Aft ere xa m i ni ngthe b r i efs an d the r ec o r ds, we ha ve c o nc l ude d tha t o r ala r g um en t * is u n n ec es sa ry . T h u s, th e a p p ea l is su b m itt ed on th e b rie fs a n d th e re c or d s. See F ED . R. A PP . P. 34(a)(2) (B). 

# United States Court of App eals

F or the Se ven th C ir cu it Ch i cago ,I l l i nois 6 0604 Subm i tte d M ar ch 3 , 20 10 * Deci ded M ar ch 4, 20 10 B efo re JO E L M . FL A U M , Cir cu i tJudg e M IC H A E L S. K A N N E , Cir cu i tJudg e IL A N A D IA M O N D R O V N E R, Cir cu i tJudg e N os. 08
- 4282 & 09
- 1218 UNI T E D S T AT E S O F AME R I C A, P la intif f-A pp ellee,
v. J E R O ME S C O T T & C H A R L E S L A W R E N C E , D efend a nts-A pp ella nts. A pp eal s fro m the U ni ted S tat es Dist ri ct Court f orthe N or ther n Dis tr i ct o fI l l i noi s, Eas te r n Di vi si o n. N os. 07 C R652-2, 07 C R652-3 Elaine E. Buckl o, Judg e .

O R D E R I n thi s co nsol i dated cr i m i nalappeal, J er om e S cot t a nd Charl es Law re nce a pp eal fro m r espect i ve cri m i nalj ud gm ents sente nci ng the m ea ch to pri son ter m s forco nspir acy to NONP RE C E DE NT I AL DI S PO S I T I ON To b e ci te d o nl y i n a cc o r dan ce wi th Fe d . R. A p p . P. 32 .1N os. 08
- 4282 & 09
- 1218 Page 2

po ss es s wi thi nt en t to di st r ibut e co ca i ne , 2 1 U. S
. C. § § 84 6, 8 41 ( a) ( 1) , 1 8 U. S
. C. § 2 , a nd conse cuti ve sente nces f orposs ess i on o fa fi re ar m i n re l ati on t o a drug tr affi cking cr i m e, 18 U
. S. C. § 924( c) ( 1) ( A )
. Defendants ar gue that be cause they w er e s ubj ect to a l onge r m andator y- m i ni m um se ntence und er§ 841( a) ( 1) , the dist ri ct c ourtsho uld nothave i mp o s e d a c o n s e c u t i v e fi v e - y e a rs e n t e n c e u n d e r§ 9 2 4 ( c ) ( 1 ) ( A)
. We a ffi r m. Sco tt and Law re nce were charg ed i n a m ult i ple
- count ind i ctm ent in connect i on with a g o ve r nm en t st i ngo per at i o n. A c o nfi den ti ali nf o r m an t appr o ac he d a no th erc o - defen dan t ( no t a par tyt o thi s appe al ) wi tha pl ant o r o b a dr ugwar eh o us e. T ha t co - defen dan t bro ught the pl an to S cot t a nd Law re nce a nd al lag re ed to as si st the info rm ant. Allthr ee wer e ev en tu al l y a r r es te d a nd c ha r g ed i n c o nne ct i o n wi ththe pl o t. Bo thS co tta nd L aw re n c e p lea d ed gu ilty in Se p te m b er 20 08 an d w er e s en te n c ed in s ep ar at e p ro c ee d in gs . Sc ot t w as se n te n c ed to 16 8 m on th s’ im p ris on m en t fo r th e d ru g off en se , belo w th e p ro p er ly cal cul ate d range o f18 8 t o 235 m onths, and a m andator y, co nsecuti ve 60 m onths und er § 924( c) ( 1) ( A )
. Lawrence was se ntenced to 12 4 m onths’ i m pri sonm ent forthe drug o ffense, bel ow the pro perl y c al cul ate d range o f13 5 t o 168 m onths, and a m andator y, co nsecuti ve 60 m ont hs un d er § 924(c)(1)( A ). Bec au se each de fend an t w as foun d to be resp ons ibl e for m ore th an5 k i l o g r ams o fc o ca i ne , the i rr es pec ti ve dr ugc o unt s ca r r i ed a m an dat o r y - m i ni m um sente nce o f12 0 m onths’ i m pri sonm ent. 2 1 U.S
. C. § 841(b) ( 1) ( A )
. Both acknow l edged at sente nci ng tha t a co nsecuti ve, m andator y- m ini m um se ntence on the gun char ge w as cor re ct. On app ealdefendants ar gue forthe fi rs t t i m e that the di str i ct c ourtwas i ncor re ct t o gi ve each ofthem a m andator y c onse cuti ve sente nce under § 924( c) ( 1) ( A ) ; theyr el y instea d on a n approac h adopted by the S eco nd Ci rcui t dete rm i ni ng tha t a di str i ct c ourtm ay not im p ose an ad d iti ona l con secu tive term of im p risonm en t for viol ating § 924(c) i f th e term woul d b e sh o r te rtha n the mandat o r y min i m um r equi r ed bya no th erc o unto fc o nv i ct i o n. S e eUn i t e dS t a t e s v . Wi l l i a ms , 558 F.3d 16 6, 16 8 (2 d C ir. 20 09 ); U nited Sta tes v. W hit ley, 52 9 F. 3d 150, 15 8 ( 2d Cir
. 20 08)
. The de fen dan ts di d no t r ai se thi s i ss ue b efo r e th e di st r i ctc o ur t an d the g o ve r nm en t ar g ue s th atthe de fen dan ts wai ve d the a r g um en t byf ai l i ngt o do s o . We di sa g r ee . T o wa i v e a ni s s u e i na c r i mi n a lma t t e r, a d e fe n d a n tmu s ti n t e n t i o n a l l y r e l i n q u i s ha kn o wn rig h t, Jo hn son v. Z erbst, 304 U .S. 45 8, 46 4 (1 93 8); U ni t e d S t at e s v. Acox, N o . 0 9
- 1 2 5 8 , 2 0 1 0 WL 43 16 98 , at *1 (7t hC ir. Feb . 9, 201 0); U nite d States v. G arci a , 580 F.3d 52 8, 54 1 (7 th C ir. 20 09 ). B ut w e con stru e w aiver princ iples l iberall y i n crim inal m atters to av oid u nn eces sary w aiv er . See U nited Sta tes v. Fa rm er, 543 F.3d 363 , 372 (7th C ir. 2008); U nited Sta tes v. Sum ner, 26 5 F
. 3d 53 2, 5 39 ( 7th Ci r . 2 00 1)
. Al th o ugh b o thde fen dan ts di d a ckno wl edg e ats en te nc i ng th e m an dat o r y, c o ns ec ut i ve na tu r e o f§ 92 4( c) ( 1) ( A), s uchwas the unde r st an di ngo ftheN os. 08
- 4282 & 09
- 1218 Page 3

sta tute at that ti m e. Defendants co uld nothave i ntenti onal l y r el i nquished the i r ri ght t o c ha l l e ng e the c o ns e c ut i v e , ma nd a t o r y s e nt e nc e i fthe y the n b e l i e v e d i tf o r e c l o s e d. Eve n s o , de fen dan ts ’ a r g um en t ca nno t su cc ee d. In U nited Sta tes v. E a ster, we re centl y r ej ecte d the S eco nd Ci rcui t’ s a pp ro ach and j oined the m aj or i ty ofci rcui ts that have u p h e l d th e i mpo s i t i o no fa ma n d a t o r y, c o n s e c u t i v e s e n t e n c e u n d e r§ 9 2 4 ( c ) ( 1 ) ( A) irre sp ec tiv e o f th e o th er m an d at or y-m in im u m se n te n c es to w h ich th e d efe n d an t is su bj ec t. See U nited Sta tes v. E a ster, 553 F.3d 51 9, 52 5 (7 th C ir. 20 09 ); see also U nited Sta tes v. M itten , 59 2 F. 3d 767, 77 8- 79 ( 7th Ci r. 20 10) ( re affi rm i ng E a ster ). W e d ec lin e t o re vis it th e is su e t od ay . The dis tr i ct c ourt ’ s o rderi s AFFI RM ED
.