## In the



# U n ited S ta tes Co urt o f Ap p ea ls

F o rth eS e v e n th C ir cu it
N o. 07

- 3399 U NI T ED S TATE S OF A MERI CA, P la intif f-A pp ellee, v. B RANDON L. S I NG L E T ON, D ef endant-Appellant.

A pp eal from the United S t ates Di strictC our t fo r the S outhernDi stricto f Illino is. No . 07 C R 30030

—Mi ch ael J . Reagan, Judge
.
A RG UE D A PRI L 16, 2008

— D ECIDED N OVE MBE R 24, 2008

Befo reE A ST E RB ROO K, Chief Ju dg e, an d W OOD and W IL L IAMS, C ircu it Judges . W I L L I A MS, Cir cu i tJudg e . Br an do n S i ng leton was c o nv i c t e d o fo n e c o u n to fd i s t r ib u t i n gfi v e o r m o r e g r a ms ofcr ack coca i ne. On app eal, he c on tend s that the di str i ct cour t e rr ed b y hol ding hi m r esponsibl e f oruncharg ed c o nd uc ttha twa s n o ts uffi c i e nt l y r e l a t e d t o the c onduct f orwh i ch he was co nvi cted. S in gle ton al so ar gues that r e s e n t e n c i n gi s a p p r o p r i a t e b e c a u s e o fth e S u p r e me2 N o. 07

- 3399 C our t’ s dec i si o n i n K im bro ug h v . U nited Sta tes, 1 2 8 S

. Ct. 55 8, 169 L.Ed. 2d 481 ( 2007 ) , w here the cour t hel d that a dist ri ct c ourtj ud ge can t ake the cra ck/ coca i ne powd er dispar i ty in to consi derat i on i n deci ding w hetherto im p ose a below -guid eli ne s sen ten ce. W e rej ect Singleton ’s argu m en t tha t the un c h arged cond uc t w as no t suffi c i e n t l y r e l a t e d t o h i s ch ar g e d o ff e n s e s , b u tb e c a u s e we cannot deter m in e whether the di str i ct c ourtwould have ta k e n th e c r a c k/ c o c a i n e p o wd e r d i s p a r i t y i n t o a c c o u nt ats en tenci ngha d i t no t be enc o ns tr aine d b y o ur pre- Kim b r ough p re c e d e n ts , w e re ve rs e a n d rem an d th is c a s e f o r S i ng l e t o n t o b e r e s e nt e nc e d.

I . B AC KGR OUND On Se ptem ber1, 20 06, a confi denti ali nfo rm ant c oo perat
ing w ith law enforcem en t m a d e a con troll ed bu y of a qua r te r o unc e o fc r ac kc o ca i ne fr o m S i ng l et o n. The i nc i den t o cc ur r ed be hi nd a ho us i ngdupl ex in Al to n, I l l i no i s, a nd w as vi deotaped. The d rugs thatthe confi denti also urce p u rc h as ed w er e an a l y z e d a n d fo u n d t o co n ta in 6. 6 g ra m s o fco cai ne bas e. On F eb r ua r y 2 3, 2 00 7, S i nglet o n was c ha r g ed wi tho ne co unto fd ist r ibut i ngfi ve g r ams o r mor e o fc r ac kc o ca i ne i n v i o l a t i o n o f21 U. S

. C. § § 8 4 1 ( a ) ( 1 ) a nd ( b ) ( 1 ) ( B)

. On M ay 21 , 2 007, S i ngl eto n ple d gui l ty to the c harg e w itho utthe b en efi t o fa pl ea a g r ee m en t. Pr i o r t o s en ten cing, th e Proba tion O ffice fil ed a prese nt en ce rep ort ( “P S R” ) tha t det ai l ed S i ng l et on’s r el ev an t co nduc t. I n the PSR, the proba ti on offi cerexp l ai ned that i n 200 0, S i ngl eto n sta rt ed sel l i ng crackto Donal d M cCrady, a chi l dh oo dN o. 07

- 3399 3 f r i en d. I ni ti al l y , S i ng l et o n a nd M cC r adys ta r te d s el l i ng crac kc o ca i ne t o g ethe r whenthe y wer e i n the i r t ee ns , b ut M cCrady was caught and sent to sta te p ris on atag e ei ghtee n. W hen M cCrady was r el eas ed i n Octobe r of 2000 , he purchas ed approxi m ate l y o ne to two ounces o f cra ck coca i ne perweek fr om S i ngl eto n. These pu rchas es to o kpl ac e o ve r the ne xtfi ve weeks unt i l he was c au g ht an d wentt o pr i so n a g ain. F o r the ne xts i x y ea r s, when

eve r M cCrady was not i n pri son, he pu rc h as ed one to two o unc es pe r wee ko fc r ac kc o ca i ne fr o m S i ng l et o n. T he ori ginal prese nt en ce rep ort a d d ed a llof Singleton’s drug sa l e s t o McC r a dy u s i ngthe t wo o un c e p e r wee k am ou nt i n ord er to calculate rele v a nt cond uc t. H ow ever, the pr obat i on o ffice r did notta ke M cCrady’ s pri son ter m s i nto acco unt as ti m es w hen he w ou ld n ot have been abl e t o p urchase drugs f ro m S i ngl eto n. There f or e, the pr obat i on o ffi cercal cul ate d that 1 2, 247 gr am s o f cra ck coca i ne co uld be at tr ibuted to S i ngl eto n as re l evantco nd uct f orthe purpose o fse ntenci ng. S i ng l et o n fi l ed a f o r m alo bj ec ti o n t o the PS R, s ta ting that M cCrady was i n pri son du ring sevente en to ei g ht ee n months o fthe r el ev an t ti m e per i o d a nd tha t th e tot alam ount o fcr ack att ributed to S i ngl eto n shoul d be l o we r e d a c c o r di ng l y . He fur the r argue d tha tMcC r a dy was no t a r el i ab l e wi tn es s an d the r efo r e th e g over nm en t co ul d no t m ee t i ts b ur deno fpr o vi ngr el ev an t conduct. I n re sponse, the prob ati on o ffi cersubtr acte d ei g ht ee n months o f dr ug sa l es o ut o f th e to ta l amoun t an d c on c lu d ed t h a t 8 ,16 4 g ra m s o f cr ac k c oc ain e w er e s till att ributabl e to Si ngl eto n. There was no r esul ti ng eff ect4 N o. 07

- 3399
on the gui del i ne cal cul atio n b ecause any drug sa l es ove r 1, 500 gr am s r esul ts i n an o ff ense l eve l o f38
. At the s en te nc i nghearing, M cCr adyt es ti fi ed th athe pu rchas ed one to tw o ounces ofcr ack coca i ne fro m S i ngl eton e v e r y we e k tha t he wa s no t i n pr i s o n f r o m 20 00 thr o ugh 2 0 0 6

. De f e ns e c o un s e l c r o s s - e xa mi ned M c Cr a dy ab ou t h is c rim in al his to ry , h is dr u g an d alc oh ol ab u se , his dysl exi a, and hi s pri son ti m e. S i ngl eto n ar gued that M cCr adywas no t r el i ab l e o r c r edibl e an d tha t he shoul d onl y b e s entence d fo r th e 6

. 6 g ra m s that he ple d gui l ty to dist ributi ng. Th e g o v e r nme ntc o nt e nd e d tha tthe a r g ume nts p resen ted by the de fense at t h e s en ten cing h earing w ere m ate ri al l y di ff er ent fro m the pr offerthatS i ngl eto n sig n ed , in th at Sin gle to n h im se lf ha d ad m itt e d t o s ign ifica nt l y higher number s o fdr ugs al es , s o the g o ve r nm en t so u gh t p er m iss ion to en te r Sin gle to n ’s p ro ffer int o e vidence. The j ud ge agr eed thati t w as inconsi ste nt f orS i ngl eto n to a r g ue tha t he was o nl y r es po ns ibl e f o r di st r ibut i ng 6. 6 g ra m s o fcr ack w h en h e ind i cate d i n the proff erthat he was re sponsibl e f ordi str ibuting a si gni fi cantl y g re ate r am ount. The co urt adm i tte d the pro ff eri nto evi dence. B ased on Singleton’s ow n sta tem e n ts in the proffer, the g ove rnm ent a rg ued that he was re sponsibl e f ordi str ibut i nga t l ea st 3,3 26 g r ams o fc r ac kdur i ngthe r el ev an t ti m e per i od (20 00 -2006 )

. The co urt concl ud ed that Si ngl eto n’ s dr ugs al es t o M cCr adyco ns ti tu te d r el ev an t conduct and that M cCrady’ s t est i m ony w as cre dibl e.N o. 07

- 3399 5 The cour t then sum m ar i ze d the ca l cul ati ons ofS i ngl eto n ’s drug tr ansact i ons and sett l ed on a r el evantco nd uct tot alo f5, 124 gr am s, r esul ti ng i n an o ff ense l eve l o f38 w hi ch car ri es an advi sor y guidel i nes r an ge o f21 0- 262 m onths. S i ng let on w as sente nced at the l ow end o f the guidel i nes, 21 0 m onths, and he a pp eal s.

II. A N A L Y S IS A . Th e dist r i ct cour t did not er ri n it s r el eva nt c ondu ct c a l c ul a t i o n. W e r evi ew the dist ri ct c ourt ’s d rug quanti ty fi nd i ngs at se n te n c in g for cle ar err or . Uni t e d S t at e s v . S m it h , 30 8 F
. 3d 72 6, 745 ( 7th C ir. 2 00 2)

. W e wi l l no t o ve r tu r n the factu al find ings o f t h e d istri ct cou rt un less w e are ”left w i th the defi ni te and fi rm co nvi cti on that a m i sta ke h as b e en m ad e” by th e d ist ric t c ou rt
. U ni t e d S t at e s v. B enne tt, 461 F.3d 910 , 912 (7th C ir. 2006).

1. R el eva nt condu ct and cr edibi l i ty d et er m i nat i o ns The U ni ted S tat es Se ntenci ng Guidel i nes ( “U

. S. S. G.” ) § 1 B 1.3 p ro vid es th at rele va n t c on d u c t in c lu d es all acts and om issi ons com m itted by th e d efend an t, th at w ere p a r to fth e s a me c o u r s e o fc o n d u c t o r c o mmo n s c h e me o r pl ana s th e off ens e o fc o nv i ct i o n. Her e, the g o ve r nm ent a rg ues that S i ngl eto n’s sa les to M cCrady co nsti tute a patt er n ofco nti nuous drug t ra ffi cki ng tha t i s p ar t of the sam e cours e o fco nd uct as the charg ed off ense. S i ngl e-6 N o. 07

- 3399
ton m ai ntai ns, however, that the gov er nm ent intro du ced no e v i d e n c e l i n k i n g th e S e p t e mb e r 1 , 2 0 0 6 s a l e to t he confi denti ali nfo rm an t (forwh i ch he was char ged) to the M cCrady s al es. H e a rg ues th at the gov er nm ent, th erefore, f ail ed to show a conn ection that w o u ld j us tify hol ding Si ngl eto n re sponsibl e fo r thi s unchar ged co nd uct. SeeU nite d State s v. R uiz , 17 8 F
. 3d 877, 88 2 ( 7th Ci r. 19 99) ( fi nd i ng tha t the char ged o ff enses di d not a m ount t o relevan t con d uc t beca us e the pa rtici p an ts w ere d if

ferent an d there w as a tw o-year gap i n th e activity). The go ve r nm en t ca n pro ve re l ev an t co nduc t bys ho wi ng th at offe n se s a r e p a rtof th e s am e c ou rs e o f co n d u c t if they ar e “ part o f a si ngl e e pis ode, spre e o r ongo i ng se ri es o fo ff enses . ” U nite d State s v. O rt iz , 43 1 F

. 3d 1035 , 10 40 ( 7 th Ci r . 2 0 0 5 )

. I n a s s e s s i ngwh e the r o ff e ns e s a r e p a r to f the s am e co urse o fco nd uct, the cour t l oo ks at w hether ther e i s a s trong re l ati onshi p between the uncharge d cond u c t and the convi cted o ff ense, a re l ati onshi p that the g ove rn m ent c an dem onst ra te by showing “a s i g n i fi c a n ts i mi l a r i t y , r e g u l a r i t y , a n d t e mp o r a l p r o x i mi ty. ” Id. (i nt erna l citations om itted ). H er e, there i s s uffi ci ent e vi dence thatS i ngl eto n re gul ar l y engage d i n drug s al es. W e defi ne r egul ar i ty as “r epe at ed ac ts o r e ve nt s t hat ta k e pl ac e atfi xe d a nd ce r ta i n i nt er va l s o r i n ac co r dan ce wi th th e sam e con si ste nt or peri odi cal rul e o r pract i ce. ” U nited Sta tes v. Sy k es , 7 F
. 3d 1331 , 13 37 ( 7th Ci r. 19 93) ( i nter nal quotat i on m ar ks om i tte d). M cCrady tes ti fi ed that he pu rchas ed cr ack coca i ne fro m S i ngl eto n ove r diff er ent t i m e per i ods fro m Febr uary 20 00 unti l J uly20 06 (o r M ay 2006 acc or ding toN o. 07

- 3399 7 Si ngl eto n), and the off en se forwh i ch Singl eto n w as charg ed too k pla ce tw o to f our m onths after hi s l ast do c ume nt e d s a l e t o McC r a dy

. Se eU ni t e d S t at e s v. Ze hm , 217 F. 3d 506, 51 2 ( 7th Ci r. 20 00) ( sta ti ng tha t “ [ drug] pu rchas es p re d ati ng co nvi cted s al es m ay be c onsi dered relevan t con d uc t”). A l t h ou gh th er e is a ga p be tw ee n Sin gle to n ’s la st sa le to M cCrad y a nd hi s s al e t o the c onfi denti ali nfo rm ant, thi s doe s no t m ean, as a m att ero fl aw , thattem pora l p ro x im ity is m iss in g. C f. O ritz, 43 1 F
. 3d at 10 41 ( fi ndi ng n o t e mp o r a l p r o xi mi t y w h e r e th e r e w a s , a ta mi n i mu m, a t en -m on th ga p be tw e e n th e d ru g t ra n sa c tio n s); see al s o U nited St at e s v. M ul l i ns , 971 F.2d 113 8, 1144 ( 4th Cir. 19 9 2 ) (tem p oral p roxim ity “extrem ely w eak” w he re uncha r g e d c o nd uc to c c ur r e d s i x mon ths p r i o r t o o ff e ns e ofco nvi cti on); U nited St at e s v. Hahn , 96 0 F
. 2d 903, 91 1 (9th C ir. 1992) (evi d en ce of spec ific si m il arity an d regulari ty i m port ant where peri od offi ve m onths separ ate d drug tr ansact i ons)

. The r eco rd i nd i cate s that the ga p betw een th e tw o sales is not bec au se th e p a r t ie s w ere di sc o nt i nui ngthe i r rou ti ne o fr egul ardr ugs al es , b ut r athe r b ec au se M cCr adywas i ndi ct ed i n M ay 200 6 an d i m pri sone d i n J uly20 06. A l though i t i s no t cl earwh en Si ngl eto n engag ed i n hi s l ast drug tr ansaction w i th M cCr ady( ei th erM ayo r J ul y 2 00 6) , M cCr ady ’ s i m pris o nm ent put a n end to the patter n ofdrug deal i ng be tw een the par ti es and m ake s the two to f our m onth g ap bet w een th e c h ar ge d an d u n c h ar ge d co n d u c t le ss p ro b lem at ic. See U ni t e d S t at e s v. Ce dano

- Rojas , 999 F .2 d 1175, 1180 (7th C ir. 19 93 ) ( fi ndi ngtha t “[ a] r es pi te i s unl i k el y to b e f at ali n the fi nd i ng o fa cour se ofco nd uct i fthe i nterru p ti on was not8 N o. 07

- 3399 th e ch o i ce o fthe pl ay er s. I n s uchc i r cumst an ce s, the l apse doe s no t i nd i cate thatthe cour se w as aba n d on ed but o nl y that, i n spi te ofthe eff or ts ofthe parti ci pants, th e ven tu re w as inad verten tly pu t on h old.”). M o r eo ve r, the r e is suf fi ci en t si m i l ar i tyb etwee n the charg ed and unchar ged off enses to shor e up an y w eak

ness es i n the gov er nm ent’ s ca se re gar ding tem pora l proxi m i ty. Despi te the f act that the c harg ed and uncharged o ff en se s i nv o l ve d di ff er en t p ar ti ci pan ts a nd di ff er en t a mo u n t s , th e u n c h a r g e d c o n d u c ti n v o l v e d th e s a me pr i nc i pal, th e sa m e l o ca ti o n, an d th e sam e dr ug

— f acts that re nd eri t sim ilareno ugh to the off ense ofco nvi cti on to s ho w tha t S i ngl et o n was e ng ag i ngi n a n o ng o i ng p at te rn of co n d u c t. SeeU nite d State s v. White, 51 9 F
. 3d 342, 34 8 (7 th Ci r. 20 08) ( up hol ding re l evantco nd uct f i nd i ngwh e r e the c o mm o n de no mi na t o r s i n the t r a nsacti ons ar e the defendant and “hi s unbr oke n ser i es of sal es to low er le v e l d ru g s elle rs in D ec at u r” ); see also U nited Sta te s v. Wilso n, 5 0 2 F
. 3 d 7 1 8 , 7 2 4 ( 7 th Ci r . 2 0 0 7 ) ( up hol ding re l evantco nd uct fi nd i ng on t h e gro und s that the defendant r egul ar l y deal t i n l ar ge quanti ti es of co ca i ne dur i ngthi s per i o d, e ve n tho ug h h e obta i ne d the coca i ne fro m di ff er ent s ourc es) ; U n it ed St ates v. M orris , 76 F. 3d 171, 17 5 ( 7th Ci r. 19 96) ( fi nd i ng si m i l ar i ty eve n though the par ti es i nvol ved i n the tr ansact i ons w er e no t iden tified be cau se a ll o f th e othe r rel evan t factors

— l oca ti on, the defe nd ant’ s i nvol vem ent, drug pri ci ng, et c.

— w e r e th e s am e); U nited Sta tes v. G o o den , 89 2 F
. 2d 72 5, 729 ( 8th Ci r . 1 98 9) ( fi ndi ngtha t th e defen dan t took p art in “d rug tran sact ions of a sim il ar ch aract er, conducted i n th e sam e g eog ra phicalar ea w i thi n [ si x toN o. 07

- 3399 9 eig h t] m on th s o f th e o ffen se of co n vic tio n . . . demons tr at [ i ng ] a pa tt ern o fc o nt i nuo us dr uga ct i vi ty”). Si ng l e t o n wa s a s up pl i e r o fc r a c kc o c a i ne a nd h ad en ga ge d in c on sis te n t c ra c k s ale s o v e r a p er iod of six years in A lton, I ll inois, and the u nc ha rged offe ns es w ere p a r t o fa n on go in g s er ies of offe n se s t h atj u st ified th eir i nc l us i o n i n the r el at ed co nduc t dr ugc al cul at i o n. Si ngl eto n al so ar gues that the di str i ct c ourtf ai l ed to m ake the re quir ed f actualfi nd i ngs f ordeter m i ni ng r eleva n t c on d u c t a n d t h at th is a m ou n te d to cle ar , rev er sib le er ro r. S i ngl eto n m ai ntai ns thatal thoug h the dist ri ct co ur t cl ai m ed th ati t was a do ptingthe fi nd i ng s o fthe PS R, the PS R ne ve r a dequa te l y di sc us se d wh eth er the sa l e s t o M c Cr a dy we r e pa r t o f the s a me c o urse o f con d uc t as the cha rged offen ses. W he n “a district cou rt ag g r eg at es drug qua nt i ti es a r i singfr o m c ha r g ed o r unc h ar ge d rele va n t c o n d u c t, th e c ou rtsh ou ld ex p licit ly st ate and supp or t, ei theratthe sente nci ng hea ri ng o r prefer abl y in a w ri tte n sta tem ent o fi ts re aso ns, i ts fin ding that the unconvi cted ac ti vi ti es bor e the nece ssar y r el ati on t o the c onvi cted o ff ense. ” U ni t e d S t at es v. Su m ner, 265 F.3d 532 , 539 (7th C ir. 2001). H er e, the di str i ct c ourtdi d not ind ependentl y c onsi der the f acto rs o fte m pora l p ro xi m i ty, si m i l ar i ty, r egul ar i ty, o r com m o n pl an/ sc he m e, b utthe di st r i ctc o ur t’ s co nsid e r a tio n of M c C ra d y’s te st im on y a n d th e P SR are su ffici ent t o show that i t m ad e the r el evantf actualfi nd i ngs. The dis tr i ct c ourt deter m i ned that M cCrady was cr edibl e, the n de t a i l e d the h i s t o r y o fdr ugs a l e s b e t we e n M c Cr a dy an d S i ng l et o n, and f i na l l y , sum m ar i ze d the a m o unt s ( o ne t o tw o o un c e s p e r we e k ) tha tS i ng l e t o n s o l d t o McC r a dy10 N o. 07

- 3399 f ro m 20 00 to 2006 and concl ud ed thatS i ngl eto n w as re sp onsibl e f or5, 124 gr am s o fcr ack coca i ne. Se eU ni ted S t a t e s v . Wi l l i a ms , 272 F.3d 845 , 852 (7th C ir. 2001) (“W he re i t i s cl earthatthe dist ri ct j ud ge bel i eve d the r equi re d re lat ion sh ip to be p re se n t a n d th e ju d ge ’s im p licit fi nd i ng i s s up port ed by the re cor d, w e hav e be en re l uctant to re m and si m plybec ause the j ud ge f ai l ed to invoke th e ‘m agic w ord s’ ofsection 1B 1.3( a)(2)

. ”). S i ng l et o n a r g ue s th atthe di st r i ctc o ur t er r ed byr el y i ng on M cCrady’ s t est i m ony i n deter m i ni ng r el evantco nd uct because M cCrady is a c onvi cted fel on a nd he ha s a l so en g ag ed i n dr i nk i nga nd m ar ij ua na us e. W e ar e “r el uct an t t o d i s t u rb c r e d ib i l i t y d e t e r mi n a t i o n s ab s e n ta c o mpel l i ng r eas on. ” U nite d State s v. N oble, 24 6 F.3d 946, 95 1 (7t h C ir. 20 01 ). H er e, n o c om p ellin g re as on ex ist s. W h ile M cCrady’ s fel on s ta tu s is o ne f acto r that the di str i ct court can co nsi der in w ei ghi ng the ev i dence, i t i s a l so wi th i n the di st r i ctc o ur t’ s di sc r et i o n to g i ve s o m e wei g ht to h is t es t i m on y, n ot w ith st an d in g h is s ta tu s. U nited St at e s v. Johns on , 4 89 F
. 3d 79 4, 7 97( 7th Ci r . 2 007 ) ( th e dist ri ct c ourtcan cre ditte sti m ony that i s “ tot al l y uncor ro bo r ated a nd c o m es fr o m a n a dm i tt ed l i ar, c o nv i ct ed f el o n, l ar ge sc ale drug- deal i ng, pai d gove rnm ent info rm ant”) (in te rn al c ita tio n om itt ed ). H er e, th e d i str i ct c ourtack n ow ledged thatM cCrady was a car eerfel on, but note d that hi s t est i m ony w as unrebutte d, he te sti fi ed convi nci ngl y, an d h e d id n ot ap p ea r t o b e c oy or d ec ep tiv e. See C edano- Rojas , 9 9 9 F
. 2 d a t1 1 8 0
. ( “ S o l o nga s the i nf o r mation w h ic h th e sen ten cing j ud ge con side rs has suffi ci en t i ndi ci a o fr el i ab i l i tyt o s uppo r t i ts pr o babl e ac cura cy, the i nfo rm ati on m ay proper l y b e t ake n i ntoN o. 07

- 3399 11

a c c o un ti n pa s s i ngs e nt enc e . ” )

. F ur the r mor e , McC r a dy and Si ngl eto n gr ew up tog ether, so l d crac k t oge thero n occa si on, and had a buye r- sel l errel ati onshi p that spanned a s i x-y earper i od. W e fi nd thatthe dist ri ct c ourtdi d not cl ear l y e rrby fi nd i ng M cCrady t o be a cr edibl e witness.

2. U s e o f S in gle ton ’s p roffe r w as p rop er. Af t e r o r al argume nti n thi s c a s e , we de c i de d U nited Sta tes v. Fa rm er, 54 3 F.3 d 3 63, 374 ( 7th Ci r. 20 08) , wh i ch f o und th atthe g o ve r nm en t vi o l at ed th e te r m s o fa de f en dant’s pro ff erag re em ent b y i m properly usi ng i nfo rm at i o n g i v e n b y th e d e f e n d a n ti n h i s p r o ff e r a g a i n s th i m. H er e, the dist ri ct c ourtadm itte d Si ngl eto n’s pro ff er be ca us e i t f o und he to o ka po si ti o n a t se nt en ci ngi nc o ns i s t e ntwi th hi s p r o ff e r s t a t e men t s. T he s i xth pa r a g r a ph o fthe pr o ff era g r ee m en t ba rs the g o ve r nm en t f r o m us i ng an y i nc r i m i na tingi nf o r m at i o n pro vi ded byS i ng l et o n, b ut all ows use o fthe proff eri fS i ngl eto n m ade m ate rially i nconsi ste nt st ate m ents. The p ro ff erag re em ent incl ud ed the f ol l owing cl ause: S i xth, pur su an t to S ec ti o n 1 B1. 8 o fthe S en te nc i ng Gu i del i nes, no sel f

- i ncri m i nati ng i nfo rm ati on g i ven by your cl i ent w i l l be used to enhance th e O ff ense Levelag ai nst y our cl i ent e xcept as p rovi ded i n that S ec ti o n. The g o ve r nm en t, may, ho wev er, u se a ny sta tem ents m ade oro theri nfo rm ati on provid ed by y o ur cl i en t to r eb ute vi den ce o r a r g um en ts a t se ntenci ng m ate ri al l y di ff er ent fro m any sta tem ents m ad e o r o th eri nf o r m at i o n pr o vi ded byy o ur c l i en t dur i ngthe “ o ff

- th e- r ec o r d” pr o ff ero r di sc us si o n.12 N o. 07

- 3399 Si ngl eto n m ai ntai ns the di str i ct c ourtcl ear l y e rr ed by usi ng the pro ff erto deter m i ne the r el evantco nd u c t fo r s e n t e n c i n gp u r p o s e s , w h i c h h e c l a i ms v i o l a t e s th e t e r ms o fthe pr o ff era g r ee m en t. S i ng l et o n c o nt en ds thathe never adm i tte d in hi s proff er that hi s pri or dr u g t ra n sacti o ns wer e r el ev an t to the c ha r g ed o ff en se c o nduc t. The gov er nm ent a rg ues i t o ff er ed the proff ero nl y t o show S i ng l et o n’ s po si ti o n t ak ena t se nt en ci ng

— th at h e o n ly wa s r e s p o n s ib l e f o r th e 6

. 6 g r a ms o f c r a c k c o c a i ne he w as charg ed w i th

— w as i nconsi ste nt w i th h is proff er ed sta tem ent that he sol d m or e than si x gr am s ofcr ack coca i ne i n the past. Fa rm erc au ti o ns a g ains t th e us e o fpr o ff er s f o r s en te n c in g p u rp os es . Id. H ow ev er , Fa rm er is d ist in gu ish ab le f r o m th i s c a s e i n th a tth e d e f e n d a n t ’ s p r o ff e r i n F a r m er w as the s ol e e vi dence ofthe am ount o fco cai ne used to in c r ea se h is offe n se lev el. Id. H ere, th e d istri ct cou rt r el i ed on M cC ra dy’ s te st i m o ny a nd the PS R t o de te r m i ne th e amoun t o fc r ac kc o ca i ne attribut ab l e to S i ng l et o n. The PS R he r e, unl i k e th e PS R i n Fa rm er, w as n ot ba sed on S i ngl eto n’s pro ff er . W e nee d not r em and because the d i str i ct c ourtbas ed the drug quanti ty deter m i nati on on M cCrad y’ s t est i m ony and not a ny i nfo rm ati on g i ven by Singleton i n h is proffer. T he refore, w e fi nd th at th e d istri ct court d id n o t err byi nc l udi ngS i ng l eto n’ s dr ugs al es t o M cCr adyi n the re l evantco nd uct ca l cul ati on. W e fu rther concl ud e that adm i tti ng S i ngl eto n’s pro ff erwas not a r eversibl e e rr or because th e cou rt based Si ng leton’s sen ten ce on M cC rad y’s tes ti m ony.N o. 07

- 3399 13 B. A l i m i t ed r em and i s appro pria te i n li ght of Kimb r ough. Singleton w as sen t e n c e d prior to the Sup rem e C ou rt’s dec i si o n i n Kim b r ough , w hich all ow s a d istri c t c o urt j ud ge to tak e the cr ack/ coca i ne powd erdi spari ty i nto c o n s i d e r a t i o n i n d e c i d i n gwh e th e r t o i mpo s e a b e l o wgui del i nes s entence . Sin gleton di d not a rg ue i n the proc ee d in gs be low th at ap p lyin g t h e 1 00 :1 r at io w ou ld yield an unr ea so nabl e se nt en ce , an d we ca nno t d etermi ne w h et h er th e d ist r i c t c ou rtw ou ld h av e t ak en th e ra tio i nt o a cc o untha d i t no t be enc o ns tr aine d b y o ur pre- Kim b r ough p re c ed en ts
. Se eU ni t e d S t at e s v. Tayl or, 52 0 F
. 3d 74 6, 74 8- 49 ( 7th Ci r . 2 00 8)

. Acco r di ng l y , we i ss ue a l i m it ed r emand to a l l o w the di st r i ctc o ur t to i nf o r m us w hetheri t wis hes t o re sente n c e Si ngl eto n i n l i ght o f Kim b r ough

. Se ei d.

I I I . C ONC L US I ON W e i ssue a L I MI TED R EMA ND f o r pr o ce edi ng s co nsi st en t wi tho ur o pi ni o n i n Taylo r, 52 0 F
. 3d at 748- 49.

11- 24- 08