United States v. Oluwadamilola Are ( 2009 )


Menu:
  •                               In the
    United States Court of Appeals
    For the Seventh Circuit
    Nos. 07-3246, 07-3247, 07-3928 & 08-2269
    U NITED S TATES OF A MERICA,
    Plaintiff-Appellee,
    v.
    O LUWADAMILOLA A RE, A NTWAN D ANIELS,
    JEROME M URRAY and JULIUS S TATHAM,
    Defendants-Appellants.
    Appeals from the United States District Court
    for the Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division.
    No. 05 CR 650—Ronald A. Guzmán, Judge.
    A RGUED A PRIL 1, 2009—D ECIDED D ECEMBER 30, 2009
    Before P OSNER, E VANS, and T INDER, Circuit Judges.
    T INDER, Circuit Judge. This is a drug conspiracy case
    involving multiple defendants, twenty-seven counts, a
    variety of illegal drugs, guns, and the use of a telephone
    to facilitate a drug conspiracy. The drug activity
    centered around the “Four Corner Hustlers” gang on the
    south side of Chicago, an organization that has been
    mentioned in several opinions of this court over the last
    2                   Nos. 07-3246, 07-3247, 07-3928 & 08-2269
    decade. See, e.g., United States v. Longstreet, 
    567 F.3d 911
     (7th
    Cir.), cert. denied, ___ S. Ct. ___, 
    78 U.S.L.W. 3294
     (U.S.
    Nov. 16, 2009) (No. 09-7065); United States v. Haynie, 
    179 F.3d 1048
     (7th Cir. 1999). Jerome Murray (the “Chief” of the
    gang) and Julius Statham pled guilty; Antwan Daniels
    and Oluwadamilola Are were tried by a jury. The
    defendants-appellants challenge several pretrial rulings
    and the admission of law enforcement expert evidence
    on the meaning of coded language. They also raise
    several sentencing issues. In addition, Are claims a viola-
    tion of Brady v. Maryland, 
    373 U.S. 83
     (1963), and Napue v.
    Illinois, 
    360 U.S. 264
     (1959). The number of issues raised
    results in a lengthy opinion, but ultimately we affirm. Our
    review of the record leads us to the conclusion that, by
    and large, the district court handled this case very well.
    I. Background
    Jerome Murray was the chief of the “Four Corner Hus-
    tlers” gang on the south side of Chicago. He was con-
    victed of murder in 1987. Following his release from
    prison in late 2001, he assumed the leadership role in the
    gang since other gang members looked up to him because
    of, among other things, his prior conviction. The Four
    Corner Hustlers were heavily involved in trafficking
    heroin, cocaine, and crack cocaine in the Chicago area.
    Murray bought wholesale quantities of the drugs to sell
    to customers, including other gang members, and his
    customers, in turn, distributed the drugs to their own
    customers. Oluwadamilola Are and Julius Statham sup-
    plied Murray with heroin and cocaine, respectively.
    Nos. 07-3246, 07-3247, 07-3928 & 08-2269                  3
    Antwan Daniels (“Sko”) bought heroin directly from Are,
    through another person, with Murray’s assistance. One
    such transaction occurred on January 26, 2005, when Are
    supplied Daniels with about 50 grams of heroin through
    a person identified as “Rocco” (a\k\a “Heavy” and “Lil’
    Morocco”).
    Prior to that, on January 25, Murray was recorded in a
    telephone call asking Daniels if he wanted “$50, man for
    that or a $100?” Murray immediately called Are, asking to
    “borrow fifty dollars,” and explaining that he had “just
    hollered . . . at Sko [Daniels].” Are agreed and, half an
    hour later, he instructed Murray to call an individual
    named “Heavy” or “Lil’ Morocco,” and Murray did. In
    subsequent telephone calls, Murray arranged an in-
    person meeting between Daniels and Rocco. Law enforce-
    ment agents were conducting surveillance and observed
    Murray enter an apartment building and later meet
    with Daniels and another person at a convenience store.
    The next day, January 26, Murray asked Are if he had
    “call[ed] back, uh, Sko?” Murray later spoke with Daniels,
    who talked Murray down to a price of $3,000 for the 50
    grams of heroin. Murray then instructed Daniels to “hit
    Little Morocco . . . .” Rocco subsequently confirmed with
    Murray the quantity that Daniels was to get, asking if “this
    is twenty-five dollars,” and Murray told Rocco to “give
    him, uh, fifty dollars.” Later that evening while under
    surveillance, Rocco met with Daniels. Shortly after that
    meeting, law enforcement conducted a traffic stop of
    Daniels and seized 49.6 grams of heroin. Not wanting to
    jeopardize their investigation, the officers did not arrest
    Daniels but let him go.
    4                 Nos. 07-3246, 07-3247, 07-3928 & 08-2269
    After the seizure, Daniels called Rocco, who then called
    Murray. Murray asked Rocco if he had “holler[ed] at
    Olewah [Are]?” Rocco said, “no,” and Murray reassured
    him that there “ain’t nothin’ to, uh, panic about.” Murray
    made some calls and then he, Rocco, and an unidentified
    male met at a McDonald’s. They were later joined by Are.
    Ronald Kimble, a Chicago Police Department (“CPD”) task
    force officer, was posing as a homeless person and over-
    heard some of the conversation between Murray, Rocco,
    Are, and the unidentified male. Kimble heard Murray say
    “they got the shit,” “that that was the cost of doing busi-
    ness,” and “better him than me.” Kimble thought it
    appeared that Are lectured Rocco and the unidentified
    male. Kimble testified that Are was animated and in-
    structed the others on how to evade the police by
    changing meeting locations and erratic driving. According
    to Kimble, Murray appeared disinterested, walking
    away, pacing up and down, and looking out the window.
    Kimble also said that Are’s instructions were directed at
    the other two men.
    Both Murray and Statham pled guilty pursuant to
    written plea agreements to Count One of the indictment,
    which charged them, Are, Daniels, and others with a
    criminal drug conspiracy in violation of 
    21 U.S.C. § 846
    .
    Are and Daniels were tried by a jury. At trial, the govern-
    ment introduced sixty-one recorded calls in its case-in-
    chief. The recorded conversations were between Jerome
    Murray and others including Are, Daniels, Murray Brown,
    Rocco, and Catherine Fauntleroy (Jerome Murray’s wife).
    Following several days of evidence, Are and Daniels
    were convicted as charged. Are was found guilty of three
    Nos. 07-3246, 07-3247, 07-3928 & 08-2269                 5
    counts: the drug conspiracy charged in Count One, distri-
    bution of heroin in violation of 
    21 U.S.C. § 841
    (a)(1),
    and knowingly and intentionally using a telephone to
    facilitate the commission of the drug conspiracy in viola-
    tion of 
    21 U.S.C. § 843
    (b). Daniels was convicted of five
    counts: the drug conspiracy charged in Count One, posses-
    sion with intent to distribute heroin in violation of
    § 841(a)(1), possession of a firearm as a convicted felon
    in violation of 
    18 U.S.C. § 922
    (g)(1), and two counts of
    knowingly and intentionally using a telephone to
    facilitate the commission of the drug conspiracy in viola-
    tion of § 843(b). They filed post-trial motions for judg-
    ment of acquittal or new trial, all of which were unsuc-
    cessful. The district court sentenced all four defendants
    to prison: Are received 96 months, Daniels 180 months,
    Murray 262 months, and Statham 125 months. These
    appeals followed and are consolidated for disposition.
    II. Discussion
    We first address the challenges to the district court’s
    denial of two motions to suppress, followed by Are’s
    claims under Brady and Napue, and then Are’s and
    Daniel’s challenge to the admissibility of expert testimony
    on the meaning of code words. After that we will turn to
    the various sentencing challenges. Additional factual
    background will be provided as necessary along the way.
    A. Daniels’ Motion to Suppress
    Daniels contends that the district court erred in
    denying his motion to suppress both his post-arrest
    6                 Nos. 07-3246, 07-3247, 07-3928 & 08-2269
    statement about the location of a gun and the gun itself.
    We review the district court’s legal conclusions de novo
    and its factual findings for clear error. United States v.
    Marrocco, 
    578 F.3d 627
    , 632 (7th Cir. 2009).
    Background
    On July 19, 2005, FBI agents and two CPD officers went
    to Daniels’ Country Club Hills home at 6:00 A.M . to
    execute a warrant for his arrest. They were aware that
    Daniels was being arrested for a drug conspiracy and
    that he had several prior arrests for drug and weapons
    offenses. FBI Agent Helen Dunn led the arrest team of
    the nine officers and agents. She knocked on Daniels’ door
    and was greeted and allowed to enter by his wife, who
    directed them to the master bedroom. On the way
    there, the team conducted a brief protective sweep of the
    house, finding two young children in another bedroom.
    The children were brought, along with their mother, to
    the dining/living room area. Daniels was handcuffed in
    the bedroom and taken to the living room at about
    6:05 A.M .
    Before he was advised of his Miranda rights, an FBI agent
    asked him whether there were any weapons in the
    house, to which he replied that there was an AK-47 under
    the dresser in the bedroom. A CPD officer and FBI agents
    immediately went to the bedroom to look for the gun, but
    could not locate it under the dresser. An officer went
    back to the living room to report that the AK-47 could not
    be found. Upon hearing that, Daniels snickered and said
    that he must have gotten rid of it. Meanwhile, the officers
    Nos. 07-3246, 07-3247, 07-3928 & 08-2269                  7
    continued to search the bedroom, eventually finding the
    AK-47 assault rifle on the floor in a nearby closet. The
    search ended as soon as the gun was located. At approxi-
    mately 6:10 A.M ., Daniels was placed in an FBI car.
    Daniels moved to suppress his post-arrest statement
    and the AK-47 firearm found in his residence. After
    holding an extended suppression hearing, the district
    court denied the suppression motion. The court con-
    cluded that the search was justified by exigent circum-
    stances, specifically that Daniels’ wife and children were
    present in the house and potentially could have
    retrieved the gun. The court also determined that the gun
    would have been inevitably discovered anyway, based
    on Daniels’ statement. The court allowed the statement
    under the “public safety” exception to Miranda.
    1. Post-Arrest Statement
    Daniels argues that admission of his post-arrest state-
    ment about the location of the gun was in error because
    the public safety exception was inapplicable. Under the
    “public safety” exception to Miranda established in New
    York v. Quarles, 
    467 U.S. 649
     (1984), police officers can
    ask a suspect questions without first giving Miranda
    warnings if they reasonably believe it is “necessary to
    secure their own safety or the safety of the public.” 
    Id. at 659
    . In Quarles, a woman told police she had just been
    raped and she described the suspect and where he was
    going (a supermarket). She also said that he had a gun.
    
    Id. at 651-52
    . The officers pursued the suspect, appre-
    hended him in the supermarket, and discovered he was
    8                 Nos. 07-3246, 07-3247, 07-3928 & 08-2269
    wearing an empty shoulder holster. Before giving the
    suspect his Miranda warnings, the officers asked him
    where the gun was, and he told them it was in the super-
    market. This statement and the gun were excluded
    from evidence under Miranda. 
    Id. at 652-53
    . The Supreme
    Court reversed on the basis of the “public safety” excep-
    tion.
    Here, the district court concluded that this exception
    applied based on the following: (1) the warrant
    established that Daniels had engaged in drug trafficking
    and had a criminal history for drug and weapons offenses;
    (2) the home had not been thoroughly searched, so any
    weapons present could have been hidden anywhere, even
    near the handcuffed Daniels; and (3) police could not
    rule out the possibility that another person was in the
    home. Daniels argues that the “public safety” exception
    should not apply here because he and the house were
    secured at 6 A.M . by nine armed officers who had per-
    formed a protective sweep and had no reasonable
    concern for their safety or for that of anyone else. From a
    broader perspective, Daniels argues that, if the public
    safety exception is applied here, it would render
    Miranda meaningless in the arrest-warrant execution
    context.
    Daniels is right that his case is different in several
    respects from Quarles. First, the officers had no specific
    reason to believe that Daniels had a gun, only that he had
    prior weapons convictions and was involved in drug
    trafficking, which often involves weapons. Second,
    Daniels was found in his home with his family, rather
    Nos. 07-3246, 07-3247, 07-3928 & 08-2269                     9
    than in a public place like a supermarket. Third, a team
    of nine officers were present and had conducted a pro-
    tective sweep. However, as the government points out, a
    sister circuit confronted a similar situation in United
    States v. Williams, 
    181 F.3d 945
     (8th Cir. 1999). In that case,
    the police were executing a search warrant and arrested
    the defendant in the process. They asked the defendant
    if there was “anything we need to be aware of,” and he told
    them about a gun he had. 
    Id. at 953
    . Though Williams
    was handcuffed, the court found the statement admissible
    under the public safety exception, explaining:
    [T]he officers could not have known if any armed
    individuals were present in the apartment or
    preparing to enter the apartment within a short
    period of time. Similarly, the officers could not
    have known whether other hazardous weapons
    were present in the apartment that could cause
    them harm if they happened upon them unex-
    pectedly or mishandled them in some way.
    
    Id. at 953-54
     (footnote omitted). The court also relied on the
    fact that the officers had information that Williams had
    been arrested before on a weapons charge and was
    dealing drugs out of his apartment. The court considered
    a gun one of the “tools of the trade” for drug dealers. 
    Id.
    at 954 n.14.
    Daniels tries to distinguish Williams based on the fact
    that the officers knew Williams had been dealing drugs
    out of his apartment. This distinction is not significant,
    though. The Williams court relied more heavily on the
    general risks posed to officers in the arrest context than
    10                Nos. 07-3246, 07-3247, 07-3928 & 08-2269
    on the specific facts of the case. And the fact that Williams
    was dealing out of his apartment seems less important
    than the fact that he was a drug dealer and guns are
    the tools of the drug trade.
    We, too, have concluded that questioning a suspect
    about whether he has a gun may fall within Quarles’ public
    safety exception. See United States v. Edwards, 
    885 F.2d 377
     (7th Cir. 1989). In Edwards, the defendant was
    handcuffed and searched for weapons and contraband.
    None were found, but then he was asked if he had a gun.
    We decided that it was appropriate for the detective to
    ask the defendant if he had a weapon that might pose
    a threat to the detective or others in the area and upheld
    the admission of the defendant’s statements. 
    Id. at 384
    . We
    relied on the fact that drug dealers are known to arm
    themselves, especially when dealing drugs, in order to
    protect themselves, their drugs, and cash. 
    Id.
    The FBI agent’s question to Daniels about the presence
    of a weapon in the house falls within the “public safety”
    exception to Miranda. The question seemed “reasonably
    prompted by a concern for the public safety.” Quarles,
    
    467 U.S. at 656
    . Though Daniels was cuffed and the
    officers and agents had conducted a brief protective
    sweep, they knew that Daniels was a drug dealer who
    was being arrested for drug conspiracy charges. They
    also knew that he had several prior drug and weapons
    offenses. But they did not know the location of any
    weapon that he may have had in the house. A weapon
    might have been hidden near the place where the
    officers placed Daniels before taking him outside and
    Nos. 07-3246, 07-3247, 07-3928 & 08-2269                   11
    thus would have been within his reach. Or it could have
    been in an easily accessible location for Daniels to lunge
    for on his way out the door. Therefore, it was reasonable
    for the officers and agents to believe that Daniels might
    have a gun on the premises and to ask him whether he
    had any weapons in the house.
    Furthermore, the presence of Daniels’ wife and children
    bolsters the conclusion that the question about a
    weapon falls within the public safety exception. The wife
    and children would be free to roam the house as the
    officers were leaving. Any one or all of them may have
    known the gun’s location. It is conceivable that one of
    them could have retrieved the gun and attempted to use
    it against the officers and agents as they took Daniels
    away. And even when a quick protective search of a
    residence is conducted, the potential presence of an
    undiscovered but dangerous individual with access to a
    weapon cannot be discounted. The district court did not
    err in denying Daniels’ motion to suppress his state-
    ment about the location of the weapon.
    2. The Gun
    Daniels also challenges the admission of the gun
    which the court concluded was justified on the grounds of
    exigent circumstances and inevitable discovery. Daniels
    asserts that several sister circuits apply the inevitable
    discovery doctrine only when “the prosecution [can] show
    that the lawful means which made discovery inevitable
    were being actively pursued prior to the occurrence of the
    illegal conduct.” United States v. Virden, 
    488 F.3d 1317
    , 1322
    12                 Nos. 07-3246, 07-3247, 07-3928 & 08-2269
    (11th Cir. 2007) (quotation omitted, emphasis in origi-
    nal); see also United States v. Conner, 
    127 F.3d 663
    , 667 (8th
    Cir. 1997). The rationale is that any other rule would
    “eviscerate the exclusionary rule, because in most illegal
    search situations the government could have obtained a
    valid search warrant had they waited or obtained the
    evidence through some lawful means had they taken
    another course of action.” Virden, 
    488 F.3d at 1322-23
    .
    We explicitly rejected this approach in United States v.
    Tejada, 
    524 F.3d 809
     (7th Cir. 2008). Tejada discussed
    Virden and Conner and held that their rule would confer a
    windfall on defendants because courts would have to
    suppress evidence merely because police were not
    seeking a warrant, even if a warrant would certainly
    have been issued. 
    Id. at 812-13
    ; see also Marrocco, 
    578 F.3d at
    640 n.21. In this sense, Tejada took a “harmless error”
    approach to inevitable discovery. The doctrine applies if
    the government proves that “a warrant would certainly,
    and not merely probably, have been issued had it been
    applied for.” Tejada, 
    524 F.3d at 813
    ; see also United States
    v. Sims, 
    553 F.3d 580
    , 584 (7th Cir. 2009) (taking a nearly
    identical approach in the context of the particularity
    requirement for warrants).
    The district court correctly held that the gun was ad-
    missible under the inevitable discovery doctrine. The
    officers had a statement from Daniels, who was being
    arrested on drug charges, that an AK-47 assault rifle
    was located in his home. Daniels’ statement constituted
    probable cause to search the bedroom for the firearm.
    Given his statement, it is reasonable to conclude that the
    Nos. 07-3246, 07-3247, 07-3928 & 08-2269                 13
    officers would have sought a warrant to search the bed-
    room and, once they had, it is virtually certain that a
    warrant would have been issued. Daniels argues that the
    inevitable discovery doctrine cannot be based on an
    illegally obtained statement. However, as discussed above,
    Daniels’ statement was not illegally obtained, so this
    argument fails. The officers inevitably would have dis-
    covered the gun by lawful means; therefore, the gun
    was admissible.
    B. Statham’s Motion to Suppress
    Statham contends that the district court erred in
    denying his motion to suppress evidence (two guns and
    approximately $21,000) found during a July 19, 2005,
    search of his home. Following a suppression hearing, the
    court found that Statham’s fiancée gave her voluntary
    consent to the search of the house (the house was hers)
    and that Statham gave his voluntary consent to the
    search of the safe where the evidence was found and,
    therefore, denied the motion.
    The government responds that Statham’s plea agree-
    ment did not reserve the right to appeal the suppression
    ruling and, thus, he has waived any right to appeal this
    issue. Indeed, Statham’s plea agreement expressly pro-
    vides: “Defendant further understands he is waiving all
    appellate issues that might have been available if he had
    exercised his right to trial, and only may appeal the
    validity of this plea of guilty.”
    Statham replies that we should reach the merits
    because they have been briefed, citing the dissent in United
    14                 Nos. 07-3246, 07-3247, 07-3928 & 08-2269
    States v. Schmidt, 
    47 F.3d 188
    , 192 (7th Cir. 1995) (Ripple, J.,
    dissenting). However, in Schmidt the government did not
    assert the appeal waiver but instead fully addressed the
    merits. 
    Id.
     Here, in contrast, from the outset, the govern-
    ment has asserted Statham’s waiver of appellate rights;
    it argued the merits only in the alternative. “It is well
    established that an unconditional plea of guilty operates
    as a waiver of all formal defects in the proceedings,
    including any constitutional violations that occurred
    before the plea was entered.” Gomez v. Berge, 
    434 F.3d 940
    ,
    942 (7th Cir. 2006). Statham’s guilty plea expressly waived
    his right to appeal all issues other than the validity of his
    plea, which he does not challenge on appeal. Statham’s
    waiver encompassed the denial of his suppression mo-
    tion. So we decline to review that ruling. (The court’s
    findings that voluntary consent was given to search the
    house and safe were not clearly erroneous, so reaching
    the merits would not have provided Statham any relief.)
    C. Are’s Brady and Napue Challenges
    Are contends that the district court erred in denying his
    motion for a new trial because the government failed to
    correct a government witness’s testimony in violation of
    Napue v. Illinois, 
    360 U.S. 264
     (1959), and failed to disclose
    exculpatory information to him in violation of Brady v.
    Maryland, 
    373 U.S. 83
     (1963). The government responds
    that it neither presented false testimony nor withheld
    material exculpatory information. “The decision whether
    to grant the parties a new trial is one committed to the
    district court’s discretion, and our review of that decision
    Nos. 07-3246, 07-3247, 07-3928 & 08-2269                      15
    is deferential.” United States v. Jackson, 
    546 F.3d 801
    , 812
    (7th Cir. 2008) (citation omitted), cert. denied, 
    129 S. Ct. 2010
    (2009).
    Background
    At trial, Are argued that he was involved with Murray
    in connection with his music business and offered the
    testimony of his wife, Tenielle, as support. Are maintains
    that Tenielle’s credibility was critical to his defense.
    On July 19, 2005, law enforcement conducted a search
    of Are’s home and arrested him. At trial, CPD Officer
    Colello (the team leader for the search of Are’s house)
    testified that Are’s wife (Tenielle) was not pulled over
    in her car after she left the Are home on the day of the
    search—at least not that he knew of. In her testimony on
    behalf of Are, however, Tenielle disputed that testimony
    and explained the details of the stop and search of her
    vehicle. In cross-examining Tenielle, the prosecutor
    implied that she was skeptical of Tenielle’s testimony.
    During a trial break following Tenielle’s testimony, the
    government received some information that an officer
    knowledgeable about “traps” (compartments concealed
    in automobiles for the storage of drugs/cash) had been
    called and searched Tenielle’s car. The government did not
    disclose that information at that time, but proceeded with
    final argument during which the prosecutor repeatedly
    asserted that the police officer witnesses were credible.
    The Assistant United States Attorney (“AUSA”) also
    stated that “Officer Colello told you that he didn’t know
    16                Nos. 07-3246, 07-3247, 07-3928 & 08-2269
    anything about the search of the car. He had left. He
    was with Defendant Are. Maybe the car was searched.
    I don’t know.”
    Six days after the defendants were convicted, govern-
    ment counsel interviewed CPD Sergeant Fred Waller,
    who indicated that he had called for a search of Tenielle’s
    vehicle and that a “trap” expert had been called for that
    purpose. The day of Waller’s interview, the AUSA sent
    defense counsel a letter, summarizing the discussion
    with the agent on the trial break and the interview of
    Waller. Are moved for a new trial, asserting Napue and
    Brady violations.
    1.   The Failure to Correct a Government Witness’s
    Testimony
    Are argues that the government failed to correct Officer
    Colello’s testimony that Tenielle’s car was not searched.
    He also argues that the AUSA perpetuated Colello’s false
    testimony in closing argument by stating “I don’t know” if
    Tenielle’s car was searched. “[A] conviction obtained
    through use of false evidence, known to be such by repre-
    sentatives of the State, must fall under the Fourteenth
    Amendment.” Napue, 
    360 U.S. at 269
    . “Napue stands for
    the proposition that prosecutors may not suborn per-
    jury.” United States v. Holt, 
    486 F.3d 997
    , 1003 (7th Cir.
    2007). Napue extends to false testimony that goes to the
    credibility of a witness. Napue, 
    360 U.S. at 269
    .
    The parties dispute the correct standard by which we
    determine whether testimony or withheld information
    was material for purposes of Napue and Brady. Both
    Nos. 07-3246, 07-3247, 07-3928 & 08-2269                   17
    materiality standards are well-defined. In the Brady
    context, “[e]vidence is material if there is a ‘reasonable
    probability that, had the evidence been disclosed to the
    defense, the result of the proceeding would have been
    different.’ ” United States v. Palivos, 
    486 F.3d 250
    , 255 (7th
    Cir. 2007) (quoting United States v. Bagley, 
    473 U.S. 667
    , 682
    (1985)). Under Napue, “when the prosecutor knowingly
    relies on false testimony, the conviction must be set aside
    ‘if there is any reasonable likelihood that the false testi-
    mony could have affected the judgment of the jury.’ ” Braun
    v. Powell, 
    227 F.3d 908
    , 920 (7th Cir. 2000) (quoting United
    States v. Agurs, 
    427 U.S. 97
    , 103 (1976)). In Mataya v.
    Kingston, 
    371 F.3d 353
     (7th Cir. 2004), we noted that “the
    standard is the same” where the Napue violation “was not
    distinct from the Brady violation in any realistic sense.” 
    Id. at 358-59
    . Are argues that the Napue standard applies,
    whereas the government submits that the Brady standard
    applies in cases like this where the alleged Napue viola-
    tion grows out of the alleged Brady violation. We
    need not resolve this dispute because even under the
    standard more favorable to the defendant, Are has not
    shown either a Napue or Brady violation.
    The prosecutor did not knowingly rely on false testi-
    mony from Officer Colello. Colello testified that he
    was not “aware” and did not “know of” officers searching
    Tenielle’s car. Neither the mid-trial information received
    by the government nor the post-trial interview revealed
    that Colello was present for that search or was otherwise
    aware of it. The government had no reason to believe that
    Colello was not telling the truth. Napue does not require
    the government to recall Colello in its rebuttal case to
    18                Nos. 07-3246, 07-3247, 07-3928 & 08-2269
    clear up any possible confusion when the witness’s testi-
    mony was not perjurous. See Holt, 
    486 F.3d at 1003
     (“Napue
    stands for the proposition that prosecutors may not
    suborn perjury, not that prosecutors must present
    evidence exculpatory to a defendant in their case-in-
    chief.”).
    Nor did the government knowingly rely on false state-
    ments in the AUSA’s closing arguments. The prosecutor’s
    statements were far from material even under the Napue
    standard. The government had conflicting stories. The
    remark, “Maybe the car was searched. I don’t know,”
    seems to reflect this uncertainty. Admittedly, the better
    course for the AUSA would have been to avoid com-
    menting on Tenielle’s testimony about the car search. But
    any impropriety in doing so did not, “in light of the record
    as a whole . . . deprive[ ] the defendant of a fair trial.”
    United States v. Morris, 
    498 F.3d 634
    , 640 (7th Cir. 2007)
    (quotation omitted), cert. denied, 
    128 S. Ct. 2502
     (2008).
    Are argues that Tenielle’s testimony about him being
    involved in the music business was central to his defense.
    He asserts that the jury would find Tenielle incredible
    based on the difference between her testimony and
    Colello’s. According to Are, this “[u]nfair blemish on
    Tenielle’s veracity likely contaminated all aspect of her
    testimony and the defense case in general.” But the
    AUSA’s remark during closing only slightly disparaged
    Tenielle’s testimony. And more importantly, the car
    search was an entirely collateral matter and had nothing
    to do with Tenielle’s testimony about Are’s music busi-
    ness. Furthermore, the government’s case against Are was
    Nos. 07-3246, 07-3247, 07-3928 & 08-2269                 19
    substantial. There is no reasonable likelihood that
    the prosecutor’s comment, “I don’t know,” could have
    affected the jury’s judgment.
    2. The Failure to Disclose Exculpatory Information
    Are also argues that the government’s failure to
    disclose what it learned mid-trial about the car search
    violated Brady. “For a Brady violation to exist, entitling a
    defendant to a new trial, he must establish (1) that the
    prosecution suppressed evidence; (2) that the evidence
    was favorable to the defendant; and (3) that it is material
    to an issue at trial.” Palivos, 486 F.3d at 255. As the gov-
    ernment responds, however, Are already knew that
    Tenielle’s car was searched—she testified that it was—and
    therefore this evidence was not “suppressed.” See United
    States v. O’Hara, 
    301 F.3d 563
    , 569 (7th Cir. 2002)
    (“[E]vidence for Brady purposes is deemed ‘suppressed’
    if (1) the prosecution failed to disclose the evidence
    before it was too late for the defendant to make use of the
    evidence, and (2) the evidence was not otherwise
    available to the defendant through the exercise of rea-
    sonable diligence.”). At a minimum, the evidence of the
    car search was available to Are through the exercise of
    due diligence. Tenielle, his wife, certainly knew of the
    search, and the government didn’t prevent her from
    telling Are about it. Yet, giving Are the benefit of the
    doubt, perhaps he didn’t know about the other officers
    who were involved in the search and who could have
    testified that nothing was found. (We say “perhaps”
    because Tenielle would have known of the other officers’
    20                Nos. 07-3246, 07-3247, 07-3928 & 08-2269
    involvement, and it seems that a simple investigation
    by Are would have uncovered this information.)
    Nonetheless, there was no Brady violation because the
    evidence was not material. As stated, the car search was a
    collateral matter. The absence of drugs in Tenielle’s car
    does not negate proof that Are was a drug dealer. Instead,
    it just proves that drugs were not found in her car, and
    that has no relevance to the case against Are. (The gov-
    ernment’s evidence did not implicate either Tenielle or
    her vehicle in the drug conspiracy.) Moreover, the
    evidence would be largely cumulative of Tenielle’s testi-
    mony that her car was searched but nothing was found.
    Are asserts that he could have called the searching
    officers as witnesses to rebut Colello’s testimony and
    bolster Tenielle’s. But Colello testified that he wasn’t
    “aware” of whether a car search occurred or not. So unless
    another officer could testify that Colello was there, the
    other officer could not contradict Colello. And, as dis-
    cussed above, any attack on Tenielle’s credibility was
    slight and invited by the defense’s questioning of Colello.
    We perceive no reasonable probability that additional
    evidence about the car search would have led to a dif-
    ferent outcome for Are.
    D. Are’s & Daniels’ Objections to the Admission of
    Expert Testimony
    Are and Daniels contend that the district court abused its
    discretion in admitting expert testimony by police officer
    Robert Coleman on the meaning of code words in
    Nos. 07-3246, 07-3247, 07-3928 & 08-2269                  21
    recorded conversations. The government had a wiretap
    on Murray’s cell phone and captured over 20,000 calls.
    Sixty-one of them were played at trial. Officer Coleman
    opined that 50 grams of heroin was a distribution
    amount and that coded language (25/50/100 dollars) was
    used in the recorded conversations to refer to a trans-
    action of a quantity (grams) of drugs.
    Are and Daniels contend that the admission of this
    testimony violated Federal Rule of Evidence 704(b), which
    prohibits expert witnesses from opining (or stating an
    inference) that the defendant did (or did not) have the
    mental state constituting an element of the crime charged.
    The focus of this argument is on the telephone counts,
    which require proof that a defendant “knowingly and
    intentionally” used a telephone to facilitate a drug of-
    fense. But they also advance this argument with respect to
    the other counts of conviction.
    The government claims that Are and Daniels only
    challenged Coleman’s testimony on the basis of relevance
    and lack of personal knowledge and never objected
    before or during trial to the use of expert testimony to
    interpret “code words” on the ground that such testi-
    mony would invade the province of the jury. Thus, it
    argues, they have waived or at least forfeited the issue.
    The defendants assert that they did object to Officer
    Coleman’s testimony on the ground that it invaded the
    province of the jury.
    We generally review the district court’s admission of
    expert testimony for an abuse of discretion. United States v.
    Pansier, 
    576 F.3d 726
    , 738 (7th Cir. 2009). But if the defen-
    22                 Nos. 07-3246, 07-3247, 07-3928 & 08-2269
    dants forfeited this argument, we would review for
    plain error. United States v. Canady, 
    578 F.3d 665
    , 669 (7th
    Cir. 2009). And if they waived the issue, we could not
    review it at all. 
    Id.
    Rule 704(b) states:
    No expert witness testifying with respect to the
    mental state or condition of a defendant in a
    criminal case may state an opinion or inference
    as to whether the defendant did or did not have
    the mental state or condition constituting an
    element of the crime charged or of a defense
    thereto. Such ultimate issues are matters for the
    trier of fact alone.
    Fed. R. Evid. 704(b). The trial transcript shows that
    defense counsel objected based on “testifying as to the
    ultimate issue in this case” and that Officer Coleman
    would be “invading the province of the jury.” We can
    conclude that the defendants did not waive the issue,
    but whether this objection was sufficient to avoid
    forfeiture is a more difficult call. Counsel did not specifi-
    cally mention the words “mental state,” but use of the
    words “ultimate issue” signifies a Rule 704(b) objection.
    Still, it appears that the Rule 704(b) objection related to
    the conduct that would be sufficient to prove “trafficking”
    and not the phone charge. Defense counsel said: “It’s a
    little different when you take a call that you introduced
    in this case and testify that that specific call related to a
    defendant. You’re basically saying this defendant is
    guilty of trafficking, Judge. When you do that, that’s the
    ultimate issue.” At no time during the sidebar about
    Nos. 07-3246, 07-3247, 07-3928 & 08-2269                    23
    Coleman’s expert testimony did defense counsel object on
    the basis that Coleman’s testimony went to the ultimate
    issue on the phone charge. Under a strict sense of “forfei-
    ture,” the district court probably did not have an op-
    portunity to consider whether Coleman’s testimony
    invaded the jury’s decisionmaking as to “knowingly”
    using a phone. The colloquy was mostly about Coleman
    testifying to the ultimate issue, irrespective of the charge,
    and the court seemed to overrule the objection on a
    general basis, not on the basis of the specific charge. In
    the end, however, we need not resolve whether the defen-
    dants forfeited this issue, because under either standard
    of review, we find no error here.
    This circuit has routinely upheld the admission of expert
    testimony from law enforcement purporting to translate
    “code words” used by conspirators during intercepted
    phone calls. E.g., United States v. Goodwin, 
    496 F.3d 636
    , 641-
    42 (7th Cir. 2007). And we have held, generally, that
    Rule 704(b) applies to the expert testimony of law en-
    forcement officers. E.g., United States v. Morris, 
    576 F.3d 661
    , 674 (7th Cir. 2009). However, we have not analyzed
    testimony about “code words” in terms of Rule 704(b).
    Other circuits have confronted this issue and have
    allowed law enforcement experts to translate code words
    in the narcotics context. E.g., United States v. Dukagjini,
    
    326 F.3d 45
    , 53 (2d Cir. 2003) (“[W]e conclude that the
    district court did not err by allowing [the officer] to
    testify that code words referred to specific drugs.”); United
    States v. Watson, 
    260 F.3d 301
    , 308 (3d Cir. 2001) (same).
    The appellants rely heavily on the Ninth Circuit’s
    approach to Rule 704(b) issues in expert law enforcement
    24                 Nos. 07-3246, 07-3247, 07-3928 & 08-2269
    testimony. See United States v. Morales, 
    108 F.3d 1031
    , 1037
    (9th Cir. 1997) (holding that Rule 704(b) prohibits “testi-
    mony from which it necessarily follows, if the testimony is
    credited, that the defendant did or did not possess the
    requisite mens rea”) (emphasis added). But we have taken
    a different approach.
    In United States v. Lipscomb, 
    14 F.3d 1236
     (7th Cir. 1994),
    we observed:
    Decisions applying Rule 704(b) to the expert
    testimony of law enforcement officials have found
    it significant whether the expert actually referred
    to the intent of the defendant or, instead, simply
    described in general terms the common practices
    of those who clearly do possess the requisite
    intent, leaving unstated the inference that the
    defendant, having been caught engaging in more
    or less the same practices, also possessed the
    requisite intent.
    
    Id. at 1239
    ; see also Morris, 
    576 F.3d at 674
    . Then, reviewing
    the text and legislative history of Rule 704, we concluded
    that Rule 704(b) only prohibits expert testimony that
    is based on an analysis of the defendant’s mental
    processes, only a “slight” limitation on expert testimony.
    Lipscomb, 
    14 F.3d at 1241-42
    . Still, we recognized the
    dangers that “modus operandi” testimony carries. To
    reconcile our view of Rule 704 with those concerns, we
    concluded:
    [W]hen a law enforcement official states an
    opinion about the criminal nature of a defendant’s
    activities, such testimony should not be excluded
    Nos. 07-3246, 07-3247, 07-3928 & 08-2269                   25
    under Rule 704(b) as long as it is made clear, either
    by the court expressly or in the nature of the
    examination, that the opinion is based on the
    expert’s knowledge of common criminal practices,
    and not on some special knowledge of the defen-
    dant’s mental processes.
    
    Id. at 1242
     (citation omitted). We affirmed the district
    court’s decision to allow the expert testimony because
    the officers testified that their opinions were based on
    their knowledge of “common practices in the drug
    trade” and not on “some special familiarity with the
    workings of Lipscomb’s mind.” 
    Id. at 1243
    ; see also
    Morris, 
    576 F.3d at 675
     (upholding admission of police
    sergeant’s testimony about common practices of street-
    level narcotics sales where he testified only as an expert,
    never alluded to his impressions or recollections from
    the search, never referred to defendant specifically, and
    never expressed an opinion about defendant’s actual
    state of mind).
    The admission of Officer Coleman’s testimony about
    “coded language” did not violate Rule 704(b). Coleman
    testified based on his experience and training in wiretap
    and drug trafficking investigations, which he outlined
    extensively for the jury. He testified that he was familiar
    with the language and words that “drug dealers” use. He
    also stated that he had not interviewed any witness in
    relation to the case on trial, had not reviewed any docu-
    ments in connection with the case, other than some tran-
    scripts, and had no knowledge of the facts of the case
    or the allegations against the defendants. Ironically,
    26                Nos. 07-3246, 07-3247, 07-3928 & 08-2269
    defense counsel objected to Officer Coleman testifying
    as an expert on the basis that he had no knowledge
    about the particular case other than the transcripts that
    he had reviewed. Thus, it is apparent that Coleman
    testified as an expert on the basis of his knowledge of
    drug dealers’ use of coded language generally and not on
    some special knowledge of the defendants’ mental pro-
    cesses or mental states. In effect, Officer Coleman
    testified about the coded language, or “druggish,” much
    like another expert would translate a foreign language.
    Had the recorded conversations been conducted in
    Spanish instead of a drug code and had Officer Coleman
    testified as to the English translation of the Spanish
    words, we doubt the defendants would have objected, at
    least not on the basis of testifying as to an ultimate issue
    or invading the province of the jury. Moreover, Coleman
    never testified about what the defendants “intended”
    and he gave no opinion as to their mental states.
    We acknowledge that this case is somewhat different
    from ordinary drug cases because of the telephone
    charges. Are and Daniels argue that, once the jury
    credited Officer Coleman’s testimony, no inference was
    necessary to find that they possessed the requisite
    intent—one cannot utter drug code into a telephone
    without knowingly using the phone to conduct drug
    transactions. They cite United States v. Badger, 
    983 F.2d 1443
    , 1452 (7th Cir. 1993), which rejected a sufficiency of
    the evidence challenge on a “phone charge” conviction
    because the jury was free to conclude that the
    defendants were not “playing games” but were talking
    Nos. 07-3246, 07-3247, 07-3928 & 08-2269                   27
    about drug deals. In Badger, the defendants acknowledged
    that they were discussing drug deals on the telephone.
    But here, Are and Daniels do not concede that they were
    using coded language to discuss drug transactions over
    the telephone, which makes this case quite different. If
    the jury credited Officer Coleman’s expert testimony
    about drug dealers’ use of coded language (which it
    did), it does not necessarily follow that Are and Daniels
    knowingly used a telephone to facilitate drug deals. This
    is because the jury would still have to evaluate the
    coded terms in the context of the entire conversation to
    determine whether, as a whole, the conversation was
    intended to further a drug transaction. Clarifying the
    coded terms did not tell the jury that Are and Daniels
    possessed the requisite mental state. Perhaps they were
    just “playing games” instead of discussing real drug
    transactions. Significantly, Officer Coleman never
    opined as to Are’s or Daniels’ intent or knowledge.
    As the government argued, Officer Coleman’s testimony
    must be viewed in the context of the charges and jury
    instructions. The indictment charged the telephone
    counts in relevant part as follows:
    [Are or Daniels] . . . knowingly and intentionally
    used and caused to be used a communication
    facility, namely, a telephone, in committing and in
    causing and facilitating the commission of a felony
    in violation of Title 21, United States Code, Section
    846, namely, conspiring to distribute and possess
    with intent to distribute controlled substances,
    as charged in Count One of this Indictment[.]
    28                 Nos. 07-3246, 07-3247, 07-3928 & 08-2269
    (emphasis added). The district court instructed the jury
    that to convict Are and Daniels of the telephone counts,
    the government had to prove beyond a reasonable doubt
    that:
    First, the particular defendant you are considering
    used a telephone; second, that the use of the tele-
    phone was accomplished as part of the committing
    of or to cause or facilitate the committing of con-
    spiracy to possess with intent to distribute and to
    distribute a controlled substance, as charged in
    Count 1 of the indictment; and, third, that such use
    of a telephone was knowing or intentional.
    (emphasis added). The court also instructed the jury that
    they should judge the opinions of witnesses about
    matters requiring special knowledge or skill “in the same
    way you judge the testimony of any other witness” and
    “[t]he fact that such a person has given an opinion
    does not mean that you are required to accept it.” The jury
    was told that such testimony should be given as much
    weight as they thought it deserved. Thus, the jury was
    appropriately instructed on how to evaluate Officer
    Coleman’s expert testimony about the coded language.
    Moreover, proof that a defendant knowingly used a
    telephone to facilitate a drug deal was not sufficient to
    sustain a conviction under the telephone counts. Instead,
    the government had to prove that the defendant’s use of
    the telephone was part of the commission of, or causing or
    facilitating the commission of, the specific conspiracy
    alleged in Count One. See United States v. Briscoe, 
    896 F.2d 1476
    , 1510 n.28 (7th Cir. 1990) (noting that where the
    Nos. 07-3246, 07-3247, 07-3928 & 08-2269                29
    indictment alleged that the telephone calls facilitated the
    substantive offenses and the conspiracy to commit
    those offenses, it was sufficient to prove that the calls
    facilitated either the substantive offenses or the conspir-
    acy). And the government also had to prove that in using
    the telephone, the defendant knowingly or intentionally
    committed, or caused or facilitated the commission of the
    conspiracy charged in Count One. See United States v.
    Rodgers, 
    755 F.2d 533
    , 542-43 (7th Cir. 1985). Officer
    Coleman did not testify that Are or Daniels did, or
    did not, knowingly or intentionally use the telephone to
    commit or cause or facilitate the commission of the drug
    conspiracy alleged in Count One. If the indictment
    had not charged the conspiracy as a separate count but
    alleged that the defendants used a telephone to facilitate
    a drug conspiracy, the government still would have had
    to prove that the defendants knowingly or intentionally
    used a phone to facilitate the conspiracy. It would not
    be enough merely to prove that they used a phone to
    facilitate a drug deal. Though Coleman’s testimony is
    strong circumstantial evidence of the mens rea required
    for the telephone charges, even more so than for the drug
    charges, its admission did not violate Rule 704(b).
    E. Sentencing Issues
    Each appellant except Daniels raises sentencing chal-
    lenges. We review the district court’s legal interpretation
    of the Guidelines de novo, United States v. Abbas, 
    560 F.3d 660
    , 662 (7th Cir. 2009), and review its findings
    regarding a defendant’s role in the offense and drug
    30                 Nos. 07-3246, 07-3247, 07-3928 & 08-2269
    quantity for clear error, United States v. Fox, 
    548 F.3d 523
    ,
    528 (7th Cir. 2008). The district court’s factual findings
    at sentencing must be based on a preponderance of the
    evidence. See United States v. Goodwin, 
    496 F.3d 636
    , 643 (7th
    Cir. 2007). And “we will affirm the district court unless,
    after considering all of the evidence, we are left with a
    definite and firm conviction that a mistake has been
    committed.” United States v. Rollins, 
    544 F.3d 820
    , 838
    (7th Cir. 2008) (quotation omitted).
    1. Are
    We begin with Are, who challenges the district court’s
    finding that he was responsible for more than 100 grams
    (but less than 400 grams) of heroin and that he was a
    manager or supervisor. These findings resulted in a
    base offense level of 26, see U.S.S.G. § 2D1.1(a)(3), (c)(7)
    (2006), and a three-level enhancement under U.S.S.G.
    § 3B1.1(b).
    Background
    Between December 13 and 23, 2004, Jerome “Head”
    Murray had phone conversations with Are and a Murray
    Brown (to avoid confusion in this section, Jerome Murray
    will be referred to by his nickname “Head” and Murray
    Brown will be referred to as “Brown”). These conversations
    were recorded and culminated in a meeting between
    Are and Head on the 23rd. On the 13th, Head was
    talking to Brown and referred to “my guy” “that’s in
    Nigeria” (Are is Nigerian) and said that he (Head) had to
    Nos. 07-3246, 07-3247, 07-3928 & 08-2269                   31
    “come up with $10” and that “he [presumably Are] already
    came up with his money.” Brown asked Head, “So he
    gonna have the whole security thing down pat then, huh?”
    Head responded, “Oh no he don’t, you know . . . we
    got, uhm, start off, uhm, half of uhm, tryin’ to, . . . you
    know got everything right, right, you know.” Brown
    asked Head, “When is this gonna start?” Head answered,
    “as soon as I . . . come up with, uh, uhm . . .” at which
    point Brown interjected, “The 10.” Head replied, “Yeah,
    yeah. So I only need but 3 more now.”
    In the next week, Head and Are engaged in several
    recorded conversations. Head advised Are that he (Head)
    was “waiting on his man” who “just sold his Vette” and
    would give Head a “30 piece,” and then said that his
    man “was gonna give me 5” “and I got 5.” Head later
    told Are that he “might just gonna have to go to the bank
    to get, uh, five more dollars out” and that he was “waitin’
    on this [person] to get me, . . . five, that owe me.” Head
    said that “somebody was tryin’ to hit me . . . at my bank”
    and he thought he “might have to change my bank thang.”
    Head explained it was “the TCF shit . . . but they straight-
    ened it out. That’s why I had to wait. . . . I don’t need but
    four more dollars now.” Head again told Are that “I got to
    get some, I got to get some money. See once I get down
    there, I’m straight.” Head referred to “a little, uh, project
    we got goin’ ” and said that “I need like two more dollars
    and I’m cool . . . I’m talkin’ about 200 to go to this thing.”
    Head went to Atlanta between December 19 and 22.
    On December 23, Head and Are arranged to meet. Law
    enforcement officers observed Head leave an apartment,
    32                Nos. 07-3246, 07-3247, 07-3928 & 08-2269
    meet for less than a minute in Are’s Mazda, and then
    return to the apartment. The officers followed
    Are, who engaged in counter-surveillance, including
    speeding, several U-turns, as well as pulling into a strip
    mall, waiting, and then driving away in the opposite
    direction. Are successfully eluded an effort by the
    police to stop him. About a month later, the Daniels-Are
    49.6-gram transaction took place. In his plea agreement,
    Head admitted that on January 26, 2005, he supplied
    Daniels with 50 grams of heroin.
    The Presentence Investigation Report (“PSR”) and the
    district court concluded that the December 23rd meeting
    between Head and Are was related to a drug deal
    between them involving 125 grams of heroin. This was
    based on the December conversations, which were inter-
    preted as referring to a $20,000 deal—the equivalent of 125
    grams of heroin. At sentencing, Are argued that the
    conversations about money referred to his and Head’s
    business relationship in connection with Are’s recording
    studio. The district court rejected that assertion and
    concluded that the conversations referred to a drug deal.
    The court based this finding on the wiretap con-
    versations in the case, the way Are interacted with
    Head and others, the use of coded language, the officers’
    subsequent observations of Are’s and Head’s meeting,
    including Are’s concerted efforts to elude the police after
    the meeting had occurred, and the familiarity between
    Head and Are, which the court found indicated that they
    had been doing such deals for a long time. Responsibility
    for at least 100 grams but less than 400 grams of heroin
    Nos. 07-3246, 07-3247, 07-3928 & 08-2269                33
    resulted in a base offense level of 26, see U.S.S.G.
    § 2D1.1(a)(3), (c)(7) (2006).
    With respect to the leadership enhancement in § 3B1.1(b),
    the court relied on a January 2005 recorded conver-
    sation related to the January 26 deal in which Are
    directed Head to call Rocco. The court relied further on
    what appeared to be a lecture that Are gave Rocco and
    another individual at the McDonald’s on the night of the
    heroin seizure about “how they screwed up and how
    they better do things in the future to keep from getting
    caught.” Are was also overheard lecturing Rocco and the
    other individual on the use of evasive driving tactics to
    determine if they were being followed and frequently
    changing meeting locations. The district court inferred
    that a person who would lecture other participants in a
    drug conspiracy on how they were supposed to conduct
    their business could only be someone in a managerial
    position. The court reasoned that such a person super-
    vised the others’ activities—instructing them not only
    on what they should do, but how they should go about
    doing it. Therefore, the court determined that Are was a
    manager or supervisor of the criminal activity (no one
    disputed that the conspiracy involved five or more
    people), and applied the three-level enhancement under
    § 3B1.1(b).
    a. Drug Quantity
    For purposes of sentencing, because Are was
    convicted of the criminal drug conspiracy charged in
    34                  Nos. 07-3246, 07-3247, 07-3928 & 08-2269
    Count One, he is responsible not just for his own acts but
    also for the acts of his coconspirators “that were both
    made in furtherance of the conspiracy and [reasonably]
    foreseeable to [him].” United States v. Dean, 
    574 F.3d 836
    ,
    844-45 (7th Cir. 2009) (citation omitted); see also United
    States v. Goodwin, 
    496 F.3d 636
    , 642 (7th Cir. 2007). An
    application note to § 2D1.1 provides:
    Where there is no drug seizure or the amount
    seized does not reflect the scale of the offense, the
    court shall approximate the quantity of the con-
    trolled substance. In making this determination,
    the court may consider, for example, the price
    generally obtained for the controlled substance, . . .
    [and] similar transactions in controlled sub-
    stances by the defendant . . . .
    U.S.S.G. § 2D1.1 cmt. n.12; see United States v. Bautista, 
    532 F.3d 667
    , 672 (7th Cir.), cert. denied, 
    129 S. Ct. 773
     (2008).
    The record supports the finding that Are was involved
    in drug deals in December 2004 and on January 26, 2005.
    We do not believe that the district court erred in
    finding that the December coded conversations were
    about a drug transaction. In addition to those recorded
    calls, the evidence established that Are was Jerome
    Murray’s heroin supplier and there was a January 2005
    heroin transaction involving Are and Murray. Also,
    Murray’s quick meeting with Are on December 23, typical
    of a drug transaction, and Are’s subsequent evasive
    driving both suggest that the conversations were about
    drug dealing, and involved a transaction on December 23.
    Nos. 07-3246, 07-3247, 07-3928 & 08-2269                  35
    Nor do we believe that the district court clearly erred
    in finding the quantity of heroin from the dollar amounts
    discussed or in finding the value to be $20,000. Because
    no drugs were actually seized from the December 2004
    transaction, the district court properly extrapolated the
    drug quantity from the alleged price of $20,000. See
    U.S.S.G. § 2D1.1 cmt. n.12. The court could reasonably
    infer that when Murray talked about coming up with
    “half” of the purchase price, which he described as “10” or
    “$10,” that he was referring to $10,000. And this rea-
    sonably suggested that the total purchase price was
    $20,000, which was the cost of 125 kilograms of heroin.
    Such an inference may at first seem inconsistent with
    Officer Coleman’s testimony about the meaning of the
    coded language (dollar amounts meant grams of heroin).
    But a closer look reveals that it is not. Tellingly, although
    Are argued that the December 2004 telephone calls
    were about his recording business rather than drugs, he
    did not dispute that in those conversations the
    numbers referred to money.
    In addition, the context of the telephone calls rea-
    sonably suggests that the numbers and dollar amounts
    were references to money (in terms of thousands of
    dollars). Jerome Murray talked about needing to “come up
    with the $10” to execute a transaction with the “guy
    in Nigeria.” This transaction seems to have been in
    the works for some time—the initial conversation
    occurred ten days before Are’s and Murray’s December
    23rd meeting—which was atypical for the conspiracy. In
    one call, Murray said he only needs “3 more now.” The
    evidence established that Murray was the kingpin of the
    36                Nos. 07-3246, 07-3247, 07-3928 & 08-2269
    drug operation, so it would be unlikely that he would be
    struggling to come up with three, or even ten, grams of
    heroin. In other calls, the January 25 call for example, he
    talked about obtaining 25, 50, and even 100 grams
    without expressing any uncertainty about his ability to
    quickly consummate such a deal. Added to that are
    Murray’s statements that his friend was selling his Vette,
    that he (Murray) had to go to the bank, and that he was
    having trouble with the bank and his TCF account. These
    statements suggest that Murray was referring to money
    rather than a drug quantity. And as noted, the evidence
    established that Murray purchased heroin from Are
    and did so on other occasions. This also supports the
    inference that Murray was trying to come up with
    money for a $20,000 heroin transaction with Are.
    The evidence wasn’t overwhelming and the district
    court’s explanation was not elaborate. But we are not left
    with a definite and firm conviction that the court made
    a mistake in first finding that the December 2004 drug
    transaction had a value of $20,000 and then finding
    that this dollar amount was for 125 grams of heroin. There
    was enough evidence allowing reasonable inferences
    to constitute a preponderance supporting that amount.
    b. Section 3B1.1 Enhancement for Aggravating Role
    Moving on to the enhancement for Are’s role in the
    offense, U.S.S.G. § 3B1.1(b) provides: “If the defendant was
    a manager or supervisor (but not an organizer or leader)
    and the criminal activity involved five or more
    participants or was otherwise extensive, increase by
    Nos. 07-3246, 07-3247, 07-3928 & 08-2269                     37
    3 levels.” In determining whether a defendant was a
    manager or supervisor, the court should consider such
    factors as
    the exercise of decision making authority, the
    nature of participation in the commission of the
    offense, the recruitment of accomplices, the
    claimed right to a larger share of the fruits of the
    crime, the degree of participation in planning or
    organizing the offense, the nature and scope of
    the illegal activity, and the degree of control and
    authority exercised over others.
    U.S.S.G. § 3B1.1 cmt. n.4; see also United States v. Longstreet,
    
    567 F.3d 911
    , 925-26 (7th Cir. 2009), cert. denied, ___ S. Ct.
    ___, 
    78 U.S.L.W. 3294
     (U.S. Nov. 16, 2009) (No. 09-7065).
    Are contends that Jerome Murray, not he, was Rocco’s
    boss. Are points out that, when a drug deal went bad,
    Rocco called Murray, not Are. According to Are, he was a
    mere middle man with no managerial function in the
    enterprise. (Are does not contest the finding that the
    criminal activity involved five or more participants, only
    whether he played a supervisory or managerial role.)
    However, the record easily supports the district court’s
    finding that Are was a manager or supervisor in the
    criminal activity that involved five or more participants.
    First of all, as the Application Note to § 3B1.1 indicates,
    “[t]here can, of course, be more than one person who
    qualifies as a leader or organizer of a criminal association
    or conspiracy.” U.S.S.G. § 3B1.1 cmt. n.4; see United States v.
    Millet, 
    510 F.3d 668
    , 679 n.1 (7th Cir. 2007). This logic
    extends to a manager or supervisor position as well. Are
    38                Nos. 07-3246, 07-3247, 07-3928 & 08-2269
    advances nothing to suggest any reason why both he
    and Murray could not have been managers or
    supervisors, if not organizers or leaders, in the drug
    conspiracy, particularly as such a role relates to Rocco.
    Furthermore, Are’s lecturing of Rocco at the McDonald’s
    is significant. Officer Kimble testified that he heard Are
    lecturing Rocco about how to avoid law enforcement.
    Though Are argues on appeal that Kimble only heard “bits
    and pieces” of the conversation, and that Are was only
    “boasting about past conduct,” the district court quite
    reasonably understood Kimble’s testimony as the gov-
    ernment construes it—that Are was disciplining Rocco
    and the other unidentified individual for a failed transac-
    tion. The court found Kimble’s testimony to be “dramatic
    and convincing,” an aspect of credibility to which we
    should defer to the district court’s assessment. The
    district judge reasonably inferred that a person who
    would lecture other participants in a drug conspiracy on
    how to conduct their business could only be someone in
    a managerial position. The court also reasoned that such
    a person supervised the others’ activities by directing
    them on what to do and how to do it. Audacity may not
    be a proxy for a § 3B1.1 enhancement, but Are’s lecturing
    of Rocco and the other male on “how they screwed up
    and how they better do things in the future to keep
    from getting caught” supports the district court’s finding.
    In addition, there was evidence that Are directed Murray
    to call Rocco in relation to the January 26 deal, and that
    after the seizure, Murray and Rocco discussed the need
    to call Are, at which point Murray reassured Rocco there
    “ain’t nothin’ to, uh, panic about,” which also supports
    Nos. 07-3246, 07-3247, 07-3928 & 08-2269                     39
    the district court’s finding that Are was a manager or
    supervisor of the criminal activity involving five or
    more participants.
    2. Jerome Murray
    Jerome Murray contends that the district court com-
    mitted two errors in applying Guideline enhancements.
    He complains that the court erred in applying a four-
    level enhancement for being a leader of the drug conspir-
    acy under U.S.S.G. § 3B1.1(a). He next argues, in the
    alternative, that the district court erred in relying on
    evidence introduced at his codefendants’ trial without
    giving him proper notice in violation of Fed. R. Crim. P.
    32(i)(1)(C) and in failing to make sufficient factual
    findings to support the enhancement.
    Background
    FBI Special Agent Jeffrey A. Cooper’s affidavit was
    submitted in support of the criminal complaint originally
    filed to initiate the charges in this case. The affidavit stated
    that the Four Corner Hustlers gang was located on Chi-
    cago’s south and west sides and in some southern and
    western suburbs and was historically linked to large-
    scale drug distribution in the Chicago area. The affidavit
    said that Jerome Murray was recognized as the “Chief” of
    the Four Corner Hustlers on the south side. Cooper’s
    affidavit also referred to information obtained from
    various sources including four “cooperating wit-
    nesses” (CW1, CW2, CW3, and CW4, each of whom was
    40                Nos. 07-3246, 07-3247, 07-3928 & 08-2269
    cooperating to obtain some form of benefit), coconspirator
    and Hustler gang member Clarence Whalum, and the
    wiretap of Murray’s cell phone. (Law enforcement ob-
    tained a wiretap on Murray’s cell phone on December 13,
    2004, which continued for sixty days.)
    CW1, an active and high-ranking Hustler gang member
    and drug dealer until 1999, when he was taken into
    custody, stated that Murray was responsible for the
    distribution of between 50 and 100 kilograms of cocaine
    per week. CW1 said that he maintained contact with
    Murray even while Murray was incarcerated (prior to
    2001). According to CW1, a Nigerian, referred to as
    “Dummy” (believed to be Are), supplied heroin to the
    Hustlers.
    CW2, then a current Hustler, was attributed in the
    affidavit with identifying a photograph of Murray as
    an individual known to him as “Head” and supplying
    information about a close relationship he had with an
    “Individual A” who told CW2 about Murray’s drug
    trafficking. CW2 said that he was present for certain drug
    trafficking activities. In the summer of 2003, CW2
    observed Murray and Individual A with a duffel bag
    containing fifty kilograms of cocaine. CW2 reported that
    Individual A told him that Murray’s girlfriend (now wife),
    Catherine Fauntleroy, regularly held drugs for Murray.
    CW2 also observed Murray selling heroin to Daniels on
    two occasions. CW2 indicated that Daniels controlled a
    drug trafficking operation in Chicago.
    CW3, a former member of the Hustler rival Black Disci-
    ples gang and drug distributor on the south side of Chi-
    Nos. 07-3246, 07-3247, 07-3928 & 08-2269                41
    cago, expressed familiarity with the Hustlers and with
    the fact that Murray is their leader. CW3 identified a
    picture of Murray as an individual known to him as
    “Head.” CW4, a member of the Hustlers from 1979
    until his arrest in 1996, indicated that Murray “called the
    shots” for the Hustlers, controlled the Hustlers’ drug
    trafficking, and that Hustlers are either supplied drugs
    by Murray or pay a “tax” (a portion of their profits) to
    Murray. According to CW4, a Nigerian known as
    “Dommy” (again, believed to be Are) distributed
    heroin and was close with Murray.
    Cooper’s affidavit indicated that Hustler gang member
    Clarence Whalum also had said that Murray “called the
    shots” for the Hustlers. Whalum stated that after several
    Hustlers were arrested, Murray told the others to be
    careful, which Whalum understood to mean to be
    careful about how they were running their drug opera-
    tions. Whalum identified Daniels, known to Whalum
    as “Sko,” as a Hustler who sold crack.
    The affidavit indicated that CW1 previously had pro-
    vided reliable information to law enforcement and was
    cooperating with the hope of receiving a reduction in the
    sentence he was currently serving. CW2 was cooperating
    in exchange for payment. CW3 was cooperating in
    hopes of receiving consideration on his sentence in a
    pending narcotics case. Like CW1, CW4 was cooperating
    in hopes of receiving a reduction in the sentence he
    already was serving. The affidavit asserted that the infor-
    mation from the cooperating individuals was reliable
    because it was corroborated by other information
    42                Nos. 07-3246, 07-3247, 07-3928 & 08-2269
    obtained in the investigation, including other cooperating
    witness information, surveillance, intercepted conversa-
    tions, drug seizures and controlled purchases of drugs.
    (The district court denied a pretrial request by Murray
    to disclose the identities of the cooperating individuals.)
    The affidavit also listed information obtained from the
    wiretaps, including that Murray bought a kilogram of
    cocaine from Julius Statham (which was then seized),
    that Murray brokered a heroin deal between Are and
    Daniels, that Kenard McCollum supplied heroin and
    cocaine to Murray, that Murray fronted cocaine to Steve
    Jordan and Lamont Hooks, that Fauntleroy purchased
    drugs with Murray and advised him on the drug business
    (e.g., keep multiple suppliers, break large quantities to
    smaller ones, and recruit others to do the buying and
    selling for him), and that Murray fronted coke and
    heroin to Bertell McKenzie who then redistributed it.
    In his plea agreement, Murray admitted to buying a
    wholesale quantity of heroin from Are and wholesale
    quantities of cocaine from Statham. Murray also
    admitted to obtaining from Ramon Ceballos wholesale
    quantities of cocaine and heroin, as well as quantities of
    marijuana. Murray admitted to redistributing the cocaine
    and heroin to wholesale customers, including Hooks
    and Daniels, and to brokering deals for wholesale quanti-
    ties of heroin or cocaine between customers and suppliers.
    The government asserted in the plea agreement that
    Murray should receive a four-level enhancement under
    U.S.S.G. § 3B1.1(a) for being an organizer or a leader of a
    drug organization involving five or more people, whereas
    Murray contended that he was a manager or supervisor
    Nos. 07-3246, 07-3247, 07-3928 & 08-2269                   43
    and, therefore, should receive only a three-level enhance-
    ment under § 3B1.1(b).
    The PSR discussed the Hustlers’ drug operations,
    concluding that Murray was its leader. As support, the
    PSR relied on the information in the complaint and state-
    ments by Agent Cooper, including that Murray was
    commonly viewed as the Hustlers’ “Chief,” that all deci-
    sions went through Murray, that Murray was responsible
    for directing other gang members in various aspects of the
    drug activities, including where they could sell and from
    whom they could buy, and that close to 100 Hustlers
    worked for Murray in some capacity. The PSR also
    noted that Fauntleroy (by then Murray’s wife) assisted
    Murray with the drug trafficking organization. At sen-
    tencing, Murray argued that he acted as a broker, not
    a leader or organizer.
    The district court agreed with the PSR’s assessment of
    Murray’s role in the offense, explaining:
    I’m frankly inclined to agree with the calculation
    in the presentence investigation report. I think it’s
    right. It’s conservative. I think everything that
    goes into that calculation is supported.
    [F]rom all the testimony that I heard, the differ-
    ent tape recorded conversations, the information
    in the presentence investigation report, the state-
    ments of the other co-defendants in this case, it’s
    clear to me that the defendant was a leader.
    And I take into account only in part the fact that
    he is known as a chief of the Four Corner Hustlers
    street gang, only to this extent: It’s indirect, cir-
    44                 Nos. 07-3246, 07-3247, 07-3928 & 08-2269
    cumstantial evidence of what his role was in this
    case. But there’s plenty of other evidence and
    information in the way of the testimony that was
    given during the trial and the statements of the
    other co-defendants and the structure of the trans-
    actions to indicate that he was, in fact, a leader in
    this particular drug conspiracy, insofar as you can
    differentiate this from the other activities of the
    Four Corner Hustlers street gang.
    a. Section 3B1.1 Enhancement for Aggravating Role
    The Guidelines authorize a four-level enhancement in
    offense level “[i]f the defendant was an organizer or leader
    of a criminal activity that involved five or more partici-
    pants or was otherwise extensive.” U.S.S.G. § 3B1.1(a). In
    determining whether the four-level enhancement
    applies, the court should consider the same factors that
    are relevant to determining whether a defendant is a
    manager or supervisor. Id. cmt. n.4; Longstreet, 
    567 F.3d at 925-26
    . (See supra for our discussion of Are’s challenge
    to his aggravating role enhancement.)
    An organizer or leader is more than just a distributor.
    United States v. Mustread, 
    42 F.3d 1097
    , 1104 (7th Cir. 1994).
    An organizer or leader must “influence the criminal
    activity by coordinating its members.” United States v.
    Skoczen, 
    405 F.3d 537
    , 550 (7th Cir. 2005) (quotation omit-
    ted). “In distinguishing a leadership and organizational
    role from one of mere management or supervision, titles
    such as ‘kingpin’ or ‘boss’ are not controlling.” U.S.S.G.
    § 3B1.1 cmt. n.4. In sum, “we emphasize both relative
    Nos. 07-3246, 07-3247, 07-3928 & 08-2269                  45
    responsibility and control over other participants, and
    recognize that middleman status is not necessarily incon-
    sistent with being a manager or supervisor.” United
    States v. Howell, 
    527 F.3d 646
    , 649 (7th Cir. 2008).
    In determining whether a defendant is an organizer or
    leader, the district court need not rely solely on admissible
    evidence. U.S.S.G. § 6A1.3(a). Instead, the court may
    consider any relevant information, as long as it “has
    sufficient indicia of reliability to support its probable
    accuracy.” Id. This standard comports with due process.
    United States v. Acosta, 
    534 F.3d 574
    , 582 (7th Cir.), cert.
    denied, 
    129 S. Ct. 612
     (2008). The court also may rely on
    hearsay. United States v. Sanchez, 
    507 F.3d 532
    , 538 (7th
    Cir. 2007) (“[A] sentencing court clearly errs by con-
    sidering hearsay evidence only if the evidence was
    devoid of any indicia of reliability.”). The government can
    establish the reliability of hearsay with corroborating
    evidence. United States v. Martinez, 
    289 F.3d 1023
    , 1029
    (7th Cir. 2002).
    On appeal, Murray argues that he was merely a middle-
    man, not a leader or organizer, simply facilitating deals
    between Are and Daniels. (This argument doesn’t square
    very well with Murray’s position in his plea agreement
    that he was a manager or supervisor.) In addition,
    Murray attacks each source of evidence upon which the
    district court relied: trial testimony, statements by
    codefendants, recorded conversations, the PSR’s findings,
    cooperating witnesses, Clarence Whalum, and Officer
    Cooper’s affidavit. Murray also argues that he was not
    afforded an opportunity to rebut the cooperating wit-
    46                Nos. 07-3246, 07-3247, 07-3928 & 08-2269
    nesses’ information because he did not know their identi-
    ties. Thus, we must decide whether the district court’s
    finding that Murray was an organizer or leader of the
    drug conspiracy was based on sufficiently reliable evi-
    dence.
    The following evidence was sufficiently reliable and
    supports that finding:
    (1) Murray admitted in his plea agreement to buying
    wholesale quantities of cocaine and heroin and re-
    distributing those drugs to wholesale customers,
    including Hooks and Daniels.
    (2) CW1 stated that Murray was responsible for the
    distribution of between 50 and 100 kilograms of
    cocaine weekly. CW3 said that Murray was the leader
    of the Four Corner Hustlers street gang. CW4 said that
    Murray “called the shots” for the south side Hustlers
    and controlled their drug trafficking. This evidence of
    Murray’s leadership role was corroborated by
    Whalum, who said that Murray “called the shots” for
    the Hustlers on the south side of Chicago, and by
    Agent Cooper’s affidavit, based in part on his investi-
    gation, including the wiretaps, surveillance, con-
    trolled buys and seizures. As in United States v.
    Hankton, 
    432 F.3d 779
     (7th Cir. 2005), it appears that
    Murray’s involvement in the Hustlers gang was
    inextricable from his participation in the drug traf-
    ficking. 
    Id. at 794
     (“[A]ll of the evidence presented—as
    well as commonsense—suggest that, in fact, Hankton’s
    gang activities were intimately, related to and inter-
    twined with, his drug distribution activities.”).
    Nos. 07-3246, 07-3247, 07-3928 & 08-2269                    47
    (3) A December 28, 2004, recorded telephone conversation
    between Murray and Daniels in which Murray told
    Daniels to tell the “shorties” and “guys” to be “cool . . .
    and careful.” These comments match up with
    what Whalum said about Murray instructing his
    people to be “careful” after several Hustlers had been
    arrested. Murray contends that the government takes
    this remark out of context and that the conversation
    reveals that he did not know what Daniels was up to
    or where he was. Still, Murray’s words were an order
    to Daniels, and Whalum’s statement is corroborating.
    (4) Agent Kimble observed Are giving instructions on
    evasion to Rocco and another individual at a McDon-
    ald’s after the January 26, 2005 seizure of heroin from
    Daniels. Kimble testified that Murray was disinter-
    ested, walked away, and seemed to carry on other
    business. This gives the impression that Murray was
    not controlled by Are, yet the others there were, and
    that Murray held a position of authority in the organi-
    zation that was at least on the same level as Are’s.
    (5) Murray was the “conduit of information” for all
    participants. He was party to most, if not all, of the 61
    phone calls played at trial, and he used those calls to
    coordinate the distribution of heroin from Statham
    through Rocco and Are to Daniels. See Millet, 
    510 F.3d at 679
     (finding district court did not clearly err in
    determining that defendant was a leader in the drug
    conspiracy where, inter alia, he was a conduit of
    information).
    (6) CW2 related information he learned from another
    individual that Fauntleroy was storing narcotics for
    48                 Nos. 07-3246, 07-3247, 07-3928 & 08-2269
    Murray on a regular basis. This was corroborated by
    Fauntleroy’s plea agreement, in which she admitted to
    receiving and storing drugs, including heroin and
    multiple kilograms of cocaine, for Murray. At Murray’s
    sentencing hearing, the AUSA argued that Murray
    supervised Fauntleroy, based on her plea admissions
    to having stored large amounts of cocaine for Murray.
    In addition, Murray even admits in his appellate brief
    that “both Daniels and Murray had distributors that
    worked for them.” This also supports a finding that
    Murray played a leadership role in the offense.
    In challenging the evidence, Murray disparages the
    information provided by the CWs, arguing that it was
    unreliable because it was uncorroborated. While some of
    the CWs’ information was not corroborated, for example,
    CW4’s statement that Murray charges his people a “tax,”
    many of the CWs’ statements were corroborated by
    other reliable evidence. Murray next attacks the CWs’
    statements by arguing that they should have been
    excluded because the district court did not afford him an
    opportunity to rebut them. Murray claims he was not
    afforded that opportunity because the government did not
    disclose the CWs’ identities. But he cites no case, and we
    are unaware of any, which requires a court to reveal a
    cooperating witness’s identity before relying at sen-
    tencing on information provided by the witness. And we
    have observed that “confidential informants are not
    categorically unreliable.” United States v. Wilson, 
    502 F.3d 718
    , 722 (7th Cir. 2007). In any event, the district court
    found the CWs sufficiently reliable, not because they
    corroborated each other, but because “Whalum, phone
    Nos. 07-3246, 07-3247, 07-3928 & 08-2269                  49
    taps, surveillance, and seizures” corroborated their in-
    formation.
    But even if the court erred in relying on the CWs’
    statements, such an error was harmless given the other
    substantial evidence establishing that Murray was an
    organizer or leader in the criminal drug conspiracy. See
    United States v. Kincannon, 
    567 F.3d 893
    , 899-900 (7th Cir.
    2009) (“[N]ot all errors require remand since they are
    subject to harmless error analysis.”). Murray also com-
    plains that Agent Cooper’s assertions were based on the
    CWs’ information and, as a result, were also uncorrobo-
    rated and unreliable. He is incorrect. Other information,
    from Whalum, the wiretap evidence, and Agent Kimble’s
    observations at the McDonald’s, corroborated the
    agent’s statements. The district court did not clearly err
    in applying the four-level enhancement under § 3B1.1(a).
    b. Evidence from Codefendants’ Trial
    Murray contends, in the alternative, that his case should
    be remanded for a new sentencing hearing because the
    district court relied on evidence introduced at the trial of
    his codefendants as well as other codefendant statements
    without giving him proper notice. Murray claims that
    the PSR did not provide him with any notice that the
    court would consider evidence introduced at his
    codefendants’ trial. As he concedes, because he did not
    object in the district court, we review for plain error.
    Thus, Murray must show “(1) an error has occurred, (2)
    it was ‘plain,’ (3) it affected a substantial right of the
    defendant, and (4) it seriously affected the fairness, integ-
    rity, or public reputation of the judicial proceedings.”
    50                 Nos. 07-3246, 07-3247, 07-3928 & 08-2269
    United States v. Nitch, 
    477 F.3d 933
    , 935 (7th Cir. 2007)
    (quotation omitted).
    Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 32(i)(1)(C) requires
    a sentencing court to “allow the parties’ attorneys to
    comment on the probation officer’s determinations and
    other matters relating to an appropriate sentence.” This
    rule gives the defendant “a right to know what evidence
    will be used against him at the sentencing hearing.” United
    States v. Morales, 
    994 F.2d 386
    , 389 (7th Cir. 1993). This
    includes evidence from a codefendant’s trial, especially
    if the defendant was not a party in that case and could
    not challenge the reliability of the evidence. 
    Id.
     If a sen-
    tencing judge is going to consider evidence from a
    codefendant’s trial, then he should warn the defendant
    and give him a chance to review the trial transcript. 
    Id.
    In the plain error context, however, the defendant must
    show “a high degree of prejudice . . . as well as a high
    degree of certainty that it really was an error.” 
    Id. at 390
    . In
    Morales, we affirmed despite the district court’s failure
    to notify the defendant of its reliance on other trial evi-
    dence. We noted that the defendant could not argue
    that the undisclosed information was “inaccurate or
    otherwise inappropriate for consideration in the sen-
    tencing hearing.” 
    Id.
     And the defendant’s counsel acknowl-
    edged that she hadn’t even read the transcript. 
    Id.
     Ac-
    cordingly, we found no plain error. See also United States
    v. Anaya, 
    32 F.3d 308
    , 314 (7th Cir. 1994) (finding no
    plain error because the defendant “did not demonstrate
    that the information derived from [a codefendant’s]
    sentencing hearing was unreliable,” failed to establish
    Nos. 07-3246, 07-3247, 07-3928 & 08-2269                   51
    the extent to which the court relied on it, and other infor-
    mation supported aggravating role enhancement).
    The district court did not give Murray prior notice of its
    intent to use evidence from his codefendants’ trial in
    determining whether to apply the leadership role en-
    hancement. Under most cases in our circuit, this would be
    error. However, in Acosta, 
    534 F.3d at 582
    , we observed
    that any defendant is “on notice” about the potential use
    of evidence from a codefendant’s trial, because “under
    the sentencing guidelines, he would be held responsible
    for the relevant conduct of his coconspirators if rea-
    sonably foreseeable to him.” Murray argues that Acosta
    is an outlier upon which we should not rely and that it
    was not circulated under Rule 40(e), thus having little
    precedential authority in this circuit. We have not cited
    Acosta again for this proposition. Yet, we need not decide
    whether Acosta should be followed because, even
    assuming error, Murray has not shown that it was plain
    error.
    Murray would have us take a strict view of what con-
    stitutes reversible error in the failure-to-give-notice
    context. He cites United States v. Jackson, 
    32 F.3d 1101
    , 1110
    (7th Cir. 1994), in which a split panel concluded that the
    failure to notify the defendant that the court was
    intending to impose a certain sentencing guidelines
    enhancement was not harmless error. Applied to this
    case, Murray would have Jackson stand for the proposition
    that, if the court relied on the undisclosed evidence
    from Murray’s codefendants’ trial but would have
    reached a different result had he not relied on that evi-
    52                Nos. 07-3246, 07-3247, 07-3928 & 08-2269
    dence, then we should reverse. Jackson is distinguishable,
    however, and Morales and Anaya are more on point. The
    sentencing court in Jackson failed to give the defendant
    notice that he would apply a particular Guideline en-
    hancement, depriving him of any reasonable opportunity
    to challenge the enhancement both legally and factually.
    When the court relied on that enhancement in imposing
    the sentence, the defendant was clearly prejudiced and
    any error could not have been harmless.
    Here, in contrast, Murray was aware of the leadership
    role enhancement; the PSR clearly identified it. Thus, the
    district court failed only to give Murray notice of one of
    the types of evidence that it would consider when deter-
    mining whether the enhancement should apply. This
    deprived Murray of the opportunity to challenge that
    evidence’s reliability and accuracy; it did not affect
    Murray’s ability to challenge the Guideline’s applica-
    tion. If Murray had a good faith argument that the evi-
    dence was unreliable, then the court’s reliance on this
    evidence might be prejudicial. But on appeal, Murray
    does not question the reliability or accuracy of that evi-
    dence. He instead disagrees with the court’s take on the
    undisclosed evidence, arguing that it merely showed that
    he was a middleman distributor, not an organizer or
    leader. The court’s reliance on undisclosed evidence
    does not make the non-disclosure prejudicial. See Anaya,
    
    32 F.3d at 314
     (affirming in part because the defendant
    “did not demonstrate that the information derived from
    [codefendant’s] sentencing hearing was unreliable”);
    Morales, 
    994 F.2d at 390
     (affirming because the defendant
    Nos. 07-3246, 07-3247, 07-3928 & 08-2269                  53
    could not show that the evidence was “inaccurate or
    otherwise inappropriate for consideration in the sen-
    tencing hearing”).
    Given Murray’s argument on appeal, non-disclosure in
    this case would only result in prejudice, or rather plain
    error, if we determined that the district court’s view of the
    undisclosed evidence was incorrect. But as shown
    above, the trial evidence supports a finding that Murray
    was a leader of the drug conspiracy. Murray was a “con-
    duit of information,” as evidenced by the phone calls
    played at the trial. He arranged meetings between sup-
    pliers such as Daniels and distributors such as Rocco,
    and Murray coordinated the price and quantity for drug
    deals. At least one call showed him giving an order to
    Daniels—to tell the “shorties” to be “cool” and “careful.”
    And Officer Kimble testified about Murray’s conduct at
    the McDonald’s while Are lectured other members of
    the conspiracy. Thus, the trial evidence, which Murray
    does not allege was unreliable, supports the district
    court’s application of the enhancement. Any error in not
    disclosing the court’s intent to rely on this evidence before
    sentencing was harmless and did not amount to plain
    error.
    Murray also challenges the district court’s reliance on
    “the statements of the other co-defendants in this case.” It
    is unclear to which statements the court was referring.
    Nonetheless, the information in the PSR and the trial
    evidence, including the wiretap evidence, justify the
    decision to give Murray the § 3B1.1(a) enhancement.
    54                 Nos. 07-3246, 07-3247, 07-3928 & 08-2269
    c. Sufficiency of the District Court’s Findings
    That brings us to Murray’s challenge to the sufficiency
    of the district court’s factual findings at sentencing, yet
    another challenge that he did not raise below, so again, our
    review is for plain error. The court’s discussion of its
    findings is sparse. It did not evaluate the reliability of the
    evidence, nor identify extensive specifics to support its
    conclusion. Nor did the court identify those participants
    whom Murray controlled or recruited. However, where
    the district court adopts the PSR’s findings, as it did
    here, the court rarely needs to add details. United States
    v. Torres-Ramirez, 
    213 F.3d 978
    , 980 (7th Cir. 2000). In
    United States v. Patel, 
    131 F.3d 1195
    , 1202 (7th Cir. 1997),
    cited by Murray, the court did not reference the PSR in
    concluding that the enhancement under § 3B1.1 was
    appropriate. But here, the district court did make that
    minimal effort.
    Admittedly, the district court could have done a more
    thorough job in explaining its finding that Murray was
    an organizer or leader, but any error in making its
    factual findings was harmless. From the record it was
    obvious that Murray was at the center of the drug con-
    spiracy with responsibility for organizing its activities, a
    fact that makes the cases cited by Murray, such as United
    States v. Jewel, 
    947 F.2d 224
     (7th Cir. 1991), distinguishable.
    Murray supervised others, including Fauntleroy, and
    gave orders and directions to other Hustlers, for
    example, Daniels, with regard to their drug activities.
    Hence, a remand for further factual findings is unnec-
    essary.
    Nos. 07-3246, 07-3247, 07-3928 & 08-2269               55
    3. Statham
    Statham brings three challenges to his sentence. He
    argues that the court erred in applying a two-level en-
    hancement under U.S.S.G. § 2D1.1(b)(1) for possession
    of a dangerous weapon during or in connection with a
    drug trafficking offense. He also challenges the court’s
    criminal history calculation. And, third, Statham
    argues that the court failed to adequately consider the
    § 3553(a) factors in determining his sentence.
    a.   Possession of Firearm in Connection with Drug
    Crime
    The district court applied the § 2D1.1(b)(1) enhancement
    based on the two guns found in Statham’s home in the
    safe that also contained about $21,000. Statham admitted
    in his plea agreement that he possessed both firearms.
    He argues that the court should not have applied the two-
    level enhancement because no drugs were found in the
    safe or anywhere in his home when agents arrested
    him and found the guns. He also points to the PSR, which
    states that there was “no direct evidence linking said
    weapons to Statham’s drug activities, rather, the FBI
    strongly suspects that the guns were used in relation to
    the defendant’s drug activities.” We review the district
    court’s finding of a relationship between the weapon
    and drug offense for clear error. United States v. Perez,
    
    581 F.3d 539
    , 546 (7th Cir. 2009).
    U.S.S.G. § 2D1.1(b)(1) provides: “If a dangerous weapon
    (including a firearm) was possessed, increase [the base
    56                 Nos. 07-3246, 07-3247, 07-3928 & 08-2269
    offense level] by 2 levels.” Application Note 3 to § 2D1.1
    states:
    The enhancement for weapon possession reflects
    the increased danger of violence when drug traf-
    fickers possess weapons. The adjustment should
    be applied if the weapon was present, unless it is
    clearly improbable that the weapon was connected
    with the offense. For example, the enhancement
    would not be applied if the defendant, arrested at
    his residence, had an unloaded hunting rifle in
    the closet.
    Application of § 2D1.1 involves a shifting of burdens.
    United States v. Idowu, 
    520 F.3d 790
    , 793 (7th Cir. 2008). The
    government bears the burden of first proving by a prepon-
    derance of the evidence that the defendant possessed the
    weapon. 
    Id.
     (citing United States v. Bothun, 
    424 F.3d 582
    , 586
    (7th Cir. 2005)). The defendant need not have actual
    possession of the weapon; constructive possession is
    sufficient. 
    Id.
     If the government carries its burden, then
    the defendant must show that it was “clearly improbable”
    that the weapon was connected to the drug offense. 
    Id.
    We have noted that when a gun is found in “close
    proximity” to illegal drugs the gun is presumed “to have
    been used in connection with the drug trafficking offense.”
    United States v. Souffront, 
    338 F.3d 809
    , 833 (7th Cir.
    2003). However, close proximity to drugs is not a require-
    ment for application of the § 2D1.1(b)(1) enhancement. We
    have upheld application of § 2D1.1 where the weapon
    was not found in the same place as illegal drugs. See, e.g.,
    United States v. Parra, 
    402 F.3d 752
    , 767 (7th Cir. 2005)
    Nos. 07-3246, 07-3247, 07-3928 & 08-2269                 57
    (upholding the finding that it was not “clearly improba-
    ble” that gun was connected to drug offense where
    gun was found under the mattress in defendant’s bed-
    room and defendant was selling drugs out of her house);
    United States v. Grimm, 
    170 F.3d 760
    , 767-68 (7th Cir. 1999)
    (concluding that § 2D1.1(b)(1) could apply where defen-
    dant had a gun in the trunk of his car but no drugs were
    present where he had used the car to deliver drugs six
    weeks earlier).
    Statham directs us to a few cases to support his
    argument that the district court erred in applying the
    § 2D1.1(b)(1) enhancement. First, he cites United States v.
    Franklin, 
    484 F.3d 912
     (7th Cir. 2007), in which the defen-
    dant had been arrested in his van upon returning
    from purchasing cocaine. We reversed because the evi-
    dence showed that the weapon was likely a pocket
    knife that the defendant used in his electrician business;
    the district court may have miscalculated the length of
    the blade by misunderstanding the difference between
    a “sheath” and a “case”; the police officers who stopped
    the defendant saw the knife but did not confiscate it;
    and the government did not seek the enhancement any-
    way. 
    Id. at 915-16
    . Statham also cites United States v.
    Salery, 
    119 F. Supp. 2d 1268
     (M.D. Ala. 2000), in which the
    district court did not apply the § 2D1.1 enhancement. In
    that case, officers found a handgun when they arrested
    the defendant in his car and found another handgun
    and over $50,000 cash in a subsequent search of the defen-
    dant’s house. Id. at 1274-75. The district court observed
    that the arrest took place eight months after the most
    recent drug activity and no drugs were found on the
    58                Nos. 07-3246, 07-3247, 07-3928 & 08-2269
    premises. Id. at 1275. It concluded that “evidence con-
    sisting of only a handgun and cash in a house does not
    support a finding of drug transactions in the home. . . .
    [T]he government has not produced any evidence to
    show that the defendant possessed the handguns
    during conduct relevant to the convicted offense.” Id.
    These cases are distinguishable from Statham’s situa-
    tion. On July 19, 2005, the two guns were found in a safe
    with a little over $20,000 in cash in the home of “a
    kilogram-size cocaine dealer.” As the government
    notes, the amount of cash found in the safe is roughly
    the price of one kilogram of cocaine—the quantity that
    Statham had been providing to Murray. And the conspir-
    acy was ongoing at the time the guns were found; it
    had not stopped eight months previously as in Salery.
    Statham even admitted in his plea agreement to
    having conspired to possess and distribute illegal drugs
    “continuing until July 19, 2005.” Moreover, Statham
    doesn’t claim that he had a legitimate source of income
    to account for the large amount of cash. The district court
    reasonably inferred that the cash was drug money. See
    United States v. Smith, 
    308 F.3d 726
    , 746 (7th Cir. 2002)
    (affirming because “[defendant’s] testimony does not
    establish an innocent explanation for the presence of the
    guns found at his residence, where he kept more than
    $100,000 in cash, presumably derived, at least in part,
    from drug trafficking,” even though officers did not
    find drugs at the residence). Statham offered nothing to
    rebut such an inference. And the court reasonably
    inferred that the guns were kept in the safe to protect the
    drug money. See Perez, 
    581 F.3d at 547
     (“We have consis-
    Nos. 07-3246, 07-3247, 07-3928 & 08-2269                 59
    tently held that weapons are ‘recognized tools of the
    drug trade’ and that the possession of a gun can advance
    the possession and future distribution of narcotics by
    protecting the drugs or the drug dealer.” (citation omit-
    ted)).
    The temporal proximity to the conspiracy and the
    physical proximity to the cash suggest that the guns were
    connected to the Statham’s drug dealing. Statham did not
    show that it was clearly improbable that the guns were
    connected to the drug conspiracy.
    b. Criminal History Category
    Statham’s next challenge is to the court’s criminal
    history category calculation. First, he objects to the addi-
    tion of two points on the basis of his commission of the
    instant offense within two years from release from
    custody pursuant to U.S.S.G. § 4A1.1(e).
    During a recorded call on January 25, 2005, Murray
    called Statham and asked him whether the “stripper
    broad was 19,” meaning whether the kilogram was still
    $19,000. Statham replied that “she was still around there
    and she still is the same,” meaning that he still had kilo-
    grams of cocaine and they were still the same price, and
    Murray said that he might need “3 or 4 of them broads
    [kilograms] to come to the party.” Statham told Murray to
    call him. Murray made several more calls to Statham on
    January 29, 30, and 31. Later on the 31st, surveillance
    units observed Statham meet with Murray, after which
    law enforcement conducted a traffic stop of Murray and
    recovered just under one kilogram of cocaine.
    60                 Nos. 07-3246, 07-3247, 07-3928 & 08-2269
    The PSR indicated that Statham was released from
    custody on parole on January 29, 2003, and on January 25,
    2005, began negotiating the January 31, 2005, cocaine sale
    with Murray. (The PSR adopted the allegations of the
    criminal complaint. Statham has not challenged the
    negotiation dates provided in the criminal complaint
    and in the government’s version of the offense which is
    attached to his PSR.) The government contends that
    the January 31 sale is the culmination of the January 25
    negotiation.
    Under U.S.S.G. § 4A1.1(e) two points are added to a
    defendant’s criminal history “if the defendant committed
    the instant offense less than two years after release
    from imprisonment.” Statham argues that the additional
    points should not have been applied because he was
    charged for this crime on January 31, 2005, two years
    and two days after he was released from custody on parole.
    The district court did not err in applying the enhance-
    ment under § 4A1.1. Application Note 5 to § 4A1.1 states:
    “Two points are added if the defendant committed any
    part of the instant offense (i.e., any relevant conduct) less
    than two years following release from confinement on a
    sentence counted under § 4A1.1(a) or (b).” The January
    25th call between Statham and Murray is a part of the
    conspiracy count to which Statham pled guilty. This phone
    call got the ball rolling for the January 31 drug transaction.
    Based on this call, Statham would have “committed the
    instant offense [of conspiracy]” at least as early as
    January 25, 2005, so § 4A1.1(e) applies. Likewise,
    the January 29 call was part of the negotiations that
    culminated in the January 31 transaction.
    Nos. 07-3246, 07-3247, 07-3928 & 08-2269                  61
    Furthermore, Statham admitted in his plea agreement
    that beginning no later than January 2002, he conspired
    with others to possess with intent to distribute and to
    distribute cocaine. Thus, he admitted to committing the
    conspiracy offense even before he was released from
    custody on parole. And, Statham also admitted in his
    plea agreement that he supplied cocaine to Murray in
    January 2005 and further admitted that before the
    January 31 kilogram transaction, he delivered at least
    three ounces of cocaine to Murray on at least three
    separate occasions. These admissions support the rea-
    sonable inference that Statham delivered cocaine to
    Murray prior to January 29, 2005, and that such delivery
    was part of the conspiracy. We find no error in adding
    two points because the record supports the district
    court’s finding that Statham participated in the con-
    spiracy less than two years after his release from custody
    on parole.
    Next, Statham argues that the district court erred in
    treating three of his prior convictions as separate
    offenses when calculating his criminal history points.
    Statham made the identical argument in his appeal of
    another case, see United States v. Statham, 
    581 F.3d 548
    , 554
    (7th Cir. 2009), and it is no more persuasive here. On
    August 6, 1996, Statham was sentenced for the crimes of
    theft and the unlawful use of a firearm by a felon, for
    which he was arrested on December 17, 1995. Also on
    August 6, 1996, he was sentenced for possession of a
    controlled substance; he was arrested for that offense on
    February 24, 1996. And, on August 7, 1996, Statham was
    sentenced for a probation revocation, based on a 1989
    62                 Nos. 07-3246, 07-3247, 07-3928 & 08-2269
    arrest for burglary. Statham contends that the district
    court should have treated these convictions as
    functionally consolidated because the sentences were
    imposed on the “same” day and the state judge ap-
    parently intended “that a concurrent sentence was appro-
    priate punishment for all three convictions.” But that
    doesn’t seem to have been the judge’s intent. Instead, it
    appears that the judge intended for two of the sentences
    to run concurrently and for the sentence for possession
    of a controlled substance to run consecutively. See 
    id. at 554-55
    .
    U.S.S.G. § 4A1.2(a)(2) instructs the district court that
    in computing criminal history points:
    If the defendant has multiple prior sentences,
    determine whether those sentences are counted
    separately or as a single sentence. Prior sentences
    always are counted separately if the sentences
    were imposed for offenses that were separated by
    an intervening arrest (i.e., the defendant is
    arrested for the first offense prior to committing
    the second offense). If there is no intervening
    arrest, prior sentences are counted separately
    unless (A) the sentences resulted from offenses
    contained in the same charging instrument; or (B)
    the sentences were imposed on the same day.
    Count any prior sentence covered by (A) or (B) as
    a single sentence. See also § 4A1.1(f).
    The Guidelines were amended effective November 1,
    2007, between the time Statham committed the offense
    and the time he was sentenced. We apply the version in
    Nos. 07-3246, 07-3247, 07-3928 & 08-2269                   63
    effect at the time of sentencing. U.S.S.G. § 1B1.11(a)-(b);
    
    18 U.S.C. § 3553
    (a)(4)(A)(ii). Both the government and
    Statham rely on “functional consolidation” cases that
    interpret the former Guidelines version. Now, though, the
    Guideline is more straightforward: Prior sentences
    always are counted separately if they were for offenses
    separated by an intervening arrest. See Statham, 
    581 F.3d at 555
     (finding that notwithstanding the Guideline amend-
    ment, the logic of United States v. Best, 
    250 F.3d 1084
    ,
    1094 (7th Cir. 2001)—“intervening arrests preclude consoli-
    dation of cases”—“remains compelling”). The record
    shows that each of the three offenses at issue was
    separated by an intervening arrest. Thus, the district court
    did not err in treating these three convictions as separate
    offenses when calculating Statham’s criminal history
    category.
    c. Consideration of § 3553(a) Factors
    And, finally, Statham argues that the district court erred
    in failing to adequately consider the § 3553(a) factors. He
    argues that instead of applying § 3553(a)(2), the court
    merely told him that his conduct was detrimental to
    society. Beyond this, he simply states that the court
    failed to explain the various factors.
    We review the district court’s sentencing procedures,
    including its consideration of the § 3553(a) factors, de novo.
    United States v. Corson, 
    579 F.3d 804
    , 813 (7th Cir. 2009). If
    we find no procedural error, we consider the substantive
    reasonableness of the sentence under an abuse-of-discre-
    tion standard. Gall v. United States, 
    552 U.S. 38
    , 51 (2007);
    64                Nos. 07-3246, 07-3247, 07-3928 & 08-2269
    United States v. Scott, 
    555 F.3d 605
    , 608 (7th Cir.),
    cert. denied, 
    130 S. Ct. 341
     (2009).
    The sentencing transcript proves Statham’s claims of
    error lack merit. After considering the record, including
    the sentencing memorandum, Statham’s supplement to
    his attorney’s memorandum, Statham’s statements at the
    sentencing hearing, and those of the witnesses who
    testified at the hearing on his behalf, the court sentenced
    Statham to 125 months’ imprisonment. This was in the
    middle of the Guideline range of 110 to 137 months. The
    court articulated the basis for the sentence imposed,
    discussing the need for punishment, deterrence and
    rehabilitation. In particular, the court noted that
    Statham’s prior sentences—probation, parole, light sen-
    tences and the like—had not deterred him or caused
    him to change his criminal ways and stated that Statham
    was not likely to be rehabilitated. The court also
    mentioned the need to protect the public from the types of
    conduct that Statham had been involved in over an ex-
    tended period of time, referring to his fourteen-year
    span of criminal history. And the court discussed the
    seriousness of the offense, and the destructiveness of drug
    trafficking in the neighborhoods and the attendant vio-
    lence. The district court’s statement of reasons for
    Statham’s sentence was sufficient “to allow for meaningful
    appellate review and promote the perception of fair
    sentencing.” Scott, 
    555 F.3d at 608
     (quotation omitted). In
    our view, the court did not fail to adequately consider
    the § 3553(a) factors or fail to adequately explain the
    chosen sentence.
    Nos. 07-3246, 07-3247, 07-3928 & 08-2269                   65
    Finding the court’s sentencing procedures sound, we
    turn to the substantive reasonableness of Statham’s
    sentence. A sentence properly calculated within the
    Guidelines range is presumed reasonable on appeal. Rita
    v. United States, 
    551 U.S. 338
    , 347 (2007); United States v.
    Meece, 
    580 F.3d 616
    , 621 (7th Cir. 2009). A defendant can
    rebut this presumption of reasonableness by showing
    that his sentence is unreasonable when considered
    against the § 3553(a) factors. United States v. Campos, 
    541 F.3d 735
    , 750-51 (7th Cir. 2008), cert. denied, 
    129 S. Ct. 955
    (2009). Statham has not done so.
    III. Conclusion
    For the foregoing reasons, we affirm.
    12-30-09