2005 D e c i sion s O p inion s of the U nit e d S t at e s C our t of Appe al s for the Thir d C ir c uit 6-27-2005 

# U SA v . W alk e r P r e c e de nt i al or N on-P r e c e de nt i al : N on-P r e c e de nt i al D ocke t N o . 02-2168

F o llow thi s and a dd it ion al work s at : http://d i git alc ommon s .l a w . vi ll anova . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2005

Thi s de c i sion i s br ou ght t o you for f r e e and ope n a c c e s s b y the O p inion s of the U nit e d S t at e s C our t of Appe al s for the Thir d C ir c uit at V i ll anova U nive r sity S choo l of L a

w Di git al Reposit ory

. It h as be e n a c c ept e d for inclusion in 2005 D e c i sion s b y an authori z e d a dmini s tr at or of V i ll anova U nive r sity S choo l of L a

w Di git al Reposit ory

. F or mor e inform at ion, p le as e c ont a ct Be n j amin . C arl s on@l a

w . vi ll anova . e du . Re c omme nde d C it at ion " U SA v . W alke r " (2005). 2005 D e cisio n s . P ape r 965. http://d i git alc ommon s .l a

w . vi ll anova . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2005/965NOT P RE CE DE NT I AL UN I TED STATES CO UR T OF A PP EALS F O R T H E T H IR D C IR C U IT 

### Nos : 02- 2168/ 03- 1528 UN I TE D S TA TE S O F A ME RI CA ,

v. AHMED WALKER, a/k/a A m elio s, a/k/ aA mmo Ah m ed Wa lker , Appe l l ant

______________________________ A p p ea l from the U n it ed S tat es D istri ct C o u rt f o r th e M id d le D istric t o f P e n n sy lv a n ia ( D . C . N o. 00- cr - 00300) D i s tr i ctJ udge: Sy l vi a H . R ambo Subm i t t ed U nderT hi r d C i r cui tL A R 34. 1( a)

on Sept ember28, 2004 B efor e: R O T H , B A R R Y and G A R T H , C i r cui tJ udges

( fi l ed: J une 27, 2005 )2 OPI NI ON R O T H , C i r cui tJ udge: Th i s c a s e c o n c e r n s Ah me d W a l k e r ’ s d i r e c ta p p e a l f r o m c o n v i c t i o n s a r i s i n g f r o m a s even c ounts econd s uper s edi ng i ndi ctm enti s s ued on A ugus t8, 2001. T he i ndi ctm ent char ged W al keras fol l ow s : count1 - - cons pi r acyt o pos s es s , us e, carry , br andi s h, and di s char ge fi r earm s i n fur ther ance of and dur i ng and i n r el at i on t o drug tr aff i cki ng, 18 U .S .C . § 9 2 4 (c )(1 )(A ) (I), (II ), (III) a n d § 9 2 4 (o ); c o u n t 3 -- p o ss e ss io n o f a f ire a rm in fu rth era n ce o f d rug tr af fick ing , 1 8 U . S . C . § 9 2 4 (c)(1)(A ) an d § 9 2 4 (c)(1)(C )(I ); co u n t 4 -- pos s es s i ng, us i ng, carr y i ng, br andi s hi ng, and di s char gi ng a fi r earm i n fur ther ance of drug tr af fick ing an d d u ri n g an d in relati o n to d rug tr af fick ing , 1 8 U . S . C . § 9 2 4 (c)(1)(A )(I ), (I I) , (I II ) and § 9 24 (c) (1) (C )( I) ; cou nt 5 - - cr i m i nal conspir acyt o d i stri bu t e and po sses s w ith the in tent to d istri b u te co n tr o ll ed su b stan ce s, 2 1 U . S . C . § 8 4 6 ; and co u n t 6 -- d is tr ib u tio n a n d p o s s e s s io n w ith in te n t to d is tr ib u te c o n tr o lle d s u b s ta n c e s , 2 1 U .S .C . § 841( a) ( 1) . A l though t he governm entbr oughta s even c ounti ndi ctm ent , A hm ed W al ker w a s o n ly ch a rg e d in c o u n ts 1 th ro u g h 6 . C o u n t 2 w a s d ro p p e d b yth e g o v e rn m e n t. A ddi t i onal l y , w i th r egar d t o count s 2, 3, 4 and 6, the governm ental s o char ged under18 U . S. C . § 2. W al kerw as convi ct ed on count s 1, 3, 4, 5, and 6. A ft erw ar ds , he w as s ent ence d. W al kerchal l enges hi s convi ct i on and s ent enci ng. T hi s appea l fol l ow ed. F o r th e re a so n s s tate d b e lo w , w e w ill a f f irm W a lk e r’s c o n v ictio n , v a c a te h is3

sen tenc e, i n p art, an d rem an d fo r a rese n tenc ing co n sist en t w ith U n it ed S tat es v . B o o k er, 5 4 3 U . S . __ , 1 2 5 S . C t. 7 3 8 (20 0 5 ).

I . F act ual B ackground an d P roce dural H i s t ory A s the fa ct s ar e w el l know n t o the part i es , w e gi ve onl ya br i ef de s cr i pt i on of the fac t s and pr ocedur al pos tur e of the ca s e. T he under l y i ng event s of thi s cas e i nvol ved a J ul y18, 2000, gunfi ghti n L ebanon, Penns y l vani a, and otherevent s overthe cour s e of J ul y2000. T he governm ental l eged thatthe gunfi ghtar os e fr om di s put es among t hos e tr aff i cki ng i n drugs . W al kerw as i ndi ct ed forthe cr i m es des cr i bed above . A j uryw as empanel ed and on February28, 2002, the j uryr eturned gui l tyver di ct s agai ns tW al keron al l count s , i . e. , count s 1, 3, 4, 5, a n d 6 . W a lk e r f

ile d a p o s t- tr ia l m o tio n f o r a n e w tr ia l. T h is m o tio n w a s d e n ie d . W al kerw as s ent ence d as fol l ow s : 240 m onths on count1, and 321 mont hs on eac h of count s 5 and 6 - - w i th al l thr ee s ent ence s runni ng concurr ent l y , 60 m onths on c o u n t 3 (ru n n in g c o n se c u tiv e lyw ith c o u n ts 1 , 5 , an d 6 ), an d 3 0 0 m o n th s o n c o u n t 4 ( runni ng cons ecut i vel yw i th count s 1, 3, 5 and 6) . T he t ot al t erm forw hi ch he w as t o be im p ri s o n e d f

o llo w in g s e n te n c in g w a s 6 8 1 m o n th s . T h e D istric t C o u rt’s s e n ten c in g d e ter m in a tio n s m a d e u se o f f a c ts n o t ch a rg e d in the i ndi ctm entand notfound bythe j ury . C i t i ng A ppr endi v. N ew J er s ey , 530 U . S. 466 (20 0 0 ), W alke r objected at th e ti m e o f se n tenc ing an d h as a g ain a sserted this i ssu e h ereT he U ni t ed St at es Supr eme C our t ’ s B ookerdeci s i on i ndi cat ed thatthe 1 “re aso n ab lene ss stan d ard ” a p p li ed n o t m ere lyto ap p ell ate rev iew o f d istri ct co u rt d e p a rtu re s f

ro m th e g u id e lin e s, b u t ra th e r, th is s tan d a rd a p p lied “ a c ro ss th e b o a rd ” to a ll appel l at e r evi ew of di s tr i ctcourtgui del i nes det erm i nat i ons . B ooker , 125 S. C t . at765 ( B r ey er , J . ) ; i d. at767 ( “The cour t s of appe al s r evi ew s ent enci ng deci s i ons for u n rea so n ab lene ss.”). 4 o n d ire c t ap p e a l. O n th is g ro u n d , W a lk e r c h a llen g e s th e se n ten c e s im p o se d u n d e r c o u n ts 1 , 5 a n d 6 . A d d iti o n a lly , W a lk e r a rg u e s th a t th e e v id e n c e is in su f f icie n t to su p p o rt h is convi ct i on on count4. W al kerar gues thati n appl y i ng the Sent enci ng G ui del i nes , the D i s tr i ctC our tm i s t akenl yi ncl uded a j uveni l e convi ct i on. L as t l y , W al kerar gues that a lth o u g h h e m a d e a tim e lyo b jec tio n a t trial a g a in st g o v e rn m e n t w itn e ss e s u sin g h is ni ckname “A m m o, ” hi s obj ect i on w as deni ed, and the us e of hi s ni ckname w as s uffi ci ent l ypr ej udi ci al r equi r i ng r ever s al of hi s convi ct i ons on count s 1, 3, and 4.

I I . Juri s di ct i on and St andards of R evi ew W e have j ur i s di ct i on t o cons i derthe appe al s of W al ker ’ s convi ct i ons and the s e n te n c e s im p o s e d . S e e 2 8 U .S .C . § 1 2 9 1 a n d 1 8 U .S .C . § 3 7 4 2 (a ). In B o o k e r, th e S u p re m e C o u rt o f th e U n ited S tate s h e ld th a t co u rts o f a p p e a ls sh o u ld rev iew d istri ct co u rtd ep artures fro m the s en tenc ing g u idelines u n d er a rea so n ab lene ss stan d ard . B o o k er, 12 5 S . C t. at 76 5 (B rey er, J. ). H o w ev er, th at st an d ard 1 of review w as l i m i t ed to app el l at e revi ew foll ow i ng res entenci ng aft er s entences ar e fi rs t v a c a ted b e c a u se th e ym ista k e n lya p p lied p re -B o o k e r la w in c o n tra v e n tio n to th e S ix thW e, of cour s e, i m pl yno cr i t i ci s m of the D i s tr i ctJ udge, w ho fol l ow ed the l aw and 2 pr ocedur e i n eff

ectatthe t i m e of W al ker ’ s s ent enci ng. T he D avi s courtnot ed, appar ent l yi n di ctum , that“[w ] her e a de fenda ntpr es erved 3 a B ookercl ai m befor e the di s tr i ctcourt , w e w i l l r evi ew forharm l es s err orunder Fed. R . C r i m . P. 52( a) . ” U ni t ed St at es v. D avi s , 407 F. 3d 162, 164 n. 2 ( 3d C i r . 2005) ( en

--- - b an c). B u t see U n it ed S tat es v . B o o k er, 54 3 U . S . , 1 2 5 S . C t. 7 3 8 , 7 6 9 (B rey er, J. ) (“It is a ls o b e c a u s e , i n cas es noti nvolvi ng a Si xth A m endm ent

vi olat i on , w hetherr es ent enci ng i s w arr ant ed orw hetheri tw i l l i ns t ead be s uffi ci entt o r evi ew a s ent ence for re a so n a b len e ss m a yd e p e n d u p o n a p p lica tio n o f th e h a rm les s-e rro r d o c trin e .”) ( e m p h a sis added) . W i th r egar d t o Fr eddi e J . B ooker ’ s Si xth A m endmentcl ai m , i tappea r s that nei therthe Supr eme C our tof the U ni t ed St at es northe Seventh C i r cui t( i n pr i or pr ocee di ngs ) appl i ed harm l es s err ordoctr i ne, butr atherboth r emanded as a mat t erof ri g h t. 5 A m endmentas under s t ood pos t - B ooker . I d. at769 ( B r ey er , J . ) ( hol di ng that“i f the 2 sen tenc e c o m es b ef

o re the C o u rto f A p p ea ls fo r rev iew [a fter d istri ct co u rtrese n tenc ing ], th e C o u rt o f

A p p e a ls s h o u ld a p p lyth e re v iew sta n d a rd s s e t f o rth in th is o p in io n .”). In th is ci r cui t , i ti s now es t abl i s hed pol i cythats ent ence s appl y i ng pr e- B ooker law a re v a c a ted if th e d e f e n d a n t o b

je c te d a t tr ia l o r a t s e n te n c in g a n d re a s s e rt e d th e a rg u m e n t o n a p p e a l. See U ni t ed St at es v. O r daz, 398 F. 3d 236, 239 ( 3d C i r . 2005) ( hol di ng that , i n l i ghtof B ookerdeci s i on, a B ookeri s s ue ar gued butr ej ect ed bythe di s tr i ctcourtpr e- B ookerand pr es erved on appe al “i s bes tdet erm i ned bythe D i s tr i ctC our ti n the fi r s ti ns t ance [on r emand] ”) . L i kew i s e, s ent ence s appl y i ng pr e- B ooker l aw ar e gene r al l yvaca t ed i f the

3 B oo ker cl ai m i s m ade f or the fir stt i m e on dir ectapp eal . S ee U nit ed S t at es v. D avis , 40 7 F . 3d 16 2, 16 5-66 (3d C i r. 20 05 ) ( en b anc) ( orderi ng rem and for r esent encing b ecause a B ookercl ai m , r oot ed i n t he Si xth A m endmentori n the mi s t aken be l i ef thatthe U ni t ed St at es Sent enci ng G ui del i nes w er e mandat ory , fi r s tas s ert ed on appe al i s pl ai n err or ) ; s ee6

al s o G r i ffi th v. K entucky , 479 U . S. 314, 328 ( 1987) ( “[A ] new rul e forthe conduc tof cr i m i nal pr os ecut i ons i s t o be appl i ed r etr oact i vel yt o al l cas es . . . pendi ng on di r ect re v ie w o r n o t yet f

in a l . . ..” ). W i th r es pectt o W al ker ’ s s uffi ci encyof the evi dence cl ai m , w e “musts us t ai n t he ver di ctof a j uryi f ther e i s s ubs t ant i al evi dence , vi ew ed i n the l i ghtm os tfavor abl e t o the G overnm ent , t o uphol d t he j ury ’ s deci s i on. ” See U ni t ed St at es v. C arr , 25 F. 3d 1194, 1 2 0 1 (3 d C ir . 1 9 9 4 ) ( q u o tin g U n ite d S ta te s v . C a s p e r, 9 5 6 F .2 d 4 1 6 , 4 2 1 (3 d C ir .1 9 9 2 )) . L as t l y , w i th r egar d t o t he D i s tr i ctC our t ’ s deci s i on t o admi tcert ai n evi dence - - t he u s e o f W a lk e r’ s n ic k n a m e “ A m m o ” b yg o v e rn m e n t w itn e s s e s -- “ [ w e ] r e v ie w . . . a di s tr i ctcourt ’ s rul i ng t o admi torexcl ude evi dence , i f pr emi s ed on a pe r m i s s i bl e vi ew of the l aw . . . onl yforan abus e of di s cr et i on. ” See U ni t ed St at es v. Sokol ow , 91 F. 3d 396, 4 0 2 (3 d C ir . 1 9 9 6 ).

I I I . D i s cus s i on A. W a l k e r ’ s Ap p r e n d i / Bo o k e r Cl a i m. In W a lk e r’s o p e n in g b rie f , h e m a k e s a n A p p re n d i ar g u m e n t (B o o k e r in su p p lem en tal b ri ef

ing ) w ith reg ard to h is sen tenc ing u n d er c o u n ts 5 a n d 6 . T h e jury ’s v e rd ict f o rm f o r e a c h c o u n t co n v icte d h im o f th e tw o a lleg e d c rim e s a n d sp e c if ica lly f o u n d wi th r e g a r d t o e a c h c o u n tth a tth e q u a n t i tyo f c o c a i n e b a s e i n v o l v e d wa s 5 0 g r a ms orm or e. A ts ent enci ng, the D i s tr i ctJ udge made us e of f i ndi ngs i nvol vi ng otherdrugs7

and amount s of coc ai ne bas e the j urydi d notexpr es s l ypas s upon. W e agr ee thatthi s w as pl ai n err orunderB ookerand vac at e the s ent ence forcount s 5 and 6. See D avi s , 407 F. 3d at164 ( or der i ng r es ent enci ng as pl ai n err ori f the di s tr i ctcourtengage d i n j udi ci al fac t fi ndi ng and conc om i t ant l y“i m pos ed a s ent ence gr eat erthan the maxi m um author i zed by th e f a c ts f o u n d b yth e ju ry a lo n e ” ). I n s uppl ement al br i efi ng, W al keras s ert s forthe fi r s tt i m e an A ppr endi / B ooker v iolati o n o f h is Six th A m en d m en t r igh ts w ith reg ard to C o u n t 1. I n the D istri ct C o u rt ’s s ent enci ng pr ocee di ngs , the D i s tr i ctJ udge, fol l ow i ng the Sent enci ng G ui del i nes , gr ouped count s 1, 5, and 6 t ogether . W i th r egar d t o count s 5 and 6, the j udge us ed a c r i m i nal hi s t orycat egoryof I I and an of fens e l evel of 38. T hi s pr ovi ded a r ange of 262 t o 327 m o n ths, w h ere the s tatu torym ax im u m fo r ea ch co u n t w as li fe im p ri so n m en t. W ith reg ard t o count s 5 and 6, the j udge s ent ence d W al kert o 321 m onths on eac h countrunni ng c o n c u rre n tly , an a m o u n t les s th a n th e sta tu to rym a x im u m , b u t w ith in th e g u id e lin e s. W ith reg ard to co u n t 1, ho w ev er, th e jud g e se n tenc ed at th e statuto rym ax im u m : 24 0 m o n ths -- an amountl es s than thatpr ovi ded forunderthe appl i cabl e gui del i nes r ange. A s expl ai ned above, on r emand, the D i s tr i ctC our tw i l l r edet erm i ne the appl i cabl e gui del i nes r ange f or count s 5 and 6. Such a r edet erm i nat i on m ayequal l yappl yt o count1. A nd s uch a red eterm ination m igh t veryw ell lead to a g u idelines ran g e b elow the 2 4 0 m o n th statutory m axi m um . G i ven thatthe thr ee c ount s w er e or i gi nal l ygr ouped t ogether , and gi ven that the j udge bel i eved thats he w as w i thoutany di s cr et i on t o s ent ence anyw her e butattheS im il arly , b ef o re se n tenc ing , W alke r objected to the P rese n tenc e R ep o rt ’s 4 enhanc ementfora l eade r s hi p r ol e. T hi s ar gum entw as br oughtt o ouratt ent i on onl yi n a s uppl ement al br i ef. C f. D avi s , 407 F. 3d at165 ( “B ookerappl i es t o al l cas es pendi ng on di r ectr evi ew . ”) . I tw as notputforw ar d i n W al ker ’ s openi ng br i ef. B eca us e w e have vaca t ed the s ent ence s forcount s 1, 5, and 6, thi s courtneed notand does notpas s upon w h e th e rth e l e a d e r s h i p r o l e e n h a n c e m e n ti s i t s e l f a B o o k e rv i o l a t i o n . M o r e i m p o r t a n t l y, befor e rul i ng on s uch a que s t i on, w e w oul d have the bene fi tof a pos t - B ookeropi ni on of the D i stri ctC ou rtadd res si ng this preci se quest i on on these specifi c facts i n the fi rs t i ns t ance . C f. D avi s , 407 F. 3d at165 ( “[W ] e w oul d be us urpi ng the di s cr et i onarypow er g ra n ted to th e d istric t co u rts b yB o o k e r if w e w e re to a ss u m e th a t th e d istric t co u rt w o u ld have gi ven [de fenda nt ] the s ame se nt ence pos t - B ooker . ”) ( quot i ng U ni t ed St at es v. O liv e r, 3 9 7 F .3 d 3 6 9 , 3 8 0 n .3 (6 th C ir .2 0 0 5 )) . 8 statu torym ax im u m fo r co u n t 1 (b ec au se th e g u idelines ran g e e x ce ed ed the s tatu tory m axi m um ) , w e agr ee w i th W al kerand vac at e the s ent ence forcount1 as pl ai n err or . See 4 D a v is, 4 0 7 F .3 d a t 1 6 6 (o rd e rin g re se n ten c in g a s p lain e rro r if th e d istric t co u rt a c ted in th e m is ta k e n b e lie f

th a t th e U n ite d S ta te s S e n te n c in g G u id e lin e s w e re m a n d a to ry). B . W alker’s R em aini n g L ega l C l aim s. W e d e a l w ith th e re m a in in g c la im s s u m m a ri ly. W al kerhas t aken the pos i t i on thatther e i s a “l ack of anyevi dence of drug tr aff i cki ng cr i m es dur i ng [the r el evant ] per i od. ” Ther efor e count4 s houl d be overtur ned fori ns uffi ci entevi dence . W e di s agr ee. T h e j u r y h e a r d th e f

o l l o w i n g c o l l o q u y: G overnm ent : A ft erthe Lebanon V i l l age s hoot i ng, w hi ch w as J ul y18th of 2000,

di d y ou have a conver s at i on w i th A hm ed W al keraboutthat s hoot i ng? S ill s: Y e s, I ta lk e d to h im b e f o re a b o u t it . G overnm ent : W hen y ou t al ked t o A hm ed W al keraboutthats hoot i ng, w hatdi d he

t el l y ou?9

S ill s: H e to ld m e th a t ith a p p e n e d o v e r a n a rg u m e n t. G o v e rn m e n t: A n a rg u m e n t ab o u t w h a t? S i l l s : D ru g t e r r i t o r y.

.... G o v e rn m e n t: W h a t d id h e tell y o u h e d id d u rin g th a t sh o o to u t. Si l l s : H e s ai d he w as s hoot i ng atthe otherpeopl e. T hi s and otherevi dence i n t he r ecor d i s enough t o s us t ai n the j ury ’ s convi ct i on on count4. W alke r arg u es th at i n ap p ly ing the S en tenc ing G u idelines , the D istri ct C o u rt m i s t akenl yi ncl uded a j uveni l e convi ct i on. Speci fi cal l y , W al ker ’ s br i ef a r gues the convi ct i on gave r i s e t o “a r ehabi l i t at i on pr ogr am, w i th angerm anage m entcl as s es . . . for its p a rticip a n ts a n d w a s o n lya lim ited se c u rityp ro g ra m . N o e v id e n c e w a s o f f e re d to reb u t th is. ” W alke r cit es n o sp ec ifi c g u ideline o r st atute tha t th e D istri ct C o u rt m isin terp re ted o r a p p lied . W e u n d e rsta n d h im to m e a n th a t th e D istric t C o u rt e rre d in a ss e ss in g tw o c rim in a l h isto ryp o in ts f o r th is 1 9 9 7 c o n v ictio n b e c a u se th e c o n v ictio n d id n o t g iv e rise to a c tu a l co n f in e m e n t. S e e U .S .S .G . § § 4 A 1 .1 , 4 A 1 .2 . T h is p o sitio n is r efut ed byD efe ndant ’ s and hi s att orney ’ s admi s s i ons . T he fol l ow i ng col l oquyt ook pl ace ats ent enci ng: D efen dan t ’s A t t orney : W as i tl ock ed d oo rs ? D efen dan t : Y es, l i m i t ed secu ri tyI guess. D efe ndant ’ s A t t orney : I tw as s ecur ed. N e ith e r in p ro c e e d in g s b e f o re th e D istric t C o u rt n o r b e f o re u s h a s W a lk e r e x p re ss ly as s ert ed thathe w as notconfi ned forhi s 1997 convi ct i on. T hi s cl ai m has no m er i t ; the D i stri ctC ou rt ’s determ i nati on w as not unreasonab l e. S ee al so O r daz , 398 F. 3d at24110

( “[W ] e hol d t hatthe D i s tr i ctC our t ’ s det erm i nat i on r egar di ng the fa ct s of O r daz’ s pr i or convi ct i ons di d notvi ol at e the Si xth A m endment , notw i ths t andi ng thatthe s ent ence w as b a s e d , in p a rt , o n f

a c ts f o u n d b ya ju d g e ra th e r t h a n a ju ry.” ). L as t l y , W al kerar gues thatthe D i s tr i ctC our t ’ s deni al of hi s m ot i on i n l i m i ne, th e r e b ya l l o wi n g wi tn e s s e s ( a n d th e g o v e rn me n t ) t o r e f e rt o h i m b yh i s n i c k n a me “A m m o, ” w as s uffi ci ent l ypr ej udi ci al w arr ant i ng r ever s al on count s 1, 3, 4. W e s ee no err ororabus e of di s cr et i on. N ordoes W al kerar gue thatw i tnes s es w er e maki ng us e of a ni ckname notknow n t o t hem atthe t i m e of the under l y i ng event s ( orthe eve nt s about w hi ch theyw er e t es t i fy i ng) , butl earned forthe fi r s tt i m e i n ant i ci pat i on ori n pr epar at i on fo r tri al or rev ea led to them fo r th e f ir st t im e b ythe g o v ern m en t. H ere , w h ere W alke r’s ni ckname w as the name w i tnes s es w er e ac tual l yfami l i arw i th, i ti s t i ed t o the t as k of pr oper l yi dent i fy i ng the al l eged c r i m i nal . W i th r egar d t o i dent i fi cat i on, w i tnes s es m us tbe al l ow ed t o t el l the fa ct s theyactual l yknow , and t o i dent i fythe w i tnes s bythe name they k n e w . C f. O ld C h ief

v . U n ited S tate s, 5 1 9 U .S . 1 7 2 , 1 8 9 (1 9 9 7 ) (“ A p a rtyse e m in g ly re sp o n sib le f

o r c lo a k in g so m e th in g h a s re a so n f o r a p p re h e n sio n , an d th e p ro se c u tio n w ith i t s bur den of pr oof m ayprudent l ydemur a ta def ens e r eques tt o i nt erruptthe fl ow of evi dence t el l i ng the s t or y i n the us ualw ay . ”) (em p h asis ad d ed ).

I V . C oncl usi on F or the reasons st at ed ab ov e, w e w i l l affirm W al ker’ s conv i ct i on on al l cou nts ,vaca t e hi s s ent ence w i th r egar d t o count s 1, 5, and 6, and r emand fora r es ent enci ng

co n sist en t w ith U n it ed S tat es v . B o o k er, 54 3 U . S . __ , 1 2 5 S . C t. 7 3 8 (20 0 5 ).