FI LED U. S . COURT OF AP PE ALS E L E V E N T H C IR C U IT A ugus t 11, 2005 T HOM AS K. KAHN CL E RK [ 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. 03- 14577

________________________ D . C . D o c k e tN o . 0 2 - 2 1 0 4 2 - C R - D MM 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 M O H A M E D S A M I R A B D E L A Z Z , B I L L Y J A C K L A W L E R , D e f e n d a n ts - A p p e lla n ts .

________________________ A pp ea l s f

rom the U ni t ed S t at es D i stri ctC ou rt f orthe S outhe rn D i s tr i c tof F l or i da

_________________________ ( A ugus t11, 2005)

B efo re B IR C H , C A RN E S , an d R O N E Y , C i rcu i tJu d g es. P E R C U R I A M:2

M oha m e d S a m i rA bde l a z z a nd B i l l y J a c k L a w l e rw e r e e a c h c onvi c t e d of on e c ou ntof conspi ri ng t o acqui re food st am ps for l es s than face val ue and redeem th em , i n v i o l at i o n o f 1 8 U . S . C . § 3 7 1 , 7 U . S . C . § 2 0 2 4 (b ), (c). L aw l er w as al so conv i ct ed of thi rty- fi ve coun t s of i l l egal l y r edee m i ng food st am ps i n v i ol at i on of 7 U . S. C. § 2 0 2 4 ( c ) , a n d n i n e c o u n t s o f mo n e y l a u n d e r i n g , i n v i o l a t i o n o f 1 8 U . S. C. § 1 9 5 7 . A bde l a z z ’ s onl y i s s ue on appe a l i s w he the rthe di s tr i c tc our te rr e d by not gi vi ng the j ury aspec i al i nstruct i on on w i thd ra w al fr om the conspi ra cy . L aw l er ra i se s anu m ber of i ss ues a ri si ng fr om the di stri ctcourt ’ s a dm i ss i on of an ou t -ofc o u r t s ta te m e n t m a d e b y a g o v e rn m e n t in f o r m a n t, a n d is s u e s in v o lv in g h is s e nt e nc e a l s o. I. S i nc e 1988, the r e ha s be e n a gr oc e ry s t or e of one na m e ora nothe ra t1502 N W 60th S tr e e ti n L i be r ty C i ty , F l or i da . L a w l e rbe ga n w or ki ng a tthe s t or e i n the ea rl y 199 0s. A tthatt i m e, i tw as ow ned b y J oh nn y W i l l i am s a nd w as kn ow n as “O r a n g e H e ig h ts G e n e r a l S to r e .” I n 1 9 9 2 , th e s to r e w a s le a s e d a n d e v e n tu a lly pu rc hase d b y F uad A

j arm eh (a . k. a. F re dd y) and t he nam e of the st ore w as changed t o “ F re dd y’ s. ” F re dd y app l i ed for a nd w as al l ow ed t o p art i ci pat e i n the U ni t ed3

S t at es D epar tm entof A gri cul ture f oo d st am p p rogram . Z uh ai r I bh ah (a . k. a. G eorge) hel ped F re dd y run the st ore. In F ebruary19 95 , “ F re dd y’ s” w as no t i fi ed by the U S D A thati tw as p e r m a n e n tly d is q u a lif

ie d f r o m th e f o o d s ta m p p r o g r a m b e c a u s e o f e x c e p tio n a lly hi gh f ood s t a m p r e de m pt i ons . A s a c ons e que nc e of the di s qua l i f

i c a t i on, F r e ddy a n d G e o r g e w e r e p e r m a n e n tly b a rr e d f r o m a c c e p tin g o rr e d e e m in g f o o d s ta m p s . O n A pri l 7, 19 95 the st ore w as re i ncorpo ra t ed as “ K i ng F oo d G roce ry S t ore, I nc . , ” w i th S a m i th G ha z a w i a s the ne w ow ne r . G ha z a w i ha d be e n a n e m pl oy e e of “F r e d d y ’s .” G h a z a w i te s tif ie d a t tr ia l th a t F r e d d y a n d G e o r g e h a d p r e s s u r e d h im i nt o s i gni ng the ow ne r s hi p a nd i nc orpor a t i on pape r s ; tha the thoughthe w oul d be f i r e d i f he di d nots i gn the m . H e a l s o t e s t i f i e d tha the di d notknow tha tthe p u rp o s e o f

h i s b e i n g n a me d th e o w n e ri n th o s e p ap e r s w a s t o f u r th e ra f o o d s t a mp f r a ud s c he m e . A f

t e rappr oxi m a t e l y ni ne m onths , G ha z a w i de m a nde d he be r e m o v e d f

r o m th e o w n e r s h ip d o c u m e n ts . S hor t l y the r e a f t e r , i n D e c e m be r1995, “K in g F o o d G r o c e ry ” w a s v o lu n ta r ily r e m o v e d f r o m th e f o o d s ta m p p r o g r a m . O n F e b ru a ry 1 5 , 1 9 9 6 th e s to r e w a s r e in c o rp o r a te d a s “T y s o n G r o c e ry ,” w ith th e a r tic le s o f

in c o rp o r a tio n n a m in g ap p e lla n t L a w le ra s th e o w n e r , p r e s id e n t, tr e a s u r e r , a n d s e c r e ta ry . I n M a r c h 1 9 9 6 L a w le rap p lie d f o ra n d w a s a llo w e d to p a r tic ip a te in th e U S D A f o o d s ta m p p r o g r a m . A b o u t a y e a ra n d a q u a r te rla te r , inNeither Freddy nor Ge org e were indicte d. 1 4 J u n e 1 9 9 7 , th e U S D A s e n t L a w le ra n “o f f ic ia l w a rn in g ” le tte rs ta tin g th a t th e r a tio of food st am p redem pt i on s t o t ot al food sa l es w as extre m el y hi gh , w hi ch i nd i ca t ed th a t v io la tio n s w e r e lik e ly o c c u rr in g a t th e s to r e . H a lf o f a y e a ra f te rth a t, in Ja nu ary 199 8, a “ char ge l ett er ” w as se ntt o L aw l erno t i fy i ng hi m thatthe st ore w as u n d e rin v e s tig a tio n . F in a lly , in F e b ru a ry 1 9 9 8 , th e U S D A p e r m a n e n tly d is q u a lif ie d “T y s o n G r o c e ry ” a n d L a w le rf r o m th e f o o d s ta m p p r o g r a m . T he U S D A i nv es t i gat i on un covered three tra nsac t i on s thathad o cc urre d betw ee n N ov em ber a nd D ec em ber 199 6 i n w hi ch appel l antA bd el az z, w ho w as w orki ng as a c as hi eratthe st ore, had p urchas ed food st am ps fr om an un derc ov er o f f ic e rf o rc a s h . O n D ecem b er 1 9 , 2 0 0 2 , a fed eral g ran d j u ry retu rn ed an i n d i ctm en tag ai n st A bde l a z z a nd L a w l e r . B oth of the m w e r e c ha r ge d w i th one c ountof c ons pi r i ng 1 dur i ng the pe r i od be tw e e n N ove m be r1996 a nd F e brua ry 1998 t o a c qui r e f ood s ta m p s f o rle s s th a n f

a c e v a lu e a n d r e d e e m th e m , in v io la tio n o f 1 8 U .S .C . § 3 7 1 , 7 U .S .C . § 2 0 2 4 ( b ) , ( c ) . L a w le rw a s a ls o c h a r g e d w ith th ir ty - f iv e c o u n ts o f

ille g a lly r e de e m i ng f

ood s t a m ps , i n vi ol a t i on of 7 U . S . C . § 2024( c ) , a nd w i th ni ne c ount s of m o n e y la u n d e r in g , in v io la tio n o f 1 8 U .S .C . § 1 9 5 7 .L awl e r c ontend s th at th ee vide nc edemon strate s th at th e rewa s n o trans mitter. B e nn e tt 2 testified that she wa s monitoring the c onversation with a transmitter, and the district c ourt a pp arently c re dit e d h e r t e stimony . That is a fac t f inding , a nd L awl e r h a s n ot p e rs uade d u s th at it is c le arly e rron e ou s. The actual re cordingof the saletransac tion was also played for the jury . L awler

does 3 no t c halleng ethedis tric t c ourt ’sa dmi ssi on of theta pere c ording s o f t

hea c tual trans a c tio n, on ly the statements Hill made to Ag ent B ennett immediately there after, re countingthe transaction. 5 P ri or t o tri al , the go vernm entprov i ded n ot i ce of i t s i nt entt o i ntrodu ce e vi de nc e unde rF e d. R . E vi d. 807, the r e s i dua l he a r s a y e xc e pt i on. T he R ul e 807 evi dence s t em m ed fr om U S D A A gentC ar ol B ennett ’ s use of a c on fi dent i al i nform ant . B ennetthad b ee n i nv es t i gat i ng “ F re dd y’ s, ” a nd i n Jul y 199 3 she had s e ntA l f ons o H i l l , a c onf

i de nt i a l i nf

or m a nt , i nt o the s t or e w i th $230 w or th of f ood s t a m ps t o s e l l f

orc a s h. H i l l s ol d the f

ood s t a m ps t o a n e m pl oy e e i n the s t or e f or $190. P r i ort o the tr a ns a c t i on, H i l l ha d be e n out f i tt e d w i th a tr a ns m i tt e ra nd a re cordi ng devi ce . B ennettt es t i fi ed thatshe had heard the tra nsac t i on as i tw as t aki ng pl ac e. 2 T he R ul e 807 e vi de nc e the gove rnm e nts oughtt o i ntr oduc e w a s the st at em en tm ad e b y H i l l t o A g en tB en n ettsh o rt l y aft er th e fo o d st am p p u rch ase to o k p la c e . I n th a t s ta te m e n t, H ill id e n tif ie d th e s to r e e m p lo y e e to w h o m h e s o ld 3 the f ood s t a m ps a s “ B i l l y J a c k. ” B e c a us e H i l l w a s una va i l abl e f ortr i a l , the g o v e rn m e n t s o u g h t to in tr o d u c e h is s ta te m e n t to B e n n e tt u n d e rR u le 8 0 7 , a n d it w a s a d m itte d o n th a t b a s is o v e rL a w le r ’s o b je c tio n s .6

Du r i n g th e tr i a l , Ab d e l a z z c a l l e d n o wi tn e s s e s o th e rth a n h i m s e l f . He t est i fi ed th at , aft er h e l earn ed i n Jan u ary 1 9 9 7 th atred eem i n g fo o d st am p s fo r cash w a s i l l e ga l , he s t oppe d w or ki ng a s a c a s hi e ra nd a l s o be ga n w or ki ng a di f f e r e nt shi ft . H i s def

ense w as thathe di d n othave the cr i m i nal i nt entnece ss ary t o b e a p arto f th e ch arg ed co n sp i racy. L ik e A b d e la z z , L a w le r ’s o n ly d e f e n s e a t tr ia l w a s th a t h e la c k e d th e r e q u is ite c r i m i na l i nt e nt . H e e s s e nt i a l l y a dm i tt e d a l l the othe re l e m e nt s of the c r i m e s tha the w as char ged w i th exceptfor i nt ent . A cc ordi ng t o L aw l er , F re dd y a nd G eorge w er e th e r in g le a d e r s o f

th e f o o d s ta m p s c a m , a n d h e w a s d u p e d in to d o in g th e irb id d in g . I n M a r c h 2003, f

ol l ow i ng a f

i ve - da y tr i a l , the j ury f

ound both A bde l a z z a nd L aw l ergu i l ty on al l coun t s. A ft erw ar ds, L aw l erfi l ed a m ot i on for anew tri al ba s e d on ne w l y di s c ove r e d i nf or m a t i on aboutH i l l ( the c onf i de nt i a l i nf

or m a ntf r om 1 9 9 3 ) ; th e d is tr ic t c o u r t d e n ie d th a t m o tio n . A bd el az z w as se nt ence d t o 4 2 m on ths i m pri sonm ent . L aw l erw as se nt ence d t o 60 m onths i m pr i s onm e ntf orc ount s 1 thr ough 36, a nd 60 m onths i m pr i s onm e nt f o rc o u n ts 3 7 th r o u g h 4 5 , w ith th e s e n te n c e s to ru n c o n c u rr e n tly . II. A cc ordi ng t o A bd el az z, he pres ent ed suff i ci entevi dence of hi s w i thd ra w al f r om the c ons pi r a c y t o w a rr a nta s pe c i f i c i ns truc t i on t o the j ury . H e a r gue s tha the7

w i thd re w fr om the conspi ra cy i n January 19 97 . If thatw er e true, he w ou l d h ave a va l i d de f e ns e t o the c ons pi r a c y c ha r ge ( the onl y one a ga i ns thi m ) be c a us e the f i ve ye arst atut e of l i m i t at i on peri od for c on spi ra ci es w ou l d h ave run before the fe dera l gr a nd j ury i s s ue d i t s i ndi c tm e nta ga i ns thi m . ( T he f i ve - y e a rpe r i od w oul d ha ve run ou ti n January 20 02 . T he grand j ury r eturned i t s i nd i ctm enti n D ec em ber 200 2. ) A b d e la z z a r g u e s th a t th e d is tr ic t c o u r t c o m m itte d r e v e r s ib le e rr o rw h e n it f a ile d to gi ve the j ury a n i ns truc t i on on hi s w i thdr a w a l f r om the c ons pi r a c y the ory of defe nse. W e r e v ie w a d is tr ic t c o u r t’s r e f u s a l to g iv e a p r o p o s e d ju ry in s tru c tio n o n ly for a n abu se of di sc re t i on . U ni t ed S t at es v. P uche, 35 0 F . 3d 11 37 , 11 50 (11t h C i r. 20 03 ). W e w on ’ tfi nd an abuse of di sc re t i on un l es s the re j ec t ed i nstruct i on w as s ubs t a nt i ve l y c orr e c t , the a c tua l c ha r ge t o the j ury di d nots ubs t a nt i a l l y c ove rthe poi nt s , a nd the de f

e nda nt ’ s abi l i ty t o pr e s e nta n e f f e c t i ve de f

e ns e w a s i m pa i r e d by the abse nce of the i nstruct i on . U ni t ed S t at es v. O rr , 82 5 F . 2d 15 37 , 15 42 (11t h C i r. 1987) . A bde l a z z ha s f

a i l e d t o c a rry pe r s ua de us tha tthe r e w a s a n abus e of d is c r e tio n h e r e . F irst, i t i s u n clea r w h eth erth e d istrict co u rt ac tu ally d en ied A b d elaz z’s prop osed i nstruct i on . W hen p re se nt ed w i th i t , the di stri ctcourtcom m ent ed that

“ th e l a n g u a g e [ o f

th e p r o p o s e d i n s tru c t i o n ] i s h o rr i b l e ” a n d s t a t e d th a t , o n th e l a w,8

i tw as “ pers uaded n ott o g i ve the i nstruct i on . ” I nst ea d o f i ss ui ng a rul i ng atthat t i m e , how e ve r , the c ourtga ve A bde l a z z unt i l the f ol l ow i ng m orni ng t o r e w r i t e the i nstruct i on and fi nd addi t i on al l aw t o sup po rti t . T he fol l ow i ng m orni ng before c l os i ng a r gum e nt s , the di s tr i c tc our tpa s s e d outthe j ury i ns truc t i ons i tw a s pl a nni ng to g iv e a n d a s k e d th e p a r tie s if th e r e w a s a n y th in g e ls e th e y w a n te d th e c o u r t to c o n s id e r . A b d e la z z d id n o t p r e s e n t th e d is tr ic t c o u r t w ith a r e v is e d c o p y o f h is pr opos e d j ury i ns truc t i on ora ny a ddi t i ona l c a s e l a w , a s the c our tha d r e que s t e d the p reced i n g d ay. F o l l o w i n g cl o si n g arg u m en t s an d th e d i stri ctco u rt ’ s i n stru ct i o n s t o th e j u ry, the j ud ge as ked t he part i es i f there w er e “ any i ss ues a s t o h ow [he had] pres ent ed the i nstruct i on s. ” A bd el az z r es po nd ed, “ N o, your H on or. ” A ft erse nd i ng the j ury t o d el i bera t i on s, the di stri ctcourtj ud ge as ked i f there w as “ [a ] nythi ng el se before w e br e a k. ” L a w l e r ’ s a tt orne y r e s ponde d: “ I ne e d t o r e ne w m y pa r tne r ’ s obj e c t i on t o hi s de ni a l , y ourde ni a l of hi s s pe c i a l i ns truc t i on, r e ga r di ng the s t a tut e s of li m it atio n s.” W e n ee d n o t d ec id e w h eth erth is w as en o u g h to p re se rv e A b d elaz z’s r e que s tf orthe i ns truc t i on orw he the rhe e f f e c t i ve l y aba ndone d i tby notf ol l ow i ng th e d is tr ic t c o u r t’s d ir e c tiv e a n d a m e n d in g h is p r o p o s e d in s tru c tio n , a s d ir e c te d . W e n eed n o t , b ecau se A b d el azz l o ses o n th i s co n t en t i o n an yw ay.9

A s pa r tof

hi s bur de n of

de m ons tr a t i ng tha tthe di s tr i c tc our te rr e d by r e f u s in g to g iv e h is p r o p o s e d ju ry in s tru c tio n , A b d e la z z m u s t e s tab lis h th a t h is prop osed i nstruct i on w as “ subst ant i vel y c orre ct . ” O rr , 82 5 F . 2d at15 42 . H e has no tdo ne that . W e have no w ay of det erm i ni ng w hether the i nstruct i on w as s ubs t a nt i ve l y c orr e c t , be c a us e A bde l a z z f a i l e d t o i nc l ude the pr opos e d i ns truc t i on in th e r e c o r d o n ap p e a l. O n a c l os e l y r e l a t e d poi nt , w e a r e a l s o unc onvi nc e d tha tthe f a i l ur e t o gi ve the i ns truc t i on “ s ubs t a nt i a l l y i m pa i r e d [ A bde l a z z ’ s ] abi l i ty t o pr e s e nta n e f f e c t i ve defe nse. ” I d. A bd el az z’ s def ense attri al w as thathe had n o k no w l edge that r e c e i vi ng f

ood s t a m ps i n e xc ha nge f orc a s h w a s i l l e ga l

— he a r gue d tha the di d not have the cr i m i nal i nt entnece ss ary t o b e gui l ty of afood st am p fraud conspi ra cy . If th e ju ry h a d b e lie v e d A b d e la z z , th e n e v e n w ith o u t a n y w ith d r a w a l in s tru c tio n it w o u ld h a v e f

o u n d th a t A b d e la z z w a s n o t a p a r t o f th e c o n s p ir a c y to b e g in w ith . B a s e d on the onl y de f

e ns e A bde l a z z ’ s pur s ue d a ttr i a l , gi vi ng a n i ns truc t i on t o the j ury on w i thdr a w a l w oul d ha ve be e n poi nt l e s s — a de f e nda ntc a nnotw i thdr a w f r om a c ons pi r a c y tha the w a s ne ve ra pa r tof . A s a r e s ul t , A bde l a z z ’ s abi l i ty t o pr e s e nt a n e f f e c tiv e d e f

e n s e w a s n o t s u b s ta n tia lly im p a ir e d b y th e d is tr ic t c o u r t’s f a ilu r e to gi ve a s pe c i a l i ns truc t i on t o the j ury on w i thdr a w a l . H i s c onvi c t i on i s due t o be af fi rm ed, and h e r ai se s no i ss ues abo uthi s s ent ence .10 III. A s w e s t a t e d e a r l i e r , L a w l e r ’ s non- s e nt e nc i ng a r gum e nt s c e nt e ra r ound the d is tr ic t c o u r t’s a d m is s io n o f a s ta te m e n t b y c o n f

id e n tia l in f

o r m a n t A lf

o n s o H ill to U S D A A gentC ar ol B ennett . T he st at em entar ose outof an i nci dentthatoccurre d in J u ly 1 9 9 3 , w h e n H ill w e n t to “T y s o n G r o c e ry ” a t th e d ir e c tio n o f A g e n t B e n n e tt t o sel l food st am ps for c as h. A ft erthe tra nsac t i on , w hi ch w as i t se l f c ov ert l y t aper e c or de d, H i l l m a de a n unt ape d s t a t e m e ntt o B e nne ttr e c ount i ng the e ve nt s i n the s to r e , w h ic h B e n n e tt w r o te d o w n in h e rd e b r ie f in g r e p o r t. I n th a t s ta te m e n t, H ill t o l d h e rth a th e h a d e x c h a n g e d $ 2 3 0 wo r th o f f o o d s t a m p s f

o r$ 1 9 0 i n c a s h . He al so t ol d h erthatthe ca shi erw ho had con du ct ed the tra nsac t i on w as “ B i l l y J ac k. ” T h a t w a s n o t f

a v o r ab le to L a w le rw h o s e f u ll n a m e is B illy J a c k L a w le r . O v e rh is o b je c tio n , th e d is tr ic t c o u r t d e c id e d th a t H ill’s s ta te m e n t to B e n n e t w a s a d m is s ib le p u r s u a n t to th e r e s id u a l h e a r s a y e x c e p tio n , F e d . R . E v id . 8 0 7 . B e c a u s e B e n n e tt coul d n otre ca l l H i l l ’ s s t at em entful l y a nd ac cura t el y duri ng the tri al , the di stri ct c o u r t p e r m itte d B e n n e tt to r e a d th e s ta te m e n t to th e ju ry f r o m h e rd e b r ie f

in g r e p o r t, pur s ua ntt o the r e c or de d r e c ol l e c t i on he a r s a y e xc e pt i on, F e d. R . E vi d. 803( 5) . T he au d i o reco rd i n g o f th e tran sact i o n i t sel f w as al so p l ayed fo r th e j u ry.11 A. L a w l e rf i r s ta r gue s tha t , unde rthe S upr e m e C our t ’ s de c i s i on i n C r a w f or d v. W a s hi ngt on, 541 U . S . 36, 124 S . C t . 1354 ( 2004) , H i l l ’ s s t a t e m e ntt o A ge nt B e nne tti s t e s t i m oni a l a nd, be c a us e H i l l w a s una va i l abl e f orc r os s - e xa m i na t i on, the d is tr ic t c o u r t e rr e d b y in tr o d u c in g th a t s ta te m e n t. C r a w f or d, w hi c h abr oga t e d O hi o v. R obe r t s , 448 U . S . 56, 100 S . C t . 2531 ( 1 9 8 0 ) , h e ld th a t “[ w ]h e r e te s tim o n ia l e v id e n c e is a t is s u e . . . th e S ix th A m e ndm e ntde m a nds . . . una va i l abi l i ty a nd a pr i oroppor tuni ty f or c r o s s - e x a m in a tio n .” 5 4 1 U .S . a t 6 8 , 1 2 4 S . C t. a t 1 3 7 4 . T h is is a b r ig h t- lin e ru le : i f a s t a t e m e nti s t e s t i m oni a l a nd the de f e nda ntdi d notha ve a pr i oroppor tuni ty f or cro ss-ex am i n at i o n , th e d ecl aran tm u stt est i fy attri al fo r th e C o n fro n t at i o n C l au se t o b e s at i sf

i ed. P utdi ff

er ent l y, the C on fr on t at i on C l ause i s vi ol at ed i f at es t i m on i al s ta te m e n t is in tr o d u c e d a t tr ia l a n d th e d e f e n d a n t d id n o t h a v e a n o p p o r tu n ity to c r o s s - e x a m in e th e d e c la r a n t. H il l’ s s tatem en t t o B en n ett w as in tro d u ce d at trial th ro u g h B en n ett’ s t est i m o n y. H i l l d i d n o tt est i fy, an d L aw l er h ad n o p ri o r o p p o rtu n i ty t o cro sse xa m i ne H i l l . A s a r e s ul t , i f L a w l e rc a n de m ons tr a t e tha tH i l l ’ s s t a t e m e ntt o A ge nt B en n ett w as testim o n ial, th en C ra w fo rd es tab li sh es th at th e d istrict co u rt’s12

a dm i s s i on of

the s t a t e m e ntw a s a vi ol a t i on of L a w l e r ’ s S i xth A m e ndm e nt C o n fro n t at i o n C l au se ri g h t s. T h e C r a w f

o r d C o u r t le f

t “f o ra n o th e rd a y a n y e f

f o r t to s p e ll o u t a c om pr e he ns i ve de f

i ni t i on of ‘ t e s t i m oni a l . ’ ” I d. a t68, 124 S . C t . a t1374. I ti s not a ta l l c l e a rw he the rH i l l ’ s s t a t e m e ntt o A ge ntB e nne tti s t e s t i m oni a l f orpurpos e s of the C r a w f

or d rul e . E ve n i f

w e a s s um e tha ti ti s a nd the r e w a s a C r a w f or d vi ol a t i on in th is c a s e , th e e rr o rw a s h a r m le s s b e y o n d a r e a s o n ab le d o u b t. A c ons t i tut i ona l e rr orm us tbe di s r e ga r de d i f the e rr ori s ha r m l e s s be y ond a re as on abl e dou bt . U ni t ed S t at es v. C andel ar i o, 24 0 F . 3d 13 00 , 13 07 (11t h C i r. 20 01 ). T he S up re m e C ou rthas f ra m ed the i nq ui ry i n these t erm s: “ Is i tcl ea r be y ond a r e a s onabl e doubttha ta r a t i ona l j ury w oul d ha ve f ound the de f

e nda nt gui l ty abs e ntthe e rr or ? ” N e de rv. U ni t e d S t a t e s , 527 U . S . 1, 18, 119 S . C t . 1827, 1838 ( 1999) . S pe c i f

i c a l l y a s t o de c i di ng w he the ra vi ol a t i on of the C onf r ont a t i on C la u s e is h a r m le s s , th e C o u r t h a s e x p la in e d th a t: T he c orr e c ti nqui ry i s w he the r , a s s um i ng tha tthe da m a gi ng pot e nt i a l of the cro ss-ex am i n at i o n w ere fu l l y real i zed , a rev i ew i n g co u rtm i g h tn o n eth el ess sa y thatthe error w as harm l es s bey on d a re as on abl e dou bt . W hether s uch an e rr o ris h a r m le s s in a p a r tic u la rc a s e d e p e n d s u p o n a h o s t o f f a c to r s , a ll re adi l y a cc es si bl e t o revi ew i ng court s. T hese fa ct ors i ncl ud e the i m po rt ance of the w i tne s s ’ t e s t i m ony i n the pr os e c ut i on’ s c a s e , w he the rthe t e s t i m ony w a s c um ul a t i ve , the pr e s e nc e orabs e nc e of e vi de nc e c orr obor a t i ng or c ontr a di c t i ng the t e s t i m ony of the w i tne s s on m a t e r i a l poi nt s , the e xt e ntof c r o s s - e x a m in a tio n o th e rw is e p e r m itte d , a n d , o f c o u r s e , th e o v e r a ll s tr e n g th of the prosecut i on ’ s c as e.13

D el aw ar e v. V an A rs dal l , 47 5 U . S . 67 3, 68 4, 10 6 S . C t . 14 31 , 14 38 (198 6). E ve n w i thoutH i l l ’ s s t a t e m e ntt o A ge ntB e nne tt , the j ury w a s abl e t o he a rthe a c tua l a udi o t ape of

the tr a ns a c t i on. T he j ury a l s o ha d a w r i tt e n tr a ns c r i ptof the a udi o t ape a s w e l l a s a c om put e rs y nc hr oni z a t i on. B e nne ttt e s t i f i e d tha t , ba s e d on h e rm o n ito r in g th e tr a n s a c tio n a t th e tim e it w a s m a d e , th e tr a n s c r ip t a c c u r a te ly re fl ec t ed w hatw as sa i d and w ho w as spea ki ng du ri ng the tra nsac t i on as re fl ec t ed o n th e a u d io tap e . S p e c if ic a lly , B e n n e tt te s tif

ie d th a t s h e h e r s e lf

w a s ab le to i de nt i f y one of the voi c e s on the t ape w a s B i l l y J a c k L a w l e r . H e ri de nt i f i c a t i on of L a w l e rw a s ba s e d on he rc om pa r i s on of the voi c e s he he a r d w hi l e m oni t or i ng the 1 9 9 3 tran sa ctio n an d w h il e s u b se q u en tl y listen in g to th e tap e r ec o rd in g to L aw ler’s v o ic e a s s h e h e a r d it in a 1 9 9 5 c o u r t p r o c e e d in g a n d a t a 1 9 9 8 d e p o s itio n . A po rt i on of the t ape r ec ordi ng i s i naud i bl e. T he audi bl e port i on s, ho w ever , d e m o n s tr a te w h a t w a s h ap p e n in g d u r in g th e tr a n s a c tio n . A f te rw a lk in g in to

“ T y s on G r oc e ry , ” H i l l s a i d, “ H e r e ’ s tw o- thi r ty . ” C l e a r l y H i l l w a s ha ndi ng ove rthe $230 w or th of

f ood s t a m ps . S hor t l y the r e a f t e ra pe r s on w hos e voi c e A ge nt Be n n e ttw a s ab l e t o i d e n t i f y a s th a to f

La w l e rc a n b e h e a r d s a y i n g : “ O k a y . So that ’ l l be on e- ni nety. ” H i l l re spon ded, “ O ne-ni nety? ” L aw l erca n then b e hea rd coun t i ng ou tthe m on ey . F i nal l y, H i l l sa i d: “ T hank s B i l l y J ac k. ” T o w hi ch L a w le rr e p lie d , “Y e a h m a n .” E v e n w ith ju s t th e tap e a n d tr a n s c r ip t th e ju ry w o u ld14

h a v e h a d n o tr o u b le f

ig u r in g o u t w h a t h ap p e n e d in th a t g r o c e ry s to r e . N o rw o u ld it h a v e a n y tr o u b le id e n tif y in g th e p e r s o n H ill d e a lt w ith a s “B illy J a c k ,” s in c e th a t is w h a t H ill c a lle d h im w h ile th e tr a n s a c tio n w a s o c c u rr in g . H ill’s s ta te m e n t th e r e a f te rto A g e n t B e n n e tt w a s in tr o d u c e d in a n a tte m p t to m a ke i ttha tm uc h c l e a r e rtha ti tw a s L a w l e rw ho ha d pa r t i c i pa t e d i n the t ape d f ood s t a m p tr a ns a c t i on. B uttha ts t a t e m e ntof H i l l ’ s w a s notve ry he l pf ul t o the prosec ut i on . A s L aw l erhas bee n q ui ck t o p oi ntou t , H i l l w as ho m el es s a nd w as p a id f o rh e lp in g A g e n t B e n n e tt. E v e n th e p r o s e c u to rw a rn e d th e ju ry n o t to r e ly so l el y o n th e w o rd o f H i l l , ex p l ai n i n g th atth e t est i m o n y o f a p ai d i n fo rm an tm u st be t a ke n “ w i th a gr a i n of s a l t . ” T ha ti s w hy the pr os e c ut orf oc us e d m or e on the a u d io tap e its e lf

d u r in g c lo s in g a r g u m e n ts a n d w h a t c o u ld b e g le a n e d f r o m it di r e c t l y , r a the rtha n r e l y i ng on w ha tH i l l s a i d a f t e rw a r ds t o B e nne tt . T he g o v e rn m e n t in tr o d u c e d p e r s u a s iv e e v id e n c e o th e rth a n H ill’s s ta te m e n t to B e n n e tt th a t L a w le rh a d p a r tic ip a te d in th e tap e d tr a n s a c tio n . H ill’s s ta te m e n t w a s n o t o n ly cum ul at i ve, i tw as al so no tpart i cul ar l y per suas i ve. S ee V an A rs dal l , 47 5 U . S . at 684, 106 S . C t . a t1438 ( s t a t i ng tha tthe i m por t a nc e of the w i tne s s ’ t e s t i m ony a nd w hether i ti s c um ul at i ve ar e f ac t ors t o con si der i n the harm l es snes s a nal ys i s) . F u r th e r m o r e , in lo o k in g a t “th e o v e r a ll s tr e n g th o f th e p r o s e c u tio n ’s c a s e ,” V an A rs dal l , 47 5 U . S . at68 4, 10 6 S . C t . at14 38 , the go vernm enti ntrodu ce d15

s ubs t a nt i a l a nd pe r s ua s i ve e vi de nc e of L a w l e r ’ s gui l tapa r tf

r om the 1993 tr a n s a c tio n . F o re x a m p le , it is u n d is p u te d th a t d u r in g th e p e r io d o f tim e in qu es t i on , L aw l erw as nam ed on the “ T ys on G roce ry ” a rt i cl es of i ncorpo ra t i on as the ow ner, pres i dent , tre as urer , and sec re t ary. L aw l erappl i ed for a nd w as al l ow ed t o p art i ci pat e i n the U S D A food st am p p rogram . T he evi dence s ho w s thatL aw l er a tt e nde d the or i e nt a t i on r e qui r e d t o pa r t i c i pa t e i n the f ood s t a m p pr ogr a m a nd s ig n e d a f

o r m a c k n o w le d g in g r e s p o n s ib ility f o rf o o d s ta m p v io la tio n s . D uri ng the t i m e per i od i n q uest i on , “ T ys on G roce ry , ” asm al l conv eni ence s to r e , w a s r e d e e m in g a lm o s t a s m a n y f o o d s ta m p s a s a f

u ll- s iz e W in n - D ix ie gr oc e ry s t or e l oc a t e d i n the s a m e ne i ghborhood. I n one m onth, J a nua ry 1998, “T y s o n G r o c e ry ” r e d e e m e d m o r e f o o d s ta m p s th a n th a t W in n - D ix ie s to r e d id . A ge ntB e nne ttt e s t i f

i e d tha t , i n he re xpe r topi ni on, the onl y w a y tha t“ T y s on G r oc e ry ” c oul d ha ve done tha tw a s by i l l e ga l l y tr a f f i c ki ng i n f

ood s t a m ps . S he p o in te d o u t th a t “T y s o n G r o c e ry ” h a d a f o o d in v e n to ry o f

o n ly $ 2 6 ,0 0 0 , w h ile W in n - D ix ie h a d a f

o o d in v e n to ry o f

$ 1 2 ,0 0 0 ,0 0 0 . F ur the r m or e , L a w l e rw a s the s ol e s i gna t ory on the “ T y s on G r oc e ry ” ba nk ac coun t . H e per sonal l y deposi t ed the food st am ps i nt o thatac coun t , and t hen w r o te c h e c k s im m e d ia te ly a f te rth e d e p o s it w ith d r a w in g th e c a s h f r o m th e a c c o u n t.16

A bank re pres ent at i ve t es t i fi ed thatsuch bank i ng prac t i ce s w er e very unu sual for a b u s in e s s a c c o u n t. A l l thi s e vi de nc e s tr ongl y s uppor t s the i nf e r e nc e tha tL a w l e rha d the c r i m i na l i nt e ntne c e s s a ry t o be gui l ty of the c ha r ge s a ga i ns thi m . B a s e d on the fo re g o in g , w e h o ld th at if th e a d m issio n o f th e c o n fid en ti al in fo rm an t H il l’ s s t a t e m e ntvi ol a t e d the C onf r ont a t i on C l aus e , the e rr orw a s ha r m l e s s be y ond a r e a s o n ab le d o u b t.

B. L a w l e r ’ s s e c ond a nd thi r d a r gum e nt s a r e tha te ve n i f the r e w a s no vi ol a t i on of the C on fr on t at i on C l ause , as expl i ca t ed i n C ra w ford, the di stri ctcourtst i l l erre d b y a d m ittin g H ill’s s ta te m e n t b e c a u s e th a t s ta te m e n t d id n o t m e e t th e r e q u ir e m e n ts o f th e r e s i d u a l o rr e c o r d e d r e c o l l e c t i o n h e a r s a y e x c e p t i o n s . Ag a i n , e v e n i f we a s s um e the di s tr i c tc our tdi d c om m i tthos e e vi de nt i a ry e rr or s , L a w l e r ’ s c onvi c t i ons are d u e t o b e affi rm ed b ecau se an y erro r w o u l d h av e b een h arm l ess. E vi de nt i a ry e rr or s a r e s ubj e c tt o ha r m l e s s e rr orr e vi e w . U ni t e d S t a t e s v. H enders on , 40 9 F . 3d 12 93 , 13 00 (11t h C i r. 20 05 ). N on -c on st i tut i on al errors ar e subj ec tt o a l es s dem andi ng st andard than err ors of aconst i tut i on al nature. S ee U ni t e d S t a t e s v. M a the ni a , 409 F . 3d 1289, 1292 ( 11th C i r . 2005) ; U ni t e d S t a t e s v.17

R obl e s , 408 F . 3d 1324, 1327 ( 11th C i r . 2005) . B e c a us e w e f ound the a dm i s s i on of H ill’s s ta te m e n t to b e h a r m le s s u n d e rth e m o r e o n e r o u s s ta n d a r d ap p lic ab le to const i tut i on al errors , i tfol l ow s thatthe error w as al so harm l es s und erthe ea si er st an d ard ap p l i cab l e t o n o n -co n st i tu t i o n al ev i d en t i ary erro rs. C. L a w le r ’s f

o u r th a r g u m e n t is th a t th e d is tr ic t c o u r t e rr e d b y d e n y in g h is m ot i on f ora ne w tr i a l ba s e d on ne w e vi de nc e tha tw oul d t e nd t o unde r m i ne the r e l i abi l i ty of

H i l l ’ s s t a t e m e ntt o A ge ntB e nne tt . I n or de rt o e s t abl i s h tha tthe di s tr i c tc our tabus e d i t s di s c r e t i on i n de ny i ng a m ot i on f ora ne w tr i a l ba s e d on n e w ly d is c o v e r e d e v id e n c e , th e d e f e n d a n t m u s t s h o w “th e e v id e n c e is s u c h th a t a ne w tr i a l w oul d pr obabl y pr oduc e a di f f e r e ntr e s ul t . ” U ni t e d S t a t e s v. S c hl e i , 122 F .3 d 9 4 4 , 9 9 1 (1 1 th C ir. 1 9 9 7 ). B y h o ld in g th at th e a d m issio n o f th e in fo rm an t’ s st at em entw as harm l es s bey on d a re as on abl e dou bt , w e have al re ady det erm i ned tha t“ i t[ i s ] c l e a rbe y ond a r e a s onabl e doubttha ta r a t i ona l j ury w oul d ha ve f ound th e d e f e n d a n t g u ilty ab s e n t th e e rr o r [ .]” N e d e r , 5 2 7 U .S . a t 1 8 , 1 1 9 S . C t. a t 1 8 3 8 . A s a r e s u lt, L a w le r ’s a r g u m e n t f a ils o n th is g r o u n d a s w e ll. D. L a w l e rne xta r gue s tha tthe gove rnm e ntc ons truc t i ve l y a m e nde d the i ndi c tm e ntthr ough i t s i ntr oduc t i on of e vi de nc e r e l a t i ng t o the 1993 tr a ns a c t i on18

b e tw e e n h im a n d H ill. H e c o n te n d s th a t th e ju ry w a s le d to b e lie v e th a t it c o u ld c o n v ic t h im o n th e b a s is o f th e 1 9 9 3 tr a n s a c tio n a lo n e . S p e c if ic a lly , a c c o r d in g to L a w l e r , be c a us e the r e w a s no e vi de nc e t o s uppor tthe c r i m i na l i nt e nte l e m e ntof the c o u n ts in th e in d ic tm e n t, th e ju ry m u s t h a v e b e e n u n d e rth e im p r e s s io n th a t it c o u ld c onvi c thi m on a l l f

or ty - f i ve c ount s i n the i ndi c tm e nti f the y be l i e ve d he ha d the r e q u is ite in te n t in th e 1 9 9 3 tr a n s a c tio n . W e f in d n o m e r it in th is a r g u m e n t. F i r s t , L a w l e r ’ s de f

e ns e t o the c ha r ge d of

f e ns e s — tha the di d notha ve the r e q u is ite c r im in a l in te n t— ap p lie d w ith th e s a m e f o r c e to th e 1 9 9 3 tr a n s a c tio n a s to the c ha r ge d of

f e ns e s . T he r e i s no r e a s on t o be l i e ve tha tthe j ury w oul d ha ve f ound tha tL a w l e rha d the r e qui s i t e c r i m i na l i nt e ntw i th r e ga r d t o the 1993 tr a ns a c t i on, b u tn o tw i th reg ard t o th e ch arg ed o ffen ses. S eco n d , an d m o re fu n d am en t al l y, the r e i s m or e tha n e nough e vi de nc e i n the r e c or d i nde pe nde ntof the 1993 tra nsac t i on t o sup po rta f i nd i ng thathe had t he re qu i si t e c ri m i nal i nt ent . S ee supra, a t13–16. E . L aw l er ’ s f

i nal se tof ar gu m ent s a tt ac k h i s s ent ence . H e put s f orw ar d three cont ent i on s abo utthe ca l cul at i on of i t . “ In se nt enci ng gu i del i nes c as es , w e r evi ew for c l ea r e rr or a di stri ctcourt ’ s f ac tual fi nd i ng s a nd re vi ew de no vo the di stri ct19

c our t ’ s appl i c a t i on of

l a w t o thos e f

a c t s . ” U ni t e d S t a t e s v. C ove r , 199 F . 3d 1270, 12 74 (11t h C i r. 20 00 ). 1. L a w l e r ’ s f

i r s ta r gum e nti s tha tthe di s tr i c tc our tc l e a r l y e rr e d by de t e r m i ni ng th a t th e lo s s a ttr ib u tab le to h im w a s $ 4 ,4 6 1 ,1 2 4 . H e c o n te n d s th a t, b a s e d o n h is la c k o f k n o w le d g e o f

th e f o o d s ta m p f

r a u d o p e r a tio n , h e s h o u ld n o t b e h e ld ac coun t abl e f

or thatent i re fi gu re . L aw l er ’ s s ec on d ass ert i on i s thatthe di stri ct c o u r t c le a r ly e rr e d b y n o t g r a n tin g h im a m in o rr o le r e d u c tio n . B o th a r g u m e n ts hi nge on w he the rone c r e di t s L a w l e r ’ s a s s e r t i on tha the w a s dupe d by F r e ddy a nd G e or ge . T he di s tr i c tc our tdi d notbuy i t , a nd the r e a r e s e ve r a l good r e a s ons s u p p o r tin g th e c o u r t’s f in d in g in th a t r e s p e c t: ( 1 ) L a w le rw a s th e o w n e r , p r e s id e n t, treasu rer, an d secret ary o f “ T yso n G ro cery”; (2 ) h e o b t ai n ed th e fo o d st am p l i cen se f r om the U S D A a nd a tt e nde d the or i e nt a t i on s e m i na r ; ( 3) he ope ne d a ba nk ac coun tfor the st ore a nd w as the on l y s i gn at ory; and (4) he personal l y deposi t ed appr oxi m a t e l y thr e e m i l l i on dol l a r s i n f ood s t a m ps i nt o tha tba nk a c c ounta nd w rot e the checks i m m edi at el y w i thd ra w i ng the fund s, a pra ct i ce a banker t es t i fi ed w a s unus ua l . T he di s tr i c tc our tdi d notc l e a r l y e rri n e i the ri t s de t e r m i na t i on of the l os s a ttr i but abl e t o L a w l e rori t s de ni a l of a m i norr ol e r e duc t i on.On No vember 1 , 2 00 1, theguide lin e s f or mon e y la un deringof

fens e s w e reamend e d to 4 direc tly tie the calculation of the money laundering of

fenselevel to the off

ense level for the crime that generated the money that was laundered. SeeU.S.S.G. Supp., App. C , amend. 634, at 227; U.S.S.C . § 2S1.1(a)( 1) (statingthat the baseoffense leve l is “[t ]he offenselevel for the underlying of

fensefrom which thelaundered funds were derived”if the def endant c ommitt ed the underlying of

fense ). In addition to this chang e, the sentencingcommission made clea r that “[i] n a ca se in which the de fenda nt is convicted of a

count of launderingfunds and a count for the underlying of

fensefrom which thelaundered funds were derived, the c ounts shall be grouped pursuant to subsection (c ) of § 3D1.2 ( Groups of Closely-Related Counts).”U.S.S.C . § 2S1.1, cmt. n.6. Th epurp os eof

theamendment w a s: to promote proportionality by providingincre ased penalties for de fenda nts who launder fun d s d eri v edfr o mm o re s eri o u s un d erl yi n g cri m i n al co n d u ct , s u chas dru g tra ff

i ck i n g, crimes of violence, a

nd fra ud offenses that g enerate relatively high loss amounts, and decrease d penalties for

defendants who launder funds derived from less serious underlying criminal conduct, such a s basic fraud off enses that g enerate relatively low los s amou

nts . U.S.S.G. Supp., App. C , amend. 634, at 227. Had L awler

been sentence d under a

version of theguidelines with this amendment incorpora ted, his fra

ud and money

laundering c onvictions might well havebeen grouped. That prospec t, however , does not answer the que stion of whether his convictions should be grouped under thepre- amendment version of the money laundering guidelines that applies to this case. Th e20 01 amendment cha ng e d mo retha

n th egroup ingrule , it

c ha ng e d entire ly

thewa y of fens e levels are calculated f

or money laundering crimes. The a mendment was not a

clarification of how the then- exis ting guidelines opera te; it reworke d the entirestructureof the money laundering guidelines in order to effe ctuate thestated purposeof achievingproportionality . Given the diff

erences between thepre- and post-amendment guidelines, the 2001 amendment do e s li ttl eto inf

or m ou r j udgment o n th egroup ingiss uebe fo reus . Cf . Unit e d St ate s v . D e sc e nt, 20 2. L a w l e r ’ s thi r d a r gum e nti s tha tthe f ood s t a m p f

r aud c ount s ( c ount s 1–35) and t he m on ey l aund er i ng coun t s ( coun t s 36– 45 ) s ho ul d h ave been group ed t o g e th e ru n d e rth e 1 9 9 7 v e r s i o n o f th e s e n t e n c i n g g u i d e l i n e s p u r s u a n tt o U. S . S . G. §3 D 1. 2(c) (199 7). F ai l i ng t o g roup the food st am p fraud coun t s w i th the m on ey 4292 F.3d 703 ( 11th Cir. 2002) (re fusingto retroactively apply the 2001 amendment’s grouping c omm e nta

ry to group thede fendant’ s f ra ud and mon e y la un deringc ountsbe c a

us ethec ha

ng eto the money

laundering guidelines was substantive, rather than mere ly

clarifying) . 21 l aund er i ng coun t s r es ul t ed i n a tw o-po i nti ncre as e i n L aw l er ’ s f i nal offe nse l evel pu rs uantt o U . S . S . G . § 3 D 1. 4. T hati s w hati s a tst ake w i th thi s i ss ue. T he s e nt e nc i ng gui de l i ne s ha ve pr ovi s i ons di r e c t i ng tha tc e r t a i n ty pe s of offe nses be grou ped t og ether f or the pu rpose of c al cul at i ng a s i ng l e off ense l evel f ortha tgr oup of

of f e ns e s . T he ge ne r a l purpos e of thos e pr ovi s i ons i s t o br i ng t oge the ri n a s i ngl e gr oup thos e c ount s tha t“ r e pr e s e nte s s e nt i a l l y the s a m e ty pe of w r o n g f u l c o n d u c t w ith th e s a m e u ltim a te h a r m .” U .S .S .G . C h . 3 , p t. D , in tr o . c m t. I n ope r a t i on, § 3D 1. 2 gi ve s f ourc i r c um s t a nc e s unde rw hi c h of f e ns e s a r e t o be gr oupe d. U . S . S . G . §3D 1. 2 ( 1997) . L a w l e ronl y a r gue s tha tone of thos e f our si tuat i on s i s app l i cabl e t o h i m , and t hati s 3D 1. 2(c) . S ect i o n 3 D 1 . 2 (c), st at es: A l l coun t s i nv ol vi ng subst ant i al l y the sa m e harm shal l be grou ped t og ether i nt o a s i ngl e G r oup. C ount s i nvol ve s ubs t a nt i a l l y the s a m e ha r m w i thi n the m ea ni ng of thi s rul e: (c) W h en o n e o f th e co u n t s em b o d i es co n d u ctth ati s treat ed as a s pe c i f i c of f e ns e c ha r a c t e r i s t i c i n, orothe ra dj us tm e ntt o, the gui de l i ne ap p l i cab l e t o an o th er o f th e co u n t s.22

U .S .S .G . § 3 D 1 .2 ( c ) ( 1 9 9 7 ) . T h e p u rp o s e o f th is s u b s e c tio n is to p r e v e n t “‘d o u b le c o u n tin g ’ o f

o f f e n s e b e h a v io r ” in s itu a tio n s w h e r e “th e o f f e n s e s a r e c lo s e ly r e la te d .” I d . c m t. n .5 . In att em pt i ng t o sho w that§ 3 D 1. 2(c) i s app l i cabl e t o h i m , L aw l erar gu es th a t th e f o o d s ta m p f

r a u d c o u n ts e m b o d y c o n d u c t th a t w a s tr e a te d a s a s p e c if ic o f f e n s e c h a r a c te r is tic in th e g u id e lin e s ap p lic ab le to th e m o n e y la u n d e r in g c o u n ts . T he spec i fi c off

ense char ac t er i st i c i n the m on eyl aund er i ng gu i del i ne thatL aw l er r e f e r s us t o i s U . S . S . G . § 2S 1. 2( b) ( 1) ( B ) ( 1997) , w hi c h s pe c i f i e s a tw o- poi nt enhancem ent“ [i ] f the defendantkn ew thatthe fund s w er e the proceeds of . . . [a ] sp eci fi ed u n l aw fu l act i v i ty. ” T h e k i n d o f fo o d st am p frau d i n v o l v ed i n th i s case qu al i fi es as a s peci fi ed un l aw ful ac t i vi ty. S ee 18 U . S . C . § 1 95 6(c) (7)( D ). L aw l er a r g u e s th a t th e § 2 S 1 .2 ( b ) ( 1 ) ( B ) e n h a n c e m e n t, w h ic h w a s u s e d to in c r e a s e h is offe nse l evel for the m on ey l aund er i ng coun t s, w as base d o n con du ctthatw as e m b o d ie d in th e f

o o d s ta m p f

r a u d c o u n t. I f

L a w le ris c o rr e c t, § 3 D 1 .2 ( c ) w o u ld di r e c ttha thi s f

ood s t a m p f

r a ud c ount s a nd m one y l a unde r i ng c ount s be gr oupe d. In deci di ng no tt o g roup the food st am p fraud coun t s a nd the m on ey l a unde r i ng c ount s unde r§ 3D 1. 2( c ) , the di s tr i c tc our tc ons i de r e d the tw o l e a di ng o u t- o f - c ir c u it d e c is io n s th a t h a v e d e a lt w ith th is is s u e : U n ite d S ta te s v . L o m b a r d i,The mail fraud cha rg es were dueto the defendant’s securinginsuranceproce eds by 5 havinganother

person se t fire to his proper ty , and the money

laundering charg es were ba sed on bank deposits he madewith the insuranceproce eds. I d. 23 5 F . 3d 56 8 (1stC i r. 19 93 ), and U ni t ed S t at es v. B art l ey , 23 0 F . 3d 66 7 (4t h C i r. 20 00 ). I n L om ba r di , the de f e nda ntpl e a de d gui l ty t o f ourc ount s of

m a i l f r a ud a nd tw o c ount s of

m one y l a unde r i ng. 5 F . 3d a t569. T he F i r s tC i r c ui tf ound tha tthe 5 de f e nda nt ’ s m a i l f

r a ud of f e ns e s w e r e nott o be gr oupe d w i th the m one y l a unde r i ng of f e ns e s pur s ua ntt o § 3D 1. 2( c ) , e ve n though he ha d r e c e i ve d a tw o- poi nt e n h a n c e m e n t p u r s u a n t to § 2 S 1 .2 ( b ) ( 1 ) ( B ) . I t r e a s o n e d th a t: T h e “c o n d u c t” e m b o d ie d in th e m a il f r a u d c o u n ts is th e v a r io u s a c ts c ons t i tut i ng the f

r a uds , c oupl e d w i th the r e qui s i t e i nt e ntt o de c e i ve ; the “ s pe c i f i c of f e ns e c ha r a c t e r i s t i c , ” i n U . S . S . G . § 2S 1. 2( b) ( 1) ( B ) , i s know l e dge tha tthe f unds be i ng l a unde r e d a r e the pr oc e e ds of a m a i l f r a ud. I thappe ns tha tL om ba r di ’ s know l e dge of the f unds ’ s our c e de r i ve s f

r om the f a c ttha the c o mmi tt e d th e f

r a u d s , b u tth a td o e s n o tma k e th e f r a u d u l e n ta c t s th e s a me th i n g a s k n o w l e d g e o f

th e m. I d. a t571. I n othe rw or ds , the F i r s tC i r c ui the l d tha tthe “ know l e dge ” f r om the m o n e y la u n d e r in g s p e c if ic o f f e n s e c h a r a c te r is tic d o e s n o t e q u a te to th e “c o n d u c t” r e q u ir e d u n d e r§ 3 D 1 .2 ( c ) . I t a ls o n o te d th a t g r o u p in g in th is c ir c u m s ta n c e w o u ld c r e a t e a n a nom a l ous s i tua t i on i n tha ta pe r s on w ho c om m i tt e d both the f r a ud a nd th e m o n ey l au n d eri n g w o u l d recei v e th e sam e o ffen se l ev el as so m eo n e w h o j u st24

l aund er ed the m on ey , bu thapp ened t o k no w thatthe m on ey w as fr om a s peci fi ed unl a w f ul a c t i vi ty . I d. In B art l ey , the defendantpl ea ded g ui l ty t o o ne drug coun tand o ne m on ey l aund er i ng coun t . 23 0 F . 3d at66 8. In consi deri ng w hether § 3D 1. 2(c) re qu i re d gr oupi ng the tw o c ount s , the F our th C i r c ui tde c i de d nott o dr a w a s tr i c tdi s t i nc t i on be tw e e n know l e dge a nd c onduc t . I ns t e a d, the c our tl ooke d t o the purpos e s be hi nd § 3 D 1 .2 ( c )

— th e p r e v e n tio n o f “‘d o u b le c o u n tin g ’ o f

o f f e n s e b e h a v io r ” in s itu a tio n s w h e r e “th e o f f e n s e s a r e c lo s e ly r e la te d ,” U .S .S .G . § 3 D 1 .2 ( c ) c m t. n .5 . Th e c o u r tf

o u n d th a tf

a i l i n g t o g r o u p w o u l d r e s u l ti n “ d o u b l e c o u n t i n g ” o f th e s a me of f e ns e be ha vi or— onc e i n the i ni t i a l e nha nc e m e ntof a c ount ’ s of

f e ns e l e ve l a nd ag ai n i n th e cal cu l at i o n o f th e fi n al o ffen se l ev el u n d er th e g ro u p i n g ru l es. B art l ey, 23 0 F . 3d at67 1. T he B art l ey courtfoun d thatthe offens es w er e c l osel y r el at ed un der § 3D 1. 2(c) because: b o th th e i n d i c tm e n ta n d th e P S R e x p l i c i t l y r e f e rt o th e a s s o c i a t i o n o f

th e two c o n s p ir a c ie s , a n d th e d is tr ic t c o u r t f o u n d th a t th e m o n e y la u n d e r in g “w a s to conceal and m ov e the proceeds . . . [a nd ] t o g ettho se proceeds t o o ther i ndi vi dua l s w ho w e r e i n the c ons i gnm e ntorf r ont i ng c ha i n of

c om m a nd of th e d ru g s .” Id. (a l t er at i on i n o ri gi nal ). T he B a r t l e y c our tdi s a gr e e d w i th the r e a s oni ng i n L om ba r di on the gr ound thatdi st i ng ui shi ng betw ee n k no w l edge and con du ct“ w ou l d p rom ot e a n app roac h25

to th e S e n te n c in g G u id e lin e s th a t w o u ld r e q u ir e d is tr ic t c o u r ts to u n n e c e s s a r ily

‘ sp l i th ai rs’ o r g u ess co n g ressi o n al i n t en ti n ev al u at i n g w h i ch sp eci fi c o ffen se c ha r a c t e r i s t i c s orothe ra dj us tm e nt s a r e c ove r e d by s ubs e c t i on ( c ) . ” I d. a t671. T he B art l ey courtal so no t ed thatdraw i ng thi s di st i nct i on w ou l d res ul ti n n ever gr oupi ng m one y l a unde r i ng of f e ns e s w i th drug of

f e ns e s , e ve n though the gu i del i nes app ar ent l y c on t em pl at e thatsuch offe nses w i l l be grou ped u nd er § 3 D 1 .2 ( c ) . I d . ( c itin g U n ite d S ta te s S e n te n c in g C o m m is s io n , M o s t F r e q u e n tly A sked Q uest i on s A bo utthe S ent enci ng G ui del i nes 21 (7t h ed. 19 94 )) . T h e d is tr ic t c o u r t in th is c a s e a g r e e d w ith th e F ir s t C ir c u it’s r e a s o n in g in L om bardi and d et erm i ned t hatL aw l er ’ s f oo d st am p fraud coun t s a nd m on ey l aund er i ng coun t s s ho ul d n otbe grou ped u nd er§ 3 D 1. 2(c) . Itdeci ded t hat “k n o w le d g e ” a s u s e d in § 2 S 1 .2 ( b ) ( 1 ) ( B ) is n o t e q u iv a le n t to th e “c o n d u c t” r e qui r e d by § 3D 1. 2( c ) . T he c our ta l s o f ound tha tthe f

ood s t a m p f

r a ud a nd the m on ey l aund er i ng w er e “ di st i nctcr i m es w i th d i ff er entpu rposes . ” I tw as further pers uaded n ott o g roup un der § 3D 1. 2(c) , because group i ng i n thi s c i rc um st ance w oul d gi ve a pe r s on w ho c om m i tt e d both the m one y l a unde r i ng a nd the f r a ud the s a m e of f e ns e l e ve l a s a pe r s on w ho c om m i tt e d onl y the m one y l a unde r i ng, but k n e w th e m o n e y w a s p r o c e e d s o f a f r a u d .26

F o rth e r e a s o n s th e d is tr ic t c o u r t g a v e , w e a g r e e w ith it th a t th e r a tio n a le fr om L om bardi i s m ore pers uasi ve i n thi s c as e. A pp l yi ng the di st i nct i on betw ee n the “ kn ow l edge” fr om § 2 S 1. 2(b)(1)(B) and the “ cond uct ” r equi re d b y § 3D 1. 2(c) w o u ld n o t r e s u lt in u n n e c e s s a ry h a irs p littin g , a s th e c o u r t in B a r tle y s u g g e s te d . S ee , 23 0 F . 3d at67 1. T he di st i nct i on betw ee n the tw o i s unavo i dabl e a nd com es fr om the pl ai n d i ff

er ence i n the pl ai n l angu age of the tw o o pera t i ve gu i del i nes p r o v is io n s . B e c a u s e th e f o o d s ta m p f

r a u d c o u n ts d id n o t e m b o d y c o n d u c t th a t is treat ed as a sp eci fi c o ffen se ch aract eri st i c i n th e m o n ey l au n d eri n g co u n t s, grou pi ng un der § 3D 1. 2(c) i s notw arra nt ed. T he di stri ctcourtcom m i tt ed no error. I V. Fo rth e f o r e g o i n g r e a s o n s , th e j u d g me n to f th e d i s tr i c tc o u r ti s AFFI RM ED as t o b o th ap p el l an t s.