2010 D e c i sion s O p inion s of the U nit e d S t at e s C our t of Appe al s for the Thir d C ir c uit 3-24-2010 

# U SA v . Kreig P ro sp e r P r e c e de nt i al or N on-P r e c e de nt i al : N on-P r e c e de nt i al D ocke t N o . 08-1663

F o llow thi s and a dd it ion al work s at : http://d i git alc ommon s .l a w . vi ll anova . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2010

Thi s de c i sion i s br ou ght t o you for f r e e and ope n a c c e s s b y the O p inion s of the U nit e d S t at e s C our t of Appe al s for the Thir d C ir c uit at V i ll anova U nive r sity S choo l of L a

w Di git al Reposit ory

. It h as be e n a c c ept e d for inclusion in 2010 D e c i sion s b y an authori z e d a dmini s tr at or of V i ll anova U nive r sity S choo l of L a

w Di git al Reposit ory

. F or mor e inform at ion, p le as e c ont a ct Be n j amin . C arl s on@l a

w . vi ll anova . e du . Re c omme nde d C it at ion " U SA v . Kr ei g P r ospe r " (2010). 2010 D e cisio n s . P ape r 1660. http://d i git alc ommon s .l a

w . vi ll anova . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2010/1660NOT P RE CE DE NT I AL UN I TED STATES CO UR T OF A PP EALS F O R T H E T H IR D C IR C U IT

____________ N o. 08- 1663

____________ UNI TE D ST ATE S OF AM ERI CA

v. KREI G PR OSP ER, a l s o k n o wn a s CH UB KREI G PR OSP ER, A ppel l ant

____________ N o. 08- 1751

____________ UNI TE D ST ATE S OF AM ERI CA

v. S HENEZ LAWRENCE a / k / a BUTCH a / k / a RANDY LAWRENCE SHEN EZ LAW REN CE, A ppel l ant

____________ O n A p p ea l from the U n it ed S tat es D istri ct C o u rt

forthe D i s tr i ctof N ew J er s ey ( D . C . N os . 06- cr - 00309- 001 and 06- cr - 00309- 002) D i s tr i ctJ udge: H onor abl e St anl eyR . C hes l er

____________ Subm i tt ed Pur s uantt o T hi r d C i r cui tL A R 34. 1( a)

J anuary28, 2010H onor abl e Paul S. D i amond, U ni t ed St at es D i s tr i ctJ udge forthe East ern D i s tr i ct * of Penns y l vani a, s i t t i ng bydes i gnat i on. Th e Di s tr i c tCo u r te x e r c i s e d s u b j e c tma t t e rj u r i s d i c t i o n p u r s u a n tt o 1 8 U. S . C. 1 § 3 2 3 1 . Th i s Co u r th a s j u r i s d i c t i o n o v e rth e s e c o n s o l i d a t e d a p p e a l s p u r s u a n tt o 1 8 U. S . C. § 1 2 9 1 an d 1 8 U . S . C . § 3 7 4 2 (a). 2 B e f o re : F U E N T E S a n d F IS H E R , C i r cui tJudges , a n d DI AM OND, D is tr i ct Judge . * Fi l ed: M ar ch 24, 2010

____________ OPI NI ON O F THE COURT

____________ F IS H E R , C i r cui tJudge . Shanez Law r ence and K r ei g Pr os perappea l thei rr es pect i ve convi ct i ons and s e n t e n c e s f

o ro n e c o u n to f

c o n s p i r a c yt o c o mmi tb a n k r o b b e ryi n v i o l a t i o n o f 1 8 U. S . C. § 1951, thr ee s ubs t ant i ve count s of bank r obberyi n vi ol at i on of 18 U . S. C . § 2113( a) , and th re e c o u n ts o f

u sin g o r c a rry in g a f

ire a rm d u rin g a n d in re latio n to a b a n k ro b b e ryin v i o l a t i o n o f

1 8 U. S . C. § 9 2 4 ( c ) . W e wi l l a f f i r m. I. W e w r i t e exc l us i vel yforthe part i es , w ho ar e fa m i l i arw i th the fa ctual cont extand l egal hi s t oryof thi s cas e. T her efor e, w e w i l l s etfor th onl ythos e fa ct s nece s s aryt o our analy si s. 1 L aw ren ce an d P rosp er, i n co n jun cti o n w ith co -co n sp ir ator D arn ell T u rne r, conduct ed thr ee “ t akeove r ” bank r obber i es i n 2005. T he men fl ed the Sun N at i onal B ank in M a taw a n , N e w Je rse yo n Ja n u a ry1 2 , 2 0 0 5 , w ith $ 2 3 9 ,1 9 4 ; th e S u n N a tio n a l B a n k in3

H o lm d e l, N e w Je rse yo n A u g u st 9 , 2 0 0 5 , w ith $ 3 7 ,0 0 0 ; an d th e S o v e re ig n B a n k in W oodbr i dge, N ew J er s eyon D ece m ber9, 2005, w i th $27, 893. 50. I n eac h i ns t ance , the three m en fo ll o w ed a su b stan ti all ysim il ar m odus oper andi . I n the fi r s ttw o r obber i es , L aw r ence and Pr os perent er ed the banks w hi l e arm ed, thr eat ened the t el l er s and cus t om er s , and ac qui r ed ca s h. T urners erved as the get aw ay vehi cl e dr i verand r emai ned out s i de the bank w at chi ng forl aw enfor cement . L aw r ence and Pr os perdonned es s ent i al l ythe s ame out fi t s forboth r obber i es , choos i ng t o w ears ki m as ks , gl oves , and goggl es . I n t he thi r d r obbery , L aw r ence , due t o i nj ur i es s uffe r ed fr om a guns hotw ound, act ed as the get aw aydr i verw hi l e Turne rand Pr os perent er ed the bank t o c o n d u c tth e r o b b e r y. Fol l ow i ng the thi r d r obbery , pol i ce of fi cerSt eve K i l l ane r es ponded t o r eport s of gu n fir e atL aw rence’s ho m e. L aw rence w as arres t ed, w ai ved his Mi r anda r i ght s , and w as ques t i oned bypol i ce. U pon s ear chi ng L aw r ence ’ s r es i dence , pol i ce r ecove r ed, a m o n g o th e r th in g s, a sig n if ica n t am o u n t o f

c a sh a n d c o in s a s w e ll as se v e ra l em p ty m oneyw r apper s . A w ar e of the bank r obberyon thatday , the off i cer s cont act ed the F ed era l B u rea u o f In v esti g ati o n . In th e m ea n ti m e, T u rne r arri v ed at L aw ren ce ’s r es i dence and pol i ce tr ans por t ed both m en t o the pol i ce s t at i on forques t i oni ng. U po n q uest i on i ng byauthori t i es, L aw rence con fessed and proceed ed to di scuss eac h r obberyi n det ai l . T urneral s o confe s s ed t o hi s part i ci pat i on i n al l thr ee r obber i es ; he4

id e n tifie d L a w re n c e a n d P ro sp e r a s h is c o -c o n sp ira to rs a n d d isc u ss e d e a c h ro b b e ryin d e tail. Fol l ow i ng thes e conf es s i ons , author i t i es began s ur vei l l ance of Pr os per , w ho had gone on a s pendi ng s pr ee f ol l ow i ng the fi r s tr obbery , s pendi ng thous ands of dol l ar s on vehi cl es , j ew el r y , and a tr i p t o A t l ant i c C i ty . U pon s ear chi ng Pr os per ’ s vehi cl e, author i t i es found t ens of thous ands of dol l ar s and the . 38 cal i berhandgun thatT urner carr i ed dur i ng the thi r d r obbery . Subse quents ear ches of ea ch s us pect ’ s r es i dence r evea l ed addi t i onal curr ency , m oneyw r apper s , and othert ool s us ed dur i ng the r obber i es i ncludi ng go gg l es, ski m asks, and gloves. T he gr and j uryr eturned a s uper s edi ng ni ne- counti ndi ctm entagai ns tL aw r ence and Pr os per . A j urys ubs equent l yconvi ct ed Law r ence and Pr os peron s even c ount s : one c o u n to f c o n s p i r a c y t o c o m m i tb a n k r o b b e ry, th r e e s u b s t a n t i v e c o u n t s o f b a n k r o b b e ry, a n d th r e e c o u n t s o f

u s i n g o rc a r r yi n g a f

i r e a r m d u r i n g a n d i n r e l a t i o n t o a b a n k r o b b e ry. T he D i s tr i ctC our tdeni ed pos t - tr i al m ot i ons forj udgm ent s of ac qui t t al and fornew tr i al s . T he C our ts ent ence d L aw r ence t o 824 m onths i n pr i s on and or der ed hi m t o pay $304, 087. 50 i n r es t i tut i on. T he C our ts ent ence d Pr os pert o 794 m onths i n pr i s on and o rd e re d h im to p a y$ 3 0 4 ,0 8 7 .5 0 in re stitu tio n . L a w re n c e a n d P ro sp e r f iled th e ir tim e ly not i ces of appe al on February28, 2008.W e re v ie w a lle g e d e rr o rs w ith o u t c o n te m p o ra n e o u s o b je c tio n f o r p la in e rr o r. 2 U ni t ed Stat es v. Les s ner , 498 F. 3d 185, 192 ( 3d C i r . 2007) . Pl ai n err oroccur s w hen (1) a n erro r i s co m m itted; (2) tha t error i s p lai n ; and (3) itaf fe cted the d ef

en d an t’ s s u b s ta n tia l r ig h ts . I

d. 5

II. A ll eg ed T ri al E rrors B oth L aw r ence and Pr os perar gue thatvar i ous err or s w er e made bythe D i s tr i ct C our tdur i ng tr i al . T hi s s ect i on w i l l addr es s the err or s al l eged byeac h A ppel l anti n tur n. A . A dm i s s i bi l i tyof Evi dence : L aw r ence L aw r ence chal l enges the D i s tr i ctC our t ’ s admi s s i on of fi ve s epar at e pi ece s of evi dence . H er e, w e r evi ew the fi r s tfourchal l enges , pr oper l ypr es erved attr i al , underan a b u s e o f d is c re tio n s ta n d a rd . G ov’tof the V i rgi n Islan ds v. A l bert , 241 F. 3d 344, 347 ( 3d C i r . 2001) . T he fi fth evi dent i arychal l enge, r ai s ed forthe fi r s tt i m e on appe al , i s r evi ew ed f o rp l a i n e r r o ro n l y. 2 L aw r ence cont ends thatthe D i s tr i ctC our terr ed i n admi t t i ng evi dence ( 1) thathe w as s hoti n t he hea d on O ct ober3, 2005, pr i ort o the W oodbr i dge r obbery ; ( 2) of the . 380 cal i bers emi - aut om at i c handgun r ecove r ed fr om hi s r es i dence on O ct ober3, 2005; ( 3) of the fa ctthathe s uffe r ed fi ve guns hotw ounds t o the t or s o on J ul y25, 2005, pr i ort o the H ol m del r obbery ; and ( 4) of the . 38 cal i berhandgun r ecove r ed fr om hi s r es i dence i n M ay o f 2 0 0 6 . L aw ren ce asse rt s tha t al l of this ev iden ce “inf

lam [e d ] th e e m o ti o n s o f th e jury and . . . depi ct [ed] [hi m ] as s om eone w ho had a ge ner al pr opens i tyforgun vi ol ence and cr i m i nal i ty . ” ( A pp. L aw r ence B r . at9. ) W e di s agr ee.6

P er R ule 404(b) of t he F ederal R ules of E vidence, “[e]vi den ce of othercri m es, w r ongs , oract s i s notadmi s s i bl e t o pr ove the cha r act erof a pe r s on i n or dert o s how act i on i n conform i tyther ew i th. ” Fed. R . E vi d. 404( b) . L aw r ence as s ert s thateac h of the f o u r a d m itte d p ie c e s o f

e v id e n c e c o n s titu te s “ o th e r c ri m e s ” f o r p u rp o s e s o f

R u le 4 0 4 (b ). T h is a ss e rtio n is u n p e rsu a siv e . W e h a v e h e ld th a t “R u le 4 0 4 (b ) d o e s n o t ap p lyto e v id e n c e o f

u n c h a rg e d o f

f e n se s c o m m itt e d b ya d e f e n d a n t w h e n th o se a c ts a re in trin sic to the pr oof of the cha r ged off ens e. ” U ni t ed Stat es v. G i bbs , 1 9 0 F . 3 d 1 8 8 , 2 1 7 (3d C ir . 1999) . N ot abl y , even i n i ns t ance s w her e the i ntr i ns i c ac ti s extr emel ypr ej udi ci al t o the defe ndant , “the courtw oul d have no di s cr et i on t o excl ude i tbeca us e i ti s pr oof of the ul t i m at e i s s ue of the ca s e. ” I d. T he evi dence as s ert ed her e i s i ntr i ns i c t o the pr oof of the thr ee ba nk r obber i es and thus admi s s i bl e. Fi r s t , the fa ctthatL aw r ence s uffe r ed a guns hotw ound t o the hea d on O ct ober3, 2005, pr ovi ded the j uryw i th an expl anat i on as t o w hyhe as s um ed a di ffe r ent r ol e i n the W oodbr i dge r obberyand corr obor at ed Turne r ’ s t es t i m onys t at i ng as m uch. Second, i nves t i gat or s r ecove r ed a . 380 cal i bers emi - aut om at i c handgun f r om L aw r ence ’ s pos s es s i on on O ct ober3, 2005, w hi ch mat ched de s cr i pt i ons pr ovi ded by e ye w i tn e s s e s t o th e H o l m d e l r o b b e ry a n d a l s o c o rr o b o r a t e d T u rn e r ’ s t e s t i m o n y. T hi r d, evi dence thatL aw r ence s uffe r ed fi ve guns hotw ounds t o the che s tw eeks p rio r to th e H o lm d e l ro b b e ryo n Ju ly2 3 , 2 0 0 5 , co rro b o ra ted T u rn e r’s e x p lan a tio n a s to7

w h yL aw ren ce d resse d d iffe ren tl yfo r th e H o lm d el rob b eryan d en ab led ju rors to m o re eas i l yi dent i fyL aw r ence i n vi deo foot age. Four th, T urnert es t i fi ed thatL aw r ence t ook pos s es s i on of the gun us ed byPr os per i n the comm i s s i on of the W oodbr i dge r obbery . T he i ntr oduct i on of the . 380 cal i ber h a n d g u n r e c o v e r e d f

r o m L a w r e n c e ’ s r e s i d e n c e c o rr o b o r a t e d th i s t e s t i m o n y. Forthes e r eas ons , the i ntr i ns i c natur e of the fourpi ece s of af or ement i oned e v id e n c e ju stif

ied th e ir p ro p e r a d m iss io n a t trial. T h e D istric t C o u rt d id n o t ab u se its di s cr et i on i n t hi s r egar d. F if th , fo r th e f

irst tim e o n a p p e a l, L a w re n c e a rg u e s th a t th e D istric t C o u rt e rre d in admi t t i ng t es t i m onythatpol i ce r es ponded t o hi s r es i dence aft err ece i vi ng r eport s of gun f ire . P rio r to trial, th e p a rties stip u late d to a sta tem e n t th a t p o lice re sp o n d e d to L aw ren ce ’s reside n ce “o n a re p o rto f a g u n sh o t bein g fired . ” D etec ti v e K il lane ’s t es t i m onydur i ng tr i al w as cons i s t entw i th thi s s t i pul at i on and el i ci t ed no obj ect i on fr om L aw r ence . L a w re n c e n o w c o n ten d s th a t th e a d m iss io n o f th is s tip u late d sta tem e n t is extr emel ypr ej udi ci al , r epr es ent i ng an ef for tbythe G overnm entt o i nfl ame t he emot i ons o f th e j u rya n d d e p i c th i m a s s o m e o n e w h o h a s a g e n e r a l p r o p e n s i tyf o rg u n v i o l e n c e . We di s agr ee. T he pol i ce r es pons e t o a r eportof s hot s fi r ed i ni t i at ed the di s coveryof the W oodbr i dge r obberym oney . D et ect i ve K i l l ane’ s t es t i m onycarr i ed s ubs t ant i al pr obat i ve val ue i n thi s i ns t ance as i tpr ovi ded the j uryw i th an under s t andi ng of how the8

cons pi r at or s ’ r obberys cheme began t o come undone. T he pr obat i ve val ue of the s t i pul at ed s t at ementoutw ei ghed anypr ej udi ce t o L aw r ence and w as pr oper l yadmi t t ed by th e D istric t C o u rt. B . A dm i s s i bi l i tyof Evi dence : Pr os per Pr os perar gues thatthe D i s tr i ctC our ti m pr oper l yadmi t t ed i rr el evantand p r e j u d i c i a l t e s t i mo n yth a tc h a r a c t e r i z e d e a c h b a n k r o b b e rya s v i o l e n ta n d h e i n o u s . He sp ec ifi ca ll yp o ints t o (1) F . B . I. A g en t G all ag h er’s testi m o n ythat “tak e-o v er ro b b eries are the mosts er i ous type of ba nk r obbery ; ” ( 2) St acySt one’ s t es t i m onythats he t erm i nat ed h e r e m p lo ym e n t at M a taw a n B a n k b e c a u se “ w e w e re ro b b e d a n d I d id n ’t f e e l co m f o rta b le w or ki ng ther e anym or e; ” and ( 3) St one’ s fur thert es t i m onythats he w as pr egnantatthe t i m e o f th e M a t a w a n r o b b e r y. Pr os percont ends thatthe t es t i m onyof G al l agherhad l i t t l e pr obat i ve val ue and w as i nt ended t o i nfl ame t he j ury . Pr os perobj ect ed t o thi s t es t i m onyattr i al and made no r eques tfora mi s tr i al . T hus w e r evi ew the D i s tr i ctC our t ’ s deci s i on nott o gr anta mi s tr i al su a sp o n te f

o r p la in e rr o r. See U

nited S tates v. P un gitore , 910 F. 2d 1084, 1126 n. 58 ( 3d C ir. 1 9 9 0 ); G o v ’t o

f th e V irg in Isla n d

s v . C h a rle sw e ll , 2 4 F . 3 d 5 7 1 , 5 7 6 -77 (3d C ir . 1994) . T he obj ect i on t o t hi s t es t i m onyw as i n fac ts us t ai ned and thatl i ne of que s t i oni ng h a lted . T h e ju ro rs v iew e d v id e o tap e o f a ll th re e ro b b e rie s a n d , the re f o re , w e re a b le to c o m e t o th e i ro w n c o n c l u s i o n s a s t o w h e th e rth e r o b b e r i e s w e r e “ s e r i o u s ” i n n a tu r e . We9

cannots aythatPr os pers uffe r ed pr ej udi ce s i gni fi cantenough fr om G al l agher ’ s s t at ement th a t th e D istric t C o u rt e rre d in n o t d e c lar in g a m istria l su a sp o n te . P ro p e r a lso a rg u e s th a t th e D istric t C o u rt sh o u ld h a v e d e c lar e d a m istria l s ua sp o n te f o llo w in g S to n e ’s te stim o n y . P ro sp e r d id n o t o b jec t to S to n e ’s te stim o n ya t trial, th e re f o re w e re v ie w th e D is tr ic t C o u rt ’s d e c is io n f o r p la in e rr o r. S e e C h a rle sw e ll , 24 F. 3d at576- 77. St one’ s t es t i m onythats he fe l tuncomfort abl e w or ki ng i n the bank fol l ow i ng the r obberydi d notr es ul ti n s ubs t ant i al pr ej udi ce t o Pr os per . Fur ther , her tes tim o n yth a t sh e w a s p re g n a n t at th e tim e o f th e ro b b e ryw a s o f

f e re d to c o rro b o ra te T u rn e r’s tes tim o n yth a t L a w re n c e a n d P ro sp e r d e sc rib e d a p re g n a n t w o m a n a s b e in g in th e b a n k a t th e tim e o f

th e ro b b e ry . A s s u c h , the D istric t C o u rt d id n o t p lain lye rr in f a ili n g to d e c lar e a m istria l su a sp o n te a s a r e s u l to f th i s r e l e v a n tt e s t i m o n y. C . R eques tforM i s tr i al : L aw r ence I n r es pons e t o an i nqui r ybythe G overnm entr egar di ng L aw r ence ’ s i ni t i al un derst and i ng of h i s Mi r anda r i ght s pr i ort o hi s D ece m ber9, 2005 arr es t , D et ect i ve K i l l ane t es t i fi ed t o L aw r ence ’ s “pas trun- i ns w i th l aw enfor cement . ” ( D A L at81. ) U pon L aw r ence ’ s obj ect i on t o t he s t at ement , the t es t i m onyw as s tr i cken f r om the r ecor d and a cur at i ve i ns truct i on i s s ued. L aw r ence s ubs equent l ym oved fora mi s tr i al on the bas i s t hat K i l l ane’ s s t at ementand the pr i oradmi s s i on of fi ve pi ece s of di s put ed evi dence c o n stitu ted c u m u lativ e p ro se c u to ria l m isc o n d u c t th a t ef f e c tiv e lyd e n ied L a w re n c e a f a ir tr i al . T he D i s tr i ctC our tdeni ed the mot i on and not ed thati tw as “s at i s fi ed thatthe10

p o ten tial p re

ju d icia l im p a c t o f

th e tes tim o n y. . . w h ile u n f o rtu n a te, is s im p lyu n lik e lyto have a nyi m pacton t he j ury ’ s ver di cti n thi s cas e. ” O n appea l , L aw r ence cont ends that the D i s tr i ctC our terr ed i n fai l i ng t o gr anta mi s tr i al . W e di s agr ee. I n addi t i on t o D et ect i ve K i l l ane’ s t es t i m ony , L aw r ence poi nt s t o the fi ve pi ece s of di s put ed evi dence di s cus s ed i n Sect i on I I . A as gr ounds fora mi s tr i al . A s w e have al r eady found thes e pi ece s of evi dence w er e pr oper l yadmi t t ed, ourfocus her e r es t s s ol el yon the D i s tr i ctC our t ’ s deci s i on t o s tr i ke the di s put ed t es t i m onyand on the val i di tyof the cur at i ve i ns truct i on i n t hi s r egar d. W e re v ie w d e n ia ls o f

m o tio n s f

o r m is tr ia l f

o r a b u s e o f

d is c re tio n . U

ni t ed Stat es v. R i vas , 493 F. 3d 131, 139 ( 3d C i r . 2007) . N ot abl y , “s uch di s cr et i on i s cons trued es peci al l ybr oadl yi n t he cont extof R ul e 403. ” U n itedS ta tes v . M

a th is , 264 F. 3d 321, 3 2 7 (3d C ir . 2 0 0 1 ). H ere , L aw ren ce b ea rs th e b u rde n o f sh o w ing that the D istri ct C o u rt ’s d e c is io n to s tr ik e th e te s tim o n yw a s in s u f f ic ie n t to c u re a n ye rr o r t h a t m a yh a v e o c c u rr e d . U ni t ed Stat es v. Thorton , 1 F .3 d 1 4 9 , 1 5 6 (3 d C ir. 1 9 9 3 ). It is g e n e ra llyp re su m e d th a t a ju ry w ill f

o llo w a c o u rt ’s in s tru c tio n to d is re g a rd in a d m is s ib le e v id e n c e . See G r eerv. Mi l l er , 4 8 3 U . S . 7 5 6 , 7 6 6 n . 8 (19 8 7 ). In th is case , itis un li k elythat the ju ryp rov ed u n ab le t o fo ll o w the D istri ct C o u rt ’s instruction s. T h e D istri ct C o u rtp rov ided a sim p le an d co h ere n t i n stru cti o n to juro rs im m e d iate lyf

o llo w in g K ill a n e ’s u ttera n c e o f th e sta tem e n t. F u rth e rm o re , w e a g re e w ith the D i stri ctC ou rtthat the st at em ent’ s i nh erentl ack o f specifi ci tyi n regard t o cert ai n p ast11

cr i m es r ender ed the s t at ementonl ym i ni m al l ypr ej udi ci al . C ons equent l y , w e ar e s at i s fi ed th a t th e D istric t C o u rt d id n o t ab u se its d isc re tio n in d e c lin in g to g ra n t a m istria l. D . U n e x p lain e d W e a lth Forthe fi r s tt i m e on appe al , Pr os peras s ert s thatthe D i s tr i ctC our terr ed byfai l i ng t o pr ovi de the j uryw i th a l i m i t i ng i ns truct i on upon the i ntr oduct i on of evi dence conce rni ng hi s s udden ac qui s i t i on and expe ndi tur e of une xpl ai ned w eal th fol l ow i ng t he M a t a wa n r o b b e r y . As wi th th e p r e v i o u s u n p r e s e r v e d o b j e c t i o n s o n a p p e a l h e r e , we re v ie w th is c o n te n tio n f o r p la in e rr o r. Les s ner , 498 F. 3d at192. W e conc l ude thatthe D istri ct C o u rtd id n o t err byfa il ing to p rov ide a li m it ing instruction reg ard ing P rosp er’s unexpl ai ned w eal th. W e have s t at ed that“the s udden unexpl ai ned ac qui s i t i on of w eal th byan im p e c u n io u s p e rso n a t o r a b o u t th e tim e o f a th e f t w h ich h e h a d th e o p p o rtu n ityto comm i t , i s compet entevi dence of gui l tand w i l l s uppor t. . . convi ct i on. ” U ni t ed Stat es v. C haney , 446 F. 2d 571, 575 ( 3d C i r . 1971) . I n thi s cas e, Pr os pers pentthous ands of dol l ar s i n the day s and w eeks fol l ow i ng the fi r s tbank r obbery . Pr os per ’ s acqui s i t i on of w eal th i n the day s fol l ow i ng the fi r s tr obberyappea r s gr eat , es peci al l ygi ven the fa ctt hat he r eport ed annua l i ncome of $8, 000 fort ax purpos es atthi s t i m e. Pr os per ’ s char act er i zat i on of hi s pos t - M at aw an r obberys pendi ng s pr ee a s evi dence of “othercr i m es ” forpurpos es of R ul e 404( b) i s err oneous . T he G overnm ent offe r ed evi dence of Pr os per ’ s abi l i tyt o m ake pur chas es i n a w aythatw as notpos s i bl e forW e re v iew a se n ten c e b yf irst e n su rin g th a t th e se n ten c in g c o u rt d id n o t co m m it a 3 s e ri o u s p ro c e d u ra l e rr o r. U ni t es Stat es v. Lopez - R eye s , 5 8 9 F .3 d 6 6 7 , 6 7 0 (3 d C ir . 2 0 0 9 ). U pon r evi ew i ng the pr ocedur al val i di tyof a s ent ence , w e next“r evi ew the s ubs t ant i ve re a so n a b len e ss o f

th e se n ten c e u n d e r a n a b u se o f d isc re tio n sta n d a rd , w h ile k e e p in g in m i nd thatas l ong as a s ent ence fal l s w i thi n the br oad r ange of pos s i bl e s ent ence s thatcan be cons i der ed r eas onabl e i n l i ghtof the [18 U . S. C . ] § 3553( a) fac t or s , w e mustaff i r m . ” I d. (i n terna l qu o tat ion s o m itted). A ppel l antL aw r ence ’ s br i ef a r gues thatthe D i s tr i ctC our tfai l ed t o “devi at e” f r om 4 the m an d ated m inim u m sen tenc e. (A p p . L aw ren ce B r. at 33 . ) T h e u se o f th e term “devi at e” i n r el at i on t o s ent enci ng i s i nacc ur at e. R ather , w e w i l l r evi ew the D i s tr i ct Co u r t ’ s d e c i s i o n n o tt o “ d e p a r t ” o r“ v a ry ” f r o m th e s t a tu t o rymi n i mu m. 12 Pr os perpr i ort o t he M at aw an r obbery , notevi dence of a c r i m e orcr i m es t endi ng t o s how Pr os per ’ s bad cha r act erorpr opens i tyt o comm i ta cr i m e. T her e exi s t s a gr eati m bal ance b etw ee n the a m o u n t of

m o n eysp en t sub seq u en t t o the M ataw an rob b eryan d P rosp er’s r eport ed annua l i ncome. T hi s i m bal ance i s cert ai nl ypr obat i ve. III . A ll eg ed S en tenc ing E rrors L aw r ence and Pr os perchal l enge the r eas onabl enes s of the s ent ence s i m pos ed by the D i s tr i ctC our ton s ever al gr ounds . W e r evi ew thes e s ent ence s underan abus e of di s cr et i on s t andar d. 3 A tthe out s et , L aw r ence m ai nt ai ns thatthe D i s tr i ctC our tabus ed i t s di s cr et i on by ( 1) fai l i ng t o departfr om the s t atut orym i ni m um ; and ( 2) fi ndi ng thatL aw r ence and T u rn e rw e r e n o ts i m i l a r l ys i tu a t e d o f f e n d e r s f o rp u rp o s e s o f

1 8 U . S . C . § 3 5 5 3 ( a ) . We 4 di s agr ee. A di s tr i ctcourtdoes nothave the author i tyt o departfr om s t atut or i l ym andat ed m i ni m um s ent ence s i n t he abs ence of ( 1) a governm entm ot i on forr educt i on bas ed upon a13

d e f e n d a n t’s s u b sta n tial a ss ista n c e o r (2 ) a d e f e n d a n t’s c o m p lian c e w ith th e sa f e tyv a lv e in § 3 5 5 3 (f ). U ni t ed Stat es v. Kel l um , 356 F. 3d 285, 289 ( 3d C i r . 2004) . H er e, the G o v ern m en t did n o t m o v e f o r a d ep arture b ase d o n su b stan ti al assist an ce , an d the n ature of the Law r ence ’ s § 924( c) convi ct i on forpos s es s i on of a f i r earm dur i ng and i n r el at i on t o a r obberypr ohi bi t s cons i der at i on of the s afe tyval ve fa ct or s . T her efor e, the D i s tr i ct C our tdi d notabus e i t s di s cr et i on i n r efus i ng t o departfr om the s t atut or i l ym andat ed m i ni m um s ent ence . C ontr aryt o L aw r ence ’ s s econd c ont ent i on, w e have hel d thatthe “di s par i tyof s ent ence betw een c o- defe ndant s does notof i t s el f s how abus e of di s cr et i on. ” U ni t ed Stat es v. P arker , 462 F. 3d 273, 276- 77 ( 3d C i r . 2006) . T he D i s tr i ctC our tcons i der ed L aw r ence ’ s cont ent i on thathe and Tur nerw er e s i m i l ar l ys i tuat ed forpurpos es of § 3553( a) and r i ght ful l yr ej ect ed i t . Si gni fi cantdi ffe r ence s betw een Law r ence and Turne r ju stif yth e 7 2 8 -m o n th d isp a rityin th e ir se n ten c e s. M o st o b v io u sly , T u rn e r p lea d e d g u ilty to a sin g le c o u n t o f

u sin g o r c a rry in g a f

ire a rm d u rin g a n d in re latio n to a b a n k ro b b e ryin vi ol at i on of 18 U . S. C . § 924( c) , a cha r ge w hi ch ca rr i es a s even- y earm andat orym i ni m um cons ecut i ve s ent ence . I n contr as t , L aw r ence pl eade d notgui l tyand w as convi ct ed of, am o n g o ther thin g s, three co u n ts un d er § 9 2 4 (c) w h ich, i n turn , ca rrya 5 7 -y ea r m an d atory mi n i mu m c o n s e c u t i v e s e n t e n c e . Al s o , Tu rn e rp l e a d e d g u i l tyt o th e c h a r g e s a g a i n s th i m, f a c e d f e w e r c o u n ts o f

c o n v ic tio n , a n d c o o p e ra te d s ig n if ic a n tly w ith la w e n f

o rc e m e n t.14

G i ven thes e ci r cumst ance s , the D i s tr i ctC our tcorr ect l yconcl uded thatT urnerand L aw r ence w er e nots i m i l ar l ys i tuat ed co- defe ndant s forpurpos es of § 3553( a) appl i cat i on. L a w re n c e a lso c o n ten d s th a t th e c o n d iti o n s o f h is p re -tria l co n f

in e m e n t in P a ss a ic C ountyJ ai l j us t i fi ed a dow nw ar d var i ance i n s ent enci ng r atherthan an i m pos i t i on of the m in im u m se n ten c e u n d e r th e G u id e lin e s. H e a ss e rts th a t th e D istric t C o u rt’s f a ilu re to g ran t a do w n w ard v arian ce co n sti tutes an ab u se o f d iscreti o n . W e d isag ree an d are s at i s fi ed, l i ke the D i s tr i ctC our t , thatthe condi t i ons i n the Pas s ai c C ountyJ ai l do not w a rr a n ta n E i g h th A m e n d m e n to rs u b s t a n t i v e d u e p r o c e s s i n q u i ry. Pr os percont ends thatthe D i s tr i ctC our tabus ed i t s di s cr et i on byi m pos i ng a di s pr opor t i onat e s ent ence w i thoutcons i der at i on forhi s i ns ubs t ant i al cr i m i nal hi s t oryand the fa ctthatno i nj ur i es s t emm ed fr om the r obber i es . W e di s agr ee. W e h a v e h e ld th a t “a lth o u g h th e p ro p o rtio n a lityp rin c ip le [ o f th e E ig h th A m e n d m e n t] a p p lies to se n ten c e s o f ter m s o f y e a rs, o n lya n e x tra o rd in a ryc a se w ill re su lt i n a cons t i tut i onal vi ol at i on. ” U ni t ed Stat es v. W

alker , 4 7 3 F .3 d 7 1 , 7 9 (3 d C ir . 2 0 0 7 ). C o n tra ryto P ro sp e r’s c laim , n o su c h e x tra o rd in a ryc a se o f g ro ss d isp ro p o rtio n a litye x ists h e re . See i d. a t 8 2 -8 3 . P ro sp e r’s se n ten c e is n o t d isp ro p o rtio n a te f ro m o r u n re a so n a b le in th e f a c e o f th e g ra v ityo f

th e c rim e s. P ro sp e r d e m o n stra ted a w ill in g n e ss to re p e a ted ly engage i n fel oni ous behavi orw hen he c om m i t t ed thr ee c ons ecut i ve arm ed r obber i es s pr ead outovera per i od of s ever al m onths . T he D i s tr i ctC our tcoul d r eas onabl yconcl ude15

thatthe cr i m es Pr os percomm i t t ed w er e “mom ent ous enough t o w arr antthe det err ence and r etr i but i on of l engthycons ecut i ve s ent ence s . ” I d. I V. F or the fo regoi ng reas on s, w e w i l l affirm the D i stri ctC ou rt ’s j ud gm ents .