NO T R EC OM M EN DE D F OR F UL L- TEX T P UB LIC AT ION F ile Nam e: 06a0740n.06 F iled: October 5, 2006 No. 05-1748 UN ITED STA TES C OU RT OF AP P EA LS F OR THE SI XT H C IR CU IT
UNI TED STATES OF AMERI CA, Plaintiff-Appellee , v. AL CUS FOREMAN, De fe nd ant- Ap pe lla

nt. )

) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ON APPEALFROM THE U NI TED STATES DI STRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DI STRI CT OF MI CHI GAN

B e fo re : N ORRI S, CO L E, and CO OK , Ci rc uit

Judg e s. COOK, Circuit J udg e. Alcus Fore man was convicted of one count of possession of a fire arm by a c on vic ted f

e lon , in vio latio n o f 1 8 U .S. C. § 92 2( g ), and se nte nc e d to fi ft

y -s e ve n mo nth s in prison. He a

ppeals both his conviction and his sentenc e. We af firm both.
I One morning , Keisha Wy nn, For eman’ s ex-girlfr iend, was r iding in a c ar dr iven by her fr ie nd , Titu s Elmo re . Th e y no tic e d a tan va n fol low ing the ir ve hic le , an d Elmo re tur ne d to e lud e it. Acc ording to Wy

nn, as they

turned, the dr iver of the v an s h o t at t h em seve ral times but missed. E l m o re s p edu

p t o es cap e, s o o nen co u n t er i n g a s h er i ff ’s v eh i cl e a n d

s t o p p i n g t o re p o rt t h e s h o o t i n g.No. 05-1748

U.S. v. Fore man

- 2 - Elmore explained to the deputy sheriff what happe ned. Duri n g t h e ex p lanation the tan va n approa ched, the n quickly

veer ed off, prompting the deputy to g ive chase. De fenda nt Fore man, who was drivingthe van, attempted to outrun the deputy (eva ding visual contac t at points) but with the aid of a backup unit, wa s eventua lly stopped.
A sea rch of the van f ailed to yield the g un or any ca s i n gs . W h en Elmore dire cted a nother deputy to the are a whe re F orema

n fired the shots, howe ver, two spent ca sings we re f ound. Retrac ing the ro ute of

the c ha se pr od

uc e d th e dis c ard e d h and g un , w ith ou t pr int s, re g istra tion, or ow ne rs hip
rec ords conne cting it to Forema n. Michig an author ities arre sted and c harg ed F orem an wi th: (1) beinga fe lon in possession of a firea rm, (2) carr

y ing a conceale d wea

pon, (3) assaulting Elmore, (4) assaulting W y nn, and (5) using a firea rm to commit a felony
. Ultimately the state dismissed its charg es in favor of F orema

n being char g ed in fe dera l court with one c ount of § 922(g ).
II At trial, Wy

nn and a numbe r of de puties testified to the fac ts describe d above. ( Elmore fa iled to testify , and F orema

n chose not to testify .) On dire ct, Wy nn said that she sawFor eman “ shooting
ou t hi s d ri ve r’ s si de wi nd ow .” On c ro ss- e xami natio n, F or e man’ s atto rn e y , Wil liam D anie l, confr onted Wy

nn with the fac t that her initial repor t to the police two hours after the incident fa iled to include any

statement that she “ever saw Mr. For eman with a gun in his hand.” Wy nn attributedNo. 05-1748

U.S. v. Fore man

- 3 - thi s to he r e mot ion a l st a te a t th e tim e. Atta c kin g Wy nn ’s c re dib ili ty

duri ngc los ingargume nt, For eman’ s attorney sug g ested that Wy nn still being “shook up” two hours af ter a n incident wher e
no one wa s hurt could not explain th e inconsist ency betwee n Wy

nn’s initial report and he r trial testimony . Daniel also mentioned t he dropped state charg es, admonishi ng the j ury to only focus on the cr ime actua lly

char g ed.
I n his r e ply , A ssi sta

nt U nit e d St a te s A tto rn e y Ha ug a bo ok re sp on de d to the se tw o d e fe ns e po int s a s f

oll ow s:
He wants to say about M s. Keisha W y nn in those two hours and twe nty -three min ute s. Wel l, s he tol d you

that sh e wa s sti ll un de r the str e ss of that sit uatio n. Us e y our reason and common sense. She left a man because of domestic violence , and now her e’s a

nother man taking some violence ag ainst her. How else is she supposed t o b e f ee l i n g u n d er

t h o s e c i rc u m s t an ce s ? An d s h e t o l d y o u h o w s h e wa s s t i l l cryi n g. He wa nts to make it se em like those are nothing more than a mosquito bite. But y ou think about the conseque nces o f t hat bec ause the mother thinks -- her e’s a mother wh o’ s a lmo st m

ur de re d only

be c a us e he ’s a

ba d s ho t. H e wa

nts to s ay , o h, we ll, there ’s no evidenc e that the c ar was struck. There is no evidence that this ge ntleman was a marksman. He wa nts to talk about t he st ate charg es and what have y ou. Be ar in mind had he bee n a better

shot, an ac curate shot, there mig ht have been a big dif fer ence in the char g ing situation. Daniel immediately

objected to this argume nt as “improper ,” and Judge Fr iedman sustained the ob je c tio n w ith in t

he he ari ngof

the jur y . H a ug a bo ok de fe nd ed hi s com ments a s b e inga “ fa ir response ,” but J udg e F riedman told him to “move on.” D aniel did n o t then see k a cur ative in st ruct io n. Ra the r, a ft e r Jud g e F ri e dma n c ha rg e d th e jur

y and e xcu se d it

to b e g in d e lib e ratio ns ,No. 05-1748

U.S. v. Fore man

- 4 - Daniel moved f

or a mistrial base d o n Ha u g abook’s state ment. J udg e F riedman r uled that the statement did not rise to the leve l of prosec utorial misconduct, holding that (1) “the issue of what ha pp e ne d in the state and oth e r ch arg e s” ha d be e n ra ise d an d (2) “ the iss ue of the c ha rg e and the du ty of the jury to only consider that the char g e which the defe ndant is char g ed with her e, I think is m ade
ve ry , v e ry c le ar i n th e jur

y ins tr uc tio ns .” Th e c ourt

de nie d th e mot ion

fo r a mis tr ia l on

that ba sis , and the jur y c on vic te d F or e man o n th e so le c ount of § 922 (g ). F or e ma n g ro un ds his a

pp e a l of his
c on vic tio n s ole ly

on the g ov e rnme nt’ s c los ingargume nt.
We reviewde novo cla ims of prosecut o ri al m i s conduct using a two- step ana ly sis. United States v. Tarwater , 3 08 F .3 d 4 94 , 5 10 -1 1 ( 6th Cir . 2 00 2) ; Un ite d S ta tes v . B ar ne tt , 398 F.3d 516, 522 (6th Cir. 2005). We first deter mine whether the prosecutor’s statement was improper , and we then deter mine whether

his conduct wa s flag rant. Tarwat er , 3 0 8 F. 3 d at 5 1 1 (c i t i n g United States v. Krebs , 788 F.2d 1166, 1177 ( 6th Cir.1986)).
For eman a sserts impropriety in Haug abook’s c omments a b o u t t h e possi bility of a murde r char g e. To a ssess the impropriety of a r emar

k, we “view the conduc t at issue within the context of t h e t rial as a

whole.” Un ite d S

tates v . B e v e rly , 369 F.3d 516, 543 ( 6th Cir. 2004) (citing United States v. Y

oung , 470 U.S. 1, 12 (1985)). “ [I ]t is also appropriate to consid er wh et h er, and to what extent, a prosecutor ’s improper a rg ument is invited by defe nse counsel’s statements.” United States v. Jac obs , 2 44 F .3 d 5 03 , 5 08 (6 th C ir . 2 00 1) ; se e als o B ar ne tt , 3 9 8 F. 3 d

at 5 2 3 (c i t i n g Jacobs ).No. 05-1748

U.S. v. Fore man

- 5 - F or e man c ite s a Se ve nth Cir c uit c a se fo r the pr op os iti on tha t “ the pr os e c uto r’ s e ng a g ingin a discussion of uncha

rg ed cr imes [i s] wholl y

inappropriate.” U

n i t e d S t a t es v . P e na ss , 9 9 7 F. 2d 1227, 1230 (7th Cir. 1993). Pe na ss involved a defe ndant char g ed with and trie d for a ssault with a dang erous we apon. Id. at 1229. Duringclosing argument, the prosec utor noted, “We’r e not her e for attempted murder, but it’s something may be someone would think about.” Id. at 1230. For the Seventh Circuit, the conc ern w as that “[h]aving be en made awa re that the g overnme nt could have br ou g ht a mor e se ri ou s c ha

rg e , th e jur

y mig ht e ve n b e lie ve th at it w a s so me ho w o bli g a te d .
. . to convict Wendall of the crime c harg ed.” Id. Her e, howe ver, the g overnme nt counters, a prosec utor may respond to “invited” rema rks to “rig ht the scale .” Y oung , 470 U.S. at 12-13.
Ha ug a bo ok ’s state me nt that “he re ’s a mot he r who ’s a lmo st mur de re d, ” se e ms a re a so na ble response to the invitation by For eman’ s counsel. Da

niel argued in his closing argument that it was
unre a so na

ble to b e lie ve tha

t Wy nn re ma ine d s uf

fi c ie ntl y dis tr a

ug ht two ho ur s af

te r the inc ide nt t o omi t c ru c ia l in fo rm a tio n f ro m he r state me nt. Ar g uin g the se ve ri ty of the tr a uma —s he ha d a lmo st been mur dere d—rea sonably responde d to Daniel’s a

rg ument and thus is not improper.
On the oth e r hand , Ha

ug a bo ok ’s state me nt t

hat “ ha d h e be e n a

be tte r s ho t, a

n a c c ur a te sh ot, t h e r e m i g h th a v e b e e na

b i gd i f f e r e n c e i nt h e c h a

r g i n g s i tu a t i o n ” f

a l l s c l o s e r t o t h e l i n e s e tb y Pe na ss. Charg ed only

with being a fe lon in possession of a firearm and not attempted murder, F orema n plausibly argues (consistent with the holding of our sister circ uit in Pe na ss ) that foc using F orema n’s jur y on the fa c t tha t he mig ht h a ve be e n c ha rg e d w ithmur de r c ou ld p re ssu re a jur y to c on vic t hi mNo. 05-1748

U.S. v. Fore man

- 6 - of the much le sser fe lon-in-possession offe nse. I ndeed, the Gover nment does not appe ar to a rg ue that the s tatement would be proper on its own; rathe r, i t argues t hat the stateme nt fairly responde d to Daniel’s c losing a

rg ument. We vie w Haug abook’s rema rk as satisfying the impropriety prongof Tarwat er , b u tFo re m an co n ce d es , an d we agr ee , t h at i tfa i l s t h e f l agr an cy p ro n g.
F or no n- fl a g ra

nt i mpr op e r c on du c t, w e a pp ly the thr e e -p art Be

ss test to de termine whe ther Ha ug a bo ok ’s mis c on du c t w arr ants re ve rs a l. Un ite d S tates v . B ess , 593 F.2d 749, 753- 57 (6th Cir. 1979). Unde r the Be

ss test, we rever se a conviction for prosec utorial misconduct only if “(1) proof of def endant’ s g uilt is not overwhe lming, and ( 2) d efense counse l objected, a nd (3) the tr ial court failed to c ure the err or with an admonishment to the jury .” Un ite d S tates v . Ca rro ll , 26 F.3d 1380, 1385-86 (6th Cir. 1994).
The e v i d en ce aga inst Forema n was not over

whelming beca

use it was not “f

ar hig her tha

n
mere sufficie ncy to uphold conviction.” United States v. Lane , 474 U.S. 438, 450 n.13 (1986). No phy sical evide nce ( residue or fing erpr ints) linked him to the gun or the casings, a nd no reg istration
rec ords s h o we d he owne d it. The only person to see For eman with the gun was Wy nn, and her testimony was somewhat inconsistent. The deputy sheriff chasingFor eman ne ver sa w him throw the g un from the va

n, though he lost sight of him for only fiftee n sec o n d s . T h us, beca use the evidenc e ag ainst Fore man was not ove rwhe lming, we find the first ele ment of Be ss satisfied.
The sec ond element of Be ss require s the defe nse attorney to ha ve objected at trial an d the parties a g ree that Daniel did.No. 05-1748

U.S. v. Fore man

- 7 - The third ele ment of the Be ss test require s reve rsal if “the tria l court fa iled to cure the er ror with an admonishment to the jury .” Car ro ll , 26 F .3 d a t 13 85 -8 6. “ B oth the tim ingand the fi rmne ss of the trial court’s admonition are re levant in eva luating whether an admonition has bee n sufficie nt to miti g ate pr ejudicial er

ror.” United States v. Solivan , 9 37 F .2 d 1 14 6, 11 57 (6 th C ir . 1 99 1) ; se e als o United States v. Galloway , 31 6 F.3d 624, 633 (6th Cir. 2003) (“We have held that for a curative admonishment to be sufficie nt, it must be swift and in pr oportion to the potential harm.” ). In Be ss , we r ever sed a c onviction b ec au s e the prosec utor’s statements “ wer e promptly objected to a

nd the trial judg e fa iled to give immediate c u ra t i v e ad m o n ishment.” 593 F.2d at 757. I n Galloway , the defe ndant “objec ted immediately afte r the pros ec u tor’s statement a nd the judg e sustained the ob j e c t i o n , s t a t i n g : ‘ S u s t a i n e d
. N o e v i d e n c e . M o v e o n . ’ ” 3 1 6 F
. 3 d a t6 3 3
. W e f

o u n d “ h is admonition was sufficie ntly firm to ameliorate t he non-flag rant conduct” and held that it “satisfie[d] the cur ative instruction re quirement unde r Be ss .” Id.
The incide nt in Fore man’s trial wa s near ly identical to the one in Galloway . I mme diate ly afte r Ha ug abook im p ro perly

commented on the “ big dif fer ence in the char g ing situation,” the f o l l o w i n g e x c h an g e t o o k

p l a c e w i t h i nt h e h e ar i n g o f t h e j u r y:
Mr . D anie l: Y our H on or , th a t is e nti re ly imp ro pe r a

rgume nt t o s ub

je c t li ke that. The Court: Sustained. Mr. Haug abook: I t’s fair r esponse. The Court: L et’s move on. I ’ll sustain the objection, and let’s move on. Mr . H a ug a bo ok : [c on tin

ue s w ithhis re bu tta l argume nt]No. 05-1748

U.S. v. Fore man

- 8 - J udg e F riedman’ s admonition to t he jury mirrore d the one the district judg e g ave in Galloway . T his should have made clea

r to a reasona

ble jury that Haug abook wa s arguing some thing imprope r and should “move on” to a

nother line o f arg ument. Additionally , while “the pr osecutor’ s misconduct
w a s g r e a t” in Be

ss , 593 F.2d at 757, Haug abook’s wa s not. W e find both the misconduct a nd the
cu re i n Fo re man’s trial fa r closer to Galloway than Be

ss , and we hold that the defe ndant has not satisfied the third eleme nt of the Be ss test. Haug abook’s comment does not war rant rever sal under Be ss , and we thus affirm F orema n’s conviction.
III
For eman a lso appea ls his sentence, c laiming that t he district cour t erre d by adding a four

leve l § 2 K2
. 1 (b )( 5 ) e n h an ce m en twi t h o u tp ro p er l y fi n d i n g h e c o m m i t t edt h e c o n d u ct u n d erly

ing tha t
e nh anc e me nt.
The Prese ntence Report (PSR) re commended a base -off ense le vel of twe nty

and a f our-leve l § 2 K2. 1(b) (5 ) e nh anc e me nt f or us ingand

po sse ssi nga

fi re arm or a mmunit ion

in c onne c tio n w ith another felony offe nse (F elonious Assault), for a total offense level of t wenty -four . When paired wi th F or e man’ s Cr imi na l H ist or y Ca te g or y I I , th e g uid e lin e ra

ng e c a lc ulate d to fi ft

y -s e ve n to
se ve nty -o ne m o n t h s . F o r e m ano b j e c t e d t o t h e f o u r - l e v e l e n h an c e m e n to nt h e s o l e g r o u n d t h a tit violated Blakely v. W

a s hington , 5 42 U. S. 2 96 (2 00 4) , in a smu c h a s h e ha d n ot b e e n c ha rg e d w ith fe lon iou s a ssa

ult
.No. 05-1748

U.S. v. Fore man

- 9 - At sentenc ing, which occur red soon afte r the Supreme Court’s de cision in Booke r v. United States , 543 U.S. 220 (2005), Daniel noted that his c lient ha d never been char g ed wi t h fe lonious assault and sug g ested that a s a re sult of the Bo ok e r decision, the c ourt could exercise its broad dis c re tio n in

de te rm ini ngwh a t c on du ct sh ou ld fac tor int o it s se nte nc e . Jud g e F ri e dma n h e ld § 2K2.1(b)( 5) to be applicable and the r esulting guideline ra ng e appr opriate in F orema n’s ca se. He sentenc ed F orema

n to the minimum of the ra ng e.
After the Supreme Court invalidated the section of the Sentenc ing Re form Ac t (SRA) that provided the standard for appellate re view, Booke r , 543 U.S. at 260 (excising 18 U.S.C. § 3742(e) ), it inst ructe d appellate courts to re view senten ce s fo r re asonable ness. Id. at 261. This court d i s tinguishes be tween pr ocedur al and substantive unr easona bleness. See, e .g. , U

n ite d S ta te s v. Da v is , 4 58 F .3 d 49 1, 49 5 (6 th Cir
. 20 06 ). We i nv a lid a te a se nte nc e a s p ro c e dura lly unre a so na

ble wh e n th e se nte nc ingc ourt did no t c a lc ulate t he guide lin e ra ng e c or re c tly , a s F or e man c omp la ins
. Id. At the outset, we dispense with the g overnme nt’s claim that For eman waived a ny objection to t he e nh anc e me nt t

hr ou g h a c on c e ssi on

by c ouns e l at se nte nc ing
. Th e g ov e rnme nt f a ils to convince us that counsel’s state ment, coming a fe w months after Booke r and taken in the context of the entire argument, amounts to a knowing relinquishment of F orema n’s rig hts. See U

nited States
v . A p a r co-Cente no , 2 8 0 F. 3 d 1 0 8 4 , 1 0 8 8 (6 t h C i r. 2 0 0 2 ) ( ci t i n g United States v. Olano , 5 07 U. S.No. 05-1748

U.S. v. Fore man

- 10 - 725, 732-33 (1993) ). More over, F orema n himself specific ally

objected to the Pre sentenc e Report’ s
r e c o m m e n d a t i o ns e t t i n g t h e o f f e n s e l e v e l a tt w e n t y- f

o u r , r a t h e r

t h ant w e n t y.
B e c a us e F or e man o bje c te d to the § 2 K2 .1 (b )( 5) se nte nc ing e nh anc e me nt in the dis tr ic t c ourt , we r eview de novo his miscalculation claim. Un ite d S tates v . Ti ll , 434 F.3d 880, 885- 86 (6th Cir. 20 06 ). Un de r t

he SRA, the Go ve rnme nt m us t pr ov e , “ by

a pr e po nd e ra

nc e of the e vid e nc e , th a t a particula r sentenc ing e nhance ment applies.” United States v. Dupre e , 323 F.3d 480, 491 (6th Cir. 2003). Althoug h the Su p reme Court excised the sections of the SRA making the Guidelines mandatory , it left intact the re st of the Act to func tion independently
. Booke r , 543 U. S
. at 2 59. B e c a us e a dis tr ic t jud g e mus t c or re c tly c a lc ulate the g uid e lin e ra

ng e fo r a se nte nc e to b e pr oc e dura lly
re a so na ble , the Go ve rnme nt’ s d

uty to p ro ve the fa c ts und e rl yingthe e nh anc e me nt s ur viv e s Booke r . See, e .g. , Un ite d S

tates v . B e rn al-

Av e ja , 414 F .3 d 625 , 627 (6 th Cir . 200 5) (h old ing thi s b ur de n s til l
a pp lie s) ; United States v. Y agar , 404 F.3d 967, 972 ( 6th Cir. 2005) (same)
. SentencingGuideline § 2K2.1( b)(5) provides, in re levant par t , “I f the de fenda

nt used or p o s s e s s e d an y f i r e ar m o r a m m u n i t i o ni nc o n n e c t i o nw i t h an o t h e r f e l o ny o f f e n s e . . . i n c r e a s e b y 4 levels.” The P SR’s “Of

fense Conduct” section reported that Fore man fire d sever al shots at Wy nn and Elmore’s vehicle. The PSR rec ommended the § 2K2.1(b)( 5) incre ase for felonious assault. At the sentenc ing he aring , J udg e Friedman concluded “that the report as written was applica ble,” a nd

“ that 2K2. 1( b) (5 ) i s a

pp lic a ble a s to the fo ur

po int s. ” He did no t explic itl y fi nd any fa c ts t hat w ou ld
su pp or t a pp lyingthe e nh anc e me nt.No. 05-1748

U.S. v. Fore man

- 11 - F e d. R. C ri m. P . 3 2( i) (3 ) r e qu ir e s any pa rt y wh o disa g re e s with

fa c ts i n th e PSR to ob

je c t to that fa c t sp e c if

ic a lly
. We h a ve re pe a te dly ma de c le ar t

hat Ru le 32 (i )( 3) surv ive s Booke r . See, e .g. , Un ite d S tat es v . D e Car lo , 434 F .3 d 447 , 4 60 (6 th C ir . 2 00 6) ; United States v. Adk ins , 429 F.3d 631, 63 2- 33 (6 th C ir . 2 00 5) . I f a de fe nd ant a dmi ts a

fa c t, t he jud g e ha s n oth ing to f ind , p re - o r p os tBooke r . Thus, if For eman a dmitted the fac t s i n the PSRby failing to object to them, the district
c ourt ha d n o d uty to m a ke a

fi nd ingof

fa c t.
For eman did n o t o b

ject to the fac ts in t

he PSR th a t he us e d th e g un in c onne c tio n w ith
c omm itt ingfe lon iou s a ssa ult . H e ob

je c te d to the of

fe ns e le ve l a s f

oll ow s: (5 ) Q uo te #1 8: F ir e arm was us e d in c onne c tio n w ithano the r f e lony of fe ns e (F elonious Assault). I ncre ased by 4 levels ac cordingto Blake ly v. Washington. I was not cha

rg ed with as a count by Gra nd J ury or J ury and I

have only

one count on my I ndictment. There was no other char g es that the jury had to convict me on acc ording to prosecutor

& Judge Be rnar d A. Fr iedman.
F oreman ar g ue d in c or

re c tly that Blak

e ly cate g orica lly

prohibited the enha

nceme nt rather

than disputing the fa cts conc erninghis weapon use . He c ontested fa ctual inac cura cies in other pa rts of the PSR, inc lud ingdis putin g wh e re the g un wa s f ound . B e c a

us e F or e man a dmi tte d, purs ua nt t o Ru le 32 , th e fa c tua l c ir c ums tanc e s su pp or tin g the e nh anc e me nt by fa ili ng to obj e c t to the m, a nd be c a us e he ra ises no other objec tion to his sentenc e, we find no err or in his sentence
. IV
For the fore g oing r easons, we aff irm both Fore man’s convic tion and his sentence
.