The Honor able Lynn S

. Adel m an ofthe Eas t er n Di s t ri c tof  W i s c ons i n, s i t t i ng by des i gna t i on.



## 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 os. 10

- 1430 & 10

- 1657 U NI T ED S TATE SOF A MERI CA, P la intif f-A pp ellee, v. R OBERT G EOR GE , D ef endant-Appellant.

A pp ealsfr o m 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 . 07- CR-441

—H arry D . L einenw eber, Judge .
A RG UE D A UGUS T 16, 2011

— D ECI DE D S EP TE MBE R 9, 2011

B e fo re C UDAH Y a nd R OV NER, C ircu it Judges , a nd A DE LMA N , D i s t r i ctJudg e .  C UDAH Y, Cir cu i t Judge . Thi s o pini on a dd re sse s the l ast pie ce o funfini shed busi ness i n the c on sol i dated appeal ofM ich ael Spagno l a a nd Robe rtGeor ge: the suffi ci ency ofthe evi dence supporting Geor ge’ s co nvi cti on f orat
-2 N os. 10

- 1430 & 10

- 1657

This panel ’ s earl ie r opini on in this app eal feature s a m ore 1 th o ro u g h ex p o sit io n o f th e u n d e r l y i n g fac ts. U ni t ed Sta t es v. S p ag n o la , 63 2 F .3d 98 1 (20 1 1 ). te m p tin g t o p os se ss w ith int en t t o d ist rib u t e c oc ain e, in vi o l a t i o n o f 2 1 U. S
. C. § 8 4 1 ( a ) ( 1 )
. F o r the r e a s o ns that f o l l o w, w e a ffi r m.

I. Br i efl y, Ge o r g e an d S pagno l a ar e ha l f

-br o th er s, a nd

1 f orr eas ons that ar e uncl ear, theycam e t o th e at te n tio n of the Bure au ofA l cohol, Tobac co, Fi re ar m s and Ex plo si ves ( “A TF”) as pote nti al l y b ei ng i ncl i ned toward ar m ed r obbe ry and dr ugde a l i ng . I n J un e 2 0 0 7, the ATF s e tu p a st i ng, w her eb y a n ATF i nf o r m an t ( o r c o nfi den ti ali nf or man t, thu s “ CI ” ) a pp r o a c he d G e o r g e wi th a n i dea to raid a drug st ash ho use the CI knew about, and to s t e a l a n d r e s e l l t h e c o c a i n e . T h e C Ic l a i me d t o kn o w a disa ffecte d drug co uri er, as soc i ate d w ith the sta sh house , w ho would support thei r robbe ry eff or ts. The co uri er was a ctua l l y a n ATF ag en t. ( The i nt er ac ti o ns i nv o l ving Georg e a nd S pagnol a were capture d on ta pe, and thes e re c or d in gs co n st itu te d th e b u lk of t h e t ria l ev id en c e.) Geo r g e ag r ee d t o the CI ’ s pr o po se d s ch em e, a nd he r e c r u i t e d h i s h a l f

-b r o th e r S p a g n o l a i n t o th e s c h e me so m et i m e ar o und J une 1 1. S p agn o l a i ndi ca te d tha t he w as parti ci pati ng o nl y b ecause Geor ge ha d vouched f or the CI

. Throughout June a nd ea rl y J uly, the f our ( Georg e, Spagno l a, the CI and the “dr ug co uri er ” AT F a gent) m etN os. 10

- 1430 & 10

- 1657 3

seve ra l ti m es and devel oped th e pla n. S pagnol a o bta i ne d a g un an d amm uni ti o n. On J une 25 , i n a m eet i ng wi ththe CI, Ge orge su g g es te d tha t i ns te ad o fr o bb i ngthe st as h h o us e, the y c o ul d dr aw o utthe drug co ur i era nd ro b h im

— th ereb y min i m i zingthe r i sko fthe o per at i o n. The CI agr eed and thi s be cam e the r evi sed pl an. A l so ar o un d thi s t i me, Ge o r g e i nd i c a t e d tha th e h a d a w i l l i ng buye r f orthe coca i ne, and that Ge or ge had som eone i n m i nd to dispos e offi ve ki l os i m m edi ate l y. The thr ee agr eed thatthe robber y would be o n J uly12 : the thre e w oul d m eetand dri ve tog etherto the scene, a f or est prese rv e. Bu t o n the m or nin g o fthe pla nned robb er y, Geor ge sur pr i s e d S pa g no l a a nd the CIb y de c l i ningt o a t t e nd

. H e ex pla i ne d t o the CItha t he ha d t o wat chhi s so n. G eo rg e re ite ra te d th at h e h ad a p u rc h as er for t h e a n tic ip at ed yield of co c ain e. T h e C I sta te d th at G eo rg e w ou ld be pa i d $ 10 00 pe r b r i ckf o r s el l i ngthe c o ca i ne . I n a separ ate co nver sat i on, betw een Geo rg e a nd S pagnol a, G eo rge s ugges ted a m an nam ed Ed die as a re pla cem en t. Spagno l a s ugges ted i nstea d that Geo rg e e nl i st thei r thi rd br othe r, J ohn, to r epl ace Georg e. I t is not c l ear w he the r Ge o r g e c o nt a c t e d a p o t e nt i a l r e pl a c e men t, o r w he th er Spa gn ola succ eed ed i n find ing one h im self. S pagno l a, a r m ed wi tht wo gun s, c o nt i nue d o n t o the scen e o fthe pl anne d r o bb ery . Co ns i st en t wi ththe ATF’ s pla nned sti ng o perat i on, he was ar re ste d. Georg e was ar re st ed th e n ex t d ay . A fte r a join t tria l, b ot h Sp ag n ola and Geo rg e w er e convi cted of conspi ra cy to p ossess w i th i nt en t to dis tr ibute 5 ki l ogr am s o r m or e o fco cai ne, and atte m pti ng to pos ses s with i ntent to dist ribute4 N os. 10

- 1430 & 10

- 1657

S pa gn ol a wa s a l s o c ha r ge d wi th a nd c on vi c t e d o ft wo we a p- 2 on s cha rg es. S ee S p ag n o la , 632 F. 3d at 984- 85. S ee A n d er s v . C a lifo rn ia , 38 6 U .S. 7 3 8 (19 6 7 ). 3 A t the o u tset, w e no t e t h a t i t i s po ssible to aid an d ab et a 4 pri nc i pal ’ s at t em pt c ri m e, i nc l udi ng a t t em pt ed po s s es s i on of (co n tin u ed ...) coca i ne. W e have al re ady upheld S pagnol a’ s co nvi cti ons,

2 and w e a ccepted Geor ge’ s co unsel ’ s A nd ers subm i ss i on 3 as t o s ev er altri ala nd s en te nc i ngi ss ue s, a nd a s to the su ffi ci en cyo fhi s co ns pi r ac y c o nv i ct i o n.

II. The re m ain i ng quest i on i s whether the e vi dence w as suffi ci ent t o supp or t Geor ge’ s co nvi ction forat tem pted posse ssi on o fco cai ne, not w i thsta nd i ng hi s absence o n the m orni ng o fthe robber y. Because thi s i s a n appell ate r ev i ew o f th e evi den ti ar y s uffi ci en cyo fa c o nv i ct i o n, w e in q u ire onlyi nto w hether, wh en the f acts ar e v i ew ed i n the l i ght m ostf avo rabl e t o th e G overnm ent, a ra ti onal j ur y c o ul d ha ve f o und the e l ement s o fthe c r i m e be y o nd a re as on ab le d ou b t. Se e, e . g. , U ni t e d S t a tes v . Woods , 55 6 F. 3d 616, 6 21 (7th Cir

. 20 09) ( ci ti ng U ni t e d S t at e s v. St e ve ns , 45 3 F
. 3d 963 ( 7th Ci r. 20 06) )
. W e often desc ribe th is ap p ella te h u rd le as “ n ea rly ins u rm ou n ta b le .” See, e.g., Spag nola , 632 F.3d at98 1; Uni t e d S t at e s v. Spel ls , 5 37 F. 3d 743, 746 (7th C ir. 2008). Anothe r l eg alpr i nc i pl e i s pi vo ta l t o thi s a p p eal : a i di ng and abett i ng l i abi l i ty, under 18 U
. S.C . § 2. U nd ersubse c- 4N os. 10

- 1430 & 10

- 1657 5

(
. . . c on t i nu e d) 4 n a rc o tic s. S ee U n ite d S ta te s v . V a len c ia , 90 7F .2d 67 1 , 67 7& n .4 (7 th C ir . 19 9 0 ). I n lik e vei n, ai di ng a nd abe t t i ng l i abi l i t y i s no tt o be c on- 5 flat ed w ith consp iracy, al though the s am e f act s m ay of ten s uppor tboth. A n a id ing an d ab ettin g i nstru ction w as issued to the jury in 6 this case. B eca u se w e ne ed on ly d ecid e w he the r a rea son ab le (co n tin u ed ...) ti on ( a) o fthatse cti on , “W hoeve r com m i ts an o ffense aga i nst the U ni ted S tat es or ai ds [ or ] abet s . . . i ts com m i ssi on, i s punis habl e as a p rinci pal

. ” A suffi ci ent c ase f or ai ding and abett i ng l i abi l i ty consists of“( 1) as soc i ati on w ith th e u n law fu l ve n tu re , (2) kn ow in g p ar tic ip at i on in i t, and ( 3) act i ve contr ibuti on t oward i ts succes s. ” U nited Sta tes v. M cN eese, 9 01 F
. 2d 58 5, 60 8 ( 7th Ci r . 1 99 0)
. As t o the parti ci pati on a nd act i ve contr ibuti on el em ents, “ ‘ a hi gh l eve l o fact i vi ty need not be s how n’ al though ‘ m er e pr esence’ and ‘ gui l t byas soc i ati on’ ar e insuffi ci ent. ” U nited State s v. Sewell, 1 59 F
. 3d 275, 2 78 ( 7th Ci r . 1998 ) ( ci ta ti o ns om itt ed ). O ra l co m m u n ica tio n ca n so m et im es be su ffi-

5 ci en t i fi t i s i nt en ded t o s uppo r t th e co m pl et i o n o fthe c r i m e. Se eU ni t e d S t at e s v. Sa cks , 62 0 F
. 2d 239, 24 1 ( 10th Ci r . 1 98 0) ( affi r m i nga c o nv i ct i o n o n a n a i di nga nd abe tt i ng th eo r y wher e “[ th e] e vi den ce pl ainl ys ho ws defendant acte d affi rm ati vel y, tho ugh onl y thro ugh the act ofspeak

ing w ord s calcu lated to assist i n com p leti ng the sale.”). W e a gr ee w i th the Governm ent that George ’ s a cts l eadi ng up t o th e d ay ofthe robber y were suffi ci ent t o supp or t th e co nvi cti on o n an ai ding and abett i ng the or y. 66 N os. 10

- 1430 & 10

- 1657

(
. . . c on t i nu e d) 6 j ur y c oul d have c onvi c t ed Geor ge on any per m i s s ibl e the or y of l i abi l i t y, we do n otr ea c h the Gover nm en t ’ s weak erar gum en t tha t G e o r g e him self com m itted an “atte m p t” d esp ite his a b se n ce o n th e m o rn in g o f th e r o b b er y . Se e Uni t e d S t a t es v. Tu rner, 55 1 F .3d 65 7, 66 6 (7t h C ir . 20 0 8 ). Fur the r, the re is no que s t i on t hatG eo rg e “kn ew” the unl awful 7 natur e ofthe ve ntur e, withi n the m ea ni ng o f the s ec ond o f the thr ee e l em en t s des c ribed i n M cNeese
. So w e c onsi der that if G eo rg e “a ctiv ely con trib u te d ,” then he a lso “k no w ing ly parti ci pated,” and thus al l three el em ents w il l be sat is fie d. I n any e ven t, thi s c our tha s oft enus ed for m ul at i ons ofai di ng a n d ab et tin g lia b ili ty th a t c o n ta in o n ly tw o el e m en ts. See, e . g. , U ni t ed Sta t es v. Tayl or, 6 3 7F
. 3 d 8 12, 816 ( 7th Ci r . 2 0 1 1 ) ( “ To es t abl i s h thatTayl or ai d ed a nd abe t t ed [ the pr i nc i pal ] , the g o v e r n me n tne e de d t o p r o v e th a tT a y l o r a s s o c i a t e d h i mself w ith th e crim ina l activ ity a nd th a t h e v olu nta rily p articipat ed in it. ”)
. W e the re f or e f oc us onthe “a c t i ve c ont ribut i on” elem en t. A ra ti o na l j ur y c o ul d ha ve foun d tha t Geo r g e ai ded an d ab et te d S pagno l a’ s at te m pt to po ss es s co ca i ne o n the appoint ed day. I ni ti ally , there i s no questi on that Geor ge ass oci ate d with thi s unlawful ventur e, so the m at ter bo i l s do wn to whethe r he kno wi ngl y pa r ti ci pat ed an d act ivelyco ntributed to i ts succes s. W e thi nk tha t the act 7 of re c ru itin g Sp ag n ola int o t h e c on sp ira c y, alt h ou gh it occur re d about a m onth before t he day ofthe att em pt, w as n ev er thel ess “a cti ve contr ibuti on t o the pl an’ s s uccess . ” So w as altering the ori ginal p la n of the robb ery i n o r dert o do ubl e- cr o ss the dr ugc o urier
. M o r eo ve r, the j ury w as enti tl ed to bel i eve Geor ge’ s r ep re senta ti ons,N os. 10

- 1430 & 10

- 1657 7

See, e . g. , U ni t ed Sta t es v. Wes so n , 8 8 9 F
. 2d 134, 135 ( 7th Cir

. 8 19 89 ) (“Y ou m ay ‘ ab et’ the crim e of p ossess i o n w ith inte nt to di s t r ib u t e b y p r o c u r i n g th e c u s t o me r s a n d mai n t a i n i n g the m arket in w hi c h the pos s es s i on i s pr ofi t abl e, e venthough y ou d o n o t hin g else to he lp the p ossesso r ge t or reta in p ossessio n .”). capture d on ta pe, thath e had ar ra nged to di spose o f the c oca i ne. 8 Georg e’ s co ntra ryposi ti on does nothi ng to detr act f ro m the si gni fi cance ofh i s a cts l eadi ng up to the a ttem pted ro bber y. Rather, hi s p os itio n am ounts to an ar gum ent that the di sposi ti ve f act w as hi s absence o n the m or ni ng o fthe robber y. But one need notbe phy si ca l l y pr es en t ata c r i m e sc en e to a i d a nd ab etthe pri nci pal, because “one w ho pu ts i n m oti on or ass i sts in the i l l ega l ente rpri se . . . i s guil ty as a prin c i pal ev en though he i ntenti onal l y r efra i ned fr om t h e d i re ct a ct const i tuting the com ple ted o ffense. ” U ni t e d S t at e s v. G arre tt, 7 20 F
. 2d 70 5, 7 14 ( D. C
. Ci r . 1 98 3) ( ci tingt o the l egi sl ati ve hi sto ryo f18 U
. S. C. § 2 , H
. R. R ep. N o. 304, 80 th C on g., 1s t Se ss . A 5 (1 94 7)). Seeals o U nite d State s v . Ga rc ia , 242 F.3d 593, 597 (5th Cir. 2001) (“J u s t as the m ere prese nce atthe scene ofthe c rim e i s no t s uffi ci ent, by itself, to sup p ort aiding an d abettin g l iabil ity, m ere abse nce fro m the scene does not, byi tse l f, n eg ate such liab ility .”) (c ita t i on s o m itt ed ); U nited Sta tes v. Wa ters , 46 1 F. 2d 248, 25 1 ( 10th Cir. 1 972)
. I nd eed, r equi ring physi cal p re se n c e o r c on te m p or an eo u s c on tr ibu ti n g ac ts w ou ld gr ea tly n ar ro w aid in g a n d ab et tin g liab ility , con c eiv ab ly exoner ati ng support i ve acts thatar e ind i spensabl e t o8 N os. 10

- 1430 & 10

- 1657

A 194 8 T hird C ircu it ca se in v olv ing org an ized crim e p resen ts 9 a g ood e xa m pl e ofwhy the pr es en c e atthe c ri m e s c en e, an d the c ont em por ane ous ne s s ofthe abe t t or ’ s as s i s t anc e, c ann ot prop erl y be d is posit ive: Am or os a, br oughti nt o the gr oup by Si l ano , gui ded the [ hij acked] tra ct or draw n tr ail er t o the house i n N ew J er s ey wher e i twas unl oade d, Si l ano as s i s t i ng; A m orosa then s aid he w ould d is pose ofthe s tol en g o o d s. A ll t h a t b e sp ea k s p ri n ci p a ls in th is c ri m e . . . . T he ab senc e of the ap p ellan ts from th e im m ed iate scen e of the [hijack ing ] is not en ou g h to d efeat the ir con v iction as p rinc ip als. U n i te d S tat es v. A m orosa , 16 7F .2d 59 6 , 59 9 -6 0 0 (3d C ir . 19 4 8 ). the pri nci pal ’ s cri m e. A nd w e ar e aw ar e of no p ar ti cul ar 9 l i m i t o n the ti m e that m ay pass be tw een the “a cti ve con tribution to the p lan’s suc cess , ” an d the p rincipa l’ s cr i m e. Undou bt edl y, the se c o ns i der at i o ns

— the pa ssage of ti m e and th e p re sence ve l no n o fthe al l ege d abett o r - d e fe n d a n ta tth e p r i n c i p a l ’ s c r i me

— ar e i m p or ta nt consi derat i ons, but th ey are not per sede ci si ve o fa i di ng and abett i ng l i abi l i ty. M uch ofthe appeal o fGeorge’ s a rgum ent s eem s t o deri ve f r o m t he f a c ttha th i s n o na t t e nd a nc e o n the day of t h e ro b b er y w as u n p lan n ed . A lth ou gh th e p o i n t is neverm ade expl i ci t, ther e s eem s t o be a subtl e invi tat i on to treat G eorge as ha ving “w ithd raw n ” from the en terpri se by abse nti ng hi m sel fo n the day o fthe robber y. A fter al l, i f Ge o r g e a nd S pa g no l a ha d pl a nn e d a l l a l o ng that Spagno l a would co m m i t the r obbe rywitho ut Geor ge prese nt, Geor ge’ s pos i ti on (t hat hi s pre parat or y e ff or tsN os. 10

- 1430 & 10

- 1657 9 did notam ount t o ai ding and abett in g) w ou l d l ose m uch of i ts f or ce. Bu t hi s prese nt ar gum ent i s in f act pr ec i se l y tha t wea k, b ec au se he di d no t effec ti ve l y wi th

draw byf ai l i ng to part i ci pate on t he day ofthe robber y. SeeGa rret t, 72 0 F
. 2d at 714 ( expla i ni ng tha t with d ra w al for aid in g a n d ab et tin g p u r p o se s m irro rs w ith d ra w al in the c onte xt o fco nspira c y, and “to est abl i sh an e ffecti ve w i thdrawal [ f ro m a conspi ra cy] , the defendant m ust show that he too k a ffi rm ati ve acti on t o defe at ordi savow the purpose o fthe conspi ra cy. ”) . A n abetto r cannot w i thdraw m er el y b y s ati sfyi ng hi m sel fthathi s par ti ci patio n is n o lon ge r n ee d ed

. Id. Forthe f or ego i ng r eas ons, we A FFIRM the j udg m en t o fthe dist ri ct c ourt
.

9- 9- 11