## 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. 07

- 4067& 07

- 4085 U NI T ED S TATE SOF A MERI CA, P la intif f-A pp ellee, v.
N EA S HON W AS HI NGT ON an d A DR EI N B ENNETT, D efend a nts-A pp ella nts. Appeals from the United St ates District Court fo r the C entral D istricto f Illino is. No . 06- 10033

—Mi ch ael M . M ihm, Judg e.
A RG UE D D ECE MBE R 3, 2008

— D ECI DE D M AR CH 13, 2009

Befo re E A S T E RB R OO K, Chie f Judg e, an d M A NI ON a nd W OO D , C ircu it Judges. W OO D , C ircu it Judge. N ea sh on W as h in gt on an d A d re in Ben ne ttwer e two mem be r s o fa dr ug d ist r ibut i o n g an g that cal l ed i tse l fthe “Big elo w bo ys. ” The Boy s o perat ed i n the gener alar ea ofPeo ri a, I l l i noi s, usin g a house at 18 11 Bi g el ow St r ee t. The po l i ce b eg anf o cus i ngo n W as hin gt on an d B en n e t t i n m id -20 05 , w ith th e h elp of a c on fi-2 N os. 07

- 4067& 07

- 4085 denti ali nfo rm ant. U nd er cove r w or k a nd co ntro l l ed sal es f ol l owed

. Eventual l y, W ashi ngto n, Bennett, and th ree othe r m en were charg ed w i th co nspir acy to dist ribute cra ck coca i ne and a num bero fsubst an ti ve dist ributi on off enses , i n vi ol ati on o f21 U
. S. C. §§ 841( a) (1) an d 84 6. A fte r a jur y f o u n d B en n et t a n d W as h in gt on gu ilty of all charg es aga i nst them , the dist ri ct c ourtse ntenced Bennett to a t er m o f24 0 m onths’ i m pri sonm ent, with 1 0 y ear s o f su p ervised rel ease on the con sp ir a cy cou nt and 6 years on a l l o therco unt s, an d i t s entence d W ashi ngto n to a ter m o f14 0 m onths’ i m pri sonm ent, w i th var yi ng te rm s o f supervi sed r el eas e f ordi ff er ent c ounts. Both have a p p eale d. Bennett a rg ues that the di str i ct cour t m ade two er ro rs i n sent enci ng hi m : firs t, he as ser ts th ati t was i nc o ns i sten t wi th A pp rend i v. New Jersey, 530 U. S
. 4 6 6 ( 2 0 0 0 ) , f o r th e j u d g e t o u s e 2 1 U. S
. C
. § 8 4 1 ( b ) ( 1 ) ( A) as the b asi s f ora sta tutor y m i ni m um sente nce o f20 ye ar s, des pi te the j ur y ’ s f ai l ur e to fi nd tha t he ha d de al t i n the ne ces s a r y qu an tity ofdru gs to trigger su bp art (A )’ s m axi m um s en te nc e; a nd s ec o nd, he a r g ue s th atthe j ud ge sh ou l d not hav e a pp l i ed the tw o- l eve l enhancem en t f o r us e o f a g un i n r el at i o n to a dr ug traff ick i ng c rim e, u n d er U .S. Sen te n c in g G u id elin e § 2D 1.1 (b )(1) , i n c om p u tin g h is offe n se lev el. W as h in gt o n arg u es on ly th atthe di st r i ctc o ur t er r ed i n e nt er i ngj udg m en t an d sen ten cing h im for distribu tion of coca ine base ( crac k), when th e j ur y f o und h i m g uil tyo nl y o fdi st r ibut i ngthe pow der f or m o fco cai ne. T h e d i str i ct c ourthas si nce cor re c ted the j ud gm ent s o that i t no w r eads “ dist ributi on o fc o ca i ne . ” As the e rror d id no t o th er wi se a ff ec t W as hi ngto n’s se ntence, the dist ri ct cou rt ’ s a cti on s uffi ces toN os. 07

- 4067& 07

- 4085 3

m o o t W as hi ng to n’ s appe al

. W e the r efo r e co nfi ne o ur re m ar ks here to Bennett’ s ca se.

I B ec au se B en n e t t ’ s arg u m en ts foc u s e x c lu siv ely on h is se nt en ce , we ca n di spe ns e wi tha de ta i l ed ac coun t o fthe oper ation o fthe drug co nspir acy. The j ury w as prese nted wi the vide nc e f r o m a c o o per at i ngmem be r o fthe c o nsp ira c y, w h o t old th em ab ou t w h at w a s so ld (u su ally cr ac k ) , ho w m uchw as s o l d, whatpr i ce s wer e ch ar g ed, a nd ho w the d r ug s we r e we i g he d, p a c k a g e d, a nd de l i v e r e d. W hen the ti m e ca m e t o i nstr uct the j ury, o ne i nstr ucti on w ent a s f ol l ows: I fyo u fi nd the defe nd ant, A drei n Bennett, gui l ty of conspira c y a s char ged i n Count 1 o fthe I nd i ctm ent, ne xty o u mustfi nd b ey o nd a r ea so nabl e do ub t the quanti ty ofdrugs in vol ved. I nd i cate yo ur fi nd i ngs a s to the quanti ty of drugs bel ow a nd have ea c h j uror s i g n th i s f o r m. W e, the j u ry , fi nd thatthe am ount o fco ntro l l ed su b st an c es in vo lve d in t h e c on sp ira c y a n d rea so n ab ly f or ese eabl e t o A drei n Bennett was:

_____l e s s th a n 5 g r a ms

_____ 5 g r a ms o r mo r e , b u tl e s s th a n 5 0 g r a ms

_____50 gram s or m ore W i th respe ctt o Co unt2 ( whi chc ha r g ed Ben ne tta nd W ashi ngto n w i th di str ibuti on o f cr ack) , the j ury w as ask ed to decid e o nl y whether Bennett was gui l ty of4 N os. 07

- 4067& 07

- 4085

Iti s possible that the j ury’ s f ail ure t o agree on a quantity w as 1 in p ar ta t t r i bu t a bl e t o t he wa y t hi s i ns t r uc t i on, a nd the c or r espond ing verdictf orm , w ere w orded

. If, f or exam ple, si x j urors t hough tthat48 gr am s ofc ra c k was i nvol ved a nd si x t hough tthe quantity w as 55 gram s, the n none oft h e b o xe s on the f orm p r o v i d e d w o u l d h a v e a p p l i e d

. I tw o u l d b e p r e f e r a b l e , i ts e e ms t o us , t o gi ve t he j ur y a n o p en - en ded f or m , s ayi ng s om ethi ng li ke “w e find unan im ously that the def endan t dis tr ibuted a t le a st _

__g ra m s o f cr a ck an d
__ _g ra m s o f p o w d er co ca in e.” Th e bl a nk s wou l d b e fi l l e d i n wi t h t he m i ni m um qu a nt i t i es on w hich the ju ro rs all agre ed. This wou ld give the t ri al court the inform atio n it n e e d ed to ap p ly th e statu tor y thre sho ld s, (co n tin u ed ...) d istribu ting “coc aine.” For Cou nt s 3 throu g h 1 7, the j ury was as k ed to m ak e a fi ndi ng o f g ui l ty o r no t g ui l ty, a nd then t o i nd i c ate w hetherthe drug di str ibuted w as “co

cai ne bas e, but not coca i ne bas e (cra c k) ” o r “co cai ne bas e ( cra ck)

. ” I t was notas ked to fi nd quanti ty f or C ounts 2 thro ugh 17. A t o ne poi nt duri ng i ts del iber ati ons, t he j ury sent a note ind ica ti ng tha t i t was havi ng tr oubl e a gr eei ng o n the quanti ty of coca i ne i nvol ved i n any ofthe counts. A fter a di scussi on, the pros ecuto r an d defense counselag re ed th atthe c o ur t sh o ul d j us t awai t th e j ur y ’ s ve r dic t an d dec i de th enwhat to do i fa ny th i ngwas mis sing . The j ury eve ntual l y r etur ned i ts ver dictand f ound B ennett gu il ty of th e con sp iracy c h a r ged i n C ou nt 1, bu t it left the f or m address in g d rug quanti ty bl ank. I t a l so agr eed that the s ub st an c e i nvol ved i n Counts 3 thro ugh 17 w as cra ck coca i ne, but aga i n i t di d not s peci fy a ny quanti ty. 1N os. 07

- 4067& 07

- 4085 5

(
. . . c on t i nu e d) 1 s uc h a s the 5 gr am or 50 gr am l eve l i n c ra c k c as es , or the 50 0 g ram an d 5 k ilog ram lev el in p ow d er co cain e cases. The cour t accepted the ve rdi ct a nd o rder ed a pr ese ntence re port ( “PSR”)
. The proba ti on offi cer concl ud ed th at B e n n e t t ’ s r e l e v a n tc o n d u c ti n v o l v e d a tl e a s t1 5 0 g r a ms butl es s th an5 00 g r ams o fc r ac kcocai ne , b as ed o n the evi dence r ecei ved at tri al

. The PSR a l so re com m ended a fo u r - l ev el e n h an c em en t fo r B en n et t’s lea d er sh ip role in the o ff ense and a two- l eve l enhancem ent f orhavi ng a fi re ar m pre sent at the Bi gel ow house. Thi s led to a base o ff en se l ev elo f 38 un derthe S en te nc i ngGui del i ne s an d an adv i s o r y s e n t e n c i n gr a n g e o f2 6 2 t o 3 2 7mo n th s . The PSR took th e p ositi on that, un d er 21 U
. S. C
. § 841(b)(1) (A ), the s tatutor y m i ni m um se ntence appli cab l e t o Bennett was 2 40 months , b ec au se Be nnet t ha d a pr i o r fel o ny dr ugc o nv i ct i o n. I n i ts sente nci ng m em or andu m , the gov er nm ent a ck no wl edg ed th atthe j ur y ha d no t m ad e a fi ndi ngo fdr ug qua ntity
. I t ar g ue d, ho wev er, tha t th e co ur t ha d the authori ty to fi nd quanti ty as l ong as the c ourtr efra i ned fro m im p os in g a se n te n c e lon ge r th an th e 3 0-y ea r m ax im u m au th or ize d by § 84 1(b )( 1 ) ( C ), an d th at th e e viden c e s up port ed a fi nd i ng tha t the co nspir ato rs had deal t i n m or e than 50 gr am s o f c ra c k. I t r el i ed i n parto n H a rris v. U nited Sta tes, 53 6 U
. S. 5 4 5 ( 2 0 0 2 ) , wh i c h ho l ds that the Appr e ndil in e of case s d oes not ap p ly to statu tory m i ni m a. Bennett obj ecte d to the c ourt ’ s a uthor i ty to m ake a fin d in g r el ati ng to the sta tutor y m i ni m um , gi ven6 N os. 07

- 4067& 07

- 4085 th e j u r y ’ s f a i l u r e t o ma k e a n y fi n d i n go n qu a n t i t y . He al so obj ecte d to the l eader shi p and gun enhanc em ents. The cour t f ound th at t h er e was “a f ai rl y r i ch body of evi dence” s how i n g that e xtensi ve drug ac ti vi ty w as going o n at the Bi ge low house and that i t was appropri ate to at tr ibute thi s a cti vi ty to Bennett. Di sa g r ee i ngwi ththe pr o ba ti o n o ffi ce r, the c o ur t f o und th a tB e n n e t tw a s r e s p o ns i b l e o n l y f o r 5 0 t o 1 5 0 g r a ms o fc r a c k

. I t a l s o f o u n d th a t b o th th e l e a d e r s h i p a n d t he gun enhancem ents w er e proper, l eadi ng to a fi nal t ota l off ense l eve l o f36 ( ra therthan t h e 38 that the PS R had recom m en d ed ). I t also conclu d ed that the m an d ato ry m inim um ap p li cab le to B en ne t t w as th e 20-year term spe c ified i n 21 U
. S. C. § 8 41( b) ( 1) ( A ) , wh i ch appli es w hen th e dr ugqua nt i tyi s 50 g r ams o r mor e, no twi ths ta ndi ng the jur y’ s f ai l ure to m ake any quanti ty fi nd i ng. Bennett o b j e c t e d, a r g ui ngtha ta nyfi nd i ngr e g a r di ngthe ma ndator y m i ni m um had to be m ade by the j ury. T he di str i ct cou rt d eci ded , however, thatas l ong as the m axi m um ter m was not extended, i t was ent i tl ed to m ake fi nd i ngs relating to the m inim um . A lthou gh Be nn ett’s ad visory g uideli ne r an g e woul d ha ve b ee n 2 10 t o 2 62 months wi th o utt ak i ngthe mandat o r y min i m um i nt o ac co unt, the cour t’ s deci si on t o apply that m i ni m um m ade the ra nge 24 0 t o 2 6 2 mo n th s f o r C o u n t1 ( a n d 2 1 0 t o 2 6 2 mo n ths f orthe re m ai ni ng co unts)
. The co urt th en se ntenced Bennett t o 240 m onths on a ll co unts, with hi s s entence s to run co ncurr entl y.N os. 07

- 4067& 07

- 4085 7 II A Ben ne tt ’ s p r i m ar y a r g um en t f o r s et tinga si de hi s se ntence i s that the di str i ct c ourtact ed i nconsi ste ntl y with Appr e ndiw h en it fou n d th e fa c t s th at su p p or te d h is m an d at or y m in im u m se n te n c e. A p p ren di he ld th at a j ury m ust fi nd bey ond a r eas onabl e doubt “any f act [ othe r th an a prior conviction] t h a t increase s the pen alty f or a c rim e b ey on d t h e p re sc rib ed st at u to ry m ax im u m .” A ppre ndi, 5 30 U. S
. a t 49 0. Al th o ug h Appr e ndia r o s e i n the conte xt o fN ew J er sey ’ s s entenci ng r egi m e, i t i s by now w el l es tabl i shed that the r ule i t a nno unced app l i es to f edera l se n tenci ng as well

. S ee U nited Sta tes v. B o o k er, 5 4 3 U
. S. 220, 233, 245 (2005) ( A pprendi rul e a pp l i es to fede ral sen ten cing, but it doe s not ap p ly to an ad visory sen ten cing gu ideline system , as opp osed t o statu tory max i ma)
. T hi s d o e s n o t, h o we v e r, t r a ns f o r m dr ugty pe and quantity i nto “el em ents” o fthe off ense . I nstea d, as w e hav e h e ld repe ated ly, dru g typ e and qu an tity are sente nci ng f acto rs thatm ust be f ound by the j ury, i nsof ar as they est abli sh the m axi m um poss ibl e s entence
. S ee, e.g., U ni t e d St at e s v. Ke l l y, 519 F.3d 355 , 363 (7th C ir. 20 08 ); U ni t e d S t at es v . M ar t i nez, 30 1 F
. 3d 860, 86 5 ( 7th C ir. 20 02 ); U ni t e d S ta t e s v. Bjo rkm an, 27 0 F
. 3d 482, 49 1- 92 (7th C ir. 2001). A l though s om e th ou ght that the Appr e ndiru le log ica lly shoul d app l y to m i ni m um se ntences es tabl i shed by sta tute, the Suprem e Cour t has not bee n pers uaded to f o l l o w tha t path. I ns te ad, i n H ar ris v. U ni t e d S t at e s , s upra, th e Cou r t co nc l ude d tha t th ere is no r equi r ementf o r the8 N os. 07

- 4067& 07

- 4085 j ury to fi nd bey ond a rea so n abl e doubt the f acts that tr i gge r a s tatutor y m i ni m um se ntence. 53 6 U.S . a t 557. Altho ug h tha t woul d s ee m t o pr ec l ude Be nne tt ’ s ar g um ent, i nsof aras i t i s ba sed o n the Ap p r e ndilin e ofcas es, the Se cond Cir cui t di d not s ee m att er s that way i n i ts dec i si o n i n U ni t e d S t at e s v. Gonzal ez, 420 F.3d 111 ( 2d Cir. 2005 )
. Thi s co urt, however, expre ssl y re fused to f ol l ow Gon z a lez and a si m i l ardeci si on fro m the N i nth Cir cui t, U nited St at e s v. Ve l as co - H e re di a, 319 F.3d 108 0 (9th C ir. 20 03 ) , i n U ni t e d S t at e s v. Cl ark, 538 F.3d 803 , 812 (7th C ir. 20 08 )
. Al th o u g h we c o u l d d i s mi s s B e n n e t t ’ s a r g u me nt su m m aril y, in l ight of C la rk, r es p ect fo r the v i ews o fo ur sister circuits and Be nn ett’s reli an ce on those c ases p ersuade us t o tak e a notherl oo k a t these i ssues . I n Gonzal ez, the Se con d C i rcui t hel d that acr i m i nal defe nd an t cannot b e s entence d unles s “ a j ury f ound or Gonzal ez hi m sel fadm i tte d the sp ecifi ed drug quanti ty el em ent. ” 4 20 F. 3d at 125. The co urt re aso ned that 21 U .S.C . § 84 1(a )(1) , w h ich m ak es it u n law fu l to t ra ffic in drug s, a nd 2 1 U. S
. C. § 8 41 ( b) ( 1) , whi chs et s f o r ththe s e nt e nc i ngr a ng e s f o r drugo ff e ns e s , o pe r a t e i nd e pe nd

en tly ofone an oth er, and that after A pprendi, the cou rt m ust t re at both as est abl i sh in g el em ents ofthe off ense. ( This cour t, as Kel lyi l l ustr ate s, does noti nter pret Appr e ndithatway. ) The G o nz a lez co urt then e xam i ned § 8 41( b) ( 1) m or e ca re full y. A s i t no ted, for a perso n w i th a pr i o r dr ugfel o ny, l i k e Gon za l ez ( o r l i k e Benne tt), who tr affi ck s in a n unqu an ti fi ed amoun t o fc r ac k, the re l evantse ntenci ng provis i on i s § 84 1( b) ( 1) ( C); thatsubse c tio n d oe s n ot s p e c ify a n y m in im u m se n te n c e, bu t it p r e s c r ib e s a ma x i mu m s e n t e n c e o f3 0 y e a r s . I fth a ts a meN os. 07

- 4067& 07

- 4085 9

r ec i di vi stt r affi ck ed i n five gr ams o r mor e o fc o ca i ne base , § 84 1( b) ( 1) ( B) i m poses a m i ni m um se ntence of 10 y ea r s an d a m ax imum o fl i f e i n pr i so n. F i na l l y , i fthe qu a n t i t y o f c o c a i n e b a s e i s 5 0 g r a ms o r mo r e an d t he perso n has a pri ordrug convi cti on, § 841(b) ( 1)(A ) es tabl i s he s a s t a t ut o r y mi ni mum s e nt en c e o f2 0 y e a r s a nd a m ax im u m of life. G o nz a lez he l d tha t “[ n] o th i ngi n the stru ctu re o f th e statu te su ggests that thes e corr es po ndi ngmin i m um s an d m ax i m um s, o r a ny o fthe othe rs pre scr ibed i n the sta tute, can be de lin ked to p er m i t m i xi ng and m atchi ng ac ro ss subsect i ons to cre ate h yb rid se n te n c in g ra n ge s n ot sp ec ified by C on gr es s.” 420 F. 3d at 121 ( ci ti ng V ela sco -H eredia , 319 F.3d at 1086). As we no te d e ar l i er, thi s court ex pr es se d di sa g r ee m en t w ith the h olding of G o nz a lez i n U nited Sta tes v. C la rk. We did notspeci fy whether our disa gr eem ent fl owed fro m Gonzal ez’ s char acte ri zati on o fthe sente n c ing rule s a s “el em ents” of a cri m e ra ther than “s entenci ng f acto rs , ” o r i fwe unde rstood the S ec o nd Ci r cui t’ s co m m en ts abo ut the s tr ucture ofthe sta tute to be a n a lter nati ve basi s f or its ruli ng i nd ep en d en t of its i nt erp retation of A pprendi’ s r equi r ement s. No o ne tha t we c anfi nd, inc l udi ng Bennett’ s counsel i n the dist ri ct cour t, Bennett’ s cou nsel bef or e thi s co urt, and the dist ri ct c ourt, has con sid ered the questi on wh ether, as a str ai ghtf or w ar d m att er ofst atuto ryi nter preta tio n, i t i s per m i ssibl e t o apply a sta tutor y m axi m um sentence f ro m o ne subse cti on o f § 84 1(b) ( 1) , a nd then to s el ec t th e st atut o r y min i m um s e nt e nc e fr o m a di ff e r e nts ub s e c t i o n o f§ 8 4 1 ( b ) ( 1 )
. I ns t e a d, al ong the sam e l i nes the Se cond Cir cui t chose , counsel has a rg ue d onlythati t would be i nconsi ste nt with10 N os. 07

- 4067& 07

- 4085 Appr e ndito use the 3 0- yea r sta tutor y m axi m um f or Ben n et t th at i s f ound in § 8 41( b) ( 1) ( C) ( w hi ch appli es to hi m bec ause the j ury did n ot speci fy a ny quanti ty of d rugs ), w hile at the sam e tim e u sing th e 2 0-year statu tory m inim um f ou nd i n § 841 (b)( 1)(A ) (based on th e cou rt’s fi nd i ng tha t the o ffen se i nvol ved m or e than 50 gr am s o f coca ine base ). W e ar e no t i nc l i ne d t o r evi sito ur de ci si o n i n C la rk, w hi ch adhered to our posi ti on that § 841(b) ( 1) id enti fi es sente nci ng f acto rs, n ot el em ents ofthe off ense. W e hav e no po wer to ch an g e th e r ule i n H arris , under wh i ch Appr e ndidoe s not ap p ly to facts estab li sh ing a statu tory m i ni mum. Be c a us e the s e we r e the o nl y a r g ume nt s p r ese n ted on B en ne tt’s beh alf, w e con side r the p ure s t a t u t o r y qu e s t i o n f o r f e i t e d i n th i s p a r t i c u l a r c a s e . We add, ho wev er, tha t we s ee no th i ngi n H arris th atc ab i ns Con gr es s’ s a uthor i ty to l i nk to gether a par ti cul ar statu tory m inim um w ith a statu tory m ax im um de term i ned by a j ury. Thus, i fthe st at u te sai d som ethi ng l i ke “th e sen ten cing cou rt m us t ap p ly both t he statu tory max i mum a nd the s t atut o r y mi ni mum t ha tc o r r e s po nd s t o th e dr ugqua nt i t y f o un d b y th e j ur y , ” the n the mi x- a nd

m at c h a p p ro ac h th at th e d ist ric t c ou rtto ok h er e w ou ld be ou t of th e qu estion. Th e op en qu est io n is thu s a pu re one ofst atuto ryinte rpre tat i on: w hat, in the fi nal anal ysi s, h as C on gr es s d on e in § 84 1(b )(1) ? H a s i t e n ac te d , i n substa nce, the hypotheti calst atute w e j u st described, o r i s th e g o ve r nm en t c o r r ec t i n a r g ui ngtha t th e m i ni m um sente nces presc ribed by th e statute m ay be b ase d on fi nd i ngs b y the j ud ge, as l on g as t he fi nalse ntence r es pec ts the maxi m um a utho r ized by the j ur y ? To o urN os. 07

- 4067& 07

- 4085 11 knowle dge, no cour t has squarely c onfro nted thati ssue, and, beca u se it has no t be en pro perl y r ai sed i n thi s ca se, w e deci de thi s ca se on the bas i s that the par ti es have chose n . Ther e i s no Appr e ndiprob lem w ith B en ne tt’s sente nce, and w e thus m ove o n to hi s o therar gum ent.

B A s we note d ear l i er , w h en the dist ri ct c ourtco m pu ted Bennett’ s o ff ense l eve l under the S entenci n g G uidel i nes, i t a dd ed two l eve l s un d er § 2D1. 1( b) ( 1) , wh i ch r equi re s th ate nhanc em entf o r a dr ugo ff en der“ [ i ] fa da ng er o us wea po n ( i nc l uding a fi r ea r m ) was po ss es se d” i n c o nnecti on with the off ense. A pp l i cati on N ote 3 to the guidel i ne go es on t o say that“[ t] he a d j u stm ent s houl d be ap p lied if th e w ea p on w as p re se n t, u n les s itis cle ar ly i m pr o babl e th at th e w ea po n was c o nne ct ed wi ththe off ense. ” Id. cm t ( n. 3)
. On the o therh and, the no te al so sa y s th a t “ th e e n h a n c e me n t wo u l d n o t b e a p p l i e d i ft he defe nd an t, ar re ste d at hi s r esi dence, had an unl oaded hunting ri fl e i n the cl ose t. ” Id. Ben n et t arg ues that there was i nsuffi ci ent e vi dence to supp or t a co ncl usi on that the d ru gs w er e s ol d or pre pa r e d f o r s a l e a tthe Bi g e l o w h o us e . Wi tho uts uch ev i den ce , he c o nt in ue s, the r e i s no way t o l i nkthe g uns f ound in the ho use t o hi s drug dist ribu tion acti vi ty. Altho ug h the g o ve r nm en t m i g htha ve a r g ue d tha t th e im p or ta n c e o f t h is e n h an c em en t d ro p s o u t o f th e c as e if w e a ffi rm the sta tuto ry m i ni m um se ntence ( as w e hav e do ne ) , i tdi d n o t
. Er r i ngo n the s i de o fc a ut i o n, the r e f or e, w e c on s i d e r B en n et t’s arg u m en t o n th e m er its . In12 N os. 07

- 4067& 07

- 4085

o ppo singhi s po si ti o n, the g o ve r nm en t po i nt s to the f ol l owing evi dence:

• Coo per at i ngwi tn es s Dou g l as S he r m an ’ s te st i m o ny th at a ho us e o n Bi g el o w S tr ee t was a “gathe r i ng pla ce, ” a l ong w i th the f act th at ther e were si x m en in th e B ige low h ou se w h en th e p olic e s ea rc h ed it

• Sher m an’ s t est i m ony that he purchase d cocai ne at a ho use o n Big el ow Str eet

• J enni f erDel an ey’ s t est i m ony that she purchas ed coca i ne ata house on Bi gel ow Str eet

• T h e d i s c ov er y b y t h e p olic e o f tw o s em i-au to m at ic hand guns at18 11 Big el ow Str eet

• T he discov ery by th e po li ce of a p late w ith B en ne tt’s fi nger pr i nt and . 5 g ra m s o fco cai ne o n i t, al so at 1811 Bi gel ow Str eet

• Sher m an’ s t est i m ony that Bennett used a pl ate o fthat ty p e t o p re p ar e c oc a i n e fo r d ist rib u tio n an d h is op inion tha t the p late w as no t con sisten t w ith p ersonaluse

• Sher m an’ s t es tim ony that Bennett di d not use co ca i ne Ben ne ttpo i nt s to a numbe r o fc ases i n whi chthe qua nt i tyo fdr ug s di sc o ve r ed in pro xi m i tyt o the g uns w as substa nti al l y gr eat er than the

. 5 gr am s th e p ol i ce fou n d in h is c as e. E .g., U nited Sta tes v. Turn er, 93 F. 3d 276, 28 9 ( 7th Ci r. 19 96) (h an dgun fo und i n sam e r oo m as 2 9 g r a ms o fme th a mp h e t a mi n e , 5 p o u nd s o fa me th a mp h et am in e p re c u rs or , an d ot h er p ar ap h er n a l i a ); U nitedN os. 07

- 4067& 07

- 4085 13 St at e s v. Ewing, 97 9 F
. 2d 12 34 , 12 38 ( 7th Ci r. 1992) ( unl oa de d gunf o un d in l o c kb o x wi th 2 0 g r a ms o fc o cai ne, am ong othe r thi ngs)
. Bu t the go ver nm ent di d not hav e to pr o ve the a ss o ci at i o n s o l el y by l o o k i ngt o the a m o unt of drugs i n cl ose proxi m i ty to the gun. The questi on is w he th er i t w as clearly im p r o b a ble that thes e gun s w ere co nnec te d wi thBe nne tt ’ s dr ug - dea l i nga ct i vi ti es . The d ist ric t c ou rtth ou gh t n ot, an d w e c an n ot sa y t h at it cl ea r l y e r r ed i n c o m i ngt o tha t co nc l us i o n.

III Fi na l l y, i t a pp ear s that the sa m e e rr orwas m ade with r es pec t to Cou nt 2 i n Ben ne tt ’ s ca se a s was made i n W as hington ’s

— that i s, the j ud gm ent rea d “dis tr ibuti on o f c oc ain e b as e (c ra c k)” ins te ad of “d ist rib u tio n of co c ain e.” Bennett has notr ai sed thi s is su e o n appeal, but thi s e rr or strikes us as plain an d in ne ed of c orrection. W e the refore A FFIRM the s e nt e nc e , b utw e R EMA ND f orthe l i m i ted pu rpose of c or re cti ng the j ud gm ent o n Count 2 t o re ad “d ist rib u tio n of co c ain e.”

3- 13- 09