Ci rc ui tJ udge Evans di ed o n Augus t10 , 20 11 , an d did n ot  par t i c i pat e in the de c i s i on ofthi s c as e, whi c h i s be i ng re so lv ed b y a q u o ru m o f th e p a n el u n d er 28 U .S.C . § 4 6 (d ).



## In the 

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

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

N o. 10

- 1446 U NIT ED S TATE S OF A MERI CA, P la intif f-A pp ellee, v. H O W ARD B AKER, D ef endant-Appellant.

A pp eal from the United S t ates Di strictC our t fo r the C entral D istricto f Illino is. No . 09 C R 20055

—Mi ch ael P . M cC us key, Chief Ju dge
.
A RG UE D A PRI L 1, 2011

— D ECI DE D A UGUS T 23, 2011

Befo re E A S T E RB R OO K, Chie f Judg e, a nd B AUERa nd E VANS , C ircu it Judges .

 B AUER, Cir cu i tJudge

. A j ur y c o nv i c t e d d e fe nd a nt
- a ppel l ant How ar d Baker ofposs ess i on with i ntent to dist ribute crac k c ocai ne, i n vi ol ati on o f21 U

. S. C. §§ 841( a) ( 1)2 N o. 10

- 1446

a n d ( b ) ( 1 ) ( B ) , a n d h e w a s se nt e n c e d t o 3 6 0 mo n th s ’ i mpri sonm ent. Bakerchal l enges the dist ri ct c ourt ’ s a dm i ssion of evi d e n c e u nd er Fed eral Ru le ofEv iden ce 404 (b), th e su ffi ci en cyo fthe e vi den ce u se d t o pr o ve po ss es si o n, a n d h is sent en ce. For th e fol low ing reason s, w e affirm Baker ’ s co nvi cti on a nd se ntence.

I . B AC KGR OUND On the ni ght of J uly 24, 20 09, Cham pai gn Pol i ce Depar tm en t O ffice r s C hris A ikm an and H eidi Van A nt w erp w er e in the ar ea of a repor ted bat ter y when they spott ed Baker, wh o m atched the descrip tio n ofthe batt er y s uspect. The unif or m ed offi cer s par ked the i r m ar ked squa d c a r s a nd wa l k e d i nt o the f r o nt y a r d o f 2 1 0 East H i ll Street, wher e Bak erwas t al k i ngo n a c el l pho ne and ea tin g a pl ate o ff oo d. Offi cerA i km an as ked Bake r to c o m e ta l kt o hi m , a nd Ba k erwal k ed o ve r t o the o ffi ce r s an d v o l unt ar i l y hande d o ve r hi s i den ti fi ca ti o n. Offi c e r Ai k man the n t o l d Ba k e r tha t he wa s g o i ngto pat hi m dow n and re ached f orhi s a rm , atwh i ch poi nt Bakerbeg an r unning westbo und o n the si dew alk. Offi cer s Aik m an and Van A ntw er p chased Baker, with O ffice r A ikm an j u st a few fee t be h in d B ak er a n d w ith in si ght the ent i re ti m e. Offi cerA i km an caughtup to Bak ero n the wes t si de o f 204 E astHi l l S tr ee t an d ta c kle d h im on to a fen c e t h at ru n s b et w ee n 20 4 E as t H ill St re et an d 20 2 E as t H ill Stre et, ca u sin g t h e fe n c e t o c oll aps e . Ba k e r r e g a i ne d h i s f o o t i nga ft e r b e i ngt a c k l ed an d b eg anr unn i nge as t al o ngHi l l S tr ee t, f o l l o wi ng th e s a me pa th a s the i ni t i a l c ha s e . Ba k e r r a n back toN o. 10

- 1446 3 210 East Hil l S tr eetand sta rt ed to enter the ho use when O ffi c e r A i k m a n t a c k l e d B a k e r a s e c o n d t i m e , th i s t i me b r i n g i n gh i m d o wna n d h a n d c u ffi n gh i m. A fter w al ki ng Baker to the squad c ar, Offi cer A ikm an w ent back al ong the chase ro ute to the port i on of fence th a th a d c o l l a p s e d d u r i ngth e s t r u g g l e a n d s a w t wo b a g g i e s o n th e g r o u n d

. T h e b a g g i e s c o n t a i n e d 2 1

. 9 a nd 4.4 gra m s o f cr ac k c oc ain e, lat er st ip u lat ed to b e 2 5.2 gr am s of cra ck coca i ne. Baker denie d that the b ag gies we r e h i s a n d h i s f i n g e r p r i n t s w e r e n o tf o u n d o n th e m. Bakerwas char ged with posse ssi on w i th i ntent to dist ribute cr ack coca i ne, i n vi ol ati on o f 2 1 U.S

. C. §§ 841( a) ( 1) an d ( b)(1)( B ).

A . Test i m ony atTr i al A t t ri al, the gover nm ent intro du ced te sti m ony f ro m th e arresting offi cer s , an ex p ert w itness , and Ba ker’s occa si onalgi rl f ri end , Tre na Keom al a, wh o tes ti fi ed u n d er a gr ant o fi m m unity. Keom al a’ s t est i m ony can be cl a s s i fi e d i n t o t wo c a t e g o r i e s , o n e o fwh i c h i s a ti s su e in thi s a pp ealand one ofwh i ch i s no t. Fi rs t, Keom ala te st i fi ed th ats he sp o k e to Ba k ero n the ni g hto fthe offense bef or e hi s a rr estand that Bakeri nfo rm ed her that he wa s on t h e “ H i l l ” ( 210 East Hil l S tr eet ) bec ause th at w as w h er e h e “ m ad e h is m on ey .” W h en K eo m ala ask ed w hetherBa ke r had any cr ack coca i ne f orherto sel l, Bake r re sponded thathe ha d onl y e nough cr ack coca i ne f orhi m sel f

. K eo m ala al so tes ti fi ed that the day f ol l owing Baker ’ s a rr est, Bakerr el at ed t he pre vi ous e veni ng ’ s ev en ts , t el l i nghe r tha t r i g htb efo r e hi s arresthe4 N o. 10

- 1446 had been s tandi ng o utsid e 2 10 East Hil l, “pos ted up”; Keo m al a ex pl aine d th at “po st ed up” i s sl an g f o r w ai ting to exc ha ng e d rugs f or m one y. T ha t pa rt of K eom ala’s te st im on y is n otatiss u e o nap p ea l. S ec o nd, Keo m al a te st i fi ed th at sinc e l at e 20 06 , s he has r outi nel y r ecei ved cr ack coca i ne fro m Baker, wh i ch she would s el l a n d Baker w oul d rec ei ve the pr oce eds, and that s he had r ecei ved cr ack coca i ne fro m Bakerto sel l j ust days befor e Bake r’ s a rres t. This tes ti m ony i s a t i s s ue o n a pp e a l a nd i s di s pu t e d.

B. Ru l e 4 04( b) Ev i den ce Befo re tr i al, the gov er nm ent fi l ed a no ti ce o fintent to cal l an info rm ant who w oul d test i fy t hat Bake r had distr ibu ted cr ack coca i ne to hi m f orr esa l e o n pri oro ccasi ons. The go ver nm ent di d n ot include Keom al a’ s di spu ted te sti m ony i n thi s no ti ce, ev en tho ugh she too w oul d test i fy that Bake r dist ributed cr ack c oc ain e t o her f orr esa l e. I n re sponse to the no ti ce of in tent, defense counsel fi l ed a m oti on to bar al l Rule 40 4(b ) ev i dence. The j ud ge denie d thi s m oti on. S ubsequentl y, wh en K eom al a was cal l ed as a witness at t ri al, the j ud ge m i sta ke n ly b elie ve d t h at K eo m ala h ad be en inc lu d ed in the Rul e 4 04(b) not ice ofi ntent and rel ate d defens e m otion, w hich had been de nied , and he th ere fore perm i tt ed he r t o t es ti fy f o r the l i m i te d pur po se o fpr o ving Baker ’ s intent and knowledge und erRule 40 4( b)

. Defense counsel did not obj ect. The dist ri ct cour t then tw i ce g ave the j ury a l i m i ti ng i nstr uct ion o n the proper us e o fthe e vi den ce f o r the l i m i te d pur po se of int en t and knowledge.N o. 10

- 1446 5 C. The V er dictand Sen t encing The j ur y f o und Ba k erg ui l tyo fpo ss es si o n wi thi nt en t t o di s t r i bute c r a c kc o c a i ne . T he di s t r i c tc o ur ta pp l i e d a car eero ffender desi gnati on t o Bakerbas ed on t w o pri or fel ony convi cti ons f orunl aw ful del i ver y ofa contr ol l ed su bsta n c e . A fter exam ining B aker’s crim inal history and consi deri ng the § 3553 se n te n c i ng f acto rs, the distr i ct c ourtse ntenced Bakeratthe bot tom o fthe Gu i del i nes r ange to 360 m onths’ i m pri sonm ent.

I I . DI S C US S I ON A . Ru l e 4 04( b) Ev i den ce W he n th e govern m en t introd u ced eviden ce of Bak er’s pr i o r dr ugdi st r ibut i o ns t o Keom al a to pr o ve i nt en t an d knowle dge, Bakero bj ecte d on the gr ounds of l ack of f o unda ti o n. On appe al, Ba k err ai se s ano bj ec ti o n f o r the fi r s tt i me u n d e r F e d e r a l R u l e o fE v i d e n c e 4 0 4 ( b )

. We re vi ew the i ssue f orpl ai n er ro r. Jo hn son v. U nited Sta tes , 52 0 U .S. 46 1, 46 6-6 7 (1 99 7); see Fed

. R. Crim

. P. 52(b). U nd erthi s s tandard o fr eview , we deter m i ne wh ether th er e was ( 1) an e rr or, ( 2) thatwas pla i n, ( 3) thataffecte d t h e d efe n d an t’s su b st an tia l righ ts , an d (4) th at se riou sly affected the f ai rnes s, i ntegr i ty, o r pu bl i c r eputati on o f j u d icia l p r o c e ed in gs . Johns on , 520 U

. S. at 467. A n er ro r o cc ur s i fa le g alr ul e ha s be env i o l at ed dur i ngthe d ist ric t c ou rtp ro c ee d in gs . U ni t e d S t at e s v. G ibs on , 17 0 F. 3d 673, 67 8 ( 7th C ir. 19 99)

. Pl ai n er ro r affects the substan tialr i ghts ofthe defe nd ant i fthe er ro r w as p r ej u d i c i a l, me a n i n gth a tth e e r r o r “ a f fe c t e d th e o u t c o me6 N o. 10

- 1446

o fthe di s t r i c tc o ur tp r o c e e di ngs. ” Id. at6 78 ( quo ting U ni t e d S t at e s v. O l ano , 5 07U. S

. 7 25 , 7 34 ( 19 93 ) )

. The de fen dant bear s the bur den ofper suasio n w i th r espectto sh ow in g p rej u d ice

. Id. The deci si on to c or rect a n er ro r l i e s wi th i n th e s o u n d d i s c r e t i o n o fth i s c o u r t, a n d we d o n ote x er c ise th at d isc re tio n u n les s t h e e rro r se riou sly affects the f ai rnes s, i ntegr i ty, o r pu bl i c r eputati on o f th e jud icia l p ro c ee d in g. Id

. W e fi r s tde t e r mi ne wh e the r the a dmi s s i o n of K eo m ala ’s t es tim on y a b o u t B ak er ’s p rior ba d ac ts co n st ituted er ro r und erRule 40 4(b). W e co ncl ud e no such e r r o r o c c ur r e d. Rule 401 defines rel evantev i dence as “e vi dence havi ng a n y tendency t o m ake the exi ste nce o fany f act th at is of c on se q u en c e . . . m or e p r o b a b le or les s p ro b ab le than i t w oul d b e w i thout the e vi dence. ” F ed. R. Evi d. 401. R ule 40 2 th ens ta te s th ata l l r el ev an t ev i den ce i s g en er al l y a d m iss ibl e unl es s th er e i s a r ea so n f o r i ts e xc l usi on. Fe d. R. Evi d. 402. The re l evance o fKeom al a’ s t est i m ony i s a pp ar ent. Fo llo w i n g h is a rre st, B ak er d en ied th at h e k n ow in gly po ss es se d the b ag g i es o fc r ac k c ocaine o n the ni g hthe was a r r es te d a nd a l so de nied th athe po ss es se d the cra ck coca i ne with in tent to del i veri t. Test i m ony re gar ding othe r i nstance s in w hi ch Bakerp os se sse d crac k coca i ne with the intent to del i veri t i s r el evantto B ak er ’s in te n t a n d kn ow led ge . See U nited Sta tes v. C o nn er, 5 8 3 F

. 3 d 1 0 1 1 , 1 0 2 1

- 2 2 ( 7 th C i r . 2 0 0 9 ) ( “ I n dru g ca s e s , we ha ve o fte n f o und a de fen dan t’ s o th erdr ugt r an sa ct i o ns re l evantf orpurposes o th erthan propensi ty, such a sN o. 10

- 1446 7 kn ow led ge , in te n t, an d lac k of m ist ak e .”); U nited Sta tes v. C urry, 79 F. 3d 1489 , 14 95- 96 ( 7th Ci r. 19 96) ( fi nd i ng tha t in a case wh er e the defendant denie d posses si ng a bagg i e co n ta in i ng cr ack coca i ne thatwas dropped into a bush, evid en c e fr om witnes ses wh o had pr ev i o us l y pur ch as ed cr ac kc o ca i ne f ro m the de fen dan t w as rele v a n t an d p ro p er ly a d m itt ed ); U ni t e d S t at e s v. Wi l s on , 31 F .3d 51 0, 51 5 (7 th C i r. 19 94 ) (fin d in g t h at ev iden ce o fpr i o r dr ugt r an sa cti o ns s ho wed tha t th e defen dan t “was f ami l i arwith th e co ca i ne b us i ne ss a nd was no t so m e i nno ce ntb y st an der‘ m i st ak en l y c au g ht up in an ove rzealous l aw enforcem en t’ ”). Rule 404(b) i s a r u le of ex cl usi on. I t s tat es that evi dence of a d efe n d an t’s p rior ba d ac ts is n otad m i s s i b le if enter ed si m plyt o show the defendant’s pro pensi ty to c o mm i tthe c r i me wi th whi c h he i s c ha r g e d. F e d. R

. Ev i d. 404(b ). Th e e vi dence m ay, however, be adm i ssibl e t o es tabl i sh“ m o ti ve , o ppo r tu ni ty, i nt en t, pre par at i o n, pl an, kn ow led g e , id en tit y, or a b se n c e o f m ist ak e o r ac c id en t.” W e e m p loy a fou r-p ar t t es t t o d et er m i n e w h et h er ev id en ce of prior con d uc t is a d m is s ibl e un d er Ru le 404(b), taki ngi nt o c o ns i der at i o n the f o l l o wi ngf ac to r s: ( 1) the ev id en c e is d ire c te d to w ar d es ta b lish in g a m at te r in iss u e o th er th an th e d efe n d a n t ’ s p ro p en sit y t o c om m it the c ri m e char ged; ( 2) the evi dence shows thatthe othe r act i s s i m i l areno ugh and cl ose enough i n ti m e t o be relevan t to the m atter in issue; ( 3 ) t he eviden ce is suffi c i e n t t o s u p p o r t a j u r y fi n d i n g th a t th e d e fe n d a ntc o mm i tte d the s i m i l aract; a n d (4) the proba ti ve val ue o f th e e v i d e n c e i s n o ts u b s t a n t i a l l y o u t we i g h e d b y the d an ge r of u n fair p rej u d ice

. U nited Sta te s v . Sha ck lefo rd, 738 F.2d 776, 779 (7th Cir. 1984).8 N o. 10

- 1446 Rule 403 i s a l so an excl u sio n ar y r ule ; i t pr ovi des f or th e ex cl us io n o fr el ev an t ev i den ce tha t i s unf ai r l y pr ej udici alto the defe nd ant. Fe d. R. Evi d. 403. “Evi dence i s unf ai rl y pr ej ud i ci alo nl y i fi t wil l i nd uce the j ury to deci de the c as e on an i m properbas i s, co m m onl y a n em ot ion al on e, ra th er th an on th e e vid en c e p re se n te d .” U ni t e d S t at e s v. Zahurs ky, 580 F. 3d 515, 525 ( 7 t h Cir. 2009 ) ( ci ti ng U nite d States v. Harris , 53 6 F

. 3d 798, 80 9 ( 7th C ir. 2008)). Bak era r g ue s th atthe t r i alc o ur t ne ve r c o ns i der ed the Shackl e f or d f our- part tes t o r perf or m ed a bal anci ng te st for p rej u d ice be for e a l low in g K eo m ala to te st ify. W h ile Bak er f aul ts the di str i ct c ourtf orf ai l i ng to o ra l l y r eci te i ts Rule 403 and Rul e 404(b) fi nd i ngs, a dist ri ct c ourti s no t unde r a n o bl ig at i o n t o make e ve r y e vi den ti ar y r ul i ng or al l y; had Bakerwanted an or alr uling, h e sh ou l d have obj ected on Rul e 4 03 and Ru l e 4 04(b) gr ounds. Giv en th is l ack of action, i t is e a s y t o se e w hy the d istri ct cou rt d id n otu n d er ta ke th e o ra l an aly sis of K eo m ala ’s t es tim ony that Bakernow desi re s. N eve rthel ess , we do bel i eve thatt h is e vi dence sa ti sfi es th e f o ur- par t te st, tho ug h Ba k ers pec i fi ca l l y t ak es i ss ue w ith th e secon d an d fourth factors. W it h regard to the s eco nd f acto r, B ak er co ntends thatbec ause ther e was “no ev i dence” o fthe type ofdrug sal es he was engag ed in a t th e t i m e o fhi s a rr est, ther e i s no way of knowing w hetherhi s t ender ofdrugs to K eo m al a was si m i l areno ugh to the acti vi ty f orwh i ch h e w as ar re ste d and f ound gui l ty. T hi s a rgum ent i s wholl y without m er i t. K eom al a t est i fi ed that B ake r supp l i ed herwith c ra ck coca i ne. H er e, Baker w as charg ed w ith poss ess i onN o. 10

- 1446 9

w ith inten t to distribu te cra c k cocaine

. Th ese act s are su bsta nt ial ly sim il ar. A s t o th e fo urth f acto r, we concl ud e that the pro bati ve val ue o fthi s e vi dence w as n ot substanti al l y o utw ei ghed by the danger of unfai r prej ud i ce. I t is w el l

- est abl i shed th at w h en a d efe n d an t is ch ar ge d w ith a sp ec ific i ntent cri m e, pri orbad ac ts m ay b e adm i tte d i fthe act d em ons trates h ow the d efend an t’s b e ha vior w as p urp os efu l. E.g
. , C urry , 79 F. 3d at 1495

. Because Baker denie s intent, th is ev i dence i s hi ghl y pr obat i ve on that el em ent. A l though e vi dence ofpri ordrug d eal i ngs m ay b e p rej u d icia l to B ak er , i t is n otu n fair ly p rej u d i c ial. M or eo ve r, w h er e e vid en c e is of p ro b at ive va lu e, as it is he r e, th e dan g ero funf ai rpr ej udi ce was e ffec ti ve l y ha ndl ed th r o ug h the us e o fa pr o perl i m i tingi ns tr ucti o n, w hi ch the d istr i ct c ourttwice pro vi ded to the j ury. See U ni t e d S t at e s v. M ac e do , 406 F.3d 778 , 793 (7th C ir. 2005). M or eov er, the adm i ssi on o fthi s e vi den c e d i d not affect Baker ’s s ubstanti alr i ghts

— the thi rd co nd i ti on u n d erthe pla i n er ro r sta nd ar d. Even w i thout the a dm i ssi o n o fthe di spu te d te stim o ny abo utBa k er ’ s pr i o r dr ug dea l i ng s, the g o ve r nm en t o ffer ed a con si der ab l e amoun t o fo th ere vi den ce t o c onv ic t Bak er, s ucha s th e ar r es ting offic er s’ t es tim on y, K eo m ala ’s d ire c t e vid en c e t es tim on y, an d th e e x p er t t es tim on y. Se ei nf r a P ar t C. Baker has there f or e f ai l ed to sa ti sfy the t hree co nd i ti ons necessar y t o dem onst ra te pla i n er ro r, and w e c on cl ud e that th e ad m issi on of K eom ala’s testim ony pa sses m us ter.10 N o. 10

- 1446

Sect ion 3553( a) s tat es thata s en te n ci n g court m ust im pose a 1 m ini m all y suffic ie nt s ente nce that: ( 1) cons iders the nature a n d c i r c u m st a n c e s o f t h e p r e s e n t o ffe n se a n d th e d e fe n d a n t ’s hi s t or y; ( 2) r efl ec t s the s er i ous ne s s ofthe off en s e; ( 3) pr om ot es r es pec t for the l aw; ( 4) pr ovi des j us tpuni s hm en tf or the o ffen se; (5) afford s a d equ ate d eterr en ce to crim ina l con d u ct; (6) p ro tects the p u b lic fro m fu rt h e r c rim es b y the d efend an t; and ( 7) p ro vi des the defen dantwith n ee ded t re at m en t, t ra i ni ng, o r c a re . 18 U .S.C . § 3 5 5 3 (a ). B. R easo nab l eness o ft he Sen t ence Bakernext ar gues that the s entenci ng co urt f ai l ed to pr o per l y c o ns i der a nd appl y a l l o fthe s en te nc i ng fac to rs an d th at h is 3 60 -m o n t h s en te n c e is u n re as on ab ly l ong. W e di sag re e. W hetherthe dist ri ct c ourt fo ll owed pro per proce du re s i n i m po singa sent en ce a s pr es cr ibe d i n U ni t e d S t at e s v. B o o k er, 5 4 3 U. S

. 2 2 0 ( 2 0 0 5 ) , i s a qu e s t i o n ofl aw we re vi ew de nov o. U nite d State s v. Sm it h , 56 2 F.3 d 866, 87 2 ( 7th Ci r . 2 00 9)

. The S upr eme Co ur t i n G a ll v. U nited Sta tes , 5 5 2 U. S

. 3 8 ( 2 0 0 7 ) , d e s c r ib e d th e p r o c e d u r e th a ta s en te nc i ngc o ur t is requi r ed to f o l l o w. F i r st, the s en te nc i ng cour t m ust c orre ctl y c al cul ate the appli cabl e Guidel i nes ra nge. G all , 55 2 U.S

. at39

. Then, aftergi vi ng bo th par ti es a n o pp o r t un i t y t o a r g ue f o r the s e nt e nc e the y deem appropri ate , the senten c i ng j ud ge shoul d consi der al l the § 3 553( a) f acto rs . Id. a t 49. Af te r de ci di ngo n the 1 appropri ate se ntence, the sente nci ng co u rt m ust a deq u at ely ex p lain th e c h os en se n te n c e. Id. a t 50

. “ The d ist ric t c ou rtn ee d n ota d d re ss ea c h § 35 53 (a) fa c to r in c h eckl i st f ashi on, expl i ci tl y a rt i cul ati ng i ts concl usi onN o. 10

- 1446 11 f orea ch f acto r; r ather, t he co urt m ust s i m plygi ve an a d e q u ate sta tem en t of reason s, con sisten t w ith § 3553(a), for be liev in g t h e se n te n c e itse lec ts is ap p ro p ria te .” U ni t e d S t at e s v. Panaigua- Verdug o , 537 F. 3d 722, 72 8 ( 7th C ir. 2008). Once w e a re s atis fi ed that the di str i ct c ourtco m m i tte d no pr o ce dur ale r r o r, we r ev i ew the s ubs tanti ve r ea so nabl eness o fthe sente nce under the abuse o fdi scr eti on st an d ar d

. U ni t e d S t at e s v. Coopm an , 602 F. 3d 814, 819 ( 7th C i r. 20 10)

. A withi n-Gui del i nes s entence i s e nti tl ed to a p r e s u m p tio n of re as on ab len es s. R ita v. U nited Sta tes , 551 U

. S. 338, 347 (2007 ). B ak er a r g u es th at th e d ist ric t c ou rtd id n otex p re ss ly di sc us s th e se r i o us ne ss o fhi s pr es en t o ff en se, a nd t o the deg r ee tha t th e j ud ge di d s o , the j udg e i m pr o per l y c o nsi dered the se ri ousness i n l i ght of Baker ’ s pri orco nvi ctio ns . U lti m ately, th is argum en t am ou nt s to Ba ker’s dis sa ti sf acti on with hi s incre ase d sentence bec ause of h is c a r ee r offe n d er en h an c em en t, w h ich w as p ro p er ly appl i ed an d no t ch al l en g ed dur i ngthe s en te nc i ng hear in g oro n appeal

. S ecti on 3 553( a) and the car eer o ffen derg ui del i ne s en co ur ag e judg es t o c o ns i der“ th e nature a n d ci rcum sta nces ofthe offense a nd the histo ry a nd ch ar ac t e r i s t i cs of

t hede f e ndan t
. ” 1 8 U.S

. C. § 3 553( a) ( 1) ( e mph a s i s a d d e d )

. T h e d i s t r i c tc o u r t ’ s f a i r l y l e ng th y di sc us si o n ofBak er ’ s pr ev i o us c o nv i ct i o ns

— al l si m i l ar dr ugc o nv i ct i o ns

— w as not er ro r. In sente nci ng Bake r at the bot tom of the advi sor y Gu i del i ne ra nge, th e d istr i ct co ur t su ffi ci en tl y a na l y ze d the § 3553 ( a) f ac to r s an d ex pl aine d i ts r ea so ni ngb eh i nd the s en te nce, i nc l udi ng a co nsi de ra tio n ofthe ser i ousness o fBaker ’ s o ffense.12 N o. 10

- 1446 W h ile t h e d ist ric t c ou rtm ay n oth av e e x p re ss ly add re sse d each § 35 53( a) f acto r, i t was notr equ i re d to do so

. Bakerhas not prese nted an ar gum ent that o ver com es th e re b u tt ab le p re su m p tio n of r ea so n ab len es s o f h is w i thi n-Gui del i nes s en tence
. W hi l e Bake r express es that “i t i s har d to concei ve ofa m or e o utra geo us and dir ect as sa ul t o n the mos t ba si c co nc ept s of j us ti ce ” r eg ar di ng hi s th i r ty
- y ea r pr i so n s en te nc e, w e be l i ev e th atthi s se ntence i s r eas onabl e g i ven that the defendant has m ade a lifelo n g c ar ee r ou t o f d ru g d ea lin g. T h e d ist ric t c o u rtd id no t ab us e i ts di sc r et i o n i n s en ten ci ngBa k ert o a wi th i nG u id elin es se n te n c e.

C. Suff i ci ency o fEvi den ce Bak erfi na l l y a r g ue s th atthe g o ve r nm en t pr o duce d no evid en ce to p rove th e po ssess ion ch arg e . W e give a j ury ve r d ict great d eferenc e and w il l up hold the verd ict i f, vi ewi ngthe e vi den ce i n the l i g htmos t f av o r ab l e to the g o ve r nm en t, a ny r at i o na l t r i ero ff ac t coul d ha ve f o und th e e ss en tia l elem en ts of th e c rim e b ey on d a re as on ab le d ou b t. U ni t e d S t at e s v. H i cks , 36 8 F.3 d 801, 80 4- 05 ( 7th Ci r . 2 00 4)

. W e wi l l no t r e- wei g h the e vi den ce or s ec o nd gu es s t h e jur y’s cr ed ibilit y d et er m i n at ion s. U nited Sta tes v. St e ve ns , 453 F.3d 963 , 965 (7th C ir. 2006). Bakerargues thatbec ause ther e was no tes ti m ony f ro m any per son w ho actual l y s aw hi m with the bag gi es of dr ug s , n o r a t i o na l t r i e r o ff a c t c o ul d ha v e f o un d b e y o nd a reaso n a b le dou bt th at th e baggies w ere ever in Ba ker’sN o. 10

- 1446 13 p ossess ion. H e also points out th at his fi n g e r p r ints w ere neverf ound on the bagg i es. Vi ewi ngthe e vi den ce i n the l i g htmos t f av o r ab l e to the governm ent, a re aso nabl e j ury coul d have f ound that Bak er was i n po ss es si o n o f th e ba g g i es o f cr ack coc ai ne an d d ro pp ed thos e ba ggi es w hi l e fl eei ng fro m the pol i ce. The a r r e s t i ngo ffi c e r s t e s t i fi e d tha ta l tho ugh he was co m pl i an t a t fi r st, Ba k eri m m edi at el y fl ed f r o m the of fi c e r s i n r e s po ns e t o Offi c e r Ai k man ’ s mov e men t t o pat hi m d own to s ear ch f orweapons ordrugs. Offi cerA i km an te st i fi ed th at B ak erwas wi th i n h i s si g htdur i ngthe e nt i r e c ha s e an d, tho ugh he c o ul d n o ts e e Ba k e r ’ s h a nd s the e nti re ti m e, Bakerappeare d as though he w as attem pti ng to r etr i ev e som ethi ng fro m hi s fro nt pants pocketas theyw er e a pp ro achi ng the fence. W hen Offi cer Aik m ani m m ediately r etur ne d t o the a r ea wher e he h ad ta ckl ed Bakeral ong the c ol l apsed fence, he qui ckly spott ed the tw o bagg i es on the g round

. Bakeri gnor es Ke o mal a ’ s t e s t i mon y a l mos te nt i r e l y . E vens e t t i nga s i de th e d i sputed pri orbad ac ts evi dence, Keom al a t est i fi ed th at B ak er to ld h er h e w as on th e “ H ill” th e n igh t o fh is ar re st “poste d up , ” a nd exp lained that she unders too d thi s t o mea n tha t he wa s wa i t i ng t o e xc ha ng e dr ug s f or m oney . A dd i ti onal l y, O ffice J ack Turner, an e xpert w i tne s s i n the di s t r ib ut i o n o fc r a c kc o c a i ne , t e s t i fi e d t hat 25. 2 g ra m s o fcr ack coc ain e is “a di str ibuti on s i zed am ount. ” Se e U ni t e d St at e s v. M ahol i as , 98 5 F

. 2d 869, 87 9 (7th Ci r. 19 93) ( “i ntent to dist ribute c an be i nfe rr ed fro m the p os se ssio n ofa quanti ty ofdrugs l ar gerthan needed for p er so n al u se ”)

. B e tw ee n th e a rre st in g off ice rs ’ te st im on y, K eo m ala ’s t es t i m on y re ga rd in g w h at B ak er to ld14 N o. 10

- 1446 her both bef or e a nd afterhi s a rr est, and th e q u anti ty of d ru gs f ound, the g ove rnm ent pr ese nted enough dir ect an d circum stan tial evid en ce th at a re a s o na ble j ury coul d have f ound B ake r gui l ty.

I I I . C ONC L US I ON Forthe re aso ns se t f or th abo ve, we A FFIRM Ba ker’s convi cti on a nd se ntence.

8- 23- 11