2008 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 8-22-2008 

# U SA v . D elga do 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 . 06-3741

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_2008

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 2008 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 . D el ga do " (2008). 2008 D e cisio n s . P ape r 632. http://d i git alc ommon s .l a

w . vi ll anova . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2008/632NOT 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. 06- 3741

____________ UNI TE D ST ATE S OF AM ERI CA

v. CH RI S T I AN DE L GADO a/k/ a M ur der a/k/ a O l d C M ur der C hr i s t i an D el gado, A ppel l ant

____________ N o. 06- 3780

____________ UNI TE D ST ATE S OF AM ERI CA

v. J OSH UA BA EZ a / k/ a J O SH J os hua B aez , A ppel l ant

____________ N o. 06- 3846

____________ UNI TE D ST ATE S OF AM ERI CA2 v. DAVI D NDUK A B OS AH

a / k / a DJ D avi d N duka B os ah, A ppel l ant

____________ N o. 06- 4264

____________ UNI TE D ST ATE S OF AM ERI CA

v. AR GE NI S P AC HE CO M OS CO S O, a / k / a HEN NESSEY A r geni s Pachec o M os cos o, A ppel l ant

____________ N o. 06- 4304

____________ UNI TE D ST ATE S OF AM ERI CA

v. AN GEL FERRER a / k / a S T RA NGE A n g el F errer, A ppel l ant

____________3 O n A p p ea l from the U n it ed S tat es D istri ct C o u rt f o r th e E a ste rn D istric t o f P e n n sy lv a n ia ( D . C . N os . 05- cr - 00143- 4, 05- cr - 00143- 6, 05- cr - 00143- 5, 05- cr - 00143- 1 and 05- cr - 00143- 2) D i s tr i ctJ udge: H onor abl e J ames K nol l G ar dner

____________ Subm i t t ed U nderT hi r d C i r cui tL A R 34. 1( a)

J ul y2, 2008 B e f o re : R E N D E L L , S M IT H a n d F IS H E R , C i r cui tJudges .

( Fi l ed: A ugus t22, 2008)

____________ OPI NI ON O F THE COURT

____________ F IS H E R , C i r cui tJudge . C hr i s t i an D el gado, J os hua B aez , D avi d B os ah, A r geni s M os cos o and A ngel Fer r er w er e convi ct ed of c ons pi r acyt o di s tr i but e coc ai ne bas e ( “cr ack” ) i n vi ol at i on of 21 U . S. C . § 846. M os cos o and Ferr erw er e al s o convi ct ed of thr ee c ount s of di s tr i but i on of c ra c k , i d. § 8 4 1 (a )(1 ), th re e c o u n ts o f d istrib u tio n o f

c ra c k w ith in 1 ,0 0 0 f

e e t o f a sc h o o l, i d. § 8 6 0 (a ), o n e c o u n t o f p o s s e s s io n o f

c ra c k w ith in te n t to d is tr ib u te , i d. § 841( a) ( 1) , and o n e c o u n t o f

p o s s e s s io n o f

c ra c k w ith in 1 ,0 0 0 f

e e t o f a s c h o o l w ith in te n t to d is tr ib u te , i d. § 8 6 0 (a ). A ll fiv e d e f

e n d a n ts a p p e a l th e ir c o n v ictio n s, a n d M o sc o so a lso a p p e a ls h is s e n t e n c e . F o rth e r e a s o n s s e tf o r th b e l o w we wi l l a f

f i r m.D avi d L opez w as al s o char ged i n the i ndi ctm ent , butw as l at eracqui t t ed and doe s 1 n o t p a rticip a te in th is a p p e a l. 4 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. B etw een M ar ch 2003 and A ugus t2004, the def endant s contr ol l ed and ope r at ed the C h e stn u t S tre e t G a n g . T h e C h e stn u t S tre e t G a n g sh u ttl e d c o c a in e f ro m N e w Y o rk C ityto R e a d in g , P e n n s y lv a n ia w h e re g a n g m e m b e rs p ro c e s s e d th e c o c a in e in to c ra c k a n d s o ld it. I n J ul y2004 B aez w as arr es t ed atone of the pr opert i es oper at ed bythe C hes tnutSt r eet G ang. H e pl eade d gui l tyi n s t at e courtt o pos s es s i on w i th the i nt entt o del i vercoca i ne and cr i m i nal tr es pas s . L ocal and fe der al l aw enfor cementagent s began i nves t i gat i ng the C hes tnutSt r eetG ang and a r r es t ed i t s m ember s i n A ugus t2004. T he i ndi ctm entchar ged the def endant s w i th cons pi r acyt o di s tr i but e cr ack i n R eadi ng, Penns y l vani a fr om M ar ch

1 20 03 throug h A ug ust20 04 , as w el l as ot her subst anti ve d rug of fenses. T h e tri al be g an o n N o v em b er 2 8 , 2 0 0 5 . D u ri n g v o ird ir e, pro sp ec ti v e juro rs w ere as ked i f theyknew anypot ent i al w i tnes s es fr om a l i s tof thi r tynames, i ncl udi ng thatof FB I A gentG r eg B ani s . J ur or3 di d notr es pond. D ur i ng the tr i al , the C our tw as i nform ed thatA gentB ani s r ecogni zed J ur or3 as a nei ghbor . A s a r es ul t , the governm entagr eed nott o cal l A gentB ani s as a w i tnes s , and the def endant s w ai ved thei rr i ghtt o r eques tJ ur or5

3’ s r emoval . D ur i ng a l at erexami nat i on, a governm entw i tnes s m ent i oned thatthe i nves t i gat i on had bee n turned overt o an FB I uni ts upervi s ed byA gentB ani s . T he d ef en d an ts objected to this refe ren ce an d req u ested a m istri al. T h e D istri ct C o u rt c o n d u c ted f

u rth e r in q u irya n d w a s a ss u re d b yJu ro r 3 th a t alth o u g h B a n is w a s h is nei ghbor , he di d not“r eal l yas s oci at e” w i th B ani s and coul d r emai n i m part i al . T he D istric t C o u rt d id n o t re m o v e Ju ro r 3 a n d d e n ied th e re q u e st f o r a m istria l. C o n c u rr e n tly, th e C o u rt b e g a n re c e iv in g re p o rt s o f ju ro r m is c o n d u c t b yJ u ro r 9 . Som e of thi s conducti ncl uded maki ng s exual advanc es on femal e j ur or s and otherfede r al empl oy ees , appr oachi ng couns el forconver s at i on, arr i vi ng l at e, s l eepi ng dur i ng tr i al and m aki ng r aci al l y - char ged r emar ks . A ft erconfr ont i ng J ur or9 w i th thes e al l egat i ons , the C our t , overdefe ns e couns el ’ s obj ect i on, excus ed J ur or9 fr om fur therpart i ci pat i on i n t he trial. D ur i ng tr i al , as evi dence of B aez ’ s part i ci pat i on i n the cons pi r acy , the governm ent s oughtt o i ntr oduce Baez’ s cert i fi ed convi ct i on r ecor ds , gui l typl ea, and s ent enci ng or der re g a rd in g h is J u ly2 0 0 4 sta te d ru g c o n v ictio n . O th e r w itn e ss e s w e re a b le to c o rro b o ra te thi s evi dence . T he def

endant s obj ect ed t o the i ntr oduct i on of thi s evi dence , as s ert i ng t hat i tw as m ore prej ud i ci al than probati ve, and that despi t e being i ntr od uced on l yagainst B aez , i ti nferr ed thatthe otherdefe ndant s w er e al s o i nvol ved w i th the cons pi r acy , and thus vi ol at ed thei rSi xth A m endmentr i ghtt o confr ont at i on. D es pi t e thes e obj ect i ons t he C our tadmi t t ed the convi ct i on r ecor ds i nt o evi dence . T he C our tgave a l i m i t i ng6

i ns truct i on t o the j ury , s peci fi cal l ys t at i ng thatB aez ’ s convi ct i on r ecor d w as “not evidence thatanyof those otherfi ve d efen dan t s [w ere] gu i l tyof co nspir acy , and [w as] no tevidence o f any thing aga i nsttho se ot her fi ve co -defend ants . ” T he C ou rtal so e x p lain e d to th e ju ryth a t B a e z “ d id n o t p lea d g u iltyto c o n sp ira c y . H e p led g u iltyto a c ts w h ich m a yo r m a yn o t h a v e b e e n p a rt o f th a t alle g e d c o n sp ira c ya n d th a t’s f o r y o u to determ i ne. ” T he C ou rtal so dir ect ed the j ury“no tt o co nsi der Joshua B aez’s plea agai nst a n yo f th e o th e r c o -d e f

e n d a n ts f o r a n yre a s o n o r a n yc h a rg e .” A l s o dur i ng tr i al , the governm entexami ned off i cer s as s i gned t o the F. B . I . Feder al T as k For ce i n char ge of the cons pi r acyi nves t i gat i on. T hes e off i cer s t es t i fi ed thatthe defe ndant s deal tdrugs nears chool s and ar ound l aw - abi di ng ci t i zens . V i deo s ur vei l l ance o f th e n e ig h b o rh o o d w h e re so m e o f th e d ru g a c tiv ityo c c u rre d w a s a lso in tro d u c e d a t th is t i m e. M os cos o obj ect ed t o the i ntr oduct i on of thi s evi dence . D el gado, B aez , B os ah, M os cos o, and Ferr erw er e eve ntual l yconvi ct ed and se n ten c e d . M o sc o so , the o n lyd e f e n d a n t w h o n o w a p p e a ls h is s e n ten c e , w a s f o u n d g u ilty of cons pi r i ng t o di s tr i but e cr ack, pos s es s i on w i th i nt entt o di s tr i but e, di s tr i but i on ( thr ee count s ) , and di s tr i but i on of cr ack w i thi n 1, 000 fee tof a s chool ( thr ee c ount s ) , char ges carry i ng a st atutorym axim um pen al tyof li fe i n p ri son. T he C ou rtcal culat ed a b ase offe ns e l evel of 46 and a cr i m i nal hi s t orycat egoryof I V , y i el di ng an advi s oryG ui del i nes se n ten c e o f

life im p riso n m e n t. T h e C o u rt c o n sid e re d th e se n ten c in g f a c to rs c o n tain e d in7

18 U . S. C . § 3553( a) and s ent ence d M os cos o t o a bel ow - G ui del i nes s ent ence of 480 m o n th s’ im p riso n m e n t. II. T he D i s tr i ctC our thad j ur i s di ct i on pur s uantt o 18 U . S. C . § 3231, and w e have j u r i s d i c t i o n o v e rth i s a p p e a l p u r s u a n tt o 2 8 U. S . C. § § 1 2 9 1 a n d 3 7 4 2 . “ We r e v i e w a di s tr i ctcourt ’ s deni al of m ot i ons fora mi s tr i al and a ne w tr i al , as w el l as i t s i nves t i gat i on of j urym i s conduct , foran abus e of di s cr et i on. ” U n itedS ta tes v . B e rto li , 40 F. 3d 1384, 1392 ( 3d C i r . 1994) . W e r evi ew the D i s tr i ctC our t ’ s evi dent i aryrul i ngs foran abus e of d is c re tio n . U

ni t ed Stat es v. R ut land , 3 7 2 F . 3 d 5 4 3 , 5 4 5 ( 3 d Ci r . 2 0 0 4 ) . Ho we v e r , we e x e rc ise p len a ryre v iew w h e n w e “ a re c o n sid e rin g w h e th e r th e D istric t C o u rt c o rre c tly i nt erpr et ed the Feder al R ul es of Evi dence and r el evantcas e l aw , and [w hen the defe ndant s ’ ] chal l enge i m pl i cat es the conf r ont at i on cl aus e. ” U

n itedS ta tes v . Mitch e ll , 1 4 5 F . 3 d 5 7 2 , 5 7 6 (3d C ir . 1 9 9 8 ). W e re v iew the c o n sti tuti o n ali tyo f th e D istri ct C o u rt ’s s e n te n c in g p ro c e d u re d e n o v o . U nited S tates v. B arbo sa , 2 7 1 F . 3 d 4 3 8 , 4 5 2 (3d C ir . 2 0 0 1 ). III . A ll fiv e d e f

e n d a n ts c o n ten d th a t th e D istric t C o u rt a b u se d its d isc re tio n w h e n it f a iled to re m o v e Ju ro r 3 o r g ra n t th e ir m o tio n s f o r a m istria l. Ju ro r 3 f

a iled to d isc lo se h is acqua i nt ance w i th A gentB ani s dur i ng voi rdi r e and w as an empanel ed j ur orw hen he hear d anotherw i tnes s m ent i on thatB ani s w as the F. B . I . agents upervi s i ng the cons pi r acy8

in v e stig a tio n . W e c o n c lu d e 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 w h e n it f o u n d th a t th e n o n -d isc lo su re w a s u n in ten tio n a l an d d id n o t af f e c t th e f a irn e ss o f

th e trial. I n gener al , i n or dert o obt ai n a new tr i al a p a r ty m u s tf

i r s td e m o n s tr a t e th a ta j u r o rf a i l e d t o a n s w e rh o n e s t l y a m at eri al qu est i on on vo i r di re, and then further show that a corr ectres po nse w oul d have pr ovi ded a va l i d bas i s fora cha l l enge f orcaus e. T he mot i ves f o r c o n c e a lin g in f

o rm a tio n m a yv a ry , b u t o n lyth o se re a so n s th a t af f e c t a ju ro r’s im p a rtialityc a n tru lyb e sa id to a f f e c t th e f a irn e ss o f

a trial. McD onough P ow erE qui p. , I nc. v. G r eenwood , 464 U . S. 548, 556 ( 1984) . H er e, aft er c o n d u c tin g a n o n -th e -re c o rd in q u iry , the D istric t C o u rt f o u n d th a t Ju ro r 3 ’s f

a ilu re to r evea l hi s acqua i nt ance w i th B ani s dur i ng voi rdi r e w as uni nt ent i onal , and w as ei ther c a u s e d b yJ u ro r 3 ’s in a tte n tio n o r t h e C o u rt ’s m is p ro n u n c ia tio n o f B a n is ’s n a m e . “G ener al l y , w e w i l l noti nval i dat e a j uryver di ctbeca us e of a j ur or ’ s ‘ m i s t aken, though hones t ’ r es pons e atvoi rdi r e. ” U ni t ed Stat es v. H

odge , 321 F. 3d 429, 441 ( 3d C i r . 2003) ( quot i ng McD onough , 464 U . S. at555) . D efe ndant s have notci t ed s peci fi c evi dence s how i ng thatthe D i s tr i ctC our ti ncorr ect l yfound J ur or3’ s act i ons t o have be en u n in ten tio n a l. R e g a rd les s, a tim e lyd isc lo su re o f Ju ro r 3 ’s a c q u a in tan c e w ith A g e n t B a n is w oul d nothave ne ces s ar i l yr es ul t ed i n a di s m i s s al forcaus e. A s the D i s tr i ctC our tfound, the r el at i ons hi p betw een J ur or3 and B ani s w as qui t e w eak, not i ng thatJ ur or3 di d not

“ re a llya ss o c iate ” w ith B a n is. In a d d iti o n , B a n is w a s n o t a c e n tra l f ig u re in th e trial, h a v in g n o a c tiv e ro le, th u s m iti g a tin g th e p o ss ib ili tyo f p a rtiality . S ig n if

ica n tly , an d in contr as tt o otherveni r eper s ons w ho had bee n di s m i s s ed, J ur or3 al s o m ade r epea t ed9

a s s u ra n c e s , a c c e p te d b yth e D is tr ic t C o u rt , th a t h e c o u ld a n d w o u ld re m a in im p a rt ia l. See , e. g. , U

ni t ed Stat es v. Thorton , 1 F . 3 d 1 4 9 , 1 5 4 (3d C ir . 1 9 9 3 ) (a d istri ct co u rt pos s es s es “w i de l at i tude i n m aki ng the ki nd of cr edi bi l i tydet erm i nat i ons under l y i ng t he re m o v a l o f

a ju ro r” ). T h u s, w e c o n c lu d e th a t th 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 notdecl ar i ng a mi s tr i al w i th r es pectt o the ac t i ons of J ur or3. M o sc o so a n d F e rre r a rg u e th a t th e D istric t C o u rt a b u se d its d isc re tio n w h e n it di s m i s s ed J ur or9 fori nappr opr i at e conduc toverthei robj ect i ons . T he r ecor d s how s t hat J ur or9 engage d i n an arr ayof i nappr opr i at e beha vi or , i ncl udi ng: appr oachi ng tr i al couns el forconver s at i on, m aki ng i nappr opr i at e adva nces t o m ember s of the j uryand o th e rs, m a k in g ra c ially -c h a rg e d re m a rk s, sle e p in g d u rin g p ro c e e d in g s, a n d a rriv in g late to cou rt . T he D i stri ctC ou rtfou nd that this beh aviorw as “pois on t o the del i berat i on process t o the poi ntw her e j ur or s cannothave a fr ee a nd fr ank i nt er change . ” A s w e have p re v io u slysta ted , the D istric t C o u rt is “ in a f a r su p e rio r p o sitio n th a n th is C o u rt to appr opr i at el ycons i deral l egat i ons of j ur orm i s conduct . ” U ni t ed Stat es v. B oone , 458 F. 3d 321, 329 ( 3d C i r . 2006) . T her efor e, as the ac t i ons of J ur or9 w er e egr egi ous , w e conc l ude 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 w h e n it d ism iss e d Ju ro r 9 in o rd e r to preserve the i ntegr i tyof d el i berat i on s. B a e z a rg u e s th a t th e D istric t C o u rt a b u se d its d isc re tio n w h e n it p e rm itt e d h is s tate convi ct i on r ecor ds t o be admi t t ed as evi dence agai ns thi m . T he s t at e convi ct i on r ecor ds cont ai n s t at ement s m ade byB aez admi t t i ng t o pos s es s i ng and di s tr i but i ng drugs atthe10

sa m e tim e a n d lo c a tio n a s th e f e d e ra l co n sp ira c y . T h is e v id e n c e w a s th e re f o re p ro p e rly admi t t ed underR ul e 801( d) ( 2) as an admi s s i on, as i ti s pr obat i ve of hi s conductatthe t i m e and pl ace of the fe der al cons pi r acy . B aez has nots how n compel l i ng gr ounds t o fi nd thatthe pr obat i ve val ue of thi s evi dence i s gr eat l youtw ei ghed bythe pr ej udi ci al eff ectof a d m ittin g th is e v id e n c e , w h ic h w a s c o rr o b o ra te d b yo th e r t e s tim o n y . See Fed. R . E vi d. 403. A nypr ej udi ce orconfus i on thatthe admi s s i on of B aez ’ s r ecor d m ayhave c aus ed w a s m iti g a ted b ya n e x p licit ju ryin stru c tio n , ex p lain in g th a t B a e z “ d id n o t p lea d g u iltyto cons pi r acy. . . . H e pl ed gui l tyt o act s w hi ch mayorm aynothave be en partof that a lle g e d c o n s p ir a c y .” D el gado, B os ah, M os cos o, and Ferr eraddi t i onal l yar gue thatthe admi s s i on of B aez ’ s s t at e convi ct i on “nec es s ar i l yi m pl i cat ed them” and beca us e theydi d nothave a n oppor tuni tyt o cr os s - exami ne B aez , thei rr i ghtunderthe C onfr ont at i on C l aus e w as vi ol at ed. T he def

endant s r el yon t he rul e enunc i at ed i n B r ut on v. U ni t ed Stat es , w hi ch hel d thata def

endant ’ s r i ghtt o confr ont at i on w as vi ol at ed w her e hi s non- t es t i fy i ng codefe ndant ’ s confe s s i on, w hi ch i m pl i cat ed both the def endantand the co- defe ndanti n the c ri m e , w a s a d m itte d in to e v id e n c e . 3 9 1 U .S . 1 2 3 (1 9 6 8 ). B r ut on i s notappl i cabl e w hen the admi s s i on of a non- t es t i fy i ng co- defe ndantdoes notname or“fa ci al l yi ncr i m i nat e” a n yo th e r d e f

e n d a n t. R i cha rdson v. M arsh , 4 8 1 U . S . 2 0 0 , 2 0 7 (19 8 7 ). S ince B ae z’s admi s s i on di d notexpr es s l yname orr efe r ence anyotherdefe ndant , ther e i s no C onfr ont at i on C l aus e vi ol at i on. T he def endant s , otherthan B aez , ar gue thateven i f the11

ad m issi o n d id n o t dir ec tl yim p li ca te th em , itcre ated a stron g inf ere n ce that theyw ere i nvol ved w i th B aez i n the cons pi r acyt o di s tr i but e drugs . H ow ever , as w e s t at ed i n U ni t ed S ta tes v . B e lle , “e v id e n tiary l in k a g e o r c o n tex tu a l im p lica tio n m a yn o t b e u til ize d to converta non- B r ut on admi s s i bl e s t at ementi nt o a B r ut on i nadmi s s i bl e s t at ement . ” 593 F. 2d 487, 494 ( 3d C i r . 1979) . M or eover , the j uryw as gi ven a l i m i t i ng i ns truct i on, re q u e ste d b yth e d e f

e n d a n ts, re m in d in g th e m to c o n sid e r B a e z ’s c o n v ictio n a g a in st h im o n ly , an d it i s a n “ a lm o st in v a ria b le a ss u m p tio n o f th e law th a t ju ro rs f

o llo w th e ir i ns truct i ons . ” R i char ds on , 481 U . S. at206. W e ther efor e conc l ude thatB aez ’ s admi s s i on w as pr oper l yadmi t t ed as evi dence agai ns thi m , and thatadmi s s i on of the evi dence di d not off end the S i xth A m end m ent r i gh t s of t he o ther defen dan t s. A p p e llan t M o sc o so a rg u e s th a t th e D istric t C o u rt a b u se d its d isc re tio n w h e n it fai l ed t o gr anthi s m ot i on fora mi s tr i al aft era governm entw i tnes s m ent i oned thatthe i nves t i gat i on w as turned overt o t he FB I and thatthe drug act i vi tyhad occ urr ed nea rt o a schoo l and l aw -abi ding ci t i zens. M oscoso d oes no tdis pu t e t he fa ctual basi s for these comm ent s , butr atherar gues thathe w as unfai r l ypr ej udi ced unde rFeder al R ul e of E vi dence 403. H ow ever , “R ul e 403 does notpr ovi de a s hi el d fordefe ndant s w ho engage i n outr ageous act s . . . . I tdoes notgener al l yr equi r e the governm entt o s ani t i ze i t s cas e, t o defl at e i t s w i tnes s es ’ t es t i m ony , ort o t el l i t s s t oryi n a monot one. ” U ni t ed Stat es v. C ross , 3 0 8 F .3 d 3 0 8 , 3 2 5 (3 d C ir . 2 0 0 2 ) ( in te rn a l q u o ta tio n m a rk s a n d c ita tio n o m itte d ). T he r efe r ence s t o s chool s w er e es s ent i al t o the governm ent ’ s s t andar d of pr oof. T he12

r efe r ence s t o i nnocentby s t ander s and the FB I w er e, as the governm ents t at es “i nnocuous a n d in e v itab le.” R e g a rd les s, M o sc o so h a s n o t sh o w n th a t th e D istric t C o u rt a b u se d its di s cr et i on w hen i tdet erm i ned thatthi s m at er i al w as nots ubs t ant i al l ym or e pr ej udi ci al than pr obat i ve. Fi nal l y , M os cos o appea l s hi s s ent ence , ar gui ng thathe s houl d be r es ent ence d and thathe “i s ent i t l ed t o have the bene fi ci al as pect s of the [ U ni t ed Stat es v. B ooker , 54 3 U. S. 2 2 0 (2 0 0 5 )] d e c is io n a p p ly w ith o u t r e tr o a c tiv e a p p lic a tio n o f th e d e tr im e n ta l a s p e c ts .” M os cos o cont ends thatthe “de tr i m ent al as pect [] ” of B ookeris th a t ita llo w s c o u rts to s ent ence defe ndant s above the G ui del i nes r ange. “The E x P o st Fa c to C l aus e of the C ons t i tut i on pr ohi bi t s appl i cat i on of a l aw enac t ed af t erthe dat e of the off

ens e that i nfl i ct s a gr eat erpuni s hm entthan the l aw annexe d t o the cr i m e w hen comm i t t ed. ” U ni t ed S ta tes v . P e n n a v a ria , 445 F. 3d 720, 723 ( 3d C i r . 2006) ( i nt ernal quot at i on m arks and c itatio n o m itt e d ). N o e x p o st f a c to v io latio n o c c u rre d , firs t b e c a u se M o sc o so h a d f a ir w arni ng thatpart i ci pat i on i n fede r al cons pi r acyt o di s tr i but e cr ack w as puni s habl e byl i fe im p ri s o n m e n t u n d e r t h e s ta tu te . See i d. a t 7 2 3 -2 4 . In a d d itio n , B ooker“cl ear l yi ns truct ed thatboth of i t s hol di ngs s houl d be appl i ed t o al l cas es on di r ectr evi ew . ” P e n n a v a ria , 445 F. 3d at724. H er e, M os cos o’ s s ent ence of 480 m onths ’ i m pr i s onm enti s bel ow both t he s t atut orym axi m um of l i fe i m pr i s onm entand the advi s oryG ui del i nes s ent ence of l i fe i m pri sonm ent. W e w i l l therefore affi rm the D i stri ctC ou rt ’s j ud gm ent of sent ence a gainst M os cos o.13 I V. F o rth e r e a s o n s s e tf

o r th a b o v e , we wi l l a f

f i r m.