## 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

- 2999 U NI T ED S TATE SOF A MERI CA, P la intif f-A pp ellee, v. M AGI N E. V I L L A S E NO R, D ef endant-Appellant.

A pp eal from the United S t ates Di strictC our t fo r the N o rthernDi stricto f Illino is, Eas tern Div isi on. No . 03- CR-689

—Jo an B. G ott schall, Judge

. A RG UE D S EP TE MBE R 19, 2011

—D ECI DE D D ECE MBE R 23, 2011

Befo reE A STE RB ROOK

, Chie f Judge, andKANNE an d W ILLIAMS

, C ircu it Judges . K ANN E , C ircu i tJudg e . M agin Vil l ase nor, al ong w i th si xteen o therdefendants, was charg ed w i th var i ous c ri m es ar i singo uto fa c ons pi r ac y t o di st r ibut e co ca i ne a nd m ar ij uana acr oss seve ra l sta tes
. A j ury f ound M agin gui l ty o fs i xt ee n o u to fth e n i n e t e e n c h a r g e d c o u n t s . He n ow ra ise s a n u m b er of i ss u es on ap p ea l, in c lu d in g c h allen ge s to th e s u fficie n c y of e vid en c e p re se n te d attria l,2 N o. 10

- 2999 the deci si on t o adm i t a co - conspi rator’ s s tat em ents i nto evi dence, and the dist ri ct cour t’ s re fusal to gr ant a m oti on f o r a ne w tr i al f o l l o wi ngthe di sc o ve r y tha t th e g o ve r nm en t su ppr es se d e vi den ce f av o r ab l e to the defen se . W e fi nd n on e o f th es e c on te n tio n s m er ito riou s, an d ac c or d in gly affi r m hi s co nv i ct i o n.

I. B ACK GR OUN D A pl an to di str ibute c oca i ne fi rs t be gan in 19 95 w hen M ar co Vil lasenor, M agin’s br othe r, m et St evi e J ones w hi l e l ock ed up in a M i sso urij ai l

. There , the tw o disc ussed th e po ss ibi l i tyo fde al i ngdr ug s to g ethe r a t so m e po i nt i n the futur e. The y made g o o d o n the se pl an s f o l lowi ng thei r re l eas e, w hen M ar co m et J ones i n Texas i n ord er to supp l y hi m with c oca i ne and m ar ij u an a. Later, M ar co i n t r o d u c e d J o n e s t o hi s b r o th e r, Ma g i n, a n d th e t wo al so di sc us se d the po ss ibi l i tyo fc o nduc tingc o ca i ne d eals togeth er. These pl an s cam e t o frui ti on in 199 6, wh en J ones beg an obt ai ni ng co cai ne fro m M agin. T he deal s ini ti al l y invol ved quanti ti es ra ngi ng fro m ni ne to ei ghtee n ounces, but J ones re quested g re ate r am ou n ts ofco cai ne as ti m e went on and the co nspir acy expand ed i n si ze and sco p e. B y 2003, J ones o btained tw o to f our ki l ogr am s o fco cai ne ata ti m e fr o m M ag i n, o nc e o r t wi ce pe r month. N um er o us o th eri ndi vi dual s wer e al so i nv o l ve d i n the coca i ne di str ibuti on s chem e, m ost o f w hom need not be di sc us se d f o r pur po se s o fthi s appe al

. One o fthe r e l e v a n ti n d i v i d u a l s , h o we v e r, w a s J o n e s ’ s g i r l fr i e n d,N o. 10

- 2999 3 Pr i nc es s Col eman. Col eman as si st ed J o ne s byt r an spo r ting coca i ne and m oneybetw een M ichi gan a nd Texas. Jones also in t r o d uc ed M agin to R obert R ider; togethe r, J o ne s an d Ri derwoul d po o l the i r mone y to b uy c o ca i ne fro m M ag inin C h ica go an d T ex as , a n d th en res ell the dr ugs. A t t ri al, the gov er nm ent i ntro du ced evi dence ofse ver al speci fic d rug tr ansact i ons. The fi rs t t ra nsacti on t oo k pla ce o n J an uary10 , 20 03. Ri der dro ve fro m M i chi gan t o a ho te l i n W i l l o wbr o ok, I l l i no i s, pl anni ngt o b uy tw o ki l ogr am s of coca i ne fro m M agin and to r epay hi m $ 5, 000 fo r a de bto wed b y J o ne s. Af te r e xc ha ng i ng $45, 000 f orthe tw o ki l og ra m s ofco cai ne, Ri der dro ve backto M i chi gan. U nbeknownst to hi m , Feder alBureau o f I nvest i gat i o n a g e nt s we r e c o nd ucti ng sur vei l l ance ou ts id e t h e h ot el a n d fo l l o w e d th e c ar as it left . In M ich igan, s ta te pol i ce o ffi cer s s topped the ca r. A l though Ridera tte m pted to fl ee du ring a hi gh- speed chase , pol i ce eve ntual l y a pp re hende d h i m . Pol i ce r eco ver ed two ki l ogr am s o fco cai ne fro m the tr unk ofhi s ca r, and m atched a l at en t fi ng er pr i nto n the c o ca i ne pa ck ag i ngt o M ag i n. A nothertr ansact i on occur re d o n J anuary24, 20 03, wh en J ones a n d C ol em an dro ve fro m M i chi gan t o Ch i cago i n ord er t o pu rchas e co cai ne fro m M agin and to r epa y a nothe r de bto wed b y J o ne s. The t wo pi ck ed up two k i l o g r ams o fc o ca i ne fr o m M ag i n’ s apartment i n exchange f or$4 0, 000. A n FBIag ent fol l owed them l eaving M agin’s r esi d en ce; the age nt photo

grap he d the veh icl e, bu t d id n ot attem p t to stop the ca r. The next t ra nsacti on di scusse d at t ri alo ccurr ed on February12 , 20 03, w hen J ones purchase d a bus ti cketfro m4 N o. 10

- 2999 A tla n ta to C h ica go , pla n n i n g t o b u y c oc ain e fro m M ag in l at ertha t sa m e day

. J o ne s ar r an g ed f o r Co l eman to brin g $80, 000 fro m M i chi gan to t h e bus sta ti on in Chicag o, an d us ed th i s m o ne y t o b uy f o urk i l o g r ams o fcocaine fro m M agin. F B I a gents , sur vei l l i ng J ones f orm uch of the e v e ning, pl a nn e d t o po s e a s di r t y c o ps and “ri p” th e c oc ain e fro m hi m befor e he l eft Chi cago . A s J ones w as w al ki ng ba ck to the b us st ati on, the age nts s topp ed hi m and sei zed the f our ki l ogr am s o fco cai ne, l ett i ng J ones go after w ar ds. Fr ustr ate d that hi s co cai ne had bee n ta ke n by “di rty” c op s, Jon es ag ain arr an ge d to bu y c o c a i n e fro m M ag in on M ar ch 21, 20 03. But i nter cepted te l ephone ca l l s r eve al ed that thi s t i me J o ne s p l a nn e d t o h a v e Co l e mant ake the c oca i ne fro m M agin w i thout payi ng f ori t, i n or der to m ake up for t h e s tol en co cai ne. M agin m et w i th Col eman i n a ho te l r o o m i n Chi ca g o an d g ave her a bag conta i ni ng thr ee ki l og ra m s o fco caine. H e wai ted f or h er t o return with m oney, but she instea d fl ed w i th the dr ugs. A fter the dealwent aw ry, M agin cal l ed one of h is c o-c on sp ira to rs a n d r ep or te d , “ th ey rob b ed m e d u d e.” On Jul y 2 3, 2003, afterco nd ucti ng m onths ofsur vei l l ance o n the i nd i v i du a l s i nv o l v e d in the drug - di s t r ib ut i on schem e, FBIag ents execute d a se ar ch w ar ra nt at M ag in ’s re sid en c e in C h ic a g o . M ag inlive d w ith h is f am i l y in a tw o-bedro om u pstai rs apar tm ent in a tw ost o r y b ui l di ng . M ag i n a nd hi s f am il y w er e no t pr es en t w hi l e a gents se ar ched the a partm ent; i nstea d, they ha d been staying in T ex a s f o r a bou t a w eek before the s ear ch w as conducted. Duri ng the se ar ch, ag entsN o. 10

- 2999 5 foun d a l oad ed han d gu n an d an ex tra m agaz ine un d erne a th th e ma t t r e s s i n th e ma s t e r b e d r o o m. I n th e di ni ng ro om were pay stubs, ta x docum ents, and a c heckbo ok for an ac c ou n t b elo n gin g t o M ag inan d h i s w ife. M ag in w as l ate r ar re ste d and charg ed w i th conspir acy to dist ribut e co ntrol l ed su bs ta nc es , 2 1 U. S

. C. § 8 46 ; di st r ibut i ng a co ntro l l ed substa nce, 21 U

. S. C. § 8 41( a) (1) ; usi ng a communi c a t i o n f a c i l i t y i n c o mm i t t i nga fe l o nyn a r c o ti cs offense, 21 U

. S. C

. § 843(b) ; and i l l ega l l y pos ses si ng a fi rearm , 18 U

. S. C

. § 922(g)( 1). A t trial, state m en ts m ad e by an oth er on e ofM agin’s bro ther s, Carl os Vil l ase nor, w er e adm i tte d into evidence as co -c on sp ira to r st at em en ts . C a r l os ’s in vo lve m en t in the c on sp ira cy appears to have begun in 200 1, wh en h e in tr od u c ed M ag into G ab rie l M ald on ad o. M ag in and M al donad o conducted seve ra l tr ansact i ons together i nvol vi ng m ult i ple ki l ogr am s o fco cai ne i n both San A ntoni o and C hi cago . Carl os’ s r ol e w as to di ctat e th e pr i ce ofthe c o ca i ne tha t M al do na do s uppl i ed to M ag i n, i n exchange f ora fee. In one ofthes e t ra nsacti ons, M ald on ad o “fro nted” M agin ten ki l ogr am s o fco cai ne. C ar los vo uched fo r M agin, as suring M al donado that M agin w ou ld p ay for th e d rugs after their delivery i n Chicag o. Car l o s al so s pen t ti m e m o o nl i g ht i nga s ani nf o r m an t f o r the Dr ugEn f o r c e men tAg e nc y, u s i ngthe DE A to inv es tig at e, a n d th u s e lim in at e, h is riv al d ru g d ea ler s. Carl os’ s co oper ati on with the D E A began as ea rl y a s 19 85 , an d co n tin u ed int er m itt en tly th ro u gh 20 00 . On A p ril 23 , 200 3, FB I age n ts inv es tig at in g C ar los ’s in vo lve m en t in6 N o. 10

- 2999 th e c h ar ge d co n sp ira c y in te rc ep te d a c on ve rs ati on be tw een a DE A age nt and Car l os. Du ring the conve rs ati on, Carl os asked the age nt w h e t h e r he w as interest ed i n C arlos’s as si st an ce in invest igating W il fredo R od riguez, ar i va ldrug deal er . The ag ent ind i cate d that he w as, and aft era l ullo f th r e e y e a r s , C a r l o s wa s o n c e a g ai n as si s t i n gth e D E A. Later, FBIagents conta cted the D EA and i nfo rm ed them o f the FBI ’ s o ngoing i nvest i gat i on o fCarl os and his i nvol vem ent in the charg ed conspi ra cy to dist ribute c oca i ne. The DE A deci ded to go f or w ar d w i th a pla n to use Car l os to inv es tig at e R od rig u ez , d es p ite the F B I’s se p ar at e in ve st igat i on o fCarl os’ s o w n act i vi tie s. Carl os neverpro ffer ed any info rm ati on re l ate d to the c harg ed conspi ra cy to di st r ibut e co ca i ne ; i n f ac t, he was una war e o fthe FBI ’ s invest i gat i on a nd so ught t o kee p evi dence of hi s co nti nued invo l vem ent in the drug- dist ributi on schem e fro m the DE A ag ents w i th w hom he was w or ki ng. The i nvest i gat i on ofRodri guez, and Carl os’ s a ssi sta nce to the DEA , ended w i th Rodri guez’ s arr esti n N ew J er sey on J une 6, 20 03. Thus, Carl os ass i ste d the DEA f ora tot al of a p p ro x im at ely on e a n d on e-h alf m on th s in 20 03 . A ll o fCa r l o s’ s st at ement s adm i tt ed i nt o e vi den ce dur i ng M ag i n’ s tr i alo cc ur r ed i n 20 03 , butei th erb efo r e o r a fte rthe o n e a n d o n e - h a l f

- mo n th s th a tC a r l o s a s s i s t e d th e D E A. A t t ri al, the evi dence prese nted aga i nst M agin i ncl ud ed i nter cepted te l ephone co nver sat i ons, sur vei l l ance phot ogr aphs, and testi m ony fro m co oper ating witne sse s. The evi dence al so i ncl ud ed physi cal evi dence recover ed fro m the bedroom o fa co- defe nd ant, J oaqui n M endez, consi sting o fa fi rear m , a d rug l edger, and a di gi talsca l e.N o. 10

- 2999 7

The d igi tal s cal e was inc orrec tl y label ed as Exh ibit1 i nst ead 1 ofExhibit3. A chem i st f orthe DE A , A nthony Harr i s, te sti fi ed that he te ste d the s cal e a nd f ound that i t co ntai ne d tr ace a m o u n t s of coca ine. O n M arch 3, 2006, the j ury fou n d M ag ingu ilt y o fsix te en co u n ts ch ar ge d in the ind i ctm ent. The j ury f ound M agin not gui lty of thre e co unts: two co unts r el atin g t o the di str ibuti on ofco cai ne ar i si ng o ut o f the tr ansact i on o n J anuary24, 20 03 , a nd on e co untr el at i ngt o the us e o fa t el eph o ne to f aci l i tat e the co nspir acy ar i si n g ou t o fthe tr ansact i on on M ar ch 21, 20 03. I n A pri l 20 07, o ver a y ear a fterthe j ury re nd er ed its verdict, prosec ut ors l earn ed that at the tim e o f M agin’s t r i a l Ha rr i s had b e e n un de r i nv e s t i g a t i o n b y the DE A f ori natte nti on t o du ty. The und i scl ose d evi dence r eve al ed that H ar ri s g en e r a l lyfa i l ed to f ol l ow labor ato rypro cedures an d i m pr o per l y r ec o r ded i nf o r m at i o n in the c as es he w as ass i gned. In to tal, H ar ri s incor re ctl y l abel ed twentythr e e e xh ib i t s thr o ugho uth i s t e nu r e atthe DE A, inc l ud

in g th e d igit al sca le th at h e ex am in ed for M ag i n ’ s t r i al. 1 H e w ou ld lat er rec eiv e a tw o - d a y s u sp en sio n for th is conduct. On Ap ri l 17, 2007, the gov er nm ent disc l ose d that H arris had been un d er invest igation at th e tim e of M agin’s tr i al

. O n J une 30, 20 08, M agin fi l ed a m oti on f ora new tr i al on the bas i s o fthi s newlydi sco ver ed evi dence. O n M arch 21, 2009 , the d istri ct cou rt de nied M a gin’s m oti on fora new tr i al

. The co urt f ound that the ev i dence had been wrongfully s up press ed, t h ough thro ugh no b ad8 N o. 10

- 2999 f a i th c o nd uc to n the p a r t ofthe pr o s e c ut o r s . T he s up press ed i nfo rm ati on w as al so f avo rabl e to M agin be c au se i tc o u l d h a v e be en us e d t o i mpe a c h Ha r r i s a tt r i a l

. Ho wev er , th e c ou rtn ot ed th at th e g ov er n m en t s u b se q u en tly ha d th e s cale ret ested a nd the resu lts ofH arris’ s tests w ere confi rm ed. M oreover, the cour t found that the r em ai nd er o fthe e vi den ce a g ains t Ma g inwa s o ve r whel m i ng, a nd thus the und i scl ose d i nfo rm ati on d i d not und er m i ne the r esul ts o fthe t r i a l

. Onthi s b a s i s , Mag i n’ s mo t i o n wa s de ni e d.

II. A NA LYSIS M agin pres ents a num bero far gum ents f orr evi ew . Fi rs t, M ag i n c l ai m s th atthe r e was i nsuffic i en t ev i den ce f o r the j ury to concl ud e that he w as i nvol ved i n a c onspi ra cy, r athe r tha n mer ely a pa r t o fmul ti pl e buy er - se l l err el at i o nsh i ps. M ag i n a l so a r g ue s th at th er e was i ns uffi ci en t evi dence to es tabl i sh that he c onst ructi vel y pos ses sed the gun fo und i n hi s Chi cago apar tm ent b ecause he was in T ex as w hi l e the FBIco nd ucted i ts sea rch. N ext, M agin cl ai m s the di str i ct courtabuse d i ts disc re ti on by adm i tting Carl os’ s sta tem ents as co- conspi ra toradm i ssi ons because Carl os h ad been a g ove rnm ent info rm ant. Fi na l l y, Mag i n c ha l l e ng e s the di s t r i c tc o ur t ’ s de ni a l o f hi s mo t i o n f ora n e w t r i a lb e c a us e the g o v e r nme nts up press ed f avo rabl e evi dence that coul d hav e bee n u sed to i m peach H ar ri s’ s t est i m ony. W e t ak e each of th es e ar g um en ts i n tur n.N o. 10

- 2999 9 A
. Cha ll enges t o the Suffi cie ncy of the Evidence M agin chal l enges th e s u fficie n c y of th e e vid en c e u n d er lyi ng hi s co nv i ct i o ns f o r co ns pi r ac y an d g un po ss es si o n. The st an d ar d of re vie w for s u f f icie n c y of t h e e vid en c e c h all e ng e s i s a “ ne a r l y i ns ur mou nt ab l e h ur dl e . ” U n ited S ta tes v . Ta y l or, 63 7 F

. 3d 812, 81 5 ( 7th Ci r. 20 11)

. “[ W ] e v i ew all th e e vid en c e a n d d ra w all rea so n ab le in fe r en c es in the l i ght m ostf av or able to the g ove rnm ent. ” U nited St at e s v. Wr ight, 651 F. 3d 764, 770 ( 7th Cir

. 20 11) (i nt erna l qu otation m arks an d pu nc tu ation om itted ). A co nv i ct i o n wi l l b e o ve r tu r ne d o nl y wher e th e record is “dev oid of eviden ce fro m w h ich a reasona ble j ury could fi nd gui l t be yond a re aso nabl e doubt. ” U nited St at e s v. D urham , 645 F.3d 883 , 892 (7th C ir. 2011).

1. Cons pi r acy t o Dis t r i b ut eCoca i ne M agin conte nd s that the e vi dence pres ented at tr ial d em on st ra te d a m er e b u ye r-s elle r re lat ion sh ip am ong the c o- defe nd ants, r ather than a c onspi ra cy to dist ribute c oca i ne. M agin acknow l edges evi d en ce ofsa l es and p u rc hases o fco caine am ong hi m sel f, J ones and Rider

. H owever, he a rgues that w ith out evi dence of an ag re em ent t o dist ribute co cai ne, se parat e a nd di stinct fro m the sal es them sel ves, there w as i nsuffi ci ent e vi dence to e st ab l i sha c o ns pi r ac y . Ev eni fhe kne w th at th eyi nte n d ed t o re se ll t h e c oc ain e, M ag inco n c lu d es , th is kn ow led ge d i d no t m ak e M ag i n’ s sa l es pa r t o fa c o ns pi rac y b ec au se he di d no t sh ar e i n pr o fi ts fr o m s ubs eque nt sal es.10 N o. 10

- 2999 A drug- dist ributi on co n sp ira cy und er21 U

. S. C. § 8 46 re q u ire s e vid en c e “ th at th e d efe n d an t k n o w i n gly agr eed

—eit h er i m p licit ly or ex p licit ly

—w i th so m eone el se to dist ribute dr ugs. ” U ni t e d S t a tes v. Johns on , 59 2 F

. 3d 749, 754 ( 7th Cir

. 20 10)

. But w hen the al l ege d co- conspi ra tor s a re i n a b uyer - sel l err el ati onshi p, “we have cauti oned ag ains t co nfl at i ngthe unde r l y i ngb uy - se l l a g r ee m en t w i th the drug- dist ributi on a gr eem ent that i s a l l ege d to f or m the basi s o fthe char ged co nspir acy. ” Id. Thus, “t o p r o v e a c on sp ira c y, th e g ov er n m en t m u st offe r ev idence es tabl i shi ng an agr eem ent t o dist ribute dr ugs that i s dist i nct fro m evi dence of the agr eem ent to c om p lete the u nd e r l y i ngdrugde al s. ” U ni t e d S t at e s v. Val l ar, 63 5 F. 3d 271, 286 ( 7th Ci r. 20 11) ( i nter nalquotat i on m ar ks om itted ). “Ce r ta i n c ha r ac te r i sti cs i nhe r en t i n a ny o ng o i ng buyer

- sel l err el ati onshi p w i l l al so gener al l y s ugges t th e existen ce of a consp ir a c y,” an d thu s offer the j ury no ba si s to d i stingui sh the al l ege d conspi ra cy fro m t h e u n d er lyin g b u ye r-s elle r re lat ion sh ip
. Johns on , 59 2 F. 3d at 754. These i nherent char acte ri sti cs incl ud e “ sal es ofl ar ge quanti ti es ofdrugs, r epeate d and/orst andardi zed tr ansact i ons, and a pr ol onge d rel ati onshi p between the par ti es. ” Id

. Ins te ad, a c o ns pi r ac ymay be di st i ng ui sh

e d from a n on c on sp ira to ria l bu ye r-s elle r re lat ion sh ip thro ugh other evid en ce, i ncl ud i ng sa l es on cr edi t, an ag re em ent t o l oo k forcusto m er s, co m m i ssi on paym ents, ev i denc e th at one partypro vi ded advi ce for the o ther ’ s business, o r an ag re em ent t o w ar n of futu re threa ts to each other’s b u s iness from com p etitors or law en for c em en t. Vall ar, 63 5 F

. 3d at 287.N o. 10

- 2999 11 I m p ortan tly, “notallcred it sal es can sup p ort an inference that ther e w as an ag re em ent t o dist ribute. ” Id. ( internalquotat i on m ar ks om i tte d). F or exam ple , ev i dence that a s up pli erexte nd s cr edi t to an i nd i vi du alpurchasi ng s m al lquanti ti es ofdrugs f orper sonalco nsum pti on w ou ld n o t s u ffice to es ta b lish a c on sp ira c y. Id. But w hen a cr edi t s al e i s co m bi ned “w i th ce rt ain char acte ri sti cs inhe r en t i n a n o ng o i ngwho l es al e buy er - se l l err el at i o nsh ip

—i
. e. , l ar ge quanti ti es ofdrugs, r epeat pu rchas es o r s o m e o th ere ndur i nga r r an g ement

—th e c re d i t sa le becom es suffi ci ent e vi dence to di stingui sh a conspi ra cy fro m a n on c on sp ira to ria l bu ye r-s elle r re la tio n sh ip .” Id. Thu s, o nce th e g o ve r nm en t ha s o ffer ed so m e di st i ngui shi ng ev i dence, such a s cr edi t s al es, the j ury m ay then r el y o n other evi denc e, such as the invol vem ent o f l ar ge quanti ti es ofdrugs, to “butt re ss an i nfe re nce that ther e was an a gr eem ent t o dist ribute dr ugs. ” Johns on , 592 F. 3d at 758. T he re w as am p le evi d en ce to d isti ng u is h M agin’s re l ati onshi p w i th hi s co - defe nd ants as a drug conspi ra cy, ra therthan a m er e buy er - sel l err el ati onshi p. M agin fro nted l ar ge quanti ti es ofco cai ne to J ones , and he w as al so fro nted coca i ne byo therm em ber s o fthe drug- dist ributi on sc h em e. T h e e vid en c e p re se n te d a t t ria l inc lu d ed te st im o nyfr o m J o ne s a nd R i de r de t a i l i ngv a r i o us i ns t a nces w hen M agin fron te d cocaine to J ones , i n additi on to int er c ep te d te lep h on e c alls co rr o b o r at in g t h eir te st im ony. The fro nti ng o fl ar ge quanti ti es ofd rugs , co m bi ned w i th ev i dence ofr epeate d t ra nsacti ons and a pro l onge d re l ati ons h ip b et w een the purpor ted m em ber s o f the co ns pi r a c y, s up po r t s a n i nfe r e nc e tha tthe r e was12 N o. 10

- 2999

ana g r ee m en t to di st r ibu te co ca i ne , di st i nc t fr o m a ny un d er l y i ngb uy - se l l r el at i o ns hi p. W e th er efo r e fi nd the e vi dence suffi ci ent t o supp or t the j ury’ s v er dict

.
2. Gun Pos s e s s i on M agin al so chal l enges the su ffi ci ency ofthe evi dence supp or ti ng the j ury’ s v er dictthathe was a felo n i n i l l ega l po s s e s s i o n ofa fi r e a r m f o r p ur po s e s o f1 8 U. S

. C. § 92 2( g ) ( 1)

. A co nv i ct i o n o n thi s co untr equi r es the g o ve r nm en t to pr o ve th at M ag i n was “( 1) a fel o n, ( 2) who ha d pos sesse d a firear m , (3) that had traveled i n inte rsta te c om m er ce. ” U nite d State s v. Harris , 58 7 F

. 3d 861, 866 ( 7th Ci r. 20 09)

. M agin cl ai m s that the ev i dence w as i nsuffi ci ent t o est abl i sh the el em ent o fposs ess i on because he w as i n Texas w hen FBI age n ts sear ched hi s Ch i cago apart m ent and di sco ver ed a hand gu n . M oreo v e r, h e c o nt e nd s tha ta n “ un k no wn thi r d p a r t y ” l et F BIa g en ts i nt o hi s Chi ca go a p artment
. An F BIa g en t te stifi ed th athe e nt er ed th e apa r tmenta fte r ha ving be enpr o vi ded wi tha k eyb y a n o l d er w om anpr es en t i n the l o werl ev elo fthe b ui l di ng . M ag i n argu es th atthe gun coul d have be en pl ace d u nd er neath hi s m att re ss by thi s per son because she had acces s t o the a partm ent. To s a t i s fy the p o s s e s s i o n r e qu i r e men ti n 1 8 U. S

. C. § 9 22( g) ( 1), th e g ove rnm ent m ay prove ei theractual or co n st ru c tiv e p os se ss ion
. U nite d State s v. M orris , 57 6 F.3 d 66 1, 66 6 (7 t h C i r . 2 00 9). “C on st ru c tiv e p os se ss ion is a l ega l fi cti on wh er eby an i nd i vi du al i s deem ed to ‘ posse ss’ contr aband i tem s e ven when he does not a c t u a l l y h ave i m m edi ate , p h ys ica l contro l o fthe obj ects
. ” Id

.N o. 10

- 2999 13 ( emphas i s i n or i g i na l )

. Cons truct i ve pos se ss i o n i s pr es en t “w hen a perso n knowingly has the pow erand the i ntenti on a t a gi ven t i m e t o exer ci se dom i ni on a nd co ntro l ove r an obj ect, ei ther dir ectly, or thro u gh ot hers

. ” U nited State s v. C aldw el l , 423 F.3d 75 4, 75 8 (7 th C ir. 20 0 5 ) . In or der t o dist i ngui sh tr ue pos ses sor s fro m m er e by

sta nd er s, the gov er nm ent m ust est abl i sh a nexus bet w een a d efe n d an t an d th e rele va n t it em . M orris , 576 F

. 3d at 666. A l tho ugh M a g i n po s i t s tha th e wa s u nab l e t o c o ns t r ucti vel y pos ses s the fir ear m bec ause he was i n Texas, h is loc at i o n a t t h e t im e o f th e s ea rc h is im m at er ial. See, e . g. , U nited Sta tes v. K itch en , 57 F. 3d 516, 521 (7th Cir. 1 9 9 5 ) ( d e fe n d a n tc o n s t r u c t i v e l y p o s s e s s e d fi r e a r ms i n hi s r esi dence despi te bei ng i ncarc er ate d w hi l e s ear ch wa r r a n twa s e x e c u t e d )

. A n e x u s b e t we e n a d e fen dan t and a fi re ar m f or pu rpos es ofco nstr ucti ve posse ssi on ca n be e stabl i shed by showing th at the fi re ar m was sei zed fro m th e d efe n d an t’s res id en c e. C aldw el l , 42 3 F

. 3d at 758. The f acts i n the re cor d w er e s uffi ci ent forthe j u ryto i nfe r that M agin re si ded i n the Ch i cago ap ar tm ent. The evi dence establ i shi ng hi s r esi dence i ncl ud ed pay st ubs, ta x docum ents, and a c hecking ac count bo ok, allbearing h is nam e, foun d i n th e ap artm en t. M oreover, in te rc ep te d te lep h on e c alls ind ica te d th at h e w as tra ve li ng to Texas m er el y t o car ryo ut a drug deal

. The ev i dence w as su fficie n t t o e st ab lish th at M ag inr e s i d ed in the a partm ent, and ther ef or e, co nstr uct ive l y pos ses sed th e fi r e a r m. N ei therdoes M agin’s as ser ti on that a n ol der wom an had acces s t o hi s a partm ent renderthe evi dence insuffi ci ent t o14 N o. 10

- 2999 supp or t the ve rdi ct. Constructi ve posse ssi on m ay be so le or j oin t. U ni t e d St at e s v. H a m pton , 58 5 F

. 3d 1033 , 10 41 ( 7th Ci r. 20 09)

. T h e fact that a thi rd party m ay have h a d a c c e s s t o th e a p a r t me n t, a n d th e r e f o r e th e fire ar m , d oe s n otn eg at e t h e in fer en c e t h at M ag in h ad ac c es s t o th e fire ar m as w ell. K itch en , 57F. 3d at 521. M o r e o v e r, the j ur y was w i thi n i t s r i g ht s t o c o nc l ud e th atthe fi r ea r m w as underthe e xc l us i ve c o nt r o l o fM ag i n, a l ar g e- sc al e dr ugd ea l er, r athe r tha n e qua te s pec ul a t i o n wi th r e a s o nab l e do ub ta nd i nd ul g e i n the u ns up port ed i nfe re nce that thi s “ unknow n” o l der wom an ever even cam e into the ap artm en t, let al one hid a firearm u n d er n ea th M ag in ’s m at tr es s. T h er e w as n o e vid en c e in the r eco rd to support thi s l att ersce nari o, but an abundance ofev i dence to support the form er . The ev i dence w as suffi ci ent t o supp or t the j ury’ s v er dict

.
B
. Co-C onspirator St atem ents M agin n ex t chal l enges the dist ri ct c ourt ’ s deci si on to a d mi ts t a t e me n t s ma d e b y h i s b r o th e r, C a r l o s , d ur i ng i nter cepted tel ephone co nver sat i ons as coconspi ra torst ate m ents und erFe deralRule o fEvi dence 801( d )( 2) ( E). W e r evi ew the dist ri ct c ourt ’ s deci si on t o adm i t no n-hea rs ay co- conspi ra torst ate m ents f oran ab u se of d isc re tio n . U nited Sta tes v. C ruz -R ea , 62 6 F

. 3d 929, 93 7 (7t h Ci r. 20 10)

. A st ate m ent m ade bya m em ber o fa c o ns pi r a c y i s a dmi s s ib l e pu r s ua nt t o R ul e 8 0 1 ( d) ( 2 ) ( E) i fthe gov er nm ent pr ove s bya preponderance o f th e ev i den ce tha t a co ns pi r ac y e xi st ed, the de fen dan t an d th e dec l ar an t wer e m embe r s o fthe c o ns pi r ac y, a ndN o. 10

- 2999 15 the s tat em ent was m ade du ringand i n further ance o f th e c on sp ira c y. Id

. A go ver nm ent info rm ant’ s s tat em en ts ar e no t a dm i ssib le u n der thi s r ule bec ause he cannotbe a c on sp ira to r. Uni t e d S t at e s v . S c halk, 5 15 F. 3d 768, 775 (7th C ir. 2008). The dis tr i ct c ourtheld t hat Car l os’ s s tat em ents we re a dmi s s ib l e , de s pi t e h i s p r e v i o us s t a t us a s a DE A i nfo rm ant, bec ause he was act i ng as a co- cons p ira tor an d fur th er i ngthe g o al s o fthe c o ns pi r ac y whenhe m ade the sta tem ents. The co urt f ound that he w as not actin g as a govern m en t i nform an t beca us e the DE A ’s in vest igation w as u nrelated and Ca rlos w as u na w are that th e FBI was i nvest i gat i ng the char ged co nspir acy. As the d istri ctj udg e st at ed, “ he ha d a di ffer en t ha t o n” when th e st at ement s wer e m ade ; tha t o fc o ns pi r at or, ra therthan i nfo rm ant. M ag ina r g u es th at n on e o f C ar los ’s s ta te m en ts sh ou ld ha ve been ad m itted bec au se he w as a gover n m e n t i nform ant a nd ther ef or e cou ld not hav e a cted in further ance o fthe c o ns pi racy. Acco r di ngt o M ag i n, i t i s uni m po r ta nt th at th e D E A ’s inv estigation w as u nrelated to the con sp ira c y a ti s s ue , o r tha tthe s t a tem ent s we r e ma de o ut s i de of th e o ne and one- hal fm onths that Carl os acti vel y a ssi ste d the DEA

. Rather, o n c e he be cam e a n i nfo rm ant, Carl os no l onge r shar ed a co m m on a i m with the co nspir acy because any i nfo rm ati on l earned du ring the co urse o f the c onspi ra cy coul d l ate r be use d t o cut a deal with the gov er nm ent. A s counsel f or M agin pu t i t, “On c e you b ec om e a n info rm an t, yo u ’re aninfo rm an t fo re ve r.” W e r ej ect thi s argum ent. C ar l os w or ked with the DEA f or va r i o us s tr et ch es o f tim e pri o r t o 2 00 0, a nd a g ain dur i ng16 N o. 10

- 2999 the DEA ’ s invest i gat i on ofRodri guez fro m A pri l 25 , 20 03, thr o ugh J un e 6 , 2 0 0 3

. Al l o fthe s t a t e men t s a dmit ted i nto evi dence oc curr ed i n 200 3 e i therbefor e Ap ri l 25 o r afterJ une 6, o utsi de the period o fCarl os’ s co oper ati on w i th the D EA , and thu s w er e properly a dm i tte d. A l though ther e m ay be c ase s where i t i s di ffi cul t t o disc er n w hen an ind ivid u al c ea se s t o b e a gov e r n m e n t in for m an t, th is i s no t o ne o fthem

. Carl os had not s poken t o th e DEA f or at l eas t three ye ar s pri orto h is conve rs ati on with an ag en t a b ou t R od rig u ez , an d C ar los ’s c oo p er at ion cle ar ly ended w hen the DE A ar re ste d Rodri guez. A n i nd i vi du al does not beco m e a go ver nm ent info rm ant “ f or eve r” by c oo p er at in g w ith th e g ov er n m e n t
. See U nited Sta tes v. M a n g ual-Ga rc ia , 50 5 F

. 3d 1, 8- 9 ( 1stCi r. 20 07) ( not p l ain e r r o r f o r di st r i ctc o ur t to a dm i t co - co ns pi r at or’s sta tem ents und erRule 80 1( d)( 2) ( E) b ecause h e w as a co con s pi r a t o r wh e n the s t a t e men t s we r e ma de , de s pit e ha vingb ee n a g o ve r nm en t informantb o thb efo r e an d after the sta tem en ts w ere m ad e). W er e w e t o a d op t M ag in ’s p os itio n, th e re su lts w ou ld be abs ur d. Carlos wor k ed as a g o ve r nm en t i nf o r m an t d u rin g t h e 1 98 0’s . A c c or d in g t o M a gin ’s a rg u m en t, th is ea rli erco oper ati on a l one w oul d be s uffi ci ent t o have preve nted Carl os fro m actin g i n further ance o fan unre lat ed co n sp ira c y ov er a d ec ad e la te r b ec au se h e co u ld potenti al l y cut a deal with the go ver nm ent using i nfo rm ati on he l e a r ne d d ur i ngthe c o ur s e o fthe c o ns pi r a c y. Such an ar gum ent i gnor es the f act that Carl os ai ded th e co ns pi r ac y, no t be ca us e he s o ug htt o a ss i stthe g o ve r nm ent, but because he s ought to h elp M agin acqui re l ar ge qu a nt i t i e s o fc o c a i ne s o tha ti tc o ul d the n b e di s t r ib ut e d.N o. 10

- 2999 17 Carl os w as a co - conspi ra to r acting i n further ance o f th e co n s p i r a c y b o th b e f o r e a n d a ft e r h e a s s i s t e d th e D E A. W e n ee d n otd ec id e w h e t h e r C ar los ’s s ta te m en ts co u ld ha ve b ee n a dm i tt ed i fthe y ha d b een m ade whi l e he was s ti l l a ss i st i ngthe DEA i n i ts unr el at ed i nv esti g at i o n, because thati s not the case bef or e us. N one ofthe adm i tte d statem ents occur re d w hi l e Car l os w as coo perat i ng with the g ove rnm ent, and ther ef or e the di str i ct c ou rt di d not ab us e i ts di sc r et i o n.

C

. Brady E vidence Fina lly , M agin asks us to review the d istri ct cou rt’s den i alo fhi s m o ti o n f o r a new tr i albec au se the g o ve r nm en t faile d to d isc los e e vid en c e t h at w ou ld h av e e n a b led h im to i m peach H ar ri s, th e D EA ’ s che m i st, i n vi ol ati on o f Brady v . M aryl and, 3 73 U. S

. 8 3 (1963 )

. W e r ev i ew the dist ri ct c ourt ’ s deni alo fthe m oti on fo r an abuse o fdi scr eti on, vi ew i ng the evi dence i n the l i ght m ost f avo rable to th e p r e v a ilin g p ar ty
. U nite d State s v. Lewis , 56 7 F

. 3d 322, 328 (7th Cir. 2009). Brady se t f o r ththe pr i nc i pl e th at“ th e g o ve r nm en t ha s th e affi r m at i ve duty t o di sc l o se e vi den ce f av o r ab l e t o a de fen d an t a n d m at er ial eit h er to gu ilt or p u n ish m e n t.” U ni t e d S t at e s v. Bla nd, 517 F.3d 930 , 9 33-34 (7th Cir. 2008). T h e g ov er n m en t’s d u ty to d isc los e e vid en c e fa vo ra b le to the de fense u nd er Brady i n c l u d es im p ea c h m en t e vid en c e. Un i t e d S t a t e s v . Wi l s on , 4 81 F. 3d 475, 48 0 ( 7th Ci r . 2 0 0 7 )

. To wi n a ne w t r i a l b a s e d o n a B rady vi o l at i o n, M ag i n mus te s t ab l i s h tha t( 1 ) the p r o s e c ut i o n s up pr e s s ed18 N o. 10

- 2999 evi dence, ( 2) the evi dence w as f avora b le to the defense, an d (3) th e evid en c e w as m at er ial to an iss u e at tria l. Blan d, 51 7 F. 3d at 934. The di str i ct c ourtf ound that the fi rs t t wo e l e men t s we r e me t, b uth e l d tha t the e v i de nc e s up p re ss ed w as im m at er ial. Suppresse d evi dence i s no t m ateria l u nl ess ther e i s a “r eas onabl e pr obab il i ty that the s up press ed evi dence w oul d have pro du ced a differ ent v er dict

. ” Har r i s v. K uba , 48 6 F

. 3d 1010 , 10 14 ( 7th C ir. 2 00 7). A pro babi l i ty of a d iffe r en t resu lt m ay be m et by “sh ow ing tha t the f avorab l e ev i den ce c o ul d r ea sonab l y b e ta k ent o putthe whol e ca se i n su ch a di ffer en t l i g ht as to un der m i ne confi dence i n the ver dict

. ” Bie l ans kiv. C nty. of Kane, 550 F.3d 632, 64 4 ( 7 th Cir. 2008) ( q uot i ng Kyles v . W hit ley, 514 U

. S. 419, 435 (1995 ))

. M agin ar gues that the e vidence i s m ate ri albec ause H ar r i s’ s te st s f o und c o ca i ne r es i due o n a di g i ta l s ca l e, o ne of th e o n ly p iec es of p h ys ica l ev id e n c e a d m itt ed attria l. H ad th e s u p p r es se d ev id en c e b ee n av aila b le, it c ou ld ha ve bee n u sed to im p each H arris’ s testim ony and un d erm i ne the t e s tr e s ul t s . Mag i n a s s e r t s tha tthi s p a r t i c ula r j ury re vi ew ed the evi dence w i th “a fi ne- too thed com b” for each c ount, r ather than passi vel y c oncl ud i ng he w as gui l ty, ev i dent by i ts vote f oracqui tta l o n thr ee of th e c h a r g e d c o u n t s . Ma g i n ma i n t a i n s th a tth e i mpe ac hm ent e vi dence w oul d hav e dim i ni shed the ove ra l l st re ngth of th e p ro se c u tio n ’s c a s e a n d , give n h ow rigo ro u sly th e jur y c on sid er ed t h e e vid en c e, th er e s ta n d s a rea so n ab le pr o babil itytha t th e j ur y woul d ha ve r ea ch ed a di ffer en t ver dict

.N o. 10

- 2999 19

T he sign ifi can ce of the su p p ressed im p eac hm e n t ev id en ce is 2 itselfq u estion ab le b eca u se the g ov ern m en t retested the sca le and t he pres ence ofcocai ne re si du e was confir m ed. H ad the im p eac h m en t ev id en ce b een m ad e av ailab le to th e d efense at t ri al, the gov ernm ent presum ably w ould hav e j ust had another c hem ist te st ify as to the pres ence ofcocai ne re si du e. SeeUn i t ed Sta t es v. Banks , 546 F. 3d 507, 511 (7th Cir. 2008) ( “Pe rh aps , e ver y t i m e ei the r the Gover nm en tor a defen dant w an ts a new trial b ased o n a p r ob lem w ith an exp ert w itness, the re s houl d fi rs tbe a he ar i ng t o s ee i f an al t er nat e ex per tm i ght ha v e b een p r o d u c e d b y the a ffected side w ho w ou ld ha v e said th e sa m e t h in g as th e t a in te d ex p er t.” ). M ag i n’ s ar g um en t i s unpersuas i ve . Al th o ug h i t i s true that the j ury m ay have go ne o verea ch pi ece ofev id en ce w i th “a fi ne-to othe d com b, ” the di str i ct c ourtco ncl ud ed th at th er e w as o v e rw h elm in g e vid en c e a ga in st M ag in i rr espect i ve of H ar ri s’ s tes ti m ony. I nd eed, the d istri ct j ud ge f ound that “the go ver nm ent’ s case w oul d have been alm os t a s s tr on g w ith ou t a n y c h em ist ’s t es tim on y.” A gents found drug le dgers and a hand gun, i n additi on t o th e sc al e, i n the a par tmento fc o - defen dan t M en dez

. The ev i den ce a g ai ns t M ag i n inc l ude d t ape d c o nv er sa ti o ns w i th o therdefendants co ncer ni ng drug tran sact i ons, sei zure s o fco cai ne i n connect i on with thes e drug- re l ate d conve rs ati ons, M agin’s fi nger pri nts o n coc ai ne packa gi ng, su rveil lance eviden ce, an d th e testim ony of seve ral coop erat in g m em b er s o f th e co n sp ira c y. T h e d ist ric t c ou rtd id not abuse i ts disc re ti on in concl ud i ng tha t the st re n gth of the re m ai ni ng evi dence re nd er ed the supp re sse d evi dence im m at er ial. See U nited Sta tes v. A gu rs , 42 7 U

. S. 97, 10 9- 2 10 ( 1976 ) ( “The m er e pos sibi l i ty that an it em of und i scl ose d20 N o. 10

- 2999 i nfo rm ati on m i ght ha ve hel ped the defense, o r m i ght ha ve affe c te d th e ou tc om e of th e t ria l, d oe s n otes ta b lish ‘m at er iali ty’ i n th e con stitut ional sense

. ”).

III. C ON CLU SI ON Fort h e for ego i ng r eas ons, we A F F I RM the c onvi cti on of M agin E

. Vill asen or.

12- 23- 11