## In the



# U n ited S ta tes Co urt o f Ap p ea ls

F o rth eS e v e n th C ir cu it
N o. 08

- 2891 U NI T ED S TATE SOF A MERI CA, P la intif f-A pp ellee, v. J AM ES T. K I NC A NN ON, D ef endant-Appellant.

A pp eal from the United S t ates Di strictC our t fo r the S outhernDi stricto f Illino is. No . 07 C R 30065

—Mi ch ael J . Reagan, Judg e.
A RG UE D A PRI L 10, 2009

— D ECI DE D J UNE 8, 2009

Befo re B AUER, F LA UM, a nd E VANS, C ircu it Judges . E V ANS, C ircu i tJudg e . At 77 yea rs o l d, J am es K i ncannon m ake s fo r an unl i kel y m etham phetam i ne deal er . But l oo ks ca n be dec ei ving . Ki nc anno n was co nv i ct ed of con spi r i ng t o d i s t r ib u t e a n d di s t r ib u t i n gme th a mph e t a mi n e a ft e r t wo contr ol l ed buys nai l ed hi m as a d op e d eale r. Kincannon w as sente nced to 30 yea rs i n pri son, and he now chal l enges hi s co nvi cti on o n the conspi ra cy count a nd hi s s entenc e.2 N o. 08

- 2891 C u riou sly , K in c an n on m ou n ts n o d ire c t c h alle n ge to h is convi cti on on the dist ributi on char ge f orwh i ch he r ecei ved a co ncurr ent 3 0- yea r sente nce. Ki nc anno n’ s demi se beg anw he n a j unk i e, cau g htw i tha smal l a m o unto fdr ug s, fi ng er ed Ki nc anno n as a dea l era nd dec i ded to c o o per at e wi ththe po l i ce . The i nf o r m an t, who testifie d a t trial, agreed to w ear an aud io an d video w ire w hi l e pu rchas i ng hal fan o unce ofm etham phetam i ne fro m K i ncannon. H e went to Kincannon’ s ho m e forthe buy, but, at th at tim e, K in c an n on on ly h ad a q u ar te r ou n c e t o s ell. Ki nc anno n a sk ed th e i nf o r m an t to s ta y put whi l e he went to getm or e drugs, but didn’tsa y where he was go i ng. Pol i ce o ffice rs (som e o fwh om al so tes ti fi ed at tr i al ) then f ol l owed K i ncannon to the hom e of a w om an n am ed Ch er yl Dil l

. The offi cer s w atched as K i ncanno n en ter ed Dil l ’ s ho m e, sta yed br i efl y, and then l eft. Kincannon then r etu r n e d t o h i s h o me , wh e r e h e c o n s u mma t e d th e dr ug deal

— hal fan o unce f or$1 , 100. Fi ve days l ate r the o ffi cer s s et u p a second contr ol l ed buy

. Aga i n, Ki nc anno n di dn ’t h ave e no ug h t o meetthe i nfo rm ant’ s hal f

- ounce o rder, so he ask ed the info rm ant t o w ai t whil e he fetche d m or e drugs . T h is ti m e, i nstea d of headi ng st ra i ght to Dil l ’ s house, he s topped offatano ther location w he re he m et Scott T horb urg. Th e officers w ere f ami l i arwi thTho rbur g, who ha d b ee n a rre st ed j us t ei g ht m onths ear l i er . Kincannon then go t into Thorbur g’ s t ow tr uck ( he o w ned a to w ya rd ) and Thorbur g dro ve both of th em to D ill’s h ou se . Th orb u rg w ait ed in t h e c ar w h ile K incan non w en t inside to p ick up th e d rugs . T h o r b urg then dro pp ed K i ncannon offathi s ca r and they p ar tedN o. 08

- 2891 3 way s. S ho r tly the r ea fte r, b o thmen wer e ar r es te d fo l l o wi ng tr affi c st ops. On Thorburgo ffi cer s found tw o bags o f m etham phetam i ne, and on Kincan n on they found an em pty ba g with m etham phetam i ne r esi du e, al ong w i th som e of the prer eco rded bi l l s used i n the fi rs t c on tr ol l ed buy

. Ki nc anno n w as ev en tu al l y i ndi ct ed f o r di st r ibut i ng me th a mp h e t a mi n e a nd c o n s p i r i n gt o d i s t r ib u t e me th a mphe ta m i ne wi thDi l l, he r s uppl i er, a nd o th er s “kno wn an d unknow n. ” 2 1 U.S
. C. §§ 841( a) ( 1) , 84 6. Thorbur g, wh o t es tifie d at the tr i al, was no s tr angerto th e dr ugt r ade

. Onc e ane ng i ne erf o r AB C S po r ts who tr av ele d ac ro ss th e c ou n tr y t o film M on d ay N igh t F oo tb all, N A SCA R, and PGA to urnam ents, he fel l o n hard t i m es w hen he s tar ted usi ng m etham phetam i ne. A s hi s use es c ala te d , his life fe ll fu rt h er int o s h am b les ; he ev en tu ally l ost hi s j ob, divo rce d hi s w i fe, and t oo k to sel l i ng drugs t o supp or t hi s own habi t. I n f act, Thorbur g h ad be en K i ncannon’s deal er fo r fi ve orsi x m onths, unti l he g ot busted bythe pol i ce. That a rr est scar ed Thorbur g e nough that he qui t deal i ng, but he w as add i cted t o m etham phetami ne a nd ne ede d a s o ur ce f o r hi s per so na l fi x. F o r tha t, he turned to Kinca nnon. A t fi rs t, Kincannon char ged $8 00 f or hal fan o unce, but ove r ti m e, the pri ce r ose to $1 , 000. Eventual l y, Thorb urg bega n chauffeuring Kincannon t o D ill’s h ou se . Th orb u rg te st ified t h at h e d id so on atlea st six occa si ons. Thorb urg kn ew D il l bynam e, and K i ncannon shar ed that he suspect ed Dill g ot the dr ugs fro m a j ock ey w ho l i ved i n K ansas . Di l l al so te st i fi ed at th e tr i al

. S he ex pl aine d th at she sta rt ed sel l i ng m etham phetam i ne atthe sugge sti on ofher4 N o. 08

- 2891

ex -b oy frie n d (an d lat er , su p p l i e r), w h o w as a j oc ke y in K an sa s. H erfi rs t s al e was an e i ght-bal l ( 3. 5 g ra m s) to a chi l dh oo d fr i end. S he as ked her f ri end to i ntro du ce he r to K i ncannon because she needed som eone w ho “go t rid o f d ru gs .” T h e frie n d ob lige d , an d K in c an n on an d D ill em bar ked o n w hat turned out to be a sho rt
- l i ved busi ness re l ati onshi p. Overa si x- we ek peri od Kincannon purchase d at lea st 1 2 o u n c es of m et h am p h et am in e fro m D ill

— a h alf ano un c e t o a n o un c e a ta t i me o n 1 5 di ffe r e nto ccasi ons. T h e t er m s o f th e t r a n sa c tio n s w er e s ta n d ar d ize d ; D ill ch ar g ed $9 00 f o r hal fan ou nc e a nd $1 , 80 0 f o r an o unc e. S he e mp h a s i z e d th a tK i n c a n n o n w a s t o co me t o h e r h o me al o ne , s ay in g“ It o l d hi m Idi dn’ t wanthi m t o b r i ng anybo dy to m y ho use, thathe w as to co m e a l one because I kn ew h e w as d oin g s om et h in g illeg al a n d I w as a fra id that

— Idid n’t w an t to m eet h is custom ers an d Idid n’t w ant th em t o know m e. ” Di l ldi d see som eone i n a t ow tr uck

— T horb urg

— outsi de herhom e a h alf a dozen orso ti m es. Kincannon e xplai ned that the m an was hi s cust om er a n d l e fti ta tth a t
. T h o rb u r gn e v e r c a me i n s i d e Di l l ’ s h o me and D i l l co uld notev en i denti fy hi s r ace orag e. Atthe c l o s e o fthe g o v e r nme nt ’ s cas e ( whi c h a l s o h a ppe n ed t o b e the end ofal l the evi dence since Kincannon decl i ned to pr e s e nt any thi ng) , Kincannon fi l ed a m oti on f or a j u d g me n to fa c q u i t t a l, w h i c h th e d i s t r i c tc o u r td e n i e d. The g o ve r nm en t’ s cl o singa r g um en t came ne xt, dur i ng w hi ch the pr ose cutorm ade an a nal ogyto an Academ yA w ar d -w in n in g m ov ie: The G o dfa ther

. Reco untinga pivo tal sc en e where th e d ire c to r sim u lta n eo u sly p re se n te d as sa ss inati ons or chestr ate d by the pro tag oni st, M i chaelCor l eone , th e pros ecu tor exp lai ne d that he, li ke th e m ovie’s director,N o. 08

- 2891 5

wo ul d a t t e mptt o s e a ml e s s l y t e l l the “ s t o r y o fwh a th a ppened” in this cas e. The pro secuto r al so re counted Thorbur g’ s drug- fuel ed dem i se, not i ng tha t “ i t i l l ustr ate s the power ofthis stuffand w hy w e’ re on a s er i ous purpos e to d ay in c on sid er in g th e c h ar ge s a ga in st M r. K in c an n on .” Eve ntua l l y, the j ur y f o und Ki nc anno n gui l tyo n b o ththe di str i but i o n a nd the c o ns pi r a c y c o un t s a nd r e nd e r e d a speci alve rdi ct, fi nd i ng tha t the c on spi ra cy i nvol ved 500 gr am s o r m or e o fm etham phetam i ne. At s en te nc i ngKi nc annon m ade no o bj ec ti o ns t o the pr o po s e d gui de l i nes r a ng e o f3 6 0 mo nths t o l i fe . I ns t e a d, he as ked f ora bel ow-gui del i nes sentence, n oting that, at 77 years old, a l ong term of im p risonm en t am ou nt ed to a l ife se nt ence. The di st r i ctc o ur t r ej ec te d thi s r eque st, po i nt i ng to K i ncannon’s propensi ty f orcr i m i nal act i vi ty

— he h a d a sl ew o fpri son convi cti ons, and as the cour t no ted, he ha d “do ne t i m e i n the S tate s y st em, I l l i no i s an d M i ss o ur i, a nd i n the Feder alSyst em . ” A 360- m onth s entence , the bot tom ofthe gui del i nes r an ge , w as i m posed on both counts of co nv i ct i o n. K incan non first argues on ap p eal that th e d istri ct cou rt er ro n eo u sly d en ied h is m ot ion for a j u d gm en t o f ac q u itt al, cl ai m i ngthe r e wa s in su ffi ci en t ev i den ce t o pr o ve tha t he a n d D i l l c o n s p i r e d t o g e th e r t o di s t r ib u t e d r u g s . H e c l a i ms that they onl y had a buyer

- sel l err el ati onshi p. A n agr eem en t t o exchange drugs form oney( orso m ethi ng el se of val ue)

— the c rux ofthe buyer

- sel l ertr ansact i on

— is in su ffic ien t to p ro ve a co n sp ira c y. U ni t e d St at e s v. Col on , 54 9 F
. 3d 56 5 , 5 6 7-6 8 (7 th C ir. 20 08 ). Th at ’s b ec au se a c on sp ira c y is m or e than an ag re em ent, i t’ s a kno w i ng and i ntenti onal6 N o. 08

- 2891 ag r ee m en t be twe ent wo o r mor e peo pl e t o ful fi l l a pa r ti cular crim in a l o b j ective. Th e pa ct to selldru gs is itselfa s ub s t a nt i v e c r i me wi th n o s e pa r a t e c r i mi na l a i m a nd , th er efo r e, a l o ne c anadd no co ns pi r ac y l i ab i l i tyt o the mix
. U ni t e d S t at e s v. Le ch uga , 99 4 F
. 2d 346, 34 9 ( 7th Ci r. 19 93) ( en b an c ) (p lu ra lity ) . So m e e vid en c e o f an ac c or d to co m m it an ot h er cr im e o n to p of th e d ru g s ale is re q u ire d ; in th is case , we ask w hetherther e i s s om e evid en c e that K in c an n on ag re ed w ith so m eo n e e lse to th e fur th er d ist ributi on o fm etham phetam i ne? K i ncannon cl ai m s that he had no such a gr ee m en t w i th Dil l, a nd he ha s a po i nt
. Ki nc a nn o n a nd Di l l ha d a r el ati vel y b ri efbusi ness re l ati onshi p . Kinca nnon purchased d ru gs from D ill

— al w ays i n cash, on the b ar re l head

— ove r a s i x-week peri od, 15 ti m es tot al

. Dil l knew that Kinca nnon w as re sel l i ng the drugs, but that’ s n ot e n ou gh to pro ve a c o n s p i r a c y . T h a tkn o wl e d g e ma y o r ma y n o th a v e ma de Dil l an ai der and abett or to K i ncannon’s i l licit acti vi ti es, but i t doe s no t m ake the tw o coco nspir ato rs bec ause they had no ag re em ent t o re sel l the m etham ph et am i ne to an yo n e. Se eLe ch uga , 994 F. 2d at 349. W hat’ s m or e, Dil l had no pe r so na l i nv es tmenti n Ki ncan non’ s dr ugdi st r ibuti on

— sh e h ad alre a d y b ee n p aid for t h e d ru gs . See U nited State s v. R ock, 3 70 F
. 3d 71 2, 7 15 ( 7th Ci r . 2 004) ( affi r m i ng co nv i ct i o n when defen dan t ex pec te d to be pai d from the r es al e o fthe d rugs )
. I n f ac t, s he e m pha si ze d tha t sh e w an te d n ot h in g t o d o w ith K in c an n on ’s b u sin e s s o r h is c us t o mer s . T he t e r ms ofthe i r s a l e s we r e s t a nd a r di zed

— K i ncannon p ai d $900 fora hal fo unce and $1, 800 f or an o unce

—but thatsa ys nothi ng ab out w hetherDil l ag re ed to hel p K i ncannon’s di str ibuti on e ff or ts
. R e gul a rp ur chasesN o. 08

- 2891 7

on s tandard te rm s ca nno t t ra nsf or m a custo m eri nto a c oc o n s p i r at or . U ni t e d S t at e s v. Thom as , 15 0 F
. 3d 743, 74 5 ( 7th Ci r. 19 98) ( cri m e ofconspir acy cannot be e quated w i th rep eated trans action s). So far, th is c as e is on all fou rs w ith ou r re c en t o p in ion in Colon

. I n Colon , the defen dan t was c o nv i ct ed o fc o ns pi r i ng w i th hi s drug su p p l i er s t o posse ss coca i ne with i ntent to sel l

. Col on, l i ke Kinc a nn o n, r e pe a t e dlypurchase d drugs f or r e s a l e fr o m hi s s up pl i e r s o v e r, a tmo s t, a s i x- we e kp e r i o d. The ter m s, l i kewis e, were sta nd ar d ized and the deal i ngs wer e i n ca sh

. I n Colon , the g o ve r nm en t co nt en ded th atthe prol onge d, re peated, and sta nd ar dize d pu rchas es of d istribu t io n qu an titi es of dru gs w as en ou gh to sup p ort th e c o n v iction. W e d isagreed

. W he n strip p ed to i ts bare bones , the gov er nm ent’ s t h eor y there , as i t i s her e, “r ed uc es to anassertion th at a w holesale cu stom er of a c on sp ira c y i s a c o-c on sp ira to r p er se ,” a p os itio n w e d id n otem b ra c e. Id. at56 9. Sen sing th e w eight of Colon , the gov er nm ent a tte m pts to distingui s h Kinc a nn o n’ s ca se. I t a rgues that Kinca nnon w as m or e than j ust a custo m er, but that he al so re crui ted o ther bu yers

— th at is, Th orbu rg

— f o r Di l l, the reby thr o wi ng hi m se l fi nt o he r drugdi st r ibut i o n ring . But thi s ar g um en t i s no t bo r n o utb y the r ecor d. Thr o ug ho uthe r t es ti m o ny Dill identi fi ed Thorbur g a s K inc a nn o n’s custo m er, nother o wn. Li k ewi se , Tho rbur gt es ti fi ed repe at edl y tha t he b o u g h td r u g s fr o m Kin ca nno n , notDil l

. Dil l nev er m et Th o rb u r g( s h e c o u l d n o te v e n i d e n t i fy h i s r a c e ) , l e ta l o ne e s t a b l i s h the t e r ms o f the s a l e s a s s he wo ul d ha v e ha d t o do w i th any othe r buyer

. Thorbur g confi rm ed that h e n eve r8 N o. 08

- 2891

w ent insi de Dil l ’ s ho use. There i s no thi ng i n the r eco rd that ev enhi nt s tha t Di l l s o ug htKi nc anno n’ s he l p i n inc r ea sing h er cu st om er ba se , a p ar tic u l a r l y te llin g om iss ion sin c e it w as j ust such a requestto her fi rs t custom erthat l ed to her re l ati onshi p w i th Kincannon. Dil l knew how to net w or k t o getcusto m er s, and nothi ng sug ges ts that she e veras ked o r re cei ved such hel p f ro m Kincannon. Thorb urg’ s purchas es fro m K in c an n on d id m ea n, ult im at ely , th at D ill cou ld se ll m o r e dr ug s. Buttha t m i ni m alin t e r e s ti s no di ffer en t f o r a ny sel l erwh o off

- l oads go od s t o a di str ibutor, and w e hav e alread y held that a w holesale cu stom e r a nd his sup p li ers ar e n otn ec es sa rily in ca h oo ts
. Colon , 54 9 F
. 3d at 569. This anal ysi s, however, does n ot m ean that we m ust re ver se K i ncannon’s co nvi c tio n. The i nd i ctm ent di d not l i m i t the co nspir acy to Dil l and K i ncannon

— th e grand j ury includ ed “othe rs know n an d un kn ow n”

— a nd thee v i de nce does supp or t the exi ste nce o fa conspi ra cy bet w een K in c an n on an d T h orb u rg . Th e fa c t t h at th e in d ict m en t d id n otn am e T h orb u rg is irre lev an t. U nite d State s v. A vila, 55 7 F. 3d 80 9, 81 6 ( 7th Ci r. 20 09) ( proving co nspir acy does not r equi r e th e gove r nm en t to s ho w tha t th e defen dan t co nsp ired w ith th e ind ivi d ua ls na m ed i n th e ind ictm en t); L e c h uga , 9 94 F. 2d at3 50 , 3 52
. “ Oth er s k no wn an d unkn ow n” cou ld h ave ce rtainly i nc luded Th orbu rg, and there is no requ irem en t th at a con sp iracy ind ictm en t id en tify uncharge d coco nspir ato rs . A t trial, th e govern m en t hon ed in on the all eged cons p iracy between Dil l and Ki ncannon, and Ki ncanno n takes iss u e w ith th e g o v e r n m e n t’s at te n tio n on ap p ea l to h is relationsh ip w ith Th orbu rg. K incan non argue s tha t w e areN o. 08

- 2891 9 pr ec l ude d fr o m c o ns i der i nghi s dea l i ngwi thT h o rb u r g, b ut c ite s n o a u th or ity for t h is p ro p os itio n . Cf. Le ch uga , 99 4 F
. 3d at 350 ( consi deri ngde fe nd a nt’ s r el ati onshi p w i th unnam ed co co ns pi r at o r, e ve n tho ug h tha t r el at i o ns hi p was no t th e focus of th e t r ial or ap p eal). I n an y even t, T horb urg te sti fi ed atl en g thabo uthi s r el at i o ns hi p wi thKi nc anno n, and our j ob w hen eva l uati ng the suffi ci ency ofthe evi dence i s t o fo cus on the fa cts put bef or e the j ury. W e m ust “ vi ew all th e e v i d e n c e a n d d r a w all r ea so nabl e i nferen ce s i n the l ightmos t f av o r ab l e to the pr o se cut i o n a nd uph o l d the ve r di cti fa ny r at i o na l trie r o ff ac t co ul d ha ve f o und th e e ss en tia l elem en ts of th e c rim e b ey on d a re as on ab le doubt. ” U ni t e d S ta tes v
. H i cks , 36 8 F
. 3d 801, 80 4- 05 ( 7th Ci r . 20 04 ) ( emphas i s adde d) ( quo ta ti o ns a nd c i ta ti o ns om itted ). K in c an n on ’s re lat i o n sh ip to T h orb u rg w as m ar ke d ly d ifferent from his rel ation sh ip w ith D il l. Fi rst, T horb urg and K i ncannon deal t with eac h other f orabo ut a yea r. Fo r m onths K i ncannon w as purchasi ng drugs fro m Thorb urg. Aft erTho rbur g ’ s i ni ti ala r r es t, he tur ne d t o Ki nc anno n a nd they had, as he testi fi ed, “reve rs e rol es. ” Kincannon bega n su p p lyin g T h orb u rg w ith d ru gs ev en b efo re h e m et D ill. There w as al so a high l eve l of tr ust be tw een the two, wh i ch becam e e vi dent once Kincann o n s t a r ted buyi ng drugs fro m D ill. U nite d State s v. Hach , 162 F
. 3d 937, 94 3 ( 7th Ci r. 19 98) ( n o t i n gth a ta d e mo n s t r a t e d l e v e l o fmu t u a l t r u s ti s c i r c u msta nti alevi dence of a conspi ra cy)
. O n at l eas t s i x occa si ons, Thorbur g dro ve K inc an n on to D ill’s h ou se to p ick u p d ru gs. U ni t e d St at e s v. A dk ins , 274 F
. 3d 444, 45 0 ( 7th Ci r. 20 01) ( re aso ni ng tha t t ra vel i ng wit h coconspi ra torto purchase drugs s up port ed conspi ra cy convic tio n ). Kincannon did not10 N o. 08

- 2891 tr ust j ust a nybody to ac c om pany hi m . The co nfi denti al i nfo rm ant, on the tw o occa si ons he purchase d drugs, was as k ed to s ta y a t Ki nc anno n’ s ho m e whi l e Ki nc anno n wen t to Dil l ’ s t o pickup the g oo ds. W h at’ s m or e, Kincannon shar ed w i th Thorburg detai l s ab ou t h is b u sin ess

— r ev ea l ing Dil l ’ s i de nti tya nd a ddr e s s a nd e xp l a ining tha t he suspecte d Dil l ’ s s up pli erw as a j ock ey f ro m Kansas

— a s tep he did not tak e with the i nfo rm ant. M osti m portan tl y, ther e was a quid pro quo be tw een K i ncannon and Thorbur g b eyo nd the sal e of th e drugs

. A vila , 557 F. 3d at 816 ( “The gov er nm ent need onl y show an agr eem ent that g oes bey ond the i n di vi du al sale betw een bu yer and sell er. ”). Be cau se T horb u r g d r ove to D il l’ s h ou se , K i n c an n on got ex tr a c ov er . Th orb u rg ’s c ar , no t h is o wn, w o ul d be s ee n by any offi ce r s who m i g htb e k ee pi ng w atch over Dill ’s hom e. For taking on t h is risk, T horb urg go t to pu rch ase h is dru gs at a d iscoun t price. Th orbu rg testifi ed t ha t he p aid an yw he re fr om $800 to $1,000 for a hal fo unce o fm etham phetam i ne. Kincannon

— w h o p aid $900 f ora hal fo unce

— m ay ha ve bee n c ha rging Th orbu rg be l o w ora t- co str at es . Eve n at$ 1, 00 0, Tho rbur gwas pa y i ng $1 00 l es s th anKi nc anno n’ s o ther c usto m er s, l i k e th e confi d enti ali nfo rm ant. The j ury coul d rea sonab l y infe r f ro m thi s e vi dence thatThorb urg and K i ncannon agree d to m or e than j ust the indi vi du ald rug purchases , but that they wer e co oper at i ngt o f ac i l i ta te Ki nc anno n’ s fur th erdr ug dist ributi on e ff or ts. The r e i s o ne mor e wri nk l e th atwe m us t addre ss . The i ndi ct m en t ac cus ed Ki nc anno n, a nd the j ur y, thr o ug h a speci alve rdi ct, f ound t h at the conspi ra cy i nvol ved 500N o. 08

- 2891 11 gr am s o r m or e o fm etham phetam i ne. These type s of in d ict m en ts an d sp ecial verdicts, ofcou rse, are stan d ard after A pp rend i v . N e w Jersey, 53 0 U.S
. 46 6 ( 2000 ) , wh i ch r equi r es the j ur y t o fi nd b ey o nd a reaso nabl e do ubta ny f ac t th atr ai se s th e defen dan t’ s st atut o r y maxi m um sente nc e. A defen dan t, l i k e Ki nc anno n, who ha s a pr i o r fel o ny drug co nvi cti on ( cove re d by a n i nfo rm atio n und er21 U .S. C. § 8 51) , f aces a m andator y m i ni m um o f10 ye ar s in p rison an d up to a l ife sen ten ce ifat l eas t 5 0 g r a m s of a m ixtu re cont aining m eth am p he tam ine is involved

. If th ere i s 5 00 gra m s o r m or e in vo lve d , th e s ta tu to ry m in im u m is u p p ed to 20 years. 21 U
. S. C
. § 841(b)(1) (A )( vii i) ; ( b) ( 1 ) ( B ) ( v i i i )
. At t r i a l, th e g o v e r n me n t a r g u e d th a tt he co ns pi r ac y i nc l ude d o ve r 5 00 g r ams b y a g g r eg at i ngthe total am ou nt of m eth am p he tam ine th at K incan non p u rch as ed f r o m Di l l ( 34 0. 2 gram s) wi thmeth amphet ami ne fou n d atD ill’s h ou se (18 6 g ra m s). B u t a co c on sp ira to r is onl y l i abl e fortr ansact i ons that w er e r eas on ab l y for ese eab le a c ts in fu rt h er an c e o f th e e n t i r e co n sp ira c y, U nited Sta tes v. E a ster, 55 3 F
. 3d 51 9, 523 ( 7th Ci r. 20 09) , and si nce Dil l was not part ofthe conspi ra cy, the drugs f ound at her pla ce a re ar guabl y o ffl i m i ts. Bu t thi s pos sibl e A pprendi er r o r i s o fl i tt l e m o m en t. The am ount o fm etham phetam i ne i nvol ve d in the co nspir acy i s no t a n e l e men t o f the c r i me, s o i t ha s no e f f ect on K in c an n on ’s c on vic tio n . U nite d State s v. Kel ly, 519 F. 3d 355, 36 3 (7t h C ir. 20 08 ); U nite d State s v. G om ez-Rosario , 41 8 F
. 3d 90, 1 04 ( 1stCi r. 20 05)
. The drug quanti ty am ount i s r el evant f orse ntenci ng, but not al l err or s requi re rem and si nce th ey are su bj ec t to h ar m les s e rro r an aly sis
. Adki ns , 274 F
. 3d at 454. A nd so l ong as the j ud ge i m poses a sente nce be l ow12 N o. 08

- 2891

Int e r e s t i ng l y e no ug h, whe n c a l c ul a t i ng Ki nc a nn on ’ s g ui de- 1 li nes range, the prob ati on o ffice r incl ud ed only the drugs that p assed b etw een K inca nn o n a n d T ho rb u rg , an am ou nt w ell bel ow 500 gr am s . N ei the r par t y obj ec t ed t o the c al c ul at i ons , an d the dist ri ctcourt se ntence d K incannon acc ordin g to the probation officer’s reco m m en d atio ns. th e st atut o r y m ax i m um , he m aydo so bas ed o n f ac ts f o und b y a p re p on d er an c e o f th e e vid en c e. U ni t e d S t at e s v. Abdu l ahi, 52 3 F
. 3d 757, 76 0 ( 7th Ci r. 20 08) ( re i ter ating that A pprendi h as n o ap p lica tio n to ca se s w h er e t h e s en te n c e is bel o w the s ta tu to r y maxi m um )
. On th i s r ec o r d, i t’ s clear, beyon d a reasona ble dou bt, th at a p rop erly instru cted j ury w ou ld h ave foun d that K incan non and Th o rbur g ’ s con sp iracy i nvol ved at lea st 50 gr am s ofm etham phetam i ne. That m ar k i s m et by j ust a dd i ng up the a m ou nt o fdrugs that K i ncannon purchased wh en ch au ffeure d by Thorburg. T h orb u rg te st ified th at h e d ro ve K in c an n on atlea st six ti m es

— a fa c t c or r o b or at ed by D ill

— and D i l l added that K i ncannon purchased e i ther a hal f an ounce or an ounce o n each t ri p ( 6 ×
. 5 o unces = 85 gr am s)
. Kincannon was se nt en ce d t o 3 0 y ea r s i m pr i so nm en t, wel l b elow the sta tutor y m axi m um f orco nspir aci es i nvol vi ng 50 gr am s o r m or e o fm etham phetam i ne. 1 Ki n c a n n o n ma k e s o n e mo r e a t t a c ko n h i s c o n v i c t i o n . He ar gues, f orthe fi rs t t i m e o n appeal, thatthe pros ecuto r infl am ed th e p assions of th e j ury, rend ering the tri al unfair, by re fer rin g i n cl osing ar gum ent t o The G o dfa thera nd T h o rb u r g ’ s p r e c i p i t o u s d e c l i n e o n c e ho o k e d o n me th a mphe ta m i ne . Be ca us e th e a r g um en t was f o r fei te d b efo r e th e d i s t r i c t c o u r t, we r e v i e w i t o n l y f o r p l a i n e r r o r , a nd w eN o. 08

- 2891 13

I n a n up s e ta l on g the l i ne s o fthe 2 0 0 9 Ke ntuc ky De rby w i n by 2 M i ne Th a t Bi r d, the 1 9 7 2 Os c a r we nt t o Bo b Fo s se ( f or C aba ret ) rather than Co pp ola. begin by evaluati ng wh ethe r the c om m ents them sel ves w er e im p ro p er . U ni t e d S t at e s v. Bowm an , 353 F. 3d 546, 55 0 (7t h C ir. 20 03 ). The pros ecuto r’ s r efer ence to The G o dfa ther does n ot appr o ac h i m pr o pr i ety . I t woul d b e o ne thi ngi fthe g o ve r nm ent c om pared Kincannon t o M i chaelCor l eone , an o r gani zed c r i me k i ng pi n r e s po ns ib l e f o r mur de r s a nd a w h ole h os t of ot h er c rim in al a c t ivit y. Se eAl varez v. M cGinnis , 4 F. 3d 531, 53 4 ( 7th Ci r. 19 93). S uch an anal ogy w ou ld be u tt er ly u n m o o re d from th e re c or d , w h ich is pr o babl y why th e g overn m en t m ade no s uchc o nne ct i o n. I t w as no t C orleone’s c r im in ali ty, bu t Franc is Ford Copp o l a ’ s d i r e c t i o n th a twa s a tth e h e a r to fth e p r o se cutor ’ s cl osing re m ar ks. The pros ecuto r al l ud ed to the pivo tal p oint in the m ovie w he re Corleon e atten d s his god ch ild ’s chri ste ni ng. Coppola cuts to var i ous s cene s of assa ssi nati o ns o r ch es tr at ed byCo r l eo ne a s a pr i es t dubb ed hi m the ch il d ’s godfath er. Th e po etic i m p li cation i s tha t the m urders, l i ke the pri est ’ s l i turgy, m ade M i chaelthe godf ather o fthe Co r l e o ne c r i me f a mi l y . As the p r o se c ut o r s a i d, “[ n]o w that is h ow you prese nt events that occursi m ult ane ou sly in a m ovie so the view er can un d erstan d i t very easily. ” W e agree, as d id th e A cad em y of M otion Pictu re A rt s a nd S ci ences, wh o nom i nated Coppol a f oran Osca r f orbes t dir ecto r. The pros ecuto r expla i ned to the j ury that 2 h e w ou ld try to d o or ally w h at C op p o l a d i d in h is14 N o. 08

- 2891 film

— th ati s, t i e to g ethe r the e ve nt s th ato cc ur r ed d ur i ng th e tw o c ontr ol l ed buys i nto one sea m l ess st or y. To do so as elo q u en tly as C op p ola is a t all ta sk, bu t t h er e is ce rt ain ly nothi ng i m properabo ut the att em pt. Li k ewi se , the prose cut o r ’ s co m m en ts r eg ar di ng Thorbur g’ s li fe were not i napp ro pri ate
. The descr i pti on o f T h orb u rg ’s d ru g-in d u c ed d e sc en t w as roo te d in h is uncontro ver ted te sti m ony, and the pro secuto r hi ghl i ghted i t to “ i l l us tr at e th e po wero fthi s stuffa nd why we’ r e o n a ser i ous purpose today i n consi deri ng the char ges ag ai nst M r. K i ncannon. ” I m press i ng upon the j ury the s er i ousness o fthe c ha r g es a nd co m m en tingon th e g r av i tyo fthe dr ug p ro b lem in t h is c ou n tr y is p er m iss ible , Bow m an , 35 3 F
. 3d at 55 1; U nite d State s v. Z anin , 831 F.2d 740 , 743 (7th C ir. 1987), and the pro secuto r did nothi ng m or e her e. W e ca n al so quick l y di sm i ss K i ncannon’s l astar gum ent. H e m ai ntai ns that his w i thi n-guidel i nes s entence i s unre aso nabl e sinc e, a t 77y ea r s o l d, 3 0 years ofi m pr i so nm en t am ounts to a l i fe sente nce. Du ring se ntenci ng, Kincannon m ad e a p lea fo r a b e l ow -gu id elin es se n te n c e b as ed on h is ag e. The co ur t co ns i der ed Ki nc anno n’ s adv an ce d a g e but note d that i t had notdeterred or sl owed hi s cr i m i nal a c t i v i t y t o d at e. K in c an n on w as in h is fiftie s w h en h is crim inal record sta rted and da ys aw a y fr om his 73rd bi r th daywhenhe was l as t r el ea se d f r o m pr i so n a fte r b eing pop p ed f ordi str ibuti ng drugs

. Em phasi zi ng the need f or det er r en ce , the j udg e e xpl aine d tha t Ki nc anno n had “do ne ti m e i n the S ta te s y st em, I l l i no i s an d M i ss o ur i, a nd i n the F ede ra l s y st em, ” y et“ co nt i nue d t o s el l the s tu ff, ” an d sente nced hi m to t h e b ottom o fthe gui del i ne r ange. ThatN o. 08

- 2891 15

m ak es fo r a p re su m p tiv ely r ea so n ab le se n te n c e on ap p ea l. R ita v. U nited Sta tes , 55 1 U .S . 3 3 8 (2 00 7); U ni t e d S t at e s v. Shan non , 518 F.3d 49 4 , 4 9 6 ( 7th Cir. 2008). T he cou rt a de qu a t e l y e xp l a i ne d the s e nt e nc e i ti mpo s e d a nd a dd re ss ed K in c an n on ’s re q u es t fo r len ien c e. Un i t e d S t a t e s v. Wurz ing er, 4 6 7F
. 3 d 6 4 9 , 6 5 4 ( 7 th Ci r . 2 0 0 6 ) ( a ffi r mi ngde f acto l i fe s entence wh er e d efendant had an abo ve- aver age te nde nc y t o c r i m e i n h i s o l d a g e)
. Ki nc anno n pr es en ts us w i th nothi ng to di sturb the r ebuttabl e pr esum pti on o f re aso nabl eness o fhi s withi n-guidel i nes s entence
. A ccor dingly, the j ud gm ent o fthe distri ct c ourti s A FFIRMED .

6- 8- 09