# U ni te d S ta te s Co ur t of A pp ea ls

For the Eig hth Circu it

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ _

No. 1 1- 36 91

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ _

Uni te d S ta te s o f Am eri ca

ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll l Pla in ti

ff - App el le e

v.

Ro ge r Bru ce Bu gh

ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll l Defe nd

an t - Ap pe ll an t

__ __ __ __ __ __

App eal fro m

Uni te d S ta te s Di st ric t Co ur t

fo r th e Dis tri ct of M in ne so ta - St. Pa ul

__ __ __ __ __ __

Su bm it te d: Octo be r 18 , 20 12

Fil ed : Dec em

be r 20 , 20 12

__ __ __ __ __ __

Befo re MUR PHY, BYE, and SHEPHERD, Circ ui t J ud ge s.

__ __ __ __ __ __

SHEPHERD, Cir cu it Ju dg e.

Bas ed on th e sa le of a ha nd gu n to a co nf id en ti al in fo rm an t, a jury co nv ic t e d

Ro ge r Bu gh of be in g a fel on i n p o s s e s s i o n of a fir earm

, a vi ol at io n of 18 U.S.C.

§§ 92 2( g) (1 ) an d 92 4( e)(1 ). The d i s t r ic t co ur t 1 se nt en ced Bu gh to 18 8 m on th s

im pr is on m en t pu rs ua nt to th e Arm ed Care er Cri m in al Act be cau se Bu gh ha d

1 The Hon or ab le Pat ric k J. Sch il tz

, Uni te d St at es Dis tri ct Ju dg e fo r th e Dis tri ct

of Mi nn es ot a.pr ev io us ly be en c o n v ic te d of at le as t th ree vi ol en t fel on ie s. See 18 U.S.C.

§ 92 4( e)(1 ). Bu gh no w ap pe al s, rai si ng s e v e r a l arg um en ts rel at ed to th e

Gov ern m en t’s i n v e s t ig at io n, th e de st ru ct io n of ev id en ce, an d hi s se nt en ce. W e

affi rm

.

I.

In lat e 2 01 0, Ro ge r Bu gh m et Troy N owl an d t hr ou gh a m ut ua l fri en d kn own

as “ Mi ch ael T.” W hi le Mi ch ael T. an d Bu gh were us in g th e dr ug s Nowl an d ha d so ld

th em

, Nowl an d ex pr es se d co nc ern fo r hi s s a f et y

. He was wor rie d th at as a dr ug

de al er he co ul d be th e ta rg et of a ro bb ery b ecau se of th e la rg e am ou nt s of cas h an d

dr ug s he carr ie d. Heari ng th is

, B u g h o f f ered to se ll Nowl an d a fir earm whi ch

be lo ng ed to hi s fo rm er gi rlf rie nd fo r $5 00

. Alt ho ug h Nowl an d ag reed to bu y th e gu n,

he la te r de ci de d a gu n was un ne ces sa ry

. As a res ul t, whe n Bu gh cal le d Nowla nd to

se t u p t he sal e, Nowl an d d ecl in ed

.

App ro xi m at el y two week s la te r, O f f i c er Mar k Nels on , a m em be r of St . P au l,

Mi nn e s o t a ’s na rco ti cs un it

, arre st ed Nowl an d fo r di st rib ut in g m et ha m ph et am in e.

Offi cer Nels on to ld Nowl an d th at if he pr ov id ed th ree cri m in al ta rg et s, th en Nowl an d

wou ld rece iv e fav or ab le se nt en ci ng an d ch arg in g co ns id erat io ns

. 2 Afte r ag reei ng to

wor k wit h th e Gov ern m en t, Nowl an d of fere d Bu gh as a po te nt ia l ta rg et

. Eve n th ou gh

he ha d ne ve r he ard of Bu g h

, O f f i cer Nels on was in te res te d be cau se of Bu gh ’s

cri m in al hi st or y an d acce ss to a gu n. W hi le Offi cer Nels on was re c o r d i n g th e

co nv ers at io n, Nowl an d cal le d Bu gh on th e da y of hi s arre st

, Ja nu ary 6, 20 11

. Bu gh

an swe red an d ag reed to se ll th e gu n. Alt ho ug h he co ul d no t de li ve r th e gu n th at da y

be cau se he di d n ot ha ve a car, Offi cer Nel so n d eci de d t o c on ti nu e p ur su in g B ug h.

2 Nowl an d was ul ti m at e l y ne ve r ch arg ed fo r hi s il le ga l co nd uc t on Ja nu ary 6

, 20 11 , bec au se of h is work as a co nf id en ti al in fo rm an t.

-2

-O n J an ua ry 11

, 20 11

, Offi cer Nels on

, al on g wit h ot he r la w en fo rcem en t ag en ts

,

m et Nowl an d at a m ot el i n S t

. P a ul to se t up th e sa le

. Onc e th e op erat io n was in

pl ace, Nowl an d cal le d Bu gh an d as ke d hi m to de li ve r th e gu n to th e m ot el

. Bu gh ha d

se en th e gu n si nc e th ey la st sp ok e, an d t o l d Nowl an d th at it was “ ni cer th an [h e]

th ou gh t.” It was a br an d ne w, “ real

. . . hi gh sh ot ” gu n wit h a t wo- an d- a-h al f in ch

ba rrel

, acco rd in g to Bu gh

. Bu gh ag reed to se ll th e gu n, bu t ha d to ge t it fro m hi s

fo rm er gi rlf

rie nd

. In th e en d, Bug h di d no t br in g th e gu n to Nowl an d th at da y

. Not

on ly di d Bu gh ha ve a m eet in g wit h hi s pa ro l e o f f i c e r t ha t m or ni ng

, hi s fo rm er

gi rlf rie nd ne ve r br ou gh t hi m th e gu n. Afte r tryin g to se t up th e sa le fo r se ve ral ho ur s,

Offi cer Nels on an d th e ot h e r o f f ic ers de ci de d to en d th e op erat io n fo r th e da y

, bu t

co nt in ue d p ur si ng Bu gh

.

Afte r su bs eq ue nt co nv ers at io ns be twee n Bu gh an d No wlan d, Offi cer Nel so n

pl an ne d an ot he r op erat io n whi ch wou ld ta ke pl ace ne ar a ga s st at io n on Ja nu ary 19

,

20 11

. W he n Nowl an d cal le d Bu gh to pu rch as e th e gu n, Bu gh di d no t an swe r. Bu gh

ret ur ne d Nowl an d’s cal l a few m in ut es la te r an d to ld Nowl an d he was “ tryin g to ge t

a

. . . rid e ov er to ” hi s fo rm er gi rlf rie nd ’s ho us e, so “ ho ld ti gh t.” His fo rm er gi rlf rie nd

st il l h a d t h e g u n, bu t Bu gh ha d no way of pi ck in g th e gu n up fro m he r ho us e or

tra ns po rti ng it to Nowl an d. Afte r fiv e ph on e cal ls be twee n Bu gh an d Nowl an d, Bu gh

was un ab le to ge t th e gu n or fin d tra ns po rta ti on

. As a res ul t, Offi cer Nels on en de d

th e o pe rat io n fo r th e d ay

.

The ne xt da y

, Offi cer Nels on an d ot he r of fic ers ag ai n pu t in pl ace an op erat io n

at th e sa m e ga s st at io n to faci li ta te th e pu rch as e. Nowl a n d a n d B u g h cal le d each

ot he r ei gh t ti m es th at da y

. Eve nt ua ll y

, Bu gh ’s fo rm er gi rlf rie nd bo rro wed a va n an d

tra ns po rte d Bu gh an d th e gu n to th e ga s st at io n. W he n Bu gh an d hi s fo rm er gi rlf rie nd

arri ve d, Nowl an d was waiti ng in th e pa rk in g lo t wit h a co nc eal ed reco rd in g dev ic e.

Offi cer Nels on was in a su rv ei ll an ce va n a bl oc k away an d ap pr ox im at el y 12 of fic ers

were hi di ng aro un d th e ga s st at io n. Nowl an d en te red th e va n an d ex ch an ge d m on ey

fo r th e gu n. The n, Nowl an d al ert ed Offi cer Nels on wit h a pr earr an ge d si gn al th at th e

-3

-t r a n sa ct io n was co m pl et e. At th at po in t, of

fic ers swa rm ed th e va n wit h th ei r g u n s

dr awn an d se iz ed th e th ree in di vi du al s, 3 th e m on ey

, an d th e gu n. Bu gh was arre st ed

an d t ak en to th e co un ty j ai l.

Bas ed on th e sa le

, a gr an d jury in di ct ed Bu gh wit h on e co un t of be in g a fel on

in po ss es si on of a fir earm

. Bu gh pl ed no t gu il ty an d pr oc eed ed to tri al

. At tri al

, th e

jury he ard nu m ero us au di o reco rd in gs of ph on e co nv ers at io ns be twee n Nowl an d an d

Bu gh

. Offi cer Nels on te st ifi ed

, ho wev er, th at he eras ed th e ph on e co nv ers at io ns he

reco r d e d o n J a n u a ry 6, 20 11

. He st at ed : “ I was act ua ll y su rp ris ed whe n I wen t to

do wnl oa d al l th e cal ls th at th os e cal ls weren ’t on th e reco rd er, bu t th ey jus t weren ’t.”

Afte r th e Gov ern m en t ha d pr es en te d al l of it s ev id en ce an d res te d it s cas e

ag ai ns t Bu gh

, Bu gh m ad e a m ot io n fo r jud gm e n t of acq ui tt al an d se pa rat e m ot io ns

to di sm is s th e ch arg e ba se d on ou tra ge ou s Gov ern m en t co nd uc t, en tra pm en t, an d th e

in te nt io na l de st ru ct io n of ev id en ce. The di st ric t co ur t de ni ed al l of Bu gh ’s m ot io ns

.

Bu gh pr es en te d no ev id en ce an d res te d hi s cas e. Bas ed up on a req ue st by Bu gh

, th e

di st ric t co ur t in st ru ct ed th e jury on th e d e f e n s e of en tra pm en t, 4 de sp it e th e

Gov ern m en t’s ob

jecti on

. Afte r rece iv in g th e jury in st ru ct io ns an d d e l ib erat in g, th e

jury fo un d Bu gh gu il ty of on e co un t of be in g a fel on in po ss es si on of a fir earm

. Afte r

tri al

, Bu gh m ov ed th e co ur t to ei th er di sm is s th e in di ct m en t or gr an t a ne w tri al ba se d

on ou tra ge ou s Gov ern m en t co nd uc t an d th e de st ru ct io n of ev id en ce. T h e d i s t ric t

co ur t d en ie d B ug h’s m ot io n.

3 Nowl an d was ta ke n in to cu st od y so th at Bu gh an d hi s fo rm er gi rlf rie nd wou ld

no t k no w he was work in g a s a c on fid en ti al in fo rm an t.

4 The jury was in st ru ct ed th at th e Gov ern m en t m us t pr ov e th e de fen da nt was no t

en tra pp ed be y on d a reas on ab le do ub t. Add it io na ll y

, pa rt of th e en tra pm en t

in st r u c t i o n in fo rm ed th e jury: “ If th e de fen da nt —b efo re Troy Nowl an d be ga n

wor ki ng fo r th e go ve rn m en t— di d no t ha ve an y in te nt or di s p o s i t i o n to co m m it th e

cri m e ch arg ed an d was in du ced or pe rs ua de d by th e co nf id en ti al in fo rm an t to co m

m it

th at cri m e, th en th e d efen da nt was e nt rap pe d.”

-4

-At se nt en ci ng

, Bu gh ob jecte d to po rti on s of hi s pr es en te nc e rep or t, arg ui ng hi s

no n- res id en ti al bu rg la ry co nv ic ti on s sh ou ld no t cou nt as vi ol en t felo ni es wit hi n th e

m ean in g of th e A r med Care er Cri m in al Act. The di st ric t co ur t ov erru le d Bu gh ’s

ob jec t i o n a n d fo un d th at Bu gh ha d be en co nv ic te d of fo ur vi ol en t fel on ie s, an d,

th eref or e, m us t be se nt en ced as an arm ed care er cri m in al

. The di st r i c t co ur t

se nt en ced Bu gh to 18 8 m on th s im pr is on m en t. Bu gh ap pe al s hi s co n v ic ti on an d

se nt en ce.

II.

Bu gh rai se s fo ur po in ts on ap pe al : (1 ) th e Gov ern m en t fai le d to pr ov e be y on d

a reas on ab le do ub t th at he was no t en tra pp ed

, (2 ) th e Gov ern m en t’s in v e s t i g a ti on

c onst itu te d out ra ge ous gove rn m en t co nd uc t, (3 ) Offi cer Nels on ’s de st ru ct io n of au di o

reco rd in gs req ui res a ne w tri al

, an d (4 ) th e di st ric t co ur t erre d by se nt en ci ng Bu gh as

an arm ed care er cr im in al . W e d is cu ss each is su e in tu rn

.

A.

Bu gh co nt en ds th at th e Gov ern m en t pr es en te d in su ffi ci en t ev id en ce to su pp or t

th e jury’ s co nc lu si on th at he was no t en tra pp ed

. W e rev ie w de no vo th e su ffi ci en cy

of th e ev id en ce, res ol vi ng co nf li ct s in th e Gov ern m en t’s fav or

, vi ewin g th e ev id en ce

in th e li gh t m os t fa vo rab le to th e Gov ern m en t, an d a ccep ti ng reas on ab le in fere nc es

whi ch su pp or t th e ve rd ic t. Uni te d St at es v. Mo ls ba rg er

, 55 1 F.3 d 80 9, 81 2 (8 th Ci r.

20 09 ).

The affi rm at iv e de fen se of en tra pm en t is ge ne ral ly a qu es ti on fo r th e jury, no t

th e co ur t, be cau se it req ui r e s f a ct ua l de te rm in at io ns rel at in g to th e effe ct of th e

G o v e r nm en t’s co nd uc t on a de fen da nt

. Uni te d St at es v. Myers

, 57 5 F.3 d 80 1, 80 5

(8 th Ci r. 20 09 ). I t h a s two el em en ts : (1 ) th e Gov ern m en t in du ced th e cri m e, an d

-5

-(2 ) th e de fen d a n t was no t pr ed is po se d to en ga ge in th e co nd uc t. Uni te d St at es v.

Abu m ay y al eh , 53 0 F .3d 64 1, 6 46 (8t h C ir. 2 00 8)

.

A d e f e nd an t m

us t de m on st rat e m or e th an th e Gov ern m en t so li ci ti ng

,

r e q u e s t i n g

, or ap pr oa ch in g hi m wit h an op po rtu ni ty fo r il le ga l co nd uc t to es ta bl is h

in du cem en t. Uni te d St at es v. Loft us

, 99 2 F.2 d 79 3, 79 8 (8 th Ci r. 19 93 ). “ W he n, as

h ere, th e go ve rn m en t ha s no t co nc ed ed th e is su e of in du cem en t, th e de fen d a n t ’ s

bu rd en ou gh t no t be cas t as id e li gh tl y .” 5 See Myers

, 57 5 F.3 d at 80 6. In du cem en t

ta ke s m an y fo rm s bu t req ui res “ m or e th an an op po rtu ni ty to br eak th e la w. And it is

well se tt le d th at th e go ve rn m en t m ay us e art ifi ce, stra ta ge m

, an d un de rco ve r ag en ts

in it s pu rs ui t of cri m in al s.” Id

. (in te rn al ci ta ti on om it te d )

. The se co nd el em en t of

en tr ap m en t—

pr ed is po si ti on —co ns id ers if th e de fen da nt “ was an un wary in noc en t or

,

in st ead

, an un wary cri m in al who read il y av ai le d hi ms el f of th e op po rtu ni ty to

pe rp et rat e t h e c rime.” Uni te d St at es v. Berg

, 17 8 F.3 d 97 6, 98 0 (8 th Ci r. 19 99 )

(in te rn al qu o t a t i o n m ark s om it te d)

. If th e de fen da nt is pr ed is po se d to co m m it th e

cri m e, th en th e en tra pm en t d efen se fai ls

. Id

.

Bu gh co nt en ds th at th e Gov ern m en t in du ced hi m in to se ll in g th e gu n an d th at

he was no t pr ed is po se d to co m m it th e cri m e. Th e Gov ern m en t’s ev id en ce at tri al

,

ho wev er, rev eal ed th at Bu gh fir st pr op os ed se ll in g th e g un to Nowl an d whi le us in g

dr ug s at Mi ch ael T.’ s ho u se —be fo re N o wlan d be cam e a co nf id en ti al in fo rm an t— an d

eag erl y pu rs ue d th e gu n sa le as a wil l i n g pa rti ci pa nt

. In de ed

, th e ev id en ce sh ows

5 Th e di st ric t co ur t in st ru ct ed th e jury on th e en tra pm en t de fen se

, pl aci n g t h e

bu rd en on th e Gov ern m en t an d im pl ic it ly fin di ng th at Bu gh de m o n st rat ed th at th e

Gov ern m en t in du ced hi m in to co m m it t i n g t h e cri m e. See Uni te d St at es v. You ng

, 61 3 F.3 d 73 5, 74 6 (“ [T]o warra nt an en tra pm en t i n s t r u c t i on , a de fen da nt m us t fir st

pr es en t ev id en ce th at th e go ve rn m en t in du ced th e cri m in al co nd uc t.”)

. Our an al y si s,

ho wev er, do es no t pr oc eed di rect ly to th e is su e of pr ed is po si ti on

. See Myers

, 57 5

F .3d at 80 6 n.4

. In st ead

, th e “ st art in g po in t fo r ou r an al y si s is whe th er [Bu g h ] h a s

es ta bl is he d t ha t t he go ve rn m en t i nd uc ed hi m to vi ol at e th e la w.” Id

. at 8 05

.

-6

-Bu gh was on ly de la y ed by lo gi st ic al di ffi cu lt ie s, no t se co nd th ou gh ts

. The refo r e,

Bu gh was n ot in du ced in to sel li ng th e g un . It was hi s i de a.

Bu gh al so arg ue s th at be cau se he ha s ne ve r be en arre st ed on a gu n ch arg e, he

was no t pr ed is po se d to po ss es s a gu n. The ab se nc e of a pr io r gu n ch arg e, ho wev er,

do es no t ne ces sa ril y in di cat e th at Bu gh was no t pr ed is po se d to se ll in g a fir earm

. See

id

. (“ His ne ve r ha vi ng ‘coo ke d’ s uc h a la rg e ba tc h [o f m et ha m ph et am in e] n eed no t

ne ces sa ril y

m ean he was n ot pre di sp os ed to do so .”).

The jury reject ed Bu gh ’s en tra pm en t de fen se

. Bec au se th is is a de te rm in at io n

be st le ft to th e jury, se e Myers

, 57 5 F.3 d at 80 5, an d be cau se th e ev id en ce su pp or te d

th e jury’ s d et erm in at io n, we af fir m

.

B.

Nex t, Bu gh c on te nd s th at th e Gov ern m en t’s two -week in ve st ig at io n, th e

in cen ti ve s p ro vi de d t o No wlan d, an d t he de st ru ct io n o f ev id en ce, t ak en as a who le

,

co ns ti tu te ou tra ge ou s Gov ern m en t con du ct warra nt in g di sm is sa l of hi s cha rg e. W e

rev ie w de no vo whe th er Gov ern m en t co nd uc t was su ffi ci en tl y ou tra ge ou s to req ui re

di sm is sa l as a m at te r of la w. Uni te d St at es v. B o o n e

, 4 3 7 F.3 d 82 9, 84 1 (8 th Ci r.

20 06 ).

Out rag eo us Gov ern m en t co nd uc t req ui res di sm is sa l of a ch arg e “ on ly if it fal ls

wit hi n th e na rro w ba nd of th e m os t in to le rab le go ve rn m en t co nd uc t.” Uni te d St at es

v. M or se , 61 3 F .3d 78 7, 7 92 -9 3 (8 th Cir . 20 10 ). Law enf or cem en t ag en ts ’ co nd uc t

is so ou tra ge ou s th at du e pr oc es s pr in ci pl es b a r th e Gov ern m en t fro m us in g th e

j ud ic ia l pr oc es s to ob ta in a co nv ic ti on on ly whe n ag en ts ’ co nd uc t vi ol at es “t h a t

fu nd am en ta l fa irn es s, s ho ck in g t he un iv ers al sen se of ju st ic e, m an da te d by th e Due

Pro ces s Cl au se of th e Fi fth Am en dm en t.” Uni te d St at es v. Ru ss el l

, 41 1 U.S. 42 3, 43 2

(1 97 3) (in te rn al qu ot at io n mar k s om it te d)

. Unl ik e th e en tra pm en t de fen se

, whi ch

-7

-f

o c u s e s o n th e de fen da nt ’s pr ed is po si ti on to co m m it th e cri m e, th e de fen se of

ou tra ge ou s co nd uc t fo cu se s on th e Gov ern m en t’s ac ti on s. Uni te d St at es v. Sear cy

,

28 4 F .3d 93 8, 9 42 (8t h C ir. 2 00 2)

.

Offi cer Nel so n p ers ua de d No wlan d to rev eal ot he r cri m in al s i n e xc ha ng e fo r

fav or ab le tre at m en t. Si m il ar to th e de fen da nt in Uni te d St at es v. Kin g

, 35 1 F.3 d 85 9,

86 7 (8 th C i r

. 2 0 0 3 ), Bu gh “ cl ai m s th at th e go ve rn m en t al lo wed it s in fo rm an t

[No wlan d] to ta rg et [Bu gh ] fo r pr os ecu ti on an d es se nt ia ll y m an uf act ur ed th e cri m es

fo r whi ch [Bu gh ] was co nv ic te d.” In fo rm an ts

, ho wev er, are “ th e na tu re of th e be as t

i n po li ce in ve st ig at io ns ,” an d “ [s ]uch real ti es do no t ris e to th e le ve l o f

ou tra ge ou sn es s ne ed ed to su pp or t a du e pr oc es s vi ol at io n.” I d

. a t 8 6 8. Offi cer

Nels on us ed Nowl an d, a lo w-le ve l d r u g d e a l e r, to fin d wor se cri m in al s an d was

i n t e r e s t e d i n Bu gh be cau se he ha d of fere d to se ll Nowl an d a gu n. Offi cer Nels on

co nt in ue d pu rs ui ng th e in ve st ig at io n aft er th e op erat io ns on Ja nu ary 11 an d Ja nu ary

19 fai le d be cau se Bu gh was st il l eag er to se ll th e gu n. The Gov ern m en t’s co nd uc t in

th is cas e rep res en ts an ag gr es si ve an d pe rs is t en t inv es tig at ion

, not out ra ge ous co nd uc t

th at sh oc ks th e co ns ci en ce.

C.

Bu gh arg ue s th at th e de st ru ct io n of au di o reco rd in gs of th e ph on e cal l m ad e

fro m Nowl an d to Bu gh o n Ja nu ary 6 , 2 01 2, req ui res th at th e ch arg e ag ai ns t hi m be

di sm is se d or th e cas e be rem an de d fo r a ne w tri al

. W e rev ie w de no vo th e de ni al of

a m ot io n to di sm is s an in di ct m en t ba se d on th e de st ru ct io n of ev id en ce. Uni te d St at es

v. Webs te r , 62 5 F .3d 43 9, 4 46 (8t h C ir. 2 01 0)

.

It i s w e l l es ta bl is he d th at th e Gov ern m en t m ay no t in go od or ba d fai th

s u p p r e s s ev id en ce fav or ab le to th e accu se d. Brad y v. Mar y la nd

, 37 3 U.S. 83

, 87

(1 96 3)

. “ If, ho wev er, th e ev id en ce in qu es ti on is on ly po te nt ia ll y us efu l, as op po se d

to cl earl y ex cu lp at or y

, th en a cri m in al de fen da nt m us t pr ov e ba d fai th on th e pa rt of

-8

-th e po li ce to m ak e ou t a du e pr oc es s vi ol at io n.” Uni te d St at es v. Hou st on

, 54 8 F.3 d

11 51

, 11 55 (8 th Ci r. 20 08 ) (ci ti ng Ariz on a v. You ng bl oo d

, 48 8 U.S. 51

, 57 (1 98 8) ).

The bu rd en is on th e de fen da nt to de m on st rat e th e ev id en ce was de st ro y e d i n ba d

fai th

, W eb st er

, 62 5 F.3 d at 44 7, an d ne gl ig en t de st ru ct io n of ev id en ce is in su ffi ci en t

to es ta bl is h a du e pr oc es s cl ai m

, Hou st on

, 54 8 F.3 d at 11 55

. Add it io na ll y

, th is Co ur t

wil l de fer to a di st ric t co ur t’s fact ua l fin di ng s reg ard in g de st ru ct io n of ev id en ce.

Uni te d S ta te s v . Cla rk , 98 0 F .2d 11 43 , 11 47 (8t h C ir. 1 99 2) (pe r cu ria m ).

Bu gh arg ue s th at Offi cer Nels on act ed in ba d fai th by eras in g reco rd in gs fro m

Ja nu ary 6, 20 11

, th e da y Nowl an d be ga n wor ki ng as a co nf id en ti al in fo rm an t an d fir st

cal le d Bu gh

. Offi cer Nels on te st ifi ed th at Nowl an d’s fir st c a l l mad e to Bu gh on

Ja nu ary 6, 20 11

, was no lo ng er on hi s di gi ta l reco rd er. Acco rd in g to Offi cer Nels on

,

he acci de nt al ly eras ed it

, st at in g: “ I was act ua ll y su rp ris ed whe n I wen t to do wnl oa d

al l t he cal ls th at th os e cal ls weren ’t on th e rec or de r, bu t t he y jus t wer en ’t.”

Eve n if th e reco rd in gs were po te nt ia ll y us efu l to Bu gh

, 6 h e p r e s e n t ed no

ev id en ce th at Offi cer Nels on act ed in ba d fai th or th at th e reco rd in gs were po te nt ia ll y

ex cu lp at or y

. The di st ric t co ur t m ad e an ex te ns iv e reco rd on th is is su e an d fo un d th at

Offi cer Nels on was cred ib le an d di d no t in te nd to eras e th e reco rd in gs

. 7 Bas ed on ou r

rev ie w of th e reco rd

, th e di st ric t co ur t’s fact ua l fin di ng s, an d th e la ck of an y ev id en ce

su pp or ti ng Bu gh ’s al le ga ti on s, er as ing the ta pe s w as at wor st ne gl ig en t an d, th eref or e,

in su ffi ci en t to es ta bl is h a du e pr oc es s vi ol at io n. See Hou st on

, 54 8 F.3 d at 11 55

. As

6 Bu gh co nt en ds th e e r a s e d r eco rd in gs wou ld ha ve su pp or te d hi s en tra pm en t

de fen se

, bu t ba se d on th e ov erwh el m in g am ou nt of ev id en ce th at was pr es en te d to th e

jury on th is is su e, no th in g su pp or ts hi s al le ga ti on th at th e eras ed reco rd in gs co nt ai ne d

ex cu lp at or y

m at eri al , m

uc h l es s cl earl y

ex cu lp at or y

m at eri al

.

7 The di st ric t co ur t de te rm in ed th at : “ Bas ed on Offi cer Nels on ’s de m ean or an d

th e co nt en t o f hi s te st im on y , t he Co ur t fin ds Offic er Nel so n’s t es ti m on y th at he di d

no t rem em

be r eras in g th e Ja nu ary 6t h reco rd in gs —an d th at

, in fact

, h e w a s

‘sur pr is ed ’ to lea rn th at th e rec or di ng s h ad be en eras ed —i s cr ed ib le .”

-9

-a res ul t, we affi rm th e di st ric t co ur t’s ho ld in g th at th e eras ed ta pe s di d no t co ns ti tu te

a d ue pro ces s v io la ti on

.

D.

Fi na ll y

, Bu gh arg ue s th at no n- res id en ti al bu rg la rie s sh ou ld no t be co ns id ered

cri m es of vi ol en ce fo r pu rp os es of th e Arm ed Care er Cri m in al Act. Bu gh reco gn iz es

th is po si ti on co nt rav en es ou r pr io r cas es an d on ly rai se s it to pr es erv e th e is su e. W e

rev ie w th e di st ric t co ur t’s de te rm in at io n de no vo

. Uni te d St at es v. W il lo ug hb y

, 65 3

F.3 d 73 8, 74 1 (8 th Ci r. 20 11 ). Thi s Co ur t ha s rep eat ed ly he ld th at “ bu rg la ry ” wit hi n

th e m ean in g of th e Arm ed Care er Cri m in al Act in cl ud es co m m erci al an d res id en ti al

bu rg la rie s. Uni te d St at es v. Co n s t an ti ne

, 67 4 F.3 d 98 5, 99 0 (8 th Ci r. 20 12 ).

The refo re, we affi rm th e di st ric t co ur t’s d e t e r m in at io n th at Bu gh ’s co nv ic ti on s

co ns ti tu te d v io le nt fel on ie s u nd er t he Arm ed Care er Cr im in al Act.

III.

Fo r th e ab ov e rea so ns , we affi rm Ro ge r Bu gh ’s con vi ct io n a nd sen te nc e.

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __

-1 0-