T hi s or derand j udgm enti s notbi ndi ng pr ece dent , exce ptundert he * d o ctri n es o f law o f th e c ase , res jud icata, and co ll ateral estop p el. T h is co u rt gener al l ydi s favor s t he ci t at i on of or der s and j udgm ent s ; neverthel es s , an or der and j udgm entm aybe ci t ed undert he t erm s and condi t i ons of 10th C i r . R . 36. 3. A ft erexami ni ng t he br i efs and the appe l l at e r ecor d, t hi s t hr ee-j udge ** panel has det erm i ned unani m ous l yt hator al ar gum entw oul d notbe of mat er i al a ss ista n c e in th e d e ter m in a tio n o f th is a p p e a l. S e e F e d . R . A p p . P . 3 4 (a ); 1 0 th C ir. R . 3 4 .1 (G ). T h e c a u se is th e re fo re o rd e re d su b m itt e d w ith o u t o ra l ar g u m e n t. 

## F I LED United States C ourt of Appeals Tenth Circuit 

### A u gu s t11,2006 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. T RO Y L AM AR S UT HE RL AND, D e fe n d a n t - A p p e llan t. N o. 05- 6266 ( D. C. No . CR- 0 4 - 7 9 - 1 - R) (W .D . O k la .)

ORDE R AND J UDGM EN T * B efor e KELLY , M c KAY , and LU CE RO , C i rcui tJudg es. ** D efe ndant - A ppel l antT r oyL amarSut her l and appe al s fr om hi s convi ct i on a n d se n ten c e fo llo w in g a ju ryv e rd ict fin d in g h im g u iltyo f k n o w in g ly t r a n s p o r t i n g mi n o r s fo rt h e p u rp o s e o f p r o s t i tu t i o n i n v i o l a t i o n o f 1 8 U. S . C. § 2 4 2 3 (a ) (c o u n t I), an d k n o w in g lyre c ru iti n g , en ticin g a n d tra n sp o rtin g in i nt er s t at e comm er ce of m i nor s know i ng eac h w oul d be ca us ed t o engage i n a- 2 -

comm er ci al s exual acti n vi ol at i on of 18 U . S. C . § 1591( a) ( countI I ) . T he di s tr i ct cour ts ent ence d M r . Sut her l and t o t w o concurr entt erm s of i m pr i s onm entof 240 m ont hs and tw o t hr ee- y ears upervi s ed r el eas e t erm s . O n appea l , M r . Sut her l and ar gues t hat( 1) t he di s t r i ctcourterr ed byal l ow i ng expertl aw enfor cement tes tim o n yu n d e r F e d e ra l R u le o f E v id e n c e 7 0 2 , (2 ) th e d istric t co u rt e rre d in al l ow i ng evi dence of uncha r ged bad a ct s t o be admi t t ed attr i al underFeder al R u les o f E v id e n c e 4 0 2 , 4 0 3 a n d 4 0 4 (b ), (3 ) th e re w a s in su fficie n t p ro p e rly a d m itt e d e v id e n c e to c o n v ict M r. S u th e rla n d , an d (4 ) th e d istric t co u rt e rre d in overrul i ng cert ai n obj ect i ons t o t he PSR and i m pr oper l ycons i der ed fa ct s not pr oven t o a j ur yi n vi ol at i on of the Si xth A m endment . O urj ur i s di ct i on ar i s es u n d e r2 8 U. S . C. § 1 2 9 1 a n d 1 8 U. S . C. § 3 7 4 2 ( a ) , a n d we a ffi r m.

B ackgr ound T h e p a rt ie s a re fa m ilia r w ith th e fa c ts a n d w e n e e d n o t r e s ta te th e m h e re . We d o n o t e t h a twe v i e w th e fa c t s i n th e l i g h tmo s tfa v o r a b l e t o th e v e r d i c t . On M ay5 , 2 0 0 4 , a fed era l gran d juryind ict ed M r. S u therlan d . P ri o r t o tr ial , M r. S u th e rla n d filed a m o tio n in lim in e to e x c lu d e th e tes tim o n yo f A n d re w S c h m id t, a s er geanti n t he M i nneapol i s Pol i ce D epart m ent . M r . Sut her l and ar gued thatt he co u rtsh o u ld ex clud e S g t. S ch m idt’ s testi m o n yb ec au se itw as im p rop er e x p ert tes tim o n yu n d e r F e d e ra l R u les o f E v id e n c e 7 0 2 a n d 7 0 4 (b ), an d b e c a u se its pr obat i ve val ue w as s ubs t ant i al l youtw ei ghed byi t s pr ej udi ci al effectunder- 3 -

F e d e ra l R u le o f

E v id e n c e 4 0 3 . T h e g o v e rn m e n t ex p lain e d th a t itw a s c a lli n g S g t. S c h m id t to tes tifya b o u t th e p ro stitu tio n b u sin e ss , inc lu d in g th e re latio n sh ip betw een the pi m ps and pr os t i tut es , the r ecrui t m entpr oces s , and how the pr os t i tut es become depende nton t he pi m p. T he di s tr i ctcourthel d a hea r i ng on M r . Sut her l and’ s m ot i on and conc l uded thatthe w i tnes s ’ s t es t i m onyw as r el evant b u t th e c o u rt in s tru c te d th e g o v e rn m e n t to “ ta ilo r i t to th is c a s e .” T r. a t 7 2 . A lso p rio r to trial, th e g o v e rn m e n t filed a n o tice u n d e r R u le 4 0 4 (b ) o f its i nt entt o admi tevi dence of M r . Sut her l and’ s ( 1) s exual r el at i ons hi p w i th the m i norfemal es , ( 2) pr ovi di ng t hem i l l egal drugs , ( 3) s el l i ng tw o of the gi r l s t o a pi m p, ( 4) t aki ng them t o a truck s t op forpr os t i tut i on purpos es , and ( 5) pr ovi di ng th e m a s s e x u a l p a rtn e rs to h is f rie n d s. W h ile th e g o v e rn m e n t so u g h t to a d m it th e se item s a s d ire c t ev id e n c e o f th e c rim e , the yp ro v id e d th e R u le 4 0 4 n o tice “ in an abunda nce of

caut i on. ” R . D oc. 43. M r . Sut her l and obj ect ed t o the admi t t ance of thi s evi dence underR ul e 404( b) , though hi s couns el conce ded that“a l otof t hi s s tuff l ook[ed] l i ke di r ectevi dence r atherthan [Rul e] 404( b) i nform at i on. ” T r . at75. T he di s t r i ctcourti ns t ruct ed M r . Sut her l and t o r ai s e hi s obj ect i ons as th e e v id e n c e c a m e in , a n d h e fa ile d to o bje c t to th e e v id e n c e a s it w a s p ro ffe re d . O u r s ta n d a rd o f

re v ie w , th e re fo re , is fo r p la in e rr o r o n ly. T h e p ro b a tio n o ffic e c a lc u la te d M r. S u th e rl a n d ’s G u id e lin e s S e n te n c e . C ountI and I I w er e gr ouped, w i t h the hi ghes toffe ns e l evel betw een the tw o bei ng u sed . T h e b ase o ffen se lev el fo r bo th co u n ts w as 1 4 . U . S . S . G . § 2 G 1 . 1 (a)- 4 -

( 2002) . B eca us e the offens e i nvol ved for ce, fr aud orcoer ci on, a four - l evel enhanc ementappl i ed. A not hert w o- l evel enhanc ementw as added be caus e of the t w o of the gi r l s w er e betw een 12 butnoty et16. L i kew i s e, anothertw o- l evel e n h a n c e m e n t w a s a d d e d b e c a u se M r. S u th e rla n d u n d u lyin flu e n c e d a m in o r to engage i n a comm er ci al s ex ac t . U . S. S. G . § 2G 1. 1( b) ( 4) ( B ) . T hi s br oughtthe adj us t ed offens e l evel t o 27. A m ul t i pl e countadj us t m entof thr ee- l evel s appl i ed, U . S. S. G . § 3D 1. 4, fora combi ned adj us t ed offens e l evel of 30. T he Pr obat i on O ffi ce a l s o concl uded thatM r . Sut her l and w as a ca r eer offe nder , s o r athert han the l ow erl evel cal cul at ed at30, he w oul d have a t ot al offe ns e l evel of 37 underU . S. S. G . § 4B 1. 1. PSR at¶¶ 64- 66. W i th a cr i m i nal hi s t or yof I V , t he G ui del i ne r ange fori m pr i s onm entw as 360 m onths t o l i fe on count2 and 180 mont hs on count1. M r. S uther l and obj ect ed to the P S R ’s cal culat i on s ( 1) i den t i fy i ng him as a car eeroffe nderand ( 2) t o t he four - l evel enhanc ementforus e of for ce, fr aud or coer ci on. T he di s t r i ctcour ts us t ai ned the obj ect i on t o the enha ncementand reduced his offense l evel byfou r butov erruled hi s car eer offen der object i on so the to tal o ffen se lev el rem aine d at 37 . T h e d istri ct co u rtd eterm ined , h o w ev er, th a t th e c a re e r o ffe n d e r s ta tu s o v e r- re p re s e n te d M r. S u th e rl a n d ’s c ri m in a l h is to ry. A c c o rd in g ly , the c o u rt se n ten c e d M r. S u th e rla n d to 2 4 0 m o n th s in p riso n . S e n t. T r . 22- 23; R . D oc. 104. T hi s appea l fol l ow ed.- 5 - D i s cus s i on A . E vi dent i aryR ul i ngs O urr evi ew of a di s t r i ctcourt ’ s evi dent i aryrul i ngs i s foran abus e of di s cr et i on. U ni t ed St at es v. St i ger , 413 F. 3d 1185, 1197 ( 10th C i r . 2005) . O ne chal l engi ng s uch a rul i ng m us ts how thati tw as bas ed on a c l ear l yerr oneous fi ndi ng of fa ctoran err oneous concl us i on of l aw orm ani fes t s a cl earerr orof j ud gm ent. Id. E ven w here a dis tri ctcou rterr s i n an evident i aryrul i ng , w e m ust al s o cons i derharm l es s err or , i . e. , w hetherthe err oraffect ed s ubs t ant i al r i ght s and w arran ts r ev ersa l. Id.; F ed . R . C ri m . P . 5 2 (a). W e turn firstto M r. S u therlan d ’s ch all en g e to th e d istri ct co u rt ’s a d m itta n c e o f

S g t. S c h m id t’ s te s tim o n y . S e e D a u b e rt v . M e rr e ll D o w P h a rm ., Inc . , 5 0 9 U . S . 5 7 9 (19 9 3 ). W e w il l r ev erse a tri al co u rt ’s de cisi o n to ad m itex p ert t es t i m onyonl yw hen thatdeci s i on i s m ani fes t l yerr oneous . U ni t ed St at es v. D a z e y , 4 0 3 F .3 d 1 1 4 7 , 1 1 7 1 (1 0 th C ir. 2 0 0 5 ). “E v e n if th e tes tim o n ya rg u a b ly em b rac ed the u lt im ate issue , su ch test im o n yis pe rm issi b le as lon g as th e e x p ert’s t es t i m onyas s i s t s , r athert han s uppl ant s , the j ury ’ s j udgm ent . ” I d. at1172. H ere , the d istri ct co u rtca u ti o n ed the g o v ern m en t th at S g t. S ch m idt’ s t es t i m onys houl d notgett oo farafi el d fr om the fa ct s of thi s cas e. M r . Sut her l and a rg u e s th a t S g t. S c h m id t tes tifie d c o n c e rn in g g e n e ra l ch a ra c ter istics o f p ro stitu te re c ru itm e n t an d re ten tio n , so m e c h a ra c ter istics w h ich w e re n o t p re se n t in th is cas e, e. g. , us e of a ffe ct i on, phot ogr aphs , chemi cal depende ncy , tr adi ngW e n o te also th at sev era l othe r co u rt s h av e a p p rov ed sim il ar e x p ert 1 t es t i m onyi n s i m i l arci r cumst ance s . See U ni t ed St at es v. L ong, 328 F. 3d 655, 666 (D .C . C ir . 2 0 0 3 ); U n ite d S ta te s v . T a y lo r, 2 3 9 F .3 d 9 9 4 , 9 9 8 (9 th C ir . 2 0 0 1 ). - 6 - p ro stitu tes , an d d e p riv a tio n o f fa m ilysu p p o rt. A p lt. B r. at 1 3 . W e th in k it debat abl e w hethers om e of thes e fa ct or s w er e atw or k her e. I n anycas e, m anyof th e p ra c tice s d e sc rib e d b yS g t. S c h m id t w e re in v o lv e d . N a rro w tailo rin g o f th is te s tim o n yis s u re ly b e s t, b u t w e m u s t c o n s id e r t h e o v e ra ll te s tim o n y . T h e E ig h th C irc u it h a s tw ice a llo w e d S g t. S c h m id t’s s im ilar te stim o n yin ju v e n ile p ro stitu tio n c a se s a n d h a s n o ted th a t th e re is n o re q u ire m e n t u n d e r R u le 702 t hatt he di s t r i ctcourtal w ay s hol d a D auberthear i ng. See U ni t ed St at es v. L evron E van s, 28 5 F . 3d 66 4, 66 9 (8t h C i r. 20 02 ); U nit ed S t at es v. M on roe E van s, 2 7 2 F .3 d 1 0 6 9 , 1 0 9 4 (8 th C ir . 2 0 0 1 ). T h e re a s o n in g o f th a t c o u rt is in s tru c tiv e . 1 A l t hough t he di s t r i ctcour tdi d nothol d a form al D auberthear i ng, i thel d a h e a rin g o n M r. S u th e rla n d ’s m o tio n in lim in e , w h e re it h a d th e o p p o rtu n ityto cons i derSgt . Schm i dt ’ s qual i fi cat i ons and the hel pful nes s of hi s t es t i m onyt o t he ju ry. T h is c o u rt a ls o h a s h e ld th a t a D a u b e rt h e a ri n g is n o t a lw a y s n e c e s s a ry. U n ite d S ta te s v . N ic h o ls , 1 6 9 F .3 d 1 2 5 5 , 1 2 6 3 (1 0 th C ir . 1 9 9 9 ). W e h a v e re v iew e d th a t tes tim o n ya n d c o n c lu d e th a t th e d istric t co u rt d id notabus e i t s di s cr et i on. Sgt . Schm i dt ’ s t es t i m onyaboutpr os t i tut i on r i ngs and the r el at i ons hi ps betw een pr os t i tut es and thei rpi m ps , fr om r ecrui t m enton, w as avai l abl e fort he j ur yt o as s es s t he cont extand s i gni fi canc e of the eve nt s t hat o c c u rr e d , v iz ., in a s s e s s in g m a n yfa c ts th a t c o u ld b e a r o n g u ilt o r i n n o c e n c e .- 7 -

Si m i l ar l y , t he di s t r i ctcourtdi d notabus e i t s di s cr et i on i n r ej ect i ng the R ul e 403 ar gum entt hatt he dange rof unfa i rpr ej udi ce t o M r . Sut her l and outw ei ghed the p ro b a tiv e v a lu e o f

th e e x p e rt ’s te s tim o n y . F e d . R . E v id . 4 0 3 . T ur ni ng now t o M r . Sut her l and’ s obj ect i ons t o the “unc har ged al l eged behavi or ” underR ul es 402, 403 and 404( b) , w e fi nd hi s obj ect i ons ar e w i thout m er i t . M r . Sut her l and’ s couns el bas i cal l yconce ded the evi dence w as di r ect e v id e n c e ra th e r th a n R u le 4 0 4 (b ) e v id e n c e . T r. at 7 5 . O u r sta n d a rd o f re v iew is for pl ai n err or only . A l t ho ug h the di stri ctcou rti nst ruct ed M r. S uther l and t o rai se h is o bjec tio n s a s th e trial w e n t alo n g , tho se o bjec tio n s w e re n o t ra ise d . P lain err orm us tbe s o egr egi ous as t o r es ul ti n a mi s carr i age of j us t i ce. U ni t ed St at es v . V isin a z , 4 2 8 F .3 d 1 3 0 0 , 1 3 1 1 (1 0 th C ir. 2 0 0 5 ). In o rd e r to w a rra n t re v e rsa l, M r . Sut her l and mustdemonstr at e thatther e w as “( 1) err or , ( 2) thati s pl ai n, and ( 3) t hatt he err oraffect s s ubs t ant i al r i ght s . ” I d. at1308. M r . Sut her l and ca nnot m eett hatbur den her e bec aus e the evi dence w as both di r ectand r el evant , and thus th e c o u rt d id n o t e v e n n e e d to re a c h its a d m is s ib ility u n d e r R u le 4 0 4 (b ). B . Suffi ci encyof the Evi dence W e r evi ew de novo the di s tr i ctcour t ’ s det erm i nat i on thatther e w as su fficie n t ev id e n c e to c o n v ict. U n ited S tate s v . B u sh , 4 0 5 F .3 d 9 0 9 , 9 1 9 (1 0 th Ci r . 2 0 0 5 ) . I n r e v i e wi n g t h e d e n i a l o f a mo t i o n fo ra j u d g me n to f a c q u i t t a l , we vi ew t he evi dence i n t he l i ghtm os tfavor abl e t o the governm entand det erm i ne w hethert her e w as s uffi ci entevi dence fr om w hi ch a j ur ycoul d fi nd a defendant- 8 -

gui l t ybey ond a r eas onabl e doubt . U ni t ed St at es v. J ohns on, 120 F. 3d 1107, 1108 (10 th C ir . 1 9 9 7 ). M r . Sut her l and as ks us t o r evi ew the r ecor d i n the abs ence of the evi dence he has chal l enged a bove. B utt hi s evi dence w as pr oper l yadmi t t ed, and thus the di s t r i ctcourtpr oper l ycons i der ed i ti n deny i ng M r . Sut her l and’ s R ul e 29 mot i on forj udgm entof ac qui tt al . R egar dl es s , the t es t i m onyof M . S. and A . K . w as su fficie n t fo r a ju ryto in fe r th a t M r. S u th e rla n d in ten d e d to , an d d id , p ro stitu te a ll t hr ee gi r l s . V i ew ed i n t he l i ghtm os tfavor abl e t o the governm ent , thatt es t i m ony r evea l ed, i nt eral i a, t hatM r . Sut her l and s how ed the mi norgi r l s pi ctur es of p ro stitu tes , d y e d th e ir h a ir b lo n d e , p ro v id e d th e m w ith d ru g s a n d c lo th e s s u itab le forpr os t i tut i on, t ol d t hem t heyw oul d have t o “hi tthe bl ock, ” had s exual r el at i ons w ith J.M a n d M .S ., p ro stitu ted th e g irls a t a tru c k sto p , an d fo rc e d th e m to p erfo rm sex u al ac ts on h is fri en d s. T h is t esti m o n yalon e w as su ffici en t fo r a jury to fin d M r. S u th e rl a n d g u ilty. M r . Sut her l and ar gues t hatM . S. t es t i fi ed thatM r . Sut her l and di s pl ay ed no k n o w le d g e o r i n te n t a s c h a rg e d , a n d a ju d g m e n t o f a c q u itta l w a s n e c e s s a ry. W e d isag ree . A rea so n ab le j u ryco u ld infer f rom h er testi m o n ythat M r. S u therlan d ’s i nt entw as qui t e cl ear . M r . Sut her l and al s o ar gues thatA . K . ’ s t es t i m onyw as i n s u ffi c i e n tb e c a u s e i tc o n t r a d i c t e d h e rg r a n d j u ry t e s t i m o n y. C r e d i b i l i ty, h o w e v e r, w a s a d e te rm in a tio n fo r t h e ju ry.- 9 -

C . Sent enci ng W e r evi ew a di s t r i ctcourt ’ s fac tual fi ndi ngs i n s ent enci ng forcl earerr or and the l egal i nt erpr et at i ons of the advi s or yU ni t ed St at es Sent enci ng G ui del i nes (“G u idelines ”) d e n o v o . U n it ed S tat es v . W o lfe, 43 5 F . 3 d 1 2 8 9 , 1 2 9 5 (10 th C ir . 2 0 0 6 ). W e re v iew M r. S u therlan d ’s objecti o n s u n d er U n it ed S tat es v . B o o k er, 543 U . S. 220 ( 2005) , forharm l es s err or . T he r ecor d i ndi cat es thatthe di s tr i ct cour tappl i ed the G ui del i nes i n a advi s or yfas hi on, as B ookerr equi r es . I ndeed, the d istri ct co u rtex erc ised the a ffo rde d d iscreti o n to d ep art do w n w ard . In addi t i on, M r . Sut her l and ar gues thatthe di s tr i ctcourtr el i ed on the cont extof the o v e ra ll S to rm yN ig h ts in v e stig a tio n to a rriv e a t h is s e n ten c e , an d th a t th e se fa c ts w er e notpr es ent ed, l etal one pr oven, t o the j ur y . T he r ecor d r efl ect s thatthe di s t r i ctcourtcons i der ed thi s por t i on of the PSR t o be “i m por t antbackgr ound i nform at i on” butt her e i s no evi dence thatthes e fa ct s i nfl uence d the s ent enci ng deci s i on. M r . Sut her l and pr es ent ed no obj ect i on underC r aw for d v. W as hi ngt on, 541 U . S. 36 ( 2004) t o t he di s t r i ctcour t , nordoes he ar gue on appe al how the di s tr i ct cour tcomm i t t ed pl ai n err ori n notr ai s i ng thi s i s s ue s ua s pont e. M er el ycl ai m i ng pr ej udi ce i s notenough. H e has w ai ved the i s s ue. See U ni t ed St at es v. Sol om on, 3 9 9 F . 3 d 1 2 3 1 , 1 2 3 7 -38 (10 th C ir . 2 0 0 5 ).- 10 -

AF F I RMED . E n tered fo r th e C o u rt

P au l J. K ell y , Jr. C i r cui tJ udge