## F I LED Uni te d St at e s C our t o f Appe als Te nt h Ci r c uit 

### S e p t e m b e r 25, 2006 Elisab eth A. Shumaker C l erk of C ourt PU BL I SH 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, v. J OSEPH ED W AR D M c CO NN EL, D e f e n d a n t - A p p e llan t. N o. 03- 6345

AP P EA L F ROM THE UNI TE D S TA TE S DI S TR I CT COURT F O R T H E WE S T E R N D I S T R I C T O F O K L A H O MA

( D . C . N o . C R - 0 2 - 0 0 9 - M)
E dw ar d J
. K um i ega, A s s i s t antU ni t ed St at es A t t or ney , ( R obertG
. M cC ampbel l , U ni t ed St at es A t t or ney , and M ar k A
. Y ance y , A s s i s t antU ni t ed St at es A t t or ney , w i t h hi m on t he br i ef) O kl ahoma C i t y , O kl ahoma, fort he Pl ai nt i ff- A ppel l ee. M ich a e l Jo h n so n , O k lah o m a C ity , O k lah o m a , fo r th e D e f e n d a n t-A p p e llan t.
B efor e EB EL , HOLL OW AY and TY M KOVI CH , C i rcui tJudg es.
HOLL OW AY , C i r cui tJ udge.
D e f e n d a n t-a p p e llan t Jo se p h E dw ard M cC on n e l w a s c o n v icte d b ya ju ryo f f o u r c o u n ts
ar i s i ng fr om hi s s al es of fi r earm s . T he i ndi ct m ent al l eged t hes e offens es : C ount1, deal i ng i n fi r earm s w i t houta l i cens e i n vi ol at i on of 18 U
. S. C
. § 922( a) ( 1) ( A ) ; C ount s 2 and 3, s el l i ng f ir e a rm s to a p e rs o n p re v io u s ly co n v ic te d o f a f e l o n y in v io la tio n o f

1 8 U .S .C . §Subse ct i on ( v) of s ect i on 922 w as enac t ed i n 1994 t o appl yfora per i od of t en 1 y e a r s . P u b
. L
. 1 0 3
- 3 2 2 , T i t l e XI , § 1 1 0 1 0 5 ( 2 ) , 1 0 8 S t a t . 2 0 0 0
. T h u s , i te x p i r e d o f i t s o wn ter m s in 2 0 0 4 . N o a rg u m e n t is m a d e th a t th is a f f e c ts th e v a lid ityo f

th e ju d g m e n t in th is cas e, nordo w e ques t i on t hatt he j udgm entr emai ns val i d i n s pi t e of thi s change i n t he l a w. -2- 9 2 2 (d )(1 )& (3 ); a n d C o u n t 4 , p o ss e ss io n a n d tra n sf e r o f se m i-a u to m a tic a ss a u lt w e a p o n s in
v io latio n o f

1 8 U .S .C
. § 9 2 2 (v )(1 ). D e f e n d a n t w a s s e n ten c e d to 7 1 m o n th s’ im p riso n m e n t, 1
cons i s t i ng of conc ur r entt er m s of 60 m ont hs on C ount 1, 71 m ont hs on C ount2, 71 m ont hs on C ount3, and 60 mont hs on C oun t 4
. T he di s t r i ctcour tal s o i m pos ed a f i ne of t en t ho usand do l l ars and a speci al asses sm ent of fou r hund red doll ars . D efe ndantM cC onnel now br i ngs t hi s di r ect appea l fr om hi s convi ct i on and s ent ence . Ju ri sd ict ion in this co u rtis gran ted b y2 8 U
. S
. C
. § 1 2 9 1 an d 1 8 U
. S
. C
. § 3 7 4 2 (a). I B ackgr ound D efe ndant , w ho had been an at t or neybefor e hi s l i cens e w as s us pended, w as s el fe m p lo y e d a s a p r iv a te in v e stig a to r. O n e a tto rn e yf o r w h o m h e w o rk e d re g u lar lya n d w ith
w h o m h e h ad an esp ec ial ly clos e re lat ion sh ip w as C h arles H o ldstoc k
. O n e o f H o ldstoc k ’s cl i ent s w as a m ot or cy cl e gang m ember named G eor ge Schuppan. Schuppan and de fenda nt M c C o n n e l h a d b e e n in tro d u c e d b yH o ld sto c k so m e tim e in D e c e m b e r 2 0 0 0 . A t trial, M cC onnel t es t i fi ed t hatSchuppan had be en i n tr o d u ce d as a fr i end, nota cl i ent . T he gover nm ent ’ s evi dence had atl eas ts ugges t ed thatM cC onnel m ayhave know n ot herw i s e. Schuppan, w ho had atl eas t o n ce pr evi ous l ybeen c onvi ct ed of a fel ony , had bee n
a r r e s t e d f

o rp o s s e s s i o n o f

a f i r e a r m a n d d ru g s i n S e p t e m b e r2 0 0 0 i n C a d d o C o u n t y,-3-

O kl ahoma. I n J anuary 2001, offi cer s s er ved a fede r al s ear ch w arr ant atSchuppan’ s hom e, fi ndi ng m or e guns and equi pm entform anufa ctur e of m ethamphet ami ne. Schuppan agr eed to co o p era te w ith the a u tho ri ti es a n d said that d ef en d an t M cC o n n el w as o n e o f h is sup p li ers of g un s. Feder al offi cer s fr om t he B ur eau of A l cohol , T obacc o and Fi r earm s ( A T F) deci ded t o pur s ue Schuppa n ’s i n fo rm ati o n ab o u t def en d an t M cC o n n el an d to u se S ch u p p an to at t empt t o m ake under cover gun pur chas es fr om M cC onnel
. T he offi cer s arr anged t o have Schuppa n
m ake a phone ca l l t o M cC onnel , w hi ch w as r ecor ded, i n w hi ch he t ol d defe ndantM cC onnel t hathe w ant ed t o buys om e more guns beca us e he ha d s om e “br ot her s ” ( al l egedl ym eani ng f e llo w g a n g m e m b e rs ) c o m in g f ro m o u t o f

to w n w h o h a d “ to ta k e c a re o f a littl e s itu a tio n .” S chu pp an tol d d efen dan tt hat he, S chu pp an, cou l d no t si gn pap ers for gu n p urchases becau se he w as a convi ct ed fe l on. D efe ndant i ndi cat ed t hat w oul d be no pr obl em, s ay i ng “I ’ ve got y ou cover ed i n s pades
. ” L at ert hatday , S chuppan w entt o M cC onnel ’ s offi ce a nd pur chas ed fi ve guns and
s om e amm uni t i on for$1, 750. Schuppan w as w ear i ng a re cor di ng devi ce t o t ape r ecor d t he
conver s at i on, butt he at t empt fai l ed. D efe ndant t es t i fi ed at t r i al t hati n t hi s per s onal m eet i ng, befor e the g u n s w ere s ol d, Schuppan had t ol d hi m t hathe w as nota fe l on and thathe had
m ade the s t at ement s on t he t el ephone j us tt o i m pr es s s om eone e l s e w ho had bee n l i s t eni ng t o t he conve r s at i on fr om Schuppan’ s end. A s econd tr ans act i on occurr ed i n February2001. Schuppan aga i n pur chas ed s ever al g u n s f ro m d e f e n d a n t M c C o n n e l, u sin g A T F m o n e y . T w o o f th e g u n s in v o lv e d in th is s a le-4-

w er e t h e i l l e g a l s e mi
- a u t o ma t i c a s s a u l t wea p o n s t h a t wer e t h e s u b j e c t o f Cou n t 4 o f

t he i ndi ct m ent . L at er that m ont h, another s ear ch w arr ant w as s er ved on Schuppan’ s r es i dence , wh i c h r e s u l t e d i n d i s c o v e r y o f a me t h a mp h e t a mi n e l a b a n d t e n mo r e g u n s , i n c l u d i n g t h e t wo
sem i -aut om at i c assaul tri fl es. T he g ov ernm ent addu ced ev i den ce at t ri al t hat al l of these guns had bee n s uppl i ed bydefe ndant“on cons i gnm ent ” aft er t he pr evi ous r ai d had r es ul t ed i n s e i z u r e o f a l l t h e g u n s Sc h u p p a n h a d e a r l i e r . Sc h u p p a n was t a k e n i n t o c u s t o d yfor vi ol at i ng hi s cooper at i on agr eementbycomm it ti n g ot hercr i m es and r emai ned i n cus t ody th ro u g h tr ia l o f

th e in s ta n t m a tte r. O n the s am e d ayth a t th e sec o n d sea rch w arran t had b ee n ex ec u ted a t Sc h u p p an ’s
r es i dence and w hi l e he w as i n cus t ody , Schuppan made a s econd r ecor ded ca l l t o defe ndant M c C o n n e l in w h ich h e d isc u ss e d m a k in g p a y m e n t ar ra n g e m e n ts f o r th e g u n s h e h a d b o u g h t. Pr i ces for s peci fi c guns , i ncl udi ng t he as s aul t r i fl es , w er e di s cus s ed. T he t w o agr ee d that S c h u p p a n ’ s g i r l f

r i e n d , E m m a J e a n M o o r e , w o u l d b r i n g p a ym e n t t o d e f e n d a n t . T w o d a ys l at er , M ar ch 1, 2001, M oor e made a r ecor ded ca l l t o d ef en d an t t o s etup a meet i ng. Soon aft erw ar d, defe ndantcame t o M oor e’ s r es i dence ( w her e S chuppan had al s o been l i vi ng pr i or to b eing take n into c u stod y ). W ith an ag en t h iding in an o ther ro o m , d ef en d an t sold M o o re t hr ee mor e guns . A boutt w o w eeks l at er , M oor e w entt o defe ndant ’ s offi ce a ccompani ed by an under coveragentpos i ng as her cous i n. M oor e pai d defe ndant over $2, 000 as t he bal ance Schuppan ow ed on pr evi ous pur chas es . A s di r ect ed byt he A T F agent s , M oor e r eques t ed a l i s tof w eapons t hatSchuppan had obt ai ned fr om defe ndant , and def endantcompl i ed, gi vi ng M o o re a h a n d w ritten list.-5-

A l m os tt w o m ont hs l at er , author i t i es exec ut ed s ear ch w arr ant s on defe ndant ’ s hom e,
carand off

i ce. A tt he hom e, agent s r ecove r ed not ebooks and otherpaper s aboutgun s al es and s e v e n g u n s wi t h p r i c e t a g s o n t h e m. Def e n d a n t ’ s c a r , whi c h was p a r k e d o u t s i de t he h o m e , c o n ta in e d te n m o re g u n s , s o m e w ith p ri c e ta g s , a n d m a g a z in e s a b o u t g u n s , a “B l uebook of G un V al ues , ” and otherevi dence
. D efe ns e ev iden ce inclu d ed the a d m issi o n b ythe g o v ern m en t ’ s evi dence cus t odi an that none of the guns s ei zed f r om defe ndant ’ s hom e or car w as i l l egal ; t hatm uch of the evi dence
w as cons i s t ent w i t h gun col l ect i ng; and t hat no l i cens e i s nece s s ary t o part ici p ate in gun
s how s . D efe ndant t es t i fi ed t hat he w as m er el y a col l ect or ; t hathe had metSchuppan thr ough at t or neyH ol ds t ock , w h o i ntr oduced Schuppa n as a fr i end, nota cl i ent ; and ( as al r eady
m ent i oned) t hataft ert he r ecor ded t el ephone c onver s at i on i n w hi ch Schuppan ha d s ai d t hat he w as a convi ct ed fe l on, Schuppan had l at ers ai d ot herw i s e. II A l l egedj uror dis ho nest y du ri ngvoirdir e D ur i ng voirdir e a ll j u ro rs w e re a sk e d if th e yh a d “ e v e r b e e n in v o lv e d in a n yc o u rt, i n anycr i m i nal m att er” co n ce r ni ng t hemsel ves orcl os e r el at i ves i n w hi ch theyhad bee n a defe ndant , w i t nes s orvi ct i m . T he per s on w ho l at erbeca m e for eman of t he j ur y , J
. L
. , di d not
r es pond, al t hough he once had bee n char ged w it h s ever al fel oni es . A ft ert r i al defe ndant lea rn e d o f

th e ju ryf

o re m a n ’s p re v io u s in d ictm e n t f o r f ra u d a n d m o v e d f

o r a n e w trial. D efe ndantnow ar gues on appea l t hat t he di s t r i ct j udge abuse d her di s cr et i on i n deny i ng t he
m ot i on.-6-

In h is m o tio n f

o r a n e w trial, d e f

e n d a n t p o in ted o u t th a t J.L . h a d b e e n in d icte d in sta te
c o u r to n t h r e e c o u n t s o f f r a u d a n d o n e c o u n to f

p e r j u r yi n 1 9 8 7
. Th e i n d i c t me n ta g a i n s tJ
. L. had bee n di s m i s s ed, and he ha d t hen bee n char ged byi nfor m at i on w i t h fi ve count s bas ed on bas i cal l yt he s ame al l egat i ons . T hos e char ges w er e di s m i s s ed atpr el i m i naryhear i ng and no othercharges w ere fi l e d
. D efen dan tal l eged t hat J
. L
. had i ntent i on al l yfai l ed to di scl ose t hese facts
. T h e tri al co u rth eld a h ea ri n g o n d ef en d an t’ s m o ti o n fo r a n e w tr ia l, at w h ich ju ry for eman J. L
. t es t i fi ed. H e t es t i fi ed that he di d not s peci fi cal l y r emem ber t he above quot ed ques t i on havi ng been a s ked dur i ng voirdir e , buti f as ked aga i n h e w o u ld notr es pond, expl ai ni ng t hathi s t hi nki ng w as t hathe had notbeen “ i nvol ved i n anyco u rt ” b ecaus e t he
c h a rg e s h a d b e e n d ism iss e d b e f o re trial. T h e d istric t ju d g e f o u n d th a t th e ju ro r w a s c re d ib le and ca ndi d. N otonl ydi d s he fi nd t hatt he j ur ors i ncer el y bel i eved thatt he voi rdi r e ques t i on appl i ed onl y t o m at t er s t hat w ent t o t r i al , buts he fur t herfound t hatt hi s bel i ef w as r eas onabl e, even though m i s t aken. T he courtconcl uded thatt he j ur orhad not actual l ybeen bi as ed. T he jud g e also conc l uded thats he coul d notfi nd i m pl i ed bi as , ci t i ng t he verydi ffe r ent ci r cumst ance s of t he cha r ges agai ns tdefe ndantand the fr aud cha r ges t hathad once bee n b rou g h t aga inst th e juro r. O urs t andar d of r evi ew fort he deni al of a mot i on fora new t r i al i s abus e of di s cr et i on. S ee, e. g. , Skaggs v. O t is E l evat orC o. , 1 6 4 F. 3 d 5 1 1 , 5 1 4 ( 1 0 t h Ci r . 1 9 9 8 )
. Th e d i s t r i ct
cour t ’ s fi ndi ng t hat t he j ur or t es t i fi ed cr edi bl y about t he m at t er i s r evi ew ed on lyfo r cl ear
e rr o r. See G onz al es v. Thom as , 9 9 F .3 d 9 7 8 , 9 8 5 (1 0 th C ir. 1 9 9 6 ). O u r a n a lysi s w illW e have obs er ved thatt he r eas oni ng conce r ni ng ques t i ons of j ur orbi as undert he 2 Si xt h A m endment i n cr i m i nal cas es i s ger m ane t o t he ana l y s i s i n ci vi l cas es undert he S e v e n th A m e n d m e n t. Skaggs , 164 F. 3d at515 n. 2. -7- c o n s i d e rwh e t h e rt h e f

a c t s s h o w t h a t t h e j u r o r h a d a n i mp l i c i tb i a s , wh i c h we r e v i e w de novo
. See Skaggs , 164 F. 3d at517. D e f e n d a n t is e n ti tl e d to a n e w trial if h e c a n sh o w th a t th e ju ro r f a iled to h o n e stly
answ era mat er i al ques t i on on voirdir e and thata corr ectr es pons e w oul d have pr ovi ded a
v a lid b a s is f

o r a c h a lle n g e f

o r c a u s e . McD onough P ow er E qui p. , Inc
. v. G r eenwood , 464 U. S
. 5 4 8 , 5 5 6 ( 1 9 8 4 )
. W e c o n c l u d e t h a td e f e n d a n tc a n n o te s t a b l i s h e i t h e ro f t h e s e t wo 2 p re re q u is ite s f

o r t h e re lie f

h e s e e k s . F ir st, as n o ted th e d istri ct j u d g e f o u n d that th e ju ro r’ s an sw er (o r no n -an sw er), al t hough m i s t aken, w as notdi s hones t . D efe ndantat t empt s t o s how t hatt hi s fin d ing w as cl ear l yerr oneous byargu i ng t hatt he ques t i on w as unambi guous and thatt he j ur orw as an educa t ed man w ho had form er l yhel d an i m por t antpos i t i on i n O kl ahoma hi ghereduca t i on. T her efor e, defe ndantcont ends , t he j ur or ’ s fai l ur e t o ans w ert he cl earques t i on byr evea l i ng t hathe had f

ace d cr i m i nal char ges i n t he past m us t have been di s hones t . D efe ndantfur t her cont ends t hat t he di s hones t yal one s how s bi as , r el y i ng on B ur t on v. Johns on , 948 F. 2d 1150, 1 1 5 8 (10 th C ir
. 1 9 9 1 ). W e a re n o t persu ad ed
. D ef en d an t’ s arg u m en t d o es n o t m ee t the v eryh igh stan d ard of s how i ng t hatt he di s t r i ctj udge’ s fi ndi ng of m i s t ake on the partof t he j uror, rat hert han di s hones t y , w as cl ear l yer r oneous . M or eover , w e r ej ectdefe ndant ’ s cont ent i on t hat di s hones t yal one w oul d b e su ff ic i ent . W e have pr evi ous l ynot ed thatt o hol d t hatbi as can-8-

be i nferr ed s ol el yfr om a di s hones tr es pons e dur i ng voirdir e w o u ld in e f f e c t d o a w a yw ith t he s econd pr ong of McD onough
. Skaggs , 164 F. 3d at 517. I ndeed, t hi s cas e w el l i l l us t r at es
w hyw e w er e corr ectt o have r ej ect ed the s ame ar gum enti n Skaggs
. T hi s i s beca us e of the
m ar ked di ffe r ence bet w een the cha r ges t hatw er e o n ce b roughtagai ns tj ur orJ
. L
. and the cha rge s fa cing M r. M cC o n n el. In th ese circu m stan ce s, the ju ror’s ex p erien ce m igh t hav e led, if a n y th in g , to a b ia s a g a in s t th e p ro s e c u tio n . See U nit ed S t ates v. R oss , 263 F. 3d 844, 847 (8 th C ir. 2 0 0 1 ). W e n o te, a lso , tha t B ur t on is n o t to th e c o n tra ry . T h a t ca se d id n o t h o ld th a t,
as a gene r al rul e, bi as m aybe i nferr ed mer el yfr om t he fa ctt hata pr os pect i ve j ur orans w er ed d isho n es t l ydur i ng voirdir e . I ns t ead, i tw as onl yt he cl os e s i m i l ar i t yi n ci r cumst ance s betw een the i s s ues t o be tr i ed and the j ur or ’ s undi s cl os ed expe r i ence s i n B ur t on w hi ch
s u p p o rt e d th e in f

e re n c e o f b ia s . B ycont r as t , even w her e the i s s ues w er e more cl os el yr el at ed than theyare i n t he i ns t antcas e, w e have decl i ned t o i nferj ur orbi as . I n G onz al es v. Thom as , 9 9 F .3 d 9 7 8 (1 0 th C i r . 1996) , no bi as , actual or i m pl i ed, w as found i n ci r cumst ance s t hats houl d have pr ovi ded
a s t r ongerbas i s fort he def ens e’ s ar gum ent . I n Gon z a l es , the juro r i n ques t i on had bee n a
r a p e v ic tim 2 4 y e a rs e a rl ie r, a n d th e p ro s e c u tio n th e re w a s f o r ra p e a n d a rm e d r o b b e r y. N e v e rth e les s, d e sp ite s o m e sim ilaritie s in th e typ e s o f c a se s, th is co u rt h e ld th a t th e ju ro r d id not s how actual bi as , nor had s he del i ber at el y conce al ed herexper i ence dur i ng voirdir e . T he McD onough t es ti s “di r ect ed ati nt ent i onal l yi ncorr e ctr es pons es , ” the pane l i n G onz al es s ai d. 99 F. 3d at984. T he courtt her e al s o found no i m p li ed bi as . I f a r ape vi ct i m can be an i m par t i al j ur ori n a r ape pr os ecut i on, t hen s ur el yj ur orJ
. L
. , w hos e experien ce w as havi ngW e have not ed s om e di s cr epanc yi n ours t at ement s on t he appl i cabl e s t andar d of 3 re v ie w . U

ni t ed Stat es v. D elr eal

- O r dones , 2 1 3 F
. 3 d 1 2 6 3 , 1 2 6 4 n . 2 ( 1 0 t h Ci r . 2 0 0 0 )
. As i n t h a tc a s e , we n e e d n o ta t t e mp tt o r e s o l v e t h e a p p a r e n tc o n f l i c tb e c a u s e i n t h i s c a s e we m us tappl yt he pl ai n err ors t andar d. -9- been c har ged w i t h embezzl ement and fr aud and a gai ns tw h om t he cha r ges had bee n di s m i s s ed, coul d be an i m par t i al j ur orfort he tr i al of t hi s w eapons cas e. F i nall y , w e no t e t hat defe nd ant do es no t al l ege actual bias , rel y i ng sol el y on h is
ar gum entt hatbi as s houl d be i m pl i ed or pr es um ed her e. W e have not ed thatt he McD onough fr amew or k i s nott he exc l us i ve means fors how i ng that a part yhas been de ni ed a f ai rt r i al b e c a u s e o f

th e p a rt ic ip a tio n o f a b i a s e d ju ro r. See Skaggs , 1 6 4 F .3 d a t 5 1 6 ; G onz al es , 99 F. 3d at 985. B ut beca us e M r . M cC onnel has notat t empt ed t o s how anyci r cumst ance s ot her th a n th e a lleg e d lyd ish o n e st voirdir e ans w er s and r el i es s ol el yon McD onough , w e nee d not go fur t heri n ouranal y s i s her e. III

A l l eged e r r ori n gi vi ng j ur y i ns t r uct i on on del i ber at e i gnor ance D e f e n d a n t c o n ten d s tha t h e w a s d e n ied a f a ir trial i n v io latio n o f

h is d u e p ro c e ss rig h ts beca us e t he t r i al cour t er r oneous l ygave w hati s know n as a del i ber at e i gnor ance i ns t ruct i on,
w hi ch as s een i nfr a per m i t s t he j ur yt o i nfer d efendant ’ s know l edge of a cr i t i cal fac tfr om
e v id e n c e th a t th e d e f

e n d a n t p u rp o se lya v o id e d in f o rm a tio n re lev a n t to th a t f a c t. W e r evi ew j ur yi ns t ruct i ons as a w hol e t o det er m i ne w hether t heyadequa t el ys t at e t he
a p p l i c a b l e l a w, a n d r e v i e w de novo w h e th e r a p a rt ic u la r in s tr u c tio n is p ro p e r. U ni t ed Stat es
v. H anz l i cek , 187 F. 3d 1228, 1233 ( 10t h C i r . 1999)
. H ow ever , i n t hi s cas e w e fi nd t hatt he 3

a lleg e d e rro r h a s b e e n f o rf e ited . A t trial, d e f

e n d a n t o n lyo b

jec ted to th e in s tr u c tio n a s toCo u n s e l p r e s e n t e d t h e i s s u e a s t o Co u n t4 v i g o r o u s l ya to r a l a r g u me n t , b u twe 4 bel i eve w e mustfol l ow ourw ai verrul e and de cl i ne t o cons i dert he i s s ue; i tw oul d be unfai rt o t he governm entforus t o deci de the i s s ue w i t houthavi ng t he bene fi tof t he g o v e rn m e n t’s b rie f

in g o n it. -10- C o u n t 4 . T h e re f

o re , the a lleg e d e rro r in g iv in g th e in stru c tio n s a s to a ll o th e r c o u n ts c a n o n ly be r evi ew ed forpl ai n err or . Fed. R
. C r i m . P. 30( d)
. A s t o C ount4, w her e an obj ect i on w as pr oper l ym ade att r i al , t he al l eged e r r orhas been w ai ved byfai l ur e t o br i ef the i s s ue. See 4 St at e Far m F i r e & C as . C o. v. M hoon , 3 1 F
. 3 d 9 7 9 , 9 8 4 n . 7 ( 1 0 t h C i r . 1 9 9 4 )
. C o n s e q u e n t l y,
w e c o n sid e r o n ly w h e th e r th e trial c o u rt c o m m itt e d p lain e rro r in g iv in g th e in stru c tio n a s to C ount s 1 t hr ough 3. “Thi s cour thas di s cr et i on t o r ecogni ze pl ai n err ort hatw as notr ai s ed i n t he di s t r i ct cour t w hen ( 1) t her e i s an err or ; ( 2) t hat i s pl ai n; ( 3) t hat aff ec ts sub stan ti al
r i ght s ; and ( 4) t hats er i ous l yaff ect s t he fa i r nes s , i nt egr i t y , orpu bl i c r eput at i on of j udi ci al pr ocee di ngs . ” U

ni t ed St at es v. Law r ence , 4 0 5 F .3 d 8 8 8 , 9 0 6 (1 0 th C ir .), cer t
. deni ed , 126 S. C t . 468 ( 2005) ( ci t i ng U ni t ed Stat es v. C ot t on , 5 3 5 U
. S
. 6 2 5 , 6 3 2 -32 (20 0 2 )). T he natur e of t hes e count s r equi r es us t o anal y ze t he i s s ue s epar at el yas t o C ount1,
w hi ch cha r ged dea l i ng i n fi r earm s w i t hout a l i cens e, and as t o C ount s 2 and 3, w hi ch cha r ged t hatdefe ndanton s epar at e occ as i ons had s ol d fi r earm s t o Schuppan, know i ng orhavi ng
r eas onabl e caus e t o bel i eve thatSchuppan had be en pr evi ous l yconvi ct ed of a fel onyorw as underi ndi ct m entfora fe l ony . A s t o C ount1, s uch know l ed g e is not an el ement of t he offe ns e of de al i ng i n fi r earm s w i t hout a l i cens e, and thus a del i ber at e i gnor ance i ns t ruct i on
w oul d be, on i t s fac e, i nappl i cabl e t o t hatcount . A s t o C ount s 2 and 3, how ever , i ti s an el ement of t he off

ens e thatt he def

endant“know i ngl y ” tr ans ferr ed fi r earm s t o a per s on w hom-11-

he knew or had re as on t o bel i eve c oul d notl aw ful l ypos s es s fi r earm s beca us e of a pas tfel ony convi ct i on ora pendi ng fel onychar ge. T h us , t he del i ber at e i gnor ance i ns t ruct i on coul d,
un der t he ri gh tci rcum st ances, be ap pli cable t o those cou nts . I ti s undi s put ed thatt he i ns t ruct i on gi ven w as , by abs ence of anyl i m i t i ng l anguage , appl i cabl e t o al l count s . T he i ns t ruct i on s t at ed: Y o u m ayfi nd t hat a defend ant del i berat el ycl osed h i s ey es t o w hat w o u ld ot herw i s e have been obvi ous t o hi m . W hi l e know l edge on the p artof t he defe ndantcannotbe es t abl i s hed mer el ybydemonst r at i ng t hatthe defendant w as negl i gent , car el es s or fool i s h, know l edge can be i nferr ed i f t he def endant d e lib e ra telyb lin d e d h im se lf to th e e x iste n c e o f

a f a c t. I R O A D oc. 60, I ns t ruct i on 41. W e h a v e c a u tio n e d th a t a n in stru c tio n o n d e lib e ra te ig n o ra n c e is on lya p p ro p ria te in
ra re c ir c u m s ta n c e s . H

anz l i cek , 187 F. 3d at1233. D efe ndantcont ends t hati tw as i m pr oper t o gi ve the i ns t ruct i on as t o C ount1 i n t hi s cas e, ci t i ng U ni t ed Stat es v. C ovi ngt on , 133 F. 3d 6 3 9 , 6 4 4 (8 th C ir. 1 9 9 8 ), f o r th e p ro p o sitio n th a t itis e rro r to g iv e a g e n e ra llya p p lica b le d e lib e ra te ig n o ra n c e in stru c tio n . T h e g o v e rn m e n t as se rts th a t C ovi ngt on is d istin g u ish a b le b e c a u se it d e a lt w ith a n in stru c tio n th a t w a s e rro n e o u slyg iv e n b e c a u se it w a s p ro p e rly appl i cabl e t o onl yone of s ever al defe ndant s , unli k e t he ci r cumst ance s her e. B utt hat d if f e re n c e is n o t sig n if

ica n t. W e a g re e w ith d e f e n d a n t o n th e g e n e ra l p ro p o sitio n th a t a d e lib e ra te ig n o ra n c e in stru c tio n sh o u ld n o t b e g iv e n w ith o u t la n g u a g e lim iti n g it t o a sp e c if ic countor count s , unl es s t he el ement s of t he offe ns e and t he evi dence s uppor ti t s appl i cat i on to all cou n ts. T h is i s alm o st a t au tolog y : T h e ins tru cti o n sh o u ld b e g iven o n lyw h ere p rop er. A nd beca us e know l edge w as not an el ement of C ount 1, t he cour t s houl d have m ad e cl ear-12-

t o t he j ur or s t hatt he i ns t ruct i on w as not appl i cabl e t o t hat count . T her efor e, w e conc l ude that d ef en d an t has sati sfied the f ir st tw o req u ir em en ts fo r plain erro r re v iew b ysh o w ing that there
w as err orand t hatt he err orw as pl ai n. W e fi nd i ta much c l os er ques t i on w hetherdefe ndanthas s how n t hatt he err oraff ect ed hi s s ubs t a n t i a l r i g h t s . As t h e g o v e r n me n tn o t e s , t h e j u r ywas c o r r e c t l yi n s t ru c t e d t h a tt he
n e c e ss a rym e n tal e lem e n t f o r C o u n t 1 w a s w ilfu ln e ss , an d th a t term w a s a p p ro p ria tely defi ned. I n H

anz l i cek w e adopt ed t he r eas oni ng of U ni t ed Stat es v. St one , 9 F. 3d 934, 937- 42 ( 11t h C i r . 1993) , t o r eac h t he conc l us i on t haterror in g ivi ng a del i ber at e i gnor ance i ns t ruct i on i s har m l es s i f t he pr os ecut i on pr es ent ed s uffi ci entevi dence of ac tual know l edge. W hil e t hat pr eci se ho l ding i n the ci rcum st ances of t he i nst ant cas e m i gh tapp l yt o C ou nts 2 and 3 but does not appl y t o C ount 1, w e t hi nk t hat t he r at i onal e under l y i ng t hat hol di ng does appl yt o C ount1. W e nee d nother e re ci t e t hat r at i onal e i n det ai l
. W e s i m pl yobs er ve that the re aso n ing w e a d o p ted th ere w as ba sed o n the pre m ise o f j u ryco m p eten ce to “d isr eg ard an opt i on s i m ply u ns uppor t ed byt he evi dence
. ” St one , 9 F. 3d at939 ( quot i ng Sochorv. F l or i da , 504 U
. S. 527, 538 (19 9 2 )). T hus , w e conc l uded i n H anz l i cek , as th e E lev e n th C i r cui thad i n St one , t hati ti s r eas onabl e t o pr es um e thatj ur or s w i l l s crut i ni ze the evi dence , r eal i ze w hen a de l i ber at e i gnor ance i ns t ruct i on has no fac tual s uppor t , and notbas e a ve r di ct on t he err oneous l ygi ven i ns t ruct i on. For t hi s r eas on, w e have cons i der abl e doubtw het her undert he s peci fi c ci r cumst ance s i ti s r eas onabl e t o bel i eve t hat t he defenda ntw as pr ej udi ced byt he i ns t ruct i on. B eca us e know l edge w as not an el ement of C ount 1, t he i ns t ruct i on m ay h a v e c a u se d so m e c o n f

u sio n a s the ju ro rs d e lib e ra ted th a t co u n t, bu t co m m o n se n se w o u ld-13-

l ead the j ur or s t o r eal i ze thatt he i ns t ruct i on s i m pl yh ad no appl i cat i on t o t he ques t i on
w h e th e r th e d e f

e n d a n t h a d u n law f

u llye n g a g e d in th e b u sin e ss o f se lli n g f ire a rm s w ith o u t a l i cens e. I n any event , w e need not deci de w hether t he err or i n noti nfor m i ng t he j ur yt hatt he i ns t ruct i on appl i ed onl yt o t he ot hercount s affec t ed a s ubs t ant i al r i ghtof t he def endant beca us e w e conc l ude t hat d efendantcannots at i s fyt he four t h el ement of t he pl ai n err or
s t andar d. B eca us e w e do not t hi nk i tveryl i kel yt hatt he j ur or s w er e ac tual l yl ed as t r ayby
w hatw as , as t o C ount1, a mer el yextr aneous and i r r el evanti ns t ruct i on, t h e erro rdi d not
se rio u slya f

f e c t th e f a irn e ss o f

th e trial. A s t o C ount s 2 and 3, w hi ch cha r ged M r . M cC onnel w i t h s el l i ng a gun t o a convi ct ed fel on, w e fi nd no er r or , and ce r t ai nl yno pr ej udi ce. T he j ur or s hear d a r ecor di ng of a t el ephone c onver s at i on i n w hi ch Schuppan t ol d d ef endantt hatSchuppan w as a convi ct ed fel on. O bvi ous l y , t hi s evi dence w as s uffi ci ent t o s uppor t t he re qui s i t e fi ndi ng of know l edge
o n thes e c o u n ts, an d u n d er H anz l i cek , anyerr ori n gi vi ng t he del i ber at e i gnor ance i ns t ruct i on
w as h arm less, g iven this ev iden ce o f a ctua l kn o w ledg e. B u t th ere w as n o erro r. A s t o count s 2 an d 3 , the i ns t ruct i on w as pr oper l ygi ven bec aus e def endantdeni ed k n o w led g e a n d th e re w a s ev id e n c e to sh o w th a t h e m a yh a v e e n g a g e d in d e lib e ra te a c ts to
a v o id a c tu a l k n o w le d g e . See U ni t ed St at es v. D elr eal

- O r dones , 2 1 3 F .3 d 1 2 6 3 , 1 2 6 8 (1 0 th C i r . 2000)
. A s not ed, t he evi dence s how ed that Schuppan t ol d defe ndant di r ect l yt hathe w as a fe l on. D efe ndanti n hi s test im o n y said t hatSchuppan l at ert ol d hi m t hathad bee n a l i e. A ccepti ng for pu rpose of thi s ar gu m ent that defend an t test i fi ed truthful l y(and of cou rs e-14-

defe ndants o ar gues ) , t hes e conf l i ct i ng s t at ement s on t h e p o i ntar e enough t o s uppor tt he deci s i on t o gi ve the i ns t ruct i on. D efe ndanthad expe r i ence as a cr i m i nal defe ns e l aw y er ( befor e he w as di s barred) and as a pr i vat e i nves t i gat or( and s el f- des cr i bed “pr ofes s i onal
s n o o p ” )
. S c h u p p a n a d mi t t e d t o d e f e n d a n tt h a th e wa s a f

e l o n . T h e n h e d e n i e d i t , i f we
a ss u m e d e f

e n d a n t’s tes tim o n y to h a v e b e e n tru th f u l, w h ich w e m u st as su m e f o r th is iss u e to have a nym eani ng. Faced w i t h t hes e cont r adi ct or y s t at ement s , defe ndant chos e not t o l ook f u rth e r. A n d th a t m e a n t ig n o rin g th e f ir s t s tate m e n t, th e a d m iss io n . W e se e n o e rro r in l et t i ng t he j ur y deci de w hether onl y a per s on w ho di d notw antt o know t he trut h coul d acc ept t h e s e c o n d s t a t e m e n ta n d i g n o r e t h e f i r s tw i t h o u ta n y f

u r t h e ri n q u i r y. E ven i f t hi s w as er r or , i ti s notpl ai n err orfort he r eas ons w e have gi ven. IV I m peachm ent

evi dence A t t r i al , as t he di s cus s i on supra s ugges t s , t he j ur or s w er e pr es ent ed w i t h confl i ct i ng
acc ount s fr om M r . M cC onnel and fr om t he governm ent ’ s keyw i t nes s , M r. S ch u p p an, on
s om e of t he i m por t ant event s under l y i ng t he char ges . M r . M cC onnel ar gues t h at he w as unfai r l ypr ej udi ced i n t hi s cr edi bi l i t ybat t l e byt h e tr ial jud ge’ s deci s i on t o per m i tt he g o v e r n me n tt o i n t r o d u c e a s i mp e a c h me n te v i d e n c e t h e f a c to f h i s p r i o rc o n v i c t i o n o n t wo
m i sdem eano r char ges. M r . M cC onnel had bee n admi t t ed t o t he O kl ahoma B ari n 1968. I n 1985 he had be en
s us pended f

r om t he barforfour y ear s fol l ow i ng hi s fede r al convi ct i on on t w o m i s demeanor
c o u n t s o f u s i n g t a x i n f

o r ma t i o n f

o rp u rp o s e s o t h e r t h a n p r e p a r a t i o n o f t a x f o r ms . Th e I RSSee I n r e M cC onnel , 8 6 8 P
. 2 d 4 7 1 , 4 7 2 , 4 7 3 , 4 7 6 (O k la. 1 9 9 4 ), in w h ich M r. 5 M cC onnel ’ s pet i t i on forr ei ns t at ement t o t he barw as deni ed. M cC onnel neverw as reinstated w ith the O k laho m a B ar. T h a t ru le p ro v id e s, in p e rtin e n t p a rt: 6 I mp e a c h me n tb yEv i d e n c e o f Co n v i c t i o n o f

Cr i me (a) G eneral rul e. F or t he p urpose o f at t acking t he credibi l i t yof a w i t ness, ( 1) evi dence t hata w i t nes s ot hert han an a ccus ed has been c onvi ct ed of a cr i m e s hal l be admi t t ed, s ubj ectt o R ul e 403, i f t he cr i m e w as puni s habl e by death ori m pr i s onm enti n exce s s of one y earunderthe l aw underw hi ch the w i t nes s w as convi ct ed, and evi dence t hatan ac cus ed has been c onvi ct ed of s uch a c r i m e s hal l be admi t t ed i f t he courtdet er m i nes t hatt he pr obat i ve val ue of a dm i t t i ng t hi s evi dence out w ei ghs i t s pr ej udi ci al eff ectt o t he acc us ed; and ( 2) evi dence t hatanyw i t nes s has been c onvi ct ed of a cr i m e s hal l be admi t t ed i f i ti nvol ved di s hones t yorfal s e s t at ement , r egar dl es s of t he p u n ish m e n t. (b ) T im e lim it. E v id e n c e o f a c o n v ictio n u n d e r th is ru le is n o t ad m iss ib le if -15- in v e stig a tio n sh o w e d th a t d e f e n d a n t h a d p a id h is lo w e r in c o m e c lien ts a n a d v a n c e o n th e ir p e n d in g tax re f

u n d s i n e x c h a n g e f

o r a p e rc e n tag e o f

th e re f u n d . In im p lem e n tin g th is
s cheme, defe ndanthad cl i ent s s i gn pow erof at t or neyfor m s and, i n s om e ca s es , bl ank t ax return s. T h e co n v ict ion s ca m e as the re su lto f a p lea b arg ain, pu rsua n t t o w h ich it app ea rs t hatot herm or e s er i ous char ges m ayhave be en dr opped. 5 A t tri al i n the in stan t case , the g o v ern m en t fi led a n o ti ce o f i n tent to u se d ef en d an t’ s pr i orconvi ct i ons as i m peac hm entevi dence s houl d defe ndantchoos e t o t es t i fy
. T hi s not i ce
w as re q u ir ed u n d er F ed
. R
. E v id. 60 9 (b) be ca u se t h e co n v ict ion s w ere m o re tha n ten y ea rs ol d. T he def

endantfi l ed an obj ect i on and the courtrul ed t hat t he convi ct i ons w oul d notbe 6a per i od of m or e t han t en y ear s has el aps ed s i nce the dat e of the convi ct i on

orof t he r el eas e of the w i t nes s fr om t he conf i nement i m pos ed fort hat convi ct i on, w hi cheve ri s t he l at erdat e, unl es s t he courtdet er m i nes , i n t he i nt er es t s of j us t i ce, t hatt he pr obat i ve val ue of the convi ct i on s uppor t ed by s peci fi c fa ct s and ci r cumst ance s s ubs t ant i al l yout w ei ghs i t s pr ej udi ci al eff ect . H ow ever , evi dence of a c onvi ct i on m or e than 10 y ear s ol d as cal cul at ed her ei n, i s notadmi s s i bl e unl es s t he pr oponentgi ves t o t he adver s e part ys uffi ci entadvanc e w r i t t en not i ce of i nt entt o us e s uch evi dence t o pr ovi de the adve r s e part yw i t h a fa i roppor tuni t yt o cont es tt he us e of s uch evi dence
. Fed. R
. E vi d. 609. T h a t ru le p ro v id e s, in p e rtin e n t p a rt: 7 E vidence o f C haract er and C on du ctof W i t ness

. . . . ( b) Speci fi c i ns t ance s of conduc t . Speci fi c i ns t ance s of t he conduc tof a w i t nes s , fort he purpos e of a t t acki ng ors uppor t i ng t he w i t nes s ' char act erfor t rut hful nes s , ot hert han convi ct i on of cr i m e as pr ovi ded i n rul e 609, m aynot be pr oved byextr i ns i c evi dence
. T heym ay , how ever , i n t he di s cr et i on of t he court , i f pr obat i ve of trut hful nes s orunt rut hful nes s , be i nqui r ed i nt o on cr os s - exami nat i on of t he w i t nes s ( 1) conce r ni ng t he w i t nes s ' char act erfor t rut hful nes s orunt rut hful nes s , or( 2) conce r ni ng t he cha r act erfor t rut hful nes s orunt rut hful nes s of anotherw i t nes s as t o w hi ch cha r act ert he w i t nes s bei ng cr os s - exami ned has t es t i fi ed. F ed
. R
. E v id. 60 8 (b). -16- a d m itt e d u n d e r R u le 6 0 9 . L a ter d u rin g th e trial, th e g o v e rn m e n t f iled a m o tio n to a d m it evi dence of t he under l y i ng conductand the bars us pens i on, butnott he convicti ons th e m se lv e s, u n d e r F e d . R . E v id . 6 0 8
. A lth o u g h c o u n se l f o r th e g o v e rn m e n t sp e c if ica llysa id 7 t hatt he governm entw as not s eeki ng t o admi t evi dence of t he convi ct i ons w i t h t hi s s econd
ar gum ent , i n gr ant i ng t he gover nm ent ’ s m ot i on i n a rul i ng fr om t he benc h, t he di s t r i ctj udge
s ai d t hatevi dence of t he convi ct i ons w oul d be al l ow ed. I n r es pons e t o t hi s rul i ng, no doubtW e no t e t hat M r. M cC on nel ar gu es t hat the g ov ernm ent’ s t act i c w as a 8 c ir c u m v e n tio n o f

F e d . R . E v id . 6 0 9 (b ) a n d its m o re s p e c if ic a lly a p p lic a b le p ro v is io n s . W e a re a w a re o f

s o m e c a s e s o n th e in te rp la yb e tw e e n R u le s 6 0 8 a n d 6 0 9
. See E l cock v. Km ar tC or

p. , 2 3 3 F .3 d 7 3 4 , 7 5 1 -5 4 (3 d C ir. 2 0 0 0 ); U nit ed S t ates v. H

urst , 951 F. 2d 1490 (6 th C ir. 1 9 9 1 ); St at e v. H over s on , 2 0 0 6 N D 4 9 , 7 1 0 N .W .2 d 8 9 0 , 8 9 5 -8 9 8 (N .D . 2 0 0 6 ). W e do notr eac h t he mer i t s of the i s s ue and e xpr es s no opi ni on on w hetherR ul e 609, as t he more s peci fi cal l yappl i cabl e rul e, pr ecl udes admi s s i on of evi dence of under l y i ng co n d u ct un d er R u le 60 8 (b). -17- as a m a t t e ro f

t r i a l s t r a t e g y , d e f

e n d a n ta d mi t t e d t h e b a rs u s p e n s i o n a n d t h e u n d e r l y i ng
m is d e m e a n o r c o n v ic tio n s o n d ir e c t e x a m in a tio n . O r di naril y w e r evi ew deci s i ons t o admi torexcl ude evi dence undert he abus e of d is c re tio n s ta n d a rd
. E .g ., U n itedS ta tes v . D a v is , 40 F. 3d 1069, 1073 ( 10t h C i r . 1994)
. B ut t he governm entar gues t hati n t hi s i ns t ance t he defenda nt has w ai ved hi s r i ghtt o obj ectt o t he t r i al j udge’ s rul i ng byopt i ng t o i nt r oduce the evi dence hi m s el f. W e agr ee. I n O hl erv. U

ni t ed Stat es , 529 U
. S. 753 ( 2000) , t he C our t hel d t hat a c ri m ina l defe ndant ’ s t act i cal deci s i on t o i nt r oduce evi dence of hi s pr i orconvi ct i on w ai ves t he r i ght t o appea l t he di s tr i ctcour t ’ s rul i ng t hatt he pr os ecut i on coul d us e the evi dence as im p e a c h m e n t o n c ro ss -e x a m in a tio n . A lth o u g h th a t c a se w a s d e c id e d u n d e r R u le 6 0 9 a n d th is
c a se a rise s u n d e r R u le 6 0 8 (b ), th e g o v e rn m e n t co n te n d s th a t th e w a iv e r p rin c ip le s h o u ld
a p p lyu n d e r b o th ru les in th e sa m e w a y . W e c o n c lu d e th a t th e e x ten sio n o f th e w a iv e r ru le of O hl erf

ro m R u le 6 0 9 to R u le 6 0 8 (b ) is c o m p e lled b ylo g ic b e c a u se th e iss u e s a re v irtu a lly i ndi s t i ngui s habl e i n t hei rs ubs t ance . 8 V Sent enci ng is s ues M r . M c Con n e l c o n t e n d s t h a t h i s Si x t h Am e n d me n t r i g h t s wer e v i o l a t e d w hen t heTh e dis tric t ju dg e us e d th e 20 00 e dition of theGuide lin e s Ma

nu a l. 9 -18- di s t r i ctcour t , fol l ow i ng t he G ui del i nes p rom u lga t ed byt he U ni t ed St at es Sent enci ng C o m m issi o n , m ad e find ing s o f fa ct at the sen tenc ing stag e w h ich resu lt ed in a lo n g er term of co nfinem ent tha n h e o therw i se w ou l d h ave b een subj ectt o u nd er the G uidel i nes. Sent enci ng t ook pl ace befor e t he l andmar k deci s i on of U ni t ed Stat es v. B ooker , 543 U
. S. 220 ( 2005) , butdefe ndantr ai s ed thi s ar gum entbel ow , r el y i ng on Appr endiv. N ew Jer s ey , 530 U
. S
. 46 6 (200 0). A s B ooker h a s m a d e c lea r, a c rim in a l d e f e n d a n t’s rig h t to trial b yju ryis viol at ed w hen a dis t ri ctcou rtbases sent encing d eci si on s i n a m andat or y G ui del i nes s

ys t em on fac t s found byt he courti ns t ead of t he j ur y . W e h av e rec o g n i zed tw o ki nds of B ooker
e rr o r, c o n s titu tio n a l a n d n o n -c o n s titu tio n a l. S e e U n itedS ta tes v . G o n za lez -Hu e rta , 403 F. 3d 7 2 7 , 7 3 1 (1 0 th C ir. 2 0 0 5 ) (e n b a n c ). T h e e rro rs a lleg e d h e re a re c o n stitu tio n a l. A s a re su lt, th e b u rd e n is o n th e g o v e rn m e n t to sh o w th a t th e e rro rs w e re h a rm les s b e y o n d a re a so n a b le d o u b t. See U

ni t ed Stat es v. R i ccar di , 4 0 5 F .3 d 8 5 2 , 8 7 5 (1 0 th C ir .), cer t
. deni ed , 1 2 6 S .C t. 2 9 9 (20 0 5 ). M r . M cC onnel cont ends t hatt he di s t r i ctcour tm ade thr ee f actfi ndi ngs ats ent enci ng t hatr es ul t ed i n i ncr eas i ng hi s offe ns e l evel , and t hus i ncr eas ed hi s puni s hm enti n vi ol at i on of t he Si xt h A m endment and the hol di ng i n B ooker
. Fi r s t , t he di s t r i ctcour ti ncr eas ed d e f e n d a n t’s o f

f e n se lev e l b y f

o u r u n d e r U S S G § 2 K 2 .1 (b )(1 )(D ) b a se d o n a f in d in g th a t h is 9 offe ns e i nvol ved 20 fi r earm s ( t he courtdeni ed the governm ent ’ s r eques tfora fi ndi ng t hat
o v er 6 0 g u n s w ere inv o lved in the o ff en se, w h ich w o u ld h av e re su lt ed in a 6 leve l i n cre ase ). B utt hatpr ov isi on appl i es t o a quant i t yof 13- 24 fi r earm s . T he i ndi ct m ental l eged 16-19-

fi r earm s , and t he j ur yver di cton C ount s 2 and 3, i nvol vi ng s peci fi c s al es t o M r . Schuppan, t he governm enti nfor m ant , i ncl uded a fi n d ing t hata t ot al of 16 fi r earm s had bee n s ol d on th o se o c c a sio n s. T h e re f o re , th e trial co u rt’s f

in d in g o f 2 0 f

ire a rm s, in ste a d o f o n ly 1 6 , d id noti ncr eas e the off

ens e l evel and s o had no ef fec ton t he s ent ence . W e n ee d notcons i der th is c o n te n t i o n f

u rt h e r. See U

ni t ed Stat es v. C or chado , 4 2 7 F
. 3 d 8 1 5 , 8 2 0 -21 (10 th C ir
. 2 0 0 5 ), cer t
. deni ed, 1 2 6 S .C t. 1 8 1 1 (2 0 0 6 ) (n o c o n stitu tio n a l B ookererro r oc cu rs w h ere ju d icia l f a c t-f in d in g d id n o t en h a n c e th e a c tu a l se n ten c e ); U n itedS ta tes v . Y

a zz ie , 407 F. 3d 1 1 3 9 , 1 1 4 4 (1 0 th C ir .), cer t
. deni ed, 1 2 6 S
. C t. 3 0 3 (20 0 5 ) (sam e). T he di s t r i ctj udge al s o i ncr eas ed M r . M cC onnel ’ s offe ns e l evel byt w o forobs t ruct i on
o f j u s t i c e u n d e rU S S G § 3 C 1
. 1 b a s e d o n h e rf i n d i n g t h a th e h a d c o m m i t t e d p e r j u r y. F i n a l l y, t he cour ti ncr eas ed hi s cr i m i nal hi s t or ys cor e fr om I t o I I bas ed on a fi ndi ng t hatdefe ndant had sol d an othergu n afterhis con vic tio n in t his case, w hil e aw ai t i ng sent encing. T hese fi nd i ng s w ere m ade b yt he ju d g e b y a prepo nd erance of the evidence. A ft er m aking t hese fi ndi ngs , t he court s ent ence d t he defe ndant t o 71 m ont hs , t he t op of t he r es ul t i ng gui del i ne
r ange. B eca us e t hes e fi ndi ngs by t he cour t do appea r t o have aff ect ed t he ul t i m at e s ent ence , th e se w e re c o n stitu tio n a l B oo ker err ors. We b r i e f l yr e v i e w t h e e v i d e n c e a n d f i n d i n g s r e g a r d i n g t h e s e t wo e n h a n c e me n t s . As
w e have di s cus s ed, t o s uppor tC ount2 and C ount3, t he governm ent w as r equi r ed t o s how t hat defend ant s old gu n s t o S chu pp an k no w i ng or having reason to bel i eve thathe w as a convi ct ed fe l on orhad fe l onychar ges cu rren tl y pendi ng. T he governm entpr oduced evi dence i n t he for m of S chuppan’ s t es t i m ony and t he re cor ded t el ephone c al l s et t i ng up t he-20-

fi r s ts al e of f

i r earm s fr om defe ndantt o Schuppan t o s how t hatdefe ndantw as t ol d t hat Schuppan w as a convi ct ed fe l on. I n hi s defe ns e, M r . M cC onnel t es t i fi ed t hatSchuppan had lat er told h im o therw ise. T h e d istri ct j u d g e fo u n d that M r. M cC o n n el ha d co m m itted p erjury bys o t es t i fy i ng. T h e o th e r se n ten c in g e n h a n c e m e n t w a s b a se d o n d e f e n d a n t’s sa le o f

a g u n a f ter h is convi ct i on and w hi l e aw ait ing sen tenci ng i n t hi s cas e. A tt he s ent enci ng hear i ng t hr ee
w i t nes s es t es t i fi ed t hatdefe ndant s ol d a pi s t ol t o one of t hem i n A ugus torSept ember of 2002 (approxim at el yt w o m on t hs aft er the tr i al had end ed i n gu i l t y verdi ct s)
. A t t hat t i m e, becau se of h i s conv i ct i on , defe nd ant w as barr ed from po sses si ng fi rearm s. A lth o u g h th e d istric t c o u r t’s e n h a n c e m e n t o f d e f e n d a n t’s s e n ten c e b a se d o n f a c ts found by t he cour t under t he pre ponder ance of t he evi dence s t andar d un der t he m an da t ory G ui del i nes r egi m en t hat exi s t ed pr i ort o B ooker vi ol at ed the def endant ’ s Si xt h A m endment
r i ght s , ourcas es appl y i ng B ookerh a v e e nd or s e d a n a p p r o a c h t h a ti s b u i l to n t h e s a me fo u n d at i on. W e have i ns t ruct ed t he di s t r i ctcour t s t hatt heys houl d begi n t he s ent enci ng pr oces s w i t h t he same pr ocedur es , cal cul at i ng t he appl i cabl e G ui del i nes r ange thr ough t he
s ame pr oces s – i ncl udi ng fi ndi ngs byt he courtun d er the pr eponder ance of t he evi dence
s t andar d – butw i t h t he r ecogni t i on t hat the G u idel i nes ar e now advi s or yonl yand t hat
c a lc u la tin g th e G u i d e lin e s ra n g e is n o t th e c o n c lu s io n o f th e p ro c e s s . See U

ni t ed Stat es v. Kris tl , 4 3 7 F
. 3 d 1 0 5 0 , 1 0 5 3 -54 (10 th C ir
. 2 0 0 6 ). A c c o rd in g ly , w e h a v e f o u n d c o n s ti tu tio n a l B ookererr or s t o be harm l es s bey ond a
r eas onabl e doubtw her e t he r ecor d convi nces us t hatr emand w oul d be fut i l e. For exampl e,-21-

w e have hel d t hatw her e t he d ist ri ct cour texer ci s ed i t s l i m i t ed di s cr et i on undert he
m andat or yG u ide l i nes s y s t em t o i m pos e the mosts ever e puni s hm entl aw ful undert he ci r cumst ance s of t he ca s e, t her e i s no r eas on t o bel i eve thatt he courtw oul d exer ci s e i t s now g re a te r d is c re tio n to b e m o re le n ie n t to w a rd s th e d e f e n d a n t. See U

ni t ed Stat es v. W

aldr oop , 4 3 1 F
. 3 d 7 3 6 , 7 4 2 -43 (10 th C ir
. 2 0 0 5 ). H er e w e ar e fa ced w i t h t w o B ookererr or s , t he per j ur yfi ndi ng and the fi ndi ng t hat defe ndantcomm i t t ed anot hervi ol at i on w hi l e aw ai t i ng s ent enci ng. T he di s t r i ctj udge made a det ai l ed, w r i t t en s t at ement of t he r eas ons forherdeci s i ons . She found spec i fi cal l y t hatt he
o f f e n s e c o mmi t t e d a f

t e rc o n v i c t i o n s h o we d c o n t e mp tf o rt h e j u d i c i a l s y s t e m. T he r ecor d s how s thatt he j udge us ed the l i m i t ed di s cr et i on av ail ab le t o herpr eB ooker t o r eac h t he hi ghes t s ent ence s he coul d beca us e of her vi ew of t he ser i ous nes s of t he offe ns es and t he l i kel i hood of r eci di vi s m s how n by t he cont empt uous actfol l ow i ng convi ct i on. T h at di s cr et i on “i s t he s ame sor tof fl exi bi l i t yi n s ent enci ng t hatj udges now p o ss e ss in a p o st- B ooker s cheme. ” U ni t ed St at es v. C unni ngham , 4 0 5 F
. 3 d 4 9 7 , 5 0 4 (7th C ir
. 2 0 0 5 )
. T her e i s t hus “no r eas on t o t hi nk t he j udge w oul d exer ci s e [he r ] now gr eat er di s cr et i on t o r educe t he s ent ence . ” U ni t ed St at es v. R i ccar di , 4 0 5 F
. 3 d 8 5 2 , 8 7 6 (10 th C ir
. ),

cer t
. deni ed, 126 S. C t . 299 ( 2005)
. A ccor di ngl y , w e conc l ude thatt he B ookererro rs w ere h a rm les s b e y o n d a re a so n a b le d o u b t. T h e j u d g me n ta n d s e n t e n c e a r e t h e r e f o r e AF F I RMED
.