### INTHE UNI TED S TATESCOU RT OFAPPEALS FORTHE FIFTH CIRCU IT

N o. 09- 60051

UN I TE D S TA TE S OF AM ERI CA P l ai n t i f f – A pp el l ee v. SAM AN TH A LON GSTREE T D efen d a n t – A p p ell a n t

A pp ealf

rom t h e U n i t ed S t ates D i st ri ctC ou rt fo rth e N o r th e r n D is tr ic t o f M is s is s ip p i

B ef ore G A R W O O D , SM ITH , an d C L E M E N T , C i rcui tJu dg es . E D ITH B R O W N C L E M E N T , C i rcui tJu dg e: S am an t h a W esl ey L on gst reetw as sentenced to f ort y- ei gh tm on t h s’ im p r is o n m e n t fo rtr a ffic k in gfir e a r m s a n d fo rm a k in ga fa ls e s ta te m e n t in
conn ect i on w i t h t h e pu rchase of f i rearm s. O n app eal , she cha l l en ges t h e di st ri ct court’ s app l i cat i on of t h e U
. S

. S en t en ci n g G u i del i n es on t h ree s epa rat e groun ds. W e a ffir m in p a r t, v a c a te in p a r t, a n d re m a n d fo rre s e n te n c in g . F A CT S A ND P ROC E E DI NGS I n 2 00 8, Lo ngs t r e e tpl e d g ui l t y t o o ne c o unto f c o ns pi racyt o t r af

f i c a nd tran sfer f

i rea rm s an d on e cou n t of m a k i n g false statem en ts i n con n ection w i th t h e pu rchase of

a f i rearm , each of

w h i ch carri es a m axim u m i m pri sonm en tt erm o f f iv e y e a r s . S ee1 8 U. S. C. § § 3 7 1 , 9 2 2 ( a ) ( 5 ) , 9 2 2 ( a ) ( 6 )

. Be g i nn i ngi n 1 998, United States Court of App eals

Fifth Circuit 

### F I L E D April 7, 2010 Lyle W . Cayce Clerk Case: 09-60051 Document: 00511073378 Page: 1 Date Filed: 04/07/2010N o. 09- 60051

The 200 4 e ditio n of the Gui delines Manu al was use d atsentencing . In that edition , 1 § 2 K2 .1 (b)( 6) wa s c odif ie d at § 2 K2 .1 (b)( 5). 2 L o n g str e e t’ s th e n -b o y frien d a n d ev e n tu a l h u sb a n d , K r is L o n g str e e t (“K ris” ),
s t ar t e d p ur c has i ng gu n s i n M i s s i s s i ppii n o r de rt o t r ad e t he m f o rm o ne y and dru gs w i t h indivi du al s i n C h i cago an d to protec thi s ow n drugdi st ribu t i on act ivi t i es. H e pu rchased t h e gu n s f rom cl assi f

i ed adverti sers an d p aw n shop s, and , t o a vo i d d e t e c t i o n b y t he Bur e au o f Al c o ho l , To ba c c o , Fi r e ar m s , a nd E xpl os ives , of

t en e m pl oye d fem al e as so c i at es as “ st r aw purc hase r s. ” Fro m 2001 t o 200 3, one su ch pu rchaser w as t h e defe n d a n t, L on gst reet
. Th e evi den ce show ed that she pu rchased a t le ast f ort y- f ive gu n s on K ri s’ s beha l f

. For each purc hase s he w oul d fal se l y sta te o n A TF For m 4473 t hats he w as t he ac t ual pu rchaser of

t h e gu n , w h en she kn ew t h at K ri s i n t en ded t o t rade i tf or m on ey a n d d r u g s in C h ic a g o . L on gst reetw as present du ri n g st raw pu rchases m ad e by other w om en on b eh a l f of K ri s. In a d d i ti on , be tw ee n 20 0 1 an d 20 0 5 , L on gs treet trav eled to C hi c ago w i t h K r i s t o c ons um m at e t he f i r ear m t r ansac t i ons , and s he knew t hat t h e t ran sferees w ere i n vol ved i n i l l egal dru g t raf f i cki n g . L o n g st reetf u rt h er k n ew tha t th e d ru gs K ri s rece ive d f or th e g u n s w ere u l ti m a tel y b rou gh t ba ck to M i ssi ssi pp if

or di st ribu t i on . K ri s adm i t t ed to t raf f i cki n g m ore t h an 300 f i r earm s f r om 1998 t o 2 005. A t se nt enc i ng, t he di st r i c tc our tc al c ul at ed a bas e o f fens e l eve lof

t w elve an d a cri m i n alh i st ory category of II , b ased on tw o m i sdem ean or s en t en ces f rom 2000 and 200 7. I ti ncr eas ed t he o f fens e l eve lby f

ourbas ed o n a f

i ndi ng t hat L on gst reetpossess ed or t ran sferred f i rearm s w i t h kn ow l edg e, i n t en t , or reason to b e lie v e th a t t h e yw o u ld b e u s e d in co n n e c tio n w ith a n o th e rfe lo n yo ffe n s e . S ee U
. S. S. G

. § 2 K 2. 1(b) ( 6)

. I tf ur t he ri nc r e as e d t he o f fe ns e l e ve lb y t e n a f

t e rf i ndi ng 1 th a t L o n g s tr e e t’s o ffe n s e in v o lv e d m o r e th a n 2 0 0 fir e a r m s . S eeU. S

. S

. G. § 2 K 2. 1(b) ( 1) ( E )

. Af

t era t hre e- l eve lreduc t i on forac c ept ance of r es ponsibi l i t y, Case: 09-60051 Document: 00511073378 Page: 2 Date Filed: 04/07/2010N o. 09- 60051

3 a sentenci n g ran ge of f i f t y- on e t o si xty- t h ree m on t h s r esul t ed. T h e d i st ri ctcourt gran t ed the govern m en t ’ s m ot i on f or a dow n w ard d e p a rture an d sen t en ced Long s t r e e tt o c o nc ur r e ntf o r t y- e i ghtm o nt h s e nt e nc e s . She t i m e l y ap pe al e d. S TA NDARD OF RE VI EW

“ Thi s c o ur tr e vi e w s de no vo t he di s t r i c t c o ur t ’ s gui de l i ne s i nt e r pr e t at i o ns a n d rev i ew s for cl ea r erro r th e d i stri ct cou rt’ s f i n d i n gs of fact. ” Uni t e d S t at e s v. Le , 5 1 2 F
. 3 d 1 2 8 , 1 3 4 ( 5 t h Ci r . 2 0 0 7 )

. “ Un d e rt h e c l e a r l ye r r o n e o u s s t a n d a r d , we w ill u p h o ld a fin d in gs o lo n ga s it is p la u s ib le in lig h t o f th e re c o r d a s a w h o le .” Un i t ed S t ate s v. Eka n em , 5 5 5 F .3d 1 7 2 , 1 7 5 (5t h C ir. 2 0 0 9 ) (q u o ta tion om itted ).

“ H ow eve r , a f

i ndi ng w i l lbe dee m ed c l ear l y e r r oneo us i f, bas ed o n t he r ec or d as
a w hol e, w e a r e l ef

tw i t h t he de fi n i te a n d f i r m c onvi c t i on t hata m i st ake has b ee n com m i tted.” I

d. (q u o ta tio n o m itt e d ).

DI S CU S S I ON Longst r ee tpr es ent s t hre e c hal l enges t o he rs ent enc e. Sh e c ont ends t hat t he di st r i c tc our t( 1) er r oneo usl y i ncl uded her2007 c onvi c t i on i n i t s c r i m i nal h i st ory cal cul ati on ; ( 2) shou l d n oth ave assessed a four- l evelincrease based on herknow l edge t hatthe g u n s w oul d be use d i n anot herfel ony o f fens e; and ( 3)
erro n eo u sly attrib u ted ov er 2 0 0 f i rea rm s to h er a s releva n t con d u ct. I . C r i m i nal H i s t or y C al cul at i on Longst r ee tf

i r stc hal l enges t he di st r i c tc our t ’ s asse ss m entof a c r i m i nal hi s t o r y po i ntb as e d o n he r2 00 7 s t at e c o ur tc o nvi c t i o n forcont r ibut i ng t o t he Case: 09-60051 Document: 00511073378 Page: 3 Date Filed: 04/07/2010N o. 09- 60051

Although the government co ncede s that th e record does not c ontain a c opyof the 2 ju dgment of conviction, Lon gstre et does not argue that there was not a dequ ate evidence that the conviction existed. Eve n construin g her present argu ment as an attack onth e co nviction’s existence, sh e di d not make this argu ment in the district court. Our review would therefore b e for pl ainerror , seee.g. , United States v. Rodriguez-Parra , 5 8 1 F .3 d 2 2 7 , 2 2 9( 5 thC ir
. 2 0 0 9), cert . de nied , 78 U.S.L.W. 384 1 (U.S. Feb. 22, 201 0) (No .09-8 336), which has not bee n shown. We also noteth at this court h as previously affir m ed the inclusio n of aprior c onviction in a defen dant’s cri minal historycalculation where the recor d cont ained no copy of the j udgment an d it wa s not argue d b elowth at th e co nvictionwa s nota de qu atelyevidence d. See United States v. Ramirez , 3 6 7F .3 d 2 7 4 , 2 7 6 -7 7( 5 thC ir
. 2 0 0 4). 4 del i n qu en cy of

a m in or. W h en L on gst reetapp eared f or t ri al , t h e st ate c ou rt 2
a g r e e d t o dism i ss th e ch a rg e u p on L on gs treet’ s p a ym en t of sev en ty d oll a rs in court cost s. L on gst reet fai l ed t o pa y t h e cost s, an d, on thi s basi s, t h e st ate c ou rt f ound hergui l t y. O n appeal , Longst r ee tar gues t hatt her e w a s neveran “a dju d ica tion o f g u il t, w h e th e r b yg u il typ lea , tria l, or p lea of n olo cont end ere ,” by t he st at e c our t , as r equi r ed t o c ons t i t ut e a “ pri or se nt ence” for cr i m i nal h is to r yp u r p o s e s . S ee U
. S. S. G

. § 4 A1. 2( a) ( 1)

. T h e go ve r nm e nt , c i t i ng t he Supr e m e Cour t ’ s de c i s i o n i n C u st i s v. Un i t ed S t ate s , c o n t e n d s th a tL o n g s t r e e t ’s
ar gum e nta m o unt s t o an i m pe r m i s s ibl e c o l l at e r al at t ac k o n a pr i o rc o nvi c t i o n. 5 1 1 U .S . 4 8 5 (1 9 9 4 ). Al t ho ugh Lo ngs t r e e tdoes n ot f r am e he rc o nt e nt i o n a s a n a t t ac k o n t he
c o n v ic t io n ’s v a li d it y , t o a c c e p th e ra r g u m e n tw o u ld im p lyth a tth e s t a t e c o u r t ’s f i ndi ng o f

g ui l tw as i m pr o pe ran d t hus t hatt he c o nvi c t i o n was i nva l i d. L on gst reet ’ s c h al l en ge i s t h eref ore properl y cha ract eri zed as a col l ater alatt ack
o n th e p r io rco n v ic tio n . A p p lic a tio n n o te 6 to U .S .S .G . § 4 A 1 .2 s ta te s th a t “ th is gu i del i n e an d com m en t ary do n otconfer upon t h e defen da n tan y ri gh tt o att ack col l ater al l y a pri or c on v iction or sentence beyon d an y ri gh t s ot h erw i se recogni zed i n l aw . ” L on gst reeth as n otidenti f i ed an y l egal ri gh tenti t l i n g h er t o t he c o l l at e r ala t t ac k s he s e e ks t o m ak e . Fur t he r m o r e, i n C u stis , t h e C ou rt h el d that t h e C on st i t u t i on requi res col l ater alrevi ew of a defen da n t ’ s pri or convic t i on used t o enh an ce a f ederalsentence on l y w h en the d efen da n tal l eges Case: 09-60051 Document: 00511073378 Page: 4 Date Filed: 04/07/2010N o. 09- 60051

United States v. Munoz , 3 6F .3 d 1 2 2 9 , 1 2 3 7( 1 stC ir
. 1 9 9 4); United States v. Jo nes , 27 3 F .3 d 5 0 , 5 2 (2 d C ir
. 1 9 9 4); United States v. Tho mas , 4 2F .3 d 8 2 3 , 8 2 4( 3 d C ir
. 1 9 9 4); United States v. Bacon , 94F. 3 d 1 5 8 , 1 6 3(4thC ir
. 1 9 9 6); United States v. Covarrub ias , 65F .3d 1 362 , 1372 (7 thC ir
. 1 9 9 5); United States v. Moore , 2 4 5F .3 d 1 0 2 3 , 1 0 2 5( 8thC ir
. 2 0 0 1 ); Unit ed States v. Fon dren , 5 4F .3 d 5 3 3 , 5 3 4 -3 5( 9 thC ir
. 1 9 9 4); Un ited Statesv . Garcia , 42F .3d 5 73, 5 8 1 ( 1 0 thC ir
. 1 9 9 4); United States v. Ph illips , 1 2 0F .3 d 2 2 7 , 2 3 1 ( 1 1 thC ir
. 1 9 9 7). Wen eed not address the government’s alt ernative argu ment, whichlikens 4 Lon gstre et’s c onviction to a“deferred prosecution ,” count abl e a s adiversion arydispo sitio n u n der U. S. S. G. § 4A 1 .2 (f ). 5 th a t t h e con victio n w a s ob tain ed i n viol a ti on of h er S i xth A m en d m en t ri gh t t o c o u n s e l. I

d. a t 4 9 5 -9 7 ; seealso D an i els v. Un i t ed S t ate s , 532 U
. S. 374, 382 (2 0 0 1 ). I n a n um b e ro f

u np ub l i s he d d e c i s i o ns f o l l o wi ng C u stis , t hi s c our thas
r e f us e d t o e nt e r t ai n c o l l at e r ala t t ac ks o n pr i o rs t at e c o nvi c t i o ns m ad e dur i ng fede r als ent enc i ng pr oc ee di ngs w hen, as h er e, the def endantdoe s notal l ege t hat th e p r io r c o n v ic tio n w a s u n c o u n s e le d
. See , e . g. , Un i t ed S t ate s v. Cast el lan os , 226 F . A p p ’ x4 1 0 , 4 1 1 (5 th C ir . 2 0 0 7 ) (u n p u b lis h e d ); Un i t ed S t ate s v. Moore , 281 F. 3d 1 2 7 9 , a t * 3 (5 th C ir. 2 0 0 1 ) (u n p u b li sh e d ta b le d e cisio n ); Uni t e d St at e s v . G al v anZa p a ta , 23 3 F
. 3 d 57 4 , at *2 ( 5 th C i r. 20 0 0 ) (un p u b l i sh ed tab l e d ecisi on ); cf. Un i t ed S t ate s v. G on zal es , 79 F. 3d 41 3, 42 6- 27 ( 5t h Ci r . 19 96 ) ( “ Exc e pt i n t he l i m i t ed ci rcum st an ce i n w h i ch the pri or c on vi ct i on w as ob t ai n ed i n v i ol ati on of th e righ t to h a ve cou n sel a p p oin ted , a d efen d a n t h a s n o con sti tu ti on a lri gh t t o c hal l e nge pr i o rc o nvi c t i o ns us e d t o e nhan c e ac u r r e n t lyi m p o s e ds e n t e nc e . ” )

. Our si st er c i rcui t s hav e adop t ed the sam e rul e. 3 W e t her ef

or e ho l d th a t, abs entan al l egat i on t hatt he def endantw as de ni e d c o uns e li n t he pr i o rpr o c e e di ng, a di s t r i c tc o ur t s e nt e nc i ng a de fe nda nt
m ayno te nt e r t ai n a c o l l at e r ala t t ac k o n a pr i o rco nvi c t i o n use d t o e nhan c e t he
se nt enc e unl es s suc h an at t ac k i s ot her w i se r ec ogni ze d by l aw . Acc or di ngl y, L on gst reetm ay n otch al l en ge t h e v al i di t y of h er 20 07 con vi ct i on , an d the di st ri ct
c o ur tdi d no te r rb y i nc l udi ng i ti n t he c r i m i nalhi s t o r y c al c ul at i o n. 4 Case: 09-60051 Document: 00511073378 Page: 5 Date Filed: 04/07/2010N o. 09- 60051

6 II. C o n n ec ti o n to A n o th er F elon y O f f en se Longst r ee tw as as se ss ed a f our - l eve li nc r e a s e u nd erU
. S. S. G

. § 2K 2. 1(b) ( 6) ba s e d o n t he di s t r i c tc o ur t ’ s f i ndi ng t hat she kne w t hatt he g uns w e r e b e i ng t r ans fe r r e d t o i ndivi dua l s e nga ge d i n i l l e ga l dr ug di s t r ibut i o n i n Chi c ag o . She
ar gue s t hatt hi s i nc rease w as er r o ne o us f o rt w o r e as o ns . Fi r s t , s he c o nt e nds t h at s h e di d n otkn ow t h e gu n s w ou l d be u sed i n conn ect i on w i t h ot h er f el on i es. T h i s c on t en t i on i s bel i ed by t h e rec ord. A tt h e pl ea h eari n g, L on gst reetadm i t t ed t h at s h e pu rchased gu n s f or K ri s kn ow i n g t h at he w ou l d tr ad e t h em f or m on ey an d d rugs i n C h i cago t o in di vi du al s enga ged i n t h e drugt rade. Sh e f u rt h er ad m i t t e d t hato n m ul t i pl e o c c as i o ns , s he a c c o m pa ni e d Kr i s t o Chi c ag o a nd
u n derst ood that he plann ed to dis t ribu t e the dru gs h e rec eived i n excha n ge f or t he g uns . The r e w as c o ns i de r ab l e e vi de nc e t hatLo ngs t r e e tkne w t he g uns w ou l d be u sed i n ot h er f el on y of fen ses. Se c o nd, L on gs t r e e ta r gue s t hats he di d no tpe r s o nal l y t r ans fe rt he g uns t o the C h i cago i n di vi du al s, a n d that t h eref ore t h e enh an cem en tw as i m proper. S h e ci t es Un i t ed S t ate s v. A skew f o r t he pr o po s i t i o n t hat a no n- s e l l e rde fe nda nt is n o t su b jec t to th e § 2 K 2 .1(b )(6) in cr e a se . 1 9 3 F .3d 1 1 8 1 , 1 1 8 4 (1 1 th C ir. 1 9 9 9 ). F a r f r o m a d o p tin gth e n a r r o w in te r p r e ta tio n u r g e d b yL o n g s tr e e t, Askew confi rm s t h at a n on - sel l er’ s of fen se l evelm ay be en h an ced so l on g as she “knew
or h a d re a son to b eli ev e th e gu n s w ou l d b e u sed to co m m i t an oth er fel on y.” I d.
a t 1 1 8 5
. Unl i k e t h e s i t u at i o n i n A skew , w he r e t he de fe nda nt“ [ w as ] no tt he
a c tu a l s e lle ra n d [k n e w ] n o th in ga b ou t th e circu m stan ces su rrou n d i n g th e s a le s ,” t he fac t ualb as i s de m o ns t r at e s t hatLo ngs t r e e t“hadas m uc h kno w l e dg e a bo ut h ow the bu ye rs w ou l d u se th e fi rea rm s as th e actu a l sell er did.” I d. at1184- 85;
see Un ited S ta tes v . Ca ld w ell , 448 F. 3d 287, 292 ( 5t h C i r . 2006) ( st r es si ng t hat a def endant ’ s r eas onabl e bel i ef thata gun w oul d be use d i n a f el ony, r at hert han
ac t ualuse i n a s pec i f i c fel ony, i s al l t hat i s r equi r ed und er§ 2K 2. 1(b) ( 6) and t hat Case: 09-60051 Document: 00511073378 Page: 6 Date Filed: 04/07/2010N o. 09- 60051

7 t he di st r i c tc our t m ay “ m ake c om m on- se nse i nfer enc es f r om t he c i r c um st ant i al
e v id e n ce ”). T h e re w a s n o er ro r in th e fou r-lev e l i n cr e a se u n d e r § 2 K 2 .1(b )(6). I I I . N u mb e r o f

F i r e a r ms K ri s ad m i tted to g ov ern m en t ag en ts t h a t he traff i ck ed ov er 3 0 0 gu n s to C hi c ago f

r om 1998 t o 2 005. Based on t hi s evi denc e, the di st r i c tcour tfound t hat L on gst reet ’ s of

fen se i n vol ved over 200 f i rearm s, tri ggeri n g a ten- l eveli n crease pu rsuan tt o U
. S

. S

. G

. § 2K 2. 1(b) ( 1) ( E )

. Th i s determ i n ati on of rel evan tcondu ct is a fa c tu a l fin d i n g r e v ie w e d fo rcle a re r r o r . E ka n em , 555 F. 3d at175. L o n g s tr e e t a s s e r ts th a t t h e in c r e a s e w a s e r r o n e o u s b e c a u s e (1 ) s h e d id n o t jo in t h e conspi racy un t i l200 1 an d w as t h eref ore not responsibl e f

or t h e enti re peri od of K r i s’ s ac t ivi t i es ; and ( 2) s he m ay o nl y be hel d ac c ount abl e f ort he f or t y- f ive g u n s s h e p e r s o n a llyp u r c h a s e d
. L o n g s tr e e t’s la tt e r c o n t e n tio n la c k s m e r it b e c a u s e s h e m a yb e h e ld
a c c o u n ta b le fo r“a l lr e a s o n a b lyfo r e s e e a b le a c ts a n d o m is s io n s o f o th e r s in f ur t he r anc e o f

. . . t he s am e c o ur s e o f c o nduc to rc o m m o n s c he m e o rpl an as t he of fen se of convic t i on . ” U
. S

. S

. G

. § 1B 1. 3( a) ( 2)

. It w as t h u s proper f or t h e di st ri ct
c our tto h ave c ons i der ed act s bey ond L ongs t r ee t ’ s ac t ualpu r c hase s, so l ong as t h o s e a c t s w e r e i n f

u r t h e r a n c e o f t h e s a me c o u r s e o f c o n d u c t o r c o mmo n s c h e me o rp la n a s th e co n s p ir a c y . S ee Un i t ed S t ate s v. C u l verhou se , 507 F. 3d 888, 895 (5 th C ir. 2 0 0 7 ). L on gst reet ’ s f

i rstcon t en t i on m eri t s f u rt h er consi derati on . C ou n tO n e of th e in d ic tm e n t, to w h ic h L o n g s tr e e t p le d g u ilty , ch a r g e d a co n s p ir a c yfr o m J u ly 200 0 throug h O ct ober 200 5. Th e govern m en t ’ s fact u albasi s, how ever, provi ded t h a t L o n g st reetbecam e i n vol ved , at t h e earl i est , i n Ju n e 200 1 an d conti n u ed th rou gh 20 0 5
. S i m i l a rl y, t h e P S R do es n ot tie a n y o f L on gs treet’ s con d u ct t o t i m e pe r i ods pr i ort o 2001. Th e gove r nm ent ’ s evi denc e show ed t hatf r om 2001 t hr o ugh 2 00 5, m e m be r s o f t he c o ns pi r ac y pur c has e d 1 21 g uns a nd d i s t r ibu t ed ap proxi m atel y 155 gu n s. O n l y by c on si deri n g K ri s’ s act ivi t i es du ri n g u n defi n ed Case: 09-60051 Document: 00511073378 Page: 7 Date Filed: 04/07/2010N o. 09- 60051

8 t i m e peri ods, i n cl u di n g peri ods f rom 199 8 throug h 200 0, does t h e nu m b er of guns t ot alhi s adm i t t ed f i gure of 300. T h e di st rict cou rtdeem ed L on gst reett o ha ve pa rt i ci pa t ed i n t h e enti re s c o pe o f K r i s ’ s a c t ivi t y— i nc l udi ng t he pe r i o d f r o m 1 99 8 t hr o ugh 2 00 0. I tf o und t h at K ri s’ s overal lact ivi t ies c o n sti t u t ed a “c om m on sc h em e or pl an ” un der U
. S

. S

. G

. § 1B 1 .3 (a )(2) an d tha t L on gs treet a cted i n f u rth era n ce th ere of. In sup port, i tst ated t h at L o n g street “bega n dati n g” K ri s i n 199 9 an d that t h ere w a s a “s u ffic ie n t c o n n e c tio n ” b e tw e e n th e m to m a k e h e ra c c o u n ta b le fo rh is cond u ct
. Th ere w as, how e v e r, n o evi den ce s h ow i n g t h at Lon gst reetconspi red
w ith K r is p r io r to 2 0 0 1
. A lth o u g h L o n g s tr e e t d id tr a v e l to C h ic a g o w i t h K r is
an d d i d accom pa n y ot h er ass oci ates du ri n g t h ei r s t raw pu rchases of f ire a rm s, t h e r e w a s n o e v id e n c e th a ta n yo f t h e s e a c t s p r e d a t e d 2 0 0 1 . “Ad e fe n d a n t ’s rel evan tcondu ctdoes not i n cl u de t h e con du ctof m em bers of a con spi racy pri or t o t he def

endant ’ s j oi ni ng t he c ons pi r ac y, ev en i f t he def endantknow s of

t hat
c o n d u c t.” U .S .S .G . § 1 B 1 .3 cm t. n .2 ; seeUn i t ed S t ate s v. R ei n h art , 357 F. 3d 521, 5 2 6 ( 5 th C ir . 2 0 0 4 ). A b s e n t p a r tic u la r iz e d fin d in g s th a t L o n g s tr e e t w a s a c tu a lly i n vol ved i n K ri s’s a ct ivi t i es pri or t o 200 1 or t h at Lon gst reetw as ot h erw i se r e s po ns ibl e f

o rm o r e t han 20 0 f

i r e ar m s f

r o m 2 00 1 t hr o ugh 2 00 5, t he pr e s e nt
r e c o r d p r o vi de s no j us t i f i ab l e b as i s f

o rt he di s t r i c tc o ur t ’ s a s s e s s m e nto f t he t e nle v e l in c r e a s e . Se eUni t e d S t at e s v. Ham m o nd , 201 F. 3d 346, 351 ( 5t h C i r . 1999) (re q u irin gclea r fin d in g s o f re a so n a b ly fo re se e a b le a c t s w ith in th e sc o p e of a conspir acy t o h ol d a defenda n taccoun t able f or t h i rd- pa rt y cond u ct)

. Th e di st ri ct court’ s app l i cat i on of § 2K 2. 1(b) ( 1) ( E ) lacks su pp ortin the record an d theref ore c o ns t i t ut e s c l e arer r o r . Long s t r e e t ’ s s e nt e nc e m us tt he r e f o r e b e v ac at e d a nd t he
c as e r em anded f

orr es ent enc i ng. Case: 09-60051 Document: 00511073378 Page: 8 Date Filed: 04/07/2010N o. 09- 60051

9 CO NC L US I ON F or t h e f

oregoi n g reasons, the di st ri ctcou rt ’ s c ri m i n alhi st ory cal cul ati on and appl i c at i on o f

U
. S. S. G

. § 2K 2. 1(b) ( 6) ar e AF FIR M E D , i ts f i ndi ng t hat L on gst reet ’ s of

fen se i n vol ved m ore t h an 200 f i rearm s i s VA C A T E D , an d the case is R E M A N D E D fo rre s e n te n c in g . Case: 09-60051 Document: 00511073378 Page: 9 Date Filed: 04/07/2010