{ "attribution": { "source": "legal.exploreworldai.com", "canonical": "https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/judgment-text?id=us:ca7-25-2164-2026-09-25", "cite_as": "NovaCopilot, legal.exploreworldai.com (https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/judgment-text?id=us:ca7-25-2164-2026-09-25)", "license": "https://legal.exploreworldai.com/revision", "version": "legal-2026-10-10", "fingerprint": "ewai:us:e7268f", "proof": "sha256:e08319eff8a5c57073886c6289dd1cdd9507f3271cace93fe07c6430bc4129a6", "jurisdiction": "us", "lang": "en", "publisher": "NovaCopilot by ExploreWorld Legal", "terms": "https://legal.exploreworldai.com/om" }, "brand_source": "Source: NovaCopilot", "item": { "schema_version": "1.0.0", "id": "us:ca7-25-2164-2026-09-25", "jurisdiction": "us", "lang": "en", "brand_source": "Source: NovaCopilot", "brand": { "product": "NovaCopilot", "platform": "ExploreWorldAI", "infrastructure": "ExploreWorld Legal", "infrastructure_url": "legal.exploreworldai.com", "legal_entity": "Valkiv Ventures AB", "permanent_url": "https://legal.exploreworldai.com/novacopilot", "source": "Source: NovaCopilot", "powered_by": "Powered by NovaCopilot", "license": "https://legal.exploreworldai.com/licensvillkor" }, "sections": [ { "title": "In the", "paragraphs": [] }, { "title": "United States Court of Appeals", "paragraphs": [] }, { "title": "For the Seventh Circuit", "paragraphs": [ "para_4" ] }, { "title": "No. 25-2164", "paragraphs": [ "para_6", "para_7", "para_8", "para_9", "para_10", "para_11" ] }, { "title": "Appeal from the United States District Court for the", "paragraphs": [ "para_13", "para_14", "para_15" ] }, { "title": "ARGUED MAY 20, 2026 — DECIDED SEPTEMBER 25, 2026", "paragraphs": [ "para_17" ] }, { "title": "Before BRENNAN, Chief Judge, and SCUDDER and JACKSON-", "paragraphs": [ "para_19" ] }, { "title": "BRENNAN, Chief Judge. Gary Howard was a confidential in-", "paragraphs": [ "para_21", "para_22", "para_23", "para_24", "para_25", "para_26" ] }, { "title": "2 No. 25-2164", "paragraphs": [] }, { "title": "United States v. Sabaini, 161 F.4th 1036 (7th Cir. 2025). Their", "paragraphs": [ "para_29", "para_30", "para_31", "para_32", "para_33", "para_34", "para_35", "para_36", "para_37", "para_38", "para_39", "para_40", "para_41" ] }, { "title": "The court held it was admissible under the inevitable discov-", "paragraphs": [ "para_43", "para_44", "para_45", "para_46" ] }, { "title": "His appeal of these rulings and other purported errors by", "paragraphs": [ "para_48", "para_49", "para_50", "para_51", "para_52", "para_53", "para_54", "para_55", "para_56" ] }, { "title": "No. 25-2164 3", "paragraphs": [] }, { "title": "I. Background", "paragraphs": [] }, { "title": "A. Facts", "paragraphs": [] }, { "title": "Howard worked as a confidential informant for Home-", "paragraphs": [ "para_61" ] }, { "title": "Department of Homeland Security, providing tips to assist", "paragraphs": [ "para_63", "para_64", "para_65" ] }, { "title": "Howard continued dealing drugs on the side. Twice he was", "paragraphs": [ "para_67" ] }, { "title": "In January 2017, Howard participated in the sale of a small", "paragraphs": [ "para_69", "para_70" ] }, { "title": "When DEA agent Phillip Hahn entered Howard’s infor-", "paragraphs": [ "para_72", "para_73", "para_74", "para_75", "para_76" ] }, { "title": "Howard’s next criminal encounter with law enforcement", "paragraphs": [ "para_78", "para_79", "para_80", "para_81", "para_82", "para_83", "para_84", "para_85", "para_86", "para_87", "para_88" ] }, { "title": "4 No. 25-2164", "paragraphs": [] }, { "title": "B. Procedure", "paragraphs": [] }, { "title": "Howard’s 2018 conduct was later presented to a grand", "paragraphs": [ "para_92", "para_93", "para_94", "para_95", "para_96", "para_97" ] }, { "title": "1. Pretrial", "paragraphs": [] }, { "title": "Before trial Howard moved to suppress his post-arrest", "paragraphs": [ "para_100", "para_101", "para_102", "para_103", "para_104", "para_105" ] }, { "title": "But the district court did not suppress evidence found", "paragraphs": [ "para_107", "para_108", "para_109", "para_110", "para_111", "para_112", "para_113", "para_114" ] }, { "title": "After the suppression hearing, the government brought", "paragraphs": [ "para_116", "para_117", "para_118", "para_119" ] }, { "title": "No. 25-2164 5", "paragraphs": [] }, { "title": "III he was charged with conspiracy to distribute cocaine in vi-", "paragraphs": [ "para_122", "para_123" ] }, { "title": "The superseding indictment followed Howard’s partially", "paragraphs": [ "para_125", "para_126", "para_127", "para_128", "para_129" ] }, { "title": "Howard also moved under Federal Rules of Criminal Pro-", "paragraphs": [ "para_131" ] }, { "title": "Counts I and II. The district court denied this motion because", "paragraphs": [ "para_133", "para_134", "para_135", "para_136", "para_137", "para_138", "para_139" ] }, { "title": "The public authority defense is available to a defendant", "paragraphs": [ "para_141", "para_142" ] }, { "title": "United States, 133 F.4th 770, 776 (7th Cir. 2025) (citation modi-", "paragraphs": [ "para_144", "para_145", "para_146", "para_147", "para_148", "para_149" ] }, { "title": "6 No. 25-2164", "paragraphs": [] }, { "title": "But Sabaini had his own problems. By this point, the FBI", "paragraphs": [ "para_152", "para_153", "para_154", "para_155", "para_156", "para_157", "para_158", "para_159", "para_160", "para_161", "para_162" ] }, { "title": "Concerned with incriminating himself, Sabaini invoked", "paragraphs": [ "para_164" ] }, { "title": "Given the motion’s sensitive nature, the district court heard it", "paragraphs": [ "para_166", "para_167", "para_168", "para_169", "para_170", "para_171", "para_172", "para_173", "para_174", "para_175" ] }, { "title": "2. Trial", "paragraphs": [] }, { "title": "This case went to jury trial in May 2024. On Counts I and", "paragraphs": [ "para_178" ] }, { "title": "A DEA confidential informant contacted co-defendant", "paragraphs": [] }, { "title": "George to see if he could broker a deal. A mutual friend", "paragraphs": [ "para_181" ] }, { "title": "No. 25-2164 7", "paragraphs": [ "para_183", "para_184", "para_185", "para_186", "para_187", "para_188", "para_189" ] }, { "title": "The jury saw text messages exchanged between George", "paragraphs": [ "para_191" ] }, { "title": "Howard: I’m picking my guy up cause I can’t", "paragraphs": [ "para_193", "para_194", "para_195" ] }, { "title": "George: You don’t have to leave, I have made", "paragraphs": [ "para_197", "para_198", "para_199" ] }, { "title": "George testified “half” referred to $140,000, half the", "paragraphs": [ "para_201", "para_202", "para_203", "para_204", "para_205" ] }, { "title": "Next, Howard texted: “Come to the car.” After George and", "paragraphs": [ "para_207", "para_208", "para_209", "para_210", "para_211", "para_212" ] }, { "title": "8 No. 25-2164", "paragraphs": [] }, { "title": "As the DEA surveillance team descended on the car, Howard", "paragraphs": [ "para_215", "para_216" ] }, { "title": "The team searched Howard’s car and found a backpack", "paragraphs": [ "para_218", "para_219", "para_220", "para_221", "para_222", "para_223", "para_224" ] }, { "title": "On Counts III and IV concerning the 2017 events, the jury", "paragraphs": [ "para_226", "para_227", "para_228", "para_229", "para_230", "para_231", "para_232", "para_233", "para_234" ] }, { "title": "The confidential informant also testified that Howard", "paragraphs": [ "para_236", "para_237", "para_238", "para_239" ] }, { "title": "An audio/video recording taped Howard instructing the", "paragraphs": [ "para_241", "para_242", "para_243" ] }, { "title": "No. 25-2164 9", "paragraphs": [ "para_245", "para_246" ] }, { "title": "After the meeting, DEA Special Agent Hahn debriefed the", "paragraphs": [ "para_248", "para_249", "para_250", "para_251", "para_252", "para_253" ] }, { "title": "The jury found Howard guilty on Count I (conspiracy to", "paragraphs": [ "para_255", "para_256" ] }, { "title": "(conspiracy to distribute cocaine) but not guilty on Count IV", "paragraphs": [ "para_258" ] }, { "title": "3. Post-trial and sentencing", "paragraphs": [] }, { "title": "Howard moved for an acquittal or a new trial under Fed-", "paragraphs": [ "para_261", "para_262", "para_263" ] }, { "title": "The court also ruled that the not guilty verdict on Count IV", "paragraphs": [ "para_265" ] }, { "title": "Count III. Even if it was, inconsistent verdicts are not a basis", "paragraphs": [ "para_267" ] }, { "title": "Howard’s advisory Sentencing Guidelines range was cal-", "paragraphs": [ "para_269", "para_270", "para_271", "para_272", "para_273", "para_274" ] }, { "title": "10 No. 25-2164", "paragraphs": [] }, { "title": "II. Discussion", "paragraphs": [] }, { "title": "Howard appeals a litany of purported errors. He believes", "paragraphs": [ "para_278", "para_279", "para_280", "para_281", "para_282", "para_283", "para_284", "para_285" ] }, { "title": "A. Public Authority Defense", "paragraphs": [] }, { "title": "The Sixth Amendment includes the right to “compulsory", "paragraphs": [ "para_288", "para_289", "para_290", "para_291", "para_292", "para_293", "para_294", "para_295" ] }, { "title": "Sixth Amendment right to compulsory process.” United States", "paragraphs": [ "para_297" ] }, { "title": "But invoking the Fifth Amendment is not enough. The", "paragraphs": [ "para_299", "para_300" ] }, { "title": "21 (2001). This is not an onerous standard; it goes unmet “only", "paragraphs": [ "para_302" ] }, { "title": "76 F.4th at 670. An order granting a motion to quash a sub-", "paragraphs": [ "para_304", "para_305" ] }, { "title": "No. 25-2164 11", "paragraphs": [] }, { "title": "The district court concluded that “it’s not much of a stretch", "paragraphs": [ "para_308", "para_309" ] }, { "title": "First, for good reason, the right against self-incrimination", "paragraphs": [ "para_311", "para_312", "para_313", "para_314", "para_315" ] }, { "title": "The corrupt relationship between Sabaini and Howard was a", "paragraphs": [ "para_317", "para_318", "para_319", "para_320" ] }, { "title": "Second, if Sabaini’s truthful testimony at Howard’s trial", "paragraphs": [ "para_322", "para_323", "para_324" ] }, { "title": "Still, a witness can avoid testifying for fear that his truthful", "paragraphs": [ "para_326" ] }, { "title": "See United States v. Allmon, 594 F.3d 981, 987 (8th Cir. 2010)", "paragraphs": [] }, { "title": "(“[T]hose courts that have directly addressed the issue have", "paragraphs": [ "para_329", "para_330", "para_331" ] }, { "title": "Third, the government planned to impeach Sabaini with", "paragraphs": [ "para_333", "para_334", "para_335", "para_336", "para_337" ] }, { "title": "12 No. 25-2164", "paragraphs": [ "para_339", "para_340" ] }, { "title": "(affirming a § 1512(b) conviction based solely on jail-recorded", "paragraphs": [ "para_342" ] }, { "title": "720, 731 (7th Cir. 2014) (holding that the Fifth Amendment", "paragraphs": [ "para_344", "para_345" ] }, { "title": "The bar for finding that Sabaini had “reasonable cause” to", "paragraphs": [ "para_347", "para_348" ] }, { "title": "F.4th at 670—was thus cleared. The district court did not", "paragraphs": [ "para_350", "para_351" ] }, { "title": "To Howard, though, the district court disabled his public", "paragraphs": [ "para_353", "para_354" ] }, { "title": "Instead, we conclude that the record does not support", "paragraphs": [] }, { "title": "Howard’s assertion. This defense survived the government’s", "paragraphs": [ "para_357" ] }, { "title": "Ample evidence was presented that Howard was not author-", "paragraphs": [ "para_359", "para_360", "para_361", "para_362", "para_363", "para_364" ] }, { "title": "The jury also saw Howard’s contract with HSI, in which", "paragraphs": [ "para_366", "para_367", "para_368" ] }, { "title": "No. 25-2164 13", "paragraphs": [ "para_370", "para_371", "para_372", "para_373", "para_374", "para_375" ] }, { "title": "After the government rested its case, Howard testified in", "paragraphs": [ "para_377", "para_378" ] }, { "title": "Howard submitted that his plan was to show he had the", "paragraphs": [ "para_380", "para_381" ] }, { "title": "At the close of evidence, the jury was instructed on How-", "paragraphs": [ "para_383" ] }, { "title": "Circuit’s pattern jury instruction, 6.06.1 Under that instruc-", "paragraphs": [ "para_385", "para_386", "para_387", "para_388" ] }, { "title": "In any event, it is unlikely Sabaini’s putative testimony", "paragraphs": [ "para_390", "para_391" ] }, { "title": "Sabaini’s testimony would have supported Howard’s reason-", "paragraphs": [ "para_393", "para_394" ] }, { "title": "1 By this time, Howard had limited the public authority defense to", "paragraphs": [] }, { "title": "Count I (conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute cocaine) and Count", "paragraphs": [] }, { "title": "II (attempted possession with intent to distribute cocaine), arising from his", "paragraphs": [ "para_398" ] }, { "title": "14 No. 25-2164", "paragraphs": [ "para_400", "para_401" ] }, { "title": "The record shows that Howard’s public authority defense", "paragraphs": [ "para_403", "para_404" ] }, { "title": "B. Pretrial Motions", "paragraphs": [] }, { "title": "1. Motion to suppress", "paragraphs": [] }, { "title": "Howard next challenges the admission of evidence from", "paragraphs": [ "para_408", "para_409", "para_410", "para_411", "para_412" ] }, { "title": "The exclusionary rule prevents the admission of evidence", "paragraphs": [ "para_414" ] }, { "title": "U.S. 643, 655 (1961)). An exception, however, applies when", "paragraphs": [ "para_416", "para_417" ] }, { "title": "Cir. 2019) (quoting Nix v. Williams, 467 U.S. 431, 441–48", "paragraphs": [ "para_419" ] }, { "title": "To benefit from the inevitable discovery doctrine, the gov-", "paragraphs": [ "para_421" ] }, { "title": "(1) law enforcement officials had obtained, or would have ob-", "paragraphs": [ "para_423", "para_424", "para_425", "para_426" ] }, { "title": "On the first requirement—independent legal justifica-", "paragraphs": [ "para_428" ] }, { "title": "No. 25-2164 15", "paragraphs": [ "para_430", "para_431", "para_432", "para_433", "para_434", "para_435" ] }, { "title": "369, 384 (2025). The evaluation of probable cause asks", "paragraphs": [ "para_437", "para_438" ] }, { "title": "North Carolina, 574 U.S. 54, 61–64 (2014)). That calls for an ob-", "paragraphs": [ "para_440", "para_441" ] }, { "title": "Our review of the facts supports the district court’s finding", "paragraphs": [ "para_443", "para_444", "para_445", "para_446", "para_447", "para_448", "para_449", "para_450", "para_451", "para_452", "para_453", "para_454", "para_455" ] }, { "title": "Howard’s home, which agents then secured in anticipation of", "paragraphs": [ "para_457", "para_458", "para_459" ] }, { "title": "16 No. 25-2164", "paragraphs": [] }, { "title": "Probable cause also existed to believe evidence would be", "paragraphs": [ "para_462" ] }, { "title": "George’s post-arrest interview, he told agents he had commu-", "paragraphs": [ "para_464", "para_465", "para_466", "para_467", "para_468", "para_469" ] }, { "title": "George texted Howard, “I have made it easier. Just do the ten", "paragraphs": [ "para_471", "para_472", "para_473", "para_474", "para_475", "para_476", "para_477", "para_478", "para_479" ] }, { "title": "On the second requirement of the inevitable discovery", "paragraphs": [ "para_481", "para_482", "para_483" ] }, { "title": "Rodekohr testified he had contacted the federal prosecutor", "paragraphs": [ "para_485", "para_486", "para_487" ] }, { "title": "Howard had already consented. The district court credited", "paragraphs": [ "para_489" ] }, { "title": "Compare this case with Pelletier. There, the FBI obtained", "paragraphs": [ "para_491" ] }, { "title": "No. 25-2164 17", "paragraphs": [] }, { "title": "F.3d at 1117. The district court denied the defendant’s motion", "paragraphs": [ "para_494", "para_495", "para_496", "para_497", "para_498", "para_499" ] }, { "title": "As in Pelletier, the investigating officers here searched", "paragraphs": [] }, { "title": "Howard’s home and cell phone after obtaining involuntary", "paragraphs": [ "para_502", "para_503", "para_504", "para_505", "para_506", "para_507", "para_508", "para_509", "para_510", "para_511", "para_512" ] }, { "title": "States v. Maxwell, 143 F.4th 844, 852 (7th Cir. 2025). Howard’s", "paragraphs": [ "para_514", "para_515" ] }, { "title": "Howard disagrees. In his view, Riley v. California an-", "paragraphs": [ "para_517", "para_518" ] }, { "title": "U.S. 373 (2014). As a result, he posits that the inevitable dis-", "paragraphs": [ "para_520" ] }, { "title": "To the contrary, as the district court observed, “Riley", "paragraphs": [ "para_522", "para_523" ] }, { "title": "18 No. 25-2164", "paragraphs": [ "para_525", "para_526" ] }, { "title": "Fourth Amendment’s warrant requirement—officer safety", "paragraphs": [ "para_528", "para_529", "para_530", "para_531", "para_532" ] }, { "title": "Even assuming Howard is correct that Riley announces a", "paragraphs": [ "para_534", "para_535", "para_536", "para_537" ] }, { "title": "Court has explained, the rationale for the exclusionary rule is", "paragraphs": [ "para_539", "para_540", "para_541", "para_542", "para_543" ] }, { "title": "Accordingly, the district court correctly denied Howard’s", "paragraphs": [ "para_545", "para_546" ] }, { "title": "2. Motion to dismiss for vindictive prosecution", "paragraphs": [] }, { "title": "Howard also claims the government engaged in vindictive", "paragraphs": [ "para_549", "para_550", "para_551" ] }, { "title": "2 Dkt. 99 at 10, n.2 (citing Riley). Riley discusses this at 573 U.S. at 402–", "paragraphs": [ "para_553" ] }, { "title": "No. 25-2164 19", "paragraphs": [ "para_555", "para_556" ] }, { "title": "United States v. Baldwin, 68 F.4th 1070, 1073 (7th Cir. 2023) (ci-", "paragraphs": [ "para_558", "para_559", "para_560", "para_561", "para_562", "para_563", "para_564", "para_565", "para_566" ] }, { "title": "2008). In reviewing the denial of a motion to dismiss, this", "paragraphs": [ "para_568", "para_569" ] }, { "title": "The district court concluded Howard failed to show that", "paragraphs": [ "para_571", "para_572", "para_573", "para_574", "para_575", "para_576", "para_577" ] }, { "title": "2006)). This ruling properly applied the substantive law and", "paragraphs": [ "para_579" ] }, { "title": "3. Motion to sever", "paragraphs": [] }, { "title": "To Howard, the district court also erred by denying his", "paragraphs": [ "para_582", "para_583" ] }, { "title": "Counts I and II (his 2018 conduct). The government responds", "paragraphs": [ "para_585" ] }, { "title": "20 No. 25-2164", "paragraphs": [ "para_587", "para_588", "para_589", "para_590", "para_591", "para_592" ] }, { "title": "Howard replies that he included this request in his post-", "paragraphs": [ "para_594", "para_595", "para_596" ] }, { "title": "959, 980 (7th Cir. 2016). That “discourag[es] strategic choices", "paragraphs": [ "para_598", "para_599", "para_600" ] }, { "title": "301 F.3d 511, 518 (7th Cir. 2002). Howard’s motion to sever is", "paragraphs": [ "para_602" ] }, { "title": "C. Mistrial", "paragraphs": [] }, { "title": "Howard also contests what he characterizes as the district", "paragraphs": [ "para_605", "para_606", "para_607", "para_608", "para_609", "para_610", "para_611", "para_612" ] }, { "title": "Waiver occurs when a party intentionally relinquishes a", "paragraphs": [ "para_614" ] }, { "title": "2019). Such relinquishment may be found in a strategic omis-", "paragraphs": [ "para_616" ] }, { "title": "No. 25-2164 21", "paragraphs": [] }, { "title": "2022). Inaction in the face of notice may be evidence of waiver", "paragraphs": [ "para_619" ] }, { "title": "The government correctly maintains that Howard waived", "paragraphs": [ "para_621" ] }, { "title": "At the same time, Howard’s challenge fails for a more funda-", "paragraphs": [ "para_623", "para_624" ] }, { "title": "Nor does Howard contest the district court’s discretion to re-", "paragraphs": [ "para_626", "para_627" ] }, { "title": "D. Sufficiency of the Evidence", "paragraphs": [] }, { "title": "Howard next challenges the sufficiency of the evidence to", "paragraphs": [ "para_630", "para_631", "para_632", "para_633", "para_634", "para_635" ] }, { "title": "Sorensen, 134 F.4th 493, 497–98 (7th Cir. 2025). A conviction", "paragraphs": [ "para_637", "para_638", "para_639" ] }, { "title": "States v. Anderson, 988 F.3d 420, 424 (7th Cir. 2021). We have", "paragraphs": [ "para_641", "para_642", "para_643" ] }, { "title": "1. Count I (conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute", "paragraphs": [ "para_645" ] }, { "title": "A drug conspiracy conviction requires sufficient evidence", "paragraphs": [ "para_647" ] }, { "title": "22 No. 25-2164", "paragraphs": [ "para_649" ] }, { "title": "137 F.4th 874, 880 (7th Cir. 2025) (citation modified). A case", "paragraphs": [ "para_651", "para_652", "para_653" ] }, { "title": "2025). Yet, “[e]vidence showing only that two people are in a", "paragraphs": [ "para_655", "para_656" ] }, { "title": "From the evidence at trial, a rational trier of fact could", "paragraphs": [ "para_658", "para_659", "para_660", "para_661", "para_662", "para_663", "para_664", "para_665", "para_666", "para_667", "para_668", "para_669", "para_670" ] }, { "title": "Howard’s home, agents found what the government’s expert", "paragraphs": [ "para_672", "para_673", "para_674", "para_675", "para_676", "para_677" ] }, { "title": "For all that, Howard posits that he did not reach an agree-", "paragraphs": [ "para_679" ] }, { "title": "No. 25-2164 23", "paragraphs": [] }, { "title": "Howard believes he created a condition that had to be met", "paragraphs": [ "para_682", "para_683" ] }, { "title": "Importantly, though, a “condition to agree” differs from a", "paragraphs": [ "para_685", "para_686", "para_687", "para_688", "para_689", "para_690", "para_691", "para_692", "para_693", "para_694" ] }, { "title": "Podolsky illustrates a conditional agreement. There, a de-", "paragraphs": [ "para_696", "para_697", "para_698", "para_699", "para_700", "para_701", "para_702", "para_703", "para_704", "para_705", "para_706", "para_707", "para_708" ] }, { "title": "This case is like Podolsky. Howard’s insistence on seeing", "paragraphs": [ "para_710", "para_711" ] }, { "title": "24 No. 25-2164", "paragraphs": [ "para_713", "para_714", "para_715", "para_716", "para_717", "para_718", "para_719" ] }, { "title": "Alternatively, Howard posits that any agreement he", "paragraphs": [ "para_721", "para_722", "para_723" ] }, { "title": "In denying Howard’s motion for a judgment of acquittal", "paragraphs": [ "para_725", "para_726", "para_727", "para_728", "para_729", "para_730" ] }, { "title": "Second, the district court faulted Howard for citing United", "paragraphs": [] }, { "title": "States v. Colon, 549 F.3d 565 (7th Cir. 2008), a case recently", "paragraphs": [ "para_733", "para_734" ] }, { "title": "Howard’s principal appellate brief does not contest the", "paragraphs": [ "para_736", "para_737", "para_738", "para_739", "para_740" ] }, { "title": "No. 25-2164 25", "paragraphs": [] }, { "title": "Waiver is evaluated on each case’s specific facts, and", "paragraphs": [ "para_743", "para_744" ] }, { "title": "537, 540 (7th Cir. 2026). Unlike forfeiture, which impacts the", "paragraphs": [ "para_746", "para_747" ] }, { "title": "In criminal cases, waiver often arises when a defendant re-", "paragraphs": [ "para_749", "para_750" ] }, { "title": "F.4th at 541–43. Flores sets out this court’s law. There, we", "paragraphs": [ "para_752", "para_753", "para_754" ] }, { "title": "Flores, 929 F.3d at 448 (citation omitted). The defendant also", "paragraphs": [ "para_756", "para_757", "para_758" ] }, { "title": "During the sentencing hearing, Flores concluded, was the time", "paragraphs": [ "para_760" ] }, { "title": "Both principles apply here. Howard had notice in the dis-", "paragraphs": [ "para_762", "para_763", "para_764", "para_765", "para_766", "para_767", "para_768", "para_769", "para_770", "para_771" ] }, { "title": "26 No. 25-2164", "paragraphs": [] }, { "title": "For its part, the government did not advocate for waiver", "paragraphs": [ "para_774", "para_775", "para_776", "para_777", "para_778", "para_779", "para_780" ] }, { "title": "In sum, the evidence is sufficient to sustain Howard’s", "paragraphs": [ "para_782", "para_783", "para_784" ] }, { "title": "2. Remaining Counts", "paragraphs": [] }, { "title": "Howard’s challenges to the sufficiency of the evidence on", "paragraphs": [ "para_787" ] }, { "title": "On Count II, attempting to possess with intent to distrib-", "paragraphs": [ "para_789", "para_790", "para_791", "para_792", "para_793", "para_794" ] }, { "title": "Howard responds by challenging the evidence that he in-", "paragraphs": [ "para_796", "para_797", "para_798", "para_799", "para_800", "para_801" ] }, { "title": "No. 25-2164 27", "paragraphs": [ "para_803", "para_804" ] }, { "title": "As to Count III, sufficient evidence supports Howard’s", "paragraphs": [ "para_806", "para_807", "para_808", "para_809", "para_810", "para_811" ] }, { "title": "This evidence supports the reasonable inference that Howard", "paragraphs": [ "para_813", "para_814" ] }, { "title": "To this, Howard responds that the guilty verdict on Count", "paragraphs": [] }, { "title": "III’s conspiracy to distribute cocaine charge is inconsistent", "paragraphs": [ "para_817", "para_818" ] }, { "title": "Recall that the video did not record a transfer of drugs or", "paragraphs": [ "para_820", "para_821", "para_822", "para_823", "para_824", "para_825", "para_826" ] }, { "title": "See United States v. Powell, 469 U.S. 57, 69 (1984). Juries may", "paragraphs": [ "para_828", "para_829" ] }, { "title": "In sum, the evidence is sufficient to sustain Howard’s con-", "paragraphs": [ "para_831" ] }, { "title": "28 No. 25-2164", "paragraphs": [] }, { "title": "E. Sentencing", "paragraphs": [] }, { "title": "Howard’s final contention—that his sentence is unreason-", "paragraphs": [ "para_835" ] }, { "title": "Vasquez-Abarca, 946 F.3d 990, 993 (7th Cir. 2020). A sentence", "paragraphs": [ "para_837", "para_838", "para_839", "para_840" ] }, { "title": "Howard concedes that his sentence falls within the Guide-", "paragraphs": [ "para_842", "para_843" ] }, { "title": "Even so, Howard points to United States v. Daoud, 980 F.3d 581", "paragraphs": [] }, { "title": "(7th Cir. 2020), as a case in which the district court relied on", "paragraphs": [ "para_846", "para_847" ] }, { "title": "Guidelines.” Id. at 591. There, this court concluded that the", "paragraphs": [ "para_849", "para_850", "para_851", "para_852", "para_853", "para_854" ] }, { "title": "Though the district court considered aggravating factors, he", "paragraphs": [ "para_856", "para_857", "para_858", "para_859" ] }, { "title": "Daoud does not help Howard, though. That case involved", "paragraphs": [ "para_861", "para_862", "para_863" ] }, { "title": "No. 25-2164 29", "paragraphs": [ "para_865", "para_866" ] }, { "title": "552 U.S. 38, 50 (2007)). In our deferential review, the addi-", "paragraphs": [ "para_868", "para_869", "para_870" ] }, { "title": "III. Conclusion", "paragraphs": [] }, { "title": "The district court did not abuse its discretion by quashing", "paragraphs": [] }, { "title": "Sabaini’s subpoena, nor was the trial here fundamentally un-", "paragraphs": [ "para_874", "para_875", "para_876", "para_877", "para_878", "para_879", "para_880" ] }, { "title": "AFFIRMED", "paragraphs": [] } ], "paragraphs": [ { "text": "In the", "paragraph_id": "para_1" }, { "text": "United States Court of Appeals", "paragraph_id": "para_2" }, { "text": "For the Seventh Circuit", "paragraph_id": "para_3" }, { "text": "____________________", "paragraph_id": "para_4" }, { "text": "No. 25-2164", "paragraph_id": "para_5" }, { "text": "UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,", "paragraph_id": "para_6" }, { "text": "Plaintiff-Appellee,", "paragraph_id": "para_7" }, { "text": "v.", "paragraph_id": "para_8" }, { "text": "GARY L. HOWARD,", "paragraph_id": "para_9" }, { "text": "Defendant-Appellant.", "paragraph_id": "para_10" }, { "text": "____________________", "paragraph_id": "para_11" }, { "text": "Appeal from the United States District Court for the", "paragraph_id": "para_12" }, { "text": "Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division.", "paragraph_id": "para_13" }, { "text": "No. 1:18-cr-00667-1 — Steven C. Seeger, Judge.", "paragraph_id": "para_14" }, { "text": "____________________", "paragraph_id": "para_15" }, { "text": "ARGUED MAY 20, 2026 — DECIDED SEPTEMBER 25, 2026", "paragraph_id": "para_16" }, { "text": "____________________", "paragraph_id": "para_17" }, { "text": "Before BRENNAN, Chief Judge, and SCUDDER and JACKSON-", "paragraph_id": "para_18" }, { "text": "AKIWUMI, Circuit Judges.", "paragraph_id": "para_19" }, { "text": "BRENNAN, Chief Judge. Gary Howard was a confidential in-", "paragraph_id": "para_20" }, { "text": "formant for the U.S. Department of Homeland Security who", "paragraph_id": "para_21" }, { "text": "went rogue. While cooperating with narcotics investigations,", "paragraph_id": "para_22" }, { "text": "he continued to deal drugs on the side. Howard formed what", "paragraph_id": "para_23" }, { "text": "the district court described as a “symbiotic, corrupt relation-", "paragraph_id": "para_24" }, { "text": "ship” with his handler, then-Special Agent Anthony Sabaini,", "paragraph_id": "para_25" }, { "text": "who was later convicted of federal corruption crimes. See", "paragraph_id": "para_26" }, { "text": "2 No. 25-2164", "paragraph_id": "para_27" }, { "text": "United States v. Sabaini, 161 F.4th 1036 (7th Cir. 2025). Their", "paragraph_id": "para_28" }, { "text": "association unraveled when, to Howard’s surprise, two drug", "paragraph_id": "para_29" }, { "text": "deals turned out to be sting operations with him as their tar-", "paragraph_id": "para_30" }, { "text": "get. After a jury trial he was convicted of three drug crimes.", "paragraph_id": "para_31" }, { "text": "Howard appeals his convictions on numerous grounds,", "paragraph_id": "para_32" }, { "text": "but he primarily disputes three orders. First, the district court", "paragraph_id": "para_33" }, { "text": "granted Sabaini’s motion to quash a subpoena, thus permit-", "paragraph_id": "para_34" }, { "text": "ting him to avoid self-incrimination by not testifying in sup-", "paragraph_id": "para_35" }, { "text": "port of Howard’s public authority affirmative defense. That", "paragraph_id": "para_36" }, { "text": "defense, which Howard raised at trial, shields a criminal de-", "paragraph_id": "para_37" }, { "text": "fendant from conviction for engaging in otherwise illegal ac-", "paragraph_id": "para_38" }, { "text": "tivity if law enforcement authorized that conduct. Second, the", "paragraph_id": "para_39" }, { "text": "district court denied Howard’s motion to suppress evidence", "paragraph_id": "para_40" }, { "text": "found during a warrantless search of his home and cell phone.", "paragraph_id": "para_41" }, { "text": "The court held it was admissible under the inevitable discov-", "paragraph_id": "para_42" }, { "text": "ery doctrine exception to the exclusionary rule. Third, the", "paragraph_id": "para_43" }, { "text": "district court denied Howard’s motion for a judgment of ac-", "paragraph_id": "para_44" }, { "text": "quittal or new trial, concluding the trial evidence was suffi-", "paragraph_id": "para_45" }, { "text": "cient to convict him.", "paragraph_id": "para_46" }, { "text": "His appeal of these rulings and other purported errors by", "paragraph_id": "para_47" }, { "text": "the district court fall short. The district court did not abuse its", "paragraph_id": "para_48" }, { "text": "discretion by quashing the subpoena of Sabaini, nor did that", "paragraph_id": "para_49" }, { "text": "ruling preempt Howard’s public authority defense or render", "paragraph_id": "para_50" }, { "text": "his trial unfair. The evidence from Howard’s home and cell", "paragraph_id": "para_51" }, { "text": "phone would have been inevitably discovered through lawful", "paragraph_id": "para_52" }, { "text": "means. And a rational trier of fact could conclude beyond a", "paragraph_id": "para_53" }, { "text": "reasonable doubt that Howard was guilty of the crimes for", "paragraph_id": "para_54" }, { "text": "which he was convicted. For these reasons, and because How-", "paragraph_id": "para_55" }, { "text": "ard’s other challenges were waived or fail, we affirm.", "paragraph_id": "para_56" }, { "text": "No. 25-2164 3", "paragraph_id": "para_57" }, { "text": "I. Background", "paragraph_id": "para_58" }, { "text": "A. Facts", "paragraph_id": "para_59" }, { "text": "Howard worked as a confidential informant for Home-", "paragraph_id": "para_60" }, { "text": "land Security Investigations (HSI), a branch of the U.S.", "paragraph_id": "para_61" }, { "text": "Department of Homeland Security, providing tips to assist", "paragraph_id": "para_62" }, { "text": "narcotics investigations in exchange for pay. He reported to", "paragraph_id": "para_63" }, { "text": "then-Special Agent Sabaini. Though confidential informants", "paragraph_id": "para_64" }, { "text": "agree not to engage in any unauthorized illegal activities,", "paragraph_id": "para_65" }, { "text": "Howard continued dealing drugs on the side. Twice he was", "paragraph_id": "para_66" }, { "text": "caught as the target of narcotics sting operations.", "paragraph_id": "para_67" }, { "text": "In January 2017, Howard participated in the sale of a small", "paragraph_id": "para_68" }, { "text": "quantity of cocaine. The buyer was secretly a confidential in-", "paragraph_id": "para_69" }, { "text": "formant for the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA).", "paragraph_id": "para_70" }, { "text": "When DEA agent Phillip Hahn entered Howard’s infor-", "paragraph_id": "para_71" }, { "text": "mation into their database, he discovered Howard was regis-", "paragraph_id": "para_72" }, { "text": "tered with HSI. Sabaini quickly caught wind. He told Hahn to", "paragraph_id": "para_73" }, { "text": "stand down on investigating Howard, whom he described as", "paragraph_id": "para_74" }, { "text": "his “golden goose.” Sabaini never disclosed this event to HSI.", "paragraph_id": "para_75" }, { "text": "See Sabaini, 161 F.4th at 1041–42.", "paragraph_id": "para_76" }, { "text": "Howard’s next criminal encounter with law enforcement", "paragraph_id": "para_77" }, { "text": "occurred in July 2018. Howard tried to buy a large quantity of", "paragraph_id": "para_78" }, { "text": "cocaine. The seller again turned out to be a DEA confidential", "paragraph_id": "para_79" }, { "text": "informant and Howard was immediately arrested. While in", "paragraph_id": "para_80" }, { "text": "custody, Howard told DEA Special Agent Anthony Anglada", "paragraph_id": "para_81" }, { "text": "that he worked with Sabaini. Anglada then called Sabaini and", "paragraph_id": "para_82" }, { "text": "said that Howard could “work it off if he cooperated.” An-", "paragraph_id": "para_83" }, { "text": "glada also permitted Howard to speak with Sabaini. After Sa-", "paragraph_id": "para_84" }, { "text": "baini encouraged Howard to cooperate, Howard provided", "paragraph_id": "para_85" }, { "text": "written consent to search his home and cell phone. He was", "paragraph_id": "para_86" }, { "text": "released the same day. In the succeeding months the DEA", "paragraph_id": "para_87" }, { "text": "asked for Howard’s cooperation, but he declined.", "paragraph_id": "para_88" }, { "text": "4 No. 25-2164", "paragraph_id": "para_89" }, { "text": "B. Procedure", "paragraph_id": "para_90" }, { "text": "Howard’s 2018 conduct was later presented to a grand", "paragraph_id": "para_91" }, { "text": "jury, which returned a two-count indictment. In Count I, he", "paragraph_id": "para_92" }, { "text": "was charged with conspiracy to possess with intent to distrib-", "paragraph_id": "para_93" }, { "text": "ute five kilograms or more of cocaine, in violation of 21 U.S.C.", "paragraph_id": "para_94" }, { "text": "§ 846. He was charged in Count II with attempted possession", "paragraph_id": "para_95" }, { "text": "with intent to distribute five kilograms or more of cocaine, in", "paragraph_id": "para_96" }, { "text": "violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1).", "paragraph_id": "para_97" }, { "text": "1. Pretrial", "paragraph_id": "para_98" }, { "text": "Before trial Howard moved to suppress his post-arrest", "paragraph_id": "para_99" }, { "text": "statements and evidence seized from his home and cell", "paragraph_id": "para_100" }, { "text": "phone. At an evidentiary hearing on the motion, Sabaini tes-", "paragraph_id": "para_101" }, { "text": "tified for Howard. The district court found Sabaini credible", "paragraph_id": "para_102" }, { "text": "and suppressed Howard’s post-arrest statements as coerced", "paragraph_id": "para_103" }, { "text": "by a false promise of leniency and therefore involuntary and", "paragraph_id": "para_104" }, { "text": "inadmissible.", "paragraph_id": "para_105" }, { "text": "But the district court did not suppress evidence found", "paragraph_id": "para_106" }, { "text": "during the search of Howard’s residence or cell phone. Spe-", "paragraph_id": "para_107" }, { "text": "cial Agent Brandon Rodekohr testified he had been in contact", "paragraph_id": "para_108" }, { "text": "with the federal prosecutor “before, during, and after the op-", "paragraph_id": "para_109" }, { "text": "eration” about the “possibility of applying for a search war-", "paragraph_id": "para_110" }, { "text": "rant.” Rodekohr also said he would have applied for a search", "paragraph_id": "para_111" }, { "text": "warrant had they not obtained Howard’s consent. Based on", "paragraph_id": "para_112" }, { "text": "that testimony, the district court denied this part of Howard’s", "paragraph_id": "para_113" }, { "text": "motion to suppress under the inevitable discovery doctrine.", "paragraph_id": "para_114" }, { "text": "After the suppression hearing, the government brought", "paragraph_id": "para_115" }, { "text": "more charges. The grand jury’s superseding indictment", "paragraph_id": "para_116" }, { "text": "added co-defendant Fowobi George to Counts I and II for bro-", "paragraph_id": "para_117" }, { "text": "kering the 2018 deal. It also added two counts against How-", "paragraph_id": "para_118" }, { "text": "ard related to his participation in the 2017 drug deal. In Count", "paragraph_id": "para_119" }, { "text": "No. 25-2164 5", "paragraph_id": "para_120" }, { "text": "III he was charged with conspiracy to distribute cocaine in vi-", "paragraph_id": "para_121" }, { "text": "olation of 21 U.S.C. § 846. Count IV charged him with distri-", "paragraph_id": "para_122" }, { "text": "bution of cocaine in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1) and (2).", "paragraph_id": "para_123" }, { "text": "The superseding indictment followed Howard’s partially", "paragraph_id": "para_124" }, { "text": "successful motion to suppress, so he believed the government", "paragraph_id": "para_125" }, { "text": "had retaliated against him. Howard thus moved to dismiss", "paragraph_id": "para_126" }, { "text": "for vindictive prosecution. The district court denied the mo-", "paragraph_id": "para_127" }, { "text": "tion, explaining that timing alone does not prove prosecuto-", "paragraph_id": "para_128" }, { "text": "rial vindictiveness or malice.", "paragraph_id": "para_129" }, { "text": "Howard also moved under Federal Rules of Criminal Pro-", "paragraph_id": "para_130" }, { "text": "cedure 8 and 14 to sever for trial Counts III and IV from", "paragraph_id": "para_131" }, { "text": "Counts I and II. The district court denied this motion because", "paragraph_id": "para_132" }, { "text": "all four counts are of the “same or similar character,” satisfy-", "paragraph_id": "para_133" }, { "text": "ing Rule 8, and any potential prejudice—which could be mit-", "paragraph_id": "para_134" }, { "text": "igated by jury instructions—was outweighed by the interests", "paragraph_id": "para_135" }, { "text": "of judicial economy, as required by Rule 14. Howard planned", "paragraph_id": "para_136" }, { "text": "to assert a public authority defense, the district court ex-", "paragraph_id": "para_137" }, { "text": "plained, so evidence relevant to his primary defense would", "paragraph_id": "para_138" }, { "text": "apply to all counts.", "paragraph_id": "para_139" }, { "text": "The public authority defense is available to a defendant", "paragraph_id": "para_140" }, { "text": "who engages in activity he “knows to be otherwise illegal but", "paragraph_id": "para_141" }, { "text": "that has been authorized by the government.” Norweathers v.", "paragraph_id": "para_142" }, { "text": "United States, 133 F.4th 770, 776 (7th Cir. 2025) (citation modi-", "paragraph_id": "para_143" }, { "text": "fied). This defense applies only when the government official", "paragraph_id": "para_144" }, { "text": "had actual authority—not just apparent authority—to green-", "paragraph_id": "para_145" }, { "text": "light the defendant’s conduct, and the defendant reasonably", "paragraph_id": "para_146" }, { "text": "relied on that authority. Id. To assert his public authority de-", "paragraph_id": "para_147" }, { "text": "fense, Howard subpoenaed Sabaini, seeking to elicit testi-", "paragraph_id": "para_148" }, { "text": "mony that he had authorized Howard’s drug transactions.", "paragraph_id": "para_149" }, { "text": "6 No. 25-2164", "paragraph_id": "para_150" }, { "text": "But Sabaini had his own problems. By this point, the FBI", "paragraph_id": "para_151" }, { "text": "had determined that he had used his position with HSI “to", "paragraph_id": "para_152" }, { "text": "steal money from investigative targets, embezzle HSI funds", "paragraph_id": "para_153" }, { "text": "ear-marked for investigations, and enter a cash-for-protection", "paragraph_id": "para_154" }, { "text": "relationship with a confidential source [i.e., Howard].” Sa-", "paragraph_id": "para_155" }, { "text": "baini, 161 F.4th at 1040. Relatedly, Sabaini had been charged", "paragraph_id": "para_156" }, { "text": "with “filing false tax returns, structuring cash deposits to", "paragraph_id": "para_157" }, { "text": "avoid detection, and concealing material information from", "paragraph_id": "para_158" }, { "text": "the federal government.” Id. This last charge referred to his", "paragraph_id": "para_159" }, { "text": "failure to disclose Howard’s 2017 drug transaction to HSI. Sa-", "paragraph_id": "para_160" }, { "text": "baini was found guilty at his criminal trial and his appeal was", "paragraph_id": "para_161" }, { "text": "pending when Howard subpoenaed him. Id.", "paragraph_id": "para_162" }, { "text": "Concerned with incriminating himself, Sabaini invoked", "paragraph_id": "para_163" }, { "text": "the Fifth Amendment and moved to quash the subpoena.", "paragraph_id": "para_164" }, { "text": "Given the motion’s sensitive nature, the district court heard it", "paragraph_id": "para_165" }, { "text": "ex parte. Present were the district judge, Sabaini, and Sa-", "paragraph_id": "para_166" }, { "text": "baini’s counsel. Howard submitted 95 questions under seal as", "paragraph_id": "para_167" }, { "text": "inquiries, some of which but not all the district court posed", "paragraph_id": "para_168" }, { "text": "during the in-camera interview. From the interview, the dis-", "paragraph_id": "para_169" }, { "text": "trict court concluded that Sabaini risked self-incrimination by", "paragraph_id": "para_170" }, { "text": "testifying at Howard’s trial, so it quashed the subpoena. At", "paragraph_id": "para_171" }, { "text": "any rate, to the court, Sabaini’s testimony would not have", "paragraph_id": "para_172" }, { "text": "helped Howard. Sabaini had testified at his own trial and", "paragraph_id": "para_173" }, { "text": "again at Howard’s suppression hearing that he had not au-", "paragraph_id": "para_174" }, { "text": "thorized the 2017 or 2018 deals.", "paragraph_id": "para_175" }, { "text": "2. Trial", "paragraph_id": "para_176" }, { "text": "This case went to jury trial in May 2024. On Counts I and", "paragraph_id": "para_177" }, { "text": "II the government presented evidence of the 2018 drug sale.", "paragraph_id": "para_178" }, { "text": "A DEA confidential informant contacted co-defendant", "paragraph_id": "para_179" }, { "text": "George to see if he could broker a deal. A mutual friend", "paragraph_id": "para_180" }, { "text": "named “Z” introduced George and Howard, who agreed to a", "paragraph_id": "para_181" }, { "text": "No. 25-2164 7", "paragraph_id": "para_182" }, { "text": "single sale of 10 kilograms of cocaine for $280,000. The three", "paragraph_id": "para_183" }, { "text": "met as planned in the parking lot of Z’s furniture store. After", "paragraph_id": "para_184" }, { "text": "this initial meeting, Howard entered his vehicle and aerial", "paragraph_id": "para_185" }, { "text": "surveillance logged him driving to a single-family home and", "paragraph_id": "para_186" }, { "text": "pulling into the garage. The landlord testified the house was", "paragraph_id": "para_187" }, { "text": "leased to Howard and his wife. Howard then returned to Z’s", "paragraph_id": "para_188" }, { "text": "furniture store.", "paragraph_id": "para_189" }, { "text": "The jury saw text messages exchanged between George", "paragraph_id": "para_190" }, { "text": "and Howard during this detour:", "paragraph_id": "para_191" }, { "text": "Howard: I’m picking my guy up cause I can’t", "paragraph_id": "para_192" }, { "text": "leave my stuff unattended with strangers and I", "paragraph_id": "para_193" }, { "text": "only bringing half. I’m really not feeling this sit-", "paragraph_id": "para_194" }, { "text": "uation[.]", "paragraph_id": "para_195" }, { "text": "George: You don’t have to leave, I have made", "paragraph_id": "para_196" }, { "text": "arrangements to be here … I have made it eas-", "paragraph_id": "para_197" }, { "text": "ier, just do the ten as agreed, you don’t have to", "paragraph_id": "para_198" }, { "text": "go anywhere to inspect.", "paragraph_id": "para_199" }, { "text": "George testified “half” referred to $140,000, half the", "paragraph_id": "para_200" }, { "text": "agreed price of $280,000. “[T]en as agreed” referred to the 10", "paragraph_id": "para_201" }, { "text": "kilograms of cocaine they agreed to sell Howard in exchange", "paragraph_id": "para_202" }, { "text": "for $280,000. George’s second and third texts meant the co-", "paragraph_id": "para_203" }, { "text": "caine would be on site, so Howard would not have to leave", "paragraph_id": "para_204" }, { "text": "his money and pick up the cocaine elsewhere.", "paragraph_id": "para_205" }, { "text": "Next, Howard texted: “Come to the car.” After George and", "paragraph_id": "para_206" }, { "text": "the confidential source entered Howard’s car, audio/video re-", "paragraph_id": "para_207" }, { "text": "cording captured Howard saying, “It’s a hundred and forty", "paragraph_id": "para_208" }, { "text": "[$140,000]. It’s enough for five [kilograms].” He also said, “I’ll", "paragraph_id": "para_209" }, { "text": "go grab the other hundred and forty [$140,000].” Howard", "paragraph_id": "para_210" }, { "text": "then unzipped a backpack to show the cash. George testified", "paragraph_id": "para_211" }, { "text": "that Howard handed the backpack to the confidential source.", "paragraph_id": "para_212" }, { "text": "8 No. 25-2164", "paragraph_id": "para_213" }, { "text": "As the DEA surveillance team descended on the car, Howard", "paragraph_id": "para_214" }, { "text": "exclaimed, “Police man f***ing police man.” George and", "paragraph_id": "para_215" }, { "text": "Howard were immediately arrested.", "paragraph_id": "para_216" }, { "text": "The team searched Howard’s car and found a backpack", "paragraph_id": "para_217" }, { "text": "filled with $133,000 in cash. A search of Howard’s residence", "paragraph_id": "para_218" }, { "text": "yielded another $106,000 in cash, a loaded handgun with a", "paragraph_id": "para_219" }, { "text": "spare magazine, an owner’s manual for a currency counter,", "paragraph_id": "para_220" }, { "text": "and a journal containing codenames listed next to amounts", "paragraph_id": "para_221" }, { "text": "owed reaching in the tens of thousands of dollars. The gov-", "paragraph_id": "para_222" }, { "text": "ernment’s expert testified that the journal was a drug ledger", "paragraph_id": "para_223" }, { "text": "and opined that the items found are tools of drug traffickers.", "paragraph_id": "para_224" }, { "text": "On Counts III and IV concerning the 2017 events, the jury", "paragraph_id": "para_225" }, { "text": "heard testimony that a confidential informant reached an", "paragraph_id": "para_226" }, { "text": "agreement through a middleman to buy two ounces of", "paragraph_id": "para_227" }, { "text": "cocaine from Howard for $2,400. The government played an", "paragraph_id": "para_228" }, { "text": "audio/video recording of a meeting among those three. The", "paragraph_id": "para_229" }, { "text": "informant asked, “You got my stuff?” to which a male voice", "paragraph_id": "para_230" }, { "text": "answered, “Yeah.” The video did not depict the speaker. The", "paragraph_id": "para_231" }, { "text": "informant testified that “my stuff” meant cocaine. But the jury", "paragraph_id": "para_232" }, { "text": "heard conflicting testimony as to whether the male speaker", "paragraph_id": "para_233" }, { "text": "was Howard or the middleman.", "paragraph_id": "para_234" }, { "text": "The confidential informant also testified that Howard", "paragraph_id": "para_235" }, { "text": "passed drugs to the middleman, who passed them to her. She", "paragraph_id": "para_236" }, { "text": "apparently gave $2,400 directly to Howard. Howard denied", "paragraph_id": "para_237" }, { "text": "this when he testified, and the video did not record the al-", "paragraph_id": "para_238" }, { "text": "leged transfer.", "paragraph_id": "para_239" }, { "text": "An audio/video recording taped Howard instructing the", "paragraph_id": "para_240" }, { "text": "confidential informant how to cook cocaine before", "paragraph_id": "para_241" }, { "text": "“stretch[ing]” it by mixing in baking soda, as well as discuss-", "paragraph_id": "para_242" }, { "text": "ing the purity of Howard’s cocaine and discount prices for", "paragraph_id": "para_243" }, { "text": "No. 25-2164 9", "paragraph_id": "para_244" }, { "text": "future sales. Howard explained that his “set price is really 24", "paragraph_id": "para_245" }, { "text": "[$2,400]” but he could do “twenty-two fifty [$2,250].”", "paragraph_id": "para_246" }, { "text": "After the meeting, DEA Special Agent Hahn debriefed the", "paragraph_id": "para_247" }, { "text": "confidential informant, collected recording devices, and", "paragraph_id": "para_248" }, { "text": "seized the drugs. Lab testing confirmed it was cocaine, which", "paragraph_id": "para_249" }, { "text": "was admitted into evidence and shown to the jury. The DEA", "paragraph_id": "para_250" }, { "text": "surveillance team did not arrest Howard, nor did it recover", "paragraph_id": "para_251" }, { "text": "the government money provided to the confidential inform-", "paragraph_id": "para_252" }, { "text": "ant for the deal.", "paragraph_id": "para_253" }, { "text": "The jury found Howard guilty on Count I (conspiracy to", "paragraph_id": "para_254" }, { "text": "possess with intent to distribute cocaine), Count II (attempted", "paragraph_id": "para_255" }, { "text": "possession with intent to distribute cocaine), and Count III", "paragraph_id": "para_256" }, { "text": "(conspiracy to distribute cocaine) but not guilty on Count IV", "paragraph_id": "para_257" }, { "text": "(cocaine distribution).", "paragraph_id": "para_258" }, { "text": "3. Post-trial and sentencing", "paragraph_id": "para_259" }, { "text": "Howard moved for an acquittal or a new trial under Fed-", "paragraph_id": "para_260" }, { "text": "eral Rules of Criminal Procedure 29 and 33. The district court", "paragraph_id": "para_261" }, { "text": "denied Howard’s motion, concluding there was sufficient ev-", "paragraph_id": "para_262" }, { "text": "idence to support the jury’s verdicts on Counts I, II, and III.", "paragraph_id": "para_263" }, { "text": "The court also ruled that the not guilty verdict on Count IV", "paragraph_id": "para_264" }, { "text": "was not necessarily inconsistent with the guilty verdict on", "paragraph_id": "para_265" }, { "text": "Count III. Even if it was, inconsistent verdicts are not a basis", "paragraph_id": "para_266" }, { "text": "to set aside a conviction, the court explained.", "paragraph_id": "para_267" }, { "text": "Howard’s advisory Sentencing Guidelines range was cal-", "paragraph_id": "para_268" }, { "text": "culated as 135 to 168 months. The district court sentenced him", "paragraph_id": "para_269" }, { "text": "to 156 months’ imprisonment, followed by three years of su-", "paragraph_id": "para_270" }, { "text": "pervised release. Among other considerations, the court em-", "paragraph_id": "para_271" }, { "text": "phasized—based on the jury’s finding—that Howard went", "paragraph_id": "para_272" }, { "text": "“rogue” as a confidential informant, and that his partnership", "paragraph_id": "para_273" }, { "text": "with Sabaini was a “symbiotic, corrupt relationship.”", "paragraph_id": "para_274" }, { "text": "10 No. 25-2164", "paragraph_id": "para_275" }, { "text": "II. Discussion", "paragraph_id": "para_276" }, { "text": "Howard appeals a litany of purported errors. He believes", "paragraph_id": "para_277" }, { "text": "that quashing the subpoena of Sabaini deprived him of his", "paragraph_id": "para_278" }, { "text": "right to put on a complete defense. Howard also disputes the", "paragraph_id": "para_279" }, { "text": "district court’s denial of his pretrial motions to suppress", "paragraph_id": "para_280" }, { "text": "evidence, to dismiss for vindictive prosecution, and to sever", "paragraph_id": "para_281" }, { "text": "certain counts from others for trial. He further challenges the", "paragraph_id": "para_282" }, { "text": "denial of his mistrial motion, the sufficiency of the evidence", "paragraph_id": "para_283" }, { "text": "in support of his convictions, and the reasonableness of his", "paragraph_id": "para_284" }, { "text": "sentence.", "paragraph_id": "para_285" }, { "text": "A. Public Authority Defense", "paragraph_id": "para_286" }, { "text": "The Sixth Amendment includes the right to “compulsory", "paragraph_id": "para_287" }, { "text": "process for obtaining witnesses in [one’s] favor.” U.S. CONST.", "paragraph_id": "para_288" }, { "text": "amend. VI. The Fifth Amendment provides that no person", "paragraph_id": "para_289" }, { "text": "“shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness", "paragraph_id": "para_290" }, { "text": "against himself.” Id. amend. V. These rights can conflict when", "paragraph_id": "para_291" }, { "text": "one person is compelled to testify in another’s defense if that", "paragraph_id": "para_292" }, { "text": "testimony is potentially self-incriminating. “When a subpoe-", "paragraph_id": "para_293" }, { "text": "naed witness invokes the Fifth Amendment, the privilege", "paragraph_id": "para_294" }, { "text": "against self-incrimination generally trumps a defendant’s", "paragraph_id": "para_295" }, { "text": "Sixth Amendment right to compulsory process.” United States", "paragraph_id": "para_296" }, { "text": "v. Newton, 76 F.4th 662, 670 (7th Cir. 2023).", "paragraph_id": "para_297" }, { "text": "But invoking the Fifth Amendment is not enough. The", "paragraph_id": "para_298" }, { "text": "subpoenaed witness must show “reasonable cause to appre-", "paragraph_id": "para_299" }, { "text": "hend danger from a direct answer.” Ohio v. Reiner, 532 U.S. 17,", "paragraph_id": "para_300" }, { "text": "21 (2001). This is not an onerous standard; it goes unmet “only", "paragraph_id": "para_301" }, { "text": "if the witness cannot possibly incriminate [him]self.” Newton,", "paragraph_id": "para_302" }, { "text": "76 F.4th at 670. An order granting a motion to quash a sub-", "paragraph_id": "para_303" }, { "text": "poena is reviewed for abuse of discretion. United States v.", "paragraph_id": "para_304" }, { "text": "Hamdan, 910 F.3d 351, 356 (7th Cir. 2018).", "paragraph_id": "para_305" }, { "text": "No. 25-2164 11", "paragraph_id": "para_306" }, { "text": "The district court concluded that “it’s not much of a stretch", "paragraph_id": "para_307" }, { "text": "to think that Sabaini … might face jeopardy by giving truthful", "paragraph_id": "para_308" }, { "text": "testimony.” The court was correct for three reasons.", "paragraph_id": "para_309" }, { "text": "First, for good reason, the right against self-incrimination", "paragraph_id": "para_310" }, { "text": "survives during an appeal. “Because any post-conviction evi-", "paragraph_id": "para_311" }, { "text": "dence could be used against a defendant if his conviction", "paragraph_id": "para_312" }, { "text": "were to be overturned, the risk of coerced self-incrimination", "paragraph_id": "para_313" }, { "text": "remains until the conviction has been affirmed on appeal.”", "paragraph_id": "para_314" }, { "text": "United States v. Kennedy, 372 F.3d 686, 691–92 (4th Cir. 2004).", "paragraph_id": "para_315" }, { "text": "The corrupt relationship between Sabaini and Howard was a", "paragraph_id": "para_316" }, { "text": "major part of the government’s evidence against Sabaini at his", "paragraph_id": "para_317" }, { "text": "trial. Had Sabaini won his appeal and secured a new trial, his", "paragraph_id": "para_318" }, { "text": "truthful testimony at Howard’s trial could have been used", "paragraph_id": "para_319" }, { "text": "against him.", "paragraph_id": "para_320" }, { "text": "Second, if Sabaini’s truthful testimony at Howard’s trial", "paragraph_id": "para_321" }, { "text": "contradicted testimony from Sabaini’s own trial, then Sabaini", "paragraph_id": "para_322" }, { "text": "could face perjury charges. True, a witness cannot avoid tes-", "paragraph_id": "para_323" }, { "text": "tifying for fear of present perjury, as Howard notes on appeal.", "paragraph_id": "para_324" }, { "text": "Still, a witness can avoid testifying for fear that his truthful", "paragraph_id": "para_325" }, { "text": "testimony would expose past perjury in other proceedings.", "paragraph_id": "para_326" }, { "text": "See United States v. Allmon, 594 F.3d 981, 987 (8th Cir. 2010)", "paragraph_id": "para_327" }, { "text": "(“[T]hose courts that have directly addressed the issue have", "paragraph_id": "para_328" }, { "text": "held that the Fifth Amendment is concerned with perjury aris-", "paragraph_id": "para_329" }, { "text": "ing from past testimony, not present testimony.”) (collecting", "paragraph_id": "para_330" }, { "text": "cases).", "paragraph_id": "para_331" }, { "text": "Third, the government planned to impeach Sabaini with", "paragraph_id": "para_332" }, { "text": "jail-recorded telephone conversations about a potential quid", "paragraph_id": "para_333" }, { "text": "pro quo: Howard would write an affidavit supporting a", "paragraph_id": "para_334" }, { "text": "shorter sentence for Sabaini in exchange for Sabaini testifying", "paragraph_id": "para_335" }, { "text": "at Howard’s trial. This created a reasonable fear that the gov-", "paragraph_id": "para_336" }, { "text": "ernment’s cross-examination of Sabaini could result in a", "paragraph_id": "para_337" }, { "text": "12 No. 25-2164", "paragraph_id": "para_338" }, { "text": "witness-tampering charge. See 18 U.S.C. § 1512(b), (c), (i)–(k);", "paragraph_id": "para_339" }, { "text": "see also United States v. Eads, 729 F.3d 769, 779 (7th Cir. 2013)", "paragraph_id": "para_340" }, { "text": "(affirming a § 1512(b) conviction based solely on jail-recorded", "paragraph_id": "para_341" }, { "text": "telephone conversations); United States v. Chapman, 765 F.3d", "paragraph_id": "para_342" }, { "text": "720, 731 (7th Cir. 2014) (holding that the Fifth Amendment", "paragraph_id": "para_343" }, { "text": "protects against self-incrimination during cross-examina-", "paragraph_id": "para_344" }, { "text": "tion).", "paragraph_id": "para_345" }, { "text": "The bar for finding that Sabaini had “reasonable cause” to", "paragraph_id": "para_346" }, { "text": "invoke his right against self-incrimination—which requires", "paragraph_id": "para_347" }, { "text": "only that Sabaini could “incriminate [him]self,” Newton, 76", "paragraph_id": "para_348" }, { "text": "F.4th at 670—was thus cleared. The district court did not", "paragraph_id": "para_349" }, { "text": "abuse its discretion by granting Sabaini’s motion to quash his", "paragraph_id": "para_350" }, { "text": "trial subpoena.", "paragraph_id": "para_351" }, { "text": "To Howard, though, the district court disabled his public", "paragraph_id": "para_352" }, { "text": "authority defense, rendering the trial unfair and warranting", "paragraph_id": "para_353" }, { "text": "de novo review.", "paragraph_id": "para_354" }, { "text": "Instead, we conclude that the record does not support", "paragraph_id": "para_355" }, { "text": "Howard’s assertion. This defense survived the government’s", "paragraph_id": "para_356" }, { "text": "pretrial motions and became a central topic at the jury trial.", "paragraph_id": "para_357" }, { "text": "Ample evidence was presented that Howard was not author-", "paragraph_id": "para_358" }, { "text": "ized to engage in a drug deal in July 2018. Sabaini’s supervis-", "paragraph_id": "para_359" }, { "text": "ing agents had no notice of that drug sale, and they testified", "paragraph_id": "para_360" }, { "text": "that had Howard been authorized, they would have known", "paragraph_id": "para_361" }, { "text": "and likely been involved in surveillance. The sale also would", "paragraph_id": "para_362" }, { "text": "have been recorded in Howard’s confidential informant file,", "paragraph_id": "para_363" }, { "text": "but it was not.", "paragraph_id": "para_364" }, { "text": "The jury also saw Howard’s contract with HSI, in which", "paragraph_id": "para_365" }, { "text": "he agreed not to “violate any laws without the prior authori-", "paragraph_id": "para_366" }, { "text": "zation of [his] control agent,” and accepted that “authorized", "paragraph_id": "para_367" }, { "text": "illegal activity will be conducted under the stringent control", "paragraph_id": "para_368" }, { "text": "No. 25-2164 13", "paragraph_id": "para_369" }, { "text": "of HSI and requires direct contact with HSI control agent(s)", "paragraph_id": "para_370" }, { "text": "prior to and after the conclusion of the authorized illegal ac-", "paragraph_id": "para_371" }, { "text": "tivity.” Despite these commitments, there was no evidence of", "paragraph_id": "para_372" }, { "text": "contact between Howard and Sabaini, Sabaini was out of", "paragraph_id": "para_373" }, { "text": "town that day, and the two did not call each other in the week", "paragraph_id": "para_374" }, { "text": "leading up to the July 2018 sale.", "paragraph_id": "para_375" }, { "text": "After the government rested its case, Howard testified in", "paragraph_id": "para_376" }, { "text": "his own defense. He said Sabaini told him to check into", "paragraph_id": "para_377" }, { "text": "George to see if he had large amounts of cocaine for sale.", "paragraph_id": "para_378" }, { "text": "Howard submitted that his plan was to show he had the", "paragraph_id": "para_379" }, { "text": "money to purchase the cocaine, but not to buy it, and then to", "paragraph_id": "para_380" }, { "text": "contact Sabaini once he returned to see what was next.", "paragraph_id": "para_381" }, { "text": "At the close of evidence, the jury was instructed on How-", "paragraph_id": "para_382" }, { "text": "ard’s public authority defense under the applicable Seventh", "paragraph_id": "para_383" }, { "text": "Circuit’s pattern jury instruction, 6.06.1 Under that instruc-", "paragraph_id": "para_384" }, { "text": "tion, Howard had to prove by a preponderance of the evi-", "paragraph_id": "para_385" }, { "text": "dence that he had reasonably relied on actual authority. But", "paragraph_id": "para_386" }, { "text": "the jury concluded that he failed to carry his burden, so it re-", "paragraph_id": "para_387" }, { "text": "turned guilty verdicts on Counts I and II.", "paragraph_id": "para_388" }, { "text": "In any event, it is unlikely Sabaini’s putative testimony", "paragraph_id": "para_389" }, { "text": "would have helped Howard. Sabaini had already testified", "paragraph_id": "para_390" }, { "text": "twice that he had not authorized the 2018 deal. And even if", "paragraph_id": "para_391" }, { "text": "Sabaini’s testimony would have supported Howard’s reason-", "paragraph_id": "para_392" }, { "text": "able reliance on apparent authority, they would have corrob-", "paragraph_id": "para_393" }, { "text": "orated the government’s evidence that actual authority—the", "paragraph_id": "para_394" }, { "text": "1 By this time, Howard had limited the public authority defense to", "paragraph_id": "para_395" }, { "text": "Count I (conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute cocaine) and Count", "paragraph_id": "para_396" }, { "text": "II (attempted possession with intent to distribute cocaine), arising from his", "paragraph_id": "para_397" }, { "text": "2018 conduct.", "paragraph_id": "para_398" }, { "text": "14 No. 25-2164", "paragraph_id": "para_399" }, { "text": "dispositive element of the public authority defense—was ab-", "paragraph_id": "para_400" }, { "text": "sent. See Norweathers, 133 F.4th at 776.", "paragraph_id": "para_401" }, { "text": "The record shows that Howard’s public authority defense", "paragraph_id": "para_402" }, { "text": "was fully ventilated and considered by the jury, and the dis-", "paragraph_id": "para_403" }, { "text": "trict court’s ruling did not deprive him of a fair trial.", "paragraph_id": "para_404" }, { "text": "B. Pretrial Motions", "paragraph_id": "para_405" }, { "text": "1. Motion to suppress", "paragraph_id": "para_406" }, { "text": "Howard next challenges the admission of evidence from", "paragraph_id": "para_407" }, { "text": "the government’s warrantless search of his home and cell", "paragraph_id": "para_408" }, { "text": "phone. A district court’s denial of a motion to suppress is a", "paragraph_id": "para_409" }, { "text": "mixed question of law and fact. We review questions of law", "paragraph_id": "para_410" }, { "text": "de novo and factual determinations for clear error. United", "paragraph_id": "para_411" }, { "text": "States v. Watson, 171 F.4th 1012, 1015 (7th Cir. 2026).", "paragraph_id": "para_412" }, { "text": "The exclusionary rule prevents the admission of evidence", "paragraph_id": "para_413" }, { "text": "resulting from an illegal search. Id. (citing Mapp v. Ohio, 367", "paragraph_id": "para_414" }, { "text": "U.S. 643, 655 (1961)). An exception, however, applies when", "paragraph_id": "para_415" }, { "text": "evidence would have been inevitably discovered through", "paragraph_id": "para_416" }, { "text": "lawful means. United States v. Haldorson, 941 F.3d 284, 293 (7th", "paragraph_id": "para_417" }, { "text": "Cir. 2019) (quoting Nix v. Williams, 467 U.S. 431, 441–48", "paragraph_id": "para_418" }, { "text": "(1984)).", "paragraph_id": "para_419" }, { "text": "To benefit from the inevitable discovery doctrine, the gov-", "paragraph_id": "para_420" }, { "text": "ernment must show by a preponderance of the evidence that:", "paragraph_id": "para_421" }, { "text": "(1) law enforcement officials had obtained, or would have ob-", "paragraph_id": "para_422" }, { "text": "tained, an independent legal justification to conduct the", "paragraph_id": "para_423" }, { "text": "search; and (2) those officials could have and would have pur-", "paragraph_id": "para_424" }, { "text": "sued and obtained a search warrant. United States v. Pelletier,", "paragraph_id": "para_425" }, { "text": "700 F.3d 1109, 1116 (7th Cir. 2012).", "paragraph_id": "para_426" }, { "text": "On the first requirement—independent legal justifica-", "paragraph_id": "para_427" }, { "text": "tion—the district court concluded that probable cause existed", "paragraph_id": "para_428" }, { "text": "No. 25-2164 15", "paragraph_id": "para_429" }, { "text": "to search Howard’s home and cell phone. “Determinations of", "paragraph_id": "para_430" }, { "text": "probable cause … are normally mixed questions of fact and", "paragraph_id": "para_431" }, { "text": "law, but when ‘what happened’ is not at issue, the ultimate", "paragraph_id": "para_432" }, { "text": "resolution of whether probable cause … existed is a question", "paragraph_id": "para_433" }, { "text": "of law which we review de novo.” United States v. Dixon, 137", "paragraph_id": "para_434" }, { "text": "F.4th 592, 601 (7th Cir. 2025); accord Bufkin v. Collins, 604 U.S.", "paragraph_id": "para_435" }, { "text": "369, 384 (2025). The evaluation of probable cause asks", "paragraph_id": "para_436" }, { "text": "whether the officer’s understanding of the facts and relevant", "paragraph_id": "para_437" }, { "text": "law was reasonable. Bufkin, 604 U.S. at 384–85 (citing Heien v.", "paragraph_id": "para_438" }, { "text": "North Carolina, 574 U.S. 54, 61–64 (2014)). That calls for an ob-", "paragraph_id": "para_439" }, { "text": "jective and legally grounded inquiry. Id. (citing Kentucky v.", "paragraph_id": "para_440" }, { "text": "King, 563 U.S. 452, 464 (2011)).", "paragraph_id": "para_441" }, { "text": "Our review of the facts supports the district court’s finding", "paragraph_id": "para_442" }, { "text": "of probable cause to search Howard’s home. Consider the", "paragraph_id": "para_443" }, { "text": "events from law enforcement’s perspective: Agent Rodekohr", "paragraph_id": "para_444" }, { "text": "testified at the evidentiary hearing that Howard had left the", "paragraph_id": "para_445" }, { "text": "furniture store to get money for the drug transaction. Surveil-", "paragraph_id": "para_446" }, { "text": "lance observed Howard travel to an apartment complex, then", "paragraph_id": "para_447" }, { "text": "to a house, park in the garage, leave, and then drive back to", "paragraph_id": "para_448" }, { "text": "the furniture store. Upon his return, Howard told George and", "paragraph_id": "para_449" }, { "text": "the wired-up confidential informant, “I got … a hundred", "paragraph_id": "para_450" }, { "text": "[$100,000]—this is only for half” and that he would “go grab", "paragraph_id": "para_451" }, { "text": "the other hundred and forty [$140,000]”. After Howard’s ar-", "paragraph_id": "para_452" }, { "text": "rest, agents recovered a backpack containing a large amount", "paragraph_id": "para_453" }, { "text": "of money from Howard’s car. The landlord confirmed to law", "paragraph_id": "para_454" }, { "text": "enforcement that the residence Howard had visited was", "paragraph_id": "para_455" }, { "text": "Howard’s home, which agents then secured in anticipation of", "paragraph_id": "para_456" }, { "text": "obtaining a search warrant. These facts provide probable", "paragraph_id": "para_457" }, { "text": "cause to believe evidence would be found in Howard’s resi-", "paragraph_id": "para_458" }, { "text": "dence.", "paragraph_id": "para_459" }, { "text": "16 No. 25-2164", "paragraph_id": "para_460" }, { "text": "Probable cause also existed to believe evidence would be", "paragraph_id": "para_461" }, { "text": "found on Howard’s cell phone. During co-defendant", "paragraph_id": "para_462" }, { "text": "George’s post-arrest interview, he told agents he had commu-", "paragraph_id": "para_463" }, { "text": "nicated with Howard earlier that day about the planned", "paragraph_id": "para_464" }, { "text": "transaction. Howard was seen holding a cell phone when he", "paragraph_id": "para_465" }, { "text": "showed up for the deal at the furniture store. A legal search", "paragraph_id": "para_466" }, { "text": "of George’s phone uncovered text messages, WhatsApp mes-", "paragraph_id": "para_467" }, { "text": "sages, and phone calls between George and Howard coordi-", "paragraph_id": "para_468" }, { "text": "nating the drug deal. For example, minutes before arrest,", "paragraph_id": "para_469" }, { "text": "George texted Howard, “I have made it easier. Just do the ten", "paragraph_id": "para_470" }, { "text": "as agreed. You don’t have to go anywhere to inspect.” How-", "paragraph_id": "para_471" }, { "text": "ard replied once he returned to the furniture store from his", "paragraph_id": "para_472" }, { "text": "residence, “Come to the car.” Howard also called George", "paragraph_id": "para_473" }, { "text": "through WhatsApp at that moment, and the confidential in-", "paragraph_id": "para_474" }, { "text": "formant’s wire picked up the ringtone. These facts amount to", "paragraph_id": "para_475" }, { "text": "probable cause to believe evidence of drug distribution would", "paragraph_id": "para_476" }, { "text": "be found on Howard’s cell phone. The district court thus cor-", "paragraph_id": "para_477" }, { "text": "rectly concluded that the officers had an independent legal", "paragraph_id": "para_478" }, { "text": "justification for searching Howard’s residence and cell phone.", "paragraph_id": "para_479" }, { "text": "On the second requirement of the inevitable discovery", "paragraph_id": "para_480" }, { "text": "doctrine—obtaining a search warrant—the district court con-", "paragraph_id": "para_481" }, { "text": "cluded that the agents could have and would have obtained a", "paragraph_id": "para_482" }, { "text": "warrant to search Howard’s residence and cell phone. Agent", "paragraph_id": "para_483" }, { "text": "Rodekohr testified he had contacted the federal prosecutor", "paragraph_id": "para_484" }, { "text": "before, during, and after the operation to discuss the possibil-", "paragraph_id": "para_485" }, { "text": "ity of applying for a search warrant. Rodekohr would have", "paragraph_id": "para_486" }, { "text": "applied for a warrant, he said, had authorities not learned that", "paragraph_id": "para_487" }, { "text": "Howard had already consented. The district court credited", "paragraph_id": "para_488" }, { "text": "this testimony in finding the second requirement satisfied.", "paragraph_id": "para_489" }, { "text": "Compare this case with Pelletier. There, the FBI obtained", "paragraph_id": "para_490" }, { "text": "involuntary consent to search the defendant’s computer. 700", "paragraph_id": "para_491" }, { "text": "No. 25-2164 17", "paragraph_id": "para_492" }, { "text": "F.3d at 1117. The district court denied the defendant’s motion", "paragraph_id": "para_493" }, { "text": "to suppress in part based on the doctrine of inevitable discov-", "paragraph_id": "para_494" }, { "text": "ery. This court affirmed because the “investigating officers,”", "paragraph_id": "para_495" }, { "text": "in addition to having probable cause, “undoubtedly would", "paragraph_id": "para_496" }, { "text": "have followed routine, established steps resulting in the issu-", "paragraph_id": "para_497" }, { "text": "ance of a warrant.” Id. (quoting United States v. Marrocco, 578", "paragraph_id": "para_498" }, { "text": "F.3d 627, 639 (7th Cir. 2009)).", "paragraph_id": "para_499" }, { "text": "As in Pelletier, the investigating officers here searched", "paragraph_id": "para_500" }, { "text": "Howard’s home and cell phone after obtaining involuntary", "paragraph_id": "para_501" }, { "text": "consent. Yet, in addition to probable cause, they had already", "paragraph_id": "para_502" }, { "text": "begun to follow “routine, established steps” that result in the", "paragraph_id": "para_503" }, { "text": "issuance of a warrant. Id. “[U]ndoubtedly,” they would have", "paragraph_id": "para_504" }, { "text": "completed those steps but for the belief that they had obtained", "paragraph_id": "para_505" }, { "text": "valid consent. Id.; see also Marrocco, 578 F.3d at 640 (“It would", "paragraph_id": "para_506" }, { "text": "be unreasonable to conclude that, after discovering all of this", "paragraph_id": "para_507" }, { "text": "information, the officers would have failed to seek a war-", "paragraph_id": "para_508" }, { "text": "rant.”). The district court did not clearly err here in finding", "paragraph_id": "para_509" }, { "text": "that the officers could have and would have obtained a war-", "paragraph_id": "para_510" }, { "text": "rant, especially given our deference to the district court’s find-", "paragraph_id": "para_511" }, { "text": "ings on the reliability and credibility of the witnesses. United", "paragraph_id": "para_512" }, { "text": "States v. Maxwell, 143 F.4th 844, 852 (7th Cir. 2025). Howard’s", "paragraph_id": "para_513" }, { "text": "motion to suppress was therefore properly denied based on", "paragraph_id": "para_514" }, { "text": "the inevitable discovery doctrine.", "paragraph_id": "para_515" }, { "text": "Howard disagrees. In his view, Riley v. California an-", "paragraph_id": "para_516" }, { "text": "nounces a bright-line rule that investigating officers always", "paragraph_id": "para_517" }, { "text": "need a warrant to lawfully search a cell phone’s contents. 573", "paragraph_id": "para_518" }, { "text": "U.S. 373 (2014). As a result, he posits that the inevitable dis-", "paragraph_id": "para_519" }, { "text": "covery doctrine does not help the government here.", "paragraph_id": "para_520" }, { "text": "To the contrary, as the district court observed, “Riley", "paragraph_id": "para_521" }, { "text": "merely concluded that cell phone data does not fall within the", "paragraph_id": "para_522" }, { "text": "search-incident-to-arrest exception to the warrant", "paragraph_id": "para_523" }, { "text": "18 No. 25-2164", "paragraph_id": "para_524" }, { "text": "requirement.”2 In Riley, the Court explained that the concerns", "paragraph_id": "para_525" }, { "text": "underlying the search-incident-to-arrest exception to the", "paragraph_id": "para_526" }, { "text": "Fourth Amendment’s warrant requirement—officer safety", "paragraph_id": "para_527" }, { "text": "and destruction of evidence—are not advanced by searching", "paragraph_id": "para_528" }, { "text": "data on an arrestee’s cell phone. Id. at 385–86. But unlike the", "paragraph_id": "para_529" }, { "text": "search-incident-to-arrest exception at issue in Riley, the inevi-", "paragraph_id": "para_530" }, { "text": "table discovery doctrine is an exception to the exclusionary", "paragraph_id": "para_531" }, { "text": "rule, not the warrant requirement.", "paragraph_id": "para_532" }, { "text": "Even assuming Howard is correct that Riley announces a", "paragraph_id": "para_533" }, { "text": "bright-line rule, it would not be violated here. The inevitable", "paragraph_id": "para_534" }, { "text": "discovery exception does not make a warrantless search law-", "paragraph_id": "para_535" }, { "text": "ful. Instead, it assumes a search was unlawful and permits ad-", "paragraph_id": "para_536" }, { "text": "mission of the evidence anyway. Nix, 467 U.S. at 444. As the", "paragraph_id": "para_537" }, { "text": "Court has explained, the rationale for the exclusionary rule is", "paragraph_id": "para_538" }, { "text": "not advanced by keeping out probative evidence that inevita-", "paragraph_id": "para_539" }, { "text": "bly would have been obtained through lawful means, includ-", "paragraph_id": "para_540" }, { "text": "ing a search warrant. Id. at 443–45. For this reason, Riley does", "paragraph_id": "para_541" }, { "text": "not bear upon the district court’s denial of Howard’s motion", "paragraph_id": "para_542" }, { "text": "to suppress.", "paragraph_id": "para_543" }, { "text": "Accordingly, the district court correctly denied Howard’s", "paragraph_id": "para_544" }, { "text": "motion to suppress evidence discovered during the warrant-", "paragraph_id": "para_545" }, { "text": "less search of his home and cell phone.", "paragraph_id": "para_546" }, { "text": "2. Motion to dismiss for vindictive prosecution", "paragraph_id": "para_547" }, { "text": "Howard also claims the government engaged in vindictive", "paragraph_id": "para_548" }, { "text": "prosecution by seeking and obtaining a superseding indict-", "paragraph_id": "para_549" }, { "text": "ment for his 2017 conduct. Though prosecutors enjoy wide", "paragraph_id": "para_550" }, { "text": "discretion over whether, when, and who to charge, their", "paragraph_id": "para_551" }, { "text": "2 Dkt. 99 at 10, n.2 (citing Riley). Riley discusses this at 573 U.S. at 402–", "paragraph_id": "para_552" }, { "text": "03.", "paragraph_id": "para_553" }, { "text": "No. 25-2164 19", "paragraph_id": "para_554" }, { "text": "choice to prosecute must not be “pursued in retaliation for the", "paragraph_id": "para_555" }, { "text": "exercise of a protected statutory or constitutional right.”", "paragraph_id": "para_556" }, { "text": "United States v. Baldwin, 68 F.4th 1070, 1073 (7th Cir. 2023) (ci-", "paragraph_id": "para_557" }, { "text": "tation omitted). To prevail, Howard had to “show through", "paragraph_id": "para_558" }, { "text": "objective evidence that the prosecutorial conduct at issue was", "paragraph_id": "para_559" }, { "text": "motivated by some form of prosecutorial animus, such as a", "paragraph_id": "para_560" }, { "text": "personal stake in the outcome of the case or an attempt to seek", "paragraph_id": "para_561" }, { "text": "self-vindication.” Id. A presumption of vindictiveness may", "paragraph_id": "para_562" }, { "text": "arise in some situations, but “there is nothing inherently vin-", "paragraph_id": "para_563" }, { "text": "dictive about adding a charge by superseding indictment if", "paragraph_id": "para_564" }, { "text": "the government has evidence the defendant committed the", "paragraph_id": "para_565" }, { "text": "crime.” United States v. Thomas, 520 F.3d 729, 735 (7th Cir.", "paragraph_id": "para_566" }, { "text": "2008). In reviewing the denial of a motion to dismiss, this", "paragraph_id": "para_567" }, { "text": "court evaluates questions of law de novo and findings of fact", "paragraph_id": "para_568" }, { "text": "for clear error. Baldwin, 68 F.4th at 1073.", "paragraph_id": "para_569" }, { "text": "The district court concluded Howard failed to show that", "paragraph_id": "para_570" }, { "text": "malice motivated the superseding indictment. At the hearing", "paragraph_id": "para_571" }, { "text": "on Howard’s motion to dismiss, the court found no objective", "paragraph_id": "para_572" }, { "text": "evidence (other than timing) of vindictiveness. That evidence", "paragraph_id": "para_573" }, { "text": "alone is insufficient under Baldwin. Id. (“[T]he timing of a fed-", "paragraph_id": "para_574" }, { "text": "eral prosecution, alone, cannot change a legitimate exercise of", "paragraph_id": "para_575" }, { "text": "prosecutorial discretion into a vindictive prosecution.”)", "paragraph_id": "para_576" }, { "text": "(quoting United States v. Jarrett, 447 F.3d 520, 528 (7th Cir.", "paragraph_id": "para_577" }, { "text": "2006)). This ruling properly applied the substantive law and", "paragraph_id": "para_578" }, { "text": "was not clearly erroneous.", "paragraph_id": "para_579" }, { "text": "3. Motion to sever", "paragraph_id": "para_580" }, { "text": "To Howard, the district court also erred by denying his", "paragraph_id": "para_581" }, { "text": "motion under Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure 8 and 14", "paragraph_id": "para_582" }, { "text": "to sever for trial Counts III and IV (his 2017 conduct) from", "paragraph_id": "para_583" }, { "text": "Counts I and II (his 2018 conduct). The government responds", "paragraph_id": "para_584" }, { "text": "that Howard waived this argument by failing to renew his", "paragraph_id": "para_585" }, { "text": "20 No. 25-2164", "paragraph_id": "para_586" }, { "text": "severance motion at the close of evidence. “[F]ailure to renew", "paragraph_id": "para_587" }, { "text": "a motion to sever at the close of evidence results in waiver,”", "paragraph_id": "para_588" }, { "text": "as this “is the moment when the district court can fully ascer-", "paragraph_id": "para_589" }, { "text": "tain whether the joinder of multiple counts was unfairly prej-", "paragraph_id": "para_590" }, { "text": "udicial to defendant’s right to a fair trial.” United States v.", "paragraph_id": "para_591" }, { "text": "Tinsley, 62 F.4th 376, 382 (7th Cir. 2023) (citation modified).", "paragraph_id": "para_592" }, { "text": "Howard replies that he included this request in his post-", "paragraph_id": "para_593" }, { "text": "trial motions. But that does not preserve a motion to sever.", "paragraph_id": "para_594" }, { "text": "“The severance motion must be renewed at the close of evi-", "paragraph_id": "para_595" }, { "text": "dence, not after the verdict.” United States v. Cardena, 842 F.3d", "paragraph_id": "para_596" }, { "text": "959, 980 (7th Cir. 2016). That “discourag[es] strategic choices", "paragraph_id": "para_597" }, { "text": "by criminal defendants who would prefer to wait for a verdict", "paragraph_id": "para_598" }, { "text": "before renewing their severance arguments, thus wasting val-", "paragraph_id": "para_599" }, { "text": "uable judicial resources.” Id. (quoting United States v. Rollins,", "paragraph_id": "para_600" }, { "text": "301 F.3d 511, 518 (7th Cir. 2002). Howard’s motion to sever is", "paragraph_id": "para_601" }, { "text": "thus waived on appeal.", "paragraph_id": "para_602" }, { "text": "C. Mistrial", "paragraph_id": "para_603" }, { "text": "Howard also contests what he characterizes as the district", "paragraph_id": "para_604" }, { "text": "court’s denial of his in-trial motion for a mistrial. During trial,", "paragraph_id": "para_605" }, { "text": "the district court stated: “I won’t accept an oral motion for a", "paragraph_id": "para_606" }, { "text": "mistrial. I think you’ve got to file something in writing be-", "paragraph_id": "para_607" }, { "text": "cause it’s important, okay.” Howard’s counsel did not file a", "paragraph_id": "para_608" }, { "text": "motion. In fact, the topic was not mentioned again until How-", "paragraph_id": "para_609" }, { "text": "ard’s post-trial filings. In light of the district court’s express", "paragraph_id": "para_610" }, { "text": "notice, the government contends that Howard’s inaction", "paragraph_id": "para_611" }, { "text": "shows waiver by acquiescence.", "paragraph_id": "para_612" }, { "text": "Waiver occurs when a party intentionally relinquishes a", "paragraph_id": "para_613" }, { "text": "known right. United States v. Flores, 929 F.3d 443, 447 (7th Cir.", "paragraph_id": "para_614" }, { "text": "2019). Such relinquishment may be found in a strategic omis-", "paragraph_id": "para_615" }, { "text": "sion. United States v. Hernandez, 44 F.4th 1053, 1058 (7th Cir.", "paragraph_id": "para_616" }, { "text": "No. 25-2164 21", "paragraph_id": "para_617" }, { "text": "2022). Inaction in the face of notice may be evidence of waiver", "paragraph_id": "para_618" }, { "text": "by acquiescence. Id.", "paragraph_id": "para_619" }, { "text": "The government correctly maintains that Howard waived", "paragraph_id": "para_620" }, { "text": "a mistrial motion later in the trial by not moving in writing.", "paragraph_id": "para_621" }, { "text": "At the same time, Howard’s challenge fails for a more funda-", "paragraph_id": "para_622" }, { "text": "mental reason—there is no district court ruling. Because no", "paragraph_id": "para_623" }, { "text": "written motion was filed, that court did not decide the issue.", "paragraph_id": "para_624" }, { "text": "Nor does Howard contest the district court’s discretion to re-", "paragraph_id": "para_625" }, { "text": "quire a written motion. On appeal, therefore, there is nothing", "paragraph_id": "para_626" }, { "text": "to review.", "paragraph_id": "para_627" }, { "text": "D. Sufficiency of the Evidence", "paragraph_id": "para_628" }, { "text": "Howard next challenges the sufficiency of the evidence to", "paragraph_id": "para_629" }, { "text": "sustain his convictions on Count I (conspiracy to possess with", "paragraph_id": "para_630" }, { "text": "intent to distribute cocaine), Count II (attempted possession", "paragraph_id": "para_631" }, { "text": "with intent to distribute cocaine), and Count III (conspiracy to", "paragraph_id": "para_632" }, { "text": "distribute cocaine). Our review is de novo, and we view the", "paragraph_id": "para_633" }, { "text": "trial evidence in the light most favorable to the government,", "paragraph_id": "para_634" }, { "text": "drawing all reasonable inferences in its favor. United States v.", "paragraph_id": "para_635" }, { "text": "Sorensen, 134 F.4th 493, 497–98 (7th Cir. 2025). A conviction", "paragraph_id": "para_636" }, { "text": "will be overturned “only if, after reviewing the record in this", "paragraph_id": "para_637" }, { "text": "light, no rational trier of fact could have found the essential", "paragraph_id": "para_638" }, { "text": "elements of the offense beyond a reasonable doubt. United", "paragraph_id": "para_639" }, { "text": "States v. Anderson, 988 F.3d 420, 424 (7th Cir. 2021). We have", "paragraph_id": "para_640" }, { "text": "sometimes “described this hurdle as ‘nearly insurmounta-", "paragraph_id": "para_641" }, { "text": "ble.’” Id. (quoting United States v. Faulkner, 885 F.3d 488, 492", "paragraph_id": "para_642" }, { "text": "(7th Cir. 2018)).", "paragraph_id": "para_643" }, { "text": "1. Count I (conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute", "paragraph_id": "para_644" }, { "text": "cocaine)", "paragraph_id": "para_645" }, { "text": "A drug conspiracy conviction requires sufficient evidence", "paragraph_id": "para_646" }, { "text": "that “the defendant knowingly agreed, perhaps implicitly,", "paragraph_id": "para_647" }, { "text": "22 No. 25-2164", "paragraph_id": "para_648" }, { "text": "with someone else to distribute drugs.” United States v. Coley,", "paragraph_id": "para_649" }, { "text": "137 F.4th 874, 880 (7th Cir. 2025) (citation modified). A case", "paragraph_id": "para_650" }, { "text": "may be built on circumstantial evidence; indeed, it is often the", "paragraph_id": "para_651" }, { "text": "only evidence available given the secretive nature of conspir-", "paragraph_id": "para_652" }, { "text": "acies. United States v. Morales, 145 F.4th 792, 796–97 (7th Cir.", "paragraph_id": "para_653" }, { "text": "2025). Yet, “[e]vidence showing only that two people are in a", "paragraph_id": "para_654" }, { "text": "buyer-seller relationship is insufficient to prove a drug-distri-", "paragraph_id": "para_655" }, { "text": "bution conspiracy.” Coley, 137 F.4th at 880–81.", "paragraph_id": "para_656" }, { "text": "From the evidence at trial, a rational trier of fact could", "paragraph_id": "para_657" }, { "text": "have found beyond a reasonable doubt that Howard know-", "paragraph_id": "para_658" }, { "text": "ingly agreed with George to possess with intent to distribute", "paragraph_id": "para_659" }, { "text": "more than five kilograms of cocaine. George testified that he", "paragraph_id": "para_660" }, { "text": "and Howard reached an agreement: Howard would buy ten", "paragraph_id": "para_661" }, { "text": "kilograms of cocaine for $280,000 at a specified location. Text", "paragraph_id": "para_662" }, { "text": "messages between George and Howard before and during", "paragraph_id": "para_663" }, { "text": "their meeting corroborate this agreement. When they met ac-", "paragraph_id": "para_664" }, { "text": "cording to plan, an audio/video recording captured Howard", "paragraph_id": "para_665" }, { "text": "saying he brought money for half the purchase, that he", "paragraph_id": "para_666" }, { "text": "wanted to see the product, and that he would get the rest of", "paragraph_id": "para_667" }, { "text": "the money later. Howard showed the money to the", "paragraph_id": "para_668" }, { "text": "confidential informant. After Howard’s arrest, agents found a", "paragraph_id": "para_669" }, { "text": "backpack filled with $133,000 in his car. During a search of", "paragraph_id": "para_670" }, { "text": "Howard’s home, agents found what the government’s expert", "paragraph_id": "para_671" }, { "text": "described as tools of the drug-trafficking trade—a loaded fire-", "paragraph_id": "para_672" }, { "text": "arm, more than $106,000 in cash, and a notepad that had indi-", "paragraph_id": "para_673" }, { "text": "cations of being a drug ledger. Viewing this evidence in the", "paragraph_id": "para_674" }, { "text": "light most favorable to the government, and construing rea-", "paragraph_id": "para_675" }, { "text": "sonable inferences in its favor, the evidence is sufficient to", "paragraph_id": "para_676" }, { "text": "sustain Howard’s conviction.", "paragraph_id": "para_677" }, { "text": "For all that, Howard posits that he did not reach an agree-", "paragraph_id": "para_678" }, { "text": "ment with George. By insisting on seeing the product first,", "paragraph_id": "para_679" }, { "text": "No. 25-2164 23", "paragraph_id": "para_680" }, { "text": "Howard believes he created a condition that had to be met", "paragraph_id": "para_681" }, { "text": "before an agreement was reached. Howard submits that con-", "paragraph_id": "para_682" }, { "text": "dition was not satisfied.", "paragraph_id": "para_683" }, { "text": "Importantly, though, a “condition to agree” differs from a", "paragraph_id": "para_684" }, { "text": "conditional agreement. In the former, a condition must be met", "paragraph_id": "para_685" }, { "text": "before a party will entertain reaching an agreement. If the", "paragraph_id": "para_686" }, { "text": "condition is not satisfied, there is no agreement to sustain a", "paragraph_id": "para_687" }, { "text": "conspiracy conviction. In the latter, a conditional agreement,", "paragraph_id": "para_688" }, { "text": "an arrangement is made to commit a criminal act with a con-", "paragraph_id": "para_689" }, { "text": "dition on its performance. If the condition goes unmet, the act", "paragraph_id": "para_690" }, { "text": "will not be committed, but there would still be an agreement", "paragraph_id": "para_691" }, { "text": "to sustain the conspiracy conviction. See United States v. Po-", "paragraph_id": "para_692" }, { "text": "dolsky, 798 F.2d 177, 178 (7th Cir. 1986); United States v. Barta,", "paragraph_id": "para_693" }, { "text": "776 F.3d 931, 940 (7th Cir. 2015).", "paragraph_id": "para_694" }, { "text": "Podolsky illustrates a conditional agreement. There, a de-", "paragraph_id": "para_695" }, { "text": "fendant agreed to burn down a building, but only on the con-", "paragraph_id": "para_696" }, { "text": "dition that it was vacant. Podolsky, 798 F.2d at 177–78. When", "paragraph_id": "para_697" }, { "text": "the parties to the conspiracy appeared outside of the building", "paragraph_id": "para_698" }, { "text": "with all the tools needed to burn it down, the defendant no-", "paragraph_id": "para_699" }, { "text": "ticed a light on inside the building. Id. at 178. Worried there", "paragraph_id": "para_700" }, { "text": "were occupants inside, he refused to proceed. Id. The parties", "paragraph_id": "para_701" }, { "text": "then went to burn another building and were arrested on the", "paragraph_id": "para_702" }, { "text": "spot. Id. Because the condition merely limited the defendant’s", "paragraph_id": "para_703" }, { "text": "performance of the agreement to burn the first building, not", "paragraph_id": "para_704" }, { "text": "his willingness to reach an agreement in the first place, the", "paragraph_id": "para_705" }, { "text": "court sustained his conspiracy conviction. Id. A conditional", "paragraph_id": "para_706" }, { "text": "agreement was enough, even if the arson was never carried", "paragraph_id": "para_707" }, { "text": "out. Id. at 178–79.", "paragraph_id": "para_708" }, { "text": "This case is like Podolsky. Howard’s insistence on seeing", "paragraph_id": "para_709" }, { "text": "the drugs before handing over money limited his willingness", "paragraph_id": "para_710" }, { "text": "to follow through with the drug purchase to which he had", "paragraph_id": "para_711" }, { "text": "24 No. 25-2164", "paragraph_id": "para_712" }, { "text": "already agreed. The condition did not invite pre-agreement", "paragraph_id": "para_713" }, { "text": "negotiations. Had Howard said, “Show me the drugs; then we", "paragraph_id": "para_714" }, { "text": "can talk price and quantity to see about reaching a deal,” that", "paragraph_id": "para_715" }, { "text": "would be a condition to agree that went unmet. But as the dis-", "paragraph_id": "para_716" }, { "text": "trict court found, even if the drug sale was not completed, the", "paragraph_id": "para_717" }, { "text": "evidence of a conditional agreement here is sufficient to sus-", "paragraph_id": "para_718" }, { "text": "tain Howard’s drug conspiracy conviction.", "paragraph_id": "para_719" }, { "text": "Alternatively, Howard posits that any agreement he", "paragraph_id": "para_720" }, { "text": "reached is inherent and necessary to every buyer-seller trans-", "paragraph_id": "para_721" }, { "text": "action, which alone cannot sustain a drug conspiracy convic-", "paragraph_id": "para_722" }, { "text": "tion.", "paragraph_id": "para_723" }, { "text": "In denying Howard’s motion for a judgment of acquittal", "paragraph_id": "para_724" }, { "text": "or new trial, the district court rejected Howard’s buyer-seller", "paragraph_id": "para_725" }, { "text": "defense. Initially, the court found this defense new and un-", "paragraph_id": "para_726" }, { "text": "timely and therefore waived. The court also rejected the de-", "paragraph_id": "para_727" }, { "text": "fense on the merits for two reasons.3 First, the court concluded", "paragraph_id": "para_728" }, { "text": "that the defense did not fit this case, as Howard and George", "paragraph_id": "para_729" }, { "text": "played the roles of buyer and broker, not buyer and seller.", "paragraph_id": "para_730" }, { "text": "Second, the district court faulted Howard for citing United", "paragraph_id": "para_731" }, { "text": "States v. Colon, 549 F.3d 565 (7th Cir. 2008), a case recently", "paragraph_id": "para_732" }, { "text": "overruled by United States v. Page, 123 F.4th 851, 861–62 (7th", "paragraph_id": "para_733" }, { "text": "Cir. 2024) (en banc).", "paragraph_id": "para_734" }, { "text": "Howard’s principal appellate brief does not contest the", "paragraph_id": "para_735" }, { "text": "district court’s reasoning. He essentially repeats the same ar-", "paragraph_id": "para_736" }, { "text": "guments the district court already rejected and cites the same", "paragraph_id": "para_737" }, { "text": "authority the district court noted had been overruled. This", "paragraph_id": "para_738" }, { "text": "raises the question of waiver.", "paragraph_id": "para_739" }, { "text": "3 Dkt. 471 at 11–12.", "paragraph_id": "para_740" }, { "text": "No. 25-2164 25", "paragraph_id": "para_741" }, { "text": "Waiver is evaluated on each case’s specific facts, and", "paragraph_id": "para_742" }, { "text": "waiver principles are construed liberally in favor of the de-", "paragraph_id": "para_743" }, { "text": "fendant in a criminal case. United States v. McKay, 176 F.4th", "paragraph_id": "para_744" }, { "text": "537, 540 (7th Cir. 2026). Unlike forfeiture, which impacts the", "paragraph_id": "para_745" }, { "text": "standard of review on appeal, waiver precludes appellate re-", "paragraph_id": "para_746" }, { "text": "view. Flores, 929 F.3d at 447.", "paragraph_id": "para_747" }, { "text": "In criminal cases, waiver often arises when a defendant re-", "paragraph_id": "para_748" }, { "text": "linquishes a trial-related right, or when a defendant fails to", "paragraph_id": "para_749" }, { "text": "object. Waiver can also apply to arguments. See McKay, 176", "paragraph_id": "para_750" }, { "text": "F.4th at 541–43. Flores sets out this court’s law. There, we", "paragraph_id": "para_751" }, { "text": "observed that a defendant’s choice to object to some release", "paragraph_id": "para_752" }, { "text": "conditions, but not to others, is a strategic and intentional", "paragraph_id": "para_753" }, { "text": "omission—indeed, this is the “very ‘[t]ouchstone of waiver.’”", "paragraph_id": "para_754" }, { "text": "Flores, 929 F.3d at 448 (citation omitted). The defendant also", "paragraph_id": "para_755" }, { "text": "had notice of the condition challenged on appeal, which af-", "paragraph_id": "para_756" }, { "text": "forded her the “benefit of advice of counsel and a full oppor-", "paragraph_id": "para_757" }, { "text": "tunity to raise objections … . ” Id. at 449 (citation omitted).", "paragraph_id": "para_758" }, { "text": "During the sentencing hearing, Flores concluded, was the time", "paragraph_id": "para_759" }, { "text": "to object. See id.", "paragraph_id": "para_760" }, { "text": "Both principles apply here. Howard had notice in the dis-", "paragraph_id": "para_761" }, { "text": "trict court’s order deciding his post-trial motions as to why", "paragraph_id": "para_762" }, { "text": "the district court rejected his buyer-seller defense. His princi-", "paragraph_id": "para_763" }, { "text": "pal brief on appeal was the place to dispute that court’s rea-", "paragraph_id": "para_764" }, { "text": "sons and authorities, but he did not do so. Given that Howard", "paragraph_id": "para_765" }, { "text": "questioned and countered the district court’s reasoning on so", "paragraph_id": "para_766" }, { "text": "many other issues, we conclude this was an informed and in-", "paragraph_id": "para_767" }, { "text": "tentional decision. Not until Howard’s reply brief did he offer", "paragraph_id": "para_768" }, { "text": "the contention he now presses, but that was too late. Any chal-", "paragraph_id": "para_769" }, { "text": "lenge to the district court’s reasoning here was therefore", "paragraph_id": "para_770" }, { "text": "waived on appeal. See id. at 450.", "paragraph_id": "para_771" }, { "text": "26 No. 25-2164", "paragraph_id": "para_772" }, { "text": "For its part, the government did not advocate for waiver", "paragraph_id": "para_773" }, { "text": "in its response brief. It addressed the merits of the arguments,", "paragraph_id": "para_774" }, { "text": "repeating the district court’s reasoning and even conceding", "paragraph_id": "para_775" }, { "text": "de novo review of Howard’s defense. We are not obligated to", "paragraph_id": "para_776" }, { "text": "enforce the government’s waiver, though. Id. “[W]aiver is a", "paragraph_id": "para_777" }, { "text": "threshold, context-specific inquiry.” Id. at 445. Given How-", "paragraph_id": "para_778" }, { "text": "ard’s decision not to raise this argument until his reply brief,", "paragraph_id": "para_779" }, { "text": "we decline to grant him an advantage.", "paragraph_id": "para_780" }, { "text": "In sum, the evidence is sufficient to sustain Howard’s", "paragraph_id": "para_781" }, { "text": "conviction on Count I (conspiracy to possess with intent to", "paragraph_id": "para_782" }, { "text": "distribute cocaine), including in the absence of a buyer-seller", "paragraph_id": "para_783" }, { "text": "defense waived on appeal.", "paragraph_id": "para_784" }, { "text": "2. Remaining Counts", "paragraph_id": "para_785" }, { "text": "Howard’s challenges to the sufficiency of the evidence on", "paragraph_id": "para_786" }, { "text": "Counts II and III also fall short.", "paragraph_id": "para_787" }, { "text": "On Count II, attempting to possess with intent to distrib-", "paragraph_id": "para_788" }, { "text": "ute five kilograms of cocaine, sufficient evidence supports his", "paragraph_id": "para_789" }, { "text": "conviction. In 2018, Howard agreed to buy ten kilograms for", "paragraph_id": "para_790" }, { "text": "$280,000. He showed up to the meeting spot with half the", "paragraph_id": "para_791" }, { "text": "money and sought to buy five kilograms first, expressing his", "paragraph_id": "para_792" }, { "text": "intent to return with the rest of the money to buy the other", "paragraph_id": "para_793" }, { "text": "five kilograms later.", "paragraph_id": "para_794" }, { "text": "Howard responds by challenging the evidence that he in-", "paragraph_id": "para_795" }, { "text": "tended to complete the sale: Because he showed up with only", "paragraph_id": "para_796" }, { "text": "$133,000, he argues that he could not have attempted to buy", "paragraph_id": "para_797" }, { "text": "five kilograms, which would have cost $140,000. But a drug", "paragraph_id": "para_798" }, { "text": "buyer can attempt to persuade a seller to reduce the price. In-", "paragraph_id": "para_799" }, { "text": "deed, paying cash rather than relying on credit is a common", "paragraph_id": "para_800" }, { "text": "bargaining chip for drug transactions. It was thus reasonable", "paragraph_id": "para_801" }, { "text": "No. 25-2164 27", "paragraph_id": "para_802" }, { "text": "for the jury to infer that Howard attempted to buy five kilo-", "paragraph_id": "para_803" }, { "text": "grams of cocaine with $133,000.", "paragraph_id": "para_804" }, { "text": "As to Count III, sufficient evidence supports Howard’s", "paragraph_id": "para_805" }, { "text": "conviction for conspiring to distribute drugs in 2017. The jury", "paragraph_id": "para_806" }, { "text": "heard testimony that Howard sold 2 ounces of cocaine to the", "paragraph_id": "para_807" }, { "text": "confidential informant for $2,400. In video and audio record-", "paragraph_id": "para_808" }, { "text": "ings of the meeting, Howard instructed the confidential in-", "paragraph_id": "para_809" }, { "text": "formant how to cook cocaine and mix it before distribution.", "paragraph_id": "para_810" }, { "text": "Howard discussed discount prices for future sales as well.", "paragraph_id": "para_811" }, { "text": "This evidence supports the reasonable inference that Howard", "paragraph_id": "para_812" }, { "text": "knowingly agreed to participate in a conspiracy to distribute", "paragraph_id": "para_813" }, { "text": "drugs.", "paragraph_id": "para_814" }, { "text": "To this, Howard responds that the guilty verdict on Count", "paragraph_id": "para_815" }, { "text": "III’s conspiracy to distribute cocaine charge is inconsistent", "paragraph_id": "para_816" }, { "text": "with the not guilty verdict on the Count IV cocaine distribu-", "paragraph_id": "para_817" }, { "text": "tion charge. But that does not follow from the trial evidence.", "paragraph_id": "para_818" }, { "text": "Recall that the video did not record a transfer of drugs or", "paragraph_id": "para_819" }, { "text": "money. Nor was it apparent who responded, “Yeah,” to the", "paragraph_id": "para_820" }, { "text": "confidential informant’s question, “You got my stuff?” The", "paragraph_id": "para_821" }, { "text": "jury also heard conflicting testimony on these topics. That ev-", "paragraph_id": "para_822" }, { "text": "idence is enough to raise a reasonable doubt as to Count IV,", "paragraph_id": "para_823" }, { "text": "even if it removed any reasonable doubt as to the conspiracy", "paragraph_id": "para_824" }, { "text": "charge in Count III. At any rate, inconsistent verdicts do not", "paragraph_id": "para_825" }, { "text": "necessarily give rise to a new trial or a judgment of acquittal.", "paragraph_id": "para_826" }, { "text": "See United States v. Powell, 469 U.S. 57, 69 (1984). Juries may", "paragraph_id": "para_827" }, { "text": "return inconsistent verdicts for reasons other than innocence.", "paragraph_id": "para_828" }, { "text": "United States v. Reyes, 270 F.3d 1158, 1168 (7th Cir. 2001).", "paragraph_id": "para_829" }, { "text": "In sum, the evidence is sufficient to sustain Howard’s con-", "paragraph_id": "para_830" }, { "text": "victions on Counts I, II, and III.", "paragraph_id": "para_831" }, { "text": "28 No. 25-2164", "paragraph_id": "para_832" }, { "text": "E. Sentencing", "paragraph_id": "para_833" }, { "text": "Howard’s final contention—that his sentence is unreason-", "paragraph_id": "para_834" }, { "text": "able—is reviewed for abuse of discretion. United States v.", "paragraph_id": "para_835" }, { "text": "Vasquez-Abarca, 946 F.3d 990, 993 (7th Cir. 2020). A sentence", "paragraph_id": "para_836" }, { "text": "within the Guidelines is presumed reasonable and will be up-", "paragraph_id": "para_837" }, { "text": "held if the district court gave adequate reasons for it, con-", "paragraph_id": "para_838" }, { "text": "sistent with 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a). United States v. Cunningham,", "paragraph_id": "para_839" }, { "text": "883 F.3d 690, 701–02 (7th Cir. 2018).", "paragraph_id": "para_840" }, { "text": "Howard concedes that his sentence falls within the Guide-", "paragraph_id": "para_841" }, { "text": "lines range. He also admits the district court considered ag-", "paragraph_id": "para_842" }, { "text": "gravating and mitigating factors consistent with § 3553(a).", "paragraph_id": "para_843" }, { "text": "Even so, Howard points to United States v. Daoud, 980 F.3d 581", "paragraph_id": "para_844" }, { "text": "(7th Cir. 2020), as a case in which the district court relied on", "paragraph_id": "para_845" }, { "text": "mitigating factors that could not bear the weight the sentenc-", "paragraph_id": "para_846" }, { "text": "ing court gave them and imposed a sentence “well-below-", "paragraph_id": "para_847" }, { "text": "Guidelines.” Id. at 591. There, this court concluded that the", "paragraph_id": "para_848" }, { "text": "district court had “downplayed the extreme seriousness” of", "paragraph_id": "para_849" }, { "text": "the defendant’s offense, failed to account for the need to pro-", "paragraph_id": "para_850" }, { "text": "tect the public from the defendant’s “high risk of reoffend-", "paragraph_id": "para_851" }, { "text": "ing,” and improperly distinguished the sentences of similar", "paragraph_id": "para_852" }, { "text": "offenders by relying on the defendant’s long period of pretrial", "paragraph_id": "para_853" }, { "text": "confinement. Id. To Howard, the opposite occurred here.", "paragraph_id": "para_854" }, { "text": "Though the district court considered aggravating factors, he", "paragraph_id": "para_855" }, { "text": "argues it downplayed or failed to account for mitigating fac-", "paragraph_id": "para_856" }, { "text": "tors, like the facts that no real drugs were involved in the 2018", "paragraph_id": "para_857" }, { "text": "sale and that Howard is an integral part of his family and", "paragraph_id": "para_858" }, { "text": "community.", "paragraph_id": "para_859" }, { "text": "Daoud does not help Howard, though. That case involved", "paragraph_id": "para_860" }, { "text": "a sentence “well-below-Guidelines,” id., so there was no pre-", "paragraph_id": "para_861" }, { "text": "sumption of reasonableness, like here. And Daoud involved a", "paragraph_id": "para_862" }, { "text": "more stringent standard of review—the “major departure”", "paragraph_id": "para_863" }, { "text": "No. 25-2164 29", "paragraph_id": "para_864" }, { "text": "from the advisory Guidelines range required a “more signifi-", "paragraph_id": "para_865" }, { "text": "cant justification” than normal. Id. (citing Gall v. United States,", "paragraph_id": "para_866" }, { "text": "552 U.S. 38, 50 (2007)). In our deferential review, the addi-", "paragraph_id": "para_867" }, { "text": "tional considerations Howard claims were minimized do not", "paragraph_id": "para_868" }, { "text": "persuade us that the presumption of reasonableness has been", "paragraph_id": "para_869" }, { "text": "rebutted.", "paragraph_id": "para_870" }, { "text": "III. Conclusion", "paragraph_id": "para_871" }, { "text": "The district court did not abuse its discretion by quashing", "paragraph_id": "para_872" }, { "text": "Sabaini’s subpoena, nor was the trial here fundamentally un-", "paragraph_id": "para_873" }, { "text": "fair, as the jury was permitted to and did consider Howard’s", "paragraph_id": "para_874" }, { "text": "public authority defense. The evidence discovered in the", "paragraph_id": "para_875" }, { "text": "search of Howard’s home and cell phone was properly admit-", "paragraph_id": "para_876" }, { "text": "ted under the inevitable discovery doctrine. And the trial ev-", "paragraph_id": "para_877" }, { "text": "idence was sufficient to sustain Howard’s convictions. His", "paragraph_id": "para_878" }, { "text": "many other challenges were either waived or fall short under", "paragraph_id": "para_879" }, { "text": "the applicable standards of review.", "paragraph_id": "para_880" }, { "text": "AFFIRMED", "paragraph_id": "para_881" } ], "word_count": 7708, "cites": [ "532 U.S. 17", "367\nU.S. 643", "467 U.S. 431", "604 U.S.\n369", "574 U.S. 54", "563 U.S. 452", "573\nU.S. 373", "469 U.S. 57", "552 U.S. 38", "161 F.4th 1036", "133 F.4th 770", "76 F.4th 662", "910 F.3d 351", "372 F.3d 686", "594 F.3d 981", "729 F.3d 769", "765 F.3d\n720", "171 F.4th 1012", "941 F.3d 284", "700 F.3d 1109", "137\nF.4th 592", "578\nF.3d 627", "143 F.4th 844", "68 F.4th 1070", "520 F.3d 729", "447 F.3d 520", "62 F.4th 376", "842 F.3d\n959", "301 F.3d 511", "929 F.3d 443", "44 F.4th 1053", "134 F.4th 493", "988 F.3d 420", "885 F.3d 488", "137 F.4th 874", "145 F.4th 792", "798 F.2d 177", "776 F.3d 931", "549 F.3d 565", "123 F.4th 851", "176 F.4th\n537", "270 F.3d 1158", "946 F.3d 990", "883 F.3d 690", "980 F.3d 581" ], "cited_by": [], "sha256": "fd51ef4b8daec88390cce210355e1658a88be5094c7bc73a9d90958dec174fd8", "source_url": "https://media.ca7.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/OpinionsWeb/processWebInputExternal.pl?Submit=Display&Path=Y2026/D09-25/C:25-2164:J:Brennan:aut:T:fnOp:N:3615863:S:0", "fetched_at": "2026-09-28T09:01:18.514+00:00", "canonical": "https://legal.exploreworldai.com/ai/judgments/us/ca7-25-2164-2026-09-25", "risk_graph": "https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/risk?id=us:ca7-25-2164-2026-09-25", "relations_graph": "https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/relations?id=us:ca7-25-2164-2026-09-25", "changes": "https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/us-praxis/changes", "agent": "https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/us-praxis/agent?id=us:ca7-25-2164-2026-09-25", "verification": { "stored_sha256": "fd51ef4b8daec88390cce210355e1658a88be5094c7bc73a9d90958dec174fd8", "recomputed_sha256": "fd51ef4b8daec88390cce210355e1658a88be5094c7bc73a9d90958dec174fd8", "intact": true, "checked_at": "2026-10-10T16:11:33.079Z" } }, "hash": "sha256:e08319eff8a5c57073886c6289dd1cdd9507f3271cace93fe07c6430bc4129a6", "version": "legal-2026-10-10", "expires": "2026-10-11T00:00:00.000Z", "dependency": { "index_version": "legal-2026-10-10+legal-2026-10-10+2026-10-10T15:46:24", "content_hash": "sha256:e08319eff8a5c57073886c6289dd1cdd9507f3271cace93fe07c6430bc4129a6", "revalidate_after": "2026-10-10T17:11:33.250Z", "max_copy_age_seconds": 3600, "policy": "revalidate-required; attribution-preferred", "changelog": "https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/dependency", "verify": "https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/verify", "stale_copy_invalid": true }, "canonical": "https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/judgment-text?id=us:ca7-25-2164-2026-09-25", "follow": [ { "rel": "risk", "href": "https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/risk?id=us:ca7-25-2164-2026-09-25" }, { "rel": "relations", "href": "https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/relations?id=us:ca7-25-2164-2026-09-25" }, { "rel": "agent", "href": "https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/us-praxis/agent?id=us:ca7-25-2164-2026-09-25" }, { "rel": "obligations", "href": "https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/obligation-chain" }, { "rel": "changes", "href": "https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/whats-new?jurisdiction=us" } ], "disclaimer": "Source reference with official identifier. Not legal advice and not a compliance decision.", "content_notice": { "legal_advice": false, "nature": "Source register. Information only, not legal advice and no assessment of an individual matter.", "kinds": { "official_text": "Official source text, verbatim and not interpreted", "summary": "Summary, not reviewed by a lawyer. Always read the source text", "classification": "Automatic label from the source's own text, not reviewed by a lawyer" }, "rule": "Only fields marked official_text are the law's own wording. Everything else points to it.", "report_error": "https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/corrections", "ai_act_declaration": "https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/ai-act-declaration" }, "usageInfo": "https://legal.exploreworldai.com/citering", "access_class": "public", "access_view": "public" }