## 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 os. 08

- 1466 , 08

- 1608 , 08

- 1616 & 08

- 1617 U NI T ED S TATE SOF A MERI CA, P la intif f-A pp ellee, v. D AR EK H AYNES, B R ODERI CK J ONES, E URAL B LA CK, a nd B RE NT T ERRY, D efend a nts-A pp ella nts.

Appeals from the United St ates District Court fo r the N o rthernDi stricto f Illino is, Eas tern Div isi on. No . 1:05- cr -70

—Ronal d A . G uzmán, Judge .
A RG UE D J UNE 5, 2009

— D ECI DE D S EP TE MBE R 17, 2009

Befo re P OSNER, M A NI ON, a nd T INDER, C ircu it Judges. T INDER, C ircu it Ju dg e. Cr i m e i s a r i sky b us i ne ss . One of th e ri sks i s that y ou wil l ge t ca ught. That happened to Dar ekHay ne s, Br o der i ckJ o ne s, Eur alBl ac k, a nd Br en t T er ry . Th ey w er e c h ar ge d w ith a d r u g co n sp ira c y, a ro bber y a nd exto rt i on co nspir acy, and r elat ed offenses . H aynes , J ones , and Bl ack al so w er e charg ed w i th a rac ketee ri ng co nspir acy. H aynes and J ones pl ed gui l ty. Bl ack2 N os. 08

- 1466, 08

- 1608, 08

- 1616 & 08

- 1617

As you r ea d t hi s , i tm ay be di ffi c ul tt o tell the c ops fro m the 1 cro ok s. T ha t’ s be cau se m an y of the acto rs in t h ese ev en ts are both. Y ou m ay be rem inded ofa pop ular m ovie re le a sed in 20 0 1 , Tra i ni ng D ay, featuri ng D enzel W ashi ngton’ s O sc arw in n in g p o rt ra y a l o f th e u lti m a te co rr u p t c o p . S ee h tt p :/ /tr a in in g d a y .w a rn er b ro s.co m (la st v isi te d Se p t. 4 , 20 0 9 ). In o u r case, life im itates art. and Terr y were tr i ed by a j ury and convi cted. These defen dan ts a ppea l, r ai sings ev er ali ss ue s. F i nd in gno e r r o r, w e a ffi r m.
I . B a c kg r o und Th e fo l l owing f acts ar e t ake n fro m the evi dence vi ewe d i n the l i g htmos t f av o r ab l e to the g o ve r nm en t wi tha l l r ea so nabl e i nfer en ce s dr awn in the g o ve r nm en t’s favo r, as we m ust. The defendants were i nvol ved 1 i n a cr i m i na l e nt er pr i se tha t i nc l ude d b ad co ps an d dr ug deal er s in Chicag o, Illi noi s, beg i nning as ear l y a s 1 999 an d cont inu ing into 2005. Th e d rug d ealers i n th e ent erpr i s e p r o v i d e d th e c o r r u p t c o p s wi th i n f o r ma t i o n a bo ut th e l o ca ti o n o fn arcoti cs a nd mone y he l d b y o th erdr ug deal er s. The co rr up t o ffi cer s use d that info rm ati on t o conduct tr affi c st ops a nd hom e invasi ons and sei ze an y dr ug s an d m o ne y the y fou nd. The c o ps th ens o l d the dr ug s wi ththe he l p o fthe dr ugdealers, a nd the cocon spi ra tor s di vi ded the proce eds. N one ofthi s was l egi ti m ate l aw enf or cem ent a cti vi ty. The l e a de r o fthe c o ns pi r a c y wa s de fe nd a ntBr o deri ck J o ne s, the n a Chi ca go p o l i ce o ffi ce r . S o m eo ne i n theN os. 08

- 1466, 08

- 1608, 08

- 1616 & 08

- 1617 3 Ch i cago Pol i ce Depar tm ent ( CP D) m anage m ent m ust h av e had suspi ci ons about hi m bec ause on Au gust 22, 20 03 , J o ne s was i nf o r m ed bythe CPD tha t he was no l onge r author i zed to exer ci se pol ice authori ty and w as b ein g p la c e d on “re st ric te d d u ty ” p en d in g a n inv es tig at i o n i nt o hi s co nduc t. He h ad to s ur r en derhi s CPD star, shiel d , and I D card , and w a s orde red not to carry a fi re ar m o r any o therweapon, not t o ex er ci se hi s pol i ce po wer s, a nd no t t o dri ve a CPD mot o r v eh i cl e wi th o ut au th o r i za ti o n. I n the sum m ero f20 04, J ones cal l ed his f or m erpol i ce p ar tn er , E rik Joh n so n, an d as ke d for h i s a ss ist an c e in rip p in g offa d ru g d ea ler . A t t h e t i m e o f Jon es ’s c all, J o hns o n w as on dut y w i thhi s ne w CPD par tn er, de fen dan t Eu ra l Bl ack, patr ol l i ng i n J ohnson’ s unm ar ked pol i ce crui ser . J ohnson agr eed to m eetJ ones atthe i nter sect i on o f 8 7 th S t r e e t a n d L a f a y e t t e Av e n u e t o d i s cus s th e ri poff
. W hen Bla ck and Jo hnson m et J ones , he t ol d them thata dr ugc o ur i e r wo ul d b e dr i v i ngb y s ho r t l y a nd tha t he wanted them to st op the carand sei ze any nar cot i cs they fou n d
. J ones would se l l the drugs a nd gi ve J ohnson and Blackbetw een $ 8, 00 0 and $1 0, 000. Bl ack and J o hn s o n di s c us s e d J o ne s ’ s p r o po s a l a nd a g r e e d t o p ar tic ip at e. O n c e t h e y t old Jon es th at th ey w ou ld j oin i n, J o n e s c a l l e d s o me o n e o n h i s c e l l p h o n e . T h e n t he th ree cop s w a it e d f or several hou rs forthe d rug co urier, but he di dn’ t sh o w. S i nc e i t was appr o ac hi ng the end ofthei r shi ft, Bl ack and Jo hnson l eft. A few w ee ks la t e r , J on es ag ain ca lled Joh n so n w h ile J o hns o n was o n du ty pat r o l l i ngwi thBl ac ki n h i s CPD4 N os. 08

- 1466, 08

- 1608, 08

- 1616 & 08

- 1617

cru iser. J one s asked J ohn s o n to m eet h im at the inte rs e c t i o n o f8 7 th S t r e e ta n d L a f a y e t t e A v e n u e , t h e s a me l oca ti on wh ere th ey had m et bef or e. J ohnson tol d Black that J ones wanted to m eetwith them ag ai n, and they drove to the i nter sect i on wh er e they m et J ones . J ones adv i se d the m tha t a dr ugc o ur i erwoul d b e d ri ving thro ugh the nei ghborhood and thath e w anted the m to pul l hi m o ve r, s ea r chhi s ve hi cl e, and s ei ze a ny na r co ti cs f o und. H e a g ain o ffer ed to pa y J o hns o n a nd Blac k b etween $8, 000 and $10, 000 f orthei r ass i sta nce. J o hns o n un der st o o d tha t th eywoul d b e paid fro m the sa l e o fa ny dr ug s se i ze d dur i ngthe i r tr affi c st o p o fthe d rug co urier. Blac k a nd J ohnson agr eed to j oi n i n the ri poff
. J ones go t i nt o the b ac ko fthe p ol i ce c r ui se r a nd the y dr o ve t o the intersec tion of 91st Street and Ind iana A ven ue w he re th eywai te d f o r the d rug co ur i er . J o ne s sa i d tha t th e cou rier w ou ld be a H ispa nic m a le d rivi ng a red sp ort u t i l ity ve h icle (SU V ). Soon en ou gh , a H isp an ic m ale dr i vinga r ed S UV appe ar ed. J o hnson p ull ed be hi nd the SUV , act i vate d h i s cr uis er ’ s s i re n and l i ghts, and or dered th e dr i ve r t o pul l o ve r . The dr i ve r c o m pl i ed. J o ne s, J o hnson , a n d Bl ack exi ted the pol i ce c rui serand approac hed th e SU V . Jon es p u lled th e d riv er o u t a n d p at te d h im d ow n . B la c k h a n d c u ffed th e d riv er an d p lac ed h im in the pol i ce cru ise r. Then J ones se ar ched the S U V. W hen he ha d c o m pl et ed hi s se ar ch, the offi ce r s r el ea se d the dri ver . J ohnson didn’t see J ones re m ove an y d rugs from the S UV, b utwhenJ o hns o n r etur ne d t o the cru iser after the search , he saw an em p ty card board box in sid e that hadn’tbee n ther e be f or e. A ccor ding toN os. 08

- 1466, 08

- 1608, 08

- 1616 & 08

- 1617 5 J ohnson, the box was l ar ge enough t o conta i n a o neki l ogr am br i ck ofco cai ne. J o ne s, J o hns o n, a nd Bl ac kr etur ne d t o 9 1s t an d I nd i ana, wh er e J ones had l eft hi s per sonalve hi cl e. J o ne s adv i se d the o th ert wo tha t he woul d c al l the m in a w hi l e t o i nfo rm them wh en and w here theyco uld m eet hi m f o r pa y m en t. Tha t ev en i ng , J o ne s ca l l ed J o hns o n a nd the three ar ra nged to m ee t. W hen theym et that ni ght, J o ne s g av e John so n a l ar g e ba go fmone y . Bl ac ka nd J ohnson w ent to J ohnson’ s ho use, co unted the m oney, $12, 000, and spl i t i t be tw een them sel ves. On Jul y 2 1, 20 04, J ones cal l ed J ohn so n a thir d ti m e, offering him anot he r cha nc e to pa rticip a te in ri p p ing off a drug cour i er . A gai n, J ohnson w as on duty with Black an d i n h is CP D cruiser. John son told B la c k abou t Jones’s o ffer, and Bl ac ka g r ee d t o pa r ti ci pat e, s ay i ngtha t he needed the c ash. This ti m e they m et J ones at87 th S tr eet and A shl and A venue where J one s to l d them thata H i spanic m al e in a b l ack Ch evyBl az er S U V w oul d be dri vi ng nor thbound on A shlan d that a fter noon. J ones sai d th e m ale w as a drug cour i erand that J ones wanted th em to pul l hi m o ve r, s ea r chhi s ve hi cl e, and s ei ze a ny dr u g s i n s i d e . J o n e s g a v e J o h n s o n a Ne x t e l c e l l p ho ne w i th a “Dir ect C on n ec t” w al ki e t al ki e feature so they c o ul d c om m uni c a t e a nd t o l d the m t o wa i to n As hl a nd
. A whi l e l a t e r, J o n e s c a l l e d J o h n s o n o n th e Ne x t e l p h o ne an d t o l d him tha t th e Bl az erwas a ppr o ac hi ng . The Blaz erpasse d Blackand J ohnson, and Johnso n pull ed o ut, act i v a t e d h i s l i g h t s a n d s i r e n, a n d p u l l e d th e S UV over.6 N os. 08

- 1466, 08

- 1608, 08

- 1616 & 08

- 1617

In an ironictwis t off ate, the driver was a c onfi dential i nf or- 2 m ant ( CI) w orking w ith the CP D in a le git im ate dru g invest igati on. As part ofthati nvesti ga tio n, l egit im ate narcoti cs offic ers were us i ng the CI t o bro ke r a s al e of c oc ai ne t o J os ep h W il s on, the owne r ofa c ar was h i n the 85 00 bl ock o f So uth As hl and Avenue who was i nvol ved i n dr ug d ealin g . Thoughthe CPD had been s uspicious ofJ ones’ s act ivit ie s, i t does not appear thatthe CPD had s pec i fi c i nf or m at i on re gar di ng J one s ’ s an d hi s c oho rt s ’ i l l eg al ac t i vi t i es thatday. How eve r, e ar l i eri n the da y, s ome CP D offi c e r s wor ki ng w it h the CI h a d o bs e r ve d a susp ected d ru g c ou rier b eing f ollo w ed b y J on es in his personal vehicl e and C PD offic ers def endan t Darek H aynes and Corey Flagg in an unm arked p oli ce crui se r. W hen H aynes and F l agg p u ll ed o ver the c our i eran d s ea rc he d hi s c ar, the C PD of fi c er s kne w so m ethi ng was up

— ne i the r J one s , Ha y ne s, nor F l a g g wa s p a r t i c i p a t i n g i n th e n a r c o t i c s i n v e s t i g a t i o n an d a ll o f t hem w ere outsi de of thei r as si gned dist ri ct
. The offic ers c ont ac ted the CPD’ s I nt er nalAf f ai rs Divi s i on, whi c h c ontacted the F B I. T he jig w as just ab ou t up f or ou r b old d efend an ts. Blac k a nd J ohnson exi ted the cr uis erand approac hed the Bl aze r. B oth ofthem were w ear i ng the i r nor m al tact i calge ar a n d thei r guns. J ohnson re m ove d the dri ver f ro m the Blaz erand patte d him dow n . B lackhandcuffed 2 hi m and pla ced hi m i n the pol i ce c rui ser . By then J ones ha d pa r k ed hi s o wn ve hi cl e a few c arl en g th s be hi nd the c ru ise r. Joh n so n se ar c h ed t h e B laz er , rec eiv in g s p ec ific i ns tr uct i o ns fr o m J o ne s th r o ug h Di r ec t Connect ab o ut w here to l oo k. Joh nson, however, di dn ’ t fi nd any drugs. J ohnson and Blackr el eas ed the dri verand then m et J ones a few bl ock s a w ay to disc uss th e failed r i poffat
tem pt. J ones , Bl ack, and J ohnson w er e photo gr aph edN os. 08

- 1466, 08

- 1608, 08

- 1616 & 08

- 1617 7

Jerr y ’s b ro the r, J oe l M on tgo m ery , m ak es his w ay into this 3 op inio n a s w e ll; thu s, to av oid con fusion , w e w ill refer to each ofthe m by theirfir stnam e. du ri ng the st op by l egi ti m ate CPD offi cer s. These photogr ap h s w er e in tr od u c ed int o e vid en c e a t t ria l. The go ve rnm ent obtained tel ephone r eco rds fro m J uly21 , 20 04, f orcal l s m ad e be tw een phones r egi ste re d t o th e C I, J o n e s , J o h n s o n, a n d o th e r C P D o ffi ce r s kn o wn t o J o ne s . T he r e c o r ds s ho we d thats i x c a l l s we r e ma de th atmo r n i n ga n d a ft e r n o o n b e t we e n J o n e s ’ s c e l l p h o ne and a ce l l phone r egi st er ed to Defendant Brent Terr y. Se v e r a l o f tho s e c a l l s we r e pl a c e d wi thin t wo mi nu t e s o f a cal l between J ones ’ s phone and a phone re gi stere d o r u s e d b y o n e o fth e o th e r o ffi c e r s kn o wnt o J o n e s . A s u mm ar y o fthes e t el ephone ca l l s was in tr oduced i nto ev id en c e a t t ria l. W i th i n a few da y s o f th e J ul y 2 1 at te m pte d r i po ff, the govern m en t obtaine d a w ire tap on J osep h W il son ’s ph o ne . A fe w we e k s l ate r, the g o v e r nme nto b t a i ne d a wi r e t a p o n o ne o fJ o ne s ’ s c e l l p ho ne s . T he wi r e t a ps provi ded a goo d deal o f e vid ence ofJ ones ’ s pl anned ripoffs ofdru g d ealers and use of corru p t po li ce offi cers to m ake the ri poff s a pp earto be l egi ti m ate pol i ce work
. E arl y i n S ept embe r, J o ne s dev i se d a pl ant o s ea r chthe hom e o fJ er ryM ontg om er y, wh om J ones knew to be a drug deal er, and ste alh i s cocai ne and m oney . J er ry knew 3 J o ne s, s o J o ne s n eede d a no th ero ffi ce r t o e xe cut e th e sea rch. Cor ey Fl agg, ano th erf or m erCPD partner of J ones , ag re ed to p lay that ro l e. J ones tho ught F l agg8 N os. 08

- 1466, 08

- 1608, 08

- 1616 & 08

- 1617

w oul d need anothe r offi ceralon g, so J ones at tem pted to conta ct o thero ffi cer s he knew fr om the Se venth Di str i ct to a skthe m to p ar ti ci pat e. J o ne s as k ed f o r Bl ac k, b ut Blac k was o ffduty that day. J ones ev en tual l y r eached defe nd ant Dar ek H aynes wh o agr ee d to parti ci pate i n ri pp i ng o ffJ er ry . O n Sep te m b er 8, 20 04 , Flag g a n d H ay n es u n law fu lly en tered the bu il d ing w he re Jerr y l ived
. Th eir p lans w ere thw ar ted, however
. A nei ghbordow nstair s co nfr onte d th e m, a n d F l a g gfe a r e d h e mi g h tc a l l t h e C P D t o c o mpla i n. S o H aynes l eft the sc ene a nd Fl ag g c al l ed h i s s er ge an t a n d ot h er offic er s t o m ak e t h in gs look legit im at e. W he n the o th ero ffi ce r s ar rived, F l ag gha d t o i nven tor y the dr ug s an d wea po ns f o und a nd ha d J er ry ar r es te d. J er r y a tt empte d t o g etr el ea se d by te l l i ngthe arresting of fi c e r s tha t he kn ew J one s. Flagg l et Jerry c a l l J o ne s , a nd J e r r y p l e a de d wi th J o ne s t o b e r e l e a s e d. J ones cal l ed Terr y, expl ai ni ng th at Jer ryhad been ar re ste d by o ne o fJ ones ’ s a sso ci ate s a nd had bee n thro w i ng J ones ’ s nam e a ro und
. J ones to l d Terr y that Jer ry w ou ld h av e b ee n rele a s e d h ad h e b rib ed th e a ss oc iate , but J er rydi dn ’ t hav e a ny cash . T errycal l ed J ones lat er th at ev en in g a n d as ke d w h et h e r i t w as st ill po ss ible to getJ er ryo ut. But J ones sa i d i t was to o l ate f orthat
. Jones d idn ’t obtain an y d r u g s o r cash from J erry’s ho us e , b ut he di d di s c o v e r s o me g o o d i nfo r mat i o n. J ones l e a r ne d tha tJ e r r y ’ s dr ugs o ur c e wa s J e r r y ’ s g i r l f r i e nd , M arie Tow ns en d , and that she con tinu ed to run J erry’s drug busi ness w hi l e he w as detai ned on the char ges ar i s i ngfr o m t he i nv a s i o n o fh i s h o me. S o , J o nesN os. 08

- 1466, 08

- 1608, 08

- 1616 & 08

- 1617 9 f or m ula ted a pla n to r i p offTown send. The day a fter th e f ai l ed ho m e i nv as i o n, J one s ca l l ed Te r r y a nd inform ed him that J er r y’s source w as his girl fri en d
. Terry s a i d tha th e kne w the g i r l f r i end and wo ul d t r y t o fi nd a way t o c o nt ac t he r . He h ad a to ug h t i m e co nt actin g To wnse nd, tho ug h. So , o n Se ptem ber 22, 2004, J ones cal l ed J er ry ’ s e str anged bro ther, Joe l, and tol d hi m that J ones ’ s “ budd y B” wanted to geti n to uch w i th J er ry ’ s g i rl f ri end. (“B ” was a ni ckna m e J o ne s us ed f o r Te r r y . ) J o els ai d tha t To wnse nd had J er ry ’ s cel l phone w hi l e J er ry w as i n j ai l an d th at “B” s ho ul d t r y J e r r y ’ s n umb e r . J o e l i nd i c a t e d that To wnse nd had b ee n t ak i ngc al l s o n J er r y ’ s ce l l pho ne f ro m J er ry ’ s a sso ci ate s a n d would often a sk J oelwh ether the a sso ci ate co uld be tr usted. J oelo ffer ed to vo uch f or
“ B” i fT o wns e nd a s k e d. J on e s a nd J o e l di s c us s e d the p l a nn e d t r a ns a c t i on wi th To wns e nd , i nc l ud i ngthe n umb e r o fk i l o g r a ms “ B” s h o u ld ord er from h er . Jon es as ke d if T ow n se n d co u ld hand l e a “dub, ” m eani ng twenty ki l ogr am s, and J oel said he th ou gh t so. Bu t, he ad d ed , i f “B ” asked f or a “dub ” th at m i g ht “s po o k ” To wnse nd an d sh e m i g ht want t o b r i n gs o me o n e e l s e wi th h e r t o th e t r a n s a c t i o n. T h u s, Joe l r ec om m en d ed t h at “ B ” as k for les s t h an a “d u b ,” m o r e l i k e fi ve t o t enk i l o g r ams. I m m ed iat el y a fte r the cal l w i th J o e l, J o ne s c a l l e d T e r r y a nd a dv i s e d h i m t ha t J oelsugg est ed that Terr y c al l Jer ry ’ s phone t o re ach To wns e nd
. On Septem ber24 , Ter ry cal l ed J ones and re port ed that h e was “supposed to m eet up w i th ol d g i rl i n a litt le10 N os. 08

- 1466, 08

- 1608, 08

- 1616 & 08

- 1617 bi t” and he w oul d c all J ones bac k l ate r. J ones i m m edi ate l y c al l ed Fl agg, sa yi ng “M y b ud dy B, yo u kn ow m y bu d d y B ? H e abou t to hook u p w ith old girl an d th en . . . h e g oin g t o kn ow so m et h i n g f o r m e, an d
. . . I ’ l l hi t y ou l ate r. ” A fe w days l ate r, o n Se ptem ber27, J ones metwi th F l a g g t o di s c us s the p l a n t o r i p o ffT o wns e nd
. J ones to l d Fl aggthathi s buddy “B ” w oul d m eetwith To wns e nd a nd t r y t o b uyt e n k i l o g r a ms o fc o c a i ne . J ones al so t o l d Flagg th atwhenthe dr ug s ar r i ve d a t th e me e t i n gs i t e , “ B ” wo u l d c a l l J o n e s a n d s a y, “ b r i n gt he mo n e y, ” w h i c h w a s a si g na l f o r J o n e s a n d F l a g gt o c o me to th e s c en e, se ize th e d ru gs , an d p re te n d to arr es t “ B .” That eve ni ng, Ter ryga ve the s i gnal
. S o J ones and Fl agg dr o ve i n F l ag g ’ s unmar k ed CPD c r ui se r t o a pa r k i ng l ot nearthe i nter sect i on o f87 th S tr eetand W abash A venue . Upon ar r i va l, the y s aw T err y a nd To wnse nd i n Tow nsend’s car . Fl agg w as w ear i ng hi s CP D badge an d ha nd gu n. J o ne s an d F l ag gr emov ed Te r r y a nd T ow n send fro m the car, handcuffed them , and pla ced th em i n the c r uiser. J o ne s se i ze d a b agfr o m the c ara nd pu t i t in the tr unk ofthe crui ser. T hen J ones and Fl agg re l eas ed Tow nsend. J ones , Fl agg , and Terr y dro ve to Fl agg ’ s ho use where they opened the bag that had been re m ove d fr om Town send’s car . I nsid e, Fl aggo bser ved two b r i c k

- s ha pe d pa c k a g e s tha t he b e l i e v e d, b a s e d on hi s e x p er ience, were tw o ki l ogr am s o fco cai ne. H e a l so sa w se ve r alo th erb r i ck

- sh ape d o bj ects b en ea ththe tw o p ac ka ge s a n d be l i e v e d t h ey w er e c oc ain e a s w ell. B ased on hi s o bser vati ons and the s i ze ofthe bag, Fl agg bel i eve d that th e bag c ontained ten k i l ogr am s o fco cai ne. J ones cal l ed a thi rd p er son to sayhe was o n hi s way,N os. 08

- 1466, 08

- 1608, 08

- 1616 & 08

- 1617 11 and then J ones and Terr y d ep ar ted with the c oca i ne. Later i n the eve ni ng, J ones r etur ned to Fl agg ’ s ho use. J ones tol d Fl aggthathe kept fi ve ki l ogr am s o fco caine and ga ve “B” fi ve. J ones ga ve Fl aggbetw ee n $10, 000 and $12, 000, w hi ch Fl aggunderstoo d cam e fro m the sal e o fthe cocai ne. Fl aggev entual ly re cei ved a tot alo f$2 1, 000 to $25,000 for his r ole in th e Tow ns en d ri p off
. On Oc tobe r 1 5, 2 00 4, J er r y was r el ea se d fr o m de te nt i o n. W ithin a few w eeks, he w as p u lled over by C PD officers w ho ca ll ed Fl a g g t o t he scen e. W he n Flagg arrived , J erry r ev ea l ed hi s su spi ci o n tha t th e st o p o fTo wnse nd a nd Te r r y was no t l eg i ti m at e. F l ag gc al l ed J o ne s f r o m the scene to re l ay thi s t o hi m . Laterthatm onth, J ones cal l ed Terr y t o i nfo rm hi m thatJ er ry m i ght b e o n to th em. J o ne s admi tt ed th athe was a b i t wor r i ed , b uthe w as goin g t o m ee t w ith h is “ b u d d y” w h o w ou ld “t ell [ hi m ] e ve r y th i ng . ” After J o ne s ta l k ed to hi s “b uddy, ” he cal l ed Terr y t o saythat he thought J er ryknew that T ow ns en d ’s arrest w as a scam . J one s also tol d Terry that J er ryhad m enti oned Ter ry ’ s nam e. On N ov em ber13 , 20 04, J ones and J am es W al kerag re ed to ri p offa M ex ican d rug su p p li er. A ccord in g t o J one s’s pla n, W al ker w oul d invi te the supp l i er to brin g d rugs to the c arwas h at the i nt er se ct i o n o f8 5th a nd Ashl an d an d woul d b ac ko uta t th e l as t m i nut e. T he n, w hen the supp l i e r l e ftthe c a r wa s h, J o ne s a nd o the r c r o o k e d c o ps w oul d sto p him , se i ze th e d ru gs , and l et hi m go . J ones tried feverishly t o c o nt act offi cers to assist in the ri p off
. H e t ri ed to r ea c h B l ack, but gothi s v oi ce m ai l
. Later that after noon, Bl ack re turned J ones ’ s ca l l, and J ones12 N os. 08

- 1466, 08

- 1608, 08

- 1616 & 08

- 1617 sai d that he “m i ght ha ve som ething f oryo u. ” Bl ack re sponded , “Cal l m e m an. ” J ones r epl i ed, “Okay
. . . j ust st ay aro u n d for a m in u te , Ig o t t o m ak e a ca ll rea l qu ick .” B lack asked w he re he sh ou ld go, an d J one s instru cted , “it’ s gonna be ov er ther e where w e was l astti m e bythe car wash .
. . 8 5 th a nd As hl a nd
. ” Bl a c kt o l d J o ne s , “ I ’ m he a di ng tha t way. ” J ones cal l ed Bla ck a ga in and advi sed that “w e wai ti ng f orhi m to cal l ba c k.” Bl ack sai d he w as on hi s way. That a fter noon, l aw enf orce m ent a gents , conducti ng sur vei l l ance in the vi cin ity o fthe carwash a t8 5 4 0 S
. As hl a nd Av e nu e , o b s e r v e d B l a c k ’ s CP D c r ui s er parke d i n a p ar king l ot nearthe i nter sect i on o f87 th a n d A s h l a n d w i th t wo b l a c kma l e s i ns i de
. N o th i n gc a me of the p lann ed ri p offof th e M ex ican d rug su p p li er. A few h ours lat er, Jone s a nd Ter ryspok e byphone. J ones sa i d he was a t th e i nt er se ct i o n o f 85th and Ashl an d a nd had “ j us t t r i e d t o do s o mething, ” b ut i t “ di dn ’ t g o thro ugh. ” J ones sa i d t h at he “was go i ng to co m e a t you toni ght t oo , but
. . . i t a i n’tf ol l owed thr ough s o w e ’ll see w ha t hap p en s in the m orning
. ” Jones an d Terry ta l ked o n the phone aga i n on Novem ber23 , 20 04, wh en J ones st ated, “Ineed ano therdem o. ” Ter ryr epl i ed, “I ’ ve b e e n t r y i ng t o wo r k o n som e s

— too though.
. . . [ W ] e g ot to ge t u p , l in k u p to ge th er th is w ee k for su re .” H ay ne s, J o ne s, Bl ac k, Te r r y wer e ch ar g ed wi th a d r ug con s pi r a c y i nv o l v i ngfi v e k i l o g r a ms o r mo r e o fmi xtur es c o nt a i ningc o c a i ne a nd qua nt i t i e s o fma r ij ua na a nd a ro bber y a nd exto rt i on co nspir acy i n violat ion o f21 U. S
. C. § 8 46 a nd 1 8 U. S
. C
. § 1 95 1. Hay ne s, J o ne s, a nd Blac k a l so w er e char ged with a rac ke teeri ng co nspir acyN os. 08

- 1466, 08

- 1608, 08

- 1616 & 08

- 1617 13 i n vi ol ati on o f18 U
. S. C. § 1 962( d). A l l f our w er e char ged w i th r el ate d drug and ro bbery a nd exto rt i on o ffen ses an d on e o r m ore firearm s o ffen ses un d er 18 U
. S. C
. § 924(c). H ay ne s pl ed g ui lty and was s en te nc ed to 1 68 months on the co nspir acy convi cti ons and a co nsecuti ve 60- m onth s en tence o n the § 9 24( c) co nvi cti on f ora tot alo f 228 m onths. J ones pl ed gui l ty and w as sente nced to 240 m onths on the co nspir acy counts and a co nsecuti ve 60- m onth s entence o n t he fi re ar m co nvi cti on f ora tot al of 300 m ont hs . B lac k and Terry w ere tried by a j ury and convi cted as c h ar ged. Bl ack w as sente nced to 480 m onths’ i m pri sonm ent. Ter rywas sente nced to 168 m onths forthe substa nti ve drug co nspir aci es and a 60

- m onth c onse cuti ve sente nce o n the § 9 24( c) co nvi cti on f o r a t o t a l o f2 2 8 mo nths
. T he s e a pp e a l s f o l l o we d.

I I . Discussi on B lack and Terry claim that the trial evid en ce w as insu ffi ci en t to s uppo r t th ei r c o ns piracy c o nv i ct i o ns , r es ul ting i n a f at alv ar i an ce b etwee n the c ons p ira cyc ha r g ed an d th e co ns p iracy pr o ve d a t tr i al
. The y a l so c ha l l en g e th e su ffi ci en cyo fthe e vi den ce t o s uppo r t th ei r § 9 24 ( c) c o nvi ct i o ns . Te r r y ar g ue s th atthe r e was i ns uffi ci en t evi dence to pro ve that he poss ess ed fi ve ki l ogr am s o f coca i ne and thata re cor ded co n ve rs ati on be tw een J ones and Ric ky D ee ( w ho was notchar ged i n the i nd i ctm ent) was e r r o ne o us l y a dm i tt ed as a c o co ns pi r at o r s ta te m en t unde r F ed. R. Ev i d. 8 01 ( d) ( 2) ( E). Hay ne s ch al l en g es the d ist ric t co u rt ’s d ec isio n n otto giv e h im a m in or role re d u c ti on under U.S
. S. G. § 3 B1. 2( b) and i ts appli cati on o f14 N os. 08

- 1466, 08

- 1608, 08

- 1616 & 08

- 1617

Te r r y ha s a do pt e d Bl a c k’ s co ns pi r a c y va r i a nc e a nd h ub

- a nd

4 spoke conspir acy argum ents and v ic e vers a. a f our- l eve l enhancem ent under U
. S. S. G. § 3B 1.5 (2) ( B) for hi s u s e o fb o dy a r mor . He a l s o c ha l l e ng e s the i mpo s i ti on o fa c o ns ec uti ve fi ve - y ea r s en te nc e f o r hi s fi r ea r m c o nvi cti on. J ones ar gues that the dist ri ct courter re d i n apply

i ng the u se o f body ar m orenhancem ent b ecause i t a l so appli ed an e n hancem ent forabuse o fa posi ti on o ftr ust. W e wi l l addr es s ea ch o f th es e cl ai m s i n tu rn, start i ng w ith th e c h alle n ge s t o t h e p ro of a t t ria l.

A . Tr i al I ssues 1. Bl ack and T erry: Conspir acy V ar i ance Bl a c ka nd T e r r y fi r s tc o mpl a i n tha tthe r e wa s a f a t al var i ance b etween the conspi ra cy charg ed i n the i nd i ctm ent a nd the cons p ira c y prove d at t ri al
. A f atalvar i ance 4 exi sts “when the f acts pro ve d attr i aldi fferfro m tho se al l eg ed i n the i ndi ct m en t . ” U ni t e d St at e s v. D e an , N o. 08

- 3287, 20 09 W L 23416 76, at* 4 ( 7th C i r. A ug. 5, 2009) ( quoti ng U nited Sta te s v. Lo ng street, 567 F.3d 911 , 918 (7th C ir. 20 09) )
. To pr o ve a c o ns pi r ac y v ar i an ce c l ai m , a de fen dan t m ust e stabl i sh that“the ev i dence a t tri aldi d not su pp o r tthe j ur y ’ s fi nd i ngtha th e j o i ne d the c ha r ged c on sp ira c y” an d th at th i s c a u se d h im p rej u d ice
. Id. A co n s p i r a c y v a r i a n c e c l a i m i s a c h a l l e n g e to t he su fficie n c y of t h e ev id en c e, se e U nite d State s v. A vila , 557 F. 3d 809, 81 5 ( 7th Ci r. 20 09) , wh i ch i s r evi ew ed und er a h igh ly d efe re n tia l st an d ar d , U nite d State s v. Wom ack,N os. 08

- 1466, 08

- 1608, 08

- 1616 & 08

- 1617 15

Bl ac k’ s ope ni ng br i efc onc ede d t hatthe def en dant s di d not 5 m ake a ri m l es s hub- and- s poke c ons pi ra c y a rg um en tan d did n ot reques t a m ulti ple c onspirac ie s ins tr ucti on and , the ref ore, that th e se m a t t e r s a r e r e v i e w e d fo r p l a i n e r r o r . H o w e v e r , B l a c k ’s reply b ri ef ass ert s thathis posit ion on the s tandard ofrevi ew m ay hav e been i ncorrec t becaus e hi s m oti on f or a new tri al ch a l l e ng e d the s uffi c i e nc y ofthe e vi de nc e . W e thi nk Black w as ri ght the fir stti m e. W e have revie w ed his m oti on f or a new tr ial and, while i t c hall enges the suffic ie ncy ofthe evidence, the re i s no m en t i on ofpr oo fofa ri m l es s hub- and- s poke c onsp iracy or th e lack o f a m u ltiple con sp iracies in stru ction
. T hu s, w e r ev ie w for p la in er ro r. S ee Un i te d S ta te s v . G roves , 470 F. 3d 31 1, 324 ( 7th C ir. 20 06 ). B u t ev e n i f w e w e re to re v iew these issues u nd er th e m or e string en t d e no v o stan d ard , the resu lt w ould b e the s am e. 496 F. 3d 791, 79 4 ( 7th Ci r. 20 07 )
. Vi ew i ng the ev i dence and draw i ng al l r eas onabl e infe re nces i n the l i gh t m ost f av o r ab l e to the g o ve r nm en t, we co ns i derwhethe r the ev id en c e is su fficie n t t o s u p p or t t h e ju ry ’s v er d ict
. See D e an , 2 0 0 9 WL 2 3 4 1 6 7 6 , a t * 4
. We wi l l “ ‘ o v e r tu r n a co nvi cti on onl y i f the re cor d c ontains no evi dence from whi cha r ea so nabl e j ur o r c o ul d ha ve f ou nd the de fen dan t gui l ty. ’ ” Id. ( quoti ng Lon gs treet, 56 7F
. 3 d a t9 1 8 )
. As we ha ve often obs erved , a defen d an t faces a “ne arly ins urm ountabl e” hurdle wh en chall engi ng the suffi ci ency of th e e v i d e n c e . Se e, e . g. , U nited Sta tes v. Hensley, 574 F
. 3d 384, 390 (7th C ir. 2009) (qu otation om itted ). N ei therBl ack norTer ryr ai sed a conspi ra cy var i ance cl ai m i n the dist ri ct c ourt, so thei r burd en is eve n heavi er ; we re vi ew f orpl ain e rro r onl y. SeeWom ack, 49 6 5 F
. 3d at7 94
. W e find p lai n e r r o r i fa n e r r o r o cc ur r ed, the16 N os. 08

- 1466, 08

- 1608, 08

- 1616 & 08

- 1617

error w as p lai n, and the erro r a ff e cted the d efend an t’s su b st an tia l righ ts
. Id. Thu s, o urt as ki s to de term i ne w he the r the r ec o r d c o nt ains e vi den ce fr o m whi cha reason able j uror cou ld h ave foun d B la ck an d Terry gui l ty ofthe conspi ra ci es charg ed i n the i nd i ctm ent. To pr o ve a dr ug o r H o bb s Act co ns pi r ac y, th e governm ent m ust e stabl i sh thattwo orm ore p er sons agr eed t o c o mmi t a n u n l a wfu l a c t, a n d th a t th e d e fe n d a n t k no win gly an d int en t ion ally j oin ed in t h e a gr ee m en t. A vila , 557 F. 3d at 814. Tw o orm or e per son s conspi re d tog ether if th ey “e m b ra c ed a c o m m on cr im in al ob j ec tiv e, ev en if th ey d id n ot know each other or pa rtici p a te in every aspect ofthe cri m e. ” Id. (q u ot at ion o m i t te d ); see also Lon gs t r e et, 56 7 F
. 3d at 919. The go ver nm ent m ay prove an ag re em ent a m ong coco nspir ato rs by ci rcum sta nti al ev id en c e. A vila , 55 7 F.3d a t 8 16. H o wev er, t wo pe r so ns have not c onsp i re d tog ether“when each o fthe conspi ra tor s’ ag reem en ts has i ts own end, and eac h const i tutes an end i n i tse l f
. ” Id. at 814 ( quotati on om i tte d ). Th is often c om es up i n a “ hub-and- spoke ” co nspir acy, wher e th e co r e co ns pira to r i s co nne ct ed to e ac h o fthe c oc onsp i ra tor s bya “spok e. ” Id. T o p r o v e a s i n g l e c o nspi r ac y i n the h ub- an d- spo k e co nt ex t, the g o ve r nm en t m ust es tabl i shtha t a “r i m ” co nne ct s th e spo k es t o g ether; “otherwis e the co nspir acy i s no t o ne but m any. ” U nited State s v. B ust am ante, 49 3 F.3d 87 9, 88 5 (7th C ir. 20 07 ). “T h is ‘ri m ’ i s an agre em en t to furt he r a si ng le d e s ig n or p urpose. ” A vila , 5 57 F
. 3d at 814. Fo r a s i ngl e co nspir acy to exi st, the conspi ra tor s “w ho f or m the w heel ’ s s pokes m ust hav e be en aware ofea ch other and m u st do s om eth in g in fu rt h er an c e o f so m e s in gle , i lleg al e n te r p r i s e .” B ust am ante, 493 F.3d at 885 ( qu otation om itted ).N os. 08

- 1466, 08

- 1608, 08

- 1616 & 08

- 1617 17 B lack and Terry con ten d that the g o v ernm en t’s evid en ce esta bli sh ed a ri m less hu b-an d -spok e con sp irac y . Bl ac kc l ai m s th athe was i nv o l ve d i n o nl y f o ur r i po ff s o r a tt empte d r i po ff s. Te r r y a ss er ts tha t the ev i den ce pr o ve d tha t he was i nv o l ve d i n j us t th e Tow nsend ri poff
. They c l ai m thatthe gov er nm en t presente d no ev i denc e that they were aware ofany othe r cri m i nal acti vi tie s in vo lvin g t h e o th er all ege d co co ns pi r at o r s o r tha t th eyi nt en ded to fur th erthe wi d e c o n s p i r a c y c h a r g e d i n th e i n d i c t me n t
. We , h o weve r, fi nd no var i ance with re spect to t h e p ro ofag ai nst ei therBl ack orTer ry . A s f orBl ack, the evi dence es tabl i shed that he was aw are th ato th er s wer e as si st i nghi m a nd J o ne s i n the ri poff s an d atte m pted ri poff s. The ev i dence w as that Blac k a gr eed with J ones and Eri k Joh n son to parti ci pate in three ri p off s of d r u g d e a lers. J one s w ou ld relay i nform at i o n t o Bl ac ka nd J o hns o n abo utthe drug co uri er

— w hat type a nd co l orve hi cl e he w oul d be dri vi ng, hi s g ender and ethni ci ty, and w he re h e w oul d be dri vi ng. J ones ’ s info rm ati on usual l y p anned out. I t would be r e a s o n a b l e f o r a j u r y t o i n fe r th a tB l a c kmu s th a v e kn o wn that J ones was get ti ng wh at prove d to be v er y a ccurate i nsi de i nfo rm ati on fr om so m eone wh o w as al so i nvol ved i n the ripo ff
. A nd o nce Bl ack and Jo hnson ag re ed to partic ip ate i n the fi rs t a tte m pted ri poff, J ones cal l ed som eone i n th eir pre sence. Thi s e vi dence supports a re ason ab le infe re nce that the per son J ones cal l ed w as i nvol ve d in the ri poffand that Blac k was aware ofthat perso n’s i nvol vem ent.18 N os. 08

- 1466, 08

- 1608, 08

- 1616 & 08

- 1617 Furtherm or e, afterthe first succes sful ri poff, J ones didn’t pay Blac k and J ohnson i m m edi ate l y, but instead to ld th em th a t h e’d be in t ou c h reg ar d in g p ay m en t. T h is r ea so nabl y s ug g es ts tha t J o ne s ha d t o ha ve a no th erc o ns p i r a t o r s e l l th e d r u g s t o g e t th e c a s h t o p a y Bl ac k a nd J o hns o n. The wi r et ap ev i den ce a l so s upport s th e fi ndi ngtha t Bl ac kwas a war e th atJon es was wor k i ng wi th o th e r c o n s p i r a t o r s i n s e t t i n g u p th e r i p o ff s . I n a N ove m ber13 cal l, afterBl ack had agr eed to part i ci pate i n yetano therr i poff, J ones i nstr ucted h im t o “st ay ar ou n d for a m in u te , Igot to m ak e a ca ll rea l qu ick,” an d the n c al l ed B lack bac ka nd a dvi se d, “ we wai ting for h im to ca ll ba c k.” T h es e s ta te m e n ts m ad e d ire c tly to B la c k c on ve y t h at Jon es w as n ’t w or kin g a lon e in settin g up the ripoff. The r ec o r ded c o nv er sa ti o ns a l so s uppo r t a fi ndi ng that Terr y was aware that J ones w as w orki ng with othe r ba d c o ps. Ta k e, f o r e xa m pl e, the r ec o r ded co nv er sa ti o ns shor tl y a fterJ er ryM ontg om er y’ s a rres t on Se ptem ber8, 2004
. That ni ght, J ones cal l ed Terr y a nd to l d him that “one ofm y h om i es j ust ca l l ed m e . . . [ w ho] [ u]s ed to wor kwi thme o n my tea m ” an d r epo r te d tha t “y o ur [Terry’s] bu d d y,” Jerry “j us t got pop p ed off[ arrested ]” and “he [ J er ry] fle w m y nam e. ” J ones expl ai ned to Te r r y tha tJ e r r y h a d c a l l e d J o ne s , a nd J o ne s a dv i sed Jer ry , “yo u got so m e . . . gre en ca u s e h e c an . . . h e w ill go aw ay w ith som e of th at for su re, ” m ean ing tha t Jerry coul d bribe J ones ’ s a sso ci ate to r el eas e him . T erry ’ s r esponse dem onst ra ted tha t h e underst oo d w hat J ones m ea nt : Te r r y a sk ed hi m : “ [ Y] o u g uy s . . . the y c an ’ t cut hi m l oo se ornothin g can they ?” The ne xt day, J onesN os. 08

- 1466, 08

- 1608, 08

- 1616 & 08

- 1617 19 and Terr y were di scussing Je rry’s si tuati on wh en J ones tol d Ter ry that J er ry once had t aunted hi m w i th a bag of m one y and that J one s resp ond ed by t ell ing Jerry th at h e w as luc ky Jon es kn ew h im be c au s e h e “ c a n ca ll so m e ca r s r i g htno w . . . [ b] e l i k e, whoo p, whoo p . . . [ a] nd gr ab y our ass a n d f ol l ow you. ” Thi s s tat em ent r efl ecte d Jones’s abili ty to h a v e ot he r offi cers p ull som eon e over. I n additi on, o n Octobe r 27, 20 04, sho rt l y a fterJ er rygo t out ofj ai l, he was pul l ed ove r. Jo n es cal l ed Terr y t o i nfo r m h i m tha t o ne o f J o ne s ’ s b ud di e s c a l l e d J o ne s to re portthatth ey h ad pull ed J er ryo verand J er rywas talki nga g ain. J o ne s as su r ed Te r r y tha t hi s buddi es were “j ust g oi ng to f

— w i th [ J er ry ] f ora m i nute. ” The next day, Jones to l d Terr y that “ [ y] our m an [ J er ry ] was tal ki ng a l i tt l e bi t” a nd “ br o ug htup” J o ne s’ s na m e an d a l so ment i o ne d “ B”

— T e r r y ’ s n i c k na me

— in the sens e tha t Jerry w as poi nti ng a fi ngerat“B. ” J ones as su re d Terr y that he was go i ng to m eethi s buddy and he’d fi n d o u t what J e r r y h a d s a i d. T hu s , the wi r e t a p e v i de nc e p e r mi t t e d a re aso nabl e j ury to fi nd that Terr y knew that ot h er bad cops were as si sti ng J ones i n hi s cr i m i nal act i vi ti es. M oreover, the evid en ce cle a rly estab li sh ed thatTerry w as aw ar e o fco conspi ra torFl agg . Both Ter ryand Flagg parti ci pated w i th J ones in the Town send ri poff
. Once F l ag g ar r i ve d o n th e sc en e wi th J o ne s an d r i pped off T ow ns en d , Terry kn ew that Fl a g g w as in on Jones ’s crim inal activiti es. A nd a few da ys after the r ip off, Terry as ke d Jon es ab ou t “ th e s p lit” be tw ee n h i m an d h is “budd y, ” m eani ng F l agg . T h e e vid en c e a lso su p p or te d a fin d in g t h at T er ry p ar tic ipat ed i n the c o ns pi r ac y b o thb efo r e and afte r the20 N os. 08

- 1466, 08

- 1608, 08

- 1616 & 08

- 1617 Tow nsend ri poff
. Fo r one, te l ephone r eco rds f orJ uly21 , th e d ay Jones, Black, and others at tem p ted to r ip off d ru g c ou rie rs n ea r A s h lan d an d 85 th Str ee t, sh ow six calls betw een J o n e s a n d Terry. A few of th ese w ere m ad e w ith in tw o m in u te s o f ca lls b et w ee n Jon es ’s c ell phone and a ce l l phone r egi ste red t o orused byo ther m embe r s o f th e co ns pi r ac y : Co r eyF l ag ga nd Er i kJ o hns o n. Inad d itio n, on Sep te m b er 14 , Jon es to ld Ja m e s W alk er in a re c or d ed co n ve r s a t i on th at “B ” w as co m in g ov er to h is house that ni ght a nd he was s up posed “t o have som eth i ng . ” J o ne s adde d tha t “ w he n h e co m e . . . i t’ s se r i o us b u sin es s.” G ive n th e e vid en c e, a re as on a b l e j u ry co u ld in fer t h a t t h e “ so m et h in g” th at T er ry w ou ld h av e w ou ld be anoth er op p ortu nity to rip off a d rug d ealer. M or eov er, in a n Octobe r 7, 20 04, co nver sat i on, J ones w as pr a i s i ng Te r r y ’ s pe r f o r man c e a nd s a i d, “ y e a h, yo u goo d.
. . . I ’ m thi nki ng l i ke dam n, thatm an go t a dem o.” (Jon e s t es tifie d th at “d em o” m ea n t c rim in al a c tiv ity .) A nd Te r r y a sk ed hi m , “ W hi ch, whi cho ne y o u t al k i ng about? ” Ter ry ’ s quest i on i m p lies ther e were seve ra l “d em os” a n d t h us sup p orts the i nferen ce th at T erry parti ci pated in m or e than one ri poff
. Then, o n No v e mbe r 1 3 , 2 0 0 4 , J o n e s c a l l e d T e r r y a n d T e r r y s a i d, “Ith ou gh t you w anted to l i nk up.
. . . [ Y]o u had sai d you w anted to hol l eratm e thi s week f orso m ething. ” J ones r es po nde d, “ Oh, y ea h .
. . I j us t tr i ed to do so m ethi ng ” but i t “di dn’ t g o thr o ug h. ” The j ury co ul d r ea so nabl y fi nd that this re ferre d to the pl an to r i p offthe M exi can drug deal er . J ones added that he hoped i t would g o thr o ugh t o mor r o w whe n he g o tto wor k
. Te r r y r e s po nd e d, “yo u l et m e kn ow,” wh i ch a j ury coul d rea sonab l y infe rN os. 08

- 1466, 08

- 1608, 08

- 1616 & 08

- 1617 21 in d ica te d h is c on tin u ed i n te re st in p ar tic ip at in g in J ones ’ s s chem es. A nd ev en l ate r, o n N ove m ber23 , 2 004, J ones and Terr y were r eco rded dis cussin g pl ans f or an oth er ri p off
. I n ar gui ng tha t the wir eta p evid en c e d oes notpro ve th athe pa r ti ci pat ed i n a c o ns pi r ac y l ar g er th an the si ngl e r i poffo fTown send, Ter ryse l ecti vely i denti fi es a Se ptem ber22 phone ca l l betw een J ones and Jo elM ontgo m ery in w hi ch J oelte l l s J ones how to conta ct the “o ld g i r l
. ” J o ne s sa y s th athe wi l l t el l “ B” to c o nt act he r a nd th enJ o ne s an d J o ela g r ee no t to t el l “ B” th atJ oelwas the sour ce forthe “ol d gi rl ’ s” phone nu m b er . Ter ryal so p oints to a call betw een him self an d J one s in w h ic h Terry asks Jones i fhe t o l d J o elabo utTe r r y . J o ne s sa y s he sa i d Te r r y want ed To wnse nd’ s p hon e number s, b ut c laim ed n ott o k n ow w h y T er ry w an te d th em . W h ile Terr y s ubm i ts that these cal l s s how thatJ ones was kee ping hi m i n the dark about the e xten t ofhi s cr i m i nal ac tiv itie s, th e ju r y w a s in th e b es t p os itio n to w eig h th is ev id en c e a ga in st th e o th er e v i d en c e t h at rea so n ab ly su g g es ts tha t Te r r y ’ s i nv o l ve m en t r ande epe r tha n h e cl ai m s. The go ve rnm ent’ s e vi dence supports the fi nd i ng tha t T erry, Black, J one s, F la g g, an d other coc ons p irators w er e a cti ng i n further ance ofa si ngl e, illeg alpurpose. T erry set up dru g d ealers and cou riers to be ripp ed off, an d J o ne s, Bl ac k, a nd other co r r uptc o ps per f o r m ed th e sto ps, i nvasi ons, and s ei zure s of the drugs an d m oney. This w as not a r i m l ess hub- and-spok e co nspir acy. Terr y a sse rt s t h at ther e was no evi dence thathe ha d any di re ct c om m unica ti on with an y c oco nspir ato r22 N os. 08

- 1466, 08

- 1608, 08

- 1616 & 08

- 1617

E v en ifth e r e h ad b een a v aria nc e, i t w ou ld no t nece ssarily 6 re q u ir e r ev er sa l o f th ei r c o n v ic tio n s. B u stam an te, 493 F
. 3d at 885. The “p rose cutor m ay ele ctto proceed on a sub se t ofthe al le gat i ons i n the i ndi c t m en t, pr ovi ng a c ons pi ra c y s m al l erthan the one all eged.” Id
. (qu o t a tion om itted ). T he go v ern m en t easily prov ed that Black and Terry atthe very le astj oined a s ub se t of the a llege d con sp iracies. othe r than J ones . H owever, “[ c] oco nspir ato rs do not h av e to h ave conta ct with, o r eve n know, al lo fthe othe r conspi ra tor s. ” U nited Sta tes v. Fra z ier, 213 F
. 3d 409, 41 5 ( 7th C ir. 20 00 ). A n d co c on sp ira to rs n ee d n o t p ar tic ip at e in e ve ry as p ec t o f th e s c h em e. A vila , 5 5 7F
. 3 d a t8 1 4
. T he evid en ce su p p o r ted the find ing tha t Te rry w as aw are th ato th er s wer e as si st i ngJ o ne s i n pl an ni nga nd c o ndu cti ng the r i poff s; Ter rydi d not have to t al k with them to gai n that knowle dge. To fi nd f o r Bl a c ka nd T e r r y o n the i r c o ns pi r a cy var i ance c l ai m s, we w oul d have t o re w ei gh the ev i dence and seco nd

- guess the j ury’ s cr edibi l i ty deter m i nati ons. I n the a bse nc e o ft r ul y e xc ept i o na l c i r cumst an ce s, a nd th ey h av e n otp oin te d to an y, w e c a n n otd o s o. Se eD e an , 2009 W L 23416 76, at* 5. A ccor d in gly, we concl ud e that th er e w as su fficie n t e vid en c e fro m w h ich a re as on ab le j ury co uld ha ve f o und Bl ac ka nd Te r r y g ui l tyo fthe co ns pi r ac i es wi thwhi chthe y wer e charged i n the i ndict m ent. 6 Blac k a nd Ter ryal so sugge st that the di str i ct c ourter re d i n f ai l i ngt o g i ve a m ulti pl e co ns pi r ac i es i ns tr uct i o n. Bec au se n eithe r o fthe m r eque st ed a m ul ti pl e co n-N os. 08

- 1466, 08

- 1608, 08

- 1616 & 08

- 1617 23 spi ra ci es i nstr ucti on the y fo rfei ted thi s chal l enge on ap p ea l an d o u r re vie w is for p lain err or on ly. See Lo ng street, 56 7 F.3d at 921
. W e fi nd no er ro r

— pla i n or othe rwis e

— i n the f ai l ure to gi ve a m ult i ple co nspir aci es i nstr ucti on i n thi s ca se. A s di scusse d, the e vi dence w as su ffi ci ent t o est abl i sh Bl ack’ s a nd Ter ry ’ s par ti ci pati on i n the ove ra l l co nspir acy charg ed i n the i nd i ctm ent.

2. Bl ack: Suff i ci ency o fEvi den ce f or§ 924( c) Convi ct i on Blac k a rgues that the ev i dence w as i nsuffi ci ent t o su stain h is firearm conv iction un d er § 924(c). H e d oesn ’t d i s p u t e th a th e c a r r i e d a fi r e a r m dur i ng t h e atte m pted ripoff; he d ispu tes on ly w he th er h e c arried th e fi rearm “i n re l ation to ” the at tem pted ri poff
. S ecti on 9 24( c) re quir es a nexus b et w ee n the fi re ar m and the al l ege d cri m e; m er e pos ses si on o fa fi re arm by a perso n enga ged i n cr i m i nal act i vi ty i s insufficie n t. U nited Sta tes v. Ha rvey, 48 4 F
. 3d 45 3, 4 57( 7th Ci r . 2 00 7)
. Bl ac kc l ai m s th atthe ev id en c e fa iled to es ta b lish an y n ex u s b et w ee n h is wea po n a nd the J ul y 2 1 at te m pte d r i po ff
. ( R ecall the defer en ti als tand ar d o fr ev i ew f o r s uchc ha l l en g es a nd the hi gh hurdl e a defendant m ust cl earto ga i n re l i efo n su c h an ap p ella te ch alle n ge . See Hensley, 57 4 F.3d a t 3 9 0 .) T h e g ov er n m en t re sp on d s t h a t B lac k for feit ed th is c h allenge b y f ai l i ngt o r ai se i t when m o vingf o r j udg m en t o fa c q u i t t a l
. B l a c kd o e s n ’ ta r g u e o th e r wi s e , s o we r ev i ew f o r pl ain e r r o r . U nd er thi s st an dar d, a de fen dan t m u s t s h o w “t h at a m an ifes t m isc ar ria ge of j u st ice w ill occuri fhi s c on vi cti on i s no t r eve rs ed. ” Id. at39 0- 9124 N os. 08

- 1466, 08

- 1608, 08

- 1616 & 08

- 1617

B lack m ak es a few arg u m en ts related to the p ossessed “in 7 fur the ra nc e of” pr on g , b u tthe gove rn m en tr el i es onthe c ar ri ed “ duri ng a nd i n r el at i on t o” pro ng. ( quotati on o m i tte d). I n other w ords, the re cor d m ust be “devoi d ofev i dence poi nti ng to gui l t” or“the evi dence on a ke y e l em ent” m ust hav e b ee n “ so te nuous thata convi cti on would be sho cki ng. ” Id. ( qu otation om itted ). Bl a c kc a n’ tme e tthi s s t a nd a r d. The gov er nm ent ar gues that the evi de n c e w as su ffi ci en t to pr o ve tha t Bl ac k c arrie d a fi r ea r m dur i ng an d i n relation to the J uly 21, 2004 attem p ted rip off
. 7 W e addr es se d a s i m i l ara r g um en t i n U ni t ed Stat e s v. M o o re, 3 63 F .3d 63 1 (7 th C ir. 20 04 ), r e v’ d s ub no m . b y Youn g v. U nited Sta tes , 5 43 U
. S. 1 10 0 ( 20 05 )
. I n tha t ca se , the defe nd ant pol i ce o fficers w er e co nvi cted under § 92 4( c) for carrying fir earm s w hile engaging i n a c t s of robbery a nd extor t i o n a nd wh i l e e s c o r t i ngdr ugc o ur i e r s a r o un d. On app eal, theyar gued that i t w as j ust a co i nci dence that they car ri ed thei r ser vi ce r evo l ver s d u ringthe acts f o r wh i c h the y we r e c o nv i cted

— the y we r e c o ps a nd c o ps ha d t o car r y wea po ns . W e r ej ec te d the i r a r g um en t, c o ncl ud i ng tha t the ev i dence es tabl i shed that th ey car ri ed gu n s in rela tio n to a d ru g t ra ffick in g off en se . Id. at 640

- 41. W e r eas oned th at ju st as a pol i ce b adge a nd so - cal l ed “co p tal k” w er e e sse nti alto thei r drug es cor t a cti vi ti es, so w er e t h eir w ea p on s. Id. at 640. The de fend an ts w ere hi r e d “ t o pl a y the r o l e o f a po l i c e o ffi c e r, whi c h necessar i l y e nt a i l s c a r r y i ng a s e r v i c e r e v o l v e r ” a nd “ t o use thei r sta tus a s pol i ce o ffi cer s, with a l l the tr appings, toN os. 08

- 1466, 08

- 1608, 08

- 1616 & 08

- 1617 25 pr o t e c t[ the ] dr ugc o ur i e r s. ” Id. a t 64 1. Thi s we c o nc l ud e d wa s s uffi c i e nt t o s up po r t the i r c o nv i c t i ons f or c ar ry in g a gu n in re lat ion to a d ru g t ra ffick in g c rim e. Id. W e r ea ch ed a si m i l arr es ul t i n U nited St at e s v. Pat t e rs on , 348 F. 3d 218 ( 7th Cir
. 2003 ) , w here the defe nd an t p olice offic er was convi cted o fa fi re ar m s o ffense i n re l ati on t o a drug tr affick in g offense. Patt er son did notdi spute that he poss ess ed hi s s er vi ce r evo lver whil e a tte m pti ng to ste alnar cot i cs a nd m oney . H e a rgued, how ev er, that th e evide nc e fai led t o prov e tha t he ca rri ed the fir earm for th e p u rp os e o f ac c om p lish in g t h e ri p off. Id. at22 6. W e sa i d that the “in re l ati on t o” l anguage r equi re d that the fi re ar m “ ‘ have som e purpose o r effec t with re spect t o the dr ug t r a ffi c k i ng c r i me . . . [ a nd ] the g un at l eas t m us t f ac i l i ta te , o r ha ve the po te nt i alo f facil i ta ting, the drug tr affi cki ng o ffense. ’ ” Id. ( quoti ng S m i th v . U nited St a tes , 5 08 U. S
. 2 23 , 2 38 ( 19 93 ) ( i nt erna l quo ta ti o ns a nd al ter ati ons om i tte d))
. W e f ou n d thi s s tandard sa ti sfi ed f ortwo r eas ons. Fi rs t, the fi re ar m was neces sar y for the pl an thatr equi re d the defendant to pre tend to be perf or m i ng a l egit i m ate pol i ce r ai d, w hi ch r equi re d l egi ti m ate
- l oo ki ng o ffi cer s, wh i ch i n turn, r equi re d them to c ar r y fi r ea r m s. And, s ec o nd, we co nc l ude d tha t th e j ur y co ul d ha ve f o und th at th e fi r ea r m pr o vi d ed the d efe n d an t w ith a n ee d ed se n se of se c u rit y. Id. at22 7. The r ea so ni ngi n M o o rea nd Patt e rs on ap p li es to B lack’s case as well
. Bl ack’ s par ti ci pati on in t h e conspi ra cy w as so u gh t b e c au se h e w as a p olic e o ffice r w h o w or e a u n if o r m , ha d a b adg e, a nd c o ul d e ffec t tr affi c st o ps an d se izu re s, a n d co n d u c t o th er p olic e w or k. A rea so n ab le26 N os. 08

- 1466, 08

- 1608, 08

- 1616 & 08

- 1617 j ur y c o ul d h a v e f o un d tha tBl a c kc a r r i e d h i s po l i c e h a nd

gun i n o r de r t o ma k e i ta pp e a r tha th e wa s a l e gi ti m ate c o p pe r f o r mi ngl eg i t i mat e p o l i c e wo r k
. Bl a c kc o nt e nd s that ther e w as no evi dence that hi s w ea p on w as exposed, drawn, orbr andishe d du ri ng the at tem p ted rip o f f
. T h at m ak es n o d iffer en c e. A rea so n ab le jur y c ou ld sti l l co ncl ud e that he car ri ed hi s gun i n an e ff or t t o appear t o b e a le gi ti m ate pol i ce o ffi cer, per f or m i ng a leg itim at e s to p . A t t h e le as t, a rea so n ab le jur y c ou ld have f ound th at the gun provi ded Bl ack w i th a sense ofse curi ty, s om ethi ng tha t would co m e in handy w hen one i s attem p ting to ri p offa dru g d ealer. W e the refore fi nd tha t t he e vi den ce was s uffi ci en t to e st ab l i shthe re qu ire d n exus betw een Bl ack’ s weapon and the J uly21 attem p ted ri p off
. Blac k nextsugg est s that the § 924(c ) c h arges i n Counts Fo u r an d S ev en w er e d u p licit ou s, re qu irin g re ve rs al of h is § 924(c) con victions. H e also cl aim s tha t the district cou rt confl ate d the poss ess ed “i n further ance o f ” a nd used o r c arried “d uring and i n relation to” p rongs of § 924(c). C ou n ts Fou r an d Sev en ch ar ge d th at B lac k “ kn ow in gly p os se ss ed a f i r e ar m in fu rt h er an c e o f, andu s e d, c a r r i e d, an d bra nd i shed a fi re ar m du ri ng and in re l ati on to, a d rug traffi cking crim e . . . ” in viol ation of § 924(c). Th e c o ur t ’ s j ur y i ns t r uc t i o ns o n Co un t s 4 a nd 7r e a d: To pro ve de fen dan t Bl ac kg ui l tyo fthe wea po ns offense as charg ed
. . . , the gov er nm ent m ust pro ve the fol l owing propos i ti ons: F i r st, tha t t he defen dan t co m m i tt ed o ne o fthe fol lo wi ngc r i m es : [ as c ha r g ed i n the r el ev an t Cou nt ] ; a ndN os. 08

- 1466, 08

- 1608, 08

- 1616 & 08

- 1617 27 Se cond, thatthe defe nd ant know i ngl y pos ses sed a fi re ar m i n further ance of, o r knowing ly used or car ri ed a fi re ar m du ri ng and i n re l ati on t o, that cri m e. “A n ind ictm en t is d up li citous i f it charges tw o o r m ore offenses i n a si ngl e co unt. ” U nited Sta tes v. P a nsier, N o. 07

- 3771 , 2009 W L 24484 14, at * 7 (7th C ir. A ug . 12, 2009 ). Bl ac kdi d no t r ai se a t i m el y c ha l l en g e to the i ndi ct m en t in th e t ria l co u rt, so a g a i n , w e re vie w for p lain err or . See U nited Sta tes v. P resbitero , 569 F.3d 691, 698 ( 7th Cir. 2009). U n d er this st andard, “we w i l l r eve rs e o nl y i fther e was an error, that w as p la in, th at affected the d efend an t’s substa nti al ri ghts, and that affecte d the f ai rnes s, i ntegr i ty, orpubli c r eputati on o fthe j ud icialpro ceedi ngs. ” Id. W e fi nd no pla i n er ro r here
. Bl a c kc i tes U n i ted S ta tes v. Sa vo ires , 43 0 F
. 3d 376 ( 6th C i r . 2 0 0 5 ) , wh i c h s t a t e s th a t§ 9 2 4 ( c ) c r i mi n a l i z e s t wo separ ate and dis ti nct o ffen ses: ( 1) a “use” orcar ri age offense, wh i ch has “duri ng a n d in rel ati on t o” as “i ts sta nd ar d ofpart i ci pati on, ” a nd ( 2) a “posse ssi on” offense, w h ich h as “in fu rt h e r a n c e o f” a s it s s ta n d ar d
. Id. at37 9- 80 ( quotati on o m i tte d). W e, however, have notdeci ded th at § 924(c) crim inali zes tw o sep arate an d distinc t offen se s. See H a rvey, 48 4 F
. 3d at 456 (n ot in g that whether w e co ns t r ue § 9 2 4 ( c ) a s c r e a t i ng o ne o ffe ns e o r t wo , i ts se par at e par ts c r i m i na li ze si m i l arb eh av i o r )
. And o ur case l aw sugg est s that § 9 24 (c ) char ges o ne o ffense th at m ay be co m m i tt ed i n m o r e way s th anone. The i ndi ct m en t i n M o o rec ha r g ed th e defen dan ts wi thus i ng andcar ry i ng a fi re ar m i n re lati on t o a cr i m e o fvi ol ence28 N os. 08

- 1466, 08

- 1608, 08

- 1616 & 08

- 1617

o r dr ugt r affi ck i ngo ffen se i n v i o l at i o n o f § 924 ( c)
. One j ury i nstr ucti on t ra cked the i nd i ctm ent’ s l anguage . A notherst ate d t h at the g ove rnm ent had t o prove “that the de fe nd a ntu s e d orca rrie d a fire ar m d u rin g a n d in re l ati on t o” the drug tr affi cki ng cri m e o r cri m e o fvi ol ence. T h e d efe n d an ts ch alle n ge d th e in st ru c tio n s, ar gu in g, inter alia , tha t they w er e depri ved ofa unanim ous v er dict
. M o o re, 36 3 F
. 3d at 639. W e fo und n o err or, exp l ai ni ng tha t “w h er e a statute defi nes tw o orm or e ways in w hi ch an o ffen se may be c o m m i tted , a l l may be a l l eg ed i n the conj uncti ve i n one count .
. . . A nd pro ofo f a n y one of tho s e a c t s c o nj un c t i v e l y c ha r g e d ma y s up po r ta co nvi cti on. ” Id. at64 0 ( quoti ng U ni t e d S t at e s v. Le D onn e, 21 F. 3d 1418 , 14 27 ( 7th Ci r. 19 94) )
. W e thus concl ud ed that the ind i ctm ent c harg i ng the defendants w ith using and ca r r y i ngfi r ea r m s was no t d up li ci to us a nd f o und n o er ro r in th e in st ru c tio n s. Id. H e r e , t h e jur y in st ru c tio n s c ov er ed th e t h re e w ay s in w hich § 924(c) m ay be violated : ( 1) p o s s e ssed i n furth erance o f, and ( 2) used o r ( 3) car ri ed duri ng and i n re l ati on to the dru g traffick ing crim e. U nd er M o o re, the thre e w ays i n w hi ch § 924( c) can be com m i tte d m ay be a l l ege d i n the c o nj unc ti ve i n o ne c o unt, a s th eywer e he r e, a nd pr o o fo fa n y o n e o fth e m wi l l s u p p o r tB l a c k ’ s c o n v i c t i o n. Theref or e, w e concl ud e that Counts Fourand Se ven wer e no t dupl i ci to us a nd the r e was no e r r o r i n the § 9 24( c) i nstr ucti ons. Even ass um i ng er ro r i n thos e instructi ons, the probab ility th at th e e r r o r affe c te d th e o u tc om e o f th is c as e is ni l
. Ofthe thr ee way s th at§ 9 24 ( c) may be v i o l at ed, theN os. 08

- 1466, 08

- 1608, 08

- 1616 & 08

- 1617 29 “c ar r y ” pr o ngi s th e l o we st standa r d o fpa r ti ci pat i o n. “Car r y ” i nc l ude s ca r r y i nga fi r ea r m di r ec tl y o n the p er so n or in a ve h icle
. M us ca r e l l o v. U ni t e d S t at es , 5 24 U
. S. 12 5, 13 1 (1 99 8). “U se s . . . a firea rm ” is c on st ru ed n ar ro w ly a n d l i mi t e d t o th e “ a c t i v e e mp l o y me n t ” o fa fi r e a r m. M uscarel lo , 5 24 U
. S. at13 6 ( quotati on o m i tte d). A nd “t o th e e x te n t t h at th e p h r as e ‘in fu rt h er an c e o f’ d iffer s a t a ll fro m t h e ph ra se ‘ du ri ng and i n re l ati on t o, ’ the f or m er w or ding l ogi cal l y c onnote s a h i gherstandard ofpart i ci pati on. ” Ha rvey , 4 84 F. 3d at 457. A fi nd i ng tha t Bl ack possesse d a firearm i n furth eran ce of, or us ed a fir e a rm du ri ng and i n re l ati on to a dr ug tr affi cki ng cr i m e, w ou l d e nc o m pas s a fi ndi ngtha t he c ar r i ed a fi r earm du ri ng and in rel ati on t o that cri m e. Thus, any er ro r i n i nstr ucti ng the j ury on a l lthr ee prongs o f§ 92 4(c) was harm l ess . I n a f o o tn o t e i n h i s r e p l y br i e f, Bl a c kf o r th e fi r s tt i me com pla i ns o fse ntenci ng m ani pu l ati on a nd di spari ty, noti ng tha t J ohn so n r ecei ved a ni ne- yea r sente nce f or the e x ac t sam e o ffenses thatr esul ted i n hi s f or ty- yea r sente nce. H e invi tes the gov er nm ent t o expla i n the dispari ty. To the exte nt Black att em pts to r ai se an appea l ab l e i ss ue b as ed o n s en te nc i ngmani pul at i o n, he ha s w aiv ed i t byf ai l i ng to as ser t i t in hi s o pening bri ef an d b y m aki ngi t o nl y i n a f o o tn o te , i n pa ss i ng, a nd w i thout any di scussi on o r ci tat i on t o pertinent l ega l a u th or ity
. U nited Sta tes v. B o isture, 563 F. 3d 295, 299 n .3 ( 7t h C i r. 20 09) ( fi nd i ng waiv ero far gum ent r ai sed f or th e first tim e in ap p ella n t’s r e p l y b r ief); U ni t e d S t at e s v. H ook, 47 1 F
. 3d 766, 77 5 ( 7th C ir. 20 06) ( m aki ng cl earthat perfunctor y a nd undevel oped argu m ents and argum ents30 N os. 08

- 1466, 08

- 1608, 08

- 1616 & 08

- 1617

u n su p p or te d by p er tin en t a u th or ity are w aiv ed ). Th is isn ’t s en te n c in g m an ip u lat ion an yw ay . See U nited Sta tes v. Wagn er, 4 6 7F
. 3 d 1 0 8 5 , 1 0 9 0 ( 7 th C i r . 2 0 0 6 )
. I ts e e ms th atmuch o fthe di ffer en ce b etwee n Bl ac k ’ s an d J ohnson’s sente nces can be at tr ibuted to the f act that J ohnson ple d guil ty to tw o counts pu rs uant to a p l ea agr eem ent, wh er eas Bla c k di d not

— he was convi cted o f si x counts f ol l owing a j ury tr i al ; and J ohnson w as gi ven a r educti on f oracc ep ta n ce o fr esponsibi l i ty; Bl ack w as no t. I t i s co m m o nl y unde r st o o d tha t defen dan ts who ple ad gui l ty typi cal l y r ecei ve a l ess erse ntence than th os e w h o d on ’t.

3. Te rry: Evid en ce of D rug Q u an ti ty & Coc on sp ir ator S tatem en ts Te r r y c o nt en ds th atthe di stri ctc o ur t er r ed i n de ny i ng his m otion for j ud gm en t of acq uittal and m otion for a ne w tr i albecause the g o ve r nm en t pr es en te d i ns uffi ci en t evi dence to p ro ve that he posse sse d at l eas t fi ve k i l o g r ams o fc o ca i ne . I n s uppo r t, he fi r sta r g ues th atthe cour t e rr ed i n adm i tti ng ev i dence ofthe October7, 20 04, tel ephone ca l l betw een J ones and R i cky Dee. H e a l so ar gu es that the o thertr i alev i dence w as i nsuffi ci ent t o est abl i sh the drug quanti ty. The dist ri ct courtad m i tte d the evi dence of the J ones - Dee c a l l a s c o c o ns pi r a t or st a t e men t s u nd e r F e d. R
. Ev i d. 801( d)( 2) ( E). I n the re c orded conver sat i on, J ones te l l s Dee th at he ha d “a fi ve, fi ve dem o w i th m y m an. ” W hen Dee as k ed J o ne s wher e he g o t “tha t l i ck, ” J o ne s s ai d tha t “o ne ofm y ho m i es w ho, uh, yo u know be g rabbi ng te n ofN os. 08

- 1466, 08

- 1608, 08

- 1616 & 08

- 1617 31 th em ata tim e a n d s– t. H e d e c i d e d t o w oo -w op th is bro ad thi s t i m e, yo u know?” Pre sum abl y, the hom i e was Terr y, the “te n” was ten ki log ra m s, the “br oad” was Tow nsend, and the “fi ve, fi ve” w as t h e di vi si on be tw een J ones and Terr y o fthe sei zed drugs. U n d er R u le 8 01 (d )(2) (E ), a “ st at em en t is n oth ea rs ay if . .
. [t]h e s ta te m e n t i s o f fer ed ag ain st a p ar ty an d is .
. . a st at ement bya c o - co ns pi r at o r o fa pa r tydur i ngthe cour se and i n further ance ofthe conspira c y. ” F or co co ns pi r at o r s ta te m en ts t o b e admi ss ibl e, the governm ent m ust pro ve by a pre pond er ance o fthe evi dence th at“ ( 1) a c o ns pi r ac y e xi st ed, ( 2) the de fen dan t an d the dec l ar an t wer e m embe r s o fthe cons pi r ac y, a nd ( 3) the st at ement ( s) s o ug ht to b e admi tt ed wer e m ade dur i ng and i n further anc e of the co nspir acy. ” U ni t e d S t at e s v. Alvi ar, 57 3 F
. 3d 526, 54 0 ( 7th Ci r. 200 9). A ccor ding to Terr y, the gov er nm ent f ai l ed to pro ve the thi rd pro ng. W he the r the J o ne s - De e s t a teme nt s we r e p r o pe r l y a dm i tted u nde r Rul e 80 1( d) ( 2) ( E) tur ns o n whe th erthe ev i den ce was s uffi ci en t to pr o ve tha t Te r r y j o i ne d the o v e r a r c h i n gc o n s p i r a c y c h a r g e d i n th e i n d i c t me n t
. As note d above , i t was. That J on es w as a m em bero fthat conspi ra cy i s undis pu ted

— h e wa s th e r i n g l e a d e r . S o we c o ns i de r wh e the r the J o ne s - De e s t a t em ent s we r e ma de du ri ng and i n further ance ofthe conspi ra cy. The c al l w as m ade o n Oc tobe r 7, 2 00 4, wel l wi th i n the ti m e fra m e o fthe consp ira cy, wh i ch co nti nued atl eas t unt i l the e nd o fNov embe r 2 00 4, i fnot l at er . Thu s, the sta tem ents sat i sfy the “duri ng” r equi re m ent. S tat em ents i ntended t o recrui t o therco nspir ato rs qual i fy a s s tat e-32 N os. 08

- 1466, 08

- 1608, 08

- 1616 & 08

- 1617

But eve n i f erro neous , an y e rr or was ha rm l es s gi venthe 8 othe r evi den ce, des c ribed be l ow, ofthe qua nt i t y ofc oc ai ne s t ol e n f r om To wns e nd
. m en ts in fu rt h er an c e o f a c o n sp ira c y. U ni t e d S t at e s v. Sk idm o re, 25 4 F
. 3d 635, 63 8 (7 th C i r. 2001)
. I n the cal l, J ones ta lks ab ou t p rior r ip offs a n d a rg u ab ly w as t ry in g t o re c ru it Dee to buy drugs s ei zed i n the conspi ra cy. T h ou gh Dee w as nota conspi ra tor, hi s s tat em ents provi ded the full conte xt f ort he co nver sat i on. Thus, the J ones - Dee st ate
m en ts w ere m ade i n fur th er an ce o fthe c o ns pi r ac y, a nd th e d i s t r i c tc o u r td i d n o te r r in a d mi t t i n gth e m. 8 T er ry c laim s th at th e ad m iss ion of th e Jon es -D ee c all prej ud i ced hi m bec ause i t w as the g ove rnm ent’ s princi pal ev i den ce tha t th e To wnse nd r ipo ffo cc ur r ed an d i nvol ved m or e than fi ve ki l ogr am s o fco c ain e. Fi rs t o f a l l, the dr ugqua nt i t y i s n o ta n e l e men to fthe o f f enses . See 21 U .S.C . §§ 8 41 (a), 84 6; see also U ni t e d S t at e s v. Kel ly, 51 9 F
. 3d 355, 36 3 ( 7th Ci r. 20 08) . I t i s r el evantto sen ten cing. I f t he eviden ce fail ed to establish th at T erry po ss es se d fi ve o r mor e k i l o g r ams o fc o ca i ne , a nd the d ist ric t cou rt s e n t e n c e d h i m a b o v e t h e d e f au lt tw enty- yea r m axi m um appli cabl e t o an y am ount o f coca i ne, see 21 U
. S. C. § 8 41(b) ( 1) ( C), hi s r em edy would not be a new tri albut a r em and fo r re - sente nci ng subj ect to the def aul t s tatutor y m axi m um te rm o ft w en ty yea rs . Kel ly, 51 9 F
. 3d at 363. But the dist ri ct c ourtse ntenced T er ry to 16 8 m on th s, w h ich is be low th at st at u to ry m ax im um , so “ A pprendi [ v. N ew Jersey, 530 U
. S. 46 6 ( 2000 ) ] i s no t i m pli cate d,” i d. , and Terr y has notsho w n prej ud i ce.N os. 08

- 1466, 08

- 1608, 08

- 1616 & 08

- 1617 33 F ur th er m o r e, a s Te r r y a ckno wledge s, the g o ve r nm en t prese nted other evi dence ofthe quanti ty ofdrugs i nv o l v e d in the To wns e nd r i po ff
. T hi s i nc l ud e d the S e ptem ber22 , 20 04 w i re tap co nver sat i on be tw een J ones an d J o elM o nt g o m er y whi l e J o ne s w as pl an ni ngthe Tow nsend ri poffi n w hic h Jones di scusse d w i th J oelhow m u c h cocai ne Ter rysho uld g et f ro m Town send, and they disc ussed fi ve, seve n, ten and tw enty ki l ogr am s o fco cai ne. The evi denc e al so i ncl ud ed Fl agg ’ s t est i m ony that: ( a ) J o ne s t o l d hi m tha t J o ne s a nd Te r r y ha d pl a nn e d t o or der t en ki l ogr am s fro m Town send; ( b) i n sid e the bag tak en fro m Town send’s carFl aggsa w two br i cks of w hat he b elie ved w er e co cai ne and saw seve ra l add i ti onalo bj ects o fl i ke shape be neath the br ick s, l ar ge en o ug h t o b e te n k i logram s; ( c) F l ag gb el i ev ed th atthe bag c o nt a i ne d t e n k i l o g r a ms; a nd ( d) J o ne s t o l d F l agg tha tJ o ne s h a d g i v e n f i ve k i l o g r a ms t o T e r r y a nd k e pt fi ve for him self. Terr y a sse rt s that be cause the J ones-Joe l ca l l o ccurr ed be f o r e th e To wnse nd r i po ff, i t d i d no t r efl ec t th e quanti ty ofdrugs actual l y s tol en. True, the cal l d id not re fl ect the hi sto ri calf act ofthe quanti ty ofdrugs that w as sto l en fro m Town se nd
. But the sta tem ents about how m uch “B” shoul d ask Tow nsend f orsupport a r easo nabl e i nfer en ce a s to the a m o unta ctua ll y t ak en . The f act that Terr y was g oi ng to tr y t o buy X quanti ty f ro m To wnse nd r ai se s a r ea so nabl e i nfer en ce tha t To w ns en d bro ught X quanti ty to the tr ansact i on w i th Terr y w hi ch i n tur n r ai se s a r ea so nabl e i nfer en ce tha t X was the qua ntity that w as stolen from her.34 N os. 08

- 1466, 08

- 1608, 08

- 1616 & 08

- 1617 Terr y a l so sugge sts thatthe J ones -J oelcal l supports a fi ndi ngtha t th e dr uga m o unti nv o l ve d i n the Tow ns end ri poffwas l ess than ten k i logra m s. But he does not dispute that eve ryam ount J oelm enti oned w as gr ea ter than fi ve ki l ogr am s. A nd Terr y i gnor es that J one s s ta ted that Tow nsend coul d h andle a “dub,” wh i ch J oel cl ar i fi ed m eant “twenty, ” (kilo gr am s) , and J oelanswered th a ts he c o ul d. T he J o ne s -J o e l p ho ne c a l l thu s s up po rt s Fl agg ’ s t est i m ony that he sa w w h at h e be l i eve d w as ten ki l ogr am s o fco cai ne. T er ry ch alle n ge s t h e b as is for Fla gg ’s p er so n al k n ow ledg e as t o the dr ugqua nt i ty
. Howev er, Te r r y ha d the opportunity t o cro ss- exam i ne Fl ag g, and did so
. S ure, Terr y c an cl ai m thatFl agg is incr edibl e, and he m ay not be a choi r boy, but i t i s not f or us to j ud ge h is c re d ibil i ty. Se eD e an , 2009 W L 23416 76, at * 5. T h a t w a s f o r the j ury to deci de. Ter ryas ser ts that J ones di d not pay Fl aggan a mo u n tc o mme n s u r a t e w i th r i p p i n go fft e n k i l o g r a ms ofcoc ain e. Terr y c l ai m s i t would be unrea sonab l e t o fi nd tha t J o ne s sk i m ped F l ag g( who d idn ’ t g etwhathe ex pec te d t o g et ) a nd s k i m ped J o el( who te st i fi ed th athe gotnothi ng fro m the ri poff ) , but w as gener ous t o Te rr y. A j ury coul d rea sonab l y infe r that J ones ’ s “gener osi ty” to Te r r y r efl ec te d Te r r y ’ s role i n the To wnse nd r i po ffa nd J o ne s’ s tr us t o fTe r r y . Anyway, Te r r y o ffers us no th i ng to sh ow w h y it w ou ld be rea so n ab le t o e x p ec t Jo n es , a cro oke d cop, to tr eathi s co c on sp i ra tor s f ai rl y. J ones w asn’ t a m an o fpri nci ple
. Terr y al so com pla i ns thatthe pros ecuto r ask ed numer o us i m pr o perl ea di ngques ti o ns o fF l ag g, t es ti fy i ngN os. 08

- 1466, 08

- 1608, 08

- 1616 & 08

- 1617 35

as to the a m ount o fdrugs i nvol ved i n the ri poff
. Fo r exam ple , go ver nm ent c ounsela sk ed, “Di d you e ver re cei ve any m or e m oneyfro m [ J ones ] afterthatr i poffo f th e 1 0 k ilos of co c ain e? ” T er r y a c kn ow led ge s t h at h e d id not obj ect to any o fthe questi ons as l eadi ng. W e hav e consi dered them and di sag re e that they w er e i m proper orl eadi ng. W e a l so note thatFl agghad al re ady te sti fi ed th athe o bs er ve d t enk i l o g r ams o fc o ca i ne b efo r e th e gov er nm ent a ske d the al l ege dlyi m properquesti ons. W e c o nc l ud e tha t the e v i de nc e wa s s uffi c i ent t o est abl i sh be yond a re aso nabl e d oubt that Terr y pos ses sed fi ve ki l ogr am s o r m or e o fco cai ne.

4. Terry: For esee abil i ty t hat F lag g W ou ld C arry a F irea rm Terry conte nd s that the ev i dence i s insuffi ci ent t o supp or t hi s § 924( c) convi cti on because Fl agg ’s p re sence at the To w nsend ripoffwas unexp ecte d. H e a rgues that i t was notr eas onabl y for ese eabl e t o hi m thata cocon sp ir ator w ou ld h ave a w eap on d uring the ripoff. Th e g o v e r nme nto ffe r e d n o e v i de nc e , a nd di d no t ar g ue , tha t Te r r y hi m se l fc ar r i ed a wea po n dur i ngthe ri poff
. H owever, Ter rycan be he l d l i abl e f or the act s o f hi s co co ns pi r at o r s th atwer e bo thi n fur th er an ce o fthe c on sp ira c y a n d fore se ea b le t o h im
. U ni t e d S tat e s v. Pinke r t on , 328 U .S. 64 0 (1 94 6). A s s ta te d , w e r e v iew ch alle n g e s to the su ffici en cy of the evid en ce u nd er a defer en ti als ta nda r d, a nd a de fen dan t m ak i ngs ucha chal l enge f aces a hi gh hurdl e. Hensley, 574 F
. 3d at 390. H o wev er, Te r r y di d no t r ai se thi s ch al l en ge be l o w, s o the36 N os. 08

- 1466, 08

- 1608, 08

- 1616 & 08

- 1617 b ar is ev en h igh er for h i m , an d w e re vie w for p lain er ro r. See id
. H e can ’t cl ear the bar. Terr y fi rs t ar gues that the g ove rnm ent f ai l ed to pro ve that Fl aggused o r car ri ed a weapon i n rel ati on t o or po ss es se d a weapon i n fur th er an ce o fthe To wnse nd ri poff
. H ow eve r, the evi dence supports the fi nd i ng tha t Fl ag gc ar r i ed a fi r ea r m dur i nga nd i n r el at i o n t o the Tow nsend ripoff
. A s no ted, “ca rr y” und er§ 924( c) i nc l ude s ca r r y i nga fi r ea r m di r ec tl y on th e pe r so n. M uscarel lo , 5 24 U. S
. a t 13 1. F l ag g ’ s te st i m o ny was th at he ha d hi s fi r ea r m o n h i s wai stba nd dur i ngthe To wnse nd ripoff. Forthe sam e r eas ons that the j ury coul d rea so n ab ly fi nd thatBl ack car ri ed a fi re ar m i n re l ati on to his cr i m i nal ac tiv itie s, d isc u ss ed ab ov e, a re as on ab le jur y c ou ld fi nd tha t F lagg c arr i ed hi s fi r ea r m i n r el at i o n t o the T ow n se n d rip off. Fla gg, l ike B lac k, w as rec ru i te d to j oin th e co ns pi r ac y b ec au se he w as a po l i ce o ffi ce r who co ul d m ake th e st o ps, ho m e i nv as i o ns , a r r es ts , a nd sei zure s a pp earto be l egi ti m at e pol i ce work
. Pol i ce offi cer s ca rr y gun s. M or e s peci fi cal l y, Fl aggwas ask ed to pa r ti ci pat e i n the Townse nd ri po fff o r thi s ve r y r ea so n. A r eas onabl e j ury coul d find thatFl agg ’ s gun w as necessary for th e plan that requ ired h im t o pret en d to be pe rf or m i ng a l egi ti m ate st op, wh i ch r equi re d h im t o l oo k l i ke a l egi ti m ate c op , which in turn, r equi re d him to wear a gun. I n additi on, the j ury a lso co uld have co ncl ud ed that Fl agg ’ s gun provi ded hi m with a se ns e of s ecuri ty, w hich w ou ld h ave com e in very han d y i n ripp ing offa known drug deal ero fsuch a l ar ge quanti ty ofco cai ne.N os. 08

- 1466, 08

- 1608, 08

- 1616 & 08

- 1617 37 Terr y a rgues that the ev i dence w as i nsuffi ci ent b ecause F l ag was o ff dut y, dr i ving anunmar k ed squa d c ar, wea r i ng pla i n cl othe s, an d n ot weari ng a tact i calve st. W e do not u n d er st an d h ow an y of t h es e c i r c u m st an c es m ak e it u n re as onable f ora j ury to concl ud e that F l aggcar ri ed hi s fi r earm i n r el at i o n t o the r i po ff
. As the g o ve r nm en t ar gues, the f act that Fl aggwas offduty r aise s a r easo nabl e i nfer en ce tha t i t was no t bymer e ch an ce tha t he ha d hi s CPD wea po n o n h i s per so n dur i ngthe r i po ff
. And th e ab s e nc e o fa p o l i c e u n i f o r m o r b u l l e t p r o o fv e s ts e e ms to m ake i t m or e l i kel y that F l aggneeded the gun to m ake it loo k a s i f h e w er e a legit im at e c op p er for m in g a legit im at e s to p an d se izu re . Te rry als o s u gg es ts th at th e e vid en c e w a s ins u fficie n t b ec au se Fla gg d id n otsh ow h is w eapon and there w as no evi dence that Tow nsend ev en saw his gun. But , a s m enti oned, i t m ake s no di ffer ence tha tthe g un wa s ne i the r e xp o s e d, dr a wn, n o r b r a nd i s he d. Regar dle ss ofwh etherFl aggd isp l aye d his gun t o To wnse nd, the j ur y c o ul d r ea so nabl y c o nc l ude tha t th e p re se n c e o f h is gu n in h is w ais tb an d p ro vid ed h im w i th se curi ty

— on e ofthe re aso ns we f ound the ev i dence suffi ci ent t o est abl i sh thatth e Patt e rs on de fen dan t ca r r i ed his fi r ea r m i n r el at i o n t o the dr ugt r affi ck i ng c rim e. See 348 F. 3d at 227. T h e e vid en c e w as als o s u fficie n t t o e st ab lish t h at it w as re aso nabl y for ese eabl e t o Terr y that a co conspi ra tor w ou ld h ave a w eap on d uring the T ow ns en d ri p off
. Terry su bmi ts tha t J o ne s cuthim off fr o m kno wi ngwhatthe o th erc o ns pi r at o r s wer e do i ng . Te r r y c o m pl ains tha t he didn’tev en kno w thatFl aggwas go i ng to b e th er e. A ccor ding to Terr y, he o nl y s poke w i th J ones wh o by then38 N os. 08

- 1466, 08

- 1608, 08

- 1616 & 08

- 1617 ha d been stripp ed of his p oli ce p ow ers an d cou ldn ’t carry a f ir e a r m . Bu t the eviden ce n eed not esta bli sh that Terry knew that Fl agg woul d c ar r y a firea r m . Nordo es the govern m en t hav e to pr o v e t h at T erry kn ew thata coco nspir ato r w oul d carr y a fi re ar m . The ev i dence need onl y e sta b lish thati t was reaso na bly foreseea ble to Te rry thata c o c o n s p i r a t o r w o u l d c a r r y a fi r e a r m. The ev i den ce was su ffi ci en t to su ppo r t th e fi ndi ng th at Te r r y ar r an g ed to buy te n k i l o g r ams o fc o ca i ne f r o m To wnse nd and l ate r m et w i th herto se t herup to be ri pp ed off
. Ter ry knew t h at he had ar ra nged to buy a l ar ge quan tityo fco cai ne, and he k new thathe was set ti ng Town send u p to be r i pp ed off
. Thus, a ra ti onal j u ry c ou ld in fer th at it w as re as on ab ly for es ee ab le t o h im th at a fi r e a r m w ou ld be ca rri ed i n relation to the ri p off
. See U nited Sta tes v. G utierrez , 978 F.2d 146 3, 1468 ( 7th Cir. 19 92 ) ( “T he i l l eg aldr ugi ndus tr y i s a dan g er o us a nd vio len t business, and w hen an i nd i vi du alco nspir es to tak e par t in a transact i on i nvol vi ng a l ar ge quanti ty of c oc ain e (s u c h a s [ o n e] k ilog ra m . . . ) it is re as on ab ly f or ese eabl e that a fi re ar m would be car ri ed. ”) . The f act th at T erry kn ew th at Jones could n’t carry a firea rm m ade i t r ea so nabl y f o r es ee ab l e to Te r r y tha t so m eo ne else w ou ld be involved and w ou ld carry a gu n. T e rry need not have known thatp er son’ s identi ty ahead o fti m e. Fi nal l y, Ter ryco m pla i ns thathi s § 924( c) co nvi cti on was b a s e d s o l e l y o n the t e s t i mon y o f F l a g g, who wa s a n a d mi t t e d l i a r a n d i n c r e d ib l e . T o a d d r e s s th i s c l a i m, we w ou ld h ave to sec ond -gues s the j ury’s cred ibi li ty d eterm in at ion , w h ich w e c an n otd o i n t h e a b se n c e o f tru lyN os. 08

- 1466, 08

- 1608, 08

- 1616 & 08

- 1617 39

ex c ep tio n al c irc u m st an c es . Se eD e an , 20 09 W L 23416 76, a t* 5
. T e r r y h a s n o ti d e n t i fi e d s u c h c i r c u ms t a n c e s . We ther ef or e co ncl ud e that a r ati onalj ury c oul d have foun d suffi cient eviden ce to con vict Te rry un d er § 924(c).

B. Sente ncing I ssues 1. Haynes: M i norRole R edu ct i on Unde rU. S. S. G. § 3 B 1 . 2 ( b) H ay ne s ch al l en g es the di st r i ctc o ur t’ s de ci si o n tha t he w as not enti tl ed to a m inorr ol e r educti on i n hi s o ffense l eve l under U.S
. S. G. § 3 B1. 2( b)
. W e r evi ew the dist ri ct co ur t’ s i nt er pr etati on a nd a ppl i ca ti o n o fthe S en te nc i ng G u id elin es d e n ov o, U ni t e d S t at e s v. Abb as , 56 0 F
. 3d 660, 66 2 ( 7th Ci r. 20 09) , and w e r evi ew the d ec i si on t o deny a d efend an t a m inor role redu ction for cl ear error, U nited St at e s v. Panaigua- Verdug o , 53 7 F
. 3d 722, 72 4 ( 7th Cir
. 20 08)
. W e wil l fi nd cl earer ro r onl y when our re vi ew o fthe e vi d en ce l ea ve s us “ wi tha de fi ni te a nd fi r m c o nvi cti on that a m i sta ke has be en co m m i tte d.” Id. ( quotati on om itt ed ). A d ist ric t c ou rt ’s m i n o r ro le d ec isio n is ra re ly re ver sed be cause that cour t i s in the bestp os itio n to ev alu at e t h e d efe n d an t’s role in t h e c rim in al a c tiv ity
. Id. U nd er§ 3B1. 2( b) , a defe nd ant’ s o ffense le ve l can be re d u c ed by tw o l eve l s i f he w as a m i nor parti ci pant in the c ri m i nal act i vi ty. A d efendant is a “m i norpart i ci pant” i fh e “ pl a y s a p a r ti n c o mm i t t i ngthe o ffe ns e tha t m ake s h im subst anti al l y l ess cul pabl e than the aver age parti ci pant” and he “ i s l ess cul pabl e than m osto ther par t i c i pa nt s , b ut [ hi s ] r o l e c o ul d no t b e de s c r i bed as40 N os. 08

- 1466, 08

- 1608, 08

- 1616 & 08

- 1617

G o nz al ez uses the arguab ly m ore perm is si ve “should” rather 9 tha n th e m an d ato ry “m u st” tha t H ay ne s uses. mi ni mal
. ” U n ited S ta tes v. G o nz a lez , 53 4 F
. 3d 613, 61 6 ( 7th C ir. 20 08 ) (qu ot at ion om itt ed ); s e eal s o U
. S. S. G. § 3 B1. 2, cm t. n. 3( A ) & n. 5. “ ‘ H owever, wh er e e ach per so n w as an “es senti alco m ponent” in the conspi ra c y, th e f act that othe r memb e r s o fthe c o ns pi r a c y we r e mo r e i nv o l v ed does n ot enti tl e a defendant to a re du cti on i n the offense l eve l
. ’ ” G o nz a lez , 53 4 F. 3d at 616 ( quoti ng U ni t e d S t at e s v. Gall ar do , 4 97F
. 3d 72 7, 741 ( 7th Ci r . 2 00 7) )
. The de fen dan t bea r s the b ur de n o f s ho wi ng b y a pr e po nd e r a nc e o f the e vid en ce that he i s e nti tl ed to the m i norr ol e a dj ustm en t. Id. Ha y ne s c o nt e nd s tha t the di s t r i c t c o ur t e r r e d i n not applying the m i norr ol e a dj ustm ent b ecause i t di d not com pare hi s role in t he co nspir acy to that ofthe aver age m em ber. H e also argues th a t the record f ail s to sup p ort th e fi ndi ngthat he was ne ce ss ar y t o the c o ns pi r ac y . The gov er nm en t a gr ees thata defe nd ant’ s r ol e s houl d be co m par ed to tha t o fthe a ve r ag e m embe r o fthe conspi ra cy, bu t m aintains thatH aynes di d not pl ay a m i norr ol e. A l though a defendant’s “r ol e s houl d be com p ared to that oft he average m em ber of the con sp iracy, ” i d. ( quotati on o m i tte d), we hav e not r equi re d 9 dist ri ct c ou rt s t o ar ti cul ate el abor ate co m pari sons on the r eco rd. Our ca ses em phasi ze that the c om p ar ison shou l d b e ma de t o a n a v e r a g e me mbe r, n o tt o the l e a der s. E.g
. , i d. ; Gall ar do , 49 7 F
. 3d at 741.N os. 08

- 1466, 08

- 1608, 08

- 1616 & 08

- 1617 41 I n denyi ng H aynes a m i nor r ole r educti on, the dist ri ct cour t r eas oned thathi s par ti ci pati on w as obvi ousl y nec ess ar y a s a pol i ce o ffi cer . These thi ngs c oul d not hav e be en done o r w oul d have been m uc h m ore diffi cu lt to d o and m u c h m ore d an ge ro u s w er e th e pa rt icip an ts n ot p olic e office r s. . . . And I ca nno t en vi si o n wher e th e us e o fthe au th ori ty and the power v est ed i n a pol i ce o ffi cer i n the com m i ssi on o fa cri m e is goi ng to be deem ed m inor. H ay ne s ar g ue s tha t hi s r o l e as a po l i ce o ffi ce r ha d no obvi ous r el evance to hi s r ol e in the offen se as co m pared to othe rs . But w hi ch others ? H aynes acknow l edges that the c onspi ra cy i n c lu d ed fi ve pol i ce o ffi cer s a nd “a nu m ber of l aym en . ” W e un d erstan d the d istri ct cou rt’s co m m en ts t o m ean thatno ne o fthe fi ve c o ns pi r i ng pol i ce o ffi cer s co uld be co nsi dered a m i norpart i ci pant. Each defe nd ant o ffi cer ’ s par ti ci pati on was es senti alto the succes s of the conspi ra cy. N o m att er w hi ch ripo ff or att em pted ri poffi s co nsi dered, a pol i ce o ffi cer ’ s pre sence w as essen tial. I t i s e ven f ai r to saythatthe prese nce o f tw o offi cer s was nece ssa ry to co nvey the i m press i on t o the dr u g d eal er s a nd co uri er s that these w er e l egi ti m ate cops m aki ng l eg i ti m ate st ops a nd co nd ucti ng l egi ti m ate sea rche s. A fteral l, the re cor d establ i shes that at l eas t tw o offi ce r s as si st ed i n e xe cut i nge ac h i l l eg als to p a nd hom e invasi on f orwh i ch H aynes was sente nced. That som e o fthe othe r defe nd ant o ffi cer s w er e m or e invol ved i n the conspi ra cy than H ay n es does not enti tl e hi m to a re d u c tio n as a m in or p ar tic ip an t. See G o nz a lez , 53 4 F
. 3d at 616.42 N os. 08

- 1466, 08

- 1608, 08

- 1616 & 08

- 1617 W e hav e obser ved thatthe dist ric t co urt i s be st sui ted to add re ss the r ol e i n the of f ense adj ustm ent, parti cul ar l y “afterbec om i ng i nti m ate l y a cquai nted w i th th e rol es of the m em bers of a d r u g c o n sp iracy du ring [a l engthy ] tr i al
. ” U nited Sta tes v. M cG ee, 40 8 F
. 3d 9 66 , 9 87 ( 7th Ci r . 2 00 5)
. Al th o ug h Hay ne s pl ed g ui l ty, Bl ac ka nd T erry w ere tried to a j ury

—bef or e th e sam e j ud ge, J ud ge Guzmán, who s en te nc ed H ay ne s. Ov erthe c o ur se o fthe ni ne- day tr i al, J ud ge Gu zm án was abl e t o beco m e qui te k no wl edg eabl e ab o utthe v ar i o us r o l es pl ay ed bythe consp iracy’ s m em ber s a nd he was thus abl e t o draw com p arisons b e t w een their rol es in the cons p iracy. So eve n though the c ourtdi d not a rt i cu lat e a co m pari son o fHay ne s’ r o l e i n the c o ns pi r ac y t o the role o fthe av er ag e m embe r, we fee l c o nfi den t th at he made th e com pa r i s o n i n de c i di ngwh e the r Ha y ne s wa s e nt i t l e d t o a m i no r r o l e r edu ct i o n. I n additi on, the prese ntence re p or t’s cal cul ati on o f H ay ne s’ o ffen se l ev el was ba se d o n: ( 1) a r i po ffof a dr ug d ea ler of on e-h alf k ilog ra m ofco c ain e a n d $7,00 0 in 20 03 ; (2) t h e f a i l ed h om e in va sio n of a d ru g d ea ler in 20 03 ; ( 3) the a tt emp ted rip o ffo n Jul y 2 1, 2 00 4; a nd ( 4) the f ai l ed J er ryM ontg om er y ho m e invasi on i n Se ptem ber 20 04
. I n h i s pl ea a greement, Hay ne s admi tt ed to ha ving a d i r e c ta nd a c t i v e i nv o l v e men ti n a l l f o uro fthe se eve nts. The co nd uct t o w hi ch he a dm i tte d establ i shes that i n eac h i nstance he pl aye d an ess enti alr ol e a s a pol i ce officer m aking veh icl e stop s, seizing coca in e , a n d perf o r m i ngho m e i nv asio ns . Hay ne s admi tt ed th atdur i ng the invasi on o fJ er ryM ontg om er y’ s ho m e, he s poke w i th and displ aye d his bad ge t o a nei ghborwh o w as ques-N os. 08

- 1466, 08

- 1608, 08

- 1616 & 08

- 1617 43 tio n in g H ay n es an d Fla gg a b o u t th e le git im ac y of t h eir prese nce i n the bui l ding. The prese ntence re po rt als o i nd i cate d that Haynes was aware o fthe e n ti re ty of th e o ffen se s a n d th at h e c om m u n ica te d w ith h is cod efend an ts w hile plann ing an d cond uc ting th e offen se s. S o , t o o , Hay nes a d m i tt ed i n h i s pl ea a g r ee m en t to pa r ti ci pat i ngw ith J o ne s an d F l ag gi n s o m e o fthe pla nning to i nvade J er ry ’ s ho m e. H aynes m ai ntai ns thatthe cour t’ s r ea so n ing f ornot giv in g h im a m in or role red u c t i on im p lies im p er m iss ible double co unti ng be cause the c ou rt al so re l i ed on hi s use o fa utho r i tya nd po wer i n a ppl y i ng an e nha nc ement for abu se of trus t. I m p erm issible dou ble coun ting occu rs w he n th e d istri ct c o u r t i m p oses “tw o or m ore up w ard a d j u s t men t s . . . w h e n b o th a r e p r e mi s e d o n th e s a me conduct. ” U ni t e d S t at e s v. Blu m , 53 4 F.3 d 60 8, 61 2 ( 7th C ir. 20 08 ); s e e al s o U ni t e d St at e s v. Sh earer, 47 9 F
. 3d 478, 48 4 (7 th C ir. 20 07 ) (st at in g t h at “im p er m iss ible d ou b le c o u n t i n g. . . o c c u r s wh e n i d e n t i c a l c o n d u c tj u s t i f i e s t wo up w ar d adj ustm ents und erthe Gu id el i nes” ( quotati on om i tte d))
. The go ver nm en t argues that the c ourtdi d not en ga ge in d ou b le c ou n tin g b ec au se th e c ou rtm ad e o n ly on e up w ar d adj ustm ent b ase d on the sam e s et off acts
. W e a gr ee. H aynes i s co m pla i ni ng tha t the co urt did not m ake a do w nw a rd a d j u s t me n t
. Ha y n e s o f f er s no author i ty to su ggest that decl i ni ng to adj ust a n offense level d ow nw ard bas ed on th e sam e facts th at su p p ort an en h an c em en t w ou ld co n st i tu te im p er m iss ible d ou b le counti ng. W e h av e f ound som e a uthor i ty to the c ontr ar y. See U ni t e d S t at e s v. Ell i ot, 307 Fed
. A p p x . 4 1, 43 (9th C ir. 2009 ) ( unp ubl i shed) ( “I t i s no t i m perm i ssibl e double co un t i ngt o c o ns i de r [ de fe nd a nt ’ s ] o b s t r uc t i o n o fj us ti ce44 N os. 08

- 1466, 08

- 1608, 08

- 1616 & 08

- 1617

co nduc t bo thi n i m po singa s en te nc ing e nha nc ement a n d as a basis f or den ying a d iscretionary d ow nw ard departure und er the Se ntenci ng Guidel i nes. ”)
. There f or e, w e find no im p erm issible dou ble coun ting in H ayn es’s case . M or eo ve r, “[t ]h e p re se n c e o f so m e fa c tu al ov er lap is n otsu fficie n t t o t rig ge r th e p ro h ibit ion on d ou b le counti ng . . . wh er e the two enhancem ents add re ss dist i nct as pects ofa defe nd ant’ s co nd uct. ” Bl um , 53 4 F
. 3d a t6 1 2
. He r e , th e f a c t s s u p p o r t i n gth e a d j u s tment f orabuse o ftr ust a re o nl y a subs et ofthe com ple te set off acts wh i ch support the fi nd i ng that H aynes di d not pla y a m inorr ol e. H i s s tatus as a pol i ce o ffi cerga ve hi m t h e app ar ent a uthor i ty to conduct w hat would s eem atfi r stg l an ce t o b e l eg i ti m at e stops, th er eb y abus i ngthe tr ust pl aced i n hi m . But as a pol i ce offi cerH aynes had speci alsk i l l s a nd exper i ence that allo w ed hi m to m ake the i l l ega l st ops a nd hom e invasi ons. A n d the gun, ve st, uni f o r m a nd o th era cc o ut er m en ts o fl aw e nf o r ce m en t ca m e in qu ite han d y d uring the ex ecu tion of ripoffs. So th e “on the g r o und” a spe ct s o fhi s po l i ce m ans ta tu s m ade hi m an integr al, notm i nor, a c tor in the ri poff s. Thu s, e v e n i fa pp l y i ngo ne e nh a nc e men ta nd r e fus i ngto m ak e a down w ar d adj ustm ent c oul d be co nsi dered “doubl e co unti ng, ” there was no doubl e co unti ng her e. Ha y n e s ’ r o l e i n th e c o n s p i r a c y wa s n o ta s g r e a ta s s o me ofhi s co conspi ra tors ’, b ut i t was es senti al
. H e has not s h o wnth a th e wa s a m i no r p a r t i c i p a n t
. T h e r e f o r e , we r ej ec t hi s ch al l en g e to the di st r i ctc o ur t’ s fi ndi ngtha t he w as not enti tl ed to a re du cti on i n offense l eve l under § 3 B1. 2.N os. 08

- 1466, 08

- 1608, 08

- 1616 & 08

- 1617 45 2. Haynes and Jo nes: U se o fBody A r m or Un derU. S. S. G. § 3 B1 . 5( 2) ( B) H ayn es argu es th at th e cou rt erred in ap p lyi ng a f ou rl e ve l en h an c em en t fo r u se of bo d y a rm or be c au se it did notadequatel y e xplai n w hy i t i m p ose d a f our- l eve l adj ustm en t ins tea d oftwo, wh i ch he had ar gued w as appropri ate
. H e doe s notcha l l en g e th e f ac tu alfi ndi ng th at h e “ u se d ” b od y a rm or . H ay n es cla im s t h at it is u n cl earfro m the Gu i del i ne wh at behavi orf al l s under § 3B1
. 5( 2) ( B) tha t war r an ts m o r e se ve r e puni sh m en t th an that un d er § 3B 1.5( 2)(A ). U
. S. S. G. § 3 B1. 5 s tat es: If

— ( 1) the def endant w as convi cted o fa drug tr affi cki ngc r i m e o r a c r i m e o fv i o l en ce ; a nd (2)( ap p ly th e greater)

— ( A) the o f f ens e i nv o l v e d the u s e o fb o dy ar m or, i ncre ase by 2 l eve l s; o r ( B) the defen dan t us ed bo dy ar m o r dur i ng the com m i ssi on of the offense, i n prepar ati on fo r th e o ffense, o r i n an at tem pt to av o i d a ppr eh en si o n f o r the o ffen se , i ncre ase by 4 l eve l s. S ec ti o n 3 B1. 5( 2) ( A) appl i es when the o ffense i nv o l ve d the use o fbo dy ar m or, f orexam ple , w hen a codefendant used body a rm or . S ecti on 3B 1. 5( 2) ( B), however, appli es w hen t hede f e ndan thi m se l fus ed bo dy ar m or. The r e i s no th i ng am biguou s abou t (2) (A ) an d (2)(B) w he n read togeth er; the tw o subsect i ons ar e qui te differ ent.46 N os. 08

- 1466, 08

- 1608, 08

- 1616 & 08

- 1617

Jone s d oe sn ’t c h allen g e the enh an cem en t f or ab u se of trust, 10 only the enhancem ent f or use ofbod y arm or. H aynes adm i tte d that he wore hi s bulle tpro ofve st du ri ng the i nvasi on o fJ er ry ’ s ho use. S ecti on 3 B1. 5( 2) d i r e c t s th e s e n t e n c i n gj u d g e t o “ a p p l y th e g r e a t e r ” o f( 2 ) ( A) a nd ( 2 ) ( B)
. T he j ud g e c o r r e c t l y a pp l i e d § 3 B1
. 5 ( 2 ) ( B) ra thertha n §3 B1. 5( 2) ( A ) her e. H e was notr equi re d to g i v e a mor e e xt e ns i v e e xp l a na t i o n tha n he did f or applying the f our- l eve l enhancem ent. For his pa rt, J one s con ten d s tha t the di s t r ic t cou rt m i scal cul ate d hi s offense l eve l by apply i ng enhancem ents b o th f o r a n a b us e o ft r us tu nd e r § 3 B1
. 3 a nd f o r us e o fb o dy ar m orunder § 3B1. 5. H e a rgues that thi s was er ro r 10 because § 3B1. 3 s tat es that the “ adjus tm ent m ay not be empl o y ed i fa n abus e o ft r us t o r s k i l l i s i nc l ude d i n the b as e o ffen se lev el or sp ec ific of fen se ch ar ac te ris tic .” A c c or d in g t o Jo n e s , t h e bo d y a rm or w as p ar t o f h is u n if or m as a CP D offi cerand a s peci fi c o ffense chara cter i sti c. H e cl ai m s that th e d efend ant o ffi cer s wore bo dy ar m or onl y t o m ake thei r tar get s be l i eve theywere l egi ti m ate CP D offi cer s e ngage d i n l egi ti m ate l aw enf or cem ent. H i s a rgum ent i gnor es that a “ sp ec i fi c o ffense chara cte risti c” has a parti cul arm eani ng i n the Gu i del i nes, re fer ri ng to adj ustm ents to the base offense l eve l co ntai ned i n Chap terTw o. U
. S. S. G. ch. 2, i ntro du cto rycm t. ( “Ch apter Tw o . . . i s o rg ani zed by o ffenses . . . . Each offen se has a cor re sponding base offense l eve l and m ay have on e or m o r e spe cifi c o ffen se c ha r ac te r i st i cs tha t adj us t th e offense l eve l upw ar d ordow nw ar d.” ). C hapter ThreeN os. 08

- 1466, 08

- 1608, 08

- 1616 & 08

- 1617 47 A dj ustm ents ar e not “speci fi c o ffense chara cter i sti cs. ” See U. S
. S
. G. § 1 B1
. 1 ( b ) , ( c )
. S e c t i o n 2 D1
. 1 , the o ffe nse Gui del i ne a ppl icabl e to J o ne s’ s o ffen se o fc o nv i ct i o n, does not have a sp eci fi c offense char acte ri sti c fo r abuse of tr u st or u se of bo d y a rm or . See U. S
. S
. G. § 2 D1
. 1 ( b )
. I ns t e a d, the a dj ustm en ts f orabuse o ftr ust a nd use ofbo dy ar m or w er e m a d e u n d er C h ap te r T h re e, w h ich are n otsp ec ific offense chara cter i sti cs. F ur th er m o r e, J o ne s g i ve s us no r ea so n t o e quat e th e use o fbo dy ar m orwith “ an abuse o ftr ust” i n thi s ca se. The dis tr i ct c ourtr ejected J ones ’ s a rgum ent that he used b o dy a r moro nl y t o ma k e i tl o o kl i k e h e wa s a l e g i t i m ate officer engag e d i n l egitim ate law enforcem en t. T he cou rt drew th e r eas onabl e infe re nce that the bo dy ar m orwas bei ng used f ori ts pri m ar y purpose

— f o r pr o te ct i o n. Th e f act that the b ody a rm orm ay al so have been used to i de nt i fy the de fe nd a nt o ffi c e r s a s l e g i t i mat e Ch i c a g o c o ps en g age d i n l awfulpo l i ce a ct i vi tydo es n’ t m ak e th e en h an c em en t in ap p ro p ria te
. See U nite d State s v. B arre tt, 55 2 F. 3d 724, 72 8 ( 8th Ci r. 20 09) ( “The abi l i ty ofbo dy ar m or to se rv e d u al p u rp os es d oe s n ot m ak e § 3B 1.5 ina p p lica b le w here the f acts sho w o ne purpose c oul d be t o prot ect the w ea re r f ro m gunfi re . ”)
. W e there f or e fi nd no er ro r i n the di st r i ctc o ur t’ s appli cati o n o fb o th§ 3 B1. 3 an d § 3 B1. 5 i n deter m i ni ng J ones ’ s s entence
.

3. Arg um ent Prese rvat i on H ay n es als o a rg u ed th at th e d ist ric t c ou rt e r r ed in im p os in g a 60 -m on th c o n s ec u tiv e s en te n c e fo r h is fi re ar m co nvi cti on under 1 8 U.S
. C. § 9 24( c) ( 1) ( A ) bec ause48 N os. 08

- 1466, 08

- 1608, 08

- 1616 & 08

- 1617 h e w as alre ad y s u b j ec t t o a t en -ye ar m an d at or y m in im um under 21 U
. S. C. § 8 41(b) ( 1) ( A ) ( i i ) ( I I )
. H e con c ed es that U nited Sta tes v. E a ster, 553 F.3d 5 1 9 , 5 25-26 (7th Cir. 20 09 ), petiti o n fo r cert. filed ( U
. S. M ar . 26 , 20 09) ( N o. 08

- 95 60 ), a nd petitio n fo r cert. filed ( U
. S. M ay 20, 20 09) ( N o. 08

- 10 58 4), f or ecl ose s thi s a rgum ent. H e no w se eks to prese rv e the i ssue f orr evi ew i n the Suprem e Cour t. The g o ve r nm en t su bmi ts tha t H ay ne s wai ve d the ar gum ent b y r equesting the co urt to i m pose a co nsecuti ve fi ve- yea r sente nce. H aynes did not chal l enge w hether a co nsecuti ve sente nce was appropri ate , but w e do not unde r st an d hi m to ha ve be en affi r m at i ve l y r eque st i ng su cha s en te nc e. Hi s ch al l en g e was t o th e len g tho fthe sente nc e u n der § 92 4( c)

— th e g o ve r nm en t ar g ue d f o r the se ve n- y ea r min i m um

— not to w hether a c onse cuti ve sen ten ce was pr o peri n the fi r sti ns ta nc e. W e fi nd no wai ver o fa n o bj ec ti o n t o the c o ns ec ut i ve na tu r e o fthe sente nce; the ar gum ent was f orfeit ed i nstea d. Thu s, H aynes has prese rv ed the ar gum ent, al though it i s f or ecl ose d by o ur bind i ng pre cedent.

I I I . Concl usio n N one o fthe c ha l l e ng e s t o the e v i de nc e , the c o nv i c t i o ns , orse ntences r ai sed byt h es e defendants ea rn them any r el i ef
. The di str i ct c ourt ’ s j ud gm ents ar e A FFI RMED .

9- 17- 09