# U ni te d S ta te s Co ur t of A pp ea ls
For the Eig hth Circu it

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ _

No. 1 4- 33 35

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ _

Uni te d S ta te s o f Am eri ca,

ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll l Pla in ti

ff - App el le e,

v.

W ak in y an W ak an McArt hu r,

ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll l Defe nd

an t - Ap pe ll an t

.

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ _

No. 1 4- 33 36

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ _

Uni te d S ta te s o f Am eri ca,

ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll l Pla in ti

ff - App el le e,

v.

W il li am Earl M or ris

,

ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll l Defe nd

an t - Ap pe ll an t

.

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ _

No. 1 4- 33 67

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ _

Uni te d S ta te s o f Am eri ca,

ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll l Pla in ti

ff - App el le e ,v.

Ant ho ny Franc is Cree

,

ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll l Defe nd

an t - Ap pe ll an t

.

__ __ __ __ __ __
App eal s fr om

Uni te d S ta te s Di st ric t Co ur t fo r th e Dis tri ct of M in ne so ta - St. Pa ul

__ __ __ __ __ __

Su bm it te d: Feb ru ary 23 , 20 17 Fil ed : Fe br

ua ry 23 , 20 17

__ __ __ __ __ __

Befo re RI LEY, Chi ef J ud ge , COLLOTO N and KELLY , Cir cu it Ju dg es

.

__ __ __ __ __ __

COLLOTON, Ci rcu it Ju dg e.

A jury co nv ic te d Ant ho ny Cree

, W il li am Mo rri s, an d W ak in y an McArt hu r of

cri m in al of

fen se s st em m in g fro m th ei r in vo lv em en t wit h th e Nati ve Mo b, a
Mi nn es ot a pr is on an d s tre et ga ng . All t hr ee ap pe al an d a rg ue th at th e di st ric t co ur t

erre d as to th e su ffi ci en cy of th e ev id en ce, jury in st ru ct io ns , or se nt en ci ng

. W e affi rm
in pa rt, re ve rs e in pa rt, a nd rem an d fo r fu rth er p ro ceed in gs

.

I.

A.

As each de fen da nt ch al le ng es th e su ffi ci en cy of th e ev id en ce in su pp or t of hi s

co nv ic ti on s, we reci te th e fact s in th e li gh t m os t f a v o rab le to th e ve rd ic ts

. Uni te d

-2

-St at es v. Par is

, 81 6 F.3 d 10 37

, 10 38 -3 9 (8 th Ci r. 20 16 ). The Nati ve Mo b is a pr is on

an d st reet ga ng th at st art ed in so ut h M i n n e a p o li s in th e m id -1 99 0s

. The Mo b

de ve lo pe d a la rg e pr es en ce in Mi nn es ot a an d no w ha s ov er two hu nd red m em be rs in

th e st at e. Its m em

be rs pa rti ci pa te in a v a r i e t y of cri m in al act s, in cl ud in g sa le s of

co nt ro ll ed su bs ta nc es an d as sa ul ts on m em be rs of riv al ga ng s. Thro ug h th es e

act iv i ti es , Mo b m em

be rs se ek to pr om ot e th e ga ng ’s rep ut at io n an d to pr ot ect it s

m em be rs an d t erri to ry

.

In Decem be r 20 09

, McArt hu r cal le d fo r a Mo b m eet in g. At th e m eet in g, Mo b

m em be rs el ect ed a ne w gr ou p of le ad ers in th e ga ng ’s hi erar ch ic al st ru ct ur e. Ken ne th

R ob ert s was el ect ed W ar Ch ie f, an d Ch ris to ph er W uo ri was na m ed Cas s La k e Rep res en ta ti ve . Mem

be rs als o a gr eed to ho ld m on th ly stat ewid e m eet in gs

.

McArt hu r se rv ed as Ch ie f of th e Mo b, th e to p le ad ers hi p po si ti on , fro m 20 10

un ti l 20 12

. Und er McArt hu r, m em be rs ha d eas y acce ss to fir earm s. Mem be rs co ul d

req ue st a fir earm fro m an ot he r m em be r, or th ey co ul d ret rie ve a fir earm fro m on e of

se ve ral Mo b as so ci at es who st or ed th e weap on s. The Mo b al so pl aced a pr em iu m on

ret ai ni ng fir earm s. At on e m eet in g, McArt hu r in st ru ct ed Mo b m em be rs to “ ch eri sh ”

fir earm own ers hi p a nd to st op lo si ng Mo b wea po ns

.

McArt hu r an d W

uo ri al so in crea se d th e Mo b’s dr ug t r a ffi ck in g op erat io ns

. The two m en “ po ol ed th ei r m on ey to ge th er” to pu rch as e co cai ne an d di vi de d eq ua ll y
th e in co m e de riv ed fro m th ei r dr ug sa le s. W uo ri ob ta in ed co cai ne fro m su pp li ers , an d

th en co nv ert ed th e co cai ne in to crac k co cai ne

. W uo ri of te n co m pl et ed th e co nv ers io n

pr oc es s in a r e s i d e n c e th at he an d McArt hu r sh ared in Cas s Lak e, Mi nn es ot a.
Mem be rs freq ue nt ed th e ho us e an d as s i s t ed McArt hu r an d W uo ri in ob ta in in g,

pa ck ag in g, an d st or in g th e dr ug s. McArt hu r an d W uo ri so ld crac k co cai ne to se ve ral

m em be rs , who th en res ol d t he dru gs to in di vi du al s t hr ou gh ou t M in ne so ta

.

-3

-Dur in g McArt hu r’s te rm as Ch ie f, he of te n en co ur ag ed m em

be rs to ha rm riv al

ga ng le ad ers an d ot he rs who po se d a th reat to th e ga ng , ur gi ng m em be rs to be wil li ng

to “ go ou t an d sh oo t-‘em u p

. ” At on e of th e Mo b’s m eet in gs , McArt hu r to ld

m em be rs to at ta ck an en em

y of th e Mo b, in st ru ct in g o n e memb e r to sh oo t at th e

en em y ’s res id en ce. McArt hu r al so sa id th at th e Mo b “ ne ed [ed ] to wha ck ” th e le ad er
of an op po si ti on ga ng , and th at th e le ad er’s d eat h “ wou ld be ne fit us all .”

Am os LaDuk e, a fo rm er as so ci at e of th e Mo b, was th e vi ct im of a Mo b at ta ck

. In earl y 20 10

, Mo b m em be rs , in cl ud in g W uo ri an d Cree

, c o n c lu de d th at LaDuk e

“ ne ed ed to be wha ck ed .” Mo rri s al so pa rti ci pa te d in di sc us si on s ab ou t LaDuk e, an d

W uo ri pl an ne d to gi ve Mo rri s a “ gu n

. . . in cas e he se e n A m os so m ewh ere.” On

Mar ch 4, 20 10

, LaDuk e was walk in g in Cas s Lak e whe n a c a r , o w ne d by Cree

, ap pr oa ch ed

. Cree

, Mo rri s, an d two ot he r pe op le were in th e ve hi cl e. Mo rri s go t ou t

of th e car, carr y in g a fir earm as LaDuk e st art e d t o ru n away. Mo rri s fir ed se ve ral

ro un ds to ward LaDuk e, st r i k i n g La Duk e th ree ti m es be fo re a fo rm er po li ce of fic er
dr ov e hi s tru ck be twee n Mo rri s an d LaDuk e an d en de d th e en co un te r. Mo rri s fle d

th e sc en e; au th or it ie s arres te d hi m ne arb y sh or tl y th erea fte r. Cree an d t he ot he rs in

th e car dr ov e away du rin g th e sh oo ti ng , a nd Cree was ap pr e h e n d e d in an un rel at ed

in ci de nt lat er t ha t m on th

.

The Mo b al so wen t to gr eat le ng th s to pr ot ect it s d r u g d i s tri bu ti on te rri to ry

. Of pa rti cu la r co nc ern to th e Mo b was Lawren ce Dan ie ls

, a dr ug de al er who co m pe te d

ag ai ns t th e ga ng fo r co nt ro l of th e Cas s Lak e dr ug tra de

. St art in g in May 20 10

, Mo b

m em be rs ta lk ed ab ou t ha rm in g Dan ie ls in ho pe s of rem ov in g hi m fro m th ei r te rri to ry

. Dur in g o ne co nv ers at io n, M cArt hu r an d W uo ri to ld Mo b m em

be rs Ro be rts
, Em il io

Bu nk er, Je rem ee Kras ke y , Co ry Oqu is t, an d Ped ro Sayers t h a t t h e y wan te d to fin d

Dan ie ls an d “ el im in at e hi m by an y m ean s.” McArt hu r an d W uo ri de ci de d to se nd

m em be rs to “ ge t

. . . in fo rm at io n ou t” of a kn own as so ci at e of Dan ie ls ab ou t Dan ie ls ’s

whe reab ou ts ; fro m th at ex cu rs io n Mo b m em be rs de te rm in ed th at Dan ie ls was li vi ng
in Bem id ji, Mi nn es ot a.

-4

-Sh or tl y aft er le arn in g Dan ie ls ’s lo cat io n, McArt hu r an d ot he r m em be rs , in cl ud in g W uo ri, Bu nk er, Kras ke y , an d Ro be rts
, di sc us se d “ go in g to Bem id ji

. . . an d

sh oo ti ng ” Dan ie ls

. On Aug us t 21

, 20 10

, W uo ri dr ov e Bu nk er, Oqu is t, an d Sayers to

Bem id ji, whe re th e th ree m en sh ot in to a ho m e whe re th ey be li ev e d D a n i e l s li ve d.

The y real iz ed so on aft er, howe ve r, th at Dan ie ls ha d no co nn ect io n to th e res id en ce.

In th e p res en ce of McArt hu r an d Ro be rts
, th e fo ur m em be rs reco un te d th ei r erro r. Day s la te r, o n Aug us t 24

, so m e of th e sa m e m em be rs m ad e a se co nd at te m pt on
Dan ie ls , sh oo ti ng at t he Rai sc h re si de nc e whe re Dan ie ls was s ta y in g.

The Mo b co nt in ue d to pu rs ue Dan ie ls

. At th e req ue st of McArt hu r an d W uo ri,

Mo b m em

be r Dale Pi nd eg ay os h ag reed to pa rti ci pa te in a ho m e in va si on to in ti m id at e

D a n i el s. On Mar ch 28

, 20 11

, Pi nd eg ay os h an d th ree ot he r m em be rs , arm ed wit h

fir earm s, br ok e in to th e ho m e of Dan ie ls ’s fat he r-i n- la w, Jo hn W il ke

. App ro xi m at el y

two m on th s la te r, McArt hu r an d W uo ri req ue st ed th at Pi nd eg ay os h ro b t h e W il ke

ho m e. Pi nd eg ay os h op te d no t to co m pl et e th e cri m e, an d th at was th e la st ev id en ce

co nc ern in g M ob act iv it y

to ward Dani el s.

B.

F ed eral an d st at e au th or it ie s be ga n in ve st ig at in g th e Nati ve Mo b as earl y a s
20 04

. The in ve st ig at io n ex pa nd ed aft er th e LaDuk e s h o o ti ng

. Dur in g th e
in ve st ig at io n, m em

be rs -tu r ne d- in fo rm an ts wor e reco rd in g de vi ces to fo ur Mo b

m e e t i n gs in 20 10 an d 20 11

. Law en fo rcem en t of fic ers co nd uc te d su rv ei ll an ce of

se ve ral Mo b m em

be rs an d i ns ta ll ed GPS d ev ic es on ve hi cl es us ed by m em be rs

.

In Jan ua ry

20 12 , a gr an d jury

ch arg ed Cree , Mo rri s, M cArt hu r, an d o th ers in

a m ul ti co un t in di ct m en t. Cree

, Mo rri s, an d McArt hu r pr oc eed ed to tri al

. Afte r a si xw e e k t r i a l, whi ch in cl ud ed te st im on y fro m vi ct im s of Mo b at ta ck s, fo rm er Mo b

m em be rs , a nd in ve st ig at or s, a jury co nv i ct ed th e m en of se ve ral ch arg es

. Afte r th e

-5

-tri al

, th e di st ric t co ur t de ni ed th e de fen da nt s’ m ot io ns fo r jud gm en ts of acq ui tt al or ,

in th e al te rn at iv e, ne w tri al s.

Cree was co nv ic te d of co ns pi racy to pa rti ci pa te in rack et eeri ng act iv it y , se e 18

U.S.C. § 19 62 (d ), an d co ns pi racy t o di st rib ut e an d po ss es s wit h i n t e n t to di st rib ut e

co nt ro ll ed su bs ta nc es

. Se e 21 U.S.C. §§ 84 1( a), (b ), 84 6. He al so was co nv ic te d of

fo ur co un ts rel at ed to hi s in vo lv em en t in th e LaDuk e sh oo ti ng : co ns pi racy to us e an d

carr y fir earm s du rin g and in rel at io n to a cri m e of vi ol en ce, se e 18 U.S.C. § 9 24 ( o ),

at te mp t e d murd er in ai d of rack et eeri ng , se e id

. §§ 19 59 (a)( 5)

, 2, as sa ul t wit h a
da ng ero us weap on in ai d of rack et eeri ng , s e e id

. §§ 19 59 (a)( 3)

, 2, an d us e an d

carr y in g of a fir e a r m d u r i n g an d in rel at io n to a cri m e of vi ol en ce. Se e id

. §§ 92 4( c), 2 . The d is tri ct co ur t s en te nc ed Cree to 29 2 m on th s’ im pr is on m en t.

Mo rri s’s con vi ct io ns st em m ed fro m th e LaDuk e sh oo ti ng

. He was co nv ic te d

of at te m pt ed mu rd er in ai d of rack et eeri ng , a ss au lt wit h a da ng ero us weap on in ai d

of rack et eeri ng , us e an d carr y in g of a fir earm du rin g an d i n rel at io n to a cri m e of

vi ol en ce, an d po s s e s s i o n of a fir earm as a pr ev io us ly co nv ic te d fel on

. Se e id

. § 92 2( g)

. Ove r Mo rri s’s ob jecti on , th e di st ric t co ur t at se nt en ci ng ru le d th at Mo rri s’s

thre e pr ior Mi nne sot a thi rd -d eg re e bur glar y co nv ic ti on s co ns ti tu te d “ vi ol en t fel on ie s”

fo r pu rp os es of th e Arm ed Care er Cri m in al Act. Se e id

. § 92 4( e). Bec au se th e co ur t

fo un d th at Mo rri s ha d at le as t th ree pr ev io us co nv ic ti on s fo r vi ol en t fel on ie s, he was

su bjec t to a m an da to ry m in im um 18 0- m on th se nt en ce an d a m ax im um of li fe on hi s

co nv ic ti on fo r po ss es si on of a fir earm as a pr ev io us ly co nv ic te d fel on , Co un t 6. Se e
id

. The co ur t se nt en ced Mo rri s to 36 0 m on t h s’ im pr is on m en t on th at co un t an d to

42 0 m on th s’ im

pr is on m en t t ot al

.

McArt hu r was co nv ic te d of co ns pi racy to pa rti ci pa te in rack et eeri ng act iv it y ,

co ns pi racy to us e an d carr y fir ear ms du rin g an d in rel at io n to a cri m e of vi ol en ce,

co ns pi racy t o di st rib ut e an d po ss es s wit h in te nt to di st rib ut e c o nt ro ll ed su bs ta nc es ,

an d di st rib ut io n of a co nt ro ll ed su bs ta nc e. Se e 21 U.S.C. § 84 1( a), (b ); 18 U.S.C. § 2.

-6

-He al so was co nv ic te d of two co un ts of us e an d c arrying of a fir earm du rin g an d in

rel at io n to a cri m e of v i o l e n c e

. S e e 18 U.S.C. §§ 92 4( c), 2. The fir st § 92 4( c)

co nv ic ti on , C ou nt 10 , wa s ba se d on McArt hu r’s in vo lv em en t in th e sh oo ti ng at th e
Rai sc h ho m e, an d th e di st ric t co ur t se nt en ced hi m to a m an da to ry 60 -m on th te rm on
th at ch arg e. Id

. § 92 4( c)(1 ). The se co nd § 92 4( c) co nv ic ti on , C o u n t 11

, rel at ed to

McArt hu r’s ro le in th e W il ke ho m e in va si on

. The co ur t im po se d a m an da to ry 30 0-

m on th co ns ecu ti ve se nt en ce fo r th at co nv i c t i o n

. Id

. In to ta l, th e di st ric t co ur t

se nt en ced McArt hu r to 51 6 m on th s’ im pr is on m en t.

II.

A.

Cree ’s lo ne arg um en t on a pp eal is th at th e di st ric t co ur t erre d in de nyin g hi s

m ot io n fo r jud gm en t of acq ui tt al be cau s e t h e go ve rn m en t pr es en te d in su ffi ci en t

ev id en ce to su st ai n hi s co nv ic ti on s. W e rev ie w th e de ni al of a m ot io n fo r jud gm en t

of acq ui tt al de no vo , vi ewin g th e ev id en ce in th e li gh t m os t fav or ab le to th e ve rd ic t.

Par is

, 81 6 F.3 d at 10 38 -3 9. W e wil l rev ers e on ly if no reas on ab le jury co ul d ha ve
fo un d th e de fen da nt gu il ty be y on d a reas on ab le do ub t. Id

. ; se e Fed

. R. Cri m

. P. 29

.

Cree fir st di sp ut es th e ev id en ce in su pp or t of hi s co nv ic ti on fo r co ns pi racy to

pa r t i c i p a t e i n rack et eeri ng act iv it y

. Se e 18 U.S.C. § 19 62 (d ). The go ve rn m en t

ch arg ed Cree wit h co ns pi rin g to vi ol at e 18 U.S.C. § 19 62 (c), a su bs ta nt iv e pr ov is io n
of th e Rac ke te er In flu en ced an d Co rru pt Org an iz at io n (“ RICO” ) Act. S e c t i on
19 62 (c) pr oh ib it s “an y p e r s o n

. . . as so ci at ed wit h an y en te rp ris e en ga ge d in

. . . in te rs ta te

. . . co m

m erce , to co nd uc t or p a r t i c i p a te
, di rect ly or in di rect ly, in th e

co nd uc t of su ch en te rp ris e’s affa irs th ro ug h a pa tt ern of rac k e t e eri ng act iv it y .” To

co nv ic t Cree un de r § 19 62 (d ), th e go ve rn m en t was req ui red to pr ov e, in te r al ia

, th at

a RICO en te rp ri s e e x i s t e d an d th at Cree ag reed th at he or a co co ns pi rat or wou ld

-7

-en ga ge in a “ pa tt ern of rack et eeri ng act iv it y .” Cree co nt es ts th e ev id en ce su pp or ti ng

th es e two fin di ng s.

A RICO en te rp ris e in cl ud es “ an y un io n o r gr ou p of in di vi du al s as so ci at ed in

fact al th ou gh no t a le ga l en ti ty.” 18 U.S.C. § 19 61 (4 ). An i n f o r m al as so ci at io n of

in di vi du al s co ns ti tu te s a RICO en te rp ris e whe n it is “ a co nt in ui ng un it th at fu nc ti on s
wit h a co m

m on pu rp os e.” Boy le v. Uni te d St at es , 55 6 U.S. 93 8, 94 6, 94 8 (2 00 9) ; se e
al so Uni te d St at es v. Tu rk

et te
, 45 2 U.S. 57 6, 58 3 (1 98 1)

. Thu s, an en te rp ris e ha s “ at

le as t th ree st ru ct ur al feat ur es : a pu rp os e, rel at io ns hi ps am on g th os e as so ci at ed wit h

th e en te rp ris e , a n d lo ng ev it y su ffi ci en t to pe rm it th es e as so ci at es to pu rs ue th e

en te rp ris e’s pu rp os e.” Boy le , 55 6 U.S. at 94 6.

Cree arg ue s th at th e Mo b was no t a RICO en te rp ris e. Mem be rs , acco rd in g to

Cree

, ha d no sh ared pu rp os e a nd were a “ lo os e as se m bl y of acq ua in ta nc es ,”

co m m it ti ng cri m es ran do m ly and in th ei r own in te res ts

.

Tria l te st im on y , ho wev er, pr ov id ed am pl e su pp or

t fo r the j ur y ’s fin di ng th at th e

M o b c o n st it ut ed a RICO en te rp ris e. The Mo b ha d se ve ral pu rp os es : Mem be r s

wor ke d to pr om ot e th e Mo b, de ve lo p it s rep ut at io n, an d pr ot ect it s te rri to ry an d

m em be rs

. At on e m eet in g, McArt hu r rem in de d th os e in at te nd an ce th at “ [t]hi s ai n’t

ab ou t m e. It ai n’t ab ou t no in di vi du al pe rs on , m an

. It’s ab ou t us al l.” Fo r ne arl y two

de cad es , th e Mo b op erat ed as a co he ren t un it

. Man y m em be rs joi ne d th e Mo b as

te en ag ers an d were in th e ga ng f o r se ve ral y ears

. The Mo b ha d m eet in gs , co lo rs , si gn al s, an d sym

bo ls

. Bo th writ te n an d un writ te n ru le s go ve rn ed m em be rs ’ be ha vi or

. W he n a m em

be r vi ol at ed on e of th e ru le s, Mo b le ad ers m et ed ou t pu ni sh m en t, of te n
in th e fo rm of a ph y si cal as sa ul t at the ha nd s of ot he r m em be rs

. The Mo b al so us ed

a hi erar ch ic al le ad ers hi p st ru ct ur e, an d whe n on e le ad er st ep p e d do wn, an ot he r

m em be r was sel ect ed for th e ro le

.

-8

-Su ffi ci en t evi de nc e al so su pp or te d th e jury’ s fin di ng th at Cree ag reed th at he

or a co co ns pi rat or wou l d e ng ag e in a “ pa tt ern of rack et eeri ng act iv it y .” Sect io n
1 9 61 (1 ) la be ls do zen s of fed eral an d st at e of fen se s as rack et eeri ng act i v i t i e s , in cl ud in g “ an y act or th reat i n v o lv in g m ur de r

. . . or de al in g in a co nt ro ll ed

su bs ta nc e

. . . , whi ch is ch arg eab le un de r St at e la w an d pu ni sh ab le by im pr is on m en t

fo r m or e th an on e y ear.” A “ ‘pat te rn of r a c k e t e e r i ng act iv it y ’ req ui res at le as t two

act s of rack et eeri ng act iv it y , . . . th e la st of whi ch oc cu rred wit hi n te n y ears

. . . aft er
th e co m m is si on of a pri or act of r ack et eeri ng act iv it y .” 18 U.S.C. § 1 96 1( 5)

.

To e st ab li sh a “ pa tt ern of rack et eeri ng act iv it y ,” th e go ve rn m en t al so m us t

pr ov e two co ns ti tu en t el em en ts : th at th e pr e d i c a t e a c t s of rack et eeri ng are rel at ed

,

an d “ th at th ey am ou nt to or po se a th reat of co nt in ue d cri m in al act iv it y .” H.J. In c. v.
Nw. Bell Tel

. Co

. , 49 2 U.S. 22 9, 23 9 (1 98 9)

. “ Cri m in al act s are su ffi ci en tl y
rel at ed

. . . if t he y

ha d t he sa m e or si m il ar p ur po se s, re su lt s, p art ic ip an ts , vi ct im s o r

m et ho ds of co m

m is si on , o r i f th ey were ot he rwis e ‘int erre la te d by di st in gu is hi ng
ch arac te ris ti cs ’ as op po se d to be in g ‘iso la te d ev en ts .’ ” Uni te d St at es v. Hive ly

, 43 7

F.3 d 7 52 , 76 1- 62 (8t h C ir. 2 00 6) (qu ot in g H.J. Inc

. , 49 2 U.S. at 24 0)

.

Co nt in ui ty o f rack et eeri ng act iv it y , “ or it s t hr eat
, si mpl ic it er ,” is a “ te m po ral

co nc ep t.” H.J. In c. , 49 2 U.S. at 24 1- 42

. One m an ne r of pr ov in g co nt in ui ty is op en

en de d co nt in ui ty, whi ch as ks whe t h e r “the rel at ed pr ed ic at es th em se lv es in vo lv e a
di st in ct th reat of lo ng -te rm rack et eeri ng act iv it y , ei th er im pl ic it or ex pl ic it .” Id

. at

24 2- 43

. Ope n- en de d co nt in ui ty m ay be es ta bl is he d by sh owi ng th at th e rack et eeri ng

act s “ in cl ud e a sp eci fic th reat of rep et it io n ex te nd in g in de fin it el y in to th e fu tu re.” Id

.

Cree co nt en ds th at th e rack et eeri ng act iv it y of whi ch he was co nv ic te d, th e
ch arg es rel at in g to th e sh oo ti ng of LaDuk e an d dr ug di st rib ut io n, were ne it he r rel at ed

to on e an ot he r no r su ffi ci en t to sh ow a th reat of co nt in ue d cri m in al act iv it y

. On th is

vi ew, he th us ne ve r ag reed to pa rti ci pa te in a “ pa tt ern of r ack et eeri ng act iv it y .”

-9

-Cree ’s arg um en ts are un pe rs ua si ve

. Evi de nc e su pp or te d th e jury’ s fin di ng th at

th e LaDuk e sh oo ti ng a nd Cree ’s dr ug di st rib ut io n am ou nt ed to a pa tt ern of

rack et eeri ng act iv it y

. The act s w e r e r e la te d, in th at Cree

, W uo ri, an d ot he r Mo b

m em be rs pa rti ci pa te d in bo th cri m es , an d th e act s re pr es en te d a co ns is te nt de si re to

fu rth er th e Mo b’s act iv it ie s. Se e Uni te d St at es v. Dar de n , 7 0 F.3 d 15 07 , 1 52 5 (8 th

Ci r. 19 95 ). Bec au se th es e two act s “ by th ei r ve ry na tu re th reat en rep et it io n,” th e jury

al so co ul d fin d op en -en de d co nt in ui ty. Hive ly

, 43 7 F.3 d at 76 1. Mo b m em be rs were
kn own fo r as sa ul ti ng co m pe ti ng dr ug de al ers or ot he rs be li ev ed to po se a th reat to th e
Mo b’s in te res ts . It is li ke ly tha t m em be rs wou ld , and tes ti m on y su gg es te d t he y di d

in fact

, co nt in ue th es e ta ct ic s aft er th e LaDuk e sh oo ti ng an d Cree ’s arre st

. Se e Uni te d

St at es v. Delg ad o , 40 1 F.3 d 29 0, 29 8 (5 th Ci r. 20 05 ); Uni te d St at es v. Dia z , 17 6 F.3 d

52

, 93 -9 4 (2 d Ci r. 19 99 ). A reas on ab le jury, th eref or e, co ul d co nv ic t C r e e of

co ns pi racy to p art ic ip at e in rack et eeri ng act iv it y

.

Cree n e x t c o m

pl ai ns th at th ere was in su ffi ci en t ev id en ce to co nv ic t hi m of

co ns pi rin g to di st rib ut e an d po ss es s wit h in te nt t o di st rib ut e co nt ro ll ed su bs ta nc es

. B u t su ffi ci en t ev id en ce su pp or te d th is co nv ic ti on as well

. Test im on y sh owe d t h a t

Mo b m em

b e rs were en ga ge d in a dr ug co ns pi racy an d th at Cree kn owi ng ly

pa rti ci pa te d i n t he co ns pi racy. Se e Uni te d St at es v. Rami re z , 35 0 F .3d 78 0, 7 83 -8 5 (8 th Ci r. 20 03 ). Mo b m em be rs tes ti fie d t ha t Cr ee was pr es en t whe n W uo ri co ok ed

c r a c k c o c ai ne , an d th at Cree rece iv ed di st rib ut io n qu an ti ti es of crac k co cai ne fro m
W uo ri on co ns ig nm en t th at Cree th en so ld in th e Cas s Lak e area

. It was fo r th e jury

to jud ge th e tru th fu ln es s of th es e wit ne ss es , an d wit ne ss cred ib il it y i s vi rtu al ly

un rev ie wab le on ap pe al . A reas on ab le jury co ul d co nv ic t Cree of th e ch arg e b as ed

on th is ev id en ce.

Cree ’s la st arg um en t is th at th e ev id en ce di d no t de m on st rat e hi s “ co m pl ic it y ”

in th e LaDuk e sh oo ti ng , a fin di ng ne ces sa ry fo r hi s fou r co nv ic ti on s rela ti ng to th at

in ci de nt

. Cree in si st s th at he di d no t kn ow Mo rri s was go in g to sh oo t LaDuk e. The

reco rd

, ho wev er, sh ows th at Cree was aware of th e im pe nd in g at ta ck on LaDuk e an d

-1 0-as si st ed Mo rri s in co m pl et in g th e cri m e. Cree di sc us se d ha rm in g LaDuk e wit h

Mo rri s an d ot he r m em

be rs , an d he was pr es en t whe n W uo ri ag reed to pr ov id e a gu n

to Mo rri s in cas e Mo rri s en co un te re d LaDuk e. And LaDuk e te st ifi ed th at ab ou t

fif te en m in ut es be fo re th e sh oo ti ng , he twi ce ob se rv ed Cree st ari ng at hi m as Cree an d

an ot he r m an dr ov e pa st hi s lo cat io n. It was th e jury’ s pr ero ga ti ve to de t e r mi ne
LaDuk e’s cred ib il it y

.

Cree ’s reco un ti ng of th e da y of th e at ta ck to fel lo w m em be r s f u rth er
de m on st rat es hi s kn owi ng pa rti ci pa ti on in th e in ci de nt

. C r e e t o ld m em be rs th at he

ha d fo un d lo cat io ns th at LaDuk e freq ue nt ed an d sa w LaDuk e “ sl ip pi n’” ( i.e.

, le av in g
hi m se lf vu ln erab le to at ta ck ) in on e su ch lo cat io n. Cree th en ret rie ve d a fir earm an d pi ck ed up Mo rri s to “ ta ke care ” of LaDuk e. On th is reco rd

, a reas on ab le jury co ul d

co nv ic t Cree of th e ch arg es rel at in g to t h e La Duk e at ta ck

, an d th e di st ric t co ur t

pr op erl y de ni ed Cree ’s m ot io n fo r jud gm en t o f acq ui tt al

.

Cree al so arg ue s th at th e di st ric t co ur t sh ou ld ha ve gr an te d hi s m ot io n fo r a

ne w tri al be cau se th e v erd ic t was ag ai ns t t he weig ht of t he ev id en ce. In th e d is tri ct

co ur t, ho wev er, Cree di d no t m ov e fo r a n e w t r i a l ba se d on th e weig ht of th e

ev id en ce; as a res ul t, hi s cl ai m is pr oc ed u ral ly ba rred on ap pe al

, an d we ne ed no t

co ns id er it

. Uni te d St a t e s v

. Flyn n , 19 6 F.3 d 92 7, 93 2 (8 th Ci r. 19 99 ). W e th us
affi rm th e jud gm en t o f th e d is tri ct co ur t as to Cree

.

B.

Mo rri s rai se s th ree cl ai m s of erro r. Mo rri s fir st av ers th at th e di st ric t co ur t

wro ng ly den ie d h is m ot io n fo r jud gm en t o f acq ui tt al be cau se th ere was in su ffi ci en t

ev id en ce to con vi ct hi m of ei th er att em pt ed m ur de r in ai d of rack et eeri ng or as sa ul t

wit h a da ng ero us weap on in ai d of rack et eeri ng

. Se e 18 U.S.C. §§ 19 59 (a), 2. Mo rri s
do es no t di sp ut e th e ex is te nc e of a RICO en te rp ris e en ga ge d in rack et eeri ng act iv it y
th at affe ct ed in te rs ta te co m m erce or th at he as sa ul te d an d at te m pt ed to m

ur de r

-1 1-LaDuk e wit h a fir earm

. Mo rri s in st ead al le ge s th at t h e g ov ern m en t di d no t

de m on st rat e th at he at ta ck ed LaDuk e fo r a pu rp os e li st ed in th e st at ut e—i n th is cas e,

to m ai nt ai n or in crea se hi s po si ti on in th e Mo b— be cau se th ere was no t pr oo f be y on d

a rea so na bl e d ou bt th at he was, i n fa ct , a Mo b m em be r. Se e id

. § 1 95 9( a)

.

The ev id en ce was su f

f i c i en t fo r th e jury to co nc lu de th at Mo rri s was a Mo b

m em be r an d th at he sh ot LaDuk e to m ai nt ai n or in crea se hi s st at us in th e ga ng

. Mo rri s di sc us se d sh oo ti ng LaDuk e wit h ot he r m em be rs , an d so m e of th os e m em be rs
l at er as si st ed Mo rri s in carr y in g ou t th e at ta ck

. A fo rm er m em be r te st ifi e d t h a t i n
2 0 1 0

, W uo ri in tro du ced hi m to Mo rri s “ as if [Mo rri s] was Fam ,” a te rm m em be rs

us ed to de no te m em

be rs hi p in th e ga ng

. W hi le so m e m em be r s may no t ha ve be en

aware of Mo rri s, wit ne ss es at te st ed th at m em be rs of te n di d no t kn ow ev eryone in th e
Mo b du e to th e Mo b’s la rg e m em be rs hi p. Mo rri s’s co m

m un ic at io ns on th e da y of th e
sh oo ti ng an d du rin g hi s su bs eq ue nt in carc erat io n fu rth er su pp or t a fin di ng th at he was

a Mo b m em

be r. Near th e ti m e of th e sh oo ti ng , Mo rri s us ed a c e l lu la r te le ph on e to

cal l a te le ph on e nu m

be r at whi ch bo th McArt hu r an d W uo ri were kno wn to rece iv e
cal ls

. W hi le in p r i s o n , Mo rri s co nt act ed se ve ral Mo b m em be rs vi a te le ph on e an d

m ai l, in cl ud in g Cree

, McArt hu r, an d W uo ri, an d rep res en te d hi m se lf as a m em be r of

th e Mo b. And it is un di sp ut ed th at m em be rs in crea se d th ei r st an di ng in th e ga ng by

co m m it ti ng vi ol en t cri m es

. Thu s, th e jury rea so n a b l y d eci de d th at Mo rri s at ta ck ed

LaDuk e to m ai nt ai n o r in crea se hi s p os it io n i n t he Mo b.

Mo rri s ne xt as se rts th at th e ju r y i n s t r uc ti on s on th e § 19 59 (a) ch arg es

co ns tru ct iv el y am en de d th e in di ct m en t. An in di ct m en t is co ns tru ct iv el y am en de d

whe n th e go ve rn m en t or co ur t al te rs th e es se nt ia l el em en ts of an of fen se se t fo rth in

th e in di c t men t

. Uni te d St at es v. Mar ia no , 72 9 F.3 d 87 4, 88 0 (8 th Ci r. 20 13 ). The

in di ct m en t he re ch arg ed th at Mo rri s at ta ck ed LaDuk e “ fo r th e pu rp os e of m ai nt ai ni ng

an d in crea si ng ” hi s po si ti on in th e N a t i v e Mo b. Mo rri s co m pl ai ns th at th e di st ric t

co ur t’s in st ru ct io n on th at el e men t di d no t m at ch th e in di ct m en t, be cau se it as ke d

whe th er Mo rri s as sa ul te d LaDuk e “ to ga in en tra nc e to
, or to m ai nt ai n, or to in crea se

-1 2-hi s p os it io n” in th e Mo b. Bu t M or ris req ue st ed th e pr eci se jury in st ru ct io n us ed by

th e di st ric t co ur t, an d he ha s th eref or e waiv ed an y cl ai m of erro r ba se d on an al le ge d

co ns tru ct iv e am en dm en t. Id

. at 88 0- 82 ; Pets ch l v. Uni te d St at es , 36 9 F.2 d 76 9, 77 4 (8 th Cir . 19 66 ).

Mo rri s ’s l as t arg um en t is th at th e di st ric t co ur t erre d in ru li ng th at hi s pr io r
th ird -d eg ree bu rg la ry co nv ic ti on s co ns ti tut ed vio le nt fe lon ie s unde r the A rm ed Ca reer
Cri m in al Act. Mo rri s was co nv ic te d fo r po ss es si on of a fi r e a r m a s a pr ev io us ly

co nv ic te d fel on

. Se e 18 U.S.C. § 92 2( g)

. Thi s of fen se carr ie s a m ax im

um se nt en ce
of 12 0 m on th s’ im

pr is on m en t. Id

. § 92 4( a ) ( 2 )

. The Arm ed Care er Cri m in al Act,

ho wev er, pr ov id es f

o r a n en ha nc ed se nt en ce of 18 0 m on th s to li fe in pr is on on a § 92 2( g) co nv ic ti on , if th e de fen da nt “ ha s th ree pr ev io us co nv ic ti on s

. . . fo r a vi ol en t

fel on y .” S e e i d

. § 92 4( e)(1 ). Ove r Mo rri s’s ob jecti on , t he di st ric t co ur t fo un d th at

Mo rri s h a d fo ur pr io r “ vi ol en t fel on y ” co nv ic ti on s, th ree of whi ch were fo r th ird

de gr ee bu rg la ry in Mi nn es ot a, an d th at he was su bjec t to th e en ha nc em en t. The co ur t

th us im po se d a 36 0- m on th sen te nc e fo r Mo rri s’s v io la ti on of § 92 2( g)

.

Mor ri s’ s in it ia l po si ti on on ap pe al was th at th e Mi nn es ota thi rd -d eg re e bur gla ry

st at ut e, Mi nn

. St at

. Ann

. § 60 9.5 82

, su bd

. 3, se ts fo rth m ul ti pl e, al te rn at iv e ve rs io ns
of th e cri m e, th at at le as t on e of th e st at ut e’s al te rn at iv es is no t a vi ol en t fel on y , an d

th at th e di st ric t co ur t sh ou ld ha ve ap pl ie d th e “ m od ifi e d c a t e g o r ic al ap pr oa ch ” to

de te rm in e whe th er hi s co nv ic ti on s were vi o l e n t fel on ie s. Mo rri s th en rev is ed hi s

po si ti on in li gh t o f M

a t h i s v. Uni te d St at es , 13 6 S. Ct

. 22 43 (2 01 6)

, whi ch was
d e c i d e d aft er th is cas e was su bm it te d. He no w ur ge s th at th e Mi nn es ot a st at u t e i s
in di vi si bl e an d t ha t t he off en se is no t a v io le nt fel on y . Th e g ov ern m en t ag rees th at

th e st at ut e is in di vi si bl e bu t arg ue s th at th ird -d eg ree bu rg l a r y qu al ifi es as ge ne ric

“ bu rg la ry ” u nd er § 92 4( e). W e co nc lu de th at Mo rri s i s co rrec t.

-1 3-The Mi nn es ot a th ird -d eg ree b ur gl ary st at ut e p ro vi de s t ha t:

Wh o ev er en te rs a bu il di ng wit ho ut co ns en t an d wit h in te nt to st ea l o r

co m m it an y fel on y or gr os s m is de m ean or whi le in th e bu il di ng , or en te rs

a bu il di ng wit ho ut co ns en t an d st eal s or co m m it s a f e l o n y or gr os s

m is de m ean or whi le in th e bu il di ng , . . . co m m it s bu rg l a r y i n t h e th ird de gr ee an d m ay be se nt en ced to im pr is on m en t fo r no t m or e t h a n fiv e
y ears

. . . .

Mi nn . S ta t. Ann . § 60 9.5 82 , s ub d. 3. “ Ent ers a bu il di n g w i t h o u t co ns en t” in cl ud es
ei th er en te rin g or rem ai ni ng in a bu il di ng wit ho ut th e own er’s co ns en t. Id

. § 60 9.5 81

,

su bd . 4.

The Arm ed Care er Cri m in al Act de fin es “ vi ol en t fe lo ny” to in cl ud e b ur gl ary
th at is “ pu ni sh ab le by i mp r i s o n ment fo r a te rm ex ceed in g on e y ear.” 18 U.S.C.
§ 92 4( e)(2 )(B)

. To de te rm in e whe th er a pr io r bu rg la ry co nv ic ti on is a vi ol en t fel on y ,

we typic al ly ap pl y th e “ cat eg or ic al ap pr oa ch .” Mat hi s v. U n i t e d St at es , 13 6 S. Ct

. 22 43

, 22 47 -4 8 (2 01 6)

. In th at an al y si s, we co m pa re th e el em en ts of th e st at ut e un de r
whi ch th e de fen da nt was co nv ic te d wit h th e “ ge ne ric ” de fin it io n of bu rg la ry se t fo rth

in Ta yl or v. Uni te d St at es , 49 5 U.S. 57 5, 59 8- 99 (1 99 0)

. Se e Des ca mp s v

. U ni te d

St at es , 13 3 S. Ct

. 22 76

, 22 83 (2 01 3)

. Onl y whe n th e st at ut e ha s th e sa m e or na rro wer
el em en ts as th e ge ne ric cri m e do es th e pr io r co nv ic ti on co un t as a vi ol en t fel on y

. Id

. Bu t if th e st at ut e is di vi si bl e, se tt in g fo rth “ m ul ti pl e, a l t ern at iv e ve rs io ns of th e
cri m e,” an d no t al l of th e al te rn at iv es sa ti sf y th e ge ne ric de fin it io n, th en we ap pl y th e

“ m od ifi ed cat eg or ic al ap pr oa ch ” to de ci de whi ch of th e al te rn at iv es was th e ba si s fo r
th e co nv ic ti on

. Id

. at 22 83 -8 6.

Mat hi s ex pl ai ne d th at whe n a st at ut e of co nv ic ti on is ph ras ed al te rn at iv el y , th e

co ur t m us t de te rm in e whe th er th e li st ed al te rn at iv es are el em en ts of di ffer en t cri m es

or fact ua l m ean s o f sa ti sf y in g a si ng le ele m en t o f a si ng le cri m e. If th e al te rn at iv es

are “ m ean s,” th en th e st at ut e se ts ou t a si ng le se t of el em en ts to de fin e a si ng le cri m e,

-1 4-an d th e co ur t mu s t a p p l y t he cat eg or ic al ap pr oa ch to de te rm in e whe th er an of fen se
of co nv ic ti on qu al ifi es as a vi ol en t fe lo ny.

Here, Mat hi s req ui res us to tre at th e al te rn at iv es in th e Mi nn es ot a th ird -d eg ree
bu rg la ry st at ut e as “m ean s” rat he r th an “ el em en ts .” The m os t he lp fu l Mi nn es ot a

co ur t de ci si on , al th ou gh no t pr eced en ti al

, ho ld s th at jury un an im it y is no t req ui red as

to on e pr on g or th e ot he r of th e bu rg la ry st at ut e, th us su gg es ti ng th at th e al te rn at iv es

are m ean s rat he r th an el e men t s

. S t at e v. Gon za le s , No. A15 -0 97 5, 20 16 W L

32 22 79 5, at *2 -3 (Mi nn

. Ct

. App

. Ju ne 13

, 20 16 ). Mo rri s’s c h a r gi ng do cu m en ts

un de rlyin g th e pr io r co nv ic ti on s al le ge d bo th al te rn at iv es of th ird -d eg ree bu r g la ry , ag ai n su gg es ti ng th ey are m ean s rat he r th an el em en ts

. Mat hi s , 13 6 S

. C t

. a t 2 25 7.

The st at ut e on it s face do es no t pr ov i d e he lp fu l gu id an ce; th ere is

, fo r ex am pl e, a

un ifo rm pu ni sh m en t fo r co m m is si on of th ird -d eg ree bu rg la ry

. Acco rd in gl y , we ag ree
wit h th e pa rti es th at th e Mi nn es ot a th ird -d eg ree bu rg la ry st at ut e sh ou ld be tre at ed as
i nd iv is ib le

. W e th eref

or e m us t ad dr es s whe th er th e el em en ts of th e of f e n s e a r e
br oa de r th an th os e o f ge ne ric bu rg la ry un de r Ta yl or

.

The go ve rn m en t arg ue s th at w e ha ve ru le d al read y th at co nv ic ti on s un de r § 60 9.5 82

, su bd

. 3, qu al ify as vi ol en t fel on ie s. Bu t th e c a s es on whi ch th e

go ve rn m en t rel ie s are in ap po si te

. The de ci si on i n U n it ed St at es v. So nc

za ll a , 56 1

F.3 d 84 2, 84 6 (8 th Ci r. 20 09 ), co nc ern ed an earl ie r ve rs io n of th e th i r d

- d e g r e e
bu rg la ry st at ut e, en act ed in 19 86

, th at di d no t co nt ai n t h e se co nd al te rn at iv e in th e

cu rren t s t a t u t e

. Se e Mi nn

. St at

. Ann

. § 60 9.5 82

, su bd

. 3 (1 98 6)

. Uni te d St at es v.
Co ns ta nt in e , 67 4 F.3 d 98 5, 99 0 (8 th Ci r. 20 12 ), di d ho ld th a t § 60 9.5 82

, su bd

. 3,

“ qu al ifi es as a ‘vio le nt fel on y ’ un de r 18 U.S.C. § 92 4( e)(2 )(B) (ii ).” Bu t Co ns ta nt in e
ci te d So nc

za ll a , whi ch in vo lv ed th e 19 86 st at ut e an d th us ad dr es se d on ly on e of th e

two s t a t u t or y al te rn at iv es

. Co ns ta nt in e al so rel ie d on pr eced en t su gg es ti ng th at

bu rg la ry co nv i c ti on s qu al ifi ed as vi ol en t fel on ie s un de r th e “ res id ua l cl au se ” of
§ 92 4( e)(2 )(B) (ii ), id

. , b u t th e Su pr em e Co ur t la te r de cl ared th e res id ua l cl au se

un co ns ti tu ti on al

. Jo hn so n v. Uni te d St at es , 13 5 S. Ct

. 25 51

, 25 57 (2 01 5)

. Bec au se

-1 5-Co ns ta nt in e di d no t sp eci fy th at a co nv ic ti on un de r bo th of th e a l t e r n a t i ve s in th e

cu rren t ve rs io n of th e Mi nn es ot a th ird -d eg ree bu rg la ry st at ut e qu al ifi ed as a ge ne ric

bu rg la ry un de r Ta yl or , we do no t co ns id er i t co nt ro ll in g o n t he qu es ti on

.

The fir st al te rn at iv e of § 60 9.5 82

, su bd

. 3, fo rb id s “ en te r[i ng ] a bu il di ng
wit ho ut co ns en t an d wit h in te nt to st eal or co m m it an y fel on y or gr os s m is de m ean or ”

whi le in si de

. Ta

yl or de fin es “ ge ne ric ” bu rg la ry as “ an un la wfu l or un pr iv il eg ed en try

in to
, or rem ai ni ng in

, a bu il di ng or ot he r s t r u c t u re, wit h in te nt to co m m it a cri m e.”

49 5 U.S. at 59 8. Bec au se th e fir st al te rn at iv e of th e Mi nn es ot a st at ut e co nt ai ns al l of

th e el em en ts in th e Ta

yl or de fin it io n, con vi ct io ns ba se d on th at al te rn at iv e co un t as

vi ol en t fe lo ni es

.

The se co nd al te rn at iv e of th e Mi nn es ot a st at ut e pr ov id es th at “ who ev er en te rs

a bu il di ng wit ho ut co ns en t an d st eal s or co m m it s a fel on y o r gr os s m is de m ean or ”

whi le in si de c o m

m it s th ird -d eg ree bu rg la ry

. Tha t po rti on of th e st at ut e, ho wev er,
do es no t in cl ud e th e el em en t of “ in te nt to co m m it a cri m e” at th e ti m e of th e un la wfu l

en try or rem ai ni ng

. Se e St at e v. Ben ed ic t , No. A13 -1 32 4, 2 01 4 WL 29 21 86 9, at *2 (Mi nn

. Ct

. App

. Ju ne 30

, 20 14 ). W he th er th e se co nd al te rn at iv e qu al ifi es as a vi ol en t

fel on y th us de pe nd s on whe n, un de r th e de f i n i t i o n of ge ne ric bu rg la ry , a n of fen de r

m us t fo rm th e in te nt to co m

m it a cri m e wit hi n t he bu il di ng

.

The g ov ern m en t co nt en ds th at th e ge ne ric de fin it io n of bu rg la ry is br oa d

en ou gh to en co m

pa ss th e se co nd al te rn at iv e un de r § 6 0 9

. 58 2, su bd . 3

. Ta yl or sa id

th at ge ne ric bu rg la ry in cl ud es “ rem ai ni ng i n ” a bu il di ng wit h in te nt to co m m it a
cri m e. 49 5 U.S. at 59 8. The go ve rn m en t arg ue s th at a pe rs on co nv ic t e d un de r th e

se co nd alt ern at iv e fo r en te rin g a bu il di ng wit ho ut co ns en t and th en la te r st eal in g or

co m m it ti ng a fel on y or gr os s m isd em ean or whi le in th e bu il di ng m eet s th e “ rem ai ni ng
in ” as pe ct of Ta

yl or ’s d e fin it io n. The of fen de r ne ces sa ril y ha s “ rem ai ne d in ” th e
bu il di ng wit h i n t e nt to co m m it a cri m e, th e arg um en t go es , be cau se he m us t ha ve
de ve lo pe d t he req ui si te in te nt at s om e p oi nt whi le “ rem ai ni ng in ” th e b ui ld in g.

-1 6-W e reject th is read in g of Ta yl or

. Ta yl or pr ov id es th at bu rg la ry oc cu rs whe n

an of fen de r en te rs or r e mai n s i n a bu il di ng or st ru ct ur e “ wi th in te nt to co m m it a
cri m e.” Id

. (em

ph as is ad de d)

. The m os t na tu ral read in g of Ta yl or an d th e so ur ces on
whi ch it rel ie d sh ow th at a ge ne ric bu rg la ry req ui res in te nt to co m m it a cri m e at th e
ti m e of th e un la wfu l or un pr iv il eg ed en try or th e in it ia l “ rem ai ni ng in ” wit ho ut

co ns en t. Se e 2 W ay

ne R. LaFav e & Aus ti n W

. Sco tt
, Jr

., Su bs ta nt iv e Cr imi na l La w § 8.1 3( b)

, (e), at 46 8, 47 3- 74 & n.1 01 ( 1 9 8 6 ) ( n o ti ng th at th e “ in te nt to co m m it a
cri m e wit hi n ne ed on ly ex is t at th e ti m e th e de fen da nt un la wfu ll y rem ai ne d wit hi n” );

Mod el Pen al Co de § 22 1.1

, cm t. (1 ), (3 ) (Am

. Law In st

. 19 80 ) (ref eren ci ng th e

“ pu rp os e th at acco m

pa ni es th e en try,” an d “t h e pu rp os e th at m us t acco m

pa ny th e
in tru si on ”).

The act of “ rem ai ni ng in ” a b ui ld in g, fo r pu rp os es of ge ne ric bu rg la ry , i s no t

a co nt in uo us un de rta ki ng

. Rat he r, it is a di sc r e t e e v en t th at oc cu rs at th e m om en t

whe n a pe rp et r a t o r , w h o at on e po in t was la wfu ll y pr es en t, ex ceed s hi s li cen se an d

ov ers ta y s hi s welc om e. Se e LaFav e & Sco tt
, su pr a , § 8.1 3( b)

, (e), at 46 7- 68 & n.4 7,

47 3- 75 (d is ti ng ui sh in g be twee n bu rg la ry st at ut es t h a t req ui re in te nt to be

co nt e mp or an eo us wit h th e un la wfu l en try or rem ai ni ng an d th os e pr ov id in g “ th at

act ua l co m

m is si on of th e of

fen se wit hi n is an al te rn at iv e ba si s fo r co nv ic ti on ”). If th e
de fen da nt do es no t ha ve th e req ui si te in te nt at th e m om en t he “ rem ai ns ,” th en he ha s

no t co m m it t e d t h e cri m e of ge ne ric bu rg la ry

. The go ve rn m en t’s read in g of Ta yl or

wou ld ren de r th e “ un la wfu l en try” el em en t of ge ne ric bu rg la ry su pe rfl uo us , be cau se

ev ery un la wfu l en try wit h in te nt wou ld be co m e “ rem ai ni ng in ” wit h in te nt as so on as
th e pe rp et rat or en te rs

. Acco rd Uni te d St at es v. Her re ra -Mo nt es , 49 0 F .3d 39 0, 39 2

& n.1 (5 th Ci r. 20 07 ); Uni te d St at es v. Bern el -Avej a , 84 4 F.3 d 20 6, 21 5- 19 (5 th Ci r.
20 16 ) (Hig gi nb ot ha m , J., co nc ur rin g) ; Uni te d St at es v. Bon il la

, 68 7 F.3 d 18 8, 19 6- 98 (4 th Ci r. 20 12 ) (Trax le r, C.J

., di ss en ti ng ); bu t se e id

. at 19 2- 94 (m ajor it y op i n io n) ;
Bern el -Avej a , 84 4 F.3 d at 21 9- 45 (Owen

, J., co nc ur rin g) ; cf

. Uni te d St at es v. Pri dd

y , 80 8 F.3d 67 6, 68 5 (6t h Cir. 20 15 ); co mpa re al so Uni te d St at es v. Rein a- Rod ri gu ez ,

-1 7-46 8 F.3 d 11 47

, 11 55 -5 6 (9 th Ci r. 20 06 ), wi th Uni te d St at es v. Bon at
, 10 6 F.3 d 14 72

,

14 75 -7 6 (9 th Cir . 19 97 ). *

Bec au se a co nv ic ti on un de r th e se co nd al te rn at iv e of § 60 9.5 82

, su bd

. 3, do es

no t req ui re th at th e de fen da nt ha ve fo rm ed th e “ in te nt to co m m it a cri m e” at th e ti m e
of th e no nc on se ns ua l en try or rem ai ni ng in

, it do es no t sa ti sf y th e ge ne ric de fin it io n
of bu rg la ry in Ta

yl or

. As a res ul t, th e in di vi si bl e st at ut e is br oa d e r t h a n g e n eri c
bu rg la ry , an d Mo rri s’s th ird -d eg ree bu rg la ry co n v i c t i on s do no t qu al ify as vi ol en t

fel on ie s. Acc or di ng ly, we va cat e Mo rri s’s se nt en ce an d rem an d fo r fu rth er

pr oc eed in gs

.

C.

1.

McArt hu r rai se s th ree cl ai m s of erro r on ap pe al

. A l l t h r e e in vo lv e hi s two

co nv ic ti on s fo r ai di ng an d a b e t ti ng th e us e or carr y in g of a fir earm du rin g an d in

rel at io n to
, or th e po ss es si on of a fir earm in fu rth eran ce of

, a cri m e of vi ol en ce. Se e
18 U.S.C. §§ 92 4( c), 2. He fir st arg ue s th at th e di st ric t co ur t vi ol at ed hi s rig ht s un de r
the D oubl e Je opa

rd y Cl au se by im

po si ng co ns ecu ti ve se nt en ces fo r th os e co nv icti ons,
be cau se th e co nv ic ti on s ar os e fro m on e p red ic at e o ffen se , con sp ira cy to pa rti ci pa te

in a pa tt ern of rack et eeri ng act iv it y

. Alt ho ug h ou r ci rcu it pr eced en t reject s th is cl ai m ,

se e, e.g

. , Hamb er

g v. Uni te d St at es , 67 5 F.3 d 11 70

, 11 72 -7 3 (8 th Ci r. 20 12 ); Uni te d

St at es v. Lu ca s , 93 2 F.2 d 12 10

, 12 22 -2 3 (8 th Ci r. 19 91 ), th e go ve rn m en t no ne th el es s

as ks us to va cat e o n e o f M cArt hu r’s co nv ic ti on s ba se d on an in te rn al Ju st ic e

Neit he r Uni te d St at es v. Pled ge , 82 1 F.3 d 10 35

, 10 37 (8 th Ci r. 20 16 ), no r *

Uni te d St at es v. Eas on , 64 3 F.3 d 62 2, 62 3 (8 th Ci r. 20 11 ), ad dr es se d th e qu es ti on of

co nt em po ran eo us in te nt

. Tho se de ci si on s th us do no t es ta bl is h ci rcu it pr eced en t on th e is su e, an d th e go ve rn m en t do es no t i n v o k e t h e m. Se e Pas smo re v. Ast ru e , 53 3
F.3 d 6 58 , 66 0- 61 (8t h C ir. 2 00 8)

.

-1 8-Dep art m en t po li cy t o r efra in fro m pu rs ui ng m ul ti pl e § 92 4( c) ch arg es in th is

ci rcu m st an ce. The rel ev an t po li cy pr ov id es th at each § 9 2 4 ( c ) c h a rg e in an
in di ct m en t sh ou ld be ba se d on a se pa rat e pr ed ic at e of fen se

. Se e Bri ef fo r th e Uni te d

St at es in Opp os it io n to Pet it io n fo r Wr i t of Cert io rari

, Ca rt er v. Uni te d St at es , 53 7

U.S. 11 87 (2 00 2)

, (No

. 02 -6 55 ), 20 02 W L 32 13 3 5 4 4

, a t *8

. The Uni te d St at es
Att or ne y e v i d e n t l y ch arg ed McArt hu r in vi ol at io n of Dep art m en t po li cy an d no w

req ue st s th at we va cat e on e of th e § 92 4( c) co nv ic ti on s s o t ha t th e go ve rn m en t m ay
be la te dl y co m pl y wit h t he po li cy

.

The Su pr em e Co ur t ad dr es se d a co m pa rab le s i t u a t i on in Rin al di v. Uni te d

St at es , 43 4 U.S. 22

, 29 (1 97 7) (p er cu ria m ), whe re th e g ov ern m en t pr os ecu te d a
de fen da nt in vi ol at io n of it s Peti te po li cy ag ai ns t m

ul ti pl e p ro se cu ti on s b y

sep arat e

so ve rei gn s fo r th e sa m e act

. Se e Peti te v. Uni te d St at es , 36 1 U.S. 52 9, 53 0- 31 (1 96 0) (p er cu ria m ). Alt ho ug h t he co nv ic ti on di d n ot vi ol at e th e Dou bl e Je op ard y Cla us e,

se e Abb at e v. Uni te d St at es , 35 9 U.S. 18 7 (1 95 9)

, th e Co ur t he ld th at th e di st ric t co ur t

sh ou ld ha ve gr an te d th e go ve rn m en t’s be la te d m ot io n to di sm is s th e in di ct m en t. The

Co ur t co nc lu de d th at th e “ ov erri di ng pu rp os e of th e Peti te po l i c y i s to pr ot ect th e
in di vi du al fro m an y un fai rn es s as so ci at ed wit h ne ed le ss m ul ti pl e pr os ecu ti on s,” an d

th at th e de fen da nt “ sh ou ld rece iv e th e be ne fit of th e po li cy whe ne ve r it s ap pl ic at io n
is ur ge d by th e Gov ern m en t.” Rin al di

, 43 4 U.S. at 31

. The po li cy he re, al th ou gh no t

pr em is ed on th e “ du al so ve rei gn ty pr in ci pl e in he ren t in ou r fed eral syste m ,” do es se ek

“ to pr ot ect in te res ts

. . . e m br aced by t he Dou bl e Je op a r d y C l a u s e

. ” I d. at 29

. The

Ju st ic e Dep art m en t ha s op te d, as a mat t e r o f po li cy , to fo ll ow th e vi ew of ot he r
ci rcu it s th at “ th e im

po si ti on of co ns ecu ti ve se nt en ces un de r su bs ect io n 92 4( c ) f or

us in g m ul ti pl e w e a p o ns du rin g a si ng le cri m e of vi ol en ce wou ld im pi ng e up on
fu nd am en ta l ‘dou bl e jeop ard y ’ pr in ci pl es .” Uni te d St at es v. Pen Þ a- Lo ra , 22 5 F.3 d 17

, 32 (1 s t C i r

. 2 0 00 ); se e U.S. Dep ’t of Ju st ic e, Offi ce of Leg al Edu cat io n, Fed er al

Fir ea rms Man ua l § 4.2 5, at 19 2- 93 (3 d ed

. 20 01 ) (at ta ch ed as App en di x B to th e
Bri ef fo r th e Uni te d St at es in Opp os it io n to Pet it io n fo r W rit of Cert io rari in Ca rt er ).

-1 9-W e se e no m at eri al di st in ct io n be twee n th is cas e an d Rin al di

, an d th eref or e gr an t th e

go ve rn m en t’s re qu es t t o v acat e Mc Arth ur ’s con vi ct io n o n C ou nt 11

.

McArt hu r ne xt co nt en ds th at th e jury in st ru ct io ns as to Co un t 10

, th e rem ai ni ng § 92 4( c) ch arg e, di d n o t c om pl y wit h Ros emo nd v. Uni te d St at es , 13 4 S. Ct

. 12 40 (2 01 4)

. Thi s ch arg e co nc ern ed th e sh oo ti ng at th e Rai sc h res id en ce. A pe rs on who

“ ai ds

, ab et s, co un se ls

, co m m an ds

, in du ces or pr oc ur es ” th e co m m is si on of a fed eral

of fen se “ is pu ni sh ab le as a pr in ci pa l.” 18 U.S

. C. § 2. To co nv ic t a de fen da nt of

ai di ng an d ab et ti ng a § 92 4 ( c ) of fen se , th e go ve rn m en t m us t pr ov e: (1 ) th at a

pr ed ic at e cri me of vi ol en ce or dr ug tra ffi ck in g was co m m it te d; (2 ) th at a gu n was

us ed in a pr oh ib it ed m an ne r du rin g th e pr ed ic at e of fen se ; (3 ) t h at th e de fen da nt

faci li ta te d th e fir earm us e, th e pr ed ic at e cri m e, or bo th ; an d (4 ) th at th e de fen da nt ha d

ad va nc e kn owl ed ge th at on e of hi s co nf ed erat es wou ld us e or carr y a gu n du rin g an d

in rel at io n to th e co m

m is si on of th e pr ed ic at e cri m e, or w o u l d p o s s es s a gu n in

fu rth eran ce of th e pr ed ic at e of fen se

. Ros emo nd

, 13 4 S. Ct

. at 12 45

, 12 47

, 12 48 -5 1.

Alt ho ug h th e Su pr em e Co ur t de ci de d Ros emo nd aft er McArt h u r ’s t r ia l, we

ap pl y th e cas e ret ro act iv el y to cas es on di rect rev ie w. Jo hn so n v. Uni te d St at es , 52 0

U.S. 46 1, 46 7 (1 99 7)

. Bu t be cau se McArt hu r di d no t ob ject in th e di st ric t co ur t to th e
in st ru ct io ns he no w ch al le ng es , we rev ie w on ly fo r pl ai n erro r. Id

. at 46 6. To ob ta in

rel ie f, McArt hu r m

us t sh ow th at th ere was an erro r th at was ob vi ou s, rat he r th an

su bjec t to reas on ab le di sp ut e, an d th at th e erro r affe ct e d hi s su bs ta nt ia l rig ht s an d

se rio us ly affe ct ed th e fai rn es s, in te gr it y , or pu bl ic rep ut at io n of jud ic ia l pr oc eed in gs

. Id

. at 46 6- 68 ; se e Puc ket t v. Un it ed St at es , 55 6 U.S. 1 29 , 13 5 (2 00 9)

.

McArt hu r co m

pl ai ns th at th e di st ric t c o u r t’s in st ru ct io ns fo r th e ch arg es of

ai di ng an d ab et ti ng a vi ol at io n of § 92 4( c) di d no t req ui re th e jury to fin d th at he ha d

ad va nc e kn owl ed ge th at a co nf ed erat e wou ld us e or carr y a fir earm du rin g th e Rai sc h

sh oo ti ng

. The el em en ts in st ru ct io n fo r ai di ng an d ab et ti ng Co un t 10 req ui red th e jury

to fin d be y on d a reas on ab le do ub t th at McArt hu r “ m us t

. . . ha ve kn own th at so m eo ne

-2 0-was go in g to kn owi ng ly u se or carr y a fir earm du ri n g or in rel at io n to , o r po ss es s a

fir earm in fu rth eran ce of

, th e cri m e of co ns pi racy to pa rti ci pa te in a r a c k et eeri ng

en te rp ris e.” Mc Arth ur arg ue s t ha t t he in st ru ct io n p erm it te d th e jury to co nv ic t hi m
ba se d on a fin di ng th at he ha d ad va nc e kn owl ed ge th at a co co ns p i r a t o r w ou ld us e,

carr y , or po ss es s a fir earm at so m e po in t du rin g th e co ns pi racy in ge ne ral

, as op po se d

to ad v a n c e k n o wled ge th at a co co ns pi rat or wou ld us e, carr y , or po ss es s a fir earm
du rin g t he att ack on th e Rai sc h h om e.

The go ve rn m en t do es no t ad dr es s McArt hu r’s pr em is e t h a t w h a t he refe rs to

as “ ge ne ral ” kn owl ed ge is in su ffi ci en t to su pp or t a § 92 4( c) co nv ic ti on un de r an
ai di ng an d ab et ti ng th eo ry of li ab il it y

. Ros emo nd sa y s th at th e de fen da nt m us t kn ow
in ad va nc e th at a co nf

ed erat e wi l l c a r ry a gu n du rin g co m m is si on of th e pr ed ic at e

cr i me. 13 4 S. Ct

. at 12 45

, 12 49 -5 1. The pr ed ic at e cri m e he re was co ns pi racy to

pa rti ci pa te in rack et eeri ng act iv it y , no t a su bs ta nt iv e of fen se of sh oo ti ng at th e Rai sc h

ho m e. Se e Uni te d St at es v. Hin ds , 4 35 F. App ’x 8 32 , 8 35 -3 6 ( 1 1t h Ci r. 20 11 ) (p er

cu ria m ) (u ph ol di ng a co nv ic ti on fo r ai di ng an d ab et ti ng po ss es si on o f f i r e arm s in

fu rth eran ce of a dr ug co ns pi racy whe re th e d e f e n d a nt pr ov id ed fir earm s to hi s

co co ns pi rat or s fo r th ei r us e in fu rth eran ce of th e co ns pi racy); cf

. Pin ker to n v. Uni te d

St at es , 32 8 U.S. 64 0, 64 5- 48 (1 94 6) ; Uni te d St at es v. Bai le y , 23 5 F.3 d 10 69

, 10 74 (8 th Ci r. 20 00 ). Bu t th e go ve rn m en t de fen ds th e co nv ic ti on so le ly on th e gr ou nd th at

th e jury in st ru ct io ns ad eq ua te ly el ic it ed a fin di ng on whe th er McArt hu r ha d ad va nc e
kn owl ed ge th at a co nf

ed erat e wou ld us e a fi rear m in th e Rai sc h s ho ot in g. Bec au se

we de em th at av en ue su ffi ci en t to su st ai n th e jud gm en t, we ne ed no t ad dr es s whe th er
McArt hu r’s pr em is e is co rrec t.

Ass um in g, th eref

or e, th at Ros emo nd req ui red McArt hu r to ha ve ad va nc e
kn owl ed ge th at a fir earm wou ld be us ed du rin g th e Rai sc h s h oo ti ng , th e jury

in st ru ct io ns ab ou t whi ch McArt hu r co m pl ai ns were no t pl ai nl y erro ne ou s. The jury

was in st ru ct ed th at to co nv ic t McArt hu r fo r ai di ng an d ab et ti ng in th e co m m is si on of

Co un t 10

, McArt hu r “ m

us t

. . . ha ve kn own th at so m eo ne was go in g to kn owi ng ly us e

-2 1-an d c arry a firea rm du rin g an d in rel at io n to , o r po ss es s a fir earm in fur th eran ce o f,

th e cri m e o f co ns pi racy to p art ic ip at e in a rack et eeri ng en te rp ris e.” The jury kn ew,
ho w ev er, th at Co un t 10 ch arg ed th at “ on or ab ou t Aug us t 24

, 20 10

, Defen da nt

McArt hu r

. . . kn ow i n g ly us ed an d carr ie d a fir earm du rin g an d in rel at io n to
, an d

po ss es se d a fir earm in fu rth eran ce of

, a cri m e of vi ol en ce.” The in st ru ct io n li st in g th e
el em en ts req ui red by § 92 4( c) lik ewis e di rect ed th e jury th at a ne ces sa ry el em en t of

th e ch arg e was th at “ on or a bo ut Aug us t 2 4, 2 01 0, t he de fen da nt
, or an ot he r pe rs on
ai de d an d ab et te d by th e de fen da nt
, di d kn owi ng ly us e or carr y a fir earm du rin g an d

in rel at io n t o , o r po ss es s a fir earm in fu rth eran ce of , t ha t cri m e.” And th e jury was

to ld th at it was co ns id eri ng whe th er McArt hu r “ ai de d an d ab et te d in th e co m m is si on
of Co un t 10 .” Giv en th at th e re f e r e n c e s to th e da te of th e Rai sc h sh oo ti ng fo cu se d

th e jury on th e sp eci fic fir earm us e on whi ch Co un t 10 was pr em is ed

, th ere is at le as t

a reas on ab le di sp ut e ab ou t whe th er th e in s t r uc ti on s, ta ke n as a who le

, fai rly an d

ad eq ua te ly su bm it te d to th e jury th e “ ad va nc e kn owl ed ge ” qu es ti on

. Any erro r is th us

no t p la in

.

W e al so co nc lu de th at th e di st ric t co ur t di d no t e r r i n d e n y in g McArt hu r’s

m ot io n fo r jud gm en t of acq ui tt a l o n C o u nt 10

. The re was ev id en ce th at McArt hu r

wan te d to “ el im in at e [Dan ie ls ] by an y m ean s,” an d th at he was pa rt of th e gr ou p th at

de ci de d to fin d Dan ie ls an d “ sh oo t hi m .” Mem be rs in vo lv ed in th os e co nv ers at io ns
th en m is ta ke nl y sh ot in to a ho m e i n w h i c h th ey be li ev ed Dan ie ls was st ay in g; th ey
in fo rm ed M c A r t h u r of th e m is ha p. Day s la te r, m em be rs at ta ck ed th e Rai sc h

res id en ce w i th Dan ie ls as th e ta rg et

. Bas ed on th is ev id en ce, al on g wit h te st im on y

co nc ern in g th e Mo b’s pr op en si ty fo r fir earm s an d McArt hu r’s de ci si on

- mak i n g

au th or it y as C hi ef, a re as on ab le jury co ul d h av e fo un d h im gu il ty on C ou nt 10

.

2.

Hav in g co nc lu de d tha t one of McArt hu r’s co nv ic ti on s sh ou ld be va cat ed on th e

go ve rn m en t’s req ue st
, we m us t de te rm in e th e ap pr op ria te rem ed y

. The di st ric t co ur t

-2 2-se nt en ced McArt hu r to a to ta l of 51 6 m on th s’ im pr is on m en t, bu t 3 0 0 m on th s were

at tri bu ta bl e to th e se co nd § 92 4( c) co nv ic ti on th at wil l be va cat ed

. The go ve rn m en t

co nt en ds th at un de r th e “ se nt en ci ng pa ck ag e” do ct rin e, we sh ou ld va cat e McArt hu r’s

se nt en ces on al l of hi s co nv ic ti on s an d rem an d fo r res en te nc in g. McArt hu r res po nd s
th at th e co ur t sh o ul d va cat e on ly th e se nt en ce fo r Co un t 11

, an d rem an d wit h

in st ru ct io ns to le av e th e se nt en ces on hi s rem ai ni ng co nv ic ti on s un ch an ge d. Und er
th at ap pr oa ch

, McArt hu r’s to ta l se nt en ce wou ld be red uc ed fro m 51 6 m on th s to 21 6

m on th s’ im

pr is on m en t.

Und er th e se nt en ci ng pa ck ag e do ct rin e, we “ m ay va cat e th e en ti re se nt en ce on
al l co un ts so th at
, on rem an d, th e tri al co ur t c a n r eco nf ig ur e th e se nt en ci ng pl an to

en su re th at it rem ai ns ad eq ua te to sa ti sf y th e se nt en ci ng fact or s in 18 U.S.C.
§ 35 53 (a).” Gre en la w v. Uni te d St at es , 55 4 U.S. 23 7, 25 3 (2 00 8) ; se e Uni te d St at es
v. Bru gu ie r , 73 5 F .3d 75 4, 7 64 (8t h C ir. 20 13 ) (en ba nc ). The d oc tri ne oft en ari se s
in cas es in vo lv in g “ m

ul ti co un t in di ct m en ts an d a su cces sf ul at ta ck by a de fen da nt on

so m e b ut no t al l o f th e co un ts of c on vi ct io n.” Gre en la w , 55 4 U.S. at 25 3.

Thi s is an ap pr op ria te cas e fo r ap pl ic at io n of th e se nt en ci ng pa ck ag e do ct rin e.
McArt hu r was ch arg ed in a m ul ti co un t i nd ic tm en t an d c on vi ct ed of se ve ral cri m es

. He ha s su cces sf

ul ly ch al le ng ed on e of th os e co nv ic ti on s on ap pe al

. W he n th e di st ric t

co ur t de te r mi n e d McArt hu r’s se nt en ce on th e rem ai ni ng co un ts
, th e co ur t act ed on
th e as sum pt io n th at he wou ld rece iv e a 30 0- m on th co ns ecu ti ve se nt en ce fo r Co un t 11

. W it h th at se nt en ce va cat ed

, th e di st ric t co ur t sh ou ld ha ve an op po rtu ni ty to de ci de

whe th er a te rm of 21 6 m on th s’ im pr is on m en t is su ffi ci en t to co m pl y w i t h t h e

pu rp os es se t fo rth in 18 U.S.C. § 35 53 (a)( 2)

. Se e Uni te d St at es v. Cu re to n , 73 9 F.3 d

10 32 , 10 45 (7t h C ir. 2 01 4)

.

McArt hu r cl ai m s t ha t t he sen te nc in g p ack ag e d oc tri ne ap pl ie s o nl y when th e

va cat ur of on e co nv ic ti on pe rm it s th e d i st ric t co ur t at res en te nc in g to ap pl y a ne w

en ha nc em en t un de r th e ad vi so ry s e n t e n ci ng gu id el in es

. Se e Gar di ne r v. Uni te d

-2 3-St at es , 11 4 F.3 d 73 4, 73 6 (8 th Ci r. 19 97 ). Bu t Gar di ne r si m pl y m en ti on ed th at

po ss ib il it y as on e fact or fav or in g res en te nc in g, an d ou r pr eced en t sh ou ld no t be read

as na rro wly as McArt hu r su gg es ts . In Bru gu ie r , for ex am pl e, th is co ur t v acat ed all

of th e de fen da nt ’s se nt en ces an d rem an de d fo r res en te nc in g wit h o u t p ur po rti ng to

sa ti sf y th e li m it at io n th at McArt hu r pr op os es

. 73 5 F.3 d at 76 4. McArt hu r al so

arg ue s th at th e di st ric t co ur t m ay no t al te r hi s se nt en ces on hi s rem ai ni ng co nv ic ti on s
wit ho ut vi o la ti ng th e Dou bl e Je op ard y Cl au se

. A de fen da nt
, ho wev er, ha s no

ex pe ct at io n of fin al it y in hi s se nt en ce un ti l an ap pe al is co nc lu de d, a n d t h e Dou bl e
Je op ard y Cl au se “ do es no t ba r res en te nc in g on al l co un ts to carr y ou t th e se nt en ci ng jud ge ’s or ig in al in te nt .” Uni te d S ta te s v. Evan s , 31 4 F.3d 32 9, 33 3 (8t h Cir. 20 02 ).

* * *

Fo r t h e fo reg oi ng reas on s, we affi rm th e jud gm en t as to Cree

. W e affi rm
Mo rri s’s co nv ic ti on s bu t va cat e hi s se nt en ce an d rem an d fo r fu rth er pr oc eed in gs

. W e

va cat e McArt hu r’s co nv ic ti on on Co un t 11

, affi rm hi s rem ai ni ng co nv ic ti on s, va cat e
McArt hu r’s en ti re s en te nc e, an d re m an d fo r res en te nc in g.

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __

-2 4-