## In the



# U n ited S ta tes Co urt o f Ap p ea ls

F o rth eS e v e n th C ir cu it

N o. 08

- 2236 U NI T ED S TATE SOF A MERI CA, P la intif f-A pp ellee, v. T ERRI S AWYER, D ef endant-Appellant.

A pp eal from the United S t ates Di strictC our t fo r the S outhernDi stricto f Indian a, Indian apo lisDiv isi on. No . IP-06-1 26 -CR-04-M/F

—L arry J . M cK inn ey, Judge
.
A RGUED F EB RU AR Y 12, 2009

— D ECI DE D M AR CH 12, 2009

B ef or e E A S T E RB R OO K, Chie f Judg e, a nd F L A U M a nd M A NI ON, C ircu it Judges . F LA UM , Cir cu i tJudg e . Ter riS aw yerwas convi cted f or parti ci pati ng i n a con spi ra cy to dist ribute m etham phetam ine. H er ap p eal prim aril y rests on th e d istric t cou rt’s refu sa l to i nstr uct the j ury on the el em ents ofa du re ss defe nse, al though s he al so ra i ses questi ons about her se n te n c e a n d ce rt ain ev id en tia ry ru lin gs as w ell. F o r the f o l l o wi ngr ea so ns , we affi rm the j udg m en t an d sente nce o fthe dist ri ct c ourt
.2 N o. 08

- 2236 I . B a c kg r o und InFe b ru ar y 2 00 8, at th e c on c lu sio n of a t w o - d ay tria l, a federa l j ury convi cted Ter riS aw yero fco nspir acy to delive r 50 0 o r m or e g ra m s o fa m i xture orsubst ance con taining m eth am p he tam ine. Sa w yer pres en ted a very di ff e r e nta c c o un to fthe e v e nt s l e a di ngt o tha tc o nv i cti on th an th e g ov er n m e n t . Sh e c laim s s h e w as rele n tle ss ly th r ea te ne d b y S efer i no Ro dr i g ue z, o ne o f th e g o ve r nm en t’ s wi tn es se s att r i al, b ec au se o fa pr ev io us dr ug deb t o wed b y her ex -bo y f r i en d. To pa y o ffthi s deb t, s he cl ai m s that Rodr i guez f or ced herto fin d m eth b uyer s. The gov er nm ent’ s evi dence at tr i al i nd i cate d tha t Saw yer was a w i l l i ngpa r ti ci pan t i n a meth

- dea l i ngo per at i o n, and th at she purchas ed m eth fro m Rodri guez and w as re sponsibl e f ori ntro du ci ng var i ous buyer s a nd suppli er s. S efer i no R od ri g ue z o ff er ed te st i m o ny i n s uppo r t o fthe gover n m ent’ s ca se. Rodri guez tes ti fi ed that he be gan deal i ng m eth i n J anuary 2005 , w hen Sawyer ask ed him to sel l i t t o her. H e h ad m et Sawyera f ew m onths bef or e, because Rodri guez had sol d m ar ij uana to S aw yer ’ s bo yf ri end Ryan Beaucham p . A fterS aw yeras ked hi m f or m eth, Rodri guez m et w i th a m an kno w n as G av acho at a n ig h t c l u b , an d G av ac h o a gr ee d to se ll him m et h . Ro d rig ue z te st i fi ed th athe s et up h i s fi r sts al e to S awy erabo ut a week afterthi s. Conti nuing f orth e next si x m onths, Rodri guez sol d m eth t o Sawyer, usual l y o nce o r tw i ce per w eek

. I n l ate June o r ear l y J uly20 05, S aw yeri ntro
du c ed R od ri guez to a cust om ero fher s, Donal d Pruett

. R od rig u ez te st ified t h at w h en h e m et “D on n ie” (as R od rigu ez kn ew h im ) t h e y m a d e a d ea l to b u y m et h . Sh or tlyN o. 08

- 2236 3 after this sale, Rod riguez w en t to Tex as for h is si ster’s bi rthd ay. I n hi s absence , Gavacho sol d m eth di re ctl y t o Sawyer

. Rodri guez w ent b ack to sel l i ng m eth t o Sawyer w hen he r etur ned to I nd i ana i n Se ptem ber20 05. So m e tim e a fterRodri guez re turned t o I nd i ana, S aw yer i ntro du ced hi m to Greg or y Vanes

. A ccor ding to hi s t ri al te st im on y, Sa w y e r i n tr od u c ed V an es as h er p ar tn er in m eth deal in g. Forthe next few m onths, unti l pol i ce offic er s a rre st ed h im in F e b r u a r y 2 00 6, R od rig u ez so ld m eth to both Sawyer and Vanes

. Rodri guez del i ver ed the dr ugs o nce o r tw i ce perweek, i n pound quanti ti es. Du r i n gth i s t i me , S a wy e r i n t r o d u c e d Rodr i g u e z t o t wo othe r custo m er s, Jas on S w ear i ngen a nd H eat her Crowd er ; as a re sul t o ft h es e int ro du cti ons, Rodri guez s o l d me th t o b o th o fth e m. I n J anuary 2006 , Sawyer and Vanes tol d Ro drigu ez that thei r partner shi p had end ed ove r a fi nanci aldi spute. Ro dr i g ue z co nt i nue d s ell i ngmetht o S awy erf o r the next m onth o r so. H e was ar re ste d o n Feb ruar y 1 3, 20 06, by I nd i anapol i s pol i ce o ffi cer s whil e in posses si on o f ni ne o unces o fm eth. A t the ti m e o fhi s a rr es t, h e w as on his w ay to com p lete a dea l w ith Saw yer. The go ver nm ent’ s ca se i ncl ud ed several addit i onal w itn es se s. V a n e s t es tifie d th at Sa w ye r in tr od u c ed h im to Ro dr i g ue z as a s uppl i ero fmeth amphet ami ne a nd that he and Sa w yerbo ught m eth from Rodri guez re gul ar l y a ft e r tha t mee t i ng ; Vane s a dm i tte d to p e r s o n a l l y r e c e i v i n gfi v e o r si x o n e - p o u n d s h i p me n t s . At th e sa m e ti m e, Va ne s was a l so b uy i ngmeth f r o m a no th er so ur ce i n fi ve o r te n po und sh i pm en ts; he4 N o. 08

- 2236
tes ti fi ed that he would d elive r tw o to fi ve pound s t o Sawyerafterea ch del i ver y fro m thi s o therso urce. Donal d Pruettte sti fi ed that he began buyi ng m eth fro m Sawyeri n Feb ruar y 2 005, and bou gh t m eth fro m her about once a m onth f orthe next si x m onths. E ventuall y, Pr ue tt l ea r ne d o fS awy er ’ s su ppl i er s, i nc l ud i ng “S efer i no ” ( pr es um ab lyR o d r i g ue z) , “ Gor do , ” “J o k er, ” an d “Gavacho. ” Pr uett sto pp ed buyi ng fro m S aw yerwh en she a rr anged a drug tr ansact i on with her suppli er s that sh e di d no t sh o w up f o r ; a fte r tha t, Pr ue tt bo ug ht dir ectl y fro m S aw yer’s suppli er s. J aso n Sweari ngen tes ti fi ed that he m et Sawyeri n A ugu st 2 00 4, and bega n b u yin g m e t h f ro m h er ab ou t a m on th lat er . H e a n d h is gi rl f ri end, H eather Crow d er , bo ught ab out one pound o f m eth pe r wee kfr o m S awy er. Cr o wder t es ti fi ed th ats he m et Sawyerar ound the sa m e t i m e a s S w ear i ngen, and that Sawyerand Sweari ngen a rr anged a m eth dealat that firs t m ee tin g. A f te r th at, sh e a n d Sw ea rin ge n reg u lar ly b ou gh t o ne- pound quanti ti es ofm eth; m any o fthes e deal s t oo k pl ace i n I nd i anap oli s, wh er e Cro w der was i ntrod uced to s o m e o fS awy er ’ s su ppl i er s. The g o ve r nm ent’ s ca se al so i ncl ud ed a r eco rded p h one cal l bet w een Sawyer and Crowd erthatto ok pla ce a fterS w ear i ngen had been a rr est ed on drug ch ar ge s; i n that cal l, Cro w der as k ed “whe n do we g o b ack to wor k, ” m ea ni ng, s he te st i fi ed, whenthe y c o ul d g o b ac kt o s el l i ngmeth

. The go ver nm ent a l so prese nted the tes ti m ony ofS peci al A gent M i chaelDavi s o fthe Drug Enfo r c e ment A dm i ni str ati on. Davi s tes ti fi ed that he exec uted the sea rch w ar ra nt o n Sawyer ’ s ho m e i n Ri chm ond, I nd i ana i n N ove m ber20 06.N o. 08

- 2236 5 Inth at se ar c h, la w e n for c em en t o ffice rs rec ov er ed a sm all amoun t o f m eth, appr o xi m at el y $1 1, 74 6 i n cur r en cy, a nd w ei ghts f ora scal e. Sawyer prese nted a ver y diff er ent ver si on of e vents
. Sh e t e s tifie d th at sh e b eg an d at in g R ya n B ea u c h am p in 2 0 0 4 ; ev e nt ua l l y , b o th o fth e m b e g a n t o u s e me th a mph e t a mi ne . S a wy e r t e s t i fi e d tha tBe a uc ham p wa s fr i e nd s w ith R od rig u ez , an d th at th e t w o of t h em d e a l t m ar ij u an a a n d co c ain e t og et h er . T h i s b u sin es s re lat ion sh ip so ur ed when Bea uch amp r i pped Ro dr i g ue z o ff i n a d ru g d ea l, h ow ev er . (Ro d rig u ez , w h en a s ke d ab ou t t h is d e a l d u r i n gh i s te s t i mo n y a tt r i a l, s a i d th a tB e a u c h a mp had been a ssa ult ed and ro bbed aft er Rodri guez f ro nted h im f ifte en p ou n d s o f m ar ij u an a; h e t es tifie d th at h e d id not try to col le ct on this d ebt.) Saw yer testifi ed , how ever, that Rodri guez bega n thr eat eni ng Beaucham p after that dea l

. First, Ro dr i g ue z sh o wed up atS awy era nd Be au cham p’s house w i th se veral otherm en and thr eat ened Be a u c h a mp . A ft e r th a tn i g h t, S a wy e r th r e w B e a u c h a mp out ofthei r shar ed house. Aft ertha t co nfr o nt at i o n, Ro dr i g ue z ev i den tl y l o stc o nta ctwi thBe au ch amp an d i ns te ad be g anha r assi ng Sawyerabo ut the debt. A t o ne poi nt he and seve ra l othe r m en sho w ed up at S aw yer ’ s ho use a nd dem anded that she g o w i th the m to H oo si erM ar i ne to g et Beaucham p’s boatr el eas ed as paym en t. Rodri guez acknowle dged that he m ade thi s t rip, an d the m anage r of H oo si erM ar ine t est i fi ed that he r em em ber ed Sa w yer l o o k i ngs ca r ed dur i ngthe i r c o nv er sa ti o n. Looki ng f oro therwa ys t o pay o ffthe debt, S aw yer tes ti fi ed that sh e th en be gan intro du ci ng Rodri guez6 N o. 08

- 2236
to potenti alcusto m er s. S he cl ai m s t o have acte d as a m idd l eman i n t r an sa ct i o ns b etwee n Ro dr i g ue z an d the gov er nm ent’ s o th er witnes ses attr i al

. S he te sti fi ed that s he wa s p r e s e ntwh e n o the r s b o ughtme th f ro m Rodri guez, but neverpart i ci pated i n re - sel l i ng. S awy erne ve r c o nt ac te d the p o l i ce b ec au se , s he cl ai m ed, Rodri gu ez w as a m em bero fthe M exi can M a fi a and s he wa s a f r a i d h e wo ul d fi nd o uti fs he di d. She testifi ed that the debtthatBeaucham p ow ed Rodri guez ( and that a s a r esul t s he o w ed Rodri guez) was b et w e e n $2 5,0 00 an d $3 0,0 00 . Ro d rig u ez w ou ld ca ll he r, s he c l ai m ed att r i al, “ dai l y , ” by“ co m i ngdow n c o nsta ntl y, sa yi ng the y would be

— he would te ll m e they w oul d ci rcl e the house the ni ght b ef or e a nd j ust

— I w as an emot i o na l wre ck

. ” W i thr es pec t to the na tu r e o fthe conta ct, S aw yerte sti fi ed that, “he w oul d be o n to m e, like , tell th em to m ov e t h e d op e fas te r an d ge t p eo p le u p th e r e ; a n d , y o u k n o w, ‘T h e s e g u y s a r e , y o u k n o w, ge tt in g m ad ,’ j u st sa m e s tu ff ev er y d ay .” On cros s- exam i nati on s he adm i tt ed thatshe did not have any c onver sat i ons about t he r unning b al ance o fthat debt o r how m uch i t di m in ish ed bas ed on the num bero f i nt r o du c t i o ns tha ts he ma de , u nt i l Oc t o b e r 2 0 0 5 wh en Rodri guez had reduced the debt by$1 0, 000. S he al so tes ti fi ed that she m ove d fr om Cl ove rdale, I nd i ana, to Ric hm ond, I nd i ana i n Decem ber20 05, in o rderto ge t aw ay f ro m Rodri guez. The thr eat eni ng enco unters with Rodri guez ended aft ershe m ove d, al though S aw yer tes ti fi ed that he would st i l l co ntact her by phone. Du ri ng an i nstr ucti on confer ence at the tr i al, Sa w yer tendere d an i ns tr u c tio n on the affi rm ati ve defe nse o fN o. 08

- 2236 7 du re ss. The go ver nm ent ob j ected on the gr ounds that Sawyerhad not m et the b urden ofpro du cti on f orthat defe nse b ecaus e sh e had notes tabl i shed that she f aced an i m m edi ate thr eato fdeath o r bodi l y i nj ury and did not h av e a rea sonab l e o pp or tuni ty to esca pe the thre ate ned ha r m . The di st r i ctc o ur t ag r ee d wi ththe g o ve r nm en t an d de cl i ne d t o i ss ue the i ns tr uct i o n. The j ury co n victe d Sawyer ofco nspir acy to dist ribute m etham phetam i ne at the cl ose of the tr i al

. On M ay 9, 20 08 , Sa w ye r w as se n te n c ed to 26 0 m on th s in p ris on . Th is a pp e a l f o l l o we d.

I I . Discussi on S awy err ai se s th r ee i ss ue s i n thi s appe al

. F i r st, sh e ar gue s tha tthe di s t r i c tc o ur te r r e d b y n o tt e nd e r i ngh er pr o ff er ed i ns tr uct i o n o n dur es s to the j ur y ; seco nd, s he ar gu es th at th e d ist ric t c ou r t e rre d by ex c lu d in g c er ta in ev i den ce fr o m he r t r i al ; thi r d, s he a r g ue s th atthe d i s t r i c tc o u r ti m p o s e d a n u n r e a s o n a b l e s e n t e n c e . We ta k e ea chc l ai m i n tur n.

A . Du r ess i nstructi on This cour t r evi ew s de no vo a d i str i ct c ourt ’ s deci si on n ot to giv e a d efe n se ins tr u c tio n . U nite d State s v. B rack, 18 8 F .3d 74 8 (7 th C ir. 19 99 ); see a l s o Unit e d S t at e s v. Pr ude, 489 F. 3d 873, 88 2 ( 7th Ci r. 20 07) (“W e rev i ew a dist ri ct cou r t ’ s r e fus a l t o g i v e a the o r y o fde f e ns e i ns t r uc t i on de novo

. ”)

. A defendant i s e nti tl ed to o fferan8 N o. 08

- 2236 i nstr ucti on o n an affi rm ati ve defe nse o r a theor y o f defe nse if : ( 1) the defe nd ant’ s pro ff er ed i nstr ucti on i s a cor re ct s tatem en t o fthe l aw ; ( 2) the theo ryo fdefense i s s up port ed by the e vi dence; (3) the theor y o fdefense i s no t pa r t o f the c ha r g e ; a nd ( 4 ) the f a i l ur e t o i ncl ude th e in st ru c tio n w ou ld d en y t h e d efe n d an t a fair t ria l. U ni t e d St at e s v. Je nki ns , 4 19 F .3d 6 14 , 6 18 (7 th C ir. 20 05 ). A defe nd ant i s e nti tl ed to have a j ury consi der a pro ff er ed defen se s o l o nga s t ha t de f en se ha s a f o unda ti o n i n the evi dence, “ho w eve r tenuous” that f oundati on m ay be. U nited Sta tes v. G iven , 164 F.3d 389 , 394 (7th C ir. 1999). Sawyer ’ s cl aim cent er s a ro und the affi rm ati ve defe nse ofduress

. The duress defense has its ro ots i n com m on l aw, a nd exc us es c r i m i na l c o nduc t, e ve n tho ug h the defe nd ant e ng ag es in itwith the r equi si te m e ns re a, because the defe nd ant nev er thel ess act ed u n d er a thre at ofa gr eat eri m m edi ate har m thatco uld o n ly be a voi ded b y c om m i t t i n g th e c rim e c h ar ge d . U n d er th e la w of th is ci rcui t, a defe nd ant a tte m pti ng to pre sent a defense of du re ss or c oer ci on m ust s how : ( 1) she re aso nabl y fear ed i mme d i a t e d e a th o r s e r i o u s b o d i l y h a r m u n l e s s s h e c o mmi t t e d the o ff e ns e ; a nd ( 2 ) the r e wa s n o r e aso na b l e o ppo r tu ni ty to r efus e to c o m m i t th e o ff en se a nd a vo i d the th re at en ed inju ry . U nite d State s v. Jocic, 20 7 F.3d 889, 89 2 ( 7th Ci r. 20 00)

. I fthe defe nd ant had a r eas onabl e a l ter nativ e t o v iola tin g t h e la w , th en th e d efe n se of d u re ss w ill n ot lie. Id . A d efe n d an t’s fea r of d ea th or s e r i o u s b od ily inj ury i s g ener al l y i nsuffi ci ent. Rather, “[ t] here m ust be evi dence tha tthe thr eat ened har m was pres ent, i m m edi ate , ori m pend i ng. ” U nited Sta te s v . Ta nn er, 94 1 F

. 2d 574, 58 7 ( 7th Ci r. 19 91)

. Fur ther, S up re m e Cour t pr ecedent al soN o. 08

- 2236 9 sugge sts thatwh en a defe nd an t present i ng a du re ss d efe n se c om m itt ed an on go in g crim e (su c h as , in t h is c a s e , c o n s p i r a c y ) th a td e f e n d a n tmu s th a v e c e a s e d c o mm i tti ng the cr i m e a s s oo n as th e c l ai m ed duress l osti ts c oe rc ive forc e. See U nited Sta tes v. B a iley, 444 U

. S. 394, 41 2- 13 ( 1 9 8 0 ) ( ho l di ng tha t a n e s c a pe e f r o m c us t o dy m ust prese nt ev i dence thathe s urr endered t o author ities as so on as th e c oe rc ive forc e c e a se d w h en h e c laim ed h is esca p e occu rred un d er du ress). Th e d istri ct c ourtdecl i ned to i ssue the j ury i nstr ucti on i n this case b ec au se i t di d no t fi nd a s uffi ci en t evid en tiary bas is for it. T he cou rt fi rst not ed th at, “I d on’t th in k t h er e’s e vid en c e t h at th e t h re at w as im m ed iat e. . . . T h e c as es th at giv e t h es e in st ru c tio n s a re ca se s in whi chthe r e’ s so m eon e r i g htthe r e o n the s po t en f o r ci ng th e pe r s on’s act ivi ties. Th is i sn ’t

— w e d on ’t h av e t h at .” W i thr es pec t to the s ec o nd po r ti o n of th e defen se , the d istri ct cou rt found that she h ad a reason a ble opp ortu n ity to r efuse t o com m i t the o ff ense, not i ng tha t “ther e was so m uch ti m e a vai l abl e f orh er t o have re ac h ed ou t t o law en for c em en t a n d sh e c h os e n ot to .” One sente nce o fthe dist ri ct c ourt ’ s o pini on com pli cate s o ur r evi ew , ho wev er . The di st r i ctc o ur t, whendi sc us sing the e vi dence pres en ted, f ound that “ [ t] here ’ s j ust no t enough evi dence here to m eetthe burden

— preponderance on herburden t o show that s he eng age d i n conduct b e c a u s e s h e r e a s o n a b l y fe a r e d th a ti mme d i a t e s er i o us bo di l y ha r m o r de ath w ou ld be i nfl i ct ed upo n h era nd th ats he ha d no re as o nabl e o ppo r tu ni tyt o a vo i d i nj ury.” Saw yer a r g u e s on ap p eal that th e d istri ct cou rt’s10 N o. 08

- 2236

r e f e r e nc e t o “ pr e po nd e r a nc e ” w as e r r o ne o us a nd a ppl i ed th e wro nge vi den ti ar y s ta nda r d t o the i ns tr uct i o n. Sa w ye r su g g es ts th at th e d ist ric t c ou rtw as im p ro p er ly appl y i ngthe S upr eme Co ur t’ s dec isi o n i n D ixon v. U nited Sta tes , 5 48 U. S

. 1 ( 20 06 )

. Tha t ca se he l d tha t th e defe nd ant be ar s the bur den ofdem onst ra ti ng the el em en ts o fa dur es s defen se b y a pr epo nd erance o fthe e v id en ce. Th e hold ing of D ixon p e r t a i ns t o the u l t i mate burden ofpro ofo n the i ssue at tr i aland not the ini ti al sh ow ing tha t a de fe n d a nt m us t m ake before th e cou rt w i l l i nstr uct the j ury on the defense, however

. On an i ni ti alsho w i n g, a defe nd ant nee d show o nl y a f oundati on f orthe el em ents ofthe defe nse in the evi denc e, not a pre pond er ance ofthe evi dence supporti ng the defense. Sawyerar gues that thi s l ega l er ro r m er i ts re ver sal, as the di str i ct c ourtused the wrong l ega l st andard w h en rej ecting the j ury i nstr ucti on. T he governm ent argues that Sawyer ’ s cl ai m i s i nsuffi ci ent a s a m att ero fl aw . H er p r e s e n t a t i o n d i d n o ti n c l u d e a n y e v i d e n c e o fa n “ i mm ed iate ” threa t. I nstea d, her du re ss case r el i es on unspeci fi c th r ea ts of vi o l en ce a t a fut ur e ti m e. The g o ve r nm en t al so ar gues that thi s e xtended ti m e fra m e pr ohibi ts Sawyerfro m p ro du ci ng ev i dence thatshe had no r easonab l e o pp or tuni ty to re fus e t o com m i t the o ff ense. Over the c ours e o fa yea r, the gov er nm ent a rg ues, S aw yer w oul d have had am ple o pp or tuni ty to re portRodri guez to t he pol i ce, and coul d have done so anonym ousl y i f she fear ed f orhersa f ety
. W i thr es pec t to S awy er ’ s ar g um en t o n a ppea l, the dist ri ct c ourt ’ s use o f the w or d “preponderance ” i n i tsN o. 08

- 2236 11 rul i ng o n the j ury i nstr ucti on d oes r ai se som e quest i on ab o utwhate vi den ti ar y s ta nda r d the c o ur t appl ie d. The r emai nde r o fthe r ul ing, ho wev er, i ndi ca te s th atthe cour t s i m plyf ound no evi denti ar y b asi s f orthe propos ed in st ru c tio n u n d er t h e c or re c t s ta n d ar d . Th e s c en ar io th atS awy erpr es en te d a t tr i alw as a f arc r y fr o m the kind to w hich the d ure ss d efense a p p lies. T he cou rt note d that s he had not al l ege d that s he ever act ed und er an i m m edi ate thr eat( such as som eone m oni tor i ng o r en forcing her beh avior) nor th at, du ring the co urs e of a yea r, she did noth av e a r eas onabl e o pp or tuni ty to esca pe the thre ate ni ng co nd uct. As the r emai nde r ofo ur di sc us si o n i ndi ca te s, the di s t r i c tc o ur tc o mm i t t e d ha r ml e s s e r r o r e v e n i fi ta ppli ed the w ro ng ev i denti ar y sta n dard, as S aw yer si m plydi d n ot es tabl i sh a f oundati on forthe defe nse. This c i r c ui t ha s l o ng he l d tha t the thr e a t g i v i ng r i s e to a du re ss defe nse m ust hav e be en “pr ese nt, im m edi ate , o r i m pend i ng. ” Ta nn er, 94 1 F

. 2d at 587. S aw yerdoes not al l ege an i m m edi ate thr eat; herb rie fal l ege s that Ro dr iguez was a ffi l i at ed wi ththe M ex i ca n Mafi a an d w as capabl e o fhar m i ng S aw yer an d her son, but i n her tes ti m ony she di d not cl ai m thatS efer i no Rodri guez or anyo ne el se w as prese nt at a ll ti m es w hen Sa w yerwas i nvol ved w i th the m eth ri ng, f or ci ng her to ac t u n der const ant c om p uls i on. Even ta ki ng herte sti m ony at f ace val ue, i t r eco unts Rodri gu ez ’s al l usi ons to future vi ol en ce i fS awy err efus ed to pa y o ffBe au cham p’ s dr ug deb t
. W e ha v e pr e v i o us l y no t e d i n thi s c o nt e xtthat, “ ‘ future’ o r ‘ l ate r’ and ‘im m i nent’ ar e o pp osi tes
. ” U nited Sta tes v. To k a sh , 282 F. 3d 962, 970 ( 7th Cir . 200 2). W hether12 N o. 08

- 2236

or no ti twa s r e a s o nab l e , S a wy e r ’ s fe a r o ffutur e v i ol ence if sh e d id n ot co op er at e w ith R od rig u ez d oe s n ot en tit le h er to a d u re s s d efe n se . Se eU ni t e d S t at e s v. Sa haki an , 453 F.3d 905, 910 (7th Cir. 2006) (find in g t h a t “Sah akian’s fea r th at he m ightb e a s s a ul t e d a ts o me futur e p o i ntby som e un iden tified i n m ate ” was i nsuffi ci ent f ora du re ss d efense ). A dd i ti onal l y, S aw yerdi d not pre sent ev id ence that she c oul d have a voi ded thi s threat onl y b y a gr eei ng to hel p sel l drugs, with no r eas onabl e o pp or tuni ty to see k p ro te c tio n fro m law en for c em en t. H er c as e is ac tu ally ve r y s i m i l art o the c i r cumst an ce s i n Ta nn er . In t h at ca se , a pr i so n i nm at e was c har g ed wi thpo ss es si o n o fc o ca i ne w i th i ntent to dist ribute a ftera p acka ge he at tem pted to s m u g g le in to th e p ris on w as int er c ep te d

. Ta nn er, 94 1 F

. 2d at5 76

. A wi tn es s att r i alt es ti fi ed th atthe de f en dan t only sm uggl ed the packag e i n beca use a nother in m at e h ad t h re at en ed h is life if he d id n ot h elp

. Id. at 587. W e hel d that the defendant had not dem onst ra ted that no o th err ea so nabl e al te r na ti ve was a va i l ab l e, s i nc e th e defe nd ant co uld have so ught pro tect i ve custo dy or n ot ified p ris on gu ar d s. Id. I n thi s ca se, S aw yerdi d not pr es en t ev iden ce th ats he ne ve r ha d the c ha nc e to c o ntactthe pol i ce in or der t o re portR odri guez’ s threa ts. Since sh e is all eging o n g o in g threa ts over th e cou rse of a y ea r, i t woul d b e vi r tu al ly im p oss ibl e f o r he r t o pr es en t s uc h e v i de nc e . S he do e s a l l e g e tha t s he wa s a f r a i d of Ro dr i g ue z’ s M ex i ca n M afi a co nne ct i o ns a nd b el i ev ed he wo ul d fi nd o utifshe r e po r t e d h i m t o the p o l i c e . Ou t s i de ofthi s a ssert ion , however, she prese nted no e vi dence that Rodri guez is actual l y a m em bero fthe M exi canN o. 08

- 2236 13 M afi a, o r tha t th e g r o up h as m o l es i ns i de th e va r i o us pol i ce for ces i n I nd i ana s uch that i t would hav e been unreas onabl e forherto se ek thei r prot ecti on. Fi nal l y, Sawyer f ai l ed to m eet B a iley ’ s r equi r ementtha t sh e ceas e co m m i tti ng the cr i m e a s s oo n as the threa ts aga i nst her l ostth eirco er ci ve f or ce. S aw yerte sti fi ed that her th r ea te ni ngr un- i ns wi thRodrig ue z en ded when sh e m ove d to Ric hm ond, but she c onti nu ed t o sel l drugs afte r th e th r ea t ha d pas se d, an d co nt i nue d to se l l du ri ng the m onths that Rodri guez w as i n Texas i n the sum m er of20 05. W e a l so note thatthe thre at offuture viol ence, o ften im p li ed and som etim es ex p ress, i s freq ue nt ly th e cu rre ncy o fdrug tr affi cki ng o perat i ons, and al l owing a d u r e s s d e f e n s e i n c i r c u ms t a n c e s s u c h a s th i s whe r e th e d efe n d an t h as n ot sh ow n th e re q u is i t e e lem en ts w ou ld floo d drug pro secuti ons w i th j ury i nstr ucti ons i n case s wher e th ey ar e unwar r an te d. W e th us a ffi r m the d ist ric t c ou rt ’s d ec isi o n n ot to offe r th e in st ru c tio n in th is c as e.

B. Ex cl usio n ofev i den ce Sawyer n ext a rg ues that the di str i ct c ourter re d by excl ud i ng te sti m ony f ro m two w i tness es. W e r evi ew th o se ev i den ti ar y r ul i ng s o nl y f o r an ab us e of dis cr et i o n. U ni t e d S t at e s v. Rol l i ns , 54 4 F. 3d 820, 830 (7th Cir. 2008). M or eov er, harm less er ro r anal ysi s a l so appli es to a d ist ric t c ou rt ’s e vid en tia ry ru lin gs . U nite d State s v. Z apa ta , 871 F.2d 616, 622 (7th Cir. 1989).14 N o. 08

- 2236 Sawyerfi rs t chal l enges the dist ri ct c ourt ’s d eci si on not to ad m it t h e t es t i m o n y of S h au n C lar k, w h o w as in p rison for variou s dru g trafficking offen ses. Clark’s tes ti m ony w oul d have be en hear say o ff er ed thr ough M i ch ae l Da vi s, th e DEA a g en t who te st i fi ed dur i ng the g ove rnm ent’ s ca se. D avi s would have te sti fi ed that Cl ar kpur ch as ed m etha m phetam i ne fr o m v ar i o us dr ug dea l er s ( i nc l udi ngVa ne s) b utwheno ff er i ngt es ti m o ny to gov er nm ent a gents a b ou t whom he ha d pu rchas ed f r o m , di d no t na m e Sa wye r a s o ne o fthe m . The g o ve r nmen to b j e c t e d t o the e v i de nc e o n r e l e v a nc e g r o un ds and hears ay. S aw yerco ntends thatthe evi dence w oul d be re l evantto a l i ne fro m the gov er nm ent’ s o pening sta tem ent, cl ai m i ng tha t S aw yerwas a “p rincipal ” di str ibutor ofm etham phetam i ne i n her parto fI nd i ana. S aw yer con ten d s tha t t he absen ce of her nam e from Clark’s hear say st ate m ent m ake s i t m or e like l y that s he was j ust a m idd lem an or a broke r r ath er than a dru g d istribu tor, a nd i s r e l e v ant fo r tha tr e a s o n. S a wy e r a l s o c o nt e nd s that the e vi dence w as not hearsa y b ecause i t was not off er ed f orthe tr uth of th e m att eras ser ted ( to show that Clar k c oul d have bo ught m eth fro m the var i ous s ourc es he na m ed) b utt o sho w tha t peo pl e i nv es ti g at ed th e meth mar k e t a nd di s c o v e r e d tha t S a wy e r wa s no t na med a s s o meo ne f r o m who m m e th c o ul d b e p ur c ha s e d. S awy erat te m pts t o r el y o n U ni t e d St at e s v. Bla ndi na , 89 5 F.2d 293, 299 (7th C ir. 1989), in sup p ort of th e statem en t’s admi ss ibi l i ty
. I n Blan di na , a defe nd ant cha rg ed with t ax e v a s i o n c l a i me d th a th e w a s n o tu n d e r s t a t i n gh i s i n c o me because m uch ofhi s a c c u m u late d w eal th r esul ted fro m se l l i ngr ar e co i ns l eft to hi m b y hi s g r an df athe r . TheN o. 08

- 2236 15 g o ve r nm en t pr es en te d r eb ut ta l t es ti m o ny fr o m a n I RS age nt wh o re futed thi s defense. H e cl ai m ed to have i nter vi ew ed sixty

- one ra re co i n deal er s i n two sta tes , none o fwh om had eve r tr ansact ed w i th the defen d ant. W hen t he defendant chal l enged that t est i m ony as he ar sa y o n a ppea l, thi s co ur t held th at th e te st i m o ny was no t o ff er ed f o r th e tr uth o fthe matt era ss er te d, b ut m er ely to sh ow th at th e a ge n t’s te st im on y w a s t h e re su lt of a th or ou gh inv es tig at ion

. Id. at30 0. S awy eri s at te m pting to make s ucha n i ndi r ec t ev i den

t i a r y p o i nttha tit i s e xt r e mel y di ffi c ul tt o c o nc l ud e wh eth er o r no t sh e i s r ea l l y o ff er i ngthe s ta te m en t f o r the tr uth o f t h e m att eras ser ted. H owever, i t a pp ear s that Clar k’ s t est i m ony w as ei therhear say o r i t was i rr el evant, and i t was pro babl y b oth . A s iti s pre sente d to thi s co urt, the tes ti m ony i s that Cl ar k purchas ed f ro m th e maj o r dr ugdi s t r ib ut o r s i n I nd i a na, a nd di d n ot nam e S aw yeras o ne o fthem

. I fthati s th e ev id en ce that Sawyerwanted to pr ese nt, then the t est i m ony i s hea rs ay b ecause i tde pe nd s o n the t r uth o fthe ma t t e r a s s e r t e d, nam el y Clar k’ s knowle dge of the drug m ar ket

. I f i t i s not the t est i m ony ofsom eone w ho know s a l l the drug di str ibut o r s, b utm erel y the t es ti m o ny o fs o m eo ne who b ou gh t m et h bu t d id n ot bu y it fro m S aw ye r, th en it is irre lev a n t . It d oe s n ot co n tr ad ict an y of t h e t ria l te st im ony and m ake s i t no l ess lik ely thatS aw yerso l d or b ou gh t m et h from th e g ov ernm ent’ s witness es . A p p ar en tly Sawyerwanted to use th e te sti m ony to re but the go ver nm ent’ s char ge in i ts openi ng st ate m ent that s he was a “p ri nci pal ” di str ibutor

. That Cl ar k’ s t est i m ony m ay have sh owed thatS aw yerwas not a “ pri nci pal ” does not16 N o. 08

- 2236

m ake the evi dence r el evant
. The i nd i ctm ent in thi s ca se d id n ot c h ar ge h er w ith b ein g a “p rin c ip al” an yt h in g, on ly be i nga pa r ti ci pan t i n a c o ns p ira cy . The g o ve r nm en t bor e no burden o fpro ofo n her st atus i n the conspi ra cy at tria l. See Fe d

. R

. E vid

. 40 1 (rele va n t evid en c e is e v iden ce “ ha vi nga ny te nde nc y t o make the e xi st en ce o fa ny f ac t th ati s o fc o ns eque nc e to the d eter m i na ti o n o fthe acti on m or e p robabl e o r l ess pro babl e than i t would be w i thout the e vi dence. ”)

. A t a ny rat e, w e a re sa ti sfi ed that the infe re nce Saw yer was as ki ng the j ury to draw f ro m thi s hea rs ay testim ony w as so i nd i re ct a nd i nsubsta nti al, es peci al l y c om pared to the tes tim ony ofherco conspi ra tor s a t t ri al, thatthe dist ri ct c ourt ’ s deci sion to ex c lu d e itp as se s h ar m les s e rro r re vie w as w ell. The s e c o nd pi e c e o f t e s t i mon y tha t S a wy e r wa nt ed to off erwas tes ti m ony f ro m witnes ses to an a l ter cati on be twe enRy anBe au ch amp an d S efer i no Ro dr i g ue z an d an o th erg r o up o fpe o pl e at a st r i p c l ub i n Indi an apo l i s. The w itn es se s w ou ld h av e t es tifie d th at w h en frict ion d ev elo ped be twe enthe t wo g r o ups Rodrig ue z pl ac ed a pho ne ca l l a nd s ev er alot he r fr i en ds o fRo dr i g ue z ar r i ve d a t th e bar

. S aw yerar gued that thi s ev id en ce was r el evantto est a b l i s h the c r e dib i l i t y o fthe thr e a ts he f a c e d fr om R o d r i g u e z , a s s h e h e a r d a b o u tth e i n c i d e n ta n d c l a i ms it contribu ted to her fear. The go ve rnm ent a rg ues that the ev i dence i s i rr el evant
. R ele va n c e, of c ou rs e , is d et er m in ed by w h et h er th e e vidence m ake s a ny f act re l evantto a deter m i nati on o f th e a c t i o n mor e o r l e s s l i k e l y . We a g r e e wi th the di s t ri ct cour t that whether ornotRodri guez w as abl e t o geto nN o. 08

- 2236 17 th e p h on e a n d ca ll for h elp in in tim id at in g ot h er st rip c lu b p at ro n s d oe s no t m ak e it an y m or e or les s li k e ly th a th e th r ea t e n e d S a wy e r . Atb e s t, th i s e v i d e n c e s h o ws th atRo dr i g ue z was c apabl e o fs um m o ni ngpe o pl e i fhe w an ted to m ake a thre at; i t doe s no t s how thathe e ver th re at en ed Sa w ye r n or th at h e e ve r th re at en e d h er in th e sa m e way tha t h e t hre at en ed th i s an o ny m o us g r o up ofpeopl e i n the ni ghtcl ub. I t ce rtai nl y doe s no t s how an im m ed iat e t h re at su p p or tin g Sa w ye r’s d u re ss d efe n se .
C. Reasonable ness ofSaw yer’ s se ntence S a wy e r ’ s fi n a l a r g u me n ti s t ha t th e d i s t r i c tc o u r ti mp o s e d a n u n r e a s o n a b l e s e n t e n c e o f2 6 0 mo n th s . We r ev i ew a di st r i ct co ur t’ s appl i ca ti o n o fthe se nt en ci ng gu idelines d e nov o and i ts factu al find ings for clear error. U ni t e d St at e s v. Hol l i ns , 498 F.3d 622 , 629 (7th C ir. 2006). Ulti m at el y , o ur r ev i ew i s co nc erne d wi ththe r ea so nab len es s o ft h e d efe n d an t’s se n te n c e, ba se d on th e c alcu lation ofthe gu idelines an d the d iscretion a ry f acto rs enum erated in 18 U

. S. C. § 3 553( a)

. A pro perl y c al cul ate d wi th i n- g ui d eli nes s en te nc e i s en ti tl ed to a no n-bi ndi ng p re su m p tio n of re as on ab len es s o n ap p ea l. Rit a v. U nited Sta tes , 127 S. Ct

. 2456, 2462 (2007). Sawyerco ncedes that her26 0- m on th se ntence w as proper l y cal cul ate d a nd w as w i thi n the ra nge speci fi ed by th e relevant sent en cing gu ideline. She argue s, how e v e r, that the s entence was “li kel y e nhanced fr om a sente nce ato r ne arthe b o tt o m o fthe gui del i ne s o f2 35 months due to the c ourt ’ s fi nd i ng tha t S aw yerdi d not te ll the tr uth d u rin g h er te st im on y.” T h e s u p p os ed ly u n tr u th fu l te st i-18 N o. 08

- 2236

mo n y r e l a t e d t o th e s o ur c e o fmo n e y f o u n d i n h e r h o me ( Sawyercl ai m ed i t was fro m a decease d rel ati ve ), her re aso ns f orjoiningthe conspi ra cy ( she c l ai m ed she w as unde r dur es s) a nd he r o ve r al l r o l e ( sh e cl ai m s sh e onl y m ade in troducti ons)

. S aw yerar gues that thi s was i m pr o perb ec ause the di st r i ctc o ur t di d no t fi nd a t th e j ury i nstr ucti ons confer ence that Sawyer ’ s t est i m ony on the dure ss d efe n se w as f al se, and decl i ned to i m pose a tw o- l eve l enhancem ent t o her off ense lev el based o n o bs tr uct i o n ofj us ti ce . Hera r g um en t i s th ati fthe dist ri ct c ourtdi d not barherpro ff er ed j ury i nstr ucti on be ca us e o ff al se tes ti m o ny o r i m po se a n e nha nc ement f oro bstr ucti on o fj u st ice , i t i s no t e nti tl ed to fi nd that Sawyerwas untruthful i n her te sti m ony. T he govern m en t argu es th at th e d istri ct cou rt ’s de term in at ion th at Sa w ye r d id n ot te ll t h e t ru th in h er te st im ony si m plyr epres ented the dist ri ct c ourt ’ s deci si on t o cre ditthe tes ti m ony ofS aw yer’s acco m pli ces

— who prese nted heras a centr alfi gure in the co nspir acy

— ra ther th anS awy er ’ s te st i m o ny . S ucha de ci si o n i s w ithi n the di st r i ctco ur t’ s di sc r et i o n a nd do es no t m ak e th e se ntence unrea sonab l e. Sawyer ’ s sente nce i s hars h, consi deri ng that she has no pre vi ous c ri m i nal rec or d : 2 60 m onths w or ks out to near l y t w enty- tw o yea rs i n pri son. T hat the l aw i m poses such a sev er e sente nce o n a fi rs t- ti m e o ff ender w hose ci rcum sta nces prese n t a cas e f orl eni ency i s a r efl ecti on ofthe seve re penal ti es that Congress has l egi sl ate d fo r dr ugc r i m es , a nd a s en te nc i ngr eg i m e th at us es the w ei ght ofdrugs i n the enti re co nspir acy as a ba sel i ne f or th e se nt en ci ngo fea ch mem be r o ftha t co ns pi r ac y . TheN o. 08

- 2236 19
sente nce was w i thi n the re l evant gui del i ne r ange of23 5 to 293 m onths, however

. I n deci ding not to dep ar t fro m the guidel i nes r ange, the dist ri ct courtcit ed, am ong othe r § 35 53 ( a) f ac to r s, the ne ed to de te r meth amphet ami ne d e a l e r s a n d th e s e r i o u s n a t u r e o f t r a ffi c k i n g me th. The d ist ric t c ou rt a l s o f ou n d th at a se n te n c e in th e m id d le ofthe appli cabl e guidel i ne r ange w as w ar ra nted beca use ofS aw yer ’ s “ f ai l ure to accep t re sponsibi l i ty, and go [ i ng] so far a s t o t ell th e jur y t h in gs th at w er en ’t t ru e . . . . ” W hi l e i t i s t rue that the di str i ct c ourtdi d n ot fi nd that S awy ero bs tr uct ed j us ti ce thr o ug h h ert es ti m o ny, the dist ri ct c ourt w as enti tl ed to fi nd thatshe had m i sl ed the j u ry , m i ni m i zed hero w n ro l e i n the conspi ra cy, o r othe rwis e f ai l ed to acc ept r esponsibi l i ty. Our r evi ew o f th i s f a c t u a l p r e d i c a t e i s l i mi t e d t o c l e a r er r o r, a n d we fi nd non e in this case. Th e d istri c t cou rt’s find ings are consi ste nt with the j ury ver dict

— they f ound Saw yer gu il ty, an d their v erd ict i s incom p atible w ith Saw yer’s te st i m o ny tha t sh e was a marginal pl ay eri n the ove ra l l co nspir acy. The di strict c ou rtwas thus e nti tl ed to fi nd thatS aw yerhad f ai l ed to acc ept r esponsibi l i ty f or he r cri m es, an d that this i n t a n d e m w ith oth er factors re quir ed a s entence o f26 0 m onths.

I I I . Concl usio n For the f or ego i ng re aso ns, w e A F F IRM the j udg m en t and sentence o fthe dist ri ct c ourt
.

3- 12- 09