## 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 os. 07

- 2433 , 07- 2435 , 07- 3118 , 07- 3203 , 07

- 3540 & 07

- 3628 U NI T ED S TATE SOF A MERI CA, P la intif f-A pp ellee,

v. S T EV EN P. E AST ER, J AMA UL R. M C K AY, A NT HO NY K. G LOVER, D ARR ELL D. D AV IS, B RADF ORD V. D OD S ON, AND M ONTREL L M C S W AIN , D efend a nts-A pp ella nts.

A pp ealsfr o m the United S t ates Di strictC our t fo r the N o rthernDi stricto f Illino is, We stern Div isi on. No s. 05 CR50082-2, 05 C R 50082-9, 05 C R 50082-4, 05 C R 50082-1, 05 C R 50082-8 &05 C R 50082-5

—Philip G. Re inha rd, Judg e.
A RG UE D N OVE MBE R 19, 2008

— D ECI DE D J AN UA RY 16, 2009

Befo re M A NI ON, K ANN E , a nd E VANS, C ircu it Judges . P ER C UR I AM . I n a b i t o fpo l i ce wor kwor th y o fa TV show, federa l and l oca l l aw enf or cem ent offi cer s instal l ed a ud i o a nd v i de o r e c o r di ngde v i c e s i n a ho us e i n Ro c k f o r d,2 N os . 07-2 43 3, 07 -24 35 , 07-3 11 8, etal. I l l i noi s, thatthe Tit ani c S tone s gan g then used to deal dr ug s . Th e po l i c e we r e g i v e n thi s r a r e o pp o r t un i ty w hen th e gan g’s lea d er as ke d a girlfrie n d to re n t a h ou se for h im an d s he wentt o th e po l i ce . Offi ce r s m o ni to r ed an d re cor ded the deal i ng i n the hou se fo r about a m onth i n 2 00 5 be f o r e th e dea l er s di sc o ve r ed th e r ec o r di ng dev i ce s. The n th e au th o r i ti es swo o ped i n a nd a r r es te d the deal er s. The go ver nm ent ind i cted 14 defend ants on 3 2 co unt s o fdr uga nd g un c r i m es . T hre e wentt o t r i ala nd w er e f ound gui l ty. O fthose, tw o app eal

. The o therel eve n p lea d ed gu ilty , an d fou r of t h em ap p ea l. O ft h e s ix appell ants, o n l y tw o, J am aul M cK ay and D ar re l l Davi s, pr es en t ar g um en ts o n the m er i ts
. Both pl ea ded g ui l tya nd chal l enge onl y thei r sente nc es , but nei therpre sents a m er i tor i ous a rgum ent, so w e a ffi rm i n both case s. I n each ofthe f our othe r appeal s, co unsel has m ove d to w i thdraw un d er A nders v. Ca li

forni a , 3 86 U. S

. 7 38 ( 19 67 )
. W e g r an t thos e m oti ons and dism i ss the four appeal s be cause al l o f th e p ot en tia l issu es id en tifie d b y c ou n se l an d th e a p p ellan ts w ou ld be frivo lou s.

I . H I S T ORY M cKa y a nd Da v i s b o th pl e a de d g ui l t y t o c o ns pi r i ng to po s s e s s wi th i nt e nt t o di s t r ib ut e he r o i n a nd c r a c k, 2 1 U. S

. C. §§ 846, 84 1( a) ( 1) , and to poss ess i ng a gun i n further ance o f a dr u gt r a ffi c k i n gc r i me , 1 8 U. S

. C

. § 9 2 4 ( c ) ( 1 ) ( A)
. At sente nci ng, M cK ay did notdi spute thatthe conspi ra cy i tse l f i nvol ved at l eas t 1 k i l ogr am o fher oi n and at l eas t 5 0 g r ams o fc r ac k

. I ns te ad, he a r g ue d tha t th e po rti o n o fthe ov er all a m ou n t a tt rib u te d to h is join tly u n d er ta ke n cr im i-N os . 07-2 43 3, 07 -24 35 , 07-3 11 8, etal. 3

n al a c tiv ity , see U. S. S. G. § 1 B1
. 3 ( a ) ( 1 ) ( B) , wa s o v e r s t a t e d. M c K ay c on c ed ed t h at h e s h ou ld be se n te n c ed on th e b as is of96 0 g ra m s of hero i n, but he ar gued that he sho uld notbe r es po ns ibl e f o r a ny c r ac kbec au se he so l d onl y her o i n a nd c ou ld n oth av e fo re se en th e c ra c k sa les by h is co co ns pi r at o r s. The di stri ctc o ur t di sa g r ee d a nd f o und that M cK ay w as re sponsibl e f orso m e o fthe cra ck sol d by o th ermem be r s o fthe co ns pi r ac y . The c o ur t es ti m at ed th e amoun t o fc r ac ka ttribut ab l e to M cKaya t be twe en4 5 an d 75 gr am s. The co urt then use d the drug equ i val ency tabl es, U. S

. S

. G

. § 2 D 1
. 1 , c mt
. 10 , a n d c o n v e r t e d 9 6 0 g r a ms o fh e r o i n t o 9 6 0 k i l o g r a ms o fma r ij u a n a a n d 4 5 t o 7 5 g r a ms ofcr ack to betwe en 9 00 and 15 00 ki l ogr am s o fm ar ij uana. A r a ng e o f1 8 6 0 t o 2 4 6 0 k i l o g r a ms ofm a r ij ua na y i e l de d a b as e o ffen se lev el of 3 2, i d. § 2 D 1.1( c)(4), w hich the cou rt th en red u c ed by th re e le ve ls for ac c ep ta n c e o f res p on sib ility , id. § 3 E1
. 1
. Wi th a t o t a l o f f en s e l e v e l o f2 9 a nd a cri m i nal hi sto rycat ego ryo fI, M cK ay f aced a gui d el i nes i m pri sonm ent r ange of87to 10 8 m onths. W i thout expla nation, th e cou rt held that M cK ay w as su bj ect to a m an d atory m i ni m um se ntence of12 0 m on th s on the drug co unt. Pe r ha ps th e co ur t th o ug httha t th e ag g r eg at i o n o fthe dr ug to ta ls t rig ge re d th e m an d at or y m in im u m . It is a lso p os sib le that the c ourtappli ed the m anda to ry m i ni m um bec ause M cKay co nc ede d th at th e co ns pi r ac y i nv o l ve d a t l ea sto ne ki l ogr am o fher oi n and at l eas t fi fty gr am s o fcrack, tho ugh h e d id n otco n c ed e t h at th os e a m ou n ts w er e r e a s o n ab ly f or e s e e a b l e t o hi m. I n a ny e v e nt, M c Ka y di d no t o b j e c to r se ekc l ar i fi cation. The c o ur t se nt en ce d hi m t o 1 20 months on the conspir acy char ge and 60 m onths on the gun char ge, to run co nsecuti vel y.4 N os . 07-2 43 3, 07 -24 35 , 07-3 11 8, etal. Davi s, wh o l ed the conspira cy, r ecei ved a m uch sti ffer sente nce. The di str i ct c ourtf ound him r esponsib l e f or between 10 and 30 ki log ra m s ofher oi n. Thi s quanti ty yiel d ed a base offense level of36. U
. S .S .G . § 2D 1.1( c)(2). The cour t add ed 4 l eve l s f or Davi s’ s ro l e i n th e o ffense, U .S .S .G

. § 3B 1.1( a), ad d ed 2 l evels for reckless en d an germ en t d u rin g fligh t, id. § 3 C1. 2, and subtr acte d 3 l eve l s f or ac c ep ta n c e o f res p on sib ility , id. § 3 E1
. 1
. T h e c o u r tc o mbined that offen se level w ith D avis ’s c rim inal history ca te g o r y o fVIt o co m put e a g ui del i ne s r an g e o f3 60 months to life on t h e c on sp ira c y c h ar ge . Th e c ou rtse n te n c ed D av is to 444 m onths on the conspi ra cy charg e a nd 60 m onths on the gun charg e, to r un consec uti vel y. The fi nd i ng o fr eckl ess endanger m ent duri ng fl i ght was ba se d o n the t es ti m o ny a t se nt en ci ngo fthe ATF ag en t who ar r es te d Da vi s. The a g en t sa i d he or der ed Dav i s to s to p b ut Da vis a tte m pted to run i nto a ho use. The ag ent t ri ed to gr ab Davi s, but Davi s push ed h im away, pushed aw ay an o th erag en t, and ra n. The ag en t g av e ch as e wi thhi s g un d ra w n , an d d u rin g t h e c h as e D av is p u lled a gu n from h is pa nt s . T he ATF a g e nte xp l a i ne d: A t this p oint Isee him reach ing arou nd w ith his left hand behi nd h is b ack, and Ise e hi m drawing the b utt of a gu n . A t t h is p oin t I te ll him

-- Is ai d, “ S to p. I s ee the g u n . D r o p t he gu n . P o l i c e . ” He c o n t i n u e s r u n n i n g . At thi s poi nt I ’ ve tak en u p a s tat i onar y pos i ti on, and I ’ ve prepar ed to fi re m y weapon. H e co nt in u es r unning. H e’s got h is a r m e x t e n d ed . H e’s j u st ab ou t t o c an t it ba ckt o war ds m e, an d as he ’ s r unning, he fum bl ed th e gu n, an d th e g u n fell.N os . 07-2 43 3, 07 -24 35 , 07-3 11 8, etal. 5 D av is ar gu ed t h at th e a ge n t’s te st im on y d id n otn ec es sa rily sh o w t h a t h e i n t e n d e d t o c a u s e h a r m wh e n h e d r e w the g un; he c o ul d ha ve i nt en ded si m pl y t o di spo se o fi t. The di st r i ctc o ur t di sa g r ee d, fi ndin gr ec k l es s en dan g er m en t du ri ng fl i ght b ase d on Davi s’ s v i ol ence w hen h e first g ot awayfr o m the p oli ce and th e r i skhe c r ea te d b y dr awi ng hi s gun. The cour t be l i eve d that afterseei ng the gun one of the o ffi cer s m i ght ha ve shotDavi s, the othe r offi cer, o r som eone el se i n the ar ea. The o th erf o ura ppel la nt s, S te ve n Ea st er, Anth o ny Glo ver, B ra d for d D od so n, a n d M on tr ell M c Sw ain , w er e a ll co nv i ct ed o n the s am e co ns pi r ac y c ha r g e an d o ne § 9 24( c) ( 1) co unt, Easte r and G love r afterpl eadi ng g uil ty and D odson a nd M cSwai n aftertr i al

. Easte r and G l ove r wer e bo th su bj ec t to a te n- y ea r m an dat o r y min i m um o n the conspi ra cy charg e. Easte r got19 2 m on th s an d G l ove r got 156 m onths. Dodson and M cSwai n w er e bo th subj ect to a t w enty- yea r m andator y m in im um o n the conspi ra cy charg e. Dodson go t 3 60 m on th s a nd M cSwai n go t 240 m ont hs

. A llf ou r received a cons ecu tive fi ve-year term f o rp o s s e s s i n ga g u n i n fu r th e r a n c e o fa d r u gt r a ffi ck i ng cri m e.

II. A N A L Y S IS A . M cK ay O n ap p ea l M c K ay arg u es th at th e d ist ric t c ou rtsh ou ld not have sente nced hi m on the bas i s o fany cra ck. H e a l so con ten d s tha t the cou rt m istaken ly ap p li ed a m an d atory m i ni m um to his sente nce o n the drug co unt. A s M cK ay6 N os . 07-2 43 3, 07 -24 35 , 07-3 11 8, etal. view s thin gs, th e d istri ct cou rt ap p li ed the m an d atory m in im u m b a s e d on th e m ar ij u an a e q u iva len ts for h is

“ s h a r e ” o fth e h e r o i n a n d c r a c k

. T h a t i s , n e i th e r 9 6 0 g r a ms o fhe r o i n n o r 4 5 g r ams o fc r ac k( th e low es t amoun t th e c ou rtat t r i b u te d to M c K ay u n d er th e g u id elin es ) w ou ld tr igg er a 10 -ye ar m in i m u m , bu t 1 86 0 k ilog ra m s o f m ar ij ua na , the a g g r eg at e o ftho se a m o un ts fo l l o wi ngthe c on ve rs ion to m ar ij u an a e q u iva len ts , w ou ld

. See 2 1 U. S

. C. § 84 1(b)(1 ) ( A)( i ) , ( i i i ) , ( vi i )
. The g o ve r nm en t m ak es no at te m pt to ar g ue tha t ag g r eg at i ngqua nt i ti es o fdi ffer en t types ofdrugs to r ea ch a sta tutor y m i ni m um would be pr o per . I nde ed, o ne c ircui t ha s ex pl i ci tl y r ej ec te d the p ra c tic e. A la niz v. U nited Sta tes , 351 F.3d 365 , 368 (8 t h C ir. 2003 ). I ns tead , the gove rnm en t argu es th at a stray rem ark by the c ourtatse ntencing w as an expl i ci t fi nd i ng tha t M cKaywas r es po ns ibl e f o r a t l ea st5 0 g r ams of c r ac k, the am ount that w oul d tri gge r the m andator y m i ni m um under § 841(b)(1)( A )( ii i)
. The go ver nm ent’ s r eadi ng of the c ourt ’ s r em ar k i gnor es the l anguage and conte xt o fthe cour t’ s s tat em ent: I th in k b ot h sid es ag re e t h at ifh e is res p on sib le

-- ifI fi nd thathe’ s r esponsibl e f orthe c ra c k c oca i ne, then th ata dded to the he r o i n wo ul d c l ea r l y b e o ver o ne kilo

-- w el l i t would be cl ear l y o ver 50 gr am s o fco cai ne, an d whe n y o u t r a ns l a t e tha t i nt o mar ij ua na a nd yo u tr ansl ate the hero i n i nto m ar ij uana, you com e up with a t ota l o f

-- i fIwere to use the her oi n, thattr ansl ate s i nt o 9 60 k i l o s o fmar ij ua na The cour t see m ed to re fer to 50 gr am s of cra ck because , at th e t im e, 50 gra m s o fc r ac k a n d 10 00 kilog ra m s o f m ar i-N os . 07-2 43 3, 07 -24 35 , 07-3 11 8, etal. 7 j ua na b o th r e qu i r e d a b a s e o ffe ns e lev el o f3 2
. U. S

. S

. G. § 2D1
. 1( c)(4 ) ( 20 06 )
. The c o ur t’ s di sc us si o n a t th atpo i nt in th e h ea rin g w as n o t a b o u t a m an d at or y m in im u m ; i t was ab o ut th e ba se o ffen se l ev el

. W ha te ve r th e cou rt m eant, tho ugh, thi s s tat em ent pr eceded th e co urt’s expli c it fi nd i ng tha t the am ount o fcr ack att ributabl e t o M cK ay as r el evantco nd uct fel l so m ew here i n the ra nge of45 to 75 gr am s. That i s, the court exp re ssl y hel d that the a m ount co uld have bee n l ess than 50 gr am s. B u t none ofthi s m att er s be cause both si des m i sta ke n ly ass um e that the cr ack am ount a ttr ibuted to M cK ay as re l evantco nd uct under the gui de lines w as si gni fi cant for pu rpos es ofapply i ng the st atuto rym i ni m um . I n f act, st atut o r y min i m um s do no t hi ng e o n the pa r ti cul arde fen dan t’ s r el ev an t co nduc t. I n a dr ugc o ns pi r ac y, the a m o unt o fdr ug s at tr ibut ab l e to a ny o ne c odefen dan t as “ r el ev an t co nduc t” f o r g ui del i ne s pur po se s i s l i m i te d t o the r ea so nabl y for ese eabl e t ra nsacti ons i n fu rthera nce o fthat c od efe n d an t’ s “ j oin tly u n d er ta ke n cr im in al a c tiv ity ,” U
. S. S. G

. § 1 B 1.3( a)(1) (B), bu t w he n it com es to the statu tory penal ti es, ev er y c oc onsp i ra tori s l i abl e f orthe som eti m es bro ader set o ftr ansact i ons that w er e r eas onabl y for ese eab le a c ts in fu rt h er an c e o f th e e n tir e c on sp ira c y. See U nited St at e s v. Fo x , N o. 07

- 3830 , __ F. 3d ___, 2008 W L 48900 06, at *7 ( 7th Cir. N ov. 14, 2008); U nited Sta tes v . S o to -P iedra , 52 5 F.3 d 5 27, 5 31 -32 (7 th C ir. 20 08 ); U nited Sta tes v. M ellen, 393 F.3 d 17 5, 18 3-8 4 (D .C . C ir. 20 04 ); Un i t e d S t a t e s v . Ne w s o me, 32 2 F
. 3 d 3 2 8 , 3 3 8

- 4 0 ( 4 th C i r . 2 0 0 3 )
. Wh e n th e d e fe nda nt ag re es t o a j oin tly u n d er ta ke nc rim in al ac tiv ity t h at is on ly a s l i ce o fthe w hol e co nspir acy, t h e f or ese eabl e a cts tak en8 N os . 07-2 43 3, 07 -24 35 , 07-3 11 8, etal. i n further ance o fth at s lice can be a subseto fthe f or ese eab le ac ts t ak en in fu rt h er an c e o f th e e n tir e c on sp ira c y. E.g
. , U
. S. S. G

. § 1B 1.3, cm t. 2(c)(3)
. So the dist ri ct c ourt ’ s fi nd i ngs on re l evant conduct do not precl ud e a pp l i c at ion ofthe m andator y m i ni m um , as M cK ay ar gues. T o avoi d the m andator y m i ni m um , M cK ay w oul d have t o show that he could n ot h ave f or ese en that tr ansact i ons i n fur the r a nc e o fthec o ns pir acy w oul d i nvol ve at l eas t 1 ki l ogr am o fh er oin o r at l eas t 5 0 g ra m s o fcr ack. 21 U. S

. C. § 8 41 ( b) ( 1) ( A)( i ) , ( i i i )
. M cK ayc o nc ede d tha t th e “o ve r al l c o ns pi r ac y was a t l ea stone ki l o g r am o fhe r o i n a nd a tl e a s t5 0 g r a ms o f c r a c k, ” a n d h e c o n c e d e d th a t9 6 0 g r a ms ofher oi n w er e s ol d at the drug houses w hi l e he w as pr es ent
. I t woul d b e f r i vo l o us f o r M cKayt o a r g ue tha t he c ou ld n oth av e fo re se en th at ot h er c on sp ira to rs w ou ld se ll anothe r 40 gr am s of h er oi n on the days that he was not prese nt. Thus, the dist ri ct c ourtwas bound by the te n-y ear m andator y m i ni m um . Because M cK ay w as actual l y g i ven th e m i ni m um , w e ne ed no t co ns i derhi s se co nda r y a r g um ent about the a m ount o fcr ack att ributed to hi m as r el ev an t co nduc t unde r th e g ui del i ne s. Eve n i f th ata m o unt shoul d have been l ower, the dis tr i ct c ourtwould not have been perm itted to i m p ose a sen ten ce below the m an d atory m in im u m . See U nited Sta tes v. Jam es , 487 F. 3d 518, 530 ( 7th Cir

. 20 07) ; Un i t e d S t a t e s v . Dunc an , 47 9 F
. 3d 924, 93 0 ( 7th C ir. 2007).

B. D avis Davi s’ s fi rs t a rgum ent o n appeal i s that his offense l eve l sh o ul d nothav e be eni nc r ea se d fo r r ec k l es s en dan g er m en tN os . 07-2 43 3, 07 -24 35 , 07-3 11 8, etal. 9 dur i ngfl i g ht

. The i nc r ea se i s appl i ed wher e “the de fen dan t reckless l y c r ea te d a s ubs ta nt i alr i sko fde ath o r s er i o us bo di l y i nj ur y t o a nothe r pe r so n i n the c o ur se o ffl ee i ng f r o m a l aw e nf o r ce m en t o ffi ce r . ” U
. S. S. G

. § 3 C1. 2. The d ist ric t cou rt ex p lain ed th at w h en D av is rea c h e d fo r h is gun, no m att er w hat hi s i ntent w as i n doi ng so, he c re ate d a substa nti al ri sk of harm w ar ra nti ng the incre ase bec ause h e ris ke d c au sin g on e of th e office rs to sh oo t a n d p os sib ly hi t an o th ero ffi ce r, o r Da vi s, o r s o m e o th er pe r so n i n the a r e a . Consi der i ngthe da ng e r t o Da v i s wa s e r r o r, U. S

. S

. G. § 3 C 1.2 , cm t. 4, b u t th e er ro r w as h ar m les s b ec au se sim p ly re achi ng f ora l oaded gun i s e nough to cr eat e a subst anti al ris k of s er iou s b od ily inju ry to an ot h er p er so n . See U nited St at e s v . Rob i ns on , 53 7 F
. 3d 798, 80 2 ( 7th Ci r. 20 08) ( applying an alogous i nc rease u nd er U .S .S.G. § 3A 1.2( c)(1)) ; U nited Sta tes v. Lee, 199 F.3d 16, 20 ( 1st C ir. 1999) (sam e); U nited Sta tes v. B ell, 953 F. 2d 6, 10 ( 1st Cir

. 1992 ) ( sugge sti ng tha t § 3C1. 2 would appl y i fd efendant h ad re ached f or loa d ed gu n w h en co n fro n te d by p ol i c e). A n d th e ris k is ev eng r ea te r wher e, a s he r e, the per so n h an dl i ngthe g un i s a l s o r un ninga tful l s pe e d. Davis al so c o nt es ts the di st r i ctc o ur t’ s fi ndi ngo n dr ug quanti ty. H e a rgues that the ev id en c e bef or e the di str i ct cour t was eno ugh onl y t o ap p ro x i m ate drug quanti ty f or th e short p eriod of tim e in 2005 w he n the con sp irators w ere und ersur vei l l ance a nd thatthe cour t e rr ed w hen i t use d that quanti ty to esti m ate the am ounts he sol d as f arbac k a s 20 02 b efo re th e gov er n m en t’s in ve st iga tio n b eg an . D a vis concedes, as he m ust, that the dist ri ct cour t was per m i tte d t o m a k e a re as on ab le e st im at e o f d ru g q u an tit y. See U .S.S.G

. § 2 D 1.1 , cm t. 12 ; U ni t e d S t at e s v. Es ch m an , 22 7 F
. 3d10 N os . 07-2 43 3, 07 -24 35 , 07-3 11 8, etal. 886, 890-91 (7th C ir. 2000). H is argu m en t is th at th e cou rt’s es tim at e d id n oth av e a su fficie n tly relia b le b as is. See, e.g., Esc hm an , 22 7 F.3d at89 0-9 1; U nite d State s v. A cost a , 85 F. 3d 275, 28 2- 83 ( 7th Cir

. 1996 )
. But Davi s i gnor es seve ra l pi eces o fe vi den ce tha t su ppo r te d the c o ur t’ s ex tr apo l at i o n: o ne gang m em bert esti fi ed to the oper ati on o fthe conspi ra cy bef or e 2 005, ev i denc e r e c o ver ed fro m the tr ash s how ed that the g ang o perat ed sev er aldrug houses, seve ra l m em ber s o f the g ang w er e a rr est ed bet w een 2 002 and 2005 on dr ugc ha r g es , a nd s ev er albuy er s t es ti fi ed tha t the y b o ug ht h er oin from th e g an g in t h at tim e p er iod . B as ed on all that evi dence, wh i ch th e di str i ct c ourtwas enti tl ed to c re d it, s e e, e . g. , U ni t e d S t at e s v. Abd ul ahi, 52 3 F
. 3d 757, 76 1 ( 7th Ci r . 2 00 8) , th e cou r t’ s co ns er va ti ve e st i m at e o fthe am ounto fc r a c ks o l d d ur i ngthe c o ns pi r a c y wa s n o tc l e ar er ro r, i d.

C. Ea st er,G l ove r

, D od son ,an d M cS w ain Dodson and M cSwai n acce pted the c ourt ’ s invi tat i on t o re spond to thei r l aw yer s’ m oti ons to w i thdraw, but Easte r an d G lov er d id n ot
. See C IR . R. 51(b)

. Our r evi ew i s l i m i ted to the pot enti ali ssues i denti fi ed i n the supp or ti ng br i ef s o f co uns ela nd i n the s ubmi ss ions fr o m Do dso n a nd M c Sw ain
. Se eU ni t e d S t at e s v. Sc huh , 2 89 F. 3d 968, 97 3- 74 (7t h C ir. 20 02 ). A l l o ft h o se iss u es are frivo lou s a n d on ly on e m er its d isc u ss ion . Th at on e is su e, p re ss ed b y M c Sw ain in his Ru le 51(b) resp ons e, is based on th e Secon d Circu it’ s r ec en t i nt er pr et at i o n o f1 8 U. S

. C. § 9 24 ( c) ( 1) i n U nited Sta tes v. Whit ley, 52 9 F
. 3d 150, 158 (2d Ci r. 20 08)
. S ecti on 9 24( c) ( 1) provi des i n re l evantpart :N os. 07

- 2433, 07

- 2435 , 07

- 3118, etal

. 11 E xcept to the extentt hat a grea ter m inim um s ent enceis o therw i s e p rov ided by th is subsectio n o r by a ny oth er provi s i on of

l aw , any perso n w ho, d uri ng and i n re l ati on t o a n y c r i me o fv i o l e n c e o r d r u gt r a ffi c k i n gc r i me ( i n c l u d i n ga c r i me o fv i o l e n c e o r d r u g t r a ffi c k i n gc r i me that provi des f or an enhanced pu ni shm ent i fco m m i tted by the use o fa deadlyo r dangero us w eapon o r dev i ce ) f o r whi chthe pe r so n may b e p ro se cut ed i n a cour t o fthe U ni ted S tat es, uses or car ri es a fi re ar m , o r w ho, i n furthera nce o fany such cr i m e, poss ess es a fi re ar m , shal l, i n add i ti on to the punis hm ent pr ovi ded f o r s u c hc r i me o fv i o l e n c e o r d r u gt r a ffi c k i n gc r i me

— ( i ) be sentenced to a ter m o fi m pri sonm ent o fnotl ess than 5 yea rs ; ( i i ) i fthe fire ar m i s br andishe d, be s entence d to a te r m o fi m pr i so nm en t o fno t l es s th an7y ea r s; a nd ( i i i ) i fthe fi rear m is d i schar ged, be sente nced to a ter m o fi m pri sonm ent o fnotl ess than 10 yea rs . 18 U. S

. C. § 9 24 ( c) ( 1) ( A) ( emphasi s adde d)

. I n Whit ley, the Se cond Cir cui t re ad the i tal i ci zed l anguage

— the “ except” cl ause

— to precl ud e a se ntenci ng co urt f ro m i m posi ng an add i t i o na l t e r m o f i mpr i s o nme nt un de r § 9 2 4 ( c ) ( 1 ) i fthat te r m woul d be sh o r te r th an a g r ea te r st atut o r y m i ni m um r equi r ed bya not her c o unto fc o nv i ct i o n, inc l udi ngthe cr i m e o fv i o l en ce o r dr ug tr affi ck i ng cr i m e unde r l y i ngthe § 9 2 4 ( c ) ( 1 ) c o un t
. Und e r wha t the S e c o nd Ci r c ui t c a l l e d a li teral readin g of th e “ ex cep t” clau se, th e d istri ct cou rt here was no t f r ee t o i m po se a co ns ec ut i ve f i ve - y ea r te r m on th e § 9 24( c) ( 1) co unts be cause each o fthe defe nd ants w as12 N os . 07-2 43 3, 07 -24 35 , 07-3 11 8, etal.

su bj ec t to a mandat o r y te rm o f1 0 o r 2 0 y ea r s o n the conspi ra cy count and that m andator y t er m was “a gr eat er m i ni m um sente nce . . . o ther w i se provi ded by

. . . any othe r provi si on o fl aw . ” Whit ley, 52 9 F
. 3d at 153. Thr ee c i r cui ts ha d pub l i sh ed o pi ni o ns pa r singthe “e x cept” cl ause bef or e Whit ley, and eac h opi ni on r ej ecte d the a rgum ent l ate r adopted b y th e S eco nd Ci rcui t. U nited State s v. Joli vett e, 2 57F.3d 58 1, 58 7 (6 th C ir. 20 01 ); U nited State s v. Studif

in , 240 F.3d 4 1 5 , 4 2 3 (4 th C ir. 20 01 ); U nited State s v. A laniz , 235 F.3d 38 6, 38 9 ( 8 t h C ir. 20 00 ); see also U nited St at e s v. Col l i ns , 205 Fed

. A p p ’x 196, 198 (5th C ir. 2006 ) ( unp ubl i shed). A c c ording to the Ei ghth Ci rcui t, C o n g r e s s a d d e d th e “ e x c e p t ” c l a u s e t o s u b s e c t i o n ( c ) ( 1 ) ( A) i n o r d e rt o r e c o n c i l e th e p e n a l t y r a n g e s o fth a tp a r a g r a ph wi th the g r e a t e r pe na l t i e s s e t o ut i n s ub s e c t i ons ( c ) ( 1 ) ( B) an d (c)(1 )(C ). A laniz , 23 5 F.3 d at 3 89. That co urt further h e l d th a tth e “ e x c e p t ” c l a u s e r e fe r s o nl y to “ th e fi r e a r mr el at ed co nduc t pr o sc r ibe d e i th erb y § 9 24 ( c) ( 1) o r ‘ bya ny o th erpr o vi si o n o fl aw’ ” an d no t to the unde r l y i ngdr ug tr affi c k i n g cr im e o r c rim e o f vio len c e. Id. The Fo urth Ci r cui t ec ho ed th e Ei g hth Ci r cui t’ s po si ti o n, e xpl aini ng th ati t r ea d the “ ex ce pt” clause “as s i m pl y r es er vingthe possibi l i ty that anothe r sta tute orpro vi si on m i ght i m pose a greater m inim um cons ecu tive sent en c in g sch em e for a § 9 24( c) vi ol ati on, and not as n egati ng the poss ibi l i ty of conse cuti ve sente nci ng. ” S t u di f in , 24 0 F
. 3d at 423. A fter Whit ley, th e Fir st Cir cui t desc ribed thatdeci si on a s “ suspect o n i ts f ace” and ci ted the co ntra rypre cedent with ap p ro va l. U nited Sta tes v. P a r k er, __F
. 3 d
___, 2 0 0 8 WL 50 06 12 3, a t * 5- 6 ( 1s t Ci r . Nov
. 2 6, 2 00 8)
. I n up ho l di ngthe co n s e c u t i v e p e n a l t y u n d e r § 9 2 4 ( c ) ( 1 ) i n i t s o wn c a s e, t heN os. 07

- 2433, 07

- 2435 , 07

- 3118, etal

. 13 F i r s tCi r c ui tdi s t i ngui s he d Whi tleyo n a nar ro w f actual g r o und a nd thus s to pped sh o r t o fe xpl i ci tl y r ej ec tingthe Se c on d C irc u it’s an aly sis
. Id. at *6

. N eve rthel ess , we re ad th e F i r stCi r cui t’ s o pi ni o n a s squa rely al i g ne d wi ththe maj o r i t y v i e w. W e al so e m brace the maj o r i typo si ti o n. Al th o ug h the i ssue i s o ne offi rs t im press i on in thi s ci rcui t, that does not au to m at i ca l l y l ea d t o the c o nc l us i o n tha t i t i s no nfr i vo l o us an d c anno t be r es o l ve d i n a n A nd ers po stur e wi th o ut b rie fin g. See U nited Sta tes v. Lo pez -Flo res , 275 F. 3d 661, 66 2- 63 (7t h C ir. 20 01 ); se e also U nite d State s v . M o rris , __F. 3d

___, 20 08 W L 51016 36 ( 7th Ci r. Dec. 5, 20 08)
. A s we have e x p l a i n e d , a n i s s u e o ffi r s ti mpr e s s i o n “ ma y b e fr i v o l o us because , f orexam ple , o fthe cl ar ity o fst atuto ryl anguage , or eve n as a m att er of com m on se n se. ” Lo pez -Flo res , 25 7 F.3 d at66 3. T h e c on st ru c tio n of 18 U .S .C

. § 9 24 (c )(1) (A ) is such an i ssue. W e inter pret a s tatute bygi vi ng i t i ts m ostnatur al re ad in g, s e e U ni t e d St a tes v. R e s s am , 12 8 S

. Ct. 18 58, 18 60 ( 2008 ) , and the m ostnatur alr eadi ng o f the “ except” cl ause i s that a defendant convi cted under § 92 4(c )(1) shal l be se n te n c ed to a te rm of im p ris on m en t s et fort h in § 9 24( c) ( 1) ( A ) unl ess subse cti on s ( c) ( 1) ( B) o r ( c) ( 1) ( C), o r anothe r penal ty provi si on e l sewhere in t he U ni ted S tat es C od e, requ ires a h igher m inim um sent en ce for t hat § 9 24 (c )(1) offe n se . The r ea di ngi n Whit leyw ou ld b e u n d er st an d ab le if § 92 4( c) defi ne d a ty pe o f se nt en ci ng enha nc ementmean t to requ ire a m an d atory m inim um se nt en ce w he n a fi rearm i s use d i n further ance ofan und er l yi ng cri m e o fvi ol ence or14 N os . 07-2 43 3, 07 -24 35 , 07-3 11 8, etal. d ru g t ra ffick in g c rim e. If § 9 24 (c ) w er e a n en h an c em en t, it m i ght m ake sense f or that re quir em ent to f al l aw ay w hen th e unde r l y i ng c r i m e, o r s o m e o th erc o unto fc o nv i ct i o n, re q u ire s a gre at er m an d at or y m in im u m . Bu t § 924( c) does not define an enhancem ent, it defi nes a s tandal one cri m e, see Ha rris v . U nited Sta tes , 53 6 U.S

. 54 5, 55 3 (2 00 2), an d th e p e n alt y im p os ed u n d er it m ust be i m posed to run conse cuti vel y t o any o therse ntence, 18 U .S.C . § 92 4(c )(1) (D )(ii); s eea ls o U nite d State s v. G ri ff in , 49 3 F.3 d 85 6, 86 8 (7 th C ir. 20 07 ); U ni t e d St at e s v. Sut t on , 33 7 F. 3d 792, 802 ( 7th Cir

. 2003 )
. A deter m i nati on o fgui l t that yie ld s n o s en te n c e is n o t a j u d gm en t o f co n vic tio n atall. And a se nt en ce o fz er o months c an no t be s er ve d c o ns ec uti vel y t o anothe r sente nce. W e do not agr ee w i th the Whi t l ey o p in i on that we have ch an g ed th e m ea ni ngo fthe s ta tu te ’ s te xtb y r ea di ngthe

“ e xc e pt ” c l a us e a s l i mi t e d t o p e na l t i e s f o r the § 9 2 4 ( c ) ( 1) its elf. See Whit ley, 5 29 F
. 3d at1 53
. O n th e co nt r ary, the r ea di ngf o und in Whi t l ey is t h e le ss -n at u ra l o n e. It is di ff icul t to unde r st an d why th e m an dat o r y min i m um p en alty thatm u s t b e i m p osed f or a stand alone fi rearm offense shoul d hi nge o n the m andator y m i ni m um penal ty th at m us t be im p osed f or any o th er offe ns e o fc o nv i ct i o n. I n the contes t be tw een r eadi ng the “e xcept” cl ause to re fer to penal ti es f or the offense i n questi on or to pena ltie s for an y off en se a t all, w e b elie ve th e fo rm er is th e m os t n at u ra l. See P a rker, 20 08 W L 50061 23, at* 5. W h er e , a s h er e, th e p lain m ea n in g of t h e s ta tu te is u n am b igu ou s, th at is th e en d of t h e m at te r. Se eCSX Tr a nsp ., Inc . v. Geo rgia Sta te B d. o f E qua liz a tio n, 1 2 8 S

. Ct.N os. 07

- 2433, 07

- 2435 , 07

- 3118, etal

. 15 467, 474 (200 7); U nited Sta tes v. Webber, 53 6 F
. 3d 584, 59 3 ( 7th Ci r . 2 00 8)
. Nev er th el es s, i t appe ar s to us tha t the r ea di ngg i ve n i n Wh i t l eyth w ar ts C on gr es s’s p u rp os e in en a c t i n g§ 9 2 4 ( c ) ( 1 ) a n d c a u s e s i l l o g i c a lr e s u l t s . F i r s t, t he Whit ley int er p re ta tio n of § 9 24 (c )(1) (A ) n u l l i f i es § 924(c)(1)( D )( ii) , w hich requ ires that a sen ten ce for a § 9 24 (c )(1) co u n t ru n co n se c u tiv e t o an y oth er se n te n c e. See Studif in , 24 0 F
. 3d at 423. S eco nd , the p urpose o fthe 1998 am endm ent o f§ 924( c) ( 1) that cre ate d the “e xcept” cl ause was t o undo the S upr eme Co ur t’ s ho l di ngi n Bail ey v . U nited Sta tes , 51 6 U.S

. 13 7 (19 95), wh i ch co ntra cted the a pp l i cati on o fthe sta tute by adopti ng a narr ow d efin itio n for t h e “ u se ” o f a fire ar m . A s t h e Se c on d C irc u it ha s ac k no wl edg ed, Co ng r es s o bv i o us l y want ed t o e xpa nd th e re ac h of § 9 24 (c )(1)
. Whit ley, 5 2 9 F .3 d at15 5; see a ls o Studif

in , 24 0 F
. 3d at 421. W e do not agr ee w i th th e S ec o nd Ci r cui t, th o ug h, th at i ts r ea di ng i s con sis te nt w i th that d es i re . U nd erthatr eadi ng, m any defendants co nv i ct ed unde r § 92 4( c) ( 1) woul d r ec ei ve no puni sh m en t f o r the c o nv i ct i o n. Tha t i s no e xpa ns i o n; i t i s a co nt r ac ti o n. Fi nal l y, the Whit leyo pi ni o n t r i es t o e xpl ain a way the bi gge st anom al y i ts re adingcreat es by str ess i ng tha t, ev en w he n its hold ing p reclud es an y i m p risonm en t for a vi o l at i o n o f § 92 4( c) ( 1) , th e di st r i ctc o ur t i s f r ee , c o ns i st en t w i th t h e sente nci ng f acto rs o f18 U
. S. C. § 3 553( a) , to i ncre ase the ter m f orthe und er lyin g c rim e o fvi ol ence or dr ug tr affi cki ng co unt by the a m ount that § 92 4( c) ( 1) w ou ld ot h er w ise req u ire
. Whit ley, 529 F.3d at15 5. T h i s e x p l a n a t i o n i s u n c o n v i n c i n g b e c a u s e , fi r s t, i ts e e ms to re st on the se ntenci ng di scr eti on g ra nted to di str i ct16 N os . 07-2 43 3, 07 -24 35 , 07-3 11 8, etal.

cour ts by U nited Sta t e s v . B o o k er, 54 3 U.S

. 22 0 ( 2005 ) , ev en though that o pini on ca m e s eve n yea rs afterthe “exc ep t” cl au se was a dd ed i n 1 99 8. M o r e i m po r ta nt l y, tho ug h, the Se cond Cir cui t’ s “ fi x” w oul d i nvi te dist ri ct c ourt s to ti nker wi th the s e nt e nc e f o r o ne c o un tb a s e d o n di s s a t i sf acti on w i th the se ntence re quir ed f orano ther, a pract i ce we have d isa p p ro ve d of in a sim ilar sit u at ion
. Se eU ni t e d S t at e s v. R o berson , 47 4 F .3d 43 2 (7 th C ir. 20 07 ) (r e v e rs in g ov er all sen ten ce wher e j udg e who dee m ed th e r equi r ed co ns ec uti ve sen ten ce f o r a § 9 24 ( c) ( 1) c o untt o o hi g h r edu ce d the se n te n c e o n a se p ar at e c ou n t). I n s ho r t, the S e c o nd Ci r c ui tt r i e s t o h a v e i t b o th wa y s . On on e h an d , Whi t l ey hol ds that Congre ss i ntended § 924 ( c) ( 1) to re quir e no penal ty i n cer tai n si tuati ons, but, on the o ther hand , the opi ni on expla i ns that j ud ges unhap py w i th that in t e n t ion m ay m iti gate it by going against C ong ress’s i ntent and i ncre asi ng the sentence f orano therco unt. That m ake s no se nse a nd would i nvi te dist ri ct c ourt s j ud ges to ac t o ut si de th ei r s en te nc i ngdi sc r et i o n. Foral l these rea sons, it w oul d be fr i vol ous t o ar gue that a d ist ric t c ou rtis ba rre d from im p os in g an y sen te n c e a t a ll f ora § 9 24( c) ( 1) co unt w hen so m e o therco unt ofco nvi cti on re qui r es a g r ea te r mandat o r y min i m um . Be ca us e al l the o th er i s s u e s d i s c u s s e d i n th e b r i e f s o f c o u n s e l a n d i n t he su b m iss ion s fro m D od so n an d M c Sw a in w ou ld be sim il ar l y f ri vol ous, w e gr ant the m oti ons to w i thdraw fi l ed by counsel f or Easter, Glo ver, Do d s o n, a n d Mc S wa i n a n d we dism i ss al l f our appeal s.N os. 07

- 2433, 07

- 2435 , 07

- 3118, etal

. 17 III. C ON CLU SI ON W e A F F I R M th e co nv i ct i o ns and se nt en ce s o fM cKaya nd Davi s. W e G RANT the m oti ons to w i thdraw fi l ed by counsel f orE ast er, Glo ver, Dodson, and M cSwai n, and w e D ISMISS al l f our appeal s.

1- 16- 09