## 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 os. 06

- 3574, 06

- 4038 , 06

- 4067, 06

- 4171 & 07

- 2086 U NI T ED S TATE SOF A MERI CA, P la intif f-A pp ellee, v. D ERR I CK W HIT E , M EL VI N H ERBERT, J AM ES S TEW ART, C O REY E VANS, a nd M ARVEL T H OM PS ON, D efend a nts-A pp ella nts.

A pp ealsfr o m the United S t ates Di strictC our t fo r the N o rthernDi stricto f Illino is, Eas tern Div isi on. No . 04 C R 464

—E lai ne E . Bu cklo, Judge .
A RGUED S EP TE MBE R 26, 2008

— D ECI DE D S EP TE MBE R 29, 2009

N o. 09

- 1285 M ARVEL T H OM PS ON, P laint if f-A ppell ant, v. U NI T ED S TATE SOF A MERI CA, D efend a nt-A pp ellee.2 N os . 06-3 574, 06 -40 38 , 06-4 06 7, etal.

Aft er e xam ini ng the b ri ef s and the rec ord, we have concluded  tha to r a l a r gu m e nti n No. 0 9

- 1 2 8 5 i s un ne c e s s a r y. Th a ta ppeal

— i n v o l v i n g T h o m p so n ’s c h a l l e n g e to th e d i st r i c tc o u r t ’s o rd er d enying his m oti on und er Rule 41( g) ofthe Fe de r a l Ru l es o f Cr i mi na l Pr o ce dur e

— i s con solid ated w ith T ho m p son ’ s m erits app eal and sub m it ted on the brief s and the rec ord

. S ee F ED . R. A PP . P . 34 (a )(2).

A pp eal from the United S t ates Di strictC our t fo r the N o rthernDi stricto f Illino is, Eas tern Div isi on. No . 08 C1294

—E lai ne E . Bu cklo, Judge .
S UBMIT TED A PRI L 28, 2009

— D ECI DE D S EP TE MBE R 29, 2009 

Befo re R IPPLE, M A NI ON, a nd S YKES, C ircu it Judges . S YKES, Cir cu i tJudg e . The fi ve de fen dan ts in the se c o nso l i dat ed appe al s par ti ci pat ed i n a l o ng - r unningc o nspi ra cy i nvol vi ng the di str ibuti on o fvas t a m ounts of coca i ne, her oi n, and m ar ij uana by the Bl ack Disci ple s str eet gang i n Ch i cago . Derr i ck W hi te w as c on victe d f ol l owing a j ury tr i al, and on a pp ealhe c hal l enges va r i o us as pec ts o f hi s tr i al

. The o th er f o ur defendants

— M el vin Herbe r t, J ames S te wart, Co r eyEv an s, a nd M ar velThom pson

— ple aded gui l ty, and theyea ch (w i th the e xcepti on o fEvans, w h ose at torney ha s fi l ed an A nd ers b r i e f ) c ha l l e ng e the i r s e nt e nc e s . We c o nc l ud e th at Ste w ar t is en tit led to a re m an d for re s e n t e n c in g inN os . 06-3 574, 06 -40 38 , 06-4 06 7, etal. 3 li gh t of K im bro ug h v . U nited Sta tes , 1 2 8 S
. C t
. 5 5 8 ( 2 0 0 7 )
. As t o th e o th e rd e fe n d a n t s , w e a ffi r m. W e d ela ye d iss u in g o u r d ec isio n in t h es e a p p ea ls b e c a us e wh i l e the y we r e p e nd i ng, T hom ps o n fi l e d a m oti on under Rul e 4 1( g) o fthe Fe de r al Rul e s of Cri m i nal Proc e dureas k i ngthe di st r i ctc o ur t to o r derthe g o ve r nm ent t o re turn m or e than $30 0, 000 in p ro pertyi t s ei zed w hen i t r ai ded Thom pson’ s r esi dence and busi ness. The dis tr i ct j ud ge d eni ed the m oti on without prej ud i ce, i nd i cating that after Thom pson’ s m er i ts appeal w as dec i ded, s he woul d “pr o m ptly dec i de” a r en ewe d m o ti o n. Tho m pso n a ppea l ed th i s ord er, c l ai m i ngtha t th e dist ri ct c ourts h ou ld not hav e deni ed hi s Rul e 4 1( g) m oti on a nd as ki ng us to or der th at it b e re ass i gned to a new j ud ge on re m an d

. W e di sm i ss thi s a pp ealf orl ack ofj uri sdic ti on bec ause the di str i ct c ourt ’ s o rderwas not fin a l

. T o th e e x te n t T h om p so n se ek s re as sig n m en t o f h is R u le 4 1(g ) m ot ion to an ot h er j u d ge , w e c on st ru e h is appeal as a peti ti on f orm andam us and deny i t.

I . B a c kg r o und The Blac k Di sci ple s s tr eetgang operat ed a m ass i ve drugtr affi c k i n go r g a n i z a t i o n i n C h i c a g o b e t we e n 1 9 8 9 a nd 20 04 . On e o ft h e la rg es t g an gs in t h e c ity , th e B lac k D isc ipl es fi na nc ed m o sto fthe i ra ct i vi ti es b y s el l i ng e no r m o us qu a n t i t i e s o fc o c a i n e , h e r o i n, a n d ma r ij u a n a i n h o us i ng proj ects and el sewhere on Chi cago ’ s S ou th and W est Sides. Th e B lack D isc ip les preve nt ed non gan g m em bers fro m se l l i ng drugs i n ar eas the gangcontro l l ed unle ss thos e4 N os . 06-3 574, 06 -40 38 , 06-4 06 7, etal.

o ut si der s pai d “ st r ee t ta xe s. ” M one yo bt aine d fr o m dr ug sal es and str eett ax es w as l aund er ed thr ough r eal es ta te , j ewe l r y, b us i ne ss es , a nd v eh i cl es o bt aine d by g an g m em bers as p art of th e con sp iracy. M ost of th e gan g’s d rug-di str ibuti on a cti vi ti es occur re d i n the En gl ew oo d nei ghborhood o n C h i cago ’ s S outh S i de and pu bl i chousi ng proj ects o n Chicag o’ s S outh a nd W estS i des. The Black D i sci ple s e m bra ced a ri gi d hie ra rchi cal l ea der sh i p s tructur e. A “k i ng ” served a s th e l ea dero fthe Bl ac k Di sc i pl es an d was r es po ns ibl e f o r de vel o pi ng g an gpo l i cya nd di r ec tingthe g an g ’ s dr ug - tr affi ck i ng o per at i o ns . M ar ve lTho m pso n s er ve d a s k i ngo fthe Blac k Di sci ple s fro m the ear l y 1 990s unti l200 3, at w hi ch poi nt the ga ng shi fted to a thre e- ki ng l eader shi p str uctu re . “B oa rd m em b er s” ran ke d j u st be low th e “ kin gs ” in the Bl ack Dis ci ple s’ hi er ar chy. The king as si gned eac h board m em ber to a sp ecifi c geograp hic area, and board m em b er s o ve rs aw th e g a n g ’ s n ar c ot ics op er at ion s in th e ir a reas of auth ority. Low er-ranking gan g m em bers pai d b o ar d m embe r s st r ee t taxes i n e xc ha ng e f o r the ri gh t to se l ldrugs w i thi n the boar d m em ber ’ s a re a o f c on tr ol. The Bl ac kDi sc i pl es pr o te ct ed th ei r dr ug - tr affi cki ng a c t i v i t i e s b y u s i ngy o un g e r g a ngme mbe r s t o p r o v i de se cur i ty
. The Bl ac kDi sc i pl es fr eque nt l y po st ed g an g m em be r s atho us i ngpr oj ec ts tha t se r ve d a s he adqua r te rs f o r the g an g ’ s dr ug - dea l i nga ct i vi ti es . The se g an g m e m b e rs carried gu ns distribu ted by the gang and w ere ass i gned to prot ect the Blac k Disc i ple s’ acti vi ti es fro m i nt er fer ence b y the po l i ce o r o th err i va lg an g s. The g an gN os . 06-3 574, 06 -40 38 , 06-4 06 7, etal. 5 al so prot ecte d i ts drug operat i on byi nti m i dati ng witn es se s, shoo ti ng atpol i ce o ffi cer s, and col l ecting debts thro ugh vi ol ent m eans. As pa r t o fthe g an g ’ s na r co ti cs-tr affi ck i ngo per at i o n, Bl ac kDis ci pl es he l d fr eque ntmeeti ng s to di sc us s th e g an g ’ s drug

- di st r ibut i o n n etwor ka nd f as hi o n r ul es , a nd to de ci de ho w to p r o vi de se cur i tyf o r i m po r ta ntg an g m em b er s a n d th eir d ru g a c tiv itie s. O n e g an g ru le c a l l e d “ Ai d a nd As s i s t a nc e ” r e qu i r e d a l lBl a c kDi s c i ple s m embe r s to aut o m at i ca l l y a nd i m m edi at ely a ss i sta ny ot h er m em b er w h en as ke d for a n y p u rp os e . A n ot h er ru le c a l l e d “ C o d e o fS i l e n c e ” p r o h ib i t e d B l a c kD i s c i pl e s me mb e r s fr o m d i s c u s s i n gg a n gb u s i n e s s w i th n o n g a n gme mber s. A t the m eet i ngs gang m em ber s deci ded how to disc i plin e m em ber s forvi ol ati ons ofthes e a nd o ther r ul es . F o r e xa m pl e, i fa g an gmem be r s to l e dr ug s o r dr ug proce e ds , c o o pe r a t e d wi th l a w e nfo r c e men t, o r f a i l e d t o f o l l o w o r de r s , h e c o ul d b e fi ne d, b e a t e n, s ho t, o r k i l l e d. On F eb r ua r y 8 , 2 005, a g r an d j ur y s i tt i ngi n the N or ther n Dis tr i ct o fI l l i noi s r etur ned a 49

- count ind i ctm ent a gainst 4 6 defendants st em m i ng fro m thei r i nvol vem ent in the Blac k Di sci ple s’ drug-d istributi on netw or k. Count 1, the cente rp iec e ofthe i nd i ctm ent, acc used 45 of the defendants o f c onspi ring to poss ess and dis tr ibute m or e than 50 gr am s o fcr ack coca i ne , m ore than 5 k i l ogr am s o fpow der c ocain e, and m or e than 1 k i l ogr am o f hero i n. Fo rty- fi ve ofth e d efendants pl eaded gui l ty to var i ous c harg es in the i nd i ctm ent; the f or ty- si xth defen dan t

— Derr i ck W hi te

— w as con victed after a j ury tr ial off o u r offe n se s. G ive n th e s p ra w lin g s c op e o f th is6 N os . 06-3 574, 06 -40 38 , 06-4 06 7, etal.

Thom pson a l s o a rg ues thatthe di s t ri c tc our tvi ol at ed the 1 Due Pr oc es s Cl aus e bec aus e i tdi d notr equi re the gove rn m en t (co n tin u ed ...) case , the num bero fdefendant s, an d the var i etyo f i ss ue s ea chde fen dan t r ai se s o n a ppea l, we sa ve o ur des cr i pti o n ofeach defen dan t’ s i ndi vi duali nv o l ve m en t wi ththe Bl ac kDi sc i pl es ’ dr ug co ns pi r ac y f o r o ur a n a l y s i s b e l o w.

II . A n alysis A . M arvelThom pson M ar velThom pson was the ki ng o fth e Blac k Di sci ple s fro m the ear l y 1 990s unti l20 03, wh en the ga ng em bra ced a t h re e-k in g lea d er sh ip st ru c tu re t h a t le ft T h om p so n in ch ar g e o fthe g an g ’ s S o uth S i d e o per at i o n. As a k i ng Thom pson di re cted the Bl ack Disc i ple s’ vas t drug- tr affi ckin g op er ati ons and contr ol l ed other gang m em ber s’ acti vi ti es. Thom pson pl eaded gui l ty to the c onspi ra cy charg e in the i nd i ctm ent. H i s pre sente nce r epor t ( “PSR”) pl a c e d h i m i n Cr i mi na l H i sto r y Ca t e g o r y I, a nd h i s a dj u st ed o ffense l eve lwas 46 und erthe sente nci ng guidel i nes ( the s entencing tabl e t ops o ut at43 ) ; thi s y i el ded an a d v i s o r y g u i d e l i n e s s e n t e n c e o fl i fe i mpr i s o n me n t
. He was s en te nc ed to 5 40 months i n pr i so n. O n ap p e a l T hom p son argue s tha t the district cou rt com m i tte d seve ra ler ro rs i n the appli cati on o fgui delin es en h an c em ents and that hi s s entence i s o ther w i se unreasonab l e. H e fi rs t arg u es thatthe dist ri ct c ourter re d

1N os . 06-3 574, 06 -40 38 , 06-4 06 7, etal. 7

(
. . . c on t i nu e d) 1 to p r ov e b ey on d a rea son ab le d ou b t the sen ten cing f acts it re l i ed o n to inc re as e hi s s en t en c e. W e have r ej ec t ed thi s ar gum en t m a n y tim es . See, e . g. , U ni t ed Sta t es v. Sant i ago , 495 F. 3d 8 2 0 , 8 2 4 (7 th C ir . 20 0 7 ). w hen i t a pp l i ed a four-l ev el enhancem ent forbeing an “organ izer or lead er” of th e con sp iracy. U
. S. S. G
. § 3B 1.1( a). The g i sto fTho m pso n’ s ar g um en t i s th atthe g o ve r nm ent o nl y e stabl i shed that he w as a l eadero fthe Blac k Di sc i pl es g an g, no t a l ea der o f th e dr ugc o ns pi r ac y . To the contr ar y, the gov er nm ent pr ese nted subst anti alev i dence that as ki ng o fthe Blac k Di sci ple s, Thom pson co or dinat ed th e dr ug - di st r ibut i o n co ns pi r ac y . Thompso n’ s se nt en cing he ar i ngs panne d t wo da y s, a nd nine di ffer en t co co nspi r at o r s te st i fi ed tha t Tho m pso n was the k i ngo fthe Bl ac kDi sc i pl es and w as ext en si ve l y i nv o l ve d i n di r ec ting the g a ng ’ s na r c o t i c s o pe r a t i o n. The y t e s t i fi e d tha tT ho mpso n c o nt r o l l ed th e en ti r e Bl ac kDi sc iple s o r g an i za ti o n, provi d ed drugs to gang m em ber s t o sel l, co ntro l l ed m o r e tha n 1 5 dr ug - s e l l i ng l o c a t i o ns , mad e tho us a nd s o f dol l ar s a day fro m d rug sal es, co l l ecte d paym ents fro m stree t- l eve ldrug deal er s, l aund er ed drug m oneythr ough r ea le st at e he o wned, res olv ed di spu te s amongg an g m embers, a nd di sc i pl i ne d Bl ac kDi sc i pl es mem be r s who b ro ke ga n g ru les . Th e g ov er n m en t a ls o i n tr od u c ed ev idenc e seiz ed fro m Thom pson’ s a partm ent, wh i ch i ncl ud ed sev er alhandguns, gan g l i ter atur e, m or e than $3 00 ,00 0 in sm all b ills, an d let te rs fr om oth er B lac k D isc ip les m em b er s w h o a c kn ow led ge d h is lea d er sh ip role and aske d fo r m oneyo r ass i sta nce.8 N os . 06-3 574, 06 -40 38 , 06-4 06 7, etal. A ga in st th is m ou n ta inof ev id en c e e st ab lish in g h is ro le a s a l eadero fthe Blac k Di sci ple s’ drug conspi ra cy, Thom pson o ffer s tw o ad dit i onalar gum ents, bo th weak. Fi rs t, he c l ai m s that because m uch ofthe evi dence w as draw n fro m gr and-j ury proceed i ngs, the tr i alo f coco nspir ato r Derr i ck W h ite, pl ea agr eem ents, and ple a col l oqui es, he di d not hav e th e opp or tuni ty to chal l enge it. B u t th e gov er n m en t gav e Th om p so n th is e vid en c e w ell inad va n c e o f h is s en te n c in g h e a r i n g , an d h e h ad am p le opportunity t o cont es t i t duri ng the two- day hear i ng. Se c on d , Th om p s on arg u es th at so m e o f th e e vid en c e is unr e l i ab l e . Th i s a r g ume nt a mou nt s t o l i t t l e mor e tha n an i nvi tat i on t o seco nd

- guess the dist ri ct c ourt ’ s f actual fi nd i ngs, wh i ch ar e cl ear l y supp or ted bythe evi dence. The dis tr i ct j ud ge p re sid ed ove r thi s 4 6- defe nd ant ca se for n ea rly th re e y ea rs an d d em on st ra te d i n tim at e fa m iliar ity w ith th e s u b st an tia l ev id en c e t h at ov er w h elm in gly i denti fi ed Thom pson as a l eadero fthe drug co nspir acy. W e will“no t s eco nd gues s the dete rm i nati ons m ade by a j udi ci alo ffi ce r who ha s o bs er ve d t he test i m o ny a nd m ad e c ar efu l j u d gm en ts ab ou t t h e w itn es s’ v er ac ity .” U ni t e d S t at e s v. Hol l i ns , 498 F.3d 622 , 631 (7th C ir. 2007). T he district cou rt did not clearly err in a p p lyi ng the fourlevel “organ izer or lead er” en ha nc em en t un d er § 3B 1.1( a). Thom pson next ar gues that the di str i ct c ourtcl ear ly er re d in apply i ng a tw o- l eve lenhancem ent forposs ess i on of a d an gerou s w eap on in con ne ction w ith a dru g-traffi ck i ngo ffen se . U. S
. S
. G. § 2D1
. 1(b) ( 1)
. F o r pur po se s o fthe § 2D1.1 ( b) ( 1) enhancem ent, a defe nd ant “ i s co nsi dered to have ‘ posse sse d’ a fi re ar m i fco conspir ato rs poss ess ed fi r ea r m s i n fur th er an ce o fthe cons pi r ac y a nd [ th e defen -N os . 06-3 574, 06 -40 38 , 06-4 06 7, etal. 9 dant] coul d have r eas onabl y for ese en t he co conspi ra tor s’ posse ssi on. ” U nite d State s v. A cost a , 53 4 F
. 3d 574, 58 8 (7th C ir. 2008). Th e r e is a mpl e s up po r tf o r the di s t r i c tc o ur t ’ s a pp l i c a t i o n o fth e d a n g e r o u s - we a p o n e n h a n c e me n t
. L a wen f o r ce m en t o ffi ce r s r ec o ve r ed two l o ade d g uns

— al o ng w ith m or e t h an $3 00 ,00 0 in $ 1 0 a n d $2 0 b ills

— w hen th eys ea r ch ed Tho m pso n’ s a p artment
. One o fthe se g uns had i ts ser i alnum bero bl i terat ed, wh i ch co conspi ra tor VarneyVoke r ex p lained was a c om m on Bl ack Disc i ple s t a c t i c t o p r e v e ntthe g a ng ’ s we a po ns fr o m be i ngt r aced

. C ont r ar y t o whatTho m pso n s ug g es ts , the g o ve r nm en t ne ed no t al way s es tabl i shthe pr es en ce o fdr ug s atthe sa m e pl ac e wher e th e fi r ea r m i s f o und t o s uppo r t th e dangero us- w eapon e nhancem ent; such a showing i s a su fficie n t, b u t n ota n ec es sa ry , con d itio n . Se e, e . g. , U nited State s v. Wom ack, 496 F.3d 791 , 798 (7th C ir. 2007). Even w i thout the guns re cove re d fr om hi s a partm ent, how eve r, appli cati on o fthe enhancem ent was j usti fi ed b a s e d on T h om p so n ’s le ad er sh ip role in t h e B lac k D isc ip les . In th is r eg ar d , Th om p so n ’s c as e is ind ist in gu ish ab le fr o m U ni t e d S t at e s v. So uf f r ont, 338 F.3d 8 0 9 ( 7th Cir. 20 03 ) , a c as e i n whi chwe af fi r m ed th e appl i ca ti o n o fthe § 2 D1. 1( b) ( 1) enhancem ent t o a drug ki ngpin w h en tr i alt es ti m o ny r ev ea l ed th atmem be r s o fthe drugc o nspi r ac y c arr i ed g uns a nd us ed th em f o r di sc i pl i na r y a nd secur i ty pu rpos es. S i m i l arl y her e, the gov er nm ent intro
duce d s ubs ta nt i ale vi den ce tha t th e Bl ac kDis ci pl es ’ dr ug op eration reli ed heav il y on gu n-c a r rying gan g m em bers to pr o vi de se cur i tya nd t o di sc i pl i ne o ut
- o f

- l i ne g an g10 N os . 06-3 574, 06 -40 38 , 06-4 06 7, etal.

m em ber s. A dd i ti onal l y, t h e B l ack Disc i ple s co ntro l l ed the housi ng proj ect w here coco nspir ato r Derr i c k W hi te shota p o l i c e o ffi c e r ; Whi t e u s e d a g a ng - pr o v i ded fi r ea r m whi l e pr o vi di ngs ec ur i ty f o r the dr ug - tr affi ck i ng organ ization Th om p son directe d

. A s ifm ore w ere needed, t h e evi dence al so est abl i shed that Thom pson or dered o ne ga ng m em berki l l ed w hom he s uspected of co o per ati ngwi thl aw e nf o r ce m en t an d a no th erg an g m em bersho t for v iola ti ng g ang r ule s. The danger ouswe a po n e nh a nc e men twa s p r o pe r l y a pp l i e d. Thom pson al so chal l enges the dist ri ct c ourt ’ s a pp l i cati on o fa tw o-l eve lenhancem ent foro bstr ucti on o fj usti ce und erU
. S. S. G. § 3C1. 1. A n obs tr ucti on- of

-j usti ce e nhancem en t is p rop er i f th e d efend an t co m m its perj ury

— that i s, i f he wi l l ful l y g i ve s f al se te st i m o ny unde r o ath ab o ut a m at er ial m at te r. U nite d S ta te s v . Price, 51 6 F
. 3d 597, 60 7 ( 7th Ci r . 2 00 8)
. A defen d ant ca n obs tructj us ti ce b y l y i ng about re l evantco nd uct that would e nhance hi s s entence , se eU ni t e d S t at e s v. Kr ol e dge, 20 1 F
. 3d 90 0, 90 5 ( 7th Cir. 20 00 ) , a nd tha t i s pr ec i se l y whatthe di str i ctc o ur t co ncl ud ed occur re d i n thi s c ase. Duri ng hi s pl ea col l oquy, Thom pson r efused to adm i t t o the g ove rnm ent’ s a sse rt i on th athe w as a k i ngi n the Bl ac kDi sc i pl es o r g an i za ti o n, s a y in g , “A s far as th e kings an d allthat, that ’s, that ’s

— It o l d the m a tho us an d t i m es , tha t’ s no t m e. ” The g o ve r nm en t th enint r o duce d s ubs ta nt i ale vi den ce e st ab l i sh i ng Tho m pso n’ s r o l e as a k i ng, a nd the di st r i ctc o ur t co ncl ude d Tho m pso n “ ab so l ut ely l i ed” abo uthi s r ole in the Blac k Di sci ple s. Thom pson r ai ses two c h al l enges to the appli cati on o f thi s e nhancem ent: thathi s s tat em ent t o the dist ri ctN os. 06

- 3574, 06

- 4038, 06

- 4067, etal

. 11

c ou rtd u rin g t h e p lea co lloq u y w as n o t a l ie a n d th at it w as not m ate ri al

. Regar ding the fi rs t of these clai m s, T h om p so n co n t e n d s t h at h is s ta te m en t a b ou t h is ro le in th e Bl ac kDi sc i pl es was j us t hi s e ff o r t to e xpl ain t o the co ur ttha th e o nly l e d pa rt o f th e g a n g ’ s o p e r a t i o n s . He ar gue s th athe was o nl y t r y i ngt o c orrect th e g o ve r nm ent’ s e rr oneo us as ser ti on that he w as re spon sib l e for the c oco nspir ato rs ’ act i vi tie s eve n though he di d not con tr o l th eir geograp hic area. To th e con trary, how ever, Thom pson’ s s tatem ent denying hi s s tatus as king was i n re sponse to a l engthydescr i pti on bythe gov er nm ent o f hi s a scensi on thro ugh the Blac k Di sci ple s’ r anks and i ts expla nati on o fthe Blac k Di sci ple s’ l eader shi p str ucture. The sta tem ent w as i n the f or m of a fla t d eni al

— “i t’ s no t m e.” T h e re c or d als o re flec ts th at T h om p so n rep ea te d ly m i ni m i ze d hi s r o l e wi ththe Bl ac kDi sc i ples. W e fi nd no f a ul twi th the di s t r i c tc o ur t ’ s fi nd i ngtha tT ho mps o n l i e d. N orar e we convi nced that Thom pson’ s li e w as i m m ate
r i al

. Num er ou s co ur ts ha ve he l d tha t when a defen dan t l i es du ring a ple a hea ring byat tem pti ng to m i ni m i ze hi s r ol e in a n o ffen se, thatl i e i s m ate ri alf orpurposes o f § 3 C 1.1
. Se e, e . g. , U nited Sta tes v. Sa nd ers , 162 F
. 3d 396, 40 2- 03 ( 6t h C ir. 19 98 ); U nite d State s v. Her nand ez Cop li n , 24 F. 3d 312, 31 7- 18 ( 1stCi r. 19 94)
. A nd w e hav e spe ci fi cal l y hel d that a n obs tr ucti on- of

-j usti ce e nhancem en t is w ar ra n te d w h en th e d efe n d an t m in im ize s h is ro le i n a c onspi ra cy du ring a sente nci ng hea ring. See U nited Sta tes v . Sha rp , 43 6 F
. 3d 73 0, 73 8 ( 7th Ci r . 2 00 6)
. S en te nc i ng cour ts m ust co ns id er a defe nd ant’ s r ol e in a c onspi ra cy w h e n d e term ining w he th er a § 3B1
. 1 enh an cem en t or a § 3 B1. 2 r educti on i s a pp l i cabl e. Thom pson’ s a tte m pt to12 N os . 06-3 574, 06 -40 38 , 06-4 06 7, etal.

m i sl ea d the di st r i ctc our t ab o uthi s r o l e wi th i n the Blac k Disc ip les “[ m ade] i t m or e di ffi cul t forthe cour t t o gi ve hi m the senten c e that i s hi s j ust [ desser t]
. ” U nited State s v. Sapo znik, 161 F.3d 111 7, 1 1 2 1 ( 7th Cir. 1998). A c c or d in gly , th e d ist ric t c ou rtd id n otcle ar ly er r in applying the o bstr ucti on- of

-j usti ce e nhancem ent. Thom pson n ext c l ai m s he i s e nti tl ed to a re du cti on und erU
. S. S. G. § 3 E 1.1 (a) f oracc eptance ofr esponsibi l i ty. W hen a defe nd ant’ s o ffense l eve li s pro perl y e nha n ced for o b s tr u c tio n of j u st ice u n d er § 3C 1.1 , he is ge n er ally not enti tl ed to a re du cti on f oracc eptance ofr esponsibi l i ty abse nt “e xcepti onalci rcum sta nces. ” U ni t e d St at e s v. D avis , 44 2 F .3d 1 003, 10 09- 10 ( 7th Ci r. 20 06)
. W e hav e previ ousl y a ffi rm ed the denia lo fa § 3 E1. 1( a) r educti on w here th e de fe nd a ntmi ni mi z e s h i s r o l e i n the o ffe ns e. U ni t e d S t at e s v. Li nne ar, 40 F. 3d 215, 222 (7th Cir. 1994). T he d istri ct cou rt prop erly w ithh eld th e acce p tan ce-ofre sponsib ility r educti on. Thom pson l i ed abo ut hi s r ol e a s ki ng o fthe Blac k Di sci ple s an d d i sputed the degr ee to w hi ch he e ngi neer ed the gang’ s drug- tr affi cki ng o perati o ns . F ur th er m o r e, a l th o ug h the e vi den ce o ve r whel m i ng re veal ed that he di re cted a m ass ive d rug or gani zati on f o r appro xi m at ely 1 5 y ea r s, the o nl y dr ugt r an sa ct i o ns Thom ps on actual l y a dm i tte d w er e a 20 04 pu rchas e o f 150 gr am s o fher oi n and a 20 04 sal e o f1 ki l ogr am o f he r o i n a nd 28 kil o g r ams o fc o ca i ne . Ev enmor e i nc r edu

l ousl y, Thom pson i ni ti al l y t es tifi ed that he had no i dea w hat hi s co conspi ra tor s were going to do with the drugs he so l d them o n thos e occa si ons and rev i sed hi s s tat em en t o n ly a fte r th e d i str i ct c ou rtex p re ss ed u n d er st an d ab le s k e p t i c i s m.N os. 06

- 3574, 06

- 4038, 06

- 4067, etal

. 13 Skeletal adm issi ons and m inim ization gen erally un d erm i ne a de fe nd a nt ’ s a r g ume ntf o r a § 3 E1
. 1 ( a ) a c c e pt anceo f

- r es po ns ibi l i tyr edu ct i o n; whenc o m bine d wi ththe o bs truct i ve co nduc t th at l ed to th e appl i ca ti on of a § 3C 1.1 enh a n c e m e n tfo r ob s t r u c t io n ofju s t ic e , Th om p son ’s ar gum ent foran a cceptance
- of

- responsibi l i ty enhancem en t e vapor ate s. To the exte nt Thom pson co ntends that th e g o ve r nm en t agr ee d t o a § 3 E1. 1( a) r edu ct i o n, he se ve re ly d ist or ts th e re c or d . A lth ou gh th e g ov er n m en t s aid i t would r eco m m end an acce ptance- of

- re sp onsibi l i ty re du cti on i fThom ps on p l eaded gui l ty by a ce rt ai n date ( and he did) , pro secutor s were not bound by thi s a gr eem ent a fterT h om pson l i ed abo ut hi s r ol e in the Blac k Di sc i pl es ’ dr ugc o ns pi r ac y a t hi s chan ge- o f

- pl ea a nd sen ten cin g hearing s. A ccord ingly, the d istri ct cou rt proper l y deni ed Thom ps on a § 3E1. 1( a) r educti on f or accepta nce o fr esponsibi l i ty. Fi nal l y, Thom pson chal l en ges hi s 5 40- m onth s entence as unreas onabl e. H e a rgues that the d i str i ct c ourtga ve t o o l ittl e w eight to his lack of a crim inal record, his personalchar acte ri stics, and hi s f am i l y r esponsibi l i ti es. Thom pson al so bel i eve s that the di str i ct c ourtdi d not adequa t e l y e xp l a i n whyi ti mpo s e d a 4 5

- y e a r s e nt e nc e o n a 3 7- y ea r - o l d wi thno c r im i na lhi st o r y . W he n a de fen dant pres ents “st ockar gum ents that sente n c in g court s se e ro u tin ely ,” w e h av e s aid th at “a se n te n c in g c ou rtis c e r t a i nly fr e e t o r ej e c t[ the m] wi tho utdi s c us s i on. ” U nited State s v. Tahz ib , 5 13 F.3d 692, 695 (7th C ir. 2008). M oreover, “ar gum ents cl ear l y w ithout m er i t ca n, and f orthe sak e of jud icia l ec on om y s h ou ld , be p as se d ov er in s ilen c e.” U ni t e d S t at e s v. Cunn i ngh am , 429 F.3d 673 , 6 78 (7th C ir. 2005 ).14 N os . 06-3 574, 06 -40 38 , 06-4 06 7, etal. H er e, the dist ri ct c ourtco nsi dered, am ong othe r thi ngs: ( 1) the nature and ci rcum sta nces ofthe offen se, w hi ch the cour t s ai d “c oul d hardl y b e wors e” because i t was “a cr i m e a gainst the sou th s id e” and “the k i nd o f cri m e that k eeps peo ple fro m h avi ng a chance”; ( 2) Thom pson’ s r ol e a s k i ngpin of th e Blac k Di sci ple s organ ization; (3) certain p o s iti ve asp ects of T hom p son ’s chara cteras sho w n by hi s l eader shi p quali ti es, hi s o ccasi onalgo od deed s, an d the f act that hi s chi l dren l ove d hi m ; ( 4) the cyni calm ess age Thom pson se nt to chi l dren by appeari ng as a l ead er ofa gang; ( 5) the need to deter o th er s fr o m s el l i ng d rug s an d j o i ni ngs tr ee t g an g s; a nd ( 6) the l i k el i hood tha t Tho m pso n wo ul d r etur n t o s el l i ng dr ug s upo n h i s r el ea se fr o m pr i so n. A ft erc o m m en ting on th ese factors, the cou r t rejected the recom m en d ed l ife sente nce, co ncl ud ing that there was at l eas t a possi bil ity ofr ehabi l i tat i on. In shor t, a fte r an exhausti ve tw o- day se nt en cinghe ar i ng, the di st r i ctc o ur t th o ug htful l y c o nsid e r ed Th om p son ’s ind ivi d ua l circum stan ces be fore i m posi ng a bel ow-gui del i nes s en te nce o f54 0 m onths. Thi s was no t anabus e o fdi sc r et i o n.

B . M elv in H erb ert M el vin Herbe r t pleaded g ui l tyt o the c o ns pi r ac y c o unt ch arged i n th e ind ictm en t, ad m itti ng that he h eld a lead ersh i p po si ti o n in the Bl ac kDi sc i pl es ’ dr ug - tr affi ck i ng o per at i o n. The d istri ctc o ur t f o und tha t th e to ta la m o unt ofdrugs i nvol ved i n the conspi ra cy i ncl ud ed m or e than 1. 5 k i l o g r a ms o fc r a c kc o c a i n e , 3 0 k i l o g r a ms o fh e r o i n, and 150 ki l ogr am s o fpow der c oca i ne. H erber t r ecei vedN os. 06

- 3574, 06

- 4038, 06

- 4067, etal

. 15 gu id elin es en h an c em en ts for p o s s e ss in g a w ea p on in co n n e c t i o n wi th a d r u g - t r a ffi c k i n go ffe n s e a n d f o r b ei ng a m anage r orsuperv i sor of cri m i nalact i vi ty, and a guidelin es red u c tio n for a c c ep ta n c e o f res p on sib ility . Th is b ro u ght hi s a dvis or y guidel i nes r ange to 360 m onths to l i fe i mpr i s o n me n t
. T h e di st r i c tc o u r ti mpo s e d a b e l o wgui del i nes s entence o f31 0 m onths. The s o l e i ss ue Herbe r t ra ises o n a ppea li s whethe r he i s e nti tl ed to a re m and fo r re sente nci ng unde r ei ther K im bro ug h v. U ni t e d S t a tes , 1 2 8 S
. Ct
. 5 5 8 , o r 1 8 U. S
. C. § 35 82 ( c)
. Be ca us e H erbe r t di d no t o bj ec t t o the c r a c k/p o wd e r d i s p a r i t y b e f o r e th e d i s tr i ctc o u r t, we re vie w th es e fo rfe ite d iss u es for p lain err or . Se e U nited St at e s v. Tayl or, 520 F.3d 746 , 747-48 (7th C ir. 2008). I n Kim b r ough the Suprem e Cour t hel d th at dist ri ct cour ts m ay consi der the d i spari ty bet w een the gui del i nes’ tr ea tm ent o fcr ack coca i ne and pow der c oca i ne wh en f as hi oni nga de fen dan t’ s se nt en ce . In U ni t e d S t at e s v. Ta y l or, 520 F. 3d 746, we adopted a l i m i ted- re m and procedu r e f o r f o r fe i t e d Kim b r ough

- ty p e a rg u m en ts t o p er m it the di str i ct c ou rt to advi se us ofi ts i ncl i nati on t o i m pose a d if fe rent sent en ce in li gh t of Kim b r ough

. Taylo r rem ands ar e pr em i sed o n the noti on that we cannot d eterm ine from the record w he th er the d istri ct cou rt w ou ld h av e s en te n c ed a d e f e n d an t d iffer en tly h ad it been aw ar e o fi ts disc re ti on t o consi der the gui del i nes’ di spa r at e tr ea tmento fc r ac ka nd pow d er c o ca i ne . I fthe dist ri ct c ourtte l l s us i t w oul d i m pose a di ffer ent s entence , then a Kim b r ough er ro r oc c u rr e d ; i f th e s en te n c e w ou ld re m ai n the sam e, then no Kim b r ough er r o r o cc ur r ed an d a r em and fo r re sente nci ng i s no t nec ess ar y.16 N os . 06-3 574, 06 -40 38 , 06-4 06 7, etal. H er e, unl i k e i n Taylo r, we need not as k for the di str i ct c o ur t ’ s v i e w b e c a us e ev e n i fthe di s t r i c tc o ur th a d ign o red the c ra ck coca i ne at tr ibutabl e t o H erber t, hi s guidel i nes ra nge woul d rem ai n unchanged. Based o n the am ount o f pow der c oca i ne and her oi n i nvol ved i n thi s co nspir acy, H erbe r t’ s ba se o ffen se l ev elwoul d b e th e sa m e. At the ti m e o fH erber t’ s s entencing, th e 1. 5 k i l ogr am s o fcr ack coca i ne, 30 ki l ogr am s o fher oin , a nd 15 0 k i l ogr am s o f po wderc o ca i ne a tt r ibut ed to hi m e ac h r esulte d i n a ba se o ffen se l ev el o f 38
. I f th e di st r i ct co ur t f ocu sed e xcl usi vel y o n the pow der c oca i ne and her oin it attr ibuted to H erber t, i t would s ti l l s tar t with a b ase o ffense l eve l o f3 8
. Ac c o r di ng l y, any K im b r ough err or th at oc c u rre d in thi s ca se w as harm l ess . N o r do the r et r o ac ti ve a m en dm en ts t o the c r ac k

- co ca i ne gui del i nes r equi re a re m and i n H erber t’s case
. U nd er 18 U. S
. C. § 3 58 2( c) ( 2) , a de fen dan t who “h as bee n s en te nc ed to a ter m o fi m pr i so nm en t ba se d o n a s en te nc i ng r an g e th atha s been sub se que nt l y l o wer ed” b y the S en ten cing C om m issi on m ay m ove th e d is t r ic t cou rt fora re d u c tio n in h is s en te n c e b a s e d on th e low er ed ran ge . A § 3 58 2(c )(2) m o tio n is ad d re ss ed to th e d ist ric t c ou rtin th e fi r st i ns ta nc e, no t to the c o ur t o fa ppea l s. In a ny ev en t, as w e h av e n ot ed , t h e p ow d er co c ain e a n d h er oin attrib u tabl e t o H erber t ind ependentl y s up porta base o ffen se l eve lo f3 8. Af te r a ppl y i ngthe a ppr o pr i at e en hancem ents and reducti ons, H erber t’ s guide lines ra nge re m ai ns 36 0 m onths to l i fe i m pri sonm ent.N os. 06

- 3574, 06

- 4038, 06

- 4067, etal

. 17 C . Jam es S tew art J ames S te war t pl ea ded g ui l tyt o the c o ns pi r ac y c o unt charg ed i n the i nd i ctm ent a nd was sent en ced to 29 2 m onths’ i m pri sonm ent. St ew ar t adm i tte d he sold drugs and w or ked se curi ty f orthe Blac k Di sci ple s’ nar coti cs o per at i o n. On appe alS te war t ch al l en g es the c r ac k

- co ca i ne se n te n c in g ra tio th e Su p re m e C ou rtd ec lar ed ad vis or y in Kim b r ough

. Unl i k e H erbe r t, S te war t pr es er ve d th i s argum ent in the dist ri ct c ourt, so o ur r evi ew i s p len ar y, f or a b u se of d isc re tio n . Se eU ni t e d S t at e s v. Cl ant on , 53 8 F. 3 d 6 5 2 , 6 5 9 ( 7 th Ci r . 2 0 0 8 )
. We ha v e s a i d tha ta di str i ct cou rt abu ses its disc r e t ion un d er Kim b r ough w h en it tr ea ts th e c ra c k/ p ow d er d isp ar ity as m an d at or y. Id. The dist ri ct c ourtdi d so here

. Because a Kim b r ough e r r o r o c c u r r e d , th e g o v e r nm en t m us t sho w tha t th e er r o r was ha r m l es s. The g o ve r nm en t c o n c e d e s i tc a n n o tme e tt hi s bu r d e n, a n d we a g r e e . S t e war t’ s P SR at tr ibuted 1. 5 k i l ogr am s o fcr ack coca i ne to hi m . H owever, nei therthe p lea a greem ent, the PSR, nor the dist ri ct cour t cal cul ate d the speci fi c quant ity o f p ow d er co c ain e o r h er oin a tt rib u ta b le t o h im . U n like in H erber t’ s ca se, we ther ef or e ca nn ot d ete rm i ne wh ether S te war t’s ad vi so r y g ui del i ne s r an g e woul d r emai n the sam e e ven i fthe dist ri ct c ou rt ignore d the am ount o f c r a c k c o c a i ne f o r wh i c h i tf o un d h i m r e s po ns ib l e . Ac c o r di ng l y, we va ca te S tew ar t’ s se nt en ce a nd r emand to the d istri ct cou rt forresent en cing in li gh t of Kim b r ough

.18 N os . 06-3 574, 06 -40 38 , 06-4 06 7, etal. D . D err ick W h it e Der r i ckW hi te was the o nl y de fen dan t ch ar g ed i n the i n d i c t me ntwh o e x e r c i s e d h i s r i g h tt o a j u r y t r i a l

. He w as convi cted o ff our cou nts: ( 1) the conspi ra cy charg e; ( 2 ) s ho o t i nga nd a t t e mpt i ngt o mur de r a Ch i c a g o p o l i ce o ffi ce r f o r the pur po se o fma intaini nga nd i nc r ea sing hi s p o s i t i o n i n a n e n t e r p r i s e e n g a g e d i n r a c k e t e e r i ng ac ti vi ty ; ( 3) ca r r y i ng an d us i ng a g un dur i ng a vi o l en t cr i m e; a nd ( 4) po ss es si o n ofa fir ea r m b y a fel o n. The di st r i ctc o ur t se nt en ce d W hi te to 3 72 months ’ i m pr i so nm ent, and he does notchal l enge hi s s entence
. W hi te ser ved as a sol die r i n the Blac k Di sci ple s’ nar cot i cs en te r pr i se , i n whi ch c ap aci tyhe a ct ed as a l o o k o uta t th e ga n g’s d ru g-d ea lin g loc at ion s t o w ar n ab ou t p os sib le i nter fer ence by the pol i ce o r ri valga ng m em ber s. In 200 1 W hi te w as w or king secur i ty at one ofthe hi gh- ri se hou sing proj ects the Blac k Di sci ple s use d as a drugdist ributi on s i te. On the n i ght o fM ay 8, 20 01, undercov er offi cer s fro m the C hi cago Pol i ce Depar tm ent a pp ro ached the b uil ding w here W hi te w as stat i oned to co nd uct a “reverse sting ,” m e an ing the y w ou ld arrest d rug d ealers w hen theyar ri ved, then pose as the deal er s a nd ar re st a n y o n e w h o t r i e d t o p u r c h a s e n a r c o t i c s fr o m th e m. Dress ed as a const ructi on work er, Offi cerDeon Hu ghes drove a U

- H aul tr uck t oward th e b u ildingand go t o ut o f t h e v e h i c l e . A s h e d i d s o , W h i t e a p p r o a c h e d , fr i s k e d h i m, fel t H ug he s’ s b ulle tpr o o fv es t, a nd y el l ed, “ 5- 0” ( g an g code forthe pol i ce)
. H ughes the n identi fi ed hi m sel fas a pol i ce o ffi cer, and W hi te re ached into hi s w ais tb and fo r a gun. H ughes punched W hi te i n the f ace and tri ed toN os. 06

- 3574, 06

- 4038, 06

- 4067, etal

. 19 run to the fro nt o fthe U

- H au l fo r c over, but W hi te got off t h re e s h ot s. T w o of t h e b u llet s h it H u gh es , o n e in hi s l ower ba ck and one in his sp in e. H ad H ughes no t w or n a bul l etpro of vest, the shot to hi s spi ne w ou ld ha ve k i l led hi m . W hi te fl ed th e sc en e, b utb as ed o n a descri pti on Hu ghes provi ded o thero ffi cer s as he l ay i nj u r e d , p o l i c e l a t e r a p p r e h e n d e d h i m. W hi te fi rs t a rgues that pr ose cutor s i m perm i ssibl y use d a per em ptor y chal l enge to str i ke an A fri can- A m er i can j uroro n the basi s o fherr ace contr ar y t o Bats on v. Ke nt uc ky, 476 U
. S. 79 (1986). D uring j ury selection, th e d istri ct cou rt i nfo rm ed potenti alj uror s that the tr i alm i ght l asta w eek and a hal fand ask ed w hetherthi s s chedule posed pro bl ems fo r a ny o fthe m . Two w om enr ai se d the i r ha nds a nd sa id th ey h ad ch i l d

- c a re d ifficu ltie s. M ar c y D eV rie s, a whi te woman, said sh e ha d thr ee c hi l dr ena nd s he m igh t h av e t ro u b le fin d i n g s o m eo n e t o c ar e fo r h er ch ildren f oran e xtended p er i od ofti m e. Vi ckiJ acks on, an A frican- A m er i can wom an, sa i d she had ni ne chi l dren an d th at tw o w er e “s ick ly” so sh e n ee d ed to be av aila b le inca se th e y h a d to go t o th e d oc to r. Jac ks on ac kn ow ledged, however, thatherm othe r coul d take car e o fher chi l dren i fnece ssa ry . W hen the dist ri ct c ourtente rt ai ned chal l enges f orcause , W hi te’ s a tto rneyaske d thatDeVri es b e s t r u c kf o r c a u s e b e c a u s e o fh e r c h i l d

- c a r e p r o b l e m. N oting th at both Jackson an d D eV ries h a d c hild-care i ssues , the pros ecuto r resp onded that they s houl d ei ther both be re tained orbo th be di sm i sse d fo r cause. The dis tr i ct c ourtul ti m ate l y c oncl ud ed that J acks on an d De Vr i es s ho ul d no t b e d i smi ss ed f o r c au se . The20 N os . 06-3 574, 06 -40 38 , 06-4 06 7, etal.

T he go v ern m en t’ s d ism issal of the o the r tw o A frican-A m eri- 2 cans i s not ati ss ue in this cas e. r es ul tingj ur y po o la t th i s st ag e in cl ude d fi ve Af r i ca nA m ericans . E x e r c is in gp e r e m p t o r y c h a lle n g e s , p r o s e c ut ors st r uckfi ve whi tes ( i nc l udi ngDe Vr i es ) a nd thr ee Af r i ca nAm er i ca ns ( i nc l udi ngJ ac k so n)
. The r es ul tingj ur y i n- 2 cl ud ed one A fri can- A m er i can as a re gul arj uror(J u an ita Bradle y) and one A fri can- A m er i can as an a l te rnate j uror (Ta m m i She rina Pierre-Pierre). W hi te’ s co unselthen ra ised a Bats on c ha l l en g e to the gov er nm ent’ s use ofa perem ptor y c hal l enge aga i nst J acks on. The pro se c u tor r esponded that he st ruck both DeVr i es a nd J ac k so n b ec au se o fc hi l d- ca r e co nc erns . The govern m en t also prop osed that the cou r t prom ote alternati ve ju ro r Pi er re - Pi er re to the re gul arj ury so that th ere w ou ld be tw o A fri can -A m ericans on the ju ry r athe r tha n o ne . W hi te a g r ee d t o thi s su g g es ti o n. In l i g ht o fthe g o ve r nm en t’ s wi l l i ng ne ss t o s ubs ti tu te a n Af r i ca nA m erican altern ate for a w hite j uror, the d istri ct cou rt concl ud ed no Bats on vio lat ion oc c u rre d . Fo l l o w in g t ria l, the di str i ct c ourtbr i efl y rev i si ted the Bats on i ss ue a nd r ea ffi r m ed i ts e ar l y de ci si o n. On app ea l, the gov er nm ent ini ti al l y a rgues that W hi te w ai ved hi s Bats on chal l enge. Be c ause W hi te’ s a tto rney ag re ed to the sugge sti on that a l ternate j urorPi er re Pi er r e be pr o m o te d t o th e re g ul arj ur y, the g o ve r nm en t ar gues that W hi te’ s a tto rneym ade a str ate gic w ai vero f W hi te’ s Bats on chal l enge. See U nited Sta tes v. Jaim es-Jaim es , 40 6 F
. 3d 84 5, 8 48 ( 7th Ci r . 2 00 5) (“T her e m ayb e so undN os. 06

- 3574, 06

- 4038, 06

- 4067, etal

. 21 str ate gi c r eas ons w hy a cri m i nalde fendant w i l lel ect to pu rs ue one . . . ar gum ent w hi l e al so choos i ng to forego anothe r, and w hen the defe nd ant s el ects as a m att ero f str ate gy, he a l so w ai ves thos e a rgum ents he deci ded not to prese nt.”); s e e also U nited Sta tes v. Wesley, 42 2 F
. 3d 509, 52 0- 21 ( 7th Ci r . 2 00 5) ( fi nd ing wai ve r o cc ur r ed when a defe nse a tto rneyag re ed w i th the j ud ge’ s pro posed rem ed y to correct an all egation of j uror bias). W e di sa g r ee . Bo thb efo r e an d a fte r the s ea tingof th e al ternate j uror, W hi te’ s a tto rneysa i d that he ob j ecte d to the di sm i ssa lo fJ acks on. A l though W hi te’s at torney agreed to th e govern m en t’s p rop osal regard ing th e a lt e rna te , the r e i s no i ndi ca ti o n thi s was a kno wi nga nd i nt en ti onaldeci si on t o setas i de W hi te’ s Bats on chal l enge. W e hav e s ai d that “ [ w ] ai verprinc i ple s s houl d be const rued l iber al l y in f avo r ofthe defendant. ” Ja im esJa im es , 4 06 F. 3d at 848. W hi te’ s a cceptance o fthe gov er nm ent’ s pro posalto subst i tute the Afr i can- A m eri can al ternate f ora w hi te j urord id n ot am ount t o a waiv er ofhi s Bats on chal l enge. Though not w ai ved, the Bats on chal l enge w as p rop erly rej ecte d

. U nd er Bats on whenthe g overn m en t o ffer s a r ac e- ne ut ra lr ea so n fo r di smi ss i nga j ur o r, the d efend an t m us t estab li sh th at p roffered reason s are p re te x t fo r a d isc rim in at or y s tr ike

. Se eU ni t e d S t at e s v. Hendrix , 5 09 F
. 3d 36 2, 3 70 ( 7th Ci r . 2 00 7)
. Al th o ug h the d efe n d an t is u su ally req u ire d to es ta b lish a p rim a fa c ie case thatthe gov er nm ent e xcl ud ed a jur or bec ause of he r r ac e, whenthe di st r i ctcou rtr ul es o n whe th erthe go ve rn m en t’s rac e-n eu tr al jus tific at io n w as p re te x tu al,22 N os . 06-3 574, 06 -40 38 , 06-4 06 7, etal.

as i t di d here , we tr eatthe pri m a f aci e r equi re m ent a s m oo t. SeeU nite d State s v. White, 416 F.3d 634 , 640 (7th C ir. 2005 )
. W e r evi ew the dist ri ct c ourt ’ s fi nd i ngs forcl ear er ro r. U ni t e d S t at e s v. Tayl or, 509 F.3d 83 9 , 8 4 3 (7th C ir. 2007 ). W e fi rs t no te that prosecutor s a dvanced a r ace- neutra l re aso n f ordi sm i ssing J acks on: h er c hi l d-car e co ncer ns. R ac e-n eu tr al re as on s c an inc lu d e a co n c er n th at ce r ta in j uror s “ w oul d not be abl e t o gi ve thei r fullat te nti on t o a week- l ong tr i al

. ” Un i t e d S t a t e s v . Wi l l i a ms , 93 4 F
. 2d 847, 849 ( 7th C ir. 1991)
. A j urorwh o w or ri es that her chi l dren ar e no t a dequ ate l y b ei ng ca re d for m ay not be ab l e t o g i v e he r ful l a t t e nt i o n t o a t r i a l tha t l a sts f or m or e than a few days. Thi s i s a pl ausibl e r ace- neutra l co nc e r n e v e n i f the j ur o r c a n a r r a ng e f o r o the r s to ta ke ca r e o fhe r c hi l dr en ; he r e, J ac k so n r ai se d a n i ss ue abo ut th e uni que medi ca lne eds o ft wo o fhe r c hi l dr en . B ec au se th e gov er n m en t ad va n c ed a ra c e-n eu tr al jus tific at ion, Bats on ’s b urden-s hi fti ng appro ach pro ceeds to the det er m i nati on o fwh etherthe ass er ted r ace-neutral re aso n w as s i m plypre text f oran i m perm i ssibl e r aci al m oti ve. Duri ng a Bats on pre text i nquir y, the cour t l ooks to “ whethe r a s tr i k e was r ac i al l y mot i va te d” an d exam i nes the “ honesty

— not th e a ccurac y

— ofa proffer ed ra ce- neutra lexpl anation
. ” Lamon v. Boat wright, 46 7 F. 3d 1097, 11 01 ( 7th Ci r. 20 06); s e eal s o Unit e d S t at e s v. George, 36 3 F
. 3d 666, 674 ( 7th Ci r. 20 04) ( ex p laining that un d er Bats on , “the go ver nm ent’ s pro ffer ed re aso n f or the s tr i ke need not b e p arti cul ar l y per suasi ve, o r eve n bas ed on qu an tifiable d ata, so long as it is n ot p retex tu al”).N os. 06

- 3574, 06

- 4038, 06

- 4067, etal

. 23 W hi te a r gue s th atthe governm en t’ s dec i si o n t o de fen d i t s u s e o f a p e r e mpt o r y s t r i k e a g a i n s t J a c k s o n o n t he s a me g r o un ds

— ch i l d- ca r e co nc erns

— that i t o pp ose d her f or - cause dism i ssa lsugg est s that the go ver nm ent a cted wi tha n i m per m i ss ibl e r ac i almot i ve . Butthe g o ve r nm en t op p osed the for-caus e d ism issal of b ot h DeVri es and Jac ks on on th es e g ro u n d s, ar gu in g t h at th ey sh ou ld eit h e r b ot h rem ain in t h e jur y p oo l orb o th b e r e mov e d. T h e c ou rt kep t the m both i n th e po ol, and prose cu tors th e n us e d t wo pe r e mpt o r y c ha l l e ng e s t o r e mov e them bo th

. At a l ls ta g es o fthe j ur y - se l ec ti o n pr o ce ss , the n, the pros ecuti on t re ate d Ja ckso n and DeV ri es equal l y b ase d on thei r express ed conce rns about thei r c h ild-ca re o bl i gat i o n s . T h i s i s th e c o n v e r s e o fth e s i t ua t i o n th e S u p r e me Cou r t f o und pr o bl emat i c i n M i l l e r - E l v. D r e t ke, w he re “a pr osecutor ’ s pro ffer ed re aso n f orst ri ki ng a bl ack panel i st appli es j ust a s well t o an o ther w i se- si m i l ar nonbl ack w ho i s per m i tte d to ser ve. ” 5 45 U
. S. 23 1, 24 1 ( 2005 )
. Pro secuto rs her e s tr uck bo th j uror s who ra i sed chi l d-car e i ssues

— on e w h ite an d on e A fric an -A m er ican

—base d on a concern that thei r att enti on m i ght b e dive rt ed fro m thei r re sponsibi l i ti es as j uror s. O th er factors con fi r m the pr o se cut o r s’ no ndi sc r i m ina tory inten t. W e hav e pre viou s ly not ed that prose cu tors l i kely harborno disc ri m i natory intent w hen m i nor i ty j uror s a re em p an el ed eve n though pros ecuto rs st i l lhad p er em p to ry ch alle n ge s re m ain in g. Se eU ni t e d St at e s v. N ic h ols , 9 37F
. 2d 12 57, 1 26 4 ( 7th Ci r . 1 99 1)
. Al th o ug h the pros ecuto rs u se d al lo fthei r perem ptor y c hal l enges her e, th e r es ul tingj ur y ha d o ne Af r i ca n- Am er i ca n, a nd the gover nm ent pr opose d substi tuti ng an A fri can- A m er i can24 N os . 06-3 574, 06 -40 38 , 06-4 06 7, etal. al ternate f ora w hi te j urorto i ncre ase the prese nce o f m i no r i ti es o n the j ur y . Underthe se c i r cumst ance s, the d istri ct cou r t did not clearly err in rej ectin g W hite’s claim of p retex t un d er Bats on . See a l s o Unit e d S t at e s v. G ri ff in , 1 9 4 F
. 3 d 8 0 8 , 8 2 6 ( 7 th Ci r . 1 9 9 9 ) ( de c l a r i ng tha t w hen the gov er nm ent a dvanc es a ra ce- neutra lj usti fi cati o n, “ we ha ve ‘ no b asi s f o r r ev er sa lo n a ppea lunl es s th e re as on g i ven i s co m ple tel y o utl andish orther e i s o ther evi dence w hi ch dem onst ra ted i ts f al si ty’ ” ( quoti ng M o r se v. Hanks , 172 F.3d 983 , 985 (7th C ir. 1999))). W hi te next chal l enges the suffi ci ency ofthe ev i dence th at he was a m embe r o f th e Bl ac k Di sc i pl es ’ dru g co nspi ra cy orkno w i ngl y c om m i tte d any ac ts i n further ance of th e c on s p ira c y. O n a su fficie n c y-o f-th e-e vid en c e c h allen ge , w e v iew th e e vid e n c e in th e ligh t m os t fa vo ra b le to the pros ecuti on and wil l not re ver se a c on vi cti on unl es s “ ‘ [ no ] r at i o na lt r i ero ff ac t co ul d ha ve f o und the es se n tia l elem en ts of th e c rim e b e y o n d a re as on ab le doubt. ’ ” U nite d State s v. C arri ll o , 435 F.3d 767, 775 (7th Cir. 2006 ) ( quoti ng U nite d State s v. C urt is , 324 F. 3d 50 1, 505 ( 7th C ir. 2 003) ( al ter ati on in or i gi nal ) )
. W hi te does not chal l enge the evi dence that he shot Offi cer H u gh es; ra ther, he c l aim s that the ev i dence w as i nsuffi ci ent t o connecthi m to the drug- tr affi cking co nspir acy. To the c o nt r ar y, the e vi den ce o fW hi te ’ s k no wi ng parti ci pati on in the conspi ra cy

— and the co nnecti on be twe enthe c o ns pi r ac y a nd the s ho o ting

— w as overw hel m i ng. W hi te adm i tte d i n hi s pos tar re st sta tem ents to pol i ce that he w as p ro vid ing s ecuri ty f orthe Blac k Disc i ple s’ drug acti vi ties o n the ni ght o fthe shoo ti ng.N os. 06

- 3574, 06

- 4038, 06

- 4067, etal

. 25 H e t ol d Offi cerS hepp ar d, w ho ar re ste d him , thathe was “s ec ur i ty, ” whi chS he ppar d t es ti fi ed g en er al l y m eant th atW hi te was prote ct i ngthe g an g ’ s dr ug - tr affi ck i ng oper ati ons. In additi on, afterW h ite w as M ira nd iz ed, he t o l d p o l i c e h e wa s “ wo r k i ngs e c ur i t y f o r the Bl ack Di s c i p l e d o p e o p e r a t i o n th a t e v e n i n g ” b u t th athe di dn’tkno w the “ na m es o fthe pe o pl e th atwer e o ut ther e deal i ng drugs , any ofthe Blac k Di sci ple s. ” A co co ns pi r at o r n eed no t k no w ev ery o ne i nv o l ve d i n a conspi ra cy to be a m em ber o f i t. U ni t e d S t at e s v. D uran , 407 F. 3d 828, 83 5- 36 ( 7th Ci r. 20 05)
. That W h ite discl ai m ed knowle dge o fthe nam es ofthe coco nspir ato rs at th e s cene on the ni ght o fthe shoo ti ng i s i rr el evant
. H is own st ate m ents und er m i ne hi s s uffi ci ency- of -th eevi dence ar gum ent. A nd ther e was m uch m or e than W hi te’ s o w n sta tem ents. Tw o pol i ce o ffi cer s a nd o ne Bl ack Disc i ple s m em ber tes ti fi ed that the housi ng proj ect w h er e W hi te shotOffi c erH ughes was know n to be contr ol l ed by Blac k Di sci ple s g ang m em ber s, wh o dist ributed drugs ther e un d er co vero f“s ecuri ty” pro vi ded bythe gang. Offi cerH ughes t est i fi ed that W h ite fri ske d him wh en he got out of the U

- H aul, sho uted “5- 0” ( m eani ng “pol i ce”) aft er d isc ov er in g h is b u llet p ro of v es t, an d fired on h im w he n H ug he s ann ou nc ed him self a s a police offi cer. O th er w itn es se s t es tifie d th at W h ite ’s b eh av ior in th is regard w as con sisten t w ith th e s ecu rity p ractices of a Blac k Di sci ple s g an g m em ber

. Final l y, ther e was evid en ce th at th e gun s us ed by B lack D isciples m em bers w or ki ng “s ecuri ty” f orthe gang’ s drug- dist rib uti on network w er e pr ovi ded bythe ga n g and often had26 N os . 06-3 574, 06 -40 38 , 06-4 06 7, etal. th ei r s er i alnumbe r s o bl itera te d; W hi te us ed su cha fi re ar m to sho ot H ughes. Thi s e vi dence am plysu p port s the j ury’ s v er dicto n the conspi ra cy count. W hi te al so chal l enges the suffi ci ency of the e vi dence o n h i s r a c k e t e e r i n gc o n v i c t i o n . S p e c i fi c a l l y, Wh i t e c l a i ms th e gover n m e n t f ail ed to prove the B lack D isciples w ere en gaged i n inte rstate co m m e r c e or th at th e gan g’s ac tiv itie s a ffec te d int er st at e c om m er c e. W e h av e s aid that to prove the i nter sta te- com m er ce e l em en t ofa ra cketee ring o ffense, the go ver nm ent need o nl y s how “[a ] m in or or m in im al in flu en c e o n int er st at e c om m er c e,” such as a drug-d ea l i ng o rg ani zati on obtaini ng drugs fro m ou ts id e t h e s ta te
. U nited Sta tes v. Fa rm er, 9 24 F. 2d 6 4 7, 6 5 1 ( 7 th Ci r . 1 9 9 1 )
. He r e , the g o v e r nme ntc a l l e d a Drug Enfo rce m ent Ad m i ni str ati on ( “DE A ”) ag ent t o te st i fy tha t al li l l eg alc o ca i ne and h er o i n, a nd the d ru gs se ize d from st re et -lev el d ru g d ea ler s o p er at in g in ar eas co ntro l l ed by the Bl ack Dis c ip l es, i s pro du ced ou ts id e Illino is a n d im p or te d int o th e s ta te . Th at te st im o n y i s su ffici en t to establish th e requ isi te link to i nt erst at e co m m er ce ne ede d t o s us ta i n W hi te ’ s r ac k et ee r i ng co nv i ct i o n; the DEA ag en t ne ed not s pec i fy tha t th e drugs s ei zed i n thi s ca se tr avel ed i n i nter sta te com m er ce. W hi te’ s fi nalsuffi ci ency- of

- the- ev i dence chal l enge re l ate s t o hi s co nvi cti on f orposs essin g a fi re ar m as a convi cted fel on in vi ol ati on o f18 U
. S. C. § 9 22( g) ( 1)
. Li ke hi s chal l enge to hi s r acke tee ring co nvi cti on, W hi te cl ai m s th atthe g o ve r nm en t f ai l ed to pr ove thatthe w eapon he used to sho ot Officer H ughes t ra vel ed i n or affecte d i nter sta te com m er ce. A t t ri alan A l cohol, Tobac co,N os. 06

- 3574, 06

- 4038, 06

- 4067, etal

. 27

an d Fire ar m s (“ A T F” ) ag en t t es tifie d th at th e L or c in sem i autom ati c pi sto lW hi te posse sse d and used to s hoot Offi cerH ughes was probabl y m anufa ctu re d i n ei ther N evad a or Calif ornia. H ow ever, becau se th e fi r e a rm ’s serial nu m ber w as u nrea d able, th e agen t cou ld n ot d eterm i ne exactly w here i t w as m anufa cture d o r w h en it enter ed I l l i noi s. W hi te tr i es to co m pare hi s ca se to U ni t e d S t at e s v. G rov es , 47 0 F
. 3d 311 ( 7th Ci r. 20 06) , but the c om pari son i s i na pt. In G rov es a n ATF ag en t te st i fi ed th ati n I nd iana th e r e we r e n o “ maj o r ma n u f a c t u r e r s ” o fs h o t g uns

— th e t y p e o f w ea p on th e d efe n d an t in th at ca se p os se ss ed

. Id. at3 24
. W e r ev er sed th e co nv i ct i o n, ho l di ngtha t th e age nt’ s t est i m ony w as “to o vague to supp ort p ro of o f thi s e l e men tb e y o nd a r e a s o nab l e do ub t ” b e c a us e i twas no t cl ea r whatthe ag en t m ea ntb y “ m aj o r ” sh o tgun m an u fac tu re rs an d h e w as n ev er as ke d ab ou t t h e likelih oo d th at th e g u n w as m ad e in Ind ian a. Id. at32 4- 28. Thi s ca se i s f ardi ffer en t; the ATF ag en t’ s te st i m o ny he r e was much mor e spe ci fi c th anthe a g en t’ s te stim o ny i n G rov es . The a g en t te st ified thatthe mar k i ng s o n the pis tolwere consi ste nt with the fi re ar m h avi ng be en m anufa cture d i n C alif or ni a o r N evada. W e hav e nev er re q u ire d p ro se c u to rs to p ro ve th e p re c ise st a t e o f orig in to p rove the inter sta te- com m er ce e l em ent o fa § 9 22( g) ( 1) ch ar g e. The di sposi ti ve i nqui r y i s whethe r the g un cr o ss ed st at e l i ne s ats o m e po i nt
. Al th o ug h the m ar kin gs on the pi sto lW hi te used to sho ot H ughes do not conclusi vel y e stabl i sh the st ate wh er e the pi sto l w as m anufa cture d, they do es tabl i sh thatthe pis tol28 N os . 06-3 574, 06 -40 38 , 06-4 06 7, etal.

was manuf ac tu r ed o ut si de of I l l i no i s. Acco r di ng l y, the evi dence i s s uffi ci ent t o supp or t the j ury’ s v erd ict on the fel on- i n-pos ses si on co unt. F i na l l y, W hi te r ai se s two e vi den ti ar y e r r o r s t ha t he cl ai m s war r an t r ev er sa l

. The fi r st r el at es to te st i m o ny gi ven byRobe rtBe rk , a tr ace- evi dence expertthe gov er nm ent c al l ed to te sti fy about gunshot- re si du e e vi dence
. Because W hite had parti cl es consi ste nt with gunshot re si du e o n hi s hands, the gov er nm ent ca lled Berkto tes ti fy that W hi te c ou l d onl y hav e a cquir ed the tr ace el em ents ass oc iat ed with gunshot r esi du e byfi ring a w ea p on . D u rin g h i s d ire c t e x am in at ion, B er k b rie fly r efer r ed to a “ ha nd b l an k ” study su p p or tingthi s co ncl u si on. Later, aftercr oss - exam i nati on r eve al ed that th e p ar tic les as so c iat ed w ith gu n sh otres id u e c o u ld com e fro m envi ro nm entalco nd i ti ons or s om e fi el ds of em plo ym ent, Berkte sti fi ed on r edi re ct that i t w as un lik ely that th e gun sh ot-residu e pa rticl es on W hite’s hand s ca m e fro m thes e s ourc es. W h ite ar gu es th at th is tes tim on y viola te d R u le 1 6 ( a ) ( 1 ) ( G) o fthe Fed eral R ules o f C rim ina l P roc edu re, w hich r e qu ires pretrial d isclosure of an exp ert w itness ’s “o p i ni ons, the base s a nd r eas ons f ortho se opi ni ons, an d th e w itn es s’s qu alific at ion s.” H ow ev er , W h ite is re quir ed to es tabl i sh thatany Rule 16 vi ol ati on ham pered hi s o pp or tuni ty to prepar e a defense orthatthe vi ol ati on su b st an tia lly in flu en c ed t h e jur y. Se eU ni t e d S t at e s v. St e ve ns , 38 0 F
. 3d 1021 , 10 26 ( 7th Ci r. 20 04)
. H e ca n d o neith er. H e had an op p ortu ni t y t o exa m ine B erk o ut si de o fthe pres en ce o fthe j ur y f o r mor e th ana n h o urN os. 06

- 3574, 06

- 4038, 06

- 4067, etal

. 29 be f o r e tr i al

. Hi s co uns elv i gor o us l y c r o ss - ex ami ne d the gov er nm ent’ s expert, and the tes ti m ony he obj ects to w as offe re d in re b u tt al, as a p ar t o fB e r k ’ s re d ire c t t es tim on y. M or eo ve r, W h ite h ad h is ow n ex p er t a va ilab le on thi s su b j ec t w hom he c hose notto cal l

. W hi te al so m ake s a co ncl usor y a rgum ent that Ber k’ s r efer ence to a n F BI

- a utho r e d s t ud y i n the Jo urnal of Fore nsi c Sci ence v i o l a t e d Ru l e s 7 0 2 a nd 7 0 3 ofthe Federal Rules of Evidence be ca us e th e studi es were unr el i ab l e. The r e i s no supp or t f or thi s ass er ti on. A ccor dingl y, w e rej ect W hite’s claim s of evid en tiary error. W h ite n ex t c om p lain s t h at th e d ist ric t c ou rterr on eo u sly re fused the j u ry ’s requestf ora tr anscr i pt ofthe tr i al tes tim on y ofOffi cerH ughes, a deci si on we re vi ew f or a b u se of d isc re tio n . U ni t e d S t at e s v. Guy, 9 2 4 F
. 2d 702, 708 ( 7th Ci r. 19 91)
. There was no abuse o fdi scr eti on he re. Th e d istri ct cou rt had prev iously rej ecte d a j ury re quest t o see the hand w ri tte n s ta tem ent o fano ther wi tn es s th athe l ped es tabl i shW hi te ’ s co nnecti o n t o the B lack D isciples. L ater d uring de liberations the j ury ask ed f or a t ra nscri pt ofOffi cerH ughes’ s t est i m ony. Agai n th e j u d g e d e c l i n e d th e j u r y ’ s r e q u e s ta nd i ns truct ed jur o r s to r ely o n the i r c o l l ec ti ve mem o r y o fthe ev id en c e. T h is a p p ro ac h to j u ry qu es tio n s o f t h is s or t is w ell w ith inth e t ria l co u rt ’s d isc re tio n . Id. Fi nal l y, W hi te cl ai m s he i s enti tl ed to a n ew tr i al b as ed on cu m u lat ive err or . See U n i t e d Sta tes v. A llen , 26 9 F
. 3d 84 2, 8 47( 7th Ci r . 2 00 1)
. Tha t do ct r i ne h as no appli cati on here; we have i denti fi ed no t ri al

- cour t e rr or s. Id. ( “I fther e a re no er ro rs o r a si ngl e e rr or, ther e ca n be no cu m ulative error. ”).30 N os . 06-3 574, 06 -40 38 , 06-4 06 7, etal. E . C o r e yE v a ns Cor eyEvan s pl ea ded g ui l tyt o the c o ns pi r ac y c o unt and to one c ou n t o fusi ng a com m unica ti ons f aci l i ty to d istribu te na rcotics. H e ad m itt e d h e served as a board m em ber i n the Blac k Disc i ple s’ narco ti cs oper ati on, in w hich c a p acity he sold d rugs and oversaw the gan g’s dr ug - s e l l i ngo perat i o n. T he di s t r i c tc o ur ti mpo s e d a s e n t e n c e o f 3 2 5 mo n th s . Hi s a t t o r n e y fi l e d a n A nd ers bri ef, and Evans fi l ed a re sponse. Ou r re vi ew is confi ned to the i ssues pre sente d i n thos e br i ef s. The onl y potenti alnonfri vol ous b asi s forappealwas ra i sed in a separa te l ett ersubm i tte d by Evans’ s a tto rney . I n i t s he notes t hat the S up re m e Cour t deci ded Kim b r ough afte r sh e fi l ed her A nd ers brief an d therefore Eva ns may a r g ue he i s e nt i t l e d t o a r e man d f or r es en te nc i ng . Al th o ug h Ev an s pr es erve d thi s ar g um en t i n the dist ri ct cou rt , Evans’ s ci rcum sta nces ar e i denti cal to H erb er t’s . Th e d ist ric t c ou rtfou n d E v an s re sp on sib le f o r mor e th an1
. 5 k i logr ams o fc r ac kc o ca i ne a nd 30 ki l ogr am s o fher oi n, wh i ch s u p p orted a gui del i nes ran ge of 360 m ont h s t o l ife. E ven i f th e d istri ct cou rt i g no r ed th e cr ac kc o ca i ne i t at tr ibuted t o hi m , the am ou n t of h er oin fo r w h ich th e c ou rth eld E va n s re sp on sibl e r esul ts i n the sam e ba se offense l eve lo f38
. A fter apply i ngthe a ppr o pr i at e wea p on and l ea der sh i p e nhancem ents and the ac cepta nc e - o f

- r e s po ns i b i l i ty r e d u c t i o n, E v a n s ’ s a d v i s o r y g u i d e l i n e s r a n g e r e mai ns 360 m onths to l i fe. A s s uch, any Kim b r ough argum en t w oul d be fri vol ous.N os. 06

- 3574, 06

- 4038, 06

- 4067, etal

. 31 W e ha ve r ev i ewe d the o th era r g um en ts Ev an s an d hi s at to r ne y a d va nc e an d c o nc l ude the r e ar e no nonf ri vol ous issues f orappeal

. The go ver nm ent was not re q u ire d to p ro ve se n te n c in g fa c ts be yo n d a re as on ab le doubt; the dist ri ct c ourtpro perl y c al cul ate d the quanti ty ofdrugs a ttributabl e t o Evans and m ade appropri ate c re d i b ility d et er m in at ion s; an d th e c ou rtp ro p er ly ap p li ed a da ng erou s-w eap on en ha nc em en t to Ev an s’s offense l eve l

. A lso , Evans’ s a rgum ent that the di str i ct cour t i m proper l y ap p lied a f our- l eve lenhancem ent for se r v i n ga s a l e a d e r o fth e c o n s p i r a c y i s fr i v o l o u s ; the ar gum en t was no t r ai se d i n the di st r i ctco ur t, a nd o n pl ainer r o r r ev i ew Ev an s ca nno t pr ev ai lb ec au se the g o ve r nm en t i nt r o duce d s ubstant i ale vi den ce de sc r ibingthe supervi sor y pow er Evans w i el ded i n th e conspi ra cy. Fi nal l y, the dist ri ct c ourti m posed a re aso nabl e s entence aftergi vi ng due co nsi deration t o the § 35 53( a) f acto rs . Acco r di ng l y, we g r an t E van s’ s co uns el ’ s m o ti o n t o wi th

d r a w.

F. Thom pson’s Ru l e 4 1( g) M ot i on W hen Thom pson was ar rest ed i n M ay 2004, the gov e r nme nt s e i z e d c a s h a nd pe r s o na l pr o pe r t y f ro m Tho mpson’ s r esi dence a n d busi ness. The se i zed pro perty i ncl ud ed com pu terequi pm ent, fi nanci aldocum ents, ele c tr o n i c eq u ip m en t, a 2 00 1 F or d E x c u rs ion (w h ich is n o lon ge r inth e g ov er n m en t’s p os se ss ion ), an d ap p ro x im at ely $ 32 0, 00 0 i n c as h. Al th ou gh the i ndi ct m en t i ncl ud ed a c ount s eek i ng f or fei ture o fthi s pro perty as proce eds o fThom pson’ s drug-tra ffi cki ng ac ti vi ti es, to32 N os . 06-3 574, 06 -40 38 , 06-4 06 7, etal.

T h e d i st r i c tc o u r th a d ju r i sd i c t i o n to c o n si d e r T h o m p so n ’s 3 Ru le 41 ( g) m ot i on whil e hi s c ri m i nalappe al was pe ndi ng b eca u se a R u l e 4 1(g) m otio n in itiates a ne w civ il equ itab le proceeding. U n ite d S ta te s v . H o w ell , 35 4 F .3d 693 , 69 5 (7th C ir . 20 0 4 ). ou r kn ow led ge th e g ov er n m en t h as n otp u rs u ed forfe itu r e. F ur th er m o r e, appa r en tly b ec au se o fa n o ve r si g ht, no r efer en ce t o the se i ze d pr o per tywas i nc l ude d i n the PS R; i t was notco nsi dered wh en the d i str i ct c ourtcal cul ate d Thom pson’ s guidel i nes r ange and i m posed hi s s entence
. W hi l e thi s a pp ealw as pend i ng, T hom pson fi l ed a p ro se m oti on under Rul e 4 1(g) ofthe Fe de r al Rul e s of Cr i m i nal P roc edu rese eking the r etur n of th e property. Rule 41 ( g) 3 provi des: A pe r s o n a g g r i e v e d

. . . b y the de pr i v a ti on o fp r o perty m ay m ove for the p rop erty’s ret urn . . . . Th e cou rt m us t r ec ei ve e vi den ce o n a ny f ac tu ali ss ue ne ce ss ary to d e c i d e th e mo t i o n . I fi tg r a n t s th e mo t i o n, the co ur t m us t r etur n the property t o the mova nt, b ut m ay i m p os e rea sonab l e co nd i ti ons to prot ect acces s to the pr oper ty and i ts use in l ate r proce edi ngs. Thom pson ar gued ( am ong othe r thi ngs) thathe wanted the m oneyr etur ned i n or der t o set tl e a pending tax d is p u te w ith th e IR S a n d to su p p or t h is w ife a n d h is 19 c hi l dr en . T h e d istr i ct c ourthel d a st atus hear i ng o n the m oti on a nd n o t e d tha tb e c a us e Th o mps o n’ s P S R di d n o ti nc l ud e the s e i z e d fun ds a s a s s e t s p o t e nt i a l l y a v a i l ab l e t o T ho mp-N os. 06

- 3574, 06

- 4038, 06

- 4067, etal

. 33

so n, th e t ru e s ize of T h o m p s o n ’s a ss et s w as n otfu lly k n o w n at sent en cing. Th e cou rt sugg ested that this i nform at i o n mi ghtha ve warranted a l ar g erfi ne b ey o nd the $1 00 , 00 0 i t i m po sed w he n i t se nt en ce d Tho m pso n. Bec au se Tho m pso n’ s appe alo fhi s se nt en ce was pe ndi ng i n thi s co urt and the di str i ct c ourtl acke d j uri sdic ti on t o r evis i t Tho m pso n’ s se nt en ce unl es s we v ac at ed i t, the cour t deci ded to hol d Th om pson’ s R u le 41( g) m oti on i n ab e y a nc e unt i lwe r e s o l v e d T ho mps o n’ s a pp e a l

. T ho mpso n obj ec te d, a nd the di st r i ctc o urt sh if te d c o ur se a nd sim p ly d en ied th e m ot ion as p re m at u re , sa y i n g t h at if T h om p so n ’s s en te n c e w as affirm ed , i t w o u ld “p ro m p tly dec i de” a ne w Rul e 41 ( g ) mot i o n. Tho mps o n a pp e a l e d thi s o r de r, c ha l l e ng i ngs e v e ra l aspects o fthe dis tr i ct court ’ s hand l i ng ofh i s m oti on. Fi rs t, he a r g ue s tha tthe di s t r i c tc o ur ts ho ul d h a v e e nt e r e d a def a u l t j u d g me n t a g a i n s t th e g o v e r n me n t
. S e c o n d , he cl ai m s the di str i ct c ourter re d by n ot d eci ding the m er i ts o fhi s Rul e 4 1( g ) mot i o n. Thi r d, he c o nt en ds th atthe di st r i ctc o ur t sh o ul d no t ha ve hel d he ar i ng s o n the R u l e 4 1 ( g ) m o t i o n o u t s i d e o fh i s p r e s e n c e . We c o nc l ud e , h o we v e r, tha twe l a c kj ur i s di c t i o n t o c onsi der any o fthes e a rgum ents b ecause the dist ri ct c ourt ’ s o rder w as no t fina l un d er 28 U
. S. C . § 1291. Th e d istri ct cou rt m ade i t cl earthatthe denia lo fThom ps on ’ s Rul e 4 1( g) m ot ion w as w ith ou t p rej u d ice an d h e w as free to refile i t; “[ a] di sm i ssa lwitho ut p rej ud i ce i s no rm al l y no nfinal because the pla i nti ffrem ai ns fr ee to re fi l e hi s ca se. ” M ostly M em ories, Inc. v. For Your Ea seO nly, Inc. , 52 6 F
. 3d 1093 , 10 97(7t h C ir. 20 08 ). W h i l e “ [i]n so m e in st an c es . . . a di smi ss alwi th o utpr ej ud ice may effec ti ve l y e nd the34 N os . 06-3 574, 06 -40 38 , 06-4 06 7, etal. l i ti gat i on a nd thus c onst i tute a fi nalo rder f orpurposes ofappel l ate r evi ew , ” i d. , thi s i s no t o ne o ftho se c as es . The dist ri ct j ud ge in d icate d that the Rul e 4 1( g) m oti on was p rem atu re and she w an ted to w ait u n t il Th om p son ’s m er i ts appe al w as re sol ved befor e a dd re ssing the subst an c e o f th e m ot ion . Th e jud ge sa id sh e w ou ld “p ro m p tly deci de” a new m oti on a fterThom pson’s m er i ts appeal w as deci ded

. A ccor dingl y, the cour t’ s o rderw as nonfi nal an d w e la c k jur isd ict ion ov er T h om p so n ’s a p p ea l. Thom pson al so m ai ntai ns, however, thatthe dist ri ct j ud g e s ho ul d h a v e r e c us e d h e r s e l fb a s e d o n a n a pp earan ce of bias. I t is som ew ha t un clear from th e rec ord whethe r Tho m pso n e ve r made th i s r eque sti n the dist ric t c ourt; Thom pson’ s fi l i ngs s ugges t that he ra i sed th e is su e o f bia s a n d th e c ou rt ’s d ec isio n br iefly add re sse d the i ssue. In denyi ng Thom pson’ s Rul e 4 1( g) m o ti o n a s pr ematur e, the j udg e co m m en ted: “ The r e i s no basi s forr ecusaland i f[ Thom pson’ s] sugge sti on [ ofbi as] is in te n d ed as a m ot ion, i t is d en ied .” A ch a l l e ng e t o a di s t r i c t c o ur t ’ s r e fus a l t o r e c us e m ay on ly b e m ad e b y a p et itio n for a w ritof m an d am u s. Tezak v. U nite d S t a t es , 256 F.3d 702 , 717 n.16 (7th C ir. 2001). Altho ug h Th o m pso n di d no t sty l e hi s appeal a s o ne see ki ng m andam us r el i ef, w e hav e pr evi ousl y s ai d that a n a pp e a lo fa de ni a lo fr e c us a ls ho ul d b e c o ns t r ue d as a p et itio n for m an d am u s re lief. U nited St ates v. City of C hicago , 8 7 0 F
. 2 d 1 2 5 6 , 1 2 5 9 ( 7 th C i r . 1 9 8 9 )
. T h e r e f o r e , we w i l ltr eatThom pson’ s a pp eal as a peti ti on f orm andam us. U n d er 28 U .S.C . § 45 5(b )(1) , a j u d ge m u st rec u se h er se lf wh en she “ ha s a per so na lb i as o r pr ej udi ce c o nc erni ngN os. 06

- 3574, 06

- 4038, 06

- 4067, etal

. 35 a p arty, or person al know le d g e of d ispu ted eviden tiary f a c t s c o n c e r n i n gth e p r o c e e di ng . ” A s th e S u p r e me Co ur th a s e xp l a i ne d, n e i the r j ud i c i a lrul i ng s n or opi ni ons f or m ed by the j ud ge as a re su lt o fcurr ent o r pri or proce edi ngs const i tute a basi s f or re cusal “ u nl ess they displaya deep-se ate d fa vor i ti sm o r antag oni sm that w oul d m ake f air j ud gm ent i m possibl e. ” Li t e ky v
. U ni t e d S t ates , 510 U
. S. 540, 555 (1994 ). Furth erm or e, “e xpressi ons ofi m pati ence, di ssa ti sf acti on, ann oyan c e, an d ev en an ge r” d o n otj u st ify re q u irin g re c u sa l. Id. at55 5- 56. Tho m pso n obj ec ts t o s o m e co m m en ts made bythe dist ri ct j ud ge but none i nd i cate bi as. The di str i ct j ud ge ex p re ss ed so m e d ou b t t h at T h om p so n p re p ar ed h is re l ati vel y s op hi s t i c a t e d b r i e f s hi m sel f and al so re m ar ked thathi s br i ef s were rude and i m pol i te and “not ver y ni ce. ” These co m m en ts do not re fl ect i m pati ence, d iss at isfa c tio n, an n oy an c e , o r an ge r. Id. Thom pson al so c om p lai n s t h at th e jud ge refe rre d to h im as a “k in gp in,” but thi s obser vati on was enti re l y a pp ro pri ate i n l i ght o f th e e vid en c e i n tr od u c ed ab ou t T h om p so n ’s ro le in th is c on sp ira c y. SeeU nite d State s v. Troxel l , 88 6 F
. 2d 830, 83 4 ( 7th Cir. 1 989) ( re fer ring to defendant as “M adam e Coc ain e” an d ca llin g t h e d efe n d an t “ n ota n ice p er so n ” d id not supp or t a fi nd i ng of bi as re gar ding subsequent proceed ings). Th om p son i s not en titl ed to m an d am us rel ief

.

I I I . Concl usio n Forthe f or ego i ng r eas ons, we V ACATE J am es Stew art’s s e nt e nc e a nd R EMA ND t o the di st r i ctc o ur t f o r r es en -36 N os . 06-3 574, 06 -40 38 , 06-4 06 7, etal. ten cing in li gh t of Ki mb r ough . W e G RANTthe m oti on t o wi thd r a w fi l e d b y Co r e y Ev a ns ’ s c o un s e la nd D ISMISS Evans’ s a pp eal

. W e A FFIRM De r r i ckW hi te ’ s co nv i ct i o n. W e A FFIRM M el vi n H erber t’ s sente nce. W e A FFIRM M ar vel Thom pson’ s s entence
. W e D ISMISS Thom pson’ s a pp ealo f the di str ict co urt’ s o rderdenyi ng hi s Rul e 4 1( g) m oti on f o r l ac ko fj ur i sdi ct i o n. To the e xt en t th ata ppea lc o nsti tutes a peti ti on f orm andam us, i t i s D ENI ED .

9- 29- 09