A ft erexami ni ng the br i efs and the appe l l at e r ecor d, thi s thr ee- j udge pane l has * det erm i ned unani m ous l ythator al ar gum entw oul d notbe of mat er i al as s i s t ance i n the det erm i nat i on of thi s appea l . See Fed. R . A pp. P. 34( a) ( 2) ; 10th C i r . R . 34. 1( G ) . T he c a se is th e re f

o re o rd e re d su b m itt e d w ith o u t o ra l ar g u m e n t. 

## F I LED Unite d St at e s C ourt o f Appe als Te nt h Ci r c uit 

### Jan ua ry23,200 7 Elisab eth A. Shumaker C l erk of C ourt PU BL I SH UNI TED S TATES CO URT O F AP PEALS

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

Pl ai nt i ff - A ppel l ee/ C ro ss - A p p e llan t , v . Z E B E D E E H A L L , a ls o k n o w n a s “ Z e e ,” a ls o k n o w n a s “ Z e k e ,”

D e f e n d a n t - A p p e llan t/ C r os s - A ppel l ee . N o. 05- 1205, 05- 1251

AP P EA L F ROM THE UNI TE D S TA TE S DI S TR I CT COURT

F OR T HE DI S T RI CT OF CO L OR AD O ( D. Ct . No . 0 1 - CR- 2 1 4 - D ) S ub m i t t ed o n the bri efs: * Z ebede e H al l , pr o s e. St ephen M . W heel er , W heel erL aw O ffi ces , PC , E ver gr een, C ol or ado, for A ppel l ant/ C r os s - A ppel l ee. W i l l i am J. L eone, U ni t ed St at es A t t orney , K athl een M . T afoy a, A s s i s t antU ni t ed St at es A t t orney , and J ames C. M urphy , A s s i s t antU ni t ed St at es A t t orney , O ffi ce of the U ni t ed-2-

S t at es A t t orneyfor the D i stri ctof C olor ado , D env er, C olor ado , for A pp el l ee/ C ross A p p e llan t. B efor e TA CHA , C h ie f C ir c u it J u d g e , BARRETT , and O’ BRI EN , C i rcui tJudg es. T AC HA , C hi ef Ci r cui tJ udge. Fol l ow i ng a j urytr i al , D efe ndant - A ppel l antZ ebede e H al l w as found gui l tyof one countof cons pi r acyt o di s tr i but e fi ftyorm or e gr ams of cr ack- coca i ne and a i di ng and a b e ttin g th e s a m e , s ee 21 U . S. C . §§ 841( a) ( 1) , ( b) ( 1) ( A ) ( i i i ) , 846, and 18 U . S. C . § 2, and one countof pos s es s i on and di s tr i but i on of fi ftyorm or e gr ams of cr ack- coca i ne and a id in g a n d a b e ttin g th e s a m e , s ee 2 1 U .S .C .§ 8 4 1 (a )( 1 ), ( b )( 1 )( A )( iii) a n d 1 8 U .S .C . § 2 . T h e D istric t C o u rt se n ten c e d h im to 1 5 1 m o n th s’ im p riso n m e n t. M r. H a ll n o w a p p e a ls h is c o n v ictio n s a n d se n ten c e o n a v a rie tyo f g ro u n d s, a n d th e G o v e rn m e n t cr o ss -a p p e a ls M r. H a ll’s se n ten c e . W e h a v e ju risd ictio n u n d e r 2 8 U .S .C . § 1 2 9 1 , an d A F F IR M in p a rt, R E V E R S E in p a rt , a n d R E M A N D f o r r e s e n te n c in g . I . BA CKGROUND I n Sept ember2000, aft err ece i vi ng a t i p abouta l ar ge s cal e cr ack- coca i ne oper at i on heade d byW i l l i e Sm al l , the FB I M etr o G ang Task For ce ( “Task For ce” ) began a n in v e stig a tio n . T h e T a sk F o rc e w o rk e d w ith a n in f o rm a n t w h o m a d e m u lti p le contr ol l ed pur chas es of cr ack- coca i ne fr om M r . Sm al l and hi s as s oci at es w hi l e w ear i ng a w i r e. I tal s o us ed vi s ual s ur vei l l ance , vi deo ca m er as , pen r egi s t er s , and tr ap- and- tr ace-3-

devi ces t o i nves t i gat e M r . Sm al l ’ s or gani zat i on. T he t as k for ce then fi l ed an e xhaus t i ve 1 0 0 -p a g e su m m a ryo f

th e in v e stig a tio n in f

e d e ra l d istric t co u rt se e k in g a u th o riz a tio n to pl ace a w i r et ap on M r . Sm al l ’ s cel l ul arand home phones . T he courtgr ant ed the author i zat i on. T he w i r et aps w er e us ed t o col l ectaddi t i onal i nform at i on aboutthe o p e ra tio n o v e r t h e c o u rs e o f s e v e ra l m o n th s . O n Jun e 7, 20 01 , the F B I s i m ult aneo usl yexecu t ed n um erous sear ch an d arr est w arr ant s agai ns ts us pect ed mem ber s of the drug cons pi r acy . M r . H al l w as one of the tw enty - s even de fenda nt s ul t i m at el ychar ged i n a s eventy - s even c ounts econd s uper cedi ng i ndi ctm entthatw as cent er ed ar ound the l ar ge cr ack- coca i ne di s tr i but i on cons pi r acy h ea d ed b yM r. S m all . E igh teen d ef en d an ts plead ed g u il tyto v ariou s ch arg es, an d M r. H al l and s i x other s w er e tr i ed t ogetheri n a j urytr i al thatl as t ed fr om Sept ember22, 2003, t o N ovember13, 2003. T he G overnm ents um m ar i zed i t s theoryof the cons pi r acyas foll ow s: T he co nspir at ori al organizat i on foll ow ed a p at t ern typical l yreferred t o as a “hub and s pokes ” cons pi r acy . W i l l i e Sm al l w as atthe ce nt erof the c o n s p ir a c yw h o s e o b

je c tiv e w a s to d is tr ib u te c ra c k c o c a in e f o r m o n e y . W i l l i e Sm al l had s etup an ent erpr i s e dedi cat ed t o gi vi ng convi ct ed fe l ons a n o p p o rtu n ityto g e t b a c k in to th e b u sin e ss o f c ra c k d istrib u tio n u p o n th e ir r el eas e fr om pr i s on. Sm al l w oul d “fr ont ”, orgi ve on cons i gnm entw i thout p ay m en t of

m o n ey , cra ck co ca ine to v ariou s co n v ict ed fe lon s as th eyw ere r e- ent er i ng s oci ety . O nce theyhad s ol d thator i gi nal amount of cr ack co ca ine a n d re-p aid th e o ri g inal p u rch ase p ri ce , theyco u ld rec eive m o re cr ack c ocai ne, agai n on cons i gnm ent , and r e- s el l thatt o m ake a nother pr ofi t . E ventual l y , i tw as the goal of the cons pi r acythatthe r e- devel oped d istrib u to r w o u ld b e c o m e p ro f itab le e n o u g h to p a yf

o r c ra c k c o c a in e in advanc e i n ever - enl ar gi ng amount s , thus enabl i ng Sm al l t o begi n the pr oces s agai n w i th anothernew l yr el eas ed fe l on. T he cons pi r acydepende d-4-

upon t he di s tr i but orfel ons bei ng atdi ffe r ents t ages i n the pr oces s of r ee sta b lish in g th e ir ill e g a l b u sin e ss e s in o rd e r to p ro v id e f u n d s to b e a b le to “s t ake” a new m embert o cr ack c ocai ne i n the begi nni ng. O ne of the maj or rea so n s fo r m ak ing u p h is org an izati o n o f c o n v ict ed fe lon s w as S m all ’s comfortl evel i n deal i ng w i th peopl e he f el tr el at i vel ycert ai n w oul d not inf o rm to p o li ce , ev en if ca u g h t w ith co n tr o ll ed su b stan ce s. T h is struc ture gave a m eas ur e of c om for tt o al l the mem ber s of the cons pi r acy , al s o. T h e juryfo u n d M r. H all an d h is co -de fe n d an ts gu il tyo f v ariou s d rug o ff en ses. T h is co u rt uphel d the convi ct i ons and s ent ence s of M r . H al l ’ s co- defe ndant s i n U ni t ed Stat es v. Sm a ll , 4 2 3 F .3 d 1 1 6 4 (1 0 th C ir . 2 0 0 5 ). W e n o w c o n s id e r M r. H a ll’ s a p p e a l. I I . DI S CU S S I ON A . Pr etr i al M ot i ons 1. Mot i on t o s uppr es s w i r etap evi dence . P ri o r t o tr ial , M r. H all an d h is co -de fe n d an ts m o v ed to su p p ress the G o v ern m en t’ s w i r et ap evi dence , ar gui ng thati nacc ur at e and mi s l eadi ng s t at ement s i n the appl i cat i on a n d s u p p o rt in g te s tim o n yta in te d th e f in d in g s o f

th e ju d g e w h o a p p ro v e d th e w ir e ta p . I ndeed, a def

endantm aychal l enge a fac i al l ys uffi ci entaff i davi ton the gr ound thatthe p o li ce inclu d ed d eli b era te or rec k less fa lseh o o d s tha t w ere m aterial to the d istri ct co u rt ’s f in d in g th a t th e w ir e ta p s w e re n e c e s s a ry. Sm a ll , 423 F. 3d at1172 ( ci t i ng Fr anks v. D el aw are , 4 3 8 U .S . 1 5 4 , 1 5 5

– 5 6 (1 9 7 8 )). T h e D istric t C o u rt h e ld a f iv e -d a yh e a rin g to det erm i ne the pr opr i etyof s uppr es s i ng the w i r et ap evi dence . B as ed on the t es t i m onyand evi dence pr es ent ed, the D i s tr i ctC our tdeni ed the def endant s ’ m ot i on, concl udi ng thatt he al l egedl yfal s e s t at ement s w er e ei thernoti nacc ur at e orw er e notm ade i nt ent i onal l yorI n hi s r epl ybr i ef, M r . H al l r ai s es a new chal l enge t o the admi s s i on of the w i r et ap 1 evi dence

— namel y , thatthe w i r et ap w as notconduct ed w i th m i ni m al i nt er cept i on of nonc rim in a l ac tiv iti e s. W e d e c lin e to a d d re ss th is a rg u m e n t ra ise d f o r th e f irst tim e in a re p ly b ri e f. See U

ni t ed Stat es v. Mur r ay , 8 2 F . 3 d 3 6 1 , 3 6 3 n . 3 (10 th C ir . 1 9 9 6 ). -5- w ith rec k less d isr eg ard fo r th e truth. T h e c o u rtalso co n clud ed that the s tat em en ts w ere n o t m a te ri a l to th e is s u in g c o u rt ’s f in d in g o f n e c e s s ity. M r . H al l r ai s es chal l enges i dent i cal t o thos e r ai s ed byhi s co- defe ndant s i n Sm a ll . W e c o n c lu d e d th a t th e D is tr ic t C o u rt d id n o t e rr in d e n y in g th e m o tio n to s u p p re s s . See Sm a ll , 4 2 3 F .3 d a t 1 1 7 2

– 7 8 . M r. H a ll c o n c e d e s th a t th is ru lin g c o n tr o ls h is c a s e . A ccor di ngl y , w e nee d notr epea tthatanal y s i s her e. 1 2 . Mo tio n to se v e r Mr. H a ll’s tria l fro m th a t o

f h is c o -d e

fen da n ts . M r. H a ll m o v e d to se v e r h is tria l f ro m th a t o f

h is c o -d e f

e n d a n ts, a rg u in g th a t a j oi nttr i al w oul d be pr ej udi ci al beca us e he w oul d s uffe rfr om the s pi l l overeff ectof e v id e n c e a g a in s t h is c o -d e f e n d a n ts , s ee Zaf

i r o v. U ni t ed Stat es , 506 U . S. 534, 539 ( 1993) ( not i ng thatpr ej udi ce mayar i s e w her e evi dence of a c o- defe ndant ’ s w r ongdoi ng err oneous l yl eads a j uryt o concl ude thatthe def endanti s gui l ty ) , and i n or dert o al l ow h im to p re se n t ex c u lp a to rytes tim o n yth a t h e c o u ld n o t p re se n t in a jo in t trial. W ith re sp e c t to th e latte r c o n ten tio n , M r. H a ll p ro v id e d a n a f f id a v it fro m M r. S m a ll, o n e o f h is c o -d e f e n d a n ts, in d ica tin g th a t h e w o u ld b e w ill in g to tes tifyto M r. H a ll’s in n o c e n c e if theyw ere tr ied s ep ara tel y . A fter a h ea ri n g , the D istri ct C o u rtd en ied th e m o ti o n . M r. H al l ar gues thatthi s deci s i on w as err or . M r . H al l no l ongerar gues thathe w as pr ej udi ced-6-

byanys pi l l overevi dence ent er ed aga i ns thi s co- defe ndant s . R ather , on appea l , he ar gues onl ythatthe D i s tr i ctC our t ’ s r efus al t o s everhi s tr i al pr event ed hi m fr om pr es ent i ng e x c u lp a to rytes tim o n yf ro m M r. S m a ll— sp e c if ica lly , tha t M r. S m a ll n e v e r so ld d ru g s to M r. H a ll. M u lti p le d e f

e n d a n ts m a yb e tried jo in tly“ if th e ya re a lleg e d to h a v e p a rticip a ted in the s ame actortr ans act i on, ori n t he s ame se r i es of ac t s ortr ans act i ons , cons t i tut i ng an offe ns e oroffe ns es . ” Fed. R . C r i m . P. 8( b) . J oi nttr i al s of def endant s w ho ar e i ndi ct ed t ogetherar e pr efe r r ed bec aus e “[ t ] heypr om ot e ef fi ci encyand s erve the i nt er es t s of j us t i ce byavoi di ng the s canda l and i nequi tyof i ncons i s t entver di ct s . ” Zafi ro , 506 U . S. at537 (i n te rn a l q u o ta tio n m a rk s o m itte d ). I f jo in d e r “ a p p e a rs to p re ju d ic e a d e f

e n d a n t[ ,] [ h o w e v e r,] . . . the c o u rt m ay order s eparat e t ri al s of co un t s, sever the d efen dan t s’ tri al s, o r p ro v id e a n yo th e r re lief th a t ju stic e re q u ire s.” F e d . R . C rim . P . 1 4 (a ) (e m p h a sis added) . W e r evi ew the di s tr i ctcourt ’ s deni al of a mot i on t o s everforan abus e of d is c re tio n . U

ni t ed Stat es v. Appers on , 441 F. 3d 1162, 1190 ( 10th C i r . 2006) . “[W ] hen d e f e n d a n ts p ro p e rlyh a v e b e e n jo in e d u n d e r R u le 8 (b ), a d istric t co u rt sh o u ld g ra n t a severance un der R ule 14 on l yi f t here i s a ser i ou s r i sk t hat a j ointtri al w ou l d co m prom i se a sp e c if ic tria l rig h t o f

o n e o f th e d e f e n d a n ts, o r p re v e n t th e ju ryf ro m m a k in g a re liab le ju d g m e n t a b o u t g u ilt o r i n n o c e n c e .” Zafi ro , 5 0 6 U .S . at 5 3 9 . “In a sm u c h a s s e v e ra n c e is a mat t erof di s cr et i on and notof r i ght , the def endantm us tbeara hea vybur den of s how i ng r eal pr ej udi ce t o hi s cas e. ” U n itedS ta tes v . M

c C o n n e ll , 749 F. 2d 1441, 1444-7-

( 10th C i r . 1984) I n Mc C o n n e ll , this C o u rtlai d o u t sev en fa ctors re leva n t t o ev alua ti n g M r. H all ’s cl ai m thatthe D i s tr i ctC our t ’ s fai l ur e t o s everhi s tr i al pr event ed hi m fr om pr es ent i ng e x c u lp a to rye v id e n c e f

ro m M r. S m a ll: 1 ) th e li k eli h o o d that the c o -de fe n d an t w o u ld in f ac t t esti fyat th e m o v an t’ s s ever ed tr i al and w ai ve hi s Fi fth A m endmentpr i vi l ege; 2) the s i gni fi canc e of the t es t i m onyi n r el at i on t o the def endant ’ s theoryof def

ens e; 3) the excul pat orynatur e and e ffe ctof s uch t es t i m ony ; 4) the l i kel i hood thatthe co- defe ndant ’ s t es t i m onyw oul d be i m peac hed; 5) the ext entof pr ej udi ce caus ed bythe abs ence of the t es t i m ony ; 6) the ef fec tof a s ever ance on j udi ci al admi ni s tr at i on and ec onom y ; 7) the t i m el i nes s of the mot i on. I d. a t 1 4 4 5 ; see al

so U nited S tates v. Mart i nez, 76 F. 3d 1145, 1152 ( 10th C i r . 1996) . T he D istric t C o u rt c o n sid e re d th e se f a c to rs a n d f

o u n d M r. H a ll’s tim e lym o tio n “ c o m p lete ly w ith o u t m e rit. ” T h e c o u rt a ss u m e d th a t itw a s lik e lyth a t M r. S m a ll w o u ld w a iv e h is Fi fth A m endmentpr i vi l ege a nd t es t i fyand thatthe natur e of the t es t i m onyw oul d be excul pat ory . H ow ever , the courtnot ed thatM r . Sm al l ’ s t es t i m ony“compl et el yl acks any subst ance o r cr edibi l i ty , ” beca use t he w i ret ap ev i den ce dir ect l ycon tradi ct s i tand becau se the G overnm entw oul d i m peac h M r . Sm al l ’ s t es t i m onyw i th hi s ext ens i ve l i s tof pr i or convi ct i ons . A s s uch, the courtconcl uded, M r . H al l w oul d notbe pr ej udi ced bythe a b se n c e o f

M r. S m a ll’s te stim o n y“ b e c a u se its e x c u lp a to ryv a lu e w o u ld b e e f f e c tiv e ly nul l i fi ed. ” Fi nal l y , the D i s tr i ctC our tobs erved thata j oi nttr i al w as i n the i nt er es t s of ju d icia l ec o n o m yb e c a u se th e e x a c t sa m e w itn e ss e s a n d e x h ib its w o u ld b e n e c e ss a ryin b o th tr ial s. W e a g ree . T h e D istri ct C o u rtd id n o t abu se it s d iscreti o n b yd en y ing M r.I n admi t t i ng the evi dence on a pr ovi s i onal bas i s , the D i s tr i ctC our texpl ai ned that 2 i f the G overnm ent ’ s pr oof attr i al fai l ed t o conform t o i t s pr offe r ed evi dence , the d e f e n d a n ts re m a in e d f

re e to m o v e f

o r a p p ro p ria te s a n c tio n s, in c lu d in g m istria l. -8- H a ll’ s m o tio n to s e v e r. 3. Moti on t o exclude co -conspi rat ors’ou t -of -courtstatem ents . B oth M r . H al l and hi s co- defe ndant s fi l ed a mot i on i n l i m i ne t o excl ude the admi s s i on of co- cons pi r at or s ’ s t at ement s thatw er e captur ed i n the form of w i r et ap rec o rdin g s. T h e D istri ct C o u rtd en ied th e m o ti o n . A lth o u g h h ea rsaystat em en ts are g e n e ra lly n o t a d m is s ib le a t tr ia l, s ee Fed. R . E vi d. 802, “a s t at ementbya coc ons pi r at orof a p a rtyd u rin g th e c o u rse a n d in f u rth e ra n c e o f

th e c o n sp ira c y ” is n o t h e a rsa y , an d is th e re f o re a d m is s ib le a s s u b s ta n tiv e e v id e n c e a g a in s t th e p a rt y , F e d . R . E v id . 8 0 1 (d )( 2 )( E ). F or a st at em ent t o b e adm i ssi ble unde r Fed. R . E vid. 80 1(d)( 2)( E ), the D i stri ctC ou rtm ust f irst f in d th e f o llo w in g e lem e n ts b ya p re p o n d e ra n c e o f th e e v id e n c e : “( 1 ) th a t a cons pi r acyexi s t ed; ( 2) thatthe dec l ar antand the def endantw er e both m ember s of the cons pi r acy ; and ( 3) thatthe s t at ement s w er e made i n the cour s e of a nd i n fur ther ance of the cons pi r acy . ” U

n itedS ta tes v . S in c la ir , 1 0 9 F . 3 d 1 5 2 7 , 1 5 3 3 (10 th C ir . 1 9 9 7 ). A fter a tw o- dayhear i ng on the mot i on, dur i ng w hi ch the G overnm ents ubm i t t ed a de t ai l ed des cr i pt i on of the evi dence i tw oul d pr es entattr i al t o demonstr at e the exi s t ence of the cons pi r acyand the i ndi vi dual defe ndant s ’ part i ci pat i on i n the cons pi r acy , the courtfound bya pr eponder ance of the evi dence thateac h el ementof the above t es tw as s at i s fi ed and provis i on al l yadm i t t ed the evidence. W e revi ew the ad m i ssi on of ev i den ce fo r an abu se 2M r. H al l al so sugg est s i n h i s r eplybri ef t hat i tw as the D i stri ctC ou rt ’s pr ovis i onal 3 rul i ng pr i ort o t r i al thatw as i n err orbeca us e i tal l ow ed the G overnm entt o m ake br oad as s ert i ons aboutthe def endant s ’ r ol es i n the cons pi r acy . H e conc edes , how ever , that“no [ c ]o -c o n sp ira to r m a d e a sta tem e n t [ a t trial] d ire c tlyim p lica tin g [ M r. H a ll]. ” A p . R e p ly B r . at10. M or eover , M r . H al l fai l s t o pr ovi de r el evantr ecor d ci t at i ons and ci t es no a u th o rityf

o r h is th e o ryth a t th is o b jec tio n to th e p ro v isio n a l ru lin g c o n stitu tes a v a lid bas i s forr ever s al underFed. R . E vi d. 801( d) ( 2) ( E ) . T hi s ar gum enti s w ai ved. -9- of di s cr et i on and “w e w i l l notdi s turb an evi dent i aryrul i ng abs enta di s t i ncts how i ng t hat i tw as bas ed on a c l ear l yerr oneous fi ndi ng of fa ctoran err oneous concl us i on of l aw or m ani fes t s a cl earerr ori n j udgm ent . ” U n itedS ta tes v . D o w lin , 4 0 8 F .3 d 6 4 7 , 6 5 9 (1 0 th C ir . 2 0 0 5 ) (alt era ti o n an d q u o tat ion o m itted). A l though hi s br i ef i s notent i r el ycl earon thi s poi nt , M r . H al l appea r s t o ar gue that beca us e the w i r et ap conve r s at i ons betw een hi m and M r . Sm al l i ncl uded the us e of “ code w or ds ” t o conce al thei rcr i m i nal deal i ngs , and bec aus e the G overnm entpr es ent ed no expertw i tnes s t o i nt erpr etthos e w or ds , the D i s tr i ctC our tcoul d nothave pr oper l yfound th a t a c rim in a l co n sp ira c ye x iste d , tha t M r. H a ll p a rticip a ted in it, o r th a t th e sta tem e n ts w e re m a d e in th e c o u rse o f a n d in f u rth e ra n c e o f

th e c o n sp ira c y . B u t M r. H a ll fa ils to s peci fi cal l yi dent i fyanyco- cons pi r at orhear s ays t at ement s thatw er e ac tual l yadmi t t ed at tr i al agai ns thi m ; nordoes he pr ovi de ci t at i ons t o the r ecor d w her e thes e s t at ement s m i ght b e f o u n d . See T enth C i r . R . 28. 2( C ) ( 2) , ( 3) ( a) . “D ue t o thes e fa i l ur es , thi s courtcannot even a t t empt t o as s es s the mer i t s of hi s ar gum ent . ” U ni t ed Stat es v. McC lat chey , 217 F .3 d 8 2 3 , 8 3 5

– 3 6 (1 0 th C ir . 2 0 0 0 ). A s s u c h , th e is s u e is w a iv e d . I d. at836. 3 4 . Mo tio n to ex c lu d e fir e a r m s e v id e n c e a dm itte d a s “ to o ls o

f th e tr a d e .”-10-

M r . H al l m ai nt ai ns the D i s tr i ctC our terr ed i n admi t t i ng i nt o evi dence , as “t ool s of the drug tr ade, ” an unl oaded s hot gun and var i ous amm uni t i on ( butno s hot gun s hel l s ) t hat w er e di s cover ed dur i ng the exe cut i on of a s ear ch w arr antatM r . H al l ’ s r es i dence . T he a m m u n iti o n w a s d isc o v e re d in sid e M r. H a ll’s h o u se , w h ile th e sh o tg u n w a s d isc o v e re d in an i noper abl e ca rparked out s i de hi s r es i dence . C i t i ng Fed. R . E vi d. 403, M r . H al l ar gued t o the D i s tr i ctC our tthatthe pr obat i ve val ue of thi s evi dence i s faroutw ei ghed bythe dangerof unfa i rpr ej udi ce. Speci fi cal l y , he cont ended thatthe G overnm entcoul d notl i nk M r . H al l t o t he s hot gun beca us e i tw as s ei zed f r om an aba ndoned ca rw hi l e M r . H al l w as as l eep i n hi s bedr oom ; ther e w er e no fi ngerpr i nt s on the gun; ther e w as no evi dence t hat drug- deal i ng everw enton i n hi s hom e; no s hot gun s hel l s w er e di s cover ed dur i ng the s ear ch; and the s ear ch w as exec ut ed appr oxi m at el ya w eek a ft erthe l as tdat e of the c o n sp ira c ya lleg e d b yth e G o v e rn m e n t. M r. H a ll also n o tes th a t h e w a s n o t ch a rg e d w ith a fi r earm s offe ns e. Som e i t ems l i ke “f

i r earm s , l ar ge s um s of ca s h, w ei ghi ng s cal es , and uncha r ged quant i t i es of i l l egal drugs ” ar e gene r al l yvi ew ed as “t ool s of the tr ade”

— “thati s , m eans forthe di s tr i but i on of i l l egal drugs . ” U ni t ed Stat es v. Mar t i nez , 9 3 8 F .2 d 1 0 7 8 , 1 0 8 3 (1 0 th C i r . 1991) . A s s uch, thes e i t ems ar e pr obat i ve of a defe ndant ’ s part i ci pat i on i n the drug d is tr ib u tio n b u s in e s s . I d. T he G overnm enti s notr equi r ed t o pr ove thatthe fi r earm s or amm uni t i on w er e us ed fora part i cul artr ans act i on i n or derforthe evi dence t o be pr obat i ve. T hatthe pol i ce di d notuncoverthe i t ems unt i l aft erthe cha r ged cons pi r acy-11-

w as al l eged t o have e nded does notm ean thattheyw er e noti nvol ved i n the ongoi ng c o n sp ira c yb e f

o re it en d e d . F u rth e rm o re , “[ i]t is b a sic a llyim m a ter ial to th e a d m iss ib ili ty in q u iryin c a se s lik e th e se w h e th e r th e a c c u se d h a s b e e n c h a rg e d w ith a n o f f e n se d ire c tly r el at ed t o hi s orherpos s es s i on of a ‘ t ool of the tr ade. ’ ” M ar t i nez , 9 3 8 F .2 d a t 1 0 8 3 . T hough t he s hot gun w as found i n an aba ndoned ca r , the gun i t s el f w as oi l ed, c lea n e d , an d sp o tles s. It w a s s itt in g o n to p o f o th e r item s in th e c a r a n d it w a s e a sily acc es s i bl e t o M r . H al l beca us e the ca r , a T-t op, w as r i ghtout s i de the bac kdoorand one coul d gr ab the gun s i m pl ybyr eac hi ng dow n thr ough the r oof of the ca r . Fur therm or e, t he v id e o su rv e ill a n c e a n d w ire tap s re v e a led th a t M r. H a ll fre q u e n tlyre tu rn e d to h is re s id e n c e im m e d ia te ly af te r n e g o tia tin g d ru g tr a n s a c tio n s o v e r t h e p h o n e w ith M r. S m a ll. T he G overnm ental s o poi nt ed outthati n addi t i on t o the w eapons - r el at ed evi dence , the pol i ce r ecove r ed other“t ool s of the tr ade” i n thei rs ear ch— namel y , $2, 700 i n cas h and tw o s cal es thatw er e found t o have r es i due of c ocai ne on them. B as ed on the for egoi ng, w e f in d n o a b u s e o f

d is c re tio n in th e D is tr ic t C o u rt ’s d e c is io n to a d m it th is e v id e n c e . B . M ot i on fora N ew T r i al B as ed on J ur orM i s conduct O n t he fi fth dayof tr i al , one of the j ur or s advi s ed the D i s tr i ctC our tthats he had overhear d defe ns e couns el t al ki ng aboutthe ca s e out s i de the courtr oom . T he D i s tr i ct C our tques t i oned the j ur oron the r ecor d aboutw hats he hea r d. She r evea l ed thats he hear d couns el t al ki ng aboutM r . H al l and one of hi s co- defe ndant s , A l vi n G r een, and that theym ent i oned “the gun w as n’ tfound unt i l aft ertheys ear ched f orthe drugs . ” She-12-

fur theradmi t t ed t el l i ng atl eas ttw o otherj ur or s aboutoverhear i ng the conve r s at i on, al though s he t es t i fi ed thats he di d nott el l them t he s ubs t ance of w hats he hea r d. T he j ur orw as excus ed, butthe D i s tr i ctC our tdecl i ned def ens e couns el s ’ r eques tt o ques t i on the o ther juro rs ab o u t w h at th eyk n ew . M r. H all m aintains that the D istri ct C o u rt comm i t t ed r ever s i bl e err orbyfai l i ng t o ques t i on j ur or s conce rni ng thei rpot ent i al e x p o s u re to re m a rk s o v e rh e a rd b ya n o th e r j u ro r w h o w a s s u b s e q u e n tly e x c u s e d . W e r evi ew a di s tr i ctcourt ’ s deci s i on r egar di ng j ur orm i s conductorbi as foran a b u s e o f d is c re tio n . Sm a ll , 4 2 3 F . 3 d at 11 8 1 . M r. G ree n ap p ea led th e D istri ct C o u rt ’s a c tio n s a s th e yre late d to th is iss u e a n d th is C o u rt c o n c lu d e d th a t “[ g ]iv e n th a t th e re is a b s o l u t e l y n o e v i d e n c e th a ta n y p r e j u d i c i a l i n f

o r m a t i o n r e a c h e d th e r e m a i n d e ro f th e j u r y, th e d istric t co u rt d id n o t ab u se its d isc re tio n in d e n y in g d e f e n se c o u n se ls’ re q u e st to ques t i on the otherj ur or s . ” I d. T her e i s no m at er i al di ffe r ence betw een M r . G r een’ s and M r . H al l ’ s chal l enge. T her efor e, the pr i ordeci s i on bythi s C our ti s contr ol l i ng. C . V ar i ance i n t he C ons pi r acyC har ge C ountO ne of the s econd s uper cedi ng i ndi ctm entchar ged M r . H al l and s ever al o th e rs w ith c o n s p ir a c yto d is tr ib u te a n d p o s s e s s io n w ith in te n t to d is tr ib u te c ra c k -c o c a in e . M r . H al l cont ends thatther e w as a pr ej udi ci al var i at i on betw een the evi dence pr es ent ed at tr i al and the cons pi r acyal l eged bythe G overnm ent . A var i ance occur s w hen the c o n sp ira c yc h a rg e d in a n in d ictm e n t is d if f e re n t f ro m th e e v id e n c e a d d u c e d a t trial. U n itedS ta tes v . W

in drix , 405 F. 3d 1146, 1153 ( 10th C i r . 2005) . B utnoteveryvar i ance-13-

r equi r es r ever s al of a c onvi ct i on— a var i ance i s onl yr ever s i bl e “i f i taff ect s the s ubs t ant i al r i ght s of the ac cus ed. ” I d. I m por t ant l y , M r . H al l does notcont end thatthe evi dence adduce d attr i al di d not s uppor tthe cons pi r acyas char ged i n the i ndi ctm ent . R ather , he cont ends thatthe evidence as i trel at ed to hi m did not confo rm t o the G ov ernm ent’ s “hub -and-s po kes” theoryof the cons pi r acy . A s not ed above , the G overnm ent ’ s over ar chi ng theoryof the cons pi r acyw as thatM r . Sm al l w oul d r ecrui tr ece nt l yr el eas ed fe l ons and fr ontthem drugs u n til th e yh a d e n o u g h b u sin e ss th a t th e yc o u ld p a yf o r th e d ru g s in a d v a n c e . M r. H a ll cont ends thatther e w as a fa t al var i ance betw een the G overnm ent ’ s theoryof the cons pi r acyand the evi dence agai ns thi m i n thatM r . H al l had notbeen r ece nt l yr el eas ed f ro m p ri s o n a n d h e w a s n e v e r “ f ro n te d ” d ru g s b yM r. S m a ll.

E ven as s um i ng thatthe G overnm ent ’ s theoryof the ca s e, notcont ai ned i n the i ndi ctm ent , coul d be the bas i s forr ever s i ng a convi ct i on i f the evi dence agai ns tthe defe ndantvar i ed fr om the pr offe r ed theory , w e w oul d notdo s o i n thi s cas e. T he G o v ern m en t’ s the o ryo f th e c o n sp ir ac yw as th at i t w as d ep en d en t on the d istri b u tors bei ng atdi ffe r ents t ages i n t he pr oces s of es t abl i s hi ng thei ri l l egal bus i nes s es . T hi s as pect of the cons pi r acyw as cruci al forM r . Sm al l t o be abl e t o fr ontdrugs t o new l yr el eas ed f e lo n s w h o c o u ld n o t p a yf o r th e ir d ru g s in a d v a n c e . T h a t M r. H a ll w a s n o t a r e c e n tly r el eas ed fe l on and thathe had a n es t abl i s hed bus i nes s and di d notneed M r . Sm al l t o fr ont-14-

h i m d ru g s i s n o ti n c o n s i s t e n twi th th e Go v e rn me n t ’ s th e o ryo f th e c a s e . As s u c h , we re je c t th is c la im . D . P ro se c u to ria l M isc o n d u c t D u rin g C lo sin g A rg u m e n ts M r. H a ll arg u e s h e w a s d e n ied d u e p ro c e ss b e c a u se o f v a rio u s im p ro p e r c o m m e n ts thatthe pr os ecut orm ade dur i ng hercl os i ng ar gum ent . B eca us e no obj ect i on w as m ade a t the tim e, w e re v iew fo r plain e rror, an d w il l r ev erse “o n lyif, af ter review ing the e n ti re recor d, w e con cl ud e t hat the err or i s obv i ou s and o ne thatw ou l d u nd erm i ne the fai rness of the tr i al and r es ul ti n a mi s carr i age of j us t i ce. ” U

ni t ed Stat es v. G onz al ez - Mont oya , 1 6 1 F .3 d 6 4 3 , 6 5 0 (1 0 th C ir. 1 9 9 8 ) (q u o tatio n o m itt e d ); se e a lso U n itedS ta tes v . V

isin a iz , 428 F. 3d 1300, 1311 ( 10th C i r . 2005) ( “Pl ai n err orm us tbe s o ‘ egr egi ous ’ as t o r es ul ti n a

‘ m i s carr i age of

j us t i ce. ’ ”) . “W e r evi ew the pr os ecut or ’ s comm ent s w i thi n the cont extof the ent i r e ca s e. ” V

isin a iz , 4 2 8 F .3 d a t 1 3 1 1 . M r . H al l fi r s tobj ect s t o t he pr os ecut or ’ s “tr ans l at i on” of c ert ai n “code w or ds ” the defe ndant s us ed i n conduct i ng thei rdrug deal s . D ur i ng the tr i al , the G overnm ent pr es ent ed the t es t i m onyof part i ci pant s i n s ever al of the r ecor ded conve r s at i ons as t o the m eaning o f vari ou s “code w ords” used d uri ng the d rug t ransact i on s. N on e of these w itn esse s testi fied as to the m ea n ing o f th e w o rds in the c o n text o f M r. H all ’s conver s at i ons w i th M r . Sm al l . M r . H al l ther efor e ar gues thatthe l ack of t es t i m ony s uppor t i ng the pr os ecut or ’ s comm ent s dur i ng cl os i ng ar gum entamount s t o pr os ecut or i al m is c o n d u c t. W e d is a g re e .-15-

T he p art i cularpo rt i on of the prosecutor ’s rem arks di scussi ng these “co de w ords” w a s n o t in re f

e re n c e to s p e c if

ic re c o rd e d c o n v e rs a tio n s b e tw e e n M r. H a ll a n d M r. S m a ll. R ather , the comm ent s r efe rgener al l yt o t erm i nol ogycomm on t o s om e of the r ecor ded conver s at i ons . T he pr os ecut ordi d nots peci fi cal l yaddr es s M r . H al l unt i l l at eri n her clos ing arg u m en t and sh e d id n o t seek to ex p lai n an yo f th e c o n v ersa ti o n s b etw ee n M r. H al l and M r . Sm al l byus e of c oded l anguage . T o the ext entthatthe pr os ecut or ’ s gener al di s cus s i on of code w or ds had anythi ng t o do w i th the evi dence agai ns tM r . H al l , gi ven the cont extof the ent i r e tr i al , thi s does notcons t i tut e “e gr egi ous ” mi s conductr es ul t i ng i n a m is c a rr ia g e o f

ju s tic e . See U

ni t ed Stat es v. D az ey , 403 F. 3d 1147, 1171 ( 10th C i r . 2005) (h o ld in g v a rio u s im p ro p e r sta tem e n ts m a d e d u rin g c lo sin g a rg u m e n t w e re n o t su f f icie n tly eg reg iou s o r pre

jud ici al t o w arran t r ev ersa l un d er p lai n erro r st an d ard o f re v iew ). M r . H al l al s o ar gues thatthe pr os ecut orm i s r epr es ent ed thatM r . H al l w as vi deot aped meet i ng w i th M r . Sm al l and M r . G r een on M ay18, 2001. A ttr i al , a pol i ce offi cert es t i fi ed thathe s aw a w hi t e pi ck- up truck arr i ve atM r . Sm al l ’ s apart m entand that th e o c c u p a n t w e n t in sid e th e a p a rtm e n t. H e a lso tes tifie d th a t h e h a d w ritten in h is s ur vei l l ance l ogs forthatdaythatthe pi ck- up truck “be l ongs t o” M r . H al l . A r evi ew of the t es t i m onyr egar di ng thi s vi deo, t aken a s a w hol e, offe r s s uffi ci ents uppor tforthe p ro se c u to r’s d isc u ss io n o f th e e v e n ts d u rin g c lo sin g a rg u m e n ts, a n d w e c o n c lu d e th e re is n o b a s i s f

o rr e v e r s a l u n d e rp l a i n e r r o rr e v i e w. See i d. Fi nal l y , M r . H al l ar gues thatthe pr os ecut orm i s s t at ed the evi dence r egar di ng t he-16-

item s re c o v e re d f

ro m th e se a rc h a t M r. H a ll’s re sid e n c e . S p e c if ica lly , h e c a lls a tten tio n to the fa ctthatthe pr os ecut orr efe r r ed t o “guns ” though onl yone gun w as found dur i ng t he s ear ch. I n cont ext , how ever , i ti s cl earthatthe pr os ecut or ’ s r efe r ence t o “guns ” i ncl uded thos e guns r ecove r ed atM r . Sm al l ’ s r es i dence as w el l . M r . H al l al s o compl ai ns thatt he pr os ecut ors ai d t hat“[t ] her e w as n’ ta bi g amount of dope f ound at[M r . H al l ’ s ] hous e” a n d th e n su g g e ste d th a t p e rh a p s h e h a d h id it. M r. H a ll n o tes th a t no d ru g s w e re f o u n d in hi s r es i dence

— s ave the coc ai ne r es i due on the s cal es — and ther e w as no evi dence att r i al th a t h e h id a n yd ru g s. It is c lea r th a t th e p ro se c u to r w a s e n tre a tin g th e ju ryto n o t ac q u it o n the c o n sp ir ac ych arg e m ere lyb ec au se th e p o li ce fa il ed to rec o v er d rug s fro m M r. H al l ’ s hous e. “The pr os ecut ori s ent i t l ed t o ar gue t o the j urythati ts houl d dr aw re a s o n a b le in f

e re n c e s f ro m th e e v id e n c e to s u p p o rt th e g o v e rn m e n t’ s th e o ry o f th e c a s e .” I d. at1170. I n anyevent , nei therof thes e comm ent s w er e s o “egr egi ous ” as t o w arr ant re v e rs a l. See i d. a t 1 1 7 1 . E . Suffi ci encyof the Evi dence on the Pos s es s i on C har ge M r . H al l ar gues thatther e w as i ns uffi ci entevi dence t o s uppor thi s convi ct i on on C o u n t Fo rty -N ine o f th e ind ictm en t, w h ich c h arg ed that “[ o ]n o r ab o u t A p ri l 7, 20 0 1 ” M r. H al l “know i ngl ydi s tr i but ed and pos s es s ed w i th i nt entt o di s tr i but e . . . coca i ne bas e” a nd i nt ent i onal l yai ded and a bett ed the s ame. T o convi ctM r . H al l of thi s char ge, the G overnm entw as r equi r ed t o pr ove, ata mi ni m um , thathe “( 1) pos s es s ed the contr ol l ed su b sta n c e ; (2 ) k n e w h e p o ss e ss e d th e c o n tro lled su b sta n c e ; an d (3 ) in ten d e d to d istrib u te-17-

ordi s pens e the contr ol l ed s ubs t ance . ” U ni t ed Stat es v. B ow en , 4 3 7 F .3 d 1 0 0 9 , 1 0 1 4 (1 0 th C i r . 2006) ( quot at i on om i t t ed) . M r . H al l ar gues thatthe G overnm entfai l ed t o pr ove that he pos s es s ed cr ack- coca i ne bec aus e no l aw enfor cementoffi cerevert es t i fi ed thatthey s aw M r . H al l w i th t he drug on A pr i l 7; norw er e ther e anyw i tnes s es w ho t es t i fi ed they re c e iv e d th e d ru g f

ro m M r. H a ll. T he G overnm entdi d noti ntr oduce i nt o evi dence cr ack- coca i ne r el at ed t o the al l eged A pr i l 7 tr ans act i on; ey ew i tnes s t es t i m onyorvi deo s ur vei l l ance evi dence put t i ng M r . H al l i n pos s es s i on of cr ack- coca i ne on orar ound A pr i l 7; ort es t i m onyfr om any p e rs o n s a lle g e d to h a v e p u rc h a s e d c ra c k -c o c a in e f ro m M r. H a ll o n o r a b o u t th a t d a te . T he evi dence r el at ed t o t hi s countof convi ct i on i ncl uded the tr ans cr i pt s of thr ee t el ephone c al l s m ade be tw een M r . H al l and M r . Sm al l on A pr i l 6 and A pr i l 7 purpor t i ng to o rc h e s tr a te a d ru g tr a n s a c tio n . D u ri n g th e f ir s t c a ll, th e tw o d is c u s s th e p ri c e o f d ru g s . M r. H a ll se e k s to b u y“ f o u r” b u t n o t at th e p ric e a t w h ich M r. S m a ll i s w ill in g to se ll them. “Four ” r efe r s t o t he numberof ounce s of drugs M r . H al l w i s hes t o pur chas e. I n t he n e x t p h o n e c a ll, th e p a ir a g re e to m e e t th e f o llo w in g m o rn in g , A p ril 7 . T h e ysp e a k a g a in on A pr i l 7 w hen theyagr ee t o “do tw o for. . . s i xt een” ( m eani ng tw o ounces fors i xt een h u n d re d d o llars ). V id e o su rv e ill a n c e o n A p ril 7 , sh o rtlya f ter th e las t tele p h o n e c a ll, s h o w e d o n e m a n e x itin g a w h ite p ic k -u p tru c k a n d b ri e f ly en te ri n g M r. S m a ll’ s c a r. W hi l e w at chi ng the vi deo attr i al , C i tyof A ur or a Pol i ce O ffi cerSt even St ant on i dent i fi ed M r. H a ll a s th e m a n w h o e n te re d M r. S m a ll’ s c a r.-18-

W e conf r ont ed a s i m i l arfac tual s cena r i o i n U n itedS ta tes v . B a g

g e tt , 890 F. 2d 1 0 9 5 (1 0 th C ir. 1 9 8 9 ). In th a t ca se , the d e f e n d a n t w a s c h a rg e d w ith p o ss e ss io n o f h e ro in under21 U . S. C . § 844( a) . Si m i l art o thi s cas e, the evi dence thatthe def endantpos s es s ed the drugs i n ques t i on on the dayl i s t ed i n the i ndi ctm enti ncl uded thr ee r ecor ded phone c a lls m a d e b yth e d e f

e n d a n t to a su sp e c ted d ru g d e a ler d u rin g w h ich sh e a rra n g e d to p u rc h a s e c o c a in e a n d h e ro in . I d. a t 1 0 9 6 . A lso d u rin g th e c a ll, th e d e f e n d a n t ar ra n g e d to m e e t th e d e a le r a t a s p e c if ie d tim e a n d p la c e . I

d. Pol i ce of

fi cer s then s ur vei l l ed the ar ea and s aw the drug deal erm eet i ng w i th a “w hi t e fe m al e” dr i vi ng a ca rr egi s t er ed t o the d e f e n d a n t. Id . N o w i tnes s obs erved a drug excha nge betw een the tw o; nordi d any one te s tif yto s e e in g th e d e f

e n d a n t w ith a n yd ru g s th a t d a y . I d. at1097. T he tr ans act i on w as a lle g e d to h a v e ta k e n p la c e w h e n th e d e f e n d a n t b ri e f

ly en te re d th e d ru g d e a le r’ s c a r. I d. at1096. T he def

endantl at eradmi t t ed t o us i ng her oi n ar ound the t i m e al l eged i n the in d ic tm e n t. I

d. W e hel d t hatthe evi dence w as i ns uffi ci entt o es t abl i s h thatthe def endant p o s s e s s e d h e ro in . I

d. W e ac know l edged that“[i ] ti s notnece s s arythatthe G overnm enthave di r ect evi dence t o s uppor ta convi ct i on forpos s es s i on, ” i d. , butexpl ai ned thatw her e “the G o v e rn m e n t f

a ils to se ize a n d a n a ly z e th e c h e m ica l co m p o sitio n o f th e a lleg e d n a rc o tic s ubs t ance , ther e mustbe enough c i r cumst ant i al evi dence t o s uppor tan i nfer ence thatt he defe ndantactual l ydi d pos s es s the drugs i n ques t i on, ” i d. W e not ed thats uch evi dence m a yin c lu d e th e f

o llo w in g :-19-

[E]vi dence of the phy s i cal appea r ance of the s ubs t ance i nvol ved i n the tr ans act i on, evi dence thatthe s ubs t ance pr oduced the expe ct ed ef fec t s w hen s ampl ed bys om eone f

ami l i arw i th the i l l i ci tdrug, evi dence thatthe su b sta n c e w a s u se d in th e sa m e m a n n e r a s th e ill icit d ru g , tes tim o n yth a t a hi gh pr i ce w as pai d i n cas h forthe s ubs t ance , evi dence thattr ans act i ons i nvol vi ng the s ubs t ance w er e ca rr i ed on w i th s ecr ecyordevi ous nes s , and evi dence thatthe s ubs t ance w as cal l ed bythe name of the i l l egal nar cot i c by the def endantorot her s i n herpr es ence . I d. ( quot i ng U

ni t ed Stat es v. D olan , 544 F. 2d 1219, 1221 ( 4th C i r . 1976) ) ( al t er at i ons o m itte d ). O n t he evi dence pr es ent ed i n B a g g e tt , w e s t at ed that“[i ] f the pr os ecut i on i s not go i ng t o p res ent di rectevidence o f drug po sses si on , i t s ci rcum st anti al evidence m ust in c lu d e so m e tes tim o n ylin k in g d e f e n d a n t to a n o b se rv e d su b sta n c e th a t a ju ryc a n in f e r to be a na r cot i c. ” I

d. at1097. T he pr os ecut i on i n thatcas e pr es ent ed no evi dence thatt he d e f e n d a n t ac tu a llyp o ss e ss e d a su b sta n c e a n d th a t th e su b sta n c e w a s a n a rc o tic. W h ile othercourt s have notgone s o faras t o r equi r e thatevi dence i ncl ude an “ obs erved su b stan ce that a juryca n inf er to b e a n arc o ti c,” the re is l ittl e d o u b t th at a d ef en d an t’ s ow n i ncul pat orys t at ement s captur ed on w i r et aps m us tbe corr obor at ed byother ci r cumst ant i al evi dence of pos s es s i on s uch thata j urym aypr oper l yi nferthe s peci fi c drug w as actual l ypos s es s ed. I n U ni t ed Stat es v. B r

yce , 2 0 8 F .3 d 3 4 6 (2 d C ir. 1 9 9 9 ), th e S e c o n d C irc u it s i m i l ar l yr ever s ed a de fenda nt ’ s convi ct i on forpos s es s i on w hen the onl yevi dence of the char ge w er e hi s phone ca l l s m ade purpor t i ng t o s el l the drug. A s i n thi s cas e, fede r al l aw e n f o rc e m e n t o f

f ic e rs in v e s tig a te d s e v e ra l in d iv id u a ls s u s p e c te d o f n a rc o tic s tr a f

f ic k in g .U nl i ke thi s cas e, the def endanti n B r

yce w as nots een meet i ng w i th ei therof the 4 peopl e w i th w hom he w as purpor t ed t o have s ol d drugs on the dat es i n ques t i on. -20- O n A ugus t5 and 6, 1997, offi cer s i nt er cept ed t el ephone c al l s betw een the def endantand other s dur i ng w hi ch the def endantus ed code d phr as es t o arr ange a s al e of pow der c o c a in e . Id . at349. H e w as l at erarr es t ed and c har ged w i th cons pi r acyt o pos s es s and 4 a c tu a l p o s s e s s io n w ith in te n t to d is tr ib u te c o c a in e o n A u g u s t 5 a n d 6 . Id . T h o u g h h is c o n v ictio n o n th e c o n sp ira c yc h a rg e w a s a f f irm e d , the S e c o n d C irc u it r ever s ed hi s convi ct i on on the pos s es s i on char ge. C i t i ng thi s C our t ’ s opi ni on i n B a g g e tt , the courtnot ed thatthe pr os ecut i on di d noti ntr oduce i nt o evi dence coca i ne, r es i due or p a ra p h e rn a lia; e y e w itn e ss tes tim o n yo r v id e o su rv e ill a n c e p u tti n g th e d e f e n d a n t in pos s es s i on of coc ai ne, “oranys ubs t ance r es embl i ng coca i ne, ” on the r el evantdat es ; or t es t i m onyfr om any one al l eged t o have pur chas ed coc ai ne fr om the def endanton or a ro u n d th o s e d a te s . I

d. a t 3 5 2 . T h e d e f

e n d a n t’s u n c o rro b o ra ted , inc u lp a to rysta tem e n ts d id n o t s u f

f ic ie n tly d e m o n s tr a te th a t h e p o s s e s s e d c o c a in e . I d. a t 3 5 6 . B ycontr as t , i n U

nited S tates v. Sa nch ez D eFun do ra , 8 9 3 F . 2 d 1 1 7 3 (10 th C ir . 1 9 9 0 ), w e u p h e ld c o n v ictio n s f o r d istrib u tio n o f

c o c a in e th o u g h n o c o c a in e re late d to thos e count s w as s ei zed oradmi t t ed i nt o evi dence . I n thatcas e, the governm enthad pr es ent ed t es t i m onyfr om a w i tnes s w ho pur chas ed coc ai ne fr om the def endanton ei ght s epar at e occ as i ons — thos e ei ghttr ans act i ons beca m e the bas i s forei ghtcount s of di s tr i but i on agai ns tthe def endant ; s he t es t i fi ed thats he tr i ed the coc ai ne and thatw hen-21-

s he i nges t ed i t“i taff

ect ed heri n t he s ame w ayas coca i ne had a ffe ct ed heri n the pas t . ” I d. a t 1 1 7 6 . T h e re w a s a lso c o rro b o ra tin g tes tim o n yin th a t th e w itn e ss w a s a b le to re se ll the s ubs t ance as coca i ne and thatl aw enfor cementoffi cer s l at ers ei zed a s ubs t ance i n the defe nd ant’ s possess i on that w as det erm i ned t o b e coca i ne, w hich w e no t ed “lend[s] cr edenc e t o the conc l us i on thatthe def endantw as deal i ng i n coca i ne. ” I d. W e se e n o m e a n in g f

u l d if f e re n c e b e tw e e n th e e v id e n c e o f p o ss e ss io n o f

h e ro in in B a g g e tt and the evi dence of M r . H al l ’ s pos s es s i on of cr ack- coca i ne her e. T he G o v e rn m e n t su g g e sts th a t o th e r e v id e n c e su p p o rts th e ju ry ’s c o n c lu sio n th a t M r. H a ll pos s es s ed cr ack- coca i ne: ( 1) l aw enfor cementoffi cer s i nt er cept ed a c al l on A pr i l 9, 2001 dur i ng w hi ch M r . H al l s eeks t o buypow dercoca i ne fr om M r . Sm al l ; ( 2) l aw enfor cement offi cer s i nt er cept ed a c al l on A pr i l 10, dur i ng w hi ch M r . H al l and M r . Sm al l di s cus s how t o cook pow dercoca i ne; ( 3) a w i tnes s t es t i fi ed thats he del i ver ed coc ai ne ( pow der ed or cr ack— s he w as nots ur e w hi ch) t o M r . H al l atM r . Sm al l ’ s r eques tats om e othert i m e; an d (4) o n Ju n e 7 , law en fo rce m en t of fice rs ex ec u ted a sea rch w arran t atM r. H all ’s r es i dence and found drug par aphernal i a i ncl udi ng s cal es w i th coca i ne r es i due on them a n d $ 2 ,7 0 0 in c a sh . W h ile th is e v id e n c e m a yb e su f f icie n t to e sta b lish th a t M r. H a ll pos s es s ed cr ack- coca i ne ats om e t i m e, the i ndi ctm entchar ged M r . H al l w i th pos s es s i on a n d d istrib u tio n o n o r a b o u t A p ril 7 , 2 0 0 1 . N o n e o f th is e v id e n c e sh o w s th a t M r. H a ll p o s s e s s e d o r d is tr ib u te d c ra c k -c o c a in e a t th a t tim e . See Fed. R . E vi d. 404( b) ( “Evi dence o f o th e r c rim e s, w ro n g s, o r a c ts is n o t ad m iss ib le to p ro v e th e c h a ra c ter o f a p e rso n in-22-

o rd e r to sh o w a c tio n in c o n f o rm ityth e re w ith ); see al so B r yce , 208 F. 3d at352 ( evi dence thatdefe ndantpos s es s ed nar cot i c ats om e othert i m e does notpr ove thathe pos s es s ed i tat the tim e sp ec ifi ed in the ind ictm en t) . In su m , w e c o n clud e tha t th e G o v ern m en t’ s e v id e n c e is in s u f

f ic ie n t to s u s ta in th e p o s s e s s io n a n d d is tr ib u tio n c o n v ic tio n .

I I I . S EN TE NCI NG T he pr obat i on offi ce pr epar ed a Pr es ent ence R eport( “PSR ”) thatr ecomm ended a total of fe n se lev el of

4 0 an d a c ri m inal h ist o ryca tego ryo f III, resu lt ing in an ad v isory G ui del i nes i m pr i s onm entr ange of 360 m onths t o l i fe. T he pr obat i on offi ce c al cul at ed M r. H all ’s of

fe n se lev el firstb yfin d ing that a total of 4 , 4 9 5 g ram s o f c rac k -co ca ine w ere a ttr ib u ta b le to M r. H a ll. See U . S. Sent enci ng G ui del i nes M anual ( “U . S. S. G . ”) § 2 D 1 .1 (a )(3 ) (in stru c tin g c o u rts to c a lcu late o f f e n se lev e l b yre f

e re n c e to d ru g q u a n tity i nvol ved) ; U . S. S. G . § 1B 1. 3( a) ( the bas e off ens e l evel i s det erm i ned byr efe r ence t o t he q u a n titya n d typ e o f

d ru g s a ttribu tab le to th e d e f e n d a n t); U

ni t ed Stat es v. Topet eP la sc e n c ia , 351 F. 3d 454, 459 ( 10th C i r . 2003) ( “[T] he di s tr i ctcourtm aycons i derthe amount of drugs the def endantknew ors houl d have know n w er e i nvol ved i n the cons pi r acyi n cal cul at i ng a def endant ’ s r el evantconductforpurpos es of a c ons pi r acy convi ct i on. ”) . T hi s r es ul t ed i n a bas e off ens e l evel of 38. T he pr obat i on offi ce then added a tw o- poi ntenhanc ementforM r . H al l ’ s pos s es s i on of a da nger ous w eapon ( the s hot gun) , pur s uantt o § 2D 1. 1( b) ( 1) , r es ul t i ng i n a t ot al offe ns e l evel of 40. T he pr obat i on offi ce then det erm i ned thatM r . H al l ’ s cr i m i nal hi s t orycat egoryw as I I I bas ed-23-

on a 1984 convi ct i on i n L oui s i ana f orfel onyarm ed r obbery , a 1990 mi s demeanor c o n v ictio n in C o lo ra d o f o r d riv in g w h ile in to x ica ted , an d a 1 9 9 1 c o n v ictio n in C a lifo rn ia f o r b e in g a f

e lo n in p o s s e s s io n o f

a f ir e a rm . M r . H al l r ai s ed a numberof obj ect i ons t o the PSR . A tthe s ent enci ng hear i ng, t he D istri ct C o u rtco n clud ed that o n ly3 9 2 g ram s o f c rac k -co ca ine w ere attri b u table to M r. H a ll. T h e c o u rt ’s f

in d in g , w h ic h y ie ld e d a b a s e o f f e n s e le v e l o f

3 4 , s ee U. S . S . G. § 2D 1. 1( c) ( 3) , w as bas ed on the G overnm ent ’ s evi dence of the s peci fi c ca l l s and tr ans act i ons w her e M r . H al l w as a di r ectpart i ci pant . T he D i s tr i ctC our tagr eed w i th the pr obat i on offi certhatthe tw o- poi ntw eapon e nhance m entunder§ 2D 1. 1( b) ( 1) appl i ed, w hi ch r es ul t ed i n a t ot al offe ns e l evel of 36. Fi nal l y , the courtdet erm i ned thatthe p ro b a tio n o f

f ice r c o rre c tlyd e ter m in e d M r. H a ll’s c rim in a l h isto ryc a teg o ryto b e III. T h is p ro d u c e d a n a d v is o ry G u id e lin e s s e n te n c in g ra n g e o f 2 3 5 to 2 9 3 m o n th s . N ext , the D i s tr i ctC our tcons i der ed the s ent enci ng fac t or s pr ovi ded under18 U . S . C . § 3 5 5 3 (a). T h e c o u rtex p lai n ed that fiv e o f th e se v en d ef en d an ts attr ial w ere convi ct ed on the cons pi r acychar ge and thatfourof them had r ece i ved s ent ence s of 240 m onths t o l i fe i m pr i s onm entdue t o pr i orqual i fy i ng drug convi ct i ons . T he courtthen no t ed thatM r. H al l ’s cri m i nal hi st oryst oo d in st ark con tras tt o those defen dan t s becau se he had ne verbeen pr evi ous l yconvi ct ed of a drug offe ns e and hi s pr i orfel ony convi ct i on— forw hi ch he w as l at erpar doned— w as tw entyy ear s ol d. B eca us e of the di ffe r ence s i n cr i m i nal hi s t ory , the courtdeemed thats ent enci ng M r . H al l w i thi n the-24-

appl i cabl e G ui del i nes r ange, w hi ch w oul d caus e M r . H al l t o be s ent ence d foras l ong as th e o th e r d e f

e n d a n ts, w a s u n w a rra n ted . It sp e c if ica llyc ited its o b lig a tio n to “ a v o id unw arr ant ed s ent ence di s par i t i es among defendant s w i th s i m i l arr ecor ds w ho have be en found gui l tyof s i m i l arconduct . ” 18 U . S. C . § 3553( a) ( 6) . T he D i s tr i ctC our tthen s ent ence d M r . H al l t o 151 m onths . T he courtexpl ai ned how i tarr i ved atthe s ent ence as foll ow s: [ I]f f o r c rim in a l h isto ryp u rp o se s M r. H a ll h a d n o t b e e n g iv e n c rim in a lhi s t orypoi nt s forthe arm ed r obberyconvi ct i on and the fe l on- i n- pos s es s i on c o n v ictio n , h e w o u ld o n lyh a v e o n e c rim in a l h isto ryp o in t[ ,] w h ich w o u ld have pl ace d hi m i n cr i m i nal hi s t orycat egoryI . A nd the r ange of i ncar cer at i on forcr i m i nal hi s t orycat egory[I ] i s 151 t o 188 m onths . A nd the C our tconcl udes thata s ent ence of 151 m onths i s a fa i r , appr opr i at e, and re a s o n a b le s e n te n c e . . . . T he fol l ow i ng day , the G overnm entfi l ed a mot i on t o corr ectthe s ent ence pur s uant t o Fed. R . C r i m . P. 35( a) and 36, w hi ch perm i ta courtt o “corr ecta s ent ence thatr es ul t ed f ro m a rith m e tica l, t e c h n ica l, or o th e r c lea r e rro r.” F e d . R . C rim . P . 3 5 (a ); s ee al s o F e d . R. C r i m . P. 36 ( atanyt i m e, a courtm ay“corr ecta cl er i cal err ori n a j udgm ent , or der , or otherpartof the r ecor d”) . B eca us e the D i s tr i ctC our t ’ s s t at ed r eas oni ng fori m pos i ng t he below -G uidel i nes sent ence referr ed o nlyt o the cr i m i nal hi st orypo rt i on of the G uidel i nes, the G overnm ents ugges t ed thatthe courti nadvert ent l ym i s r ead the s ent enci ng t abl e of the G u id e lin e s , s ee U . S . S . G . § 5 A : the ad vis oryG uidel i nes sent encing range f or an of fense l evel of 36 and a cr i m i nal hi s t orycat egoryof I i s 188 t o 235 m onths , not151 t o 188 m o n th s . See i d. T he D i s tr i ctC our tdeni ed the G overnm ent ’ s m ot i on, m ai nt ai ni ng that-25-

th e re w a s n o e rr o r. O n appea l , M r . H al l r ai s es s ever al chal l enges t o hi s s ent ence . H e cont ends that( 1) the D i s tr i ctC our tl acke d j ur i s di ct i on t o enhanc e hi s s ent ence bas ed on pr i orconvi ct i ons b e c a u se th e G o v e rn m e n t f a iled to f ile a n in f o rm a tio n n o tify in g M r. H a ll o f its in ten t to see k an en h an ce d p en altyas re q u ir ed b y2 1 U . S . C . § 8 5 1 (a)(1); (2) the D istri ct C o u rt e rre d b ya ttribu tin g to h im d ru g q u a n tit ies n o t f o u n d b yth e ju ryb e y o n d a re a so n a b le doubt ; ( 3) the D i s tr i ctC our terr ed byenhanc i ng hi s s ent ence forpos s es s i on of a w eapon thatw as nei therpr es entdur i ng the off ens e norotherw i s e conne ct ed w i th the off ens e; and (4 ) th e D istric t C o u rt e rre d in c o m p u tin g h is c rim in a l h isto rysc o re b yin c lu d in g h is par doned convi ct i on forarm ed r obbery . T he G overnm entcr os s - appea l s the s ent ence on the gr ound thatthe court ’ s bel ow - G ui del i nes s ent ence i s unr eas onabl e. W e addr es s eac h c o n te n tio n in tu rn . W e re v ie w s e n te n c e s im p o s e d f o r r e a s o n a b le n e s s . U

n itedS ta tes v . Kris tl , 437 F. 3d 1050, 1053 ( 10th C i r . 2006) . “W e r equi r e r eas onabl enes s i n tw o r es pect s — ‘ the l ength of the s ent ence , as w el l as the m ethod b yw h ich th e se n tenc e w as c alcu lat ed . ’ ” U ni t ed Stat es v. Lopez - F l or es , 444 F. 3d 1218, 1220 ( 10th C i r . 2006) ( quot i ng Kris tl , 437 F .3 d a t 1 0 5 5 ). A se n ten c e c a n n o t b e c o n sid e re d re a so n a b le if th e m e th o d b yw h ich it i s c a lc u la te d is u n re a s o n a b le . Kris tl , 437 F. 3d at1055. I n det erm i ni ng w hetherthe met hod byw hi ch a s ent ence i s cal cul at ed i s r eas onabl e, w e r evi ew the di s tr i ctcourt ’ s fac tual f in d in g s f o r c le a r e rr o r a n d its le g a l d e te rm in a tio n s d e n o v o . I d. a t 1 0 5 4 .-26-

A . Sect i on 851 I nform at i on Fi r s t , M r . H al l cont ends thatthe G overnm entcoul d nots eek a n enhanc ementbas ed o n h is c ri m in a l h is to ry b e c a u s e it d id n o t f ile a n in f o rm a tio n p u rs u a n t to 2 1 U .S .C . § 8 5 1 . T h a t p ro v isio n p ro v id e s: N o per s on w ho s t ands convi ct ed of a n offe ns e underthi s parts hal l be s ent ence d t o i ncr eas ed puni s hm entbyr eas on of one orm or e pr i or convi ct i ons , unl es s befor e tr i al , orbefor e entryof a pl ea of gui l ty , the U ni t ed St at es att orneyfi l es an i nform at i on w i th the court( and s erves a copy o f su c h in f o rm a tio n o n th e p e rso n o r c o u n se l f o r th e p e rso n ) sta tin g in w r i t i ng the pr evi ous convi ct i ons t o be r el i ed upon. 21 U . S. C . § 851( a) ( 1) . T hi s s t atut e onl yr equi r es the G overnm entt o fi l e an i nform at i on “i n s i tuat i ons i n w hi ch a de fenda nt ’ s s t atut orym axi m um orm i ni m um i s enhanc ed and not i n s i tuat i ons w her e the def endant ’ s i ncr eas ed s ent ence underthe G ui del i nes i s w i thi n the s t atut oryr ange. ” U

ni t ed Stat es v. A l l en , 24 F. 3d 1180, 1184 ( 10th C i r . 1994) ( al t er at i on a n d q u o tatio n o m itt e d ); see al so U nited S tates v. F l ow ers , 4 6 4 F . 3 d 1 1 2 7 , 1 1 3 1 (10 th C ir . 2006) ( expl ai ni ng that§ 851 “i m pos e[s ] s tr i ctr equi r ement s on the governm entbefor e the governm entcan s eek a n i ncr eas e i n the s tat ut or y m andat or

y m axi m um orm i ni m um s ent ence ” (e m p h asis ad d ed )). T h e G u idelines en h an ce m en ts ap p li ed b ythe D istri ct C o u rt h a d n o e f

f e c to n th e s t a tu t o r yma x i mu m o rmi n i mu m s e n t e n c e a p p l i c a b l e t o M r . Ha l l . As s u c h , th e § 8 5 1 in f

o rm a tio n w a s n o t r e q u ir e d . B . T h e D ru g Q u a n tity M r. H a ll r a is e s tw o c h a lle n g e s to th e u s e o f d ru g q u a n tity to e n h a n c e h is s e n te n c e . H e f ir st co n tend s tha t he s h o u ld h av e b ee n sen tenc ed u n d er 2 1 U . S . C . § 8 4 1 (b)(1 )(C ),-27-

r atherthan 21 U . S. C . § 841( b) ( 1) ( A ) , beca us e he c l ai m s the i ndi ctm entfai l ed t o s peci fy the drug amount i nvol ved i n t he cr i m e. I ndeed, w e have hel d that“[a ] di s tr i ctcourtm ay n o t im p o s e a s e n te n c e in e x c e s s o f th e m a x im u m s e t f

o rt h in 2 1 U .S .C . § 8 4 1 (b )( 1 )( C )[ ,] [w hi ch i s tw entyy ear s , ] unl es s the benc hm ark quant i tyof coc ai ne bas e foran enha nced penal tyi s al l eged i n t he i ndi ctm enti n addi t i on t o bei ng s ubm i t t ed t o the j uryand pr oven bey ond a r eas onabl e doubt . ” U ni t ed Stat es v. Jack

s on , 2 4 0 F . 3 d 1 2 4 5 , 1 2 4 8 (10 th C ir . 2 0 0 1 ), overrul ed o n o ther grou nd s by U nited S tates v. P rent iss , 2 5 6 F .3 d 9 7 1 , 9 8 1 (1 0 th C i r . 2001) . C ontr aryt o M r . H al l ’ s as s ert i ons , how ever , the i ndi ctm entdi d s peci fythe amount of drugs i nvol ved i n t he cons pi r acy . C ountO ne of the s econd s uper cedi ng in d ictm e n t ch a rg e d M r. H a ll w ith c o n sp irin g to d istrib u te a n d to p o ss e ss w ith in ten t to d is tr ib u te “ a m ix tu re a n d s u b s ta n c e s c o n ta in in g a d e te c ta b le a m o u n t o f c o c a in e b a s e . . . w ei ghi ng m or e than fi ftygr ams. ” A nd, i n fac t , the j urys peci fi cal l yfound thatthe amount o f c rac k -co ca ine in v o lved in the co n sp ir ac yco u n t w as “ 5 0 g ram s o r m o re.” A s su ch , M r. H a ll’ s a rg u m e n t h a s n o m e ri t. H e n ex t con tend s tha t un d er Appr endi v. N ew Jer s ey , 5 3 0 U .S . 4 6 6 (2 0 0 0 ), B la ke ly v. W as hi ngt on , 542 U . S. 296 ( 2004) , and U ni t ed Stat es v. B ooker , 5 4 3 U . S . 2 2 0 (20 0 5 ), the r el evantquant i tyof drugs fors ent enci ng purpos es i s no m or e than the quant i tythe j uryfound hi m t o pos s es s bey ond a r eas onabl e doubt

— thati s , 50 gr ams. T hi s ar gum ent is al so w ith o u t m erit . “A fter B ooker , a cons t i tut i onal vi ol at i on l i es onl yw her e a di s tr i ct courtus es j udge- found fa ct s t o enhanc e a de fenda nt ’ s s ent ence m a n da to rily underthe-28-

[G ui del i nes ] , and notw her e a c our tm er el yappl i es s uch fa ct s i n a di s cr et i onarym anner . ” U n itedS ta tes v . R o drig u ez-F e lix , 450 F. 3d 1117, 1130 ( 10th C i r . 2006) . B eca us e the p o st- B ookerG uidel i nes are di scr et i on ary , a dis tri ctcou rtm aycon t i nu e t o find facts , in c lu d in g d ru g q u a n tity, b ya p re p o n d e ra n c e o f th e e v id e n c e . See i d. a t 1 1 3 0

– 3 1 . A s n o ted a b o v e, th e D istri ct C o u rtfo u n d that 3 9 2 g ram s o f c rac k -co ca ine w ere attr i but abl e t o M r . H al l . A l though he does nots ays o expl i ci t l y , he appe ar s t o ar gue that the D i s tr i ctC our t ’ s det erm i nat i on on thi s poi ntw as cl ear l yerr oneous . W e fi nd no cl ear err ori n the D i s tr i ctC our t ’ s det erm i nat i on. I tr el i ed on the G overnm ent s ’ w i r et ap evi dence i n w hi ch M r . H al l pl ace s var i ous or der s forcr ack- coca i ne orpow der ed coc ai ne w i th M r . Sm al l . T her e w as al s o evi dence thatM r . Sm al l and M r . H al l m ets hor t l yaft er M r. H a ll p la c e d th e o rd e rs . C . T he W eapons E nhance m ent M r . H al l fi r s tcont ends thatthe w eapons enhanc ementunder§ 2D 1. 1( b) ( 1) vi ol at es hi s Si xth A m endmentr i ght s as s t at ed i n Appr endi , B la ke ly , and B ooker , b ec au se a jury di d notfi nd, nordi d he admi t , fac t s thatw oul d j us t i fys uch an e nhance m ent . A gai n, B ookerm ak es c lear tha t j u d ici al fa ct-find ing b ya p rep o n d era n ce o f th e e v iden ce stan d ard is u n c o n s titu tio n a l o n ly w h e n it o p e ra te s to in c re a s e a d e f e n d a n t’ s s e n te n c e m a n d a to ri ly. See R o drig u ez-F e lix , 4 5 0 F .3 d a t 1 1 3 0 . B e c a u se th e D istric t C o u rt h e re in d isp u tab ly a p p lie d th e G u id e lin e s in a d is c re tio n a ry f a s h io n , th e re is n o S ix th A m e n d m e n t v io la tio n . N ext , M r . H al l ar gues thatthe enha ncements houl d nothave appl i ed bec aus e the-29-

G overnm entdi d nots how thathe pos s es s ed the s hot gun orthati tw as “pr es entdur i ng t he offe ns e. ” I n appl y i ng thi s enhanc ement , the G overnm entbear s the i ni t i al bur den of p ro v in g p o s s e s s io n o f

th e w e a p o n b ya p re p o n d e ra n c e o f th e e v id e n c e . U

ni t ed Stat es v. Wi l l i a ms , 431 F. 3d 1234, 1237 ( 10th C i r . 2005) . “Thi s bur den i s s at i s fi ed w hen the governm entdemonstr at es thata t empora l and s pat i al r el at i on exi s t ed betw een the w eapon, the drug tr aff

i cki ng act i vi ty , and the def endant . ” I

d. ( i nt ernal quot at i on m arks om i t t ed) . E vi dence thatthe w eapon w as found i n a l ocat i on w her e drugs ordrug p a ra p h e rn a lia is s to re d e s ta b lis h e s th e n e c e s s a ry sh o w in g . I d. “ If th e g o v e rn m e n t m e e ts th is in iti a l b u rd e n , the b u rd e n sh if ts to th e d e f

e n d a n t to sh o w th a t itis c lea rlyim p ro b a b le the w eapon w as connec t ed w i th t he off ens e. ” I d. at1238 ( i nt ernal quot at i on m arks o m itt e d ); s ee al

s o U . S. S. G . § 2D 1. 1 cmt . n. 3 ( i f the w eapon i s pr es ent , the adj us t m ent s houl d be appl i ed “unl es s i ti s cl ear l yi m pr obabl e thatthe w eapon w as connec t ed w i th the o f f e n s e ” ). T he D i s tr i ctC our t ’ s det erm i nat i on of the fa ct s s uppor t i ng the appl i cat i on of the e n h a n c e m e n t is n o t c le a rl ye rr o n e o u s . A s d is c u s s e d , supra , i n s ect i on I I . A . 4, the s hot gun w as found i n a ca rs i t t i ng r i ghtout s i de M r . H al l ’ s r es i dence and ea s i l yacc es s i bl e thr ough the t op of the vehi cl e. I n addi t i on, otherdrug par aphernal i a w as found atthe hous e, inclu d ing sca les w ith co ca ine re sidu e o n them . T h ese fa cts estab li sh the n ec essa ry t empora l and s pat i al r el at i ons hi p betw een the w eapon, the drug tr aff i cki ng act i vi ty , and M r. H a ll. A c c o rd in g ly , the b u rd e n sh if ts to M r. H a ll t o d e m o n stra te th a t itis “ c lea rly-30-

i m pr obabl e” thatthe fi r earm w as connec t ed t o hi s drug tr aff i cki ng offe ns e. H e has fai l ed t o m eetthi s bur den. D . C o n s id e ra tio n o f a P a rd o n e d O f

f e n s e in C a lc u la tin g C ri m in a l H is to ry. I n cal cul at i ng a def

endant ’ s cr i m i nal hi s t orycat egory , the G ui del i nes pr ovi de that

“ [ s]e n ten c e s f

o r e x p u n g e d c o n v ictio n s a re n o t co u n ted .” U .S .S .G . § 4 A 1 .2 (j). M r. H a ll r ece i ved a pa r don forhi s 1984 convi ct i on forfel onyarm ed r obberyfr om the St at e of L oui s i ana. H e ther efor e cont ends thatthi s convi ct i on, and hi s l at erconvi ct i on forbei ng a f e lo n in p o s s e s s io n o f

a f ir e a rm , s h o u ld n o t b e c o u n te d in c a lc u la tin g h is c ri m in a l h is to ry. A pp l i cat i on N ote 10 t o § 4A 1. 2(j ) pr ov i des: C onvi ct i ons SetA s i de orD efe ndantPar doned. A num berof j ur i s di ct i ons have va r i ous pr ocedur es pur s uantt o w hi ch pr evi ous convi ct i ons m aybe s et as i de orthe def

endantm aybe par doned forr eas ons unr el at ed t o i nnocenc e o r e rr o rs o f

la w , e. g. , i n o r d e rt o r e s t o r e c i v i l r i g h t s o rt o r e mo v e th e s t i g ma as s oci at ed w i th a cr i m i nal convi ct i on. Sent ence s r es ul t i ng fr om s uch convi ct i ons ar e t o be count ed. H ow ever , expunged c onvi ct i ons ar e not c o u n te d . U .S .S .G . § 4 A 1 .2 (j ) c m t. n .1 0 . M r . H al l r ece i ved a f

i r s toffe nderpar don pur s uantt o L a. R ev. St at . A nn. § 15: 572, w hi ch oper at es t o r es t or e “a l l r i ght s of ci t i zens hi p. ” See L a. R ev. St at . A nn. § 15: 572 ( b) ( 1) ( “A fi r s toffe nderneverpr evi ous l yconvi ct ed of a fel onys hal l be par doned aut om at i cal l yupon compl et i on of hi s s ent ence . . . . ”) . H ow ever , as the Loui s i ana Supr eme C our tand the l ett ers ubm i t t ed byM r . H al l fr om the Loui s i ana D epart m entof Publ i c Safe tyand C orr ect i ons acknow l edges , s uch par dons do notr es t or e a f el on’ s r i ghtM r. H al l sugg est s, w i tho ut ar gu m ent orci t at i on t o au tho ri ty , that the G uidel i nes’ 5 di s t i nct i on betw een s ent ence s expunged be caus e of i nnocenc e orerr or s of l aw and par dons unr el at ed t o t hos e fa ct or s vi ol at es the Equal Pr ot ect i on C l aus e and the D ue P roc ess C laus e o f th e F o u rt ee n th A m en d m en t, as w ell as th e E igh th A m en d m en t’ s p ro h ib iti o n o f

c ru e l an d u n u su a l p u n ish m e n t. B e c a u se M r. H a ll fa ils to m e a n in g f u lly d e v e lo p th e s e a rg u m e n ts , w e w ill n o t a d d re s s th e m o n a p p e a l. See U ni t ed Stat es v. B anks , 451 F. 3d 721, 728 ( 10th C i r . 2006) ( decl i ni ng t o addr es s on appea l an i s s ue u n su p p o rt ed b ylega l argu m en t or au tho ri ty ). -31- to p o s s e s s f

ir e a rm s . See S tate v. W est , 7 5 4 S o .2 d 4 0 8 , 4 1 0 (L a . A p p . 2 0 0 0 ). T h e re is no thing t o sug gestthat M r. H al l ’s pardon , w hich i s grant ed as a m att er of cou rs e t o fir st t i m e off ender s , w as i n anyw ayr el at ed t o i nnocenc e oran err orof l aw . I ndeed, the l et t er he s ubm i t s as evi dence of the par don i ndi cat es thathi s r i ght“t o r ece i ve, pos s es s or tra n sp o rt f

ire a rm s” w a s u n a f

f e c ted b yth e p a rd o n . T h e re f o re , the c o n v ictio n w a s p ro p e rly count ed i n as s es s i ng hi s cr i m i nal hi s t ory , as w as hi s fel on- i n- pos s es s i on convi ct i on, for w h i c h th e a r m e d r o b b e r y w a s th e p r e d i c a t e f e l o n y. 5 E . C o n side rati o n o f th e § 3 5 5 3 (a) S en tenc ing F ac tors W e now cons i derthe G overnm ent ’ s cr os s - appea l . A s not ed above , “[r ] eas onabl enes s has both pr ocedur al and s ubs t ant i ve component s . ” U ni t ed Stat es v. C age , 451 F. 3d 585, 591 ( 10th C i r . 2006) . “To be r eas onabl e, a s ent ence m us tbe

‘ r eas oned, ’ orcal cul at ed ut i l i zi ng a l egi t i m at e met hod. ” I d. O r di nar i l y , anypr ocedur al i rr egul ar i tyi n cal cul at i ng the s ent ence occur s w hen the di s tr i ctcourtdet erm i nes the a p p lic a b le G u id e lin e s ra n g e . See i d. ( s t at i ng thats ent ence s bas ed on a mi s appl i cat i on of th e Gu i d e l i n e s a r e p r o c e d u r a l l yu n r e a s o n a b l e ) . He r e , h o we v e r , th e Go v e rn me n tc l a i ms-32-

thatthe D i s tr i ctC our tcomm i t t ed a pr ocedur al err ori n i t s appl i cat i on of the § 3553( a) s ent enci ng fac t or s t o fas hi on a bel ow - G ui del i nes s ent ence . W e now hol d thats uch an err ori n appl y i ng thos e fa ct or s r ender s the r es ul t i ng s ent ence unr eas onabl e. A lth o u g h w e h a v e n e v e r re q u ire d a d istric t co u rt to re c ite a n y“ m a g ic w o rd s” to s how thati thas ful fi l l ed i t s obl i gat i on t o be mi ndful of the fa ct or s C ongr es s has i ns truct ed i tt o cons i deri n § 3553( a) , w e have neverthel es s r equi r ed the courtt o gi ve re a s o n s f o r i m p o s in g a p a rt ic u la r s e n te n c e . U ni t ed Stat es v. Sanchez - Juar ez , 446 F. 3d 1109, 1115–16 ( 10th C i r . 2006) ( ci t i ng 18 U . S. C . § 3553( c) ) . A s s uch, w hen a di s tr i ct courtfai l s t o cons i dera def endant ’ s non- fr i vol ous ar gum entthata var i ance fr om the G ui del i nes i s w arr ant ed under§ 3553( a) , forexampl e, the fa i l ur e r ender s the s ent ence p ro c e d u ra lly u n re a s o n a b le s u c h th a t r e s e n te n c in g is re q u ir e d . See i d. a t 1 1 1 7

– 1 8 . M eani ngful appel l at e r evi ew of the l ength of a s ent ence r equi r es thi s r es ul tbeca us e “[ a] di s tr i ctcourt ’ s expl anat i on” of the r eas ons fora s ent ence “w i l l as s i s tus i n our d e te rm in a tio n o f

w h e th e r” a s e n te n c e is s u b s ta n tiv e ly re a s o n a b le . See i d. a t 1 1 1 7 . Itm aybe thatthe 1 51 -m on th sentence t he D i stri ctC ou rti m po sed i n thi s case w oul d be su b sta n tive ly rea so n ab le. B u t i n im p o sing su ch a se n tenc e, th e D istri ct C o u rt expr es s l yt ether ed i t s rul i ng t o i t s det erm i nat i on of the appl i cabl e G ui del i nes r ange, w hi ch ith ad alread yca lculated b ase d o n an o ff en se lev el of

3 6 an d a c ri m inal h ist o ryca tego ry of I I I . T he onl yr eas on the courtpr offe r ed fori t s det erm i nat i on thatM r . H al l ’ s s ent ence s houl d be l ow erthan the appl i cabl e G ui del i nes r ange a nd thatof hi s co- defe ndant s w as-33-

thathe had a compar at i vel ym i l d cri m i na lhis t ory . T he courtm ade no ment i on of the offe ns e cha r act er i s t i cs . Y eti n fas hi oni ng a s ent ence thatt akes the § 3553( a) f a c to rs in to acc ount , the courtcons ul t ed the G ui del i nes and ca l cul at ed a hypothet i cal G ui del i nes sent ence b ased no ton l yon a l ow er cr i m i nal hi st orycat ego ry(I i nst ead o f II I) , bu tal so b ase d o n a low er of

f ens e l eve l( 34 i ns t ead of 36) . G ener al l y , w hen “a s ent ence thatvar i es fr om the advi s oryG ui del i nes r ange i s neverthel es s t ether ed t o the G ui del i nes themsel ves [ b y , ta k in g in to a c c o u n t, e. g. , crim inal h ist o ry , o ff en se c h ara cterist ics, an d o ff en se lev els], w e w i l l l i kel ycons i derthi s a r eas onabl e met hodol ogy . ” U ni t ed Stat es v. B is hop , 469 F. 3d 896, 907 ( 10th C i r . 2006) . H er e, how ever , the courteff ect i vel yi gnor ed the i ns t ant offe ns e’ s char act er i s t i cs as comput ed i n the off ens e l evel . T he r ange s uppor t ed bythe D i s tr i ctC our t ’ s s ent enci ng r at i onal e— w i th a cr i m i nal hi s t oryof I and off ens e l evel of 3 6

— is in f

a c t 1 8 8 to 2 3 5 m o n th s in c a rc e ra tio n . See U . S. S. G . § 5A . W e ca nnot count enanc e the court ’ s m ethodol ogyw i thoutanyexpl anat i on as t o w hys uch a det erm i nat i on w as m ade. Ha v i n g c o n c l u d e d th a tth e r e a s o n i n g p r o v i d e d b yth e Di s tr i c tCo u r tf o rth e b e l o wG u id e lin e s s e n ten c e is p ro c e d u ra llyd e f icie n t, w e re m a n d to th e D istric t C o u rt w ith i ns truct i ons t o vaca t e M r . H al l ’ s s ent ence and t o r es ent ence M r . H al l i n a mannernot i ncons i s t entw i th ourdi s cus s i on. I n doi ng s o, w e i n no w ayi nt end t o expr es s an opi ni on i n r egar d t o w hatthe ul t i m at e s ent ence s houl d be. I V. CO NC L US I ON-34-

W e R E V E R SE M r . H al l ’ s convi ct i on forpos s es s i on and di s tr i but i on of cr ackco ca ine u n d er 2 1 U . S . C . § 8 4 1 (a)(1) f o r i n su ff ici en cyo f th e e v iden ce . W e A F F IR M M r. H al l ’ s convi ct i on forcons pi r acyunder21 U . S. C . § 846. W e furtherhol d thatthough t he D i stri ctC ou rtcorr ect l yapp l i ed the G uidel i nes, the sentence w as neve rtheles s p ro c e d u ra lly u n re a s o n a b le . W e th e re f o re R E M A N D f

o r r e s e n te n c in g .