## 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. 12

- 1809 U NI T ED S TATE SOF A MERI CA, P la intif f-A pp ellee, v. M AURI CE M AXWELL, D e f e ndan t

-Appe l l ant
.
A pp eal from the United S t ates Di strictC our t fo r the Western Di stricto f Wisc onsin
. No . 11- CR-25-WM C- 1

—Wi ll iam M. Co nley, Chief Ju dge .
A RG UE D A PRI L 19, 2013

— D ECI DE D J UL Y 19, 2013

Befo re E A S T E RB R OO K, Chi e f Judg e, a nd P O SNER an d W I L L I A MS, C ircu it Judges. W I L L I A MS, Cir cu i tJudg e . M auri ce M axw ellwas charg ed w i th poss ess i on with i ntent to dis tr ibute c ra ck c o c a i n e . T h e a n a l y s tfr o m th e Wi s c o ns i n S t a t e C r i me Labor ato rywh o or i gi nal l y t est ed the substa nce s ei zed fr o m M ax wel lr et i red b efo r e tr i al, s o the g o ve r nm en t offer ed the tes ti m ony ofhi s co - w or keri nstea d. The cow orker did n o t p e rson all y ana lyze the su bsta nc e herse lf,2 N o. 12

- 1809 but co ncl ud ed that i t co ntai n ed cr ack coca i ne afterr evie w in g the data gener ate d by the o ri gi nalanal yst
. M axw el ldi d not obj ect to thi s t est i m ony ofthe co- w or ker att r i al, b utno w ar g ue s o n a pp eal tha t i t vi o l at ed th e C o n fr o nt a t i o n C l a u s e o fth e S i x th A me n d me n t
. We rej ect M axw el l ’ s a rgum en t because he has f ai l ed to sh ow p lain err or in p e rm itt in g a fore n sic an aly stto rely o n da t a g a the r e d b y a c o l l e a g ue whe n s he wa s s ubj e c t t o cro ss- exam i nation at tr i al
. M axw el lal so ar gues that th e d istri ct cou rt shou ld h ave sen t e n ced him un d er differ ent s tatutor y a nd S entencing Guidel i ne r anges under the F ai r Se ntenci ng Act of20 10. But beca u se w e ca nnot deter m i ne wh etherthe dist ri ct c ou rt w oul d have g i ven M ax wel lthe s ame s en te nc e ha d i t k no wn th atthe F ai rS en te nc i ngActa ppl i ed, we i ss ue a l i m i te d rem and to the di str i ct c ourt
.

I . B AC KGR OUND O n Ju l y 2 9, 20 10, M axw el lwas ar re ste d afterhe s old 2. 9 g ram s o fcr ack coca i ne, 2. 8 g ra m s o fpow der c oca i ne, an d fi ve ec st as y pi l l s to a c o nfi den ti ali nf o r m an t. The ar re st in g of f i c er , D et ec tiv e Je ff W ilso n, sea rc h ed M ax w ell an d f o u nd tw o straw s and a bag hid d en i n h is und erw ear . The bagco ntai ned an off

- w hi te substa nce, wh i ch W i l s o n we i g he d, “ fi e l d- t e s t e d, ” a nd c o nc l ud e d was 13 gr am s o fcr ack coca i ne. A fed er al g r a n d j u ry ind ict ed M ax w ell on a sin gle count o fposs ess i ng with i ntent to dist ribute fi ve o r m o r e g r ams o fa mix tu r e o rs ubs ta nc e co nt aini ng c o ca i ne b a s e i n v i o l a t i o n o f2 1 U
. S. C. § 8 4 1 ( a ) ( 1 )
. J o hnNi e d,N o. 12

- 1809 3 a for ensi c sc i enti st i n the Contro l l ed Subst an ces U ni t a t th e W i sconsi n S ta te Cr i m e Lab o r at o r y, a na l y ze d the su b st an c e t h at D et ec tiv e W ils o n s eiz ed from M ax w ell and m em or i al i zed hi s fi nd i ngs in a r epor t that co nfi rm ed the pr ese nce o fco cai ne bas e ( i
. e. , cr ack coca in e). N i ed ha d r et i r ed bythe t i m e o fM ax wel l ’ s tr i al, a nd s o the gov er nm ent no ti fi ed M axw el lt h at i t intended to ca l lM i ch el l e Gee , a no th erf o r en si c sc i en ti stwi ththe W i sco nsi n St ate Cri m e Labo ra tory, i n N i ed’s pl ace. M ax wel lmade no o bj ec ti o n. M ax w ellfired a ll t h ree of his cou nt -app ointed l aw yers and procee ded to tr i alpro se ( w i th t h e aid ofst andby counsel )
. A t tr ial, Gee t est i fi ed that the s ubstance se i zed fro m M axw el lco ntai ned cocaine bas e. Gee e xplained th at in reach ing this co n c lu s ion, she d id n ot p erform the “ pri m ar y a nal ysi s” ofthe subst an c e, but r atherr ev i e w ed the r a w d a t a g e n e r a t e d fr o m ga s chro m ato gr aphy and m ass spect ro m etry tes ts perf or m ed by N i e d
. Ma x we l ld i d n o to bj e c tt o a n y o fth i s t e s t i mo ny orcr oss - exam i ne Gee about the nature ofthe substa nce. I nstea d, he m ai ntai ned that the dr ugs he posse sse d wer e f o rhi s o wn us e an d no t i nt en ded f o rdi st r ibut i o n. A fter th e j ury foun d M ax w ellguilty, he m oved f or a j u d gm en t of ac q u itt al, or in th e alte rn at ive , a n e w t ria l. The dis tr i ct c ourtdeni ed t h e m oti on a nd se ntenced M axw el lto twel ve yea rs ’ i m pri sonm ent. M axw el lnow ap p ea ls h is c on vic tio n an d se n te n c e.4 N o. 12

- 1809

M ax wel l argue s tha tpl ai n e rr or s houl d notappl y be c aus e the 1 g ov ern m en t ha s w aiv ed an y f or feitu re d efense. A cco rd ing to M ax wel l , the gove rn m en tl os ti t s r i ght to i nvoke pl ai n e rr or rev iew o n ap p eal b eca u se it f ailed to inv ok e p lain erro r w he n it re s ponde d t o h i s m ot i on f or j udgm en t o f ac qui t t al be f or e the d istric t c o u rt. W e ha v e p rev iou sly rec og niz ed tha t “a p arty can w aiv e a w aiver argum ent by f ail ing t o rai se i t, ” U n i te d Sta t es v. Hass ebrock, 66 3 F
. 3d 90 6, 91 4 ( 7th Ci r. 20 11 ) , butthe c a se s t o w h i c h M a x w e l l p o i n t s i n v o l v e th e g o v e r n m e n t ’s fa ilu re to ar g u e fo r p la in er ro r in its b ri ef o n ap p ea l. Se e, e . g. , U n ited St at es v. Bl agojevi ch , 61 2 F .3d 55 8 , 56 0 (7t h C ir . 20 1 0 ); U n i te d S tat es v. P aredes , 87 F.3d 9 2 1 , 9 2 4 ( 7th C ir. 19 96 ). T ha t is not th e si tuati on here. M oreover, “w e have al so r ecognized thatt h e w a iv er doctr ine is desi gned f or our protec ti on as m uc h a s tha to fa n opp os i ngpa r t y, a nd the r e f or e n e e d n otbe (co n tin u ed ...) II. A N A L Y S IS A . No Confr onta t i on Cla use V i ol at i on M axw el l ’ s m ai n ar gum ent o n a p peali s that the S i xth A m endm ent’ s Confro ntation Cl ause prohibi ted Gee fr o m t es ti fy i ng th at th e su bs ta nc e f o und o n h i m c o ntained cocaine bas e when G ee did notco n d u c t th e l ab wor khe r se l f
. A defen dan t h as th e bur deno fr ai singa ny Confr ontat i on Cl ause obj ecti on in the fi rst instance at tr ial. Se e M el endez-D iaz v. M assachus et ts , 55 7 U.S
. 30 5, 32 7 (2009). B ecau se M ax w ellm ad e no objection t o G ee’s tes ti m ony unt i lhi s pos t- tr i alm oti on be l ow, w e r evi ew th is constitu tional clai m f or plain error. S e e U nited Sta tes v. G a rvey, 688 F.3d 88 1, 88 4 (7 th C ir. 20 12 ); U ni t e d S t at e s v. M oon , 512 F.3d 359 , 361 (7th C ir. 2008). 1N o. 12

- 1809 5

(
. . . c on t i nu e d) 1 ass ert ed b y a party f or us to i nvo ke it
. ” Has se brock, 663 F. 3d a t 9 1 4 (in te rn a l q u o ta tio n m a rk s a n d cit a tio n s o m itt ed ). The Sixt h A m endm ent’ s Confro ntati on Cl ause provi des that, “[ i ] n al lcr i m i nalpro secuti ons, the accu sed shal lenj oy the r i ght .
. . to be confro nted w i th the witn es se s a ga in st h im .” W e h av e h ad se ve ra l o c c a sio n s in r e c e nty e a r s t o e v a l ua t e p o t e nt i a lCo nfr o nt a t i o n Clause p r o b l e ms th a tar i s e w h e n a n e x p e r tw i tn e s s fr o m a c r i me lab testifi es abou t the re su lts off orens ic testing p erfor m ed b y an ot h er an aly st
. See U nited S ta tes v . Turn er, 70 9 F.3 d 11 87, 119 0 (7 th C ir. 20 13 ); G a rvey, 688 F. 3d at 88 4- 85 ; M oon , 5 1 2 F
. 3 d a t3 6 1
. We a l r e a dykno w that th e govern m en t m ay not i nt rod uc e forensic l aborat ory re p or ts or a ffid av its re p o r t i n g th e re su lts of fore n sic tes ts and use them a s su bsta nti ve evi dence ag ai nst a defe nd ant unl ess the anal ystwh o p re p ar ed orcer ti fi ed the r epor t i s o ffer ed as a l i ve w itness subj ect to cro ssex am in at ion
. SeeBu ll com ing v. New M exic o , 131 S. Ct. 27 05, 27 10 (20 11 ); M el e ndez- D i az , 5 5 7U. S
. a t3 2 9
. B u t, a s we ha ve ex pl aine d b efo r e, “ ane xpe r t who g i ve s te st i m o ny about the nature of a s uspected co ntro l l ed substa nce m ay re l y o n i nfo rm ati on g ather ed and p ro du ced by an anal ystwh o does not hi m sel fte sti fy,” Turn er, 70 9 F
. 3d at 1190 , as “the f acts o r data” on wh i ch the expertbas es h er op in ion “n ee d n otbe ad m i s s i b l e in e vid en c e in o r de rfo rthe [ e xp e r t ’ s ] o pi ni o n o ri nfe r e nc e t o b e a dm i tte d.” M oon , 512 F.3d at 361 ( citing Fed
. R. Evid
. 703). A nd thi s m ake s s ense because the ra w d at a fro m a l ab6 N o. 12

- 1809 te sta r e no t “s ta te m en ts ” in a ny waytha t vi o l at es the C on fro n ta tio n C lau se . Id. at36 2. W ha t m akes th is case d ifferen t ( a n d rel atively m ore st r ai g ht f o r war d) fr o m tho se we ha ve dea l t wi thi n the p as t i s that Gee did notr ead fro m N i ed’s r epor t while te st i fyi ng ( as i n G a rvey ) , she did notvo uch f orwh ether N i ed f ol l owed st andard tes ti ng p ro cedures orst ate that sh e r ea ch ed the sam e co nc l us i o n a s N i ed ab o utthe na tu r e o fthe s ubsta nc e ( as i n Turn er ) , a nd the g o ve r nm en t di d no t i nt r o duce N i ed’ s r epo r t i ts el f o r a ny re ad in gs ta ke n from th e i n s t r u m en ts h e u se d (as in M oon ). M ax w ell ar gu es th at N ied ’s fo re n sic a n a lys is is testim onial, bu t G e e nev er said sh e reli ed on N ied’s re porto r hi s inter preta ti on o fthe d ata i n re achi ng her o wn co nc l us i o n. Ins te ad, G ee s i m pl y t es ti fi ed ( 1) abo ut how ev i dence i n the c rim e l ab i s typi cal l y t est ed w hen deter m in ing whether i t co ntai ns a contr ol l ed substa nce, ( 2) thatshe had rev i ew ed the data g en er at ed f or the m ate ri ali n thi s ca se, and (3 ) thatshe re ached an i nd ependent concl usi on that the substance conta i ned coca i ne bas e a fterr evi ew i ng tha t data
. M axw el lurg es us to fi nd a Confro n ta ti on Cl ause problem w ith G ee’s testim ony p articu larl y in lig h t of Wi l l i a ms v. Il li nois , 13 2 S
. Ct. 22 21 ( 2012 )

— a case the d istri ct cou rt di d no t ha ve the b en efi t o fa t tr i al
. In Wi l l i a ms , a sta te c rim e la b se n t v ag in al s w ab s t ak en from a ra p e v ict im t o C e l l ma r k, a p r i v a t e l ab o r a t o r y, f o rD NA a n a l y s i s . At tr i al, a n inde pen den t f o r en si c ex p er t, who pl ay ed no ro l e in th e C ellm ar k a nal ysi s, co nfi rm ed that “ther e was a c om p u te r m at c h ge n er at ed of th e m ale D N A p ro fileN o. 12

- 1809 7 f ound in sem en fro m the vaginalswabs o f[ the v i cti m ] to a m ale DN A pro fi l e” produced by the st ate cr i m e l ab fro m a sa m p le o ft h e d efe n d an t’s blo od
. Id. at 22 36 . A plur al i ty ofthe Court f ound no Confr ontat i on Clause probl em with thi s t est i m ony, but the Cour t’ s 4

- 1- 4 di vi si on l eft no cl earguidance about how exact l y a n expertm ust p hra se its testim ony abou t th e resu lts of tes t in g perf o r med b y a no the ra na l y s ti n o r de rf o rthe t e s t i mon y to b e a d m iss ible
. See id
. at 2270 , 2277 (K agan , J
. , dissen ting); see also Turn er, 7 09 F
. 3d at1 18 9 ( ex pl ai nin g tha t “the di ve rgenta na l y se s an d c o nc l us i o ns o fthe pl ur al i tya nd di ss en t so w co nfus i o n a s to pr ec i se l y whatl i m itati o ns th e C onfron tation C lause m ay im p o s e w he n an exp ert w i tness te sti fi es about the r esul ts of test i ng per f or m ed by an oth er an alyst, w ho herself is not called to t e s t ify”). T he re i s li ttle qu estion th at G ee’s i nt e r p r e tation of N ied’s d ata i n t his case w as testim onial in n atu re

— its sol e pu rpose w as to prove thatthe sei ze d substance w as cocaine base. Bu t even after Wi l l i a ms , w e have e xplained that “an a pp ro pri ate l y c re denti al ed i nd i vi du alm ay gi ve expe rt t esti m ony as to the s i gni fi cance ofdata produ ced by anothe r anal yst
. ” Turn er, 70 9 F
. 3d at 1190

- 91 ( ci ti ng Wi l l i a ms , 13 2 S
. Ct. at22 33- 35)
. In ot h er w or ds, M ax wel lwas no t depr i ve d o fhi s S ixth Am en dm en t r i g ht s im p ly b y virtue of the fact th at G ee reli ed on N ied’s data in re achi ng herow n c oncl usi ons, es peci al l y s i nce she ne verm enti oned w h at co ncl usi ons N i ed re ached ab ou t t h e s u b st an c e. Se ei d. Perhaps m or e fund am ental l y, unl i ke th e defendants i n Wi l l i a ms or Turn er, M ax wel lne ve ro bj ec te d t o Ge e’s tes ti m ony at tr i al and he never denie d that th e s u b stance8 N o. 12

- 1809 at issue w as, in fact, crack coc aine. W e ce r t a in ly un d erst an d the v alue i n c r o ss - ex ami ni ngthe pe r so n who actual l y per for m ed the f or ensi c te sts o n the substa nce i n questi on i fthe accura cy ofthose tes ts i s doubte d, f or w e surel y r eco gni ze that these te sts ar e no t infa l l ibl e. See Wi l l i a ms , 13 2 S. C t. at22 75 (K ag an , J. , d iss en tin g); Turn er, 70 9 F .3d at11 92 ; U ni t e d S t at e s v. Was hi ngt on , 498 F. 3d 225, 23 5 (4 th C ir. 20 07 ) (M ich ae l, J., d i s se n tin g). B u t M ax w ell o nl y c r o ss - ex ami ne d Gee o n the wei g ht

— n otth e c om p os ition

— o f the dr ug s b e c a us e he wa s f o c us e d s o l e l y o n sh o wi nghi s l ac ko fi nt ent t o di st r ibut e. The r e was no questi on a t t ri al about the typ e o fdrug s b e i ngdi s t r ib ut e d. M or eo ve r, th e s t r a t e gic d ec isio n to d em an d live te st im ony i s the defendant’s choi ce t o m ake , and on e that m any defe nd ants ( i ncl ud i ng M axw el l ) opt to for ego

— so m et im es for go od rea so n s. Se eM e l e ndez- D i az , 55 7 U
. S. at 328 ( “I t i s u n li kely that defense counselwil li nsi st on l i ve t es ti m o ny who se e ffec t wi l l be mer ely t o hi g hl i g ht rath er than cast d ou bt u p o n th e forensic ana lysi s.”) ; M oon , 51 2 F
. 3d at 361 ( “That i t m ay be t o defe nd ants’ advantage to acc ept the hear sayve rs i on o fev i dence m ake s i t pr obl em ati c to ente rt ai n a Crawf or d c la i m via th e pl ain- er r o rc l au se o fF ed. R. Ev i d. 1 03 ( d)
. A defen dan t who sinc er elywant s l i ve t es ti m o ny s ho ul d m ak e th e dem an d , so thatthe decl ar ant ca n be produced. The l ack o fa de m an d f o rt es ti m o ny b y a n a va i l ab l e dec l ar an t lea d s t o th e c on c lu sio n th at th e a p p ella te ar g u m e n t is strateg ic rather th an sincere.”). So f or al l of these reason s, w e con clud e tha t G ee’s tes tim ony did notvi ol ate the Confr ontat i on Cl ause. B ec a u s e t h er e w as n o e rro r, th e a d m iss ion of th e t es ti-N o. 12

- 1809 9

m on y w as n otp lain ly er ro n eo u s. Se eU ni t e d S t at e s v. O l ano , 507 U
. S. 725, 732-33 (1993 ).

B . R em an d Is N ec es s ary U nd ert he FairSentenci ng A ct M ax wel la l so a r g ue s th athe i s en ti tl ed to r es en te nc i ng b ec a u s e t h e F air Sen te n c in g A c t o f 20 10 (FSA ) m ak es h im subj ect to l owe r sta tutory a nd S entencing Guidel i nes ra n ge s. M ax w ell d id n otas k t h e d ist ric t c o u r t t o a p p ly th e F SA b e l o w , so ou r re vie w is for p lain err or . U nited St at e s v. Tayl or, 520 F.3d 746 , 747 (7th C ir. 2008). The FS A , w hi ch too k effect on A ugust 3 , 20 10, i ncre ase d th e thr e s h o ld am ou nt s of crac k tha t trigger m an d atory m inim um pen alties und er 2 1 U
. S. C
. § 841(b)(1)
. H ow ever, at the ti m e o fM axw el l ’ s s entencing i n Feb ruar y 2 012, th i s co ur t ha d he l d tha t th e F S A di d no t apply t o de fen d an ts, li ke M ax w ell, w h o s e offen se occu rred before th e F SA to ok effe c t. See U nited Sta tes v. Fisher, 635 F. 3d 336, 340 (7th C ir. 2011). So using pre-FSA l aw , the d istri ct cou rt se nt en ce d M ax wel l( who was c o nv i ct ed o fpo ss es sing 13 gr am s ofcr ack) under 21 U
. S. C. § 8 41(b) ( 1) ( B), wh i ch provi ded a statu to ry r ange of5- 40 yea rs ’ i m pri sonm ent. Give n hi s ca re ero ffender sta tus, hi s o ffense l eve lwas 34 u n der U.S
. S. G. § 4 B1. 1( b) i n l i ght o fthe 40- yea r sta tutory m axi m um . Com bi ni ng an offense lev elo f34 w i th a Catego ryVIcr i m i nalhi sto ryres u lted in a Gui del i nes r ange of26 2- 327 m onths’ i m pri sonm ent. Bu ti n J un e 2 0 1 2 , the S upr e me Co ur tr e v e r s e d Fish er in D o rsey v . U nited Sta tes , 13 2 S
. Ct
. 2 32 1, 2 33 5- 36 ( 20 12 ) , a nd c o n fi r me d th a t th e F S A’ s l o we r ma n d a t o r y mi n i mu ms10 N o. 12

- 1809 ap p ly to all d efe n d an ts se n te n c ed aft er A u gu st3, 20 10 . In li gh t of D o rsey, both part i es agr ee that M axw el li s s ubj ect to a low er st at u to ry ran ge of 0-2 0 y ea rs . See 2 1 U. S
. C. § 8 41(b) ( 1) ( C) ( now apply i ng to cr ack quant i ti es l ess than 28 gr am s)
. Thi s r esul ts i n a s i gni fi cant di ffer ence i n the advi so ry G uidel i nes r ange of26 2- 327 m onths ( preFS A ) ve rs us 21 0- 240 m onths ( post- D o rsey ). See U. S. S. G. § 4 B1. 1( b) ( 3) ( set ti ng o ffense levelat32 f orcar eer offenders w hen thei r sta tutory m axi m um i s 2 0 y ear s o r m or e, b u t less than 25 yea rs ) ; § 5G1. 1 ( l oweri ng upp er en d of G uid eli ne s beca us e of th e 20 year m ax im um ). Because the di stri ct c ourtcal cul ate d M axw el l ’ s r ange as 262- 327 m onths, we a gree that proce du ra ler ro r occur re d at s entencing. The go ver nm ent c oncedes that M axw el li s su bj ect to a l ower Guidel i nes r ange, but m ai ntai ns t h at he has not est abl i shed pla i n er ro r because he ha s fa i l ed to pro ve th atthe di st r i ctc o ur t woul d ha ve i m po se d a l o wers en tence had i t know n the FS A appli ed. In other si m i l ar ca se s wher e we c o ul d not be c er ta i n whe th erthe d i s t r i c tco ur two u l d i mpo s e d a d i ffe r e n ts e n t e n c e , we ha ve or d e r e d a l im ited rem an d un d er the p roced ure o u t l i n e d i n U ni t e d S t at e s v. Pal adi no , 40 1 F
. 3d 471, 48 3- 84 ( 7th Ci r. 20 05) ( expla i ni ng th e p ro cedure i nvol ves “r etaini ng j ur i sdi ct i o n o f th e appe al, [ whi l e] o r der [ i ng] a li m ited rem a n d to perm it the sen ten cing j ud ge to d etermi n e w h e th e rh e w o u l d ( i fr e q u i r e d t o r e s e n t e n c e ) r e i mp os e h is or igin al s en te n c e” ). Se e, e . g. , Un i t e d S t a t e s v. Bil l i an , 60 0 F.3d 79 1, 79 5 (7th C i r . 2 01 0); Taylo r, 52 0 F
. 3d at 748. W e beli eve th at is the ap p rop riate proce d ure h er e a s wel lbec ause the di str i ct c ourtga ve no ind i ca-N o. 12

- 1809 11 ti on that i t would have i m posed the sam e s entence r ega rd les s o f th e F SA ’s a p p lica tio n . In se n te n c in g M ax w ell to 144 m onths, the cour t no ted thatit “co uld have j us t i fi e d g o i ng t o a muc h hi g he r s e nt e nc e , ” b ut al so f ound “som e j usti fi cati on fora sente nce be l ow t h e gui del i ne r ang e” a nd s ta te d tha t i t was “ unwi l l i ngt o g i ve up on th is defen d an t.” W hile i t is p o s s ible th at M ax w ell ’s sen ten ce w ou ld h ave be en the sam e even i f th e cou rt h ad ap p lied th e F SA , th er e is als o re as on to th i n k it wo ul d h a v e b e e n l o wer, s o we o r de ra l i mi t e d Palad i no re m an d s o that the di str i ct c ourtm ay i nfo rm us whether it w an ts to res en ten ce th e d efend an t. I f th e d istri ct cou rt sta te s tha ti two ul d r e i mpo s e the o r i g i na ls e nt e nc e , then w e wil laffi rm M axw el l ’ s s enten c e if i t i s r eas onabl e. Pa l a d i no , 401 F.3d at 484
. I f, i ns tead , the d istri ct cou rt sta tes thati t would h av e i m posed a differ ent s entence ha d i t k no wn th e F S A applied, the n we wi l lv ac at e th e or igin al s en te n c e a n d rem an d for re se n te n c in g. Id . Th is cour t wil lacc or dingl y r eta i n j uri sdic ti on unti li t has re cei ved the dist ri ct c ourt ’ s r esponse .

I I I . C ONC L US I ON For these r eas ons, we R EMA ND the c a s e t o the di s tr i ct cour t in acco rdan c e w i th the pro cedure setf or th abo ve. The j ud gm ent o fthe dist ri ct c ourti s A FF I RMED inall othe r re spects
.

7- 19- 13