NOT 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 os . 08- 1056, 08- 2112, 08- 2195 UNI T E D S T AT E S OF AM E RI CA ,

v. T HOMAS HE I L M AN, a / k / a F UZ Z Y, WI L L I AM A. J OHNS ON, a / k / a T AT OO B I L L Y, JO H N N A P O L I, a / k / a J UNI OR, A p p e llan ts

O n A p p ea l from the U n it ed S tat es D istri ct C o u rt forthe E as t ern D i s tr i ctof Penns y l vani a ( D . C . C r i m i nal N os . 07- cr - 00075- 1, 07- cr - 00075- 002, 07- cr - 00075- 4 )

D istri ct Ju d g e: H o n o rab le H arv eyB artl e, II I Subm i tt ed Pur s uantt o T hi r d C i r cui tL A R 34. 1( a)

M ar ch 12, 2010 B efore: B A R R Y , JO R D A N , and V A N A N T W E R P E N , C i rcui tJudg es. ( Fi l ed: A pr i l 21, 2010)

OPI NI ON O F THE COURTT h e G o v e rn m e n t w ith d re w C o u n t X II a t trial. 1 2 V A N A N T W E R P E N , C i r cui tJudge . In th is c o n so lid a ted a p p e a l, w e re v iew m yria d iss u e s p re se n ted b yD e f e n d a n tA ppel l ant s J ohn N apol i ( “N apol i ”) , W i l l i am A . J ohns on ( “J ohns on”) , and Thom as H ei l m an ( “H ei l m an) ( col l ect i vel yr efe rr ed t o her ei n as “D efe ndant s ”) r angi ng fr om chal l enges t o evi dence pr es ent ed atthei rtr i al t o a var i etyof s ent enci ng i s s ues . Forthe re a so n s s e t f

o rth b e lo w , w e w ill a f

f irm th e D e f

e n d a n ts’ c o n v ictio n s o n a ll co u n ts, a s w e ll as the s ent ence s of N apol i and H ei l m an, butw e w i l l vaca t e J ohns on’ s s ent ence and r emand forr e- s ent enci ng. I. A. T h e f ac ts i n this case are leng thyan d co m p lex. O n Ju ly2 6 , 2 0 0 7 , a g ran d jury r eturned a s econd s uper s edi ng i ndi ctm entagai ns ts i x i ndi vi dual s . N apol i , J ohns on, and H e ilm a n w e re c h a rg e d a s f o llo w s: ( 1) N apol i w as char ged w i th cons pi r acy t o di s tr i bute ov er 5 0 0 g ram s of cry s t al m ethamphet ami n e, in vi ol at i on of 21 U . S. C . §§ 846, 841( a) ( 1) , and 841( b) ( 1) ( A ) ( C ountI ) ; thr ee co u n ts of vi ol entcr i m es i n ai d of r acke t eer i ng (“V IC A R ”) in v iolati o n o f 1 8 U . S . C . § 1 9 5 9 (a)(3) (C o u n ts II th ro u g h IV ); col l ect i on of cr edi tbyext or t i onat e means , in v iol at i on of 18 U . S. C . § 894 ( C o u n tV ) ; o n e c o u n to f p o s s e s s i o n o f

a f i r e a r m a n d a m m u n i t i o n b y a c o n v icte d f

e lo n , in v io latio n o f

1 8 U .S .C . § 9 2 2 (g )(1 ) (C o u n t I X ); tw o c o u n ts o f p o s s e s s io n o f

a f ir e a rm b ya c o n v ic te d f e lo n , in v io la tio n 1 8 U .S .C . § 9 2 2 (g )(1 ) (C o u n ts X a n d X I); a n d u n law f u l p o ss e ss io n o f

a m a c h in e g u n , in v iolati o n o f 1 8 U . S . C . § 9 2 2 (o) (C o u n t X II) . 1 ( 2) J ohns on w as char ged w i th cons pi r acyt o di s tr i but e over 500 gr ams of3

cr y s t a l me th a mph e t a mi n e , i n v i o l a t i o n o f 2 1 U. S. C. § § 8 4 6 , 8 4 1 ( a ) ( 1 ) , and 841( b) ( 1) ( A ) ( C ountI ) ; one countof V I C A R ( C ountIV ) ; pos s es s i on of a f i r e a r m i n f

u r th e r a n c e o f

a d ru g tr a f

f i c k i n g o f f e n s e , i n v i o l a t i o n o f

1 8 U. S . C. § 924( c) (C o u n t V I ) ; and tw o count s of pos s es s i on of a f i r earm and amm uni t i on bya convi ct ed fe l on, i n vi ol at i on of 18 U . S. C . § 922( g) ( 1) (C o u n ts V II a n d V II I) . ( 3) H ei l m an w as char ged w i th cons pi r acyt o di s tr i but e over 500 gr ams of cr y s t al me th a mph e t a mi n e , i n v i o l a t i o n o f 2 1 U. S. C. § § 8 4 6 , 8 4 1 ( a ) ( 1 ) , a nd 8 4 1 (b)(1 )(A ) (C o u n t I ). P rio r to trial, so m e o f

th e ir c o -d e f

e n d a n ts p led g u iltyto so m e o r a ll o f th e c o u n ts w ith w h ich th e yw e re c h a rg e d . N a p o li, Jo h n so n , an d H e ilm a n f iled p re trial m o tio n s to su p p ress e v iden ce o n v ariou s g rou n d s, all o f w h ich w ere d en ied a fter the D istri ct C o u rt h eld s u p p ression h ea ri n g s o n S ep tem b er 5 an d 6 , 2 0 0 7 . T h e c o u rtalso d en ied H eil m an ’s p re tr ia l m o tio n to s e v e r h is tr ia l f ro m h is c o -d e f

e n d a n ts . T he j urytr i al comm ence d on Sept ember18, 2007. A tthe conc l us i on of the evi dence , N apol i and J ohns on or al l ypr es ent ed R ul e 29 mot i ons al l egi ng ther e w as i ns uffi ci entevi dence t o es t abl i s h a nexus betw een the al l eged V I C A R as s aul t s and the B re e d o u tlaw m o to rc y c le g a n g ’s ( th e “ B re e d ” ) d ru g tra f f ick in g a c tiv iti e s. N a p o li s epar at el ycont ended thatthe evi dence w as i ns uffi ci entt o pr ove he unl aw ful l ypos s es s ed fi rearm s. T he D i stri ctC ou rtden i ed these m oti on s. O n O ct ober4, 2007, the j uryconvi ct ed N apol i of al l count s char ged, exce ptC ount I I I , of w hi ch he w as acqui t t ed. I tfound J ohns on gui l tyon al l char ges , and i tfound H ei l m an gui l tyon C ountI . I n a s peci al i nt err ogat ory , the j urydet erm i ned thatN apol i and J ohns on cons pi r ed t o di s tr i but e over500 gr ams of cry s t al m ethamphet ami ne, and thatN apol i ’ s cr i m es w er e di vi ded i nt o fourgr oups of off ens es . ( R . at665A - 67A . ) T he 2 courtcal cul at ed an of

fens e l evel of forty - s i x ( 46) forG r oup 1, w hi ch cons i s t ed of the d rug co n sp ir ac yco n v ict ion . T h is of fe n se lev el reflec ted a b ase o f th irty -eigh t ( 3 8 ), U ni t ed St at es Sent enci ng G ui del i nes § 2D 1. 1( c) ( 1) ( N ov. 2007) ; a tw o- l evel enhanc ement f o r p o s s e s s io n o f

a f ir e a rm , id. § 2 D 1 .1 (b )(1 ); a f o u r-le v e l en h a n c e m e n t f o r a lea d e rsh ip ro le in a n o rg a n iz a tio n o f a t le a s t f iv e p e rs o n s , i d. § 3B 1. 1( a) ; and a tw o- l evel e n h a n c e m e n t f

o r o b s tru c tio n o f

ju s tic e , id. § 3C 1. 1. B eca us e the off ens e l evel s forthe othergr oups w er e more than ni ne ( 9) poi nt s l es s s er i ous , the courtonl ycons i der ed the le v e l f o r G ro u p 1 . See i d. § 3D 1. 4( c) . W i th a cr i m i nal hi s t orycat egoryof V , aft era onele v e l d e p a rt u re f

o r o v e r- re p re s e n ta tio n , s e ei d. § 4A 1. 3( b) , the G ui del i nes y i el d a re c o m m e n d e d s e n te n c e o f lif e im p ri s o n m e n t, ( R . a t 6 6 8 A .) John son’s cr i m es fel l i nto tw o g roups of off enses. (R . at59 7A . ) For the fir st 3 group , the co urtcal culat ed an off ense l evel of t hirty -ni ne (39), w hich con si st ed o f a ba se offe ns e l evel of thi r ty - s i x ( 36) , U SSG § 2D 1. 1( c) ( 2) , and a thr ee- l evel enhanc ementfor p e rf o rm in g a m a n a g e ri a l o r s u p e rv is o ry ro le , i d. § 3B 1. 1( b) . T he courtdi s r egar ded the s e c o n d g ro u p b e c a u s e its o f f e n s e le v e l w a s m o re th a n n in e (9 ) l e v e ls le s s s e ri o u s . See i d. § 3D 1. 4( c) . T he courtthen det erm i ned thatJ ohns on w as a ca r eeroffe nderand, ther efor e, hi s cr i m i nal hi s t orycat egoryw as V I . A ft era one- l evel departur e forover - r epr es ent at i on, th e G u id e lin e s y ield a re c o m m e n d e d ter m o f im p riso n m e n t ra n g in g f ro m 3 6 0 m o n th s to lif e . (R . a t 5 9 8 A .) T he co urtcal culat ed H ei l m an’s offen se l evel atthirty -four ( 34 ), based o n a b ase 4 offe ns e l evel of thi r ty( 30) , U SSG § 2D 1. 1( c) ( 5) , and a tw o- l evel enhanc ementfor p o s s e s s io n o f

a d a n g e ro u s w e a p o n in c o n n e c tio n w ith a d ru g c o n s p ir a c y , i d. § 2D 1. 1( b) ( 1) . T he court , how ever , concl uded thatH ei l m an w as a ca r eeroffe nderand, ther efor e, i ncr eas ed hi s offe ns e l evel t o thi r ty - four( 34) i n acc or dance w i th the 4 H ei l m an cons pi r ed t o di s tr i but e l es s than 500 gr ams, butm or e than 50 gr ams, of cry s t al m e th a m p h e ta m in e . In separat e sent encing h eari ng s, the co urtsent enced : (1) N apo l i t o 4 32 m on ths’ im p riso n m e n t, a ter m o f f iv e y e a rs o f

su p e rv ise d re lea se , fo rf e itu re o f sp e c if ic ta n g ib le 2 p ro p e rty , an d a sp e c ial a ss e ss m e n t o f $ 7 0 0 ; (2 ) Jo h n so n to 3 6 0 m o n th s’ im p riso n m e n t, a 3 fi ve y eart erm of s upervi s ed r el eas e, for fei tur e of s peci fi c t angi bl e pr operty , and a s peci al a ss e ss m e n t o f

$ 5 0 0 ; an d (3 ) H e ilm a n to 2 3 5 m o n th s’ im p riso n m e n t, a term o f f ive y ea rs 4G u id e lin e s . See id. § 4 B 1 . 1 (b). Fo r th e sa m e re aso n , H eil m an ’s crim inal h ist o ryca tego ry

w a s V I, w h ic h th e c o u rt lo w e re d b yo n e -l e v e l f o r o v e r- re p re s e n ta tio n . See i d. § 4 A 1 .3 (b ). B as ed on an of

fens e l evel of thi r ty - four( 34) and a c r i m i nal hi s t orycat egoryof V , the G u id e lin e s s u g g e s t a te rm o f im p ri s o n m e n t o f

2 3 5 to 2 9 3 m o n th s . (R . a t 5 6 4 A .) 5 s upervi s ed r el eas e, and a s peci al as s es s m entof $100. T he courtal s o or der ed the D e f e n d a n t s j o i n t l y a n d s e v e r a l l y l i a b l e f o rth e p r o c e e d s d e r i v e d f r o m th e d ru g c o n s p i r a c y, in th e a m o u n t o f

six m ill io n d o llars . A ll D e f e n d a n ts w e re se n ten c e d in a c c o rd a n c e w ith the 2007 G ui del i nes , w hi ch w er e i n eff ectatthe t i m e of s ent enci ng. D efen dan t s each fil ed a ti m el yno t i ce of app eal . E ach D efen dan trai ses a di verse s etof i s s ues on appea l and j oi ns i n thos e of hi s co- defe ndant s . N apol i ar gues : ( 1) the D i s tr i ctC our terr ed byadmi t t i ng w i r et ap evi dence becaus e the w i r et ap appl i cat i ons fai l ed to sa tisf yth e n e c e ss ityre q u ire m e n t; (2 ) th e D istric t C o u rt im p ro p e rlya p p lied F o u rth A m endmentpr i nci pl es t o the w i r et ap appl i cat i ons ; ( 3) the D i s tr i ctC our terr ed byfai l i ng to g ra n t an e v id e n tiary he a rin g ; (4 ) th e e v id e n c e w a s in su f f icie n t to su p p o rt h is co n v ict ion s fo r C o u n ts I I, IV , an d V ; ( 5 ) th e juryinstruction s reg ard ing V IC A R w ere err oneous ; ( 6) j oi nderof C ount s I I thr ough V fortr i al w as pr ej udi ci al ; ( 7) the admi s s i on of evi dence on C ount s I I thr ough V vi ol at ed Feder al R ul e of Evi dence 404( b) ; ( 8) the G overnm entfai l ed t o t i m el ydi s cl os e pr i ors t at ement s of t es t i fy i ng w i tnes s es ; ( 9) the D i s tr i ctC our terr ed bycal cul at i ng the amountof for fei tur e bas ed on gr os s pr ocee ds r ather than neti ncome; ( 10) i n det erm i ni ng hi s s ent ence , the D i s tr i ctC our terr ed byfi ndi ng t he drug quant i tyand enha ncement s bya pr eponder ance of the evi dence ; and ( 11) the D i s tr i ct C o u r tf a i l e d t o c o n s i d e rth e i n e q u i ty o f a s e n t e n c e b a s e d o n a 1 0 : 1 d ru g q u a n t i ty d i s p a r i ty.N apol i , J ohns on, and H ei l m an w er e arr es t ed, al ong w i th t en other s , pur s uantt o an 5 ext ens i ve i nves t i gat i on of the B r eed bythe Penns y l vani a St at e Pol i ce. T heyw er e among the s ev en o f th o se a rrested w h o se c ase s w ere ad o p ted f o r fe d era l pro sec u ti o n in Ja n u ary 2007. 6 J ohns on m akes the s ame fi r s ttw o ar gum ent s as N apol i , and al s o ar gues : ( 1) the D i s tr i ctC our terr ed byfai l i ng t o gr anta Fr anks hear i ng; ( 2) the D i s tr i ctC our terr ed by fai l i ng t o sup press ph y si cal evidence; ( 3) the D i stri ctC ou rtviol at ed h i s pri vil ege ag ai nst self-inc ri m ination b yall o w ing the in tr o d u cti o n o f w ir etap ev iden ce ; ( 4 ) th e D istri ct C o u rt fa il ed to g ran t a j u d g m en t of ac q u ittal o n C o u n ts V I th rou g h V III ; ( 5 ) th e D istri ct C o u rt err ed bys ent enci ng hi m as a ca r eeroffe nder ; ( 6) the D i s tr i ctC our terr ed byi m pos i ng a cons ecut i ve s ent ence under§ 924( c) ( 1) ; and ( 7) the D i s tr i ctC our tvi ol at ed hi s Fi fth and S i xth A m end m ent r i gh t s i n sentenci ng determ i nati on s. H e ilm a n a rg u e s: (1 ) th e D istric t C o u rt a b u se d its d isc re tio n in f a ili n g to g ra n t h im a se p ara te tri al; (2) the sea rch o f h is ho m e lac k ed p rob ab le ca u se; (3) the D istri ct C o u rt err ed byappl y i ng a dange r ous w eapons enhanc ement ; ( 4) the D i s tr i ctC our terr ed by d e p a rtin g o n lyo n e c rim in a l h isto ryc a teg o ryf o r o v e r-re p re se n tatio n a n d b yb e liev in g it coul d notr educe hi s offe ns e l evel forover - r epr es ent at i on; and ( 5) hi s s ent ence w as unr eas onabl e. B. T he G overnm entpr os ecut ed D efe ndant s as m ember s of the B r eed, al l egi ng they w er e i nvol ved i n a cons pi r acyt o di s tr i but e cry s t al m ethamphet ami ne. Puts i m pl y , the 5T he B r eed or gani zat i on al s o has chapt er s i n N ew J er s eyand O hi o. 6 7 evi dence offe r ed attr i al i ndi cat ed thatthe Penns y l vani a C hapt er of the B r eed w as s ubj ect 6 to N ap o li ’s co n tr o l, w h o b ec am e p reside n t of the c h ap ter i n ea rl y2 0 0 4 . B etw ee n Jan u ary 2003 and J une 2006 the or gani zat i on al l egedl ydi s tr i but ed over125 pounds of m e th a m p h e ta m in e . T h e B re e d h a s a h ier a rc h ica l stru c tu re w ith m a n ym e m b e rs. A s p re sid e n t, N a p o li had the ul t i m at e author i tyoverthe B r eed e nt erpr i s e. B r eed of fi cer s have a uthor i tyover r egul arm ember s , hang- ar ounds , and pr os pect s . N apol i appoi nt ed J ohns on t o be an exec ut i ve mem berof the Penns y l vani a C hapt er . T he evi dence i ndi cat ed thatJ ohns on w as a pr i nci pal m ethamphet ami ne s uppl i ert o the B r eed drug ent erpr i s e, and obt ai ned m et ham ph et am i ne, i n turn, from his supp l i er R ob ertT raver se. H ei l m an served as a regul ar m em ber i n the B reed, and w ou l d sel l drugs t o the ent erpr i se’ s r et ai l cust om ers . T he B r eed ha s a cl ub hous e at3707 Spruce Str eeti n B r i s t ol , Penns y l vani a, w her e i thol ds w eekl ym eet i ngs t o di s cus s cl ub bus i nes s , a pr act i ce r efe rr ed t o as goi ng t o “chur ch. ” In lig h t o f

th e d iv e rsityo f

D e f e n d a n ts’ c laim s, w e w ill o rg a n ize th e f a c ts in re la tio n to th o s e c la im s . 1. N apol i ’ s and J ohns on’ s pr i nci pal i s s ue on appe al i s thatl aw enfor cementvi ol at ed thei rr i ght s byel ectr oni cal l yi nt er cept i ng comm uni cat i ons on thei rphones . T he Penns y l vani a St at e Pol i ce s oughtand obt ai ned w i r et aps fortw o phones us ed byJ ohns onA tthe t i m e of the i nves t i gat i on and tr i al , A gentSchw art z w as empl oy ed bythe 7 Penns y l vani a O ffi ce of

the A t t orneyG ener al , i n the B ur eau of N ar cot i cs I nves t i gat i on a n d D ru g C o n tro l. 8 and one phone us ed byN apol i pur s uantt o thei ri nves t i gat i on. O n A pr i l 13, 2006, Penns y l vani a Super i orC our tJ udge J ack A . Panel l a author i zed a thi r ty - dayw i r et ap for cel l ul art el ephone ( 215) 647- 3165, r egi s t er ed t o J ohn Sm i th butus ed byJ ohns on (“ Jo h n so n 1 ” ). Ju d g e P a n e lla a lso sig n e d a th irty -d a ye x ten sio n o rd e r f o r Jo h n so n 1 ; all m o n it o ri n g en d ed Ju n e 7 , 2 0 0 6 . O n M ay3 , 2 0 0 6 , Ju d g e P an ell a a u tho ri ze d tw o m o re w i r et aps for : ( 1) cel l ul arnum ber( 215) 768- 4612 r egi s t er ed t o B r i dgetD al e and us ed by J ohns on ( “J ohns on 2”) , and ( 2) cel l ul arnum ber( 215) 397- 8074 r egi s t er ed t o, and us ed b y , N a p o li. J u d g e P a n e lla s ig n e d a th ir ty-d a ye x te n s io n f o r b o th o n J u n e 2 , 2 0 0 6 . T he Penns y l vani a A t t orneyG ener al appl i ed foreac h w i r et ap. W i th eac h appl i cat i on, he i ncorpor at ed an a ffi davi tfr om A gentK i r k Schw art z att es t i ng t o the 7 pr obabl e ca us e and ne ces s i tyforeac h w i r et ap. T he af fi davi t s cont ai n a l otof s i m i l ar in f o rm a tio n , an d w e re lik e lym o d e led a f ter e a c h o th e r, b u t ea c h o n e w a s m o d if ied to r efl ectpr obabl e ca us e and ne ces s i tyforeac h i ndi vi dual phone. T he w i r et ap af

fi davi t s , part i cul ar l ythe af fi davi ti n s uppor tfora w i r et ap on J ohns on 1, r el ypr i nci pal l yon t he i nform at i on pr ovi ded bytw o i nform ant s . T he inv esti g ati o n o f th e B ree d co m m en ce d in 2 0 0 5 w h il e law en fo rce m en t age n ts w ere i nves t i gat i ng anotherout l aw m ot or cy cl e gang, the W ar l ocks . Pur s uantt o that in v e stig a tio n , law e n f

o rc e m e n t ar re ste d D a v id S e rv io lo (“ S e rv io lo ” ). T o a v o id9

p rose cu ti o n , S erv iolo a g ree d to co o p era te an d p rov ide in fo rm ati o n reg ard ing the B ree d ’s d ru g tr a f f ic k in g a c tiv itie s . Ser vi ol o beca m e a c onfi dent i al i nform ant( “C I ”) , and i s r efe rr ed t o as C I #1 i n t he w i r et ap af

fi davi t s . I n eac h aff

i davi t , A gentSchw art z det ai l s how Ser vi ol o pr ovi ded a s ubs t ant i al amount of i nform at i on aboutthe B r eed, due i n partt o hi s s ever al - y ear re la tio n s h ip s w ith b o th N a p o li a n d J o h n s o n , w h ic h c o m m e n c e d p ri o r t o h is c o o p e ra tio n . I n eac h aff

i davi t , A gentSchw art z i ndi cat ed thatthe i nform at i on Ser vi ol o pr ovi ded w as i ndepende nt l yver i fi ed us i ng s ur vei l l ance , i nt ervi ew s , and i nform at i on fr om otherl aw e n f o rc e m e n t. L a w e n f

o rc e m e n t co n ten d e d in th e a f f id a v its th a t S e rv io lo re f u se d to tes tify . H e d id n o t ch a n g e h is m in d u n til th e f e d e ra l p ro se c u to r a d o p ted th is c a se in J anuary2007 and agr eed t o pr ovi de fundi ng t o pr ot ectSer vi ol o and hi s w i fe. Ser vi ol o, how ever , appar ent l yagr eed t o have hi s phone comm uni cat i ons i nt er cept ed bec aus e l aw enfor cementdet erm i ned the i nt er cept i ons w oul d be nec es s aryt o corr obor at e any te s tim o n yh e m ig h t o f

f e r. I n A ugus t2005, Ser vi ol o m ade c ontr ol l ed pur chas es fr om J eff r eyG r ady (“ G ra d y ” ), w h o w a s a B re e d h a n g -a ro u n d . In Ja n u a ry2 0 0 6 , G ra d ya g re e d to c o o p e ra te w ith th e s ta te in v e s tig a tio n . A t th a t p o in t, h e h a d a lr e a d yd is a s s o c ia te d f ro m th e B re e d . G r adyadmi t t ed t o s t or i ng and di s tr i but i ng l ar ge quant i t i es of drugs and moneyfor N a p o li. G ra d ysa id th a t d u rin g th e su m m e r o f 2 0 0 5 h e se rv e d a s a d ru g ru n n e r f o r N a p o li bypi cki ng up pound quant i t i es of cry s t al m ethamphet ami ne fr om N apol i , and then ei therT he H ous e of 1000 Tat t oos i s a bus i nes s co- ow ned byN apol i and J ohns on. 8 10 s t or i ng i tforN apol i orrunni ng i tt o anotherB r eed mem ber . H e al s o keptover$100, 000 in c a s h a t h is h o u s e f

o r N a p o li. G r adyal s o al l eged thatN apol i thr eat ened t o ext or t$25, 000 fr om hi m . B egi nni ng i n m i d- 2005, G r adyand N apol i s t art ed a c ons truct i on bus i nes s t ogetherand compl et ed s ever al j obs t ogether . I n l at e 2005, aft erG r adyended hi s B r eed mem ber s hi p, and af t er N apol i and G r adyended thei rpr ofes s i onal r el at i ons hi p, N apol i al l eged thatG r adyow ed h im $ 2 5 ,0 0 0 , w h ich G ra d yc o n ten d s h e d id n o t o w e . G ra d ytes tifie d th a t N a p o li g a v e h im one mont h t o come up w i th t he money , and w hen he di d notpayN apol i ki cked hi s back doorand s ai d, “[I ] f thi s i s the w ayy ou w antt o pl ay , then w e’ l l pl aythi s w ay . ” ( Supp. A pp. a t 5 6 4 .) I n re s p o n s e , G ra d ytu rn e d s ta te ’s e v id e n c e . T he af fi davi tal s o det ai l ed how Ser vi ol o m ade a s er i es of othercontr ol l ed drug pur chas es w hi l e ac t i ng as a C I . O n J anuary9, 2006, he part i ci pat ed i n a contr ol l ed p u rc h a s e o f

o n e g ra m o f

c ryst a l m e th a m p h e ta m in e f ro m B re e d m e m b e r B ri a n J o n e s . B etw een February7, 2006 and A pr i l 6, 2006, Ser vi ol o m ade a s er i es of s m al l cry s t al m ethamphet ami ne pur chas es fr om J ohns on. H e made thos e pur chas es fr om , among ot her places , John son’s r esi den ce at36 32 M orr el l S treetand T he H ou se of 1 00 0 T at t oo s. 8 A ft ereac h pur chas e, Ser vi ol o w oul d turn overthe drugs pur chas ed. Ser vi ol o t es t i fi ed at tr i al thathe al s o boughtaddi t i onal s m al l quant i t i es of cry s t al m ethamphet ami ne fr om J o h n s o n f

o r h is o w n p e rs o n a l u s e .11

O n J une 3, 2006, Ser vi ol o part i ci pat ed i n a contr ol l ed pur chas e of c ry s t al m e th a m p h e tam in e f

ro m H e ilm a n a t H e ilm a n ’s r e sid e n c e a t 8 1 3 P in e S tre e t, B risto l, Penns y l vani a. T hi s eventw as s ur vey ed byA gentSchw art z. T he pol i ce pr ovi ded S e rv io lo b u ym o n e y . S e rv io lo e n te re d H e ilm a n ’s re s id e n c e a n d e m e rg e d tw o h o u rs la te r. W hen he e m er ged, he had s pentthe moneyand turned overthr ee a nd one- hal f gr ams of c ryst a l m e th a m p h e ta m in e p u rc h a s e d . T he af fi davi t s al s o det ai l ed otherevi dence thatl aw enfor cementgather ed by s ur vei l l ance and otheri nves t i gat oryt echni ques . T he af fi davi t s forthe w i r et ap on J ohns on 2 an d N apo l i are m uch m ore el abo rat e beca use t heyi nclude t he ev i den ce gathered against N a p o li a n d J o h n s o n th ro u g h e le c tr o n ic in te rc e p tio n o n J o h n s o n 1 . I n the J ohns on 2 and N apol i w i r et ap af fi davi t s , A gentSchw art z i ndi cat es that N ap o li w as Jo h n so n ’s ulti m ate so u rce fo r m etha m p h etam ine. In the af fid av itfo r N ap o li ’s w i r et ap, A gentSchw art z el abor at es , expl ai ni ng thatN apol i m aynotactual l yhand Jo h n so n th e m e th a m p h e tam in e s b u t ap p ro v e s a c q u isitio n o f th e p ro d u c t. A g e n t S c h w a rtz al s o t es t i fi ed t o a gr and j urythatJ ohns on acqui r ed met hamphet ami ne fr om s om eone n a m e d R o b e rt T ra v e rs e . I n eac h aff

i davi t , A gentSchw art z i ncl uded a s ect i on ent i t l ed “N eed f or I nt er cept i on” t o expl ai n w hyw i r et ap i nt er cept i on w as nece s s aryand w hynor m al in v e stig a tiv e to o ls p re c lu d e d law e n f o rc e m e n t f

ro m o b tain in g su f

f icie n t ev id e n c e to p rose cu te. In a ll three af fid av it s, A g en t Sc h w artz ac k n o w ledg es th at i n v esti g ators w ere12

abl e t o gets om e i nform at i on fr om Ser vi ol o, G r ady , and othercooper at i ng w i tnes s es , but s u g g e s ts th a t th e in f

o rm a n ts ’ a c c e s s to in f

o rm a tio n w a s lim ite d . Speci fi cal l y , A gentSchw art z i ndi cat es thatSer vi ol o w as unabl e t o gets uffi ci ent i nform at i on aboutthe ful l s cope of the or gani zat i on orabouts our ces of the m e th a m p h e ta m in e . ( See R . at906A - 907A ( not i ng “he . . . coul d notpr ovi de di r ect t es t i m onyr egar di ng the ful l s cope of J ohns on’ s i nvol vementi n the cry s t al m e th a m p h e tam in e e n terp rise . . . . T h e c o n f id e n tial in f

o rm a n t d o e s n o t h a v e th e a b ili tyto appr oach a nyof J ohns on’ s s our ces forcry s t al m ethamphet ami ne. ”) ; R . at982A ( not i ng “[a ] l though t he conf

i dent i al i nform antw as abl e t o s uppl ys om e i nform at i on . . . [he ors he] i s notabl e t o s uppl yenough i nform at i on conce rni ng per s ons i nvol ved i n the hi gher eche l on of the or gani zat i on, i ncl udi ng the ac qui s i t i on and/ orm anufa ctur e of c ry s t al m e th a m p h e tam in e ” ); R . at 1 0 6 4 A (sa m e ).) T h e a f f id a v it d o e s n o t m e n tio n th a t S e rv io lo w a s o f f e re d , b u t d e c lin e d , a n o p p o rt u n ity to b e c o m e a p ro s p e c tiv e m e m b e r o f th e B re e d . A gentSchw art z al s o as s ert ed thati nves t i gat or s had l i m i t ed s ucce s s w i th phy s i cal su rve il lanc e, w ith o u t an a cc o m p an y ing w ir etap , b ec au se B ree d m em b ers a re v eryaw are o f th e ir su rro u n d in g s a n d p ra c tice c o u n ter -su rv e ill a n c e m e a su re s. A g e n t S c h w a rtz lists w hathe cha r act er i zes as “[t ] w o verygood exampl es of thei rcount ers ur vei l l ance abi l i t i es ” i n al l thr ee a ffi davi t s : ( 1) dur i ng a s ur vei l l ance on O l d R out e 13, a B r eed m emberi ndi cat ed thathe w as aw ar e of the s ur vei l l ance bybr andi s hi ng a bow i e kni fe, and ( 2) w hi l e an unde r coveroffi cerw as phot ogr aphi ng a r es i dence of a Bre ed mem ber , the13

me mb e ri mm e d i a t e l yn o t i c e d th e a g e n ta n d f o l l o we d h i m. ( R. a t9 0 8 A- 9 0 9 A; 9 8 4 A985A ; 1066A - 1067A . ) T hes e ci r cumst ance s ar os e w hen l aw enfor cementw er e s ur vey i ng B re e d m e m b e rs o th e r t h a n N a p o li o r J o h n s o n . In b o th ap p li ca ti o n s fo r th e Jo h n so n w ir etap s, A g en t Sc h w artz ex p resse s co n ce rn th a t f re q u e n t p h y sic a l su rv e ill a n c e w o u ld b e n o tice d b yB re e d m e m b e rs b e c a u se it w o u ld re q u ire law e n f

o rc e m e n t to su rv e yth e sa m e lo c a tio n s re p e a ted ly . In th e N a p o li appl i cat i on, A gentSchw art z al s o expr es s es conce rn, bas ed on i nt er cept ed c o m m u n ica tio n s, th a t N a p o li h a s s o u rc e s f o r c o n f id e n tial p o lice in f

o rm a tio n w h ich w o u ld a id in th e B re e d ’s c o u n te r- s u rv e illa n c e ta c tic s . A gentSchw art z i ndi cat ed thatvi deo s ur vei l l ance has i t s l i m i t at i ons beca us e i tcan onl yt o be us ed t o det erm i ne thatpeopl e vi s i t ed part i cul arl ocat i ons , notthe purpos e of th o se v isits. H e f

o u n d th e u se o f

se a rc h w a rra n ts o r g ra n d ju ryin d ictm e n ts p ro b lem a tic beca us e theyw oul d not i fythe t ar get s of the i nves t i gat i ons . H e ac know l edges that“the us e and i ns t al l at i on of an a ct i ve pen r egi s t er , tr ap and tr ace devi ce a l one w i l l notpr ovi de inf o rm ati o n that w il l fu ll yd ef ine th e sc o p e” o f th e o rga n izati o n . (R . at 10 7 2 A . ) A l though i tw i l l r evea l cal l patt erns , i tw i l l notai d l aw enfor cementi n gett i ng i nform at i on abo ut w ho i s supply i ng drugs, or enab l e successful prosecuti on s. 2.T h e se a rc h o f 8 6 0 9 Ja c k so n S tre e t is n o t su b jec t to th is a p p e a l. 9 14 L aw enfor cementconduct ed s ever al s ear ches pur s ui ng i t s i nves t i gat i on. O n J une 5, 2 0 0 6 , Ju d g e P a n e lla iss u e d th re e , se a led , n ig h tti m e se a rc h w a rra n ts f o r: (1 ) 3 6 3 2 M o rre ll S tre e t, (2 ) 4 6 4 8 B e rg e n S tre e t, an d (3 ) 8 6 0 9 Ja c k so n S tre e t. 9 T he evi dence attr i al i ndi cat ed thatJ ohns on s har ed the 3632 M orr el l St r eet r es i dence w i th hi s gi r l fr i end, J enni ferW ozac k, butdoes noti ndi cat e w hetherJ ohns on ow ned orl eas ed thi s r es i dence . A gentSchw art z i ndi cat ed thatthi s w arr antw as exec ut ed on J une 6, 2006 at1: 15 a. m . A s peci al oper at i ons gr oup appr oache d the fr ontdoorand k n o c k e d . A f

te r f o rt ys e c o n d s w ith n o a n s w e r, t h e o f f ic e rs f o rc ib ly en te re d th e h o u s e . J o h n s o n , w h o w a s in th e re s id e n c e a t th e tim e , w a s p la c e d u n d e r a rr e s t. T h e w a rra n t in d ica ted th a t th e item s to b e se a rc h e d f o r a n d se ize d in c lu d e d : “M ethamphet ami ne, other c ontr ol l ed s ubs t ance s , i t ems us ed t o packa ge, w ei gh, us e, m anufa ctur e, s t or e, and cu t contr ol l ed s ubs t ance s , U ni t ed St at es curr ency , document s , i ncl udi ng ow e s heet s , cus t om erli sts , i ndi ci a, and/ or otheri t ems w hi ch by them sel ves ar e i ndi cat i ve of drug tr aff i cki ng and/ or m anufa ctur i ng, anyw eapons us ed as partof the drug tr aff i cki ng tr ade a nd/or i t ems w hi ch ar e i ndi cat i ve of mem ber s hi p i n a corruptor gani zat i on. ” (R . at 12 4 7 A -12 4 8 A . ) D ur i ng the s ear ch off

i cer s r ecove r ed var i ous i t ems fr om the di ni ng r oom . Fr om s hel vi ng, offi cer s found a bl ue A di das s hoe box cont ai ni ng fi ve i ndi vi dual l yw r apped cont ai ner s of cry s t al m ethamphet ami ne. L aw enfor cemental s o found a ni ne mi l l i m et er handgun, w hi ch w as l oaded, on t op of a di ni ng r oom hut ch. T he gun cont ai ned thi r t een r ounds of amm uni t i on. T he age ntt es t i fi ed, “[f ] r om w her e I w as s i t t i ng, i f I t ook one s t ep15

t o m yr i ghtI coul d gr ab the s hoebox [c ont ai ni ng m ethamphet ami ne] . Fr om w her e I w as s i t t i ng i f I m ake one s t ep t o m yl eftI coul d r eac h up and gr ab the 9 mi l l i m et eroff the d ining roo m h u tch.” (S u p p . A p p . at 16 4 . ) Fr om a s tr ong box found i n the fr onthal l w ay , pol i ce r ecove r ed tw o ounces of m ethamphet ami ne, tw o vehi cl e t i t l es , s om e unopene d s yr i nges , a l eathercas e cont ai ni ng a digi t al scal e and a sm al l pack etof co cai ne. P oli ce al so fou nd a black and si l ver case cont ai ni ng s even e xpl os i ve devi ces , s om e edge d w eapons , s om e s t er oi ds , and a s andw i ch bag w i th s ever al ni ne mi l l i m et err ounds . L aw enfor cemental s o r ecove r ed B r eed par aphernal i a, var i ous r ecor ds forJ ohns on and W ozac k, j ew el ry , a phot o, and other m is c e lla n e o u s ite m s . A gentJ eff

eryA s t erl ed the s ear ch of the M orr el l St r eetr es i dence . H e t es t i fi ed that w hi l e atthe r es i dence , he l i s t ed al l of the i t ems s ei zed i n a r ough i nvent ory , w hi ch he r ec o p ie d in a m o re le g ib le f o rm . H e t es t i fi ed thathe l eftal l the l egi bl e copi es of the in v e n to rya t th e re sid e n c e , as w e ll as th e f a c e sh e e t o f

th e se a rc h w a rra n t. A s a re su lt, A g e n t A ste r o n lyto o k th e ro u g h in v e n to rylist w ith h im a n d a sk e d a n o th e r a g e n t to u p d a t e th a ti n v e n t o r y w i th a n y a d d i t i o n s o n l y i n c l u d e d o n th e l e g i b l e i n v e n t o ry. L aw enfor cemental s o s ear ched J ohns on’ s otherr es i dence thatni ght , 4648 B er gen St r eet , w hi ch he s har ed w i th hi s w i fe, St acyJ ohns on. T he r ecor d i s uncl earas t o w hether J o h n s o n d id o r d id n o t o w n th is re s id e n c e .B re e d “ c o lo rs ” a re p a tc h in s ig n ia s . T h e yo f te n a d o rn th e b a c k o f

d e n im v e s ts . 10 16 O f f ice rs e x e c u ted th is w a rra n t at 2 :3 0 a .m . o n Ju n e 6 , 2 0 0 6 . A g e n t S c h w a rtz d id n o t acc o m p an yo ff

icers o n this searc h , b u t t esti fied that h e w as to ld b ythe lea d o ff icer, Sam uel N i eves , w hattr ans pi r ed. T he off i cer s knocked on the door . St acyJ ohns on a n s w e re d a n d p e rm itte d th e o f f ic e rs to e n te r. A fter co m p let ing the s ea rch , the o ff icers l eftan i nvent oryr ece i ptdet ai l i ng everythi ng t aken, as w el l as the fa ce s heetof the s ear ch w a rra n t. A tthe B er gen Str eetr es i dence , the pol i ce r ecove r ed a r evol verl ocat ed i n the u p sta irs b e d ro o m . T h e yf o u n d th e g u n in a d re ss e r d ra w e r w h ich c o n tain e d “ f e m a le cl othi ng , un derw ear, socks, so on and so forth. ” (Sup p. A pp . at19 2. ) Th e po l i ce al so recovered a sho t gu n from a cl oseti n the sam e bed room , nex tt o Joh nson ’s B reed color s. 10 A t 7 :1 9 a .m . tha t m o rn in g , p o lice in ter c e p ted a c a ll b e tw e e n S tac yJo h n so n a n d N a p o li, d u ri n g w h ich s h e told h im , “I h av e the p ap er o f th e stu ff [tak en ]. ” (R . at 22 0 A . ) J ohns on al l eges thatthe off i cer s t ook num er ous i t ems out s i de the s cope of the w arr antfr om hi s tw o r es i dence s . Speci fi cal l y , he cont ends offi cer s s ei zed c onfi dent i al at t orneycl i ent m at eri al s and p ri vate m edical recor ds. O n Ju n e 6 , 2 0 0 6 , Ju d g e P an ell a issu ed an ad d it ion al sea rch w arran t fo r H eil m an ’s re s id e n c e a t 8 1 3 P in e S tr e e t in B ri s to l, P e n n s y lv a n ia . T he w arr antaff i davi ti ncl uded a d e s c r i p t i o n o f

th e c o n tr o l l e d p u r c h a s e c o m m i t t e d b y S e r v i o l o a tth a ta d d r e s s , th r e e d a ys ear l i er . Fr om H ei l m an’ s r es i dence , l aw enfor cementr ecove r ed 7. 29 gr ams of cry s t alN a p o li d id n o t ch a llen g e th e se a rc h o f h is h o u se a t 2 6 8 A p p letre e D riv e in 11 L evi t t ow n, Penns y l vani a. T hi s s ear ch al s o occurr ed on J une 6, 2006. 17 m ethamphet ami ne. T heyfound a s m al l pl as t i c bag of cry s t al m ethamphet ami ne i n a bl ue ey e- gl as s es cas e thatw as l ocat ed i n the l i vi ng r oom on a des kt op, as w el l as addi t i onal bags on a t abl e i n the ki t chen. Pol i ce di s cover ed a . 22 cal i berr i fl e i n the fi r s t - fl oor bedr oom , undera couc h. Pol i ce a l s o r ecove r ed fi ve kni ves and one da ggeri n a s econdfl oorbedr oom , s om e of w hi ch w as undera cha i r . T heyfound fi ve s w or ds and a pi ck axe i n a s econd- fl oorbedr oom . I n addi t i on, theyr ecove r ed as s or t ed amm uni t i on, var i ous p i e c e s o f Br e e d p a r a p h e r n a l i a i n c l u d i n g p h o t o s , d e c a l s , a n d b u s i n e s s c a r d s , a n d o v e rt wo do zen w ei gh t ed b at on s. L aw enfor cemental s o s ear ched N apol i ’ s r es i dence at268 A ppl etr ee D r i ve, L evi t t ow n, Penns y l vani a. D ur i ng the s ear ch the pol i ce di s cover ed a RugerM odel ni ne 11 m i l l i m et erpi s t ol , l oaded w i th four t een r ounds , and a K el - T ech M odel ni ne mi l l i m et er pi s t ol , l oaded w i th el even r ounds , fr om a s afe tydepos i tbox on the l eft - hand s i de of the bed i n the fi r s t - fl oorm as t erbedr oom . T he pol i ce a l s o r ecove r ed a Fede r al B ox w i th a s e p a ra te m a g a z in e lo a d e d w ith th ir te e n ro u n d s o f n in e m illim e te r a m m u n itio n . T he pol i ce s ei zed otheri t ems pert ai ni ng t o the B r eed. Forexampl e, l aw enfo rcem ent r ecov ered a com pu t er w hich con t ai ned recor ds of B reed cl ub l aw s, p ro sp e c tiv e law s, a n d f

u n e ra l b y law s. P o lice a lso f o u n d p h o to s a n d d o c u m e n ts re latin g to th e B re e d . 3.18

W ith re g a rd to th e g u n p o ss e ss io n c h a rg e s, la w e n f o rc e m e n t re c o v e re d g u n s in Jo h n so n ’s tw o re sid e n c e s, a lo n g w ith d ru g s a n d o th e r p ro c e e d s. In a d d iti o n , S e rv io lo t es t i fi ed that , i n M ar ch 2006, he w entt o J ohns on’ s M orr el l St r eetr es i dence t o buy m ethamphet ami ne forhi s per s onal us e. W hen Servi ol o ent er ed, he s aw J ohns on, w i th a han dg un i n o ne h and , stuff i ng cash i nto a port able s afe w i th the ot her. S ervi olo al so t es t i fi ed that , on M ay11, 2006, J ohns on as ked Servi ol o t o hel p hi m m ove s ever al l ar ge f ire a rm s, d yn a m ite, a n d a b o u t o n e p o u n d o f m e th a m p h e tam in e f

ro m M o rre ll S tre e t to J ohns on’ s B er gen Str eetr es i dence . A notherw i tnes s t es t i fi ed thatw hen he a ccompani ed J o h n s o n to a H o o te rs B ik e n ig h t, J o h n s o n h a d a g u n in h is v e h ic le . In a d d it ion to the tw o n ine m il li m eter h an d g u n s rec o v ere d fro m N ap o li ’s A ppl etr ee D r i ve r es i dence , A gentSchw art z t es t i fi ed thatN apol i contr ol l ed ei ght een fi r earm s and one machi ne gun s t or ed i n tw o s t or age l ocker s . B oth l ocker s w er e r egi s t er ed to J o h n W ils o n , a ro o m m a te o f c o o p e ra tin g w itn e s s , E ri c L o e b s a c k (“ L o e b s a c k ” ). L o e b sa c k tes tifie d th a t h e re n ted th e lo c k e rs a t N a p o li’s d ire c tio n . N a p o li i n stru c ted h im t o obt ai n the l ocker s i n s om eone e l s e’ s name t o avoi d det ect i on. L oebs ack t es t i fi ed that m os tof the w eapons had come fr om B obbyFr eedbe r ger , a form erB r eed mem berw ho w a s o u s te d b yth e B re e d . A n o th e r w itn e ss , D a v id F re n ier (“ F re n ier ” ), tes tifie d th a t h e w a s a w a re th a t N a p o li keptthe tw o ni ne mi l l i m et erfi r earm s i n hi s r es i dence . H e s ai d N apol i or i gi nal l ykeptt he w eapons i n a ca bi net , butm oved them t o the s afe i n the bedr oom . Fr eni ers ai d he neve rIt is u n c lea r if th is a c t w a s m e re lyp u n ish m e n t. P rio r to p u tti n g th e sc re w in 12 B u rk e ’s a rm , N a p o li u se d th e sc re w d riv e r o n h is o w n a rm . T h e n , h e c h a llen g e d B u rk e to d o th e sa m e . It w a s o n lya f ter B u rk e re f

u se d to sc re w h is a rm th a t N a p o li d rilled a h o le in h i s a r m. 19 s aw N apol i open the s afe , butdi d s ee N apol i hol d one of the w eapons i n hi s hand one e v e n i n g wh i l e a t t e mp t i n g t o l o a d i t . F r e n i e ra l s o t e s t i f i e d th a th e s a w Na p o l i p u l l a n AR15 fi r earm outof hi s car . O n anotherocca s i on, he t es t i fi ed thathe hel ped pac k up a s t eel box ful l of fi ft een di ffe r entfi r earm s and amm uni t i on atN apol i ’ s di r ect i on. H e s ai d the b o x e n d e d u p in a s to ra g e f a c ility. 4. T he G overnm ental s o pr es ent ed evi dence of var i ous act i ons i tchar act er i zed a s

“ v io len t en f

o rc e m e n t.” (G o v ’t B r. 1 9 .) O n e w itn e ss tes tifie d th a t b e f o re th e B re e d w o u ld di s ci pl i ne orous ta mem ber , the exe cut i ve boar d w oul d vot e on the pr opos i t i on. Fr eni er in d ic a te d th a t N a p o li h a d u ltim a te a u th o ri ty o n e v e ryth in g , in c lu d in g in tr a -c lu b d is c ip lin e . A form erB r eed mem ber , C hr i s t opherQ uattr occhi ( “Q uattr occhi ”) , t es t i fi ed thati n M ar ch 2003, N apol i and other s part i ci pat ed i n beat i ng T hom as “Schnozz ” B ur ke ( “B ur ke”) at N a p o li’ s re s id e n c e o n A p p le tr e e D ri v e . B u rk e w a s a p ro s p e c tiv e m e m b e r o f th e B re e d . A pp arent l yseveral m em bers of t he club, i ncludi ng N apo l i and Q uattrocchi , did not trust B u rk e b e c a u se h e w a s a c tin g stra n g e lyd u e to a n o v e r-in d u lg e n t co c a in e h a b it. N a p o li, Q u a ttro c c h i, an d o th e rs to o k B u rk e to a b a r a n d th e n b a c k to N a p o li’s re sid e n c e . N a p o li t o o k o u ta d r i l l wi th a P h i l l i p s h e a d a t t a c h me n ta n d s c r e we d i ti n t o Bu r k e ’ s a r m. N a p o li 12 late r b ru tallyb e a t B u rk e . A f ter th e b e a tin g , B u rk e f e ll as lee p w h ile s til l w e a rin g h is20

B re e d c o lo rs. T h e B re e d h a s a tra d iti o n w h e re th e yw ill se t o n f ire a n y o n e w h o f

a lls aslee p w ea ri n g B ree d co lors. Q u attroc ch i t esti fied that N ap o li tr ied to set B u rke o n fire pur s uantt o thi s tr adi t i on, buthe di s s uaded N apol i fr om doi ng i tbeca us e theyw er e i ns i de N a p o li’ s re s id e n c e . B ur ke s us t ai ned a f r actur ed ey e- s ocketand fa ci al bone, among ot her in ju ri e s . M e d ica l p ro f

e ss io n a ls h a d to in se rt a m e tal p late to m e n d th e w o u n d s. T h is a s s a u lt f o rm e d th e b a s is f

o r C o u n t I I. O n N ovember24, 2005, N apol i , J ohns on, Q uattr occhi , and otheras s oci at es all eg ed lyb ea t th e B ree d ’s pa st- p reside n t, Jam es G rab er. Q u attroc ch i t esti fied that o thers in th e B re e d c lu b h o u se c a u g h t G ra b e r a ttem p tin g to ste a l m o n e yf ro m a g a m e m a c h in e in th e c lu b h o u se . A t th e n e x t “c h u rc h ” m e e tin g , the B re e d e x e c u tiv e b o a rd u n a n im o u sly vot ed t o ous tG r aberfr om the or gani zat i on. O ne w eek l at er , atthe fol l ow i ng “chur ch” m eet i ng, B r eed mem ber s as s aul t ed G r aberi n var i ous w ay s i ncl udi ng: ( 1) Q uattr occhi pi cked up G r aberfr om behi nd and “s l amm ed hi m dow n on the pool t abl e”; ( 2) J ohns on al l egedl ys t om ped on G r aber ’ s ches t“l i ke an a ccor di on”; and ( 3) N apol i ki cked, punched, and hi tG r aberw i th a pool s t i ck. ( Supp. A pp. at298- 99. ) N apol i had r eques t ed that L o e b s a c k b ri n g h is e m e rg e n c ym e d ic a l e q u ip m e n t to th e B re e d m e e tin g th a t n ig h t. Q u a ttro c c h i tes tifie d th a t h e sto p p e d th e b e a tin g w h e n it l o o k e d a s if G ra b e r c o u ld g o in to a c o m a o r d ie, a n d c a lled in L o e b sa c k to tre a t h im . A f ter L o e b sa c k tre a ted h im , N a p o li d ire c ted L o e b sa c k a n d o th e rs to g o to G ra b e r’s h o u se a n d tak e a n yth in g re late d to21

m ot or cy cl es orthe B r eed. A s a r es ul tof the as s aul t , G r abers pentfourorfi ve day s i n an in te n s iv e c a re u n it a t a h o s p ita l. T he governm ental s o pr oduced e vi dence thatN apol i s t abbed a l ocal barpatr on, John M auck (“M auck ”), atthe b ar of the F rat ernal O rderof the E agles . A w i tness tes tifie d th a t se v e ra l m e n w a lk e d in th e b a r w ith B re e d e m b lem s o n th e ir jac k e ts. N a p o li w as a m o n g the m en . T h e b arten d er a sk ed the m en to leav e b ec au se th e b ar o w n ers p ro h ib it p a tro n s f

ro m w e a rin g m o to rc y c le c o lo rs in th e b a r. T h e m e n lo o k e d re a d yto l eave , butas ked i f theycoul d fi ni s h thei rdr i nks . T he bart endert ol d them t o l eave r i ght aw ay , and the B r eed mem ber s s t art ed fi ght i ng w i th the bart ender . N apol i w as s w i ngi ng a kni fe a r ound. M auck tr i ed t o pi ck up N apol i and r emove hi m fr om the bar . I n the pr oces s , N apol i s t abbed M auck. II. T h e D istric t C o u rt h a d ju risd ictio n u n d e r 1 8 U .S .C . § 3 2 3 1 . W e e x e rc ise a p p e llate j ur i s di ct i on under28 U . S. C . § 1291 and 18 U . S. C . § 3742. III . A f ter a re v iew o f

th e p a rties ’ e x h a u stiv e b rie f s a n d th e re c o rd , w e w ill a f f irm a ll b u t Jo h n so n ’s s e n ten c e , w h ich w e v a c a te a n d re m a n d f o r re -se n ten c in g c o n sis ten t w ith the re aso n s b elow . B ec au se th e p arti es ra ise a v arietyo f issu es, som e o f w h ich a re unr el at ed t o other s , w e w i l l begi n byaddr es s i ng the G overnm ent ’ s i nves t i gat i on andA ll three o f th e w ir etap s in this ca se w ere o ri g inallyso u g h t un d er P en n sy lvan ia’s 13 W i r et appi ng and El ectr oni c Sur vei l l ance C ontr ol A ct , 18 P a . C o n s . S t at . §§ 5701- 5781 ( 1978) . T he D efe ndant s ar gue thatthe w i r et ap af fi davi t s vi ol at e fe der al , r atherthan s t at e, law b e c a u se th e f

e d e ra l re q u ire m e n ts a p p lyto sta te- a u th o riz e d w ire tap s a d m itt e d in to f e d e ra l c o u rt . See U

ni t ed Stat es v. R i ckus , 737 F. 2d 360, 363- 64 ( 3d C i r . 1984) ( not i ng “evi dence obt ai ned i n acc or dance w i th fede r al l aw i s admi s s i bl e i n fede r al court– even th o u g h i tw a s o b t a i n e d b ys t a t e o f f i c e r s i n v i o l a t i o n o f

s t a t e l a w ” ). 22 col l ect i on of evi dence , pr ocee d t o m att er s r el at ed t o tr i al , and conc l ude byr evi ew i ng D efen dan t s’ sent ences. A . W i r et aps and Fr anks D efe ndant s J ohns on and N apol i as s ertthatthe D i s tr i ctC our terr ed w hen i tr efus ed t o s uppr es s evi dence obt ai ned thr ough thr ee w i r et aps on the bas i s thatthe w i r et ap a f f id a v its d id n o t e s ta b lis h th a t e le c tr o n ic s u rv e illa n c e o f th e D e f e n d a n ts w a s n e c e s s a ry. T i t l e I I I of the O m ni bus C r i m e C ontr ol and Safe tySt r eetA ctof 1968 empow er s a j udge t o author i ze w i r e, or al , orel ectr oni c comm uni cat i on i nt er cept i ons upon compl i ance by l aw enfor cementagent s w i th s t atut orypr er equi s i t es . 18 U . S. C . § 2510 et s eq. U nder 13 fede r al l aw , a j udge i s perm i t t ed t o author i ze a w i r et ap i f he ors he fi nds the appl i cat i on f o r th e w ire tap , su b m itt e d b ylaw e n f o rc e m e n t, es tab lish e s th a t: “( a) ther e i s pr obabl e caus e for bel i ef that an i ndi vi dual i s comm i t t i ng, has c o m m itte d , o r i s a b o u t to c o m m it a p a rt ic u la r o f f e n s e . . .; ( b ) t her e i s pr obabl e caus e forb e l i e f th a tp a r t i c u l a r c o mmun i c a t i o ns c o n c e rn in g th a t o f

f e n se w ill b e o b tain e d th ro u g h su c h in ter c e p tio n ; ( c ) nor m a l i n v e s t i g a t i v e p r o c e d u r e s h a v e b e e n tr i e d a n d have f ai l ed or re a so n a b lya p p e a r to b e u n lik e lyto su c c e e d if tried o r to b e to o d a n g e ro u s; ( d) . . . ther e i s pr obabl e ca us e forbel i ef thatthe faci l i t i es fr om w hi ch, or t h e p l a c e whe r e , th e wi r e , o r a l , o r e l e c tr o n i c c o mmun i c a t i o n s a r e t o be i nt er cept ed ar e bei ng us ed, orar e aboutt o be us ed, i n connec t i on w i th the23

comm i s s i on of s uch off ens e, orar e l eas ed t o, l i s t ed i n the name of, or c o m m o n ly u s e d b ys u c h p e rs o n .” 1 8 U .S .C . § 2 5 1 8 (3 ). W e have det erm i ned that§ 2518( 3) ( c) r equi r es thatan appl i cat i on fora w i r et ap in c lu d e a s h o w in g o f

n e c e s s ity. U

ni t ed Stat es v. Hendr i cks , 3 9 5 F . 3 d 1 7 3 , 1 8 0 (3d C ir . 2005) . T o m ake thi s s how i ng, the af fi davi tm us tcont ai n “a f ul l and compl et e s t at ement as t o w hetherornotot heri nves t i gat i ve pr ocedur es have be en tr i ed and f ai l ed orw hyt hey re a s o n a b ly ap p e a r t o b e u n lik e ly to s u c c e e d if tr ie d o r t o b e to o d a n g e ro u s .” 1 8 U .S .C . § 2518( 1) ( c) . T hi s m eans the af fi davi tm us tcompl et el yexpl ai n w hy“norm al i nves t i gat i ve t echni ques w oul d be of no a vai l . ” Hendr i cks , 395 F. 3d at180 ( quot i ng U ni t ed Stat es v. A da ms , 759 F. 2d 1099, 1114 ( 3d C i r . 1985) ) . T he Supr eme C our ti ndi cat ed thatthe nece s s i tyr equi r ementexi s t s t o ens ur e thatw i r et aps ar e notr es or t ed t o w her e tr adi t i onal in v e s tig a tiv e te c h n iq u e s c o u ld b e e f f e c tiv e . U

ni t ed Stat es v. Kahn , 415 U . S. 143, 153 n .1 2 (1 9 7 4 ); U

n itedS ta tes v . V

e n to , 5 3 3 F . 3 d 8 3 8 , 8 4 9 (3d C ir . 1 9 7 6 ). W e exe r ci s e de novo r evi ew t o det erm i ne w hetherthe appl i cat i on cont ai ned the req u isi te st atem en t, an d if w e d eterm ine s u ch a statem en t i s p rese n t, w e re v iew the c o u rt ’s d e te rm in a tio n o f

n e c e s s ity f

o r a b u s e o f

d is c re tio n . U

ni t ed Stat es v. P hi l l i

ps , 959 F. 2d 1187, 1189 ( 3d C i r . 1992) . H er e, the af fi davi t s unques t i onabl ycont ai ned s t at ement s of nece s s i tyent i t l ed “N eed f orI nt er cept i on, ” ( R . at906A , 981A , 1061A ) ; ther efor e, our in q u iryis w h e th e r th o se sta tem e n ts a re c o m p lete a n d w h e th e r th e D istric t C o u rt a b u se d its d is c re tio n b yf

in d in g n e c e s s ity in th e s e c ir c u m s ta n c e s .24

W e have char act er i zed the governm ent ’ s bur den of pr oof fors how i ng compl i ance w i th the nec es s i tyr equi r ementas “notgr eat . ” U ni t ed Stat es v. A r m oci da , 515 F. 2d 29, 38 ( 3d C i r . 1975) . T he G overnm ent ’ s bur den i s m i ni m al beca us e w e have adopt ed a p rag m ati c a p p roa ch tow ard the n ec essityreq u ir em en t, an d w il l t est th e G o v ern m en t’ s s how i ng i n a “pr act i cal and comm ons ens e fa s hi on. ” V e n to , 533 F. 2d at849 ( quot i ng A r m oci da , 515 F. 2d at37) . T hus , “the governm entneed notpr ove t o a ce r t ai ntythat nor m al i nves t i gat i ve t echni ques w i l l nots ucce ed, butr atherneed onl ys how thats uch t echni ques r eas onabl yappea rt o be unl i kel yt o s ucce ed i f tr i ed. ” A r m oci da , 515 F. 2d at 3 8 (qu o tat ion m ark s an d cit ati o n o m itted). T h e G o v ern m en t m u st fu ll yex p lai n , h o w ev er, th e b a s is f

o r s u c h a c o n c lu s io n . V e n to , 533 F. 2d at848. W e have concl uded thatthe G o v ern m en t has sati sfied it s b u rde n if i t sho w s a “ ‘fa ctua l pred icate’ su ff ici en t t o inf

o rm the j udge w hyotherm ethods of i nves t i gat i on ar e nots uffi ci ent . ” U ni t ed Stat es v. Wi l l i a ms , 124 F. 3d 411, 418 ( 3d C i r . 1997) ( quot i ng U nited S tates v. McG l ory , 968 F. 2d 3 0 9 , 3 4 5 (3d C ir . 1 9 9 2 )). D efe ndant s N apol i and J ohns on offe rs ever al ar gum ent s chal l engi ng the D i s tr i ct C o u rt ’s d e te rm in a tio n th a t th e w ir e ta p a p p lic a tio n s a n d a f f id a v its e s ta b lis h e d n e c e s s ity. Fi r s t , theycont end thatthe w i r et ap af fi davi t s cont ai n m anym at er i al m i s s t at ement s and om i s s i ons thatcoul d have mi s l ed an i s s ui ng j udge and, ther efor e, the D i s tr i ctC our terr ed in f a ilin g to h o ld a n e v id e n tia ry h e a ri n g to e v a lu a te th e a p p lic a tio n s a n d a f f id a v its . Second, N apol i and J ohns on ar gue thatthe D i s tr i ctC our tcomm i t t ed l egal err orbyIn h is R e p lyB rie f , Jo h n so n a ss e rts th e G o v e rn m e n t in c o rre c tlyc h a ra c ter ize s h is 14 and N apol i ’ s chal l enge unde rthe nec es s i tyr equi r ementas fac i al . H e as s ert s that D e f e n d a n ts ’ a tte m p t to o b ta in a n e v id e n tia ry h e a ri n g o n n e c e s s ity b e lie s th is c la im . N apol i , how ever , expl i ci t l ym akes a fa ci al ar gum enti n hi s O peni ng B r i ef: “A ppel l ant N apol i s ubm i t s thatthe governm entfai l ed t o m ake a fac i al s how i ng, w i thi n the four corner s of the af

fi davi t s , t o es t abl i s h the nec es s i tyforthe J ohns on 1, J ohns on 2, and N a p o li af

f id a v its.” (N a p o li B r. 3 5 .) Jo h n so n jo in e d th is a rg u m e n t w h e n h e jo in e d a ll h is co- defe ndant s ’ ar gum ent s . R egar dl es s , D efe ndant s m ade, and w e cons i der ed, non- fac i al c h a lle n g e s to th e w ir e ta p a f f id a v its a s w e ll. 25 asse ssing the w ir etap ap p li ca ti o n s an d af fid av it s u n d er p rob ab le ca u se ra ther tha n T it le III sta n d a rd s. F in a lly , the ya ss e rt th a t th e w ire tap a p p lica tio n s a n d a f f id a v its a re f

a c ially insu ff ici en t t o estab li sh n ec essity . N ap o li ad d it ion all yarg u es th at th e D istri ct C o u rt 14 err ed byfai l i ng t o s uppr es s evi dence gather ed fr om the w i r et ap pl ace d on N apol i ’ s phone, becau se there w as no indep end ent s ho w i ng of n ecessi tyfor N apo l i . W e add res s these a rg u m e n ts in tu rn . 1. a. D efe ndant s ’ as s ert i on thatthe D i s tr i ctC our terr ed byfai l i ng t o gr antthem an evi dent i aryhear i ng t o cons i deranym at er i al m i s s t at ement s orom i s s i ons i n the w i r et ap aff i davi t s r ai s es tw o s ub- ques t i ons : ( 1) w hetherthe D i s tr i ctC our terr ed i n fai l i ng t o gr ant them a Franks h e a r i n g , a n d ( 2 ) wh e th e rth e Di s tr i c tCo u r te rr e d i n f a i l i n g t o g r a n tth e m a n e c e s s ity h e a ri n g . W e a n s w e r b o th q u e s tio n s in th e n e g a tiv e .N ot abl y , i n hi s R epl yB r i ef, N apol i cont ends , t o the contr ary , thatanal y s i s under 15 Franks v. D el aw are , 438 U . S. 154 ( 1978) , i s i nappl i cabl e t o “w i r et ap cha l l enges bas ed u p o n n ec essity . ” (N ap o li R ep lyB r. 1 2 -13 . ) H e a rgu es in stead that the D istri ct C o u rt shou l d h ave g rant ed D efen dan t s som e othersortof ev i den t i aryheari ng t o assess nece s s i ty . W e addr es s thi s ar gum enti n the nexts ect i on. 26 N apol i and J ohns on ar gue i n thei ropeni ng br i efs thatthe D i s tr i ctC our tcomm i t t ed err orbyfai l i ng t o gr antthem a Franks hear i ng. I n Franks v. D el aw are , th e S u p r e me 15 C our tdet erm i ned thata cr i m i nal defe ndanthas the r i ghtt o chal l enge the truthful nes s of fac tual s t at ement s m ade i n an af fi davi tof pr obabl e ca us e s uppor t i ng a w arr anti f the d ef en d an t can m ak e the req u isi te pre li m inarysh o w ing . 4 3 8 U . S . 1 5 4 , 1 5 5 -56 (19 7 8 ); U ni t ed Stat es v. Y

us uf , 4 6 1 F .3 d 3 7 4 , 3 8 3 (3 d C ir. 2 0 0 6 ). W e h a v e e x ten d e d th is rig h t to p e rm it c h a lle n g e s b a s e d o n f a c tu a l o m is s io n s f

ro m th e w a rr a n t a f

f id a v it. See Yusuf

, 461 F .3 d a t 3 8 3 ; W

i l son v. Ru sso , 212 F. 3d 781, 787 ( 3d C i r . 2000) . T he pr el i m i nary - s how i ng r equi r ementi s i nt ended t o “pr eventthe mi s us e of a ver aci tyhear i ng forpurpos es of di s coveryorobs truct i on. ” Fr anks , 438 U . S. at170- 71. T o obt ai n a Fr anks h ea ri n g , the d ef en d an t m u st m ak e a “su b stan ti al pre li m inary s how i ng thata fa l s e s t at ementknow i ngl yand i nt ent i onal l y , orw i th r eckl es s di s r egar d for the truth, w as i ncluded bythe af fi ant i n the w arr ant affi dav i t , and i f t he all eged l yfal se s t at ementi s nece s s aryt o t he fi ndi ng of pr obabl e ca us e. ” Fr anks , 438 U . S. at155- 56; Y us uf , 461 F. 3d at383. T o m eetthi s thr es hol d, a cha l l engerm us tpr es entm or e than c o n c lu s o ry st a te m e n ts th a t th e a f f id a v it c o n ta in s f

a ls e s ta te m e n ts o r o m is s io n s . Fr anks , 4 3 8 U .S . at 1 7 1 ; Y

us uf , 461 F. 3d at383 n. 8. T he cha l l engerm us ts peci fi cal l yi dent i fy27

al l egedl yfal s e s t at ement s orom i s s i ons i n the af fi davi tand pr ovi de a s t at ementof r eas ons s u p p o rt in g th e a rg u m e n t. Fr anks , 438 U . S. at171. T he cha l l engerm us tal s o pr ovi de an o f f e r o f p ro o f o r g iv e a s a tis f

a c to ry e x p la n a tio n f

o r t h e a b s e n c e o f

p ro o f. Id . S w o rn aff i davi t s orr el i abl e s t at ement s fr om w i tnes s es ar e exa m pl es of off er s of pr oof s uffi ci ent to s a tis f yth e s u b s ta n tia l p re lim in a ry sh o w in g . I d. ; Y us uf , 461 F. 3d at383 n. 8. W hen d e m o n stra tin g th a t th e a f f ian t o m itt e d a m a ter ial f a c t o r in c lu d e d a f

a lse sta tem e n t w ith the r equi s i t e m ens r ea , i ti s i ns uffi ci entt o pr ove the af fi antact ed w i th negl i gence orm ade a n in n o c e n t m is ta k e . Y us uf , 461 F. 3d at383. I f the cha l l engerpr ovi des s uffi ci entpr oof and obt ai ns a Franks hear i ng, the cha l l engerm us tpr ove bya pr eponder ance that( 1) t he affiantm ade f

al se st at em ents or om i ssi on s i ntent i on al l y , kn ow i ng l y , or w i th reckl ess dis regar d fo r the truth, and (2) such st at em ents w ere m at eri al t o the probab l e cause d e te rm in a tio n . Id . If the ch al l eng er s at i sfi es this bu rden, w e w i l l excis e t he fa l se sta tem e n ts a n d o m iss io n s f ro m th e a f

f id a v it an d a ss e ss w h e th e r th e c o rre c ted a f f id a v it e s ta b lis h e s p ro b a b le c a u s e . A l though w e have notaddr es s ed the i s s ue, m os tappel l at e court s have he l d that Franks h ea ri n g s are also ap p rop ri ate w h en a d ef en d an t i s ch all en g ing w h ethe r th ere are fal s e s t at ement s orom i s s i ons i n an af fi davi tfora w i r et ap appl i cat i on thats peak t o the n e c e s s ity re q u ir e m e n t. E . g. , U ni t ed Stat es v. G r een , 1 7 5 F . 3 d 8 2 2 , 8 2 8 (10 th C ir . 1 9 9 9 ); U ni t ed Stat es v. G uer r a- Mar ez , 9 2 8 F .2 d 6 6 5 , 6 7 0 (5 th C ir. 1 9 9 1 ); U n itedS ta tes v . C o le , 8 0 7 F .2 d 2 6 2 , 2 6 7 -6 8 (1 st C ir. 1 9 8 6 ); U n itedS ta tes v . Ip

p o lito , 7 7 4 F .2 d 1 4 8 2 , 1 4 8 4 (9 th28

C i r . 1985) . W e nee d notdeci de t oday , how ever , w hethera def endanti s ent i t l ed t o a Franks hear i ng t o chal l enge mi s s t at ement s orom i s s i ons r el at ed t o a nec es s i tyfi ndi ng i n a w ir etap ap p li ca ti o n b ec au se th e D ef en d an ts can n o t m ak e the req u isi te pre li m inary s how i ng t o obt ai n s uch a he ar i ng. W e al s o need notdeci de t odayw hats t andar d of r evi ew t o empl oyw hen r evi ew i ng the D i s tr i ctC our t ’ s r efus al t o perm i ta Franks hear i ng. N or m al l y , w e r evi ew the deni al of a m o ti o n fo r sup p ression fo r clear e rror as to the u n d erly ing fa cts an d ex erc ise p lena ry re v ie w a s to its le g a lity. See U ni t ed Stat es v. A gnew , 4 0 7 F .3 d 1 9 3 , 1 9 6 (3 d C ir . 2 0 0 5 ). W e have nots t at ed a pr eci s e s t andar d of r evi ew w her e a D i s tr i ctC our tdeni ed a Fr anks h e a ri n g , a n d o th e r c ir c u its a re s p lit o n th is m a tte r. See U nited S tates v. Stew art , 306 F. 3d 2 9 5 , 3 0 4 (6th C ir . 2 0 0 2 ). T h re e c ir c u its e m p lo yc le a r- e rr o r r e v ie w , U ni t ed Stat es v. Ski nner , 9 7 2 F .2 d 1 7 1 , 1 7 7 (7 th C ir . 1 9 9 2 ), U n itedS ta tes v . H

a d field , 918 F. 2d 987, 992 (1 st C ir. 1 9 9 0 ); U

n itedS ta tes v . O n e P a rc e l o f P ro p e rty , 8 9 7 F . 2 d 9 7 , 1 0 0 (2d C ir . 1 9 9 0 ); tw o c ir c u its re v ie w d e n o v o , U ni t ed Stat es v. H

or ni ck , 9 6 4 F . 2 d 8 9 9 , 9 0 4 (9th C ir . 1 9 9 2 ); U ni t ed Stat es v. Muel l er , 902 F. 2d 336, 341 ( 5th C i r . 1990) ; and one c i r cui tr evi ew s for a b u s e o f d is c re tio n , U

n itedS ta tes v . Fa irc h ild , 1 2 2 F .3 d 6 0 5 , 6 1 0 (8 th C ir . 1 9 9 7 ). B ecause the m ostdem and i ng st and ard ar t i culat ed b yanycou rti s de no vo , and becau se th e d e n o v o sta n d a rd o f re v iew is s a tisf

ied h e re , w e n e e d n o t d e ter m in e th e a p p lica b le s ta n d a rd to d a y .Jo h n so n d o e s n o t sp e c if yin h is O p e n in g B rie f

w h e th e r th e D istric t C o u rt e rre d in 16 nothol di ng a Franks hear i ng t o as s es s w hetherther e w er e fa l s e s t at ement s orom i s s i ons m at er i al t o i t s fi ndi ng of nec es s i tyori t s fi ndi ng of prob ab l e cau se . I tappea r s that J ohns on onl ys oughtan evi dent i aryhear i ng t o as s es s fal s e s t at ement s orom i s s i ons r egar di ng n e c e ss ity . F irst, Jo h n so n f a iled to p o in t o u t an ye x a m p les o f f a lse sta tem e n ts o r o m is s io n s re la tin g to a f in d in g o f p ro b a b le c a u s e in th is s e c tio n o f h is O p e n in g B ri e f. J ohns on di d poi ntoutal l eged f al s e s t at ement s and omi s s i ons r el at i ng t o a fi ndi ng of nece s s i tyi n a pr evi ous s ect i on of hi s ar gum ent , butdoes nots ugges ttheyar e mat er i al t o, o r pre clud e, a f

ind ing o f p rob ab le ca u se. S ec o n d , Jo h n so n o n lyd iscu ssed an ev iden ti ary hear i ng i n r el at i on t o es t abl i s hi ng nece s s i tyi n hi s R epl yB r i ef. B eca us e J ohns on does notexpr es s l yar gue the D i s tr i ctC our terr ed bynothol di ng a Franks hear i ng t o det erm i ne w hetherthe w i r et ap af fi davi t s cont ai ned mi s s t at ement s or om i s s i ons m at er i al t o a pr obabl e ca us e det erm i nat i on, and does notoffe ranyexampl es or a rg u m e n ts o f

sta tem e n ts th a t n e g a te a p ro b a b le c a u se f in d in g , w e w ill n o t ad d re ss th is a rg u m e n t h e re . J ohns on di d poi ntoutal l eged mat er i al m i s s t at ement s and omi s s i ons i n an ea r l i er 17 s ect i on of hi s br i ef a r gui ng thatthe af fi davi tdi d nots uppor tnece s s i ty . W e ana l y ze w h ethe r th ese fa lse stat em en ts or o m issi o n s are su ff ici en t t o co n sti tute a p reli m inary s h o wi n g b e l o w. 29 E ven w hen r evi ew i ng the D i s tr i ctC our t ’ s r efus al t o hol d a Franks hear i ng de novo, i ti s cl earthe courtdi d noterrbeca us e nei therN apol i norJ ohns on m ade the re q u is ite p re lim in a ry sh o w in g . See Frank s , 438 U . S. at155- 56. J ohns on di d notoffe r befor e the D i s tr i ctC our ta s i ngl e ar gum entthateven appr oxi m at es thi s s how i ng, nordoes h e o f f e r o n e o n a p p e a l. O n a p p e a l, Jo h n so n c o n ten d s th a t th e D istric t C o u rt f a iled to 16 hol d a Franks hear i ng t o as s es s anym at er i al m i s r epr es ent at i ons orom i s s i ons i n the w i r et ap af

fi davi t s , butdoes notoffe ra s i ngl e exa m pl e of a m at er i al m i s r epr es ent at i on or o m iss io n in su p p o rt o f

h is a rg u m e n t. I n J ohns on’ s m ot i on t o s uppr es s befor e the 17 D i s tr i ctC our t , J ohns on r eques t ed a Franks hear i ng beca us e the i ni t i al aff i davi tr el i ed al m os texcl us i vel yon a C I w ho i s a “know n m ethamphet ami ne us erand tr aff i ckerw ho30

h as a m yri ad o f re aso n s to p rov ide f alse inf o rm ati o n to law en fo rce m en t. ” (R . at 76 1 A . ) J ohns on cont ended thata Franks hear i ng “w i l l demonstr at e the natur e and e xt entof the f a l s i f i c a t i o n s a n d l a w e n f

o r c e me n t ’ s i n t e n t i o n a l a n d / o rr e c k l e s s r e l i a n c e u p o n s a me . ” ( R. at 76 4 A . ) T he fa ctthatthe C I i n ques t i on i s a met hamphet ami ne us erdoes not , i n and of i t s el f, i ndi cat e thatanyt es t i m onyhe gave w as fal s e orunr el i abl e. M or eover , J ohns on n e ith e r e x p lain e d th e a b se n c e o f n o r o f f e re d a n ye v id e n c e in th e f o rm o f a n a f f id a v it, w i tnes s t es t i m ony , orotherw i s e, thatpr oves the C I w as a drug us er , expl ai ns w hyhi s drug use w ou l d en cou rage hi m t o p rovi de fa l se i nfo rm at i on , or descri bes w hat s ortof f al se in f o rm a tio n h e b e lie v e d th e C I h a d g iv e n . Fr anks , 438 U . S. at171; Y us uf , 461 F. 3d at 383 n. 8. T her efor e, hi s al l egat i on thatthe C I pr ovi ded fa l s e s t at ement s w hi ch w er e us ed i n the af fi davi ti s exac t l ythe s or tof conc l us orys t at ementthati s i ns uffi ci entt o m eett he Franks p re lim in a ry th re s h o ld . See Franks, 4 3 8 U .S . a t 1 7 1 . N apol i ’ s ar gum ent s r egar di ng a Franks hear i ng ar e i ncons i s t ent . I n hi s m ot i on b e f o re th e D istric t C o u rt, N a p o li l ists e x a m p les o f v a rio u s m iss tate m e n ts in th e a f f id a v it, w h ich h e c laim s w o u ld n e g a te a f in d in g o f p ro b a b le c a u se . (R . at 7 9 5 A -7 9 6 A .) N a p o li di d notexpr es s l yar gue, how ever , thatthe af fi davi tcont ai ns m i s s t at ement s orom i s s i ons rel at ed to a necessi tyfi nd i ng . (R . at79 5A (not i ng the “A ffi dav i tof P robable C ause cont ai ns m at er i al m i s - s t at ement s of fa ctorexcl uded i nform at i on r el evantt o the det erm i nat i on of pr obabl e ca us e”) . ) N everthel es s , N apol i as s ert s i n hi s O peni ng B r i ef on31

appea l thata Franks “heari ng w ou l d h ave b een ap propri at e t o ev al uate appell ants ’ cl ai m s ” bec aus e the af

fi davi t s cont ai n m at er i al m i s s t at ement s orom i s s i ons r el evantt o a nece s s i tyfi ndi ng. ( N apol i B r . 40. ) N apol i change s cour s e i n hi s R epl yB r i ef, ar gui ng th a t “ Fr anks a n a ly sis is in a p p lica b le to w ire tap c h a llen g e s b a se d o n n e c e ss ity .” (N a p o li R ep lyB r. 1 2 -13 . ) “G ener al l ybarr i ng exce pt i onal ci r cumst ance s , l i ke an i nt erveni ng change i n the l aw orthe l ack of

r epr es ent at i on byan att orney , thi s C our tdoes notr evi ew i s s ues r ai s ed forthe fi r s tt i m e atthe appe l l at e l evel . ” G l eas on v. N or w es tMor t

gage, I nc. , 243 F. 3d 130, 142 ( 3d C i r . 2001) . B eca us e N apol i ar guabl ydi d notas s ertent i t l ementt o a Fr anks hear i ng t o i nqui r e i nt o the af fi davi ts t at ement s r el evantt o nece s s i tybefor e the D i s tr i ct C our t , hi s cl ai m t o t hi s eff ecti n hi s O peni ng B r i ef maybe w ai ved. E ven i f hi s ar gum ent i s t aken on the mer i t s , how ever , he ca nnotpr evai l . N apol i and J ohns on have not i dent i fi ed anyal l egedl yfal s e s t at ementorom i s s i ons thatw arr anta Franks hear i ng i n any event . N apol i ’ s and J ohns on’ s s tr onges tar gum ent s ar e thatthe s ect i on of the w i r et ap a f f id a v its d is c u s s in g th e u s e f u ln e s s o f C Is h a s m a te ri a l m is s ta te m e n ts a n d o m is s io n s . D ef en d an ts argu e: (1) tha t th e a ff idav itm isr ep rese n ts th e C Is’ ab il ityto ac q u ir e in f o rm a tio n a b o u t th e f

u ll sc o p e o f

th e o rg a n iza tio n b e c a u se it o m its th e f a c t th a t S e rv io lo w as offe r ed B r eed mem ber s hi p; ( 2) J ohns on t akes i s s ue w i th the af fi davi t s ’ s ugges t i on th a t th e C Is c a n n o t ap p ro a c h Jo h n so n ’s s o u rc e s o f m e th a m p h e tam in e ; an d (3 ) N a p o li as s ert s thatthe af

fi ant ’ s cl ai m thatSer vi ol o w oul d nott es t i fyi s fal s e.32

R egar di ng the fi r s tcl ai m , D efe ndant s poi ntt o the mem or andum di s cus s i ng an i nt ervi ew betw een Servi ol o and A gentSchw art z, pr e- dat i ng the w i r et ap appl i cat i on, w hi ch i ndi cat es thatSer vi ol o i nform ed A gentSchw art z thathe had be en i nvi t ed, but decl i ned, t o j oi n the B r eed a s a pr os pect i ve mem ber . ( R . at1322A - 1323A . ) A gent S c h w a rtz d id n o t m e n tio n S e rv io lo ’s in v itatio n in th e w ire tap a f f id a v its. D e f

e n d a n ts cont end the fa ctthatSer vi ol o w as i nvi t ed t o j oi n the B r eed “ compl et el ycontr adi ct s al l t he of [s i c] as s ert i ons m ade byA gentSchw art z i n both the J ohns on and N apol i w i r et ap a p p lica tio n s re g a rd in g th e im p o ss ib ili tyo f in f iltra tin g th e B re e d o rg a n iza tio n ,” o r th a t a C I co u ld ac ce ss inf

o rm ati o n ab o u t th e sc o p e o f th e o rga n izati o n . (N ap o li B r. 1 6 . ) J ohns on ar gues the omi s s i on of thi s i nform at i on s eems de l i ber at e bec aus e the af fi ant in c o rp o ra te d th e re m a in d e r o f th e in te rv ie w w ith S e rv io lo in to th e w ir e ta p a f f id a v it. A m emora ndum of Servi ol o’ s pr e- aff i davi ti nt ervi ew w i th A gentSchw art z, penned b yA g e n t S c h w a rtz h im se lf , is p re c ise lyth e k in d o f e v id e n c e o n e m u st p u t f o rw a rd to m ake a s ubs t ant i al s how i ng fora Franks h e a ri n g . See Fr anks , 438 U . S. at171 ( i ndi cat i ng a n a f f i d a v i to rs w o r n s t a t e m e n ti s th e s o r to f o f f e ro f p r o o f th a tm u s ta c c o m p a n y a s ubs t ant i al s how i ng) . T hi s m emora ndum demonstr at es thatA gentSchw art z knew , but o m itte d f ro m h is w ir e ta p a f

f id a v it, th e f

a c t th a t S e rv io lo w a s in v ite d to jo in th e B re e d . T hi s s how i ng, how ever , i s i ns uffi ci entt o m eetthe Franks th re sh o ld b e c a u se D e f e n d a n ts h a v e n o t p e rs u a d e d u s th a t it w a s m a te ri a l. S e e id at155- 56 ( i ndi cat i ng a s ubs t ant i al show i ng requi res that the ch al l eng e m ake a “ subst anti al prel i m i naryshow i ng ” t hat a fal seH a d S e rv io lo b e e n w ill in g to in f iltra te th e B re e d , tha t w o u ld n o t h a v e n e c e ss a rily 18 n e g a ted th e n e c e ss ityf

o r o b tain in g w ire tap s in th is c a se . T h e G o v e rn m e n t p e rsu a siv e ly p o ints ou t th at B ree d p rosp ec ts ha v e “ low ly ” status. (A p p ell ee ’s B r. 8 6 -87 . ) P rosp ec ts are n o t adm itted in w ee k lyclub m ee ti n g s, letalon e e x p o sed to the fu ll ex tent o f N ap o li ’s drug oper at i on. I ns t ead, theyar e s ubj ect ed t o m onths of l oy al tyt es t s atthe r i s k of v io le n c e to th e m s e lv e s if th e ya re d e e m e d u n w o rt h y . (I d. ) N a p o li also c h a llen g e s th e a f f ian t’s c laim s th a t law e n f o rc e m e n t m isre p re se n ted its 19 abi l i tyt o i nfi l tr at e the B r eed be caus e A gentSchw art z t es t i fi ed thathe ent er ed a ba rthat serv es a s a B ree d h an g o u t and w as n o t i d en ti fied . N ap o li o ff ers A g en t Sc h w artz’s tes tim o n yin f

ro n t o f th e P e n n sy lv a n ia g ra n d ju rya b o u t h is trip to th e b a r a s p ro o f o f th is m is re p re s e n ta tio n . Fr anks , 438 U . S. at171. N apol i cont ends thatthi s t es t i m onybel i es the a ff iant’s claim that the B ree d ca n n o t be in fil tr ated . W e a g ree w ith the G o v ern m en t’ s char act er i zat i on of N apol i ’ s cl ai m as “abs ur d[] . ” ( G ov’ tB r . 89. ) T he fa ctthatan off i cer can e nt era barw i thoutbei ng i dent i fi ed does notnegat e, i n anyw ay , the l aw enfor cement o f f ice r’s c h a ra c ter iza tio n th a t itw o u ld b e h a rd to in f iltra te th e B re e d . T h e re f o re , d e sp ite pr es ent i ng evi dence on t hi s i s s ue, N apol i di d notm ake a s ubs t ant i al pr el i m i narys how i ng th a t th e a f

f ia n t m a d e a f

a ls e s ta te m e n t. See Frank s , 4 3 8 U .S . at 1 5 5 -5 6 ; Y us uf , 461 F. 3d at378. 33 st at em ent w as m ade, that s t at em ent w as m ade k no w i ng l y , i ntent i on al l y , or w i th reckl ess di s r egar d forthe truth, and i s “nec es s ary ” t o the fi ndi ng) . B eca us e Servi ol o decl i ned B ree d m em b ersh ip, he w o u ld n o t hav e a cc ess to m o re d etail s ab o u t th e o rga n izati o n ’s oper at i ons . T hus , l aw enfor cementcoul d notpur s ue thi s l i ne of i nves t i gat i on and,

18 ther efor e, thi s fac ti s notm at er i al t o a nec es s i tyfi ndi ng. 19 J ohns on cont ends thatA gentSchw art z’ s as s ert i on i n the w i r et ap af fi davi tthat “[ t] h e c o n fid en ti al i n fo rm an t do es n o t hav e the ab il ityto ap p roa ch an yo f Jo h n so n ’s s our ces forcry s t al m ethamphet ami ne” i s al s o fal s e. ( R . at907A . ) H e bas es hi s as s er t i on o n th e f a c t th a t th e w ire tap a f

f id a v it i n d ica tes th a t law e n f o rc e m e n t su rv e y e d S e rv io lo talk in g w ith N a p o li o n se v e ra l o c c a sio n s. B e c a u se A g e n t S c h w a rtz k n e w th a t N a p o li i s34

o n e o f Jo h n so n ’s s o u rc e s, Jo h n so n c o n ten d s th is e v id e n c e in d ica tes th a t a C I c o u ld , in f a c t, a p p ro a c h J o h n s o n ’s s o u rc e s – c o n tr a ry to th e a f f ia n t’ s a s s e rt io n . E v en if A g en t Sc h w artz’s stat em en t th at S erv iolo c an n o t app roa ch Jo h n so n ’s s our ces i s t echni cal l yfal s e, i tdoes notent i t l e D efe ndant s t o a Franks h e a ri n g . Sur vei l l ance evi dence of Servi ol o t al ki ng t o N apol i i s s uffi ci entt o demonstr at e thatthe a s s e rt io n th a t C Is c o u ld n o t a p p ro a c h J o h n s o n ’s s o u rc e s is in a c c u ra te . See Frank s , 438 U . S . at17 1 (i nd i cat i ng affidavi tor sw orn st at em ent i s the sortof o ffer of p roof t hat m ust acc om panya s ubs t ant i al s how i ng) . B ut , J ohns on has offe r ed no evi dence thatA gent Schw art z i nt ent i onal l y , know i ngl y , orr eckl es s l yw r ot e thi s s t at ementt o m i s l ead the j udge re g a rd in g S e rv io lo ’s a c c e s s to J o h n s o n ’s s o u rc e s . Id . at155- 56. I n fac t , N apol i as s er t ed i n hi s br i ef thatA gentSchw art z knew thatN apol i w as notJ ohns on’ s ul t i m at e s our ce f or m ethamphet ami ne bec aus e he kne w R obertT r aver s e w as the ul t i m at e s our ce. T her efor e, i ti s pos s i bl e thatA gentSchw art z negl i gent l ys ugges t ed Servi ol o coul d notappr oach J o h n s o n ’s s o u rc e s , m e a n in g th a t h e c o u ld n o t a p p ro a c h T ra v e rs e . See Yusuf , 461 F. 3d at 383 ( i ndi cat i ng thatpr oof an a ffi anti ncl uded a f al s e s t at ementorom i s s i on i n the w i r et ap aff i davi tnegl i gent l yorbyi nnocentm i s t ake i s i ns uffi ci entt o a Franks heari ng ). B ecause D e f e n d a n ts d o n o t p e rsu a d e u s th a t th e re is e v id e n c e th a t A g e n t S c h w a rtz w ro te th is s t at ementknow i ngl y , i nt ent i onal l y , orw i th r eckl es s di s r egar d forthe truth, theyhave not m ade the s ubs t ant i al pr el i m i narys how i ng r equi r ed fora Franks h e a ri n g . See Frank s , 438 U .S . at 1 5 5 -5 6 ; Y

us uf , 461 F. 3d at378.35

N apol i cont ends thatthe af fi ant ’ s as s ert i on thatSer vi ol o w oul d nott es t i fybefor e a gr and j uryw as fal s e bec aus e, pr i ort o engagi ng i n cons ens ual i nt er cept i ons , Seni or D eputyA t t orneyG ener al K i s han N ai r( “N ai r ”) w r ot e a mem or andum sugges t i ng that S erv iolo c o n sen ted to interce p ti o n s to “ co rrob o rate h is t esti m o n y . ” (N ap o li B r. 2 4 . ) A lth o u g h N a ir’s m e m o ra n d u m in d ica tes th a t law e n f o rc e m e n t f

e lt “it n e c e ss a ryto cons ens ual l y[s i c] i nt er ceptthe conve r s at i ons w hi ch M r . Ser vi ol o has w i th the above i ndi vi dual s i n or dert o eff ect i vel ycorr obor at e hi s t es t i m ony , ” nothi ng i n the mem or andum su g g ested that S erv iolo c o n sen ted to interce p ti o n s fo r th at pu rpo se. (R . at 13 2 5 A . ) In f a c t , n o th i n g i n th e me mor a n d u m s u g g e s t s th a tSe r v i o l o a g r e e d t o t e s t i f yi n th i s c a s e . To the contr ary , the r ecor d es t abl i s hes thatSer vi ol o r efus ed t o t es t i fyunt i l the fe der al g o v e rn me n tt o o k th e c a s e a n d a g r e e d t o p r o v i d e S e r v i o l o a n d h i s f a mi l yp r o t e c t i o n . As su c h , w e f

in d th is e v id e n c e in su f

f icie n t to su g g e st th e a f

f ian t m a d e a f

a lse sta tem e n t; ther efor e, i tdoes notm eetthe Franks th re s h o ld . Fr anks , 4 3 8 U .S . at 1 5 5 -5 6 ; Y us uf , 461 F. 3d at378. J ohns on al s o t akes i s s ue w i th the af fi ant ’ s s t at ement s aboutthe C I , cl ai m i ng t hat th e in f o rm a tio n is “ b o ilerp late ,” i.e . the a f f ian t co p ied p h ra se s a b o u t th e C I’s a c c e ss to i nform at i on and s our ces fr om a pr i orw i r et ap af fi davi t . J ohns on offe r s as pr oof the w ir e ta p a f

f id a v it f ro m a n o th e r i n v e s tig a tio n . ( See R . at1331A - 1382A . ) W hen compar ed, th e n e c e s s i tys e c t i o n s i n e a c h wi r e t a p a f f i d a v i ta r e n o t i c e a b l ys i mi l a r . E v i d e n c e th a tt wo w i r et ap af

fi davi t s ar e s i m i l ar , how ever , i s nots uffi ci entt o w arr anta Franks hear i ngT he fa ctthatl aw enfor cementus ed ae r i al s ur vei l l ance aft erappl y i ng forthe 20 w i r et ap, and notbefor e, i s of no m om ent . W e have hel d that“[t ] her e i s no r equi r ement thateveryi nves t i gat i ve met hodol ogybe exha us t ed pr i ort o an appl i cat i on for ” w i r et ap in te rc e p tio n . V

e n to , 533 F. 2d at849. A l l l aw enfor cementm us tdo i s t o s how thatot her “ n o rm a l” in v e s tig a tiv e te c h n iq u e s a re im p ra c tic a l. A r m oci da , 515 F. 2d at37. B ecause ae ri al su rve il lanc e is ex p en sive an d inv asiv e, i t i s n o t th e typ e o f n o rm al i n v esti g atory te c h n iq u e th a t la w e n f

o rc e m e n t m u s t c o n s id e r p ri o r t o a p p lyin g f o r a w ir e ta p . See i d. ( l i s t i ng vi s ual and aur al s ur vei l l ance , i nt err ogat i ng peopl e w i th i m m uni ty , the us e of 36 beca us e i tdoes nots peak t o w hetherthes e s t at ement s ar e fa l s e. T her efor e, J ohns on has notm etthe fi r s tpr ong of the pr el i m i narys how i ng fora Franks hear i ng, i . e. d e m o n s tr a tin g th a t th e re is a f a ls e s ta te m e n t o r o m is s io n . Fr anks , 438 U . S. at155- 56; Y us uf , 461 F. 3d at378. D efe ndant s al s o r ai s e s ever al compl ai nt s r egar di ng the af fi ant ’ s r epr es ent at i on of l aw enfor cement ’ s s ucce s s w i th phy s i cal , vi deo, and ae r i al s ur vei l l ance . D efe ndant s ( 1) as s ertthatthe w i r et ap af fi davi t s om i t t ed s ucce s s ful vi deo and a er i al s ur vei l l ance , and ( 2) c h a lle n g e s ta te m e n ts re g a rd in g la w e n f o rc e m e n t’ s s u c c e s s w ith p h y s ic a l s u rv e illa n c e . D efe ndant s ’ compl ai ntr egar di ng the vi deo and a er i al s ur vei l l ance i s unavai l i ng beca us e ther e w as no i nform at i on t o om i t . N apol i i ndi cat es thatl aw enfor cementengage d in v id e o su rv e ill a n c e o n A p ril 1 5 , 2 6 , an d 2 8 , 2 0 0 6 a n d M a y3 , 2 0 0 6 ; h o w e v e r, h e p o in ts us t o no pl ace i n the r ecor d w hi ch i ndi cat es l aw enfor cementconduct ed vi deo s ur vei l l ance and ourr evi ew s ugges t s l aw enfor cementconduct ed phys i cal s ur vei l l ance on thos e dat es . Fur ther , as the G overnm entpoi nt s out , the onl yaer i al s ur vei l l ance occurr ed aft erthe l as tw i r et ap appl i cat i on w as s ubm i t t ed. T her efor e, the l ack of i nform at i on about thes e form s of s ur vei l l ance i s notan omi s s i on. 20w arr ant s , and conf i dent i al i nform ant s as nor m al i nves t i gat i ve t echni ques , butnotaer i al su rve il lanc e). 37 D efe ndant s fur therchal l enge s t at ement s i n al l thr ee w i r et ap af fi davi t s conce rni ng p h y sic a l su rv e ill a n c e . T h e a f f id a v its sta ted th a t law e n f o rc e m e n t h a d lim ited su c c e ss w ith phy s i cal s ur vei l l ance , w hen unac compani ed byw i r et ap i nt er cept i ons , beca us e B r eed m ember s ar e “e xtr emel yaw ar e of thei rs urr oundi ngs ” and pr act i ce c ount er - s ur vei l l ance m eas ur es . ( R . at908A , 984A , 1067A . ) I tfur therdes cr i bed tw o ci r cumst ance s w hen B re e d m e m b e rs e x h ib ited a w a re n e ss th a t law e n f o rc e m e n t w e re su rv e y in g th e m . N a p o li cont ends thatthi s s t at ementm i s r epr es ent s the governm ent ’ s s ucce s s es w i th phy s i cal su rve il lanc e. Joh n so n , in co n tr ast, arg u es th at th e tw o ex am p les th e g o v ern m en t of fe rs ar e pr obl emat i c bec aus e nei theroccurr ed w hen l aw enfor cementw as s ur vey i ng N apol i or J o h n s o n . N eith er D ef

en d an t of

fe rs su b stan ti al ev iden ce that thes e statem en ts are m isre p re se n tatio n s. N a p o li p o in ts to m yria d c irc u m sta n c e s w h e n law e n f o rc e m e n t d id c o n d u c t p h y sic a l su rv e ill a n c e , b u t n o th in g h e p o in ts to p ro v e s th a t law e n f o rc e m e n t co u ld m e e t it s in v e stig a to ryo b jec tiv e s th ro u g h p h y sic a l su rv e ill a n c e , o r th a t B re e d m e m b e rs d id n o t p ra c tice c o u n ter -su rv e ill a n c e . Jo h n so n p o in ts to e v id e n c e th a t th e e x a m p les listed in the af fi davi tr el at ed t o i nves t i gat i ons of B r eed mem ber s otherthan ei therN apol i or J ohns on. M or eover , he poi nt s outthatther e i s no evi dence thats ur vei l l ance of J ohns on h a s e v e r f

a iled . B u t ag a in , tha t ev id e n c e d o e s n o t in d ica te th a t A g e n t S c h w a rtz m i s r epr es ent ed the us eful nes s of phy s i cal s ur vei l l ance . I tm er el ycal l s i nt o ques t i on t he38

val ue of the exa m pl es offe r ed. T her efor e, even i f the D efe ndant s ’ as s ert i ons ar e t aken a t fac e val ue, theydo nots at i s fythe pr el i m i narys how i ng r equi r ementbeca us e theydo not demonstr at e the exi s t ence of a f al s e s t at ementorom i s s i on i n the w i r et ap af fi davi t , ort hat the af fi antm ade f

al s e s t at ement s orom i s s i ons w i th the r equi s i t e m ens r ea . See Frank s , 4 3 8 U .S . at 1 5 5 -5 6 ; Y

us uf , 4 6 1 F .3 d a t 3 7 8 . N apol i m akes a gene r al compl ai ntthatA gentSchw art z mi s r epr es ent ed the ext ent o f l a w e n f o r c e me n t ’ s k n o wl e d g e a b o u tth e Br e e d wh e n i ta p p l i e d f o rth e wi r e t a p s . As pr oof of thi s as s ert i on, N apol i poi nt s t o the fa ctthatthe af fi ants t at ed thatN apol i w as John son’s ul t i m at e source for m et ham ph et am i ne in the Joh nson 2 an d N apo l i affidavi t s, ( R . at943A , 1020A ) , butpr ovi des A gentSchw art z’ s gr and j uryt es t i m onyw her ei n he i dent i fi es R obertT r aver s e, r atherthan N apol i , as J ohns on’ s ul t i m at e s our ce, ( R . at 13 11 A -1312 A ). N apo l i al so po i nts t o the factthat the af fi ant r eferr ed to R ob ertT raver se as B o b L N U , su g g esti n g law en fo rce m en t did n o t kn o w h is i d en ti ty , w h en the g ran d jury te s tim o n yin d ic a te s h is id e n tity w a s k n o w n . R egar di ng N apol i ’ s fi r s texampl e, the G overnm entpoi nt s outthatfol l ow i ng the aff i ant ’ s s ugges t i on thatN apol i i s J ohns on’ s ul t i m at e s our ce, he expl ai ns that“al though N apol i m aynotactual l yhand the met hamphet ami ne t o J ohns on, he i s , how ever , gi vi ng h is ‘ b lessing ’ t o the a cq u isi ti o n o f th e p rod u ct. ” (R . at 10 2 0 A . ) T h ere fo re, th e a ff iant’s k n o w led g e th a t R o b e rt T ra v e rse w a s J o h n so n ’s s o u rc e , an d th e sta tem e n t th a t N a p o li i s the ul t i m at e s our ce, ar e noti ncons i s t ent . B eca us e N apol i di d notdemonstr at e thatthe39

aff i ant ’ s s t at ementw as fal s e, he has notm ade the r equi s i t e s how i ng fora Fr anks h e a ri n g . See Frank

s , 4 3 8 U .S . at 1 5 5 -5 6 ; Y us uf , 461 F. 3d at378. N apol i ’ s s econd e xampl e i s equal l yunper s uas i ve. N apol i poi nt s outthatA gent Schw art z di s cus s ed R obertT r aver s e i n t es t i m onyi n O ct ober2006. N apol i cont ends t hat A g e n t S c h w a rtz ’s te stim o n ya b o u t R o b e rt T ra v e rse is e v id e n c e th a t A g e n t S c h w a rtz knew , butdi d notdi s cl os e R obertT r aver s e’ s i dent i tyi n the w i r et ap af fi davi t s , w hen he r efe rr ed t o T r aver s e as B ob L N U . H e as s ert s thatthe af fi antdi d thi s t o m i s r epr es entt hat fac tthathe knew R obertT r aver s e’ s true i dent i fy . H ow ever , A gentSchw art z’ s t es t i m ony occu rr ed af

t er the co m plet i on of all three w i ret ap ap pli cat i on s and af t er R ob ertT raver se had bee n arr es t ed and i dent i fi ed. T hi s evi dence , ther efor e, does notpr ove thatA gent S c h w a rtz k n e w th e id e n tityo f B o b L N U w h e n h e p e n n e d th e w ire tap a f f id a v its, b u t o n ly demonstr at es thathe eve ntual l yl earned B ob L N U ’ s i dent i ty . A s a r es ul t , N apol i has not pr es ent ed a s ubs t ant i al s how i ng thatA gentSchw art z mi s r epr es ent ed hi s know l edge re g a rd in g th is in f

o rm a tio n . N apol i al s o char act er i zes as untrue A gentSchw art z’ s as s ert i on that“ac t i ve m ember s of an [ out l aw m ot or cy cl e gang] r ar el y , i f eve r , cooper at e aga i ns tone another . ” (R . at 1 0 6 6 A .) H e o f

f e rs A g e n t S c h w a rtz ’s te stim o n ya s e v id e n c e th a t th is s tate m e n t is untrue, beca us e A gentSchw art z i dent i fi ed s ever al m ember s of the W ar l ocks , another gang, w ho cooper at ed aga i ns teac h other . A gai n, A gentSchw art z’ s t es t i m onyi s not i ncons i s t entw i th hi s as s ert i on i n the w i r et ap af fi davi t s – j us tbeca us e he t es t i fi ed that40

s ever al m ember s of an out l aw m ot or cy cl e gang c ooper at ed aga i ns tone anotherdoes not u n d e rm in e h is a ss e rtio n th a t su c h c o o p e ra tio n is ra re . T h e re f o re , N a p o li’s sh o w in g is in su f f icie n t to e v e n e sta b lish th a t A g e n t S c h w a rtz ’s a ss e rtio n is f a lse a n d , thu s, o b v io u sly fal l s s hor tof w hati s r equi r ed fora Franks h e a ri n g . See Frank s , 438 U . S. at155- 56; Y us uf , 461 F. 3d at378. A l though t her e maybe mi nori ncons i s t enci es betw een the w i r et ap af fi davi t s and otherevi dence , D efe ndant s have nots ucce s s ful l yi dent i fi ed anytrue mat er i al m is s ta te m e n ts o r o m is s io n s , n o r h a v e th e yo f f e re d s u f f ic ie n t a c c o m p a n y in g p ro o f. M or eover , nei therN apol i norJ ohns on offe r s anyevi dence i ndi cat i ng thatthe af fi ant know i ngl y , i nt ent i onal l y , orw i th r eckl es s di s r egar d of the truth i ncl uded thes e al l eged m i s s t at ement s orom i s s i ons i n t he w i r et ap af fi davi t s . T her efor e, w e w i l l aff i r m the D i s tr i ctC our t ’ s deni al of a Franks hear i ng r egar di ng evi dence r el at ed t o pr ovi ng nece s s i tyfora w i r et ap bec aus e, even r evi ew i ng thi s deci s i on de novo, i ti s cl earthe D e f e n d a n ts d id n o t m e e t th e re q u is ite p re lim in a ry th re s h o ld . See Frank s , 438 U . S. at 1 5 5 -5 6 ; see al

so Stew art , 306 F. 3d at304 ( not i ng ci r cui ts pl i ton pr opers t andar d of r evi ew fordeni al of Fr anks h ea ri n g ). b. In h is R e p lyB rie f

, an d c o n tra ryto h is O p e n in g B rie f , N a p o li su b m its th a t Fr anks anal y s i s i s “i nappl i cabl e t o w i r et ap cha l l enges bas ed on nec es s i ty . ” ( N apol i R epl yB r . 12- 1 3 .) I n s te a d , h e s u g g e s ts th a t h e is e n title d to a “ n e c e s s ity” h e a ri n g . ( See i d. at 11 ( ci t i ng41

ar gum entw her ei n N apol i di ffe r ent i at ed betw een a Franks an d a n ec essityh ea ri n g ). ) N a p o li d o e s n o t d e sc rib e w h a t th is n e c e ss ityh e a rin g w o u ld e n tail, ex c e p t to su g g e st th a t it i ncl udes an i nqui r yi nt o anym at er i al m i s s t at ement s orom i s s i ons r egar di ng nece s s i tyas partof the r evi ew i ng court ’ s dutyt o as s es s nece s s i ty . H i s ar gum entr ai s es the i s s ue of w hethera def

endanti s ent i t l ed t o an evi dent i aryhear i ng, di s t i nctfr om a Franks hear i ng, i f he ors he cha l l enges the fa ctual s t at ement s orom i s s i ons i n a w i r et ap appl i cat i on r el at ed to a f in d in g o f n e c e s s ity. W e a n s w e r t h is a rg u m e n t in th e n e g a tiv e . W e have neverr ecogni zed a nece s s i tyhear i ng, s epar at e fr om a Franks h e a rin g , to as s es s w hethera w i r et ap af fi davi tcont ai ned fa ctual m i s s t at ement s orom i s s i ons m at er i al t o a nec es s i tyfi ndi ng. N apol i does notci t e anypr ece dentt o s uppor tthe exi s t ence of s uch a hea r i ng, s ave f

orthe t extof 18 U . S. C . § 3504. T hi s s t atut e, how ever , does notpr ovi de th e re lie f th a t N a p o li s e e k s . S ect i on 35 04 provides that i f anypartycl ai m s that evi den ce i s i nad m i ssi ble because i tw as the pr oductof an unl aw ful act , i ncl udi ng unl aw ful us e of a w i r et ap, the opponent of the cl ai m m us tconfi r m ordenythe occ urr ence of the unl aw ful act . C ongr es s pas s ed § 3504 outof r ecogni t i on thati tcan be di ffi cul tfordefe ndant s t o pr ove thattheyhave sta n d in g to c h a llen g e e v id e n c e d isc o v e re d d u e to p re v io u s, u n law f u l ele c tro n ic s u rv e illa n c e . S e e Un i t e d S ta t e s v . Wi l l i a ms , 5 8 0 F .2 d 5 7 8 , 5 8 3 (D .C . C ir . 1 9 7 8 ). P ursuantt o § 35 04 , i f def end ants cl ai m that evi den ce aga i nstthem w as acqu i red as a r es ul tof pr i or , unl aw ful s ur vei l l ance , the G overnm entm us tconfi r m ordenyw hethert hat42

u n la w f u l s u rv e illa n c e o c c u rr e d . Id . N ap o li interpre ts th e G o v ern m en t’ s statutory obl i gat i on t o confi r m ordenythe exi s t ence of the unl aw ful s ur vei l l ance as t o m andat e a n e c e ss ityh e a rin g . T h is in terp re tatio n , h o w e v e r, is c o m p lete lyd iv o rc e d f ro m a p lain r eadi ng of the t ext . N othi ng i n t he t exti ndi cat es thatdefe ndant s ar e ent i t l ed t o a hea r i ng if th eyall eg e tha t th e G o v ern m en t i ll eg all ysea rch ed them b yelec tr o n ic m ea n s. W e a re notper s uaded thatN apol i i s ent i t l ed t o a nec es s i tyhear i ng underthi s s t atut e, and ar e not in c lin e d to c re a te n e w p re c e d e n t o n th is is s u e . W e ar e al s o noti ncl i ned t o acc ept Na p o l i ’ s i n v i t a t i o n t o d e e m Franks i nappl i cabl e t o chal l enges t o w i r et ap appl i cat i ons bas ed on nec es s i ty . T hough w e nee d notdet erm i ne w hethera Franks h e a rin g is appr opr i at e w hen part i es m ake a nece s s i tychal l enge t o a w i r et ap af fi davi t , bas ed on the w ei ghtof extr a- ci r cui tauthor i ty , i tw oul d be i nappr opr i at e and mer e di ct a t o rul e i toutat th is tim e . See G r een , 1 7 5 F .3 d a t 8 2 8 ; G uer r a-M ar ez , 9 2 8 F .2 d a t 6 7 0 ; C o le , 807 F. 2d at 2 6 7 -6 8 ; Ip

p o lito , 7 7 4 F .2 d a t 1 4 8 4 . 2. N a p o li an d Jo h n so n c o n ten d th a t th e D istric t C o u rt c o m m itt e d leg a l er ro r b e c a u se it anal y zed w hetherthe w i r et ap af fi davi t s es t abl i s hed nec es s i tyunderpr obabl e ca us e, r ather than T it le III , p ri n ciples. S p ec ifi ca ll y , Jo h n so n an d N ap o li asse rtthat the D istri ct C o u rt err ed bec aus e i tr el i ed on the “good f ai th exce pt i on” s etouti n U ni t ed Stat es v. Leon , 468 U . S . 8 9 7 (19 8 4 ), w h e n d e te rm in in g th e w ir e ta p a f f id a v its e s ta b lis h e d le g a l n e c e s s ity. T heybas e thi s as s ert i on on the D i s tr i ctC our t ’ s s t at ementatthe s uppr es s i on hear i ng t hat43

“[n] ow , s o I w i l l then, of cour s e, I w i l l r evi ew the af fi davi t s t o det erm i ne w hetherthe Leon s t andar d has been met . A nd I w i l l do s o notonl yfora pr obabl e ca us e butal s o for n e c e s s i tywi th r e s p e c tt o th e wi r e t a p s . ” ( R. a t2 5 1 A. ) Th i s s t a t e me n t , a d mi t t e d l y , s e e ms to s u p p o rt th e ira rg u m e n t. It is c lea r f

ro m th e re c o rd , h o w e v e r, th a t re g a rd les s o f w h a t th e D istric t C o u rt sa id atthe s uppr es s i on hear i ng, i tdi d notappl ythe good fa i th exce pt i on i n i t s rul i ng. W hen rul i ng on D efe ndant s ’ var i ous m ot i ons t o s uppr es s , the D i s tr i ctC our tfi r s tdet erm i ned that the af fi davi t s s uppor t ed pr obabl e ca us e and not ed “[ t ] he det erm i nat i on of a j udi ci al offi certhatan af

fi davi tes t abl i s hes pr obabl e ca us e des erves gr eatdefe r ence . ” ( R . at277A ( ci t i ng Leon , 468 U . S. at915) . ) T hen, the D i s tr i ctturned t o the ques t i on of w hethert he a f f id a v its e sta b lish e d n e c e ss ityto c o n d u c t th e w ire tap s. T h e D istric t C o u rt se t f o rth appr opr i at e l egal s t andar ds and s t at ed thatthe af fi davi t s “des cr i be the i nabi l i tyof norm al pol i ce s ur vei l l ance t echni ques t o uncoverthe compl ex w eb of r el at i ons hi ps betw een m ember s of the B r eed mot or cy cl e or gani zat i on. . . . W e fi nd thatthe s t at ement s and the aff i davi t s of A gentSchw art z w er e s uffi ci entt o es t abl i s h the i nadequa cyof norm al inv esti g ati v e p roc ed u res, th u s n ec essitat ing the u se o f w ir etap s. ” (R . at 28 0 A -28 1 A . ) T her e w er e tw o pages betw een the D i s tr i ctC our t ’ s ci t e t o Leon and i t s rul i ng on nece s s i ty . W e fi nd thatthe r ecor d m akes cl earthatthe D i s tr i ctC our tdi d notr el yon the good fai th exce pt i on announce d i n Leon w hen handi ng dow n i t s nece s s i tyfi ndi ng, andN ot abl y , i ti s notcl earthatr el y i ng on Leon w h e n a ss e ss in g n e c e ss itya m o u n ts to 21 l egal err or . I n Leon , the Supr eme C our thel d thatthe exc l us i onaryrul e s houl d notbe ap p li ed to b ar the u se o f e v iden ce o b tai n ed p u rsua n t t o an inv ali d w arran t i f th e o ff icers h a d a n o b

jec tiv e , rea so n a b le b e lief th a t th e w a rra n t w a s v a lid . 4 6 8 U .S . at 9 2 2 . T h is m odi fi cat i on t o the exc l us i onaryrul e appl i es t o Supr eme C our t ’ s Four th A m endment j ur i s prudence . B eca us e the exc l us i onaryrul e i s a j udi ci al r emedy , i ti s w i thi n the j udi ci ary ’ s pr ovi nce t o det erm i ne w hen i tappl i es . W e have neveraddr es s ed w hether Leon ’ s good fai th exce pt i on appl i es t o w i r et aps , butotherci r cui t s ar e s pl i ton thi s i s s ue. C om pa re U nited S tates v. Moo re , 4 1 F . 3 d 3 7 0 , 3 7 6 (8th C ir . 1 9 9 4 ), U ni t ed Stat es v. Malekz ad esh , 8 5 5 F .2 d 1 4 9 2 , 1 4 9 7 (1 1 th C ir . 1 9 8 8 ), and U nited S tates v. V

est , 842 F. 2d 1 3 1 9 , 1 3 3 4 (1 st C ir. 1 9 8 8 ); w i th U ni t ed Stat es v. R i ce , 4 7 8 F . 3 d 7 0 4 , 7 1 1 -12 (6th C ir . 2 0 0 7 ). W e n ee d n o t dec ide to d ayw h ethe r Leon appl i es t o nece s s i tybeca us e the D i s tr i ct C o u rt d id n o t re lyo n it. D efe ndant s ’ fac i al ar gum enti s i nt ertw i ned w i th thei rnon- fac i al chal l enges . For 22 e x a m p le, w h e n e x p lain in g w h yth e w ire tap a f f id a v its’ sta tem e n ts o f

n e c e ss itya re f

a c ially i ns uffi ci ent , N apol i and J ohns on al l ege thatthe af fi davi t s cont ai n fal s e s t at ement s and om i s s i ons bycompar i ng the af fi davi t s t o otherdocument s . R el y i ng on out s i de evi dence t o es t abl i s h an ar gum enti s the def i ni t i on of a non- fac i al ar gum ent . Fur ther , w e have a lre a d yc o n sid e re d a n d d isp o se d o f th e n o n -f

a c ial a rg u m e n ts. H e re , w e c o n sid e r o n ly w hetherthe w i r et ap af

fi davi t s es t abl i s h nece s s i tyon thei rfac e.

44 d id n o t use an ylang u ag e su g g esti n g itap p li ed the g o o d fa ith ex ce p ti o n . W e a re per s uaded the courtdi d notappl ythe Leon t estt o it s necessi tyanaly si s. 21 3. N apol i and J ohns on “s ubm i t [] thatthe governm entfai l ed t o m ake a fac i al s how i ng, w i thi n the fourcorner s of the af fi davi t s , t o es t abl i s h nece s s i tyforthe J ohns on 1, J ohns on 2 , a n d N a p o li” w ir e ta p s . (N a p o li B r. 3 5 ; J o h n s o n B r. 1 9 -3 2 .) P u rsu a n t to th is 22 c h a llen g e , D e f

e n d a n ts ra ise tw o iss u e s: (1 ) w h e th e r th e a p p lica tio n c o n tain e d b o ilerp late r eci t at i ons aboutthe l i m i t at i ons of ce r t ai n nor m at i ve i nves t i gat i ve t echni ques , and ( 2) w hetherthe af

fi davi t s m i s r epr es ent ed the s ucce s s l aw enfor cementhad w hen us i ng45

n o r m a l i n v e s t i g a t i v e t e c h n i q u e s w h e n d i s c u s s i n g th e n e e d f o rw i r e t a p s u r v e i l l a n c e . We e x e rc ise d e n o v o re v iew to d e ter m in e w h e th e r th e a p p lica tio n c o n tain e d th e re q u isite s t at ementof nec es s i ty , and i f w e det erm i ne s uch a s t at ementi s pr es ent , w e r evi ew the c o u rt ’s d e te rm in a tio n o f n e c e s s ity f

o r a b u s e o f

d is c re tio n . P hi l l i

ps , 9 5 9 F .2 d a t 1 1 8 9 . W h e n a p p ly in g f

o r a w ire tap , the a f

f ian t m u st p ro v id e a f

u ll an d c o m p lete s t at ementof w hyan af

fi davi ti s nece s s ary . 18 U . S. C . § 2518 ( 1) ( c) . T he G overnm ent does nothave a “gr eat ” bur den i n pr ovi ng nece s s i ty , beca us e i t“nee d notpr ove t o a c e rta in tyth a t n o rm a l in v e stig a tiv e tec h n iq u e s w ill n o t su c c e e d , b u t ra th e r it n e e d s o n lyto s how thats uch t echni ques r eas onabl yappea rt o be unl i kel yt o s ucce ed i f tr i ed. ” A r m oci da , 515 F. 2d at38. T he af fi davi tneed onl yes t abl i s h a “f actual pr edi cat e” f

orw hy o th e r i n v e s tig a tiv e te c h n iq u e s a re n o t s u f f ic ie n t. M

cG l ory , 968 F. 2d at345 ( quot i ng A r m oci da , 5 1 5 F .2 d a t 3 8 ). T hats ai d, w e have acknow l edged thatappl i cat i ons w hi ch us e “ge ner al decl ar at i ons and conc l us orys t at ement s ” or“‘ boi l erpl at e’ [s t at ement s ] and the abs ence of p a rt ic u la rs ” d o n o t m e e t th e f u ll a n d c o m p le te s ta te m e n t r e q u ir e m e n t. V e n to , 533 F. 2d at 8 4 9 -5 0 . Such gener al i zed w i r et ap appl i cat i ons m us tbe deni ed t o pr eventw i r et appi ng fr om becomi ng a “r out i ne i nves t i gat i ve r ecour s e. ” I d. at850. In faci al determ i nati on s, the i s s ui ng courts houl d t ake i nt o acc ountaff i r m at i ons bas ed on the s peci al i zed tr ai ni ng a n d e x p e ri e n c e o f

la w e n f o rc e m e n t o f

f ic e rs . A r m oci da , 5 1 5 F .2 d a t 3 8 .46

D efe ndant s ’ fi r s tar gum ent , thatthe appl i cat i on cont ai ned boi l erpl at e r eci t at i ons aboutthe l i m i t at i ons of ce r t ai n i nves t i gat i ve t echni ques , goes t o w hetherthe af fi antm ade a f u ll a n d c o m p le te s ta te m e n t o f n e c e s s ity. See U

ni t ed Stat es v. B lackm on , 273 F. 3d 1204, 1210 ( 9th C i r . 2001) . T he D i s tr i ctC our tfound thatthe af fi davi t s di d cont ai n a s t at ement“s uffi ci entt o es t abl i s h the i nadequa cyof norm al i nves t i gat i ve pr ocedur es , t hus n ec essitat ing the u se o f w ir etap s. ” (R . at 28 0 A -28 1 A . ) D e f e n d a n ts c o m p lain th a t th e a f f id a v its d o n o t h a v e f

u ll an d c o m p lete sta tem e n ts o f n ec essityb ec au se th e a ff idav it s relyo n b o il erp lat e re cit ati o n s an d “c o n clus o ry l anguage [or ] ci r cumst ance s ” aboutthe l i m i t at i ons of pen r egi s t er s and tr ap and tr ace d e v ice s th a t ap p lyto p ro b lem s in in v e stig a tin g w ith c e rta in to o ls in e v e ryc a se . (N a p o li B r . 44. ) D efe ndant s poi ntt o l anguage i n al l thr ee a ffi davi t s that“ana l y s i s of dat a der i ved fr om t el ephone t ol l r ecor ds , cel l ul arcal l det ai l s , s ubs cr i beri nform at i on, pen r egi s t erand tr ap and tr ace devi ces , et c. i s of l i m i t ed us e bec aus e i tonl ypr ovi des the t el ephone num ber s and s ubs cr i beri nform at i on of t el ephones . ” ( R . at911A , 988A , 1072A . ) T hey c h a r a c t e r i z e th e s e s t a t e m e n t s a s c o n c l u s o ry. A pl ai n r eadi ng of the af fi davi t s r evea l s thatthe af fi antoffe r ed a de t ai l ed des cr i pt i on of w hythe i nher entl i m i t at i ons of pen r egi s t er s , tr aci ng devi ces , and s i m i l ar i nves t i gat oryt ool s w oul d be i ns uffi ci enti n th is c a se . T h e a f f ian t ex p lain s th a t th e se to o ls w oul d be i ns uffi ci entt o ai d l aw enfor cementi n obt ai ni ng the i nform at i on i tneede d, s peci fi cal l y , the l ocat i on of co- cons pi r at or s , i nform at i on aboutthe B r eed’ s s our ce, orhow47

d e liv e rie s o c c u r, in o rd e r to p ro se c u te th e se in d iv id u a ls. T h is s o rt o f d e tail is p re c ise ly w h a t T itle II I r e q u ir e s . S e e V e n to , 5 3 3 F .2 d a t 8 4 9 -5 0 (n o tin g b o ilerp late sta tem e n ts w hi ch l ack pa r t i cul ar s ar e i ns uffi ci entfora ful l and compl et e s t at ement , i m pl y i ng thatt he s ta te m e n t is f

u ll if o f f ic e rs in c lu d e p a rt ic u la rs ). D efe ndant s s i m i l ar l ycompl ai n thatthe af fi davi t s cont ai n boi l erpl at e l anguage re g a rd in g th e f

u til ityo f u sin g se a rc h w a rra n ts a n d v id e o su rv e ill a n c e . A g a in , a p lain r eadi ng of the r ecor d r evea l s thatthe af fi antexpl ai ned thor oughl yw hythe us e of s ear ch w arr ant s w oul d pot ent i al l ycompromi s e thi s ent i r e ca s e byt i ppi ng off the s us pect s t o the i nves t i gat i on befor e s uffi ci entevi dence w as col l ect ed. H e al s o expl ai ned w hyvi deo s ur vei l l ance i s i ns uffi ci enti n thi s i nves t i gat i on, byr efe r enci ng w her e l aw enfor cement w oul d l i kel yengage i n phy s i cal s ur vei l l ance and det ai l ed w hythatw oul d notr ender s uffi ci entevi dence . T hus , w e agr ee w i th the G overnm entthata pl ai n r eadi ng of the a f f id a v its b e lies D e f

e n d a n ts’ c laim s th a t th e a f f id a v its d id n o t co n tain a f u ll an d c o m p lete s t a t e m e n to f

n e c e s s i ty. N a p o li also a rg u e s th a t th e a f f id a v its a re f

a c iallyin su f

f icie n t to e sta b lish n e c e ss ity beca us e the norm al i nves t i gat i ve t ool s us ed, i ncl udi ng s urvei l l ance , i nform ant s , and pen r egi s t er s , had bee n “extr emel ys ucce s s ful . ” ( N apol i B r . 40. ) T her efor e, he cont ends t hat the af fi davi t s do notactual l yes t abl i s h i tw as nece s s aryt o us e a w i r et ap bec aus e l aw enfor cementcoul d have us ed more ext ens i ve s ur vei l l ance i ns t ead. N apol i ’ s ques t i on48

r el at es t o w hetherthes e w i r et ap af fi davi t s es t abl i s h nece s s i ty , and w e r evi ew a D i s tr i ct C o u rt ’s f in d in g o n th is m a tte r f

o r a b u s e o f

d is c re tio n . P hi l l i

ps , 959 F. 2d at1189. N apol i el abor at es thatl aw enfor cementhad gr eats ucce s s conduct i ng phy s i cal s ur vei l l ance beca us e i tobs erved meet i ngs betw een i ndi vi dual B r eed mem ber s and i nfo rm ants and perform ed co ntr oll ed p urchases. N apo l i con t end s that evi den ce of these su c c e ss f u l su rv e ill a n c e o p p o rtu n iti e s c o n tra d icts th e a f f ian t’s c laim th a t itis h a rd to p h y sic a llysu rv e yB re e d m e m b e rs b e c a u se th e ya re “ e x tre m e lya w a re o f th e ir s u rr o u n d i n g s . ” ( R. a t9 0 8 A, 9 8 4 A, 1 0 6 7 A. ) Th e f a c tth a tl a w e n f

o r c e me n th a d s o me s ucce s s us i ng phy s i cal s ur vei l l ance does notr endera w i r et ap pers e unnec es s ary . T he aff i antcont ended thatphy s i cal s ur vei l l ance i s s om ew hatdanger ous beca us e B r eed m em b ers a re a w are o f th eir surro u n d ing s an d B ree d m em b ers p rac ti ce co u n tersu rv e ill a n c e m e a su re s. T h e re f o re , the a f

f ian t ex p lain s th a t itis lik e lyth e B re e d is a b le to id e n tif yu n d e rc o v e r v e h ic le s u s e d f o r s u rv e illa n c e . W e d o n o t re q u ire law e n f o rc e m e n t to p ro v e th a t a c e rta in in v e stig a tiv e a p p ro a c h is u se les s to p u rsu e a w ire tap ; itis o n ly obl i gat ed t o gi ve a f

ul l expl anat i on as t o w hya t echni que i s “i m pr act i cal underthe ci r cumst ance s and thati tw oul d be unr eas onabl e t o r equi r e pur s ui tof thos e ave nues . ” V e n to , 5 3 3 F .2 d a t 8 4 9 . T h e a f f ian t’s e x p lan a tio n f

o r w h yp h y sic a l su rv e ill a n c e a lo n e is im p ra c tica l to in v e stig a te th e B re e d , d u e to th e B re e d m e m b e rs’ sp e c if ic c h a ra c ter istics , is su f f icie n t to m e e t th a t o b lig a tio n . T h e re f o re , the D istric t C o u rt d id n o t ab u se its dis cret i on byfi nd i ng necessi tyon these facts .49

Si m i l ar l y , J ohns on poi nt s outthatl aw enfor cements ucce s s ful l yconduct ed ext ens i ve phy s i cal s ur vei l l ance aft erthe w i r et ap w as gr ant ed and qui ps thatB r eed m ember s beca m e unaw ar e of thei rs urr oundi ngs aft erthe w i r et ap w as i n pl ace . E vi dence thatl aw enfor cementw as m or e s ucce s s ful w i th phy s i cal s ur vei l l ance aft erthe w i r et aps w er e i ns t al l ed does notnece s s ar i l ys ugges tthatthe af fi antm i s r epr es ent ed l aw enfor cement ’ s abi l i tyt o obt ai n s uffi ci entevi dence w i th s ur vei l l ance al one – w i r et ap i nt er cept i ons m ayhave f aci l i t at ed more eff

ect i ve phy s i cal s ur vei l l ance . T her efor e, the D i s tr i ctC our tdi d notabus e i t s di s cr et i on byfi ndi ng nece s s i tydes pi t e evi dence thatl aw enfor cementdi d have s om e s ucce s s w i th phy s i cal s ur vei l l ance , part i cul ar l yaft erthe w ir e ta p s w e re in s ta lle d . N a p o li also e x p lain s th a t law e n f o rc e m e n t h a d su c c e ss u sin g p e n re g iste rs a n d to ll rec o rds b ec au se, byd o cu m en ti n g ca ll s fro m N ap o li ’s an d Jo h n so n ’s ph o n es, th eyw ere a b le to lea rn th e id e n tit ies o f w h o th e yw e re c a lli n g . (N a p o li R e p lyB r. 4 .) H e su g g e sts thathad l aw enfor cementfol l ow ed al l the l eads i tfound on thes e l i nes , i tw oul d have di s cover ed “c r i t i cal i nform at i on. ” (I d. a t 5 .) T h e G o v e rn m e n t af f id a v it n e e d o n ly e s ta b lis h a “ f

a c tu a l p re d ic a te ” f

o r w h ya n in v e s tig a tiv e te c h n iq u e is n o t s u f f ic ie n t. See McG l ory , 968 F. 2d at345. T he af fi antexpl ai ned i n det ai l thatus e of pe n r egi s t er s and to ll d e v ice s h a d lim ited u til ity , in th is in v e stig a tio n , b e c a u se it w o u ld n o t p e rm it ac c e ss to the cont entof the ca l l s , w hi ch w as par amount fors ucce s s . ( R . at911A . ) B eca us e theJ ohns on di d notar gue orpr es entanyevi dence t o the D i s tr i ctC our ts ugges t i ng t hat 23 the w i r et ap af

fi davi t s di d notcont ai n a ful l and compl et e s t at ementbeca us e theycopi ed sta tem e n ts f

ro m a w ire tap a f

f id a v it i n a p re v io u s c a se . In ste a d , Jo h n so n o f f e rs th is ar gum entand the pr i orw i r et ap af fi davi tforthe fi r s tt i m e on appe al . “G ener al l ybarr i ng exce pt i onal ci r cumst ance s , l i ke an i nt erveni ng change i n the l aw orthe l ack of r epr es ent at i on byan att orney , thi s C our tdoes notr evi ew i s s ues r ai s ed forthe fi r s tt i m e at the appe l l at e l evel . ” G l eas on , 243 F. 3d at142. B eca us e J ohns on r ai s ed thi s ar gum entfor th e f irst tim e o n a p p e a l, an d th e D istric t C o u rt h a d n o o p p o rtu n ityto c o n sid e r th is a rg u m e n t, it is w a iv e d . J ohns on offe r s thr ee a r gum ent s thatthi s i s s ue w as r ai s ed t o the courtbel ow , none of w hi ch ar e per s uas i ve: ( 1) he al l eges thatD efe ndant s al l uded t o thi s i s s ue bel ow ; ( 2) he al l eges the pr i orw i r et ap af fi davi ti s i ncorpor at ed byr efe r ence i nt o the r ecor d; and ( 3) he i m pl i es thatr evi ew i s notpr ecl uded bas ed on U ni t ed Stat es v. G onz al es , 927 F. 2d 139, 1 4 4 (3 d C ir . 1 9 9 1 ). Jo h n so n a ss e rts th a t D e f e n d a n ts a llu d e d to A g e n t S c h w a rtz ’s c o m m e n ts m a d e in the p rev iou s w ir etap af

fid av itb ef

o re the D istri ct C o u rt . H e p o ints fir st t o N ap o li ’s a tto rn e y ’s s tate m e n t th a t “th e a g e n t b rin g s in in f o rm a tio n o f

c irc u m sta n c e s a n d f

a c ts w hi ch have abs ol ut el ynothi ng t o do w i th N apol i oranyof thes e i ndi vi dual s . ” ( R . at 104A . ) J ohns on cont ends thi s s t at ements ugges t s thatD efe ndant s have e vi dence i ndi cat i ng the af

fi antm ade s t at ement s unr el at ed t o anyB r eed mem ber s i n the w i r et ap aff i davi t s . N othi ng aboutthi s s t at ement , how ever , s ugges t s thatthe af fi antcopi ed lan g u a g e f

ro m a n o th e r w ire tap a f

f id a v it an d in c o rp o ra ted it i n to th e w ire tap a f f id a v its 50 aff i antl ai d a fa ctual pr edi cat e aboutw hyus e of pe n r egi s t er s and r el at ed devi ces w as u n lik e ly to s u c c e e d , th e D is tr ic t C o u rt d id n o t a b u s e its d is c re tio n b yf in d in g n e c e s s ity. J ohns on al s o offe r s a s l i ght l ydi ffe r entboi l erpl at e ar gum enti n hi s O peni ng and R epl yB r i efs – thatthe w i r et ap af fi davi t s cont ai n boi l erpl at e s t at ement s beca us e they c o n ta in la n g u a g e c o p ie d f ro m a w ir e ta p a f

f id a v it s u b m itte d in a p re v io u s in v e s tig a tio n . A s pr oof, J ohns on i nvi t es us t o compar e the af fi davi t s s ubj ectt o thi s appea l t o the pr i or w i r et ap af

fi davi t . W e w i l l decl i ne s uch an i nvi t at i on beca us e J ohns on neverpr es ent ed th is a rg u m e n t to th e D istric t C o u rt. 23su b

jec t to th e B re e d in v e stig a tio n . T h e re f o re , itw o u ld b e in a p p ro p ria te to c o n stru e th is s ta te m e n t a s ra is in g a c la im th a t th e a f f ia n t u s e d c o p ie d la n g u a g e in th is a f f id a v it. J ohns on al s o poi nt s t o ar gum entattr i al w her e couns el chas t i s ed the G overnm entfornot p rov iding D ef

en d an ts’ att o rne y s w ith co p ies o f e x h ibit s. T h is co n v ersa ti o n , h o w ev er, r el at ed t o the G overnm entfai l i ng t o have a copyof a s ear ch w arr antforD efe ndant s att he s uppr es s i on hear i ng; i tdi d notr el at e i n anyw ayt o evi dence of pr i orw i r et ap af fi davi t s or the l ack ther eof. T her efor e, thi s s t at ementi n no w ays ugges t s thatthe af fi antcopi ed la n g u a g e f

ro m a n o th e r a f

f id a v it. Jo h n so n a lso re lies o n th e G o v e rn m e n t’s f a ilu re to p ro d u c e th e se a rc h w a rra n t to s ugges tthati tfai l ed t o pr oduce A gentSchw art z’ s pas tw i r et ap af fi davi t s , des pi t e many r eques t s . H ow ever , thi s comm entr efe r s t o the G overnm ent ’ s fai l ur e t o have a copyof a s ear ch w arr ant , and i n no w ayes t abl i s hes thatthe G overnm entfai l ed t o pr oduce the d o c u m e n t at iss u e . M o re o v e r, af ter a re v iew o f

D e f e n d a n ts’ v a rio u s m o tio n s to c o m p e l, ther e i s no i ndi cat i on thatanyof them re peat edl yr eques t ed pr oduct i on of pr i orw i r et ap aff i davi t s penned byA gentSchw art z. T hus , J ohns on has notper s uaded us that D e f e n d a n ts a llu d e d to th is c la im b e lo w . S im ilarly , Jo h n so n a rg u e s th a t th e p rio r w ire tap a f f id a v it w a s n o t im p ro p e rly i ns ert ed i nt o t he r ecor d bycl ai m i ng i tbeca m e partof the “s cope of the r ecor d” due t o t he fac tA gentSchw art z and the G overnm entr epea t edl yr efe r ence i ti n the r ecor d. A l though A g e n t S c h w a rtz d isc u ss e d th e W a rlo c k in v e stig a tio n in th e w ire tap a f f id a v its f iled in th is cas e, he neve rr efe r ence d the w i r et ap af fi davi t s fi l ed i n the W ar l ock i nves t i gat i on, and the G overnm entneveri ncorpor at ed thos e af fi davi t s byr efe r ence . M or eoverthe r ecor d on appea l i s l i m i t ed t o t he “( 1) the or i gi nal paper s and exhi bi t s fi l ed i n the di s tr i ctcourt ; ( 2) the tr ans cr i ptof pr ocee di ngs , i f any ; and ( 3) a ce r t i fi ed copyof the docke tentr i es p re p a re d b yth e d istric t cle rk .” F e d . R . C iv . P . 1 0 (a ). B e c a u se th e p rio r w ire tap a f f id a v it w as noti ncl uded i n t hes e document s , i ti s notpartof the appe l l at e r ecor d. I ns t ead, i tw as im p ro p e rlyin c lu d e d in th e re c o rd su b m itt e d to th is C o u rt. J ohns on al s o as s ert s thatw e ar e notpr ecl uded fr om cons i der i ng thi s ar gum ent b e c a u se it i s a d u e p ro c e ss c laim n o t ra ise d p rio r to trial b e c a u se th e e v id e n c e m a ter ial to the m oti on w as not avai l able unt i l aft er tri al . H e ci t es G onz al es , 9 2 7 F . 2 d 1 3 9 (3d C ir . 1991) , forthi s pr opos i t i on. T hi s cas e, how ever , i s noton poi nt . I n G onz al es , we cons i der ed w hethera def endants houl d be compl et el ybarr ed fr om r ai s i ng a cl ai m that c o u ld d e f

e a t p ro s e c u tio n b e c a u s e th e c la im w a s n o t r a is e d p ri o r t o tr ia l. I d. a t1 4 3 . We det erm i ned thati tw as unfai rt o compl et el ybara due pr oces s cl ai m thats houl d have be en 51rai sed i n a F ederal R ule of C ri m i nal Procedu re 12(b) m oti on , bu tw as not r ai sed bec ause

the i nform at i on nece s s aryt o the mot i on w as notavai l abl e t o defe ndant s unt i l the eve of tr ia l. Id . a t 1 4 4 . In s te a d , w e a g re e d to re v ie w th e b e la te d c la im f o r p la in e rr o r. Id . In th e c ase at ha n d , Jo h n so n d id n o t fail to raise a R u le 12 (b) m o ti o n , there fo re G on zal es i s noton poi nt . R ather , J ohns on fai l ed t o r ai s e the ar gum entthatthe w i r et ap a f f id a v it co n tain e d a n in c o m p lete sta tem e n t b e c a u se it co n tain e d b o ilerp late sta tem e n ts f ro m a n a f

f id a v it in a n o th e r i n v e s tig a tio n . T h is is a n e w is s u e f ir s t r a is e d o n a p p e a l. T h e re f o re , it is w a iv e d . G l eas on , 2 4 3 F .3 d a t 1 4 2 . Fi nal l y , J ohns on acc us es J udge Panel l a of i m pr oper l yrubbers t ampi ng w i r et ap app l i cat i on s w i tho ut s uff i ci entl yasses si ng w hethernecessi tyw as est abli shed. B ecause th is a rg u m e n t w a s ra is e d f o r t h e f ir s t tim e in h is R e p ly B ri e f , it is w a iv e d . See U

ni t ed S ta tes v . P e lu llo , 3 9 9 F . 3 d 1 9 7 , 2 2 2 (3d C ir . 2 0 0 5 ). 52 4. N apol i addi t i onal l yar gues thatthe D i s tr i ctC our terr ed bynotgr ant i ng hi s m ot i on t o s uppr es s the w i r et ap af fi davi t s forfai l i ng t o comportw i th the nec es s i tyr equi r ement b e c a u se (1 ) th e c o u rt d id n o t in d e p e n d e n tlya ss e ss w h e th e r n e c e ss ityw a s e sta b lish e d in e a c h a f f id a v it, a n d (2 ) la w e n f

o rc e m e n t d id n o t co n d u c t an in d e p e n d e n t in v e stig a tio n to es t abl i s h nece s s i tyt o t ap N apol i ’ s phone. N apol i as s ert s thatthe D i s tr i ctC our tdi d notdi s t i ngui s h betw een a nyof the w i r et ap appl i cat i ons w hen i tfound nec es s i tyand s um m ar i l ydeni ed D efe ndant s ’ m ot i ons to su p p re ss e v id e n c e f

ro m e a c h in d iv id u a l ap p lica tio n . D u rin g th e c o u rt’s r u lin g , it d e ter m in e d th a t all th re e w ire tap a f f id a v its e sta b lish e d n e c e ss itya t th e sa m e tim e : “I n thi s cas e, the af

fi davi t s of A gentSchw art z di s cus s ed atl ength the r eas ons w h y otherl aw enfor cementt echni ques w oul d be i neff ect i ve oreven c o u n t e rp r o d u c t i v e i n th i s c a s e . I n p a r t i c u l a r , th e a f f i d a v i t s d e s c r i be t he i nabi l i tyof norm al pol i ce survei l l ance t echni ques t o uncoverthe compl ex w eb of r el at i ons hi ps betw een mem ber s of the B r eed m ot or cy cl e or gani zat i on. T he a f f i d a v i t s n o t e d th a t th e Br e e d o r g a n i z a t i o n was v e ry s e c r e t i v e a n d w or ked53

har d t o keep i t s drug d ist ri but i on act i vi t i es cl andes t i ne. A l though the confi dent i al i nform antw as able to p r ovi de s om e i nform at i on, he ors he w as notpr i vy to confi dent i al cl ub bus i nes s . Such t act i cs as exec ut i ng s ear ch w arr ants or i nit i at i ng a grand j uryi nv est i gati on w ou l d l i kelyal ertthe tar gets . W e f ind that the s tat em en ts an d the a ff idav its of

A g en t Sc h w artz w ere s uffi ci entt o es t abl i s h the i nadequa cyof norm al i nves t i gat i ve pr ocedur es , thus nece s s i t at i ng the us e of the w i r et aps . ” (R . at 28 0 A -28 1 A . ) N ap o li interpre ts th is j o int ru li n g as in d icati n g that the D istri ct C o u rt di d noti ndi vi dual l yas s es s eac h w i r et ap af fi davi t . T hi s i nt erpr et at i on i s contr adi ct ed by the r ecor d. Pr i ort o s t at i ng i t s concl us i on, the courts ai d that“[e ] ach w i r et ap appl i cat i on m us ti ndepende nt l ys at i s fyth[e] nece s s i tyr equi r ement . ” ( R . at280A . ) T her efor e, al tho ug h the D i stri ctC ou rti ssued on e rul i ng for al l three affi dav i t s, perhap s i n the i nter est o f ju d icia l ef

f icie n c y , the re c o rd d o e s n o t in d ica te th a t th e c o u rt sh irk e d its re sp o n sib ili ty t o i ndepende nt l yanal y ze e ach w i r et ap af fi davi tfornece s s i ty . 18 U . S. C . § 2518( 1) (s p e c if y in g th a t “ e a c h ” a p p lic a tio n m u s t c o n ta in a s h o w in g o f n e c e s s ity). N apo l i com plai ns t hat the w i ret ap af fi dav i tfor hi s pho ne d i d n ot es t abli sh nece s s i tybeca us e l aw enfor cementdi d notconductanynew ori ndepende nti nves t i gat i on w i th r es pectt o N apol i . N ot abl y , the w i r et ap af fi davi t s forJ ohns on’ s s econd phone and N apol i ’ s phone ar e vi r tual l ythe s ame. N apol i as s ert s thatthe vas ts i m i l ar i tydemonstr at es th a t law e n f

o rc e m e n t “r e lied so lelyu p o n th e in v e stig a tio n th a t h a d b e e n c o m p lete d to d a te w ith re sp e c t to Jo h n so n ” to e sta b lish n e c e ss ityto e lec tro n ica llysu rv e yN a p o li. (N a p o li B r . 49. ) N apol i ’ s ar gum entm i s s es the mar k. H e s ugges t s thatthe i nves t i gat i on of J ohns on and N apol i w er e di s t i nct , bys ugges t i ng thatthe i nves t i gat i on of J ohns on w as54

s om ehow notan i nves t i gat i on of hi m as w el l , butthi s i s notthe ca s e. T he w i r et ap appl i cat i ons m ake c l earthatl aw enfor cementi nves t i gat ed J ohns on, N apol i , and many otherB r eed mem ber s as partof a l ar geri nves t i gat i on of a drug cons pi r acy . ( R . at1061A ( i ndi cat i ng aff

i antw as i nves t i gat i ng the cry s t al m ethamphet ami ne tr aff i cki ng act i vi t i es co n tr o ll ed b yN ap o li , w ith “a v eryclos e c ir cle o f c o n fe d era tes, ” inc lud ing Jo h n so n ). ) T her efor e, w e hol d thatthe D i s tr i ctC our tdi d notabus e i t s di s cr et i on w hen i tfound that the w i r et ap appl i cat i on forN apol i ’ s phone es t abl i s hed nec es s i ty , even though m uch of the evi dence r efe r ence d t o es t abl i s h nece s s i tyw as al s o r efe r ence d i n the w i r et ap appl i cat i on f o r J o h n s o n ’s s e c o n d p h o n e . B . Sear ches John son an d H ei l m an assertthat the D i stri ctC ou rterr ed b yfai l i ng t o sup press ph y si cal evidence o btai ned du ri ng po l i ce searches of t heirres i den ces; theycl ai m these s ear ches vi ol at ed thei rFour th A m endmentr i ght s . T he G overnm entcont ends thatthe D i stri ctC ou rtdid not err byadm i t t i ng evidence d i scovered d uri ng these searches. W e re v iew th e D istric t C o u rt’s d e n ial o f a m o tio n to su p p re ss f

o r c lea r e rro r a s to the under l y i ng fac tual fi ndi ngs , and exe r ci s e pl enaryr evi ew overthe court ’ s appl i cat i on o f th e la w to th e f

a c ts . U ni t ed Stat es v. P er ez , 2 8 0 F .3 d 3 1 8 , 3 3 6 (3 d C ir . 2 0 0 2 ). S u p p re s s io n is s u e s ra is e d f o r t h e f ir s t tim e o n a p p e a l a re w a iv e d , a b s e n t g o o d c a u s e . U nited S tates v. R ose , 5 3 8 F .3 d 1 7 5 , 1 7 7 , 1 8 2 (3 d C ir. 2 0 0 8 ). T h is b a r a p p lies n o t o n ly w here a defe nd ant fai l ed to fi l e a supp res si on m oti on befo re the d i stri ctcou rt , “bu tal so55

w her e [the def

endant ] fi l ed one butdi d noti ncl ude the i s s ues r ai s ed on appe al . ” Id . We fi nd that the D i stri ctC ou rtdid not err byadm i t t i ng evidence d i scovered d uri ng these sear ches. 1. J ohns on as s ert s thatthe D i s tr i ctC our terr ed i n fai l i ng t o s uppr es s the phy s i cal e v id e n c e o b tain e d f

ro m h is tw o re sid e n c e s, 3 6 3 2 M o rre ll S tre e t an d 4 6 4 8 B e rg e n S tre e t, b e c a u s e b o th w a rr a n ts v io la te d th e p a rt ic u la ri ty re q u ir e m e n t o f th e F o u rt h A m e n d m e n t. H e cont ends : ( 1) the s ear ch w arr antw as fac i al l yoverbr oad bec aus e i tdi d notpl ace any “m eaningfu l l i m i t at i on s on the agen t ’s sei zure, ” (J oh nson B r. 37 ); (2) the w arr ant w as so overbr oad i tcannotbe cur ed bythe “good f ai th exce pt i on, ” ( i d. at38) ; and ( 3) the G overnm ents ei zed i t ems out s i de the s cope of the s ear ch w arr ant , i n vi ol at i on of the F o u rth A m en d m en t. Jo h n so n also arg u es th at he su ff ere d fro m co n sti tuti o n all yinf irm s ear ches beca us e the age nt s fai l ed t o l eave copi es of the w arr ant s and pr opertyr ece i pt s at the p lace s o f th e se arc h es. W e w il l aff irm the D istri ct C o u rt ’s de n ial o f Jo h n so n ’s m o tio n s to s u p p re s s . J ohns on w ai ved hi s cl ai m s of overbr eadth and s ei zur e out s i de the s cope of the s ear ch w arr ant . I n hi s pr el i m i narys uppr es s i on m ot i ons befor e the D i s tr i ctC our t , J ohns on r ai s ed tw o ar gum ent s : ( 1) thatthe s ear ch w arr ant s l acke d pr obabl e ca us e bec aus e they w e re b a se d o n ill e g a llyo b tain e d w ire in ter c e p ts, a n d (2 ) th a t law e n f o rc e m e n t f

a iled to f o l l o w p r o c e d u r a l r e q u i r e me n t s r e l a t i n g t o th e s e a r c h b y( a ) f o r c i n g e n tryi n t o th e two56

re sid e n c e s b yf

a ili n g to g iv e p ro p e r n o tice a n d re a so n f o r a d m itt a n c e , (b ) b yre f u sin g to d isp lay w a rra n ts to o c c u p a n ts, a n d (c ) b yf a ili n g to lea v e a c o p yo f th e w a rra n t, af

f id a v it, s eal i ng or der s , ori nvent ory . ( R . at764A - 765A . ) J ohns on echoe d thi s i nqui rythr ough or al ar gum enti n court , ar gui ng thatthe exe cut i ng offi cer s fai l ed t o l eave a copi es of the r equi s i t e pape r w or k atthe r es i dence s . ( R . at121A , 215A . ) A l though J ohns on fi l ed a m ot i on t o s uppr es s , beca us e he di d notar gue thatthe s ear ch w arr ant s w er e overbr oad or thatthe G overnm ents ei zed i t ems out s i de the s cope of the s ear ch w arr antbefor e the D is tr ic t C o u rt , th e s e c la im s a re w a iv e d o n a p p e a l. S e e R o s e , 538 F. 3d at182. J ohns on h as n o t argu ed an yca u se, l et alon e “ g o o d ca u se,” f o r no t r aisi n g thes e a rgu m en ts be fo re the D i stri ctC ou rt . T herefore, he w ai ved these cl ai m s. J ohns on cl ear l yr ai s ed hi s compl ai ntthatthe exe cut i ng offi cer s fai l ed t o l eave copi es of the s ear ch w arr ant s and pr opertyr ece i pt s atthe t i m e of the s ear ches befor e the D i s tr i ctC our tand on appe al . ( R . at121A , 215A , 764A - 765A ; J ohns on’ s B r . 43. ) T he D i stri ctC ou rtcon cl ud ed that“[a]tbo th the B ergen S treetand M orr el l S treetres i den ces, the off i cer s l efta copyof the fa ce s heetof the s eal ed w arr antand a c opyof the r ece i pt in v e n to ry .” (R . at 2 8 5 A .) B e c a u se th is ra ise s a f a c tu a l q u e stio n , w e w ill re v e rse o n lyif th e D is tr ic t C o u rt ’s f

in d in g w a s c le a rl ye rr o n e o u s . See Per ez , 280 F. 3d at336. T he D is tr ic t C o u rt ’s f

in d in g is n o t c le a rl ye rr o n e o u s in th is c a s e . J ohns on di d notoffe ranyevi dence otherthan hi s ow n al l egat i on thatl aw enfor cementfai l ed t o l eave the nec es s arydocument at i on atthe t i m e of the s ear ches . T he57

G o v ern m en t of

fe red the testi m o n yo f A g en ts Sc h w artz an d A sh er a t th e p reli m inary h e a rin g to e sta b lish th a t th e e x e c u tin g o f f ice rs le f t th e f a c e c o v e rs o f

th e se a led w a rra n ts and copi es of the i nvent oryl i s t s atthe s cene s . A gentSchw art z t es t i fi ed thathe pr epar ed th e se a rc h w a rra n t f

o r B e rg e n S tre e t, bu t th a t th e w a rra n t an d a f f id a v it w e re u n d e r se a l, ex ce p t fo r th e c o v er sh ee t. (R . at 21 5 A -21 7 A . ) T h e e x ec u ti n g o ff icer told h im , h o w ev er, th a t h e lef

t a c o p yo f

th e re c e ip t in v e n to rya n d th e f a c e sh e e t o f

th e w a rra n t o n th e tab le in th e liv in g ro o m a re a a t th e c o n c lu sio n o f th e se a rc h . (R . at 2 1 8 A -2 1 9 A .) A g e n t S c h w a rtz al s o t es t i fi ed thatl aw enfor cementi nt er cept ed a c al l m ade t o N apol i ’ s phone thatm or ni ng d u ri n g w h ich S tacyJo h n so n told N ap o li that “I h av e a p ap er o f th e stu ff. ” (R . at 22 0 A . ) St acyJ ohns on, J ohns on’ s w i fe, w as pr es entdur i ng the s ear ch of the B er gen Str eet r es i dence . ( R . at218A - 219A , 1274A . ) B as ed on the A gent ’ s t es t i m onythatthe exec ut i ng offi cer s l eftthe appr opr i at e document at i on aft erthe s ear ch, corr obor at ed byt he in te rc e p te d c a ll, w e d o n o t f in d th a t th e D is tr ic t C o u rt c o m m itte d c le a r e rr o r. A gentA s hert es t i fi ed thathe pr epar ed the i nvent orys heetforthe M orr el l St r eet s e a rc h a t th e re s id e n c e , a n d p e r J o h n s o n ’s in s tru c tio n s , le f t it o n th e d in in g ro o m ta b le . (R . at 19 9 A -20 0 A . ) H e sa id h e c o m p o sed a ro u g h inv en torysh ee t, an d then a m o re pol i s hed one, dur i ng the s ear ch of M orr el l St r eet . ( R . at199A . ) W hen l eavi ng the fa ce s heetand i nvent oryl i s t , he ac ci dent al l yl eftal l the copi es . L aw enfor cementi nt er cept ed a cal l betw een Char l es K ul ow ( “K ul ow ”) and N apol i aft erthe s ear ch of the M orr el l St r eet pr operty . ( R . at132A . ) D ur i ng the ca l l , K ul ow confi r m ed thatthe exe cut i ng offi cer s l eftB oth agent s ’ t es t i m onyi ncl uded hea r s ays t at ement s of otherdecl ar ant s . A l though 24 hear s ayevi dence i s nor m al l yi nadmi s s i bl e, court s ar e perm i t t ed t o r el yon hear s ay e v id e n c e in s u p p re s s io n h e a ri n g s . U n itedS ta tes v . R a dda tz , 4 4 7 U . S . 6 6 7 , 6 7 9 (19 8 0 ). 58 a r ece i ptforthe i nvent ory . ( R . at132A . ) A gai n, bas ed on the A gent ’ s t es t i m onythatt he exec ut i ng offi cer s l eftthe appr opr i at e document at i on aft erthe s ear ch, corr obor at ed byt he interce p ted c all , w e c an n o t fi n d that the D istri ct C o u rtco m m itted c lear erro r. 24 2 . H e ilm a n a ss e rts o n a p p e a l, an d in a p re lim in a rym o tio n b e f o re th e D istric t C o u rt, th a t law e n f

o rc e m e n t’s s e a rc h o f

h is re sid e n c e a t 8 1 3 P in e S tre e t w a s c o n stitu tio n a lly inf irm b ec au se th e se arc h w arran t did n o t est ab li sh p rob ab le ca u se. T h e D istri ct C o u rt deni ed H ei l m an’ s m ot i on t o s uppr es s , fi ndi ng thatthe w arr antaff i davi tw as “thor ough a n d c o m p lete a n d w a s b a se d o n w ire tap e v id e n c e . . . as w e ll as su rv e ill a n c e , relia b le i nform at i on fr om named sour ces , and a c ooper at i ng i nform ant , . . . and a c ontr ol l ed m ethamphet ami ne pur chas e fr om defe ndantH ei l m an athi s hom e. ” ( R . at282A . ) T he G overnm entchar act er i zes H ei l m an’ s ar gum entas r emar kabl e cons i der i ng the evi dence of crim inal ac ti v ityall eg ed ag ains t him , an d as “ w h o ll yu n p ersu asiv e.” (G o v ’tB r. 1 3 2 . ) W e a g re e w ith th e G o v e rn m e n t. T o fi nd pr obabl e ca us e, ther e mustbe a “ fai rpr obabi l i tythatcontr aband or evi dence of a c r i m e w i l l be i n a part i cul arpl ace ” bas ed on the t ot al i tyof the c ir c u m s ta n c e s . U

ni t ed Stat es v. B ond, 581 F. 3d 128, 139 ( 3d C i r . 2009) ( quot i ng Illino is v. G at es , 462 U . S. 213, 238 ( 1983) ) . Pr obabl e ca us e ca n be, and oft en i s , i nferr ed by59

co n side ri n g the typ e o f c ri m e, th e n ature o f th e it em s so u g h t, an d the s u sp ec t’ s o p p o rt u n ity to c o n c e a l th e m . U ni t ed Stat es v. H

odge , 2 4 6 F .3 d 3 0 1 , 3 0 5 (3 d C ir . 2 0 0 1 ). A s s uch, “di r ectevi dence l i nki ng the pl ace t o be s ear ched t o the cr i m e i s notr equi r ed for the i s s uance of a s ear ch w arr ant . ” I d. ( quot i ng U

ni t ed Stat es v. C onl ey , 4 F. 3d 1200, 1 2 0 7 (3d C ir . 1 9 9 3 )). I ti s notourr ol e t o m ake ourow n as s es s m entas t o w hether pr obabl e ca us e exi s t ed; r ather , w e mustdet erm i ne i f the r evi ew i ng j udge had as uffi ci ent b a s is to f in d p ro b a b le c a u s e . See H odge , 246 F. 3d at305; U ni t ed Stat es v. Jones , 994 F. 2d 1051, 1057 ( 3d C i r . 1993) . T hi s defe r ence does notcouns el us t o “rubbers t amp” t he i s s ui ng j udge’ s concl us i ons , butdoes couns el that“the r es ol ut i on of doubt ful orm ar gi nal c a se s in th is a re a sh o u ld b e lar g e lyd e ter m in e d b yth e p re f e re n c e to b e a c c o rd e d to w arr ant s . ” Jones , 944 F. 2d at1055 ( ci t i ng U ni t ed Stat es v. V

entr es ca , 380 U . S. 102, 109 (19 6 5 )). H e ilm a n a d m its th a t th e a f f ian t p re se n ted su b sta n tial in f o rm a tio n a g a in st h im in th e a f f id a v it i n su p p o rt o f

th e se a rc h w a rra n t, an d th e a f f id a v it i n su p p o rt o f

e lec tro n ic su rv e ill a n c e o f

N a p o li, w h ich w a s a ttac h e d to th e a f f id a v it o f p ro b a b le c a u se . T h is i nfo rm at i on i ncludes: (1) an h i st ori cal i nv est i gati on i den t i fy i ng H ei l m an as a m e th a m p h e tam in e se ller; (2 ) G ra d yc h a ra c ter ize d H e ilm a n a s a “ p o u n d se ller” f o r N a p o li; (3 ) a c a ll-d e tail a n a ly sis in d ica tin g H e ilm a n a n d N a p o li sh a re d six ty -e ig h t ca lls p rio r to M ay2006, ( R . at1060A ) ; ( 4) a ca l l - det ai l anal y s i s i ndi cat i ng thatther e w er e s eventy - four cal l s betw een H ei l m an and J ohns on betw een February8, 2006 and A pr i l 17, 2006; andHe i l ma n d o e s n o ti n d i c a t e wh e r e o rh o w Loy su p p o rts h is a rg u m e n t. 25 60 ( 5) Ser vi ol o pur chas ed thr ee a nd one- hal f gr ams of cry s t al m ethamphet ami ne i n a co n tr o ll ed b u yat H eil m an ’s reside n ce o n Ju n e 3 , 2 0 0 6 , (R . at 12 8 1 A -12 8 2 A ). N e v e rth e les s, H e ilm a n c o n ten d s th is e v id e n c e is in su f f icie n t to su p p o rt a “ f

a ir p ro b a b ility” th a t c o n tr a b a n d e v id e n c e w o u ld b e f o u n d in h is h o u s e . (H e ilm a n B r. 1 8 -1 9 .) H eil m an co m p lai n s tha t w ith the e x ce p ti o n o f th e c o n tr o ll ed p u rch ase , ev ery c o n c lu sio n se t f

o rth b yth e a f

f ian t is w ith o u t f

a c tu a l su p p o rt, an d su g g e sts a m a g istra te j ud ge is no tperm i t t ed to con si der an ex pert ’s op i nions i n findi ng probab l e cause u nles s theyar e s uppor t ed byfac t s . ( H ei l m an B r . 19 ( ci t i ng U ni t ed Stat es v. Loy , 191 F. 3d 360 (1 9 9 9 )) .) T hi s s t at ementi s i ncorr ectbeca us e, ata mi ni m um , the ca l l l ogs pr ovi de

25 e v id e n tia ry su p p o rt th a t H e ilm a n w a s in f re q u e n t c o n ta c t w ith b o th N a p o li a n d J o h n s o n . B uteven i f w e di s countal l the evi dence exce ptforthe ca l l l ogs and the contr ol l ed p u rc h a se , a m a g istra te w o u ld still h a v e a su f f icie n t b a sis u n d e r w h ich to f in d p ro b a b le c a u s e . See H

odge , 2 4 6 F . 3 d at 30 5 . T h e f ac t som eo n e p u rch ase d d rug s at H eil m an ’s hous e thr ee da y s pr i ort o the s ear ch and thatH ei l m an i s i n fr equentcont actw i th drug di s tr i but or s cr eat es a fa i rpr obabi l i tythatdrugs ordrug- r el at ed par aphernal i a w oul d be f o u n d o n h is p ro p e rt y . Id . H ei l m an als o co m plai ns t hat pr ob able cause cann ot r eston the co ntr oll ed p urchase on J une 3, 2006 beca us e the magi s tr at e j udge w as notpr ovi ded w i th anyi nform at i on regar ding t he trust w orthiness of the t i pst er. Inform at i on abo ut a t i pst er’ s r el i abil i tyi s a61

re le v a n t f

a c to r i n p ro b a b le c a u s e d e te rm in a tio n s . See G at es , 4 6 2 U .S . at 2 3 0 ; U ni t ed S ta t e s v . Wi l l i a ms , 3 F. 3d 69, 72 ( 3d C i r . 1993) . A confi dent i al i nform ant ’ s t i p cannot s uppor ta fi ndi ng of pr obabl e ca us e i f the w arr antaff i davi tl acks anyi nform at i on about h is o r h e r r e lia b ility. U nited S tates v. Stearn , 5 4 8 F . S u p p . 2 d 1 8 2 , 1 8 9 (E .D . P a . 2 0 0 8 ). A l though t he af

fi davi ther e l acks s i gni fi cantdi s cus s i on aboutSer vi ol o’ s r el i abi l i ty , that fac tal one does notcompromi s e the D i s tr i ctC our t ’ s fi ndi ng of pr obabl e ca us e. T he w a rra n t af

f id a v it relie d o n th e C I’s p a rticip a tio n in a c o n tro lled b u yto e sta b lish p ro b a b le caus e, noton a t i p fr om the C I . C ontr ol l ed pur chas es byi nform ant s ar e di s t i nctfr om i nfo rm ants ’ t i ps – p urchases i n fac tcan b e t he sortof rel i able i nd i ci a t hat corroborat es a tip . See U

ni t ed Stat es v. Khouns avanah , 113 F. 3d 279, 286 ( 1s tC i r . 1997) ( not i ng thatan inf o rm an t’ s co n tr o ll ed p u rch ase co rrob o rated h is t ip tha t peo p le at th at ad d ress w ere se lli n g d ru g s); s ee al

s o U ni t ed Stat es v. B ur t on , 288 F. 3d 91, 98- 99 ( 3d C i r . 2002) ( l i s t i ng i nform ant ’ s pur chas e of c ocai ne as a fa ct orthatcorr obor at ed i nform ant ’ s t i p thata l ar ge drug deal w as occurr i ng, and t o s uppor tl aw enfor cement ’ s i nfer ence thata l ar ge drug deal w as t aki ng pl ace ) . B eca us e the courtr el i ed on the contr ol l ed pur chas e enga ged i n by the C I, rathe r th an an yinf o rm ati o n fro m the C I, to f ind p rob ab le ca u se, H eil m an ’s c o n c e rn s a b o u t th e C I’ s re lia b ility a re ir re le v a n t. H e ilm a n a lso c o n ten d s th a t p ro b a b le c a u se is la c k in g b e c a u se th e w a rra n t af f id a v it cont ai ned “no i nform at i on s ugges t i ng thatH ei l m an di s tr i but ed [m]e thamphet ami ne for th e B re e d .” (H e ilm a n B r. 2 0 .) H e ilm a n ’s a f f ili a tio n w ith th e B re e d sp e c if ica llyis la rg e ly62

i rr el evan tand un necessaryt o an i nq uiryi nto probab l e cause fo r a s earch, becau se p ro b a b le c a u s e f

o c u s e s o n th e lo c a tio n o f a c ri m e , n o t th e a f

f ilia tio n s o f

th e c ri m in a ls . W e fi nd thatthe D i s tr i ctC our tdi d noterri n fi ndi ng thatthe magi s tr at e j udge had a s u b s ta n tia l b a s is u p o n w h ic h to f in d p ro b a b le c a u s e to s e a rc h H e ilm a n ’s re s id e n c e . See B ond, 5 8 1 F .3 d a t 1 3 9 . It i s c lea r th a t a r e a so n a b le ju d g e c o u ld d e ter m in e it w a s f a irly p ro b a b le th a t c ri m in a l e v id e n c e w o u ld b e f o u n d in H e ilm a n ’s re s id e n c e . S e e id . C . J encks N apol i cl ai m s the G overnm entvi ol at ed hi s Fi fth and Si xth A m endmentr i ght s by fai l i ng t o pr ovi de D efe ndant s w i th the pr i ors t at ement s of age nt s w ho t es t i fi ed atthe s uppr es s i on hear i ng, i m m edi at el yaft erthathear i ng. N apol i s peci fi es thatthe G o v e rn m e n t f

a iled to p ro v id e D e f

e n d a n ts w ith (1 ) th e p rio r te stim o n yo f A g e n t S c h w a rtz befor e both the Penns y l vani a gr and j uryand the fe der al gr and j ury , and ( 2) A gent S ch w artz’s p ri o r w ri tt en stat em en ts an d m em o ran d u m reg ard ing S erv iolo. N ap o li ’s f a c tu a l a n d l e g a l a s s e r t i o n s d i f f e ri n h i s Op e n i n g a n d Re p l yBr i e f s . F o rs i mp l i c i ty , we w i l l s t at e the fa ctual ci r cumst ance s s urr oundi ng thes e cl ai m s and then addr es s the a rg u m e n ts in tu rn . N ap o li ’s att o rne ysu b m itted a m o ti o n to co m p el on A u g u st 8, 20 0 7 . (R . at 80 8 A . ) I n the mot i on, N apol i s peci fi cal l yr eques t ed document s thatdet ai l the ac t i vi t i es of c o n f id e n tial so u rc e s a n d g ra n d ju rym in u tes o r d o c u m e n ts re late d to p lea a g re e m e n ts ent er ed i nt o byi ndi vi dual s w ho w i l l t es t i fyforthe G overnm ent . ( R . at806A . ) I ti s cl ear63

thatthi s r eques tencompas s es the document s w hi ch N apol i cl ai m s he di d notr ece i ve – A gentSchw art z’ s gr and j uryt es t i m onyand the mem or andum re l at ed t o Ser vi ol o. ( R . at 806A . ) N apol i ’ s att orney , how ever , s t at ed i n open courton Sept ember5, 2007 thatthe r eques tt o compel evi dence w as “moot ed bythe pr oduct i on bythe pr os ecut i on or i dent i fi cat i on bythe pr os ecut i on of s ever al document s . ” ( R . . at98A . ) N apol i ’ s att or ney f u rth e r sta ted th a t h e h a d n o t p h y sic a llyse e n “ c e rta in d o c u m e n ts,” b u t attrib u ted th a t to

“ in e f f ic ie n c ie s o n th is s id e o f th e ta b le ,” ra th e r t h a n th e p ro s e c u tio n ’s f a ilu re to p ro d u c e . ( R . at98A - 99A . ) L at erthats ame day , N apol i ’ s att orneyi ndi cat ed he w as s t i l l m i s s i ng s o me e v i d e n c e f

r o m th e p r o s e c u t i o n . ( R. at 254A - 255A . ) T he G overnm entadmi t t ed that i thad noty etturned overJ encks m at er i al s , i . e. pr i ort es t i m onyand s t at ement s of t es t i fy i ng w i tnes s es , buts t at ed thatthe “J enks [s i c] and G i gl i o m at er i al w oul d be p ro v id e d p u rsu a n t to th e c o u rt o rd e r a s o f F rid a y ,” S e p tem b e r 7 , 2 0 0 7 . (R . at 2 5 5 A ; s ee R . at 10 0 A -10 1 A . ) T he G overnm entr epea t edl ys t at ed thatthe pr i ors t at ement s of t es t i fy i ng w i tnes s es w ou l d b e turned o ver on F ri day , S eptem ber 7, 20 07 . T hat dat e i s notew orthybecau se both part i es w er e aw ar e thatthe mot i on t o s uppr es s hear i ng w oul d be hel d on Sept ember 5 a n d 6 . W h e n th e G o v e rn m e n t re p e a ted lyin d ica ted th a t th e re q u e ste d m a ter ials w o u ld b e tu rn e d o v e r o n F rid a y , n o n e o f th e D e f e n d a n ts o b

jec ted , su g g e stin g th a t th e yim p licitly a g r e e d t o th e p r o d u c t i o n o f th e s e ma t e r i a l s a f

t e rth e s u p p r e s s i o n h e a r i n g . ( R. a t1 0 0 A1 0 1 A, 254A - 255A . ) O n Sept ember10, 2007, N apol i fi l ed a mot i on t o j oi n hi s co-64

defe ndant s ’ pr e- tr i al m ot i ons , w hi ch i ncl uded J ohns on’ s pr e- tr i al m ot i on t o compel J encks evi dence . In h is O p e n in g B rie f

, N a p o li arg u e s th a t th e G o v e rn m e n t’s f a ilu re to d isc lo se th is in f o rm a tio n v io late d F e d e ra l R u les o f C rim in a l P ro c e d u re 1 2 (h ) a n d 2 6 .2 . N a p o li c o n c e d e d th a t h is a tto rn e yd id n o t o b jec t to th e G o v e rn m e n t’s f a ilu re to d isc lo se th is evi dence aft erthe s uppr es s i on hear i ng, butcont ends thatthi s i s s ue ca n s t i l l be cons i der ed on appea l beca us e fa i l ur e t o m ake s uch an obj ect i on i s pl ai n err oror , i n the al t ernat i ve, am o u n ts t o inef

fe cti v e a ssist an ce o f c o u n sel. T h e G o v ern m en t con tend s tha t N ap o li ’s cl ai m i s w i thoutm er i tbeca us e N apol i fai l ed t o m ove fors uch evi dence and ther e ar e no g ro u n d s f

o r e ith e r p la in e rr o r r e v ie w o r i n e f f e c tiv e a s s is ta n c e o n th e s e f a c ts . A l though N apol i neveri dent i fi ed the mi s s i ng m at er i al s as J encks m at er i al s , the G ov ernm ent charact eri zed them this w aybecau se N apo l i assert ed the fai l ure t o d i scl ose v io late d F e d e ra l R u le o f C rim in a l P ro c e d u re 2 6 .2 . T h e Je n c k s A c t p ro v id e s: “A ft era w i tnes s cal l ed bythe U ni t ed S t at es has t es t i fi ed on di r ectexami nat i on, the court s hal l , on m ot i on of the def endant , or derthe U ni t ed St at es t o pr oduce anys t at ement( as her ei naft er defi ned) of t he w i tnes s i n the pos s es s i on of the U ni t ed St at es w hi ch r el at ed t o the s ubj ect m att er as t o w hi ch the w i tnes s has t es t i fi ed. ” 1 8 U .S .C . § 3 5 0 0 (b ).R ul e 26. 2 pr ovi des that“[a ] ft era w i tnes s otherthan the def endanthas t es t i fi ed on 26 dir ectexam i nati on , the co urt , on m oti on of a p artyw ho did not cal l the w i tness, m ust o rd e r a n a tto rn e yf

o r th e g o v e rn m e n t o r th e d e f e n d a n t an d th e d e f

e n d a n t’s a tto rn e yto produ ce, for the ex am i nati on and use of the m ov i ng party , anyst at em ent of the w i tness that is i n their po sses sion an d that relates to the su b ject m att er o f th e w itn ess’s t es t i m ony . ” Fed. R . C r i m . P. 26. 2. 65 R u le 2 6 .2 a n d th e Je n c k s A c t ar e v irtu a llyid e n tica l. R u le 2 6 .2 w a s in ten d e d to 26 r epl ace pr ovi s i ons of the J encks A ctdeal i ng w i th the di s coveryof pr i ors t at ement s of test ify ing w itn esse s o n “the n o ti o n that p rov isi o n s w h ich a re p u relyp roc ed u ral i n n ature s houl d appea ri n t he Feder al R ul es of C r i m i nal Pr ocedur e r atherthan i n T i t l e 18. ” U ni t ed S ta tes v . Sm ith , 3 1 F .3 d 1 2 9 4 , 1 3 0 2 n .6 (4 th C ir . 1 9 9 4 ) ( q u o tin g F e d . R . C ri m . P . 2 6 .2 advi s orycomm i t t ee’ s not e) . C ongr es s has neverr epea l ed the J encks A ct , how ever , and court s and l i t i gant s r el yon both t he A ctand R ul e 26. 2 w hen dea l i ng w i th defe ns e mot i ons f o r p ro d u c tio n o f

p ri o r s ta te m e n ts . Id . T h e se p ro v isio n s c a n b e u se d in ter c h a n g e a b ly beca us e R ul e 26. 2 i ncorpor at es the r el evantpr ovi s i ons of the J encks A ctw i thoutany

“ s u b s t a n t i v e c h a n g e ” ; th e r e f o r e , i s s u e s a n a l y z e d u n d e re i th e rru l e wo u l d r e n d e rth e s a me re s u lt. Id . A ccor di ngl y , the G overnm entappr opr i at el yunder s t ood N apol i ’ s ar gum entas a c o m p la in t th a t th e G o v e rn m e n t d id n o t tu rn o v e r r e q u e s te d J e n c k s m a te ri a ls . T he J encks A ctand R ul e 26. 2 r equi r e the G overnm entt o di s cl os e pr i orr ecor ded s t at ement s of i t s w i tnes s es aft ertheyt es t i fy . 18 U . S. C . § 3500( b) ; Fed. R . C r i m . P. 26. 2; U ni t ed Stat es v. W

eave r , 2 6 7 F .3 d 2 3 1 , 2 4 5 (3 d C ir. 2 0 0 1 ). D isc lo su re o f su c h sta tem e n ts is m a n d a to ry if

th e d e f e n d a n t m a k e s a tim e ly m o tio n . U n itedS ta tes v . Hill , 976 F. 2d 132, 140 ( 3d C i r . 1992) . R ul e 12( h) pr ovi des that“R ul e 26. 2 appl i es ata s uppr es s i on hear i ngIn h is R e p lyB rie f , N a p o li co n ten d s th a t, by j o in in g a ll th e p re -tria l m o tio n s o f h is 27 c o -d e f e n d a n ts, h e jo in e d Jo h n so n ’s p re -tria l m o tio n to c o m p e l all Je n c k s m a ter ials . T h is 66 u n d e r R u le 1 2 (b )(3 )(C ). A t a s u p p re ss io n h e a rin g , a la w e n f o rc e m e n t o f

f ice r is cons i der ed a gove r nm entw i tnes s . ” Fed. R . C r i m . P. 12( h) . T he purpos e of the J encks A ctand R ul e 26. 2 i s t o perm i ta tr i al l aw y ert o have the mat er i al s nece s s aryt o i m peac h a w itn e s s . See U

nited S tates v. R osa , 891 F. 2d 1074, 1076- 77 ( 3d C i r . 1989) ( ci t i ng Jenc ks v. U ni t ed Stat es , 353 U . S. 657, 667 ( 1957) ) . T her efor e, a def endanthas a r i ghtt o pr i or s t at ement s m ade bya G overnm entw i tnes s , aft erhe t es t i fi es , upon a mot i on t o compel s uch i nform at i on. N apo l i assert s that the G ov ernm ent fai l ed to provide hi m the requ est ed st at em ents , b u t th e G o v e rn m e n t c o n te n d s th a t N a p o li n e v e r m o v e d to re q u e s t th e s e s ta te m e n ts . M o reo v er, th e G o v ern m en t asserts th at N ap o li n ev er o b jected to the G o v ern m en t’ s fa il u re t o pr oduce J encks m at er i al s atthe s uppr es s i on hear i ng; ther efor e, thi s cl ai m cannotbe c o n s id e re d o n a p p e a l. W e a g re e w ith th e G o v e rn m e n t th a t b o th th e Je n c k s A c t an d R u le 2 6 .2 o n ly m andat e thata def

endanthave a cce s s t o thes e document s i f theym ake a n aff i r m at i ve mo t i o n , a n d i ti s u n c l e a ri f Na p o l i ma d e th a tmo t i o n . 1 8 U. S . C. § 3 5 0 0 ( b ) ; F e d . R. Cr i m. P. 26. 2. A l though N apol i ’ s att orneym oved t o compel J encks m at er i al s , he s t at ed i n open c o u r tth a tt h i s mo t i o n wa s mo o t e d two d a y s b e f o r e th e s u p p r e s s i o n h e a r i n g . ( R. a t9 8 A9 9 A . ) B yind icati n g that the G o v ern m en t had sati sfied h is m o ti o n to co m p el, N ap o li ’s at t orneyi nd i cat ed thathe w as not r equ est i ng the then-und el i vered Jenck s m at eri al s. 27argum ent w ou l d rende r N apo l i ’s st at em ent m oo t i ng his m oti on t o co m pel r equ est

i rr el evant . N apol i , how ever , di d notr ai s e thi s ar gum enti n hi s O peni ng B r i ef. U nder F ederal R ule of A pp el l at e P rocedu re 28(a) (3) (5) and the T hir d C i rcui t ’s L ocal R ules , appel l ant s ar e r equi r ed t o s etfor th the i s s ues r ai s ed on appe al and pr es entar gum ent s u p p o rt in g th o s e is s u e s in th e iro p e n in g b ri e f s . See Ko s t v . Ko z a k ie w ic z, 1 F. 3d 176, 182 ( 3d C i r . 1993) ( ci t i ng S im m o n s v . C ity o f P h ila d e lp h ia , 9 4 7 F . 2 d 1 0 4 2 , 1 0 6 5 (3d C ir . 1991) ; Fed. R . A pp. P. 28; T hi r d C i r cui tL . A . R . 28. 1( a) ) . A n i s s ue orar gum enti s w ai ved if a p p e lla n ts ra is e th e a rg u m e n t f o r t h e f ir s t tim e in th e irre p ly b ri e f. I d. ; P e lu llo , 399 F .3 d a t 2 2 2 . B e c a u se N a p o li rais e d th is a rg u m e n t f o r th e f irst tim e in h is R e p lyB rie f , itis w ai ved. I n hi s R epl yB r i ef, N apol i as s ert s thatthe “A ppel l ee i ncorr ect l yar gues thatthe 28 sta n d a rd o f

re v iew f o r th is c laim is p lain e rro r.” ( N a p o li R e p lyB r. 2 9 .) H o w e v e r, N a p o li co n ce d es in h is O p en ing B ri ef that h is at torn eyd id n o t object t o the g o v ern m en t’ s fa il u re t o pr oduce the r equi r ed di s covery . ( N apol i B r . 65. ) N apol i fur theras s ert s i n hi s O peni ng B rie f th a t h e sh o u ld n o t b e p re c lu d e d f ro m ra isin g th is iss u e o n a p p e a l u n d e r th e p lain err ors t andar d. B eca us e he di d notpr es entanyar gum ents ugges t i ng pl ai n err orr evi ew w a s in a p p ro p ria te in h is O p e n in g B rie f , b u t ra th e r a ss e rte d th a t p lain e rro r re v iew sh o u ld b e a p p li ed , N ap o li ca n n o t i n it iat e a n arg u m en t i n h is R ep lyB ri ef su g g esti n g that stan d ard o f re v ie w is im p ro p e r. S e e Ko s t, 1 F .3 d a t 1 8 2 . T h e re f o re , w e a n a ly z e h is c laim f o r p lain e rr o ra n d wi l l n o te n t e r t a i n a n yo th e rs t a n d a r d o f r e v i e w. 67 A s s um i ng thatN apol i ’ s att orneydi d m ake the r equi s i t e mot i on t o compel J encks m a ter ials , itis c lea r f

ro m th e re c o rd , an d N a p o li co n c e d e s in h is O p e n in g B rie f , tha t h is a tto rn e yd id n o t o b

jec t to th e G o v e rn m e n t’s f a ilu re to tu rn o v e r Je n c k s m a ter ials . N a p o li co n tend s tha t th is de fa u ltca n n o n ethe less b e c o n side red o n the g rou n d s o f “ p lai n erro r” 2 8 or“i neff ect i ve as s i s t ance of couns el . ” ( N apol i B r . 65- 66. ) T he G overnm entcont ends th a t N a p o li c a n n o t s a tis f ye ith e r l e g a l th e o ry. W e a g re e w ith th e G o v e rn m e n t.

“‘ N o pr ocedur al pr i nci pl e i s m or e fa m i l i art o thi s C our tthan thata . . . r i ghtm ay be for fei t ed i n cr i m i nal as w el l as ci vi l cas es bythe fa i l ur e t o m ake t i m el yas s ert i on of the r i ghtbefor e the tr i bunal havi ng j ur i s di ct i on t o det erm i ne i t . ’ ” P ucke t tv. U ni t ed Stat es ,68

129 S. C t . 1423, 1428 ( 2009) ( quot i ng Y akus v. U

ni t ed Stat es , 3 2 1 U .S . 4 1 4 , 4 4 4 (1 9 4 4 )) . A n appel l at e court ’ s author i tyt o r emedyan unpr es erved err ori s l i m i t ed t o encour age tim e ly o b je c tio n s . I

d. A n appel l at e courtcan c ons i deran unpr es erved cl ai m , r ai s ed for th e f ir s t tim e o n a p p e a l, if

th e e rr o r i s p la in . Id . T her e has been pl ai n err ori f fours t eps a re m e t:

“ F i r s t th e r e m u s t b e a n e r r o r o r s o m e d e f e c t

— s o m e s o r t o f d e v i a t i o n f r o m a le g a l ru le – th a t h a s n o t b e e n in te n tio n a lly re l i n q u i s h e d o r a b a n d o n e d , i.e ., aff i r m at i vel yw ai ved, bythe appe l l ant . Second, the l egal err orm us tbe cl ear or obv i ou s, rather than the subj ect of r easona ble dis pu t e. T hir d, the err or m ust hav e affected t he ap p e llan t ’s subst anti al ri gh t s, w hich i n an ordi narycase m ea n s h e m u st de m o n str ate th a t it a ff ec ted th e o u tcom e o f th e d istri ct co u rt pr ocee di ngs . Four th and fi nal l y , i f the above thr ee pr ongs ar e sati sfied, the court o f ap p eal s has the dis cr et i on t o r emedythe err or– di s cr et i on w hi ch o u g h t to b e e x e rc ise d o n lyif th e e rro r se rio u slya f

f e c ts th e f a irn e ss , inte g rity orpubl i c r eput at i on of the j udi ci al pr ocee di ngs . ” I d. at 14 2 9 (qu o tat ion m ark s an d cit ati o n s o m itted). W e f in d N a p o li ca n n o t m e e t th e p lain e rro r th re sh o ld . E v e n a ss u m in g N a p o li coul d pr ove thatther e w as an obvi ous devi at i on fr om the l aw , he ca nnotdemonstr at e that h is a tto rn e y ’s f

a ilu re to o b

jec t w o u ld h a v e a f

f e c ted th e o u tco m e o f

th e c a se . N a p o li cont ends thatw i th the us e of the J encks m at er i al s he coul d have pr es ent ed evi dence t hat ther e w er e mi s s t at ement s and omi s s i ons i n the w i r et ap af fi davi t s thatw er e cr i t i cal t o a fi ndi ng of nec es s i ty . A s w e have al r eadydi s cus s ed, none of the evi dence pr es ent ed i n t heM uch of the out s i de evi dence thatD efe ndant s r el i ed on t o ar gue the w i r et ap 29 aff i davi t s cont ai ned fa l s e s t at ement s and omi s s i ons cons i s t ed of A gentSchw art z’ s gr and j uryt es t i m onyand hi s m emora ndum r egar di ng Ser vi ol o. T hi s i s the s ame evi dence D ef en d an ts cl aim the G o v ern m en t fail ed to ti m elyturn o v er. 69 Je n c k s m a ter ials e sta b lish e s th e e x iste n c e o f a n ym a ter ial f

a lse sta tem e n ts o r o m iss io n s in the w i ret ap af

fi dav i t s. 29 N ap o li alt ern ati v elyarg u es th at his att o rne y ’s fa il u re to o b ject t o the G o v ern m en t’ s f a ilu re to p ro d u c e th e Je n c k s m a ter ials c o n stitu tes in e f f e c tiv e a ss ista n c e o f

c o u n se l in vi ol at i on of hi s Si xth A m endmentr i ght s . T hi s C our tus ual l ydoes notr evi ew i neff ect i ve a ss ista n c e c laim s o n d ire c t ap p e a l, bu t w ill m a k e a n e x c e p tio n “ ‘[ w ]h e re th e re c o rd is s uffi ci entt o al l ow det erm i nat i on of i neff ect i ve as s i s t ance of couns el . ’ ” U ni t ed Stat es v. O l f ano , 503 F. 3d 240, 246 ( 3d C i r . 2007) ( quot i ng U ni t ed Stat es v. H

adl ey , 923 F. 2d 1079, 1083 ( 3d C i r . 1991) ) . I neff ect i ve as s i s t ance of couns el exi s t s i f the def endantcan es t abl i s h ( 1) thatthe att orneyper form ance w as obj ect i vel yunr eas onabl e, and ( 2) that there i s a r easona ble pr ob abil i tythat, bu tfor the att orney ’s err or, the resul tof the case w o u ld h a v e b e e n d if

f e re n t. Str i ckland v. W

as hi ngt on , 4 6 6 U .S . 6 6 8 , 6 8 7 (1 9 8 4 ); P alm er v. Hendr i cks , 5 9 2 F .3 d 3 8 6 , 3 9 4 (3 d C ir. 2 0 1 0 ). N a p o li cla im s th a t th e re c o rd is s u f f ic ie n t to a llo w a d e te rm in a tio n o f in e f f e c tiv e a s s is ta n c e . N a p o li’s c laim c o m e s u p sh o rt, h o w e v e r, b e c a u se h e f a ils to m a k e a n a d e q u a te s h o w in g o f

p re ju d ic e . See Str i ckland , 46 6 U. S. at697 ( “[A ] courtneed notdet erm i ne w h e th e r c o u n s e l’ s p e rf

o rm a n c e w a s d e f

ic ie n t b e f

o re e x a m in in g th e p re

ju d ic e s u f

f e re d . . .

. I f i ti s eas i ert o di s pos e of a n i neff ect i venes s cl ai m on the gr ound of l ack of s uffi ci entN apol i w oul d notpr evai l on a B r ady cl ai m even i f i tw as notw ai ved. T he 30 G o v ern m en t i s o n lyo b li g ated to d iscl o se e v iden ce u n d er B r ady thati s m at er i al , and as pr evi ous l ydet erm i ned, thes e s t at ement s ar e notm at er i al t o es t abl i s hi ng thatthe w i r et ap a f f id a v its c o n ta in e d m a te ri a lly f a ls e s ta te m e n ts o r o m is s io n s . See Brady , 373 U . S. at87.

70 p re ju d ice , w h ich w e e x p e c t w ill o f ten b e so , tha t co u rse sh o u ld b e f o llo w e d .”). N a p o li co n tend s tha t his att o rne yw as in ef fe cti v e b ec au se, byn o t objecti n g to the G o v ern m en t’ s fai l ur e t o turn overJ encks m at er i al s , N apol i w as deni ed the opportuni tyt o es t abl i s h that the w i r et ap af

fi davi tdi d notes t abl i s h nece s s i ty . W e have found, how ever , thateven ha d N a p o li h a d th e J e n c k s m a te ri a ls , h e w o u ld n o t b e a b le to n e g a te th e f in d in g o f n e c e s s ity. T h e re f o re , h e c a n n o t s h o w p re ju d ic e . I n hi s R epl yB r i ef, N apol i dr as t i cal l ychange s hi s ar gum entr egar di ng the G overnm ent ’ s fai l ur e t o di s cl os e A gentSchw art z’ s gr and j uryt es t i m onyand the m e m o ra n d u m re g a rd in g S e rv io lo . F irst, h e c h a ra c ter ize s th e m iss in g d o c u m e n ts a s b o th B r ady and Jenck

s m at er i al s . Second, he ar gues thatthe onl yr eas on the courtm oot ed N a p o li’s m o tio n to c o m p e l w a s d u e to th e G o v e rn m e n t’s re p re se n tatio n th a t itw o u ld p ro d u c e a ll req u e ste d m a ter ials . H e th e n a lleg e s th e G o v e rn m e n t d e lib e ra telyd e c id e d to d isc lo se th e se d o c u m e n ts o n e d a ya f ter th e su p p re ss io n h e a rin g to p re v e n t D e f e n d a n ts fr om s ucce s s ful l yobt ai ni ng a Franks hear i ng. N apol i ’ s att empt t o r ai s e a B r ady cl ai m i n hi s R epl yB r i ef, bychar act er i zi ng the m at eri al s as B r ady document s , i s w ai ved. I n hi s O peni ng B r i ef, N apol i compl ai ned that 30 the G overnm entvi ol at ed R ul es 12( h) and 26. 2 byfai l i ng t o turn overpr i ors t at ement s of te s tif y in g w itn e s s e s th a t a re “ re la te d to ” th e s u b je c t m a tte r o f

th e w itn e s s e s ’ t e s tim o n y .71

See Fed. R . C r i m . P. 26. 2; 18 U . S. C . § 3500( b) . C om pl ai ni ng thatthe pr os ecut i on fai l ed to turn o v er B r ady m at er i al s i s a di ffe r entcl ai m . I n B r ady v. Mar yland , th e S u p r e me C our thel d thata due pr oces s vi ol at i on r es ul t s i f the pr os ecut i on w i thhol ds evi dence favor abl e t o the ac cus ed thati s “mat er i al ei thert o gui l torpuni s hm ent . ” 373 U . S. 83, 87 ( 1963) . T he pr os ecut i on i s “notr equi r ed t o del i verhi s ent i r e fi l e t o defe ns e couns el , but onl yt o di s cl os e evi dence favor abl e t o the ac cus ed that , i f s uppr es s ed, w oul d denythe defe ndantt o a fa i rtr i al . ” U ni t ed Stat es v. B agl ey , 4 7 3 U .S . 6 6 7 , 6 7 5 (1 9 8 5 ). E v id e n c e is c o n s id e re d f

a v o ra b le if

it is e x c u lp a to ry o r i m p e a c h in g . Id . at 67 6 . T h e G o v ern m en t’ s fai l ure t o turn o ver evi den ce t hat w ou l d b e helpful t o im peach m ent duri ng cross e x a m in a tio n o n lya m o u n ts to a c o n stitu tio n a l v io latio n “ if it th e e v id e n c e is m a ter ial in the s ens e thati t s s uppr es s i on underm i nes confi dence i n the out come of t he tr i al . ” Id . at 678. T her efor e, byar gui ng thes e document s w er e B r ady m at er i al s , N apol i cont ends , for th e f irst tim e in h is R e p lyB rie f , tha t th e G o v e rn m e n t f a iled to tu rn o v e r d o c u m e n ts “m at eri al ” t o h i s defen se, rather than pri or st at em ents m erel y“rel at ed to” the w i tnesses’ te s tim o n y . A p a rt y ’s a rg u m e n t is w a iv e d if it is ra is e d f

o r t h e f ir s t tim e in a re p ly b ri e f. S ee H a rve y v . P lains T

w p . P o li ce D ep ’t , 421 F. 3d 185, 192 ( 3d C i r . 2005) . T her efor e, N apo l i ’s B r ady a rg u m e n t is w a iv e d . N a p o li’s c o n ten tio n th a t th e G o v e rn m e n t d e lib e ra telyw ith h e ld d o c u m e n ts is conce rni ng, buti s notbor ne outbythe fa ct s i n the r ecor d. T he r ecor d cl ear l yes t abl i s hes that , on Sept ember5, 2007, both part i es r ecogni zed thatthe G overnm enthad noty et72

pr oduced J encks m at er i al s . ( R . at100A - 101A , 254A - 255A . ) T hatacknow l edgment occurr ed after Na p o l i ’ s a t t o r n e yi n d i c a t e d th a th i s mo t i o n t o c o mp e l wa s mo o t e d . ( R. at 98A - 99A . ) T her efor e, i f N apol i had bee n oper at i ng underthe mi s gui ded not i on thatt he G overnm entw oul d turn overthe J encks m at er i al s pr i ort o the s uppr es s i on hear i ng w hen char act er i zi ng hi s m ot i on t o compel as m oot , thatnot i on w as r i ght ed bythe l at er di s cus s i ons . I ns t ead, both part i es agr eed thatJ encks m at er i al s w oul d be turned overby th e Go v e rn me n tth e d a ya f t e rth e h e a r i n g . ( R. at 10 0 A -10 1 A . ) T h ere fo re, th e re co rd in d ica tes th e G o v e rn m e n t d id n o t stra teg ica llyw ith h o ld Je n c k s m a ter ials ; ra th e r, b o th p a rt ie s a g re e d th a t th is m a te ri a l w o u ld b e d is c lo s e d a f te r t h e s u p p re s s io n h e a ri n g . D . H ei l m an’ s M ot i on t o Sever H e ilm a n 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 d e n ied h is m o ti o n fo r a se p ara te tri al fro m h is co -de fe n d an ts. H e c o n tend s tha t his tri al ri g h ts w ere pr ej udi ced be caus e ( 1) hi s co- defe ndant s , N apol i and J ohns on, w er e cha r ged w i th vi ol ent c o n d u c t, w h e re a s h e w a s n o t; (2 ) th e lar g e q u a n tityo f e v id e n c e a g a in st h is c o -d e f e n d a n ts compar ed t o t he mi ni m al amount offe r ed aga i ns thi m w oul d l ead t o a “s pi l l overeff ect ” on the j ury ; and ( 3) the j uryw as notabl e t o fai r l ydeci de cr edi bi l i tyi s s ues i n l i ghtof the qu anti tyof ev i den ce proffe red againsthis co-defen dan t s. T he G overnm entcont ends thatthe D i s tr i ctC our tdi d notabus e i t s di s cr et i on and H e i l m a n f

a i l e d t o m e e th i s b u r d e n o f d e m o n s tr a t i n g c l e a ra n d s u b s t a n t i a l p r e j u d i c e . We agr ee w i th the G overnm entand af fi r m the deni al of H ei l m an’ s m ot i on fors ever ance .73

T he fe der al s y s t em pre fer s j oi nttr i al s of def endant s w ho ar e i ndi ct ed t ogether beca us e j oi nttr i al s pr om ot e ef fi ci encyand s erve the i nt er es t s of j us t i ce byavoi di ng the s c a n d a l a n d in e q u ity o f

in c o n s is te n t v e rd ic ts . U nited S tates v. L ore , 430 F. 3d 190, 205 ( 3d C i r . 2005) . M or eover , j oi nttr i al s of def endant s char ged i n a s i ngl e cons pi r acyai d t he fac t - fi nderi n det erm i ni ng the ful l ext entof the cons pi r acyand pr eventa t act i cal d is a d v a n ta g e to th e G o v e rn m e n t f ro m d is c lo s u re o f

its c a s e . U

ni t ed Stat es v. V

oigt , 89 F . 3d 10 50 , 10 94 (3d C i r. 19 96 ). T herefore, the d eci si on w hethert o sever co-defen dan t s’ tr i al r es t s i n t he s ound di s cr et i on of di s tr i ctcourt s , and w e r evi ew thatdeci s i on foran a b u s e o f d is c re tio n . L ore , 4 3 0 F .3 d a t 2 0 5 . “A d istric t co u rt a b u se s its d isc re tio n w h e n it act s arbi tr ar i l yori r r at i onal l y , fai l s t o cons i derj udi ci al l yr ecogni zed f act or s cons tr ai ni ng i t s exer ci s e of di s cr et i on, r el i es on err oneous fac tual orl egal pr emi s es , orcomm i t s an err orof l aw . ” U

nited S tates v. T

ho m pson -Rivi ere , 561 F. 3d 345, 348 ( 4th C i r . 2009) (q u o tatio n m a rk s o m itt e d ); cf . U ni t ed Stat es v. Star nes , 583 F. 3d 196, 215 ( 3d C i r . 2009) ( defi ni ng abus e of di s cr et i on as r el i ance on cl ear l yerr oneous fi ndi ng of fa ctoran erro n eo u s leg al co n clus ion ). B ut even i f t he co urtdid abuse it s di scr et i on , rever sal i s not r equ i red unless H ei l m an meet s hi s heavybur den of de m ons tr at i ng thatthe deni al of s ever ance l ed t o cl ear a n d s u b s ta n tia l p re

ju d ic e re s u ltin g in a m a n if e s tly u n f a irtr ia l. See U

nited S tates v. H

art , 2 7 3 F .3 d 3 6 3 , 3 7 0 (3 d C ir. 2 0 0 1 ); U ni t ed Stat es v. Sebet i ch , 7 7 6 F . 2 d 4 1 2 , 4 2 7 (3d C ir . 1985) ( “The t r i al j udge i s i n the bes tpos i t i on t o bal ance the pos s i bl e pr ej udi ce t o a74

d e f e n d a n t ag a in st th e c o n c e rn s o f ju d icia l ec o n o m y . T h e re f o re , an a p p e llan t m u st m e e t a part i cul ar l yheavybur den t o s how thatthe tr i al courtabus ed i t s di s cr et i on i n deny i ng a m o tio n to s e v e r.” ) ( c ita tio n s o m itte d ).

“ If th e jo in d e r o f

. . . d e f e n d a n ts . . . f

o r t ri a l a p p e a rs to p re

ju d ic e a d e f

e n d a n t . . ., the courtm ay. . . s everthe def endant s ’ tr i al s , orpr ovi de anyotherr el i ef thatj us t i ce re q u ire s.” F e d . R . C rim . P . 1 4 (a ). R u le 1 4 (a ) d o e s n o t re q u ire se v e ra n c e e v e n if pr ej udi ce i s s how n; r ather , i tl eave s the t ai l or i ng of the r el i ef t o be gr ant ed, i f any , t o the d is tr ic t c o u rt ’s s o u n d d is c re tio n . Zaf i r o v. U ni t ed Stat es , 5 0 6 U .S . 5 3 4 , 5 3 8 -3 9 (1 9 9 3 ). A d istric t co u rt sh o u ld g ra n t se v e ra n c e u n d e r R u le 1 4 o n lyif th e re is a se rio u s ris k th a t a j oi nttr i al w oul d ( 1) compromi s e a s peci fi c tr i al r i ghtof the def endant s , or( 2) pr eventt he ju ry f ro m m a k in g a re lia b le ju d g m e n t r e g a rd in g g u ilt o r i n n o c e n c e . I d. a t 5 3 9 . N o n e th e les s, le ss d ra stic m e a su re s th a n se v e ra n c e , su c h a s lim iti n g in stru c tio n s, o f ten w ill s u f f ic e to c u re a n yri s k o f

p re ju d ic e . I d. ( appr ovi ng i ns truct i ons t o compar t m ent al i ze ev iden ce , p lacing b u rde n o n g o v ern m en t, an d to f ind g u il t bey o n d a re aso n ab le do u b t) . I n as s es s i ng w hetherthe D i s tr i ctC our tabus ed i t s di s cr et i on, w e cons i derthe re c o rd a s it e x iste d w h e n H e ilm a n m a d e h is m o tio n , as w e ll as w h a t trial d e v e lo p m e n ts w e re re a s o n a b ly f

o re s e e a b le . McG l ory , 9 6 8 F .2 d a t 3 4 0 ; s ee U ni t ed Stat es v. R eye r os , 5 3 7 F .3 d 2 7 0 , 2 8 6 n .2 2 (3 d C ir. 2 0 0 8 ) (a ss e rtin g th a t q u e stio n o f w h e th e r c o u rt a b u se d its d iscreti o n sh o u ld b e jud g ed as o f th e ti m e c o u rtruled o n m o ti o n to se v er). I n hi s m ot i on t o s ever , H ei l m an ar gued thatthe quant i tyof evi dence w as gr eat er75

agai ns thi s co- defe ndant s than aga i ns thi m , thathe w as l es s cul pabl e, and hi s codefe ndant s w er e cha r ged w i th vi ol entconduct . H ei l m an as s ert ed thatthe j uryw oul d not be abl e t o compar t m ent al i ze the evi dence and poi nt ed t o the natur e of the evi dence pr offe r ed bythe G overnm ent , i ncl udi ng document s , w i r et aps , phy s i cal evi dence , phot ogr aphs , and w i tnes s t es t i m ony . H e al s o poi nt ed outthati n a tw el ve- count i ndi ctm ent , he w as char ged i n onl yone count , and thatof the forty - tw o overtact s fort he char ged cons pi r acy , he w as m ent i oned i n onl yfi ve. T he D i s tr i ctC our tdeni ed hi s m ot i on b e c a u se se v e ra n c e is n o t w a rra n ted ju st b e c a u se th e e v id e n c e a g a in st th e c o -d e f e n d a n ts is m or e damagi ng and anyr i s k coul d be cur ed w i th a pr operl i m i t i ng i ns truct i on. W e conc l ude thatthe D i s tr i ctC our tdi d notabus e i t s di s cr et i on. A defe ndanti s not en ti tl ed to se v era n ce m ere lyb ec au se th e e v iden ce ag ains t a co -de fe n d an t i s m o re d a m a g in g th a n e v id e n c e a g a in s t th e m o v in g p a rt y . L ore , 430 F. 3d at205. R ather , the p ro p e r in q u iryis w h e th e r th e ju ryw ill b e a b le to c o m p a rtm e n taliz e th e e v id e n c e a s it re la te s to s e p a ra te d e f

e n d a n ts in v ie w o f

its v o lu m e a n d lim ite d a d m is s ib ility. I d. B e c a u se c o u rts p re su m e th a t th e ju ryf o llo w s c o u rts’ in stru c tio n s, a p ro p e r in stru c tio n to cons i derthe evi dence agai ns teac h co- defe ndants epar at el yi s oft en per s uas i ve evi dence th a t a re f u s a l to s e v e r d id n o t p re ju d ic e th e d e f

e n d a n t. See U

ni t ed Stat es v. U

r ban , 404 F. 3d 754, 776 ( 3d C i r . 2005) . I n thi s cas e, the D i s tr i ctC our tgave s uch an i ns truct i on, admoni s hi ng the j uryt o

“ g iv e se p a ra te a n d in d iv id u a l c o n sid e ra tio n to th e c a se o f e a c h d e f

e n d a n t. W h e n y o u d o so , y o u sh o u ld a n a ly z e w h a t th e e v id e n c e in th e c a se sh o w s w ith76

r es pect to that defe ndantl eavi ng outof cons i der at i on ent i r el yanyevi dence sub m itt e d solel yagainstotherdefe nd ants . F or each d efen dan t , y ou m ust d e c id e w h e th e r th e g o v e rn m e n t h a s p r o v e n th a t p a rticu lar d e f e n d a n t g u ilty bey ond a r eas onabl e doubtand y ou m us tr eturn a s epar at e ver di ctforeac h defe ndant . ” (R . at 46 0 A -46 1 A . ) M or eover , i ti s nots uffi ci entt o m er el yal l ege thats ever ance w oul d have i m pr oved chanc es foracqui t t al , and pr ej udi ce s houl d notbe found s i m pl ybeca us e al l evi dence a d d u c e d is n o t g e rm a n e to a ll c o u n ts a g a in s t e a c h d e f e n d a n t. U

n itedS ta tes v . E u

fra sio , 9 3 5 F .2 d 5 5 3 , 5 6 8 (3 d C ir. 1 9 9 1 ); see Lo re , 4 3 0 F .3 d a t 2 0 5 (n o tin g it i s n o t p ro b lem a tic to h av e d ef

en d an ts i n sam e c ase ch arg ed w ith d iffe ren t acts or o ff en ses). “N eith er a di s par i tyi n evi dence , nori ntr oduci ng evi dence m or e damagi ng t o one def endantthan other s ent i t l es s eemi ngl yl es s cul pabl e depe ndant s t o s ever ance . ” E u fra sio , 935 F. 2d at 5 6 8 (a f f ir m in g d e n ia l o f

s e v e ra n c e o f

m u rd e r c o n s p ir a c yc h a rg e a g a in s t c o -d e f e n d a n t) . F u rth e r, w h e re d e f

e n d a n ts a re c h a rg e d a s m e m b e rs o f th e sa m e c o n sp ira c y , ac ts com m i t t ed b yon e i n fu rtherance o f t he co nspir acyw ou l d b e adm i ssi ble agai nstother s, e v e n in a s e p a ra te tr ia l. See Hart , 2 7 3 F .3 d a t 3 7 0 ; see al so McG l ory , 968 F. 2d at340 (“ [ T ]h e m e re in tro d u c tio n o f o th e r c rim e s e v id e n c e a g a in st o n e d e f e n d a n t d o e s n o t en tit le a c o -de fe n d an t t o a se p ara te tri al. ”). D es pi t e H ei l m an’ s conce r ns thatthe quant i tyof evi dence orthe natur e of al l egat i ons agai ns thi s co- defe ndant s coul d pr ej udi ce hi s tr i al r i ght s and r enderhi s tr i al m ani fes t l yunfai r , the vi ol entconductal l eged a gai ns thi s co- cons pi r at or s w oul d beH e ilm a n d id n o t as se rt th is a rg u m e n t to th e D istric t C o u rt a n d , the re f o re , w e w o u ld 31 n o rm a lly re v ie w it f

o r p la in e rr o r. See Hart , 27 3 F . 3d at36 9-70. W e no nethel ess concl ude thatther e w as no abus e of di s cr et i on. 77 a d m is s ib le a g a in s t h im in a s e p a ra te tr ia l. See Hart , 2 7 3 F .3 d a t 3 7 0 ; E u fra sio , 935 F. 2d at568- 69 ( not i ng comm on evi dence admi s s i bl e i n s epar at e tr i al s anyw ay ) . Fur therm or e, th e D istric t C o u rt g a v e p ro p e r lim iti n g in stru c tio n s to e n su re th e ju ryw o u ld c o m p a rt m e n ta liz e th e e v id e n c e , w h ic h w e p re s u m e th e ju ry f o llo w e d . E . g. , Zafi ro , 506 U .S . at 5 3 9 ; V

oigt , 89 F. 3d at1096. Such a pr es um pt i on i s notnece s s aryi n thi s cas e, how ever , beca us e the j uryw as abl e t o cons i derthe evi dence s epar at el yw hen i tfound H ei l m an gui l tyof cons pi r acyfora l es s eramount of m ethamphet ami ne than hi s cod ef en d an ts. F inally , H eil m an ’s arg u m en t r eg ard ing cre d ibil ityissue s is no thing m o re than an a r gum entthathe had a bett erchanc e of a cqui t t al i n a s epar at e tr i al , w hi ch i s not s uffi ci entt o s how cl earand s ubs t ant i al pr ej udi ce. S e e E u fra sio , 935 F. 2d at568. 31 T her efor e, w e conc l ude thatH ei l m an di d notm eethi s heavybur den and, cons equent l y , the D i s tr i ctC our tdi d notabus e i t s di s cr et i on.

E . N apol i ’ s A r gum ent s R egar di ng C ount s I I thr ough V

1. J oi nderand 404( b) N apol i as s ert s thathe w as pr ej udi ced i n hi s tr i al byj oi nderof C ount s I I thr ough V (V IC A R assa u lt s an d co ll ec ti o n o f c red itb yex tort ion ate m ea n s), w h ich h e a rgu es a re u n re late d to th e d ru g c o n sp ira c yc h a rg e s. T h e G o v e rn m e n t re sp o n d s b ya rg u in g th a t,T h u s, c o u n se l’s m isjo in d e r a rg u m e n t af t ertrial in th is c a se w o u ld n o t su f f ice . It i s 32 n o t cle a r f

ro m th e re c o rd , h o w e v e r, w h e th e r N a p o li w a s a ss e rtin g a m isjo in d e r a rg u m e n t, o r sim p lya rg u in g th a t th e e v id e n c e o f a n e x u s to th e c o n sp ira c yw a s in a d e q u a te to s uppor ta convi ct i on. A lth o u g h R u le 1 2 (b )( 5 ) w o u ld p e rm it a c o u rt to ig n o re w a iv e r “ [ f ]o r g o o d c a u s e ,” 33 w e ar e notper s uaded byN apol i ’ s ar gum entthatthe s econd s uper s edi ng i ndi ctm entw as s o vague a s t o pr ecl ude a mi s j oi nderar gum ent . N apol i does notdi s put e thathi s couns el r ece i ved r el evantm at er i al s a mont h befor e tr i al . W e bel i eve thi s w oul d al l ow pl entyof t i m e for able coun sel t o d edu ce t he ev i den ce t he G ov ernm ent i ntended t o p res ent on t hese char ges and t o fi l e an a ppr opr i at e mot i on fors ever ance . 78 fi r s t , N apol i w ai ved thi s i s s ue byfai l i ng t o pr es enti tt o the D i s tr i ctC our tand, s econd, jo in d e r w a s p ro p e r a n d n o t p re ju d icia l. A d e f e n d a n t m u st f

ile a m o tio n a lleg in g a d e f e c t in a n in d ictm e n t o r a m o tio n to sever charges befo re tri al com m ences. See F e d . R . C rim . P . 1 2 (b )(3 )(B ), (C ); see al so 32 Un i t e d S ta t e s v . Wi l l i a ms , 711 F. 2d 748, 750 ( 6th C i r . 1983) ( as s ert i ng cl ai m of i m pr oper j oinder ass ert s errori n indi ct m ent) . F ai l ure t o d o so m aycon st i tute w ai ver of those obj ect i on s. Fed. R . C rim . P . 1 2 (e ); s ee U ni t ed Stat es v. Mann , 161 F. 3d 840, 861- 62 33 (5th C ir . 1 9 9 8 ) (fail u re to o b ject t o joind er w aive s issue o n ap p ea l) ; Wi l l i a ms , 711 F. 2d at 75 0-51 (ackn ow l edg i ng agreem ent am on g co urt s and co m m entat ors that fai l ure t o rai se m isj o ind er a rgu m en t bef o re tri al w aive s issue o n ap p ea l) ; U ni t ed Stat es v. G r eenleaf , 692 F .2 d 1 8 2 , 1 8 7 n .4 (7 th C ir. 1 9 8 2 ) (f a ilu re to ra ise m isjo in d e r o r se v e ra n c e a rg u m e n ts b e f o re trial c o n stitu tes w a iv e r); U ni t ed Stat es v. O chs , 5 9 5 F . 2 d 1 2 4 7 , 1 2 6 0 n . 1 1 (2d C ir . 1979) ( defe ndantw ai ved i m pr operj oi nderar gum entbyfai l i ng t o chal l enge i ndi ctm ent u n d er R u le 8(a )); U

ni t ed Stat es v. G r een , 5 6 1 F .2 d 4 2 3 , 4 2 6 (2 d C ir. 1 9 7 7 ) (f a ilu re toW e h a v e a ss e rte d th a t R u le 8 (a ) d e a lin g w ith jo in d e r o f o f f e n se s a p p lies o n lyto 34 p ro se c u tio n s in v o lv in g a sin g le d e f e n d a n t, an d th a t in a m u lti p le d e f e n d a n t ca se , the tes ts f o r j o in d e r o f

o f f e n s e s a n d d e f

e n d a n ts m e rg e in to R u le 8 (b ). Ir izarry , 3 4 1 F .3 d a t 2 8 7 . A nd al though w e have acknow l edged thatm os tcourt s have he l d thatR ul e 8( b) appl i es excl us i vel yt o i s s ues of j oi nderof m ul t i pl e def endant s and R ul e 8( a) onl yappl i es i n cas es of a s i ngl e def

endantchar ged w i th m ul t i pl e off ens es , w e have s ugges t ed thatR ul e 8( a) m a yp ro v id e th e p ro p e r sta n d a rd f o r jo in d e r o f

o f f e n se s a g a in st o n e d e f

e n d a n t, ev e n in c a s e s w ith m u ltip le d e f

e n d a n ts . I

d. T h is i ssu e is sign ifi ca n t bec au se a lth o u g h the s tand ard s o f R u le 8(a ) an d 8 (b) a re sim ilar, in th a t th e yb o th re q u ire a tra n sa c tio n a l n e x u s b e tw e e n o f f e n se s o r d e f

e n d a n ts j oi ned, R ul e 8( a) i s m or e perm i s s i ve bec aus e i tal l ow s j oi nderw hen off ens es ar e of the s a m e o r s im ila r c h a ra c te r, w h e re a s R u le 8 (b ) d o e s n o t. I d. at287 n. 4 ( ci t i ng E u

fra sio , 9 3 5 F .2 d a t 5 7 0 & n .2 0 ). A c c o rd in g ly , if jo in d e r sa tisf ies R u le 8 (b ), ita lso sa tisf ies R u le 8 (a). 79 c la im im p ro p e r j o in d e r o f o f f e n s e s o r d e f

e n d a n ts b e f

o re tr ia l c o n s titu te s w a iv e r) . A l tho ug h the T hir d C i rcui thas no ty etdecided the i ssue of w ai ver, w e need no tdo so t odaybeca us e C ountI I w as pr oper l yj oi ned, and ther e w as no pr ej udi ci al err orr es ul t i ng f r o m th e j o i n d e ro f

Co u n t s I I I th r o u g h V. R u le 8 (a ) p ro v id e s: “ T h e in d ictm e n t o r in f o rm a tio n m a yc h a rg e a d e f e n d a n t in s epar at e count s w i th 2 orm or e off ens es i f the off

ens es char ged . . . ar e of the s ame or s i m i l archar act er , orar e bas ed on the s ame actortr ans act i on, orar e conne ct ed w i th or c o n s titu te p a rt s o f

a c o m m o n s c h e m e o r p la n .” F e d . R . C rim . P . 8 (a ); s ee U ni t ed Stat es 34 v. D om i nguez , 2 2 6 F .3 d 1 2 3 5 , 1 2 3 8 (1 1 th C ir. 2 0 0 0 ) (“ R u le 8 is b ro a d lyc o n stru e d in f a v o r o f in itia l jo in d e r.” ). W e re v ie w th e jo in d e r o f o f f e n s e s d e n o v o . U

ni t ed Stat es v. Ir izarry , 34 1 F . 3d 27 3, 28 7 (3d C i r. 20 03 ). If an off ense w as i m properl yj oined, w e m ust p e rf o rm h a rm le s s e rr o r a n a lysis to d e te rm in e if p re ju d ic e re s u lte d . I

d. S u c h a n e rro r is n o t r e v e rs ib le u n le s s it h a s a s u b s ta n tia l e f f e c t o n th e o u tc o m e o f

th e p ro c e e d in g s . U

ni t ed80

Stat es v. Ji m i nez , 513 F. 3d 62, 83 ( 3d C i r . 2008) ( ci t i ng U ni t ed Stat es v. Lane , 47 4 U. S. 4 3 8 , 4 4 9 (1 9 8 6 )). C o u rts h a v e c o n c lu d e d th a t m isjo in d e r is h a rm les s w h e re th e re is o v e rw h e lm in g e v id e n c e o f g u ilto r th e trial c o u rt issu e s a c a re f u l li m iti n g in stru c tio n to th e ju ry o n th e is s u e o f

p o s s ib le p re

ju d ic e re s u ltin g f

ro m jo in d e r. See, e. g. , U ni t ed Stat es v. Jones , 5 3 0 F .3 d 1 2 9 2 , 1 2 9 9 (1 0 th C ir. 2 0 0 8 ); U ni t ed Stat es v. C ody , 498 F. 3d 582, 587 (6th C ir . 2 0 0 7 ). O uri nqui r yi nt o the pr opr i etyof j oi nderof off ens es focus es on the fa ce of the in d ic tm e n t, n o t th e p ro o f s u b s e q u e n tly p ro d u c e d a t tr ia l. Ir izarry , 341 F. 3d at287. B ut w e mayl ook bey ond the fa ce of the i ndi ctm enti n l i m i t ed ci r cumst ance s , e. g. w her e pr etr ia l d o c u m e n ts c la ri f

yth e f a c tu a l c o n n e c tio n s b e tw e e n th e c o u n ts . See U ni t ed Stat es v. Mc G ill , 964 F. 2d 222, 242 ( 3d C i r . 1992) . W e have found s uffi ci entconnec t i ons betw een offe ns es undert aken i n fur ther ance of and i n as s oci at i on w i th a cha r ged ent erpr i s e or c o n s p ir a c y . C

f. Ir izarry , 341 F. 3d at289- 90 ( concl udi ng s ame actortr ans act i on r equi r ements at i s fi ed w her e i ndi ctm entchar ged cr i m i nal act s ei theras pr edi cat es for rac k etee ri n g o r as a cts u n d ertak en in f u rth era n ce o f c o m m o n lych arg ed R IC O en terprise); E u fra sio , 935 F. 2d at570- 71 ( fi ndi ng pr operthe j oi nderof off ens es w hi ch cons t i tut ed a s i ngl e s er i es of r el at ed ac t s further i ng the R I C O ent erpr i s e and i t s purpos es ) . I n addi t i on, cou nts are s i m i l ar i f t heyare “s om ew hat al i ke” o r s hare “a gen eral l i ken ess, ” or ot herw i se h a v e a s u f

f ic ie n t lo g ic a l c o n n e c tio n a n d c a n b e tr ie d u s in g th e s a m e e v id e n c e . See U ni t ed Stat es v. R i vera , 5 4 6 F .3 d 2 4 5 , 2 5 3 (2 d C ir. 2 0 0 8 ); U ni t ed Stat es v. G r aham , 275 F. 3d81

49 0, 51 2 (6t h C i r. 20 01 ) ( “[W ]hen t he joi ned cou nts are l og i cal l yrel at ed, and there i s a l ar ge ar ea of

over l appi ng pr oof, j oi nderi s appr opr i at e. ”) . M or eover , offe ns es m aybe j oi ned i f theyoccurr ed w i thi n a r el at i vel ys hor tper i od of t i m e of e ach otherand the e v id e n c e o f

e a c h o v e rl a p s . See U

ni t ed Stat es v. D onalds on , 9 7 8 F . 2 d 3 8 1 , 3 9 1 (7th C ir . 1 9 9 2 ). C ountI char ged N apol i , among ot her s , w i th cons pi r i ng t o know i ngl yand i nt ent i onal l ydi s tr i but e and t o pos s es s w i th i nt entt o di s tr i but e met hamphet ami ne. T he se c o n d su p e rse d in g in d ictm e n t alle g e d th a t N a p o li an d o th e rs th re a ten e d a n d e n g a g e d in s ever e bea t i ngs and as s aul t s t o enfor ce di s ci pl i ne w i thi n the al l eged c ons pi r acy . T he cons pi r acychar ge s peci fi cal l yci t es as an overtactan as s aul tw hi ch i s the s ubj ectof C o u n t II o f

th e in d ictm e n t. T h u s, jo in d e r o f C o u n t II w a s p ro p e r a s a n o f f e n se in fur ther ance of the al l eged c ons pi r acy . T he i ndi ctm ent , how ever , does notchar ge anyof the ac t s cons t i tut i ng C ount s I I I thr ough V as overtact s i n the al l eged c ons pi r acy , and does notas s ertt hatC ountV fur ther ed the drug cons pi r acy . I tdoes , how ever , al l ege thatthe a c ts in C o u n ts II I a n d IV w e re c o m m itte d in f u rt h e ra n c e o f

th e c h a rg e d c o n s p ir a c y . N everthel es s , w e nee d notpas s on the pr opr i etyof j oi nderof C ount s I I I thr ough V becau se w e con cl ud e t hat anym i sj oinder w as harm l ess. A nyerr ori n m i s

j oi nderw as cur ed bythe D i s tr i ctC our t ’ s pr operl i m i t i ng i n s tru c t i o n t o th e j u r y: “The num berof off

ens es char ged i s notevi dence of gui l tand thi s s houl d not i nfl uence y ourdeci s i on i n anyw ay . E ach c ountand the evi dence pert ai ni ngN apol i cont ends thatthe i ntr oduct i on of evi dence r el at ed t o C ount s I I thr ough V 35 vi ol at ed Feder al R ul e of Evi dence 404( b) beca us e i tw as “admi t t ed forthe purpos e of pr ovi ng ‘ 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. ’ ” ( N apol i B r . 62 ( quot i ng Fed. R . E vi d. 404( b) ) . ) W e r evi ew the D i s tr i ctC our t ’ s deci s i on to a d m it e v id e n c e f

o r a b u s e o f

d is c re tio n . U

ni t ed Stat es v. H

of f ecker , 530 F. 3d 137, 189 (3 d C ir . 2 0 0 8 ). “ R u l e 4 0 4 ( b ) d o e s n o ta p p l y t o e v i d e n c e o f u n c h a r g e d o f

f e n s e s c o m m i t t e d b y a d ef en d an t w h en tho se a cts are in tr insic to the p roo f o f th e c h arg ed o ff en se. A cts are i ntr i ns i c w hen theydi r ect l ypr ove the cha r ged cons pi r acy . ” I d. ( quot at i on m arks and al t er at i ons om i t t ed) . T hus , even i f C ount s I I thr ough V had notbeen f or m al l ychar ged, e v id e n c e re latin g to th e m w o u ld n e v e rth e les s h a v e b e e n a d m iss ib le a s a c ts w h ich d ire c tly p ro v e th e c h a rg e d c o n s p ir a c y . See i d. ; U ni t ed Stat es v. G i bbs , 1 9 0 F . 3 d 1 8 8 , 2 1 8 (3d C ir . 1999) ( “Si nce the governm enti ntr oduced e vi dence of G i bbs ’ s us e of vi ol ence t o fur ther th e ill e g a l o b

jec tiv e s o f

th e c o c a in e c o n sp ira c y. . ., th e D istric t C o u rt d id n o t ab u se its d iscreti o n in p erm itti n g this ev iden ce to co m e in.”). 82 to itm u st b e c o n sid e re d

se p a ra tely . T he fact that y ou m ay fi nd a def endantnot gui l ty or gui l ty as t o one of the offe ns es char ged i n the sec o n d s uper s edi ng in d ictm e n t sh o u ld n o t c o n tro l you r v e rd ict a s to th e o th e r o f f e n se s c h a rg e d in th e s e c o n d s u p e rs e d in g in d ic tm e n t.” (R . at46 0A ) ( em ph asi s added ). W e presum e t hat the juryfoll ow s the co urt ’s i nst ruct i on s, w hi ch i s evi denti n t hi s cas e w her e the j uryacqui t t ed N apol i of C ountI I I , one of the a lle g e d V IC A R o f

f e n s e s . See Cody , 498 F. 3d at588. Fur ther , i ti s unl i kel yN apol i w as pr ej udi ced bythe pr es ent at i on of evi dence forC ount s I I I thr ough V cons i der i ng that C o u n t II w a s p ro p e rlyjo in e d a n d in v o lv e d c o n d u c t sig n if ica n tlym o re v io len t th a n C o u n ts I I I and V , and vi ol ence r oughl yequi val entt o C ountI V . M or eover , had C ount s I I thr ough V been omi t t ed fr om the i ndi ctm enti n thi s cas e, the D i s tr i ctC our tw oul d nothave a bus ed its d isc re tio n in a d m itt in g e v id e n c e o f th e u n d e rly in g c o n d u c t. 35 A ccor di ngl y , w e fi nd thatanyerr ori n j oi nderof thes e off ens es w as harm l es s and thatN apol i s uffe r ed no pr ej udi ce.T h e juryac q u itted N ap o li o f a thir d ch arg ed v iolati o n o f § 1 9 5 9 (a)(3) (C o u n t I II) . 36 N a p o li’s c o u n se l m a d e R u le 2 9 m o tio n s f o r b o th th e V IC A R a n d th e e x to rtio n a te 37 credi tcou nts . S e c tio n 1 9 5 9 (a ) p ro v id e s, in re lev a n t p a rt: 38 “W hoever , . . . forthe pu rpos e of ga i ni ng entr ance t o orm ai nt ai ni ng or in c re a s in g p o s itio n in a n e n te rp ri s e e n g a g e d in ra c k e te e ri n g a c tiv ity, . . . a ss a u lts w ith a d a n g e ro u s w e a p o n , c o m m its a ss a u lt re su lti n g in se rio u s b o d ily i nj uryupon . . . any i ndi vi dual . . . , or att empt s orcons pi r es t o do s o, s hal l be puni s hed– 83

2. Suffi ci encyand J uryI ns truct i ons N a p o li co n ten d s th a t th e e v id e n c e w a s in su f f icie n t to su p p o rt h is tw o se p a ra te c o n v i c t i o n s f

o rv i o l e n tc r i me s i n a i d o f r a c k e t e e r i n g ( “ VI CAR” ) , i n v i o l a t i o n o f 1 8 U. S . C. § 1 9 5 9 (a)(3) (C o u n ts I I an d IV ), a n d a c o n v ictio n f o r c o llec tio n o f

c re d it b ye x to rtio n a te 36 m e a n s, in v io latio n o f

1 8 U .S .C . § 8 9 4 (C o u n t V ). T h e G o v e rn m e n t re sp o n d s th a t it p re se n ted su f

f icie n t ev id e n c e th a t N a p o li p a rticip a ted in th e a ss a u lts a n d e x to rtio n to m ai ntai n h i s posi t i on i n the B reed organizat i on byviol entl ydis ci pli ning i t s m em bers. W hen r evi ew i ng a j uryver di ctfors uffi ci encyof evi dence , w e vi ew the evi dence i n the l i ghtm os tfavor abl e t o t he G overnm entand s us t ai n the ver di cti f anyr at i onal tr i er o f f a c t co u ld h a v e f

o u n d th e e ss e n tial e lem e n ts b e y o n d a re a so n a b le d o u b t. See U ni t ed 37 Stat es v. C unni ngham , 517 F. 3d 175, 177 ( 3d C i r . 2008) . W e w i l l exami ne the t ot al i t yof the evi dence , both di r ectand ci r cumst ant i al , and w i l l cr edi tal l i nfer ence s i n favorof the G o v e rn m e n t. See U

ni t ed Stat es v. Spar r ow , 3 7 1 F .3 d 8 5 1 , 8 5 2 (3 d C ir . 2 0 0 4 ).

a. V IC A R – C o u n ts I I an d IV A vi ol at i on of § 1959( a) has fi ve el ement s : ( 1) ther e w as an ent erpr i s e, ( 2) that 38. . . . (3 ) f o r a ss a u lt w it h a d a n g e ro u s w e a p o n o r a ss a u lt res u lti n g in se rio u s b o d ilyin

ju ry , b y im p riso n m e n t f o r n o t m o re th a n tw e n ty y e a rs . . . .” 1 8 U . S . C . § 1 9 5 9 (a). 84 engage d i n r acke t eer i ng act i vi ty , ( 3) aff ect i ng i nt er s t at e comm er ce, ( 4) and the def endant comm i t t ed a c r i m e of vi ol ence ( 5) forthe purpos e of ga i ni ng entr ance t o ori ncr eas i ng or m a in ta in in g h is p o s itio n in th e e n te rp ri s e . U ni t ed Stat es v. Jones , 566 F. 3d 353, 363 ( 3d C i r . 2009) . T he G overnm entm us tpr ove ther e i s a nexus betw een the ent erpr i s e and the c ri m e o f v io le n c e a n d th e d e f

e n d a n t’ s re la tio n s h ip to th e e n te rp ri s e . I d. N a p o li chal l enges onl ythe pr oof of the mot i vat i on orpurpos e el ementof the cr i m e. A l though § 1959 does notdefi ne the phr as e “f orthe purpos e of . . . m ai nt ai ni ng or incre asin g p o sit ion in an en terprise, ” c o u rt s h av e interp reted itac co rdin g to it s o rdin ary m e a n in g . See U

ni t ed Stat es v. Far m er , 5 8 3 F .3 d 1 3 1 , 1 4 1 (2 d C ir. 2 0 0 9 ); U ni t ed Stat es v. F i el , 35 F. 3d 997, 1004 ( 4th C i r . 1994) . A s s o defi ned, i tencompas s es vi ol entcr i m es i nt ended t o pr es erve the def endant ’ s pos i t i on i n the ent erpr i s e ort o enhanc e hi s r eput at i on a n d w e a lth w ith in th a t e n te rp ri s e . Far m er , 58 3 F . 3d at14 1. M oreove r, C on gress i nt ended V I C A R t o compl ementR I C O , and i ti nt ended V I C A R , l i ke R I C O , t o be lib e ra lly c o n s tru e d to e f f e c tu a te its re m e d ia l p u rp o s e . See U ni t ed Stat es v. B anks , 514 F .3 d 9 5 9 , 9 6 7 (9 th C ir . 2 0 0 8 ). N o ta b ly, th e s ta tu te m a k e s n o re f e re n c e to a s o le , e x c lu s iv e , o r p ri m a ry p u rp o s e . I d. at 96 8 . A cc o rdin g ly , self-p rom o ti o n n ee d n o t be th e d ef en d an t’ s so le or p ri m ary85

conce rn i f the vi ol entactw as comm i t t ed as an i nt egr al as pectof m ember s hi p i n the e n te rp ri s e . See U

ni t ed Stat es v. W

i l s on , 1 1 6 F .3 d 1 0 6 6 , 1 0 7 8 (5 th C ir . 1 9 9 7 ), r eh’ g on othergr ounds , Un i t e d

S ta t e s v . Br o wn , 1 6 1 F . 3 d 2 5 6 , 2 5 7 n . 1 (5th C ir . 1 9 9 8 ) (en b an c); U ni t ed Stat es v. Thai , 29 F. 3d 785, 817 ( 2d C i r . 1994) ( ci t i ng U ni t ed Stat es v. C oncepc i on , 9 8 3 F . 2 d 3 6 9 , 3 8 1 (2d C ir . 1 9 9 2 )). N ev erthe less, V IC A R req u ir es m o re th a n a n in c id e n ta l p u rp o s e . See Banks , 514 F. 3d at969 ( r ej ect i ng j uryi ns truct i ons r equi r i ng onl ythatj uryfi nd m ai nt enanc e orenhanc ementof s t atus w as “one of ” or“at l easton e of” defe nd ant’ s purposes). T hu s, sel f-pr om oti on need on l ybe a g eneral pu rpose f o r c o m m ittin g a v io le n t c ri m e . See i d. a t 9 7 0 ; U nited S tates v. T

se , 135 F. 3d 200, 206 (1 s t C ir . 1 9 9 8 ), vacated on othergr ounds , Tse v. U ni t ed Stat es , 2 9 0 F . 3 d 4 6 2 (1st C ir . 2 0 0 2 ). C ontr aryt o N apol i ’ s ar gum entthatthe vi ol ence di d notfur therthe al l eged drug tr aff i cki ng, V I C A R does notr equi r e a c onnect i on betw een the vi ol entcr i m e and the p u rp o se o

f the ent erpr i s e; r ather , the purpos e of the vi ol entcr i m e mustbe r el at ed t o the act or’ s pos i t i on i n th e e n te rp ri s e . Jones , 5 6 6 F .3 d a t 3 6 3 ; s ee Fi el , 3 5 F .3 d a t 1 0 0 5 . Fur ther , the purpos e el ementcan be s how n byevi dence thatthe def endantcomm i t t ed the vi ol entcr i m e bec aus e he kne w i tw as expec t ed of hi m beca us e of hi s m ember s hi p i n the e n te rp ri s e o r t h a t h e c o m m itte d it in f u rt h e ra n c e o f

s u c h m e m b e rs h ip . See Farm er , 583 F. 3d at142 ( quot i ng U

nited S tates v. D hinsa , 2 4 3 F . 3 d 6 3 5 , 6 7 1 (2d C ir . 2 0 0 1 )); U ni t ed Stat es v. C ars on , 4 5 5 F .3 d 3 3 6 , 3 6 9 (D .C . C ir. 2 0 0 6 ); U n itedS ta tes v . Sm ith , 413 F. 3d86

1 2 5 3 , 1 2 7 8 (1 0 th C ir . 2 0 0 5 ), over r ul ed on othergr ounds , U ni t ed Stat es v. H

ut chi ns on , 5 7 3 F .3 d 1 0 1 1 (1 0 th C ir. 2 0 0 9 ); T se , 1 3 5 F .3 d a t 2 0 6 ; F i el , 3 5 F . 3 d a t1 0 0 4 . A c c o r d i n g l y, evi dence w i l l be s uffi ci enti f i ts how s the def endant ’ s gener al purpos e w as t o m ai nt ai n or enhanc e hi s pos i t i on, ori f the vi ol entactw as comm i t t ed as an i nt egr al as pectof m e m b e rs h ip . B anks , 514 F. 3d at970. C o u rt s h av e f

o u n d v ariou s typ es o f e v iden ce su ff ici en t t o m ee t th e G o v ern m en t’ s bur den. Fori ns t ance , court s have c ons i der ed t es t i m onythatvi ol ence i s a comm on partof th e c u ltu re , m e m b e rs a re e x p e c ted to re talia te, a n d m e m b e rs a re p re ss u re d to liv e u p to n ic k n a m e s , Sm ith , 4 1 3 F .3 d a t 1 2 7 8 , as w e ll as tes tim o n yth a t m e m b e rs a re e x p e c ted to v io le n tly re s p o n d to d is re s p e c t a n d to liv e u p to th e irro le w ith in th e o rg a n iz a tio n , U ni t ed Stat es v. W

i l s on , 116 F. 3d 1066, 1078- 79 ( 5th C i r . 1997) . C our t s have a l s o r el i ed on t es t i m onythatther e ar e cl ear l ydel i neat ed rul es r egar di ng pos i t i ons and pr ogr es s i on thr ough the or gani zat i on’ s hi er ar chy , thatm ember s act ed t o enhanc e thei rr eput at i on gener al l yori n the ey es of a s peci fi c fa ct i on ori ndi vi dual , aboutthe vi ol entnatur e of the or gani zat i on, cus t om s and expe ct at i ons of m ember s , and ac know l edgi ng the i m por t ance o f m a in ta in in g s ta tu s . B anks , 5 1 4 F .3 d a t 9 7 0 . Fi nal l y , court s have not ed w hen ac t s ar e comm i t t ed ors anct i oned byhi gh- r anki ng m ember s t o pr ot ectent erpr i s e oper at i ons and t o advanc e obj ect i ves of ent erpr i s e, or w her e one orm or e l eade r s comm i t t ed the ac t s i n r es pons e t o a thr eatpos ed t o the en terprise an d to p rev en t th e lea d ers’ p o sit ion s fro m b eing u n d erm ined , b u t no t w h ere87

act s w er e “pur el ym er cena r y ” ordefe ndantw as nei thera mem berof the ent erpr i s e nor in v o lv e d in its c ri m in a l a c tiv ity. U ni t ed Stat es v. B r uno , 3 8 3 F .3 d 6 5 , 8 3 (2 d C ir . 2 0 0 4 ). T h e m ainten an ce co n ce p t al so ap p li es to h igh -ran k ing m em b ers o f e n terprises if the yare e x p e c te d to a c t a n d f

a ilu re to d o s o w o u ld u n d e rm in e th e irp o s itio n in th e e n te rp ri s e . Sm ith , 413 F. 3d at1278 ( ci t i ng D hinsa , 2 4 3 F .3 d a t 6 7 1 -7 2 ). T h e G o v e rn m e n t p re se n ted su f f icie n t ev id e n c e in th is c a se f o r a re a so n a b le ju ryto f in d th a t N a p o li en g a g e d in th e c h a rg e d v io len t co n d u c t to m a in tain o r in c re a se h is pos i t i on w i thi n the B r eed. W i th r egar d t o C ountI I , the G overnm entpr es ent ed evi dence th a t B u rk e w a s a ss a u lted b e c a u se B re e d m e m b e rs q u e stio n e d h is lo y a ltya n d d e d ica tio n to the cl ub. N apol i al s o att empt ed t o l i ghtB ur ke on fi r e bec aus e he vi ol at ed a Bre ed tra d iti o n a g a in st m e m b e rs s lee p in g in th e ir c o lo rs. T h e re a f ter , N a p o li co n tin u e d to p h y sicall yassa u ltB u rke . B ase d o n this ev iden ce , w e c o n clud e tha t a reaso n ab le j u ry coul d fi nd, bey ond a r eas onabl e doubt , thatN apol i as s aul t ed B ur ke t o enfor ce Bre ed rul es and code s of conduc t , and ther ebym ai nt ai n hi s pos i t i on i n the or gani zat i on. W i th r egar d t o C ountI V , t es t i m onyattr i al es t abl i s hed thatG r aber ’ s beat i ng occurr ed bec aus e N apol i and otherm ember s of the B r eed s us pect ed thatG r aberw as ste a lin g m o n e yf

ro m th e c lu b . A s a c o n se q u e n c e , the B re e d e x e c u tiv e b o a rd u n a n im o u sly vot ed t o ki ck G r aberoutof the cl ub, w hi ch cons i s t ed of a s s aul t i ng the expe l l ed orous t ed m e m b e r. F ro m th is e v id e n c e , a re a so n a b le ju ro r c o u ld c o n c lu d e , b e y o n d a re a so n a b le doubt , thatG r aber ’ s beat i ng cons t i tut ed enf or cementof B r eed di s ci pl i ne, thr ough w hi chN apo l i assert s sever al otherj ury -i nst ruct i on err ors i n h i s R eplyB ri ef. T hese 39 a rg u m e n ts w e re o m itte d f ro m h is O p e n in g B ri e f

a n d , th e re f

o re , a re w a iv e d . S e e P e lu llo , 399 F. 3d at222. 88 N apol i m ai nt ai ned hi s pos i t i on.

b . C o llec tio n o f

C re d it b yE x to rtio n a te M e a n s – C o u n t V In h is O p e n in g B rie f

, N a p o li arg u e s th a t C o u n t V w a s im p ro p e rlyjo in e d . H e d id notas s erti ns uffi ci encyunt i l hi s R epl yB r i ef. T her efor e, N apol i w ai ved thi s s uffi ci ency ar gum entbeca us e “[ i ] ti s w el l s ett l ed thatan appe l l ant ’ s fai l ur e t o i dent i fyorar gue an i s s ue i n hi s openi ng br i ef c ons t i tut es w ai verof thati s s ue on appe al . ” P e lu llo , 399 F. 3d at 222. T he r efe r ence s i n hi s O peni ng B r i ef r el at i ng t o C ountV s um m ar i ze the cha r ge and c o n t e n d th a tth e c l a i m w a s i mp r o p e r l yj o i n e d . Be c a u s e th i s a r g u me n twa s wa i v e d , we w i l l aff i r m thi s convi ct i on. c. J uryI ns truct i ons Na p o l i c o n t e n d s th a tth e Di s tr i c tCo u r te rr e d i n i n s tru c t i n g th e j u ryo n th e VI CA R cl ai m s . T he courti ns truct ed the j urythati tm us tfi nd the cha r ged vi ol entcr i m e w as “an in teg ra l as p e c t o f

m e m b e rsh ip .” (R . at 4 9 6 A .) N a p o li arg u e s th is s tan d a rd is in su f f icie n t, and thatthe appr opr i at e s t andar d i s thatm ember s hi p enhanc ementw as a “s ubs t ant i al ” or “do m i nan tpu rpose” for com m i t t i ng the v i olentcri m es. T he G overnm entr es ponds by 39 ar gui ng thatthe D i s tr i ctC our tcorr ect l ys um m ar i zed the s t at e of the l aw and comm i t t ed no err or . B as ed on ourr evi ew of the l aw i n the pr ece di ng s ect i on, w e agr ee w i th the G o v e rn m e n t.89

W h e n a p a rtytim e lyo b jec ts to ju ryin stru c tio n s, “ [ w ]e e x e rc ise p len a ryre v iew to det erm i ne w hetherj uryi ns truct i ons m i s s t at ed the appl i cabl e l aw , buti n the abs ence of a m i s s t at ementw e r evi ew forabus e of di s cr et i on. ” C ooperD is tr i b. C o. v. A m ana R ef r iger at i on, I

nc. , 180 F. 3d 542, 549 ( 3d C i r . 1999) . W her e a pa r tycl ai m i ng err ori n a ju ry in s tru c tio n f

a ile d to m a k e a tim e ly o b je c tio n , w e re v ie w f

o r p la in e rr o r. I

d. N ap o li ’s co u n sel d id n o t object t o the V IC A R jurych arg e a n d , there fo re, w e re v iew fo r plain e rror. T he D i s tr i ctC our ti ns truct ed the j urythatthe G overnm ent“mustpr ove bey ond a reas on able dou bt . . . that the u nd erl y i ng cri m e of v i olence w as com m i t t ed fo r the p urpose o f m aintainin g o r i n cre asin g p o sit ion in the ch arg ed en terprise. ” (R . at 49 5 A . ) T h e c o u rt in f o rm e d th e ju ryth a t it“ n e e d n o t . . . fin d th a t th e se p u rp o se s w e re th e d e f e n d a n t’s s o le oreven pr i nci pal m ot i ve”; r ather , “[i ] ti s s uffi ci enti f the cr i m e of vi ol ence w as co m m itted a s an integ ral asp ec t of m em b ersh ip in the en terprise. ” (R . at 49 5 A -49 6 A . ) A l t ernat i vel y , the courti nform ed the j urythat“[i ] ti s s uffi ci enti f y ou fi nd thatthe defe ndant. . . di d comm i tvi ol entcr i m es beca us e he kne w i tw as expec t ed of hi m by r eas on of hi s m ember s hi p i n t he ent erpr i s e orthathe comm i t t ed i t[s i c] i n fur ther ance of thatm ember s hi p. ” ( R . at496A - 497A . ) W e conc l ude thes e i ns truct i ons ar e cons i s t ent w ith th e s ta te o f

th e la w in th is a re a . See Banks , 514 F. 3d at969- 70 ( “B yl i m i t i ng the s t atut e’ s s cope t o thos e ca s es i n w hi ch the j uryfi nds thatone of the def endant ’ s gener al purpos es ordom i nantpurpos es w as t o enhanc e hi s s t atus orthatthe vi ol entactw as comm i t t ed ‘ as an i nt egr alas pect ’ of gang mem ber s hi p, w e ens ur e thatthe s t atut e i s gi venG e n e ra lly, a n a p p e lla te c o u rt ’s re v ie w o v e r c o n s titu tio n a l is s u e s is p le n a ry. See 40 B or den v. Sch. D is t . of

Tw p. of E . B r uns w i ck , 523 F. 3d 153, 165 ( 3d C i r . 2008) . T he G o v e rn m e n ta s s e r t s th a tJ o h n s o n f a i l e d t o r a i s e th i s o b

j e c t i o n a ttr i a l a n d , c o n s e q u e n t l y, re v ie w is f

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

n itedS ta tes v . C a m

p b e ll , 295 F. 3d 398, 404 ( 3d C i r . 2002) (re v iew in g a lleg e d c o n stitu tio n a l v io latio n f o r p lain e rro r b e c a u se d e f e n d a n t f a iled to ra ise iss u e to d istric t co u rt). B e c a u se w e f in d n o e rro r a t all, itis u n n e c e ss a ryto d e te rm in e w h e th e r r e v ie w is p le n a ry o r f o r p la in e rr o r. C

f . I nt erMed. Suppl i es , Ltd. v. EB I Med. Sys . , I

nc. , 181 F. 3d 446, 456 ( 3d C i r . 1999) ( for egoi ng det erm i nat i on of stan d ard o f re v iew w h ere sam e re su ltw o u ld o b tai n u n d er p lena ryo r plain e rror rev iew ). 90 i t s ful l s cope, w i thoutal l ow i ng i tt o be us ed t o turn everycr i m i nal actbya gang mem ber i nt o a fe der al cr i m e. ”) ( emphasi s added) . T her efor e, w e fi nd no err or , pl ai n orotherw i s e. F . Jo h n so n ’s S e lf

-In c rim in a tio n C laim J ohns on cont ends thatthe G overnm entvi ol at ed hi s pr i vi l ege a gai ns ts el fi ncr i m i nat i on byi ntr oduci ng attr i al “non- cons ens ual r ecor di ngs fea tur i ng [hi s ] ow n voi ce w hi ch w er e us ed t o i ncr i m i nat e hi m . ” ( J ohns on B r . 61- 62. ) T he G overnm entr es ponds thatthe s t at ement s i n t he r ecor di ngs w er e vol unt aryand, thus , do noti m pl i cat e s el fincrim ination p rotec ti o n s. W e a g ree w ith the G o v ern m en t and , there fo re, find n o erro r. 4 0 “N o p ers on . . . shal l be co m pell ed in anycri m i nal cas e t o b e a w i tness against h i m s e l f . . . . ” U . S . C o n s t . a m e n d . V . T h i s p r i v i l e g e p r o t e c t s a g a i n s ti n c r i m i n a t i o n b y a p e rs o n ’s o w n c o m p e lle d te s tim o n ia l c o m m u n ic a tio n s . See D oe v. U ni t ed Stat es , 48 7 U. S. 2 0 1 , 2 0 7 (1 9 8 8 ). W h e re a s ta te m e n t is v o lu n ta ry, th e re is n o c o m p u ls io n . See U ni t ed Stat es v. D oe , 4 6 5 U .S . 6 0 5 , 6 1 0 (1 9 8 4 ); s ee U ni t ed Stat es v. P atane , 542 U . S. 630, 637 ( 2004) ( as s ert i ng thatpr i vi l ege c annotbe vi ol at ed byi ntr oduct i on of non- t es t i m oni al e v id e n c e o b tain e d a s a re su lt o f v o lu n tar ysta tem e n t). M o re o v e r, “s u rre p tit io u s e lec tro n ic91

r ecor di ng of conve r s at i ons among pri vat e per s ons , and i ntr oduct i on of the r ecor di ng dur i ng a cr i m i nal tr i al , do notvi ol at e the Fi fth A m endment ’ s ban aga i ns tcompul s orys el fi ncr i m i nat i on beca us e the conve r s at i ons ar e notthe pr oductof anyoffi ci al compul s i on. ” B erger v. N

ew Y ork , 3 8 8 U .S . 4 1 , 1 0 7 (1 9 6 7 ) (W h ite, J., d iss e n tin g ); s ee O lm s t ead v. U ni t ed Stat es , 277 U . S. 438, 462 ( 1928) ( fi ndi ng no vi ol at i on w her e def endant s w er e not i nd uced bycom pu l si on t o co nti nu al l yand vo l un t ari l ycon du ctbu si ness on tel eph on es, w ith o u t k n o w le d g e o f

in te rc e p tio n s ), over r ul ed on othergr ounds by Kat zv. U ni t ed Stat es , 3 8 9 U .S . 3 4 7 (1 9 6 7 ); cf . H of f a v. U ni t ed Stat es , 385 U . S. 293, 304 ( 1966) (c o n c lu d in g n o v io latio n o c c u rre d w h e re in c rim in a tin g sta tem e n ts m a d e b yd e f e n d a n t in w h o ll yv o lun taryco n v ersa ti o n w ere relay ed at tri al byp arti cipa n t i n co n v ersa ti o n ). J ohns on has m ade no a r gum entthathe w as compel l ed t o m ake the i ncr i m i nat i ng sta tem e n ts o n th e re c o rd in g s, n o r h a s h e o f f e re d a n ya rg u m e n t to su g g e st th e sta tem e n ts w er e notot herw i s e vol unt ary . B eca us e the pr i vi l ege a gai ns ts el f- i ncr i m i nat i on r equi r es so m e f o rm o f leg a l o r f

a c tu a l co m p u lsio n , w e f in d th e D istric t C o u rt d id n o t er r in adm i t t i ng the recorded st at em ents . G . J ohns on’ s C l ai m forA cqui t t al J o h n s o n a r g u e s th a th e i s e n t i t l e d t o a j u d g me n to f a c q u i t t a l o n th r e e f

i r e a r mr el at ed convi ct i ons . H e cont ends thatthe G overnm entfai l ed t o i ntr oduce s uffi ci ent evi dence thathe pos s es s ed fi r earm s r ecove r ed fr om j oi nt l yoccupi ed pr emi s es . T he G o v e rn m e n t re sp o n d s th a t itin tro d u c e d su f f icie n t ev id e n c e o f

c o n stru c tiv e p o ss e ss io n to92

u p h o ld the jury ’s co n v ict ion s. W e a g ree w ith the G o v ern m en t and w il l aff irm the ju ry ’s con vict i on s. J ohns on w as char ged w i th, and convi ct ed of, vi ol at i ng 18 U . S. C . § 924( c) ( 1) by pos s es s i ng a K el - T ec ni ne mi l l i m et erhandgun i n fur ther ance of a drug tr aff i cki ng offe ns e, and vi ol at i ng § 922( g) ( 1) as a fe l on i n pos s es s i on of a f i r earm , namel ythe ni ne m i l l i m et erhandgun, a . 44 cal i berC hart erA r m s r evol ver , and a 12- gauge pump- act i on s h o tg u n . T ypi cal l y , w hen r evi ew i ng a j uryver di ctfors uffi ci encyof evi dence , w e vi ew t he evi dence i n the l i ghtm os tfavor abl e t o the G overnm entand s us t ai n the ver di cti f any ra tio n a l tr ie r o f

f a c t c o u ld h a v e f

o u n d th e e s s e n tia l e le m e n ts b e y o n d a re a s o n a b le d o u b t. See Cunni ngham , 5 1 7 F .3 d a t 1 7 7 . W e w ill e x a m in e th e to talityo f th e e v id e n c e , b o th d ir e c t a n d c ir c u m s ta n tia l, a n d w ill c re d it a ll in f e re n c e s in f

a v o r o f th e G o v e rn m e n t. Spar r ow , 371 F. 3d at852. I f a de fenda ntfai l s t o fi l e a t i m el ym ot i on forj udgm entof a c q u itta l, h o w e v e r, w e re v ie w s u f f ic ie n c yo f

th e e v id e n c e f

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

ni t ed S ta tes v . P o w e ll , 1 1 3 F . 3 d 4 6 4 , 4 6 6 -67 (3d C ir . 1 9 9 7 ). Jo h n so n p re se n ts th is a p p e a l in ter m s o f th e D istric t C o u rt’s f

a ilu re to g ra n t a j udgm entof ac qui t t al . T her e i s no i ndi cat i on i n the r ecor d, how ever , thatJ ohns on ever g a v e th e c o u rt a n o p p o rt u n ity to g ra n t a n a c q u itta l b e c a u s e h e n e v e r m o v e d f o r o n e . T h e re f o re , w e re v ie w f

o r p la in e rr o r, w h ic h w e d e f in e d e a rl ie r. S e e P u c ke tt , 129 S. C t . at 1429 ( defi ni ng pl ai n err ors t andar d)B eca us e J ohns on ar gues onl ythatthe G overnm entfai l ed t o i ntr oduce s uffi ci ent 41 evidence o f po sses si on , w e foc us on l yon that el em ent of the cri m es. 93 T o es t abl i s h a vi ol at i on of § 924( c) ( 1) , the G overnm entw as r equi r ed t o es t abl i s h, b e y o n d a re a so n a b le d o u b t, th a t (1 ) Jo h n so n c o m m itt e d e ith e r th e c rim e o f c o n sp ira c yto di s tr i but e and pos s es s w i th i nt entt o di s tr i but e a c ontr ol l ed s ubs t ance orthe cr i m e of pos s es s i on w i th i nt entt o di s tr i but e; ( 2) J ohns on know i ngl ypos s es s ed a f i r earm ; and ( 3) J ohns on know i ngl ypos s es s ed the fi r earm i n fur ther ance of the cr i m e of c ons pi r acyort he c ri m e o f p o s s e s s io n . See U

ni t ed Stat es v. B obb , 4 7 1 F. 3 d 4 9 1 , 4 9 6 ( 3 d Ci r . 2 0 0 6 ) . To es t abl i s h a vi ol at i on of § 922( g) ( 1) , the G overnm entw as r equi r ed t o es t abl i s h, bey ond a re a so n a b le d o u b t, th a t (1 ) Jo h n so n h a d p re v io u slyb e e n c o n v icte d o f a c rim e p u n ish a b le byi m pr i s onm entfora t erm exce edi ng one y ear ; ( 2) J ohns on know i ngl ypos s es s ed a f ir e a rm ; a n d (3 ) t h e f

ir e a rm h a d p a s s e d in in te rs ta te c o m m e rc e . See U ni t ed Stat es v. D odd , 225 F. 3d 340, 344 ( 3d C i r . 2000) . I n the cont extof § 922( g) ( 1) , know i ng pos s es s i on m eans onl ythatthe G overnm entm us tpr ove J ohns on’ s aw ar enes s thathe pos s es s ed the fi r earm – i tneed notdemonstr at e J ohns on pos s es s ed the fi r earm w i th i nt ent to c a u s e h a rm o r w ith k n o w le d g e th a t h is p o s s e s s io n w a s u n la w f u l. I d. P o ss e ss io n is a n e lem e n t o f b o th c rim e s, a n d a ju ryc o u ld c o n v ict J o h n so n if it con cl ud ed thathe actual l yor const ruct i velypo sses sed t he g un s. See U ni t ed Stat es v. 41 I gl es i as , 535 F. 3d 150, 156 ( 3d C i r . 2008) . B eca us e the guns w er e notr ecove r ed fr om J o h n s o n ’s p e rs o n , th e G o v e rn m e n t m u s t e s ta b lis h c o n s tru c tiv e p o s s e s s io n . See, e. g. , C unni ngham , 517 F. 3d at178. W e have s t at ed thatT he G overnm entand i t s w i tnes s es r efe rt o 3632 M orr el l St r eetand 4648 B er gen 42 S treetas Johnso n’s r esi den ces, bu tno partyassert s w hetherhe d i d o r di d n ot ow n o r l ease e ith e r p re m ise . F u rth e r, w e re jec t Jo h n so n ’s jo in t o c c u p a n c ya rg u m e n t “b e c a u se it err oneous l yas s um es that[hi s ] dom i ni on and contr ol over[the pr emi s es ] had t o be excl us i ve. ” See I

gl es i as , 5 3 5 F .3 d a t 1 5 6 ; Br o wn , 3 F. 3d at680 ( not i ng dom i ni on and co n tr o l can b e sh are d w ith o thers). 94 “[ c ] o n s tru c t i v e p o s s e s s i o n e x i s t s i f a n i n d i v i d u a l k n o wi n g l y h a s b o th t he pow erand the i nt ent i on ata gi ven t i m e t o exer ci s e domi ni on and contr ol over a thi ng, ei therdi r ect l yorthr ough an o ther pe r s on orper s ons . C ons truct i ve pos s es s i on nece s s ar i l yr equi r es both dom i ni on and cont r ol overan obj ectand k n o w le d g e o f

th a t o b je c t’ s e x is te n c e .” I d. D o m in io n a n d c o n tr o l n e e d n o t b e e x c lu s iv e , b u t c a n b e s h a re d w ith o th e rs . U ni t ed S ta t e s v . Br o wn , 3 F . 3 d 6 7 3 , 6 8 0 (3d C ir . 1 9 9 3 ). “[ M ]ere p rox im ityto the [g u n ], o r m ere pr es ence on the pr opertyw her e i ti s l ocat ed orm er e as s oci at i on w i th the per s on w ho does contr ol the [gun] orthe pr operty , i s i ns uffi ci entt o s uppor ta fi ndi ng of pos s es s i on. ” I d. T he pol i ce r ecove r ed the ni ne mi l l i m et erhandgun dur i ng the s ear ch of 3632 M orr el l St r eet , a r es i dence J ohns on s har ed w i th hi s gi r l fr i end. T he age ntl ocat ed the 42 gun, w hi ch w as l oaded, on the t op of a di ni ng r oom hut ch. T he age ntt es t i fi ed, “Fr om w her e I w as s i t t i ng, i f I t ook one s t ep t o m yr i ghtI coul d gr ab the s hoebox [c ont ai ni ng m ethamphet ami ne] . Fr om w her e I w as s i t t i ng i f I m ake one s t ep t o m yl eftI coul d r eac h up and gr ab the 9 mi l l i m et eroff the di ni ng r oom hut ch. ” ( Supp. A pp. at164. ) T he pol i ce al s o r ecove r ed s om e otheri t ems fr om 3632 M orr el l St r eet , i ncl udi ng B r eed pa r aphernal i a, v a rio u s re c o rd s in Jo h n so n ’s n a m e , d ru g s a n d d ru g p a ra p h e rn a lia, m a il ad d re ss e d to J ohns on atthe addr es s , and a phot ogr aph of J ohns on w i th hi s gi r l fr i end. I n addi t i on, t he95

G ov ernm ent offered t est i m on yfrom S ervi olo that he had ob served John son p ossess a fi r earm i n t he M orr el l St r eetr es i dence . D ur i ng the s ear ch of 4648 Ber gen Str eet , a r es i dence J ohns on s har ed w i th hi s w i fe, the p o li ce rec o v ere d the re v o lver, w h ich w as lo ca ted in a d resse r dra w er in a n u p stai rs b e d ro o m . T h e d ra w e r “ c o n ta in e d f e m a le c lo th in g , u n d e rw e a r, s o c k s , s o o n a n d s o f o rt h .” (S u p p . A p p . at 1 9 2 .) T h e sh o tg u n w a s f o u n d in a c lo se t in th e sa m e b e d ro o m , n e x t to John son’s B reed color s. P oli ce al so recovered t w o p ho t og raphs of B reed m em bers, i ncl udi ng J ohns on. B as ed on the l ocat i ons of the w eapons and the otherm at er i al s r ecove r ed dur i ng t he s ear ches , a r eas onabl e j ur orcoul d concl ude thatJ ohns on exer ci s ed domi ni on and contr ol overthe pr emi s es and the guns ther ei n. T he evi dence al s o s uppor t s the conc l us i on that Jo h n so n k n ew thes e g u n s w ere p rese n t i n the re side n ce s. T h is i s n o t a ca se o f m ere p ro x im ity o r m e re k n o w le d g e . See, e. g. , U ni t ed Stat es v. Jenki ns , 90 F. 3d 814, 818 ( 3d C ir. 1 9 9 6 ); Br o wn , 3 F. 3d at681- 82. A c c o rd in g ly , a re a so n a b le ju ro r c o u ld h a v e f o u n d th a t Jo h n so n c o n stru c tiv e ly p o s s e s s e d th e g u n s in v io la tio n o f b o th § § 9 2 2 (g )( 1 ) a n d 9 2 4 (c )( 1 ). See Bobb , 471 F. 3d at 4 9 6 ; D odd , 2 2 5 F .3 d a t 3 4 4 ; s ee, e. g. , I gl es i as , 535 F. 3d at156- 57. T hus , w e fi nd no err or , l etal one pl ai n err or , i n t he D i s tr i ctC our t ’ s fai l ur e t o or deran uns ol i ci t ed j udgm ent o f a c q u itt a l. H . Sent enci ng I s s uesA lth o u g h D ef en d an ts al l j o in in e ac h o ther’s a p p ea ls, w e v ac ate Jo h n so n ’s 43 se n ten c e f

o r iss u e s p a rticu lar to h is c rim in a l h isto ry . T h u s, w e n e e d n o t als o v a c a te N apo l i ’s and H ei l m an’s s entences. 96 F o r th e f o llo w in g re a so n s, w e w ill a f f irm th e se n ten c e s o f

H e ilm a n a n d N a p o li i n thei rent i r ety , butvaca t e J ohns on’ s s ent ence of i m pr i s onm entand r emand forr es ent enci ng. W e w ill a f f irm th e p re lim in a ryo rd e r o f f o rf e itu re in w h ich th e D e f

e n d a n ts 43 ar e j oi nt l yand s ever al l yl i abl e. 1 . N a p o li a. F o rfe itu re N apol i cont ends thatthe D i s tr i ctC our terr ed i n cal cul at i ng the amountof f o r f e i tu r e u n d e r2 1 U. S . C. § 8 5 3 ( a ) o n th e b a s i s o f g r o s s r e c e i p t s r a th e rth a n p r o f i t s . He as s ert s thatthe Supr eme C our t ’ s deci s i on i n U ni t ed Stat es v. Sant os , 128 S. C t . 2020 ( 2009) , di r ect s us and the D i s tr i ctC our tt o defi ne “pr ocee ds ” as “pr ofi t s . ” The G o v e rn m e n t re sp o n d s th a t Sant os i nt erpr et ed a di ffe r ents t atut e and, ther efor e, i s not bi ndi ng pr ece denti n t hi s cas e. M or eover , the G overnm entas s ert s thatdefi ni ng “pr ocee ds ” i n § 853 as “pr ofi t s ” w oul d r enderthe t erm r edundant . W e agr ee w i th the G o v ern m en t and w il l aff irm the f o rfe itu re o rde r. T he p roper i nterpret at i on of a st atute i s a quest i on of law ov er w hich w e exerci se p le n a ry re v ie w . See E l ec. Lab. Suppl y C o. v. C ul l en , 9 7 7 F .2 d 7 9 8 , 8 0 1 (3 d C ir . 1 9 9 2 ). T h e G o v e rn m e n t ar g u e s th a t w e sh o u ld re v iew f o r p lain e rro r b e c a u se N a p o li fa iled to raise h is i n stan t objecti o n at th e p roc ee d ing s b elow . Inso fa r as the low er c o u rtd id n o t errS ect i on 85 3, i n rel evan tpart , provides: 44

“ A n yp e rso n c o n v icte d o f a v io latio n o f th is s u b c h a p ter o r su b c h a p ter II o f th is chapt erpuni s habl e by i m pr i s onm ent for m or e t han one y ears hal l for fei tt o the U ni t ed St at es , i r r es pect i ve of a nypr ovi s i on of St at e l aw – ( 1) any pr operty cons t i tut i ng, or der i ved fr om , anypr ocee ds the per s on obt ai ned, di r ect l yori ndi r ect l y , as the r es ul tof s uch vi ol at i on;

. . . .

. . . I n l i eu of a fi ne otherw i s e author i zed by thi s part , a def endantw ho der i ves pr ofi t s orotherpr ocee ds fr om an off ens e maybe fi ned notm or e than tw ic e th e g ro s s p ro f

its o r o th e r p ro c e e d s .” 2 1 U . S . C . § 8 5 3 (a)(1). 97 in d e f in in g “ p ro c e e d s” a s g ro ss re c e ip ts, th e a p p lica b le s tan d a rd o f re v iew o n th is iss u e is im m a te ri a l. T h e p arti es d ispu te th e m ea n ing o f th e term “p roc ee d s” in the c ri m inal fo rfe itu re p ro v isio n o f

th e C o m p re h e n siv e D ru g A b u se P re v e n tio n a n d C o n tro l A c t. 2 1 U .S .C . § 44 853( a) . T he s t atut e does notdefi ne “pr ocee ds . ” W hen det erm i ni ng the meani ng of u n d e f in e d s ta tu to ry la n g u a g e , w e f ir s t c o n s id e r t h e p la in m e a n in g o f th e w o rd . See In re A rm strongW

orld Indu s. , 432 F. 3d 507, 513 ( 3d C i r . 2005) . A s the Supr eme C our tnot ed i n Sant os , “ p ro c e e d s ” is d e f in e d a s b o th re c e ip ts a n d p ro f its . See Santos , 128 S. C t . at 2 0 2 4 (cit ing 1 2 O x fo rd E n g li sh D ict ion ary5 4 4 (2d ed . 1 9 8 9 ); R an d o m H o u se D ict ion ary o f th e E n g lish L a n g u a g e 1 5 4 2 (2 d e d . 1 9 8 7 )); see al so W ebs t er ’ s N ew I nt ernat i onal D i ct i onary1807 ( 3d ed. 1965) ( defi ni ng pr ocee ds as “w hati s pr oduced byorder i ved f ro m s o m e th in g . . . b yw a yo f to ta l r e v e n u e ” o r “ th e n e t p ro f it m a d e o n s o m e th in g ” ). W hen s t atut oryl anguage “i s s us cept i bl e t o di ffe r enti nt erpr et at i ons , w e mustl ook t o t he98

s urr oundi ng w or ds and pr ovi s i ons and thei rcont ext . ” T a v a re z v . Klin g e n sm ith , 372 F. 3d 1 8 8 , 1 9 0 ( 3 d C i r . 2 0 0 4 ) ( n o t i n g “ c a r d i n a l ru l e th a ta s t a tu t e i s t o b e r e a d a s a w h o l e ” ) . We m us tthen det erm i ne w hetherboth defi ni t i ons , w hen r ead i n the cont extof the r emai nder o f th e p ro v is io n , re m a in a p p lic a b le . See Santos , 1 2 8 S . C t. at 2 0 2 4 ; V e lis v . Ka rd a n is , 949 F. 2d 78, 81 ( 3d C i r . 1991) ( as s ert i ng thati nt erpr et i ng courts houl d al s o cons i der c o n te x t o f

s ta tu to ry la n g u a g e ). T h is is w h e re § 8 5 3 (a ) d iv e rg e s f ro m th e a n a ly sis o f

1 8 U .S .C . § 1 9 5 6 (a )(1 ) in Sant os . I f w e w er e t o defi ne “pr ocee ds ” as pr ofi t s , w e w oul d r enderthe t erm s uper fl uous beca us e anotherpr ovi s i on i n § 853( a) perm i t s i m pos i t i on of a f i ne aga i ns ta def

endant w ho “deri ves profit s or other proceeds” in an am ou nt “notm ore than tw i ce t he g ross pr ofi t s orotherpr ocee ds . ” 21 U . S. C . § 853( a) . I f “pr ocee ds ” means pr ofi t s , then the fi ne w o u ld b e im p o se d a g a in st a d e f e n d a n t w h o “ d e riv e s p ro f its o r o th e r [ p ro f

its]” a n d c o u ld be no gr eat erthan “tw i ce the gr os s pr ofi t s orother[pr ofi t s ] , ” r ender i ng the pr ovi s i on re d u n d a n t. B e c a u se w e c a n n o t d e f in e a sta tu to ryter m in a m a n n e r w h ich re n d e rs it s uper fl uous , w e conc l ude that“pr ocee ds ” i n § 853( a) m eans “r ece i pt s . ” See Tavar ez , 372 F. 3d at190 ( “I f pos s i bl e, w e mustgi ve ef fec tt o everycl aus e and w or d of a s t atut e, and be r el uct antt o t r eats t atut oryt erm s as s urpl us age. ”) ( quot at i on m arks , al t er at i ons , and cit ati o n s o m itted). C o n seq u en tl y , the D istri ct C o u rtd id n o t err i n en teri n g a f o rfe itu re o r d e re q u a l t o th e g r o s s r e c e i p t s o f th e d ru g c o n s p i r a c y.99

C ontr aryt o N apol i ’ s ar gum ent , w e ar e notbound bythe Supr eme C our t ’ s hol di ng i n Sant os . M os tnot abl y , the C our tw as i nt erpr et i ng a di ffe r ents t atut e i n a di ffe r ent s e c tio n o f

th e U n ite d S ta te s C o d e . See Santos , 128 S. C t . at2023 ( cons trui ng pr ovi s i on of f e d e ra l m o n e ylau n d e rin g sta tu te, 1 8 U .S .C . § 1 9 5 6 (a )(1 )). F u rth e r, a te rm w ith m u lti p le m e a n in g s d o e s n o t a lw a y s re ta in its d e f in itio n f ro m o n e s ta tu te to a n o th e r. See Sec. I nd us. A ss’ n v. B d. of G overno rs of Fed. R eserve Sys. , 4 6 8 U . S . 1 3 7 , 1 7 4 -75 (19 8 4 ) (O ’C o n n o r, J . , di s s ent i ng) ( “C ongr es s need not , and fr equent l ydoes not , us e the s ame t erm t o m ean p rec isel ythe s am e thin g in tw o d iffe ren t st atutes . . . . ”). I n ad d it ion , the s tatu tory fr amew or k i n Sant os di d notpr es entthe s ame r edundanc yi s s ue pr es enti n § 853( a) . T he m o n e y -l a u n d e ri n g s ta tu te o n ly u s e d th e te rm p ro c e e d s th ro u g h o u t, s ee 18 U . S. C . § 1956; Sant os , 128 S. C t . at2024, w her eas the C om pr ehens i ve D rug A bus e Pr event i on and Co n tr o l Ac tu s e s b o th p r o c e e d s a n d p r o f i t s , a n d a s i n d i c a t e d a b o v e , u s e s b o th i n th e s a me s u b s e c tio n , s ee 2 1 U .S .C . § 8 5 3 (a ). F u rt h e rm o re , Sant os in v o k e d th e ru le o f len ityin in te rp re tin g a c ri m in a l s ta tu te , Sant os , 128 S. C t . at2025, w her eas § 853 i s a cr i m i nal f o rf e itu re p ro v is io n a n d d o e s n o t d e f in e a s u b s ta n tiv e c ri m in a l o f f e n s e , s ee Li br et t iv. U ni t ed Stat es , 516 U . S. 29, 39 ( 1995) ( “[C]r i m i nal for fei tur e [i ] s an as pectof puni s hm ent im p o se d f

o llo w in g c o n v ictio n o f

a su b sta n tiv e c rim in a l o f f e n se .”), a n d it i n stru c ts c o u rts thati t s “pr ovi s i ons . . . s hal l be l i ber al l ycons trued t o eff ectuat e i t s r emedi al purpos es , ” 21 U .S .C . § 8 5 3 (o ); s ee U

ni t ed Stat es v. V

am pi r e N at i on , 4 5 1 F . 3 d 1 8 9 , 2 0 2 n . 1 2 (3d C ir .100

2 0 0 6 ); see al

so U ni t ed Stat es v. F l eet , 498 F. 3d 1225, 1230 ( 11th C i r . 2007) ( “The rem ed ial p u rpo se o f § 8 5 3 is t o en fo rce ‘th e o ld ad ag e tha t cri m e d o es n o t pay . ’”). Fi nal l y , defi ni ng pr ocee ds as r ece i pt s i s cons i s t entw i th how othercourt s have d e f in e d th e te rm . See U

ni t ed Stat es v. B ucci , 582 F. 3d 108, 124 ( 1s tC i r . 2009) (ap p rov ing juryinstruction that d ef ined “p roc ee d s” in § 8 5 3 (a) as “ g ross p roc ee d s”); U ni t ed Stat es v. McH

an , 1 0 1 F . 3 d 1 0 2 7 , 1 0 4 1 -42 (4th C ir . 1 9 9 6 ) (de fin ing § 8 5 3 ’s re f e re n c e to “ p ro c e e d s ” a s g ro s s p ro c e e d s , n o t p ro f its ). B uts ee U

ni t ed Stat es v. Mc C a rr o ll , N o. 95- C R - 48, 1996 U . S. D i s t . L E X I S 8975, at*22- 25 ( N . D . I l l . J une 19, 1 9 9 6 ) (de d u cti n g co st of d rug s fro m g ross p roc ee d s to d eterm ine f o rfe itu re a m o u n t) ; U n itedS ta tes v . Mili c ia , 769 F. Supp. 877, 888, 890 ( E . D . Pa. 1991) ( r el y i ng on i nt erpr et at i ons of otherfor fei tur e pr ovi s i ons t o concl ude “pr ocee ds ” under§ 853( a) m ea n s rev en u e less c o st of g o o d s so ld). F o r th ese rea so n s, w e w il l aff irm the D istri ct C o u rt ’s ca lculati o n o f th e f o rfe itu re a m o u n t. b. D rug Q uant i tyand Enhancement s Found byPr eponder ance N apol i ar gues thatthe D i s tr i ctC our tvi ol at ed hi s Si xth A m endmentr i ghtt o a tr i al b yju ryw h e n it d e ter m in e d th e d ru g q u a n titya ttribu tab le to h im a n d o th e r e n h a n c e m e n ts bya pr eponder ance of the evi dence s t andar d. N ot abl y , N apol i does notcont end thatt he s ubs t ance of the court ’ s fi ndi ngs w er e err oneous . T he G overnm entcont ends thatthe c o u rt ’s a c tio n is c o n s is te n t w ith th e s ta te o f th e la w a n d , th e re f

o re , w a s n o t e rr o n e o u s .101

W e agree w i th the G ov ernm ent and w i l l affirm the D i stri ctC ou rt ’s fi nd i ng s. W e r evi ew the D i s tr i ctC our t ’ s fac tual fi ndi ngs r el evantt o the G ui del i nes forcl ear e rr o r a n d e x e rc is e p le n a ry re v ie w o v e r t h e c o u rt ’s in te rp re ta tio n o f th e G u id e lin e s . U ni t ed Stat es v. G r i er , 475 F. 3d 556, 570 ( 3d C i r . 2006) ( en banc ) . I n G r i er , w e hel d t hat o n ce the ju ryfin d s the fa cts reg ard ing the e lem en ts of an o ff en se, tri g g ering the s tatu tory m axi m um s ent ence , the j udge mayi m pos e a s ent ence anyw her e underthatm axi m um w ith o u t a ju ry d e te rm in a tio n b e y o n d a re a s o n a b le d o u b t. I d. a t 5 6 1 . A s s u c h , fa c ts re lev a n t to a p p lica tio n o f th e G u id e lin e s, w h ich d o n o t in c re a se th e m a x im u m p e n a ltyto w hi ch the def

endanti s expos ed, do nottr i ggerconce rns forthe def endant ’ s r i ght s t o a ju ry tria l a n d p ro o f

b e y o n d a re a s o n a b le d o u b t. I d. M or eover , j udi ci al fac t - fi ndi ng i n t he cour s e of s el ect i ng a s ent ence w i thi n the perm i s s i bl e r ange doe s notoffe nd Fi fth and S ix th A m e n d m e n t r ig h ts . I d. at565- 66. W e have not ed thes e pr i nci pl es ext end t o the c o u rt’s f in d in g s re g a rd in g d ru g q u a n titya ttribu tab le to th e d e f e n d a n t. U

ni t ed Stat es v. W ise , 5 1 5 F . 3 d 2 0 7 , 2 1 9 n . 7 (3d C ir . 2 0 0 8 ). In this case, the juryfou nd N apo l i gu i l tyof co nspir acyt o d i stri bu t e and po sses s w ith in ten t to d istrib u te m o re th a n 5 0 0 g ra m s o f m e th a m p h e tam in e , the lar g e st q u a n tity c o v e re d b yth e a p p lic a b le s ta tu te . See 21 U . S. C . § 841( b) ( 1) ( A ) . T he s t atut orym axi m um s e n te n c e f

o r t h is c o n v ic tio n is lif

e im p ri s o n m e n t. See i d. T hus , anyfi ndi ng of fa ct r el evantt o t he G ui del i nes i n thi s cas e w oul d noti ncr eas e the maxi m um penal tyt o w hi ch N a p o li w a s e x p o s e d . See G r i er , 475 F. 3d at561. A ccor di ngl y , the D i s tr i ctC our tw as102

en ti tl ed to f

ind the d rug q u an ti tyan d ap p li ca b il ityo f e n h an ce m en ts un d er a pr eponder ance of the evi dence s t andar d, s o l ong as ther e w er e s uffi ci enti ndi ci a of re lia b ility to s u p p o rt its p ro b a b le a c c u ra c y . See U ni t ed Stat es v. G i van , 320 F. 3d 452, 463 ( 3d C i r . 2003) . N ot abl y , N apol i does notchal l enge the ac cur acyof thos e fi ndi ngs , and we f i n d th a tth e r e we r e s u f

f i c i e n ti n d i c a o f

r e l i a b i l i tys u p p o r t i n g th e m. Ac c o r d i n g l y , we w i l l aff i r m the D i s tr i ctC our t ’ s appl i cat i on of the G ui del i nes bya pr eponder ance of the evi dence . c . D ru g Q u a n tityD isp a rity N apol i ar gues thatthe D i s tr i ctC our terr ed byfai l i ng “t o cons i derthe i nequi tyof th e s e n te n c in g d is p a ri ty” i n th e G u id e lin e s f o r m e th a m p h e ta m in e a n d p o w d e r c o c a in e . ( N apol i B r . 73. ) H e cont ends thatthe di s par i tyi s contr aryt o pol i cycons i der at i ons . T he G o v e rn m e n t co n stru e s N a p o li’s a rg u m e n t as a n a ttac k a g a in st th e re a so n a b len e ss o f h is sen tenc e a n d the p rop ri etyo f th e D istri ct C o u rt ’s sen tenc ing p roc ed u re. W e w il l aff irm N apol i ’ s s ent ence . I n the cont extof the cr ack/pow dercoca i ne 100: 1 di s par i ty , the Supr eme C our thas sta ted th a t d istric t co u rts m a yc o n sid e r su c h d isp a rityin d e ter m in in g a n a p p ro p ria te s e n te n c e . See Ki m br ough v. U ni t ed Stat es , 552 U . S. 85, 91 ( 2007) . M or eover , di s tr i ct court s w oul d notabus e thei rdi s cr et i on i f theyconcl uded the di s par at e s ent ence y i el ded a s e n te n c e g re a te r t h a n n e c e s s a ry. I d. at110. T hus , the C our thas s anct i oned cons i der at i on o f th e d is p a ri ty f

ro m a p o lic yp e rs p e c tiv e . See Spe ars v. U ni t ed Stat es , 129 S. C t . 840,103

8 4 3 -44 (20 0 9 ) (“[W ]e n o w clarifythat d istri ct co u rt s are en ti tl ed to rejec t and v ary cat egor i cal l yfr om the cr ack- coca i ne G ui del i nes bas ed on a pol i cy d isa g re e m e n t w ith thos e G ui del i nes . ”) ( percur i am) ( emphasi s added) . E ven as s um i ng the s ame concerns w o u ld a rise f

o r th e 1 0 :1 m e th a m p h e tam in e /co c a in e d isp a rity , itw o u ld still m e re lyp e rm it th e D is tr ic t C o u rt to c o n s id e r i t a s ju s t a n o th e r f a c to r i n im p o s in g a n a p p ro p ri a te s e n te n c e . See, e. g. , USS G § 2 D1 . 1 ( c ) ( 1 ) ( e s t a b l i s h i n g b a s e o f f e n s e l e v e l f

o ra tl e a s t1 5 0 k i l o g r a ms o f c o c a i n e , t e n t i me s l a r g e rth a n me th a mp h e t a mi n e mi n i mu m o f 1 5 k i l o g r a ms f

o rs a me offe ns e l evel ) ; 18 U . S. C . § 3553( a) ( 4) ( s ett i ng es t abl i s hed G ui del i nes r ange a s fac t orfor s e n te n c in g c o u rt to c o n s id e r) . A ccor di ngl y , the i s s ue then bec om es , as the G overnm entr ecogni zes , w hethert he D i s tr i ctC our tcompl i ed w i th i t s pr ocedur al and s ubs t ant i ve obl i gat i ons i n i m pos i ng N a p o li’ s s e n te n c e . W e re v ie w th e D is tr ic t C o u rt ’s s e n te n c e f o r a n a b u s e o f

d is c re tio n . See G al lv. U

ni t ed Stat es , 5 5 2 U .S . 3 8 , 4 1 (2 0 0 7 ); U ni t ed Stat es v. Tom ko , 562 F. 3d 558, 5 6 7 (3 d C ir . 2 0 0 9 ) ( e n b a n c ). W e e n g a g e in a p ro c e d u ra l a n d s u b s ta n tiv e re v ie w o f s e n te n c e s . See U

ni t ed Stat es v. Les s ner , 498 F. 3d 185, 203 ( 3d C i r . 2007) . Pr ocedur al l y , the D i s tr i ctC our tm us t( 1) corr ect l ycal cul at e the appl i cabl e G ui del i nes r ange; ( 2) form al l yrul e on the mot i ons of both part i es and s t at e on the r ecor d w hetherthe courti s gr ant i ng a depa r tur e and how t hat d e p a r tu r e e f

f e c t s th e Gu i d e l i n e s r a n g e ; a n d ( 3 ) c o n s i d e ra l l o f th e f a c t o r s u n d e r1 8 U. S . C.T hes e fa ct or s i ncl ude: ( 1) the natur e and c i r cumst ance s of the off ens e and the 45 d e f e n d a n t’s h isto ry ; (2 ) th e n e e d to re f lec t th e se rio u sn e ss o f

th e c rim e a n d to a d e q u a tely det ercr i m i nal conduct ; ( 3) the ava i l abl e s ent ence s ; ( 4) the es t abl i s hed s ent enci ng r ange; ( 5) anypert i nents ent enci ng pol i ci es ; ( 6) the nee d t o avoi d s ent enci ng di s par i t i es ; and ( 7) the n ee d to p rov ide re sti tuti o n to v ict im s. 1 8 U . S . C . § 3 5 5 3 (a)(1)-(7). 104 § 3553( a) and ade quat el yexpl ai n the chos en s ent ence i n a mannerthatal l ow s for

45 m e a n in g f

u l a p p e lla te c o u rt re v ie w o f th e re a s o n a b le n e s s o f

th e s e n te n c e . S e e G a ll , 552 U .S . at 4 9 -5 0 ; U

ni t ed Stat es v. G unt er , 462 F. 3d 237, 247 ( 3d C i r . 2006) . T he s ent enci ng courts houl d s etfor th enough t o s at i s fythe r evi ew i ng courtthati thas cons i der ed the part i es ’ ar gum ent s and has a r eas oned bas i s forexer ci s i ng i t s ow n l egal deci s i on- m aki ng a u th o ri ty. R i ta v. U

ni t ed Stat es , 5 5 1 U .S . 3 3 8 , 3 5 6 (2 0 0 7 ); s ee U ni t ed Stat es v. Jack

s on , 46 7 F . 3d 83 4, 84 1 (3d C i r. 20 06 ) ( st at i ng cou rtm ustrecogn i ze and res po nd t o p art i es’ n o n -frivo lou s arg u m en ts) . Subst ant i vel y , w e mustbe s at i s fi ed thatthe D i s tr i ctC our texer ci s ed i t s di s cr et i on bycon si deri ng the rel evan t§ 3 55 3(a) fact ors and w e m ustal so ascert ai n w hethertho se f a c to rs w e re re a s o n a b ly ap p lie d to th e c ir c u m s ta n c e s o f th e c a s e . See U

ni t ed Stat es v. C ooper , 437 F. 3d 324, 329- 30 ( 3d C i r . 2006) . “U l t i m at el y , the t ouchs t one of r eas onabl enes s i s w hetherthe r ecor d as a w hol e r efl ect s r at i onal and meani ngful cons i der at i on of the fa ct or s enumer at ed i n 18 U . S. C . § 3553( a) . ” Tom ko , 562 F. 3d at568 ( quot at i on m arks and al t er at i on om i t t ed) . T he s ent enci ng courtneed not“di s cus s and m ake f i ndi ngs as t o eac h of the § 3553( a) fac t or s i f the record m akes cl earthe courtt ook the fa ct or s i nt o acc ounti n s ent enci ng. ” I d. ( quot at i on m arks om i t t ed) . “[T] he s ubs t ant i veForthi s r eas on, w e nee d notaddr es s the G overnm ent ’ s ar gum entthatthe D i s tr i ct 46 C ou rt ’s fai l ure t o ex pli ci t l yadd res s the d i spari tyargum ent w as harm l ess. 105 r eas onabl enes s of ea ch s ent ence m us tbe eva l uat ed on i t s ow n t erm s , bas ed on the r eas ons thatthe di s tr i ctcourtpr ovi ded, i n l i ghtof the part i cul arfac t s and ci r cumst ance s of that cas e. ” I d. a t 5 7 4 ; s ee i d. at567 ( s t at i ng courtm us tfocus on the t ot al i tyof the circu m stan ce s). A f ter re v iew in g th e re c o rd w e a re sa tisf ied th e D istric t C o u rt c o m p lied w ith its pr ocedur al obl i gat i ons r egar di ng N apol i ’ s s ent ence . T he courtacc ur at el ycal cul at ed N apol i ’ s s ent ence underthe G ui del i nes , rul ed on N apol i ’ s onl ym ot i on fordepartur e, pr ovi ded meani ngful anal y s i s underthe § 3553 fa ct or s , and ade quat el yexpl ai ned the c h o s e n s e n te n c e . Subst ant i vel y , the D i s tr i ctC our tact ed r eas onabl yand di d notabus e i t s di s cr et i on i n i m pos i ng a s ent ence bel ow the G ui del i nes r ange. N apol i as s ert s thatthe courterr ed by fai l i ng t o t ake i nt o acc ountthe “i nequi tyof the [10: 1] s ent enci ng di s par i ty ” betw een m et ham ph et am i ne an d co cai ne. (N apo l i B r. 73 . ) Th e cou rt , ho w ever, need no tadd res s eac h § 3553( a) fac t ors o l ong as i ti s cl earfr om the r ecor d the courtcons i der ed the part i es’ argum ents . Tom ko , 562 F. 3d at568. A ccor di ng t o the Supr eme C our t , the drug 46 d ispa ri tyis on e su ch fa ctor the co u rtm ay , b u t nee d n o t, co n side r. In th is case , the c o u rt hear d and compr ehende d N apol i ’ s ar gum enton the i s s ue and ul t i m at el yi m pos ed a sen tenc e b elow the G u idelines ran g e. T h e D istri ct C o u rtclea rl yco n side red the n ature and s er i ous nes s of the cr i m es , as w el l as the att endantvi ol ence , as the mosti m por t antN apol i ’ s ar gum entm akes no r efe r ence t o the G overnm ent ’ s B r i ef a nd does not 47 otherw i se appe ar t o respon d to anyof the G ov ernm ent’ s ar gu m ents . 106 fac t or s . I ti s cl earfr om the r ecor d thatthe courtgave r at i onal and meani ngful cons i der at i on t o the § 3553( a) fac t or s , i ncl udi ng N apol i ’ s di s par i tyar gum ent . T her efor e, we f i n d th e s e n t e n c e r e a s o n a b l e a n d wi l l a f f i r m. d . S e n t e n c e Ex c e e d e d S t a tu t o ryM a x i mu ms In h is R e p lyB rie f

, N a p o li co n ten d s th a t th e D istric t C o u rt e rre d b yse n ten c in g h im t o 432- m ont hs ’ i m pr i s onm enton al l count s , ther ebyexce edi ng the s t atut orym axi m um for several of h i s conv i ct i on s. N o tw ith sta n d in g th e f

a c t th a t N a p o li w a iv e d th is a rg u m e n t b yf a ili n g to p re se n t it i n hi s i ni t i al br i ef, i ti s w i thoutm er i tand mi s under s t ands the D i s tr i ctC our t ’ s act i on att he s ent enci ng hear i ng. S e e P e lu llo , 3 9 9 F . 3 d at 22 2 (“It i s w ell sett led th at an ap p ell an t’ s 47 fai l ur e t o i dent i fyorar gue an i s s ue i n hi s openi ng br i ef c ons t i tut es w ai verof thati s s ue on appea l . ”) . N apol i cont ends thatU SSG § 5G 1. 2 pr ecl uded the D i s tr i ctC our tfr om im p o s in g a s e n te n c e o n a c o u n t w h ic h e x c e e d s th e s ta tu to ry m a x im u m f o r t h e o f f e n s e . F o re x a mp l e , Na p o l i a r g u e s th a th i s VI CAR c o n v i c t i o n s c a rr i e d a twe n ty - y e a rma x i mu m, w h ic h th e c o u rt ’s 4 3 2 -m o n th s e n te n c e c le a rl ye x c e e d s . C o n tr a ry to N a p o li’ s a s s e rt io n , § 5 G 1 . 2 ad d resse s situ ati o n s w h ere the to tal p u n ishm en t exc ee d s all ap p li ca b le st atuto ry m a x im u m s , th e re b yn e c e s s ita tin g c o n s e c u tiv e s e n te n c e s to im p o s e th e to ta l p u n is h m e n t. See U ni t ed Stat es v. McLeod , 2 5 1 F .3 d 7 8 , 8 2 (2 d C ir. 2 0 0 1 ). T h e to tal p u n ish m e n t, i n turn, i s cal cul at ed bas ed on the combi ned off ens e l evel under§ 3D 1. 4, w hi ch governs t he107

o f f e n s e -l e v e l c a lc u la tio n f o r m u ltip le o f

f e n s e s . See U SSG § 3D 1. 5. A s i ndi cat ed above , § 3D 1. 4( c) di r ect ed the courtt o di s r egar d N apol i ’ s otherconvi ct i ons , w hi ch i tdi d. I f the s t atut orym axi m um forthe convi ct i on carry i ng the hi ghes tm axi m um e x c e e d s th e to ta l p u n is h m e n t, th e n a ll s e n te n c e s w ill r u n c o n c u rr e n tly. See US S G § 5 G 1 .2 (c ) & c o m m e n t. (n .1 ); U ni t ed Stat es v. V

elas quez , 3 0 4 F . 3 d 2 3 7 , 2 4 1 (3d C ir . 2002) . T he s t atut orym axi m um i m pos ed forthe drug cons pi r acyconvi ct i on coi nci des w i th the G ui del i nes ’ t ot al puni s hm entof l i fe i m pr i s onm ent . Fur ther , none of the other a p p lic a b le s ta tu te s m a n d a te s a c o n s e c u tiv e s e n te n c e in th is c a s e . See U SSG § 5G 1. 2( c) ( not i ng s ent ence s w i l l notrun concurr ent l yi f appl i cabl e s t atut e mandat es cons ecut i ve se n ten c e s); 1 8 U .S .C . § 8 9 4 (a )(2 ); i d. § 9 2 2 (g )(1 ); i d. § 1959( a) ( 3) . A s s uch, al l other sent ences w ou l d run co ncu rr entl y . T herefore, N apo l i ’s sent ence o f 43 2-m on ths’ im p riso n m e n t co m p lies w ith th e G u id e lin e s a n d h is a rg u m e n t o f e rro r la c k s m e rit. 2. H ei l m an a. C ri m inal H ist o ryD ep arture In se n tenc ing H eil m an , the D istri ct C o u rtg ran ted a o n e-lev el do w n w ard d ep arture f o r H e ilm a n ’s c rim in a l h isto ryc a teg o ryo f V I b e c a u se it fo u n d h is c a teg o ry“ su b sta n tially ov er- repr esent s the seri ou sness of [his ] cr i m i nal hi st oryand , therefore, [reduced his ] cr i m i nal hi s t orycat egoryt o [V ] . ” ( R . at564A . ) T he courtnot ed i tw as l i m i t ed t o a onel evel cr i m i nal hi s t orydepartur e underthe G ui del i nes beca us e of H ei l m an’ s car eer offe nders t atus . Fur ther , the courtas s ert ed, and H ei l m an’ s couns el agr eed, thatan108

offe ns e- l evel departur e i s a s epar at e i s s ue. O n a p p e a l, H e ilm a n a rg u e s th a t th e D istric t C o u rt e rre d b e c a u se it “m ista k e n ly b e lie v e d th a t it c o u ld o n ly d e p a rt d o w n w a rd b yo n e c ri m in a l h is to ry c a te g o ry le v e l . . . and coul d notr educe the s ent enci ng l evel . ” ( H ei l m an B r . 23- 24. ) H ei l m an cont ends t hat th e lim itatio n in § 4 A 1 .3 (b )(3 ) “ re late s to th e c rim in a l h isto ryo n lya n d d o e s n o t li m it departur es i n the off

ens e l evel . ” (I

d. at 24 . ) T h e G o v ern m en t r esp o n d s tha t H eil m an ’s r el i ance on U

ni t ed Stat es v. Shoupe , 35 F. 3d 835 ( 3d C i r . 1994) , w hi ch perm i t t ed cr i m i nal hi s t oryand off

ens e l evel departur es , i s m i s pl ace d i n l i ghtof an a m endmentt o the G u idelines eli m inating o ff en se lev el de p artures u n d er § 4 A 1 . 3 (b). W e w i l l aff

i r m the D i s tr i ctC our t ’ s one- l evel cr i m i nal hi s t orydepartur e. A l though w e di s m i s s ed the G overnm ent ’ s pr es entar gum enton thi s i s s ue i n U ni t ed Stat es v. G r i er , 5 8 5 F .3 d 1 3 8 (3 d C ir . 2 0 0 9 ), G r i er ’ s concl us i on pr ecl udes H ei l m an’ s ar gum entforan o ff en se lev el de p arture u n d er § 4 A 1 . 3 (b)(1 ). “If reli ab le i n fo rm ati o n ind icates tha t th e d ef en d an t’ s crim inal h ist o ryca tego ry s ubs t ant i al l yover - r epr es ent s the s er i ous nes s of the def endant ’ s cr i m i nal hi s t oryorthe l i kel i hood thatthe def

endantw i l l comm i tothercr i m es , a dow nw ar d departur e maybe w a rr a n te d .” U S S G § 4 A 1 .3 (b )( 1 ). H o w e v e r, “ [ t] h e e x te n t o f a d o w n w a rd d e p a rt u re . . . fora ca r eeroffe nder. . . m aynotexce ed one c r i m i nal hi s t orycat egory . ” I d. § 4 A 1 .3 (b )( 3 )( A ). I n G r i er , w e hel d that“the 2003 amendm entt o U SSG § 1B 1. 1, w hi ch adde d a109

defi ni t i on of ‘ departur e’ forpurpos es of § 4A 1. 3, pr ohi bi t s di s tr i ctcourt s fr om m aki ng d o w n w a rd d e p a rtu re s in o f f e n se lev e l an d su p e rse d e s o u r p rio r h o ld in g to th e c o n tra ryin Shoupe . ” 5 8 5 F .3 d a t 1 4 5 ; s ee U SSG § 1B 1. 1 comm ent . ( n. 1( E ) ) ( defi ni ng “depa r tur e” forpurpos es of § 4A 1. 3 t o m ean “ as s i gnm entof a cri m i na lhis t ory category otherthan the otherw i s e appl i cabl e cri m i na lhis t ory category , i n or dert o eff ecta s ent ence out s i de the appl i cabl e gui del i ne r ange” ) ( emphase s added) . W e r eas oned that“the i ncl us i on of cr i m i nal hi s t orycat egoryi n t he def i ni t i on w i thoutm ent i on of off ens e l evel expr es s es t he C om m i s s i on’ s i nt entt o pr ecl ude off ens e l evel departur es under§ 4A 1. 3. ” G r i er , 585 F. 3d at143. A nd w e not ed that“[w ] hi l e § 4A 1. 3( b) ( 3) ( A ) l i m i t s the extent of a dow nw ar d departur e under§ 4A 1. 3, i ti s the def i ni t i onal amendm entat§ 1B 1. 1 that l i m i t s the t

ype of depa r tur e ava i l abl e under§ 4A 1. 3. ” I d. A cc o rdin g ly , the D istri ct C o u rt d id n o t err i n d ec li n ing H eil m an ’s req u est t o g ran t an o ff en se lev el de p arture u n d er § 4 A 1 . 3 (b). T he co urtal so did not err i n d epart i ng on l yon e cri m i nal hi st orycat ego ry . B ecause the c o u rtco n clud ed , an d H eil m an d o es n o t dispu te, that h e is a c are er o ff en d er u n d er § 4B 1. 1 bas ed on hi s pr i orconvi ct i ons , the courtcoul d notgr anta depa r tur e i n exce s s of o n e c ri m in a l h is to ry c a te g o ry. See U S S G § 4 A 1 .3 (b )(3 )(A ); s ee al s o W i l l i am s v. U

ni t ed Stat es , 50 3 U . S . 19 3, 20 1 (199 2) ( ho l ding t hat w here po l i cyst at em ent pr oh i bit s a s peci fi ed ac t i on, i ti s an author i t at i ve gui de t o the meani ng of the appl i cabl e G ui del i ne a n d f a ilu re to f

o llo w it co u ld re su lt i n a n in c o rre c t ap p lica tio n o f th e law ); U

ni t ed Stat es v.110

Fr eem an , 3 1 6 F .3 d 3 8 6 , 3 9 0 n .3 (3 d C ir . 2 0 0 3 ) ( n o tin g § 4 A 1 .3 is a n a u th o ri ta tiv e g u id e ). T herefore, the D i stri ctC ou rtproperl yapp l i ed the G uidel i nes. b. R eas onabl enes s of Sent ence W e re v ie w th e D is tr ic t C o u rt ’s s e n te n c e f o r a n a b u s e o f

d is c re tio n , se e G a ll , 552 U .S . at 4 1 ; Tom ko , 562 F. 3d at567, and as k w hetherthe fi nal s ent ence w as pr emi s ed on a p p ro p ri a te ju d ic io u s c o n s id e ra tio n o f th e re le v a n t f

a c to rs , U ni t ed Stat es v. Schw ei t

z er , 454 F. 3d 197, 204 ( 3d C i r . 2006) . W e r evi ew both the court ’ s pr ocedur e and the s u b s ta n c e o f

th e s e n te n c e . See Les s ner , 498 F. 3d at203. T h e D istri ct C o u rtsati sfied it s p roc ed u ral ob li g ati o n s in this ca se. T h e c o u rt corr ect l ynot ed the bas e off ens e l evel fora drug cons pi r acyconvi ct i on i nvol vi ng 454 g ra m s (o n e p o u n d ) o f

m e th a m p h e ta m in e is th ir ty (3 0 ). See U S S G § 2 D 1 .1 (c )(5 ); see al so G r i er , 475 F. 3d at561 ( hol di ng thatdi s tr i ctcourtm ayfi nd fac t s r el evantt o s ent enci ng by pr eponder ance of the evi dence w i thoutvi ol at i ng r i ghtt o j urytr i al , s o l ong as fi ndi ngs do notel evat e s ent ence bey ond s t atut orym axi m um ) . T he courtal s o appl i ed a tw o- l evel enhanc ementforpos s es s i on of a da nger ous w eapon i n connec t i on w i th the drug c o n s p ir a c y . T h e c o u rt th e n f o u n d th a t H e ilm a n is a c a re e r o f f e n d e r u n d e r U S S G § 4 B 1 .1 beca us e ( 1) he w as overthe age of ei ght een a tthe t i m e of the i ns t antoffe ns e, ( 2) the i ns t antoffe ns e conc erned a c ontr ol l ed s ubs t ance , and ( 3) H ei l m an has atl eas ttw o pr i or f e lo n yc o n v ic tio n s f

o r c ri m e s o f

v io le n c e o r c o n tr o lle d s u b s ta n c e s . See U S S G § 4 B 1 .1 (a ). A ccor di ngl y , the courtw as r equi r ed t o, and di d, i ncr eas e the off ens e l evel t o thi r ty - fourH ei l m an al s o ar gues thatthe D i s tr i ctC ourti m pr oper l yappl i ed a tw o- l evel 48 enhanc ementforpos s es s i on of a da nger ous w eapon i n connec t i on w i th the drug c o n s p ir a c y . See U S S G § 2 D 1 . 1 (b)(1 ). Inso fa r as tha t enh an ce m en t i n cre ase s H eil m an ’s off ense l evel t o thi rty -tw o (32), w hereas hi s car eer- off end er s t atus m and at es an of fense l evel of thi r ty - four( 34) , w e nee d notcons i derthe pr opr i etyof appl y i ng the dange r ous w eapon e nhance m ent . N everthel es s , w e fi nd no err ori n the D i s tr i ctC o urt ’ s appl i cat i on of th e e n h a n c e m e n t w ith re s p e c t to th e k n iv e s , s w o rd s , d a g g e r, a n d p ic k a x e . See U ni t ed Stat es v. D r odz ow s ki , 3 1 3 F . 3 d 8 1 9 , 8 2 2 -24 (3d C ir . 2 0 0 2 ). 111 (3 4 ) in lig h t o f

th e sta tu to rym a x im u m se n ten c e o f f o rtyy e a rs’ im p riso n m e n t. See 48 U SSG § 4B 1. 1( b) ; 21 U . S. C . § 841. B eca us e H ei l m an i s a ca r eeroffe nder , hi s cr i m i nal h is to ry c a te g o ry is a u to m a tic a lly V I. See U SSG § 4B 1. 1( b) . T he court , how ever , r educe d h is c rim in a l h isto ryc a teg o ryto V b e c a u se it fo u n d th e c a teg o ryo v e r-re p re se n ted h is re c o rd . See U SSG § 4A 1. 3( b) . T he G ui del i nes r ange f oran off ens e l evel of thi r ty - four (3 4 ) a n d a c rim in a l h isto ryc a teg o ryo f V is 2 3 5 to 2 9 3 m o n th s, w h ich th e c o u rt c o rre c tly n o ted . T h e D istric t C o u rt a lso c o n sid e re d H e ilm a n ’s a d d iti o n a l d e p a rtu re re q u e st f o r h is m e d ica l co n d iti o n s, w h ich th e c o u rt d id n o t g ra n t. F in a lly , the C o u rt a d e q u a telyc o n sid e re d th e § 3 5 5 3 (a ) f a c to rs a n d su f

f icie n tly expl ai ned i t s chos en s ent ence atthe bott om of the es t abl i s hed G ui del i nes r ange. T he cou rtreci t ed eac h o f t he fa ct ors and t hen con cl ud ed thata sent ence o f 23 5-m on ths’ i m pr i s onm entw as appr opr i at e underthe t ot al i tyof the ci r cumst ance s , cons i der i ng the natur e and s er i ous nes s of the cr i m e comm i t t ed, the nee d t o det ercr i m i nal conduct , the n e e d to p ro te c t s o c ie ty f ro m d ru g s a n d H e ilm a n , a n d H e ilm a n ’s h is to ry a n d c h a ra c te r. F u rth er, th e c o u rtco n side red an d resp o n d ed to the p arti es’ a rgu m en ts, n o tablyH eil m an ’s age a nd m edi cal hi s t ory , H ei l m an’ s cr i m i nal hi s t ory , and t es t i m onyand evi denceIn i t s bri ef, the G ov ernm ent i nv i t es us t o ad op ta presum pti on of reasonab l eness 49 fora s ent ence w i thi n the G ui del i nes r ange. T her e i s no r eas on t o acc epts uch an i nvi t at i on i n t hi s cas e bec aus e the D i s tr i ctC our t ’ s s ent ence i s pat ent l yr eas onabl e. 112 reg ard ing H eil m an ’s ch ara cter. W e al s o fi nd thatthe D i s tr i ctC our tdi d notabus e i t s di s cr et i on i n i m pos i ng a re a s o n a b le s e n te n c e . H e ilm a n b e a rs th e b u rd e n o f d e m o n s tr a tin g u n re a s o n a b le n e s s , s ee C ooper , 437 F. 3d at332, and ther e i s no pr es um pt i on of r eas onabl enes s even i f the s e n te n c e is w ith in th e G u id e lin e s ra n g e , i d. at331- 32. 49 H e ilm a n f

o c u se s h is a rg u m e n ts o n th e su b sta n tiv e u n re a so n a b len e ss o f h is s ent ence , cont endi ng thatthe courtonl ycons i der ed the s er i ous nes s of the off ens e, fai l i ng t o addr es s hi s ot herar gum ent s . T he G overnm entar gues thatH ei l m an has fai l ed t o m eet h is bu rde n o f sh o w ing u n rea so n ab lene ss. W e a g ree w ith the G o v ern m en t and w il l aff irm the s ent ence . T her e i s nothi ng i n the r ecor d thatw oul d s ugges tthe D i s tr i ctC our t ’ s s ent ence a b u se d th e c o u rt’s d isc re tio n o r is u n re a so n a b le. T h e c o u rt w a s a n a c tiv e p a rticip a n t in the s ent enci ng col l oquy , l i s t eni ng t o the part i es ’ ar gum ent s and i nt erpos i ng r el evant quer i es , and hea r i ng t es t i m onyfr om a w i tnes s and H ei l m an. T hus , w e ca nnots aythatt he D i s tr i ctC our tfai l ed t o cons i derthe ar gum ent s r ai s ed bythe part i es . T he courti dent i fi ed the r el evants ent enci ng fac t or s and appl i ed them t o the ci r cumst ance s of thi s cas e i n a re a s o n a b le m a n n e r. See Cooper , 4 3 7 F .3 d a t 3 2 9 -3 0 ; s ee al s o Tom ko , 562 F. 3d at568 (n o tin g c o u rt n e e d n o t a d d re s s e a c h f a c to r i f c le a r f ro m re c o rd c o u rt c o n s id e re d th e m ).O n e o f th e q u e s t i o n s p r e s e n t e d b y A b b o tt i s : “D oes the t erm ‘ anyotherpr ovi s i on 50 of l aw ’ i ncl ude the under l y i ng drug tr aff i cki ng offe ns e orcr i m e of vi ol ence ?” Pet i t i on f o r W ri t o f

C e rt io ra ri a t ( i) , A bbot tv. U ni t ed Stat es , N o . 0 9 -4 7 9 (U .S . p e tit io n f o r c e rt. gr ant ed J an. 25, 2010) . T he C our tcons ol i dat ed the appe al w i th G ould v. U ni t ed Stat es , 113 I n thi s cas e, the D i s tr i ctC our tcons i der ed the t ot al i tyof the ci r cumst ance s and im p o sed a se n tenc e a t th e b o tt o m o f th e G u idelines ran g e, w ell aw are the G u idelines are advi s ory . T he courtr eas oned thatthe s ent ence w oul d addr es s the s er i ous nes s of the cr i m e, det ercr i m i nal conduct , and pr ot ects oci etyfr om drugs and H ei l m an. Fur ther , t he courtcons i der ed H ei l m an’ s hi s t oryand curr entci r cumst ance s , i ncl udi ng hi s m edi cal r ecor d, i n det erm i ni ng the s ent ence . A l though the courtdi d notexpl i ci t l yaddr es s eac h fac t or , i ti s cl earfr om the r ecor d t hati tcons i der ed them. Fi nal l y , the courtpr ovi ded j u s t i f i e d r e a s o n s f

o re i th e rg r a n t i n g o rd e c l i n i n g He i l ma n ’ s r e q u e s t e d d e p a r tu r e s . As s uch, w e conc l ude “the r ecor d as a w hol e r efl ect s r at i onal and meani ngful cons i der at i on of the fa ct or s enumer at ed, ” Tom ko , 562 F. 3d at568, and af fi r m H ei l m an’ s s ent ence . 3. J ohns on W e agr ee w i th J ohns on thatthe D i s tr i ctC our terr ed byr el y i ng on hi s pr i or c o n v i c t i o n f

o rs i mp l e a s s a u l ti n d e t e r mi n i n g th a th e wa s a c a r e e ro f f e n d e ru n d e rUS S G § 4 B1 . 1 ( a ) . We wi l l th e r e f o r e v a c a t e h i s s e n t e n c e a n d r e ma n d f o rr e - s e n t e n c i n g . On r emand, the D i s tr i ctC our ts houl d al s o be aw ar e thatthe Supr eme C our tr ece nt l ygr ant ed cert i or ar i on anothers ent enci ng i s s ue J ohns on as s ert s – the i m pos i t i on of a c ons ecut i ve s e n te n c e u n d e r § 9 2 4 (c )( 1 ). S e e U n itedS ta tes v . A b b o tt , 5 7 4 F . 3 d 2 0 3 (3d C ir . 2 0 0 9 ), cer t . gr ant ed , 1 3 0 S . C t. 1 2 8 4 (Jan . 2 5 , 2 0 1 0 ) (N o . 0 9 -47 9 ). 50wh i c h a s k s , d o e s “ a ma n d a t o r ymi n i mu m s e n t e n c e p r o v i d e d b y1 8 U. S . C. § 9 2 4 ( c ) ( 1 ) ( A)

appl [y ] t o a countw hen anothercountal r eadycarr i es a gr eat erm andat orym i ni m um se n ten c e ? ” P e tit io n f

o r W rit o f

C e rtio ra ri a t (i), N o . 0 9 -7 0 7 3 (U .S . p e tit io n f o r c e rt. g ran ted J an . 2 5 , 2 0 1 0 ). A defe ndanti s a ca r eeroffe nderi f ( 1) he ors he w as atl eas t18 atthe t i m e of the 51 i ns t antoffe ns e, ( 2) the i ns t antoffe ns e i s a fe l onyconvi ct i on forei thera cr i m e of vi ol ence ora contr ol l ed s ubs t ance offe ns e, and ( 3) he ors he has atl eas ttw o pr i orfel ony c o n v i c t i o n s f

o re i th e ra c r i me o f

v i o l e n c e o ra c o n tr o l l e d s u b s t a n c e o f f e n s e . US S G § 4 B 1 .1 (a ). “ C ri m e o f

v io le n c e ” is d e f

in e d in § 4 B 1 .2 (a ). T he D i s tr i ctC our tconcl uded J ohns on i s a ca r eeroffe nderbas ed on an a ggr avat ed as s aul tconvi ct i on and a s i m pl e as s aul tconvi ct i on. J ohns on di s put es the cha r act er i zat i on o f th e sim p le assa u ltco n v ict ion as a crim e o f v iolen ce . B ec au se w e c o n clud e Jo h n so n ’s s i m pl e as s aul tm aynotbe a c r i m e of vi ol ence , he l acks the r equi s i t e tw o pr i orconvi ct i ons t o att ai n car eeroffe nders t atus . T hus , the D i s tr i ctC our t ’ s fi ndi ng, w hi ch r es ul t ed i n an i ncr eas e of J ohns on’ s cr i m i nal hi s t orycat egoryfr om I I I t o V I ( w i th a s ubs equentonel evel departur e forover - r epr es ent at i on) , w oul d w arr anta r ever s al , even though J ohns on w a s n o n e th e le s s s e n te n c e d b e lo w th e o th e rw is e a p p lic a b le G u id e lin e s ra n g e . C f. U ni t ed Stat es v. Knight , 266 F. 3d 203, 205- 07, 208 ( 3d C i r . 2001) ( fi ndi ng appl i cat i on of erro n eo u s G u idelines ran g e a ff ec ts de fe n d an t’ s su b stan ti al ri g h ts) .

114 T he G overnm entconce des thata cr i m e comm i t t ed w i th r eckl es s nes s i s not suffici ent unde r ei ther defini t i on of “c ri m e of v i olence” i n U S S G § 4 B 1. 2(a) . Itcon t end s, how ever , thatw e s houl d r evi ew the cha r gi ng document s forJ ohns on’ s s i m pl e as s aul tand concl ude thathe comm i t t ed hi s s i m pl e as s aul ti nt ent i onal l yorknow i ngl yand, ther efor e, comm i t t ed a c r i m e of vi ol ence . W e dec l i ne the G overnm ent ’ s i nvi t at i on t o cons i dert he part i cul arfac t s of J ohns on’ s convi ct i on, and vac at e the s ent ence and r emand forr es ent enci ng. 5

1 “W e exerci se pl enaryrevi ew ov er quest i on s of l aw , such as w hethera cri m e i s a cr i m e of vi ol ence . ” U

ni t ed Stat es v. St i ns on , 592 F. 3d 460, 462 n. 1 ( 3d C i r . 2010) ( quot i ng U

n itedS ta tes v . H

u ll , 456 F. 3d 133, 137 ( 3d C i r . 2006) ) . W e mustdet erm i neP e n n sy lv a n ia s im p le a ss a u lt, p u n ish a b le b yu p to tw o y e a rs’ im p riso n m e n t, 52 s a tis f ie s th is f ir s t e le m e n t o f

a c ri m e o f

v io le n c e . See U

ni t ed Stat es v. Johns on , 587 F. 3d 2 0 3 , 2 0 9 n . 6 (3d C ir . 2 0 0 9 ). T he onl yexpl anat i on the D i s tr i ctC our toffe r ed w as that“bec aus e of the combi ned 53 ad justed o ff

en se lev el, [Jo h n so n is] d ee m ed a c are er o ff en d er u n d er the ad v isory se n ten c in g g u id e lin e s.” (R . at 5 9 8 A .) T h is d o e s n o t ex p lain h o w th e c o u rt re a c h e d its concl us i on, and ther e i s no bas i s i n the G ui del i nes fordet erm i ni ng car eer - offe nders t atus b a se d o n th e c o m b in e d a d ju ste d o f f e n se lev e l. A lth o u g h a se n ten c in g c o u rt m a yn e e d to i ncr eas e an of

fens e l evel beca us e of c ar eer - offe nders t atus , the G ui del i nes do notpr ovi de f o r t h e c o n v e rs e . See, e. g. , U S S G § 4 B 1 . 1 (b). 115 w h e th e r a c o n v ic tio n f

o r a P e n n s y lv a n ia s im p le a s s a u lt is a “ c ri m e o f v io le n c e .” A pr i orconvi ct i on i s fora “c r i m e of vi ol ence ” i f i ti s ( 1) an off ens e underfede r al o r st ate law p u n isha b le byim p ri so n m en t fo r a term ex ce ed ing o n e y ea r, that( 2) “has as 52 an el ementthe us e, att empt ed us e, orthr eat ened us e of phy s i cal for ce a gai ns tthe per s on of another ” ( the “U s e C l aus e”) or“otherw i s e i nvol ves conductthatpr es ent s a s er i ous p o te n tia l r is k o f

p h y s ic a l in

ju ry to a n o th e r” (t h e “ R e s id u a l C la u s e ” ). U S S G § 4 B 1 .2 (a ). B eca us e the D i s tr i ctC our toffe r ed no ana l y s i s fori t s concl us i on thatJ ohns on w as a ca r eer o ff en d er, w e a re a t a l o ss as to w h ich c laus e itb eli ev ed Jo h n so n q u ali fied u n d er. 53 Th e r e f o r e , we mu s tc o n s i d e rwh e th e ra P e n n s y l v a n i a s i mp l e a s s a u l tq u a l i f i e s a s a c r i me o f v io le n c e u n d e r e ith e r c la u s e . W e pr evi ous l yconcl uded thata Penns y l vani a s i m pl e as s aul tqual i fi es as a cr i m e of vi ol ence underthe R es i dual C l aus e i n U ni t ed Stat es v. D ors ey , 1 7 4 F . 3 d 3 3 1 , 3 3 3 (3d C ir . 1999) . T he val i di tyof thatpos i t i on, how ever , has come unders er i ous att ack s i nce the Supr eme C our t ’ s deci s i on i n U ni t ed Stat es v. B egay , 553 U . S. 137 ( 2008) , es t abl i s hed a116

n e w f ra m e w o rk f

o r i d e n tif y in g a “ c ri m e o f

v io le n c e ” u n d e r t h e R e s id u a l C la u s e . See U ni t ed Stat es v. Johns on , 5 8 7 F .3 d 2 0 3 , 2 0 7 & n .4 (3 d C ir. 2 0 0 9 ). T o th e e x ten t D ors ey confl i ct s w i th B egay , w e h a v e c o n c l u d e d th a tw e a r e n o l o n g e rb o u n d b y D ors ey . I d. at 20 7 n . 4. W e are const rai ned t o reach the sam e res ultas Johns on b a se d o n th e sim ilarity o f c ir c u m s ta n c e s b e tw e e n th e tw o c a s e s . Johns on acknow l edged thati tconfi ned i t s anal y s i s t o the R es i dual C l aus e, and not ed that“[i ] n l i ghtof the governm ent ’ s new pos i t i on thatr eckl es s conductdoes not q u a lifya s a c rim e o f

v io len c e , w e h a v e n o o c c a sio n to c o n sid e r w h e th e r Jo h n so n ’s s im p le as s aul tconvi ct i on i s a cr i m e of vi ol ence t o the ext enthe ac t ed r eckl es s l y . ” I d. a t 2 1 0 . T he G overnm enthas m ade the s ame r epr es ent at i on i n thi s cas e, and has ext ended that pos i t i on t o the U s e C l aus e as w el l . T her efor e, w e s i m i l ar l yhave no oc cas i on t o cons i der w h e th e rJ o h n s o n ’ s s i m p l e a s s a u l ti s a c r i m e o f v i o l e n c e t o th e e x t e n th e a c t e d r e c k l e s s l y. Johns on empl oy ed the ca t egor i cal appr oach t o cl as s i fya pr i orconvi ct i on, but n o ted th a t P e n n sy lv a n ia’ s s im p le a ss a u lt statu te, 1 8 P a C o n s. S tat. § 2 7 0 1 , “p lain ly cr i m i nal i zes di s t i ncttypes of conduc t , al l of w hi ch coul d cons t i tut e s i m pl e as s aul t . ” I d. at 208- 09. T hus , i tw as nece s s aryt o empl oythe modi fi ed ca t egor i cal appr oach, w hi ch perm i t s court s t o l ook bey ond the s t atut oryel ement s t o det erm i ne the part i cul arpartof the s ta tu te o f w h ic h th e d e f

e n d a n t w a s a c tu a lly c o n v ic te d . I d. at208. W e ar e l i m i t ed, how ever , t o exami ni ng the s t atut orydefi ni t i on, the cha r gi ng document s , anyw r i t t en pl ea agr eementand the tr ans cr i ptof a pl ea c ol l oquy , and anyexpl i ci tfac tual fi ndi ng bytheT he modi fi ed ca t egor i cal appr oach “ i s notm eantt o ci r cumventthe ca t egor i cal 54 appr oach byal l ow i ng court s t o det erm i ne w hetherthe ac tual conductof the i ndi vi dual defe ndantcons t i tut ed a purpos eful , vi ol entand aggr es s i ve ac t . ” Johns on , 587 F. 3d at208 ( quot i ng U

n itedS ta tes v . Sm ith , 544 F. 3d 781, 786 ( 7th C i r . 2008) ) . O uranal y s i s r emai ns f a ith f u l to th is C ir c u it’ s e x p re s s e d u n d e rs ta n d in g o f th e m o d if

ie d c a te g o ri c a l a p p ro a c h . See St i ns on , 592 F. 3d at463 ( acknow l edgi ng Johns on ’ s “ r e mi n d e rth a tth e S u p r e me C our t ’ s deci s i on i n Sh epa rd for ecl os ed the courtfr om i nqui r i ng i nt o the fa ct s under l y i ng th e e a rl ie r c o n v ic tio n ” ). T h e re f o re , the d iss e n t’s c o n ten tio n th a t w e c a n lo o k a t th e u n d e rly in g d o c u m e n ts is m isp lac e d . T h e d iss e n t ar g u e s th a t w e c a n lo o k to th e u n d e rly in g c rim in a l co m p lain t to di s cern the m ens r ea w i th w hi ch J ohns on act ed. T o the ext entw e ca n l ook atthe document , i ti s onl yt o det erm i ne w i th w hi ch m ens r ea J ohns on w as char ged and convi ct ed underthe s t atut e, w hi ch w oul d be ent i r el ycons i s t entw i th the modi fi ed c a te g o ri c a l a p p ro a c h . See J ohns on , 5 8 7 F . 3 d at 20 8 . W e c an n o t con side r Joh n so n ’s actual conductt o det erm i ne w i th w hi ch m ens r ea he ac t ed on the part i cul arocca s i on, w hi ch i s pr eci s el ythe cour s e pur s ued bythe di s s ent . M or eover , the di s s ent ’ s appr oach i m pli cat es the ex actcon cerns w hich con strai n o ur r eview of the un derl y i ng do cum ents – the cur s oryj udgm enti n t hi s cas e does noti ndi cat e w hyorfor w h a t char ged conduct John son w as a c tu a lly c o n v ic te d . See Shep ard , 544 U . S. at25- 26 ( not i ng cons t i tut i onal conce rns of r e- tr y i ng pr i orconvi ct i ons ) . Fur therm or e, as not ed, w e ca n di s cern no di ffe r ence betw een the ci r cumst ance s of thi s cas e and Johns on , w hi ch i nform s our d e c is io n h e re . T he cr i m i nal compl ai ntand j udgm entdo notans w erthi s ques t i on forus , and that is a s f a r a s w e m a yp u rs u e th e a n a lysis u n d e r e x is tin g S u p re m e C o u rt p re c e d e n t. See a l so C ham bers v. U

ni t ed Stat es , 1 2 9 S . C t. 68 7 , 6 9 4 (2 0 0 9 ) (A lit o , J., c o n c u rrin g ) (“ [ O ]n ly C o n g re s s c a n re s c u e th e f e d e ra l c o u rt s f

ro m th e m ir e in to w h ic h . . . Tayl or ’ s ‘ cat egor i cal ap p roa ch ’ [h as] p u sh ed u s. ”). 117 tr i al j udge t o w hi ch the def endantas s ent ed ( the “ Sh epa rd m a te ri a ls ” ). I

d. ( ci t i ng Sh epa rd v. U ni t ed Stat es , 5 4 4 U . S . 1 3 , 1 6 (20 0 5 )). W e m ayn o t con side r w h ethe r th e d ef en d an t’ s actual conductw oul d cons t i tut e a c r i m e of vi ol ence . I d. 54 B a se d o n th e G o v e rn m e n t’s c o n c e ss io n th a t re c k les sn e ss w a s n o t su f f icie n t, Johns on n ex t con side red w h ethe r an inten ti o n al or k n o w ing v iolati o n o f P en n sy lvan ia’s s im p le a s s a u lt s ta tu te w o u ld c o n s titu te a c ri m e o f v io le n c e u n d e r t h e R e s id u a l C la u s e . I d.118

at210- 11. W e had “ no tr oubl e conc l udi ng thats uch a vi ol at i on w oul d qual i fy . ” I d. at 2 1 1 . E v e n if

w e sim ilarlyc o n c lu d e d th a t an in ten tio n a l o r k n o w in g c o m m iss io n o f sim p le a s s a u lt w o u ld c o n s titu te a c ri m e o f v io le n c e u n d e r t h e U s e C la u s e , s ee, e. g. , U ni t ed Stat es v. R utherf

ord , 5 4 F .3 d 3 7 0 , 3 7 3 -7 4 (7 th C ir. 1 9 9 2 ) (a ss e rtin g th a t U se C lau se a p p lies to in te n tio n a l a c ts o n ly), over r ul ed on othergr ounds by B egay , 5 5 3 U .S . 1 3 7 , w e w o u ld still be in the sam e po si t i on as Johns on , w hi ch nextcons i der ed w hetherthe Sh epa rd m a ter ials es t abl i s hed thatJ ohns on “ac t [ed] w i th one of thos e i nt ent s , ” Johns on , 5 8 7 F .3 d a t 2 1 2 . O u r Joh n so n w as “ ad

jud g ed g u il ty ” o f v iolati n g 1 8 P a. C o n s. S tat . § 2 7 0 1 (a)(1), w hi ch cr i m i nal i zes “att empt s t o caus e ori nt ent i onal l y , know i ngl yorr eckl es s l ycaus [i ng] bodi l yi nj uryt o another . ” 18 Pa. C ons . St at . § 2701( a) ( 1) . B eca us e the G overnm ent conce des r eckl es s conducti s nots uffi ci entunderei therthe U s e C l aus e orthe R es i dual C l aus e, and § 2701( a) ( 1) pl ai nl ycr i m i nal i zes r eckl es s conduct , w e nextl ook t o the Sh epa rd m a te ri a ls to d e te rm in e w ith w h ic h s im p le a s s a u lt J o h n s o n w a s c h a rg e d . See Johns on , 587 F. 3d at209. M uch as i n Johns on , the cr i m i nal i nform at i on forourJ ohns on char ged thathe “know i ngl y , i nt ent i onal l yorr eckl es s l ycaus ed/ att empt ed t o caus e s er i ous bodi l yi nj uryt o t he compl ai nant. . . byr epea t edl ypunchi ng hi m i n the fa ce a nd head a nd s tr i ki ng hi m on t he hea d w i th and [s i c] unknow n obj ect , caus i ng i nj uryr equi r i ng m edi cal tr e a tm e n t . . . in c lu d in g 4 s titc h e s in th e b a c k o f h is h e a d .” (S u p p . A p p . a t 7 6 6 ). C om pa re Johns on , 587 F. 3d at209. W e obs erve that119

“[ t] h e i nform at i on l ar gel ytr acks the s t atut oryl anguage i n § 2701( a) (1), th e r e b y c h a r g i n g J o h n s o n w i th d i f f e r e n t typ e s o f s i m p l e a s s a u l t . A d m i t t e d l y, th e in f o rm a tio n ’s a lleg a tio n th a t Jo h n so n [ ‘re p e a ted lyp u n c h [ e d th e v ictim ] in th e f a c e a n d h e a d a n d s tr [ u c k ] h i m o n th e h e a d wi th a n d [ s i c ] u n k n o wn obj ect ’ ] s tr ongl ys ugges t s thathi s conductw as i nt ent i onal and know i ng. U nderthe part i cul ar ci r cumst ance s pr es ent ed her e, how ever , w e do notbel i eve that w e can concl us i vel y det erm i ne, bas ed on the i nform at i on al one, w hether J o h n s o n a c tu a l l y [ w a s a d j u d g e d g u i l ty o f

] a c t i n g i n t e n t i o n a l l y o rk n o w i n g l y. A ccor di ngl y , w e m us t decl i ne t he gover nm ent ’ s i nvi t at i on t o engage i n w hat i s . . . a s pecul ati v e exer ci s e thatcoul d i m pl i cat e the veryconce rns the S u p re m e C o u rt h a s e x p re ss e d in e x p la in in g th e p ro h ib iti o n o n in q u iries in to th e f a c tu a l p re d ic a te s o f

a d e f e n d a n t’ s c ri m e u n d e r t h e s e c ir c u m s ta n c e s .” Johns on , 58 7 F . 3d at21 2-13 (foo tno t e om i t t ed). M uch as Johns on c o u ld n o t d e ter m in e to w hi ch m ens r ea i t s J ohns on pl ed gui l ty , w e ca nnotdet erm i ne forw hi ch m ens r ea our Jo h n so n w a s a d

ju d g e d g u ilty . M o re o v e r, re so rt to th e P re se n ten c e In v e stig a tio n R e p o rt is s i m i l ar l yunavai l i ng as i tw as i n Johns on beca us e i tm er el yr es t at es the fa ct s under l y i ng th e c h a rg e a n d c o n v ic tio n . See i d. at212 n. 10. A l though Johns on e x p licitlyc o n f in e d its ho l ding t o the R esi du al C l ause an d the factthat i tw as not consi deri ng w hetherreckl ess c o n d u c t w o u ld s u f

f ic e b e c a u s e o f

th e G o v e rn m e n t’ s c o n c e s s io n , i d. at 20 7 , 2 1 0 , w e a re f a c e d w ith a sim ilar c o n c e ss io n , w h ich a lso e x ten d s to th e U se C lau se . M o re o v e r, itis u n c l e a rf r o m th e Di s tr i c tCo u r t ’ s s e n t e n c i n g a n d th e p a r t i e s ’ b r i e f s wh i c h c l a u s e we s h o u ld b e c o n s id e ri n g . In a sm u c h a s re c k les s c o n d u c t w o u ld n o t su f f ice u n d e r e ith e r c lau se a c c o rd in g to the G overnm ent , and i ns ofaras w e ca nnoti dent i fyw hi ch m ens r ea Jo h n so n w a s f o u n d to have, w e ca nnotconcl ude thathe comm i t t ed a s econd c r i m e of vi ol ence . T hus , theW e br i efl yaddr es s J ohns on’ s others ent enci ng i s s ues forthe part i es ’ and the 55 D is tr ic t C o u rt ’s c o n v e n ie n c e a t r e -s e n te n c in g . C o n tr a ry to J o h n s o n ’s a rg u m e n ts , a s ent enci ng courtdoes notvi ol at e a c onvi ct ed def endant ’ s Fi fth and Si xth A m endment r i ght s t o a tr i al byj uryand fi ndi ng of gui l tbey ond a r eas onabl e doubtbym aki ng fi ndi ngs of fa ctbya pr eponder ance fors ent enci ng enhanc ement s w hi ch do notl ead t o a s ent ence e x c e e d in g th e s ta tu to ry m a x im u m . See G r i er , 4 7 5 F .3 d a t 5 6 1 , 5 6 5 -6 6 ; s ee al s o U ni t ed S ta tes v . A li , 5 0 8 F . 3 d 1 3 6 , 1 4 6 (3d C ir . 2 0 0 7 ) (“A fter B ooker , the sta tu to rym a x im u m to w hi ch Appr endiand B la ke ly ref er is th e m ax im u m p u n ishm en t i n the U . S . C o d e f o r a cert ai n cr i m e. ”) . I n s uch ci r cumst ance s , G ui del i ne pr ovi s i ons ar e notel ement s of the o f f e n s e . See, e. g. , U

nited S tates v. B arbo sa , 2 7 1 F .3 d 4 3 8 , 4 5 7 (3 d C ir . 2 0 0 1 ). Fur therm or e, the s t atut orym axi m um forJ ohns on’ s drug cons pi r acyconvi ct i on i s l i fe im p ri s o n m e n t. 2 1 U .S .C . § 8 4 1 (b )( 1 )( A ). In addit i on , the ev i den ce of drug q uan t i typresent ed b ythe G ov ernm ent i n thi s case s t ands i n contr as tt o the evi dence w e found i ns uffi ci ent l yr el i abl e i n U ni t ed Stat es v. Miele , 9 8 9 F .2 d 6 5 9 , 6 6 3 -6 6 (3 d C ir . 1 9 9 3 ). See al s o U ni t ed Stat es v. Leeki ns , 493 F. 3d 14 3, 15 0 (3d C i r. 20 07 ) ( “T he sentenci ng cou rthad the b enef i tof o bservi ng [L oeb sack’s ] te s tim o n ya n d it c a n in f e r r e lia b ility f

ro m a w itn e s s ’s w o rd s a n d a c tio n s .” ). Fi nal l y , a s ent enci ng courtdoes notvi ol at e a de fenda nt ’ s Fi fth A m endment pr i vi l ege a gai ns ts el f- i ncr i m i nat i on bygr ant i ng l eni encyt o cooper at i ng defe ndant s and w i thhol di ng l eni encyfr om thos e w ho do not , unl es s the courtact s i n r et al i at i on orfor v in d ic a tio n . See Corbi t tv. N ew Jer s ey , 4 3 9 U . S . 2 1 2 , 2 2 3 -24 (19 7 8 ); U ni t ed Stat es v. Jef f ers , 5 7 0 F .3 d 5 5 7 , 5 7 1 (4 th C ir. 2 0 0 9 ); s ee al s o U ni t ed Stat es v. W

ar ner , 338 F. 3d 2 5 8 , 2 6 5 -67 (3d C ir . 2 0 0 3 ). 120 D istri ct C o u rterred in se n tenc ing h im as a ca ree r of fe n d er. W e w il l vac ate Jo h n so n ’s s ent ence and r emand forr e- s ent enci ng. 5 5 I V. F o r th e f o re g o in g re a so n s, w e w ill a f f irm th e D e f

e n d a n ts’ c o n v ictio n s in a ll re sp e c ts. W e a lso w ill a f f irm th e se n ten c e s o f

N a p o li an d H e ilm a n in w h o le, b u t w e w ill vaca t e J ohns on’ s s ent ence and r emand forr e- s ent enci ng.J O R D A N , C i r cui tJudge , d issen ti n g in p art

T he maj or i tyconcl udes thatJ ohns on’ s convi ct i on fors i m pl e as s aul tdoes not qual i fyas a cr i m e of vi ol ence under§ 4B 1. 2( a) – and thathe i s ther efor e nota ca r eer o f f e n d e r u n d e r § 4 B 1 .1 – b e c a u se it i s u n c lea r w h e th e r h e a c ted in ten tio n a llyo r re c k les sly in v io la tin g th e P e n n s y lv a n ia s im p le a s s a u lt s ta tu te , 1 8 P a . C o n s . S ta t. A n n . § 2 7 0 1 . I w oul d hol d thatthe cha r gi ng document , i . e. , the under l y i ng cr i m i nal compl ai ntas s oci at ed w i th J ohns on’ s s i m pl e as s aul tconvi ct i on, demonstr at es thatthe s t at e cha r ged and w as pr os ecut i ng J ohns on foran i nt ent i onal as s aul t . T he s ent enci ng enhanc ementappl i ed by the D i s tr i ctC our ti s thus j us t i fi ed and I r es pect ful l ydi s s entfr om thatpor t i on of the o p in io n h o ld in g o th e rw is e . A convi ct i on qual i fi es as a cr i m e of vi ol ence under§ 4B 1. 2( a) i f i tm eet s thr ee r equi r ement s , tw o of w hi ch ar e expr es s l ys t at ed i n the G ui del i nes and one of w hi ch ar i s es th ro u g h ju d icia l in terp re tatio n . F irst, th e G u id e lin e s re q u ire th a t th e c rim e b e p u n ish a b le bya t e r m of i mpr i s on mente xc e e di ng on e y e a r . U . S. S ENT ENC ING G UI DEL INES M AN UA L § 4 B 1 .2 (a ) (2 0 0 7 ) [ h e re in a f ter “ U .S .S .G .”]. S e c o n d , the c rim e m u st b e e ith e r e x p re ss ly enumer at ed i n § 4B 1. 2( a) ( 2) , ori tm us thave “ as an el ementthe us e, att empt ed us e, or thr eat ened us e of phy s i cal for ce a gai ns tthe per s on of another . ” Id . § 4B 1. 2( a) ( 1) . T hi r d, the G ui del i nes have be en i nt erpr et ed t o r equi r e thatthe def endantcomm i tthe under l y i ng c rim e w ith a n in ten tio n a l m ens r ea . See Begay v . U ni t ed Stat es , 553 U . S. 137, 147- 48 ( 2008) ( concl udi ng thata pr i orcr i m e qual i fi es as a vi ol entfel onyunderthe A r m ed C ar eer C r i m i nal A ct , 18 U . S. C . § 924( e) , onl yi f the def endantcomm i t t ed i tw i th an i nt ent i onal2

m ens r ea ); U

ni t ed Stat es v. Johns on , 587 F. 3d 203, 210- 11 ( 3d C i r . 2009) ( appl y i ng t he r eas oni ng of B egay to th e te rm “ c ri m e o f v io le n c e ” a s u s e d in § 4 B 1 .2 (a )) . T he maj or i tyconcl udes thatthe s i m pl e as s aul tcomm i t t ed byJ ohns on does not qual i fyas a cr i m e of vi ol ence beca us e a s i m pl e as s aul tconvi ct i on m ayr es tupon r eckl es s nes s as w el l as i nt ent i onal and know i ng conduct . 18 Pa. C ons . St at . A nn. § 2701( a) ( 1) . M ycol l eague s bel i eve thatw e ca nnotdi s cern w hetherthe s t at e’ s bas i s for the as s aul tchar ge w as an i nt ent i onal orr eckl es s actbyJ ohns on. T heyther efor e conc l ude thathi s convi ct i on does notfal l w i thi n the s cope of § 4B 1. 2. I di s agr ee. A s th e m a

jo rityo b se rv e s, § 2 7 0 1 c rim in a lize s m u lti p le f o rm s o f sim p le a ss a u lt, onl ys om e of w hi ch i m pl i cat e an i nt ent i onal m ent al s t at e. T her efor e, w e mustfol l ow t he m od i fi ed categori cal app roach t o d et erm i ne w hetherJohn son’s conv i ct i on con st i tutes a c ri m e o f v io le n c e u n d e r § 4 B 1 .2 . Johns on , 587 F. 3d at208 ( s t at i ng thatw e empl oyt he m o d if ied c a teg o ric a l ap p ro a c h w h e n “ a sta tu te c rim in a lize s d if f e re n t k in d s o f

c o n d u c t, so m e o f w h ich w o u ld co n sti tute crim es o f v iolen ce w h il e o thers w o u ld n o t”). U ndert hat appr oach, w e mayexami ne “the natur e of the convi ct i on i t s el f and thos e el ement s thatt he [fa ct - fi nder ] nece s s ar i l yfound thr ough an exa m i nat i on of j udi ci al evi dence . ” Ni j haw an v. A t t ’ y G en. of

the U . S. 523 F. 3d 387, 393 ( 3d C i r . 2008) . I n undert aki ng thatexami nat i on, w e maycons i der“the t erm s of the cha r gi ng document , the t erm s of a pl ea a gr eementor tr ans cr i ptof col l oquybetw een j udge and de fenda nti n w hi ch the fa ctual bas i s forthe pl ea w a s c o n f irm e d b yth e d e f

e n d a n t, or .. . so m e c o m p a ra b le ju d icia l re c o rd o f th is3

i nform at i on. ” Shepar d v. U ni t ed Stat es , 544 U . S. 13, 26 ( 2005) . T he modi fi ed c a teg o ric a l ap p ro a c h c a n o n lyb e u se d to id e n tifyth o se f a c ts th a t f

o rm th e e ss e n tial b a sis o f th e d ef

en d an t’ s co n v ict ion ; i t do es n o t perm itd elvin g into f ac ts th at w ere n o t nec essa ry to e s ta b lis h th e c ri m e f

o r w h ic h th e d e f

e n d a n t w a s u ltim a te ly co n v ic te d . Johns on , 587 F. 3d at208. T he modi fi ed ca t egor i cal appr oach c an appr opr i at el ybe us ed t o det erm i ne w hether J o h n s o n c o m m itte d th e c ri m e o f s im p le a s s a u lt w ith a n in te n tio n a l m e n ta l s ta te . C f. id . at 212- 14 ( r ecogni zi ng thata Penns y l vani a s i m pl e as s aul tm aybe pr edi cat ed upon ei ther i nt ent i onal orr eckl es s conductand r emandi ng t o the di s tr i ctcourtt o i dent i fythe ment al stat e w ith w h ich th e d ef en d an t acted ). T h e c ri m inal co m p lai n t from Jo h n so n ’s st ate c o u rt p ro c e e d in g s c h a rg e d th a t h e “ k n o w in g ly , inte n tio n a llyo r re c k les slyc a u se d /atte m p ted to c a u se se rio u s b o d ilyin

ju ryto th e c o m p lain a n t .. . b yre p e a ted lyp u n c h in g [ th e v ictim ] in the fa ce a nd head a nd s tr i ki ng hi m on the hea d w i th and [s i c] unknow n obj ect , caus i ng i nj uryr equi r i ng m edi cal tr eatm ent. . . i ncl udi ng 4 s t i t ches i n the bac k of hi s head. ” ( Supp. A p p . at 76 6 . ) A lth o u g h the c o m p lai n t do es n o t exp resslystat e a p arti cu lar m ens r ea w ith w hi ch J ohns on act ed, i ti s cl earthatthe bea t i ng J ohns on admi ni s t er ed w as i nt ent i onal and w as the onl yconductati s s ue. T hi s i s notan i m perm i s s i bl e del vi ng i nt o fac t s extr aneous to th e c o n v ic tio n . It is ra th e r a re c o g n itio n o f th e s o le b a s is o f

th e c h a rg e a n d c o n v ic tio n . A ccor di ngl y , I w oul d appl ythe modi fi ed ca t egor i cal appr oach t o i dent i fythe m ens r ea s uppor t i ng J ohns on’ s convi ct i ons , and, bas ed on the cr i m i nal compl ai nt , w oul d agr ee4

w ith th e D is tr ic t C o u rt th a t h e a c te d in a n in te n tio n a l m a n n e r w h e n h e v io la te d § 2 7 0 1 . I thus bel i eve thatthe D i s tr i ctC our tpr oper l yfound thatJ ohns on qual i fi ed as a ca r eer offe nderunder§ 4B 1. 1, and I w oul d aff i r m the s ent ence the C our ti m pos ed. I n al l ot her r es pect s , I j oi n m ycol l eague s i n the thor ough m aj or i tyopi ni on i n thi s cas e.