2010 D e c i sion s O p inion s of the U nit e d S t at e s C our t of Appe al s for the Thir d C ir c uit
5-26-2010 

# U SA v . Rob e r t R a w lins

P r e c e de n t i al or N on-P r e c e de n t i al : P r e c e de nt i al D ocke t N o . 08-2948

F o l low thi s a nd a dd it ion al work s at : http://d i git alc ommon s .l a w . vi l l a nova . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2010

Thi s de c i sion i s br ou ght t o you for f r e e a nd ope n a c c e s s b y the O p inion s of the U nit e d S t at e s C our t of Appe al s for the Thir d C ir c uit at V i l l a no va U nive r sity S choo l of L a

w Di git al Reposit or y

. It h as be e n a c c ept e d for inclusion in 2010 D e c i sion s b y a n author i z e d a dmini s tr at or of V i l l a no va U nive r sity S choo l of L a

w Di git al Reposit or y

. F or mor e inform at ion, p le as e c ont a ct Be n j amin
. C a rl s on@l a

w . vi l l a no va . e du

. Re c omme nde d C it at ion

" U SA v . Ro be r t R a

w l in s " (2010). 2010 D e cisio n s . P ape r 1235. http://d i git alc ommon s .l a

w . vi l l a nova . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2010/1235P RE CE DE NT I AL UN I TED STATES CO UR T OF A PP EALS F O R T H E T H IR D C IR C U IT

N o. 08- 2948

UNI T E D S T AT E S OF AM E RI CA

v. RO BE RT RA W LI N S,

A ppel l ant

O n A p p ea l from the D istri ct C o u rt of the V i r gi n I s l ands D i s t r i ctC our tN o. 3- 04- cr - 00154- 005 U nit ed S t at es D i stri ctJudg e: T he H on orabl e Jam es T

. G i l es

Subm i t t ed Pur s uantt o T hi r d C i r cui tL

. A

. R

. 34. 1( a)

M ay3, 2010 B e f o re : S M IT H , C H A G A R E S , a n d J O R D A N , C i r cui t Judges ( Fi l ed: M ay26, 2010)2 M a rk D . H o d g e , E s q . H o d g e & F ra n c o is 1 3 4 0 T aa rne b erg St

. T hom as , V i r gi n I s l ands 00802 C ouns el f orAppel l ant D el i a L. Sm i t h, E s q. O ffi ce of U ni t ed St at es A t t or ney 5500 V et er ans D r i ve, Sui t e 260 St

. T hom as , V i r gi n I s l ands 00802 C ouns el f orAppel l ee

OP I NI ON

S M IT H , C i r cui tJudge
R ober tR aw li ns w as a bagga ge handl erforW or l dw i de Fl i ght Ser vi ces at C yr i l E

. K i ng A i rpor t on St

. T hom as , U ni t ed S tate s V irg in Isla n d s. H e w a s c a u g h t u sin g th a t p o sitio n to h e lp sm u g g le c o c a in e th ro u g h th e a irp o rt, an d w a s e v e n tu a lly c o n v ic ted o f

v a rio u s d ru g c rim e s. F in d in g n o e rro r, w e w ill a f f ir m . I.
“A s r equi r ed w hen r evi ew i ng convi ct i ons , w e r eci t e the3 re le v a n t f

a c ts in th e l i g h t m o s t f a v o ra b le to th e g o v e rn m e n t.” U ni t ed Stat es v. Leo , 9 4 1 F

. 2 d 1 8 1 , 1 8 5 (3d C ir

. 1 9 9 1 ).
T hi s appea l ar i s es outof a c ons pi r acyamong em pl oy ees a t C yril E . K in g A irp o rt, an d o th e rs, to sm u g g le c o c a in e o n to comm er ci al fl i ght s bound fort he cont i nent al U ni t ed St at es . T he cons pi r at or s i ncl uded A l r i c Thom as , a coc ai ne suppl i er ; D i on B ro o k e s , th e sta tio n m a n a g e r f o r a sm a ll airlin e c a lled A ir Sunshi ne; and ai rpor tbaggage handl er s R aw l i ns , B ern ard G a b rie l, B re n t D o n o v a n , M e lee k S y lv e ste r, an d M ervi n D o riv a l.
T hi s gr oup empl oy ed s ever al m ethods t o m ove coc ai ne th ro u g h t he airpo rt
. T he m et ho d the con spi rat ors used m ost oft en w as w hatw e w i l l r efe rt o forpurpos es o f thi s opi ni on as “t ag s w i t chi ng” or “t ag pul l i ng. ” T he w or d “t ag” r efe r s t o t he f lig h t tag s tha t a irline s af f ix to c h e c k e d lu g g a g e . A ll l u g g a g e to be l oaded on to com m er ci al ai r cr aftr equi r es s uch a t ag. T he s w i t chi ng t he cons pi r at or s engage d i n i nvol ved s t eal i ng fl i ght tag s f ro m le g itim a telyc h e c k e d b a g s a n d a f f ix in g th o se tag s to bags cont ai ni ng coca i ne. T hi s m ethod al l ow ed t he coc ai ne t o be s m uggl ed i nt o t he ca rgo hol ds of U

. S.

- bound comm er ci al a irp la n e s . T he m ai n w or ks pace fort he t ag- s w i t chi ng oper at i on w as t he ai rpor t ’ s baggag e room . I tw as l ocat ed behi nd t he t i cket count er s of s ever al ai r l i nes , i ncl udi ng A i rSunshi ne, as w el l as t he T r ans por t at i on Secur i t y A dm i ni s t r at i on ( “TS A ”) i ns pect i on a re a . T h e ro o m h a d tw o b a g g a g e b e lts, b o th o f w h ich h e ldT h e se b a g s w e re su p p lied b yT h o m a s a n d d e liv e re d to 1 th e a irp o rt b ya n in te rm e d ia ry, su c h a s S y lv e s te r. 4 chec ked l uggage i nt ended f orout goi ng fl i gh ts. A cons pi r i ng b ag g ag e h an d ler w as a b le to s e lect a b ag that w as b o u n d fo r a d e stin a tio n w h e re h e in ten d e d to d ire c t th e c o c a in e . H e w o u ld r emove t he b ag ’ s fl i ghtt ag, s t eal anyval uabl es found i ns i de, t hen di s car d t he pl under ed bag. T he s t ol en fl i ght t ag w oul d t hen b e tak en to A ir S u n sh ine’s ti ck et co u n ter or o ff ice, w h ere B r ookes w as pai d t o hol d unchec ked, uni n spect ed, unt agged bags fi l l ed w i t h cocai ne. T he t ag w oul d be tr ans ferr ed t o one 1 of the drug bags , m aki ng i t appea r t hat t he bag had been c hecke d a n d in sp e c ted in th e o rd in a ry c o u rse . A b a g g a g e h a n d ler w o u ld t hen tr ans por tt hat bag t o t he bagga ge r oom and pl ace i tamong o th e r c h e c k e d b a g g a g e . F in a lly , the b a g c o n tain in g d ru g s w o u ld b e lo a d e d o n to th e f

lig h t d e n o te d o n th e f

lig h t tag , alo n g w ith l egit i m at el ycheck ed b ags. T h e e a rlies t ev id e n c e o f R a w lin s’s in v o lv e m e n t in th is oper at i on per t ai ned t o t he event s of Sept ember 20, 2003. T he daybefor e, T hom as had gi ven Sy l ves t ert hr ee s ui t cas es fi l l ed w i t h coca i ne, al ong w i t h $60, 000 i n cas h. T w o bags w er e t o be l oaded ont o a fl i ghtt o Phi l adel phi a; t he thi r d w as d es t i ned for N ew ar k. A s agr eed, Sy l ves t erbr oug h t the s ui t cas es t o t he ai rpor ton Sept ember 20. B roo k es and D or i val t ook t hem and s t or ed them i n t he A i r Sunshi ne off i ce. B r ookes hel d t he thr ee b a g s in h is o f

f ice u n til R a w lin s d e liv e re d th e tag s th a t w o u ld al l ow t he t w o bags bound for Phi l adel phi a t o be l oaded ont o t heD onovan t es t i fi ed t hat he br ought t he t ags t o t he off i ce 2 that d ay , b u t B ro o k es o ff ere d test im o n yfro m w h ich th e jury coul d have c oncl uded thatR aw l i ns di d s o i ns t ead. T aki ng t he e v i d e n c e i n t h e l i g h tmo s tf a v o r a b l e t o t h e g o v e r n me n t , a s we m u s t, w e c re d it th e te s tim o n yim p lic a tin g R a w lin s . 5 plane. E i t her R aw l i ns or B rookes affi xed t he t ags t o the bag s.

2 R a w lin s th e n c a rr ie d th e tw o b a g s to th e b a g g a g e ro o m . U nfor tunat el yfort he cons pi r at or s , t he t ag pul l er s m ade a m ista k e th a t d a y . T h e yf a iled to d isc a rd th e leg iti m a te Phi l adel phi a- bo u n d bags fr om w hi ch the tw o fl i ghtt ags had been s t ol en. A baggage handl erw ho w as noti nvol ved i n t he cons pi r acyw as l oadi ng t hos e bags ont o t he pl ane w hen he not i ced thatt heyl acke d t he nec es s aryfl i ghtt ags . H e and a col l eague al er t ed T SA , w hi ch i n tur n or der ed an X

- r ays can of al l l uggage i n tend ed fort he Phi l adel phi a fl i ght

. T he s can r evea l ed the tw o “r epl ac ement ” bags fi l l ed w i t h coca i ne. T he t hi r d bag thatSy l ves t erhad del i ver ed t o t he A i rSunshi ne off i ce, how ever , r emai ned ther e undi s cover ed. S y l ves t ercont act ed R aw l i ns and t ol d hi m t hatt he A i rSunshi ne office he l d a su itca se c o n tain in g ten k ilo g ra m s o f c o c a in e . R a w lin s a g re e d to r etr i eve t he s ui t cas e, and r etur ned i tt o Sy l ves t erar ound 7: 00 or 7 :3 0 th a t e v e n in g . R aw l i ns ’ s i nvol vement i n coc ai ne s m uggl i ng att he ai rpor tcont i nued. O n N ovember8 , 2 0 0 3, he r emoved a fl i ght tag from a check ed bag i n the bagg age r oo m , placed i t in h isR a w lin s m a yh a v e sim ilar ly a id e d a d ru g sh ip m e n t to 3 M i ami o n M a y 1 , 2 0 0 4

. Don o v a n , who b y t h i s t i me w as cooper at i ng w i t h l aw enfor cement , br oughta co cai ne- fi l l ed s ui t cas e t o t he ai rpor t
. H e gave i t t o B r ookes , w ho t ook i tt o t he A i rSunshi n e fr ontdes k. R aw l i ns pr om i s ed D onovan thathe w oul d obt ai n t ags t o pl ace on t he l uggage, buti t is unc l ear w hetherhe ac tual l ydi d s o. 6 pocket , and t ook i tt o B r ookes ’ s offi ce. H e returned w i t h a t agg ed bl ue bag, w hi ch he pl ace d on t he bagga ge bel t
. L at er t hatday , offi ci al s i n N ew ark, N ew J er s ey i nt er cept ed a c ocai nefi l l ed bag thathad been pl ace d on C ont i nent al Fl i ght1902 fr om S t
. T ho m as. R aw l i ns w as al so t i ed to a cocaine-fi l l ed suit case

3 di s cover ed on Febru ary21, 2004. D onovan obt ai ned tw o t ags and br oughtt hem t o B r ookes

. B r ookes i n fo rm ed hi m t hathe neede d onl yone t ag, s o D onovan pl ace d one t ag on t he drug bag and r es t or ed the othert o the lugga ge fr om w hi ch i thad bee n t aken. D onovan t es t i fi ed that R aw l i ns w as “i nvol ved w i t h t hat t ran sac ti on, ” and thatR aw l i ns t ook t he t agged drug bag t o t he baggage r oom . T hi s bag, t oo, w as bound forN ew ark on C ont i nent al Fl i ght1902, butC us t om s and B or derPr ot ect i on ( “C B P”) offi cer s di s cov ere d and s ei zed i tbefor e the fl i ght d e p a rt e d

. T he nextr el evant i nci dent occurr ed on M ar ch 10, 2004. T he daybefor e, Sy l ves t erhad r ece i ved two k i l ogr ams of coc ai ne fr om T hom as . T hom as i ns t ruct ed hi m t o pl ace t he coca i ne i n a par t i cul argr een s ui t cas e thatw oul d be chec ked ont o Fl i ght1902O n A ugus t13, 2004, Sy l ves t erent er ed i nt o a 4 cooper at i on agr ee m entw i t h t he governm ent
. H e s etup t he m e e tin g w ith T h o m a s a n d R a w lin s p u rsu a n t to th a t ag re e m e n t. 7 b yan u n iden ti fied fe m ale. R aw li n s w as slated to h elp S y lves ter, butbacke d out at t he l as tm i nut e, l eavi ng Sy l ves t ert o pack the coca i ne i nt o a sui t cas e by hi m s el f. R aw l i ns w as pr es enti n t he baggage room , how ever , al ong w i t h G abr i el , as Sy l ves t er packe d t he coc ai ne. I ndeed, Sy l ves t eras ked R aw li ns i f he w oul d l ook out fo rhi m w hi l e he pa cked the coc ai ne, and R aw l i ns t ol d hi m t o “go ahe ad. ” Sy l ves t ert hen bui l ta w al l of su itca se s to c o n c e a l w h a t h e w a s d o in g f ro m se c u rityc a m e ra s in t he room

. H e placed t he co cai ne in the suit case, and t he suit case m ade i t ont o t he fl i ght

. I m m i gr at i on and C us t om s E nfor cement ( “I C E ”) agent s had bee n t i pped off about t he bag, how ever , and th e d ru g s w e re se iz e d a t N e w a rk A irp o rt. A f ter th is in c id e n t, R aw l i ns fr equent l yr emar ked t o Sy l ves t erabouthow eas yi tw as t o pl ace drugs ont o ai rpl anes , and begged t o be put i n co n tact w ith a s u p p lie r h e c o u ld w o rk w ith o n h is o w n . M eanw hi l e, Sy l vester inf o rm ed T h o m as th at he n o lon g er w i s hed t o as s i s tw i t h drug s m uggl i ng. W hen Thom as i nqui r ed a b o u t p o ss ib le r e p lac e m e n ts, S y lv e ste r to ld T h o m a s h e w o u ld getback t o hi m . O n A ugus t30, 2004, Sy l ves t ercal l ed Thom as and t ol d hi m h e h ad fo und s om eone t o hel p hi m . H e ca l l ed R aw l i ns t he s ame dayand arr anged a m eet i ng betw een hi m s el f, R aw l i ns , and Thom as . B efor e Thom as arr i ved, Sy l ves t eras ked 4 R aw l i ns i f he ha d “w ork[ ed] anyt hi ng r ece nt l y . ” R aw l i ns8 r es ponded thathe had moved drugs t hr ou g h the ai rpor ton W ednes day , A ugus t25, 2004. W hen T hom as arr i ved, Sy l ves t er i nt r oduced hi m t o R aw l i ns and the thr ee m en tal ked about sm ug gli ng drugs throug h the ai rport
. R aw l i ns off ered t o h e lp T hom as m ove drugs on A m er i can A i r l i nes fl i ght s t o M i ami and N ew Y o rk, an d th e tw o ex ch an g ed ce ll p h o n e n u m b ers b ef o re p a rt in g w a y s . T h ere w a s also ev iden ce co rrob o rati n g R aw li n s’s i nvol vement i n t he coc ai ne s m uggl i ng oper at i on t hat w as not at tr ibu ted t o a s peci fi c dat e. Forexampl e, D onovan t es t i fi ed t hatbaggage handl er s oft en act ed as l ookout s foreac h ot her w hi l e t ag- s w it chi ng occurr ed i n t he bagga ge r oom , and that R aw l i ns h a d s e r v e d a s a l o o k o u tf o rh i m i n t h e p a s t
. Br o o kes i denti fied R aw l i ns as one of the bag ha ndl er s w hom D or i val w o u ld se n d to p ick u p c o c a in e -f ill e d b a g s s to re d in th e A ir S un shi ne office, t ho ug h he did no t say w hen or ho w ofte n th is occurr ed. H e al s o t es t i fi ed t hat R aw l i ns once pa i d hi m $2, 000 to h o ld a b a g c o n ta in in g c o c a in e . R a w lin s a n d h i s c o h o rt s w e re e v e n tu a lly a rr e s te d . A s uper s edi ng i ndi ctm entr eturn ed on J anuary13, 2005 char ged R a w lin s, S y lv e ste r, B ro o k e s, D o riv a l, G a b rie l, an d o th e rs w ith var i ous drug cr i m es . C ount O ne char ged R aw l i ns and el even ot her s w i t h cons pi r acy t o pos s es s w i t h i nt entt o di s t r i but e fi ve or m or e ki l o g r a ms o f

c o c a i n e , i n v i o l a t i o n o f 2 1 U. S. C. § 846. R aw l i ns w as al s o char ged i n C ount s Four , Fi ve, Si x, Seven, T en, a n d E lev e n w ith a id in g a n d a b e tti n g p o ss e ss io n o f c o c a in e w ithO n C ount s Fourand Fi ve, t he D i s t r i ct C our t ent er ed a 5 j udgm entof ac qui t t al forR aw l i ns pur s uantt o R u le 2 9 of the Feder al R ul es of C r i m i nal Pr ocedur e. O ur j u r i s d i c t i o n a r i s e s u n d e r 2 8 U. S. C. § 1 2 9 1

. T he 6 D i s t r i ct C our thad j ur i s di ct i on under18 U

. S. C

. § 3231 and 48 U .S .C . § 1 6 1 2 (a ). 9 in te n t to d is tr ib u te
. See 2 1 U .S .C

. § 8 4 1

. A ju ryc o n v icte d h im on C ount s O ne, Si x, Seven, T en, and E l even. C ountSi x r el at ed 5 t o t he drugs s ei zed on Sept ember 20, 2003; C ountSeven t o t he drugs s ei zed on N ovember8, 2003; C ountT en t o t he drugs s ei zed on February 21, 2004; and C ount E l even t o the d rugs s e iz e d o n M a rc h 1 0 , 2 0 0 4

. R aw l i ns w as s ent ence d t o 162 m ont hs i n pr i s on. H e fi l ed th is tim e lya p p e a l ra isin g a g r a b b a g o f c h a llen g e s to h is convi ct i on. R aw l i ns chal l enges t he s uffi ci enc y of C ountO ne

6 of the i nd i ct m ent, and t he suf fi ci encyof the evidence ag ai nst hi m on s ever al ot hercount s . H e al s o cont ends t hatt he D i s t r i ct C o u rt a b u se d its d isc re tio n b ya d m itt in g sa m p les o f c o c a in e in to evi dence att r i al , beca us e the governm ent fai l ed t o es t abl i s h an adequ at e cha i n of cus t odyconnec t i ng t he coc ai ne s ei zed by a u th o ri tie s a n d th e c o c a in e te s te d b yg o v e rn m e n t c h e m is ts
. II

. W e begi n w i t h R aw l i ns ’ s ar gum entt hatt he s uper s edi ng10 i ndi ctm entw as i nval i d bec au se C ountO ne fa i l ed t o al l ege a p r o p e rt i m e f

r a m e f o rt h e a l l e g e d c o n s p i r a c y. S p e c i f i c a l l y, Co u n tOn e a l l e g e d a c o n s p i r a c yru n n i n g “ f r o m a t i me u n k n o wn and cont i nui ng t o Sept ember [] 2004, on St

. T hom as , i n t he D i s t r i ct of t he V i r gi n I s l ands , and el s ew her e[. ] ” R aw l i ns ar gues t hatt he i ndi ctm entw as i nadequa te b ec aus e i tdi d nots peci fy w h e n th is a lleg e d c o n sp ira c yb e g a n . H is a rg u m e n t st a rts w ith th e n o n -c o n tro v e rsia l p re m ise th a t th e e ss e n c e o f c o n sp ira c yis a g re e m e n t. H e c o n ten d s th a t e v e ry a g re e m e n t, b y d e f in iti o n , is r eac hed ata di s cr et e poi nti n t i m e, and t hat t hi s r equi r es t hatan i ndi ctm ents et t i ng for t h a cons pi r acychar ge musti dent i fyt he date the ag reem ent w as form ed. B ecause R aw l i ns did no trai se this clai m in the D istri ct C o u rt , w e re v iew fo r p lain erro r. U ni t ed Stat es v. Fuchs , 4 6 7 F. 3 d 8 8 9 , 9 0 0 ( 5 t h Ci r . 2 006) ( appl y i ng pl ai n err orr evi ew to u n p res erved cha l l enge t o t he su f f icie n c yo f th e in d ictm e n t); U n itedS ta tes v . S tein , 233 F. 3d 6 , 2 2 -2 3 (1 st C ir

. 2 0 0 0 ) (sa m e ). “P lain ” e rro r is th a t w h ich is

“ o b v io u s ” a n d a f

f e c ts th e d e f

e n d a n t’ s s u b s ta n tia l r ig h ts
. U ni t ed St at es v. E vans , 1 5 5 F

. 3 d 2 4 5 , 2 5 1 (3d C ir

. 1 9 9 8 ).
W e us e a tw o par tt es tt o m eas ur e t he s uffi ci encyof an in d ictm e n t. F irst, th e in d ictm e n t m u s t “ c o n tain [ ] th e e lem e n ts of the off

ens e i nt ended t o be cha r ged and s uffi ci ent l yappr i s e[] t he def endan tof w hathe mustbe pr epar ed t o m eet
. ” U ni t ed St at es v. H

odge , 211 F. 3d 74, 76 ( 3d C i r . 2000) ( quot i ng G o v’t of the Vi r gi n I s l ands v. Mool enaar , 1 3 3 F

. 3 d 2 4 6 , 2 4 8 (3d C ir

. 1998) )

. Second, i tm us t“ena bl e[] the d ef en dantt o pl ead a n a c q u i t t a l o r c o n v i c t i o n i n b a r o f f u tu r e p r o s e c u t i o n s f

o rt h e s a meW e have pr eviou slyuphel d a convi ct i on bas ed on an 7 i ndi ct me n tc h a r g i n g a c o n s p i r a c yf r o m a “ d a t e u n k n o wn [ t o] Sept ember 8, 1999. ” U

ni t ed St at es v. G i van , 320 F. 3d 452, 457 ( 3d C i r . 2003)

. W e di d so , how ever , w i t houtanal y zi ng t he s u f f ic ie n c yo f

th e “ d a te u n k n o w n ” la n g u a g e .

11 offe ns e. ” Id

. B o th o f

th o s e re q u ir e m e n ts w e re m e t h e re . A s to t he fi r s t , w e j oi n t he N i nt h C i r cui ti n hol di ng t hat “al t hough an i ndi ctm entcannotbe compl et el yopen- ended, an i nd i ct m ent that s pecifi es an e nd date i s suffi ci ent t o ap pri se defe ndant s of the ch ar ges and ena bl e them t o pr epar e a d ef en se[

. ]” U

ni t ed Stat es v. For r es t er , 5 9 2 F .3 d 9 7 2 , 9 8 3 (9 th 7 C ir

. 2 0 1 0 ) (in te rn a l ci ta tio n s o m itte d ). See al s o U ni t ed Stat es v. P ease , 240 F. 3d 938, 943 ( 11t h C i r . 200 1 ) ( uphol di ng in d ictm e n t alle g in g a c o n sp ira c y“ [ f ]ro m a n u n k n o w n d a te th r o u g h o n o r a b o u t Ju ly2 1 , 1 9 9 8 ” ); U ni t ed Stat es v. H

r is t ov , 466 F. 3d 949, 954 ( 11t h C i r . 2 0 0 6) ( r ecogni zi ng i n di ct a the s uffi ci encyof an i ndi ct m entt hat char ged a cons pi r acyrunni ng fr om “an unknow n dat e thr ough Sept ember9, 2003”)

. R aw l i ns m o u n ted a v ig o ro u s d e f e n se a t t r ia l, an d h e d o e s n o t ex p lain how he w oul d have be en ai ded bygr eat ers peci fi ci t yi n t he i nd i ct m ent. H e i nv ok es U n itedS ta tes v . C e c il , 608 F.2d 1 294 ( 9t h C i r . 1 9 7 9 ). Y eti n C e c il , t he i ndi ctm ental l eged a drug cons pi r acy“begi nni ng on orbef or e J ul y , 1975, and cont i nui ng there af ter u n til on or aft er Oct o b e r , 1975[. ] ” I d. at1295 (em ph a si s added ). T he N i nth C i rcui trever sed t he d efen dan t s’ convi ct i ons beca us e the i ndi ctm ent fa i l ed t o al l ege “ s uffi ci ent“The D oubl e J e o p a r d yC l aus e pr ohi bi t s t he governm ent 8 fro m ‘splitti n g o n e c o n sp ir ac yinto se v era l pro sec u ti o n s. ’” U ni t ed Stat es v. R igas ,

__ F. 3 d

__ , No. 0 8

- 3 2 1 8 , 2 0 1 0 W L 1880366( 3d C i r. M ay12, 2010) ( en banc ) ( quot i ng U ni t ed St at es v. B ecker , 8 9 2 F .2 d 2 6 5 , 2 6 8 (3 d C ir . 1 9 8 9 ))

. 12 f a c ts to f a c ili tate th e p r o p e r p re p a ra tio n o f a d e f e n se a n d to e n su re th a t th e d e f

e n d a n ts w e re p ro se c u ted o n f a c ts p re se n ted to t he G r and J ur y . ” Id

. at1297. I thel d t hatt he i ndi ctm entfai l ed t o p l a c e t h e c o n s p i r a t o r i a l a c t s wi t h i n a n yp a r t i c u l a rt i me f r a me beca us e the l anguage des cr i bi ng t he dat es of t he cons pi r acyw as “open- ended i n b o th d i r e ct i ons . ” Id

. ( emphasi s added)

. T he cas e bef or e us i s di s t i ngui s habl e, beca us e t he t i m efr ame of t he char ged co n s pi r acyw as open- ended onl yas t o t he begi nni ng dat e. C ount O ne expl i ci t l y i dent i fi ed S ept ember2004 as t he end of the cons pi r acy . T hi s w as s uffi ci ent t o i nfor m R aw l i ns of the c h a rg e s h e w o u ld f

a c e a t tria l, allo w in g h im to a d e q u a tely p re p a re f o r t ri a l. For r es t er , 592 F. 3d at983; P ease , 240 F. 3d at 9 4 3

. W e furt herhol d t hat R aw l i ns ’ s convi ct i on on C ountO ne w il l aff o rd h im a b asis to inv o k e d o u b le j eo p ard yin f u ture proceed i ng s. H

odge , 211 F. 3d at76. W hi l e C ount O ne di d not 8 p ro v id e a sta rtin g d a te f o r th e a lleg e d c o n sp ira c y , itd id su p p ly m anyot her det ai l s . I t i dent i fi ed t he s t atut e R aw l i ns w as char ged w ith v io latin g , ten o f h is a lleg e d c o -c o n sp ira to rs, a n d th e o b jec t, m a n n e r , m e a n s , l o c a t i o n , a n d e n d d a t e o f t h e a l l e g e d c o n s p i r a c y. See Forr es t er , 592 F. 3d at983. I tal s o d etail ed atl eas tfi ft een13 over tact s t aken i n fur t h era n ce of thatcons pi r acy , and the appr oxi m at e dat e of e ach. “U ncert ai nt yr eg ardi ng a co ns pi r acy ’ s begi nni ng and endi ng dat es does notr enderan i ndi ctm entfat al l ydefe ct i ve s o l ong as over tact s al l eged i n t he in d ic tm e n t a d e q u a te ly lim it th e tim e f ra m e o f th e c o n s p ir a c y .” Id

. ( ci t i ng U

n itedS ta tes v . L a

y k in , 8 8 6 F

. 2 d 1 5 3 4 , 1 5 4 2 (9th C ir

. 1989) )

. Her e , th e i n d i c t me n ta l l e g e d t h a tt h e f i r s to v e r tact o c c u rre d in N o v e m b e r o f 2 0 0 2 , w h e n G a b rie l alle g e d ly t r ans por t ed a s ui t cas e cont ai ni ng a ki l ogr am of cocai ne t o N ew Y ork, a nd t ha t t he l a s t oc c urr e d on A ug us t 30 , 20 04

. T hese al lega t i ons “ade quat el yl i m i t [ed] t he t i m e fr ame of t he cons pi r acy . ” Id

. A ll in a ll, “ th e in d ictm e n t w a s s u f f icie n t to a p p r is e [ R a w lin s] o f

th e c h a rg e s a g a in st h im , en a b le h im to p r e p a r e a d e f

e n s e , a n d t o a v o i d d o u b l e j e o p a r d yo n t h e s a me char ge. ” Id

. W e f

ind n o erro r, letalon e p lai n erro r. W e re ach o ur conc l usi on no ton l ybyrefer ence to pr ece dent , butal s o t aki ng i nt o acc ount t he pr act i cal r eal i t i es of m o st c rim in a l en ter p rise s. B yd e f in iti o n , co n sp ira c ies w o rk in fu rth era n ce o f il lega l end s. In th e u s u a l c o u rse, th eyare in h e re n tly se c re tiv e a f

f a ir s . See, e. g. , U

nited S ta tes v. C urry , 9 7 7 F .2 d 1 0 4 2 , 1 0 5 3 (7 th C ir. 1 9 9 2 ). T h e ya re o rd in a rily f o rm e d b yta c it a g re e m e n t, Uni t e d S t a t e s v . Mc Kee , 5 0 6 F. 3d 225, 238 ( 3d C i r . 2007) , and are u n li kel yt o “oper at e w i t h t he pap er trai l t hat g e n e ral l yaccom pan i es l egit i m at e bu si ness agr eement s . ” U

ni t ed Stat es v. P r i ce , 1 3 F

. 3 d 7 1 1 , 7 2 8 (3d C ir

. 1 9 9 4)

. For t hes e r eas ons , onl yt he cons pi r at or s m ayknow p rec isel y w h en their u n law fu l co m b ination ca m e into b eing

. It14 i s unr eal i s t i c t o expec tt hati n everycas e a gr and j ur yw i l l be abl e t o i dent i fyt hatdat e, des pi t e an a bundance of evi dence b e f o re it. R e c o g n izin g th is p ra c tica l r e a li ty, w e d e c lin e to im p o s e s u c h a re q u ir e m e n t.
II I.
R aw l i n s a r g ues t hatt her e i s i ns uffi ci entevi dence of m ens r ea t o s us t ai n hi s convi ct i ons o n C ount s Si x, T en, and El even. I n r e v i e w i n g t h e s u f

f i c i e n c y o f

t h e e v i d e n c e , w e a p p l y a “part i cul ar l ydefe r ent i al ” s t andar d w hi ch i m pos es a “ve r yheavy b u rde n ” on the ap p ell a n t. U n i t ed Stat es v. C othr an , 286 F. 3d 173, 175 ( 3d C i r . 2002) ( ci t i ng U ni t ed St at es v. D ent , 149 F. 3d 180, 187 ( 3d C i r . 1998 )). “W e m us ts us t ai n t he ver di cti f, vi ew i ng t he evi d ence i n t he l i ghtm os tfavor abl e t o t he G overnm ent , anyr at i onal t r i erof fa ctcoul d have f ound t he e s s e n tia l e le m e n ts o f

th e c ri m e b e y o n d a re a s o n a b le d o u b t.” U nit ed S t ates v. Introcaso , 5 0 6 F

. 3 d 2 6 0 , 2 6 4 n . 2 (3d C ir

. 2 0 0 7 ). “I n m aki ng ourr evi ew w e exa m i ne the t ot al i t yof the evi dence , b o th d ire c t a n d c irc u m sta n tial. W e m u st cre d it a ll a v a ilab le i nfer ence s in fa v o rof the governm ent
. ” U ni t ed Stat es v. G am bone , 3 1 4 F

. 3 d 1 6 3 , 1 7 0 (3d C ir

. 2 0 0 3 ) (cit ati o n s o m itted). “[I ] n or dert o convi cta def endantof ai di ng and abe t t i ng, t he governm entm us tpr ove that‘ t he defenda ntchar ged w i t h ai di ng and abe t t i ng t hatcr i m e knew of the comm i s s i o n o f the su b stan ti v e o ff

en se a n d ac ted w ith the in tent to f ac il it ate it

. ’” Un i t e d S t a t e s v . Ke mp , 5 0 0 F. 3 d 2 5 7 , 2 9 3 ( 3 d Ci r . 2007) ( quot i ng U

ni t ed Stat es v. D i

xon , 6 5 8 F

. 2 d 1 8 1 , 1 8 9 n . 1 7 (3d C ir

.15 1 9 8 1 )). “ [ C ]irc u m sta n tial e v id e n c e c a n b e su f f icie n t to u p h o ld an ai di ng and abe t t i ng convi ct i on. ” U n itedS ta tes v . So to , 539 F .3 d 1 9 1 , 1 9 5 (3 d C ir . 2 0 0 8 ).
W e b e g in w ith C o u n t S ix . R a w lin s c laim s th a t th e re is n o p ro o f th a t h e k n e w th a t th e lu g g a g e h e m o v e d f ro m th e A ir Sunshi ne off

i ce t o t he bagga ge r oom on S ep t ember20, 2003 cont ai ned coc ai ne. A ccor di ng t o R aw l i ns , beca us e hi s j ob w as to h a n d le b a g s, n o c u lp a b ili tyc a n a ttac h to th e m e re a c t o f h is mov i n g l u g g a g e f

r o m on e l o c a t i o n t o a n o t h e rwi t h o u td i r ect e v i d e n c e t h a th e k n e w t h a tt h o s e b a g s c o n t a i n e d c o c a i n e . We d isag ree . A s d esc ri b ed ab o v e, th e ta g -sw it ch ers’ m odus o p e ra n d i w a s to ( 1 ) sto re b a g s c o n tain in g c o c a in e w ith A ir Sunshi ne; ( 2) r emove fl i ghtt ags fr om legi t i m at el ychec ked lu g g a g e ; ( 3 ) b rin g th o se tag s f ro m th e b a g g a g e ro o m to A ir Sunshi ne; ( 4) aff

i x t he t ags t o t he bags of coca i ne; and then ( 5) t ake thos e bags fr om t he A i rSu n s hi ne off i ce t o t he bagga ge r oom , t o be l oaded o n t o t he appr opr i at e fl i ght

. B r ookes rep ea tedly iden ti fied R aw li n s as on e of the ba g g ag e h an d lers w hom M ervi n D or i val s entt o s w i t ch t ags and m ove coc ai nefi l l ed bags fr om t he A i r Sunshi ne offi ce t o t he bag r oom . A s for t he eve nt s of Sept ember 20, 2003, Sy l ves t ert es t i fi ed thathe gave Brooke s t he thr ee c ocai ne- fi l l ed s ui t cas es t hatT hom as had g iv e n h im th e p re v io u s n ig h t. B r o o k e s h e ld th o se su itca se s in h is o f f ice u n til R a w li n s d e liv e re d th e f lig h t tag s th a t w o u ld al l ow t w o of them t o be pl ace d onboar d a fl i ghtt o Phi l adel phi a. E i t herR aw l i ns orB r ookes aff i xed the s t ol en t ags t o t he drugl aden ba gs befor e R aw l i ns t r ans por t ed t hos e bags t o t he bagga geFor e x a mpl e , Ra wl i n s was s e e n p u l l i n g f l i g h t t a gs on 9 N ovember 8, 2003, and he pr om i s ed D onovan he w oul d do t he s ame on M ay1, 2004. 16 roo m . T h e juryco u ld h av e re aso n ab lyinf erred that R aw li n s’s part i ci pat i on i n t he hi ghl yi r r egul ar( and pl ai nl yi l l egal ) actof t ag s w i t chi ng evi dence d hi s k n o w l edge of t he coc ai ne sm u g g lin g o c c u rrin g th ro u g h B ro o k e s’s o f f ice , a n d h is i n ten t to f a c ilita te it.
T hatconcl us i on i s but t r es s ed byevi dence of R aw l i ns’s eage rpar t i ci pat i on i n coca i ne sm uggl i ng att he ai rpor ton l at er occa s i ons , i ncl udi ng hi s act i ons l at eron Sept ember20.

9 Sy l ves t ert es t i fi ed thatal t hough author i t i es had s ei zed tw o of the su itca se s c o n tain in g c o c a in e , a th ird re m a in e d in th e A ir S un shi ne o ffi ce. H e c a lled R aw l i ns, t old hi m t hat there w as a s ui t cas e cont ai ni ng t en ki l og r a ms o f c o c a i n e i n B r ookes ’ s offi ce, a n d a sk e d h im to re triev e it. R a w lin s c o m p lied . T h is demonst r at ed hi s w i l l i ngnes s t o fac i l i t at e the drug- runni ng that w as occurr i ng t hr ough B r ookes ’ s offi ce bypr event i ng author i t i es fr om di s cover ing the thi r d bag. I ti s pos s i bl e, of cour s e, t hatt he eve ni ng of S ept ember 20 w as t he fi r s tt i m e that R aw l i ns had anyt hi ng t o do w i t h coca i ne, and thathe knew not hi n g of the cont ent s of the s ui t cas es he t ook t o t he bagga ge r oom ear l i ert hatm orni ng. B uta r at i onal j ur ycons i der i ng t he t ot al i t y o f t he evi dence coul d have r eas onabl ybel i eved o th e rw is e . See U

ni t ed Stat es v. I

af el i ce , 978 F. 2d 92, 97 n. 3 ( 3d C ir

. 1992) ( “Ther e i s no r equi r ement
. . . t hatt he i nfer ence17 dr aw n byt he j ur ybe the onl yi nfer ence possible ort hatt he gov ernm ent ’ s evi dence for ecl os e eve r ypos s i bl e i nnocent expl anat i on. ”)

. W e t her efor e re j ect R aw l i ns ’ s s uffi ci encyof the evi dence chal l enge t o hi s convi ct i on on C ountSi x. R a w lin s’s a rg u m e n t co n c e rn in g C o u n t T e n is s im ilar to hi s ar gum ent on C ountSi x. H e cont ends t hatt he tr i al evi dence pr oved onl yt hat he, a bagga ge handl er , m oved bags cont ai ni ng coca i ne on February21, 2004. A ccor di ng t o R aw l i ns , t hi s w as i ns uffi ci entevi dence fr om w hi ch a r at i onal j ur ycoul d concl ude t h a th e a i d e d a n d a b e t t e d c o c a i n e p o s s e s s i o n . Ag a i n , we di s agr ee. D ono v an t es t i fi ed thathe pul l ed i nt actfl i ghtt ags f ro m leg it im atelytagg ed b ag s an d b rou g h t th em to B roo k es’s offi ce f orpl ace m enton bags fi l l ed w i t h drugs . H e al s o t es t i fi ed t hatR aw l i ns w as “i nvol ved w i t h t hatt r ans act i on, ” and that R aw li n s ca rri ed the ba g fro m the of fice to th e ba g g ag e roo m . In l i ghtof the s ubs t ant i al evi dence of R aw l i ns ’ s i nvol vement i n t he coca i ne cons pi r acy , i ncl udi ng i t s t ag- s w it chi ng act i vi t i es , t he j ur y coul d have r eas onabl yunder s t ood t hi s t o m ean thatR aw l i ns know i ngl y car r i ed outa s m al l butcruci al r ol e thatdayby m ovi ng t agged, coca i ne- fi l l ed s ui t cas es fr om t he A i rSunshi ne o f f ic e to th e b a g g a g e ro o m . F inally , there is su ff

ici en t evid en ce to su stai n R aw li n s’s convi ct i on on C ountE l even. Sy l ves t ert es t i fi ed t hat on M ar ch 9 , 2 0 0 4 , Th o ma s p a i d h i m $ 4 , 0 0 0 a n d g a v e h i m two k i l o g r a ms of cocai ne. Sy l ves t er w as t o br i ng t he cocai ne t o t he ai rpor tt he nex tda ya nd , w i t h h e l p f r om R a w l i ns , pl a c e i ti n a s ui t caseS y lves ter’s acc o u n t w as c o n sist en t w ith D o n o v an ’s 10 t es t i m onyt hatR aw l i ns had act ed as a l ookoutforhi m , and that baggage handl er s oft en ac t ed as loo k o u ts f oreac h ot heri n t he b a g g a g e r o o m. R a w lin s’s S tate m e n t o f Iss u e s su g g e sts a c h a llen g e to 11 t he s uffi ci ency of the evi dence on C ountSeven, butR aw l i ns w ai ved thati s s ue byfai l i ng t o devel op i t i n t he ar gum ents ect i on o f h is b ri e f

. Mi t chel l v. C el one , 3 8 9 F

. 3 d 8 6 , 9 2 (3d C ir

. 2 0 0 4 ).

18 bound forN ew ar k. R aw l i ns backe d outatt he l as tm i nut e, h o we v e r , l e a v i n g S y l v e s t e rt o l o a d t h e c o c a i n e b yh i ms e l f

. He d id so in the b ag g ag e ro o m , w h il e G ab ri el an d R aw li n s w ere pr es ent
. Sy l ves t ernotonl yt ol d R aw l i ns w hat he w as doi ng, but a lso a sk e d h im to a c t as a lo o k o u t. In re sp o n se , R a w lin s to ld h im to “ g o a h e a d .” T h e ju ryc o u ld h a v e c o n c lu d e d f ro m th is 10 evi dence t hatR aw l i ns act ed as a l ookout and t her ebyai ded and abetted Sy l ves t er ’ s coca i ne pos s es s i on, as char ged i n C ount E le v e n . See U

ni t ed St at es v. B ar ber , 4 2 9 F .2 d 1 3 9 4 , 1 3 9 7 n .4 (3d C i r. 19 70 ) ( “[T ]he factt hat an i nd i vidual has ser ved as a l ookoutdur i ng t he comm i s s i on of a c r i m e i s a cl eari ndi cat i on o f p arti cipa ti o n in the w ron g d o ing

. ”). 11
IV

. R aw l i ns al s o ar gues t hatt he D i s t ri ct C o ur terr ed by a d mi t t i n g c e r t a i n p a c k a g e s o f c o c a i n e i n t o e v i d e n c e a tt r i a l

. He a ss e rts th a t th e g o v e rn m e n t f a iled to e sta b lish a su f

f icie n t ch a in19 o f c u s t o d ys h o wi n g t h a tt h o s e c o c a i n e s a mp l e s we r e t h e s a me su b sta n c e s s e ize d o n th e o c c a sio n s d e sc rib e d in th e in d ictm e n t.
P h y sic a l ev id e n c e m u st b e a u th e n tica ted b e f o re it i s admi t t ed. A ut hent i ci t yi s el ement al t o r el evanc e, for“evi dence cannothave a t endenc yt o m ake the exi s t ence of a di s put ed fa ct m or e or l es s l i kel y i f t he evi dence i s not t hatw hi ch i t s pr oponent cl ai m s[.] ” U

ni t ed Stat es v. B r anch , 9 7 0 F .2 d 1 3 6 8 , 1 3 7 0 (4 th C i r . 1992)

. “The r equi r ement of authent i cat i on . . . i s s at i s fi ed b ye v id e n c e su f

f icie n t to su p p o rt a f

in d in g th a t th e m a tter in q u e s tio n is w h at i ts pro p o n en t cl aim s. ” F ed

. R

. E v id. 90 1 (a). “Est abl i s hi ng a cha i n of cus t odyi s one form of pr oof s uffi ci ent to su p p o rt a f

in d in g th a t th e m a tter in q u e stio n is w h a t it s pr oponentcl ai m s . ” U

ni t ed Stat es v. Mendel , 746 F. 2d 155, 166 (2 d C ir . 1 9 8 4 ). See al

s o U ni ted Stat es v. H

ow ar d-A r i as , 679 F. 2d 363, 366 ( 4t h C i r . 1982) ( “The chai n of cus t odyrul e i s but a var i at i on of the pri n ci pl e thatr eal evi dence m us tbe a u th e n tic a te d p ri o r t o its a d m is s io n in to e v id e n c e .” ).
T o es t abl i s h a cha i n o f cu s t odys uffi ci entt o m ake evi dence admi s s i bl e, t he pr oponent “nee d onl y pr ove a r at i onal bas i s fr om w hi ch t o concl u d e” t hatt he evi dence i s w hatt he p a rt yc la im s it to b e . Mendel , 74 6 F. 2d at16 7. In ot her w ords, i n a cr i m i nal cas e, t he pr os ecut i o n m us toffe rs uffi ci ent “evi dence fr om w hi ch the tr i e r[ of fa ct ] coul d r eas onabl ybel i eve th a t a n ite m s till i s w h a t th e [ g o v e r n m e n t ] c la im s it to b e .” U n itedS ta tes v . Me

jia , 597 F. 3d 132 9, 1336 ( D

. C

. C i r . 2010) ( quot i ng 2 K enneth S. B r oun e t a l. , McC or m i ck on E vi dence §20 2 1 3 (6th e d . 2 0 0 9 )). T hi s “bur den i s nota hea vyone. ” 5 C h r i s t o p h e rB

. M u l l e r& L a i r d C

. K i r k p a tr ic k , Fe de r alE vi dence § 9 :1 (3 d e d . 2 0 0 7 ).
W e have l ong r ej ect ed t he pr opos i t i on t hat evi dence m ay onl y be adm i t t ed i f a “compl et e and e xcl us i ve” c hai n of cus t ody is e s ta b lis h e d

. U

nited Stat es v. D eL arosa , 450 F. 2d 1057, 1068 (3 d C ir . 1 9 7 1 ). See al

s o 2 B r oun e t a l. , supra , § 213 ( expl ai ni ng that “a co m p let e ch ain o f cu stod y n ee d n o t al w ay s b e p rov ed ”); 3 1 C h a rl e s A la n W ri g h t & V ic to r G o ld , Fe d e r a l Pr a c t i c e and P r ocedur e § 7 1 0 6 (1 st e d .) (“ It is u su a llyu n n e c e ss a ryto est abli sh a perfect or u nb roken chain of cu st od y . ”). “[S ]er i ou s” gaps m ayr endera cha i n of cus t ody so d ef i ci entt hatexcl us i on is re q u ir e d , Me

jia , 59 7 F

. 3d at13 36 , bu ti n the ord in a ry case g a p s in th e c h a in g o to th e w e ig h t o f th e e v id e n c e , n o t it s a d m is s ib i l i ty, Me len d ez-D ia z v . M a ss a c h u se tts , 557 U

. S. __, 129 S. C t
. 2527, 2532 n. 1 ( 2009) ( quot i ng U n ited S ta tes v . L o tt , 8 5 4 F .2 d 2 4 4 , 2 5 0 (7 th C ir . 1 9 8 8 ))

. See a l so Uni t e d S t at es v. C l ark , 4 2 5 F .2 d 8 2 7 , 8 3 3 (3 d C ir. 1 9 7 0 ); Me jia , 597 F. 3d at 1 3 3 5 ; 5 M u e lle r & K ir k p a tr ic k , supra , § 9 :10 (co ll ec ti n g ca ses). F u rth e rm o re , a tria l c o u rt’s ru lin g a b o u t th e a d e q u a c y o f a c h a in of cust ody i s aff

or ded gre at defe r ence . I tm aynotbe overtur ned abs enta “cl ear abus e of di s cr et i on. ” U ni t ed Stat es v. Jack

s on , 6 4 9 F

. 2 d 9 6 7 , 9 7 3 (3d C ir

. 1 9 8 1 ).
R aw l i ns chal l enges t he adequac y of t he chai n of cus t ody forpacka ges of coc ai ne sei zed on t hr ee occa s i ons : N ovember8, 2 0 0 3 (th e d rug seizu re tha t gav e ri se t o C o u n t Se v en ), F eb rua ry21 2 1 , 2 0 0 4 ( C o u n tT e n ) , a n d Ma r c h 1 0 , 2 0 0 4 ( C o u n tE l e v e n )

. We con cl ud e t hat the D i stri ct C ou rt ’s decis i on t o ad m i teach o f t hese p a c k a g e s in to e v id e n c e w a s n o t a n a b u s e o f d is c re tio n . G r egoryR ear don, a C B P S u p erv isor stat ioned i n N ew ark, N ew J er s ey , t es t i fi ed thathe s et up and over s aw t he N ovember 8, 2003 enfor cementoper at i on ( C ountSeven). A n X

- r ays can of al l l uggage e m er gi ng fr om C ont i nent al Fl i ght 1902 r evea l ed one s ui t cas e cont ai ni ng an anomal ous - l ooki ng packa ge. R e a rd o n g ra b b e d th a t su itca se , an d a f ter o b se rv in g a c a n in e h it on the b ag , o p ened i t
. I ns i de he f ound a br ow n t aped pa ckage cont ai ni ng a w hi t e pow dery s ubs t ance t hat fi el d- t es t ed pos i t i ve forcoca i ne. H e t es t i fi ed thathe turn ed overt o “the s peci al agent s i n I C E ” bot h t he package and t he sui t cas e i n w hi ch i tw as di s cover ed. I C E S p ec ial A gentB r adl eyB enw el l t es t i fi ed that th e n a rc o tics se ize d f

ro m F lig h t 1 9 0 2 w e re tu rn e d o v e r to h im ( t hough he di d nots aybyw hom ) , and t hat t heyw er e tr ans por t ed t o t he “mai n offi ce” i n N ew ark and pl ace d i n t he N ew ark drug evi dence r oom . H e i dent i fi ed G overnm entE xh i bi t64 as t he s ui t cas e s ei zed on N ovember8, buti tdoes notap p ea r thathe w as as ked t o i dent i fyt he drugs t hemsel ves . L at er , M aur een C r ai g, a D E A chemi s t s t at i oned i n N ew Y or k C i t y , t es t i fi ed that s he ana l y zed drugs s ei zed i n connec t i on w i t h Fl i ght1902 on N ovember 8, 2003. She t es t i fi ed thats he “t ook t he evi dence out fr om t he mai n vaul t , ” per for m ed a s er i es of te s t s , and det erm i ned thatt he obj ec ts cont ai ned appr oxi m at el yfour ki l ogr ams of coc ai ne. She fur t hertes t i fi ed thatG overnm ent E xhi bi t s 70 and 71 w er e the s ame dr ug s ampl es s he had22 a n a lyze d

. R i char d Peak, a C B P offi cers tat ione d atC yr i l E

. K i ng A i rpor t , t es t i fi ed thathe w as t he s ei zed pr o p ertycus t odi an for t h e d ru g s d i s c o v e r e d o n F e b ru a r y2 1 , 2 0 0 4 ( Co u n t Te n )

. He s t at ed thathe t ook pos s es s i on of a gr een s ui t cas e cont ai ni ng “s om e br i cks of a s ubs t ance ” and pl ace d bot h t he s uit ca s e and t he br i cks i n t he s ei zed pr oper t y l ocker at t he Feder al B ui l di ng. H e t es t i fi ed thatt he evi dence had bee n “mai nt ai ned i n our s e i z e d p r o p e r t yl o c k e r. . . s i n c e t h a tt i me . ” Si mi l a r l y , I CE Speci al A gentL oui s Penn t es t i fi ed thatbot h t he s ui t cas e and the d ru g s s e ize d o n F e b ru a ry2 1 w e re e sc o rte d to th e se ize d p ro p e rty room att he F ederal B uil ding. E nri qu e P i nero, a D E A chem i st sta tio n e d in V irg in ia, w a s late r a sk e d if h e h a d p e rf o rm e d tes ts on br i cks t hatw er e “s ei zed f r om St

. T hom as , V i r gi n I s l ands on oraboutFebruary21 st, 2004. ” Pi ner o ans w er ed i n t he aff i r m at i ve. H e t es t i fi ed thatG overnm entE xhi bi t69 w as t he “evi dence ” ( i

. e. , coca i ne) tha the r ece i ved atthe l ab, and that a f ter h e re c e iv e d th e sa m p les , h e k e p t th e m “ in a lo c k u p ” u n til he had a chanc e t o per for m hi s t es t s . H e confi r m ed thatt he br i cks he t ested cont ai ned overt w o ki l ogr ams of coc ai ne.

A s fort he drugs s ei zed on M ar ch 10, 2004 ( C ount E l eve n) , I C E agentM i chae l Per r eaul t es t i fi ed thathe w as pr es entatN ew ark A i rpor t as offi cer s X

- r ay ed t he l uggage f r om C ont i nent al Fl i ght1 9 0 2 from St

. T hom as . H e expl ai ned that w hi l e thi s i ns pect i on w as i n pr ogr es s , an i ns pect orappr oache d23 him and han ded him a bag con t ai ning t w o b ri ck-shaped obj ect s. H e t es t i fi ed thathe r emoved t he br i cks, p lace d t hem i n a bag, and then s i gned the br i cks overt o A gent B en w ell

. A gent B e n w e ll co n f

irm e d th a t th e d ru g s w e re tu rn e d o v e r to h im ( t hou g h ag ain he di d nots aybyw hom ) , and t es t i fi ed thathe pl ace d t hem i n t he N ew ark drug evi dence r oom . R amona M ont r eui l , a D E A chemi s t s t at i oned i n N ew Y or k C i t y , t es t i fi ed t hats he ana l y zed the evi dence s ei zed fr om Fl i ght 1902 i n M ar ch 2 0 0 4 . S h e s ta te d th a t s h e “ o b ta in e d th e e v id e n c e a n d o p e n e d it,” a n d a f ter p e rf o rm in g a se rie s o f

tes ts, d e ter m in e d th a t th e o b jec ts t es t ed cont ai ned j us tovert w o ki l ogr ams of coc ai ne. She t es t i fi ed thatG overnm entE xhi bi t s 72 and 73 w er e the drugs s he t es t ed and the same s ubs t ance s s ei zed i n N ew ark on M ar ch 10, 2 0 0 4

. R aw l i ns a r g u e s t h a tt h e c h a i n o f c u s t o d yo f

t h e d ru gs s ei zed eac h day w as br oken beca us e t her e w as no ev idence connec t i ng t he drugs t hatw er e p lace d i n evi dence l ocker s on e a c h o c c a s i o n t o t h e d ru g s t h a t wer e r e c e i v e d a n d t e s t e d b yDEA chemi s t s . W e agr ee. W i t h r es pectt o the coca i ne s ei zed on N ovember 8, D E A chemi s tC r ai g t es t ifi ed tha ts he “t ook t he e v id e n c e o u t f

ro m th e m a in v a u lt, ” b u t C ra ig w a s s tatio n e d in N ew Y or k C i t yw hi l e A gentB enw el l t es t i fi ed thathe pl ace d t he d rug s in the N ew ark evi dence r oom . I tw as neveres t abl i s hed w hetherC r ai g r etr i eved the coc ai n e h erse l f fr om N ew ark, or w hethert hos e drugs w ere ats om e poi ntt r ans ferr ed fr om N ew ark t o w hat C r ai g cal l ed t he “mai n vaul t ” i n N ew Y o rkFur t herm or e, t her e i s atl eas tt he pos s i bi l i t yof a ga p 12 betw een Rear don and B enw el l

. R ear don t es t i fi ed thathe tur ned t h e d ru g s o v e r t o u n n a me d I CE a g e n t s , wh i l e Be n we l l , a n I CE a g e n t, t e stif

ied th a t th e d ru g s w e re tu rn e d o v e r to h im b u t h e d id n o t sa yb yw h o m . T h e e x c h a n g e m a yw e ll h a v e b e e n d ire c tly f ro m R e a rd o n to B e n w e ll, b u t th e g o v e rn m e n t h a rd lyn a iled th is d o w n . 24 C i t y . C oncerni ng t he coca i ne s ei zed on February 21, t her e w as 12 n o e x p lan a tio n o f h o w d ru g s p lac e d in th e e v id e n c e lo c k e r o n S t. T hom as ended up i n Pi ner o’ s l ab i n V i r gi ni a. Fi nal l y , as t o t he co ca ine s e ize d o n M arc h 1 0 , there w as o n lyM o n tr eu il ’s t es t i m onyt hats he “obt ai ned” the evi dence s ei zed on thatdat e, “opene d i t , ” and then t es t ed i t
. A gai n, t her e w as no expl anat i on of how a D E A chemi s ti n N ew Y ork C i t yacqui r ed evi dence t hat w as i ni t i al l ys t or ed i n N ew ark. M ont r eui l t es t i fi ed t hatt he drugs s he t es t ed w er e the s ame dru g s sei zed on M ar ch 10, 2004, but s he l acke d t he p erso nal know l edge ne ces s aryt o m ake that as s er t i on. T he mosts he coul d s ayw as t hat sh e test ed a s ubs t ance ; t he s u b s t a n c e was c ocai ne; and the s ampl e i nt r oduced att r i al w as t he s ame one t hat sh e t es t ed. T he s ame i s t rue of C ra ig ’s te stim o n y tha t sh e tes ted th e “ sa m p les se ize d in c o n n e c tio n w ith [ F lig h t 1 9 0 2 ] o n o r a b o u t N o v e m b e r 8 , 2 0 0 3 ,” and Pi ner o’ s cl ai m t hathe t es t ed “br i cks t hat w er e sei zed f r om St

. T hom as on oraboutFebruary21, 2004. ”
De s p i t e t h e f

o r e g o i n g g a p s i n t h e c h a i n o f e v i d e n c e , we cannots ayt hatt he D i s t r i ctC our terr ed byadmi t t i ng t hatT he ade quacy of the cha i n i s as s es s ed i n l i ghtof the 13 “natur e of the art i cl e, t he ci rcu m s t ance s s ur r oundi ng t he pr es ervat i on and cus t odyof i t , and t h e l i kel i hood of i nt er m eddl er s t amper i ng w i t h i t
. ” D eL arosa , 450 F. 2d at1068. R aw l i ns do es not explai n ho w any of t hese fact ors w ei gh against t he D i s t r i ctC our t ’ s admi s s i bi l i t yrul i ng. 25 e v i d e n c e a tt r i a l

. Ou rc o n c l u s i o n i s d r i v e n b yt wo cons i de r a t i o n s . Th e f

i r s ti s t h e d e f

e r e n c e we o we th e Di s t r i ct C o u rtin reso lving d ispu tes o f th is n ature
. W e c an n o t ov erturn i t s concl us i on as t o t he s uffi ci encyof the c h ai n of cus t ody abs enta “c l earabus e of di s cr et i on. ” Jack s on , 649 F. 2d at973. H er e, none of t he chai ns ati s s ue w as s o defi ci entt hatt her e w as no “r at i onal bas i s ” for concl udi ng t hat t he evi dence w as w h at th e g o v e rn m e n t c la im e d

. Me n d el , 746 F. 2d at167. T he test i m on yof g ov ernm ent w i t nesses cr eat ed a “reasona b le pr obabi l i t y ” thatt he coc ai ne pac kages s ei zed on N o v em ber8, February21, an d M arch 10 w er e the s ame m at er i al s t es t ed by D E A c h e m is ts a n d in tr o d u c e d a t tr ia l. Me jia , 597 F. 3d at1336. E a c h c h a in c o u ld

— a n d sh o u ld

— h a v e b e e n f a r stro n g e r th a n it w as . B utanyw eakne s s goes t o t he w ei ghtof the evi dence , not i t s a d m i s s i b i l i t y. C l ark , 4 2 5 F .2 d a t 8 3 3

. 13
T h e se c o n d c o n sid e rat i on i s the p resu m p tio n o f re g u lar ity i n t he handl i ng of evi dence by l aw enfor cement
. “A bs entactual p ro o f o f tam p e rin g , a trial c o u rt m a yp re su m e re g u lar ityin publ i c off

i ci al s ’ handl i ng of contr aband. ” D ent , 149 F. 3d at188. See a lso U

ni t ed Stat es v. K i ng , 3 5 6 F

. 3 d 7 7 4 , 7 7 9 (7th C ir

.O ur r el i ance on t hi s pr es um pt i on s houl d notbe t aken 14 as appr oval of t he pros ecut or ’ s s l i ps hod handl i ng of t hi s i s s ue at tr ia l. 26 2 0 0 4 ) (a p p ly in g “ p re su m p tio n o f re g u lar ityw h e n e v id e n c e is w ith in o f f ic ia l c u s to d y ” ); 5 M u e lle r & K ir kp atric k , supra , § 9: 10 (c itin g c a s e s ). W e e m p lo y th e s a m e p re s u m p tio n h e re . See, e. g. , D ent , 149 F. 3d at188; Jack s on , 6 4 9 F

. 2 d a t9 7 3

- 7 4

. No a lleg a tio n h a s b e e n m a d e , n o r p ro o f o f f e re d , o f tam p e rin g w ith anyof the evi dence ati s s ue. T h ere fo r e, w e pr es um e thatt he evi dence pl ace d i n s t or age w as pr oper l y t r ans m i t t ed t o eac h of th e c h e m ists w h o tes tifie d

. T h e D istric t C o u rt d id n o t er r in 14 a d m itt in g it.
V

. W e h av e c o n side red the re m aind er o f R aw li n s’s ar gum ent s a n d f

i n d t h e m t o b e wi t h o u tme r i t
. Fo rt h e r e a s ons s ta te d , th e ju d g m e n t w ill b e a f f ir m e d

.