ÿWPCµ" y±8 ‘YÐŒk6ÒÿmˆÒÒÒž”sÍuðçÜkÚýH)^!±TEhAùã¡:Ã>à´¤'nÜXÊAB V­Œ#MAL*ÌúŒNj¿ãRÃ`zòÀ5 šóM± N7cÊlö\_Öο6=lì‚yß‹»bî\±ÎörÒ"žùú§rËqlxße™‰Ay­Ü²D·O"¾7Ùcu˜{gi_†rþ{»ýšJÝ>Ѿ\_øÓ‚)ÕË“/ÿ”zéÛñQ ‚FÒ­ò2®-׿M÷彸‚ÔRþ¡‘g°¬qÿ‚±|ïz#ª ™TÆ8µ’ó ÞáÌéKT#µo™Zh2ýàlfüU‰–VòCt»Êãb˜¥­µJà36PU‡Z£8¨Ø(ì@UÚRô¢oHJ ‡95Ø“CŠaÓõŸÞgWüžñâ¤{ññ„W¤ž=C$N ¶Š¸M¿‚Íl;ÛkÅÞ¤aíñbáSuØÍ(æƒb| ¦v=–çí:¯6{c÷ç5ÓH*ó `ésØöXX[[§ó ظÞ52Dœt<€òá±¢Š¹Eí3e­Ú.Ú)+|èäicar2­H9Ö{7h¼¿Ê2±Åaó£ ò`õEï♓V½P³§#Á" UJFã %) 0:/ U0i U@0™ ^ É wÕ 4Ù í ü mþ UN–cc 0æùNßßßßHáb) 0D1111111111111111111Euuufwwayyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyy¤Ì111111111111111111äýýýýýýýýýýýýý Bááá`þþþþþþþþþþþþþþþþþþþþþþþþþþþþþþþþþþþþþþþþþþþþþþW^ ˜HP LaserJet 5/5M - StandardÈÈ,,,,ÈÈ0<4šÛ 9Z+‹.Courier New RegularX(üœ$¡¡ÔUSUS.,Ô<è\( 9Z+Courier <@ˆÐ9Z+Courier J‘G.s Êu—-O_WEST3|xeÿU‹ÿÀÀÀ(ÎáA Z‹6Times New Roman Regular ŒÔ_ÔÓ=€¸%XÐXdÐd=Ó*€Of€the€Northern€District€of€Illinois,€sitting€by€designation.(wG2ìH$¤¤Ý ƒüœ!ÝÔUSUS.,ÔÝ  ÝÓ  ÓÓ=€Ÿ_ЈdÐd=Óà  àòòÔ‡ˆe分ˆÔÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó >Ñ € ÑÑ#€dXÿÿd#ÑØ7Ø- ù-(#Ã$òòÚ  Ú0Ú  ÚóóøÀTABLE A šÝ ƒìH$ÝÔUSUS.,ÔÓ  ÓÓ=€¸%ÐXdÐd=Óà  àòòÔ€X¸%XhXÔÚ  Ú14Ú  ÚóóÝ  ÝÔ_ÔÓ=€¸%ˆÐXdÐXd=Ó€€Ô‡X¸%XXX¸%ÔòòÔ_ÔApprendiÔ_Ôóó€was€decided€on€June€26,€2000.Ô#†X¸%XXX¸% #ÔÔ‡X¸%XXX¸%Ô€€We€have€been€askedÐ ° Ðhere€to€evaluate€whether€there€was€òòÔ_ÔApprendiÔ_Ôóó€error€in€two€trials,Ð †Ö Ðone€of€which€took€place€before€òòÔ_ÔApprendiÔ_Ôóó€was€decided€and€the€otherÐ \¬ Ðof€which€began€after€òòÔ_ÔApprendiÔ_Ôóó.Ô#†X¸%XXX¸%›#Ô€òòÔ‡X¸%XXX¸%Ôóó€These€cases€were€indicted€in€1998,Ð 2‚ Ðand€the€first€trial€came€to€verdict€in€October€1999.€€Five€of€theÐ X Ðsix€appellants€convicted€at€this€first€trial€were€also€sentencedÐ Þ. Ðbefore€the€òòÔ_ÔApprendiÔ_Ôóó€decision;€Caribe,€the€sixth,€was€sentenced€onÐ ´  ÐDecember€15,€2000.€€Valle€and€Rivera€were€convicted€at€the€secondÐ Š Ú Ðtrial,€which€began€in€September€2000,€after€òòÔ_ÔApprendiÔ_Ôóó.Ô#†X¸%XXX¸%E#Ô ÂÝ ƒìH$ÝÔUSUS.,ÔÓ  ÓÓ=€¸%ÐXdÐd=Óà  àòòÔ€X¸%XhXÔÚ  Ú17Ú  ÚóóÝ  ÝÔ_ÔÔ‡X¸%XXX¸%ÔÓ=€¸%ˆÐXdÐXd=Ó€€A€judge€is€also€required€under€Fed.€R.€Ô_ÔCrimÔ_Ô.€P.€32(a)€toÐ ° Ðsentence€a€defendant€"without€unnecessary€delay."€€Caribe€has€notÐ †Ö Ðargued€that€the€delay€in€his€case€violated€this€rule,€and€thereforeÐ \¬ Ðwe€do€not€address€whether€he€would€have€a€possible€claimÐ 2‚ Ðthereunder.Ô#†X¸%XXX¸%Î#Ô ÚÝ ƒìH$ÝÔUSUS.,ÔÓ  ÓÓ=€¸%ÐXdÐd=Óà  àòòÔ€X¸%XhXÔÚ  Ú15Ú  ÚóóÝ  ÝÔ_ÔÓ=€¸%ˆÐXdÐXd=Ó€€Ô‡X¸%XXX¸%ÔAs€we€noted€above,€òòÔ_ÔApprendiÔ_Ôóó€only€requires€the€jury€toÐ ° Ðdetermine€the€drug€type€and€quantity€involved€in€the€conspiracy.€Ð †Ö ÐAfter€the€jury€has€made€this€determination,€the€judge€can€makeÐ \¬ Ðindividualized€determinations€about€the€amount€of€drugsÐ 2‚ Ðattributable€to€each€defendant.€€Even€though€the€jury€did€not€makeÐ X Ðits€initial€determination,€we€found€no€reversible€error€as€to€anyÐ Þ. Ðdefendant,€so€that€the€judge€could€still€determine€the€amount€ofÐ ´  Ðdrug€attributable€to€each€defendant.Ô#†X¸%XXX¸% #Ô d VÝ ƒìH$ÝÔUSUS.,ÔÓ  ÓÓ=€¸%ÐXdÐd=Óà  àòòÔ€X¸%XhXÔÚ  Ú13Ú  ÚóóÝ  ÝÔ_ÔÔ‡X¸%XXX¸%ÔÓ=€¸%ˆÐXdÐXd=Ó€€The€defendants€were€convicted€under€21€U.S.C.€ðð846,€notÐ ° Ð21€U.S.C.€ðð841,€but€they€challenge€ðð841€because€ðð€846€makes€itÐ †Ö Ðunlawful€to€attempt€or€conspire€to€commit€the€offenses€listed€in€ððÐ \¬ Ð841.€€Therefore,€the€constitutionality€of€ððÔ#†X¸%XXX¸%Î#ÔÔ‡X¸%XXX¸%Ô€846€is€dependent€uponÐ 2‚ Ðthe€constitutionality€of€ððÔ#†X¸%XXX¸%…#ÔÔ‡X¸%XXX¸%Ô€841.Ô#†X¸%XXX¸%#Ô MÝ ƒìH$ÝÔUSUS.,ÔÓ  ÓÓ=€¸%ÐXdÐd=Óà  àòòÔ€X¸%XhXÔÚ  Ú16Ú  ÚóóÝ  ÝÔ_ÔÓ=€¸%ˆÐXdÐXd=Ó€€It€is€far€from€clear€that€there€was€any€disparity.€€Ô‡X¸%XXX¸%ÔValle'sÐ ° Ðsentence€of€360€months€was€greater€than€four€coconspirators'Ð †Ö Ðsentences€and€equal€to€or€less€than€four€other€coconspirators'Ð \¬ Ðsentences.Ô#†X¸%XXX¸%A#ÔÝ ƒüœ!ÝÔUSUS.,ÔÝ  ÝÔ_Ôò òÔ‡ Xp_XXXÔÔ‡ °¡°X Xp_ÔÓ  ÓÑ€$'ÑUnited€States€Court€of€AppealsÔ#† Xp_X° °¡_#ÔÔ‡ „*„X Xp_ÔÐ ° ÐFor€the€First€Circuitó óÔ#†„l„„ „*@#ÔÔ#†X¸%X„„lÜ#ÔÐ „Ô ÐÌÓ~ÓßA€u*) °°` dE<¹` AßÐ º  ÐÌÌNos.€00„1422à ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  àà p àà È àà  àVolume€II€of€IIÐ u Å Ѐ€€€€00„1457Ð K › Ѐ€€€€00„1534Ð ! q Ѐ€€€€00„1560Ð ÷ G  Ѐ€€€€00„1561Ð Í   Ѐ€€€€00„1628Ð £ó  Ѐ€€€€01„1150Ð yÉ  Ѐ€€€€01„1873Ð OŸ  Ѐ€€€€01„2248Ð %u  ÐÌÌà@¤¤#ìàUNITED€STATES,ˆÐ §÷ Ðà@ÐÐ&ìàAppellee,ˆÐ }Í ÐÌà@tt)ìàv.ˆÐ )y ÐÌÓ  Óà@@ÜÜ ìàMILTON€A.€NELSON„RODRIGUEZ;€LUIS€A.€ROMERO„Lð:ðPEZ;€Ð Õ% ÐMIGUEL€A.€RODRIGUEZ„RIVERA;€EDUARDO€ARROYO„MALDONADO;€Ð «û ÐCARLOS€BONET„GONZALEZ;€ANGEL€CHEVERE„GONZALEZ;€Ð Ñ ÐLUIS€CARIBE„GARCIA;€RAðBðL€RIVERA„PREZ;€VICTOR€M.€VALLE„LASALLE,Ð W§ ÐÓÓÓ  ÓÌDefendants,€Appellants.Ð S ÐÓwÓÌßA€u*) °°` dE<®` AßÐ ¯ÿ ÐÌÓ  ÓAPPEALS€FROM€THE€UNITED€STATES€DISTRICT€COURT€Ð ”ä ÐFOR€THE€DISTRICT€OF€PUERTO€RICOÐ jº  ÐÓÓÌà@ppìà[Hon.€Juan€M.€Prez„Gimnez,€òòU.S.€District€Judgeóó]ˆÐ !f" ÐÌßA€u*) °°` dE<Á"` AßÐ Â"$ ÐÌà@„„'ìàBeforeˆÐ §#÷& ÐÌÓ  Óà@@((ìà€Boudin,€òòChief€Judgeóó,Ð S%£ ( ÐLynch,€òòCircuit€Judgeóó,Ð )&y!) Ðand€Shadur,Ù*ƒüœ!Ù׃×Ý ƒ#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú*Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€òòSenior€District€Judgeóó.Ð ÿ&O"* ÐÌÌßA€u*) °°` dE<€)` AßÐ )Ñ$- ÐÌÌÐ <+Œ&0 ÐÓ  ÓÓ  Óà  àòòMarlene€Aponte€Cabreraóófor€appellant€Nelson„Rodriguez.Ð ° ÐÌà  àòòRafael€F.€Castro€Langóó€for€appellant€Romero„Lð;ðpez.Ð \¬ ÐÌà  àòòJose€A.€Suarez„Santaóó€for€appellant€Rodriguez„Rivera.€Ð X ÐÌà  àòòRaymond€L.€Sanchez€Maceiraóó€for€appellant€Arroyo„Maldonado.Ð ´  ÐÌà  àòòMauricio€Hernandez€Arroyoóó€for€appellant€Bonet„Gonzalez.Ð ` ° ÐÌà  àòòRaymond€Rivera€Estevesóó€for€appellant€Chevere„Gonzalez.Ð  \  ÐÌà  àòòMarlene€Gerdtsóó€for€appellant€Caribe„Garcia.Ð ¸  ÐÌà  àòòLinda€Georgeóó€for€appellant€Rivera„Prez.Ð d´  ÐÌà  àòòLuz€M.€Rios€Rosarioóó€for€appellant€Valle„Lasalle.Ð `  ÐÌà  àòòWilliam€C.€Brownóó,€Attorney,€U.S.€Department€of€Justice,€withÐ ¼  Ðwhom€òòH.S.€Garciaóó,€United€States€Attorney,€was€on€brief€forÐ ’â Ðappellee.Ð h¸ ÐÌÔ*‹ƒ-u/ddd Xdd Xdd X°(#°(#‹ÔÔ,( dd ÔÔ,( dd ÔÔ,( dd ÔÔ+  ÔÐ dd ‹‹ÐÓ9 ÓÐ SIxÈ @câ@37658„„‰@câ@‰‹‹SÐÌFebruary€7,€2003Ð Nž ÐÐ RHC$t" @câ@37658 @câ@ ‹‹RÐÐ(xÈ  (ÐÓ  ÓÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÐ d-´(2 ÐÑ$'Ñâ âÑ€ÑÑ8€¸%XXdÖXXdÖ8ÑØ7Øâ âÑ  ÑÓ  ÓÓÓH.€€òòApprendi€(Nelson,€Rodriguez,€Arroyo,€Bonet,€Chevere,€Caribe,Ð ° ÐRivera,€and€Valle)Ô‡X¸%XXX¸%ÔóóÐ \¬ Ðà  àAll€of€the€appellants€except€for€Romero,€who€pled€guilty,Ð X Ðargue€that€their€sentences€were€imposed€in€violation€of€òòApprendióó€v.Ð ´  ÐòòNew€Jerseyóó,€530€U.S.€466€(2000).€€òòApprendióó€held€that€"[o]ther€thanÐ ` ° Ðthe€fact€of€a€prior€conviction,€any€fact€that€increases€the€penaltyÐ  \  Ðfor€a€crime€beyond€the€prescribed€statutory€maximum€must€beÐ ¸  Ðsubmitted€to€a€jury,€and€proved€beyond€a€reasonable€doubt."€€òòId.óó€atÐ d´  Ð2362„63ò òó ó.€€The€defendants€raise€several€distinct€òòApprendióó€claims,Ð `  Ðand€we€address€each€in€turn.Ð ¼  Ðà  à1.€€òòFacial€Challenge€to€21€U.S.C.€ðð841óó€Ð h¸ Ðà  àThe€defendants€make€a€facial€challenge€to€21€U.S.C.€ðð8Ù*üœ!ÙØ Ø41.׃x×Ý ƒ#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú13Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ׀Рd ÐSection€841(a)€makes€it€unlawful€for€any€person€to€knowingly€orÐ À Ðintentionally€distribute€or€possess€with€intent€to€distribute€aÐ l¼ Ðcontrolled€substance.€€Section€841(b)€lists€the€penalties€forÐ h Ðviolation€of€section€841(a),€which€vary€depending€on€the€drug€typeÐ Ä Ðand€quantity.€€Defendants€say€this€renders€the€statute€faciallyÐ pÀ  Ðunconstitutional.Ð !l" Ðà  àThis€argument€about€ðð€841€is€foreclosed€by€òòUnited€Statesóó€v.Ð È"$ ÐòòCollazo„Aponteóó,€281€F.3d€320€(1st.€Cir.€2002),€which€held€thatÐ t$Ä& Ð"there€is€nothing€in€the€statutory€language€that€explicitly€defiesÐ  &p!( ÐòòApprendióó"€because€"[t]he€statute€is€silent€as€to€who€makes€theseÐ ° Ðfindings€and€under€what€burden€of€persuasion."€€òòId.óó€at€325.€€OurÐ \¬ Ðdecision€in€òòCollazo„Aponteóó€is€consistent€with€the€decisions€of€allÐ X Ðcircuits€that€have€addressed€this€issue.€€òòSee,€e.g.óó,€òòUnited€StatesóóÐ ´  Ðv.€òòBucklandóó,€289€F.3d€558,€562€(9th€Cir.€2002)€(en€banc);€òòUnitedÐ ` ° ÐStatesóó€v.€òòMcAllisteróó,€272€F.3d€228,€232€(4th€Cir.€2001);€òòUnitedÐ  \  ÐStatesóó€v.€òòBroughóó,€243€F.3d€1078,€1079€(7th€Cir.),€òòcert.€deniedóó,€534Ð ¸  ÐU.S.€889€(2001).Ð d´  Ðà  àòòCollazo„Aponteóó€similarly€rejected€the€claim€that€ðð€841(b)Ð `  Ðincludes€a€mens€rea€requirement€as€to€the€type€and€quantity€ofÐ ¼  Ðdrugs.€€Section€841(a)€requires€the€defendant€to€"knowingly€orÐ h¸ Ðintentionally"€possess€controlled€substances€with€an€intent€toÐ d Ðdistribute.€€The€defendants€argue€that€this€mens€rea€requirementÐ À Ðapplies€to€all€elements€of€the€crime,€including€those€listed€in€ððÐ l¼ Ð841(b).€€However,€as€we€held€in€òòCollazo„Aponteóó,€"The€plain€languageÐ h Ðof€ððÔ#†X¸%XXX¸%£#ÔÔ‡X¸%XXX¸%Ô€841(b)€requires€the€government€to€prove€only€that€the€offenseÐ Ä Ð'involved'€a€particular€type€and€quantity€of€drugs,€not€that€theÐ pÀ  Ðdefendant€knew€that€he€was€distributing€that€particular€drug€typeÐ !l" Ðand€quantity."€€òòóó281€F.3d€atÔ#†X¸%XXX¸%ï#ÔÔ‡X¸%XXX¸%Ô€326.€€The€presumption€in€favor€of€aÐ È"$ Ðscienter€requirement€does€not€apply€in€this€case€because€theÐ t$Ä& Ðelements€in€ðð€841(b)€only€set€the€penalty€and€do€not€criminalizeÐ  &p!( Ðotherwise€innocent€conduct.Ð Ì'#* Ðà  à2.€€òòVague€Allegations€in€IndictmentóóÐ x)È$, Ðà  àDefendants€argue€that€the€indictment€was€inadequate€in€that€itÐ $+t&. Ðmade€only€vague€allegations€as€to€the€type€and€quantity€of€theÐ ° Ðdrugs€involved€in€the€conspiracy.€€It€is€true€that€òòApprendióóÐ \¬ Ðconsiders€any€fact€(other€than€a€prior€conviction)€that€increasesÐ X Ðthe€penalty€for€a€crime€beyond€the€statutory€maximum€to€be€anÐ ´  Ðelement€of€the€crime.€€But€the€indictment€here€easily€meets€thisÐ ` ° Ðrequirement.€€The€superseding€indictment€charged€that€theÐ  \  Ðdefendants€possessed€with€intent€to€distribute€over€1,000€kilogramsÐ ¸  Ðof€cocaine,€five€kilograms€of€heroin,€and€5,000€pounds€ofÐ d´  Ðmarijuana.€€Furthermore,€it€provided€the€drug€type€and€quantity€forÐ `  Ðeach€of€the€planned€importations€at€issue€at€trial,€stating€forÐ ¼  Ðexample€that€Arroyo€and€Rivera€met€"two€other€persons€known€to€theÐ h¸ ÐGrand€Jury,"€CIS€Hernandez€and€Diaz,€to€discuss€the€importation€ofÐ d Ðapproximately€1,200€kilograms€of€cocaine€into€Puerto€Rico€in€MayÐ À Ð1997,€and€that€Rivera,€Torres,€and€Chevere€received€a€shipment€ofÐ l¼ Ð250€kilograms€of€cocaine€in€July€1997.€€Such€detail€is€more€thanÐ h Ðsufficient€to€meet€òòApprendióó's€mandate,€and€we€therefore€rejectÐ Ä Ðdefendants'€claim.Ð pÀ  ÐÔ#†X¸%XXX¸%P#ÔÔ‡X¸%XXX¸%Ôà  à3.€€òòLack€of€Jury€Determination€of€Drug€Type€and€QuantityóóÐ !l" Ðà  àDefendants€argue€that€their€sentences€must€be€vacated€becauseÐ È"$ Ðthe€jury€did€not€determine€drug€type€or€quantity.€€In€fact,€theÐ t$Ä& Ðjury€verdict€sheet€asked€simply€whether€a€particular€defendant€wasÐ  &p!( Ðguilty€of€the€one€count€in€the€indictment,€a€copy€of€which€wasÐ Ì'#* Ðprovided€to€the€jury.€€The€indictment€charged€that€the€defendants€Ð x)È$, ÐÓÓà0  àdid€unlawfully,€knowingly,€willfully,€and€intentionallyÐ $+t&. Ðcombine,€conspire,€confederate,€and€agree€together€with€diversÐ ú+J'/ Ðother€persons€to€the€Grand€Jury€known€and€unknown,€to€possessÐ ° Ðwith€intent€to€distribute€amounts€of€cocaine,€a€Schedule€IIÐ †Ö Ðnarcotic€drug€controlled€substance,€which€amounts€of€cocaineÐ \¬ Ðexceeded€One€Thousand€(1,000)€kilograms;€heroin,€a€Schedule€I,Ð 2‚ ÐNarcotic€Drug€Controlled€Substance,€which€amounts€of€heroinÐ X Ðexceeded€Five€(5)€kilograms;€òòandóó€marijuana,€a€Schedule€IÐ Þ. Ðcontrolled€substance,€which€amounts€exceeded€Five€ThousandÐ ´  Ð(5,000)€pounds€of€marijuanaò òЊ Ú(#(# Ðó óÓò'ÓÌ(emphasis€added).€€It€also€specified€particular€amounts€and€kindsÐ  \  Ðof€drugs€for€transactions€in€which€those€defendants€participated.Ð ¸  Ðà  àWe€understand€the€argument€to€have€several€parts,€includingÐ d´  Ðfirst€that€the€jury,€at€a€minimum,€had€to€decide€the€drug€quantityÐ `  Ðand€type€for€the€underlying€conspiracy€(to€the€extent€ofÐ ¼  Ðdetermining€a€quantity€which€sets€the€maximum€sentence€under€ðð€841Ð h¸ Ðthat€would€be€applicable€to€the€conspirators).€€The€argument€movesÐ d Ðto€another€level€with€the€assertion€that€it€was€error€for€the€trialÐ À Ðjudge€to€deny€the€requests€of€several€defendants€that€the€jury€makeÐ l¼ Ðan€individualized€determination€as€to€the€drug€type€and€quantityÐ h Ðwhich€could€be€attributed€to€that€defendant.€€Both€arguments€haveÐ Ä Ðin€common€the€assertion€that€òòApprendióó€required€these€issues€to€beÐ pÀ  Ðsubmitted€to€the€jury€in€light€of€the€fact€that€the€defendantsÐ !l" Ðreceived€sentences€greater€than€the€default€statutory€maximum.€€TheÐ È"$ Ðrelevant€default€statutory€maximum€is€based€on€distribution€of€lessÐ t$Ä& Ðthan€50€kilograms€of€marijuana,€which€produces€a€maximum€sentenceÐ  &p!( Ðof€five€years€for€first€felony€drug€convictions€and€ten€years€ifÐ Ì'#* Ðthere€is€a€prior€such€conviction.€€21€U.S.C.€ðð€841(b)(1)(D).Ð x)È$, ÐÔ#†X¸%XXX¸%Á%#ÔÔ‡X¸%XXX¸%Ôà  àÔ#†X¸%XXX¸%w1#ÔÔ‡X¸%XXX¸%ÔIt€is€common€ground,€and€the€government€concedes,€that€theÐ $+t&. Ðdefendants€were€entitled€to€some€form€of€jury€determination€as€toÐ ° Ðquantity€„„€whether€general€or€individual€is€a€separate€question€„„Ð \¬ Ðbefore€being€subject€to€more€than€the€default€statutory€maximum.€Ð X ÐHere,€there€was€no€jury€determination€of€either€sort.€€One€mightÐ ´  Ðsuppose€from€the€indictment€quoted€above€that€the€jury€necessarilyÐ ` ° Ðfound€the€quantities€there€specified,€but€in€fact€review€of€theÐ  \  Ðjury€instructions€confirms€that€the€jury€was€asked€only€toÐ ¸  Ðdetermine€whether€there€was€a€conspiracy€as€charged,€not€whether€itÐ d´  Ðcovered€any€specific€amounts€of€drugs.€€The€government€does€notÐ `  Ðclaim€otherwise.Ð ¼  Ðà  àHowever,€the€jury's€failure€to€determine€drug€type€and€amountÐ h¸ Ðis€not€fatal€if€the€evidence€overwhelmingly€establishes€the€amount.€Ð d ÐòòUnited€Statesóó€v.€òòCottonóó,€535€U.S.€625€(2002).€€In€this€instance,Ð À Ðour€review€shows€that€this€is€so€as€to€all€defendants,€whether€theÐ l¼ Ðtest€is€plain€error€or€harmless€error€and€whether€the€figureÐ h Ðrelates€to€the€overall€conspiracy€or€to€the€individual€defendant.€Ð Ä ÐWe€will€return€to€these€calculations€in€due€course.€€But€for€theÐ pÀ  Ðsake€of€future€litigation,€it€is€useful€to€say€something€more€aboutÐ !l" Ðboth€the€requirements€for€preservation€of€òòApprendióó€claims€and€theÐ È"$ Ðproblem€of€general€versus€specific€findings€as€to€amount€of€drugs.€Ð t$Ä& ÐWe€begin€with€the€latter.Ð  &p!( Ðà  àIn€òòUnited€Statesóó€v.€òòDermanóó,€298€F.3d€34,€42„44€(1st€Cir.Ð Ì'#* Ð2002)Ô#†X¸%XXX¸%Å1#ÔÔ‡X¸%XXX¸%Ô,€this€court€ruled€that€it€was€sufficient€to€satisfy€òòApprendióóÐ x)È$, Ðif€the€jury€found€that€the€conspiracy€charged€was€to€distribute,€orÐ $+t&. Ðpossess€with€intent€to€distribute,€a€specific€quantity€(assumingÐ ° Ðthat€this€figure€triggered€the€higher€maximum€sentence€at€issue).€Ð \¬ ÐIf€the€defendant€were€convicted€of€participating€in€such€aÐ X Ðconspiracy,€this€necessarily€meant€that€he€was€liable,€for€òòApprendióóÐ ´  Ðpurposes,€for€the€quantity€of€the€overall€conspiracy.€€We€thereforeÐ ` ° Ðheld€that€there€was€no€òòApprendióó€error€where€a€juryÐ  \  ÐÓÓà0  àhas€determined€that€the€conspiracy€involved€a€type€andÐ ¸  Ðquantity€of€drugs€sufficient€to€justify€a€sentence€above€theÐ ŽÞ  Ðdefault€statutory€maximum€and€has€found€a€particular€defendantÐ d´  Ðguilty€of€participation€in€the€conspiracy[.]€€[In€thisÐ :Š  Ðsituation,]€the€judge€lawfully€may€determine€the€drug€quantityÐ `  Ðattributable€to€that€defendant€and€sentence€him€accordinglyÐ æ6 Ð(so€long€as€the€sentence€falls€within€the€statutory€maximumÐ ¼  Ðmade€applicable€by€the€jury's€conspiracy„wide€drug€quantityÐ ’â Ðdetermination).Ðh¸(#(# ÐÓW<ÓÌòòDermanóó,€298€F.3d€Ô#†X¸%XXX¸%Š9#ÔÔ‡X¸%XXX¸%Ôat€43.Ð ê: Ðà  àA€number€of€other€circuits€have€taken€the€same€view€as€to€theÐ –æ Ðissue€required€to€be€decided€by€the€jury€if€the€default€maximum€isÐ B’ Ðto€be€exceeded.€€òòSeeóó€Ô#†X¸%XXX¸%q?#ÔÔ‡X¸%XXX¸%ÔòòUnited€Statesóó€v.€òòThomasóó,€274€F.3d€655€(2dòòóó€Cir.Ð î> Ð2001);€Ô#†X¸%XXX¸%ž@#ÔÔ‡X¸%XXX¸%ÔòòUnited€Statesóó€v.€òòPattersonóó,€241€F.3d€912€(7thòòóó€Cir.€2001);Ð šê ÐòòUnited€Statesóó€v.€òòNanceóó,€236€F.3d€820€(7thòòóó€Cir.€2000)òòóó.Ô#†X¸%XXX¸%Ž Ðsentencing€classifications,€sentencing€guideline€ranges,€andÐ d Ðpolicy€statements€contained€in€or€omitted€from€the€presentenceÐ ê: Ðreport.€After€receiving€objections,€the€probation€officer€mayÐ À Ðmeet€with€the€defendant,€the€defendant's€counsel,€and€theÐ –æ Ðattorney€for€the€Government€to€discuss€those€objections.€TheÐ l¼ Ðprobation€officer€may€also€conduct€a€further€investigation€andÐ B’ Ðrevise€the€presentence€report€as€appropriate.€Ðh(#(# ÐÓÝmÓÌThe€probation€officer€issued€her€initial€presentence€report€to€bothÐ šê Ðparties€on€February€3,€2000.€€This€report€did€not€recommend€anÐ F –! Ðenhancement€for€Caribe's€leadership€role€in€the€conspiracy€orÐ ò!B# Ðpossession€of€a€gun€during€the€conspiracy.€€Caribe€alleges€thatÐ ž#î% ÐAgent€Plichta€then€met€with€the€probation€officer€and€reviewed€theÐ J%š ' Ðevidence€about€Caribe's€role€in€the€conspiracy.€€The€probationÐ ö&F") Ðofficer€then€amended€her€report€to€recommend€a€four„levelÐ ¢(ò#+ Ðenhancement€for€a€leadership€role€and€a€two„level€enhancement€forÐ N*ž%- Ðfirearm€possession.€€Caribe's€counsel€was€not€given€a€chance€toÐ ú+J'/ Ðrebut€Agent€Plichta's€statements€before€the€amended€report€wasÐ ° Ðreleased,€although€he€was€able€to€file€formal€objections€pursuantÐ \¬ Ðto€Rule€32€and€to€raise€his€objections€directly€to€the€districtÐ X Ðcourt€during€the€sentencing€hearing.€€Caribe€filed€a€motionÐ ´  Ðobjecting€to€the€ex€parte€communications€and€demanding€disclosureÐ ` ° Ðof€all€documents€that€the€probation€officer€used€in€preparing€theÐ  \  Ðpresentence€report.€€The€defendant€also€asked€to€be€able€to€callÐ ¸  Ðthe€probation€officer€as€a€witness€at€the€sentencing€hearing€toÐ d´  Ðexamine€the€extent€of€the€communications.Ð `  Ðà  àIn€a€published€opinion,€òòUnited€Statesóó€v.€òòCaribe€Garciaóó,€125€F.Ð ¼  ÐSupp.€2d€19€(D.P.R.€2000),€the€district€judge€denied€the€motion.€Ð h¸ ÐThe€court€held€that€there€was€no€prosecutorial€misconduct€becauseÐ d Ð"disclosing€information€to€the€probation€officer€[is]€theÐ À Ðfunctional€equivalent€of€disclosing€information€to€the€courtÐ l¼ Ðitself."€€òòId.óó€at€21.€€The€court€also€stated€that€Caribe€failed€toÐ h Ðshow€that€he€was€entitled€to€a€downward€departure€given€that€theÐ Ä Ðpresentence€report€only€recommends€a€sentence€and€the€finalÐ pÀ  Ðsentencing€determination€is€made€"after€the€Court€hears€argumentsÐ !l" Ðand€objections€to€the€presentence€report€in€open€court."€€òòId.óó€€WeÐ È"$ Ðagree€with€the€second€basis€for€the€court's€opinion€but€not€theÐ t$Ä& Ðfirst.Ð  &p!( Ðà  àThe€first€issue€is€difficult€because€of€the€discrepancyÐ Ì'#* Ðbetween€the€fairly€formal€procedure€contemplated€by€Rule€32€and€theÐ x)È$, Ðmore€informal€reality.€€It€is€common€for€one€side€to€speak€with€theÐ $+t&. Ðprobation€officer,€either€before€or€after€the€report€is€released.€Ð ° ÐOne€district€court€has€stated€that,òòóó€in€that€court's€experience,€exÐ \¬ Ðparte€communications€between€the€government€and€the€probationÐ X Ðofficer€preparing€the€report€are€"appropriate€and€regular."€òòÐ ´  ÐRoccisanoóó€v.€òòUnited€Statesóó,€936€F.€Supp.€96,€103€(S.D.N.Y.€1996)Ô#†X¸%XXX¸%hO#ÔÔ‡X¸%XXX¸%Ô.Ô#†X¸%XXX¸%µ}#ÔÔ‡X¸%XXX¸%ԀР` ° ÐBut€we€could€not€fully€embrace€such€informality€without€readingÐ  \  ÐRule€32(b)€out€of€the€Federal€Rules;€Rule€32(b)€does€require€a€moreÐ ¸  Ðstructured€process,€at€least€in€the€fourteen„day€period€followingÐ d´  Ðthe€release€of€the€presentence€report.Ð `  Ðà  àRule€32(b)€is€literally€read€as€permitting€ex€parteÐ ¼  Ðcommunications€initiated€by€either€party€both€òòbeforeóó€and€òòafteróó€thisÐ h¸ Ðfourteen„day€period.€€During€the€fourteen„day€period,€however,Ð d Ðwhile€the€parties€are€preparing€their€written€objections€to€theÐ À Ðpresentence€report,€the€parties,€under€the€rule,€should€communicateÐ l¼ Ðwith€the€probation€officer€only€in€writing,€and€all€communicationsÐ h Ðmust€be€disclosed€to€the€other€party.€Ô#†X¸%XXX¸%ø}#ÔÔ‡X¸%XXX¸%Ô€This€reading€of€the€ruleÐ Ä Ðpermits€most€of€the€present€informality,€while€allowing€both€sidesÐ pÀ  Ðto€know€the€scope€of€the€objections.€€òòSeeóó€Fed.€R.€Crim.€P.Ð !l" Ð32(b)(6)(B)€advisory€committee€notes€to€1994€AmendmentsÔ#†X¸%XXX¸%Á#ÔÔ‡X¸%XXX¸%Ô€(theÐ È"$ Ðparties€should€have€a€"fair€opportunity€.€.€.€to€review,€object€to,Ð t$Ä& Ðand€comment€upon,€the€probation€officer's€report€in€advance€of€theÐ  &p!( Ðsentencing€hearing").òòóóÔ#†X¸%XXX¸%ƒ#ÔÔ‡X¸%XXX¸%Ô€€There€are€benefits€to€informality,€but€theÐ Ì'#* Ðparties€should€at€least€know€what€issues€are€on€the€tableÐ x)È$, Ðconcerning€the€presentence€report€so€they€can€present€counter„Ð $+t&. Ðarguments€if€they€desire.Ð ° Ðà  àEven€if€contact€with€Agent€Plichta€did€inadvertently€violateÐ \¬ ÐRule€32,€Caribe€has€failed€to€show€that€he€has€suffered€any€harm€asÐ X Ða€result.€€First,€he€does€not€explain€what€he€hoped€to€accomplishÐ ´  Ðby€additional€discovery€or€by€calling€the€probation€officer€toÐ ` ° Ðtestify€at€the€sentencing€hearing.€€The€revised€presentence€reportÐ  \  Ðapparently€sets€forth€the€additional€evidence€the€probation€officerÐ ¸  Ðrelied€upon€in€amending€her€recommendations,€and€all€other€factsÐ d´  Ðappear€to€be€undisputed.€€ò òó óSecond,€as€the€district€court€noted,€theÐ `  Ðreport€is€only€a€recommendation€to€the€court;€the€court€is€notÐ ¼  Ðbound€to€accept€these€recommendations.€€The€district€court€in€thisÐ h¸ Ðcase€had€notice€that€the€second€report€was€prepared€after€theÐ d Ðprosecution's€alleged€ex€parte€contact€and€gave€Caribe's€counselÐ À Ðample€opportunity€at€sentencing€to€dispute€the€report'sÐ l¼ Ðrecommendations.ò ò€€ó óThe€court€then€found€that€the€enhancements€wereÐ h Ðappropriate€and€sentenced€the€defendant€accordingly.€€Thus€CaribeÐ à0 Ðfails€to€show€what€harm€he€suffered€as€a€result€of€the€ex€parteÐ ŒÜ  Ðcommunications.€€òòSee,€e.g.óó,€òòMontoyaóó,€62€F.3d€at€3€(1st€Cir.€1995)Ð 8!ˆ" Ð("[T]he€sentencing€court€has€ample€power€to€deal€withÐ ä"4$ Ð[prosecutorial€misconduct€impacting€the€judge's€sentencing€options]Ð $à& Ðby€excluding€the€tainted€transaction€from€the€computation€ofÐ <&Œ!( Ðrelevant€conduct€or€by€departing€from€the€[recommendation].").Ô#†X¸%XXX¸%:„#ÔÔ‡X¸%XXX¸%ÔÐ è'8#* ÐÐ  ”)ä$, ÐM.€€Ô#†X¸%XXX¸%Œ#ÔÔ‡X¸%XXX¸%ÔòòConclusionóóÐ ° Ðà  àWe€òòò òaffirmó óóó€the€judgments€and€the€sentences€and€reject€each€ofÐ \¬ Ðthe€defendant's€claims,€except€that€we€ò òòòremandóóó ó,€in€accordance€withÐ $t Ðthis€opinion,€the€issue€of€the€term€of€supervised€release€forÐ ì < ÐRodriguez€and€ò òòòvacateóóó ó€that€aspect€only€of€his€sentence.€€So€ordered.Ô#†X¸%XXX¸%ñŒ#Ô