## In the



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

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

N o. 11

- 3411 U NIT ED S TATE S OF A MERI CA, P la intif f-A pp ellee, v. P ARNEL L G ULLEY, D ef endant-Appellant.

A pp eal from the United S t ates Di strictC our t fo r the C entral D istricto f Illino is. No . 08 C R 20057

—Mi ch ael P . M cC us key,Ju dge
.
A RG UE D A PRI L 8, 2013

— D ECI DE D J UNE 17, 2013

Befo re E A S T E RB R OO K, Ch i e f Ju dge, a nd B AUERa nd S YKES, C ircu it Judges . B AUER, Cir cu i tJudg e . Go ve r nm en t a gen ts s etup a c r a c kc o c a i n e d e a lb e t we e n a c o n fi d e n t i a li n f o r man t (CI) , A nt hon y H eard , and a know n cra ck d ealer, Pi er r e Bl ak e. On Oct o be r 2 1, 2 00 8, Hea r d dr o ve t o the m ee tin g p lac e w ire d w ith a c on c ea led vid eo an d au d io record ing d e v ice. Th e record er, f or al l inten ts an d pu rposes , captur ed Parne l lGull ey

— Blake’s f ai thful dri ver

—2 N o. 11

- 3411 get ti ng i nto H ear d’s carand exchanging a bag ofcr ack coca i ne f or$2 00. Gull ey w as i nd i cted o n one count o f kn ow ingly and i nt en tionally d istribu t in g 5 or m ore gr am s o fa m i xture and substance co ntai ni ng cr ack coca ine, in viol ation of 21 U

. S. C

. §§ 841(a) and 841(b)(1) (B). The case p ro ceeded to tr i al, wh i ch ended i n a hung j ury. A t t h e re -tr ial, G u lley ’s co u n se l arg u ed th at G u lley d id not “kno w i ngl y o r i ntention all y” del i vera contr ol l ed su bsta nc e in viol ation of th e relevan t statu tes; th e jury disa gr eed and f ound him gui l ty. Du rin g the s eco nd tr i al, the gov er nm ent pr ese nted te st i m o ni ale vi den ce tha t Gul l eya dm itted t o dr i ving Blak e t o a drug deal with Heard thato ccurr ed two days afterthe charg ed offense. The go ver nm ent a l so presente d G ull ey’ s a dm i ssi on that he kn ew Bl ake was a cr ac kde al er, tha t he fr eque nt l y dr o ve Bl ak e ar o und, a nd that he had prev i ousl y m ade a “del i ver y” f orBl ak e. This w as i n additi on t o evi den c e that cr ack coca i ne, ecst a s y, a nd a fi r e a r m wer e f o un d a tBl a k e ’ s s t a s h ho us e on the day he and Bla ke w er e a rr es te d . G ull ey did not o bj e c tt o thi s t e s t i mon y a tt r i a l, b uth e n o w c o nt e nd s the e vi dence shoul d have be en excl ud ed und erFe deral R ule of Evid en ce 404 (b). At Gul l ey ’ s se nten ci nghe ar i ng, the di st r i ctj udg e se ntence d G ull ey to 327 m onths i n pri son, fo llow ed by an 8- y e a r t e r m o fs u p e r v i s e d r e l e a s e . In i mpo s i n gh i s s e nte nc e, the di st r i ctj ud ge ex pl aine d tha t o urpr ec ede nt pr o hibi te d r et r o ac ti ve a ppl i ca ti o n of the F ai r S en te nc i ng A ct of 2010 ( F S A ); that p reced en t has since bee n ove rtu rn ed . G u lley arg u es th at h e s h o u l d b e re se n te n c ed inN o. 11

- 3411 3

ac co r dan ce w ith th e F S A w hi l e th e g o ve r nm en t conte nd s that any er ro r re gar ding hi s pri son te rm w as ha r m l es s. The pa r ti es a g r ee tha t we s ho ul d v ac at e th e s u p e r v i s e d r e l e a s e t e r m. Forthe re aso ns thatf ol l ow, w e a ffi rm Gull ey’s co nvi cti on but vacat e hi s s entence and re m and fo r re sente nci ng.

I . B AC KGR OUND H ea r d b egan w or k i nga s a CIf o r the Cha m pai g n, Illino is P olic e D ep ar tm en t in 20 08 . T h e d ep ar tm en t o rig inal l y a rr est ed H ear d i n connec ti on with an i nvest i gation into the sale ofcrack coc aine in the area, a n d H eard agr eed to co oper ate as a CI i n exchange f orl eni ency. I n O ctob er2 00 8, the Cha m pai g n P o l i ce De par tment bega n an i nvest i gat i on into the c ra ck coca i ne d ea lin gs of a m an kn ow n to H ea rd a s “ K .D .”

— h e wa s a l s o kn o wn as “ C hurc h” a nd was l at eri den ti fi ed as Bl ak e. On th e m or ni ng o fOctobe r 21, H eard pla ced se ver alr eco rded cal l s to Blak e’ s phone to ar ra nge a contr ol l ed buy o f cra ck coca i ne. A ti m e, p lace, and pri ce were ag re ed upo n. T wo p e o p l e we r e o n th e o th e r e n d o fth e p h o ne c alls a t v ar iou s t im es : B lak e a n d an u n kn ow n m ale voi ce, l ate r i denti fi ed as Gu l l ey, Blak e’ s dri ver and as so ci at e. DEA Spe c i a l Ag e n t P a b l o Ra m o s an d O fficer M atth ew H en son w ere p resen t w he n H eard m ade the cal l s. Laterthatday, H ear d w as w i re d w i th a hi dd en vi deo a nd a udi o r ec o r di ngde vi ce to do cumentthe pl anne d t r an sa ct i o n. Af te r b einge qui pped w ith th e4 N o. 11

- 3411 devi ce, H ear d drove to th e C ou ntryBro ok A partm ents i n Ch am pai gn, I l l i noi s, w here he parke d hi s car, exi ted the v ehi cl e, and casua lly w ai ted i n the parking l ot. Speci alA gent Ram os a nd Offi cerH enso n f ol l owed H ear d’s carto the m eet i ng pl ace but, o nce they gotcl ose , k e p ta tb a y b e c a u s e o th e r l a w e n f o r c e me n tpe r so nne l

— D EA TaskFo rce A gent J ack Turner, Offi cerJ aces on Yand el l, and another offi cer

— we r e a l r e a d y i n th e i mm edi ate ar ea conducti ng sur vei l l ance. G ulley, w ho at th e tim e w as stil l un kn ow n to H eard an d the o ffi ce r s i nv o l ve d, wal ked ou t o fthe c o m pl ex a nd s p o k e t o He a r d sho r t l y a ft e r He a r d a r r i v e d

. T h e t wo meng o ti nt o He ar d’s c a r a nd , a c c o r di ngt o He a r d, Gu l l ey pla ced a cl earpl ast i c ba ggy c ontaini ng cr ack coca i ne on the ar m re st. H ear d then gave Gu l l ey $2 00 i n c as h, the am o untthe pa r ti es ha d a g r ee d o n. The vi deo r ec o r di ngdo es no t sh o w Gull ey’ s f ac e i ns i de th e ca r, the b ago fdru gs, o r the mone y c ha ng i ngha nds , b ut th e au di o r ec o rd er c aptur ed Gul l ey ’ s vo i ce a s he counted the cas h. The audi o rec order al so capture d H ea r d ask i ng Gul l ey abo ut purc ha s i n g a “ si xtr ey”

— 63 gram s of crac k co c a in e or one-sixteen th of a ki logra m

— and w hetherBl ake co uld co m e o utsi de to ta l k

. At tha t ti m e, G ull eyg o t o uto fthe c ara nd wen t i ns i de the a pa r t men tc o mp l e x. Bl a k e wa l k e d o ut s i de ab o uta mi nu t e l a t e r wi th c o c a i ne r e s i du e o n hi s h a nd s an d clothing, and he an d H eard sp oke abou t futu re cra ck coca i ne tr ansact i ons. Blak e sai d he w oul d c harg e $1 ,50 0 t o $ 1,6 00 for a 63 -gr am d ea l. H ear d then l eft the apar tm ent c om ple x and drove to hi s ag r ee d- upo n mee ting l o ca ti o n wi thl aw e nf o r ce m en tN o. 11

- 3411 5 perso nnel

. Once ther e, H ear d gave S peci alA gent Ram os an d O ffi cerH enso n the bag he r ecei ved fro m Gull ey, w h ich co n ta in ed 6.8 g ra m s o f cr ac k c oc ain e. Tw o days l ate r, o n Octobe r 23, H ear d arr anged to pu rchas e 63 gr am s o fcr ack coca i ne fro m Bl ake , a si gnifi can tly l arger am ou nt than t he first buy. Offi cers park ed a v i deo- surve i l l ance v an nearthe re si dence wher e Bl ak e st ay ed wi thhi s g i r l fr i en d i n Cha m pai g n, w hich w as a sh ort dis t a n c e aw ay from the C ou nt ry Broo k Ap ar tm ents. The sur vei l l ance c aptu re d Gull ey an d Bl ak e l ea vingthe r es i den ce, get tingi nt o a c ar, a nd d riv in g t o th e C ou n tr y B ro ok A p ar tm en ts atap p ro x im at ely 2: 35 p .m . G u lley w as th e d riv er ; B lak e s at in the fro nt passe ngerse at. Thi s info rm ati on was r el aye d to othe r age nts and o ffi cer s invol ved i n the i nvest i gatio n w h o w er e st an d in g b y a t o th er p os ts . H ea rd , aga in equi pp e d wi th a v i de o - a ud i o r e c o r di ngde v i c e , dr ove to th e C ou n tr y B ro ok A p ar tm en t s atap p ro x im at ely the s am e t i m e a s Gull ey and Blak e. A t the a partm ent c om ple x, Bl ake ga ve H ear d a bag conta i ni ng 60

. 7 g ra m s o fcr ack coca i ne i n exchange f or $1, 500. H ear d then l eft th e apartm ent c om ple x and del i ve red the “ g o o di es ” to S pec i alAge ntRa m o s an d Offi cerYandell . Surve i l l ance capture d G ull ey and Blak e re tu rn in g t o th e re sid en c e B lak e s h a re d w ith h is gir lfri end at about that sam e t i m e. On O cto ber31 , o ffi cer s s ecure d a n d executed warra nts to sea rch, fi rs t, an apart m ent i n the Countr y Bro ok A partm ents com ple x

— Blak e’ s s tas h house

— an d, s econd, the re sidence Bl ake shar ed w i th hi s g i rl fri end. Crackco cai ne,6 N o. 11

- 3411
ecst asy, and a fi re ar m w er e fou nd atthe sta sh house ; G ull ey, Bl ak e, Bl ak e’ s g i r l fr i en d, a no th erman, a nd $2,467 in cash w ere fou nd at the resid en ce. Offi cers l ate r deter m i ned t h at $1, 700 ofthe cash was m oney provi ded fo r the c ontr ol l ed buys. Gull ey w as ar re ste d an d t ak ent o the po l i ce s ta ti o n. Gu l l ey w ai ved hi s M i r anda r i g ht s at the s ta ti o n a nd tol d Offi cerYandelland Offi cerH enso n that he was un em p l o y ed an d o n pa r o l e. He ini ti al l y t o l d the o ffi ce rs th at he had no kn o w le d g e of or i nv olvem en t in Blake’s drug- deal i ng o perati on but adm i tte d up on furtherquest i o ning tha t Bl a k e di d no t ha v e a dr i v e r ’ s l i c e ns e; that he dr o ve Bl ak e ar o und t o de l i ve r c o ca i ne , i nc ludi ng dr i v i n gB l a k e t o C h i c a g o t o p i c ku p 9 o u n c e s o fc o c a i ne a few days bef or e hi s a rr est; thatBl ake ke pt c oc ain e a t ana par tmentin the Co unt r y Br o o kApar tment s; a nd that Blak e s ol d cocaine i n quanti ti es ofm or e than 3
. 5 g r a ms. T he i nt e r v i e w wa s n o tr e c o r de d. On Nov embe r 1 8, 2 008, G ull eywas i ndi ct ed o n o ne count o fkno w i ngl y a nd i ntenti onal l y di str ibuti ng 5 or m o r e g r ams o f a m i xtur e an d su bs ta nc e con ta i ni ng cr ac kc o ca i ne , i n v i o l at i o n of 21 U. S

. C. § § 84 1( a) a nd 841(b) ( 1) ( B), f orhi s co nd uct o n Octobe r 21, 20 08. On Januar y 6 , 20 09, Gull ey agr eed t o c ooperat e with the g o v e r nme nt i n e xc ha ng e f o r a g r a nt o f di r e c tuse i mm un i t y . T he a g r e e men tr e qu i r e d h i m t o p r ovi de “c om p let e a n d t ru th fu l” in for m at ion reg ar d in g h is cri m i nalco nd uct. I n acco rdance w i th the ag re em ent, Gull ey sp ok e, w i th hi s at to r ne y pr es en t, t o Ta skF o r ce Age ntTurne r a ndN o. 11

- 3411 7 Offi cerYandello n Feb ru ar y 2, 20 09. Gull ey adm i tte d to dri vi ng B l ake around and bei ng aware ofBl ake ’ s drugde a l i ngv e ntur e : h e e xp l a i ne d tha tBl a k e r e c e i v e d a pproxim at ely 63 gr am s a t a ti m e, two to thr ee days a wee k, a nd tha t Bl ak e des cr ibe d h is a par tmenta t th e C ou nt ry B r ook A p artm en ts as his “sta sh hou se.” M ore si gn ifi ca nt l y, Gul l eya dm i tt ed th at, o n o ne o cc as i o n, Blak e had g i ven hi m a “bag ” a t the apar tm ent c om ple x and t old hi m to del i veri t t o som eone i n the parking l ot i n e xc ha ng e f o r $ 200. G ull eys ta te d tha t he was dr unk at th e t im e a n d d id n otkn ow w h at w as in t h e b ag . A d d iti onal l y, Gull ey adm i tte d to sel l i ng co c ain e forBl ake “on one occa si on ,” th ough he did notar ti cul ate a speci fi c date orti m e. The go ver nm ent pr ose cutorco ntacte d G ull ey’ s a ttorney o n A ugust 1 3, 20 10, to di scuss Gu l l ey’ s par ti ci pati on a t Bl ake ’ s upcom i ng tr i al. Fo ur days l ate r, o n A ugust 1 7, the gov er nm en t was i nfo rm ed that Gu l l ey w ou l d no l onge r coo perat e

— Gu l l ey tol d his at torney that the g ove rnm ent c oul d dism i ss the c harg e a gainst him or p roceed t o t r ial. Gu ll ey d id n ot testify at Blake’s tr i al, and the gov er nm ent c on si dered thata vi ol ati on oft hei r agr eem ent. The di str i ct c ourtto ok j ud i ci alnot i ce ofthe gov er nm ent’ s pos i ti on o n Octobe r 4, 20 10. Shor tl y b ef or e Gull ey’ s fi rs t t ri al, the gov er n m ent fi l ed an ex h ibitlist t h at i n c lu d ed , am on g ot h er th in gs , a vi deo r eco rd ing fro m the October21 co ntro l l ed buy, su r ve i l l an ce v i deo fr o m Oc tobe r 2 3, phot o s ta k endur i ng th e e x e c u t i o n o f th e O c t o b e r 3 1 s e a r c h wa r r a n t s , a nd t he M i r anda warni ng f or m from Octobe r 31. In re sponse,8 N o. 11

- 3411 Gul l ey ’ s co uns elfi l ed an“ Obj ec ti o n t o Exhibi ts a nd I nstr ucti ons” that ask ed the cour t to excl ud e “ite m s of evi dence thatper ta in to dates o therthan October21 , 2008 , ” incl ud i ng “v i deos and tapes. ” Also fi l ed w as a g en er al, c at ch

- al lm oti o n in l i m i ne

— w hi ch w e di scuss i n m or e deta i lbel ow

— a s k i ngthe c o ur tt o e xc l ud e evid en ce of “bad cond uc t” th at occ urred on “ d a t e s differ ent than Octobe r 21, 20 08. ” The di str i ct c ourtdeni ed th e m o ti o n wi th o uta he ar i ng, c o nc l uding t ha t th e evi d en c e r efer re d to i n the m oti on in l i m i ne was re l evantunder F edera lRule o fEvi dence 4 01 and not und ulyprej ud i ci alunder Rul e 4 03. The ca se pr o ce ede d to tr i al o n Oct o be r 4, 2010. Th e gov er nm ent c al l ed fi ve w i tness es

— Offi ce r H ens o n; Offi cerYandell ; H ope Erw in , a f or ensi c drug chem i st; Task For ce A gent Turner; and H ear d. Gu l l ey cal l ed no ne . The di st r i ctj udg e dec l ar ed a m i st r i ala fte r the j u ry sa id it w as “h op ele ss ly d ea d loc ke d .” A se co nd j ur y t r i alb eg ano n F eb r ua r y 7, 2 01 1. The gov er nm ent c al l ed the sam e fi ve w i tness es ; Gull ey agai n cal l ed none. The go ver nm ent witnesse s t est i fi ed re gar ding m any o fGull ey ’s adm i ssi ons about hi s r el ati o nshi p wi thBl ak e, s ta te m en ts di sc us singc r ac kc o ca i ne on the Octob er21 and 23 re cor din gs, the pu rpos e o f conductin g surve i l l ance outsi de the re si dence Bl ake sh ared w ith his girl fri en d , and dru g s a nd a firearm bei ng f oun d at the CountryBro ok A partm ents sta sh house on Octo ber31

. Gull ey’ s co unsel d id noto bj ect at tr i alto any ofthi s info rm ati on o n Rule 40 3 o r 404(b) gr ounds.N o. 11

- 3411 9 Th e j ur y f o un d G ul l e y g ui l t y o n the s i ng l e c o un tc ha r g e d. A se ntenci ng heari ng was hel d i n Octobe r 2011

. The Pres entence Invest i gat i on Repor t ( PSR) st ate d th at G u lley w as a c ar ee r offe n d er , see U. S

. S

. G. § 4 B1. 1, a nd ha d an offense level of37 and a cri m inal h istory ca tegory o fVI
. Thi s r es ul te d i n a r ec o m m en ded U. S

. S en te nc i ng Gu i del i nes r ange of36 0 m onths to l i fe i m pri sonm ent. Gu l l ey obj ecte d to the PS R and aske d the co urt to consi der the FS A , wh i ch w oul d have r esul te d in a n o ffe ns e l e v e l o f34

— an d a l o werGui del i ne s r an g e. The dist ri ct j ud ge rej ecte d G ull ey’ s r equest an d acc epted th e PSR becau se o ur th en -prec ed en t w as th at th e FSA di d no t apply t o c r i m i na lc o nduc t o cc ur r i ngb efo r e th e FS A cam e into effect. U l ti m ate l y, how ever, the j ud ge var i ed fro m the Gu i del i nes ra n ge and sente nced Gu l l ey to 327 m onths’ im p ri sonm ent, f ol l owed byan 8

- yea r ter m o fsuperv i sed r el eas e.

I I . DI S C US S I ON On app eal, Gull ey fi nd s f aul t with the adm i ssi on ofcerta i n evi dence attr i al, as wellas the Gu i del i nes ca l cul at i o n the di st r i ctj udg e r el ied o n whe n s en te nc i ng Gul l ey . W e addr es s ea chi ss ue i n tur n.

A . Ev i den ce a tTr i al Gu l l ey conte nd s that c er tain testim ony w as i nadm i ssibl e under Feder alRule o fEvi dence 404 ( b) an d t h at i ts ad m issi on d en ied h im a f air trial

. A distr ic t cou rt’s10 N o. 11

- 3411 d ec isio n as to th e a d m iss ibilit y ofe vid en c e a t t ria l is ge n er ally rev iew ed for a n ab u se of d isc re tio n . U n i t ed St at e s v. Col l i ns , N o. 11

- 3098 , 20 13 U
. S. A pp . LEX I S 9721 , at *6 ( 7th Cir. M ay 15, 2013). Th e pa rties here, how ever, disa gr ee as to w h et her Gu l l ey’ s co unselm ade a proper o bj ec ti o n t o pr es er ve the i ss ue f o r a ppea l ; i fno t, the pla i n er ro r sta nd ar d app lies

. S eeU nite d State s v. Wolfe, 701 F.3d 1206, 1211 (7th C ir. 2012). W e ha v e e xp l a i ne d tha t, “ [ i ] n o r de r t o pr e s e rv e a rul i ng o n the adm i ssi on o fev i dence fo r appeal, a party m ust m ake ‘a t im el y obj ecti on o r m oti on t o str i ke [ w hi ch] appears o fr eco rd, st ating the speci fi c g ro und o f obj ecti on, i fthe speci fi c g ro und was not apparent fro m the c onte xt. ’ ” U ni t e d S t at e s v . Rol l i ns , 54 4 F

. 3d 820, 83 4 (7th C ir. 2008) (qu oting Fed

. R. Evid

. 103(a)(1) ). Gu l l ey di d n o to bj e c tt o the te s t i mon y o n Ru l e 4 0 4 ( b ) g r o un ds at tr i al, but bef or e t ri al, Gulle y’s counselfi l ed a t er se m oti on in l i m i ne with the fol l owing l anguage : The Defe n d an t a sks thatthe Pl ai nti ffbe prohibi ted fr o m i nt r o ducingt es ti m o ny, v i deo s, t ape s an d e xhibi ts w hi ch pert ai n to d ate s o therthan October21 , 2008. The Pl ai nti ff has fi l ed a si ngl e charg e an d it shoul d not be al l owed to at tem pt to sho w o ther bad co nd uc tt o p r ej ud i c e the De fe nd a nto n the Ind i ctm ent c harg e. Gul l ey co nt en ds th i s was su ffi ci en t to pr es erve th e i ssue, but the m oti on w as devoi d ofthe speci fi cs ne cessar y t o sat i sfy the r equi re m ents ofRule 10 3. T h e d i str i ct co ur th a d n o wa y o fi de nt i fy i nge xa c t l y wh a tty pe o f “b a d c o n d uc t” G ulley w as referri ng to, w he n an d w he re it oc c u r r e d , or on w h at gro u n d s t h e m ot ion relie d

. SeeN o. 11

- 3411 11 Roll i ns , 54 4 F

. 3d at 834 ( conclud i ng tha t the adm i ssi on ofte sti m ony w oul d be r evi ew ed f orpl ai n er ro r b ecause th e groun d s the de fend an t asserted on a p p e a l “w ere ne ither state d sp ecifi cally nor ap p aren t from cont ex t”). W e w il l review the tes tim ony at i ssu e for p lai n error. N ow to the m er i ts: Fe deral R u l e o fEvi dence 404 ( b) prohibi ts “[ e] vi dence ofa cri m e, w ro ng, or othe r act
. . . to prove a pe rs on ’s char acte r i n or der t o show that o n a par ti cul aro ccasi on the per son acte d i n acco rdance w i th the ch ar ac te r.” N ev er th ele ss , s uch evi dence m ay be a dm i ssibl e forano therpurpose, i ncl ud i ng to p rove o ppo r tu ni ty, kno wl edg e, o r i den ti ty
. F ed. R. Evid. 40 4(b) ( 2)

. In deter m i ni ng wh etherev i dence w as ad m issible un d er Ru le 404(b), w e con side r w he th er: ( 1) the evi dence w as dir ecte d towards es tabl i shi ng a m atterati ssue othe r than the defendant’s pro pensi ty to com m i t the cr i m e char ged; ( 2) th e e vi dence showed that th e o th er ac t w as sim ilar en ou g h an d clo se en ou gh in ti m e to b e r el ev an t to the matt era t i ss ue ; ( 3) the evi dence w as suffi ci ent t o supp or t aj ury fi nd i ng tha t the defendant co m m i tte d the ac t; and ( 4) the proba ti ve val ue of the evi dence w as substa nti al l y o utw ei ghed by the dange r ofunfa i r prej ud i ce, a s requi re d by R u le 4 03
. U ni t e d S t at e s v. H i cks , 635 F. 3d 1063 , 10 69 (7th C ir. 2011). Th e gover nm ent c al l ed w i tness es to tes ti fy that Gull ey adm i tte d to occa si onal l y dri vi ng B lak e aro und so that Blak e co uld s el lcr ack coca i ne; G ull ey w as aw ar e a nd had knowle dge of Blak e’ s drug- deal i ng acti vi ti es; and Gull ey drove Bl ake to m eetwith Heard on Octobe r 23, 20 08, to com pl e t e a c r a c kc o c a i ne de a lf o r wh i c h Gu l l e y wa s n ot12 N o. 11

- 3411

D uring opening s tat em ents in the fir sttr ial, G ull ey’ s counsel 1 t ol d the j ur y, “ An d the c ha r ge, actual l y, i s tha th e di s t r ib- (co n tin u ed ...) charg ed. The witnes ses al so tes ti fi ed that crack coca i ne, e c s t a s y, a nd a fi r e a r m we r e f o un d du r i ng a s e a r ch of Bl ak e’ s st as h h o us e o n Oc tobe r 3 1, the da y Gul l eya nd Bl ake w er e ar r es te d. Gul l eyc o nt en ds th i s te st i m o ny w as im p ro p er be c au se it w as n otrele va n t, w as on ly offer ed t o show Gull ey’ s “ pattern orpro pensi ty” to co m m i t cr i m es , a nd was undu l y pr ej udi ci al

. The g o ve r nm ent a rgues that the i nfo rm ati on was adm i ssibl e for r ea so ns unr el at ed to Rul e 40 4, a s wel la s unde r the Rule 404(b) exce pti ons. W e nee d not a dd re ss the go ver nm ent’ s o therexpl anati ons because the ev id ence w as adm i ssibl e under the 4 04(b) exce pti ons. As t o the fi r stpr o ng : the c r i m e ch ar g ed (viol ati ng 21 U
. S. C. §§ 841( a) and 8 41(b) ( 1) ( B)) re quir ed the g overnm en t to e st ab l i shtha t Gul l ey“ k no wi ng l y a nd i nt en ti onal l y” del i ver ed a c ontr ol l ed su b st ance o n Octobe r 21, 20 08
. Gul l ey ’ s co uns elhi g hl i g ht ed th i s r equi r em ent d u rin g h is op en in g s ta te m en t a n d to ld th e jur y, A nd t hat’ s what w e’ re ta l ki ng ab out here , i s a per so n tha t was i n the a r ea a t th e ti m e i n que st i o n, [ w ho] was not dist ributi ng c oc aine a s s ugges ted by th e g ov er n m en t in th is m at te r. . . . A f t e r yo u h ea r all oft h e e vid en c e in th is c as e in th is m at te r, you w ill no tb e c o nv i nc e d b e y o nd a r e a s o nab l e do ub tthat th er e’s be en an y s h ow in g of a kn ow in g a n d in t e l ligent, vo l untarydist rib uti on o fco cai ne byM r. Gull ey o n the da te i n que st i o n. 1N o. 11

- 3411 13

(

. . . c on t i nu e d) 1 uted

— ‘ know ingly and int el li gentl y’ is the full charg e t h ere. So m et i m es peo pl e ge t up and s ay ‘ knowi ngl y, ’ butit’ s a twop ro ng ed requ irem en t that th e g ov ern m en t ha s on t he m in th es e p ro ce ed in g s.” G ull ey’ s counsel als o argued that G ull ey w as not th e m an 2 on the O ct ober 21 video recor ding or the pers on in the car with Hea rd, b uti ti s unn ec es s ar y f or us t o e xpl ai n why the evidence ati ss ue m ay hav e been a dm is sible und er other Rule 40 4(b) e xc ept i ons , l i ke i dent i t y oroppor t uni t y. And i n hi s cl o singa r g um en t when di sc us singthe O c t ob er 21 vid eo , G u lley ’s c ou n se l st at ed , “If he j u st is hand i ng so m eth in g o verwitho ut payi ng at tenti on t o i t, th at ’s n ota kn ow in g v iola tio n of th e la w w h at so ev er .” T h e d efe n se d id n otca ll an y w itn es se s a t t r i a l , n or d id Gul l ey te st i fy, but i t i s cl ea r th at Gul l ey ’ s “de fen se” w en t to hi s state o fmin d

— i
. e. , ev en i fGull ey del i ver ed “so m eth i ng ” o n Oc tobe r 2 1, he di d no t kno w w ha t i t was ; a nd i fthat“s om ethi ng” was a c on tr ol l ed substa nce, Gull ey d id n ot inten tionally d eli ver it
. Th e d efense w as m ore 2 than a gener aldeni aland a pl ea of“no t gui l ty. ” C f. U nited Sta tes v. M iller, 673 F.3d 688 , 698 (7th C ir. 2012). The go ver nm ent was, ther ef or e, enti tl ed to put f or th ev id en c e t o re b u t t h e d efe n se , see U nited Sta tes v. C o nn er, 58 3 F .3d 10 11 , 1 0 2 3 (7 th C ir. 20 09 ) (“T h e g ov er n m en t is no t r el i ev ed o fi ts b ur deno fpr o vinga n e l ement si m plybec au se [ the defendant] did notchal l enge i t. To hol d other w i se w ou ld be to ti e the hands ofthe gov ernm en t i n mee tingi ts b ur deno fpr o of w he re no14 N o. 11

- 3411 defe nse was pre sente d on an elem ent, o r i nd eed, an en tir e c h ar ge .”) (in te rn al c ita tio n om itt ed ); see also U ni t e d S t at e s v. Vi l l egas , 65 5 F
. 3d 662, 6 72 (7th Cir

. 20 11) ( e xp l a i ningtha tthe p r i nc i pl e o fdoo r o pe ning“ de pe nd s o n the s pec i fi c si tu at i o n in whi chi t i s us ed an d thus c al ls fo r a n e xe r ci se o fj udi ci aldi sc r et i o n” ) , a nd the tes ti m ony at i ssue w ent di re ctl y t o Gu l l ey’ s kn ow led ge o n Oc tobe r 2 1: i fGul l eydr o ve a r o und a known dr ug dea l er, ha d a cc es s to i l l eg aldr ug s an d a fi r ea r m , a nd w i tness ed an i l l ega ldrug tr ansact i on t w o da ys after th e ch ar g ed o ffen se unde r c i r cumst an ce s si m i l art o the charg ed offense, i t was m or e l i kel y that G u lley knew th e c lea r b ag h e g av e H ea rd co n ta in ed cr ac k c oc ain e. See C o nn er, 5 83 F
. 3d at1 02 2 ( st at i ngtha t evi den ce o fthe defe nd ant’ s r el ati onshi p w i th a known drug deal er and the defendant’s “e xtensi ve hi sto ryo fpri ordrug acti vi ti es ” was ad m iss ibl e unde r the 4 04 ( b) e xc ept i o ns b e c a us e i tt e nd e d t o s ho w tha tthe de fe nd a nt“ wa s not sim p ly an i nn ocen t bysta nd er” to the d rug tran sact ion). W ith res p ec t t o th e s ec on d p ro n g, w e t h in k t h e t es tim ony described conduct thatwas si m il areno ugh an d c l o se e no ug h in t i m e to be r el ev an t to the charg ed offen se. Ini ti al l y, ti m e pr oxi m i ty i s no t a t i ssue; th e testim ony i nv olved eve n t s occu rri ng shortly before Oc t o b e r 2 1 , t wo da y s a ft e r o n Oc t o b e r 2 3 , a nd ten days afte r o n Oc tober 31

. Gul l ey ’ s m ain a r g um en t i s th atthe evid en ce was not“s i m i l areno ugh. ” How eve r, the f act Gu l l ey knew that Bl ake deal t drugs , i ncl ud i ng cra ck co ca i ne

— th e dr ughe wa s ch ar g ed wi thde al i ng

— an d dr o ve Bl ak e to meetwi thHea r d, the pe r so n h e was ch ar g ed wi th dea l i ng to , at th e sa m e place heN o. 11

- 3411 15

was c ha r g ed wi thde al i ng, i s d irectl y o n po i ntwi ththe charg ed offense. Gu l l ey has a st ro ngerar gum ent r ega rdi ng the ecs tas y an d firea rm th at w er e fo u n d on O c to b e r 31 : ecs ta sy is no t c r a c k c o c a i ne , a nd the c ha r g e d o ffe ns e di d not in c l u d e t h e u se of a fire ar m . N ev er th ele ss , ou r an aly sis o fthe p r o ng“ne e d n o tb e u nd ul y r i g i d, ” Unit e d S t at e s v. Wheeler, 540 F.3d 68 3, 69 2 (7 th C ir. 20 0 8 ) ; ou r foc u s is on “e st ab lish in g t h e rele va n c y of t h e 4 04 (b ) ev id en c e.” U nited Sta tes v. Fo ster, 652 F.3d 77 6 , 785-86 (7th C ir. 2011 )

. “S i m ple differ en ces i n the type ofco nd uct o r charg e a t i ssue c an not defe at the s i m i l ar i ty re quir em ent. ” U ni t e d S t at e s v. Lo ng, 86 F. 3d 81, 84 (7th C ir. 1996). H er e, th e ev id en c e w as offe re d to sh ow G u lley ’s k n ow ledg e o f wha t wa s i n the b a g he g a v e He a r d. I t g oes w i thout sa yi ng tha t a per son w i th acc ess to ecs tas y a t a st as h h ou se , esp ec ially i n t h e p re se n c e o f a fire ar m , i s m or e l i kel y t o know w hat c ra ck coca ine i s than so m eo n e l a c k i n ge x pe r i e nc e w i th ( o r a c c e s s t o ) e i th e r . We do n o tthinkthe s i mpl e di ffe r e nc e s b e t we e n c ra ck co ca i ne a nd ecs ta syunde r m i ne d the r el ev an ce o fthe i nf o r m at i o n t o the g o ve r nm en t’ s arg um en t; a t th e en d oft h e d ay , bot h are illega l d ru gs . Sim ilar ly, it is w id ely kn ow n th at gu n s an d d ru gs go h an d in h an d

. See U n i t e d S ta tes v. P erez , 58 1 F

. 3d 539, 54 7 ( 7th Ci r. 20 09) ( ex pl aini ngtha t “ wea po ns a r e ‘ r ec o g ni ze d t o o l s o fthe drug tr ade’ and .

. . the posse ss ion o f a gun can a dvance th e p os ses si on a nd future dist ributi on o fnar cot i cs b y prot ectin g th e drugs o r the dr ug deal er ” ( quoti ng U nited v. D uran , 407 F. 3d 828, 838 ( 7th C ir. 2 0 05))) ; U nited Sta tes16 N o. 11

- 3411 v. R a m irez , 4 5 F
. 3 d 1 0 9 6 , 1 1 0 3 ( 7 th C i r . 1 9 9 5 ) ( “ [ W] e a po ns a r e t o o l s o fthe n a r c o t i c s t r a de s uc h tha tthi s e v i de nce i s admi ss ibl e. ”)

. T he i nfer en ce b etwee n Gul l eyha ving a c c es s t o gu n s a n d d ru gs an d kn ow in g w h at w as in th e ba gdo es not r equi r e ani no r di na te s tr et cho fthe i m aginati on . A nd under the f acts o fthi s ca se, we do not bel i eve the offense charg ed needed to i ncl ud e “ use ofa fi re ar m ” to m ake the fi re ar m ev i dence “s i m i l ar enough” so as to be r el evant
. W e br i efl y no te Gu l l ey ’ s ba r eb o ne s as se r ti o n tha t th e i tem s ca nnot be “s uffi ci entl y s i m i l ar ” be cause he was no ta tthe stash h o us e wh e n the i t e ms we r e r e c o v e r e d, but thati s a non- sta rt er . The ar gu m en t is b ett erai m ed at th e fo rt h p ro n g. See U nited Sta tes v. G o m ez , 712 F. 3d 11 46 , 1 15 4 ( 7th Ci r . 2 01 3) ( “Ass es singthe e xt en t o f[ th e evi dence’ s probat ive v al ue] i s a m att erf orthe f ourth p rong of the an alysis. ”). The thi r d pr o ngi s ea si l y sati sfi ed. The g o ve r nm en t w i tnesses’ te sti m ony w as consi ste nt: Gull ey adm i tte d that he kne w Bl a k e ’ s “ b us i ne s s ” a nd tha th e dr o v e Bl a ke ar o und a s Bl ak e r ec ei ve d, s to r ed , a nd s o l d c r ac kc o ca i ne fro m a sta sh house

. S urel y a n in d i vi du al ’ s o w n sta tem en ts a r e su ffi ci en t to s uppo r t a j ur y fi ndi ngtha t th e i nd i vi du alpart i ci pated i n the acts ati ssue. Fur th er m or e, eye w i tness te st i m ony can pro vi de the f oundati on f or a “r eas onabl e fi nd i ng by th e jur y. ” U ni t e d S t at e s v. Ho w a rd, 69 2 F
. 3d 697, 70 6 ( 7th Ci r. 20 12)

. A l lbut one of the witnesse s obser ved the October23 “deal, ” a nd they te st i fi e d t o th e s a me f a c t s a s th o s e c a p t u r e d o n the vi deo and audio r eco rdi ngs. A nd fi nal l y, Gull ey has no tN o. 11

- 3411 17 chal l enged the exec uti on o fth e sea rch w ar ra nts o n October 31, or the col l ecti on of evi dence at th e s ta sh ho us e o r th e r e s i d e n c e , wh i c h we a s s u me we r e d o ne pr o pe r l y . We thinkthe e v i de nc e was s uffi c i e ntt o s up po r ta j ur y fi nd i ngtha tthe o the r a c t s a ti s s ue o c c ur r e d. L a s t ly , G u lle y c o n t e n d s th e e v i d e n c e w a s u n d u ly p r ejudi ci alunder th e f o ur thpr o ngo fthe t es t, Rul e 40 3. But we c anha r dl y f au l t th e di str i ctj udg e f o r no t co nduc ting a m o r e th o r o ug h b al an cingt es t when th e te st i m o ny w as n ev er p ro p er ly ob j ec te d to
. Se eU ni ted S t at e s v. B a k er, 655 F.3d 677, 682 (7th C ir. 2 0 1 1 ) (“ [A ] d istri ct cou rt is not un d er an obligati on to m ake every e vide nt iary rul i ng or al l y; had [ the defe nd ant] w anted an or al ru l i ng, he sho uld have o bj ected on Rul e 4 03 and Ru l e 4 04(b) grou nd s.”)

. The s ame goes f o r Gul l ey ’ s cr i ti ci sm o fthe j udg e f o r f ai l i ngt o g i ve a l im iti ng i ns truct i o n. A l i m i ting in st ru c tio n m igh t h av e b ee n h elp fu l, s e eUn i t e d S t a t e s v. M o o re, 5 31 F
. 3d 496, 50 0 ( 7th Ci r . 2 00 8) , b utGul l eyc o nc ed es th at h e n ev er req u es te d on e. Se e U ni t e d States v. White, 69 8 F
. 3d 1005 , 10 18 ( 7th C i r. 20 12) ( hol ding that evi dence adm i tte d und era Rule 404(b) exce pti on was no t undul y pr ej udi ci ale ve n tho ugh the de fen dan t n ev er so u gh t, a n d th e d ist ric t c ou rtn ev er te n d er ed , a sp ec ific lim itin g in st ru c tio n ). Even so, the cour t w i l ltol er ate a gr eat erri sk ofprej ud i ce w h en th e e vid en c e is m or e p ro b at ive
. U ni t e d S t at e s v. M iller, 68 8 F
. 3d 322, 32 9 ( 7th Ci r. 20 12) ( quoti ng U nited St at e s v. Vargas , 552 F.3d 55 0, 55 7 (7 t h C ir. 20 08 )). In th is ca se , the e vi den ce was e xt r emel y pr o ba ti ve a s it went to the core of th e issue before th e j ury

— did Gull ey know18 N o. 11

- 3411

w hat was i n that cl earp l ast i c ba g when he ga ve i t t o H ear d fo r $200 ? I t was notm er el y t angenti al l y- re l ate d to the c harg e a ga in st Gull ey orhi s defense. A l though th e ecsta sy an d firearm eviden c e is a closer call, w e are not convi nced the pr obat i ve val ue was s u b s t an t i al lyo utw ei ghed by the danger of unfai r prej ud i ce. W hen vie w ed in ligh t o f th e s lid i n g s c ale , no n e o f th e t es tim ony w as so p rej ud i ci althati t ind uced the j ury to d ec id e t h e c as e o n a n i m p ro p er ba sis
. See U nited Sta tes v. E arls , 70 4 F

. 3d 466, 47 1 ( 7th Ci r. 20 12); U ni t e d S t at e s v. A lbi ola , 624 F.3d 431 , 440 (7th C ir. 2010). G ulley has n ot d em ons tr a t e d th at th e d istri ct cou rt er re d i n the adm i ssi on o fthe evi dence d isc u sse d above , l et al one sat i sfi ed the pla i n er ro r sta nd ar d. A c c or dingl y, we c o nc l ud e tha tthe e v i de nc e wa s p r o pe r l y a dmi t t e d. A s a fi nalm att er, the dist ri ct c ourto ver rul ed an obj ecti on a t t ri alto Offi cerYandell ’s t est i m ony that G ull ey adm i tte d he w as “on paro l e” at the ti m e o f h is ar r es t. The g o ve r nm en t an d Gul l y b o tha g r ee tha t th e d i s t r i c tc o u r tab us ed i ts d i s c r e t i o n b y d o i n gs o . B u twe w i l lo nl y g ra nt a new tr i alfora si ngl e e vi denti ar y e rr or i fthe “ er r o r l i k ely ha d a s ubs tanti ale ffec t o n the j ury’ s v er dict a n d the r esul t was i nconsi ste nt with substa nti alj usti ce. ” Jor dan v. B i nns , 71 2 F
. 3d 1123 , 11 37 (7t h C ir. 20 13 ). H er e, G u lley ’s p ar ole st at u s w as on ly m enti oned by o n e witness, o n one occa si on, and nei ther par tyr efer r ed to i t ag ain thr o ug ho utthe resto fthe tr ial

. M or eov er, the detai l s underl yi ng the co nvi cti on a nd s ub s e qu e ntp r i s o n ter m wer e n e v e r di s c us s e d. W e thi nk the mi no r mi s s t e p wa s h a r ml e s s b e y o nd a re aso nabl e doubt.N o. 11

- 3411 19 B. Sente ncing Gu i deli nes Cal culat i on G u lley co n te n d s t h e d ist ric t c ou rt ’s fa ilu r e t o ap p ly the F SA w as an er ro r that re q u i re s us to re m and fo r re sente nci ng. W e r evi ew the d i str i ct c ourt ’ s pro cedures i n cal cul ating a sente nce deno vo and i ts f actualfi nd i ngs f o r cle ar err or . U nited Sta tes v. Fluk er, 6 9 8 F
. 3 d 9 8 8 , 1 001 (7th C ir. 2012). Congre ss passed t h e FSA in 2010 , wh i ch r educed th e se nt en cingd ispar i tyb etwee n c r ac kc o ca i ne a nd p ow d er co c ain e o ffen d er s. See Fai r Se ntencin g A ct o f 2010 , Pub. L. N o. 11-2 20, 12 4 S tat
. 23 72 ( 2010 )

. Pri orto the F SA, f ora defe nd ant in Gu l l ey’ s p osi ti on

— a per son w i th a pri orfel ony drug co nvi cti on wh o w as convi cted o fd i s t r ib u t i n gmo r e th a n 5 , b u tl e s s th a n 2 8 , g r a ms o fc o ca i ne

— the b ase o ffense level would have been 37, w ith th e a p p lic a b le G u id elin es ran ge inc lu d in g a m ax im um te r m o fl i fe i m pr i so nm en t f o l l o wed b y a min i m um of8 yea rs ’ superv i sed r el eas e; as o pp ose d to a ba se offense l eve lo f34, with a m axi m um te rm o f 3 60 m onths’ i m pri sonm ent, f ol l owed by a m i ni m um of 6 years o f su p er vis ed rele as e. C o m pa re 21 U
. S. C

. § 8 41(b)(1)( B ) (2006), with 21 U
. S. C. § 8 41(b) ( 1) ( C) ( 201 2). W hen Gull ey w as sente nced, o ur pre cedent was thatthe FS A d id not apply re tr oac ti vel y t o cri m in alco nd uct that o ccurr ed p rior to th e F SA ’s p as sin g. Se e, e . g. , U ni t e d S t at e s v. Cam pbe ll, 65 9 F.3d 60 7, 60 9 (7 th C ir. 20 11 ), va ca ted a nd rem a nd ed, 133 S. Ct. 19 0 ( 2012 )

. The di strict co urt f ol l owed that prece dent w hen ca lcu l ating Gull ey’ s Guidel i nes r ange. I n D o rsey v . U nited Sta tes , ___ U.S

. ___, 13 2 S

. Ct. 23 21 ( 20 12 ) , ho wev er, the S upr eme Co ur t he l d tha t th e20 N o. 11

- 3411 FS A ’ s s tatutor y penal ti es app ly to defendants se ntenced afte r i ts e ffec ti ve da te , Au gu st 3, 20 10 , e ve n i fthe de fen d an t’s un d erlyi ng crim inal cond uc t occu rred prior. Gu lley ’s sentenci ng hea ring was hel d on Octobe r 24, 2011 ; bo th par ti es a gr ee the F SA app l i ed i n l i ght o f D o rsey . The i ssue bef or e us i s w h et her the f ai l ure to apply the F SA w as harm l ess , o r i n other w ords, wh ether we a r e co nv ince d the j udg e woul d ha ve i m po se d the sa m e s en te n c e b u t fo r th e p ro c e d u ra l err or . See U nited St at e s v. Tovar

- Pina , 71 3 F
. 3d 1143 , N os. 12- 1964, 12- 1965 & 12- 1966 , 20 13 U
. S. A pp . L E X IS 858 8, at* 11- 12 ( 7th C ir. A p r. 29, 2013 ). G u lley w as se n te n c ed to 32 7 m on th s i n p ris on , foll owed b y a n 8

- y e a r t e r m o fs up e r v i s e d r e l e a s e . T he go vernm en t con ced es th at th e fai lure to ap p ly th e FSA m i ght ha ve affecte d G ull ey’s t er m o fsuperv i sed r eleas e. W e co ncur and, thus, tur n ourat tenti on t o w he th er the error also m ight h a v e a ffecte d Gu ll ey’s p ris on te rm . I n supp or t of its posi ti on that the er ro r did notaffect Gull ey’ s pr i so n t er m , the g o ve r nm en t ar g ue s th atthe dist ri ct j ud ge actual l y a pp lied the FS A wh en i t v ar i ed fro m the ap p l i cabl e Guidel i nes r ange at the t i m e by l o we r i n gG u l l e y ’ s o f f e n s e l e v e lfr o m 3 7t o 3 4 , th e s a me n u mb e r o fl e v e l s i two u l d b e l o we r e d b y th e F S A, a nd by re cal cul ating the a dvis or y Gui del i nes r ange as 262 to 327 m onths’ i m pri sonm ent, al so the sam e as that ap p lica b le u n d er th e F SA . W e a re m i n d fu l of th is var i ance, but i t i s the go ver nm ent’ s burden to prove th e s en te n c i n g e rro r w as h ar m les s, e . g. , U ni t e d S t at e s v. Suggs , 6 24 F.3d 37 0, 376 (7th Cir. 2010), an d the s en -N o. 11

- 3411 21 tenci ng tr anscr i pt her e i s, atbes t, m urky

. The di str i ct j udg e pr ac ti ca l l y i nv i te d a n a ppea lo fthe s enten ce he w as goin g t o im p os e b efo re d e s c r ibin g t h e ra tio n ale behi nd Gull ey’ s s entence : A nd the S ev en thCi r cui t ha s sa i d, a s Imade clear, th at th e Fair Sen ten cing A ct in th e case of U nited St at e s v. Fisher, de c i de d thi s y e a r, a nd U ni t e d S t at e s v. C am pbel l , di d not a pp l y t o you. You m ay getr el i ef fro m th e Suprem e Cour t o fthe U ni ted S tat es, and so be i t. They wil lm ake the fin al deci si on a s t o w h ich ci rcui t i s co rr ect. But yo u ar e be i ng se ntenced today i n the St ate o fIl l i noi s, i n the Se venth Ci rcui t, an d Imustf o l l o w the l aw o fthi s ci r cui t. So F ai r S en tenci ng does n’tapply

. A nd afterexpl ai ni ng hi s r at ional e, the j ud ge further state d , “A nd , very fr an kly, Ihop e t h e Sup rem e C ou rt ru les in your w ay. That wil lbe thei r choi ce, and w e’ ll see wh at happ ens. ” Again, we k no w the j udg e va r i ed fr o m the appli cabl e Guidel i nes r ange; however, t here ar e a t l ea sttw o r ea so ns tha t co ul d s uppo r t th e dec i si o n: the j ud ge’s de sire to com p ly w ith th e s p ir it o f th e FSA or, alt er n at ive ly, ot h er fac ts u n iq u e t o G u lley . Th e jud ge d id n otex p licit ly ex p lain th e d ep ar tu re , cf

. U ni ted Stat e s v. Anderson , 5 17F
. 3d 95 3, 9 65

- 66 ( 7th Ci r . 2 00 8) ( co nc l udi ng th atthe s en tencing er r o r was ha r m l es s be ca us e th e di st r i ctj udg e “c l earl y s ta te d” he woul d i m po se the sam e s entence ev en i fhi s G u idel i nes c al cul ati on was in c o r rect), an d w e a re n otco n vin c ed th e jud ge w ou ld ha v e i mpo s e d the sa m e s e nt e nc e i fthe F S A ha d a p-22 N o. 11

- 3411 pli ed

— he m ay have, but w e cannot be “ce rt ai n. ” See U ni t e d S t at e s v. Zahurs ky, 580 F.3d 515 , 528 (7 t h C ir. 2009). W e, ther ef or e, vac ate Gulley’ s pri son and supervi sed r el ea se te rm s an d r emand f o r r es en te nc i ngus i ngthe cor re ct Gui del i nes r ange.

I I I . C ONC L US I ON Forthe f or ego i ng r ea sons, we A FFIRM Gull ey’ s co nvi cti on but V ACATE h i s s e nt e nc e a nd R EMA ND f orfurther p ro c ee d in gs co n sis te n t w ith th is op in ion
.

6- 17- 13