NOT P RE CE DE NT I AL UN I TED STATES CO UR T OF A PP EALS F O R T H E T H IR D C IR C U IT N o. 06- 2017 UNI TE D ST ATE S OF AM ERI CA

v. J AM ES W ALK ER al s o know n as CA NDY Jam es W alke r, A ppel l ant

N o. 06- 2629 UNI TE D ST ATE S OF AM ERI CA

v. KAB ONI S AVAGE a /k /a YU SEF BI LLA a /k /a J OSEPH A M I LL a /k /a BONNI E, BON, B,

K aboni Savage, A ppel l ant2 N o. 06- 3062 UNI TE D ST ATE S OF AM ERI CA

v. S T E VE NOR T HI NGT ON al s o know n as P O L IC E O F F IC E R K E V IN L E W IS

al s o know n as “ SM OK E” al s o know n as M I CHAEL T I LL ERY al s o know n as S YE E D B UR HANNO N

St even N or thi ngt on, A ppel l ant

N o. 06- 3359 UNI TE D ST ATE S OF AM ERI CA

v. DER EK R USSELL al s o know n as FLY D e re k R u ss e ll,

A ppel l ant3 N o. 06- 4509 UNI TE D ST ATE S OF AM ERI CA

v. M E L VI N S T E I N,

A ppel l ant

A p p ea l from the U n it ed S tat es D istri ct C o u rt f o r th e E a ste rn D istric t o f P e n n sy lv a n ia ( D . C . C r i m i nal A ct i on N os . 04- cr - 00269- 012/ 001/ 006/ 016/ 009) D istric t Ju d g e : H o n o ra b le M a ryA . M c L a u g h lin Subm i t t ed U nderT hi r d C i r cui tL A R 34. 1( a)

J une 10, 2010 B efor e: A M B R O , C H A G A R E S, and G R E E N A W A Y , J R . , C i r cui tJ udges

( O pi ni on fi l ed A ugus t30, 2010 )

OP I NI ON A M B R O , C i r cui tJ udge D er ek R us s el l , St even N or thi ngt on, J ames W al ker , and K aboni Savage appeal thei rconvi ct i ons and s ent ence s ; M el vi n St ei n chal l enges hi s convi ct i on. Forthe r eas ons th a t f o llo w , w e a f

f ir m e a c h .T h e re m a in in g 1 4 d e f e n d a n ts p le d g u ilty. (A s n o te d , T h o m a s d ie d b e f o re tr ia l.) 1 4

I . F act ual B ackground an d P roce dural H i s t ory A s w e w r i t e onl yforthe part i es , w e do notr es t at e the fa ct s i n det ai l . T he fi ve d e f e n d a n ts b rin g in g th is a p p e a l, alo n g w ith 1 5 o th e rs, w e re c h a rg e d w ith v a rio u s c o u n ts o f d ru g tr a f

f i c k i n g , mo n e yl a u n d e r i n g , a n d f i r e a r ms o f

f e n s e s . Th e c h a r g e s a r o s e f r o m a coca i ne and c r ack c ocai ne or gani zat i on run bySavage thatoper at ed i n Phi l adel phi a i n t he l at e 1990s and ea r l y2000s . T hi s w as a l ar ge- s cal e oper at i on: Savage’ s or gani zat i on w ou l d “re- com press ” kil og ram qu anti t i es of co cai ne to decrease the p uri ty , and i ncrease th e q u a n tity, o f

th e c o c a in e th e ys o ld . Savage l ed the or gani zat i on w i th G er al d T hom as , w ho w as i ndi ct ed w i th Savage butdi ed bef

or e tr i al . T hr ee of

the def endant s - appel l ant s — R us s el l , N or thi ngt on, and W a lk e r— d istrib u ted d ru g s f o r th e S a v a g e -T h o m a s o p e ra tio n . T h e f if th d e f e n d a n ta p p e llan t, S tein , w a s a lo c a l re a lto r w h o h e lp e d th e d ru g o rg a n iza tio n lau n d e r its proceed s. 1 A lar g e p o rtio n o f

th e G o v e rn m e n t’s in v e stig a tio n (a n d th e e v id e n c e a t trial) i nvol ved a w i r et ap of Thom as ’ s cel l phone, w hi ch captur ed thous ands of i ncr i m i nat i ng phone ca l l s . T o s uppor ti t s al l egat i ons fur ther , the G overnm entconduct ed phy s i cal s ur vei l l ance , exec ut ed s ear ch w arr ant s , gather ed t el ephone r ecor ds , and s ecur ed the te s tim o n yo f

c o o p e ra tin g w itn e s s e s (i n c lu d in g c h a rg e d c o -c o n s p ir a to rs th a t p le d g u ilty). A ft er Sava ge w as arres t ed in this case, he thr eat ened t o k i l l w i tnesses and thei r fam i l i es. A ft era l engthytr i al befor e an a nonym ous j ury , R us s el l , N or thi ngt on, W al ker , andN o rth ing ton also w as c h arg ed w ith m o n eylaun d ering , b u t th e D istri ct C o u rt 2 gr ant ed hi s m ot i on forj udgm entof ac qui t t al on thatcountatthe conc l us i on of the G overnm ent ’ s cas e. N or thi ngt on w as acqui t t ed of one fel on- i n- pos s es s i on count , and Savage w as 3 acqui t t ed of pos s es s i ng a fi r earm i n fur ther ance of a drug tr aff i cki ng offe ns e. T h e ju rya c q u itt e d S a v a g e o f o n e c o u n t o f

th re a ten in g to re talia te a g a in st a 4 w i tness. 5 Savage w er e convi ct ed of c ons pi r i ng t o m anufa ctur e and di s tr i but e coc ai ne and c ocai ne bas e, i n vi ol at i on of 21 U . S. C . §§ 846, 841( a) ( 1) , and 841( b) ( 1) ( A ) . T he j uryconvi ct ed R us s el l , W al ker , and Savage of tw o count s of us i ng a t el ephone t o fac i l i t at e drug tr aff i cki ng, i n vi ol at i on of 21 U . S. C . § 843( b) . Savage a nd St ei n w er e convi ct ed of mo n e yl a u n d e r i n g ( S a v a g e u n d e r1 8 U. S . C. § 1 9 5 6 ( a ) ( 1 ) ( B) ( i ) , S t e i n u n d e r1 8 U. S . C. § § 1 9 5 7 a n d 2 ), a n d S tein w a s a lso c o n v icte d o f c o n sp irin g to lau n d e r m o n e y , in 2 vi ol at i on of 18 U . S. C . § 1956( h) . B oth Savage a nd N or thi ngt on w er e convi ct ed of one co u n t of b eing a f

elon in p o sses sion o f a firearm , in v iolati o n o f 1 8 U . S . C . § 9 2 2 (g)(1 ). 3 In a d d iti o n , the ju ryc o n v icte d S a v a g e o f th re e c o u n ts o f

th re a ten in g a w itn e ss , in viol at i on of 1 8 U . S . C . § 1 51 2(a) (2) (A ), and tw o co un t s of t hreat ening t o ret al i at e against a w itn ess, i n v iolati o n o f 1 8 U . S . C . § 1 5 1 3 (b)(2 ). A fter the v erd ict , the D istri ct C o u rt 4 d en ied th e m o ti o n s o f N o rth ing ton , R u ssell, an d S tei n fo r j u d g m en t of ac q u ittal an d fo r a n e w trial. I n s epar at e s ent enci ng hear i ngs , the D i s tr i ctC our ts ent ence d ( 1) Savage t o 360 m onths ’ i m pr i s onm entand fi ve y ear s of s upervi s ed r el eas e; ( 2) R us s el l t o l i fe i m pr i s onm ent ; ( 3) N or thi ngt on t o 235 m onths ’ i m pr i s onm entand fi ve y ear s of s upervi s edT h e D istric t C o u rt h a d ju risd ictio n u n d e r 1 8 U .S .C . § 3 2 3 1 . W e h a v e a p p e llate 5 j ur i s di ct i on under28 U . S. C . § 1291 and 18 U . S. C . § 3742. 6 r el eas e; ( 4) W al kert o l i fe i m pr i s onm ent ; and ( 5) St ei n t o 121 m onths ’ i m pr i s onm entand tw o y ears of sup ervi sed rel ease. T heyapp eal t o u s on v ari ou s ground s. 5 I I . Suff i ci ency of t he E vi dence R u ss e ll an d N o rth in g to n c h a llen g e th e su f f icie n c yo f

th e e v id e n c e su p p o rtin g th e ir convi ct i ons . O urr evi ew of a di s tr i ctcourt ’ s gr antordeni al of a mot i on forj udgm entof a c q u i t t a l b a s e d o n th e s u f f i c i e n c yo f

th e e v i d e n c e i s p l e n a ry , a n d we a p p l yth e s a me s ta n d a rd a s th e d is tr ic t c o u rt . U ni t ed Stat es v. Star nes , 5 8 3 F .3 d 1 9 6 , 2 0 6 (3 d C ir . 2 0 0 9 ). W e exam i ne the t otal i tyof the ci rcum st ances, and view the ev i den ce i n the l i gh tm ost f a v o ra b le to th e G o v e rn m e n t. I d. “ W e m u st u p h o ld th e ju ry ’s v e rd ict if th e re is s ubs t ant i al evi dence fr om w hi ch a r at i onal tr i erof fa ctcoul d fi nd the es s ent i al el ement s of the cr i m e bey ond a r eas onabl e doubt . ” I d. “T he b urden o n a d efen dan tw ho rai ses a chal l enge t o t he s uffi ci encyof the evi dence i s extr emel yhi gh. ” I d. ( i nt ernal quot at i on m a rk s a n d c ita tio n o m itte d ). A . R u ss e ll R us s el l ar gues thatthe G overnm ent ’ s evi dence pr oved onl ythathe w as an i ndepende ntdrug deal er , notthathe enga ged i n a cons pi r acyt o m anufa ctur e and d is tr ib u te d ru g s . H e f

u rt h e r c h a lle n g e s th e d ru g q u a n titie s p ro v e n b yth e G o v e rn m e n t. W e rej ecthis argum ents , as di d the D i stri ctC ou rtatthe close of t he G ov ernm ent’ s case and on R us s el l ’ s pos t - tr i al m ot i on.7

C ons pi r acyr equi r es “( 1) a uni tyof purpos e betw een the al l eged c ons pi r at or s ; ( 2) an i nt entt o achi eve a comm on goal ; and ( 3) an agr eementt o w or k t ogethert ow ar d that goal . ” U ni t ed Stat es v. P r es s l er , 256 F. 3d 144, 149 ( 3d C i r . 2001) ( i nt ernal quot at i on m arks and ci t at i on om i t t ed) . A “s i m pl e buy er - s el l err el at i ons hi p, w i thoutanypr i oror c o n tem p o ra n e o u s u n d e rsta n d in g b e y o n d th e sa les a g re e m e n t it se lf , is in su f f icie n t to es t abl i s h thatthe buy erw as a mem berof the s el l er ’ s cons pi r acy . ” U ni t ed Stat es v. G i bbs , 190 F. 3d 188, 197 ( 3d C i r . 1999) . H ow ever , “eve n an occ as i onal s uppl i er( and by i m pl i cat i on an occ as i onal buy erforr edi s tr i but i on) can be s how n t o be a mem berof the cons pi r acybyevi dence , di r ectori nfer ent i al , of know l edge thats he orhe w as partof a l ar geroper at i on. ” I

d. a t 1 9 8 (i n te rn a l q u o ta tio n m a rk s a n d c ita tio n s o m itte d ). H ere , the e v iden ce p rese n ted a t tri al su ff ici en tl yd em o n str ated R u ssell’ s part i ci pat i on i n t he cons pi r acy— s peci fi cal l y , as a mi d- l evel di s tr i but orforthe Savage T hom as drug or gani zat i on. R us s el l w as r ecor ded on the w i r et ap negot i at i ng a drug deal w ith T h o m a s o n b e h a lf

o f a n o th e r c h a rg e d c o -c o n sp ira to r, D e m e triu s W ill iam s. R u ss e ll s ol i ci t ed Thom as ’ s hel p i n r es ol vi ng a t err i t or i al di s put e betw een hi m s el f and y etanother char ged co- cons pi r at or , M al i k J ones , aft erJ ones “s car ed [hi s ] w or keroff. ” R us s el l as ked T hom as t o or derJ ones t o “l eave [hi s w or ker ] al one” be caus e the “c oke w on’ ts el l i t s el f. ” T h is w a s p e rs u a s iv e e v id e n c e th a t R u s s e ll w a s in v o lv e d in th e d ru g c o n s p ir a c y . S e e id . at 208 n. 11 ( “A n i nt ernal di s put e among m ember s of a c ons pi r acycan i t s el f be c om pel l i ng evi dence thatthe cons pi r acyi s ongoi ng and thatthe r i val s ar e mem ber s of i t . ” ( i nt ernal q u o tat ion m ark s an d cit ati o n o m itted)).8

T he G overnm enti nt er cept ed manyothercal l s betw een Russ el l and Thom as that sh o w e d th e ir d e a lin g s w e re “ re p e a ted ” a n d “ f a m ili a r,” in d ica tin g th a t h e “ p ro b a b ly c o m p re h e n d [ e d ] f

u llyth e n a tu re o f

th e g ro u p w ith w h o m h e is d e a lin g ” a n d “ h a [ d ] f u ll know l edge of

, i f nota s t ake i n, a cons pi r acy . ” I d. at199. I ndeed, the evi dence s how ed that T h o m as a n d R u ssell w o u ld m ee t atthe h o m e o f S av ag e, th e ring lead er. M o reo v er, T h o m a s o f

ten f ro n ted th e d ru g s to R u ss e ll, a n d , as w e h a v e re c o g n ize d , a “ c re d it r el at i ons hi p m ayw el l r efl ectthe ki nd of trus t ” i ndi cat i ng thatthe buy erw as partof the c o n s p ir a c y . Id . at200. B as ed on thi s evi dence , a r eas onabl e j ur orcoul d concl ude thatt he G o v e rn m e n t p ro v e d th e e lem e n ts o f c o n sp ira c yb e y o n d a re a so n a b le d o u b t. R us s el l al s o ar gues thatthe G overnm entfai l ed t o pr ove bey ond a r eas onabl e doubt thathe cons pi r ed t o di s tr i but e more than fi ve ki l ogr ams of coc ai ne and mor e than 50 gr ams of cr ack c ocai ne. H ow ever , the var i ous w i r et apped c al l s pr ovi ded s uffi ci entpr oof of thi s amount . I n addi t i on, R us s el l w as l i abl e foral l r eas onabl yfor es eea bl e cr i m i nal offe ns es comm i t t ed byhi s co- cons pi r at or s dur i ng the cour s e of, and i n fur ther ance of, t he d ru g c o n s p ir a c y . See Pi nker t on v. U ni t ed Stat es , 3 2 8 U . S . 6 4 0 (19 4 6 ). B . N ort hi ngt on N or thi ngt on ar gues the evi dence agai ns thi m w as i ns uffi ci entt o convi cthi m of co n sp ir ac yb ec au se (1 ) he w as in ca rce rated thro u g h o u t m u ch o f th e c o n sp ir ac y ’s exi s t ence , ( 2) the G overnm enti m pr oper l yr el i ed on the t es t i m onyof tw o cooper at i ng w i tnes s es , and ( 3) ther e w as no pr oof he s har ed i n the pr ocee ds of the cons pi r acy . W e doA l t hough N or thi ngt on does notar gue otherw i s e, hi s convi ct i on forpos s es s i ng a 6 fi r earm as a convi ct ed fe l on w as al s o s uppor t ed bys uffi ci entevi dence . 9 notfi nd hi s ar gum ent s per s uas i ve. 6 I ti s true thatN or thi ngt on w as i n pr i s on dur i ng m uch of the cons pi r acy ; thus he w as noti nt er cept ed on the w i r et aps . H ow ever , the G overnm entpr es ent ed much evi dence to su p p o rt th e c h a rg e s a g a in st h im . T w o w itn e ss e s a t trial te stif ied th a t N o rth in g to n so ld drugs forthe Savage or gani zat i on. E ugene Col eman t es t i fi ed that , w hen N or thi ngt on w as r el eas ed fr om pr i s on, he bega n s el l i ng cr ack f orSavage a gai n, and w as pr es entw hen S a v a g e c o n v e rte d c o c a in e in to c ra c k . (G o v ’t S u p p ’l A p p . 2 9 0 , 2 9 3 .) A c c o rd in g to C ol eman, N or thi ngt on had “hi s ow n bl ock thathe s ol d drugs on, ” l ocat ed at9th and Pi ke S tr e e ts . (Id . 2 9 1 .) S tan ley S m ith a lso tes tifie d th a t N o rth in g to n so ld c o c a in e o n F ra n k lin a n d P ik e S tr e e ts . (I

d. 3 9 0 . ) N or thi ngt on ar gues that“[t ] he pr obl em w i th [C ol eman’ s and Sm i th’ s ] t es t i m ony

. . . i s thati ti s compl et el yuncorr obor at ed. ” ( N or thi ngt on B r . 22. ) H ow ever , w e have hel d that“uncorr obor at ed ac compl i ce t es t i m onym aycons t i tut i onal l ypr ovi de the excl us i ve bas i s fora cr i m i nal convi ct i on. ” U ni t ed Stat es v. P er ez , 280 F. 3d 318, 344 ( 3d C i r . 2002) ( i nt ernal quot at i on m arks and ci t at i on om i t t ed) . I n anyevent , the t es t i m onyof C o le m a n a n d S m ith is c o rr o b o ra te d b yo th e r e v id e n c e . F B I ag en ts ob serv ed N o rth ing ton at S av ag e’s h o m e a n d at on e o f th e c o n sp ir ac y ’s c o c a in e p re ss in g h o u se s in e a rly2 0 0 3 . In F e b ru a ry2 0 0 3 , N o rth in g to n w a s a rre ste d in fr ontof Savage ’ s hom e fora par ol e vi ol at i on. T hats ame m onth, pol i ce s ear ched10

N o rth ing ton ’s ap artm en t and fo u n d ex tens ive e v iden ce o f d rug tr af fick ing . (G o v ’tS u p p ’l A pp. 369–72, 378. ) I n A pr i l 2003, w hen pol i ce c onduct ed a s ear ch of Sava ge’ s hom e, N o rth in g to n w a s s lee p in g in th e b a se m e n t, an d h e g a v e a f a lse n a m e to th e p o lice . W h ile c a rry in g o u t th is s e a rc h w a rra n t, ag e n ts f o u n d se v e ra l lette rs w ritten b yN o rth in g to n w h ile h e w a s in p riso n , tellin g S a v a g e to “ c o n tro l th e b lo c k ” b yg o in g th ro u g h h is b ro th e r— “ [ t] h a t w a yy o u a n d m e . . . b o th c a n m a k e s o m e m o n e yo f f th e B lo c k . . . . [T]ha t ’ s m yB l ock thatI t ook and mypr oductthatI l eftm yB r o[ther ] w i th . . . ” (I d. 6 7 0 .) N o rth in g to n f

u rth e r w ro te th a t, on c e h e re tu rn e d h o m e , h e a n d S a v a g e c o u ld “handl e [thei r ] bus i nes s t ogether . ” (I d. 6 6 9 .) T he t es t i m onyof C ol eman and St anl ey , the s ur vei l l ance evi dence , the drug tr aff i cki ng evi dence i n N or thi ngt on’ s apart m ent , and N or thi ngt on’ s l ett er s t o Savage pr ovi ded more than s uffi ci entevi dence t o s uppor tN or thi ngt on’ s cons pi r acyconvi ct i on. I I I . A nony m ous Jury A ll f iv e a p p e lla n ts c h a lle n g e th e D is tr ic t C o u rt ’s u s e o f a n a n o n ym o u s ju ry. W e re v ie w th is d e c is io n f

o r a b u s e o f

d is c re tio n . U

n itedS ta tes v . Sc a rfo , 850 F. 2d 1015, 1016 (3 d C ir . 1 9 8 8 ). I n s uppor tof i t s m ot i on foran anonym ous j ury , the G overnm enti ntr oduced t apes fr om a w i r et ap of Sava ge’ s pr i s on cel l . T he t apes “r efl ect [ed] num er ous thr eat eni ng and v io len t re m a rk s” b yS a v a g e — sp e c if ica lly , thr e a ts “ to f

u rth e r in tim id a te w itn e ss e s a t trial,

. . . di s ruptthe j udi ci al pr oces s [, ] and i nt i m i dat e j ur or s . ” ( G ov’ tSupp’ l A pp. 47. ) T he D istri ct C o u rtg ran ted th e G o v ern m en t’ s m o ti o n o n sev era l gro u n d s. F ir st, the C o u rt11

r eas oned thatthe evi dence attr i al r el evantt o the fourcount s of Savage ’ s thr eat eni ng w i tnes s es “mayr ai s e a f earof phy s i cal harm ori nt i m i dat i on i n the j ur or s . ” (Id . 4 8 . ) Second, the C our tfound thatthe medi a i nt er es ti n the ca s e s i nce Sava ge’ s arr es t“may r ai s e an appr ehens i on among t he j ur or s . ” (I d. ) T hi r d, the C our tfound thatther e w as evi dence of Savage ’ s “des i r e and i nt entt o obt ai n the names and addr es s es of j ur or s for th e p u rp o se o f

in tim id a tio n o r re talia tio n ,” a s w e ll as th re a ts a g a in st w itn e ss e s, th e ir f a m ilie s , p ri s o n g u a rd s , a n d la w e n f o rc e m e n t a g e n ts . (I

d. 48–49. ) W e ea s i l yconcl ude th a tth e C o u r td i d n o ta b u s e i t s d i s c r e t i o n i n e m p a n e l i n g a n a n o n ym o u s j u ry. A ft erm aki ng i t s deci s i on, the C our tens ur ed thatthe def endant s w er e not p re ju d ice d b yit an d w e re a f f o rd e d a f u ll voi rdi r e in q u ir y . S e e U n itedS ta tes v . E u

fra sio , 9 3 5 F . 2 d 5 5 3 , 5 7 4 (3d C ir . 1 9 9 1 ). T he w r i t t en ques t i onnai r e s ubm i t t ed t o the pr os pect i ve ju ro rs a n d th e in d iv id u a l voirdir e conduct ed dur i ng j urys el ect i on al l ow ed couns el “i nt el l i gent [l yt o] exer ci s e [thei r ] per empt orychal l enges . ” Sc a rfo , 8 5 0 F .2 d a t 1 0 2 2 . D ur i ng voirdir e , the C our tgave the pr os pect i ve j ur or s a neutr al r eas on t o expl ai n w hy thei ri dent i t i es w oul d r emai n anonym ous : “These s t eps ar e t aken t o pr ot ecty ourpr i vacy and t o ai d i n y ourw or k as j ur or s . I have done thi s t o ens ur e thatboth s i des w i l l r ece i ve a fai rtr i al i n t hi s cas e, as i s both s i des ’ r i ght . ” ( G ov’ tSupp’ l A pp. 59. ) T hi s cur at i ve i ns truct i on di s pel l ed “a nypos s i bl e i nfer ence of def endant s ’ gui l tar i s i ng fr om the us e of an anonym ous j ury . ” U ni t ed Stat es v. Thornton , 1 F .3 d 1 4 9 , 1 5 4 (3 d C ir. 1 9 9 3 ); see al so Sc a rfo , 8 5 0 F .2 d a t 1 0 2 6 (c o n c lu d in g th a t th e c o u rt’s in stru c tio n s “ w e re p ro p e r in a d e q u a t e l yp r o t e c t i n g d e f e n d a n tf r o m p o s s i b l e a d v e r s e j u r o ri n f e r e n c e s ” ) . T h e r e f

o r e , weS t ei n, for the fir stt i m e on app eal , m akes a F i rs tA m end m ent chal l eng e t o the use 7 of an a nonym ous j ury . St ei n r el i es on U ni t ed Stat es v. W

echt , 5 3 7 F . 3 d 2 2 2 (3d C ir . 20 08 ), w hich i nv olved dis cl osure t o the m edia of t he jur ors’ nam es based o n F i rs t A m endmentpr i nci pl es . T hi s i s di ffe r entthan the Si xth A m endmentar gum entSt ei n m ade to th e D is tr ic t C o u rt . I

d. at234 n. 23 ( “[T] he Fi r s tA m endmentr i ghtof ac ces s thatthe M e d ia- In ter v e n o rs a ss e rt is d istin c t f ro m a d e f

e n d a n t’s S ix th A m e n d m e n t rig h t to chal l enge the us e of a n anonym ous j ury . ”) . St ei n ci t es no cas e, and w e have found none, al l ow i ng a def

endantt o att ack hi s convi ct i on bas ed on an a l l eged vi ol at i on of the gene r al publ i c’ s Fi r s tA m endmentr i ghtof ac ces s t o j ur or s ’ names, nordoes he i dent i fyany p re ju d ice to h im a p a rt f

ro m th e sa m e p o ten tial f o r p re ju d ice w e c o n sid e r in th e S ix th A m e n d m e n t co n tex t. W e se e n o su p p o rt f o r S tein ’s a ss e rtio n th a t a “ les s s trin g e n t” te st is appl i ed forthe Si xth A m endmentthan the Fi r s tA m endment . I n anyevent , forthe re a s o n s s ta te d a b o v e , th e u s e o f a n a n o n ym o u s ju ry w a s a p p ro p ri a te in th is c a s e . U nl i ke R us s el l , N or thi ngt on, and St ei n, W al kerdi d notm ove fors ever ance i n the 8 D i s tr i ctC our t . T her efor e, “he ha s w ai ved the r i ghtt o pr es entthati s s ue on appe al . ” Thornton , 1 F. 3d at153 n. 5. 12 r ej ectappel l ant s ’ chal l enge. 7 I V . D eni al of M ot i on t o Sever A ll ap p e llan ts e x c e p t S a v a g e a rg u e th a t th e D istric t C o u rt e rre d in d e n y in g th e ir p r e - tr i a l s e v e r a n c e m o t i o n s m a d e u n d e rF e d e r a l R u l e o f C r i m i n a l P r o c e d u r e 1 4 . We 8 re v ie w th is d e c is io n f

o r a b u s e o f

d is c re tio n . U

ni t ed Stat es v. U

r ban , 404 F. 3d 754, 775 ( 3d C i r . 2005) . E ven i f the C our tabus ed i t s di s cr et i on, w e w i l l notr ever s e unl es s the defe ndants how s “cl earand s ubs t ant i al pr ej udi ce r es ul t i ng i n a mani fes t l yunfai rtr i al . ” I d. (i n terna l qu o tat ion m ark s an d cit ati o n o m itted). A “funda m ent al pr i nci pl e” of ourfede r al s y s t em i s a pr efe r ence for“j oi nttr i al s of defe ndant s w ho ar e i ndi ct ed t ogether [, ] beca us e j oi nttr i al s pr om ot e ef fi ci encyand s erve the i nt er es t s of j us t i ce byavoi di ng the s canda l and i nequi tyof i ncons i s t entver di ct s . ” I d. (in ter n a l q u o tatio n m a rk s, c itatio n , an d b ra c k e ts o m itt e d ). T h e re f o re , d istric t co u rts13

sh o u ld g ra n t a s e v e ra n c e m o tio n “ o n lyif th e re is a se rio u s ris k th a t a jo in t trial w o u ld compromi s e a s peci fi c tr i al r i ghtof one of the def endant s , orpr eventthe j uryfr om m aki ng a r el i abl e j udgm entaboutgui l tori nnocenc e. ” I d. ( i nt ernal quot at i on m arks and c ita tio n o m itte d ). A ppel l ant s ar gue thatthe D i s tr i ctC our tabus ed i t s di s cr et i on byr efus i ng t o s ever thei rtr i al s fr om Savage’ s , not i ng the pr ej udi ce thatcoul d s t em from t he us e of a n anonym ous j uryand the evi dence conce rni ng Savage’ s thr eat s agai ns tw i tnes s es and other s . W e di s agr ee. I ti s w el l es t abl i s hed thata “de fenda nti s notent i t l ed t o s ever ance m erel ybecau se the ev i den ce aga i nsta co-defen dan ti s m ore dam aging t han that agai nst hi m . ” Un i t e d

S ta t e s v . A da ms , 759 F. 2d 1099, 1112 ( 3d C i r . 1985) ( i nt ernal quot at i on m arks and ci t at i on om i t t ed) . I ns t ead, “[s ] om e exa cerbat i ng ci r cumst ance s , s uch as the j ury ’ s i nabi l i tyt o ‘ compar t m ent al i ze’ the evi dence , ar e r equi r ed. ” I d. at1112–13 (c ita tio n o m itte d ). A p p e lla n ts h a v e n o t s h o w n a n ys u c h e x a c e rb a tin g c ir c u m s ta n c e s h e re . T heym ake a g eneral spi l l ov er ar gu m ent that the “ev i den ce present ed ag ai nst Savage w as s o horr i fi c thati thad t o s pi l l overi nt o the j ury ’ s m i nd, ” and thatthe “s pect er of vi ol ence agai ns tw i tnes s es w as hi ghl ypr ej udi ci al . ” ( R us s el l B r . 47–48; N or thi ngt on B r. 2 0 .) H o w e v e r, s u c h c o n c lu s o ry a lle g a tio n s o f s p illo v e r e f

f e c t d o n o t w a rr a n t r e v e rs a l. A da ms , 759 F. 2d at1113 ( “A ppel l ant s ’ concl us oryal l egat i ons of a s pi l l overeff ectdo not m e e t th e ir b u rd e n f

o r ju stif y in g a re v e rsa l.”); s ee al s o U ni t ed Stat es v. R ei cher t er , 647 F .2 d 3 9 7 , 4 0 0 (3 d C ir. 1 9 8 1 ) (“ M e re a lleg a tio n s o f p re ju d ice a re n o t en o u g h [ ,] an d it i s nots uffi ci ents i m pl yt o es t abl i s h t hats ever ance w oul d i m pr ove the def endant ’ s chanc e ofR us s el l al s o r el i es on a s t at ementconce rni ng the fi r earm s char ges m ade i n the 9 G overnm ent ’ s br i ef oppos i ng hi s m ot i on fora new tr i al , butthi s s t at ementw as not , of c o u rs e , b e f

o re th e ju ry. ( See R u s s e ll B r. 4 8 .) 14 acqui t t al . ”) . T he G overnm entpr es ent ed the evi dence of Savage ’ s i nt i m i dat i on and r et al i at i on i n a s epar at e port i on of the tr i al , and i tw as cl earfr om the i ndi ctm entand the e v id e n c e th a t o n lyS a v a g e w a s in v o lv e d in th a t co n d u c t. R u ss e ll cite s a s p re ju d icia l a speci fi c st at em ent m ade b ythe G ov ernm ent duri ng i t s open i ng st at em ent— that “[t ]hi s i s a cas e aboutdrugs , di r tym oney , i l l egal guns , fea rand i nt i m i dat i on”— and ar gues i tw as pr ej udi ci al beca us e R us s el l w as notchar ged i n the moneyl aunder i ng, w eapons , and i nt i m i dat i on count s of the i ndi ctm ent . ( R us s el l B r . 48. ) A ft err evi ew i ng thi s por t i on of the tr ans cr i pt , w e ar e notconvi nced thi s openi ng s t at ementw as pr ej udi ci al t o R us s el l , or i nt ended t o be anythi ng m or e than a ge ner al s ynops i s of the ca s e as a w hol e. 9 St ei n al s o m akes the s pi l l overar gum ent , as he ( unl i ke the otherappel l ant s ) w as char ged onl yw i th m oneyl aunder i ng. A s the D i s tr i ctC our tnot ed, the moneyl aunder i ng cons pi r acyand the drug- tr aff i cki ng cons pi r acyw er e i nt err el at ed, and, had St ei n been tr i ed al one, the G overnm entw oul d s t i l l need t o pr ove the l aunder ed pr opertyw as “the pr ocee ds of s peci fi ed unl aw ful act i vi ty ”— the unl aw ful act i vi tybei ng the drug- tr aff i cki ng cons pi r acy . I n anyevent , al though the amountof evi dence w as l ar ge, ther e i s no in d ica tio n th e ju ryw a s u n a b le to c o m p a rtm e n taliz e th e e v id e n c e a n d re a c h a re liab le ver di ct . I ndeed, the G overnm ents tructur ed the t es t i m onyt o s etapartthe money l aunder i ng cas e and the thr eat s fr om Savage. M os ti m por t ant l y , the D i s tr i ctC our ti ns truct ed the j uryon s ever al occa s i ons thatSee G ov’ tSupp’ l A pp. 78–79 ( Pr el i m i naryJ uryI ns truct i ons ) ( “[Y ] ou m us tbear 10 i n m i nd thaty ourver di ctas t o eac h defe ndantm us tbe det erm i ned s epar at el yw i th r es pect to h im , so lel yo n the e v iden ce o r l ac k o f e v iden ce p rese n ted a g ains t him , w ith o u t r eg ard t o the gui l tori nnocenc e of a ny one el s e. . . . L etm e emphas i ze thatanyevi dence a d m itt e d so lelya g a in st o n e d e f e n d a n t m a yb e c o n sid e re d o n lya s a g a in st th a t d e f e n d a n t, and maynot , i n anyw ay , ent eri nt o y ourul t i m at e del i ber at i ons w i th r es pectt o anyother d e f e n d a n t.”); id . 56 4– 65 (C l osi ng JuryInstruct i on s) (“[S]om e of the evidence in this case w as l i m i t ed t o j us tone def endantoranother . Forexampl e, the G overnm enti ntr oduced a s evi dence t ape r ecor di ngs of conve r s at i ons betw een M r . K aboni Savage a nd otheri nm at es at th e F ed era l D eten ti o n C en ter. T h ese tape rec o rdin g s w ere o n lyad m itted a g ains t M r. Savage. L etm e emphas i ze thatanyevi dence admi t t ed s ol el yagai ns tone def endantm ay be cons i der ed as onl yagai ns tthatdefe ndantand maynoti n anyr es pectent eri nt o y our del i ber at i ons on anyot herdefe ndant . I n r eac hi ng y ourver di ct , beari n m i nd thatgui l tor i nnocenc e i s per s onal and i ndi vi dual . Y ourver di ctof gui l tyornotgui l tym us tbe bas ed s ol el yupon the evi dence w i th r es pectt o eac h defe ndant . T he ca s e aga i ns teac h defe ndant on eac h countw i th w hi ch he i s char ged s t ands orfal l s upon the pr oof orl ack of pr oof agai ns tthatdefe ndantal one. Y ourver di ctas t o anydefe ndanton anycounts houl d not co n tr o l y o u r de cisi o n as to an yo ther d ef en d an t i n an yo ther c o u n t. ”). 15 anyevi dence admi t t ed s ol el yagai ns tone def endantcoul d notbe cons i der ed aga i ns tany otherdefe ndant , and gave a s peci fi c l i m i t i ng i ns truct i on aboutSavage’ s r ecor ded c o n v e rsa tio n s. W e re g a rd th e se in stru c tio n s a s “ p e rsu a siv e e v id e n c e th a t re f u sa ls to 10 s everdi d notpr ej udi ce the def endant [s ] . ” U

r ban , 4 0 4 F . 3 d at 77 6 . M o reo v er, th e jury a c q u itte d N o rt h in g to n o n o n e c o u n t. C f . U ni t ed Stat es v. A nders kow , 88 F. 3d 245, 255 n . 9 (3d C ir . 1 9 9 6 ) (co n clud ing that the a p p ell an t- d ef en d an t’ s “a cq u ittal o n ev ery s ubs t ant i ve countof w i r e fr aud . . . demonstr at es concl us i vel ythathe s uffe r ed no p rejud ice f

rom an y‘spill o v er’ ev iden ce ”). A ppel l ant s have notm etthei rheavybur den, an d thu s the D istri ct C o u rtd id n o t abu se it s d iscreti o n in d en y ing the m o ti o n to se v er.

V . St e i n’ s M one y L aunde r i ng Convi c t i ons St ei n r ai s es var i ous ar gum ent s t o hi s convi ct i on on C ountT w o ( m oneyl aunder i ng16

c o n sp ira c yin v io latio n o f 1 8 U .S .C . § 1 9 5 6 (h )) a n d C o u n t T h re e (m o n e ylau n d e rin g in v iolati o n o f 1 8 U . S . C . § § 1 9 5 7 an d 2 ). W e d iscern n o rev ersible e rror. A . C o u n t T wo C o u n t T w o c h a rg e d S tein (to g e th e r w ith T h o m a s, w h o , as n o ted , d ied b e f o re trial) w i th cons pi r acyunder18 U . S. C . § 1956( h) . T he obj ectof the cha r ged cons pi r acyw as m o n e ylau n d e rin g in v io latio n o f 1 8 U .S .C . § 1 9 5 6 (a )(1 )(B )(i). T h a t sta tu te p ro v id e s, in re lev a n t p a rt: W hoever , know i ng thatthe pr operty invol ved i n a fi nanci al tr ans act i on r epr es ent s the p ro c e e d

s o f so m e fo rm o

f u n la w fu l a c tivity , co n d u c ts o r a ttem p ts t o conducts uch a fi nanci al tr ans act i on w hi ch i n fac ti nvol ves the pr ocee ds of s p e c i f i e d u n l a w f

u l a c t i v i ty—

. . . (B ) k n o w in g th a t th e tra n sa c tio n is d e sig n e d in w h o le o r in p a rt— ( i ) t o conce al ordi s gui s e the natur e, the l ocat i on, the s our ce, the ow ner s hi p, orthe contr ol of the pr ocee ds o f sp ec if i ed unl aw ful a c tiv ity . . . s hal l be s ent ence d t o a fi ne of not m or e than $500, 000 ortw i ce the val ue of the pr opertyi nvol ved i n the t r ans act i on, w hi cheve r i s gr eat er , or i m pr i s onm entfor n o t m o re th a n tw e n ty y e a rs , o r b o th . 1 8 U . S . C . § 1 9 5 6 (a)(1)(B )(i ) (em p h asis ad d ed ). S tei n arg u es th at th e D istri ct C o u rt in c o rre c tlyd e f

in e d th e ter m “ p ro c e e d s,” a s u se d in 1 8 U .S .C . § 1 9 5 6 , in its in stru c tio n s to th e j u ry. B ec au se S tei n raises this arg u m en t fo r th e f ir st t im e o n ap p ea l, w e re v iew the ju ry in s tru c tio n f

o r p la in e rr o r. Un i t e d

S ta t e s v . Wi l l i a ms , 4 6 4 F .3 d 4 4 3 , 4 4 5 (3 d C ir . 2 0 0 6 ). U nderthe pl ai n err or s t andar d, befor e an appel l at e courtcan c orr ectan err or n o t ra ise d a t trial, the re m u st b e (1 ) e rro r, (2 ) th a t is p lain , a n d (3 ) th a t af f e c ts s ubs t ant i al r i ght s . I f al l thr ee condi t i ons ar e m et , an appe l l at e courtm aythen exer ci s e i t s di s cr et i on t o noti ce a for fei t ed err or , butonl yi f ( 4) the err orI n 2009, C ongr es s l egi s l at i vel yoverrul ed Sant os byamendi ng § 1956 t o add the 11 fol l ow i ng defi ni t i on of pr ocee ds : “anypr opertyder i ved fr om orobt ai ned orr et ai ned, d ire c tlyo r in d ire c tly , thr o u g h so m e f o rm o f u n law f u l ac tiv ity , inc lu d in g th e g ro ss re c e ip ts o f s u c h a c tiv ity.” 1 8 U .S .C . § 1 9 5 6 (c )( 9 ) ( 2 0 0 9 ). 17 s er i ous l yaff

ect s the fa i r n ess , i nt egr i ty , orpubl i c r eput at i on of j udi ci al proceed i ng s. I d. (i n te rn a l q u o ta tio n m a rk s , c ita tio n , a n d b ra c k e ts o m itte d ). A t th e ti m e o f tri al, “p roc ee d s” w as n o t def ined in the statu te. T h e D istri ct C o u rt i ns truct ed the j urythat“pr ocee ds ” w er e “a nypr opertyoranyi nt er es ti n pr opertythat s om eone a cqui r es orr et ai ns as a r es ul tof the comm i s s i on of the s peci fi ed unl aw ful act i vi ty . ” ( G ov’ tSupp’ l A pp. 566. ) T he “s peci fi ed unl aw ful act i vi ty ” i n thi s cas e w as “the cons pi r acyt o m anufa ctur e and di s tr i but e coc ai ne and c ocai ne bas e. ” (I d. ) A ccor di ng t o St ei n, the C our t ’ s i ns truct i on w as contr aryt o the Supr eme C our t ’ s deci s i on i n U ni t ed Stat es v. Sant os , 128 S. C t . 2020 ( 2008) , beca us e i tdi d notdi s t i ngui s h betw een

“ p ro f its ” a n d “ re c e ip ts ” in d e f in in g “ p ro c e e d s .” 11 I n Sant os , the f

ive-Ju sti ce m ajorityw as f rac tured . Ju sti ce S ca li a, w ri ti n g fo r a four - J us t i ce pl ur al i ty , i nvoked the rul e of l eni tyt o hol d that“pr ocee ds ” al w ay s m eans

“ p ro f its” u n d e r 1 8 U .S .C . § 1 9 5 6

— th e m o re d e f e n d a n t-f rie n d lyin terp re tatio n . 1 2 8 S . C t. at2025 ( pl ur al i tyopi ni on) . J us t i ce A l i t o w r ot e forthe fourJ us t i ces i n di s s entt o r eac h t he oppos i t e conc l us i on— that“pr ocee ds ” al w ay s m eans “gr os s r ece i pt s . ” See i d. at2036 ( A l i t o, J . , di s s ent i ng) . J us t i ce St evens concurr ed i n the j udgm entt o pr ovi de the fi fth vot e, butdi s agr eed that“pr ocee ds ” alw ays m eans “pr ofi t s . ” I ns t ead, he conc l uded thatthe m eani ng of “pr ocee ds ” i n § 1956 depends on the under l y i ng “s peci fi ed unl aw fulM or eover , w e not e that , contr aryt o St ei n’ s ar gum ent , a maj or i tyof the Sant os 12 C ou rtapp eared t o ag ree that “pr oceed s” i n the con t ext of a drug c on spi racym eans “g ross r ece i pt s , ” not“pr ofi t s . ” See 128 S. C t . at2036 & n. 1 ( A l i t o, J . , di s s ent i ng) ( s t at i ng that “fi ve Just i ces agree w i th the posi t i on ” t hat “the term ‘pr oceed s’ ‘i nclude[s] gr oss r evenue s fr om the s al e of c ontr aband a nd the oper at i on of or gani zed c r i m e s yndi cat es in v o lv in g s u c h s a le s ’” ) ( q u o tin g J u s tic e S te v e n s ’s c o n c u rr e n c e ) ( a lte ra tio n in o ri g in a l) . 18 act i vi ty . ” I

d. at2031–32 ( St evens , J . , concurr i ng) . H e agr eed w i th the four - J us t i ce pl ur al i tythat , i n t he i l l egal - gambl i ng bus i nes s cont ext , “pr ocee ds ” means “pr ofi t s . ” I d. at 2033 ( St evens , J . , concurr i ng) . B eca us e “hi s vot e [w a] s nece s s aryt o [the] j udgm ent , and

. . . hi s opi ni on r es t s upon the narr ow ergr ound, the C our t ’ s hol di ng i s l i m i t ed acc or di ngl y . ” I

d. a t 2 0 3 1 (p lu ra lityo p in io n ); s ee al s o M arks v. U ni t ed Stat es , 43 0 U. S. 1 8 8 , 1 9 3 (1 9 7 7 ). Th u s , we o n l yk n o w f

r o m Sant os w hat“pr ocee ds ” means w hen an i l l egal g a m b lin g b u sin e ss is th e “ sp e c if ied u n law f

u l ac tiv ity .” W h e n in ste a d a d ru g c o n sp ira c yis the “s peci fi ed unl aw ful act i vi ty , ” the l aw i s uncl earas t o w hether“pr ocee ds ” means “pr ofi t s ” or“gr os s r ece i pt s . ” S e e U n itedS ta tes v . Kra tt , 5 7 9 F . 3 d 5 5 8 , 5 6 3 (6th C ir . 20 09 ) ( “E ven aft er accoun t i ng for Just i ce S cal i a’s and Just i ce S t even s’ op i nions, ‘pro ce ed s’ rem ains an am b igu o u s term . . . . ”). B eca us e ther e i s no governi ng pr ece dentr es ol vi ng thi s i s s ue, w e ca nnots aythat the D istri ct C o u rtco m m itted p lai n erro r. See U ni t ed Stat es v. C hau , 426 F. 3d 1318, 12 1 3 2 2 (11 th C ir . 2 0 0 5 ) (

percur i am ) ( w hen “the expl i ci tl anguage of a s t atut e orrul e does nots peci fi cal l yr es ol ve an i s s ue, ther e ca n be no pl ai n err orw her e ther e i s no pr ece dent fr om the Supr eme C our torthi s C our tdi r ect l yr es ol vi ng i t ” ( i nt ernal quot at i on m arks andA t trial, D a n iels tes tifie d th a t h e w a n ted to u se h is c a sh d ru g m o n e yto sta rt a 13 co n ce rtp rom o ti o n co m p an y . (S tei n D ef erred A p p ’x 2 6 3 . ) H e the ref o re a sk ed S tei n fo r a chec k “t o m ake the pape rtr ai l l ook l egi tforthe s how . ” (I d. ) D ani el s packa ged $5, 000 s ta c k s o f $ 2 0 b ills in a b la c k s h o e b o x , w h ic h h e d e liv e re d to S te in a t h is h o m e . (I d. 2 6 7 . ) D a n ie ls te s tif

ie d th a t S te in c h a rg e d h im 1 2 % in te re s t to m a k e th e lo a n a p p e a r l e g itim a te . (I d. 2 6 9

– 7 0 .) 19 ci t at i on om i t t ed) ) . W e thus aff i r m St ei n’ s convi ct i on on C ountT w o. B . C ount Th ree C o u n t T h ree ch arg ed S tei n w ith “k n o w ing lyen g ag [in g ]. . . in a m o n etary tr ans act i on i n cr i m i nal l yder i ved pr opertyof a va l ue gr eat erthan $10, 000 . . . der i ved f ro m sp e c if

ied u n law f

u l ac tiv ity .” 1 8 U .S .C . § 1 9 5 7 (a ). “M o n e tar ytra n sa c tio n ” is defi ned as “the depos i t , w i thdr aw al , tr ans fer , orexcha nge, i n oraff ect i ng i nt er s t at e or f o re ig n c o m m e rc e , o f

f u n d s o r a m o n e tar yin stru m e n t (a s d e f in e d in § 1 9 5 6 (c )(5 ) o f

th is t i t l e) by , thr ough, ort o a fi nanci al i ns t i tut i on . . . , i ncl udi ng anytr ans act i on thatw oul d be a fi nanci al tr ans act i on unders ect i on 1956( c) ( 4) ( B ) of thi s t i t l e. ” I d. § 1957( f) ( 1) . T he i nd i ct m ent al l eged that, i n Jun e 20 01 , S t ei n g ave a $ 50 , 00 0 ch eck to Pa ul D aniel s, pay abl e t o Phi l adel phi a Ent ert ai nm entG r oup, i n excha nge for$50, 000 i n cas h drug p roc ee d s. S tei n h eld th e c ash in h is po sses sion fo r si x m o n ths a s co ll ateral. (G o v ’t 13 S u p p ’l A p p . 2 7 .) St ei n ar gues thatthe i ndi ctm entfai l ed t o al l ege thata “f i nanci al i ns t i tut i on” w as inv o lved , as re q u ir ed fo r co n d u ct t o v iolate 18 U . S . C . § 1 9 5 7 . W e e x erc ise p lena ry re v iew o v e r th e c h a llen g e to th e su f f icie n c yo f

th e in d ictm e n t, an d lo o k o n lyto “ th e f a c ts al l eged w i thi n t he fourcorner s of the i ndi ctm ent . ” U n itedS ta tes v . V

iti llo , 490 F. 3d 314,20

3 2 0

– 2 1 (3 d C ir. 2 0 0 7 ) (in ter n a l q u o tatio n m a rk s a n d c itatio n o m itt e d ). “A n in d ictm e n t is gener al l ydeemed s uffi ci enti f i t : ( 1) cont ai ns the el ement s of the off ens e i nt ended t o be char ged, ( 2) s uffi ci ent l yappr i s es the def endantof w hathe mustbe pr epar ed t o m eet , and ( 3) al l ow s the def

endantt o s how w i th acc ur acyt o w hatext enthe maypl ead a form er acqui t t al orconvi ct i on i n t he eve ntof a s ubs equentpr os ecut i on. ” U ni t ed Stat es v. R a n k in , 8 7 0 F .2 d 1 0 9 , 1 1 2 (3 d C ir. 1 9 8 9 ) (in ter n a l q u o tatio n m a rk s, c itatio n , an d b ra c k e ts o m itt e d ). A n in d ictm e n t d o e s n o t sta te a n o f f e n se su f f icie n tlyif

th e sp e c if

ic f a c ts th a t it all eg es “ fa ll b ey o n d the s co p e o f th e re leva n t cri m inal statu te, as a m att er o f statuto ry i nt erpr et at i on. ” U

n itedS ta tes v . P a n a re lla , 2 7 7 F . 3 d 6 7 8 , 6 8 5 (3d C ir . 2 0 0 2 ). T hough St ei n di d notr ai s e thi s ar gum entbefor e orattr i al , a “de fenda ntm ay c h a lle n g e a n in d ic tm e n t f o r f a ilu re to c h a rg e a n o f

f e n s e f o r t h e f ir s t tim e o n a p p e a l.” U n itedS ta tes v . C e

fa ra tti , 2 2 1 F . 3 d 5 0 2 , 5 0 7 (3d C ir . 2 0 0 0 ). “[ I]nd ictm en ts w h ich a re tar d ilyc h a llen g e d a re lib e ra llyc o n stru c ted in f a v o r o f v a lid ity ,” a n d th e in d ictm e n t w ill be uphel d “unl es s i ti s s o defe ct i ve thati tdoes not , byanyr eas onabl e cons truct i on, char ge an of

fens e. ” V

iti llo , 490 F. 3d at324 ( i nt ernal quot at i on m arks and ci t at i ons o m itted). W e do notagr ee w i th St ei n’ s as s ert i on thatthe mer e exc hange of drug pr ocee ds for a c h e c k is n o t “b y , thr o u g h , o r to a f in a n c ial in stitu tio n .” A s th e G o v e rn m e n t p o in ts o u t, the t erm “monet arytr ans act i on” al s o “i ncl ud[es ] anytr ans act i on thatw oul d be a f i nanci al tr ans act i on under[18 U . S. C . §] 1956( c) ( 4) ( B ) . ” Sect i on 1956( c) ( 4) ( B ) , i n turn, defi nes “fi nanci al tr ans act i on” as “a tr ans act i on i nvol vi ng the us e of a fi nanci al i ns t i tut i on w hi chSt ei n al s o ar gues thatthe monet arytr ans act i on w as not“i n cr i m i nal l yder i ved 14 pr operty . ” H ow ever , the $50, 000 cas h w as al l eged t o be pr ocee ds fr om the drug cons pi r acy , and the che ck he w r ot e w as der i ved fr om thos e pr ocee ds . T hi s el ementw as th u s s a tis f

ie d . C f . U ni t ed Stat es v. C ovey , 2 3 2 F .3 d 6 4 1 , 6 4 5

– 4 6 (8 th C ir . 2 0 0 0 ). St ei n as s ert s thatthe evi dence w as i ns uffi ci entt o pr ove thathe enga ged i n a 15 “monet arytr ans act i on, ” buti n doi ng s o does notactual l yar gue thatthe G overnm ent fai l ed t o pr ove attr i al the fa ct s as al l eged i n the i ndi ctm ent . I ns t ead, he mer el yr ei t er at es h is le g a l c h a lle n g e s to th e s u f f ic ie n c yo f

th e in d ic tm e n t its e lf. 21 i s engage d i n, orthe ac t i vi t i es of w hi ch af fec t , i nt er s t at e comm er ce i n anyw ayor d e g re e .” In o u r c a se , S tein w ro te a c h e c k to D a n iels to b e d ra w n o n a n a c c o u n t S tein m ai nt ai ned ata fi nanci al i ns t i tut i on. I n excha nge, he r ece i ved $50, 000 cas h. T he i ndi ctm ents uffi ci ent l ychar ged the exc hange of a monet aryi ns trum ent“thr ough” and “i nvol vi ng the us e of” a fi nanci al i ns t i tut i on. See U ni t ed Stat es v. Jack

s on , 935 F. 2d 14 832, 841 ( 7th C i r . 1991) ( “W r i t i ng a che ck, w hetherforcas h ort o a vendorw ho has p ro v id e d se rv ice s, f

a lls w ith in th e d e f

in iti o n o f a ‘f in a n c ial tra n sa c tio n ’ c o n tain e d in § 1 9 5 6 (c)(4)(B ) be ca u se itinv o lved [a b an k ] . . . . ”). 15 I n addi t i on, St ei n ar gues thatthe i ndi ctm entw as cons truct i vel yamended ( or , i n t he al t ernat i ve, thatther e w as a pr ej udi ci al var i ance ) beca us e the G overnm entpr es ent ed evi dence thatD ani el s depos i t ed St ei n’ s chec k, r atherthan r el y i ng s ol el yon the exc hange o f th e c h e c k f

o r c a sh a s a lleg e d in C o u n t T h re e . B e c a u se S tein d id n o t ra ise th is a rg u m e n t b e f

o re o r d u ri n g tr ia l, w e re v ie w f o r p la in e rr o r. U

ni t ed Stat es v. V

os bur gh , 602 F .3 d 5 1 2 , 5 3 1 (3 d C ir . 2 0 1 0 ). “A n i ndi ctm enti s cons truct i vel yamended w hen, i n the abs ence of a f or m al amendm ent , the evi dence and j uryi ns truct i ons attr i al m odi fyes s ent i al t erm s of the22

char ged off

ens e i n s uch a w aythatther e i s a s ubs t ant i al l i kel i hood thatthe j urym ayhave convi ct ed the def

endantforan off

ens e di ffe r i ng fr om the off ens e the i ndi ctm entr etur ned bythe gr and j uryactual l ychar ged. ” I d. at532 ( i nt ernal quot at i on m arks and ci t at i on o m itted). T h is can o cc u r “thro u g h ev iden ce , arg u m en ts, o r th e d istri ct co u rt ’s j u ry i ns truct i ons . ” I

d. ( i nt ernal quot at i on m arks and ci t at i on om i t t ed) . A cons truct i ve a m e n d m e n t is p re s u m p tiv e ly p re ju d ic ia l e v e n u n d e r p la in e rr o r r e v ie w . I d. “A var i ance occur s w her e the cha r gi ng t erm s of the i ndi ctm entar e notchange d but w hen the evi dence atthe tr i al pr oves fac t s m at er i al l ydi ffe r entfr om thos e al l eged i n t he i ndi ctm ent . ” I

d. (i nternal quotat i on m arks and cit at i on om i t t ed). A vari ance m ust p re ju d ic e s o m e s u b s ta n tia l r ig h t to c o n s titu te re v e rs ib le e rr o r. I d. St ei n’ s s uppor ti n t he r ecor d forhi s ar gum enti s s l i m . H e r el i es on the G overnm ent ’ s ent er i ng i nt o evi dence the che ck he w r ot e t o D ani el s , the bac k of w hi ch s h o w e d th e e n d o r s e m e n t . T h e e n d o r s e m e n tw a s m e n t i o n e d b r i e f l y d u r i n g t e s t i m o n y, w h e n D a n ie ls te s tif

ie d o n d ir e c t e x a m in a tio n th a t th e c h e c k w a s e n d o rs e d b yh is s is te r. ( St ei n Supp’ l A pp. 266. ) B utSt ei n ci t es t o no otherm ent i on bythe G overnm entof the chec k’ s depos i t . D es pi t e St ei n’ s s ugges t i on t o the contr ary . the G overnm entdi d not d is c u s s th e d e p o s it in its c lo s in g a rg u m e n ts . ( See S tei n B r. 4 6 , 4 8 (cit ing S tei n S u p p ’l A p p . 3 4 5 ).) N o r d id th e C o u rt’s ju ryin stru c tio n s m e n tio n th e c h e c k d e p o sit (a s S tein hi m s el f admi t s ) ors ugges tthatthe j urycoul d convi ctSt ei n bas ed on i t . A s the br i ef m ent i ons of the che ck’ s depos i tar e fa rfr om s uffi ci entt o cons t i tut e a c ons truct i ve a m e n d m e n t o r a p re

ju d ic ia l v a ri a n c e , th e re w a s n o p la in e rr o r.23 V I . A dm i s s i on o f

Ex pe r t Tes t i m ony R u ss e ll ch a llen g e s th e a d m iss io n o f e x p e rt tes tim o n yb yS p e c ial A g e n t K e v in L e w is , w h ic h w e re v ie w f o r a b u s e o f

d is c re tio n . G i bbs , 1 9 0 F .3 d a t 2 1 1 . A ft era hea r i ng, the C ourtqual i fi ed Lew i s as an expe r ton coca i ne tr aff i cki ng, rul i ng thatL ew i s coul d t es t i fyw hatcert ai n w or ds us ed i n the w i r et apped c onver s at i ons m eant “general l yacross the w ho l e area of drug traffi cking i n co cai ne, ” bu tno tw hat tho se w or ds m eant“i n thi s part i cul arcas e. ” ( G ov’ tSupp’ l A pp. 75. ) I n acc or d w i th thi s rul i ng, L ew i s t est i fi ed ab ou tthe m eaning g eneral l yof ce rt ai n w ords used in the int ercept ed call s, a n d th e q u a n titie s , s a le v a lu e s , a n d p ro c e s s in g te rm in o lo g yo f c o c a in e a n d c ra c k c o c a in e . ( See R u s s e ll A d d e n d u m to A p p . 1 0 , 1 5 .) “[I ] ti s w el l es t abl i s hed thatexper i ence d governm entagent s m ayt es t i fyt o the m eani ng of code d drug l anguage underFed. R . E vi d. 702. ” G i bbs , 1 9 0 F .3 d a t 2 1 1 ; s ee al s o U ni t ed Stat es v. W

at s on , 260 F. 3d 301, 307 ( 3d C i r . 2001) ( not i ng that“the oper at i ons of nar cot i cs deal er s have r epea t edl ybeen f ound t o be a s ui t abl e t opi c for expertt es t i m onybeca us e theyar e notw i thi n the comm on know l edge of the ave r age j ur or ”) . “B eca us e the pr i m arypurpos e of c oded drug l anguage i s t o conce al the meani ng o f th e c o n v e rsa tio n f

ro m o u tsid e rs th ro u g h d e lib e ra te o b sc u rity , d ru g tra f f ick e rs’ jar g o n is a s peci al i zed bodyof know l edge a nd thus an appr opr i at e s ubj ectforexpertt es t i m ony . ” G i bbs , 1 9 0 F .3 d a t 2 1 1 . A s th a t is e x a c tlyw h a t th e D istric t C o u rt q u a lifie d L e w is to d i s c u s s , w e r e a d i l y a f

f i r m th e a d m i s s i o n o f

h i s e x p e r tt e s t i m o n y. R us s el l al s o as s ert s thatL ew i s i m pr oper l yt es t i fi ed as t o R us s el l ’ s s t at e of mi nd24

and i nt ent . H ow ever , i n t he port i ons of the tr ans cr i ptr el i ed on byR us s el l , ther e i s no in d ic a tio n th a t L e w is s o te s tif ie d . ( See R us s el l B r . 42–44; R us s el l A ddendum t o A pp. 10–15, 20–24. ) I ns t ead, A gentL ew i s pr oper l yt es t i fi ed i n gener al t erm s i n acc or dance w ith the D istri ct C o u rt ’s ruli n g . A cc o rdin g ly , w e se e n o erro r. V I I . Sent enci ng Is s ues “O urr es pons i bi l i tyon appel l at e r evi ew of a c r i m i nal s ent ence i s l i m i t ed y et im p o rta n t: w e a re to e n su re th a t a s u b sta n tiv e lyre a so n a b le s e n ten c e h a s b e e n im p o se d in a pr ocedur al l yfai rw ay . ” U ni t ed Stat es v. Levi ns on , 5 4 3 F .3 d 1 9 0 , 1 9 5 (3 d C ir . 2 0 0 8 ). T hi s pr ocee ds i n t w o s t ages . Fi r s t , w e “e ns ur e thatthe di s tr i ctcourtcomm i t t ed no s i gni fi cantpr ocedur al err or , s uch as fai l i ng t o cal cul at e ( ori m pr oper l ycal cul at i ng) the G ui del i nes r ange, tr eat i ng the G ui del i nes as m andat ory , fai l i ng t o cons i derthe [18 U . S. C . ] § 3553( a) fac t or s , s el ect i ng a s ent ence bas ed on cl ear l yerr oneous fac t s , orfai l i ng t o adequa t el yexpl ai n t he chos en s ent ence — i ncl udi ng an expl anat i on foranydevi at i on fr om the G ui del i nes r ange. ” G al lv. U ni t ed Stat es , 5 5 2 U. S . 3 8 , 5 1 ( 2 0 0 7 ) . S e c o n d , we c o n sid e r th e to talityo f

th e c irc u m sta n c e s to d e ter m in e w h e th e r th e se n ten c e is s u b s ta n tiv e ly re a s o n a b le . U ni t ed Stat es v. Tom ko , 5 6 2 F . 3 d 5 5 8 , 5 6 7 (3d C ir . 2 0 0 9 ) ( en banc ) . “[I ] f the di s tr i ctcourt ’ s s ent ence i s pr ocedur al l ys ound, w e w i l l aff i r m i tunl es s no r eas onabl e s ent enci ng courtw oul d have i m pos ed the s ame se nt ence on thatpart i cul ar defe ndantforthe r eas ons the di s tr i ctcourtpr ovi ded. ” I d. at568. “The abus e- ofdis cret i on st and ard app l i es t o b oth our procedu ral and subst anti ve reasonab l eness i nqui r i es . ” I

d. a t 5 6 7 .F o r e x a m p le, S a v a g e w a s re c o rd e d tellin g so m e o n e a b o u t th re a ts h e h a d re c e n tly 16 m ade t o otherpr i s oner s : “I s ai d, ‘ Y ou know w hati t ’ s gonna cos ty ou . . . y ourl i fe bi t ch, an d y o u r m o m [’s] li fe . I’m g o n n a k il l y o u r m o ther f u ck ing ass. T ell the p rose cu tor I thr eat ened y ou t oo, bi t ch. . . . I ’ m gonna ki l l everythi ng y ou l ove. ’ ” ( G ov’ tSupp’ l A pp. 6 7 3

– 7 4 ; s ee al

s o i d. at680–81 ( “Y ou know P gota babybyC had’ s s i s t er. . . [; t ] hat ’ s t he one I s ai d I ’ m gonna ki l l . ”) . ) I n anotherexcha nge, a fe l l ow pr i s onert ol d Savage that “[b] y[the] t i m e of tr i al everybodybe dea d, ” t o w hi ch Savage l aughed a nd r es ponded, “w e j us tgett i ng s t art ed. ” Id . at678. 25 A . Savage S a v a g e , 3 1 y e a r s o l d a tth e t i me o f s e n t e n c i n g , a r g u e s th a th i s 3 6 0 - mo n th b e l o wG ui del i nes s ent ence w as s ubs t ant i vel yunr eas onabl e, ci t i ng hi s m i ni m al pr i orcr i m i nal r ecor d, hi s r el at i ons hi p w i th hi s fami l ym ember s , and the l ack of harm t o the w i tnes s es he thr eat ened. H e does notchal l enge the pr ocedur al r eas onabl enes s of hi s s ent ence . T he D i s tr i ctC our tconcl uded Savage w as r es pons i bl e forbetw een 50 a nd 150 ki l ogr ams of coc ai ne, a s m al l eramount than r ecomm ended byPr obat i on i n the P rese n tenc e R ep o rt(“P S R ”). T h is r esu lt ed in a b ase o ff en se lev el of

3 6 . T w o leve ls w ere added f orpos s es s i ng a fi r earm dur i ng the off ens e underU . S. S. G . § 2D 1. 1( b) ( 1) , an aggr avat i ng r ol e enha ncementadded thr ee l evel s under§ 3B 1. 1( b) , tw o l evel s w er e adde d f o r o b s tru c tio n o f

ju s tic e u n d e r § 3 C 1 .1 , a n d tw o le v e ls w e re a d d e d u n d e r § 5 K 2 .0 beca us e of the natur e of Sava ge’ s thr eat s agai ns tG overnm entw i tnes s es . T he r es ul t i ng 16 t ot al offe ns e l evel w as 45. W i th a C r i m i nal H i s t oryC at egoryof I , Savage’ s G ui del i nes r ange w as l i fe i m pr i s onm ent . H e w as s ubj ectt o a mandat orym i ni m um s ent ence of t en y ears . I n s ent enci ng Savage, the C our tcons i der ed the s ubs t ant i al num berof ki l ogr ams of26

c o c a in e , th e g u n s , m o n e yla u n d e ri n g , a n d S a v a g e ’s th re a ts to w itn e s s e s a n d th e irf a m ilie s . T he C our tal s o cons i der ed Savage ’ s m i ni m al pr i orcr i m i nal hi s t oryand the s uppor tfr om hi s fami l yand the comm uni ty . T he C our tvar i ed dow nw ar d and i m pos ed a s ent ence of 3 6 0 m o n th s’ im p riso n m e n t. Savage’ s s ent ence “fa l l s w i thi n the br oad r ange of pos s i bl e s ent ence s thatcan be cons i der ed r eas onabl e i n l i ghtof the § 3553( a) fac t or s , ” U nited S tates v. W

ise , 515 F. 3d 2 0 7 , 2 1 8 ( 3 d Ci r . 2 0 0 8 ) , a n d th u s we a f f i r m. B . R u ss e ll U nder21 U . S. C . § 841( b) ( 1) , R us s el l w as s ubj ectt o a mandat orym i ni m um s ent ence of l i fe i m pr i s onm entbas ed on hi s pr i orfel onydrug offe ns es and the amountof drugs i nvol ved ( as not ed, the j uryfound atl eas tfi ve ki l ogr ams of coc ai ne and a tl eas t50 gr ams of coc ai ne bas e) . A s r equi r ed bys t atut e, the C our ts ent ence d hi m t o l i fe im p riso n m e n t. R us s el l ar gues thatthe G overnm entfai l ed t o pr ove bey ond a r eas onabl e doubtt he amount of drugs nece s s aryt o t r i ggerthe mandat orypenal tyof l i fe i m pr i s onm ent , and ther efor e s ent enci ng hi m bas ed on thatamount w as err or . H ow ever , as di s cus s ed above in P a rt II .A , th e e v id e n c e w a s s u f f ic ie n t to s u p p o rt th e ju ry’s v e rd ic t. R us s el l al s o ar gues thathi s s ent ence t o the s t atut orym andat orym i ni m um t erm of l i fe i m pr i s onm entvi ol at ed hi s cons t i tut i onal r i ght s . T hes e ar gum ent s ar e for ecl os ed by S u p re m e C o u rt a n d o u r p re c e d e n t. See Alm endar ez - Torr es v. U ni t ed Stat es , 52 3 U. S. 2 2 4 , 2 2 6

– 2 7 (19 9 8 ); U

ni t ed Stat es v. W

alker , 473 F. 3d 71, 76 ( 3d C i r . 2007) ; U ni t ed27

Stat es v. MacEw an , 4 4 5 F . 3 d 2 3 7 , 2 5 2

– 5 3 (3d C ir . 2 0 0 6 ). W e thu s af firm R u ssell’ s s ent ence . C . N ort hi ngt on T he D i s tr i ctC our tcal cul at ed N or thi ngt on’ s bas e off ens e l evel as 32, bas ed on m o re tha n fiv e b u t l ess th an 1 5 k il o g ram s o f c o ca ine. T h e C o u rtad o p ted th e P S R ’s r ecomm endat i on of a tw o- l evel i ncr eas e forpos s es s i on of a f i r earm dur i ng the off

ens e, underU . S. S. G . § 2D 1. 1( b) ( 1) , and a tw o- l evel i ncr eas e forobs truct i on of j us t i ce, under § 3 C 1. 1, res ult i ng i n a tot al off ense l evel of 36 . T he C ou rtrej ect ed N orthingt on ’s request fora tw o- poi ntr educt i on form i norr ol e and hi s obj ect i ons t o the obs truct i on of j us t i ce en h an ce m en t and the c alcu lat ion o f h is cri m inal h ist o ryp o ints. W ith a C ri m inal H ist o ry C at egoryof I I , N or thi ngt on’ s G ui del i nes r ange w as 235–293 m onths ’ i m pr i s onm ent . T he C ou rtsent enced him t o 2 35 m on ths. N or thi ngt on r ai s es fi ve cha l l enges t o hi s s ent ence . Fi r s t , he ar gues the C our terr ed in f a ili n g to v a ryd o w n w a rd f ro m th e G u id e lin e s ra n g e b a se d o n th e se n ten c in g d isp a rity betw een the cr ack a nd pow dercoca i ne G ui del i nes , and thatw e s houl d cons i derthe G ui del i nes amendm entpr ovi di ng fora tw o- l evel r educt i on i n bas e off ens e l evel forcr ack coca i ne off

ens es . H ow ever , thes e ar gum ent s ar e mi s pl ace d, as N or thi ngt on’ s G ui del i nes r ange w as bas ed s ol el yon pow dercoca i ne, notcr ack c ocai ne. ( N or thi ngt on A pp. 428, 5 2 6 ; N o rt h in g to n P S R ¶ 1 0 8 .) S ec o n d , N o rth ing ton arg u es th e D istri ct C o u rterred in d en y ing h is r eq u est fo r a r educt i on underU . S. S. G . § 3B 1. 2, w hi ch author i zes a tw o- l evel r educt i on i n offe ns e l evelN or thi ngt on i ncorr ect l ys t at es i n hi s br i ef thattw o poi nt s w er e adde d under 17 § 4A 1. 1( e) beca us e “thi s curr entoffe ns e w as comm i t t ed w i thi n tw o y ear s of r el eas e. ” ( N or thi ngt on B r . 31. ) H i s PSR unambi guous l ys t at es that“no poi nt s ar e adde d forthe defe ndantcomm i t t i ng the off ens e w i thi n tw o y ear s of hi s r el eas e” be caus e of “ c o m p lic a tio n s w ith th e d e f e n d a n t’ s p a ro le .” (N o rt h in g to n P S R ¶ 1 2 7 .)

28 if th e d e f e n d a n t w a s a “ m in o r p a rticip a n t” in th e c rim in a l ac tiv ity . A m in o r p a rticip a n t is one “w ho i s l es s cul pabl e than mostotherpart i ci pant s , butw hos e r ol e coul d notbe des cr i bed as m i ni m al . ” I d. § 3B 1. 2 cmt . n. 5. T he s ent enci ng courti s aff or ded br oad di s cr et i on i n t he appl i cat i on of thi s s ect i on, w hi ch i s “hea vi l ydepende nton the fa ct s of a part i cul arcas e. ” U

n itedS ta tes v . Isa za -Za

p a ta , 1 4 8 F . 3 d 2 3 6 , 2 3 8 (3d C ir . 1 9 9 8 ). T he D i s tr i ctC our tfound thatN or thi ngt on’ s l ett er s t o Savage, the t es t i m onyat tr i al , and the drugs found i n N or thi ngt on’ s apart m ents how ed thathe w as s el l i ng drugs for the cons pi r acy . T he C our tr eas oned thati thad gi ven the mi norr ol e adj us t m entt o one otherper s on i n t he cons pi r acy , w ho w as “i n a verydi ffe r ents i tuat i on” than N or thi ngt on, an d d en ied th e a d

justm en t. (G o v ’tS u p p ’l A p p . 6 0 0 . ) N or thi ngt on cont ends thatthe dow nw ar d adj us t m entw as w arr ant ed bec aus e he w as noti nt er cept ed on the w i r et ap, w as notobs erved s el l i ng drugs , and w as i ncar cer at ed th ro u g h o u t m u c h o f

th e c o n sp ira c y . H o w e v e r, th e e v id e n c e a g a in st h im , as d isc u ss e d in P a rt II .B , a m p ly su p p o rt s th e D is tr ic t C o u rt ’s d e n ia l o f h is re q u e s t f

o r t h e a d ju s tm e n t. T hi r d, N or thi ngt on ar gues thatthe D i s tr i ctC our terr ed i n cal cul at i ng hi s cr i m i nal hi s t orypoi nt s . H e r ece i ved thr ee poi nt s underU . S. S. G . § 4A 1. 1( a) fora pr i orconvi ct i on and tw o poi nt s under§ 4A 1. 1( d) forcomm i t t i ng the off ens e i n thi s cas e w hi l e on p ro b a tio n . W h ile h e a ss e rts th a t h e w a s n o t o n p ro b a tio n a t th e tim e o f th e o f f e n se in 1729

thi s cas e, he pr ovi des no s uppor tforthi s ar gum ent . T he r ecor d r efl ect s thathi s pr obat i on w as t erm i nat ed i n M ar ch 2003, w el l aft erhe bec ame i nvol ved i n the drug cons pi r acyfor w h ic h h e w a s c o n v ic te d h e re . ( See N or thi ngt on PSR ¶ 123–25; N or thi ngt on A pp. 4 4 7

– 4 8 .) F ou rth, N orthingt on argues that the D i stri ctC ou rterr ed in enh ancing h i s offen se lev e l f o r o b stru c tio n o f

ju stic e . A s h e a d m its in h is b rie f th a t h e th re a ten e d to k ill m e m b e rs o f

a w itn e ss ’s f

a m ilya f ter th e f irst d a yo f

th a t w itn e ss ’s te stim o n y , this e n h a n c e m e n t w a s a p p ro p ri a te . See U . S. S. G . § 3C 1. 1, cmt . n. 4( a) ( obs truct i ve conduc t in c lu d e s “ th re a te n in g , in tim id a tin g , o r o th e rw is e u n la w f u lly in f lu e n c in g a . . . w itn e s s . . ., d ir e c tly o r i n d ir e c tly, o r a tte m p tin g to d o s o ” ). F in a lly, N o rt h in g to n c la im s th a t b e c a u s e “ th is c a s e o ri g in a te d in th e s ta te s y s te m ,” in w h ich p u n ishm en t i s su b stan ti all yd iffe ren t, the C o u rtw as re q u ir ed to d ep art d o w n w a rd . H e p ro v id e s n o su p p o rt f o r th is a rg u m e n t, an d it i s w ith o u t m e rit. F o r t h e s e re a s o n s , w e a f f ir m N o rt h in g to n ’s s e n te n c e . D . W al ker W al kerw as s ent ence d t o a mandat oryt erm of l i fe i m pr i s onm entpur s uantt o 21 U . S. C . § 841( b) ( 1) . H i s att orneyar gues thatW al ker ’ s age a nd hi s “r el at i vel ym i norr ol e” i n the cons pi r acy“outw ei gh the mandat orym i ni m um , ” butadmi t s he ca nnot“pr ovi de any p rec ed en t i n su p p o rt ” o f a n arg u m en t th at su ch fa ctors c an o v erc o m e a statu tory m a n d a to rym in im u m . (W a lk e r B r. 4

– 5 .) T h u s, h is a rg u m e n ts a lso lac k m e rit.30 * * * * * Forthes e r eas ons , w e af fi r m appel l ant s ’ j udgm ent s of convi ct i on and s ent ence .