## In the



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

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

N o. 09

- 1924 U NI T ED S TATE SOF A MERI CA, P la intif f-A pp ellee, v. J ER OM E W I L L I A MS, J R ., D e f e ndan t

-Appe l l ant
.
A pp eal from the United S t ates Di strictC our t fo r the N o rthernDi stricto f Indian a, S outh Bend D ivisi on. No . 3:08- CR-72 RLM

—Rob ert L. Miller, Jr. , Chief Ju dge
.
A RG UE D S EP TE MBE R 11, 2009

— D ECI DE D O CT OB ER 14, 2009

Befo re E A S T E RB R OO K, Chie f Judg e, a nd P OSNERa nd W OO D , C ircu it Judges . P O S NER, Cir cu i tJudg e . A j ur y c o nv i ct ed th e defen dan t o fdr uga nd fi r ea r m s o ff ens es . He h ad two pr i o r fel o ny d rug co nv ictions an d therefore received a m an d atory l i f e se nt en ce . 2 1 U. S

. C. § 8 41 (b) ( 1) ( A). The o nl y que st i o ns pr es en te d b y hi s appe altha t r equi r e di sc us si o n ( th e defen dant’s o ther g ro und s f orappeal ar e e i therf or ecl ose d by re c e n tc i r c u i tp r e c e d e n to r fr i v o l o u s ) a r e wh e th e r the g overn m en t co m pl i ed wi th2 1 U. S

. C. § 8 51 ( a) ( 1) , the2 N o. 09

- 1924 “noti ce o fenhancem ent” st atute , and i fnotwh ether the de f e nd a nti s e nt i t l e d t o b e r e s e nt e nc e d. The sta tute sta tes : N o perso n w ho s tands co nvi cted o fan o ff ense und er th i s par t sh al l b e se nt en ced to i nc r ea se d puni sh m en t by re aso n of one or m or e pri or convi cti ons, u n l ess be f o r e tr i al, o r b efo r e en tr y o fa pl ea ofg ui l ty, the Uni te d S t a t e s a t t o r n e y fi l e s a n i n f o r ma t i o n wi th t he co u r t( a n d s e r v e s a c o p y o fs u c h i n f o r ma t i o n o n the per s o n o r c o u n s e l f o r th e p e r s o n ) s t a t i n gi n wr i ti ng th e pr ev i o us c o nv i ct i o ns t o b e r el i ed up on. Upona sh ow i ng bythe U ni ted S tat es att or ney that f acts re ga rd in g p rior co n v i c t i on s c ou ld n ot w ith d u e d iligen ce b e obtained prior to tri al orbefore entry of a ple a o fg u ilty, the cour t m ay postpone the t ri alo r the t aki ng of the ple a o fgui l ty f ora re aso nabl e per i od f orthe pu rpos e o fo btai ni ng such fac ts . Cl er i calm i sta k es i n the i nf o r m at i o n may b e amende d a t an y ti m e pr i orto the pronouncem ent o fse ntence. The pu rpos es ofthe sta tute ar e t o gi ve the defendant an opportunity t o conte st the use o fhi s p ri orco nvi cti on o r c on vic tio n s t o e n h an c e h i s s en te n c e, an d to giv e h im enough i nfo rm ati on about the pote nti alse ntence to enabl e hi m to deci de i ntel l i gentl y whether to ple ad gui l ty or th ro w t h e d ice by goin g t o t ria l. E .g., U ni t e d S t at e s v. C o o per, 461 F.3d 85 0, 85 4-5 5 (7 th C ir. 20 06 ); Kelly v . U nited Sta tes , 29 F. 3d 1107, 11 09- 10 ( 7th C i r. 19 94) , o ver rul ed on othe r gr ounds by U ni t e d S t at e s v. Ce b al l os , 30 2 F
. 3d 679, 68 9- 92 (7t h C ir. 20 02 ); U nited S ta tes v. M o ral es , 560 F. 3d 112, 11 5-N o. 09

- 1924 3 16 (2d C ir. 20 09 ) (p er cu ria m ); U n i t e d S t a t e s v . Wi l l i a ms , 59 F.3d 11 80, 1185 (11th C ir. 1995). The de f en dan t ar g ue s th atthe n oti ce the g o ve r nm en t fi l ed did notco m plywith the st atute
. I t r eads a s f ol l ows: Com es now the U n ited S tat es ofA m er i ca . . . to here by i nfo rm the defe nd ant .
. . that, ifhe i s co nvi cted ofo ff enses under T i tl e 21, U ni ted Stat es Code, S ecti on 841( a) ( 1) , he wil l be subj ect to the enhanced penal ty pr o vi si o ns o f

. . . S ec ti o n 8 41 ( b)

. Thi s I nf o r m ati o n a nd n ot ice is filed p u rs u an t t o t h e p ro vis ion s o f .

. . . Se c t i on 85 1. T h e U n ite d Sta te s fu rt h er sp ec ifica lly i nfo rm s the defen d an t that i t wil l use hi s co nvi cti on in St

. Jos ep h C ou n ty
. . . in 20 02 for d e a l i n g in coca i ne . . . a nd a l l o the r [ c o nv i c t i o ns ] a pp l i c a b l e t o quali fy hi m f orse ntenci ng under the enhanced p en alty provisions of .

. . Section 841 (b). Fu rthe r i nform ation con cern in g the de fend an t’s cri m i nal hi st or y can be obt ai ned fr om the U ni ted St ate s Pr obat i on Offi ce a nd speci fi cal l y the Pr etr i al Se rv ice s R ep or t in th is m at te r . . . . The noti c e wa s s e ntt o the de f e nd a nto n J un e 1 7, 2 0 0 8. T he pret rialservices rep o r t w as no t attac he d to the inform at ion . I t w as n ot filed w ith th e d ist ric t c ou rtu n til M arch 23, 2009 , as a n ex hibit to the gove rnm en t’s re sponse to the defendant’s o bj ecti on t o a l i f e s entence ; th i s was a fte r the de f en dan t’ s tr i ala nd b efo r e th e se nte nc i nghe ar i ng, w hich was he l d o n Apr i l 3
. The de f en d an t’s l aw yer cou ld h ave obt ained a co p y o f t he report f ro m the dist ri ct c ourt ’ s probati on o ffice ; w e don’ t know w hether he did ornot
. The go ver nm ent doe s no t4 N o. 09

- 1924
conte nd , and ther e i s no thi ng i n the re cor d to sugge st, that ei th e r th e l a wy e r o r h i s c l i e n t wa s s e n t a c o py o ft he re port; ther e i s no info rm ati on about the pr acti ce in that re gar d ofthe proba ti on o ffi ce of th e N or ther n Dis tr i ct ofI nd i ana. A se cti on o fthe re portcapti oned “Pr i orR eco rd” li sts 19 se ts o f c h ar ge s, id en tifie s e ac h ch ar ge , an d lists th e d isp os ition. T hree of th e 19 d ispositions a r e c o n v ictions for a felo n y b ec au se th ey inv olv e p ris on se n te n c es (th ou gh in on e c as e itw a s s u sp en d ed ) of m or e t h an a ye ar . B u t o n ly tw o of th e th ree are d rug conv ictions a n d th e refore coul d be use d to enhance the defen d an t’s sente nce und erse cti on 841( b)

. O ne ofthem is the S t. J ose ph C ounty o ff en se ment i o ne d i n the n o ti ce o fe nha nc ement
. At the se nt en ci nghe ar i ngthe pr o se cut o r c i te d the othe r fel o ny drug co nvi ctio n as another basi s f orenhancem ent; that m ade two; hence the m andator y l i f e s entence
. The defe nd ant a rg ues that the not i ce di d not c om p ly w ith se c t i o n 85 1(a )(1) . Th e s ta tu te is ex p licit in re quir i ng tha t the go ver nm en t in advance oftr i alo r g ui l typl ea fi l e a do cumentwi ththe c o ur t th at li sts the con vi cti ons on wh i ch i t i ntends to r el y i n ar gui ng f oran enha nc ed se nt en ce. T he g o ve r nm en t di d no t l i stthe secon d conv iction on th e basis of w hich the d efend an t’s se nt en ce was e nha nc ed, wh ich j ac k ed up hi s m i ni m um sente nce fro m 20 ye ar s to l i f e. The not i ce r efer s the r eader to anothe r docum en t, b u t i t i s no t a tta ched and w as not ( so f ar as we ca n det er m i ne ) o th er wi se co nv eyed to the d efe n d an t o r hi s l aw yer, and i t co ntai ns a l engthy l i st ofchar ges and dis posi ti ons w i thout i nd i cati ng wh i chN o. 09

- 1924 5

one oro nes the go ver nm ent intended to use t o enhance the defendant’s se ntence. The e xc us e th atthe g o ve r nm en t’ s law y erg av e us f orthes e o m i ssi ons does n ot re fl ect w el l o n the Dep ar tm en t o f Ju st ice . H e s aid th at h e p re p ar ed th e n o t i c e in haste

— lon g b efo re it w as d u e (fo r it w as filed on ly six day s afte r the de f en dan t was i ndi ct ed, ye t w as no t due un tilthe eve of trial, m a n y m ont hs l ater)

—be ca us e he w as afra id h e’d forg et ab ou t it . H e t h u s h as offe re d a n allpu rpos e excuse f or prem atur e fi l i ngs i n f edera l co urts ofany and al l docum ents. N ow as i t happens the date on wh i ch hi s o ffi ce re c e ive d the p retrialservices rep ort w as Jun e 17, th e very d ay onw h ich h e filed th e s ec tio n 85 1 in for m at ion in the di str i ct c ourt; and he does notr em em berwh ether he h ad re ce i ve d the r epo r t, o r r ea d i t, b efo r e o r a fte r he fi l ed the i nfo rm ati on. Fo r al l thatappears, he a tte m pted to i ncor pora te by re f er ence a docum ent that he had n ot ye t re ad , th at h is offic e h ad n ot rec eiv e d , an d th at for a ll w e know had not been com ple ted by the proba ti on o ffi ce whenhe s ubmi tt ed th e i nf o r m at i o n. A p p aren tly the U

. S. A t t o rney ’s offi ce for the N orthe rn Dist ri ct o fI nd i an a h as no pro toc olf orco m pli ance w ith se c tio n 85 1, p er h ap s b ec au se ou r op i n i o n in U nite d State s v . Tri n gali, 71 F. 3d 1375, 1382 (7th C ir. 1995), sta t e s tha t“ s e c t i o n 8 5 1 do e s n o ts pe c i fy the p a r t i cul ar for m n ot ice of an en h an c em en t m u st t a ke .” T h er e is sim ilar lan gu ag e in m an y ot h er ca se s. E .g., U ni t e d S t at e s v. B ela ng er, 97 0 F
. 2d 416, 41 9 ( 7th Ci r. 19 92) , o ver rul ed on6 N o. 09

- 1924 othe r grou n ds by U ni t e d S t at e s v. Ce b al l os , sup ra , 30 2 F
. 3d at 68 9-9 2; U nited St at e s v. Boudre au , 56 4 F

. 3d 431, 43 7- 38 (6t h C ir. 20 09 ); U ni t e d S t at e s v. Se ve r i no , 316 F. 3d 939, 94 3- 44 (9t h C ir. 20 03 ) (en ba n c ); U nited Sta te s v . Weav er, 26 7 F.3 d 2 31 , 2 47 (3 d C ir. 20 01 ); P erez v. U nited Sta tes , 24 9 F
. 3d 12 61 , 126 5-6 7 ( 11 th C ir. 20 01 ); U ni t e d S t at e s v. La yne, 19 2 F.3 d 55 6, 57 5-7 6 (6th C ir. 1 9 9 9 ) ; U nited Sta tes v. G o nz a lesL e r ma , 14 F. 3d 1479 , 14 85 ( 10th Cir

. 19 94) , o ver rul ed on othe r gr ounds by U ni te d S t at e s v. Bot e ro- O s pi na , 71 F. 3d 783 ( 10th Cir

. 19 95) ( en banc)

. S om eti m es the no ti ce cont a i ns the wr o ngda t e o fthe o ff e ns e s o ughtt o b e u s ed to e nha nc e th e defen dan t’ s se nt en ce , o r the wro ng offen se, or the w rong d ate of the right offen se, or oth erw i se m i sdescr ibes th e off ense, o r f ai l s t o ci te sect i on 851. S om eti m es the no ti ce i sn’ t fi l ed i n cou rt; so m eti m es th e n o ti ce a nd the l i sto fc o nv i ct i o ns a r e se par at e do cum ents. I t i s o dd thatU
. S. A tto rney s s eem to have so m uchdi ffi cul tyi n c o m pl y i nguna m bi g uo us ly with a si m pl e st atut e. Butthe c as es s aytha t as l o nga s th e defen d an t h as actual not i ce o fthe i ntended use ofa pri or c on victi on t o enhance hi s s entence , the sta tute has be en su bs ta nt i al l y c o m pl i ed wi tha nd tha t i s g o o d e no ug h. U nited Sta tes v. R uth e rfo rd, 17 5 F
. 3d 899, 90 3- 04 ( 11th Cir

. 19 99) , r eached the o pp osi te re sul t, insi sti ng tha t pr o v i d i n gth e d e f e n d a n twi th a l i s to fc o n v i ct i o ns separ ate fro m and not re f er re d to i n the se c tio n 851 no ti ce di d no t co m pl y wi ththe s ta tu te
. Howev er, the E l e v e n th C i r c u i t ’ s l a t e r d e c i s i o n i n P erez v . U nited Sta tes , sup ra , wh i l e n o to v e r r ul i ng R uth erford , hel d that har m l ess er r o r s i n the s ec ti o n 8 51 no ti ce do no t i nv al i dat e th eN o. 09

- 1924 7 noti ce. Yet i n case s l i ke U ni t e d S t at e s v. O ls on , 71 F. 2d 8 5 0 , 8 5 2

- 5 3 (11 thCi r . 1 9 8 3 ) , a nd U nited Sta tes v. B o w den , N o. 08

- 1193 5, 20 09 W L 3275 5 ( 11th Cir

. J an. 7, 20 09) ( un pu b l i s he d) , the El e v e nth Ci r c ui th a d g o ne fur ther th ani t ha d i n R uth erford a n d h eld t h at a fa ilu re t o c om p ly w i th se cti on 85 1 depri ves the s entencing j ud ge ofj uri sd ict ion to en h an c e t h e d efe n d an t ’ s se n te n c e o n th e b as is o fa p r i o r c o nv i c t i o n. T he S o l i c i t o r Ge ne r a l h a s fi l ed a p e t i t i o n f o r c e r t i o r a r i i n B o w den ( N o. 09

- 244, A ug. 27, 2 0 0 9 ) , no t i ng tha t the El e v e nth Ci r c ui t i s i n c o nfl i c t wit h a l l e i g h to th e r c i r c u i t s t o h a v e c o n s i d e r e d th e i s s u e . We ar e o ne o fthe ei gh t. U ni t e d S t at e s v. Ce b al l os , sup ra , 30 2 F. 3d at 689- 92. A nd i n any eve nt R uth erford i s c on tr ar y t o our deci si on i n the B ela ng ercas e. The de f en d an t ar g ue s th atthe no ti ce o fe nha nc ement f ai l ed to co m plywith the statute i n sev er alr espect s. The fi r stis t ha t i t di d no t co nt ai n the i nf o r m at i o n i n the pretr i alse rv i ces rep or t about the s eco nd co nvi cti on that w oul d l ate r be used to enhance hi s s entence

— the info rm ati o n wa s i n a s e pa r a t e do c ume nt
. T he a r g ume nti m pli es that sta pli ng the r ep or t t o the no ti ce woul d not hav e com pli ed w i th the st atute
. That i s m uch too st ri ct a n i nt er pr et at i o n. H e a rg ues next that eve n i fa physi cal l y a tta ched l i st of convi cti ons w oul d sati sfy the st atuto ryr equi re m en t, a physi cal l y s epara te l i st w oul d not. A gai n w e di sag re e. The diff er ence between st apl i ng a l i st ofco nvi cti ons to th e n ot ice an d se tt in g for th th e c on vic tio n s in a c om p let ely separ ate docum ent i s t oo sl i ght t o m att er, and sev er alo f th e c a s e s th a tw e h a v e c i t e d u p h o l d t ha t me th o d o fc o m-8 N o. 09

- 1924 ply i ng w i th the sta tute ( Tri ngali, B ela ng er, a nd Layn e ). Th is ca s e d i ff e r s f r o m th e m b e c a u s e th e s e c o n d d o c u me n t, t he listof co n vic tio n s, w as n ot (so far a s a p p ea rs ) ac tu ally given to th e d efend an t. B ut i t w a s i n c o r p orated by reference, and that w as goo d enough, co nsi ste ntl y with cas es s uc h as F a rm erv. Ba ldwin , 563 F.3d 104 2, 1043 -44 (9th C ir. 20 09 ); U nited Sta tes v. Sea led Ju ven ile I , 225 F. 3d 507, 50 8- 09 ( 5 th Ci r . 2 0 0 0 ) , a nd Un i t e d S t a t e s v. Lo ya , 8 07 F. 2d 1483 , 14 92 ( 9th Ci r . 1 98 7) , tha t affi r m i n o th erc o nt ex ts the adequacy o fnot i ce that t ake s the f or m o finco rpor ati on by re f er ence. The defe nd ant i s on s tr onge r gr ound in ar gui ng tha t a st atut e whi chs ta te s th atthe r equi r ed no ti ce s ha l l l i stthe c on vic tio n s o n w h ich th e g o v e r n m en t in te n d s t o re ly sh ou ld n ot all ow the go v e r n m en t to send the d efend an t’s l aw yerto r um m age i n the proba ti on o ffi c e and tr y t o g ue ss whi chi n a l o ngl i sto f “di spo si ti o ns ” th e g o ve r nm ent m i ght a rg ue was a c onvi cti on usab l e f oran e nhancem en t

— e s pe c i a l l y i fthe l i s tha s n o ty e tb e e n c o mpi l e d, w hi ch m ay have been the s i tuati on i n ourc as e, though th ati s unc er ta i n. And s i nc e th e l i stc o nt ai ne d o nl y o ne felo n y d ru g c on vic tio n be sid es th e o n e m en tio n ed in the no ti ce, we cannot f athom the f ai l ure to l i st i t unl ess th e pr o se cut o r ha dn’ t receiv ed o r ha dn’ t r ea d the p retr ialservices rep ort

— ei thero fwh i ch possibi l i ty see m s, however, qui te l i kel y. Fu rthe rm ore, th e incorp orated p retrialservices rep ort provi ded the defe nd ant with a l i st of“di sp os iti ons, ” no t ev ena l i sto fc o nv i ct i o ns ( a numbero fthe di spo si ti o ns li sted i n th e d efend a n t ’s crim inal history are dism issals) , l eaving hi m to gues s which m i ght b e the bas i s o fanN o. 09

- 1924 9

en ha nc em en t. N ot tha t it w as a d iffi cu lt gu e ss; bu t the re i s the added ir re gul ar i ty ofthe gov er nm ent’ s hav i ng, f or al l we can tell, not eve n see n the l i st bef or e i t i ssued the info rm ati on, and conce i vabl y hav i ng at tem p ted to i ncor pora te by re f er ence a docum ent that did not yetexi st. N o doubt the defe nd ant’ s l aw yerwould w ant a li st of al l hi s c l i ent’ s pre vi ous c ri m i nal char ges , and thei r disposi ti ons, f ortheywould figu re i n sent enci ng r ega rdl ess of a n y m an d a t o r y e n h an c em en t. T h ey w ou ld als o h elp hi m deci de how badl y hi s cl i ent’ s t estim ony w oul d be i m pea ch ed by his pr ev i o us c o nv i ct i o ns i fhe t o o kthe sta nd

. But the statute requi re s the governm ent to i nd i cate w hich pri or c onvict i ons i t pl ans t o use a s the bas i s f or ar gu ing f ora l onge r sente nce, and thi s co uld wel l be th o ug htt o r equi re th e go ve r nm en t to s pec i fy tho se c o nvictions rath er than , as w e said, l eave the d efend an t’s l aw yerto gues s. B u t ev en if th e g ov er n m en t fa iled to co m p ly wi th the s ta tu te , the no ti ce a dequa te l y i nf o r m ed th e defen d an t o fwh at he was f aci ng and so fulfi l l ed the s ta tu to r y pur po se s, a nd c o ns eque nt l y the r e was no re ver sibl e e rr or . The defendant does not conte nd that the s eco nd convi cti on w as an im properbasi s f orenhancem en t, a nd tha t ta kes care o fthe fi r stpur po se o fthe sta tute. H e doe s a rg ue that“the Gover nm en t’ s f ai l ure to l i st [ both] previ ous c onvi cti ons prej ud i ced [ hi m ] bec ause i t di d not a l l ow him to m ake an i nfo rm ed deci si on o f w hetherto ente r a pl ea or proce ed to tr i al

. ” But the noti ce says that the go ver nm ent woul d rel y o n al l “a pp l i cabl e” convi cti ons i n the pret ria l se rv i ces re port, and i t was10 N o. 09

- 1924 apparent that the s eco nd fe l ony drug co nvi cti on was “a ppl i cable, ” th ati s, a b as i s f o re nha nc ement
. I t was the onl y o therfelo ny drug convi cti on i n the l i st of19 di spo si ti o ns ; i t was une qui vo ca l l y a fel o ny dr ugc o nv i ct i o n; a l awy err ea di ngthe listwoul d no ti ce tha t i n abo ut fi ftee n sec onds; and if the defendant’s l aw yerhad had any doubt about w hi ch co nvi cti on the pro secuto r w as p lan n in g t o re ly o n for a n en h an c em en t h e c ou ld ha ve s o ug ht c la r i fi ca ti o n fr o m the pr o se cut o r, a nd he did n’t

— doubtl ess bec ause i t was c l e a r . No r c a n we s e e h o w the de f e nd a nt ’ s l a wy e r mi g hth a v e tak e n a dvantag e i n guilty- ple a neg oti ati ons ofkno w l edge that hi s cl i ent was f aci ng a m andator y l i f e s entence
. W e ca n i m agi ne a noti ce a n d a l i st ofco nvi cti ons that w er e s o c o nfus i ngtha tthe de f e nd a nta nd h i s l aw yer co ul d no t be ex p ect ed to pi cko utthe o ne o r o ne s th atthe govern m en t m ight try to use to enh a n c e t h e d efend an t’s se nt en ce. B ut in thi s ca se the l awy erc o ul d a r r i ve a t th e cr i ti ca l c o nv i ct i o n i n a s i m pl e two
- st ep r ea di ng : the notice i ts el f, whi chr efer r ed hi m t o the l i sto fc o nv i ct i o ns in th e p ro b at ion offic e; an d th e list its e l f, i n w h ich on ly o ne e l i g ibl e co nv i ct i o n (be side s the o ne na m ed i n the noti ce) appeare d, as w ou l d be o bvi ous fro m a quick re ading

. The go ver nm ent t ake s a r isk by sl oppy com pli ance ( orper haps it is not com pli ance a t a l l ) with s ecti on 85 1( a ) ( 1 ) : th e r i s k th a t e i th e r th e c o u r t wi l l h o l d th att he gov er nm ent f ai l ed to p ro vi de the defe nd ant with ad e q u a te n ot ice or th at th e d efe n d an t w ill ha ve a c laim th at by fa ilin g t o in te rp re t a co n fu sin g n ot ice co rre c tlyN o. 09

- 1924 11 h is law ye r re n d er ed ine ff ec tiv e a ss ist an c e o f co u n se l. F o r th e s e r e a s o n s a n d t o s p a r e u s p o i n t l e s s a p p e a l s , t he U .S. A tt or n ey ’ s o ffice th at p ro se c u te d th is c as e w ou ld b e w ell ad vis ed to ge t it s a c t t og et h er an d co m p ly st ric tly w i th se cti on 8 51. I t m i ght a l so be wis e f orthe De p ar tm en t o fJ us ti ce to not i fy a l l the U. S

. Att o r ne y s o fthe i m po r ta nc e o fs tr i ctc o m pl i an ce , a s the pr o bl em o fno ncom pli ance o r sl oppy com pli ance s eem s t o be widesprea d, j ud gi ng fro m the num bero fcas es. A nd i t i s no t a s i fst ri ct c om pli ance w er e di ffi cul t. Bu t the S up re m e Cour t has bee n em phati c thata c rim in al jud gm e n t is n ot to be rev er se d as a w ay of d isc ipli ni ng p ro secuto rs f orer ro rs , ev en eg re gi ous o nes. U ni t e d S t at e s v. Has t i ng, 46 1 U.S

. 49 9, 50 4- 05 ( 1983 ) ; se e al so U ni t e d St at e s v. John s on , 26 F. 3d 669, 68 2- 83 ( 7th Cir

. 19 94)

. S om e e rr or s i n cr i m i nal pro c ee d ings ar e no t excu sabl e o n g r o unds o f ha r m l es sn es s, but th eyare er ro rs ( cal l ed “st ructur al ”) thatst ri ke at the hear t o f cr i m i na l j us ti ce , l i k e den i alo fc o uns elt o a de f en dan t who w ants rep re senta ti on. S ee U nited Sta tes v. G o nz a les-Lo pez , 5 4 8 U
. S

. 1 4 0 , 1 4 9

- 1 5 0 ( 2 0 0 6 ) , f o r a l i s to fs u c h e r r o r s . We cannot thi nk o fany re aso n w hy a vio latio n ofse cti on 851(a )(1) should be tho ught such a n er ro r w hen i t doe s n ot co n fu se th e d efe n d an t o r h is law ye r. See , e.g., U nited Sta tes v. M o ral es , sup ra , 560 F. 3d at 116- 18; co m pare U nited St at e s v. Sp e r ow , 49 4 F.3d 12 23 , 122 8 (9 th C ir. 20 07 ); U nited State s v. A rnold, 467 F.3d 880 , 887-89 (5th C ir. 2006). A FFI RMED .
10- 14- 09