Opinion ID: 787203
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Second Studley Prong: Foreseeability

Text: 35 We instructed the District Court on remand that, in order to find that the Riddick murder was foreseeable to Johnson, there had to be some closer link than that Johnson was aware that, in the past, various BFB members had used violence as means to further BFB ends. Mulder, 273 F.3d at 119. The District Court responded by relying on (1) conversations between Mulder and Johnson in which Mulder reported having a machine gun and contemplated the possibility of killing someone; (2) Johnson's awareness of Mulder's propensity for violence; and, of course, (3) the offer of payment testimony discussed above. 36 As with the first Studley prong, a review of the transcript of the resentencing proceeding reveals that while the District Court listed various facts to support its finding of foreseeability, Johnson's purported offer of payment was the most salient among them. Because we have determined that the finding of an offer of payment is not supported by the record, and because we conclude from our review of the record that, absent sufficient evidence of an offer of payment, the District Court had no sound basis for its determination that the Riddick murder was foreseeable to Johnson, we hold that the District Court erred when it found that the second Studley prong had been satisfied. 37 In light of our conclusion that the record cannot support the satisfaction of either Studley prong, we hold that the District Court erred in resentencing Johnson. Accordingly, we vacate Johnson's sentence and remand the cause to the District Court with directions to resentence Johnson, a third time, without considering the Riddick murder. On remand, the District Court may consider whether to apply other appropriate enhancements to Johnson's sentence.