## 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. 07
- 1494 U NI T ED S TATE SOF A MERI CA, P la intif f-A pp ellee, v. J ERRY S T RAHA N , D ef endant-Appellant.

A pp eal from the United S t ates Di strictC our t fo r the S outhernDi stricto f Illino is. No . 05 C R 30027

—David R. H ern don, Chief Ju dge .
A RGUED A PRI L 15, 2008

— D ECI DE D M AY 15, 2009

Befo re C UDAH Y, K ANN E , an d S YKES, C ircu it Judges . S YKES, Cir cu i tJudg e . J er ryS tr ahan was convi cted bya j ur y o fc o ns pi r ac y t o di st r ibut e co ca i ne bas e a nd di st r ibuti o n o fc o ca i ne b as e an d was sent en ced t o l i f e i n pr i so n, th e m andat o r y s en te nc e ba se d o n h i s two pr i o r fel o ny d ru g c o n v i c tio n s. See 21 U .S.C . § 84 1(b ). Stra h an ap p ea ls hi s co nvi cti ons and sen te nce, ar gui ng tha t the di str i ct c ourtsho uld have i nstr ucted the j ury on hi s publ i cauthor i ty defe nse. H e al so chal l enges the suffi ci ency of th e ev i d en ce ag ains t hi m a nd the c o ns ti tu ti o na l i tyo fthe2 N o. 07
- 1494

man da t o r y l i f e t e r m un der the S i xth a nd Ei g hth Am e nd

m ents. W e a ffi rm . Th e e vi dence w as i nsuffi ci ent t o supp or t a p ub li c-au th ority defen se an d easil y suffici en t to sup p ort th e j ur y ’ s ve r di cto fg ui l tyo n b o thc o unt s. S tr ah an ’s cons t i t ut i o na l c ha l l e ng e s t o hi s s e nt e nc e r un c o nt r a r y t o S upr eme Co ur t ca se l aw. A m an datory- m i ni m um s en te nc e ba se d o n j udg e- f o und f ac ts r eg ar di ngpr i or fel o ny drug co nvi cti ons does not vio lat e the S i xth A m endm ent, an d a l i f e te r m b as ed o n r ec i di vi sm i s n ot cruela nd un us ua l p uni shm e nti n v i o l a t i o n o fthe Ei g hth Am e nd

m ent.
I. B a c kg r o und J e r r y S tr ah an d eliv er ed d ru gs for Joh n n y M c C ra y Jr., w ho r an a drug- distributi on o perat i on o ut o fa house on C olle ge Str ee t in E as t St . L o u is, Illin ois . M c C ra y Jr. so ld m ai nl y her oi n and cra ck coca i ne, and em ploye d at l eas t th r ee o th er s to he l p s er ve hi s cu st o m er s: hi s f athe r, J o hnny M cC ray Sr. ; M itche llBrow n; and Straha n. A ll th ree w ere d ru g use rs , and M cCray J r. pai d them f or thei r w or k in both drugs and m oney . St ra han had been invol ved w i th thi s gro u p as f arbac k a s 19 9 6 , w h e n h e w a s c a u g h tt r y i n gt o b u y d r u g s fr o m a d ru g h ou se ru n by th e M c C ra ys an d E u ge n e F alls , a co co ns pi r at o r . He was makingdr ugde l i ve r i es f o r the g r o u p i n 1 9 9 9 wh e n h e w a s a r r e s t e d a g a i n . T h i s t i me he co oper ate d w i th the go ver nm ent. I t was thi s pri or ass oci ati on that l ed Depu ty U
. S. M ar shalTom W oo ds toN o. 07
- 1494 3 askStr ahan in 2003 i fh e knew the w here abouts o fM cCray Sr
. orCor tez M cCray ( J ohnny M cCray Sr
. ’ s o therso n). Both w er e wanted on a rres t warr ants. S tr ahan l ate r conta cted Dep uty W oo ds w i th i nfo rm ati on that l ed to the ar re st of both M cCrays , and h e w as pu t o n W oo ds’s payr ol l as a confi denti ali nfo rm ant. The acti vi ty at the Col l ege S tr eetr esidence soo n drew the a tte nti on o fo therl aw -en forcem ent o ffi ci al s. Offi cer Br i anGi m pelo fthe O’ F al l o n P o l i ce D epa r tment, who w as d ep ut ized to the FB I, w as ap p roach ed by Rich ard Bak er, a co nfi den ti al i nf o r m an t, wi th i nf o r m at i o n ab o ut the M cCray drug o perat i on o n Col l ege S tr eet . Offi cer Gim pel speci al i zed i n contr ol l ed p u rchas es ofnar cot i cs an d arr an ge d for B ak er to bu y c ra c k c oc ain e fro m Fa lls at the Col l ege S tr eethouse
. G i m pel al so used J oe M i tc he l l, a no th er i nf o r m an t, t o make mul ti pl e co ntr ol l ed drug buys att h e C olle ge St re et house. Each tr ansacti on was r eco rded usi n g a devi ce worn by Bakero r M i tchel l
. On the s tr en gt h of these r eco rdi ngs, Offi cer Gi m pelo bt aine d a s ea r chwarrant fo r the M cCr aydr ug house. Bas ed o n the e vi den ce c o l lected i n the s ea r ch, a g r an d j ury re turned an in d ictm ent c harg i ng bo th M cCrays , Brown , Fa l l s, and S trahan w i th co nspir acy to dist ribute c r a c kc o c a i ne a nd h e r o i n i n vi ol a t i o n o f2 1 U. S
. C. §§ 841( a)(1) , 84 1( b) ( 1) ( A ) , and 846
. S tr ahan was al so ch ar g ed with v i o l at i ng2 1 U. S
. C. § § 84 1( a) ( 1) a nd 841(b) ( 1) ( B) b y d i str ibuti ng cocai ne base on S eptem ber29 , 2 0 0 4
. Be c a us e S t r a ha n ha d t wo pr i o r s t a t e c o nv i c t i ons f or del i ver y o fco ntro l led subst ances, the gov er nm ent fi l ed4 N o. 07
- 1494 noti ce purs uant to 21 U .S.C . § 851 thati t would s eek enha nc ed puni sh m en t unde r 21 U
. S
. C. § 84 1(b)
. A l l o fthe co co ns pi r at o r s, s av e S tr ah an, pl ea ded g ui l tyt o the charg es, and the coco nspir ato rs a gr eed to te sti fy a gai nst S tr ah an . I n advance o ftr i al, S tr ahan ga ve noti ce pu rs uant to Rule 12. 3 o fthe Fed eral R ules o f C rim ina l P roc edu re th athe i ntended t o off er a “publi c author i ty” defe nse bas ed o n hi s i nt er ac ti o ns wi thDe puty W o o ds. I n re spo ns e th e gov er nm ent deni ed that S tr ahan was acting pursuant to pu bl i c autho ri ty w hen he co m m i tte d the charge d acts an d n ot ified Str ah an an d th e d is tr ict co u rtth at it w ou ld call D ep ut y W ood s to testify in opp ositi on to Strah an ’s pu bl i c- author i ty defe nse. Att r i al D epu t y Wo o ds t e s t i fi e d tha th e “ do e s n o tdo contr ol l ed [ drug] buys” and th at hi s co ntact w i th S tr ahan w as l i m i ted to ob tai ni ng i nfo rm ati on about the whereabouts o fper sons f orwh om t here were acti ve ar re st w ar ra n ts . S tr ah an to ok th e s ta n d an d te st ified in h is own defense; he a dm i tte d bei ng a d ru g use r but deni ed any i nvol vem ent i n the M cCray drug co nspir acy oper ate d out ofthe Col l ege S tree t house. H e s ai d he knew Dep uty W oo ds but deni ed gi vi ng hi m i nfo rm ati on ab ou t drug deal i ng at the Col l ege St re et house. In r es po ns e to a que st i o n abo ut w hethe r he tho ug hthe ha d autho ri ty to engag e in the drug- tr affi cki ng ac ti vi ty al l ege d agai nst hi m bec au se W oo ds to l d him so , S tr ahan re sponded , “N o, that ’ s no t co rr ect, Iw as n ’t d oi ng wh at is a lleg ed in t h is c as e.” A t the close of evid en ce, Strah an asked th e d istri ct cou rt to i ss ue a publ i c- au th o r i tyi ns tr uct i o n t o the j ur y, a r g ui ngN o. 07
- 1494 5 that he be l i eve d he w as au th or i zed by Deputy W oo ds to sel l narco ti cs. The cour t re fused to do so. Th e j ud ge no te d S tr ah an ’ s o wn test i m o ny fl at l y de ny i nga ny i nvol vem ent in drug deal i ng and the com ple te l ack of ev i den ce th at W o o ds ev er l ed S tr ah an to be l i eve he co u ld distribu te d rugs as pa rt of his role gath ering inform a t ion on th e w he reabou ts of fug iti ves. Th e j ury f ound Str ahan gui l ty ofbo th co unts. Bec au se o fStra ha n’ s pr ev i o us dr ugc o nv i ct i o ns , he was c l as si fi ed as a c ar ee r o ff en derunde r the s en te nc i ng gu id elin es , pu sh in g h is offe n se lev el t o 3 7 a n d h is crim inal history category to V I. T ha t yiel d ed an ad visory gui del i nes r ange of36 0 m onths to l i f e in priso n forbo th c ou n ts. But beca use o fS tr ahan’ s t w o previ ous c onvi cti ons f orst ate drug f el oni es, the sta tutory m i ni m um f or th e c ons p iracy c ou nt w as li fe in p rison. 21 U
. S. C
. § 841(b). The cour t i m posed a sente nce o flife on the c onspi ra cy co unta nd a c o nc ur r en t 36 0 m o nths o n the c r ac k

- di st r ibuti o n c o unt . S tr ah ana ppea l ed, c ha l l en gi ngb o thhi s co nvi cti ons and sentence
.
I I . Discussi on A . Pub l i c- A uthor i ty Defe nse A t t h e close ofthe evid en ce, Strahan requ ested a j ury i nstr ucti on o n the pu bl i c-au th or i ty defe nse, ar gui ng tha t i fthe j uror s di sbel i eve d his te sti m ony th at h e di d not tak e p a r ti n the c o ns pi r a c y, h e wa s e nt i t l e d t o de f e nd o n th e b as is t h at h i s a c tio n s w er e t h e re su lt of a rea so n ab le b elie f th at h e w as au th or ize d by D ep u ty W oo d s t o s ell6 N o. 07
- 1494
narco ti cs in connect i on with h is workas a confi denti al i nf o r m an t. The di st r i ctc o ur t dec l i ne d t o g i ve the re quested i ns tr ucti on, fi nd i ng tha t the publ i c- author i ty defe nse was notsupporte d by the ev i dence. Ou r re vi ew o fa dist ri ct c ourt ’ s r efusal to gi ve a theor yof-d efe n se j u ry in st ru c tio n is d e n ov o. U ni t e d S t at e s v. Van A llen , 524 F.3 d 8 14, 8 32 ( 7th Ci r . 2 00 8)
. A cr i m i na l de f en d an t is en tit led to su c h an ins tr u c tio n o n ly if th er e is ev id en tia ry su p p or t fo r it. Id. ; s e ealso U nited St at e s v. M illet, 510 F.3d 668 , 675 (7th C ir. 2007). The publi c- author i ty defe ns e is cl ose l y r el ate d to an ot h er affir m at ive d efe n se , en tr ap m en t by es to p p el. U nited Sta tes v. B a k er, 438 F. 3d 749, 753 ( 7th C ir. 20 06) ( n o t i n gth a t“ [ t] he e l e me n t s th a tc o mpr i s e th e t wo d efe n se s a re qu ite sim ilar ”); see also U nite d State s v. N evil le, 82 F.3d 750, 76 1 (7th C ir. 1996) (noting th at “ ‘pu bli c au th ori t y ’ [ i s ] s o me t i me s c a l l e d ‘ e n t r a p me n tb y e s t o p p e l ’ ” )
. We h a v e r e c e n t l y c l a r i fi e d the di s t i n c t i o n b e t we e n th e t wo defe nses: “[ I ] n the case of t h e pu bl i c autho ri ty defe nse, th e d efend an t eng ages in con d uc t at th e r eq ue st of a gov er nm ent o ffi ci alth at the defendant knows to be othe rwis e i l l ega l, wh i l e in the case o fentr apm ent b y es to ppel, b ecau se o fthe s ta te m en ts o fa n o ffi ci al, the d efend an t beli eves that his cond uc t con stitut es no off ense. ” U ni t e d S ta tes v. Jum ah , 49 3 F
. 3d 868, 874 n. 4 ( 7th Cir
. 20 07) ( ci ti ng 53 A M . J UR . P ROOF OF F AC TS 3 D 249 Proof o f D efense of

E ntra pm ent by E stop pel § 2 0 ( 1 9 9 9 ) )
. I n o ther w or d s, th e p u b lic-a u th or ity d efe n se req u ire s re as on ab le re l i ance b y a defen d an t on a pu bl i c o ffi ci al ’ s di re cti ve to engag e in behavi orthat t h e d efendant knows to beN o. 07
- 1494 7 illeg al. Id. ; s e eal s o Unit e d S t at e s v. Cao , 47 1 F
. 3d 1, 4 ( 1st C ir. 20 06 ). In c on tr as t, a d efe n d an t w h o b elie ve d h is co nduc t l eg albec au se o fa n o ffi ci al ’ s st at emento fthe law m ay as se rtan en tr ap m en t-b y-e st op p el d efe n se . J um ah , 493 F. 3d at 874 n. 4; see a lso U ni t e d S t at e s v. Appe rs on , 44 1 F.3 d 11 62 , 120 4 (10 th C ir. 20 06 ). Stra h an ’s s itu at ion is th e f o r me r ; h e ma i n t a i n s th a t h e wa s e n t i t l e d t o a r g ue that he eng age d i n i l l ega l drug tr affi cking at the b ehest of Deputy W oo ds, notthathe r el i ed on W oo ds’s st ate
m en t t h at su c h co n d u c t w as ac tu ally law fu l. H e r e , the d istri ct cou rt’s refus al to instru ct th e j ury on the publ i c- author i ty defe nse was m ani f est l y c or re ct. N o w i tness

— not eve n Stra han

— tes ti fi ed that Dep uty W oo d s everi nstr ucted orautho ri zed S tr ahan to dist ribute c ra c k coca i ne. I t i s t rue that W oo ds used St ra han as a con fi denti ali nfo rm ant, but thei r i nter acti on w as l i m i ted t o Str ahan hel ping W oo ds fi nd fugi ti ves. I nde ed, Deputy W o o ds te st i fi ed th athe “ di dn’ t do c o ntr o l l ed buy s. ” Strah an ’ s o wn te st i m o ny e l i m i na te d a ny possibi l i ty ofa pu bl i c- author i ty defe n se . W hen ask ed by the pros ecu tori fDeputy W oo ds had everautho ri zed hi m t o s e l l dr ug s a s pa r t o f hi s i nt e r a c t i o n w i th Wo o ds a s a n i nfo r man t, S t r a ha n r e s po nd e d, “ He n e v e r s a i d I coul d sel l drugs, no. ” He lat eradded that he had never ask ed W oo ds f orper m i ssi on t o do so ei ther
. S trahan w as pl ainl y not enti tl ed to a pub l i c- au th o r i tyi ns tr uct i o n; the defense w as utter l y unsupp or ted bythe evi dence.
B. Suff i ci ency o ft he Evi den ce St ra han al so ar gues that the evi dence w as i nsuffi ci ent t o convi ct hi m o n eit her count. W e wil l o ver turn the ve rdi ct8 N o. 07
- 1494
o n thi s ba si s o nl y i f, v i ewi ngthe ev iden ce i n the l i g ht m ostf avo rabl e t o the gove rnm ent, there i s “ ‘ no e vi dence, no matt erho w the ev i den ce i s wei g he d, fr o m whi chthe j u ry c ou ld h av e fou n d g u ilt b ey on d a re as on ab le d ou b t.’ ” U ni t e d S t at e s v. Burke, 425 F. 3d 400, 415 ( 7th C ir. 20 05) ( qu o t i ng U ni t e d S t at e s v. Al b ar r an , 23 3 F
. 3d 972, 97 5 ( 7th C ir. 2000)). T he record i s overfl ow ing w ith evid en ce of Strah an ’s gu ilt. Joh n n y M c C ra y Jr. te st ified th at Str ah an h elp ed h im se l l d rugs fr o m the Co l l eg e S tr ee t ho us e i n l at e 20 03 a nd thro ugh m osto f20 04 . A ccor ding to M cCray J r. , S tr ahan w as re sponsibl e fo r answ er i ng a prepai d cel l phone use d to tak e drug or ders and w oul d al so d eliv erdrugs w hen n ec es sa ry . H e a lso te st ified ab ou t a let te r se n t t o h im f ro m j ai l by hi s f at h er , Jo hnny M cCray Sr
. , i n Decem ber 2004
. I n t h e letterM cCray Sr
. as ked i fS tr ahan had bee n us i ngs o m e o fthe dr ug s h e w as s uppo se d t o s el l
. ( The answ erwas “ye s. ”) J o hnnyM cCr ayS r . t es ti fi ed th atS trah an l i ve d wi ththe Mc C r a y s a n d s o l d d r u g s f o r th e Mc C r a y J r . c r a c kc o c a i ne and hero i n dis tr ibuti on g ro up , i ni ti al l y in Grani te City, I l l i nois, and l ate r f ro m the Col l ege S tr eethouse i n East St
. Loui s. Cocons pir ato rs Fa l l s a nd Bro w n al so tes ti fi ed that St ra han l i ved at M cCray J r. ’ s Col l ege S tr eethouse an d pa r ti ci pat ed i n the dr ug - di st r ibut i o n operati o n c o nduct ed th er e by( amongo th erthi ng s) ta k i ngpho ne or ders and deli ver i ng d rugs. Thi s e vi dence i s m or e than suffi ci ent fo r the j ury to convi ct S tr ahan o n the conspi ra cy c ou n t. S e e U nited Sta tes v. Sa ch senm a ier, 49 1 F
. 3d 680, 68 4 ( 7th Ci r . 2 00 7) ( fi ndi nga c o ns pi r ac y wher e th e defen dan t “to ok drug o rder s, ar ra nged sal es, co l l ecte d drug m oney,N o. 07
- 1494 9

an d a ct ed as a n i nt er m ed iar y ” be twe enthe s el l era nd his cu stom ers). S i m i l ar l y, the te st i m o ny a t tr i alg av e th e j ur y s uffi ci en t evi dence to fi nd S tr ahan gui l ty ofd ist rib uti ng cr ack coca i ne to i nfo rm ant J oe M i tchel l o n Se pt em ber29 , 20 04. The tr ansact i on was r ecord ed, and al though S tr ahan di sp ut ed th e ac cur ac y o fthe a udi o r ec o r di ng, he admi tt ed be i ngpr es en t when M i tc he l l r ec ei ve d the drugs a t th e Col l ege S tr eetaddress o n that day. M cCray Jr. te sti fi ed that one ofthe voi ces on the r eco rdi ng was St ra han’s and that St ra han gav e M i tchell the drugs, col l ecte d paym ent, and br ought the m oneyto hi m f or ch an g e. M i tc he l l te st i fi ed an d co nfi r m ed th e det ai l s o fthe Septe m be r 2 9 co nt r o l l ed buya nd S tr ah an ’ s r o l e i n the tr an sa ct i o n. Not wi th st an di ngthe po o r qua l i tyo fthe audio r eco rd in g, M cCray and M i tchel l were abl e t o i denti fy S tr ahan’ s v oi ce, and both tes ti fi ed i n detai l to St ra han’s part i ci pati on. Thi s e vi dence am plysupports the guil ty ver dicto n the cra ck- dist ributi on co unt.
C . S e n t e n c i n gC l a i ms St ra h an rais es tw o c on st itu t i on al c h alle n ge s t o h is se nt en ce . F i r st, he a r g ue s th atthe mand atory- m i ni m um sente nce ofl i f e i m pri sonm ent r uns af oulo fthe Si xth A m en d m en t by all ow ing facts n o t p roven to a j ury beyon d a re aso nabl e doubt

— i n thi s ca se, hi s t w o pri or convi ction s fordrug f el oni es

— to aff ect the s eve ri ty of h is p u n ish m en t. See 21 U .S.C . § 84 1(b ) ( 1 ) ( A ) . B u t t h is ar gum ent i s f or ecl ose d b y A lm end a rez-To rres v. U nited Sta tes , 5 2 3 U. S
. 2 2 4 ( 1 9 9 8 ) , a nd Ha rris v. U nited Sta tes , 53 610 N o. 07
- 1494 U
. S. 54 5 ( 2002 )
. S tr ahan ackn ow led ges thatwe have re peatedl y r ej ecte d the ar gum ent that U ni t e d S t a tes v. B o o k er, 54 3 U.S
. 22 0 ( 2005 ) , has cal l ed in to q uesti on e i ther A lm end a rez-To rres or Harris . S e e, e . g. , Sa ch senm a ier, 49 1 F
. 3 d a t6 8 5 ( n o t i n g“ th i s c o u r t ’ s ma n y d e c i s i o n s h o l di ng that A lm end a rez- To r res i s stil l good l aw after B o o k er” ); U nited Sta tes v. Jon es , 41 8 F.3d 726, 73 2 ( 7th Ci r. 20 05) (fin d in g t h at “[t ]h e d ist in c tio n d ra w n by th e C ou rtin Harris appears to have sur vived” B o o k er ). H e s ee ks on ly to prese rv e these issues f orr evi ew i n the Suprem e Cour t, an d w e c on firm th at h e h as d on e s o. Sa ch senm a ier, 49 1 F. 3d at 685. N ex t, S tr ah an co nt en ds th at the m an dat o r y - m i ni m um sen ten ce of li fe in p rison viol ates th e E ighth A m en d m en t’s prohibi ti on o n cr uel and unusual pu ni shm ent b ecause th e se nt en ce i s g r o ss l y di spr o po r ti o na te . Butthe Su p re m e C o u rth as rejec te d E igh th A m en d m en t c h all e n g e s t o s t a t u t o r i l y ma n d a t e d l i f e s e n t e n c e s f o r d ef en d an ts w ith tw o p rior felon y co n vic tio n s, s e eEwingv. C alif ornia , 538 U
. S. 11, 25 (2003) (up hold ing C ali fornia’s “t h re e-s tr ike s” law ); Loc kye rv. Andrade, 538 U
. S. 63 (2003), an d w e h av e fo llow ed su it, s e eU ni t e d S t at e s v. Canno n , 42 9 F.3d 1158 , 1 161 (7th C ir. 2005). A ccord ingly, Straha n’s li fe sente nce does notvi ol ate the Eighth A m endm ent. S tr ah anmake s a hos t o fo th ers en te nc i nga r g um ents

— m ostnot abl y, that t h e di str i ct c ourtsho uld not have appli ed a guidel i nes enhancem ent f oro bstr ucti on o f j usti ce, U
. S.S.G. § 3C1. 1 & cm t. n. 4( b) , bas ed on hi s t ri al te st i m o ny

—b u t w e n ee d n otad d re ss th em . B as ed on h is tw o pri orco nvi cti ons f orfel ony drug o ff en ses, S tr ahan w as subj ect to the sta tutor y- m i ni m um sente nce of l ife inN o. 07
- 1494 11 pri son on the co nspir acy count, and t h at se ntence tr u m p ed an y g u id elin es ca lcu lat ion
. Id. § 5G 1.1 (b ). H is co nc ur r en t se nten ce of3 60 months o n the c r ac k

- di st r ibut i o n c o u n tw a s a l s o u n a ff e c t e d b y a n y o fh i s o th e r c l a i ms ofer ro r. S tr ahan was deem ed a c ar eero ff ender und er the guidel i nes b ecause of tw o pri orst ate co nvi cti ons, pu shi ng hi s ba se off ense l eve l to a m i ni m um o f37 an d ren d er i n g ot h er en h an c em en ts m ea n in gle ss . Id. § 4B 1.1( a)-(b). St ra han subm i tte d a p ro se br i efafterhi s co unsel fi l ed hi s o pe ningb r i e f
. We a g r e e d t o a c c e ptthe s up pl e men tal br i efo nl y a fte r Stra ha n s pec i fi ed th e ar g um en ts he i nte nde d t o a dva nc e. W e th er efo r e co nfi ne o urr ev i ew t o the ar g um en ts r ai se d i n h i s m o ti on. Thes e ar e: ( 1) tha t he di d no t ac t i n fur th er an ce o fthe a l l eg ed co ns pi r ac y ; a nd ( 2) o ne o fthe tw o convi cti ons l i ste d in t h e § 8 51 noti ce was d i s r e g a r d e d b y th e d i s t r i c t c o u r t f o r p u r p o s e s o ft he g ui d el i ne s ca l cul at i o n. The fi r sta r g um en t f ai l s al o ng w i th the suffi ci ency- of

- the- evi dence ar gum ent, wh i ch w e hav e r ej ecte d fo r the r eas ons noted above
. S tr ahan appears to conte nd thathi s a cti ons w er e a i m ed at thw ar ti ng w h at he se es as tw o separ ate co nspir aci es

— o ne i nv o l vingF al l s an d Ba ker, the o th eri nv o l vingthe M cCrays

—but the te sti m ony at tr i alwas to the contr ar y, an d th at ev id en c e w as ea sily su fficie n t t o s u st ain h is convi cti ons. Fi nal l y, S tr ahan not es that the di str i ct c ourtdi sr ega rded one of hi s pri ordrug convi cti ons l i ste d i n the § 8 51 noti ce be ca us e i t was no t c lear fr o m the c ha r g i ngdo cument w hetheri t would have co unted as a “co ntro l l ed sub-12 N o. 07
- 1494 st a n c e o ff e n s e ” f o r p u r p o s e s o f U. S
. S
. G. § 4 B 1
. 1 ( a ) ( 2) a nd

. 2(b)
. H e co ntend s th at thi s i nval i dates hi s l i f e s entence . B u t St ra h an co n f l a t es tw o s ep ar at e s ta n d ar d s. D am ervill e v. U nited Sta tes , 197 F. 3d 287 ( 7th Cir
. 1999 )
. Th e d istri ct co ur t di d no t di sr eg ar d thi s co nv i ct i o n f o r pur po se s o fthe § 8 51 noti ce, requir ed f orappli cati on o fthe sta tutor ym i ni m um l i f e s entence . I nstea d, the c ourtdecl i ned to re l y o n the re cor d ofco nvi c tio n foro ne o fS tr ahan’ s pri or drug co nvi cti ons i n cal cul ati ng hi s guidel i nes s entence because the re cor d w as u n c lea r w hetheri t m et the guidelin es d efin itio n of a “ c on tr olle d su b st an c e o ffen se .” In co nt r as t, the mandat o r y l i f e se nt en ce a ppli es whena d efend an t con victed un d er § 841 (a) ha s tw o or m ore p rior“fel ony d rug offense[s].” 21 U
. S. C
. § 841(b)(1) (A ). There i s no di spute thatthe tw o sta te narco ti cs c onvi ctio n s id en tifie d in t h e g o v er n m en t’s § 85 1 n ot ice m etth is s t a nd a r d. A FFI RMED .

5- 15- 09