## F I LED United States C ourt of Appeals Tenth Circuit 

### Jan u ary10,2007 Elisab eth A. Shumaker C l erk of C ourt PU BL I SH UNI TED S TATES CO URT O F AP PEALS

T E N T H C IR C U IT U N IT E D S T A T E S O F A M E R IC A ,

Pl ai nt i ff- A ppel l ee, N o. 05- 8066 v. R O D N E Y J O E T O W N L E Y ,

D e fe n d a n t-A p p e llan t. AP P EA L F ROM THE UNI TE D S TA TE S DI S TR I CT COURT

F OR THE DI S TR I CT OF W YOM I NG ( D . C . N o. 04- C R - 212- 01- J) R o n a ld G . P re tty , C h e y e n n e , W y o m in g , fo r D e fe n d a n t-A p p e llan t. K enneth R . M arken, Speci al A s s i s t antU ni t ed St at es A t t orney , ( M at thew H . M ead, U n i t e d S t a t e s A t t o r n e y, a n d D a v i d A . K u b i c h e k , A s s i s t a n tU n i t e d S t a t e s A t t o r n e y, w i th hi m on the br i ef) D i s tr i ctof W y om i ng, C as per , W y om i ng, forPl ai nt i ffA ppel l ee. B efor e KELLY , M c KAY , and O’ BRI EN , C i rcui tJudg es. M c KAY , C i r cui tJ udge. A p p e llan t R o d n e yJo e T o w n ley ap p e a ls h is c o n v ictio n fo r c o n sp ira c yto pos s es s w i th i nt entt o di s tr i but e more t han 500 gr ams of met hamphet ami ne, 21 U .S .C . § § 8 4 1 (a )(1 ), 8 4 1 (b )(1 )(A )(v iii ), an d 8 4 6 ; tw o c o u n ts o f p o ss e ss io n w ith i nt entt o di s tr i but e l es s than 50 gr ams of met hamphet ami ne, 21 U . S. C . §§- 2-

841( a) ( 1) , 841( b) ( 1) ( C ) ; and pos s es s i on w i th i nt entt o di s tr i but e l es s than 50 g ra m s o f

c o c a in e , 2 1 U .S .C . § § 8 4 1 (a )(1 ), 8 4 1 (b )(1 )(C ). A p p e llan t ar g u e s th a t: ( 1) the admi s s i on of hea r s ays t at ement s vi ol at ed hi s Si xth A m endment co n fro n tat ion ri g h t un d er C r aw f or d v. Was hi ngt on , 541 U . S. 36 ( 2004) ; ( 2) the err oneous enhanc ementof hi s s ent ence w as unr eas onabl e i n l i ghtof B ookerv. Uni t ed Stat es , 5 4 3 U . S . 2 2 0 (20 0 5 ); an d (3) the ca lculati o n o f h is cri m inal h ist o ry vi ol at ed B ookerand Shepar d v. Uni t ed Stat es , 5 4 4 U . S . 1 3 (20 0 5 ).

I . BA CKGROUND O n Ju ly2 0 , 2 0 0 4 , A p p ell an t w as a rrested at th e D ay s Inn in C asp er, W y o m in g fo llo w in g a re p o rt b ya m o tel e m p lo y e e o f su sp icio u s a c tiv ityin A ppel l ant ’ s r oom . A tthe t i m e of hi s arr es t , A ppel l antw as found i n pos s es s i on of 13. 05 gr ams of met hamphet ami ne, 12. 59 gr ams of coc ai ne, drug di s tr i but i on m at er i al s i ncl udi ng pl as t i c bags and a di gi t al s cal e, drug par aphernal i a, a s afe , wi r e tr a n s fe rr e c e i p t s , a n d $ 4 , 3 9 4 i n c a s h . Ev a Ca r v aj a l , Ap p e l l a n t ’ s o n e - t i me gi r l fr i end, w as pr es enti n t he mot el r oom , and pol i ce e ncount er ed and de t ai ned tw o ind ividu als, R o b ert A n tho n eyR it ch ie an d R h o n d a S p rayb erry , as th eyw ere l eavi ng A ppel l ant ’ s r oom . Pol i ce found drugs on M r . R i t chi e and drug p a r a p h e rn a l i a o n M s . S p r a yb e r r y. A s a r es ul tof thi s arr es t , A ppel l antw as char ged i n s t at e courtw i th fel ony p o ss e ss io n o f

c o c a in e a n d m e th a m p h e tam in e a n d p o ss e ss io n w ith in ten t toM r. G o o d s e ll fle d in h is v e h ic le w h e n th e a g e n ts g a v e c h a s e to A p p e lla n t. 1 M r . G oods el l w as l at erl ocat ed w i th the hel p of coc ons pi r at orR i ck J ohns on and w as appr ehende d.

- 3- di s tr i but e both s ubs t ance s . A ft erpos t i ng a $3, 000 bond, A ppel l antw as r el eas ed. A ppel l antfai l ed t o appea rata pr el i m i naryhear i ng, and a be nch w arr antw as iss u e d fo r h is a rre st. F o ll o w ing h is ru n -i n w ith the p o li ce o u tsi d e the D ay s Inn m o tel roo m , M r. R i t chi e agr eed t o actas a conf i dent i al i nform antforthe W y om i ng D i vi s i on of C r i m i nal I nves t i gat i on ( “D C I ”) and, i n thatcapa ci ty , pl ace d tw o r ecor ded t el ephone c al l s t o A ppel l anti n an effor tt o l ocat e hi m . T hos e effor t s pr oved s ucce s s ful , and D C I agent s l ocat ed A ppel l antatthe B es tV al ue I nn i n G i l l et t e, W y om i ng. W hi l e s ur vei l l i ng t he mot el , D C I agent s w i tnes s ed A ppel l antl eave a m ot el r oom t o m eetw i th D ougl as G oods el l , an as s oci at e of A ppel l ant , t o conduct a drug tr ans act i on. W hen age nt s att empt ed t o arr es tA ppel l ant , he fl ed on footbut w as ca p tured af

ter a b ri ef p u rsuit. T h e a g en ts th en return ed to the m o tel , w h ere 1 th e yd e t a i n e d Ha r o l d Vi r d e n a n d M a ryVi r d e n a s t h e t wo we r e l e a v i n g t h e s a me m otel room and head i ng t ow ard a veh i cl e regi st ered t o R i ck Joh nson , i n w ho se n a m e th e m o tel ro o m a lso w a s re g iste re d . T h e a g e n ts fo u n d d ru g p a ra p h e rn a lia on M r . V i r den, and theydi s cover ed a s cal e i n M r s . V i r den’ s handbag that appea r ed t o have— and w as l at erconfi r m ed t o have— m ethamphet ami ne r es i due o n it.- 4-

A ft ers ecur i ng a s ear ch w arr ant , D C I agent s s ear ched the mot el r oom . O n a ni ght s t and pol i ce found 29. 86 gr ams of met hamphet ami ne cont ai ned i ns i de a B udw ei s ers t as h can, 1. 42 gr ams of met hamphet ami ne cont ai ned i n a pl as t i c bag, l oos e met hamphet ami ne, a gl as s vi al cont ai ni ng m ethamphet ami ne r es i due, us ed p las tic b a g s c o n tain in g m e th a m p h e tam in e re sid u e , a le d g e r, an d a S o c ial S e c u rity ca rd a n d a S h erida n C o m m u n ityF ed era l C red itU n ion ca rd b ea ri n g A p p ell an t’ s name. T w o s yr i nges , one fi l l ed w i th . 23 gr ams of l i qui d m ethamphet ami ne and the otherempt y , w er e found w r apped i n a w as hcl oth and tucked i ns i de a l eather j acke tpocket . D C I agent s al s o l ocat ed a s m al l quant i tyof m ar ij uana i ns i de the m ot el r oom r efr i ger at or . D C I agent s l ocat ed A ppel l ant ’ s vehi cl e i n the mot el parki ng l ot , and a s ear ch of thatvehi cl e r evea l ed a W es t ern U ni on w i r e tr ans fer re c e ip t an d a p iec e o f p a p e r c o n tain in g v a rio u s p h o n e a n d /o r so c ial s e c u rity n u m b ers. Pre sen t i n the m o tel roo m w h en the s ea rch w as in it iat ed w ere M r. J ohns on, A m yE ngdahl , M s . E ngdahl ’ s thr ee c hi l dr en, and the V i r dens ’ one chi l d. A ppel l antw as char ged w i th the four - countfede r al i ndi ctm entout l i ned above. H i s co- defe ndant s on t he cons pi r acychar ge i ncl uded M i s tyJ ean K os t a, C hr i s t i ne D aw n H er den, M r . G oods el l , and M r . J ohns on, al l of w hom pl eade d gui l tyand, w i th the exc ept i on of M s . H er den, appea r ed as w i tnes s es forthe governm entagai ns tA ppel l ant . O n M ar ch 29, 2005, the di s tr i ctcour tconduct ed a Jam es hear i ng t o det erm i ne the ext entof thes e w i tnes s es ’ t es t i m ony . A ft er hear i ng t es t i m onyfr om D C I A gentand chi ef i nves t i gat orT i na Tri m bl e, the- 5-

d i s tr i c tc o u r tru l e d f

r o m th e b e n c h th a tth e g o v e rn m e n th a d e s t a b l i s h e d b y a pr eponder ance of the evi dence t hata cons pi r acyexi s t ed betw een A ppel l ant , the var i ous co- defe ndant s , and var i ous uni ndi ct ed i ndi vi dual s i ncl udi ng T om D i s hi on, R o d T o w n le y , J r., a n d M s . C a rv aja l. O n M a rc h 3 , 2 0 0 5 , the g o v e rn m e n t filed a n in fo rm a tio n in a c c o rd a n c e w ith 21 U . S. C . § 851 al l egi ng that , beca us e A ppel l anthad pr evi ous l ybeen c onvi ct ed o f a fe lo n yd ru g o ffe n se , h e w o u ld b e su bjec t to a m a n d a to ryter m o f tw e n ty y ear s ’ i m pr i s onm enti f convi ct ed of the cons pi r acycount . T he § 851 i nform at i on late r w a s d ism iss e d w h e n a g o v e rn m e n t-su b p o e n a e d w itn e ss fa iled tim e lyto appea rdur i ng t he s ent enci ng phas e. A ts ent enci ng, A ppel l antobj ect ed t o var i ous i ncl us i ons i n the pr e- s ent ence rep o rt(“P S R ”). T h e P S R p lace d A p p ell an t i n C ri m inal H ist o ryC ateg o ryV I, w hi ch the tr i al courtl ow er ed t o C at egoryI V of i t s ow n di s cr et i on. I n addi t i on, th e trial c o u rt d e c lin e d to a d d th e lea d e r/o rg a n ize r e n h a n c e m e n t, alth o u g h it d id adopta tw o- l evel enhanc ementforus e of a danger ous w eapon dur i ng t he c o m m iss io n o f

a d ru g c rim e . A s a re su lt, th e d istric t co u rt se n ten c e d A p p e llan t to 24 0 m on ths’ i m pri sonm ent on t he co nspir acycharge an d 1 20 m on ths’ im p riso n m e n t o n e a c h o f th e th re e p o ss e ss io n w ith in ten t to d istrib u te c h a rg e s, to ru n c o n c u rr e n t l y. I I . C O N FR O N TA TIO N C LA U SE- 6-

T he C onfr ont at i on C l aus e of the Si xth A m endmentguar ant ees a cr i m i nal de fe nd a nt“ the r i gh t. . . t o b e c on fr on t e d wi th the w i tne s s e s a ga i ns thi m. ” U . S. C ons t . ar t . V I . A l though a di s tr i ctcour t ’ s evi dent i aryrul i ngs ar e r evi ew ed for abus e of di s cr et i on, w hetheradmi s s i on of s uch evi dence vi ol at es the C o n f ro n ta tio n C la u s e is re v ie w e d d e n o v o . United S tates v. Su m m ers , 414 F. 3d 1 2 8 7 , 1 2 9 8 (1 0 th C ir. 2 0 0 5 ). T h a t re v iew is c o n d u c ted a c c o rd in g to th e ru le pr om ul gat ed bythe Supr eme C our ti n C raw f ord , 541 U . S. 36, and def i ned further i n D avis v. Was hi ngt on , -- - U .S . -- -, 1 2 6 S . C t. 2 2 6 6 (2 0 0 6 ). I n C raw f ord , the Supr eme C our thel d thatthe admi s s i on attr i al of t es t i m oni al hear s ayw oul d vi ol at e the C onfr ont at i on C l aus e unl es s the dec l ar ant t es t i fi ed or , w her e unava i l abl e, w as pr evi ous l ys ubj ectt o cr os s - exami nat i on by the defendantr egar di ng the obj ect i onabl e s t at ement s . 541 U . S. at68. T he Supr eme C our t , how ever , opt ed nott o pr ovi de a pr eci s e def i ni t i on of “t es t i m oni al , ” id . (“ W e lea v e fo r a n o th e r d a ya n ye ffo rt to sp e ll o u t a c o m p re h e n s iv e d e fin itio n o f ‘t e s tim o n ia l.’ ” ), c o n c lu d in g o n ly, “a t a m in im u m ,” thati tw oul d compri s e pr i ort es t i m onyand s t at ement s m ade dur i ng pol i ce in te rr o g a tio n , i d. I n D a v is , the Supr eme C our tr es tr i ct ed i t s cl ar i fi cat i on of the d e fin iti o n o f

“ tes tim o n ial” h e a rsa yto th e p o lice in ter ro g a tio n c o n tex t. 12 6 S . C t. a t 2 2 7 3 . “W ith o u t atte m p tin g to p ro d u c e a n e x h a u stiv e c las sifica tio n o f a ll conce i vabl e s t at ement s — oreven a l l conce i vabl e s t at ement s i n r es pons e t o pol i ce in ter ro g a tio n — a s e ith e r te stim o n ial o r n o n tes tim o n ial,” th e S u p re m e C o u rt h e ld- 7-

thats t at ement s “made i n the cour s e of pol i ce i nt err ogat i on underci r cumst ance s o bjec tiv e lyin d ica tin g th a t th e p rim a ryp u rp o se o f th e in ter ro g a tio n is to e n a b le p o lic e a s s is ta n c e to m e e t a n o n g o in g e m e rg e n c y ” a re n o n te s tim o n ia l. Id. D es pi t e the expr es s l yl i m i t ed natur e of the def i ni t i on pr ovi ded i n D a v is , it neverthel es s l ends cr edenc e t o thi s cour t ’ s i nt erpr et at i on of “t es t i m oni al ” pos i t ed i n United S tates v. Su m m ers , 4 1 4 F .3 d 1 2 8 7 . See Uni t ed Stat es v. Wade , N o. 05- 4160, 2006 W L 3059929, at*4 ( 10th C i r . O ct . 30, 2006) ( unpubl i s hed) ( “The C our tdi d notpr eci s el ydefi ne t es t i m oni al i n C raw f ord , b u t it i ndi cat edi n D a v is v. Was hi ngt on th a t a s tate m e n t is tes tim o n ial if ‘th e c irc u m sta n c e s o bjec tiv e ly i ndi cat e . . . thatthe pr i m arypurpos e of the i nt err ogat i on i s t o es t abl i s h orpr ove p a s t e v e n ts p o te n tia lly re le v a n t to la te r c ri m in a l p ro s e c u tio n .’” (e m p h a s is a d d e d )) . I n Su m m ers , w e hel d that“a s t at ementi s t es t i m oni al i f a r eas onabl e per s on i n t he pos i t i on of the dec l ar antw oul d obj ect i vel yfor es ee thathi s s t at ementm i ghtbe u se d in th e in v e stig a tio n o r p ro se c u tio n o f a c rim e .” 4 1 4 F .3 d a t 1 3 0 2 . T h is h o ld in g c o m p o rt s w ith th o s e o f o u r s is te r c ir c u its , s ee Uni t ed Stat es v. Hi nt on , 423 F. 3d 355, 360 ( 3d C i r . 2005) ( “[S] t at ement s m ade unde rci r cumst ance s that w oul d l ead a n obj ect i ve w i tnes s r eas onabl yt o bel i eve thatthe s t at ementw oul d be a v a ilab le fo r u se a t a la ter trial a re tes tim o n ial.” ); Uni t ed Stat es v. C r om er , 389 F. 3d 662, 675 ( 6th C i r . 2004) ( “The pr operi nqui ry , then, i s w hetherthe dec l ar ant i nt ends t o beart es t i m onyagai ns tthe ac cus ed. T hati nt ent , i n turn, m aybe det erm i ned byquery i ng w hethera r eas onabl e per s on i n the dec l ar ant ’ s pos i t i on- 8-

w oul d ant i ci pat e hi s s t at ementbei ng us ed aga i ns tthe ac cus ed i n i nves t i gat i ng and p ro se c u tin g th e c rim e .”); Uni t ed Stat es v. Saget , 377 F. 3d 223, 229 ( 2d C i r . 2004) ( “[T] he [ C raw

f ord ] C our tw oul d us e the r eas onabl e expe ct at i on of the dec l ar ant as the anc horof a more concr et e def i ni t i on of t es t i m ony . ”) , and r efut es A p p e llan t’s a ss e rtio n th a t Su m m ers i m pr oper l y“foc us [es ] on the s ubj ect i ve m ot i vat i on of the s peake ras the pi vot al fac t ori n the ‘ t es t i m oni al ’ anal y s i s . ” (A p p ell an t’ s B r. at 20 . ) A pp el l ant r eads C raw f ord ’ s compel l i ng acc ountof the abus es s urr oundi ng th e rig h t to c o n f

ro n tatio n th ro u g h o u t h isto rya s a n a rg u m e n t th a t C raw f ord d e m a n d s a “ ‘c a te g o ri c a l c o n s titu tio n a l g u a ra n te e ’” o f liv e c o n f

ro n ta tio n . (Id. at 15 ( quot i ng C raw

f ord , 541 U . S. at67) . ) A ccor di ng t o A ppel l ant , “now thatthe Supr eme C our thas r econne ct ed [w i th] i t s comm on l aw or i gi ns ” ( i d. at13) , any r el i ance on t he Su m m ers t es t“ca nnotbe r econc i l ed w i th C raw f ord ’ s i ns i s t ence on the comm on l aw as the t ouchs t one fordet erm i ni ng w hi ch s t at ementr equi r es an oppor tuni tyforconfr ont at i on” ( i d. at20) . C ons equent l y , A ppel l antar gues foran extr eme i nt erpr et at i on of C raw f ordthatw oul d r epl ace the t es tes t abl i s hed by Su m m ers — and ours i s t erci r cui t s — i n favor“of a s ki ng w hetherconfr ont at i on w oul d have be en r equi r ed atcomm on l aw as i texi s t ed i n 1791. ” (Id. a t2 0 . ) We r efus e A ppel l ant ’ s confus ed s ugges t i on. N ordi d C r aw

f or d overrul e B our

j ai l y v. Uni t ed Stat es , 4 8 3 U . S . 1 7 1 (19 8 7 ), a s A p p e lla n t s u g g e s ts . B o u rja ily h eld th at a c o u rtn ee d n o t i n d ep en d en tl yinq u ir e“ ‘H e a rsa y ’ is a sta tem e n t, oth e r th a n o n e m a d e b yth e d e c lar a n t w h ile 2 t es t i fy i ng atthe tr i al orhear i ng, offe r ed i n evi dence t o pr ove the truth of the m a tte r a s s e rt e d .” F e d . R . E v id . 8 0 1 (c ).

- 9- i nt o the r el i abi l i tyof s t at ement s of coc ons pi r at or s w her e Feder al R ul e of E v id e n c e 8 0 1 (d )( 2 )( E ) i s a t p la y . Id. a t 1 8 3 -8 4 . T h is h o ld in g is e n tirely cons i s t entw i th C raw

f ord . I ndeed, the Supr eme C our tm ade c l earthat C raw f orda b r o g a t e d o n l y O h io v . R o b e rts , 448 U . S. 56 ( 1980) , by“r es t or i ng t he unavai l abi l i tyand cr os s - exami nat i on r equi r ement s , ” D a v is , 126 S. C t . at2275 n. 4, l eavi ng l ongs t andi ng i nt erpr et at i on of the Feder al R ul es of Evi dence unt ouched. W e fi nd no m er i tt o A ppel l ant ’ s unfounded a nd uns uppor t ed c o n ten tio n th a t C raw

f ord ’ s i ns truct i on on t es t i m oni al hear s ays om ehow e v isc e ra ted F e d e ra l R u le o f E v id e n c e 8 0 1 (d )(2 )(E ), es p e c iallysin c e R u le 801( d) ( 2) ( E ) tr eat s decl ar at i ons bycocons pi r at or s notas an exc ept i on t o the h e a r s a y ru l e s , b u ta s n o n h e a r s a y. R ul e 801( d) ( 2) ( E ) pr ovi des that“[a ] s t at ementi s nothear s ayi f . . . [t ] he s t at ementi s offe r ed aga i ns ta partyand i s . . . a s t at ementbya coc ons pi r at orof a p a r ty d u r i n g th e c o u r s e a n d i n f u r th e r a n c e o f th e c o n s p i r a c y. ” S t a t e m e n t s b y a 2 c o n sp ira to r a re in f

u rth e ra n c e o f

th e c o n sp ira c yw h e n th e ya re “ in ten d e d to pr om ot e the cons pi r at or i al obj ect i ves . ” Uni t ed Stat es v. R eye s , 798 F. 2d 380, 384 (1 0 th C ir. 1 9 8 6 ) (q u o tatio n o m itt e d ). S u c h p ro m o tio n o c c u rs th ro u g h “ sta tem e n ts th a t ex p lain e v e n ts o f im p o rta n c e to th e c o n sp ira c yin o rd e r to fa c ili tate its- 10-

oper at i on, ” Un itedS ta tes v . Sm ith , 8 3 3 F . 2 d 2 1 3 , 2 1 9 (10 th C ir . 1 9 8 7 ),

“ ‘[ s]ta tem e n ts b e tw e e n c o c o n sp ira to rs w h ich p ro v id e re a ss u ra n c e , w h ich se rv e to m ai nt ai n t rus tand cohe s i venes s among t hem, orw hi ch i nform eac h ot herof the curr ents t atus of the cons pi r acy , ’ ” i d. ( al t er at i on i n or i gi nal ) ( quot i ng Uni t ed Stat es v. G om ez , 810 F. 2d 947, 953 ( 10th C i r . 1987) , and “‘ [s ] t at ement s of a cocons pi r at ori dent i fy i ng a fe l l ow cocons pi r at or ’ ” i d. (a ltera tio n in o rig in a l) ( quot i ng Uni t ed Stat es v. Handy , 668 F. 2d 407, 408 ( 8th C i r . 1982) ) . O f cour s e, “di r ectt es t i m onyof a c ons pi r at or. . . des cr i bi ng hi s part i ci pat i on i n the cons pi r acyand the ac t i ons of other s i s nothear s ay . ” Un itedS ta tes v . Mo b ile Mat er i als , Inc. , 8 8 1 F . 2 d 8 6 6 , 8 7 1 (10 th C ir . 1 9 8 9 ). U nderT enth C i r cui tl aw , a di s tr i ctcour tcan onl yadmi tcocons pi r at or s t at ement s i f i thol ds a Jam es hear i ng orcondi t i ons admi s s i on on for thcomi ng pr oof of a “pr edi cat e cons pi r acythr ough tr i al t es t i m onyorotherevi dence . ” Uni t ed Stat es v. O w ens , 7 0 F .3 d 1 1 1 8 , 1 1 2 3 (1 0 th C ir. 1 9 9 5 ). W e h a v e re p e a ted ly m en ti o n ed , h o w ev er, “o u r stron g p refere n ce fo r Jam es pr ocee di ngs . ” Uni t ed Stat es v. G onz al ez - Mont oya , 1 6 1 F .3 d 6 4 3 , 6 4 8 (1 0 th C ir. 1 9 9 8 ); Uni t ed Stat es v. Lopez - G ut i er r ez , 8 3 F .3 d 1 2 3 5 , 1 2 4 2 (1 0 th C ir. 1 9 9 6 ); O w ens , 7 0 F .3 d a t 1 1 2 3 . H er e, the di s tr i ctcourtconduct ed a Jam es h e a r i n g a n d d e t e r m i n e d b y a pr eponder ance of the evi dence t hat( 1) a cons pi r acyt o s el l m ethamphet ami ne exi s t ed; ( 2) num er ous codefendant s , uni ndi ct ed coc ons pi r at or s , and A ppel l ant w ere m em bers of t hat conspir acy ; and (3) the an t i ci pated t est i m on yof these- 11-

cocons pi r at or s atA ppel l ant ’ s t r i al conce rned s t at ement s m ade i n fur ther ance of th e c o n sp ira c y . (T r. v o l. 2 a t 3 2 -3 3 ); s ee O w ens , 7 0 F .3 d a t 1 1 2 3 ; s ee als o Uni t ed Stat es v. Jam es , 590 F. 2d 575, 582 ( 5th C i r . 1979) . W e not e thatA ppel l antm akes no obj ect i on t o the di s tr i ctcourt ’ s fi ndi ngs atthe Jam es hear i ng. A ppel l antdoes , how ever , ci t e a hos tof t es t i m onythathe cont ends vi ol at ed the C onfr ont at i on C l aus e, i ncl udi ng:

• tw o t ape- r ecor ded t el ephone c onver s at i ons betw een M r . R i t chi e and A ppel l anti n w hi ch the pai rdi s cus s ed drug s al es and A ppel l ant ’ s havi ng th re a ten e d M r. D ish io n a t k n ife p o in t;

• a ta p e -r e c o rd e d te le p h o n e c o n v e rs a tio n b e tw e e n M r. J o h n s o n , a cocons pi r at orthen coope r at i ng w i th pol i ce, and M r . G oods el l w her e the m e n d isc u ss e d th e in ten d e d m e e tin g b e tw e e n M r. G o o d se ll an d A p p e llan t, w h ich w a s p re v e n ted b yA p p e llan t’s a rre st;

• a tap e-rec o rde d tel ep h o n e c o n v ersa ti o n b etw ee n M r. Jo h n so n an d M r. T ow nl ey , J r . i n w hi ch the men di s cus s ed A ppel l ant ’ s arr es tand the l ocat i on of A ppel l ant ’ s w al l etand vehi cl e;

• M r. Jo h n so n ’s te stim o n yth a t M r. D ish io n sta ted th e p a ir h a d to o b tai n m o n eyfro m M r. G o o d sell , m ee t A p p ell an t t o ac q u ir e m ethamphet ami ne w i th thatm oney , and then del i verthe met hamphet ami ne to M r. G o o d se ll;

• M r . J ohns on’ s t es t i m onythatM r . D i s hi on s ai d A ppel l anthad i ns t ruct ed the tw o m en t o pi ck up pr es cr i pt i on drugs fr om an a c q u a in tan c e ’s a p a rtm e n t;

• M r . J ohns on’ s t es t i m onythatM r . D i s hi on s ai d A ppel l anthad tel ep h o n ed h im to req u est th at th e tw o m en w ir e f u n d s to D en v er;

• M r . J ohns on’ s t es t i m onythatM r . D i s hi on s t at ed A ppel l ants uppl i ed hi m w i th m ethamphet ami ne;

• M r . R i t chi e’ s t es t i m onythatM s . H er den s t at ed A ppel l ants uppl i edI n hi s l aundryl i s tof C raw f ordv i o l a t i o n s , Ap p e l l a n ta l s o i n c l u d e s DCI 3 A gentA ppl ey ’ s t es t i m onyr egar di ng s t at ement s of M r . and M r s . V i r den and the d istric t co u rt’s r e f

u sa l to p e rm it d e fe n se c o u n se l to c ro ss -e x a m in e M s. K o sta abo ut pot enti al chil d servi ces proceedings. T he d i stri ctcou rtsust ai ned defe nse couns el ’ s obj ect i on t o D C I A gentA ppl ey ’ s t es t i m ony , and ce r t ai nl yno hear s ay st at em ent can be involved w here the d i stri ctcou rtrefuses t o all ow cross exam i nati on on rel evan cygroun ds. A s nei ther of these ci t ed inst ances p oses a C r aw f or d p r o b l e m, we d o n o ta d d r e s s t h e m.

- 12- herw i th m ethamphet ami ne;

• M r. R i t chie’ s unident i fi ed st at em ents t o u nspecifi ed p ers on s;

• M r. G o o d sell ’s st atem en t th at M r. D ishion said h e n ee d ed to w ir e m oney ; and

• M s. K o sta ’s s tate m e n t th a t M r. T o w n ley, Jr. te lep h o n e d h e r try in g to fi nd A ppel l antbeca us e, acc or di ng t o M r . T ow nl ey , J r . , m ember s of a ga ng w ere h o lding a g u n to h is he ad u n ti l A p p ell an t sho w ed u p to p aythem fo r a d ru g d e l i v e r y. 3 T he tw o, t ape- r ecor ded conve r s at i ons betw een M r . R i t chi e and A ppel l ant ar e, as the di s tr i ctcourtcorr ect l ynot ed dur i ng s i debar , admi s s i bl e underFeder al R ul e of Evi dence 801( d) ( 2) ( A ) . A l though M r . R i t chi e w as notfound t o be a cocons pi r at ori n t hi s cas e— i ndeed hi s name w as nevereven ment i oned att he Jam es h ea ri n g — A p p ell an t’ s statem en ts i n the re co rde d co n v ersa ti o n s are n e v e rt h e le s s a d m is s ib le a s a p a rt ya d m is s io n . See Uni t ed Stat es v. B us ch , 758 F . 2 d 1 3 9 4 , 1 3 9 7 (10 th C ir . 1 9 8 5 ). T h e tap e -re c o rd e d c o n v e rsa tio n b e tw e e n M r. Jo h n so n a n d M r. G o o d se ll i s n o t p ro b lem a tic b e c a u se b o th m e n tes tifie d a t trial a n d , the re fo re , w e re a v a ilab le forcr os s - exami nat i on r egar di ng thei rs t at ement s . M r . J ohns on’ s t ape- r ecor ded- 13-

conver s at i on w i th M r . T ow nl ey , J r . i s admi s s i bl e as nonhear s ayunderFeder al R ule of E vidence 8 01 (d) (2) (E). T he d i stri ctcou rtfou nd M r. T ow nley , Jr . w as a co co n sp ir ator, an d alth o u g h thes e c o n v ersa ti o n s too k p lace af ter A p p ell an t’ s arr es t , the conve r s at i ons r efl ectM r . T ow nl ey , J r . ’ s i nt entt o cont i nue pur s ui ng t he cons pi r acy ’ s obj ect i ves . W e obs erve thatA ppel l antr ai s es no ar gum entthatthe c o n sp ira c yh a d e n d e d , an d in fa c t se v e ra l co c o n sp ira to rs r e m a in e d f re e to con t i nu e op erat i on s. T h e re m a in d e r o f

th e s ta te m e n ts a re a d m is s ib le u n d e r R u le 8 0 1 (d )( 2 )( E ). M r . J ohns on, M r . G oods el l , and M s . K os t a w er e al l cocons pi r at or s r ecount i ng t he s t at ement s of othercocons pi r at or s . A l though M r . R i t chi e w as notfound t o be a cocons pi r at or , he r ecount ed s t at ement s of coc ons pi r at or s . T he s ol e purpos e of the m aj or i tyof thes e s t at ement s w as t o pr om ot e the cons pi r acy ’ s unl aw ful obj ect i ves byarr angi ng fundi ng and tr ans por t at i on forthe pur chas e and di s tr i but i on of m ethamphet ami ne as w el l as arr angi ng and effec t i ng t he s al e of the drugs th e m s e lv e s . See Reye s , 7 9 8 F .2 d a t 3 8 4 ; se e a lso Sm ith , 8 3 3 F . 2 d a t2 1 9 . S o me o f th e s e s ta te m e n ts s im p ly id e n tifie d o th e r m e m b e rs o f th e c o n s p ir a c y . S e e Sm ith , 8 3 3 F .2 d a t 2 1 9 ; see also United S tates v. C aro , 9 6 5 F . 2 d 1 5 4 8 , 1 5 5 7 (10 th C ir . 1992) . M or eover , m os tof the s t at ement s w er e pr ovi ded i n the cont extof des cr i bi ng fi r s t - hand part i ci pat i on i n the cons pi r acyand the ac t i ons of the other c o c o n s p ir a to rs . See Mo b ile Ma ter ia ls , 8 8 1 F .2 d a t 8 7 1 . F u rt h e r, n o n e o f

th e o bje c te d -t o e v id e n c e c o u ld b e c o n s id e re d te s tim o n ia l.- 14-

N one of i tw as m ade a ta hea r i ng ortr i al oras a r es ul tof pol i ce i nt err ogat i on, C raw f ord , 54 1 U . S . at68 , and no reas on able pers on i n the posi t i on of these d e c lar a n ts w o u ld h a v e o bjec tiv e lyfo re se e n th a t th e se sta tem e n ts w o u ld b e u se d in th e in v e s tig a tio n o r p ro s e c u tio n o f th e irc o n s p ir a c y , see Sum m ers , 414 F. 3d at 1 3 0 2 . I n anycas e, othert han A ppel l ant ’ s admi s s i on t hr eat eni ng M r . D i s hi on at kni fepoi ntand the s t at ement s i dent i fy i ng A ppel l antas the s our ce of the m ethamphet ami ne, t he s t at ement s w er e nott es t i m oni al beca us e theyw er e not o ffe r e d fo rt h e i rt ru th . W e h a v e h e l d th a t“ [ o ] n e th i n g th a ti s c l e a rf r o m C raw

f ord is th at th e [ C o n fro n tat ion ] C laus e h as n o role u n less the c h all en g ed o u t- o f-c o u rt s t at ementi s offe r ed forthe truth of the mat t eras s er t ed i n the s t at ement . ” Uni t ed Stat es v. Faulkner , 439 F. 3d 1221, 1226 ( 10th C i r . 2006) ( pr ovi di ng det ai l ed a n a ly sis a n d c o llec tin g c a se s). A p p e llan t h a s n o t id e n tifie d a n yo f th e sta tem e n ts as havi ng been offer ed forthei rtruth. F or al l t hese reasons, A pp el l ant’ s C on front at i on C l ause ch al l eng e fai l s.

I I I . S EN TE NCE EN HANCE M EN T A ppel l antar gues thatthe di s tr i ctcourt ’ s t w o- l evel enhanc ementunder Sent enci ng G ui del i ne § 2D 1. 1( b) ( 1) forpos s es s i on of a da nger ous w eapon vi ol at ed B ooker . A ccor di ng t o A ppel l ant , t he courtcomm i t t ed cons t i tut i onal err orw hen i templ oy ed j udi ci al fac t - fi ndi ng undera pr eponder ance of the- 15-

ev iden ce stan d ard to find that A p p ell an t po sses sed a k n ife w h en h e thre aten ed M r. D i s hi on’ s l i fe forfai l i ng t o payform ethamphet ami ne. I n B ooker , “ th e S u p r e me C o u rt h e ld th a t th e m a n d a to rya p p lica tio n o f th e G u id e lin e s to ju d g e -fo u n d fa c ts (oth er tha n a p ri o r co n v ict ion ) vio lat es th e S ixth A m en d m en t, ” a n d the C o u rt th e re fo re re n d e re d th e G u id e lin e s a d v is o ry ra th e r t h a n m a n d a to ry. Uni t ed Stat es v . Kris tl , 4 3 7 F . 3 d 1 0 5 0 , 1 0 5 3 (10 th C ir . 2 0 0 6 ) (pe r cu ri am ). T h e a d v isory G ui del i nes r emai n “a fact ort o be cons i der ed i n i m pos i ng a s ent ence . ” Id . T hu s, di s tr i ctcourt s “‘ m us tcons ul tthos e G ui del i nes and t ake them i nt o acc ountw hen s ent enci ng. ’ ” Id. ( quot i ng B ooker , 5 4 3 U .S . a t 2 6 4 ). O n appea l , w hi l e w e r evi ew a defendant ’ s ul t i m at e s ent ence for r eas onabl enes s , w e cont i nue t o r evi ew the di s tr i ctcour t ’ s appl i cat i on of the G u id e lin e s d e n o v o , a n d w e re v ie w a n yfa c tu a l fin d in g s fo r c le a r e rr o r. Id . at 10 54 . W here the d i stri ctcou rtcorr ect l yapp l i es the G uidel i nes and i m po ses a s ent ence w i thi n the appl i cabl e G ui del i nes r ange, thats ent ence “i s ent i t l ed t o a r ebutt abl e pr es um pt i on of r eas onabl enes s . ” Id. H o w ev er, i f th e d istri ct co u rterrs in a p p lyin g th e G u id e lin e s , w e m u s t r e m a n d u n le s s th e e rr o r i s h a rm le s s . Id . at 1055. A p p e llan t in c o rre c tlya rg u e s th a t B ookererr oroccur s anyt i m e a di s tr i ct courtenhanc es a s ent ence bas ed on fa ct s notfound bya j ury . R ather , aft er B ooker , a d istric t co u rt is n o t p re c lu d e d f ro m re ly in g o n ju d g e -fo u n d fa c ts in d eterm ining the a p p li ca b le G u idelines ran g e so lon g as th e G u idelines are- 16-

c o n s id e re d a s a d v is o ry ra th e r t h a n m a n d a to ry. Uni t ed Stat es v. Magal lanez , 408 F .3 d 6 7 2 , 6 8 5 (1 0 th C ir. 2 0 0 5 ); Uni t ed Stat es v. Law r ence , 405 F. 3d 888, 907 (1 0 th C ir .), cer t . deni ed , -- - U . S . -- -, 12 6 S . C t . 46 8 (200 5). W e fi nd harm l ess an yerro r i n the d istri ct co u rt ’s ap p li ca ti o n o f th e tw o -l ev el en h an ce m en t un d er § 2D 1. 1( b) ( 1) . T hatpr ovi s i on di r ect s thata tw o- l evel i ncr eas e be i m pos ed “[ i ] f a d a n g e ro u s w e a p o n (i n c lu d in g a fir e a rm ) w a s p o s s e s s e d .” U .S .S .G . § 2 D 1 .1 (b )( 1 ). T he comm ent aryt o thi s s ect i on i ndi cat es thatthi s enhanc ement“r efl ect s the in c re a se d d a n g e r o f

v io len c e w h e n d ru g tra ffick e rs p o ss e ss w e a p o n s” a n d th a t it “s houl d be appl i ed i f the w eapon w as pr es ent , unl es s i ti s cl ear l yi m pr obabl e that the w eapon w as connec t ed w i th t he offens e. ” U . S. S. G . § 2D 1. 1, cmt . n. 3. U nder § 2D 1. 1( b) ( 1) , “the governm enthas the bur den of pr ovi ng m er el ythata w eapon w as pr es enti n s om e phy s i cal pr oxi m i tyt o the offens e. ” Uni t ed Stat es v. A l exande r , 2 9 2 F .3 d 1 2 2 6 , 1 2 3 1 (1 0 th C ir. 2 0 0 2 ). “O n c e th e g o v e rn m e n t m e e ts th is s tan d a rd , itis in c u m b e n t u p o n th e d e fe n d a n t to sh o w th a t itis ‘c lea rly i m pr obabl e’ t hatt he w eapon w as connec t ed t o the offens e. ” Uni t ed Stat es v. Sagas t e- C r uz , 187 Fed. A pp’ x 804, 809 ( 10th C i r . 2006) ( unpubl i s hed) ( ci t i ng United S tates v. Vazi ri , 1 6 4 F . 3 d 5 5 6 , 5 6 8 (10 th C ir . 1 9 9 9 )). T h e d istri ct co u rt r el i ed on A ppel l ant ’ s r ecor ded admi s s i on and M r . R i t chi e’ s corr obor at i ng t r i al test im o n yin find ing that A p p ell an t th rea tene d M r. D ishion at kn ifep o int ov er M r.G iv e n A p p e llan t’s C o n f ro n tatio n C lau se a rg u m e n t, w e n o te th a t a 4 s ent enci ng court“maycons i derhear s ayevi dence pr ovi ded thatt he evi dence has s uffi ci enti ndi ci a of r el i abi l i ty , ” and us e of s uch evi dence , byi t s el f, i s i ns uffi ci ent to re n d e r a s e n te n c in g e n h a n c e m e n t in v a lid . Uni t ed Stat es v. D az ey , 403 F. 3d 1 1 4 7 , 1 1 7 7 n .7 (1 0 th C ir . 2 0 0 5 ).

- 17- D i s hi on’ s fai l ur e t o pay for hi s m ethamphet ami ne. W e fi nd no err ori n the 4 d istric t co u rt’s fa c tu a l fin d in g th a t A p p e llan t p o ss e ss e d a d a n g e ro u s w e a p o n in c o n n e c tio n w ith th e o ffe n se , an d w e c o n c lu d e th a t th e d istric t co u rt c o rre c tly cal cul at ed the G ui del i ne r ange. T hi s concl us i on i s s tr engthened byt he fa ctt hatt he di s tr i ctcourtas s i gned a bas e offens e l evel of thi r ty - tw o bas ed on the j ur y ’ s s peci al i nt err ogat or yfi ndi ng of drug quant i tyr atherthan adopt i ng the PSR ’ s hi gherbas e offens e l evel det erm i nat i on. A ddi t i onal l y , the di s tr i ctcourtdeci ded thatA ppel l ant ’ s cr i m i nal hi s t oryw as over - r epr es ent ed and r educe d i tbyt w o l evel s and furtherdet erm i ned th a t A p p e lla n t d id n o t q u a lif yfo r a le a d e r/ o rg a n iz e r e n h a n c e m e n t. A ppel l anthas notr ebutt ed the pr es um pt i on of r eas onabl enes s t hatatt ache s t o hi s corr ect l ycal cul at ed G ui del i nes - r ange s ent ence . T he di s tr i ctcourts pent cons i der abl e t i m e cons i der i ng the § 3553( a) fac t or s . T he di s tr i ctcourtconduct ed a c a re f u l b a lan c in g o f

A p p e llan t’s c rim e s, p a st m ili tar yse rv ice , u n fo rtu n a te re su ltan t m e n tal d isa b ili tyth a t led to h is d ru g a b u se , an d c u rre n t attitu d e in a rr iv in g a t a s e n te n c e in th e m id d le o f th e G u id e lin e -c a lc u la te d ra n g e . C ons equent l y , w e fi nd no err ori n the di s tr i ctcourt ’ s deci s i on t o appl yt he- 18-

tw o -le v e l en h a n c e m e n t u n d e r § 2 D 1 .1 (b )(1 ), an d c o n c lu d e th a t th e se n ten c e is r eas onabl e. I V. CR I M I NA L HI S T OR Y C AL CU L AT I ON A pp el l ant r ecei ved tw el ve cri m i nal hi st orypo i nts for a vari et yof p ast offenses and tw o cri m i nal hi st orypo i nts for hav i ng com m i t t ed the i nst ant offense w hi l e undera cr i m i nal j us t i ce s ent ence . A ppel l antar gues t hat“anycr i m i nal his t orycat ego ryotherthan I” vi olat es B ookerand Shepar d v. Uni t ed Stat es , 544 U . S. 13 ( 2005) . ( A ppel l ant ’ s B r . at25. ) T hi s courtr ece nt l ycons i der ed and r ej ect ed a s i m i l arar gum enti n Uni t ed Stat es v. Zuniga- C havez , 464 F. 3d 1199 (1 0 th C ir. 2 0 0 6 ). In th a t ca se w e o b se rv e d th a t Sh epa rdconce rned “w hat e v i d e n c e c o u l d b e u s e d t o s h o w t h a ta p l e a o f g u i l ty t o b u r g l a ry d e fi n e d b y a n o n g e n e ric b u rg lar ysta tu te ‘ n e c e ss a rilya d m itt e d e lem e n ts o f th e g e n e ric offe ns e. ’ ” Id . at1204 ( quot i ng Sh epa rd , 5 4 4 U .S . at 2 6 ). W e w e n t o n to sta te th a t Shepar d w as notcontr ol l i ng pr ece dentbecaus e i t“di d notaddr es s w hat document s can be us ed t o pr ove the f actof a pr i orconvi ct i on , butw as conce r ned onl yw i th w hatdocument s can be us ed t o pr ove the f acts under l

yi ng a convi ct i on w her e the el ement s of the s t at e cr i m e do notpr eci s el ym i rr ort he fe der al defi ni t i on. ” Id. A p p e llan t h e re u rg e s u s to a d o p t Sh epa rd ’ s r eas oni ng and r equi r e thatpr i or offe ns es can be es t abl i s hed onl ythr ough char gi ng document s , w r i t t en pl ea- 19-

agr eement s , tr ans cr i pt s of pl ea c ol l oqui es , and anyexpl i ci tfac tual fi ndi ngs byt he tr i al j udge t o w hi ch the defendantas s ent ed. A s i n Zuniga- C havez , w e d e c lin e to so in terp re t Sh epa rd .

“ ‘W e re v iew th e d istric t co u rt’s fa c tu a l fin d in g s . . . u n d e r th e c lea rly err oneous s t andar d, and r evi ew de novo the di s tr i ctcour t ’ s l egal i nt erpr et at i on of the Sent enci ng G ui del i nes . ’ ” Zuniga- C havez , 4 6 4 F .3 d a t 1 2 0 3 (a ltera tio n in or i gi nal ) ( quot i ng Uni t ed Stat es v. Haw l ey , 9 3 F .3 d 6 8 2 , 6 8 6 -8 7 (1 0 th C ir . 1 9 9 6 )) . “W hen ever a pri or conv i ct i on i s r el evan tt o sentenci ng , the g ov ernm ent m ust es t abl i s h the fa ctof thatconvi ct i on bya pr eponder ance of the evi dence . ” Uni t ed Stat es v. C ooper , 3 7 5 F . 3 d 1 0 4 1 , 1 0 5 2 (10 th C ir . 2 0 0 4 ). H er e, the di s tr i ctcourtw as pr es ent ed w i th evi dence der i ved fr om the N at i onal C r i m e I nform at i on C ent er( “N C I C ”) dat abas e and c onfi r m ed bythe D istri ct of

C o lorad o U n it ed S tat es P rob ati o n O ffice. A lth o u g h A p p ell an t app ea rs t o cont end thatt hi s pr oces s l acks s uffi ci entr el i abi l i ty , w e appr oved the us e of N C I C - bas ed i nform at i on t o pr ove pr i oroffe ns es i n United S tates v. Mart i nezJi m enez , 464 F. 3d 1205, 1209- 15 ( 10th C i r . 2006) ( col l ect i ng and ana l y zi ng c a se s). B e c a u se A p p e llan t fa ils to p re se n t an yc o n tra d icto rye v id e n c e ten d in g to s h o w th a th e wa s n o tc o n v i c t e d o f th e c r i me s u s e d t o e n h a n c e h i s s e n t e n c e , we concl ude thatt he governm enthas m eti t s bur den of s how i ng t he pr i orconvi ct i ons b ya p rep o n d era n ce o f th e e v iden ce an d fin d n o erro r i n the d istri ct co u rt ’s s ent enci ng det erm i nat i on.- 20- V. CO NC L US I ON B ase d o n o u r co n clus ion s tha t ( 1 ) th e statem en ts of the g o v ern m en t’ s w i tnes s es w er e pr oper l yadmi t t ed and pr es ent ed no C onfr ont at i on C l aus e conc ern; ( 2) the tw o- l evel enhanc ementforpos s es s i on of a da nger ous w eapon w as appr opr i at e; and ( 3) the cr i m i nal hi s t orys cor e w as s uppor t ed byt he evi dence and corr ect l ycal cul at ed, w e A F F I R M A p p e lla n t’ s c o n v ic tio n a n d s e n te n c e . A ccor di ngl y , w e DE NY A ppel l ant ’ s m ot i on forl eave t o have s uppl ement al br i efi ng.