united states v. doe, 1st cir. (2013)

Upload: scribd-government-docs

Post on 02-Mar-2018

214 views

Category:

Documents


0 download

TRANSCRIPT

  • 7/26/2019 United States v. Doe, 1st Cir. (2013)

    1/44

    United States Court of AppealsFor the First Circuit

    No. 12- 2304

    UNI TED STATES OF AMERI CA,

    Appel l ee,

    v.

    J OHN DOE, a/ k/ a RASHI DE CAMPBELL,

    Def endant , Appel l ant .

    APPEAL FROM THE UNI TED STATES DI STRI CT COURTFOR THE DI STRI CT OF MAI NE

    [ Hon. Geor ge Si ngal , U. S. Di st r i ct J udge]

    Bef or e

    Torr uel l a, Sel ya, and Thompson,Ci r cui t J udges.

    Cl i f f or d B. St r i ke and St r i ke, Goodwi n & O' Br i en, on br i ef ,f or appel l ant .

    Rene M. Bunker , Ass i st ant Uni t ed St ates At t orney, and ThomasE. Del ahant y I I , Uni t ed St at es At t or ney, on br i ef , f or appel l ee.

    December 20, 2013

  • 7/26/2019 United States v. Doe, 1st Cir. (2013)

    2/44

    THOMPSON, Circuit Judge. Our J ohn Doe i s a man of many

    names. Al t hough t here are more, we concern our sel ves wi t h onl y t he

    f ol l owi ng: "Tony"; "G" ; "Theot i s Leonar d" ; and "Rashi de Campbel l . "

    A j ur y i n Por t l and, Mai ne, convi ct ed "Rashi de Campbel l " of

    i l l egal l y di st r i but i ng a subst ance cont ai ni ng cocai ne base. 1 The

    di st r i ct cour t sent enced hi m t o t went y year s behi nd bar s, t he

    maxi mumj ai l t er mal l owed by st at ut e. Campbel l now r ai ses sever al

    cl ai ms of er r or wi t h r espect t o hi s convi ct i on and t he l engt h of

    hi s sent ence. Fi ndi ng no er r or , we af f i r m.

    BACKGROUND

    We reci t e the f act s as t he j ur y coul d have f ound t hem.

    Paul Buchanan i s an exper i enced Dr ug Enf orcement Admi ni st r at i on

    ( "DEA") agent worki ng i n Por t l and, Mai ne. Buchanan has gone

    undercover on many occasi ons where, as he descr i bed i t , "you pose

    as someone ot her t han your sel f i n or der t o i nf i l t r at e dr ug

    di st r i but i on or gani zat i ons. " As a DEA agent , Buchanan i s f ami l i ar

    wi t h sal es of cocai ne base- - al so known as "cr ack" - - i n t he Por t l and

    ar ea. Cr ack, he expl ai ned, i s br ought t o Mai ne f r om ot her st at es,

    i ncl udi ng New Yor k, Connect i cut , and Massachuset t s, t hen br oken up

    i nt o smal l er quant i t i es f or sal e t o l ocal dr ug user s.

    1 Doe' s counsel si gned t he br i ef t o t hi s Cour t on behal f of"Mr . Campbel l . " As Doe has apparent l y set t l ed on t hi s name, wer ef er t o hi m pr i mar i l y as Campbel l but do not hesi t at e t o use hi sot her appel l at i ons, as necessar y.

    -2-

  • 7/26/2019 United States v. Doe, 1st Cir. (2013)

    3/44

    Buchanan came t o know Campbel l t hrough t he cour se of hi s

    undercover work, al t hough Campbel l used t he name "Tony" wi t h

    Buchanan. Buchanan hi msel f used a f al se name when deal i ng wi t h

    Campbel l , posi ng as " J osh, " an i ndi vi dual "who want s t o buy dr ugs

    f r om Tony not j ust f or use, but f or di st r i but i on [ t o ot her s] so

    [ he] can make some money. " 2 Bef or e August 2011, Buchanan knew

    Tony' s voi ce because t hey had spoken on t he phone and met i n

    person. At t hese pr evi ous "meet i ngs, " Buchanan "obt ai ned what [ he]

    bel i eved t o be cocai ne base" f r om Tony.

    The par t i cul ar drug t r ansact i on cul mi nat i ng i n Campbel l ' s

    arr est had i t s genesi s on August 17, 2011, when Buchanan cal l ed

    Tony t o di scuss anot her pur chase of cr ack cocai ne. 3 Af t er

    i nqui r i ng whet her Tony was "st i l l wor ki ng" ( "st i l l sel l i ng dr ugs"

    accor di ng to Buchanan) , Buchanan sai d he "want ed to get . . . a

    l i t t l e mor e t han I di d [ l ast t i me] " and asked, " [ c] an we do a

    l i t t l e mor e" i n t he comi ng days. Appar ent l y to make sure t her e was

    no conf usi on, Tony i nqui r ed "you t el l i ng me you' r e l ooki ng f or

    somethi ng bi gger?" and Buchanan conf i r med he was l ooki ng t o "get a

    whol e, t he whol e oni on. " By aski ng f or an "oni on, " Buchanan

    expl ai ned at t r i al , he was si gnal i ng t o Tony t hat he want ed t o buy

    "a whol e ounce of cr ack cocai ne, whi ch i s appr oxi matel y 28 gr ams. "

    2 We, however , wi l l r ef er t o hi m onl y as Buchanan.

    3 Unbeknownst t o Tony, t he DEA r ecor ded t hi s conversat i on andot her s.

    -3-

  • 7/26/2019 United States v. Doe, 1st Cir. (2013)

    4/44

    Dr ug deal er s, Buchanan t ol d t he j ur y, "ver y r ar el y . . . cal l crack

    cocai ne crack cocai ne" but i nst ead use "st r eet l i ngo . . . t o avoi d

    det ect i on by l aw enf or cement and . . . descr i be to t he cust omer

    what t hei r pr oduct i s. " Dur i ng t he cour se of t hei r conver sat i on,

    Tony i ndi cat ed he woul d be i n t he Por t l and ar ea on Monday and

    Buchanan agr eed t o cal l hi m t hen.

    As agreed, Tony and Buchanan spoke agai n by phone t he

    f ol l owi ng Monday, August 22, 2011. Dur i ng t he f i r st of t wo

    r ecor ded t el ephone conver sat i ons t hat day, Tony t ol d Buchanan he

    woul d be there t hat eveni ng, and Buchanan i ndi cat ed he had

    " f i f t een, " meani ng "$1, 500 t o spend. " Each assur ed t he ot her he

    was not wor ki ng f or l aw enf or cement by r epr esent i ng "ever ythi ng i s

    st r ai ght " or "good, " and t hey agr eed t o speak agai n l at er t hat day

    t o conf i r m t he sal e.

    When Buchanan cal l ed back, Tony t ol d Buchanan t hat he was

    goi ng t o l eave "i t " ( i . e. , t he dr ugs) wi t h one of hi s gi r l f r i ends,

    and that Buchanan woul d have t o meet wi t h her t o make t he pi ckup.

    Tony promi sed Buchanan " she' s st r ai ght , " and when Buchanan- - who had

    not met Tony' s "gi r l f r i end" bef or e- - expr essed r el uct ance at

    "deal i ng wi t h someone new, " Tony sai d he want ed t o do t he sal e and

    del i ver y t hi s way " j ust t hi s one t i me. " Tony t hen i nf or med

    Buchanan he was "gonna gi ve you [ Buchanan] um [ si c] f i f t een f or

    t hat . St r ai ght up. And you know i t ' s gonna be of f i ci al . "

    Buchanan under st ood Tony t o mean, " I ' m not goi ng t o r i p you of f , "

    -4-

  • 7/26/2019 United States v. Doe, 1st Cir. (2013)

    5/44

    and he expected t o get f i f t een gr ams of cr ack cocai ne i n exchange

    f or $1, 500. Tony i mpl ored Buchanan t o "pl ease do me t hi s one f avor

    t hi s one t i me and t hen we can get back t o r egul ar , " expl ai ni ng " I

    j ust want t o be car ef ul t hi s one t i me. "

    Despi t e hi s j ust - expr essed r eser vat i ons, Tony appar ent l y

    changed hi s mi nd about not meet i ng Buchanan hi msel f , as he l ater

    t ol d Buchanan t o meet hi mat a Kent ucky Fr i ed Chi cken i n Por t l and.

    Buchanan- - wear i ng a wi r e- - ar r i ved as i nst r uct ed, accompani ed by a

    survei l l ance t eam t o wat ch and l i st en as t he deal went down. Tony

    di r ect ed Buchanan t o a near by apar t ment , wher e Buchanan met Tony

    al ong wi t h t wo women and, af t er some negot i at i on, bought cr ack

    cocai ne f or $1, 400. Tony personal l y handed t he dr ugs t o Buchanan.

    Dur i ng t he t r ansact i on, Tony t ol d Buchanan he had ar r i ved

    l ater t han expected because he "di dn' t have enough, but I was

    t r yi ng t o hook you up r i ght . " Tony expl ai ned f ur t her :

    . . . somebody was hooki n' me up, so I want edyou t o come back so I want ed t o t ake car e ofyou. . . . I want ed t o r eal l y hook you up t omake sur e you come back t o me. Know what I ' msayi ng?

    Buchanan t hen l ef t t he apart ment and tur ned t he dr ugs over t o

    another DEA agent . A f orensi c chemi st conf i r med t he subst ance

    Buchanan bought f r omTony was i n f act 6. 9 gr ams of cr ack cocai ne.

    The j ury r et urned a gui l t y ver di ct , and Campbel l was

    ul t i mat el y sent enced t o t went y year s' i mpr i sonment . Thi s appeal

    -5-

  • 7/26/2019 United States v. Doe, 1st Cir. (2013)

    6/44

    f ol l owed. We i ncor por at e addi t i onal f act s bel ow, set t i ng f or t h

    t hose germane t o each i ssue as necessary.

    DISCUSSION

    Campbel l bel i eves he deserves a new t r i al or , at t he ver y

    l east , a reduced sent ence, because of t hr ee pur por t ed er r or s

    af f ect i ng hi s t r i al and sent enci ng. Campbel l f i r st compl ai ns- -

    appar ent l y, as i t i s by no means cl ear f r om hi s br i ef - - t hat t he

    j ury was al l owed t o l earn of hi s use of al i ases because t he t r i al

    j udge r ef used t o amend t he super sedi ng i ndi ct ment bef or e t r i al ,

    deni ed hi s oral mot i on t o di smi ss t hat i ndi ct ment , and al l owed t he

    i nt r oducti on of hi s al i ases at t r i al . Campbel l bel i eves t hi s

    i nduced t he j ur y "t o i nf er pr ej udi ci al i nf or mat i on" about hi m and

    coul d have l ed t hem t o convi ct hi m upon consi der at i ons ot her t han

    t he evi dence at t r i al . Second, he cl ai ms that t he t r i al j udge

    er r ed by al l owi ng evi dence of pr evi ous, unchar ged dr ug deal s

    between Campbel l and Buchanan t o be pr esent ed t o t he j ur y, whi ch

    vi ol at ed t he rul e agai nst "pr opensi t y evi dence" and was unf ai r l y

    pr ej udi ci al t o hi m. Fi nal l y, even i f hi s convi cti on i s uphel d

    Campbel l seeks a new sentence because, hi s ar gument goes, t he t r i al

    j udge made er r oneous f i ndi ngs of f act at t he sentenci ng hear i ng,

    whi ch r esul t ed i n t he i mposi t i on of a l onger sent ence. We di scuss

    t hese cont ent i ons ser i at i m, but bef or e we can addr ess t he mer i t s of

    each, such as t hey ar e, we must r ecount t he twi st s and t ur ns of t he

    r el evant pr et r i al and t r i al pr oceedi ngs.

    -6-

  • 7/26/2019 United States v. Doe, 1st Cir. (2013)

    7/44

    A. Alias Arguments

    From t he t i me of hi s ar r est t hr ough t he begi nni ng of

    t r i al , Campbel l ' s i dent i t y was hot l y cont est ed. When he was

    ar r est ed on August 22, 2011, a dr i ver ' s l i cense i ssued t o Theot i s

    Leonard was i n hi s pocket . 4 He assumed t hi s i dent i t y t hr ough

    booki ng and cont i nued t o use t hi s name f or some t i me i n st atement s

    t o l aw enf orcement . However , when t he pol i ce r an "Theot i s

    Leonar d' s" f i nger pr i nt s, t hey came back as bel ongi ng t o Rashi de

    Campbel l i nst ead.

    Unsur pr i si ngl y t hen, t he i ni t i al August 23, 2011,

    i ndi ct ment r ead "Uni t ed St at es of Amer i ca v. Rashi de Campbel l a/ k/ a

    Theot i s Leonar d. " Campbel l per si st ed i n hi s r ef usal t o i dent i f y

    hi msel f . I ndeed, hi s November 1, 2011, t r i al br i ef st at es "[ t ] her e

    i s al so an i ssue of Def endant ' s i dent i t y, whi ch t o dat e has not

    been est abl i shed by t he Gover nment . " At a November 29, 2011,

    pr et r i al hear i ng t hat i ncl uded di scussi ons of Campbel l ' s i dent i t y,

    t he pr osecut or t ol d t he t r i al j udge t hat Campbel l " r ef used t o

    i dent i f y hi msel f i n t he i ni t i al appear ance on t he f i r st

    i ndi ct ment . " Fur t her compl i cat i ng t he mat t er , t he pr osecut or

    i nf or med t he cour t t hat " t he r eal Theot i s Leonar d was arr est ed i n

    Wat er vi l l e t wo weeks af t er t hi s guy [ Campbel l ] was i ncar cer at ed. "

    4 Thi s was never br ought t o t he j ur y' s at t ent i on pur suant t ot he t r i al j udge' s pr et r i al r ul i ng t hat evi dence of Campbel l ' sat t empt s t o conceal hi s i dent i t y or of hi s f l i ght was notadmi ssi bl e at t r i al . The name "Theot i s Leonar d" was never ut t er edby anyone at t r i al .

    -7-

  • 7/26/2019 United States v. Doe, 1st Cir. (2013)

    8/44

    Def ense counsel di d not cont r over t or obj ect t o any of t hese

    f act ual r epr esent at i ons, but si mpl y i ndi cat ed "t he onl y

    i dent i f i cat i on he has gi ven t hi s ent i r e t i me i s Theot i s Leonar d. "

    Al t hough not st at ed expl i ci t l y i n t he r ecor d, t hi s i dent i f i cat i on

    conf usi on sur el y expl ai ns t he Oct ober 26, 2011, super sedi ng

    i ndi ct ment i dent i f yi ng Campbel l as " J ohn Doe a/ k/ a Tony a/ k/ a

    Rashi de Campbel l a/ k/ a Theot i s Leonard" ( t he "J ohn Doe

    I ndi ctment ") .

    J ury sel ect i on t ook pl ace November 7, 2011. Fur t her

    i l l ustr at i ve of t he i dent i t y i ssue i n pl ay i s t he f ol l owi ng j ur y

    voi r di r e quest i on r equest ed by def ense counsel : "The Def endant i n

    t hi s case i s r ef er r ed t o as J ohn Doe because t he Gover nment i s

    unawar e of hi s t r ue i dent i t y. Woul d any j ur or be i nf l uenced by

    t hi s f act r el at i ve t o bei ng abl e t o f ai r l y and i mpar t i al l y deci de

    t he evi dence i n t hi s case[ ?] " 5 Al so, t he par t i es agr ee t hat t he

    J ohn Doe I ndi ct ment was r ead t o t he prospect i ve j uror s. Al t hough

    we have not been pr ovi ded wi t h a t r anscr i pt of t he day' s event s, we

    assume t hat al l t he al i ases must al so have been r ead t o t he j ur y,

    as t hi s woul d have been necessary t o determi ne i f anyone i n t he

    pool knew Campbel l by any of t he names he went by. There i s no

    i ndi cat i on i n t he recor d, and Campbel l does not ar gue, t hat he

    5 Accor di ng t o the gover nment ' s br i ef , Campbel l i nsi st ed onbei ng pr esent ed as J ohn Doe at t he j ur y empanel ment . Campbel l doesnot cont est t hi s asser t i on.

    -8-

  • 7/26/2019 United States v. Doe, 1st Cir. (2013)

    9/44

    obj ect ed t o the readi ng of t he J ohn Doe I ndi ct ment dur i ng j ur y

    sel ect i on.

    The di st r i ct cour t hear d pret r i al mot i ons on November 29,

    2011, t he day bef or e t r i al began. Towar ds t he end of t he hear i ng,

    def ense counsel made an "oral mot i on t o have t hi s i ndi ct ment

    amended t o Uni t ed St ates of Amer i ca versus Theot i s Leonard, "

    ar gui ng t hat pr esent i ng hi s cl i ent as J ohn Doe t o t he j ur y woul d be

    pr ej udi ci al . Af t er some back and f or t h t he t r i al j udge decl i ned t o

    amend t he i ndi ct ment . He di d, however , i nvi t e t he par t i es t o agr ee

    on one name t o pr esent t o t he j ur y at t r i al and i nst r uct ed t hem t o

    make a deci si on by t he next morni ng.

    When they r econvened i n t he morni ng, def ense counsel

    proposed usi ng t he name "Rashi de Campbel l . " Def ense counsel

    f ur t her agr eed i t woul d be appr opr i at e to ref er t o Campbel l as

    "Tony" at t r i al : "He i s st i l l a/ k/ a Tony as f ar as I know and I

    t hi nk t hat ' s l egi t i mat e i n t er ms of t hi s case. That ' s what he was

    cal l i ng hi msel f . " The par t i es ul t i mat el y memor i al i zed t hei r

    agr eement i n a handwr i t t en st i pul at i on si gned by def ense counsel

    ( At t or ney Wi l l i am Masel l i ) , t he pr osecut or ( At t or ney Dani el J .

    Per r y) , and Campbel l hi msel f set t i ng f or t h t he f ol l owi ng:

    The par t i es her eby st i pul at e:

    1. The Def endant [ and] Gover nment agr ee t hename Rashi de Campbel l a/ k/ a Tony wi l l be usedi n t hese pr oceedi ngs.

    2. The Def endant and Government agr ee t hatt he al i ases J ohn Doe and Theot i s Leonar d al so

    -9-

  • 7/26/2019 United States v. Doe, 1st Cir. (2013)

    10/44

    ar e i dent i cal i dent i f yi ng names as Rashi deCampbel l a/ k/ a Tony f or t he pur poses of t hi scase. 6

    Al most i mmedi at el y af t er ent er i ng i nt o t hi s st i pul at i on,

    def ense counsel made "an or al mot i on t o di smi ss t hi s case at t hi s

    t i me based upon t he Government ' s r e- i ndi ct ment under t hi s name J ohn

    Doe. " Because no wr i t t en mot i on was f i l ed, we set f or t h counsel ' s

    pr esent at i on and t he t r i al j udge' s r ul i ng i n t hei r ent i r et y:

    Mr . Masel l i : But one ot her i ssue, we' ve beenal so di scussi ng t he i mpact of J ohn Doe and wehave maybe di f f er ent vi ews of i t , but I ' mmaki ng an or al mot i on t o di smi ss t hi s case att hi s t i me based upon t he Government ' s r e-i ndi ct ment under t hi s name J ohn Doe.

    Agai n, as I st at ed i n t he pr i or conf er ence,t he onl y reason i t wasn' t chal l enged i nwr i t i ng at t he t i me t he i ndi ct ment came downi s t he Government r epr esent ed t o me t hat t heyhad det ermi ned t hat he was not Rashi deCampbel l and I accept ed that r epr esent at i on onf ace val ue.

    Now, i t t ur ns out as of yest er day, l ear ni ngt hat t her e was one wi t ness who- - i t was wi t hi nt he l ast coupl e of days, I don' t r emember whenwe f i r st di scussed i t , but t her e i s onewi t ness who saw a phot o of t he def endant andsai d t hat ' s not Rashi de Campbel l . Now, t heGover nment even has apparent l y grave concer nsas t o whet her t hi s wi t ness i s t el l i ng t hetruth.

    6 We pause her e t o note i t woul d have been hel pf ul had t hegover nment ment i oned i n i t s br i ef t hat t he par t i es' st i pul at i onwent beyond r ef er r i ng t o Campbel l as " Rashi de Campbel l " at t r i aland per mi t t ed hi m t o be r ef er r ed t o as "Tony. " As t hi s was notbr ought t o our at t ent i on, t he Cour t was r equi r ed t o comb t hr ought he t r i al t r anscr i pt s and exhi bi t s i n or der t o di scover t hi si mpor t ant f act .

    -10-

  • 7/26/2019 United States v. Doe, 1st Cir. (2013)

    11/44

    I don' t t hi nk t hat ' s a suf f i ci ent basi s t ochange an i ndi ct ment al r eady br ought bef oret hi s cour t of Rashi de Campbel l , and t he ent i r ecase has gone thr ough as Rashi de Campbel l , t oJ ohn Doe and t hen t o pl ace i t bef or e t he j uryat t he l ast moment as J ohn Doe and we are i n a

    si t uat i on wher e - -

    The Court : I t hought we agr eed i t wasn' tgoi ng t o be pl aced i n f r ont of t he j ur y asJ ohn Doe. I t was goi ng t o be pl aced i n f r ontof t he j ur y as Rashi de Campbel l .

    Mr . Masel l i : I mean at t he j ur y sel ect i on,You Honor , I apol ogi ze. So he was J ohn Doe att he j ur y sel ect i on.

    The Cour t : Wel l , you peopl e shoul d havedi scussed t hi s a l ong t i me ago and deal t wi t ht hi s i ssue. Your mot i on t o di smi ss i s deni ed.Too l i t t l e t oo l at e.

    Al t hough Campbel l had made an or al mot i on t o amend t he i ndi ct ment

    t o Theot i s Leonar d l ess t han t went y- f our hour s ear l i er , f r om t he

    t enor of t hi s argument he now seemed t o be t aki ng the posi t i on,

    wi t hout r ef er ence t o any aut hor i t y, t hat t he J ohn Doe I ndi ct ment

    never shoul d have i ssued i n t he f i r st pl ace. That t he t r i al j udge

    di d not sol i ci t ar gument f r omt he gover nment and made a r el at i vel y

    t er se deni al of t hi s or al mot i on i s har dl y sur pr i si ng i n l i ght of

    t he l at e hour and t he f act t hat t he par t i es had j ust agr eed t o use

    t he names " Rashi de Campbel l " or "Tony" excl usi vel y at t r i al .

    Yet , even t hi s cl ear r ul i ng f r omt he cour t di d not qui et

    t he back and f or t h over Campbel l ' s i dent i t y. The pr osecut or t ook

    one l ast opport uni t y t o comment :

    Mr . Per r y: Onl y ot her t hi ng, Your Honor , i sas Mr . Masel l i st at es, t hi s case was r ead t o

    -11-

  • 7/26/2019 United States v. Doe, 1st Cir. (2013)

    12/44

    t he j ur y [ at j ur y sel ecti on] as U. S. v. J ohnDoe. Mr . Masel l i i nt r oduced hi s cl i ent asJ ohn Doe. I do want t o r ai se t hat t o t heCour t i n t hat now t hey' r e goi ng t o hear t hecase i s U. S. v. Rashi de Campbel l .

    The Cour t : They don' t r emember i t . They' r egoi ng t o f ol l ow my i nst r uct i ons.

    Fol l owi ng t hi s col l oquy, t he t r i al j udge mar ked t he handwr i t t en

    st i pul at i on as Exhi bi t 6 f or i dent i f i cat i on pur poses onl y, r emi nded

    bot h par t i es t hat Campbel l was onl y t o be r ef er r ed t o "consi st ent

    wi t h t hi s agr eement , " and had Campbel l acknowl edge hi s si gnatur e on

    t he st i pul at i on.

    The pr el i mi nar y mat t er s f i nal l y di sposed of , t he j ury was

    br ought i nt o t he cour t r oom and t r i al began. From t hat poi nt

    f or war d, and cont r ar y t o what he asser t s i n hi s br i ef , Campbel l was

    r ef er r ed t o as ei t her "Campbel l , " "Tony, " or as " t he def endant . "

    The names " J ohn Doe" and "Theot i s Leonar d" wer e never ment i oned at

    t r i al , nor di d t he pr osecut or comment on Campbel l ' s use of mul t i pl e

    names or suggest t o t he j ur y t hat t he onl y peopl e who use al i ases

    ar e t hose wi t h somet hi ng t o hi de.

    Fur t hermore, t he J ohn Doe I ndi ct ment marked as an exhi bi t

    at t r i al and pr ovi ded t o t he j ur y f or i t s use dur i ng del i ber at i ons

    was r edact ed t o remove the names " J ohn Doe, " "Tony, " and "Theot i s

    Leonar d, " such t hat i t i dent i f i ed Campbel l as " Rashi de Campbel l "

    onl y. As pr omi sed, t he t r i al j udge i nst r uct ed t he j ur y t hat i t was

    t o base i t s ver di ct onl y upon t he evi dence at t r i al , whi ch

    consi st ed of swor n wi t ness t est i mony and t he exhi bi t s r ecei ved i nt o

    -12-

  • 7/26/2019 United States v. Doe, 1st Cir. (2013)

    13/44

    evi dence. The j ur y was al so i nst r uct ed t hat t he i ndi ct ment " i s no

    evi dence what soever of hi s gui l t . "

    1. Motion to Dismiss

    Havi ng l ai d t he gr oundwor k, we t ur n our at t ent i on t o

    Campbel l ' s ar gument s. Al t hough Campbel l ' s br i ef i s by no means a

    model of cl ar i t y, havi ng st udi ed t he submi ssi on we surmi se that he

    t akes i ssue wi t h t he deni al of hi s day- of - t r i al mot i on t o di smi ss

    t he J ohn Doe I ndi ct ment . 7 Campbel l ' s argument goes somethi ng l i ke

    t hi s: "[ t ] he t r i al cour t abused i t s di scret i on when i t al l owed t he

    i ndi ct ment t o r ead as ' Uni t ed St at es of Amer i ca v. J ohn Doe, a/ k/ a

    Tony a/ k/ a Rashi de Campbel l a/ k/ a Theot i s Leonar d. ' " As such, he

    was unf ai r l y pr ej udi ced by the mul t i pl e names on t he J ohn Doe

    I ndi ct ment because, " [ a] l t hough t hi s was never di r ect l y br ought t o

    7 Thi s must be t he case, as t he onl y ot her pr et r i al mot i onr egar di ng al i ases- - one not r ai sed on appeal - - was hi s day- bef or e-

    t r i al mot i on t o amend t he J ohn Doe I ndi ct ment t o name as t hedef endant , "Theot i s Leonar d. "Puzzl i ngl y, Campbel l al so ar gues t hat t he t r i al cour t abused

    i t s di scr et i on when i t r ef used " [ t ] o [ a] mend [ t ] he Gover nment ' s[ i ] ndi ct ment [ a] nd [ i ] dent i f y Mr . Campbel l [ a] s [ o] nl y ' Rashi deCampbel l . ' " The r ecor d f ai l s t o pr ovi de any f act ual basi swhat soever f or t hi s ar gument . Such a mot i on was si mpl y never made.What r eal l y happened i s t hat , on t he day bef or e t r i al , def ensecounsel made an "or al mot i on t o have t hi s i ndi ct ment [ i . e. , t heJ ohn Doe I ndi ct ment ] amended t o Uni t ed Stat es of Amer i ca ver susTheot i s Leonar d. " Af t er br i ef l y hear i ng ar gument s f r omeach si de,t he t r i al j udge r ul ed "[ t ] he i ndi ctment st ands as i t i s, " but

    i nvi t ed t he part i es t o come t o an agr eement on a si ngl e name t o beused at t r i al . Not onl y di d Campbel l f ai l t o obj ect t o t hi si nvi t at i on, but t he par t i es i n f act t ook the j udge up on i t ,st i pul at i ng t he next morni ng t o use t he name "Rashi de Campbel l . "As Campbel l nei t her obj ect ed t o t hi s pr ocedur e at t r i al nor br i ef edi t on appeal , we need concer n our sel ves no f ur t her wi t h Campbel l ' sr equest t o amend t he J ohn Doe I ndi ct ment .

    -13-

  • 7/26/2019 United States v. Doe, 1st Cir. (2013)

    14/44

    t he j ur y' s at t ent i on, i t i s concei vabl e t hat t he j ur y not i ced t he

    numerous i nst ances i n whi ch Mr . Campbel l ' s name was changed. "

    Then, af t er specul at i ng t hat t he j ury became awar e of hi s use of

    al i ases, Campbel l f ur t her supposes he was "unf ai r l y pr ej udi ced by

    t he use of var i ous names t hr oughout t he j ur y sel ect i on, t he

    mul t i pl e i ndi ctment s, and t he t r i al . "

    Fromt he t one of i t s br i ef , i t appear s t he gover nment i s

    not exact l y sur e what Campbel l i s at t empt i ng to ar gue wi t h respect

    t o hi s al i ases. Yet what ever hi s gr i pe, t he gover nment says t he

    bl ame f or Campbel l ' s woes l ays squar el y at hi s own f eet . Campbel l ,

    t he gover nment i nf or ms us, " i nsi st ed dur i ng pr e- t r i al pr oceedi ngs

    on pr esent i ng hi msel f i ni t i al l y as Theot i s Leonar d and t hen t o t he

    j ury as Doe. " I n sum, t he gover nment urges us t o r ej ect Campbel l ' s

    el event h- hour obj ect i on t o a si t uat i on of hi s own maki ng, as i n i t s

    vi ew doi ng ot her wi se woul d al l ow Campbel l t o benef i t f r om hi s

    del i ber at e at t empt s t o conceal hi s i dent i t y. 8

    We note f i r st t hat Campbel l may have f or f ei t ed any

    obj ect i on t o t he pr opr i et y of t he J ohn Doe I ndi ct ment by wai t i ng t o

    r ai se i t unt i l t he f i r st day of t r i al . Cf . Uni t ed St at es v. Pr ez-

    Gonzl ez, 445 F. 3d 39, 44 ( 1st Ci r . 2006) ( f i ndi ng t he def endant

    f or f ei t ed obj ect i ons t o ar r est war r ant and post - ar r est st at ement s

    wher e he "wai t [ ed] unt i l t he f i r st day of t r i al " t o r ai se t hem i n

    8 The government f ur t her argues t hat Campbel l ' s al i ases were"beni gn" at any rat e, such t hat t he j ur y i s not l i kel y to have beenpr ej udi ced by t hem.

    -14-

  • 7/26/2019 United States v. Doe, 1st Cir. (2013)

    15/44

    mot i on t o suppr ess) ; see al so Fed. R. Cr i m. P. 12( b) ( 3) ( r equi r i ng

    a mot i on al l egi ng a def ect i n t he i ndi ct ment t o be " r ai sed bef or e

    t r i al " ) . But , whi l e we al so doubt t hat def ense counsel adequat el y

    pl aced hi s obj ect i on t o t he J ohn Doe I ndi ct ment bef or e t he t r i al

    j udge, t he t r i al j udge never t hel ess proceeded t o r ul e on t he

    r equest . We t oo, t hen, wi l l char i t abl y deemt he mot i on t o di smi ss

    t o have been pr oper l y rai sed bef or e t r i al and r evi ew t he t r i al

    j udge' s deci si on accor di ngl y.

    When r evi ewi ng t he t r i al cour t ' s deni al of a mot i on t o

    di smi ss an i ndi ct ment , we r evi ew quest i ons of l aw de novo. Uni t ed

    St at es v. Lopez- Mat i as, 522 F. 3d 150, 153 ( 1st Ci r . 2008) . I f t he

    cour t makes f act ual f i ndi ngs, t hose f i ndi ngs are r evi ewed f or cl ear

    er r or . I d. I t s "ul t i mat e r ul i ng, " however , i s r evi ewed f or abuse

    of di scret i on. I d. Af t er car ef ul l y r evi ewi ng t he r ecor d, we

    concl ude t hat t he di st r i ct cour t nei t her er r ed as a mat t er of l aw

    nor abused i t s di scr et i on i n denyi ng t he mot i on t o di smi ss.

    Al t hough not set f or t h by Campbel l i n a par t i cul ar l y

    l ogi cal manner , t he crux of hi s ar gument seems t o be t hat t he

    or i gi nal i ndi ct ment agai nst Rashi de Campbel l a/ k/ a Theot i s Leonar d

    shoul d never have been suppl ant ed by the J ohn Doe I ndi ct ment i n t he

    f i r st pl ace. Not abl y, however , Campbel l has not br ought t o our

    at t ent i on, nor have we f ound, any aut hor i t y suppor t i ng hi s

    cont ent i on t hat t he J ohn Doe I ndi ct ment was i mpr oper l y i ssued. The

    government says t he J ohn Doe I ndi ct ment was proper because

    -15-

  • 7/26/2019 United States v. Doe, 1st Cir. (2013)

    16/44

    "Campbel l dubbed hi msel f ' J ohn Doe' and r ef used to admi t he was

    Rashi de Campbel l as or i gi nal l y i ndi ct ed. "

    I t has l ong been t he l aw i n t hi s Ci r cui t t hat

    i nt r oduct i on of al i as evi dence at t r i al i s pr oper wher e i t i s

    r el evant and does not prej udi ce a def endant . Uni t ed St at es v.

    Candel ar i a- Si l va, 166 F. 3d 19, 33 ( 1st Ci r . 1999) . Fur t her ,

    " ' [ t ] he use of an al i as i n an i ndi ct ment and i n evi dence i s

    per mi ssi bl e i f i t i s necessar y t o connect t he def endant s wi t h t he

    act s char ged. ' " Uni t ed St at es v. Hi nes, 955 F. 2d 1449, 1454 ( 11t h

    Ci r . 1992) ( al t er at i on i n or i gi nal ) ( quot i ng Uni t ed St at es v.

    J or ge- Sal on, 734 F. 2d 789, 791- 92 ( 11t h Ci r . 1984) ) . To t hat end,

    t he admi ssi on of a def endant ' s al i as i n Candel ar i a- Si l va- - a

    ni ckname- - was not er r or because i t was probat i ve of hi s i dent i t y.

    166 F. 3d at 33. Somewhat more r ecent l y, we r ei t erated t hat i n a

    si t uat i on "[ w] her e t he use of an al i as i s i mpor t ant t o t he

    gover nment ' s case, i t s submi ssi on t o t he j ur y as par t of t he

    i ndi ct ment i s per mi ssi bl e. " Uni t ed St at es v. McFar l ane, 491 F. 3d

    53, 61 ( 1st Ci r . 2007) . Not abl y, i n McFar l ane we af f i r med t he

    t r i al cour t wher e i t al l owed t he j ur y to have a copy of t he

    i ndi ct ment cont ai ni ng an al i as dur i ng i t s del i ber at i ons. I d. at

    60- 61.

    Thus, as our case l aw makes cl ear , a def endant ' s al i ases

    may be i nt r oduced at t r i al i n cases wher e i dent i t y i s at i ssue.

    Campbel l hi msel f admi t s, as he must , t hat who he act ual l y was, was

    -16-

  • 7/26/2019 United States v. Doe, 1st Cir. (2013)

    17/44

    hot l y cont est ed f r omt he ver y moment he was t aken i nt o cust ody and

    up t o t he day of t r i al and beyond. Because Campbel l ' s i dent i t y was

    a l i ve i ssue when the gr and j ur y r et ur ned the super sedi ng J ohn Doe

    I ndi ct ment on Oct ober 26, 2011, i t necessar i l y f ol l ows t hat t he

    I ndi ct ment set t i ng f ort h al l names known t o have been used by

    Campbel l was pr oper . Si mi l ar l y, i t was not er r or f or t he t r i al

    cour t t o read t he J ohn Doe I ndi ct ment dur i ng j ur y empanel ment when

    Campbel l ' s i dent i t y was st i l l up i n t he ai r . And, f i nal l y, had t he

    par t i es not st i pul at ed t o usi ng "Rashi de Campbel l " and "Tony, "

    evi dence of hi s al i ases woul d unquest i onabl y have been admi ssi bl e

    dur i ng hi s t r i al . See Candel ar i a- Si l va, 166 F. 3d at 33

    ( i nt r oduci ng def endant ' s al i as at t r i al was pr oper and di d not

    pr ej udi ce t he def endant wher e t he al i as was r el evant t o i dent i t y) .

    Three weeks ( i ncl udi ng Thanksgi vi ng) el apsed bet ween

    Campbel l ' s j ur y sel ect i on and t he st ar t of t r i al . By t he t i me t he

    j ury next l ai d eyes on Campbel l , t he par t i es had ent er ed t he

    pr et r i al st i pul at i on bar r i ng t he use dur i ng t r i al of t he names

    " J ohn Doe" and "Theot i s Leonard. " The cour t and t he pr osecut or

    f ol l owed t hr ough as agr eed. At t he cl ose of t he evi dence, t he copy

    of t he i ndi ct ment sent t o t he j ur y had been r edact ed t o i dent i f y

    Campbel l as "Rashi de Campbel l " onl y. So t oo di d t he j ur y ver di ct

    f or m, whi ch i dent i f i ed t he case as " Uni t ed St at es of Amer i ca v.

    Rashi de Campbel l , Def endant . " Thus, t he j ur y di d not hear or see

    Campbel l r ef err ed t o as anyt hi ng other t han "Rashi de Campbel l " or

    -17-

  • 7/26/2019 United States v. Doe, 1st Cir. (2013)

    18/44

    "Tony" at any poi nt dur i ng t r i al . Cl ear l y, t he t r i al cour t ' s

    l i mi t at i on on t he names t o be used r emoved any possi bl e pr ej udi ce- -

    and we see none- - t o Campbel l t hat may have r esul t ed f r omt he j ur y

    hear i ng hi s mul t i pl e al i ases dur i ng j ur y voi r di r e.

    Havi ng r evi ewed t he ent i r e recor d, we concl ude there was

    no mer i t t o Campbel l ' s mot i on t o di smi ss. As such, t he t r i al j udge

    act ed wel l wi t hi n t he bounds of hi s di scr et i on i n denyi ng t he

    mot i on. 9

    B. Evidence of Prior Bad Acts

    Movi ng on, Campbel l next appeal s t he t r i al cour t ' s

    admi ssi on, over hi s obj ect i on, of r ecor ded conver sat i ons and

    t est i mony wi t h r espect t o ot her occasi ons on whi ch he sol d dr ugs t o

    Buchanan bef or e August 22, 2011. Speci f i cal l y, accor di ng t o

    Campbel l , past dr ug t r ansact i ons wer e not r el evant t o t he si ngl e

    act of di st r i but i on wi t h whi ch he had been char ged and t her ef or e

    shoul d not have been admi t t ed at t r i al . He al so bel i eves t est i mony

    9 Bef ore cont i nui ng on, we pause t o cl ean up one l ast mat t eron t he i ssue of al i ases. From t he t ext of Campbel l ' s br i ef , heper si st s i n hi s asser t i on t hat evi dence of hi s al i ases was admi t t edat t r i al . He t hen asser t s t he j ur y may have i nf er r ed pr ej udi ci ali nf ormat i on about hi m due t o hi s use of more t han one name and hest at es t hat "al t hough t hi s evi dence [ i . e. , at t empt s t o conceal hi si dent i t y] was al l egedl y excl uded, t her e wer e var i ous i nst ancest hr oughout Mr . Campbel l ' s t r i al i n whi ch Mr . Campbel l was r ef er r ed

    t o by anot her name. "The r ecor d i s cl ear and shows beyond a shadow of a doubt t hat

    t he onl y names by whi ch Campbel l was r ef err ed t o at t r i al were"Rashi de Campbel l " or "Tony" as t he par t i es had so st i pul at ed.Campbel l ' s suggest i on that t he t r i al j udge somehow abused hi sdi scr et i on by al l owi ng hi m t o be i dent i f i ed at t r i al exactl y asagr eed upon i s pat ent l y l udi cr ous.

    -18-

  • 7/26/2019 United States v. Doe, 1st Cir. (2013)

    19/44

    about past sal es i nvi t ed t he j ur y to i mpr oper l y convi ct hi m on

    "pr opensi t y evi dence, " r at her t han t he cr i me act ual l y char ged.

    And, i f t hose ar gument s f ai l , he f ur t her ar gues t hat even i f

    admi ssi bl e, t he pr obat i ve val ue of t he evi dence of past dr ug

    t r ansact i ons was so out wei ghed by the danger of unf ai r pr ej udi ce

    t hat t he t r i al j udge abused hi s di scret i on by decl i ni ng t o excl ude

    i t under Rul e 403 of t he Feder al Rul es of Evi dence. These al l eged

    er r or s, Campbel l asser t s, ent i t l e hi m t o a new t r i al .

    The gover nment , by cont r ast , says t he evi dence was

    admi ssi bl e. I n t he gover nment ' s est i mat i on, t he evi dence was

    admi t t ed not t o show Campbel l ' s pr opensi t y towar ds sel l i ng cr ack,

    but r at her t o "compl et e t he st or y" of t he char ged cr i me. And,

    perhaps more i mport ant l y, t he government argues t hat t he evi dence

    of past t r ansact i ons was di r ect l y rel evant t o t he el ement s of t he

    char ged cr i me i t sel f , as i t demonst r at ed Campbel l ' s knowl edge,

    i nt ent , and l ack of mi st ake wi t h r espect t o the cr ack sal e on

    August 22, 2011. The government goes on, suggest i ng t hat admi ss i on

    of t he evi dence di d not unf ai r l y pr ej udi ce Campbel l .

    1. The Evidence at Trial

    We br i ef l y l ay out t he cont est ed evi dence of pr i or bad

    act s t hat was admi t t ed at t r i al i n or der t o pl ace t he par t i es'

    ar gument s i n cont ext . I t was not ext ensi ve.

    Buchanan was t he gover nment ' s " st ar wi t ness" at t r i al .

    To t hat end, t he gover nment i nt r oduced hi s l i ve t est i mony, al ong

    -19-

  • 7/26/2019 United States v. Doe, 1st Cir. (2013)

    20/44

    wi t h r ecor di ngs of t hr ee t el ephone conver sat i ons and one i n- per son

    conversat i on he had wi t h Campbel l , whomBuchanan knew as Tony. The

    t r i al j udge al so al l owed Buchanan t o test i f y t hat he had a

    r el at i onshi p wi t h Tony pr i or t o August 2011, and per mi t t ed hi m t o

    expl ai n i n general t erms how and why t hey were acquai nt ed.

    The t r i al r ecor d shows pr i or drug sal es wer e ment i oned

    onl y obl i quel y i n t wo of t he f our r ecor ded conver sat i ons and ver y

    br i ef l y i n Buchanan' s i n- cour t expl anat i on of t he nat ur e of t hei r

    r el at i onshi p. I n t he r ecor ded cal l s, nei t her Buchanan nor Campbel l

    expl i ci t l y r ef er s t o dr ugs, dr ug sal es, or crack cocai ne. Rat her ,

    Buchanan apol ogi zes f or not bei ng i n t ouch wi t h Campbel l f or some

    t i me and asks i f he i s "st i l l wor ki ng. " Buchanan t hen i ndi cat es he

    "want [ ed] t o get a l i t t l e mor e t han [ he] di d, " and asks i f t hey can

    "do a l i t t l e mor e, " because he woul d " l i ke t o get , you know, get a

    whol e, t he whol e oni on, you know?" I n t he t hi r d r ecor ded cal l - - t he

    one i n whi ch Campbel l t ol d Buchanan t o meet hi s " gi r l f r i end" - - t he

    cl osest Campbel l comes i s hi s own st atement t hat t hey woul d "get

    back to r egul ar " af t er t he August 22, 2011, t r ansact i on, whi ch i s

    i n r eal i t y a r ef er ence t o f ut ur e ant i ci pat ed sal es. None of t he

    ot her r ecor di ngs cont ai n any r ef er ence t o pr i or dr ug sal es.

    Scant evi dence of past dr ug sal es was i nt r oduced t hr ough

    Buchanan' s l i ve t est i mony. As we di scussed ear l i er , Buchanan

    expl ai ned at t r i al t hat i n August 2011 he knew Campbel l as Tony and

    t hat Buchanan hi msel f used t he name J osh, whi ch was part of hi s

    -20-

  • 7/26/2019 United States v. Doe, 1st Cir. (2013)

    21/44

    cover as an i ndi vi dual l ooki ng t o buy dr ugs f r om Tony. Buchanan

    f ur t her t est i f i ed t hat he knew Tony' s voi ce f r om past phone

    conver sat i ons and f r om i n- per son meet i ngs i n whi ch Buchanan

    obt ai ned f r omTony subst ances t hat he bel i eved t o be cr ack cocai ne.

    I mpor t ant l y, t he r est of t he t est i mony and audi o r ecor di ngs f ocused

    on t he August 22, 2011, sal e f or whi ch Campbel l was char ged.

    2. Legal Framework

    We anal yze t he pr opr i et y of t he t r i al j udge' s admi ssi on

    of pr i or bad acts evi dence under t he aegi s of Rul es 404( b) and 403

    of t he Feder al Rul es of Evi dence, and our r evi ew i s f or abuse of

    di scr et i on. See Uni t ed St at es v. Appol on, 715 F. 3d 362, 372- 73

    ( 1st Ci r . ) ( t r i al cour t ' s admi ssi on or excl usi on of evi dence

    r egardi ng pr i or uncharged conduct r evi ewed f or abuse of

    di scret i on) , cer t . deni ed, 134 S. Ct . 335 ( 2013) ; Uni t ed St at es v.

    DeSi mone, 699 F. 3d 113, 125 ( 1st Ci r . 2012) ( t r i al cour t ' s Rul e 403

    bal anci ng det er mi nat i ons r evi ewed f or abuse of di scr et i on) .

    Rul e 404( b) ' s f ami l i ar l anguage pr ovi des t hat " [ e] vi dence

    of a cr i me, wr ong, or ot her act i s not admi ssi bl e t o pr ove a

    per son' s char act er i n or der t o show t hat on a par t i cul ar occasi on

    t he per son act ed i n accor dance wi t h t he char act er . " Fed. R. Evi d.

    404( b) ( 1) . As we have expl ai ned, Rul e 404( b) onl y pr ohi bi t s

    evi dence of pr i or bad act s when such evi dence i s i nt r oduced " f or

    t he sol e pur pose of pr ovi ng t hat a def endant had a pr opensi t y t o

    commi t a cr i me. " Uni t ed St at es v. Rodr guez- Ber r os, 573 F. 3d 55,

    -21-

  • 7/26/2019 United States v. Doe, 1st Cir. (2013)

    22/44

    64 ( 1st Ci r . 2009) . The Rul e cont i nues, however , and pr ovi des t hat

    t hi s t ype of evi dence "may be admi ssi bl e f or anot her pur pose, such

    as pr ovi ng mot i ve, oppor t uni t y, i nt ent , pr epar at i on, pl an,

    knowl edge, i dent i t y, absence of mi st ake, or l ack of acci dent . "

    Fed. R. Evi d. 404( b) ( 2) . Thus , we must consi der whet her t he

    evi dence has " speci al r el evance, " by whi ch we mean t hat i t i s

    r el evant f or any pur pose apar t f r omshowi ng pr opensi t y t o commi t a

    cr i me. Rodr guez- Ber r os, 573 F. 3d at 64. I f "speci al r el evance"

    i s f ound, t hi s does not aut omat i cal l y mean t hat i t shoul d be

    i nt r oduced t o t he j ur y. Thi s i s because Rul e 403 pr ovi des t hat a

    t r i al "cour t may excl ude r el evant evi dence i f i t s pr obat i ve val ue

    i s subst ant i al l y out wei ghed by a danger of . . . unf ai r pr ej udi ce. "

    Fed. R. Evi d. 403. I n accor dance wi t h i t s l anguage, however ,

    "def endant s ar e pr ot ect ed onl y ' agai nst unf ai r pr ej udi ce, not

    agai nst al l pr ej udi ce. ' " Uni t ed St at es v. Gent l es, 619 F. 3d 75, 87

    ( 1st Ci r . 2010) ( quot i ng Uni t ed St at es v. Ri ver a- Gomez, 67 F. 3d

    993, 997 ( 1st Ci r . 1995) ) . Under an abuse of di scr et i on st andar d

    we af f or d def er ence t o a t r i al j udge' s bal anci ng deci si on, and

    "' [ o] nl y r ar el y- - and i n ext r aor di nar i l y compel l i ng ci r cumst ances- -

    wi l l we, f r om t he vi st a of a col d appel l at e r ecor d, r ever se a

    di st r i ct cour t ' s on- t he- spot j udgment concer ni ng t he r el at i ve

    wei ghi ng of pr obat i ve val ue and unf ai r ef f ect . ' " Uni t ed St at es v.

    Li , 206 F. 3d 78, 84- 85 ( 1st Ci r . 2000) ( quot i ng Fr eeman v. Package

    Mach. Co. , 865 F. 2d 1331, 1340 ( 1st Ci r . 1988) ) .

    -22-

  • 7/26/2019 United States v. Doe, 1st Cir. (2013)

    23/44

    a) Admissibility under Rule 404(b)

    We begi n our t wo- st ep anal ysi s wi t h Rul e 404( b) t o

    det er mi ne f i r st i f t hi s r ul e i s an absol ut e bar t o t he cont est ed

    pr i or bad act s evi dence. Despi t e Campbel l ' s pr ot est at i ons, t he

    evi dence of past dr ug t r ansact i ons cl ear l y has " speci al r el evance"

    as i t went t owar ds sever al pur poses ot her t han est abl i shi ng

    Campbel l ' s pr opensi t y f or sel l i ng dr ugs. Fi r st , i t pai nt ed a

    pi ct ur e of t he r el at i onshi p between Campbel l and Buchanan, t hereby

    pr ovi di ng t he j ur y wi t h cont ext sur r oundi ng t he dr ug sal e.

    Buchanan' s t est i mony expl ai ned how i t was t hat he knew Campbel l on

    t he dat e of t he f i r st r ecor ded phone cal l . Ot her wi se, t he j ur y

    woul d be at a l oss as t o why Buchanan cal l ed Campbel l i n t he f i r st

    pl ace. Buchanan' s i n- cour t t est i mony pr ovi ded cont ext t o t hat

    conver sat i on by expl ai ni ng what he meant when he asked f or "a

    l i t t l e mor e" t han l ast t i me and what he was l ooki ng f or i n a "whol e

    oni on. " Buchanan' s t est i mony f ur t her est abl i shed t he pr i or

    r el at i onshi p between t he t wo men, one whi ch Campbel l i nt ended t o

    cont i nue i nt o t he f ut ur e as evi denced by hi s s t at ement t hat he was

    goi ng t o hook Buchanan up so t hat he woul d r et urn as a cust omer .

    Thi s " [ e] vi dence of pr i or conduct [ was] admi ssi bl e t o compl et e t he

    st or y of t he cr i me on t r i al by pr ovi ng i t s i mmedi at e cont ext of

    happeni ngs near i n t i me and pl ace. " Uni t ed St at es v. D' Al or a, 585

    F. 2d 16, 20 ( 1st Ci r . 1978) ( ci t at i ons omi t t ed) ( i nt er nal quot at i on

    mar ks omi t t ed) ; see al so Uni t ed St at es v. Ar i as- Mont oya, 967 F. 2d

    -23-

  • 7/26/2019 United States v. Doe, 1st Cir. (2013)

    24/44

    708, 712- 13 (1st Ci r . 1992) ( not i ng evi dence may have "speci al

    r el evance" wher e i t shows a " common scheme or suggest ed cour se of

    cont i nuous deal i ng" or wher e "t he ear l i er bad act [ i s] l i kel y t o

    pr ovi de cont ext or compl et e t he st ory of t he one subsequent l y

    char ged") .

    I n addi t i on, t he chal l enged evi dence cor r obor at ed

    Buchanan' s i n- cour t i dent i f i cat i on of Campbel l , whi ch as det ai l ed

    above was cont est ed r i ght up t o t he mor ni ng of t r i al . Evi dence of

    pr i or deal i ngs between Buchanan and Campbel l was di r ect l y r el evant

    t o est abl i shi ng t he i dent i t y of t he i ndi vi dual f r om whom Buchanan

    pur chased dr ugs on August 22, 2011. Buchanan' s i n- cour t t est i mony

    and t he recor ded t el ephone conver sat i ons demonst r ated t hat Buchanan

    had known and i nt eracted wi t h Campbel l f or sever al mont hs pr i or t o

    t he August dr ug deal . That Buchanan had pr evi ousl y pur chased dr ugs

    f r omCampbel l and spoken wi t h hi mon t he phone was hi ghl y r el evant

    t o Buchanan' s abi l i t y t o i dent i f y Campbel l , bot h on August 22,

    2011, and agai n at t r i al . Such i dent i f i cat i on evi dence i s not

    pr ohi bi t ed by Rul e 404( b) because i t has not hi ng at al l t o do wi t h

    a def endant ' s propensi t y t o commi t a cr i me.

    Fi nal l y, Campbel l ' s previ ous sal es t o Buchanan wer e

    hi ghl y pr obat i ve of mul t i pl e el ement s of t he cr i me char ged.

    Evi dence of pr i or t r ansact i ons was r el evant t o t he cr i t i cal

    quest i ons of Campbel l ' s knowl edge t hat t he subst ance was i n f act

    cr ack and t o show t hat he i nt ended t o di st r i but e t hat cr ack.

    -24-

  • 7/26/2019 United States v. Doe, 1st Cir. (2013)

    25/44

    I ndeed, we have "of t en uphel d t he admi ssi on of evi dence of pr i or

    nar cot i cs i nvol vement t o pr ove knowl edge and i nt ent . " Uni t ed

    St at es v. Manni ng, 79 F. 3d 212, 217 ( 1st Ci r . 1996) . J ust as i n

    Manni ng, evi dence that Campbel l sol d drugs t o Buchanan i n t he past

    makes i t more l i kel y t hat he was aware the subst ance he pr ovi ded t o

    Buchanan on August 22, 2011, was cr ack and t hat he i n f act i nt ended

    t o di st r i but e i t t o Buchanan on t hat day. See i d.

    I n sum, t he evi dence of past dr ug t r ansact i ons bet ween

    Campbel l and Buchanan was r el evant t o t he cr i t i cal i ssues of

    i dent i t y, i nt ent , and knowl edge. Mor eover , i t served t o pr ovi de

    cont ext t o t he f i r st r ecor ded t el ephone cal l and t o compl et e t he

    st ory of t he r el at i onshi p between the t wo men, whi ch had begun

    mont hs pr i or t o hi s ar r est and whi ch Campbel l i nt ended t o cont i nue

    i ndef i ni t el y i nt o t he f ut ur e. As such, Rul e 404( b) di d not

    pr ohi bi t i t s admi ssi on.

    b) Rule 403 Analysis

    Even t hough t he evi dence was not bar r ed by Rul e 404( b) ,

    our i nqui r y does not end t here. We must f ocus on t he second pr ong

    of t he admi ssi bi l i t y test and consi der whet her t he evi dence,

    al t hough r el evant , shoul d nevert hel ess have been excl uded under

    Rul e 403. Thi s requi r es us t o det er mi ne whet her t he t r i al j udge

    shoul d, i n t he exer ci se of hi s di scr et i on, have concl uded t hat t he

    evi dence' s pr obat i ve val ue was subst ant i al l y out wei ghed by t he

    danger of unf ai r pr ej udi ce.

    -25-

  • 7/26/2019 United States v. Doe, 1st Cir. (2013)

    26/44

    Keepi ng t hese pr i nci pl es i n mi nd, we f i r st observe t hat

    t he pr obat i ve val ue of t he evi dence was gr eat . I n or der t o secur e

    a convi ct i on, t he government needed t o pr ove that Campbel l was t he

    speci f i c i ndi vi dual who di st r i but ed i l l egal dr ugs t o Buchanan, t hat

    Campbel l knew t he subst ance was an i l l egal dr ug, and that he

    i nt ended t o di st r i but e i t t o Buchanan. Thus, evi dence showi ng t hat

    Campbel l sol d dr ugs t o Buchanan i n t he past and hoped t o cont i nue

    sel l i ng dr ugs t o hi m i n t he f ut ur e was hi ghl y pr obat i ve of t hese

    cr i t i cal el ement s. See Uni t ed St at es v. Spi nosa, 982 F. 2d 620,

    628- 29 ( 1st Ci r . 1992) ( f i ndi ng evi dence r egar di ng t he def endant ' s

    i nvol vement i n pr i or dr ug sal es " hi ghl y pr obat i ve of mat t er s of

    speci al r el evance i n t he case: knowl edge, i nt ent , and l ack of

    acci dent or mi st ake i n cocai ne deal i ng") .

    Fur t her mor e, t he danger of unf ai r pr ej udi ce i n no way

    "subst ant i al l y out wei ghed" t he evi dence' s consi der abl e pr obat i ve

    val ue. We note t hat when t he evi dence was i nt r oduced over t he

    def endant ' s obj ect i on, t he t r i al j udge of f er ed t o pr ovi de t he j ur y

    wi t h a l i mi t i ng i nst r uct i on. However , def ense counsel expl i ci t l y

    decl i ned:

    The Cour t : Al l r i ght . Now, I j ust want t o becl ear on t he r ecor d, I ' m per f ect l y happy t ogi ve you an i nst r uct i on on pr i or [ bad] act s.I assume you don' t want i t because you don' twant t o emphasi ze i t .

    Mr . Masel l i : Exact l y, Your Honor . Thank youver y much and I appr eci ate t he opport uni t y.

    The Cour t : So you' r e wai vi ng t hat ?

    -26-

  • 7/26/2019 United States v. Doe, 1st Cir. (2013)

    27/44

    Mr . Masel l i : Yes.

    Def ense counsel t hus made a t act i cal deci si on to t ur n down the

    cour t ' s i nvi t at i on so as t o avoi d hi ghl i ght i ng t he past

    t r ansact i ons t o t he j ur y.10

    Whi l e not necessar i l y di sposi t i ve i n

    l i ght of t he t r i al j udge' s r ef usal t o excl ude pr i or act s evi dence,

    t he knowi ng wai ver of t hi s i nst r uct i on i s pr obat i ve of t he scant

    pr ej udi ce ascr i bed t o t he evi dence by def ense counsel , who, of

    cour se, was i deal l y posi t i oned t o make a cont empor aneous f i r st - hand

    det er mi nat i on as t o t he evi dence' s act ual ef f ect upon t he j ur y.

    Mor eover , a f ai r r eadi ng of t he r ecor d demonst r at es t he

    case was al ways pr esent ed t o the j ur y i n t er ms of a si ngul ar dr ug

    t r ansact i on, r at her t han as one l i nk i n a cont i nui ng chai n of

    sal es. I n hi s i nt r oduct or y r emar ks, t he t r i al j udge i nf or med t he

    j ury t hat Campbel l was char ged wi t h "di st r i but [ i ng] cocai ne base on

    or about August 22, 2011, " whi ch r equi r ed t he gover nment t o pr ove

    "beyond a r easonabl e doubt " t hat "on t he dat e al l eged . . .

    [ Campbel l ] t r ansf er r ed cocai ne base t o anot her person. " The

    t est i mony t hr oughout t r i al f ocused pr eci sel y on t hat si ngl e al l eged

    10 Thus, Campbel l has wai ved any ar gument on appeal t hat he mayhave been pr ej udi ced by t he l ack of a l i mi t i ng i nst r uct i on. I t i swor t hwhi l e t o not e, however , t hat i n Manni ng we f ound t hat a t r i alcour t ' s i nst r uct i ng t he j ur y "about t he pr oper use of pr i or bad act

    evi dence" ser ves t o "mi ni mi ze[ ] any pr ej udi ci al i mpact of t he pr i ordr ug deal i ng evi dence. " 79 F. 3d at 217. Her e, of cour se, def ensecounsel expl i ci t l y wai ved a l i mi t i ng i nst r uct i on. Never t hel ess,t he j ur y was t ol d i n no uncer t ai n t er ms t o concer n i t sel f onl y wi t ht he si ngl e t r ansact i on al l eged t o have t aken pl ace on August 22,2011, whi ch f ur t her bl unt s Campbel l ' s cl ai ms of unf ai r pr ej udi ce.

    -27-

  • 7/26/2019 United States v. Doe, 1st Cir. (2013)

    28/44

    t r ansact i on. Onl y t he f i r st r ecor ded conver sat i on had anyt hi ng at

    al l t o do wi t h past sal es, and cont ai ned coded wor ds f or "dr ugs, "

    "cocai ne, " and "crack" t hat r equi r ed expl anat i on at t r i al . And

    Buchanan' s t est i mony touchi ng upon t he past sal es was nonspeci f i c

    and gener al , servi ng onl y t o pr ovi de backgr ound i nf or mat i on f or t he

    j ury.

    Fur t her mor e, i n hi s cl osi ng ar gument t he pr osecut or

    emphasi zed hi s vi ew t hat t he evi dence pr oved beyond a reasonabl e

    doubt t hat Campbel l sol d dr ugs t o Buchanan "on August 22nd, "

    ut t er i ng t hat exact phr ase a t ot al of ei ght t i mes. He r ef er r ed t o

    a si ngl e sal e thr oughout , and asked t he j ur y t o f i nd beyond a

    r easonabl e doubt t hat "on August 22nd, 2011, t hi s def endant ,

    Rashi de Campbel l , al so known as Tony, i nt ent i onal l y di st r i but ed

    cocai ne base knowi ng i t was cocai ne base. " The t r i al j udge t hen

    i nst r uct ed t he j ur y t hat t he def endant was char ged wi t h

    di st r i but i ng "cocai ne base on or about August 22nd, 2011, " and t hat

    t o r et ur n a gui l t y ver di ct i t must f i nd beyond a reasonabl e doubt

    " t hat on or about t he dat e al l eged, t he def endant t r ansf er r ed

    cocai ne base t o anot her per son. "

    Over al l , whi l e t her e was some ment i on of pr i or dr ug

    t r ansact i ons, t he t r i al was cl ear l y f ocused on t he August 22, 2011,

    t r ansact i on. The pr osecut or di d not make any argument i n hi s

    openi ng or cl osi ng t hat woul d have i nvi t ed t he j ur y to consi der t he

    past t r ansact i ons or t o convi ct hi m on t he basi s of unchar ged

    -28-

  • 7/26/2019 United States v. Doe, 1st Cir. (2013)

    29/44

    conduct . And, of cour se, t he evi dence was hi ghl y pr obat i ve as i t

    went di r ect l y t o Campbel l ' s i dent i t y, al ong wi t h hi s knowl edge,

    i nt ent , and l ack of mi st ake when he sol d cr ack t o Buchanan on

    August 22, 2011. As such, and af t er caref ul r evi ew of t he ent i r e

    r ecor d, we ar e sat i sf i ed t he di st r i ct cour t di d not abuse i t s

    di scr et i on by r esol vi ng t he Rul e 403 bal anci ng of unf ai r pr ej udi ce

    ver sus pr obat i ve val ue i n f avor of admi t t i ng t he evi dence.

    C. Sentencing

    Havi ng di sposed of Campbel l ' s obj ect i ons t o hi s

    convi ct i on, we t ur n t o hi s var i ous obj ect i ons r egar di ng t he l engt h

    of hi s t went y- year sent ence, whi ch coi nci des wi t h t he maxi mum

    penal t y f or t he cr i me char ged. See 21 U. S. C. 841( b) ( 1) ( C) . The

    J ohn Doe I ndi ct ment di d not al l ege any amount of cocai ne base f or

    whi ch Campbel l was responsi bl e. Nei t her par t y asked f or t he j ur y

    t o make a f i ndi ng wi t h r espect t o dr ug quant i t y.

    At sent enci ng, t he di st r i ct cour t f ound Campbel l

    r esponsi bl e f or di st r i but i ng 280 gr ams of cocai ne base. The

    di st r i ct cour t appl i ed sent enci ng enhancement s based on i t s

    f i ndi ngs t hat Campbel l had engaged i n acts of vi ol ence, used a

    f i r ear m i n connect i on wi t h t he of f ense, and was a manager or

    supervi sor of a dr ug conspi r acy. These enhancement s pr oduced a

    gui del i ne sent enci ng r ange wel l i n excess of t he twent y- year

    maxi mum. As such, t he court i mposed t he maxi mum sent ence.

    -29-

  • 7/26/2019 United States v. Doe, 1st Cir. (2013)

    30/44

    Campbel l now r ai ses sever al obj ect i ons t o t he sent enci ng

    pr ocedur e empl oyed by the t r i al j udge and asks us t o r et ur n t hi s

    mat t er f or r esent enci ng. 11 We have caref ul l y consi dered Campbel l ' s

    ar gument s and f i nd t hem t o be wi t hout mer i t .

    1. Judicial factfinding after Alleyne

    The t r i al j udge ut i l i zed a preponder ance of t he evi dence

    st andard when f i gur i ng out t he amount of dr ugs f or whi ch Campbel l

    coul d be hel d r esponsi bl e. Thi s was unquest i onabl y pr oper under

    our pr ecedent at t he t i me of sent enci ng. Uni t ed St at es v. Mi l l s,

    710 F. 3d 5, 15 ( 1st Ci r . 2013) ( r ecogni zi ng dr ug quant i t i es need

    onl y be f ound by a pr eponder ance of t he evi dence) . Campbel l t el l s

    us i n suppl ement al br i ef i ng, however , t hat our j ur i spr udence i n

    t hi s ar ea has si nce been overr ul ed by the Supr eme Cour t i n Al l eyne

    v. Uni t ed St at es, 133 S. Ct . 2151 ( 2013) . As Al l eyne was deci ded

    dur i ng t he pendency of Campbel l ' s appeal , we appl y i t her e.

    Gr i f f i t h v. Kent ucky, 479 U. S. 314, 328 ( 1987) ( " [ A] new r ul e f or

    t he conduct of cr i mi nal pr osecut i ons i s t o be appl i ed r et r oact i vel y

    t o al l cases, st at e or f eder al , pendi ng on di r ect r evi ew or not yet

    f i nal . . . . " ) .

    Accor di ng t o Campbel l , i n t he wake of Al l eyne any f act

    t hat i ncr eases a mandat ory mi ni mumsent ence must now be f ound by a

    j ury. Campbel l begi ns hi s at t empt t o convi nce us t o vacat e hi s

    11 As t he t r i al j udge al so pr esi ded over t he sent enci nghear i ng, we cont i nue t o r ef er t o t he " t r i al j udge" i n t he i nt er est sof consi st ency.

    -30-

  • 7/26/2019 United States v. Doe, 1st Cir. (2013)

    31/44

    sent ence by observi ng t hat t he j ur y convi ct ed hi mof t he August 22,

    2011, t r ansact i on onl y, whi ch t he evi dence at t r i al showed i nvol ved

    a t otal of 6. 9 gr ams of cr ack. Thi s amount and t hi s amount al one,

    he says, i s what t he government proved beyond a r easonabl e doubt

    and coul d be at t r i but abl e t o hi m. Accor di ng t o Campbel l , t hi s dr ug

    quant i t y woul d have l ed t o a gui del i nes sent enci ng range of bet ween

    f i f t y- one and si xt y- f our mont hs. He ar gues that t he t r i al j udge

    i mpermi ss i bl y i mposed t he maxi mum t went y- year sent ence af t er

    f i ndi ng hi m r esponsi bl e f or di st r i but i on of 280 gr ams of crack

    usi ng t he pr eponder ance of t he evi dence st andar d. I n Campbel l ' s

    vi ew, t hi s t ype of j udi ci al f act f i ndi ng vi ol at es t he under gi r di ng

    pr ecept s of Al l eyne and r equi r es r esent enci ng.

    Whi l e t he gover nment appear s t o agr ee wi t h Campbel l ' s

    descri pt i on of Al l eyne' s hol di ng, at l east i n br oad t er ms, i t

    cont ends t hat Al l eyne does not have anyt hi ng t o say about t he

    j udi ci al f act f i ndi ng conduct ed i n t hi s i nst ance because i t had no

    ef f ect on t he st at ut or y range of penal t i es t o whi ch Campbel l was

    exposed. At al l t i mes, accor di ng t o t he government , t he maxi mum

    penal t y by st atut e was a twent y- year pr i son t erm, whi ch was not

    al t er ed i n any way by the t r i al j udge' s dr ug quant i t y

    determi nat i on. The government t hus ur ges us t o f i nd t here was no

    Al l eyne vi ol at i on. We agr ee wi t h t he gover nment ' s posi t i on:

    Campbel l ' s r el i ance on Al l eyne i s mi spl aced, as t he Supr eme Cour t ' s

    t eachi ng si mpl y does not appl y here.

    -31-

  • 7/26/2019 United States v. Doe, 1st Cir. (2013)

    32/44

    I n Al l eyne, t he Supr eme Cour t extended t he r ul e r equi r i ng

    a j ur y t o f i nd, beyond a r easonabl e doubt , any f act t hat i ncr eases

    a maxi mum st at ut ory penal t y to any f act t hat r equi r es i mposi ng a

    st at ut or y mi ni mumpenal t y. See Al l eyne, 133 S. Ct . at 2160 ( ci t i ng

    Appr endi v. New J er sey, 530 U. S. 466, 490 ( 2000) ) . Al l eyne

    r ecogni zes t hat "a f act t r i gger i ng a mandat or y mi ni mum al t er s t he

    pr escr i bed r ange of sent ences to whi ch a cr i mi nal def endant i s

    exposed. " I d. Thus, "a f act i ncreasi ng ei t her end of t he

    [ sent enci ng] r ange pr oduces a new penal t y and const i t ut es an

    i ngr edi ent of t he of f ense. " I d. Such f act s must be submi t t ed t o

    and f ound beyond a reasonabl e doubt by a j ur y, not by a j udge

    ut i l i zi ng a pr eponder ance of t he evi dence st andar d at a sent enci ng

    hear i ng. I d. at 2162- 63.

    Whi l e we l eave an exhaust i ve t r eat ment of Al l eyne f or an

    appr opr i at e case, i t i s suf f i ci ent f or our pur poses t o obser ve t hat

    even i f t her e i s any mer i t t o Campbel l ' s premi se about t he ef f ect

    of Al l eyne- - whi ch we do not her e addr ess- - hi s concl usi on does not

    f ol l ow f r om t he pr emi se. Thi s i s because, as t he Supr eme Cour t

    went t o gr eat l engt hs t o poi nt out , t her e r emai ns a pl ace f or

    "j udi ci al f act f i ndi ng" at sent enci ng, even i n t he post - Al l eyne

    wor l d. I d. at 2163. As t he Cour t expl i ci t l y t ol d us, j udi ci al

    f act f i ndi ng i s st i l l per mi ssi bl e "wi t hi n t he r ange aut hor i zed by

    l aw. " I d. The i mpor t of al l t hi s i s t hat i t r emai ns wi t hi n t he

    sent enci ng cour t ' s di scr et i on t o j udi ci al l y f i nd f acts i nf or mi ng

    -32-

  • 7/26/2019 United States v. Doe, 1st Cir. (2013)

    33/44

    t he sent ence act ual l y i mposed, pr ovi ded t hat any such f act does not

    t r i gger a mandat or y mi ni mum puni shment or al t er a st at ut or y

    maxi mum, and that t he ul t i mate sent ence r emai ns wi t hi n the range of

    penal t i es set f or t h i n t he st at ut e of convi ct i on. I n such a

    si t uat i on, Al l eyne does not appl y, and t he sent enci ng cour t may

    cont i nue t o f i nd f act s based upon a pr eponder ance of t he evi dence.

    Thi s case apt l y i l l ust r at es t he pr i nci pl e.

    The i ndi ct ment agai nst Campbel l di d not char ge hi m wi t h

    di st r i but i on of any speci f i c amount of cocai ne base. I t si mpl y

    char ged di st r i but i on i n vi ol at i on of 21 U. S. C. 841( a) , and went

    on t o al l ege t hat t he penal t y pr ovi si ons f ound i n 21 U. S. C.

    841( b) ( 1) ( C) appl y. Sect i on 841( b) ( 1) ( C) set s f or t h t he maxi mum

    sentence t hat may be i mposed on a def endant " r esponsi bl e f or an

    unspeci f i ed amount of cr ack. " Uni t ed St at es v. Goodi ne, 326 F. 3d

    26, 27 ( 1st Ci r . 2003) . I mpor t ant l y, t hat sect i on pr ovi des a

    cei l i ng, but no f l oor :

    . . . any per son who vi ol at es subsect i on ( a)of t hi s sect i on shal l be sent enced as f ol l ows:

    * * *

    ( 1) ( C) I n t he case of a cont r ol l ed subst ancei n schedul e I or I I . . . such per son shal l besent enced t o a t er m of i mpr i sonment of notmor e t han 20 year s . . . .

    21 U. S. C. 841( b) . Thus, t he r ange of puni shment f or di st r i but i on

    of an unspeci f i ed amount of cr ack enshr i ned by st at ut e r anges f r om

    -33-

  • 7/26/2019 United States v. Doe, 1st Cir. (2013)

    34/44

    anywher e f r om no j ai l t i me at al l , al l t he way up t o t went y year s'

    i mpr i sonment .

    As a r esul t of t he j ur y' s gui l t y ver di ct , t hi s i s

    pr eci sel y t he r ange of puni shment f aci ng Campbel l , r egar dl ess of

    whether he di st r i but ed 6. 9 gr ams or 280 gr ams of cr ack. And a

    penal t y wi t hi n t hi s r ange- - t went y year s- - i s pr eci sel y what was

    met ed out t o hi m. The j udi ci al f act f i ndi ng i n t hi s case si mpl y

    does not i mpl i cat e Appr endi or Al l eyne because i t had no ef f ect

    what soever upon t he r ange of penal t i es pr ovi ded by l aw. Al l eyne,

    t her ef or e, does not r equi r e us t o vacat e Campbel l ' s sent ence. 12

    12 I n hi s i ni t i al br i ef ( submi t t ed bef or e t he Supr eme Cour thanded down Al l eyne) , Campbel l r el i es on McMi l l an v. Pennsyl vani a,477 U. S. 79, 88 ( 1986) , t o argue t hat t he evi dence of past dr ugdi st r i but i on i nt r oduced at t he sent enci ng hear i ng was so extensi ve

    and l ed t o such an i ncr ease i n j ai l t i me t hat i t became t he " t ai lwhi ch wags t he dog of t he subst ant i ve of f ense. " Thi s ar gument i swi t hout mer i t i n l i ght of Al l eyne and Appr endi , as nei t her caser equi r es a beyond a r easonabl e doubt f i ndi ng of dr ug quant i t y atsent enci ng wher e the dr ug quant i t y f i ndi ng does not al t er t hemi ni mum or maxi mum puni shment . I n addi t i on, Campbel l seemi ngl yargues t hat t he amount of evi dence regardi ng t he scope and dur at i onof hi s dr ug di st r i but i on ef f or t s i nt r oduced at t he sent enci nghear i ng somehow vi ol ated hi s due pr ocess r i ght s, al t hough he neverspeci f i es why he bel i eves t hi s i s so. The cl osest he comes t o anexpl anat i on appear s i n t he next t o l ast sent ence of hi s br i ef ,wher e Campbel l asser t s- - wi t hout any ci t at i on t o aut hor i t y- - t hat hi s

    sentence shoul d be vacated because t he l arge vol ume of evi dencepr esent ed at t he sent enci ng hear i ng shows " t hat t he Government wasmer el y t r yi ng t o ski r t ar ound Mr . Campbel l ' s f undament al r i ght t oa t r i al . " As t hi s obj ect i on was nei t her r ai sed at sent enci ng nordevel oped i n hi s br i ef , and because we concl ude t he t r i al j udge di dnot er r i n hi s appl i cat i on of t he Sent enci ng Gui del i nes, we do notconsi der t hi s per f unct or y ar gument .

    -34-

  • 7/26/2019 United States v. Doe, 1st Cir. (2013)

    35/44

    2. Evidentiary Challenges

    We move on. The t r i al j udge commi t t ed r ever si bl e er r or ,

    Campbel l supposes, when he made cer t ai n f i ndi ngs wi t h r espect t o

    dr ug quant i t y, Campbel l ' s use of vi ol ence and/ or f i r ear ms, and

    Campbel l ' s r ol e as a manager or super vi sor i n a dr ug conspi r acy.

    Accor di ng t o Campbel l , t he t r i al j udge er r ed because he based hi s

    f i ndi ngs on unr el i abl e t est i mony and i nsuf f i ci ent evi dence. Thi s

    i mpr oper f act f i ndi ng, Campbel l suggest s, was procedur al er r or whi ch

    r esul t ed i n an i ncr ease i n t he upper l i mi t s of Campbel l ' s

    sent enci ng r ange and t her eby i nf l uenced t he t r i al j udge' s f i nal

    sent enci ng deci si on.

    Fi r st , Campbel l ar gues t he t r i al j udge was "mani f est l y

    unr easonabl e" i n hol di ng hi m r esponsi bl e f or t he di st r i but i on of

    280 gr ams of cr ack. Di sr egar di ng hi s at t or ney' s concessi on i n hi s

    Oct ober 9, 2012, sent enci ng memorandum t hat he coul d be hel d

    r esponsi bl e f or di st r i but i on of 105. 8 gr ams, Campbel l now t akes t he

    posi t i on t hat he may not be hel d r esponsi bl e f or anythi ng mor e than

    t he 6. 9 gr ams he sol d t o Buchanan on August 22, 2011. 13 He posi t s

    t hat t he t r i al j udge' s dr ug quant i t y det er mi nat i on was based on

    not hi ng mor e t han uncor r obor at ed and unr el i abl e t est i mony f r omdr ug

    13Campbel l ' s sentenci ng memorandumaddr essed both act ual sal es( t o i ndi vi dual s connect ed t o l aw enf or cement ) and est i mat ed sal esr ef er enced i n t he Present ence I nvest i gat i on Repor t and concl uded," [ t ] hus, addi ng t he act ual amount der i ved f r om hand t o hand sal est o t he hi st or i cal sal es pr oj ect ed by t he pr obat i on of f i ce but usi ngmor e r eal i st i c f i gur es, t he t ot al wei ght i nvol ved shoul d be 105. 8gr ams of cr ack cocai ne. "

    -35-

  • 7/26/2019 United States v. Doe, 1st Cir. (2013)

    36/44

    user s who t est i f i ed onl y i n t he hope of r ecei vi ng l eni ency i n t hei r

    own pendi ng dr ug cases. Si mi l ar l y, he ar gues t hat because the onl y

    evi dence he engaged i n vi ol ence, used a f i r ear m, or act ed as a

    manager or supervi sor i n a dr ug conspi r acy was pr ovi ded by t hese

    unr el i abl e dr ug user s, t hei r t est i mony i s i nsuf f i ci ent t o sat i sf y

    even a pr eponderance of t he evi dence st andard. Wi t hout t hese

    put at i ve er r or s, Campbel l bel i eves t hat he shoul d have been gi ven

    a sent ence bet ween f i f t y- one and si xty- f our mont hs i n l engt h.

    At t hei r hear t , Campbel l ' s argument s boi l down t o gr i pi ng

    about t he qual i t y of t he evi dence at t he sent enci ng hear i ng, whi ch

    of cour se was conduct ed by t he same j udge who pr esi ded at hi s t r i al

    and was pr esumabl y qui t e f ami l i ar wi t h t he i ssues. Not

    surpr i si ngl y, t he gover nment bel i eves ampl e evi dence support ed t he

    j udge' s det er mi nat i ons and urges us t o uphol d t hem i n t hei r

    ent i r et y.

    Bef or e di vi ng i nt o the recor d once agai n, we set f or t h

    t he par amet er s of our r evi ew. Whi l e t he t r i al cour t ' s appl i cat i on

    of t he sent enci ng gui del i nes i s subj ect t o de novo r evi ew, i t s

    f i ndi ngs of f act shal l st and unl ess af f ect ed by cl ear er r or .

    Uni t ed St at es v. Bat chu, 724 F. 3d 1, 7 ( 1st Ci r . 2013) , cer t .

    deni ed, 82 U. S. L. W. 3299 ( U. S. Nov. 18, 2013) . Pur suant t o t hi s

    st andar d, "we must honor t he sent enci ng cour t ' s f i ndi ngs ' unl ess,

    on t he whol e of t he r ecor d, we f or m a st r ong, unyi el di ng bel i ef

    t hat a mi st ake has been made. ' " Uni t ed St at es v. Ber ni er , 660 F. 3d

    -36-

  • 7/26/2019 United States v. Doe, 1st Cir. (2013)

    37/44

    543, 545 ( 1st Ci r . 2011) ( quot i ng Cumpi ano v. Banco Sant ander P. R. ,

    902 F. 2d 148, 152 ( 1st Ci r . 1990) ) . As nei t her Al l eyne nor

    Appr endi i s i mpl i cat ed i n t hi s i nst ance, t he cour t needed onl y t o

    f i nd f act s based on t he l ong- st andi ng pr eponder ance of t he evi dence

    st andar d. See Mi l l s, 710 F. 3d at 15.

    The r ul es of evi dence at sent enci ng ar e "consi der abl y

    l ess r i gor ous" t han t hose at t r i al and per mi t t he cour t t o consi der

    any evi dence wi t h "' suf f i ci ent i ndi ci a of r el i abi l i t y t o suppor t

    i t s pr obabl e accur acy. ' " Uni t ed St at es v. Ci nt r n- Echaut egui , 604

    F. 3d 1, 6 ( 1st Ci r . 2010) ( quot i ng Uni t ed St at es v. Zapat a, 589

    F. 3d 475, 485 ( 1st Ci r . 2009) ) . Accor di ngl y, t he sent enci ng cour t

    may r el y upon " ' vi r t ual l y any dependabl e i nf or mat i on, ' " i ncl udi ng

    st at ement s whi ch have not been subj ect ed t o the cruci bl e of cr oss-

    exami nat i on and i nf ormat i on appear i ng i n a pr esent ence r eport . I d.

    ( quot i ng Uni t ed St at es v. Skl ar , 920 F. 2d 107, 110 ( 1st Ci r .

    1990) ) . When t he cour t hear s l i ve t est i mony subj ect t o cr oss-

    exami nat i on, i t s "pl ausi bl e credi bi l i t y det er mi nat i ons cannot be

    di st ur bed on appeal . " Uni t ed St at es v. Sot o- Ben quez, 356 F. 3d 1,

    52 ( 1st Ci r . 2003) . And wi t h r espect t o dr ug quant i t y, t he

    sent enci ng cour t i s not r equi r ed t o make dr ug quant i t y f i ndi ngs

    wi t h exact i t ude but may rest i t s f i ndi ngs upon a " ' r easoned

    est i mate[ ] ' " of t he amount of dr ugs a def endant has been

    r esponsi bl e f or over t i me. Ber ni er , 660 F. 3d at 546 ( al t er nat i on

    i n or i gi nal ) ( quot i ng Uni t ed St at es v. Pl at t e, 577 F. 3d 387, 392

    -37-

  • 7/26/2019 United States v. Doe, 1st Cir. (2013)

    38/44

    ( 1st Ci r . 2009) ) . Over al l , a sent enci ng cour t ' s f actual f i ndi ngs

    wi l l st and unl ess af f ect ed by cl ear err or . Uni t ed St at es v. J ones,

    523 F. 3d 31, 40- 41 ( 1st Ci r . 2008) .

    Her e, t he cour t consi der ed t he pr obat i on depar t ment ' s

    Pr esent ence I nvest i gat i on Repor t ( "PSR") and l i ve t est i mony f r om

    si x wi t nesses, each of whom was subj ect t o cr oss- exami nat i on.

    Campbel l al so exer ci sed hi s r i ght of al l ocut i on. We have r evi ewed

    t he sent enci ng r ecor d and di scern no er r or .

    Begi nni ng wi t h t he document ary evi dence, t he PSR

    i ndi cat es t he government became aware of Campbel l ' s dr ug

    t r af f i cki ng act i vi t i es somet i me i n 2010. As par t of i t s

    i nvest i gat i on, t he gover nment secur ed t he assi st ance of a

    cooperat i ng wi t ness, who wi t h an under cover agent ( somet i mes

    separatel y and somet i mes t ogether) , bought a t otal of 20. 5 gr ams of

    a subst ance cont ai ni ng cr ack f r omCampbel l i n Febr uary and March of

    2011. The under cover agent engaged i n t hree more drug buys f r om

    t he end of Mar ch t hr ough t he end of Apr i l 2011, obt ai ni ng an

    addi t i onal 18. 9 gr ams. The PSR al so i ncl uded t he August 22, 2011,

    sal e. Al t hough addi ng t hese t r ansact i ons t oget her yi el ds a

    quant i t y of 47. 9 gr ams, t he par t i es agr eed t hat accor di ng t o t he

    l abor at or y r epor t s, t he t ot al quant i t y of crack di st r i but ed i n

    t hese t r ansact i ons amount ed t o 33. 8 gr ams.

    The PSR goes on t o descr i be t he scope of Campbel l ' s drug

    oper at i on i n t he Por t l and ar ea. Accor di ng t o t he PSR,

    -38-

  • 7/26/2019 United States v. Doe, 1st Cir. (2013)

    39/44

    Campbel l known t o var i ous wi t nesses as " Tony, " "G, " or "Gl en

    Di xon" - - par t ner ed wi t h anot her i ndi vi dual known as "New Yor k" t o

    sel l cr ack f r om at l east t hr ee cr ack houses i n Por t l and. At some

    poi nt , Campbel l st opped worki ng wi t h "New Yor k" and took over t he

    oper at i ons hi msel f , dur i ng whi ch t i me he had at l east f our peopl e

    wor ki ng f or hi m as " r unner s" and/ or sel l i ng pr oduct out of t he

    cr ack houses. Based on i nf or mat i on f r om cooper at i ng wi t nesses

    about t he amount of sal es at a si ngl e cr ack house over t he cour se

    of t hr ee mont hs, t he pr obat i on depar t ment determi ned Campbel l was

    r esponsi bl e f or t he sal e of at l east 144 gr ams of cr ack f r om t hat

    l ocat i on al one.

    Addi t i onal l y, t he PSR i ndi cat es Campbel l had commi t t ed

    acts that coul d r esul t i n a st i f f er sent ence. Speci f i cal l y, t he

    PSR concl uded t hat Campbel l at t empt ed t o conceal hi s i dent i t y when

    he was ar r est ed. Wi t h r espect t o hi s dr ug deal i ng, t he PSR

    concl uded Campbel l act ed as a manager or super vi sor , physi cal l y

    assaul t ed an associ at e dur i ng t he cour se of dr ug deal i ng, and used

    a mi nor i n hi s cri mi nal acti vi t i es. Al l t ol d, t he PSR st at es

    Campbel l ' s t ot al of f ense l evel i s t hi r t y- seven, t r ansl at i ng t o a

    gui del i ne sent ence of sevent een- and- a- hal f t o near l y twent y- t wo

    year s behi nd bar s. See U. S. S. G. Sent enci ng Tabl e ( 2011) .

    But t hi s i s not al l t he t r i al j udge had avai l abl e t o

    consi der . At t he sent enci ng hear i ng, t he gover nment cal l ed t hr ee

    wi t nesses t o t est i f y regar di ng Campbel l ' s dr ug sal es, al ong wi t h a

    -39-

  • 7/26/2019 United States v. Doe, 1st Cir. (2013)

    40/44

    l aw enf orcement agent ( not Buchanan) who t est i f i ed t o Campbel l ' s

    use of al i ases. Campbel l cal l ed t wo wi t nesses to speak on hi s

    behal f . Each of t hese wi t nesses was subj ect ed t o cr oss-

    exami nat i on.

    An exhaust i ve r evi ew of t he sent enci ng t est i mony i s

    unnecessary. I t i s enough t o not e t hat evi dence was i nt r oduced of

    t he f act s we now r el at e.

    The gover nment ' s t hree wi t nesses knew Campbel l as "Tony"

    or " G. " He was "busi ness par t ner s" wi t h anot her i ndi vi dual t hey

    knew onl y as " New York. " Campbel l and "New York" worked t oget her

    t o br i ng dr ugs i n f r om out - of - st at e t o sel l i n Por t l and. Thei r

    part nershi p l ast ed appr oxi matel y ni ne mont hs bef ore t hey had a

    f al l i ng out , af t er whi ch Campbel l went of f on hi s own and t ook over

    cer t ai n of t he dr ug sel l i ng l ocat i ons.

    Dur i ng t he ni ne mont hs Campbel l and "New York" wor ked

    t oget her , numer ous i ndi vi dual s- - bet ween t went y and t went y- f i ve

    accor di ng t o one wi t ness- - wor ked f or t hem, sel l i ng dr ugs out of

    mul t i pl e cr ack houses i n t he Por t l and ar ea. A t ypi cal day at j ust

    one of t hose l ocat i ons r esul t ed i n sal es t o bet ween t went y to

    t went y- f i ve cust omer s on a "bad day" and sevent y- f i ve t o one

    hundr ed cust omers on a "good day. " On a "bad day, " cust omers woul d

    gener al l y pur chase a "50 pi ece, " whi ch cost s $50 and usual l y

    cont ai ns . 2 t o . 3 gr ams of cr ack. The par t i cul ar cr ack house

    r ef er r ed t o by the wi t nesses was open f or busi ness t went y- f our

    -40-

  • 7/26/2019 United States v. Doe, 1st Cir. (2013)

    41/44

    hour s per day, seven days a week, wi t h sal es r angi ng f r om$500 on

    a sl ow day t o $5, 000 or more on a busy day.

    Ther e was al so evi dence t hat Campbel l commi t t ed a vi ol ent

    assaul t on anot her dr ug deal er . One wi t ness t est i f i ed Campbel l

    came t o her apart ment - - whi ch Campbel l had used f or sel l i ng dr ugs- -

    whi l e a "ki d" who di d not wor k f or hi mwas t her e sel l i ng. Campbel l

    t hen waved a handgun around and hi t t he "ki d" wi t h i t . Another

    wi t ness t ol d t he cour t t hat Campbel l speci f i cal l y went t o t he

    apar t ment so he coul d f i ght t he "ki d. " Thi s second wi t ness opened

    t he door t o l et Campbel l i n, saw hi m ent er wi t h a gun i n hand, and

    l at er f ound out t hat Campbel l "bashed t hi s ki d i n t he f ace" wi t h

    i t .

    Af t er t aki ng t est i mony, t he t r i al j udge st at ed he woul d

    f i nd t he f act s set f or t h i n t he PSR. He al so f ound Campbel l

    r esponsi bl e f or "at l east 280 gr ams of cocai ne base, " a number he

    descr i bed as "ver y conservat i ve" because Campbel l "coul d reasonabl y

    have been hel d account abl e f or sever al t i mes t hat amount . " The

    j udge al so f ound t hat Campbel l engaged i n vi ol ence, possessed a

    f i r ear m i n connect i on wi t h hi s dr ug sal es, and "was a

    super vi sor / manager of [ a] dr ug conspi r acy whi ch was, i n [ hi s] vi ew,

    ext ensi ve and pr ol onged and consi st ed of more t han f i ve peopl e t hat

    oper at ed out of mul t i pl e l ocat i ons and oper at ed f or extended

    per i ods of t i me. " Fi nal l y, t he j udge added an enhancement f or

    obst r uct i on of j ust i ce because Campbel l used a " f al se name i n or der

    -41-

  • 7/26/2019 United States v. Doe, 1st Cir. (2013)

    42/44

    t o conf use t he booki ng pr ocedur e. " The dr ug quant i t y and

    enhancement s r esul t ed i n a gui del i nes r ange of t went y- seven to

    al most t hi r t y- f our year s. The j udge, however , i mposed a t went y-

    year sentence t o comport wi t h the st atut ory maxi mum.

    Despi t e t he amount of evi dence i nt r oduced at sent enci ng,

    Campbel l woul d have us f i nd t he t r i al j udge er r ed i n hi s dr ug

    quant i t y determi nat i on and sent ence enhancement f i ndi ngs. We are

    not convi nced.

    Fi r st , t her e i s no doubt t he t r i al j udge f ound t he

    gover nment ' s wi t nesses credi bl e and accept ed t hei r t est i mony i n

    l ar ge measure. The r ecord r eveal s t hei r t est i mony was gener al l y

    consi st ent not j ust wi t h t he ot her wi t nesses, but al so wi t h t he

    PSR. Ri gor ous cross- exami nat i on exposed any i nf i r mi t i es or bi as on

    t he par t of t he wi t nesses. As we do not have t he benef i t of

    observi ng the wi t nesses and eval uat i ng t hei r demeanor , we ar e l oat h

    t o di st ur b t he di st r i ct cour t ' s credi bi l i t y det er mi nat i ons, whi ch

    we cer t ai nl y consi der "pl ausi bl e. " Ther ef or e, we uphol d t he

    di st r i ct cour t ' s i mposi t i on of enhancement s f or use of vi ol ence,

    possessi on of a f i r ear m, and f or bei ng a manager / super vi sor i n a

    dr ug conspi r acy, based as t hey wer e on cr edi bl e wi t ness t est i mony

    and r el i abl e i nf or mat i on i n t he PSR.

    Thi s l eaves us wi t h Campbel l ' s chal l enge of t he t r i al

    j udge' s drug quant i t y det er mi nat i on, whi ch onl y needed t o be a

    r easoned est i mate of t he amount of dr ugs f or whi ch Campbel l was

    -42-

  • 7/26/2019 United States v. Doe, 1st Cir. (2013)

    43/44

    r esponsi bl e. See Ber ni er , 660 F. 3d at 546. Li ke t he ot her s, t hi s

    f i ndi ng was based i n l ar ge par t on t he t r i al j udge' s eval uat i on of

    l i ve wi t ness t est i mony regar di ng Campbel l ' s dr ug oper at i on, whi ch

    al r eady put s Campbel l ' s ar gument i n a deep hol e. I n addi t i on, we

    agr ee wi t h t he t r i al j udge' s descr i pt i on of 280 gr ams as a "ver y

    conservat i ve" number i n l i ght of t he evi dence i nt r oduced at

    sent enci ng. Taki ng t he mi ni mum sal es and dr ug wei ght s t est i f i ed

    t o- - and at t he same t i me compl et el y i gnor i ng t he "good days, " sal es

    at ot her cr ack houses, and al l sal es af t er Campbel l spl i t f r om" New

    York" - - yi el ds mor e t han 1, 000 grams sol d f r omt hat one cr ack house

    over t he cour se of ni ne mont hs, a number f ar i n excess of t he 280

    gr ams f ound by the t r i al j udge.

    We f ur t her not e t hat t he PSR concl uded Campbel l was

    r esponsi bl e f or di st r i but i ng at l east 144 gr ams of cr ack i n a

    t hr ee- mont h per i od. Thi s ext r apol at es t o a ni ne- mont h t ot al of 432

    grams, whi ch when added t o t he 33. 8 gr ams t o whi ch Campbel l

    conceded yi el ds a t otal of 465. 8 gr ams. Thus, t he document ary

    evi dence al one pr ovi des suppor t f or t he t r i al j udge' s f i ndi ng t hat

    Campbel l was r esponsi bl e f or di st r i but i on of at l east 280 gr ams of

    crack.

    The t r i al j udge, of cour se, was ent i t l ed t o r el y on t he

    wi t ness t est i mony, t he PSR, or a combi nat i on of t he t wo. Even

    appl yi ng t he most conservat i ve est i mat es avai l abl e l eads t o a dr ug

    quant i t y f i ndi ng i n excess of 280 gr ams. We ar e sat i sf i ed,

    -43-

  • 7/26/2019 United States v. Doe, 1st Cir. (2013)

    44/44

    t her ef or e, t hat t he t r i al cour t made a r easoned est i mat e of dr ug

    quant i t y based upon t he evi dence bef or e i t .

    I n sum, Campbel l ' s chal l enge t o t he di st r i ct cour t ' s

    f i ndi ngs of f act i s wi t hout mer i t . Far f r om l eavi ng us wi t h t he

    unyi el di ng f eel i ng t hat a mi st ake has been made, t he t r i al j udge' s

    sober consi der at i on of t he PSR and l i ve t est i mony st r i kes us as

    emi nent l y r easonabl e. The cour t cor r ect l y det er mi ned t hat t he

    combi nat i on of dr ug quant i t y and sent ence enhancement s t r ansl ated

    t o a gui del i nes r ange i n excess of t he st atut ory maxi mum, and

    appr opr i atel y reduced t he sent ence t o conf orm wi t h t hat maxi mum.

    Once agai n, t here was no er r or .

    CONCLUSION

    Campbel l has not convi nced us t hat hi s t r i al or sent ence

    was af f ect ed by any er r or . Hi s convi ct i on and sent ence ar e her eby

    affirmed i n al l r espects.