D is tr ic t J u d g e Jo h n G
. K o elt l of the U n it ed S tat es D istri ct C o u rtfo r th e S o u thern * D i s tr i ctof N ew Y or k, s i t t i ng bydes i gnat i on. T he C l erk of the C our ti s di r ect ed t o amend t he capt i on t o r ead a s s how n above. 1 09-1461 -cr Unit e d S tate s v . G

unn UNI TED S TATES CO URT O F AP PEALS

F O R T H E S E C O N D C IR C U IT S UM M ARY OR DER R U L I N G S B Y S U M M A R Y OR D E R D O N OT HA V E P R E C E D E N T I A L E F F E CT . CI T A T I ON T O A S UM M ARY ORDE R F I L E D ON OR AF T E R J ANUARY 1 , 2 0 0 7 , I S P E RM I T T E D AND I S GO VE RNE D BY FED ERA L RU LE O F A PPELLA TE PR O C EDU R E 32 . 1 A N D TH I S C O U R T' S LO C A L RU LE 32 . 1. 1. W H EN C I TI N G A S U M M A R Y O R D E R I N A D O C U M ENT FI LED W I TH TH I S C O U R T, A PA R TY M U ST C I TE E I T HE R T HE F E D E R A L A P P E N D I X OR A N E L E C T R ON I C D A T A B A S E ( W I T H T HE N OT A T I ON " S UM M ARY ORDE R" ) . A PART Y CI T I NG A S UM M ARY O RDE R M US T S E RVE A COPY O F I T O N ANY PA R TY N O T REPR ESENTED BY CO U N SEL. A t a s tate d ter m o f

th e U n ited S tate s C o u rt o f A p p e a ls f

o r th e S e c o n d C irc u it, h e ld atthe D ani el Patr i ck M oyni han U ni t ed St at es C our thous e, 500 Pear l St r eet , i n the C i t yof N ew Y or k, on t he 17 dayof February , tw o thous and t en. th P R E S E N T : G U ID O C A L A B R E S I,

R E E N A R A G G I, C i r cui tJudges , J OH N G
. KO ELTL, *

D is tr i ct Judge
.

--- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- -- UNI T E D S T AT E S OF AM E RI CA , Appel l ee , v. N o. 09- 1461- cr RO DE RI CK GUNN, a l s o k n o wn a s Z AP P A, D ef endant

-Appel lant , A L T O N D A V I S, D E R R I L Y N N E E D H A M , al s o know n a s I NG RI D, RO NA LD K NI BBS, a l s o k n o wn a s BI RD I E, D ef end an t s. 1

--- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- -- A PPE A R I N G FO R A PPE L L A N T : R I C H A R D PA L M A , N ew Y or k, N ew Y or k.2

APPEARI NG FOR APP ELLEE: J OH N J
. O’ DO NN ELL, As s i s t a n t Uni t e d St at es A t t orney (D ani el A
. B r aun, A s s i s t antU ni t ed S ta te s A tto rn e y , on the br i ef ), f orPr eetB har ar a, U ni t ed St at es A t t orneyfor t he Southern D i s tr i ct o f N e w Y o rk , N e w Y o rk , N e w Y o rk
. A p p ea l from the U n it ed S tat es D istri ct C o u rt fo r the S o u thern D istri ct of N ew Y o rk (L e o n a rd B . S a n d , Judge ). UP ON DUE CO NS I DE RA T I ON, I T I S HE RE BY OR DE RE D, ADJ UDGE D, AND D E C R E E D that the di s tr i ct court ’ s or der s ent er ed on M ar ch 11, 2009, and A pr i l 22, 2009,
a r e AF F I RMED
. D e f e n d a n t R o d e ric k G u n n a p p e a ls f ro m a n o rd e r d e n y in g h is p re -tria l m o tio n to d ism iss o n d o u b le jeo p a rd y g ro u n d s th o se c o u n ts o f a p e n d in g in d ictm e n t ch a rg in g h im w ith (1) conspi r i ng fr om J ul y2002 t hr ough J anuary2003 t o r ob s us pect ed nar cot i cs tr aff icke rs of drugs and drug pr ocee ds i n v iolati o n of 18 U
. S. C
. § 1951( a) ( C ountO ne) ; and ( 2)
c o n sp irin g f

ro m Ju ly2 0 0 2 th ro u g h Ja n u a ry2 0 0 3 to d istrib u te a n d p o ss e ss w ith in te n t to d istri b u te m arij u an a in v iolati o n o f 2 1 U
. S
. C
. § § 8 4 1 (a)(1), (b)(1 )(A ) an d 8 4 6 (C o u n t E igh t)
. G u n n a rg u e s th a t C o u n ts O n e a n d E ig h t ch a rg e h im w ith c o n sp ira c ies su b su m e d w ith in br oaderr obbery and nar cot i cs cons pi r aci es char ged i n an i nform at i on t o w hi ch he pl eade d gui l typur s uant t o a cooper at i on agr eement w i th the gover nm ent on D ece m ber19, 2003, s ee U ni t ed St at es v. G unn, 03 C r . 1277 ( S. D
. N
. Y
. fi l ed O ct . 23, 2003) , thus pl aci ng hi m t w i ce in jeo p a rd yf

o r id e n tica l cr im e s in v io latio n o f th e F if th A m e n d m e n t. G u n n f u rth e r a p p e a ls3

the o rderden y i ng his m o tio n t o recon si der the d ou ble j eop ardyrul i ng . In r eview i ng t hese chall eng es, w e assum e the part i es’ fam i l i ari ty w i th the fa ct s and record of pri or proceedings, wh i c h we r e f

e r e n c e o n l ya s n e c e s s a ryt o e x p l a i n o u rd e c i s i o n t o a f f i r m. 1. J ur i s di ct i on and St andar d of R evi ew A l though w e gener al l y l ack j ur i s di ct i on t o r evi ew rul i ngs befor e a fi nal j udgm enthas been e nt er ed, s ee 28 U
. S. C
. § 1291; U ni t ed St at es v. M ac D o nal d, 435 U
. S. 850, 853- 54 ( 1978) , the deni al of a pr e- tr i al m ot i on to di s m i s s cr i m i nal char ges on doubl e j eopar dy gr ounds i s i m m edi at el yappea l abl e underthe “c ol l at er al or der ” doctr i ne, s ee U ni t ed St at es
v . O lm e d a , 4 6 1 F .3 d 2 7 1 , 2 7 8 (2 d C ir. 2 0 0 6 ). W e re v iew d e n o v o th e d e n ia l o f a d o u b le jeop ard ym o ti o n . S ee U n it ed S tat es v . C arlt o n , 5 3 4 F
. 3 d 9 7 , 1 0 1 (2d C ir
. 2 0 0 8 ). 2. D efe ndant ’ s D oubl e J eopar dyC hal l enge T he D oubl e J eopar d y C la us e of the Fi fth A m endmentpr ot ect s per s ons fr om
s ucce s s i ve pr os ecut i ons fort he s ame of fens e. See U ni t ed St at es v. E s tr ada, 320 F. 3d 173, 180 ( 2d C i r . 2003)
. I n det erm i ni ng w hethers ucce s s i ve cons pi r acypr os ecuti o n s targe tt he
s ame offens e, w e cons i dera r ange of fac t or s , i ncl udi ng: ( 1) the cr i m i nal offe ns es char ged i n s ucce s s i ve i ndi ctm ent s ; ( 2) the over l ap of pa r t i ci pant s ; ( 3) the over l ap of t i m e; ( 4) s i m i l ar i tyof o p e ra tio n ; ( 5 ) th e e x iste n c e o f c o m m o n o v e rt a c ts; (6 ) th e g e o g ra p h ic sc o p e o f th e a lleg e d c o n sp ir a c ies o r lo c a tio n w h e re o v e rt a c ts occurr ed; ( 7) comm on obj ect i ves; and ( 8) the degr ee of i nter dep end ence b et w een all eged dis t i nct conspir aci es.A l though a pol i ce s our ce ha d s t at ed bef or e G unn’ s gui l ty pl ea thatG unn, D avi s , and 2 other s w ere partof a g roup invo l ved i n p oli ce-i m personati on robberi es, the re cor d does not 4 U ni t ed St at es v. K or fant , 771 F. 2d 660, 662 ( 2d C i r . 1985) ; acc or d U ni t ed St at es v. E s t r ada, 320 F. 3d at 180- 81. A defe ndantbear s the i ni t i al bur den of maki ng a col or abl e s how i ng t hat successi ve p rosecut i on s charge th e sam e con spi racy , w hereup on the g ov ernm ent m ust demonstr at e bya pr eponder ance of the evi dence thata r eas onabl e per s on fami l i arw i th t he t o t a l i tyo f

th e f a c t s a n d c i r c ums t a nc e s wo u l d c o n s tru e th e i n i t i a l p r o s e c u t i o n , a tth e t i me j eopar dyatt ache d, t o coverthe off ens e cha r ged i n the subs equent pr os ecut i on. See U ni t ed St at es v. O l m eda, 461 F. 3d at282- 83.

a. T he R obberyC ons pi r aci es W hi l e the r obbery cons pi r aci es char ged i n the i ndi ctm ent and i nform at ion inv o lve
s i m i l ars t atut oryoffe ns es and s om e over l appi ng per s onnel , m ethods , and geogr aphi c s cope, theyare di st i ng uish a b le in several cri t i cal res pects . T he ch al l eng ed indi ct m ent charges a
ro b b e ry c o n sp ira c yth a t ra n f ro m Ju ly2 0 0 2 th ro u g h Ja n u a ry2 0 0 3 a m o n g a g ro u p p u rp o rte d ly led b yA lto n D a v is, o n e o f G u n n ’s th re e n a m e d c o -d e f e n d a n ts. T h e se c o n sp ira to rs a lleg e d ly agr eed t o comm i t tw o part i cul arr obber i es , one i n E l m ont , N ew Y or k, the otheron W i ckham A venue i n t he B r onx, both of w hi ch r es ul t ed i n m ur der s comm i t t ed byD avi s and nei therof
w hi ch i nvol ved the i m per s onat i on of pol i ce of fi cer s . B ycontr as t , the 2003 i nform at i on
c h a rg e d a c o n sp ira c yth a t ra n f ro m th e su m m e r o f

2 0 0 1 to th e s u m m e r o f 2 0 0 2 , a la rg e ly di s t i nct t i m e per i od, i n w hi ch D avi s i s not al l eged t o have pa r t i ci pat ed. T he s i x r obber i es 2in d ica te w h e th e r D a v is c o m m itt e d o r c o n s p ir e d to c o m m it an yo f th e ro b b e rie s liste d in s uppor tof the i nforma t i o n . I ndeed, not es fr om G unn’ s pr offe rs es s i ons i ndi cat e thatal though he purport edl yi dent i fi ed ea ch part i ci panti n the r obberycons pi r acyt o w hi ch he pl eade d gui l ty , he s peci fi cal l y fai l ed t o name D avi s . T hes e ci r cumst ance s s uppor ta pr eponder ance fi ndi ng of di s t i nctcons pi r aci es . O f cour s e, if tr i al evi dence i s otherw i s e, G unn can r enew hi s doubl e j eopar dychal l enge. See s upr a Part2. b. S e e Un i t e d S t a t e s v . Da v i s , No
. 0 6 Cr
. 9 1 1 , 2 0 0 9 WL 1 0 9 8 4 7 7 , a t* 2 ( S
. D. N. Y. 3 A pr . 21, 2009) ( s t at i ng t hat“most ( though not al l ) of the r obber i es char ged i n the I nform at i on i nvol ved entr ythr ough t he us e of pol i ce im p erso n at i on”)
. B uts ee A pp. at283, 453- 57 ( s ugges t i ng thati n pr e- pl ea pr offe rG unn i ndi cat ed thatal l s i x r obber i es i nvol ved po li ce i m per s onat i on i n one form or another )
. I n i t s appel l at e br i ef, the governm ent r el i es on pol i ce i m per s onat i on dur i ng onl yfi v e o f the s e s i x r obber i es . W hetherpol i ce i m per s onat i on w as i n v o l v e d i n th e s i x th r o b b e r yi s n o to f s u f f i c i e n ti mpo r tt o a l t e ro u rd e t e r mi n a t i o n th a tt he ro b b e ryc o n sp ira c ies a lleg e d in th e in f o rm a tio n a n d p e n d in g in d ictm e n t a re f a c tu a llyd istin c t. 5 al l eged i n co nn ect i on w i th thatearl i er conspir acygen eral l yi nv olved th e robbers’ i m per s on ati on of pol i ce of fi cer s . M eanw hi l e, none r es ul t ed i n m ur der
. L i ke the di s tr i ct

3
court , w e conc l ude thatthe murde r s al l egedl ycomm i t t ed byD av is i n connec t i on w i th t he pendi ng r obbery cons pi r acy hi ghl i ght the si gni fi canc e of hi s l eade r s hi p r ol e i n thats cheme, d istin g u ish in g th e c o n sp ira c ies a s to b o th p e rso n n e l an d th e le v e l o f v io len c e e m p lo y e d to
c a rr yo u t th e p a rt ic u la r r o b b e ry o b je c tiv e s . In urgi ng otherw i se, G un n ar gu es that D avis rel i ed in parton part i ci pan t s i n the fi rs t
cons pi r acyt o car r youtthe pendi ng cons pi r acy . T hi s i s i ns uffi ci entt o i ndi cat e thatone
c o n s p i r a c ys o d e p e n d e d o n th e e x i s t e n c e , s u c c e s s , o r f a i l u r e o f th e o th e r t o a c h i e v e i t s o wn obj ect i ve that the s chemes ar e one. See U ni t ed St at es v. E s tr ada, 320 F. 3d at184 ( fi ndi ngT he r ecor d s ugges t s thatthe governm ent m ay have l earned of G unn’ s i nvol vement 4 in th e E lm o n t ro b b e ry p ri o r to h is p le a . W e n ee d n o t p u rsue the ex tent o f th e g o v ern m en t’ s know l edge he re b ec ause, i n anyevent , the r ecor d s uppor t s a pr eponder ance fi ndi ng of factuall ydis t i nct conspir aci es. 6 n o in ter d e p e n d e n c e w h e re su c c e ss o r f a ilu re o f o n e c o n sp ira c y w a s “ in n o w a yd e p e n d e n t”
o n the o ther). G unn s ubm i t s thatthe cons pi r aci es ar e neverthel es s part of a s i ngl e, over ar chi ng “hub
a n d s p o k e s ” s c h e m e t o r o b n a r c o t i c s tr a f f i c k e r s , f e a tu r i n g G u n n a n d c o - d e f e n d a n tD e r r i l yn N eedh am as cent ral organizer s w ho provided inform a tio n and supp ortt o v ari ou s cr ew s. A ppel l ant ’ s B r . at30. G unn’ s ar gum entfai l s t o acknow l edge the l i m i t ed s cope of t he
cons pi r acyt o w hi ch he pl eade d gui l ty i n 2003 – a s cope narr ow ed byhi s ow n del i ber at e and
conce ded fa i l ur e t o di s cl os e hi s i nvol vementi n the El m ontand W i ckham r obber i es dur i ng p re -p lea p ro f

f e r se ss io n s d e sp ite h is o b lig a tio n to re v e a l a ll c rim in a l c o n d u c t. S e e g e n e ra lly U ni t ed St at es v. O l m eda, 461 F. 3d at285 ( obs ervi ng l es s w i l l i ngnes s “t o cons true an i ndi ctm entas a bar t o futur e pr os ecut i ons w her e the governm entw as notaw ar e, and had no
re a so n to b e a w a re , th a t th e d e f e n d a n t h a d c o m m itt e d a d d iti o n a l cr im e s th a t w e re a rg u a b ly
cover ed byexpans i ve l anguage i n the [char gi ng document ] ”)
. T hatthe cons pi r acychar ged 4 i n the i nform at i on di d not encompas s an agr eementt o comm i tthes e undi s cl os ed r obber i es i s convi nci ngl yevi dence d bytheir abse nce f r om an appe ndi x t o the agr eementl i s t i ng t he
c r i mi n a l c o n d u c tr e l e v a n tt o th e p l e a . Gu n n c a n n o te x p a n d th e s c o p e o f h i s g u i l typ l e a n o w, aft er the fa ct , ei ther by refer ence t o the b roader conspir acyal l eged i n U nit ed S t at es v. R ob l es,7

N o . 0 4 C r. 1 0 3 6 (S
. D
. N
. Y
. fil ed S ep t. 1 6 , 2 0 0 4 ), a re lat ed ca se tri ed tw o y ea rs af ter G u n n ’s p l e a t o w h i c h h e w a s n o ta p a r ty, ort o the theor et i cal pos s i bi l i tythatthe tw o cons pi r aci es at i s s ue m i ght have been pl eade d as an over ar chi ng w hol e, s ee U ni t ed St at es v. O l m eda, 461 F. 3d at 286 n. 14 ( not i ng r el evanc e of r ecor d evi dence “r efl ect i ng an under s t andi ng betw een the pa rt i es as t o the scope” o f con du ctcov ered bygu i l typlea) ; 15 B C harl es A l an W ri gh t, A r thurR
. M i l l er& E dw ar d H
. C ooper , Feder al Pr act i ce a nd Pr ocedur e § 3918. 5, at502 ( 2d ed. 1991) ( obs ervi ng that s cope of j eopar dy i n pl ea cont ext i s “def i ned bythe negot i at ed pl ea agr eement , w hi ch i m pos es obl i gat i ons o n th e d e f endantand att endantr i s ks ”) ; s ee a l s o U ni t ed St at es v. M acc hi a, 35 F. 3d 662, 668 ( 2d C i r . 1994) ( obs ervi ng thatj udi ci al det erm i nat i on t hat
su cc essiv elych arg ed co n sp ir ac ies w ere d ist inct d id n o t fo rec lose p o ssibil itythat in the o ry
o n e c o u ld h av e b ee n p rop erlyp lead ed w ith in p ara m eters o f o ther). W h ile th is c o u rt h a s re c o g n ize d th e d a n g e r of th e g o v e rn m e n t’s re try in g d e f e n d a n ts “on s m al l erand s m al l erconspiracies , w hol l ycont ai ned w i thi n the s cope of a l ar ge
cons pi r acy , unt i l i tfi nds one s m al l enough t o be pr oved t o the s at i s fac t i on of a j ury , ” U ni t ed St at es v. C alde ron e, 9 82 F. 2d 42, 48 ( 2d C i r . 1992) , no s uch conc ern i s pr es enther e. T he
r ecor d r evea l s tw o fac tual l yd i s t i n c t , i n d e p e n d e n tr o b berycons pi r aci es carr i ed outatdi ffe r ent t i mes , bydi ff

e r e ntmea ns , un de r di ff

e r e nt l e a de r s hi p. Se e U ni t e d St a t e s v. Br oc e , 48 8 U. S. 5 6 3 , 5 7 1 (1 9 8 9 ) (o b se rv in g th a t “m u lti p le a g re e m e n ts to c o m m it s e p a ra te c rim e s c o n stitu te
m ul t i pl e cons pi r aci es ”); U n it ed S t at es v. M acc hi a, 35 F. 3d at668 ( obs ervi ng thatK or fant f a c to rs a re “ n o t a p re s c ri p tio n f o r d ra f tin g in d ic tm e n ts ” ).8

A ccor di ngl y , beca us e w e conc l ude thatthe governm enthas ca rr i ed i t s bur den of d e mo n s tr a t i n g th a t th e i n d i c t me n t a n d i n f o r ma t i o n c h a r g e d i s t i n c tr o b b e ryc o n s p i r a c i e s , we
re jec t th is p a rt o f

G u n n ’s d o u b le je o p a rd yc h a llen g e a s w ith o u t m e rit. b. T he D rug D eal i ng C ons pi r aci es G u n n ’s a rg u m e n t th a t th e n a rc o tics c o n sp ira c yc h a rg e d in th e p e n d in g in d ictm e n t is
su b su m e d w ith in th e n a rc o tics c o n sp ira c yto w h ich h e p lea d e d g u iltyin 2 0 0 3 is s im ilarly
un avail i ng . W hil e t hese t w o co nspir aci es overl ap tem po ral l y , the record supp ort s a pr eponder ance fin d ing thattheyar e otherw i s e fa ctual l ydi s t i nct . N ot abl y , the El m ontand W i ckham r obber i es ar e i dent i fi ed as overtact s comm i t t ed i n s upport of the pendi ng
m a riju a n a c o n sp ira c y . B y c o n tra st, th e m a riju a n a c o n sp ira c y to w h ich G u n n p lea d e d g u ilty al l eges onl ytw o di s cr et e sales of m ar i j uana, one i n 2002 and the otheri n 2003. T he i dent i fi cat i on of t hes e sal es as the crux of t he adm i t t ed agr eement appar ent l yder i ves fr om G u n n ’s ow n di s cl os ur e that he hel ped t o br oker the s al e of tw o l oads of m ar i j uana. T h ere i s no i ndi cat i on i n the rec o rd t hatthe cons pi r acychar ged i n the i nform at i on cont empl at ed
o b ta in in g d ru g s b yro b b e ry o r t h a t D a v is w a s in v o lv e d in th e s c h e m e . O u r in ter lo c u to ryre

jec tio n o f

G u n n ’s d o u b le je o p a rd yc laim d o e s n o t p re c lu d e h im fr om r enew i ng thi s chal l enge s houl d the fa ct s or evi dence adduce d at tr i al s o w arr ant . See U n it ed S tat es v . M all ah , 5 0 3 F
. 2 d 9 7 1 , 9 8 7 (2d C ir
. 1 9 7 4 ) (ob serv ing that “p rose cu tors
s houl d be pr epar ed t o d em ons tr at e fr om the pr oof atthe tw o tr i al s thatthe cr i m i nal agr eement s ar e i ndeed s epar at e and di s t i nct ”) ; s ee a l s o U ni t ed St at es v. L aguna- E s t el a, 3949

F. 3d 54, 59 ( 1s t C i r . 2005) ( not i ng thatdefe ndantm ayr eas s ertdoubl e j eopar dycl ai m i f tr i al
ev iden ce w arran ts) ; U n it ed S tat es v. S tr icklin, 5 9 1 F
. 2 d 1 1 1 2 , 1 1 1 9 (5th C ir
. 1 9 7 9 ) (sam e).

c. T he M ot i on foran Evi dent i aryH ear i ng G unn s ubm i t s that th e d istr i ctcourtabus ed i t s di s cr et i on i n decl i ni ng t o hol d an evi dent i aryhear i ng befor e rul i ng on hi s doubl e j eopar dychal l enge. W e di s agr ee. W hi l e an evi dent i aryhear i ng m ays om et i m es be nec es s aryt o al l o w a d efe ndantt o demonstr at e a col or ab le d o ubl e j eopar dycl ai m , her e G unn m ade a s how i ng s uffi ci entt o s hi ftthe bur den of pr oof t o the governm ent . C f. U ni t ed St at es v. Per s i co, 832 F. 2d 705, 712 ( 2d C i r . 1987) (ob serv ing that d istri ct co u rt s ass essi n g p re -t ri a l d o u b le je o p a rd ym o tio n s c o n d u c t e v id e n ti ary hear i ngs “i f appr opr i at e”)
. B eca use the d i s tr i ctcourt ’ s det erm i nat i on thatthe governm ent had ca rr i ed i t s bur den w as ampl ys uppor t ed bythe r ecor d, w e i dent i fyno abus e of di s cr et i on i n i t s deci s i on nott o hol d a hea r i ng. C f. U ni t ed St at es v. Pavl oy i ani s , 996 F. 2d 1467, 1475 (2d C ir
. 1 9 9 3 ) (ho lding in related co n text that n o ev iden ti aryh ea ri n g w as re q u ir ed “w h ere the re leva n t fac ts can b e a sce rt aine d fro m the re co rd” ). 3. T he M ot i on T o R econs i der W e sim il arlyiden ti fyn o ab u se o f d iscreti o n in the d istri ct co u rt ’s de n ial o f G u n n ’s
m ot i on fo r re co n si der at i on beca us e he i dent i fi es no “contr ol l i ng deci s i ons ordat a thatt he
courtover l ooked – mat t er s , i n ot herw or ds , thatm i ght rea s onabl ybe expe ct ed t o al t ert he
co n clus ion rea ch ed b ythe c o u rt . ” S h rad er v. C S X T ran sp . , Inc
. , 7 0 F
. 3 d 2 5 5 , 2 5 7 (2d C ir
. 1 9 9 5 ); see U n iversa l C h u rch v . G elt ze r, 4 6 3 F
. 3 d 2 1 8 , 2 2 8 (2d C ir
. 2 0 0 6 ).10

4. T he M ot i on t o E xpand the R ecor d and A l l ow A ddi t i onal B r i efi ng A ft erar gum ent , G unn m oved t o expand the r ecor d on appea l to in c lu d e , in te r a lia , a February3, 2010 m emora ndum fi l ed bythe governm enti n the pendi ng cas e pr offe r i ng “other
c rim e s e v id e n c e ” a s p ro o f o f th e c h a rg e d ro b b e ry a n d n a rc o tics c o n sp ira c ies . G u n n su b m its t h a tth e f

i l i n g u n d e r c u t s th e g o v e rn me n t ’ s p o s i t i o n b e f o r e th i s c o u r tth a tth e p e ndi ng
con spi racy charges are di st i nct fr om tho se t o w hich G un n p l eaded gu i l ty . T he m at t er i s best addr es s ed i n the fi r s t i ns t ance by the di s tr i ctcourt , w hi ch has y ett o det erm i ne w hethert he prof fe red ev ide nce i s r el evantt o oradmi s s i bl e i n the pendi ng cas e and, i f s o, forw hat purpos e. A ccor di ngl y , the m ot i on t o expand the appe l l at e r ecor d i s deni ed w i thoutpr ej udi ce to G u n n ren ew ing h is d o u b le jeop ard y m o ti o n in th e distri ct co u rt b ase d o n the g o v ern m en t’ s
r e c e n tf i l i n g . W e , o f

c o u r s e , e x p r e s s n o v i e w o n th e me r i t s o f s u c h a c l a i m. Ac c o r d i n g l y , th e o r d e r s o f th e d i s tr i c tc o u r ta r e AF F I RMED
. FOR TH E CO UR T: C A T H E R IN E O ’H A G A N W O L F E , C lerk o f C o u rt