The Honor able B arba ra S. Jones, United St ates District Judge f or the Southern District * of Ne w York, sitting by

desig nation. 07-4 202 -cr(L), 07-5529 -cr (con) Un ited St ates v . Mor ales
U N IT E D S T A T E S C O U R T O F A P P E A LS F O R T H E S E C O N D C IR C U IT
August Term, 2008 (Argued: Fe bruar

y 2, 2009 Dec ided: Marc h 18, 2009) Docke t Nos. 07-4202-c r (L ), 07-5529- cr ( Con)

UNI TED STATES OF AMERI CA, Appellee ,

-vRA MO N M OR

AL ES a nd LUI S OR OZ CO -C AST AN OS, De fe nd ants -A pp e lla nts
.

Be fore : POOL ER and SOTOMAYOR, Circuit Judges, a nd J ONES, District J udg e.

*

Be fore trial, the g overnme nt served de fenda nt Ramon Morales with a pr ior felony information, see 21 U.S.C. § 851(a)(1) , war ning that Morales wa s subject to an enha nceme nt of his sentence pursuant to 21 U.S.C. § 841(b)(1) (B ) bec ause he had a pr ior felony narc otics conviction. B efor e sente ncingbut after trial, the g overnme nt filed an amended pr ior felony2

information re fer encing21 U.S.C. § 841(b)(1)( A). While the mandatory minimum sentenc e under Sec tion 841(b)(1)( B) is ten y ear s’ imprisonment, the mandatory minimum under Sec tion 841(b)( 1)(A) is twenty

y ear s’ imprisonment. At sentencing , the g overnme nt sought a nd the United States District Court for the Southern D istrict of NewYork (K oeltl, J .) imposed an enhanc ement pursua

nt to 21 U.S.C . § 841(b)( 1)(A)
. The c onviction is AFF I RMED in an ac company ing summar

y order , but we REMAND f or further proce eding s conce rningthe impact on the se ntence of the g overnme nt’s omission of Section 841(b)( 1)(A) from the pr ior felony information.

B . A L ANSEI DL ER, Ne w Y or k, NY , f or De fe nd ant- Ap pe lla

nt R amon Mo ra le s. No rm an T ra

bu lus , N e w Y or

k, NY , f or De fe nd ant- Ap pe lla

nt L uis Or ozc o- Ca sta

no s. NI CO L E W. F RI ED L AN DE R, A ssi sta nt Unit e d St a te s A tto rn e y fo r t he Southe rn

Di str ic t of Ne w Y or k, fo r L e v. L . D a ssi n, Ac tin g Un ite d St a te s A tto rn e y fo r t he Southe rn

Di str ic t of Ne w York ( Kather ine Polk Failla, Assistant United States Attorney , on the brief , New York, NY ) for Appellee
.

PER CU RIAM : We reviewthe deter

mination of the United States District Court for the Souther n District of Ne w Y or k ( Ko e ltl , J.) that th e g ov e rnme nt c omm itt e d o nly a c le ri c a l e rr or

su bje c t to
corr ection at a

ny time, see 21 U.S.C. §851(a) (1), whe n it cited only the lower of the two applicable prior-na

rcotics- felony

enhanc ements in the prior f elony information serve d onSe c tio n 8 51 (a )( 1) pr ov ide s: 1 No pe rs on

wh o s tand s c onvic te d o f a n o ff e ns e un de r t

his pa rt sh a ll be sente nced to incr ease d punishment by rea son of one or

more prior convic tions, unless before trial, or bef ore e ntry of a ple a of g uilty , the United States attorne y files an infor

mation with the court (a nd serve s a copy

of such infor

mation on the person or counsel for

the per son) stating in writing the previous convic tions to be re lied upon. Upon a showingby the United States attorne y that fac ts reg ardingprior convic tions could not with due dili g ence be obtained pr ior to trial or bef ore e ntry of a ple a of guilty , the 3 defe ndant Ramon Morale s befor e trial. We hold that a re mand is require d in order that the District Court may

deter mine whether

Morales w as pre

judiced by

the g overnme nt’s omission. Th e fe de ra l na

rc oti c s la ws re qu ir e that th e se nte nc e fo r a de fe nd ant c onvic te d o f c e rt a in
n ar c o t i c s o f

f e n s e s b e i n c r e a s e d

i f th e d e f e n d an th a s a

p r i o r f e l o n y n ar c o t i c s c o n v i c t i o n . In particula r, 21 U.S.C. § 841(b)(1) (A) g ener ally provides for

a mandatory

minimum sentenc e of ten y ear s’ imprisonment and a maximum s entenc e of life imprisonment for an of fense involving one kilog ram or mor e of he roin. Howe ver, if the defe ndant was pr eviously convicted of

“a felony drugoffe nse,” the mandatory minimum is twenty

y ear s’ imprisonment. L ikewise, unde r 21 U.S.C. § 841(b)(1)( B) , a def endant c onvicted of a

narc otics offe nse involving 100 grams or
mor e of a su bs tanc e c on ta ini nghe ro in f a c e s a mand a tor

y min imum se nte nc e of

fi ve y e ars ’ imprisonment and a maximum sentenc e of f orty year s’ imprisonment, but if he or she ha s a prior felony drugconviction, the minimum is ten y ear s and the maximum , life. As a c ondition prec edent to the c ourt’s imposition of an enhanc ed pena lty under e ither of these subsections, the United States Attorney

must — prior to trial or plea — f ile and ser

ve on the de fenda

nt an information “statingin writing the previous convic tions to be relied upon.” 21 U .S.C. § 85 1( a )( 1) ; se e Sa

pia v. Un ite d St ate s, 43 3 F .3 d 2 12 , 2 17 (2 d Ci r. 20 05 ). I f t he g ov e rnme nt f

a ils 1court may postpone the trial or the taking of the plea of guilty for a rea sonable pe riod for the purpose of obtaining suc h fac ts. Clerical mis take s in

the inf or matio n ma

y be ame nd e d at any

tim e pr ior

to the pronounc ement of se ntence
.

4 to t ime ly fi le an in fo rm atio n id e nti fy ingthe pr e vio us c onvic tio n( s) , o nly the low e r p e na lty otherwise a

pplicable may

be imposed. United States v. L aB onte, 520 U.S. 751, 754 n.1 (1997). Howeve r, “[c]lerical mistakes” can be corr ecte d at any time prior to the impositi on of sentenc e. 21 U.S.C. § 851(a)(1)
. The g overnme nt timely

filed and se rved on de fenda nt Ramon Morales a pr ior felony information ac curately

descr ibing the pr ior offe nse on which it wished to re ly . Had the g ov e rnme nt g on e no fu

rt he r, the Di str ic t Co ur

t w ou ld h ave be e n r e qu ir e d to imp os e a t le a st a twenty -y ear

sentenc e bec ause ( 1) Section 851(a )(1) does not requir e that the g overnme nt identify the statutory

section authorizing a

n enhanc ed pena lty ; and (2) a ssuming the pr oper f iling and service of an a ccur ate pr ior felony information, the trial c ourt must impos e the mandatory min imum. Howeve r, the g overnme nt went beyond acc urate ly descr ibing the pr ior felony and adde d potentially

misleading information. Afte r desc ribing the qualify ing pr ior felony

conviction, the information continued: “[a]ccor dingly , . . . the def endant[] i s subject to the enha nced pe nalties of Title 21, United States Code, Sections 841(a ), 841(b) (1)( B) , and 851.” T he indictment char g ing Mor ales c ontained two counts: a c onspiracy count involving one kilogr am or more of heroin a nd a substantive count involving 100 g rams or more of her oin. The re fer ence to Section 841(b)( 1)(B ) cle arly

informed Mora les that the g overnme nt would seek a nd the District CourtThis argument is the only one addr essed in this per c uriam opinion. We today aff irm 2 Morales’ s conviction in a summary order and g rant c ounsel for de fenda nt Luis Orozco-Castano’s motion to wit hdrawpursuant to Ander s v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967) a s well as the g overnme nt’s motion for summary aff irmance of Orozco- Castano’s judg ment of convic tion. 5 would be re quired to impose a se ntence of at lea st ten y ear s on the substantive count. Mora les contende d at sentenc ing that he went to trial be cause he believe d that the only mandatory minimum the g overnme nt would seek wa s the ten y ear s authorized by Section 841(b)( 1)(B ). 2 This argument has some for ce be cause lack of an af firmative oblig ation to convey information does not nec essar ily

excuse the g iving of

potentially

misleading incomplete information. Cf. United States v. Couto, 311 F.3d 179, 187-88 (2d Cir. 2002) (holding that althoug h we ha d previously

held that an attorney ’s fa ilure to inform his or her client of the immig ration conseque nces of

a convic tion was not ineffe ctive assistanc e, ac tively misleading the client
conce rningthese c onsequenc es wa s ineffe ctive assistanc e). Neve rtheless, be cause Section 851 does not requir e that a pr ior felony information identify the statutory

basis of a pr oposed enha nceme nt or its length, the g overnme nt urg ed at sentenc ing that its m istake in identifying the rele vant statute wa s at worst a “ cler ical” e rror , which it corr ecte d in an amende d prior fe lony information filed a

nd serve d afte r Mora les’s
c onvic tio n b ut b e fo re his se nte nc ing . T he Di str ic t Co ur t a g re e d a nd se nte nc e d M or a le s to tw e nty y ear s’ imprisonment. Tw o Ci rc uit s h ave c on sid e re d w he the r a n o mis sio n th a t c ou ld l e a d th e de fe nd ant t o be lie ve that th e g ov e rnme nt i s se e kin g a low e r s e nte nc e tha

n th e on e the g ov e rnme nt a c tua lly seeks r equire s a re medy

at sentenc ing. T he District Court’s dec ision is consist ent with the p o s i t i o no f

th e F o urthC i r c u i t
. S e e U n i t e d S t a t e s v . C amp b e l l , 9 8 0 F
. 2 d 2 4 5 ( 4 thC i r . 1 9 9 2 )
. In6

Campbell, the g overnme nt filed and ser ved a pr ior felony

information citing only

21 U.S.C. § 841(b)( 1)(C), whic h provides that “r epeat drugoffe nders ‘ shall be sentenc ed to a ter m of imprisonment of not more than 30 y ear s.’” I d. at 247 & n.2. After conviction but befor e
se nte nc ing , th e g ov e rnme nt r e a lize d it s mi sta ke and so ug ht t o ame nd

the inf or matio n to re fe r t o Section 841(b)( 1)(B ), which pr ovides a mandatory minimum penalty

of ten year s’ imprisonment fo r r e pe a t of

fe nd e rs . I d. at 24 7. Th e Di str ic t Co ur t a llo we d th e ame ndme nt, and Campb e ll
a pp e a le d. I d. at 24 8. F ind ingthat th e purp os e of Se c tio n 8 51 wa s to a ff

or d a de fe nd ant n oti c e so that he or she can showthat the enha nceme nt does not apply , the Four th Circuit held that the misstatement of the sec tion impos ing the enhanc ed pena lty was a cler ical one that could be
corr ecte d at any

time before sentenc ing. I d. at 252 & n.11. The c ourt also noted, howe ver, that “[a]t oral argument, Campbell’s attorney conce ded that his trial strategy would have be en no differ ent had the g overnme nt’s pretria l information rec ited the cor rec t sub-part.” I d. at 252. Th e F if th C ir c uit c on sid e re d a

sim ila r e rr or in a pr ior fe lony inf or matio n to be po te nti a lly
muc h mo re se ri ou s. Se e Un ite d St ate s v . A rn old , 4 67 F .3 d 8 80 (5 th C ir . 2 00 6) . In A rn old , a s in this case, the g overnme nt timely filed and se rved a

prior fe lony

information informingthe defe ndant, Marc us Arnold, that he wa s subject to enhanc ement pursua nt to 21 U.S.C . § 841(b)( 1)(B ), which w ould have subjec ted Arnold to a ma ndatory minimum sentenc e of te n y ear s’ imprisonment. I d. at 882. Prior to sentenc ing, but a fter tr ial, the g overnme nt offer ed an
ame nd e d in fo rm atio n r e pla c ingSe c tio n 8 41 (b )( 1) (B ) w ithSe c tio n 8 41 (b )( 1) (A ). I d. B e c a us e Arnold had two pr ior felony convictions, he wa s subject to a mandatory minimum of life imprisonment under Section 841(b) (1)( A). The Fifth Circuit held that one of the purpose s of Section 851' s require ment was to allow a defe ndant “ample time to determine whe ther to ente r aSurprisingly neither pa

rty cited Ar nold to this court. We, there fore , suspect that the 3 parties did not aler

t the District Court of the existence of a uthority contra ry to Campbell, which the District Court cited in its oral dec ision. After ora l argument, the g overnme nt submit ted a letter a ddressingArnold to this court. I t did so without the per mission of the court and a nnexed mate ri a l no t in c lud e d in

the or ig ina l a

pp e nd ix. B e c a

us e the purp or

te d F e de ra l Ru le of

Ap pe llate Procedur e 28(j) le tter conta ined no new a uthority and wa s, in fact, a

rgument, the cour

t’s permission should have bee n obtained. In addition, the g overnme nt should have moved to file a supplemental appe ndix rathe r than simply submitt ing it as a

supplement to its Rule 28(j) letter
. Of c ourse, the g overnme nt may ask the District Court to consider this material — alongwith any other testimony

and evide nce the parties se ek to offe r — on re mand. In addition to the Fourth Circuit, the Six th and Seventh Circuits have thus far ide ntified 4 only the ability

to prove that the pr ior felony enhanc ement is inapplicable as a pur pose of Sec tion 7 plea or g o to trial and plan his trial strate g y with full knowledg e of the conseque nces of a po te nti a l guil ty

ve rd ic t.” I d. at 88 7 ( qu oti ngUn ite d St a te s v . Wil liams, 59 F .3 d 1 18 0, 11 85 (1 1th Cir. 1995)). The Court, theref ore, r emande d in order to de termine whe ther the de fenda nt had been pr ejudiced by

the citation of the wrongstatute. I d. at 882, 888. In particula r, the District 3 Court was aske d to determine “ whether Arnold wa s awa

re be fore trial that a mandatory life sentenc e could be imposed upon his conviction; and, if not, whether , in this particular c ase, suc h ignor ance did in fact make any differ ence in the defe nse conduc t respec ting the c ase.” I d. at 888. Thus, both the Four

th and Fif th Circuits were inf

luence d by

their conc eptions of the purpose( s) of Sec tion 851(a)( 1) whe n they deter mined how to treat potentially misleading languag e in a pr ior felony information. We ag ree with the Fifth Circuit that Section 851(a )(1) has two purpose s. In Vada s v. United States, 527 F.3d 16, 23 ( 2d Cir. 2007), we he ld: Section 851' s notice re quirement re flec ts, essentially , two g oals, first “to allow the defe ndant to contest the a ccur acy of the infor

mation,” and se cond “to a llow defe ndant to have a

mple time to determine whe ther to ente r a ple a or g o to trial and plan his trial strate g y with full knowledg e of the conseque nces of a potential g uilty verdic t.” (quoting Wil liams, 59 F.3d at 1185 (11th Cir. 1985))
. 4851(a) (1). See United States v. Pritchett, 496 F.3d 537, 548 ( 6th Cir. 2007); United States v.

J ackson, 121 F .3d 316, 319 (7th Cir. 1997); cf. United States v. Weaver, 267 F .3d 231, 247 (2d Cir . 2 00 1) (s imi larl y

ide nti fy ingthe statut e ’s purp os e a s a llo wi nga de fe nd ant t

he op po rt un ity to c on te st the a lle g e d p ri or

fe lon ie s to the pr ior

vio le nt- fe lony -e nh anc e me nt) . H ow e ve r, a lon g wi th the Fif th and Second Circuits, the Eig hth, Ninth, and Eleventh Circuits have held or sug g ested that allowing the def

endant suff

icient war ning to pr epar e for

trial or to deter

mine whether

he or she wishes to proc eed to tria l is an additional purpose of Sec tion 851(a)( 1). See United States v. Severino, 316 F .3d 939, 943 (9th Cir. 2003) (e n banc) ; Wi lliams, 59 F.3d at 1185; United States v. J ohnson, 944 F.2d 396, 407 (8th Cir. 1991). 8 Be cause the Vada s court did not explain it s conclusion that one of the purposes of

a prior fe lony inf or matio n is to a llo w the de fe nd ant t o k no wl e dg e a

bly pr e pa re fo r t ri a l or de te rm ine to ple a ba rg a in, we pa

us e br ie fl y

to e xpla in why

that c on c lus ion

is s ound . Co nc e de dly , th e mos t
rea dily appar ent purpose of

Section 851(a) (1) is allowingthe def endant to def

end ag ainst the alleg ation that he has a

prior fe lony

drugconviction. This is so because the information re quired by the statute is the prior c onviction. Howeve r, the fa ilure of Sec tion 851(a)( 1) to requir e the g overnme nt to lis t the statutes th ates t ab l i s hth e e n h an ce d p en al ty i s al s o co n s i s t en twi tha c o n gre s s i o n al p urp o s e o f e n ab l i n g a defe ndant to prepa

re f or trial and/or

to decide that plea bar g aining is his or her best c ourse. Coupled with the statement of c harg es in the indictment, a de scription of the prior felony drug offe nse in the information will enable compete nt defe nse counse l to resea rch a pplicable pe nalties
and de te rm ine his or

he r c lie nt’ s maximume xpos ur e . A c c or din g ly , if the pr ior c onvic tio n is ide nti fi e d a

nd no mis le a din g state me nts are ma de , th e purp os e of a llo wi nga

de fe nd ant t o deter mine whether

to plead or to a djust his or her trial strate g y is also satisfied. More important, a

nother portion of the statute — the re quirement for notice prior to tria l
or ple a — s tr on g ly

su g g e sts that on e of

the purp os e s o f t

he statut e is t o a llo w the de fe nd ant t o d e c i d e w h e th e r

t o p l e a d o r t o p l antr i a l s tr a t e g y

i nl i g h to f

th e p e n a l t i e s h e o r

s h e m ay r e c e i v e . IfOf co urs e, b ecaus e th e ran ge of s ent enci ng set for th in S ect io n 8 41 (b) (1) (B) 5 e nc omp a sse s th e tw e nty -ye ar s e nte nc e Mo ra le s r e c e ive d, the Di str ic t Co ur t w ou ld b e fr e e to reimpose that se ntence if it determined it was r easona ble af ter c onsideration of the fac tors set forth in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a). 9 opportunity

to question the prior convic tion were all that was re quired, notice afte r convic tion but prior to sentenc ing w ould suffice
. Be cause one of the purposes of Sec tion 851(a)( 1) is to assist the defenda nt in making tria l
and ple a -b arg a ini ngde c isi on s, we ho ld t hat a pr ior fe lony inf or matio n th a t, l ike thi s o ne , c ou ld mislead a de fenda

nt as to the minimum penalty he or she would fac e af

ter a jury ’s conviction undermines Cong ressional intent. We must now determine the appropr iate re medy for the omi ssi on of Se c tio n 8 41 (b )( 1) (A ) i n th e or ig ina l pr ior fe lony inf or matio n. On e po ssi bil ity

is t o apply the dra stic remedy

provided by

Section 851(a) (1) itself a nd to prec lude the District Court from imposing a

penalty that would be author ized only by Section 841(b)( 1)(A)
. We conclude 5 that the Section 851(a )(1) reme dy is inappropriate beca

use the g overnme nt literally complied with Section 851(a)( 1) by acc urate ly

descr ibing the pr ior drugfelony . What is at stake here is not a bre ach of

the statute but rathe r an unde rmining of a congressional g oal that may or may not have pr ejudiced Mor ales. Thus, a utomatically

prec luding the tr ial court fr om applying the Section 841(b)( 1)(A) sentenc ing r ang e is not nece ssary . Neve rtheless, ignoringa misleading g ov e rnme nt s tate me nt o f p ote nti a l pe na lti e s w ou ld c re a te se ri ou s d ue pr oc e ss i ssu e s if

it interfe red w ith the defe ndant’s pre paration for trial or c aused him or he r not to plea ba rg ain for a lesser se ntence
. Th is c on c e rn

a pp are ntl y mot ivate d th e F if

th C ir c uit in i ts s e le c tio n o f a

re mand a s a
re me dy . We a g re e wi th t hat c ourt that it is n ot p os sib le to d e te rm ine the a pp ro pr iate ult imate10

re me dy , if

any , unti l it

is k no wn wh e the r t he mis take in t

he pr ior fe lony inf or matio n a dv e rs e ly
a f f e c t e d d e f e n d an t ’ s d e c i s i o nt o g o t o tr i a l o r h i s tr i a l s tr a t e g y. A l th o u g hr e m an d m ay n o ta l w ays be the a ppropriate reme dy

when potentially

misleading information conc erningthe potential enhanc ement is included in a pr ior felony information, e.g ., wher e the de fenda nt conce des that the e rr or did no t a ff e c t hi s tr ia l strate g y , s e e Campb e ll, 98 0 F .2 d at 25 2, the re c or d in thi s c a se does not allow us to deter mine with confidenc e whe ther Mora les or his counsel wa s misled or whether they would have ma de diffe rent strateg ic dec isions in t he abse nce of the omission in t he prior fe lony

information. While defense counsel c oncede d that he and the prosec utor had
conver sations prior to the filing of the prior felony information in which he w as informe d that Morales f ace d a twenty -y ear

mandatory

minimum , defe nse counse l added: tho se c onve rs atio ns pr e date d th e fi lin g of the fi rs t pr ior

fe lony inf or matio n. My re sp on se , q

uit e fr ank ly , to that, whe n th e pr ior fe lony inf or matio n w a s f

ile d w a s, well, the g overnme nt has come to its sense[s] with reg ard to a 67-y ear -old man and has de cided to show some de g ree of propor tionality ; not that a mistake had been ma de. Af

ter that, ther e wa s never

ag ain a r efe renc e any

wher e — af

ter the first prior fe lony

information was f

iled was ther e eve r a r efe renc e to 20 to life ag ain. So, we g o to trial, and we make a decision to g o to trial based of ten [sic] the g overnme nt’s position t hat the enha nceme nt shall be ten to 40. Now, a fter the d ef en d an ti s co n v i ct ed , th e go v ern m en t s ay s , n o , wa i ta m i nu t e, th e p en al ty ra n ge isn’t ten to 40. The pena lty rang e should rea lly

be 20 to life, a

nd we didn’t include that in there as a c lerica l mist ake . . . . Be cause Section 851(a) (1) doe s not require the g overnme nt to file a prior- felony information seekingthe hig hest possible penalty or indee d to file an infor

mation at all, counsel’s be lief that the g ov e rnme nt w a s e xer c isi ngits dis c re tio n in fa vo r o f h is s ixty -s e ve n y e ar o ld c lie nt i s at le a stIntere stingly , an ea rlier pr oposed ver sion of Section 851(a) (1) r equire d the g overnme nt 6 to file an infor

mation if the defe ndant had a prior fe lony

conviction or c onvictions. United States v. Ste e n, 55 F .3 d 1 02 2, 10 27 n. 10 (5 th C ir . 1 99 5) (d e sc ri bin g S.Re p. No .6 13 , 9 1s t Co ng ., 1s t Sess. 27 (1969)). Morales a lso contends that his sentence is unreasona ble. Howe ver, if the District Court 7 Correc tly imposed the mandatory

minimum , the sentenc e ca nnot be unre asonable . There fore , the cu rr en tre co rdd o es n o tal l o w u s t o ad dre s s re as o n ab i l i ty . S h o u l d M o ra l es wi s ht o ch al l en ge either the proce eding s on remand or the re asonability

of his sentenc e, he ma

y reinstate this appe al by filing a letter with the c ourt expressing this intent and attachinga copy of the District Court’s decision on re mand. 11 fac ially plausible. Henc e, this is an appropr iate ca se to rema nd in order that the District Court 6 can de termine (1) whether defe ndant under stood the citation to 841(b)(1) (B ) and the absenc e of a citation to 841(b)(1) (A) a s an indication that the g overnme nt had elec ted not to seek Sec tion 841(b)( 1)(A) ’s hig her ma ndatory minimum ; and (2) if

so, whether , defe ndant’s misappre hension adver sely aff ecte d trial strategy

or trig g ere d a dec ision to go to trial rather than to a cce pt or seek a plea ba rg ain. Amongthe many

fac tors that may

be re levant to the District Court’s dec ision is t he status of plea ne g otiations, if any , at the time the pre liminary felony information was f

iled. As sumin g that Mo ra le s’ s d e c isi on to p ro c e e d to tr ia l or

his tr ia l st

rate g y wa s a dv e rs e ly aff ecte d by a g overnme nt-ca

used misunderstandingof the minimum sentence Mor ales fa ced, the District Court may

rese ntence if it would have imposed a lowe r sentenc e on Mora les absent the
mand a tor y min imum. 7 CO NC LU SION F or the re a so ns e xpre sse d in

the a c c omp anying

summa ry or de r, Mo ra le s’ s c onvic tio n is aff irmed. We rema

nd for f urther pr ocee dings c oncer ning Mor ales’s se ntence in conforma nce with this opi nion.