FI L ED U.S. COURT OF APPEAL S EL EVENTH CI RCUI T J UNE 24, 2011
J OHN L EY CL ERK [PUBLIS H]

IN THE U

NITED STATE S COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE ELE VENTH CIRCUIT

__

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __
No. 1 0- 10 15 1

__

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __
D.C. Dock et No. 1 :0 8- cr-2 08 97 -DMM -1

UNITED STAT ES OF AMERIC A,

Plai nt iff - App el le e,

vers us

JAM ES JOVAN LADSON,

D efen da nt - App el la nt

.

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ App eal fro m

th e Uni te d S ta te s Di st ric t Co ur t for th e So ut he rn Dis tri ct of F lo rid a

__

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ (J un e 2 4, 2 01 1)

Befo re PR YOR an d C OX, Circ ui t J ud ge s, an d WATKINS, Dis tri ct Ju dg e. *

W ATKINS, Dis tri ct Ju dg e:

Honora ble W. Keith Watkins , Chief United States District Judge f or the Middle District * of Alaba ma, sitting by

desig nation.Ja m es Jo va n Lad so n ap pe al s hi s co nv ic ti on s (Co un ts I, II, an d IV), hi s se nt en ce

of m an da to ry li fe im

pr is on m en t ba se d up on hi s co nv ic tion fo r co nspi ra cy to di st rib ut e

co nt ro ll ed su bs ta nc es , en ha nc ed by two pr io r fel on y dr ug of fen se s (Co un t I), an d hi s

se nt en ce ba se d up on hi s co nv ic ti on fo r po ss es si on wit h i n t e nt to di st rib ut e a

co nt ro ll ed su bs ta nc e an d an in crea se d st at ut or y m ax im um pe na lt y ba se d up on a pr io r

fel on y dr ug of

fen se (Co un t II). Lad so n rai se s th ree is s u e s o n ap pe al : (1 ) whe th er

t h e re was su ffi ci en t ev id en ce to su pp or t hi s co nv ic ti on s; (2 ) whe th er th er e w e r e

cu m ul at iv e erro rs at tri al th at pr ejud ic ed hi m to th e ex te nt th at he is en ti tl ed to a ne w

tri al ; an d (3) whet he r th e Gov ern m en t pro pe rly fil ed an d serv ed it s 21 U.S.C. § 85 1

no ti ce of en ha nc ed se nt en ce. Fi nd in g th at th e fir st two is su es la ck m eri t, we f o c u s

ou r an al y si s on th e Gov ern m en t’s se rv ic e of th e no ti ce of en ha nc em en t un de r §

85 1( a)(1 ).

Lad so n arg ue s th at th e Gov ern m en t di d no t fil e an d se r v e an in fo rm at io n

co nt ai ni ng no ti ce of an en ha nc ed se nt en ce in acco rd an ce wit h § 85 1( a)(1 ). W e ag ree

th at he was no t se rv ed be fo re tri al wit h a co py of th e in fo rm at io n in acco rd an ce wit h

§ 85 1( a)(1 ), an d th us th e di st ric t co ur t la ck ed a u t h o r it y to im po se an en ha nc ed

se nt en ce on Co un ts I an d II un de r 21 U.S.C. §§ 84 1( a)(1 ), 84 1( b) (1 )(A), (C), an d 84 6.

W e th eref

or e v acat e Lad so n’s m an da to ry te rm of li fe im pr is on m en t o n C ou nt I an d

te n- y ear se nt en ce on Co un t II, an d rem an d wit h in st ru ct io ns to res en te nc e Lad so n on

2Co un ts I an d II wit ho ut th e § 85 1 s e n t e n ce en ha nc em en t un de r th e se co nd

in fo rm at io n. We affi rm

th e jud gm en t o f co nv ic ti on on Co un ts I, II, an d IV.

I.

In Sep te m

be r 20 08
, a gr an d ju ry in di ct ed Lad so n an d se ve n ot he rs fo r

co ns pi racy to po ss es s with in te nt to di st rib ut e 50 gr am s o r m or e o f co cai ne ba se , as

well as co cai ne , ecs ta sy, a nd m ari juan a, in vi ol at io n of 21 U.S.C. §§ 84 1( a)(1 ) an d

8 4 6 (Co un t I). The su pe rs ed in g in di ct m en t fil ed in Ja nu ary 20 09 ad de d two o t h e r

de fen da nt s an d th ree ne w ch arg es ag ai ns t Lad so n: (1 ) po ss es si on wit h i nt en t to

di st rib ut e co cai ne , in vi ol at io n of 21 U.S.C. § 84 1( a)(1 ) (Co un t II); (2 ) po ss es si on of

a fir earm in fu rth eran ce of a dr ug tra ffi ck in g cri m e, in vi ol at io n of 18 U.S.C.

§ 92 4( c)(1 )(A)(i ) (Co un t III); an d (3 ) be in g a fel on in po ss es si on o f a f i r e arm an d

am m un it io n, i n v io la ti on of 1 8 U.S.C. § 92 2( g) (1 ) (Co un t IV).

Lad so n’s tri al was sc he du le d to be gi n wit h jury se le ct io n on May 12
, 20 09

. On

May 4, 20 09
, th e Gov ern ment pr ov id ed Lad so n’s tri al co un se l wit h a co py of an

in fo rm at io n (th e “ fir st in fo rm at io n” ) gi vi ng no ti ce of th e Gov ern m en t’s in te nt to se ek

en ha nc ed pe na lt ie s un de r Co u n t s I a nd II of th e in di ct m en t on th e ba si s of a si ng le

3pr io r fel on y dr ug co nv ic ti on

. It is un di sp ut ed th a t t h e f i rs t in fo rm at io n was ne ve r

fil ed wit h t he di st ric t co ur t. 1

On May 12
, 20 09
, be fo re th e di st r i c t c o u r t br ou gh t th e jury po ol in to th e

co ur tro om

to be gi n ju ry

sel ect io n, t he Gov ern m en t an no un ced it s in te nt io n to fil e a

§ 85 1 se nt en ce en ha nc em en t th at co ul d res ul t in a m an da to ry se nt en ce of li fe

im pr is on m en t an d rem ov e th e po ss ib il it y of a fav or ab le pl ea ag reem en t. The 2

Gov ern m en t ad vi se d th e di st ric t co ur t th at it wou ld be fil in g th e § 85 1 en ha nc em en t

be fo re jury se le ct io n be cau se “ if we pi ck a jury we wil l ha ve cro ss ed th e Ru bi co n an d

th ere’s no t real ly m

uc h co m in g ba ck at th at po in t.” Befo re ha nd in g th e di st ric t jud ge

th at in fo rm at io n in op en co ur t (th e “ se co nd in fo rm at io n” ), th e G o v ern m en t sa id
,

“ [W] e wou ld li ke to fil e wit h th e co ur t th e 85 1 en ha nc em en t.

. . . May I ap pr oa ch an d

fil e wit h th e Co ur t? ” The di st ric t co ur t gr an te d th e req ue st . Lad so n’s tri al co un se l

as ke d fo r a la st m om en t to co nf er wit h hi s cl ie nt ab ou t th e Gov ern m en t’s pl ea of fer:

“ W ai t be fo re y ou act ua ll y cl oc k it in .” Afte r a br ie f co nf eren ce, Lad so n’s tri al

co un se l in fo rm ed th e di st ric t co ur t th at Lad so n in te nd ed to go t o t r i a l

. The

The fir st information is preser ved in the re cord only

beca use L adson’s sente ncing 1 counsel a ttached it to the sente ncing memorandum he filed with the district court on De cembe r 7, 2009.

I mportantly , the sec ond information noticed two pr ior felony drug convictions. 2

4Gov ern m en t re sp on de d, “ You r ho no r, pl eas e fi le th e 8 51 en ha nc em en t.” 3

A col lo qu y

en su ed be twee n t he di st ric t co ur t an d Lad so n:

THE COURT: M r

. La d s o n, I w a n t t o mak e s u r e yo u

— I

wan t to read t h is to y ou

. It sa y s he re, th e de fen da nt is he reb y no ti fie d [th at ] th e Uni te d St at es in te nd s to rel y at se nt en ci n g u po n th e fo ll owi ng co nv ic ti on s fo r fel on y dr ug of fen se s an d wil l se ek th e en ha nc ed pe na lt ie s ap pl ic ab le to C o un ts 1 an d 2 of th e in di ct m en t. And th ere is a St at e of Fl or id a

ve rs us Ja m es La ds on Ci rcu it Co ur t of th e Elev en th Ju di ci al Ci rcu it jud gme n t da te d Sep te m be r 29
, 20 00
, an ot he r on e da te d 20 01
, Sep te mb e r 20
, 20 01

. It go es on to sa y as a

re s ul t of th e Uni te d St at es se ek in g th is

en ha nc em en t, th e de f

en da nt is ex po se d on Co un t 1 to a m an da to ry te r m o f li fe im pr is on m en t wit ho ut rel eas e, an d on C o u nt 2 to a m ax im

um t erm of im

pr is on m en t of 30
y ears an d a te rm o f s u p erv is ed rel eas e of si x y ears

. Fi rs t, I wan t to mak e su re — y ou

un de rs ta nd th is ?

DEFENDANT : I f I t o l d yo u I d i d
, I wou ld be lying to yo u

. Bu t I h ear wh at y ou ’re saying

.

THE COURT: A l l r i g h t

. I ju st — th ere was a cas e rec en tl y whe re de fen da nt s wen t to tri al in a s it ua ti on li ke th is

. The y were co nv ic te d. One of th e gu y s a t s e nt en ci ng sa y s, Ju dg e, ho w lo ng is li fe? I wan t to m ak e su re y ou un de rs ta nd li fe

Be cause we f

ind deficie nt service on the def endant unde r § 851(a )(1) , we do not addr ess 3 the suffic iency

of filing on these fa cts. See U nited States v. W

eave r , 905 F.2d 1466, 1481( 11th Cir. 1990).

5is li fe. The re’s no pa ro le

. Life is no t

so m et hi ng y ou ge t o ut in a sh or t whi le

. You

un de rs ta nd th at ?

DEFENDANT : (Defe nd an t n od di ng he ad .)

THE COURT: Oka y . Let’s in vi te th e jury in.

Ju ry se le ct io n im m ed ia te ly fo ll owe d th is co ll oq uy, an d th e tri al co m m en ced

. On May

13
, 20 0 9
, t h e d is tri ct co ur t de cl ared a m is tri al be cau se of th e Gov ern m en t’s la te

di sc lo su re o f fi ng erp rin t ev id en ce.

In Ju ly 20 09
, th e Gov ern m en t fil ed a se co nd su pe rs ed in g in di c tm en t. The

se co nd su pe rs ed in g ind ic tm en t ch ar ge d L ad son an d one co -d efend an t wit h co ns pi racy

to po ss es s wit h in te nt to di st rib ut e 50 gr am s or mo r e of co cai ne ba se , as well as

co cai ne , ecs ta sy, an d m ari juan a, in vi ol at io n of 21 U.S.C. §§ 84 1( a)(1 ) an d 84 6

(Co un t I). Lad so n was al so ch arg ed wit h: (1 ) po ss es si on wit h in te nt to di st rib ut e fiv e

gr am s or m or e of co cai ne ba se , co cai ne , a n d m ari juan a, in vi ol at io n of 21 U.S.C.

§ 84 1( a)(1 ) (Co un t II); (2 ) po ss es si on of a fir earm in fu rth eran ce of a dr ug tra ffi ck in g

cri m e, in vi ol at io n o f 18 U.S.C. § 9 24 (c)( 1) (A)(i ) (Co un t III); an d (3 ) be in g a fel on

in po ss es si on of a fir earm an d am m un it io n, in vi ol at io n of 18 U.S.C. § 92 2( g) (1 )

(Co un t IV). On Aug us t 3, 20 09
, Lad so n wen t to tri al on th es e ch arg es , an d on Aug us t

7, 20 09
, th e jury fo un d hi m gu il ty on Co un ts I, II, an d IV of th e se co nd su pe rs ed in g

in di ct m en t. He was acq ui tt ed of t he § 9 24 (c) c ha rg e in Co un t II I.

6No § 85 1 se nt en ce en ha nc em en t in fo rm at io n ap pe ared as a do ck et en try on th e

di st ric t co ur t’s Cas e Man ag em en t/ Elec tro ni c Cas e Fi li ng do ck et (“ CM/ ECF”) un ti l

Sep te m be r 15 , 2 00 9, fiv e week s aft er th e co nc lu si on of t h e se co nd tri al

. Howev er,

th e in fo rm at io n do ck et ed on Sep te m be r 15 , 20 09 (th e “ th ird in fo rm at io n” ), was no t

th e se co nd in fo rm at io n th e di st ric t co ur t rece iv ed in op en co ur t fro m th e Gov ern m en t

on May 12
, 20 09

. Rat he r, th e do ck et ed th ird in fo rm at io n, a rep la cem en t f o r th e

se co nd in fo rm at io n, was em ai le d fro m th e Gov ern m en t to th e di st ric t c o u r t on

Sep te m be r 14
, 20 09

. The cl erk of th e co ur t ph y si cal ly da te -s ta m pe d th e th ird

in fo rm at io n May 12
, 20 09
, bu t it was el ect ro ni cal ly ti m e-s ta m pe d Sep te m

be r 15
,

2 0 0 9
, by CM/ ECF. Not ab ly, th e th ird in fo rm at io n was no t ph y si cal l y o r

el ect ro ni cal ly si gn ed by th e fil in g Ass is ta nt Uni te d St at es Att or ne y

. The at ta ch ed

Cert ifi cat e of Serv ic e was el ect ro ni cal ly si gn ed by th e fil in g Ass is ta nt Uni te d St at es

Att or ne y , h owe ve r, an d st at ed , “ I h e r eb y cert ify t ha t on or ab ou t May 1 2t h, 20 09 , I

wi ll el ect ro ni cal ly fil e[] th e fo reg oi ng do cu m en t wit h th e C l e r k o f th e Co ur t us in g

CM/ ECF, an d th at th e fo reg oi ng do cu m en t is be in g se rv ed th is da y on al l co un se l of

reco rd v i a tra ns m is si on of Not ic e(s ) of Elec tro ni c Fi li ng .” (em ph as is ad de d)

. The

t h i r d i n fo rm at io n co nt ai ne d no ti ce th at th e Gov ern m en t was pu rs ui ng a se nt en ce

en ha nc em en t of m an da to ry li fe im pr is on m en t on Co un t I of th e su p e r s e d i n g

in di ct m en t, an d a m ax im um te rm of im

pr is on m en t of th irt y y ears an d a te rm of

7su pe rv is ed rel eas e of si x y ears on Co un t II of th e su pe rs ed in g in di ct m en t. Lik e th e 4

se co nd in fo rm at io n, th e th ird i n f o r m at io n refe ren ced two pr io r fel on y dr ug

co nv ic ti on s.

At se nt en ci ng on Ja nu ary 5, 20 10
, on ly th e se co nd in fo rm at io n was at is su e as

th e ba si s fo r a § 85 1 se nt en ce en ha nc em en t. Lad so n’s se nt en ci ng co un se l ob jecte d 5

to th e se nt en ce en ha nc em en t, arg ui ng th at th e se co nd in fo rm at io n was no t pr op erl y

fil ed an d se rv ed in acco rd an ce wit h § 8 5 1 ( a ) ( 1 )

. Lad so n arg ue d th at th e di st ric t

co ur t’s su m

m ary of a po rti on of th e se co nd in fo rm at io n in op en co ur t pr io r to th e fir st

tri al di d no t su ffi ce fo r se rv ic e, th at th e Gov ern m en t fil ed it s on ly co py of th e se co nd

in fo rm at io n wit h th e di st ric t co ur t jus t be fo re th e be gi nn in g of th e fir st tri al on May,

12
, 20 09
, an d th us Lad so n co ul d no t ha ve be en pe rs on al ly se rv ed wit h a co py in th e

co ur tro om

. Lad so n al so rep eat ed ly ur ge d th e di st ric t co ur t t o ho ld an ev id en ti ary

he ari ng to de te rm in e whe th er t he sec on d i nf or m at io n was ti m el y

ser ve d.

The Gov er

nm en t ar gue d tha t the se co nd in fo rm at io n was pr op erl y fil ed be cau se

it was ha nd ed to th e di st ric t co ur t in op en co ur t an d it was pr op erl y se rv ed on Lad so n

be cau se he ha d act ua l no ti ce of th e in fo rm at io n an d th e di st ric t co ur t ha d read a

Be cause the third information wa s intended as a repla ceme nt for the se cond informa tion, 4 it sti ll refe renc ed the supe rseding indictment filed J anuar y 8, 2009, and not the sec ond
superse ding indictment f

iled J uly 30, 2009.

On Octobe r 15, 2009, L adson’s trial c ounsel withdrew f rom the ca se, and se ntencing 5 counsel wa s appointed to repr esent L adson.

8po rti on of th e i nf or m at io n to hi m in op en co ur t. The Gov ern m en t fu rth er reas on ed

th at se rv ic e was acco m

pl is he d be cau se : (1 ) th e Gov ern m en t em ai l e d t he fir st

in fo rm at io n to Lad so n’s tri al co un se l; (2 ) th e Gov ern m en t sp ok e wit h Lad so n’s tri al

co un se l m

ul ti pl e ti m es in th e le ad -u p to th e fir st tri al ab ou t it s in te nt to fil e th e § 85 1

en ha nc em en t ex po si ng Lad so n to li fe im pr is on m en t; (3 ) th ere is no do ub t th at Lad so n

ha d act ua l n ot ic e p rio r to bo th tri al s o f th e § 85 1 en ha nc em en t ex po si ng hi m to li fe

im pr is on m en t b as ed up on two pri or fel on y dr ug co nv ic ti on s; an d (4 ) Lad so n’s t ria l

co un se l ne ve r co m

pl ai ne d th at he di d no t rece iv e a co py o f th e se co nd i n f o r mat i on

pr io r to tri al an d he co ul d ha ve si m pl y as ke d to se e th e in fo rm at io n whe n it was fil ed

wit h th e di st ric t c o u r t o n May 12
, 20 09

. The Gov ern m en t co nc ed ed at le as t th ree

ti m es , ho wev er, th at i t co ul d no t de fin it iv el y sa y th at a co py of th e se co nd

in fo rm at io n was ha nd ed to or ot he rwis e se rv ed on Lad so n or hi s co un se l pr io r to th e

fir st tri al

. 6

Dur in g th e se nt en ci ng he ari ng , th e di st ric t co ur t ex pl ai ne d th at th e th ird

in fo rm at io n was do ck et ed la te be cau se , “ [th e co ur t] h ad th e or ig in al [th at was fil ed

in op en co ur t on May 12
, 20 09 ]. I can te ll y ou I’m 99 pe rcen t cert ai n wha t ha pp en ed

to th at , whi ch is th at I ha d it an d di dn ’t gi ve it to [d is tri ct co ur t st aff.] Tha t’s wha t

The pa rties do not dispute that service did not occur be tween the start of the f irst trial 6 (May 12, 2009) and the start of the se cond trial (A ug ust 3, 2009).

9ha pp en ed to th e or ig in al .” The di st ric t co ur t al s o s t a te d th at it was “ no t go in g to

m ak e

. . . a fin di ng ” an d was “ no t pr ep ared to m ak e a fin di ng ” on whe th er Lad so n or

h i s t r ia l co un se l was ha nd ed a co py of th e se co nd in fo rm at io n in co ur t on Ma y 1 2
,

20 09

.

Afte r he ari ng th e arg um en ts of bo th pa rti es , th e di st ric t co ur t ov erru l ed

Lad so n’s ob

jecti on an d de ni ed Lad so n’s r e qu es t fo r an ev id en ti ary he ari ng on th e

is su e of se rv ic e, fin di ng a he ari ng un ne ces sa ry

. The di st ric t co ur t ba se d it s de ci si on

on Lad so n’s kn owl ed ge of th e fil in g of th e se co nd in fo rm at io n in op en co ur t on May

12
, 20 09
, an d th e co nt en t of th e se co nd in fo rm at io n. The d i s t r i c t co ur t al so st at ed

th at it was th e di st ric t co ur t’s “ be li ef” th at a co py was ha nd ed to Lad so n’s tri al

co un se l on May 12
, 20 09
, bu t he was “ no t cert ai n” of th at fact

. Th e di st ric t co ur t

o bs erv ed th at Lad so n’s tri al co un se l’s Sep te m be r 15 an d 16
, 20 09 e mai l s

“ su gg es t[e d]” th at Lad so n or hi s tri al co un se l was se rv ed wit h th e se co nd in fo rm at io n

10pr io r to tri al

. Afte r co ns id eri ng Lad so n’s ot he r ob jecti on s, th e di st ric t co ur t 7

se nt en ced Lad so n to a m an da to ry te rm of li fe im pr is on m en t on Co un t I, te n y ears on

Co un t II , and fif

te en y ears on Co un t IV. Lads on ’s ti m el y ap pe al fol lo wed

. 8

II

.

Sev eral st an da rd s of rev ie w go ve rn th is ap pe al

. W e rev ie w th e di st ric t co ur t’s

co nc lu si on s of la w de no vo

. Har ri s v. Uni te d St at es , 14 9 F.3 d 13 04
, 13 06 (1 1t h Ci r.

19 98 ). W e rev ie w th e ad eq ua cy of a 21 U.S.C. § 85 1 no ti ce de no vo

. Uni te d St at es

v. Rami re z , 50 1 F.3 d 12 37
, 12 39 (1 1t h Ci r. 20 07 ). W e rev ie w th e fin di ng s of fact th at

su pp or t a se nt en ce en ha nc em en t fo r cl ear erro r. Uni te d St at e s v

. N d i a y e , 43 4 F.3 d

The district cour

t relied on two e mails sent by L adson’s trial c ounsel to the United 7 States Probation Office r assig ned to his case , one date d September 15, 2009, a nd the other da ted September 16, 2009. F ollowing se ntencing , the district court ha d the proba tion officer incorpora te the ema ils int o L adson’s Prese ntence I nvestig ation Report. I n the September

15, 2009 email, L adson’s trial c ounsel stated that he r ece ived a c opy of the first informa tion by

email, but that information was not filed w ith the court. He further stated that the information that wa s dockete d on CM/ECF on September 15, 2009 (the third information), wa s not filed befor e trial. The September 16, 2009 e mail from L adson’s trial counsel to the probation officer rea ds,

I n further response to y our inquiry , I can’ t locate a ny thing other

than the I nformations that I

rec eived via e mail on May 4th and the most rec ent re ceive d via CM/ECF on Sept 15. Never theless, althoug h serve d on defe nse counse l, the I nformation(s) must be “filed” prior to trial and, in this case , that doesn’t
appea r to have happene d.

The Septembe r 16, 2009 ema il did not refer ence the second information, contra

ry to the district court’s sug g estion.

The district cour

t declined to pronounc e an a lternate sentenc e, stating , “[I ]f the Court of 8 Appea ls for some re ason thinks that the 851 enhanc ement isn’t appr opriate, I think I would look
at sentenc ing a

new r ather

than try to announce an alter

nat[e] s entenc e now.”

1112 70
, 12 80 (1 1t h Ci r. 20 06 ). Cl ear erro r rev ie w is “ ve ry de fere nt ia l an d we wil l no t

rev ers e th e di st ric t co ur t un le ss we f i n d t ha t aft er m ak in g al l cred ib il it y ch oi ces in

fav or of th e fact -fi nd er an d rev ie win g th e reco rd as a who le
, it is cl ear th at a m is ta ke

ha s be en m ad e.” Co mmod it y Fut ur es Tr ad in g Co mm’n v. Gib ra lt ar Mon et ar y Co rp .,

In c. , 57 5 F.3 d 11 80
, 11 86 (1 1t h Ci r. 20 09 ). “ Und er cl e a r erro r rev ie w, th e di st ric t

co ur t’s de te rm in at io n m

us t be affi rm ed so lo ng as it is pl au si bl e in li gh t of th e reco rd

rev ie wed in it s en ti ret y .” Id

. “ W e rev ie w th e di st ric t co ur t’s ru li ng on ad m is si on of

ev id en ce fo r ab us e of di sc ret io n.” Uni te d St at es v. Ji min ez , 22 4 F.3 d 1 24 3, 12 49

(1 1t h C ir. 2 00 0)

.
Que st io ns reg ard in g su ffi ci en cy of th e ev id en ce ar e r e v ie wed de no vo ,

res ol vi ng al l reas on ab le in fere nc es in fav or of th e ve rd ic t. Uni te d St at es v. Na ra nj o ,

63 4 F.3 d 11 98
, 12 06 (1 1t h Ci r. 20 11 ) (in te rn al qu ot at io n m ark s an d c i ta ti on s

om it te d)

. “ W e can no t di st ur b th e ve rd ic t un le ss no tri er of fact co ul d ha ve fo un d gu il t

be y on d a reas on ab le do ub t.” Id

. (in te rn al qu ot at io n m ark s an d c it at io ns om it te d)

.

“ Eve n whe re in di vi du al jud ic ia l erro rs or pr os ecu to ria l m is co nd uc t m ay no t be

su ffi ci en t to warra nt rev ers al al on e, we m ay co ns id er th e cu m ul at iv e effe ct s of erro rs

t o d e t e rm in e if th e de fen da nt ha s be en de ni ed a fai r tri al .” Uni te d St at es v. Lo pe z ,

59 0 F.3 d 12 38
, 12 58 (1 1t h Ci r. 20 09 ), cer t. d e n i e d
, 1 3 1 S. Ct

. 41 3 (2 01 0)

. “ In

a d d r e s s i n g a cl ai m of cu m ul at iv e erro r, we m

us t ex am in e th e tri al as a who le to

12de te rm in e whe t h e r t h e ap pe ll an t was affo rd ed a fu nd am en ta ll y fai r tri al .” Uni te d

St at es v. Ca ld er on , 1 27 F.3 d 13 14 , 1 33 3 (1 1t h Ci r. 19 97 ). The re is no cu m ul at iv e

e r r o r whe re th e de fen da nt “ can no t es ta bl is h th at th e co m bi ne d erro rs affe ct e d h i s

s ub st an ti al rig ht s.” Uni te d St at es v. Fol ey , 50 8 F.3 d 62 7, 63 8 (1 1t h Ci r. 20 07 ).

Ass es si ng cu m

ul at iv e erro r, th e co ur t rev ie ws al l erro rs pr es erv ed fo r ap pe al an d al l

pl ai n e rro rs

. Uni te d S ta te s v. Ba ker , 43 2 F .3d 11 89 , 12 23 (11 th Cir . 20 05 ).

F in al ly, li ti ga nt s m

us t “ m ak e al l th ei r ob

jecti on s to a se nt en ci ng c o u r t ’s

fin di ng s of fact
, co nc lu si on s o f l a w , a n d th e m an ne r in whi ch th e se nt en ce was

im po se d at th e i n i t i a l s e nt en ci ng he ari ng .” Uni te d St at es v. Ca nt y , 57 0 F.3 d 12 51
,

12 57 ( 1 1 th Ci r. 20 09 ) (in te rn al ci ta ti on om it te d)

. The refo re, “ rem an d fo r fu rth er

pr oc eed in gs is in ap pr op ria te whe n th e is su e was be fo re th e co ur t an d th e pa rti es ha d

an op po rtu ni ty to i nt ro du ce re le va nt ev id en ce.” Id

. (in te rn al cit at io n o m it te d)

.

II I.

Our an al y si s fo cu se s on th e qu es ti on whe th er the Gov ern m en t co m pl ie d wit h

th e pr oc ed ur al req ui rem en ts of 21 U.S.C. § 85 1( a)(1 ) in or de r fo r th e di st ric t co ur t to

13im

po se a m an da to ry te rm of li fe im pr is on m en t. Lad so n co nt en ds th at ne it he r he no r

9

hi s tri al co un se l was se rv ed be fo re tri al wit h a co py of an in fo rm at io n refe ren ci ng two

pr io r fel on y dr

ug co nv ic ti on s, an d th at se rv ic e of th e th ird in fo rm at io n by el ect ro ni c

fil in g on Sep te m

be r 15
, 20 09
, was to o la te be cau se i t o c c u rred m or e th an a m on th

aft er th e co nc lu si on of hi s se co nd tri al in Aug us t 20 09

. La d s o n a s se rts th at th e

di st ric t co ur t’s su m

m ari zi ng , in op en co ur t, th e co nt en t of th e se co nd in fo rm at io n was

L adson’s suff

iciency of the e vidence and cumulative e rror arg uments lack mer it. As to 9 the suffic iency

of the e vidence , the quantum of e vidence of g uilt as to each c ount rises well above the “no trier

of fa ct” standa

rd of Naranjo . 634 F.3d a t 1206. The evide nce w as suffic ient to support his convictions on Count s I , I I , and I V. On Count I , a re asonable jury could have found bey ond a re asonable doubt that there w as a c onspiracy betwee n L adson and his brothe r to sell coca ine base , coca ine, ec stasy , and mar ijuana on the ba sis that: (1) L adson’s brothe r ra n the “drug hole” a t 4620 North Miami Avenue; ( 2) ag ents rec orded se ventee n telephone c onversa tions in which L adson and his brothe r discussed diff ere nt aspec ts of the drug business; (3) L adson confe ssed to selling c ocaine base, c ocaine , and mar ijuana for his brother in 2007; (4) in F ebrua ry 2008, L adson wa s observe d conducting two separ ate sa les of coc aine ba se fr om the 4620 drug hole; (5) L adson cooke d coca ine to make c ocaine base a nd prepa red c ocaine base f

or sale; a nd (6) whe n his brother wa s incarc era ted in 2007, L adson over saw the 4620 dr ug hole and wa s the only person pr epar ing dr

ug s for sale

. On Count I I , a re asonable jury could have found bey ond a re asonable doubt that L adson knowing ly

possessed a c ontrolled substance with intent to dis tribute on the basis that: (1) he was

awa re of the coc aine ba se, coc aine, a nd marijuana , which we re loc ated in the ope n throug hout the residenc e, whe re he had bee n the sole occ upant for f our conse cutive day s; (2) he ha d dominion and contr ol over the r esidenc e; and ( 3) the drug s were packa g ed for distribution. On Count I V, a r easona

ble jury could have found bey ond a re asonable doubt that L adson possessed the f

irea rm bec ause he had dominion and control ove r the be droom, there was a firea rm on the floor ne x t to the bed and ammuniti on on the bed, a nd investiga tors found L adson’s fing erpr int on the firea

rm’s mag azine. After car eful re view of the rec ord, we further find no cumulative e rror

that aff ecte d L adson’s substantial rig hts in li g ht of the other ove rwhe lming evide nce a g ainst him. Fed. R. Crim. P. 52(a); United States v. Hands , 184 F.3d 1322, 1329 ( 11th Cir. 1999) (er ror is har mless wher e it has no substantial influence on the outcome of the ca se and the re w as suffic ient evidenc e uninfe cted by

err or to support the ver dict). F urther, w e find that L adson wa s not denied a fa ir trial.

14in su ffi ci en t to co m pl y wit h th e se rv ic e req ui rem en t of § 85 1. He arg ue s th at al th ou gh

th e Gov ern m en t an d th e di st ric t co ur t sp ecu la te d at se nt en ci ng as to whe th er he or hi s

tri al co un se l rece iv ed a co py of th e se co nd in fo rm at io n, th ere is no ev id en ce in th e

reco rd th at he or hi s co un se l was se rv ed un ti l th e t hi rd in fo rm at io n ap pe ared on

CM/ ECF on Sep te m

be r 15
, 20 09

. He arg ue s th at be cau se th e di st ric t co ur t erre d by

ap pl y in g th e § 85 1 se nt en ce e n h a n c e men t whe n th e Gov ern m en t fai le d to st ric tl y

co m pl y wit h th e fil in g an d se rv ic e pr ov is io ns of th e st at ut e, he sh ou ld be res en te nc ed

wit ho ut th e § 85 1 se nt en ce en h a n c e m en t. The Gov ern m en t arg ue s th at th e reco rd

su pp or ts th e di st ric t co ur t’s co nc lu si on th at th e se co nd in fo rm at io n was se rv ed be fo re

tr ia l ba se d on Lad so n’s kn owl ed ge of th e se co nd in fo rm at io n an d ot he r ci rcu m st antia l

ev id en ce o f se rv ic e. 1 0

Sect io n 84 1( b) (1 ) pr es cri be s en ha nc ed se nt en ces fo r reci di vi st dr ug of fen de rs

.

To ob ta in a se nt e n c e e n h a n cem en t un de r § 84 1( b) (1 ) ba se d on a de fen da nt ’s pr io r

fel on y dr ug co nv ic ti on (s ), th e go ve rn m en t m us t co m pl y wit h § 85 1( a)(1 ). S e c t i o n

85 1( a)(1 ) pr ov id es in pe rti ne nt pa rt:

No pe rs on who st an ds co nv ic te d of an of fen se un de r th is pa rt s h a l l be

se nt en ced to in crea se d pu ni sh m en t b y reas on of on e or m or e pr io r

c o n v i ct io ns , un le ss be fo re tri al
, . . . th e Uni te d St at es at to rn ey fi l e s a n in fo rm at io n wit h th e co ur t (an d se rv es a co py of su ch in fo rm at io n on th e

Our a naly sis is aided materially by g ood briefing and ora l arg ument from counse l on 1 0 both sides.

15pe rs on or co un se l fo r th e pe rs on ) st at in g in writ i n g t h e pr ev io us

co nv ic ti on s t o b e rel ie d u po n.

S e ct io n 85 1( a)(1 ) co nt ai ns bo th a fil in g an d se rv ic e req ui rem en t, an d i t i s

“ ph ras ed in m an da to ry la ng ua ge .” Uni te d St at es v. No la nd
, 49 5 F.2 d 52 9, 53 3 (5 th 1 1

Ci r. 19 74 ). Tod ay , we ho ld th at th e st at ut or y la ng ua ge of § 85 1( a)(1 ) req ui res th e

1 2

I n Harris , we he ld that, “eve n wher e a de fenda nt rec eives a ctual notice tha t the 1 1
g overnme nt intends to rely on a pre vious conviction to enhanc e his sentenc e, the district cour t lacks jurisdiction to impose an enha nced se ntence until

the g overnme nt files an informa tion as require d under § 851.” 149 F.3d a t 1307. The jurisdictional aspec t of Harris is in doubt i n light of later decisions of the Supre me Court holding that “ jurisdiction[ ]” is the authority of a c ourt to adjudicate a “c lass[] of ca ses.” Eberhart v. United States , 546 U.S. 12, 16 (2005); Kontrick v. Ryan , 540 U.S. 443, 455 (2004). Howe ver, w e ar e not re quired to dete rmine in this appeal whether the notice r equire ments of sec tion 851(a)( 1) ar e jurisdictional. We do not equate the term “a uthority ” with “jurisdiction.”

I n Bonner v. City of Prichard , 661 F.2d 1206, 1209 ( 11th Cir. 1981) ( en banc ), we 1 2 adopted a s binding pre cede nt all decisions of the for mer F ifth Circuit handed down be fore October 1, 1981.

16Gov ern m en t to st ric tl y co m pl y wit h th e se rv ic e r e q u i r em en t be fo re tri al

. The 1 3

de fe n da nt ’s act ua l no ti ce of th e Gov ern m en t’s fil in g of an in fo rm at io n do es no t

ob vi at e th e Gov ern m en t’s st at ut or y ob li ga ti on un de r § 8 51 (a)( 1) to se rv e a co py o f

th e in fo rm at io n on th e de fen da nt or hi s or he r co un se l be fo re tri al

. Se e No la nd
, 49 5

F.2 d at 53 3 (“ The Gov ern m en t’s arg um en t th at [th e de fen da nt ] was no t su rp ris ed by

th e en ha nc ed se nt en c e c a r r i es no weig ht in th e face of th e pl ai n wor ds of [§

85 1( a)(1 )].”). The Gov ern m en t be ars th e bu rd en of pr ov in g it s st ric t co m pl ia nc e wit h

th e pr oc ed ur al req ui rem en ts of § 85 1( a)(1 ). Se e Uni te d St at es v. Her na nd ez , 14 5 F.3 d

14 33
, 14 40 (1 1t h Ci r. 19 98 ) (“ The bu rd en of pr oo f fo r es ta b l i s h i ng th at a se nt en ce

The Gove rnment does not cite or arg ue that United States v. Cev allos ( Cevallos I ), 538 1 3 F.2d 1122 ( 5th Cir. 1976) should play a role in our dec ision. I n any event, Cevallos I

is distinguishable f

rom this case. In Cevallos I , the forme r F ifth Circuit held that the
uncontrove rted e vidence left no doubt that the district court c ould impli edly conclude that a
sentenc e enha

nceme nt filed befor e the de fenda nt’s g uilty

plea wa s proper ly

serve d on the defe ndant despite the a

bsence of a c ertificate of ser vice. Id. at 1123-24, 1126. Tha t uncontrove rted e vidence included Mr. Ceva llos’s plea colloquy and plea ag ree ment, in which he acknow ledg ed the f

iling of the information. Fur ther, the F ifth Circuit observed tha t it was the
reg ular pra ctice of

the United States Attorney ’s offic e to hand the inf ormation to defe nse counse l at the time of filing

. Id. at 1126 n.7. The pre sent ca se is easily distinguishable on two f

ronts. First, this case does not prese nt an uncontr overte d rec ord of se rvice . Second, Cevallos I does not stand for the proposition that a defe ndant’s knowledg e alone is sufficient to establish § 851(a )(1) compliance , beca use such a holding would be in conflict with Noland

. See 495 F.2d a t 533 (holding tha t where the
g overnme nt failed to file a n information bef

ore tria l, y et the def

endant kne w he c ould be subject to an enha

nced se ntence as ea

rly as his arr aig nment, such knowledg e or la ck of sur prise did not equate to compliance w ith § 851); accord United States v. Olson , 716 F.2d 850, 853- 54 (11th Cir. 1983) (vac ating a sente nce e nhance ment wher e the district cour t relied on the de fenda

nt’s
actua l knowledg e of his status as a “multiple offende r” to e stablish § 851(a)( 1) complianc e and expressly aff irming Cevallos I

). We do not rea d Cevallos I to contradic t Noland

.

17en ha nc em en t is warra nt ed li es wit h t h e p r o s e cu ti on an d it is th e du ty o f th e di st ric t

co ur t t o i ns ur e th at th e p ro se cu ti on carri es it s b ur de n o f pr oo f.”).

It i s n ot ap pa ren t fr om

th e rec or d wh et he r th e d is tri ct co ur t m ad e a fin di ng at

La d so n’s se nt en ci ng th at Lad so n or hi s tri al co un se l was se rv ed wit h a co py of th e

se co nd in fo rm at io n be fo re tri al

. Alt ho ug h Fed eral Ru le of Cri m in al Pro ced ur e

32 (i) (3 ) req ui res su ch a f i n d i n g , t he reco rd do es no t al lo w us to co nc lu de th at th e

di st ric t co ur t co m

pl ie d wit h th at ru le

. Fed

. R. Cri m

. P. 32 (i) (3 ) (“ At se nt en ci ng , th e

co ur t: (A) m ay acce pt an y un di sp ut ed po rti on of th e pr es en te nc e rep or t as a fin di ng

of fact ; [a nd ] (B) m

us t – for an y di sp ut ed po rti on of th e p res en te nc e rep or t o r ot he r

co nt ro ve rte d m at te r – ru le on th e di sp ut e

. . . . ” ) On ba la nc e, it do es no t m at te r

whe th er th e co ur t m ad e a f i n di ng pu rs ua nt to Ru le 32

. Eve n if it ha d, we wou ld

rev ers e be cau se th e reco rd wou l d no t su pp or t su ch a fin di ng un de r an y st an da rd of

rev ie w.

To be gi n, th e Gov ern m en t pr od uc ed no ev id e n ce or te st im on y at Lad so n’s

se nt en ci ng to pro ve th at it ha d s erv ed th e se co nd in fo rm at io n on Lad so n or h is tri al

co un se l be fo re tri al . In fa ct , th e Gov ern m en t re pe at ed ly con fes se d t ha t i t co ul d no t

rem em be r whe th er it h ad ha nd ed a co py of th e se co nd in fo rm at io n to Lad so n or his

trial co un se l. Fu rth er, th e Pres en te nc e In ve st ig at io n Rep or t co nt ai ne d no fa ct ua l ba sis

18de sc rib in g ho w or whe n th e se co nd in fo rm at io n w a s s e r v ed on Lad so n or hi s tri al

co un se l

. I n r es po ns e to Lad so n’s se rv ic e ob jecti on , th e pr ob at io n of

fic er ad m it te d

th at “ th e [s erv ic e] is su e rem ai ns un res ol ve d,” an d “ th e pr ob at io n of fic er de fers to th e

Co ur t reg ard in g whe th er th e en ha nc em en t is va li d.” In th e f a c e o f t ha t reco rd
, th e

di st ric t co ur t refu se d, in it s di sc ret io n, to al lo w Lad so n’s tri al co un se l to te st ify on th e

is su e of se rv ic e of th e se co nd in fo rm at io n. Giv en Lad so n’s se rv ic e ob jecti on , th e

ab se nc e of in fo rm at io n pe rti ne nt to se rv ic e in th e Pres en te nc e In ve st ig at io n Rep or t,

an d th e fai lu re to pr od uc e an y e v i d e n c e of se rv ic e at Lad so n’s se nt en ci ng , th e

Gov ern m en t fai le d to fu lfi ll it s bu rd en of pr oo f of es ta bl is hi ng th e di st ric t co ur t’s

au th or it y to im po se a § 8 51 sen te nc e en ha nc em en t.

Fu rth er, th e di st ric t co ur t’s st at e d r e a s o ns fo r de nyin g Lad so n’s se rv ic e

ob jecti on di d no t fil l th e ev id en ti ary vo id le ft by th e Gov ern m en t. The di st ric t co ur t’s

st at ed reas on s fo r de nyin g Lad so n’s o bjec ti on were (1 ) it s be li ef th at Lad so n or hi s

tri al co un se l was se rv ed ; (2 ) th e Se p t e mb e r 16
, 20 09 em ai l fro m Lad so n’s tri al

co un se l th at “ su gg es t[e d]” se rv ic e; an d (3 ) Lad so n’s act ua l kn owl ed ge of th e se co nd

in fo rm at io n. We add res s t he di st ric t co ur t’s s ta te d b as es in tu rn

.

F i r s t , t h e di st ric t co ur t’s be li ef th at Lad so n or hi s tri al co un se l was se rv ed

ba se d on it s own reco ll ect io n of th e ev en ts of M a y 12
, 20 09
, was no t ev id en ce of

19se rv ic e. Su ch a be li ef was no t in fo rm ed by ad m is si bl e ev id en ce or te st im on y , no r was

it a fa c t a pp ro pr ia te fo r jud ic ia l no ti ce. Se e Fed

. R. Evi d. 20 1( b) (“ A jud ic ia ll y

no ti ced fact m

us t be on e no t su bjec t to reas on ab le di sp ut e in th at it is

. . . cap ab le of

accu rat e an d read y de te rm in at io n by res or t to so ur ces who se accu racy can no t

reas on ab ly be q ue st io ne d.” ).

Seco nd
, th e su pp l e ment at io n of th e Pres en te nc e In ve st ig at io n Rep or t wit h

Lad so n’s tri al co un se l’s Sep te m be r 16
, 20 09 em ai l di d no t ad d an y rel ev an t ev id en ce

t h a t La ds on or hi s tri al co un se l was in fact se rv ed wit h a co py of th e s e c o n d

in fo rm at io n be fo re tri al

. Se e Fed

. R. Cri m

. P. 32 (i) (3 )(C)

. The di st ric t co ur t fo cu se d

on th e le ga l arg um en t in th e em ai l th at read
, “ Nev ert he le ss , al th ou gh se rv ed on

de fen se co un se l, th e In fo rm at io n( s) m us t be ‘file d’ pr io r to tri al an d, in th is cas e, th at

do es n’t ap pe ar to ha ve ha pp en ed

. ” I n so do in g, th e di st ric t co ur t di d no t cred it

Lad so n’s tri al c o u n s e l ’s st at em en t in th e em ai l co nc ern in g th e do cu m en ts he ha d

act ua ll y rece iv ed
, whi ch were th e fir st an d th ird in fo rm at io ns

. Not hi ng in th at em ai l

co nt ai ns pl au si bl e, rel ev an t ev id en ce th at th e se co nd in fo rm at io n was se rv ed be fo re

tr ia l
, an d it is th e se co nd in fo rm at io n up on whi ch th e Gov ern m en t rel ie s fo r se rv ic e

pu rs ua nt to § 8 51 (a)( 1)

.

20Thi rd
, it was erro r to co nc lu de th at an or al su m m ary of th e se co nd in fo rm at io n

in op en co ur t an d Lad so n’s act ua l kn owl ed ge of th e fil in g of th e se co nd in fo rm at io n

were va li d su bs ti tu te s fo r se rv ic e of a co py of a § 85 1 s e n t e n c e en ha nc em en t. Se e

No la nd
, 49 5 F.2 d at 53 3 (§ 8 5 1 i nf or m at io n fil ed on e da y aft er se nt en ci ng di d no t

sa tis fy § 851( a) (1) fil in g req ui rem en t, no twi th st an di ng th at th e de fen da nt was ad vi se d

of en ha nc ed li m it s of pu ni sh m en t at arra ig nm en t an d di d no t co nt es t th e v al id it y of

hi s pr io r co nv ic ti on at se nt en ci ng ). A c c o r di ng ly, read in g or su m m ari zi ng a § 85 1

in fo rm at io n in op en co ur t is no t “ se rv [ic e of ] a co py” su ffi ci en t fo r st ric t co m pl ia nc e

wit h § 85 1( a)(1 ). Se e Fed

. R. Ci v. P. 5( b) (rea di ng in op en co ur t is no t a pe rm is si bl e

m et ho d of se rv ic e in Ru le 5( b) ); Uni te d St at es v. No va to n , 27 1 F.3 d 96 8, 10 16 (1 1t h

Ci r. 20 01 ) (Ser vi ce of a § 85 1 se nt en ce en ha nc em en t m us t co m pl y wit h Fed eral Ru le

of Cri m in al Pro ced ur e 49 (b ), in co nju nc ti on wit h Fed eral Ru le of Ci vi l Pro ced ur e

5( b) .). Bec au se th e Gov ern m en t fai le d to se rv e Lad so n wit h a co py of th e se co nd

in fo rm at io n bef

or e hi s s eco nd tri al co m

m en ced on Aug us t 3 , 20 09
, in co m pl ia nc e 1 4

wit h § 85 1( a)(1 ), th e di st ric t co ur t la ck ed au th or it y to en ha nc e hi s se nt en ce un de r th e

se co nd in fo rm at io n o n C ou nt s I a nd II o f th e se co nd su pe rs ed in g i nd ic tm en t.

United States v. W

illiams , 59 F.3d 1180, 1185- 86 (11th Cir. 1995), stands for the 1 4 proposition that in cases involving multiple trials of the sa me def endant, a § 851 sentenc e enhanc ement must be filed a nd serve d once be fore trial, but not re-f iled and re -ser

ved bef ore

eac h and eve ry

trial.

21Fi na ll y , gi ve n th e Gov ern m en t’s o p p o s it io n to rem an d fo r an ev id en ti ary

he ari ng an d it s pr ev io us op po rtu ni ty “ to of fe r ev id en ce an d se ek ru li ng s fro m th e

s e n t e n c in g co ur t in su pp or t of an en ha nc ed se nt en ce,” rem an d fo r a he ari ng o n t h e

is su e of se rv ic e of th e se co nd in fo rm at io n is in ap pr op ria te

. Ca nt y , 57 0 F.3 d at 12 57

.

IV.

W e AFFIR M th e jud gm en t of co nv ic ti on on Co un ts I, II, an d IV of th e se co nd

su pe rs ed in g in di ct m en t. W e VACATE t h e se nt en ce on Co un ts I an d II, an d 1 5

REMAND fo r res en te nc in g on Co un ts I an d II wit ho ut th e § 8 5 1 s e n t e nc e

en ha nc em en t u nd er t he sec on d i nf or m at io n.

AFFIR MED in pa rt, VACATED an d R EMANDED in pa rt.

Mr. L adson only

challeng es his conviction, not his sentence , on Count I V. 1 5

22