced suff i ci entci rc um st ant i al e vi de nc e f

ora r e a s onabl e j ur ort o f i nd gui l tbe y ond a r e a s onabl e doubton the s ubs t a nt i ve c ount . C a l de r on, 127 F . 3d a t1324. S pe c i f i c a l l y , the gove rnm e nt es t abl i shed a possi bl e m ot i ve for the ar son. M orri son, w ho se fi nanci al di ff i cul t i es ha d c ul m i na t e d i n the f

or e c l os ur e of

c e r t a i n pr ope r t i e s a nd a f or e c l os ur e s a l e on19

B r onc o B i l l ’ s s e tf

orthe da y a f

t e rthe f i r e , ha d be e n m i s t a ke nl y i nf or m e d by att orney P et e V al l as som et i m e bef ore the fi re thatthe bu i l di ng w as ful l y c ov er ed by i ns ur a nc e , of

w hi c h M orr i s on w oul d ha ve be e n e nt i t l e d t o a s ha r e of the proceeds. T he go vernm ental so prov ed that , on ce the i nsurance c om pany sa t i sf i ed R a c he l V a l l a s ’ s ve ndor ’ s l i e n, M orr i s on be c a m e the f e e s i m pl e ow ne rof

the p r o p e r ty a s a r e s u lt o f

th e f ir e . A d d itio n a lly , th e g o v e rn m e n t s h o w e d th a t M o rr is o n h a d th e o p p o r tu n ity to c o mmi tth e c r i me . Th e g o v e rn me n tp r e s e n t e d th e t e s t i mo n y o f D a v i s , th e BP em pl oyee , w ho t es t i fi ed thatM orri son p urchas ed tw o g al l on s of gas ol i ne, an ig n itab le liq u id , o n th e n ig h t b e f o r e th e f ir e a n d , in d o in g s o , p a r k e d h is a u to m o b ile a w a y f r om the ga s ol i ne pum ps a nd outof vi e w of the s ur ve i l l a nc e c a m e r a . T he go vernm enti ntrodu ce d the S hant az i os’ s t es t i m on y thatM orri son w as atB ronco B ill’s in th e e a r ly m o rn in g h o u r s o n th e d a y o f th e f ir e . E v e n th o u g h M o rr is o n d id n o th av e a k ey t o th e b u i l d i n g , th e g o v ern m en ti n tro d u ced tw o ex p ertw i tn esses, H erbertand D ee se , w ho re spec t i vel y t es t i fi ed thati tw as po ss i bl e thatthe bu rn patt ern w as consi st entw i th an i gn i t abl e l i qu i d b ei ng po ured fr om a hei gh t , and that i tw a s pos s i bl e f

ora n a r s oni s tt o i ntr oduc e a n a c c e l e r a nti nt o the bui l di ng f r om the ou t si de. T hei r t es t i m on y c orrobo ra t ed the go vernm ent ’ s theory i n the ca se , base d on D et ec t i ve H enders on ’ s f i nd i ng s a tthe fi re sc ene, thatM orri son i ntrodu ce d an20

a c c e l e r a ntf

r om the out s i de thr ough one of the hol e s i n the w a l l of the s outh s i de of th e b u il d in g , d irec tl y a b o v e th e d an ce flo o r a re a w h er e tw o o f th e g o v er n m en t’ s e xpe r tw i tne s s e s opi ne d tha tthe f i r e be ga n. A l though H e nde r s on c oul d not d e f in itiv e ly c o n c lu d e th a t th e h o le s e x is te d b e f o r e th e f ir e , a r e a s o n ab le ju r o rc o u ld h a v e b e lie v e d th a t th e y d id , a n d th a t M o rr is o n s e t th e f ir e b y p o u r in g a f

la m m ab le l i qu i d i nt o the bu i l di ng throu gh these ho l es . T he go vernm ental so es t abl i shed th r o u g h tw o w itn e s s e s , C u m b ie a n d M c L e m o r e , th a t M o rr is o n h a d a tte m p te d to bu rn do w n the bu i l di ng atl ea ston ce before . F i nal l y, the go vernm entes t abl i shed th a t M o rr is o n a tte m p te d to c o n c e a l th e c r im e th r o u g h F r e d r ik s e n ’s te s tim o n y th a t, ba s e d on M orr i s on’ s r e que s tt o do s o, s he i ni t i a l l y pr ovi de d a f a l s e a l i bi f

orhi m f or th e n ig h t o f

th e f ir e s in c e h e h a d b e e n a lo n e a t h o m e o n th a t n ig h t. B as ed on al l of thi s e vi dence, a r ea sonabl e j uror coul d h ave c on cl ud ed beyond a r ea sonabl e dou btthatM orri son m al i ci ou sl y des troye d b y m ea ns of a f i re B r onc o B i l l ’ s . B e c a us e the gove rnm e ntpr e s e nt e d s uf f i c i e nte vi de nc e tha tthe burne d dow n bui l di ng ha d a n e f f e c ton i nt e r s t a t e c om m e r c e , a s di s c us s e d i n the f ol l ow i ng i s s ue , the gove rnm e nte s t abl i s he d a vi ol a t i on of § 844( i ) . S uf

f i c i e nt e v id e n c e s u p p o r ts M o rr is o n ’s c o n v ic tio n o n th is s u b s ta n tiv e c o u n t. B . S uffi ci entevi dence of an ef fe cton i nt er st at e c om m er ce M orri son argues thatthe go vernm entdi d n otpres entsuff i ci entevi dence thatMo rriso n’ s re lia nce on L op e z is m isp la c e d. L op e z inv olv e d a c on sti tution al and

no t a 10 statutory claim and c onstrued a statute other than § 844( i). To thee xtent th at Mor

ri so n raise s both c on sti tution al and statutor y c laims wi th re sp e c t to 11 § 844(i), see United S tates v. Dasc enzo, 152 F.3d 1300, 1301 n.3 (11th Cir. 1998), the constitutional claim is subject to plain error review si nce it was not raised below, seeUnited States v. Tay lor, 417 F .3 d 1 17 6, 11 83 (1 1th

Cir .) (p e r curiam) , c e rt . d e nie d, U. S. , 12 6 S. Ct. 76 8 ( 20 05 ), and fails as wehave rejec ted facial challeng es to § 844(i). See United States v. Grimes, 142 F .3d 1342, 1346 (11th Cir. 1998). The statute is c onstitut ional as applied to M o rr ison beca use the g overnment prov e d th at the int e rs tate c omm e rc e ne xus wa s satisf ie d und e r t

hesta ndard s e sta

bli sh e d in Rus se ll v. United States, 471 U.S. 858, 105 S.Ct . 2455 (1985), a nd other cas es co nstruing § 844( i). See 21 B ro n co B i l l ’ s h ad a su b st an t i al effect on i n t erst at e co m m erce, as requ i red b y § 844( i ) , e s pe c i a l l y i n l i ghtof U ni t e d S t a t e s v. L ope z , 514 U . S . 549, 115 S . C t . 1624 (199 5), and U ni t ed S t at es v. D enal l i , 73 F . 3d 32 8 (11 th C i r. ) ( per c uri am ),

10 m odi f i e d on othe rgr ounds , 90 F . 3d 444 ( 11th C i r . 1996) ( pe rc ur i a m ) . M orr i s on c o n te n d s th a t L o p e z lim ite d C o n g r e s s ’s c o m m e r c e p o w e r s a n d th a t D e n a lli r e q u ir e d th e n e x u s o f

a s u b s ta n tia l im p a c t to s u p p o r t a c o n v ic tio n u n d e rth is s ta tu te . M o rr is o n a r g u e s th a t th e g o v e rn m e n t’s e v id e n c e to p r o v e th is el em ent–t es t i m on y f

rom an A B C em pl oyee thatB ronco B i l l ’ s had pu rc hase d pr e m i um l i quor s m a nuf a c tur e d outof

s t a t e –w a s i ns uf

f i c i e ntt o e s t abl i s h the r e q u is ite in te r s ta te c o m m e r c e n e x u s . A s a n i ni t i a l m a tt e r , M orr i s on f r a m e s hi s i s s ue a s one of s uf f i c i e nc y of

the e vi de nc e , a nd he doe s nots qua r e l y r a i s e a c ons t i tut i ona l i s s ue w i th r e s pe c tt o 18 U .S .C . § 8 4 4 ( i) . T h e r e f o r e , h e o n ly a s s e r ts a s ta tu to ry c la im w ith r e s p e c t to th is st atut e. 11Grimes, 142 F .3d at 1346-47. 22

W e r e vi e w de novo a di s tr i c tc our t ’ s de ni a l of a m ot i on f

orj udgm e ntof a c qui tt a l ba s e d on s uf

f i c i e nc y of

the e vi de nc e . U ni t e d S t a t e s v. W i l l i a m s , 144 F . 3d 1 3 9 7 , 1 4 0 1 ( 1 1 th C ir . 1 9 9 8 ) . S e c tio n § 8 4 4 ( i) m a k e s it ille g a l to b u rn “a n y . . . p r o p e r ty u s e d in in te r s ta te . . . c o m m e r c e o rin a n y a c tiv ity a f f e c tin g in te r s ta te . . . co m m erce.” T h e actw as p ro m u l g at ed t o p ro t ect“ [n ] earl y al l typ e o f p ro p erty” tha ti s “ us e d i n ora f

f e c t s i nt e r s t a t e c om m e r c e . ” U ni t e d S t a t e s v. M i l l e r , 24 F . 3d 13 57 , 13 60 -61 (11 th C i r. 19 94 ). T he S upr e m e C our ti ni t i a l l y c ons true d the pr e s e ntve r s i on of thi s s t a tut e i n R us s e l l v. U ni t e d S t a t e s , 471 U . S . 858, 105 S . C t . 2455 ( 1985) . I n R us s e l l , the C o u r t h e ld th a t a tw o - u n it ap a r tm e n t b u ild in g th a t w a s u s e d a s r e n ta l p r o p e r ty f e ll w i thi n the a m bi tof

§ 844( i ) a nd tha tthe s t a tut e ’ s l e gi s l a t i ve hi s t ory “ s ugge s t [ e d] th a tCo n g r e s s a tl e a s ti n t e n d e d t o p r o t e c ta l l b u s i n e s s p r o p e r ty , a s w e l l a s s o me a d d itio n a l p r o p e r ty th a t m ig h t n o t f it th a t d e s c r ip tio n , b u t p e rh ap s n o t e v e ry p r iv a te h o m e .” I d . a t 8 6 2 , 1 0 5 S . C t. a t 2 4 5 7 . T h e C o u r t a ls o w r o te th a t: B y its te r m s , h o w e v e r , [ § 8 4 4 ( i) ] o n ly ap p lie s to p r o p e r ty th a t is ‘u s e d ’ in a n ‘a c tiv ity ’ th a t a f f e c ts c o m m e r c e . T h e r e n ta l o f r e a l e s ta te is u n q u e s tio n ab ly s u c h a n a c tiv ity . . . . [ T ]h e lo c a l r e n ta l . . . is m e r e ly a n e le m e n t o f

a m u c h b r o a d e rc o m m e r c ia l m a r k e t in r e n ta l p r o p e r tie s . T he cong re ss i on al po w ert o regul at e the cl as s of a ct i vi t i es that c o n s titu te th a t r e n ta l m a r k e t f o rr e a l e s ta te in c lu d e s th e p o w e rto reg u l at e i n d i v i d u al act i v i ty w i th i n th atcl ass.23

Id. (f oo tno t es om i tt ed). F o llo w in g R u s s e ll, w e u s e d v a r io u s s ta n d a r d s in a n a ly z in g th e in te r s ta te c om m e r c e ne xus of

§ 844( i ) –s om e of

w hi c h w e r e m or e s tr i nge nttha n othe r s –a nd, i n fact , o n ce sp eci fi cal l y h el d th ata “ case-b y-case i n q u i ry” w as n ecessary b ecau se

“ [ p] r e c i s e f

or m ul a t i ons of

the r e qui s i t e i nt e r s t a t e c om m e r c e ne xus a r e not pos s i bl e . ” U ni t e d S t a t e s v. C how dhury , 118 F . 3d 742, 745- 46 ( 11th C i r . 1997) (percuri am ); se e e . g. , U ni t ed S t at es v. C hi shol m , 10 5 F . 3d 13 57 , 13 58 (11th C i r. 19 97 ) ( per c uri am ) ( re cogn i zi ng vari ou s t es t s a rt i cul at ed by thi s c ou rt ); B el fl ow er v . U n i t e d St a t e s , 1 2 9 F. 3 d 1 4 5 9 , 1 4 6 2 , n . 4 ( 1 1 th Ci r . 1 9 9 7 ) ( p e rc u r i a m) (a ckno w l edgi ng that“ som e degree of t ensi on m ay exi st ” i f D enal l i w as i nt erpret ed to r e q u ir e “th e g o v e rn m e n t to p r o v e in e a c h c a s e a s u b s ta n tia l e f f e c t o n in te r s ta te c o m m e r c e ” ) . I n D e na l l i , w e r e c ogni z e d a “ s ubs t a nt i a l ne xus ” t e s t , 73 F . 3d a t329- 30, w hi l e i n U ni t ed S t at es v. U tt er , 97 F . 3d 50 9, 51 6 (11 th C i r. 19 96 ), w e det erm i ned th atth e b u i l d i n g h ad an “ ap p aren t ” effect on i n t erst at e co m m erce. S ee al so C how dhury , 118 F . 3d 745- 46 ( ut i l i z i ng the “ appa r e nt ” e f f e c ts t a nda r d a nd not i ng tha ta l a t e rpr onounc e m e ntby the S upr e m e C our tdi d notc a l l i nt o que s t i on the co n cl u si o n i n R u ssel l “ th atth e fed eral arso n st atu t e i n v ari ab l y p ro t ect s b u si n ess p r o p e r ty ,” a n d th e r e f

o r e R u s s e ll r e m a in e d “a u th o r ita tiv e p r e c e d e n t” ) .24

I n a n o th e rc a s e , w e o p in e d th a t § 8 4 4 ( i) m a y o n ly r e q u ir e a m in im a l n e x u s to i nt er st at e c om m er ce . S ee U ni t ed S t at es v. V i sc om e, 14 4 F . 3d 13 65 , n. 9 (11 th C i r. 1998) ( “ I f

thi s c our tw e r e notbound by D e na l l i , the gove rnm e ntm a ke s a s tr ong a r gum e nttha tthe s e c ond pr ong of § 844( i ) r e qui r e s no m or e tha n i t s l a ngua ge i ndi c a t e s : na m e l y , tha tthe pr ope r ty a ti s s ue be us e d i n ‘ a ny a c t i vi ty a f f e c t i ng i nt er st at e or f

orei gn com m er ce . ’ E ven a m i ni m al ef fe cton i nt er st at e c om m er ce , the r e f or e , w oul d be s uf

f i c i e nt ” ) ; c f

. U ni t e d S t a t e s v. M c A l l i s t e r , 77 F . 3d 387, 389- 90 ( 11th C i r . 1996) ( c onc l udi ng tha ta de f e nda ntc oul d be c onvi c t e d unde r18 U . S . C . § 922( g) ( 1) –a s t a tut e tha tpr ohi bi t e d f e l ons f r om pos s e s s i ng “ i n ora f f e c t i ng c om m e r c e , a ny f

i r e a r m ora m m uni t i on” –i f the gove rnm e ntpr ove d tha tthe w e apon i n que s t i on ha d a “ m i ni m a l ne xus ” t o i nt e r s t a t e c om m e r c e , r a the rtha n a

“ s ubs t a nt i a l ne xus , ” s i nc e § 922( g) ( 1) c ont a i ne d a j ur i s di c t i ona l e l e m e nt , l i ke § 8 4 4 ( i) ) . W e a l s o ha ve a r t i c ul a t e d a n “ a ggr e ga t e ” appr oa c h. S e e C how dhury , 118 F . 3 d at7 4 5 (d i scu ssi n g th ati n “ a case co n cern i n g th e d estru ct i o n o f b u si n ess pr ope r ty , w he n c ons i de r e d i n the a ggr e ga t e , w oul d ha ve a s ubs t a nt i a l e f f e c ton i nt er st at e c om m er ce because busi ness prop erty w i l l al m osti nv ar i abl y be a n e l e m e ntof

a m uc h br oa de rc om m e r c i a l m a rke t ” ) ; V i s c om e , 144 F . 3d a t1368 (“ [S ] u b seq u en tt o th e D en al l i d eci si o n i n v o l v i n g a p ri v at e resi d en ce, . . . i f b u si n ess25

prop erty i s i nv ol ved, then the prop erty nee d o nl y have been used i n an act i vi ty that i n the a ggr e ga t e ha s a s ubs t a nt i a l e f f e c ton i nt e r s t a t e c om m e r c e . ” ) ; D a s c e nz o, 152 F . 3 d at1 3 0 3 (“ A g g reg at i o n o f th e effects on co m m erce o f a g i v en act i v i ty (su ch as, the re nt i ng of prop erty) t o d et erm i ne w hether asubst ant i al ef fe cton com m er ce e x i s t s i s a n ap p r o a c h t o Co mme r c e Cl a u s e l e g i s l a t i o n r e c o g n i z e d b y th e Su p r e me C ou rt . ”) ; cf

. B el fl ow er , 12 9 F . 3d at14 59 , 14 62 (hol di ng that , i n the cont extof a § 2 25 5 m ot i on , the go vernm entsa t i sf i ed the nexu s r equi re m entby show i ng that ac t i vi t i es , i n the aggregat e, af fe ct ed i nt er st at e c om m er ce ). F ol l ow i ng ou r i nt erpret at i on s, the S up re m e C ou rti ss ued tw o d ec i si on s that im p a c te d th e a n a ly s is o f th e in te r s ta te c o m m e r c e n e x u s u n d e r§ 8 4 4 ( i) . F ir s t, in J one s v. U ni t e d S t a t e s , 529 U . S . 848, 855, 120 S . C t . 1904, 1910 ( 2000) , the S up re m e C ou rthel d thatthe go vernm entw as re qu i re d t o p rove thatthe bu rned d o w n b u ild in g h a d b e e n a c tiv e ly

– a s o p p o s e d to p a s s iv e ly

– e m p lo y e d in in te r s ta te c om m e r c e i n or de rt o e s t abl i s h a vi ol a t i on of § 844( i ) . S e c ond, i n U ni t e d S t a t e s v. M orr i s on, 529 U . S . 598, 613, 617, 120 S . C t . 1740, 1751, 1754 ( 2000) , the S upr e m e C our ts truc k dow n a s unc ons t i tut i ona l 42 U . S . C . § 13981, a pr ovi s i on of th e V i o l e n c e A g a i n s tW o me n ’ s A c tth a tp r o v i d e d a f e d e r a l c i v i l r e me d y f

o rv i c t i ms of gend er -m ot i vat ed vi ol ence , and “ re j ec t [e d] the ar gu m entthatC on gres s m ay re g u late n o n ec o n o m ic, v io len t crim in al co n d u ct b as ed so lely o n th at co n d u ct’s26

a g g r e g a te e f

f e c t o n in te r s ta te c o m m e r c e .” F ol l ow i ng the J one s a nd M orr i s on de c i s i ons , c our t s be ga n r e e va l ua t i ng d e c i s i o n s c o n s tru i n g § 8 4 4 ( i ) , a n d s o me o f th e m c o n c l u d e d th a tth e s e tw o Su p r e me C our tde c i s i ons unde r m i ne d, i f noti m pl i c i t l y abr oga t e d, c e r t a i n de c i s i ons . I n U ni t ed S t at es v. O do m , 25 2 F . 3d 12 89 , 12 97 (11th C i r. 20 01 ) ( ci t at i on om i tt ed), w e not ed thatthe M orri son o pi ni on ca l l ed i nt o d ou btou r s ug gest i on i n D as ce nzo th at“ o n l y a ‘ m i n i m al effect on i n t erst at e co m m erce’ w as req u i red u n d er § 8 4 4 so l on g as the ef

fe ctof ar son o n the part i cul artype of property had an aggregat e e ff ec t on i nt e r s t a t e c om m e r c e . ” S e e a l s o U ni t e d S t a t e s v. T us h, 151 F . S upp. 2d 1246, 1248- 49 ( D . K a n. 2001) ( c onc l udi ng tha tthe U tt e rde c i s i on w a s abr oga t e d by J o n e s , s in c e it r e lie d o n a p a s s iv e c o n n e c tio n , r a th e rth a n a n a c tiv e c o n n e c tio n , to in te r s ta te c o m m e r c e ) . A s a r e s ul t , i n O dom , w e ut i l i z e d the s ubs t a nt i a l ne xus s t a nda r d a nd c o m m e n te d th a t th e g o v e rn m e n t n e e d e d to p r o v e m o r e th a n a “n o m in a l” c onne c t i on t o i nt e r s t a t e c om m e r c e , ore l s e the di s t i nc t i on be tw e e n na t i ona l a nd l ocal autho ri ty w ou l d b e “ com pl et el y obl i t er at e[ d] ” a s tho ug h “ no j uri sdi ct i on al r e q u i r e m e n te x i s t e d a ta l l . ” 2 5 2 F . 3 d a t1 2 9 6 ( c i t a t i o n o m i tt e d ) . C i t i n g J o n e s , we i de nt i f i e d thr e e f

a c t or s t o c ons i de ri n de t e r m i ni ng w he the rda m a ge orde s truc t i on of a bui l di ng i s pr ope r l y pr os e c ut abl e unde r§ 844( i ) , s pe c i f i c a l l y : ( 1) the f

unc t i on27

of the bu i l di ng ; (2) w hether thatfunct i on i s i nv ol ved i n com m er ce ; and (3) w hether th e c o m m e r c e in w h ic h th e b u ild in g is in v o lv e d s u f f ic ie n tly a f

f e c ts in te r s ta te c om m e r c e . I d. a t1294. W i th r e s pe c tt o the pa r a m e t e r s of the r e qui s i t e i nt e r s t a t e c om m e r c e ne xus unde r§ 844( i ) , w e ha ve a f f i r m e d a c onvi c t i on unde r§ 844( i ) on a s how i ng tha tthe bu rned do w n p ub l i c r es t aura nti n q uest i on ca t er ed t o i nt er st at e tra vel er s a nd se rved a l c ohol a nd us e d na tur a l ga s , both of w hi c h or i gi na t e d outof s t a t e , s e e U tt e r , 97 F . 3 d a t5 1 6 ; d e t e r m i n e d th a tth e n e x u s wa s s a t i s f i e d wh e r e th e b u rn e d d o wn bui l di ng w a s a c om m e r c i a l bui l di ng i n w hi c h the de f e nda ntr e nt e d hi s r e s t a ur a nt spac e, w here he pu rc hase d p rodu ct s f rom ou t -of- st at e m anufacturer s, and w here th e r e s ta u r a n t, h a d it o p e n e d , w o u ld h a v e b e e n a p u b lic r e s ta u r a n t a v a ilab le to i nt e r s t a t e tr a ve l e r s , s e e C how dhury , 118 F . 3d a t745- 46; a nd a f f i r m e d a de f e nda nt ’ s c onvi c t i on unde r§ 844( i ) a f t e rc onc l udi ng tha tthe gove rnm e nt sa t i sf i ed the i nt er st at e c om m er ce nexu s r equi re m entthrou gh i t s proof thatthe truck i n q uest i on w as “ the subj ec tof an i nt er st at e l ea se ” a tthe t i m e of i t s a tt em pt ed bo m bi ng and, thu s, w as “ a t angi bl e c om po nentof i nt er st at e c om m er ce , ” s ee V i s c om e , 144 F . 3d a t1369. W e ha ve a l s o, how e ve r , tha tthe § 844( i ) i nt e r s t a t e c om m e r c e ne xus i s not s a tis f ie d w h e r e th e g o v e rn m e n t’s o n ly e v id e n c e to e s tab lis h th e r e q u is ite in te r s ta te28

c o m m e r c e n e x u s w a s th a t th e o w n e ro f th e b u rn e d d o w n h o u s e o c c a s io n a lly pr oduc e d m e m or a nda on hi s hom e c om put e r , w hi c h he the n pr i nt e d of f a nd ha nddel i vere d t o h i s c o-w orkers athi s pl ac e of e m pl oym ent , a c orpo ra t i on thatengaged i n i nt e rna t i ona l bus i ne s s , s e e D e na l l i , 73 F . 3d a t329- 31, a nd t o s how tha tthe c hur c h a ti s s ue “ w a s us e d i n ora f f e c t e d i nt e r s t a t e c om m e r c e ” w a s e vi de nc e tha tthe c hur c h r e c e i ve d dona t i ons f r om a f e w out - of

- s t a t e donor s ; ut i l i z e d s om e B i bl e s a nd pray erbo ok s thathad b ee n p urchas ed fr om an ou t -of- st at e di stri bu t or; ob t ai ned natural gas f

rom an ou t -of- st at e vendo r; and i nd i re ct l y c on tri bu t ed t o an o ut -ofst at e c hu rc h o rgani za t i on throu gh i t s m em bers hi p i n the i n-st at e c hu rc h o r g a n iz a tio n , s e e O d o m , 2 5 2 F .3 d a t 1 2 9 6 - 9 7 , 1 2 9 9 . In thi s c as e, the go vernm entsubm i tt ed suff i ci entevi dence t o p rove that B ronco B i l l ’ s had an ef fe cton i nt er st at e c om m er ce , as re qu i re d b y § 84 4(i ), re g ar d less o f w h ich stan d ar d is ap p li ed . T h e f u n ctio n o f B ro n co B il l’ s o r M o b il e’s P ub atthe t i m e of the fi re w as a c om m er ci al re st aura ntand b arbu si ness , w hi ch w a s l oc a t e d on pr ope r ty tha tw a s be i ng r e nt e d by ow ne r s of the r e s t a ur a ntf

r om M o rr is o n , th e a c tu a l o w n e ro f th e p r o p e rty . S e e O d o m , 2 5 2 F .3 d a t 1 2 9 4 . W hi l e the gove rnm e nt ’ s e vi de nc e tha tthe r e s t a ur a ntpur c ha s e d va r i ous a l c ohol s f

r om out - of

- s t a t e di s tr i but or s a nd pos s i bl y c a t e r e d t o out - of - s t a t e pa tr ons m ay have been suffi ci entst andi ng al on e t o est abl i sh the i nt er st at e c om m er ce29

n ex u s, th e factth atth e p ro p erty w as ren t al real est at e “ u n q u est i o n ab l y” dem on stra t ed thatthe bu i l di ng w as ac t i vel y e m pl oyed i n, and h ad a s ub st ant i al e f f e c ton a n a c t i vi ty i nvol vi ng i nt e r s t a t e c om m e r c e , a nd, thus , w a s c ove r e d by § 8 44 (i ). R usse l l , 47 1 U . S . at86 2, 10 5 S . C t . at24 57 . T he go vernm entproffe re d suff i ci entevi dence t o est abl i sh the re qu i si t e i nt er st at e c om m er ce nexu s und er § 844( i ) , a nd pr ove d M orr i s on’ s gui l tbe y ond a r e a s onabl e doubta s t o a l l of the o th e re le m e n ts o f

th is s ta tu te . C . D e ni a l of

M orr i s on’ s m ot i on f

ora ne w tr i a l w i thouta n e vi de nt i a ry he a r i ng M o rr is o n a r g u e s th a t th e d is tr ic t c o u r t ab u s e d its d is c r e tio n b y d e n y in g h is m ot i on for anew tri al base d o n n ew l y di sc ov er ed evi dence, i nform at i on that F re dri ksen w as un der i nv es t i gat i on for m aj or drug cr i m es , w i tho utho l di ng an e vi de nt i a ry he a r i ng on the m a tt e r . M orr i s on c ont e nds tha tF r e dr i ks e n w a s the go vernm ent ’ s s trong es tw i tness and thatother w i tness t es t i m on y r egar di ng her d ru g d e a lin g w o u ld h a v e s ig n if ic a n tly im p a c te d th e o u tc o m e o f th e tr ia l a n d c o u ld have prod uced an acqui tt al . M orri son al so ar gu es thati tw as di si ng enuo us t o ass ert tha the pos s e s s e d the i nf or m a t i on a tthe t i m e of

tr i a l , s i nc e he not e d i n hi s m ot i on for anew tri al thathe had rece nt l y l ea rned of i t . H e a l so m ai nt ai ns thatthe i nform at i on w as re l evantand thatthe di stri ctcourtshou l d h ave a tl ea stconsi dere d a n i n c am e r a r e v ie w o f

th e d o c u m e n ts b e c a u s e th e g o v e rn m e n t d id n o t d e n y th e ir30

exi st ence . W e r e vi e w the di s tr i c tc our t ’ s de ni a l of a m ot i on f

ora ne w tr i a l ba s e d on ne w l y di s c ove r e d e vi de nc e f orabus e of

di s c r e t i on. U ni t e d S t a t e s v. N or i e ga , 117 F .3 d 1 2 0 6 , 1 2 1 7 ( 1 1 th C ir . 1 9 9 7 ) . F u r th e r , “[ t]h e d e c is io n o f th e tr ia l c o u r t n o t to h o ld [ a n e v id e n tia ry ] h e a r in g is w ith in th e tr ia l c o u r t’s s o u n d d is c r e tio n , s u b je c t to r e vi e w onl y f

ora n abus e of

tha tdi s c r e t i on. ” U ni t e d S t a t e s v. S c hl e i , 122 F . 3d 944, 99 0 (11 th C i r. 19 97 ) ( ci t at i on om i tt ed). F eder al R ul e of C ri m i nal P roce du re 33 perm i t s adefe nd antt o fi l e f or a new tr i a l ba s e d on ne w l y di s c ove r e d e vi de nc e , a nd “ the c our tm a y va c a t e a ny j udgm e nt and g ra nta new tri al i f the i nt er es tof j ust i ce so re qu i re s. ” F ed. R . C ri m . P . 33 (a ), (b)( 1). W e have s t at ed thata m ot i on for anew tri al on new l y di sc ov er ed evi dence i s “ hi gh l y di sf

avored” and “ shou l d b e gra nt ed on l y w i th g re atcaut i on . ” U ni t ed S ta te s v . C a m p a , 4 5 9 F .3 d 1 1 2 1 , 1 1 5 1 ( 1 1 th C ir . 2 0 0 6 ) ( e n b a n c ) . A ne w tr i a l ba s e d on ne w l y di s c ove r e d e vi de nc e i s w a rr a nt e d onl y i f: “ ‘ ( 1) the evi dence w as i n fac tdi sc ov er ed af t ertri al ; (2) the defendantexer ci se d d ue ca re t o di s c ove rthe e vi de nc e ; ( 3) the e vi de nc e w a s notm e r e l y c um ul a t i ve or i m pe a c hi ng; ( 4) the e vi de nc e w a s m a t e r i a l ; a nd ( 5) the e vi de nc e w a s of s uc h a nature thata new tri al w ou l d p robabl y produ ce a di ff er entre sul t . ’ ” U ni t ed S t at es v. T hom ps on, 422 F . 3d 1285, 1294 ( 11th C i r . 2005) ( c i t a t i on om i tt e d) . “ ‘ T he31

f a i l ur e t o s a t i s f

y a ny one of

the s e e l e m e nt s i s f

a t a l t o a m ot i on f

ora ne w tr i a l . ’ ” I d. (c i t at i on om i tt ed). U n d is c lo s e d e x c u lp a to ry “e v id e n c e is m a te r ia l ‘if th e r e is a r e a s o n ab le pr obabi l i ty tha t , ha d the e vi de nc e be e n di s c l os e d t o the de f e ns e , the pr oc e e di ng w o u ld h a v e b e e n d if

f e r e n t.’” S tr ic k le rv . G r e e n e , 5 2 7 U .S . 2 6 3 , 2 8 0 , 1 1 9 S . C t. 1 9 3 6 , 1 9 4 8 ( 1 9 9 9 ) ( c ita tio n o m itte d ) . A lth o u g h in a d m is s ab le e v id e n c e is g e n e r a lly notm a t e r i a l , i tm a y be m a t e r i a l i f i tl e a ds t o a dm i s s i bl e e vi de nc e tha tw oul d ha ve r e s ul t e d i n a di f

f e r e ntout c om e a ttr i a l . S e e ge ne r a l l y W r i ghtv. H oppe r , 169 F . 3d 69 5, 70 3-04 n. 1 (11 th C i r. 19 99 ). A c c o r d in g to F e d . R . E v id . 6 0 8 ( b ) : S pe c i f i c i ns t a nc e s of

the c onduc tof

a w i tne s s , f

orthe purpos e of att ac ki ng or supp ort i ng the w i tness ’ char ac t erfor truthful ness , other th a n c o n v ic tio n o f

c r im e [ ,] . . . m a y n o t b e p r o v e d b y e x tr in s ic e v id e n c e . T h e y m a y , h o w e v e r , in th e d is c r e tio n o f th e c o u r t, if p ro b at i v e o f tru th fu l n ess o r u n tru th fu l n ess, b e i n q u i red i n t o o n cro sse xa m i na t i on of

the w i tne s s ( 1) c onc e rni ng the w i tne s s ’ c ha r a c t e rf or truthf ul ne s s oruntruthf

ul ne s s , or( 2) c onc e rni ng the c ha r a c t e rf or truthful ness or un truthful ness of anot her w i tness as t o w hi ch chara ct er th e w itn e s s b e in g c r o s s - e x a m in e d h a s te s tif ie d . F e d . R . E v id . 6 0 8 ( b ) . T he di s tr i c tc our tdi d notabus e i t s di s c r e t i on i n de ny i ng M orr i s on’ s m ot i on f ora ne w tr i a l orby nothol di ng a n e vi de nt i a ry he a r i ng on i t . F i r s t , w hi l e M orr i s on a r gue s on appe a l tha the di s c ove r e d the e vi de nc e s hort l y a f t e rtr i a l , he doe s not32

c ont e s tthe di s tr i c tc our t ’ s f i ndi ng tha tthe r e w a s i ns uf f i c i e nte vi de nc e tha the exer ci se d d ue ca re and d i l i gence i n o bt ai ni ng the i nform at i on . T hu s, he has ar gu abl y w ai ved thi s i ss ue on appeal . S ee G re enbri ar , L t d. v. C i ty of A l abas t er , 88 1 F . 2d 15 70 , 15 73 n. 6 (11 th C i r. 19 89 ) ( deem i ng i ss ues notar gu ed on appeal w a i ve d, a nd not i ng tha ta pa s s i ng r e f e r e nc e on appe a l t o the i s s ue w a s i ns uf f i c i e nt t o p roperl y r ai se i t ). M oreover, the new l y di sc ov er ed evi dence–i nform at i on that F re dri ksen w as un der i nv es t i gat i on for m aj or drug cr i m es –i s i nadm i ss i bl e und er R ul e 608( b) a nd w oul d ha ve l e d t o no a dm i s s i bl e e vi de nc e . I tw a s , thus , not m a te r ia l. F i nal l y, al tho ug h M orri son argued o n rec on si dera t i on thatthe evi dence c o u ld h a v e b e e n u s e d to im p e a c h F r e d r ik s e n ’s c r e d ib ility , im p e a c h m e n t is n o t a p r o p e rju s tif

ic a tio n f o rg r a n tin g a n e w tr ia l b a s e d o n n e w ly d is c o v e r e d e v id e n c e . S e e T h o m p s o n , 4 2 2 F .3 d a t 1 2 9 4 ( n o tin g th a t a n e w tr ia l b a s e d o n n e w ly di sc ov er ed evi dence i s notw arra nt ed i f the evi dence w as m er el y “ i m peac hi ng ”) . D . E nh ance m entof M orri son’ s bas e off ense l evel for obstruct i on of j ust i ce M o rri so n arg u es th atth e d i stri ctco u rtcl earl y erred b y en h an ci n g h i s b ase o ffen se l ev el fo r o b stru ct i o n o f j u st i ce o n a fi n d i n g th ath e th reat en ed a w i tn ess a f t e rth e c o n c l u s i o n o f

th e tr i a l . He m a i n t a i n s th a tth e g o v e rn m e n td i d n o ts h o w, and cou l d n othave show n, thathe had t he spec i fi c i nt entt o o bstructj ust i ce , si nce33

th e ju ry h a d a lr e a d y r e tu rn e d its v e r d ic t w h e n th e a lle g e d th r e a t w a s m a d e . W e r e vi e w the di s tr i c tc our t ’ s f a c tua l f i ndi ngs , i nc l udi ng the de t e r m i na t i on of w hether t o app l y a n o bstruct i on of enhancem entun der the gu i del i nes, for c l ea r e rr o ra n d its ap p lic a tio n o f th e s e n te n c in g g u id e lin e s to th e f a c ts de no vo . U ni t ed S ta te s v . R u b io , 3 1 7 F .3 d 1 2 4 0 , 1 2 4 4 ( 1 1 th C ir . 2 0 0 3 ) . U ni t ed S t at es S ent enci ng G ui del i nes § 3C 1. 1 p rovi des f or a tw o-l evel s e n te n c e e n h a n c e m e n t: [ i]f ( A ) th e d e f

e n d a n t w illf

u lly o b s tru c te d o rim p e d e d , o ra tte m p te d to obs truc tori m pe de , the a dm i ni s tr a t i on of j us t i c e dur i ng the c our s e of the i nve s t i ga t i on, pr os e c ut i on, ors e nt e nc i ng of the i ns t a ntof

f e ns e of c onvi c t i on, a nd ( B ) the obs truc t i ve c onduc tr e l a t e d t o ( i ) the defe nd ant ’ s off

ense of conv i ct i on and any rel evantcond uct ; or (i i ) a c lo s e ly r e la te d o f

f e n s e . . . . A c c or di ng t o thi s pr ovi s i on’ s c om m e nt a ry , the e nha nc e m e ntappl i e s i f the d efen d an t ’ s o b stru ct i v e co n d u ct , w h i ch can i n cl u d e th e th reat en i n g o f a w i tn ess,

“ oc c urr e d dur i ng the c our s e of . . . s e nt e nc i ng of

the de f e nda nt ’ s i ns t a ntof

f e ns e of conv i ct i on . ” U S S G § 3 C 1. 1, com m ent . (n. 1(A ) & 4(a) ). T he enhancem entappl i es i f the de f e nda nt ’ s c onduc ti s pr ohi bi t e d by the obs truc t i on of j us t i c e pr ovi s i ons of T i t l e 18. I d. a tc om m e nt . ( n. 4( i ) ) . T i t l e 18 § 1513( b) pr ohi bi t s a pe r s on f r om th reat en i n g t o i n fl i ctb o d i l y i n j u ry o n a w i tn ess w i th th e i n t en tt o ret al i at e ag ai n st tha tw i tne s s . W he n a de f e nda ntc ha l l e nge s af

a c tua l ba s e f

orhi s s e nt e nc e , “ [ t ] he [ g] ove rnm e ntha s the bur de n of pr ovi ng the appl i c abi l i ty of a gui de l i ne s e c t i on34

w hi c h w oul d e nha nc e a de f e nda nt ’ s of

f e ns e l e ve l . . . by a pr e ponde r a nc e of the e vi de nc e . . . w i th ‘ r e l i abl e a nd s pe c i f i c e vi de nc e . ’ ” U ni t e d S t a t e s v. C a t a l do, 171 F . 3d 13 16 , 13 21 (11th C i r. 19 99 ) ( ci t at i on om i tt ed). T he pr oba t i on of

f i c e rr e c om m e nde d the obs truc t i on of j us t i c e e nha nc e m e nt on the ba s i s tha tM orr i s on vi ol a t e d § 3C 1. 1 by thr e a t e ni ng, i nt i m i da t i ng, or othe rw i s e unl a w f

ul l y i nf l ue nc i ng a w i tne s s . I n s uppor tof tha tr e c om m e nda t i on, th e g o v e rn m e n t a d d u c e d a t th e s e n te n c in g h e a r in g f r o m R o b e r t C u m b ie , a gove rnm e ntw i tne s s dur i ng M orr i s on’ s tr i a l , tha tM orr i s on c ont a c t e d hi m by t el epho ne short l y a ft erthe verdi ctw as re nd er ed and t hrea t ened t o k i l l hi m because, a c c or di ng t o M orr i s on, “ f r i e nds don’ tdo f

r i e nds tha tw a y . ” D oc . 76 a t1084- 85. T h e d i stri ctco u rtd i d n o tcl earl y err i n en h an ci n g M o rri so n ’ s b ase o ffen se l ev el fo r o b stru ct i o n o f j u st i ce o n a d et erm i n at i o n th atth e t el ep h o n i c th reatag ai n st C u m b i e w as i n ret al i at i o n o f h i m t est i fyi n g ag ai n stM o rri so n attri al th atw as a prop erj ust i fi ca t i on for app l yi ng the ob struct i on of j ust i ce enhancem ent . C f. R ubi o, 317 F . 3d a t1242, 1244- 45 ( a f f i r m i ng the di s tr i c tc our t ’ s appl i c a t i on of the o b stru ct i o n o f j u st i ce en h an cem en tw h ere th e d efen d an tret al i at ed ag ai n sta w i tn ess af t ertri al , i n v i ol at i on of 18 U . S . C . § 1 51 3(b)). I I I . CO NC L US I ON M orr i s on c ha l l e nge s hi s c onvi c t i on a nd s e nt e nc e f orone c ountof35

m a lic io u s ly d e s tr o y in g b y m e a n s o f a f ir e a b u ild in g th a t w a s u s e d in a n a c tiv ity a f f e c tin g in te r s ta te c o m m e r c e . B e c a u s e th e g o v e rn m e n t p r o v e d h is g u ilt o n th is c o u n t a n d th e b u ild in g ’s n e x u s to in te r s ta te c o m m e r c e b e y o n d a r e a s o n ab le d o u b t, w e AF F I RM hi s c on vi ct i on . W e AF F I RM the di s tr i c tc our t ’ s de ni a l of M orr i s on’ s m ot i on f

ora ne w tr i a l ba s e d on ne w l y di s c ove r e d e vi de nc e orw i thout hol di ng a n e vi de nt i a ry he a r i ng be c a us e the e vi de nc e w a s nota dm i s s i bl e or m a t e r i a l . W e a l s o AF F I RM hi s s ent ence . T he di stri ctcourtprop er l y c al cul at ed hi s a dj ust ed offens e l evel , i ncl ud i ng an enhancem entfor obstruct i on of j ust i ce , b e c a u s e M o rr is o n r e ta lia te d a g a in s t a g o v e rn m e n t w itn e s s b y th r e a te n in g h im dur i ng a pos t - tr i a l t e l e phone c onve r s a t i on. AF F I RME D.