T hi s or derand j udgm enti s notbi ndi ng pr ece dent , exce ptundert he * d o ctri n es o f law o f th e c ase , res jud icata, and co ll ateral estop p el. T h e c o u rt gener al l ydi s favor s t he ci t at i on of or der s and j udgm ent s ; neverthel es s , an or der and j udgm entm aybe ci t ed undert he t erm s and condi t i ons of 10th C i r . R . 36. 3. 

## F I LED United States C ourt of Appeals Tenth Circuit 

### Ju n e13,2006 Elisab eth A. Shumaker C l erk of C ourt UNI TED S TATES CO URT O F AP PEALS

T E N T H C IR C U IT UNI T E D S T AT E S OF AM E RI CA ,

Pl ai nt i ff - A ppel l ee, N o. 05- 1275 v. ( D . C ol or ado) DWAYNE WI L S ON,

D e fe n d a n t - A p p e llan t. ( D . C . N o . 0 3 - C R - 3 6 - R P M)

ORDE R AND J UDGM EN T * B efor e M UR P HY , AN DE RS ON , and TY M KOVI CH , C i rcui tJudg es.

D w a yn e W ilso n w a s c o n v icte d , fo llo w in g a ju rytrial, o f th irtee n c o u n ts re latin g to h is p a rticip a tio n in a d ru g d istrib u tio n c o n sp ira c ya n d w a s s e n ten c e d to 240 m ont hs ’ i m pr i s onm ent , fol l ow ed byt en y ear s of s upervi s ed r el eas e, and as s es s ed a s peci al as s es s m entof $1300. H e appe al s , chal l engi ng the di s tr i ct cour t ’ s deni al of hi s m ot i on t o s uppr es s w i r et ap evi dence and i t s r efus al t o or der th e g o v e rn m e n t to p ro d u c e p o lyg ra p h d a ta , a n d ra is in g s e v e ra l s e n te n c in g is s u e s . F o rt h e r e a s o n s s e tfo r t h b e l o w, we a ffi r m.A ccor di ng t o a Task For ce i nves t i gat or , “[a ] pen r egi s t eri s an 1 e lec tro m e c h a n ica l d e v ice w h ich re g iste rs a n d re c o rd s th e d a te a n d tim e o f b o th i ncomi ng and out goi ng cal l s and r ecor ds t he t el ephone number s cal l ed fr om t hat p arti cu lar t elep h o n e.” A ff. in S u p p o rto f [ W ir etap ] A p p li ca ti o n at 19 , R . V o l. II e x . 1 -B . A tra p a n d tra c e d e v ice “ id e n tifie s th e o rig in o f tele p h o n e c a lls m a d e to a part i cul art el ephone number . ” I d.

- 2- BA CKGROUND W il so n an d eigh teen all eg ed co co n sp ir ators w ere firstind ict ed in Ja n u ary 2 0 0 3 . T h e c h arg es re su lt ed fro m an inv esti g ati o n init iat ed b ythe D en v er, C ol or ado, M etr opol i t an G ang Task For ce, w or ki ng w i th agent s of the Feder al B u re a u o f

In v e stig a tio n (“ F B I” ) (c o llec tiv e lyre fe rre d to a s th e “ T a sk F o rc e ” ), in A ugus t2001, aft erhear i ng fr om an i nform antt hatm ember s of the C r ens haw M afia G an g ster (“C M G ”) B loo d str ee t gan g , inclu d ing D o n o v an S tal li n g s, w ere in v o lv e d in th e d is tr ib u tio n o f la rg e q u a n titie s o f

c o c a in e a n d c ra c k c o c a in e . S tallin g s w a s th e in iti a l fo c u s o f th e T a sk F o rc e ’s in v e stig a tio n . B e g in n in g in O ct ober2001, t he Task For ce s oughtand obt ai ned courtauthor i zat i on t o ut i l i ze pen r egi s t er s and tr ap and tr ace devi ces on St al l i ngs ’ cel l ul art el ephone. 1 T hr ough t hes e mechani s m s , t he Task For ce i dent i fi ed and i nt ervi ew ed a s econd i nform anti n J anuary2002 w ho then coope r at ed w i th the Task For ce i n carry i ng outa numberof contr ol l ed buy s of coc ai ne fr om St al l i ngs . T he Task For ce us ed t hes e occ as i ons t o conductfur t hers ur vei l l ance of St al l i ngs ’ m ovement s . T he second i nfo rm ant al so i ntr od uced an u nd ercover officert o S t al l i ng s. In A ug ust 2002, t he Task For ce a l s o obt ai ned courtauthor i zat i on t o pl ace a G PS t r acki ng- 3-

devi ce on St al l i ngs ’ vehi cl e. W hen the vehi cl e w as t ow ed forthe purpos e of i ns t al l i ng t he G PS devi ce, a dog tr ai ned i n nar cot i cs det ect i on al er t ed on the vehi cl e, a s ear ch w arr antw as obt ai ned, and a s ear ch w as conduct ed. B yt hi s t i m e, t he Task For ce ha d i dent i fi ed B r i an Q ui nt ana a s another i nd i vidual i nv olved i n the di stri bu t i on con spi racy . In A ug ust20 02 , the T ask For ce obt ai ned courtauthor i zat i on t o i ns t al l a pen r egi s t erand tr ap and tr ace d ev ice o n Q u intan a’s c ell u lar t elep h o n e, an d in O ctob er 2 0 0 2 , ito b tai n ed co u rt author i zat i on t o i ns t al l a G PS t r acki ng devi ce on Q ui nt ana’ s vehi cl e. O n thr ee occa s i ons , t he Task For ce a l s o conduct ed s ear ches of Q ui nt ana’ s tr as h. O n O ctob er 2 4 , 2 0 0 2 , the T ask F o rce su b m itted a n ap p li ca ti o n fo r a c o u rt or derauthor i zi ng a w i r et ap on St al l i ngs ’ cel l ul art el ephone. T he appl i cat i on s t at ed thatt her e w as pr obabl e ca us e t o bel i eve thata gr oup w hi ch i tcal l ed the D enver , C ol or ado C M B B l ood D rug D i s tr i but i on O r gani zat i on— i ncl udi ng St al l i ngs , Q ui nt ana, t w el ve othernamed i ndi vi dual s and other s “as y et u n k n o w n ”— w ere en g ag ed in a c o ca ine d istri b u ti o n co n sp ir ac yan d that the w ir e comm uni cat i ons occurr i ng t hr ough St al l i ngs ’ t el ephone w oul d r evea l “the manner and m eans of

dis t ri bu t i ng and deli veri ng qu anti t i es of co cai ne an d co cai ne b ase fo rp r o fi t . ” Ap p l i c a t i o n a t5 , R. Vo l . I I e x . 1 - A. I n a s uppor t i ng aff

i davi t , Speci al A gentT odd W i l cox des cr i bed the i nform at i on t he Task For ce ha d obt ai ned us i ng otheri nves t i gat i ve t echni ques and expl ai ned the l i m i t at i ons of thos e t echni ques . I n r egar d t o G PS t r acki ng, the- 4-

aff i davi ts t at ed that“the G PS dat a does noti ndi cat e w ho i s dr i vi ng t he [ve hi cl e] ori f the dr i veractual l ym eet s w i th any one, ” norcoul d i ti ndi cat e “the exa ct addr es s w her e the vehi cl e s t ops . ” A ff. i n Suppor tof [W i r et ap] A ppl i cat i on at 12 9-30, R . V ol. II ex. 1-B . In r egard t o p en regi st ers and trap and trace devices , t he affi davi texpl ai ned thatt hos e met hods “do notr ecor d the i dent i tyof the par t i es t o t he conve r s at i on, ordi ffe r ent i at e betw een l egi t i m at e ca l l s and ca l l s for cr i m i nal purpos es . ” I d. at144. M or eover , the dat a thathad bee n obt ai ned i ndi cat ed thatt he ca l l s oft en i nvol ved ce l l ul art el ephones w hi ch, i n Speci al A gent W i l cox ’s exp eri ence, w ere oft en regi st ered un der fal se nam es. I n r egar d t o vi s ual s ur vei l l ance , the affi davi ts t at ed thatthi s m ethod had fai l ed t o s how “w her e and how oft en the del i veryof the nar cot i cs occur s orw hen and w her e the money‘ pool i ng’ t akes pl ace , ” norhad i t“i dent i fi ed al l of the s u p p lie rs o f

c o c a in e ” to S ta llin g s o r o th e r C M G B lo o d g a n g m e m b e rs . Id . a t 1 3 1 . Fur t herm or e, t he Task For ce ha d notbeen a bl e t o det erm i ne thr ough s ur vei l l ance “w her e the drug pr ocee ds ar e bei ng kept , orw her e the drugs ar e curr ent l ybei ng s t or ed. ” I d. at132. I n r egar d t o confi dent i al s our ces , the affi davi ti ndi cat ed that al t hough t he Task For ce ha d us ed an i nform antt o conductcontr ol l ed buy s fr om S t al l i ng s, t ho se occasi on s had n ot r evealed anyi nfo rm at i on abo ut St al l i ng s’ s uppl i er s . T he affi davi ti ndi cat ed Speci al A gentW i l cox’ s opi ni on t hatthe under coveragenti nt r oduced t o St al l i ngs w oul d al s o be unl i kel yt o r ece i ve any in fo rm a tio n a b o u t su p p liers . It also e x p lain e d th a t p o ss ib le w itn e ss e s o r su sp e c ts- 5-

w oul d l i kel ybe unw i l l i ng t o r evea l anyus eful i nform at i on dur i ng i nt ervi ew s and th a t su c h in ter v iew s c o u ld c o m p ro m ise th e o n g o in g in v e stig a tio n . S im ilarly , it w as cons i der ed unl i kel yt hats ear ches of var i ous l ocat i ons w her e St al l i ngs w as k n o w n to sp e n d tim e c o u ld b e c o n d u c ted w ith o u t ale rtin g S tallin g s a n d h is cocons pi r at or s t o t he i nves t i gat i on, “ther ebypos s i bl ycaus i ng t hem t o fl ee, des t r oyevi dence , orhal tt hei rbus i nes s . ” I d. at144. A s fo r th e tra sh se a rc h e s, th e yh a d c o n firm e d th a t Q u in tan a w a s in v o lv e d in drug d i stri bu t i on bu thad no tprovided an yfurther i nfo rm at i on . T he affi dav i tal so i ndi cat ed thata var i etyof i nves t i gat i ve t echni ques i nvol vi ng Post al Ser vi ce chec ks of names a s s oci at ed w i t h cert ai n addr es s es and otherchec ks of var i ous typ es o f re co rds, i n clud ing w ag es, t ax return s, p rop ertytaxe s, an d fin an cial w ir e t r ans fer s , had “notpr ovi ded conc r et e evi dence i nvol vi ng the natur e and s cope” of t he di s t r i but i on cons pi r acy . I d. at147. T h e a ffidav itthen li sted the in fo rm ati o n that the T ask F o rce h o p ed to learn t hr ough t he r eques t ed w i r et ap, i ncl udi ng the i dent i fi cat i on of m ember s of the d istrib u tio n o rg a n iza tio n th a t w e re n o t y e t k n o w n , the ro les p layed b ya ll m ember s , t he i dent i fi cat i on of the or gani zat i on’ s s uppl i er s , and the i dent i fi cat i on of w hen and w her e meet i ngs and del i ver i es t ook pl ace . T he appl i cat i on r eques t ed t hat the w i ret ap b e al l ow ed to con t i nu e for atl eastthirtyday s. T he di s t r i ctcour ti s s ued an or derauthor i zi ng a thi r ty - dayw i r et ap on O ct ober24, 2002. I tagr eed ther e w as pr obabl e ca us e t o bel i eve St al l i ngs and- 6-

ot her s w er e enga ged i n a drug di s tr i but i on cons pi r acyand thatthe i nt er cept i on of hi s t el ephone c om m uni cat i ons w oul d r evea l “the s peci fi cs ” of the cons pi r acyand r el at ed offens es , “i ncl udi ng t he mannerand means of the comm i s s i on of the offe ns es . ” O r derat3, R . V ol . I I ex. 1- C . T he courtfur therconcl uded that“i thas been e s t abl i s hed thatnor m al i nves t i gat i ve pr ocedur es have be en tr i ed and ha ve fai l ed, r eas onabl yappea rt o be unl i kel yt o s ucce ed i f tr i ed, orar e t oo danger ous t o empl oy . ” I d. T he Task For ce a ppl i ed for , and the di s tr i ctcour tgr ant ed, ext ens i ons of the w ire tap a u th o riz a tio n o n N o v e m b e r 2 2 , 2 0 0 2 , an d Ja n u a ry9 , 2 0 0 3 . P u rsu a n t to t he court ’ s or der s , dur i ng t he per i od thatthe w i r et ap w as i n pl ace , the U ni t ed St at es A t t or ney ’ s offi ce f i l ed per i odi c r eport s w i th the courtcont ai ni ng updat es o n th e in fo rm a tio n o b tain e d th ro u g h th e w ire tap . A n u m b e r o f tele p h o n e c a lls b e tw e e n S tallin g s a n d W ilso n w e re m o n ito re d th ro u g h th e w ire tap d u rin g th is per i od. A gr and j ur yi ndi ct ed St al l i ngs , W i l s on, and ni net een other s on J anuary31, 2 0 0 3 . T h e in d ictm e n t co n tain e d six ty -e ig h t co u n ts, fiv e o f w h ich a p p lied to W i l s on. St al l i ngs , W i l s on, and s ever al othercodefendant s w er e arr es t ed on February7, 2003. W i l s on fi l ed a mot i on t o s uppr es s the w i r et ap evi dence on A p ril 1 4 , 2 0 0 3 . A n u m b e r o f W ilso n ’s c o d e fe n d a n ts a lso filed m o tio n s to s uppr es s . Fol l ow i ng a hea r i ng, t he di s tr i ctcour ti s s ued an or deron N ovember12, 2003, deny i ng t he s uppr es s i on m ot i ons of ei ghtcodefendant s , i ncl udi ng W i l s on.- 7-

I n doi ng s o, t he courts t at ed thatthe j udge i s s ui ng t he w i r et ap author i zat i on and i t s ext ens i ons w as j us t i fi ed i n concl udi ng thatthe w i r et ap w as nece s s arybas ed on t he governm ent ’ s aff

i davi texpl ai ni ng t he us e and l i m i t at i ons of other i nv est i gati ve techniques. A f ter S tallin g s’ a rre st, h e w a s in ter v iew e d b yF B I in v e stig a to rs a b o u t h is cont act s w i t h W i l s on. D ur i ng an i nt ervi ew on M ay15, 2003, St al l i ngs i m pl i cat ed a numberof hi s and W i l s on’ s codefendant s i n coca i ne di s tr i but i on act i vi t i es , but he s t at ed thatW i l s on had onl ybeen i nvol ved i n s el l i ng m ar ij uana. O n A ugus t5, 2 0 0 3 , S ta llin g s a g a in s ta te d th a t W ils o n h a d n e v e r p u rc h a s e d c o c a in e f ro m h im . T he g ov ernm ent r efused t o en t er a pl ea agreem ent w i th S t al l i ng s aft er these i nt ervi ew s . A tSt al l i ngs ’ r eques t , he w as gi ven a pol y gr aph exa m i nat i on, dur i ng wh i c h h e a g a i n d e n i e d W i l s o n ’ s i n v o l v e me n twi th c o c a i n e d i s tr i b u t i o n . Th e F BI agentconduct i ng t he exa m t ol d St al l i ngs thatthe pol y gr aph i ndi cat ed he w as bei ng unt rut hful . W hen St al l i ngs w as i nt ervi ew ed aga i n, on J anuary23, 2004, he to ld th e F B I in v e stig a to rs th a t W ilso n h a d in fa c t b e e n in v o lv e d in c o c a in e a s w e ll as m ar ij uana di s t r i but i on. S tallin g s e n ter e d in to a p lea a g re e m e n t o n F e b ru a ry2 1 , 2 0 0 4 , p led g u ilty tw o d a y s la ter , an d w a s s e n ten c e d to 1 4 1 m o n th s’ im p riso n m e n t, l a ter re d u c e d to 129 m ont hs . W i l s on’ s ot hercodefendant s i n the or i gi nal i ndi ctm ental s o pl ed gui l t y . A s uper s edi ng i ndi ctm entw as i s s ued on February25, 2004, char gi ng- 8-

W i l s on al one w i t h ei ght een c ount s r el at ed t o m ar ij uana a nd coca i ne di s tr i but i on a n d c o n sp ira c yto d istrib u te c o c a in e , alo n g w ith o n e fo rfe itu re c o u n t. O n D ece m ber7, 2004, W i l s on fi l ed a mot i on r eques t i ng t he courtt o or der th e U n ited S tate s “ to p ro d u c e f u ll, tru e a n d c o rre c t co p ies o f h a rd d a ta r e su lts f ro m a ll p o ly g ra p h m a c h in e e x a m in a tio n s o f D o n o v a n S tallin g s . . . c a rrie d o u t in con necti on w i t h st at em ents S t al l i ng s m ade in this case, ” t og et her w i th “all no t es, r ecor ds , and mem or and[a ] m ade bythe pol y gr aph exa m i ner ” and the ques t i ons t he ex am iner a sk ed d u ri n g the e x am ination . R . V o l. I, d o c. 94 6 , at 2. W il so n ’s m ot i on i ndi cat ed thatt he purpos e of the r eques tw as “s o thatan i ndepende nt p o ly g ra p h e x p e rt c a n [ju x tap o se ] sp e c ific q u e stio n s a sk e d . . . ag a in st th e sp e c ific res ult i ng po l y graph readings . . . [and thereby ] for m an o pini on as t o truthful ness orl ack of

t rut hful nes s of [St al l i ngs ’ ] ans w er s . ” I d. T he mot i on fur thers t at ed t hati f the expe r t ’ s anal y s i s of the pol y gr aph r es ul t s demonstr at ed thatSt al l i ngs had notbeen untrut hful w hen he s t at ed W i l s on w as i nvol ved onl yi n m ar ij uana di s t r i but i on, “and i f the pr os ecut i on m i s l e[] d St al l i ngs on thi s i s s ue, then appr opr i at e M ot i ons w oul d be w arr ant ed. ” I d. at3. T he di s t r i ctcour thear d ar gum ent s on thi s m ot i on ata s t atus confe r ence on J anuary7, 2005. I n r es pons e t o the court ’ s ques t i on r egar di ng w hatus e W i l s on w oul d m ake of

t he pol y gr aph r es ul t s , W i l s on i ndi cat ed thati f the r es ul t s s how ed t hatt he pol y gr aph exa m i nerhad l i ed t o St al l i ngs , “thati s m i s conductt o the poi nt t hatw oul d ent ai l fur t herm ot i ons t o be pr es ent ed the C our t . ” Tr. of St atus- 9-

C onfer ence at15, R . V ol . V I I I . T he courtdeni ed W i l s on’ s m ot i on, s t at i ng that es t abl i s hed l aw al l ow ed the governm entt o “l i e underthes e i nt err ogat i on circu m stan ce s. ” Id . W il so n then en tered an o bjecti o n o n the re co rd to the c o u rt ’s rul i ng.A j ur yt r i al w as hel d fr om February7 t o 16, 2005. W i l s on w as found not gui l t yon fi ve count s and gui l t yon the r emai ni ng count s , w hi ch i ncl uded one c o u n t o f c o n sp ira c yto d istrib u te m o re th a n fif tyg ra m s o f

c ra c k c o c a in e , in vi ol at i on of 21 U . S. C . §§ 841( a) ( 1) and 846, and tw o count s of m anufa ctur i ng, di s t r i but i ng, orpos s es s i ng w i t h i nt entt o di s tr i but e more than fi ftygr ams of cr ack c o c a in e , in v io latio n o f 2 1 U .S .C . § 8 4 1 (a )(1 ). E a c h o f th e se th re e c o u n ts s u bj e c t e d W i l s o n t o a ma n d a t o r ymi n i mu m s e n t e n c e a s s e tfo r th i n 2 1 U. S . C. § 841( b) ( 1) ( A ) ( i i i ) . O n February23, 2004, tw o day s befor e the governm ent i s s ued the s uper s edi ng i ndi ctm entnami ng W i l s on as the s ol e defendant , the governm enthad fi l ed an a m ended i nform at i on i ndi cat i ng t hatW i l s on had a pr i or convi ct i on fora fe l onydrug offe ns e. T he mandat orym i ni m um s ent ence under § 8 41 (b) (1) (A )( i i i ) foran indi vidual w i th such a pri or conv i ct i on i s tw entyy ears ’ i m pr i s onm ent . T he pr es ent ence r eport( “PSR ”) pr epar ed bythe U ni t ed St at es Pr obat i on O ffi ce c al cul at ed an a dvi s or ys ent enci ng r ange of 262 t o 327 m onthsWe n o t e t h a tt h e P S R w a s n o ti n c l u d e d i n t h e r e c o r d o n a p p e a l . We 2 there fo re relyo n the in fo rm ati o n co n tai n ed in the Ju d g m en t r eg ard ing the P S R ’s cal culat i on s. T h e c o u rtalso im p o sed lesser se n tenc es o n the o ther c o u n ts of W il so n ’s 3 con vict i on . B ecause itordered t hat al l sent ences w ere t o run co ncu rr entl y , t ho se se n ten c e s d id n o t affe c t W ilso n ’s te rm o f im p riso n m e n t.

- 10- bas ed on t he U ni t ed St at es Sent enci ng C om m i s s i on, G ui del i nes M anual . T he 2 go vernm ent r ecom m end ed a sen t ence o f 26 2 m on ths. W i l s on obj ect ed t o t he appl i cat i on of the tw enty - y ears t atut or ym i ni m um becau se the fa ctof h i s pri or conv i ct i on had no tbeen fou nd bya j uryand becau se 21 U . S. C . § 851, the s t atut e r equi r i ng the governm entt o fi l e an i nform at i on in d ica tin g a p rio r c o n v ictio n , d o e s n o t allo w a d e fe n d a n t to c h a llen g e th e v a lid ity of the pr i orconvi ct i on i f i toccurr ed more t han fi ve y ear s befor e the dat e of the info rm ati o n . T h e c o u rto v erru led th o se o bjecti o n s an d ap p li ed the s tatu tory m andat or ym i ni m um of tw entyy ear s t o eac h of the thr ee c ount s under § 8 4 1 (a)(1), t o run co n cu rren tl y . N o ti n g the d ispro p o rt ion ate n ature o f W il so n ’s 3 m andat or ym i ni m um s ent ence w hen compar ed t o the s ent ence r ece i ved by St al l i ngs , and exe r ci s i ng i t s di s cr et i on t o s ent ence bel ow t he advi s oryG ui del i nes ran g e, th e c o u rtd ec li n ed to inc rea se W il so n ’s sen tenc e b ey o n d the s tatu tory m i ni m um . W i l s on now appea l s hi s convi ct i on and s ent ence .F ed era l w ir etap s, o r electron ic ea v esd rop p ing , b ylaw en fo rce m en t are 4 governed byT i t l e I I I of the O m ni bus C r i m e C ontr ol and Safe St r eet s A ctof 1968, as amended, 18 U . S. C . §§ 2510- 2522.

- 11- DI S CU S S I ON I . M ot i on t o Sup pres s W i ret ap E vi dence W i l s on fi r s tchal l enges t he di s tr i ctcourt ’ s det erm i nat i on thatt he i ni t i al author i zat i on fora w i r et ap on St al l i ngs ’ cel l ul art el ephone a nd the tw o ext ens i ons m ett he nec es s i t yr equi r ementof the fe der al w i r et ap s t atut e, and ar gues t hatt he 4 di s t r i ctcour tt her efor e err ed i n deny i ng hi s m ot i on t o s uppr es s t he evi dence obt ai ned thr ough t he w i r et aps . “‘ W e r evi ew foran abus e of di s cr et i on a di s tr i ct cour t ’ s det erm i nat i on t hata w i r et ap w as nece s s ary , ’ ” pl aci ng the bur den of pr ovi ng t he w i r et ap i nval i d on t he defendant . U ni t ed St at es v. C l i ne, 349 F. 3d 1276, 1280 ( 10t h C i r . 2003) ( quot i ng U ni t ed St at es v. R ami r ez- E ncarnaci on, 291 F .3 d 1 2 1 9 , 1 2 2 2 (1 0 th C ir. 2 0 0 2 )). If th e d e fe n d a n t d o e s s u c c e e d in m e e tin g th is bur den, “evi dence s ei zed pur s uantt o the w i r et ap mustbe s uppr es s ed. ” I d. ; s ee 18 U . S . C . § 2 5 1 8 (10 ). T he fe der al w i r et ap s t atut e s et s for th “s peci al pr ocedur es forobt ai ni ng w i r et ap author i zat i on” forl aw enfor cementori nves t i gat i ve purpos es , “i ncl udi ng p re s e n tin g a w ri tte n a p p lic a tio n to a ju d g e ,” a s d e s c ri b e d in 1 8 U .S .C . § 2 5 1 8 (1 ). U ni t ed St at es v. G r een, 175 F. 3d 822, 828 ( 10th C i r . 1999) . “B efor e gr ant i ng t he appl i cat i on, t he j udge mustfi nd thatt he affi davi tes t abl i s hes nece s s i tyby- 12-

s how i ng t hat‘ nor m al i nves t i gat i ve pr ocedur es have be en tr i ed and ha ve fa i l ed or r eas onabl yappea rt o be unl i kel yt o s ucce ed i f tr i ed ort o be t oo danger ous . ’ ” Un i t e d S t a t e s v . S ma l l , 4 2 3 F . 3 d 1 1 6 4 , 1 1 7 2 ( 1 0 th Ci r . 2 0 0 5 ) ( q u o t i n g 1 8 U. S . C. § 2518( 3) ( c) ) . I f anyt r adi t i onal i nves t i gat i ve t echni ques w er e nottr i ed, “the governm entm us texpl ai n w hyw i th par t i cul ar i ty . ” R ami r ez- E ncarnaci on, 291 F .3 d a t 1 2 2 2 . W e m u st c o n sid e r “ a ll th e fa c ts a n d c irc u m sta n c e s in o rd e r to d e t e r m i n e w h e t h e rt h e g o v e r n m e n t ’ s s h o w i n g o f n e c e s s i ty i s s u ffi c i e n tt o j u s t i f y a w i r et ap, ” i d. ( i nt ernal quot at i on om i t t ed) , keepi ng i n m i nd t he purpos e of the n ec essityreq u ir em en t “t o insu re tha t w ir etap p ing is no t use d in situ ati o n s w h ere t r adi t i onal i nves t i gat i ve t echni ques w oul d s uffi ce t o expos e the cr i m e. ” U ni t ed St at es v. C as t i l l o- G ar ci a, 117 F. 3d 1179, 1187 ( 10th C i r . 1997) ( i nt ernal quot at i on om i t t ed) , overrul ed on othergr ounds byR ami r ez- E ncarnaci on, 291 F. 3d at1222 n. 1; s ee U ni t ed St at es v. G i or dano, 416 U . S. 505, 515 ( 1974) ( r ecogni zi ng C ongr es s ’ s “cl eari nt ent ” i n i m pos i ng t he nec es s i tyr equi r ementw as “t o m ake d o u b lysu re th a t th e sta tu to rya u th o rity[ fo r e m p lo y in g w ire tap s] b e u se d w ith restrai n t and o n lyw h ere the c ir cu m stan ce s w arran t”). H er e, W i l s on ar gues t hatt he w i r et aps w er e notnece s s arybeca us e “the pr i m arygoal s of the i nves t i gat i on had bee n acc om pl i s hed orw er e w el l on the r oad t o bei ng acc om pl i s hed byothertr adi t i onal i nves t i gat i ve t echni ques atthe tim e th e [ in itia l] in te rc e p t o rd e r w a s e n te re d .” A p p e lla n t’ s O p . B r. a t 1 3 . A c c o rd in g to W ilso n , at th e tim e th e first w ire tap a p p lica tio n w a s filed , “m o st if- 13-

n o t all m e m b e rs o f

th e ” a lleg e d c o n sp ira c yh a d b e e n id e n tifie d , tog e th e r w ith t hei rr ol es , i ncl udi ng one of St al l i ngs ’ s uppl i er s , C l i nt on Perry . I d. at15. T he or i gi nal aff

i davi ti n s uppor tof the w i r et ap appl i cat i on di d i dent i fy Per r yas a s us pect ed as s oci at e of St al l i ngs , bas ed on s ur vei l l ance obs ervat i on of hi m engagi ng i n w hatSpeci al A gentW i l cox s us pect ed w as a drug t r ans act i on and a s ubs equentt r aff

i c s t op dur i ng w hi ch moneyw as found i n Per ry ’ s pos s es s i on t hat w as l at er i den t i fi ed as ha ving bee n u sed byan u nd ercover officert o p urchase drugs fr om St al l i ngs . H ow ever , thi s des cr i pt i on al s o i l l us tr at es the l i m i t at i ons of t r adi t i onal i nves t i gat i ve t echni ques , as s ur vei l l ance w as unabl e t o obs erve w hat w a s a c tu a llyo c c u rrin g d u rin g th e su sp e c ted d ru g tra n sa c tio n a n d c o u ld o n ly s pecul at e r egar di ng t he r el at i ons hi p betw een Perryand St al l i ngs . T he governm entar gues t hati dent i fy i ng byname i ndi vi dual s thatar e s us pect ed of s om e conne ct i on w i t h a drug di s tr i but i on cons pi r acy“i s notthe s ame t hi ng as det erm i ni ng t hei rr ol e” i n t he cons pi r acy , “much l es s does i ts ubs t i tut e for devel opi ng cas es s ui t abl e forpr os ecut i on. ” A ppel l ee’ s B r . at9. Be l o w, t h e d i s t r i c tc o u r tc o n s i d e r e d e x t e n s i v e a r g u me n t s a l o n g th e s a me l i nes as t hos e W i l s on as s ert s her e. T he courtconcl uded that , “[w ] hi l e i ti s true t hatm anyof the tr adi t i onal m ethods of i nves t i gat i on w er e s ucce s s ful , the i nform at i on w as i ncompl et e w hen meas ur ed aga i ns tthe br oad obj ect i ves of the i nv est i gati on , ” and t hese m et ho ds “st op ped shortof reveali ng S t al l i ng s’ s uppl i er s . ” O r derat5, R . V ol . I , doc. 648.- 14-

I tt hus uphel d t he w i r et ap author i zat i on, s t at i ng thatthe affi davi thad s et for t h s uffi ci entdet ai l s i n i t s appl i cat i on t o pr ovi de a ba s i s forbel i evi ng ther e w as a “c r i m i nal or gani zat i on” of s om e ki nd, and thatSt al l i ngs “w as a comm on l i nk w hos e t el ephone c om m uni cat i ons w oul d pr ovi de i nform at i on aboutthe i nt er depende nce of

co- cons pi r at or s . ” I d. at4. T he di s tr i ctcour tal s o hel d thatt he g o v ern m en t’ s ap p li ca ti o n s fo r tw o ex tens ion s o f th e w ir etap au tho ri za ti o n w ere al s o adequa t el ys uppor t ed, “i ncorpor at i ng i nform at i on gl eane d fr om the ea r l i er w i r et ap orw i r et aps ” t o s how “how cont i nued w i r et appi ng i s nece s s ary . ” I d. at5. H av ing tho rou g h lyrev iew ed the re co rd, w e a g ree w ith the d istri ct co u rt t h a tt h e g o v e r n me n t ’ s a ffi d a v i t s i n s u p p o r to f th e i n i t i a l wi r e t a p a n d th e two ext ens i ons per s uas i vel ydemonstr at ed thatthe w i r et aps w er e nec es s aryt o achi eve t he obj ect i ves of the Task For ce i nves t i gat i on. See U ni t ed St at es v. N ew m an, 733 F . 2 d 1 3 9 5 , 1 3 9 9 (10 th C ir . 1 9 8 4 ) (up h o lding n ec essityd eterm ination w h ere t r adi t i onal t echni ques “had fai l ed t o r evea l the s our ce of the drugs [] [or ] the ext entof the drug cons pi r acy ”) ; U ni t ed St at es v. J ohns on, 645 F. 2d 865, 867 ( 10t h C i r . 1981) ( uphol di ng nece s s i tydet erm i nat i on w her e the governm entw as “pr oper l yconce r ned . . . w i t h i dent i fy i ng al l of the mem ber s of the cons pi r acy , as w el l as t he pr eci s e natur e and s cope of the i l l egal act i vi ty ”) ; s ee a l s o U ni t ed S tat es v . M cL ee , 4 3 6 F . 3 d 7 5 1 , 7 6 3 (7th C ir . 2 0 0 6 ) (“T h e g o v ern m en t’ s demonstr at ed nee d fora w i r et ap as a means of i dent i fy i ng al l cocons pi r at or s and the ro les th eyo cc u p ied in the s tru cture o f th e c o n sp ir ac yis sufficien t fo r a- 15-

fi ndi ng of ‘ nece s s i t y ’ undert he s t atut e. ”) . W e ther efor e conc l ude thatthe di s tr i ct cour tdi d notabus e i t s di s cr et i on i n det erm i ni ng t he nec es s i tyr equi r ementw as m e t.

I I . Pro duc t i on o f

Pol ygr aph G r aphs W i l s on nextar gues t hatt he di s tr i ctcourterr ed i n r efus i ng t o or dert he governm entt o hand overt he ac tual gr aph r es ul t s fr om St al l i ngs ’ pol y gr aph exami nat i on. W i l s on cont ends t hatt he governm entw as obl i gat ed t o pr ovi de th e se re su lts u n d e r R u le 1 6 , w h ich m a n d a tes th a t a d e fe n d a n t b e a llo w e d to i ns pect“the r es ul t s orr eport s of anyphy s i cal orm ent al exami nat i on and of a ny s ci ent i fi c t es torexper i m enti f . . . t he i t em i s m at er i al t o pr epar i ng the defens e or t h e g o v e r n me n ti n t e n d s t o u s e t h e i t e m i n i t s c a s e - i n - c h i e f a tt r i a l . ” F e d . R. Cr i m. P . 1 6 (a)(1)(F )(i ii ). W h ere the issu e h as b ee n p rese rve d , w e re v iew the c o u rt ’s r efus al t o or derthe governm entt o pr oduce s uch r es ul t s orr eport s foran abus e of d iscreti o n . U n it ed S tat es v . P ri ce , 7 5 F . 3 d 1 4 4 0 , 1 4 4 5 (10 th C ir . 1 9 9 6 ). A s t he governm entpoi nt s out , how ever , W i l s on di d notar gue bel ow t hathe w a s e n tit led to th e p o ly g ra p h d a ta u n d e r R u le 1 6 . R a th e r, as in d ica ted a b o v e , h is s t a t e d r e a s o n fo rr e q u e s t i n g t h e p o l y g r a p h d a t a wa s t o d e t e r mi n e wh e th e rt h e F BI in v e stig a to rs w h o e x a m in e d S tallin g s h a d e n g a g e d in “ m isc o n d u c t” b ytellin g h im he had fai l ed the pol y gr aph w hen he a ctual l yhad not . T r . of St atus C onfer ence at 15, R . V ol . V I I I . W i l s on s ugges t ed bel ow t hats uch mi s conductw oul d pr ovi de aW ilso n ’s r e p lyb rie f su g g e sts th a t h is in ten tio n w a s to file a “ m o tio n to 5 di s m i s s forout r ageous governm ent al conduct . ” A ppel l ant ’ s R epl yB r . at3- 4. W ilso n c o n ten d s th a t h e d id m a k e a R u le 1 6 a rg u m e n t b e lo w b e c a u se “ if 6 St al l i ngs w as t r i cked i nt o gi vi ng i ncr i m i nat i ng s t at ement s agai ns tW i l s on, s uch a fa c t is m a ter ial to th e d e fe n se .” R e p lyB r. at 3 . H o w e v e r, h e p o in ts to n o p lac e in t he r ecor d, and w e have found none, w her e he a r gued, as he does her e, t hatt he p o l yg r a p h g r a p h s w o u l d a l l o w h i m t o p r e s e n t“ e v i d e n c e o f G o v e rn m e n tt r i c k e r y” a t trial a s a m e a n s o f

im p e a c h in g S tallin g s’ te stim o n y . S e e id . at 4 . W h ile W ilso n d id re fe r to im p e a c h m e n t ev id e n c e a t th e sta tu s c o n fe re n c e , h e m a d e th is r efe r ence w hen di s cus s i ng hi s need form or e compl et e i nform at i on r egar di ng t he ques t i ons t hatw er e as ked dur i ng the pol y gr aph exa m i nat i on, notw hen di s cus s i ng hi s need fort he gr aphs . T he courtdi r ect ed thatt he pr os ecut i on pr ovi de further in fo rm a tio n re g a rd in g “ w h a t th o se q u e stio n s w e re , an d w h a t h a p p e n e d d u rin g th is t i m e. ” Tr. of St atus C onfer ence at20, R . V ol . V I I I . N ot abl y , al though att he t i m e of the s t atus confe r ence t he governm entw as uncert ai n w hetherSt al l i ngs w o u ld b e c all ed to testi fy , W il so n fa il ed to se ek rec o n side rati o n o f th e c o u rt ’s rul i ng r egar di ng t he pol y gr aph dat a af t ert he governm entdeci ded t o cal l St al l i ngs as a w i t ness.

- 16- bas i s for“furt herm ot i ons ” t o t he court , pr es um abl yi n or dert o r eques ts anct i ons of s om e ki nd. I d. W i l s on di d notci t e R ul e 16 i n hi s w r i tt en mot i on r eques t i ng 5 t he gr aph r es ul t s orw hi l e ar gui ng the poi ntatt he s t atus confe r ence , nordi d he ar gue thatt he gr aph r es ul t s w er e mat er i al t o hi s defe ns e. B eca us e W i l s on di d not ra ise a R u le 1 6 iss u e b e lo w in re g a rd to th e p o ly g ra p h d a ta, w e re v iew h is c laim h ere fo r plain e rror. S ee U n it ed S tat es v . T ea g u e, 44 3 F . 3 d 1 3 1 0 , 1 3 1 4 (10 th C ir . 6 20 06 ) ( dis cussi ng plai n err or r eview un der Fed . R . C ri m . P . 52 (b) ); see al so U n it ed S tat es v . M an iktala, 9 3 4 F . 2 d 2 5 , 2 8 (2d C ir . 1 9 9 2 ). U n d e r p lain e rro r re v iew , “w e w ill re v e rse th e ju d g m e n t b e lo w o n lyif

‘ t her e i s ( 1) err or , ( 2) t hati s pl ai n, w hi ch ( 3) affect s s ubs t ant i al r i ght s , and w hi ch ( 4) s er i ous l yaffect s t he fa i r nes s , i nt egr i ty , orpubl i c r eput at i on of j udi ci al- 17-

pr ocee di ngs . ’ ” Teague, 443 F. 3d at1314 ( quot i ng U ni t ed St at es v. G onzal ezH uer t a, 403 F. 3d 727, 732 ( 10t h C i r . 2005) ( en banc ) ) . T hats t andar d i s notm et her e. W i l s on’ s ar gum enton appea l i s that , as s um i ng W i l s on’ s experti nt erpr et ed t he pol y gr aph dat a as s how i ng St al l i ngs ’ s t at ementdur i ng t he exa m i nat i on, that W ilso n h a d o n lyb e e n in v o lv e d in m a riju a n a d istrib u tio n , w a s tru e , W ilso n w o u ld h av e b ee n ab le t o p rese n t th is ex p ert’s t esti m o n yto sh o w S tal li n g s’ co n tr ary t es t i m onyatt r i al w as fal s e. T hi s i m peac hm entt act i c es s ent i al l yr es t s on the claim that the p o ly g rap h d ata a n d W il so n ’s ex p ert’s i n terpretati o n o f th e d ata a re a c c u ra te. W ilso n ’s a ttem p t to in tro d u c e su c h e x p e rt tes tim o n ya t trial w o u ld th e re fo re b e s u bje c t to a h e a ri n g p u rs u a n t to D a u b e rt v . M e rr e ll D o w P a rm ., In c ., 509 U . S. 579 ( 1993) , t o det erm i ne “w hetherthe pr offe r ed evi dence i s r el i abl e” u n d er F ed . R . E v id. 70 2 . U n it ed S tat es v . C all , 1 2 9 F . 3 d 1 4 0 2 , 1 4 0 4 -05 (10 th C ir . 1997) . Such evi dence w oul d al s o be s ubj ectt o Fed. R . E vi d. 403. See C al l , 129 F. 3d at1405. H er e, i tappea r s l i kel yt hati m peac hm entt es t i m onyof the type W i l s on s ugges t s w oul d have be en exc l uded underR ul e 403. A ttr i al , w her e St al l i ngs t es t i fi ed thatW i l s on had bee n i nvol ved i n coca i ne di s tr i but i on, W i l s on’ s couns el cross -exam i ned bo t h S t al l i ng s and S pecial A gen tW i l cox regar ding S t al l i ng s’ pr i ori ncons i s t ents t at ement s t hatW i l s on had onl ybeen i nvol ved i n m ar ij uana d istrib u tio n , rais in g th e im p lica tio n th a t S tallin g s m a yh a v e b e e n in flu e n c e d to c h a n g e h i s s t o r yb yh i s d e s i r e t o o b t a i n a p l e a a g r e e me n t . S e e Tr i a l Tr . a t4 2 5 , R.Sect i on 841( b) pr ovi des , i n r el evantpart , t hatan i ndi vi dual w ho vi ol at es 7 § 841( a) “af

t era pr i orconvi ct i on fora fe l onydrug offe ns e has become fi nal , s uch per s on s hal l be s ent ence d t o a t erm of i m pr i s onm entw hi ch maynotbe l es s t han 2 0 y ea rs an d n o t m o re tha n li fe im p ri so n m en t. ” 2 1 U . S . C . § 8 4 1 (b)(1 )(A ).

- 18- V ol. X ; i d. at87 3, R . V ol. X II . A nyfurther at t em pt t o im peach S t al l i ng s’ t es t i m onyus i ng an expe r t ’ s i nt erpr et at i on of the pol y gr aph dat a w oul d have be en lar g e lyc u m u lativ e . M o re o v e r, th is c o u rt o b se rv e d in C a ll th a t “[ t]h e c re d ib ili ty o f w itn e s s e s is g e n e ra lly n o t a n a p p ro p ri a te s u bje c t fo r e x p e rt te s tim o n y ,” i ncludi ng t est i m on yregar ding po l y graph d at a, becau se such t est i m on y“usurps a c r i t i c a l f u n c t i o n o f

t h e j u r y. . . , wh i c h i s c a p a b l e o f ma k i n g i t s o wn det erm i nat i on r egar di ng cr edi bi l i ty . ” 129 F. 3d at1406. W e ther efor e conc l ude th e d istric t co u rt d id n o t co m m it p lain e rro r in fa ili n g to o rd e r th e g o v e rn m e n t to pr oduce the pol y gr aph dat a.

I I I . Sent enci ng i s s ues W il so n raises a n u m b er o f a rgu m en ts r eg ard ing the tw en ty -y ea r m an d atory m i ni m um s ent ence t hatw as t r i gger ed under21 U . S. C . § 841( b) bas ed on hi s pr i or fel onydrug convi ct i on. H e fi r s tar gues t hatt he exi s t ence of a pr i ordrug fel ony 7 convi ct i on w as an el ementof the offens e w i th w hi ch he w as char ged, and the g o v ern m en t’ s fa il u re to p lead that elem en t i n h is i n d ict m en t or p rov e itto a ju ry bey ond a r eas onabl e doubtw as i n vi ol at i on of hi s Si xth A m endmentr i ghtt o a j ur yt r i al as i nt erpr et ed byt he Supr eme C our ti n A ppr endi v. U ni t ed St at es , 530I n hi s openi ng br i ef, W i l s on ar gued thatt he di s tr i ctcourtl acke d 8 j ur i s di ct i on t o appl yt he s t atut or ym i ni m um beca us e the i nform at i on r equi r ed under§ 851 w as unt i m el y . I n hi s r epl ybr i ef, how ever , W i l s on acknow l edged that t hi s ar gum entw as for ecl os ed byU ni t ed St at es v. Fl ow er s , 441 F. 3d 900, 903 (10t h C i r. 20 06 ), w hich hel d thatt he requ i rem ents of § 85 1, i ncludi ng t ho se r e l a t e d t o t i m i n g o f

t h e g o v e r n m e n t ’ s fi l i n g , w e r e n o tj u r i s d i c t i o n a l i n n a tu r e . We t her efor e nee d notaddr es s W i l s on’ s j ur i s di ct i onal ar gum entfur ther . W e not e that th e g o v e rn m e n t cite s F lo w e rs fo r th e p ro p o sitio n th a t W ilso n fo rfe ited h is rig h t to r ai s e thi s i s s ue atal l beca us e he di d notr ai s e i tbel ow . A s t he governm ent acknow l edges , how ever , Fl ow er s came befor e the courton col l at er al r evi ew . See Sapi a v. U ni t ed St at es , 433 F. 3d 212, 217 ( 2d C i r . 2005) . O n di r ectappea l , t he pr opers t andar d of r evi ew i s pl ai n err or . Fed. R . C r i m . P. 52( b) ; s ee U ni t ed St at es v . B row n , 3 1 6 F . 3 d 1 1 5 1 , 1 1 5 5 & n . 1 (10 th C ir . 2 0 0 3 ).

- 19- U . S . 4 6 6 (20 0 0 ), an d U n it ed S tat es v . B o o k er, 54 3 U . S . 2 2 0 (20 0 5 ). W il so n ’s ar gum enton t hi s poi nti s pr ecl uded byourpr i orhol di ng t o the contr aryi n U ni t ed St at es v. M oor e, 401 F. 3d 1220, 1224 ( 10th C i r . 2005) . See U ni t ed St at es v. B r ot her s , 438 F. 3d 1068, 1074 ( 10t h C i r . 2006) ( obs ervi ng t hatw e ca nnot over tur n a pr i ordeci s i on of a pa nel of thi s ci r cui t“barr i ng en banc r econs i der at i on, a s uper s edi ng contr arySupr eme C our tdeci s i on, orauthor i zat i on o f a ll cu rren tl yac ti v e jud g es o n the c o u rt ” (intern al qu o tat ion o m itted)). W il so n n ex t argu es th at th e d istri ct co u rt ’s ap p li ca ti o n o f th e statuto ry t w enty - y earm i ni m um under21 U . S. C . § 841( b) w as i n err orbeca us e the g o v ern m en t fi led th e info rm ati o n req u ir ed b y2 1 U . S . C . § 8 5 1 , cit ing W il so n ’s p ri o r fe lo n yd ru g c o n v ic tio n , b e fo re th e d a te o f W ils o n ’s s u p e rs e d in g in d ic tm e n t. B ec au se W il so n d id n o t r aise this issue b elow , w e re v iew fo r plain e rror. 8- 20-

Sect i on 851 r equi r es t hat , i n or derforthe governm entt o appl y“i ncr eas ed puni s hm entbyr eas on of one orm or e pr i orconvi ct i ons , ” i tm us t , “befor e tr i al , or b e fo re e n tr yo f

a p le a o f

g u ilty, . . . file [ ] a n in fo rm a tio n w ith th e c o u rt . . . s t a t i n g i n wr i t i n g t h e p r e v i o u s c o n v i c t i o n s t o b e r e l i e d u p o n . ” 2 1 U. S . C. § 851( a) ( 1) . W i l s on ci t es no author i tyforthe pr opos i t i on thatthe i nform at i on r equi r ed under§ 851, havi ng been f i l ed af t erthe or i gi nal i ndi ctm ent , m us tbe r efi l ed i f the governm ent , as i tdi d her e, s ubs equent l yfi l es a s uper s edi ng i ndi ctm enti n t he s ame cas e. M or eover , the pl ai n l anguage of § 851 does not s uppor ts uch a r eadi ng. W e ther efor e conc l ude thatthe di s tr i ctcour tdi d not comm i tpl ai n err ori n r el y i ng on the i nform at i on fi l ed befor e the s uper s edi ng ind ict m en t as sati sfy ing § 8 5 1 (a). W i l s on al s o ar gues t hatt he r equi r ements etfor th i n 21 U . S. C . § 851( c) , t hat a defendant“fi l e a w r i t t en r es pons e t o the i nform at i on” fi l ed bythe governm ent i n or dert o obj ectt o t he al l eged pr i orconvi ct i on, vi ol at es hi s Fi fth A m endment r i ghtagai ns ts el f- i ncr i m i nat i on. H e ac know l edges thathe di d notr ai s e thi s i s s ue b elow an d that w e the refo re rev iew itfo r plain e rror. E ssent i al l y , W i l son argu es that the inform at i on that the g ov ernm ent m ust fi l e under§ 851 i s s ubj ectt o Fed. R . C r i m . P. 7 and 11 and ther efor e, the s i l ence of a de fenda ntw ho fai l s t o fi l e a r es pons e cha l l engi ng the i nform at i on m us tbe cons t rued as a pl ea of “notgui l t y ” r atherthan an a dm i s s i on t hatthe al l eged pr i or c o n v ictio n is a c c u ra te. S e e F e d . R . C rim . P . 1 1 (a )(4 ) (“ If a d e fe n d a n t re f

u se s to- 21-

ent era pl ea . . . , t he courtm us tent era pl ea of notgui l ty . ”) . C our t s have cons i der ed the i nform at i on fi l ed forpurpos es of § 851 t o be s ubj ectt o R ul e 7, w h ich se ts fo rth g e n e ra l re q u ire m e n ts fo r th e n a tu re a n d c o n ten ts o f in d ictm e n ts an d info rm ati o n s. S ee , e.g., U n it ed S tat es v . G arc ia, 9 5 4 F . 2 d 2 7 3 , 2 7 6 (5th C ir . 1 9 9 2 ) (“ R u le 7 (c )(3 ) . . . d o e s n o t d istin g u ish b e tw e e n . . . info rm a tio n s u se d to char ge a de fenda ntw i t h a cr i m e and i nform at i ons us ed fors ent enci ng enhanc ementpurpos es . ”) . R ul e 11, on the otherhand, w hi ch governs the pr ocedur es forent er i ng pl eas t o cr i m i nal char ges , does notr efe rt o i nform at i ons atal l and i s cl ear l yconce r ned w i th pr e- convi ct i on char ges , notw i th not i ces of s e n te n c in g e n h a n c e m e n ts b a s e d o n p ri o r c o n v ic tio n s . W il so n cit es n o au tho ri ty , an d w e h av e fo u n d n o n e, t o the c o n tr ary . R athe r, h e c it es B o yk in v . A laba m a, 39 5 U . S . 2 3 8 (19 6 9 ), w h ich h eld th at a c o u rt ’s acc ept ance of a gui l t ypl ea w i t houtdet erm i ni ng t he pl ea w as know i ngl yand vol unt ar i l yent er ed w as i n vi ol at i on of the Fi fth A m endment . I d. at243. W i l s on agai n appea r s t o r el yon an uns uppor t ed as s um pt i on thatan al l egat i on of a pr i or convi ct i on i s anal ogous t o an or i gi nal cr i m i nal char ge. H ow ever , the c o n stitu tio n a l p ro tec tio n s a c c o rd e d a n a c c u se d p rio r to c o n v ictio n a re c lea rly di s t i nctfr om anyt hatm i ghtappl yw her e a c onvi ct i on has become fi nal . A tthe s ame t i m e, as t he governm entpoi nt s out , W i l s on i s i ncorr ecti n hi s as s er t i on t hat § 851 s hi ft s t he bur den of pr ovi ng the exi s t ence of a pr i orconvi ct i on fr om the governm entt o t he defendant . W hi l e § 851 pr ovi des a pr ocedur e fora defendant- 22-

t o c o n t e s ta p r i o rc o n v i c t i o n , t h e b u r d e n t o p r o v e th e p r i o rc o n v i c t i o n b y a pr eponder ance of the evi dence r emai ns w i th the governm ent . See U ni t ed St at es v. C o o p e r , 3 7 5 F . 3 d 1 0 4 1 , 1 0 5 2 ( 1 0 th C i r . ) , c e r t . d e n i e d , 5 4 3 U . S . 1 0 1 1 ( 2 0 0 4 ) . We r ej ectW i l s on’ s cl ai m of pl ai n err oron thi s i s s ue. W i l s on fi nal l yar gues t hatthe di s tr i ctcour terr ed byfai l i ng t o fol l ow § 851( b) bym aki ng “s peci fi c i nqui ry. . . as t o w hether[W i l s on] admi t t ed or d e n i e d t h e e x i s t e n c e o f [ t h e a l l e g e d p r i o r ] c o n v i c t i o n . ” 2 1 U. S . C. § 8 5 1 ( b ) . As W i l s on does notcl ai m t o have pr es erved thi s i s s ue bel ow , w e aga i n r evi ew for pl ai n err or . O urr evi ew of the tr ans cr i ptof W i l s on’ s s ent enci ng hear i ng i ndi cat es t hatt he di s t r i ctcour tdi d notm ake a s peci fi c i nqui ryr egar di ng the pr i or c o n v ictio n a lleg e d in th e g o v e rn m e n t’s § 8 5 1 in fo rm a tio n . H o w e v e r, W ilso n d id m ake a s t at ementobj ect i ng t o t he s t at e convi ct i ons i ndi cat ed i n hi s PSR as havi ng been obt ai ned i n vi ol at i on of hi s cons t i tut i onal r i ght s . T r . of Sent enci ng H r ’ g at 1813, R . V ol . X V I I I . W i l s on’ s couns el al s o chal l enged the fi ve- y ears t atut e of l i m i t at i ons i n 21 U . S. C . § 851( e) , w hi ch pr event ed W i l s on fr om chal l engi ng the val i di t yof the pr i orconvi ct i on al l eged i n the i nform at i on. T he courtdeni ed that chal l enge, and W i l s on di d notr ai s e the i s s ue on appe al . W hi l e W i l s on ar gues t he di s t r i ctcour tfai l ed t o m ake a fi ndi ng r egar di ng the exi s t ence of the pr i or convi ct i on, t he courtdi d adoptt he fi ndi ngs of the PSR , w hi ch i ncl uded that co n v ict ion . W e c o n clud e tha t th e c o u rt ’s fa il u re to e n g ag e in a sp ec ifi c inq u iry di d notamount t o pl ai n err ori n t hi s cas e. See U ni t ed St at es v. T hom as , 348 F. 3d- 23-

78, 87 ( 5t h C i r . 2003) ( hol di ng “a di s tr i ctcour t ’ s fai l ur e t o gi ve the § 851( b) col l oquydoes notaffectt he defendant ’ s s ubs t ant i al r i ght s w her e the defendant fai l ed t o . . . chal l enge the convi ct i on[] [al l eged i n the fi l ed i nform at i on] and neverr evea l ed w hatchal l enges he w as pr epar ed t o l evel ” ( i nt ernal quot at i on o m itted).

CO NC L US I ON F o rt h e fo r e g o i n g r e a s o n s , t h e j u d g me n to f t h e d i s tr i c tc o u r ti s AF F I RMED . ENT ERE D FOR T HE COURT St ephen H . A nder s on C i r cui tJ udge