2005 D e c i sion s O p inion s of the U nit e d S t at e s C our t of Appe al s for the Thir d C ir c uit 8-5-2005 

# U SA v . R hines P r e c e de nt i al or N on-P r e c e de nt i al : N on-P r e c e de nt i al D ocke t N o . 04-2906

F o llow thi s and a dd it ion al work s at : http://d i git alc ommon s .l a w . vi ll anova . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2005

Thi s de c i sion i s br ou ght t o you for f r e e and ope n a c c e s s b y the O p inion s of the U nit e d S t at e s C our t of Appe al s for the Thir d C ir c uit at V i ll anova U nive r sity S choo l of L a

w Di git al Reposit ory

. It h as be e n a c c ept e d for inclusion in 2005 D e c i sion s b y an author i z e d a dmini s tr at or of V i ll anova U nive r sity S choo l of L a

w Di git al Reposit ory

. F or mor e inform at ion, p le as e c ont a ct Be n j amin . C arl s on@l a

w . vi ll anova . e du . Re c omme nde d C it at ion " U SA v . R hine s " (2005). 2005 D e cisio n s . P ape r 729. http://d i git alc ommon s .l a

w . vi ll anova . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2005/729NOT P RE CE DE NT I AL I N TH E UN I TED STATES CO UR T

OF A PP EALS F O R T H E T H IR D C IR C U IT N O . 04- 2906 UNI TE D ST ATE S OF AM ERI CA

v. GA RY RH I NES a/k/ a D err i ck U ps haw a/k/ a G aryR . A l l en a/k/ a R ober tC amby

G aryR hines, A ppel l ant

O n A pp eal F rom the U nit ed S t at es

D istri ct C o u rt Fort he M i ddl e D i s t r i ctof Penns y l vani a ( D . C . C r i m . A ct i on N o. 01- cr - 00310) D istri ct Ju d g e: H o n . Jam es F . M cC lure, Jr.

A r gued J une 7, 2005 B E F O R E : A M B R O , S T A P L E T O N a n d A L A R C O N ,*

C i r cui tJ udges ( O pi ni on Fi l ed A ugus t5, 2005) * H on. A r t hurL . A l ar con, Seni orU ni t ed St at es C i r cui tJ udge forthe N i nth C i r cui t , s i t t i ng bydes i gnat i on.C ountI : cons pi r acyt o pos s es s w i t h i nt entt o di s t r i but e more than 50 gr ams of 1 coca i ne bas e ( cr ack) i n vi ol at i on of 21 U . S. C . § 846 2 R onal d C . T r avi s ( A r gued) R ie d e rs , T ra v is , H u m p h re y , H arr i s , W at er s & W aff

ens chmi dt 161 W es tT hi r d St r eet P. O . B ox 215 W i l l i amspor t , PA 17703 A t t or neyforA ppel l ant J ohn J . M cC ann O ffi ce of t he U ni t ed St at es A t t or ney 240 W es tT hi r d St r eet- Sui t e 316 W i l l i amspor t , PA 17701 and T heodor e B . Sm i t h, I I I ( A r gued) O ffi ce of t he U ni t ed St at es A t t or ney 228 W al nutSt r eet , P. O . B ox 11754 22 0 F ederal B uil ding and C ou rtho use H arr i s bur g, PA 17108 A t t or ney s forA ppel l ee

OPI NI ON O F THE COURT

ST A PL E T O N , C i r cui tJ udge: B eca us e w e w r i t e s ol el yforthe part i es w ho ar e fa m i l i arw i t h t he fa ct s , w e r ecount t hem onl ybr i efl ybel ow . I n t he fa l l of 2001, a fe der al gr and j uryr eturned a thr ee- count i ndi ctm entagai ns tA ppel l antG aryD . R hi nes ( “R hi nes ”) , char gi ng hi m w i t h vi ol at i ons of fe d era l dru g law s, 2 1 U . S . C . § § 8 4 1 , 8 4 6 , 8 6 1 an d 1 8 U . S . C . § 2 . S teve n G air (“G air”), 1C ountI I : ai di ng and abe t t i ng and ca us i ng pos s es s i on w i t h i nt entt o di s t r i but e and the di s t r i but i on of m or e than 50 gr ams of coc ai ne bas e ( cr ack) i n vi ol at i on of 21 U . S. C . § 841, 18 U . S. C . § 2 Co u n tI I I : p o s s e s s i o n wi t h i n t e n tt o d i s t r i b u t e a n d d i s t r i b u t i o n o f mo r e th a n 5 0 g r a ms o f c o c a in e b a se (c ra c k ) a n d , b e in g o v e r 1 8 , em p lo y in g a m in o r to d istrib u te in v io la tio n o f

2 1 U .S .C . § § 8 4 1 (a )( 1 ), 8 6 1 a n d 1 8 U .S .C . § 2 . R h in e s m o v e d f

o r a Ju d g m e n t o f

A c q u itt a l p u rsu a n t to F e d . R . C rim . P . 2 9 o n a ll 2 cou nts att he close of t he g ov ernm ent’ s case. T he co urtgrant ed the m oti on as t o C ou nts I & II . 3 w h o w a s a ls o f

a c in g d ru g c h a rg e s , c o o p e ra te d w ith a u th o ri tie s to p ro s e c u te R h in e s . R hi nes , an A fr i can A m er i can, w as pr os ecut ed i n fede r al cour t , w hi l e G ai r , a C auca s i an, w as p rose cu ted in stat e c o u rt . O n A p ri l 22 , 2 0 0 0 , the ju ryco n v ict ed R h ines o n C o u n t I II o f th e In d ictm e n t. 2 D ur i ng t he pr ocee di ngs befor e the D i s t r i ctC our t , R hi nes fi l ed the fol l ow i ng m o tio n s/re q u e sts , all o f w h ich th e C o u rt d e n ied , an d a ll o f w h ich p ro v id e th e b a sis f o r th is appea l : ( 1) a pr e- t r i al m ot i on r eques t i ng thatthe D i s t r i ctC our tperm i tdi s coveryon t he i s s ue of s el ect i ve pr os ecut i on bas ed on the al l eged di s par i t yi n t he tr eatm entR hi nes and G ai rr ece i ved; ( 2) a pr e- t r i al m ot i on t o s t r i ke the governm ent ’ s Fed. R . C r i m . P. 16 not i ce due t o t he governm ent ’ s fi ve- m ont h del ayi n pr ovi di ng the di s cl os ur es ; ( 3) a r eques tt hat t he j ur ybe cha r ged thatt he governm entw as r equi r ed t o s how the contr ol l ed s ubs t ance at i s s ue w as “cr ack” coca i ne; ( 4) a Fed. R . C r i m . P. 29 m ot i on forj udgm entof ac qui t t al a lleg in g th e g o v e rn m e n t h a d f a iled to p ro v e e ss e n tial e lem e n ts o f th e o f f e n se c h a rg e d in C our tI I I ; ( 5) a pos t - ver di ctm ot i on fora new tr i al on t he bas i s of al l eged B r ady vi ol at i ons , and the combi ned pr ej udi ce a l l egedl yr es ul t i ng fr om the i ncl us i on of4

a lias e s a n d C o u n ts I a n d II in th e In d ictm e n t. R hi nes al s o cont ends t hathe w as i m pr oper l ys ent ence d t o l i fe i n pr i s on beca us e the g o v e rn m e n t in v a lid lyf

iled a n d a m e n d e d its In f o rm a tio n o f

P rio r C o n v ictio n s p u rsu a n t to 21 U . S. C . § 851( a) . T he D i s t r i ctC our tfound thatthe I nform at i on w as pr oper l yamended and al l ow ed the governm entt o r el yon R hi nes ’ pr i orconvi ct i ons t o s eek a n enhanc ed s e n te n c e . J u ri s d ic tio n w a s p ro p e r i n th e D is tr ic t C o u rt p u rs u a n t to 1 8 U .S .C . § 3 2 3 1 . J u ri s d ic tio n is p ro p e r i n o u r C o u rt p u rs u a n t to 2 8 U .S .C . § 1 2 9 1 a n d 1 8 U .S .C . § 3 2 3 1 . I. A di s t r i ctcour t ’ s deci s i on t o denya di s coveryr eques ti s r evi ew ed forabus e of d is c re tio n . See U

ni t ed Stat es v. A lHedai thy , 3 9 2 F . 3 d 5 8 0 , 6 0 5 - 0 6 ( 3 d C i r . 2 0 0 4 ) . We revi ew t he suf

fi ci encyof juryi nst ruct i on s de novo . U ni t ed Stat es v. P r i ce , 13 F. 3d 711, 724 ( 3d C i r . 1994) . W e r evi ew a di s t r i ctcour t ’ s deni al of a mot i on fora new tr i al for a b u s e o f d is c re tio n . See W

a ldo rf v . Sh u ta , 3 F .3 d 7 0 5 , 7 1 0 (3 d C ir. 1 9 9 3 ); U ni t ed Stat es v. G i l s enan , 949 F. 2d 90, 95 ( 3d C i r . 1991) . “W hen a B r ady vi ol at i on i s al l eged i s s ues of law an d fa ct us u all yare p rese n ted. In tha t ci rcu m stan ce w e re v iew the d istri ct co u rt ’s l egal concl us i ons on a de novo bas i s and i t s fac tual fi ndi ngs underthe cl ear l yerr oneous s t andar d. ” U

ni t ed Stat es v. Jos eph , 996 F. 2d 36, 39 ( 3d C i r . 1993) . W e r evi ew the su ff ici en cyo f th e g o v ern m en t’ s n o ti ce p u rsua n t t o 2 1 U . S . C . § 8 5 1 (a) de novo . U ni t ed Stat es v. W

eave r , 2 6 7 F .3 d 2 3 1 (3 d C ir . 2 0 0 1 ).G a irh a d p ri o r a rr e s ts f o r D U I, r e ta il th e f

t a n d f ig h tin g w ith a g ir lf

ri e n d . 3 5 II. A. A pr i m a f

aci e cas e of s el ect i ve pr os ecut i on dr aw s “‘ on or di naryequal pr ot ect i on s t andar ds . ’ T he cl ai m antm us tdemonstr at e thatthe fe der al pr os ecut or i al pol i cy‘ had a dis cri m i natoryeffect and thati tw as m oti vated bya dis cri m i natorypu rpose. ’ To est abli sh a di s cr i m i nat or yeff

ecti n a r ace cl as s , the cl ai m antm us ts how thats i m i l ar l ys i tuat ed i ndi vi dual s of a di ffe r entr ace w er e notpr os ecut ed. ” U ni t ed Stat es v. A r m s tr ong , 517 U .S . 4 5 6 , 4 6 4 (1 9 9 6 ) (in ter n a l cita tio n s o m itt e d ). A d e f e n d a n t m a k in g su c h a c laim is ent i t l ed t o di s coveryon t hatcl ai m onl yi f he pr es ent s “‘ s om e evi dence t endi ng t o s how t he exi s t ence of the es s ent i al el ement s of the def ens e, ’ di s cr i m i nat oryeff ectand di s cr i m i nat or yi nt ent . ” A r m s tr ong , 5 1 7 U .S . at 4 6 8 ; see al so U nited S tates v. Mi nerd , 182 F . S u p p . 2 d 4 5 9 , 4 6 4 (W . D . P a. 20 0 2 ). H er e, t he r ecor d es t abl i s hes thatR hi nes and G ai rw er e nots i m i l ar l ys i tuat ed b e c a u se , as th e D istric t C o u rt n o ted , G a ir w a s c o o p e ra tin g w ith law e n f o rc e m e n t o f

f icia ls w hi l e R hi nes w as not . I n addi t i on, R hi nes ’ cr i m i nal hi s t oryi ncl uded tw o fel onydrug convi ct i ons , w hi l e thi s w as G ai r ’ s fi r s tdrug arr es t . A s a r es ul t , R hi nes fai l ed t o s how 3

“ so m e e v id e n c e ” o f

d isc rim in a to rye f

f e c t an d w e a re sa tisf

ied th a t th e D istric t C o u rt d id n o ta b u s e i t s d i s c r e t i o n i n d e n yi n g h i s m o t i o n t o c o m p e l d i s c o v e r y. B.6

Fed. R . C r i m . P. 16( a) ( 1) ( G ) r equi r es the governm entt o “di s cl os e t o t he def endant a w ri t t en sum m aryof [ exp ert ] t est i m on ythe g ov ernm ent i ntends t o u se . . . du ri ng i t s case i n chi ef. ” “I ti s expec t ed thatt he part i es w i l l m ake thei rr eques t s and di s cl os ur es i n a tim e ly f a s h io n .” F e d . R . C ri m . P . 1 6 a d v is o ry c o m m itte e n o te s . H er e, t he governm entadmi t t ed thati tt ook fi ve mont hs t o pr ovi de the w r i t t en su m m a ryo f

th e e x p e c ted tes tim o n ya n d c u rric u lu m v ita f o r its e x p e rt, a f

o re n sic sc ien tist. C o m p lian c e w ith R u le 1 6 w a s d e layed u n til tw o w e e k s p rio r to th e A p ril 1 5 , 2 0 0 2 trial. T he D i s t r i ctC our tnot ed thi s del ay , y etdet erm i ned thatR hi nes w as notpr ej udi ced beca us e he s houl d have e xpect ed thata for ens i c s ci ent i s tw oul d t es t i fyi n a tr i al i nvol vi ng drug ch arges as t o the r esul t s of l ab an al y si s on the drugs sei zed. Th e D i stri ctC ou rtal so found thatt he def

ens e had be en pr ovi ded w i t h l ab r epor t s w hi ch “ge ner al l yr efl ect ed” the expert ’ s expec t ed t es t i m onyi n D ece m ber2001. T he C our taff or ded R hi nes the oppor tuni t yt o voi rdi r e the governm ent ’ s expertout s i de the pr es ence of the j ury . G i ven t hes e fa ct s and the fa ctt hatR hi nes s t i pul at ed t o t he expe r t ’ s t es t i m ony , w e ar e s at i s fi ed th a t th e re q u ire d p re

ju d ice w a s n o t sh o w n a n d th a t th e D istric t C o u rt d id n o t ab u se its d is c re tio n in d e n y in g R h in e s ’ m o tio n . See U ni t ed Stat es v. B r eland , 356 F. 3d 787, 797 (7th C ir . 2 0 0 4 ). C. C ountI I I of the i ndi ctm entchar ged A ppel l antw i t h pos s es s i on and di s t r i but i on of “coc ai ne bas e ( cr ack c ocai ne) , a s chedul e I I contr ol l ed s ubs t ance . ” A ppel l ants t i pul at edW e al s o not e thatR hi nes w as s ent ence d under§ 841( b) ( 1) ( A ) ( i i i ) , w hi ch pr os cr i bes 4 puni s hm ent s foroffe ns es i nvol vi ng “coc ai ne bas e. ” The st atut e does notm ent i on cr ack coca i ne. A s t hi s C our thas not ed, “w hi l e the t erm ‘ coca i ne bas e’ m eans onl ycr ack w hen a se n ten c e is im p o se d u n d e r th e S e n ten c in g G u id e lin e s, ‘c o c a in e b a se ’ e n c o m p a ss e s a ll form s of coc ai ne bas e w i t h t he s ame chemi cal form ul a w hen the mandat orym i ni m um s ent ence s under21 U . S. C . § 841( b) ( 1) ar e i m pl i cat ed. ” U nited S tates v. B arbo sa , 271 F. 3d 438, 467 ( 3d C i r . 2001) . B eca us e R hi nes w as s ent ence d underthe s t atut e and not t he s ent enci ng gui del i nes , t her e w as no need t o have the j uryfi nd the s ubs t ance t o be “cr ack” as oppos ed t o coca i ne bas e. 7 t hat , i f ca l l ed, t he governm ent ’ s expertw oul d t es t i fythatthe s ubs t ance pos s es s ed and di s t r i but ed w as a s ubs t ance “cont ai ni ng a coc ai ne bas e. ” A ppel l antar gues thatthe D i s t r i ctC our t ’ s r efus al t o char ge the j urythati tw as r equi r ed t o fi nd thatthe contr ol l ed s ubs t ance he pos s es s ed w as “cr ack” coca i ne, r atherthan coc ai ne bas e, r equi r es a new t r i al . W e w er e conf

r ont ed bya s i m i l ars i tuat i on i n U n itedS ta tes v . L e w is , 113 F. 3d 487, 492 ( 3d C i r . 1997) , w her e the i ndi ctm entchar ged di s t r i but i on of “c ocai ne bas e, ” the D i s t r i ctC our t , overt he obj ect i on of the def endant , char ged thati tdi d notm att erw hether t he s ubs t ance w as found t o be “pow dercoca i ne orcoca i ne bas e, ” and the def endant , on appea l , ar gued thatt he cha r ge “br oadene d t he i ndi ctm entand vi ol at ed hi s r i ghtt o be tr i ed onl yon an i ndi ctm entr etur ned byt he gr and j ury . ” W e hel d t hatthi s pr es ent ed the i s s ue of w hethert her e had be en a “ fat al var i ance ” and thatther e had notbeen be caus e the defe ndanthad nei t herbeen pr ej udi ced i n t he pr epar at i on of hi s defe ns e norpr ovi ded i ns uffi ci entpr ot ect i on agai ns tr epr os ecut i on forthe s ame offens e. B as ed on L e w is , we r eac h t he s ame concl us i on her e fort he s ame r eas ons . E ven as s um i ng thata var i ance 4 e x is ts , w e f

in d it is n o t f

a ta l.8 D . Fed. R . C r i m . P. 29 perm i t s a def endantt o fi l e a mot i on forj udgm entof ac qui t t al aft era ver di cti s r etur ned, butw e have not ed thata def endant“cha l l engi ng the s uffi ci ency of the evi dence bear s a hea vybur den. ” U ni t ed Stat es v. C as

per , 956 F. 2d 416, 421 ( 3d C i r . 1992) . I n r evi ew i ng a mot i on forj udgm entof ac qui t t al , the court“mustvi ew the e v id e n c e a n d th e in f

e re n c e s lo g ica llyd e d u c ib le th e re f ro m in th e lig h t m o st f

a v o ra b le to the g o v ern m en t, to d eterm ine if th ere is suf ficien t evid en ce to su p p o rtthe f ac tfi n d er’s ver di ct . ” U

n itedS ta tes v . M

c N e ill , 887 F. 2d 448, 450 ( 3d C i r . 1989) . “A ver di ctw i l l be overrul ed onl yi f no r eas onabl e j ur orcoul d acc eptthe evi dence as s uffi ci entt o s uppor tt he concl us i on of the def

endant ’ s gui l tbey ond a r eas onabl e doubt . ” U ni t ed Stat es v. C ol em an , 8 1 1 F .2 d 8 0 4 , 8 0 7 (3 d C ir . 1 9 8 7 ). A ppel l antcont ends t hathe w as ent i t l ed t o a R ul e 29 J udgm entof A cqui t t al on C o u n t III b e c a u se th e g o v e rn m e n t f a iled to p ro v e th re e e ss e n tial e lem e n ts o f th e c h a rg e : ( 1) t hatt he s ubs t ance w as cr ack c ocai ne; and ( 2) thatR hi nes w as over18 y ear s of age ; and ( 3) t hatR hi nes us ed a pe r s on under18 i n t he comm i s s i on of the cr i m e. A s w e not ed a b o v e , the g o v e rn m e n t p ro v e d th a t th e d ru g s f o u n d w e re c o c a in e b a se a n d th is w a s n o t a fat al var i ance . T h e e v id e n c e a t trial w o u ld su p p o rt f in d in g s th a t: (1 ) A n th o n yN ix o n , a 1 6 y e a r o ld m al e, w as i n t he ca rw i t h R hi nes w hen R hi nes s ol d G ai rcoca i ne bas e as partof a pol i ce s t i ng; ( 2) R hi nes gave N i xon t he “buym oney ” t o hol d and tr i ed t o di s t ance hi m s el f fr om9

N i xon and the moneyw hen he i dent i fi ed a pol i ce of fi ceri n t he ar ea; ( 3) R hi nes l at er a s k e d N ix o n to ta k e th e b la m e f o r t h e d ru g s ; a n d (4 ) R h in e s k n e w N ix o n w a s a m in o r. T he j ur yfound bey ond a r eas onabl e doubtthatR hi nes , w hen he w as over18 y ear s of age , “empl oy ed, hi r ed, us ed, per s uaded, i nduced, ent i ced orcoer ced” a mi nor“t o fur t hert he pos s es s i on w i t h i nt entt o di s t r i but e ordi s t r i but i on of coc ai ne bas e. ” R hi nes i ns i s t s t hatt her e i s no evi dence fr om w hi ch a j urycoul d concl ude thathe w as over18. M or eover , “abs entfr om the evi dence s ubm i t t ed bythe governm ent[he c o n ten d s] is a n ye v id e n c e N ix o n w a s e v e r h ire d , em p lo y e d o r o th e rw ise u se d b yR h in e s to pos s es s w i t h i nt entt o di s t r i but e the s ubs t ance del i ver ed t o G ai r , anyevi dence N i xon actual l ydi s t r i but ed the s ubs t ance t o G ai r , oranyevi dence R hi nes pr ovi ded t o N i xon t he su b sta n c e d e liv e re d to G a ir.” R e p lyB r. at 1 2 (e m p h a sis in o rig in a l). Im p licit in th is l at t ercont ent i on i s , i nt eral i a, t he ar gum entthatC ountI I I char ged R hi nes w i t h havi ng us ed a mi nori n a mannercaus i ng t he mi nort o pos s es s and t o di s t r i but e coc ai ne bas e, w h ile th e ju ryf

o u n d , co n sis ten t w ith th e C o u rt’s in stru c tio n s, th a t R h in e s u se d a m in o r to fac i l i t at e R hi nes ’ ow n pos s es s i on and di s t r i but i on of coc ai ne bas e. W hi l e R hi nes ’ ar gum ent s her e ar e notw i t houts om e for ce, i ti s cl earthatanyerr or w as harm l es s . Sect i ons 841( a) and 841( b) ( 1) ( A ) ( i i i ) of Ti t l e 21 ( 1) m ake i tunl aw ful for any one t o know i ngl yand i nt ent i onal l ypos s es s w i t h i nt entt o di s t r i but e ort o di s t r i but e 50 gr ams orm or e of c ocai ne bas e, and ( 2) pr ovi de thatany one w ho does s o “af t ertw o or m or e pr i orconvi ct i ons fora fe l onydrug offe ns e have become fi nal , . . . s hal l be10

s ent ence d t o a mandat or yt erm of l i fe i m pr i s onm entw i t houtr el eas e. ” C ountI I I char ged t hatR hi nes vi ol at ed § 841( a) bypos s es s i ng and di s t r i but i ng m or e than 50 gr ams of coca i ne bas e on oraboutA ugus t24, 2001, and the j ury , cons i s t entw i t h t he i ns t ruct i ons of t he C our t , found R hi nes gui l t yof thi s offe ns e as char ged. A s a r es ul tof the j ury ’ s ver di ct on t hi s char ge and the fa ctt hatR hi nes had tw o pr i or , fi nal convi ct i ons forfel onydrug offe ns es , t he D i s t r i ctC our ti m pos ed the mandat orys ent ence of l i fe i m pr i s onm entw i thout r el eas e. I ti s t rue, as R hi nes s t r es s es , thatC ountI I I cont ai ns addi t i onal al l egat i ons and m ak es th e a d d it ion al ch arg e tha t R h ines ’ co n d u ct also v iolated 2 1 U . S . C . § 8 6 1 (a)(1), w hi ch makes i ta cr i m e forany one “a tl eas tei ght een y ear s of age t o know i ngl yand in te n tio n a lly . . . u s e a p e rs o n u n d e r e ig h te e n y e a rs o f a g e to v io la te ” 2 1 U .S .C . § 8 4 1 (a ). S e c tio n 8 6 1 (b ) p ro v id e s th a t an y o n e w h o so u se s a m in o r to v io late § 8 4 1 (a ) sh a ll, if it i s a f ir s t s u c h o f

f e n s e , b e s u b

je c t to “ tw ic e th e m a x im u m p u n is h m e n t o th e rw is e a u th o ri z e d .” G i ven R hi nes ’ convi ct i on forvi ol at i ng § 841( a) and the r es ul t i ng l i fe s ent ence w i t houtr el eas e, w e r egar d t he addi t i onal al l egat i ons of the compl ai ntand fi ndi ngs of the ju ryto b e su rp lu sa g e , an d a n yiss u e s ra ise d th e re b yto b e m o o t. E. F e d . R . C rim . P . 3 3 p ro v id e s th a t a c o u rt, u p o n d e f e n d a n t’s m o tio n , “m a yg ra n t a n e w trial to th a t d e f

e n d a n t if th e in ter e sts o f ju stic e so re q u ire .” T h e d e c isio n to g ra n t a new t r i al i s di s cr et i onaryand perm i t s a courtt o “s etas i de the ver di ctand or dera new t r i al11

i f i tas cert ai ns t hatt he ver di ctcons t i tut es a mi s carr i age of j us t i ce. ” U

ni t ed Stat es v. D a n iels , 1 9 9 6 W L 3 1 1 4 4 4 , a t * 4 (E .D . P a . 1 9 9 6 ), a ff’d 1 1 8 F .3 d 1 5 7 8 (3 d C ir . 1 9 9 7 ). R ul e 33 mot i ons “ar e notfavor ed and s houl d be gr ant ed onl yw i t h gr eatcaut i on ‘ i n t he m os textr aor di naryci r cumst ance s . ’ ” U nited S tates v. B arroso , 108 F. Supp. 2d 338, 341 (S . D . N . Y . 2 0 0 0 ) (i n terna l ci tat ion o m itted). R hi nes al l eges he i s ent i t l ed t o a new tr i al on t w o gr ounds . Fi r s t , he mai nt ai ns t hat t he governm ents uppr es s ed evi dence favor abl e t o hi m , s peci fi cal l yevi dence of an ag ree m en t betw ee n the g o v ern m en t and G air th at ga v e G air a “c o u n tysen tenc e” in return forhi s cooper at i on i n R hi nes ’ arr es tand pr os ecut i on, i n vi ol at i on of thei robl i gat i ons u n d er B r ady & G ig lio . See Brady v. Mar yland , 3 7 3 U .S . 8 3 , 8 7 (1 9 6 3 ); G igl i o v. U ni t ed Stat es , 4 0 5 U . S . 1 5 0 , 1 5 4 (19 7 2 ); U ni t ed Stat es v. Star us ko , 7 2 9 F . 2 d 2 5 6 , 2 6 0 (3d C ir . 1984) . R hi nes al s o s peci fi cal l yal l eges thatG ai rper j ur ed hi m s el f byt es t i fy i ng thathe had no agr eementw i t h t he governm ent . A convi ct i on i s “obt ai ned bythe know i ng us e of per j ur ed t es t i m onyi s fundament al l yunfai r , and mustbe s etas i de i f ther e i s any r eas onabl e l i kel i hood t hatt he fa l s e t es t i m onycoul d have a ffe ct ed the j udgm entof the j ur y . ” K yl es v. W hi t l ey , 5 1 4 U .S . 4 1 9 , 4 3 3 n .7 (1 9 9 5 ). H o w e v e r, th e D istric t C o u rt f o u n d a s a m a tter o f

f a c t th a t “[ a ]t th e tim e o f trial, th e re w a s n o o ra l o r w ri tte n a g re e m e n t b e tw e e n th e g o v e rn m e n t a n d G a ir .” A p p . a t 6 0 . W h il e itis true , as R h ines str esse s, that there w as e v iden ce fro m w h ich a co n tr ary i nfer ence coul d be dr aw n, t he D i s t r i ctC our t ’ s fi ndi ng has r ecor d s uppor tand i s notR hi nes al l eges t hatpr ej udi ce of the cont ent s of the I ndi ctm entcoupl ed w i t h t he 5 al l eged B r ady v io la tio n s “ w a rr a n ts th e e n tr yo f a n e w tr ia l o rd e r i n th e in te re s t o f ju s tic e .” B r . A ppel l antat40. B eca us e the D i s t r i ctC our tcorr ect l yhel d t hatther e w as no B r ady vi ol at i on, w e now l ook onl yt o t he al l eged c om bi ned pr ej udi ce of the al i as es and the d is m is s a l. 12 c le a rl ye rr o n e o u s . S e c o n d , R h in e s c o n ten d s th a t th e in c lu sio n o f a lleg e d a lias e s a n d C o u n ts I a n d II in t h e I n d i c t m e n tc r e a t e d s u f f i c i e n tp r e j u d i c e t o w a r r a n tth e e n t r yo f a n e w tr i a l o r d e r . We 5 ar e unper s uaded. T h e in d ictm e n t re f

e rre d to th e d e f

e n d a n t as “ G a ryR h in e s, a /k /a G a ryA llen , a/k /a D err i ck U ps haw , a/k/ a R ober tC amby . ” The i ndi ctm ent , i ncl udi ng thes e r efe r ence s , w as r ead t o t he j ur yatt he t i m e of j ur ys el ect i on. D ur i ng tr i al , no w i t nes s i dent i fi ed the defe ndantbyone of thes e al l eged a l i as es . A s a r es ul t , aft eral l the evi dence w as i n, couns el advi s ed the courtt hatt heyhad agr eed t o t he r edac t i on of the al i as es fr om the i ndi ctm entpr i ort o i tgoi ng outw i t h t he j ury . T he courtr edac t ed the i ndi ctm entand made no r efe r ence s t o t he al i as es i n i t s i ns t ruct i ons orj uryver di cts heet . T he courtdi d i ns truct t he j ur yt hatt he i ndi ctm entw as notevi dence , and theym us tcons i deronl ythe evi dence th e yh e a rd in th e c o u rt ro o m . N ot hi ng i n t he r ecor d s ugges t s thatR hi nes w as notknow n bythes e al i as es ort hat t her e w as no r eas on t o bel i eve theym i ghtbe us ed byw i t nes s es attr i al t o i dent i fythe defe ndant . A ccor di ngl y , and under s t andabl y , no pr etr i al m ot i on t o s t r i ke w as fi l ed and no o b je c tio n ra is e d w h e n th e in d ic tm e n t w a s re a d a t th e c o m m e n c e m e n t o f th e p ro c e e d in g s .13

S e e U n itedS ta tes v . B e e d le , 4 6 3 F .2 d 7 2 1 , 7 2 5 (3 d C ir. 1 9 7 2 ) (n o tin g th a t u se o f a lias e s is perm i s s i bl e w her e theyw i l l s erve attr i al t o hel p i dent i fythe def endant ) . A tthe cl os e of al l t he evi dence w i t houtr efe r ence havi ng been made t o anyof the al i as es , how ever , t he is s u e w a s ra is e d a n d a c u ra tiv e m e a s u re a g re e d u p o n a n d c a rr ie d o u t. See U ni t ed Stat es v. H ar r is t on , 329 F. 3d 779, 792 ( 11t h C i r . 2003) ( s ugges t i ng r edac t i on as a cur at i ve m easure w hen t ri al w i t nesses do n ot m ake reference t o an al i as) . A tthat t i m e, the d efen se d id n o t ask fo r an ad d it ion al cu rati v e ins tru cti o n o r i n an yo ther w ayind icate to the co u rt t hatt he agr eed upon c ur e w as i nadequa t e. U ndert hes e ci r cumst ance s , w e r evi ew forpl ai n err or . B eca us e ( 1) the agr eed upon cur at i ve meas ur es w er e notobvi ous l yi nadequa t e, ( 2) i ti s hi ghl yunl i kel ythatthe r eadi ng of the i ndi ctm entatt he comm ence m entof tr i al aff ect ed the out come of t he pr ocee di ng, and ( 3) t hatr eadi ng cl ear l ydi d not“s er i ous l yaff ectthe fa i r nes s , i nt egr i t yor p u b lic re p u ta tio n o f

[ th e ] j u d ic ia l p ro c e e d in g s ,” w e f in d n o p la in e rr o r. U

ni t ed Stat es v. O l ano , 5 0 7 U . S . 7 2 5 , 7 3 6 (19 9 3 ). W h ile R h in e s a c k n o w led g e s th a t “[ a ] ju d g m e n t o f a c q u itt a l o n so m e o f

th e c o u n ts of an i ndi ctm enti n t he mi ddl e of tr i al does notgi ve r i s e t o a r i ghtt o a new tr i al , ” U ni t ed Stat es v. C ab allero , 277 F. 3d 1235, 1243 ( 10t h C i r . 2002) , he i ns i s t s thatthe D i s t r i ct C our t ’ s deci s i on t o gr anthi s R ul e 29 mot i on as t o C ount s I and I I atthe end of the g o v e rn m e n t’s c a se -in -c h ief sh o w s th a t th e g o v e rn m e n t n e v e r h a d su f f icie n t ev id e n c e to p rov e tho se c o u n ts an d that their i n clus ion w as “ a tac ti ca l ployd esig n ed to ca u se th e jury14

t o bel i eve ‘ w her e ther e i s s m oke ther e i s fi r e. ’ ” B r . A ppel l antat44. H ow ever , w e fi nd n o th in g in th e re c o rd to su p p o rt e ith e r a f in d in g o f b a d f a ith o n th e g o v e rn m e n t’s p a rt in ch arg ing all three co u n ts or a f ind ing that o n ce C o u n ts I an d II w ere d ism issed the ju ry fai l ed t o fol l ow t he i ns t ruct i ons gi ven t o i tt o deci de onl yC ountI I I us i ng onl ythe evi dence appl i cabl e t o t hatcount . T hus , w e conc l ude thatthe gene r al rul e r egar di ng t he di s m i s s al of s om e count s att r i al i s the governi ng one her e. T h e D is tr ic t C o u rt d id n o t a b u s e its d is c re tio n in d e n y in g R h in e s ’ R u le 3 3 m o tio n . F. Pur s uantt o 21 U . S. C . § 851( a) ( 1) , the governm entm ays eek a n enhanc ed s ent ence forpr i orconvi ct i ons onl yi f i tfi l es an i nform at i on w i t h t he courtl i s t i ng the pr evi ous convi ct i ons t o be r el i ed on “be for e tr i al , orbefor e entr yof a pl ea of gui l t y . ” “Cl er i cal m i s t akes i n t he i nform at i on m aybe amended atanyt i m e pr i ort o t he pr onouncementof s e n te n c e .” 2 1 U .S .C . § 8 5 1 (a )( 1 ). H ere , R h ines arg u es th at th e In d ict m en t w as im p rop er b ec au se th e D istri ct C o u rt al l ow ed the governm entt o amend an i ncorr ectdat e and i ncl ude an i nval i d convi ct i on. N ei t herof thes e al l egat i ons i s per s uas i ve. T he or i gi nal I nform at i on i ncorr ect l yi dent i fi ed t he dat e of a pr evi ous contr ol l ed s ubs t ance convi ct i on ( l i s t i ng the l as tdi gi tof the y ear i ncorr ect l y ) , butcl ear l yi dent i fi ed the type of c onvi ct i on and w her e i toccurr ed. W e have pr evi ous l yfound thatt hi s t ype of e r r ori s a “c l er i cal m i s t ake” pr oper l ycorr ect ed i n an a m e n d e d in f

o rm a tio n . See U

ni t ed Stat es v. W

eave r , 2 6 7 F .3 d 2 3 1 , 2 5 0 (3 d C ir . 2 0 0 1 ).15

T he governm ent ’ s or i gi nal I nform at i on al s o l i s t ed a s t at e convi ct i on forpos s es s i on w ith in ten t to d e liv e r a c o n tro lled su b sta n c e a n d c o n sp ira c y . R h in e s c o n ten d s th is convi ct i on cannotbe us ed t o enhanc e hi s s ent ence beca us e he w as gi ven “pr obat i on w i t houtver di ct . ” H ow ever , R hi nes vi ol at ed hi s pr obat i on, w hi ch l ed t o hi s bei ng “A d jud g ed G u il ty ” o f th o se c ri m es a n d sen tenc ed to p ri so n . T h u s, the D istri ct C o u rt corr ect l yfound thatpr i orconvi ct i on t o be a pr opergr ound upon w hi ch the governm ent c o u ld s e e k to e n h a n c e R h in e s ’ s e n te n c e . V I. T he j udgm entof the D i s t r i ctC our tw i l l be af fi r m ed.