2009 D e c i sion s O p inion s of the U nit e d S t at e s C our t of Appe al s for the Thir d C ir c uit 4-6-2009 

# U SA v . S oh ai l C h aud hry P r e c e de nt i al or N on-P r e c e de nt i al : N on-P r e c e de nt i al D ocke t N o . 07-4540

F o llow thi s and a dd it ion al work s at : http://d i git alc ommon s .l a w . vi ll anova . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2009

Thi s de c i sion i s br ou ght t o you for f r e e and ope n a c c e s s b y the O p inion s of the U nit e d S t at e s C our t of Appe al s for the Thir d C ir c uit at V i ll anova U nive r sity S choo l of L a

w Di git al Reposit ory

. It h as be e n a c c ept e d for inclusion in 2009 D e c i sion s b y an author i z e d a dmini s tr at or of V i ll anova U nive r sity S choo l of L a

w Di git al Reposit ory

. F or mor e inform at ion, p le as e c ont a ct Be n j amin . C arl s on@l a

w . vi ll anova . e du . Re c omme nde d C it at ion " U SA v . S o h ai l C h audhry " (2009). 2009 D e cisio n s . P ape r 1584. http://d i git alc ommon s .l a

w . vi ll anova . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2009/1584T he H onor abl e A . W al l ace T as hi m a, Seni orJ udge, U ni t ed St at es C our tof * A ppeal s fort he N i nt h C i r cui t , s i t t i ng bydes i gnat i on. 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. 07- 4540

_____________ UNI TE D ST ATE S OF AM ERI CA

v. S OHAI L CH AUDHR Y,

A ppel l ant

________________ O n A p p e a l F ro m th e U n ited S tate s D istric t C o u rt

fort he D i s t r i ctof N ew J er s ey ( C r i m i nal N o. 06- 00771) D istri ct Ju d g e: H o n o rab le F aith S . H o ch b erg Subm i t t ed U nderT hi r d C i r cui tL A R 34. 1( a)

M ar ch 13, 2009

________________ B efore: C H A G A R E S , F U E N T E S and T A S H IM A *, C i rcui tJudg es. * ( Fi l ed: A pr i l 6, 2009)

____________ OP I NI ON

______________T he G overnm entconce des thatthe fi r s tl i ne ortw o of the i ns t antm es s agi ng 2 c o n v e rs a tio n s a re n o t a lw a y s re c o rd e d b yth e Y a h o o ! M e s s e n g e r p ro g ra m . 2 C H A G A R E S, C i r cui tJ udge. Sohai l C haudhryappea l s hi s convi ct i ons fortr avel w i t h i nt entt o engage i n a s e x u a l a c tw i t h a m i n o ra n d e n t i c e m e n to f a m i n o rf

e m a l e , a s w e l l a s h i s s e n t e n c e . We wi l l a f f i r m. I. B ec au se w e w ri te so lel yfo r th e p arti es, w e se t fo rth o n lytho se f ac ts th at are re le v a n t to o u r a n a lysis . O n Ju n e 2 0 , 2 0 0 5 , C h a u d h ry , the n a m a rrie d 2 8 -y e a r-o ld m a le liv in g in Penns y l vani a, ent er ed an i nt ernetchatr oom ent i t l ed “Rom ance N J ” and i ni t i at ed cont act w ith a g o v ern m en t age n t, D av id A g ar, w h o h ad assu m ed the id en ti tyo f a 1 4 -y ea r-old g ir l f ro m N e w Je rse yw ith th e sc re e n n a m e “ C h e e rg rlsa m .” C h a u d h ryre p re se n ted to C heer gr l s am t hathe w as a 20- y ear - ol d m al e l i vi ng i n Phi l adel phi a. O n appr oxi m at el y54 o c c a sio n s b e tw e e n Ju n e 2 0 , 2 0 0 5 , an d Ja n u a ry3 , 2 0 0 6 , C h a u d h rye n g a g e d in se x u a lly expl i ci tconver s at i ons w i t h C heer gr l s am. T hes e conve r s at i ons w er e r ecor ded and s t or ed byt he Y ahoo! M es s engerpr ogr am, fr om w hi ch tr ans cr i pt s w er e l at erpr oduced. 2 O n J anuary4, 2006, C haudhrytr avel ed fr om hi s hom e i n Penns y l vani a t o a M cD onal d’ s i n N ew J er s eyt o m eet“C heer gr l s am” i n per s on. U pon arr i vi ng atthe M c D o n a ld ’s , h e w a s a rr e s te d . C h au d h ryw as tak en to the B erg en C o u n tyP rose cu tor’s3

O ffi ce, w her e he w as i nform ed of hi s r i ght s underM i r anda v. A r i zona, 384 U . S. 436 (1 9 6 6 ), a n d a g re e d to w a iv e th o s e ri g h ts a n d s p e a k w ith th e in v e s tig a tin g o f f ic e rs . C haudhryadmi t t ed thathe corr es ponded w i t h a 14- y ear - ol d gi r l thathe knew as C heer gr l s am i n an i nt ernetchatr oom , s t art i ng i n J une 2006. C haudhryal s o admi t t ed that he i ni t i at ed conve r s at i ons w i t h C heer gr l s am abouts ex, and thathe had tr avel ed t o N ew J er s eyt o m eetC heer gr l s am i n per s on. I n addi t i on, C haudhryadmi t t ed thathe di s cus s ed per form i ng var i ous s exual act s w i t h C heer gr l s am and t hathe had c ont act ed the H or i zon M ot el i n Sout h H acke ns ack, N ew J er s ey , t o chec k on the ava i l abi l i t yof r oom s and on r at es . C haudhrys t at ed thathe i nt ended t o pur chas e condoms a head of t i m e, buthe for got and then dec i ded t o gett hem aft erhe metw i t h C heer gr l s am. Fi nal l y , C haudhrys t at ed th a t h e sp o k e w ith a p p ro x im a telysix o th e r g irls, w h o h e b e liev e d to b e a p p ro x im a tely C h e e rg rlsa m ’s a g e , o v e r th e in ter n e t. O n Sept ember21, 2006, a gr and j uryr eturned a tw o- counti ndi ctm entchar gi ng C h a u d h ryw ith tra v e lin g in in ter sta te c o m m e rc e f o r th e p u rp o se o f

e n g a g in g in ill icit s exual conductw i t h a mi nor , i n vi ol at i on of 18 U . S. C . § 2423( b) , and w i t h us i ng t el ephone l i nes and the i nt ernett o at t empt t o ent i ce a m i nort o engage i n cr i m i nal s exual a c tiv ity , in v io latio n o f

1 8 U .S .C . § 2 4 2 2 (b ). O n Ju n e 1 3 , 2 0 0 7 , fo llo w in g a ju rytrial, C h a u d h ryw a s c o n v icte d o n b o th c o u n ts o f th e in d ictm e n t. C h a u d h ryf iled tw o p o stv e r d i c tmo t i o n s f

o ra n e w tr i a l , b o t h o f

wh i c h we r e d e n i e d b yth e Di s t r i c tCo u r t . On N ovember28, 2007, t he D i s t r i ctC our ts ent ence d C haudhryt o an 84- m onth t erm ofA defe ndanti s ent i t l ed t o an entr apmentchar ge w hen he i s fi r s tabl e t o s how “( 1) 1 ev iden ce that the G o v ern m en t i n it iat ed the c ri m e, reg ard less o f th e a m o u n t of p ressu re a p p lied to th e d e f

e n d a n t, an d (2 ) a n ye v id e n c e n e g a tin g th e d e f e n d a n t’s p ro p e n sityto comm i tt he cr i m e. ” U ni t ed St at es v. W at s on, 489 F. 2d 504, 509 ( 3d C i r . 1973) ; s ee U n it ed S tat es v . M arino , 8 6 8 F . 2 d 5 4 9 , 5 5 2 n . 6 (3d C ir . 1 9 8 7 ). 4 im p ri s o n m e n t a n d a $ 1 2 ,5 0 0 f in e . O n appea l , C haudhryar gues thatther e w as i ns uffi ci entevi dence t o s uppor tthe j ur y ’ s r ej ect i on of hi s entr apmentdefe ns e. C haudhryfur t herar gues thatthe D i s t r i ct C our terr ed i n deny i ng cert ai n pr el i m i naryand evi dent i arym ot i ons , i ncl udi ng, i nt eral i a, i t s ruli ng on cert ai n d i scoveryrequest s and it s denial of C hau dh ry ’s m oti on t o sup press h is p o st-a rre st s tate m e n ts to in v e stig a tin g o f f ice rs. C h a u d h rya lso a rg u e s th a t h is s ent ence i s unr eas onabl e bec aus e he s houl d nothave r ece i ved an upw ar d adj us t m entfor obs t ruct i on of j us t i ce, and thatt he C our terr ed byl i m i t i ng hi s r i ghtt o al l ocut i on and d e n y in g h im th e o p p o rt u n ity d ir e c tly to a d d re s s h is d e p a rt u re m o tio n s to th e C o u rt . F in a lly , C h a u d h ryc o n ten d s th a t h e su f f e re d f ro m in e f f e c tiv e a ss ista n c e o f

c o u n se l at tria l. II. W e have j ur i s di ct i on pur s uantt o 28 U . S. C . § 1291, and j ur i s di ct i on t o r evi ew t he s e n te n c e s im p o s e d b yth e D is tr ic t C o u rt p u rs u a n t to 1 8 U .S .C . § 3 7 4 2 . III . T h e D istric t C o u rt d e ter m in e d th a t C h a u d h rym e t th e th re sh o ld re q u ire m e n ts ent i t l i ng hi m t o an entr apmenti ns t ruct i on. T he j uryr ej ect ed C haudhry ’ s entr apment 1 defe nse and returned a verdi ctof g uil t y . C hau dh ryargues t hat this C ou rtshou l d reverse5

t he det erm i nat i on of the j ur ybeca us e the ver di ctw as bas ed on i ns uffi ci entevi dence and he w as ent rapped as a m at t er of l aw . W e revi ew the jury ’s determ i nati on i n the l i gh tm ost f a v o ra b le to th e p ro s e c u tio n , a n d re s o lv e a ll r e a s o n a b le in f e re n c e s th e re f

ro m in its f

a v o r. U ni t ed St at es v. J annot t i , 673 F. 2d 578, 598 ( 3d C i r . 1982) ( en banc ) . V i ew i ng the e v id e n c e in th is lig h t, w e m u st u p h o ld th e ju ry ’s v e rd ict “ u n les s n o re a so n a b le ju ryc o u ld concl ude bey ond a r eas onabl e doubtthatthe def endantw as pr edi s pos ed t o comm i tthe offe ns e forw hi ch he w as convi ct ed. ” I d. C haudhryar gues t hatt he G overnm enti nduced hi s act i ons , poi nt i ng t o evi dence th a t th e re w a s a p e rio d o f tim e in w h ich th e G o v e rn m e n t ag e n ts a ttem p ted to in iti a te cont act , and C haudhrydi d notr es pond, and that , atone poi nt , C haudhrycanc el l ed or del ay ed a pl anned meet i ng w i t h C heer gr l s am. W e not e that“i nducemental one does not es t abl i s h entr apmentas a mat t erof l aw ”; r ather , the ce ntr al cons i der at i on i s “w hethert he undi s put ed evi dence s how s a l ack of pr edi s pos i t i on on t he partof the ac cus ed. ” U ni t ed S t at es v. G am bino, 78 8 F . 2d 93 8, 94 4 (3d C i r. 19 86 ) ( ci t i ng H am pton v. U nit ed S t at es, 4 2 5 U . S . 4 8 4 , 4 8 8 (19 7 6 )). W e a re u n co n v ince d o n this reco rd th at no rea so n ab le j u ry c o u ld h a v e re

je c te d C h a u d h ry’s e n tr a p m e n t d e f e n s e . T h e re c o rd re f

lec ts th a t C h a u d h rye x h ib ited a w ill in g n e ss to m e e t, an d e n g a g e in se x u a l ac ts, w ith C h e e rg rlsa m , an d a d m itt e d to in iti a tin g th e to p ic o f se x w ith C heer gr l s am. M or eover , r egar dl es s of w hi ch part yi ni t i at ed conve r s at i ons , C haudhryw as cons i s t ent l yt he part yt hati nt r oduced the t opi c of e ngagi ng i n s exual act i vi t y , as w el l as6

pl anni ng a meet i ng t o engage i n s uch conduc t . W e have hel d t hatthe G overnm entm ay n e g a te a n e n tra p m e n t d e f e n se w ith e v id e n c e o f

a n e x istin g c o u rse o f

c o n d u c t th a t is s i m i l art o t he cr i m e cha r ged, an “a l r eadyform ed des i gn” t o comm i tthe cr i m e w i t h w hi ch t he def endanti s char ged, ora w i l l i ngnes s t o comm i tthe cr i m e “a s evi dence d bythe acc us ed’ s r eadyr es pons e t o t he i nducement . ” U ni t ed St at es v. L akhani , 480 F. 3d 171, 179 ( 3d C i r . 2007) ( quot at i ons and ci t at i ons om i t t ed) . H er e, ther e i s ampl e evi dence upon w hi ch the j ur ycoul d have r el i ed t o r ej ectthe entr apmentdefe ns e. I V. C haudhrychal l enges t he D i s t r i ctC our t ’ s pr etr i al rul i ng deny i ng hi m the oppor tuni t yt o have a n expertw i t nes s per s onal l yexami ne a gove r nm ent - ow ned comput er u se d in v a rio u s u n d e rc o v e r la w e n f o rc e m e n t in v e stig a tio n s, in c lu d in g f o r th e in sta n tm e s s a g in g b a s e d c o n v e rs a tio n s b e tw e e n C h a u d h ry a n d th e a g e n t p o s in g a s C h e e rg rl s a m . “A n ap p li ca ti o n fo r disco v eryu n d er R u le 16 o f th e F ed era l R u les o f C ri m inal P roc ed u re is a d d re ss e d to th e so u n d d isc re tio n o f th e trial c o u rt, an d its ru lin g w ill b e d istu rb e d o n ly foran abus e of di s cr et i on. ” U ni t ed St at es v. N ew m an, 476 F. 2d 733, 739 ( 3d C i r . 1973) ( quot at i on om i t t ed) . T he G overnm entoppos ed the mot i on i n t he D i s t r i ctC our t , ar gui ng t hats uch pr oduct i on coul d compromi s e unr el at ed i nves t i gat i ons , and not i ng thati thad pr evi ous l yobt ai ned fr om t he comput erand pr ovi ded t o C haudhrycopi es of the r ecor ded instan t m essa g ing co n v ersa ti o n s b etw ee n C h au d h ryan d C h ee rgrlsam . T h e D istri ct C o u rt deni ed the mot i on, s at i s fi ed w i t h t he t es t i m onyof C haudhry ’ s ow n expert , w ho s t at ed that7

th e re triev a l o f

d o c u m e n ts re su lti n g f

ro m c e rta in ter m se a rc h e s w o u ld b e “ su f f icie n t” to s at i s fyt he di s coveryr eques t s . Suppl ement al A ppendi x ( S. A . ) 1082- 83. W e fi nd the D istric t C o u rt a c ted w e ll w ith in its d isc re tio n in re a c h in g th is d e ter m in a tio n , an d w e w ill n o t d istu rb it. V . C h a u d h ryn e x t ar g u e s th a t th e D istric t C o u rt e rre d in d e n y in g h is m o tio n to s uppr es s hi s pos t - arr es ts t at ement s . C haudhryar gues thathi s s t at ement s w er e not v o lun taryb ec au se h e “ alt ere d h is st atem en ts” t o “a p p ea se” the law en fo rce m en t of fice rs b ase d o n h is be li ef

that h e w as “ u n d erg o ing a c red ibil itytest ” a n d that h is st atem en ts w ere bei ng r ecor ded. A ppel l antB r . at51. T he D i s t r i ctC our t ’ s ul t i m at e conc l us i on r egar di ng t he vol unt ar i nes s of a c onfes s i on i s s ubj ectt o pl enaryr evi ew ; how ever , w e r evi ew the D i s t r i ctC our t ’ s under l y i ng fac tual fi ndi ngs forcl earerr or . U ni t ed St at es v. Per ez, 280 F .3 d 3 1 8 , 3 3 6 (3 d C ir. 2 0 0 2 ). W e c o n sid e r th e “ to talityo f th e c irc u m sta n c e s” to det erm i ne w hether“the def endant ’ s w i l l w as overbor ne w hen he c onfes s ed. ” M i l l erv. F enton, 79 6 F . 2d 59 8, 60 4 (3d C i r. 19 86 ) ( ci t at i on s om i t t ed); see U nit ed S t at es v. Jacobs, 4 3 1 F .3 d 9 9 , 1 0 8 (3 d C ir. 2 0 0 5 ). In m a k in g th is d e ter m in a tio n , “c o e rc iv e p o lice a c tiv ity i s a nec es s arypr edi cat e t o t he fi ndi ng t hata conf es s i on i s not‘ vol unt ary ’ w i t hi n t he m eani ng of the D ue Pr oces s C l aus e of the Four t eenth A m endment . ” C ol or ado v. C onnel l y , 479 U . S. 157, 167 ( 1986) ; s ee U ni t ed St at es v. B ethancourt , 65 F. 3d 1074, 1 0 7 8 (3d C ir . 1 9 9 5 ).8

I n i t s opi ni on deny i ng C haudhry ’ s m ot i ons t o s uppr es s , the D i s t r i ctC our tobs erved th a t th e G o v e rn m e n t h a d p ro d u c e d a M ira n d a w a iv e r f o rm , sig n e d b yC h a u d h ry ; co n se n tt o- s ear ch form s , al s o s i gned byC haudhry ; and hand- w r i t t en not es fr om a l aw enfor cementoffi cerdocument i ng C haudhry ’ s pos t - arr es ts t at ement s , eac h page of w hi ch C haudhryhad i ni t i al ed. T he C our tfound no evi dence of coe r ci ve pol i ce a ct i vi t yorthat C haudhrydi d notunder s t and hi s r i ght s . A ppendi x ( A pp. ) 43. W e conc l ude thatthe D i stri ctC ou rtdid not err i n d eny i ng C hau dh ry ’s m oti on t o sup press his st at em ents . C haudhryfur t herar gues t hatthe D i s t r i ctC our tabus ed i t s di s cr et i on i n deny i ng hi m t he oppor tuni t yt o i ns pectt he i nt err ogat i on r oom forr ecor di ng equi pm ent , and that t he D i s t r i ctC our terr ed i n fai l i ng t o s uppr es s hi s pos t - arr es ts t at ement s underFeder al R u le o f E v id e n c e 4 0 3 . W e c o n c lu d e th a t ea c h o f th e se a rg u m e n ts la c k s m e rit. I V. C haudhryr ai s es a numberof cl ai m s of s ent enci ng err or , i ncl udi ng, i nt eral i a, t hat t he D i s t r i ctC our terr ed i n i m pos i ng a tw o- l evel s ent enci ng enhanc ementforobs t ruct i on of j us t i ce, and thatt he D i s t r i ctC our tvi ol at ed hi s r i ghtt o al l ocut e pr i ort o t he i m pos i t i on of s ent ence . A . C haudhryar gues t hatt he D i s t r i ctC our terr ed w hen i ti m pos ed a tw o- l evel adj us t m entunderU ni t ed St at es Sent enci ng G ui del i ne § 3C 1. 1 forobs t ruct i on of j us t i ce b e c a u s e h e w illf

u lly c o m m itte d p e rj u ry d u ri n g h is s u p p re s s io n h e a ri n g a n d a t tr ia l. A9

d istric t co u rt m a yin c re a se th e o f f e n se lev e l u n d e r § 3 C 1 .1 b a se d o n p e rju re d tes tim o n yif i tfi nds t hatt he def

endantgave f

al s e t es t i m onyas t o a mat er i al m att erw i t h t he w i l l ful inten t t o g ive f

alse testi m o n y . U n it ed S tat es v . D u n n igan , 5 0 7 U . S . 8 7 , 9 4 , 9 7 (19 9 3 ); U n it ed S tat es v . B ass, 54 F . 3 d 1 2 5 , 1 3 3 (3d C ir . 1 9 9 5 ). W e re v iew the D istri ct C o u rt ’s fi ndi ng t hatC haudhry ’ s t es t i m onyw as w i l l ful l yfal s e forcl earerr or . U ni t ed St at es v. C u su m an o , 9 4 3 F . 2 d 3 0 5 , 3 1 5 (3d C ir . 1 9 9 1 ). W e conc l ude thatt he r ecor d s uppor t s the D i s t r i ctC our t ’ s fi ndi ng. C haudhrybas ed h is d e f e n se , in p a rt, o n h is c laim th a t h e h a d n u m e ro u s c o n v e rsa tio n s w ith C h e e rg rlsa m in th e f o u r t o s ix w e e k s p ri o r t o J u n e 2 0 , 2 0 0 5 , th e d a te o n w h ic h th e c h a t tr a n s c ri p ts b e g in . C h a u d h ryc laim e d th a t th o se c o n v e rsa tio n s, w ith h e ld f ro m e v id e n c e , w e re n o n se x u a l in natur e and l ed C haudhryt o det erm i ne thatC heer gr l s am w as an adul tw om an, r ol e pl ay i ng as a mi nor . C haudhryt es t i fi ed i n det ai l conce r ni ng the cont entof thes e purpor t ed conver s at i ons i n bot h t he s uppr es s i on hear i ng and attr i al . C haudhryfur t hercl ai m ed that t he G overnm entconce al ed ordes t r oy ed the al l egedl yexcul pat orychat s , and ar gued that t hi s al l eged vi ol at i on of B r adyv. M ary l and, 373 U . S. 83 ( 1963) , m andat ed di s m i s s al of t he i ndi ctm ent . C haudhrypr es ent ed expe r tt es t i m onyboth attr i al and atpr etr i al hear i ngs in s u p p o rt o f

h is d e f e n s e th a t th e s u b m itte d tr a n s c ri p ts m ig h t b e in c o m p le te . S e e , e .g ., S . A . 6 0 7 -61 0 (t esti m o n yo f e x p ert w itn ess R o b ert A n d rew L eo n ard ). C haudhry ’ s t es t i m onyw as contr adi ct ed byagentA gar , w ho t es t i fi ed thathe or i gi nat ed the s cr een na m e “Cheer gr l s am” on June 20, 2005, the dat e of hi s fi r s ti nt ernet1 0

i nves t i gat i on w i t h t he C om put erC r i m es T as k For ce, and thatthi s w as the fi r s tt i m e he comm uni cat ed w i t h C haudhry . O ffi cerA gar ’ s t es t i m onyw as fur t herbol s t er ed byr ecor ds fr om Y ahoo! i ndi cat i ng t hatt he “Cheer gr l s am” accountw as fi r s tcr eat ed on J une 20, 2005. T h e D istric t C o u rt f o u n d th a t C h a u d h ryf

a b ric a ted th e se e a rlier c o n v e rsa tio n s w ith t he purpos e of c ons t ruct i ng a def ens e “thathe hoped w oul d l ead t o an ac qui t t al . ” A pp. 1 0 ; se e A p p e llan t B r. at 9 (a c k n o w led g in g th a t th e th e o ryth a t th e o n lin e c h a ts w e re “ ro le pl ay ” w as cr i t i cal t o C haudhry ’ s defe ns e) . A ccor di ngl y , the D i s t r i ctC our thel d t hats uch test im o n yw as n o t m ere lyfa lse, b u t w il lfu ll yso . W e c o n clud e tha t th e D istri ct C o u rt ’s ru lin g w a s n o t c le a rl ye rr o n e o u s . B . C haudhryal s o chal l enges t he D i s t r i ctC our t ’ s pr ocedur es ats ent enci ng, and cont ends t hatt he C our ti m pr oper l yl i m i t ed hi s r i ghtt o al l ocut e. T hi s C our texer ci s es pl enaryr evi ew overcl ai m s chal l engi ng the l egal i t yof s ent enci ng pr ocedur es . U ni t ed S tat es v . W o o d s, 9 8 6 F . 2 d 6 6 9 , 6 7 3 (3d C ir . 1 9 9 3 ). F ed era l R u le of C ri m inal P roc ed u re 32 r equi r es , i n r el evantpar t , t hatbefor e i m pos i ng i t s s ent ence , the C our tm us tpr ovi de the defe ndant ’ s at t orneyt he opportuni t yt o s peak on the def endant ’ s behal f, and “a ddr es s t he defe ndantper s onal l yi n or dert o perm i tthe def endantt o s peak orpr es entanyi nform at i on to m iti g a te th e se n ten c e .” F e d . R . C rim . P . 3 2 (i)(4 )(A ). T h e D istric t C o u rt p ro v id e d b o th d ef en se c o u n sel an d C h au d h ryam p le op p o rtu n ityto sp ea k o n h is be h alf. C h au d h ry ’sC haudhryar gues t hathe w as deni ed hi s r i ghtt o a fa i rtr i al beca us e the 2 G overnm entfai l ed t o pr es erve exc ul pat oryevi dence al l egedl ycont ai ned i n hi s “i ni t i al c o n v e r s a t i o n s ” wi t h Ch e e r g r l s a m. Ap p e l l a n tBr . a t4 7 . We r e j e c tth i s a r g u me n t . As di s cus s ed i n Sect i on I V . A . , s upr a, t he G overnm entw as abl e t o r efut e the def ens e that ear l i er , excul pat or ycomm uni cat i ons betw een Chaudhr yand C heer gr l s am exi s t ed, and t hus w as underno obl i gat i on t o “pr es erve” s uch comm uni cat i ons . I n addi t i on, forthe f irst tim e in h is re p lyb rie f , C h a u d h ryc o n ten d s th a t th e D istric t C o u rt c o m m itt e d p lain e rro r in f a ili n g to in stru c t th e ju ryre g a rd in g th e sp o liatio n o f e v id e n c e . A p p e llan t R e p ly B r . at23- 25. C haudhryw ai ved anys uch ar gum entbyfai l i ng t o r ai s e i ti n hi s openi ng b ri ef. S ee , e.g., L ab o rers’ Int’l U n ion v . F o ster W h ee ler C o rp., 2 6 F . 3 d 3 7 5 , 3 9 8 (3d C ir . 1 9 9 4 ). C hau dh ryal so asks this C ou rtt o “take i nto accou nt hi s speci al ci rcum st ances, par t i cul ar l yhi s pr i orhi s t or yand cha r act er i s t i cs , ” and a ffor d hi m s om e r el i ef unde rthe S e c o n d C h a n c e A c t, 18 U .S .C . § 3 6 2 4 . A p p e llan t B r. at 6 0 . T h is re q u e st is n o t p ro p e rly befor e thi s C our t . Sect i on 3624( b) pr ovi des thatfede r al pr i s oner s s ervi ng a t erm of 1 1 cont ent i on t hathe s houl d have be en al l ow ed t o s peak e ar l i er , w hi l e the C our tw as m aki ng leg a l an d f

a c tu a l f in d in g s, a n d a s h is d e f

e n se c o u n se l w a s p re se n tin g a rg u m e n ts, is w i t houtm er i t . T he C our tper s onal l yaddr es s ed C haudhrypr i ort o s ent enci ng, pr ovi di ng hi m w i t h t he oppor tuni t yt o pr es entanym i t i gat i ng evi dence on hi s behal f, and pl ace d no l i m i t at i on on C haudhry ’ s r emar ks . R ul e 32 r equi r es no m or e. V I. Fi nal l y , C haudhrypr es ent s a cl ai m on appea l bas ed on i neff ect i ve as s i s t ance of t ri al cou nsel . Iti s w el l set t l ed thatsuch clai m s should be rai sed i n co l l at eral proceed i ng s, par t i cul ar l yw hen, as i n t hi s cas e, t he r ecor d i s i ns uffi ci entforthi s C our t ’ s r evi ew . See U ni t ed St at es v. T hor nt on, 327 F. 3d 268, 271 ( 3d C i r . 2003) ( ci t i ng M as s ar o v. U ni t ed St at es , 538 U . S. 500 ( 2003) ) . W e thus decl i ne t o addr es s C haudhry ’ s ar gum ent s bas ed on in e f f e c tiv e a ss ista n c e o f

c o u n se l. 2i m pr i s onm entof m or e than a y earm ayr ece i ve “c r edi t ” t ow ar d t he pr i s oner ’ s t erm of

i m pr i s onm entof up t o 54 day s pery ear , s ubj ectt o a det erm i nat i on bythe B ur eau of P ri s o n s , atthe end of

the f i rs tyear of the p rison term , thatthe pr i s onerhad demonstr at ed ex em p laryb eh av ior. F inally , all o f C h au d h ry ’s arg u m en ts no t spe cifica ll yad d resse d are w ith o u t m e rit. 1 2 V II. F o r th e re a so n s s tate d , w e w ill a f f irm th e ju d g m e n t o f

th e D istric t C o u rt in a ll res pects .