## 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. 09

- 2262 U NI T ED S TATE SOF A MERI CA, P la intif f-A pp ellee, v. M EL VI N T A Y L OR, D ef endant-Appellant.

A pp eal from the United S t ates Di strictC our t fo r the N o rthernDi stricto f Indian a, Fo rtWayne D ivisi on. No . 06 C R 00023

—Th eres a L . Sp ri ngmann, Judge
.
A RGUED J AN UA RY 12, 2010

— D ECI DE D A PRI L 8, 2010

Befo re P OSNER, F LA UMa nd W I L L I A MS, C ircu it Judges . F LA UM, Ci r c u i tJudg e . On M ay 24, 20 06, defendantappell ant, M el vi n Tayl or, was ind i cted, al ong w i th M a r l y n Ba r ne s , Mi c ha e l Al e xa nd e r, T he o di s Ar mst e a d, H erber t Hight ower, an d V er nel l Bro w n, f orco nspir acy to posse ss w i th i ntent to dist ribute m or e than fi ve ki l ogr am s o fco cai ne, i n vi ol ati on o f21 U .S.C . § 84 6. Tayl or was a l so i ndi cted f o r c ar r y i nga fi r ea r m dur i nga nd i n re l ati on t o a drug tr affi cki ng cr i m e, i n vi ol ati on o f2 N o. 09

- 2262 18 U

. S

. C. § 9 2 4 ( c )

. Af t e r pr o c e e di ng t o t r i a l o n Apr i l 15 , 2008 , a j ury f ound Tayl orgui l ty ofbo th co unts. S everal m onths l ate r, Tay lor fi l ed a m oti on f ora new tr i albas ed on newlydi sco ver ed evi dence. T h e d istr i ct c ourtdeni ed the m oti on. A t Tayl or ’ s sente nci ng hear i ng, the d i str i ct cour t f ound that the conspi ra cy i nvol ved f orty ki l ogram s o fco cai ne, wh i ch r esul ted i n a s entence o f18 8 m on th s o n th e c on sp ira c y c ou n t. T ay lor a p p ea ls h is convi cti on, the dist ri ct c ourt ’ s deni alo fhi s m oti on f or a new tr i al, and hi s se n tence. Fo r the r eas ons setf or th bel ow, w e affi rm Tayl or ’ s convi cti on and t h e d i str i ct cour t’ s deni alo fa new tr i al

. H owever, bec ause ofan er r o r i n th e d i s t r i c tc o u r t ’ s d e t e r mi n a t i o n o fth e a m o unt ofco cai ne at tr ibutabl e t o the c onsp i ra cy, we vacat e the s entence and re m and fo r re - sente nci ng.

I . B a c kg r o und A . Fact s o ft he U nd er l yi ng Consp i r acy This consp i ra cy i nvol ved a f ake shi pm ent o fdrugs tr a v e l i n gfr o m T e x a s t o F o r tWa y n e , I n d i a n a . B a r n e s , t he m as term i nd o fthe conspi ra cy and the per son w ho r ecrui ted Tayl or, fi rs t le ar ned ofthe f ake shi pm ent fro m KurtHunte r . Hunte r a nd Ba r ne s ha d b ee n pr o vi di ng each o therwith dru gs o n a r egul arbas i s forse ver al m onths pri orto A pri l o f2 00 6. H owever, Barnes was unaw ar e that Hu nterwas w or ki n g a s a co nfi denti al i nfo rm an t forthe gov er nm ent. On A pri l 17, 20 06, H unter an d Ba rnes m et to d evelo p a plan to steal a local d ealer’s st as h o fdr ug s. At th at m ee ting, Hunte r ment i o ne d the fict ion al s h ip m en t o f d ru gs th at be c am e t h e c or e o f th isN o. 09

- 2262 3

c on sp ira c y. B ar n es be c a m e i n te re st ed in s te alin g t h is fi cti onalshi pm en t r atherthan going f or w ar d w i th the o ri gi nal p lan . On A pri l 23 , 20 06, H unter i ntro du ced Barne s an d Al ex an der, Ba r ne s’ s br oth er, t o Age ntW ay ne L essn er, the u nd ercove r agent w orking w ith H u n t e r. Barne s and A l ex an derb el i ev ed th atHunte r a nd Age nt L es sn erwere cour i er s forthe drug shi pm ent fro m Texas. Barnes m et w i th H unter and A gent Le ss n er o nce m or e that m onth t o disc uss the logi sti cs o fthe hei st. A ge ntLe s s ne r r e c o r de d b o th mee t i ng s . Du r i ngthe fi rs t m ee tingwi thA gen t Les sn er, Ba r ne s i ndi ca te d tha t he had rec rui ted se ver alpeopl e t o parti c ip at e in the he i st. Barne s to l d H un te r a nd Age ntLe ss ne r tha t o ne o fthe p eo p le h e h ad rec ru ite d w as a frie n d n am ed M ac M el. Se ve ra l w itn es se s a t t ria l t es tifie d th at T ay lor c om m on ly wentb y the ni ckn ames M ac, M el, a nd M ac M el

. Dur i ng th es e two meet i ng s, Hunte r a nd Age ntLe ss ne r i nt enti onal l y nev er ind i cate d the e xact quanti ty ofdrugs that woul d be i nv o l ve d i n th e sh i pm en t be ca us e dr ug co ur i er s woul d no t no r m al l y know tha t i nf o r m at i o n. A l though Hu nterand A gent Lessn er neve r nam ed an exact am ount o fdrugs, the au d iot ap es ofthe m eet i ngs ca ptu r e B arne s m ak i ngv ar i o us a ss um pti o ns abo utthe quanti ty ofdrugs i nvol ved, r angi ng fro m twenty- to- ei ghty k i l o g r ams. Af te r the s ec o nd mee ting, Hunte r and Age nt Lessnerstay ed i n conta ct with Barnes, upd ati ng hi m o n th e p ro gr es s o f th e fic tio n al d ru g s h ip m en t. O n c e it w as deter m i ned that the he i st w oul d occur on M ay 5, 20 06, th e govern m en t, th rou g h A gen t L essn er and H un ter, ar ra n ge d for B ar n es an d h is c o-c on sp ira t o rs to st ay in tw o hote l r oo m s under vi deo s urve i l l ance a t the K n ights4 N o. 09

- 2262 I nn i n Fo rtW ayne, I nd i ana f or t h e ni ghts ofM ay 3 and M ay 4, 20 06. Betwee n Apr i l 1 7, 2006, whenhe fi r stl ea r ne d o fthe fi cti onalshi pm ent, and M ay 3 , 20 06, wh en he tr avel ed to F o r t W ay ne , Ba r ne s co m pi l ed hi s te am to c ar r y o utthe hei st. A t t ri al, H i ghto w erte sti fi ed that Barnes re c rui ted h im to th e c on sp ira c y in A p ril of 20 06 . H igh to w er te st ifi ed that Barnes tol d him thatthe p lan w as to rob fi fty k i l o g r ams o fc o ca i ne fr o m a s ta shho us e i n F o r t W ay ne w ith Ta ylor an d tw o i nd ivi d ua ls r ecru it e d by Ta ylor. Brown and A rm ste ad, two ofthe othe r c o-c onspi ra tor s, tes ti fi ed that Tayl orr ecr uit ed them in Ap ri l o f20 06. A rm ste ad al so tes ti fi ed that pri orto goi ng to Fo rtW ayne, he unde r st o o d thi s to b e a “l i fet im e dea l ” i nv o l ving about f or ty ki l ogr am s o fco caine. On M ay 3, 20 06, B arnes a nd H i ghto w ertr avel ed fro m G ary, I nd iana to Fort W ayn e to m eet w ith A gen t L e ssn er. A t t ri al, ther e was co nfl i ctin g test i m ony about w hat happ ened w hen they w er e l eaving Gary

. Barnes te sti fi ed that they w ent di re ctl y t o Fo rtW ayne. H i ghto w erte sti fi ed th a tth e y s t o p p e d a tT a y l o r ’ s h o u s e o n th e i r wa y o ut ofGary

. A ccor ding to H i ghto w er , who cl ai m s t o have sta yed in the carwh i l e Bar nes went i nto Tayl or ’ s ho use, Ta y l o r came ou t o fthe hous e, go t a bago uto fhi s ca r, a nd gave the b ag t o Barnes. Barnes then gave the bag to Hi g ht o we r . I ns i de the b a g, Hi g ht o we r s a w a Ke l t e c a ut oma t i c r i fl e a n d a b u l l e t p r o o fv e s t
. Hi g h t o we r t o o ka n AK

47 f ro m the carand put i t into the b ag. The next day, Tayl or, Brown , and Arm ste ad travel ed f ro m Garyto Fort W ay n e. Bro w n tes ti fi ed that they dis-N o. 09

- 2262 5 cussed the pl an to st ealthe l oad of d ru gs o n the dri ve. W h e n t h ey arr ive d in F or t W ay n e, th ey sa w B ar n es in hi s ca r a t ani nt er se ct i o n a nd f o l l o w ed h im t o the Kni g ht s I nn. Af te r meet i ngBa r ne s atthe K ni g ht s I nn, T ay lor, B ro w n, an d A rm st ea d w en t t o v isitT ay lor’ s u n c le at th e nea rby A p p lebee ’s. Several hou rs l ater, Taylor, Br o wn, a nd Ar m st ea d r etur ne d t o the K ni g ht s I nn an d j o i ne d a meet i ngw i thA g en t Le ss ne r, H i g ht o wer, Al ex an der, a nd Ba r ne s i n o ne o fthe ho te lr o o m s. The g o ve r nm en t in tr od u c ed a vid eo ta p e o f th is m ee tin g a t t ria l. Du ring the m eet i ng, A gent Lessner disc ussed the l ogi sti cs ofthe shi pm ent a n d h ow they woul d carry o ut the hei st, but st op ped shorto fm enti oni ng the speci fi c am ount o f d ru gs that w oul d be invol ved. I n re sponse to a quest i on f ro m A l exander, A gent Lessnerdi d tel l the gr oup that th e d r u g s wo u l d b e i n th e fu e l t a n k a n d d e s c r ib e d t he fue l t an ka s th e si ze of th e dr es se r i n the r o o m . The me e t i n gl a s t e d th i r t y m i nut e s . T h e v i d e o t a p e s h o ws T aylor si tt i ngo n the b ed an d pa r ti ci pat i ngi n the m eet in g on three o ccasi ons: he c om m ented o n the type of tr uck that would be i nvol ved; he info rm ed Barnes that Y ou n gstown was i n Ohio ; and he descr ibed a perso n w h o w ou l d be inv olv ed in t h e h eis t a n d h ow h e w ou ld b e a r med

. On the m or n in g of M ay 5, 20 06, A gent Lessnercal l ed Barne s t o t el l hi m e ve r y th i ngwas r ea dy. Ba r ne s to o kthe ba gwi ththe b ul l et pr o o fv es ts a nd guns . Ba r ne s an d H i ghto w err ode with A gent L es snerto the sto ra ge f acilit y to pi ck up the van that they were pl anni ng to use i n the h e i s t
. T a y l o r dr o v e b e hind Ag e ntLe s s ne r ’ s car wi thArmst ea d a nd Br o wn. Onc e th eya rri ved atthe6 N o. 09

- 2262
st o r ag e f ac i l i ty, the g r o up w as ar r es te d. The a r r es ting offi cer s found a . 40- cal iberhandgun and thr ee ad d itional l oad ed m agaz ines on Tay lor.

B . P roc ed u ral H is tory On Septe m be r 1 8, 2 00 7, Ba r ne s, Armst ea d, Br o wn, a nd Taylo r proce eded to tr i al

. A l exander a nd H i ghto w er p lea d ed g u i l t y p rior to Sep te m b er of 20 07 . E ar ly in the S eptem ber20 07 tr i al, A rm ste ad, Brow n, and Tayl or m ove d fo r a m ist ri alwh en Barne s a gr eed to te sti fy o n thei r behal f

. The co urt gr anted the m i str i aland sev er ed Barnes’ s tr i al f ro m the o therdefendants. Barnes pro ceeded to tr i alal one i n Feb ruar y o f20 08 and w as f ound gui l ty. A rm ste ad and Brow n then p l eaded gui l ty, and i n A pri l o f 20 08 , Ta y l o r pr o ceede d t o t r i ala s th e o nl y r emai ni ng defe nd ant. A rm ste ad , B ro w n, and H i ghto w erte sti fi ed agains t Ta ylor at his trial

. Ba rne s t e s tified on Tay lor’ s be ha l f

. Ba r ne s den i ed ev ert al k i ngt o Ta y l o r abo utthe hei st bef or e M ay 4, 2006 and cla i m ed i t was a coinci dence that they ra n i nto each o th er i n Fo rtW ayne on M ay 3, 2006

. The j ury f ound Tayl orgui l ty. I n Octobe r of20 08, Tayl orfi l ed a m oti on f or a new tri al bas ed on a p ost-s e n ten cing sta tem en t of A lexan d er, an d the n fil ed a n amende d m o ti o n b as ed o n a po st
- se ntenci ng st ate m ent o fBro w n . A l exander c l ai m ed that T ay lor d id n otkn ow ab ou t t h e c on sp ira c y a n d w as on ly i n F o r t W ayne to v i si t hi s unc l e. Br o wn cl ai m ed th athe ple aded gui l ty and test ified a gainst Tay l oro ut o ffearo f a l i fe s entence , but that he and Tayl or h ad neve r spoke n of t h e d ru g h eis t. T h e d ist ric t c ou rtd en ied th e m ot i o n . InN o. 09

- 2262 7

rej ecting Alexander’ s s tat em ent, the d i str i ct c ourtr easone d that a l l o fthe i nfo rm ati on in A l exander’ s stat em en t w as info rm at ion k n ow n to T ay lor p rior to tria l, an d th er efo re w as n otn ew ly d isc ov e r e d ev id en c e. A d d iti onal l y, the dist ri ct c ourtf ound that Ale xand er’ s s tat em en t w as w ea k e x c u lp at o r y ev id en c e b ec au se it d ire c tly con trad icted A lexan d er’s plea coll oqu y. T he district cou rt rej ecte d t he m oti on ba sed o n Brown’s a ffi davi t be cause i t was notr eas onablywellsa ti sfi ed that Brown ’ s t ri al tes ti m ony w as f al se. On M ay 4, 20 09, t h e d i str i ct c ourtse ntenced Tayl orto 18 8 m o nths f o r the c o ns pi r ac y c ha r g e an d s i xty months f orthe gun charg e. Tayl or w as the l asto fthe co- conspi ra t o r s t o b e s e n t e n c e d

. T a y l o r ’ s p r e - s e n t e n c e r e p o r tr e c o mm ended that the d ist ric t co urt fi nd thatthe conspi ra cy i nvol ved f or ty ki l ogr am s o fco cai n e. T ayl oro bj ecte d to thi s r eco m m endati on a nd urg ed the cour t t o fi nd that the c onspi ra cy i n vo lved fi ve- to- fi ftee n ki l ogr am s. N otwi t hs t a n d i n gT a y l o r ’ s o bj e c t i o n, th e d i s t r i c tc o u r tma de the f actualfi nd i ng tha t the co nspir acy i n vo lved f or ty k i logram s o fc o ca i ne . The di st r i ctc o ur t ha d m ade the sa m e fi ndi ngo ff o r tyk i l o g r ams whe n s ent en cing Barnes, but had previ ousl y a ccepted st i pu l ati ons that the c onspi ra cy i nvol ved onl y fi ve- to- fifteen ki l ogr am s o f co ca i ne whens en te nc i ngAl ex an der, Hi g ht o wer, Br o wn, an d Armst ea d

. T he f ac tu alde te r m i na ti o n tha t th e co nspi ra cy i nvolv ed f or ty ki l ogr am s r esul ted i n a b ase offen se lev elo f34

. W i th a tw o- poi nt enhancem ent no t c h al l enged i n thi s a pp eal, Tayl or ’ s o ffense l eve l was 36, w hi ch r esul ted i n an advisor y gu i del i ne r ange of18 8 t o 23 5 m onths

. Had the di st r i ctc o ur t f o und tha t th e co n-8 N o. 09

- 2262 sp iracy i nv olved five-to- fi fteen ki logram s, th e ad visory gui del i ne r ange w oul d have be en 15 1 t o 188 m onths.

I I . Discussi on A. Suf f i c i e nc yoft he Ev i de nc e f o rt he C o ns pi r a c yC o unt Ta ylo r c ha l l en g es hi s co nv i ct i o n, c l ai m i ngtha t th e gov er nm ent pr ese nted i nsuffi ci ent e vi dence to pro ve beyo nd a re aso nabl e doubt that he co nspir ed w i th Barne s, H i ghto w er , A l exander, A rm ste ad, and Brown to pos ses s w i th int en t to dist ribute m or e than fi ve ki l ogr am s o f coca i ne. W hen ass ess i ng a suffi ci ency ofthe evi dence cl ai m, o u r th r e s h o l d i n q u i r y i s wh e th e r, “ a ft e r v i e wi ng th e ev i den ce i n th e l i g ht m o st f av o r ab l e to th e pro se cuti o n, a ny r at i o na l t r i ero f f ac t co ul d ha ve f o und the e ss en tia l elem en ts of th e c rim e b ey on d a r e a so n ab le d ou b t.” U nite d State s v. C urt is , 32 4 F

. 3d 501, 50 5 (7th C i r. 20 03) (i nt erna l c i ta ti o ns o m i tt ed)

. W e do no t r e- wei g h the ev id en c e o r d e t e r m in e t h e c re d ibilit y of w itn es se s. U nited Sta tes v. Lo ng street, 5 6 7 F

. 3 d 9 1 1 , 9 1 8 ( 7 th C i r . 2 0 0 9 )

. To co nv i cta de fen dan t o fc o ns pi r ac y t o po ss es s wi thi nt en t to di st r ibut e co ca i ne under2 1 U. S

. C. § 8 46 , the g o ve r nm en t m us t es tabl i sh : ( 1) the e xi st en ce o fa n a g r ee m en t between two orm or e per sons to posse ss w i th i n tent to di st r ibut e coca i ne ; ( 2) tha t th e defen dan t k ne w ofthe ag r ee m en t; a nd ( 3) the de fen dan t i nt en ded to j o i n the ag re em ent. Se eU ni t e d S t at e s v. Bil l ops , 4 3 F

. 3 d 2 8 1 , 2 84 ( 7th Ci r. 19 94)

. “[ M ] er e a sso ci ati on with conspi ra tor s, k no wl edg e o fa c o ns p iracy a nd pr es en ce dur i ngc o nspi ra tor i al di scussi ons i s no t s uffi ci ent t o convi ct aN o. 09

- 2262 9 perso n ofco nspir acy. ” U ni t e d St at e s v. Us e ni, 516 F. 3d 634, 646 (7th Cir. 2008). Tayl orar gues that the gov er nm ent pr ese nted such l i m i ted and unrel i abl e e vi dence thatno re aso nabl e j uror co ul d ha ve f o und h im g ui l tyo fb eingi nv o l ve d i n the c o n s p i r a c y b e y o n d a r e a s o n ab l e d o u b t
. T a y l o r c l a i ms that he was onl y in Fo rtW ayne to vi si t hi s uncl e, that he h a d n o k n o wl e d g e o f th e p l a n t o s t e a l th e d r u g s hi pm ent unti l the m eet i ng atthe K ni ghts Inn o n M ay 4, 20 06 , a nd tha t he w as m er ely pr es en t f o r tha t m ee ting butdi d no t par ti ci pat e. To s uppo r t hi s claim o fno nin vo lve m en t in th e c on sp ira c y, T ay lor p oin ts to h is m in im ali nv o l ve m en t i n the meet i nga t th e Kni g ht s I nn an d th e u n c on te st ed fac t t h at h e n ev er sp o k e t o th e c on fiden ti ali nformant

. To c o unt erthe t es ti m o ny o fHi g htower, A rm ste ad , a nd Bro w n, al l o fwh om te sti fi ed that Tayl orpart i ci pated i n p l anni ng the hei st, Tayl orar gues th at th eir testim ony w as in c ons istent and therefore w e s h ou ld n otcr ed it it. T h e in c on sis te n c ies in t h eir te st im ony gener al l y r el ate to wh etherBa rn es and H i ghto w er r ec ei ve d g uns f r o m Tay l o r on M ay3, 20 06

. A r m st ea d a nd H i g ht o we r t e s t i fi e d c o ns i s t e nt l y o n the mai n i s s ue , that B ar nes r ecei ved the guns fro m Tayl oro n M ay 3, 20 06, butde vi at ed o n who r et r i eved th e g uns a nd whe r e th e guns were or i gi nal l y l oca ted. Barnes co m p let ely denie d receiving gu ns from Tay lor. A lth ou gh T ay lor’ s a rg u m en ts m ay h av e b ee n va lid ar g ume nt s t o pu t b e f o r e a j ur y, the y a r e no t enough t o s up po r ta s uf f i ci enc y o fthe e v i de nc e c ha l l e ng e o n a ppeal

. The go ver nm ent put for th ev i dence that Tayl or10 N o. 09

- 2262 acti vel y par ti ci pated i n the conspi ra cy and eve n re crui ted othe r i nd i vi du al s t o the c onspi ra cy. H i ghto w erte stifi ed th at h e s aw T ay l o r g i v e B ar n es gu n s, th at T ay lor p ar tic ip at ed in a con ve rs at ion ab ou t ho w th re e pe op le w o u ld use tw o ve st s, an d that Tay l orsho w ed up at the hot el w i th a

. 40- cal iberhan d gu n , three m aga zi nes a nd f or tysix r o un d s of am m un iti on. Brow n, w ho trav eled to Fort W ayne at the urging of Tayl or, tes ti fi ed th at Tayl or kn ew abou t the plan ne d dru g hei s t a n d traveled to Fort W ayne to parti ci pate. A rm ste ad tes ti fi ed t h at Tayl or re crui ted hi m to the conspi ra cy and that h e knew they wer e tr av el ing t o F o r t W ay ne t o pa r ti ci pat e i n a dr ug h eis t. T h e go ve rn m en t a lso p re se n te d an au d iot ap e in w hi c h Barnes sai d that he had re crui ted an ind i vi du al na m ed “MacMel, ” a k no wn nicknam e f o r Ta y l o r, a nd a vi deotape ofTayl orpart i ci pati ng i n the m eet i ng at th e K nigh t’s Inn on M ay 4, 2006

. A lth o ug h T aylor charac te riz es h is p ar tic ip a t ion atth at m ee tin g a s m in im al, th e ju r or s h ad an ad eq u at e o p p or tu n ity to as se ss h is i nvolve m ent in the m eet i ng f orthem sel ves. Fur ther m or e, Ta y l o r c onc ede s th athe r es po nde d t o que st i o ns a nd as ke d qu es tio n s d u rin g t h e m ee tin g . T ay lor e ss en tia lly as ks us to fi nd thatthe go ver nm ent’ s e vi dence w as not cr edible

. Howev er, tha t i s no t th e r o l e o fthi s Cou r t. The gover nm en t putf o r ths uffi ci en t ev i den ce o fTa y l o r ’s i nvol vem ent in t he co nspir acy. I t was the j ury’ s r ol e t o ass ess the cre dibi l i ty ofthatev i dence.

B. M ot i on f ora N ew Tr i al N ext, Tayl orco ntends thatthe dist ri ct c ourter re d by deny i ng hi s mot i o n f o r a ne w t r i a l b a s e d o n ne wl y di s-N o. 09

- 2262 11

cove re d evi dence. The pi eces o fnewly disc o v e r e d e vi dence Ta y l o r r efer s to ar e a st at ement by Ale xa nde r, stating tha tT a y l o r wa s n o ti nv o l v e d in the c o ns pi r a c y, a nd a sta tem ent b y Bro w n, cl ai m i ng tha t Tay l or di d not hav e any know l edge o fthe conspi ra cy. W e r evi ew a dist ri ct cour t’ s d en ialo fa m oti on f ora new tr i alusi ng an ab u se of d isc re tio n st an d ar d

. U nite d State s v. Lewis , 56 7 F

. 3d 32 2, 3 28 ( 7th Ci r . 2 00 9)

. The t es t we a ppl y whenc o nsid er in g n ew ev id en c e n otco n sid er ed attria l is sligh tly d iffer en t fro m th e t es t w e a p p ly w h en co n sid er in g e vidence pro vi ng tha t t est i m ony at tr i alwas f al se. There f or e, w e wil l ta ke the di st ric t court ’ s co nsi derat i on o fea ch st at ementi n tur n. A l exander s i gned an a ffi davi t e xculpating Tay l or afte r he r ec ei ve d the b en efi t o fhi s p lea ag r ee m en t ats en tenci ng. A l exander c l ai m s that Taylor had nothi ng to d o w i th the pla n to ste al the drugs, that Tayl or w as on ly in F o rtW ay n e t o v isith is u n c le, an d th at T ay lor fe ll asl eep duri ng the m eet i ng atthe K ni ghts I nn. N ei ther the g ove rnm ent no r Tayl orcal led A l exander a s a witness at tr i al

. To det er m i ne wh ether t hi s i s new evi dence such thati t warr ants a new tr i al, we m ust co nsi der w hethe r i t : ( 1 ) c a me t o T a y l o r ’ s kno wl e dg e o nl y a fter tr i al ; ( 2) co uld nothave b een disco ver ed so onerhad Tayl orexer ci sed due dil i gence ; ( 3) i s m ate ria l and not m er el y i m peachi ng and cum ula ti ve; and ( 4) would prob ab ly lea d to an ac q u itt al in t h e e ve n t o f a re tr ial. See U nited Sta tes v. B end er, 539 F. 3d 449, 455-56 ( 7 t h C ir. 20 08 ). A lex an d er ’s s t a t e m en t d oe s n otqu alify as n ew ly disc ove re d evi dence to warra nt a new tr i al. Tayl orwas aw ar e of hi s own i nvol vem ent i n the conspi ra cy, or lack12 N o. 09

- 2262 th er eo f, fr o m the b eg i nni ngand c ou l d ha ve c al l ed Ale xan d er to testify on his beh alf at trial

. T aylor of fers n o re as on w h y h e d id n otca ll A lex an d er as a w itn es s. In th e ab s e n c e o fa n o th e r e x p l a n a t i o n, w e ma y a s s u me that Taylor did not cal l A l exander t o tes ti fy b ecause A l exander e xpresse d an unw i l l i ngness to tes ti fy, o r an u n w illing n es s t o t e s t i fy in a w ay th at w ou ld be n efit Tayl or . H ow ev er , that doe s no t m ake the f acts to wh i ch A lex an d er w ou ld h av e t es tifie d n ew ly d isc ov er ed ev iden ce . Ta y l o r a l so o ffer s no c l ea r a r g um en t demonst ra tin g t h a t t h is t es tim on y w ou ld lea d to an ac q u itt al in th e f a c e o ft h e t e s t i mo n y o fAr ms t e a d a n d Hi g h t o we r ( we d o n otco n sid er B ro w n ’s t es tim on y in th is a n aly sis b ec a u s e h e h as rec an te d ). A lex an d er ’s t es tim on y w ou ld have cor robor ate d Bar nes’ s tes ti m ony, but the j ury ch ose to disr ega rd Barnes ’ s t est i m ony because o f its i nter nal i nc o ns i st en ci es a nd i ts i nc o nsi st en ci es wi ththe t es ti m o ny o fthe o th erwi tn es se s a nd the ph y si ca l e vi den ce . Al ex an d er w ou ld n oth av e m ad e a m u c h m or e b elie va b le w itn es s t h an B ar n es . I f A lex an d er te st i f i ed ata n ew tria l, hi s t est i m ony w oul d dir ectly c ontr adic t hi s pl ea co l l o quy, whi chthe g o ve r nm en t ce r ta i nl y woul d b r i ng o uto n cros s- ex ami na ti o n. I t al so woul d b e i nc o ns i st en t w i th the o therte sti m ony and the p h ys ical evi dence. For these re aso ns, the dist ri ct cour t did not a b u se i ts di sc r et i o n in de te r m i ni ngtha t Ale xa nde r ’ s st at ement d oe s n otm ee t t h e re q u ire m en ts to w ar ra n t a n ew tria l. U nl i ke A lexand er, Bro w n did te sti fy a gainst Tay l orat hi s t ri al

. Bro w n’s affi davi t no w r ecants thatte sti m ony. Because thi s new ev id en ce deal s with al l ege dlyf al se testim ony at tri al, w e m us t con side r w h eth er: ( 1) w e areN o. 09

- 2262 13

re aso nabl y wel l sa ti sfied thatthe tes ti m ony gi ven by B ro w n at tr i alwas f al se; ( 2) the j ury m i ght ha ve re ached a d iffer en t c on c lu sio n ab se n t t h e fa lse te st im on y or if it had known Bro w n’s te sti m ony w as f al se; and ( 3) Tayl or w as tak en by surpri se w hen the f al se tes ti m ony was gi ven, and was unabl e to m eet i t or did not kn ow its fals ity u n til a f t e r th e t ria l. See U nited Sta tes v. B end er, 539 F. 3d 449, 45 6 ( 7th Ci r. 20 08)

. B ro w n ’s state m ent that Tayl orhad no knowle dge o fthe pla n to st ealdrugs d o e s n o t m eet th e fi rst p rong of the an alysis. Brow n’s tr i alte sti m ony w as consi ste nt with the t est i m ony of two o th erwi tn es se s, the vi deo ta pe o fthe meet i ng, a nd the

. 40

- ca l iberha ndg un fo und o n Ta y l o r . Hi s ne w st at ement contr adic ts al l o fthes e co rr obo ra ted pi eces o fev i dence. Br o wn’ s st ate m en t al so do es no t m ee t th e th i r d pr o ng ofthe anal ysi s. IfB ro w n’s tri altesti m ony w as f al se, Tayl or w oul d have kno w n that i t was f al se at the t i m e o ftr i al be ca us e th e te st i m o ny Br own no w re ca nt s dea l t ex c lu siv ely w ith T ay lor’ s k n ow led ge of an d in v o l ve m en t in the c o ns pi r a c y . Ta y l o r ha d a mpl e o pp o r t un i t y t o r efute the t est i m on y thro ugh cr oss - exam i nati on. Fo r these reas ons, the dist ri ct c ourtdi d not abuse i ts disc re ti on i n deter m i ni ng tha t B ro w n’s new stat em ent doe s no t m eetthe re quir em ents f or newlydi sco ver ed evi dence to w ar ra n t a n ew tria l.

C. S e nt e nc i ng Lastl y, Tayl orar gues that the di st ric t c ourter re d i n i ts deter m i nati on that the am ount o fco cai ne at tr ib u ta bl e t o th e co ns pi r ac y was for tyk i l o g r ams whe n c al cul at i ngthe14 N o. 09

- 2262

a p p r o p r i a t e s e n t e n c i n gg ui del i n e r a n g e . We r e v i e w a dist ri ct c ourt ’ s f actualfi nd i ng r ega rdi ng drug quan ti ty for cle ar err or . U nited Sta tes v. C la rk, 53 8 F

. 3d 803, 81 2 ( 7th Ci r. 20 08)

. The go ver nm ent has the burden o f provin g t h e q u an tit y of d ru gs at tr ibu ta b le t o th e d efe n d ant. U ni t e d S t at e s v. Kr as i ns ki, 545 F.3d 546 , 551 (7th C ir. 2008). The evi dence on w hi ch the dist ri ct c ourtr el i es m ust have “suffi ci en t indici a o fr el i abi l i ty to supp or t i ts probabl e a ccurac y. ” U nite d State s v. B autis ta , 532 F

. 3d 667, 672 (7th Cir. 2008). A s a n init ial m at te r, th e g ov er n m en t a rg u es t h a t th is se nt en ce i s no t r ev i ewabl e be ca us e i t f al ls w ithin the low er gu id elin e ra n ge th at T ay lor a d vo c at es sh ou ld ap ply

. H owever, a dist ri ct c ourt ’ s deci si on t o sente nce a defendant w i thi n the ove rl ap oftwo gui del i ne r an ges d o e s n o ta u t o ma t i c a l l y i n s u l a t e a s e n t e nc e fr o m r e v i e w. E m ezu o v. U nited Sta tes , 357 F.3d 702 , 710-11 (7th C ir. 2004). On l y whe n i t i s c l e a r f r o m the s e nt e nc i ng r e c o r d that the di str i ct c ourtwould have appli ed the sam e s entence eve n i fthe l ower r ange appli ed w i l l w e d ecl i ne to re vi e w a se n te n c e. Id. The go ver nm ent points t o no s tat em en ts in the record that i nd icate th at th e d istri ct cou rt w oul d h ave gi ven the sa m e s entence had i t s tar ted with th e l ow er r an g e. The r efo r e, we wi l l pr o ce ed to the re vi ew o fthe dist ri ct c ourt ’ s f actualdeter m i nati ons in com ing to this sen ten ce for cl ear error. To s uppo r t th e di st r i ctc o ur t’ s fi ndi ngtha t the c o nspi r ac y i nv o l ve d f o r tyk i l o g r ams o fc o ca i ne , the g o ve r nm ent points t o seve ra l ke y pi eces o fev i dence on w hi ch the di str i ct c ourt r elied. Fi rs t, A gent Lessnerte sti fi edN o. 09

- 2262 15 that he to l d al l the parti es in the hote l r oo m m eet i ng, i ncl ud i ng Tayl or, thatthe coca i ne would be i n th e fuel ta nko fthe truc k, whi chhe c o m par ed to a dr es se r i n the ro om rou gh ly lar ge en ou gh to h o l d f o rt y k ilog ra m s. T h is tes ti m ony w as al so supp or ted by t h e vi deotape of th atmeet i ng . T ayl o r a r g ue s th atthi s i s no t su ffi ci en t evi dence to support the fi nd i ng o ff or ty kilogr am s be

c au se A ge n t L e s s n er on ly sa id th at th e d ru gs w ou ld fit in th e fu el t an k, bu t d id n ots a y t h a t th e d ru gs w ou ld fi l l the fue l t an k. Th e g o ve r nm en t al so po i nt s to the tes ti m ony ofA rm ste ad and H i ghto w er . A rm st ead , Tayl or ’ s r ecr uitto the endeavor, te sti fied thathe b el i eve d the quanti ty ofdrugs i nvol ved w as f or ty ki l ogr am s when he ag re ed to p ar ti ci pate. H i ghto w erte sti fi ed that Barnes tol d him thatthe hei st i nvol ved fi fty ki l ogr am s o fco cai ne. W hi l e th i s r ec o r d t o s uppo r t th e f ac tu al find i ngtha t th e c on sp ira c y in vo lve d fort y k ilo g ra m s o f co c ain e is th in, i t w oul d probably b e e nou gh to support such a f actual fin d i n g . H ow ev er , th is c as e p re se n ts an ad d itio n al c h all enge. This c onspi ra cy i nvol ved si x co- conspi ra tor s. Fo ur o f th e c o-c o n s p i ra to rs p lea d ed gu ilty be for e g oin g t o t ria l. B arn es an d Tay lor d id n ot p lead guilty. T h e d is trict court di d no t se nt en ce any ofthe de fen dan ts unt i l a fte r the trial s of B arn es an d Tay lor. Th erefore, the d istri ct cou rt ha d t he exac t sam e factu al r ecord before i t w ith regard to the a m ou n t ofdrugs i nvol ved i n the conspi ra cy w hen sente nci ng al l of the defe nd ants. The ple a agr eem ents ofthe f our coo perat i ng co - conspi ra tor s s ti pu l ate d th a tth e c o n s p i r a c y i n v o l v e d fi v e - t o - fi ft e e n k i l o g r a ms ofco cai ne. H ad the di str i ct c ou rt found that the e vi dence16 N o. 09

- 2262 in the re cor d di d no t supp or t thi s f actual sti pu l ati on , i t ha d th e au th o r i tyt o r ej ec t th e st i pul at i o n a t se nt en cing and m ake a f ac tu al fi nd i ng co nsi ste nt with the e vi dence. U. S

. S

. G. § 6 B1. 4( d)

. The di st r i ctc o ur t di d not d o thi s. The di st r i ctc o ur t ac ce pte d thi s f ac tu als ti pul at io n a nd s en te nced th es e f o urc o - co ns pi r at o r s o n the fi ndi ngtha t th e conspi ra cy i nvol ved fi ve- to- fi ftee n ki l ogr am s o fco cai ne. T he n, at the sen ten cing h earings for Barn es an d Tay lor, the di str i ct c ourtf ound that the co nspir acy i nv olv ed f or ty k i l o g r a ms o fc o c a i ne . T he di s t r i c tc o ur tdi d no t ex pl ain the di sc r epa ncy i n i ts f ac tu alfi ndi ng s r eg ar di ng the dr ugqua nt i tya m o ngthe c o - defen dan ts
. Ra th er, at B ar n es ’s s en te n c in g h ea rin g, th e d i s t ric t e x p licit ly st at ed th at th er e w as n o re as on to tre at B ar n es d iffer en tly f ro m hi s co - conspi ra tor s wit h re gar d to the a m ount o f drugs invol ved i n the conspi ra cy, but th en pro ceeded to fi nd a d i ffer en t qua nt i tyo fdr ug s. Ta y l o r ’ s se nt en cing re cor d i s s i len t on t he i ssue ofhow he shoul d be t re ate d wi thr eg ar d t o dr ugqua nt i ty i n r el at i o n t o hi s co - defen dants. A s the cour t disc ussed w i th re gar d t o B ar n es in U ni t e d S ta tes v. B a rnes , 09

- 2052 , witho ut a j usti fi cati on for t r eating thes e co-d efend an ts d ifferently w he n d eterm i ni ngthe a m o unto fdr ug s at tr ibut ab l e to the c o nspi r ac y, i t was c l ea r e r r o r f o r the di st r i ctc o ur t to fi nd o ne dr u g q u a n t i t y f o r Ar ms t e a d , Hi g h t o we r, B r o wn, a nd A l exander, an d a differ ent dr ug quanti ty f orTayl oro n a n i de nt i c a l r e c o r d.

I I I . Concl usio n Forthe re aso ns se t for th abo ve, we A FFIRM T a y lor’ s convi cti on a nd the dist rict c ou rt ’ s deni alo fthe m oti onN o. 09

- 2262 17 for a new tr i al

. W e V ACATE T a y l o r ’ s s e n t e n ce a nd R EMA ND f orr e- sente nci ng.

4- 8- 10