United States v. Farmer, Douglas ( 2008 )


Menu:
  •                             In the
    United States Court of Appeals
    For the Seventh Circuit
    ____________
    Nos. 07-2505, 07-2506, 07-2507 and 07-3313
    U NITED S TATES OF A MERICA,
    Plaintiff-Appellee,
    v.
    D OUGLAS F ARMER, JAMES E LLIS,
    JOSIAH C OMPTON, and G ERALD
    H OWLIET,
    Defendants-Appellants.
    ____________
    Appeals from the United States District Court
    for the Southern District of Illinois.
    No. 04 CR 30139—G. Patrick Murphy, Judge.
    ____________
    A RGUED JUNE 6, 2008—D ECIDED S EPTEMBER 9, 2008
    ____________
    Before B AUER, R IPPLE and M ANION, Circuit Judges.
    B AUER, Circuit Judge. This is a consolidated appeal from
    the convictions of four out of fourteen defendants for
    various offenses stemming from a drug distribution ring
    in the East St. Louis, Illinois area.
    The government began investigating Defendants-Appel-
    lants Douglas Farmer, James Ellis, Josiah Compton, and
    2               Nos. 07-2505, 07-2506, 07-2507 and 07-3313
    Gerald Howliet in 2003 after learning of their involvement
    in the distribution of crack, powder cocaine, and mari-
    juana. The investigation included the review of police
    reports, telephone records, and pen registers, as well as
    law enforcement surveillance, wire communications
    interception, and intelligence provided by confidential
    informants. Through the execution of search warrants,
    agents eventually seized more than 11.6 kilograms of
    powder cocaine, 536 grams of crack cocaine, 6.1 grams of
    heroin, 14.8 kilograms of marijuana, $120,640.00 in U.S.
    currency, and numerous firearms. A jury convicted
    Defendants-Appellants on various drug-related charges,
    which they now appeal. We address each Defendant-
    Appellant’s respective arguments in turn.
    I. Douglas Farmer
    On November 18, 2004, Farmer was indicted for conspir-
    acy to distribute and possess with the intent to distribute
    cocaine, cocaine base, and marijuana, in violation of 21
    U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1), (b)(1)(A), 846, and 18 U.S.C. § 2;
    thirteen others were named in the indictment on con-
    spiracy and/or various other drug-related offenses. The
    last defendant was arraigned on January 13, 2005.
    On December 1, 2004, one of the co-defendants filed a
    motion to suppress. While that was pending, another
    motion was filed, then another, then another; in fact, a
    series of overlapping motions continued pending through-
    out the duration of the case.
    On February 22, 2007, Farmer filed a motion to dismiss
    the indictment, alleging a violation of the Speedy Trial Act,
    Nos. 07-2505, 07-2506, 07-2507 and 07-3313                    3
    18 U.S.C. § 3161 et seq. Farmer acknowledged that
    “excludable days of delay ha[d] occurred,” but argued that
    “the delay that has been experienced herein exceeds any
    permissible exception visualized by the Speedy Trial Act.”
    The district court denied Farmer’s motion, finding that
    seventy days of non-excludable time had not passed
    between the last co-defendant’s arraignment and Farmer’s
    trial because of the filing of several motions by Farmer
    and his co-defendants. Farmer re-asserts the same argu-
    ment on appeal, and like the district court, we reject it.
    We review the district court’s denial of Farmer’s Speedy
    Trial motion de novo. See United States v. Parker, 
    508 F.3d 434
    , 438 (7th Cir. 2007) (citing United States v. Baskin-Bey, 
    45 F.3d 200
    , 203 (7th Cir. 1995)). The Speedy Trial Act pro-
    vides that no more than seventy days may elapse between
    a defendant’s initial appearance in court and the com-
    mencement of trial. 18 U.S.C. § 3161(c)(1); 
    Parker, 508 F.3d at 438
    . When more than one defendant is charged
    in an indictment, the Speedy Trial clock begins to run
    on the date of the last co-defendant’s initial appearance,
    which is usually arraignment. 
    Parker, 508 F.3d at 439
    ;
    United States v. Garrett, 
    45 F.3d 1135
    , 1138 (7th Cir. 1995). In
    calculating the Speedy Trial clock, the Act specifically
    excludes “delay resulting from any pretrial motion, from
    the filing of the motion through the conclusion of the
    hearing on, or other prompt disposition of, such motion.”
    18 U.S.C. § 3161(h)(1)(F). Furthermore, the Act excludes
    any reasonable time lapse occurring “when the defendant
    is joined for trial with a codefendant as to whom the
    time for trial has not run and no motion for severance
    has been granted.” 18 U.S.C. § 3161(h)(7); see Henderson v.
    4                Nos. 07-2505, 07-2506, 07-2507 and 07-3313
    United States, 
    476 U.S. 321
    , 323 n.2 (1986) (noting that in
    multi-defendant cases, the seventy-day clock does not
    begin until the last co-defendant has been arraigned).
    The excludable delay of Farmer’s co-defendants is
    ascribed to him, since Farmer was not severed, nor did he
    seek severance, from those co-defendants for trial. See
    United States v. Baker, 
    40 F.3d 154
    , 159 (7th Cir. 1994). As
    Farmer acknowledges, overlapping motions filed by
    himself and his co-defendants remained before the
    district court throughout the time between his last co-
    defendant’s arraignment on January 13, 2005, and the
    start of his trial on March 6, 2007. Farmer properly con-
    cedes that seventy days of non-excludable time did not
    lapse. So despite over two years passing between Farmer’s
    indictment and the commencement of his trial, no
    Speedy Trial Act violation occurred. (In fact, although no
    mention was made of it in this appeal, on February 21,
    2005, Farmer filed a Waiver of Speedy Trial.) We disagree
    with Farmer that such a delay “makes a mockery of [the
    Act’s] statutory protection”; to the contrary, we find the
    delay necessary to ensure that the defendants’s pre-trial
    motions were adequately considered as to minimize the
    effect of any infringement on their rights resulting from
    an improper indictment, illegally seized evidence, or any
    other impropriety.1 Accordingly, we affirm Farmer’s
    1
    The pre-trial motions filed by Farmer alone that contributed
    to the delay included motions for reconsideration of bond, to
    continue, to change counsel, to suppress evidence, and to
    disqualify the first assigned district court judge. Had the
    (continued...)
    Nos. 07-2505, 07-2506, 07-2507 and 07-3313                 5
    conviction.
    II. James Ellis
    Ellis was convicted of conspiracy to distribute and to
    possess with the intent to distribute cocaine, cocaine base,
    and marijuana, in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1),
    (b)(1)(A), 846, and 18 U.S.C. § 2. At trial, the government
    played recorded telephone calls obtained through court-
    authorized wire taps. The government introduced these
    tapes through Drug Enforcement Agency (DEA) Special
    Agent Michael Rehg. Agent Rehg testified as a fact witness
    regarding the investigation’s progress and events, and as
    an expert witness to assist the jury in understanding the
    coded drug language contained in the recorded conversa-
    tions.
    Agent Rehg testified that he had been a DEA agent
    for eight years, and was a Deputy U.S. Marshal for
    nine years before that (three years of which he was as-
    signed to the DEA). He further testified that he was the
    lead case agent in this case and that he had overseen
    the process of obtaining the court-authorized wire taps.
    Agent Rehg also stated that he had participated in hun-
    dreds of drug cases, he had listened to thousands of calls
    in this case, and his experience gave him knowledge of
    the meanings of certain coded drug language.
    1
    (...continued)
    court not thoroughly addressed these motions, Farmer would
    likely have a substantively different (and possibly more suc-
    cessful) argument on appeal.
    6               Nos. 07-2505, 07-2506, 07-2507 and 07-3313
    Ellis repeatedly objected to Agent Rehg’s testimony,
    claiming that Agent Rehg was not a qualified expert and
    that he was unfairly prejudiced by the district court’s
    decision to allow Agent Rehg to testify both as a fact and
    expert witness. The district court allowed Agent Rehg to
    testify in both capacities, but gave the jury cautionary
    instructions regarding expert testimony.
    The jury found Ellis guilty of the conspiracy charged, and
    the United States Probation Department prepared a Pre-
    Sentence Report (PSR). The PSR determined that Ellis had
    a total offense level of thirty-eight and a criminal history
    category of IV, resulting in an advisory Guidelines range
    of 324 to 405 months’ imprisonment. This calculation
    included a two-level offense increase based on Ellis’s
    possession of a firearm during the commission of the
    offense, pursuant to U.S.S.G. § 2D1.1(b)(1). The evidence
    of Ellis’s possession of a firearm came from the proffer of
    a co-conspirator, Elvin Pawnell, who stated that he had
    been with Ellis and Farmer on fifteen to twenty occasions
    in 2005 when they were providing him with cocaine.
    Pawnell said that Ellis carried a .45-caliber handgun
    during these meetings; once, Ellis showed him the gun,
    and on other occasions, Pawnell saw the gun in Ellis’s
    waistband.
    Ellis filed written objections to the two-level increase
    pursuant to U.S.S.G. § 2D1.1(b)(1), arguing that his posses-
    sion of a firearm had not been proven beyond a reasonable
    doubt, in violation of Blakely v. Washington, 
    542 U.S. 296
    (2004). The district court rejected Ellis’s argument and
    applied the two-level enhancement. The district court
    Nos. 07-2505, 07-2506, 07-2507 and 07-3313                7
    subsequently sentenced Ellis to 288 months’ imprisonment,
    which was below his advisory Guidelines range.
    On appeal, Ellis contends that the district court erred in
    allowing Agent Rehg to testify as both a fact and expert
    witness. Specifically, Ellis claims that the district court
    failed to properly apply Federal Rule of Evidence 702
    because it did not conduct a hearing to consider Agent
    Rehg’s qualifications. Ellis further argues that allowing
    Agent Rehg to testify in both capacities unfairly prej-
    udiced him. In addition, Ellis argues that the district
    court improperly applied the two-level enhancement.
    We review the district court’s decision to admit expert
    testimony for an abuse of discretion. United States v.
    Goodwin, 
    496 F.3d 636
    , 641 (7th Cir. 2007) (citing United
    States v. Ceballos, 
    302 F.3d 679
    , 686 (7th Cir. 2002)). Al-
    though Ellis appeals under Rule 702, neither Ellis nor the
    government specifically requested that the district court
    evaluate Agent Rehg’s qualifications as an expert under
    Rule 702. See United States v. Moore, 
    521 F.3d 681
    , 685 (7th
    Cir. 2008) (noting that when neither party specifically
    asks the district court to engage in the analysis under
    Rule 702, the district court is not required to do so and
    does not err in admitting the testimony). Thus, the district
    court did not err by not inquiring further into Agent Rehg’s
    qualifications.
    Regardless, Agent Rehg was undoubtedly qualified. We
    have held that narcotics code words are an appropriate
    subject for expert testimony, and that law enforcement
    officers who have training and experience in drug-related
    transactions and crimes are qualified to testify as an
    8                Nos. 07-2505, 07-2506, 07-2507 and 07-3313
    expert concerning the practices of people engaged in that
    type of conduct. 
    Goodwin, 496 F.3d at 641
    n.2; United States
    v. Hughes, 
    970 F.2d 227
    , 236 (7th Cir. 1992); see also United
    States v. Mansoori, 
    304 F.3d 635
    , 654 (7th Cir. 2002). Agent
    Rehg’s experience included eight years as a DEA agent
    and nine years as a Deputy U.S. Marshal. He further
    testified that he had participated in hundreds of drug-
    related cases prior to being the lead case agent in this
    case, that he had listened to thousands of calls involved
    in this case, and that the use of the narcotics code language
    was consistent with his understanding of the terms’
    meanings. Accordingly, the district court did not abuse
    its discretion in allowing Agent Rehg to testify as an
    expert on narcotics code words.
    So we turn to Ellis’s argument that the district court
    erred in allowing Agent Rehg to testify in dual capacities.
    Testimony in the dual roles of both a fact witness and an
    expert witness can be confusing to a jury, but it is permissi-
    ble provided that the district court takes precautions to
    minimize potential prejudice. 
    Goodwin, 496 F.3d at 641
    .
    “The potential for prejudice in this circumstance can be
    addressed by means of appropriate cautionary instruc-
    tions and by examination of the witness that is structured
    in such a way as to make clear when the witness is testify-
    ing to facts and when he is offering his opinion as an
    expert.” 
    Goodwin, 496 F.3d at 641
    -42 (quoting 
    Mansoori, 304 F.3d at 654
    ).
    At trial, the government played several recorded phone
    conversations for the jury. After some of the calls, the
    prosecutor asked Agent Rehg to give his opinion about the
    Nos. 07-2505, 07-2506, 07-2507 and 07-3313                     9
    meaning of various terms used in the calls. Agent Rehg
    also testified about facts he had obtained through the
    investigation that were related to the subjects discussed in
    the recorded calls. While this framework did little to
    separate out Agent Rehg’s fact testimony from his expert
    testimony, the district court did take other precautions to
    minimize any potential prejudice. The district court
    required the government to establish the proper founda-
    tion for Agent Rehg’s knowledge of the coded drug
    language prior to him testifying to those meanings. The
    government also prefaced Agent Rehg’s expert testimony
    by asking him the coded language’s meaning “based on
    [his] expertise.” 2 Furthermore, the district court gave
    the appropriate cautionary instruction regarding expert
    testimony, instructing the jury that it could judge that
    testimony the same way it judges fact witnesses’ testimony,
    and could “[g]ive the testimony whatever weight you
    think it deserves. . . .” The district court also allowed Ellis’s
    attorney to extensively cross-examine Agent Rehg
    about the coded drug terms used in the calls, his familiar-
    ity with other drug terms, and the factual aspects of his
    direct testimony. Ellis’s attorney critically questioned
    Agent Rehg about his expert opinion on the coded lan-
    guage, noting that according to him, “shoes,” “block,” and
    “chicken” were just a few of many commonly used words
    2
    We note, however, that the government did not preface each
    question that elicited Agent Rehg’s expert opinion in this
    way. Had they done so, the framework of Agent Rehg’s exami-
    nation would have undoubtedly made clear to the jury the
    capacity of his testimony.
    10               Nos. 07-2505, 07-2506, 07-2507 and 07-3313
    that he claimed meant cocaine. This thorough cross-
    examination highlighted the parts of Agent Rehg’s testi-
    mony that were garnered from his expert opinion, which
    further clarified the testimonial capacities for the jury. In
    light of these safeguards, any risk that the jury could
    have confused Agent Rehg’s direct observations with his
    expert knowledge of the code words was adequately
    alleviated. See United States v. Parra, 
    402 F.3d 752
    , 759-
    60 (7th Cir. 2005).
    Ellis also argues that the two-level enhancement was
    improper because: (1) the statements by Pawnell lacked
    sufficient indicia of reliability and should not have been
    admitted; and (2) the government failed to show by a
    preponderance of the evidence that Ellis possessed a
    firearm during the conspiracy. The government asserts
    that Ellis has waived these arguments, and we agree.
    Waiver is the intentional relinquishment of a known
    right, while forfeiture is the failure to timely assert a right.
    United States v. Olano, 
    507 U.S. 725
    , 733 (1993); United States
    v. Jaimes-Jaimes, 
    406 F.3d 845
    , 847 (7th Cir. 2005). Forfeiture
    warrants review for plain error only, but waiver precludes
    any appellate review. 
    Jaimes-Jaimes, 406 F.3d at 847
    . The
    paramount feature of waiver is a knowing and inten-
    tional decision not to assert the right. 
    Jaimes-Jaimes, 406 F.3d at 848
    . For strategic reasons, a criminal defendant
    may elect to pursue one argument while foregoing an-
    other. 
    Id. In that
    situation, the defendant waives the
    arguments he decided not to present. 
    Id. (citing United
    States v. Cooper, 
    243 F.3d 411
    , 416 (7th Cir. 2001)).
    Nos. 07-2505, 07-2506, 07-2507 and 07-3313                  11
    At the district court, Ellis filed a five-page written
    objection to the PSR, which included an objection to the
    enhancement for possessing a firearm. Ellis chose to limit
    his argument to whether the enhancement violated Blakely
    v. Washington, because the possession was not proven at
    trial beyond a reasonable doubt. He never challenged the
    reliability of Pawnell’s proffer before now, nor did Ellis
    ever elect to argue, until now, that the government failed
    to establish his possession of a firearm during the con-
    spiracy by a preponderance of the evidence standard. To
    the contrary, Ellis implicitly asserted that the preponder-
    ance of the evidence standard deprived him of his right to
    a fair trial. See generally 
    Blakely, 542 U.S. at 332-33
    . In any
    event, we find no plain error in the district court’s determi-
    nation that Pawnell’s proffer was reliable and that it
    alone was sufficient to establish by a preponderance of
    the evidence that Ellis possessed a firearm in furtherance
    of the conspiracy. Accordingly, we affirm Ellis’s convic-
    tion and sentence.
    III. Josiah Compton
    Compton was convicted of possession with intent to
    distribute cocaine and crack cocaine, in violation of 21
    U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1), (b)(1)(B), and (b)(1)(C), and being a
    felon in possession of a firearm, in violation of 18 U.S.C.
    § 922(g). Compton’s PSR determined that he had an
    offense level of forty and a criminal history category of VI,
    resulting in an advisory Guidelines range of 360 months to
    life imprisonment. The PSR counted uncharged drug
    amounts in determining Compton’s relevant conduct to
    12              Nos. 07-2505, 07-2506, 07-2507 and 07-3313
    reach the offense level of forty. To support the inclusion of
    the uncharged drug amounts as relevant conduct, the
    Probation Department relied on statements from three
    individuals and a confidential source, all of whom had
    purchased drugs from Compton, as well as statements
    from Compton’s own proffer to the government. The
    criminal history calculation counted several prior convic-
    tions that dated from 1989 to 1999, which totaled thirteen
    criminal history points.
    Compton objected to the calculations in the PSR, arguing
    that the information regarding the uncharged drug
    amounts was unreliable and that facts from his proffer
    could not be used to calculate his relevant conduct. He
    also asserted that the district court incorrectly included
    prior convictions that resulted in three points being added
    to his base offense level. The district court rejected these
    arguments, and subsequently sentenced him to 360
    months’ imprisonment.
    On appeal, Compton makes four arguments: (1) that the
    district court erred in considering the uncharged drug
    quantity based on the various cooperators statements
    because those drugs were not part of the same course of
    conduct charged; (2) that the district court erred by using
    Compton’s proffer against him at sentencing; (3) that the
    district court miscalculated his criminal history score by
    including some of his prior convictions; and (4) that he
    is entitled to resentencing in light of Kimbrough v. United
    States, ___ U.S. ___, 
    128 S. Ct. 558
    (2007).
    The government contends that Compton has waived
    his first argument regarding the use of uncharged drug
    Nos. 07-2505, 07-2506, 07-2507 and 07-3313                 13
    amounts in his sentencing calculation by failing to raise the
    argument below. In the district court, Compton challenged
    the reliability of the six sources of information as to his
    relevant conduct; he did not allege that the events to
    which those individuals implicated Compton were not
    part of the same course of conduct as the charged crimes,
    but the record does not reveal a knowing and intentional
    decision to forego any “same course of conduct” argument.
    See United States v. McClellan, 
    165 F.3d 535
    , 552-53 (7th Cir.
    1999); United States v. Patel, 
    131 F.3d 1195
    , 2001 (7th Cir.
    1997). Construing waiver principles liberally in favor of
    Compton, we find Compton merely forfeited the argu-
    ment by failing to timely assert it. 
    Jaimes-Jaimes, 406 F.3d at 848
    -49; United States v. Sumner, 
    265 F.3d 532
    , 539 (7th
    Cir. 2001) (citing 
    McClellan, 165 F.3d at 552-53
    ). Accord-
    ingly, we review for plain error. 
    Jaimes-Jaimes, 406 F.3d at 848
    -49.
    We find no error in the district court’s inclusion of the
    various statements or calculation of uncharged drug
    quantities evidenced by the cooperators’ statements that
    increased Compton’s relevant conduct determination. See
    United States v. Artley, 
    489 F.3d 813
    , 822-23 (7th Cir. 2007).
    Giving broad discretion to the district court’s explicit
    determination that the statements were reliable, we
    credit the district court’s factual determinations re-
    garding Compton’s relevant conduct. See United States v.
    Wilson, 
    502 F.3d 718
    , 721 (7th Cir. 2007). Although the
    district court failed “to explicitly state and support its
    finding that uncharged drug quantities are sufficiently
    related to the offense of conviction[,] . . . [that] does not
    mean it failed to make the necessary finding.” 
    Id. at 723
    14               Nos. 07-2505, 07-2506, 07-2507 and 07-3313
    (citing United States v. Arroyo, 
    406 F.3d 881
    , 889 (7th Cir.
    2005)). “Relevant conduct can be used to enhance a de-
    fendant’s sentence if it is part of the same course of action
    or common scheme or plan that gave rise to [his] convic-
    tion” and is established by a preponderance of the evi-
    dence. United States v. McGowan, 
    478 F.3d 800
    , 802 (7th
    Cir. 2007) (citing United States v. Johnson, 
    342 F.3d 731
    , 733
    (7th Cir. 2003)). We consider significant similarity, regular-
    ity, and temporal proximity of the uncharged conduct
    with the convicted offense, as well as common victims,
    accomplices, purpose, or modus operandi. See 
    McGowan, 478 F.3d at 802
    ; United States v. Ortiz, 
    431 F.3d 1035
    , 1040 (7th
    Cir. 2005); see also U.S.S.G. § 1B1.3(a)(2), app. n.9. Where
    the defendant’s convicted offense was merely the latest
    drug sale in an unbroken series of deals regularly made,
    that is sufficient to find the defendant’s prior drug transac-
    tions were part of the same course of conduct as the
    offense of conviction. 
    Wilson, 502 F.3d at 724
    .
    In this case, Compton was steadily involved in dealing
    crack and powder cocaine in the same area from 1998
    until his arrest in 2004. The government’s sources con-
    firmed this, documenting regular drug transactions
    between the sources and Compton from 2000 until 2004,
    totaling thirty-three ounces of crack cocaine. While the
    record lacks substantial evidence of Compton’s particular
    drug transactions from 1998 until March 2000, amounts
    for this period were not included in the relevant
    conduct calculation. But there was sufficient testimony
    to establish that the course of illegal conduct began back
    then for purposes of determining when the offense that
    led to the conviction began. For example, one of the gov-
    Nos. 07-2505, 07-2506, 07-2507 and 07-3313                 15
    ernment’s sources testified that Compton was one of the
    largest crack cocaine dealers in the Newport, Illinois area
    in 2000, so Compton probably established himself as such
    through regular drug transactions prior to 2000. Another
    source explained that he began buying cocaine from
    Compton in late 1999. Compton’s PSR stated that he
    began receiving cocaine from one Marvin Williams in
    1998, a fact to which Compton did not object. Based on
    this evidence, we find that Compton was engaged in
    continuous drug dealing, selling large quantities of
    powder and crack cocaine to regular customers at regular
    intervals in the same vicinity from 1998 until his arrest
    in 2004. Accordingly, we find no clear error in the district
    court’s crediting the cooperators’ statements for
    Compton’s relevant conduct calculation.
    So we turn to Compton’s second argument on ap-
    peal—that the district court improperly relied upon
    information obtained from Compton’s proffer to
    increase his base offense level. Compton complains that
    the government violated the terms of the proffer agree-
    ment by including 197 kilograms of cocaine in his
    relevant conduct calculation recommended by the PSR.
    Because the facts pertaining to the alleged breach are
    undisputed, we review the question of whether the gov-
    ernment breached the proffer agreement de novo. See
    United States v. Schilling, 
    142 F.3d 388
    , 394 (7th Cir. 1998).
    We also review the district court’s application of the
    Sentencing Guidelines de novo since Compton preserved
    the argument below. United States v. Samuels, 
    521 F.3d 804
    ,
    815 (7th Cir. 2008).
    16               Nos. 07-2505, 07-2506, 07-2507 and 07-3313
    A proffer agreement is a binding contract, enforced
    according to its terms. See United States v. Cobblah, 
    118 F.3d 549
    , 551 (7th Cir. 1997). However, proffer agreements that
    are a part of ongoing criminal proceedings are “ ‘unique
    contracts and the ordinary contract principles are supple-
    mented with a concern that the bargaining process not
    violate the defendant’s rights to fundamental fairness
    under the Due Process Clause.’ ” United States v. $87,118.00
    in United States Currency, 
    95 F.3d 511
    , 516-17 (7th Cir. 1999)
    (quoting United States v. Rourke, 
    74 F.3d 802
    , 805 (7th Cir.
    1996)). We hold the government to “the literal terms” of the
    agreement, as well as the “most meticulous standards of
    both promise and performance” to insure the integrity
    of the bargaining process involved in proffers. See
    
    Schilling, 142 F.3d at 395
    (internal quotations and cita-
    tions omitted).
    The fifth substantive paragraph of the proffer agreement
    provided that the government would not use any state-
    ments or other information provided by Compton
    against him in its case in chief, but that the government
    would “be free to provide any such information to any
    United States District Court in the event that [Compton]
    either pleads guilty or is found guilty later at trial [as is
    required to comply with Rule 32 of the Federal Rules of
    Criminal Procedure for sentencing decisions].” Yet the
    sixth substantive paragraph states:
    [N]o self-incriminating information given by
    [Compton] will be used to enhance the Offense Level
    against [Compton] except as provided in [Section 1B1.8
    of the Sentencing Guidelines]. The government may,
    Nos. 07-2505, 07-2506, 07-2507 and 07-3313              17
    however, use any statements made or other informa-
    tion provided by [Compton] to rebut evidence or
    arguments at sentencing materially different from
    any statements made or other information provided
    by [Compton] during the “off-the record” proffer or
    discussion.
    The Probation Department, a division of the government
    bound by the terms of the proffer agreement, see United
    States v. Lezine, 
    166 F.3d 895
    , 904 (7th Cir. 1999) (noting
    that probation officers are an extension of the govern-
    ment and officers of the court), recommended in the PSR
    that 197 kilograms of cocaine be used to increase his
    offense level as relevant conduct. The 197 kilograms of
    cocaine was evidenced solely by Compton’s proffer, and
    the district court adopted the PSR’s recommendation.
    The government asserts that it properly provided this
    information to the district court under paragraph five of
    the agreement. Indeed, the agreement allowed the gov-
    ernment to “provide” the information to the court for
    sentencing purposes, but it was prohibited from “using”
    the information to enhance Compton’s offense level under
    paragraph six. Under the proffer agreement, the govern-
    ment could provide Compton’s proffer statements to
    the district court, but it could not per se recommend
    that the court increase Compton’s offense level based on
    that information. To do so constituted a “use” prohibited
    by paragraph six. By their very nature, paragraphs five
    and six of the agreement are almost irreconcilable; short
    of attaching the defendant’s proffer statements to mate-
    rials provided to the court for sentencing purposes, any
    other mention of information obtained from the proffer
    18              Nos. 07-2505, 07-2506, 07-2507 and 07-3313
    will likely violate the agreement. Be that as it may, under
    the circumstances of this case, the government violated
    the terms of the proffer agreement by submitting to the
    district court protected statements made by Compton.
    The government also claims it properly used Compton’s
    proffer to rebut his assertion that the government’s
    sources were unreliable for purposes of calculating other
    relevant conduct drug quantities. This argument puts the
    cart before the horse, however, since Compton’s objection
    to the reliability of the government’s sources came after
    the PSR containing the information from Compton’s
    proffer.
    Compton was sentenced to 360 months’ imprisonment.
    This sentence was at the bottom of his Guidelines range
    of 360 months to life imprisonment, calculated by includ-
    ing the 197 kilograms of cocaine as relevant conduct. Had
    the district court not considered the 197 kilograms of
    cocaine as relevant conduct, the Guidelines range would
    have been 324-405 months. Although the Guidelines are
    advisory, a district court must accurately calculate and
    consult the defendant’s Guidelines range. United States v.
    Thomas, 
    520 F.3d 729
    , 736 (7th Cir. 2008). A sentencing
    based on an incorrect Guidelines range constitutes plain
    error and warrants a remand for resentencing, unless
    we have reason to believe that the error in no way
    affected the district court’s selection of a particular sen-
    tence. United States v. Garrett, 
    528 F.3d 525
    , 527 (7th Cir.
    2008); United States v. Wallace, 
    32 F.3d 1171
    , 1174 (7th Cir.
    1994). The fact that Compton’s sentence of 360 months
    is within his correct Guidelines range of 324-405 months
    is of no consequence. See 
    Wallace, 32 F.3d at 1174
    (“Al-
    Nos. 07-2505, 07-2506, 07-2507 and 07-3313                       19
    though the sentencing that the district court selected in
    this case is within the correct as well as the incorrect
    Guidelines range, we must remand unless we have
    reason to believe that the error did not affect the district
    court’s selection of a particular sentence.”). We have no
    reason to believe that the district court would not have
    selected an even lower sentence if given the opportunity
    to do so, thus, we must remand. See 
    Wallace, 32 F.3d at 1174
    -75. Accordingly, Compton is entitled to be resen-
    tenced.
    Despite Compton’s entitlement to resentencing, we
    address his last argument to assist the district court upon
    resentencing.3 Compton argues that the district court erred
    in calculating his criminal history category by including
    prior convictions dating from 1989 to 1999. We review
    the district court’s fact-finding for clear error. United
    States v. Robinson, 
    435 F.3d 699
    , 701 (7th Cir. 2006). The
    government again argues that Compton has waived this
    argument since, at the district court, he elected to only
    challenge three points—two for committing the offenses
    of conviction while under a criminal justice sentence
    and one for a prior conviction from 1998. While we agree
    3
    Compton also filed a supplemental brief, arguing that he was
    entitled to resentencing in light of Kimbrough v. United States, ___
    U.S. ___, 
    128 S. Ct. 558
    , 564 (2007), and United States v. Taylor,
    
    520 F.3d 746
    , 748 (7th Cir. 2008). We need not address this
    argument since Compton is already entitled to be resentenced
    due to the government’s breach of the proffer agreement and
    we trust that the district court will adequately consider the
    appropriate impact of Kimbrough and Taylor on Compton’s
    sentence.
    20              Nos. 07-2505, 07-2506, 07-2507 and 07-3313
    that Compton did not previously argue that some of his
    prior convictions are too old to count, we do not find the
    arguments strategically intertwined in a way that
    suggests knowing and intentional waiver. See Jaimes-
    
    Jaimes, 406 F.3d at 848
    . Accordingly, we give Compton the
    benefit of the doubt, and review the district court’s fact-
    finding regarding when the offense of conviction began
    for plain/clear error. 
    Id. at 848-49
    (“Waiver principles
    should be construed liberally in favor of the defendant.”)
    (citations omitted).
    We need not dissect Compton’s criminal history, how-
    ever, since his arguments operate under the mistaken
    assumption that the offense of conviction began in 2004,
    not in 1998, as the district court correctly found. Because
    we have already determined that the offense of conviction
    was properly determined to have begun in 1998 and
    continued until Compton’s arrest in 2004, all prior convic-
    tions challenged are proper under U.S.S.G. §§ 4A1.1(b)
    (calculating criminal history points) and 4A1.2(e)(2)
    (include prior sentences of imprisonment within ten
    years of the commencement of the instant offense). Addi-
    tionally, the district court properly relied on information
    obtained from Compton’s proffer to determine that the
    instant offense began in 1998; U.S.S.G. § 1B1.8(b)(2) pro-
    vides that proffers are not off-limits when used for in-
    formation “concerning the existence of prior convictions
    and sentences in determining § 4A1.1 (Criminal History
    Category) and § 4B1.1 (Career Offender).” We find no
    error in the district court’s calculation of Compton’s
    criminal history category.
    Nos. 07-2505, 07-2506, 07-2507 and 07-3313                  21
    IV. Gerald Howliet
    Howliet was convicted of possession with intent
    to distribute cocaine base and heroin, in violation of
    21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1), (b)(1)(A), and (b)(1)(C), and being
    a felon in possession of a firearm, in violation of 18
    U.S.C. § 922(g). Evidence against Howliet was obtained
    during the execution of a search warrant at Howliet’s
    residence in Cahokia, Illinois. A magistrate judge issued
    the search warrant based on an affidavit signed by DEA
    Agent Larry Fox, which included the following informa-
    tion: Agent Fox had reason to suspect, based on informa-
    tion provided by two reliable confidential sources, that
    Howliet’s cousin, Charles, sold the informants crack
    cocaine that he obtained from Howliet.4 At the direction
    of law enforcement, both of the confidential sources
    purchased an ounce of crack cocaine from Charles, during
    which all conversations were recorded and Charles was
    driving a vehicle known to be used by Howliet. After these
    controlled purchases and again at the direction of law
    enforcement, one of the confidential sources ordered an
    eighth of a kilogram of crack from Charles, who told the
    source that it would take some time for him to obtain the
    drugs and that he would call the source when he was
    ready to complete the sale. Law enforcement maintained
    surveillance of Charles, who then went to Howliet’s
    4
    The affidavit explained that both of the sources had success-
    fully completed multiple controlled purchases for the DEA
    (which field tested positive for cocaine) and that information
    provided by one of them had led to an arrest and a drug
    and currency seizure.
    22              Nos. 07-2505, 07-2506, 07-2507 and 07-3313
    residence. Upon leaving Howliet’s house, Charles drove
    to his apartment. The confidential source then called
    Charles to check the status of his drug order, who told
    the source he needed a few more minutes. Less than an
    hour later, Charles met the confidential source at a
    nearby restaurant, where they completed the crack
    cocaine transaction. During the exchange, Charles told
    the confidential source not to worry about a portion of the
    crack being a different color, explaining that it had just
    been prepared. Upon law enforcement’s observation of
    the crack cocaine provided by Charles, the agents noted
    that approximately one half ounce of the crack was a
    different color and was packaged separately in a bag with
    condensation inside it. In light of this information, Agent
    Fox believed that Charles did not have the full amount
    of crack ordered by the confidential source, so he went
    to Howliet’s residence to obtain additional cocaine, and
    then went to his apartment to “cook” the powder cocaine
    into crack cocaine. The DEA field tested the substance
    provided by Charles, which tested positive for cocaine.
    Before the district court, Howliet argued that the evi-
    dence obtained from the search should be suppressed
    because the search warrant lacked probable cause. On
    appeal, Howliet makes this same argument, and also
    asserts that the good faith exception to the exclusionary
    rule should not apply because Agent Fox could not have
    reasonably believed that probable cause existed.
    We review a district court’s findings of historical fact
    for clear error and its legal conclusions de novo. United
    States v. Garcia, 
    528 F.3d 481
    , 485 (7th Cir. 2008) (citing
    Nos. 07-2505, 07-2506, 07-2507 and 07-3313                  23
    United States v. McIntire, 
    516 F.3d 576
    , 578 (7th Cir. 2008)).
    On the issue of whether the facts add up to probable
    cause, we give great deference to the judge who initially
    issued the warrant, but we give no weight to the district
    court judge’s decision. 
    Id. We will
    defer to the determina-
    tion of the warrant-issuing judge that probable cause
    existed so long as “there is substantial evidence in the
    record supporting the judge’s decision.” United States v.
    Koerth, 
    312 F.3d 862
    , 865 (7th Cir. 2002).
    “Probable cause is established when, based on the
    totality of the circumstances, the affidavit sets forth
    sufficient evidence to induce a reasonably prudent person
    to believe that a search will uncover evidence of a crime.”
    
    Garcia, 528 F.3d at 485-86
    (citing Illinois v. Gates, 
    462 U.S. 213
    , 238 (1983); United States v. Jones, 
    208 F.3d 603
    , 608 (7th
    Cir. 2000)). It requires only a probability, not absolute
    certainty, that evidence of a crime may be found. United
    States v. Sidwell, 
    440 F.3d 865
    , 869 (7th Cir. 2006). When
    the affidavit includes information supplied by an infor-
    mant, we consider: “(1) the extent to which the police
    have corroborated the informant’s statements; (2) the
    degree to which the informant has acquired knowledge
    of the events through firsthand observation; (3) the
    amount of detail provided; and (4) the interval between
    the date of the events and police officer’s application for
    the search warrant.” 
    Garcia, 528 F.3d at 486
    (citing 
    Koerth, 312 F.3d at 866
    ).
    We agree that a reasonable judge could find that the
    affidavit here set forth sufficient facts to establish
    probable cause. The affidavit explained that Agent Fox
    24               Nos. 07-2505, 07-2506, 07-2507 and 07-3313
    had worked with both confidential informants before, and
    had determined them to be reliable sources through
    numerous controlled purchases as well as an arrest and
    seizure of cocaine and drug money. It also stated that
    the DEA had field tested suspected drugs from the infor-
    mants’ controlled purchases and they tested positive
    for the presence of cocaine. Both informants had direct
    contact with Charles during which Charles sold them
    crack cocaine, and the transactions were monitored and
    recorded by law enforcement. The affidavit detailed the
    DEA’s surveillance of the informants’ interactions with
    Charles, which verified the information they obtained
    from the informants, in particular, that Charles needed
    time to obtain the cocaine requested by the informant, and
    that during that time he went to Howliet’s house. The
    informants had already told the agents that Charles got
    his supply from Howliet, thus Charles’s procession to
    Howliet’s house after the informant requested a large
    quantity of cocaine corroborated that statement. Shortly
    after leaving Howliet’s house, Charles met with the
    informant with freshly cooked crack cocaine. The warrant
    was issued on the same day as the events described in
    the affidavit. Thus, based on the facts presented to the
    warrant-issuing judge, there was substantial evidence
    to suspect that Charles had obtained cocaine from
    Howliet’s house. Accordingly, the warrant was sup-
    ported by probable cause.
    Because the warrant was supported by probable cause,
    we need not address the good faith exception under
    United States v. Leon, 
    468 U.S. 897
    (1984). The district court
    Nos. 07-2505, 07-2506, 07-2507 and 07-3313               25
    did not err in admitting evidence seized from Howliet’s
    residence, and his conviction is affirmed.
    V. Conclusion
    For the foregoing reasons, we find no error in the con-
    victions and sentences of Farmer, Ellis, or Howliet and
    therefore affirm all of their convictions and sentences. As
    for Compton, we affirm his conviction but vacate his
    sentence and remand for resentencing in light of the
    improper use of his proffer statements in the PSR, resulting
    in an incorrect Guidelines range. The district court is
    advised not to consider the 197 kilograms of cocaine
    discovered solely from Compton’s proffer statements as
    relevant conduct; it may still consider various other
    relevant conduct, as described in greater detail but not
    accounted for in the PSR’s recommendation. We also
    advise the district court to consider Kimbrough and its
    progeny upon resentencing Compton.
    9-9-08