# U ni te d S ta te s Co ur t of A pp ea ls

For the Eig hth Circu it

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ _

No. 1 3- 29 86

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ _

Uni te d S ta te s o f Am eri ca

ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll l Pla in ti

ff - App el le e

v.

Ro m on do Jen ki ns

ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll l Defe nd

an t - Ap pe ll an t

__ __ __ __ __ __

App eal fro m

Uni te d S ta te s Di st ric t Co ur t
fo r th e Eas te rn Dis tri ct of Ark an sa s - Li tt le Ro ck

__ __ __ __ __ __

Su bm it te d: May 23, 2 01 4

Fi le d: Ju ly 15, 2 01 4

__ __ __ __ __ __

Befo re BYE, COLLOTON, an d GRUENDER, Ci rcu it Ju dg es

.

__ __ __ __ __ __

GRUENDER, Circ ui t J ud ge

.

Fo ll owi ng a jury tri al

, Ro m on do Je nk in s was co nv ic te d of po ss es si on of

co cai ne ba se wit h th e in te nt to di st rib ut e, in vi ol at io n of 21 U.S.C. § 84 1( a)(1 ). The

di st ric t co ur t se nt en ced Je nk in s to 15 0 m on th s’ im pr is on m en t, wit hi n th e ran ge 1

The Hon or ab l e J

. Leo n Hol m es , Uni te d St at es Dis tri ct Co ur t Ju dg e fo r th e 1

East ern Dis tri ct of Ark an sa s.pr es cri be d by th e advis or y se nte nc in g gu id el in es

. Je nk in s ap pe al s bo th hi s co nv ic ti on

an d h is sen te nc e. Fo r th e rea so ns de sc rib ed be lo w, we affi rm

.

On Nov em

be r 9, 20 10

, whi le in ve st ig at in g a su sp ect ed dr ug -tr affi ck in g rin g

in Pi ne Bl uf

f, Ark a n s a s , Dru g Enfo rcem en t Adm in is tra ti on (“ DEA”) ag en t Ran dy

Harn es s arra ng ed fo r a co nf id en ti al in fo rm an t (“ CI”) to co n d u c t a co nt ro ll ed dr ug

pu rch as e fro m Je nk in s. W he n cal le d by th e CI, Je nk in s ag reed to se l l h e r c o c a i n e

ba se an d pr ov id ed an ad dr es s at whi ch th ey c o u l d mee t. Befo re th e co nt ro ll ed

pu rch as e, Harn es s se arch ed th e CI to en su re th at sh e di d no t ha ve an y co nt rab an d th at

m ig ht ta in t th e pu rch as e. Harn es s th en dr ov e th e CI to th e pr op os ed m eet in g lo cat io n,

whe re th e CI m et Je nk in s an d pu rch as ed a ba g o f co cai ne ba se fro m hi m

. Sh e th en

de li ve red th e co cai ne ba se to Harn es s.

Harn es s ke pt th e co cai ne in hi s po ss es si on un ti l he ret ur ne d to hi s of fic e la te r

th at da y

. Onc e at th e of fic e, Harn es s se al ed th e co cai ne i n a n e v id en ce ba g. He

co m pl et ed a st an da rd iz ed fo rm kn own as a DEA-12 , wh ic h do cu m en ts an ex hi bi t’s

ch ai n of cu st od y

. On th e DEA-12

, Harn es s de sc rib ed th e ex hi bi t. He th en pl aced th e

ex hi bi t in a se cu re evi de nc e lo ck er. Lit tl e Ro ck Po li ce Offi cer W il li e Tho m as , who

wor ke d on a joi nt dr ug ta sk fo rce wit h Harn e s s, at te st ed on th e ev id en ce-l oc ke r lo g

bo ok th at he ha d wi tn es se d Har ne ss de po si t t he co cai ne in th e lo ck er.

Th e f o l l o win g da y , Dete ct iv e Lee Free m an rem ov ed th e co cai ne fro m th e

ev id en ce lo ck er an d se nt it by Fed eral Exp res s to t h e DEA la bo rat or y fo r te st in g.

Alo ng wit h th e co cai ne , he m ai le d a DEA-7, a st an da rd iz ed fo rm th at pr ov id es th e

te st in g la bo rat or y wit h i n f o r mat i on ab ou t th e ex hi bi t. On th e DEA-7, Free m an

pr ov id ed a na rrat iv e de sc rip ti on of th e ex hi bi t an d it s or ig in th at co rrec tl y id en ti fie d

t h e da te on whi ch th e ex hi bi t was ob ta in ed an d th at th e CI ha d pu rch as ed it f r o m

Je nk in s. Els ewh ere on th e DEA-7, ho wev er, Free m an erro ne ou sl y id en ti fie d th e da te

on whi ch th e ex hi bi t was ob ta in ed an d th e da te on whi ch he ha d co m pl et ed th e fo rm

. Free m an al so co m

pl et ed a DEA-12 to do cu m en t hi s rem ov al of th e ex hi bi t fro m th e

-2

-ev id en ce lo ck er. Wh e n F reem an ge ne rat ed th e DEA-12

, he us ed as a te m pl at e a

DEA-12 crea te d fo r a pr io r ex hi bi t th at ha d co ns is te d of two ba gs

. Free m an fai le d to

ch an ge th e ex hi bi t de sc rip ti on on th e fo rm th at rem a i n e d f r o m th e pr io r ex hi bi t.

Thu s, al th ou gh Free m an kn ew th at th e co cai ne in th is cas e was co nt ai ne d in on ly on e

ba g, th e DEA-12 th at he ge ne rat ed no ne th el es s de sc rib ed th e ex hi bi t as “ two

in di vi du al ly wrap pe d cl ear pl as ti c b ag s co nt ai ni ng of f-wh it e ro ck -li ke su bs ta nc e.”

The DEA la bo rat or y te st ed t h e e x h i b i t se nt by Free m an an d de te rm in ed it to be

co cai ne ba se

.

A gr an d jury in di ct ed Je nk in s on on e co un t of po ss es si on of co cai ne ba se wit h

th e in te nt to di st rib ut e, in vi ol at io n of 21 U.S.C. § 84 1( a)(1 ). Afte r a jury fo un d

Je nk in s gu il ty, th e di st ric t co ur t se nt en ced hi m to 15 0 m on th s’ im pr is on m en t, wit hi n

th e ran ge pr es cri be d by th e ad vi so ry se nt en ci ng gu id el in es

. Je nk in s ti m el y ap pe al ed

bo th hi s co nv ic ti on an d h is sen te nc e.

O n ap pe al

, Je nk in s fir st arg ue s th at th e di st ric t co ur t erre d by de nyin g hi s

mo ti on fo r a jud gm en t of acq ui tt al on th e gr ou nd th at th e Gov ern m en t f a i l e d t o

pr es en t su ffi ci en t ev id en ce to su pp or t th e jury’ s ve rd ic t. “ W e rev ie w th e de ni al of a

m ot io n fo r a jud gm en t of acq ui tt al ba se d on th e su ffi ci en cy of th e ev id en ce de no vo .”

Uni te d St at es v. Ch at mon , 74 2 F.3 d 35 0, 35 2 (8 th Ci r. 20 14 ). “ W e wil l affi rm un le ss , vi ewin g th e ev id en ce in th e li gh t m os t fav or ab le to th e Gov ern m en t an d acce pt in g al l

reas on ab le in fere nc es th at m ay be dr awn in fav or of th e ve rd ic t, no reas on ab le jury

co ul d hav e fo un d [th e de fen da nt ] gu il ty.” Id

. (q uo ti ng Uni te d St at es v. Byn um , 66 9

F.3 d 88 0, 88 3 (8 th Ci r. 20 12 )). In rev ie win g a co nv ic ti on fo r su ffi ci en cy of th e

ev id en ce, we m

us t “ res ol v[ e] ev id en ti ary c o n f l i ct s in fav or of th e go ve rn m en t.”

Uni te d St at es v. Co ok

, 60 3 F.3 d 43 4, 43 7 (8 th Ci r. 20 10 ). In or d e r to fin d th at

Je nk in s vi ol at ed § 84 1( a)(1 ), th e jury was req ui red to fin d t h a t h e kn owi ng ly

po ss es se d co cai ne ba se an d th at he in te nd ed to di st rib ut e th e co cai ne ba se

. Uni te d

St at es v. Par ker

, 58 7 F.3 d 87 1, 88 1 (8 th Ci r. 20 09 ). Je nk in s do es no t arg ue on ap pe al

th at he la ck ed th e req ui si te in te nt to di st rib ut e. He arg ue s on ly th at th e Gov ern m en t

-3

-pr es en te d in su ffi ci en t evi de nc e to su pp or t th e co nc lu si on th at he po ss es se d coc ai ne

ba se

.

Je nk in s arg ue s th at

, ba s e d on erro rs an d in co ns is te nc ie s in th e ev id en ce

pr es en te d by th e Gov ern m en t, th e jury co ul d no t ha ve co nc lu de d be y on d a reas on ab le

do ub t th at th e su bs ta nc e fo un d b y t h e D EA la bo rat or y to be co cai ne ba se was th e

sa m e su bs ta nc e p ur ch as ed by the CI fro m Jen ki ns

. Je nk in s focu se s in pa rti cu la r on

th e erro rs in th e st an da rd iz ed fo rm s crea te d by Free m an

. Howev er, at tri al

, Free m an

ex pl ai ne d th at th e erro rs in hi s DEA-1 2 a r o s e be cau se he ha d us ed a pr io r DEA-12

as a te m pl at e bu t ha d fo rg ot te n to ch an ge cert ai n fie ld s on th e fo rm

. He te st ifi ed th at

th e co cai ne ba se th at he se nt to th e DEA l ab or at or y was co nt ai ne d in on ly one ba g,

an d th is de sc rip ti on acco rd s wit h H a rn es s’s de sc rip ti on of th e su bs ta nc e ob ta in ed

fro m Je nk in s an d de po si te d in th e ev id en ce l o c k e r

. Si m il arl y , al th ou gh Free m an

li st ed two er r o n e o u s d a t es on hi s DEA-7, ot he r po rti on s of th e fo rm pr ov id ed th e

co rrec t da te s, an d hi s t es ti m on y at t ria l co rro bo rat ed th os e la tt er p or ti on s. The jury

was pe rm it te d to cred it Free m an ’s te st im on y , whi ch e x pl ai ne d th e erro rs an d

su pp or te d th e co nc lu si on th at th e su bs ta nc e te s t e d b y t h e DEA la bo rat or y was th e

sa m e s u b s ta nc e de po si te d in th e ev id en ce lo ck er by Harn es s. Se e Uni te d St at es v.

W an na , 74 4 F .3d 58 4, 5 88 (8t h C ir. 2 01 4)

.

Je nk in s al so ob se rv es th at

, at tri al

, Harn es s te st ifi ed th at th e co cai ne was in on e pi e ce whe n he pl aced it in th e ev id en ce lo ck er, whi le Tho m as te st ifi ed th at th e

co cai ne was in two pi eces

. Je nk in s arg ue s th at th i s i n c on si st en cy un de rm in ed th e

ex hi bi t’s ch ai n of cu st od y so su bs ta nt ia ll y as to pr ecl ud e th e jury fro m fin di ng be y on d

a reas on ab le do ub t th at th e su bs ta nc e te st e d b y t he DEA la bo rat or y was th e sa m e

su bs ta nc e th at was pu rch as ed fro m hi m

. Howev er, th e jury was pe rm it te d to cred it

Harn e s s ’s t e st im on y ov er Tho m as ’s, es pe ci al ly gi ve n th at Harn es s’s de sc rip ti on of

th e ex hi bi t m at ch es th e d es cri pt io n pr ov id ed at tri al by Freem an . “ The jury ha s t he

res po ns ib il it y of res ol vi ng co nf li ct s or co nt rad ic t io ns in te st im on y , an d we res ol ve

an y cred ib il it y is su es in fav or of th e ve rd ic t.” Id

. (qu ot in g Uni te d S ta te s v. Ali

, 61 6

-4

-F.3 d 74 5, 75 5 (8 th Ci r. 20 10 )). Thu s, th e jur y reas on ab ly co ul d ha ve co nc lu de d

be y on d a reas on ab le do ub t th at th e su bs ta nc e ob ta in ed by th e CI fro m Je nk in s was th e

sa m e su bs ta nc e de te rm in ed by th e DEA la bo rat or y to b e c oc ai ne ba se

. Eve n if th e

e v i d e n c e m ig ht ha ve pe rm it te d th e jury to dr aw a di ffer en t co nc lu si on , t he jury d i d

no t do so

. “ [T]he fact s an d ci rcu m st an ces rel ie d on by th e go ve rn m en t m us t be

co ns is te nt wit h gu il t, bu t th ey ne e d n o t b e in co ns is te nt wit h an y ot he r hypo th es is

. . . .” Ch at mon , 74 2 F.3 d at 35 3 (q uo ti ng Uni te d St at es v. La m , 33 8 F.3 d

86 8, 87 2 (8 th Ci r. 20 03 )). Thu s, ta ki ng th e ev id en ce in th e li gh t m os t fav or ab le to th e

v erd ic t, id

. at 35 2, th e Gov ern m en t pr es en te d su ffi ci en t ev id en ce to pe r mi t t h e

co nc lu si on th at Je nk in s po ss es se d co cai ne ba se

. Acco rd in gl y , we affi rm th e di st ric t

co ur t’s d en ia l o f Je nk in s’s m ot io n fo r a jud gm en t o f acq ui tt al

.

Je nk in s ne xt ch al le ng es hi s 15 0- m on th

, wit hi n- th e-guide lin es se nten ce on bo th

pr oc ed ur al an d su bs ta nt iv e gr ou nd s. Fi rs t, he arg ue s th at th e di st ric t co ur t co m m it te d

pr oc ed ur al erro r “ by fai li ng to gi ve an y m ean in gf ul co ns id erat io n” to th e se nt en ci ng

fact or s en um erat ed in 18 U.S.C. § 35 53 (a). A di st ric t c o u r t m us t co ns id er th e § 35 53 (a) fact or s whe n craf ti ng a se nt en ce. Uni te d St at es v. Sh or es , 7 00 F.3 d 36 6,

37 5- 76 (8 th Ci r. 20 12 ). In do in g so , th e “ co ur t ne ed no t qu ot e ve r ba ti m al l of th e

fact or s li st ed i n § 35 53 (a).” Id

. at 37 6. Here, ho wev er, th e di st ric t co ur t di d

sc ru pu lo us ly i de nt ify e a ch § 35 53 (a) fact or an d ex pr es sl y st at ed th at it was “ ta ki ng

in to acco un t al l of [th os e] fact or s.” In ad di ti on , th e d i s t r i ct co ur t he ard arg um en t

fro m Je nk i n s’s co un se l reg ard in g th e § 35 53 (a) fact or s an d co ns id ered th e

in fo rm at io n co nt ai ne d in Je nk in s ’s pr es en te nc e in ve st ig at io n rep or t. Se e Uni te d

St at es v. St ru zi k

, 57 2 F.3 d 48 4, 48 7 ( 8 t h C i r

. 20 09 ) (co nc lu di ng th at di st ric t co ur t

ad eq ua te ly co ns id ered § 35 53 (a) fact or s whe re it rece iv ed “ si gn ifi can t ex po su re” to

th e de fen da nt ’s pr es en te nc e in ve st ig at io n rep or t an d arg um ent at se nte nc ing he arin g) ;

Uni te d S ta te s v. Ba tt ie st , 55 3 F .3d 11 32 , 11 36 (8t h C ir. 2 00 9) (s am e). As s uc h, we

are co nv in ced th at th e di st ric t co ur t ad eq ua te ly co ns id ered th e fact or s en um erat ed by

§ 3 55 3( a) an d t hu s d id no t co m m it an y pro ced ur al erro r.

-5

-Seco nd

, Je nk in s arg ue s th at th e di st ric t co ur t im po se d a su bs ta nt iv el y

un reas on ab le se nt e n c e. “ W e rev ie w th e reas on ab le ne ss of a se nt en ce un de r th e

de fere nt ia l abu se -o f-d is cret io n st an da rd

. A wit hi n- ran ge se nt en ce is pres um pt iv el y

reas on ab le .” Uni te d St at es v. Hus to n , 74 4 F

. 3 d 58 9, 59 3 (8 th Ci r. 20 14 ) (q uo ti ng

Uni te d St at es v. Cr omw el l , 6 45 F.3d 10 20 , 1 02 2 (8 th Ci r. 20 11 )). “ A d is tri ct co ur t

ab us es it s d is cret io n wh en it (1) ‘ fai ls to co ns id er a rel ev an t fact or th at sh ou ld ha ve

rece iv ed si gn ifi can t weig ht ’; (2 ) ‘giv es si gn ifi can t weig ht to an im pr op er or irr el ev an t

fact or ’; or (3 ) ‘con si de rs on ly th e ap pr op r i a t e fact or s bu t in weig hi ng th os e fact or s

co m m it s a c le ar er ro r of jud gm en t.’” Uni te d St at es v. Feems te r , 57 2 F .3d 45 5, 4 61
(8 th Cir . 20 09 ) (q uo ti ng Uni te d S ta te s v. Ka ne , 5 52 F.3 d 74 8, 75 2 (8 th Cir . 20 09 )).

Je nk in s t ak es is su e wit h t he di st ric t co ur t’s s ta te m en t th at , b ecau se of hi s ex te ns iv e

cri m in al hi st or y , it wou ld fo cu s “ pa rti cu la rly [o n] th e ne ed to pr ot ect th e pu bl ic fro m

fu rth er cri m es of th e de fen da nt .” Se e 18 U.S

. C

. § 35 53 (a)( 2) (C). W e ha ve he ld

co ns is te nt ly th at a “ di st ric t cou rt ha s wid e la ti tu de to weig h th e § 35 53 (a) fact or s in

each cas e an d as si gn so m e fact or s gr ea t e r weig ht th an ot he rs in de te rm in in g an

ap pr op ria te se nt en ce.” Uni te d St at es v. Bor ro meo , 65 7 F.3 d 75 4, 75 7 (8 th Ci r. 20 11 )
( q uo ti ng Uni te d St at es v. Bri dg es , 56 9 F.3 d 37 4, 37 9 (8 th Ci r. 20 09 )). Je nk i n s ’s

cri m in al hi st or y sp an s se ve ral de cad e s a n d in cl ud es nu m ero us co nv ic ti on s fo r

co nt ro ll ed -s ub st an ce an d ot he r cri m es

. In ad di ti on , at th e ti m e of se nt en ci ng , se rio us

cri m in al ch arg es were p e n d i n g a ga in st Je nk in s in at le as t fo ur ot he r pr oc eed in gs

. Thu s, th e di st ric t co ur t di d no t ab us e it s di sc ret io n by pl aci ng pa rti cu la r em ph as is on

Je nk in s’s co ns is te nt an d recu rri ng cri m in al co nd uc t. Se e Uni te d St at es v. Ti mbe rl ak e , 67 9 F .3d 10 08 , 1 01 2 (8 th Ci r. 20 12 ) (h ol di ng th at di st ric t co ur t’s “ em ph as is on th e

de fen da nt ’s cri m in al hi st or y

. . . fal ls wit hi n a se nt en ci ng co ur t’s ‘sub st an ti al la ti tu de

to de te rm in e ho w m

uc h weig ht to gi ve th e va rio us fact or s un de r § 35 53 (a)’” (q uo ti ng

Uni te d St at es v. Rue la s- Men de z , 55 6 F.3 d 65 5, 65 7 (8 th Ci r. 20 09 ))). Acco rd in gl y ,

we fin d no ba si s fo r co nc lu di n g th at th e se nt en ce im po se d by t he di st ric t co ur t was

su bs ta nt iv el y

un reas on ab le

.

-6

-Fo r th e fo reg oi ng reas on s, we affi rm bo th Je nk in s’ s co nv ic ti on an d hi s

se nt en ce.

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __

-7

-