## 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

- 4055 U NI T ED S TATE SOF A MERI CA, P la intif f-A pp ellee, v. J ESUS A RR EOLA -C AST IL LO, D ef endant-Appellant.

____________ A pp eal from the United S t ates Di strictC our t fo r the S outhernDi stricto f Indian a, Indian apolisDiv isi on. No . IP 05-64 -CR-07-B /F

— Sarah EvansBarker, Judg e.

____________ A RG UE D A PRI L 1, 2008

— D ECI DE D A UGUS T 25, 2008

____________
Befo re C UDAH Y, R IPPLE a nd R OV NER, C ircu it Judges . C UDAH Y, Cir cu i tJudg e . A fter a three-d ay trial, a j ury co nv i ct ed J es us Arr eo l a- Cas ti l l o o fpa r ti ci p atingi n a conspi ra cy to d istr ibute m or e than 1, 000 ki l ogr am s o f m ar ij u an a. See 21 U. S
. C. § § 841( a) ( 1) , 8 46
. Be ca us e he ha d al r ea dy be en co nv i ct ed o f th r ee pr ev i ou s fe l o ny d rug offenses , A rreola- C astill o received a m an d atory m i nim um s en te nc e o fl i fe i m pr i so nm en t pur su an t to the re c id ivis m p ro vis ion s o f § 84 1(b )(1) (A ) . A rre ola -C as tillo2 N o. 06

- 4055

now ap p eals his sent en ce. H e a rgue s tha t the m an d atory m i ni m um s ho ul d no t ha ve b ee n impos ed be ca us e th e s e n t e n c i n gj udg e f a i l e d t o p r o p e r l y a p p l y § 8 4 1 ( b ) ( 1 ) ( A) an d b ec au se the g o ve r nm en t f ai l ed to c o m pl y wi ththe p r o c e d u r a l r e q u i r e me n t s s e t o u t i n § 8 5 1
. We fi n d , ho we v e r, th a tA r r e o l a - C a s t i l l o ’ s s e n t e n c e w a s p r o p e r l y i mp os ed

.
I. OnDe c e mbe r 1 3 , 2 0 0 5 , Ar r e o l a - Ca s ti l l o wa s i nd i c t e d, along w ith fi ve oth er ind ivi d ua ls, on on e cou nt of con sp iracy to dist ribute i n exces s o f1, 000 ki l ogr am s o fm ar ij uana. See 21 U
. S. C. § § 841( a) ( 1) , 846. T he charge s s tem m ed fro m an i nvest i gat i on into a m ar ij uana di str ibuti on r i ng tha t oper ated in I nd i anapol i s, Ind i ana fro m ea rl y 2 001 to A ug us t 2004. O ne of th e ri ng ’s l argest cu stom ers, R od olf o Re y e s - Ar a n d a , a g r e e d t o c o o p e r a t e wi th g o v e r n m en t o ffi ci al s, a nd he i den ti fi ed Arr eo l a- Cas ti l l o a s one o fthe ring’ s b i gge st supp l i er s. Reye s- A ra nd a e sti m ate d that A rr eol a- Casti l l o del i ver ed bet w een 100 and 140 pound s o f m ar ij uana, thr ee orf our ti m es per m onth, f orthe du ra ti on ofthe conspi ra cy. A rr eol a- Casti l l o m ai n ta in ed hi s innoce nc e, i ns i st i ngtha t Re y es - Ara nda was no t tel li ngthe tr u th . Th e c as e w as se t fo r tr ial. On M ay 22 , 20 06 , ab o ut th r ee wee k s be f o r e tr ial , the gov ernm ent fi l ed an inform at ion n ot ifyin g A rre ola -C as tillo ofi ts i nt en t to rel y o n a pr i orfel ony drug co nvi cti on “p urs ua nt to 21 U
. S. C
. § 851(A )( 1)” (th e F irst Inform ation). A tta ched to the F i rs t Info rm ati on was a c er tifi ed copy of a co nvi cti on f ordi str ibuti on o fa contr ol l ed substa nceN o. 06

- 4055 3

W hi l e the c er t i fi ed co py ofthe convi c t i on m ake s cl ea r thatthe 1 offense oc cu rred in N ew M exi c o , the first pa g e of the F irst Inf orm ati on erroneousl y st ate d thatthe San M iguel D is tr ic t Co ur twa s i n Ar i z on a : “ On o r a bo ut A pri l 2 9 , 1 9 9 6 , J ES US A R R E O L A -CA ST IL L O w as co nv ic t e d in the San M igu el (Ar izona) D is tr ic t Court f or D is tr ibution of a Co ntrol le d Su bstance

. J ud gm ent w as ente red on the c onv ic ti on on or abou t M ay 6, 1996 and the convict ion i s a F o u rth D egree Felony und er New M exi co l aw . ” The conv ic ti on referenced in the Fi rs t I nf orm ati on, how ever, 2 w as om it ted from the PSR
. The prob ati on offic e l aterex plained thatthe convict ion did not app ear on the FB I’ s cri m inal his tory (co n tin u ed ...) enter ed aga i nst “ J esus A rr eol a- Casti l l o” on M ay 6, 19 96 in S an M i guelCounty, N ew M exi co. On J une 6, 20 06, 1 about a week b efo re tr i al, the gov er nm ent fi l ed another in for m at ion, no tify in g t h e d efe n d a n t o f its int en t t o re ly o n “ a s e c o n d p r i o r fe l o n y d r u g - r e l a t e d c o n v i c t i o n ” ( th e Se cond I nfo rm ati on)
. A tta ched to the S eco nd Info rm ati on w as a ce rt i fi ed copy ofa convi ctio n , o n two counts, o f tr a ffi c k i ngi n a c o nt r o l l e d s ub s t a nc e ( c o c a i ne ) e nt er ed ag a i n st “Je su s A rre ola -C as tillo” on Fe b ru ar y 2 1, 19 96 in Sant e F e County, N ew M exi co. The j ur y r etur ne d a g ui l tyv er d ic t o n J une 1 4, 2 00 6, a nd the di stric t courtsche du l ed a s entencing hea ring f or N o ve m be r 7, 2 00 6. The c r i m i na l h i st o r y s ec ti o n o fthe pr es en te nc e r epo r t ( PS R) no te d the t wo fel o ny dr ug convi ctio ns r efer enced i n the Se cond I nfo rm ati on, as w el l as a convi cti on f orr esi dent ial entr y a nd a few m i sd em ea n o r s. A ccord ing to the P SR, A rreola- C astill o’s 24 N o. 06

- 4055

(
. . . c on t i nu e d) 2 printout. Itapp ears thatcounsel f or the governm ent disc overed the con v iction after con tactin g the ju risd iction d irectly

. W hile the gove rn m en tdi d notobj ec tt o the PS R, i tdi d al er tthe dist ri ctjud ge to the om is si on at the s ente ncing hear ing. ArreolaCas t i l l o n eve r ar gue d thatthe gove rn m en t was pre c l uded fro m re l yi ng o n the c onvi c t i on re ferenc ed i n the Fi rs tI nf or m at i on b e c a u s e i th a d b e e n o mi t t e d f r o m t h e P S R. c rim in al his to ry c at eg or y w as II I. B ec au se A rre ola -C as tillo ha d b e e n r e s p o n s ib l e f o r s u p p l y i n g b e t we e n 3 , 0 0 0 an d 10, 000 ki l ogr am s of m ar ij uana, hi s ba se offense l eve l was 34
. See U
. S. S. G. § 2 D1. 1( c) ( 3) ( 2005 )
. Th e p ro bati on o ffi ce re com m ended that the dist ri ct cour t ra i se hi s ba se offense lev e l f ro m 34 to 37p u rs u an t t o th e c ar ee r offe n d er p ro visi ons ofU
. S. S. G. § 4 B1. 1. I t then cal cul ate d the Guidel i ne s r an g e to b e 36 0 m o nths t o l i fe i m pr i so nm en t. The p robation office al so ind icated , how ever, th at th e statu tory m i ni m u m w as l i fe i m pri sonm ent in acco rdance w i th 21 U. S
. C
. § 8 4 1 ( b ) ( 1 ) ( A) b e c a u s e th e d e fe n d a n th a d “ t wo p rior felon y c on vic tio n s.” A t the se ntencing hea ring, A rr eol a- Casti l l o i nsi ste d that he was no t th e su bj ec t o fthe c o nv i ct i o n ref eren ced in the F i r s t I nfo r mat i o n. He a r g ue d tha t he c o ul d no thave com m i tte d the o ffense because he l ived i n N ew M exi co at the t i m e; he ne ver l eft N ew M exi co, he a rgued, because r emai ni ngi n N ew M ex i co was a t er m o fhi s pr o ba ti o n. The g o vern m en t admi tt ed th atthe r e was a n e r r o r o n the First Inf or m ati on; i t m i sta kenl y r efer re d to San M i guel Cou nty a s bei ngi n Ar i zo na r athe r tha n New M ex i co . The gov er nm ent a ske d the di str i c t c ou rtf orper m i ssi on t oN o. 06

- 4055 5

co r r ec t th e er r o r, a nd Ar r eo l a- Cas ti l l o made no o bj ecti o n. U nd ete rr ed, A rr eol a- Casti l l o ar gued that the c ri m e m ust have b e e n c o mm i t t e d b y s o me o the r“ J e s us Ar r e o l aCasti l l o” because the convi cti on would have vi ol ate d hi s pr o ba ti o n a nd that vio l at i o n wo ul d ha ve s ho wn up on his reco rd. The di str i ct c ourtr ej ecte d thi s a rgum ent. The dis tr i ct j ud ge ex p lained thatthe proba ti on vi ol ati on coul d have be en abs orbed i n a pl ea agr eem en t orev en wai ve d. The di stric t j udg e no te d tha t th e g o ve r nm en t h a d p r e s e n t e d s o l i d e v i d e n c e th a tth e o ffe n s e w a s c o mm i tt ed by th e defen dan t: a ce r ti fi ed co py o fthe c o nv i ct i o n, a co py ofthe ple a a gr eem ent with a s i gnatur e th at m atch ed the d efend an t’s ow n signa tu re, and a doc ket en try l i sting the s am e d ate o fbi rth as the defendant. Thi s was suffi ci ent, i n the dist ri ct c ourt ’ s e yes , t o est abl i sh that th e pr i o r c o nv i ct i o n w as , i n f ac t, at tr ibut ab l e to the de fen dant. Arr eo l a- Cas ti l l o al so ar g ue d th at th e tw o c o nv i ct i o ns r efer en ce d i n the S ec o nd Inf o r m at i o n o nl y co unt ed as o ne c on vic tio n for s en te n c in g e n h a n c em en t p u rp os es . See 21 U
. S. C
. § 841(b)(1) (A ). Th e govern m en t, how ever, produced a ce rt i fi ed copy ofthe ple a a gr eem ent in w hi ch Arr eol a- Cas ti l l o pl ea ded g ui l tyt o t wo c o unt s o ffel o ny dist ributi on. The j ud gm ent s tat ed that the sente nces f or th e two c o unt s woul d r un c o nc ur r en tly . F o r c o nv i ct i o ns to run conc urren tly, the d istri ct j ud ge reason ed , there m us t be at least tw o conv ictions. W hi le th e d istri ct cou rt r e fus e d t o a pp l y the c a r e e r o ffe nd e r s e c t i o ns ofU. S
. S
. G. § 4B1
. 1, i t se nt en ce d Arr eo l a- Cas ti l l o t o l i fe i m pr i so nm en t pu rs uant to the m andator y m i ni m um pro vi si ons of § 841(b)(1)( A ).6 N o. 06

- 4055 II. W hen a defe nd ant i s convi cted ofa drug- re l ate d offense, th e e x ist en c e of p rior fe lon y d ru g c on vic tio n s m ay sign ificantl y e nhance the m andator y m i ni m um se ntence that h e o r sh e re c eiv es . See 21 U
. S. C. § 841(b) ( 1) ( A ). U n d er § 8 41(b) ( 1)(A ), one pri orfel ony drug co nvi cti on r ai ses th e m an d at or y m in im u m se n te n c e t o t w en ty ye ar s in pr i so n, whi l e two o r mor e pr i o r fel o ny dr ugc o nv ic ti o ns ra ise th e m an d at or y m in im u m to life im p ris on m en t. See 21 U
. S. C . § 84 1( b) ( 1) ( A )
. The effect ofpri orco nvi cti ons on a defendant’s se ntence und er§ 841(b) ( 1) ( A ) can be s o si gni fi cant that Congr ess fel t the nee d to provi de speci al pr o t e c t i o ns b e f o r e the e nh a nc e d mi nimu m ca n b e i mpo s e d. See U nited Sta tes v. B ela ng er, 970 F.2d 416 , 4 1 8 (7th C ir. 1992 )
. These prot ecti ons ar e em bodi ed i n § 8 51, wh i ch w as enacte d by Congr ess to s at isfy “the du e pr oce ss re qu irem ents ofr eas onabl e no ti ce a nd o pp or tuni ty to be hear d with re gar d to the pr i orco nvi cti on. ” U ni t e d S t at e s v. G o n z a l ez - L e r ma , 1 4 F
. 3d 14 79 , 1 48 5 ( 10 thCi r . 1 99 4)
. The d efend an t m us t receive clear notice of the govern m en t’s i nt en t to us e th e pr i o r c o nv i ct i o n a t se nt en cing, a nd the defen dan t m us t ha ve a n o ppo r tu ni tyb o thto de ny the exi ste nce o r va lidity o fthe pri orco nvi cti on a nd to be h ea rd on t h e is su e. Se eU ni t e d S t at e s v. Jac ks on , 12 1 F
. 3d 31 6, 31 9 (7 th C ir. 19 97 ); B ela ng er, 97 0 F
. 2d at 418. U nd er§ 851( a) ( 1) , the go ver nm ent m ust fi l e an i nfo rm ati on be f or e t ri ali nd i cating i ts i ntent to r ely on a pri or c on vic ti o n fo r se n te n c in g p u rp os es . See 2 1 U. S
. C. § 8 51( a) ( 1)
. Thi s i nfo rm ati on m ust be se rv ed upon defe nse co uns el, a nd i t m us t i den ti fythe pa r ti cul arc o nv i ct i o nsN o. 06

- 4055 7

on w h ich th e g ov er n m en t in t e n d s t o re ly. See 2 1 U. S
. C. § 8 51( a) ( 1)
. I fthe defe nd ant deni es the e xi ste n c e or v a l i di t y o fa p r i or conv i c t i o n, the c o ur tmus th o l d a he ar i ng, a nd the g o ve r nm en t m us t pr o ve the p r i o r c o nvic tio n be yo n d a re as on ab le d ou b t. See 21 U. S
. C. § 851(c) (1 ). If th e prior conv iction i s so prov en, the cou rt m ay im p os e t h e e n h an c ed m in im u m s. See 2 1 U. S
. C. § 8 51( d)( 1)
. But the sente nci ng j ud ge “cannot
. . . enhance the s entence o fa defen dant convi cted o fa drug o ffense u n d e r 2 1 U
. S
. C. § 8 4 1 ( a )
. . . u n l e s s th e g o v e r n me n tc o mpli es w ith t h e r equi re m ents of21 U
. S. C. § 8 51( a)
. ” See U nite d State s v. M ayfie ld, 418 F.3d 1017, 1 020 (9th Cir. 2005). S e c t i o n 8 5 1 a l s o r e qu i r e s the di s t r i c tc o ur tt o “ e nt e r fi nd

i ngs o ff act and concl usi ons ofl aw ” r ega rdi ng co ntest ed i ssues . 21 U
. S. C. § 8 51( c) ( 1)
. W e r evie w the dist ri ct co urt’ s f ac tu alfi ndi ng s f o r c l ea r e r r o r a nd i ts l eg alc o ncl usi ons de novo

. See B ela ng er, 970 F.2d at41 8; U nited Sta tes v. D enberg, 212 F.3d 987, 991 (7th C ir. 2000). On app eal, A r r e o l a - Ca s t i l l o ma k e s thr e e b a s i car gum ents. F i r st, he ar g ue s th at th e di st r i ct co ur t er r ed i n fi ndi ng th a tth e F i r s tIn f o r ma t i o n a n d S e c o n d In f o r ma t i o n c o mpl i ed w i ththe no ti ce pr o vi si o ns o f§ 8 51 ( a) ( 1)
. S ec o nd, he ar gu es th at th e d ist ric t c ou rtco m m itt ed cle ar err or in concl ud i ng tha t there was suffi c ien t e vi dence to pro ve the pr i o r fe l o nydrugc o nv i c t i o n o ut l i ne d in the F i r st I nfo rm ati on be yond a re aso nabl e d oubt. Fi nal l y, he a rgues th atthe di st r i ctc o ur t co m m i tt ed cl ea r er r o r i n c o nc l udi ng that the c onvi cti ons re fer enced i n the Se cond I nfo rm ati on const i tu ted se parat e co nvi cti ons f orthe pu rpos es of § 841(b)(1)( A ).8 N o. 06

- 4055 The m andator y m i ni m um li fe sentence is tr i gge re d w hen th e d e fe n d a n t h a s t wo o r mo r e p r i o r fe l o n y d r u gc o nvic tio n s. 21 U .S.C . § 84 1(b )(1) (A ). For A rre ola -C as tillo to s ucc ee d i n thi s appe al, he m us t e st ab l i shb o ththa t he was ne ve r c o nv i ct ed o fthe o ffen se r efer r ed to i n the First I nfo rm ati on a nd thatthe tw o convi cti ons re fer re d to i n the S ec o nd Inf o r m at i o n s ho ul d c o unta s a sing l e co nvi cti on f or sente nci ng pu rpos es. I f he l ose s on ei theri ssue, the m andator y m i ni m um se ntence i s l i fe i m pri sonm ent. A l though we fin d t hat hi s s eco nd ar gum ent doe s hav e som e m erit, A rreola- C astill o can not escap e the m an d atory m in im u m life se n t en c e u n d er § 85 1(a )(1) be c au se h is fi rs t a rgum ent f ai l s.

A . A rr eol a- Casti l l o firs t c on te n d s t h at th e g ov er n m en t fai l ed t o c o mply wi th th e n o t i c e r e q u i r e m en ts o f§ 8 5 1 ( a ) ( 1 )
. He cor re ctl y no tes thatth e fi rs t page o fthe Fi rs t Info rm ati on m i st ak en l y l ists A r i zo na a s th e j ur i sdi ct i o n whe r e th e co nv i ct i o n was e nt er ed. But, a s we ha ve e xpl aine d, the gov er nm ent m ove d to cor re ct the er ro r bef or e s entenci ng. W hi l e Arre ol a- Casti l l o a r gue s , r a the rs ur pri si ngl y, that § 8 51 m ake s no pro vi si on f or“a m endm ents, ” t h e s tatute cl ea r l y st at es th at“ cl er i ca l e r r o r s” may be c o r r ec te d a t “a ny t i me pr i o r t o the p r o no un c e mento fs e nt e nc e . ” 2 1 U. S
. C. 85 1( a) ( 1)
. I t i s cl ea r tha t th e ac ci den ta l r efer en ce t o Ari zo na w as a c ler ica l err or . See, e.g
. , U nite d State s v. C uri ale, 39 0 F. 3d 1075 ( 8th Cir
. 20 04) ( i denti fyi ng the cr i m e a s a “s al e” rath er than as “p ossess ion”of dru gs w as a cleric a l error); U nited Sta tes v. Weav er, 267 F. 3d 231 ( 3d Cir

. 20 01) ( i denti fy-N o. 06

- 4055 9 i ng the cr i m e as “i nvol untary ” r atherthan as “vo l untary ” m an sla u gh te r w as a c l e ric al e rro r); U nite d State s v. Ham il

t on , 208 F. 3d 1165 , 11 69 ( 9th Ci r. 20 00) ( l i sting an i ncor re ct ye ar of co n vic tio n w as a c ler ica l err or ); U ni t e d S t at e s v. Kin g, 12 7 F. 3d 483, 48 9 ( 6th Ci r. 19 97) ( l i sting an i ncor re ct d ate of conv ictio n w as a cleri cal error)

. Ev en a cursory re adingo fthe Fi rs t Info rm ati on r eve al s that the r efer ence to Arizona w as a mis ta k e. The s en te nc e th atf o l l o ws the m ist aken re fer ence to A ri zona sta tes thatthe offense w as a fel on y “u nd erN ew M exi co l aw . ” The ce rt i fi ed copy of the c onvi cti on, at tached t o the info rm ati on an d i ncor pora ted byr efer ence, st ate s that the co nvi cti on was ente re d i n N ew M exi co. Ind eed, al l o fthe othe r re l evanti nfo rm at i o n i n th e g o v e r n me n t ’ s f i l i n gr e fe r r e d t o Ne w Me x i c o . As the di str i ct c ourtnot ed, the cer ti fi ed copy ofthe convi cti on ade qua tel y a ppr i se d Arr eo l a- Cas ti l l o o fthe da te , the j ur i s di c t i o n a nd the s e nt e nc e r e c e i v e d. A rr eol a- Casti l l o al so ar gues that both the Fi rs t Info rm ati o n a nd th e S ec o nd I nf o r m at i o n f ai l ed to co m pl y wi ththe noti ce r equi re m ents because nei therhe no r hi s co u n sel knew that a m anda tory m i ni m um se ntence ofl i fe i m pri sonm ent woul d app l y upon co nvi cti on. Both the Firs t I nform ation a nd the Sec ond Inform ation, how ever, cl ear l y s tat ed that they w er e be i ng fi l ed “pursu an t to 21 U
. S. C . § 8 51( A ) ( 1) , ” s o the i m pli cati ons shoul d have be en cl ear . M or e im port antl y, the re cor d show s that Arre ol aC astill o w as ad vised of th e po ssibil it y of a m an d atory10 N o. 06

- 4055

A th i s i n i t i a l a p p e a r a n c e , c o u n s e l f o r th e g o v e r n me n ts t a t e d, 3 “Y our H onor, the only thing I w anted to not e f or the re cord w as itapp ears thatM r. Arreola has tw o prior fel ony d ru g convict i ons . I fani nf or m at i on were f i l ed, thatwoul d t ri gge r hi m f or a l ife s ente nce. ” The d is tr ic t j ud ge then turned to A rreol aC astillo and said , “If yo u suffered tw o o r m or e qu alifyin g state or fede ra l c ont ro l l ed s ubs t anc e fel oni es , i ti s l i fe i m pri son m en t w ith o u t a n y su p er v ise d re le a se .” m i ni m um l i fe se nt en ce b efo r e th e tr i alb eg an . 3

B. A rr eol a- Casti l l o next ar gues that the g ove rnm ent f ai l ed to pr o ve tha t he ha d c o m m i tt ed th e crime a l l eg ed i n the Fir st Info rm at ion be yo n d a re as on ab le d ou b t. See 21 U. S
. C. § 85 1( c) ( 1)
. A t t he s en te nc i nghe ar i ng, ho wev er, the go ve rn m en t p re se n te d a ce rt ified co p y of t h e c on vic tio n, a copy o fthe ple a a gr eem ent a nd the docket i ng r eco rd f or th e co nv i ct i o n. The c er ti fi ed r ecor ds es tabl i sh ed th atthe convi cti on invol ved an ind i vi du alnam ed “Je sus Arre ol aCastil l o” w i th the sa m e date o fbi rth as the defendant. A rr eol a- Casti l l o conceded thathe was l i vin g in N ew M ex ico at the tim e; he also con ced ed that th e signatu re o n th e p l e a a g r e e me n tma t c h e d h i s o wn . Hi s a r g um en t r es ts l ar g ely o n the f ac t th at ei g ht o th eri ndi vi dual s l i ving i n New M ex i co a t th e ti m e wer e al so na m ed “J es us A rre ola -C as tillo.” B u t n on e o f th e o th er ind ivid u als nam ed “J esus A rr eol a- Casti l l o” had the s am e date o fbi rth as the defendant. N or, p re sum abl y, w oul d thei r si gnatur es ha ve m at c h e d th e o n e o n th e p l e a a g r e e me n t
. T h e a r g u-N o. 06

- 4055 11

m en t t h at oth er p eo p le “ c ou ld be ou t th er e” w as p ro p er ly d ism iss ed by the di str i ct j ud ge as specul ati ve. The exi stence and val i dity o fthes e c onvi cti ons w er e pr ove d b ey on d a re as on ab le d ou b t. See 21 U .S.C . § 85 1(c )(1)
.
C. Finally, A rreola- C astill o argue s tha t the district cou rt erred i n fi ndi ngtha t th e two c o unt s r efer en ce d i n the Se cond I nfo rm ati on co nsti tuted s e pa r a t e c o nv i c t i o nsu nd er § 8 41(b) ( 1) ( A )
. Of cou rs e, the tw o counts ar e, te chnic al l y, tw o d iffe r e n t co n vic tio n s. B u t c ou rt s h av e g en er ally ass um ed that a s entencing j ud ge m ay onl y c onsi der pr i or co nv i c t i o ns f o r pu r po s e s o fenhancem ent under § 8 41 (b )(1) (A ) if th ey co n st itu te se p ar at e “ c rim i n al e p isod es,” as opp osed to a si ng le act ofcrim inali ty or a sin gle tra n sa c tio n . See U nite d State s v. G arci a , 32 F. 3d 1017, 10 18 (7t h C ir. 19 94 ); U ni t e d S t at e s v. Bla ckwood, 91 3 F
. 2d 139 ( 4th Ci r. 19 90)
. To b e tre ate d as separ ate cr i m i nalepi sodes, the offenses m ust be “di stinct in ti m e” and requi re “s epara te pla nning. ” U ni t e d S t at e s v. Gr ay, 15 2 F
. 3d 816, 82 1 ( 8th C ir. 1998). F r a n k l y, i ti s d i ffi c u l tto de t e r mi n e wh e th e r th e t wo convi cti ons i nvol ved se parat e cr i m i nalepi sodes bec ause w e know ve ryl i ttl e about the f acts underl yi ng tho se c on vic tio n s. W e k n ow th at bo th inv o l v e d tra ffick in g in co c a i ne ; o ne t o o kp l a c e o n J a nu a r y 2 4 , 1 9 9 5 i n Ri o Ar r iba County, wh i l e the o ther t oo k pl ace on J anuary18 , 19 95 i n San M i guel County. N o case narr ati ve w as av ailab l e, so w e know n othi ng further

. The go ver nm ent a rgues that the t wo c o nv i c t i o ns we r e s e pa r a t e c r i mi na l e pi sodes12 N o. 06

- 4055 b ec au se th ey inv olv ed se p ar at e d eliv er ies of co c ain e. W h ile the tw o offenses were cer tainl y “dist i nct in ti m e” because they too k pl ace si x d ay s apartand in differ ent l oca ti ons, s e e, e . g. , U nited Sta tes v. B a rr, 130 F. 3d 711, 712 ( 5th C ir. 19 97 ) , i t i s unc l ea r whethe r the y i nv o l ve d s epa r at e pl an ni ng, se pa ra te custo m er s a nd so f or th. Thi s i s e nough to gi ve us pause. Ou r ske ptic ism deepens when w e co nsi der a r el ate d ar gu m en t ra ise d by A rre ola -C as tillo. A rre ola -C a st illo al so c o nt en ds th atthe c o nv i ct i on all eg ed i n the S ec o nd I nf o r m at i o n was repres en te d t o hi m t o b e a sing l e co nvi cti on a t the co m m encem ent o ftr i al

. Thi s i s, i n ess ence, an es to ppel ar g um en t, al th o ug h i t al so be ar s o n th e i ss ue o fwhethe r Arr eo l a- Cas ti l l o rec ei ve d c l ea r no ti ce o fthe gov er nm ent’ s inten t t o use a l l thr ee pri orco nvi cti ons. There i s s o me we i g htt o thi s a r g ume nt
. Ath i s i ni ti al appearance , co unself orthe gov er nm ent s tat ed that Ar r e o l a - Ca s t i l l o h a d “ t wo p rior felon y d ru g c on vic tio n s.” The S ec o nd Inf o r m at i o n n o ti fi ed Arr eo l a- C as ti l l o o fthe gov er nm ent’ s intent to re l y o n “a s e co ndpri orfel ony drugre l ate d convi cti on. ” W hen the i ssue cam e u p on the fi rs t d ay oftr i al, the gov er nm ent was notcl earabo ut wh ether the tw o coun ts re fer enced i n the Se cond I nfo rm ati on cou nt ed as one con viction or tw o. Fi na ll y, th e PSR referen ce d o nl y t wo o fthr ee po ss ibl e pr i o r fel o ny dr ug o ffen se s an d s ta te d tha t th e m an datory m i ni m um a pp l i e d b e c a us e Ar r e o l a - Ca s t i l l o h a d “ t wo pr i o r fel o ny convi cti ons. ” I t was o nl y a t the se ntenci ng hea ringthat i t be ca m e cl ear tha t th e S ec o nd Inf o r m at i o n i ts el fc o ntained tw o conv ictions fo r th e pu rp oses of § 841(b)( 1)(A ).N o. 06

- 4055 13 W e do ubtwhethe r thi s con sti tu te s cl ea r no ti ce o fthe gov er nm ent’ s intent to use a l l thr ee pri orco nvi cti ons. T h e p oin t, h ow ev er , i s a c ad em ic. A rre ola -C as tillo co nc ede s th athe was c o nv icted on th e two c o unt s i n the S ec o nd Inf o r m at i o n. Thu s, he a g r ee s th ata t l ea sto ne c on vic tio n is co n t a i n ed th er e. W h en th at co n vic tio n is com bi ned w i th th e convi cti on r efer enced i n the Fi rs t I nf o r m at i o n, Arr eo l a- Cas ti l l o b ec o m es s ub j ec t to the enhanced sen tencing provi si ons of§ 841(b) ( 1) ( A ) , wh i ch ar e t ri gge re d w hen the defendant has “two orm or e” pri or fel o ny dr ugc o nv i ct i o ns . 2 1 U. S
. C. § 8 41 ( b) ( 1) ( A). The d istri ct j ud g e h a d n o choice bu t to ap p ly th e m an d atory m i ni m um l i fe s entence
.
III. Forthe f or ego i ng rea so n s, the deci si on o fthe dist ri ct cour t i s A FFI RMED .

8- 25- 08