NO T R EC OM M EN DE D F OR F UL L- TEX T P UB LIC AT ION F ile Nam e: 09a0467n.06 No. 08-1219 UN ITED STA TES C OU RT OF AP P EA LS F OR THE SI XT H C IR CU IT
UNI TED STATES OF AMERI CA, Plaintiff-Appellee , v. TI MOTHY POPE, De fe nd ant- Ap pe lla

nt. )

) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ON APPEALFROM THE U NI TED STATES DI STRI CT C OU RT FOR WES TERN DI STRI CT OF MI CHI GAN

B e fo re : SI L ER, CO OK , a nd GR I F F I N, Cir c uit

Judg e s. COOK, Circuit J udg e. A jury found Timothy Pope g uilty of conspiringto distribute more than 5 g rams of c rac k coca ine in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 846, 841(a)(1) and 841(b) (1)( B) (iii). The district court sentenc ed Pope to 288 months i n p ri s on. Pope appea ls, arguing that (1) the district
c ourt e rr e d b y de nyinghis mot ion

fo r j ud g me nt o f a c qu itt a l be c a us e the e vid e nc e ins uff

icien tly supports the conviction; (2) the district court abused i ts discretion in denying his motion for a new trial; and (3) his below-Guidelines se ntence violates proce dural a nd substantive rea sonablene ss.
I.
L aw e nforc ement in Kala

mazoo, Michiga

n targ eted long time Pope associate Ervin Fa nce a s part of a druginvestigation. To fac ilitate this investigation, the authorities enlisted Susan Peake as
an i n fo rm an t . Peake e x ecute d sever al controlled pur chase s of cr ack c ocaine from F ance . UsingNo. 08-1219

United States v. Pope

- 2 - Peake a s the buy er, t h e p o l i ce planned to conduc t a “buy -bust” on De cembe r 12, 2006. Peake te le ph on e d F anc e , o rd e re d $ 35 0 o f c ra c k c oc a ine , and arr ang e d f or de liv e ry . Po pe dr ov e F anc e to the ar rang ed mee ting plac e. When Peake enter ed the ve hicle, Pope handed he r the drug s and she g a ve the mon e y

to F anc e . Se e ingthe po lic e mov ingin t o c on du c t th e bu st, Pop e drove off , w ith P ea k e b ar el y

es cap i n g fr o m t h e v eh i cl e b ef o re i ts p edaw ay . P o p e le d t h e p o l i ce o na c h as e t h ro u gh residential stre ets under r ainy conditions in mid-after noon. The police eventua lly stopped the ca

r, order ed the oc cupants out at gunpoint, and arr ested F ance (but not Pope) at the sc ene.
On J une 13, 2007, a g rand jury in the Western District of Michig an indi cted Pope and Fa nce, char g ing the m with conspiring to distribute more than 5 g rams of cr ack c ocaine in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 846, 841(a)(1) and 841(b) (1)( B) (i i i). On September 14, 2007, the g overnme nt filed a supplemental information notify ing Pope that it sought an increase d penalty due to his prior felony dr ugc o n v i c t i o n s . A j u r

y f o u n d P o p e g u i l t y

an d t h e d i s t r i c tc o u rts e n t e n c e d h i m t o 2 8 8 m o n t hs ’ incar cer ation. A. Pope’s Trial
Fa nce and Peake testified at Pope’s tria l. Accor ding to F ance , he supplied Pope with 4.5 ounces of p o wd er co caine , which Pope conve rted into cra ck coc aine. Pope a nd Fa nce spe nt Dec ember

12 toge ther, and contemplated g oing Christmas shopping
. When Pea ke ca lled Fa

nce a nd asked f or $350 worth of cra ck cocaine, Fanc e asked Pope to supply the drug s beca

use he ha d none available . Pope ag ree d and we nt to retrieve the cr ack. T hey reunited at Fa

nce’ s g irlfriend’ s house,No. 08-1219

United States v. Pope

- 3 - and the n le ft to me e t Pe a ke , wi th Pop e dr ivi ng . Th e y sto pp e d o n th e wa y fo r P op e to d e liv e r s ome
coca ine to an o t h er customer. When they arr ived at the mee ting plac e, F ance acc epted the mone y fr om P e a ke , a

nd Pop e ha nd e d h e r t he dr ug s. DuringPeake’ s testimony , she initially denied telling g overnme nt a g ents that she had bee n involved in drugdeals with Pope prior to De cembe r 12, 2006. She first stated that while Pope had been pr esent duringher inter actions wit h Fa n ce, he did not deliver c rac k coca ine to her. The g ov e rnme nt c omp le te d it s d ir e c t e xami natio n o f P e a ke jus t be fo re a lun c h bre a k. Duri ngthe re c e ss, ag ents met with Peake a

nd told her not to be so ner vous and to simply

tell the truth. On redir ect, the pr os e c uto r a g a in a sk e d whe the r P op e so ld P eake dr ug s p ri or to D e c e mbe r 1 2, 20 06 . T he de fe ns e
o b j ecte d to the question as exceedingthe scope of cr oss-examination, but t he judg e allowe d the inquiry . Peake e x plained that the g overnme nt’s ear lier questions conf used her . She clar ified that while s he alwa

y s o r d e r e d

f r o m F an c e an d

d e li v e r e d th e mo n e y

to h im , Po p e o f

te nh an d e d

h e r the drug s.
Th e jur

y fo un d Po pe g uil ty

of the of fe ns e c ha rg e d in the ind ic tme nt. Duri ngtr ia l, d e fe ns e
c ou ns e l m o v e d

f o r a m i s t r i a l an d

f o r a d i r e c t e d v e r d i c t
. A f

t e r t h e v e r d i c t , c o u n s e l r e f

i n e d t he se motions t hroug h written submissions, fili ng a sec ond motion for acquittal and a motion for a new trial. The district cour

t denied both motions.No. 08-1219

United States v. Pope

- 4 - B. Pope’ s Sentence
Th e P r e s e n t e n c e R e p o r

t ( “ P S R ” ) r e c o m m e n d e d a t w o - l e v e l e n h an c e m e n t p u r s u an t to U.S.S.G. § 3C1.2 for reckle ssly endang ering the publ ic during P ope’s flight from the pol ice. And
c iti nghis c ri min a l pas t, the PSR re c omm e nd e d cla ssi fy ing Pop e a s a care e r of

fe nd e r. Th e PSR a lso sug g ested a two-leve l reduc tion under § 3B1.2 for Pope’s “mitigating” role in the off ense. Rely

ing on the PSR , the court calc ulated P ope’s a djusted offe nse leve l as 37 and his cr iminal hist ory cate g ory as VI , yielding a

Guidelines ra

ng e of 360 months to life imprisonment.
The district cour

t declined to use the car eer offe nder guideline for the crimi nal history calc ulation and instead scor ed Pope’s a ctual cr iminal hist ory . The revised calc ulation produce d a criminal history

cate g ory V and y ielded a Guidelines rang e of 324 to 405 months. The court adhe red to the two-leve l § 3B1.2 re duction rec ommended in the PSR, finding that i t ac co unted for Pope’ s minor role in the off

ense, but vie wed a further reduc tion a s unwar rante d. The c ourt reje cted Pope’ s argument agai n s t t h e § 3C 1.2 enhanc ement, as w ell as his contention that the supplementa l information was de fec tive. The district cour t considere d the fa ctors set forth in 18 U.S .C. § 3553(a)
an d , i ns en t en ci n g P o p e t o 2 8 8 m o n t h s ’ i mp ri s o n m en t , v ar i edd o wn wa rdfr o m t h e se n t en ci n g ra n ge
a dv ise d b y

the Gu ide lin e s.
II. By claiming that the district c ourt err ed in deny ing his motion for a cquittal, Pope challeng esNo. 08-1219

United States v. Pope

- 5 - the su ffi cie nc y

of the e vid e nc e pr e se nte d at tr ia l. A d ef en d an tm o u n t i n g a s u ff

i ci en cy ch al l en ge bear s a “hea

vy b u rd en , ” United States v. Vanne rson , 786 F.2d 221, 225 ( 6th Cir. 1986) (quoting Un ite d S tat es v . S oto , 716 F.2d 989, 991 (2d C ir. 1983)), because he mus t show that, “a fter vie wing the evidenc e in the lig ht most favorable to the prosec ution, [ no] rational trier of fact could have found the essential ele ments of the cr ime bey ond a re asonable doubt,” J ac k so n v . V irg ini a , 4 43 U. S. 307, 319 (1979).
“To sustain a conviction for drug conspirac y under section 846, the g overnme nt must prove be y on d a re a so na

ble do ub t: ( 1) an a g re e me nt t o v iol a te dr uglaws ; ( 2) kn ow le dg e of and int e nt t o jo in the conspira cy ; and (3) pa

rticipation in the conspira cy .” United States v. Gardne r , 488 F.3d 700, 710 (6th Cir. 2007). An agr eeme nt to violate the druglaws nee d not be express or for mal; “[a] t acit or mutual understandingamong the par ties is sufficient.” Un ite d S tates v . F orre st , 17 F.3d 916, 918 (6 t h C i r. 1 9 9 4 ). “B u t t h e ev i d en ce m u s t n ev er t h el es s d em o n s t ra t e th at t h e d ef en d an th adkn o wl ed ge of t he c o n s p ir a c y ’ s o b

je c t a n d c o n s c io u s ly

c o mm itte d

h im s e lf to th e f u rth e r an c e o f

th a t o b je c t.” United States v. Cave r , 470 F.3d 220, 233 ( 6th Cir. 2006). “[M] ere association with consp irators is not enoug h,” United States v. Hughe s , 505 F.3d 578, 588 (6th Cir. 2007), but “once the exist ence [of] a conspira cy is shown, the evidenc e linking an individual to that conspirac y need only be slig ht,” Caver , 470 F.3d at 233. Pop e ma int a ins that the e vid e nc e pr e se nte d b y the g ov e rnme nt d oe s n ot s uf fi c e be c a us e it
e sta bli sh e d n oth ingmor e tha n h is “me re a sso c iatio n” wi th F anc e and his pr e se nc e on

the sin g leNo. 08-1219

United States v. Pope

- 6 - occa sion when Peake g ot into the car to buy cra ck cocaine from Fance
. He impug ns the testimony of the g overnme nt’s witnesses for their long histories in the drugtrade and their a lleg ed motivations to lie. Pope’s sufficie ncy challeng e overlooks the testimony of Fa nce a nd Peake, the g overnme nt’s pri n c ip a l w it

n e s s e s . T h e ir

te s ti mo n y

e s ta b li s h e d mo r e th ana

“ me r e a s s o c iati o n ” b etwee n conspirator s. I t also established more tha n a s i n gl e transac tion. Fanc e testified that he provided
sever al ounce s of powder coca ine t o Pope, which P ope converted into cra ck cocaine. When Peake called a sking f

or cr ack c oca ine, Fa

nce did not have any ; Pope did, and ag ree d to supply it. They
arr ang ed a me eting , and on the way , Pope stopped and sol d drug s to another individual. W hen they
arr ived at the de signated location, Peake g ot in the car , g ave the money to Fanc e, and Pope ha nded her the drug s. Both Fanc e and Peake testified that Pope participated in prior drugdeals involving Peake. Pope submitt ed no contr ary evidenc e on any

of these points. Viewi n g t h e ev i d ence in the light mo s t f

a v o r a b le to th e g o v e r

n me n t an d dr aw in g a ll r e a s o n a b le in f e r e n c e s in it s favor , a
rea sonable jury

could have found that Pope committed ea ch of the require d elements of a c onspiracy to distribute crac k coca ine. Pop e ’s re ma ini ng

a rg ume nts—t hat Fance w as a d rug dea ler coo pera ti ng wi th t

he g ov e rn me nt,
and Pe a ke wa s a dr

ug us e r wh o ch ang e d he r te sti mony a ft e r c on fe rr ingwi th g ov e rnme nt a g e nts —a ll relate to cre dibilit y . At this stag e of revie w, “all cre dibilit y issues are to be resolved in favor of theNo. 08-1219

United States v. Pope

- 7 - jury ’s ver dict.” Un ite d S tates v . F e k e te , 535 F.3d 471, 476 ( 6th Cir. 2008). The jury believed the g ov e rnme nt’ s w itn e sse s, and “ [s] uff icie nc y -o f- the -e vid e nc e a pp e a ls a re no pla c e fo r a

rgume nts reg ardinga g overnme nt witness’s lack of cre dibilit y .” United States v. He rnandez , 227 F.3d 686, 694 (6th Cir. 2000) (interna l quotation marks and citations omitted). Sufficient evidence suppor ted the jur y ’s ve rd ic t, a

nd the dis tr ic t c ourt

the re fo re did

no t e rr in d e nyingPop e ’s mot ion fo r a c qu itt a l.
III
. This court re views a district c ourt’s denia l of a motion for mistrial for abuse of discre tion. Un ite d S tat es v . D av is , 514 F.3d 596, 613 (6th Cir.), cert. de nied , 1 29 S. Ct . 5 7 ( 20 08 ). On a pp e a l, Pope prese nts four cla ims of error relating to the de nial of his motion for a new trial.
A. Wit ness Sequestration Agr eeme nt Pope asser

ts that w hen g overnme nt a g ents met with Pea ke during a brea

k they coac hed her int o c ha ng ing ke y pa

rt s of he r t e sti mony , v iol a tin g e ith e r a wi tne ss s e qu e str a tio n o rd e r o r t he pa rt ie s’ pr ivate wi tne ss se qu e str a tio n a g re e me nt, and the re by pr e jud ic ingthe de fe ns e and

e nti tli ngPop e to
a ne w tri a l. T he g ov e rnme nt c or re c tly no te s t hat th e dis tr ic t c ourt ne ve r e nte re d a

wi tne ss sequestration order, but conc edes that “ [a] t some point in time dur ing the trial,” it privately ag ree d with defe nse counse l to sequester w itnesses. The a g ree ment was “ not nece ssarily ” re ache d befor e Peake te stified. I n any

event, the g overnme nt contends that the a g ents’ conduc t was prope r.No. 08-1219

United States v. Pope

- 8 - Fe d er al Ru l e o f E v i d en ce 6 1 5 p ro v i d es fo r s eq u es t er i n g wi t n es s es , t h er eb y “p re cl u d [ i n g]
coac hing or the i nfluenc ing of a witness’ te stimony by another witness.” Un ite d S

tates v . R ug ie ro , 20 F.3d 1387, 1392 ( 6th Cir. 1994). Even when a seque stration order violation occurs, c ourts do not automatically

bar the aff

ecte d testimony
. Un ite d Sta te s v. So lo rio , 337 F.3d 580, 593 ( 6th Cir. 2003). The district c ourt reta ins discretion to exclude or allow the te stimony and, bec ause e x clusion is a drastic r emedy , a party will only rec eive a new trial by demonstrating that the err or pre judiced its right to a f

air trial. Id. at 593–94.
Whil e conside rable doubt exi sts as to whether Rule 615 applies to out-of-c ourt meeting s like the one be tween Pea

ke and the g overnme nt ag ents, and c ircuits have split on the question, see id. at 59 2, we ne e d n ot r e so lve the iss ue he re . E ve n if we a ss um e th at th e rul e a pp lie s, Pop e fa ils to establish a violation. Pope’s asser

tion that gove rnment ag ents improperly influence d Peake’ s testimony finds no support in the rec ord. Peake a dmitted meeting w ith the gove rnment’s a g ents during a bre ak, but she te sti fi e d th a t th e y

me re ly tr ie d to c a lm h e r n e rv e s a nd re min de d h e r t o tel l the tr uth
. Ac c or din g to Peake, dur ing the meeting , she told the ag ents that she wa s confuse d by some of the que stions about her interactions with Pope. The AU SA subsequently attempted to clar ify

Peake’ s testimony

by
a lle viatin g he r c on fu sio n. No e vid e nc e su g g e sts that th e g overnm ent a g e nts us e d th e me e tin g to
coac h Peake. I

ndeed, he r post-bre ak testimony corr oborate d statements s he made to investigators during previous interviews, strong ly sug g esting that the ea rlier que stioning conf

used her , and thatNo. 08-1219

United States v. Pope

- 9 - Pope’s claim that he w as surprise d by the cha ng e is unfounded. N or does the re co rd reve al an
a tte mpt to c oe rc e Pe a ke int o te sti fy ing c on sis te ntl y wi th the g ov e rnme nt’ s wi tne sse s. Th e case ag e n ts w it

h w h o m s h e me t n e v e r

te s ti f ie d a b o u t t h e s tate me n ts Pe a k e ma d e d u r in g p r e - trial interviews. And w hile the def ense sug g ests that the g overnme nt intended its quest ions to bring Peake’ s testimony

into line with Fa

nce’ s, Peake te stified befor e F ance , and the r ecor d contains no indication that she knewwhat F ance would say
. T h u s , P eake was in no position to conform her te sti mony to t hat of any oth e r w itn e ss.
Mor e o v e r , e v e nif

th e g o v e r

n me n t v io late d

Ru le 6 1 5 , Po p e f

a il s to d e mo n s tr a te p r e

ju d ic e. Ex clusion constitu t es a s ev ere sanction, makingtrial courts re luctant to impose it. Se e id . at 593. He re , d e fe ns e c ouns e l le arn e d im me diate ly of the c on ta c t be tw e e n Pe a ke and the g ov e rnme nt a g e nts
an d qu e s ti o n e d

b o th Pe a k e an d

th e c a s e a g e n ts a

b o u t t h e e n c o u n te r . T h e d e f

e n s e c r o s s - e xa mine d Peake a bout her c hang e in testimony and commente d on it dur ing closing argument. These r emedies adequately

redr essed a

ny potential prejudice
. Even if the g overnme nt violated Rule 615, the district court ha d discretion to allow Peake ’s testimony
. Wit hout any showing of prejudice to Pope’s re ceipt of a f air trial, no a

buse occ urre d.
B. Peake’ s Redirec t Ex amination Next, P ope conte nds that the district court abuse d its discretion by allowing the g overnme nt to q ues ti on Pe a ke on

re dir e c t r e g ard ingmatte rs no t a dd re sse d o n c ro ss- e xami natio n. On c ro ss, Pope’s counsel did not ask Peake about her interac tions with Pope except those th at o cc u rr ed onNo. 08-1219

United States v. Pope

- 10 - Dec ember

12, 2006. Neve rtheless, a fter le arningthat the d i re ct ex amination confuse d her, the g ov e rnme nt r e vis ite d Pe a ke ’s kn ow le dg e of Pop e ’s inv olv e me nt i n e arl ie r d ru g de a ls. De fe ns e counsel objec ted, but the district court pe rmitted the questioning to c ontinue.
“The scope of

redire ct examination is commi tted to the sound discretion of the c o u rt .” Un ite d States v. B ro wn , 276 F.3d 211, 218 (6th Cir. 2002). “The tradition in the fede ral c ourts has be e n to lim it the sc op e of re dir e c t e xami nati on to the s ub je c t matte r b ro ug ht o ut o n c ro ssexamination.” United States v. Riggi , 951 F.2d 1368, 1375 ( 3d Cir. 1991).
I n overr uling Pope’ s objection, the district court e x plained that bec ause Peak e’ s ear lier testimony evince d inconsistencies with statements she ma de duringpre- trial interviews, the g overnme nt could have r eca lled the age nts to impeach Peake, and then recalled Peake to ex plain the di s c r e p a n c i e s , y i e l d ingthe same te sti mony . Rathe r t ha n r e qu ir e su c h “ su

pe rf luo us ” pr oc e dura l st e ps , the district court sim p ly

allowed the g overnme nt to use redire ct to let Peake c larify her e arlier testimony . The di s t ri ct co u rt noted that the def ense “ had a f

ull opportunity

to expl ore Pea

ke’s inconsistent testi m o n y o n rec ross-examination,” and ther efor e suff ere d no prejudice . Moreove r, nothing showe d “that a ne w trial would be more fair or that Peake wo uld ag ain g ive inconsistent testimony .”
To be sure , Peake’ s testimony on redire ct exceede d the scope of cross, but a s the district court
no te d in its op ini on , F e de ra l Ru le of Ev idence 61 1 p ro vid e s th a t “ [t]he c ourt sh a ll e xer c ise
re a so na ble c on tr ol o ve r the mod e and or de r o f i nte rr og a tin g wi tne sse s a nd pr e se nti nge vid e nc e soNo. 08-1219

United States v. Pope

- 11 - a s to
. . . a vo id ne e dle ss c on sumpt ion of tim e .” Th e te sti mony pr ov ide d o n r e dir e c t un qu e sti on a bly
wa s a dmi ssi ble , a lbe it thr ou g h ane la bo rate pr oc e dure inv olv ingre c a lli ngthe g ov e rnme nt a g e nts to impeach Pea

ke, and subse quently

rec alling Pea

ke to explain th e differ ence s. Requiring the prosec ution t o j u m p throug h such proc edura l hoops would only have w asted time. The ne t effe ct was the sa

me, and the c hang e in Peake ’s testimony was not lost on any one, but in fac t was a f ocal po int of the de fe ns e ’s c re dib ili ty argume nt to the jur y . Un de r t

he se c ir c ums tanc e s, the de c isi on to allow Peake’ s redire ct testimony fell within the sound ex erc ise of the tria l court’s broa d discretion
over e videntiary

matters.
C. Bac kg round Evidence Pope argues that F ance ’s testimony reg arding the drug deal on the way to meeting Peake w as not evidence of conspiracy , but inadmissibl e cha rac ter e vidence under F eder al Rule of Evidenc e 404(b). The g overnme nt maintains that this evidence wa s not “other act s ” evidence at all, but ins te a d, a s the dis tr ic t court c on c lud e d, ba c kg ro un d e vid e nc e that w a s in e xtri c a bly int e rt wi ne d w ith the cha rg ed off ense. Rule 404(b) for

bids admitti ng evidenc e of “ other c rimes, wrong s, or ac ts” t o p ro v e the char acte r of a

person in orde r to show ac tion in conformity with that char ac t er , b ut permits the introduction of cha

rac ter evidenc e for pr oper pur poses, such a s proof of motive, intent, knowledg e, or abse nce of

mistake. Fe d. R. Evid. 404(b). A limit ed categ ory of “ba ckg round” or

“re s g estae ” evidenc e does not violate Rule 404(b). United St ates v. Hardy , 228 F.3d 745, 748 ( 6th Cir. 2000).No. 08-1219

United States v. Pope

- 12 - “[B]ackg round or r es g estae evidenc e consists of thos e other acts that are inextricably intertwined with the char g ed off

ense or those ac ts, the telling of w hich is nece ssary to complete the story

of the char g ed off

ense.” Id. “Proper backg round evidenc e has a causa l, te mporal, or spatial co n n ection wi th t he c ha rg e d o ff e ns e . T y pic a lly , s uc h e vid e nc e is a pre lud e to t he c ha rg e d o ff e ns e , is dir e c tly probative of

the cha rg ed off ense, a rises fr om the same e vents as t h e char g ed off ense, f orms an integ ral pa

rt of a w itness’s testimony , or complete s the story of the c harg ed off

ense.” Id.
The district cour

t articulate d six separ ate r easons for admitting evide nce of the drugdeal on the wa y to m e e tin g Pe a ke a s b a c kg ro un d e vid e nc e . I t e xpla ine d th a t: (1) the f irst de livery was a prelude to the delivery to Peake; (2) both deliveries have a close temporal c onnection bec ause the first delivery occur red shor tly in time before the de liv e ry

to P e a ke ; ( 3) the fi rs t de liv e ry oc c ur re d w hil e e n r ou te to the de liv e ry to Pe a ke ; ( 4) bo th de liv e ri e s have a sp a tia l c onne c tio n b e c a

us e the y oc c ur re d in fa ir ly c los e pr oximi ty ; ( 5) the fi rs t de liv e ry is d ir e c tly pr ob a tiv e of

De fe nd ant’ s me nta l st a te and the c harg ed off

ense; (6) the coc aine bas e i n both deliveries or iginated from De fe nd ant.
Be cause Fa

nce’ s testimony

supplie d n ec es sary

backg round re g ardingevents that oc curr ed contempora

neously with the offe nse, the district cour t corre ctly ref used to g rant Pope a

new tria l on the basis of its introduction. The key events in the c onspiracy

wer e Pope’s: ag ree ment to use cra ck
coca ine in his posse ssion to fulfill Pea ke’s or der on D ece mber 12; ar rang ing thr oug h Fa

nce to mee t with Peake a

nd exchang e the dr

ug s for money ; driving to the selec ted l ocation; and completing the tr ans a c tio n b y

ha nd ingthe dr

ug s to Pe ake. Th e dru g s a le a t is su e oc c ur re d in the mid dle of

the se events, while the conspirator s were on their wa y to complete the sa le integ ral to the c onspiracyNo. 08-1219

United States v. Pope

- 13 - char g e, and thus bore a cl o s e temporal re lationship. The drug s involved in both sales came from Pope’s supply . The c ourt there fore proper ly admitted Fa

nce’ s testimony

as bac kg round evide nce, as it arose from the same eve nts as t he charg ed offense, f ormed a n integ ral pa

rt of F ance ’s ac count of what occur

red on D ece mber 12, a

nd completed the story

of the c harg ed off

ense.
D. Ag ent Goodell’s Summary of F ance ’s Interview Pope claims a witness stateme nt provided by the g overnme nt materially misrepre sented the completene ss of the testimony it described. I

nvestig ator Sheila Goodell produce d the statement at issue afte r interview ing F ance . Although F ance told Goodell about P ope’s dr ug transac tion on the way to the meeting with Peake, Goode ll did not m ention the incident in t he re port. The pr osecution did not question Goodell about the repor t during direc t examination. Acc ording to Pope, he re lied upon the alleg ed “c omplet en es s” of Goode ll’s statement, and wa s later surpr ised when F ance testified about the first delivery
. Pope asser ts that the g overnme nt’s conduct violated its oblig ations under the J encks A ct, 18 U.S.C. § 3500.

“ Th e Jenc ks Ac t r e q

u i re s th e g ov e rnme nt t o p ro vid e de fe nd ants wi th c op ie s o f c e rt a in r e po rt s and docume nts after the g overnme nt w itness ha s testified on direc t examination.” United States v. DeFranc o , 30 F.3d 664, 667 ( 6th Cir. 1994). Pope claims surprise not fr om any thing Goode ll said, but from Fa

nce’ s testimony reg arding the first delivery
. Goodell’s sum mary only qualifies as Jencks materia l if the witness—in this cas e, F ance —aff irmatively

adopts the statement, see 18 U.S.C. § 35 00 (e )( 1) ; Un ite d S

tates v . A rn old, 890 F.2d 825, 829 ( 6th Cir. 1989), or it repre sents “aNo. 08-1219

United States v. Pope

- 14 - substantially

verbatim recital of a

n oral statemen t m ad e by said witness and re corde d contempora

neously with the making of such or al statement,” 18 U.S.C. § 3500(e)(2)
. Neither con d it io na

p p li e s h e r e . G o o d e ll c r e a te d th e r e p o rt a f

te r th e in te r v ie w , an d F an ce
never saw it. Goodell also testified that she wrote the summary in he r own wor ds, not Fanc e’s. And sh e omi tte d ma

ny of F anc e ’s state me nts , makin g he r r e po rt any thi ngbu t a

ve rb a timtr ans c ri pt. Thus , the g overnme nt had no oblig ation to furnish the def ense w ith Goodell’s repor t, and no J encks A ct violation occurr ed.
Simi larly , Pope’s claim that the g overnme nt misl ed him into relying upon G oodell’s re port as a complete st atement of Fa nce’ s trial testimony finds no support in law or fact. The g overnme nt provided a

copy of t he re port to the defe nse pure ly as a c ourtesy . Goodell, not Fa nce, a uthored the repor t, and the g overnme nt never indicated that it containe d Fa nce’ s entire inter

view. Pope make s a spurious cla im that be ca u se the summary contained c erta in details—e.g ., that Fa nce a nd Pope pla nn e d to go Ch ristm a s sh op pin g on De c e mbe r 1 2—

he jus tif ia bly re lie d o n it

a s a c omp le te statement of F ance ’s testimony . But P o p e provide s no authority to support this ex pansive propositi o n , n o r could he . Pope there fore had no re asonable basis for c oncluding that Goodell’s
re po rt re pr e se nte d a

c omp re he ns ive state me nt o f F anc e ’s anti c ipate d tr ia l te sti mony . I n an y e ve nt, Pop e fa ils to s ho w p re

jud ic e . D e fe ns e c ouns e l c on fr on te d F anc e a bo ut t he fi rs t de liv e ry

on c ro ssexamination. C ounsel also questioned Goode ll about why she omitted Fa

nce’ s statements from theNo. 08-1219

United States v. Pope

- 15 - summa ry , a nd se ize d th e op po rt

un ity to ar g ue that G oo de ll a c te d n e fa ri ou sly in d e c idi ngwh a t to inc lud e and

wh a t to omi t. T he dis tr ic t c ourt did no t a bu se its dis c re tio n in

de nyingPop e a

ne w tri a l.
I V. Pop e a tta c ks his se nte nc e on bo th p ro c e dura l and

su bs tanti ve g ro un ds . O n a pp e a l,
rea sonablene ss r eview g overns the district c ourt’s sentenc ing de termination. Gall v. United States , 128 S. Ct . 586, 594 (2007). We examine proc edura l and substant i v e reasonablene ss for abuse of discretion. Id. a t 59 7. “ A s e nte nc e is p ro c e dura lly unre a so na

ble if the dis tr ic t c ourt

fa ils to c a lc ulate (or imprope rly

calc ulates) the Guidelines rang e, treats the Guidelines as mandatory , fails to consider the § 3 55 3( a ) f

a c tor s, se le c ts a

se nte nc e ba se d o n cl earl y erro ne ou s f a c ts, or fa ils to a de qu a te ly explain the chosen sentenc e.” United States v. Bak er , 5 5 9 F
. 3 d

4 4 3 , 4 4 8 ( 6 t h C i r . 2 0 0 9 )
. “ In
e va luatin g su

bs tanti ve re a so na

ble ne ss, the Court

e xami ne s w he the r t

he len gth of the se nte nc e is ‘suffic ient but not gr eate r t han nec essar y , to comply

with the purposes’ of

sentenc ing a s set forth by Congr ess in the sentenc ing statute.” Un ite d S tates v . R e c la , 560 F. 3 d 5 3 9 , 5 49 (6th Cir. 2009) (q u o t i n g United States v. Fore man , 4 36 F .3 d 6 38 , 6 44 n. 1 ( 6th Cir . 2 00 6)). Ase nte nc e is substantively

unrea sonable if “ the district court sele cted the se ntence arbitra rily , based the sentenc e
on imp e rm iss ibl e fa c tor s, fa ile d to c on sid e r p e rt ine nt § 35 53 (a ) f a c tor s, or g a ve an unr e a so nab le amount of we ight to any

pertinent fa ctor.” Un ite d S tates v . S mi th , 510 F.3d 603, 609 ( 6th Cir. 2007), cert. de nied , 128 S. Ct . 1910 (2008). Sentenc es that fa l l wi t hin a cor rec tly -ca lculated Guide lines rang e enjoy

a re buttable pre sumption of reasona bleness. Un ited States v. Vonner , 516 F.3d 382,No. 08-1219

United States v. Pope

- 16 - 389–90 (6th Cir.) (en banc), cert. de nied , 129 S. Ct . 68 (2008). We re view the district cour t’s appli ca t i o n o f the Guidelines de novo, and its findings of fac ts for cle ar e rror . United States v. Tocco , 306 F.3d 279, 284 ( 6th Cir. 2002).
A. Section 3C1.2 Enhance ment
When calc ulating the advisory Guidelines ra

ng e, the district cour

t applied a two- level enhanc ement pursua

nt to U.S.S .G. § 3C1.2 beca use P ope’s flight fr om police re cklessly endang ere d others
. T o ju s ti f

y a p p li c a ti o n o f a § 3 C1
. 2 e n h an c e me n t, “ th e g o v e r n me n t mu s t s h o w th a t the defe ndant (1) r eckle ssly , (2) created a substantial risk of de ath or ser ious bodily injury , (3) to anothe r person, (4) i n the course of flee ing from a law enforce ment office r, (5) and that this conduct oc curr ed duri ngthe c omm iss ion of the of fe ns e of c on vic tio n, in pr e pa ratio n for that off

e ns e , o r i n th e c ours e of attempting to avoid detection or responsibili ty for that offense .” United States v. Dial , 524 F.3d 783, 786 (6th Cir.), cert. de nied , 1 2 9 S
. C t
. 2 3 2 (2 0 0 8 ) ( qu o t i n g United States v. Southerland , 405 F.3d 263, 268 (5th Cir. 2005) (interna l quotation mar ks omitted)). The district court must also “find a nexus betwee n the offe nse for which the de fenda

nt was convic ted and the c onduct that involved
rec kless endang erme nt during flig ht.” Id . at 787. Thi s decision i nvolves a mix ed question of law and fa ct that is highly

fac t-intensive, so “sig nificant de fer ence to th e district court is require d.” United States v. Haze lwood , 3 9 8 F. 3 d 7 9 2 , 7 9 6 (6 t h C i r. 2 0 0 5 ) ( ci t i n g United States v. Enne nga , 263 F.3d 499, 502 ( 6th Cir. 2001)).No. 08-1219

United States v. Pope

- 17 - Pope disputes application of t h e enhancement, c laiming that ( 1) the re quired ne x us was absent; and ( 2) the facts did not warr ant a f inding of rec klessness. B oth arguments lack mer it. Pope fl e d f ro m la w e nf or c e me nt i mme diate ly

a ft e r c omp le tin g the dr

ug tr ans a c tio n, and

his so le purp os e for f leeingwas to avoid imminent arr est. The ne x us require ment was satisfied. Simi larly , Pope’s actions re adily

demonstrate r eckle ssness, as he c oncede s that he drove off i n an attempt to elude
se ve ra l pu rs uin g po lic e ve hic le s. Th is i ll- a dv ise d e ff or t in vo lve d s pe e din g on

na rr owur ba n s tr e e ts in rainy conditions, disreg ardi n g stop signs, and attempting a U -turn in a pa rking lot. Pope’s behavior threatened se rious harm to others, be they innocent by stander s , t h e p u rsuing office rs, or Pope’s passeng er. In fac t, P eake near ly suffe red se rious injury

when the f

light beg an, as Pope dang erously

acc eler ated be fore she complete ly exit ed the c ar, knoc king he r to the g round in the proce ss. Pope’s conduct e asily supports the § 3C1.2 enhanc ement. B. Supplementa l I nformation Pope argues that the district cour t improperly incre ased the applicable mandatory minimum sentenc e bec ause the supplemental information filed by the g overnme nt, wh i ch identified Pope’s pr ior fe lony c on vic tio ns , fa ile d to re fe re nc e the pr op e r statut e , 21 U. S.C. § 85 1. He c la ims that th is purported de fec t deprived him of proper notice that the g overnme nt intended to seek a n enhanc ed sentenc e base d upon his prior convictions. When an individual is convicted of violating 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)( 1), he f ace s an enha

nced penalty based on c erta in prior fe lony drugconvictions. 21 U.S.C. § 841(b). Section 851 require sNo. 08-1219

United States v. Pope

- 18 - that the g overnme nt p ro v i d e n o t ice to a de fenda nt of its intention t o seek a n enhanc ed sente nce. Compli ance is mandatory
. United States v. King , 127 F.3d 483, 487 (6th Cir. 1997). This section

“ wa s d e sig ne d to satis fy

the re qu ir e me nts of du e pr oc e ss a nd pr ov ide the de fe nd ant w ith‘r e a so na ble
n otice and a

n opportunity

to be hea

rd re g ardingthe possibilit y of an e nhance d sentenc e for
rec idivism .’” Id. at 4 8 9 (q u o t i n g United States v. Be langer , 970 F.2d 416, 418 (7th Cir. 1992)). The sufficie ncy

of an in fo rm at i o n u n d er § 851 is a question of law subjec t to de novo revie w. United States v. Layne , 192 F.3d 556, 575 ( 6th Cir. 1999). “Section 851 does not specify the par ticular for m that notice of enhanc ement must take.” Un ite d S tates v . S oto , 8 F. App’x 535, 539 (6th Cir. 2001) (citations omitted).
The notice filed by

the g overnme nt informed Pope that he f ace d enhanc ed penalties pursuant to 21 U.S.C. § 8 4 1 (b )( 1 )(B ) due to his five pr ior felony drugconvictions, all of which the notice specific ally

identified. Pope does not sug g est that h e d i d n o t rec eive notice that the g overnme nt soug ht to enhance his sentence based upon his prior c onvictions, or that he did not understand the
no tic e . Rathe r, he argue s on ly that the te c hn ic a l a bs e nc e fr om t

he no tic e of

a sp e c if ic re fe re nc e to 21 U.S.C. § 851 render s his sentence proce durally defe ctive. He is mist aken.
L a yn e fore closes Pope’s a

rg ument. I n Layne , the def endant a sserted that the information was d ef ec tive beca

use the g overnme nt failed to expressly ref ere nce § 851. 192 F .3d at 575–76. Observingth at § 8 5 1 is “silent on whether the g overnme nt must actually cite the statute in the information it files,” the court reje cted the de fenda nt’s argument, emphasizing “ ‘the importanc e ofNo. 08-1219

United States v. Pope

- 19 - interpre ting § 851’ s notice requirements so as to avoid elevatingform over substance.’ ” Id. at 576 (q u o t i n g King , 127 F.3d at 489). “[U]l timate l y , a § 851 information is sufficient if it provides
rea sonable notice and an oppor tunity to be hea rd reg ardingthe possibilit y of an e nhance d sentenc e.” Id . Be cause Pope rec eived r easona ble no t ice a

nd an opportunity

to be hea

rd, the supplementa l information filed by

the g overnme nt fulfilled the statutory and due pr ocess r equire ments.
C. Substantive Reasonablene ss of the Sentenc e Pope contests his 288-month sentence as gre ater than nec essar y to achieve the § 3553 objectives be cause it overstates his role in the offe nse as we ll as his criminal history and likelihood of re c idi vis im.
Section 3B1.2 of the Guidelines allows for a downwar d offe nse-leve l a djustment whe re the defe ndant is only

a minimal or minor participa nt in the underly ing of

fense . Minimal participation
wa rr ants a fo ur -l e ve l de c re a se , a

nd min or pa rt ic ipa nts re c e ive a

tw o- le ve l r e du c tio n. I f t he fa c ts place the def

endant’ s participation leve l some wher e betwee n “minimal” and “ minor,” the judg e may g rant a t h re e- l ev el reduction. U.S.S.G. § 3B1.2. Acc ording to the commentar y , a “minor” participa nt is one “who is le ss c ulpable than most other participa nts,” while a “minimal” par ticipant is “among the least c ulpable of those involved.” U.S.S.G.§ 3B1.2, app. n. 4–5 (2007). “Whether a def endant is entitled to a downw ard of fense -leve l ad

j u s t m ent under

U.S.S.G. § 3B1.2 ‘de pends heavily on fac tual deter

minations, which we revie w onl y for clear err or.’” Un ite d S

tates v . H arris , 3 9 7 F. 3 d 4 0 4 , 4 0 9 (6 t h C i r. 2 0 0 5 ) ( qu o t i n g So lor io , 3 3 7 F. 3d at 601). The defe ndant bea rs theNo. 08-1219

United States v. Pope

- 20 - burden of proving entitlement to the reduc tion by a pre pondera nce of the evidenc e. United States v. Salgado , 250 F.3d 438, 458 ( 6th Cir. 2001).
Th e dis tr ic t c ourt

c on sid e re d Po pe ’s re qu e st f or a do wnwa rd a dju stm e nt due to h is a lle g e dly minor role in the conspira cy , and in fa ct g rante d a tw o -l evel reduction, finding that Pope indeed pla y e d a “ min or ” ro le in t

he of fe ns e . I t r e fu se d to la

be l hi s p artici pation

“ min ima l” and

g ra nt a further reduc tion, noting that it was “a clos e ca ll to give him any adjustment.” On a

ppeal, Pope
ar g u e s th a t h e s h o u ld

h a v e r e c e iv e d

a thr e e - le v e l r e d

u c ti o nb e c a

u s e h is c o n d

u c t f e ll s omewher e betwee n minor and minimal.
P o p e’ s ar gument overlooks both the true extent of his invol vement in the off ense a nd our de fe re nti a l st and ard

of re vie w. I n a

rguin g fo r a

n e ve n g re a te r r e du c tio n, Pop e c la ims he me re ly dr o v e F an c e t o t h e d e s i g n a t e d l o c a t i o nt o s e l l dr

u g s t o P e a k e . B u t t h i s w a s a t w o - p e r s o nc o n s p i r a c y, and F ance did not have any cra ck coc aine with him at the time Peake place d the orde r. In ag ree ing to supply Peake with the drug s, Pope further ed the criminal activity
. Wit hout him, neither the drug sale to Peake , nor the c onspiracy would have oc curr ed. Thus, the district court did not err in g ranting only a two-le vel re duction. See Salgado , 2 50 F .3 d at 45 8 ( “ A d e fe nd ant who pla y s a le sse r r ole in
a c ri min a l sc he me may no ne the le ss f a il t o q ua lif y a s a min or pa rt ic ipa nt i f h is r ole wa s in dis pe ns a ble
or c ri tic a l to the su cces s of th e sc he me , o r i f h is i mpo rt anc e in t he ov e ra ll s c he me wa s su c h a s to justify his sentence .”).No. 08-1219

United States v. Pope

- 21 - Pope also maintains that his 288-month sentenc e is too long de spite rec eiving a substantial do wnwa rd va ri anc e fr om t

he c or re c tly -c a lc ulat e d G uid e lin e s se nte nc ingra ng e of 32 4 to 40 5 mo nth s. Pope argues that the use of the c are er- offe nder guideline re sulted in a sentenc e g reater than ne cessa ry to comply

with the purposes of se ntencingset forth in § 3 553(a) . He c ontends that his sentence failed to take into account his lac k of knowledg e re g ardingthe offe nse (whic h prec luded coope ration wi th a uth or iti e s) , th e re lativ e ly min or natur e of the of fe ns e s in his c ri min a l his tor y , the sma ll q

ua nti ty of dr ug s in vo lve d in the of

fe ns e , and his dif

fi c ult c hil dh oo d and up br ing ing
. He a lso a tta c ks the us e of the c are er- offe nder guideline, c la im in g th a t t h e Se nte n c in g

Co mm ission abr og ated its institut ional role by basing the g uideline on a de sire to i mpose sentenc es at or near the statutory maxi mum rather than on empirica l data. Pope admits that the district c ourt proper ly classified him a s a “ca ree r offe nder” under the Guidelines. Pope had f

ive adult fe lony

convictions, and thi s was his six th. The district cour t was fully cog nizant of the eff

ect the c are er of

fend er gu i d el i ne had on the applicable sentenc ing r ang e. I ndeed, it e x erc ised its discr etion to r educe the sever ity of the impact by scoringP o p e’ s cr i m i n al his tor y a s a Ca te g or y V b a se d u

po n h is a c tua l c on vic tio ns , r a the r t ha n a uto matic a lly

c la ssi fy inghim as a Cate g ory

VI pursuant to the ca

ree r-of fende r g uideline.
I n pronouncing its sente nce, the district c ourt addre ssed eac h of the § 3553 fac tors. The c ourt sp e c if ic a lly no te d th e a mou

nt o f c ra c k c oc a ine inv olv e d in thi s c a se , a s w e ll a s Pope ’s dif fi c ultNo. 08-1219

United States v. Pope

- 22 - childhood. Contrary

to Pope’s sug g estion, the district court found that investigat o rs gav e him an opportunity

to cooper ate, but he c hose not to do so.
Th e Sup re me Court ’s Ga ll de c isi on te a c he s “th a t the se nte nc ing pr oc e ss inv olv e s an e xer c ise in judgment , n o t a mathematical proof.” United States v. Grossman , 513 F.3d 592, 596 ( 6th Cir. 2008). We “must g ive due de fer ence to t h e district court’s de cision that the § 3553(a) fac tors, on a whole, justify the extent of the varia nce, a nd due def

ere nce to the se ntencingjudge ’s on-the- scene assessment of the c ompeting c onsiderations.” Id. (interna l quotation marks and citations omitted). “[W ]hen a district court conside rs the re levant 3553(a ) fa ctors in-de pth and re ache s a dete rmination that th e a pp ro pr iate se nte nc e va

ri e s o uts ide the a dv iso ry

g uid e lin e s r ang e , w e are ve ry re luc tant t o find the sentenc e unre asonable .” United States v. Kirchhof , 505 F.3d 409, 414–15 ( 6th Cir. 2007) (a l t er at i o ni n o ri gi n al ) ( qu o t i n g United States v. Collington , 461 F.3d 805, 811 ( 6th Cir. 2006)). He re , th e dis tr ic t c ourt

c on sid e re d th e § 3 55 3( a ) f a cto rs and inc or

po ra te d a ll o f P op e ’s argume nts into its deter

mination of t he appropriate sentence
. Contrary to Pope’s sug g estion, the rec ord bea rs no indication that the district court fa iled to c omprehe nd the full extent of its di scre tion or viewed the g uidelines as any

thing more than advisory . I ndeed, the district court re jected r ote application of the ca ree r off ender g uideline and instead score d Pope’s actua l c riminal convictions. Findingthat the resultant sente nce sug g ested by the g uidelines was “ no doubt high,” the cour t gr anted a

substantial downwar d varia

nce. Pope f

ails to direct us to any

considerations that are so compelling as to require
an eve n shorter se ntence . The district cour t did not abuse its discretion.No. 08-1219

United States v. Pope

- 23 - I n sum, Pope’s sentence is reasona ble.
V.
We affir m Pope’s conviction and se ntence
.