NO T R EC OM M EN DE D F OR F UL L- TEX T P UB LIC AT ION F ile Nam e: 06a0018n.06 F iled: Janu ary 6, 2006 Nos. 04-6060; 04- 6098 UN ITED STA TES C OU RT OF AP P EA LS F OR THE SI XT H C IR CU IT
UNI TED STATES OF AMERI CA, Plaintiff-Appellee , v. J OHN E. H EREFORD, RAFAEL L . PHI NAZ EE, De fe nd ants -A

pp e lla nts
. )

) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ON APPEALFROM THE U NI TED STATES DI STRI CT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DI STRI CT OF TEN NESSEE

B e fo re : N EL SON , D AU GH TRE Y a nd SUT TO N, Cir c uit

Judg e s. SUTTON, Circuit J udg e. J ohn Her efor d and Rafa el Phinazee appe al their c onvictions for
c on sp ir ingto d istri bu te c ra c k a nd po wd e r co c a ine
. Am on g oth e r ar g ume nts , the y c on te nd that th e ir involv ement in t he conspira cy was so limited in participation and time that insufficie nt evidence
su pp or ts the ir c on vic tio ns and

that th e statut e of

lim itatio ns ba

rs pr os e c uti on

of the c ha rg e s a g a ins t them. We rejec t both arg uments (as we ll as the defe ndants’ other c ontentions) and ther efor e af firm the convictions, although we vaca te each of the defe ndant’s sente nces a nd rema nd for r esente ncing consistent with United States v. Book er , 543 U.S. 220 (2005).Nos. 04-6060; 04-6098

Un ite d S tates v . H e re for d

- 2 -

I.
I n 1997, a joint fede ral a

nd local druginvestigation identified L indsey Morris as a

major drug distributor in Chattanooga , Tenne ssee. From October 28, 1997 to May 21, 1998, authorities place d
a pe n r e g ist e r t e le ph on e ta

p o n M or ri s’ s p ho ne , tr a c inghis inc omi ngand ou tg oin g c a lls . F ro m Apr il 22 to May

21, 1998, authorit ies place d a wire tap on the same phone, re cordingconver sations betwee n Morris and other s in his drug- distribution operation.
On J uly 1, 1998, fede ral a g ents executed a war rant to searc h Morris’s re sidence , wher e they found 29 individually

wra pped plastic ba g s that eac h contained a q u ar t er ounce of cra ck coc aine. Morris ag ree d to testify

ag ainst his co-conspirators up and down the c hain of distribution.
On J une 24, 2003, a gra

nd jury indicted J ohn Her efor d, Rafae l Phinazee and eight other s for conspirac y

to distribute cocaine base ( cra ck) a nd coca ine hy drochloride (powde r).
At trial , M o rr i s testified that for muc h of 1997 and until his arre st in 1998 co-conspirator Stacy Ander son supplied him with betwee n a quarter kilogram and a half kil og ram of cra ck coc aine
e ve ry we e k. I n th e summe r o f 1 99 7, Mo rr is b e g an d ist ri bu tin g the dr

ug s to He re fo rd, s e lli nghim betwee n a quar

ter ounc e and a

n ounce of cr ack c ocaine once or twice a wee k. Morris furthe r te sti fi e d th a t, t o h is k

no wl e dg e , H e re fo rd

did no t us e the dr

ug s p e rs on a lly , b ut r a the r s old the m in conjunction with operating a “g ood-time house,” othe rwis e known as a house of pr ostitut ion. Her efor d ty

pically would sell the cra ck coca ine to me n who used the drug as pay ment to prostitutes wh o li v e d a t H e r e f

o r d ’ s h o u s e o r s p e n t ti me th e r e . T h e p e n ta p lo g g e d 2 3 6 c a ll s betwee n phonesNos. 04-6060; 04-6098

Un ite d S tates v . H e re for d

- 3 - associate d with Here ford a nd the phone Morr is used to conduct his drug business. At trial, the jury he ard c on ve rs a tio ns re c or de d b y the wi re ta

p in wh ic h M or

ri s a nd He re fo rd

dis c us se d th e ir distribution relationship, including plans to sell drug s on cre dit. Morris beg an selling cra ck coc aine to Phinazee in the spring of 1998 and e ventually provided him with four ounces of

cra ck every o n e or two we eks. Throug h the wire tap re cording s, the jury hear d more than 20 phone conve rsations betwe en Morr is and Phinazee in which the two discussed the de ta ils of

the ir dr ugdis tr ibutio n a

rr ang e me nt, inc lud ingPhi na zee ’s us e of low e r- le ve l de a le rs , the sale of

drug s on cre dit and details of the lar g er distribution network. The jury found He ref

ord and Phinazee guilty

of conspiringt o d i stribute 50 g rams or more of coc aine ba se and 5000 g rams or more of coca ine hy drochloride
. On August 20, 2004, the district
c ourt se nte nc e d H e re fo rd

to 2 35 mon ths and

se nte nc e d Ph ina zee to 3 60 mon ths in a c c or da nc e wi th the Se nte nc ingGu ide lin e s.
II.
A.
B oth de fe nd ants c la im that the y we re no t in vo lve d in

a dr ug -d ist ri bu tio n c on sp ir a c y

be c a us e the y ha d on ly a buy e r- se lle r re latio ns hip wi th Mo rr is. Whil e the le g a l pr e mis e of t he d e fe nd ants ’ argument is acc urate , the fa ctual pre mise is not.Nos. 04-6060; 04-6098

Un ite d S tates v . H e re for d

- 4 - The Six th Circuit has held that “a buy er- seller r el at i o nship is not alone sufficient to tie a buy er to a conspiracy , for mere sales do not prove the exis tence of the a g ree ment that must ex ist for there to be a c onspiracy .” United States v. Ande rson , 89 F.3d 1306, 1310 ( 6th Cir. 1996) (interna l qu otatio n a

nd c itatio n o mitte d) . A t th e same tim e , h ow e ve r, we ha ve he ld t hat “ wh ere th ere is additional evidenc e bey

ond the mere purcha se or sa le, from whic h knowledg e of the conspirac y may be infe rre d,” the c onviction for conspira cy should be upheld. Id. at 1311 (interna l q u o t ation omitted). We ha

ve found e vidence of a c onspiracy in the extension of credit, see U nited States v. Gr un sfe ld , 558 F.2d 1231, 1235 ( 6th Cir. 1977), repe ated pur chase s from a single source , see U nited Sta te s v . B ro wn , 332 F.3d 363, 378 (6th Cir. 2003) , and the sheer quantity of drug s transac ted, see Un ite d S tates v . B ou rja ily , 781 F.2d 539, 545 ( 6th Cir. 1986). The district cour t ga ve a jur y instruction on this defense a nd neither de fenda

nt challeng es that instruction, leavingus to decide whether sufficie nt evidence supports the conspira cy conviction.

“ [V]ie wi ngthe e vid e nc e in t he lig ht m os t f

a vo ra ble to the p ro se c uti on ,” we be lie ve tha t a

“ ratio na l tr ie r o f f

a c t c ou ld h a ve fo un d th e e sse nti a l e le me nts of the c ri me be y on d a

re a sona ble doubt.” United States v. Copeland , 321 F.3d 582, 600 ( 6th Cir. 2003) (interna l quotation omitt ed). B oth He re fo rd and Phi na zee ob ta ine d c ra c k c oc a ine on c re dit and late r pa id Mo rr is wi th the pr of its they made from selling the drug
. Her efor d boug ht c rac k coca ine from Morr is once or twic e a w eek for a lmost a y ear . Phinazee purcha sed cr ac k co caine less often, onc e eve ry wee k or two, but he boug ht larg er qua

ntities, sometim es four

ounces ( over 100 g rams) at a time. I n addition, for the
se ve n mo nth s o f t

he pe n tr a c e , M or

ri s sp ok e on

the te le ph on e wi th H e reford 23 6 ti me s and wi th Phinazee 97 times. I n the recorde d phone conversations, He ref ord ag ree d to pay

Morris ea rly so thatNos. 04-6060; 04-6098

Un ite d S tates v . H e re for d

- 5 - Mo rr is c ou ld make a

“ po we r m ov e ” and

a c qu ir e mor e c ra c k c oc a ine fr om h is s up pli e r. Mo rr is loaned him money

indicating that he wa s a loy al customer. Morri s al so discussed the conspira cy wi th P hin a zee , in dic a tin g se ve ra l tim e s that he wa s me e tin g wi th the bo ss ( An de rs on ) a nd e ve n w ith An de rs on ’s bo ss. Phi na zee ind ic a te d in the ph on e c on ve rs a tio ns tha t he un de rs too d t hat Mor ri s neede d to collect his money , just li ke Phinazee nee ded to collect from the distributors workingfor him. A ll o f

th is e v id e n c e c o n s id e r e d , a r a ti o n a l j u r

y c o u ld f in d th a t H e r e f

o r d an d Ph in a ze e w ere p art i c i p an t s i nt h i s c o n s p i r a c y. B. Def endants ne x t argue that eve n if t h ey we re involved in a conspira cy , the statute of lim itatio ns ba

rs the c la im. Whe the r a

n in dic te d c ri me falls w ith in t he statut e of

lim itatio ns , b oth parties a g ree , is a fac t question for the jury
. See Br own , 332 F.3d at 372–374 “[A ] s l o n g as at least one act in fur thera nce of the conspira cy

was c ommitt ed within the limit ations period, the statute of l imitations is not violated.” United States v. Tsang , No. 02-1776, 20 04 U. S. App . L EX I S 81 11 , at * 9 ( 6th Cir . Apr . 2 1, 20 04 ); se e als o U nite d S tates v . La sh , 937 F.2d 1077, 1081 (6th Cir. 1991) (“ The g overnme nt must show that the conspiracy continued and that at least one ove rt ac t in furthera nce of the co n s p i racy

occur red [within five y ear s of the date of indictment] .”). “ Where a conspirac y

contemplates a

continuity

of pu rp o s e and a continued perf ormanc e of a cts, it is presumed to exis t until t here has been an aff irmative showing that it has terminated; a

nd its members continue to be c onspirators unti l there has been an af firmative showing that they have w ithdrawn.” United States v. Rios , 842 F.2d 868, 873 ( 6 t h Cir. 1988) (interna l quotation omitt ed). W ithdrawa l is difficult t o prove: “A defenda nt is found t o have w ithdrawn fr omNos. 04-6060; 04-6098

Un ite d S tates v . H e re for d

- 6 - a conspira cy

wher e he or

she made a full conf

essio n t o au t h o rities or communicated to his coc on sp ir a tor s tha t he ha s aba nd on e d the e nte rp ri se and its g oa ls. Me re ly

c e a sin g a c tiv iti e s o n b e ha lf of t he conspiracy

does not constitute withdrawa l.” United States v. Fantroy , Nos. 03-2264, 03-2290, 20 05 U. S. App . L EX I S 19 10 5 ( 6th Cir . Aug . 3 0, 20 05 ) (i nte rn a l quot a tio n an d cit a tio n o mitte d) ; see als o B ro wn , 332 F.3d at 374 (“Me re cessation of activity is not sufficie nt” to “s h o w a ff i rm ati ve action” to “ defe at or disavo w t he conspira cy” which is ne cessa ry in “provingwithdrawa l.”). Not
even a n ar rest, we have he ld, nece ssarily constitutes withdrawa l from a c onspiracy
. See U nited States v. Robinson , 390 F.3d 853, 882 ( 6th Cir. 2004). I n this case, pr osecutors f

iled the indictment on J une 24, 2003, alleg ing a conspira cy that ran from 1997 throug h Aug ust 2002. The statute of limitations for c onspiracy is five y ear s, making J une 24, 1998, the r el ev ant date f or identifying a

n overt a ct in further ance of the c onspiracy and for deter mining whe ther the de fenda nts had withdrawn f

rom the consp i ra cy . The g overnme nt demons tr a te d

th a t t h e r e w a s n o t a

li mi tati o n s b ar

in tw o w ay s . F ir s t, th e g o v e r n me n t p r e s e n ted specific overt-a cts evidenc e linking H ere ford a nd Phinazee to the conspirac y within the limi tations period. Morr is and Rhonda Shrum, Here fo rd ’s former g irlfriend, te stified that Her efor d rec eived dr ug s f ro m Mo rr is o n Jun e 30 , 1 99 8, and Mo rr is t e sti fi e d th a t he c on tin ue d to dis tr ibute dr

ug s to Phinazee up u n t i l M o rris’s arre st on J uly 1, 1998. Whil e the pe riod betwe en the star t of the limit ations period, June 24, 1998, and Morr is’ arr est, J uly 1, 1998, was a dmittedly

short, a rational trier of fac t could have c oncluded be y ond a re asonable doubt that Here ford a nd Phinazee committed overt a cts in further ance of the c onspiracy afte r June 24, 1998.Nos. 04-6060; 04-6098

Un ite d S tates v . H e re for d

- 7 - Se c on d, ne ith e r H e reford n or P hi naz ee has pres ent ed an y affi rm ati ve ev id ence o f wi thdr a wa l. I n other wor ds, even if H ere ford a nd Phinazee had not taken a ffirmative acts duringthe limitations period, the pr esumption of continuity implicates them for the continuing a cts of their c o-conspirators within the limi tations period. Notably , neither defenda nt has arg ued that no overt act occ urre d afte r J une 24, 19 98, most probably beca use the seizure of

29 quarte r ounce bag s of cr ack c ocaine from Morris on J uly 1, 1998, would itself provide suff icient evidenc e of a

n overt a ct in further ance of the conspirac y

within the limi tations period. Attempting to re but this conclusion, both defenda nts argue that no evide nce c onnects them to the conspirac y

duringthe limitations period sav e th e te s ti mo ny o f a n untrustworthy

co-c onspirator, Morris. B ut that cre dibilit y d et er m i n at i on is one that g ener ally is reser ved for the jury , not an appellate court. See U

nited States v. He nley , 3 60 F .3 d 5 09 , 5 14 (6 th Cir
. 20 04 ) ( no tin g that w hil e the def endant ch all eng ed the c redibility of the c o-conspirators, who had r ece ived lesser sentenc es in exchang e for

their testi m o n y , i t was not up to the cour t to “second- g uess the jury ’s deter minations”). While Morris admitted to ly ing in previous intera ctions with the police and be fore the g rand jury , the jury

nonetheless c ould have f

ound his testimony at t rial credible, especially g iven its c on sis te nc y

wi th o the r t e sti mony

in t he tr ia l. P hin a zee se pa

ra te ly no te s th a t w he n a g e nts
rec overe d Morris’s addr ess book, his name wa s crossed out. As a n initial matter, the evidenc e shows that his name wa s “par

tially scribbled out.” And no evidenc e, to our knowledge , explains what the

“ pa rt ia l[]” c ro ssi ngou t of

Phi na zee ’s name me ant. What th e e vid e nc e do e s sh owis that Mo rr is testified that he continued to distribute drug s to Phinazee up until Morris’s arrest on July 1, 1998. Nor, at an y

rate , does Phinazee mea ningf ully addre ss the presumption that a conspira cy , onceNos. 04-6060; 04-6098

Un ite d S tates v . H e re for d

- 8 - established, continues a

bsent an a ffirmative act of withdrawa l. Phinazee’s claim that he wa s such a minor member

of the c onspiracy

that inaction should be suffic ient evidenc e of w ithdrawa l cannot be re conciled w ith the evidence that he was distributing drugs to others and buy ing up to f our ounce s
ever y wee k or two fr om Morris. C. He re fo rd se pa rate ly argue s that his tr ia l sh ou ld have be e n s e ve re d f ro m hi s c o- c on sp ir a tor s’ trial bec ause the re w ere multipl e conspira cies, not a sing le conspira cy . This contention rec eives abuse- of-discr etion revie w. United States v. W illiams , 711 F.2d 748, 750 ( 6th Cir. 1983). As a g ener al rule, individuals indicted together in a conspira cy

char g e should be tried toge ther. See, e .g. , United States v. De mpsey , 733 F.2d 392, 398 ( 6th Cir. 1984). “In order to esca pe the g ener al rule, the defe ndant must carr y t h e hea vy burden of

showing specific and compe lling prejudice resulting from a joint trial which can be rec tified only by separ ate trials.” United States

v . D av is , 809 F.2d 1194, 1207 (6th Cir. 1987) (internal quotation omitted). Her efor d argues that he
wa s p re jud ic e d b y the a dmi ssi on of e vid e nc e a g a ins t so me of his c o- de fe nd ants (p ri or

c on vic tio ns ) and by the def ense of fer ed by one of his c o-def

endants (withdraw al from the c onspiracy ). As to the
e vid e nti ary po int , we have he ld that a limiti ng ins tr uc tio n g e ne ra lly

su ff ic e s to pr ote c t c o- de fe nd ants fr om t he po te nti a l pr e

jud ic e ari sin g fr om e vid e nc e a dmi tte d a g a ins t ano the r d e fe nd ant. See U nited States v. W

arner , 690 F.2d 545, 5 5 3 (6 t h C ir. 1982). The court g ave suc h an instruction and Her efor d at all eve nts never e x plains how he wa s prejudice d by the admission of this evidence . As to the withdrawa l defe nse, the a lleg ed prejudice to Her efor d is equally unappar ent. Her efor d never
e xpla ins ho w that de fe ns e wa s inc on sis te nt wi th the de fe ns e s that He re fo rd pr e sen ted at t ria l, c f.Nos. 04-6060; 04-6098

Un ite d S tates v . H e re for d

- 9 - Zafro v. United States , 506 U.S. 534 (1993) (holding that even mutually antag onistic defense s are not a pe r s e rea son to sever) , and indee d evidenc e that ce rtain member s of the conspira cy had withdrawn f

rom it might tend to show the tenuous nature of the overa ll conspiracy
. I n view of the presumption in favor of

trying c o-co n s p i ra t o rs tog ether and in view of

the consider able e vidence
a g a ins t H e re fo rd , th e dis tr ic t c ourt did no t abu se its dis c re tio n in re fu sin g to s e ve r H e re fo rd ’s tr ia l. D. Phinazee separ ately

argues that t he admissi on of evidence about his two prior drug -re lated
c on vic tio ns wa s n ot p ro bativ e and un fa ir ly pr e jud ic e d th e ou tco me of

his tr ia l. We re vie w this contention for a

buse of discr etion. See U nited States v. Jone

s , 403 F.3d 817, 820 ( 6th Cir. 2005) The c ourt admi t t ed t est imony by a Chattanoog a police of

fice r that Phinazee (1) had bee n
arr ested in 1997 for

distributing drug s and (2) had been arr ested in 1997 for possessing a

signific ant qu anti ty of c ra c k c oc a ine in a loc a tio n w he re po lic e e ve ntu a lly arr e ste d 3 0 p e op le wh o h a d c ome to b u y crack c ocaine . I n both instances, the c ourt admitted the testimony to demonstrate Phinazee’ s intent to join t he conspira cy . Un de r R ule 40 4( b) of

the F e de ra l Ru le s o f Ev ide nc e , “ [e]v ide nc e of oth e r c ri me s, wr on g s,
or a c ts i s n ot a dmi ssi ble to p ro ve the c ha ra c te r o f a

pe rs on in o rd e r t o s ho w act io n in c on fo rm ity the re wi th. I t ma

y , h ow e ve r, be a dmi ssi ble fo r oth e r purp os e s, su c h a s pr oo f of mot ive , o pp or tun ity [or ] int e nt. ” We h a ve fr e qu e ntl y up he ld t he a dmi ssi on

of su c h e vid e nc e to dem on str a te int e nt i n drug -distribution conspiracie s. See, e .g. , Un ite d S tates v . H arris , 293 F.3d 970, 976 ( 6th Cir. 2002) (n oti ng“ de fe nd ant’ s p a st i nv olv e me nt i n th e sa le and dis tr ibutio n of cr a c k c oc a ine wa s r e le va nt t o sh owhis int e nt t o d istri bu te c oc a ine ” ); United States v. Hofstatter , 8 F.3d 316, 323 (6th Cir. 1993).Nos. 04-6060; 04-6098

Un ite d S tates v . H e re for d

- 10 - The district cour

t did not abuse its discretion in admitting this evidence . I n defe nse of the char g e ag ainst him, P hinazee ar g ued that he w as a me re buy er of crack cocaine for

persona l consumption, and the evidenc e of these rec ent char g es helped to r ebut this intent-ba sed def ense a nd show that Phinazee indeed planned t o sell the drugs that Morris had distributed to him. Given the considera ble other e vidence in this case that Phinazee wa s buy ing dr ug s from Morris a

nd selling them to users and othe r dea lers, more over, it is difficult to g rasp how this Rule 40 4 (b) evidenc e—that Phinazee wa s selling dr ug s to o t h er s —could have unfairly prejudice d him. The jud g e , it be ars a dd ing , p ro vid e d a

lim iti ngins tr

uc tio n to the jur

y ind ic a tin g that th is e vid e nc e c ou ld be conside red only for the purpose of evaluating Phi nazee’ s intent and not for purpose s of showing any criminal prope nsity . No abuse of discre tion occurr ed. Phinazee next arg ues that th e l i m i t i n g i n s t ru cti on itself “wa s insufficient to mitigate the unfair pr ejudice be cause it is confusing at best and self- contra dictory at worst.” Phinazee Br
. at 42. Be cause th e in s tr

u c ti o n d e ma

n d e d th a t th e ju

r y n o t c o n s id e r th e te s ti mo n y a s e v id e n c e o f the propensity

of the de fenda

nt to have committed the cr ime, but did inst ruct them to use it to consider if he ha d the intent to enter the con s p i ra cy , he conte nds that the instruction was misleading
. Phinazee, howeve r, did not object to this instruction, and so his c halleng e to it re ceive s plain-er ror
re vie w. F e d. R. C ri m. P . 5 2( b) . No suc h er ro r oc c ur re d. Th e c ourt e xpla ine d to the jur y that th is
e vid e nc e c ou ld n ot b e us e d to de mon str a te a g e ne ra l pr op e ns it y to joi n c on sp ir a c ie s to dis tr ibute
cra ck coc aine a

nd that the defe ndants wer e on trial only for what wa s specifie d in the indictment, notNos. 04-6060; 04-6098

Un ite d S tates v . H e re for d

- 11 - for other wrong s. That instruction is consistent with our case law. See, e .g. , Un i t ed Stat es v. Gaitlan-Acev edo , 148 F.3d 577, 592 ( 6th Cir. 1998). The g overnme nt conce des that He ref ord and Phinazee a

re e ntitled to resente ncing consistent with United States v. Book er , 543 U.S. 220 (2005). Ac cording ly , we will vac ate their sentenc es and
rema nd for r esente ncing under Booke r . III
. For these re asons, we a ffi rm t h e co n v i ct i o n s of He ref ord and Phinazee a

nd rema nd for
rese ntencingconsistent with Booke r .