## In the



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

F o rth eS e v e n th C ir cu it
N o. 06

- 2574 U NI T ED S TATE SOF A MERI CA, P la intif f-A pp ellee, v . R OBERT S T E PH E NS ON, D e f e ndan t

-Appe l l ant
.
A pp eal from the United S t ates Di strictC our t fo r the N o rthernDi stricto f Illino is, Eas tern Div isi on. No . 04 C R 243 B

—Mark R. Fi li p, Judge

. A RGUED A PRIL 30, 2007

— D ECIDED F EB RU AR Y 17, 2009

Befo re R OV NER, W OO D , a nd S YKES, C ircu it Judges . R OV NER, Cir cu i t Judge

. R ob er t St ep h en so n ap p ea ls hi s s entence fo r dis tr ibuti on o fa contr ol l ed substa nce, obj ecting to the enhan c ed penal ty he r ecei ved f ordi str ibuti ng cr ack coca i ne. H e a rgues fi rs t, thatthe gov er nm en t fai l ed to pro ve that he so l d crac k a s o pp ose d to an ot h er form of co c ain e , s ec on d th at th e e n h an c ed p en alt i e s f o r c r a c kc o c a i ne a r e u nc o ns t i t ut i on a l l y v a g ue , a nd , fi nal l y, thatthe dist ri ct c ourthad i nsuffi ci ent e vi dence to i ncl ud e o ne ki l ogr am o fpri orcr ack dist ributi on a s re l evantco nd uct. W e a ffi rm o n eac h poi nt.2 N o. 06

- 2574 I n 2 0 0 1 , th e D r u gE n f o r c e me n t Adm i n i s t r a t i o n ( DE A) tar get ed St ephenson i n i ts ongo i ng i nvest i gat ion i nto cra ck deal i ng bym em ber s ofthe GangsterDis ci ple s s tr eet g an gi n Ev an st o n, I l l i no i s. As pa r t o fthe i nv es ti g at i o n, the DE A em ploye d a co nfi denti also urce w ho had nego ti ate d cr ac kde al s wi thpe r son s i n the a r ea b efo r e, i nc l udi ng St ephenson. The co nfi denti also urce knew S tephenson as a drug sel l erwh o deal t e xcl usi vel y in cr ack coca i ne. On J ul y 1 7, 2 00 1, a fte r t wo ph o ne c al l s ar r angi ngthe ter m s o fthe tr ansact i on, S tephenson and the co nfi denti al agen t m et in a p a r king lot ofan E van ston YM C A w he re Step he ns on so ld the con fi d en tial sou rce 36.6 gram s of a whi te c hunky s ubs ta nc e f o r $ 1, 100. B o ththe DEA ag en t and the co nfi denti also urce vi sual l y i denti fi ed the subst an ce a s cr ac k, a nd fi el d t es ts c o nfi r m ed th atthe pow der c ontained som e for m o fco cai ne. A pp ro xi m ate l y tw o w eek s l ate r, the c onfi denti also urce re -c on ta c te d Ste p h en so n an d , afte r se ve ra l p h on e c alls ar r an g ing the de al, the t wo meta g ain. Thi s ti m e, the co nfi den ti als o ur ce pur ch ased a pl as ti c ba g g i e co ntai nin g 5 7. 7 g ra m s o fa hard, br own i sh ta n chunky s ubst an ce f o r $ 1, 55 0. Aga i n, bo ththe DEA ag en t an d the co nfi den ti als o ur ce i den ti fi ed th e su bs ta nc e as c r ac ka nd fi el d test s ind i cate d that the pro du ct c ontained cocaine. DE A ag en ts ar re ste d Ste phenson on Novem ber5, 20 01. I n a p o s t
- a r r e s ti nt e r v i e w, a ft e r b e i ngMi r a nd i z e d, S te phe ns o n a dm i tt ed th athe w as a cr ac kde al eri n the E van ston , I ll inois area. H e reve a le d t ha t he be gan pu rc h as in g s m a l l am ou n ts of cr ac k in 19 96 , an d ev en tu ally bega n buyi ng f our and fi ve ounce quanti ti es. H e e sti m ate dN o. 06

- 2574 3 th athe ha d pur ch as ed one ki l o g r am o fc r ac kfr o m o ne parti cul arse l l ero verthe cour se ofa fi ve to six ye ar p er iod , en d in g in 20 03 . In a se c on d m e e tin g, ag ain afte r b eingM i r an di ze d, S te phe ns on vi ewe d a t ape o fthe A u gu st 2 d ru g s ale an d co n firm ed th at h e a p p ea re d in the v i deo s el l i ng cr ack. On Januar y 1 3, 2005 , St ephenson e nter ed a b l i nd pl ea to counts one and tw o ofthe superse ding i nd i ctm ent which ch ar ged him w ith know ingly and i nt en tional lydi st r ibuting cra ck coca i ne i n vi ol ati on of21 U
. S. C. § 8 41( a) ( 1)

— i n exces s offi ve gr am s in count one and fifty gr am s in count tw o. A ftera M ay 31, 20 05 sente nci ng hea ring, o n J une 2, 20 06, the di strict c ourtse ntenced S tephenson to 180 m onths on counts one and tw o, to be se rv ed concur re ntl y, a fi ne o f $1 , 0 0 0 a nd a fi v e y e a r t e r m o f s up e r v i s e d r e l e a s e f o r each count. S t e p h e n s o n a p p e a l e d t o th i s c o u r t a l l e g i n g ( 1 ) th att he g o ve r nm en t f ai l ed to pr o ve by a pr epo nde r an ce o fthe evi de nc e tha tS t e ph e ns o n po s s e s s e d c r a c kc o c a i ne as opposed to anothe r f or m o fco cai ne; ( 2) thatthe enhanced penal ti es f orcr ack coca i ne ar e unconst i tution allyvague; an d ( 3) tha t th e di st r i ctc ou r t er r ed byi nc l udi ngo ne ki l ogr am o fpri orcr ack sal es as re l evantco nd uct. St ephenson’s p rim ar y s tr ate gy i n thi s a pp eali s t o cast doubt on the g ove rnm ent’ s e vi dence thathe s ol d crac k a s o ppo se d t o a no th erf o r m o fc o ca i ne. Al th o ug h r ec en t j ud i ci aland c on gr ess i onalact i ons have l owered so m e o f the s entence s f ordrug cri m es i nvol vi ng crackco cai ne, se n te n c es for th e sa le of c ra c k c oc ain e a re st ill sign ifica n tly h igh er th an th os e fo r ot h er f o rm s o f co c ain e, an d th is4 N o. 06

- 2574

For e xa m pl e, e ffe c t i ve N ove m ber 1, 20 07, the Se nt en c i ng 1 Co m m is si on alt ered the g u ideli nes suggest ions f or cr ack se n ten cing b y red u cing the b ase o ffen se lev el associa ted w ith ea ch q u a n t i t y o f cr a ck b y tw o le v el s. S eeAm en dm en t s t o the Se nt en c i ng Gui del i ne s f or Uni t ed S t at es Cour t s , 72 Fe d. Reg. 2 8 5 7 1 -2 8 5 7 2 (20 0 7 ). S ee al so K i m brou gh v. Un i te d S tat es , 12 8 S. Ct. 55 8, 56 9 ( 20 07 )
. The Se nt en c i ng Co m m i s s i on t ook s uc h a c t i on aft eri t s m ul t i pl e at t em pt s t o pe rs uade Cong ress to re duce or el im inat e the crac k/pow der dispari ty w ere rej ect ed. Furtherm ore, lasty ear the Sup rem e C ourt held thatthe adv is ory nature ofthe Sent enci ng G u id el ines app li es to crac k se ntenci ng case s su ch t h a t itw ould no t be an abuse ofdisc ret ion f or a dis tr ic t c our tt o con c l ude th atthe cr ac k/powd erd i s par i t y yie l ds a s en ten ce g rea ter tha n n ecessar y to ac h i ev e the go als of the statu te a t is su e. K i m bro ugh , 128 S. Ct. at 575. It is quest ionable w hether the c ha ng es an noun c ed i n K i m bro ugh aff ec tSt eph en s on, as he appe ar s t o h ave p utal l his eggs in the “I s ol d co c ai ne an d n o t c ra ck ” b a sk et
. B u t se e U n i t ed S ta te s v . P a d illa , 520 F. 3d 766, 774 ( 7th Cir

. 2008) ( “[ defe nd an t] did conte stbef ore the dis tr ic t court and again on app eal w hether the drug s in ques ti on w ere cra ck

. W e can p resu m e tha t [the d efend an t’ s] p rim ary p u rp ose i n di s put i ng the drug type was t o a voi d the ha rs h e ff ec t s ofthe crac k se ntenci ng d is parity, s ince no other l ogical i nf erenc e exi st s. In s o do ing, [the d efendan t] p res erved the is sue, how ever o b liq u el y , of w h et h er t h e d ist ri ct c o u rt c o u ld c o n sid er t h e 1 0 0 :1 s e n t e n c i n g d i s p a r i t y i n s e n t e n c i n g . ” )
. I n a n y e v e n t, a tn o t i me whil e thi s appe al has b ee n pe ndi ng di d St eph en s on m ake any ar g um en tr eg ar di ng K i m bro ugh or the r ea s onabl en es s of hi s s e nt e nc e i n thi s c ou r t, a nd thu s the a r gu m e nti s wa i ve d. di st i nc ti o n o bv i o us l y fue ls S te phe ns o n’ s appe al

. To 1 se nt en ce a de fen dan t unde r the e nha nc ed pen al ty, the go ve rn m en t m u st p ro ve b y a p re p on d er an c e o f th e e vi-N o. 06

- 2574 5

For a m ore co m p rehens ive ex planati on of the dif f erenc es 2 b et w ee n th e v a ri o u s fo rm s o f co ca in e, see B ooker, 70 F. 3d at 490- 91. d e n c e th a tth e s u b s t a n c e a ti s s u e i s c r a c k, a n d n o ts o me o th er form of co c ain e b as e. U nite d State s v. B ranch , 19 5 F. 3d 928, 93 4 ( 7th C ir. 19 99)
. A s we shal l se e, m or e than am ple evi dence supports the gov er nm ent’ s co ntenti on that St ephenson s ol d crac k c oca i ne, and w e r evi ew such a fa c tu al d e t e r m i n at ion of th e t yp e o f d ru gs inv olv ed in an offe n se for c lea r er r o r on ly. U ni t e d S t at e s v. Li nt on , 235 F.3d 328, 329 (7th Cir. 2000). Gi ve n o urs o phi sti cat ed cr i m e l ab o r at o r i es , i t m i g ht se em ane as y t as kt o de te r m i ne whethe r a pa r ti cul ardr ug i s cr ack orano therf or m o fco cai ne bas e, but no chem i cal tes t ca n dis ti ngui sh be tw een cra ck and cocaine bas e. Crack i s m er el y o ne fo rm o fco cai ne bas e

— a f or m thatar i ses as the e nd r esul t o fo ne m etho d of turni ng the sa l t for m o f coca i ne, co cai ne hydro chl or i de ( pow der c oca i ne) , bac k in to a b as e fo rm . See U ni t e d St at e s v. Edward s , 39 7 F
. 3d 570, 57 4 (7 th C ir. 20 05 ). D ru g d ea ler s a lte r th e for m of n at u ra lly occur ring co cai ne to o fferdrug user s thei r pr efer re d metho d o fi ng e s t i ngthe c he m i ca l

. Cr a c kc a n b e s mok e d, but notsno rt ed ori nj ecte d; pow der c oca i ne can be sn or te d , b u t no t s m o ke d

. Id. a t4 9 0

- 9 1
. Othe r me tho ds 2 of convert ing coca ine hyd roch lori d e int o a base form produce co cai ne bas e that i s no t cra c k. See U nited Sta tes v . B o o k er, 7 0 F
. 3 d 4 8 8 , 4 9 1 ( 7 th Ci r . 1 9 9 5 )
. F o r e xam ple , fr eeba se c o ca i ne , po pul ari n the 1 97 0s , i s an o th erf orm ofco cai ne bas e, alt h ou gh o ne thathas l ostpopula ri ty6 N o. 06

- 2574

For eas e ofuse, w e will refer t o the confidenti al source as “he” 3 al thoughthi s m ay or m ay notr efl ec tthe ac t ual ge nderof th e c o n fid en tia l so u rc e. d u e t o its vo lat ile an d d an ge ro u s p ro d u c tio n m et h od s. Id. Thi s ci r cui t ha s r ej ec te d r i g id d efi ni ti o ns o fc r ac k, no ting that to em plo y s uc h a ri gi d defi ni ti on would i nvi te thos e i n the drug tr ade to m ake m i nor changes in structur e, proce ssi ng, o r packag i ng to avo i d the i ncre ase d penalt i es for se l lin g c ra c k c oc ain e. U ni t e d S t at e s v. Abdu l , 12 2 F
. 3d 47 7, 47 9 (19 97 ). In st ea d o f a p p lyin g a rigid d efin itio n, th is cir cui t ha s he l d tha t a se nt en ci ngj udg e m us t det er m i ne whethe r a de fendan t so l d “ cr ac k, ” as tho se who b uy a n d s e l l i n th e ma r k e t g e n e r a l l y u n d e r s t a n d th e t e r m. Id . T h e e x p er ts in t h is field are th os e w h o s p en d th eir l i v e s a nd l i v e l i ho o ds e nme s he d wi th the dr ug s

— user s, d ea ler s, an d law en for c em en t o ffice rs w h o s p e c ializ e in n ar c ot ics cr im es . U nite d State s v. Kel ly, 51 9 F
. 3d 355, 36 4 (7t h C ir. 20 08 ); U nited Sta tes v. B rad ley, 16 5 F
. 3d 594, 59 6 (7th C ir. 1999) (“those w h o s m o k e , bu y, or sellthis stu ff ar e the r ealexper ts on wh at i s cr ack. ”) I n thi s c a s e the “ e xp e r t s ” a l l a g r e e d tha tS t e ph e nson so l d c r ac ka nd nots o m e o th erf o r m o fc o ca i ne t o the con fi de nt i a l s o ur c e . T he c o nfi de nt i a l s o ur c e , a f o r m er cra ck buyerand addict, r eadi l y i denti fi ed the substa nce as c r ac k, a nd a l so no te d tha t he ha d n eve r b o ug hta ny dr ugo th er tha n c r ac kfr o m S te phe ns o n. I n f ac t, the 3 co nfi den ti als o ur ce r efus ed th e D E A’s r eque sttha t he as kS te phe ns o n f o r “ cr ac k, co o k ed o r ha r d” be ca us e, a s th e h e e x p lain ed , Ste p h en so n w as a c r a c k d ea ler an d on ly so l d c r ac k

. Pr es um ab l y the c o nfi d en ti als o ur ce was c o n-N o. 06

- 2574 7

c er n ed th at su c h an ob v i o u s re fer en c e t o c ra c k w ou ld bl ow his cove r as a g ove rnm ent a gent. The DEA ag en t w ho test i fi ed atS te phe ns o n’ s se nt e n c i n gh e a r i n gqu a l i fi e d a s a n o th e r e x p e r tin th e fi e l d

. At the t i m e that he tes ti fi ed, DE A Speci alA gent St eve M o r anha d wor k ed f o r the DEA f o r a ppr o xi m atel y e i g ht yea rs and had see n hund re ds ofsa m ple s o fcr ack coca i ne. Se eU ni t e d S t a t e s v. Gr ay, 41 0 F
. 3d 338, 34 7 ( 7th Ci r. 20 05) ( ag en t who ha d b eenwi ththe DEA f o r s ev eny ea r s an d previ ousl y had worke d fo r fi ve yea rs as a narco ti cs ca ni ne o ffi ce r was qua l i fi ed as ex per t in i den ti fy i ng drugs)

. H e t est i fi ed that the pr i ce, ap p ear ance, packagi ng, and m anner oftr ansact i on w er e co nsi ste nt with cra ck coca i ne. T h e d efe n d an t him se lf id en tifie d h is w ar es a s “c ra c k.” A fte r h is a rre st, an d aft er offic er s re ad Ste p h en so n h is M i r anda r i g ht s, the de fen dan t ag r ee d t o s pea kt o the i nvest i gat i ng o ffi cer s a nd adm i tte d th at he was a “cr ack coca in e deal eri n Evanston, I l l i noi s, ” a nd descr ibed sev e r a l a s pe c t s o fh i s c r a c kb us i ne s s . S t e ph e ns o n ne v er to ld th e a ge n ts th at h e s old co c a i n e o r c oc ain e b as e. In hi s s eco nd post
- ar re st in te rv i ew , aftervi ew i ng a vi deo o f on e ofhi s t ra nsacti ons, S tephenson aga i n adm i tte d that he so l d crac k, r efer ring to th e drugs a s “ cra ck, ” o r
“ c o o k e d” o r “ ha r d”

— sl ang t er m s f orcr ack coca i ne. A t St ep henson’ s pl ea hear i ng, the gov er nm ent s et f or th its r endit i on o fwh at the e vi dence w oul d show if pr es en te d at tr i al

. I n th at r ec i ta ti o n, th e g o ve r nm en t i n d i c a t e d th a tS t e p h e n s o n h a d s o l d c r a c kc o c a i n e o n t wo se par at e o cc as i o ns . I t us ed th e wor d “ cr ac kc o ca i ne ” no few erthan si x ti m es i n i ts prese ntati on o fthe evi dence,8 N o. 06

- 2574 afte r whi cht i m e, the co ur t en g ag ed i n the f o l l o wi ng col l oquy with the defe nd ant: T HE C O UR T : M r . S te phe ns o n, ha ve y o u heard th e

state m en t of th e pros ecu tor? ST E PH E N SO N : Y es, sir. TH E C OU RT: I s herst ate m ent c or re ct? ST E PH E N SO N : Y es, sir. THE COU RT: Do y o u disagree w i tha ny pa r t o f th e

sta tem ent? ST E PH E N SO N : N o, sir
. THE COU RT: Do y o u wi sh to ad d to an y par t o fthe

sta tem ent? ST E PH E N SO N : N o, sir
. * * * T HE C O UR T : I f y o u c o u l d j u stt el l me i n y o u r o wn

wo r d s wh a ti twa s o n e a c h o fth e s e t wo oc c as ion s, on Ju ly 19 , 20 01 , w h at w as it th at you di d tha t was i l l eg al, i n y o ur ow n w or d s, n ot in leg ale se , j u st w h at it w as. STEPH EN SON : So l d the guy co cai ne bas e. T H E C O U R T : O ka y. A n d w h en yo u so ld h im

— w hen

you sol d hi m the dr ugs, di d you know it w as c r a c k c oc ain e? D id you kn ow it w as coca i ne? STEPH EN SON : Yes. (TR
. 1/13/05, p p . 23-24).N o. 06

- 2574 9 S te phe ns o n a l so i nf o r m ed th e pr o ba tion depa r tment th ata l l o fth e i n f o r ma t i o n c o n t a i n e d i n th e s u p e r c edi ng i ndi ct m en t

— i nc l udi ngthe cha r g e tha t the he “ so l d c o ca i ne base i n the f or m o fcr ack coca in e” w as tr ue and accur ate
. (R. 53 at p
. 6). W e nee d not l i ngerto o l ong ove r St ephenson’ s choi ce o f w or ds that he “s old the guy c oca i ne bas e. ” Allcr ack coca i ne i s co cain e base , but not al l co cai ne bas e i s cr ack. See E dw a rds , 3 9 7F
. 3 d a t5 7 1
. I n the c o nt e xto fthe di scus si o n, pa r ti cul ar l y i n l i g ht o fthe i m m edi at ely pr ec eding coll oqu y referencing only crack coc aine, both th e cou rt and Ste phenson c lea rl y were r efer ring to thatsubse t o f coca i ne bas e know n as cra ck. Fr om st ar t t o fi ni sh, al l o fthe pla yer s invol ved i n this tr an sa ct i o n un der st o o d tha t S te phe ns on w as s el l i ng c r a c k c oc ain e. N ev er th ele ss , Ste p h en so n ins ist s t h at h is s i t u a t i o n r e s e mb l e s th a t o f C a r l E d w a r d s , w h o s e c a s e we r emande d f o r r e- se nt en ci ngwhenthe di st r i ctc o ur t se ntence d Ed w ar d s t o the m andator y m i ni m um f orcr ack coca i ne afterfi nd i ng tha t he posse sse d non-c ra ck f or m s o f c oc a i n e b as e. Edwards , 3 97F
. 3d 57 0. W e r ev er se d the dist ri ct c ou rt in that cas e be cause ofan e rr ori n i ts l ega l c onclusi on

— that i s, we re i ter ate d our pri orhol dings that the e nhanced penalt i es described in 21 U

. S. C. § 8 41(b) apply onl y t o cra ck coca i ne and not to other f or m s o f c oc ain e b as e. Id. at57 7. W e l eft undis turbe d the di str i ct cour t’ s f actualfi nd i ng tha t Edw ar ds posse sse d non-c ra ck for m s o f co c ain e. Id. Al tho ugh, a s i tturns o ut, Ed wa r ds was o ne o fS te phe nson’s su ppl i er s, the f ac tu alfi ndi ng th at E d war ds po ss es se d no n- cr ac kc o ca i ne f o r the o f fe n s e o f c o n v i c t i o n i n th a t p a r t i c u l a r c a s e h a s no10 N o. 06

- 2574 bear i ng on the fa ctualfi nd i ngs i n thi s ca se that St ephenson p os ses sed cr ack. Edw ar ds, unl i ke St ephenson, deni ed f ro m the get-go that he sol d crac k a s o pp ose d to pow der c oc ain e. Id. at57 2. Edw ar d’s dru g e xperts tes ti fi ed that the dr ug i n questi on had nei therthe physi calf or m nor c olo r ge n er ally as so c iat ed w i t h cr ac k. Id. a t 57 3. The gov er n m en t’ s drug expertte sti fi ed that the s ubstance w as i nd eed cr ack, but he bas ed t h is concl usi on noto n sci enti fi c te sts o r expertexam i nati on but on the defi ni ti on in th e Se n te n c in g G u id elin es , w h ich rea d s: “ ‘ Cocaine base,’ f ort h e purpose s o fthi s guidel i ne, m eans ‘ cra ck. ’ ” Id. at 57 2. B ec au se th e g ov er n m en t’s ex p er t re lied ex c lu siv ely on the l ega ldefi ni ti on o f“co cai ne bas e” r at h erthan sc i en ti fi c ev i den ce, the di st r i ctc o ur t r ej ec te d hi s co nclusion thatthe su bsta nc es E d w ard s p ossess ed w ere c ra c k. Id. at 572- 73
. S tephenson’ s ca se prese nted n on e of thi s co nfusi on. The ev i dence fro m al l o fthe expert s, i ncl ud i ng fro m S tephenson hi m self, i nd i cate d that St ephenson s ol d crac k c oca i ne. I n sent enci ng the defendant, the dist ri ct courtn ote d that “the gov er nm ent has pro ven that the Defendant w as d ea lin g c ra c k c oc ain e, as th at te rm h as be en d e fin ed in th e pre ce de n t, b y a n y s t a n d a r d o fp r o o fkn o wni n l a w, includ ing p roof beyon d a reason able d ou bt.” (R. 53 at p . 2). The d ist ric t co urt re vi ew ed al l o fthe potenti alev i dence i n the case

— allof t he eviden ce w e hav e outlined here

— in c on c lu d in g th at St ep h en so n so ld c r a c k co c ain e. Id. at5. Pa r ti cul ar l y, the di st r i ctc o ur t r el i ed o n th e te st i m o ny o fthe confi denti also urce and the DEA ag ent, the physi cal descri pti on o fthe drug, and the adm i ssi ons Step h enso n m ade afterthe p ol i ce r ead hi m hi s M i r anda righ ts
. Id.N o. 06

- 2574 11

Al tho ug h s ome c i r c ui t s h a ve c on c l ude d tha tthe e nhanced 4 p en a lty ap p lie s in d iffer en t m a n n er s, see Edw ar ds , 3 9 7 F. 3 d at 57 5-76 ( ch ro niclin g d iv ision am on g cir c u its) , in th is circuit it ha s long b een clear th at the en h a n ced p en alty ap p lies on ly to (co n tin u ed ...) A l l of thi s, the cour t note d, w as suffi ci en t t o e stabl i sh beyo nd a re aso nabl e doubt that St ephenson s ol d crac k c oc ain e. Id. T h e d ist ric t c ou rtals o n o t e d th at alt h ou gh all ofthatev i dence suffi ci entl y e stabl i shed that St ephenson so l d c r ac kc o ca i ne , S te phe ns o n’ s agreementwi ththe sta tem en ts at the pl ea hear i ng and w i th tho se i n the prese nt en ci ngr epo r t adde d a ddi ti o na l su p po r t f o r the c o nc lu sio n . Id. at 6. T his w as not a close case; th e d istri ct cou rt co r r ec tly c o nc l ude d tha t Ro be r t S tephen so n was s el l i ng cra ck coca i ne. W e tu r n n ex t to an argum en t S te phe ns o n mak es f o r the fi rs t ti m e on thi s a p p eal

— th atthe de fi ni ti o ns o f“ co ca i ne base ” i s s o vague that the e nhanced penalt i es f orcr ack co ca i ne r un a f o ulo fthe due p r o ce ss g ua r an te es o fthe Fi fth A m endm ent. Because St ephens on di d not r ai se thi s a rgum ent b el ow, w e r evi ew i t forpl ai n er ro r onl y. U ni t e d S t at e s v. Cus i m ano , 148 F.3d 824, 82 8 (7th C ir. 1998). St ephenson i ncor re ctl y l abel s thi s qu est i on a m att er offi rst im press i on. W e hav e hel d defi ni ti vel y, o n m o r e th an o ne o cc as i o n, th at th e se nt en ci ngpr o vi si o ns f o r c o ca i ne a nd c ocai ne b as e ar e no t ambi g uo us a nd th a t the e nh a nc e d pe na l t i e s i n 2 1 U. S
. C. § 851 f or “c oc a i n e b a se ” a p p ly to cr ac k c oc ain e. Se eEdward s , 39 7 F.3 d at57 4-7 5; B o o k er, 7 0 F.3 d at 4 94. Despi te these 412 N o. 06

- 2574

(
. . . c on t i nu e d) 4 cra ck coca ine, as tha t term is u nd ersto od b y tho se w ho use a n d sel l t h e d ru g . Id .; B oo ke r, 7 0 F
. 3 d a t4 9 4
. T h e S u p r e me Co urt thus f ar has not c oncluded that cer ti orari i s w arrant ed t o re so lv e t h es e d iffer en ce s. Se e, e . g. , Uni t e d S t a t e s v. Br i s ba ne, 367 F. 3d 910 ( D
. C. Cir. 200 4 ) ce rt. de ni ed, 54 3 U .S. 9 3 8 (20 0 4 ); B oo ke r, 7 0 F .3d at 49 4 , cert
. den i ed, 51 7U .S. 1 1 1 1 (19 9 6 ). cl earhol dings , we add ress St ephenson’ s a rgum ent o nce m or e. “[ T]he voi d-f or - vaguene ss doctr i ne r eq u i re s that a pen als ta tu te de fi ne the c r i m i na l o ffen se wi ths uffi ci en t definiteness that o rdi narypeopl e ca n und er sta nd wh at conduc t i s pro hibi ted and i n a m anner that does not en c ou ra ge arb itr ar y a n d d isc rim in at or y e n for c em en t.” Kole nde rv. La wson , 461 U
. S. 35 2, 35 7 ( 1983 )
. A st atute m ay oper ate i n an un c onst i tuti onal l y v ague m anner i fi t: “(1) does no t pr ovi de a per son ofo rdi naryi ntel l i gence a re aso nabl e o pp or tuni ty to know w hat i s p rohibi ted, o r (2) fai ls to p rovide ex p li cit stan d ard s to p reven t a rbitrary an d di sc r i m i na to r y e nf o r ce m en t by th o se e nf o r ci ngthe sta tute. ” U nite d State s v. L im , 444 F.3d 910 , 915 (7th C ir. 2006 )
. U nl ess a vaguene ss chal l enge thre ate ns a Fi rs t A m endm ent inter est, a cour t m ust e xam i ne the chal l enge on an “a s-a p p lied ” b a sis

— that i s, wh etherthe sta tute i s unc o ns ti tu ti o na l l y v ague i n l i g hto fthe fac ts o fthe c as e a t h an d

. Id

. In thi s ca se, the evi dence cl ear l y ind i cate s S tephenson sol d c ra ck coca i ne. S tephenson adm i tte d that he was a cr ac kc o ca i ne de al eri n Ev an st o n. Bo ththe phy si ca l pr es en -N o. 06

- 2574 13 ta ti o n o fthe dr uga nd the expe r t o pi ni o ns ofthe c o nfi den

ti als o ur c e a nd the DE A a g e nts up po r t e d thi s i de nt i f i cati o n. I fi ndeed so m e co ca i ne b as e sa m pl es mightl i e i n a gr ay ar ea w here theyar e uni denti fiab le as ei thercr ack or non- cra ck coc ain e base, thes e were not. There was nothi ng co nfusing o r am b iva l ent about the physi cal des cr i pti o n o fthe c r ac k, the meth o d o fpa ckag i ng, the pr i ce , the l an g ua g e bywhi chthe e xpe r ts , buy er s an d sel l er s r efer re d to the s ubstance, the m anner i n w hi ch St ephenson s ol d i t, o r th e f act that St ephenson adm i tte d to be in g a cr ac k d e a l e r in E va n st on . W e h av e lon g h eld th at th e sta tu te is no t am b igu ou s an d th at c on c lu sio n is al l the m or e cl earwh en appli ed to t h e fa cts ofthi s ca se. St ep h enso n’s due proc ess r i ghts have not been i m peded by a va gue defi ni ti on o fco cai ne bas e. St ep h en so n ’s la st effo rtto re d u c e h is s en te n c e t ak es aim at th e re lev an t c on d u c t t h e d ist ric t c ou rtco n sid er ed in i ncre asi ng hi s s entence
. U pon hi s a rr es t, St ephenson not onl y adm i tte d t o sel l i ng the cra ck at i ssue i n th e in dict

m en t, bu t a lso ad m itt ed th at d u ri n g t h e c ou rs e o f h is em plo y a s a cr ack coca i ne deal eri n Evanston f ro m 1996 to 2003 , he ha d pu rchas ed app ro xi m ate l y o ne ki l ogr am o f c r ac k. T h e d ist ric t c ou rt, w h os e fin d in g w e re vie w on ly for clear error ( see U nited Sta t e s v . D ela to rre, 40 6 F
. 3d 863, 86 6 ( 7 th C i r . 2 0 0 5 ) ) , c r e d i t e d S t e p h e n s o n ’ s c l a i m th a the had purchas ed one ki l ogr am ofcr ack coca i ne. S tephenson ar g ue s th atthe a ct i vi tyw as too r emot e i n t i m e, a nd the ad m iss ion to o im p re c ise in d et ails an d th u s u n re lia b le to supp or t a n i ncre ase f orr el evantco nd uct. A co ur t m ayi nc r ea se a de fen dan t’ s se nt en ce fo r uncharg ed and unconvi cted r el evantco nd uct pro vi ded that14 N o. 06

- 2574 the conduct const i tutes p ar t ofthe “sam e co urse o fco nd uct or co m m on sc h em e o r p lan as th e o ffen se of co n vi c tio n .” U .S.S.G . § 1B 1.3 (a)( 2). Seeals o U nite d S ta te s v. White, 51 9 F. 3d 342, 34 7 ( 7th Ci r. 20 08)
. A co u rt m ay not tr eato ther drug tr ansact i ons, i n and ofthem sel ves, as ev ents com m on to th e p l a n or s c h em e. U ni t e d S t at e s v. M cGowan , 47 8 F
. 3d 800, 80 3 ( 7th Ci r. 200 8). R atherthe ass ess m ent m ust i ncl ud e s peci fi c fi nd i ngs ab ou t the “ si m i l ar i ty, r egul ar i ty and tem po ra l pro xi m i ty ofthe offenses . ” White, 51 9 F
. 3d at 34 8. T h is c ou rtr eq u ire s th at t h e d ist ric t c ou rtex p licit ly sta te w hi ch fi nd i ngs dem onst ra te the ne cess ar y r el ati on to th e c on vic te d offe n se . U ni t e d St at e s v. Panaigua- Verdug o , 537 F. 3d 722, 72 6 (7t h C i r. 20 08)
. The co urt can do s o ex pr es sl y (the pr efer r ed m etho d) o r b y r efer en ce t o the f acts and re aso nin g ofthe prese ntence i nvest i gat i on re p or t. Id. I n thi s ca se, the dist ri ct c ourt d i d both

— referenci ng speci fic p ro vi si ons ofthe i nvest i gat i on r epor ts an d s en te nc i ngt r an sc r i pts , a nd c o nc ludingtha t th e m ul ti pl e sa l es a m o unt i ngt o a t o ta l o fa ppr o xi m at ely o ne ki l ogr am of cra ck coca i ne w er e part of the sam e cour se o f c on d u c t a s t h ey w e r e c on n ec te d by a c om m on p u rp os e, a si m i l arm odus oper andi, and i nvol ved co m m on vi cti m s. ( R
. a t5 3 , p . 7 )
. I n th i s c a s e S t e p h e n s o n s o l d th e s a me dr ug( cr ac k ) , i n the s ame l o ca l e ( Eva ns to n, I l l i no i s) , usi ng th e s a me o n e o r fe w s u p p l i e r s , c o n t i n u o u s l y th r o u g h o ut a com m on tim e fram e (1996-2003 ). Con tr ar y t o S te phe ns o n’ s ar g um en t, the re l ev an t conduct w as not too re m ote i n ti m e. S tephenson adm i tte d to sel l i ng appro xi m ate l y on e k i l ogr am o fcr ack between 1996 and 200 3. The co urt convi cted Stephenso n f orcr ack s a l e s w h i c h o c c u r r e d s ma c ki n t he mi d d l e o fth a tt i meN o. 06

- 2574 15 f r a me

— i n 200 1. D ela to rre, 40 6 F .3d at86 7 (offe n se s an d h is offense ofco nvi cti on were part ofthe sam e co urse of conduct eve n despit e th e n ea r thre e- yea r gap be tw een them )
. Fur ther m or e, the e vi dence dem onst ra ted that S t e ph e ns o n’ s dr ugt r a ffi c k i ngwa s mo r e o r l e s s s t e a dy o ve r the p eriod oft i m e i n que st i o n, s ho wi nga c o ntin u ou s p at te rn o fd r u g t ra ffick in g. SeeW hite, 51 9 F
. 3d at 34 8; U nited Sta tes v. Fa rm er, 543 F.3d 3 63, 373 ( 7th Cir. 2008 ) ( “W here the defe nd ant’ s co nvi cted o ffense w as m e r e l y t h e la te st d ru g s ale in a nu nb ro ke n se rie s o f d ea ls regu larl y m ad e, th at is suffi cient to find the d efend an t’s pri or drug tr ansact i ons w er e part of the sam e c ou rs e ofco nd uct as the offense ofco nvi cti on. ”) M or eov er, the detai l s o fhi s t ra nsacti ons conta i ned s u ffi c i e n ts p e c i fi c i t y t o e s t a b l i s h e v i d e n c e o fa s a me c o u r s e o fc o n d u c t
. D u r i n gh i s p o s t
- a r r es ti n t e r v i e w, S t e ph e ns o n r e c i t e d d e t a i l s o fh i s c r a c kt r a ns a c t i o ns that inc lude d na m es of sup p li ers, qu an titi es pur ch as ed, a ppr o xi m ate transacti on date s a nd am ounts, and agg re gat e qu an titi es. (R. at 40, E x. 11-26-B , p . 2-3 ). S tep he ns on’s ear l i erco nd uct hi t a l l the tr i gge r poi nts forr el evancy

— si gni fi cant s i m i l ar i ty, r egul ar i ty, and tem pora l p ro xim ity as w ellas com m on victim s, acc om p li ces, pu rp os e, or m od u s o p er an d i. See Fa rm er, 54 3 F
. 3d at 373. Fin ally , th e d ist ric t c ou rtrejec te d Ste p h e n s o n ’s c laim that he exagger ate d the am ount o fhi s s al es to curr y f avo r and i nfl ate hi s v al ue as a potenti algo ver nm ent s ourc e. T he district cou rt d id not err by con side ring Step he ns on’s ad m i s sio n as ev id en c e o f h is re lev an t c on d u c t. See U nited St at e s v. Wi l s on , 5 02 F
. 3d 7 18, 7 22 ( 7th Ci r . 2 00 7) ( ba sing16 N o. 06

- 2574 fi nd i ng o fr el evantco nd uct o fse l l i ng 1. 6 k i l ogr am s o f c oc a i n e o n d efe n d an t’s ad m iss ion ); U ni t e d S t at e s v. War ne ke, 31 0 F
. 3d 542, 55 0 ( 7th C ir. 20 02) ( noti ng tha t “ an ad m iss ion of re lev an t c on d u c t in a p lea ag re em en t is ev en be tt er t h a n a j u ry ’s fin d in g b ey on d a re as on ab le d ou b t” ); U n it ed States v. Beith , 407 F.3d 881 , 887 (7th C ir. 2005 ) ( approvi ng di str i ct c ourt ’ s co nsi derat i on o fr el evant conduct to wh i ch the defe nd ant a dm i tte d w hen d et er m in in g w h ich offe n se gu id elin e m os t a p p ro p ria te ly re fl ecte d the s cope o fthe cri m i nal act i vi ty)
. There was no ev i den ce to sug g es t tha t S te phe ns o n was e xa g g er at i ng hi s drug deal i ng ac ti vi ti es. I n su m , w e con clud e tha t the district c o u r t did not err i n de te r m i ni ngtha t S te phe ns o n was g ui l tyo fdi st r ibut i ng cr ac kc o ca i ne ; the de fi ni ti o n o fc r ac kc o ca i ne i s no t unc o nst itu tio n ally va gu e, an d th e d ist ric t c ou rtap p ro p ria te ly con s id ered rel evan t con d uc t in calculating Step he ns on’s sente nce. The j ud gm ent o fthe dist ri ct c ourti s A FFI RMED .

2- 17- 09