## 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. 08

- 3278 U NIT ED S TATE S OF A MERI CA, P la intif f-A pp ellee, v. V AL ERI AN N . L EW IS, D ef endant-Appellant.

A pp eal from the United S t ates Di strictC our t fo r the C entral D istricto f Illino is. No . 07 CR 20115

—Mi ch ael P . M cC us key, Chief Ju dge .
A RG UE D D ECE MBE R 3, 2009

— D ECI DE D M AR CH 15, 2010

Befo re E A S T E RB R OO K, Chie f Judg e, a n d M A NI ON a nd E VANS, C ircu it Judges . E VANS, Cir cu i tJudge . A j u ry co n vic te d V ale ria n L ew is on a charg e of att em pti ng to posse ss, w i th i nten t t o d i str ibu te , ove r 50 0 g ra m s o f co c a in e. See 2 1 U. S
. C. § § 8 4 1 ( a ) ( 1 ) , (b ) ( 1 ) ( B) , 8 4 6
. T he j ur y a l s o r e t urne d a speci al ver dict fi nd i ng that the att em pt to p oss ess in vo lve d ov er five kilog ra m s o fco c ain e. B ec au se th is was Le wi s’ s se co nd fel o ny dr ugc o nv i ct i o n, the dr ug2 N o. 08

- 3278 quanti ty fi nd i ng tr i ggere d the i m posi ti on o fa m andatory m i ni m um se ntence of20 ye ar s. Prior to tri a l, th e govern m en t neg lected to fil e an inform ati on pu rs uant to 21 U
. S. C. § 851, w hi ch w ou ld h ave gi ven Lewis noti ce o fi ts i ntent to see k a n enhanced pen al ty
. Le wi s appe al s hi s sente nc e, a r g ui ngtha t th e g o ve r nm en t’ s f ai l ur e to c o m pl y wi th§ 851 str i pped th e dist ri ct cour t of i ts “author i ty” to i m pose the 2 0-y ear m andator y m i n i m um se ntence. Thi s i s no t qui te ri ght, f o re v e n wi tho uta p ri or co nv i c t i o n Le wi s f a c e d a st atut o r y s en tencing ra ng e o f1 0 y ea r s to l i fe f o ra c o nvi cti on invol vi ng m or e than fi ve ki logra m s o fco cai ne. S o wi th o utr eg ar d t o the fi l i ngofa § 8 51 i nf o r m at i o n, th e di st r i ctc o ur t ha d the “ au th o rity” t o i m po se the 20- yea r sente nce that i t o rder ed. W hetherit should have do ne s o , no t i ts “ au th o r i ty ” to do s o , i s the issu e w e co nsid er on L ew is’s ap p ea l. Lew i s fi rs t fo u n d h i m sel fi n federa lco urt i n 200 2 when he w as c o nv i ct ed o fdi st r ibut i ngc o ca i ne a nd c o ca i ne base

. H e recei ved a 57- m onth s entence
. In 200 7, wh i l e o n superv ise d rel eas e fro m hi s 2 002 convi cti on, Lew i s m et w i th Fi del S anchez at a M cDonal d’s on Chi cago ’ s S outh Si de. L ew i s t ol d Sanchez ther e was no coca i ne to be f o un d in the F o r tWay ne ( I nd i a na ) a r e a wh e r e h e l i v e d, so once Sanchez was “r eady with the coca i ne, he was going to be re ady with the m oney . ” On Decem ber3, L e wi s a n d S a n c h e z s e tu p a d e a lo v e rth e p h o ne

— L ew is w oul d buy thr ee kilogr am s o fco cai ne atthe pri ce o f $18, 000 per ki l ogr am and re cei ve anothe r th re e k i l ogr am s o n a c on sig n m en t b as is. T h e f o l low in g d ay , L ew isN o. 08

- 3278 3 drove fro m Fo rtW ayne to K anka ke e (I l l i noi s) , a tr i p of ove r 150 m i l es, to do the deal w i th Sanchez at a H i l ton I nn. H e br ought $47, 465 i n ca sh w i th hi m to pay f or th e d ru gs . U n for tu n at ely for L e w i s, Sa n c h ez w as a c on fiden ti ali nf o r m an t who ha d b ee n w o r k i ngf o rthe Dr ug E n for c e m e n t A ge n c y for n ea rly 20 ye ar s. A fte r L ew is ar r i ve d an d m etw ith Sa n c h ez , D E A ag en ts an d Il lin ois p o l i c e a r r e s t e d h i m. Du ring pre tr i alpro ceedi ngs, Lew i s’ s pri orcon vi cti on was me nt io ne d m an y t i m es . The c r i m i na lc o m pl aint i ss ue d the da y a fte rhi s ar r es t refer r ed to i t. Bo ththe gov er nm ent a nd L ew i s’ s defense counselm ade not e o f i t athi s in i ti ala ppea r an ce b efo r e th e di st r i ctc o ur t. The m ag ist ra te j u d ge d et ain ed L ew is p rior to tria l p rim ar ily be ca us e he was on su per vi se d r el ea se f o rthe pr i o rc o nvi cti on wh en he w as ar re ste d. A nd atLew i s’ s a rr ai gnm ent, th e j udg e adv i se d hi m o fthe e nha nc ed pen al ty he f ac ed g i ve n the 2 00 2 co nv i ct i o n. Ad di ti o na l l y, Le wi s fi l ed t wo m o ti o ns i n l i m i ne s ee k i ng to preve nt the go vernm ent fro m i ntro du ci ng the co nvi cti on a s Rul e 404 (b) ev i dence duri ng the tr i al

. The go ver n m en t’s w rit te n res p on se d efe n d ed its u se of th e e vidence a n d i ncl ud ed the detai l s o fthe 2002 pri orco nvi cti on

— th e spe ci fi c o ffen se , j ur i sdi ct i o n, da te o fc o nv i ct i o n, se nt en ce , a nd r el ea se da te
. The di st r i ctc o ur t d en ied the firs t m ot ion in lim in e a n d gra n te d th e s ec on d on e o n ly i n part
. Lew i s the n file d a m oti on t o re consi der, wh i ch the c ourtgr anted, r uling tha t the gove rn m ent woul d not be abl e t o i ntro du ce e vi d en ce o fthe pri orco nvi cti on unle ss Lew i s o pened the doorto i t.4 N o. 08

- 3278 A t sen ten cing, Lew is contes ted a tw o -level up w ard adj us tment to hi s g ui del i ne r an g e f o r hi s r o l e in the o ffen se . Tha t wa s the o nl y o bj ec ti o n h e l o dge d t o the pr es en te nc e r epo r t ( “P S R” )
. Le wi s ackn o wl edg ed th athe f ac ed a m an dat o r y min i m um s en te nc e g r ea te rtha n the 188 to 235 m onth r ange presc ribed by the a dvis or y guidel i nes under § 84 1(b ) and the j ury’ s drug quanti ty fi nd i ng. N o obj ecti on was m ade to the gov er nm ent’ s fa i l ure to fi le a§ 8 51 i nf o r m at i o n. The di st r i ctc o ur t ado pte d the fi nd ings of the PSR and i m p osed 20 years, the m an d atory mi n i mu m. I t i s o nl y no w ona ppea ltha t Le wi s co nt es ts the g o ve r nm ent’ s f ai lu re t o com plywith § 85 1 pri orto tr i al

. S ecti on 85 1 r equi re s the go vernm ent t o provi de w ri tte n noti ce when i t i nt en ds to s ee ka n inc reased pun i sh m en t b a s e d o n p r i o rc o n v i c t i o n s . T h e g o v e r n me n tb e l i e v e s we ne ed no t r ea chthe s ubst an ce o fLe wi s’ s appe al, c l ai m i ng th at h e w aiv ed h is a rg u m en t b y a ffirm at i ve ly a c kn ow ledg i ng th e a ppl i cabi l i tyo fthe mandat o r y min i m um dur i nghi s se nt en cing he ar ing . W ai ve r, o fc o ur se , i s th e in tenti onalr el i nquishm ent o fa known r i ght, wh er eas for feit u re is th e fa ilu re to tim ely as se rta rig h t. U nited Sta tes v. G arci a , 58 0 F
. 3d 528, 54 1 (7t h C i r. 20 09)
. W ai verpre c lu d es rev iew , bu t fo rfe i t u r e a llow s re vie w alb eiton ly for p lain err or . Id

. The g o ve r nm en t ha s a st ronga r g um ent that Lew i s w ai ved hi s obj ecti on w hen h e a greed that he f aced the m andator y m i nim um se ntence of 2 0 y e a rs . See U nited Sta tes v. Sta ples , 2 0 2 F
. 3 d 9 9 2 , 9 9 5 ( 7th Ci r . 2 00 0) ( defen dan t wai ve d the r i g htt o o bj ec t when he kn ew h e h ad a rig h t t o ob j ec t t o th e c alc u lat ion of h is crim inal history, knew the con ten ts o f th e PSR, and affirm atively dec ided not to obj ect).N o. 08

- 3278 5 Bu t hav i ng sa i d that, i t ul ti m ate l y doe s no t m att er whethe rwe fi nd wai ve ro rf o r fei tu r e as Le wi s’ s a r g um en t f ai l s under pla i n er ro r re vi ew . To m eetthis ex actin g stan d ard , Le w is m us t show that the d istri ct cou rt m ade a clea r er ro r, affecting hi s s ubstanti alr i ghts. U ni t e d Sta tes v. La ne, 591 F.3d 921 , 926 (7th C ir. 2010). Obvi ousl y § 85 1 was vi ol ate d. The go vernm ent di d not fi l e a n i nform ati on. H owever, ther e i s no prej ud i ce here

. The two m ain p u rpos es ofthe § 8 51 i nfo rm ati on re quir em ent a re to giv e a defendant an o pp or tuni ty to conte st the a ccu ra c y ofhi s pri orco nvi cti ons and to i nfo rm hi s deci si on on w hetherto pl ead gui l ty orpro ceed to tria l. Id

. at92 7. W e ca n’tse e ho w L ew i s s uffer ed fro m the l ack ofa f or m alnot i ce. H e w as w el laware of the pri or convi cti on; i t w as the subj ect of th e R u le 404(b) p re tr ial d eb at e. O u r an aly sis m igh t b e d iffer en t if Lew i s had pl ed gui l ty, expecting a l ower s entence than § 8 41(b) would r equi re . But he pro ceeded to tr i al

. Pl us, pla i n er ro r re vi ew has a j ud i ci al disc re ti on com p onent. W e o nl y notice th e er r o ri fi t “s er i o us l y a ffec t[ s] the f ai rne ss , i ntegr i ty orpubli c r eputati on o fj ud i ci alpro ceedi ngs. ” Id

. at92 6 ( quoti ng U ni t e d St ates v. O l ano , 50 7 U. S
. 7 25 , 7 32 , 1 13 S
. Ct
. 1 77 0, 1 77 6 (1993) )
. The g o ve r nm ent’ s f ailur e to fi l e a § 851 i nfo rm ati on was a sl i pu p to be s ure, but i t doe s no t cha nge the f act that Lew i s had fullkno w l edge of hi s pri orco nvi cti on a nd the penal ty he f a c e d. A ccor dingl y, we A FFIRM the j ud gm ent o fthe dist ri ct cour t.

3- 15- 10