# U ni te d S ta te s Co ur t of A pp ea ls

For the Eig hth Circu it

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ _

No. 1 5- 13 74

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ _

Uni te d S ta te s o f Am eri ca

ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll l Pla in ti

ff - App el le e

v.

Dem et riu s C ol be rt, a ls o k no wn as D-Co op

ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll l Defe nd

an t - Ap pe ll an t

__ __ __ __ __ __
App eal fro m

Uni te d S ta te s Di st ric t Co ur t
fo r th e Eas te rn Dis tri ct of Ark an sa s - Li tt le Ro ck

__ __ __ __ __ __

Su bm it te d: Jan ua ry

14 , 20 16
Fil ed : J ul y

8, 2 01 6

__ __ __ __ __ __

Befo re WOL LMAN, MELLOY, and COLLOTON, Cir cu it Ju dg es

.

__ __ __ __ __ __

W OLLMAN, Circ ui t J ud ge

.Dem et riu s Co lb ert ap pe al s fro m hi s co nv ic ti on on se ve ral dr ug -tr affi ck in g an d

fir earm -rel at ed ch arg es a n d f r o m th e se nt en ce im

po se d by th e di st ric t co ur t. W e 1

affi rm

. 2

I.

Co lb ert ’s c on vi ct io n was on e o f m an y res ul ti ng fro m Ope rat io n Delt a Bl ue s,

a m ul ti -y ear, m

ul ti -ag en cy dr ug -tr affi ck in g an d pu bl ic -co r r u p t io n in ve st ig at io n

co nd uc te d by th e F e d eral Bu reau of In ve st ig at io n (FBI ), th e Dru g Enfo rcem en t

Adm in i s t rat io n, th e In te rn al Rev en ue Serv ic e, th e Bu reau of Alco ho l Tob acco an d

Fi rear m s, and th e cri m in al -in ve st ig at io n di vi si on of th e Ark an sa s St at e Po li ce. The

in ve st ig at io n res ul te d in m or e th an se ve nt y arre st s, whi ch in cl ud ed th os e of of fic ers

in th e H e l e n a

- We st Hele na Po li ce Dep art m en ts an d th e Ph il li ps Co un ty Sh eri ff’s

Offi ce.

In ear l y 2 0 1 1

, co ur t-o rd ered wire ta ps on ph on es us ed by Sed ric k Tric e an d

Leo n Ed ward s, al on g wi th in fo rm at io n p ro vi de d by a co nf id en ti al wit ne ss rev eal ed

th at Co lb ert was a la rg e-s cal e co cai ne di st rib ut er in Mar ia nn a an d Hele na -West

Hele na , Ar ka ns a s

. B a se d on th at in fo rm at io n, on Apr il 12 , 2 01 1, th e FBI ob ta in ed

a co ur t or de r gr an ti ng a wire ta p fo r a th irt y -d ay pe rio d on a cel l ph on e th at th e FBI

be li ev ed was pr im ari ly us ed by Co lb ert

. The FBI ob ta in ed co ur t au th or iz at io n fo r a

th irt y -d ay ex te ns io n of the wire ta p beg in ni ng on May 12

, 20 11

. The wire ta p en de d

on Ju ne 10 th or 11 th

, by whi ch ti m e th e FBI ha d in t erce pt ed m or e th an 7,0 00 cal ls

mad e o r rece iv ed by Co lb ert ’s cel l ph on e, ap pr ox im at el y 71 0 of whi ch th e FB I

de te rm in ed were re la te d t o c riminal act iv it y

.

The Hon or ab le Ja m es M. Mo od y , Jr

., Uni te d St at es Dis tri ct J u d g e f or th e 1

East ern Dis tri ct of Ark an sa s.

W e gr an t Co lb ert ’s m ot io n fo r pe rm is si on to fil e a pr o se su pp le m en ta l br ie f. 2

-2

-A gr an d j ur y re tur ne d a se ve nt een -co un t in di ct m en t ch arg in g Co lb ert an d se ve n

ot he r s o n O c t o b e r 4, 20 11

. An arre st warra nt was is su ed fo r Co lb ert th e fo ll owi ng

da y

. The go ve rn m en t ob ta in ed a se arch warra nt on Oc t o b e r 6, 20 11

, fo r Co lb ert ’s

ho m e lo cat ed on Hil lc res t St reet in Mar ia nn a, Ark an sa s (th e Hil lc res t St reet ho us e).

The se arch warra nt pe rm it te d la w en fo rcem en t of fic e r s t o se arch th e res id en ce fo r

ev id en ce of m on ey la un de rin g an d to ex ecu te th e se arch warr a n t at an y ti m e of th e

da y or n ig ht

.

The FBI’s Sp eci al We a p o n s an d Tact ic s (SWAT ) te am ex ecu te d th e warra nt

at 4: 00 a.m . o n Octo be r 11

, 2 0 1 1

. Co lb ert was in th e ho us e at th e ti m e, al on g wit h

hi s lo ng -ti m e gi rlf

rie nd Cat in a Dav is an d th ei r two ch il dr en

. The twel ve -m em be r

SWA T te am arri ve d at th e Hil lc res t St reet ho us e in two SUVs an d was acco m pa ni ed
by a st at e tro op er. Upo n arri vi ng at th e ho us e, th e st at e tro op er il lu m in at ed hi s sq ua d

car’s bl ue ov erh ead li gh ts

, whi ch he di rect ed at th e fro nt of th e ho us e in or de r to al ert

an y on e in si de to th e FBI’s pr es e n c e

. Tw o SWA T-te am m em be rs act ed as

“ br each ers ,” who were res po ns ib le fo r po si ti on in g th em se lv es ou ts id e th e fro nt do or

on th e le ft- a nd rig ht -h an d si de s, an no un ci ng th e FBI’s pr es en ce, an d, if ne ces sa ry , fo rci ng th e do or op en wit h a ha nd -h el d ba tt eri ng ram

. Afte r th e te am was po si ti on ed

, FBI Age nt W en de ll Co se nz a, th e br each er po si ti on ed to th e r i g h t of th e do or , kn oc ke d lo ud ly on th e fro nt do or wit h hi s ex te nd ab le ba t o n a n d a nn ou nc ed

, “ FBI,

warra nt

, co m e to th e do or .” He rep eat ed th e kn oc k- an d- an no un ce se qu en ce two m or e

ti m es , pa us in g br ie fly each ti m e, wit h th e en ti re pr oc es s ta ki ng le ss th an on e m in ut e.

The te am le ad er th en in st ru ct ed th e ot he r br each er to “ hi t it ” an d br each th e fro nt do or

wit h t he ba tt eri ng ram

.

Im m ed ia te ly be fo re th e ba tt eri ng ram s tru ck th e fro nt do or , a sh ot was fir ed

fro m wit hi n th e ho us e, fo ll owe d by at le as t se ve n m or e sh ot s in rap id su cces si on aft er

t h e d o o r w a s br each ed

. Afte r th e fro nt do or was fo rced op en , an ag en t th rew a

fla sh ba ng gr en ad e in to th e ho us e, th e te am le ad er is su ed a “ co ve r up ” co m m an d, an d

th e te am ret reat ed to co ve red po si ti on s. Dur in g th e sh oo ti ng , two FBI ag en ts ret ur ne d

-3

-fir e in to th e ho us e. One ag en t fir ed th ree sh ot s th ro ug h th e fro nt win do w of th e ho us e

in to th e li vi ng ro om , to ward whe re th e fi r s t sh ot s or ig in at ed

, an d m om en ts la te r

an ot he r ag en t fir ed two sh ot s th ro ug h a be dr oo m win do w, lo cat ed to th e le ft of th e

f r o n t d o o r , aft er th e ag en t ob se rv ed a gu n in th e win do w. One of th e bu ll et s fi r e d

fro m in si de th e ho us e st ru ck Age nt Co se nz a in th e l e g

. A f t e r th e FBI ag en ts to ok

co ve r, th ey or de red th os e in th e ho us e to su rren de r. App ro xi m at el y on e or two

m in ut es la te r, Dav is su rren de red to th e FB I ’s c u s t od y , fo ll owe d by Co lb ert

a p p r o x i m at el y on e or two m in ut es aft er Dav is ’s su rren de r. Team m em be rs th e n

se cu red th e h ou se an d b ro ug ht Co lb ert ’s chi ld ren ou t o f th e h ou se

.

Dur in g th e su bs eq ue nt se arch of th e ho us e, FBI ag en ts reco ve red $4 23 ,31 3 in

cas h hi dd en th ro ug ho ut th e h ou se (in cl ud in g $ 13 9,6 73 fou nd in two ba gs th at were

lo cat ed in th e tru nk of Co lb ert ’s 19 71 Ol d s mo b i l e Cu tl as s)

, a .40 cal ib er ha nd gu n

wit h an em

pt y m ag azi ne fro m th e to p of th e va ni ty in th e mas t e r b at hr oo m , em pt y pl as ti c ba gs co nt ai ni ng co cai ne res id ue fro m th e to il et in th e m as te r ba th ro om , di gi ta l

sc al es co nt ai ni ng co cai ne res id ue fro m th e m as te r ba th ro om an d th e ga rag e, se ve ral
pi eces of di am on d jewel ry

wort h a pp ro xi m at el y

$2 6,0 00 , and two of Co lb ert ’s f iv e

cars

.

In a su pe rs ed in g in di ct m en t, a gr an d jury ch arg ed Co lb ert w it h on e co un t of

co ns pi racy to di st rib ut e or po ss es s wit h in te nt to di st rib ut e co cai ne an d co cai ne ba se , in vi ol at io n of 21 U.S.C. §§ 84 6 an d 84 1( b) (1 )(A), an d two co un ts of us e of a

co m m un ic at io ns faci li ty in fu rth eran ce of a dr ug -tr affi ck in g cri m e, in vi ol at io n of 21

U.S.C. § 84 3( b) (co ll ect iv el y th e co ns pi racy ch arg es ). It fu rth er ch arg ed Co lb ert wit h

be in g a fel on in po ss es si on of a fir earm , in vi ol at io n o f 18 U.S.C. §§ 92 2( g) (1 ) an d

92 4( a)(2 )

, w i t h as sa ul ti ng a fed eral of fic er wit h a da ng ero us or de ad ly weap on , in

vi ol at io n of 18 U

. S

. C

. § 11 1( b)

, an d wit h po ss es si on an d di sc ha rg e of a fir earm in

co nn ect io n wit h a dr ug -tr affi ck in g cri m e, in vi ol at io n of 18 U.S.C. § 92 4( c)(1 )(A)(i ii )
(co ll ect iv el y

th e fi rear m -rel at ed ch arg es ).

-4

-Co lb ert fil ed pr et ria l m ot io ns to su pp res s ev id en ce fr om th e wir et ap s an d t he

se arch an d to se ve r th e tri al

. Co lb ert ob jecte d to th e wire ta p ev id en ce on th e gr ou nd

th at th e go ve rn m en t ha d no t m et it s bu rd en un de r 18 U.S.C. § 25 18 (1 )(c) to sh ow th at

a wir et ap was ne ces sa ry

. Co lb ert ob jecte d to th e se arch warran t o n t he gro un d t ha t

th e affi da vi t di d no t es ta bl is h a ne xu s be twee n th e Hil lc res t St reet ho us e an d m on ey

la un d e r i n g ev id en ce. In su pp or t of hi s m ot io n to se ve r, Co lb ert arg ue d th at th e

fir earm -rel at ed off

en se s wer e u nr el at ed to th e d ru g- tra ffi ck in g- rel at ed off en se s.

The go ve rn m en t fil ed a pr et ria l m ot io n to su pp res s te st im on y fro m Mar cu s

Tho m ps on , on e of Co lb ert ’s co -co ns pi rat or s

. Tho m ps on was arre st ed on th e sa m e

da y as Co lb ert by an FBI ho st ag e res cu e te am (HRT) ex ecu ti ng a no -k no ck warra nt

. W he n th e HRT ig ni te d an ex pl os iv e br each in g de vi ce at ta ch ed to Tho m ps on ’s fro nt

do or , Tho m

ps on fir ed se ve ral ro un ds

. Tho m ps on wou ld ha ve te st i f

ie d th at he

be li ev ed so m eo ne was br eak in g in to hi s ho m e to st eal hi s dr ug s an d m on ey

. Co lb ert

arg ue d th at th is te st im on y wou ld de m on st rat e th at he reas on ab ly be li ev ed th at he was

act in g in se lf de fen se whe n he fir ed hi s gu n at th e S WA T t e a m. The go ve rn m en t

ob jecte d to th e te st im on y , a r g u i ng th at it was irr el ev an t be cau se of th e di ffer en t

ta ct ic s u se d b y

th e two tea m s.

The di st ric t co ur t de ni ed Co lb ert ’s m ot io ns an d gr an te d th e go ve rn m en t’s. The

cas e pr oc eed ed to a fiv e-d a y jury tri al

. Befo re th e cas e was su bm it te d to th e jury,

Co lb ert m ov ed fo r a jud gm en t of acq ui tt al on each of th e co un ts ex cep t th e fel on -in

po ss es si on co un t, on whi ch he co nc ed ed hi s gu il t. As rel ev an t he re, Co lb ert arg ue d

th at he was en ti tl ed to a jud gm en t of acq ui tt al on th e co u n t s of as sa ul ti ng a fed eral

of fic er, an d of br an di sh in g an d di sc ha rg in g a fir earm in fu rth eran ce of a fed eral dr ug

tra ffi ck in g of

fen se , be cau se he ha d act ed in se lf de fen se

. The co ur t de ni ed Co lb ert ’s

m ot io n, Co lb ert p r e s en te d no ev id en ce, an d th e jury fo un d hi m gu il ty of al l of th e

ch arg ed off

en se s.

-5

-Co lb ert ’s pr es en te nc e in ve st ig at io n rep or t (PSR ) cal cu la te d th e dr ug qu an ti ty

th at Co lb ert was res po ns ib le fo r to be 20 0 ki lo gr am s of co cai ne an d 21 ki lo gr am s of

crac k co cai ne

. Tha t dr ug qu an ti ty was ba se d on te st im on y fro m Alv in Lon g, Mar cu s

Tho m ps on , an d Leo n Edwar ds

, as well as on th e in te rcep te d te le ph on e co nv ers at io ns

th at were p la y ed at t ria l. Based on th at dr ug qu an ti ty, th e PSR cal cu la te d C ol be rt’s

ba se of fen se le ve l to be 38 fo r th e co ns pi racy, co m m un ic at io ns -fac il it y , an d fel on -in

p o s s e s si on of

fen se s. The PSR ap pl ie d a 2- le ve l en ha nc em en t ba se d on Co lb e r t ’s

pa tt ern of cri m in al co nd uc t, whi ch was Co lb ert ’s so le so ur ce of in co m e, an d a 4- le ve l

en ha nc em en t b as ed on Co lb ert ’s lea de rs hi p ro le in th e o rg an iz at io n, re su lt in g i n a n

ad jus te d of fen se le ve l of 44

. The PSR cal cu la te d Co lb ert ’s of fen se le ve l to be 27 fo r

hi s as sa ul t of

fen se , bu t th at co nv ic ti on di d no t affe ct hi s to ta l of fen se le ve l du e to th e

m ul ti pl e-co un t ad

jus tm en t. Bec au se Co lb ert ’s co m bi ne d of fen se le ve l wa s g reat er

th an th e hi gh es t le ve l pe rm it te d by th e U.S. S e n t e n c i ng Gui de li ne s (U.S.S.G. or

Gui de li ne s)

, th e res ul ti ng to ta l of fen se le ve l was 43

. Bas ed on an of fen se le ve l of 43

an d a cri m in al h i s t o ry cat eg or y of III, th e Gui de li ne s’ ad vi so ry se nt en ce was li fe

im pr is on m en t. Fo r th e of

fen se of br an di sh in g or di sc ha rg in g a fir earm in fu rth eran ce

of a dr ug -tr affi ck in g cri m e, th e Gui de li ne s r e c o m m en de d th e m an da to ry m in im um

se nt en ce o f te n years’ im

pr is on m en t, to be se rv ed co ns ecu ti ve ly t o th e se nt en ce fo r

th e ot he r of

fen se s. The res ul ti ng ad vi so ry Gui de li ne s se nt en ce was li fe

im pr is on m en t, wi th a 10 -y ear c on se cu ti ve sen te nc e to fol lo w.

Co lb ert ob

jecte d to th e PSR’s dr ug -q ua nt it y cal cu la ti on an d to th e ap pl ic at io n

of se ve ral en ha nc em en ts

, in cl ud in g th e 4- le ve l le ad ers hi p- ro le en ha nc em en t. The

di st ric t co ur t reject ed Co lb ert ’s ob jecti on s, ad op te d th e cal cu la ti on s in th e PSR, an d

im po se d a se nt en ce of li fe im pr is on m en t, wit h an ad di ti on al te n y ears ’ im pr is on m en t

to be ser ve d c on se cu ti ve ly.

-6

-II.

Co lb ert ap pe al s hi s co nv ic ti on s, arg ui ng th at th e ev id en ce de riv ed fro m th e

wire ta p an d th e se arch of th e Hil lc res t St reet ho us e sh ou ld ha ve be en su pp res se d, th at

Tho m ps on ’s t es ti m on y a b o u t th e se arch warra nt ex ecu te d at hi s ho us e sh ou ld ha ve

be en ad m it te d, th at th ere was in su ffi ci en t ev id en ce to pr ov e th at he in te nd ed to sh oo t

a fed eral ag en t, an d t ha t t he fir earm -rel at ed ch arg es sh ou ld ha ve be en se ve red fro m

th e co ns pi racy char ge s.

A. The Mo ti on s t o S up pr es s

“ W e rev ie w th e di st ric t co ur t’s fact ua l fin di ng s su pp or ti ng th e de ni al of

[mot io ns ] to su pp res s fo r cl ear erro r an d it s le ga l de te rm in at io ns de no vo .” Uni te d

St at es v. Garc ia -Hern an de z, 68 2 F .3d 76 7, 7 71 (8t h C ir. 2 01 2)

.

1. Th e Wiret ap

Co lb ert arg ue s th at th e wire ta p ev id en ce sh ou ld ha ve be en su pp res se d, be cau se

th e ap pl ic at io n an d affi da vi t us ed to se cu re th e wire ta p fai le d to sa ti sf y th e ne ces si ty

r eq ui rem en t se t fo rth in 18 U.S.C. § 25 18 (1 )(c)

, whi ch pr ov id es th at su ch a n

ap pl ic at io n m

us t in cl ud e “ a fu ll an d co m pl et e st at em en t as to whe th er or no t ot he r

in ve st ig at iv e pr oc ed ur es ha ve be en tri ed an d fai le d or why th ey reas on ab ly ap pe ar to

be un li ke ly t o su ccee d if tri ed o r t o b e to o da ng ero us .” Thi s ne ces si ty req ui rem en t

pr ev en ts th e go ve rn m en t fro m ro ut in el y us in g w ire ta ps “ as th e in it ia l st ep in an

in ve st ig at io n.” Uni te d St at es v. Tho m ps on , 21 0 F.3 d 8 5 5

, 8 5 8

- 59 (8 th Ci r. 20 00 )
(q uo ti ng Uni te d St at es v. Max well , 2 5 F.3 d 13 89 , 1 39 4 (8 th Ci r. 19 94 )). Bu t as we

ha ve rep eat ed ly he ld

, th e ne ces si ty req ui rem en t doe s not m anda te th at th e go ve rn m en t

“ ex ha us t al l po ss ib le t e c hn iq ue s be fo re ap pl y in g fo r a wire ta p.” Uni te d St at es v.

Mac kl in

, 90 2 F

. 2d 13 20

, 13 26 -2 7 (8 th Ci r. 19 90 ) (“ The go ve rn m en t is si m pl y no t

req ui red to us e a wire ta p on ly as a la st res or t.”) ; se e al so Uni te d St at es v. Kah n, 41 5

-7

-U.S. 14 3, 15 3 n.1 2 (1 97 4) (n ot in g th at th e ne ces si ty req ui rem en t “ is si m pl y de si gn ed

to as su re th at wir e t a p p i n g is no t res or te d to in si tu at io ns whe re tra di ti on al

in ve st ig at iv e te ch ni qu es wou ld s u f f i c e t o ex po se th e cri m e”). A di st ric t co ur t’s

de te rm in at io n th at a wire ta p is ne ces sa ry co ns ti tu te s a fin di ng of fact

, whi ch is su bjec t

on ly to cl ear- erro r rev ie w. Thompso n, 2 10 F.3d at 8 59

.

The reco rd be li es Co lb ert ’s co nt en ti on th at th e go ve rn m en t ha d no t at te m pt ed

tra di ti on al su rv ei ll an ce te ch ni qu es be fo re se ek in g a wire ta p. The affidav it sup po rti ng

th e ap pl ic at io n ou tl in ed se ve ral tra di ti on al in ve st ig at iv e te ch ni qu es th e go ve rn m en t

em pl o yed wit h res pe ct to Co lb ert

, be gi nn in g no la te r th an Decem be r 20 10

. The se

te ch ni qu es in cl ud ed ph y si cal su rv ei ll an ce, in fo rm at io n f r o m t wo co nf

id en ti al

wit ne ss es , at te m

pt ed co nt ro ll ed bu y s, an d th e in st al la ti on of a pe n reg is te r an d tra pan d

- tra ce de vi ce on Co lb ert ’s cel l ph on e. Mo reo ve r, th e affi da vi t ex pl ai ne d why

th os e te ch ni qu es were in su ffi ci en t to ga th er ev id en ce ne ces sa ry to se cu re a

co nv ic ti on

. Fo r ex am

pl e, th e go ve rn m en t at te m pt ed a co nt ro ll ed bu y us in g a

co op erat in g wit ne ss on Decem be r 20

, 20 10

, an d at te mp t ed to co nd uc t ph y si cal

su rv ei ll an ce of th at tra ns act io n. Bu t, aft er co nt act in g Co lb ert an d Tho m ps on ,

arra ng in g to pu rch as e a sm al l qu an ti ty of crac k co cai ne , a n d g o i n g to Tho m ps on ’s

res id en ce to bu y th e dr

ug s, th e wit ne ss co u ld no t co m pl et e th e pu rch as e be cau se

Th o mp so n ne ve r op en ed hi s do or an d Co lb ert wou ld no t an swe r hi s ph on e. Tha t

sa m e co op erat in g w it ne ss ag ai n at te m pt ed to co nd uc t a co nt ro ll ed bu y fo r th e

go ve rn m en t on Feb ru ary 1 , 2 01 1, bu t Co lb ert de ni ed ha vi ng an y dru gs to sel l. The

affi da vi t st at ed th at co nt ro ll ed bu y s wou ld no t be an eff ec tiv e in ve st ig at iv e te ch ni qu e,

be cau se Co lb ert di d no t tru st th e go ve rn m en t’s co op erat in g wit ne ss an d bec au se no

ot he r co op erat in g wi tn es se s h ad be en id en ti fie d.

Co lb ert arg ue s th at th e ti m in g of th e wire ta p ap pl ic at io n de m on st rat ed th at th e

governm en t co ul d no t ha ve at te m pt ed al te rn at iv e in ve st ig at iv e te ch niq ue s an d tha t the

go ve rn m en t’s ex pl an at io ns fo r why cert ai n te ch ni qu es were in feas ib le la ck ed m eri t.

An ap pl ic at io n ne ed on ly es ta b l i s h th at th e go ve rn m en t ha s at te m pt ed tra di ti on al

-8

-in ve st ig at iv e te ch ni qu es an d de m on st rat e th at th os e te ch ni qu es ar e “ in su ffi ci en t to

rev eal th e fu ll co ns pi racy or th e id en ti ty of” t he co ns pi rat or s. Th om ps on , 2 10 F.3d

at 85 9. Co lb ert cl ai m s th at th e go ve rn m en t’s in ve st ig at io n of hi m di d no t be gi n un ti l

Mar ch 28

, 20 11

, whe n th e go ve rn m en t firs t in te rcep te d a ph on e cal l from Co lb ert ’s
ph on e th ro ug h th e wire ta p on an ot he r co -co ns p i rat or ’s ph on e, an d th at th e on ly

in ve s t i g a t i v e te ch ni qu e at te m pt ed aft er th at da te was th e pe n reg is te r. Bu t th e

go ve rn m en t’s affi da vi t sh ows th at th e in ve st i g a t i o n be ga n well be fo re Mar ch 28

,

w h e n th e go ve rn m en t at te m pt ed th e afo rem en ti on ed co nt ro ll ed bu y s in Decem be r

20 10 an d F eb ru ary 20 11

.

Co lb ert al so arg ue s th at th e affi da vi t’s us e of bo il erp l a t e l a n g ua ge di d no t

s a t i s fy th e ne ces si ty req ui rem en t. An affi da vi t th at ex pl ai ns “ in ge ne ral te rm s wh y

so m e of th e pr oc ed ur es ha ve fai le d in ot he r in ve st ig at io ns an d wou ld li ke ly fai l in th is

cas e,” s a t i s fie s § 25 18 (1 )(c) if it co nt ai ns “ pa rti cu la r in st an ces in whi ch no rm al

pr oc ed ur es were us ed an d di d in fact fai l.” Mac kl in

, 90 2 F

. 2 d at 13 27

. The

affi da vi t’s us e of ex pl an at io ns th at “ are co m m on to m os t dr u g c o ns pi racy

in ve st ig at io ns

. . . do es no t ne ces sa ril y pr ecl ud e a fin di ng of ne ces si ty un de r se ct io n

25 18 (1 )(c) .” Tho m

ps on , 2 10 F.3 d at 8 5 9 (“ [A]lth ou gh th e affi da vi t’s as se rti on s of

in ad eq ua cy ‘m ig ht ap pe ar bo il erp la te

, th e fact th at dr ug in ve st ig at io ns su ffer fro m

co m m on in ve st ig at or y pr ob le m s do e s n o t m ak e th es e pr ob le m s le ss ve xi ng .’ ”
(q uo ti ng Uni te d St at es v. Mi lt on , 15 3 F.3 d 89 1, 89 5 (8 th Ci r. 19 98 ))). W e co nc lu de

fro m ou r rev ie w of th e affi da v i t th at th e di st ric t co ur t di d no t cl earl y err in fin di ng

th at th e wir et ap was n eces sa ry

.

2. Th e Sea rch W arra nt

Co lb ert arg ue s th at th e se arch -warra nt ap pl ic at io n’s fai lu re t o a l l e ge a ne xu s

be twee n th e Hi ll cres t St reet ho us e an d m on ey la un de rin g ren de red it in ad eq ua te to

es ta bl is h pr ob ab le cau s e

. “[T ]h ere m us t be ev id en ce of a ne xu s be twee n th e

co nt rab an d an d th e pl ace to b e s e a r ch ed be fo re a warra nt m ay pr op erl y is su e.”

-9

-Uni te d St at es v

. Te l l e z , 2 17 F.3 d 54 7, 55 0 (8 th Ci r. 20 00 ). “ The req ui si te ne xu s

be twee n a pa rti cu la r lo cat io n an d co nt rab an d is de te rm in ed by th e na tu re of th e cri m e

an d th e reas on ab le

, lo gi cal li ke li ho od of f in di ng us efu l evi de nc e.” Uni te d Stat es v.

Eth eri dg e, 16 5 F.3 d 65 5, 65 7 (8 th Cir . 19 99 ). “ [W] e acc or d su bs ta nt ia l de fere nc e”

to th e di st ric t co ur t’s pr ob ab le -cau se de te rm in at io n, affi rm in g a s l o n g as th e co ur t

“ ha d a ‘sub st an ti al ba si s fo r co nc l u d in g th at pr ob ab le cau se ex is te d.’”

G a r c i a -Hern an de z, 68 2 F.3 d at 77 1 (q uo ti ng Uni te d St at es v. Bu ch an an , 57 4 F

. 3 d

55 4, 5 61 (8t h C ir. 2 00 9) ).

Th e a f f id av it in cl ud ed in fo rm at io n pr ov id ed by two wit ne ss es , on e who ha d

en ga ge d i n t ran sa ct io ns wit h Co lb ert in th e p as t, an d a no th er wh o h ad be en pre se nt

whe n Co lb ert so ld co cai ne to ot he r in di vi du al s. The affi da vi t al so in cl ud e d

in te rcep te d ph on e cal ls in whi ch Co lb ert us ed co de d la ng ua ge to co or di na te co cai ne

sa le s. The affi da vi t st at ed th at Co lb ert own ed se ve ral e x p e n s i v e cars , th at he
freq ue nt ly wor e ex pe ns iv e jewelr y , an d th at he was in th e p ro ces s o f ren ov at in g hi s

pr im ary res id en ce, th e Hil lc res t St reet ho us e, bu t th at he ha d no t fil ed ta xe s in se ve ral

y ears an d ha d no ap pa ren t le gi ti m at e so ur ce of in co m e. Alt ho ug h pu bl ic reco rd s di d

no t lis t Co lb ert or Dav is as th e own er of the ho us e, th e FBI det erm in ed th at Co lb ert

was th e o wne r ba se d o n i nt erce pt ed ph on e cal ls an d t he fact th at he was re no va ti ng

th e ho us e by, fo r ex am

pl e, ad di ng gr an it e co un te r to ps an d ne w fix tu res in th e ki tc he n

an d ba th ro om

. It was reas o n a b l e to in fer fro m th os e fact s th at th e Hil lc res t St reet

ho us e it se lf an d an y im

pr ov em en ts or jewelr y lo cat ed in th e ho us e were pa id fo r wit h

pr oc eed s fro m Co lb ert ’s dr ug -tr affi ck in g bu si ne ss an d th at su ch ev id en ce was li ke ly

to be lo cat ed in th e ho us e. Tho se fact s th us pr ov id ed a su bs ta nt ia l ba si s fo r th e

di st ric t co ur t’s co nc lu si on th at th ere was a reas on ab le li ke li ho od th at th e go ve rn m en t

wou ld fin d e vi de nc e o f m on ey lau nd eri ng in th e Hil lc res t St reet ho us e. 3

Co lb ert co nt en ds th at th e warra nt was im pr op erl y gr an te d, be cau se al th ou gh 3

th e ap pl ic at io n so ug ht ev id en ce of m on ey la un de rin g, he was no t ch arg ed wit h m on ey la un de rin g, an d m an y of th e it em s li st ed on th e w a rran t ap pl ic at io n were no t fo un d
du rin g th e se arch

. Nev ert he le ss , pr ob ab le cau se th at ev id en ce of m on ey la un de rin g

-1 0-Co lb ert arg ue s in th e al te rn at iv e th at

, as su m in g th at pr ob ab le cau se ex is te d, th e

m ot io n to su pp res s sh ou ld ha ve be en gr an te d be cau se th e warra nt was ba se d on st al e

in fo rm at io n. “ A warran t b eco m es st al e if th e in fo rm at io n su pp or ti ng th e warra nt is

no t ‘suf fic ie nt ly cl os e in ti m e to th e is su an ce of th e warra nt an d th e su bs eq ue nt se arch

co nd uc te d so th at pr ob ab le cau se can be sai d t o e xi st as of th e ti m e of th e se arch .’ ”

Uni te d St at es v. Brewe r, 58 8 F.3 d 11 65

, 11 73 (8 th Ci r. 20 09 ) (q uo ti ng Uni te d St at es

v. Pal eg a, 55 6 F.3 d 70 9, 71 5 (8 th Ci r. 20 09 )). “ Im po rta nt fact or s t o c o n s i d e r in

de te rm in in g whe th er pr ob ab le cau se ha s di ss ip at ed

. . . in cl ud e th e la ps e of ti m e si nc e

th e warra nt was is su ed , t he na tu re of th e c r im in al act iv it y , a nd th e ki nd of pr op ert y

su bjec t to th e se arch .” Id

. (q uo ti ng Uni te d St at es v. Gib so n, 12 3 F.3 d 11 21

, 11 24 (8 th

Ci r. 19 97 )). W e co nc lu de th at th e affi da vi t est ab li sh ed th e ex is te nc e o f an on go in g

dr ug co ns pi racy fro m whi ch Co lb ert wa s ac tiv el y ea rn ing m on ey , th at po li ce ob se rv ed

Co lb ert ov ers eei ng co ns tru ct io n on hi s ho us e le ss th an th ree week s be fo re th e warra nt

is su e d

, a n d th at Co lb ert res id ed at th e Hil lc res t St reet ho us e an d ke pt hi s cars an d

pe rs on al pr op ert y in si de th e ho us e. In li gh t of th es e ci rcu m st an ces , we co nc lu de th at

th e in fo rm at io n us ed to es ta bl is h pr ob ab le cas e was no t s t a l e, an d we ho ld th at th e

di st ric t co ur t di d no t err in de nyin g th e m ot io n to su pp res s ev id en ce de riv ed fro m th e

se arch of t he Hil lc res t St reet ho us e.

B. Tho m ps on Test im on y

Co lb ert arg ue s th at th e di st ric t co ur t a b u s e d it s di sc ret io n by gr an ti ng th e

go ve rn m en t’s m ot io n to ex cl ud e cert ai n te st im on y fro m Tho m ps on

. “ W e rev ie w th e

di st ric t co ur t’s ev id en ti ary ru li ng s fo r ab us e of di sc ret io n.” Uni te d St at es v. Lem on s,

79 2 F.3 d 94 1, 94 7 (8 th Ci r. 20 15 ). As se t fo rth earl ie r, th e go ve rn men t mo v e d to

ex cl ud e Tho m

ps on ’ s te st im on y as irr el ev an t. In gr an ti ng th e m ot io n, th e di st ric t co ur t

w o u ld be pr es en t in th e ho us e ex is te d at th e ti m e th e warra nt is su ed

, an d th e r e i s

no th in g to su gg es t th at th e warra nt was a pr et ex t fo r “ ge ne ral

, ex pl or at or y

ru m m ag in g.” Cf. Uni te d S ta te s. v . Sch m it z, 18 1 F .3d 98 1, 9 87 -8 8 (8 th Cir . 19 99 ).

-1 1-no te d “ th e di st in ct io n be twee n th e am ou nt of fo rce or wha t ha p p e n e d i n t he two

se pa rat e warra nt s” an d th e la ck an y of ev id en ce th at Tho m

ps on ha d co m

m un ic at ed

wit h C ol be rt a t t he ti m e th e warra nt s wer e se rv ed

.

Co lb ert arg ue s t ha t Thompso n’s t es ti m on y ab ou t t he sea rch of h is ho us e was

rel ev a n t t o s ho w th at Co lb ert reas on ab ly be li ev ed he was act in g in se lf de fen se

. Evi de nc e is rel ev an t if “ it ha s an y te nd en cy to m ak e a fact m or e or le ss pr ob ab le th an

it wou ld be wit ho ut th e ev id en ce.” Fed

. R. Evi d. 40 1( a). W hi le “ [t]he th res ho ld fo r

rel ev an ce is ‘ qu it e m in im al ,’ ” Uni te d Stat es v. Holm es , 41 3 F .3d 77 0, 7 73 (8t h Cir.

20 05 ) (q uo ti ng Uni te d St at es v. Gue rrer o- Co rte z, 11 0 F.3 d 64 7, 65 2 (8 th Ci r. 19 97 )),

we ag ree wi th th e d is tri ct co ur t t ha t t he di ss im il ari ty of th e two ev en ts ren de red th e

pr op os ed te st im on y irr el ev an t. The ta ct ic s th at th e HRT us ed whe n th ey e x e cu te d

th ei r no

- k n o c k warra nt at Tho m ps on ’s ho m e were co m

pl et el y di ffer en t fro m th os e

us ed by SWA T at Co lb ert ’s ho m e. Unl ik e th e SWA T te am , th e HRT di d no t kn oc k

on Tho m ps on ’s do or , an no un ce th ei r pr es en ce, or sh ine brig ht li gh ts in to Tho m ps on ’s

win do ws be fo re br each in g hi s fro nt do or

. The di st ric t co u r t t h us di d no t ab us e it s

di sc ret io n i n e xc lu di ng Tho m ps on ’s tes ti m on y

.

C. Mi sjo in de r an d S ev erab il it y

Co lb ert arg ue s th at hi s co ns pi racy co un ts were m is joi ne d wit h hi s fi rear m

rel at ed co un ts un de r Fed eral Ru le of Cri m in al Pro ced ur e 8( a). “ W e rev ie w de no vo

a de ci si on to joi n co un ts to ge th er in to a si ng le in di ct m en t.” Uni te d St at es v. Mi dk iff

, 6 1 4 F .3d 43 1, 43 9 (8 th Ci r. 20 10 ). Ru le 8( a) pr ov id es fo r th e joi nd er of m ul t i p l e

of fen se s th at “ are of th e sa m e or si m i l ar ch arac te r, or are ba se d on th e sa m e act or

tra ns act io n, or are co nn ect ed wit h or co ns ti tu te pa rts of a co m m on sc he m e or pl an .”

Here, th e ch arg es were pr op erl y joi ne d be cau se al l of th e ch arg es aro se fro m th e sa m e

act

, Co lb ert ’s pa rti ci pa ti on in a co cai ne -d is tri bu ti on co ns pi r a cy

. Sp eci fic al ly, th e

in di ct m en t ch arg ed Co lb ert wit h po ss es si on an d di sc ha rg e of a fir earm in fu rth eran ce

of th e dr ug -tr affi ck in g co ns pi racy fo r whi ch he was al so ch arg ed in th at in di ct m en t.

-1 2-The rem ai ni ng fir earm -rel at ed of fen se s ar e in tu rn ba se d o n t he sa m e fir earm as th e

po ss es si on -an d- di sc ha rg e o ffen se . Jo in de r was th eref or e p ro pe r.

J oi nd er be in g pr op er, we tu rn to whe th er th e di st ric t co ur t erre d in de nyin g

Co lb ert ’s se ve ran ce m ot io n. W e rev ie w a di st ric t co ur t’s de ni al of a se ve ran ce

m ot io n fo r ab us e of di sc ret io n, an d “we w i l l r e v ers e on ly whe n th at ab us e of

di sc ret io n res ul ts in se ve re or cl ear pr ejud ic e.” Uni te d St at es v. Ro bi ns on , 78 1 F.3 d

45 3, 46 1 (8 th Ci r. 20 15 ) (q uo ti ng Uni te d St at es v. Reynol ds

, 72 0 F.3 d 66 5, 66 9 (8 th

Ci r. 20 13 )); se e al so Fed

. R. Cri m

. P. 14 (a). No su ch pr ejud ic e ex is ts “ whe n ev id en ce

o f th e joi ne d of

fen se wou ld be pr op erl y ad m is si bl e in a se pa rat e tri al fo r th e o t h e r

cri m e.” Id

. (q uo ti ng Reynol ds

, 72 0 F.3 d at 67 0)

. Und er th e ci rcu m s t a n ces of th is

cas e, th e sa m e ev id en ce wou ld be ad m is si bl e at tri al s fo r bo th th e co ns pi racy an d th e

fir earm -rel at ed of

fen se s. Fo r ex am

pl e, t h e em

pt y pl as ti c ba gs co nt ai ni ng co cai ne

res id ue th at were reco ve red fro m th e ba th ro om at t he Hil lc res t St reet ho us e wou ld

ha ve be en ad m is si bl e as ev id en ce of Co lb ert ’s in vo lv eme nt in th e co cai ne

di st rib ut io n co ns pi racy at a tri al fo r th e co ns pi racy of f e n s e s a nd as ev id en ce th at

Co lb ert was no t act in g in se lf de fen se at a tri al fo r th e fir earm -rel at ed of fen se s. The

di st ric t co ur t t hu s d id no t ab us e it s d is cret io n i n d en y in g t he m ot io n t o s ev er.

D. Ju dg m en t o f Acq ui tt al

Co lb ert arg ue s th at th e go ve rn m en t fai le d to pr ov e th at he act ed wit h th e in te nt

req ui red to es ta bl is h hi s co nv ic ti on fo r as sa ul ti ng a fed eral of fic er, 18 U.S.C. § 11 1.

“ W e rev ie w th e d en ia l o f a m ot io n fo r a jud gm en t o f acq ui tt al de no vo bu t vi ew th e

ev id en ce in a li gh t m os t fav or ab le to th e ve rd ic t.” Uni te d S t a t e s v

. P a ris , 8 16 F.3 d

10 37

, 10 38 -3 9 (8 th Ci r. 20 16 ). “ W e rev ers e on ly whe n no reas on ab le jury co ul d ha ve

fo un d t he accu se d g ui lt y .” Id . at 1 03 9.

W e co nc lu de th at th ere w a s su bs ta nt ia l ev id en ce th at Co lb ert was no t act in g

in se lf de fen se whe n he fir ed o n th e SWA T te am

. The jury he ard te st im on y fro m

-1 3-Age nt Co se nz a reg ard in g ho w lo ud ly he kn oc ke d on Co lb ert ’s do or an d ann ou nc ed

th e FBI’s pr es en ce; it vi ewed pi ct ur es of th e de nt s le ft in th e fro nt d o o r b y A g en t

Co se nz a’s ba to n; an d it he ard te st im on y fro m ot he r la w-en fo rcem en t of fic ia ls ab ou t

th e li gh ts di rect ed in si de th e ho us e an d th e sh eer cu rta in s th at on ly pa rti al ly co ve red

th e win do ws. The jury al so he ard te st im on y th at ag en ts fo un d ki lo gr am -s iz ed pl as ti c

ba gs co nt ai ni ng co cai ne res id ue i n th e to il et of th e m as te r ba th ro om ne ar whe re

Co lb ert ’s gu n was fo un d. It co ns id ered te st im on y fro m th e FBI’s fir earm s to ol m ark

ex am in er, who m ap pe d th e tra jecto rie s of th e bu ll et s th at Co lb ert fir ed an d co nc lu de d

th at at le as t on e bu ll et st ru ck th e do or be fo re it was op en ed

. Fro m th is ev id en ce, a

reas on ab le jury co ul d fin d th at Co lb ert kn ew th at th e FBI was a t h i s do or , th at he

fir ed be fo re th e d o o r w a s o pe ne d, an d th at he di d so in or de r to bu y th e ti m e

ne ces sa ry to al lo w hi m

to de st ro y ev id en ce. The di st ric t cou rt th us pr op erl y de ni ed

Co lb ert ’s m ot io n.

III. Se nt en ci ng Iss ue s

In rev ie win g Co lb ert ’s se nt en ce , w e “firs t en su re th at th e di st ric t co ur t

co m m it te d no si gn ifi can t pr oc ed ur al erro r,” an d we th en de t e r mine whe th er th e

se nt en ce im

po se d was su bs ta nt iv el y un reas on ab le

. Gall v. Uni te d St at es , 55 2 U.S.

38

, 51 (2 00 7)

. “ W e rev ie w a di st ric t co ur t’s in te rp ret at io n an d ap pl ic at io n o f th e

gu id el in es de no vo an d it s fact ua l fin di ng s reg ard in g en ha nc em en ts fo r cl ear erro r.”

Uni te d St at es v. Agu il ar, 51 2 F.3 d 48 5, 48 7 (8 th Ci r. 20 08 ). Co lb ert arg ue s th at th e

di st ric t co ur t pr oc ed ur al ly erre d by “ se le ct in g a se nt en ce ba se d on cl earl y erro ne ou s

f a ct s,” Gall

, 55 2 U.S. at 51

, whe n it cal cu la te d th e dr ug qu an ti ty at tri bu ta b l e t o

Co l b e r t

, se e U.S.S.G. § 2D1 .1(c ), an d whe n it ap pl ie d th e fo ur -le ve l or ga ni zer- or

le ad er en ha nc em en t, U.S.S.G. § 3 B1 .1(a ). 4

Co lb ert al so ob

jecte d to th e ap pl ic at io n o f a 6- le ve l en ha nc em en t fo r 4

kn owi ng ly as sa ul ti ng a po li ce of fic er, U.S.S.G. § 3A1 .2(c )(1 ), bu t th at en ha nc em en t
di d n ot ul ti m at el y

affe ct hi s s en te nc e, an d we s ee n o e rro r res ul ti ng fro m it

.

-1 4-Co lb ert arg ue s th at th e di st ric t co ur t re li ed on tes ti m on y fro m wit ne ss es who

were no t cred ib le in cal cu la ti ng th e dr ug qu an ti ty at tri bu ta bl e to Co lb ert

. The co ur t’s

dr ug -q ua nt it y cal cu la ti on is a fin di ng of fact th at we rev ie w fo r cl ear erro r, rev ers in g

“ on ly if th e en ti re reco rd de fin it el y an d firm ly co nv in ces us th at a m is ta ke ha s b een

m ad e.” Uni te d St at es v. Gon zal ez-R od rig ue z, 2 3 9 F.3 d 94 8, 95 3 (8 th Ci r. 20 01 )
(q uo ti ng Uni te d S ta te s v . Gran ad os , 20 2 F .3d 10 25 , 10 28 (8t h C ir. 2 00 0) ).

The di st ric t co ur t’s dr ug -q ua nt it y cal cu la ti on was ba se d on th e reco rd in gs of

Co lb ert ’s i nt erce pt ed ph on e cal ls th at were p la y ed at t ria l an d t he tri al tes ti m on y of

th ree of Co lb ert ’s co -co ns pi rat or s, Th o mp s o n , Edwar ds

, an d Lon g. Tho m ps on

te st ifi ed th at he ha d pu rch as ed two to th ree ki lo gr am s of co cai ne fr o m C o l b e r t pe r

week

, to ta li ng be twee n 16 8 an d 25 2 ki lo gr am s of co ca i n e i n 2 0 1 0 an d 20 11

. Edwar ds te st ifi ed th at he ha d pu rch as ed be twee n fo ur an d on e-h al f ou nc es an d ni ne

ou nc es of co cai ne fro m Co lb ert two to fo ur ti m es pe r w e e k a n d co nv ert ed

ap pr ox im at el y fo ur ou nc es ou t o f ev ery ni ne ou nc es in to crac k, whi ch am ou nt ed to

a to ta l of fort y -n in e k il og ram s o f co cai ne , of wh ic h t wen ty-on e k il og ram s had be en

co nv ert ed to c r a ck ov er th e rel ev an t pe rio d. Lon g te st ifi ed th at he ha d faci li ta te d

m eet in gs be twee n Co lb ert an d Mex ic an dr ug su pp li ers , th a t h e ha d rece iv ed

ap pr ox im at el y $ 5 0 0 p e r ki lo gr am th at Co lb ert pu rch as ed at th es e tra ns act io ns , an d

th at he ha d pr of

it ed $1 00 ,00 0 fro m faci li ta ti ng th e sa le of at le as t 20 0 ki lo gr am s of

co cai ne be twee n 2 01 0 a nd Octo be r 20 11

.

Co lb ert as se rts th at no ne of th es e wit ne ss es was cred ib le

. He no te s th at Lon g

ha d pr ev io us ly li ed to th e FBI ab ou t hi s ro le in th e co ns pi r a c y a n d th e am ou nt of

co cai ne he ha d pu rch as ed

, an d th at Tho m ps on ’s te st im on y was in co ns is te nt be cau se

he cl ai m ed at on e po in t to ha ve pu rch as ed two to th ree ki lo gr am s pe r week

, bu t al so

cl ai m ed th at he ha d pu rch as ed on ly be twee n twen ty an d fo rty ki l o gr am s ov er th e

rel ev an t pe rio d. The di st ric t co ur t act ed wit hi n it s br oa d di sc ret io n whe n it in cred it ed

Lon g’s te st im on y an d whe n it cred it ed th e gr eat er am ou nt of co cai ne th at Tho m ps on

cl ai m ed in hi s te st im on y

. See U n i t e d S ta te s v. Ja ck so n, 78 2 F.3 d 10 06

, 10 14 (8 th

-1 5-C i r.), cert

. de ni ed su b no m

. O’ Bryant v. Uni te d St at es , 13 6 S. Ct

. 50 1 (2 01 5)

. We

th us co nc lu de th at th e di st ric t co ur t di d no t cl earl y err in m ak in g it s dr ug -q ua nt it y

cal cu la ti on

.

Co lb ert ne xt arg ue s th at th e 4- le ve l or ga ni zer- or -le ad er en ha nc em en t un de r

U.S.S.G. § 3B 1.1 (a) was no t su pp or te d by th e reco rd be cau se he di d no t ex erci se an y

co nt ro l or de ci s i o n

- mak i ng au th or it y ov er hi s co -co ns pi rat or s. W e di sa gr ee. W e

br oa dl y in te rp ret th e te rm s “ or ga ni zer” an d “ le ad er” un de r § 3B 1.1 (a). Uni te d St at es

v. Mo rri s, 79 1 F.3 d 91 0, 91 4 (8 th Ci r. 2 01 5)

. “ Alt ho ug h an in di vi du al in a dr ug

co ns pi racy m

us t do m or e th an se ll dr ug s fo r res al e in or de r to be de em ed an or ga ni zer

or le ad er, he ne ed no t di rect ly co nt ro l hi s co -co ns pi rat or s.” Id

. (q uo ti ng Tho m ps on , 21 0 F.3 d at 86 1)

. The tri al te st im on y an d reco rd ed ph on e co nv ers at io ns in di cat e th at

Co lb ert in st ru ct ed hi s si st er, Ant oi ne tt e Co lb ert

, to de li ve r co cai ne on hi s be ha lf, an d

on at le as t on e oc cas io n or de red Tho m ps on to co nd uc t a sa l e o n hi s be ha lf, wit h

Tho m ps on rece iv in g no co m

pe ns at io n fo r do in g so

. Mo reo ve r, Co lb ert was a hi gh

v ol um e di st rib ut or wit h se ve ral cu st om ers , so m e of who m pu rch as ed co cai ne o n

cred it

. The di st ric t co ur t di d no t cl earl y e r r i n fin di ng th at Co lb ert was a le ad er or

or ga ni zer o f th e co ns pi racy. See i d.

Hav in g fo un d no pr oc ed u r a l e r ro r, we ne xt de te rm in e whe th er th e se nt en ce

im po se d was su bs ta nt iv el y reas on ab le

, a qu es ti on w e r e v i e w un de r a de fere nt ia l

ab us e-o f-d is cret io n st an da rd

, co ns id eri ng th e to ta li ty of th e ci rcu m st an ces

. Uni te d

St at es v. Feem st er, 57 2 F.3 d 45 5, 46 1 (8 th Ci r. 20 09 ) (en ba nc ). “ If th e de fen da nt ’s

se nt en ce is wit hi n th e Gui de li ne s ran ge , th en we ‘m ay , bu t [are ] no t req ui red to

, ap pl y

a pr es um pt io n of reas on ab le ne ss .’ ” Id

. (al te rat io ns in or ig in al ) (q uo ti ng Gall

, 55 2

U.S. a t 51 ). The d is tri ct co ur t ab us es it s d is cret io n i f “ it fai ls to co ns id er a re le va nt

fact or , gi ve s si gn ifi can t weig ht to an irr el ev an t or im pr op er fact or , or co ns id ers on ly

ap pr op ria te fact or s bu t ne ve rth el es s co m m it s a cl ear erro r of jud gm en t by arri vi ng at

a se nt en ce th at li es ou ts id e th e li m it ed ran ge of ch oi ce di ct at e d b y t h e f act s of th e

cas e.” Uni te d St at es v. San

- M i g u e l

, 63 4 F.3 d 47 1, 47 5 (8 th Ci r. 20 11 ) (q uo ti ng

-1 6-Uni te d St at es v. Jo ne s, 50 9 F.3 d 91 1, 91 3 (8 th Ci r. 20 07 )). Co lb e r t d o es no t cl ai m

th at th e di st ric t co ur t co ns id ered irr el ev an t or im pr op er fact or s, an d we co nc lu de th at

th e d is tri ct co ur t d id no t co m m it a cl ear e rro r of

jud gm en t.

The di st ric t co ur t pr op erl y co ns id ered th e rel ev an t § 35 53 (a) fact or s , no ti ng

th at th e se nt en ce was ap pr op ria te in li gh t o f “ th e se rio us ne ss of t he off en se ,” th at it

was ne ces sa ry “ to pr om ot e res pe ct fo r th e la w,” th at it en su red “ jus t pu ni sh m en t fo r

th e of fen se ,” th at it pr ov id ed “ an ad eq ua te de te rren ce .

. . an d pro te ct [ed ] th e pu bl ic

fro m fu rth er cri m es fro m th is de fen da nt ,” an d th at it refl ect ed “ Co lb ert ’s ap pa ren t

co m pl et e la ck of a ccep ta nc e o f res po ns ib il it y fo r hi s crim in al be ha vi or .” The co ur t

co ns id ered Co lb ert ’s re c i t at io n of hi s cl ai m ed m it ig at in g fact or s, an d it di d no t

co m m it a cl ear e rro r of

jud gm en t b y

im po si ng a li fe s en te nc e.

Co lb ert arg ue s fo r th e fir st ti m e on a p p e a l t ha t a te rm -o f-y ears se nt en ce is

ne ces sa ry to av oi d un warra nt ed se nt en ce di sp ari ti es , 18 U.S.C. § 35 53 (a)( 6)

, no ti ng

th at Bo bb y Ban ks

, a de fen da nt in an ot he r cas e, was co nv ic te d of si m il ar cri m es an d

was se nt en ced to fif

ty-fiv e y ears ’ im

pr is on m en t, se e Uni te d St at es v. Ban ks

, 49 4 F.3 d

68 1, 68 3 (8 th Ci r. 20 07 ). Alt ho ug h Ban ks al so in vo lv ed a c o n s p i r a c y un de r 18

U.S.C. § 84 6, th at cas e di d no t in vo lv e th e fir earm -rel at ed ch arg es a n d th e dr ug

qu an ti ty pres en t i n t hi s ca se

.

Fi na ll y , C ol be rt arg ue s th at a se nt en ce of li fe im pr is on m en t co ns ti tu te s cru el

an d un us ua l pu ni s h men t i n vi ol at io n of th e Eig ht Am en dm en t to th e Uni te d St at es

Co ns ti tu ti on , a ch al le ng e th at we rev ie w by us in g th e “ ‘narro w pr op or ti on al it y

pr in ci pl e’ t ha t ‘app li es to no nc ap it al se nt en ces .’ ” Uni te d St at es v. W ie st , 5 96 F.3 d

90 6, 91 1 (8 th Ci r. 20 10 ) (q uo ti ng Ewin g v. Cal ifo rn ia

, 5 3 8 U

. S

. 11

, 20 (2 00 3) ).

Giv en th e se rio u s n e s s of Co lb ert ’s cri m es , we co nc lu de th at a li fe se nt en ce is no t

“ gr os sl y di sp ro po rti on at e” t o h is cri m e. Id

.

The jud gm en t an d s en te nc e are affi rm ed

.

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __

-1 7-