## United States Court of App eals

F O R T H E E I G H T H C I R C U I T

__ __ __ __ __ _

No. 1 0- 29 89

__ __ __ __ __ _

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

* App el le e, *

*

v. *

*

Ferr is Lave ll e Lee, *
al so kn own as Vi to

, *

* App el la nt

. *

__ __ __ __ __ _ App eal s fr om th e Uni te d S ta te s No. 1 0- 29 90 Dis tri ct Co ur t fo r th e

__ __ __ __ __ _ Dis tri ct of No rth Dako ta

.

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

* App el le e, *

*

v. *

*

Mau ric e M. Fo res t, *

* App el la nt

. *__

__ __ __ __ _

No. 1 0- 29 92

__ __ __ __ __ _

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

* App el le e, *

*

v. *

*

Mar cu s J erm ai ne Ro y st on , *
al so kn own as B D, *

* App el la nt

. *

__ __ __ __ __ _

Su bm it te d: Ja nu ary 10 , 20 12
Fi le d: Aug us t 2 , 20 12

__ __ __ __ __ _

Befo re RILEY, Ch ie f Ju dg e, S H EP HERD, Ci rcu it Ju dg e, an d W EBBER, Dis tri ct 1

Ju dg e.

__ __ __ __ __ _
RILEY, Chi ef J ud ge

.

A jury co nv ic te d Ferr is Lav el le Lee, Mau ric e M. Fo res t, an d Mar cu s Je rm ai ne

Ro y st on (co ll ect iv el y , ap pe ll an ts ) of va rio us dr ug -rel at ed of fen se s. The di st ric t co ur t

se nt en ced Lee to 54 0 m on th s im pr is on m en t, Fo res t to a st at ut or y m an da to ry m in im um

12 0 m on th s im

pr is on m en t, an d Ro y st on to a st at ut or y m an da to ry m in im um li fe

se nt en ce. On ap pe al , t he ap pe ll an ts rai se nu m ero u s c h a l l e ng es to th ei r co nv ic ti on s,

The Hon or ab le E. Ri ch ard W eb be r, Uni te d S t a te s Dis tri ct Ju dg e fo r th e 1

East ern Dis tri ct of M is so ur i, s it ti ng by des ig na ti on

.

-2

-an d Fo res t an d Ro y st on ch al le ng e th ei r se nt en ces

. W e affi rm in p a r t an d rev ers e in

pa rt, v acat in g F or es t’s an d R oysto n’s s en te nc es an d re m an di ng for res en te nc in g.

I. BACKGRO UND

A. Fac ts 2

Lee, al on g wit h Ja ke Nor th ern , ov ers aw a co ns pi racy to di st rib ut e co cai ne an d

co cai ne ba se in Nor th Dak ot a an d So ut h Dak ot a. Lee an d No r t h e r n rep eat ed ly

3

pu rch as ed co cai ne fro m two Mi nn es ot a so ur ces , on e be in g Ro y st on , an d di rect ed th e

sa le of th e dr ug s in Si ou x Fal ls

, So ut h Dak ot a, an d Bi sm arck an d F a r go , Nor th

Dak ot a

. R o ys t on ev en tu al ly m ov ed to Farg o, whe re he so ld co cai ne fo r th e

or ga ni zat io n. Fo res t op erat ed in Bi sm arck

, whe re he pr ov id ed se cu rit y , co ll ect ed

m on ey , and so ld co cai ne for th e o rg an iz at io n.

In Decem be r 20 08

, Tara Bau er, wh o he lp ed th e or ga ni zat io n se ll co cai ne in

Bi sm arck , i n f

o rm ed lo cal au th or it ie s ab ou t th e or ga ni zat io n. Bau er act ed fu rth er as

a co nf id en ti al in fo rm an t an d p a r t i ci pa te d in co nt ro ll ed bu y s on be ha lf of th e

au th or it ie s. Oth er co nf

id en ti al in fo rm an ts m ad e nu m ero us co nt ro ll ed bu y s fro m th e

or ga ni zat io n in bo th Bis m arck an d F arg o. Each ap pe ll an t was pr es en t an d in vo lv ed

in at l eas t o ne co nt ro ll ed bu y

.

B. Pro cedu ra l H is to ry

In Decem be r 20 09 , a gr an d ju ry

in di ct ed th e ap pe ll an ts an d fiv e ot he r al le ge d

co -co ns pi rat or s in a fo ur te en -co un t in di ct m en t. Co un t One ch arg ed ap pe ll a nt s wit h

co ns pi rin g to po ss es s wit h in te nt to di st rib ut e an d di st rib ut in g m or e th an fif ty gr am s

W e pr es en t th e fact s in th e li gh t m os t fav or ab le to th e jury ve rd ic t. See Uni te d 2

St at es v. Me ek s, 6 39 F.3d 52 2, 5 25 (8t h C ir. 2 01 1)

.

The go ve rn m en t pr od uc ed ev id en ce th e or ga ni zat io n so ld bo th co cai ne an d 3

co cai ne ba se

. Exc ep t whe re th e le ga l di st in ct io n is rel ev an t, we ge ne ral ly refe r to th e dr ug s s ol d a s co cai ne

.

-3

-of co cai ne ba se , an d m or e th an 50 0 gr am s of a m ix tu re an d su bs ta nc e co nt ai ni ng a

de te ct ab le am ou nt of co c ai ne , in vi ol at io n of 21 U.S.C. §§ 84 6, 84 1( a)(1 ), an d 18

U.S.C. § 2. Co un ts Two th ro ug h Twelv e ch arg ed Lee wit h di st rib ut in g, or ai di ng an d

ab et ti ng th e d is tri bu ti on of a co nt ro ll ed su bs ta nc e—e it he r co cai ne ba se or a m ix tu re

or su bs ta nc e co nt ai ni ng co cai ne —i n vi ol at io n of 21 U.S.C. § 84 1( a)(1 ) an d 18 U.S.C.
§ 2. The in di ct m en t ch arg ed Fo res t (Co un t Elev en ) an d Ro y st on (Co un t Twelv e) wit h

on e co un t each of di st rib ut in g an d ai di ng an d ab et ti ng th e di st rib ut io n of a co nt ro ll ed

s u b s ta nc e. Co un t Thi rte en ch arg ed Lee wit h em pl oyin g or us in g a m in or in a d r u g 4

op erat io n, in vi ol at io n of 21 U.S.C. § 86 1( a)(1 ), (c), an d (d ), an d 18 U.S.C. § 2. Co un t

Fo ur te en ch arg ed Lee wit h e ng ag in g i n a co nt in ui ng cri m in al en te rp ris e in vi ol at io n

of 21 U.S.C. § 8 48 (a) a nd (c).

In May 20 10

, th e di st ric t co ur t pr es id ed ov er a th i r t e e n

- d a y tri al

. The

go ve rn m en t pr es en te d te st im on y fro m la w en fo rcem en t of fic ers , dr ug an al y st s, co

co ns pi rat or s, c on fid en ti al in fo rm an ts an d in di vi du al s who ei th er so ld dr ug s fo r or
bo ug ht dru gs fro m

th e o rg an iz at io n.

The jury ret ur ne d a ve rd ic t fin di ng al l of th e ap pe ll an ts gu il ty of th e co ns pi racy 5

an d di st rib ut io n ch arg es

. As to th e co ns pi racy, th e jury fo un d (1 ) Lee’s pa rti ci pa ti on 6

in vo lv ed m or e th an fif

t y g ram s of a m ix tu re an d su bs ta nc e co nt ai ni ng co cai ne ba se

The in di ct m en t al so ch arg ed Fo res t in Co un t Ten

, bu t th is ch arg e ag ai ns t hi m 4

was dro pp ed

.

The jury fo un d th e ap pe ll an ts gu il ty bo th of co ns pi rin g to di st rib ut e co nt ro ll ed 5

su bs ta nc es an d a id in g a nd ab et ti ng th e co ns pi racy.

On Co un ts Two, Thre e, Fo ur , Si x an d Sev en , th e jury co nv ic te d Lee on ly fo r 6

ai di ng an d ab et ti ng th e di st rib ut io n of a co nt ro ll ed su bs ta nc e. On Co un ts Fi ve , Eig ht

, N i n e, Ten

, Elev en an d Twelv e, th e jury co nv ic te d Lee fo r bo th di st rib ut io n of a

co nt ro ll ed su bs ta nc e an d ai di ng an d ab et ti ng th e di st rib u ti on of a co nt ro ll ed

su bs ta nc e. The co nv ic ti on s of Fo res t a nd Ro y st on were bo th fo r di st rib ut io n an d
ai di ng an d a be tt in g t he di st rib ut io n o f co nt ro ll ed su bs ta nc es

.

-4

-an d m or e th an 50 0 gr am s of a m ix tu re an d su bs ta nc e c o n t a i n i n g co cai ne ; (2 )

Ro y st on ’s pa rti ci pa ti on in th e co ns pi racy in vo lv ed m or e th an fif ty gr am s of a m ix tu re

an d su bs ta nc e co nt ai ni ng co cai ne ba se ; an d (3 ) Fo res t ai de d an d ab et te d a co ns pi racy

to di st rib ut e m or e th an fif

ty gr am s of a m ix tu re an d su bs ta nc e co ntain in g co cai ne ba se

. The jury al so fo un d Lee gu il ty of en ga gi ng in a co nt in ui ng cri m in al en te rp ris e, bu t no t

gu il ty of em

pl oyin g o r us in g a m in or to di st rib ut e a co nt ro ll ed su bs ta nc e.

On Aug us t 3, 20 10

, th e Fai r Sen te nc in g Act of 20 10

, Pu b. L. No. 11 1- 22 0, 12 4

St at

. 23 72 (FSA), be cam e effe ct iv e. A s r el ev an t he re, th e FSA am en de d 21 U.S.C.
§ 84 1 ( b )(1 )(A)(i ii ) to in crea se fro m fif ty to 28 0 gr am s th e qu an ti ty of m ix tu re

co nt ai ni ng co cai ne ba se ne ces sa ry to tri gg er st at ut or y m in imu m an d m ax im um

se nt en ces

.

Afte r de nyin g th e ap pe ll an ts ’ po st -co nv ic ti on m ot io ns , se e Fed

. R. Cri m

. P. 29

an d 33

, th e di st ric t co ur t en te red jud gm en t on Aug us t 31

, 20 10

. Dete rm in in g th e FSA

was no t retro act iv e an d th us in ap pl ic ab le

, th e di st ric t co ur t s en te nc ed (1) Lee to 54 0

m on th s im

pr is on m en t fo r hi s co nt in ui ng cri m in al en te rp ris e co nv ic ti on , to ru n

co nc ur ren tl y wit h le ss er se nt en ces fo r hi s di st rib ut i on co nv ic ti on s; (2 ) Fo res t to a 7

st at ut or y man d a to ry m in im um se nt en ce of 12 0 m on th s fo r co ns pi racy, to ru n

co nc ur ren tl y wit h a le ss er se nt en ce fo r di st rib ut io n; an d (3 ) Ro y st on to a m an da to ry

m in im um se nt en ce of li fe im

pr is on men t fo r co ns pi racy, be cau se he was a care er

of fen de r who ha d pr ev io us ly be en co nv ic te d of two fel on y ch arg es , an d th e jury

de te rm in ed th e qu an ti ty of co cai ne ba se in vo lv ed i n t h i s c on vi ct io n was m or e th an

fif ty gram s. Th e ap pe ll an ts fil ed ti m el y no ti ces of a pp eal

.

The di st ric t co ur t va cat ed Lee’s co ns pi racy con vi ct io n a fte r de te rm in in g t he 7

co nv ic ti on was a le ss er-i nc lu de d- of fen se of hi s co nt in ui n g cri m in al en te rp ris e

co nv ic ti on , an d on ly on e pu ni sh m en t was al lo wed fo r th es e two co un ts of co nv ic ti on

. See R ut le dg e v . Uni te d S ta te s, 5 17 U.S. 29 2, 3 07 (19 96 ).

-5

-II

. DISCUSS IO N

All of th e ap pe ll an ts ch al le ng e th e su ffi ci en cy of th e ev id en ce su pp or ti ng th ei r

co nv ic ti on s. Ro y st on al so pr ot es ts ce r t ai n ev id en ti ary ru li ng s, th e di st ric t co ur t’s

de ni al of Ro y st on ’s m ot io n fo r a ne w tri al

, an d th e di st ric t co ur t’s im po si ti on of a

m an da to ry li fe se nt en ce. Fo res t ob jects to th e im

p o s i t i o n of a m an da to ry m in im um

12 0 m on th sen te nc e. Lee ex pr es sl y do es no t ch al le ng e h is sen te nc e.

A. Suff

ic ie ncy of t he Ev id ence

W e rev ie w de no vo su ffi ci en cy of th e ev id en ce ch al le ng es , “ vi ewin g th e

ev id en ce m os t fav or ab ly to th e jury ve rd ic t, res ol vi ng co nf li ct s in fav or of th e ve rd ic t,

an d gi vi ng it th e be ne fit of al l reas on ab le in fere nc es .” Uni te d St at es v. Sp en cer, 59 2

F.3 d 86 6, 87 6 (8 th Ci r. 20 10 ). “ The ju r y’s v e rd ic t m us t be up he ld if th ere is an

in te rp ret at i o n o f th e ev id en ce th at wou ld al lo w a reas on ab le jury to fin d [th e

ap pe ll an ts ] gu il ty be y on d a reas on ab le do ub t.” Id . (qu ot in g Uni te d Stat es v. Moo re,

10 8 F.3 d 87 8, 88 1 ( 8 t h C i r

. 19 97 )) (in te rn al qu ot at io n m ark s om it te d)

. “ In m ak in g

su ch an ev al ua ti on , ‘it i s a x i o m at ic th at we do no t rev ie w qu es ti on s in vo lv in g th e
cred ib il it y of wit ne ss es , bu t le av e cred ib il it y qu es ti on s to th e jury.’ ” Uni te d St at es v. Rag la nd

, 55 5 F.3 d 70 6, 71 5 (8 th Ci r. 20 09 ) (q uo ti ng Uni te d St at es v. Dab ne y , 36 7

F.3 d 1 04 0, 1 04 3 (8 th Cir . 20 04 )) (i nt ern al m ark s o m it te d)

.

1. Con tin ui ng Crimina l En terp ri se

Fi rs t, we co ns id e r Lee’s co nv ic ti on fo r en ga gi ng in a co nt in ui ng cri m in al

en te rp ris e in vi ol at io n o f 2 1 U

. S.C. § 84 8( c) (Co un t Thi rte en ). To up ho ld th e 8

co nv ic ti on , th ere m

us t b e su ffi ci en t ev id en ce Lee c om m it te d

W e co nst ru e L ee ’ s ap pe al of hi s co ns pi racy co nv ic ti on , whi ch th e di st ric t co ur t 8

al read y va cat ed

, as a ch al le ng e to th e ev id en ce su pp or ti ng hi s co nt in ui ng cr im in al

en te rp ris e co nv ic ti on , of whi ch th e co ns pi racy ch arg e was de te rm in ed to be a le ss er in cl ud ed off

en se . See Ru tl ed ge , 51 7 U.S. at 30 7.

-6

-1) a fel on y vi ol at io n o f th e fed eral na rco ti cs laws ; 2) as pa rt of a co nt in ui ng se rie s of th ree or m or e rel at ed fel on y vi ol at io ns of fed eral na rco ti cs laws ; 3) in co nc ert wit h fi ve or m or e o th er p ers on s; 4) for who m

[Lee] is a n o rg an iz er, m an ag er o r su pe rv is or ; [a nd ] 5) fro m whi ch [Lee] deri ve s s ub st an ti al in co m e o r res ou rces

.

Uni te d St at es v. Ja ck so n, 34 5 F.3 d 63 8, 64 5 (8 th Ci r. 20 03 ) (q uo ti ng Uni te d St at es v.

Je li ne k, 5 7 F .3d 65 5, 6 57 (8t h C ir. 1 99 5) ) (i nt ern al m ark s o m it te d)

.

Lee m ai nt ai ns “ [n ]o rat io na l tri er of fact can fin d be y on d a reas on ab le do ub t th at [h e] co m m it te d th e se rie s of rel at ed vi ol at io ns of n a r co ti cs la ws as al le ge d

. . . , th at

he was an or ga ni zer, m an ag er or su pe rv is or of [fi v e ] o r m or e pe rs on s in an

or ga ni zat io n, or th at he ob ta in ed su bs ta nt ia l in co m e f r o m t h e en te rp ris e.” W e
di sa gr ee.

Th e jury co nv ic te d Lee of te n co un ts of di st rib ut in g co cai ne , su ffi c i e n t l y

sa ti sf y in g th e fir st two el em en ts

, whi ch req ui re “ a co nt in ui ng se rie s of th ree or m or e
rel at ed fel on y vi ol at io ns of fed eral na rco ti cs la ws.” Id

. Lee’s at te m pt to ch arac te riz e

th e of fen se s m erel y as “a n u mber of st reet le ve l co cai ne ba se de al ers act in g

in di vi du al ly fo r th ei r own be ne fit ” fal ls fla t. Nor th ern de sc rib ed in de ta il hi s an d

Lee’s effo rts to pu rch as e an d di st ri b u t e c oc ai ne in th ree ci ti es , us in g va rio us

in di vi du al s— of

te n fr ie nd s fr om

th ei r ho m et own of C hi cag o— as de al ers

.

Num ero us wit ne ss es co rro bo rat ed Nor th ern ’s co re te st im on y , in cl ud in g

co nf id en ti al in fo rm an ts who di st rib ut ed an d pu rch as ed co cai ne Lee su pp li ed

. It was

th e jury’ s pr ero ga ti ve to be li ev e th os e wit ne ss es , ev en if th ey were, as Lee co m pl ai ns ,

“ ad m it te d li ars , dr ug us ers , dr ug de al ers , an d th ie ve s” “ who ha d st ru ck de al s wit h th e

Gov ern m en t.” See Uni te d St at es v. Hern an de z, 56 9 F

. 3d 89 3, 89 6 (8 th Ci r. 20 09 )
(“ To r e a c h a ve rd ic t, a jury is of te n req ui red to weig h th e cred ib il it y of cri m in al

wit ne ss es .”); Uni te d St at es v. Brad le y , 64 3 F.3 d 11 21

, 11 25 -2 6 (8 th Ci r. 2 0 1 1 )

-7

-( a f

f i r ming a co nv ic ti on an d ex pl ai ni ng ou r pa st reject io n of cl ai m s th at wit ne ss e s

“ were i nc red ib le be cau se of t he ir i nc en ti ve for red uc ed sen te nc es ”).

Su ffi ci en t ev id en ce al s o s u p po rts th e jury’ s fin di ng th at Lee or ga ni zed

,

su pe rv is ed

, or m an ag ed m or e th an fiv e pe op le —t he jury id en ti fie d el ev en pe rs on s Lee

m an ag ed —i n fu rth eran ce of th e co nt in ui ng cri m in al en te rp ris e, m eet in g th e th ird an d

fo ur th el em en ts

. “ [The m an ag em en t] el em en t of th e [co nt in ui ng cri m in al en te rp ris e]

st at ut e is sa ti sf

ie d if ‘[Lee] ex ert ed so m e type of in flu en ce ov er an ot he r in di vi du al as

ex em pl ifi ed by tha t i nd iv id ua l’s co m pl ia nc e wit h [Lee’s] d ire ct io ns , in st ru ct io ns , or

te rm s.’” Ja ck so n, 34 5 F.3 d a t 6 4 6 ( q u o ti ng Uni te d St at es v. Po ss ic k, 84 9 F.2 d 33 2,

33 6 (8 th Ci r. 19 88 )) (i nt ern al qu ot at io n m ark s o m it te d)

. “ The go ve rn m en t ne ed no t

es ta bl is h th at [Lee] m an ag ed fiv e pe op le at on c e , t h at th e fiv e act ed in co nc ert wit h

each ot he r, th at [Lee] ex erci se d th e sa m e ki nd of co nt ro l ov er each of th e fiv e, or ev en

th at [Lee] ha d per so na l con ta ct wit h each of th e fiv e.” Pos si ck

, 84 9 F.2d at 33 5- 36

.

The jury he ard ev id en ce th at at le as t fiv e pe op le so ld co cai ne at th e di rect io n of

Lee an d Nor th ern

. See id

. at 33 6 (ex pl ai ni ng “ de fen da nt s who arra ng e th e acq ui si ti on

of t he dr ug , it s de li ve ry , an d se t th e pr ic e an d cred it te rm s ha ve be en fo un d

. . . to

sa ti sf y th e req ui rem en ts of th e m an ag em en t el em en t” ); Uni te d St at es v. Mat hi so n, 51 8

F.3 d 93 5, 94 0 (8 th Ci r. 20 08 ) (rea so ni ng th e el em en t is m et if th ere is ev id en ce
sh owi ng th e “ de fen da nt

. . . pr ov id ed su bs ta nt ia l am ou nt s of dr ug s in an on go in g
rel at io ns hi p wit h lo wer-l ev el dr ug de al ers ”). Lee al so arra ng ed fo r so m e of th es e
de al ers to li ve a n d de al dr ug s ou t of two ho m es , pa y in g th e ho m eo wne rs cas h an d

dr ug s t o d o s o. Th is ev id en ce s up po rte d th e jury’ s fin di ng th at Lee d ire ct ed th e two

own ers of th es e ho m es

. S ee id

. (rec og ni zi ng “ a de fen da nt m an ag es so m eo ne who

st or es dr ug s fo r hi m ”); Uni te d St at es v. Lue th

, 80 7 F.2 d 71 9, 73 2 (8 th Ci r. 1 9 8 6 )
(s im il ar).

Fi na ll y , th ere was su ff

i c i e n t e v id en ce fo r th e jury to co nc lu de Lee de riv ed

su bs ta nt ia l in co m e fro m th e en te rp ris e. “ The [co nt in ui ng cri m in al en te rp ris e] st at ut e

-8

-do es no t pr es cri be th e m in im um am ou nt of m on ey req ui red to co ns ti tu te ‘sub st an ti al ’

in co m e. Ju di ci al de ci si on s co ns tru in g th is ph ras e ha ve gi ve n th e pr os e c u t i on gr eat

la ti tu de on th is po in t.” Uni te d St at es v. Jo ne s, 80 1 F.2 d 30 4, 31 0 (8 th Ci r. 19 86 ). W e reject Lee’s co nt en ti on th e ev id en ce sh ow s h e f a i le d to ob ta in su bs ta nt ia l in co m e
be cau se th e “ [d ]eliv eri es of crac k co cai ne in vo lv in g [h im ]

. . . pr od uc ed rel at iv el y

sm al l am ou nt s of m on ey , . . . . th e wire tra ns fers

. . . were no t su bs ta nt ia l,” an d Bau er

sa id “ Lee wa s a l w a ys b ro ke .” Lee’s se le ct iv e an d se lf- se rv in g acco un t of th e fact s

m is ch arac te riz es th e reco rd ev id en ce, whi ch sh owe d Lee an d N o r th ern ov ers aw th e
di st rib ut io n of la rg e qu an ti ti es of co cai ne , res ul ti ng in si gn ifi can t am ou nt s of m on ey
ch an gi ng ha nd s

. A t l eas t two wit ne ss es te st ifi ed to sp en di ng su bs ta nt ia l su m s of

m on ey on Lee’s dr ug s, in cl ud in g on e dr ug us er who cl ai m ed he sp en t at le as t $2 0,0 00

on co cai ne fro m Lee. A reas on a b l e jury co ul d co nc lu de Lee ob ta in ed su bs ta nt ia l

in co m e a s a r e s u l t of th e la rg e-s cal e cri m in al en te rp ris e. See id

. (rec og ni zi ng th ree

no n- ex cl us iv e fac to rs to co ns id er ar e “ 1) ev id en ce o f th e d efen da nt ’s po si ti on in th e
dr ug ne two rk ; 2) th e qu an ti ty of na rco ti cs in vo lv ed ; an d 3) th e am ou nt of m on ey th at

ch an ge d ha nd s” ); se e al so Uni te d St a t e s v

. R om an , 87 0 F.2 d 65

, 75 (2 d Ci r. 19 89 )
(“ Mo ne y s rece iv ed by th e de fen da nt ’s un de rli ng s m ay be co ns id ered co ns tru ct iv el y

rece iv ed by th e de fen da nt

, an d th e jury is en ti tl ed to co n s i d e r th e gr os s am ou nt

rece iv ed

, no tw i t h s t a nd in g th e de fen da nt ’s arg um en t th at so m e po rti on of hi s gr os s

in co m e m us t b e p ai d o ut to ot he rs .”).

2. Dis tri buti on

To co nv ic t th e ap pe ll an ts fo r di st rib ut io n, th e go ve rn m en t ne ed ed to pr ov e th e

ap pe ll an ts “ kn owi ng ly sol d o r ot he rwis e tra ns ferr ed ” sp eci fie d am ou nt s o f co cai ne

. Uni te d St at es v. Garci a, 64 6 F.3 d 10 61

, 10 66 (8 th Ci r. 20 11 ). The ai di ng an d ab et ti ng
ch arg es req ui red th e go ve rn m en t to pr ov e th e ap pe ll an ts “ as socia te d [t he m se lv es ] wit h

th e u nl awfu l [s al e o r tr an sf er], part ic ip at ed in it as s om et hi ng [th ey ] wis he d t o b rin g
ab ou t, an d so ug ht by [th ei r] act io ns to m ak e it su ccee d.” Uni te d St at es v. Lewis

, 59 3

F.3 d 76 5, 76 9 (8 th Ci r. 20 10 ). “ [N]eith er po ss es si on no r an act ua l sa le by a de fen da nt

ne ed be pr ov ed by th e go ve rn m en t on a ch arg e of di st rib ut in g or ai di ng an d ab et ti ng

-9

-th e di st rib ut io n of dr ug s.” Uni te d St at es v. Hern a n d e z , 98 6 F.2 d 23 4, 23 8 (8 th Ci r.

19 93 ).

As fo r Lee, fiv e of hi s te n ch al le ng ed co un ts of co nv ic ti on were fo r di st rib ut in g

co cai ne an d ai di ng an d ab et ti ng th e sa m e, whi le fiv e were so le ly fo r ai di ng an d

ab et ti ng

. Each of th e co un ts Lee ch al le ng es in vo lv ed co nt ro ll ed bu y s of co cai ne

. The

9

fiv e di st rib ut io n co un ts are, at a m in im um , su pp or te d by th e bu y ers ’ te st im on y th at Lee

was ph y si cal ly pr es en t an d pa rti ci pa te d in th e sa le

. W hi le Lee was no t pr es en t du rin g

th e fiv e co nt ro ll ed bu y s fo rm in g th e ba si s of hi s ai di ng an d ab et ti ng co un ts

, th ere was

am pl e te st im on y

fro m th e b uyers and ot he r wit ne ss es th at Lee, al on g with Nort he rn ,

su pp li ed th e co cai ne an d he lp ed faci li ta te th e tra ns act io ns in va rio u s w a ys

. Onc e

a g a i n Le e at ta ck s th e cred ib il it y of th es e wit ne ss es , bu t fai ls to co nv in ce us th ei r

t e s t i m on y was so in cred ib le as to jus ti fy in va di ng th e jury’ s pu rv ie w. See, e.g ., Brad le y , 64 3 F .3d at 1 12 5- 26 . W e aff irm Lee’s co nv ic ti on s.

Fo r si m il ar reas on s, we affi rm Fo res t’s an d Ro y st on ’s di st rib ut io n co nv ic ti on s.

In bo th in st an ces , th ere was ev id en ce al lo win g th e jury to be li ev e Fo res t an d Ro y st on

pa rti ci pa te d in se pa rat e co nt ro ll ed bu y s of co cai ne

. The two co nf id en ti al in fo rm an ts

who m ad e th e co nt ro ll ed bu y s at is su e t e s t i f i e d Fo res t an d Ro y st on act iv el y

pa rti ci pa te d du rin g th e res pe ct iv e tra ns act io ns

. Thi s is en ou gh to up ho ld th e

co nv ic ti on s. See, e.g ., Uni te d St at es v. W il li am s, 34 0 F

. 3 d 56 3, 57 0- 71 (8 th Ci r.

20 03 ).

3. Con sp ir ac y

To up ho ld Fo res t’s an d Ro y st o n ’s c on sp ira cy co nv ic ti on s, th ere m us t be

ev id en ce fro m whi ch a reas on ab le jury co ul d co nc lu de (1 ) “ a co ns pi rac y, i.e., an

ag reem en t to di st rib ut e” co cai ne , ex is te d; (2 ) Fo res t an d Ro y st on “k n e w of th e

Lee do es no t ch al le ng e hi s di st rib ut io n co nv ic ti on un de r Co un t Fi ve

. It is no t 9

en ti rel y cle ar wh et he r Lee ch al le ng es hi s co nv ic ti on un de r Co un t Ten

.

-1 0-co ns pi racy”; an d (3 ) th ey “ in te nt io na ll y joi ne d th e co ns pi racy.” Uni te d St at es v

.

Sl ag g, 65 1 F.3 d 83 2, 84 0 ( 8 t h C ir. 20 11 ). “ A fo rm al ag reem en t is no t req ui red to

crea te a co ns pi racy, an d th e ex i st en ce of a co ns pi racy can be pr ov ed by di rect or
ci rcu m st an ti al ev id en ce.” Uni te d St at es v. Bo wie, 61 8 F.3 d 80 2, 81 2 (8 th Ci r. 20 10 )
( q u ot in g Uni te d St at es v. W il li am s, 53 4 F.3 d 98 0, 98 5 (8 th Ci r. 20 08 )) (in t e r n a l

qu ot at io n m ark s om it te d)

. “ [A] s in gl e co ns pi racy m ay ex is t ev en i f t h e p a rti ci pa nt s

an d th ei r act iv it ie s ch an ge ov er ti m e, an d ev en if m an y pa rti ci pa nt s are un aware of

, or

un in vo lv ed in

, so m e of th e tra ns act io ns .” Sl ag g, 65 1 F.3 d at 84 0 (q uo ti ng Un i t e d

St at es v. Lon gs , 61 3 F.3 d 11 74

, 11 76 (8 th Ci r. 20 10 )) (in te rn al qu ot at i o n m ark s

om it te d)

.

Bo th Fo res t an d Ro y st on arg ue th ere was in su ffi ci en t ev id en ce fo r th e jury to

co nc lu de th ey vo lu nt ari ly joi ne d th e co ns pi r a c y

. Fo res t ack no wled ge s th ere was

ev id en ce sh owi ng he kn ew ot he r pa rti ci pa nt s in th e co ns pi racy an d he in de pe nd en tl y

so ld dr ug s, bu t Fo res t as se rts th is is no t en ou gh to li nk h i m t o th e co ns pi racy.
Si m il arl y , Ro y st on cl ai m s th e “ ev id en ce di d li tt le m or e th an pr ov e [h e] as so ci at ed wit h

in di vi du al s who were in vo lv ed wit h th e co ns pi racy.” Fo res t an d Ro y st on un de rs ta te

th e ev id en ce.

Nor th ern tes ti fie d h e b ro ug ht Fo res t to Bi sm arck to pr ov id e se cu rit y aft er o ne

of th e or ga ni zat io n’s de al ers was ro bb ed

. Acco rd in g to N o r t h ern , Fo res t co ll ect ed

dr ug mo ne y fo r th e or ga ni zat io n an d di st rib ut ed co cai ne

. A c on fid en ti al in fo rm an t,

Gale n Sm it h, te st ifi ed he fir st sa w Fo res t du rin g a co nf ro nt at io n wit h Lee ab ou t a dr ug
de al

, an d la te r bo ug ht co cai ne fro m Fo res t, who was se ll in g on Lee’s be ha lf. Ras ha d

Ja ck so n, who ad m it te d se ll in g co cai ne fo r th e or ga ni zat io n, sa id he se t up Fo res t wit h

dr ug cu st om ers

. Oth er wit ne ss es sa id th ey ei th er bo ug h t c o c a in e fro m Fo res t or
ob se rv ed hi m

sel li ng co cai ne

.

Nor th ern te st ifi ed Ro y st on ’s in vo lv em en t be ga n whe n Ro y st on so ld rel at iv el y
la rg e qu an ti ti es of co cai ne to Nor th ern an d Lee on at le as t two oc cas io ns , wit h Lee an d

-1 1-Nor th ern pa y in g ap pr ox im at el y $5 ,60 0 each ti m e

. Acco rd in g to Nor th ern , Ro y st on

la te r cam e fro m Mi nn es ot a to Farg o and di st rib ut ed co cai ne wit h Lee

. Ro y st on al so
he l p e d N o r t h e r n an d Lee “ co ok up dr ug s

. . . in Bi sm arck .” Oth er wit ne ss es

co rr obor at ed so m e of Nor th ern ’s te st im on y , ex pl ai ni ng th ey m et Ro y st on th ro ug h L ee ,

an d p ur ch as ed co cai ne fro m Ro y st on

.

Fro m th is ev id en ce, it was reas on ab le fo r th e jury to co nc lu de bo th Fo res t an d

Ro y st on kn owi ng ly and in te nt io na ll y joi ne d t he co ns pi racy to d is tri bu te co cai ne

.

B. Adm is si on of Pa st Crime

Dur in g th e tri al

, th e go ve rn m en t pr es en te d ev id en ce Ro y st on was co nv ic te d in

19 9 9 f o r p o s se ss io n of a co nt ro ll ed su bs ta nc e wit h in te nt to de li ve r in vi ol at io n of

Ill in oi s l aw. Royst on arg ue s t he di st ric t co ur t ab us ed it s d is cret io n by adm it ti ng th e

ev id en ce be cau se it “ di d no th in g m or e th an es ta bl is h [h is ] pr op en si ty to co m m it a dr ug

of fen se , whi ch is ex act ly w ha t [F ed . R. Evi d.] 40 4( b) [is ] in te nd ed to pro hi bi t.”

Be c a us e Ro y st on ob

jecte d at tri al

, we rev ie w th e ad m is si on fo r ab us e of

di sc ret io n. See Uni te d St at es v. Gad dy, 53 2 F.3 d 78 3, 78 9 (8 th Ci r. 20 08 ). Here, th e
di st ric t co ur t de te rm in ed Ro y st on ’s co nv ic ti on was ad m is si b l e b ecau se it was

pr ob at iv e of hi s in te nt to joi n th e co ns pi racy an d was no t so rem ot e in ti m e so as to be

in a d miss ib le

. W e de te ct no ab us e of di sc ret io n in th is de ci si on

. “ W e ha ve he ld on

nu m ero u s oc cas io ns th at a pr io r co nv ic ti on fo r di st rib ut in g dr ug s, an d ev en th e

po ss es si on of us er-q ua nt it ie s of a co nt ro ll ed su bs ta nc e, are rel ev an t un de r Ru le 40 4( b)

to sh ow kn owl ed ge an d in te nt to co m m it a cu rren t ch arg e of co ns pi racy to di st rib ut e
dr ug s.” Uni te d S ta te s v . Adam s, 4 01 F.3d 88 6, 8 94 (8t h C ir. 2 00 5) (q uo ti ng Uni te d

St at es v. Fraz ie r, 28 0 F.3 d 83 5, 84 7 (8 th Ci r. 20 02 )) (in t e r n a l q u o ta ti on m ark s

om it te d)

. “ [T]he di st ric t co ur t’s li m it in g in st ru ct io n, whi ch in st ru ct ed th e jury th at it

co ul d on ly c o ns id er th is ev id en ce to de ci de th e is su es of in te nt an d kn owl ed ge ,”

ad dr es se d “ an y un fai r pr ejud ic ia l effe ct of th es e pr io r co nv ic ti on s.” Gad dy, 53 2 F.3 d

at 79 0.

-1 2-C. Mot io n fo r a New Tri al

W e ne xt co ns id er th e di st ric t co ur t’s de ni al of Ro y st on ’s m ot io n fo r a ne w tri al

,

w h i ch we al so rev ie w fo r ab us e of di sc ret io n. See Uni te d St at es v. St ur di va nt

, 5 1 3

F.3 d 79 5, 80 2 (8 th Ci r. 20 08 ). A d is tri ct co ur t “ m ay va cat e an y

jud gm en t an d gr an t

a ne w t ria l if th e in te res t of jus ti ce s o re qu ire s.” Fe d. R. C rim. P. 33 (a). It is pr op er

fo r th e co ur t to weig h th e ev id en ce an d co ns id er wit ne ss cred ib il it y whe n do in g so , bu t

su ch au th or it y sh ou ld be us ed cau ti ou sl y an d s pa rin gl y . See St ur di va nt , 51 3 F.3d at

80 2. “ The jury’ s ve rd ic t m us t be al lo wed to st an d un le ss ‘the ev id en ce weig hs he av il y

en ou gh ag ai ns t th e ve rd ic t su ch th at a m is carr ia ge of jus ti ce m ay ha ve oc cu rred .’ ” Id

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

. J oh ns on , 47 4 F.3 d 10 44

, 10 51 (8 th Ci r. 20 07 )) (in te rn al

mar ks om it te d)

. Ro y st on arg ue s he is en ti tl ed to a ne w tri al be cau se (1 ) Nor th ern ’s

te st im on y w a s in cred ib le

, an d (2 ) th e jury sa w two tra ns cri pt s th at im pr op erl y
id en ti fie d hi m whi le th e jury was li st en in g to au di o reco rd in gs of two co nt ro ll ed bu y s.

1. Wi tnes s Cre di bi li ty

The di st ric t co ur t de te rm in ed th e “ in te res t of jus ti ce” di d no t req ui re a ne w tri al

, be cau se “ th ere was su ffi ci en t ev id en ce to jus ti fy th e co nv ic ti on s on bo th co un ts .” The

di st ric t co ur t hi gh li gh te d te st im on y fro m fo ur wit ne ss es , in cl ud in g Nor th ern , sh owi ng

Ro y st on pa rti ci pa te d wit h Lee in th e co ns pi racy. The d i s t r i c t co ur t co nc lu de d “ no

m is carr ia ge of jus ti ce oc cu rred ,” ex pl ai ni ng “ Ro y st on th or ou gh ly cro ss -ex am in ed al l

wit ne ss es at tri al an d th e

. . . rel ev an t wit ne ss es ’ te st im on y was su ffi ci en tl y cred ib le .”

Afte r rev ie win g t he ev id en ce, we rea ch th e sa m e co nc lu si on

.

W e reject Ro y st on ’s c o n t e nt io n th at co m m en ts th e di st ric t co ur t m ad e ab ou t

Nor th ern ’s cred ib il it y du rin g Ro y st on ’s se nt en ci ng he ari ng sh ow Ro y st on is en ti tl ed

to a ne w tri al

. Res po nd in g to co m m en ts Ro y st on m ad e ch al le ng in g th e ev id en ce, th e
di st ric t co ur t st at ed

, “ I un d e r s t a n d wha t y ou ’re sa y in g

. . . an d I ap pr eci at e th e

arg um en t t ha t, l oo k, you k no w, what ev er Jak e Nor th ern sa id it ’s ha d [s ic ] to be li ev e

th at an y on e co ul d ha ve gi ve n it m uc h wei gh t, an d [t he jury] ob vi ou sl y di dn ’t gi ve it

-1 3-m

uc h weig ht in so m e in st an ces an d th ey ap pa ren tl y ga ve it m or e w e i g h t in ot he r

in st an ces

. And it do es n ’t m ak e se ns e an d I ap pr eci at e th at arg um en t.” Viewe d in

c o n te xt

, th e di st ric t co ur t’s co m m en ts ap pe ar to be m erel y an at te m pt to ex p l a i n t o

Ro y st on th at th e di st ric t co ur t un de rs to od Ro y st on ’s cred ib il it y arg um en t. The di st ric t

co ur t’s co m

m ents are en ti rel y co ns is te nt wit h th e rat io na le th e di st ric t co ur t art ic ul at ed

whe n d en y in g R oysto n’s m ot io n fo r a n ew tr ia l.

2. Tra ns cri pts

W e ne xt co ns id e r R o ys t on ’s cl ai m th at a ne w tri al is ne ces sa ry be cau se th e
di st ri ct co ur t im

pr op erl y al lo wed th e in cl us io n of hi s na m e an d in it ia ls on two

tra ns cri pt s di sp la y ed to th e jury whi le th e go ve rn m en t pl ay ed au di o reco rd in gs of two

co nt ro ll ed bu y s. Ro y st on arg ue s h e “ was en ti tl ed to ha ve th e jury co ns id er Brown ’s

te st im on y al on e to de te rm in e if [Ro y st on ] was pr es en t.” Alt ho ug h it ap pe ars fro m th e

un de ve lo pe d reco rd on th is is su e th at th e us e of t he se tra ns cri pt s was no t en ti rel y

pr op er, n o re ve rs ib le erro r oc cu rred

.

Bo th ch al le ng ed tra ns cri pt s— Co ur t Exh ib it s E and G —d et ai l co nv ers at io ns 1 0

be twee n Lee an d a co nf id en ti al in fo rm an t (id en ti fie d el se whe re as Herb Bro wn)

du rin g th e two co nt ro ll ed bu y s. At th e to p of Exh ib it E, Ro y st on ’s na m e is li st ed ne xt

to th e in it ia ls “ MR,” bu t Ro y st on is no t id en ti fie d as sp eak in g du rin g th e co nv ers at io n.

Exh ib it G do es no t li st Ro y st on ’s na m e, bu t do es in di cat e “ MR” as ke d Bro wn, “ You

do n’t wan t to ta ke th at on e wit h y ou ? ” Bro wn te st ifi ed Ro y st on was wit h Lee du rin g
bo th co nt ro ll ed bu y s at is su e, bu t po li ce of fic er Brad St uv la nd was un ab le to id en ti fy

Ro y st on as b ei ng pre se nt du rin g t he co nt ro ll ed bu y s.

The go ve rn m en t in co rrec tl y st at es th e tra ns cri pt of th e se co nd co nt ro ll ed bu y 1 0

was Exh ib it F, whi ch was a reco rd ed p h on e cal l be twee n Lee an d th e co nf id en ti al
in fo rm an t Her

b B ro wn.

-1 4-The go ve rn m en t co nc ed es it was a m is ta ke to in cl ud e Ro y st on ’s na m e an d

in it ia ls on Exh ib it E. In cl ud in g Ro y st on ’s na m e an d in it ia ls ris ke d im pr op erl y

su gg es ti ng to th e jury th at Ro y st on was pr es en t du rin g th e fir st co nt ro ll ed bu y , whi ch

th e ac c o mp a n yin g reco rd in g di d no t de m on st rat e. And th e in cl us io n of Ro y st on ’s

in it ia ls on Exh ib it G m ay ha ve be en im pr op er be cau se Offi cer St uv la nd

, who he lp ed

pr ep are th e tra ns cri pt , d id no t st at e he w a s f a m il ia r wit h Ro y st on ’s v oi ce no r di d he

po si ti ve ly ide nt ify the vo ic e o n t he reco rd in g a s Roysto n, alt ho ug h “ MR” was li st ed

on th e tr an sc rip t.

Ro y st on di d no t rai se th is is su e in hi s m ot io n for a ne w tri al

, no r di d he ob ject

to us e of th e tra ns cri pt s wit h an y sp eci fic it y

. “ W e ha ve rep eat ed ly he ld th at 1 1

ob jecti on s m

us t be sp eci fic an d th at ot he rwis e we wil l rev ie w ev id en ti ary ru li ng s on ly

f or pl ai n erro r.” Uni te d St at es v. Jo hn so n, 45 0 F.3 d 36 6, 37 1 n.2 (8 th Ci r. 20 06 )
(q uo ti ng Uni t e d St at es v. Cart er, 41 0 F.3 d 10 17

, 10 23 (8 th Ci r. 20 05 )) (in te rn al

qu ot at io n m ark s om it te d) ; se e al so Fed

. R. Cri m

. P. 51 (b ); Fed

. R. Evi d. 10 3( a)(1 )(B)

.

W e co nc lu de an y erro r m ad e by th e di st ric t co ur t w a s ha rm le ss an d th us no t

rev ers ib le ev en un de r ou r typic al ab us e o f di sc ret io n s ta nd ard . See Un it ed Sta te s v

.

Befo re th e fir st reco rd in g was pl ay ed

, Offi cer St uv la nd sa id th e tra ns c r i p t 1 1 (Exh ib it E) was “ an accu rat e refl ect io n o f th e co nv ers at io n [o f] th e co nt ro ll ed bu y

. Lee’s at tor ne y obj ec te d, ar gui ng ina de qua te fo un da ti on be cau se “ th is of fic er is n’t ab le

to i d e n t i f y

. . . Lee as be in g pr es en t” du rin g th e co nt ro ll ed bu y

. Afte r th e of fic er
te st ifi ed he was fam il ia r wit h Lee’s vo ic e an d co ul d po si ti ve ly i de nt ify Lee’s vo ic e

o n th e ex hi bi t, Lee’s at to rn ey ren ewed hi s ob jecti on , whi ch th e di st ric t c o u r t

ov erru le d. At th e di st ric t co ur t’s pr om pt in g, Ro y st on ’s an d Fo res t’s at to rn ey s joi ne d
th e ob jecti on wit ho ut el ab or at in g. Befo re th e se co nd reco rd in g w a s p la y ed to th e jury, th e ap pe ll an ts m ad e th e “ [s ]am e ob jecti on ” o n t he “ [s ]am e ba si s.” Ro y st on ’s

at to rn ey ad de d, “ I’d no te in

. . . [Exh ib it E, th e go ve rn m en t] ha d a na m e on th ere on th e ve ry be gi n n i n g of it an d th en th ere was no au di o of [Ro y st on ] on th ere. If th ey try to do th at ag ai n I wou ld ha ve fu rth er ob jecti o n

. ” Exh ib it G in di cat ed Ro y st on
sp ok e d ur in g t he reco rd in g o f th e se co nd co nt ro ll ed bu y

.

-1 5-Pen eau x, 43 2 F.3 d 88 2, 89 4 (8 th Ci r. 20 05 ) (“ W e wil l no t rev ers e a co nv ic ti on

. . . if

an ev id en ti ary erro r is ha rm le ss .”).

An ev id en ti ary erro r is ha rm le ss if th e su bs ta nt ia l rig ht s of th e de fen da nt

were un affe ct ed an d th e erro r di d no t in flu en ce or ha d on ly a sl ig ht
in flu en ce on th e v e r d ic t. To de te rm in e whe th er th e erro r was ha rm le ss

we rev ie w th e en ti re reco rd to de te rm in e whe th er t h e su bs ta nt ia l rig ht s of th e d efen da nt were p reju di ced by the ad m is si on

.

Id . at 8 94 -9 5 (c it at io ns om it te d)

.

Here, Bro wn te st ifi ed Ro y st on was pr es en t du rin g bo th of th e co nt ro ll ed bu y s.

Ro y st on m ade th e jury aware th e on ly di rect ev id en ce sh owi ng Ro y st on ’s in vo lv em en t

in the se co nt ro ll ed bu y s was Bro wn’s te st im on y , whi ch Ro y sto n vig or ousl y ch al le nge d

du rin g cro ss -ex am in at io n an d cl os in g arg um en ts

. “ Fi na ll y , th e tra ns cri pt s were us ed

on ly to as si st th e juro rs as th ey li st en ed to th e reco rd in gs ,” an d t h e d i s t r i ct co ur t

a d e q u a t el y in st ru ct ed th e juro rs twi ce “ th at th e [au di o reco rd in gs ] were th e be st

ev id en ce, th at th e tra ns cri pt s were m erel y an ai d an d th at an y di sc rep an ci es were to be

res ol ve d in fav or of wha t was he ard .” Uni te d St at es v. Ben tl ey , 70 6 F.2 d 14 98

, 15 08
(8 th Ci r. 19 83 ). W e co nc lu de no m is carr ia ge of jus ti ce oc cu rred as th e res ul t of th e us e

of th e tr an sc rip ts , and th us affi rm th e d is tri ct co ur t’s d en ia l o f a n ew tr ia l.

D. Fai r Sen tenc in g Act

The di st ric t co ur t se nt en ced Fo res t an d Ro y st on on Aug us t 31

, 20 10

, so on aft er

th e Aug us t 3 en act m en t o f th e FSA whi ch , a s rel ev an t he re, in crea se d th e qu an ti ti es

of crac k co cai ne ne ed ed to tri gg er st a t u t o r y mini m um se nt en ces

. The di st ric t co ur t

de te rm in ed th e FSA was no t ap pl ic ab le

, an d th eref or e th e di st ric t co ur t was req ui red

to im po se st at ut or y m an da to ry se nt en ces up on Fo res t an d Ro y st on be cau se of t he

am ou nt of co cai ne ba se , or crac k, th e jury fo un d th ei r c r i mes in vo lv ed

. Fo res t an d

Ro y st on arg ue th e di st ric t co ur t er red be cau se th e rev is ed st at ut or y pe na lt ie s sh ou ld

ha ve ap pl ie d t o t he ir s en te nc es , and ask us to rem an d th ei r cas es to th e d is tri ct co ur t

-1 6-f

o r res en te nc in g pu rs ua nt to th e FSA. W e ad he re to Dor se y v. Uni te d St at es , 5 6 7 1 2

U.S. _

__ , _

__ , 1 32 S. C t

. 2 3 2 1

, 23 26 (2 01 2) , i n whi ch th e Su pr em e Co ur t he ld “ th e

ne w, m or e le ni e n t m an da to ry m in im um pr ov is io ns ” of th e FSA “ ap pl y to of fen de rs
who co m m it te d a crac k co cai ne cri m e be fo re Aug us t 3, 20 10

, bu t were no t se nt en ced

un ti l af te r Aug us t 3 .”

W e th us va cat e Ro y st on ’s an d Fore st ’s se nt en ces an d rem an d for pro ceed in gs

c o n s i s t e n t wit h Dor se y an d th e FSA. The dr ug qu an ti ty ran ge fo un d by th e jur y n o
lo ng er req ui res im

po si t i o n o f t he sa m e st at ut or y m an da to ry se nt en ces

. The di st ric t

co ur t, up on res en te nc in g, m us t ad dr es s th e FSA an d th e dr ug q u an ti ti es in vo lv ed in

th es e cas es , an d ou r ho ld in g do es no t m ean ei th er Fo res t or Ro y st on is en ti tl ed t o a
le ss er, o r an y

pa rti cu la r, se nt en ce u nd er t he st at ut es or t he ad vi so ry gu id el in es

. 1 3

II I. CONCLUSI ON

W e affi rm th e di st ric t co ur t’s jud gm en t an d se nt en ce as to Lee. As to Fo res t an d

Ro y st o n , w e a ffi rm th ei r co nv ic ti on s, bu t va cat e th ei r se nt en ces an d rem an d fo r

res en te nc in g c on si st en t wi th th is op in io n.

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

Ro y st on di d no t rai se th e re t r oa ct iv it y of th e FSA in hi s op en in g br ie f. On 1 2

Ju ly 5, 20 12

, Ro y st on fil ed a pr o se su pp le m en ta l br ie f rai si ng th is is su e. W e ex erci se

ou r di sc ret io n to co ns id er th is un ti m el y is su e. See, e.g ., Uni te d St at es v. Brewe r, 62 4
F.3 d 9 00 , 90 9 n .7 (8 th Cir . 20 10 ).

In hi s o pe ni ng br ie f, Ro y st on ch al le ng ed th e di st ric t cou rt’s im po si ti on of

a 1 3

m an da to ry li fe se nt en ce un de r 2 1 U.S.C. § 84 1( b) (1 )(A), arg ui ng th e st at ut or y

m in im um sh ou ld on ly ap pl y to th os e co nv ic te d of di st rib ut in g “ crac k,” no t “ co cai ne ba se .” Ro y st on ack no wled ge d i n h is rep ly brie f th at th is arg um en t is fore cl os ed by
th e Su pr em e Co ur t’s ho ld in g in DePi erre v. Uni te d St at es , 56 4 U.S.

__ _,_

__ , 13 1 S.
Ct

. 22 25

, 22 37 (2 01 1)

, whi ch de te rm in ed th e “ te rm ‘c o c a i n e ba se ’ as us ed in § 84 1( b) (1 ) m ean s no t jus t ‘crack co cai ne ,’ bu t co cai ne in it s ch em ic al ly ba si c fo rm .”

-1 7-