## In the



# U n ited S ta tes Co urt o f Ap p ea ls

F o rth eS e v e n th C ir cu it
N o. 07

- 2404 U NI T ED S TATE SOF A MERI CA, P la intif f-A pp ellee, v. M ART I N A VILA, D ef endant-Appellant.

A pp eal from the United S t ates Di strictC our t fo r the S outhernDi stricto f Indian a, Indian apolisDivisi on. No . 02 CR 141

—David F. H amil ton, Chief Judge.
A RGUED O CT OB ER 29, 2008

— D ECI DE D M AR CH 6, 2009

Befo re P OSNER, M A NI ON, a nd K ANN E , C ircu it Judges . K ANN E , Cir cu it Judge . F ro m 20 00 to 2001 , l aw enf or cem ent o ffi cer s co nd ucted an invest i gat i on that r eve al ed ex te n siv e d r u g t ra ffick in g a c tiv itie s in th e In d ian ap olis ar ea. A n or gani zati on co m pri sed pri m ar i l y o fM exi can nati onal s was o btaini ng l ar ge am ounts ofco ntro l l ed substa nces fro m i nd i vi du al s in M exi co, Texas, and I l l i noi s, and re dist ributi ng the d rugs thr oughout parts o fInd i ana. On Oc tobe r17, 20 02 , de fen dan t M ar tin Avi l a an d e i g ht o th eri ndi vi dual s wer e i ndi ct ed f o rthe i rr o l es i n the2 N o. 07

- 2404

Thi s ag en c y ha s be enkno wn s i nc e 20 03 as the Bure au o f 1 I m m i gr at i on and Cus tom s Enf or c em en t
. I twas kno wn as the I N S a tthe t i m e ofthi s i nve s t i gat i on. conspi ra cy. A vi l a was tr i ed al one i n a tw o-d ay ju ry tr i al and convi cted o n M ar ch 13, 20 07. H e was se ntenced to 396 m onths’ i m pri sonm en t and te n yea rs o fsuperv i sed r e l e a s e . Av i l a a p p e a l s h i s c o n v i c ti o n a n d s e n t e n c e . He ar gues ( 1) th at he was prej ud i ced by a f atalvar i ance b et w ee n th e c h ar ge d cr im e an d th e pr oo f ad d u c ed at tria l; ( 2) thatthe d ist ric t co urt er re d i n adm i tting se ver alwitne ss es ’ t es ti m o ny o rc o m m en ts ; a nd ( 3) that t he S en tencing Guidel in es range i m posed was i naccurat e. Fo r the r eas ons that follow , we affi rm A vi l a’ s co nvi cti on and rem and fo r re sente nci ng.

I. B ACK GR OUN D In m id -20 00 , th e Fed er al B u re au of In ve st iga tio n, I m m igr atio n and N atur al i zati on S er vi ces, Ind i anapol i s Po l i ce 1 Dep ar tm ent, and M etr opol i tan Drug Task For ce b ega n i nvest i gat i ng the drug tr affi cking ac ti vi ti es ofa M exi can drug o rg ani zati on. Law e nfo rce m ent det er m i ned that m em ber s o fthi s o rg ani zati on were obt aini ng l ar ge a mo u n t s o fc o n t r o l l e d s u b s t a n c e s , i n c l u d i n gme th a mph e t a mi ne , c o c a i ne , ma r ij ua na, a nd a mphe t a mi ne , f ro m ind ivi d ua ls in M ex ico , Tex as, and I ll inois. Th ey w ere th en di st r ibut i ng th e dr ug s th r o ugho ut ar ea s i n Ind i an a surr ounding Ind i anapol i s. M ar ti n A vi l a, Fi del m arS oto
N av a, W i lber t Avant, Rene Nava- Rubio , and H i l ario E sp inoza-Sarco w ere alli d en tified as p oten tial m e m b e rs o fthe o r g an i za ti o n.N o. 07

- 2404 3 Fr om M ar ch thr ough Au gu st o f20 01, o ffi cer s uti l i zed c o ur t
- a utho r i z e d wi r e t a ps t o mo ni t o rc e l l ul a rt e l e phones l i nk ed to S o to
- N ava a nd Nav a- Rub i o . In s ev er alo fthe i nter cepted co nver sat i ons, A vi l a d isc u sse d the s al e o f drugs with N ava- Rub io usi ng co de l anguage . A t t i m es, A vi l a a l so spoke br i efl y with So to- N ava, al though i t doe s no t appe arfr o m the r ec o r d tha t they d i sc us se d dr ug dist ributi on. S eve nteen ofthes e r eco rdi ngs woul d l ate r b e a d m itt ed int o e vid en c e a t A vila ’s t ria l. On O cto ber17, 2 00 2, A vi l a a nd ei ght o therm em ber s o f the o rg ani zati on w er e ind i cted forco nspir acy to dist ribu t e a n d / o rp o s s e s s w i th th e i n t e n tt o d i s t r ib u t e n u merou s con troll ed sub stan ces. Spec ificall y, th e gra nd j ury charg ed that A vi l a a nd hi s co - conspi ra tor s di str ibuted 50 0 g r ams o rmor e o fa mix tu r e o rs ubs ta nc e con tai ni ng m etham phetam in e, 50 gr am s o r m or e o fm etham phetam i ne, 50 0 g ra m s o r m or e o fa m i xture orsub stance conta i ni ng a detect abl e a m ount o fco cain e, and 100 ki l ogr am s orm or e o fa m i xture orsubst ance c ontaini ng a detect abl e a m ount o fm ar ij uana. Avi l a’ s j ur y t r i alb eg ano n Mar ch1 2, 2 00 7. In h i s o pen i ng sta tem ent, A vi l a’ s co unselcl ai m ed t h at thi s was a case of m ist ak en id en t ity . H e c on c ed ed th at th er e w as sign ific an t e vid en c e o fa c on sp ira c y, bu t h e a rg u ed th at A vila ha d n e v e r h a d c o n t a c t wi th Na v a - R u b i o a n d th a t he had no r ol e in the al l ege d conspi ra cy. I n i ts case- i n-c hi ef, the gov er nm ent c al l ed two l aw en f o r ce m en t o ffi ce r s who ha d b ee n inv o l ve d i n the i nvest i gat i on, Jo A nn Bu rkhartand M i chaelReev es. B u rk h art, an F BI speci alag ent in I nd i anapol i s, te sti fi ed4 N o. 07

- 2404 th atl aw e nf o r ce m en t per son ne lha d di sc o ve r ed th e dr ug op er at i o n a nd e ve ntua l l y s ei ze d l ar g e qua nt i ti es o fmeth

a mphe t a mi ne , ma r ij ua na, c o c a i ne , a nd a mphe t a mi ne . S he al so ex pl aine d th e m o ni to r i ng o f S o to
- N av a’s and N ava- Rubio ’ s phones. Re ev es , a n I N S a g en t atthe t i m e o fthe i nv es ti g at i o n, te st ified th at h e w as w or kin g u n d er c ov er in In d ian ap olis i n 2 0 0 1
. W hi l e u n d e r c o v e r, R e e v e s p u r c h a s e d me th a mphe ta m i ne f rom Soto

- N av a atl ea stt wi ce , o nc e o n a c onsi gnm ent b asi s. H e a l so tes ti fi ed that afterS oto
- N ava w as i ncarc er ate d, he co nti nued to purch as e drugs fro m S o to
- N av a’ s co m m o n- l aw wi fe an d a no th ery o ungman. The g o ve r nm en t al so ca l l ed two o f Avi l a’ s co-d efen dants

— Avan t an d N av a- Rub i o . Ava ntt es ti fi ed th athe was s el l i ngdr ug s i n Indi an apo l i s i n 20 00 an d 20 01
. Ava nt o r i g i na ll y had b ee n r ec ei vingdr ug s fr o m S o to
- N av a an d N ava- Rubio

. A t s om e point, however, S oto
- N ava i ntro
du ced A vant to A vi l a s o that A vant coul d obta i n l ar ger quanti ti es ofco cai ne. A vant ne ve r testi fi ed to wh ether Avi l a k ne w tha t th i s was the pur po se o fthe i nt r o duct i o n. A van tt e s t i fi e d tha ti n 2 0 0 0 a nd 2 0 0 1 , Av i l a s up pl i ed hi m with a pp ro xi m ate l y 3 to 4 p ounds ofm etham phetam i ne and 5 to 6 ki l ogr am s ofco cai ne perm onth, as wellas a t ota lof 500 p ounds ofm ar ij uana. A vi l a s ol d these drugs to A vant on a consi gnm ent basi s. A vi l a w oul d d eli ver th e d r u g s h i ms e l fo rh a v e s o me o n e e l s e d e l i v e rth e m, often using h idd en co m partm ents i n auto m obi l es to concea lthe drugs. N av a-R u b io te st ified th at A vila , w h o w as l i vin g in C h ica go , ask ed N av a- R u b io to se ll d ru gs for h im inN o. 07

- 2404 5 I nd i ana a nd p ro vi ded hi m with the drugs o n consi gnm ent. A vi l a or som eone w or ki ng f or him

— su c h as H ilar io Espinoza

- Sar co

— woul d t r an spo r t th e dr ug s to Indi an a u sin g h i d d en co m p ar tm en ts . Ov er th e c ou rs e o f th eir re l ati onshi p, A vi l a s up pli ed N ava- Rubio with o ver10 0 pound s o fm etham p h eta m i ne, 20 to 30 ki l ogr am s o f coca i ne, and 300 to 40 0 pounds ofm ar ij uana. The go vernm ent a l so used N ava- Rubio ’ s t est i m ony to authenti cate and expla i n si xteen o fthe i nter cepted te l ep hon e calls betw een A vil a an d N ava-R ub io t h at w ere i nt r o duce d i nt o e vi den ce a nd pl ayed f o rthe j ur y . In o ne ofthe tel ephone ca l l s, A vi l a a nd N av a-R ubi o disc ussed us in g a h idd en com p artm en t in A vil a’s car to transp ort d rugs. In other cal l s, N ava- Rubio and A vi l a di scusse d paym ents f ord rugs thatA vi l a had fro nted to N ava- Rubio

. N av a-R u b io an d A vila als o d isc u ss ed N av a-R u b io se llin g th e d ru gs A vila h ad p ro vid ed h im to a “w h ite gu y.” As i ts fi na lwi tn es s, the g ove r nm en t ca l l ed S er g ea nt Dean W i l dauer. W ild au er, a m em bero fthe I nd i ana S tat e Pol i ce c ri m i nali nter d ictio n tea m , te sti fi ed to the typi cal use o fh i dde n c o mpa r tm ents in drug t ra ffi cking o perat i ons. Av i l a o p t e d n o tt o t e st i fy o rp r e s e n ta n y e v i d e n c e . He ne ve r m ade a m o ti o n f o r a j udg m en t o f ac qui tt al, a nd the j ury f ound him gui l ty on M ar ch 13, 20 07. The pr es en te nc e r epo r t ( PS R ) was pr o vi ded to the par tie s o n May 4, 2 00 7. The PS R i ndi ca te d tha t th e tot al m ar ij uana equi val ency w ei ght o fthe drugs di str ibuted w as 24, 234 ki l ogr am s a nd r ecom m ended a Base Offense Levelo f38
. The PSR a l so applied s ev en cr i m i nal hi sto rypoi n ts , f our ofwh i ch deri ved fro m two pri or6 N o. 07

- 2404

A v i l a a l s o c h a l l e n g e s th e t e s t i mo n y o fA g e n tR e e v e s . Ho w- 2 ev er, this clai m rests on his con ten tion tha t R eev es testified to f ac t s re gar di ng a s epa ra t e c ons pi ra c y that Avil a di d not joi n. Bec aus e this ana l ys i s i s di re c t l y r el eva ntt o whe the r the all eged v ari ance prej ud ic ed A v ila , w e will disc uss i t i n that con text. convi cti ons f orposs ess i on o fco ntro l l ed substa nces. A vi l a had be en se ntenced o n the sam e date f ore ac h o f these cas es. H e h ad re cei ved a si x-m onth s entence i n case 94 CR 19 83, and a s entence o ft w o ye ar s’ cust ody in case 94 C R6 70 , su sp en d ed u p on co m p let ion of th e s en te n c e in 94 CR 19 83. On J une 8 , 2 00 7, the di st r i ctc o ur t he l d a s en te nc i ng hear i ng. Both the go vernm ent a nd A vi l a ind i cate d that th eydi d not obje ctt o the PS R. The di st r i ctc o ur t se ntence d A vi l a t o 396 m onths’ i m pri sonm ent, f ol l owed by ten y ear s o fsuperv i sed r el eas e.

II. A NA LYSIS A vi l a ra i ses thre e i ssues on appeal

. Fi rs t, h e a rg u es that ther e was a f atalvar i ance between the conspi ra cy alle ge d in t h e i n d i c tm en t a n d th e p ro of a d d u c ed attria l. Se cond, he a rgues that the te sti m ony ofse ver alwitnes ses wa s ir r el ev an t an d unduly pr ej udi ci al

. S pec i fi ca l l y, he chal l enges the tes ti m ony ofS er gea nt W ild au erand sta tem en ts of se ve ra l w itn es se s re lat in g t o A vila ’s gu ilt. A vila 2 cl ai m s that the c u m u l ati ve effect ofthes e e rr or s m er i ts re ver sal

. Finally, A vi l a cl ai m s that the di str i ct c ourter re d i n cal cul ating the se ntenci ng r ange by re l yi n g on a nN o. 07

- 2404 7 i n c o r r e c to ffe n s e l e v e la n d mi s i n t e r p r e t i n g A v i l a ’ s c r i mi na lhi st o r y . W e di sc us s ea chi ss ue i n tur n.

A
. Avila’s Variance C laim To o btain a c onspi ra cy convi cti on a gainst a d efe nd ant, th e g ov er n m en t m u stp ro ve t h a t (1 ) tw o or m or e p eo p le ag r ee d t o c o m m i t anu nlaw fula ct, a nd ( 2) the de fen dan t on t ri alkno w i ngl y a nd i ntenti onal l y j oi ned i n the agr eem en t. U nited Sta tes v. D um es , 31 3 F. 3d 372, 382 (7th Cir. 2002 )
. Thus, two orm or e ind i vi du al s co nspir ed to gether i fthe e v i de nc e de mon s tr a t e s tha tthe y “ e mbr a c e d a com m on c rim i nalo bj ecti ve, ” e ven i ftheydi d not know each o thero r parti ci pate in e ve ry as pect o fthe cri m e. U nited Sta tes v. Jon es , 275 F.3d 648 , 652 (7th C ir. 2001). On the o th er h and, tw o i nd i vi du al s ca nnot be sa i d to have conspi re d tog ether“when each o fthe conspi ra tor s’ ag r ee m en ts ha s i ts o wn en d, a nd e ac h c o ns ti tu tes ane nd i n i tse l f

. ” U nite d States v. Sababu , 89 1 F
. 2d 1308 , 13 22 ( 7th Ci r. 19 89)
. Thi s i ssue ofte n ar i ses i n the conte xt o f “hub-a nd

- spoke ” co nspir aci es, wh er e a d efendant ser ves as a “h u b ” c o n n e c te d to ea c h of h is c o-c on sp ira to rs via a “ spoke

. ” See U nited Sta tes v. Sw a f fo rd, 51 2 F
. 3d 833, 84 2 (6t h C ir. 20 08 ), cert. denied , 129 S. C t. 32 9 (2 00 8). Inth is con tex t, w e hav e s a id t h at to p rove th e existen ce of a si ngl e co ns p ira cy, “a r i m m ust co nnect the spok es to g ethe r, fo rotherw is e th e co ns pi r ac y i s no t o ne b ut m any. ” U nite d States v. B u st a m a nte, 49 3 F
. 3d 879, 88 5 ( 7th C ir. 20 07 ), cert. denied , 128 S. C t. 14 60 (20 08 ). Th i s “ r im ” is an ag re em en t t o fu rt h er a sin gle d e s i g n or p u rp os e, a8 N o. 07

- 2404 chara cter i sti c thatwe have no ted i s the def in in g qual i ty of a co n sp ira c y. U nited St at e s v. Thom as , 52 0 F
. 3d 729, 73 3 ( 7th Ci r. 20 08)
. Thus, f ora sin gle , o ver ar chi ng co nspir acy to exi st, “ ‘ thos e peo ple wh o f or m the w h eel ’ s s pokes m ust hav e be en aware of ea ch other and m ust do som eth in g in fu rt h er an c e o f so m e s in gle , i lleg al e n te rp ris e.’ ” Bus t am ante, 49 3 F
. 3d at 885- 86 ( quoti ng U nited Sta tes v. Le vi ne, 546 F.2d 658 , 663 (5th C ir. 1977)). Defe nd ants w ho a rgue thatthe evid en ce a t t ri ales tabl i sh ed th e ex i st ence o fno t o ne c o ns pi r ac y b utmany o fte n a ss er t th ata “ f at alv ar i an ce ” ex i st s be twe enthe c rim e c h ar ge d an d th e p ro of a t t ria l. Se e, e . g. , U nited St at e s v. Payne, 226 F.3d 792 , 795 (7t h C ir. 2000); U nited St at e s v. Se ve rs on , 3 F.3d 1 00 5, 10 09 -10 (7 th C ir. 19 93 ). A vila m ak es su c h a c h alle n ge h er e. H e arg u es th at a fat al v ar ian ce e xi st s i n thi s ca se b ec au se th e g o ve r nm en t prese nted ev i dence athi s t ri althatwas re l evanto nl y t o a conspi ra cy that he di d not j oin . F orexam ple , he points to t es ti m o ny o fAge nt s Bur k ha r t an d Re ev es r eg ar di ng drugs s ei zed o r pu rchas ed i n contr ol l ed buys fro m o ther M exi can nat i on als i n the I nd i anapol i s a re a with w hom A vi l a cl ai m s he shar ed no co m m on g oalo r pu rpos e. “A var i an c e ar i ses wh en the f acts pro ved by the g over nm ent a t t ri aldi fferfro m tho se al l ege d in the i nd i ctm ent. ” U nited Sta tes v. Stig ler, 413 F.3d 588 , 59 2 ( 7 t h C ir. 20 05 )
. W e tr ea t a c ons pi r ac y v ar i an ce c l ai m a s no th i ng m or e than a c hal l enge to the s u ffici ency ofthe evi dence su p p or tin g th e jur y ’ s find in g of a co n sp ira c y. U nited State s v. N it ch , 477F.3d 9 33 , 9 36 (7 th C ir. 20 07 ), cert. denied , 1 2 7 S . C t. 30 24 (20 07 ); U ni t e d S t at e s v. Towns e nd, 92 4N o. 07

- 2404 9 F. 2d 1385 , 13 89 ( 7th Ci r. 19 91)
. Thus, to pre vai l A vi l a m ust show that ( 1) the evi dence attr i alwas i nsuffi c i ent t o su ppo r t a fi ndi ngtha t he b elonged t o a s i ng l e co nspi ra c y, and (2 ) he was prej ud i ced by the v ar i ance. Stig ler, 41 3 F
. 3d at 592. Undero rd inar y c i r cumst an ce s, “ [ s] uffi ci en cyo fthe e v i d e n c e c h a l l e n g e s r a r e l ys uc c e e d b e c a u s e we o we gr eatdefer ence to the j ury’ s v er dict

. ” U nite d S t at e s v. M elend ez , 40 1 F
. 3d 851, 85 4 ( 7th Ci r. 20 05)
. In thi s ca se, A vi l a f aces an e ven hi gherburden be cause he f ai l ed to m ov e for a j u d gm en t of a c q u i t t al. Se eU ni t e d S t at e s v. M e ad ows , 9 1 F
. 3d 85 1, 8 54 ( 7th Ci r . 1 99 6). T he re f o r e, o ur review i s for p lai n error, an d w e w il l reverse A vil a’s convi cti on onl y i f a m i scar ri age of j usti ce occur re d “ ‘ of such m agni tude tha t [A vi l a] pro babl y would have bee n acqui tte d absentthe er ro r. ’ ” Id. (quoting U ni t e d S t at e s v. Va le ncia , 907 F.2d 671 , 685 (7th C ir. 1990)). A vi l a ar gues that hi s convi cti on m ust b e re versed because (1) ther e was i nsuffi ci ent e vi dence to sho w that he be l onge d to any c onsp i ra cy, and ( 2) he was prej ud i ced bythe a dm i ss i o n o fe vi d en ce o fa l ar g e- sc al e co ns p i r a c y th a th e d i d n o tj o i n . F o rthe re as o n s th a tf o l l o w, w e r ej ect both ofhi s a rgum ents.

1. Wheth er Su

fficien t E vid ence E stab lished tha t A vil a Join ed a SingleCo nspiracy I n or der to prove that A vi l a parti ci pated i n a c onspi ra cy, th e g o ve r nm en t m us t pr o ve tha t he kno wi ng l y a nd int en ti onal l y j oi ned in a n a gr eem ent with one orm or e o ther10 N o. 07

- 2404 in d ivid u als to co m m it a n u n law fu l ac t. U ni t e d S t at e s v. G a rdn er, 23 8 F.3 d 87 8, 87 9 ( 7th Ci r. 20 01)
. W e hav e r eco gni zed thatthe sal e o fdru gs , without m or e, does not const i tute a co nspir acy because the sal e i tse l fi s a subs ta n tiv e c rim e. U ni t e d S t at e s v. Cl ay, 37F. 3d 338, 34 1 ( 7th Ci r . 1 99 4)
. Thu s, “ th e g o ve r nm en t m us t p rove tha t th e de fe nd a ntc o ns pi r e d t o c om m i ts o me c r i me b e y o nd t hat agr eem ent t o sel ldrugs. ” Uni t e d S t at e s v . Ro ck, 3 70 F. 3d 712, 714 (7th C ir. 2004). A s we have often no ted , “[ a] n agr eem ent ne ed not be expli ci t; a taci t a gree m ent m ay supp or t a co nspir acy convic tio n. ” U nite d States v. Handlin , 36 6 F
. 3d 584, 58 9 (7t h C ir. 20 04 ); s e e al s o Unit e d S t at e s v. M e s s i no , 38 2 F
. 3d 704, 709 ( 7th Ci r. 20 04 ). F urther m or e, the gov er nm ent ne ed n o t p r e s e n t a n y d i r e c te v i d e n c e o fth e a g r e e me n t ; c i r c u mst an tia l ev id en c e alon e w ill s u f f ice
. U ni t e d S t at e s v. Z a rnes , 33 F. 3d 1454, 14 65 ( 7th Ci r. 19 94)
. S uch evi dence m ay i ncl ud e s al es of l ar ge am ounts ofdrugs, pro l onge d coo perat i on, a l eve lo fm utual tr ust betw een the par ti es, sta nd ar dize d deal i ngs, and sal es on a co nsi gnm en t o r
“ f r on te d ” b as is. Se e, e . g. , B ust am ante, 49 3 F
. 3d at 884- 85; U ni t e d S t at e s v. Cont re ras , 249 F.3d 595, 599 ( 7th C ir. 2001); Z a rnes , 33 F. 3d at 1465
. Pr o vingtha t Avi l a j o i ne d the c o ns pi r ac y al l eg ed i n the i nd i ctm ent doe s not r equi r e th at th e g o ve r nm en t pr o ve he conspi re d w i th the i n di vi duals n am ed i n the i nd i ctm ent. The k ey to p ro vinga c o ns pi r ac y i s th atthe de fen dan t j oi ned the a greem e nt, no t t h e g ro u p . Tow ns e nd, 92 4 F
. 2d at 138 9-9 0. Thu s, the gov er nm ent ne ed not est abl i sh with who m the de fe nd a ntc o ns pi r e d. Cont re ras , 24 9 F
. 3d at 598.N o. 07

- 2404 11 I t nee d onl y pr ove that t h e d efendant conspi re d w i th anyo net o c o mm i tthe c r i me c ha r g e d in the i nd i c tm ent. Se eTowns e nd, 92 4 F
. 2d at 1389
. A vi l a cl ai m s that the go vernm ent f ai l ed to m eeti ts bur dena t trial bec au se i t di d no t pr o ve tha t he c o nspi re d to com m i t s om e cr i m e b eyo nd an a gr eem ent t o sel ldrugs to A vant and N ava- Rubio

. H e a l so i m pli es that the “ si ngl e desi gn o r purpose” defini ng a consp i ra cy m ust be m or e s p ec ific than si m plyto furtherdi str ibute drugs. He c i t e s a s a n e xa mpl e the “ s i ngul a r pu r po s e o f th e ag r eem ent ” i n Thom as , w hich w as “to tran sform th is b loc k of W es t 5 0 t h P lac e in to w h at w as es se n tia lly ano pen - ai rdr ug b az aa r . ” 52 0 F
. 3d at7 33

- 34
. S ucha sp ecifi c p urp ose is not requ ired, how ever. A l lthati s nec ess ar y t o est abl i sh a drug di str ibuti on conspi ra cy i s a n und er sta nd i ng r el ate d to the s ubse q u en t d ist rib u tio n of n ar c ot ics
. Clay, 37F. 3d at3 41
. The gov er nm ent need onl y show a n agr eem ent th at goes beyo nd the individual sale betw een bu yer and sell er. SeeRo ck, 37 0 F
. 3d at 714. H er e, ther e i s s ubstan ti alev i dence thatA vi l a e xpected and encoura ged Avant and N ava- Rubio to red i str ibute th e dr ug s he ha d p rovide d. Avi l a al way s fr o nt ed th e d ru gs to bo th N av a-R u b io an d A va n t. N av a-R u b io te st ified th at ov er t h e c ou rs e o f th eir rela tio n sh ip , A vila f r o nt e d hi m 1 0 0 po un ds o f metha mphe t a mi ne , 2 0 to 30 ki l ogr am s o fcocai ne, and 30 0 t o 400 pound s o fm ar ij uana. Si m i l ar l y, A vant tes ti fi ed that A vi l a fro n te d him 3 to 4 p o u n d s o fme th a mp h e t a mi n e p e rmo n th, 5 t o 6 k i l o g r a ms ofco cai ne perm ont h , a nd 50 0 t ota lpound s o fm ar ij uana.12 N o. 07

- 2404 Because Avil a fro nted th es e drugs i n re turn forpaym ent a fterN ava- R ubi o and A vant sol d them , he was depend ent upon t h e furtherr esa l e o fthe drugs t o m ake a pro fi t. Th e e v i de nc e a l s o e s t ab l i s he d tha tA v i l a de mon s t r a t e d a hi gh l eve lo ftr ust a nd co nfi d en c e in A vant and N avaRubio

. H e pr ovi ded bo th with l ar ge quan tit ies ofdrugs w ithou t requ iring any p aym en t un tilthe d rugs w ere re so ld . In on e o f t h e in te rc ep te d c alls , h e to ld N av a-R u b io about a ca r w ith a hi dd en co m partm ent a nd descr ibed ho w h e ha d us ed i t to tr an spo r t dr ug s on a p revi o us oc c as ion . I t is u n like ly th at A v i l a w ou ld h av e a c te d th is w ay w ith A v a n t o r N av a-R u b io if th ey w er e e n ga ge d in a me r e b uy e r - s e l l e rr e l a t i o ns hi p. Furtherm or e, the defe nd ant’ s o w n conve rs ati on s w i th N av a-R u b io re ve al th e c on sp ira t o ria l na tu re of th eir re l ati onshi p. Duri ng one ofthe i nter cepted co nver sat i ons, N av a- Rub i o a nd Avi l a di scus se d Nava

- Rub i o s el l i ng the m etham phetam i ne A vi l a had fro nted hi m to a “w hi te guy, ” and Avil a tol d Nava- Rubio to send th e m oney b ac k w i th Espino za- Sar co. Giv en thi s e xchange, A vi la cannot re aso nabl y deny that he i ntended fo r the dr ugs t o b e r e s o l d. The l ar ge am ou n ts of drugs, the sal es on co nsi gnm ent, the l eve l oftr ust a nd co nfi dence, and the expli ci t di scussi o ns o fredistribu tion all p ro vi de o ve r whel m i ng evi dence ofA vi l a’ s co nspir ato ri alr el ati onshi ps w i th A vant, N ava- Rubio , and Espinoz a- Sar co. I n a ddi ti o n, the e vide nc e su ppo r ts the j ur y ’ s fi ndi ng that A vi l a engage d i n the spe cif icc r i m e ch ar g ed i n theN o. 07

- 2404 13

O ne kil ogram contai ns 1, 000 gram s. Thu s, even one kil ogram 3 ea c h o fm eth am phe t am i ne an d co c ai ne woul d ex c ee d the am ou nts ch arg ed in the ind ictm en t. Rounded t o the ne ar es t ki l ogr am , 45 ki l ogr am s is equi val en t 4 to 1 00 p o u n d s, 1 36 kilo g ram s is equ iv alen t to 30 0 p ou nd s, an d 181 kilo g ram s is equ iv alen t to 40 0 p ou nd s. R ou nd ed to the nea rest gr am , 13 61 gra m s is equ iv ale n t to 5 thr ee p o u n d s an d 181 4 g ram s is equ iv alen t to fou r p ou nd s. Rounded t o the ne ar es tki l ogr am , 22 7 k i l ogram s i s e qui val en t to 5 00 p ou nd s. T he se estim ates ar e con serv ativ e, using the lo w est qu an tity 6 s uppor t ed by the t es t i m ony and r oundi ng d ow n t o the n e a r e s tk i l o g r a m. ind ictm en t: an a greem en t to distribu te 500 gram s or m ore ofa m i xture orsubst ance conta i ni ng m etham phe ta m i ne, 5 0 g r a ms o rmo r e o fme tha mphe t a mi ne , 5 0 0 g r a ms or m or e o f a m ix tu re or s u b st an c e c on t a i n i n g a d et ec ta b le amo u n t o f c o c a i n e , a n d 1 0 0 k i l o g r a ms o r mo r e o f a m i x- 3 ture o r substa nce co ntai ni ng a detect abl e a m ount o f m ar ij uana. The ev i dence es tabl i shed that A vi l a s ol d N avaRubio o ver45 ki l ogr am s o fm etham phetam i ne, 20 to 30 ki l ogr am s o fco cai ne, and approxi m at ely 136 to 181 ki l ogr am s o fm ar ij uana. A vi l a s ol d A vant 1361 to 4 1814 gr am s o fm etham phetam i ne perm onth, 5 t o 6 ki l og r a ms o fc o c a i n e p e rmo n th, a n d 2 2 7t o t a lk i l o g r a ms o fmar ij ua na . E ven ifAvi l a su ppl i ed Avan t f o ro nl y o ne 5 m onth, thi s would add up to , ata m i ni m um , 46 ki l ogr am s o fm etham phetam i ne, 25 ki l ogram s o fco cai ne, an d 36 2 k i l ogr am s o r m or e o fm ar ij uana. Because th is 6 cl ea r l y e xc ee ds th e amoun t o fdr ug s char g ed i n the i n-14 N o. 07

- 2404

W e will discuss the thi rd argum ent in detai l in the cont ext 7 of A v ila’ s ev id en tiary cha lleng es. d ictm en t, th ere is am p le evi d en ce to su p p ort the j ury’s ver dictthatA vi l a e ngage d i n the charg ed conspi ra cy.

2. Wheth er A vil a Wa s P rejud iced by E vid ence o f a C o nsp iracy He D id Not Join A vi l a cl ai m s that he w as prej ud i ced at tr ialbec ause th e pr o se cut i o n p r es en te d e vi den ce tha t was r el ev an t o nl y t o a c ons p ira cytha t he di d no t j o i n. Avi l a ci te s th e f o l l o wi ngt o s uppo r t hi s c l ai m : ( 1) t es ti m o ny o fAge nt Bu rkha rt thata l ar ge- scal e drug or gani zati on o fM exi can nati onal s exi ste d i n I nd i anapol i s a nd thatthe FBIhad s e i z e d l a r g e qu a nt i t i e s o fd r u g s fr o m n u me r o u s me mb er s o fthato rg ani zati on; ( 2) te sti m ony ofA gent Reeves that he had m ade se ver alundercov erdrug pu rchas es fro m S oto
- N ava on a con sig n m ent b asi s; and ( 3) st ate
m ents by Bu rkhart, Reev es, A vant, and N ava- Ru b io that A vila w as w or k in g in a “d ru g d ea lin g e n te rp ris e.” A vila 7 ar gues that he w as prej ud i ced by the i ncl usi on ofth is i n a d m i ss i b l e e v i d e n c e i n th e g o v e r n me n t ’ s c a s e . He al so ar gues that the e rr or s a ffecte d his se ntence. We n e e d n o t d e c i d e wh e th e r th i s e v i d e n c e wa s a dm i ssibl e be cause, as d escr ibed bel ow, A vi l a di d not s uffer any pr ej udi ce . W e sh o ul d no te , ho wev er, tha t Avi la’s c laim s re ga rd i n g t h e im p ro p er te st im on y a re n oten tir ely w i thout m er i t. S peci fi cal l y, A ge nts Burkhartand Reeve s tes ti fi ed to d rug acti vi ti es w i th wh i ch A vi l a had l i ttl e o rN o. 07

- 2404 15 no dem onst ra ted co nnectio n . As note d above , al though a d efe n d an t d oe s n o t n ee d to kn ow w ith w h om h e is c on sp irin g t o b e c o n v ict ed of co n sp ira c y, Jo nes , 275 F
. 3d at 652, co - conspi ra tor s “ ‘ m ust ha ve b een aw ar e o fea ch o t h e ra n d m u s td o s o m e th i n gi n fu r th e r a n c e o fs o me si ngl e, i l l eg al enter pri se, ’ ” B ust am ante, 49 3 F
. 3d at 885- 86 ( quoti ng Le vi ne, 54 6 F
. 2d at 663)
. W e d o n ot a gree w i th th e govern m en t tha t the testim ony of A gen ts B urk h art a nd R e e v e s me e t s thi s s t a nd a r d. Forexam ple , A gent Bu rkhartdi d not s tat e fro m wh om the quanti ti es ofdru gs she descr ibed w er e s ei zed, nor di d s he c o nne ct tho se dr ug s to Avi l a. W i th o uta ny e xpl an at i o n a s to the orig i n o fthe dr ug s se i ze d, the r e i s no evi dence thatA vi l a e ngage d w i th the di st rib utor s o f these drugs i n a s i ngl e illeg al enter pri se orshar ed w i th th em so m e co m m o n g o al

. Abs en t th i s co nne ct i o n, the go ve rn m en t p r ov id ed n o e vid en c e t o e x p lain h ow A vila conspi re d to posse ss ordi str ibute the se i zed drugs. The testim ony ofA gent Reeves r ega rdi ng underco ver d ru g p u rc h as es m ad e fro m Sot o-N av a w as sim ilar ly qu e s ti onab l e . On e r e c o r de d t e l e ph o ne c a l lr e v e a l e d a conve rs ati on be tw een Avil a a nd S oto
- N ava, bu t they did n o tdi s c us s drug s . Av a ntt e s t i fi e d tha th e h a d obtained drugs fro m S oto- N ava and that S oto
- N ava i ntro
d u c ed h im to A vila . H e s ta te d th at th e p u r p o s e o fth is introd uc tion w a s s o that A van t cou ld obta in m ore drugs. H owever, A va n t’s tes ti m ony did notes tabl i sh that Av i l a k ne w tha t Av a nt ha d o the r s up pl i e r s o rthat A vi l a a nd S oto
- N ava w or ked toge th eri n any com m on enter pri se. S i m plydem onst ra ti ng tha t both di str ibuted16 N o. 07

- 2404 drugs t o the s am e ind i vi du al s is n ot suffi ci ent t o show th at th ey co n sp ire d to ge th er . See i d. Regar dle ss ofwh etherthi s e vid en ce was adm i ssibl e, ho wev er, Avi l a ca nno t su cc ee d o n h i s cl ai m b ec au se he d id n otsu ffer an y p rej u d ice from its int ro d u c t i o n attria l. A s descr ibed abo ve, to o btain a r eve rs al, A vil a m ust show that he w as p rej ud i ced by the a l l ege d var i ance. Stig ler, 41 3 F
. 3d at 592. Because a va ri ance m ay prej ud i ce a defendant both attr i aland at sente nci ng, we anal yze the e ffect ofthe ev id ence on bo th A vi l a’ s co nvi cti on an d se n te n c e. See B ust am ante, 49 3 F
. 3d at 887. Fi rs t, we hol d that Avil a’ s co nvi cti on was nota re sul t o f prej ud i ce fro m the i rr el evantev id en ce. A s no ted abo ve, because o ur r evi ew i s forpl ai n er ro r, we w i l lr eve rs e A vi l a’ s co nvi cti on o nl y i fa m i scar ri age o fj usti ce oc c u rre d “ ‘of s u c h m ag n it u d e t h at [A vila ] p ro b ab ly w ou ld have b een a cquit ted abs ent the er ro r. ’ ” M e ad ows , 91 F. 3d at 854 ( quoti ng Va le ncia , 907 F.2d at 685 ). I t i s h i g hly u nl i k e l y tha tAv i l a wo ul d h a v e b e e n a c qui tted had A gents Burkhar t a nd Reev es been preve nted fro m te s t i fyin g a b ou t t h es e d ru g t ra n sa c tio n s o r se izure s. A s descr ibed abo ve, the re c or d i s r epl ete with evi dence thatA vi l a co nspir ed w i th A vant, N ava- Rubio , and Esp i noza- Sar co to distribute l ar ge am ounts ofdrugs. A vila u se d E sp in oz a-S ar c o to d eliv e r d ru gs on h is be ha l fa nd c o l l ec t th e m o ne y. He “ fr o nt ed” Ava nta nd N av a-R u b io lar ge am o u n t s o f d ru gs for n o p ay m en t in adv a nc e . T he t e s t i mon y r e g a r di ngAv i l a ’ s drugde a l i ngs al one w as enough t o supp or t the j ury’ s v er dict

.N o. 07

- 2404 17

A lth o u g h th e G u id el in es ra n g e w a s in co rr ec tly ca lc u la te d , see 8 i n f ra S ection I I. C, thi s w as not a r es ult ofthe cl aim ed v ari ance. There i s no evidence from the P S R thatthe range was incr eas ed d ue to the quanti ti es ofdrug s se ize d fr om other m em b ers oft h e a l leg ed con sp iracy
. W e d iscuss this err or in det ai l l at eri n thi s opi ni on. F ur th er m o r e, we ha ve pr ev i o us l y he l d tha t a defen dan t wa s no t pr ej ud i c e d b y a v a r i a nc e whe r e “ ‘ the j ury had n o n ee d to look b ey on d [th e] d efe n d an t’s ow n w or d s in or der t o convi ct. ’ ” B ust am ante, 4 93 F
. 3d at8 87( quo ting Tow nse nd, 92 4 F
. 2d at 1411 )
. W here the gov er nm ent pr od u c ed rec or d ed co n v er sa tio n s o f th e d efe n d an ts d ire c tly disc ussi ng drug tr ansact i ons w i th the i r co- conspi ra tor s, w e hav e no ted thatthi s e vi dence al one w as suffic i ent t o su p p or t t h e jur y’s fin d in g. Se ei d. ; Tow ns e nd, 92 4 F
. 2d at 1411
. Si m i l ar l y her e, the j ury coul d hear f or it sel fthat A vi l a di scusse d w i th N ava- Rubio the sal e o fdrugs to the “w hi te guy. ” This evi dence al one w as suffi cien t to supp or t the j ury’ s fi nd in g, an d w e s ee no prej ud i ce fro m adm i tting the te sti m ony ofA gents Burkhar t a nd Reev es. N or are w e p er su ad ed th at A vila w a s p r ej u d ice d in h is sente nce. A l though the PSR re ci ted the quanti ti es ofdrugs that we r e s e i z e d fr o m t he e nt i r e drugo r g a ni z a t i o n, the se quanti ties w er e no t f acto re d i nto the Gui del i nes r ange appli ed. Inst ead, the ra nge was appare ntl y b ase d on

8 th e qu an titi es of dru gs li sted in p aragrap h 13 of the PSR

— the dr ugs that Avil a s up pli ed to A vant. A vi l a a l so cl ai m s that the co urt re l i ed on t h e im proper evid ence wheni t no te d tha t th e se nt en ce “ r efl ec ts the18 N o. 07

- 2404 defe nd ant’ s hi gh l eve lo fi nvol vem en t in the c onspi ra cy, as w ell a s h is re p ea te d vio lat ion s o f th e la w an d h is ro le i n the dist ributi on of h u ge q uanti ti es ofdrugs i n centr al In d ian a a n d els ew h er e.” (Sen t. H r ’g a t 2 5.) H ow ev er , th is d o es no t demons tr at e th atthe c o ur t ba se d Avi l a’ s se ntence o n anythi ng o therthan the dr ugs he supp l i ed to A vant and N ava- Rubio , and A vi l a’ s c rim i nalhi sto ry . The quanti ti es ofdrugs i n thos e t ra nsacti ons w er e s ubsta nti al, and the re is n o doubt thatA vi l a pl aye d a ke y ro l e in or chestr ating the deal s. W e al so a r e unc o nv i nc ed byAvi l a’ s ar g um en t th athe w as prej ud i ced i n hi s s entence bec ause the pr ose cutor urge d the j ud ge to re l y o n i m properev i dence. A l though th e pr o se cut o ra dvo ca te d a lo ngs en te nc e be ca us e o f“ th e am ou nt of ha rm [ A v ila ] d id by bein g pa rt of th is consp irac y th at p u m p ed so m u c h p ois on int o ou r c om m u n ity ,” and t o a v o i d “ un wa r r a nt e d d i s pa r i t i e s ” wi th hi s a l l e ged co - co ns pi r at o r s, A vil a ci te s no th i ngfr o m the j udg e i ndi ca tingtha t he r el ied on the se a r g um en ts i n i m po sing th e se nt en ce . The j udg e’ s co m m en ts dur i ngs en te nc i ng w ere w el l

- supp or ted byA vi l a’ s o w n acti ons, hi s pri or cri m i nalhi sto ry, and hi s d em onstrat ed dis re spect f or the l aw . N othing in the sent en c ing hea ring sug ges ts that had the j ud ge re fused to adm i t the i m proper evi dence, he woul d have i m posed a differ ent s entence
. I n sum , w e find am ple support f orthe j ury’ s v er dictthat Avi l a was a m em ber o fthe c o ns pi r ac y c ha r g ed in the i n d ictm ent. The r eco rd co ntai ns di re ct t est i m ony that A vi l a hi m sel f dist ributed drugs i n quanti ti es that exceeded th o se c ha r g ed i n the i ndi ct m en t. F ur th er m o r e, Avila’sN o. 07

- 2404 19

re l ati onshi ps w i th A vant and N ava- Rubio r eve althat th eywer e no t si m pl y e ng ag ed i n a b uy er - se l l err el ati o nshi p. Because thi s e vi dence supports the j ury’ s v er dict, A vi l a was notprej ud i ced at tr i albythe a d m i ssi on o f an y e vi den ce o fa s epa r at e co ns pi r ac y . Norwas h e pr ej udi ce d a t hi s se nt en cing , b eca us e th e j udg e’ s r ea so ni ng was wel l

- su ppo r te d b y e vi den ce o fd rug tr an sa ct i o ns dir ectly a ttr ibutabl e t o A vi l a.

B
. A vil a ’s E vid entia ry C ha lleng es Avi l a al so ch al l en g es the t es ti m o ny o fs ev er alg o ve r nm en t w itn es se s a s irr ele va n t a n d u n d u ly p rej u d icia l. O rd inar ily , w e review a district cou rt’s eviden tiary ru lin gs for a n ab u se of d isc r e t i o n . U nite d States v. Hale, 448 F. 3d 971, 98 5 ( 7th Ci r. 20 06)
. H owever, A vi l a nev er obj ecte d to an y of th e c ha ll en ged te stim ony a t trial

. W he re a par tyha s f ai l ed to r ai se a n obj ec ti o n a t tr i al, o ur re vi ew i s onl y f or pla i n err or , U ni t e d S t at e s v. Swan , 48 6 F.3 d 26 0, 26 3 (7 th C ir. 20 07 ), an d w e w i l l rev er se on ly if the e rr or s r esul ted i n an “actualm i scar ri age o fj usti ce” such thatthe defe nd ant “ pr obab l y would have bee n ac q u itt ed bu t fo r th e e rro n e ou sly ad m itt ed ev id en c e,” Uni t e d S t at e s v . Price, 4 18 F. 3d 771, 77 9 ( 7th Ci r. 20 05) (qu otations om itted ). Fi rs t, A vi l a cl ai m s that t est i m ony o f Ser gea nt W i l dauer re g ard ing the use of hid d en com p artm en ts in d rug traffi ck i ngwas i r r elev an t an d unduly pr ej udi ci al

. Next, he c l a i ms th a ts e v e r a lw i tn e s s e s g a v e p r ej u d i c i a la n d i mpr o perl eg alo pi ni o ns tha t Avi l a par ti ci pat ed in the charg ed c on sp i ra cy. H e cl ai m s that the cum ula ti ve effect20 N o. 07

- 2404 ofthes e e rr or s depri ved hi m o fa fair tri al

. W e a dd re ss ea cha r g um en t i n tur n.

1. Testim o ny of Serg ean t Wild a uer A t t ri al, the go vernm ent c al l ed Se rg eant W i l dauer t o tes ti fy t o the use of hi dd en com partm ents i n drug t ra ffi cki ng. W i l dauer e xplained seve ra lphoto gr aphs ofh i dd en com partm ents that he had d i sco ver ed i n car s, allof w hi ch ca m e fr o m o th erc as es he ha d i nv es ti g at ed. He a l so e xp lai ne d h ow “ d rug cartels” u sed this m eth od to transp ort drugs. E xp ert testim ony m ay be adm itted if th e w itness ’s sp eciali zed know ledge w il l he lp th e t rier of f act to u nd erst an d th e e vid en c e. Fe d . R. E vid . 702 ; U nited Stat e s v. N o bles , 69 F. 3d 172, 183 (7th Cir
. 1995)
. “Th e opera ti ons of drug deal er s a re ge nera l l y a n appropri ate sub j ec t for ex p er t t est i m ony. Because the c l andesti ne natur e o f n ar c ot ics tra ffick in g is l ike ly to be ou ts id e t h e k n ow led g e o f th e average l aym an, l aw enforcem en t officers m ay testify as exp erts in orde r to ass ist the j ury in u nd ersta nd i ng the se tr ansact i ons. ” N o bles , 69 F. 3d at 183 ( quotations an d citations om itted ). I n U nited Sta tes v. H u bba rd, 61 F. 3d 1261 (7th Cir. 1995), w e hel d that the di stric t c ou rtdi d not abuse i ts disc re tio n in a llow in g a p olic e o ffice r w h o w as n otd ire c tly in vo lved i n the defe nd ant’ s ca se to tes ti fy about deal er s’ typi c a l us e o f hi dde n c o mpa r t men t s i n a ut o mob i l e s t o tr an sp or t n ar c ot ics
. Id. at1 274- 75
. W e no ted th atthe ex per t i n H ubb a rd di d no t o ffer an o pi ni o n r eg ard ing theN o. 07

- 2404 21 defe nd ant’ s co nd uct, but m er ely spoke i n gene ra lte rm s. Id. a t 12 75
. F i na l l y, we st at ed th atno th i ngi n the ex p er t’s te st im on y “for ec los ed or h am p er ed th e d efe n se in o ffer i ngi nno ce nte xpl an at i o ns f o re vi den ce tha t [ th e ex p ert] ha d iden tified as con sisten t w ith na rcot ic s traffi cking. ” Id. A vila’s c ase i s s i m i l arto the si tuati on we add re sse d i n H ubb a rd

. N ava- Rubio and A vant tes ti fi ed that A vi l a o r hi s ag en ts tr an spo r te d l ar g e amoun ts o f drug s us i ng hi dd en co m partm ents. The go ve r nme ntpro du ced S e r ge an t W ild au er to h elp th e jur y u n d er st an d th is e viden ce a nd ho w i t r el at ed to the ty pi ca lo per at i o ns o fdr ug d ea ler s. T h u s, th e e vid en c e w as rele va n t in th at it hel ped to e xplain other tes ti m ony. Even re l evan t evi dence m ay be e xcl ud ed i fthe danger o funf air pr ej udi ce o ut wei g hs i ts pr o ba ti ve v alue . F ed. R. E vid. 40 3. “Evi dence i s unf ai rl y pr ej ud i ci alo nl y i fit w il li nd uce the j ury to deci de the case o n an i m proper ba si s, c o m m o nl y a n e m o ti o na lo ne , r athe rtha n o n the evid ence prese nted. ” U ni t e d S t at e s v. Pul i do , 69 F. 3d 192, 20 1 ( 7th Ci r . 1 99 5) ( quo ta ti o ns o m i tt ed)

. Thi s i s notthe case her e. N othing ab out W i l daue r’s t est i m ony w as so pr ej udi ci altha t i t woul d c au se the j ur y t o de ci de th e ca se on ani m pr o perb as i s. As in H ubb a rd, W i l dauer ne ve ro ffer ed ano pi ni o n r eg ar di ngAvi l a’ s specifi c i nvol vem ent, and A vi l a had ev er y opportuni ty to cro ssexam i ne hi m . Consi deri ng the w ealth ofev i dence ag ai nst Avi l a, i t i s unl i k ely tha t th e j ur y c o nv i ct ed h im on th e bas is ofthe tes tim ony abou t hid d en com p artm en ts or a c om m en t re ga rd in g “ d ru g c ar te ls.”22 N o. 07

- 2404

2. The “ Leg a l O pin io ns” of Sev eral Witnesses The p rim ary i ss ue a t tr i alwas Avi l a’ s i den ti ty
. Dur i ng o pe nings t a t e men t s , Av i l a ’ s c o un s e ls t a t e d: I n thi s ca se . . . the g ove rnm ent’ s g oi ng to put on a lot of ev iden ce sh ow ing th at th ere w as a con sp iracy. . . . The questi on her e, thou gh, i s whether M ar ti n A vi l a was a part ofthatco nspir acy ornot
. M artin A vil a d en ies being any pa rt of th at con sp ira c y . . . . He wi l lt e l ly o u tha th e do e s n o tkno w Rene N ava- Rubio , h as neverh ad any contactwith hi m , ha s ne ve rha d a ny de al i ng s wi ththa t m an . No w, the r e w a s s o me b o d y u s i n gth e n a me M ar ti n A vi l a in thi s co n sp ira cy, but the quest i on th aty o u ha ve t o a ns weri s whethe rthi s m ani s th e o n e th a tw a s d o i n gth a t
. J us tb e c a u s e th e n a me M ar ti n A vi l a i s on the co nspir acy doesn’ t m ean that thi s m an i s the m an that w as doi ng tha t work

. T o c om bat thi s a rgum ent, the gov er nm ent a ske d seve ra l w i tness es

— S pec i alAge ntBur k ha r t, Nav a- Rub io, a nd A va nt

— t o i d e n t i fy th e d e fe n d a n t a n d s t a t e wh e the r he was the o ne who p ar ti ci pat ed i n the “ dr ugt r affi ck i ng con sp iracy, ” “d rug d ealing ente rp rise,” or “d rug traffi cking o rg ani zati on. ” They al lanswered affi rm ati vel y. I t i s t rue that it w ou ld be i m properf orthe pros ecuto r to e l i ci t te st i m o ny abo utwhethe rAvi l a was i nv o l ve d i n a “c o ns pi r ac y ” o r th e l i k e, be ca us e i t i m pl i es a l eg al co ncl us i o n. Howev er, wi thr es pec t to Na va- Rub i o a nd A va n t, it is a p p ar en t fro m t h e r e c or d th at th e g oa l of th isN o. 07

- 2404 23 que st i o ni ngwas t o es tabl i shthe i den ti tyofthe de fen dan t as th e ind ivi d ua l w ho sold them dru gs. E ven A vil a’s co uns elr efer r ed to the i nt er ac ti o ns am o ngthe se i ndi vi dual s as “ a co ns pi r ac y . ” Altho ugh th e for m o fthe pr o se cuto r’s q uesti ons l eave s m uch to be des i re d, A vi l a nev er objec te d at tr i al

. The pro secuto r si m plywas tr yi ng to ge t to the ul ti m at e i ss ue o f Avi l a’ s i den ti ty, a l i ne o fque st i o ning tha t w a s entirely prop er and , i nd eed , nec essary g i ve n Avi l a’ s defen se . W e ca nno t sa y th at but f or the i m preci sel y worded questi ons A vi l a would have bee n a c qu i t t e d. W i thr es pec t to Spe ci alAge ntBur k ha r t, the g o ve r nm en t con ced es on ap p eal that h er testim ony w as im p rop er. Bur k harti den ti fi ed Avi l a fr o m a pho to g r apha s th e i nd i vi du alwh o too k part i n the c onspi ra cy and explained that the photo a c c urat el y r efl ecte d his appeara nce fr o m 2 0 0 0 thr o ugh 2 0 0 2
. Cr o s s - e xa mi na t i o n r e v e a l e d, h ow ev er, thatshe had not m et A vi l a unti lafterhe was ar re st ed in 2 00 5. N on e t h e l e s s, w e fa il to s ee h ow th is coul d have prej u d iced A vi l a. The j ury w as fully a w ar e o f the inaccu ra ci es i n Burkhar t’ s t est i m ony, bec ause they w er e r eve al ed on cr oss - exam . In additi on, as we have p r ev iou sly es ta b lish ed , A vila n ev er ob j ec te d , an d am p le ev i den ce pr o per l y sup p or te d hi s co nv i ct i o n. Thu s, the er ro r w as harm l ess .
3. C um ula tiv e E rrors A vi l a a rgues that e ven if th e i nd i vi du aleffects o fthes e er ro rs w er e h ar m les s, th eir cu m u lat ive effe c t d en ied h im hi s r i g htt o a f a i rt r i a l

. We ha v e n o t e d tha t“ [ c ] umul ati ve24 N o. 07

- 2404

er ro rs, w h il e i nd i vi du al l y har m l ess , wh en ta ken to ge th er c an p rej u d ice a d efe n d an t as m u c h as a s i n g le r ev er sibl e errora nd v i o l at e a defen dan t’ s r i g htt o due proce ss ofl aw . ” U nited Sta tes v. A l l en , 26 9 F
. 3d 842, 84 7 (7t h Cir

. 20 01)
. To dem onst ra te cum ula ti ve er ro r, A vila m ust s how that( 1) atl eas t tw o erro rs were com m i tte d dur i ngthe t r i al, a nd ( 2) the se e r ro r s “s o i nfec te d the j ur y ’ s del ibe r at i o n th at th ey den i ed [ Avi l a] a funda m en tal l y f ai r tr i al

. ” Alva rez v. Boyd, 22 5 F
. 3d 820, 82 4 ( 7th C i r . 2 0 0 0 )
. We mu s t u s e c a r e n o t t o ma g n i fy t he i m port ance oferr or s that had l i ttl e s i gni fi cance i n the tr i al se tt in g. Id. a t 82 5. W e wi l lr ev er se o nl y i f“ th e effec t o fthe er ro rs , co nsid er ed to gether, co uld nothave bee n harm l ess . . . [ or ] thatbut f orthe erro rs , the outco m e o f the tr i alpro babl y would have bee n differ ent. ” Id. ( ci tat i on om itted ). W e dou b t that the j ury’ s v er dictwould have been di ffer en t ev en ifthe t r i alc o ur t ha d e xc l ude d a l lo fthe tes ti m ony that A vi l a no w chal l enges . A s we have al re ady not ed num er ous t i m es, o ver w hel m i ng ev i dence proper l y s up port ed A vi l a’ s co nvi cti on. A vant and N avaR ubi o des cr ibe d r el at i o ns hi ps wi th Avi l a th atw ere cl ear l y c onspi ra tor i al, and their test i m ony w as bol ste re d by re cor ded co nver sat i ons. E ven the cum ula ti ve effect of a n y p ot en tia l err or s d id n otd en y A vila a fair tria l.

C
. Avila’s Se nte nce A vi l a’ s fi nalar gum ents on a pp eali nvolve h i s s entence
. H e cl ai m s that hi s s entence was b ase d on an incor re ct G u id elin es r an ge , an d th at th e d ist ric t c ou rtim p ro p er lyN o. 07

- 2404 25 cal cul ate d hi s cri m i nalh i sto ryp oi nts. B ecause A vi l a f ai l ed to ch al l en g e th e PS R o rr ai se the se a r g um en ts b efore the di s t r i c tc o ur t, r evi ew i s a g a i n f o rp l a i n e r r o r, a nd a rem an d i s w arran ted only i f th e err or affecte d A vil a’s su b st an tia l righ ts
. U nite d States v. G arre tt, 52 8 F .3d 52 5, 527 (7th Cir. 2008). Avi l a fi r sta r g ue s th atthe di st r i ctc o urta ppl i ed th e w rong ba se offen se level. “A sent en ce b ased on an i nc orr ec t Gui del i ne r an g e co ns ti tu te s aner r o ra ffec tings ubs ta nti alr i ghts and can thus c onst i tute pla i n er ro r, wh i ch re quir es us to r em an d u nl ess we have r eas on t o bel i eve that the er ro r did not affect the dist ri ct cour t’ s s ele c tio n ofa parti cular sente nce. ” Id. The PSR c om pu ted that Avi l a ha d di st r i but ed d r ug s wi th a mar ij ua na e q u i v a l e n c y r a t e o f2 4 , 2 3 4 k i l o g r a ms . T h e P S Rr e c o mm ended, and the d istri ct c ourtappli ed, a base o ffense lev el of 3 8. W ith se ve n cr im in al h ist or y p oin ts , th is r e s u l t e d i n a G u i d e l i n e s r a n g e o f3 2 4

- 4 0 5 mo n th s . Ho weve r, the Gu i del i nes c l ear l y e stabl i sh thatthe cor re ct b a s e o ffe n s e l e v e lf o rb e t we e n 1 0 , 0 0 0 a n d 3 0 , 0 0 0 k i l o g r a ms ofm ar ij uana i s 3 6. Thi s would have res u lted in a Gui del i nes r ange of26 2- 327 m onths. The dis tr i ct cour t i m posed a 396- m onth s entence , wh i ch w as w i thi n the i ncor re ctl y ap pli ed Gu i del i nes r ange. Dur i ngs en te nc i ng, the j udg e g av e no i ndi ca ti o n tha t he w oul d ha ve i m posed the sam e s entence had the ra nge b e e n l o we r . T hi s e r r o rr e qu i r e s r e man d. The go vernm ent argues that thi s e rr orwas harm l ess because the evidence at tr i alsupporte d a fi nd i ng tha t A vi l a di str ibuted the equi val ent o fm or e than 30, 00026 N o. 07

- 2404

If th e c o rr ec t b a se o ffen se le v el o f 36 h a d b ee n ap p lie d , 7 9 cri m inal his tory points w ould resul t i n a range of262- 327 m onths , w hile 6 c ri m i nalhi s t or y poi nt s woul d re s ul ti n a ran g e of 235 -293 m on ths. kil ogram s of m arij ua na . H ow ever, the d istri ct cou rt a pp a r e nt l y di d no t r e l y o n tha t e v i de nc e . I t f o und that A vi l a di str ibu te d the e quiva l ent o f24, 234 ki l ogr am s o f m ar ij uana, and nei ther the gov er nm ent norA vi l a obj ecte d to th at fin d in g. It ap p ea rs th at th e d ist ric t c o u r t sim p ly ap p li ed the w rong ran ge, w hich cons titute s p lai n error. A vila als o ar gu es th at th e d ist ric t c ou rtm isc alc u lat ed h is c r i mi na lh i s t o r y p o i nt s . Ats e nt e nc i ng, Av i l a r e c e i v e d a to ta lo fs ev enc r i m i na lhi story po i nt s, whi chr es ul te d i n a G uid eli ne s ran ge of 324-405 m ont hs

. Si x crim inal history poi nts would have resul ted in a r ange of26 2- 327 m onths. 9 I n ca lculating A vil a’s crim inal history point s, th e PSR a s s i g n e d two cr i mi n a lh i s t o r y p o i n t s fo re a c h o fh i s t wo pr i o rc o nt r o l l ed su bs ta nc e co nv i ct i o ns . Avi l a was s en t e nc e d fo rb o th c o nv i c t i o ns o n the s a me da y . In c a s e 9 4 CR 19 83 , he rec eiv ed a se n te n c e o f s i x t h m on th s’ c u st od y. In case 9 4 CR 6 70 he r ec ei ve d a s en te nc e o f“ two y ears c us t o dys us pe nd e d u po n c o mpl e t i o n o fs e nt e nc e i n 9 4 CR 19 83 .” Tw o cri m i nalhi sto rypoi nts a re i m posed f orea ch pri or s e nt en ce of i m p risonm en t of at least sixty d ays. U
. S. Se ntenci ng G uidel i nes M anual § 4A 1.1(b) ( 2007 ). H ow ever, w here the i m posi ti on o r executi on o fa sente nce was to ta lly su sp en d e d , o n ly on e c rim in al h ist or y p oin t is im p os ed

. Id. § 4A 1.2 (a)( 3). B ec au se th e d ist ric t c ou rtd idN o. 07

- 2404 27 not add re ss w hetherA vi l a’ s s entence i n case 94 CR 670 co ns ti tu te s a “t o ta l l y s us pen ded” s en te nc e wi th inthe m ea ni ngo f§ 4 A1
. 2(a)( 3) , we ha ve i n fr o nto fus o nl y the lim ite d info rm at i o n a va ilab le in th e P SR . For t h is r e a s o n, w e d e c l i n e t o d e c i d e th i s i s s u e f o rth e f i r s t t i me on ap p ea l. In s t e a d , onrem an d th e d ist ric t c ou rtsh ou ld i nquir e into the c i rcum sta nces ofthe pri orse ntence and decide w hetheri t warr ants on e or two cr i m i nal hi sto rypoi nts.

III. C ON CLU SI ON W e A F F I RM Av i l a ’ s c o nv i c t i o n a nd R EMA ND f or re sente nci ng with i nstr ucti ons to (1) consi der the Guidel i nes r ange that p ro p erl y r efl ects the am ount o fdrugs Avil a d is tr ibut ed an d ( 2) de te r m i ne whethe rthe s en te n c e i n c as e 9 4 C R67 0 w as “t ot ally su sp en d ed ” w ith in th e m ean ing of U
. S. S. G
. § 4A 1.2( a)(3)
.

3- 6- 09