## 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

- 3209 U NI T ED S TATE SOF A MERI CA, P la intif f-A pp ellee, v. G ARY S T E VE NS ON, D ef endant-Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court fo r the S outhernDi stricto f Illino is. No . 07 CR 30178

—Wi ll iam D. Stiehl, Judge
.
A RG UE D M AR CH 31, 2011

— D ECI DE D S EP TE MBE R 7, 2011

Befo re C UDAH Y, P OSNER, a nd M A NI ON, C ircu it Judges. M ANIO N, C ircu it Judge. A j ury co nv icted Ga ry S te ve ns o n o fon e co unto fc o ns pi r ac y t o di st r ibut e an d posse ss w i th i ntent to dist ribute cocaine and cr ack coc a i n e . T h e d i s t r i c tc o u r ts e n t e n c e d S t e v e n s o n t o l i fe i mpr i so nm en t. S te ve ns o n a p p e a l s, a r g ui ng t ha t th e d i str i ct c ourter re d i n adm i tting ev i dence r el ate d to hi s di st r ibut i o n a nd us e o fmar ij ua na a nd tha t th e ver dicti s no t s up port ed by the e vi dence, but ra ther c o n s t i t u t e s a v a r i a n c e fr o m th e i n d i c t me n t
. We a ffi r m.2 N o. 09

- 3209

J uries convict ed H ogan, M oore, Talton and W il kins, and they 1 w e r e s e n t e n c e d , r e sp e c t i v e l y , t o l i fe , 3 6 0 m o n th s’, 1 6 0 m o n th s’, and 12 1 m onths ’ i m pri s onm en t
. Al l f our appe al ed the i r c onvi c t i ons t o thi s c our t
. Pr i or t o o ra l ar gum en t, the go v er nm en t c onfes sed er ro r, na m el y the f ai l ur e t o pr ove ve nue i n the (co n tin u ed ...) I. I n 200 7, the Drug E nfo rce m ent A dm i ni str ati on ( “DE A ”) bega n i nvest i gat i ng a crackand coc ai ne di str ibuti on ring o perat i ng o ut o fS t. L ou is, M i sso uri
. The i nvest i gati o n r e s ul t e d in the e v e ntua lc ha r g e o fde fe nd antappe l l an t Gar y S te ve ns o n, i n a f o ur ths upe r se di ngi ndi ct m en t, wi tho ne c ou nt o fc o ns pi r i ngt o di st r ibut e an d p o s s e s s wi th th e i n t e n tt o d i s t r ib u t e c r a c ka n d c o c a i n e . An i ni ti ali ndi ct m en t ha d ch ar g ed S te ve ns o n, Di al l o Bo ha nna and K i m yat a Young with o ne co unt ofco nspir acy to di st r ibut e an d po ss es s wi thi nte ntt o di st r ibut e co ca i ne an d crac k cocaine
. A secon d , third , and f ou rth su p ersedi ng i nd i ctm ent were l ate r re turned, adding as codefe nd a nt s Gl o r i a S t e v e ns o n ( Ga r y ’ s mo the r ) , S ha l o nd a Byr th, Her m anM o o r e, Gr eg o r y Hog an, Da ve Ken t, To ny Fr ien d s, Jr., Pa m ela Ste ve n so n (G a ry ’s s ist er ), Pr isc illa H aw ki ns, N athani el L ew i s, ErnestM i l l er, S r. , Kenn eth Tal ton and J enni fer W i l kins. A l l of the co- defe nd ants pl ea ded g ui l ty, wi ththe e xc ept i o n o fGa r y S te ve ns o n, H oga n, M oo re , Tal ton, and W i l kin s, w ho pl eaded not gu i l t y a nd pr o c e e de d t o t r i a l i n the S o uthe r n Di s t ri ct o f I l l i noi s. The tr i als w er e seve re d fo r al lo fthe defe nd ants, ex ce pt f o rHog ana nd W i l k i ns who wer e tr i ed to g ether. T h is a p p ea l co n c er n s o n ly G ar y St ev en so n ’s t ria l. 1N o. 09

- 3209 3

(

. . . c on t i nu e d) 1 Southern D is tr ic t ofIl li nois , t o defe nd ants W il kins and M oore a n d th ei r c o n v ic tio n s w er e v a ca te d

. Se e U ni t e d St a t e s v. Wi l k i ns , N o . 09 -3 4 5 7(Jan u a ry 28 , 20 1 1 ); Uni t e d St a t e s v. M oore , N o. 09- 3731 ( J anuary 28, 2011)

. Fol l owin g or al ar gum en t, the gove rn m en tfi l ed a m ot i on t o c onfes s e rr or t o de fend an ts T al t on and H o g a n , again on the basi s ofthe l ack ofvenue in the Southern Dis t ri c tofI l l i noi s . W e gr ant ed thatm ot i on and th ei r c onvi c t i ons w er e lik ew i s e v a c a te d

. SeeUn i t ed Sta t es v. Tal t on , N o. 09- 2751 (A p ri l 2 8 , 20 1 1 ); U ni t ed Sta tes v. Hogan , N o. 09- 3588 ( A pril 28, 20 11 ). Stev en son ’ s ap p eal is the o nly on e rem ain ing b efore u s. A t S tev enso n’s tr i al, i n additi on t o gov er nm ent a gents , F r i en ds, Yo ung, Byr th, M i l l er, H awk i ns , Pa m el a S te ve nson, Lew i s, Bohanna, and K ent t est i fied

. S tev enso n did notte sti fy, nordi d he call any w i tness es i n hi s defense. The go ver nm ent witnesse s t est i fi ed as f ol l ows: St ev en so n l i v e d in St . L ou is, M iss ou ri an d , ona w ee kly basi s fro m 20 03 to 2007so l d l ar ge quan tit ies of cra ck coca i ne to M i l l erand K ent, am ong othe rs . A t t i m es, M i l l erand K ent woul d pay cas h, and at o th erti m es, St ev en so n w ou ld fron t t h em th e c ra c k a n d th ey w ou ld pay S tev enso n lat er . S tev enso n al so sol d l ar ge am ounts ofpow der c oca in e to Bohanna on a weekl y b asi s fro m 2006 to 20 07, ag ai n re gul ar l y fro nti ng the d rugs to Bohanna. Begi nning i n 200 6, S te venso n tr avel ed to Kansas Ci ty, M i ss o ur it o pur ch as e m ar ij ua na a nd co ca i ne fr o m To ny Friend s. B efore l e a ving St. L ou is, Steven son or M oore wo ul d r e mov e s pe a k e r s fr o m hi s a ut o mob i l e a nd h i de m one y for th e d rug p urc ha se ins id e the sp eakers, before4 N o. 09

- 3209

re i nstal l i ng the speak er s in a c ou ri ercar . Then one of seve ral w om en ( Pa m ela Steven son, By rth, W il kin s, or a w om an on ly id en tifie d a t t ria l as “S w ee t P ea ”) w ou ld proce ed i n the m oney - l aden cour i ercarto Kansas Ci ty. ( St eve nson purpose l y e nl i ste d w om en to actas co urier s, belie ving that fem al es w er e l ess l i kely t o att ra ct the at

te nt i o n o fl aw e nf o r ce m en t. ) S te ve ns o n pa i d the co ur i er s seve r alhun dr ed do l l ar s pert r i p, a l th o ugh h e neverpai d his si ste r Pam el a. But, as Pam el a t estified at tr i al, she “w as m or e l i ke h oo k m y m an up w i th m ar ij u an a a n d I b e c oo l.” A n d P am ela ind ire c tly benefi t t e d b y thi s a r r a ng e men tb e c a us e s he a nd her boy fri end, Tal ton, r eso l d the m ar ij u ana they r ecei ved fro m S tev enso n out ofthe re si dence t hey s hare d w i th Pa m el a’ s th r ee c hi l dr en . I n additi on t o the wom en co uri er s, S tev enso n al so pa i d L e wi s t o dr i v e a “ t r a i lc a r ” du r i ngthe r o un d t r i ps to K ansas Ci ty. A s a tr ai lcar d ri ver, Lew i s was re sponsibl e forke epi ng i n conta ct w ith t he co uri er s e n r o ut e an d f o rwat ch i ngo utf o r an y l aw e nf o r ce m en t prese nce. A nd i fther e were any pr obl em s, he was t o conta ct S tev enso n and i nfo rm hi m o fthe diffi cul ti es. So m etim es, tho ugh, S tev enso n hi m sel fwould dri ve th e tr ai lc arwi tha fr i en d o ra g i r l fr i en d. K im y at a Yo ung tes ti fi ed that she went w i th S tev enso n to Kansas Ci ty on o ne o ccasi on, al though s h e cl ai m ed she did not know the t rue pu rpos e of t h e tri p at fi rs t

— sh e th o ught sh e w as g oi ng sho pp i ng. In f act, wh en Young fi rs t m et hi m , St eve nson tol d he r that he w as a pol i c e o fficer w ho w or ked f or the Drug Task U ni t. Bu t sh e s oo nN o. 09

- 3209 5 l ea r ne d the t r uth. Not wi ths ta ndi ngthe f ac t th atYo ung w as we l l e du c a t e d ( s he ha d a M a s t e r ’ s de g r e e a nd was a lic en se d cl i n i c a l s oc ial w or ke r) an d ga in fu lly em p loy ed (m ak in g i n th e m id -$3 0,0 00 ), sh e n oton ly c on tinued to ass oci ate with S tev enso n, but al so hel ped hi m byst or i ng co cai ne and m ar ij uana atherhom e. A t t ri al, the cour i er s a nd tr ai l

- cardri ver s t est i fi ed that w hen theyar ri ved i n K ansas Ci ty, t h ey w oul d go to Fr i ends’ hom e. There , theywould backthe cour i ercar i nt o F r i en ds’ g ar ag e an d the n wai t f o r Stev ens o n a nd F r i en ds, a nd so m et i m es he l p the m , t o r emov e th e dr ug m o ne y fr o m the sp eakers a nd r epl ac e i t wi thc o ca i ne and/orm ar ij uana. Fr i ends tes ti fied thathe s er ved as a m id d le m an f or the tran sact ion and that the d rugs w ere supp l i ed by an i nd i vi du alfro m M exi co nam ed R am one. Ra m o ne was a l so pr es en t o n s ev er alo cc as i o ns dur i ng the dr ug exchange s. Aft erpa ck i ngthe c o ur i er carwi ththe dr ug s, the c ouri erwould r etur n to S t. Loui s, with S tev enso n or othe rs f ollow in g i n the tr ai lcar . M osto fthe ti m e when th e y a r r i v e d t he co ur i e rc a rw o u l d b e t a k e n t o th e h o me of Ste venso n’s m othe r. There S tev enso n, M oo re , o r Ta l t o n wo ul d r e mov e the s pe a k e r b o x a nd b r i ngi t i nto the k i tchen, wh er e i t would be unl oaded. On a few o ccasi ons, S tev enso n sto re d the co cai ne atYoung’ s ho m e; St ev e n s o n w o u ld lat er ca ll Y ou n g a n d te ll he r to br in g it to hi s m othe r’ s ho use. Once the coca i ne was unlo aded i n the k i tc he n, S te ve ns o n wo ul d e i th erb r ea kthe c o ca i ne i nto sm al l er packag es and r ese l l i t or coo k i t i nt o c ra ck an d the n s el lthe c rack. S te ve ns o n s o l d the c o ca i ne a nd6 N o. 09

- 3209

cra ck to seve ra lr egul arcustom er s, i ncl ud i ng, as not ed ab o ve , Bo ha nna, M i l l era nd Ken t, o fte nt i m es fr o nt in g th e d ru gs to th es e in d ivid u als . Th e c ou rie rs an d tra ilca rdr i ve r s o fte n wi tn es se d b o ththe crac kc o o k i nga nd the c oca i ne and cr ack sal es. The DE A d iscover ed St eve nson’ s drug oper ati on thro ugh i ts i nvest i gat i on o fBohanna’ s E ast St

. Loui s, I l l i noi s cra ck deal i ng. A fter conducti ng seve ra lco ntro l l ed pu rchas es ofcr ack fro m Bohanna, the DE A ar re ste d Bohanna i n l ate A ugust 2 007. Fo l l owing h is a rr est, Bohanna agr eed to co oper ate with the D E A and fi nger ed St ev en so n as h is s ou rc e. B oh an n a a ls o a g r ee d to ca ll St eve nson a nd ar ra nge t o pu rchas e a dd i ti onalco cai ne, whi c h he di d. U nb ekn ow ns t to Steven son, DE A agen ts w ere w atchi ng hi m the eve ni ng he w as schedule d to m eet B oh an n a. A fte r ob se rv in g St ev e n so n en te r Y ou n g’s res iden ce , o ffi ce r s di r ec te d Bo ha nna to ca l l S te ve ns o n and tellS te ve ns o n tha t he was i n the S t. Lo ui s ar ea a nd re ady to m eet
. In re sponse to Bohanna’s cal l, S teven son tol d Bo ha nna t o meethi m i n the a r ea o fRi ve r vi ew a nd B ro ad w ay . Ste ve n so n an d Y ou n g t h en leftY ou n g’s res iden ce , wi thS te ve ns o n c ar r y i nga s m al lwhi te bag. The du o or i gi nal l y hea ded to w ar d the Rive rv i ew /Bro adw ay ar ea, but they neverfi ni shed the tr i p; i nstea d they t urned a r o un d a nd h e a de d b a c kt o Y o un g ’ s h o me. DE A age nts then att em p te d to ar re st St eve nson, but he dro ve off, l eadi ng ag ents on a hi gh- speed chase

. S tev enso n evaded pol i ce a nd di sap p ea red fo r seve ra lm onths. Dur i ngS te ve ns o n’ s m o nths i n h i di ng, he cha ng ed th eN o. 09

- 3209 7 voi cem ai lm ess age o n hi s ce l lphone d i re cti ng ca l l er s t o DTA ( whi chi n t ex t- ta l k m ea ns “ Don ’ t Tr us t Anyo ne ”) a nd tel l i ng the m to dum p thei r tel ephones. S tev enso n al so l e fta me s s a g e f o ro n e o fth e DE A a g e n t s , t a u n t i n gh i m, as the a gent expla i ned at t ri al, bysa yi ng: “[ t]h at i t was m y job t o c at c h h im an d it w as h is job t o ru n, bitc h .” W hi l e S te ve ns o n w as o n the r un, the g o ve r nm en t g ather ed evidence. They i m m edi ate l y obtained a se ar ch wa r r a n tf o rY o u n g ’ s h o me a n d i n s i d e r e c o v e r e d a b o wl ofpow der c ocai ne i nsi de the re fri ger ato r, thr ee bags o f cra ck coca i ne und er neath the ki tchen si nk, thre e sc al es i n the ki tchen, and two ki l o w ra pp ers in the k i tchen tr ash. A gents al so re cove re d a to talo fthi rteen gra m s o f c ra c k coca i ne and 231 gr am s o fpow der c oca i ne. A gents al so i n tervi ew ed fri ends and asso ci ate s o fS tev enso n and obta i ned s tatem ents fro m se ver alwh o agr eed to co o perate wi ththe g o ve r nm en t. S te ve ns o n was e ve ntually arr es te d in e ar ly 2 00 8. Bas ed on th e ab o ve e vi den ce , a j ur y c o nv i ct ed S te ve nson of conspi ra cy to dist ribute a nd poss ess with i ntent to dist ribute c oca i ne and cr ack coca in e. St eve nson appeal s.

II. On ap p ea l, S tev enso n pres ents tw o ar gum ents. Fi rs t, h e a rg u es th at th e d ist ric t c ou rterr ed in ad m itt in g e viden c e rel ate d to hi s di str ibuti on a nd use ofm ar ij uana. Se cond, S tev enso n conte nd s that the ev i dence d oe s not supp or t a ve rdi ct forthe conspi ra cy charg e

—b utr a the r8 N o. 09

- 3209

S t e ve ns ondo e s not c ha l l e ng e ve nu e , whi c h a s n ot e d a bo ve 2 serv ed as the b asis f or the g ov ern m en t’ s con fessi on of erro r in M o o r e ’s, W i l k i n s’, T a l t o n ’s a n d H o g a n ’s c a se s. S t e v e n so n ’s t ri al, w hich w as the fi rs toff our, di ffer ed s i gni fi c ant l y fro m thos e f or the c o- c ons pi ra t or s . I n S t eve ns on’ s t ri al the gove rn m en t calle d B o h a nn a as a w itness an d he p ro v id ed the n ecessar y li nk to the Southern Dist ri ctofIl li nois , t esti fying that S t e v e n s o n fr o n t e d h i m c r a c k c o c a i n e ( th u s ma k i n g hi m a m em b er o f th e c o n sp ir a cy , see U n ited S tates v . S tott, 245 F

. 3d 890, 903 ( 7th Cir

. 2001) , am ended on rehear ing i n part, 15 Fed. A pp x. 35 5) , whi c h Boh ann a the n s ol d i n Eas tSt

. Loui s , I l l i noi s ( thus m a k in g v en u e p ro p er in th e S o u th er n D i s t r i ct o f Ill in o is. S ee U ni t ed Sta t es v. Ochoa , 22 9 F .3d 63 1 , 63 6 -3 7(7t h C ir . 20 0 0 )). B o h a n n a w a s n o tc a l l e d to te st i fy in M o o r e ’s, W i l k i n s’, T a l t o n ’s or Hogan’ s c as es , al thoughi ti s unc l ea r why not

. Duri ng the opening st atem ent at Stevens on’ s tr ial, the prosec utor s tat ed that“Di al l o Boh ann a i s goi ng t o t el l you i n 2 00 6, 200 7 h e would pur c has e m ul t i pl e ounc es ofc oc ai ne from the D efe nd an t pr actica lly w eek ly. W ha t D iallo B oh an na w ou ld d o is h e w ou ld com e in th is D istrict, this side of the riv er in Il li nois , typic all y f rom East St. Lou is , drive t o St. Lou is , and p ic k u p his coca ine from the D efend an t, b ring it ba ck to this Dis t ri c t, tur n i t in to crac k, an d s el l i tt o h i s c us t om er s f or profi t. The reas on that’ s im portant i s that’ s w hy this cas e has been indict ed in this D is tric t, ev en though m ostofi t t akes pl ac e i n S t
. Loui s . Dial l o Boh ann a i s the l i nk. He’ s the r ea s on th is c a s e h a s b ee n in d ic te d h er e i n th is c o u rt ro o m to d a y .” B o h a n n a ’s t e st i m o n y e st a b l i sh e d p r o p e r v e n u e fo r S t e v e n so n ’s t ri al

. The r ec or d does no ts ho w w hy h e di d nott es t i fy a tthe trials of the o the r accu sed co-con sp irato rs. the p r o o fa tt r i a lc o ns t i t ut e s a v a r i a nc e fr o m t he i nd i ctm ent. 2N o. 09

- 3209 9 A

. M ar ij uana Evi dence T hro ugho utS te ve ns o n’ s th r ee - dayt r i al, the g o ve r nm ent e l i ci ted te sti m ony from se ver alwitnes ses that St eve nson had di str ibuted and used m ar ij uana. S tev enso n ar gues on a pp ealthatthi s t est im ony w as “bad act s” evid en ce an d w as inad m issible un d er Ru le 404(b). R ule 404(b) p rovide s tha t evide n c e o f a d efend an t’s pr i o rb ad ac ts i s i na dm i ss ibl e ch ar ac te re vi den ce , b ut m ay be adm i tte d t o prove the defe nd ant’ s “m oti ve, oppor t un i t y, i nt e nt, pr e pa r a t i o n, pl a n, kno w l edge, i de nt i t y, o r ab s e nc e o f mi s t a k e o r a c c i de nt, . . . . ” F e d. R. Ev i d. 4 04 ( b)

. In i ts b r i efo n appea l, the g o ve r nm en td o e s n o ta s s e r ta v a l i d p u r p o s e f o rth e ma r ij u a na evi dence, but i ns te ad argues thatS tev enso n did not p re se rv e t h e is su e b ec au se h is on ly ob j ec tio n t o t h e m ar ij uana evi dence w as base d on r el evancyand not R u le 4 04 (b ), an d th er efo re ou r re vie w is s o l e l y for p lain error. Steven son cou nt ers tha t his obj ectionw as su ffi c i ent t o pu t the go ver nm ent a nd the cour t o n noti ce that he w as com pla i ni ng abo ut the adm i ssi on o f

“ b a d a c t s ” e v i d e n c e . A l t e r n a t i v e l y, S t e v e n s o n c l a i ms th at t h is c ourtsho uld none thel ess r evi ew hi s Rul e 4 04(b) chal l enge f oran abuse o fdi scr eti on be cause th e pr osecu tion viol ated Ru le 4 04(b) by not p roviding his attorney with the re quis i te noti ce o fi ts i ntent to i ntro du ce su c h ev id en c e. SeeFe d. R. Evi d. 404(b) ( “[ U ] pon re quest b y th e a c c u se d , th e p ro se c u tio n in a cr im in al c as e s h all pr o vi de r ea so nabl e no ti ce i n a dva nc e oft r i al, o rdur i ng tr i ali fthe cour t e xcuses pr etr i alnot i ce o fgo od cause sh ow n, of th e g en e r a l n at u re of an y s u c h ev id en c e it inten d s to i nt rod uc e at trial

. ”).10 N o. 09

- 3209

O n a p p eal, Stev en son also a rg u es tha t the m ariju a n a ev i- 3 dence “w as f ar m ore prej ud ic ial than pro b a tive und er Fe d. R. Evid. 40 3, ” Appel l ant Bri ef at 33 , but St eve ns on d id no t prese nt that ar gum en t to the dist ri ctcourt and even had he, as no ted , an y erro r w as ha rm less. W hetherS tev enso n pres er ved the i ssu e an d w hether the g ove rnm ent’ s v i ol ati on o f Fed. R. Evi d. 404(b) ’ s no ti ce re quir em ent sh ou l d excuse a n i nsuffi ci ent obj ecti on t o the m ar ij uana evi dence, however, is ir re l evantbec ause any e rr orwas harm l ess . See Fe d

. R . C rim . P. 52 (a); U nited 3 St at e s v. O rt iz, 474 F.3d 976 , 982 (7th C ir. 2007) (“Errors do not m er i t r eve rs alwh en the go ver nm ent pr ove s that th eya r e ha r m l es s, tha t i s, tha t th eydi d no t aff ectthe outco m e o fthe tr i al.” )

. The ev i dence ag ai nst S tev enso n w as ove rw h elm in g. St ev en so n ’s su p p li er, Fr i ends, testifi ed at tr i althathe s up pli ed St eve nson with huge qu an titi es of coca ine over th e years. Severa l c o u riers an d tra il-ca r d riv er s a lso te st ified , n o t j u stab ou t t h eir ro l es, bu t also abo ut ev ents they w i tness ed

— St eve nson se c r e t i ngthe mo ne y a nd drug s i n the s pe a k e rb o xe s; hi s co oking o fthe coca i ne i nto cra ck; and hi s wei ghi ng, pac k ag i ng, a nd s el l i ngl ar g e qua nt i ti es o fc r ac ka nd coca i ne o ut o fhis m ot her’ s ho use. A dd i ti onal l y, thr ee of St eve nson’s re gul arpurchase rs , to wh om S tev enso n fr o nt e d the dr ug s , a l s o t e s t i fi e d. Te s t i mon y fr o m gover nm ent a ge nts c oncerni ng S tev enso n’s behav i oral so bol ste rs the tes ti m ony ofthe co- conspi ra tor s. S peci fi cal l y, S te ve ns o n l ed o ffi ce r s o n a hi g h- spe ed ch as e th e ev en i ng ofthe att em pted sting o perat i on. A fterelud i ng o ffi cer s, he t h en ta unted them , l eaving m ess age s e vi dencinganN o. 09

- 3209 11

aw ar eness o fgui l t, i
. e. , i t’ s m y j ob to run a nd yo ur j ob to ca tc h m e. St ev e n so n als o c h an ge d h is v oic em ail m ess age to i nfo rm h i s fri ends and f am i l y m em ber s that th er e w as a “sni tch” and that they shoul d dum p th eir cel lphon es a n d trustno one. Fo r hi s par t, S tev enso n cal l ed no witnesse s a nd pre sente d no ev i dence. M or eov er, the re fer ences to m ar ij u an a, f orthe m ost par t, wer e m er ely r epeti tiv e o fthe r efer en ce s to the ch ar g ed cr ac ka nd c o ca i ne

— e . g . , S t e v e n s o n “ wo u l d c o me f r o m S t
. L o u i s a n d b u y k i l o g r a ms o f c o c a i n e a n d p o un ds ofm ar ij uana fro m m e. ” In f act, S tev enso n argues o n ap p ea l th at th er e w as n o re as on for th e ad d itio n a l m a rij u a n a e vid en c e t o b e a d m itt ed be c au se it w as “e n tir ely cumul at i ve ” an d tha t “o fthe 3 2 pag es o ft r i alt es ti m o ny wh e r e ma r ij u a n a e v i d e n c e a p p e a r s , 2 7i n c l u d e th e s a me orsubst anti all y s i m i l arte sti m ony w i th r espectto coca in e or cr ack. ” Ap pel l ant Bri efat30

. But ra ther than bo l ste r St eve nson’ s a rgum ent, thi s r edun dancy hi g hl i g ht s why a ny e r r o rwas ha r m l ess. It i s al so wro ng to thi nk tha t a j ury w oul d hea r th e sam e witnesse s te st i fy about m ar ij ua na a nd c o ca i ne a nd c r ac ka nd c o ncl ude tha t th o se wi tn es se s m us t be t r uthfulr eg ar di ng the c oca i ne and cr ack because the y also sa i d that St ev en so n h ad d ist rib u t e d o r u se d m ar ij u an a. See U nited State s v. P ersi co , 4 25 F. 2d 13 75 , 13 84 ( 2d Ci r . 19 70 ) ( “As th e tr i alj u d ge n ote d, [ the witness’ ] te sti m ony as to othe r cr i m es a nd c r i m i na lpr o pen si tyw as so c l o se l y b o und u p wi thhi s di r ec tly r el ev an t te st i m o ny wi thr eg ard to the [ ch ar g ed] hij ac k i ngtha t unl es s the ju r y b el i ev ed th e re l e v an t t es tim on y it is qu ite u n like ly th at it w ou ld ha ve be eni nfl ue nc ed bythe a cc o m pan y i ngt es ti m o ny12 N o. 09

- 3209

o f o the r c r i mes . ” )

. F o r a l l o f the s e r e a s o ns, we c o nc l ud e th a ta n y e r r o rr e l a t e d t o th e a d mi s s i o n o ft e s t i m o ny concerni ng m ar ij uana w as harm l ess .
B. Vari ance S te ve ns o n n ex t ch al l en g es hi s co ns pi r ac y c o nv i ct i o n, sty l i ng hi s chal l enge as a f atalvar i ance b etween t h e gover nm ent’ s ind ict m en t a nd i ts proo fattr i al

. A co nspir acy var i ance c l ai m i s treat ed as a s uffi ci ency ofthe evi dence c laim , Uni t e d S t at e s v. Wom ack, 496 F.3d 791 , 794 (7th C ir. 2 0 0 7 ) , wh i c h n o r ma l l y me a n s th a tth i s c o ur tr e v i e ws th e evid ence i n the l i g htmos t f av o r ab l e to the g o ve r nm ent. But i n thi s ca se, bec ause St eve nson di d not r ai se th e is su e in th e d i s t r ict co u rt, ou r re vie w is for p lain er ro r. Id. U nd er this exa cting sta nd ard , reversal i s w arr an te d “ o nl y i fthe r ec o r d i s dev o i d o fe vi den ce po i nt i ng to gu ilt, ori fthe evi dence on a k ey el em ent was so te n u ou s t h at a c on vic tio n w o u l d be sh oc kin g. U nited State s v . Ir by, 55 8 F

. 3d 651, 65 3 ( 7th Ci r. 20 09) ( i nter nal qu otations om itted ). I n ar gui ngtha tthe e v i de nc e wa s i ns uffi c i e ntt o s up p ort the ch arged cons p iracy, Steven son clai m s “[i ]n sh or t, the gov er nm ent f ai l ed to pro ve that M r. S tev enso n consp i re d w i th num er ous o fthe othe r pu rpor ted co

con spi r at o r s ch ar g ed i n the i ndi ct m en t. ” Appel l an t’ s B riefa t 4 2 . St even son ’s argum en t fai ls as a legal m atter. Leg al l y, “ [ t] o c o nv i cta de fen dan t o fc o ns pi r ac y, the go v e r n m en t m u stp ro ve th at (1) tw o or m or e p eo p le ag r ee d t o c o mmi ta n u n l a wfu la c t, a n d ( 2 ) th e d e fe n d a nt knowingl y a nd i ntenti onal l y j oi ned the a gr eem ent. ” U nitedN o. 09

- 3209 13 St at e s v. Johns on , 59 2 F

. 3d 74 9, 75 4 ( 7th Ci r . 2 01 0)

. But“ th e g o ve r nm en t do es n’ t ha ve to pro ve w i thwho m a de fen dan t conspi re d; i t n ee d o nl y pr ove thatthe defe nd ant j oi ned the a g r e e men ta l l e g e d, n o tthe g r o up . ” U ni t e d S t at e s v. Tow ns e nd, 92 4 F

. 2d 1385 , 13 89- 90 ( 7th Ci r. 1991 )

. Thus, “t o ov er tu rn a c on sp ira c y c on vic tio n on th e g ro u n d of va riance, an a pp el l ant m ust s how both t h at he di d not conspi re w i th each d efe n dant andtha t he was pr ej ud ic e d b y b ein g t rie d w ith d efe n d an ts w h o w er e n oth is coco nspir ato rs . ” Id. at13 90. In thi s ca se, S tev enso n m er el y c l a i ms tha tthe g o v e r nme ntdi d n o ts ho w tha t h e c on sp i r e d w ith five of th e fo u rt ee n ind ivid u als na m ed i n th e i ndi ct m en t. Leg al l y, th o ugh, the governm en t w as n otreq u ire d to p ro ve th eir p ar tic i p a t i on , i d. , and ther ef or e S tev enso n’s ar gum ent i s without m er i t. I n hi s re plybr i ef, S tev enso n cl ai m s a var i ance b ase d o n a di ffer en t g r o und: he no l o ng erc l ai m s th atthe p ro b lem w ith th e e vid en c e is th at th e g ov e r n m e n t d id not es tabl i shthe pa r ti ci pat i o n o fa l lthe a l l eg ed co - co nsp i ra tor s. Rather, S tev enso n ar gues i n hi s r epl y b ri ef that “the gov ern m ent o ffer ed i nsuffi ci ent e vi dence at tr i althatM r. S tev enso n enga ged i n a c onspi ra cy to posse ss and dist ribute both cr ack andco cai ne as charg ed i n the i nd i ctm ent. ” Ap pel l ant’ s Repl y Bri efat19

. St eve nson then cl ai m s that “ [ t] he te sti m ony ofM ess rs . M iller a n d K en t s h ow ed , at m os t, in d i v i d u al b u y-s ell t r a n s a c t i o n s wi th Mr

. S t e v e n s o n i n v o l v i n g c r a c k

. ” Appel l ant’ s Repl y Bri efat21

. A rgum en ts not prese nted u n til a r e p l y b rie f are w aiv ed

. Se eU ni t e d S t at e s v. B o isture, 56 3 F

. 3d 295, 29 9 n. 3 (7th C ir. 20 09)

. But eve n if Ste ve n so n h ad n otw aiv ed th is a rg u m en t, it w ou ld fail.14 N o. 09

- 3209 A s no ted abo ve, the gov ern m ent pr ese nted evi dence that S t ev en so n fron te d cr ac k t o M iller a n d K en t a n d th is al o ne woul d b e su ff ici entt o make the duo pa r t o fthe co ns pi r ac y a nd s uppo r t th e ve r di ct th at S te ve ns o n c o nsp ire d to d ist rib u te cr ac k. SeeStott, 24 5 F

. 3d at 903. Bu t in additi on t o thi s e vi dence, se ver alo fthe othe r coconsp ira tor s t est i fi ed that afterS tev enso n purchased coca i ne fro m Fr i ends, theyhel ped him tr anspor t i t ba ck to hi s m othe r’ s ho use, wh er e they observe d him co ok th e co ca i ne i nt o c r ac ka nd the n s el lb o thc o ca i ne a nd cr ac kt o v ar i o us pur ch asers. Thi s ev i den ce was s uffi ci en t to est abl i sh S tev en son’ s co nspir acy to deali n both crac k and cocaine
. A ccord ingly, the a d d iti ona l th eory prese nted i n S tevenson’ s r epl y b ri eff ar es no be tte r than hi s ini ti alar gum ent. A nd the j ury’ s v er dictst ands.

III

. The evi dence ofS tev enson’s gui l t was o ver w hel m i ng. N u m e r ou s m em b er s o f th e c on sp ira c y, se rv in g in all ro l es

— su p p li er, cou rier, tra il -car driver, an d pu rc h aser

— t e s t i fi e d a tl e ng th ab o utthe s c o pe a nd o pe r atio n s o f th e c on sp ira c y. G ive n th is ov er w h elm in g e vidence, any er ro r i n adm i tting ev i den ce r el ate d to ma r ij u a n a wa s h a r ml e s s . Mo r e o v e r, th e o v e r wh e l mi ng ev i den ce e st ab l i sh ed th e co ns pi r ac y c ha r g ed i n the i ndi ct m ent

— conspi ra cy to dist ribute a nd poss ess with inten t to distribu te coca ine an d c r a ck coc aine. Th ere w as no va ri ance. W e A FFIRM .
9- 7- 11