FILED U.S. COURT OF AP P E A LS E LE V EN T HC IRC U IT JULY 5, 2006 THOMAS K. KAH

N CLERK [ DO NO T P UB L I S H] I N THE UN I TE D STATE S C OU RT OF APPE ALS F O R T H E E L E V E N T H C IR C U IT

________________________ N o. 05- 13186 N on -A rgum entC al endar

________________________ D. C . Do c k e tNo . 0 2 - 0 0 0 2 1 - C R - F T M- 2 9 - DN F U N I T E D S T A T E S O F A M E R I C A , P la in tif f - A p p e lle e , v ersu s D A W N A N N C U R R Y , D e f e n d a n t- A p p e lla n t.

________________________ A pp ea l fr om the U ni t ed S t at es D i stri ctC ou rt f orthe M i ddl e D i s tr i c tof F l or i da

_________________________ ( Ju l y 5, 2006) B efo re T JO F L A T , A N D E R S O N an d F A Y , C i rcu i tJu d g es. P E R C U R I A M:2

D a w n A n n C u rry is ap p e a lin g h e rc o n v ic tio n s a n d h e rto ta l 7 0 - m o n th se nt ence for c on spi ri ng t o p osse ss w i th i nt entt o d i stri bu t e aqu ant i ty of m ar i j uana, in v io la tio n o f

2 1 U .S .C . § § 8 4 1 ( a ) ( 1 ) , ( b ) ( 1 ) ( C ) a n d 8 4 6 , a n d p o s s e s s io n w ith i nt entt o d i stri bu t e aqu ant i ty of m ar i j uana, i n v i ol at i on of 21 U . S . C . § 8 41 (a )( 1), (b)( 1)(C ). C urry ar gu es on appeal that : (1) am at er i al vari ance occurre d b etw ee n he ri ndi c tm e nta nd the pr oof a ttr i a l r e l a t i ng t o he rc ons pi r a c y c ha r ge ; ( 2) the di stri ctcourterre d i n d enyi ng her m ot i on for aj ud gm entof ac qu i tt al on her c o n s p ir a c y c h a r g e ; ( 3 ) th e c o u r t e rr e d in a d m ittin g e v id e n c e o f p r io rs h ip m e n ts ad d ressed t o C u rry’ s resi d en ce; an d (4 ) th e co u rt , i n cal cu l at i n g C u rry’ s o ffen se l e ve l , c l e a r l y e rr e d i n f

i ndi ng he ra c c ount abl e f ora n a m ountof

m a r i j ua na ba s e d on e s t i m a t e s r e l a t i ng t o the pr i ors hi pm e nt s a ddr e s s e d t o he rr e s i de nc e . F orthe reaso n s setfo rth m o re fu l l y b el o w , w e affi rm C u rry’ s co n v i ct i o n s an d sen t en ces. A f e de r a l gr a nd j ury r e turne d a tw o- c ounts upe r s e di ng i ndi c tm e nt , c ha r gi ng C urry w i th the abov e r ef er ence d o ff

ense s, i ncl ud i ng thatshe c on spi re d “ w i th o ther p e r s o n s ” to p o s s e s s w ith in te n t to d is tr ib u te a n u n id e n tif ie d q u a n tity o f

m a r iju a n a . P ri or t o tri al , C urry m ov ed i n l i m i ne t o excl ud e the adm i ss i on of, am on g o ther thi ng s, evi dence s ho w i ng pri or shi pm ent s of c ra t es t o h erre si dence. C urry ar gu ed in th e s e m o tio n s th a t th e e v id e n c e e ith e rw a s n o t r e le v a n t, p u r s u a n t toRul e40 4(b) prov ide s in re le va nt p art that: 1 Evidenceof other crimes, wrong s, or ac ts is not admis sible to prove the c haracter of a person in order

to show action in confor

mity therewith. It may , however, be a dmi ssiblefo r o ther pur

po se s, su c h a s p ro of

of motive , opp or

tunity, intent, prepa ration, plan, knowle dg e, identity , or absence of mistake or ac cident . . .. See F ed.R.Evid. 404(b). Rule 403 provides that, “[a]lthough re levant, evidence ma y be excluded if its probative 2 value is substantially

outweighed by

the dang er of

unfair prejudice, c onfusion of the issues, or misleadingthe jury, or by considerations of undue delay, waste of time, or nee dless presentation of cumulative evidence .” See F ed.R.Evid. 403. We had jurisdiction to consider the g overnment’s appeal under 18 U.S.C. § 3731, 3 which per mits the g overnment to take interlocutory appeals from order s “suppre ssing or excluding evidence,”up until the tim e the jury is sworn. See 18 U.S.C. § 3731. Although the c ourt a dv ise d th epa

rtie s th at it

wa s amena

bleto re c on side ringits gra nt o f C ur ry ’smotion s in limine, the prac tical ef

fec t of the cour

t’s rulingwas to exclude the evidenceat issue. See United States v. Drog oul, 1 F.3d 1546, 1551 n.13 (11th Cir. 1993) (holding that “ district court orders are deeme d to exclude evidencefor the pur poses of [§ 3731] whenever they have theprac tical ef

fec t of excluding evidenceat trial”) . 3 F e d .R .E v id . 4 0 4 ( b ) , o rits p r o b a tiv e v a lu e w a s s u b s ta n tia lly o u tw e ig h e d b y its 1 pr e j udi c i a l e f

f e c t , pur s ua ntt o F e d. R . E vi d. 403. A f t e rc onduc t i ng a he a r i ng, the 2 di stri ctcourtrul ed thatthe go vernm entcoul d n otadm i tthi s c hal l enged evi dence, s ubj e c tt o the c our t ’ s r e c ons i de r a t i on dur i ng tr i a l . T he c our ta l s o de ni e d the go vernm ent ’ s pre -tri al m ot i on for r ec on si dera t i on . T he go vernm entthen fi l ed an i nt er l ocut ory app ea l of the court ’ s ordergrant i ng C urry ’ s m ot i on s i n l i m i ne. 3 In U ni t ed S t at es v. C urry , N o. 03 -123 64 (11t h C i r. F eb. 27 , 20 04 ) ( un pu b. ), w e a f f i r m e d i n pa r ta nd r e m a nde d i n pa r t , e xpl a i ni ng tha t , a l though m os tof the chal l enged evi dence s ho ul d b e e xcl ud ed, evi dence of the pri or shi pm ent s thatw er e4

a d d r e s s e d to C u rry ’s r e s id e n c e , w h ic h w e n o te d w a s f r o m a “f ic titio u s c o m p a n y ,” shou l d n otbe excl ud ed because i tw as re l evantt o sho w thatC urry w as partof a l ar ger c on spi ra cy . W e f urther di sc usse d that(1) w e “ [c ou l d n ot ] i m agi ne m ore appr opr i a t e e vi de nc e t o t i e C urry i nt o the l a r ge rc ons pi r a c y , ” a nd ( 2) the pr oba t i ve v a lu e o f th is e v id e n c e w a s n o t s u b s ta n tia lly o u tw e ig h e d b y a n y p r e ju d ic e . D u r in g a th r e e - d a y ju ry tr ia l in w h ic h C u rry w a s th e s o le d e f e n d a n t, D o m in ic D ile n g e , a tru c k d r iv e rf o rO ld D o m in io n F r e ig h t L in e s ( “O ld D om i ni on” ) , t e s t i f

i e d tha t , he de l i ve r e d c r a t e s f r om “ C l a s s i c C ol l e c t i bl e s ” t o the F or tM y e r s , F l or i da a r e a , thr ough C i ty B us i ne s s S e r vi c e s ( “ C B S ” ) , a pa c ka gi ng a nd s hi ppi ng c om pa ny i n L os A nge l e s . D i l e nge s t a t e d tha the be c a m e s us pi c i ous o f th e s e c r a te s b e c a u s e : ( 1 ) th e c r a te s w e r e to o w e ll c o n s tru c te d to b e c a rry in g th e ir l i s t e d f r e i ght , tha ti s , e i the rs t a tue s orpl um bi ng s uppl i e s ; ( 2) the de l i ve ry l oc a t i ons i nvol ve d odd l oc a t i ons , i nc l udi ng the pa r ki ng l otof a ba s e ba l l f

i e l d a nd va r i ous hom e s ; a nd ( 3) he of

t e n ha d t o c a l l s om e one on a c e l l ul a rt e l e phone t o a rr a nge d e liv e r ie s . A lth o u g h D ile n g e in itia lly c o u ld n o t r e c a ll w h e th e rh e m a d e s h ip m e n ts t o C urry ’ s r es i dence, af t erthe go vernm entre fr es hed h i s m em ory w i th d ocum ent ary e vi de nc e , he s t a t e d tha the m a de de l i ve r i e s of c r a t e s on M a y 30, a nd J ul y 3, 2001. S tev en L au n ik it is, a li eu ten an t w ith th e H il lsb o ro u g h C o u n ty S h er iff’s O f f i c e i n T a m pa , F l or i da , t e s t i f i e d tha t , on F e brua ry 28, 2002, a f t e rbe i ngThe g overnment introduced duringtrial telephonerec ords re flec ting that Dixon was 4 talking to Curr

y . 5 c o n ta c te d ab o u t th e s e s u s p ic io u s s h ip m e n ts , h e a n d o th e rd e te c tiv e s w e n t to O ld D om i ni on’ s di s tr i but i on f a c i l i ty w i th a drug- de t e c t i on c a ni ne . A f t e rthe dog a l e r t e d t o a c r a t e s c he dul e d f orde l i ve ry t o C urry ’ s r e s i de nc e , w hi c h w e i ghe d 150 pounds , the de t e c t i ve s obt a i ne d a s e a r c h w a rr a ntf orthe c r a t e a nd r e c ove r e d f r om th e b o tto m o f

it 1 1 5 p o u n d s o f

m a r iju a n a , w h ic h w a s s e p a r a te d in to f o u rb a le s . L a w e nf or c e m e ntof

f i c e r s , the r e a f

t e r , puta tr a c ki ng de vi c e i ns i de the c r a t e a nd c o n d u c te d a c o n tr o lle d d e liv e ry o f th e c r a te to C u rry ’s r e s id e n c e . John F el t s, a f

orm erspec i al agentw i th the D rug E nforcement A gency (“ D E A ”) , t es t i fi ed that , du ri ng thi s c on trol l ed del i very , he, w hi l e a ct i ng as an u n d er co v erd eliv er y p er so n , ask ed C u rr y’s h alf- sister , W il m a D ix o n , an d D ix o n ’s da ught e r , C hr i s t i ne D i xon, w ho w e r e i n the dr i ve w a y a r e a of the r e s i de nc e w he n he a rr i ve d, w he r e the y w a nt e d hi m t o pl a c e the c r a t e . O n W i l m a D i xon’ s di r e c t i on, S pe c i a l A ge ntF e l t s a nd the de l i ve ry dr i ve rputthe c r a t e i n the ga r a ge , a nd D i xon si gn ed the bi l l of l adi ng . A l so du ri ng thi s del i very , S peci al A gentF el t s hea rd D ix o n s ta te o v e rth e te le p h o n e : “I t ju s t a rr iv e d . I t’s in th e c o rn e ro f th e g a r a g e .” 4 M i chae l M as i er o, an offi ce r w i th the F ortM ye rs P ol i ce D epar tm entw ho w as assi g n ed t o th e D E A t ask fo rce, t est i fi ed th at , sh o rt l y aft er th i s co n tro l l ed d el i v ery, h e o b s e r v e d C u rry a rr iv e a t h e rr e s id e n c e in a m in iv a n o w n e d b y M a r lo n C a m p b e llOn theoth e r h and , Sp e c ial A g e nt S trangte sti fi e d th at, whil ehewa s p la c ingCur ry into 5 the patrol vehicle, he notice d that she had f ragments of wood on her

clothing, e specially

on the front of her pants. 6 ( “ M r . C a m pbe l l ” ) , dr i ve i nt o the ga r a ge , a nd the n dr i ve outof the ga r a ge i n the m i ni van w i th the cr at e i nsi de of i t . M oreover, M ark S tra ng , anot her D E A spec i al a g e n t, te s tif

ie d th a t, a f

te rla w e n f

o r c e m e n t o f

f ic e r s s to p p e d th is m in iv a n , C u rry to ld a n of f i c e rtha t( 1) s he ha d c l e a ni ng s uppl i e s i n the m i ni va n, ( 2) the c r a t e w a s i n the m i n i v an “ w h en h e g av e i tt o h er, ” an d (3 ) sh e d i d n o tk n o w o f th e crat e’ s co n t en t s. 5 S p e c ia l A g e n t S tr a n g a ls o s ta te d th a t, a f te rD E A a g e n ts tr a n s p o r te d C u rry b a c k to her r es i dence and ob t ai ned a w arra ntt o sea rc h i t , they r ec ov er ed paperw ork re l at i ng t o the del i very , as w el l as w oo d fra gm ent s on the fl oo r of the garage that w e r e c ons i s t e ntw i th the c r a t e . C a ry O i e n, a tr a c e - e vi de nc e e xa m i ne rw i th the F eder al B ureau o f I nv es t i gat i on s ( “ F B I” ), al so t es t i fi ed thatthe type of w oo d that w a s obs e r ve d on C urry ’ s c l othi ng m a t c he d the w ood f ound i n the ga r a ge a nd the w o o d u s e d to m a n u f

a c tu r e th e c r a te . T ho m as M osl ey , the m anager of O l d D om i ni on ’ s T am pa fa ci l i ty, t es t i fi ed tha t , pr i ort o F e brua ry 22, 2002, O l d D om i ni on ha d de l i ve r e d s i m i l a rc r a t e s f r om C l as si c C ol l ec t i bl es t o C urry ’ s a dd re ss , i ncl ud i ng the fol l ow i ng del i veri es : (1) a 7 5 -p o u n d cr ate o f “d ec o ra ti o n s o r n o tati o n s” to “M it ch ell R o o fin g , In c.” a t C u rr y’s a d d r e s s o n M a y 3 0 , 2 0 0 1 ; ( 2 ) a 1 1 0 - p o u n d c r a te c o n ta in in g a “s ta tu e ” to “M itc h e llSpe c ial A g e nt S te ven D uq ue tteof theDEA t e sti fi e d th at, when la w enf orc e ment ag e nts 6 searched Curr

y ’s re sidence , they

did not discover evidence of business activity . Moreover, the State of F lorida had no record of any business reg istered in Southwest Florida that was doing business as “Mitche ll Roofing, Inc.” or “Jones Pl umbing, Inc.” 7 R oof i ng, I nc . ” a tC urry ’ s a ddr e s s on J ul y 3, 2001; ( 3) a 160- pound c r a t e c ont a i ni ng a nothe r“ s t a tue ” t o “ M i t c he l l R oof i ng, I nc . ” a tC urry ’ s a ddr e s s on J ul y 31, 2001; an d (4 ) a 1 4 0 -p o u n d cr ate o f “o rn am en ts” to “M it ch ell R o o fin g , In c.” a t C u rr y’s addres s on D ec em ber 4, 20 01 . T he go vernm ental so show ed thatC urry ’ s c el l ul ar t e l e phone num be rw a s l i s t e d a s the c ons i gne e ’ s t e l e phone num be rf orthe M a y a nd D ecem b er d el i v eri es, an d th atth e t el ep h o n e n u m b er fo r M ari l yn C am p b el l (“ M rs. C am p b el l ”), M arl o n C am p b el l ’ s w i fe, w as l i st ed fo r th e Ju l y d el i v eri es. 6 A d d itio n a l tr ia l e v id e n c e in c lu d e d te s tim o n y b y S p e c ia l A g e n t D u q u e tte th a t, d u r in g th e h o u r s a f te rC u rry ’s a rr e s t, M r s . C a m p b e ll r e p e a te d ly a tte m p te d to cont ac tC urry on C urry ’ s c el l ul art el epho ne. S peci al A gentD uq uett e a l so st at ed th a t p h o n e r e c o r d s r e v e a le d th a t C u rry a n d M r s . C a m p b e ll h a d b e e n in c o n ta c t w ith e a c h o th e rth r o u g h o u t th e d a y p r io rto th e d e liv e ry o f th e c r a te . F urtherm ore, L arry T ho m as t es t i fi ed for the go vernm entthathe began deal i ng m ar i

j uana i n O hi o i n 1 99 9, ori gi nal l y s endi ng m on ey throu gh W es t ern U n io n to a p e r s o n n a m e d “W ill” in C a lif o rn ia in e x c h a n g e f

o rW ill s e n d in g h im m a r iju a n a in c a r d b o a r d b o x e s v ia th e U n ite d P o s ta l S e r v ic e ( “U P S ” ) . B e g in n in g in J a nua ry 2001, a f

t e rU P S di s c ove r e d the s e de l i ve r i e s , W i l l s t a r t e d s e ndi ng thePe ter A de li, theowner o f C B S, t e sti fi e d th at CB S, which w a s a le g itimatebu sin e ss, 7 was merely

the shipper, a

nd that “Classic Collectibles” wa s listed as the vendor f or each of the prior deliveries at issue in this case. 8 m a r iju a n a th r o u g h O ld D o m in io n in h a n d - f a s h io n e d w o o d e n c r a te s s e c u r e d w ith sc re w s a nd nai l s. In these cr at es , w hi ch w er e w oo den, fi l l ed w i th styr ofoam peanut s, and n ai l ed shut , the m ar i j uana w as se para t ed i nt o b un dl es and cov er ed w i th pl a s t i c , w i th s om e thi ng thr ow n on t op t o m a s k e i the rthe s c e ntorthe appeara nce of the m ar i

j uana. B ec ause O l d D om i ni on on l y w ou l d m ake del i veri es to b u s in e s s e s , T h o m a s a rr a n g e d f o ra c q u a in ta n c e s to a c c e p t d e liv e r ie s a t th e ir bus i ne s s a ddr e s s e s , e xpl a i ni ng tha tthe c r a t e s c ont a i ne d s t a tue s . F r om M a r c h 2001 thr ough M a r c h 2002, T hom a s r e c e i ve d f r om W i l l hundr e ds of

pounds of m ar i j uana, w i th d el i veri es se nti n 1 1 cra t es . O n cross -e xam i nat i on , T ho m as agre ed tha tthe c r a t e s w e r e notunus ua l . T hom a s a l s o c onc e de d tha the di d notknow 7 C urry a nd tha thi s s uppl i e rha d notm e nt i one d he rna m e orthe f a c ttha the m a de s h ip m e n ts to F lo r id a . A tthe c onc l us i on of

the gove rnm e nt ’ s c a s e , C urry m ove d t o s tr i ke a l l of the evi dence re l at i ng t o the O hi o tra nsac t i on s, ar gu i ng thatthe go vernm enthad fai l ed t o e s t a bl i s h a c onne c t i on be tw e e n thos e tr a ns a c t i ons a nd C urry ’ s c ha r ge s . T he di s tr i c tc our tde ni e d thi s m ot i on, e xpl a i ni ng tha t , a l though the c onne c t i on w a s not

“ ov erw hel m i ng , ” i tw as consi st entw i th the go vernm ent ’ s proff er , the evi dence w as9

su ff icien t fo r a d m issib il ity, an d ad m issib il ity w as in ac co rd an ce w ith th is C o u rt’s d e c is io n o n th e g o v e rn m e n t’s in te r lo c u to ry ap p e a l. A ddi t i ona l l y , C urry m ove d f orj udgm e nt s of

a c qui tt a l a tthe c l os e of the gove rnm e nt ’ s c a s e a nd a tthe c l os e of a l l of the e vi de nc e , a r gui ng tha tthe go vernm enthad fai l ed t o p rove a connect i on betw ee n the F ebruary20 02 del i very and t he O hi o transac t i on s, or betw ee n h er se l f a nd the C am pb el l s. T he di stri ctcourt a l s o de ni e d the s e m ot i ons , a ga i n e xpl a i ni ng tha t , a l though the e vi de nc e of the c ons pi r a c y w a s not“ ove rw he l m i ng, ” a r e a s ona bl e j ury c oul d f i nd C urry gui l ty of th e o f f e n s e . D ur i ng the c ha r ge c onf

e r e nc e , C urry m ove d the c our tt o i ns truc tthe j ury on m u ltip le c o n s p ir a c ie s . A f te rth e g o v e rn m e n t r a is e d n o o b je c tio n s to th is i n stru ct i o n , th e co u rti n stru ct ed th e j u ry as fo l l o w s: [ P ]r o o f o f s e v e r a l s e p a r a te c o n s p ir a c ie s is n o t p r o o f o f a s in g le o v e r a ll c ons pi r a c y c ha r ge d i n the s upe r s e di ng i ndi c tm e ntunl e s s one of the se vera l conspi ra ci es w hi ch i s proved i s the si ng l e c on spi ra cy w hi ch the s upe r s e di ng i ndi c tm e ntc ha r ge s . W ha ty ou m us tdo i s de t e r m i ne w he the rthe s i ngl e c ons pi r a c y c ha r ge d i n the s upe r s e di ng i ndi c tm e nt ex i st ed b etw een tw o o r m o re co n sp i rat o rs. I f y ou f i nd tha tno s uc h c ons pi r a c y e xi s t e d, the n y ou m us ta c qui tthe de f e nda nton tha tc ha r ge . H ow e ve r , i f y ou de c i de tha ts uc h a c o n s p ir a c y d id e x is t, y o u m u s t th e n d e te r m in e w h o th e m e m b e r s w e r e . A nd, i f y ou s houl d f

i nd tha ta pa rt i c ul a rde f

e nda ntw a s a m e m be rof s om e othe rc ons pi r a c y , notthe one c ha r ge d i n the s upe r s e di ng in d ic tm e n t, th e n y o u m u s t a c q u it th e d e f e n d a n t. I n o th e rw o r d s , to fi nd a def

endantgu i l ty, you m ustfi nd , un ani m ou sl y, thatsuch10

de f e nda ntw a s a m e m be rof the c ons pi r a c y c ha r ge d i n the s upe r s e di ng i n d i ctm en t , an d n o ta m em b er o f so m e o th er, sep arat e co n sp i racy. T h e ju ry c o n v ic te d C u rry a s c h a r g e d in h e rs u p e r s e d in g in d ic tm e n t. C urry ’ s pr e s e nt e nc e i nve s t i ga t i on r e por t( “ P S I ” ) r e c om m e nde d tha ts he be h e ld a c c o u n tab le f

o ra to ta l o f

2 3 0 .3 k ilo g r a m s o f

m a r iju a n a , b a s e d o n th e 5 4 .4 ki l ogr a m s of

m a r i j ua na tha tw a s s hi ppe d t o he rr e s i de nc e on F e brua ry 28, 2002, a nd a n e s t i m a t e d 175. 9 ki l ogr a m s tha tw a s s hi ppe d t o he rr e s i de nc e dur i ng the f our p r i o rs h i p m e n t s i n 2 0 0 1 . Wi th a r e s u l t i n g o f f e n s e l e v e l o f

2 6 , p u r s u a n tt o U. S . S . G. § 2 D 1. 1(c) (7), and a rec om m ended cri m i nal hi st ory c at egory of I II , C urry had an a d v is o ry g u id e lin e r a n g e o f 7 8 to 9 7 m o n th s ’ im p r is o n m e n t. C urry obj e c t e d t o thi s drug a m ount , a r gui ng tha tthe gove rnm e ntha d not s how n dur i ng he rtr i a l e i the rtha ts he pos s e s s e d othe rc r a t e s of m a r i j ua na , orthe c o n te n ts o f

th e s e c r a te s . T h u s , C u rry a s s e r te d th a t s h e o n ly s h o u ld b e h e ld a c c o u n tab le f

o rth e m a r iju a n a th a t w a s s h ip p e d to h e rr e s id e n c e in F e b ru a ry 2 0 0 2 . T he pr oba t i on of

f i c e rr e s ponde d tha t( 1) s hi ppi ng r e c or ds s how e d tha ta tl e a s tf i ve c r a t e s w e r e s h i p p e d t o Cu rry ’ s r e s i d e n c e , ( 2 ) a l l o f th e s e c r a t e s c a me f

r o m th e s a me se nd erthrou gh the sa m e s hi pp er , (3) the 17 5. 90 ki l og ra m s of m ar i j uana attri bu t ed to C u rry b a s e d o n th e s e p r io rs h ip m e n ts p r o p e r ly w a s e s tim a te d u s in g th e w e ig h ts of the F e brua ry 2002 de l i ve ry , tha ti s , 54. 4 ki l ogr a m s of m a r i j ua na c om pr i s e d 80- perc entof the w ei gh tof the cr at e.11

A ts e nt e nc i ng, C urry r e ne w e d he robj e c t i on t o the r e c om m e nde d drug am o u n t . C u rry ag ai n arg u ed th atth i s am o u n tw as i m p ro p erl y sp ecu l at i v e b ecau se ( 1) the pr oc e dur e us e d by the pr oba t i on of f i c e rt o c a l c ul a t e a n e s t i m a t e of the a m ountof

m a r i j ua na i nvol ve d i n the pr i orde l i ve r i e s w a s i m pr ope r , ( 2) the go vernm entfa i l ed t o sho w thatthese pri or del i veri es even cont ai ned m ar i j uana, a nd ( 3) the gove rnm e ntf a i l e d t o s how w ho a c c e pt e d the s e de l i ve r i e s . T he g o v e rn m e n t r e s p o n d e d th a t th is d ru g c a lc u la tio n , w h ic h in c lu d e d r e le v a n t c o n d u c t, w a s c o rr e c tb e c a u s e ( 1 ) th e c r a t e s u s e d i n th e p r e v i o u s d e l i v e r i e s w e r e th e s a me ty pe s of c r a t e tha tha d be e n us e d t o tr a ns por tthe m a r i j ua na i n F e brua ry 2002, a nd (2 ) reg ard l ess o f w h eth er C u rry p erso n al l y h ad accep t ed d el i v ery o f al l o f th ese cr at es , som eone had acce pt ed del i very of them du ri ng the course of the conspi ra cy o f w h ic h C u rry h a d b e e n c o n v ic te d . T h e d is tr ic t c o u r t o v e rru le d C u rry ’s o b je c tio n to d ru g a m o u n t, f in d in g it

“ m o re l i k el y th an n o tth atth o se crat es co n t ai n ed m ari j u an a. ” T h e co u rtal so d i scu ssed as fo l l o w s: T he i s s ue w i th r e ga r d t o how m uc h m a r i j ua na , the C our tdoe s n’ tha ve a n y p r e c is e f

ig u r e s , a n d th e r e ’s n o w a y o f k n o w in g th a t. T h e C o u r t is a l l ow e d t o m a ke a r e a s onabl e e s t i m a t e w i th r e ga r d t o the gui de l i ne c a l c ul a t i on. I t ’ s onl y m a t e r i a l i f the r e ’ s m or e tha n 45. 6 gr a m s –or ki l og ra m s, ra ther, of m ar i j uana, thatget s i tov erthe [100 ] ki l og ra m thres ho l d, because y ou had 5 4. 4 k i l og ra m s of m ar i j uana thatw as ac tual l y s ei ze d i n the ca se .12

T h e m e th o d o lo g y u s e d b y p r o b a tio n , in m y v ie w , is r e a s o n ab le . P r oba t i on c om e s up w i th 175 ki l ogr a m s , w hi c h i s f a rm or e tha n y ou need t o sat i sf

y the gu i del i ne thres ho l d that ’ s app l i cabl e i n thi s c as e. S o the C our tf

i nds tha tthe r e w a s a tl e a s t50 a ddi t i ona l ki l ogr a m s of m a r iju a n a in th o s e o th e rc r a te s , a n d th a t th a t m a r iju a n a is a ttr ib u tab le t o the de f

e nda nt . A nd the C our tw i l l ove rrul e the obj e c t i on. A ft ergrant i ng C urry ’ s m ot i on for ado w nw ar d d epar ture t o cri m i nal hi st ory c a t e gory I I , pur s ua ntt o U . S . S . G . § 4A 1. 3, the r e by r e duc i ng he ra dvi s ory gui de l i ne ran g e t o 7 0 t o 8 7 m o n th s’ i m p ri so n m en t , th e co u rtsen t en ced C u rry t o 7 0 m o n th s’ i m p ri so n m en t , 3 years’ su p erv i sed rel ease, an d $ 2 0 0 i n sp eci al assessm en tfees. Is su e 1: W h et h er a m ater i al an d p reju d i ci al va ri an ce occu rr ed C urry ar gu es on appeal thatno re as on abl e j ury c ou l d h ave det erm i ned be y ond a r e a s ona bl e doubttha ta s i ngl e c ons pi r a c y e xi s t e d be c a us e the gove rnm e nt f a i l e d t o i ntr oduc e e vi de nc e c onne c t i ng the c r a t e C urry r e c e i ve d i n F e brua ry 2002, t o the drug- di s tr i but i ng ope r a t i on T hom a s w a s c onduc t i ng i n O hi o, othe rtha n the f a c t th a t C B S , a le g itim a te p a c k a g in g a n d s h ip p in g c o m p a n y , w a s u s e d in b o th ca se s. C urry al t ernat i vel y c on t ends that , even i f the go vernm entes t abl i shed that s he a nd T hom a s r e c e i ve d drugs f r om the s a m e s uppl i e r , thi s f a c t , a l one , di d not e s t a bl i s h a s i ngl e c ons pi r a c y . A ddi t i ona l l y , C urry a r gue s tha tthe gove rnm e nt f a i l e d t o e s t abl i s h tha ta c ons pi r a c y e xi s t e d be tw e e n he r s e l f a nd the C a m pbe l l s by13

s how i ng onl y tha t( 1) the m i ni va n us e d w a s r e gi s t e r e d t o M r . C a m pbe l l , a nd ( 2 ) M r s . C a m p b e ll a tte m p te d to c o n ta c t C u rry a f te rC u rry ’s a rr e s t. R e ve r s a l i s w a rr a nt e d i f ( 1) a s i ngl e c ons pi r a c y i s c ha r ge d i n the i ndi c tm e nt butm ul t i pl e c ons pi r a c i e s a r e pr ove n a ttr i a l , a nd ( 2) the va r i a nc e w a s m a t e r i a l a nd s ubs t a nt i a l l y pr e

j udi c e d the de f

e nda nt . U ni t e d S t a t e s v. S ua r e z , 313 F . 3d 1287, 1 2 8 9 ( 1 1 th C ir . 2 0 0 2 ) ( c ita tio n o m itte d ) . “T h e a r g u ab le e x is te n c e o f m u ltip le c ons pi r a c i e s , how e ve r , doe s notc ons t i tut e a m a t e r i a l va r i a nc e f r om the i ndi c tm e nt i f, vi ew i ng the evi dence i n the l i gh tm ostfa vo rabl e t o the go vernm ent , a r at i on al tr ie ro f f a c t c o u ld h a v e f

o u n d th a t a s in g le c o n s p ir a c y e x is te d b e y o n d a r e a s o n ab le do ub t . ” I d. T o d et erm i ne w hether aj ury c ou l d h ave f ou nd thata s i ng l e c on spi ra cy e xi s t e d, w e r e vi e w “ ( 1) w he the ra c om m on goa l e xi s t e d, ( 2) the na tur e of the u n d e r ly in g s c h e m e , a n d ( 3 ) w h e th e rth e p a r tic ip a n ts o f th e a lle g e d m u ltip le s c he m e s ove r l appe d. ” I d. W e a l so have expl ai ned t hat , “ t o p rove a s i ng l e, un i fi ed conspi ra cy as o p p o sed t o a seri es o f sm al l er, u n co o rd i n at ed co n sp i raci es, th e g o v ern m en tm u st s how a n i nt e r de pe nde nc e a m ong the a l l e ge d c o- c ons pi r a t or s . ” U ni t e d S t a t e s v. C hand l er , 38 8 F . 3d 79 6, 81 1 (11 th C i r. 20 04 ). S epar at e tra nsac t i on s, ho w ever , ar e n o t n e c e s s a r ily s e p a r a te c o n s p ir a c ie s , “s o lo n g a s th e c o n s p ir a to r s a c t in c o n c e r t to f ur the ra c om m on goa l . ” I d. “ I f a de f e nda nt ’ s a c t i ons f

a c i l i t a t e d the e nde a vor s of14

o th e rc o [ - ]c o n s p ir a to r s o rf a c ilita te d th e v e n tu r e a s a w h o le , th e n a s in g le c ons pi r a c y i s s how n. ” I d. ( i nt e rna l quot a t i on a nd m a r ks om i tt e d) . I nde e d, al tho ug h w e c on cl ud ed i n C hand l erthatno i nt er depend ence of the conspi ra t ors e x is te d , w e n o te d th a t, u n lik e th e c h a r g e d c o n s p ir a c y to c o m m it m a il f r a u d in c onne c t i on w i th a s c he m e t o de f r a ud pr om ot e r s of

pr om ot i ona l ga m e s by s t e a l i ng ga m e s t a m ps a nd r e de e m i ng the m f orm one y , “ [ i ] n a drug c ons pi r a c y , i n w hi c h the obj e c tof the c ons pi r a c y i s c l e a r l y i l l e ga l a nd the r e a r e va r i ous c l a nde s t i ne funct i on s t o p er form , the conspi ra t ors c an be charged w i th k no w l edge thatothers a r e p e r f o r m in g th e s e d if

f e r e n t f u n c tio n s .” I d . a t 8 1 1 - 1 2 n .2 1 . V ie w in g th e e v id e n c e in th e lig h t m o s t f a v o r ab le to th e g o v e rn m e n t, a lth o u g h th e g o v e rn m e n t a r g u ab ly r e lie d o n a lte rn a tiv e c o n s p ir a c y a r g u m e n ts r e l a t i ng t o e vi de nc e of

drug a c t i vi t i e s c onduc t e d by T hom a s a nd the C a m pbe l l s , the e vi de nc e r e f

l e c t e d tha tC urry a nd T hom a s both w e r e e nga ge d i n the di s tr i but i on of m a r i j ua na . S e e U ni t e d S t a t e s v. C a l de r on, 127 F . 3d 1314, 1327 ( 11th C i r . 1997) ( e m pha s i z i ng tha t“ c om m on” f orpurpos e s of

thi s t e s tm e a ns “ s i m i l a r ” or

“ s ubs t a nt i a l l y the s a m e , ” r a the rtha n “ s ha r e d” or“ c oor di na t e [ d] ” ) ; U ni t e d S t a t e s v. A d a m s , 1 F .3 d 1 5 6 6 , 1 5 8 4 ( 1 1 th C ir . 1 9 9 3 ) ( h o ld in g th a t th e “c o m m o n g o a l” i nqui ry w a s s a t i s f

i e d by the c om m on c r i m e of c o- c ons pi r a t or s ’ i m por t a t i on of m a r i j ua na ) . C urry a nd T hom a s a l s o us e d e s s e nt i a l l y the s a m e m e a ns of15

tr a ns por t i ng thi s m a r i

j ua na , tha ti s , pl a c i ng the m a r i j ua na i n the bott om of

ha ndf a s hi one d w oode n c r a t e s . S e e C a l de r on, 127 F . 3d a t1327 ( e xpl a i ni ng tha tthe drug s m uggl i ng oc c urr e d aboa r d the s a m e ve s s e l , i n the s a m e hi dde n c om pa r tm e nt s , a nd i n ess ent i al l y the sa m e m anner and ov era r el at i vel y s ho rtperi od of t i m e) . A ddi t i ona l l y , a l though T hom a s c onc e de d tha the di d notknow C urry , the gove rnm e nte s t abl i s he d tha tboth T hom a s a nd C urry r e c e i ve d de l i ve r i e s f r om

“ C l a s s i c C ol l e c t i bl e s ” thr ough C B S a nd vi a O l d D om i ni on. S e e U ni t e d S t a t e s v. A nd er son, 32 6 F . 3d 13 19 , 13 27 -28 (11 th C i r. 20 03 ) ( expl ai ni ng thatw e “ perm i t [] th e fi n d i n g o f a si n g l e co n sp i racy w h ere a ‘key m an ’ d i rect s th e act i v i t i es, coordi nat i ng the i nd i vi du al ef fort s of var i ou s c om bi nat i on s of peopl e” ); U ni t ed S t a t e s v. S t i t z e r , 785 F . 2d 1506, 1518 ( 11th C i r . 1986) ( hol di ng tha tthe ove r l ap of a c o m m o n d is tr ib u to rw a s s u f f ic ie n t to s u p p o r t th e f

in d in g th a t f

iv e s e p a r a te c ons pi r a c i e s w e r e pa r tof one c ons pi r a c y ) . T hus , vi e w i ng the e vi de nc e i n the l i ght m os tf a vor abl e t o the gove rnm e nt , a r a t i ona l j ury c oul d ha ve f ound be y ond a re as on abl e dou btthata s i ng l e c on spi ra cy betw ee n T ho m as and C urry exi st ed. S ee S ua r e z , 313 F . 3d a t1289. N ev erth el ess, w e n eed n o td et erm i n e w h eth er a v ari an ce o ccu rred b ecau se C urry ha s f

a i l e d t o s how tha ts he w a s pr e j udi c e d. “ [ V ] a r i a nc e f

r om a n i ndi c tm e nt i s nota l w a y s pr e

j udi c i a l , nori s pr e

j udi c e a s s um e d. ” U ni t e d S t a t e s v. A l r e d, 14416

F . 3d 14 05 , 14 15 (11t h C i r. 19 98 ) ( qu ot at i on om i tt ed). T o d em on stra t e s ub st ant i al p r e ju d ic e , th e d e f

e n d a n t m u s t s h o w : “( 1 ) th a t th e p r o o f a t tr ia l d if

f e r e d s o g r e a tly fr om the charges that[s he] w as un fa i rl y s urpri se d and w as un abl e t o p re pare an a d e q u a te d e f

e n s e ; o r( 2 ) th a t th e r e a r e s o m a n y d e f e n d a n ts a n d s e p a r a te conspi ra ci es before the j ury thatthere i s asubst ant i al l i kel i ho od thatthe j ury tr a ns f e rr e d pr oof

of one c ons pi r a c y t o a de f e nda nti nvol ve d i n a nothe r . ” I d. (quo t at i on om i tt ed) ( em ph as i s i n o ri gi nal ). I n C ha ndl e r , w e de t e r m i ne d tha tthe de f e nda nt s w e r e pr e

j udi c e d by the m a t e r i a l va r i a nc e w he n the gove rnm e nta l l e ge d c onduc ttha tw a s nota c r i m e a nd s p e n t s u b s ta n tia l tim e d u r in g th e tr ia l e lic itin g te s tim o n y r e g a r d in g th a t “c r im e ,” before c on ce di ng atthe end o f tri al thatthe l aw w as t o the cont ra ry . S ee C hand l er , 3 8 8 F .3 d a t 8 1 2 . W e c o n c lu d e d th a t th e ju ry ’s d e c is io n to c o n v ic t th e d e f e n d a n ts in th e “u tte ra b s e n c e o f

a n y p r o o f

,” a n d a f te rth e c o u r t g a v e a la s t- m in u te i nstruct i on com pl et el y r ever si ng the court ’ s e ar l i erpo si t i on on the charged conspi ra cy , dem on stra t ed thatthe j ury w as prej ud i ce d b y e vi dence of another c ons pi r a c y . S e e i d. a t812- 13. O n the ot her hand, i n U ni t ed S t at es v. G l i nt on , 15 4 F . 3d 12 45 (11t h C i r. 19 98 ), w e c on cl ud ed thatthe defendant s w er e f ai rl y app ri se d o f thei r c harged a c t i vi ty a nd tha t , a l though the y e a c h a r gue d f r om the gove rnm e nt ’ s om i s s i on of17

jo in t e v id e n c e th a t th e y k n e w n o th in g o f th e d ru g o p e r a tio n , th e e v id e n c e o f th e ir ow n pur c ha s e s a nd di s tr i but i ons w a s l e f tuni m pe a c he d. S e e i d. a t1252 ( a f f i r m i ng de s pi t e tha te vi de nc e i n na r c ot i c s pr os e c ut i on tha tde f e nda nt s pur c ha s e d l a r ge a m ount s of

c oc a i ne f

r om the s a m e s uppl i e r , c ooke d i t , a nd di s tr i but e d i ta s c oc a i ne b ase w as i n su ffi ci en tt o est ab l i sh th e ex i st en ce o f a si n g l e co n sp i racy). W e al so concl ud ed that , t o the ext entthe defendant s w er e a rgui ng thatthey w er e pre j ud i ce d by the spi l l ov erof evi dence as the re sul tof bei ng tri ed t og ether, thi s a rgum entw as b e lie d , a t le a s t in p a r t, b y th e c o u r t’s in s tru c tio n to th e ju ry th a t it h a d to a c q u it un l es s one of the se vera l conspi ra ci es thatw as prov ed w as the si ng l e c harged conspi ra cy . S ee i d. (“ [w ] hen t he proo f a ttri al re veal s the exi st ence of m ore than on e c on spi ra cy , the adequacy of the tri al j ud ge’ s i nstruct i on s a re of cr i t i ca l i m por t a nc e i n e va l ua t i ng the l i ke l i hood tha tc onf us i on orpr e

j udi c e r e s ul t e d f

r om tr a n s f e r e n c e o f g u ilt f r o m o n e c o n s p ir a c y to a n o th e r ” ) ( q u o ta tio n o m itte d ) . H e r e , C urry w a s the onl y de f e nda nta ttr i a l , a nd he rs upe r s e di ng i ndi c tm e nt ge ne r a l l y c ha r ge d he rw i th c ons pi r i ng “ w i th othe rpe r s ons ” t o pos s e s s w i th i nt e nt to d is tr ib u te a n u n id e n tif ie d q u a n tity o f

m a r iju a n a . C u rry a ls o h a s f a ile d to e x p la in h o w “th e p r o o f

a t tr ia l d if

f e r e d s o g r e a tly f

r o m th e c h a r g e s th a t [ s h e ] w a s u n f a ir ly surpri se d and w as un abl e t o p re pare an adequat e def ense . ” S ee A l re d, 14 4 F . 3d at 1415. I nde e d, s i m i l a rt o the f a c t s i n G l i nt on, the e vi de nc e of he rr ol e i n a c c e pt i ngTo the extent Curry appea rs to be challeng ing thesufficiency of her indictment for the 8 first time in reply, we c onclude that sheabandone d it by not arguing it in her

initial brief. See 18 the F ebruary20 02 del i very w as l ef tun i m peac hed. A dd i t i on al l y, the court i ns truc t e d the j ury tha ti tha d t o f i nd “ una ni m ous l y , tha t[ C urry ] w a s a m e m be rof th e c o n s p i r a c y c h a r g e d i n th e s u p e r s e d i n g i n d i c tme n t , a n d n o ta me mb e ro f s o me othe r , s e pa r a t e c ons pi r a c y . ” S e e U ni t e d S t a t e s v. R a m i r e z , 426 F . 3d 1344, 1352 ( 1 1 th C ir . 2 0 0 5 ) ( e x p la in in g th a t a ju ry is p r e s u m e d to f o llo w in s tru c tio n s g iv e n to it b y th e c o u r t) . T h u s, ev en if a m ater ial v ar ian ce b etw ee n th e c o n sp irac y c h ar g ed in C u rr y’s i ndi c tm e nta nd the e vi de nc e a ttr i a l r e s ul t e d, C urry ha s notde m ons tr a t e d tha ts he w as subst ant i al l y pre

j ud i ce d. W e, there fore , concl ud e thatany var i ance s w er e i m m at eri al an d affi rm C u rry’ s co n v i ct i o n s. I s s u e 2: M ot i on f

or a j u d gm e n t of

ac q u i t t al C urry al so sum m ar i l y a rgues that , for the sa m e r ea sons w hy a m at er i al vari ance betw ee n the i nd i ctm entand t he proo f a ttri al re sul t ed, no re as on abl e j ury c o u l d h a v e f

o u n d h e rg u i l ty o f

th e c h a r g e d c o n s p i r a c y . C u rry c o n t e n d s th a twe m us tr e ve r s e he rc onvi c t i on “ unl e s s r e a s ona bl e m i nds c oul d c onc l ude tha tthe e v id e n c e is in c o n s is te n t w ith e v e ry h y p o th e s is o f in n o c e n c e .” A d d itio n a lly , C urry as se rt s f

or the fi rs tt i m e i n repl y thatan un supp ort ed al l egat i on thatshe “ w as in v o lv e d in a c o n s p ir a c y w ith s o m e u n k n o w n p a r ty ” w a s in s u f f ic ie n t. 8Unite d St ate s v . Sm ith , 4 16 F .3 d 1 35 0, 13 52 n. 1 ( 11 th C ir .) (e xplainingthat th epr ud e nti al r ule of de c liningto c on side r i ssu e s n ot time ly raise d in a pa rt y ’sinitial brie f i s “we ll- e sta bli sh e d”in this Ci rcuit), c ert. denied, 126 S.Ct. 784 (2005). 19 W e r e v ie w d e n o v o th e d e n ia l o f a m o tio n f

o ra ju d g m e n t o f

a c q u itta l. U ni t e d S t a t e s v. H e rna nde z , 433 F . 3d 1328, 1332 ( 11th C i r . 2005) , c e r t . de ni e d, 126 S . C t . 1635 ( 2006) . “ W he n the m ot i on r a i s e s a c ha l l e nge t o the s uf f i c i e nc y of th e e v id e n c e , w e r e v ie w th e s u f f ic ie n c y o f

th e e v id e n c e d e n o v o , d r a w in g a ll r e a s ona bl e i nf

e r e nc e s i n the gove rnm e nt ’ s f a vor . ” I d. ( quot a t i on om i tt e d) . “ T he e vi de nc e i s s uf

f i c i e ntw he r e a r e a s ona bl e tr i e rof f a c tc oul d c onc l ude tha tthe evi dence es t abl i shed gu i l tbeyond a r ea sonabl e dou bt . ” U ni t ed S t at es v. M art e, 356 F . 3d 1336, 1344- 45 ( 11th C i r . 2004) . “ I nde e d, a ve r di c tof gui l ty c a nnotbe d is tu rb e d if

th e r e is s u b s ta n tia l e v id e n c e to s u p p o r t it, ‘u n le s s n o tr ie ro f f a c t c o u ld ha ve f ound gui l tbe y ond a r e a s ona bl e doubt . ’ ” U ni t e d S t a t e s v. P i ne i r o, 389 F . 3d 1 3 5 9 , 1 3 6 7 ( 1 1 th C ir . 2 0 0 5 ) ( in te rn a l q u o ta tio n o m itte d ) . “T o s u s ta in a c o n v ic tio n f o rc o n s p ir a c y to p o s s e s s [ m a r iju a n a ] w ith in te n t to di stri bu t e, the go vernm entm ustprov e bey on d a re as on abl e dou btthat(1) a n i l l egal a g r e e m e n t e x is te d ; ( 2 ) th e d e f e n d a n t k n e w o f

it; a n d ( 3 ) th e d e f

e n d a n t, w ith know l e dge , vol unt a r i l y j oi ne d i t . ” H e rna nde z , 433 F . 3d a t1333 ( quot a t i on om i tt ed). In det erm i ni ng w hether a n i l l egal agre em entexi st ed, “ [i ] ti s w el l se tt l ed thatthe exi st ence of an agree m enti n a conspi ra cy ca se i s r ar el y proven b y di re ct20

e vi de nc e tha tthe c ons pi r a t or s f or m a l l y e nt e r e d orr e a c he d a n a gr e e m e nt. . . . T he m ore c om m on m etho d o f provi ng an agree m enti s throu gh ci rc um st ant i al e v id e n c e .” P in e ir o , 3 8 9 F .3 d a t 1 3 6 9 ( in te rn a l q u o ta tio n a n d m a r k s o m itte d ) . M oreover, the go vernm entneed on l y prove thatthe defendant“ kn ew the general na tur e a nd s c ope of

the c ons pi r a c y . ” I d. a t1368. A s di sc usse d i n Iss ue 1, al tho ug h the go vernm entdi d n otpres entdi re ct e vi de nc e of

a c ons pi r a t or i a l a gr e e m e nt , c i r c um s t a nt i a l e vi de nc e of thi s a gr e e m e nt i nc l ude d tha tC urry a nd T hom a s both w e r e e nga ge d i n the di s tr i but i on of m a r iju a n a ; C u rry a n d T h o m a s u s e d e s s e n tia lly th e s a m e m e a n s o f tr a n s p o r tin g th is m a r iju a n a , th a t is , in th e b o tto m o f h a n d - f a s h io n e d w o o d e n c r a te s ; a n d b o th Th o ma s a n d Cu rry r e c e i v e d d e l i v e r i e s f r o m “ Cl a s s i c Co l l e c t i b l e ” th r o u g h CBS, a nd vi a O l d D om i ni on. A ddi t i ona l l y , a l though C urry t ol d l a w - e nf or c e m e nt of f i c e r s w ho s t oppe d he ri n F e brua ry 2002, tha ts he di d notknow of the c ont e nt s of the cr at e i nsi de the m i ni van and thatthe cr at e w as i n the m i ni van b ef ore s he st art ed dri vi ng i t , thi s s t at em entw as bel i ed by evi dence thatw oo d fra gm ent s r ec ov er ed f r om the f l oorof the ga r a ge , w he r e the c r a t e w a s de l i ve r e d, m a t c he d w ood (1 ) o b serv ed o n C u rry’ s cl o th i n g , an d (2 ) u sed t o m an u factu re th e crat e. T h u s, e ve n though, a s the di s tr i c tc our tnot e d, e vi de nc e of a c ons pi r a c y w a s not21

“ ove rw he l m i ng, ” C urry ha s f a i l e d t o s how tha t“ no tr i e rof f a c tc oul d ha ve f

ound g u ilt b e y o n d a r e a s o n ab le d o u b t.” S e e id . a t 1 3 6 7 . Is su e 3: E vi d en ce of p ri or sh i p m en ts ad d re ss ed to C u rr y ’s re si d en ce C urry a r gue s tha tthe di s tr i c tc our ta bus e d i t s di s c r e t i on i n a dm i tt i ng e v id e n c e o f

p r io rs h ip m e n ts th a t lis te d h e rr e s id e n c e a s th e d e liv e ry a d d r e s s . C urry concedes thatthi s a dm i ss i on fol l ow ed ou r dec i si on vaca t i ng the di stri ct c our t ’ s e a r l i e ror de rgr a nt i ng he rm ot i on t o e xc l ude thi s e vi de nc e , buts he c ont e nds tha tourde c i s i on w a s i n e rr ordue t o the gove rnm e nt ’ s c r e a t i ng the m i s l e a di ng i nf e r e nc e tha tC B S w a s nota l e gi t i m a t e bus i ne s s . C urry a l s o c ont e nds tha tthe pr e j udi c i a l e f

f e c tof thi s e vi de nc e outw e i ghe d a ny pr oba t i ve va l ue be c a us e the gove rnm e ntf

a i l e d t o s how e i the rthe c ont e nt s of the s e pr i ors hi pm e nt s , ortha tthe s h ip m e n ts w e r e a c tu a lly d e liv e r e d to h e rr e s id e n c e . T he do ctri ne of the l aw of the ca se “ bars re l i t i gat i on of i ss ues thatw er e de c i de d, e i the re xpl i c i t l y orby ne c e s s a ry i m pl i c a t i on, i n a n e a r l i e rappe a l of the sam e case.” U n i t ed S t at es v . Jo rd an , 4 2 9 F . 3 d 1 0 3 2 , 1 0 3 5 (1 1 th C i r. 2 0 0 5 ). T h u s, un der thi s doctri ne, “ an i ss ue deci ded aton e s t age of the ca se i s bi nd i ng atl at er s t a ge s of the s a m e c a s e . ” U ni t e d S t a t e s v. E s c oba r - U rr e go, 110 F . 3d 1556, 1560 ( 1 1 th C ir . 1 9 9 7 ) . T h is d o c tr in e h a s “d e v e lo p e d to m a in ta in c o n s is te n c y a n d a v o id r e c ons i de r a t i on of

m a tt e r s onc e de c i de d dur i ng the c our s e of a s i ngl e c ont i nui ng22

l a w s ui t . ” I d. ( quot a t i on om i tt e d) . I t , how e ve r , ha s e xc e pt i ons , i nc l udi ng w he n “ the evi dence on a subsequent tri al w as subst ant i al l y di ff er ent , cont rol l i ng autho ri ty has s i nc e m a de a c ontr a ry de c i s i on of the l a w appl i c abl e t o s uc h i s s ue s , orthe de c i s i on w a s c l e a r l y e rr one ous a nd w oul d w or k a m a ni f e s ti nj us t i c e . ” I d. a t1561 ( quot a t i on o m itte d ) . I n va c a t i ng the di s tr i c tc our t ’ s or de rgr a nt i ng C urry ’ s m ot i on t o e xc l ude evi dence of four pri or shi pm ent s thatl i st ed C urry ’ s r es i dence as the del i very addres s, w e e xp l ai ned t hatthi s e vi dence s ho ul d n otbe excl ud ed because (1) i tw as r e l e va ntt o s how tha tC urry w a s pa r tof a l a r ge rc ons pi r a c y , a nd ( 2) the pr oba t i ve v a l u e o f th i s e v i d e n c e wa s n o ts u b s t a n t i a l l y o u twe i g h e d b y a n y p r e j u d i c e . As d is c u s s e d a b o v e , C u rry is c o n te n d in g th a t th e d is tr ic t c o u r t w a s n o t b a rr e d b y th is pri or deci si on fr om excl ud i ng thi s e vi dence because the evi dence attri al re veal ed th a t, c o n tr a ry to th e g o v e rn m e n t’s a r g u m e n ts r e la tin g to th e o r ig in a l m o tio n to e x c lu d e , C B S w a s m e r e ly th e s h ip p e ra n d , th u s , n o t c r im in a lly c o n n e c te d w ith “C la s s ic C o lle c tib le s .” D e s p ite th is e v id e n c e , h o w e v e r , th e g o v e rn m e n t s till es t abl i shed that“ C l as si c C ol l ec t i bl es , ” throu gh C B S , previ ou sl y s hi pp ed four ot her cr at es t o C urry ’ s r es i dence vi a O l d D om i ni on , and t hatatl ea sttw o o f the cr at es a c tua l l y w e r e de l i ve r e d t o he rr e s i de nc e . T hus , the e vi de nc e a ttr i a l w a s not “s u b s ta n tia lly d if

f e r e n t,” a n d o u re a r lie rd e c is io n th a t th is e v id e n c e w a s a d m is s ib le23

w a s c ontr ol l i ng. S e e i d. T he di s tr i c tc our t , the r e f or e , di d note rri n a dm i tt i ng e v id e n c e o f

p r io rc r a te s h ip m e n ts . Is su e 4: C al cu l ati on of C u rr y ’s offe n se l evel C u rry la s t c h a lle n g e s h e r7 0 - m o n th s e n te n c e , a r g u in g th a t th e d is tr ic t c o u r t, in c a lc u la tin g h e rb a s e o f f e n s e le v e l, c le a r ly e rr e d in d e te r m in in g d ru g a m o u n t. C urry cont ends thatthe courtshou l d n othave i ncl ud ed i n thi s c al cul at i on evi dence of the pr i ors hi pm e nt s tha tw e r e purpor t e dl y m a de t o he rr e s i de nc e be c a us e : ( 1) the c ont e nt s of

the s e pr i ors hi pm e nt s w a s pur e l y s pe c ul a t i ve ; a nd ( 2) the gove rnm e nt p r e s e n te d n o e v id e n c e s h o w in g th a t C u rry r e c e iv e d a n y o f th e s e p r io rs h ip m e n ts . C urry a l s o a s s e r t s tha tthi s c a l c ul a t i on w a s a rbi tr a ry a nd s pe c ul a t i ve be c a us e the a c tua l a m ountof

m a r i j ua na w a s ba s e d s ol e l y on the drug a nd pa c ki ng w e i ght s of the cr at e i n the i nst antca se . A dd i t i on al l y, C urry ar gu es that , al tho ug h h er gui de l i ne r a nge w a s onl y a dvi s ory unde rU ni t e d S t a t e s v. B ooke r , 543 U . S . 220, 1 2 5 S . C t . 7 3 8 , 1 6 0 L . E d . 2 d 6 2 1 (2 0 0 5 ), sh e w as p rej u d i ced b y th i s erro r b ecau se th e c o u r t c le a r ly in te n d e d to s e n te n c e h e ra t th e b o tto m o f h e rg u id e lin e r a n g e . I n B ooke r , the S upr e m e C our tc onc l ude d tha tade f e nda nt ’ s gui de l i ne r a nge i s now advi sory and n o l on ger di ct at es hi s f i nal se nt ence , bu t , i nst ea d, i s a n i m por t a nts e nt e nc i ng f

a c t ortha tthe s e nt e nc i ng c our ti s t o c ons i de r , a l ong w i th the fa ct ors c on t ai ned i n 1 8 U . S . C . § 3 55 3(a) . B oo ker, 54 3 U . S . at25 9-60 , 12 5 S . C t . at24

7 6 4 - 6 5 . P o s t- B o o k e r , “th e d is tr ic t c o u r t r e m a in s o b lig e d to ‘c o n s u lt’ a n d ‘ta k e in to a c c ount ’ the [ g] ui de l i ne s i n s e nt e nc i ng. ” U ni t e d S t a t e s v. C r a w f or d, 407 F . 3d 1 1 7 4 , 1 1 7 8 ( 1 1 th Ci r . 2 0 0 5 ) . “ Th i s c o n s u l t a t i o n r e q u i r e me n t , a ta mi n i mu m, obl i ge s the di s tr i c tc our tt o c a l c ul a t e c orr e c t l y the s e nt e nc i ng r a nge pr e s c r i be d by th e [ g ] u i d e l i n e s [ . ] ” I d . ( e m p h a s i s i n o r i g i n a l ) . We a l s o c o n t i n u e t o r e v i e w a d is tr ic t c o u r t’s f

a c tu a l d e te r m in a tio n s , s u c h a s th e d ru g a m o u n t a t is s u e o n ap p e a l, f orc l e a re rr or . S e e i d. a t1178- 79 ( 11th C i r . 2005) ( e xpl a i ni ng tha tB ooke rdi d not a l t e re i the rourr e vi e w of the appl i c a t i on of

the gui de l i ne s , orours t a nda r ds of re vi ew ). W e c anno tfi nd cl ea r e rr or un l es s i ti s “ l ef tw i th a defi ni t e a nd fi rm c o n v ic tio n th a t a m is ta k e h a s b e e n c o m m itte d .” I d . a t 1 1 7 7 ( q u o ta tio n o m itte d ) . S ec t i on 2D 1. 1 o f the fe dera l gu i del i nes provi des thatthe base offe nse l evel f ora pos s e s s i on ora c ons pi r a c y drug of f e ns e or di na r i l y i s c a l c ul a t e d by d e te r m in in g th e q u a n tity o f d ru g s a ttr ib u tab le to a d e f e n d a n t. S e e g e n e r a lly U . S . S . G . § 2D 1. 1( a ) . T o s e nt e nc e C urry ba s e d on a n of f e ns e l e ve l of

26, the d is tr ic t c o u r t h a d to f

in d h e rr e s p o n s ib le f

o ra t le a s t 1 0 0 k ilo g r a m s o f m a r iju a n a . S ee U . S . S . G . § 2 D 1 . 1 (c)(7 ). T h e fed eral g u i d el i n es al so p ro v i d e th atco u rtm u st a ttr i but e t o a de f

e nda nt“ a l l the drugs f

or e s e e abl y di s tr i but e d pur s ua ntt o a com m on sc hem e of w hi ch the defendant ’ s off ense of conv i ct i on i s apart . ” U ni t ed S ta te s v . A g is - M e z a , 9 9 F .3 d 1 0 5 2 , 1 0 5 4 ( 1 1 th C ir . 1 9 9 6 ) .25

“ W he n the de f

e nda ntobj e c t s t o a f

a c tua l f i ndi ng tha ti s us e d i n c a l c ul a t i ng hi s gui de l i ne s e nt e nc e , s uc h a s drug a m ount , the gove rnm e ntbe a r s the bur de n of es t abl i shi ng the di sput ed fa ctby a pre po nd er ance of the evi dence. ” U ni t ed S t at es v . R o d r ig u e z , 3 9 8 F .3 d 1 2 9 1 , 1 2 9 6 ( 1 1 th C ir ) , c e r t. d e n ie d , 1 2 5 S .C t. 2 9 3 5 ( 2 0 0 5 ) .

“ W he r e the r e i s no drug s e i z ur e orthe a m ounts e i z e d doe s notr e f l e c tthe s c a l e of the offens e, the courtshal l approx i m at e the qu ant i ty of the cont rol l ed subst ance . ” I d. ( quot a t i on a nd i nt e rna l quot a t i on om i tt e d) . “ [ I ] n e s t i m a t i ng the qua nt i ty of drug s a ttri bu t abl e t o a defendant , a c ou rtm ay base i t s c om pu t at i on on evi dence show i ng the avera ge fr equency and am ou ntof a def endant ’ s drug sal es ov era gi ve n pe r i od of

t i m e . ” I d. A l though s e nt e nc i ng c a nnotbe ba s e d on c a l c ul a t i ons of drug qu ant i t i es thatar e m er el y s pecul at i ve, se nt enci ng “ m ay be base d o n fai r, a c c ur a t e , a nd c ons e r va t i ve e s t i m a t e s of the qua nt i ty of

drugs a ttr i but abl e t o a d e f e n d a n t.” U n ite d S ta te s v . Z ap a ta , 1 3 9 F .3 d 1 3 5 5 , 1 3 5 9 ( 1 1 th C ir . 1 9 9 8 ) . T h e c r a t e o f

m a r i j u a n a th a twa s s e n tt o C u rry a n d wa s s e i z e d b y l a wenforce m entagent s on F ebruary28 , 20 02 , cont ai ned 1 15 po un ds of m ar i j uana, that i s, 54 ki l og ra m s of m ar i j uana. A dd i t i on al l y, the go vernm entoffe re d t es t i m on y a t tr ia l th a t O ld D o m in io n p r e v io u s ly h a d d e liv e r e d s im ila rc r a te s f r o m C la s s ic C ol l e c t i bl e s t o C urry ’ s a ddr e s s , i nc l udi ng: ( 1) a 75- pound c r a t e of “ de c or a t i ons or not a t i ons ” t o “ M i t c he l l R oof i ng, I nc . ” a tC urry ’ s a ddr e s s on M a y 30, 2001;26

(2 ) a 1 1 0 -p o u n d cr ate c o n tain in g a “statu te” to “M it ch ell R o o fin g , In c.” a t C u rr y’s a d d r e s s o n J u ly 3 , 2 0 0 1 ; ( 3 ) a 1 6 0 - p o u n d c r a te c o n ta in in g a n o th e r“s ta tu e ” to

“ M i t c he l l R oof

i ng, I nc . ” a tC urry ’ s a ddr e s s on J ul y 31, 2001; a nd ( 4) a 140- pound cr at e of “ ornam ent s” t o “ M i t chel l R oo fi ng , Inc. ” a tC urry ’ s a dd re ss on D ec em ber 4 , 2 0 0 1 . U s i n g th e w e i g h t s o f th e Fe b ru a ry 2 0 0 2 d e l i v e ry , th a ti s , 5 4 . 4 k i l o g r a ms of m ar i j uana com pri se d 8 0-perce ntof the w ei gh tof the cr at e, the court , ov er C urry ’ s obj ec t i on , concl ud ed thatthese pri or four cra t e del i veri es i nv ol ved an a ddi t i ona l 175. 90 ki l ogr a m s of m a r i j ua na . T hus , the c our tc onc l ude d tha tthe gove rnm e nte s t abl i s he d “ f a rm or e ” tha n ne c e s s a ry t o j us t i f y a n of f e ns e l e ve l of

26 u n d e r§ 2 D 1 .1 ( c ) ( 7 ) . C u rry is c o n te n d in g th a t th e c o u r t c le a r ly e rr e d in f in d in g th a t th e s h ip m e n ts m ade pri or t o F ebruary20 02 , ac tual l y w er e del i vere d t o h eraddres s, and she has ci t ed t o D i l enge’ s i ni t i al t es t i m on y thathe coul d n otre m em ber w hether he had m ade a ny shi pm ent s t o C urry ’ s r es i dence before F ebruary20 02 . H ow ever , the fa ct th atal l o f th ese sh i p m en t s l i st ed C u rry’ s ad d ress an d atl eastso m e o f th em al so i n cl u d ed h er cel l -p h o n e n u m b er as th e co n si g n ee’ s n u m b er, as w el l as l i st i n g M rs. C am p b el l ’ s h o m e-p h o n e n u m b er as a co n si g n ee n u m b er, d em o n strat es th atth ese shi pm ent s w er e “ fore se eabl y di stri bu t ed pu rs uantt o a com m on sc hem e of w hi ch27

[ C urry ’ s ] of

f e ns e of c onvi c t i on [ w a s ] a pa r t ” a nd, thus , c ount abl e a s r e l e va nt c onduc t . S e e A gi z - M e z a , 99 F . 3d a t1054. A d d i t i o n al l y, t o th e ex t en tC u rry i s ch al l en g i n g th e co u rt ’ s fi n d i n g th atth ese pr i ors hi pm e nt s c ont a i ne d 175 ki l ogr a m s of m a r i j ua na , a nd s he i s r e l y i ng on the fa ctthatthese shi pm ent s w er e notse i ze d, these shi pm ent s, l i ke the shi pm entse i ze d i n F e brua ry 2002, a nd the s hi pm e nt s s e ntt o T hom a s , ( 1) w e r e s e nti n c r a t e s f r om “C la s s ic C o lle c tib le s ” th r o u g h C B S a n d v ia O ld D o m in io n ; a n d ( 2 ) h a d c o n te n ts i dent i fi ed as “ decorat i on , ” “ ornam ent s, ” or “ st atues. ” T ho m as al so expl ai ned t hat

“ s t a tue ” w a s the c ove rde s c r i pt i on f orm a r i j ua na he r e c e i ve d. M or e ove r , i n the ab sen ce o f d i rectev i d en ce o f th e am o u n to f m ari j u an a co n t ai n ed i n th ese crates, the c our tdi d notc l e a r l y e rri n e s t i m a t i ng the s e a m ount s ba s e d on the a m ounta nd p e r c e n ta g e o f

m a r iju a n a r e c o v e r e d f

r o m th e F e b ru a ry 2 0 0 2 s h ip m e n t, a n d its c ons e r va t i ve e s t i m a t e of 175 ki l ogr a m s w a s w e l l ove rthe 46- ki l ogr a m a m ount nece ss ary t o j ust i fy an offe nse l evel of 26 . S ee R od ri gu ez , 39 8 F . 3d at12 96 ; se e a ls o Z ap a ta , 1 3 9 F .3 d a t 1 3 5 9 . T h u s , th e d is tr ic t c o u r t d id n o t c le a r ly e rrin de t e r m i ni ng tha tC urry s houl d be he l d a c c ount abl e f ora tl e a s t100 ki l ogr a m s of m a r i j ua na a nd i n s e nt e nc i ng he rba s e d on a n of f e ns e l e ve l of

26. A cc ordi ng l y, w e c on cl ud e that , i f a ny m at er i al vari ance occurre d b etw ee n C urry ’ s c ons pi r a c y c ha r ge i n he ri ndi c tm e nta nd the pr oof a ttr i a l , s he w a s not28

pr e j udi c e d by i t . B e c a us e C urry f a i l e d t o s how tha t“ no tr i e rof f a c tc oul d ha ve f ound gui l tbe y ond a r e a s onabl e doubt , ” the di s tr i c tc our tdi d note rri n de ny i ng C urry ’ s m ot i on f

ora j udgm e ntof

a c qui tt a l a s t o he rc ons pi r a c y c ha r ge . U nde rthe law -o f- th e- ca se d o ctrin e, th e d istrict co u rt also d id n o t errin d en yin g C u rr y’s m o t i o n t o e x c l u d e e v i d e n c e o f o th e rs h i p m e n t s a d d r e s s e d t o h e rr e s i d e n c e a f t e rwe de t e r m i ne d tha tthi s e vi de nc e w a s a dm i s s i bl e . F i na l l y , the di s tr i c tc our tdi d not c l e a r l y e rri n us i ng r e a s ona bl e a nd c ons e r va t i ve e s t i m a t e s i n de t e r m i ni ng the a m ountof

drugs a ttr i but abl e t o C urry . W e , the r e f or e , a f f i r m C urry ’ s c onvi c t i ons and h ert ot al 70 -m on th sent ence . AF F I RME D.