## 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. 11

- 1404 U NI T ED S TATE SOF A MERI CA, P la intif f-A pp ellee, v. K IMA NI L AN IER F LE MI NG, D ef endant-Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court fo r the N o rthernDi stricto f Indian a, S outh Bend D ivisi on. No . 3:07- CR-91

—Rob ert L. Miller, Jr. , Judg e.
A RG UE D S EP TE MBE R 26, 2011

— D ECI DE D A PRI L 17, 2012

Befo re C UDAH Y, P OSNER, a nd W OO D , C ircu it Judges. W OO D , C ircu it Judge. Ki m an iLa ni erF l emi ngwas f o und gu il ty by a j u r y o f sev eral seri ou s d rug an d firearm charg es, f orwh i ch he r ecei ved a m andator y l i fe s entence
. Fle m in g’s co u n se l ap p ea led h is c on vic tio non ev id en tiar y g ro un d s, and thi s co urt affi rm ed. Fl em i ng the n fi l ed a p et itio n u n d e r 1 8 U .S.C . § 22 55 as se rt in g t h at h is counselhad bee n c onsti tuti onal l y ineffecti ve. In re sponse to Fl em i ng’ s peti ti on, the gov er n m en t adm i tte d2 N o. 11

- 1404 that i t had f ai l ed to fi l e i ts noti ce o fenh an c ed penal ty w i thi n the perm i tte d ti m e. Thi s pro m pted the di str i ct co ur t to s etas i de F l emi ng ’ s m an dat o r y l i fe se nt en ce a nd to hol d a hear i ng o n the othe r i ssu es r aised i n hi s § 22 55 p etition. U lti m ately, th e cou rt resent en ced him t o a term of48 0 m onths’ i m pri sonm ent. Fl em i ng has ap p eal ed aga i n, chal l engi ng bo th his c onvi cti on f orposs ess i on o f coca i ne base with i ntent to dist ribute a nd hi s r evi sed s e n t e n c e . He h a s n o c e r t i fi c a t e o fa p p e a l ab i l i t y, h o we v e r, p e r mi t t i n ghi s a p p e a lo n th e c o n v i c t i o n, a n d we dec l i n e t o g r a n to n e . T h e o n l y i s s u e p r o p e r l y b e f o r e us i s whether i t was a p p ro p ri ate f orthe dist ri ct c ourtto i ncl ud e r outi ne drug purcha se s as re l evantco nd uct wh e n i tc o mpu t e d th e r e v i s e d s e n t e n c i n gg u i d e l i ne ran ge. Find ing no clear e r r or i n th at d ecision, w e affirm Fl em i ng’ s r evi sed se ntence.

I Flem ing (al so kn ow n as “K ” an d K am ari M erryw eath er) be g ans el l i ngs i g ni fi ca ntqua nt i ti es o fc r ac kc o ca i ne ou t o f th re e p ro p er ti e s in E lkh ar t, Ind ian a, in20 06 . In J uly20 07, federa lag ents beg an co l l ecting ev i dence ab o utF l emi ng ’ s dr ugde al i ngo per ati o n. Usi ngi nf or m ants, the ag ents setup f our contr ol l ed buys fro m Fl em i ng i n A ugust 2 007; ea ch one t oo k pl ace at a ho use l o c a t ed a t4 0 3 9 th S t r e e t, i n El k ha r t
. T he r us e s uc c e e de d: Fl em i ng sold 6. 68, 13
. 84, 31
. 27, and 30. 88 gr am s o f cra ck coca i ne o verthe cour se of the f our tr ansact i ons. N ext, th e agents obtained a se ar ch w ar ra nt f orthe 9th St re et p ro perty
. Once ther e, theyf ound fi re ar m s, pow derN o. 11

- 1404 3

coca i ne, m ar ij uana, and m ate ri al s us ed to co ok and package cr ack coca i ne. A t t ria l , s ev er al w itn es se s t es tifie d th at Flem in g s old cr ac kc o ca i ne t o the m during 200 6 an d 2 00 7. In a ddi ti o n, J aso n Lucas te sti fi ed that he di str ibuted Fl em i ng’ s cr ack co ca i ne . H e r ec o unt ed th athe t r av el ed wi thF l emi ng fr o m El k ha r t to D etroi t, M i ch i g an, abo ute ve r y e i g ht days d u rin g the m onths ofDecem ber20 06 to A pri l20 07. Fl em i ng ty p i cal l y purchas ed f our to ni ne o unces o f p ow d er c o c ain e p er trip . L u c as an d Flem in g w ou ld then co ok the pow der into cra ck aftertheyr etur ned to De t r o i t
. Whe n o ne o un c e o fp o wde r c oca i ne i s c o o k e d, ac c o r d i n g t o th e So u th B en d P olic e, it yie ld s a little ove r one ounce o fcr ack. The j ury convi cted F l em i ng o n Decem ber13 , 20 07 , o n al ls ev en c ount s. Re l ev an t to thi s appe al, he was c o nvi cted o n Count 1, poss ess i on with i ntent to dist ribute mor e tha n 5 0 g r a ms o fc r a c ki n v i o l a ti ono f2 1 U. S
. C. § 8 41( a) ( 1)
. Fl em i ng was se ntenced o n Feb ruar y 2 6, 2008 , to l i fe i m pr i so nm en t f o r Cou nt 1 , wi thv ar y i ngs en tence s forthe othe r convi cti ons. The di str ict court gave Fl em i ng a m andator y l i fe s entence forCount 1 because ofFl em i ng’ s pri orcr i m i nalco nvi cti ons. Flem ing ap p ealed his c o n victions on eviden tiary gr ou n d s, b u t t h is c ou rtaffirm ed

. U ni t e d S t at e s v. Fl e m i ng, 290 F. A pp ’ x 946 , 94 8 ( 7th Cir
. 20 08)
. Fo l l owing hi s unsuccess ful direct ap p eal, Fl em ing fi led a p etitio n (an d , l ater, an a m en ded pet i ti o n) unde r 2 8 U. S
. C. § 2 25 5 as se r ting that he ha d r ecei ved i neffecti ve ass i sta nce o fco unsel at tr i al

. A m ong othe r thi ngs, he a rgued that hi s co unsel4 N o. 11

- 1404 f ai l ed proper l y t o chal l enge the g ove rnm ent’s late no ti ce of s en te n c e e n h an c em en t a n d th at co u n se l sh ou ld ha ve c ha l l en ged hi s po ss es si o n c o nv i ct i o n b ec au se no ne of the con troll ed bu ys ind ivi d u all y i nv olved 50 or m ore gr am s o f cr ac k c oc ain e. T h e g ov er n m en t a d m itt e d in i ts re sponse to Fl em i ng’ s peti ti on that i ts w ri tte n noti ce o fs en te nc e enha nc ementwas fi l ed th r ee da ys late

. The gov er nm ent was r equi re d u n d er 2 1 U
. S. C. § 8 51 to gi ve Fl em i ng thi s no ti ce b ef or e t ri alo r the e ntryo fa ple a. The j ury tr i albeg an o n Decem ber11, 2 00 7, but the g ove r n me n td i d n o t fi l e i t s w r i t t e n n o t i c e u n t i lD e c e mber14, 20 07. The dis trict c ourtdeni ed so m e o fFl em i ng’ s r equests sum m ar i l y, and i t hel d an evi denti ar y hea ringto c o n s i d e r o th e r s . D u r i n gth e h e a r i n g, i te x p l o r e d s o me o fF l e mi ng ’ s i ne ffe c t i v e a s s i s t a nc e a s s e r t i ons ; i n the e nd , i t c o n c l u d e d th a tF l e mi n gwa s e n t i t l e d t o b e r e se ntence d w i thout the m andator y l i fe s entence i n l i ght o f th e g ov er n m en t’s lat e § 85 1 n ot ice . Re lev an t t o th is a pp e a l, the di s t r i c tc o ur tde ni e d F l e mi ng ’ s a t t e mpt also to chal l enge hi s pos ses si on co nvi cti on, bec ause it d ee m ed ag gr eg at ion of d r u g q u an tit ies p er m iss ible und er Se ve nth Ci r cui t pr ec ede nt
. I t r es en te nc ed F l emi ng to concurr ent t er m s o f42 0 m onths f orthe convi cti on f or po s s e s s i o n wi th i nt e nt t o di s t r ib ut e 5 0 g r a ms or m ore and the th ree con victions for distribution of m ore than fi ve gr am s o fcr ack , 240 m onths f orthe cra ck distr ibuti o n c o nv i ct i o n, 1 20 months f o r o ne fi r ea r m c o nvi ct i o n, a nd a c o ns ec ut i ve 6 0- m o nth s en te nc e f o r the othe r fi re ar m co nvi cti on, m aking a tot alo f48 0 m onths. Th i s a pp e a lf o l l o we d.N o. 11

- 1404 5 II Fl e mi ng, u r g i nga g a i n tha tthe g o v e r nme ntn eve r pr o ve d tha t he di stribu ted m o r e th an5 0 g r ams a t o ne ti m e, fi r stwoul d l i k e to c ha ll en g e th e su ffi ci en cyo fthe evi dence to co n vict hi m o n Count 1 forposs ess i on w i th i ntent to dist rib ute. A s we note d, federa lag ents c o o r d i n a t e d f o ur c o n t r o l l e d b u y s o fc r a c kfr o m F l e mi ng. W hen ag gr ega ted, the quanti ti es ofc ra ck exceed 50 gr am s, but n o indivi du altr ansact i on r eached that th re sh ol d. The i ni ti alj ury i nstr ucti ons sta ted o nl y that the j ur y s ho ul d c o nc l ud e tha tFl em i ng v i o l a t e d 2 1 U. S
. C. § 8 41( a) ( 1) i fit found that he poss ess ed m or e than 50 g r ams. W he n the j ur y s ent ou t a que st i o n a sk i ng w he the r the 5 0

- g r a m l e v e lc o ul d b e r e a c he d b y ag gr ega ting the ind i vi du alam ounts, the cour t a nsw er ed i n the affi rm ati ve. At the r es en te nc i nghe ar i ngtha t f o l l o wed F l eming’s peti ti on under § 22 55, he ur ged the d ist rict co urt to f o l l o w U nite d State s v. Sand li n , 2 91 F. 3d 875, 87 9 ( 6th Cir
. 20 02) , wh i ch pro hibi ts such ag gr ega ti on. The di strict cou rt, how ever, r ej ecte d this a r g u m en t beca us e it interpr et ed th i s co ur t’ s dec i si o n in U nited Sta tes v. E a s ter, 55 3 F
. 3d 51 9, 5 23 ( 7th Ci r . 2 00 9) , t o pe r m i t ag g r eg at i o n. Fl em i ng i s no w tr yi ng to a p p ea lfro m thatdeter m i nati on. The go ver nm ent a sse rt s that thi s co urt lac ks j uri sdict i on t o pu rs ue the poi nt be cause Flem i ng di d not se c u re a c er tific at e o f ap p ea lab i l ity (C A ) th at w ou ld have perm i tte d an appeal o fthe d istri ct c ourt ’ s par ti al denia lo fh i s § 22 55 peti ti on. Fl em i ng’ s peti ti on s ucceeded in p ar t a nd f ai l ed i n part : he obtained the r el i ef6 N o. 11

- 1404 he s o ug ht

— n e w s e n t e n c i ng

— w i th r espectto the val i dity of his li fe sen ten ce, bu t he d id not p ersu ad e th e c o u rt that ther e was an ythi ng wrong w i th the ag gr ega ti on o f the a mou nt s o fdrug s h e s o l d. Ins of ar as h e i s n o w a ppea l i ngfr o m the ne w se nt en ce , he i s es se nt i al lyb r i ng i ng a di re ct a pp ealf orwh ich he ne eds no CA
. The questi on i s whether he nee ds a CA f orhi s chal l enge to the agg re gati on r ulin g, w h ich i s the par t o fthe case thatwas rej ecte d i n hi s § 2 25 5 p ro ceedi ng. A l though we have not had occa sion to add re ss thi s s i tuati on be f or e, o ur s i ste r ci r cui ts ha ve do ne s o a nd have una ni m o us l y c o ncl ud ed that a CA i s nee ded f orthe part ofthe case that chal l en ge s the deni alo fco l l ate ra lr el i ef

. S ee U nit ed S ta te s v. Wil li s , 649 F.3d 124 8, 1253 ( 11th Cir. 2 0 11 ); Wa ll v. U nited Sta tes , 6 19 F
. 3d 15 2, 1 54 ( 2d C ir. 2010 ); U nited Sta tes v . H a d en , 475 F.3d 652 , 664 (4th C ir. 20 07 ); U nited Sta tes v. G reen , 242 F. 3d 384 ( 9th C ir . 2 0 0 0); U ni t e d S t at e s v. Johns on , 2 08 F
. 3d 22 7 ( 10 thCi r . 2 00 0); U nited Sta tes v . Reese, 204 F.3d 111 7, 1117( 5th Cir. 1999). We s e e n o r e a s o n t o p a r t c o mp a n y w i th th e m, a n d we thus co ncl ud e that F l em i ng i s no t e nti tl ed to chal l enge th e a d ve rs e p o r t i o n of th e d ist ric t c ou rt ’s d ec isio n on h is § 22 55 mot i o n wi th o uta CA. As o fno w, ne i th erthe dist ri ct c ourtnorthi s co urt has g ra n ted o ne, and so w i thout furtheract i on, he i s o ut o fl uck. Anti ci pat i ngthe pos sibi l i tyo fthi s co nc l us i o n, F l emi ng has as ke d that we co nsi der hi s pre sent appeal as in c luding an i m pli ci t r equest f ora CA
. S ee F ED . R. A PP . P. 2 2(b) ( 2)
. Be f o r e a CA may be g r an te d, how ever, the pet i ti o ne r m us t pr es en t a “s ubs ta nt i als ho wi ngo fthe d en ialof a con stitut ional ri gh t.” 28 U
. S .C . § 2253(c)(2).N o. 11

- 1404 7 H e m ust hav e a c o n s t i t u t i onal c l ai m ( o r a n un der l y i ng p ro c ed u ra l arg u m en t o n w h ich a c on st itu tio n al c laim d ep en d s), an d h e m u st “d em on st ra te th at rea so n ab le j u ris ts w ou ld find th e d ist ric t c o u rt ’s a ss es sm en t o f h is const i tuti onal c l ai m s debat abl e o r w ro ng. ” Ten nar d v
. D r e t ke, 54 2 U.S
. 274, 28 1 (2004 ) ; se e a l so Arre dond o v. H uibreg tse, 54 2 F
. 3d 1155 , 1 165 ( 7th Ci r. 20 08)
. A § 2255 peti ti on i s “ not a s ubsti tute f ora di re ct a pp eal

. ” Cole m an v. U nited Sta tes , 318 F.3d 754 , 760 (7th C ir. 2003). Fl e mi ng ’ s c o mpl a i ntab o utthe ma nn e r i n which hi s dru g q u an ti ti es w er e t re ate d does no t m eetthatdem and i ng st andard. H e di d not chal l enge the j ury i nstr uctio n s o n h is e ar lier d ire c t a p p ea l, an d so h e c a n av oid proce du ra ldef aul t o nl y i fwe fi nd that“f ai l ure to consi der the i ssue w oul d am ount t o a fund am entalm i scar ri age o fj usti ce .” Fo un ta in v . U nited Sta tes , 21 1 F
. 3d 429, 433 (7th C ir. 2000). Flem ing’s argum en t on th is part ofthe case has never reste d on i neffecti ve ass i sta nce o f cou ns el. H e says on ly th at th e j ury inst ruc tions w ere im p ro p er . In d ee d , Flem in g d oe s n otm en tio n h is f or m erco unselo nce in hi s CA br i efi ng. Ev en if Fl em i ng had ar gued that hi s for m erco unsel pr o vi ded i ne ffec ti ve as si st an ce f o r f ai l i ngt o r ai se the a g g r e g a t i o n c h a l l e n g e t o h i s p o s s e s s i o n c o n v i c t i o n, we se e no th i ngo n thi s r ec o r d tha t woul d s uppo r t a fi nd i ng ofa substa ntial showing ofa denia lo fa const i tuti onal right. U nd er St r i ck l and v. Was hi ngt on , 466 U
. S. 668 (19 84), Fl em i ng had to sho w thathi s co unsel ’ s “ perf or m ance was de fi ci en t, a nd tha t th e defi ci en cyprej ud i ce d the defe nse. ” Wiggi ns v. Smith, 539 U
. S. 51 0, 52 1 ( 2003 ) ; se e8 N o. 11

- 1404 Brown v. Fi nna n , 598 F.3d 41 6, 41 9 (7 th C ir. 20 10 ). Th is is n ot eas y, because cour ts m ust presum e that counse l is effecti ve. S ee C ullen v. P inh o lster, 131 S. Ct. 13 88, 14 03 ( 2011 ) ; se e a l so U ni t e d S t at e s v. Tr e vi no , 60 F .3d 333, 33 8 (7t h C ir. 19 95 ). W h ile Fle m in g’s form er co u n se l co u ld have chal l enged the j ury i nstru c tions m or e a ggr essiv ely , w e c an n ots a y t h a t h is d ec isio n n otto ob j ec t “ fell b e l o w the s t a nd a r d o fc o mpe t e nc y . ” Sa nd o va l v. U nited Sta tes , 574 F .3 d 8 4 7, 852 (7th C ir. 2009). W he n th e j ury subm i tte d i ts agg re gat i on quest ion to the c ourt, co unsel r eque st ed th atthe j udg e adh er e to the i ns truct i o ns wi th o u ta d d i n ga n y e x p l i c i ta p p r o v a lo fa g g r e g a ti o n. Th is ac tio n am ounted to an obj ecti on t o the s up ple

m en ta li ns truct i o ns tha t th e co ur t g ave. Fol l o wi ngthe con viction, Flem ing’s cou ns el app ealed eviden t iary rul i ngs, choo si ng to e x cl ud e the ag gr ega ti on instr ucti on fro m th e a p p e a l. W e c an n otsa y t h at co u n se l’s s tr at eg ic d ecis i on devi ate d fr om pre vai l i ng pro fess i onalnor m s, par ti cul ar l y b ec au se this ci r cui t ha d no t l ai d do wn a c lea r ru le on th e is su e. St r i ck l and, 4 66 U. S
. a t 69 0 ( st ating that “st ra teg i c cho i ces m ade aftertho ro ugh i nvest i gat io n o f law and f acts rel evan t to plau sible op tions are vi r tu al l y unc ha l l en g eabl e” )
. W e co nc l ude tha t F l emi ng has no t per suaded us to gr ant a CA bas ed on a lleged in effe c tiv en es s o f co u n se l.

III T h is lea ve s F lem in g’s cla im th at h e w as im p ro p er ly re sente nced; as we n ote d ear l i er, bec ause he succe eded i n thi s a spect ofhi s § 22 55 peti ti on a n d he w on a new se nt en cinghe ar i ng, thi s i s i n e ffec t hi s di r ec t appe ala ndN o. 11

- 1404 9

n o C A is n ec es sa ry . W e re vie w t h e d ist ric t c ou rt ’s c alc u l a t ion of d ru g q u an tit y for cle ar err or . U ni t e d S t ates v. Cox , 53 6 F
. 3d 7 23, 72 8 ( 7th Ci r. 20 08)
. The di str i ct cour t found that F l em i ng’ s co urse o fco nd uc t invo l ved m o r e th an4
. 5 k i l o g r ams o fc r ac kc ocai ne dur i ngthe y ea r l ea di ngup to hi s ar r es t i n 2 00 7. I t ba se d i ts fi ndi ng on the Pr ese ntence Reportpre pared bythe proba ti on offi cer, al though that r epor t incl ud ed the m or e a ggr essi ve re com m endati on that F l em i ng sho uld be h eld r esp on sible f or5. 11 ki l ogr am s o fcr ack. Lucas te sti fi ed that he and Fl em i ng o btained fo ur t o ni ne o unces o f pow der c oca i ne i n De tr oi t a pp ro xi m ate l y o nce a w eek fro m Decem ber20 06 to A pri l20 07. The c ourtco ncl ud ed that Fl em i ng l i kel y had e ngage d i n thi s a ctivity ( al th o u g h p r o b ab l y n o tr i g i d l y ) b o th b e f o r e me e t i ng Lu cas i n Decem ber200 6 a nd afterLucas’ s incarc er ati on inA p ril 20 0 7, a ll th e w ay u p to Flem in g’s arr es t in A ug us t 2007. In ess en ce, the cou rt extra p olated Lu cas’s tes tim ony about w eek l y quanti ti es to the fullye ar b efo re Flem in g’s arr es t. T h e c ou rt f o u n d th at th is es ti m at e w as r ea so nabl e, g i ve n tha t F l emi ngha d abo ut 90 gr am s o fco cai ne i n hi s pos sessio n i n A ugust 2 007. The e st i m ate fo und fur th ers uppo r t i n the t es ti m o ny fro m Fl em i ng’ s cust om er s about the a m ount o fcr ack th eyo bs er ve d i n h i s po ss es si o n. Fl em i ng ta kes exce pti on t o th e co urt’ s e xtra pol ati on ofLucas’ s a ccount. H e a rgues that the c ou rter re d by tr eat i ng L ucas’ s t est i m ony as “i nd i cati ve ofhow m uch p o wd e r c o c a i n e Mr
. Fl e mi n gn e e d e d e v e r y we e ko r t wo to s uppl y hi s cus to m er s wi thc r ac kc o ca i ne . ” F l emi ng bel i eve s that he shoul d be hel d re sp onsibl e o nl y for1. 70310 N o. 11

- 1404 kilo gr am s, w h ich rep re se n ts t h e q u an tit y L u c as d ire c tly wi tne s s e d. “Rel evantco nd uct” under U
. S. S. G. § 1 B1. 3( a) ( 2) i ncl ud es acts “that were p ar t ofthe sam e co urse o fco nd uct or co m m on sc h em e o r p lan as th e o ffen se of co n vic tio n .” T he “sam e c o u r se of cond uc t” includ es offen ses th at are “suffi ci entl y c onnecte d orr el ate d to ea c h o th eras to w ar ra n t t h e c on c lu sio n t h a t th ey are p ar t o f a sin gle e pi s o d e , s p r e e , o r o n g o i n gs e r i e s o fo ffe n s e s . ” U
. S
. S
. G. § 1B 1. 3, A pp . N ote 9( B). Charact er i sti cs o fo ffenses that ar e per ti nent t o a fi nd i ng o f“s am e co urse o fco nd uct” i nc l ude “ th e deg r ee o fs i m i l ar i tyo f th e o ffen se s, the r e g ul a r i t y ( r e p e t i t i o n s ) o fth e o ffe n s e s , a n d th e t i me i nter valbetw een the o ffen ses . ” Id

. The go ver nm ent m ay re quest that the co urt enhance a defendant’s se ntence f oruncharg ed conduct, so l ong as it sh ow s that s uch conduct o c c urr ed by a pre pond er ance o fthe evi dence. U ni t e d S t at e s v. Johns on , 643 F. 3d 545, 551 ( 7 t h C ir. 2011 )
. The di st ric t co urt m ust m ake i ts deter m i nati on on th e b as is of re liab le e vid en c e. Id

. This court has pre vi ousl y s tat ed that drug quanti ty evid en ce m us t be bas ed on som eth ing m ore tha n m ere “nebul ous e yeba l l i ng. ” U nited St at e s v. Hol l i ns , 49 8 F
. 3d 622, 631 (7th C ir. 2007) ( intern al qu otations om itted ). N eve rthel ess , the Se ntenci ng Guidel i nes a l low the di str ict co u rtto u se rea so n ed “s p ec u lat ion an d rea so n ab le es tim at ion ” of d ru g q u an tit y. Id. ; see a l so U
. S. S. G. § 2 D1. 1, A pp . N ote 12. The dist ri ct cour t m ay al so “ta ke w itness ’ es ti m at es o fthe a m o untof d rugs the y pur ch as ed an d m ult i plythatbythe m i ni m um q uanti ty sol d on ea chN o. 11

- 1404 11

o cc as i o n, a s wel la s ex tr apo l at e dr ugqua ntit i es fr o m the am ou n t of m oneyused to purchase the drugs. ” U nited St at e s v. D urham , 211 F.3d 437, 444 (7th C ir. 2000). Contrary t o Fl em i ng’ s cl ai m , th e d istri ct c ourtdi d not si m plyas sum e, bas ed excl usi vel y o n Lucas’s te sti m ony, that the con du ct Lucas described cont i nued unabate d f orthe yea r i n q uesti on. The ev i dence pres ented attr i al sh o wed th at F l emi ng was a r egul ar dr ug dea l er du ri ng at l eas t the per iod c ov er ed by m uch of20 06 and 2007 an d tha t he ne ede d a t l ea stf o urgr ams o fc r ac kc o ca i ne approxi m ate l y eve ry ei ght days to m eet hi s c u stom er s’ dem and. The dis trict c ou rtr eas onabl y r el i ed i n parto n Lu c a s ’ s t e s t i mon y a s a n i nd i c a t i o n o f the a mount of coca i ne powd erFl em i ng was m oving. W e A FFIRM th e j u d g me n to fth e d i s t r i c tc o u r t, a n d we D EN YF l e mi n g ’ s i mpl i c i tr e q u e s tf o r a n e x p a n d e d C A.

4- 17- 12