T hi s or derand j udgm enti s notbi ndi ng pr ece dent , exce ptunderthe doctr i nes of * law o f th e c a se , res ju d ica ta, a n d c o llate ra l es to p p e l. Itm a yb e c ited , h o w e v e r, f o r its per s uas i ve val ue cons i s t entw i t h Fed. R . A pp. P. 32. 1 and 10th C i r . R . 32. 1. 

## F I LED Unite d St at e s C ourt o f Appe als Te nt h Ci r c uit 

### M ar c h 19, 2007 Elisab eth A. Shumaker C l erk of C ourt UNI TED S TATES CO URT O F AP PEALS

T E N T H C IR C U IT
UNI T E D S T AT E S OF AM E RI CA , Pl ai nt i ff - A ppel l ee, v. J O SE M A N U E L M A D R I D , J R . and S T E V E M A D R ID , D efen dan t- A pp el l ants . N o. 05- 2088 N o. 05- 2090 D i s t r i ctof N ew M exi co ( D. C. No . CR- 0 3 - 8 4 7 - J C)

ORDE R AND J UDGM EN T * B efor e M URP HY, HOLL OW AY and HA RTZ , C i rcui tJudg es. I T h e f o ll o w ing P arts I th ru III-C are en tered fo r th e c o u rtb yJu d g e H o ll o w ay . P art I I I - D i s bei ng ent er ed byJ udge H ar t z forthe maj or i t yof thi s panel as the j udgm entof the cou rt . Judg e H oll ow aydis sent s fr om the m aj ori t y ’s order and judgm ent on M r. Jose M adri d’s s entence, and t hat par t i al dis sentbyJudg e H oll ow ayfoll ow s. D efen dan t -A pp el l ant St eve M adri d an d h i s brother, D efen dan t -A pp el l ant J ose M a n u e l M a d rid , Jr., w e re jo in tlyin d icte d a n d c o n v icte d a t trial o f c h a rg e s re late d to tr aff i cki ng i n m ethamphet ami ne i n the D i s t r i ctof N ew M exi co. E ach now br i ngs a di r ect-2-

ap p ea l. W e w il l add ress b o th ap p ea ls t o g ethe r. D e f e n d a n t-A p p e llan t S tev e M a d rid w a s c h a rg e d in a su p e rse d in g in d ictm e n t o n six c o u n ts a n d c o n v icte d a t ju rytrial o n a ll six . C o u n t I w a s a c h a rg e a g a in st S tev e M a d rid and J os e M adr i d of cons pi r acyt o pos s es s w i t h i nt entt o di s t r i but e 500 gr ams orm or e of a m i xtur e cont ai ni ng m ethamphet ami ne i n vi ol at i on of 21 U . S. C . §§ 841( a) ( 1) & 846, fr om o n o r ab o u t Se p tem b er 1 , 2 0 0 1 , to o n o r ab o u t A p ri l 17 , 2 0 0 3 . C o u n ts I I, IV , an d V w ere d iscrete ch arg es a g ains t Stev e M ad ri d o f d istri b u ti o n o f m etha m p h etam ine. C o u n t I II char ged St eve M adr i d w i t h br andi s hi ng a fi r earm dur i ng and i n r el at i on t o a drug tr aff i cki ng offe ns e, and C ountV I char ged pos s es s i on byhi m of a f i r earm i n fur t her ance o f a d ru g tra f

f ick in g o f f e n se . D e f

e n d a n t-A p p e llan t Jo se M a d rid w a s c h a rg e d o n lyin C ountI and, as not ed, w as convi ct ed on thatchar ge. St eve M adr i d w as s ent ence d t o 235 m ont hs on t he cons pi r acyand tr aff i cki ng c o u n ts a n d , as re q u ire d b ysta tu te, w a s g iv e n c o n se c u tiv e se n ten c e s o n th e f ire a rm s c o u n ts – 84 m onths on C ountI I I and 300 mont hs on C ountV I – fora t ot al s ent ence of 619 m onths of i m pr i s onm ent . St eve M adr i d w as al s o s ent ence d t o fi ve y ear s of s upervi s ed r el eas e and w as or der ed t o paya s peci al as s es s m entof one hundr ed dol l ar s on eac h count for a t otal of si x h un dred do l l ars . Jose M adri d w as sent enced t o 2 92 m on t hs’ i m pr i s onm entand fi ve y ear s ’ s upervi s ed r el eas e, and w as or der ed t o paya s peci al asses sm ent of on e hu nd red doll ars . II T he governm entcal l ed fourt een w i t nes s es attr i al . O f thes e, thr ee w er e r ecor ds-3-

cu stod ians fo r t elep h o n e c o m p an ies, eigh t w ere law en fo rce m en t of fice rs, an d three w ere c o o p e ra tin g w itn e s s e s w h o im p lic a te d th e m s e lv e s in d ru g tr a f f ic k in g b yth e irte s tim o n y . F or purpo ses of t his app eal , i tw i l l suffice t o sketch the tes t i m on yof o nlya few of these w i tnesses, m ostprom i nen t l yt he co op erat i ng w i t nesses. M el i ssa M cK el veyt est i fi ed thati n Jun e 19 99 bo t h D efen dan t s cam e t o h er house to co ll ec t a dru g d eb t. B o th ca rri ed p ist o ls tu ck ed into the b ac k s o f th eir trou sers. In 2001, M cK el veybegan de al i ng w i t h the D efe ndant s agai n, s el l i ng tw o ounces of m ethamphet ami ne atl eas tonce a w eek f ors ever al m ont hs befor e s he w as arr es t ed. Jo h n W e sle yC o o k tes tifie d to d ru g tra n sa c tio n s w ith S tev e M a d rid b e g in n in g in Sept ember2001. C ook had bee n “fr ont ed” a pound of m ethamphet ami ne fr om St eve M adr i d ( thati s , gi ven the drug fi r s t , w i t h paym entt o fol l ow l at er ) , and, C ook t es t i fi ed he had bee n unabl e t o payt he $13, 000 pr i ce f ori tbeca us e Eri c D emoss , an empl oy ee of C ook’ s w ho had i nt r oduced hi m t o St eve M adr i d and w ho w as t o hel p hi m s el l the m ethamphet ami ne, had abs conded w i t h m os tof the drug. A bouttw o w eeks l at er , St eve M adr i d s t art ed ca l l i ng hi m , w ant i ng paym entforthe drug. C ook t es t i fi ed thatw hen he s a id th a t h e c o u ld n o t p a ya n d e x p la in e d w h y , S te v e M a d ri d m a d e th re a te n in g s ta te m e n ts . C o o k sa id th a t h e a n d h is f a m ilyw e re th re a ten e d , tha t S tev e M a d rid c a lled h im “ a c o u p le o f tim e s ,” a n d th a t a n o th e r m a n w h o m h e d id n o t k n o w a ls o “ w a s c a llin g m e .” A bouta w eek a ft ert he fi r s tof thes e phone c al l s , oraboutthr ee w eeks fr om the day thathe had r ece i ved the pound of met hamphet ami ne, St eve M adr i d, acc om pani ed by th re e o r f o u r o th e r m e n a n d o n e w o m a n , c o n f ro n te d C o o k to d e m a n d p a ym e n t o f th e d e b t.M r . C ook’ s t es t i m onyw as i ncons i s t entaboutthe dat es . I n cr os s - exami nat i on, he 1 w a s a sk e d a b o u t h is e a rlier in ter v iew w ith a n a g e n t in w h ich h e h a d sa id th a t h e d e a lt aboutthr ee ounc es s ever al t i m es perw eek f orthe per i od of D ece m ber2001 t o M ay2002. -4- C ook s ai d t hathe di d notr eca l l how he “metup” w i t h t he gr oup. H e s ai d t hathe w ent w i th the gr oup t o E r i c D emoss ’ s gi r l fr i end’ s hous e, and thati n t he bac ky ar d of that r es i dence , St eve M adr i d and hi s compani ons thr eat ened Cook. C ook s ai d t hatal l of the m e m b e rs o f

th e g ro u p e x c e p t th e lo n e w o m a n w e re a rm e d . T h e g u n s h e sa w w e re a ll pi s t ol s exce ptforone thathe s ai d l ooked l i ke a s aw ed- off s hot gun. C o o k tes tifie d th a t h e w a s a rg u in g w ith E ric D e m o ss a b o u t th e m o n e y , an d sa id aboutSt eve M adr i d and hi s compani ons : “They ’ r e outw i t h t he guns , thr eat eni ng, y el l i ng, s cr eami ng atus . ” ( I T r . T r ans . 14. ) H e s ai d t hatthe guns w er e poi nt ed “a r ound. ” C o o k tes tifie d th a t h e g a v e th e m $ 8 0 0 , all o f th e m o n e yh e h a d , an d M a d rid a g re e d to gi ve hi m m or e t i m e t o payt he bal ance . C o o k d id p ay$ 4 , 0 0 0 to so m e o f S teve M ad ri d ’s asso ciates a b o u t a w ee k lat er, m o n e yw h ich h e h a d b o rro w e d , an d e x p lain e d th a t h e b e liev e d th a t D e m o ss a n d h is gi r l fr i end s houl d be r es pons i bl e fort he bal ance of the debtbeca us e theyhad t aken the drugs . C ook bel i eved a tfi r s tt hathi s part i al paym entand expl anat i on had bee n acc ept ed, bu taft er s om e day s had p assed, S t eve M adri d b egan cal l i ng him and dem and i ng the rest o f t h e m o n e y. C ook t es t i fi ed that , atSt eve M adr i d’ s s ugges t i on, he bega n s el l i ng m ethamphet ami ne forM adr i d t o payoff the bal ance of the debtand thathe di d t hi s for s i x t o ei ghtm ont hs , fr om aboutO ct ober2002 unt i l hi s hous e w as “r ai ded” i n M ay2003. 1-5-

D ur i ng thatt i m e, C ook s ol d t hr ee ounc es of m ethamphet ami ne forM adr i d aboutthr ee t i m es a w eek. A t so m e p o in t, on e o f

th e a ss o c iate s o f

S tev e M a d rid w ith w h o m C o o k h a d d e a lt t ol d C ook t hatSt eve a nd hi s br ot herJ os e, w ho w as oft en ca l l ed “J oel , ” w er e “ha vi ng pr obl ems, ” and thatC ook neede d t o m eetJ oel beca us e “St eve w as no l ongeri n t he p ictu re .” A m e e tin g w a s a rra n g e d a n d Jo se M a d rid to ld C o o k th a t C o o k sh o u ld d e a l w ith hi m i n the futur e i ns t ead of w i t h St eve. T hus , C ook al s o gotm ethamphet ami ne fr om D efe ndantJ os e M adr i d. T he arr angement s w er e the s ame, C ook s ai d. H e r ece i ved the s ame am ount s att he s ame fr equenc yw hi l e dea l i ng w i t h J os e M adr i d. A n o th e r c o o p e ra tin g w itn e ss , K im G a iv a n , tes tifie d re g a rd in g h e r d e a lin g s w ith St eve M adr i d. A ft ers he had a gr eed t o cooper at e w i t h author i t i es , s he had be gun r ecor di ng t el ephone c onver s at i ons w i t h hers uppl i er , w ho w as know n as “Sugar . ” Sever al r ecor ded ca l l s w er e pl ay ed fort he j ury . I n one of thes e ca l l s , M s . G ai van had c al l ed a n u m b e r w h e re sh e th o u g h t sh e m ig h t re a c h S u g a r a n d in ste a d h a d a c o n v e rsa tio n w ith St eve M adr i d. St eve M adr i d t ol d herthathe w oul d have Sugarcal l herback. M s . G ai van sai d thatshe had nev er m etS t eve M adri d. N evertheles s, perhap s becau se he be l i eved M s. G ai van t o have know n Sugar , St eve M adr i d offe r ed t o s uppl ym ethamphet ami ne t o her dur i ng a s ubs equentt el ephone c ont act . M s . G ai van arr anged t o come “t o R os w el l ” on A p ril 2 , 2 0 0 3 , to m e e t S tev e M a d rid a n d p ick u p th e m e th a m p h e tam in e h e h a d a g re e d to sell h er. U pon arr i vi ng i n R os w el l , M s . G ai van metw i t h agent s t o s etup t he pr ocedur es for-6-

w hatagent s r efe rt o as a “c ont r ol l ed buy . ” O ffi cer s acc om pani ed heron herw ayt o t he p la c e w h e re th e d e a l w a s to b e d o n e a n d re m a in e d a t a d is ta n c e u n til s h e c a m e o u t a g a in . T he pl ace w as a mobi l e home t hats he r efe r r ed t o, w i t houtobj ect i on, as “St even’ s . ” W hen as ked the addr es s of the pl ace , s he s ai d onl ythati tw as on “A nas azi , ” w i t hout s peci fy i ng a ci t y . U pon ent er i ng a bedr oom of the home w her e St eve M adr i d and another m an w er e, s he s aw a l ong gun, “l i ke a r i fl e, ” on the fl oor . T hi s s car ed her , and St eve M a d r i d r e a s s u r e d h e r : “ I mu s th a v e b e e n s t a r i n g a ti t . S t e v e n s a i d , ‘ Oh , i t ’ s j u s ta BB g u n .’” ( I T r. T ra n . 1 2 1 .) M s. G a iv a n sa id th a t sh e d id n o t k n o w e n o u g h a b o u t g u n s to know w hetheri tw as a r i fl e or , as defe ndantSt eve M adr i d had s ai d, a B B gun. St eve M adr i d t hen gave herabout104 gr ams of met hamphet ami ne, w hi ch he got fr om a ca bi netordr es s eri n t he r oom . H e al s o gave M s . G ai van a c ar d w i t h t hr ee t el ephone number s hand- w r i t t en on i t , t o fac i l i t at e futur e cont act s . H e expl ai ned thatone of the phone number s w as hi s br ot her ’ s . M s . G ai van s ai d t hatatthatt i m e s he “w as re a c h in g h im th ro u g h h is b ro th e r.” U p o n lea v in g th e m o b ile h o m e , G a iv a n re tu rn e d to R osw el l and turned o ver the m et ham ph et am i ne an d the card t o o ffi cers . T w o of the off

i cer s w ho w er e on the s ur vei l l ance t eam t hatfol l ow ed M s . G ai van to th e site o f

th e A p ril 2 , 2 0 0 3 , co n tro lled b u ya lso tes tifie d . D e a n C o o k , an a g e n t w ith the D rug E nfor cementA gency( D E A ) , t es t i fi ed thathe w as one of “ cl os e t o a doze n a g e n ts a n d o f

f ice rs” w h o m e t M s. G a iv a n a t R o sw e ll p rio r to h e r g o in g to th e m o b ile hom e. A gentC ook t es t i fi ed thatM s . G ai van, w ho w as dr i vi ng herow n car , fi r s tw ent aboutthr ee orfourm i l es s out h of t ow n t o a conve ni ence s t or e w her e s he made another-7-

tele p h o n e c a ll (w h ich sh e late r te stif ied w a s to S tev e M a d rid ) a n d w a s g iv e n d ire c tio n s to go t o a hous e a l i t t l e furt hers out h and then ea s ton A nas azi R oad. A gentC ook des cr i bed the s ett ing as ru ral an d rem o te, so that the o ff icers co u ld n o t get too clos e. T h e o ff icers d i d s e e M s . G a i v a n p u l l i n t o t h e d r i v e w a y. A not herD E A agent , M i ke M urphy , al s o t es t i fi ed aboutthe eve nt s of A pr i l 2, 2003, al though t hatw as onl ya s m al l partof hi s t es t i m ony . H e w as as ked bythe pr os ecut i ng att or ney , w i t houtobj ect i on, aboutthe A pr i l 2 pur chas e w her e M s . G ai van “metw i th St eve a thi s hous e. ” H e al s o s ai d t hatthe t ow n of D ext eri s about15 m i l es s outh of R os w el l , a fa ctt hatw i l l ent eri nt o ourdi s cus s i on i nfr a . T w o w eeks aft ert he fi r s tcontr ol l ed buy , on A pr i l 15, 2003, G ai van metSt eve M adr i d ata parki ng l oti n R os w el l and gave hi m $4, 600 forthe met hamphet ami ne s he h a d re c e iv e d o n A p ril 2 a n d g o t an a d d iti o n a l am o u n t o f m e th a m p h e tam in e to se ll. O n A pr i l 17, 2003, D E A agent s s erved a s ear ch w arr antatJ os e M adr i d’ s r es i dence in R o s w e ll a n d o n a m o b ile h o m e lo c a te d a t 2 9 A n a s a z i R o a d , D e x te r, N e w M e x ic o . A gentG er al d M aes t as of the D E A t es t i fi ed w i t houtobj ect i on thatthe D ext err es i dence w as the home of St eve M adr i d. St eve M adr i d and tw o other s w er e pr es ent , and St eve M ad ri d w as a rrested then , as th e o ff icers also h ad an arrest w arran t fo r him . T h e o ff icers f o u n d n o d ru g s , b u tt h e yd i d f i n d $ 2 , 3 0 0 o n S t e v e M a d r i d a n d d ru g p a r a p h e r n a l i a a n d t wo fi r earm s i n t he hous e. T he tw o fi r earm s w er e i n di ffe r entbedr oom s of the abode . T he r i fl e, al ong w i t h cons i der abl e par aphernal i a, w as found i n a bedr oom thatappar ent l yw as n o t b e in g u s e d a s a b e d ro o m a t th e tim e .-8-

T hatr oom w as i n di s arr ayw i t h chai r s and tr as h s catt er ed about . A daypl anneror j ournal of s om e ki nd w as al s o found i n t hatr oom , w i t h entr i es i n i tthatan age ntt es t i fi ed appea r ed t o r ecor d drug t r ans act i ons . Som e of the par aphernal i a w as found i n oron a dr es s eri n t hatr oom . A pi s t ol w as found i n t he otherbedr oom . T he off i cer s al s o found a phot ogr aph of St eve M adr i d and thr ee other s , and an out dat ed ( 1995) vot eri dent i fi cat i on c a rd th a t h a d b e e n is s u e d to S te v e M a d ri d , w h ic h s h o w e d a d if f e re n t a d d re s s in D e x te r. T her e w as al s o a bus i nes s car d fr om a gun s t or e on w hi ch had be en handw r i t t en a r ece i pt fort he pur chas e of a pi s t ol s ol d i n 2001 t o St eve M adr i d. III O n appea l , eac h D efe ndantchal l enges hi s s ent ence , and St eve M adr i d chal l enges h is co n v ict ion s o n the tw o w ea p o n s co u n ts un d er 1 8 U . S . C . § 9 2 4 (c). A S teve M ad ri d co n tend s tha t th e e v iden ce w as in su ff ici en t t o su p p o rtthe ju ry ’s ver di ctof gui l t yon C ountV I , pos s es s i on of a f i r earm dur i ng and i n r el at i on t o a drug tr aff i cki ng offe ns e. W e r evi ew t he s uffi ci encyof the evi dence de novo, vi ew i ng the evi dence and al l r eas onabl e i nfer ence s ther efr om i n t he l i ghtm os tfavor abl e t o t he v e rd ic t. See U

ni t ed Stat es v. D as hney , 1 1 7 F . 3 d 1 1 9 7 , 1 2 0 2 (10 th C ir . 1 9 9 7 ). T he ver di ctform us ed i n t hi s cas e r equi r ed the j ur or s , i f r eturni ng a gui l t yver di ct on C ountV I , t o s peci fyw hi ch of the tw o w eapons s ei zed i n t he exe cut i on of the A pr i l 17 s ear ch w arr antw as pos s es s ed i n connec t i on w i t h t he cons pi r acychar ged i n C ountI ( or the j ur or s coul d have f

ound t hatboth w er e s o pos s es s ed) . T he j ur or s found D efe ndantO n ourow n m ot i on, w e or der ed the r ecor d s uppl ement ed w i t h t he ful l tr i al 2 tra n sc rip t, w h ich A p p e llan t’s c o u n se l f a iled to p ro v id e . T h a t tran sc rip t d o e s n o t, how ever , i ncl ude cl os i ng ar gum ent s of couns el . W e dec l i ne t o i nves t i gat e furt heri n the l i k e l yv a i n h o p e o f

tu r n i n g u p s o m e t h i n g t o s h o w th a tth e i s s u e w a s r a i s e d b e l o w . We no t e t hat w hen cou nsel m ov ed fo r a j ud gm ent of acqu i t t al on C ou nt V I, he d i d n ot s ug gest thatthe governm enthad fa i l ed t o pr ove thatthe mobi l e home w as D efe ndantSt eve M adr i d’ s r es i dence . -9- St eve M adr i d gui l t yas t o t he r i fl e thathad bee n found i n t he cl os etof one of the bedr oom s of the mobi l e home and notgui l t yas t o t he pi s t ol thathad bee n found i n t he o th e r b e d ro o m . S tev e M a d rid n o w a ss e rts th a t th e e v id e n c e w a s in su f f icie n t in tw o w a y s: i ns uffi ci entt o s how t hati tw as he w ho pos s es s ed the r i fl e and i ns uffi ci entt o s how that p o s s e s s io n w a s in c o n n e c tio n w ith a d ru g o f f e n s e . See U

nited S tates v. A very , 295 F. 3d 1158, 1172 ( 10t h C i r . 2002) ( “O bt ai ni ng a convi ct i on underthe ‘ pos s es s i on’ pr ong of § 924( c) ( 1) r equi r es t he governm entt o pr ove ( 1) thatthe def endantpos s es s ed a f

i r earm and (2) tha t th e p o sses sion w as ‘in f u rth era n ce o f’ a d rug tr af fick ing o ff

en se . . . . ”). F irst, w e re

jec t th e c o n ten tio n th a t th e g o v e rn m e n t f a iled to p ro v e th a t th e m o b ile hom e on A nas azi R oad, w her e the r i fl e w as found i n exec ut i on of the s ear ch w arr antand th e a rre st w a rra n t, w a s th e re sid e n c e o f D e f e n d a n t S tev e M a d rid . C o u n se l h a s f a iled in the obl i gat i on t o t el l us w her e i n t he r ecor d w e mayfi nd thatthe i s s ue w as r ai s ed i n t he dis tri ctcou rt . 10 t h C i r. R . 28 . 1(C )( 2). In fact , i tseem s fai rl ycl ear that the is sue w as not ra ise d b e lo w . R e f

e re n c e s in tes tim o n yto th e lo c a tio n a s th e re sid e n c e o f S tev e M a d rid 2 w e re m a d e w ith o u t o b

jec tio n . E v e n m o re tellin g , co u n se l f o r M r. M a d rid a lso re f

e rre d to the l ocat i on as “St eve M adr i d’ s r es i dence ” i n cr os s - exami ni ng A gentM aes t as aboutt he exec ut i on of the s ear ch w arr ant . ( I T r . T r an. 282. ) A m ong t he i t ems s ei zed i n exec ut i ng-10-

th e s e a r c h wa r r a n twe r e a n o u t - o f - d a t e v o t e rr e g i s t r a t i o n c a r d i n S t e v e M a d r i d ’ s n a me ( wh i c h s h o we d a d i f

f e r e n ta d d r e s s ) a n d a r e c e i p tma d e t o S t e v e M a d r i d f o ra f i r e a r ms pur chas e i n 2001. T he evi dence pr es ent ed t o pr ove thatthe pl ace s ear ched on A pr i l 17 w as the r es i dence of St eve M adr i d w as notoverw hel m i ng. B utbeca us e the i s s ue w as notr ai s ed at tri al an d b ec au se w e m u st view the e v iden ce in the li g h t m o st fav o rab le t o the ju ry ver di ct , w e conc l ude thatt he evi dence w as s uffi ci entt o s how thatthe pl ace w as St eve M a d rid ’s r e sid e n c e – o r a t lea st a p lac e o v e r w h ich h e c o u ld e x e rc ise so m e c o n tro l. D efe ndantSt eve M adr i d’ s ar gum entthatthe evi dence w as i ns uffi ci entt o s how po sses si on of the ri fl e i s not ent i rel ydep end ent, ho w ever, on this po i nt. H e al so assert s, al bei tr atherci r cui t ous l y , t hatt he el ement s of cons t ruct i ve pos s es s i on w er e not s uffi ci ent l yes t abl i s hed. T he fa ctual pr edi cat e forthi s cont ent i on i s thatthe home w as o c c u p ied b yth re e p e rso n s a t th e tim e th e w e a p o n w a s f o u n d , an d th e ro o m in w h ich it w as found di d notappea rt o have be en us ed as a bedr oom . T hus , D efe ndantSt eve M a d rid a rg u e s, th e m e re p re se n c e o f th e rif le in th e c lo se t in th a t b e d ro o m is in su f f icie n t, s t andi ng al one, t o pr ove thathe cons t ruct i vel ypos s es s ed the r i fl e. T h e g o v e rn m e n t’s e v id e n c e c o n sis ted o f m o re th a n th e m e re p re se n c e o f th e rif le i n a cl os eti n St eve M adr i d’ s r es i dence , how ever , and w e conc l ude thatthe evi dence w as su f f icie n t. A n d th e sa m e e v id e n c e a lso a n sw e rs S tev e M a d rid ’s f in a l p o in t in th is chal l enge, i n w hi ch he a r gues t hatt her e w as nota s uffi ci ents how i ng thatthe w eapon w as p o s s e s s e d “ in f

u rt h e ra n c e o f

” th e d ru g tr a f

f ic k in g c o n s p ir a c ya s a lle g e d in th e in d ic tm e n t.-11-

T h e re f o re , w e w ill d is c u s s th e s e tw o c o n te n tio n s to g e th e r. T he pr i nci pl es of cons t ruct i ve pos s es s i on ar e w el l es t abl i s hed: C ons t ruct i ve pos s es s i on, w e have expl ai ned, exi s t s w hen a pe r s on “ k n o w in g ly h a s o w n e rs h ip , d o m in io n , o r c o n tr o l o v e r” th e p a rt ic u la r o b je c t. In “ m o st c a se s,” c o n stru c tiv e p o ss e ss io n o v e r a n o b jec t “m a yb e in f

e rre d if a d e f e n d a n t h a d e x c lu siv e p o ss e ss io n o f th e p re m ise s” w h e re th e o b jec t is found, butcons t ruct i ve pos s es s i on m ayal s o be found i n j oi ntoccupa ncy cas es w her e the governm entdemonstr at es “s om e conne ct i on ornexus b e tw e e n th e d e f

e n d a n t a n d th e f

ir e a rm o r o th e r c o n tr a b a n d .” A very , 295 F. 3d at1177 ( i nt ernal ci t at i ons om i t t ed) . E vi dence thatpos s es s i on of the fi r earm w as i n fur t her ance of a drug tr aff i cki ng cr i m e i s s uffi ci enti f i ts how s “thatthe defe ndant ’ s fi r earm pos s es s i on ‘ fur ther ed, pr om ot ed oradvanc ed hi s i l l egal drug act i vi ty . ’ ” Id . at1180 ( quot i ng U ni t ed Stat es v. I

i l and , 2 5 4 F . 3 d 1 2 6 4 , 1 2 7 4 (10 th C ir . 2 0 0 1 )) . F u rt h e r, a f ire a rm th a t is k e p t av a ilab le f o r u se if n e e d e d d u rin g a d ru g tra n sa c tio n is pos s es s ed “i n fur t her ance of” drug tr aff i cki ng . . . as l ong as s uch pos s es s i on “i n fur t her ance of” i s the i nt entof the drug tr aff i cker . Such i nt entw oul d nece s s ar i l ybe s ubj ectt o pr oof byci r cumst ant i al evi dence , and f a c to rs s u c h a s th e typ e o f d ru g a c tiv ityb e in g c o n d u c ted , the a c c e ss ib ili ty of the fi r earm , t he type of f i r earm , the l egal s t atus of the fi r earm , w hether the fir earm i s l oad ed, t he p roxi m i t yof the fi rearm t o d rugs or drug profit s, and the t i m e and c i r cumst ance s underw hi ch the fi r earm i s found w oul d be r el evantand hel pful t o a j ur yi n det erm i ni ng the i nt entw i t h w hi ch the w e a p o n w a s p o ss e ss e d . T h e m e re p o ss e ss io n o f a f ire a rm in p ro x im ityto drugs ordrug pr ocee ds w oul d notr equi r e a f i ndi ng thata w eapon w as pos s es s ed i n fur t her ance of drug tr aff i cki ng, butcoul d be cons i der ed bythe ju rya lo n g w ith o th e r e v id e n c e in a rriv in g a t a d e c isio n a s to in ten t. U ni t ed Stat es v. B as ham , 2 6 8 F . 3 d 1 1 9 9 , 1 2 0 8 (10 th C ir . 2 0 0 1 ). In o p p o sin g D e f

e n d a n t S tev e M a d rid ’s m o tio n f o r ju d g m e n t o f

a c q u itt a l at tria l, the governm entar gued, as i tdoes on appea l , thatthe “i n fur t her ance ” r equi r ementw as-12-

m etbyevi dence t hatt he coope r at i ng w i t nes s , M s . G ai van, s aw a l ong barr el ed gun on the fl oo r of the b edroom w here she m ade a c on t rol l ed b uyfrom S t eve M adri d o n A pri l 2, j ust 1 5 d a y s b e f

o re th e rif

le w a s f o u n d in e x e c u tio n o f

th e se a rc h w a rra n t. B u t M r. M a d rid cont ends thatt he pr os ecut i on fai l ed t o pr ove thatthe mobi l e home atw hi ch M s . G ai van s aw a gun w as t he s ame m obi l e home atw hi ch the s ear ch w arr antw as exec ut ed, poi nt i ng to th e f a c t th a t sh e d e sc rib e d th e p lac e w h e re sh e m e t S tev e M a d rid a s n e a r R o sw e ll, w hi l e the governm ent ’ s w i t nes s es t es t i fi ed thatthe s ear ch w arr antw as exec ut ed atan a d d re s s in D e x te r. A s not ed s upr a, A gentC ook t es t i fi ed thaton A pr i l 2, 2003, he w as among t he o f f ice rs w h o f

o llo w e d K im G a iv a n a s s h e w e n t to m e e t S tev e M a d rid . A g e n t C o o k sa id thatM s . G ai van fi r s tdr ove thr ee orfourm i l es s out h of R os w el l and then s t opped t o m ake a t el ephone c al l . A ft ert hatcal l , s he pr ocee ded “a l i t t l e w ay s s out h of ther e and then bac k eas ton – I t hi nk A nas azi w as t he name of the r oad. ” ( I T r . T r ans . 95. ) T hus , the evi dence r oughl yes t abl i s hed thatt he l ocat i on of the mobi l e home atw hi ch M s . G ai van g o t m e th a m p h e ta m in e f ro m S te v e M a d ri d w a s m o re th a n th re e m ile s s o u th o f R o s w e ll. T aki ng t he evi dence i n t he l i ghtm os tfavor abl e t o t he j uryver di ct , as w e must , the l ocat i on m ayw el l have be en fi ve orm or e mi l es s out h of R os w el l . T her e w as t es t i m ony thatD ext eri s about15 m i l es s out h of R os w el l . T hi s evi dence does notpr ecl ude the p o ss ib ili tyth a t th e m o b ile h o m e o n A n a sa z i R o a d m a yh a v e h a d a D e x ter a d d re ss , ev e n if itw as c lose r t o R o sw ell than to D ex ter. T he evi dence on t hi s poi ntw as cert ai nl ynotoverw hel m i ng, and i n l i ghtof the fa ct-13-

thatthe convi ct i on on C ountV I added 25 y ear s t o an al r eadyverys ubs t ant i al t erm of i m pr i s onm ent , t he r el at i ve thi nnes s of the evi dence does nots peak w el l forthe g o v e rn m e n t’s p re se n tatio n o f its e v id e n c e . B u t w e a re c o n v in c e d th a t th e p ro b lem is in th e p re se n tatio n , rath e r th a n th e su b sta n c e , o f th e e v id e n c e . T h e p ro se c u tio n c e rta in ly s houl d have e l i ci t ed more t es t i m onyt o el i m i nat e the conf us i on caus ed bythe fa ctthatt he re s id e n c e h a d b e e n d e s c ri b e d a s e ith e r o u ts id e R o s w e ll o r a s h a v in g a D e x te r a d d re s s . B utas w i th t he ques t i on w hetheri tw as the r es i dence of St eve M adr i d, w e bel i eve thatt he fa ct th at th e p o int w as n o t r aised b elow b yco u n sel fo r th e D ef en d an t l ikelyis a p ri m ary r eas on fort he r el at i vel ys l i m evi dence on t hi s poi nt . I n anyevent , the s t r onges tevi dence i s thatM s . G ai van, i n hert es t i m ony , i dent i fi ed G overnm entE xhi bi t31 as a phot ogr aph of a dr es s eri n t he bedr oom i n w hi ch s he metSt eve M adr i d on A pr i l 2 and fr om w hi ch he obt ai ned the met hamphet ami ne he ga ve her . T hatexhi bi tw as l at eri dent i fi ed byA gent M a e sta s a s b e in g a p h o to g ra p h o f th e d re ss e r in th e u n o c c u p ied b e d ro o m o f th e m o b ile hom e s ear ched on A pr i l 17, w hi ch w as nextt o t he cl os eti n w hi ch the r i fl e w as found. W e conc l ude, t hen, t hatt he evi dence w as s uffi ci entt o s how thatthe tr ans act i on des cr i bed byM s . G ai van t ook pl ace i n t he s ame r oom of M r . St eve M adr i d’ s r es i dence w h e re th e ri f

le w a s f o u n d b yth e o f

f ic e rs e x e c u tin g th e s e a rc h w a rr a n t f if te e n d a y s la te r. T he fi nal ques t i on, t hen, i s w hethert hi s evi dence pr ovi ded a l egal l ys uffi ci entbas i s for th e ju ry to f

in d th a t th e ri f

le w a s p o s s e s s e d in f

u rt h e ra n c e o f

th e d ru g c o n s p ir a c y . W e thi nk thatt he evi dence w as s uffi ci entforthe j ur or s t o fi nd thatthe r i fl e found i n t he cl os et on A pr i l 17 w as t he s ame r i fl e thathad bee n on the fl oorof the s ame r oom dur i ng theT he pr evi ous l ym ent i oned fa ctthatthe j ur or s found def endantnotgui l t yof 3 pos s es s i ng, i n fur t her ance of the drug t r aff i cki ng cons pi r acy , the pi s t ol found i n t he other bedr oom , verys t r ongl ys ugges t s t hatthe j ur or s ’ deci s i on t o convi ctas t o t he r i fl e w as b a se d o n th e f

a c t th a t M s. G a iv a n ’s tra n sa c tio n h a d o c c u rre d in th e ro o m w h e re th e rif le w a s f o u n d f if tee n d a y s la ter . T h is in tu rn stro n g lysu g g e sts th a t th e yf o u n d th a t itw a s, in fac t , t he s ame w eapon, i n s pi t e of M s . G ai van’ s i nabi l i t yt o s ayw hetherthe l ong- barr el ed obj ects he s aw w as a r i fl e orm er el ya B B gun. -14- c o n tr o l l e d b u y o n A p r i l 2 . T h a ti n f e r e n c e c e r t a i n l y d i d n o th a v e t o b e d r a w n b y th e j u r y, butw e conc l ude thati tw as a r eas onabl e i nfer ence w hi ch the j urycoul d have, and a p p a r e n t l yd i d , d r a w. 3 T hus , w e have notonl ya r i fl e thatw as i n verycl os e pr oxi m i t yt o drug par aphernal i a w hen found, butal s o one thatappar ent l yhad bee n i n pl ai n vi ew dur i ng one s peci fi c drug t r ans act i on and w hi ch had s t art l ed the coope r at i ng w i t nes s w ho par t i ci pat ed i n thattr ans act i on. A nd t he j ur or s had hea r d expertt es t i m onyfr om offi cer s aboutthe pr eval ence of w eapons i n t hei rexper i ence i n drug i nves t i gat i ons and the per cei ved advant ages t o deal er s i n i l l i ci tdrugs of w eapons t o pr ot ectthei ract i vi t i es . W e conc l ude thatthe evi dence w as s uffi ci entt o s uppor tthe gui l tyver di ctagai ns tSt eve M adr i d on C ountV I , pos s es s i on of a f i r earm i n fur t her ance of a drug tr aff i cki ng offe ns e. B M r. S teve M ad ri d also ch all en g es th e su ff ici en cyo f th e e v iden ce o n C o u n t I II, w hi ch cha r ged hi m w i t h br andi s hi ng a fi r earm dur i ng and i n r el at i on t o a drug tr aff i cki ng offe ns e. M r . M adr i d’ s cont ent i on on t hi s i s s ue i s thatthe t es t i m onyof J ohn C ook w as i ns uffi ci ent l ys peci fi c t o s how t hatthe al l eged a cthad occ urr ed atthe t i m e and pl ace al l eged i n t he i ndi ctm ent . T he i ndi ctm ental l eged thatthe i nci dentoccurr ed i n E ddy-15-

C ount y , N ew M exi co, on oraboutO ct ober2001. M r . C ook t es t i fi ed thathe metSt eve M adr i d i n Sept ember2001, and thatthe in c id e n t in w h ich th e g u n w a s b ra n d ish e d o c c u rre d a b o u t th re e w e e k s la ter . T h is is s uffi ci entt o es t abl i s h t hatt he i nci dentoccurr ed “r eas onabl ynear ” the dat e al l eged i n the in d ic tm e n t, w h ic h is le g a lly su f f ic ie n t to s u p p o rt th e c o n v ic tio n . See U ni t ed Stat es v. C a stillo , 1 4 0 F . 3 d 8 7 4 , 8 8 5 (10 th C ir . 1 9 9 8 ). St eve M adr i d al s o as s ert s , how ever , thatthe evi dence s how ed onl ythatthe in c id e n t o c c u rre d in th e b a c k y a rd o f E ric D e m o ss ’s g irlfr ien d ’s h o u se a n d is “ u tterly s i l ent ” aboutw her e thi s hous e mayhave be en. O n t hi s , D efe ndanti s corr ect . O nce a gai n, how ever , t her e i s no i ndi cat i on t hatt hi s i s s ue w as r ai s ed i n t he di s t r i ctcour t . T he g o v e rn m e n t’s b rie f

d o e s n o t re sp o n d to th is p o in t. U nders ect i on 924( c) , al l s ent ence s ar e t o run cons ecut i vel yt o anyot hers ent ence , and St eve M adr i d w as s ent ence d t o anothers even y ear s beca us e he w as convi ct ed on C ountI I I . B utt hatw as nott he gr eat erpartof the ef fec tthe convi ct i on on t hi s counthad on t he over al l s ent ence . B eca us e he w as convi ct ed on C ountI I I , M r . M adr i d’ s s ent ence o n C o u n t V I b e c a m e a su b se q u e n t co n v ictio n , an d u n d e r su b se c tio n 9 2 4 (c )(1 )(C ) h is s ent ence on C ountV I w as t her efor e a mandat orym i ni m um of 25 y ear s , i ns t ead of a m a n d a to ry m in im u m o f f iv e y e a rs , to b e s e rv e d c o n s e c u tiv e ly to a n yo th e r s e n te n c e . T hus , t he convi ct i on on C ountI I I i ndi r ect l yacc ount s for324 m ont hs , or27 y ear s , of the 619- m onth s ent ence m et ed outt o M r . M adr i d. B oth s i des m us thave r eal i zed a s theypr epar ed fortr i al thatthi s w oul d be the-16-

i nexor abl e cons equenc e of c onvi ct i on on bot h of thes e s ect i on 924( c) count s , and on appea l i ti s one of the bas i c fa ct s of the ca s e. G i ven the cons equenc es of the convi ct i on on C ountI I I , t he per form ance of couns el on bot h s i des i s qui t e l ament abl e. A ttr i al , t he governm entut t er l yfai l ed t o i nt r oduce e vi dence of the pl ace atw hi ch the ac toccurr ed, and couns el forSt eve M adr i d fai l ed t o r ai s e thi s defi ci ency . O n appea l , nei t hers i de ci t es the pl ai n err ors t andar d, noranyauthor i t yt o gui de ouranal y s i s of the i s s ue. A gai n, t he g o v e rn m e n t d o e s n o t a d d re s s th is d e f ic ie n c yin th e e v id e n c e . W e re v iew the issu e f

o r plain e rror o n ly . T h e stan d ard s fo r plain e rror rev iew are f a m ilia r. [T]he err orm us t( 1) be an a ctual err orthatw as for fei t ed; ( 2) be pl ai n or obvi ous ; and ( 3) aff

ects ubs t ant i al r i ght s , i n otherw or ds , i n m os tcas es the err orm us tbe pr ej udi ci al , i . e. , i tm us thave a ffe ct ed the o u tc o m e o f th e tr ia l.

. . . . G iven p lai n erro r th at af fe cts su b stan ti al ri g h ts, an ap p ell ate c o u rt sh o u ld e x e rc ise its d isc re tio n a n d n o tice su c h e rro r w h e re it eith e r (a ) re su lts i n the convi ct i on of one a ctual l yi nnocent , or( b) “s er i ous l yaff ect [s ] the f a ir n e s s , in te g ri ty o r p u b lic re p u ta tio n o f ju d ic ia l p ro c e e d in g s .” U ni t ed Stat es v. Keel i ng , 235 F. 3d 533, 538 ( 10t h C i r . 2000) ( quot i ng U ni t ed Stat es v. O lano , 5 0 7 U .S . 7 2 5 , 7 3 6 (1 9 9 3 )) (i n te rn a l c ita tio n s o m itte d ). A tfi r s tbl us h i tm i ghts eem t hatthe fa i l ur e t o pr ovi de anyevi dence of the l ocat i on o f th e p lace w h ere the g u n w as b ran d ishe d , o ther tha n that ito cc u rred in so m eo n e’s backy ar d, w oul d be err ort hati s pl ai n. V enue i s an el ementof the off ens e thatm us tbe p ro v e d . U

ni t ed Stat es v. C r

yar , 232 F. 3d 1318, 1323 ( 10th C i r . 2000) . Pr oof thatan offe ns e occ ur r ed ats om eone’ s r es i dence , w i t houtpr oof of the l ocat i on of thatr es i dence , i s i n s u f f i c i e n tt o e s t a b l i s h v e n u e wh e r e th e n a tu r e o f th e c r i me a n d th e e v i d e n c e s h o ws-17-

th a t th e c ri m e o c c u rr e d a t s o m e s in g le , d is tin c t lo c a tio n . See U ni t ed Stat es v. E vans , 318 F. 3d 1011, 1021- 23 ( 10t h C i r . 2003) ( venue notpr oved forchar ge of a t t empt ed m a n u f a c tu re o f m e th a m p h e tam in e a n d p o ss e ss io n o f e p h e d rin e a n d p se u d o e p h e d rin e w ith the i nt entt o m anufa ctur e met hamphet ami ne) . So, i f the cha r ge her e w er e, forexampl e, s i m pl e as s aul tbas ed on the br andi s hi ng of the w eapon, the fa i l ur e t o pr ove thatact occurr ed w i t hi n E ddyC ount y , N ew M exi co, as char ged i n t he i ndi ctm ent , m i ghtw el l be p lain e rro r. B u t th e n a tu re o f th e c rim e a lleg e d h e re is n o t so stra ig h tf o rw a rd a s s im p le assaul t , and t his i s i m po rt ant for our anal y si s. Th e l o c a t i o n o f

a c h a r g e d o f

f e n s e “ mu s tb e d e t e r mi n e d b yth e n a tu r e o f th e c r i me al l eged a nd t he l ocat i on of the ac toract s cons t i tut i ng i t . ” U ni t ed Stat es v. C abr al es , 524 U .S . 1 , 6 -7 (1 9 9 8 ). N o t all c rim e s o c c u r in a sin g le lo c a tio n . C o n g re ss h a s p ro v id e d th a t: “E xcep tas ot herw i se expressl yprovided b yenactm ent of C on gress , anyoff ense ag ai nst the U n it ed S tat es b eg u n in o n e d istri ct an d co m p eted in an o ther, or co m m itted in m o re than on e dis t ri ct , m aybe inquir ed o f and prosecuted i n an ydis t ri cti n w hich such o ffen se w as b eg u n , co n ti n u ed , o r co m p let ed . ” 1 8 U . S . C . § 3 2 3 7 (a). T her efor e, w e mustl ook t o t he natur e of the cr i m e al l eged. C ountI I I char ged that “[i ] n oraboutO ct ober2001, i n E ddyC ount y , ” D efe ndantSt eve M adr i d br andi s hed a fi rearm “du ri ng and i n rel at i on t o a d rug t raffi cking of fense” an d specifi cal l ythe o ffen se o f d istrib u tio n o f

a m ix tu re a n d su b sta n c e c o n tain in g m e th a m p h e tam in e a s c h a rg e d in C ountI I of the i ndi ctm ent . C ountI I char ged thatD efe ndantSt eve M adr i d “di s t r i but ed 50 gr ams and more of a mi xtur e and s ubs t ance ” cont ai ni ng m ethamphet ami ne “[ i ] n orabout-18-

S e p te m b e r 2 0 0 1 , in E d d yC o u n ty, in th e S ta te a n d D is tr ic t o f N e w M e x ic o . . . .” I n s pi t e of the l i m i t at i ons cr eat ed bya r ecor d t hatdoes noti ncl ude the openi ng and cl os i ng s t at ement s bycouns el and br i efs thatoffe rno gui dance atal l i n ouranal y s i s of thi s i s s ue, w e s t i l l can de t erm i ne w i t h confi dence fr om the evi dence and fr om the al l eged connec t i ons betw een CountI I and C ountI I I thatC ountI I i s bas ed on the s al e of m et ham ph et am i ne to coo perat i ng w i t ness John C oo k. C oo k tes t i fi ed thathis fi rs t pur chas e of met hamphet ami ne fr om St eve M adr i d occurr ed i n Sept ember2001. W e ca n fur therdet erm i ne w i t h confi dence t hati tw as hi s t es t i m onyw hi ch es t abl i s hed the b ra n d ish in g in c id e n t o n w h ich C o u n t III c lea rlym u st h a v e b e e n b a se d , as h e w a s th e o n ly w i tnes s t o t es t i fyt o s eei ng D efe ndantbr andi s h a gun, as oppos ed t o m er el ycarr y i ng one. M r . C ook t es t i fi ed thatt he br andi s hi ng i nci dentoccurr ed aboutthr ee w eeks aft erhe had r ece i ved the met hamphet ami ne fr om D efe ndantSt eve M adr i d and thatSt eve M adr i d w as d e m a n d in g p a ym e n t f

o r th a t f irst d e liv e ryw h e n th e in c id e n t o c c u rre d . T h is is re f lec ted in the i ndi ctm ent ’ s pl ace m entof C ountI I i n Sept ember2001 and C ountI I I i n O ct ober2001. Fort he cr i m e al l eged i n C ountI I I t o have oc curr ed both “dur i ng” and “ i n r el at i on t o” the di s t r i but i on of m ethamphet ami ne al l eged i n C ountI I , i tm us thave be en the governm ent ’ s t heoryt hatt he tr ans act i on can be vi ew ed as havi ng been on- goi ng thr ee w eeks aft ert he del i veryof the drug, w hen D efe ndantSt eve M adr i d att empt ed t o col l ect paym entfr om w i t nes s C ook. T hi s i n t he onl ycogenttheorythatw e ca n i nferfr om the a lle g a tio n s a n d th e e v id e n c e . Iti s i n thi s contextt hat w e m ustapp roach t he fir stst ep in the p l ai n err or anal y si s,-19-

det erm i ni ng w hethert her e w as err or . A gai n, i f the al l egat i ons and the evi dence had bee n of a s i ngl e eve nt , s uch as a s i m pl e as s aul tw i t h t he gun, then cl ear l yther e w oul d have been e rr or . O n t he otherhand, i f the br andi s hi ng of the w eapon ha d been a l l eged t o have occurr ed i n connec t i on w i t h a ki dnapi ng thati nvol ved ac t s t aken both i n N ew M exi co and o u tsi d e tha t st ate, th en u n d er U ni t ed Stat es v. R odr iguez - Mor eno , 5 2 6 U . S . 2 7 5 (19 9 9 ), th e re m ig h t b e n o e rro r a ss u m in g th a t so m e o f th e a c ts w e re p ro v e n to h a v e o c c u rre d in N ew M ex ico. C ertainlyin this ca se itw as p rov en that m o st of S teve M ad ri d ’s ac ts w ere d o n e in N e w M e x ic o . W hethert her e w as a fa i l ur e t o pr ove venue i n t hi s cas e then mustbe s een a s turn ing o n w h ethe r th e d rug tr an sac ti o n all eg ed in C o u n t I I m ustbe vi ew ed as a “poi nt - i nt i me o f f e n s e , ” t o u s e a p h r a s e f

r o m R odr iguez - Mor eno . I n t hatcas e, the C our tr ej ect ed the cont ent i on t hatt he s ect i on 924( c) offe ns e of us i ng and ca r r y i ng a fi r earm dur i ng and i n r el at i on t o a ki dnapi ng w as a “poi nt - i n- t i m e” of fens e. E ven though the evi dence i n that cas e had s how n us e of a fi r earm onl yi n M ary l and, the C our thel d t hatvenue w as pr oper i n N ew J er s ey , and w oul d have be en pr operi n anys t at e i n w hi ch the ki dnap vi ct i m had been he l d byhi s capt or s . I f i ti s perm i s s i bl e fora drug tr ans act i on t o be vi ew ed as ongoi ng fr om t he t i m e of de l i veryof the drug unt i l atl eas tthe ef for tt o col l ectthe paym ent fort he drug t hr ee w eeks l at er , l i ke the ki dnapi ng i n R odr iguez - Mor eno , then the evi dence attr i al w hi ch s how ed thatt he del i veryof m ethamphet ami ne cha r ged i n C ountI I t ook p lac e in N e w M e x ico , ap p a re n tlyw o u ld b e su f f icie n t to e sta b lish v e n u e f o r C o u n t III in N ew M exi co, no m att erw her e thatcol l ect i on at t empt i nvol vi ng br andi s hi ng the w eapon-20-

had occ urr ed. O urr es ear ch has notl ed us t o a ca s e thatdi r ect l yaddr es s es thi s i s s ue. W e nee d notdeci de thati s s ue, how ever . I ti s s uffi ci entt o concl ude, as w e do, t hat if ther e w as err ori n fai l i ng t o pr ove thatthe br andi s hi ng occurr ed i n N ew M exi co, i tw as notpl ai n err or , bas ed on the al l egat i ons and the evi dence i n t hi s s peci fi c ca s e. W e have g o n e to g rea t l en g ths to d ev elop this argu m en t, w h ich is o n lysu g g ested b yD ef en d an t’ s br i ef w i th i t s focus s ol el yon t he l ack of evi dence t o s how w her e the gun w as br andi s hed and i t s fai l ur e t o anal y ze the cons equenc es of thatfac tw i t hi n t he pr operpl ai n err or fr amew or k. W e w i l l , how ever , not e tw o ot hercons i der at i ons thatal s o w ei gh i n favorof our d e c isio n th a t th e re is n o p lain e rro r h e re . F irst, “th is c o u rt a n d o th e rs h a v e c o n sis ten tly tr eat ed venue di ffe r ent l yfr om ot her , ‘ s ubs t ant i ve’ el ement s of a c har ged off ens e. ” U ni t ed Stat es v. Mi l l er , 1 1 1 F . 3 d 7 4 7 , 7 4 9 (10 th C ir . 1 9 9 7 ). “W e h av e a lso a p p li ed a m o re r el axed s t andar d forfi ndi ng w ai verof venue r i ght s than forfi ndi ng w ai ver s of other cons t i tut i onal r i ght s i n cr i m i nal t r i al s . ” I d. a t 7 5 0 . Second, t hi s err or , i f ther e w as err or , i s one thatm i ghthave be en cur ed attr i al had defe ns e couns el r ai s ed the poi nt . T he tr i al j udge w oul d have ha d t he di s cr et i on t o al l ow the governm entt o r e- open i t s cas e forthe purpos e of a s ki ng the w i t nes s w hetherhe knew if th e in c id e n t o c c u rr e d in E d d yC o u n ty, as a lle g e d in th e in d ic tm e n t. See U ni t ed Stat es v. B o lt , 7 7 6 F .2 d 1 4 6 3 , 1 4 7 1 -7 2 (1 0 th C ir. 1 9 8 5 ); U ni t ed Stat es v. Hi nder m an , 625 F. 2d 9 9 4 , 9 9 6 (1 0 th C ir. 1 9 8 0 ). B e c a u se th e e rro r, if a n y , co u ld h a v e b e e n c o rre c ted a t trial, in the di s tr i ctcour t ’ s di s cr et i on, i ti s qui t e unl i kel ythatw e coul d have f ound i tt o be a de fec t-21-

w hi ch “s er i ous l yaff

ect s t he fa i r nes s , i nt egr i t yorpubl i c r eput at i on of j udi ci al pr ocee di ngs . ” O l ano , 50 7 U . S . at73 6. T o rul e otherw i se could creat e a perverse i ncent i ve forcouns el t o r efr ai n fr om r ai s i ng the def ectattr i al i n hopes of an a cqui t t al on appea l , know i ng t hati f the i s s ue w er e r ai s ed atthe cl os e of the pr os ecut i on’ s evi dence , the tr i al j udge mi ghtal l ow t he governm entt o r eopen i t s cas e. C B efor e w e ana l y ze the s ent enci ng i s s ues pr es ent ed i n t hes e appe al s , w e w i l l out l i ne th e e s s e n t i a l b a c k g r o u n d i n wh i c h t h e d i s t r i c tj u d g e ma d e h i s s e n t e n c i n g d e c i s i o n s . As n o ted , the su p e rse d in g in d ictm e n t ch a rg e d th a t b o th d e f e n d a n ts c o n sp ire d to p o ss e ss w ith in te n t to d is tr ib u te 5 0 0 g ra m s o r m o re o f a m ix tu re c o n ta in in g m e th a m p h e ta m in e . C on vict i on on t his cou nt pr ov i ded a basel i ne d rug qu anti t yfor determ i ning t he o ffen se l evel und er the S entenci ng G uidel i nes, bu tthe P res entence R epo rt(PS R ) i n each case re v iew e d th e trial e v id e n c e a n d re c o m m e n d e d a f in d in g o f a sig n if ica n tlylar g e r q u a n tity o f m e th a m p h e ta m in e . T he PSR i n eac h cas e not ed thatthe met hamphet ami ne thatM s . G ai van had obt ai ned fr om St eve M adr i d had bee n turned overt o offi cer s i m m edi at el yaft erthe tr ans act i ons and had s ubs equent l ybeen w ei ghed and t es t ed forpur i t y . T he PSR r eci t ed the tr i al t es t i m onyof thes e fi ndi ngs . T he drug pr ovi ded fi r s tt o M s . G ai van w as d eterm ined to b e 6 5 % p u re a n d to w eigh 1 0 5 . 7 g ram s, y iel d ing 6 8 . 7 1 g ram s o f “ p u reB ot h t he s t atut e, 21 U . S. C . § 841( b) ( 1) ( A ) ( vi i i ) , and the appl i cabl e gui del i ne, 4 U SSG § 2D 1. 1( c) ( 2) , s epar at el yaddr es s pur e oractual m ethamphet ami ne and mi xtur es cont ai ni ng m ethamphet ami ne. I n or dert o pr ovi de s t andar ds forcas es i nvol vi ng di ffe r ent drugs or , as her e, s om e quant i t i es of pur e met hamphet ami ne and s om e quant i t i es of a m i xtur e cont ai ni ng m ethamphet ami ne butof unknow n pur i t y , the G ui del i nes di r ectthe d is tr ic t c o u rt s to c o n v e rt d ru g q u a n titie s to a n e q u iv a le n t q u a n tity o f m a ri ju a n a . -22- ( actual ) m ethamphet ami ne. ” T he drug pr ovi ded t o M s . G ai van the s econd t i m e w as 4 det erm i ned t o be 66% pur e and t o w ei gh 218. 8 gr ams, y i el di ng 144. 4 netgr ams of ac tual m e th a m p h e ta m in e . I n addi t i on, t he PSR i n eac h cas e i ncl uded es t i m at es of the amount s of m ethamphet ami ne thathad bee n del i ver ed t o co- oper at i ng w i t nes s es J ohn C ook and M el i s s a M cK el vey , agai n as bas ed on the tr i al t es t i m ony . T he Pr obat i on O ffi ce e s t i m at ed i n the PSR t hatM r . C ook w as obt ai ni ng thr ee ounc es of m ethamphet ami ne thr ee orfour t i m es perw eek f

orappr oxi m at el ys i x m onths . T he PSR es t i m at e w as then bas ed on thr ee d e liv e rie s p e r w e e k o v e r 2 6 w e e k s, f o r 6 ,5 5 2 g ra m s o f

m e th a m p h e tam in e . T o th is es t i m at e, t he PSR added one pound bas ed on the i ni t i al del i veryt o M r . C ook, thus a rr iv in g a t a to ta l o f

7 0 0 6 g ra m s o r 7 k ilo g ra m s . A s t o t he met hamphet ami ne pr ovi ded t o M s . M cK el vey , the PSR not ed thats he had t es t i fi ed thats he coul d notr eca l l how m uch of the drug s he had obt ai ned on ea ch occa s i on and pr ocee ded t o es t i m at e the t ot al quant i t y“bycal cul at i ng the bot t om r ange of w hats he es t i m at ed. ” The PS R t hus es t i m at ed thats he had obt ai ned one ounc e perw eek overa per i od of fi ve mont hs i n 1999 ( w hi ch the w r i t erof the PSR cal l ed a “ veryl ow e s t i m a t e ” ) , f

o ra t o t a l o f

5 6 0 g r a m s o f

a m i x tu r e c o n t a i n i n g m e t h a m p h e t a m i n e . S i m i l a r l y,-23-

th e P S R e stim a ted th a t M s. M c K e lv e yo b tain e d o n e o u n c e p e r w e e k o v e r a f iv e m o n th peri od i n 2 00 1, or 560 gram s i n thatperi od , for a t otal of 1 12 0 g ram s. T aki ng al l of the drug quant i t yevi dence t ogether , the PSR i n eac h cas e arr i ved at an es t i m at e ( as corr ect ed byt he pr os ecut oratthe s ent enci ng hear i ng) of 213. 4 gr ams of “pur e ( actual ) m ethamphet ami ne” a nd an addi t i onal 8. 12 ki l ogr ams of a mi xtur e and su b sta n c e c o n tain in g m e th a m p h e tam in e . A f ter c o n v e rtin g th e se q u a n tit ies to th e ir “mar i j uana e qui val ent , ” s ee n .4 , supra , the P S R i n each case arr i ved ata base o ffen se l evel of 36. T he off ens e l evel foreac h defe ndantw as i ncr eas ed on the bas i s of hi s r ol e i n t he offe ns e, and J os e M adr i d’ s offe ns e l evel w as al s o i ncr eas ed forhi s havi ng pos s es s ed a fi r earm i n connec t i on w i t h t he cons pi r acy . ( St eve M adr i d’ s offe ns e l evel w as not in c re a se d sim ilarlyb e c a u se h e h a d b e e n se p a ra telyc h a rg e d a n d c o n v icte d o n tw o c o u n ts r el at ed t o fi r earm s , w hi ch i ncr eas ed hi s ul t i m at e s ent ence m uch more dr amat i cal l ythan hi s br other ’ s w as i ncr eas ed byt he off ens e l evel enhanc ement . ) T he r es ul t i ng gui del i nes r ange f orJ os e M adr i d w as 292 t o 365 m ont hs . T he r es ul t i ng gui del i nes r ange f orSt eve M adr i d w as 235 t o 293 m ont hs , w i t h t he addi t i onal 84 m ont hs fr om C ountI I I and 300 m onths fr om C ountV I t o be s erved cons ecut i vel yt o anygui del i nes s ent ence , as r equi r ed b ysta tu te. A s n o ted , the ju d g e se n ten c e d Jo se M a d rid to 2 9 2 m o n th s a n d S tev e M a d rid to 619 m onths ( 235 pl us 384) , us i ng t he l ow poi ntof the gui del i nes r ange f orboth. E ach de fenda ntcont ends t hatthe tr i al j udge err ed i n det erm i ni ng hi s s ent ence by appl y i ng the s ent enci ng gui del i nes m andat or i l yi n contr avent i on of U ni t ed Stat es v.-24-

B ooker , 543 U . S. 220 ( 2005) . T he di s t r i ctcour ts ent ence d bot h D efe ndant s atthe concl us i on of a s ent enci ng hear i ng conduct ed on M ar ch 21, 2005, j us ttw o m ont hs aft er the l andmar k B ookerrul i ng. A l t hough the tr ans cr i pts how s thatthe tr i al j udge di d not expr es s l yacknow l edge thatt he gui del i nes w er e no l ongert o be appl i ed mandat or i l yaft er B ooker , t he ar gum ent s bycouns el di r ect l yaddr es s ed the poi nt . Forexampl e, the pr os ecut orr efe rr ed t o t he r emedi al hol di ng of B ooker , s ay i ng, “theyfi xed i tbym aki ng th e m n o tm a n d a t o r y. ” A p p . ( J o s e M a d r i d ) a t6 5 . T h i s c a m e a f t e rb o t h d e f

e n s e a t t o r n e ys had i nvoked B ookerin th e ira rg u m e n ts . Id . at57- 63. T hes e w er e notthe onl yr efe r ence s t o the B ookerrul i ng i n t he fa i r l ys hor tpr ocee di ng. I ti s s i m pl yi nconce i vabl e thatthe j udge w oul d have be en unaw ar e of the much an ti cipa ted ru li n g b ythe C o u rto n the g u idelines , esp ec ial lyw h en h e h ad just he ard couns el ’ s ar gum ent s . T hus , w e r ej ectthe cont ent i on thatthe tr i al j udge made an err orof l a w b y tr e a t i n g t h e g u i d e l i n e s a s m a n d a t o r y. E ach D efe ndantal s o cont ends thatthe di s t r i ctj udge vi ol at ed hi s Si xth A m endment r i ghtt o tr i al byj ur ybyi ncr eas i ng hi s s ent ence on t he bas i s of fa ct s s etouti n t he Pr es ent ence R eport , w hi ch the di s t r i ctj udge found unde rthe pr eponder ance of the evi dence s t andar d. W e have r epea t edl yuphel d thi s pr act i ce, hol di ng that“s o l ong as t he d istric t co u rt a p p lies th e G u id e lin e s in a n a d v iso ry , rath e r th a n a m a n d a to ry , fa sh io n , it m ayr el yon fac t s found bya j udge t o be true bas ed on a pr eponder ance of the evi dence . ” U n itedS ta tes v . B u sta m a n te , 4 5 4 F . 3 d 1 2 0 0 , 1 2 0 2 (10 th C ir . 2 0 0 6 ). W e n o te th a t Jo se M a d rid d o e s n o t ch a llen g e th e su f f icie n c yo f

th e e v id e n c e toA t hor ough di s cus s i on of the i s s ue i s found i n t he opi ni ons i n an unpubl i s hed 5 c a s e , U ni t ed Stat es v. Jack

s on , 1 9 9 8 W L 6 4 2 4 1 0 , 1 6 1 F . 3 d 1 8 (t ab le) (10 th C ir . 1 9 9 8 ).

-25- su p p o rt , b ythe p rep o n d era n ce o f th e e v iden ce stan d ard , the f ind ing s o f th e P S R that w ere a d o p ted b yth e c o u rt. S tev e M a d rid m a k e s s o m e c riticism o f th e e v id e n c e a n d , in part i cul ar , of the es t i m at es of drug quant i t ypr oduced bythe pr obat i on offi cerw ho pr epar ed the Pr es ent ence R epor t . T he drug quant i t ycal cul at i ons w er e bas ed on the tes tim o n yo f

th e th re e c o o p e ra tin g w itn e ss e s. T h e tes tim o n yo f K im G a iv a n re f

e rre d o n ly to h e r tw o c o n tro lled b u y s, a n d th e m e th a m p h e tam in e sh e p u rc h a se d w a s tu rn e d o v e r to offi cer s , w ei ghed, and t es t ed forpur i t y . N o exce pt i on t o t hatevi dence i s ar gued on a p p e a l.I ti s t he es t i m at es bas ed on the t es t i m onyof J ohn C ook and M el i s s a M cK el veyt hat S teve M ad ri d co n test s. F o r ex am p le, h e a rgu es th at a c h em istm u st qu ali fyas a n ex p ert befor e bei ng al l ow ed t o t es t i fyt hathe ors he i dent i fi ed a s ubs t ance as m ethamphet ami ne, butthatthes e l ayw i t nes s es w er e perm i t t ed t o s i m pl ydecl ar e thatthe s ubs t ance s they r egul ar l yacqui r ed fr om t he D efe ndant s w er e met hamphet ami ne. H ow ever , ourcas es have notr equi r ed s ci ent i fi c evi dence t o pr ove thata s ubs t ance i s a contr ol l ed s ubs t ance as c h a rg e d , e v e n w h e n a p p lyin g th e b e y o n d a re a s o n a b le d o u b t s ta n d a rd . See U ni t ed Stat es v. Sa nch ez D eFun do ra , 89 3 F . 2d 11 73 , 11 75 -76 (10t h C i r. 19 90 ). C on si deri ng that these w itn e ss e s w e re u sin g th e d ru g a s w e ll as se lli n g it, th e ir tes tim o n yw a s s u f f icie n tly re lia b le to m e e t th e p re p o n d e ra n c e o f th e e v id e n c e s ta n d a rd . I d. See al s o U ni t ed Stat es v. C ant l ey , 1 3 0 F . 3 d 1 3 7 1 , 1 3 7 9 (10 th C ir . 1 9 9 7 ). 5-26-

St eve M adr i d’ s chal l enge t o t he es t i m at i ons of drug quant i t ybas ed on the tes tim o n yo f

c o o p e ra tin g w itn e ss e s C o o k a n d M c K e lv e yis to o v a g u e a n d c u rso ryto m e rit di s cus s i on. T he j udge adopt ed the fi ndi ngs of the Pr es ent ence R epor t , w hi ch w er e bas ed o n th e tr ia l te s tim o n ya s s u m m a ri z e d , supra . W e h a v e c o n sis ten tlyh e ld th a t itis perm i s s i bl e fort he s ent enci ng j udge t o m ake e s t i m at es as l ong as the i nform at i on r el i ed upon has s uppor ti n t he evi dence and “be ar s s uffi ci enti ndi ci a of r el i abi l i t y . ” U ni t ed Stat es v. D al t on , 409 F. 3d 1247, 1251 ( 10th C i r . 2005) . B eca us e M r . M adr i d does not all eg e a n ysp ec ifi c e rror in this pro ce ss, w e n ee d n o t con side r th is po int fu rth er. St eve M adr i d al s o chal l enges the rul i ng thathi s convi ct i on on C ountV I ( w hi ch i nvol ved the r i fl e found a thi s hom e on A pr i l 17, 2003) w as a s econd ors ubs equent convi ct i on forvi ol at i on of 18 U . S. C . § 924, a rul i ng w hi ch w as bas ed on hi s convi ct i on o n C o u n t I II (f

o r b ra n d is h in g a g u n in h is e n c o u n te r w ith J o h n C o o k in O c to b e r 2 0 0 1 ). M a d rid c o n ten d s th a t h is rig h ts w e re v io late d b e c a u se th e in d ictm e n t d id n o t sp e c if ica lly char ge a vi ol at i on of 18 U . S. C . § 924( c) ( 1) ( C ) ( I ) and the j urydi d nots epar at el yfi nd t hat he had a pr evi ous convi ct i on. T hi s ar gum enti s unper s uas i ve. T he fa ctof a pr i or convi ct i on i s t he one e xcept i on t o t he Fi fth and Si xth A m endmenthol di ngs of B ookerand i t s pr edec es s or s . I n A lm endar ez - Torr es v. U ni t ed Stat es , 523 U . S. 224, 247 ( 1998) , the S u p rem e C o u rth eld th at th e e x ist en ce o f a p ri o r co n v ict ion is m ere lya se n tenc ing fa ctor, an d n o t a sep ara te elem en t of the o ff en se th at m u st be p lead ed in an ind ict m en t. In U nited S tates v. Moo re , 401 F. 3d 1220, 1224 ( 10t h C i r . 2005) , w e hel d t hatW e not e, how everJ us t i ce Thom as ’ s concurr i ng opi ni on i n Shepar d v. U ni t ed 6 Stat es , 544 U . S. 13, 27 ( 2005) ( T hom as , J . , concurr i ng) ( s t at i ng A lm endar ez - Torr es “has b e e n e ro d e d b yth e C o u rt’s s u b se q u e n t S ix th A m e n d m e n t ju risp ru d e n c e , an d a m a jo rity o f th e C o u rt n o w re c o g n ize s th a t A lm endar ez - Torr es w a s w ro n g ly d e c id e d ” ). No ri s t h e r e a n ye r r o ri n t h e f a c tth a tth e “ p r i o r ” c o n v i c t i o n c a me i n th e s a me 7 p ro c e e d in g a s th e “ s u b s e q u e n t” c o n v ic tio n . D eal v. U ni t ed Stat es , 5 0 8 U . S . 1 2 9 (19 9 3 ). -27- A lm endar ez - Torr es rem ains g o o d law af ter B oo ker. 6 T hi s ar gum entw oul d t hus have ha d no m er i ti f the pr i orconvi ct i on had come fr om a d iffe ren t cou rtan d jury . T h is argu m en t i s ev en w ea k er in this ca se, w h ere the s am e jury f o u n d th e f

a c to n w h i c h t h e s e n t e n c i n g e n h a n c e m e n tw a s b a s e d . T h e j u r y h a d , o b v i o u s l y, convi ct ed hi m on C ountI I I ; t her e w as no fur t herfi ndi ng forthe j uryt o m ake. 7

HA RTZ , J . , w r i t i n g P a r tI I I - D , j o i n e d b y M UR P HY , J .:

D W e ful l yj oi n Par t s I t hr ough I I I - C of J udge H ol l ow ay ’ s opi ni on, w hi ch di s pos es of a ll i ss u e s in S tev e M a d rid ’s a p p e a l, N o . 0 5 -2 0 9 0 , an d a ll b u t o n e iss u e in Jo se M a d rid J r.’ s a p p e a l, N o . 0 5 -2 0 8 8 . T h e re m a in in g iss u e is J o se M a d rid ’s c h a llen g e to th e re a so n a b len e ss o f h is s ent ence . W e have r ecogni zed tw o component s t o t he r eas onabl enes s of a s ent ence : ( 1) th e p ro c e d u re e m p lo y e d in im p o s in g s e n te n c e a n d (2 ) t h e le n g th o f th e s e n te n c e . See U n itedS ta tes v . Kris tl , 437 F. 3d 1054, 1055 ( 10th C i r . 2006) . T he def endantneed not-28-

o b je c t in d is tr ic t c o u rt to th e re a s o n a b le n e s s o f th e le n g th o f

a s e n te n c e . See U

ni t ed Stat es v. Lopez - F l or es , 4 4 4 F . 3 d 1 2 1 8 , 1 2 2 1 (20 0 6 ). B u t fail u re to o b ject t o the c o u rt ’s pr ocedur es f

o rf e its th e o b

jec tio n so th a t ap p e llate re v iew o f th o se p ro c e d u re s is lim ited to p la in e rr o r. S e e id . M r . M adr i d’ s chal l enge on appeal encompas s es both t he di s t r i ctcour t ’ s pr ocedur es and the l ength of hi s s ent ence . H i s pr ocedur al cl ai m i s thatthe courtfai l ed t o cons i der s ever al m i t i gat i ng ci r cumst ance s t hatdemanded a s hor t ers ent ence . A ts ent enci ng, ho w ever, M r. M adri d d i d n ot pr otes tthat the co urthad no texp l i ci t l yadd res sed t ho se circu m stan ce s w h en ith an d ed d o w n it s sen tenc e. T h u s, w e re v iew fo r plain e rror. O urr ece ntdeci s i on i n U ni t ed Stat es v. R ui

z - Ter r az as , N o. 06- 2138 ( Feb. 26, 2007) hel d thatw hen, as her e, t he di s t r i ctcour ti m pos es a s ent ence w i t hi n t he gui del i nes r ange, the courtm us tpr ovi de “onl y‘ a gene r al s t at ementnot i ng the appr opr i at e gui del i ne r ange, and how i tw as cal cul at ed. ’ ” Id . at11 ( quot i ng Lopez - F l or es , 444 F. 3d at1222 ( fur t her i nt ernal quot at i on m arks om i t t ed) ) . M r . M adr i d s ugges t s no fai l ur e i n t hi s r egar d. W hen thi s r equi r ementi s s at i s fi ed, “w e w i l l s t ep i n and fi nd err or[onl y ] w hen the r ecor d gi ves us r eas on t o t hi nk t hatouror di nary. . . pr es um pt i on thatthe di s t r i ctcour tknew and appl i ed the l aw i s m i s pl ace d. ” Id . at12–13. T hatpr es um pt i on i s a s t r ong one, part i cul ar l yw hen r evi ew i ng an expe r i ence d j udge on a mat t erthatfr equent l ycomes befor e hi m . W e ar e di s i ncl i ned t o r ej ectthe pr es um pt i on on pl ai n- err orr evi ew , w hen a s i mp l e o b

j e c t i o n i n d i s t r i c tc o u r tc o u l d h a v e r e s o l v e d a n ya mb i g u i t y . Ac c o r d i n g l y , we denyM r . M adr i d’ s chal l enge t o t he s ent enci ng pr ocedur e.-29-

A s fort he r eas onabl enes s of the s ent ence , w e r ecogni ze thati ti s qui t e har s h. B ut har s h s ent enci ng fordrug offe ns es i s cl ear l yfede r al pol i cy . I n t hatl i ghtw e hol d t hat M r. M a d ri d ’s s e n te n c e w a s n o t u n re a s o n a b le .
E n ter e d f

o r th e C o u rt

PerC ur i amC

f . U ni t ed Stat es v. Lopez - F l or es , 444 F. 3d 1218, 1222 ( 10th C i r . 2006) ( hol di ng 1 thatw her e “de fenda nthas notr ai s ed anys ubs t ant i al cont ent i ons conce r ni ng nonG ui del i nes § 3553( a) fac t or s and the di s t r i ctcour ti m pos es a s ent ence w i t hi n t he G u id e lin e s ra n g e , o u r p o st- B ookerpr ece dent s do notr equi r e the courtt o expl ai n on the rec o rd h o w the § 3 5 5 3 (a) fa ctors jus ti fythe s en tenc e” ). N o s . 0 5 -2 0 8 8 a n d N o . 0 5 -2 0 9 0 , U n itedS ta tes v . M

a drid , et a l. HOLL OW AY , C irc u it Ju d g e , d iss e n tin g in p a rt: Jo se M ad ri d co n tend s tha t his sen tenc e is u n rea so n ab le. W e h av e h eld, ho w ev er, th a t a g u id e lin e s -b a s e d s e n te n c e is p re s u m p tiv e ly re a s o n a b le . U n itedS ta tes v . Kris tl , 437 F. 3d 1050, 1054 ( 10t h C i r . 2006) . W e have al s o hel d thatthe s ent enci ng j udge i s not r equi r ed t o di s cus s , s peci fi cal l yand on the r ecor d, eac h of the s t atut oryfac t or s found i n 18 U . S. C . § 3553( a) . N evert hel es s , i n U ni t ed Stat es v. Sanchez

- Juar ez , w e h e ld th a t w her e a de fenda nthas r ai s ed a nonf r i vol ous ar gum entthatthe § 3553( a) fac t or s w arr anta bel ow - G ui del i nes s ent ence and has expr es s l yr eques t ed s u c h a s e n te n c e , w e m us tbe abl e t o dis cern f r om the r ecord that“the s ent enci ng j udge [di d] notr es ton the gui del i nes al one, but. . . cons i der[ed] w h e th e r th e g u ide lin e s s e n ten c e a c tu a lly c o n fo rm s, in th e c irc u m sta n c e s, to th e s ta tu to r

y fa c to rs .” 446 F. 3d 1109, 1117 ( 10t h C i r . 2006) ( quot i ng U ni t ed Stat es v. C unni ngham , 429 F. 3d 6 7 3 , 6 7 6 (7th C ir . 2 0 0 5 )) ( em p h asis ad d ed ; al terati o n s in o ri g inal). 1 I am convi nced thata nonfr i vol ous ar gum entw as m ade be l ow thatthe s ent ence w as un reas on able i n Jose M adri d’s ci rcum st ances. A pp el l ant’ s A pp . at62 -63. T hese circu m stan ce s are u n d ispu ted: Jo se h as w o rke d sinc e h e w as e leve n y ea rs old an d b ef o re th i s o f f e n s e h a d o p e r a t e d a f

a mi l yb u s i n e s s , th e J a n d J P r e s s u r e Wa s h . P S R a t1 4 . He w as a hi gh s chool gr aduat e i n 1996 and co- ow nerof the fa m i l ybus i nes s i n D ext er , N ew M e x ic o s in c e 1 9 9 3 . I

d. at15. H i s pr evi ous empl oy er , Sout hw es tC oncr et e, had s ai d t hat-2-

J o s e “ w a s a g o o d w o rk e r a n d h e w o u ld b e e lig ib le f o r r e -e m p lo ym e n t w ith th is c o m p a n y .” Id . a t 1 6 . J o s e h a d a ls o w o rk e d f o r L e p ri n o F o o d s in R o s w e ll f ro m 1 9 9 8 th ro u g h 2 0 0 0 . I d. Jo se w a s 2 7 y e a rs o ld a t th e tim e o f th e P S R a n d w a s m a rrie d w ith th re e c h ild re n : S and ra, si x y ears old; K assandra, t hree y ears old; and M anu el , on e y ear ol d, w ho has a br eathi ng di s or derr equi r i ng fr equenthos pi t al i zat i on. J os e had no c ri m in a l h is to ry p o in ts . H e h a d o n ly m in o r t ra f

f ic v io la tio n s a n d th e in s ta n t f ir s t- tim e d ru g o f

f e n s e . Id . at63. W hi l e the off

ens e of c onvi ct i on i s s er i ous , as i n Sanchez

- Juar ez , I f in d n o th in g in the r ecor d fr om w hi ch w e ca n di s cern w hetherthe s ent enci ng j udge r el i ed on the gui del i nes al one, orw hetherhe made t he mandat orydet erm i nat i on thatthe s ent ence bas ed on t he gui del i nes conform ed, underthe part i cul arci r cumst ance s of thi s i ndi vi dual d e f e n d a n t, t o th e sta tu to ryf a c to rs. I n o te th a t th e sta tu to rym in im u m se n ten c e f o r th is o f f e n s e i s t e n y e a r s . 2 1 U. S . C. § 8 4 1 ( b ) ( 1 ) ( A) . Ac c o r d i n g l y , I a m c o n v i n c e d th a twe sh o u ld re m a n d to th e d istric t co u rt w ith in stru c tio n s to v a c a te th e se n ten c e o f Jo se M a d rid s o thathe ca n be r e- s ent ence d.