T hi s di s pos i t i on i s notappr opr i a t e f orpubl i c a t i on a nd i s notpr e c e de nt * e xc e pta s pr ovi de d by 9th C i r . R . 36- 3. NOT F OR P UB L I CAT I ON UN I TE D STATE S C OU RT OF APPE ALS FOR T HE NI NTH CI RC UI T UN I T E D S T AT E S OF AME R I C A, P l ai nt i ff

- A pp el l ee , v. E R I C MC DA VI D, D e f

e n d a n t - A p p e lla n t. N o. 08- 10250 D . C . N o. 2: 06 -c r- 00 03 5-M C E -1 ME MOR AN DU M *

A pp ea l fr om the U ni t ed S t at es D i stri ctC ou rt f o rth e E a s te rn D is tr ic t o f C a lif o rn ia M orr i s on C . E ngl a nd, J r . , D i s tr i c tJ udge , P r e s i di ng A r gue d a nd S ubm i tt e d A ugus t9, 2010 S a n F r a n c is c o , C a lif

o rn ia B efo re: G R A B E R , C A L L A H A N , an d B E A , C i rcu i tJu d g es. A j u ry co n v i ct ed E ri c M cD av i d o f co n sp i ri n g t o b o m b o n e o r m o re t arg et s, i nc l udi ng a f

e de r a l f a c i l i tyf ortr e e ge ne t i c s , a f

e de r a l da m a nd f

i s h ha t c he ry , a nd c e ll p h o n e to w e r s , in v io la tio n o f 1 8 U .S .C . § 8 4 4 ( n ) . M c D a v id ap p e a ls h is



# FI LED SEP 21 2010 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U . S. C O U R T OF APPE ALSB ec ause the part i es ar e f am i l i arw i th the fa ct s, w e r epea tthem here on l y a s 1 n e c e s s a ry to th e d is p o s itio n o f th e c a s e . 08- 10250

2 c o n v ic tio n a n d h is s e n te n c e o f 2 3 5 m o n th s ’ im p r is o n m e n t o n e ig h t g r o u n d s . W e h a v e j u r i s d i c t i o n u n d e r1 8 U . S. C. § 3 7 4 2 a n d 2 8 U . S. C. § 1 2 9 1 , a n d w e a f f i rm. 1 1. Ju ry In st ru ct i on E rr ors P ri m ar i l y, M cD avi d ass ert s thathe w as entrapp ed by A nn a, an un derc ov er g o v e rn m e n t a g e n t, a n d th a t th e d is tr ic t c o u r t c o m m itte d r e v e r s ib le e rr o rin i nstruct i ng the j ury on h i s e ntrapm entdefe nse. D uri ng i t s del i bera t i on s, the j ury e xpr e s s e d pa r t i c ul a rc onf us i on ove rw he the rthe appr opr i a t e t i m e f r a m e f or a s s e s s in g e n tr ap m e n t w a s in A u g u s t 2 0 0 4 , w h e n M c D a v id f ir s t m e t A n n a , o rin J une 2005, w he n M c D a vi d a nd A nna f i r s tdi s c us s e d the bom bi ng pl a n. A m ong othe rque s t i ons aboute ntr apm e nt , the j ury a s ke d “ W a s A nna c ons i de r e d a go vernm entagenti n A ug . 20 04 ? If no t , w hen d i d she becom e one? ” T he di stri ct c o u r t o r a lly r e s p o n d e d “Y e s ,” m e a n in g th a t A n n a w a s c o n s id e r e d a n a g e n t in A u g u st2 0 0 4 . T h e co u rtl at er p ro v i d ed th e j u ry w i th a typ ed co p y o f i t s resp o n se th a t m is ta k e n ly s ta te d “N o ” in a n s w e rto th e s a m e q u e s tio n . T he court ’ s “ N o” re spon se coul d h ave been i nt erpret ed as (1) acl er i ca l m i st ake, gi ven the court ’ s pri or oral “ Y es ” r es po nse a nd the fa ctthatthe court negl ec t ed t o answ erthe se cond partof the qu es t i on as t o w hen A nn a bec am e a n08- 10250 3 a g e n t; ( 2 ) a p a r tia l r e s p o n s e in d ic a tin g th a t A n n a w a s n o t c o n s id e r e d a n a g e n t in A ug ust20 04 , bu tl ea vi ng un answ er ed w hen A nn a bec am e a n agent ; or (3) a com pl et e r es po nse i nd i ca t i ng thatA nn a w as no tan agenti n A ug ust20 04 and n ever be c a m e a n a ge nt . M c D a vi d c ont e nds tha tthe j ury ’ s i nt e rpr e t a t i on w a s the l a s t , a nd th u s th e “N o ” r e s p o n s e e f f e c tiv e ly e lim in a te d h is e n tr ap m e n t d e f e n s e . W e de t e rm i ne tha tthe j ury di d noti nt e rpr e tthe ty pe d r e s pons e a s i ndi c a t i ng thatA nn a w as never an agent . F i rs t , as the di stri ctcourtno t ed w hen i tdeni ed M c D a vi d’ s m ot i on f

ora ne w tr i a l , the j ur or s w oul d ha ve a s ke d a f ol l ow - up q u e s tio n f

o rc la r if ic a tio n if th e in c o rr e c t ty p e d r e s p o n s e c o n f u s e d th e m . I n d e e d , it w ou l d b e c om pl et el y i ncon si st entfor the j ury t o h ave tho ug htthatthe i ncorrec t r e s p o n s e m e a n t th a t A n n a w a s n e v e ra n a g e n t. T h e ju ry w o u ld h a v e h a d to di sr egar d an o verw hel m i ng am ou ntof evi dence attri al show i ng thatA nn a w as re crui t ed by the F B I, w as i nstruct ed by them atevery s t ep of the w ay , had h erca r w i r e d, a rr a nge d f

orthe w i r e d s a f

e hous e , w orr i e d abouthe rc ove rbe i ng bl ow n, w as pai d for her und er cover w ork, and t al ked o penl y a ttri al abou ther und er cover rol e. F urther, the j ury w ou l d h ave had t o d i sr egar d the court ’ s pri or corr ec toral re spon se thatA nn a w as an agenti n A ug ust20 04 and the i nstruct i on s they r ec ei ved aboute ntr apm e nt . M or e ove r , w hi l e the pr os e c ut i on a nd de f e ns e di s put e d the prop ert i m e f

ra m e f or entrapm enti n thei r c l osi ng ar gu m ent s, nei ther c on t ended thatIn det erm i ni ng the ef fe ctof the i ncorrec tre spon se , w e m ayno tconsi der 2 the po st -ver di ctj uror decl ar at i on s r el i ed up on by M cD avi d. F ed. R . E vi d. 60 6(b); U ni te d State s v . Span , 7 5 F .3 d 1 3 8 3 , 1 3 9 0 n .8 ( 9 th C ir . 1 9 9 6 ) ( ju r o rs ta te m e n ts in a d m is s ib le to s h o w ju ry w o u ld h a v e a c q u itte d if p r o p e r ly in s tru c te d ) . 08- 10250 4 A nn a w as no tan agentand b oth si des a gree d thatthe j ury c ou l d con si der w hether A n n a en trap p ed M cD av i d aft er Ju n e 2 0 0 5 . V i ew i n g th e i n co rrecttyp ed resp o n se i n the c ont e xtof

the i ns truc t i ons a nd tr i a l a s aw hol e , w e a r e unpe r s ua de d tha tthe j u ry w as l ed t o b el i ev e A n n a w as neve ran agent , al tho ug h the j ury m ayhave been c onf us e d a s t o w hen s h e b e c a m e a n a g e n t. 2 T o th e e x te n t th a t th e ty p e d r e s p o n s e c o n f u s e d th e ju ry a s to w h e n to co n si d er A n n a an ag en tfo r p u rp o ses o f en trap m en t , an y erro r w as h arm l ess be c a us e a r a t i ona l j ury w oul d ha ve r e j e c t e d the e ntr apm e ntde f e ns e e ve n i f

the ty p e d r e s p o n s e h a d c o rr e c tly r e f le c te d th a t A n n a w a s a n a g e n t a s o f A u g u s t 2 0 0 4 . See U ni ted Stat es v. Chere r , 51 3 F . 3d 11 50 , 11 55 (9th C i r. 20 08 ) ( “ E rr on eous j ury in s tru c tio n s c o n s titu te h a rm le s s e rr o rif it is ‘c le a rb e y o n d a r e a s o n ab le d o u b t th a t a ra t i on al j ury w ou l d h ave f ou nd the defendantgu i l ty absentthe error. ’ ”) . If a de f e nda nti s pr e di s pos e d t o c om m i ta c r i m e , the n the de f e nda ntc a nnotbe c o n s id e r e d e n tr ap p e d , e v e n if h e w a s in d u c e d . U

ni ted Stat es v. Jones , 231 F . 3d 508, 518 ( 9th C i r . 2000) . T he f i ve f a c t or s w e us e t o de t e rm i ne pr e di s pos i t i on in d ic a te th a t M c D a v id w a s p r e d is p o s e d .08- 10250 5 T h e f ir s t f a c to rf o rp r e d is p o s itio n is th e d e f e n d a n t’s c h a r a c te ra n d r e p u ta tio n . Id . W hi l e the j ury he a r d t e s t i m ony f r om M c D a vi d’ s s i s t e ra nd f r i e nd about M cD avi d’ s pea ce ful and g ent l e nature, the t es t i m on y w as ov erw hel m ed by m ore s pe c i f i c e vi de nc e tha tM c D a vi d ha d be c om e r a di c a l i z e d, be l i e ve d tha tnonvi ol e nt pr ot e s t s w e r e i ne f

f e c t i ve , a nd w a s unda unt e d by the pos s i bi l i ty of a c c i de nt a l de a ths f r om hi s a c t i ons . T he s e c ond f a c t ori s w he the rthe gove rnm e nts ugge s t e d the c r im e . Id . A nna a nd the c o- c ons pi r a t or s t e s t i f i e d tha tM c D a vi d i ni t i a t e d the bo m bi ng ca m pai gn and i nv i t ed them t o j oi n. T he thi rd fa ct or i s w hether there w as a p r o f it m o tiv e . I

d. M c D a v id s e e m e d m o tiv a te d b y a s tr o n g ly h e ld a n a r c h ic id e o lo g y , w h ic h is a r g u ab ly a s tr o n g e rin d ic a to ro f p r e d is p o s itio n th a n a p r o f it m o tiv e . T he f our th a nd m os ti m por t a ntf a c t ori s w he the rthe de f e nda nts how e d a ny r e lu c ta n c e . I

d. T he e vi de nc e s how s tha tM c D a vi d w a s a n a c t i ve pa r t i c i pa nt , i f not the l e a de r , i n t a r ge t i ng the I ns t i tut e of F or e s tG e ne t i c s ( “ I F G ” ) , c onduc t i ng r e c onna i s s a nc e , a nd a tt e m pt i ng t o c ons truc ta bom b. A ttr i a l , c o- c ons pi r a t or Z a c ha ry J e ns on t e s t i f

i e d tha tM c D a vi d “ s e e m e d m os tl i ke the br a i ns ” of the op er at i on because he “ w as com i ng up w i th m ostof the i deas . ” T h e f in a l f a c to rf o rp r e d is p o s itio n is th e n a tu r e o f th e in d u c e m e n t. I

d. M c D a vi d c ont e nds tha tpa r tof A nna ’ s i nduc e m e ntw a s t o s tr i ng hi m a l ong08- 10250 6 r om a nt i c a l l y , s i m i l a rt o the f a c t s i n U ni te d State s v . P oe hlm an , 217 F . 3d 692, 702 ( 9 th Ci r . 2 0 0 0 ) . Th i s c a s e i s d i s t i n g u i s h ab l e f r o m P oe hlm an be c a us e the r e i s no evi dence thatA nn a i ni t i at ed the i dea of the i l l egal cond uctor thatM cD avi d w as r e lu c ta n t to e n g a g e in it. Se e i d. at70 4 (no t i ng thatthe agentre peat edl y s ug gest ed the i l l e ga l a c t i vi ty , the de f e nda nts how e d no i nt e r e s tpr i ort o the s ugge s t i ons , a nd th e d e f e n d a n t in itia lly r e s is te d ) . A n n a ’s r o le in s u p p ly in g m e a n s f o rth e c o n s p ir a c y d id n o t e n title M c D a v id t o a j ury i nstruct i on on hi s “ w here w i thal ” t o com m i tthe cr i m e w i tho utA nn a. In P oe hlm an , w e d e s c r ib e d p r e d is p o s itio n a s “th e d e f e n d a n t’s w illin g n e s s to c o m m it the offens e pr i ort o be i ng c ont a c t e d by gove rnm e nta ge nt s , c oupl e d w i th the w here w i thal t o d o so[, ] ” id. at69 8, bu tou r dec i si on s bef ore a nd af

t er P oe hlm an h a v e n o t in c lu d e d w h e r e w ith a l a s a f a c to rf o rp r e d is p o s itio n . See, e. g. , U ni ted State s v . T

hi c k s tun , 11 0 F . 3d 13 94 , 13 97 -98 (9th C i r. 19 97 ) ( re j ec t i ng w here w i thal a r g u m e n t) ; Jones , 23 1 F . 3d at51 8 (l i st i ng fi ve-f ac t or t es tfor pre di sposi t i on , w hi ch doe s noti nc l ude w he r e w i tha l ) . E ve n i f a w he r e w i tha l i ns truc t i on i s a va i l abl e , the c o u r t d id n o t e rrin n o t g iv in g s u c h a n in s tru c tio n b e c a u s e th e r e w a s a m p le e v id e n c e th a t th e g r o u p c o u ld h a v e c o m m itte d th e c r im e w ith o u t A n n a , e v e n if it w o u ld h a v e ta k e n m o r e tim e o rth r if tin e s s .08- 10250 7 M cD avi d’ s other c hal l enges t o the j ury i nstruct i on s a re un pers uasi ve, as w e l l . M c D a vi d c ont e nds tha tthe di s tr i c tc our te rr e d by de f i ni ng J une 2005 a s the r e l e v a n tt i m e f

r a m e f o rth e j u ry t o d e c i d e wh e th e rh e wa s p r e d i s p o s e d . E v e n i f we a c c e pt e d M c D a vi d’ s c ont e nt i on, the e rr orw oul d be ha rm l e s s . T he e vi de nc e f r om A u g u s t 2 0 0 4 f

o rw a r d s till d e m o n s tr a te s th a t M c D a v id w a s p r e d is p o s e d . S e pa r a t e l y , i tw a s noti n e rr orf orthe di s tr i c tc our tt o a ns w e rthe j ury ’ s que s t i ons aboutthe t i m e f

r a m e f orpr e di s pos i t i on w i thoutc ons ul t i ng the de f e ns e be c a us e the c o u r t s im p ly r e ite r a te d th e ju ry in s tru c tio n s it h a d a lr e a d y d is c u s s e d w ith c o u n s e l. F i nal l y, M cD avi d con t ends thatthe di stri ctcourterre d i n ref usi ng t o g i ve an i ns truc t i on tha ta de qua t e l y de f i ne d i nduc e m e nt . M c D a vi d, how e ve r , doe s not a lle g e h o w th e m o d e l in s tru c tio n g iv e n b y th e c o u r t w a s in a d e q u a te to c o v e rh is e ntr apm e ntde f

e ns e , a nd, a ttr i a l , f

a i l e d t o pr of

f e ra s e pa r a t e i nduc e m e nt in s tru c tio n . A c c o r d in g ly , M c D a v id ’s a r g u m e n t is u n p e r s u a s iv e . See U ni ted Stat es v . M as on , 9 0 2 F . 2 d 1 4 3 4 , 1 4 3 8 (9 th C i r. 1 9 9 0 ) (fai l u re t o i n stru cto n d efen se th e o ry is h a rm le s s if

o th e rin s tru c tio n s a d e q u a te ly c o v e rp r o p o s e d in s tru c tio n s ) . 2. E n t r ap m e n t as a M at t e r of L aw T o p r o v e th a t h e w a s e n tr ap p e d a s a m a tte ro f la w , M c D a v id m u s t s h o w th a t, “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, n o r e a s o n ab le j ury c oul d ha ve f

ound i n f a vorof the gove rnm e nta s t o i nduc e m e ntorl a c k of08- 10250 8 predi sposi t i on . ” P oe hlm an , 2 1 7 F .3 d a t 6 9 8 . H e r e , th e e v id e n c e s h o w s M c D a v id w a s pr e di s pos e d, a nd thus he w a s note ntr appe d. 3. S u ff i ci en cy of th e E vi d en ce M c D a vi d c ont e nds tha tthe r e w a s i ns uf f i c i e nte vi de nc e t o s how tha the a nd th e o th ers ag reed t o atl easto n e o f th e t arg et s l i st ed i n th e i n d i ctm en tan d t o u se expl osi ves. T o the contra ry , the evi dence s ho w ed thatM cD avi d sug gest ed ta r g e tin g th e I F G , a n d th e g r o u p d is c u s s e d a n d r e s e a r c h e d th e I F G e x te n s iv e ly . M c D a v i d a l s o i n i t i a t e d th e i d e a o f u s i n g e x p l o s i v e s , a n d th e g r o u p d i s c u s s e d b o mb ty pe s , boughtm a t e r i a l s , a nd a tt e m pt e d t o m a ke a n e xpl os i ve . T hus , vi e w i ng the 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 p r o s e c u tio n , a r a tio n a l tr ie ro f f a c t c o u ld h a v e f o u n d b e y o n d a r e a s o n ab le d o u b t th a t M c D a v id w a s g u ilty o f c o n s p ir in g to us e e xpl os i ve s a ga i ns tone orm or e of the t a r ge t s i n the i ndi c tm e nt , pa r t i c ul a r l y the I F G . Se e U

n ite d S ta te s v . E v e r e tt , 692 F . 2d 596, 601 ( 9th C i r . 1982) ( r e vi e w i ng suff i ci encyof evi dence t o sup po rtconspi ra cyconv i ct i on ). 4 . L esser In cl u d ed O ffen se M cD avi d con t ends thathe w as ent i t l ed t o an i nstruct i on on conspi ra cy ag ai n stth e U n i t ed S t at es p u rsu an tt o 1 8 U . S . C . § 3 7 1 , as a l esser i n cl u d ed o ffen se o f § 8 4 4 ( n ) . H e w a s e n title d to s u c h a n in s tru c tio n o n ly if th e e v id e n c e w o u ld pe rm i ta r a t i ona l j ury t o f i nd hi m gui l ty of

the l e s s e ri nc l ude d of

f e ns e , § 371, a nd08- 10250 9 a c q u it h im o f

th e g r e a te r , § 8 4 4 ( n ) . Se e U ni te d State s v . A r nt , 474 F . 3d 1159, 1163 ( 9th C i r . 2007) . H e r e , a r a t i ona l j ury c oul d notha ve done s o be c a us e i tw oul d ha ve h a d to f in d a ll o f th e e le m e n ts n e c e s s a ry f o ra c o n v ic tio n u n d e r§ 8 4 4 ( n ) in o r d e rto conv i ctM cD avi d u nd er§ 3 71 . S ec t i on 37 1 requi re s aconspi ra cyt o com m i tan of f ense ag ai nst

the U ni ted Stat es . T he on l y type of off ense agai nstthe U ni t ed S t a t e s de s c r i be d i n the i ndi c tm e nta nd a ttr i a l w a s the gr oup’ s pl a n t o us e bom bs agai nstthe fe dera l t ar get s. T hu s, a r at i on al j ury w ou l d h ave had t o fi nd that M c D a v id c o n s p ir e d to b o m b f e d e r a l ta r g e ts

— a v io la tio n o f § 8 4 4 ( n )

— in o r d e rto f i nd hi m gui l ty of

c ons pi r i ng t o c om m i ta n of f e ns e a ga i ns tthe U ni t e d S t a t e s f or purpos e s of

§ 371. M c D a vi d w a s note nt i t l e d t o a n i ns truc t i on unde r§ 371. 5. C on st ru ct i ve A m en d m en t or F atal V ari an ce M c D a vi d a s s e r t s the r e w a s c ons truc t i ve a m e ndm e ntof the i ndi c tm e ntor fa t al vari ance because the go vernm entfa i l ed t o p rove thathe and the others agre ed to a t le a s t o n e o f

th e ta r g e ts lis te d in th e in d ic tm e n t, in c lu d in g th e I F G . T h is a r g u m e n t f

a ils b e c a u s e w e h a v e d e te rm in e d th e r e w a s s u f f ic ie n t e v id e n c e to su p p o rtth e fi n d i n g th atth e g ro u p ag reed t o atl easto n e o f th e t arg et s. 6 . D en i a lo f M o ti o n s to S u p p ress a n d D i sm i ss M c D a vi d c ont e nds tha tthe w a rr a nt l e s s audi o- vi de o s urve i l l a nc e r e c or di ngs f r om the s a f

e hous e s houl d ha ve be e n s uppr e s s e d unde rthe F our th A m e ndm e nt08- 10250 10 because he w as l i vi ng i n the ho use a nd had a rea sonabl e pri vacyexpect at i on base d on hi s r el at i on shi p w i th A nn a. T hi s a rgum entfa i l s bec ause he and the others w er e atth e safe h o u se t o p l an an d i m p l em en tth e b o m b i n g cam p ai g n an d b o re th e ri sk th a t A n n a , w h o a rr a n g e d f o rth e s a f e h o u s e , w a s a n in f

o rm a n t. See U

ni ted Stat es v. Sh ry ock , 34 2 F . 3d 94 8, 97 8 (9th C i r. 20 03 ) ( concl ud i ng thatw arra nt l es s vi deo s urve i l l a nc e of

m a f i a m e e t i ngs i n hot e l r oom s r e nt e d by a n i nf or m a ntdi d not v i o l a t e d e f

e n d a n t ’ s o b

j e c t i v e l y r e a s o n ab l e p r i v a c y i n t e r e s t s ) . M c D a v i d a l s o c l a i ms th a tth e g o v e rn me n tt ap e d c o n v e r s a t i o n s w h i l e A n n a w a s n o ti n th e r o o m; how e ve r , the r e i s no i ndi c a t i on tha ta ny s uc h e vi de nc e w a s i ntr oduc e d a ttr i a l or r e f l e c t e d i n w i tne s s t e s t i m ony . A c c or di ngl y , the c our tdi d note rri n de ny i ng M c D a v id ’s m o tio n to s u p p r e s s . M cD avi d al so cont ends thatthe i nd i ctm entshou l d h ave been di sm i ss ed base d o n o utra geou s c on du ctby the go vernm ent . W e r evi ew de no vo w hether M c D a vi d ha s m e tthe “ ‘ e xtr e m e l y hi gh s t a nda r d’ ” of pr ovi ng “ tha tthe gove rnm e nt ’ s c onduc tw a s ‘ s o e xc e s s i ve , f l a gr a nt , s c a nda l ous , i nt ol e r abl e , a nd offe nsi ve as t o v i ol at e due process . ’ ” U ni te d State s v . E dm onds , 103 F . 3d 822, 82 5, 82 6 (9th C i r. 19 96 ) ( ci t at i on om i tt ed). W e have al re ady det erm i ned that A nn a’ s a ct i on s di d n otam ou ntt o entrapm ent . A cc ordi ng l y, her a ct i on s a re i ns uf f i c i e ntt o m e e tthe hi ghe rs t a nda r d f orpr ovi ng outr a ge ous gove rnm e nt08- 10250 11 c o n d u c t. See U

n i ted S ta tes v. C i tro , 842 F . 2d 1149, 1152- 53 ( 9th C i r . 1988) ( e x p la in in g th a t th e d e f

e n s e o f o u tr a g e o u s g o v e rn m e n t c o n d u c t is s im ila rto entrapm entbu ta m uch h i gh erst andard). F urther, M cD avi d con t ends thati tw as ou tra geou s c on du ctfor A nn a t o ask hi m abou ta f ri end o f hi s w ho w as prosec ut ed f orburni ng bui l di ngs i n the na m e of the E a r th L i be r a t i on F r ont , a l though A nna k n e w M c D a v id h a d b e e n a d v is e d b y a n a tto rn e y n o t to d is c u s s th e c a s e . M c D a v id h a s n o t s h o w n h o w A n n a ’s q u e s tio n s ab o u t h is f r ie n d p r e ju d ic e d h im . See U

ni ted Stat es v. Stri ng er , 5 3 5 F .3 d 9 2 9 , 9 4 1 ( 9 th C ir .) , ce rt. deni ed , 129 S . C t . 662 ( 2008) ( t o e s t abl i s h outr a ge ous gove rnm e ntc onduc tba s e d on a n i ntrus i on i nt o the a tto rn e y c lie n t r e la tio n s h ip , d e f e n d a n t m u s t s h o w a c tu a l a n d s u b s ta n tia l p r e ju d ic e ) . M cD avi d’ s r em ai ni ng chal l enges t o the deni al of hi s m ot i on t o d i sm i ss ar e notm e r i t or i ous . A s not e d, the w a rr a nt l e s s t api ng w a s l e ga l , a nd M c D a vi d ha s not a r g u e d w h y i tw o u l d b e o u tr a g e o u s d e s p i t e b e i n g l e g a l . M o r e o v e r , th e U . S. A tt orney’ s pre ss confere nces and res ul t i ng m edi a c ov er age c on t ai ned fai r f ac tual s um m a r i e s of

the i ndi c tm e nt . F i na l l y , the U . S . A tt orne y ’ s s t a t e m e nt s about d efen se co u n sel ’ s i n v o l v em en ti n an o th er case an d p o ssi b l e co n fl i cto f i n t erest w er e nei ther i napp ropri at e nor prej ud i ci al gi ven thatthe sa m e a tt orney has r e m a in e d M c D a v id ’s c o u n s e l th r o u g h o u t, in c lu d in g o n ap p e a l.08- 10250 12 7. C u m u l at i ve E r r or M c D a v id a s s e r ts a s c u m u la tiv e e rr o rth a t th e d is tr ic t c o u r t ab u s e d its di sc re t i on by (1) a dm i tt i ng t es t i m on y f rom O ff i ce r B ruce N al i bo ff

re gardi ng “ ec o t e rr or ” gr oups a nd the a na r c hi s tm ove m e nt , a nd ( 2) a dm i tt i ng ba d a c ta nd unf a vor abl e c ha r a c t e re vi de nc e w hi l e l i m i t i ng f a vor abl e c ha r a c t e re vi de nc e t o J une 2 0 0 5 f o rw a r d . C o n tr a ry to M c D a v id ’s c o n te n tio n , N a lib o f f’s n o n - s c ie n tif

ic t est i m o n y w as n o tg o v ern ed b y D a u b ert v. Merrel l

D o w P h a rm s. , 509 U . S . 579, 5 9 2 ( 1 9 9 3 ) , a n d , in a n y e v e n t, D a u b ert d o e s n o t r e q u ir e a n a d m is s ib ility h e a r in g . Mille n ka m

p v . D a v is c o Fo o d

s I n t’ l, I n c ., 5 6 2 F .3 d 9 7 1 , 9 7 8 - 7 9 ( 9 th C ir . 2 0 0 9 ) . A dd i t i on al l y, M cD avi d h as fa i l ed t o i nd i ca t e how N al i bo ff’ s t es t i m on y w as unf a i r l y pr e j udi c i a l orhow a ny pr e

j udi c e outw e i ghe d the t e s t i m ony ’ s pr oba t i ve v a lu e . Se e U

n ite d S ta te s v . B litz , 1 5 1 F .3 d 1 0 0 2 , 1 0 0 8 - 0 9 ( 9 th C ir . 1 9 9 8 ) . M oreover, M cD avi d h as no ti dent i fi ed bad actor char ac t erevi dence thatw as adm i tt ed or excl ud ed, and, even i f he had, “ [o] ne error i s notcum ul at i ve error. ” U ni ted Stat es v. Sa ger , 2 2 7 F .3 d 1 1 3 8 , 1 1 4 9 ( 9 th C ir . 2 0 0 0 ) . 8 . Se nt e nc i ng M c D a vi d a s s e r t s tha tthe di s tr i c tc our ti m pr ope r l y c a l c ul a t e d the S e nt e nc i ng G u id e lin e s r a n g e a n d f

a ile d to c o n s id e rth e f

a c to r s s e t f

o r th in 1 8 U .S .C . § 3 5 5 3 ( a ) . U nd erthe G ui del i nes, the base l evel for a n o ff ense i nv ol vi ng ar son o r e xp l osi ves08- 10250 13 d i r e c t e d a td e s tr o y i n g a g o v e rn m e n to ri n f r a s tru c tu r e f

a c i l i ty i s 2 4 . U. S . S . G. § 2K 1. 4( a ) ( 1) ( B ) . A l though M c D a vi d a r gue s tha tthe j ury di d nots pe c i f i c a l l y f i nd tha the a gr e e d t o the t a r ge t s ort o us e e xpl os i ve s , i n or de rt o c onvi c tM c D a vi d, the j ury had t o fi nd thathe conspi re d t o d am age or des troy, by fi re or expl osi ve, g o v e rn m e n t p r o p e r ty o rp r o p e r ty u s e d in in te r s ta te c o m m e r c e . See 1 8 U . S. C. § 8 4 4 ( f ) ( 1 ) , ( i) , ( n ) . T h u s , th e c o n v ic tio n s u p p o r ts th e b a s e le v e l o f 2 4 . A d d itio n a lly , M c D a v id c o n te n d s th e te rr o r is m e n h a n c e m e n t is in ap p lic ab le because the conspi ra t ors’ i nt ent i on t o aff ec tor re t al i at e a gai nstthe go vernm entw as n o t e s tab lis h e d b y th e e v id e n c e . See 1 8 U . S. C. § 2 3 3 2 b ( g ) ( 5 ) ( A ) ( d e f i n i n g c r i me of t e rr or i s m ) ; U . S . S . G . § 3A 1. 4 ( e nha nc e m e ntf orc r i m e of

t e rr or i s m ) . T o the c ontr a ry , a ts e nt e nc i ng, the di s tr i c tc our tnot e d tha tthe gr oup ha d di s c us s e d a num be rof

di f f e r e ntw a y s t o di s ruptthe gove rnm e nta nd the e c onom y , tha tthe o b je c t o f th e c o n s p ir a c y w a s f

e d e r a l f a c ilitie s , a n d th a t M c D a v id h a d c le a r ly e xpr e s s e d hi s goa l s a nd obj e c t i ve s i n di s rupt i ng the gove rnm e nt . V i e w i ng the e v id e n c e a s a w h o le , th e s e f in d in g s s u p p o r tin g th e e n h a n c e m e n t w e r e n o t c le a r ly e rr o n e o u s . See U

ni ted Stat es v. T

an ke rs l ey , 537 F . 3d 1100, 1110 ( 9th C i r . 2008) (r evi ew i ng the di stri ctcourt ’ s f i nd i ng s of f

ac ti n sup po rtof a s ent ence for c l ea r e rr o r ) .08- 10250 14 F i nal l y, the re cord ref

l ec t s thatthe di stri ctcourtadequat el y c on si dere d M c D a v id ’s § 3 5 5 3 ( a ) ( 2 ) a r g u m e n ts f o ra r e d u c e d s e n te n c e . C f . U ni ted Stat es v. C a r ty , 52 0 F . 3d 98 4, 99 2-93 (9th C i r. 20 08 ) ( en banc) (a l tho ug h the di stri ctcourt s houl d a ddr e s s de f

e nda nt ’ s s pe c i f

i c § 3553( a ) a r gum e nt s , i ti s pr e s um e d t o ha ve consi dere d al l the fa ct ors a nd “ need no tt i ck off” ea ch on e) . T he di stri ctcourt ad d re ss ed en trap m en t, th e ju ro r s tatem en ts, an d th e p ro b atio n o ff icer ’s re com m endat i on . T he courtconcl ud ed thateven tho ug h M cD avi d h ad no cr i m i nal hi s t ory , the na tur e of

the of f e ns e w a s “ e xtr e m e l y s e r i ous ” a nd ove rr ode e vi de nc e of M cD avi d’ s pea ce ful qu al i t i es . T he di stri ctcourtal so consi dere d si m i l ar l y s i tuat ed defe nd ant s a nd foun d thatthere w er e c om parabl e, and even sub st ant i al l y l on ger, s e nt e nc e s . I n s um , M c D a vi d f a i l s t o s how tha tthe s e nt e nc e w a s a n abus e of d is c r e tio n . Se e i d. at99 3 (re vi ew i ng se nt ence for abu se of di sc re t i on ). M cD avi d’ s c on vi ct i on and sent ence ar e A F F I R M E D .