## 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 o. 10

- 1085 U NI T ED S TATE SOF A MERI CA, P la intif f-A pp ellee, v. C HAZZI E T. I S OM, D ef endant-Appellant.

A pp eal from the United S t ates Di strictC our t fo r the C entral D istricto f Illino is. No . 09- 20012-001

—Mi ch ael P . M cC us key,Chief Ju dge .
A RG UE D D ECE MBE R 14, 2010

— D ECI DE D M AR CH 14, 2011

Befo re P OSNER, R IPPLE, an d R OV NER, C ircu it Judges . R OV NER, Cir cu i tJudg e . Afte r a j ury tr i al, Chazzi e I som was c o nv i ct ed o fthr ee c o unt s o fdi st r ibut i ngc o ca i ne b as e. See21 U
. S. C. § 8 41( a) ( 1) , (b) ( 1)(A )
. The sa l es tot ale d a b out 70 gr am s, but the di str i ct c ourtat tr ibuted t o h i m a s r e l e v a n t c o n d u c t a mu c h l a r g e r a m o unt

— r o u g h l y 6 0 0 g r a ms

— and sentence d him to 26 2 m onths’ i m pri sonm ent. On app eal I som pri m ar i l y c hal l enges th is relev an t con d u c t find in g, ar gu in g th at h e s h o u ld2 N o. 10

- 1085

“ E ig h t-b all ” i s a s tr eette rm f or one- ei ghth ofan ounce. 1 Se e Uni t e d S t a t e s v. Pl umm er, 58 1 F .3d 48 4 , 48 6 (7t h C ir . 20 0 9 ), ce rt. den ied, 1 3 0 S. C t. 1 1 0 5 (20 1 0 ). n o tb e a c c o u n t ab l e f o rd r ug tr a n s a c t i o n s i n v o l v i n gt wo co co ns pira to r s. Be ca us e th e di st r i ctc o ur t pr o per l y c al cul at ed th e dr ugqua nt i tyus i ng re l i ab l e i nf o r m at i o n, we a ffi r m.
I. A t t ria l, an u n d er c o v er sp ec ial a ge n t w ith th e Illino is St ate Pol i ce desc ribed thr ee contr ol l ed buys ofcr ack coca ine fr o m Is o m ; each pu rch ase w as th e basis for a se par at e co unt
. Re g ar di ngthe fi r stpur ch as e, the a g en t testifi ed that he called Isom i n D ecem ber 2008 and arra nged to buy t w o “ei ght-bal l s” ( about 3. 5 g ra m s o fcr ack 1 co ca i ne e ac h) i n a pa r k i ng l o t. The a g en t wentt o the l o t, par k e d n e x tt o a r e d v a n, a n d c l i mb e d i n . He bo ug htabo ut6 g r ams o fc r ac kf rom a woman in the van, N ancy Rose. Rose to o tes ti fi ed at tr i al, co rrob or ate d th e a g e n t ’ s a c c o u n t, a n d s t a t e d th a t s h e wa s att he parking lo t a t I som ’ s instr ucti on. S he al so sta ted that sh e use d crac k tw i ce a day, and that I som ga ve her drugs in exchange f orl ett in g hi m se l ldrugs fro m her h o me a n d o c c a s i o n a l l y d e l i v e r i n gf o rh i m. The se co nd pur ch as e o cc ur r ed fi ve da y s l at er . The agen t re c ounted thathe c al l ed I som and ar ra nged to b u y m o r e cr ac k in an ot h er p ar kin g lot ; I so m arr ive d in the s am e r ed van, ente re d the ag en t’s car, and handedN o. 10

- 1085 3 the a gent a Dor i tos bag c ontai ni ng 5. 5 g ra m s o fcr ack coca i ne. The thi r d purc ha se oc cur r ed i n J an ua r y 20 09
. Acco r di ng to the a gent, aftera serie s ofphone ca l l s, I som ag re ed to s el lhi m a n o unc e o fc r ac kc o ca i ne . Isom m etthe a g en t at a W end y’s parking l ot, ente re d the ag ent’ s ca r, to ok th e a gen t’s mone y, a nd the n t o l d the a g en t th athe cou ld fi nd the d rugs i n a trash c a n i n th e W en d y’s re str oo m . The re , t h e a gent f ound 61. 3 g ra m s o fcr ack coca i ne, and I som was ar re ste d l ate r that day. Inth e p re se n te n c e re p or t, th e p ro b at ion offic er h eld I som acc ountabl e no t o nl y forthe 72. 8 g ra m s ( 6 +5. 5 +61
. 3) he s o l d t o the a g en t, b utals o f o r5 37
. 28 g r ams h e al l ege dlydi str ibuted to co consp ira tor s Karen Coffey and N ancy Rose. I som ’ s deal i ngs with Coffey const i tuted the l i o n’ s s ha r e o fthi s qua nt i t y . T he p r o b a t i o n o ffi cer est i m ate d I som ’s d i str ibuti on t o Coffey at 467. 28 gr am s, base d on st ate m ents she g ave to l aw enf or cem ent that f ro m A ugus t2 0 0 7t o s pr i ng2 0 0 8 s he de l i v e r e d d r ug s f orI som 5 days a week, up to 20 ti m es a d ay, and that near l y e ver y d el i ver y invol ved cr ack coca i ne worth $ 50. B as ed on th is s ta te m en t, th e p ro b at ion offic er ca lcul ate d that o n 132 o ccasi ons I som di str ibuted 3. 54 gr am s ( 132 x 3.5 4 = 467
. 28)
. The probati on o ffi cerat
tr ibuted to I som an a dd i ti onal70 gra m s base d on st ate
m ents Rose m ade to l aw enf or cem ent th at

— i n additi on to the a m ounts she di str ibuted f orI som

— h e t yp ica lly gave her$5 0 t o $75 w or th o fcr ack cocai ne perday o ver 21⁄2 m onths. Based o n thes e su m s, the pr obat i on o ffi cer est i m ate d that I som ga ve Rose one gr am a day f or 70 days

— tot al i ng 70 gr am s.4 N o. 10

- 1085

The pre s en t en c e re por t ’ s re fer en c e t o 8 0. 2 g ra m s i s a m ys t er y, 2 and the parti es offer no explanati on f or i ts s ource. The cri m es ofconvi c t i ona c c ou nt e d f or7 2
. 8 g r a m s , a nd I s om c on t e nd s th a th e w a s p r o p e r l y h e l d a c c o u n t a b l e f o r a n a d d i t i o n a l 9 g r a ms (3 .4 + 5.6 ). I s o m w a s a l s o h e l d a c c o u n t ab l e f o ra n a d d i t i o n a l9 g r a ms st emm i ng fro m t wo un ch ar g ed, c o nt r o l l ed sa l es : o ne th a tI s o m m a de to th e u n d e r c o v e ra g e n ti n e a r l y D e c e mberf or3. 4 g ra m s o fcr ack; and one that Coffey m ade to the a gent for 5
. 6 g ra m s whil e the ag ent was t ry i ng to ar ra nge t o buy drugs from Is om . I som di d not ( nordoes he no w) co nt es t th at th es e 9 g r ams we r e pr o per l y i ncl ud ed as re l evantco nd uct. I som curt ly d isagreed w ith th e pre se n t e n ce rep ort’s i nc l us i o n o fthe 5 37. 28 g r ams di st r ibut ed to Ro se a nd Coffey as re l evantco nd uct; he a sse rt ed w i thout el abor atio n th at th is re lev an t c on d u c t w as ba se d on u n re liab le h ea rs ay . B u t t h e p ro b at ion offic e r d id n otad d re ss th is disa gr ee m ent b ecause , the offi cerwrote , “i t di d not r i se to the l ev elo fa f o r m alo bj ec ti o n. ” H e no te d , tho ug h, th at Isom ’s c on c es sio n of be in g re sp on sib le for 80 .2 2 ra the rtha n 7 2
. 8 g r a ms r e fl e c t e d I s o m’ s a c k no wl edgm en t t h at th e re p or t c on ta in s “ so m e a c c u ra te info rm at ion .” A t the s entencing hea ring, the age nt wh o bought drugs from I som testifi ed i n su p p or t of the prob ation offi cer’s drug- quanti ty cal cul ati on. The ag ent v er i fi ed t hat Coffey w as an associate of I som ’s: the a g e n t h a d call ed I som ’s phone a n d sp oke n to I som ’ s g i rl fri end, wh o ar ra nged f o rthe a g en t to b uy dr ug s fr o m Co ffey . The a g en tN o. 10

- 1085 5 add ed that Coffey l ate r ac kn owledge d deli ver i ng drugs f o rI so m a nd i den ti fi ed bo thRo se a nd I so m ’ s g i rl fr i en d as perso ns she knew w ho were al so sell i ng drugs o n I som ’ s be hal f
. The ag ent l i kewis e v er i fied thatN ancy Rose tol d offi cer s w ho inter vi ew ed herthatI som was sel l i ng drugs from herhom e a nd thathe g ave her cra ck. The agen t a l so tes ti fi ed that Rose i denti fi ed Coffey as a r egul arcusto m ero fI som ’ s. T h e d i s t r i c tc o u r ta d o p t e d th e p r o b a t i o n o ffi c e r ’ s r e c o mm endati on, and incl ud ed 619
. 08 gr am s ( 72. 8 +9 + 5 37. 28) as re l evantco nd uct. The co urt f ound the ag ent c re d ible an d no ted th atthe dr ug - qua nt i tyc al cul at i o n was c o nse r va ti ve g i ve n the b r o ad sc o pe o fthe unc ha r g ed co nspi ra cy. The co urt cal cul ate d I som ’ s ba se offense lev el at 34 , see U
. S. S.G . § 2 D 1.1( c)(3), ad d ed 3 point s for a m an ag er ial ro le in th e o ffen se , s e ei d. § 3 B1. 1(b) , a nd ass i gned a cri m i nalhi sto rycat ego ryo fI I I, to ar rive a t a g ui del i ne s r an g e o f 262 to 3 27months
. The c o ur t se nte nc ed I so m t o 2 62 months ’ i m pr i so nm en t, r emar k i ng that the s entence was re aso nabl e a nd necess ar y t o p u n ish Is om for h is c rim e a n d d et er h im an d h is coco nspir ato rs fro m enga gi ng i n future cri m i nalact i vi ty.

II. No w r e pr e s e nt e d o n a pp e a l b y di ffe r e nt c o un s e l, I som m ake s tw o ar gum ents f or re sente nci ng. Fi rs t, he as ser ts that the di stri ct c ourto ver sta ted hi s r el evantco nd uct a n d , a s a r e s u l t, i mpo s e d t o o s e v e r e o fa se nt e n c e . He al so a r g ue s th athi s co uns elwas i ne ffec ti ve ats en tencing f orf ai l i ng to r ai se the s entencing disp ari ty6 N o. 10

- 1085

I s o m o v e r s t a t e s t h e i n c r e a s e i n th e g u i de l i n e s r a n g e . He 3 asserts tha t the in clu sion of t h e r e l ev an t con d u ct incre ased his r a n g e fr o m 1 6 8 -2 1 0 m o n t h s t o 2 6 2 -3 2 7m o n th s. B u tIs o m ’s cal culat ions overlook the 20- year m and atory m ini m um that app li es because ofhis prior convict ion f or a fel ony d rug offense . S ee 21 U.S. C. § 841( b)( 1) ( A )
. Ifa s tatut o ry m ini m um s ente nce is gr ea t erthanthe m ax i m um ofthe appl i c abl e gui del i ne ra nge , the n th ats t atut or y m i ni m um s en t en c e bec om es the b o tt o m o f th e g u id e l in e r a n g e. S eeU .S.S .G . § 5 G 1 .1(b ); Uni t e d S t a t e s v. Gi bb s , 57 8 F .3d 69 4 , 69 5 (7t h C ir . 20 0 9 ). betw een crack an d pow d er un d er K i m bro ug h v . U nited Sta tes, 552 U
. S. 85 (2007). Iso m ar gu es th at th e d ist ric t cou rte r ro n eo u sly i ncre ase d his bas e offense l eve lwh en i t e ar m ar ked 53 7. 28 g r ams o f dr ug s as r el ev an t co nduc t. T he re l ev an t c onduct beyo nd the 80 gr am s that he conceded h e s old increas e d his sent en cing ex p osu re fr om a m an d atory m i ni m um o f24 0 m onths to an advi sory guidel ine r ange of26 2 t o 327 m onths. See 2 1 U. S
. C. § 8 4 1 ( b ) ( 1 ) ( A) ; U. S
. S
. G. 3 § 2D 1.1( c)(3). I som co ntends thatt h e dist ri ct c ourtsho uld have pres um e d that Rose’ s a nd Coffey’ s s tat em ents

— w hi ch l ed to h i s b e i n gh e l d a c c o u n t ab l e f o r5 3 7
. 2 8 g r a ms

— w er e u n re liab l e he arsayb ec au se the t wo wer e no n- te st i fy i ng coco nspir ato rs . H e ci tes U nited Sta tes v. Jon es , 37 1 F
. 3d 3 6 3 , 3 6 9 ( 7 th C i r . 2 0 0 4 ) , a nd U nited St at e s v. Sa nt i ago , 49 5 F
. 3d 82 0 , 8 2 5 ( 7 th C i r . 2 0 0 7 ) , t o a r g u e th a ta s e n t e n c i ng c ou rtm u st p re su m e a co c on sp ira to r’s st at em en t u n re liab l e i ftha t st at ement: (1) was g i ve n wi thg o ve r nm en tN o. 10

- 1085 7 i nvol vem ent; ( 2) descr ibed pa st e vents ; and ( 3) has not be en subj ec te d t o a dve r sa r i alt es ting . H e no tes that, f or her i nvol vem ent, Rose r ecei ved 48 m onths’ pro bati on i n sta te cour t. Bu t I som m i sapprehends thi s co urt’ s inter preta ti on o f th e p re su m p tio n . Jo nes re cogni zed thi s pre sum pti on w hen adm i tting a coco nspirator ’ s s tat em ent att r i al , not se n te n c in g. 37 1 F.3d a t 3 6 9; see U nited Sta tes v. Ho use, 551 F.3d 694 , 699 n.2 (7th C ir. 2 008). A district cou rt i n d eterm in in g a se nt en ce is not bou nd by the sam e evide nt iary s t a n d ar d s t h at ap p ly in a c rim in al t ria l. See F ED . R. E V ID . 1 1 0 1 (d )(3) ; U ni t e d S t at e s v. Johns on , 48 9 F
. 3d 794, 79 6 ( 7th Ci r . 2 00 7)
. The pr es um pti o n o funr el i ab i l i ty for no ntestifyi ng cocon sp irators i s p rem ised o n t he de fend an t’s rig h t at tria l to c on fro n t hi s a c c u se rs , s e e, e . g. , Li l l y v . Virginia , 5 27U .S. 1 16 , 137(19 99 ) (p lu ra lity op in ion ); U nited S t a t e s v . Oc h oa , 2 29 F
. 3d 63 1, 6 37( 7th Ci r . 2 00 0) , b utthe Confr ontat i on Cl ause does not apply at se n tencing, Willia m s v. New Yo rk, 33 7 U .S. 24 1, 25 0-5 1 (1 9 49 ); U nited State s v. B et ts , 576 F.3d 73 8, 74 4 (7 th C ir.), ce r t
. den ied , 13 0 S. C t
. 1 0 27(20 09 ); U ni t e d S t at e s v. Roch e, 41 5 F
. 3d 614, 61 8 ( 7th Ci r. 20 05)
. W i th r ega rd to se ntenci ng, thi s co u rthas decl i ned to att ach any p re sum pti on o funrel i abi l i ty to c oc on sp ira to rs ’ st at em en ts
. See H o use, 55 1 F.3 d at 6 99 n. 2; U nited Sta tes v. A rtley, 489 F. 3d 813, 821 ( 7th C ir. 2007); Johns on, 4 8 9 F .3d at79 7; see also U nited Sta tes v. M o nc iva is, 492 F. 3 d 6 5 2 , 6 5 9

- 6 0 ( 6 th Ci r . 2 0 0 7 )
. As thi s c o ur thas re p ea te d ly ob se r v e d , a se n te n c in g jud ge is fre e t o c re d it tes ti m ony that i s “ tot al l y uncor roborate d,” “co m es fro m an adm i tte d l i ar, co nvi cted fel on, . . . l ar ge sc ale drugdeal i ng, p ai d gove rnm ent info rm ant, ” o r “se l f

- i nter est ed8 N o. 10

- 1085

co- conspi ra tor [ ]
. ” Jo hn son , 489 F. 3d at 797 ( i nter nalquotation an d citation om itted ). I so m ’ s r el i ance o n San t i ago is s im ilar ly m isp lac ed . In th a tc a s e , wh i c h i n v o l v e d v i d eo ta p e d c o n fe s s i o n s o ft wo m en th at w er e u se d to su b st an tia te th e d efe n d an t’ s ro le in a ki dn apping and m urder, thi s co urt bypasse d any d i scussi on o fthe presum pti on. The o pini on quote d the e l em en ts o fthe presum pti on a nd not ed the dist ri ct cou rt’s aw aren e s s o f th em , yet affirm ed the d efend an t’s sente n ce without deci ding the r el i abi l i ty ofthe re cor ded c on fes sio n s. Sa ntia go , 49 5 F .3d at82 4-2 5; see U n ited S ta tes v. B usa ra , 551 F.3d 669 , 672-73 (7th C ir. 2008). A s the go ver nm ent points o ut, I som i nvoke s thi s pre su m p tio n t o avoid th e con seq ue nc es of tri al coun sel’s i ns uffi ci en t o bj ec ti o n t o the pre se nt en ce r epo r t. The proba ti on o ffi cerdeter m i ned that tr ial counselhad not ra i sed a f or m alo bj ecti on thro ugh a w rit te n subm i ssi on sta ti ng o nl y that he obj ecte d to “a ll re leva nt co nd uct, as re l evantco nd uc t is based o n unrel i abl e hea rs ay. ” N or di d I so m r ai se much o fa n obj ec ti o n a t t he s en te nc i ng he ar i ng, m erely a l l udi ngt o the f ac t th ato ne o fthe coco nspir ato rs was not charg ed w i th a federa lcr i m e. I som had to p ro d uce m or e than a b ar e deni alto adequatel y obj ect, wh i ch he d i d not. Se eU ni t e d S t at e s v. Turn er, 60 4 F
. 3d 381, 38 5 ( 7th Ci r. 20 10)
. A bsent an o bj ec ti o n, the d istr i ctc o ur t was e nt i tl ed to r ely o n the p resen ten ce rep ort

— ev en if it re st e d o n h ea rs ay . See F ED . R. C RIM . P. 32 (i)(3); U ni t e d S t at e s v. Avi l e s - Sol arzano , 623 F. 3d 470, 475 ( 7th Ci r. 20 10); U ni t e d S t at e s v. C harle sworth , 217 F.3d 115 5, 1160 ( 9th Cir. 2000).N o. 10

- 1085 9 I n any eve nt, the keyat b ot h t ri aland sent enci ng to ad m itti ng statem en ts from non -testifying cocon sp ir ators is r eli abili ty. A t trial, the gove rnm en t can overcom e the pre sum pti on a gainst s el f

- ser vi ng st ate m ents fro m no n- te st i fy i ngc o co ns pi r at o r s bys ho wi ngtha t th e st at ements a r e r el i ab l e, o rha ve “ par ti cul ar i ze d g ua r an tee s o ftr ustw or th i ness. ” Leev. Ill inois , 47 6 U.S
. 53 0, 54 3 (1986); see V

a rela v. U nited S t a t es , 48 1 F
. 3d 932, 93 5 ( 7th Cir
. 2 0 0 7 )
. Ats e nt e nc i ng, c o ur t s ma y r e l y o n pr e s e nt ence re port s co ntai ni ng ev en d ou bl e- hear say, i
. e. , st ate m ents by c oc on spi ra tor s t o i nvest i gat or s, so l ong as thos e s tat em en ts are relia b le. See A rtley, 489 F.3d at82 1; U nited St at e s v. We s t m ore l and, 2 40 F.3d 618, 629-30 (7th C ir. 2001); s e e al s o U ni t e d St at e s v. Jon es, 1 95 F.3d 37 9, 382 (8th Cir. 19 99 ); U nited Sta tes v. R a nd a ll, 171 F.3d 195 , 211-12 (4th C ir. 1 99 9); U nited Sta tes v. Q uery, 9 2 8 F
. 2 d 3 8 3 , 3 8 4

- 8 5 ( 11th C ir. 1991). H ere, the g o ve r nm en t es tabl i sh ed th atb o thRo se ’ s an d Coffey’ s a ccounts as re counted i n the prese ntence re portwere reliab l e. Rel i abi l i ty can be es tabl i shed by i nter nalco nsi ste ncy, co rr obo ra ti ng ev i dence, and provid in g m iss in g fa c ts an d d et ails
. Se eU ni t e d S t at e s v. M ays , 593 F. 3d 603, 608 ( 7th C ir.), cert. denied, 130 S. Ct. 33 40 (20 10 ); U ni t e d St at e s v. Hankt on , 432 F.3d 779 , 791 (7th C ir. 20 05 ); U ni ted St at e s v. Thom as , 28 0 F
. 3d 1149 , 11 54 ( 7th C i r . 2 0 0 2); U nite d States v. G albraith , 20 0 F
. 3d 1006 , 10 13 ( 7 th C i r . 2 0 0 0 )
. R o s e ’ s t e s t i mo n y a tt r i a lwa s c o n si st en t wi thwhats he to l d the o ffi ce r s as r ec o unt ed i n the prese ntence re port
. M or eov er, the age nt te sti fi ed that w hen Rose w as i nter vi ew ed, Rose sta ted that C offey w as “a re gul arcusto m ero fI som ’ s who w ould c om e t o10 N o. 10

- 1085 he rr es i den ce fr eque nt l y t o pur ch ase cr ac kc o ca i ne , ” an d th at “a fter[ Rose] ki cked I som o ut o fherr esi dence, I som b eg an se llin g c r a c k c oc ain e fro m C offe y’s ap ar tm en t.” Regar ding Coffey, the age nt te sti fi ed th at she was an ass oci ate o fI som ’ s. W hen the ag en t coul d not r each Iso m fo r a c ra c k-c oc ain e d eliv er y, C offe y s u b b ed in an d s old the age nt co cai ne. I fI som wanted to i m peach thi s t est i m ony, I som co uld have done s o, but he el ecte d n otto
. Se eU ni t e d S t at e s v. Scha efer, 2 91 F. 3d 932, 94 3 ( 7th C ir. 2002). T he cou rt’s rel iance on th ose acc ou nt s, corrobor ate d and reinfo rc ed bythe age nt’ s t est i m ony, was not cl ear l y e rr oneo us. W e turn now to I som ’ s a rgum ent th at h is t ri alco unsel w as i neffecti ve f orf ai l i ng to r ai se the Kim b r ough i ssue. I n hi s br i efto thi s co urt, I som ’ s a pp el l ate l aw yer ar gued that tr i alco unselhad no s tr ate gi c r eas on f or re m ai ni ng si l ent o n the Kim b r ough i ssue, and thus was de fi c i e nti n no tr a i s i ngthe c l a i m. We l i k e wi s e a r e h a r dpressed to di scern any str ate gi c j usti fi cati on f ortr i al counsel ’ s s i l ence. W hen the dist ri ct j ud ge ask ed counsel w hether h e h ad anythi ng furthero n the drug- quanti ty iss u e, counselst re sse d that in hi s 3 0 y ear s’ exper i ence h e le ar n ed it w as be st to ke ep h is “ m ou th sh u t.” W e w ill n o tj u s t i fy a s “ s t r a t e g i c ” a d e c i s i o n t o s t a y s i l e n ti fwe cannot disc er n any w ay i n w hi ch sil ence w oul d have im p ro ve d th e c lien t’s p os itio n . Se eGi r t s v. Yanai, 50 1 F. 3d 743, 75 7- 58 ( 6th Ci r. 20 07) ; M il ler v. M arti n , 48 1 F.3d 468 , 473 (7th C ir. 2007). Befo re o ra lar gum ent, however, I som ’ s a pp el l ate co uns elno ti fi ed th i s co ur t thathe was wi th dr awi ngtheN o. 10

- 1085 11 i ne ffec ti ve - as si st an ce a rgum ent“ wi thno wai ve rt o the ar gum en t b einga ss er te d i n a s ubs eque ntpr o ce eding und er28 U
. S. C . § 22 55. ” Counselco nfi rm ed that sta tem ent a t o ra lar gum ent. Thi s was a w i se m ove since in effective-assistanc e claim s typ ically requ ire a m ore d ev elo p ed rec or d th an ex is t s o n d ire c t a p p ea l. See M a ssaro v. U nited Sta tes, 53 8 U .S. 50 0, 50 5 (2 00 3); U nited St at e s v. Schuh , 28 9 F
. 3d 968, 97 6 (7th Ci r. 20 02)
. A nd o n th e o ffc ha nc e th atI som mightha ve a v al i d po st co nvi ct i o n c l ai m tha t tr i alc o uns elwas i ne ffec ti ve forf ai l i ng to ra i se a Kim b r ough a r gu m en t, it w ou ld be p rem atu re f o ru s t o d i s c u s s th a tqu e s t i o n . Ato r a la r g u m en t we al so ask ed appell ate counsel i f he w i shed us to ad d re ss the f o r fe i t e d Kim b r ough cl ai m as a m att ero f p l ai n er ro r i n l i e u o fh i s i n e ffe c t i v e - a s s i s t a n c e cl ai m, wh i c h we h av e p o w e r to d o, see U nited Sta tes v. O la no , 507 U
. S. 72 5, 73 3-3 4 (1 99 3); Silb er v. U nited Sta tes, 3 7 0 U. S
. 7 1 7, 7 1 7- 18 ( 19 62 )
. Butc o uns elde cl i ne d o uri nv i ta ti o n.
Conclusi on B ecau se th e d istri ct cou rt’s rel evan t-con d uc t d eterm i nati on r est ed on r el i abl e e vi dence, we A FFIRM .

3- 14- 11