NOT P 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- 2830

____________ UNI TE D ST ATE S OF AM ERI CA

v. K E V IN T A Y L O R , also k n o w n as Q ad ir , A ppel l ant

____________ N o. 08- 2986

____________ UNI TE D ST ATE S OF AM ERI CA

v. STEVEN G AN TT, a l s o k n o wn a s BO Z, A ppel l ant

____________ O n A p p ea l from the U n it ed S tat es D istri ct C o u rt

forthe D i s tr i ctof N ew J er s ey ( D . C . N os . 1- 06- cr - 00699- 003 and 1- 06- cr - 00699- 001) D i s tr i ctJ udge: H onor abl e R obertB . K ugl er

____________ Subm i tt ed Pur s uantt o T hi r d C i r cui tL A R 34. 1( a)

A pr i l 15, 2010H onor abl e J . W i l l i am D i t t er , J r . , Seni orU ni t ed St at es D i s tr i ctJ udge forthe * E as t ern D i s tr i ctof Penns y l vani a, s i t t i ng bydes i gnat i on. 2 B e f o re : F IS H E R a n d C O W E N , C i r cui tJudges , a n d DI TT ER, D is tr i ct Judge . * ( Fi l ed: M ay10, 2010)

____________ OPI NI ON O F THE COURT

____________ F IS H E R , C i r cui tJudge . St even G antt( “G antt ”) and K evi n T ay l or( “Tay l or ”) br oughtthi s cons ol i dat ed appea l fr om thei rconvi ct i ons and s ent ence s r es ul t i ng fr om a s er i es of bank r obber i es . For th e r e a s o n s s t a t e d h e r e i n , we wi l l a f f i r m. I. W e w r i t e exc l us i vel yforthe part i es , w ho ar e fa m i l i arw i th the fa ctual cont extand l egal hi s t oryof the ca s e. T her efor e, w e w i l l onl ys etfor th thos e fa ct s nece s s aryt o our analy si s. T h e c o n v ictio n s a t issu e a rise o u t o f a se rie s o f

n in e b a n k ro b b e rie s c o m m itt e d in 2005 and 2006 i n N ew J er s eyand Penns y l vani a. G anttand W al t erJ ohns on w er e arr es t ed o n A u g u st 2 3 , 2 0 0 6 , in c o n n e c tio n w ith th e se ro b b e rie s. W a lter J o h n so n c o n f e ss e d h is i nvol vementand i m pl i cat ed G anttand Tay l or . A w arr antt o arr es tT ay l orw as then i s s ued b ya N e w Je rse ysta te c o u rt.A pr i ortr i al had comm ence d on J anuary22, 2008, and ende d on February11, 1 2 0 0 8 , w ith th e d e c lar a tio n o f a m istria l af

ter th e ju rya n n o u n c e d it w a s d e a d lo c k e d o n a ll cou nts . 3 O n S eptem ber 6, 20 06 , a fed eral grand juryi ssued a t w o-coun ti nd i ct m ent agai nst G anttand W al t erJ ohns on, char gi ng both w i th ( 1) H obbs A ctcons pi r acyi n vi ol at i on of 18 U . S. C . § 1951( a) , and ( 2) the us e of a fi r earm i n connec t i on w i th a M ay30, 2006 r obberyi n vi ol at i on of 18 U . S. C . § 924( c) ( 1) and 18 U . S. C . § 2. O n N ovember22, 2006, W al t erJ ohns on pl eade d gui l tyt o a tw o counts uper cedi ng i nform at i on pur s uantt o a cooper at i ng gui l typl ea a gr eement . O n N ovember27, 2006, T ay l orw as arr es t ed, and a w e e k late r th e g ra n d ju ryiss u e d a su p e rc e d in g in d ictm e n t ch a rg in g G a n tt an d T a y lo r w ith th e sa m e tw o c o u n ts c o n tain e d in th e S e p tem b e r 6 , 2 0 0 6 in d ictm e n t. O n J une 26, 2007, the gr and j uryr eturned a s econd s uper s edi ng i ndi ctm ent . T he char ges agai ns tboth G anttand Tay l ori ncl uded one c ountof cons pi r acyt o comm i tH obbs A ctr obberyi n vi ol at i on of 18 U . S. C . § 1951( a) ; s i x count s of arm ed r obberyi n vi ol at i on o f 1 8 U .S .C . § § 2 1 1 3 (a ), 2 1 1 3 (d ), an d 1 8 U .S .C . § 2 ; an d six c o u n ts o f u sin g a f

ire a rm in c o n n e c tio n w ith th e c o rr e s p o n d in g b a n k ro b b e ri e s in v io la tio n o f 1 8 U .S .C . § 9 2 4 (c )( 1 ). G anttw as char ged w i th t w o addi t i onal count s of arm ed bank r obberyand tw o addi t i onal cou nts of u si ng a fi rearm i n co nn ect i on w i th the corr espon ding ban k robb eri es. T he tr i al ati s s ue comm ence d on February26, 2008, and on M ar ch 19, 2008, the j uryr eturned gui l tyver di ct s on al l count s . T ay l orand G anttw er e s ent ence d t o a t ot al of 1 1, 38 0 an d 1 , 78 8 m on ths i n p ri son, res pecti vely . T he D i stri ctC ou rtsent enced A pp el l ants ’4

co- cons pi r at or , W al t erJ ohns on, w ho had pl eade d gui l ty , t o a t ot al of 108 m onths i ncar cer at i on. A t trial, the D istric t C o u rt, o v e r G a n tt’s o b jec tio n , p e rm itt e d th e G o v e rn m e n t to ad m itas m o d u s o p era n d i evid en ce , u n d er F ed era l R u le of E v iden ce 4 0 4 (b), G an tt ’s p a rticip a tio n in a 1 9 9 8 se rie s o f sim ilar r o b b e rie s. T h e p u rp o se o f th is e v id e n c e w a s to es t abl i s h G antt ’ s i dent i tyas one of the part i ci pant s i n the mostcurr entr obber i es . T he G overnm ents ubs equent l ypr es ent ed evi dence thata l ar ge numberof comm onal i t i es exis t ed b et w een the 19 98 and 20 05 -2006 robberi es. A n addi t i onal pi ece of evi dence ati s s ue dur i ng tr i al w as a s ecur i tyt ape f r om t he d a yo f o n e o f th e ro b b e rie s, Ju ly2 1 , 2 0 0 6 , tha t sh o w e d W a lter J o h n so n a lo n g w ith J erm ai ne J ohns on and M al i k H arveypur chas i ng var i ous i t ems fr om a W al - M art . A ft er i nves t i gat or s vi ew ed thi s t ape, i tw as m i s pl ace d befor e i tcoul d be turned overt o and vi ew ed bythe A ppel l ant s i n pr epar at i on fortr i al . T he exi s t ence , cont ent , and s ubs equent lo ss o f th e v id e o w e re d isc lo se d to th e A p p e llan ts b yth e G o v e rn m e n t. B oth G anttand Tay l orfi l ed t i m el ynot i ces of appe al as t o thei rconvi ct i ons and sent ences. II. T h e D i s tr i c tC o u r th a d j u r i s d i c t i o n o v e rb o th c a s e s u n d e r1 8 U . S . C . § 3 2 3 1 . We have j ur i s di ct i on overthe cha l l enges t o the convi ct i ons and the s ent ence s pur s uantt o 28 U .S .C . § 1 2 9 1 a n d 1 8 U .S .C . § 3 7 4 2 (a ). W e re v iew a c h a llen g e to a c o u rt’s d e c isio n to5

a d m it e v id e n c e o f

p ri o r c ri m e s f

o r a b u s e o f

d is c re tio n . U

ni t ed Stat es v. H

of f ecker , 530 F . 3 d 1 3 7 , 1 8 9 ( 3 d Ci r . 2 0 0 8 ) . We r e v i e w de novo al l eged D ue Pr oces s vi ol at i ons on the p a rt o f th e G o v e rn m e n t f

o r f a ilu re to p re s e rv e p o te n tia lly e x c u lp a to ry e v id e n c e . U ni t ed Stat es v. Mack , 229 F. 3d 226, 231 ( 3d C i r . 2000) . T hi s C our tr evi ew s s ent enci ng deci s i ons forr eas onabl enes s , and thi s “r eas onabl enes s r evi ew ” i s done underan abus e of d is c re tio n s ta n d a rd . U

ni t ed Stat es v. Tom ko , 5 6 2 F .3 d 5 5 8 , 5 6 7 (3 d C ir . 2 0 0 9 ) ( e n b a n c ). F in a lly , w e re v iew a ll arg u m e n ts n o t ra ise d in th e D istric t C o u rt, i n c lu d in g th a t a p ro s e c u to r e n g a g e d in v in d ic tiv e p ro s e c u tio n , f o r p la in e rr o r. U

n itedS ta tes v . W

a lls , 293 F . 3 d 9 5 9 , 9 7 0 (6th C ir . 2 0 0 2 ). III . A . A dm i s s i on of the M odus O per andi E vi dence underFeder al R ul e of E vi dence 404( b) G anttchal l enges the admi s s i on of evi dence of hi s part i ci pat i on i n a s er i es of bank r obber i es i n 1998 as evi dence of hi s i dent i tyas one of the perpetr at or s of the bank ro b b e rie s in th is c a se . T h e D istric t C o u rt a c c e p ted th e G o v e rn m e n t’s a rg u m e n t th a t, underR ul e 404( b) , the met hods us ed i n the 1998 r obber i es w er e s o s i m i l art o the met hods u se d in th e 2 0 0 5 -2 0 0 6 ro b b e rie s th a t th e ye sta b lish e d a m o d u s o p e ra n d i w h ich c o u ld h e lp t o es t abl i s h G antt ’ s i dent i tyas one of the part i ci pant s i n the 2005- 2006 s er i es of r obber i es . I n comi ng t o t hi s concl us i on, the D i s tr i ctC our tw as pr es ent ed w i th evi dence of s i m i l ar i t i es betw een the tw o s er i es of r obber i es i ncl udi ng the r obber s ’ dr es s , m ethod of o b tain in g th e b a n k ’s m o n e y , u se o f f ire a rm s, n u m b e r o f

ro b b e rs in v o lv e d in e a c h in c id e n t,6

a n d u se o f

sto len g e taw a yc a rs. T h e G o v e rn m e n t p re se n ted th e D istric t C o u rt w ith s t at i s t i cal evi dence t endi ng t o s how thata verys m al l num berof r obber i es occurr ed under the s ame ci r cumst ance s and i n t he exa cts ame fas hi on as exhi bi t ed bythe tw o s er i es of r obber i es ati s s ue. G anttar gues thatthe s i m i l ar i t i es betw een the tw o s er i es of r obber i es ar e comm on t o m anybank r obber i es and do notcons t i tut e a modus ope r andi . A court , how ever , m ay l ook atal l of the s i m i l ar i t i es t ogetherand det erm i ne w hethera patt ern has been e s ta b lis h e d . U

ni t ed Stat es v. C ar l t on , 5 3 4 F .3 d 9 7 , 1 0 1 -0 2 (2 d C ir. 2 0 0 8 ). T h is is p re c ise lyw h a t th e D istric t C o u rt d id in th is c a se a n d th e C o u rt w a s w ith in its d isc re tio n to m ake the det erm i nat i on thatthe evi dence pr es ent ed bythe G overnm entes t abl i s hed a m o d u s o p era n d i un d er R u le 40 4 (b). A courtm us tal s o det erm i ne w hether , underFeder al R ul e of Evi dence 403, the dangerof unfa i rpr ej udi ce i n admi t t i ng the evi dence s ubs t ant i al l youtw ei ghs i t s pr obat i ve val ue. T he D i s tr i ctC our tw ei ghed the pr obat i ve ef fec tof the evi dence t endi ng t o i dent i fy G an ttas o n e o f th e ro b b ers a g ains t th e p o tential fo r th e u n fa irp rejud ice f rom the ju ry pos s i bl yi nferr i ng cul pabi l i tyi n t he 2005- 2006 bank r obber i es beca us e G antthad bee n pr evi ous l yi nvol ved i n cr i m i nal act i vi ty . T he D i s tr i ctC our tfound thatther e w as no bar u n d e r R u le 4 0 3 to a d m itt in g th e e v id e n c e , an d w e m a yo n lyd istu rb th is a n a ly sis if it i s “i rr at i onal orarbi tr ary . ” D i ehl v. B law - Knox , 3 6 0 F .3 d 4 2 6 , 4 3 0 (3 d C ir. 2 0 0 4 ). T h e re is n o i n d i c a t i o n i n th e r e c o r d th a tth e D i s tr i c tC o u r t ’ s d e c i s i o n w a s i rr a t i o n a l o ra rb i tr a ry.7

B . U navai l abi l i tyof the W al - M artV i deot ape A p p e l l a n t s c l a i m th a tth e s e c u r i ty t a p e s h o w i n g W a l t e rJ o h n s o n , M a l i k H a r v e y, an d Jerm aine Jo h n so n at W al-M art on the d ayo f o n e o f th e ro b b eries w as e x cu lpato ry evi dence thats houl d have be en turned overt o them, and the fa ctthatthe t ape w as unavai l abl e w as a deni al of thei rD ue Pr oces s r i ght s . A ppel l ant s ar gue thatthe t ape t ends to sh o w th a t M a lik H a rv e ya n d Je rm a in e Jo h n so n , rath e r th a n th e m se lv e s, c o n sp ire d w ith W a lter J o h n so n to c o m m it th e ro b b e rie s. T h e G o v e rn m e n t, ho w e v e r, m a d e A p p e llan ts aw ar e thatthe W al - M artt ape e xi s t ed and thatW al t erJ ohns on, M al i k H arvey , and Je rm a in e Jo h n so n w e re in th e v id e o , w h ile A p p e llan ts w e re n o t. In o rd e r f

o r a c o u rt to f

in d a d e p riv a tio n o f

D u e P ro c e ss , ev id e n c e m u st b o th “pos s es s an exc ul pat oryval ue thatw as appar entbefor e the evi dence w as des tr oy ed” a nd a lso “ b e o f

su c h a n a tu re th a t th e d e f e n d a n t w o u ld b e u n a b le to o b tain c o m p a ra b le evi dence byotherr eas onabl yavai l abl e means . ” C a lif o rn ia v . T

ro m b e tta , 467 U . S. 479, 489 ( 1984) . I n m att er s i nvol vi ng “pot ent i al l yexcul pat ory ” evi dence , a cr i m i nal defe ndantm us t“s how bad fa i th on the partof the pol i ce” i n or dert o s how a deni al of D u e P ro c e s s . A r iz ona v. Y oungbl ood , 488 U . S. 51, 58 ( 1988) . A ppel l ant s onl yar gue that th e p o lice sh o u ld h a v e k n o w n o f th e e x c u lp a to ryn a tu re o f th e e v id e n c e a n d tak e n ste p s to have the evi dence pr es erved. T hi s s i m pl ydoes notr i s e t o the l evel of “ba d fai th. ” The i nves t i gat or s conduct ed a thor ough s ear ch forthe t ape a nd i tw as notfound. Fur ther , t he excul pat orynatur e of the vi deot ape i n thi s cas e i s dubi ous atbes t , buti ti s cl earthatt he8

A ppel l ant s had obt ai ned compar abl e evi dence s i nce the s ubs t ance of the vi deot ape w as pr es ent ed t o the j uryeven i n i t s phy s i cal abs ence . A p p ell an ts al so arg u e tha t un d er B r ady v. Mar yland , 373 U . S. 83 ( 1963) , the G o v e rn m e n t e n g a g e d in s u p p re s s io n o f e v id e n c e in v io la tio n o f th e irD u e P ro c e s s ri g h ts . T o estab li sh a v iolati o n u n d er B r ady , A ppel l ant s “musts how that : ( 1) evi dence w as s uppr es s ed; ( 2) the s uppr es s ed evi dence w as favor abl e t o the def ens e; and ( 3) the s uppr es s ed evi dence w as m at er i al ei thert o gui l tort o puni s hm ent . ” U ni t ed Stat es v. P e lu llo , 3 9 9 F . 3 d 1 9 7 , 2 0 9 ( 3 d Ci r . 2 0 0 5 ) ( i n t e rn a l c i t a t i o n a n d q u o t a t i o n s o mi t t e d ) . No s uppr es s i on occurr ed i n t hi s cas e. T he G overnm entw as for thr i ghti n di s cl os i ng the e x iste n c e o f

th e v id e o tap e a s w e ll as d isc lo sin g its c o n ten t. T h e A p p e llan ts k n e w o f its e x iste n c e a n d u lti m a telyw e re a b le to e n jo ya n yp o ten tial e x c u lp a to ryv a lu e f ro m its su b sta n c e b e c a u se th e ju ryw a s m a d e a w a re th a t W a lter J o h n so n ’s c o h o rts o n th e tap e d id no ti nclude either of the A pp el l ants . C . T he D i s par at e N atur e of A ppel l ant s ’ Sent ence s i n C om par i s on t o W al t er J ohns on’ s Sent ence A ppel l ant s fur therar gue thatthei rs ent ence s , i n l i ghtof the more l eni ents ent ence g i v e n t o th e i rc o - c o n s p i r a t o r , we r e u n r e a s o n a b l e . A c o u r tma yc o n s i d e rth e f a c tth a tt wo equal l ycul pabl e co- defe ndant s w oul d r ece i ve di s pr opor t i onat e s ent ence s i f the s ent enci ng g u id e lin e s a re f

o llo w e d , an d th e n h a n d d o w n a m o re len ien t se n ten c e ; b u t n o w h e re is it re q u ir e d th a t a c o u rt e q u a liz e s e n te n c e s in c ir c u m s ta n c e s s u c h th e s e . U ni t ed Stat es v. P arker , 4 6 2 F . 3 d 2 7 3 , 2 7 7 ( 3 d Ci r . 2 0 0 6 ) . F u r th e r , wh e r e a s e n t e n c i n g c o u r th a n d s d o wn9

a l eni ents ent ence t o a coope r at i ng defe ndant , i ti s w i thi n the di s cr et i on of the s ent enci ng courtt o t ake i nt o cons i der at i on the di s par i tyof the s ent ence s , and then dec i de w hetheror nott o i m pos e on the non- cooper at i ng co- defe ndanta more l eni ents ent ence than advi s ed u n d e r t h e g u id e lin e s . I

d. a t 2 7 7 -7 8 . In th is c a se , the D istric t C o u rt d id n o t se e f it t o s ent ence G anttand Tay l orl eni ent l y , and nothi ng i n the r ecor d i ndi cat es thatthi s deci s i on w as an abus e of the D i s tr i ctC our t ’ s di s cr et i on. D . G antt ’ s C l ai m of V i ndi ct i ve Pr os ecut i on Fi nal l y , w e cons i derG antt ’ s cont ent i on thatthe G overnm entvi ol at ed hi s D ue P rocess ri gh t s byeng aging i n a “v i nd i ct i ve p rosecut i on . ” G anttcon t end s that i tw as a vi ol at i on of hi s r i ght s forthe G overnm entt o add mul t i pl e cha r ges i n the s econd s uper cedi ng i ndi ctm entaft erG anttr efus ed t o agr ee t o a pl ea a gr eementunderthe or i gi nal char ges . Si nce G anttdi d notr ai s e thi s cl ai m befor e the D i s tr i ctC our t , w e r evi ew for p lai n erro r. G anttr el i es on U

n itedS ta tes v . G o o dw in , 457 U . S. 368 ( 1982) , t o s how that v in d ic tiv e a c tio n o n th e p a rt o f th e p ro s e c u to r v io la te s th e C o n s titu tio n . G o o dw in , how ever , s t at es pl ai nl ythat“a pr os ecut orm ayfi l e addi t i onal char ges i f an i ni t i al expec t at i on thata def

endantw oul d pl ead gui l tyt o l es s erchar ges pr oves unfounded. ” I d. at380. G anttr el i es w hol l yon t he fa ctthatthe G overnm entw entback a nd obt ai ned a n o th e r in d ictm e n t th a t p re se n ted th e p o ss ib ili tyo f a m u c h lar g e r se n ten c e in o rd e r to sh o w v in d ictiv e n e ss . O n th is a lo n e , w e c a n n o t f in d th a t th e D istric t C o u rt p lain lye rre d in10

fai l i ng t o fi nd thatthe governm entvi ol at ed G antt ’ s D ue Pr oces s r i ght s byi ncr eas i ng t he c h a r g e s a g a i n s th i m. I V. Foral l the for egoi ng r eas ons , w e w i l l aff i r m the convi ct i on of the A ppel l ant s and th e se n ten c e s h a n d e d d o w n b yth e D istric t C o u rt.