The H o n orable J oseph S. V an Bo kkelen ofthe Un it ed Stat es 1 Di s tr ic t C ou r tf orthe Nor the r n Di s t r i c to fI nd i a na , s i t t i ngby des i gna t i on. 

## 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. 08

- 2679 U NI T ED S TATE SOF A MERI CA, P la intif f-A pp ellee, v. S AUL A LEJA ND ER S ANCHEZ, D ef endant-Appellant.

A pp eal from the United S t ates Di strictC our t fo r the N o rthernDi stricto f Illino is, Eas tern Div isi on. No . 06 CR 786

—Jo hn W. Darrah, Judg e.
A RGUED M AY 12, 2009

— D ECI DE D A UGUS T 11, 2010

Befo re K ANNE an d S YKES, C ircu it Judges , a nd V AN B OKKELEN, D i s t r i ctJudg e . 1 S YKES, Cir cu i tJudg e . Sau l S anchez w as convi cted o f conspi ra cy an d at tem pted ki dn apping i n vi ol ati on o f 18 U
. S. C. § 1 201( a) ( 1), ( c) , and ( d), and conspi ra cy2 N o. 08

- 2679 to re tal i ate ag ai nst a witnes s in vi olati on o f 1 8 U. S
. C. § 1513 ( e) and ( f )
. The convi cti ons ar ose out ofa p l ot to kidn ap I gn acio Veg a an d M aria J im en e z, w ho w ere w i tness es i n a t ri alag ai nst a Ch i cago -base d drug kingp in. O n ap p e a l San ch ez argu es th at th e d istri ct cou rt er r o ne o usly admi tt ed su bs ta nt i ale vi den ce abo utthe unde rly i ngunc ha r g ed dr ugc o ns pi r ac y . He a l so c o nte nds th a tth e e v i d e n c e wa s i n s u ffi c i e n tt o s u s t a i n a ny of h is th re e c on vic tio n s. Fin ally , San c h ez ch alle n g e s h is sente nce. W e affirm i n p art a n d r e v erse in pa rt. Th e d istri ct cou rt did notabuse i ts disc re ti on in adm i ttin g e vi dence r eg ar di ngthe unde r lyi ngunc ha r g ed dr ug - tr affi ck i ng conspi ra cy; thi s e vi dence w as hi ghl y pr obat i ve of S a n c h e z ’ s mo t i v e f o ro r c h e s t r a t i n gth e k i d n a p p i n g . We als o c on c lu d e t h at th e e vid en c e is su fficie n t t o s u st ain Sanchez ’ s co nvi cti ons f orco nspir acy t o ki dn ap and attem pted ki dn apping. But th e s am e ca nnot be sa i d of hi s co nvi cti on f orco ns p iracy to re tal i ate ag ai nst a witn e s s . T h e g o v e r n me n tp r e s e n t e d no e v i d e n c e , c i r c u msta nti alo r othe rwis e, thatS anchez knew the two ta rg ets ofthe ki dn apping plo t had g i ven t est i m on y against t h e d ru g t ra ffick er for w h om Sa n c h ez w as p u rp or te d ly w or ki ng; the evi dence sugg est ed i nstea d that S anchez thought the t ar get s o w ed the drug k i ngpin m oney . A ccor dingl y, we va c ate S anchez’ s co nvi cti on o n the re tal i at i o n c o un ta nd r e man d fo rr e s e nt e nc i ng . As a n i ndep

enden t g r o und f o r r es en te nc i ng, th e di st r i ct j udg e erro neousl y withhel d a thr ee- l eve lr educti on under U
. S. S. G. § 2 X1. 1( b) ( 1) bec ause he m i sta ke nl y c oncl ud ed that Sanchez was “abo ut to co m ple te” the ki dn apping.N o. 08

- 2679 3

The b ackgro u n d o f this cas e i s com plic ated by the f actthat 2 sev era l of the k ey p l a y e rs shar e the surn am e “Jim en ez.” T his re qui re s thatwe oc c as i ona l l y us e the i r gi venna m es t o di s t i ng u i s h b e t w e e n th e m. I . B a c kg r o und Lu i s Vasq uez was the ringl eadero fa Ch i cago -base d d rug-traf ficking cell and i n 20 04 bec am e the sub j ect of a l aw - enf or cem ent invest i gat i on w h en federa lag ents l e a r n e d th a t J o s e J i me n e z h a d o r d e r e d s e v e r a l k i l o g r a ms o fc o ca i ne fr o m Va sque z o n c r edi t. Age nt s se i ze d the 2 c oc ain e fro m a st as h h ou se Jim en e z u se d an d m ad e it appe ara s t ho ug h J i m en ez ha d b ee n the v i ct i m o fthe bur g l ar y. W he n Va sque z demande d pa y m en t f o rthe los t c oc ain e, Jos e Jim en ez ap p ro ac h ed h is c ou sin M a r i a J i menez a nd h e rh usb a nd I g na c i o V e g a f o rh e l p. The coupl e o w ned two Chica go re sta urants nam ed “Yol anda’s ,” an d they agr eed to tr ansfero ne o fthe re stau r a nt s t o V a s qu e z a s p a r t i a lp a y men tf o rJ o s e ’ s debt. The t r an sferne ve ro cc ur r ed. Va sque z was a r r ested, a nd both Vega and M ar i a J i m enez tes ti fi ed aga i nst Va sq uez at hi s Novem ber20 05 tr i alf ordrug tr affi cki ng, m oney l aund er i ng, and other re l ate d offenses . A l m osta yea r l ate r, o n Octobe r 10, 20 06, S aul S anchez an d a c o co ns pi r at o ra ppr o ac he d a c o nfidenti ali nfor m ant nam ed Fr anci sco J i m enez and aske d fo r ass i stance in ki dn apping tw o i nd i vi du al s a nd t ak i ng the m to M exi co. S anchez i denti fi ed the ki dn apping tar get s a s “J i m enez” and so m eo n e nam ed “Yol anda” w ho o w ned a re st au ra n t a t 3 1s t St re etan d L aw n d ale A ve n u e in C h i-4 N o. 08

- 2679 cago . S anchez w as actually re fer ring to I gnaci o Vega an d M ar ia J i m en ez , who o wned the Yo l an da’ s r es ta ur an ts , o ne o fwhi chw as l o ca te d j us t bl o ck s fr o m the i nter sect i on S anchez had i denti fi ed. S anchez expla i ned to Fra n c isc o th at h e w as kid n ap p in g t h e t w o in d ivi d u als on Vasquez’ s be hal fbec ause he be l i eve d tha t they owed Vasquez m oney . S anchez ask ed Fr anci sco f or $2 5,0 00 to f i n an c e t h e k id n ap p in g. W h en Fra n c isc o s aid he di d not hav e th at m uch m oney, S anchez dial ed back hi s r eque sta nd a sk ed for hel p i n s ec ur i nga min i va n a nd a s afehouse to use i n the ki dn apping. Fr anci sco J i m enez agr eed to hel p Sanc h ez but i nstea d c on t a c te d fed er al a ge n ts an d offe re d to as sis t t h em in i nter rupti ng the ki dn apping plo t. T h e agents se cured wi r et ap au th o r i tya nd r ecorde d m an y o fS an ch ez ’ s co nver sat i ons, i ncl ud i ng sever ali n w hi ch he di scusse d hi s pr o g r es s i n br i ng i ng th e k i dna ppi ng pl o t to fr ui ti o n. The w i re tap autho ri zati on als o perm i tte d the F BI to tr ack the cel l ula r towers o n w hi ch Sa nchez’ s phone c al ls w ere hitting. D uring th e en su ing seve ral w eeks, Sanch ez’s c all h ist or y re ve ale d th at h is p h on e w as h itt in g on ce ll t o we r s l o c a t e d in La r e do , T e xa s

— o n th e M ex ican border

— an d c el lt o wer s el se wher e i n Te xa s, Ok l ah o m a, a nd southe rn I l l i noi s. Based on these phone cal l s, federa l age nts deci ded the ti m e had co m e t o ar re st Sanchez

. They ar ra nged f or a m i ni van t o be pl aced i n a g ar age atan und er cove r house i n Burbank, I l l i noi s, o utsi de ofChica go. Fr anci sco J i m enez cal l ed Sa nchez t o tell h i m he ha d secur ed a v an fi tting hi s s peci fi cati ons. Sanchez and hi s co con sp i ra torm ade ar ra ngem ents to insp ect th e van . Th ey m et Fran cisco Ji m e n e z a t a prea r-N o. 08

- 2679 5

ra nged l oca ti on in Chicago an d procee ded fro m ther e t o th e Burba nk g ar ag e wher e th e F BI ha d pl ac ed th e van. Sur vei l l ance c ont inued, and Sanchez i nspected the van and confi rm ed that i t m et hi s nee d s. H e then dis cussed var i ous detai l s of the ki dn apping plo t. H e tol d Fra nci sco th at h e had l ocat ed a horse ran ch i n Joli et, I ll inois, w he re he p lann ed to t ak e th e k i dna ppi ngv i ct i m s be f o r e co ntinui ngo n to the M ex i ca n b o r der, a t whi chpo i nthe woul d tur n the m ove rt o mem be r s o fa dr ugc ar te lwho w ou ld ta ke th em to Sin alo a, M ex ico . B u t Sa n c h ez sa id h e c ou ld n otta ke t h e v an w ith h im th at d ay be c au se it did nothave any l i cense pla tes
. H e s ai d h e would nee d ab o uta wee kt o s ecu re us ab l e pl at es . As S an ch ez a nd the co co ns pi r at o rl eft the ga r ag e, the F BImove d i n a nd m ade the ar re st. Sanchez was i nd i cted o n thr ee cou nts: ( 1) co nspir acy t o k i dn a p, 1 8 U. S
. C. § 1 2 0 1 ( a ) ( 1 ) , ( c ) ; ( 2 ) a t t e mpt e d k i dnapp i ng, 18 U
. S. C. § 1 201( a) , ( d); and (3) conspi ra cy t o r e t a l i a t e a g a i n s ta w i tn e s s i n v i o l a t i o n o f1 8 U
. S
. C. § 1 51 3(e ) an d (f). Sa n c h ez w as co n vi c t e d b y a j u ry on all thre e counts, and the dist ri ct c ourtse ntenced hi m to concurr ent t er m s o f21 8 m on th s in pri son on the fi rs t and seco nd co unts and 120 m onths on the thi rd co unt.

I I . Discussi on S anch ez r ai se s m ul ti pl e ch al l en g es t o hi s co nv i ct i o ns and sentence , wh i ch w e ca n gr oup i nto thre e ca teg or i es. Fi rs t, he m ai ntai ns thatthe dist ri c t courtsho uld not have al l owed the gov er nm ent t o i ntro du c e evi dence of Vasquez’ s drug acti vi ti es oratl eas t s houl d have li m i ted6 N o. 08

- 2679 th e qua nt i tyo fthi s ev i d en ce unde rRul e 40 3 o fthe Feder alRule s o fEvi dence. S eco nd , S anchez cha llenge s th e s u fficie n c y o fth e e vid en c e t o s u p p or t e ac h of h is th r ee c o nv i ct i o ns . F i na l l y, he at ta ck s hi s se nt en ce , a r g ui ng that he was enti tl ed to a thre e- l eve lr educti on under U
. S. S. G. § 2 X1. 1.

A. E v i de nc e ofUnd e r l y i ngUnc ha r g e d DrugT r a f f i c ki ng Sanchez ar gues that the g ove rnm ent s houl d not hav e be en per m i tt ed to i nt r o duce ev i den ce o fthe under l y i ng uncharge d drug- tr affi cki ng co nsp i ra cy l ed by Vasquez. Ev identi ar y rulings a re usual l y r evi ew ed f orabuse o f d i s c r et ion
. See U nited Sta tes v. M cC ulley, 1 7 8 F
. 3 d 8 7 2, 875 ( 7th Ci r. 19 99)
. But because S anchez did noto bj ect to th e a d m i s s i o n o f th is e vid en c e, ou r re vie w is for p lain er ro r. A ccor dingl y, he m ust e stabl i sh thatthe adm iss i on ofthi s e vi dence w as an er ror that i m pli cate d his substa nti alr i ghts and “ ‘ ser i ousl y a ffect[ ed] the f ai rnes s, i ntegr i ty, o r pu bl i c r eputati on’ ” o fthe tr i al. U n i ted S ta tes v. LeS ho re, 5 43 F
. 3d 93 5, 9 39 ( 7th Ci r . 2 008) ( quo ting U nited Sta tes v. Jam es , 464 F.3d 699 , 709 (7th C ir. 2006)). Sa n c h ez arg u es firstth at be c au se th e d i s t r i c t co u rtd id not tr eat the und er l yi ng drug- tr affi cki ng acti vi ty as “r el evant conduct” f orpurposes o f c al cul ating hi s s entencinggu id elin es ran ge , th e d ru g-c on sp ira c y e vi d e n c e s h ou ld l i kewis e be consi dered ir re l evantunder Rul es 401 and 402 ofthe Feder alRule s o fEvi dence. T hi s a rgum ent m ake s l i ttl e sense. “Rel evantco nd uct” i s a se ntenci ng- gui del i nes c on c ep t a n d ge n er ally refe rs to co n d u c t s o in tim at ely related to the ch arged cond uc t tha t the sent en cing cou rtN o. 08

- 2679 7

m ay co n sid er it alo n g w it h t h e c h ar ge d offe n se in c alc u lat in g t h e a p p ro p ria te gu id elin es ran ge . See U. S. S
. G. § 1B1
. 1- 3. Thi s us ua l l y r equi res a fi ndi ngtha t th e u n c h a r g e d c o n d u c tw a s e i th e rp a r to fa c o m m o n s c h e me oro ccurr ed i n prepar ati on ofo r du ring the char ged cr i m e. See id
. § 1B 1.3 . The b urden i s o n the gov er nm ent t o show tha t th e e vi dence addu ced at tr i alm ake s i t m o re prob ab l ethan notthatthe charg ed and uncharged co n d u ct ar e s u fficie n tly rela te d for s en te n c in g p u r p os es . Se e, e . g. , U nited State s v. Wom ack, 496 F.3d 791 , 797 (7th C ir. 2007). The sta nd ar d ofr el evancyfor a dm i ssi on o fev i dence at tr i ali s, o fco urse , m uch b ro ad er ; i t a sks o nl y whether the e vi dence so ug h t to be adm i tte d has anyte nd ency to m ak e a f ac t o fc ons eq ue nce an y m or e o r l ess pro babl e. See F ED . R. E V ID . 401. Thi s s tandard w as ea si l y s ati sfi ed here

. T he e v i de nc e o fthe u nd e r l y i ngdrugc o ns pi r acy provi ded ke y f actualbac kg ro und f orthe charg ed crim es an d w as u nq ue stionab ly p robative of Sanch e z’s m oti v e f o rk i dn a pp i ng . I te s t ab l i s he d the r a t i o na l e f or S an ch ez ’ s pl o t byl i nk i ngVa sque z to the k i dn appi ng vi cti m s, expl ai ni ng the i r pri orag re em ent t o tr ansfer a “Y oland a’s” restau ran t to Vas qu ez as p aym e n t f or a drug debt owed bythe cousin o fo ne o fthe vi cti m s. W ithou t this evid en ce th e j ury w ou ld n ot h a v e un d ersto od w hy S anchez tar get ed the tw o. Sanc he z n e xta r g ue s tha tthe e v i de nc e s ho ul d hav e be ene xc l ude d unde rRul e 40 3, w hich per m i ts the e xcl usi on o fo ther w i se re l evantev i dence “i fi ts proba ti ve va lu e is su b s t an tia lly ou tw eig h ed by th e d an ge r of u n fair prej ud i ce, co nfusi on o fthe i ssues, o r m i sl eadi ng the j ury,8 N o. 08

- 2679

orbyco nsi derat i ons ofu n du e del ay, waste o fti m e, o r ne edl es s pr es en ta ti o n o fc um ul at i ve e vi den ce . ” T he re w as no e rr orh er e. To b e s ure, the re cor d rev eal s that a si gni fi cant par t of the g ove rnm ent’ s ca se i nvol ved evi den ce r el at ed to the unde r l y i ngunc ha r g ed dr ugc o nspi ra cy. But as w e hav e e xplained, thi s e vi d en c e was criti calto put Sa nchez’ s k i dn apping plo t in conte xt. M or eov er, the dist ri ct c ourtto ok ca re to r educe any ri sk o fundu e pr ej udice

. The j udg e r epe at edly r es tr i ct ed th e s c o pe o ft h e g o v e r n me n t ’ s i n q u i r y a n d i s s u e d t wo l i m i ti ng i nstr ucti ons a d vis i ng the j ury that the e vi dence w as re l evanto nly as b ackg ro und and f orthe pu rpos e o fs ho w ing S an ch ez ’ s m o ti ve . And the j udg e r einstr ucted th e j ury on thi s point atthe cl ose o fev i dence. See U ni t e d S t at e s v. St r ong, 48 5 F
. 3d 98 5, 99 1 ( 7th C ir. 2007 ) ( ass um i ng, abs ent ind i cati on t o the c ontr ar y, that th e j ury foll ow ed the cou rt’s l im iti ng i ns tru ction).

B. Suff i ci ency o ft he Evi den ce W e turn now to the h ear t o fS anchez’ s a pp eal

— w hether suffic ient evi dence supports ea ch ofhi s three co nvi cti ons. W e r evi ew the evi dence “ ‘ i n the light m ost f av o r ab l e to the g o ve r nm en t an d a sk whethe ra ny ra ti onal tr i er of f act coul d fi nd the ess enti al el em ents of the c r i me b e y o nd a r e a s o nab l e do ub t
. ’ ” U ni t e d S t at e s v. Ric har ds on , 2 08 F
. 3d 62 6, 6 31 ( 7th Ci r . 2 00 0) ( quo ting U nited S t a tes v. R o gers , 89 F. 3d 1326, 1334 (7th C ir. 1996)). A conv ict ion w il l be overtu rned “only w he n th e record c o nt a i ns n o e v i de nc e , r e g a r dl e s s o fh o w i ti s we i g he d, u p on w h ich a ra tio n al t r i er of fac t c ou ld find gu iltN o. 08

- 2679 9 b ey on d a re as on ab le d ou b t.” U ni t e d S ta tes v. St arks , 30 9 F.3d 101 7, 1021 ( 7th Cir. 2002).

1. Consp i racyto Ki dnap T o ob ta i n a c o nv i ct i o n fo rc o ns pi r ac y, the g o ve r nm en t w as re q u ire d to p ro ve th at Sa n c h ez : (1) agr ee d t o c o m m it an il l e g a la c t ; ( 2 ) c o mm i t t e d a n o v e r ta c ti n fur the r a nc e o ftha t ag r ee m en t; a nd ( 3) ha d “ ani ntentt o c o m m i t th e substa nti ve offense, ” in thi s ca se ki dn app in g. U nited State s v. C uet o , 1 5 1 F
. 3 d 6 2 0 , 6 3 5 (7t h Ci r . 1 9 9 8 )
. As a ppli cabl e her e, the ki dn apping sta tute pun i shes “[ w ] hoeve r unlawful l y s ei zes , co nfines, i nvei gl es, decoy s, ki dn aps, abd uc ts, or carries aw ay an d h o ld s f or ransom or rew ard or other w i se any per son, ” a nd the perso n so ki dn apped i s “ wi l fu l l y t r a n s p o r t e d i n i n t e r s t a t e o rf o r e i g n c o mm erce.” 18 U
. S. C
. § 1201(a)(1)
. Sanchez ar gues that the e vi dence w as not su ffi ci ent for a j ur y t o fi nd tha t he i nt ended to k i dna p Ve g a an d M ar i a J i m enez. W e di sag re e. The go ver nm ent pr ese nted am ple ev i dence ofS anchez’ s intent. Fr anci sco J i m enez tes ti fi ed that at a fa c e-to
- f ace m eet i ng with Sanchez o n October10 , 20 06, S anchez expla in ed that he pla nned to ki dn ap two p eo p l e who owed Vasquez m oney . F r an ci sc o t o l d the j ur y tha t S an ch ez s ai d he was g o i ng to tak e the ki dn apping vi cti m s to M exi co and cl ai m ed to be a ct i ngwi thVa sque z’ s co ns en t. Sanc he z sa i d he w o u ld n ee d m on ey , a sa feh ou se , an d an au to m ob ile to acc om p li sh the kid na p p ing, an d asked f or Franc isco’s hel p. H e i denti fi ed the i ntended ki dn apping tar get s10 N o. 08

- 2679

as “ Yo l an da, ” who o wned a r es ta ur an t at3 1st a nd L aw n d ale , an d so m eo n e w ith th e la st n am e “ Jim en ez .” A fterthi s ini ti alm eet i ng, Fr anci sco J i m enez spoke w i th S anchez on s eve ra lo c c as ions about the k i dn apping, and rec or dings o fthes e co nver sat i ons w er e pl aye d fo r the j ury at t ria l

. The two spok e o n the tel ephone a day aft er th e in itia l m ee tin g, atw h ich tim e S an c h ez ag ain disc ussed hi s p l ans fo r the k i dn apping and tol d Fra nci sco th a t h e n e e d e d a v a n “ th a t wi l l a l l o w me t o he ad d o wn th er e w ith th e pe rs on .” Sa n c h ez c alle d Fr an c isc o a ga in ab o uta wee kl at er . Al th o ug h S an ch ez us ed co ded l an g ua g e, F r an ci sc o t es ti fi ed th atS an ch ez was di sc us sing the a rr angem ents f orthe ki dn apping that he had j ust m ade on a t ri p to M exi co. M or e s pe c i fi cal l y, S anchez sai d the M exi can drug car telhad agr eed to assisto nce San ch ez brou gh t the victim s to t h e i nt en d ed drop -off poi nt atthe bor der. S anchez re peated hi s ini ti al r equest that Fr anci sco hel p him fi nd a safehouse and a v an to us e i n the k i dna ppi ng . A few da y s l ater San ch ez s ai d he no l onge r needed hel p i n sec uri ng a safehouse bec ause he ha d l ocat ed a r an chi n J o l i etf o rtha t pur po se . The two fur th erdi sc us se d the sp ec i fi ca ti o ns f o rthe v an, ag r ee i ngtha t i t sh o ul d ha ve ti nt ed wi ndo ws a nd new l i cense pla tes
. The r ec o r di ngo fthe l as t m ee tingb etwe en S an ch ez a nd Fr anci sco Jim en ez com ple ted the pi cture f orthe j ury. Sanchez i nspected the van and sa i d i t was “m or e o r l ess ” w hat he need ed but that i t would t ake abo ut a w eek to se c u re lice n se p lat es . A s k e d ab ou t h ow m an y p eo p le w ou ld be tra ve lin g in th e v an, San c h ez init ially sa idN o. 08

- 2679 11 “two” a nd the n c l ar i fi ed, “ [ t] wo a nd t wo o f u s tha t m i g ht be going . ” H e th en ex p lai ne d th at he m ight ne ed m ore peo pl e to he l p wi ththe “ pi ckup . . . w ho wi l lg eti nt o the c a rw i th th e g u y s . ” S a n c h e z a l s o d e s c r ib e d i n s o me detai l the ra nch i n J ol i et that he had s ecure d a s a te m pora rysa fehouse f orthe vi cti m s. H e then e xplained how h e w ou ld take “t he m ” to the M ex ican bord er w he re m em ber s o f t he drug car telwould be w ai ti ng to ta ke “them ” t o Sinal oa, M exi co. Tha t S an ch ez r efer r ed to the v i ct i m s as “ J i m en ez ” an d “Yol anda” does n ot und er m i ne the go ver nm ent’ s ca se, as Sanchez co ntends. Fi rs t, o ne o fthe kid napp i ng ta rg ets was i n f ac t na m ed “J i m en ez , ” an d a l th o ug h n ei th erwent b y t h e n am e “ Y ola n d a,” th ey w er e a m ar rie d co u p le who o wne d two r e s t a ur a nt s ca l l e d “ Yo l a nd a ’ s . ” S e c o nd , al though nei thero fth e “Yol anda’s ” r est aurant s was loc at ed at31 st an d L aw n d ale , on e w a s l oc at ed ap p ro x im ate l y tw o bl ock s fro m that address

. Final l y, the back

g r o und e vi den ce r eg ar d in gth e u n d e r ly in gd ru g - t r a ffi c k i ng co ns pi r ac y a nd the pa y m en t o fJ o se J im en ez’ s dr ug d eb t t o V as q u ez co n vin c in gly tie d V as q u ez to M ar ia J i m enez ( J ose ’ s co usi n) an d her husband I gnaci o Vega; the i r o wne r s hi p o f r e s t a ur a nt s na med “ Yo l a nd a ’ s ” ma de i t cl ea rtha t S an ch ez u nd erst o o d who th e ta r g et s o fthe ki dn apping w er e. Sanchez ar gues i n the al ternati ve that m osto fthe taped conve rs ati ons i ntro du ced a t t ri alr el ate d to the dr ugtr affi ck i nga ct i vi ty o fthe Va sque z o r g an i za ti o n a nd that the evi dence i s re al l y m or e consi ste nt w i th a d rugsm u gg lin g c on sp ira c y, n ota c on s p ira c y t o kid n ap . Th is12 N o. 08

- 2679 is a n at te m p t t o in vo ke t h e p rin c ip le th at rev er sa l is re quir ed w heneverev i dence “ ‘ gi ves equal ornear l y e qual circum stan tial su p p ort to a theory of guil t and a theory ofi nnocence, ’ ” a nd as such “ ‘ a re aso nabl e j ury m ust n ec es sa rily e n te rt ain a re as on ab le d ou b t.’ ” U nit e d Sta tes v. R am os-Garcia , 1 84 F
. 3d 46 3, 4 65 ( 5th Ci r . 1 99 9) ( quo ting U ni t e d S t at e s v. Lo pez , 74 F.3d 57 5, 577 (5th Cir. 1996)). T h i s is n otrem ot ely a c as e in w h ich th e e vid en c e is in equi po i se . Al th o ug h there was s i g ni fi ca ntb ac k g r o und ev i den ce o fdr ugt r affi cking, S an ch ez ’ s r ec o r ded co nver sat i ons du ring O cto ber20 06 ar e s uffi ci ent t o est abl i sh the k i dn apping consp i ra cy. Though he o ften use d coded l an g ua g e, S anch ez’ s i nt en t to k i dna p i s cl ea rfr o m the det ai l ed des cr i pti o ns o fth e m i ni va n h e ne ede d, the safe house he se cured, and the pla ns thatwere i n pla ce to de l i ve rthe v i ct i m s to the wai tingme m be r s o fthe M ex ican d rug ca rtel on the bord er.

2. Attem pted Kidnappi ng Sanchez al so chal l enges the suffi ci ency ofthe evi d en ce su ppo r ting hi s co nv i ct i o n fo ra tt empte d k i dna ppi ng . To o bt ain a co nv i ct i o n f o r an at te m pt cr i m e, the go ve r nm en t m ust prove that the defe nd ant “ i ntend[e d] the co m ple ted cri m e a nd t[ oo k] a ‘ su b st an ti alst ep’ toward i ts com ple

ti on. ” U nited Sta tes v. G la dish , 5 3 6 F .3 d 646, 648 (7th Cir. 2008 ) ( c i ti ng B rax to n v . U nited Sta tes , 50 0 U.S
. 34 4, 34 9 ( 1991 ) )
. S anchez cl ai m s th e e vi dence i s insuffi ci ent o n bo the l ement s, b utwe ha ve a l r ea dy ex pl aine d why th e evi dence w as suffi ci ent t o est abl ish that S anchez i nt en ded to k i dna p Ve g a an d J im en ez. The r emai ni ngN o. 08

- 2679 13 questi on i s whether the gov er nm ent pr ove d that S anchez too k a subst anti alst ep to w ar d com ple ti ng thi s cr i m e. A s ub s tanti a ls t e p i s “ ‘ s o me o v e r ta c ta da pt e d t o , a pproxi m ating, and w hi ch in the or dinar y a nd l i kely c ours e ofthi ngs wil lr esul t in, the com m i ssi on of the par ti cul ar c rim e. ’ ” Id. ( quoti ng U nited Sta tes v. M a nley, 6 3 2 F
. 2 d 9 7 8, 98 8 (2 d C ir. 19 80 )); see a lso U nited Sta tes v. R o vetu so , 76 8 F
. 2d 80 9, 8 21 ( 7th Ci r . 1 985) ( no tingtha t a su bs ta ntia ls te p i s ano ve r t ac t “s tr o ng l y c o r r o bo r at i ve o fthe fi rm ness ofthe defe nd ant’ s cr i m i nali nten t” ( quotation m arks om itted ))
. I t is “som eth ing m or e than m ere p rep aration, butl ess th an the last act n eces sary be fore the a ctualco m m i ssi on o fthe substa ntive cr i m e. ” U nited Sta tes v. B a rnes , 2 30 F
. 3d 31 1, 3 15 (7th C i r . 2 00 0)
. The l i ne be tw een m er e pr epara ti on a nd a substa nti alst ep i s inherent l y f act speci fi c; co nd uct that w oul d app earto be m ere prepar ati on in one case m i ght qual i fy a s a subst an tia l s t ep in a n ot h er . Se eU ni t e d S t at e s v. M agan a , 118 F.3d 1173, 1199 (7th C ir. 1997). A l though there i s no ea sy w ay to separ ate m er e pr epar a t i o n fr o m a s u b s t a n t i a ls t e p , we a r e g u i d e d b y t wo gener alpri nci ple s. Fi rs t, a subst an ti alst ep m ust be “s o m ethi ngtha t m ak es i t r ea so nabl y c l ea rtha t ha d [ th e d efe n d an t] n otbe en int er r u p te d or m ad e a m ist ak e . . . [ he] would have com ple ted the cr i m e. ” G la dish , 53 6 F
. 3d at 64 8; se e also U nite d States v. P ratt, 35 1 F
. 3d 131, 136 ( 4th Ci r. 20 03) ( “To dete rm i ne wh etherco nd uct i s pre parat i on or an at tem pt, a cour t m ust a sse ss how probabl e i t would have bee n that the c rim e w oul d have been com m i tte d

— atl ea sta s per ce i ved bythe de fen -14 N o. 08

- 2679 dan t

— ha d i nt erven ing circ u m stan ces n ot occu rred

. ”); B a rnes , 23 0 F
. 3d at 315 ( noting tha t a subst anti alst ep occur s “ w here ev ents ha[ ve] m ove d beyo nd the prepar ati on sta ge and would have re sul ted i n the com ple ted c r i me b utf o rthe g o v e r nme nt ’ s i nt e r v e nt i o n” )
. S e c o nd , we h a v e s a i d tha tthe f o c us i s o n the acti o ns a l r e a dy ta ke n to co m p let e t h e u n d er lyin g c rim e, noto n the acts th at rem ain u n c o m p l e t ed atth e t im e o f th e a rre st
. See B a rnes , 23 0 F
. 3d at 315. T h e e vid en c e o f Sa n c h ez ’s c on sp ira to ria l co n d u c t in th is c ase w as str ongl y c or robor ati ve ofhi s fi rm ness to car ryo ut the ki dn appin g p lot. H e e xplained i n re co r de d c o nv e r s a t i o ns tha th e h a d s e c ur e d a s a fe ho us e i n J o li eta nd a r r an g ed f o rthe c o o per at i o n o fthe M exi can drug car tel

— i nd e e d, he ha d t r a v e l e d to M exi co and back i n further ance o fthi s a spect ofthe plo t. I n S an ch ez ’ s fi na lmeet i ng wi thF r an ci sc o J i m en ez , he approve d t h e van as m eet i ng hi s s peci fi cati ons f oruse i n the ki dn apping and offer ed a deta i l ed des c ripti on o f ad d itio n al log ist ics of th e s c h em e. T h i s is su fficie n t e vidence f orthe j ury to i nfe r that the k i dn ap p in g plothad pr o g r es se d wel lb ey o nd the pl anni ngs ta g e. To b e su r e, the ki dn apping w as not i m m i nent atthe m om ent S anchez w as arrested ; he said he w ou ld n eed a w eek to secu re l i c e ns e p l a t e s f o rthe v a n. Bu ti ti s c l e a rtha tS a nc hez was ful l y c o m m i tt ed an d wel la l o ngthe wayt o put ting th e k i dna ppi ngi n mot i o n. San ch ez i ns i st s no ne th el es s th athe ha s be enc o nv i c t e d o f a th o u g h t c r i me

— th atthe t ape d c o nv er sa ti o ns rev e a l only “m en tal prep arations ” from w hich the j uryN o. 08

- 2679 15

c o u l d i n fe ra tmo s tth a th e w a s “ a l l t a l ka n d n o mo r e . ” We have sai d that “ [t]r ea ting speech .

. . as the ‘ substa nti al ste p’ woul d abol i sh an y requir em ent o fa substa nti al ste p. ” G la dish , 53 6 F
. 3d at 650. T h e Fo urth Ci rcui t has al s o e x p r e s s e d a s i mi l a rv i e w: “ [ W] o r d s a n d d i s c u s s i o ns w oul d usually b e co nsi dered pre parat i ons f orm ost cri m es.” Pratt, 35 1 F
. 3d at 136
. B ut the gove rnm en t’s ca se he r e wentwel lb ey o nd “ wor ds an d di sc us si o ns ” an d i ncl ud ed evi den ce o fco ncre te acti ons Sanchez to ok to war d the c o m pl et i o n o f th e k i dna ppi ng

— i nc l udi ng secur i ng the sa fehouse and tr avel i ng to M ex ico to enl i st th e as si st an ce o f th e dr ug ca r te l

. Vi ewe d i n th e l i g ht m ostf avo rabl e t o the g ove rnm ent, thi s e vi dence was suffi ci ent t o susta i n Sa nchez’ s co nv ictio n f orat tem pted ki dn apping.

3. Consp i racyto Retal i ate Agai nst a Wi tness Sanchez also chal l enges the suffi ci ency ofthe evi dence to supp or t hi s co nvi cti on f orco nspir acy to re tal i ate aga i nst a witnes s. The r eta l i at i on s tatute m ake s i t a crim e to “know ingly, w ith th e inten t to r e taliate, take[] any a cti o n ha r mful t o a ny pe r s o n . . . f o r pr o v i di ng t o a l aw e nfo r c e men to ffi c e ra nyt r uthfuli nfo r mat i o n re l at i ngt o the c om m is si o n o rpo ss ibl e co m m i ss i o n o fa ny Feder alo ffense. ” 1 8 U.S
. C. § 1 513( e)
. S an chez a rgues th at ther e was no evi dence to per m i t the j ury to i nfe r beyo nd a re aso n ab l e doubt that he pl ott ed to ki dn ap Ign ac io V eg a a n d M ar ia Jim en ez in r e ta liat ion for th eir te st im on y a ga in st V as q u ez ath is t ria l. W e a gr ee . T h er e is no r eco rd ev i dence fr om w hi ch the j ury coul d i nfe r that16 N o. 08

- 2679 S an ch ez e ve n k new thatVega and M ar i a J i m enez had tes ti fi ed aga i nst Vas quez, l et al one that the m oti ve for the k i dn apping w as to r eta l i ate ag ai nst them f orthat te st i m o ny . Ra th er, the e vi den ce s tr o ng l y su ppo r ts the i n fe r e n c e th a tS a n c h e z t a r g e t e d th e k i d n a p p i n gv i c t i ms because he b el i eve d they owed Vasquez m oney . The go ve rn m ent r esponds thatthe j ury coul d have in fer re d th at Sa n c h ez lea rn ed ab ou t V eg a’s an d M ar ia J i m enez’ s t est i m ony fro m Vasquez hi m sel fo r fro m so m eon e a ss oc iat ed w i th th e M ex ica n d ru g c ar te l. B u t n o e vidence supports ei theri nfe re nce; thi s a rgum ent r el i es en ti r e ly on sp ec u lat ion
. See U ni t e d S t at e s v. Rob i ns on , 16 1 F.3 d 46 3, 47 2 ( 7t h C ir. 19 98 ) (“ ‘[W ]e re c og n ize th at in r ev iew in g a gu ilty ve rd ict ba se d on circ u m st an tia l ev idence, we m u st insur e that the ve rdi ct doe s no t r est so lely on th e p ilin g of in fer en c e u p on infe re n c e . . . .’ ” ( quoti ng U nited Sta tes v. M o o re, 11 5 F
. 3d 1348 , 13 64 (7th Ci r . 1 99 7) ) )
. The i nfer en ce mightb e su st ainabl e ha d the gov er nm ent o ffered ev i dence to sho w thatthe vi cti m s’ tes ti m ony at Vasquez’ s t ri alwas w i d ely publi ci zed an d tha t S an ch ez was so c l o se l y t i ed to the unde r l y i ng conspi ra cy that he m i ght r eas onabl y b e pr esum ed to h av e k n ow led ge of th at tria l. See, e . g. , U ni t e d S t at e s v. Jo h n s on , 903 F.2d 10 84, 1087-89 (7th C ir. 1990). B ut there w as no s uch evi dence i n thi s ca se. The ev i dence es ta bl i shed i nstea d that S anchez thoug h t h i s t ar get s o w ed Vasquez m oneyand that that wa s th e r e a s o n f o r t he ki dn apping. A ccor dingl y, we vacate S anchez’ s co nvi cti on f orco nspir acy to re tal i ate ag ai nst a witnes s.N o. 08

- 2679 17 C. S e nt e nc i ng Resente nci ng i s in or der based on ourdeci si on t o vacat e th e r et al i at i o n c o unt
. The g o ve r nm en t ar g ue s th atthe se nt en ce c anb e affi r m ed ev enif the r et al i at i o n c o unt i s v acat ed beca use the se ntence on that co unt w as m uch shor terthan the oth er two ( 120 m onths, as co m pared to the 21 8

- mon th t e r ms i mpo s e d o n the k i dn a pp i ngc o un t s) and because the pri son ter m s a re co ncurrent. W e di sagr ee. The advi sory s entencing- gui de l i nes r ange f or th e co ns pi r ac y t o k i d na p a nd a tt empte d k i dna ppi ng cou nt s wa s 1 8 8 t o 2 3 5 mon ths , a nd 2 1 8 mon ths f a l l s nea r th e hi g h e n d o fth a tr a n g e . We c a n n o tkn o w h o w t he dist ric t j ud ge m i ght ha ve f ashi oned the tot alse ntence i n thi s ca se ha d the re ta l i at i o n c o untno t be enpa r t o fthe p ac ka ge . Se eU ni t e d S t at e s v. Col on , 5 49 F. 3d 565, 57 2 ( 7th Cir
. 20 08) ( “[ T]he dist ri ct j ud ge sente nced [ the defendant] ve r y ne arthe t o p o fthe a ppl i cabl e g ui del i ne r an g e, a nd i n doi ng so m ay have been i nfluenced by th e fa ct that the j ury had found the defendant gui l ty ofco nspir acy and ai ding and abett i ng as wellas o fposs ess i on. ”)
. There i s a notherr eas on S anchez i s e nti tl ed to resen ten cing. The attem p t guid eli ne , U
. S. S. G
. § 2X1
. 1(b)(1) , p ro vid es : I fan a tte m pt, de c re ase [ the defendant’s bas e o ffense lev el] b y 3 lev els , un les s t h e d efe n d an t c o m p let ed all th e ac tsthe de fend an t beli eved nec essary for suc cess ful com ple ti on o f the substa nti ve offense o rth ec i r c u ms t a n c e s d e mo n s t r a t eth a tth ed e f e n d an tw a s a b o u tt o c o mplete all such acts but for app re hensi on or i nte rr up ti o n by s om es i m i l are ve ntb eyondthede f e ndan t ’s c ont r ol

.18 N o. 08

- 2679 ( Em phasi s a dd ed. ) The j ud ge decl i ned to apply thi s three

lev eldow nw ar d adj ustm ent b ecause he c oncl ud ed that San ch ez w as “ abou t to com p lete” allthe ac ts “n eces sary f orsucce ssful com ple ti on o f ” the ki dn apping. S anchez co nt en ds th at ev en i f hi s ac ti o ns sa ti sfi ed the “subs ta nt i a ls t e p” r e qu i r e men t fo rthe c r i me o fa t t e mpt e d k i dna p p in g, they did notes tabl i sh thathe was “about to com ple te” the cr i m e forpurposes o fdenyi ng the thr eel eve ladj ustm ent under the a tte m pt gui del i ne. N ei ther§ 2X1. 1 no r i ts com m en tary offerm uch gui dance f orde te rm ini ng wh en a defe nd ant i s “ about to com ple te” the acts nece ssa ryto co m m it the s ubstanti ve offense. The co m m en tar y s tat es onl y that “ [ s] om eti m es . . . the ar re st occur s wel lbefor e the d efendant .

. . has com ple ted the act s n eces sar y forthe substa nti ve offense. U n d er su c h circ u m st an c es , a red u c tio n of 3 lev els is provi ded und er§ 2X1. 1( b) ( 1) o r ( 2)
. ” U
. S. S. G. § 2 X1. 1 cm t. bac kgrou nd

. Ot he r cir cu its have i d en tified sev eral f acto rs that m ay i nfo rm the dist ric t c ourt ’ s deci si on t o gr ant o r deny the sente nci ng- gui del i nes ad j ustm ent foran a tte mpt
. T he s e i nc l ud e the qua l i t y ( a s o pp o s e d t o qua nt i ty) ofthe uncom ple ted nece ssa ryacts, the deg re e t o w hi ch t h e d efend an t w as p rep ared to com p lete the n eces sary r emai ni nga ct s, a nd the i m m i ne nc e o fc o m pl et i o n o fthe s u b s t an tiv e o ffen se atth e t im e o f th e a rre st
. See U nited St at e s v. Wa skom , 17 9 F
. 3d 303, 30 8- 09 ( 5th Ci r. 19 99) ( col l ecting ca ses )
. The se f ac tor s su g g es t th atthe f o cus ofthe i nquir y i s o n w hetherthe defe nd ant was “o n the v er ge” o fco m ple ti ng the subst anti ve cri m e. H er e, alt h ou gh th e e vid en c e is su fficie n t t o s u st ain the a tte m pt convi cti on, i t doe s no t su p p or t the di str i ctN o. 08

- 2679 19

cour t’ s co ncl usi on that S anchez w as about to com ple te the k i dn apping. A t the ti m e o fhi s a rr est, S an c h ez w as st i l la wee ka way fr o m s ec ur i ngl i ce ns e pl at es f o rthe va n, a nd the v anwas e ss en ti al ly u nusabl e wi th o ut pla tes
. The gov er nm ent sugge sts that i t w oul d h ave been eas y forS anchez to obt ai n l i cense pla tes and because th atwas a l ltha t r emai ne d t o b e do ne b efo r e he actu all y pu t the ki d na p p ing in m ot io n, the d istri ct cou rt p ro p er ly d en ied th e 3 -lev el a dj u st m en t. See U nited S t a t es v. Brown , 74 F. 3d 891, 89 3 ( 8th Ci r. 19 96) ( affi rm i ng deni al of re du cti on w here the onl y ste p re m ai ni ng to p oss ess an i ncendiary devi ce w as t o procur e “ eas i l y obtainabl e” i t e ms s u c h a s wi r e a n d a n o r d i n a r y s p a r k p l u g )
. But th e r e i s n o th i n gi n th e r e c o r d t o s u p p o r tth e f a c t u a lp r e mis e o fthe g o ve r nm en t’ s ar g um en t, a nd i t i s ha r dl y s elf

e v i d en t t h at find in g lic en se p lat es for a n ap p ar en tly sto l en ve hi cl e i s e asyto do. The g o ve r nm en t’ s ar g um en t bl ur s the line b etwee n the “subst anti alst ep” nece ssaryf oran a tte m pt convi cti on an d the § 2 X1. 1 i nquiry, w hi cha sk s whethe rthe defendan t was “ ab o utt o c o m pl et e” the c r i m e. W e co ncl ud e that th e d i str i ct c ourter re d i n w i thhol ding the 3

- l eve ldow nw ar d adj ustm ent forat tem pt und er§ 2X1. 1. Forthe f or ego i ng r eas ons, we A FFIRM Sa nc he z’ s co nv i c t i o ns f o rc o ns pi r a c y t o k i dn a p a nd at t e mpt e d k i dn a pping ; we R EV ERSE S anchez’ s co nvi cti on f orco nspir acy to re tal i ate ag ai nst a witnes s; and w e V ACATE San ch e z ’s s e nt e nces a nd R EMA ND f orr ese ntenci ng co nsi ste nt with th i s o pi ni o n.

8- 11- 10