## 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. 08

- 3287 U NIT ED S TATE S OF A MERI CA, P la intif f-A pp ellee, v . J EFFE RYD EA N , 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 S outhernDi stricto f Indian a, N ew Alb any D ivisi on. No . 4:06- cr-0023- S EB- MG N- 14

— Sarah E vansBarker, Judge

. A RG UE D M AY 27, 2009

— D ECI DE D J UL Y 31, 2009

Befo re C UDAH Y, R IPPLE a nd W OO D , C ircu it Judges . R IPPLE, Cir cu i tJudge

. Afte r an exte nsi ve i nvest i gat i on o fa l ar g e dr ugdi st r ibut i o n o r g an i za ti o n, the Go ve r nm en t c h ar ge d Jeffe ry D ea n an d se ve ra l oth er ind iv i d u a ls wi thc o ns pi r i ng to d i st r ibut e an d t o po ss es s wi thi nt en t to distribute m etham phetam i ne. A j ury f ound M r. Dean gui l t y o fthe c o ns pi r a c y, a nd the di s t r i c tc o ur ts e nt enced hi m t o 1 5 6 mo nths ’ i mpr i s o nme nt
. Mr
. De a n no w a ppeal s. H e cl ai m s that the ev i dence pres ented attr i alwas2 N o. 08

- 3287 i nsuffi ci ent t o supp or t the j ury’ s v er dict, r esul ti ng i n a f atal var i ance between the cri m e char ged and the offense prove d at t ri al

. H e also chal l enges the cour t’ s dete rm i nati on o fhi s ba se off ense l eve l and i ts appli cat ion o fa tw ol ev ele nhan ce m en t f o r o bs tr uct i o n o fj us ti ce . F o r the re aso ns se t f or th be l ow, w e a ffirm M r. Dean’ s co nvi cti on, vac ate hi s s entence a n d r em and his cas e f or r es en te nc i ngi n a cc o r dan ce wi ththi s o pi ni o n.

I B AC KGR OUND A . Th e Fact s Pr esent ed atTr i al and M r . D ean’ s Convi ct i on I n 200 7, a gr and j ury re tu rn ed a m ult i

- count ind i ctm en t ag ains t M r . De ana nd s ev er alo th eri ndi vi dual s who al l eg edl y ha d pa r ti ci pat ed i n a dr ug di st r ibut i o n o r g an i zati on. I n Count Io fthe i nd i ctm ent, M r. D ea n was ch ar ged with conspi ri ng to poss ess with intent to dist ribute a nd co nspir i ng to di str ibute m etham phetam i ne. M r. Dean pl eaded not gui l ty to the c harg ed conspi ra cy. At t r i al, the Go ve r nm en t pr es en te d e vi den ce o fthe or gani zati on a nd o perat i on o fa l ar ge conspi ra cy engag ed in d ist rib u tin g m e t h a m p h et am in e a n d ot h er d ru gs in seve ra l st ate s. S peci alA gent A rno l d Fi tzg er al d, w ho w as i nvol ved i n the i nvest i gat i on, te sti fi ed t h at the l eadero f the c onspi ra cy’ s Ind i ana o peration s was a m an nam ed Fr anci sco Ortuno-Vasquez. Ortuno- Vasquez r ecei ved l ar ge quanti ti es ofm etham phetam i ne and other drugs on a weekl y basi s; he woul d then del i verthe drugs t oN o. 08

- 3287 3 d istribu tors in I nd iana a n d K en tu cky. On e d istribu tor, J ose fi na Rebal l or, w as i n f re quent conta ct w i th O rt u n oVasquez and r egul ar l y r ecei ved pound q uanti ti es of m etham phetam i ne fro m hi m . R. 78 at 154. R ebal l orl i ved w i th herbr othe r- i n-l aw , A ar on U nger, wh o del i ver ed dr ug s an d c o l l ec te d m o ne y o n Re ba l l o r ’ s be ha l f

. Age nt Fitzgerald tes tified th at an oth er i nd icted cocon sp irator, Todd Si pe, adm i tte d t o bei ng prese nt on tw o or three occa si ons w hen U ngerm et M r. De an to exchange ei th ermeth am phe ta m i ne o r mone y . Acco r di ngt o Age nt F i tz g er al d, S i pe al so a d m itt ed th athe ha d r ec ei ve d m etham phetam i ne fro m M r. Dean. R. 78 at 193- 94, 19 7- 98. A gent Fi tz geral d fur therte sti fi ed that, duri ng a sea rch o fUngera nd Re ba l l o r ’ s r es i den ce , l aw e nf o r ce m en t officers foun d an ind ex card in U ng er’s room ; t h e c ard l i ste d the nam e “ Speedy, ” tw o dates and seve ra l num ber s. A gent Fi tzg er al d explained that the ind ex car d w as a l edg erus ed to r ec o r d a d rug d ebt

. Acco r di ngt o the l e dg e r , S p e e d y h a d r e c e i v e d t we l v e o u n c e s o fme th a mphetam i ne and owed U nger$29, 850; on Se ptem ber1, 20 06, S peedymade a pay m en t o f$ 13 , 00 0, r edu ci ngthe a m o unt o wed t o $ 16 , 85 0. Dur i ngthe sa m e se ar cho fUnge r a nd Re b a l l o r ’ s r e s i d e n c e , i n v e s t i g a t o r s f o u n d a n d s e i z e d a phone bel ongi ng to U nger . M r. Dean’ s phone num ber wa s s t o r e d i n th e p h o n e ’ s me mo r y u n d e r th e n a me “S p ee d y.” N ex t, the Gov ernm en t ca l l ed Unge r, who t es ti fi ed ab o ut M r. D ea n ’s in vo lve m en t in t h e c on sp ira c y. U n ge r ac kn ow le d g e d t ha t he an d Reb all or l ived i n th e residen ce w he re the l edgerand phone w er e f ound. H e s tat ed that Rebal l or4 N o. 08

- 3287

Lat er, Spe c i al Agen tM ar k S laug ht ert es t i fi ed thathe 1 deb ri efed U nger afterhis arre st
. At the deb ri efing, Un ger i n d i c a t e d th a t h e b e g a n d e l i v e r i n g d r u g s f o r R e b a l l o r i n S e p t e mber 2006. The tex t m es sages , w hich w ere se nt i n N ovem ber 2006, r ead 2 a s f ol l ows : “ Th e e x j ust show ed u p. W e ’ r e g oi ng t o do s ome thi ng tom orr ow n o m a t t e r wha t
. ” R. 7 8 a t1 8 6
. “ S ho ul d b e pretty soon. ” Id. “O n m y w ay. Y ou go od ?” Id. “I’ m here

. ” Id. (co n tin u ed ...) pai d hi m a tho us an d do l l ar s a w eek to de l i ve r dr ug s an d to col l ect m oneyo n herbehal f

. U ngeri denti fi ed M r. Dean as o ne o fRe ba l l o r ’ s cus to m er s an d i ndi ca te d tha t he knew M r. Dean by the nam e “ Speedy. ” Un gerfurther te st i fi ed th at, b eg i nni ngi n the su m m ero f2 00 6 an d en di ngi n Nov embe r 2006 , he woul d de l i ve r abo ut 1 tw el ve ounces ofm etham phetam i ne perweek t o M r. Dean ato ne o ft wo l o ca ti o ns . H e s ta te d tha t he woul d “ fr o nt ” th e d ru gs to M r. D ea n ; in ot h er w or d s, h e e x p lain ed , he w ou ld del i vera quanti ty of d rugs to M r. Dean, and M r. Dean w oul d pay hi m fo r thos e drugs ata l ate r date. U nger i denti fi ed th e in dex car d fo und athi s r esi dence as a re cor d of M r. D ean’ s $ 29, 850 drug debt and his part i al paym ent of that debt on Se ptem ber 1. U n ge r al so iden tified th e ph one s e iz ed by l aw enforcem en t officers as hi s o wn; he also v er i fi ed th atM r . De an ’ s pho ne numberwas s to r ed i n the pho ne ’ s m emor y un derthe nam e “ Speedy. ” In additi on, he s tat ed that te xt m ess age s sen t from M r. D e a n ’s n um ber an d stored i n h is ph one ’s m em or y were r efer ences to m etham phetam i ne tr ansactions w it h M r. De an . I n resp ons e to the G overn m en t’s 2N o. 08

- 3287 5

(
. . . c on t i nu e d) 2 at 187. “W hat’ s up ?” Id. “H el lo. ” Id. “V an wouldn’ tst ar tonthe w ay. ” Id. “Itw as 5. 5 s hort. ” Id. “D id you get that ?” Id. At one poi nt, M r. Deanw as as ke d whathe di d with the 3 m etham phetam ine he purchased f rom U nger, and M r. D ean r e pl i e d “ I wou l d de a l ‘ e m . ” R. 7 8 a t2 8 4
. Ne i the r p a r t y c on s i d- (co n tin u ed ...) est i m ati on that he had d eli ver ed thi rt een o r f ourt een po un ds o fme tha mphe t a mi ne t o Mr
. De a n, Ung e r r e pli ed “pro babl y. ” R. 78 at 248. Cor po r alBr ad J o ne s te st i fi ed ab o uta c o nv er sa ti o n h e had w i th M r. Dean o n N ove m ber24 , 20 06. H e s tat ed that, dur i ng tha t c o nv e r s a t i o n, he ha d a s k e d M r . Dean w hetherhe was i nvol ved i n the dist ribu tio n of i l l ega l drugs. M r. Dean re sponded that, ato ne ti m e, he ha d been i n v o l v e d wi th a l a r g e Me x i c a n d r u go r g a n i z a t i o n . He al so adm i tte d that he o w ed m or e than $8 0,0 00 to that or gani zati on. On one occa si on, M r. Dean st ate d, a deal er car ry i ng ten pound s of m etham phetam i ne had c om e t o hi s re si dence; he ha d rec ei ved one pound o fm etham phetam i ne fro m the deal er . M r. D ea n al so tol d C or pora l J ones that, i n the w eek s pre cedi ng the i r m ee ti ng, he ha d obt ai ned and sol d an ounce ofm etham phetam i ne. A fterthe Gover nm ent r est ed i ts case , M r. Dean tes ti fi ed i n h i s o wn d e f e n s e . Al th o u g h h e c o u l d n o t r e me mb e r t he detai l s of the N ove m ber24 co nver sat i on with Corpor al J ones , and, ther ef or e, co uld n ot d i re ctl y r efute Cor pora l J ones ’ te sti m ony, M r. D ean d i d stat e that he neverdi str ibut ed m etha m phe ta m i ne . He furthe r t es ti fi ed th athe 36 N o. 08

- 3287

(
. . . c on t i nu e d) 3 er ed thi s i nc ons i s t en c y i n t estim ony as s i gni fi c ante nough to m en tion , so w e w ill treat this testim on y as a m isstatem en t. A ccording t o M r. Dean, prior to Aug ust 2006, he purchase d 4 m etham phe t am i ne fro m a m an nam ed Bi l l y. The di s t ri c tc our tt ook thi s m ot i on underadvi s em en tan d 5 s t at ed th at i twoul d rul e aft erc l os i ng a rg um en t s , butthe appe l l at e re c or d does no tc ont ai n the c our t ’ s r ul i ng. w as hi ghl y t ol er ant o fthe drug a nd used o verthr ee gr am s of m etham phetam i ne per day. H e sta ted that, in A ugust o r Se pt e mber 2 006, he b ega n purchasi ng o ne- ounce quanti ti es of m etham phetam i ne f ro m U nger ; he d eni ed 4 havi ng r ecei ved one

- pound quant itie s o fm etham phetam i ne. Cryst alRobi ns, M r. Dean’ s g i rl f rie n d, cor ro bor ate d M r. Dean’ s t est i m ony: S he st ate d t h at M r. Dean was add i cted t o m etham phetam i ne and thathi s a dd i cti on was seve re . Robi ns as ser ted thatM r. Dean used, but did not sel l, m etham phetam in e. She adm i tte d, how eve r, that M r. De a n c o ul d h a v e k e pth i s dr ugde a l i nga s e c re t f r o m he r . R obins al so t es ti fi ed th at, pr i o r t o 2 00 4, s he ha d r ec ei ve d m etha m phe ta m i ne fr o m M r . De an . A t th e c on c lu sio n o f t h e e vid en c e, th e p ar tie s re st ed th eir case s, and M r. Dean re new ed hi s m oti on f or a d irecte d ve r di ct
. The c ou rti ns tr uct ed th e j ur y tha t, t o fi nd

5 M r . De a n g ui l t y o fthe c r i me c ha r g e d, i tmus tc o nc l ude beyo nd a re aso nabl e doubt that “a c onsp i ra cy exi ste d to posse ss w i th the i ntent to dist ribute a nd to di stribu te m et h am p h et am in e,” an d th at M r. D ea n “k n ow in glyN o. 08

- 3287 7 becam e a m em bero fthe con sp ira cy w i th an i ntenti on to furtheri t. ” R. 43 at 20. The co urt furtheri nstr ucted the j ury that, wh en d et er m i ni ng wh ethera conspi ra cy exi ste d, i t co uld co nsi der, am ong othe r thi ngs, “whether the par ti es had a standardi zed way ofdoi ng busi ness ove r ti m e” and “w hetherthe sal es w er e o n cr edi t o r consi gnm ent. ” Id. at2 5. A fterdel iber ati on, the j ury re turned a guilty ve rdi ct a gai nst M r. Dean. I n a s peci al fi n d i n g, th e j u r y f o u n d th a tth e wei g h to fth e me th a mphetam i ne was l ess than 500 gr am s.

B. Sente ncing Pr ocee dings At the s en te nc i nghe ar i ng, M r . De ano bj ec ted to the com pu tat i on o fh is b ase o ffense l eve l i n the prese ntence re p or t (“P SR ”). A c c or d in g t o t h e P SR, M r. D ea n w as fu lly aw ar e t h at the conspi ra cy i nvol ved the dist ributi on o f m or e than 150 ki l ogr am s o fm et ham phetam i ne, an am ou nt that corresp ond s to a base offense level of38. M r. Dea n noted thatthe j ur y f o und h i m r es po ns ibl e f o r no m o r e th an5 00 g r ams o fmeth amphet ami ne , a nd he ur g ed th e co ur t to a pply a low erb as e o ffen se l ev el

. The cour t o ver rul ed the objec ti on a nd al l owed the offense lev elto st and at 3 8, co ncl ud i ng tha t “ 38 i s a r elia b le es t i mat e o fthe a mou nto fme tha mphe t a mi ne tha twas be i ngde al t bythe mem be r s o fthe c ons pi r ac y, i nc l udi ng U ngerand S ipe. ” R. 77 at 38. The co urt then i nd i cate d that i t l ater w oul d app l y a dow nw ar d adj ustm ent “ to ta ke int o a c c ou n t t h e fa c t t h at itw a s p r o b ab ly n otall f or ese eabl e t o M r. Dean, and i n any eve nt, hi s invol vem e n t w as les s a n d th e jur y h as co n c lu d ed th at it8 N o. 08

- 3287

Th e di s t r i c tc ou r ts a i d: 6 I pr om i s ed thatI would t ake i nt o a c c ountthe f ac tthatthe j ur y de t e r m i ne d t ha tth e gov e r nme nth a d p r ov e n be yo nd a reas onab le d o u bt thatthe cons piracy ofw hich you w ere fou nd gu ilty w as no m or e tha n 5 00 gra m s of m eth am p he ta m i n e . So w e started ou t, the offen se lev el w ith th e full (co n tin u ed ...) wa s l e s s . . . b y a t t r ib u t i n g to hi m th e 5 0 0 g r a ms am ount. ” Id. M r. Dean al so obj ecte d to the PS R’s r eco m m en dati on that a t w o- l eve l o bstr ucti on o fju st i ce e nhancem ent b e appl i ed. The c o ur t appl i ed th e enha nc ement, c o nc l udi ng that M r. D ean unequi voca l l y obstr ucted j usti ce when he s t a t e d , u n d e r o a th, th a th e h a d n e v e r s o l d me th a mp h et am in e. Id

. at28
. A fterapply i ng the two- l eve l o bstr ucti on enhancem ent, the cour t a pp l i ed a tw o- l eve l r educti on b as ed on its co n c lu sio n th at M r. D ea n w as a m in or p ar tic ipant i n the conspi ra cy, r esul ti ng i n an adj u sted offe n se lev el of 3 8. Id. at67
. N ext, the cour t a cknowle dged that M r. Dean’ s ba se o ff en se l ev el“ [ to o k ] i nt o a cc o untthe ful l s co pe o f

. . . the am ount [o fd rugs ] i nvol ved i n the conspi ra cy. ” Id. at 68 . I t fu rt h er rec og n ize d th at t h e j u ry fo u n d M r. D ea n res p on sib l e f or les s t h an 50 0 g ra m s o f m et h am p h et am in e. In con side ration of th e jury’s find ing, th e cou rt ap p li ed a f ou rl eve l r educti on, ther eby “spl i t[ ti ng] the differ ence” betw een th e bas e o ff en se l ev elf o r a l l the dr ug s i n the c o nspi ra cy and the hi ghesto ffense l eve l thati t be l i eve d to b e s u p p or te d by th e jur y’s ve rd ict
. Id. a t 68- 69
. The 6N o. 08

- 3287 9

(
. . . c on t i nu e d) 6 am o u n t o f the con sp iracy equ atin g to a 3 8 o ffen se lev el. I’ m sorr y thi s is so tec hnical, bu t the lawy ers w ill u n d ers t a nd

. W e s tar ted out with the off ense l ev el of38 wh ic h takes i nt o a c c ountthe ful l s c ope ofthe c ons pi ra c y dr ugs an d t he am ounti nvol ved i n the c ons pi rac y . B u ti fyou l ook i n the gui de l i n e s t o fi n d th e g u i de l i n e r a n g e th a te q u a t e s t o t he 50 0 g ram s, it’ s a lev el 30

. A nd so in an eff or t to tak e into ac c ountthos e t wo f ac t or s , I ’ l l s pl i tthe d i ff er en c e, an d al l ow a f our - l eve l r educ t i on. Let m e m ake s ure you u nd ers tand. W e s tar ted w ith a 38. The 50 0 l eve l woul d equal anoff en s e l evel of30
. And s o I wil l c ut that i n hal f i n t er m s of the off en s e l eve l , and a l l ow a fo u r -l e v e l r e d u c t i o n to ta k e in t o a c c o u n tth e ju r y ’s ver di c tan d t he di s t i nc t i on the j ur y m ade w i th re s pec tt o the g o v er n m en t’s p ro o f. I wantt o r epe athe re thatthe Cour ti s no tbound by the jury ’ s d ecision , b u t it seem s fair to m e. It seem s reaso na b le t o m e t o m ake anadj us t m en ti n l i ghtofthe i r fi ndi ng. R
. 77 at 68- 69. cour t then appli ed a o ne- l eve l r educti on i n re cogni ti on of th e f ac t th atM r . De an ’ s addi ct i o n, no t g r ee d, was the dr i vingf o r ce b eh i nd h is p ar ti ci pat i o n i n the o ffen se . The cou rt also state d that i t acce p ted th e PSR as circu lated “[i ]n allthe resp ects that [ ha d ] not been ad d ressed a nd otherw i se ru l ed upon by the co urt. ” Id. at 40. T hu s, M r. De an ’s adj usted off ense l eve l w as set at 33, and hi s c rim in al hi sto rycat ego rywas I I
. Th e c ou rt se ntenced M r. Dean to 156 m onths’ i m p ris onm ent, a sente nce atthe l ower end ofthe re com m ended sentenci ng r ange.10 N o. 08

- 3287 II DI S C US S I ON M r . De anr ai se s th r ee a r g um en ts o n a ppea l : F i r st, he cl ai m s th at th er e i s an i m per m i ss ibl e va r i an ce b etwee n the cri m e char ged i n the i nd i ctm ent a nd the evi dence presen ted at tri al. Secon d , he ch all en ges th e d is trict court ’s de t e r mi n a t i o n o fth e a p p l i c a b l e b a s e o ffe n s e l e v e l

. T h i r d, he a s s e r t s thatth e di s t r i c tc o ur te r r e d wh e n i ta pp l i e d a t wo - l e v e l e n h a n c e me n tf o r o b s t r u c t i o n o fj u s t i c e . We sh al l a ddr es s ea cho fthe se a r g um en ts i n tur n.

A. M r. Dean subm its that ther e i s a f atalvar i ance b etween the c ri m e char ged i n the indict m ent a nd the evi dence prese nted at tr i al

. A var i ance o ccurs “when the f acts p ro ve d attria l d iffer from th os e alleg ed in t h e in d ict m en t.” U n i ted S ta tes v. Lo ng street, 5 67F
. 3d 91 1, 9 18 ( 7th Ci r. 2009 ) ( ci ti ng U nited St ates v. Grif fi n , 49 3 F
. 3d 856, 86 2 ( 7th Cir
. 20 07) )
. To pr eva il on hi s v ar i ance c l ai m , M r. Dean m u st sh ow bo th (1) th at th e evid en c e pr es en te d at tria l d id not supp or t the j ury’ s fi nd in g th at he j oined the char ged conspi ra cy and (2 ) thathe w as prej ud i ced by the v ar i ance. Se ei d. Thus, we tr eatM r. Dean’ s v ar i ance c l ai m as a c h alle n ge t o th e su fficie n c y of t h e e vid en c e. Se ei d. ; U nited Sta tes v. M essino , 382 F. 3d 704, 70 9 ( 7th Ci r. 2 004). W hen re vi ew i ng such a chal l enge, we vi ew the evi dence presente d at t ri aland draw al l r eas onabl e infe re nces f ro m th ate vi den ce i n the l i g ht m ostf av o r ab l e to the Go ve r nm en t. U ni t e d S t at e s v. Adki ns , 274 F.3d 444 , 449 (7th C ir.N o. 08

- 3287 11 2001 ). W e sha ll“overtu rn a con viction only i f th e record conta i ns n o evi dence fro m wh i ch a re aso nabl e j uror coul d have f ou n d t he defendant gui l ty. ” Lo ng street, 56 7 F. 3d at 918. A p p lyi ng this stan d ard , w e look to the record to de term i ne whe th er, g i ve n the e vi den ce pr es en te d a t tr i al, a ny reas o nabl e j ur y c o ul d ha ve c o nc l ude d tha t th e Gov ernm ent had p ro ven each el em ent o fthe cri m e char ged b ey on d a re as on ab le d ou b t. U nited Sta t e s v . P ritch a rd, 74 5 F.2d 1 11 2, 1 12 2 ( 7th Ci r . 1 98 4)
. To s uppo r t M r . De an’s co nv i ct i o n f o r c o ns pi r ac y unde r 2 1 U. S
. C. § 8 46 , the G overn m en t w as req uired to show that ( 1) t w o or m ore i nd i vi du al s a gr eed to co m m i t a n un l a wfulact

— i n thi s ca se, dist ributi on o fm etham p h etam i ne and posse ssi on with i n te n t t o d ist rib u te it

— a n d ( 2 ) Mr
. De a n k n o wi n g l y a nd in te n tio n a l l y jo in ed th e a gr ee m en t. Se eU ni t e d S t at e s v. Johns on , 437 F.3d 665 , 675 (7th C ir. 2006). M r. Dean does not deny the exi ste nce o fthe conspi ra cy; i n s t e a d , h e c o nt e n d s th a th e me r e l y p u r c h a s e d me th a mphetam i ne f or hi s own perso nal use and , th eref or e, n ev er j oin ed th e c on sp ira c y. Se ei d. ( “Ev i den ce tha t th e defe nd ant was i n a m er e buy er - sel l er r elati onshi p w i th th e al l eg ed co con sp ir at o r i s i ns uffi ci en t to e st ab l i sha conspi ra cy. ” ( ci tat i on o m i tte d))

. H e cl ai m s th at the Governm en t pr es en te d no r el i ab l e ev i den ce s uppo r ting the concl usi on th at U ngeras si ste d M r. Dean with the sa l e o f m etham phetam i ne o r othe rwis e had any i nteres t in w hat M r. D ean di d wi thhi s dr ug s afte r he r ec ei ve d the m . To su p p ort this con ten tion, M r. De an asks u s to i gn ore U ng er’s testim ony and S ip e’s statem en t to A gen t Fitzger-12 N o. 08

- 3287

SeeUn i t ed Sta t es v. Johnso n , 437 F. 3d 665 , 675 ( 7th Cir

. 2006) 7 (“W e w ill not u p set the ju ry ’ s cre d ib ility d eterm ina tion un less ‘e x c e p tion al circu m stan ces’ exist; tha t is, it w as ‘ p hy sically i m pos sible f or the witne s s t o o bs er ve thatwhi c h h e c l ai m s occur re d, or i m pos s ibl e underthe l aws ofna t ur e f or the oc c ur re nc e t o h av e take n pl ac e atal l

. ’ ” ( quo t i ng U n i te d S tates v . S m ith , 39 3 F .3d 71 7, 71 9 (7t h C ir . 20 0 4 ))). ald ; he m ain ta in s t h at th e jur y n ec es sa rily r eje c te d th is ev i dence w hen i t f ound that M r. Dean was re sponsib le f o r l e s s th a n 5 0 0 g r a ms o fme th a mph e t a mi n e . He furtherpoi nts o ut thatS i pe m ay have been b i ase d agai nst h i m. By ra i si ng the se ar gu m ents, M r. Dean i nvi tes us t o re wei g h the e vi den ce a nd i nqui r e i nt o the j ury ’ s th o ug ht pr o c e s s ; thi s we c a nnot d o. I n the ab s e nc e o ft r ul y e xc e ptional circum stan ces, w e sha ll not secon d -gues s the j ury’s cr edibi l i tyde te r m i na ti o ns . M r . De anha s po i nt ed to no 7 ex ce pti o na l c i r cumst an ce s th atwoul d j us ti fy di sturbi ng th e j ury’s credibili ty fi nd ings. Fu rthe rm ore, M r . D ean ’s cl ai m tha t th e j ur y ne ce ss ar i l y d is cr edi te d Unge r ’ s an d S i p e’s s ta te m en ts i s pur e spe cul at i o n. The j ur y ’ s co nc l usi on that M r. Dean was re sponsibl e f orl ess than 500 gr am s o fm etham phetam i ne co u ld b e the pr oduct of a m i st ak e, c o m pr om i se o r l en i en cy, r athe r tha n a n i nd ication th at th e j ury d isbeli eved U ng er ’s an d Si p e’s st at em en ts in t h eir en t i r e ty
. U nited Sta tes v. No bles , 69 F.3d 172 , 189 (7th C ir. 1995) (rej ectin g the de fend an t’s ar g um en t th ata s pl i t ve r di ctde m o ns tr at ed th attheN o. 08

- 3287 13

S ee als o U n i te d S tat es v. M cG ee, 189 F. 3d 626, 630 ( 7th Cir

. 1999) 8 (“W e can no t accep t M r. M cG ee’s con ten t i o n tha t [ the w itness es ’ ] te st im ony is ent it le d to no w ei ght j ust because the j ury ac qui t t ed Mr. M c Gee ofC ount2. W e c ann otknow, nor i s i tour place to s pecu la te, w hether the j ury d eci ded to acquitM r. M cG ee o f C ou nt 2 b e cau se it f ou nd the w itnesses incr ed ib le o r fo r so m e o th er re a so n .”). Se e Uni t e d S t a t e s v. Adki ns , 2 7 4 F. 3 d 4 4 4 , 4 5 0 ( 7 th Cir. 2001) 9 ( “The fac t that the d rugs A dk ins sup plie d to H um m el and T yner (co n tin u ed ...) e v i d e n c e w a s i n s u ffi c i e n tt o s u p p o r th i s c o nv i c t i o n )
. We 8 shal l noti nquir e into the j ury’ s thought pr oce ss es; i ns te ad, we “de f ert o the j ur y ’ s ‘ co l l ec ti ve j udg m en t’ ” an d shal l notdi sturb i ts ver dictbas ed o n M r. Dean’ s s pecula

tiv e a rg u m en ts
. Id. ( quoti ng Uni t e d S t at e s v . L akic h , 23 F.3d 120 3, 1212 ( 7th Cir. 1994)). A fterr evi ew i ng the tr anscr i pt ofthe tr i alpro ceedi ngs and the e vi dence pres ente d a t t ri al, we are co nvi nced that the Governm ent intro du ced suffi ci ent e vi dence f ro m wh i ch a re aso n ab l e j ury coul d find thatM r. Dean i ntenti onal l y j oined the charg ed conspi ra cy. Fi rs t, U nger tes ti fi ed that he r outi nel y fro nted m et h am phetam i ne to M r. Dean. The i nd ex car d fo und i n U n ge r’s hom e, wh i ch r e c o r d e d Mr
. De a n ’ s me th a mph e t a mi n e p u r c h a s e an d c or re sp on d in g in d eb te d n es s, su p p or te d U n ge r’s te st im ony. The ev i dence thatU ngerr epeate dlypro vi ded M r. Dean w ith l ar ge quanti ti es ofm etham phetam i ne o n cre dit, if accepte d by the j ury, co uld s ugges t that Un ger both knew that M r. Dean would r ese l l the m etham phetam in e a n d h ad a fin an c ial in te r e s t i n th e re sa le. For th is 914 N o. 08

- 3287

(
. . . c on t i nu e d) 9 w ere in s uc h l ar ge qua nt i t i es an d were oft ens ol d par t i al l y on cre d it su g gest ed that A dk ins not onl y knew thatH um m el and T y ne r would r es el l the drug s , butal s o de pen ded onthe re sa le s in o rd er to g et p a id .”). S ee id

. at 450- 51 ( concl ud ing that the evidence c ould s up port 10 the j ur y’ s ve rdi c twher e the Gover nm en ti ntr od uc ed, am ong other thi ngs, evidence ofthe def endan t’ s st and ardized d e a l i n g s w i t h c o c o n sp i r a t o r s, th e le n g th o f t h e d e fe n d a n t ’s in v o lv em en t, a n d th e q u a n tit ie s o f d ru g s in v o lv ed ); U n i te d S tat es v. Hach , 162 F. 3d 937, 943- 44 ( 7th Cir

. 1998) ( noti ng that the evidence of routi ne deliveri es es tabli shed a “d em onst rat ed (co n tin u ed ...) r ea so n, the e vi den ce o ffr o nt i nga lo ne may be s uffi ci en t to su p p or t M r. D ea n ’s c on vic tio n . Se eU ni t e d S t a tes v. Stott, 24 5 F
. 3d 890, 90 3 (7 th C i r. 20 01) ( re cogni zi ng tha t
“ ‘[t]h e re p ea te d ‘fro n tin g’ o f [d ru gs ], alon e, h as be en h eld su ffi ci en t to s uppo r t th e j ur y ’ s co nc l us i o n tha t th e d efen d an t h ad kn ow in gly jo in ed a d ist rib u tio n co n sp ira c y.’ ” ( al ter ati on i n or i gin al) ( quoti ng U ni t e d S t at e s v. Fe rgus on , 35 F.3d 32 7, 331 (7th Cir. 1994))). I n additi on, the Go ve rn m ent intro du ced evi dence that M r. Dean purchase d l ar ge, st andardi zed quant iti es of m etham phetam i ne at re gul ar i nter val s ove r an exte nd ed peri od of ti m e. U nger tes ti fi ed that, ove r the cour se of se ve r almonths , he woul d de l i ve r t wel ve ou nc es o fmeth

am p he tam ine to M r. D ean on a w eekly basis; thes e d eli veries alw ay s w er e m ad e a t o n e o f tw o loc at ion s. T h is e vidence l ends supp or t t o the j ury’ s fi nd i n g th at M r. Dean w as a p ar tic ip an t in th e c on sp ira c y. A s M r. D ea n co rre c tly 10N o. 08

- 3287 15

(
. . . c on t i nu e d) 10 le vel ofm utual t ru st,” an d concluding that the evidence p re se n te d su p p o rt ed th e ju ry ’s v er d ic t). Co mp a r e Hach , 16 2 F .3d at 94 3 (con clu d ing tha t the p arties’ 11 f re que nt, r epe at ed t ra ns ac t i ons , t oge the r with the “a t t end ant es tabli she d m ethod ofpaym ent thati nclude[ d] a rud im entar y fo rm o f cr ed it,” co u ld su p p o rt th e c o n sp ir a cy co n v ic tio n ), w ith U ni t ed Sta t es v. C ol on , 54 9 F
. 3d 5 65 , 56 8 ( 7th Ci r. 20 08 ) ( not i ng tha t the ev id en ce tha t the d efend an t reg u larly en g ag e d in s t a n da r di z e d t r a n s a c t i o n s wa s i n s u ffi c i e n tt o s u p p o r tthe defen dant ’ s c ons pi ra c y c onvi c t i on in the abs en c e of“s al es on c re di tt o the defen dant, or othe r evi denc e ofm ut ual t ru s tor d ep en d en ce ” ). note s, st andardi zed tr ansact ion s do not, by them sel ves, t ra n sfo rm a c u st om er int o a co c on sp ira to r. U ni t e d S t ates v. Col on , 54 9 F
. 3d 565, 56 7 ( 7th Ci r. 20 08)
. I n thi s ca se, h ow ev er , M r. D ea n ’s in vo lve m en t a s a co c on s p i r a to r is al so supp or ted by the evi dence thatS i pe saw M r. Dean pu rchas e m et h am p hetam i ne fro m U ngero n two orthr ee o cc as i o ns a nd b y S i pe’ s admi ss i o n tha t he o bt aine d m etham phetam i ne fro m M r. Dean. I t i s a l so b ols ter ed by M r. De a n’ s No v e mbe r 2 4 , 2 0 0 6 di s c us s i o n wi th Co r po r al J o ne s, i n whi chM r . De ana dm i tt ed o bt ai nin ga nd s el l i ng ano unc e o fmeth amphet am ine i n the wee k s pr ec eding th eir m ee tin g. Fu rt h er m or e, as w e m en tio n ed ea rlier , i t i s s u p p o r t e d b y U n g e r ’ s c l a i m th a th e f r o n t e d me th a mphe ta m i ne t o M r . De an . 11 I n s um, we c o nc l ud e tha t the e v i de nc e i s s uffi c i ent t o supp or t the j ury’ s v er dict

. The Governm ent pr ese nted evi dence that U nger f ro nted l ar ge, st andardi zed quanti ti es16 N o. 08

- 3287

Becau se M r. D ean has f ail ed to dem onst rat e that a variance 12 occurred i n thi s cas e, w e need not add res s w hether he was prej ud ic ed b y the al le ged variance
. o fmeth amphet ami ne t o M r . Deano n a r egul arb as i s, a nd i t intro du ced te sti m ony dem onst ra ti ng tha t M r. Dean re dist ributed atl eas t s om e o fthi s m etham phetam i ne to others. The j ury coul d hav e concl ud ed, base d on th is ev id en c e, th at M r. D ea n kn ow in g l y an d int en tio n ally j oi ned the co nspir acy. There f or e, M r. Dean cannotsho w th at th e evide nc e pres en ted at tri al did n ot su p p ort th e jur y’s find in g, an d h is v ar ian c e c laim m u st fail. 12

B. W e no w tur n to M r. Dean’ s chal l enges to the sente nce i m posed by the di str i ct c ourt
. M r. Dean fi rs t co ntends that th e d i s t r i c tc o u r ti n c o r r e c t l y c a l c u l a t e d h i s s e n t e n ci ng ra nge. S eco nd , he s ubm i ts that the di str ict cour t e rr ed i n ap p lyin g a two- l eve l o bstr ucti on o fj usti ce e nhancem en t. W e r ev i ew the di st r i ctc o ur t’ s i nt er pr et at i on o fthe Se n tencing Gu i del i nes de novo , and w e r evi ew i ts fac tu al fin d in gs for c lea r er ro r. U nited Sta tes v. M um fo rd, 25 F. 3d 461, 4 65 (7th Cir

. 19 94) ( ci ti ng U ni t e d S t at e s v. Lo z o ya -M o ral es , 931 F.2d 121 6, 1218 ( 7th Cir. 1991)).

1. “A defendant’s bas e offense l eve l f or a narco ti cs o ffense i s defi ned pri m ar i l y by the am ount o fdrugs att ributabl e t oN o. 08

- 3287 17 [ the defendant]. ” M um fo rd, 25 F .3 d at46 5; see U. S
. S
. G. § 2D 1. 1. The Go ve r nm en t be ar s th e bur deno fpr o ving the quanti ty of d rugs at tr ibutabl e t o the defendant by a p re p on d er an c e of th e e vid en c e. U nited S ta tes v. So to -P iedra , 52 5 F
. 3d 52 7, 5 29 ( 7th Ci r . 2 00 8)
. I n de te r m i ni nga de fen dan t’ s bas e o ff en se l ev el, a c o ur t m us t co ns i derb o ththe ac ts g i vingr i se t o the c o nv ictiona nd a ny r el ev an t co nd u c t. M um

fo rd, 25 F .3d at46 5. Inth e c as e o f a j oin tly und er tak en cr i m i nal act ivi ty, r el evantco nd uct i ncl ud es the for ese eabl e a cts and om i ssi ons ofo therpart i ci pants in th e c rim in al e n te rp ris e. So to -P iedra , 52 5 F. 3d at 531 ( quo tingU. S
. S
. G. § 1 B1. 3( a) ( 1) ( B) )
. Howev er, f or s en te n c in g p u rp os es , a d ef e n d a n t c on vic te d of co n sp ira c y is not autom ati cal l y l i abl e for t he act s o fhi s co conspi ra tor s; a defendant m ay be he l d l i abl e o nl y for tho se acts o r o m i ss i o ns tha t wer e bo thmade i n fur th er an ce o fthe conspi ra cy and fo re see abl e t o the defen d an t. Id. at53 1- 32 ( quoti ng U ni t e d S t at e s v. Edward s , 11 5 F
. 3d 1322 , 13 27 ( 7th C ir. 1997)). Th er efore, the “[a]ctions of cocon sp irators that a par ti cul ar d efendant does not ass i st orag re e t o pr o m o te a r e gen eral l y no t wi th i n the s co pe o ftha t defen da n t’s j oi ntl y undert ake n acti vi ty. ” Id. a t 53 3 ( ci ting U
. S. S. G
. § 1B 1.3 cm t. n.2). A l though the di str i ct c ourti s no t b ou nd by the Gu i del i nes in sent enci ng a defe nd ant, i t i s re quir ed to cal cul ate , i n the cour se ofar ri vi ng atthe sent en ce, the appropri ate gu id elin es se n te n c in g ra n ge . U nite d State s v. Laufle, 43 3 F. 3d 981, 98 5 ( 7th Ci r. 20 06)
. The fi rs t s tep i n that cal cul ati on i s t o asce rt ai n the cor re ct b ase o ffense l eve l

. A fter re vi ew i ng the se ntenci ng tr anscr i pt, we m ust co ncl ud e that the dist ri ct cour t never und er too k that ess enti al fi rs t step18 N o. 08

- 3287

Earlie r i n t h e se ntenci ng hearing, the court noted, and M r. 13 D ean agreed, thatthi s of f ense l evel c orres pon ded to fiftee n k ilo g ra m s o r m o re o f m et h a m p h et a m in e. R .77 at 3 3 ; see U .S.S .G . § 2 D 1 .1(c ). by asce rt ai ni ng the qua nti ty ofm etham phetam i ne r easonab l y for ese eabl e t o M r. Dean. The di str i ct c ou rtse t M r. Dean’ s ba se offe n se l eve l at38 , not i ng tha t “ 38 i s a r el i ab l e es ti m ate ofthe a m o unto fmeth amphet ami ne that w as bei ng deal t bythe m em ber s o f[ the] con spi ra cy, i ncl ud i ng Un gerand Si pe. ” R. 77 at 38. The co urt did not, 13 h o we v e r, d e t e r mi n e th a tth e e n t i r e qu a n t i t y o fme th a mp h et am in e d ist rib u te d by th e c on sp ira c y w as rea so n ab ly f o r e s e e a b l e t o Mr
. De a n . I n f a c t, th e c o u r t f o u nd t he opposi te to be t rue: A fterse tti ng the bas e o ffense l eve l at 38 , th e c ou rtst at ed th at it w ou ld adj ust down w ar d fr om thatwh en [ i t m ade] a sente nci ng deci sio n to t ake i nto acco unt the f act that i t was pr o babl y no t al l f o r es ee ab l e to M r . Dea n, an d i n any even t, hi s i nv o l ve m en t was l es s an d the j ur y c o ncl ude d tha t i t was l es s . . . b y a tt ributing t o hi m the 500 gr am s a m ount. Id

. The co urt l ate r sai d that i t would “s pli t the di ffer ence” b y a llow in g a fou r-le ve l red u c tio n in t h e o ffen se le ve l. Id. at68

- 69. W e can not accep t this ap p roach as the eq uivalen t of a j ud i ci al d ete rm i nati on o fthe am ount o fdrugs

— an d ther ef or e the appropri ate offense l eve l

— proper l y a ttr ibutabl e t o M r. Dean. I t i s cl ear fr om the cour t’ s s tat em ents that i t had dete rm i ned that M r. D ean s houl d not beN o. 08

- 3287 19

Th e di s t r i c tc ou r tdi d s t a t e th a t“[ i ] n a l l the r e s pe c t s tha th a ve 14 no t be en ad d ressed an d oth erw ise rule d up on b y t he C ou rt, I ac c eptthe p resent en c e i nve s t i gat i on re por tas dra ft ed a nd subm i t t ed and c i rc ul at ed by M r. Sc hoe t t m er, and we’ ll use thi s f or m ul at ion as m y own f or m aki ng the s en t en c i ng d ecision s that re m ain .” R .77 at 40
. A ltho u g h th e P SR d id i nd i c a t e tha t the e nt i r e q ua nt i ty of m e tha m ph e t a m i ne dist r ibuted by the cons piracy was f ores eeable to M r. D ea n , t he court c onc l uded othe rwi s e. Af t erane xt en s i ve di s c us s i on aboutthe appr opr iate ba s e off en s e l eve l an d t he s c ope ofthe c ons pi ra c y, the c our ts pec i fi c al l y s t at ed thatthe am ountofm etham phetam ine d istribu ted “w as p ro b a b ly n ot a ll for eseea b le to M r. D ean. ” Id. at38
. Bec aus e thi s l ang uage i s atodds with the finding in the PSR , w e do not beli eve that the court ad o p ted the PSR ’ s concl usi on w ith res pect t o the f ores eeabil ity is sue. S ee Un i te d S tat es v. D eP ri est, 6 F. 3d 12 0 1 , 1212 ( 7th Cir

. 1993) 15 (“D iscern ing exactly h o w m u ch of the tota l d ru g qu an tity d istribu ted thro u g h a con sp i r acy sho u ld ha v e b een reaso na b ly fo re se ea b le to a co -co n sp ir a to r h a s o fte n p ro v ed d iffic u lt.” ); see al so , e .g., U n ited S tates v . B au tista, 532 F. 3d 667, 672 ( 7th Cir

. 2008) ( not i ng thatc our t s m ay ap pro xi m at e the qua nt i t y ofthe c ont ro l l ed s u b stan c e “’ [ w] he re the re i s no drug s ei zur e or the a m ount se ize d d oes not re fle ctthe s cal e ofthe off ense ’ ” ( alt erati ons i n origi nal) ( quoting U.S. S. G
. § 2D1.1 c m t. n. 1 2 )); U n i te d (co n tin u ed ...) he l d a cc o unt ab l e f o r the enti r e amoun t o fdr ug s i n the con spi r ac y . Ye t, i t do es no t appe artha t th e cou rt

14 eve r actual l y dete rm i ned the a m ount that o ught t o be at tr ibut ed t o hi m . W e a r e a war e o fthe di ffi cul ti es i nhe r en t in a sc ertai ni ng the am ount o fdrugs att ributabl e t o an i n d ivi du al

. Our ca se l aw m ake s cl earthatthi s i s a ta sk

1520 N o. 08

- 3287

(
. . . c on t i nu e d) 15 St a t e s v. Hol l i ns , 49 8 F
. 3d 6 22 , 63 1- 32 ( 7th Ci r. 20 07 ) ( di s c us s i ng the det er m i nat i on ofthe qua nt i t y ofdrug s s m uggl ed i nt o the Uni t ed Sta t es whenthe drug s wer e noti nt er c ept ed o n o ne o cc a sio n ); U ni t ed Sta t es v. Du rha m , 211 F. 3d 437 , 444 ( 7th Cir

. 2000) ( analyzing the cal culat ion ofthe qu anti ty ofdrug s based o n th e r eg u la r r ec ei p t o fd r u g s b y th e d efe n d a n t’s em p lo y ee ); U n i te d S tat es v. P igee, 19 7 F
. 3d 8 79 , 89 0 ( 7th Ci r. 19 99 ) ( eva l uat i ng w he the r certa in tra nsa ction s w ere re aso na b ly fore seeab le to the defen dant s wher e the defend an t s wer e notpr es en tduri ng th o se tr a n sa ct io n s). I n U ni t ed Sta t es v. Fox , 5 4 8 F
. 3 d 5 2 3 , 5 3 1

- 3 3 ( 7 th C i r . 2 0 0 8 ) , we 16 vac at ed a nd r em ande d t he defen dant ’ s c as e f or r es en t en c i ng, noti ng that, al though the dis tr ic t c our t did consi der w hether the c oc ons pi ra t or ’ s pos s es s i on of f or t y gr am s of c ra ck cocai ne w as f ores eeable to the def endan t, i t did not c o n sid er “whether (co n tin u ed ...) th atc anb e ac co m pl i sh ed byr ea so nabl e appr o xi m at i o n. U ni t e d S t at e s v. Kr as i ns ki, 545 F.3d 546 , 552 (7th C ir. 2008); s e eal s o U
. S. S. G . § 2 D1. 1 cm t. n. 12. H owever, o ur ca ses al so have sai d that m er e “ eye bal l i ng” o fthe am ount is not s u fficie n t. U ni t e d S t at e s v. Cox , 5 3 6 F
. 3 d 7 2 3 , 7 2 9 ( 7th C ir. 2008). The dis tr i ct c ourtdi d not m ake an a dequ ate find i ng o f th e q u an tit y of m et h am p h et am in e re as on ab ly for es ee ab le to M r. De a n. “ Al tho ugh a di s t r i c t c o ur t ’ s fi nd i ng s o f re l evantco nd uct ar e re vi ew ed onl y forcl earer ro r, ev en such def er ence can n ot cure an absence o ffi nd i ngs o n ke y elem ents ofthe anal ysi s. ” U ni t e d S t at e s v. Fo x , 54 8 F
. 3 d 5 2 3 , 5 3 2 ( 7 th C i r . 2 0 0 8 ) ( c i t a t i o n s o mi t t e d )
. I n a 16N o. 08

- 3287 21

(
. . . c on t i nu e d) 16 thataw arenes s arose out of[ the defe nd ant’ s] j ointcr im inal a ct iv ity w ith [th e c o co n sp ir a to r].” conspi ra cy case , the f or ese eabi l i ty of the quanti ty ofdrugs i s a “ c r uc i a l e l e men t i n de t e r mi ning the pr o pe r bas e off ense l eve l

. ” U nited Sta tes v. G o ines , 98 8 F
. 2d 75 0, 776- 77 ( 7th Ci r. 19 93) ( vacat i ng and r em anding Goi nes’ se ntence whe r e the di s t r i c t c o ur t, “ [ b ] y s e t t i ng the b a s e o f f ense l ev eli n r el at i o n t o the a m o unto fc o ca i ne i nv o l ve d i n the co ns pi r ac y, . . . fail ed to mak e a spe ci fi c fi ndi ngo fthe qu an tity reasona bly f oreseea ble to Goine s”). W e the refore m ust v acat e M r. D ea n ’ s s entence and re m and thi s ca se to th e d ist ric t cou rt so th at it m ay m ak e a s p e c ific fi nd i ng as to the qua n tit y o fm etham phetam i ne r easonab l y for ese eabl e t o M r. Dean and, o n t h e b as i s o fthat fi nd i ng, i m pose the c or re ct s entence
.
2. The cour t nee d not, however , rev i si t the o bstr ucti on o f j u st ice iss u e o n rem an d . Th e d i s t ric t c ou rtac te d w ell wi th i n i ts di sc r et i o n i n a pp lyi ngtha t enha nc ement
. Co ntr ar y t o M r. Dean’ s a sse rt i ons, th e d i str i ct c ourtdi d not b a s e i t s a pp l i c a t i o n o fthe e nh a nc e men t “ o n [ the ] a s s umpti o n tha t i n fi ndi ngM r . De ang ui l tyo fc o ns pi r ac y, the j ur y mustha ve r ej ec te d the b uy er/ se l l erde fen se a nd fou n d th at M r. D ea n h ad so ld m et h am p h et am in e.” A p p ell an t’ s Br
. 4 3. I ns te ad, the c ou r t no te d tha t M r . De anunequi voca l l y s tat ed i n hi s s w or n tes ti m ony that he neve r had sol d m etham phetam i ne. R. 77 at 28. The co urt chara c-22 N o. 08

- 3287 ter i zed thi s s tat em ent a s “ an o bstru c tio n” and perm i tte d th e e n h a n c em en t. Id

. I t i s cl earfro m the tr anscr i pt that th e c ou rtsp ec ifica lly fou n d th at M r. D ea n h ad “ ‘w illfu lly m ade mis r epr es en ta ti o ns unde r o ath tha t wer e r el ev an t to th e pr o se cut i o n’ ” wi ththe s pec i fi c i nt en t o fo bs tr uct i ng j usti c e; thi s fi nd i ng was suffi ci ent t o supp or t the o bstr uctio n en h an c em en t. U ni t e d S t ates v. Bryant, 55 7 F
. 3d 489, 501 ( 7th Ci r. 20 09) ( quoti ng U nited S tate s v. C arrol l , 41 2 F.3 d 7 87, 7 93 (7t h C ir. 20 05 )); U ni t e d St at e s v. Be r m e a- Boone, 563 F. 3d 621, 62 6-2 7 ( 7th Ci r. 20 09) ( “I t i s wel l

- set tl ed that perj ury i s a n exam ple o f c onduct that w ar ra nts a n en ha nc em en t for obstru ction of j us tice.”)
.
Conclusi on I n sum , we hol d that the evi dence prese nted at tr i alwas s u ffi c i e n tt o s u p p o r tth e j ur y ’ s v e r d i c t
. F u r th e r mo r e , we concl ud e that the di str i ct c ourtdi d not abuse i ts disc re ti on byapply i n g an o bstr ucti on o fj usti ce e nhancem ent. N ev er theless, we m us t va ca te M r . De an ’ s se nt en ce a nd rem an d f or furt he r proce ed ings s o t ha t the district cou rt m ay deter m i ne the quanti ty ofm etham phetam i ne that was r ea so nabl y f o r es ee ab l e to M r . De an . A FFI RMED in p ar t, V ACATED a nd R EMAND ED i n p art

7- 31- 09