2009 D e c i sion s O p inion s of the U nit e d S t at e s C our t of Appe al s for the Thir d C ir c uit 8-19-2009 

# U SA v . J e nk ins P r e c e de nt i al or N on-P r e c e de nt i al : N on-P r e c e de nt i al D ocke t N o . 07-4569

F o llow thi s and a dd it ion al work s at : http://d i git alc ommon s .l a w . vi ll anova . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2009

Thi s de c i sion i s br ou ght t o you for f r e e and ope n a c c e s s b y the O p inion s of the U nit e d S t at e s C our t of Appe al s for the Thir d C ir c uit at V i ll anova U nive r sity S choo l of L a

w Di git al Reposit ory

. It h as be e n a c c ept e d for inclusion in 2009 D e c i sion s b y an author i z e d a dmini s tr at or of V i ll anova U nive r sity S choo l of L a

w Di git al Reposit ory

. F or mor e inform at ion, p le as e c ont a ct Be n j amin . C arl s on@l a

w . vi ll anova . e du . Re c omme nde d C it at ion " U SA v . J e nkin s " (2009). 2009 D e cisio n s . P ape r 802. http://d i git alc ommon s .l a

w . vi ll anova . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2009/802NOT P RE CE DE NT I AL UN I TED STATES CO UR T OF A PP EALS F O R T H E T H IR D C IR C U IT

____________ N o. 07- 4569

____________ UNI TE D ST ATE S OF AM ERI CA

v. K EV I N J EN K I N S, A ppel l ant

____________ O n A p p ea l from the U n it ed S tat es D istri ct C o u rt f o r th e E a ste rn D istric t o f P e n n sy lv a n ia ( D . C . N o. 04- cr - 00506- 2) D i s t r i ctJ udge: H onor abl e B er l e M . Schi l l er

____________ A r gued M ay28, 2009 B e f o re : F IS H E R , C H A G A R E S a n d C O W E N , C i r cui tJudges .

( Fi l ed: A ugus t19, 2009 ) Pet erA . L evi n ( A r gued) 1927 H ami l t on St r eet Phi l adel phi a, PA 19130 A t t or ney f

orAppel l ant J enni ferC hun B ernadett e A . M cK eon ( A r gued) O ffi ce of U ni t ed St at es A t t or ney 615 C hes t nutSt r eet , Sui t e 1250 Phi l adel phi a, PA 19106 A t t or neys f

orAppel l ee2 ____________ OPI NI ON O F THE COURT

____________ F IS H E R , C i r cui tJudge . Ke v i n J e n k i n s a p p e a l s f r o m h i s j u d g me n to f

c o n v i c t i o n a n d s e n t e n c e . Be c a u s e we agr ee w i t h J enki ns t hatt he D i s t r i ctC our tcomm i t t ed r ever s i bl e err ordur i ng the s econd r etr i al w hen i ti ns t ruct ed the j ur yon C ountT hr ee of the s uper cedi ng i ndi ctm ent , w hi ch char ged hi m w i t h vi ol at i ng 18 U . S. C . § 924( c) ( 1) , w e w i l l vaca t e hi s convi ct i on on t hat countand r emand t o t he D i s t r i ctC our tforfur t herpr ocee di ngs . W e w i l l aff i r m the j ud gm ent i n all otherres pects . I. W e w r i t e exc l us i vel yfort he part i es , w ho ar e fa m i l i arw i t h t he fa ctual cont extand l egal hi s t or yof thi s cas e. T her efor e, w e w i l l s etfor t h onl ythos e fa ct s nece s s aryt o our analy si s. I n A ugus t2003, N ew J er s eyl aw enfor cementauthor i t i es arr es t ed J enki ns bas ed on hi s al l eged i nvol vementi n a home i nvas i on and vehi cl e thefti nci dentw hi ch had oc curr ed se v e ra l m o n th s e a rlier a n d , in J a n u a ry2 0 0 4 , Je n k in s p lea d e d g u iltyto ro b b e ryin sta te c o u rt. H o w e v e r, af

ter h e h a d e n ter e d h is p lea , fe d e ra l au th o rities in f o rm e d th e sta te offi ci al s t hat , bas ed on a f eder al i nves t i gat i on, J enki ns and hi s co- defe ndant s had i nt ended notonl yt o s t eal a vehi cl e butal s o t o r ob a bank a nd, as a r es ul tof thi s new i nform at i on, the s tat e o ff

ici als co n clud ed that Jen k ins h ad n o t bee n tru thf u l and w ith d rew h is plea. InJe n k in s’s c o -d e f e n d a n ts, E ric H u m b e rt a n d R a sh e e n Jo n e s, w e re a lso c h a rg e d in 1 t he s uper cedi ng i ndi ctm ent . J ones pl eade d gui l t yand H um ber tw as tr i ed s epar at el yfr om Jenkins. 3 Sept emberof thaty ear , a gr and j ur yi n t he East ern D i s t r i ctof Penns y l vani a r eturned a s uper cedi ng i ndi ctm entchar gi ng J enki ns w i t h one countof cons pi r acyt o comm i tarm ed bank r obbery , i n vi ol at i on of 18 U . S. C . § 371 ( C ountO ne) ; one countof us i ng and p o ss e ss in g a f

ire a rm in f

u rth e ra n c e o f

th e c o n sp ira c yto c o m m it arm e d b a n k ro b b e ry , in v io latio n o f

1 8 U .S .C . § 9 2 4 (c )(1 ) (C o u n t T h re e ); o n e c o u n t o f c o n sp ira c yto c o m m it c a rja c k in g , in v io latio n o f 1 8 U .S .C . § 3 7 1 (C o u n t F o u r); o n e c o u n t o f c a rja c k in g , in vi ol at i on of 18 U . S. C . §§ 2119 and 2 ( C ountFi ve) ; and one c ountof us i ng and pos s es s i ng a f i r e a r m i n f

u r t h e r a n c e o f

t h e c o n s p i r a c yt o c o mmi tc a r j a c k i n g , i n v i o l a t i o n o f

1 8 U. S . C. § 9 2 4 (c)(1) (C o u n t Se v en ). 1 In M a y2 0 0 6 , a ju rya c q u itt e d Je n k in s o f C o u n t F iv e , b u t f

o u n d h im g u iltyo f

a ll ot hercount s . Fol l ow i ng t he tr i al , J enki ns fi l ed mot i ons forj udgm entof ac qui t t al and for a new t r i al , and the D i s t r i ctC our tgr ant ed hi m a new tr i al w i t h r es pectt o C ount s O ne and T h ree . T h e re tr ial o n C o u n ts O n e a n d T h ree resu lt ed in a h u n g juryan d the D istri ct C o u rt d ec lared a m istri al. Jen k ins w as tri ed ag ain o n tho se tw o co u n ts an d this t im e the jury returned a gu i l t yverdi cton bo t h co un t s. T he D i stri ctC ou rtenter ed judgm ent agai nst J enki ns on C ount s O ne, T hr ee, Four , and Seven, s ent enci ng hi m t o 480 m ont hs of im p riso n m e n t.4

J enki ns t i m el yappea l ed fr om the j udgm ent . T he D i s t r i ctC our thad j ur i s di ct i on under18 U . S. C . § 3231 and w e have j ur i s di ct i on under28 U . S. C . § 1291. II. A . W e b e g in w ith Je n k in s’s a rg u m e n t th a t th e D istric t C o u rt c o m m itt e d re v e rsib le err orw hen i ti ns t ruct ed the j ur ydur i ng hi s s econd r etr i al on t he fi r earm offe ns e cha r ged i n C ountT hr ee unde r18 U . S. C . § 924( c) ( 1) . Sect i on 924( c) ( 1) ( A ) s t at es that“anyper s on w ho, dur i ng and i n r el at i on t o anycr i m e of vi ol ence ordrug tr aff i cki ng cr i m e . . . us es or carr i es a fi r earm , orw ho, i n fur t her ance of anys uch cr i m e, pos s es s es a fi r earm , s hal l [be su b jected to ad d it ion al pu n ishm en t] . ” Je n k ins c o n tend s tha t th e D istri ct C o u rt c o n stru c tiv e lya m e n d e d h is in d ictm e n t b yin stru c tin g th e ju ryo n th e “ d u rin g a n d in r el at i on t o” l anguage of § 924( c) ( 1) ( A ) , i ns t ead of on t he “i n fur t her ance of” l anguage of th a t p ro v isio n a s c h a rg e d in h is in d ictm e n t. H e a c k n o w led g e s th a t b e c a u se h e f a iled to o b je c t to th e D is tr ic t C o u rt ’s in s tru c tio n s , w e re v ie w f o r p la in e rr o r. U

ni t ed Stat es v. S y me , 276 F. 3d 131, 148 ( 3d C i r . 2002) . A ccor di ngl y , w e mayr ever s e i f the D i s t r i ct C our tcomm i t t ed a c l earorobvi ous err orw hi ch af fec t ed J enki ns ’ s s ubs t ant i al r i ght s and w hi ch s er i ous l yaff

ect ed the fa i r nes s , i nt egr i t y , orpubl i c r eput at i on of the j udi ci al p ro c e e d in g s . U

ni t ed Stat es v. O l ano , 5 0 7 U . S . 7 2 5 , 7 3 4 -37 (19 9 3 ). T h e G o v e rn m e n t co n c e d e s th a t th e D istric t C o u rt c o m m itt e d a n e rro r w h e n it i ns t ruct ed the j ur yon C ountT hr ee. “A cons t ruct i ve amendm entoccur s w her e a5

defe ndanti s depr i ved of hi s s ubs t ant i al r i ghtt o be tr i ed onl yon char ges pr es ent ed i n an i ndi ctm entr etur ned bya gr and j ur y . ” S y me , 276 F. 3d at148 ( i nt ernal quot at i on m arks o m itt e d ); s ee al

s o U ni t ed Stat es v. McKee , 506 F. 3d 225, 229 ( 3d C i r . 2007) ( s t at i ng t hat an i ndi ctm entm aybe dee m ed cons t ruct i vel yamended w hen a j uryi ns t ruct i on

“ b ro a d e n [ s] th e p o ss ib le b a se s f o r c o n v ictio n f

ro m th a t w h ich a p p e a re d in th e in d ictm e n t” ( i nt ernal quot at i on m arks om i t t ed) ) . H er e, w hi l e C ountT hr ee of the s uper cedi ng i ndi ctm entchar ged J enki ns w i t h t he “i n fur t her ance of” l anguage of § 924( c) ( 1) ( A ) , t he D i s t r i ctC our ti ns t ruct ed the j ur yon the “dur i ng and i n r el at i on t o” l anguage of the s t atut e, w h ic h w a s e rr o r. See U ni t ed Stat es v. D ent l er , 492 F. 3d 306, 312 ( 5th C i r . 2007) ( s t at i ng t hatt her e i s a cons t ruct i ve amendm ent“w hen the j uryi s perm i t t ed t o convi ctthe defe ndantbas ed on an a l t er at i ve bas i s perm i t t ed bythe s t atut e butnotchar ged i n t he i ndi ctm ent ” ( i nt ernal quot at i on m arks om i t t ed) ) . M or eover , thi s err orw as cl earand o b v io u s u n d e r c u rr e n t la w . S e e S y me , 2 7 6 F . 3 d at 15 1 (“C ase s fro m the S u p rem e C o u rt and thi s cour thol d t hati tvi ol at es t he G r and J uryC l aus e of the Fi fth A m endmentw hen a cour ti ns t ruct s a j ur yon a gr ound forconvi ct i on thati s notful l ycont ai ned i n t he ind ict m en t. ”). E ven i f an e r r ori s cl earorobvi ous , the pl ai n err orfr amew or k r equi r es a s how i ng t hatt he err oraff

ect ed the def

endant ’ s s ubs t ant i al r i ght s or , i n otherw or ds , thatthe err or “w as pr ej udi ci al i n t hati taff ect ed the out come of t he D i s tr i ctC our tpr ocee di ngs . ” U ni t ed S ta tes v . O zc e lik , 5 2 7 F .3 d 8 8 , 9 6 (3 d C ir . 2 0 0 8 ) ( in te rn a l q u o ta tio n m a rk s o m itte d ).6

A l t hough t he def

endantgener al l ycarr i es the bur den of de m ons t r at i ng pr ej udi ce, w her e a d istric t co u rt c o n stru c tiv e lya m e n d s th e d e f e n d a n t’s in d ictm e n t th ro u g h its in stru c tio n s to t he j ur y , s uch err ori s “pr es um pt i vel ypr ej udi ci al ” and, as a r es ul t , ouri nqui r ym us tfocus on “w hethert he governm enthas eff ect i vel yr ebut t ed the pr es um pt i on. ” S y me , 276 F. 3d at 155. T he G ov ernm ent, ackn ow l edg i ng i t s burden here, argues t hat the err or i n thi s case di d notpr ej udi ce J enki ns beca us e, des pi t e the fa ctthatthe j uryw as i ns t ruct ed on “dur i ng and i n r el at i on t o, ” the evi dence att r i al nevert hel es s es t abl i s hed w hatthe i ndi ctm ent al l eged – thati s , t hathe us ed and pos s es s ed a f i r earm “i n fur t her ance of” the cons pi r acy t o comm i tarm ed bank r obbery– and thus the err ordi d notaff ectthe out come of t he p ro c e e d in g s. W e a re n o t p e rsu a d e d . G iv e n th e d isc re te c o n d u c t d e sc rib e d in § 9 2 4 (c)(1)(A ), “C o n g ress m ayw ell h av e inten d ed ‘i n fu rth era n ce ’ t o im p o se a m o re s t r i ngents t andar d t han ‘ i n r el at i on t o. ’ ” U ni t ed Stat es v. Loney , 219 F. 3d 281, 287 ( 3d C ir. 2 0 0 0 ); s ee al

s o U ni t ed Stat es v. C om bs , 369 F. 3d 925, 933 ( 6th C i r . 2004) ( s t at i ng t hat“‘ i n fur t her ance of’ di ffe r s fr om ‘ dur i ng and i n r el at i on t o’ and r equi r es the g o v e rn m e n t to p ro v e a d e f e n d a n t u se d th e f

ire a rm w ith g re a ter p a rticip a tio n ” ). W h ile t h e r e c e r t a i n l yma yb e i n s t a n c e s wh e r e th e e v i d e n c e i n a c a s e i s s o o v e r wh e l mi n g th a twe can c onfi dent l ys ayt hata di s t r i ctcour t ’ s i ns t ruct i on t o t he j uryon “dur i ng and i n r el at i on t o” di d notpr ej udi ce a defe ndantchar ged underthe “i n fur t her ance of” a s pectof the sta tu te, b a se d o n th e re c o rd b e f o re u s, w e a re u n a b le to re a c h su c h a c o n c lu sio n in th is7

c a s e . See , e. g. , Un i t e d

S ta t e s v . Br o wn , 560 F. 3d 754, 768 ( 8th C i r . 2009) ( “B yal l ow i ng t he j ur yt o convi ctbas ed on pos s es s i on of a f i r earm m er el y‘ i n r el at i on t o’ the drug cons pi r acy , i ns t ead of

i n fur t her ance of thatcons pi r acy , the i ns t ruct i ons l i kel yaff ect ed the v e rd ict . . . .”); cf

. McKee , 5 0 6 F . 3 d at 23 1 -32 (“If w e p resu m e, as w e m u st, that the ju ry fol l ow ed the court ’ s i ns t ruct i ons , w e mustconcl ude thatther e i s a r eal pos s i bi l i t ythatt he j ur yr el i ed upon the uncha r ged exa m pl es of conduc tt o convi ctthe D efe ndant s , j us tas t he c o u rt in stru c ted .”); U

ni t ed Stat es v. D obs on , 419 F. 3d 231, 240 ( 3d C i r . 2005) ( acknow l edgi ng t hatt he governm enthad pr es ent ed evi dence w hi ch the j urycoul d have det erm i ned s at i s fi ed the know l edge e l ementof the off ens e cha r ged i n t he i ndi ctm ent , but that this alon e “ d o es n o t prec lud e a fin d ing o f p rejud ice f o r pu rpo ses o f p lai n erro r”). T her efor e, havi ng concl uded thatther e w as cl earand obvi ous err orw hi ch, under t he ci r cumst ance s of thi s cas e, aff ect ed J enki ns ’ s s ubs t ant i al r i ght s , w e w i l l exer ci s e our d is c re tio n a n d v a c a te J e n k in s ’s c o n v ic tio n o n C o u n t T h re e . See M cKee , 506 F. 3d at232 ( concl udi ng t hatt he cons t ruct i ve amendm entpr ej udi ced the def endant s and that “[l ] eavi ng t hi s err oruncorr ect ed w oul d s er i ous l yaff ectthe fa i r nes s and i nt egr i t yof the p ro c e e d in g ” ); S

y me , 2 7 6 F .3 d a t 1 5 5 -5 6 (sa m e ); s ee al s o U ni t ed Stat es v. H

unt er , 558 F. 3d 495, 502- 03 ( 6t h C i r . 2009) ( concl udi ng that“the di s t r i ctcour terr oneous l yi nform ed th e ju ryth a t [ th e d e f

e n d a n t] w a s c h a rg e d w ith p o ss e ss io n o f a f ire a rm ‘d u rin g a n d in re latio n to ’ a d ru g tra f

f ick in g c rim e , an d m ix e d in th is lo w e r sta n d a rd o f p a rticip a tio n in it s instruc ti o n s, ” w h ich, un d er p lai n erro r rev iew , w arran ted re v ersa l) .8 B. Je n k in s ra ise s a v a rie tyo f o th e r a rg u m e n ts o n a p p e a l, w h ich w e c o n c lu d e a re a ll m eri t l ess. I ni t i al l y , J enki ns at t acks t he s uffi ci encyof the evi dence as t o hi s convi ct i ons for co n sp ir ing to co m m itca rj ac k ing an d co n sp ir ing to co m m itarm ed b an k rob b ery . In re v iew in g h is c h a llen g e s, w e “ m u st c o n sid e r th e e v id e n c e in th e lig h t m o st f a v o ra b le to t he governm entand af

fi r m t he j udgm enti f ther e i s s ubs t ant i al evi dence fr om w hi ch any r at i onal t r i erof fa ctcoul d fi nd gui l tbey ond a r eas onabl e doubt . ” U ni t ed Stat es v. Fr or up , 963 F. 2d 41, 42 ( 3d C i r . 1992) . H avi ng exami ned the evi dence pert ai ni ng t o eac h count u n d e r t h is “ h ig h ly d e f

e re n tia l” s ta n d a rd , U

ni t ed Stat es v. H

odge , 321 F. 3d 429, 439 ( 3d C ir . 2 0 0 3 ) (i n terna l qu o tat ion m ark s o m itted), w e c o n clud e tha t, co n tr aryto Je n k ins’s cont ent i on, a r at i onal j ur orcoul d fi nd t hatJ enki ns had the r equi s i t e i nt entforcons pi r acy t o comm i tcar

j acki ng. W e furt herconcl ude thata j urycoul d fi nd thathe ent er ed i nt o an agr eementt o r ob a bank w i t h t he r equi s i t e i nt entand t ook over tact s i n fur t her ance of that a g re e m e n t a s re q u ir e d f o r c o n s p ir a c yto c o m m it a rm e d b a n k ro b b e ry. See U ni t ed Stat es v. B ro d ie , 403 F. 3d 123, 134 ( 3d C i r . 2005) ( “The el ement s of cons pi r acy. . . can be pr oven e n tirelyb yc irc u m sta n tial e v id e n c e .”); U ni t ed Stat es v. Lopez , 271 F. 3d 472, 486- 87 ( 3d C i r . 2001) ( concl udi ng t hatt he evi dence w as s uffi ci entt o es t abl i s h t he i nt entel ementof car j acki ng w her e the def

endant s as s aul t ed the vi ct i m i n herr es i dence and the vehi cl e w as o u tsid e ); U

ni t ed Stat es v. V

oigt , 8 9 F .3 d 1 0 5 0 , 1 0 8 0 (3 d C ir. 1 9 9 6 ) (“ It is n o t f o r u s toJe n k in s c o n c e d e s th a t w e re v iew th is iss u e f o r p lain e rro r d u e to h is f a ilu re to 2 o b je c t in th e D is tr ic t C o u rt . See U ni t ed Stat es v. A nt i co , 2 7 5 F . 3 d 2 4 5 , 2 6 5 (3d C ir . 2 0 0 1 ). 9 w ei gh t he evi dence ort o det erm i ne the cr edi bi l i t yof the w i t nes s es . ” ( i nt ernal quot at i on m ark s o m itted)). N ext , J enki ns as s er t s t hatt he D i s t r i ctC our tpl ai nl yerr ed i n ans w er i ng s ever al q u e stio n s th a t th e ju ryh a d w ith re sp e c t to th e e lem e n ts o f c o n sp ira c yto c o m m it c a rja c k in g . A c c o rd in g to Je n k in s, th e D istric t C o u rt in c o rre c tlya d v ise d th e ju ryth a t it

2 w as n o t r eq u ir ed to co n side r th e e lem en ts of ca rj ac k ing w h en d eterm ining w h ethe r th ere w a s a c o n sp ira c yto c o m m it th a t o f f e n se . W e d isa g re e . In a d d iti o n to f u llyse tti n g f

o rth t he el ement s of cons pi r acyand the s ubs t ant i ve off ens e of c ar

j acki ng i n i t s char ge t o t he j ur y , t he D i s t r i ctC our tr es ponded t o the j ury ’ s ques t i ons byacc ur at el ys t at i ng that car j acki ng and cons pi r acyt o comm i tcar j acki ng ar e “s epar at e cr i m e[s ] , ” ( A pp. 402) , and th a t a d e f

e n d a n t d o e s n o t “h a v e to a c c o m p lish th e e lem e n ts o f th e su b sta n tiv e c rim e . . . to be gui l t yof cons pi r acyt o comm i tt hatcr i m e i f thati s w hat[he] i nt ended t o do, ” ( A pp. 4 1 0 ). See , e. g. , U

n itedS ta tes v . Jim e n ez R e c io , 537 U . S. 270, 274 ( 2003) ( i ndi cat i ng t hat a j urym aycon victon a con spi racycharge “w hetheror not the sub st anti ve cri m e ensue s” (in ter n a l q u o tatio n m a rk s o m itt e d )); Sal i nas v. U ni t ed Stat es , 522 U . S. 52, 63, 65 ( 1997) (sta tin g th a t a “ c o n sp ira to r m u st in ten d to f u rth e r a n e n d e a v o r w h ich , if c o m p lete d , w o u ld s at i s fyal l of the el ement s of a s ubs t ant i ve cr i m i nal offe ns e, buti ts uffi ces thathe adopt t he goal of furt her i ng orfac i l i t at i ng t he cr i m i nal endea vor ” and thata “c ons pi r acym ayJ enki ns al s o m akes pas s i ng r efe r ence t o t he G overnm enti nadvert ent l ypl ay i ng a 3 b rie f p o rtio n o f

a v id e o tap e w h ich f

e a tu re d h im in a p riso n ju m p su it, c o n ten d in g th a t th is compounded t he D i s t r i ctC our t ’ s al l eged e r r orof admi t t i ng the gui l t ypl ea e vi dence . B ut t he D i s t r i ctC our tdet erm i ned thatt hi s i m age w as m om ent aryand thatthe j uryw as not focus i ng on i t , and gi ven J enki ns ’ s fai l ur e t o expound upon thi s ar gum ent , w e w i l l not d is tu rb th e D is tr ic t C o u rt ’s c o n c lu s io n . C f. , e. g. , A nd erson v. Sec’y f or the D ep’tof C orr. , 4 6 2 F . 3 d 1 3 1 9 , 1 3 2 9 (11 th C ir . 2 0 0 6 ). W hi l e J enki ns ’ s br i ef i s r atheruncl earas t o hi s pos i t i on r egar di ng ours t andar d of 4 r evi ew , ator al ar gum ent , J enki ns ’ s couns el appea r ed t o conce de thatthi s i s s ue w as not pr oper l ypr es erved. I n anyevent , t o the ext entthatJ enki ns s t i l l cl ai m s thathe pr es erved t hi s ar gum enti n hi s m ot i on i n l i m i ne, a r evi ew of thatm ot i on s how s thatJ enki ns m ade a s w eepi ng ar gum ents eeki ng t o excl ude al l r efe r ence s t o t he home i nvas i on i nci dent , but m a d e n o a rg u m e n t w ith re s p e c t to R u le 4 1 0 . See , e. g. , U n itedS ta tes v . Sm ith , 452 F. 3d 323, 330- 31 ( 4t h C i r . 2006) ( s t at i ng thatthe def endant ’ s m ot i on i n l i m i ne, w hi ch made gener al r eques t s t o t he tr i al cour t , l acke d “the r equi r ed s peci fi ci t y ” t o pr es erve the arg u m en t on ap p ea l and thu s p lai n -error rev iew w as a p p rop ri ate). 10 exi s teven i f a c ons pi r at ordoes notagr ee t o comm i torfac i l i t at e ea ch and e verypartof th e su b sta n tiv e o f

f e n se ” ); P i nker t on v. U

ni t ed Stat es , 328 U . S. 640, 643 ( 1946) ( “[T] he comm i s s i on of the s ubs t ant i ve off ens e and a cons pi r acyt o comm i ti tar e s epar at e and di s t i nctoffe ns es . ”) . T he D i s t r i ctC our tal s o i nvi t ed the j uryt o s end anothernot e i f i thad ad d it ion al qu esti o n s o n this i ssu e, w h ich th e juryd id n o t do . T h u s, w e d iscern n o erro r, l etal on e plai n err or, i n the D i stri ctC ou rt ’s answ ers . J enki ns al s o ar gues t hatt he D i s t r i ctC our tcomm i t t ed r ever s i bl e err orbyperm i t t i ng th e a d m iss io n o f

e v id e n c e re latin g to h is s tate c o u rt g u iltyp lea , w h ich h a d su b se q u e n tly been w i t hdr aw n byt he s t at e pr os ecut i on, as s ert i ng thatFeder al R ul e of Evi dence 410 di s al l ow s t he admi s s i on of s uch evi dence . J enki ns di d notm ove t o excl ude thi s evi dence 3 in h is pretri al m o ti o n in li m ine o r at tri al an d , as a resu lt , w e re v iew fo r plain e rror. 411

E vi dence of a gui l typl ea w hi ch i s l at erw i t hdr aw n i s typi cal l yi nadmi s s i bl e. Fed. R . E vi d. 41 0(1). T hat s ai d, i ti s not cl ear w hetherthe R ule appl i es i n cir cum st ances such as tho se p re se n ted h e re , w h e re th e d e f e n d a n t f a ils to f u lf ill h is e n d o f

th e p lea b a rg a in a n d th e sta te w ith d ra w s it in re s p o n s e . See 2 W ei ns t ei n’s Feder al

E vi dence § 410. 09 [7] ( 2d ed. 1997) (c o llec tin g c a se law ); s ee al s o U ni t ed Stat es v. R i vas , 493 F. 3d 131, 136 ( 3d C i r . 2007) ( s t at i ng t hatt o cons t i tut e pl ai n err or , the err orm us tbe “c l earorobvi ous undercurr ent l aw ”) . I n addi t i on, notonl yw er e J enki ns ’ s admi s s i ons w i t h r es pectt o t he gui l t ypl ea c o n sis ten t w ith o th e r in d e p e n d e n tlya d m iss ib le e v id e n c e , b u t Je n k in s re lied o n th is evi dence as par tof hi s defe ns e att r i al , w hi ch underm i nes hi s at t empt t o s how any p re ju d ic e re s u ltin g f

ro m its a d m is s io n . See , e. g. , U n itedS ta tes v . C o lletti , 984 F. 2d 1339, 1344 ( 3d C i r . 1992) ( not i ng t hatt he al l eged e r r or“coul d r eadi l yhave be en corr ect ed” a nd t hat“[t ] her e i s r oom foran i nfer ence that , i n t he cont extof the tr i al , the i nci dentw as not n e a rlya s s ig n if

ica n t as th e p re se n t ar g u m e n t w o u ld su g g e st” ); U ni t ed Stat es v. V

al enci aLucena , 9 2 5 F .2 d 5 0 6 , 5 1 4 (1 st C ir. 1 9 9 1 ) (s tatin g th a t th e p lain e rro r d o c trin e “ sh o u ld notbe us ed t o pr ovi de a s econd bi t e atthe appl e fora def endantw hos e del i ber at e tr i al stra teg yh a s f

a iled ” ). U n d e r th e se c irc u m sta n c e s, th e D istric t C o u rt d id n o t co m m it r ever s i bl e err ori n perm i t t i ng t he admi s s i on of thi s evi dence . Je n k in s f u rth e r c o n ten d s th a t th e D istric t C o u rt e rre d w h e n it d e n ied in p a rt h is m ot i on i n l i m i ne, al l ow i ng t he G overnm entt o i ntr oduce e vi dence of the home i nvas i on and vehi cl e thefti nci dentathi s s econd r etr i al . M or e s peci fi cal l y , he cont ends that12

beca us e the s econd r etr i al i nvol ved onl ythe cha r ges of cons pi r acyt o comm i tarm ed bank ro b b e rya n d th e re late d f ire a rm o f f e n se , the D istric t C o u rt sh o u ld h a v e e x c lu d e d th is ev iden ce u n d er F ed era l R u les o f E v iden ce 4 0 4 an d 4 0 3 . “W e re v iew the D istri ct C o u rt ’s d ec isi o n to ex clud e o r ad m itev iden ce fo r an ab u se o f d iscreti o n , b u t w e h av e p lena ry r evi ew of the D i s t r i ctC our t ’ s i nt erpr et at i on of the Feder al R ul es of Evi dence . ” U ni t ed Stat es v. G i lm ore , 5 5 3 F . 3 d 2 6 6 , 2 7 1 (3d C ir . 2 0 0 9 ). T o th e e x te n t th a t R u le 4 0 4 a p p lie s h e re , J e n k in s ’s a rg u m e n t f a ils . C f . U ni t ed Stat es v. C ross , 3 0 8 F .3 d 3 0 8 , 3 2 0 (3 d C ir. 2 0 0 2 ) (d isc u ss in g in trin sic e v id e n c e a n d R u le 404( b) ) . W hi l e “[ e] vi dence of othercr i m es , w r ongs , oract s i s notadmi s s i bl e t o pr ove the char act erof a pe r s on i n or dert o s how act i on i n conform i t yther ew i t h, ” s uch evi dence m ay

“ b e a d m iss ib le f

o r o th e r p u rp o se s, su c h a s p ro o f o f m o tiv e , o p p o rtu n ity , inte n t, pr epar at i on, pl an, know l edge, i dent i t y , orabs ence of m i s t ake oracc i dent . ” Fed. R . E vi d. 404( b) . A s w e have expl ai ned, t o be admi s s i bl e “( 1) the evi dence m us thave a pr oper purpos e underR ul e 404( b) ; ( 2) i tm us tbe r el evantunderR ul e 402; ( 3) i t s pr obat i ve val ue m us tout w ei gh i t s pr ej udi ci al eff ectunderR ul e 403; and ( 4) the courtm us tchar ge the j ur yt o cons i dert he evi dence onl yforthe l i m i t ed purpos e forw hi ch i ti s admi t t ed. ” U ni t ed Stat es v. Sam

ps on , 980 F. 2d 883, 886 ( 3d C i r . 1992) ( ci t i ng H uddl es t on v. U

ni t ed Stat es , 485 U . S. 681, 691- 92 ( 1988) ) . E ach of thes e fa ct or s i s m eti n t hi s cas e. W e agr ee w ith th e D is tr ic t C o u rt th a t th e e v id e n c e h a d a p ro p e r p u rp o s e a n d w a s re le v a n t. See U ni t ed Stat es v. V

ega , 285 F. 3d 256, 261 & n. 1 ( 3d C i r . 2002) ( s t at i ng that“pr i orbad ac t13

evi dence m aybe admi t t ed fort he purpos e of de m ons t r at i ng [a de fenda nt ’ s ] know l edge of a cons pi r acyand r el at i ons hi p w i t h one of i t s m ember s , ” as w el l as “forthe purpos e of d e m o n stra tin g th a t [ a d e f e n d a n t] h a d th e o p p o rtu n itya n d /o r in ten t to p a rticip a te in [ th a t] c o n sp ira c y ” ); s ee al

s o U ni t ed Stat es v. B al t er , 91 F. 3d 427, 437 ( 3d C i r . 1996) ( “Tri al co u rtruli n g s u n d er R u le 40 4 (b) . . . m ayb e re v erse d o n lyw h en theyare clea rl yco n tr ary t o reason an d n ot j ust i fi ed b yt he ev i den ce. ” (i nternal quotat i on m arks om i t t ed)) . W e al so a g re e w ith th e D istric t C o u rt th a t th e d a n g e r o f u n f a ir p re ju d ice d id n o t su b sta n tially o u tw e ig h th e p ro b a tiv e v a lu e o f th e e v id e n c e u n d e r R u le 4 0 3 . See , e. g. , Sam ps on , 980 F. 2d at889 ( s t at i ng t hatt he R ul e 403 “de t erm i nat i on l i es w i t hi n t he br oad di s cr et i on of th e trial c o u rt” ); s e e a l

s o Un i t e d

S ta t e s v . Ke mp , 500 F. 3d 257, 297 ( 3d C i r . 2007) (expl ai ning t hat w here the co ntes t ed ev i den ce i s hi gh l yprobati ve, a def end ant “faces a hi gh hur dl e i n s how i ng t hatt he dange rof unfa i rpr ej udi ce su b sta n tia lly outw ei ghed the p ro b a tiv e v a lu e ” ); C ross , 308 F. 3d at324 ( “R ul e 404( b) evi dence i s es peci al l ypr obat i ve w hen the cha r ged off

ens e i nvol ves a cons pi r acy . ”) . A nd J enki ns does noti dent i fy , nordo w e d isc e rn , an ysp e c if

ic d e f icie n c ies in th e D istric t C o u rt’s lim iti n g in stru c tio n w ith r es pectt o t hi s evi dence . F i n a l l y , J e n k i n s c o n t e n d s t h a th i s c o n v i c t i o n s f o rCo u n t s On e a n d F o u r , th e two cons pi r acychar ges , vi ol at e the D oubl e J eopar dyC l aus e bec aus e the evi dence s how ed onl yone agr eement . W e r evi ew forpl ai n err or , as J enki ns fai l ed t o r ai s e thi s ar gum entat a n yp o in t in th e D is tr ic t C o u rt p ro c e e d in g s . See U ni t ed Stat es v. Mi l l er , 527 F. 3d 54, 6014

( 3 d Ci r . 2 0 0 8 ) . Wh i l e we a c k n o wl e d g e a c e r t a i n a mo u n to f o v e r l a p i n th e e v i d e n c e , we nevert hel es s agr ee w i t h t he G overnm entthatJ enki ns has fai l ed t o carr yhi s bur den of demonstr at i ng pl ai n err or ; fori ns t ance , the obj ectof ea ch cons pi r acyw as s epar at e and d istin c t, th e d e f

e n d a n ts’ p lan to ro b th e b a n k w a s n o t d e p e n d e n t o n o b tain in g a v e h icle th ro u g h a c a rja c k in g , an d th e d e f e n d a n ts m a d e a c a lcu late d d e c isio n to c a rja c k a v e h icle onl yaft ers eeki ng var i ous ot herm eans of obt ai ni ng a vehi cl e, al l of w hi ch underm i ne J e n k in s ’s c la im th a t th e re w a s o n ly o n e a g re e m e n t. See U ni t ed Stat es v. B ecker , 892 F. 2d 2 6 5 , 2 6 8 - 6 9 ( 3 d Ci r . 1 9 8 9 ) ( i n d i c a t i n g th a t“ [ j ] u s tb e c a u s e th e t i me p e r i o d s o f th e two c o n s p i r a c i e s o v e r l a p p e d d o e s n o ti n d i c a t e th a to n l yo n e c o n s p i r a c ye x i s t e d , ” n o ri s “ s o me over l ap betw een the per s onnel i n t he tw o cons pi r aci es . . . i ndi cat i ve of onl yone cons pi r acy , ” and e xpl ai ni ng t hatevi dence of di ffe r entobj ect i ves w ei ghs i n favorof f in d in g tw o a g re e m e n ts e x iste d ); se e a lso U n itedS ta tes v . Sm ith , 82 F. 3d 1261, 1267, 1269- 70 ( 3d C i r . 1996) ( not i ng t he i m por t ance of eva l uat i ng w hetherther e ar e di ffe r ent o b jec tiv e s a n d w h e th e r th e a c tiv iti e s a re “ in ter d e p e n d e n t o r m u tu a llysu p p o rtiv e ” ); c f. U n itedS ta tes v . Sm ith , 4 2 4 F . 3 d 9 9 2 , 1 0 0 2 -03 (9th C ir . 2 0 0 5 ) (st ati n g that ev en if th ere w as a d o u b le j eo p ard yv iolati o n , itw as n o t so c lear o r ob v iou s su ch that the d istri ct co u rt s h o u l d h a v e r e c o g n i z e d i twi t h o u to b j e c t i o n ) . Gi v e n th e t o t a l i t yo f th e c i r c u ms t a n c e s , we re jec t Je n k in s’s a rg u m e n t.15 III . Fort he for egoi ng r eas ons , w e w i l l vaca t e J enki ns ’ s convi ct i on on C ountT hr ee a nd re m a n d to th e D istric t C o u rt f o r f u rth e r p ro c e e d in g s, b u t w ill a f f irm th e ju d g m e n t in a ll otherres pects .