Ofthe Ce nt ra l Dis t ri c tofI l l i noi s , s i t t i ng by des i gna t i on.  

## 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. 10

- 2562 U NI T ED S TATE SOF A MERI CA, P la intif f-A pp ellee, v. M ICHAEL R EESE , D ef endant-Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court fo r the N o rthernDi stricto f Illino is, Eas tern Div isi on. No . 1:08- cr-01061

—V irgin ia M . Ken dall, Judge
.
A RG UE D O CT OB ER 26, 2011

— D ECI DE D J AN UA RY 13, 2012

Befo re R IPPLE a nd H A MI L T ON, C ircu it Ju dges , a nd M Y ER S COUGH, D i s t r i ctJudg e .  M Y ER S COUGH, D istrict Judge. On S ep tem ber15 , 20 09, a j ur y f o und Mi ch ae l Re es e, a s upe r visi ngb ui l di ngi nspecto r f or the Ci ty ofChica go’ s Depart m ent o fBuil dings , gu il ty of on e c ou nt of con sp iracy to com m it bribery ( 18 U
. S. C. § 3 71) and two counts ofm ak i ng f al se sta te-2 N o. 10

- 2562

m en ts to fed er al a ge n ts ( 1 8 U .S.C . § 10 01 (a)( 2)). In J une 201 0, the dis tr ict cour t s entence d Reese to a t ota l o f 60 months ’ i m pr i so nm en t

— 51 mo nths ’ i m pr i so nm en t on Co un t I a nd 9 mon ths ’ i mpr i s o nme nt o n e a c h of Counts 2 and 3, to be ser ved co ncurr entl y. Reese appeal s, ar gui ng the di str i ct c ourter re d by a dm i tti ng te sti m on y about the 2 005 gi ft l i st ofBeny Garne ata, a Ci ty ofChica go busin es sm an, and adm i tting the l i st i ts e l f

. R e e s e a l s o a r g u e s th e c o u r t e r r e d b y b a r r i n gt he admi ss i o n o f reco r di ng s be twe enRe es e an d Ca th er i ne Rom asant a, o ne o fthe w i tness es w ho t es ti fi ed aga i nst hi m , wh i c h c o nt a i ne d s e l f

- e xc ul pa tor y s tat em ents. Fin ally , Re es e a rg u es th e c ou rterr ed by h old in g h im acc ou nt able for m ore tha n $1 17,000 in bribes (the c o u rt actual l y hel d him acc ountabl e for$1 12 , 500) , wh i ch re sul ted i n an e i ght- l eve l i ncre ase to Rees e’ s o ffense l eve l under the U ni ted S tat es Se ntenci ng Guidel i nes. Altho ug h the di st r i ctc o ur t er r ed bya dm i tt i ngthe 2005 gi ft l i st as a business re cor d, the e rro r w as harm l ess . F ur th er, the c o ur t di d no t er r b y adm i tt i ngt es ti m o ny ab o ut the g i ft l i sta nd b ar r i ngRe es e fr o m i nt r o ducing the r eco rdi ngs b etween R ee se and Rom asant a. Final l y, the c o ur t di d no t e r r b y ho l di ng Re e s e a c c o un t abl e f or $ 1 1 2 , 5 0 0 i n b r ib e s . T h e r e f o r e , w e a ffi r m.

I . B AC KGR OUND InD ec em b er 2 0 0 8 , th e G ov er n m en t c h ar ge d R ee se , a su p ervising bu il d ing in s p ector in th e C ity ofCh icago’s Dep ar tm ent ofB uil dings , w i th one co unt ofco nspir acy toN o. 10

- 2562 3

com m i t br iber y a nd two co unts o fm aking f al se sta tem ents to federa l age nts. The conspi ra cy count all ege d that, betw een e ar ly 2005 and m i d-Decem ber20 06, Rees e conspi re d w i th D avid J ohnson, a bui l ding i nspector wi thth e C i t y o fC h i c a g o , S o r i n Ad r i a n O r o s , a b u i l di ng co nt r act o r, a nd o th er s k no wn an d unkno wn. Acco r di ng to the Go v e r nme nt, R e e s e a nd J o hn s o n a c c e pte d m oneyfro m i nd i vi du al s, i ncl ud i ng Oro s, and r efer re d i ndi vi dual s to e ac h o th eri n e xc ha ng e f o r pr o vi di ng cer tain ser vi ces, such a s i ssui ng ce rt i fica tes ofo ccupancy, expediting per m i t a pp ro val s, aba ti ng co de vi ol ati ons, and obta i ni ng uni t cha nge a pp ro val s.

A. S u mma r yo fth e E v i d e n c e P r e s e n t e d a tth e S e pt e mber20 09 Tri al Re es e’ s co co ns pi r at o r s te st i fi ed att r i al, i nc l udi ngJ o hnso n an d Ro m as an ta, who co o per at ed wi th th e G overnm en t, a nd Or o s, who was f o und gui l tyo fb r ibe r y a nd te st i fi ed unde r a g r an t o fi m m uni ty
. The Go ve r nm ent al so pla yed f orthe j ury sever alr eco rdi ngs b etween R ee se and “Dann y, ” the co nfi denti ali nfo rm ant, betw een J o hns o n a nd Da nny, a nd b etwee n Re es e an d J o hns o n. J o hns o n t es ti fi ed th ato ve r a numbe r o fye ars, he a nd Re e s e r e fe r r e d ind i v i du a l s t o each o the r t o p r o v i de cer tain offi ci alse rv i ces in exchange f ora bribe. These ser vi ces i ncl ud ed bui l ding unit changes , cod e v iol ati on c h a n g e s , p u t t i ng pe r mi t s a n d p l a n s th r o u g h th e s y s t e m, and rem oving st op w or k o rder s. So m eti m es J ohnson an d Ree se sh ared the bribe m one y w ith each other.4 N o. 10

- 2562 J o hns o n i nt r o duce d Gr eg J ac k so n, an i nv es tor a nd c on tr ac to r, to R ee se . In Fe b ru ar y 2 00 7, Jac ks on to ld John son that Ree se w an ted $10,000 to take care of a proj ect on S outh Pr ai ri e. ( The d ist ri ct c ourti nstr ucted th e j u r o r s th a tth e y c o u l d o n l y c o n s i d e r th a tt e s ti m o ny as conte xt f orthe February20 07 re cor ding and not for th e truth ofthe m att eras ser ted. ) In a F ebr uary20 07 re c or d in g b et w ee n D efe n d an t a n d Joh n so n, Re es e t old J ohnson, “M ake thatm othe rfuckerco m e up w i th that num ber

. ” J ohnson und er sto od thatto m ean that Ree se want ed J o hns on t o putpr es su r e o n J ac k so n t o pa y the $10, 0 0 0
. R e e s e a l s o s t a t e d, “ [ T] ha t ’ s wh y Ic a me i n wi th hi gh be cause Ik n ow thi s m othe rfuckerhe g onna be si tt i ng . ” J o hns o n e xpl aine d R ee se was r efer r i ngt o the num berthathe g ave J acks on on h ow m uch i t would co st to “t ak e c ar e o f th e p ro b lem .” J o hn s o n a l s o t e s t i fi e d tha t Re e s e i nt r o du c e d hi m to B en y G ar n ea ta , an ex p ed ito r an d ele c tr ica l co n tr ac to r. In exchange f or$4,000 , J ohnson hel ped G ar neata ge t c e r t a i n p e r mi t s a n d p l a n s th r o u g h th e s y s t e m. Oros tes ti fi ed t h at he pai d Reese a br ibe s eve ra l ti m es in exc ha ng e for R eese ch an ging inform ation in the C ity’s c o mp u t e r s y s t e m ( a l s o r e fe r r e d t o a s “ ma i n fr a me c h an ge s” ) to refle c t t h e n u m b er of u n its O ro s h ad in h is bui l dings

. In 200 5, acc ess r i ghts to th e c om pu tersy ste m w er e changed and onl y c er tain adm i ni str ati ve perso nnel had the ab i l i ty to ed it, upd ate , and del ete i nfo rm ati on i n the com pu terda taba se. W hen Reese co uld no l onge r m ake the change s f orOro s, Rees e intro du ced Oros to J ohnson, wh o knew an a d m i ni str ati ve ass i sta nt withN o. 10

- 2562 5

ac c es s t o th e c om p u te r sy s t e m . Or os th er ea fte r p aid J ohnson to have the c hanges m ad e i n the com pu ter sys tem
. Oro s a l so paid Jo hnson se ver alti m es f orobtaini ng zo ni ng st am ps. I n Decem ber20 06, J ohnson and Oros w er e a rr est ed when J o hns o n metwi thOr o s to pi ckup $1 2, 00 0 i n e xchange f orge tting zo ni ng appro val s o n ar chi tectural pla ns. Du ring the J anuary20 07 conve rs ati on be tw een J o h n s o n a n d R e e s e , J o h n s o n t o l d R e e s e he ha d “ t wo p i e c e s ” th a th e n e e d e d t o g e tr i d o f, r e fe r r i n gt o th e t wo ar chi tecturaldrawings J ohnson had rec eived fr om Oros. Rees e a ske d Jo hnson i fhe wanted Reese to “ho l l er at hi m ,” w hi ch J ohnson und er sto od to m ean that Re es e w ou l d g eti n t o uchwi thOr o s ab o utr etur ni ng the dr aw i ngs. Rees e a ske d Jo hnson, “ T h ey done?” t o w hi ch J ohnson re sponded , “They d on e. Darr ylgo t them st am p ed off atC ity H all.” Rom asant a, a form erexpedit orwh o w or ked f or G arn eata , test if ied th at sh e took bribes from cont ractors and devel oper s a nd passe d them o n to Ci ty i nspector s, i nc ludingRe es e. ( An ex pedi to r i s a pr i va te c o m pan y ora perso n em plo yed bya pri vate co m pany w ho r eprese nt s th e bui l di ng o wnero r inv es to r a nd he l ps th e ow ne r or invest or obtain bu il d ing p erm its m ore qui ck l y . ) Ro m as an ta a l so t es ti fi ed th at on o ne o cc as i o n, she h an d ed Reese an e asyper m i t a pp l i cati on. Rees e ha nd e d the do c ume nt s to J o hn s o n a nd t o l d h i m “ t o g o do hi s thi ng. ” Rom asant a g ave Reese $1 , 500, and J ohnson r etur ne d wi ththe a ppr o ve d a ppl i ca ti o n. Rom asant a t est i fi ed abo ut Garnea ta’ s pract i ce ofdi str ibuti ng g i ft ca rds to C ity offi ci al s a t Chri stm as. Garnea ta6 N o. 10

- 2562
to l d Ro m as an ta tha t th ey “n ee ded to t ak e ca r e o fthe i ns p e c t o r s . ” B e t we e n 2 0 0 3 a n d 2 0 0 5 , R o ma s a n t a s a w a l i st re fl ecti n g gift ca rds forCi ty i nspector s. In 200 5, Rom asant a del i ver ed a g i ft ca rd t o Reese

. In 200 6, Rees e ca l l ed Ro m as an ta a nd a sked h eri fGa r ne at a was do i ng an yth ing for insp ectors th at year. Ro mas a nt a a l s o t e s t i fi e d ab o utG a r ne a t a ’ s h a nd

w ri tte n 200 5 g i ft l i st, wh ich t h e d i str i ct c ourtadm i tte d i nto evi dence. One ofthe nam es on the 20 05 gift l i st w as “I nsp. Rees se[ si c]

— $2 00
. ” Ro m as an ta i den ti fied the i nd i vi du al s nam ed on the l i st, i ncl ud i ng Rees e. Dw ayne P i er re - A ntoi ne te sti fi ed that i n Octobe r 2005 , h e w e n tt o th e b ui l d i n gd e p a r t me n tr e g a r d i n gs o me bui l di ngv i o l at i o ns o n h i s pr o per ty
. Pi er r e- An toine e xpl ained the s i tu at i o n t o Re es e an d a sk ed hi m whathe needed to d o. Rees e t ol d Pie rr e- A ntoi ne thathe ne eded to sp e a kt o s o meo ne e l s e . T ha ti nd i v i du a l, l a t er i den ti fi ed as J o hns o n, s po k e t o Pi er r e- Anto i ne a l o ne i n Re es e’ s o ffi ce. J o hns o n t o l d Pi er r e- Anto i ne tha t he h ad to p ay a $4 ,00 0 fe e t o g e t t h e v iola tio n s o n h is proper ty re m ove d. W hen Pi er re - A ntoi ne to l d Jo hnson he c o ul d no t do tha t, J o hns o n asked hi m ho w m uchhe had. P i e r r e - Ant o i ne r e fus e d t o p a y a ny thing . P i e rr eA n to in e w as u ltim at ely a b l e t o re so lve th e is su es w ith in tw o to thre e days f orno cos t. In N ove m b er 2 005, Pi er re A nt o i ne fi l e d a c o mpl a i ntwi th the Uni t e d S t a t e s P o s t al I nspecti on S er vi ce, wh ich resul ted i n an i nvest i gat i on of City of C hicag o em p loyees acce p tin g b r ib es in return f orper f or m i ng o ffi ci alact s r el ate d to thei r du ti es. This ev id en ce was furtherco rr obo ra ted bythe re co r di ng s o fc o nv er sa ti o ns b etwee n Re es e a nd the c o n-N o. 10

- 2562 7 fi den ti ali nf o r m an t, Da nny . I n Oc tobe r 2 00 6, Da nny c alle d R ee se look in g t o ob ta ina p er m it m or e q u i c kly th anus ua l

. Ree se t o l d Da nnyhe kne w so m eo ne who c o u l d h e l p D a n n y “ g e t ‘ e m p u s h e d th r o u g h

. ” I n No v e mb er 20 06 , Re es e t old D an n y t h at h e m igh t b e a b l e to ta lk to an ins p ec tor“a nd m aybe he wil l l et you w or k y ou k no w f o r a s m al l fee . ” Re es e g av e J o hns o n’ s cel l pho ne num berto Danny, and J ohnson ult i m at ely prov i ded Dann y with a pl um bi ng l i cense l ett ero fi ntent f or$8 00. Fi nal l y, the Gover nm ent intro du ced a m onth-by- m onth sum m ar y of the num ber and durat i on of c alls betw een Reese and hi s alleg ed coco nspir ato rs duri ng 20 05, 20 06, and part of20 07. A fte r d elib er at in g, t h e ju ry fou n d R ee se gu ilty on all thre e co unts. In J anuary20 10, the dis tr ict co urt denie d Reese ’ s pos t- tr i alm oti ons.

B. Ve r di cta nd S en te nc i ng I n J un e 2 0 1 0 , the di s t r i c t c o ur t s e nt e nc e d Re e se to 51 m onths’ i m pri sonm ent o n Cou n t 1 and tw o 9- m onth co nc ur r e ntt e r ms o n Co un t s 2 a nd 3 , t o r unc o ns ecuti ve to C ou n t 1 . Th e d i st ric t c ou rth eld R ee se ac c ou n ta b le f or$1 12, 500 i n br ibes, wh i ch incre ase d Reese’ s o ffense lev el b y e igh t. See U ni ted S tates Sent enci ng Guidel i ne s M an ua l ( U. S

. S

. G. ) § 2B1

. 1(b) ( 1) ( E) , ( F ) ( pr o vi di ng for an 8-l evel i nc rease w he re the am ou nt o f lo s s i s m ore th an $70,000 bu t $120,000 or less).8 N o. 10

- 2562 I I . DI S C US S I ON On app eal, Rees e a rgues the di str i ct c ourter red by: ( 1 ) a l l owi ngt e s t i mon y ab o utthe g i ftc a r d l i s ta nd a dm i tting the 20 05 gi ft ca rd l i st; ( 2) b ar ringev i dence ofr ecor dings betw een Ree se and Rom asant a duri ng wh i ch R ee se d ec lin ed R om as an ta ’ s in vit at ion to en ga ge in ille ga l co n d u c t; an d (3) h old in g R ee se ac c ou n ta b le for $1 12 ,50 0 in br ibe s a t s en te n c in g, w h ich res u lte d in an eigh t-le ve l inc re as e in R ee se ’s o ffen se lev el.

A

. Dist ri ct Cour t D i d N ot A buse I ts Disc re ti on byA dm i tti ng Test i m ony A bout the Gi ft Li st, and A dm i ssi on o f the Gift List as a Bu si ness Recor d W as H ar m l ess Err or Re es e ar g ue s t he di st r i ctc o ur t er r ed i n a dm i tt i ngthe 2005 gi ft l i st id en ti fyi ng Rees e a s a r eci pie nt o fan i m properpaym ent a nd te sti m ony about th e l i st because ( 1) i t was prej ud i ci alRule 4 04(b) ev i dence; ( 2) the 2005 gi ft l i st did notco nstitu te a busi ness re cor d und er Rul e 8 0 3 ( 6 ) ; a nd ( 3 ) a dmi s s i o n o fthe 2 0 0 5 g i ftl i st vi ol ate d Reese’ s S i xth A m endm ent r i ght t o confro ntatio n be c au se th e list ’s a u th or d id n otte st ify a t t ria l.

1. B a ckgro un d P ertain ing to th e 20 05 G ift List Pr i o r t o t r i al, the di st r i ctc o ur t he l d tha t th e Gov ernm ent c oul d prese nt ce rt ai n other- acts ev id ence und er Feder alRule o fEvi dence 404 ( b). T hi s e vi dence i ncl ud ed Rom asant a’ s t est i m ony about Garneata ’s p ra cti ce o f gi vi ng g i ft ca rds t o Cityoffi ci al s duri ng the hol i dayN o. 10

- 2562 9

sea son, Rom asant a del i verin g a $2 00 gi ft ca rd to Rees e in20 05 , an d R ee se ca llin g R om as an ta in 2 00 6 a s k in g if he woul d r ecei ve a g i ft ca r d tha t y ea r . The c o ur t f o und th atthe e vi den ce s ho wed Re es e’ s in ten t, a s wel l a s th e i nter acti on and o ngoing re l ati onshi p between Rees e and Rom asant a. M or eov er, the cour t s tat ed, “I d o not thi nk tha t i t i s a nythi ng but m or e co nspir ato ri al behavi orreg arding thi s pro cess o fworking to gether as a team to m ake su re that thes e ind ivi d ua l insp ectors w er e p aid off.” The dis tr i ct c ourtal so, afterhear i ng the te sti m on y o f St ephan Lil l e a nd the voi r dir e o fRom asant a, adm i tte d the 2005 gi ft l i st i tse l f as a busi ness re cor d . S peci fi cal l y, Li l l e te st i fi ed th athe ha d wor k ed f o r M 3 Plum bing, o ne ofGarneata’ s businesse s, fro m Octobe r 2006 to October 2007
. I n the sum m er of 2007, Lil l e f ound th e 2005 giftlist h an d w rit te n on a n ot ep a d i n th e o ffice L ille shar ed w i th Garnea ta’ s wife. Du ring vo i rdire, Ro m as an ta t es ti fi ed th at, b eg i nni ng i n 200 2, she and G ar neata ea ch w ou ld pre pare l i sts o f nam es and d isc u ss them

. Rom asant a be l i eve d she sa w Garneat a’ s l i st i n 200 3. Rom asant a r eco gni zed the 2005 g i ft l ist a s be i ngwri tt eni n Ga r ne at a’ s ha ndwri tinga nd re cogni zed the m aj or i ty ofnam es on the l i st. Rom asant a di d n o tkno w wha tGa r ne a t a di d in t e rms o fh i s r e c o r dkee ping pract i ces. Rom asant a a l so d id n ot know whe the r Ga r ne a t a u s e d the s a me l i s te v e r y y e a r o r ma de a new one. In f act, Rom asant a t est i fied s h e di d not know w h et h er G ar n ea ta ac tu ally w ro te d ow n h is list or to ld som eone el se w ho t o m ake the car ds out to.10 N o. 10

- 2562 The dis tr i ct c ourtadm i tte d t h e li st, fi nd i ng tha t Rom asant a i denti fi ed the hand w ri ti ng and the p racti ce ofpassing gra tu i ti es. The co urt f ound the r el evance o f th e ev i den ce was no t “o ve rbo r ne b y pr ej udi ce ” i n l i g ht ofst ro ng te sti m ony re gar ding Rom asant a’ s co ntact w i th R eese an d J ohn son and t h e pa ssing of bribes. Th e cou rt did, however, r edact the word “done” w ri tte n next t o som e o fthe nam es on the l i st.

2. St anda r d of

Re vi e w Is f

oran Abu s eof

D i s cre t i on This cour t r evi ew s the di str i ct c ourt ’ s d eci si on t o admi t o th er - ac ts e vi den ce a nd the a dm i ss i o n o fa do cum en t as a b us i ne ss r ec o r d for a n abus e o fdi sc r et i o n. See U nite d States v. P ri ce, 51 6 F

. 3d 5 97 , 6 03 ( 7th Ci r. 20 08) (R u le 4 04 (b )); U nited Sta tes v. LeSh o re, 543 F

. 3d 935, 94 1 ( 7th Ci r . 2 00 8) (bus i ne ss r ec o r d; a l so no tingtha t th e d ist ric t c ou rt ’s in te rp re ta tio n of th e ru le s o fe vid en c e is r e v i e we d deno vo ). The dis tr i ct c ourt ’ s e vi denti ar y r ulings a re aff or ded spe ci alde fer en ce a nd wi l lb e r ev er se d “ [ o ] nl y w he re no r easonab l e per so n c o ul d t ak e th e vi ew a do pte d b y the tr i alco urt. ” U ni t e d S t ates v
. Vargas , 55 2 F
. 3d 550, 55 4 ( 7th C ir. 2008).

3. D is tr ictCo urtD id Not AbuseI ts D is cretion by A dm it

ting Testim o ny P ertain ing to th e G ift List Feder alRule o fE vid ence 404(b) pro vi des thatev i dence of a “c rim e, wrong, o r othe r act i s no t a dm i ssibl e t oN o. 10

- 2562 11

E ffectiv e D e cem b er 1, 201 1, and after ora l arg u m en t in this 1 c as e, the am en dm en t s t o the Fe der al Rul es ofEvi denc e went in e ffect
. T he chang es to R ule 404 ( b), R ule 803( 6) , and R ule 106 are noti ntegral to our analysi s. Theref ore, w e use the am ended Rule s he re i n. pr o ve a pe r so n’ s ch ar acte r i n o r dert o s ho w tha t o n a parti cul ar occa si on the perso n acte d in acco rdan c e w i th the c hara cter
. ” F ed. R. Evi d. 404(b)

. Othercr i m es 1 e v i de nc e i s a dmi s s ib l e , h o we v e r, to p r o v e “ mot i v e , o pportunity, i ntent, prepar ati on, pla n, knowle dge , i denti ty, abse nce o fm i stake, o r l ack ofacc i dent. ” Id. ; see also Un i t e d S t a t e s v . M ont ani, 204 F.3d 761 , 767 (7th C ir. 2000). W he th ero th er - ac ts e vi den ce i s admi ss ibl e r equi r es c o nsid er at ion of w h et h er : ( 1) the e videnc e i s di r ec te d t o war d e st ab l i sh i ng a m att eri n i ssue othe r than t h e defendant’s pro pen si tyt o c o m m i t th e cr i m e ch ar g ed; ( 2) the evi dence sh ow s that the o theracti s s i m i l areno ugh and cl ose eno u gh in ti m e t o be r el evantto the m att er i n i ssue; ( 3) the evi dence i s s uffi cien t to sup porta j ur y fi ndi ngtha t th e defen dan t co m m i tt ed th e si m i l ara ct; a nd ( 4) the pr o ba ti ve v al ue o fthe ev i den ce i s no t su bs ta ntia l l y o ut wei g he d b y the danger ofunfa i r prej ud i ce. U nited Sta tes v. B a k er, 655 F.3d 677, 681-82 (7th C ir. 2011). Reese argues the evi dence di d not co nsti tute adm i ssibl e co nd uct under Rul e 4 04(b) bec ause the c onduct w as fund am en tal l y di ffer ent fro m the al l ega ti ons of b rib er y c h ar ge d in t h e in d ict m en t. “[ S]im ilar ity is12 N o. 10

- 2562

re l evanto nl y insof aras the acts are suffi ci entl y a l i ke to su p p or t a n infe re n c e o f cr i m i n al in te n t . .
. . Thepr i or ac ts ne e d n otb edu pl i ca t e s of theon ef

orwhi ch thede

f e ndan t is no w beingtried

. ” U ni t e d S t at e s v. Ll oyd, 71 F. 3d 1256 , 1265 ( 7th Ci r. 19 95) ( al ter ati on i n or i gi nal ) ( i nter nal quotation m arks om itted ). H er e, the t es ti m o ny r eg ar d in gthe g i ft l i stwas r el ev an t to sh ow R ee se ’s i n t e n t, as w ell as th e re lat ion sh ip between Rees e a nd Rom asant a. The ev i dence thatRees e c alled Rom asant a in 200 6 was part i cul ar l y pr obat i ve of Reese ’ s intent and i n vo lvem ent in the conspi ra cy. That th e g i ft ca r d p aym en ts wer e m ade t o “ ta k e ca r e o fthe i nspector s” w as su ffi ci entl y s i m i l arto the i l l ega l co nd uct c h ar ge d in t h e in d ict m en t. Se eV a rgas , 55 2 F
. 3d at 556 ( expla i ni ng tha t o ther

- acts ev i dence “was d ire cted to war d e st ab l i sh i ng[ th e defen dan t’ s] kno wl edg e, a nd w as suffi ci entl y s i m i l art o the c harg ed offense to be p robative on that i ssu e”). Re es e al so a r g ue s th e di st r i ctc o ur t er r ed byfi ndi ng th e pr o ba ti ve v al ue o fthe e vi den ce o ut wei g he d the p rej u d ice
. See Fed. R. E vid . 403 ( re l evantev i dence m ay be e xcl ud ed “if its proba ti ve val ue i s s ubstanti al l y o utw eigh ed b y a dangero f

. . . unfa i r prej ud i ce”)

. Rees e ar gues the e vi dence w as high l y pr ej ud i ci albec ause paym en t in th e form of holida y gifts w as m ateriall y d if

fer ent fro m t he i l l ega l co nd uct char ged i n the i nd i ctm ent a nd thi s e vi dence w as the o nl y instanc e i n w hi ch th e G overn m en t cou ld corroborat e the testim ony of a c on victed, co oper ating witne ss that an i m properpaym ent o fany ki nd was m ade to Rees e. Rees e a l so note sN o. 10

- 2562 13 th attha t pr ej udi ce was no t m i ti g at ed bya l i m i tingi nst r uct i o n. A lthough the e vi dence w as prej ud i ci al, i t was not u n fair ly p rej u d icia l. S e e, e . g . , Un i t e d S t a t e s v . A n d r e as , 2 16 F.3 d 64 5, 66 5 (7 th C ir. 20 00 ) (n ot in g t h a t “ p ro b at ive ev iden ce i s al way s pr ej udi ci al, b ut the que st i o n r emai ns w h et h e r it is u n fair ly so ”). “E vid en c e is u n fair ly pr ej udi ci alo nl y i fi t wi l l i nd uc e the j ur y t o de ci de th e case on an i m proper basi s, com m onl y an em oti onal one, ra therthan on the evi dence pres ented. ” U ni t e d S t at e s v. Wantuch , 5 25 F .3d 5 05 , 5 18 (7t h C ir. 20 08 ); s e e, e . g. , Andre as , 216 F. 3d at 665 ( fi nd i ng no er ro r i n adm i tting ev i dence w here the evi dence “was notso sho cking, r epuls i ve or em oti onall y c harg ed that i ts proba ti ve val ue was outw eighed by i ts p rej ud ici al effect”). H er e, th e t es tim on y re ga rd in g t h e g ift list, pa rt icu lar ly Reese cal lin g R om asant a in 200 6 a nd as ki ng i fhe was going to r ecei ve a g i ft ca rd thatye ar, w as proba ti ve of R eese’s inten t and not so p rej ud ici al as to c au se th e j ury to dec i de th e ca se o n an i m pr o per ba si s. The resul ting prej ud i ce of t h is evi dence di d not o utw ei gh the pro bati ve val ue. There f or e, the dist ri ct c ou rt d i d not abuse i t s d isc re tio n by ad m itt in g t h e e vid en c e. SeeWantuch , 525 F. 3d 505, 51 8 ( 7th Ci r. 200 8) ( othe r cri m es evi dence “o ut l i ne d ho w the r el at i o ns hi p o ft r us t an d c o op er at i o n” d evelop ed betw een the coc ons p irators). W hi l e th e di st r i ctc ou rt di d no t g i ve the j ur y a l i m i ting i nstr ucti on, the re cor d does no t r efl ect that defe nse c ou n se l req u es te d on e. Se e, e . g. , U ni t e d S t at e s v. Su ggs ,14 N o. 10

- 2562 374 F. 3d 508, 51 7 ( 7th Ci r. 2004) ( a defendant w ho does no t r eque sta l i m i tingi ns truct i o n f o r fei ts a ny a r g um en t that the c ourter re d by f ai lin g to gi ve a l i m i ti ng i nstr ucti on)

. Genera l l y, thi s co urt re vi ew s the f ai l ure to gi ve anunr eque st ed l i m i tingi ns truct i o n f o r pl ain er r o r, b ut R ee se d oe s n otarg u e p la i n err or on ap p ea l. Se e, e . g. , U nited Sta tes v. Liefer, 778 F.2d 123 6, 1244 ( 7 t h C ir. 1985 )

. N onethel ess , ev en witho ut the l i m i ti ng i nstr uctio n, th e e vid en c e w as n otu n d u ly o r u n fair ly p rej u d ic ial. Se e, e . g. , U ni t e d S t at e s v. Wi l s on , 3 1 F. 3d 510, 51 5 ( 7th C ir. 19 94 ) (ev id en c e n otu n d u ly p rej u d icia l, ev en in ab se nc e o fa l i m i tingi ns truct i o n, “ be ca us e o f i ts s tr o ng si m i l ar i ty an d cl ose te m pora l pro xi m i ty to the c harg ed crim e”).

4. A dm ission of th e 20 05 G ift List a s a B u siness R eco rd Was Har m l e s s Er r or Re es e ne xta r g ue s th ate ve n i ftesti m o ny abo utthe gi ft l i st w as adm iss ible und erRule 40 4( b) , the gi ft l i st i tse l fwas i nadm i ssibl e be cause ( 1) the 2005 g ift l i st w as not a bu siness r eco rd; ( 2) no quali fi ed w i tness testi fi ed to the acc ura cy an d aut hors hip of th e 2005 gift l i st; ( 3) the 2005 gi ft l i st w as m or e pr ej u dici althan proba

tive; and ( 4) the ad m issi o n o f t h e li st viol ated Ree se’s S i xth Am en dm en t r i g htt o c o nfr o nt ati on be ca us e th e authoro fthe l i st w as not c all ed to te sti fy. W e a gr ee that the di str i ct c ourter re d by a dm i tting th e 20 05 gi ft l i st as a bu sin es s rec or d b u t find th at er ro r w a s h ar m les s. See, e . g. , U ni ted S t at e s v. Thor nt on , 64 2 F
. 3d 599, 60 6 ( 7th C ir. 2011).N o. 10

- 2562 15 “A party e stabl i shes a f oundati on f oradm i ssi on o f b u si ness re cor ds w hen i t dem onst ra tes thr ough the test imon y o fa qua l i f i ed wi tne s s tha tthe r e c o r ds we r e k e pt i n the cour se ofa re gul ar l y c on d ucted busi ness acti vi ty, and that i t was the r egul arprac ti ce o fthatbu si ness to m ake such r eco rds. ” U nited Sta tes v. G iven , 16 4 F

. 3d 389, 39 4 (7 th C ir. 19 9 9); s e eal s o Fed. R. Evi d. 803( 6) (busi ness re cor d excepti on t o the he ar sayr ule )

. A qual i fi ed w i tness need not be th e au th or o fthe docum ent b ut m ust have pers on al know l edge o fthe proce du re used to c re at e a n d m ain t a i n t h e d oc u m en t. See i d. ; see also U nited St at e s v. M uhamm ad, 928 F.2d 146 1, 1469 ( 7th Cir. 1991). A l though Rom asa n ta tes ti fi ed that she knew that G arn eata had a regular prac tice o f giving holiday gift ca r ds, s he l ac k ed k no wledg e o fthe pr ac ti ce o fc r ea ting an d m aint aini ngthe li st
. Ro m as an ta t es ti fi ed th ats he was nots ur e whethe r Ga r ne at a ac tu al l y wro te do wn a l i st, whethe rhe made a l i ste ver y y ea r o r us ed th e sam e o ne, o r w hat he did i n ter m s o fr eco rdkee ping. Ro ma s a n t a ’ s l a c ko fp e r s o n a l kn o wl e d g e c o n c e r ni ng th e record keep ing m ean t tha t the l ist f ail ed to satisfy w hat i s no w subse cti on ( D) in Rule 80 3( 6). The evi dence also f ail ed to satisfy su bsec tions (C) (“m aking th e record wa s a r e g ul a r p r a c t i c e o ftha t [ r e g ul a r l y c o nd uc t e d] ac ti vi ty ”) a nd ( E) ( no i ndi ca ti o n o fl ac ko ft rus two r th

i ness)

. There was no a dequ ate sho w i ng tha t it was a re gu lar p ra c tic e t o m ak e t h i s s or t o f rec or d , to m ain ta in it, or t o re ly u p on it. “T h e id ea be h in d R u le 8 0 3 ( 6) is th at w he n a r ec o r d i s k eptwi ths uffi ci en t r egul ar i ty, the exist en c e ofan e ntry( orthe abse nce o fo ne) i s g oo d16 N o. 10

- 2562

ev id en c e t h at th e t h in g i n qu es tio n to ok p lac e (o r d id no t ta k e pl ac e)

. Bus i ne ss r ec o r ds ar e r el i ab l e to the ex te ntthe y a r e co m pi l ed co nsi st en tly a nd c o ns ci en ti ousl y. ” U nited Sta tes v. R a m sey , 78 5 F
. 2d 184, 19 2 ( 7th Cir. 1 98 6) ( dist ri ct c ourter re d by a dm i tting not es on busi nessm an’ s ca l endar a s b u si ness re cor ds, tho ugh er r o r was ha r m l es s)

. The l ist h er e was f o und b y a cc i den t in an ab an d one d notep ad , not in regu lar fi les that w ere m ain ta in ed , an d R om as an ta co u ld n otte s t i fy t h at it was the r egul arpr ac ti ce t o make the se l i st s, l eta l o ne m aint ain the m a nd r ely upo n the m . The r efore, the di st r i ctc o urt abus ed i ts di sc r et i o n b y a dm i tt i ngthe 20 05 gift lis t a s a bu sin es s re c or d

. See, e . g. , Col l i ns v. K ibo rt, 1 43 F
. 3d 33 1, 3 38 ( 7th Ci r. 1 998) ( fi ndi ngthe w itn es s w as n otqu alifie d to te st ify a b ou t m ed ica l bills w he re he d id n ot know anyt hi n g a bou t the hosp ital’ s bil ling prac tices). N onethel ess , t h e er ro r i n adm i tting the 20 05 gi ft l i st as a bus i ne ss re co r d was ha r m l es s er r o r . “ Er r o r s i n the adm i ssi on o fev i dence w i l l be dee m ed t o be har m l ess unle ss th ey h ad a s ubstanti aland i nj uri ous e ffect or in flu ence on the j ury’ s v er dict

. ” D at am at i c Se r vs . , Inc . v. U nited Sta tes , 90 9 F
. 2d 1029 , 10 33 ( 7t h C i r. 19 90) ( i nter nal qu otations om itted ). Re es e ar g ue s th e error w as no t ha r m l es s be ca us e th e l i stwas the o nl y do cument ar y e vi den ce s uppo r tingthe exi ste nce o fany i m p roper paym ent t o Reese

. Rees e furtherar gues that the pr ej u d i ce fro m the adm i ssi on o fthe l i stwas no t m i ti g at ed bya l i m i tingi ns truct i o n.N o. 10

- 2562 17 H owever, Rom asant a t est i fied abo ut Garnea ta’ s pra ctice of giving holiday gift card s, testim ony thi s cou rt h as fou n d w as ad m iss i b l e a n d n otu n d u ly p rej u d icia l. The actualgi ft l i st i tse l fwas m er el y c um ula tiv e of that tes ti m ony. Mo r e o v e r, th e e v i d e n c e p r e s e n t e d a t t r i a l o v e r wh e l mi ngl y dem onst ra ted R ees e’ s par ti ci pati on in a c onspi ra cy wi th J o hn s o n a n d O r o s . T h e t e s t i mo n y o fJ o h n s o n —a c o o per ating witne ss

— an d O ros

— w h o t es tifie d u n w illing ly and und era gr ant o fi m m unity

— w as fu r t he r corrobor ate d by th e t el ephone co nver sat i ons between Rees e and D anny and be tw een Reese and Jo hnson, as wellas th e te st im ony o fPi er r e- Anto i ne , who t es ti fi ed ab o ut hi s ex per i en ce wi thRe ese an d Johns o n. In l i g hto fthe evi dence pres ented attr i al, the adm i ssi on o f the actual 2005 gi ft l ist was harm l ess bey ond a r eas onabl e doubt. See, e . g., Price, 51 6 F

. 3d at 605 (fin d ing that the di str i ct cour t’ s e rr ori n adm i tting the docum ent a s a busi ness re cor d w as har m l ess wh er e the j ury “w as prese nted w ith su b st an tia lly sim ilar ev id en c e” ); U ni t e d S t at e s v. Franco , 874 F
. 2d 11 36 , 1 14 1 n. 1 ( 7th Ci r . 1 98 9) ( fi ndi ng th ate ve n i fthe c o ur t er r ed i n a dm i tt i ngthe r ec o r ds, the er ro r w as harm l ess bec ause ofthe substa nti alev i dence of the d efend an t’s rol e in the con sp iracy). Be c a us e we ha v e c o nc l ud e d tha t the e r r o r was harm l ess , we need not deter m i ne wh etheradm i ssi on o f th e 20 05 g i ft l i stv i o l at ed R eese’s r i ghtt o c o nfr o ntthe au th or of t h e list

. Coyv . Iowa , 48 7 U.S

. 10 12, 10 21- 22, 10 1 L.Ed .2d 85 7, 86 7, 10 8 S

. Ct. 27 98, 28 03 ( 1988 ) ( Confr ontati on Cl ause vi ol ati ons ar e subj ect to harm l ess - er ro r re vie w ); Tho rnto n, 642 F. 3d at 606.18 N o. 10

- 2562 B. The Dist ri ct Cour t Di d N ot A b u se I ts Disc re ti on by Ex cl ud i ng Reco rded Conver sat i ons Betw een Reese and Rom asant a R eese al so ch all en ges on app eal th e d istri ct c o u rt’s ex cl usio n o fr ec o r ded co nv er sa ti o ns b etwee n Re es e an d Rom asant a. The r e c o r di ng s we r e made i n M ay, J une, J uly, and Decem ber 2007, afterRom asant a be gan c ooper atin g w i th autho ri ti es and afterthe i nvest i gat i on becam e know n. Duri ng the co nver sat i ons, Rees e decl i ne d Ro m as anta’s i nv i ta ti o ns t o e ng ag e i n i l l eg alc o ndu ct. S peci fi cally, Rees e e i therr efer re d Rom asant a t o the a pp ro pri ate superv i sor o r dir ecte d Rom asant a to follow p ro p er p ro c ed u re s. O n ap p ea l, R ee se arg u e s t h at th e d ist ric t c ou rtsh ou ld ha ve a dm i tt ed th e r ec o r di ng s o n the b as i s t ha t (1 ) the re cor dings wer e rel ate d rec or dings under Rul e 1 06; a n d ( 2 ) th e r e fu s a l t o a l l o w R e e s e t o c r o s s - e x ami ne Ro m as an ta r egard ing the record ed conv ersati o ns vi ol ate d Ree se’ s Confr ontat i on Clause ri ght and righ t to a fa ir tr ial.

1. St anda r d of

Re vi e w Is f

oran Abu s eof

D i s cre t i on T he district cou rt’s ruli ng s on evid e n t ia ry i ssu es are re vie w ed fo r an ab u se of d isc re tio n . U ni t e d S t at e s v. M cG ee, 40 8 F
. 3d 966, 98 1 ( 7th Ci r. 20 05)

. “A court ’ s l i m i tati on o n a defendant’s cr oss - exam i nati on i s r ev iew ed f or an abuse of disc re ti on, but w hether the lim itat i on o ffe nd s the c o nfr o nt a t i o n c l a us e i s r e v i ew e d deno vo .” U ni t e d St at e s v. M okol, 646 F. 3d 479, 485 n. 4 ( 7th Cir

. 20 11)N o. 10

- 2562 19 (al so noting tha t “ [ e] xposi ng witne ss bi as dir ectly i m p lic a t e s the S i xth Am e nd men t, a nd i s r e v i e we d deno vo ”).

2. D i s t r i ctCour tD i d Not Er rb y Exc l udi ng t heRe co r di ngs Reese ’ s o w n sta tem ents i n the re cor ding w er e hea rs ay w hen offer ed by Reese f orth e tr u th o fthe m att eras se rt ed

. See U nited Sta tes v. D a ven po rt, 92 9 F
. 2d 1169 , 11 75 ( 7th C ir. 19 91) ( noti ng tha t the defendants’ st ate m ents, to the e xtent they were excul pator y, would not h ave bee n ad m issible at th eir trialbecau se th e statem en ts w ere he arsay). B ecau se w e con clud e tha t the district cou rt d id n ot err by conc lud ing tha t Re ese’s state m en ts w ere i na dm i ss ibl e, we do no t ne ed to a ddr es s Re es e’ s ar g um en t t h at R om as an ta ’s s ta te m en ts w er e n otad m iss ible f or thei r tr uth, but ra ther to gi ve conte xt to hi s s tat em ents. On app eal, Rees e a rgues t he 20 07 re cor dings betw een Reese and R om asant a no nethel ess sho uld have bee n adm i tte d as r el ate d rec or dings u nd erFe deralRule o f E vid e n c e 106. Reese did not argu e this groun d before the di str i ct c ourt, al though the Gove rn m ent r ai sed R u l e 1 0 6 i n i t s mo t i o n t o e x c l u d e th e r e c o r d i n g s . Ho weve r, ev en i fRees e has f or fei ted thi s i ssue by f ai l i ng to ra ise it be for e t h e d is tr ict co u rt, th e d ist ric t c ou rtd id no t co m m i t er r o r, l eta l o ne pl ain e r r o r, b y e xc l udi ng the r eco rdi ngs. Rule 106 provi des that“[ i ] fa partyi ntro du ces al l o r part ofa w ri ting orr eco rded sta tem ent, an a dvers e par tymay r equi r e th e introduct i o n, a t th att i m e, o fa ny oth er pa rt

— o r a ny o th erwri tingo r r ec o r ded st at ement

—20 N o. 10

- 2562
th a ti n f a i r n e s s o u g h tt o be c o n s i d e r e d a tth e s a me ti m e . ” F e d. R. Ev i d. 1 0 6

. Th e pu r po s e o f the r ul e i s “ to pr ev en t a par tyfr o m m isl eadi ngthe j ur y b y a l l o wi ng i nto the r eco rd r el evantpor tion s ofthe excl ud ed t e s t i mon y whi c h c l a r i fy o r e xp l a i n the pa r t a l r e a dy re

cei ved. ” U ni t e d S t at e s v. Wi l ke rs on , 84 F. 3d 692, 696 (4th Cir. 19 96 ); s e eal s o U nited St at e s v. LeFe vour, 79 8 F
. 2d 977, 98 1 ( 7th Ci r. 19 86) ( othe rwis e inadm i ssibl e e vi den c e m ay be a dm i ss ibl e unde r R ul e 10 6 to c o r r ec t a m i sl ea di ng i m press i on o r el se the m i sl eadi ng ev i dence m u st be excl ud ed). Rule 10 6 a l so appli es to or al, nonr ec or ded st at em en ts
. P ri ce, 51 6 F

. 3d at 604. To a d mi te v i d e n c e u n d e rR u l e 1 0 6 , a c o u r tmu s tf i nd that the e vi dence i s r el evantto the i ssues o fthe case . U nit ed S tate s v. Velasco , 953 F.2d 146 7, 1474 -75 (7th C ir. 1992 ). I f th e evid en ce i s relevan t, th e co u r t c o ns iders the fol l owing f acto rs : wh ether (1 ) the propos ed evi dence expla i ns the adm i tte d evi dence; ( 2) the pr opose d evi dence pla ces the a dm i tte d evi dence i n conte xt; ( 3) adm i ssi on ofthe propos ed evi dence w ill avoi d m i sl eadi ng the tr i er of fa c t; an d ( 4) a d m itt in g t h e p ro p os ed ev id en c e w ill i ns ur e a f ai r a nd i m par ti alunde r st an di ngo fal l o fthe ev id en c e. Id. at14 75 ; see also U nite d S t a t es v. Sw eiss , 81 4 F.2d 120 8, 1211 -12 (7th C ir. 1987). Re es e ar g ue s th e r ec o r di ng s be twe enRe es e an d Rom asant a a re r el evantto wh eth er Rees e co nspir ed to com m it bribery bec au se th e record ings con t a in Ree se’s re sponses to Rom asant a’ s r eq uest that he change perm its and or ders on hercl i ents’ pro perti es. Rees e a l so ar gues the re cor dings ar e r el evantbec ause they ser veN o. 10

- 2562 21
to re but the tr ust r el ati onship the Gover nm ent a ttem pted to prove betw een Ree se and his co consp ira to rs , pr o v i de c o nt e xtt o the r e c o rd i ng s a nd p ho ne r e c o r ds used by the Govern m ent, and expla i n the re cor dings tha ta l r e a dy h a d b e e n i nt r o du c e d. Even i fth e 2007 r eco rdi ngs b etween Rom asant a and Reese w er e r el ev an t to the i ssues i n the case , tho se re cor dings were enti re l y s epara te and dist i nct fro m th e admi tt ed r ec o r ded co nv er sa ti o ns b etwee n Ree se a nd Dann ya nd b etwee n Re es e an d J o hns o n. “ A st at ement adm i tte d on ‘c om ple tenes s’ gr ounds m ust be co nnected conte xtual l y t o the pr evi ousl y intro du ced evi den ce, such that the excl usi on o fthatst ate m ent i s l i kel y t o cre ate ani nc o m pl et e, mis l ea di ng , o rdi st o r te d pi ctur e o fthe evi dence. ” P ri ce, 51 6 F

. 3d at 605. The 20 07 re c ordings between Rees e a n d R om asant a were nei therco nnected co n t e x t u a l l y t o a n y p r e v i o u s l y i n t r o d u c e d s t a t e me nt orr eco rdi ng norwas adm iss ion o ftho se re cor dings ne cess ar y t o com ple te Reese ’ s e ar l i erst ate m ents to ot h er ind ivid u als . Th er efo re , th e d ist ric t c ou rtd id not abuse i ts disc re ti on byr efusi ng to adm i t the 20 07 re c or d in gs be tw ee n R om as a n ta an d R ee se . Se e, e . g. , U nite d State s v. Lewis , 64 1 F .3d 773, 78 5 ( 7th Ci r. 20 11) ( fi nd i ng that the tes ti m ony the defe nd ant w anted admi tt ed was “ m er ely e xpl an at o r y o fhi s th eo r y o fthe case ” a nd not exp l anato ryo fo r re l evantto the adm i tte d testim ony ).22 N o. 10

- 2562 3. Excl us i on of

theRe co r di ngs D i d N ot Viol at e t heConf r onta tio n C la use Reese next ar gues the di str i ct c ourt ’ s dec ision to excl ud e the r eco rdi ngs a nd pre cl ud e defense counsel f ro m c r o s s - e xa mi ning Ro mas a nt a ab o uttho se re c or d in gs vi ol ate d his co nfr ontat i on r i ghts and ri ght t o a f ai r trial

. Rees e a rgues the r eco rdi ngs woul d have castdoubt o n Rom asant a’ s v er aci ty w hen she tes ti fi ed that Reese had a w or ki ng r el ati onshi p w i th Rom asant a and Jo hnson i n acce pti ng br ibes. Reese di d not r ai se thi s a rgum ent when the d i str i ct c ou rtco n s i d e r ed w h et h er to ad m it th e re c or d in gs , alth o ug h h e di d m ak e th i s ar g um en t i n h i s po st
- tr i almot i o n. Even i fRees e for fei ted the i ssue, R ee se cannot sho w th e d istri ct court erred , let alone com m itted p lai n error, b y re fu sin g t o a d m it th e re c or d in gs . Se e, e . g. , U nited St at e s v. Wi ng, 1 04 F
. 3d 9 86, 9 88 ( 7th Ci r . 1 99 7) ( i ss ue w as f or fei ted wh er e the defenda n t coul d have m ade a co nt empor an eo us o bj ec ti o n b uti ns te ad r ai se d the i ss ue for th e firs t t im e in h is p os t-t ria l m ot ion ); Thor nt on , 64 2 F.3d at 605 ( forfeited i ssu es are review ed f or plain error). The Co nfr ont at i o n Cl au se o fthe S i xth Am en dm en t p rotects t h e d efend an t’s ri gh t to f ace th ose w ho tes tify ag ain sth im an d to co n d u c t c r o s s -ex am in at ion
. See M cG ee, 40 8 F
. 3d at 974. H owever, “[ t] he r i gh t to cr oss e xa mi na t i o n i s n o tu nl i mi t e d; t ri a l c o ur t s h a v e wi de l at i tu de ‘ to i m po se r ea so nabl e l i m i ts o n s uchc r o ss - ex am i nati on ba sed o n conce rns about , am ong othe r th i ng s, ha r as sment, pr ej udi ce , c o nfus i o n o fthe i ss ue s, the w itn es s’ s afe ty , or in te r r o ga tio n th at is re p et itiv e o r on lyN o. 10

- 2562 23

m ar gi nal l y r el evant
. ’ ” Id

. at975, (q u oting D e l awar ev. V a n A rsd all , 475 U.S

. 67 3, 67 9, 89 L. Ed

. 2d 674, 68 3, 10 6 S. Ct

. 1431, 1435 (1986)). T h e d i s t r i c tc o u r td i d n o te r r b y l i mi t i n gc r o s s - e x a mi nati on her e. The co u rt im posed r eas onabl e l i m i ts on Re e s e ’ s c r o s s - e xa mi na t i o n o fR o mas a nt a . R e e s e e ssenti all y s ought to el i ci t e vi dence ofhi s f ai l ure to engag e i n unla w ful c on d u ct duri ng hi s cr oss - exam i nati on o f R om as an ta
. E vid en c e th at a d efe n d an t ac t e d la w fu lly on o thero ccasi ons is general l y inadm i ssibl e t o prove he act ed l aw fully o n the occa si on alleged i n the i nd i ctm en t. Se e, e . g. , U ni t e d S t at e s v. He i de cke, 90 0 F
. 2d 1155 , 11 62 (7t h C i r . 1 99 0); U ni t e d S t at e s v. Burke, 78 1 F

. 2d 1234, 12 43 ( 7th Ci r. 19 85)

. The di str i ct c ourt ’ s r equi re m ent that Reese cr oss - exam in e Rom asant a withi n the confi nes o f th e ru les of ev id en c e w as , th er efo re , no t im p ro p er . See L e w is , 6 41 F. 3d at 785 ( fi nd i ng no vi ol ati on o fthe Si xth Am en dm en t wher e th e defen dan t was g i ve n the o ppo r tu
ni ty to confro n t an d cro ss- exam i ne the ag ent b ut was “r equi re d to do so withi n the r u les o fev i dence”)

. M or eover, th e d istri ct court d id not li m it d efens e cou ns el’ s cro ss- exam i nati on r ega rdi ng Rom asant a’ s m oti ves or bi as , b o th ofwhi cha r e co r e Con fr o nt at i o n Cl au se c o nc er n s. M okol, 64 6 F

. 3d at 485 ( not in g that a di str i ct c o ur tma y r e s t r i c tc r o s s - e xa mi na t i o n o n i s s ue s s uc h as bias “so long as th e d efen s e stil l ha s an ad eq ua te op p ortu nity to ex p lore th e w itness ’s m otives an d biase s ”). T he r efo r e, the di st r i ctc o ur t di d no t er r i n pr ev en ting defe nse c oun s e l f ro m cr oss - exam i ni ng Rom asant a about the 2 007 re cor dings

.24 N o. 10

- 2562 C. Dist ri c t Court Did N ot Com m i t Cl earErr orby H ol ding Reese Responsibl e for$1 12, 500 i n Bribes Reese l astar gues th e dist ri ct c ourtco m m i tte d cl ear er ro r by hol ding hi m r esponsibl e form or e than $11 7, 000 i n bribes. H owever, al though the prese ntence i nvest i gati o n r epor t c al cul at ed th e l o ss a m o unta s $1 17, 50 0, the dist ric t co urt re du ced the l oss am ount t o $112 , 500 aft er co n sid er in g t h e re liab ility oft h e su p p or tin g e viden ce . S pec i fi ca l l y, the c o ur t f o und tha t o fthe $ 10 , 00 0 th e Gover nm ent b el i eve d s houl d be a ttr ibuted to Rees e f orco m pu term ai nfr am e cha nges Reese m ade f orOro s ( $1, 000 f orea ch change ) , the cour t w as “ onl y g oi ng to att ribute $ 5, 000 to the m ai nfr am e changes, bas ed upon the fi ve proper ti es that have been i denti fi ed [ by O ro s] as changed. ” S ent. Tr. at58
. I n any ev en t, Rees e a rgues the di str i ct c ourter re d by (1) inc lu d in g b rib es th at w er e u n kn ow n an d u n for es ee ab le to R e e s e , i nc l ud i ngthe $ 1 2 , 0 0 0 b r ib e J o hn s o n r e c ei ved fr o m Oros, the $ 4, 00 0 br ibe Ga r ne at a pai d t o J o hns o n, an d th e $1,5 00 b rib e Ro m as an ta p aid to R ee se from d ev elo per Dani el F ema; ( 2) i nc l udi ng th e uns ucc es sful at te m pts t o s o l i ci t br ibe s i n the l o ss c al cul at i o n; a nd ( 3) rely in g, i n part, o n the $99, 497 i n cash deposi ts by Re es e be twe enJ an ua r y 2 00 2 an d De ce m ber2 00 8 an d ass um i ng the am ount was the proce eds o fi l l i ci t br ibes.

1. St anda r d of

Re vi e w Is f

orCl e arEr r or W e r evi ew the d ist ri ct c ourt ’ s ca l cul ati on f orcl ear er ro r. U ni t e d S t at e s v. Al aka , 61 4 F .3 d 3 68, 371 ( 7th Cir. 2010 ). A l oss calcu lation i s clearly errone ou s if “w e areN o. 10

- 2562 25 l eft w i th the defini te and fi rm convi cti on th at a m i sta ke has be en co m m i tte d.” U ni t e d S t at e s v. Car ani, 492 F.3d 867, 875 ( 7th Ci r. 20 07) ( i nter nal quota tion m ar ks om i tte d). “Guidel i ne i nter preta ti ons ar e q u est i ons of l a w, h o we v e r, wh i c h we r e v i e w deno vo . ” U nited Sta tes v. G ee, 226 F.3d 885 , 899 (7th C ir. 2000).

2. D is tr ictC ourt D i d NotEr rb y Hol di n g Ree se Liable fo r B ribes R eceiv ed by R eese’s Co co nsp ira to rs The di s t r i c t c o ur t he l d Re e s e r e s po ns ib l e no t o nl y f or the b ribes h e perso nal l y r ecei ved but a l so f orthe bribes pai d to J o hns o n by Or o s, Gar ne at a, an d Dann y. A co nspi ra tori s l i abl e for“a l l r eason abl y for ese eabl e a cts an d o m iss ion s o f ot h er s in fu rt h er an c e o f th e join tly u n d er ta ke n c rim in al ac tiv ity .” U .S.S.G

. § 1 B 1.3 (a)( 1)(B ); see also U nite d State s v. B ust am ante, 49 3 F
. 3d 879, 88 7- 88 (7t h C ir. 20 07 ). A d efe n d an t d oe s n oth av e t o “ p er so n ally engag e[ ] i n orbene fi t fro m ev er y tra n sa cti on that re su lte d in” th e los s. Alaka , 614 F.3d at37 1. T he district cou rt’s find ing tha t the se p a ym en ts w ere r ea so nabl y forese eabl e an d i n fur th er an ce o fthe c o nspi ra cy w as not c lea rlyer ro neous. The ev i dence p r e s e n te d attria l sh ow ed an on go in g re lat ion sh ip b et w ee n R ee se an d Joh n so n by w h ich t h e p ar tie s w ou ld each pr ovi de ser vi ces to i nd i vi du al s o utsi de nor m al channel s. Rees e a n d Johnso n m utual l y b enefi tte d because o fea ch other’s a b il i ty to m ani pu l ate the sys tem and refer re d i nd i vi du al s t o each othe r f orthatpurpose. The paym ents m ade byOro s t o J ohn son w er e r easonab l y for ese eabl e to Reese and w er e in further ance o f26 N o. 10

- 2562 the c onspi ra cy. Rees e r eferr ed Oros to J ohnson w hen Re e s e c o ul d no l o ng e r pr o v i de the s y s t e m c ha ng e s f or O ro s. T h e $ 12 ,00 0 p ay m en t t h at R ee se sp ec ifica lly c h all enges o n appeal i s furthersupport ed by the conve rs ati on be tw een Ree se and Jo hnson in J anuary20 07 w hen R e e s e o f f e r e d t o c o n t a c tO r o s ab o u tp i c k i n gu p s o me pla ns J ohnson had stam ped fo r Oros. The other p aym ents Reese speci fi cal l y c hal l enges o n appeal al so ar e supp or ted by the evi dence. Th e $4, 000 p ay m en t b y G ar n ea ta to Joh n so n w as als o for es ee ab le because , accor ding to J ohnson’ s t est i m ony, Rees e r efer re d Garneat a t o J ohnson to provi de the n ec essaryse rv i ces. A dd i ti onally, Rees e’ s r el ati onshi p w i th Garnea ta w as cor robor ate d by the te sti m ony ofRom asant a. Re es e al so s pec i fi ca ll y cha l l en g es the $ 1, 50 0 pay m en t Rom asant a g av e to Rees e o n behal fo fDanie l Fe m a, c l a i mi n gth e p a y me n tw a s u n c o r r o b o r a t e d

. ( R e e s e c l a i ms on ap p eal this pay m en t w a s $ 3,000, bu t the record re flec ts th e p ay m en t w as $1 ,50 0). R om as an ta ’s t es tim o ny was c o r r o bo r at ed bythe ph o ne c o nt ac ts , s ho wi ng a l ar g e num be r o fpho ne c o nt ac ts b etwee n Re es e an d Ro m as an ta, a nd the t es ti m o ny of the o th eri ndi vi duals

—John so n, Or o s, a nd Pi er r e- Anto i ne

— su ppo r ting he r t e s t i mon y ab o uth o w the c o ns pi r a c y wo r k e d.

3. D is tr ict C ourt D id N ot E rr by Holding R ee seResponsi ble fo r So licita tio ns o

f B ribes Reese al so chal l enges the d ist ric t co urt’ s incl usi on o f the s ol i ci tat i on o fa bribe fro m Pi er re - A ntoi ne ( $4, 000) and fr om J acks on ( $10, 000) i n the cal cul ati on o fthe l ossN o. 10

- 2562 27

am ount. ( Reese chal l enges the $10, 000 sol i ci tat i on a s a “pa y m en t, ” buti t was c l ea r l y a s o l i ci ta ti o n)

. A t se nte nc i ng, ho wev er, the s o l i ci ta ti o n o f a br ibe i s tr ea te d the sa m e a s a co m p let ed br ibe

. See U
. S. S. G. § 2 C1. 1, cm t. back gr ound (“ [ S] ol i ci tat i ons and atte m pts ar e t reated as eq u iva len t t o th e u n d er lyin g off en se ); U ni t e d S t at e s v. M uh am m ad, 1 2 0 F
. 3 d 6 8 8 , 7 0 1 ( 7 th C i r . 1 9 9 7 ) ( u s i ng t he asce rt ai nabl e be nefi t o fan unsucces sful bribe t o enhance a s en te n c e); U ni t e d S t at e s v. Q ui nn , 359 F
. 3d 666, 68 0 ( 4th Ci r . 2 00 4) (“For pur po se s o fs en te nc i ng, the r e i s no d i s t i n c t i o n b e t we e n a s o l i c i t a t i o n o fa b r ib e an d a c o mp leted bribe”). The evi dence presen te d attr i ali nd i cate d that Ree se so l i ci te d the $1 0, 00 0 br ibe fr o m J ac k so n. M o r eo ve r, J o hnson’ s s ol i ci tat i on o fa bribe fro m Pi er re - A ntoi ne was foreseeable w he re Ree se brou gh t John son i n t o Ree se’s offi ce t o tal k t o Pi er re - A ntoi ne. There f or e, the dist ri ct cour t pr oper l y i ncl ud ed these so l i ci tat i ons i n the cal cul ati on o fthe l oss am ount.

4. D istrict C o urt D id N o t E rr by R elyin g o n C a sh D epo sits as C ircu m stan tia l E vid ence F i na l l y, R e e s e c l a i ms th a tth e d i s t r i c tc o u r ti mp r o per l y r el i ed upon the $9 9,4 97 i n cash deposi ts between J an ua r y 2 00 2 an d De ce m be r 2 00 8. Re es e ar g ue s th athe ex pl aine d the se de po si ts i n h i s se nt en cingme m ora ndu m , not i ng tha t he op er ate d a be auty sal on a nd r ecei ved r ent in cash f orpro perti es he l eas ed to o ther s. The dis tr i ct c ourtdi d not incl ud e in the l oss cal cul ati on the $9 9, 497 in c ash deposi ts prese nted as evi dence28 N o. 10

- 2562 by the Gove rnm ent. The co urt m er el y pointed to th os e c as h d ep os its as circ u m st an tia l ev id en c e in su ppo r t o fthe c o ns pi r ac y b etwee n the pa r ti es . The cour t di d not e rrbydoi ng so . I n s um , the distri ctc o ur t di d no t er r b y ho l di ng Reese r esponsibl e fo r a lo ss am ount o f$1 12, 500, wh i ch ra i sed Rees e’ s o ffense l eve l byei ght l eve l s. A FFI RMED .

1- 13- 12