FILED U.S. COURT OF AP P E A LS E LE V EN T HC IRC U IT DEC 18 , 2006 THOMAS K. KAH

N CLERK [ DO NO T P UB L I S H] I N THE UN I TE D STATE S C OU RT OF APPE ALS F O R T H E E L E V E N T H C IR C U IT

________________________ N o. 06- 12058 N on -A rgum entC al endar

________________________ D . C. D o c k e tN o . 0 5 - 0 0 1 4 4 - CR- O RL- 2 8 - K RS U N I T E D S T A T E S O F A M E R I C A , P la in tif f - A p p e lle e , v ersu s J A M E S A V E R Y , J R ., a .k .a . T e rry A v e ry , a .k .a . J a m e s T e rry A v e ry , a .k .a . J a m e s A v e ry , D e f e n d a n t- A p p e lla n t.

________________________ A pp ea l fr om the U ni t ed S t at es D i stri ctC ou rt f orthe M i ddl e D i s tr i c tof F l or i da

_________________________ ( D e c e m b e r 18, 2006) B efo re B IR C H , D U B IN A an d F A Y , C i rcu i tJu d g es. P E R C U R I A M:2

J a m e s A ve ry , J r . appe a l s hi s c onvi c t i on a nd 210- m onth s e nt e nc e f or p o s s e s s i o n o f

a f i r e a r m b y a c o n v i c t e d f

e l o n , i n v i o l a t i o n o f

1 8 U . S. C. § § 9 2 2 ( g ) ( 1 ) , 9 2 4 ( a ) ( 2 ) , a n d 9 2 4 ( e ) ( 1 ) . A v e ry r a is e s th r e e is s u e s o n ap p e a l: ( 1) w he the rthe di s tr i c tc our ta bus e d i t s di s c r e t i on i n de ny i ng hi s m ot i on f or m i s tr i a l ; ( 2) w he the rthe di s tr i c tc our te rr e d i n de ny i ng hi s m ot i on t o di s m i s s the i nd i ctm ent ; and (3) w hether the di stri ctcourterre d i n enh anci ng hi s s ent ence base d u p o n p r io rc o n v ic tio n s th a t w e r e n o t a d m itte d o rp r o v e n b e y o n d a r e a s o n a b le d o u b t . Fo rth e r e a s o n s s e tf o r th mo r e f

u l l y b e l o w , w e a f

f i r m. I . Ba c k g r o und A . M ot i on f

or M i s t r i al O n A u g u st3 0 , 2 0 0 5 , a fed eral g ran d j u ry retu rn ed an i n d i ctm en tag ai n st A very , char gi ng hi m w i th k no w i ng l y posse ss i ng a f i re arm af t erhavi ng been c o n v ic te d o f

a c r im e p u n is h a b le b y a te r m o f im p r is o n m e n t e x c e e d in g o n e y e a r , in vi ol a t i on of

18 U . S . C . §§ 922( g) ( 1) , 924( a ) ( 2) , a nd 924( e ) ( 1) . T he i ndi c tm e nt l i s t e d A v e ry ’ s p r i o rf

e l o n i e s a s : ( 1 ) a r me d b u r g l a ry , g r a n d th e f to f a f i r e a r m, r obbe ry w i th a f

i r e a r m , a nd gr a nd the f

tof pr ope r ty i n B r e va r d C ounty , F l or i da ; a nd ( 2 ) a r m e d r o b b e ry , r o b b e ry , a n d b u r g la ry in F u lto n C o u n ty , G e o r g ia . D ur i ng voi rdi r e , the di s tr i c tc our tr e a d A ve ry ’ s i ndi c tm e nt , i nc l udi ng the l i st ed pri or conv i ct i on s, t o the veni re . A ft erthe courthad read the ent i re i nd i ctm entand v oi r di re had p roce eded, A very ’ s c ou nsel m ov ed for am i stri al3

base d u po n the courtre adi ng the ent i re i nd i ctm entt o the j ury w here the part i es had e nt e r e d i nt o a s t i pul a t i on r e ga r di ng not i c e t o the j ury of A ve ry ’ s s pe c i f

i c pr i or co n v i ct i o n s. T h e p art i es ack n o w l ed g ed th atth ey h ad en t ered th e st i p u l at i o n j u st before voi r di re began and thatthey not i fi ed the courtof the st i pu l at i on on l y a ft er the c our tha d r e a d the i ndi c tm e nt . T he c our tr e s e r ve d j udgm e nton the m ot i on f or m i stri al , bu tas ked each of the veni re m em bers w hether they f el tthatA very de s e r ve d a ny l e s s of

a f a i rtr i a l be c a us e he ha d be e n c onvi c t e d of a c r i m e i n the pa s t . A l l ve ni r e m e m be r s a ns w e r e d i n the ne ga t i ve . A f t e rthe c our ts e l e c t e d the j ury , i ti ns truc t e d the j ury tha t“ [ i t s ] r e a di ng of [ the ] c ha r ge s i s notpr oof or e v id e n c e a n d y o u s h o u ld n o t c o n s id e rit a t a ll a s s u c h .” A f t e rf ur the ra r gum e nton the m ot i on, the c our ta c c e pt e d the s t i pul a t i on a nd i n d i cat ed th ati tw o u l d read th e st i p u l at i o n t o th e j u ry. T h e co u rtn o n eth el ess de ni e d the m ot i on f

orm i s tr i a l , f

i ndi ng tha t , a s the pa r t i e s c onc e de d, i tw a s not a w a r e of the s t i pul a t i on pr i ort o r e a di ng the i ndi c tm e ntt o the j ur y a nd thus “ the obj e c t i on di dn’ tc om e unt i l s om e t i m e a f t e rthe c our tr e a d the c ha r ge i nc l ude d i n the in d ic tm e n t.” T h e c o u r t a c k n o w le d g e d th a t, a f te rit le a rn e d o f

th e s tip u la tio n , it tw i ce i n fo rm ed th e j u ry th atth e i n d i ctm en tw as n o tev i d en ce. T h e co u rtal so a g r e e d to g iv e th e ju ry a n a d d itio n a l c u r a tiv e in s tru c tio n u p o n A v e ry ’s r e q u e s t. A ft erthe go vernm entre st ed i t s c as e, the courtre ad the st i pu l at i on t o the j ury a s fo l l o w s:4

T h e U n ite d S ta te s o f

A m e r ic a a n d d e f

e n d a n t J a m e s A v e ry , J r . jo in tly agre e a tthe t i m e of the al l eged cri m e A very previ ou sl y had been conv i ct ed i n a courtof a c ri m e pun i shabl e by i m pri sonm entfor at erm i n exces s of one ye ar , thati s, a f el on y off ense . F urtherm ore, A very never has had h i s c i vi l ri gh t s, i ncl ud i ng the ri gh tt o k ee p and bear f i r e a r m s , r e s t or e d by the S t a t e of F l or i da O f

f i c e of E xe c ut i ve C l em ency . T he part i es j oi nt l y a gree thatthi s e l em enthas bee n p roved b e y o n d ar e a s o n a b le d o u b t.

B . G ov er n m en t’ s C ase- In -C h i ef A gentS cottP er al a of the B ureau o f A l coho l , F i re arm s, and T ob ac co ( “ A T F ” ) t e s t i f

i e d tha t , i n F e brua ry 2005, he i nve s t i ga t e d num e r ous pe r s ons in v o lv e d in f

ir e a r m s a n d n a r c o tic s tr a n s a c tio n s a n d u s e d th e C I S ta n le y D o m in o to a i d i n the i nve s t i ga t i on. D om i no’ s r ol e i n the i nve s t i ga t i on i nc l ude d i ntr oduc i ng A g e n t P e r a la to A v e ry s o th a t A g e n t P e r a la c o u ld p u r c h a s e a f ir e a r m f r o m A v e ry . A gentP er al a f

urther s t at ed thatthe general cover s t ory he a nd D om i no used w as th a t A g e n t P e r a la w a s a f r ie n d o f D o m in o ’s f

r o m C a lif

o rn ia a n d th a t A g e n t P e r a la w a nt e d t o buy f

i r e a r m s a nd na r c ot i c s t o s hi p ba c k t o C a l i f or ni a . O n F e brua ry 11, 20 05 , A gentP er al a a nd D om i no m etA very ata P ub l i x sup erm arket . A very e nt e r e d A ge ntP e r a l a a nd D om i no’ s c a ra nd di r e c t e d the m t o dr i ve hi m t o a lo c a tio n w h e r e h e c o u ld p ic k u p th e f ir e a r m a n d s e ll it to A g e n t P e r a la f o r$ 1 0 0 . A gentP er al a a nd D om i no t oo k A very t o a ho use w here A very gave them a f i re arm a n d a m m u n itio n . O n cross -e xam i nat i on , A gentP er al a t es t i fi ed thathe m etA very on F ebruary5

9 , 2 0 0 5 a n d th o u g h t th a t A v e ry w o u ld h a v e h a d a f ir e a r m to s e ll h im o n th a t d a y . A ve ry di d notha ve a f

i r e a r m on tha tda y , buthe i ndi c a t e d t o A ge ntP e r a l a tha the k n e w w h e r e a f

ir e a r m w a s lo c a te d a n d th a t h e in te n d e d to s te a l it a n d s e ll it to A gentP er al a. A gentP er al a t ol d A very thathe w ou l d p ay hi m for the gu n and that he “ a l r e a dy ha d i ts ol d. ” A ge ntP e r a l a the n not i f i e d hi s unde r c ove ri nve s t i ga t i on te a m th a t h e in te n d e d to d r iv e A v e ry to th e n e ig h b o rh o o d w h e r e A v e ry w a n te d to c onduc tthe pot e nt i a l bur gl a ry . A ge ntP e r a l a dr ove A ve ry t o the ne i ghborhood, h o p i n g th a tAv e ry “ wo u l d i d e n t i f y th e h o u s e h e wa s g o i n g t o i n wh i c h c a s e we c oul d a rr e s thi m . . . i n the c our s e of c om m i tt i ng a bur gl a ry . ” A ve ry di d not id e n tif y th e h o u s e . A ge ntP e r a l a f

ur the rt e s t i f

i e d tha t , l a t e ri n the da y on F e brua ry 9, 2005, he se ntD om i no t o fi nd A very and d et erm i ne w hether he had the fi re arm . W hen D om i no f

ound A ve ry , A ve ry t ol d hi m tha the di d notha ve the f i r e a r m a nd tha the pl a nne d t o w a i tunt i l ni ght f a l l t o obt a i n i t . A ge ntP e r a l a di d nota rr e s tA ve ry , but h e a n d o th e ro f

f ic e r s c a n v a s s e d th e n e ig h b o rh o o d , c o n ta c te d th e r e s id e n ts , a n d “d id everythi ng they c ou l d t o even k ee p [A very ] fr om do i ng a burgl ary or s t op hi m . ” A v ery actu al l y so l d A g en tP eral a th e fi rearm o n F eb ru ary 1 1 , 2 0 0 5 . O n th atd ay, A gentP er al a pi cked up A very atthe P ub l i x and drov e hi m t o a vacantho use that di d n otbel on g t o h i m , bu tatw hi ch he had st ay ed the previ ou s ni gh t . A very e n te r e d th e h o u s e a n d r e tu rn e d to A g e n t P e r a la ’s c a rw ith a f ir e a r m in h is6

pos s e s s i on. I n r e s pons e t o A ve ry ’ s c ouns e l ’ s que s t i ons r e ga r di ng w he the rA ge nt Pe r a l a a i d e d A v e ry i n c o mmi tt i n g a b u r g l a ry , A g e n tPe r a l a s t a t e d th a t , “ i n my o p in io n [ A v e ry ] w a s g o in g to d o th a t b u r g la ry w h e th e rI h a d a n y th in g to d o w ith it or no t , so m y i dea w as atl ea stl aw enforc em enti s s om ew hati ntri nsi ca l l y i nv ol ved and w e c ou l d fi nd ou tw here he w as go i ng . ”

C . M o t i o n t o D i s m i s s t he I ndi c t m e nt O n S e pt e m be r6, 2005, be f or e tr i a l , the di s tr i c tc our tha d e nt e r e d a s c h e d u lin g o r d e r , r e q u ir in g th e p a r tie s to s u b m it a ll m o tio n s , in c lu d in g m o tio n s to di sm i ss the i nd i ctm ent , by S ept em ber 26, 20 05 . T he order al so i ncl ud ed a w ai ver pr ovi s i on, w hi c h i ndi c a t e d tha tthe f a i l ur e t o r a i s e a ny de f

e ns e s orobj e c t i ons i n a tim e ly m o tio n w o u ld c o n s titu te w a iv e ru n le s s th e p a r ty c o u ld d e m o n s tr a te e xc us a bl e ne gl e c t . O n N ove m be r25, 2005, A ve ry f i l e d a m ot i on t o di s m i s s the i nd i ctm enton the basi s of “ ou tra geou s gov ernm entcond uct . ” A very cont ended tha tA ge ntP e r a l a ’ s pa r t i c i pa t i on i n a i di ng A ve ry t o c om m i ta bur gl a ry a nd e nc our a gi ng the c r i m i na l a c t i vi ty w a s e xtr e m e a nd outr a ge ous c onduc t . T he di stri ctcourtdi d n otrul e on A very ’ s m ot i on t o d i sm i ss the i nd i ctm ent , and t ri al b e g a n o n N o v e m b e r2 8 , 2 0 0 5 . A ve ry r e ne w e d hi s m ot i on t o di s m i s s the i ndi c tm e nta tthe c l os e of the gove rnm e nt ’ s c a s e . T he c our tf i r s tf ound tha tA ve ry ’ s m ot i on w a s unt i m e l y a nd thathe di d n otes t abl i sh a s uffi ci entexcuse for the del ay . T he courtal so deni ed7

A very ’ s m ot i on on the m er i t s, fi nd i ng that , w hi l e l aw enforce m ent ’ s c on du ctw as troub l i ng , i tdi d n otri se t o the l evel of a c on st i tut i on al vi ol at i on . A very there af t er m ad e a n o re ten u s m o ti o n fo r ju d g m en t o f a cq u ittal b as ed u p o n th e g o v er n m en t’ s o u trag eo u s co n d u ctan d th e v i o l at i o n o f A v ery’ s d u e p ro cess ri g h t s. T h e co u rtal so ga ve the j ury one f

i na l c a ut i ona ry i ns truc t i on w i th r e ga r d t o notc ons i de r i ng the i nd i ctm entas evi dence. D . Se nt e nc i ng A t s e n te n c in g , A v e ry o b je c te d to th e u s e o f

h is p r io rf

e lo n y c o n v ic tio n s to det erm i ne hi s s t atus as an arm ed ca re ercr i m i nal . A very ar gu ed thatthere w as i nsuffi ci entproo f t o est abl i sh thathe com m i tt ed som e of the pri or cr i m es re po rt ed i n h i s c ri m i nal hi st ory, and, thu s, they c ou l d n otsupp ortthe arm ed ca re ercr i m i nal de s i gna t i on. H e f

ur the rm a i nt a i ne d tha t , i n or de rf orhi s pr i orc onvi c t i ons t o be u sed t o su p p o rtarm ed career crim i n al st atu s, th e j u ry h ad t o fi n d p ro o f o f th o se c o n v i c t i o n s b e y o n d a r e a s o n a b l e d o u b ta n d th e c o u r ts h o u l d ap p l y th e s a me s t a nda r d. T he c our tc onc l ude d tha tthe gove rnm e ntpr ove d A ve ry ’ s pr i or c onvi c t i ons by a pr e ponde r a nc e of the e vi de nc e , ove rrul e d A ve ry ’ s obj e c t i on, a nd foun d thatA very qu al i fi ed for the se nt enci ng enhancem entbase d u po n h i s a rm ed c a r e e rc r im in a l s ta tu s . I I . D i s c u s s i on A . M ot i on f

or M i s t r i alOld Chief v. United States, 519 U.S. 172, 117 S.Ct. 644, 136 L .Ed.2d 574 (1997). 1 8 A very ar gu es on appeal thatthe di stri ctcourt ’ s r ea di ng of the i nd i ctm entthat cont ai ned t he spec i fi cs of hi s pri or fe l on y c on vi ct i on s vi ol at ed hi s c on st i tut i on al r ig h ts to d u e p r o c e s s a n d a f a irtr ia l. H e c ite s th e S u p r e m e C o u rt d e c is io n in O ld C hi ef t o sup po rthi s a rgum entthathe suff er ed un fa i r pre

j ud i ce because the j ury 1 h e a r d th e n a tu r e o f

h is p r io rc o n v ic tio n s a n d c o u ld h a v e u s e d th o s e c o n v ic tio n s to r e a c h a ve r di c ti n hi s c a s e . H e f ur the rc ont e nds tha tthe s t i pul a t i on w a s va l i d upon both pa r t i e s a c c e pt i ng a nd s i gni ng i t , w hi c h the pa r t i e s di d pr i ort o the s t a r tof the vo i r di re . H e m ai nt ai ns thatno thi ng the courtdi d t o cure the re adi ng of the ent i re in d ic tm e n t c o u ld h a v e e r a s e d th e p r e ju d ic ia l e f

f e c t th e r e a d in g h a d o n h is tr ia l. W e or di na r i l y r e vi e w a di s tr i c tc our t ’ s de ni a l of a m ot i on f

orm i s tr i a l f

or a b u s e o f d is c r e tio n . U n ite d S ta te s v . T ru jillo , 1 4 6 F .3 d 8 3 8 , 8 4 5 ( 1 1 th C ir . 1 9 9 8 ) .

“ W he n a di s tr i c tc our ti s s ue s a c ur a t i ve i ns truc t i on, w e w i l l r e ve r s e onl y i f the evi dence i s s o h i gh l y pre j ud i ci al as t o b e i ncurabl e by the tri al court ’ s a dm on i t i on . ” Id. (quo t at i on om i tt ed). H ow ever , the go vernm entcont ends thatpl ai n err or re vi ew appl i e s he r e due t o A ve ry ’ s unt i m e l y obj e c t i on. “ A n appe l l a t e c our tm a y not co rrectan erro r th e d efen d an tfai l ed t o rai se i n th e d i stri ctco u rtu n l ess th ere i s: ( 1) e rr or , ( 2) tha ti s pl a i n, a nd ( 3) tha ta f f e c t s s ubs t a nt i a l r i ght s . ” U ni t e d S t a t e s v. R odr i gue z , 398 F . 3d 1291, 1297 ( 11th C i r . ) , c e r t . de ni e d, 545 U . S . 1127 ( 2005) ( quot a t i on om i tt e d) . W he n the s e thr e e f a c t or s a r e m e t , w e m a y the n e xe r c i s e our9

di s c r e t i on a nd c orr e c tthe e rr ori f i ts e r i ous l y a f

f e c t s the f a i rne s s , i nt e gr i ty , or publ i c r e put a t i on of

the j udi c i a l pr oc e e di ngs . I d. W e ha ve e xpl a i ne d tha t“ [ t ] he p u rp o s e o f

th e p la in e rr o rru le is to e n f o r c e th e r e q u ir e m e n t th a t p a r tie s o b je c t to e rr o r s a t tr ia l in a tim e ly m a n n e rs o a s to p r o v id e th e tr ia l ju d g e a n o p p o r tu n ity to a voi d orc orr e c ta ny e rr or , a nd thus a voi d the c os t s of r e ve r s a l . ” U ni t e d S t a t e s v. S o ro n d o , 8 4 5 F . 2 d 9 4 5 , 9 4 8 -4 9 (1 1 th C i r. 1 9 8 8 ) (q u o t at i o n o m i tt ed ). In h i s rep l y, A v e ry d o e s n o t a r g u e th a t p la in e rr o rr e v ie w s h o u ld n o t ap p ly , b u t h e s ta te s o n ly tha the di d notobj e c ti m m e di a t e l y a f t e rthe c our t ’ s r e a di ng of the i ndi c tm e nt be c a us e the “ da m a ge w a s a l r e a dy done . ” T hi s a r gum e nt , how e ve r , doe s not e x p la in w h y A v e ry d id n o t o b je c t im m e d ia te ly w h e n h e h e a r d th e c o u r t s ta r t to re ad the i nd i ctm ent . T hu s, pl ai n err or re vi ew i s app ropri at e her e. R egar dl es s, as d i scu ssed m o re fu l l y b el o w , A v ery i s n o ten t i t l ed t o a rev ersal ev en u n d er th e l ess s tr i nge nta bus e of

di s c r e t i on s t a nda r d. A v e ry d o e s n o t e s tab lis h o n ap p e a l th a t th e c o u r t p la in ly e rr e d o ra b u s e d its d is c r e tio n in d e n y in g h is m o tio n f o ra m is tr ia l. A v e ry a d m its th a t n e ith e rp a r ty i nf or m e d the c our tof

the s t i pul a t i on pr i ort o voi rdi r e , a nd, thus , the c our tha d no k n o w le d g e th a t its r e a d in g o f th e in d ic tm e n t v io la te d th e te r m s o f th e s tip u la tio n . A very cont ends thatthe st i pu l at i on w as bi nd i ng on the courtw hen t he part i es a c c e pt e d a nd s i gne d i t , butA ve ry c i t e s no s uppor tf orthi s c onc l us i on. A s s um i ng w i thoutde c i di ng tha tthe s t i pul a t i on w a s bi ndi ng on the c our t , A ve ry ha s not10

de m ons tr a t e d tha ta m i s tr i a l w a s w a rr a nt e d be c a us e the c ourtga ve num e r ous c ur a t i ve i ns truc t i ons a nd the r e w a s ove rw he l m i ng e vi de nc e of A ve ry ’ s gui l t . T he co u rti n q u i red w h eth er an y m em b er o f th e v en i re fel tth atA v ery d eserv ed an y l ess of a f ai r tri al because he had been conv i ct ed of a cr i m e i n the past , and al l veni re m e m b e r s a n s w e r e d in th e n e g a tiv e . T h e c o u r t a ls o in f o r m e d th e ju ry f

iv e s e p a r a te tim e s th a t th e in d ic tm e n t w a s n o t e v id e n c e a n d th a t th e ju ry s h o u ld n o t c o n s id e rit a s s uc h. S e e U ni t e d S t a t e s v. B r a z e l , 102 F . 3d 1120, 1145 ( 11th C i r . 1997) ( e xpl a i ni ng tha tw e pr e s um e tha ta j ur y f ol l ow s a di s tr i c tc our t ’ s c ur a t i ve i ns truc t i ons ) ; U ni t e d S t a t e s v. S a tt e r f i e l d, 743 F . 2d 827, 848 ( 11th C i r . 1984) ( hol di ng tha tthe di s tr i c tc our tdi d nota bus e i t s di s c r e t i on by e rr one ous l y r e a di ng t o the j ury a n i nd i ctm entcont ai ni ng the defendant ’ s a l i as thathad b ee n stri cken fr om the i nd i ctm ent , w here the courtgave a caut i on ary i nstruct i on and l at erre ad the corre ct ed vers i on of the i nd i ctm entt o the j ury) . T he court ’ s i nstruct i on s w er e i n a c c or da nc e w i th w ha tA ve ry ’ s c ouns e l r e que s t e d a f t e rthe c our tde ni e d the m ot i on f orm i s tr i a l a nd the pa r t i e s ha d r e s t e d the i rc a s e s . M or e ove r , A ve ry ’ s pr i or conv i ct i on s w er e never menti on ed agai n and , up on the part i es ’ re qu es t , the court r e a d th e s tip u la tio n to th e ju ry . I n a d d itio n , th e g o v e rn m e n t p r o d u c e d s u b s ta n tia l e v id e n c e o f A v e ry ’s g u ilt attri al , re gardl es s of the court ’ s r ea di ng of hi s pri or conv i ct i on s. S ee U ni t ed S t at es v. H arri st on , 32 9 F . 3d 77 9, 78 9 (11 th C i r. 20 03 ) ( “ an error i n adm i tt i ng evi dence11

of a pr i orc onvi c t i on w a s ha r m l e s s w he r e the r e i s ove rw he l m i ng e vi de nc e of g u ilt” ) . A c o n v ic tio n u n d e r1 8 U .S .C . § 9 2 2 ( g ) ( 1 ) r e q u ir e s th e g o v e rn m e n t to prov e thata def

endantw as : “ (1) i n k no w i ng po ss es si on of a f i re arm , (2) a conv i ct ed fe l on , and (3) thatthe fi re arm af fe ct ed i nt er st at e c om m er ce . ” U ni t ed S t a t e s v. B i l l ue , 994 F . 2d 1562, 1565 n. 2 ( 11th C i r . 1993) . A ve ry doe s not c h a lle n g e th a t th e g o v e rn m e n t d id n o t p r o v e th e s e e le m e n ts b e y o n d a r e a s o n a b le d o u b tattri al . F u rth erm o re, th e p art i es’ st i p u l at i o n est ab l i sh ed th atA v ery w as a c onvi c t e d f

e l on a nd A ge ntP e r a l a ’ s t e s t i m ony pr ovi de d pr oof of the r e m a i ni ng el em en t s. L a s tly , a s th e g o v e rn m e n t c o rr e c tly a r g u e s , O ld C h ie f is n o t o n p o in t in th is c a s e . I n O ld C h ie f

, th e S u p r e m e C o u r t d e te r m in e d th a t a d is tr ic t c o u r t ab u s e s its di sc re t i on w hen i tre

j ec t s the part i es ’ st i pu l at i on thata def endantw as a c on vi ct ed f e l on “ w he n the purpos e of the e vi de nc e i s s ol e l y t o pr ove the e l e m e ntof pr i or c onvi c t i on. ” O l d C hi e f , 519 U . S . a t174, 117 S . C t . a t647. H e r e , the i s s ue i s not w hether the courtabused i t s di sc re t i on i n rej ec t i ng a s t i pu l at i on , because the court ac tual l y a cc ept ed the st i pu l at i on . R ather, as di sc usse d abo ve, the i ss ue i s w hether the c our te rr e d ora bus e d i t s di s c r e t i on i n notgr a nt i ng a m i s tr i a l . T hus , the r e a s o n in g o f

O ld C h ie f

is in ap p lic a b le f

o rth e r e s o lu tio n o f

A v e ry ’s c a s e . B. M o t i o n t o D i s m i s s t he I ndi c t m e nt A very ar gu es on appeal thatthe i nd i ctm entshou l d h ave been di sm i ss ed12

because the go vernm ent ’ s c on du cti n h i s c as e w as extre m e a nd ou tra geou s w here th e A T F ag en t s ai d ed an d ab ett ed A v ery i n co m m i tt i n g tw o b u rg l ari es. H e al so a r gue s tha tthe m ot i on t o di s m i s s w a s notunt i m e l y be c a us e the c our tdi d notha ve sw orn fact s abo utthe go vernm ent ’ s c on du ctun t i l the evi dence w as prod uced at tr i a l . H e a l t e rna t i ve l y a s s e r t s tha tthe c our ts houl d ha ve gr a nt e d hi s m ot i on f or j udgm e ntof

a c qui tt a l , w hi c h he m a de be c a us e the c our tde t e r m i ne d tha thi s m ot i on t o di s m i s s w a s unt i m e l y , be c a us e the gove rnm e nt ’ s c onduc tw a s outr a ge ous a nd v io la te d h is d u e p r o c e s s r ig h ts . W e r evi ew a di stri ctcourt ’ s deni al of a def endant ’ s m ot i on t o d i sm i ss an i ndi c tm e ntf

ora bus e of

di s c r e t i on. U ni t e d S t a t e s v. C l a r ke , 312 F . 3d 1343, 1345 n .1 ( 1 1 th C ir . 2 0 0 2 ) . H o w e v e r , a m o tio n to d is m is s th e in d ic tm e n t d u e to o u tr a g e o u s g o v e rn m e n t c o n d u c t in v o lv e s a q u e s tio n o f la w th a t w e r e v ie w d e n o v o . U n ite d S ta te s v . S a v a g e , 7 0 1 F .2 d 8 6 7 , 8 6 8 n .1 ( 1 1 th C ir . 1 9 8 3 ) . A m o tio n to d is m is s a n in d ic tm e n t m u s t b e m a d e p r io rto tr ia l. F ed. R . C ri m . P . 12 (b)( 3)(B ). A di stri ctcourtm ay se ta dea dl i ne by w hi ch part i es m ustm ake pre- tri al m ot i on s. F ed. R . C ri m . P . 12 (c ). H ow ever , “ [a ] party w ai ves a ny R ul e 12( b) ( 3) de f

e ns e , obj e c t i on, orr e que s tnotr a i s e d by the de a dl i ne the c our ts e t s unde rR ul e 12( c ) orby a ny e xt e ns i on the c our tpr ovi de s . F orgood cause, the courtm ay grantre l i ef fr om the w ai ver. ” F ed. R . C ri m . P . 12 (e ). In A very ’ s c as e, the di stri ctcourtent er ed a s chedul i ng order i n w hi ch the court13

r e q u ir e d th a t a n y m o tio n to d is m is s th e in d ic tm e n t b e f ile d b y S e p te m b e r2 6 , 2 0 0 5 . A very fi l ed hi s m ot i on t o d i sm i ss on N ov em ber 25, 20 05 , w hi ch w as the F ri day be f or e hi s tr i a l be ga n the f

ol l ow i ng M onda y . T hus , unde rthe e xpl i c i tl a ngua ge of R u le 1 2 a n d th e c o u r t’s s c h e d u lin g o r d e r , A v e ry w a iv e d h is r ig h t to m o v e to di s m i s s the i ndi c tm e nt . N one the l e s s , A ve ry a r gue s on appe a l tha tthe f a c t s upon w hi ch hi s m ot i on re l i ed coul d n othave been ful l y di sc ov er ed un t i l tri al . H ow ever , g iv e n th a t A v e ry ’s m o tio n to d is m is s c o n ta in e d th r e e p a g e s o f d e ta ile d f

a c ts re gardi ng the go vernm ent ’ s c on du cti n h i s c as e, hi s a rgum entthatthe neces sa ry fa ct s c ou l d n othave been di sc ov er ed pri or t o tri al i s m er i t l es s. A s s uch, the di stri ct co u rtco rrect l y d et erm i n ed th atA v ery’ s m o t i o n t o d i sm i ss w as u n t i m el y. A ve ry a l t e rna t i ve l y a r gue s on appe a l tha tthe c our t ’ s de ni a l of hi s m ot i on f

or j ud gm entof ac qu i tt al w as erroneou s f or the sa m e r ea sons as he ar gu es w i th regard t o the m ot i on t o di s m i s s . P ur s ua ntt o F e de r a l R ul e of C r i m i na l P r oc e dur e 29, “ the co u rto n th e d efen d an t ’ s m o t i o n m u sten t er a j u d g m en to f acq u i tt al o f an y o ffen se f o rw h i c h th e e v i d e n c e i s i n s u f f i c i e n tt o s u s t a i n a c o n v i c t i o n . ” Fe d . R. Cr i m. P. 29( a ) . A ve ry di d nota r gue tha the w a s e nt i t l e d t o a j udgm e ntof a c qui tt a l on suff i ci ency of the evi dence groun ds, bu tra ther a ss ert ed thati tw as w arra nt ed be c a us e of

the gove rnm e nt ’ s outr a ge ous c onduc t . S uc h a gr ound i s not co n tem p lated in R u le 2 9 , an d , th u s, th e d istrict co u rt p ro p er ly d en ied A v er y’s m o tio n f o rju d g m e n t o f

a c q u itta l.14 C . A r m e d C ar e e r C r i m i n al D e s i gn at i on A v e ry a r g u e s th a t th e d is tr ic t c o u r t v io la te d th e S ix th A m e n d m e n t in i m po si ng an enhanced sent ence base d u po n A very ’ s s t atus as an arm ed ca re er cr i m i nal because the courtconsi dere d A very ’ s pri or conv i ct i on s thathad n ei ther been adm i tt ed no r proven b ey on d a re as on abl e dou bt . A very ac kn ow l edges that the c urr e ntc a s e l a w i ndi c a t e s tha tthe gove rnm e ntdoe s notha ve t o pr ove pr i or c onvi c t i ons be y ond a r e a s ona bl e doubt , butA ve ry s t a t e s tha the r a i s e s the i s s ue f or p r e s e r v a tio n . W e r e vi e w c ons t i tut i ona l e rr or s a ts e nt e nc i ng de novo, butr e ve r s e onl y f or h a r m f u l e rr o r . U n ite d S ta te s v . P a z , 4 0 5 F .3 d 9 4 6 , 9 4 8 ( 1 1 th C ir . 2 0 0 5 ) . W ith re gard t o p ri or conv i ct i on s thatar e use d t o enh ance a s ent ence , the S up re m e C ou rt he l d i n A l m e nda r e z - T orr e s v. U ni t e d S t a t e s , 523 U . S . 224, 118 S . C t . 1219, 140 L . E d. 2d 35 0 (19 98 ) thatthe go vernm entneed no tal l ege i n i t s i nd i ctm ent , and n ee d n o t p r o v e b e y o n d a r e a s o n a b le d o u b t, th a t a d e f e n d a n t h a d p r io rc o n v ic tio n s in or de rf ora di s tr i c tc our tt o us e thos e c onvi c t i ons f orpurpos e s of

e nha nc i ng a se nt ence . A l m endarez -T orre s, 52 3 U . S . at24 7, 11 8 S . C t . at12 33 . W e e xp l ai ned in U n ite d S ta te s v . G r e e r , 4 4 0 F .3 d 1 2 6 7 ( 1 1 th C ir . 2 0 0 6 ) th a t w e c o n tin u e to f o llo w th e ru le a s s e t f

o rth in A lm e n d a r e z - T o rr e s . G r e e r , 4 4 0 F .3 d a t 1 2 7 4 . A ts e nt e nc i ng i n A ve ry ’ s c a s e , the di s tr i c tc our tde t e r m i ne d tha tthe gove rnm e ntha d pr ove n A ve ry ’ s pr i orc onvi c t i ons by a pr e ponde r a nc e of the15

e vi de nc e . A c c or di ng t o bi ndi ng pr e c e de nt , the di s tr i c tc our t ’ s us e of A ve ry ’ s pr i or c onvi c t i ons a s a ba s i s f

orf i ndi ng hi m a n a r m e d c a r e e rc r i m i na l di d notvi ol a t e the S ix th A m e n d m e n t. I I I . C on c l u s i on F o r th e f o re g o in g re as o n s, th e d istrict co u rt d id n o t errin d en yin g A v er y’s m ot i ons f

orm i s tr i a l a nd di s m i s s a l of the i ndi c tm e nt , nordi d i te rri n i m pos i ng A very ’ s s ent ence . A cc ordi ng l y, A very ’ s c on vi ct i on and sent ence ar e AF F I RME D.