FI L ED U.S. COURT OF APPEAL S EL EVENTHCI RCUI T J UNE 21, 2012 J OHN L EY CL ERK [DO NOT PUBLISH] IN THE UN ITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELE VENTH CIRCUIT

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ _ No. 1 1- 13 07 7 Non -Arg um en t Ca le nd ar

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ _ D.C. Dock etNo. 8 :0 9- cr-0 05 72 -J SM- TGW -1 UNITED STAT ES OF AMERIC A, Pla in ti ff-Ap pe ll ee Cro ss App el la nt ,

ve rs us MARK ANTHONY MYRIE, a.k .a. Bu ju Ban to n, Defen dant -Ap pe ll an t Cro ss -Ap pe ll ee.

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ _ App eal s fr om

th e Uni te d S ta te s Di st ric t Co urt fo r th e Mi dd le Dis tri ctof F lo rid a

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ _ (J un e 2 1, 2 01 2)Befo re DUBINA, Ch ie f Ju dg e, MARC US an d B LACK, Circ ui t J ud ge s.

PER CURI AM: App el la ntMarkAnt ho ny My rie ap pe al s h is co nv ic ti on s fo r co ns pi racy to di st rib ut e co cai ne , invi ol at io n o f 21 U.S.C. § 8 46 , andaid in g a ndab et ti ng an ot he r’s us e o f a p ho ne to faci li ta te a drug cri m e, in vi ol at io n o f 21 U.S.C. § 8 43 (b ). The g ov ern m en t cr os s- ap pe al s the di st ric t co urt’s jud gm en t o f acqui tt al of Myrie ’s cha rg e o f gu n p os se ss io n i n fu rth eran ce o f a dru g c rime, in v io la ti on of 21 U.S.C. § 9 24 (c). On ap pe al , Myrie arg ue s t ha t t he go ve rn m en t d idno t es tabl is h t ha t h e was pa rt o f a dru g c on sp ira cy be cau se th ere was ne ve r anag reem en t i n p la ce an d m ere pr es en ce i s i ns uf

fic ie ntto su st ai n h is co nv ic ti on . Furt he r, he arg ue s t ha t h e d id no t ai d a ndab ethi s co de fen da nt , IanTho m as , inus in g aph on e to faci li ta te a drug cri m e b ecau se hi s o nl y

in vo lv em en t wi th a ph on e was di rect in g Th om as to aska qu es ti on with re gardto a drug de al th atne ve r happ en ed . Myrie al so arg ue s t ha t h is co nv ic ti on s s ho ul d b e o ve rtu rn edbe cau se Alex an de r Jo hn so n, a g ov ern m en t co nf id en ti al in fo rm an t, p ur su edhi m to en ga ge in dru g d eal in g o ve r a s ix -m on th pe rio d, wh ic h c on st itut eden trapm en t as a m at te r of law. Myrie co nt en ds th at , bas edon a Sev en th Cir cu itop in io n, t he go ve rn m en t di d n otsh ow h is pre di sp os it io n t o c omm ita cri m e. 2Add it io na ll y , My rie arg ue s t ha t t hi s ca se sh ou ldbe di sm is se d b ecau se th e di st ric t co urt v io la te d t he Sp eedy Trial Act, 1 8 U.S.C. § 31 61 , et seq ., by ho ld in g tri al aft er the 70 -d ay

clo ckex pi red . Myrie arg ue s tha t t he di st ric t co urt d idno t pr op erl y art ic ul at e it s re as on foris su in g t wo co nt in ua nc es as r equi redby 18 U.S.C. § 3 16 1( h) (7 ), an d t he de la y was u nr eas on ab le an d p reju di ci al un de r 18 U.S.C. § 3 16 1( h) (6 ). Fi na ll y , th e g ov ern m en t cr os s- ap pe al s t he di st ric t co urt’s jud gm en t o f acqui tt al on Myrie ’s 18 U.S.C. § 9 24 (c) co nv ic ti on onth e b as is th atitwas reas on ab ly fores eeab le th ata gu n wo ul d b e u se d i n fu rth eran ce o f hi s d ru g co ns pi racy. The ev id en ce es tabl is he d tha t o ne of M yrie ’s cod efen da nt s, J am es Mac k, ca rri edth e g un in furth eran ce o f th e co cai ne de al , andth e jury’ s co nv ic ti on sh ou ldbe up he ldun de r a Pin ker to n th eo ry of l iabi li ty. 1 Myrie res po nd s t ha t t he go ve rn m en t v io la te d t he Doubl e Je op ardy Claus e be cau se itco ns tru ct iv el y

am en de d t he in di ct m en t b y ab an do ni ng anaid in g a nd ab et ti ng th eo ry

in fav orof a Pin ker to n th eo ry , andth e ch arg e sh ou ldbe di sm is se d. Alt ern at iv el y , he a rg ue s t ha t i f we o ve rtu rnth e jud gm en t o f acqui tt al , we sh ou ld rem an d the cas e o r gr an t a n ew tr ia l b ecau se th e d is tri ctco urt n ev er co nd it io na ll y ru le d o n h is m ot io n fo r a n ew tr ia l. Pin ker to n v. Uni te d St at es , 32 8 U.S. 64 0, 66 S. Ct . 11 80 , 9 0 L. Ed . 14 89 1 (1 94 6) . 3I.

W e rev ie w de no vo whet he r th e ev id en ce was su ffi ci en t t o s us ta ina jury ve rd ic t. Uni te d Sta tes v. J imi ne z , 56 4 F .3d12 80 , 12 84 (11 th Cir . 20 09 ). The ev id en ce i s v ie wedinth e li gh t m os t fa vo rab le to th e g ov ern m en t, wi th all reas on ab le in fere nc es an d c red ib il it y ch oi ces m ad e in th e g ov ern m en t’s fa vo r. Uni te d Sta tes v. Fr an k, 59 9 F .3d12 21 , 12 33 (11 th Cir . 20 10 ), cer t. d en ie d , 13 1 S . Ct . 18 6 (2 01 0) . “ A con vi ct io n m us t b e uph el d u nl es s t he jury co ul d n othave fo un d the de fen da ntgu il ty und er an y reas on ab le co ns tru ct io n o f th e ev id en ce.” Uni te d Sta tes v. C

ha st ai n , 19 8 F .3d13 38 , 13 51 (11 th Cir . 19 99 ). Cred ib il it y

qu es ti on s ar e fo r th e jury, andwe wil l as su m e th atth e jury an swe redall of t he m

in a m an ne r th atsupp orts th e jury’ s v erd ic t. Se e Ji min ez , 56 4 F.3 d a t 1 28 5. A d efen da nt ’s own tes ti m on y , if d is be li ev edby the jury, m ay be co ns id eredas “ subs ta nt iv e ev id en ce o f th e d efen da nt ’s gu il t.” Id . (in te rn al qu ot at io n m ark s o m it te d) . W e are “bo un d b y th e jury’ s cr ed ib il it y

de te rm in at io ns , an d b y it s re jecti on of the in fere nc es rai se d b y th e d efen da nt .” Uni te d Sta tes v. Herna ndez , 43 3 F .3d13 28 , 13 34 (11 th Cir . 20 05 ) (i nt ern al qu ot at io n m ark s om it te d) .

“ To s us ta in a co nv ic ti onforco ns pi rin g t o d is tri bu te [co cai ne ] th e go ve rn m en t m

us t p ro ve th at1) a n a gr eem en t ex is te d b etween two or m or e p ers on s 4to di st rib ut e th e dru gs ; 2 ) th atth e d efen da ntat i ss ue kn ew of th e co ns pi rat or ia l go al ; an d 3 ) th athe kn owi ng ly j oi ne d o r pa rti ci pa te d i n t he il le ga l v en tu re.” Uni te d Sta tes v. Ma tthe ws 16 8 F .3d12 34 , 12 45 (11 th Cir . 20 09 ). The d efen da ntis co ns id eredto ha ve parti ci pa te d i n t he co ns pi racy so l on g a s t he “ de fen da nt ’s act io ns faci li ta te d t he en de av or s o f ot he r co -co ns pi rat or s, o r fac il it at edth e v en tu re as a who le .” Uni te d Sta tes v. C ha ndle r , 38 8 F .3d79 6, 8 11 (11 th Cir . 20 04 ) (in te rn al qu ot at io n m ark s o m it te d) . “ It i s i rrel ev an t tha t p art ic ul ar co ns pi rat or s m ay no t h av e kno wn o th er co ns pi rat or s o r parti ci pa te d i n e ve ry st ag e o f th e co ns pi racy.” Uni te d Sta tes v. Alre d , 14 4 F .3d14 05 , 14 15 (11 th Cir . 19 98 ). To p ro ve a vi ol at io n o f 21 U.S.C. § 8 43 (b ), th e g ov ern m en t m us t s ho w th at th e d efen da ntkn owi ng ly andin te nt io na ll y us eda co m

m un ic at io ns faci li ty to faci li ta te th e co m

m is si on of adru g fe lo ny. Uni te d Sta tes v. Ri ver a , 77 5 F .2d15 59 , 15 62 (11 th Cir . 19 85 ). To p ro ve faci li ta ti on , th e g ov ern m en t m us t s ho w th atth e ph on e cal l “ co m es withi n t he co m m on m ean in g o f fac il it at e– ‘to m ak e eas ie r’ or le ss di ffi cu lt , or t o a ss is t o r ai d.” Id. (in te rn al qu ot at io n m ark s o m it te d) . Viewe d i n t he li gh t m os t fa vo rab le to th e g ov ern m en t, we co nc lu de th atth e ev id en ce o n t he reco rdsupp orts Myrie ’s con vi ct io n. Here , Myrie de m on st rat ed fam il ia rit y

with t he dru g trad e, an d h is be ha vi ordu rin g t he in st an t o ffen se was co ns is te ntwith h is de sc rib edrol e o f anin ve st orwho st ay s o n t he ou ts id e. 5Fu rth er, Myrie i ntro du cedTho m as to Jo hn so n, v ou ch edforTho m as ’s cred ib il it y ,

to ldJo hn so n t he y

ha d ado ne de al , th an ke d J oh ns on forth e o pp ortu ni ty to d o t he de al , andst oo d t o g ai n fi ve ki lo gr am s o f co cai ne fro m th e ag reem en t. Si m il arl y , th e ev id en ce es tabl is he s t ha t a r eas on ab le jury co ul d h av e co nc lu de d t ha t M yrie kn owi ng ly andin te nt io na ll y aid edan d abe tt edTho m as in us in g aph on e to faci li ta te th e co cai ne de al be cau se Myrie di rect edTho m as to askho w m uc h the bu y er wan te d. II.

“ ‘Asu cces sf

ul en trapm en t d efen se requi res two ele m en ts : 1 ) go ve rn m en t in du cem en t o f th e cri m e, an d 2 ) la ckof p red is po si ti on on th e p artof t he de fen da nt .’ ” Uni te d Sta tes v. Pa dr on , 52 7 F .3d11 56 , 11 60 (11 th Cir . 20 08 ) (in te rn al qu ot at io n m ark s o m it te d) . “ Whe n a n e nt rap m en t d efen se is reject edby th e jury, ourrev ie w is li m it edto de ci di ng whet he r th e ev id en ce was su ffi ci en t fo r a rea so nabl e jury to c on cl ud e th atth e d efen da ntwas p red is po se d t o [c omm itth e cri m e].” Uni te d Sta tes v. Br ow n , 43 F.3d61 8, 6 22 (11 th Cir . 19 95 ). W e m ay no t ov erturn ajury ve rd ic t “ if a ny reaso nabl e co ns tru ct io n o f th e ev id en ce wo ul d al lo w th e jury to fi ndth e d efen da ntgu il ty bey on d areas on ab le do ub t.” Id . W e rev ie w su ch a ve rd ic t de no vo , bu t m us t v ie w all fact s an d m ak e al l i nf eren ces in fav orof t he go ve rn m en t. Id . 6The reco rdde m on st rat es th atth e d is tri ctco urt i ns tru ct edth e jury onMyrie ’s

en trapm en t d efen se , andth e jury rejecte d t ha t d efen se . Whi le Myrie rel ie s o n fact or s u se d b y

th e Sev en th Cir cu it , inan al y zi ng anen trapm en t d efen se th e ev id en ce h ere, wh envi ewedin th e li gh t m os t fa vo rab le to th e g ov ern m en t, al lo wedth e jury to fi ndMyrie gu il ty bey on d areas on ab le do ub t. Se e Bro wn , 43 F.3 d a t 6 22 . Jo hn so n o nl y en ga ge d M yrie on th e to pi c o f co cai ne aft er Myrie in di cat edhi s fa m il ia rity

with d ru g d eal in g, an d M y rie ask edJo hn so n i f he co ul d pu rch as e co cai ne forhi m whi le di sc us si ng ex te ns iv e dru g o pe rat io ns . Myrie ne ve r to ldJo hn so n t o s to p a sk in g h im ab ou t a c oc ai ne de al , andMyrie ul ti m at el y in tro du cedTho m as , a br ok er, t o J oh ns on . Tho ug h M yrie tes ti fie d t ha t h e was jus t tryin g t o o ut ta lkJo hn so n a ndth athe was n ota drug de al er try in g t o c on du cta drug de al , we ass um e th at , bas edon th e jury verd ic t, the jury di sb el ie ve d M yrie an d M yrie ’s tes ti m on y

canth us be us edas s ub st an ti ve ev id en ce o f hi s g ui lt . Se e Ji min ez , 56 4 F .3dat 1 28 5. III.

“ W e rev ie w a cla im

un de r th e Sp eed y

Trial Act d e n ov o a ndrev ie w th e di st ric t co urt’s fa ctua l d et erm in at io ns on ex cl ud ab le ti m e fo r cl ear e rro r.” Uni te d St at es v. W

il li ams , 31 4 F .3d55 2, 5 56 (11 th Cir . 20 02 ). Und er the Sp eed y Trial Act, t he go ve rn m en t m

us t t ak e a d efen da ntto tri al withi n 7 0 d ay s o f th e

7de fen da nt ’s in di ct m en t o r in it ia l ap pe aran ce, wh ic he ve r oc cu rredlat er. 1 8 U.S.C.

§ 3 16 1( c)(1 ). Incal cu la ti ng th is 70 -d ay pe rio d, ce rta in ev en ts , as s pe ci fie d i n 1 8 U.S.C. § 3 16 1( h) , are ex cl ud edfro m th e sp eed y

tri al clo ck . Of rele va nc e, th e 7 0- da y pe rio d e xc lu de s (1 ) an y

de la y res ul ti ng fro m

cert ai n p ro ceed in gs co nc ern in g t he de fen da nt , su ch as t he res ol ut io n o f pr etria l m ot io ns fro m fil in g t hr ou gh th e co nc lu si on of t he he ari ng , (2) a reas on ab le de la y when th e d efen dantis joi ne d fo r tri al with aco de fen da ntforwho m th e ti m e fo r tr ia l h as no t ru n, an d n o m ot io n t o se ve r ha s b een gra nt ed , and(3) an y de la y res ul ti ng form

a co nt in ua nc e g ran te d b y an y jud ge if t he en ds of ju st ic e se rv edby tak in g s uc h a ct io n o ut weig h t he be st in te res ts of t he publ ic an d t he de fen dantin a sp eedy tri al . 18 U.S.C. §§ 31 61 (h )(1 )(D), (h )(6 ), (h )(7 )(A). The co nt in ua nc e ex cep ti on in § 3 16 1( h) (7 )(A) re qu ire s t ha t t he jud ge set fo rth inth e rec or d, ei th er o ral ly or inwrit in g, i ts reas on s fo r fi nd in g t ha t t he en ds of jus ti ce s erv edby the co nt in ua nc e o ut weig h t he in te res ts of t he publ ic an d t he de fen da nt . 18 U.S.C. § 3 16 1( h) (7 )(A). The Supr em e Co urt h el d i n Zed ne r v. Uni te d Sta tes , 54 7 U.S. 4 89 , 12 6 S . Ct. 1 97 6, 1 64 L. Ed. 2d74 9 (2 00 6) , th ata co urt m us t p utit s fi nd in gs reg ard in g a n e nd s- of -jus ti ce co nt in ua nc e o n t he reco rd atlea stby the ti m e th e co urt ru le s o n ade fen da nt ’s m ot io n t o d is m is s fo r a s pe edy 8tri al vi ol at io n, al th ou gh th e b es t p ract ic e is to st at e th e rea so ns when gra nt in g t he

co nt in ua nc e. Zed

ne r , 54 7 U.S. at50 6- 07 , 50 7 n .7, 1 26 S. Ct. at19 88 -8 9, 1 98 9 n.7 . W e p rev io us ly hel d t ha t § 31 61 (h )(6 ) att rib ut es to a de fen da ntan y 2 reas on ab le de la y

cau se d b y

a co de fen da nt . Uni te d Sta tes v. Da ven po rt , 93 5 F .2d 12 23 , 12 29 (11 th Cir . 19 91 ). “ [W] he th er the am ou ntof d el ay att rib ut edto ap pe ll an t u nd er [§ 31 61 (h )(6 )] was reas on ab le can be de te rm in edby referen ce t o th e to ta li ty of th e ci rcu m st an ces pri orto tri al , by th e ex te ntto whi ch th e ap pe ll an t’s d efen se was p reju di ced , or b y th e sh eer l en gt h o f th e d el ay .” Id . at 12 36 . Sect io n 3 16 1( h) (6 ) at tri bu te s t o M y rie an y reas on ab le de lay

cau se d b y

co de fen da ntJames Mac k. Se e Dav en po rt , 93 5 F .2dat 1 22 9. Ho wev er, we m us t fi rs t de te rm in e whe th er the di st ric t co urt s at is fie d t he requi rem en ts of t he Sp eed y Trial Act t o e xc lu de th e d el ay

to Mac k c au se d b y

th e co nt in ua nc es . Se e 18 U.S.C. § 3 16 1( h) (7 )(A). Inad dr es si ng Myrie ’s m ot io n t o d is m is s t he in di ct m en t fo r a vi ol at io n o f th e Sp eed y

Trial Act, t he di st ric t co urt s at is fie d § 31 61 (h )(7 )(A) b y st at in g t ha t M ack ’s att orne y ’s po te nt ia l co nf li ctof i nt eres t s up po rte d a co nt in ua nc e an d a m en de d t he pre vi ou sl y is su edco nt in ua nc es to refl ectth atth e The opinion, interpre ting an older version of the code, ref ers to this section as § 3161(h)( 7). 2 This section was r edesignated ( h)(6) in a 2008 amendme nt. Pub. L . No. 110-406 § 13(3) (2008). 9en ds of ju st ic e se rv edby gran ti ng th e co nt in ua nc es ou twei gh edth e b es t i nt eres ts

of th e p ub li c an d t he de fen dant s i n asp eed y tri al . Se e Zed

ne r , 54 7 U.S. at50 8, 12 6 S . Ct. at19 89 . Bec au se th e d el ay

to Mac k was pro pe rly excl ud ed , we no w det erm in e whe th er the de la y

to Myrie was re as on ab le un de r § 3 16 1( h) (6 ). The t ot al it y of t he ci rcu m st an ces pri orto tri al weig h i n fa vo r of fin di ng th e th ree m on th de la y to be reas on ab le gi ve n M ack ’s att orne y ’s con fli ctof i nt eres t an d t he ne edfor co nf id en ti al it y

in li gh t o f th e o ng oi ng cri m in al in ve st ig at io n. Se e Dav en po rt , 93 5 F.2 d a t 1 23 6. Lik ewis e, th ere i s n o a ll eg at io n o r ev id en ce t o s up po rt an a ll eg at io n th atth e d el ay

cau se d b y

th e co nt in ua nc es pre

jud ic edMyrie ’s def

en se . Se e id . at 12 36 -3 7. Fi na ll y , as t o t he th ree m on th de la y , we hav e h el d l on ge r pe rio ds of de la y to be reas on ab le . Se e id .; Uni te d Sta tes v. To bi n , 84 0 F .2d86 7, 8 69 -7 0 (1 1t h C ir. 1 98 8) (de lay

of e ig htm on th s an d t enda y s) . As a res ul t, the de la y s t o tri al cau se d b y

th e co nt in ua nc es are ex cl ud edfro m th e sp eed y

tri al cal cu la ti on , an d we c on cl ud e th atth ere was no vi ol at io n o f th e Sp eed y Trial Act. IV. W e rev ie w de no vo th e d is po si ti on of ade fen da nt ’s pro pe rly pres erv ed m ot io n fo r jud gm en t o f acqui tt al . Uni te d Sta tes v. Per ez -To sta , 36 F.3d15 52 , 15 56 (11 th Cir . 19 94 ). W e m us t d et erm in e whe th er a re as on ab le fact -fi nd er co ul d

10co nc lu de th atth e ev id en ce es tabl is he d t he de fen da nt ’s gu il t b ey on d areas on ab le

do ub t. Uni te d Sta tes v. Pist on e , 17 7 F .3d95 7, 9 58 (11 th Cir . 19 99 ). “ Inde ci di ng a m ot io n fo r en try of jud gm en t o f acqui tt al un de r Fed .R.Cri m .P. 29 (c), d is tri ct co urts sh ou ldap pl y

th e sa m e st an da rdas t ha t u se d fo r rev ie win g aco nv ic ti on of su ffi ci en cy

of t he ev id en ce.” Uni te d Sta tes v. Sel le rs , 87 1 F .2d10 19 , 10 21 (11 th Ci r. 19 89 ) “ If the co urt en te rs a jud gm en t o f acqui tt al aft er a g ui lt y ve rd ic t, the co urt m us t al so co nd it io na ll y

de te rm in e whe th er an y

m ot io n fo r a n ew tr ia l s ho ul d be gra nt edif t he jud gm en t o f acqui tt al is lat er v acat edor r ev ers ed . The co urt m us t sp eci fy th e rea so ns forth atde te rm in at io n.” Fed .R.Cri m .P. 29 (d )(1 ). To co nv ic t a d efen dantun de r 18 U.S.C. § 9 24 (c), t he go ve rn m en t m us t sh ow t ha t, dur in g a ndin rel at io n t o adru g- tra ffi ck in g o ffen se , th e d efen da ntus ed , carr ie d o r po ss es se d afir earm in furth eran ce o f th atcri m e. Uni te d Sta tes v. Gu nn , 36 9 F .3d12 29 , 12 34 (11 th Cir . 20 04 ). A defe nd an t m ay be li ab le un de r a Pin ker to n th eo ry

fora co -co ns pi rat or ’s gu n p os se ss io n i f th e p os se ss io n was reas on ab ly fores eeab le . Uni te d Sta tes v. Bel l , 13 7 F .3d12 74 , 12 74 -7 5 (1 1t h C ir. 19 98 ). “ [A]n ab se ntco ns pi rat orm ay be fou ndgu il ty of vi ol at in g § 92 4( c) i f th e carry in g o r us in g o f a fi rearm by a coco ns pi rat or

is a reas on ab ly fores eeab le act io n of th e co ns pi racy.” Uni te d Sta tes v. Di az , 24 8 F .3d10 65 , 11 00 (11 th Cir . 20 01 ). W e h av e p rev io us ly stat edth atgu ns an d dru gs go to ge th er h an d- in -h an d. Se e 11Uni te d Sta tes v. Lo pe z , 64 9 F .3d12 22 , 12 42 (11 th Cir . 20 11 ). In Uni te d Sta tes v. Di az , th e o rig in al in di ct m en t ch arg eda vi ol at io n o f § 9 24 (c) o n a n a id in g a ndab et ti ng th eo ry . Dia z , 24 8 F .3dat 1 09 9. Atth e cl os e o f ev id en ce, the go ve rn m en t am en de d t he in di ct m en t, o ve r de fen da nt ’s ob jecti on , to rem ov e th e ai di ng an d abe tt in g l an gu ag e an d p ro ceedun de r a Pin ker to n th eo ry of li ab il it y . Id . W e co nc lu de fro m

th e rec or d t ha t t he ev id en ce, wh envi ewedin th e li gh t m os t fa vo rab le to th e g ov ern m en t, s up po rts th e jury’ s co nc lu si on th atitwas reas on ab ly fores eeab le th ata co -co ns pi rat orwou ldpo ss es s a g un in furth eran ce o f th e co ns pi racy. Se e Fra nk , 59 9 F .3dat 1 23 3. Myrie, Th om as , andJo hn so n h ad di sc us se d ade al wher e Tho m as wou ldbri ng in an ot he r pa rty to p ur ch as e a l arg e qu an ti ty of co cai ne , andSp eci al Agen t M cAffre y an d S erg ean t Has le y

bo th te st ifi edth atgu ns are co m m on in dru g d eal s, es pe ci al ly for d eal s co m pa rab le in si ze t o the am ou ntof d ru gs in vo lv edin th is cas e. Giv enMyrie ’s fam il iarit y with th e dru g t rad e, th e jury cou ldha ve reas on ab ly con cl ud edth atth e carry in g o r us in g of a gu n b y a co -co ns pi rat orwas areas on ab ly fores eeab le act io n o f th e co ns pi racy. Se e Dia z , 24 8 F .3dat 1 10 0. Ad di ti on al ly, th e jury cou ldreas on ab ly con cl ud e th at th e g un was c arri edin furth eran ce o f th e dru g d eal gi ve n the st or ag e o f th e g un in th e sa m e tr ap co m

pa rtment a s t he m on ey . Se e Uni te d Sta tes v. Ra ng e , 94 F.3d

1261 4, 6 17 (11 th Cir . 19 96 ) (uph ol di ng co nv ic ti on wher e d efen da ntst or edth e g un

un de r th e fl oo r m atwhi le de li ve rin g m on ey forth e co cai ne ). Myrie co nt en ds th atth e g ov ern m en t i m pe rm is si bl y

co ns tru ct iv el y

am en de d th e in di ct m en t b y

dro pp in g t he aid in g a ndab et ti ng th eo ry an d p ro ceed in g o n a Pin ker to n th eo ry

of l iabi li ty. Howev er, we h av e p rev io us ly uph el d the di sm is sa l of anaid in g andab etti ng th eo ry , andsubs eque ntadva nc em en t o f a Pin ker to n th eo ry of l iabi li ty after t he clo se of e vi de nc e. Se e Dia z , 24 8 F .3dat 1 09 9- 11 00 . Afte r th e jury fou ndMy

rie gu il ty on C ou nt s On e, Two, an d Th ree, M yrie fil eda m ot io n fo r jud gm en t o f acqui tt al or f ora ne w tri al , andth e d is tri ctco urt gr an te d M yrie a jud gm en t o f acqui tt al on Co un t Th ree, b utdi d n otrul e o n h is m ot io n fo r a n ew tr ia l. Bec au se th e d is tri ctco urt d idno t co m pl y with t he de m an ds of Ru le 29 (d )(1 ), we rem an d fo r th e d is tri ctco urt t o m ak e a d et erm in at io n o n Myrie’s m ot io n fo r a n ew tr ia l. Uni te d Sta tes v. Ward, 27 4 F .3d13 20 , 13 23 -2 4 (1 1t h C ir. 2 00 1) . AFFIRMED I N PART, REVERSED IN PART, AND REMANDED IN PART .

13