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

For the Eig hth Circu it

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

No. 1 5- 31 94

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

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.

Adr ia n R om al Lom as

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 So ut he rn Dis tri ct of I owa - Dav en po rt

__ __ __ __ __ __

Su bm it te d: Apri l 1 4, 2 01 6

Fil ed : J un e 2 7, 2 01 6

__ __ __ __ __ __

Befo re RI LEY, Chi ef J ud ge , W OLLMAN and MURPHY, Ci rcu it Ju dg es

.

__ __ __ __ __ __

W OLLMAN, Circ ui t J ud ge

.

A jury fou nd Adri an Ro m al Lom as gu il ty of ba nk rob be ry , in vi ol at io n o f 18

U.S.C. § 21 13 (a), an d was se nt en ced by th e di st ric t co ur t to 24 0 mo n t hs ’ 1

im pr is on m en t. On ap pe al

, Lom as ch al le ng es se ve ral of the dis tr ic t co ur t’ s ev id en ti ary

The Hon or ab le Ja m es E. Grit zn er, Uni te d St at es Dis tri ct Ju dg e fo r th e 1

So ut he rn Dis tri ct of I owa

.ru li ng s, th e co ur t’s de ni al of hi s m ot io n fo r a m is tri al

, an d th e co ur t’s se nt en ce. W e

affi rm

.

On Ju ne 6, 20 14

, Lom as an d G.Y., a fif te en -y ear- ol d juv en il e, ro bb ed a br an ch

of th e Fam il y Cred i t U n io n in Dav en po rt, Io wa. Lom as

, weari ng su ng la ss es

, a

Ch ic ag o Bu ll s ba se ba ll cap

, a ba nd an a, an d gl ov es

, ap pr oa ch e d t h e t e ll er on du ty,

di sp la y ed a pi st ol tu ck ed in to th e fro nt wais tb an d of hi s pa nt s, an d de m an de d “ al l th e

m on ey ” in th e te ll er dr awer. G.Y., weari ng a ho od ed swe at s h i r t

, a b a nd an a, an d

gl ov es

, st oo d beh in d Lom as at th e te ll er cou nt er and pa ss ed Lom as a ba ck pa ck in to

whi ch Lom as pl aced th e $4 ,07 5 th at th e te ll er ha nd ed ov er fro m he r dr awer. Sev eral

su rv ei ll an ce ca m eras in si de th e cre di t u ni on reco rd ed th e ro bb ery.

Lom as an d G.Y. ran ou t of th e cr e d i t u n i o n a nd do wn th e st reet

, whe re th ey

jum pe d in to a li gh t bl ue Fo rd W in ds ta r m in iv an th a t w a s wait in g fo r th em wit h it s

sl id in g do or op en

. Nata sh a Hav erca m p, who ha pp en ed to be dr iv in g pa st th e area at

th e ti m e, ob se rv ed Lo mas a n d G.Y., b ot h wit h ba nd an as st il l ob sc ur in g th ei r face s,

as th ey ran to th e m in iv an an d le ap t in si de

. Hav erca m p fo ll owe d th e m in iv an a sh or t

di st an ce, no te d th e ve hi cl e’s li cen se pl at e nu m be r, an d cal le d th e D a v en po rt po li ce

de pa rtment to rep or t th e su sp ic io us act iv it y

. At ab ou t th e sa m e ti m e, th e Dav en po rt

p o l i c e rece iv ed a cal l th at th e cred it un io n ha d be en ro bb ed

. Bel ie vi ng th e tw o

in ci de nt s were li ke ly rel at ed

, th e po li ce ran th e li cen s e pl at e nu m be r pr ov id ed by

Hav erca m

p a nd lea rn ed th at th e m in iv an was re gi st ered to Dani el le Leve tz ow at an

ad dr es s on LeCl ai re St reet in Dav en po rt. Offi cers pr oc eed ed to LeCl ai re St reet

, bu t

th e m in iv an was no t th ere. An of fic er watc hi ng th e res id en ce fro m a ne arb y al le y was

ap pr oa ch ed by o ne of Lev et zo w’ s ne ig hb or s, who ag reed to no ti fy po li ce whe n th e

m in iv an ret ur ne d.

Lev et zo w, Lom as

, an d Lev et zo w’ s tw o y ou ng ch il dr en ret ur ne d to LeCl ai re

St reet in th e m in iv an la te r th at aft ern oo n; Lev et zo w’ s ne ig hb or cal le d th e po li ce; an d

of fic ers qu ic kl y arri ve d to se cu re th e area an d m ai nt ai n su rv ei ll an ce of th e res id en ce

-2

-whi le a se arch warra nt was ob ta in ed

. Lev et zo w an d th e ch il dr en so on le ft th e ho us e,

an d po li ce arre st ed Lev et zo w an d de ta in ed th e ch il dr en un ti l Le v et zo w’ s m ot he r,

Ch eryl Lev et zo w (Ch eryl), arri ve d. Alt ho ug h of fic ers co n t i n u e d to watc h th e

res id en ce, whe n th ey ev en tu al ly ex ecu te d th e se arch warra nt

, Lom as was no t in si de

th e ho us e. One of th e of

fic ers ha d earl ie r se en an in di vi du al walk in g away fro m th e

ge ne ral area , b ut th e o ffi cer d id no t re co gn iz e th at in di vi du al as Lom as

. Onl y aft er

ex ecu ti on of th e se arch warra nt rev eal ed an em pt y ho us e di d of

fic ers r e a l i z e t h at it

was Lom as who ha d walk ed away. The po li ce se iz ed se ve ral i t e ms f ro m th e

res id en ce an d i m

po un de d Lev et zo w’ s m in iv an

.

In th e m ean ti m e, Lev et zo w was ta ke n to th e po li ce st at io n an d c h a r g e d wit h

ro bb ery. At th e st at io n, Dete ct iv es Tim M u r p h y a n d Bi ll Tho m as

, as well as

Serg ean t Kev in Sm

ul l, in te rv ie wed Lev et zo w ab ou t th e ro bb ery. Mu rp hy an d Sm ul l

te st ifi ed th at Lev et zo w in it ia ll y de ni ed an y kn owl e d g e o f th e ro bb ery an d cl ai m ed

th at th e $7 00 in cas h sh e ha d be en carr y in g was m on e y f o r r e n t. Afte r th e of

fic ers

rep e a t e d ly accu se d he r of lying

, ho wev er, sh e ad m it te d th at sh e was th e ge ta way

dr iv er fo r th e cred it un io n r o b b e r y. Lev et zo w rev eal ed de ta il s ab ou t th e ro bb ery,

in cl ud in g a de sc rip ti on of th e cl ot hi ng wor n by th e two ro bb ers

, who m sh e id en ti fie d

as Lom as an d a m an sh e ha d jus t m et na m ed “ Em an ue l.” Sh e to ld th e of fic ers th at th e

ba ck pa ck us ed in th e ro bb ery ha d be en th ro wn in to t h e r i v e r. Afte r th e in te rv ie w,

Lev et zo w was ba il ed ou t of jail by Ch eryl, who th en dr ov e Lev et zo w an d he r ch il dr en

ba ck to th e LeCl ai re St reet res id en ce. Ch eryl te st ifi ed th at sh e ha d ob ta in ed th e ba il

m on ey fro m a gr oc ery ba g co nt ai ni ng $2 ,50 0 in cas h fro m th e ro bb ery th at Lev et zo w

ha d st as he d in a ba th ro om cab in et at Ch eryl’ s ho us e earl ie r th at da y

. W he n th e gr ou p

arri ve d a t t he LeCl ai re St reet res id en ce, t he y fou nd Lom as asl eep on th e co uc h.

Alt ho ug h th e po li ce ha d ob ta in ed a warra nt to arre st Loma s f o r t he ro bb ery,

th ey were un ab le to lo cat e hi m

, an d so on Ju ne 11 th ey ob ta in ed a warra nt to tra ck th e

lo cat io n of Lom as ’s cel lu la r t e l e p h o ne

, an d, aft er rece iv in g da ta fro m hi s se rv ic e

pr ov id er, th ey le arn ed th at Lom as ’s cel l ph on e was “ pi ng in g” ne ar th e ai rp or t in

-3

-Mo li ne

, Ill in oi s. Offi cers were al so aware th at Lev et zo w ha d ret rie ve d he r m in iv an

fro m th e po li ce im

po un d lo t, so th ey be ga n s e a r c hi ng fo r it in th e area ne ar th e

ai rp or t. The po li ce ev en tu al ly di sc ov ered th e m in iv an in a m ot el pa rk in g lo t an d

le arn ed whi ch ro om Lev et zo w ha d ren te d. W hi le of fic ers were pr ep ari ng t o

ap pr oa ch

, Lom as ex it ed th e m ot el ro om an d was arre st ed

. In si de th e ro om

, of fic ers

fo un d Lev et zo w; G.Y.; an d Lev et zo w’ s th ree ch il dr en

, in cl ud in g he r te en ag e

d a u g h t e r

, A.S. The po li ce arre st ed G.Y., de ta in ed Lev et zo w, an d ob ta in ed

Lev et zo w’ s co ns en t to se arch th e m ot el ro om

, whe re th ey se iz ed ce l l p ho ne s

be lo ng in g to Lom as

, G.Y., an d A.S. Offi cers ob ta in ed a warra nt to sea rch Lom as ’s

cel l ph on e an d le arn ed th at te xt m es sa ge s se ek in g to bo rro w a “ to ol ” or a “ un it ” ha d

be en se nt fro m th e ph on e to se ve ral te le ph on e nu m be rs in t h e d a ys p r io r to th e

ro bb ery.

Two da y s aft er Lom as an d G.Y. w e r e a r res te d at th e m ot el

, Dete ct iv e Sco tt

Lan si ng an d an ot he r of

fic er in te rv ie wed Lev et zo w ag ai n, at whi ch ti m e sh e ad m it te d

th at th e ba ck

pa ck fro m th e ro bb ery ha d be en hi dd en an d no t th ro wn in t o t h e riv er.

S h e th en le d th e two of

fic ers to an al le y an d po in te d to a la rg e bu sh

, fro m w h i c h

Lan si ng reco ve red an d th en op en ed th e b a c k p a ck

, whi ch co nt ai ne d th e ro bb ers ’

cl ot hi ng

, al on g wit h an im it at io n fir earm —a BB gu n th at ha d be en al te red to ap pe ar

real

.

G.Y., w h o h a d al read y pl ead ed gu il ty to th e cred it un io n ro bb ery an d was

in carc erat ed at th e Io wa St at e Refo rm at or y

, te st ifi ed th at he an d Lom as co m m it te d th e

ro bb ery an d th at Lev et zo w dr ov e th e ge ta way ve hi cl e. He fu rth er st at ed th at he ha d

ob ta in ed th e BB gu n t ha t Lo m as ha d c arri ed in th e fro nt wais tb an d o f hi s pan ts an d

di sp la y ed to th e te ll er du rin g th e ro bb er y. He al so id en ti fie d th e ba ck pa ck an d it s

co nt en ts as i te m s h e an d Lo m as ha d u se d i n t he rob be ry

.

Lev et zo w’ s da ug ht er A.S. te st ifi ed th at sh e ov erh e a r d Lom as an d Lev et zo w

di sc us si ng a pl an to ro b a ba nk

. Sh e al so ov erh eard Lom as de sc rib e th e pl an to G.Y.

-4

-an d req ue st G.Y.’ s he lp lo cat in g a fir earm

, whi ch Lom as refe rred to as a “ to ol .” A.S.

a l s o t e st ifi ed th at Lom as

, Lev et zo w, an d G.Y. ha d di sc us se d th e ro bb ery in he r

pr es en ce i n t he m ot el roo m , in cl ud in g a di sc us si on of “ whe re t he m on ey was.”

The di st ric t co ur t reject ed Lom as ’s pr et ria l ob jecti on to th e go ve rn m e n t ’s

in tro du ct io n of ev id en ce th at on A pr il 30

, 20 14

, so m e fiv e week s be fo re th e cred it

un io n ro bb ery, Lom as ha d di sc ard ed a fir earm be hi nd th e whe el of a pa rk ed ve hi cl e

an d th at po li ce ha d reco ve red th e fir earm aft er th ey arre st ed Lom as

. The co ur t ag reed

wit h t h e go ve rn m en t th at th is ev id en ce was “ rel ev an t an d pr ob at iv e” to “ ex pl ai n[ ]

why [Lom as ] was lo ok in g fo r a gu n in th e da y s

. . . le ad in g up to th e ro bb ery. ” Sal ly

Cerr a, who se ki tc he n win do w face d th e al le y

, te st ifi ed th at s h e h a d se en two m en

ru nn in g in an al le y be hi nd he r res id e n c e o n A p r il 30 an d th at on e of th e m en

, la te r

id en ti fie d as Lom as

, ha d rem ov ed a fir earm fro m th e fro nt wais tb an d of hi s pa nt s an d

ha d pl aced it on th e gr ou nd be hi nd th e whe el of a p a r k e d ve hi cl e. Serg ean t Sm ul l

te st ifi ed th at he was res po nd in g to a cal l of “ sh ot s fir ed ” ne ar a hi gh sc ho ol on Apr il

30 whe n he no ti ced Lom as an d a no th er m an st an di ng in an al le y an d det ai ne d th em

bo th

. Sm ul l st at ed th at Cerr a in fo rm ed hi m ab ou t wha t sh e ha d se en an d th at he th en

fo un d a .45 -cal ib er fir earm be ne at h t h e ve hi cl e. Sm ul l al so te st ifi ed th at he ha d

ob se rv ed Lev et zo w dr iv in g th e li gh t bl ue m i n i v a n i n th e area whi le th es e ev en ts

un fo ld ed . Lom as m ov ed for a m is tri al , whi ch th e d is tri ct co ur t d en ie d.

Fo ll owi ng th e en try o f th e ve rd ic t, a Pres en te nc e In ve st ig at io n Rep or t (P SR)

wa s p r e p a r e d. It reco m m en de d a ba se of

fen se le ve l of 20 fo r th e ro bb ery, U.S.

Sen te nc in g Gui de li ne s Man ua l (U.S.S.G. or Gui de li ne s) § 2B 3

. 1 ; a 2- le ve l

en ha nc em en t fo r ta ki ng pr op ert y fro m a fin an ci al in st it ut io n, § 2B 3.1 (b )(1 ); a 3- le ve l

en ha nc em en t fo r br an di sh in g a da ng e r o us weap on

, § 2B 3.1 (b )(2 )(E); a 2- le ve l

en ha nc em en t fo r act in g as an or ga ni zer or le ad er, § 3B 1. 1 ( c); an d a 2- le ve l

en h a n c e men t fo r us in g a m in or in th e of fen se

, § 3B 1.4

, res ul ti ng in an ad jus te d

of fen se le ve l of 29

. Bec au se of Lom as ’s two pr io r fel on y co nv ic ti on s— a 19 96 Io wa

co nv ic ti on fo r fir st -d eg ree ro bb ery an d a 2010 N ebras ka co nv ic ti on fo r bu rg la ry —t he

-5

-PSR reco m

m en de d th at th e § 4B 1.1 care er-o ffen de r pr ov is io n be ap pl ie d, le ad in g to

a to ta l offe ns e le ve l of 32, wh ic h, wh en co up le d wi th a cri m in al hi st or y cat eg or y of

VI, res ul te d in an ad vi so ry Gui de li ne s se nt en ci ng ran ge of 21 0 to 24 0 m o n t h s in

pr is on

.

In a se nt en ci ng m em or an du m , th e go ve rn m en t i ni ti al ly too k t he po si ti on th at

Lom as ’s 2 01 0 Neb ras ka bu rg la ry co nv ic ti on was n o t a cri m e of vi ol en ce un de r th e

Gui de li ne s care er-o ffen de r pr ov is io n be cau se Lom as ha d bu rg la riz ed a bu si ne ss

, no t

a dwe ll in g. See U.S.S.G. § 4B 1.2 (a)( 2) (d efi ni ng “ cri m e of v i o l e n c e ” to m ean

“ bu rg la ry of a dwe ll in g” ). W it ho ut th e ap pl ic at io n of th e care er-o ffen de r pr ov is io n,

Lom as ’s to ta l of

fen se le ve l wou ld ha ve be en 29 an d hi s se nt en ci ng ran ge 15 1 to 18 8

m on th s. Bu t be cau se of Lom as ’s ex te ns iv e a n d vi ol en t cri m in al hi st or y

, th e

go ve rn m en t m ov ed f

o r a n u p ward va ria nc e fro m th is ran ge to a se nt en ce of 24 0

m on th s. Pri or to th e se nt en ci ng he ari ng

, ho wev er, th e go ve rn m en t ch an ge d it s

po si t i on an d arg ue d in a su pp le m en ta l se nt en ci ng m em or an du m th at Lom as was

pr op erl y ch arac te riz ed as a care er o ffen de r.

Lom as fi l e d o b

jecti on s to th e PSR, ch al le ng in g th e fact s on whi ch th e

ag gr av at in g- ro le

, br an di sh in g, an d us in g- a-m in or en ha nc em en ts were ba se d. He al so

arg ue d th at hi s 20 10 bu rg la ry co nv i c t i on un de r Neb ras ka Rev is ed St at ut es § 28

-

5 0 7 ( 1 ) d i d no t qu al ify as a pr ed ic at e cri m e of vi ol en ce fo r pu rp os es of th e care er

of fen de r pr ov is io n. To es ta bl is h th at th e co nv ic ti on qu al ifi ed as a pr ed ic at e cri m e of

vi ol en ce, th e go ve rn m en t in tro du ced th e Neb ras ka jud gm en t an d ch arg in g do cu m en t,

whi ch se t fo rth th e st at ut or y la ng ua ge

, as well as a “ Goo gl e Map s ph ot o” of th e

bu il di ng lo cat ed at t he ad dr es s s et fo rth in th e ch arg in g do cu m en t. Lom as ob jecte d

to th e in tro du ct io n of th is ev id en ce, arg ui ng th at be cau se th e Ne b r a s ka bu rg la ry

st at ut e was “ br oa de r th an ge ne ric bu rg la ry ” an d was “ in d i v i s ib le ,” th e co ur t

do cu m en ts un derl y ing the Neb ras ka co nv ic ti on were no t ad m is si bl e an d th e Neb ras ka

bu rg la ry co nv ic t i o n w a s cat eg or ic al ly no t a cri m e of vi ol en ce un de r Des cam ps v.

Uni te d St at es

, 13 3 S. Ct

. 22 76 (2 01 3)

. The di st ric t co ur t reject ed Lom as ’s arg um en t,

-6

-co nc lu di ng th at th e Neb ras ka bu rg la ry co nv ic ti on qu al ifi ed as a cri m e of vi ol en ce an d

th at th e car eer- of

fen de r pr ov is io n a pp li ed

.

Lom as th erea fte r req ue s t e d a s en te nc e of 15 1 m on th s, arg ui ng th at “ [t]he

Gui de li ne s, wit ho ut th e care er of fen de r de si gn at io n, wou ld be 15 1 to 18 8” m on th s

an d th at a 15 1- m on th se nt en ce wou ld “ m or e th an ad eq ua te ly ad dr es s” th e se nt en ci ng

fact or s rai se d by th e go ve rn m en t “ in [it s] fir st Sen te nc in g Mem o.” The di st ric t co ur t

di sa gr eed

, co nc lu di ng in st ead th at a 24 0- m on th se nt en ce was ap pr op ria te

, reg ard le ss

of whet he r th e car eer o ffen de r pr ov is io n a pp li ed . Spe ci fic al ly, th e co ur t s ta te d:

I wou ld reac h th e sa m e se nt en ce ei th er un de r th e Care er Offen de r

Gui de li ne

, whi ch pl aces t he 24 0 m on th s at th e to p of th e Gui de li ne

ran ge

, or as a res ul t of an up ward va ria nc e ev en if we were co ns id eri ng

th e ran ge of 15 1 to 1 8 8

. . . . As in di cat ed

, th e Co ur t do es reac h th is

se nt en ce ei th er on th e ba si s of th e care er of fen de r st at us or on th e ba si s

of da ng ero us ne ss an d l ik el ih oo d o f cri m es in th e fu tu re.

Lom as fir st arg ue s th at th e di st ric t co ur t erre d in ad m it ti ng th e “ irr el ev an t an d

hi gh ly pr ejud ic ia l” te st im on y of Cerr a an d Sm ul l th at he ha d di sc ard ed a f ire arm

se ve ral week s be fo re th e cred it un io n ro bb ery. W e rev ie w a di st ric t co ur t’s de ci si on

to ad m it ev id en ce of a pr io r ba d act fo r ab us e of di sc ret io n, re ve rs in g “ on ly whe n

su ch ev id en ce cl earl y ha d no be ari ng on th e cas e an d was in tro du ced so le ly to pr ov e

th e de fen da nt ’s pr op en si ty to co m m it cri m in al act s.” Uni te d St at es v. Yiel di ng

, 65 7

F.3 d 68 8, 70 1 (8 th Ci r. 20 11 ) (in te rn al qu ot at io n m ark s an d ci ta ti on om it te d)

. W hi le

e vi de nc e of a pr io r ba d act is no t ad m is si bl e to sh ow pr op en si ty, it is ad m i s s i b l e t o

sh ow “ m ot iv e, op po rtu ni ty, in te nt

, pr ep arat io n, pl an

, kn owl ed ge

, id en ti ty, ab se nc e of

m is ta ke

, or la ck of a cci de nt .” Fed . R. Evi d. 4 04 (b ). Suc h e vi de nc e is ad m is si bl e if

(1 ) it is rel ev an t to a m at eri al is su e, (2 ) it is si m il ar in ki nd an d no t ov erl y rem ot e in

ti m e to th e ch arg ed of

fen se

, (3 ) it is su pp or te d by su ffi ci en t e v i d en ce, an d (4 ) it s

po te nt ia l pr ejud ic e do es no t su bs ta nt ia ll y ou twei gh it s pr ob at iv e va lu e. See Yiel di ng

,

65 7 F .3d at 7 01

.

-7

-W e co nc lu de th at th e ch al le ng ed te st im on y was rel ev an t to th e cri m e ch arg ed

.

It de m on st rat ed th at Lom as ha d kn owl ed ge of fir earm s, th at he ha d carr ie d a si m il arlo ok in g fir earm wit hi n week s of th e ro bb ery, an d th at he ha d carr ie d th e fir earm in

a fas hi on si m il ar to th at em pl oyed by th e ba nk ro bb er— in th e fro nt wais tb an d of hi s

pa nt s. In ad di ti on

, th is te st im on y sh owe d th at sh or tl y be fo re th e ba nk ro bb ery, Lom as

was as so ci at ed wit h Lev et zo w, an acco m pl ic e in th e ro bb ery, an d he r m in iv an

, th e

ge ta way ve hi cl e us ed in th e ba nk ro bb ery. Mo reo ve r, Lom as ’s ab an do nm en t of th e

fir earm in Apr il 20 14 an d it s su bs eq ue nt se iz ur e by th e po li ce was rel ev an t to sh ow

why Lom as was se arch in g fo r a fir earm in th e da y s pr eced in g th e Ju ne 20 14 ba nk

ro bb ery. Thu s, it can no t be sa id th at th is te st im on y “ cl earl y ha d no be ari ng on th e

cas e an d was in tro d u c e d so le ly to pr ov e [Lom as ’s] pr op en si ty to co m m it cri m in al

act s.” See Yiel di ng

, 65 7 F.3 d at 70 1; se e al so Fed

. R. Evi d. 40 1 (n ot in g th at ev id en ce

is rel ev an t if it ha s “ an y te nd en cy ” to m ak e a fact t h a t i s of co ns eq ue nc e in

de te rm in in g th e act io n m or e or le ss pr ob ab le th an it wou ld be wit ho ut th e ev id en ce).

W e al so co nc lu de th at th e p o t e n t i a ll y pr ejud ic ia l effe ct of th e ch al le ng ed

te st im on y di d no t su bs ta nt ia ll y ou twei gh it s pr ob at iv e va lu e. Onl y “ ev id en ce th at is

un fai rly pr ejud ic ia l, th at is

, [ev id en ce th at ] te nd s to su gg es t de ci si on on an im pr op er

ba si s” wil l be e x c l u d e d as su bs ta nt ia ll y m or e pr ejud ic ia l th an pr ob at iv e. Uni te d

St at es v. Myers, 50 3 F.3 d 67 6, 68 2 (8 th Ci r. 20 07 ). “ [E ]vid en ce th at is m erel y

pr ejud ic ia l in th e se ns e o f be in g de tri m en ta l to a [d efen da nt ’s] cas e,” on th e ot he r

ha nd

, is ad m is si bl e. Id

. (ci ta ti on om it te d)

. The re is li tt le qu es ti on th at th e te st im on y

at is su e h e r e was pr ejud ic ia l, bu t it was no t un fai rly so

. Neit he r Sm ul l no r Cerr a

te st ifi ed th at Lom as fir ed

, br an di sh ed

, or us ed th e fir earm in an y m an ne r th a t w as

il l e g a l. Alt ho ug h Lom as ’s effo rts to co nc eal th e fir earm un de r th e pa rk ed ve hi cl e

m ig ht ha ve su gg es te d so m e wro ng do in g on hi s pa rt, th e di st ric t co ur t ad m on is he d th e

jury th at th e te st im on y sh ou ld no t be co ns id ered as ev id en ce th at Lom as ’s po ss es si on

of th e fir earm was il le ga l or th at h e w a s co nn ect ed in an y way to th e “ sh ot s fir ed ”

in ve st ig at io n m en ti on ed by Sm ul l. Thi s li m it in g in st ru ct io n su bs ta nt ia ll y di m in is he d

an y da ng er th at th e jury wou l d d e ci de th e cas e on an im pr op er ba si s. See Uni te d

-8

-St at es v. Ken t, 53 1 F.3 d 64 2, 65 1 (8 th Ci r. 20 08 ) (n ot in g th at “ t h i s C o ur t ha s be en

rel uc ta nt to fin d th at th e ev id en ce was un fai rly pr ej u d i c i a l w h en th e di st ric t co ur t

ga ve an ap pr op ria te li m it in g in st ru ct i o n” ) (ci ta ti on om it te d) ; Uni te d St at es v. Pau l,

21 7 F.3 d 98 9, 99 7 (8 th Ci r. 20 00 ) (n ot in g th at “ a jury is pr es u med t o f o l lo w al l

in st ru ct io ns ”). Acco rd in gl y

, we co nc lu de th at th e di st ric t co ur t di d no t ab us e it s

di sc ret io n by ad m it ti ng th e te st im on y th at Lom as di sc ard ed a fir earm in Apr il 20 14

.

Lom as al so co nt en ds th at th e di st ric t co ur t ab us ed it s di sc ret io n by de nyin g hi s

m ot io n fo r a m is tri al aft er Sm ul l t es ti fie d t ha t he had be en in th e are a whe re Lo m as

di sc ard ed th e fir earm in res po ns e to a cal l o f “s h o t s f ire d” at a ne arb y hi gh sc ho ol

.

See Uni te d St at es v. Nels on

, 98 4 F.2 d 89 4, 89 7 (8 th Ci r. 19 93 ) (s ta nd ard of rev ie w).

Lom as arg ue s th at th e “ sh ot s fi red ” te st im on y im pr op erl y su gg es te d t o t he jury th at

he was th e sh oo te r in vo lv ed in th e in ci de nt

, whi ch crea te d a ris k of un du e pr ejud ic e

th at warra nt ed a m is tri al

. W e di sa gr ee. Afte r he ari ng arg um en t fro m co un se l ou ts id e

th e p res en ce o f th e jury, the di st ric t co ur t de ni ed Lom as ’s m ot io n fo r a m is tri al an d

su gg es te d su bm it ti ng a li m it in g in st ru ct io n to th e jury. Defen se co un se l qu es ti on ed

t h e ad eq ua cy of an y li m it in g in st ru ct io n, bu t ev en tu al ly co ns en te d to th e co u r t ’s

pr op os ed in st ru ct io n in li gh t of th e c ou rt’s de ni al of a m is tri al

. The co ur t th en

di rect ed th e jury “ to co m

pl et el y di sr eg ard an y refe ren ce to sh ot s fire d at a sc ho ol in

y ou r co ns id erat io n of th is cas e an d y ou r de li be rat io ns .” The co ur t al so cau ti on ed th e

jury th at Lom as was “ no t he re ch arg ed wit h po ss es si on of a fir earm ” an d th at Sm ul l’s

te st im on y was no t ev id en ce th at Lom as “ was un ab le to be in po ss es si on of a fir earm .”

The “ ad m is si on of al le ge dl y pr ejud ic ia l te st im on y is or di na ril y cu red by an

in st ru ct io n to th e jury to di sr eg ard th e te st im on y ,” Nels on

, 98 4 F.2 d at 89 7, be cau se

th e jury is pr es um ed to f

o l l o w s u c h an in st ru ct io n, se e Pau l, 21 7 F.3 d at 99 7. The

di st ric t co ur t pr op erl y in st ru ct ed th e jury to di sr eg ard Sm ul l’s “ sh ot s fir ed ” te st im on y

a n d t o co ns id er th e rem ai nd er of hi s te st im on y on ly fo r th e li m it ed pu rp os e o f

de te rm in in g whe t h e r Lom as po ss es se d a fir earm in Apr il 20 14

. Acco rd in gl y

, we

co nc lu de th at th e co ur t di d no t ab us e it s di sc ret io n in de nyin g Lom as ’s m ot io n fo r a

-9

-mi s t ria l. See Ken t, 53 1 F.3 d at 65 1 (n ot in g ou r rel uc ta nc e to fin d su ch te st im o n y

“ un fai rly pr ejud ic ia l whe n th e di st ric t co ur t ga ve an ap pr opr ia te lim iti ng ins tr uc tio n”).

Lom as ne xt arg ue s th at th e di st ric t co ur t erre d in ad m it ti ng th e al le ge d he ars ay

te st im on y of se ve ral wit ne ss es de sc rib in g st at em en ts m ad e by Lev et zo w, who di d no t

te st ify at tri al

. W e rev ie w a di st ric t co ur t’s ev id en ti ary ru li ng s fo r ab us e of di sc ret io n.

Uni te d St at es v. Bu rch

, 80 9 F.3 d 10 41

, 10 45 (8 th Ci r. 20 16 ). A di st ric t co ur t’s erro r

in ad m it ti ng he ars ay ev id en ce is ha rm le ss if th e “ erro r di d no t in flu en ce or ha d on ly

a ve ry sl ig ht in flu en ce on th e ve rd ic t.” Id

. (q uo ti ng Uni te d St at es v. Eag le

, 49 8 F.3 d

88 5, 8 88 (8t h C ir. 2 00 7) ).

Lom as fir st ch al le ng es th e te st im on y of Dete ct iv e Kev in Mu rp hy, who st at ed

du rin g red ire ct ex am in at io n th at whe n he in t e rv ie wed Lev et zo w on th e da y of th e

ro bb ery, sh e ad m it te d th at “ sh e kn ew it was a ro bb ery” an d th at Lom as “ was th e

ro bb er.” Thi s te st im on y cam e in res po ns e to de fen se co un se l’s fir st br oa ch in g du rin g

cro ss ex am in at io n th e su bjec t of Mu rp hy’ s in te rv ie w wit h Lev et zo w on th e da y of th e

ro bb ery. Defen se co un se l el ic it ed Mu rp hy’ s te st im on y th at Lev et zo w in it ia ll y de ni ed

kn owi ng why sh e was be in g in te r v i e w e d b y th e po li ce th at da y

, th at th e of fic ers

co nd uc ti ng th e in te rv ie w se ve ral ti m es accu se d Lev et zo w of ly in g, th at sh e to ld th e

of fic ers th at th e ba ck

pa ck us ed in th e ro bb ery ha d be en th ro wn in to th e riv er, an d th at

sh e wan te d Lo m as “ bu rie d.”

“ It is fu nd am en ta l th at whe re th e de fen d an t ‘ope ne d th e do or ’ an d ‘inv it ed

erro r’ th ere can be no rev ers ib le erro r.” Uni te d St at es v. Bea so n, 22 0 F.3 d 96 4, 96 8

(8 th Ci r. 20 00 ) (q uo ti ng Uni te d St at es v. St eel e, 61 0 F.2 d 50 4, 50 5 (8 th Ci r. 19 79 )).

Mu rp hy’ s red ire ct te st im on y was ad m is si bl e to cl ari fy or reb ut th e is su es fir st rai se d

by de fen se co un se l on cro ss -ex am in at io n, se e id

., an d th us we co nc lu d e th at th e

d i s t ric t co ur t di d no t ab us e it s di sc ret io n by ad m it ti ng it

, se e Uni te d St at es v

. N o e

,

41 1 F.3 d 87 8, 88 6 (8 th Ci r. 20 05 ) (co nc l ud in g th at di st ric t co ur t di d no t ab us e it s

-1 0-di sc ret io n by al lo win g go ve rn m en t to cl ari fy on red ire ct fal se im pr es si on crea te d by

de fen da nt on cro ss -ex am in at io n)

.

Lom as ne xt ch al le ng es th e te st im on y of Lev et zo w’ s te en ag e da ug ht er, A.S

.,

who st at ed th at sh e was pr es en t whi le Lev et zo w an d Lom as di sc us se d ro bb in g a ba nk

an d th at sh e was pr es en t in th e m ot el ro om aft er th e ro bb ery whi le Lev et zo w, Lom as

,

an d G.Y. di s c us se d “ whe re th e m on ey was an d st uf f.” The st at em en ts m ad e by

L om as him se lf an d ov erh eard by A.S. are no nh ears ay st at em en ts or ad m is si on s “ m ad e

by the pa rty” and were pro pe rly ad m it te d. See Fed

. R. Evi d. 80 1( d) (2 )(A); see als o

Uni te d S ta te s v. Cl in e, 57 0 F.2d 73 1, 73 6 (8t h Cir. 19 78 ) (ci ti ng Ru le 80 1( d) (2 )(A)

an d co nc lu di ng th at “ [t]he te st im on y was no t he ars ay be cau se it was ap pe ll an t’s own

st at em en t whi ch was be in g of fere d ag ai ns t hi m ”); Uni te d St at es v. Fau lk ne r, 63 6 F.3 d

10 09

, 10 19 (8 th Ci r. 20 11 ) (s am e). A.S.’ s te st im on y was al so ad m is si bl e as ev id en ce

of Lom as ’s no nh ears ay ad op ti ve ad m is si on s. See Fed

. R. Evi d. 80 1( d) (2 )(B) (n ot in g

th at a st at em en t is no t he ars ay if it “ is of fere d ag ai ns t an op po si ng pa rty an d

. . . is on e

th e pa rty m an ife st ed th at it ad op te d or be li ev ed to be tr ue ”) “ Fo r an ou t-o f-co ur t

st at em en t to co ns ti tu te an ad op ti ve ad m is si on

, th e de fen da nt m us t ha ve be en pr es en t

whe n th e st at em en t was m ad e, h a v e u nd ers to od it

, an d ha ve ha d an op po rtu ni ty to

de ny it .” Uni te d St at es v. Keh oe

, 31 0 F.3 d 57 9, 59 1 (8 t h C i r

. 2 0 0 2 ). The se

req ui rem en ts are sa ti sf

ie d: Lom as was pr es en t an d en ga g e d i n c on ve rs at io n wit h

Lev et zo w (o r wit h Lev et zo w an d G.Y.) whe n t he st at em en ts were m ad e an d

ov erh eard by A.S., an d Lom as do es no t arg ue th at he fai le d to un de rs ta nd th e co nt en t

or im po rt of th e st at em en ts or th at he di d no t ha ve an op po rtu ni ty to de ny th e tru th of

t h e st at em en ts

. The di st ric t co ur t th us di d no t ab us e it s di sc ret io n by ad m it ti ng t h e

ch al le ng ed te st im on y

. See id

. (co nc lu di ng t h a t a bysta nd er’s st at em en t was th e

de fen da nt ’s own , bec au se he di d n ot co nt rad ic t o r de ny it).

Lom as m ak es two ad di ti on al he ars ay arg um en ts

. He ch al le ng es th e te st im on y

of Dete ct iv e S c o tt Lan si ng

, who st at ed th at he sp ok e wit h Lev et zo w on Ju ne 13

,

so m et im e aft er Lom as ha d be en arre st ed at th e m ot el

, an d th at Lev et zo w ha d

-1 1-rem ark ed th at “ sh e kn ew whe re th e ba ck pa ck was th at co nt ai ne d th e ou tfi ts whi ch

[Lom as an d G.Y.] were weari ng th at da y fo r th e ro bb ery. ” Lom as al so ch al le ng es th e

in tro du ct io n of sc reen sh ot s of Face bo ok pr iv at e m es sa ge s ex ch an ge d be twee n A.S.,

G

. Y

. , a nd an ot he r in di vi du al sh or tl y aft er th e ro bb ery, in whi ch A.S. s ta te s, amo n g

ot he r in cri m in at in g rem ark s, “ [l]oo k up th e da ve np or t ba nk ro bb ery it was [G.Y.] an d

[Lom as ] an d m

y m om dr ov e th em .” W e ne ed no t de te rm in e whe th er th e ch al le ng ed

ev id en ce co ns ti t u t e d in ad m is si bl e he ars ay

, be cau se an y erro r in ad m it ti ng it was

ha rm le ss

.

“ An er ro ne ou s ev id en ti ary ru li ng is ha rm le ss if it do es no t ha ve a su bs ta nt ia l

in flu en ce on th e ou tc om e” o f th e tri al

. Yiel di ng

, 65 7 F.3d at 70 0. The go ve rn m en t

pr es en te d ov erwh el m in g ev id en ce th at Lom as co m m it te d th e ba nk ro bb ery, inc lud in g

th e te st im on y of G.Y., who co m m it te d th e ro bb ery wit h Lom as ; th e te st im on y of th e

te ll er Lom as c o n f

ro nt ed du rin g th e ro bb ery; th e reco rd in gs fro m th e cred it un io n

se cu rit y cam eras ; th e te st im on y of A.S., who ov erh eard Lom as pl an ni ng th e ro bb ery

an d di sc us si ng th e pr oc eed s th eref ro m ; an d th e te xt mess ag es fro m Lom as ’s cel l

ph on e in whi ch he was se arch in g fo r a “ to ol ” o r a “ un it ” sh or tl y be fo re co m

m it ti ng

th e ro bb ery. In li gh t of th is ev id en ce, we co nc lu de th at th e di st ric t co ur t’s ad m is si on

of Lan si ng ’s te st im ony an d A.S.’ s Face bo ok co nv ers at io ns “ di d no t ha ve a su bs ta nt ia l

in flu en ce on th e ve rd ic t an d was ha rm le ss be y on d a r e a s o n a b l e do ub t.” Id . a t 70 1;

se e al so Uni te d Stat es v. Lond on di o, 42 0 F.3d 77 7, 78 9 (8t h Cir. 20 05 ) (n ot in g th at

ad m is si on of h ears ay

ev id en ce t ha t i s cu m

ul at iv e of pr op erl y

ad m it te d e vi de nc e “ is

no t l ik el y to in flu en ce t he jury an d i s t he refo re h arm le ss erro r”). 2

Lom as al so ch al le ng es th e te st im on y of Lev et zo w’ s m ot he r, Ch eryl, arg ui ng 2

th at th e di st ric t co ur t im

pr op erl y ad m it te d “ Lev et zo w’ s st at em en t to he r m ot he r th at

Lom as ‘call ed he r an d to ld he r to co m e ge t he r cl ot he s’” aft er of fic ers ha d arri ve d at

th e LeCl ai re St reet res id en ce on th e da te of th e ro bb ery. Lom as m is st at es th e reco rd

. Ch eryl te st ifi ed th at it was A.S., no t Lev et zo w, who ha d rece iv ed th e cal l fro m Lom as

to ret rie ve cl ot hi ng fro m th e ho us e. In he r own un ob jecte d- to te st im on y on th is po in t,

A.S. con fir m ed th at th is co nv ers at io n with Lom as ha d o ccu rred . Thu s, an y erro r in

-1 2-Lo mas n e x t arg ue s th at th e di st ric t co ur t ab us ed it s di sc ret io n by pe rm it ti ng

A.S. an d Sp eci al Age nt Je ffre y Hub er to te st ify as la y wit n es se s th at Lom as was

refe rri ng to a fir earm whe n he us ed th e te rm s “ to ol ” an d “ un it ” in co nv ers at io ns an d

te xt mes s a g e s

. See Uni te d St at es v. Peo pl es

, 25 0 F.3 d 63 0, 63 9 (8 th Ci r. 20 01 )

(s ta nd ard of r ev ie w).

As for t he tes ti m on y

of A.S., a l ay

wit ne ss is pe rm it te d t o exp res s an op in io n

th at is “ rat io na ll y

ba se d o n hi s

. . . p erce pt io n, an d he lp fu l t o . . . de te rm in in g a fact

in is su e.” Uni te d St at es v. Lem on s, 79 2 F.3 d 94 1, 94 8 (8 th Ci r. 20 15 ) (ci ti ng Fed

. R.

Evi d. 70 1)

. “Pe r s o n a l kn owl ed ge or pe rcep ti on s ba se d on ex pe rie nc e is su ffi ci en t

fo un da ti on fo r la y op in i o n t e s t im on y .” Uni te d St at es v. Sm it h, 59 1 F.3 d 97 4, 98 2

(8 th Ci r. 20 10 ) (ci ta ti on om it te d)

. A.S. li ve d wit h Lev et zo w an d Lom as in th e

LeCl ai re St reet res id en ce, an d sh e ba se d he r te st im on y reg ard in g Lom as ’s us e of th e

wor d “ to ol ” a s a s yn o nym fo r “ gu n” on he r di rect ob se rv at io ns an d pe rcep ti on s of

Lom as

. Her te st im on y was he lp fu l to de te rm in in g a fact in i s s u e

, na m el y

, whe th er

Lom as us ed th e wor d “ to ol ” as a syno nym fo r “ fir earm .” A.S.’ s te st im on y was th us

rel ev an t an d a dm is si bl e as la y op in io n t es ti m on y . See Un it ed Sta te s v . Freg os o, 6 0

F.3 d 13 14

, 13 26 (8 th Ci r. 19 95 ) (n ot i n g th at a wit ne ss m ay te st ify ab ou t he r

un de rs ta nd in g o f wor ds us ed in a co nv ers at io n s he ha s wi tn es se d)

.

Lom as arg ue s th at Age nt Hub er’s test im on y ab ou t th e m ean in g o f “ to ol ” an d

“ un it ” in Lom as ’s te xt m es sa ge s was im pr op er be cau se Hub er di d no t ob se rv e th e te xt

m es sa ge s as th ey were oc cu rri ng an d di d n ot te st ify reg ard in g hi s pe rs on al

pe rcep ti on s, b o t h of whi ch are req ui red fo r la y op in io n te st im on y to be ad m is si bl e.

The go ve rn m e n t co un te rs th at Hub er’s st at em en ts were ad m is si bl e as ex pe rt

ad m it ti ng Ch eryl’ s te st im on y was ha rm le ss

. See Uni te d St at es v. Jo hn so n, 53 5 F.3 d

89 2, 89 8 (8 th Ci r. 20 08 ) (co nc lu di ng th at th e ad m is si on of in ad m is si bl e he ars ay was

ha rm le ss when th e d ecl aran t t es ti fie d a nd was a va il ab le for cro ss -ex am in at io n)

.

-1 3-te st im on y of a wit ne ss who se “ kn owl ed ge

, sk il l, ex pe rie nc e, tra in in g, or ed uc at io n”

as si st ed th e jury in u nd ers ta nd in g t he ev id en ce. Fed . R. Evi d. 7 02

.

A l t h o u g h Age nt Hub er li ke ly wou ld ha ve qu al ifi ed as an ex pe rt on cri m in a l

be ha vi or an d te rm in ol og y in li gh t of hi s cred en ti al s, he was no t of fere d as su ch by th e

go ve rn m en t. Thu s, we are do ub tfu l th at Hub er tes ti fie d as an ex pe rt wit h res pe ct to

t h e c h al le ng ed te st im on y

. See Fed

. R. Cri m

. P. 16 (a)( 1) (G). W he n “ a la w

en fo rcem en t offi cer is no t qu al ifi ed as an ex pe rt

. . . [h is ] te st im on y is ad m is si bl e as

la y op in io n on ly whe n [h e] is a pa rti ci pa nt in th e co nv ers at i o n

, ha s pe rs on al

kn owl ed ge of th e fact s be in g rel at ed in th e co nv ers at io n, or ob se rv ed th e

co nv ers at io ns as th ey oc cu rred .” Peo pl es

, 25 0 F.3 d at 64 1. In Peo pl es

, an FBI ag en t,

t e s t i f y in g as a la y wit ne ss

, ga ve ex te ns iv e op in io n te st im on y

, “ ba se d on he r

in v e s t i g a t io n aft er th e fact ,” reg ard in g th e m ean in g of co m m on wor ds an d ph ras es

an d “ of fer[ ed ] a na rrat iv e gl os s th at co ns is te d al m os t en ti rel y of he r pe rs on al op in io ns

of what th e [re co rd ed ] co nv ers at io ns m ean t” an d “ wha t de fen da nt s were th in ki ng .”

Id

. at 64 0- 41

. W e co nc lu de d th at th e te st im on y wen t f a r be y on d ad m is si bl e la y

op in io n te st im on y an d was in st ead ex pe rt te st im on y im pr op erl y ad m it te d “ un de r th e

gu is e o f l a y op in io n[ ]” te st im on y

. Id

. Here, by co nt ras t, Hub er’s ch al le ng ed

te st im on y was rel at i v el y br ie f an d was li m it ed to in te rp ret in g Lom as ’s “ co de d”

te rm in ol og y to refe r to a fir earm

, an d th us th ere is no t a si gn ifi can t po ss ib il it y th at it

h a d a su bs ta nt ia l im

pa ct on th e jury’ s ve rd ic t. Cf. id

. at 64 2. See Uni te d St at es v.

Man n i n g

, 73 8 F.3 d 93 7, 94 2 (8 th Ci r. 20 14 ) (n ot in g th at we rev ers e an erro ne ou s

ev id en ti ary ru li ng “ on ly i f [th e] erro r affe ct s th e su bs ta nt ia l rig ht s of th e de fen da nt

or ha s m or e th an a sl ig ht in flu en ce on th e [jury’ s] ve rd ic t” ); se e al so Uni te d St at es v.

Turn er, 78 1 F.3 d 37 4, 38 8- 89 (co nc lu di ng th at im pr op erl y ad m it te d ex pe rt te st im on y

of co co ns pi rat or wit ne ss

, who in te rp ret ed co de wor ds us e d b y ot he rs in reco rd ed

co nv ers at io ns pl ay ed fo r th e ju r y

, di d no t affe ct th e ve rd ic t whe re ot he r wit ne ss es

in te rp ret ed si m il ar wor d s )

. A .S. ha d al read y te st ifi ed to Lom as ’s us e of th e wor d

“ to ol ” to refe r to a fir earm

, so Hub er’s te st im on y was at th e m os t pa rti al ly cu m ul at iv e.

See id

. In li gh t of th e al read y -n ot ed ov erwh el m in g ev id en ce th at Lom as co m m it te d

-1 4-th e ro bb ery wh il e di sp la y in g an im it at io n fir earm

, an y erro r in ad m it ti ng Hub er’s

ch al le ng ed te st im on y was un li ke ly to ha ve affe ct ed th e jury’ s ve rd ic t, an d th us it was

ha rm le ss

. See id .; cf. Lon do nd io

, 42 0 F.3 d at 78 9 (h ol di ng th at ad m is si on of he ars ay

te st im on y th at is cu m

ul at iv e of pr op erl y ad m it te d ev id en ce “ is no t li ke ly to in flu en ce

th e jury and is th eref

or e h arm le ss erro r”).

Fi na ll y , Lom as arg ue s t ha t th e di st ric t co ur t erre d in ap pl y in g th e Gui de li ne s

care er-o ffen de r pr ov is io n to cal cu la te hi s se nt en ce. He co nt en ds th at be cau se hi s

20 10 Neb ras ka bu rg la ry co nv ic ti on was no t a pr ed ic at e cri m e o f v i o le nc e un de r

§ 4B 1.2 (a), he di d no t ha ve th e two pr io r fel on y co nv ic ti on s n e c e s s a r y f or care erof fen de r pu rp os es

. W e ne ed no t ru le on th is co nt en ti on

, ho wev er, fo r an y erro r in th e

di st ric t co ur t’s fin di ng th at Lom as was a care er of fen de r wou ld be ha rm le ss gi ve n th e

di st ric t co ur t’s al te rn at iv e ru li ng

. See Uni te d Stat es v. Sayles, 67 4 F.3 d 10 69

, 10 72

(8 th Ci r. 20 12 ) (n ot in g th at a pr oc ed ur al se nt en ci ng erro r do es no t req ui re rev ers al if

th e di st ric t co ur t “ sp eci fic al ly id en ti fie s th e co nt es te d is su e an d po te nt ia ll y erro ne ou s

ru li ng

, se t s f

o r t h an al te rn at iv e ho ld in g su pp or te d by th e la w an d th e reco rd in th e

cas e, an d a de qu at el y

ex pl ai ns it s al te rn at iv e h ol di ng ”).

At se nt en ci ng

, th e go ve rn m en t in qu ire d whe th er th e di st ric t co ur t wou ld ha ve

im po se d th e sa m e se nt en ce ha d th e co ur t no t fo un d th at Lom as was a care er of fen de r.

The di st ric t co ur t res po nd ed affi rm at iv el y

, sp eci fic al ly no ti ng th at

, aft er co ns id eri ng

th e § 35 53 (a) fact or s, it was gr an ti n g t h e g o ve rn m en t’s m ot io n fo r an up ward

va r i a n c e to a 24 0- m on th se nt en ce “ ev en if we were co ns id eri ng th e [n on -car eerof fen de r Gui de li ne s] ran ge of 15 1 to 18 8 m on th s.” The di st ric t co ur t em ph as iz ed th e

se rio us ne ss of Lom a s ’s o f f e ns e, in cl ud in g th e fact th at Lom as “ te rri f[i ed ] th e ba nk

te ll er” an d “ in vo lv e[d ] a ki d” in th e of fen se

. The co u rt al so ack no wled ge d it s

ob li ga ti on to pr ot ect th e pu bl ic fro m fu rth er cri m es by Lom as

, sp eci fic al ly no ti ng th at

Lom as ’s ex te ns iv e cri m in al hi st or y su gg es te d “ al m os t an ab so lu te cert ai nt y ” th at he

wou ld reci di va te

. The co ur t reco gn iz ed it s du ty to ad eq ua te ly de te r cri m in al co nd uc t

of ot he r pe rs on s an d it s ob li g a t i o n t o av oi d un warra nt ed se nt en ce di sp ari ti es

,

-1 5-ob se rv in g th at Lo mas ’s co nd uc t was “ di ss im il ar fro m m an y cas es of th is ki nd .” In

li gh t of th e di st ric t co ur t’s un eq ui vo cal st at em en t th at it wou ld im po se a 24 0- m on th

se nt en ce n ot wit hs ta nd in g i ts ap pl ic at io n o f th e care er-o ffen de r pr ov is io n, an y erro r

in ap pl y in g t ha t p ro vi si on is ha rm le ss

.

Lom as co nt en ds th at th e di st ric t co ur t’s al te rn at iv e se nt en ce is in va li d be cau se

th e co ur t di d n o t res ol ve hi s ou ts ta nd in g ob jecti on s to th e br an di sh in g, le ad er-o ror ga ni zer, an d us e-o f-a- m in or en ha nc em en ts th at co nt rib ut e d t o th e 15 1- to 18 8-

m on th Gui de li ne s se nt en ci ng ran ge

. As se t fo rth ab ov e, th e fact ua l ba si s fo r

im po s i n g t h e se en ha nc em en ts was es ta bl is he d by th e ev id en ce pr es en te d at tri al

.

Lom as was id en ti fi e d a s t h e in di vi du al who di sp la y ed th e im it at io n fir earm us ed

du rin g th e ro bb ery; th e su rv ei ll an ce reco rd in gs

, as well as th e te st im on y of th e te ll er

an d G.Y., es ta bl is he d th at Lom as was th e le ad er or or ga ni zer of th e of fen se ; an d G.Y.

te st ifi e d th at he was a m in or whe n th e of fen se was co m

m it te d. The di st ric t co ur t

3

no te d th e ob

jecti on s bu t “ rel ie [d ] up on th e reco rd mad e i n th e cas e,” in cl ud in g th e

PSR, th e “ m em or an da of co un se l, [an d] t he su pp le m en ta l m at eri al s,” to im po se th e

ch al le ng ed en ha nc em en ts

. See Uni te d St at es v. Esq ue da

, 59 9 F. App ’x 60 8, 60 9 (8 th

Ci r. 20 15 ) (p er cu ria m ) (rejec ti ng de fen da nt ’s arg ume n t t ha t di st ric t co ur t fai le d to

m ak e ad e q u a te fin di ng s to su pp or t ap pl ic at io n of en ha nc em en t whe re reco rd

su pp or te d en ha nc em en t an d th e co ur t st at ed “ th at it was m ak in g it s de ci si on ba se d on

i t s rev ie w of th e reco rd ”); Uni te d St at es v. Ci ve y

, 36 4 F. App ’x 28 4, 28 6 (8 th Ci r

.

20 10 ) (p er cu ria m ) (“ The ev id en ce ad du ced a t t r i a l

. . . pr ov id ed a ba si s fo r th e

en ha nc em en t.”)

. Mo reo ve r, Lom as in vi te d th e co ur t to co ns id er th e ad vi so ry

Gui de li ne s ran ge he no w ch al le ng es as erro ne ou s. At th e se nt en ci ng he ari ng

, de fen se

co u ns el st at ed th at th e Gui de li ne s ran ge “ wit ho ut th e care er of fen de r de si gn at io n,

wou ld be 15 1 to 18 8. Tha t wou ld ev en in cl ud e

. . . th e[] en ha nc em en ts ” at is su e he re.

Co nt rary to Lom as ’s arg um en t on ap pe al

, th e di st ric t co ur t di d fin d th at Lom as 3

us ed a m in or in th e of

fen se

, st at in g th a t Lo mas “ di d in de ed in vo lv e a ki d in th e

pr oc es s o f th is cri m e.”

-1 6-Defen se co un se l as ke d th e co ur t to im po se a se nt en ce at th e “ lo w en d of th e no nc aree r

of fen de r Gui de li ne s

, ” sp eci fic al ly st at in g th at “ ba se d on al l th e fact or s

. . . we are

as ki ng fo r a se nt en ce of 15 1 m on th s.” In vi ew of th os e req ue st s, Lom as wil l no t no w

be he ard to arg ue th at th e di st ric t co ur t cl earl y erre d in de te rm in in g th at th e fact s were

su ffi ci en t t o s up po rt t he ch al le ng ed en ha nc em en ts

.

The jud gm en t i s af

fir m ed

.

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

-1 7-