A ft erexami ni ng t he br i efs and appe l l at e r ecor d, t hi s panel has det erm i ned * unani m ous l yt o honort he part i es ’ r eques tfora dec i s i on on the br i efs w i thoutor al a rg u m e n t. See F ed . R . A p p . P . 3 4 (f); 10 th C ir . R . 3 4 . 1 (G ). T h e c ase is th ere fo re or der ed s ubm i t t ed w i t houtor al ar gum ent . T hi s or derand j udgm enti s notbi ndi ng pr ece dent , exce ptundert he doctr i nes of l aw of the ca s e, r es j udi cat a, and col l at er al es t oppel . T he courtgener al l ydi s favor s t he ci t at i on of or der s and j udgm ent s ; nevert hel es s , an or derand j udgm entm aybe ci t ed undert he t erm s and condi t i ons of 10th C i r . R . 36. 3. 

## F I LED United States C ourt of Appeals Tenth Circuit 

### Ju n e30,2006 Elisab eth A. Shumaker C l erk of C ourt UNI TED S TATES CO URT O F AP PEALS

T E N T H C IR C U IT UNI T E D S T AT E S OF AM E RI CA ,

Pl ai nt i ff - A ppel l ee, N o. 04- 7003 v . E. D. Ok l a h o ma RO M ON I A J EAN BLU NT,

D e fe n d a n t - A p p e llan t,

--- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- UNI T E D S T AT E S OF AM E RI CA , Pl ai nt i ff - A ppel l ee, v. E DDI E KAY C OP E M AN, D e fe n d a n t - A p p e llan t. ( D . C. N o. CR - 03 - 09 - 02 - P)

N o. 04- 7004 E. D. Ok l a h o ma ( D . C. N o. 03 - CR - 9- P)

ORDE R AND J UDGM EN T * B efor e T AC HA , HA RTZ , and TY M KOVI CH , C i rcui tJudg es.-2-

R o m o n ia B lu n t w a s c h a rg e d in C o u n t O n e o f a n in e -c o u n t in d ictm e n t w ith cons pi r acyt o pos s es s w i t h i nt entt o di s tr i but e more than 500 gr ams of m ethamphet ami ne. E ddi e K ayC opeman, hercomm on- l aw hus band, w as char ged in the sam e c o u n t, an d also in eig h t add it ion al co u n ts. A t tri al th e d istri ct co u rt gr ant ed a mot i on forj udgm entof ac qui t t al on tw o count s . B oth w er e convi ct ed bya j ur yon C ountO ne. M r . C opeman w as al s o convi ct ed on the otherr emai ni ng s i x count s , al l i nvol vi ng drug and fi r earm s offe ns es . B oth M r . C opeman and M s . B l untcont end on appe al t hatt hei rFour th A m endmentr i ght s w er e vi ol at ed by pol i ce e nt r yi nt o t hei rhom e fol l ow i ng thei rarr es t , and thatt heyw er e s ent ence d i n vi ol at i on of Uni t ed Stat es v. B ooker , 543 U . S. 220 ( 2005) . E ach a l s o r ai s es i s s ues i ndi vi dual l y . M s . B l untcont ends t hatt w o s ear ch w arr ant s w er e exe r ci s ed w i t h s uch fl agr antdi s r egar d fort hei rt erm s t hatal l t he s ei zed e vi dence s houl d be s uppr es s ed. A nd M r . C opeman cont ends t hatpr os ecut or i al m i s conductdeni ed hi m a fa i rt r i al and thata mi s t r i al s houl d have be en gr ant ed w hen a gove rnm ent agentt es t i fi ed thati tw as di ffi cul tt o getpeopl e t o cooper at e i n the i nves t i gat i on beca us e theyw er e af

r ai d M r . C opeman w oul d ki l l t hem. W e w i l l s um m ar i ze the re le v a n t fa c ts a s w e a d d re s s e a c h is s u e .-3-

I . F O U R T H A ME N D ME N T C L A I MS A . Backg r ound I n O ct ober2002 l aw enfor cementoffi cer s w entt o the home of M r . C opeman and M s . B l unti n K eot a, O kl ahoma, t o exec ut e arr es tw arr ant s for th e m b o th . T h e yc a m e o u t o f th e irh o m e a n d w e re a rr e s te d w ith o u t in c id e n t. A ft ert heyhad bee n s ecur ed, t w o ot heri ndi vi dual s appr oache d fr om behi nd the re sid e n c e . A g e n t S tev e F io re tti of the H as kel l C ountySher i ff’ s D epart m entas ked t hem i f theyhad anyw eapons . O ne of them, M s . R honda A l l en, s ai d thats he had a k n ife . A s s h e p u lled it fro m h e r p o c k e t, A g e n t F io re tti sa w a b a g o f w h ite pow deri n herpos s es s i on, w hi ch w as s ei zed. I tfi el d- t es t ed pos i t i ve for m e th a m p h e ta m in e . A t hi r d per s on, M s . J udyH arp, w ho w as bar efoot , t hen exi t ed the re sid e n c e . A f

ter sh e w a s f

risk e d sh e a sk e d th e o ffice rs if sh e c o u ld g o b a c k in to t he home t o gethers hoes . A ccor di ng t o A gentFi or et t i , he “a s ked i f s he l i ved t her e, and s he s t at ed ‘ W el l , y eah, I ’ m ki nd of l i ke the ki ds nannyand I do the cl eani ng and I do t he s hoppi ng. ’ ” R . V ol . X V I I I at15. She offe r ed t o “t ake s om ebodyi n w i t h hert o gethers hoes . ” Id . Ag e n tF i o r e t t i i n s tru c t e d Ok l a h o ma H i ghw ayPat r ol T r ooperC l i ntC r aftt o acc om panyher . A gentFi or et t i t es t i fi ed t hathe “ha d neverhad anydeal i ngs w i th” M s . H arp and w as conce rned about w e a p o n s in th e re sid e n c e : “I d id n ’t k n o w if sh e w o u ld g o in a n d tryto g e t a w eapon a nd come back out s i de ort ryt o geta w eapon a nd fl ee orw hats he w as-4-

goi ng t o do. ” Id . at16. T ro o p e r C ra f t tes tifie d th a t h e w a s in th e h o m e fo r o n ly 30 s econds , and s i m pl yfol l ow ed M s . H arp t o the bathr oom w her e s he puther s hoes on. W hen he f

i r s tent er ed the home, he s aw a j aron a dr es s erbyt he fr ont d o o r w ith d iffe ren t typ es o f sy ri n g es in an d aro u n d it . S o m e o f th e sy ri n g es w ere o f a typ e h e k n e w to b e u s e d to inje c t m e th a m p h e ta m in e . A gentFi or et t i obt ai ned a s ear ch w arr antfort he home, r el y i ng i n parton t he met hamphet ami ne found on M s . A l l en, t he fi ve addi t i onal s m al l bags ( one that t es t ed pos i t i ve form ethamphet ami ne) found on M s . A l l en w hen s he w as booked i nt o j ai l , and Troope rC r aft ’ s obs ervat i on of the s yr i nges . T he w arr antauthor i zed a s ear ch forevi dence of drug di s tr i but i on, part i cul ar l ym ethamphet ami ne, and we a p o n s . Ac c o r d i n g t o t h e r e tu rn o n t h e wa rr a n t , o ffi c e r s s e i z e d s e v e r a l i t e ms fr om t he home, i ncl udi ng “s ever al bags w i th a w hi t e chunkys ubs t ance , ” a “ 9 M M s emi aut o handgun, ” a ba g cont ai ni ng $64, 5000, and “[ s ] ever al pl as t i c bott l es w rap p ed in b lack tape co n tai n ing a total of $ 9 0 , 0 0 0 . 0 0 . ” R . V o l. I D o c. 18 , G o v ’t E x. O ne at7. D ur i ng exec ut i on of the w arr ant , A gentFi or et t i s aw a doort hathad b e e n ta k e n o ff

a b la c k tru c k ; its V e h ic le Id e n tific a tio n N u m b e r w a s in p la in v ie w . A chec k r evea l ed thatt he vehi cl e had be en r eport ed s t ol en. H e i nform ed the o th e r o ffice rs o n th e sc e n e to sto p se a rc h in g . T h e yo b tain e d a se c o n d w a rra n t, w hi ch author i zed a s ear ch forevi dence of drug- r el at ed ac t i vi ty , fi r earm s , and

“ sto len m e rc h a n d ise ,” in c lu d in g , am o n g o th e r th in g s, “ e lec tro n ics e q u ip m e n t, hand t ool s , pow ert ool s , fi r earm s and amm uni t i on, ” anyevi dence of s t ol en-5-

vehi cl es , and “[ t ] ool s ut i l i zed i n the r enumber i ng of vehi cl es . ” Id . , G ov’ tE x. T w o at 10. T he s ear ch y i el ded 85 s ei zed i t ems. Som e of the i t ems w er e s ei zed beca us e pol i ce w er e abl e t o ver i fyon the s cene t hatt heyw er e s t ol en. O ther s ei zed i t ems fi tgener al des cr i pt i ons of i t ems thathad bee n r eport ed s t ol en. A gent F io re tti tes tifie d th a t th e yse ize d m a n yitem s th a t th e y“ th o u g h t” w e re sto len w ith t he i nt ent i on t o “ver i fy. . . ata l at erdat e. ” R . V ol . X V I I I at72. A t hi r d w arr antw as obt ai ned t o s ear ch anotherr es i dence forevi dence of drug- r el at ed ac t i vi t yand w eapons . T he r etur n l i s t s 35 i t ems or , r ather , cat egor i es of i t ems, t hatw er e s ei zed; m os tw er e drug- r el at ed butoffi cer s al s o s ei zed 110 co w s, 2 p igs, 15 h o rses, a m u le, 2 h ayb u g g ies, 5 tr ail ers, a h ayrak e, an d a F o rd s emi t ruck and tr ai l er . A gentFi or et t i t es t i fi ed thatt hes e i t ems w er e s ei zed for c a re ta k in g p u rp o s e s , a n d to p re v e n t th e f t. M r. C o p e m a n a n d M s. B lu n t b o th c o n ten d th a t th e p o lice e n tryin to th e ir hom e w i t h M s . H arp t o obt ai n hers hoes vi ol at ed the Four th A m endment , and that w i t ho ut the il l egal ent ryt here w as not s uffi ci ent pr ob able cause t o is sue t he fir st sea rch w arran t. M s. B lun t al so ch all en g es th e se arc h es u n d er the sec o n d an d thir d w arr ant s , cont endi ng t hatt he off i cer s conduct i ng the s ear ches fl agr ant l yvi ol at ed th e te rm s o f

th e w a rr a n ts a n d c o n d u c te d g e n e ra l s e a rc h e s . B . D i s cus s i on “W hen r evi ew i ng t he deni al of a mot i on t o s uppr es s , w e vi ew t he evi dence i n t he l i ghtm os tfavor abl e t o t he governm ent , acc eptt he di s tr i ctcourt ’ s fi ndi ngs-6-

of fa ctunl es s cl ear l yerr oneous , and r evi ew de novo the ul t i m at e det erm i nat i on of r eas onabl enes s undert he Four t h A m endment . ” Uni t ed Stat es v. Appers on , 441 F .3 d 1 1 6 2 , 1 1 8 4 (1 0 th C ir . 2 0 0 6 ) ( in te rn a l q u o ta tio n m a rk s o m itte d ).

1. I ni t i al E nt ry T he di s t r i ctcour tdeni ed the mot i on t o s uppr es s t he i t ems s ei zed unde rt he fi r s tw arr ant , r el y i ng on Uni t ed Stat es v. B ut l er , 9 8 0 F .2 d 6 1 9 (1 0 th C ir. 1 9 9 2 ), to concl ude thatt he pol i ce di d notvi ol at e the Four th A m endmentbyent er i ng the hom e w i t h M s . H arp t o r etr i eve he rs hoes . I n B ut l era s hoel es s m an w as arr es t ed o u ts id e h is h o m e w h e n th e a rr e s tin g o ffic e r n o tic e d b ro k e n g la s s o n th e g ro u n d . T o o b tai n sh o es fo r th e a rrestee, th e o fficer too k h im b ac k into h is ho m e, w h ere th e o ffice r sa w a g u n n e x t to th e b e d . W e h e ld th a t w h e n th e re is “ a leg iti m a te and s i gni fi cantt hr eatt o t he hea l th and s afe tyof the arr es t ee, ” pol i ce may a c c o m p a n yh im b a c k in to th e h o m e to o b ta in c lo th e s . Id . at622. A l t ho ug h recog nizi ng t hat there w as no h eal th o r s afet yi ssue i n thi s case w ith resp ec t t o the a rrestees (M r. C o p em an an d M s. B lun t) , the d istri ct co u rt bas ed i t s fi ndi ng on t he s afe t yof the off i cer s , s t at i ng that“ther e i s no evi dence s ugges t i ng t hatC r aftes cor t ed H arp foranyr eas on othert han t o ens ur e off i cer s a fe ty w h ile s h e re tr ie v e d h e r s h o e s .” R . V o l. I D o c . 2 9 a t 6 . In th e a ltern a tiv e , the d istric t co u rt a lso fo u n d th a t “it w a s e n tirely r eas onabl e forFi or et t i t o bel i eve H arp had author i tyt o cons entt o the entry . ” Id . M s . H a rp s a id s h e liv e d th e re a n d w a s lik e a n a n n y . See Il l i nois v. R odr iguez , 497-7-

U .S . 1 7 7 , 1 7 9 (1 9 9 0 ) (“ [ A ] w a rra n tles s e n try. . . d o e s n o t v io late th e F o u rth A m endment [ ] . . . i f the off i cer s have obt ai ned the cons entof a thi r d par tyw ho pos s es s es comm on author i tyoverthe pr emi s es . ”) . She offe r ed t o t ake a n offi cer into the h o m e w ith h er. A cc o rdin g to the co u rt , h er statem en t th at sh e li v ed there a n d h e r o ffe r to tak e a n o ffice r in w ith h e r “ m a d e it rea so n a b le fo r F io re tti to c o n c lu d e th a t sh e h a d th e a u th o rityto e n ter th e h o u se h e rse lf a n d , m o re o v e r, to cons entt o t he entr yi nt o t he hous e byl aw enfor cementoffi ci al s . ” R . V ol . I D oc. 2 9 a t 7 . See Rodriguez , 497 U . S. at186 ( “The C ons t i tut i on i s no m or e vi ol at ed w hen off

i cer s ent erw i t houta w arr antbeca us e theyr eas onabl y( though err oneous l y ) bel i eve thatt he per s on w ho has cons ent ed t o thei rentryi s a r es i dent of the pr emi s es , t han i ti s vi ol at ed w hen theyent erw i thouta w arr antbeca us e they r eas onabl y( t hough err oneous l y ) bel i eve theyar e i n pur s ui tof a vi ol entfel on w ho is a b o u t to e s c a p e .” ). O n a p p e a l M r. C o p e m a n a n d M s. B lu n t h a v e c h a llen g e d o n lyth e first b a sis fo r th e d istric t co u rt’s r u lin g . M s. B lu n t ra ise s th e a p p a re n t-a u th o rity i s s ue i n her r epl ybr i ef, butw e gene r al l ydo notaddr es s i s s ues r ai s ed forthe fi r s tt i m e i n a re p ly b ri e f. United S tates v. Holbert , 285 F. 3d 1257, 1263 ( 10th C i r . 2002) ( “The gen eral rul e i s that appell at e cou rt s w i l l no tentert ai n is sues r ai sed fo r the fir st ti m e o n ap p ea l i n an A p p ell an t’ s rep ly . ”). W e the refo re a ffirm the d istri ct co u rt ’s ru lin g o n T ro o p e r C ra f t’ s e n tr y .-8- 2 . E x ec u ti o n o f S ea rc h W a rr a n ts M s. B lun t al so co n tend s tha t du ri n g the e x ec u ti o n o f th e se co n d an d thir d s ear ch w arr ant s “off

i cer s s ei zed numer ous i t ems . . . forw hi ch ther e w as no pr obabl e ca us e ors our ce i n t he w arr ant s fors ei zur e. T hi s convert ed the s ear ches in to g e n e ra l s e a rc h e s a n d re q u ir e s b la n k e t s u p p re s s io n .” B lu n t A p lt. B r. a t 1 1 . T he di s t r i ctcour tr ej ect ed the ar gum ent , s t at i ng thatothert han the ani m al s and s om e s t ol en pr opert y“the i t ems l i s t ed on the r eturn w er e pr opertyfal l i ng under o n e o f th e listed c a teg o rie s o f th e se a rc h w a rra n t.” R . V o l. I D o c . 2 9 a t 1 1 . It d id sta te, h o w e v e r, th a t it e m s th a t “w e re se ize d d u rin g th e e x e c u tio n o f th e se w a rra n ts b a se d o n n o n -sp e c ific in fo rm a tio n f ro m th e H a sk e ll C o u n tyS h e riff a n d h is d e p u t i e s t h a tt h e y h a d ‘ h e a r d o rr e m e m b e r e d ’ g e n e r a l r e p o r t s o f s t o l e n p r o p e r t y” s houl d be s uppr es s ed Id .

“ If e v id e n c e is illeg a llyse ize d , the g e n e ra l ru le is th a t o n lyth e im p ro p e rly s ei zed e vi dence , notal l of the evi dence , m us tbe s uppr es s ed . . . . ” Uni t ed Stat es v. Hargus , 128 F. 3d 1358, 1363 ( 10th C i r . 1997) ( i nt ernal quot at i on m arks o m itt e d ). B u t “e v e n e v id e n c e w h ich is p ro p e rlyse ize d p u rsu a n t to a w a rra n t m ust be s uppr es s ed i f the off i cer s exec ut i ng the w arr antexhi bi tfl agr antdi s r egar d for i t s t erm s . ” Uni t ed Stat es v. Fos t er , 100 F. 3d 846, 849 ( 10th C i r . 1996) ( i nt ernal quot at i on m arks om i t t ed) . “[W ] hen l aw enfor cementoffi cer s gr os s l yexce ed the s cope of a s ear ch w arr anti n s eiz i ngp ro p e rty , the p a rticu lar ityre q u ire m e n t is underm i ned and a val i d w arr anti s t r ans form ed i nt o a gene r al w arr antt her eby-9-

r equi r i ng s uppr es s i on of al levi dence s ei zed unde rthatw arr ant . ” Id . at849- 50 (i n te rn a l q u o ta tio n m a rk s a n d b ra c k e ts o m itte d ). O nl y“[i ] n veryr ar e ca s es ” have w e “appl i ed the unus ual r emedyof bl anket s uppr es s i on. ” Uni t e d S tat e s v . Le , 1 7 3 F . 3 d 1 2 5 8 , 1 2 6 9 (10 th C ir . 1 9 9 9 ). In Fos t erw e held that bl ank etsupp res si on w as approp ri at e beca use “t here w as a w hol es al e s ei zur e of Fos t er ’ s pr oper tyamount i ng t o a fi s hi ng expedi t i on. ” 100 F. 3d at850. O ne off

i cert es t i fi ed thatthey“‘ t ook anythi ng of val ue ’ ” and the di s t r i ctcourtfound that“‘ no at t empt w as m ade t o s ubs t ant i at e a c onnect i on betw een the s ei zur e of the maj or i tyof the s ei zed i t ems and the t erm s of the w arr ant . ’ ” Id . A s i m i l ar“fi s hi ng expedi t i on” w as conduct ed i n Uni t ed Stat es v. Me d lin , 842 F. 2d 1194, 1199 ( 10t h C i r . 1988) . T he w arr antauthor i zed s ei zur e of o n ly f ir e a rm s a n d th e re c o rd s o f s a le s a n d p u rc h a s e s o f fir e a rm s , id . at1195, but th e o ffice rs “ se ize d so m e 6 6 7 item s o f p ro p e rtyn o n e o f

w h ich w e re id e n tifie d in t he w arr antauthor i zi ng t he s ear ch, ” id . at1196. I n contr as t , i n Hargus , 128 F. 3d a t 1 3 6 3 , “[ a ]lth o u g h w e [ w e re ] g iv e n p a u se b yth e w h o les a le s e izu re o f file cabi net s and mi s cel l aneous paper s and pr opertynots peci fi ed i n the s ear ch w a rra n t, th e o ffice rs’ c o n d u c t . . . w a s m o tiv a ted b yth e im p ra c tica b ili tyo f o n -site s or t i ng and the t i m e cons t r ai nt s of exe cut i ng a dayt i m e s ear ch w arr ant . ” M oreove r, “[t ]he officer s w ere aut ho ri zed to sei ze t en b road categori es of records, and thos e r ecor ds w er e pr es enti n everydr aw erof both fi l e ca bi net s . ” Id .-10-

In th is c a se th e d istric t fo u n d th a t, w ith th e e x c e p tio n o f th e se ize d a n im a ls and s om e s t ol en goods , al l t he s ei zed i t ems w er e w i thi n cat egor i es des cr i bed by t he w arr ant s . A s fort he i t ems s ei zed on s us pi ci on thatt heyw er e s t ol en, A gent Fi or et t i t es t i fi ed thatt heyw er e s ei zed ge ner al l ybeca us e of r eport s of s i m i l ar item s th a t w e re sto len . T h e o ffice rs s e ize d so m e b a se b a ll, fo o tb a ll, a n d b a sk e tb a ll car ds , forexampl e, beca us e the s her i ff a s s i s t i ng the s ear ch “ha d [r ece i ved] s ever al r eport s of num er ous bas ebal l car ds and bas ketbal l car ds t hatw er e s t ol en i n and ar ound H as kel l C ount y . ” R . V ol . X V I I I at30. Sever al boxes of arr ow heads w er e al s o s ei zed be caus e “[ t ] her e had be en s ever al bur gl ar i es w her e a l ar ge amountof arr ow head c ol l ect i ons had bee n s t ol en i n H as kel l C ountyand [the s her i ff] bel i eved thes e coul d be a pa r tof thatbur gl ary . ” Id . a t6 8 . A b r o wn le a th e r s a d d le w ith “ B a r 9 9 " o n th e b a c k w a s s e iz e d fo r t h e s a m e re a s o n . Id . at 30. A gentFi or et t i t es t i fi ed thaton- s cene confi r m at i on w oul d have be en t oo t i m econs um i ng. B utw hen i tcoul d be ver i fi ed thati t ems w er e i n fac ts t ol en, t he offi cer s appar ent l yat t empt ed t o do s o. Sever al cl as s r i ngs w er e s ei zed, for e x a m p le , w h ic h h a d n a m e s o n th e m th a t w e re re c o g n iz e d b yo ffic e rs o n th e s c e n e . S o m e o f th o s e p e o p le w e re c a lle d a n d c o n fir m e d th a t th e ri n g s h a d b e e n s to le n . A n d m a n yitem s w e re lef t b e h in d b e c a u se th e yd id n o t ap p e a r to b e sto len . A ll th e o ffice rs o n th e sc e n e w e re p ro v id e d a c o p yo f th e w a rra n t, an d A g e n t F io re tti h im s e lf m a d e th e fin a l d e c is io n w h e th e r a n ite m s h o u ld b e s e iz e d .-11-

T h e d istric t co u rt sp e c ifica llysu p p re ss e d item s th a t w e re se ize d u n d e r o n ly a g e n e ra l b e lief

th a t th e yw e re sto len . B u t ev e n if so m e item s w e re im p ro p e rly s ei zed, t he above acc ountof pol i ce pr ocedur es s how s thatthe w arr ant s w er e not e x e c u ted w ith “ flag ra n t d isre g a rd ” fo r th e ir ter m s, o r th a t th e o ffice rs “ g ro ss ly e x c e e d e d ” th e w a rr a n ts ’ a u th o ri z a tio n . Fos t er , 1 0 0 F .3 d a t 8 4 9 . T he s ei zed a ni m al s ar e a di ffe r ents t or y . A tt he s uppr es s i on hear i ng A gent F io re tti e x p lain e d th e d e c isio n to se ize th e a n im a ls:

T he s her i ff a nd I t al ked abouti tand w e ca l l ed the as s i s t ant di s t r i ctat t or neyand he a dvi s ed thati f w e di dn’ thave a nybodyt hat coul d t ake c ar e of them, t hatw e knew w oul d t ake c ar e of them, t hat w e nee ded t o t ake them basi cal l yi nt o pr ot ect i ve cus t ody . T hatw ay w e knew t heyw er e t aken c ar e of. R . V ol . X V I I I at33. A gentFi or et t i t es t i fi ed thathe di d notknow of anyother w ayt o car e fort he ani m al s . H e furthert es t i fi ed thathe had no purpos e i n s ei zi ng t he ani m al s ot hert han t o car e fort hem. E ven i f thei rs ei zur e w as i m pr oper , t he c irc u m sta n c e s d o n o t ex h ib it a flag ra n t d isre g a rd fo r th e w a rra n t. T h e a n im a ls we r e n o ts e i z e d a s e v i d e n c e a n d we r e n o ta d mi t t e d i n t o e v i d e n c e , a fa c t o rwe found i m por t anti n Hargus , 128 F. 3d at1363 ( “[A ] s ear ch i s noti nval i dat ed m e re lyb e c a u se so m e th in g s a re se ize d th a t ar e n o t sta ted in th e w a rra n t. T h is is par t i cul ar l yt rue w hen the non- s peci fi ed i t ems ar e notadmi t t ed i nt o evi dence agai ns tt he defendant . ”) . A ccor di ngl y , w e affi r m t he di s tr i ctcourt ’ s deni al of the m o tio n to s u p p re s s .-12-

I I . P RE J UDI CI AL TE S TI M ONY A . Backg r ound M r. C o p e m a n c o n ten d s th a t th e d istric t co u rt sh o u ld h a v e g ra n ted h is m o ti o n fo r a m istri al af ter F B I A g en t G aryG raff testi fied that M r. C o p em an ’s a s s o c i a t e s we r e a f

r a i d t h a th e wo u l d k i l l t h e m i f t h e yc o o p e r a t e d wi th l a we n fo rc e m e n t au th o rities . S o m e c o n tex t is h e lp f u l to u n d e rsta n d w h yw e rejec t th is cl ai m . Par tof M r . C opeman’ s t r i al s tr at egyw as t o i m pugn the i nt egr i tyand compet ence of the off i cer s w ho conduct ed the i nves t i gat i on. D ur i ng hi s openi ng s t a t e me n t , fo re x a mp l e , c o u n s e l fo rM r . Co p e ma n t o l d t h e j u ry“ th a tb yt h e t i me y ou have he ar d al l of thi s evi dence , y ou w i l l come t o the conc l us i on that[A gent Fi or et t i ] i s notan hones tpol i ce offi cer , t hathe w i l l l i e and c heatt o gets om ebody c o n v i c t e d . ” R. S u p p . Vo l . I ( Op e n i n g S t a t e me n t s , Au g . 5 , 2 0 0 3 ) a t2 8 . He ac cu sed A g en t Fiore tt i of p lanting ev iden ce , an d su g g ested that the e n ti re i nves t i gat i on w as r et al i at i on beca us e M r . C opeman had s uppor t ed the w r ong candi dat e fors her i ff. H e al s o ques t i oned w hyt he governm entdi d nothave cert ai n t ypes of evi dence : O urgovernm ent , t he FB I , coul d puta t ape, coul d puta w i r e, on so m e b o d yw h e re y o u c o u ld h e a r it. A n d w o u ld n ’t th a t b e g ra n d if y ou had thi s ki nd of evi dence t haty ou coul d l i s t en t o and s ay , oh, y eah, I heart hat . O h, he di d that . W el l , fort w o ort hr ee y ear s t hey h av e h ad this ab il ity . If [ M r. C o p em an ] i s su ch a b ig d rug d ea ler, w hyno tho ok on e of these peo ple up w i th a w i re and send t hem i n so t haty ou w oul dn’ teven ha ve t o be as ked t o gues s aboutw hetheror no the d i d o r di dn ’tdo t his .-13-

Id . a t 3 5 -3 6 . D ur i ng cr os s - exami nat i on of A gentG r aff, M r . C opeman’ s couns el co n ti n u ed o n this th em e, qu esti o n ing A g en t G raff a b o u t w h ythe in v esti g ators fai l ed t o us e ce r t ai n t echni ques , s uch as under coverbuy s , w i r et aps , and i nfo rm ants : Q O kay . W oul d i tbe a fai rs t at ementthatback i n 1999, y ou— t he FB I opened a n i nves t i gat i on i nt o E ddi e C opeman? A T h a t is c o rre c t.

. . . . Q A nd w oul d i tbe a fai rs t at ementthati n ‘ 99, 2000, 2001, up unt i l O ct oberof 2002, he r emai ned a t ar getof the FB I , the D E A , and I as sum e t he H askel l C ou ntyfolks?

. . . . A A t tim e s , h e w a s . I m e a n , I w o rk e d 1 5 o r 2 0 o th e r c a s e s . T h ere w o u ld b e ti m es six o r nin e m o n ths w o u ld g o b yan d I w o u ldn ’t even thi nk aboutM r . C opeman. Q O kay . W oul d i tbe a fai rs t at ementthaty ou al l att empt ed t o— I m ean, w hen theybecome a t ar get , y ou l i ke t o getevi dence , get t hem on vi deo, gett hem on audi o, m ake a buy , getone of y ouractual FB I agent s oran under coverpol i ce offi cer , s om ebodyt o go i n and a c tu a llyb u yf

ro m th e m ; co rre c t? A If w e c an d o that, that’s gre at, y es, si r.

. . . . Q In o ther c ase s, d o y o u sen d ac tual law en fo rce m en t office rs w ho have be ar ds and l ook l i ke druggi es , do theygo i n, and som et i m es y ou hav e actual pol i ce offi cers w ho m ake these un dercov er buy s?-14-

A S om et i m es. R arel y , bu tsom et i m es.

. . . . Q A nd y ou di dn’ tdo t hati n thi s cas e? A T h e o p p o rtu n ityjust did n o t prese n t i tsel f, no , sir . R . V ol . X at319- 22. O n red ir ec t, A g en t G raff h ad the fo ll o w ing ex ch an g e w ith the p rose cu tor: Q [D efe ns e couns el ] as ked y ou abouty ourabi l i tyt o putw i r es on peopl e and a l l of thos e s or t s of thi ngs . D o y ou r emem bert hatki nd o f i n q u i r y? A Y es. Y es. Q D id y o u att em p t— d u ri n g y o u r i n v esti g ati o n o f th is m att er, at t empt t o i nt r oduce a l aw enfor cementoffi cert o M r . C opeman? A Y es. Q W e re y o u su c c e ss f u l in th a t atte m p t? A N o. Q W h yn o t? A I tw as verydi ffi cul tt o getpeopl e t o cooper at e— [D efe ns e C ouns el ] : O bj ect , Y ourH onor , as — thathe at t empt ed t o? I mean, I don’ tknow , ar e theygoi ng t o s ayt hat , oh, e v e ryb o d yis ju st s o sc a re d ? I m e a n , itc o u ld b e v e ryp reju d icia l, w hat ’ s fi xi ng t o come out , and i t s — the r eas on— T h e C o u rt : O k ay . I’ve h ea rd e n o u g h . T h e o bjecti o n ’s o v erru led. Y o u m ayan sw er. B yt he W i t ness:-15-

A It w a s v e ryd ifficu lt t o g e t an y o n e to c o o p e ra te, b e c a u se p e o p le w e re ter rified o f

M r. C o p e m a n , an d th e yw e re a f ra id h e w o u ld k ill t hem i f theycooper at ed. [D efe ns e C ouns el ] : See, J udge. See w hatI ’ m s ay i ng? [P rose cu tor]: H e o p en ed the d o o r, Y o u r H o n o r. T he C our t : I

— I s us t ai ned the— overrul ed the obj ect i on and l et him answ er, and y ou can cross exam i ne h i m abo ut i t , i f y ou cho ose to . R . V o l. X a t 3 8 0 -8 1 . U l t i m at el y , t he di s t r i ctcourtrul ed thatpartof the ans w erhad t o be s tr i cken as hearsay : “W el l , I’ ve alr eadym ade the rul i ng . H e can a nsw er the q uest i on y es, t hathe made an effor t , butt he— w hen the effor tget s i nt o hear s ay , t hen i t ’ s not admi s s i bl e. ” Id . at383. T he j uryw as t hen “i ns truct ed t o di s r egar d the ans w er given byt his w i t ness, othert han the an sw er that he di d m ake an effo rt . T he rest of the s t at ementof the w i t nes s s houl d be di s r egar ded. ” Id . O n r ecr os s , defe ns e couns el i m m edi at el ybegan que s t i oni ng A gentG r aff ab o u t th e stri ck en an sw er: Q T h a t p a rt w e ’re d isre g a rd in g , y o u d id n ’t p u t itin a n yre p o rt; di d y ou? A I ’ m notaw ar e of i t , s i r , no. Q W el l , w oul dn’ tt hatbe a pr et tyi m por t antpartt o puti n ther e, t h a ti f y o u t r i e d t o wi r e s o me b o d yu p , a n d t h i s i s s u c h a b a d fe l l o w, w o u ld n ’t th a t g o in a re p o rt? [P rose cu tor]: Y o u ’re H o n o r, if th ey ’re su p p o sed to d isr eg ard i t , I t hi nk fur t heri nqui r yw oul d—-16- [D efe ns e C ouns el ] : J udge, that ’ s l i ke thr ow i ng a s kunk up th e re a n d tellin g th e m n o t to sm e ll i t. T he C our t : D o I t ake i tthaty ou’ ve w ai ved— [ D e fe n se C o u n se l]: N o , I’m g o in g to m o v e fo r a m istria l, beca us e I obj ect ed befor e i tevercame i n, beca us e I know how they do, I knew w hatw as comi ng, and that ’ s w hyI obj ect ed. Id . at383- 84. D efe ns e couns el t hen cont i nued t o ques t i on A gentG r aff aboutw hy t hi s i nform at i on w as not i ncl uded i n any r eport . A ft ert he j ur yw as di s m i s s ed, d e fe n s e c o u n s e l m o v e d fo r a m is tr ia l, w h ic h th e c o u rt to o k u n d e r a d v is e m e n t. T he nextm or ni ng t he di s t r i ctcourtdeni ed the mot i on:

I th in k u n d e r th e c irc u m sta n c e s I w o u ld . . . n o te o n re v iew in m ym i nd t hatt he t es t i m onyt hatpr ece ded thatques t i on that , perhaps i nvi t ed err ori s t oo s t r ong a w or d, butt her e w as as I r evi ew ed the t es t i m onys ever al ques t i ons by[defens e couns el ] t o thi s w i tnes s and a s I r e c a ll e v e n o th e r w itn e s s e s a s to w h yth e re w a s n o t a w ir e . A l t hough I do notcondone ne ces s ar i l yt he r es pons e of the FB I agent o n the s tand , I th ink h e c o u ld h av e c h o sen h is w o rds m u ch b ett er, I ’m notal t ogethers ur e thati tw as nota ques t i on thathad bee n o v e rw o rk e d b yd e fe n se c o u n se l. R . V o l. V a t 4 -5 .

B . D i s cus s i on T he di s t r i ctcour t“i s i n t he bes tpos i t i on t o eval uat e the effec tof the offe ndi ng evi dence on t he j ur y . ” Uni t ed Stat es v. B ehr ens , 689 F. 2d 154, 162 ( 10t h C i r . 1982) ( i nt ernal quot at i on m arks om i t t ed) . T her efor e [w ] e r evi ew a di s t r i ctcourt ’ s r efus al t o gr anta mi s tr i al forabus e of di s cr et i on. I n r evi ew i ng a court ’ s det erm i nat i on forabus e of di s cr et i on, w e w i l l notdi s turb the det erm i nat i on abs enta di s t i nct-17-

s how i ng i tw as bas ed on a c l ear l yerr oneous fi ndi ng of fa ctoran e rr o n e o u s c o n c lu s io n o f la w o r m a n ife s ts a c le a r e rr o r o f ju d g m e n t. Uni t ed Stat es v. St iger , 413 F. 3d 1185, 1194 ( 10th C i r . 2005) ( i nt ernal quot at i on m a rk s a n d c ita tio n o m itte d ). T h e d istri ct co u rtd id n o t abu se it s d iscreti o n in d en y ing the m o ti o n fo r a m i s t r i al . M r . C opeman cont ends thatthe courts houl d have e xcl uded underFed. R . E v id . 4 0 4 (b ) A g e n t G ra ff ’s s tate m e n t th a t o ffice rs w e re u n a b le to fin d p e o p le t o cooper at e i n t hei ri nves t i gat i on of M r . C opeman becaus e theyw er e af r ai d he w o u ld k ill th e m , an d “ th a t b e c a u se th is te stim o n yw a s e rro n e o u slya d m itt e d , h e is ent i t l ed t o a new t r i al . ” C opeman A pl t . B r . at14. B utthe s t at ementw as s tr i cken an d the ju ryw as in stru cted to d isr eg ard it . T h e o n lyissue b efo re u s is w h ethe r, not w i t hs t andi ng thi s i ns t ruct i on t o the j ur y , M r . C opeman w as ent i t l ed t o a m i s t r i al beca us e hi s “r i ghtt o a fa i rand i m part i al tr i al ha[d] been i m pai r ed. ” United S tates v. C ab allero , 2 7 7 F .3 d 1 2 3 5 , 1 2 4 2 (1 0 th C ir . 2 0 0 2 ). W e do notbel i eve ther e w as s uch unfa i rnes s . Fi r s t , the age nt ’ s t es t i m ony w as r es pons i ve t o defe ns e couns el ’ s s peci fi c s ugges t i on thatl aw enfor cement offi cer s w er e i nepti n notus i ng par t i cul ari nves t i gat i ve t echni ques . Second, w i t hi n m i nut es of the t es t i m onythe courti ns truct ed the j ur yt o di s r egar d the por t i on of A gentG r aff’ s t es t i m onyconce rni ng peopl e bei ng afr ai d of M r. C o p em an . “W e p resu m e tha t j u rors w il l fo ll o w clea r i n stru cti o n s to d isr eg ard e v id e n c e u n les s th e re is a n o v e rw h e lm in g p ro b a b ili tyth a t th e ju ryw ill b e u n a b le-18-

t o fol l ow t he court ’ s i ns t ruct i ons , and a s tr ong l i kel i hood thatthe effec tof the evi dence w oul d be deva s t at i ng t o the defendant . ” Id . at1243 ( i nt ernal quot at i on m arks om i t t ed) . A l t hough M r . C opeman com pl ai ns thatthe j ur ydi d notr ece i ve an addi t i onal i ns t ruct i on befor e i t began del i ber at i ons , he nei therobj ect ed t o the i ns t ruct i ons gi ven byt he court , norpr opos ed anothercur at i ve i ns truct i on. T he d is tr ic t c o u rt d id n o t a b u s e its d is c re tio n in d e n y in g th e m o tio n fo r a m is tr ia l. I I I . P ROS EC UT ORI AL M I S CONDUCT A . Backg r ound M r . C opeman poi nt s t o t hr ee s t at ement s t hathe cont ends r epr es ent pr os ecut or i al m i s conduct . Fi r s t , dur i ng r edi r ectexami nat i on of A gentG r aff, t he p rose cu tor att em p ted to ask h im ab o u t a rep o rtb yA g en t Fiore tt i. M r. C o p em an ’s co u n sel o bjected that ask ing A g en t G raff a b o u t th e c o n tents o f A g en t Fiore tt i’ s r epor tcal l ed forhear s ay . T he pr os ecut ort hen s t at ed thaton cr os s - exami nat i on d efen se c o u n sel h ad tr ied to “m isl ea d the ju ryas to w h at M r. F iorett i’ s rep o rt i ndi cat ed. ” R . V ol . X at375. T he s econd s t at ementcame att he begi nni ng of cl os i ng ar gum entw hen the pr os ecut ors t at ed: A l s o, att he begi nni ng of thi s cas e I t ol d y ou thatal l of thatm at t er ed w a s w h e th e r o r n o t th e d e fe n d a n ts w e re g u ilty o f th e c ri m e s c h a rg e d . I s ubm i tt o y ou t he defendant s cont i nual l yatt empt t o di verty ou, c o n f u se y o u , q u ite f

ra n k lyb o re y o u , all o n a n d o n a n d o n to a v o id t hati s s ue. R . S u p p . V o l. I (C losing A rgu m en ts, A u g . 1 8 , 2 0 0 3 ) at 83 -84 . M r. C o p em an ’s c o u n se l o bjec ted th a t “[ t]o m a k e th e se k in d o f a ttac k s a b o u t th e d e fe n se is-19-

i m pr oper . ” Id . at 8 4 . T h e c o u rt su sta in e d th e o bjec tio n a n d in stru c ted th e ju ryto d isre g a rd th e c o m m e n t. F in a lly , the p ro se c u to r a lso sa id d u rin g c lo sin g a rg u m e n t: W h e n m yfa th e r w a s y o u n g e r . . . h e u se d to tell m e . . . y o u c o u ld tell w h a t k in d o f

m a n y o u a re b yth e e n e m ies y o u m a k e . It’s p re tty clea r th at dru g d ea lers do n ’tli k e the S teve F iorett i’ s the G aryG raff’s and i t ’ s a good thi ng beca us e theyar e doi ng t oo good of a j ob. A nd th a t b u s in e s s is n ’t p re tty. It d e s tr o y s p e o p le . Id . at99. D efe ns e couns el obj ect ed thatthe pr os ecut orw as r ai s i ng a “s oci et al a la rm a rg u m e n t” a n d th e c o u rt s u s ta in e d th e o bje c tio n . Id . B . D i s cus s i on We a p p l ya t wo - p a r tt e s tt o a c l a i m o f p r o s e c u t o r i a l mi s c o n d u c t : “ F i r s t , we deci de w hethert he conduc tw as i m pr oper . Second, w e dec i de w hethert he conduct , i f i m pr oper , w arr ant s r ever s al . T he gene r al focus of the s econd pa r tof t he t es tfocus es on w hethert he pr os ecut or ’ s conductaffect ed the fa i rnes s of the t r i al . ” Appers on , 441 F. 3d at1207 ( i nt ernal quot at i on m arks and ci t at i on om i t t ed) . “[I ] n exami ni ng cl ai m s of pr os ecut or i al m i s conduct , w e have hel d t hat r ever s al i s r equi r ed onl yi f the i m pr operconducti nfl uence d the ver di ct . ” Uni t ed Stat es v. Mayn ard , 236 F. 3d 601, 606 ( 10th C i r . 2000) ( i nt ernal quot at i on m arks om i t t ed) . Fur t herm or e, “i n det erm i ni ng w hethert he mi s conducthad s uch an i m pact , w e cons i dert he tr i al as a w hol e, i ncl udi ng the cur at i ve ac t s of the di s t r i ct cour t , t he ext entof the mi s conduct , and the r ol e of the mi s conductw i thi n the cas e. ” Id . (i n te rn a l q u o ta tio n m a rk s o m itte d ).-20-

W e ca n qui ckl ydi s pos e of the cha l l enges t o the tw o comm ent s m ade dur i ng cl os i ng ar gum ent . O n eac h occa s i on the di s tr i ctcourti m m edi at el ys us t ai ned an obj ect i on and i ns t ruct ed the j ur yt o di s r egar d the comm ent . A s pr evi ous l ynot ed, w e presum e t hat s uch curat i ve instruct i on s ar e ob ey ed b yj urors . C ab allero , 277 F. 3d at1243. M or eover , w i t h r es pectt o the “s oci et al al arm ” ar gum ent , the di s t r i ctcourtobs erved that“the obj ect i on w as m ade qui ckl yenough thati f [the pr os ecut or ] w as goi ng t her e, he di dn’ tgetther e. . . . I don’ tthi nk w e gott o that p o int i n fro n t of

this j u ry , that there w as a n ym essa g e c o m m u n icated to the jury abouts oci et al conce r ns . Fr om m yvi ew , i tw as a t erm i ntr oduced a nd char act er i zed i n y ourobj ect i on m or e than i tw as the s t at ementactual l ym ade by c o u n s e l” R . V o l. X V II a t 1 5 0 0 . T her e r emai ns t he s t at ementbythe pr os ecut orthatdefe ns e couns el w as a t t e mp t i n g t o mi s l e a d t h e j u r ywi th r e s p e c tt o th e c o n t e n t s o f a p o l i c e r e p o r t . As w i t h M r . C opeman’ s cl ai m of pr ej udi ci al t es t i m ony , the s t at ementm us tbe vi ew ed i n cont ext . D ur i ng A gentG r aff’ s cr os s - exami nat i on bydefe ns e couns el , he w as ques t i oned aboutt he s ear ch of a 1983 O l ds m obi l e: Q [Y ] ou s ayt haty ou found al l of thi s s tuff i n the gr een O l ds m obi l e on O ct obert he 23r d? A Y es. Q A n d a s fa r a s y o u r c o n c e rn e d , n o b o d yh a d e v e r— h e sa id n o b o d yh a d tam p e re d w ith it? A N ott hatI ’ m aw ar e of.-21-

Q W e re y o u a w a re th a t A g e n t F io re tti , o n O c to b e r th e 2 2 n d , in hi s s ear ch w arr antr etur n, l i s t ed and s w or e underoath that , “A l l the i t ems w er e, on t he 22nd dayof O ct ober , found— ” and one of the i t ems l i s t ed, t hathe s ay s t hathe found “

— one bl ack ba g cont ai ni ng s ever al bundl es w r apped i n bl ack t ape c ont ai ni ng w hi t e chunky s ubs t ance , fi ve bundl es i n pl as t i c w i th w hi t e chunkys ubs t ance , fr om t runk of ca rw i t h A r kans as t ag 552. ” N ow , that ’ s the s ame t ag that w e’ r e t al ki ng about , t haty ou s ayy ou found w i th hi m on the 23r d?

. . . . A H e h a s a typ o o n th e d a te o n th a t r e p o rt . It s h o u ld b e th e 2 3 rd . I’v e se e n th e re p o rt. R . V ol . X at314- 15. D efe ns e couns el al s o ques t i oned A gentG r aff aboutw hyt he t ypo w as notcorr ect ed, and w hyhe had notpr epar ed hi s ow n r eportconce rni ng t he s ear ch. T he pr os ecut orobj ect ed thatdefe ns e couns el w as try i ng t o i m peac h A g en t G raff im p rop erly : “H e’s a sk ing ab o u t som eo n e e lse’s rep o rt . I be li ev e it ’s a mi s char act er i zat i on of the r epor t , i n anyevent . ” Id . a t 3 1 8 . D ur i ng r edi r ectexami nat i on t he pr os ecut orques t i oned A gentG r aff about th e re p o rt: Q [D efe ns e couns el ] as ked y ou a numberof ques t i ons about M r. F io re tti ’s r e p o rt. D o y o u re c a ll th a t? A Y es. Q I ’ d l i ke t o gett hatcl ear ed up and a ctual l ys how y ou that re p o rt.

. . . . Q D oes t hi s appea rt o be the r eport

— [defens e couns el ] never s how ed i tt o y ou, butdoes t hi s appea rt o be the r eportt hathe w as a sk in g y o u a b o u t w ith M r. F io re tti .-22-

A Y es, i ti s.

. . . . Q D o e s— a n yw h e re in th a t re p o rt, d o e s it in d ica te th a t th e v e h icle w a s s e a rc h e d o n O c to b e r 2 2 n d , 2 0 0 2 , as y o u re a d th e re p o rt?

. . . . [ D e fe n se C o u n se l]: Ju d g e , se e , tha t’s w h a t h e ’s tryi n g to d o , is h e ’s w a n tin g th e m — I d o n ’t w a n t to g e t in tro u b le, b u t h e k n o w s th is is n o t ad m iss ib le, a n d h e ’s w a n tin g to m a k e th e m th in k I’m try in g to hi de s om ethi ng, t hatI ’ m nottry i ng t o hi de. H e ca n’ ti nt erpr et

— he c a n g iv e th e d a tes . I m e a n , if h e w a n ts to sa y , y e s, h e p u t— th e o n ly d a te w a s 1 0 /2 2 , the re isn ’t a n y1 0 /2 3 d a te o n th e re , I d o n ’t o bjec t to th a t. B u t to sa yI in terp re t th is to m e a n so m e th in g e lse , I o bjec t to th a t. [P rose cu tor]: Y o u r H o n o r, I be li ev e tha t [d efen se c o u n sel]— I w as n’ tt r y i ng t o s ayt hathe w as hi di ng s om ethi ng, butm i s l ead the jury . H e w as try ing to m isl ea d the ju ryas to w h at M r. F iorett i’ s rep o rtind icated . A n d I th ink b ase d o n that cro ss ex am ination , it ’s per fec t l yappr opr i at e t o i ntr oduce [ A gentFi or et t i ’ s r eport ] , s o then th e ju ry c a n d e te rm in e w h a t s ig n ific a n c e , if a n y , to g iv e to th e re p o rt . Id . at372- 75. T he pr os ecut orar gued thatbeca us e defens e couns el had bee n ques t i oni ng t he w i t nes s aboutt he r eport , “I thi nk, i n fai rnes s , t o r efl ectw hatthe exhi bi tactual l ys ay s , i t ’ s i m por t antforthe j ur yt o exami ne i ti n i t s t ot al i ty , and t hat ’ s w hyI t hi nk i ts houl d be admi t t ed. ” Id . at376. T he r eportw as admi t t ed in to e v id e n c e a n d th e p ro se c u to r a sk e d A g e n t G ra ff: Q D o es itreflect w h en the v eh icl e w as se arc h ed , that y o u w ere i nvol ved i n s ear chi ng? A N o, i tdoes n’ tgi ve a da t e. Id . a t 3 7 8 .-23-

T o s uppor thi s cl ai m t hatt he pr os ecut or ’ s “try i ng t o m i s l ead” s t at ement cons t i tut es pr os ecut or i al m i s conduct , M r . C opeman poi nt s us t o Uni t ed Stat es v. Li nn , 31 F. 3d 987, 993 ( 10t h C i r . 1994) , w her e w e s ai d “thatcomm ent s by p ro se c u to rs to th e e ffe c t th a t a d e fe n se a tto rn e y ’s jo b is to m isle a d th e ju ryin or dert o garneran ac qui t t al forhi s cl i enti s notonl ydi s t as t eful butbor der s on b e in g u n e th ica l.” W e sta ted th a t su c h sta tem e n ts a re im p ro p e r, b u t th a t th e yd id notamount t o pl ai n err ori n t hatcas e. H er e, w e ar e fa ced w i th a pr os ecut or at t empt i ng t o ques t i on a w i t nes s aboutthe cont ent s of a pol i ce r eportthathe b e liev e d h a d b e e n m isre p re se n ted b yd e fe n se c o u n se l. R a th e r th a n sta tin g th a t it w as defe ns e couns el ’ s j ob t o m i s l ead the j ur y , the s t at ementm er el yi ndi cat ed the p ro se c u to r’s b e lief

th a t d e fe n se c o u n se l w a s try in g to m isle a d th e ju rya b o u t a sin g le r e p o rt. T h e re p o rt w a s a lm o st im m e d iate lyth e re a f ter a d m itt e d in to evi dence , and defens e couns el w as gi ven the oppor tuni tyt o cr os s - exami ne the w i t nes s abouti t . W e ca nnots aythatthe pr os ecut or ’ s s t at ement

— as s um i ng i tw as im p ro p e r— c o m p ro m is e d th e fa ir n e s s o f th e tr ia l. Fi nal l y , M r . C opeman m akes a cumul at i ve- effectar gum ent : “The t r i al w as l engthy , butt he pr os ecut orm ade s ever al i m pr opers t at ement s . T he cumul at i ve effectof thes e mul t i pl e i nci dent s of pr os ecut or i al m i s conductw as s uch that M r . C opeman w as deni ed a fai rt r i al . ” C opeman A pl t . B r . at19. T o the ext ent t hatt hi s ar gum entr efe r s t o anys t at ement s otherthan the thr ee s peci fi cal l yr ai s ed o n ap p ea l, M r. C o p em an h as n o t po inted u s to a n ysu ch stat em en ts i n the re co rd-24-

and i ti s notourj ob t o s ear ch the r ecor d forotherpos s i bl e pr os ecut or i al m is c o n d u c t. See Appers on , 4 4 1 F . 3 d at 12 0 4 (refu sing to “s iftthro u g h the c ase ’s vol um i nous r ecor d t o fi nd s uppor tforthe defendant s ’ cl ai m s ” ( i nt ernal quot at i on m arks and br acke t s om i t t ed) ) . I f the ar gum enti s r efe rr i ng onl yt o the thr ee comm ent s actual l yr ai s ed on appe al , no s how i ng has been made thatthe c o m m e n ts, in d iv id u a llyo r c u m u lativ e ly , p reju d ice d M r. C o p e m a n ’s r ig h t to a fa ir tr ia l. I V. S ENTENCI NG CH ALLENGES A . T he Sent ences A ppl y i ng t he U ni t ed St at es Sent enci ng G ui del i nes ( U SSG ) , t he pr es ent ence r epor t( PSR ) forM r . C opeman cal cul at ed a ba s e offens e l evel of 38. T hi s w as enhanc ed byt w o l evel s beca us e “a fi r earm w as r ecove r ed fr om t he bathr oom w her e, acc or di ng t o w i t nes s es , drug tr ans act i ons had t aken pl ace , ” R . V ol . I I at7, s ee U S S G § 2 D 1. 1(b)( 1), plus tw o ad dit i on al l evels becau se M r. C op em an w as a le a d e r i n th e c ri m in a l a c tiv ity, s ee U S S G § 3 B 1. 1(c) . T his creat ed a tot al offense leve l of 4 2 , w h ich, co m b ined w ith M r. C o p em an ’s crim inal-historyca tego ryI, p lac e d th e G u id e lin e s s e n ten c in g ra n g e a t 3 6 0 m o n th s to life . M r. C o p e m a n d id no tobj ectt o the PS R . T he d i stri ctcou rti m po sed a sentence of 3 60 m on ths’ i m pr i s onm ent , s t at i ng t hat“[a ] s ent ence att he bot t om of the gui del i ne r ange w as i m pos ed t o pr ovi de j us tpuni s hm ent , t o pr om ot e r es pectfort he l aw , and t o pr ot ect th e p u b lic .” R . S u p p . V o l. I I a t 5 -6 .-25-

T h e P S R fo r M s. B lu n t als o c a lcu late d a b a se o ffe n se lev e l o f 3 8 , b a se d in par t on a fi ndi ng conce r ni ng drug quant i ty . A four - l evel r educt i on for M s . B lu n t’ s m in o r r o le in th e o ffe n s e , s ee U S S G § 3 B 1 .2 (a ), an d a c rim in a lhi s t or ycat egoryI , cr eat ed a G ui del i nes s ent enci ng r ange of 151- 188 m onths . She a lso d id n o t o bjec t to th e P S R a n d w a s s e n ten c e d to 1 5 1 m o n th s’ im p riso n m e n t, the b o tt o m o f th e G u idelines ran g e, fo r th e sa m e re aso n s g iven in M r. C o p em an ’s c a s e . M r . C opeman and M s . B l untcont end thatt heyw er e s ent ence d i n vi ol at i on of B ooker . T h e yb o th c o n c e d e th a t n e ith e r o bjec ted b e lo w a n d th a t o u r re v iew is onl yforpl ai n err or . “Pl ai n err oroccur s w hen ther e i s ( 1) err or , ( 2) t hati s pl ai n, w hich ( 3) affect s subst anti al ri gh t s, and w hich ( 4) ser i ou sl yaffects t he fa i rness , i nt egr i t y , orpubl i c r eput at i on of j udi ci al pr ocee di ngs . ” Uni t ed Stat es v. G o n za lez -Hu e rta , 403 F. 3d 727, 732 ( 10th C i r . 2005) ( en banc ) ( i nt ernal quot at i on m arks om i t t ed) . T he fi r s tt w o pr ongs of the pl ai n- err ort es tar e s at i s fi ed w h e n th e s e n te n c in g ju d g e a p p lie s th e G u id e lin e s in a m a n d a to ry fa s h io n . Id . B . D i s cus s i on M r . C opeman cont ends , and the governm entconce des , t hatt he s ent enci ng in h is c a se in v o lv e d b o th c o n stitu tio n a l an d n o n c o n stitu tio n a l B ookererr or . T hat i s , t he s ent ence w as i ncr eas ed bas ed on fa ct s found byt he j udge, and the G u id e lin e s w e re a p p lie d m a n d a to ri ly. S e e Un itedS ta tes v . G o n za lez -Hu e rta , 403-26-

F. 3d 727, 731- 32 ( 10t h C i r . 2005) ( en banc ) ( di s t i ngui s hi ng betw een c o n stitu tio n a l an d n o n c o n stitu tio n a l B ookere rr o r) . The fi r s te nh a nc e mentc ha l l e ng e d b yM r . Cope man was un de rU SSG § 2 D1 . 1 ( b ) ( 1 ) , wh i c h p r o v i d e s t h a tth e o ffe n s e l e v e l s h o u l d b e i n c r e a s e d b ytwo l evel s “[i ] f a da nger ous w eapon ( i ncl udi ng a fi r earm ) w as pos s es s ed. ” The d istric t co u rt g ra n ted a ju d g m e n t o f a c q u itt a l o n C o u n t F o u r o f th e in d ictm e n t, w h ic h c h a rg e d a v io la tio n o f 1 8 U .S .C . § 9 2 4 (c ), b a s e d o n th e s a m e fir e a rm . M r. C o p e m a n c o n ten d s th a t th e c o u rt’s ju d g m e n t o f a c q u itt a l is in c o n sis ten t w ith t he enha ncement . W e di s agr ee. Sect i on 924( c) r equi r es pr oof thatt he defendant “dur i ng and i n r el at i on t o anycr i m e of vi ol ence ordrug tr aff i cki ng cr i m e . . . us es or carri es a fi rearm , or . . . , i n fu rtherance o f anysuch cri m e, po sses ses a fi r earm . ” I n contr as t , § 2D 1. 1( b) ( 1) s ay s , “I f a da nger ous w eapon ( i ncl udi ng a fir e a rm ) w a s p o s s e s s e d , in c re a s e b y2 le v e ls .” A p p lic a tio n N o te 3 to § 2 D 1 .1 sta tes : “T h e a dju stm e n t sh o u ld b e a p p lied if th e w e a p o n w a s p re se n t, un les s it is cl ear l yi m pr obabl e thatt he w eapon w as connec t ed w i th the offens e. Forexampl e, t he enha ncementw oul d notbe appl i ed i f the defendant , arr es t ed athi s r es i dence , had an unl oaded hunt i ng r i fl e i n the cl os et . ” Thus, under§ 2D 1. 1( b) ( 1) , “the g o v e r n me n th a s t h e b u r d e n o f p r o v i n g me r e l yt h a ta we a p o n wa s p r e s e n ti n s o me phy s i cal pr oxi m i tyt o t he offens e. O nce thi s bur den i s m et , t he comm ent aryt o t he G ui del i nes al l ow s t he defendantt o demonstr at e thati tw as ‘ cl ear l yi m pr obabl e’ t hatt he gun w as connec t ed t o t he offens e. ” Uni t ed Stat es v. G om ez -A r r el lano ,-27-

5 F. 3d 464, 466 ( 10t h C i r . 1993) ( i nt ernal ci t at i on om i t t ed) . I n cons i der i ng M r . C opeman’ s m ot i on forj udgm entof ac qui t t al on the § 924( c) char ge, the pr i m arydi s put e w as notovert he pr es ence of the fi r earm w her e drug tr ans act i ons occurr ed. A r gui ng foracqui t t al on C ountFour , M r . C opeman’ s couns el s ai d:

“ [ T ]h e re h a s b e e n n o e v id e n c e th a t [ th e fire a rm ] w a s in a n yw a yu se d in fur t her ance — orpos s es s ed i n anyfur ther ance of the drug tr aff i cki ng cr i m e. W hat y o u h a v e b a s ic a lly is t h a t it w a s s im p ly p o s s e s s e d .” R . V o l. X V I a t 1 3 3 3 -3 4 . C ouns el acknow l edged thatt he governm ent“puton [evi dence ] thatats om e other t i m e ther e had be en s om e s al es t ake pl ace and thatthe gun w as ther e bec aus e they h a v e b ro u g h t th a t o u t w ith a w itn e ss o r tw o , b u t . . . the re is n o th in g th a t w o u ld i ndi cat e thatw e us ed and c arr i ed and pos s es s ed i n fur ther ance of. ” Id . a t 1 3 3 4 . T he d i spute, t herefore, regar ded w hetherthere w as, i n the di stri ctcou rt ’s w ords, “ac t i ve empl oym entof the fi r earm , ” R . V ol . X V I I at1459 ( i nt ernal quot at i on m a rk s o m itte d ), w h ic h is n o t r e q u ir e d fo r t h e e n h a n c e m e n t. A d d i t i o n a l l y, M r . C opeman’ s PSR , t o w hi ch he di d notobj ect , s t at es t hatt he “f i r earm w as r ecove r ed fr om t he bathr oom w her e, acc or di ng t o w i tnes s es , drug tr ans act i ons had t aken pl ace . ” R . V ol . I I at7. M r . C opeman al s o chal l enges a tw o- l evel i ncr eas e under§ 3B 1. 1( c) , bas ed on t he di s t r i ctcour t ’ s fi ndi ng t hathe “w as an or gani zer , l eade r , m anage r , or su p e rv iso r” in th e o ffe n se . H e a rg u e s th a t th e ju ryw o u ld n o t h a v e fo u n d th e fa c ts-28-

nece s s aryfort hi s enhanc ementbey ond a r eas onabl e doubt . D es cr i bi ng the reas on s for this enh ancem ent, t he u nch al l eng ed P S R st at es: [I ] tappea r s as t hough C opeman’ s pr i m aryr ol e w as thatof a di s t r i but orof m ethamphet ami ne. H ow ever , w i tnes s es di d des cr i be th a t M r. C o p e m a n w a s th e s o le d e c is io n m a k e r w ith in th e c o n s p ir a c y . H e pr ovi ded R i ckyW i l l i ams w i th a l ocat i on t o m anufa ctur e the drugs , i ns t ruct ed hi m w hen t o m anufa ctur e the drugs and pr ovi ded hi m w i t h t he moneyt o pur chas e the pr ecur s or s . Fur thert es t i m ony w as pr ovi ded thathe w oul d m ake a l i s tof s uppl i es forcoco n sp ir ators to p u rch ase an d p rov ide th em w ith the f u n d s n ec essa ry to m a k e th e p u rc h a s e s . R . V ol . I I at7. Sect i on § 3B 1. 1( c) i s “s at i s fi ed upon a s how i ng thatthe defendant e x e rc ise d a n yd e g re e o f d ire c tio n o r c o n tro l o v e r so m e o n e su b o rd in a te to h im in t he di s t r i but i on s cheme. ” Uni t ed Stat es v. B ackas , 9 0 1 F . 2 d 1 5 2 8 , 1 5 3 0 (10 th C ir . 1 9 9 0 ) . M r . C o p e m a n a r g u e s : “ W h i l e th e j u d g e fo u n d th i s w a s p r o v e n b y a pr eponder ance of the evi dence , i ti s notobvi ous thatthe j ur yw oul d have found th a t itw a s p ro v e n b e y o n d a re a so n a b le d o u b t. M r. C o p e m a n w a s in v o lv e d w ith o thers, bu t i t w as n o t pro v en b ey o n d a re aso n ab le do u b t th at he w as th eir l ea d er, o rg a n ize r, m a n a g e r o r su p e rv iso r.” C o p e m a n A p lt. B r. at 2 1 -2 2 . B e y o n d th is concl us or ys t at ement , how ever , M r . C opeman poi nt s t o no evi dence i n the r ecor d, n o r d o e s h e a tte m p t to im p u g n th e P S R ’s s o u rc e s o f in fo rm a tio n . W e r es ol ve M r . C opeman’ s cl ai m s on the fourth pr ong of the pl ai n- err or tes t. “U n d e r th e fo u rth p ro n g o f p lain -e rro r re v iew , a c o u rt m a ye x e rc ise its dis cret i on t o n oti ce a fo rfei t ed err or onlyi f i tser i ou sl yaffects the fa i rness , i nt egr i t y , orpubl i c r eput at i on of j udi ci al pr ocee di ngs . ” G o n za lez -Hu e rta , 403-29-

F. 3d at736. B eca us e the fourt h pr ong i m pos es s uch a hi gh bur den, B ookerchal l enges ar e oft en r es ol ved on the bas i s of the fourth pr ong r atherthan th e th ir d . G o n za lez -Hu e rta , 403 F. 3d at736 ( “W e nee d notdet erm i ne w hether M r . G onzal ez- H uer t a ca n s at i s fythi s bur den bec aus e eve n i f he w er e t o m eetthe th ir d p ro n g , h e m u s t a ls o s a tis f yth e fo u rt h p ro n g to o b ta in re lie f.” ). M r . C opeman has notm ett he “de m andi ng s t andar d” i m pos ed bythe fourth pr ong. Id . at737. W e have . . . i dent i fi ed numer ous non- excl us i ve fa ct or s thatcan gui de ourfour t h pr ong anal y s i s . Fi r s t , w e have not ed that c o n stitu tio n a l B ookererr or s w i l l be not i ced mor e fr eel y . A nother r el evanti nqui r yi s t he r el at i ve s tr ength orw eakne s s of the evi dence s u p p o rt in g th e d e fe n d a n t’ s s e n te n c e u n d e r t h e s e n te n c in g g u id e lin e s . N ext , w e maycons i derw hetherthe B ookere rro r su b sta n tially incre ase d the d efen d an t’ s sen tenc e. [O ther relev an t fac tors inclu d e] a s how i ng t hatobj ect i ve cons i der at i on of the 18 U . S. C . § 3553( a) fac t or s w arr ant s a depa r tur e fr om the s ent ence s ugges t ed bythe G ui del i nes , and otherevi dence pecul i art o the defendantthat d e m o n s tr a te s a c o m p le te b re a k d o w n in th e s e n te n c in g p ro c e s s . . . . [ a n d ] wh e t h e rt h e d i s t r i c tc o u r two u l d s i mp l yr e i mp o s e th e s a me se n ten c e o n re m a n d , o r w h e th e r in ste a d th e se n ten c e w o u ld lik e ly change t o a s i gni fi cantdegr ee i f the ca s e w er e r eturned t o the di s tr i ct c o u rt fo r d is c re tio n a ry se n te n c in g . Uni t ed Stat es v. Lauder , 409 F. 3d 1254, 1269- 70 ( 10th C i r . 2005) ( i nt ernal q u o ta tio n m a rk s , c ita tio n s , a n d b ra c k e ts o m itte d ). St ar t i ng w i t h t he l as tfac t or , al though M r . C opeman w as s ent ence d atthe b o tt o m o f th e G u idelines ran g e, no thing in the rec o rd su g g ests that w ere this co u rt t o r emand, t he di s t r i ctj udge w oul d nots i m pl yr ei m pos e the s ame se nt ence . T he di s t r i ctcourtexpr es s ed no di s s at i s fac t i on w i th the G ui del i nes - r equi r ed s ent ence .-30-

T he s econd fact orw e have i dent i fi ed— the r el at i ve s tr ength of the evi dence s uppor t i ng t he s ent ence — al s o cut s agai ns ta fi ndi ng of pl ai n err or . M r . C opeman m a d e n o o bje c tio n a t s e n te n c in g to th e p re s e n te n c e re p o rt . A l s o, he has not poi nt ed t o anyt hi ng i n t he l engthyt r i al r ecor d thatw oul d cal l i nt o ques t i on the fac t s found byt he j udge fors ent enci ng purpos es . H e poi nt s onl yt o the di s tr i ct cour t ’ s gr antof a j udgm entof ac qui t t al on the § 924( c) char ge. B ut , as w e not ed above, t he evi dence s uppor t i ng t he G ui del i nes enhanc ementappea r s undi s put ed. A not herfac t ori s w hetheran obj ect i ve cons i der at i on of the § 3553( a) fac t or s w oul d w arr anta depa r tur e. M r . C opeman not es hi s l ack of cr i m i nal his t ory , bu tt hat hi st ory , of co urse, i s consi dered u nd er the G uidel i nes. H e al so po i nt s t o h i s a ge ( he w a s 52 a tt he t i me of s e nt e nc i ng ) , a nd he a l th ( the PSR i ndi cat es t hati n O ct ober2003 M r . C opeman w as hos pi t al i zed w i th conges t i ve h e a r tfa i l u r e a n d t h a th e s u ffe r s f r o m d i a b e t e s ) . Ag e a n d h e a l th ma yp l a ys o me role in se n tenc ing , b u t th is r o le sh o u ld b e m ino r ab sen t extrao rdin ary c ir c u m s ta n c e s . C

f. U S S G § § 5 H 1 . 1 ( a g e ) , 5 H 1 . 4 ( p h ys i c a l c o n d i t i o n ) . C e r t a i n l y, not hi ng i n t he r ecor d s ugges t s a “c om pl et e br eakdow n i n the s ent enci ng pr oces s . ” Lauder , 4 0 9 F .3 d a t 1 2 6 9 (i n te rn a l q u o ta tio n m a rk s o m itte d ). T he fi nal fac t ori s w hethert he B ookererr ors ubs t ant i al l yi ncr eas ed M r . C opeman’ s s ent ence . W i t houtt he four - l evel i ncr eas e thatr es ul t ed fr om t he t w o enhanc ement s , M r . C opeman’ s s ent enci ng r ange w oul d have be en 235 t o 293 m ont hs ; w i t h t he enha ncementt he r ange w as 360 m onths t o l i fe— an i ncr eas e of-31-

1 2 5 m o n th s a t th e b a s e o f th e G u id e lin e s ra n g e s . T h is is a s u b s ta n tia l in c re a s e . S e e id . at1270 ( i ncr eas e of 84 mont hs i s s ubs t ant i al ) . B utthi s i s the onl yfac t or th a t w e ig h s in h is fa v o r. W e conc l ude thatM r . C opeman has notes t abl i s hed thatt he cons t i tut i onal B ookererr ori n hi s s ent enci ng “s er i ous l yaffect [ed] t he fa i rnes s , i nt egr i ty , or publ i c r eput at i on of j udi ci al pr ocee di ngs . ” G o n za lez -Hu e rta , 4 0 3 F .3 d a t 7 3 6 . A s w e sta ted in a sim ilar c a se , “[ O ]n lyo n e fa c to r w e ig h s in [ h is] fa v o r, w h ich is t hatt he j udge- found fa ct s s ubs t ant i al l yi ncr eas ed the appl i cabl e gui del i ne r ange. . . . N onethel es s , t hi s one fa ct or— l i ke anyof the fa ct or s w e have id e n tifie d in o u r p rio r c a se s— is n o t d isp o sitiv e , es p e c iallyg iv e n th e e ss e n tially unr ebut t ed evi dence r el i ed on byt he di s tr i ctcourt . ” Lauder , 4 0 9 F .3 d a t 1 2 7 0 -7 1 . W e r eac h t he s ame r es ul tw i th r es pectt o M r . C opeman’ s cl ai m of n o n c o n stitu tio n a l B ookererro r, w h ere the p lai n -error test i s ap p li ed ev en m o re r i gor ous l y . T o s at i s fyt he fourt h pr ong of pl ai n err oron a noncons t i tut i onal B oo ker c laim , M r. C o p e m a n w o u ld h a v e to sh o w th a t allo w in g th e se n ten c e to s t and “w oul d be part i cul ar l yegr egi ous and w oul d cons t i tut e a mi s carr i age of j us t i ce. ” Uni t ed Stat es v. D az ey , 403 F. 3d 1147, 1178 ( 10th C i r . 2005) ( i nt ernal q u o ta tio n m a rk s o m itte d ). M r. C o p e m a n h a s n o t m a d e s u c h a s h o w in g . See Uni t ed Stat es v. Tre t o- Mar t i nez , 4 2 1 F . 3 d 1 1 5 6 , 1 1 6 1 (10 th C ir . 2 0 0 5 ). T h ere w a s n o p la in e rr o r i n M r. C o p e m a n ’s s e n te n c in g .-32-

M s . B l untal s o cont ends t hatt he di s tr i ctcourtcomm i t t ed cons t i tut i onal B ookere rro r in fin d in g th e d ru g q u a n titya n d n o n c o n stitu tio n a l B ookere rro r in appl y i ng t he G ui del i nes m andat or i l y . W e conc l ude thats he al s o has nots at i s fi ed th e fo u rt h p ro n g o f

p la in e rr o r. T he s ol e fa ct ort hatcut s i n favorof pl ai n err ori n M s . B l unt ’ s cas e i s t he su b stan ti al i n cre ase in the sen tenc ing ran g e tha t r esu lt ed fro m the d istri ct co u rt ’s fi ndi ng conce r ni ng drug quant i t y . T he j ur yfound thatt he cons pi r acyj oi ned by M s . B l unti nvol ved more t han 500 gr ams of met hamphet ami ne. T he corr es pondi ng bas e offens e l evel w as 32. T he PSR cal cul at ed a ba s e offens e l evel of 38, bas ed on a hi gherdrug quant i ty , butt hen appl i ed a four - l evel decr eas e for M s . B lu n t’ s m in im a l r o le in th e o ffe n s e , le a v in g h e r a t to ta l o ffe n s e le v e l 3 4 . W i t houtt he court ’ s fi ndi ng conce rni ng drug quant i ty , buts t i l l cons i der i ng the fo u r- le v e l m in im a l- p a rt ic ip a n t r e d u c tio n , see United S tates v. C lark , 415 F. 3d 1 2 3 4 , 1 2 3 8 (1 0 th C ir. 2 0 0 5 ), M s. B lu n t’s o ffe n se lev e l w o u ld h a v e b e e n 2 8 , w ith a s ent enci ng r ange f

r om 78 t o 97 m onths . T he drug- quant i tyfi ndi ng i ncr eas ed t he r ange t o 151 t o 188 m ont hs . T hi s i s a s ubs t ant i al i ncr eas e. B utnone of the otherfac t or s s uppor ta fi ndi ng of pl ai n err or . T he evi dence supp ort i ng t he d rug qu anti t yi s und i sputed. T he jurydid not fi nd t hat the o ffen se i nvol ved o n ly 5 0 0 g ra m s o f m e th a m p h e ta m in e , b u t “ in e x c e s s o f” th a t a m o u n t. R. V ol . I D oc . 11 9. A dd i t i on a l l y , M s . Cope man r a i s e d n o o bj e c t i on t o the PSR an d p o ints t o n o thing in the rec o rd th at w o u ld ind icate tha t th e d istri ct co u rt ’s-33-

fin d in g w a s in e rro r. N o r w o u ld a n o bjec tiv e v iew o f th e re c o rd sh o w th a t a d e p a r tu r e wo u l d b e a p p r o p r i a t e u n d e rth e § 3 5 5 3 ( a ) fa c t o r s . S p e a k i n g o n h e ro wn behal f ats ent enci ng, M s . B l untpoi nt ed outthats he had a s even- y ear - ol d daught er w hos e mot herand fa t herw er e both goi ng t o j ai l . H ercouns el added thats he had b e e n c o n v icte d o f

o n lya sin g le c o u n t o f c o n sp ira c ya n d a sk e d th e c o u rt “ to re c o g n ize th e re lativ e d iffe re n c e in th e d e fe n d a n ts in th is c a se a n d tak e in to co n side rati o n h er fam il yresp o n sibil it ies an d g ran t her w h atev er len ienc ythe c o u rt can s ee f

i ti n t hi s cas e. ” Supp. R . ( B l untSent enci ng) at3. B utthe di ffe r ence betw een the r ol es of M r . C opeman and M s . B l untw as r efl ect ed i n the four - l evel decrease M s. B l un trecei ved for her m i no r r ole, and the tw o-l evel i ncrease M r. C o p e m a n re c e iv e d fo r h is ro le. A n d , li k e a g e a n d h e a lth , fa m ily c ir c u m s ta n c e s s h o u ld b e c o n s id e re d o n ly in e x c e p tio n a l c ir c u m s ta n c e s . C f. U SSG § 5 H 1 .6 . T h e re is n o th in g in th e re c o rd in d ica tin g th a t th e d istric t co u rt w o u ld i m pos e a l es s ers ent ence on r emand, and ther e w as no br eakdow n of the se n ten c in g p ro c e ss . W e c o n c lu d e th a t M s. B lu n t h a s n o t sa tisfied th e fo u rth p ro n g o f p lain e rro r w ith re sp e c t to e ith e r h e r c o n stitu tio n a l B ookercl ai m orher n o n c o n s titu tio n a l c la im .-34-

V. CO NC L US I ON W e A F F IR M th e ju d g m e n t o f th e d is tr ic t c o u rt . ENT ERE D FOR T HE COURT H a rris L H a rtz C i r cui tJ udge