## In the



# U n ited S ta tes Co urt o f Ap p ea ls

F o rth eS e v e n th C ir cu it
N o. 10

- 3198 U NI T ED S TATE SOF A MERI CA, P la intif f-A pp ellee, v. N APOL EON F OSTE R, D ef endant-Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court fo r the N o rthernDi stricto f Illino is, Eas tern Div isi on. No . 08 C R 880

—Robert W . G ettleman, Judge .
A RG UE D A PRI L 7, 2011

— D ECI DE D J UL Y 21, 2011

Befo re C UDAH Y, M A NI ON, a nd H A MI L T ON, C ircu it Judges. H A MI L T ON, C ircu it Judge. A pp el l ant Nap ol eon Fos ter w as foun d guilty of orches trating an arm ed robbery of a cr edi t uni o n a nd r el at ed fi r ea r m s ch arges. He was s en ten c e d t o 2 8 4 mo nths i n pr i s o n. Ona pp e a l, F o s t e r r a i s es num er ous c hal l enges to hi s co nvi cti ons and sentence

. F i r st, he a r g ue s th athi s j ur y was no t se l ecte d in the m anner re q u ire d byFe deralRule o fCri m i nalPro

cedure 24. H e then ar gues that inadm i ssibl e pr opensi ty2 N o. 10

- 3198 evi dence and sev er alhea rsay sta tem ents w er e a dm i tte d ag ai nst hi m . Fo ste r al so ar gues that the e vi dence w as not su fficie n t t o s h ow th at th e c re d it u n ion w as fed er ally i nsured atthe ti m e o fthe robbery, and that he co uld not be con victed as a felon in pos session of a firea rm because Illi noi s had al l ege dlyr est or ed hi s ci vi lr i ghts afte r hi s l as t te r m of i m pr i so nm en t. F i na l l y, F o st erc o ntends thathe s houl d not hav e been s en tenced as an a r me d c a r e e r c r i mi n a l

. F i n d i n gn o r e v e r s ib l e e r r o r, we affi rm Fo ste r’ s co nvi cti ons and sentence

.
I. TheRob b e ry an d F ac t ual Backg r oun d O n Jan u ar y 1 9, 2 0 0 6 , tw o a rm ed an d m as ke d p eo p le robbed the A cm e Con tinenta lCredi t Un i on in Ri ver dale , I l l i noi s. They m ade offwith about $250,00 0 in cash, ai ded bya n a cc o m pl i ce who dr o ve the i r g et awayc ar . La w enf or cem ent e ventual l y i denti fi ed A si a Hil land Charl es A nd er son as the m ask ed robber s and ap pel l ant Nap ol eon F o st era s th ei r g et awaydr i ver. Fo st erwas a r r es te d a nd charg ed w i th ar m ed robber y o f a fi nanci ali nsti tuti on in v io lation of18 U
. S. C
. § 2113(a) & ( d ), pos session of a fi re ar m i n furt h er ance o fa cri m e o fvi ol ence i n vi ol ati on o f 1 8 U
. S. C
. § 924(c)(1) (A ), and pos session of a fi rearm a f t e r b e i n gc o n v i c t e d o fa fe l o n y i n v i o l a t i o n o f1 8 U
. S
. C. § 922(g)(1)
. A sia H i l lwas the pros ecuti on’ s s tarwitnes s a t t ria l, havi ng ag re ed to te sti fy a gainst F ost eri n exchange f or l eni ency. A ccor ding to H i l l, Fo ste r ha d s u ggeste d that they rob t h e credi t uni on be cause he had done business th er e f o r s o m e ti m e an d was f ami l i arwi ththe b ui l di ngN o. 10

- 3198 3 l a y o u ta n d th e e mp l o y e e s . F o s t e r k n e w h o w ma n y e mpl o y ee s wor k ed i n the c r edi t uni o n a nd who c ar rie d the vaul t k ey. H e knew thatthe cre dituni on was unguarded and that o ne em plo yee o w ned a truc k id eal l y s uit ed f or a g eta w ay. H i l lal so tes ti fi ed that Fos terhad agr eed to provi de two fi re ar m s foruse i n the robber y. F o s t e rd i d n o tw a n tt o g o i n s i d e th e c r e di t u n i o n h i ms e l f

. He fe a r e d th ath e mi g h tb e r e c o g n i z e d

. He deci ded thathe a nd H i l lsho u ld recr uittwo addit i onal acco m pli ces to car ry out the robber y. H ill r ecr uit ed her fri end Ch ar l es A nd er son, a m an she described as “a sm all-t im e d r u g d e ale r” in n ee d of m on ey , w h o in turn r ecr uit ed hi s fri end Rand y W i l l i am s. I ni ti al l y, the pla n w as f orA nd er son and W i l l i am s t o go i nsi de th e credi t uni on wh i l e Hil land Fo ste r w ai ted behi nd i n a g eta w ay carthatW illiam s a gr eed to pro v i d e . O n th e d a y o fth e r o b b e r y, h o we v e r, Wi l l i a ms neversho w ed up. H i l lag re ed to g o into the c re dituni on in h i s pl ace. Fo ste r then dro ve H i l land A nd er son to th e cred it union, drop p ed them o ff, and drov e a short d ist an c e a w ay to w ai t f o r th em . A n d er so n an d H ill w or e m ask s. H i l lcar ri ed a . 38 re vol ver, and A nd er son ha d a saw ed -off sh otgu n, both pro vide d by Foster. Once i nsi de the c redit unio n, H i l lhad a t el l erem pty the c ash dra w er s whil e An d erson em pti ed the vaul t. A ftertheyhad tak en a l lthe m oneytheyco uld ca rr y, th ey fl ed i n a ca r stolen from one of the cred it union ’s tel l er s. H i l land A nd er son m et up with F ost era shor t di sta nce from the cred it union and aban d one d the s tolen car. Fo st er then drove them bac k t o H i l l ’ s a partm ent i n4 N o. 10

- 3198 I nd i a na t o c o un tthe mo ne y fr o m t he h e i s t
. Ou to fa pp ro x im at ely $2 50 ,00 0 s to len from th e c re d it u n io n , H ill te st ified , Fos te r to o k th e la rg es t s h ar e o f $1 00 ,00 0. H ill a nd And e r s o n s pl i twh a tr e mai ne d. A nd er so n al so tes ti fi ed pursuant t o a pl ea agr eem ent. A n d er so n co rro b or at ed m u c h of H ill’s p re vi o u s t es tim ony , adm i tting tha t he and H i l lwere the m ask ed robber s a nd cl ai m i ng tha t F ost erhad prov i ded th e guns, th e i ns i de i nf o r m at i o n abo ut th e cr edi t uni o n, a nd the get aw ay car . Because Fo ste r had planned the robber y, A nd er son tes ti fi ed, he t oo k $ 100, 000 ofthe sto l en m oney f orhi m sel fwh i l e An derso n and H i l lto ok sm al l ershar es. Fos terdi d not t est i fy in hi s defense. T h e j ury convi cted him on allthree cou nt s. A t sen t e n c in g , the district cou rt concl ud ed that Fos ter ’ s pastcr i m i nalr eco rd qual i fi ed hi m as an a rm ed car eercr i m i na land sent enced hi m to 28 4 m on th s in p ris on . Th is a p p ea l follow ed

.
II. Jury S e l e ct i on

—Fe de r al Rul eof Cr i m i nal Pr oc e dure24 Foster’s p rim ary argu m e nt on ap p eal i s tha t the j ury se l ecti on pro cess vi ol ate d Ru l e 2 4 o fthe Feder alRule s ofCri m i nalPro c ed ure. A fterthe enti re j ury panel was questi oned, the parti es exer ci sed their chal l enges f or cau s e a g a inst th e ent ire p an el. Th e pa rties then exerci sed thei r perem ptor y c h al l enges , i ncl ud i ng a num bero f extr a ch al l en g es g r an te d b y the di st r i ctc o ur t, a g ains t th e re m ai ni ng m em bers o fthe panel as a w hol e. Tw el ve re m ai ni ng m em b er s o fthe panel were then s el ecte d at ran d om and seated on th e j ury, and tw o m ore w ere sel ecte d at r andom and sea ted as al ternates
.N o. 10

- 3198 5 On app eal, Fo ste r ra i ses tw o dist i nct i ssues . Fi rs t, F o s t e r and the gove rnm en t agree th at th e d istri ct cou rt’s proce ss f orse l ecting the al ternate j uror s f ai l ed to com plywith Rul e 2 4( c) ( 4) o fth e Feder alRule s o f C r im inal Proced ure . Th at rule p rovide s ad d iti ona l p erem ptor y c hal l enges to be exer ci sed speci fi cal l y a gainst p ro sp ec tiv e a lte r n at e jur or s, th e n u m b er of w h ich is base d on th e n u m b ero fal ternates the cour t intends to se a t
. F e d . R. C rim . P. 24 (c )(4) . “T h es e a d d itio n al c h all e ng e s ma y b e u s e d onlyto r em ove al ternate j uror s. ” Id. (em p ha sis add ed ). A l though a di str i ct c ourthas substa nt ial disc re ti on re gar ding how i t co nd ucts the j ury sel ecti on pro cess , com pli ance with the expli ci t r equi rem en ts o fRule 24 is n ota m at te r en tr u st ed to th e c ou r t ’s d isc re tio n . U nited St at e s v. M e ndoz a , 5 10 F
. 3d 749, 75 3 ( 7th Ci r . 2 00 7) , c i ting U ni t e d S t at e s v. D e lgado , 3 5 0 F. 3d 520, 524 (6th Cir. 2003 ). H ere, th e d istri ct cou rt grante d the p arties extra p er em p to ry ch alle n ge s fo r u se ag ain st th e e n t i r e p an el, but di d not pro vi de the re quir ed additi onalchal l enges that coul d be use d onl y t o re m ove al ternate j uror s. S ee U ni t e d S t at e s v. Pat t e rs on , 215 F. 3d 776, 780 ( 7 t h C ir. 20 00 ) ( fi ndi ngs ame distric t j udg e’ s m etho d o fs el ec ting al ternate j uror s v i ol ate d Ru l e 2 4(c) , but fi nd i ng er ro r harm l ess ) , vac ate d i n part on othe r gr ounds, 53 1 U.S
. 10 33 (2000). The s ec o nd j ur y s el ec ti o n i ss ue chal l en g es the d ist ri ct c ourt ’ s deci si on t o have the par ti es exer ci se th ei r pe r empto ry cha l l en g es wi th o utkno wi ngthe se at i ngpr i o r i tyo fthe pa ne lm em bers

. F o st erc o m pl ains6 N o. 10

- 3198 th atthe r an do m s el ec ti o n o fth e p an elmem be r s who had survi ved the f or - cause and perem ptor y c hal l en ges d ilu te d h is a b ility to m ax im ize th e v alu e o f h is p er e m p to ry ch alle n ge s. If he h ad kn ow n th e o rd er in w hi ch the panel m em b er s w ou l d be s eat ed on the j ury, h e a rg u es , he co u ld h av e fo c u se d h i s p er em p to ry ch all enges o n thos e j uror s with the hi ghestse ating pri or i ti es a nd wh o s e i mpa r t i a l i t y h e do ub t e d. The text ofR ule 24 p ro vi des fo r questi oni ng ofpro spectiv e jur or s a n d for th e e x er c ise of p e re m p to ry ch allenges. W ith th e exc ep tion of th e sep a r a te p erem p tory chal l enges f oral ternate j uror s, however, Rule 24 l eave s a g o o d de alo fdi sc r et i o n t o a district co ur t as t o the d etails. A t the m ost bas ic l evel, Ru le 24 d oes not sp ecify a c h o i c e b e t we e n th e “ s t r u c kj u r y ” o r “j u r y bo x” s y s t e ms f orse l ecting j uri es and exerc i si ng perem ptor y c hal l enges , orf orchoo si ng am ong the m any v ar iat ion s o n them

. Fo r a us efuls um m ar y o fthe tw o m aj o r s y st ems a nd the i mpo r t a ntv a r i ab l e s i n the de t a i l s , s e e R o g e r Al l a n F o r d, M o delin g th e E

ffects of P erem pto ry C ha lleng es on Jury Sel ec ti on and Jury Ver dicts , 17 G eo. M aso n L. Rev. 37 7, 38 3- 87 ( 2010 ) ( re vi ew i ng debat e o n di ffer ent pr oce du re s, i n c l u d i n ga v a i l ab l e e mp i r i c a le v i d e n c e ) ; K a th l e e n M. M c K en n a, C urrentD eve lopm ents in Fe deral Civil P ract ice, 8 2 1 PLI/Li t
. 5 8 1 , 5 8 7

- 8 9 ( 2 0 1 0 )
. Ea c h metho d h a s i t s s up p o r t e r s a n d de t r a c t o r s . O v e r th e p a s tg e n e r a t i o n, h o weve r, the abi l i ty to chal l enge an o pp onent’ s e xerci se of p erem p tory ch all en ges u nd er Bats on v. Ke nt uc ky, 4 76 U
. S. 79 ( 1986 ) , and i ts p ro geny has ti l ted the bal ance in favor ofthe stru ck ju r y s y stem , w hich all ow s the cou rt to evaluate al lper em ptor y c hal l enges befor e a ny st ruck j uror s hav e be en se nt hom e.N o. 10

- 3198 7 Tr i all awy er s’ a nd j udg es ’ o pi ni o ns abo utthe i m po r ta nt va ria b les in jur y s ele c tio n p ro c ed u re s a re oft en firm ly hel d. Fr om the p er sp ecti ve ofpart i es and thei r l aw yer s, a cr i ti calco nsi derat i on i s ho w m uch i n for m atio n they h av e ab ou t th e effec ts of an y sp ec ific pe re m p to ry c h all enge. H ow li ke ly i s i t that a part i cul arj urorwil lbe se l ec te d i fno t st r uck, o r i s th atl i k el i ho o d s i m pl y unk n o wn ? I fth a tp a r t i c u l a r j u r o r i s s t r u c k, w ha ti s kn o wn abou t the l i kel y r epl acem ent

— i s that pos sibl e r epl acem ent even m or e bi ase d against the defendant than t h e p er so n st ru c k? See For d , sup ra , at38 7 ( noti ng tha t w he th er j ury p ool is placed i n a sp ecifi c o rd er before at to rn ey s e x er c ise th eir ch alle n ge s is b ot h “fre q u en tly disc re ti onar y” and i m p or tant to j ury sel ecti on o utco m es )
. Howev eri m po r ta ntthes e det ai l s m ayb e to the pa r t i e s , the i mpo r t a ntthingf o r o urp ur po s e s i s tha t Rule 24 l eave s these detai l s o f ju ry se l ecti on t o the di sc re tio n of th e d ist ric t jud ge . W e s p ec ifica lly rej ec te d in Patt e rs on the a rgu m ent that the acc used i n a c ri m i nal ca se i s en ti tl ed to make maxi m um s tr at egi c us e o fthe perem ptor y c hal l enges . 21 5 F
. 3d at 780. W e dw el lno furthero n the det ails of the pr oce du re s u se d t o sel ect the j uror s a nd thei r al ternates bec ause Fos terexpl i ci tl y wai ved the prot ec ti ons oftho se proce d u re s. A s th e Su p re m e C ou rt h as ex p lain ed , th e p ro visions of th e Fed eral Ru les ofCrim inal Proced ure ar e “ presum pti vel y wai vabl e. ” U nite d State s v. M ezzana tt o , 513 U
. S. 19 6, 20 1 ( 1995 )
. H er e, Fost erw ai ved any chal l enge to th e jur y se lec tio n p ro c es s b y a gr ee in g e x p licit ly in advance t o the pr oce du re u sed bythe dist ri ct j ud ge. S ee U nite d State s v. H il l , 55 2 F
. 3d 541, 54 4-45 ( 7th Ci r. 20 08)8 N o. 10

- 3198

Contra ry t o Fo s t er ’ s i ns i s t en c e on appe al, no thi ng i n the 1 re c or d ind i c at es thathi s defen s e c ouns elwas c onfus ed o r m i s i nfor m e d. ( fi nd i ng defendant w ai ved o bj ecti on t o sam e Rul e 2 4( c) vi ol ati on in s el ecti on o fal ternate j uror s)
. In an o n-there cor d pretr i alco nfe re nce and attr i al, the dist ri ct j ud ge expla i ned the m anner i n w hi ch he pl anned to conduct vo ir dir e a nd as ked the parti es i ftheyag re ed to that proce du re . Both defense counseland the pros ecuti on ag r e ed w ith ou t re se rv at ion
. Fos te r d id n otrais e h is 1 pr es en t ar g um en t unt i lafte r he was f o und gui l ty
. Hav i ng w ai ved any er ror that m ay have occur re d here , Fo ste r can not now co m p lain of the m an ne r in w hich his j ury wa s s e l e c t e d. W e al so de cl i ne Fos te r ’ s i nv i ta ti o n t o e xe r ci se o ur supervi sory pow erand re ver se hi s co nvi cti on t o coa x th e di st r i ctc o ur t i nt o co m pl y i ngwi thRul e 24 a nd o ur p re c ed en t in te rp re tin g t h at ru le. B y p ro c ee d in g w ith vo ir dir e on ly aftercar efully e nsuri ng tha t bo th par ti es had w aived the req uirem en ts of Ru le 24 , t h e district cou rt did not r eve aldi sr ega rd o fo ur pri orr ulings, but ra ther ackn ow led ged thattho se rul i ngs forbade i t fro m pro ce edingabs en t th e par ti es ’ c o ns en t. W e ar e co nfi den t th at bo th th e d ist ric t c ou rt s a n d th e p ro se c u to rs in t h is ci r cui t ar e wel la war e th atthe v al i dity ofc o nv i ct i o ns o bt a i n e d a ft e r v i o l a t i o n s o fR u l e 2 4 ma y we l ld e p e nd up on the va l i dity of s u c h w ai ver s a nd wil lta ke w hatever step s are ne cess ary to en su re th at an y s u c h w aivers a r e v a l i d.N o. 10

- 3198 9 III
. E vid entia ry Issues Fos ternext ar gues that seve ra lev i denti ar y r ulings requ ire r e v ersal. H e argu es fi rst, th at th e govern m en t’s evi dence r ega rdi ng hi s invol vem ent i n a fra ud ule nt check

cashi ng sc hem e wa s in adm i ssibl e under Feder al Rule ofEvi dence 404 ( b) ; se cond, thata conve rs at i on r ec o rd ed be twe enAnder so n a nd W i l l i ams a fte r the robber y was i nadm i ssibl e hea rs ay; thi rd, thathe was denie d an opportunity to cro ss- exam i ne a w i tness who i den ti fi ed hi m i n a pho to g r ap hic ar r ay ; a nd f o ur th, th ato ne o fhi s defen se e xhibi ts w as not pr o vi ded to the j u r y u n t i la ft e r c l o s i n ga r g u me n t s h a d b e g u n . We re vi ew thes e e vi denti ar y i ssues f or a possibl e abuse o f di s c r e t i o n, un l e s s F o s t e r f a i l e d t o o bj e c t a t t r i a l, i n w hi ch c a se ou r re vie w is on ly for p lain err or . U ni t e d Sta tes v. Ta nn er, 628 F.3d 89 0, 90 1 (7 th C ir. 20 10 ).

A. R u l e4 0 4 ( b ) E v i d e n c eR eg a r d i n gC h e c kF r a u d S c h e me Be f o r e t r i a l, the g o v e r nme ntmo v e d in lim ine f orper m i ss i o n t o i n t r o d u c e e v i d e n c e th a t, p r i o r t o th e A c me r o bb ery, F o st erha d pa rtici p at ed wi thHi l li n a fr au dul en t ch ec k

- ca sh i ngs ch eme. The g o ve r nm en t ar gu ed th at th e c h ec k-c as h in g s c h em e w as ine x tr ica b ly i nt er twi ne d wi th th e Acm e r o bb ery b ec au se the ev i den ce co nc erni ngthe s ch eme s ho wed “ why de fen dan t Fos terc ho s e t o c o mm i t[ the ] r o b b e r y i n the fi r s tp l a ce” an d “how the cri m i nalr el ati onshi p between A si a Hill and N apol eon Fos terdevel oped, wh y F os te r w as i nvol ved i n the robber y, and how C h ar les A nd er son evo l ved fro m A si a Hill ’ s co m panio n to Fo ste r’ s cr i m i nal10 N o. 10

- 3198

ass oci ate
. ” In the al ternati ve , the go ver nm ent a sse rt ed that the c heck- fra ud ev i dence w as adm i ssibl e under Rule 404(b) bec ause i t would “show how the cr i m i nal r el at i o ns hi p b etwee n de fen dan t an d H i l lde ve l o ped, a nd pla ce[ ] H ill’s re crui tm ent o fA nd er son i n conte xt by ex p lain i n g H i ll an d Fos te r’s m ot ive for p ar tic ip at in g in the Acm e Cre ditU n ion r obbe ry . ” OverFo ste r’ s obj ecti on, the dist ri ct c ourtgr anted the go vern m ent’ s m oti on on the gr ounds that the Acm e r obbe rywas “i ntri c at ely r el at ed to the a l l eg ed f ai l ed ch ec k c as hi ngs ch eme” a nd th a te v i d e n c e o fth e c h e c k

- c a s h i n gs c h e me “ e x p l a i n s the r el at i o ns hi p a m o ngthe a l l eg ed co - co ns pirato r s an d the or igin of th e c h ar ge d sc h em e t o ro b a [c re d it u n ion ].” At t r i al, the g o ve r nm en t p rese nt ed ex te ns i ve t es ti m o ny re gar ding the c heck- cashi ng schem e. On dir ect exam i nati on, H i l lexpl ai ned that she had firs t m et Fos terwh en he r ecr uit ed herto as si st hi m i n a fra ud ule nt check

cash ing sch em e. A c c o r d ing to H il l, Foster us ed pa ssp ort photos to cre ate f ake em plo yee i denti fi cati on ca rds, w hi ch H i l lwould then use to cas h f or ged co rpor ate pay ro l lcheck s. H i l lga ve any m oneyshe re cei ved to Fos ter, wh o pai d her approxi m ate l y $ 600 f orev er y c heck s h e c a s h e d

. H i l lc l a i m e d , h o w e v e r, th a tb y l a t e D e c e mbe r 2 00 5 o r e ar l y J an ua r y 2 006, s he t o l d F o st ertha t sh e want ed o ut of the c he ck

- ca sh i ngs ch eme. Ca sh i ngthe ch ec k s w as t o o t i m e- co ns um i ng, s he s ai d, a nd s he was ne r vo us abo utthe r i sks he t ook e ver y t i m e sh e cashed a f or ged check, especi al l y s i nce those check s w er e in hernam e a nd sh e r ecei ved so l i ttl e m oney fro m ea ch check

. A ccor ding to H i l l, Fo ste r re sponded by ask i ng heri fshe w as i nter est ed i n hel ping hi m r obN o. 10

- 3198 11 A cm e, a cre dituni on a t w h ich h e had “done busi ness for so m e y ea rs .” T he che ck-cas hin g e v id e nc e w as no t li m ited to H il l’ s tes ti m ony. A nd er son al so tes tified that, wh en H i l lr ecrui ted hi m to h el p ro b A cm e, she cl ai m ed to kno w F o st erfr o m he r pr i o r i nv o l ve m en t i n the c he ck

- ca sh i ng sc h em e. A n d er so n cla im ed th at H i ll ha d to ld h im that Fos ter“would g et th e checks and m ake the checks ou t,” w h ile H ill “w as res p on sib le for ca sh in g t h e c h ec ks .” H i l lhad deci ded notto co nti nue cashing tho se c h ecks , Ander so n e xpl aine d, w hi chwas “ why we wer e ta l k i ng at th at p oin t a b ou t t h e ro b b er y.” T h e c h i e ffi n a n c i a lo ffi c e r o fa v i c t i m o fth e s c h e me als o t es tifie d . H e t old th e jur y t h at, in Sep te m b er 20 05 , i t ca m e to hi s a tte nt i o n tha t fr au dul en t ch ec k s wer e be i ng cashed ag ai nst hi s com pany’s bankacc ount. A fteran i nter nalaudit, the CFO sa i d, he l earned th at “ about fi ve checks [ had] c l ear ed i n am ounts differ ent than w e had r ec o r ded. ” An i nv es ti g at i o n b y the c o m pan y ’ s ba nk re veal ed that the c hecks h ad b een c ashed ag ai nst a n ac co untus ed to payv en do r s, no t a pay r o l la cc o unt
. The CFO al so i denti fi ed a nu m b er ofthe fra ud ule nt check s that H illhad cashe d against that a ccount, none ofwh i ch ha d b ee n a utho r ized by the c o m pan y . Tho se c he ck s, the CFO e xp l a i ne d, we r e i n f a c tdu pl i c a t e s o fl e g i ti m ate checks i ssued i n differ ent a m ounts to differ ent ind i vi du al s. I n gr anti ng the go ver nm ent’ s pre tr i alr eque st to p lace this evid en ce before th e ju r y , the district cou rt re l i ed on a theo ryo f“inextri cabl e inter tw i n em en t” that com plied w i th the l aw o fthi s ci rcui t a t the ti m e. A fter12 N o. 10

- 3198 the t ri ali n thi s ca se, however, we bar re d re so rtto that the o r y o n the g r o un d tha ti th a d b e c o me “ o v e r us e d, vague, and quit e un hel pful

. ” U ni t e d S t at e s v. Gor m an , 61 3 F. 3d 711, 719 ( 7th Cir
. 2010 )
. I nstea d, w e instr ucted d istr i ct c ourt s t o consi der whether such evi dence w ou ld b e a d m iss i b l e e ith er u n d er Ru le 4 04 (b ) or a s d ire c t e vid en c e o f th e c h ar ge d offe n se . Id. ( affirm ing co nvi cti on b ec au se “in ex tr ica b ly in te rt w in ed ” ev id en c e w as p ro p er ly ad m issible as rel evan t evide nc e). W hat t o do now w i th a tr i alco nd ucted und er t he pre

G o rm an l aw ? F ro m the dist ri ct j ud ge’ s e xplanat i on under our now - abandoned “i nextri cabl y inter tw i ned” conce pt, w e thi nk i t i s cl earthatthe j ud ge w ou ld h av e a dm i tte d th i s ev i d en ce unde r Rul e 40 4(b) i fhe ha d a nt i ci pat ed o ur about- f ace. S ee U nited S t a t e s v. C o nn er, 58 3 F
. 3d 1011 , 1019 (7 th C i r. 20 09) ( obs er vi ng be f or e Gorman th a twe w i l lu phold rul i ngs app l yi ng the i nextri cabl y inter tw i ned doctr i ne i fthe evi dence ati ssue i s a dm i ssibl e under Rule 404(b) )
. U nd er Rule 404(b) , evi dence detai l i ng “o ther c r i me s , wr o n g s , o r a c t s i s n o ta d mi s s ib l e t o p r o v e t he c h ar ac te r of a p er so n in o rd er to sh ow ac ti o n in c on for m ity th er ew ith ,” b u t s u c h ev id en c e is ad m iss ible f oro therpurposes . W hen deter m i ni ng wh etherev i dence i s admi ss ibl e f o r a no th erpur po se , we as kwhethe r (1) the evi dence w as offer ed for s om e purpose o therthan to show the defendant’s cr im in alpro pensi ti es; ( 2) the othe r ac t i s si m i l ar en o ug h an d cl o se en o ug h i n ti m e to the ch ar g ed cr i m e to b e r el ev an t to tha t st at ed pur po se ; ( 3) the ev i den ce pr es en te d was s uffi ci en t to s uppo r t a fi ndi ng th atthe de fen dan t co m m i tt ed th e prior a ct; a nd ( 4) the pr o ba ti ve v alue o fthe pr o ffer ed ev i den ce is n o t su bs ta n-N o. 10

- 3198 13

To the e xt en tFos t ert ri es t o a rg ue thatthi s p u rp ose i s no t 2 am ong thos e l i s t ed i n Rul e 40 4(b) , we no t e thatthe e xc ept i ons li st ed in that r ule “do[ ] not ex haust the pu rposes f or w hich evidence ofo th er wrong s or act s m ay be ad m it ted. ” U n i te d Sta t es v. Jor dan , 72 2 F .2d 35 3 , 35 6 (7t h C ir . 19 8 3 ). F oster d oe s n o t a r g u e tha t his p rior acts w ere n ot clo se 3 en o u g h in tim e t o b e a d m iss ib le u n d er R u le 40 4 (b ). ti al l y o utw ei ghed by th e d an gero funfa i r prej ud i ce. U ni t e d S t at e s v. H i cks , 635 F.3d 106 3, 1069 ( 7th Cir. 2011). A s t o the fi rs t el em ent, the check- cashi ng sc hem e was no t o ffer ed as pr o pen si ty ev i den ce . The chec k

- ca sh i ng evi dence showed the o ri gi n ofFo ste r’ s r el atio nshi p w i th H i l l

. I t he l ped ex pl ain hi s trus t o f he r i n ca r r y i ng o ut the robber y a nd the evo l uti on o fthei r re l ati onshi p f ro m check fra ud to ar m ed robber y. The ev i dence hel ped 2 ex p lain w h y F os te r w ou ld h av e a p p ro ac h ed H ill, o fall peo pl e, wi thhis p l ant o r o b Acm e: the t wo kne w on e anothe r w el lnotm er el y in a s oci alse ttin g b ut i n an ongoi ng cr i m i nalr el ati onshi p. S ee U ni t e d S t at e s v. Tayl or, 52 2 F. 3d 731, 73 4 ( 7th Ci r. 20 08) ( noti ng tha t the f act that a d ef en d an t’s cr im in al a ss oc iat es “h ad d ea lt w ith h im previ ousl y c oul d explain how theywere abl e t o i denti fy hi m . . . and w hy he w as w i l l i ng to dealwith th em ”). O n th e se co nd e l ement, F o st eri ns i st s th atc he ckfr au d i s s o different fro m ar m ed robber y that thi s e vi dence coul d n o th a v e b e e n a dmi t t e d a g a i ns th i m un der R u le 4 04 ( b )
. F o st er cit es ca se s in w h ich w e h av e h eld 3 p rior ba d ac ts ina d m iss ible be c au se th ey bo re to o litt le14 N o. 10

- 3198 sim ilar ity to th e o ffen se ch ar ge d

. E.g
. , U ni ted Sta t e s v. H udso n , 8 4 3 F
. 2 d 1 0 6 2 , 1 0 6 6 ( 7 th Ci r . 1 9 8 8 ) ( fi nd i ngan ab us e o fdi sc r et i o n whe r e “ gov ernm en t di d no t i n a ny w ay estab li sh that the .

. . robbery w a s s im ila r i n n atu re to the c harg ed cri m e”)
. B ut the f act that cer tain Rule 40 4( b) evi dence i s a dm i ssibl e o r not i n one case does not m ean that the sa m e r esul t will b e ca l l ed f ori n a s ubsequent cas e: [Q ]u es tio n s a b ou t “ h ow s im ilar is sim ilar en ou gh ” . .
. d o n oth av e u n iform an sw er s; th es e a n sw er s . . . depe nd on t he theory that m akes the e videnceadm is si ble, a nd m us t be reach ed on a case -by-case bas is. T hu s, sim il ari ty m eans m or e than shar i ng so m e co m m on ch ar acter isti cs; the com m on char acte ri sti cs m ustrel ate to the p urp o se for w hic h th e evid ence is of fered

. U nited Sta tes v . To rres , 97 7 F
. 2d 321, 32 6 ( 7th Ci r. 19 92) (em p h as es ad d ed ); U ni t e d S t at e s v. Vargas , 552 F. 3d 550, 55 5 ( 7th Cir
. 2008 ) ( expla i ni ng that “w e anal yze w hether the pr i orco nd uct i s s i m i l areno ugh on a cas e-by- case bas is, a d eterm ination that ‘ d ep en d [s] on t h e th eory that m ake s the ev i dence a dm i ssibl e’ ”) , quoting U nited Sta tes v. W

heeler, 540 F.3d 68 3, 69 2 (7 t h C i r . 200 8). T h is i s why such a hi gh degr ee of sim i l ar i ty i s r equi re d w hen Rule 404(b) ev i dence i s o ffer ed to pro ve m odu s op e r andi, U nite d State s v. Sm ith , 1 0 3 F .3 d 600, 603 (7th Cir. 1996), w h ile les s s im ilar ity is r e q u ire d w h en su c h ev id en c e is offer ed f oro therpurposes , se e U nited Sta tes v . Wheeler, 540 F.3d 683, 692 (7th Cir. 2008). Bec au se the e vi den ce ofF o st er ’ s pr i o r c he ckfr au d w as offe re d to sh ow th at h e h ad a c rim in a l rela tio n sh ipN o. 10

- 3198 15

w i th H i l lthatev entual l y ga ve r i se to the pl an to r ob Acme , R u l e 4 0 4 ( b ) r e q u i r e s l i t t l e s i mi l a r i t y b e t we e n t he check fra ud and t h e s ubsequent r obbe ry . S ee Vargas , 55 2 F. 3d at 555; To rres , 9 77F
. 2d at3 26
. As o ur cas es e xpl ain, the c om pari son ofFo ste r’ s pri oract s t o the c harg ed c rim es “n ee d n otbe u n d u ly rig id ,” b u t ra th er sh ou ld be “ dir ecte d at e stabl i shi ng t h e re l evancyo fthe 404(b) evi dence. ” U ni t e d S t at e s v. Ll oyd, 71 F. 3d 1256 , 1 264- 65 ( 7th Ci r. 19 95) ( em phasi s o m i tte d). H er e, the e vi dence sh ow in g t h at Fos te r su gg es te d th e ro b b er y a fte r H ill dec i ded th ats he no long erwant ed to c as h fr au dul en t check s w as re l evanti n ess enti al l y the sa m e way as woul d ha ve b een e vi den ce s ho wi ngtha t F o st era nd H i l l wer e o l d fr i en ds o r cl o se r el at i ve s: i t ex pl aine d why F o st ert r us te d Hi l l, o fa l lpe o ple, to he l p c ar r y o ut the A cm e robber y. Give n the pu rpos e f orw h i ch thi s e v i de nc e wa s o ffe r e d, the s i mi l a r i t y p r o ngo f the Rul e 4 04(b) anal ysi s i s o f e x ceedi ngl y m i ni m alsi gni fi c a nc e . S ee H i cks , 63 5 F
. 3d at 1069 ( sta ti ng tha t Rul e 40 4(b) r equi r es o nl y tha t the c ha r g ed cr i m e an d the othe r act be “ si m i l areno ugh and cl ose eno ugh in t im e t o be relevan t to the m atter in issue” ). Th e significant diffe r e nc e s b e t we e n c he c kfr a ud a nd a r med rob b e r y do no t unde r m i ne the c he ckfr au d s ch em e’ s r el ev an ce t o the gov er nm ent’ s a rgum ent that the r ob b ery r epres ented a n e s c a l a t i o n o fF o s t e r ’ s a nd Hi l l ’ s c r i mi na lr e l a t i o ns hi p. The thi rd el em ent o fRule 40 4( b ) analy si s r equi re s that th e ev i den ce b e su ffi ci en t to pr o ve F o st er ’ s i nvolv ement i n the c he ck

- ca sh i ngs ch eme b y a pr ep ond er an ce o fthe ev id en c e. U nited Sta tes v. R eyes , 542 F.3d 588 , 592 (7 th Cir. 2008 )
. Giv en t h e extensi ve evi dence and tes ti m ony pre-16 N o. 10

- 3198

se n te d attria l

— H il l testifi ed at length regard ing Foster’s ro l e in the check- cashi ng sc hem e, and the vi ctim ’ s CFO confi rm ed that h is com pany had been the v i cti m o fthat schem e

— the r e ca n b e l i tt l e do ubttha t th e g o ve r nm en t m etthi s bur den

. T h e fi n a le l e me n to fo u r ana l y s i s r e q u i r e s th a twe consi der whether the pr ej ud i ci alvalue o f the evi dence su b st an tia lly ou tw eig h ed its p ro b at ive v a l u e. H i cks , 63 5 F.3d at 106 9. C e n t r al to th is determ ination is w he th er, i n conte xt, the evi dence’ s “ prej ud i ci ali m pact i s s ubst an tia l in re lat ion to th e e vid en c e’s p ro b at ive va lu e.” Ta nn er, 628 F.3d a t 9 02 . “[T ]h e m or e p ro b at ive th e e viden ce , the mor e t he c o ur t wi l lt o l er at e so m e r i sko fpr ej ud ice , w h i l e le ss p ro b at ive ev id en c e w ill be re c eiv ed on ly i fthe ri sk ofprej ud ice is m or e r em ote
. ” U nited Sta tes v. To rres , 977 F.2d 321 , 328 (7th C ir. 1992). The tes ti m ony f ro m H i l land A nd er son about the c heckca sh i ngs ch eme wa s su ffi ci en tly p ro ba ti ve r eg ar di ng H i l l’s re lat ion sh ip w ith Fos te r to ov er c om e a n y u n fair ly pr eju dici aleffect ofthatev i dence. A l though the questi on is cl oser, w e also see n o error, gi ven the gove rnm en t’s theo ryo fadm i ssibi l i ty, i n adm itt ing t est i m ony fro m o ne v i ct i m o f th e ch ec k

- ca sh i ngs ch eme. The g o ve r nm ent had to prove the schem e byatl eas t a pre pond er ance o fthe e vi den ce . The v i ct i m pr o vi ded a wi tn es s who was , unl i k e H i l la nd Ander so n, no t a co nfessed b an k ro b b erand w as not burdened w i th the cr edibi l i ty probl em s usual l y a sso ci ate d w i th co nfe sse d fe l ons. E ve n if th e v ict im ’s t es tim on y w en t in to m or e d et ail about the c heck- fra ud sche m e than w e m i ght o urse l vesN o. 10

- 3198 17 thi nk nece ssa rywith th e b en efi t o fhi nd si ght, we see no abu se of d iscretion or reversible error. T he ju ry hear d extensi ve tes ti m ony fro m two ofFo ste r’ s a l l ege d accom pli ces, bo th o fwh om nam ed Fo ste r as thei r get aw ay dr i ve r a nd the man who pl anne d t he A cm e r o bb ery a nd too k the l ar ges t s hare of the proce eds. M uch ofthe check

cashi ng ev i dence

— sp ecifi cally, H il l’ s an d A n d erson ’s tes ti m ony expla i ni ng how the check fra ud schem e e vol ved in to a pla n to r ob A cm e

— wa s pr o pe r l y a dmi t t e d under Rule 404(b)

. G ive n the str ength ofthe case ag ai nst Fos ter, we belie ve the r el ati vel y m odest quanti ty of ev i den ce pr o vi ded bythe v i ct i m had n o mean i ng ful effec t o n the j ury’ s ve r di cto n the b an kr o bb ery a nd fire a r m c h a rg es . See , e . g. , U ni t e d S t at e s v. Rob i ns on , 8 F. 3d 39 8, 4 11 ( 7th Ci r . 1 99 3) ( ex p lai nin gtha t “a no n- co nst itu tio n al e rro r is h ar m les s if .

. . it d id n otsu b s t an tia lly a ffe c t the j ur y ’ s de c i s i o n” ) ; s e e a l so Ta nn er, 62 8 F
. 3d at 90 3 (fin d in g n o re ve rs ible err or w h er e p or tio n o f te st im ony i nadm i ssibl e under Rule 403 w as “cum ula ti ve” an d “ no t so pr ej udi ci alr ela ti ve t o the e xt r emel y s tr o ng evid en ce of [ th e d efend an t’s] gu il t”).

B
. He ars ay Obj e ct i ons Over Fos ter ’ s pretr i al obj ecti on, the dist ri ct c ourtadm i tt e d int o e v i de nc e c e r t a i n o ut
- o f

- c o ur ts t a t e men t s ma de by A nd er son and W i l l i am s concer ni ng the A cm e r obbe ry . A t t ri al, A nd er son tes ti fi ed that h e a nd W i l l i am s had got ten t oge therso m e t i m e a fterthe A cm e r obbe ryto dr i ve a r o u n d a n d t o “ l o o k [ ] f o r l o c a t i o n s . . . t o g o o ut an d rob .” A s t h e y d ro ve aro u n d , A n d er so n to ld18 N o. 10

- 3198

B eca u se w e find no erro r on these issu es, w e d ecline to 4 res o l v e t he p arties’ disp u te ov er w he the r p lain erro r rev iew is app ropriat e her e. See Tan n er, 628 F. 3d at 901 n. 2. W i l l i am s about hi s invol ve m en t in the A cm e r obbe ry . U nbeknownst to A n d erson at the t i m e, W i l l i am s was r ec o r di ngthe e nt i r e co nv er sa ti o n fo r the F BI
. Dur i ng A nd er son’ s t est i m ony, the dist ri ct c ou rtadm i tte d i nto e v i de nc e the r e c o r di nga nd p o r ti ons o fa t r a ns c r i pt and al low ed t h e g ove rnm ent t o pla y par ts ofthe re co r di ngf o r the j ur y . F o st era r g ue s th atthe r ec o r di ng an d tra n sc rip t w er e in ad m iss ible h ea rs ay an d th at th eir admi ss i o n v i o l ated hi s S i xth Am en dm en t r i g htt o c o nfro n ta tio n be c au se W illiam s d id n otte st ify a t t ria l. 4 W e a nal yze e ach decl ar ant’ s s tat em ent s epara tel y for the purpos es ofhear sayanal ysi s. S ee U nited Stat e s v. To lliv er, 45 4 F
. 3d 660, 66 5- 66 ( 7th Cir
. 20 06)
. U nd er Rule 801( d)( 1) ( B), an o ut- of

- c ou rtst ate m ent i s e xcl ud ed fr o m the he ar sa y r ul e if( 1) tha t st at ementi s co ns i st en t w i th the decl ar ant’ s t ri al te sti m ony; ( 2) the party offer i ng tha t s tat em en t d id so to re but an express o r i m pli ed char ge ofr ecent f abr i cati on o r i m properm oti ve agains t the de claran t; (3) t h at stat em en t w as m ad e before th e de cl ar an t ha d a mot i ve f o r f ab r i ca ti o n; a nd ( 4) the d e c l a r a n tt e s t i fi e s att r i a la n d i s s u bj e c tt o c r o s s - e x a mi n at ion
. U nited Sta tes v. Fulf o rd, 9 8 0 F
. 2 d 1 1 1 0 , 1 1 1 4 ( 7th Cir
. 19 92) , ci ti ng U nite d State s v. Lewis , 95 4 F
. 2d 1386 , 1391 ( 7th Cir. 1992). Fos terchal l enges o nl y the se cond el em ent of this te st, w h ich w as u n d ou b te d ly sa tis f i e d h er e. Fo st er cle ar lyN o. 10

- 3198 19

W e do no tc ons i der Fos t er ’ s addi t i ona l ar gum en t s c on- 5 cer ning the app li cat ion of R ule 801( d)( 1) ( B), al l ofw hich Foste r rai se d for the fir stti m e i n his rep ly b ri ef. See U ni t ed Sta t es v. F ei n berg, 89 F. 3d 3 33 , 341 ( 7th Cir

. 19 96 ) ( “The r epl y br i efi s no t the app ropriat e vehic le f or pres enti ng new argu m ents or l egal the or i es t o the c our t
. ”)
. Fos t erha s al s o wai ved a ny c hal l en ge to W illiam s’ p art o f t h e r e c or d ed con v ersatio n b y f ailing to d ev elop this arg u m en t su fficiently on ap p eal, bo th factu ally a n d le g a lly

. E.g. , U n i te d St a t e s v. Col l i ns , 60 4 F .3d 48 1 , 48 7n .2 (co n tin u ed ...) im p lied in h is op en in g s ta te m en t t h at A n d er so n w ou ld l i e about Fos ter ’ s invol vem ent in the robber y in or der to curr y f avo r w i th th e gover nm ent. By i m ply i ng tha t A nd er son’ s pl ea agr eem ent g ave hi m an incenti ve to li e, Foster open ed th e d oor to the ad m issi on of A nd erson ’s pr i o r c o ns i st en t st at emen ts o n di r ec t ex ami na ti o n, before Foster ha d a n op p ortu nity to ch all en ge A nd erson ’s cre dibi l i ty on cr oss - exam i nati on. S ee U ni t e d S t at e s v. C herry, 938 F.2d 748, 75 6 (7th C ir. 1 991) (holding w itness ’s pri orco nsi ste nt st atem ent a dm i ssibl e in partbec ause defe nse c ounseli m pli ed duri ng o pening sta tem ent that w itn es s ha d fab ric at ed h e r t e st im on y); U ni t e d S t at e s v. Le Blan c, 61 2 F
. 2d 1012 , 10 17 ( 6th Ci r. 19 80) (ho l ding w i tne ss’s prior c o ns istent statem en t ad m issible w he re defe nse c ounseli m pli ed i n hi s o pen ing s tat em ent that w itn es s “ sh ou ld n o t b e b elie ve d be c au se of th e fa vo ra b le c on sid er at ion h e r e c eiv ed from th e g ov er n m en t inh is ple a ba rg ai ni ng ag re em ent”)
. A nd er son’ s pri orco nsi sten t statem en t w as no t hea rsay u nd er Ru le 801(d)(1 )( B ), an d the d istri ct cou rt did not err. 520 N o. 10

- 3198

(
. . . c on t i nu e d) 5 ( 7th Cir. 2010)
. In any e vent, our revie w o f th e record i ndi c at es thatW i l l i am s ’ s t at em en t s wer e offer ed notf or t he i r t r u th b u to n l y t o p r o v i de th e c o n t e x tn e c e s s a r y t o al l ow the j ur y to m ak e s en s e ofAnder s on’ s adm i s s ibl e s i de o fthe conv er sa ti on. See U n ite d S ta te s v . G ajo , 29 0 F .3d 922 , 93 0 (7th C ir . 20 0 2 ). C. Phot ographi c Ide nt i

f i ca t i on Fos te r’s next chal l enges the appli cati on o fano ther excepti on to the hear sayr ule to o ut- of

- cour t s tat em ents i den ti fy i nga pa r ti cul arpe r so n. T he ev i den ce a t i ss ue here i s a photo gr aphic ar ra y a dm i tte d as pr oo fthat F o s t e r o wn e d th e b l a c kC a d i l l a c u s e d i n th e A c me r o bb ery a nd tha t F o st erwas with H i l lo n the da y o fthe robber y. A t t ri al, Danie lKot lajich t est i fi ed that he had so ld a b lac k C ad illac to Fos t er in O c to b er 20 05 . H e id en tifi ed the bi l lo fsa l e a nd ve hi cle titl e that F ost erhad si gned i n that sale

. Kotl aj i ch al so tes ti fi ed that Fos ter had accom p an ied H i l lwh en she purchase d a bl ack Oldsm obi l e fro m Kotl aj i ch on the day ofthe A cm e r obbe ry . U nfo rtunatel y forthe p ro secuti on, Kotl aj i ch co uld not i denti fy F ost erattr i al

. Kotl aj i ch did s ay, how ev er, that w hen prev i ousl y s h own a photog ra phic ar ra y, he was abl e t o i denti fy the m an wh o had pu rchas ed the bl ack C ad il lac and w ho h ad acco m p a nied H il l w he n sh e pu rchased th e bl ack Oldsm obi l e. H e t est i fi ed that he had i ni ti al ed the photo ofthe m an he i denti fi ed i n that ar ra y. T he govern m e n t later called FB ISpec ialA gen t L ori W ar re n, wh o tes ti fi ed that she had spoken to K otl aj i chN o. 10

- 3198 21 and show n hi m a photo ar ra y that in c lu d ed a photo of Fos ter
. A ccor ding to A gent W ar re n, Kotl aj i ch had i den ti fi ed an d i ni ti ale d F o st er ’ s pho to i n tha t ar r ay . The gov er nm ent then offer ed the photo a rra y into evi dence. Fo st er obj ecte d o n the gr ound that he had no t been a b le to c ro ss- exam i ne Kotl aj i ch r ega rdi ng tha t a rr ay. The di str i ctc o ur t ag r ee d tha t F o st erhad no t be eng i ve n s uffi ci en t opportunity t o cro ss- exam i ne Kotl aj i ch abo ut the photo ar ra y, but ove rr ule d that obj ecti on a ftergr anti n g Fos ter the o pp or tuni ty to re c al land cr oss - exam i ne Kotl aj i ch du ring hi s ca se- i n-c hi ef

. Fo ste r neverto ok advantage ofthato pp or tuni ty to re cal lKotl aj i ch, however, and re ste d hi s ca se w i thout cal l i ng anywitnes ses i n hi s defense. F e de r a lR ul e o fEv i de nc e 8 0 1 ( d) ( 1 ) ( C) e xc l ud e s a s tat em en t from the de fi ni ti o n o fhe ar sa y i fthe de cl ar an t “t es ti fi es a t tr i al

. . . s ubj ec t to c r o ss - ex am i na ti o n c o nce r ni ngthe s ta te m en t a nd th e st at ementi s . . . ( C) o ne o fi den ti fi ca ti o n of a pe r so n made a fte r pe r ce i vingthe p erson . . . . ” U nd er this rule, K otlaj ich’s out -of

co ur t i den ti fi ca ti o n o fF o st er was a dm i ss ibl e no nhear sayso l ong as K ot lajich t est i fi ed at tr i aland w as subj ect to cro ss- exam i nati on co ncer ni ng tha t i dent ificatio n . Th e T h ird C irc u it h as ex p lain ed : D e b a t e o n th e 1 9 7 5 a m e n d m e n t t o [ R u l e 8 0 1 ( d ) ] d e monst ra tes [ that] Congr ess was aw ar e that thi rd part i es w oul d test i fy t o the witness’ s pri orst ate m ents. S e e 1 2 1 Co ng . R e c . 3 1 , 8 6 7(19 7 5 ) ( s t a t e men to fR e p. H un gate) (“T h e b il l

. . . ap p li es to situation s w he re aney ew i tn es s ha s pr ev i o us l y i den ti fi ed a per so n o ut ofcou rt
. I t would adm i t into evi dence te sti m ony of22 N o. 10

- 3198 that i denti fi cati on. Fo r exam ple , te sti m ony by a pol i ce o ffi certh at a t a l i neup Jo hn Doe i denti fi ed th e d efend an t as the m an w ho robb ed his store. ”). U ni t e d S t at e s v. Br i nk, 39 F. 3d 4 1 9, 426 (3d Cir. 1994). So l ong as the r equi re m ents ofRule 80 1( d)( 1) ( C) a re m et, g o ve r nm en t ag en ts may te st i fy about a pr i o r s ta te m en t o fi den ti fi ca ti o n made b y a witne ss who “ i den ti fi ed th e defe nd ant in a l i neup or p h ot ospr ead, but f or get s, o r changes , hi s tes ti m ony at trial

. ” Id. ; see , e . g. , U nited Sta tes v. O ’M a lley, 7 96 F
. 2d 89 1, 8 98

- 99 ( 7th Ci r . 1 98 6) ( al l o wi ng FBI ag en t t o tes ti fy r ega rdi ng witne ss’ s pri ori denti fi cation of d efend an t after w itness recan ted at tri al)

. The bett erco urse , o bvi ously, i s to p ro vi de the photo a r r a y o r o th e r e v i d e n c e o f th e p r i o r i d e n t i fi c a t i o n i mmed i a t e l y, whi l e the de c l a r a nt i s s t i l l o n the witnes s sta nd

. But eve nts a t t ri also m eti m es m ak e the be tte r co ur se i m pr ac ti ca l

. In s uchc i r cumst an ce s, a mean i ng ful o ppo r tu ni tyt o c r o ss - ex ami ne a dec l ar an t r eg ar di ng hi s pri ori denti fi cati on i s e nough to sa ti sfy th e r equi re m en ts o f Rule 80 1, ev en i fthe defe nd ant cho ose s no t t o use the o pp or tuni ty. S ee Un i t e d S t a t e s v . E l e my, 656 F.2d 50 7, 50 8 (9 th C ir. 19 81 ) (h old in g t h at FB I age n t’s te st im on y r e g a r di ngwi tne s s ’ s p r i o r i de nt i fi c a t i o n wa s a dm i ss ibl e wher e no th i ngi n th e r ec o r d s ug g es te d tha t th e dec l ar an t was una va i l ab l e f o r r ee xa m i na ti o n after the age nt’ s t es tim ony)
. The di str i ct c ourtpro vi ded Fo ste r such a m eani ngful opportunity t o cro ss- exam i ne Kotl aj i ch w hen i t g ra nted Fo ste r perm i ssi on t o re call K otl aj i ch as a w itness to pu rsu e this m atter furth er.N o. 10

- 3198 23 D
. E v i d e n c eo

f F o r e c l o s u r eo n F o s t e r ’s Ho me Fos terco m pla i ns thato ne o fhi s e xhibi ts w as n ot presen ted to the jury d uring his case-in-ch ief

. Du ring a j ury re cess afterthe gov er nm ent r ested i ts case , Fo ste r offer ed i nto evi dence an e xhibi t s how i ng t h at hi s m or tga ged h om e h ad gon e in to fore c lo s u re so m e t im e a fte r h is all eged pa rtici p a tion in the A cm e robbery. Th e cou rt adm i tte d thi s e xhibi t into evi dence w i thout obj ecti on fro m the gov er n m ent. W hen the j ury re turned fro m i ts r e c e s s , h o we v e r, n e i the r the c o ur tn o r de fe ns e c o unsel to ld th e jur y t h a t a n y e x h ibith ad be en offe re d int o e vide n c e in i ts abse nce. Instea d, the c ourtto l d the j ury that the par ti es had res ted and al l owed the gov er nm ent t o begin i ts cl osing ar gum ent. A lm ost im m ed iately, Fos ter re qu ested a si d ebar con ference and tol d the co urt that his ex h ibit had neverbee n pu bl i shed to the j ury. The di str i ct c ourtthen tol d the j ury: W he n Is ai d “ bo ths i des r es te d, ” we ha d b ee n do i ng som e workwh en yo u w er e o ut f or y our l unch brea k, a n d d u r i n gth a t ti me th e d e fe n s e o ffe r e d s o me exhibi ts i nto evi dence w hi ch w er e a ccep ted i nto evi dence and that they w i l l add re ss du ring thei r case . A n d thatwas part ofthei r case . The r ule i s that y ou o r di na r i l y do n’ t o ffere xhibi ts e xc eptdur i ngy o ur own cas e. They use d that o pp ortu n i ty w hen yo u w ere out to offer those ex hibits w hich are i n. So y o u’llhe arthe m di sc us s th atdur i ngthe i r c l o sing ar gum ents. A s t h e d ist ric t c ou rtp ro m ise d , Fos te r h igh ligh te d th is ex hibi t dur ing his cl o singa r g um en t, a r g ui ngtha t i fhe24 N o. 10

- 3198

re al l y had st ol en $1 00, 000 fro m A cm e, he c oul d have save d his hom e fro m f or ecl osur e. O n ap p ea l , F o st er arg u es th at th e fa ilu re to allow h im to prese nt thi s e xhibi t du ring hi s ca se- i n-c hi efte nd ed t o d i m i n i s h i t s i m p o r t a n c e a n d g r e a t l y p r ej u d i c e d h i m. W e d isa gr ee . W h en Fos te r b ro u gh t t h e o m iss i o n o fh is ex hibi t to the c o ur t’ s at te nt i o n, the c o ur t ex pl aine d the m ist ak e t o th e jur y a n d ga ve Fos te r’s co u n se l am p le o ppo r tu ni tyt o di sc us s th e o m i tt ed ex hibi t i n h i s cl o sing ar gu m en t. O n ly a fte r th e jur y fou n d h im g u i l ty d id Fos terco m pla i n that thi s i ssue shoul d hav e be en handle d di ffer en tly . Abs en t a co nt empor an eo us o bj ec ti o n, o ur re vi ew i s forpl ai n er ro r. S ee U ni t e d St at e s v. B roa dnax, 53 6 F .3d 69 5, 69 9 (7 th C ir. 20 08 ); U ni t e d St at e s v. Thom ps on , 2 7F
. 3 d 6 7 1 , 6 7 3 ( D. C
. Ci r . 1 9 9 4 )
. O n p l a i n e r r o r r e v i e w, w e m ay re ver se onl y i fthe j ury probabl y would have a c q u i t te d Fos te r if it h ad se en th e o m itt ed ex h ibit dur i ngF o st er ’ s ca se - i n- ch i efr athe r tha n d uri ngc l o sing ar gum ents. S ee U ni t e d S t at e s v. Col l i ns , 6 0 4 F
. 3 d 4 8 1, 48 7 ( 7th C ir. 2 010)
. Fo ste r suffer ed no s uch prej ud i ce fro m the inadvert ent o m i ssi on o fa si ngl e exhibi t fro m hi s ca sei n-c hi ef, an e x h ibi t he prese nted to the j ury and used to ar gue that the f or ecl osur e s how ed hi s innocence. Fos terar gues that re ver sali s s ti l lr equi re d because the di str i ct c ourthad al re ady to l d the j u ry thatany sta tem en ts made dur i ngc l o singa r g um en ts may notb e co nsi dered as ev i dence ofi nnocence orgui l t. B u t the di str i ct c o ur t a l s o i nfo r med the j ur y tha t, no t wi ths t a nd i ngi ts pr i o r i ns t r uc t i o n t o the c o nt r a r y, F o s t e r wo ul d be al l o wed t o pr esent hi s o m i tt ed ex hibi t dur i nghi s cl o singN o. 10

- 3198 25

ar gum ent. A bsent extr aor dinar y c i rcum sta nces not p re se n t in th is c as e, w e p re su m e th at th e jur y h ee d ed th is i nstr ucti on and ga ve Fos ter ’ s e xhibi t the co nsi derat i on it d es er ve d

. E.g
. , U nite d State s v. O choa-Z arate, 54 0 F
. 3d 613, 6 20 ( 7th Ci r. 20 08)
. Fo ste r suffer ed no prej ud i ce h er e, letalon e s u c h su b st an tia l p rej u d ice as w ou ld ca ll f o r r e v e r s a lo n p l a i n e r r o r r e v i e w.

IV
. Su fficien cy of th e E vid ence

—Acme’s Ins ure d S t at us I n a p r o secu tion un d er the fed eral bank robb ery sta tu t e , the g o v e r nme ntmus tp r o v e b e y o nd a r e aso n ab le d ou b t t h at t h e v ict im fina n c ial in st itu tio n falls w i thi n the cove ra ge ofthe l aw . I ft he vi cti m i s a st ate
chart er ed cr edi t union, the gov er nm ent m ust pro ve that its ac c ou n ts w er e in su re d by th e N a t ion al C re d it U ni on Ad m i ni str ati on a t the ti m e o fthe robber y. S ee 18 U .S.C . § 21 13 (a) & (g); Un i t e d S t a t e s v . Tayl or, 728 F. 2d 93 0, 9 33 ( 7th Ci r . 1 98 4)
. T o m ee t th atb ur den, the g o ve r nm en t p r e s e n te d th e t es tim on y of A c m e’s vic e p re siden t/ co m ptr o l l er, who i den ti fi ed two g o ve r nm en t ex hibi ts as insurance ce rt i fi cate s s how i ng tha t Acm e was in su re d by th e N C U A . A c c or d in g t o th e v ice p re sid e n t, A c me h a d b e e n i n s u r e d b y th e N C UA s i n c e N o v e mber13 , 19 72, a nd was i nsured i n the am ount o f $ 1 0 0 , 0 0 0 p e r me mbe r a c c o un to n the da y i tw as r o b b e d. On cros s- exam i nati on, and a gain on r edi re ct e xam i nati on, the vi ce pres ident r eaffi rm ed that A cm e was i nsured bythe N CU A o n the d at e ofthe robber y. Thi s i ns ur a nc e wa s i n a ddi t i o n t o Ac me’ s i ns ur ance agai nst r obbe ryand prot ecte d A cm e’ s cust om er s’26 N o. 10

- 3198

a c c o u n t s a g a i n s ta n y l o s s e s th e y mi g h ti n c u r i fA c me w ent o ut o fbusi ness. Thi s ev i den ce w as su ffi ci en t to meetthe g o ve r nm ent’ s bur den. S ee Taylo r, 7 2 8 F .2d at93 3 (fin d in g s u ffic ien t b an k v ice p re sid en t’s te st im on y t h a t “ c lea rly ind ic a t e d t o th e j u r y th a tth e b a n kwa s fe d e r a l l y i n s u r e d o n” the date o fthe offen se ). Even i fwe assum e forthe sak e ofar gum ent that the 30

- yea r- ol d i nsurance cer ti ficate s on thei r own were not suffi cient to show that Acm e was i nsured wh en i t was r ob bed i n 200 6, se e U nited Sta tes v. P la t enbu rg, 6 57F
. 2d 79 7, 8 00 ( 5th Ci r . 1 98 1) ( va ca ting convi cti on wh er e the o nl y e vi dence ofbank’s i nsurance sta tus wa s a ce rt i fi cate that“a ntedate[ d] the char ged eve nts b y s eve n yea rs ”) , the vi ce presi dent expla i ned that th o se c er ti fi ca te s r emai ne d e ffec ti ve a t th e ti m e o fthe robber y. M or e e xtensi ve testim ony on thi s i ssue w as u n n e c e ss ar y, p ar tic u lar ly sin c e t h e v ice p re sid en t’s te st im ony “w as uncontro ver ted byany ev i dence offer ed by the defendant. ” Taylo r, 7 28 F. 2d at9 33 ( r ej ec tingde fen dant’s chal l enge to the s uffi ci ency ofthe evi dence aga i nst hi m ) ; se e U ni t e d S t at e s v. Knop , 70 1 F
. 2d 670, 67 2- 73 ( 7th Ci r. 19 83) ( deem i ng ev i dence ofb an k’s i nsured st atus suffi ci en t wher e defen dan t ne ve r c o nt es te d the su ffici en cy of that evid en ce at trial)

.
V
. R estora tio n o

f Fo ster’s Righ t to B ear A rm s? A t t ri al, Fo ste r stipu lat ed that he had prev i ousl y b een convi cted o fa fel ony. A fter hi s co nvi cti on a nd o n appeal, however, he a rgued that he cou ld not hav e vio l a t e d th e fe lon -in -p os se ss ion st at u te be c au se h is c ivilN o. 10

- 3198 27 ri ghts w er e r est or ed f ol low in g hi s m ostr ecentr el eas e fr o m s t a t e p r i s o n . Un d e r 1 8 U. S
. C
. § 9 2 2 ( g ) ( 1 ) , i ti s u n l a wfu lf o r a p e r s o n w h o h a s b e e n c o nv i c t e d o f“ a c r i me puni shab l e byi m pr i so nm en t f o r a t er m e xc ee di ngo ne yea r” to poss ess “a ny fi re ar m o r am m unit i on. ” A con victi on f orwh i ch a perso n has had hi s ci vi lr i ghts re st or ed , ho w ev er , d oe s n otco u n t a s a “c rim e p u n ish ab le by i m pri sonm ent fora term e x ceedi ng o ne ye ar ” unl ess th e “r es to r at i o n o fc i vi lr i g hts e xp re ss l y pr o vi des tha t th e perso n m ay n ot shi p, tr anspor t, poss ess , o r re cei ve fi re arm s.” 18 U
. S. C
. § 921(a)( 20). Aft erhi s co nv i ct i o n, F o st ermove d t o di smi ss the i ndict m ent a n d t o vacat e the gui l ty ver dict, cl ai m i ng tha t h e “ re c alls a let te r b ein g s en t t o h is m o th er ’s h ou se foll owing hi s r el eas e fro m custo dy i n M ar ch 200 4, ” which he underst oo d to have re sto re d allo fhi s ci vi ll iber ti es i n I l l i noi s. I n pu rpor ted re l i ance on thi s l ett er , Fos ter cl ai m s, he v o te d i n e lectio ns i n 2 00 6 an d 2 00 8 an d ap p ea re d for jur y d u ty in 2 00 5. Ins u p p o r t of th es e a lle g a t i o n s, Fo st er at ta c h ed h is a ffid av it a n d co p ies of h is 20 04 I l l i no i s vo te r r eg i st r at i o n, a vo ting hi st o r y r epo r t, a nd a c e r t i fi c a t e o f j ur y s e r v i c e . Th e di s t r i c t c o ur tdeni ed F oster’ s m o ti o n, fi ndi ngtha t “the r e ha s r ea l l y b ee n n o ac tu ale vi den ce tha t [ F o st er ’ s] r i g ht s w ere r es to r ed” a nd c on c lu d in g t h at, eve n if Fo st er h ad p re s e n te d su c h ev idence, he wai ved thi s a rgum ent when he st i pu l ate d that he had bee n convi cted o fa fel ony. W e a gr ee w i th t h e dist ri ct c ourtas to bo th waiv er and the m er i ts. The waive r w as cl earthr ough the sti pu l ati on her e. On th e m er i ts, Fo ste r’ s a rgum ent turns o n28 N o. 10

- 3198

w he th er, to obtain a con viction un d e r s e ction 922 (g)( 1), the g ove rnm ent m ust pro ve beyo nd a re aso nabl e doubt that Fos ter ’ s rights had notbee n re sto re d i n the m anner described i n sec ti on 9 21( a) ( 20)
. A l thoug h w e have not expli ci tl y add re sse d thi s preci se i ssue, w e have d ec i ded a cl o se l y r el at ed que st i o n, ho l di ngtha t a d efen dan t re lyin g on th e c i v i l r igh ts res to ra tio n p ro vis ion in sect i on 9 21( a) ( 20) to chal l enge hi s cl ass ifi cati on a s a n ar m ed car eercr i m i nalatse ntenci ng m u st sho w , bya preponderance o fthe evi dence, thathi s c ivi lr i ghts have been re sto re d. Se e G a nt v . U nited Sta tes , 62 7 F
. 3d 677, 68 2 ( 7th Ci r . 2 01 0)
. Othe r c i r cui ts ha ve he l d tha t a co nvi cti o n un de r s e c t i o n 9 2 2 ( g ) ( 1 ) do e s n o tr e qu i r e the go vernm en t to pr o ve b ey ond a rea so nabl e do ubttha t th e d efe n d an t’s civ il righ ts h av e n otbe en res to re d

. U nited St at e s v. Bar t e l ho , 71 F .3d 43 6, 44 0 (1 s t C i r . 1 99 5); U nited St at e s v. Jac ks on , 57 F. 3d 1012, 1016 -17( 11th Cir. 1995); U nited Sta tes v. Flo w er, 2 9 F .3d 530, 535 (10th Cir. 1994). Requir i ng such pr oo fbythe gov er nm ent “ w oul d i m pose an on er ou s b u rd e n ,” s ee in g t h at a d efe n d an t “ or d in ar ily w i l lbe m uch bett erabl e to ra i se the i ssue ofwh ether hi s . . . ci vi lr i ghts have been re sto re d.” F l o w er, 29 F. 3d at 535; se e Bart e l ho , 7 1 F
. 3d at4 40 ( r efus i ngt o r equi r e th e gov er nm ent t o “r efute e ver y pos sibi lity thatcr i m i nal defe nd an ts have had thei r pri orco nvi cti ons null i fi ed or their civi l rights restored ”). Con si st en t wi tho urde ci si o n in Gant, we ag r ee wi ththe r easoningo ftho se de ci si o ns a nd c o nc l ude tha t a defen d an t’s cla im th at h is c ivil rig h ts h av e b ee n res to re d is ess enti al l y a n affi rm ati ve defe nse t o a cri m i nalchar ge und er18 U
. S. C. § 9 22( g) ( 1)
. S ee Bart e l ho , 71 F.3d at 440
.N o. 10

- 3198 29 I t i s a defen dan t’ s r es po ns ibi l i ty to r ai se th i s i ss ue a nd to produce evi dence showing that hi s ci vi l ri gh ts h ave be enr es to r ed b efo r e th e m at te r may be pr es en te d t o the j u ry fo r re so lu tio n . Id. ; Jac ks on , 57F. 3d at 1017; Flo w er, 29 F.3 d at 5 35- 36; se e U ni t e d S t at e s v. Vi t r ano , 4 0 5 F
. 3 d 506, 509 ( 7th Ci r. 20 05) (a doptingsi m i l ari nter preta ti on o f sect i on 9 21( a) ( 20) i n conte xt o far m ed car eercr im i nal sen ten cing en ha nc em en ts un d er section 92 4(e)( 1)). B ec au se th e c ivil rig h ts res to ra tio n ex c ep t i o n in sect i on 9 21( a) ( 20 ) is not an el em ent o fthe offense described i n sec ti on 9 22( g) , Fo ste r’s i nd i ctm ent o n that ch arge w as su ffici en t w ithou t all eging th a t Foster’s ci vi lr i g ht s ha d ne ve r b ee n r es to r ed, a nd the g o ve r nm en t had no ob l i gat i on t o prese nt anyev i dence on the t opi c. I f Fos ter w anted to cl ai m that the St ate of I l lin ois had re sto re d his r i gh t to car ryfi re ar m s, he was o bl i gat ed to prese nt ev i dence i nd i c at i ng tha t f act ei therpri orto orduri ng hi s t ri al

. The di str i ct c ourtcorre c tly denie d Fos ter ’s p ost
-j ud gm ent m oti on t o dism i ss the ind i ctm en t an d v ac at e hi s co nv i ct i o n.

V I. Sen tenci ng Issues Fos ter ’ s fi nalar gum ent i s that the di str i ct c ourter re d w hen i t s entence d him as an a rm ed car eero ffender und er18 U
. S. C. § 9 24( e)
. W e co nsi der th is c laim de nov o, U nite d State s v. Fife, 6 24 F
. 3d 44 1, 4 45 ( 7th Ci r . 2 010), e xcept t o the e xten t that the a l l ege d err or“i m pli cate s a fac tu al fin d in g,” w h ich w e re vi e w fo r c lea r er ro r. U nited St at e s v. Al

j aba ri, 6 26 F
. 3d 94 0, 9 50 ( 7th Ci r . 2 01 0) , c i ting U nite d States v. G ibb s , 578 F.3d 694 , 695 (7th C ir. 2009).30 N o. 10

- 3198 S u c h fi n d i n g s o ff a c ta r e e n t i t l e d t o d e fe r e n c e u n l e s s we have a defi ni te and fi rm co nvi cti on that a m i stake has b ee n m ad e. U ni ted Sta tes v. Knox , 62 4 F
. 3d 865, 87 0 ( 7th C ir. 2010). U nd erthe A rm ed Care erCri m i nalA ct, any perso n co nv i ct ed o fb e i n ga fe l o n i n p o s s e s s i o n o fa fi r e a r m who has “ th ree pre vi ous c onvi cti ons . . . f ora vi ol ent fel ony” i s s ubj ect to a m andator y m i ni m um pri so n ter m o f 15 y ea r s. 18 U. S
. C. § 92 4( e) ( 1)
. Ove r F o st er ’s obj ec ti o n, the di str i ct c ourtdeem ed hi m an a rm ed car eercr i m i nal because he had three pri orvi ol ent fel ony convi cti ons

— f or robbe ry i n 19 80, burglary i n 19 83, and a rm ed robbery i n 198 7

— a nd s en te nc ed hi m t o 2 84 months i n pr i so n. O n appe al, F o st era ss er ts tha t hi s 19 80 r o bb er y convi cti on ca nnot be co nsi dered a vi ol ent felony und er sect i on 9 24( e) bec ause that conv ict ion w as i nval i d as a m at te r o fI l l i no is la w. Acco r di ngt o F o st er, a l th o ug h h e w as a m in or atth e t im e o f th at offe n se , t h e Illino is st at e co ur ts t r i ed hi m a s ana dul t. Thi s i s pr o bl emat i c, he cl ai m s, because I l l i noi s l aw al l ege dly al l ows m i nor s to be t ri ed as adult s o nl y with an at torney’ s co nsent, ye t no r e c o r d o fa nys uc h c o ns ent app e a r s i n the r e c o r d. A bsent such cons ent, Fo ste r say s, hi s 1 980 robber y c onvi cti on was “vo i dabl e” and “s h ou ld notbe counted” a s a p red icate fel ony un d er section 92 4(e). This ar gum ent i s a non- sta rt er . U nl ess the pri orco n vi cti on use d to enhance a d efendant’s se ntence und erse ction 924(e) w as obta ined i n vi o la t ion of th e d efend an t’s ri ght t o counsel, the val i dity o fthatco nvi c tio n m ay not b e c h alle n ge d atse n te n c in g. C ustis v . U nited Sta tes , 51 1N o. 10

- 3198 31 U .S. 48 5, 4 87(19 94 ); U nited Sta tes v. Jiles , 10 2 F
. 3d 278, 28 0 (7t h C ir. 1996). A lthou gh Foster argu es th at “th e fai lure to o bt ain the assis ta nc e o fc o uns elwi thr eg ar d t o the w ai verwas the equi val ent o fhavin g n o l ega lr epres entati on, ” such i neffecti ve ass i sta nce of counsel i s si m p ly n ot a p er m iss ible ba sis for a co llat er al a tt ac k. C ust is , 511 U
. S. at 496 (refusing to a llo w c oll ateral attac k based on ineffec tive as si sta nce o fco unselbec ause such a cl ai m does no t “r i se [ ] t o the l ev elo fa j urisd icti o na lde fec t r es ul ting from the fail ure to app oint cou ns el at al l”)

. Fos teral so ar gues that hi s 1 980 robber y c on vic tio n cannot be c ounted u n der s ecti on 9 24( e) bec ause that c on vic tio n falls ou ts id e t h e t im e lim its se t fo rt h in ce rt ain provi si ons ofthe Se ntenci ng Guidel i ne s. W e r ej ecte d th i s sa m e ar g um en t i n U ni t e d S t at e s v. Wr ight, 48 F. 3d 254, 255- 56 ( 7th Ci r. 19 95)
. A l though F ost eri nvi tes us t o o ve r tu r n Wr ight, he pr o vi des no e xpl an at i o n a s to why w e s houl d do so. “As w e hav e s aid n u m erous t i m es, un de v e l o pe d a r g ume nt s a r e de e med wa i v e d o n a ppeal

. ” Coll i ns , 6 0 4 F
. 3 d a t4 8 7n . 2
. T hi s p r i nc i pl e h o l ds p articu larl y t r u e w he n a li tigant asks u s to overtu rn ci rcuit p recedent. S ee Sa nto s v. U nited Sta tes , 46 1 F
. 3d 88 6, 8 94 (7th C ir. 2 00 6)
. W e se e no r ea so n

— l eta l o ne a c om p ellin g re as on , i d. at89 1

— to r evi si t Wr ight

. Final l y, Fo ste r ar gues that none o fhi s pri orco nvi ctio n s c ou ld be co n sid er e d u n d er se c tio n 92 4(e ), aga in b e c a u s e I l l i n o i s a l l e g e d l y r e s t o r e d h i s r i g h tt o b e a r a r ms f o l l o wi n gh i s mo s tr e c e n tt e r m o fi n c a r c e r a t i o n . As und erse cti on 9 22( g) ( 1) , a convi cti on f orwh i ch a perso n has had his ci vi lr i ghts re sto re d does no t co unt as a32 N o. 10

- 3198 vi ol ent fel ony und erse cti on 924( e) u nl ess the “r est or ati on ofci vi lr i ghts express l y pr ovi des thatthe pe rs on m ay no ts hi p, t r a ns po r t, p o s s e s s , o r r e c e i v e fi r e a r ms. ” 1 8 U. S
. C. § 92 1( a) ( 20 )
. In o th erwor ds, i f a sta te s en ds a do cument to a c on vic te d felo n th at se em s t o re st or e a ll civ il rights, “the c o n v ic t ion d oes not cou nt f or fed eral pu rp oses unl es s th e do cumentwar ns the pe r so n abo ut a l i nger i ng fi re ar m s di sabi l i ty. ” B uc hm eier v. U nited Sta tes , 581 F. 3d 561, 56 6 ( 7th Ci r. 20 09) ( en banc). T o p re vai lo n thi s a rgum ent, Fo ste r “m ust s how , bya prep on derance ofthe evi den c e, th at hi s r i ghts w er e r est or ed. ” Gant, 62 7 F. 3d at 682, ci ti ng Vit r ano , 4 05 F. 3d at 509. The di str i ct co ur t di d no t spe ci fi ca l l y a ddr es s th i s m at te r a t se nte n c in g, like ly b ec au se it h ad alre ad y c on c lu d ed in d eny i ngF o st er ’ s po st
- ve r di ctmot i o n t o di smi ss the i nd i ctm ent that he had presen te d no actual ev i dence tha th i s r i g ht s we r e r e s t o r e d. W e ag r ee th at F o st er ha s f ai l ed to m us ter s uffi ci en t evi dence to pro ve that I l l i noi s r est or ed hi s ci vi lr ights

. Foro ne thi ng, Fo ste r’ s e vi dence i nd i catin g that he vot ed and ser ved on a j ury afterhi s r el eas e fro m i ncarc er ati on s a y s n o thingab o utwh e the r h e e v e r ac t ua l l y r e c e i v e d a l ett erfro m t h e s tat e r est or i ng hi s ci vi lr i ghts

— Il lin ois au to m at ica lly re st or es a p er so n ’s r i g h t to vo te w h en h is sente nce e xpir es. S ee B uc hm eier, 5 8 1 F
. 3 d a t5 6 4 ; 7 3 0 I LCS 5/ 5-5 -5(c ) (“A p er so n se n te n c ed to im p ris on m en t s h all lose his ri gh t to vote un tilrel eased from i m p risonm en t.”)
. A nd I l l i noi s doe s no t s uspend a fel on’ s r i ght t o se rv e on a j ury i n the fi rs t pl ace. S ee B uc hm eier, 58 1 F. 3d at 564- 65. O n c e t h at ev id en c e is se t a s i d e, all th at rem ain s is Fos ter ’ s v ague re col l ecti on that he re ceiv ed a l ett err e-N o. 10

- 3198 33 sto ring hi s ci vi lr i ghts. The l ett eri tse l f, h ow eve r, was co ns pi cuo us l y abs en t fr o m F o st er ’ s su bmi ss i o ns t o the dist ri ct c ourt
. Lacking any a dd i ti onalev i dence that I l l i n o i s e v e r r e s t o r e d F o s t e r ’ s r i g htt o c a r r y a fi r e a r m, th e dist ri ct c ourtco rr ectly c oncl ud ed that Fos terwas an arm ed career crim inal un d er section 92 4(e). The j ud gm ent o fthe dist ri ct c ourti s A FFI RMED .

7- 21- 11