WPCD Hr^H5tnH 6F, 'ۆ)jW)Nl˚Lc& gxс4E&6%uːN՗cX 0;sӓn]蘺qQL`ջ#T6F DM~j"섂0*d$ U]3ؓ4Q(L1Lt4Cb!\Au:%F<8׵g"lAc,ԥK1XF>ƴe~3#r<*%xyLvMؼ`(o%gm-GJ yyAy_Y_7_⠡Yf&aNbޭ[KcX] yk=be鳲VZQ4(&8\i9<'vF%J3G^ž1Xph>׺;C_#2 % U8 0G9 U: 0 U. nT ND U@F ^ w 4   m E f a N 0 c 0wO 0 0P 0 0 0k 0F 0D5 1y 0 D 1uF 72Nn(cN Bp6 ANm 72o 72UBbN 72UFQ^  1{ 72`!`!`!5!!!!!"v&Y)$*m*fJ, -Y:::::::BBBBBBBBBBBBB D-C(DHP LaserJet 4000 Series PCL 5e,,,,0X<4 9Z+ Courier New ($XOXXX<6X9`("Courier NewTT(2$ !X_XXX  X_XXX_=_Xdd=  0  <6X9`(Courier<6X9`("Courier NewTTXXx6X@DQX@<6X9`(CourierTTXXw6X@QX@(9 Z(Times New Roman ~ 5 4?,}backup3|x!UTABLE A(;3$2#  0  .3  0  (O;$0  2#  a  .3  0` (#(#(b$0  0` (#(#2#   .3  0 ` (#` (#(xir$0  0` (#(#0 ` (#` (#2#(  0  )3  0 (# (#($0  0` (#(#0 ` (#` (#0 (# (#2#(  a  )3  0h(#(#(F$0  0` (#(#0 ` (#` (#0 (# (#0h(#(#2#(   )3  0h(#h(#($0  0` (#(#0 ` (#` (#0 (# (#0h(#(#0h(#h(#2#  0  )3  0(#(#({$0  0` (#(#0 ` (#` (#0 (# (#0h(#(#0h(#h(#0(#(#2#  a  )3  0p(#(#(F$0  0` (#(#0 ` (#` (#0 (# (#0h(#(#0h(#h(#0(#(#0p(#(#2#     )3  0p(#p(# xGaeimquy}Bullet ListBullets List(#$  0  3#37=CIQYag1.a.i.(1)(a)(i)1)a) i)<6X9`(*Courier 12pt10cpiXXx6X@JQX@*f9 `6Times New RomanItalicTT^*f9 xQX q`ScriptRomanItalicTTO @HxQX\  `*Times New RomanTTcTT^\  P6QPLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5! dLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5^]&Draw Object =8C HKKKK i) i)<6X9`(*Courier 12pt10cpi- - i)<4 9Z+.Courier New RegularL:\JUDGES\Boudin\TEMPLATE\OPINIONS\ALDRICH.WPT _    2Although_Roberson_Ԁdoesnotchallengethepatterninstruction  itself,wepausetonotethatthepatterninstructionsarenot x mandatorynorhasthiscourtapprovedtheuseofanyparticular @ instruction.SeeUnitedStatesv.Tse,375F.3d148,15758(1st X Cir.2004). e   e 83CIOU[agmLettersA.A.A.A.A.A.A.A.9A. +_  __  1Theterm"cocainebase,"includes,interalia,"crack  cocaine."UnitedStatesv.Anderson,F.3d,No.051872, x 2006WL1766704,at*20(1stCir.June29,2006). _    4Wereject_Roberson_'ssuggestionthatUnitedStatesv.  _Bollenbach_,326U.S.607(1946),requiredthedistrictcourtto x respondtothejury'squestionwithanexplicitanswer.In @ _Bollenbach_,theSupremeCourtfoundthatthetrialcourthaderred X byrespondingtoajuryquestionwithanerroneoussupplemental   instruction.Id.at61213.Thatispreciselythepitfallthe  districtcourtendeavoredtoavoidinthiscase.SeeUnitedStates `  v._Prigmore_,243F.3d1,17(1stCir.2001)("[_W]e_Ԁhaverecognized ( x that,insomeinstances,attemptstoclarifyinherentlynebulous  @ conceptscandomoreharmthangood."). l_    5Under18U.S.C.921(a)(3),a"firearm"isdefinedas:  8  8`   (A)anyweapon(includingastartergun)which @ willorisdesignedormayreadilybe X convertedtoexpelaprojectilebytheaction   ofanexplosive;(B)theframeorreceiverof  anysuchweapon;(C)anyfirearmmuffleror `  firearmsilencer;or(D)anydestructive ( x  device.Suchtermdoesnotincludeanantique  firearm. _    6SeeUnitedStatesSentencingCommissionReporttoCongress:  CocaineandFederalSentencingPolicy,19(May2002). _    7Toourknowledge,theD.C.Circuitistheonlyfederal  appellatecourttohaveaddressedthisissuetodate. c___    8Suchaformulationwouldhavebeenharmoniouswiththepre  1994versionof841(b)(1)(A)whichdefineda felonydrug x offenseas anoffensethatisafelony....Seeinfranote @ 10. \___    9RobersondoesnotciteanyexampleswhereCongresshascross  referencedtoadefinedtermbyplacingthatdefinedtermwithin x anotherdefinedterm(asopposedtoplacingitwithinthetextof @ thedefinition). _    10Priorto1988,841(b)(1)(A)providedthataprior  convictionfor,interalia,"afelonyunderany...lawofa x State"wouldtriggerenhancedpenalties.Pub.LawNo.99570, @ 1002,100Stat.3207,32074(1986)(emphasisadded).Theterm X "felonydrugoffense"wasaddedto841(b)(1)(A)in1988andthe   definitionwasplaceddirectlyinthesubstantivesubsection,but  theapplicabilityofthepenaltyenhancementstilldependedonthe `  classificationoftheprioroffenseasafelony.SeePub.LawNo. ( x 100690,6452(a)(2),102Stat.4181,4371(1988)("[T]heterm  @ 'felonydrugoffense'meansanoffensethatis...afelonyunder    anylawofaState....").In1994,Congressamendedthe    substantiveenhancementprovisionsofboththeCSAandtheImport H   Actsothattheyalluniformlyusedtheterm"felonydrugoffense." `  SeePub.LawNo.103322,90105,108Stat.1796,198788(1994). (  Italsoreplacedtheclassificationbaseddefinitionof"felony   drugoffense"withthenewsentencebaseddefinitionoftheterm h  thatpresentlyresidesin802(44).Seeid. 0    Robersoncontendsthatthe1994amendmentwasintendedmerely H  tomakeuniformtheparallelprovisionsintheCSAandtheImport  Act.Butsuchastructuralintentdoesnotprecludeanadditional  substantiveintent:toreplacetheoldclassificationbased P definitionof"felonydrugoffense"withanewdefinitionwhich h considersonlythepotentiallengthofthesentence.See 0 Zimmerman,409F.3dat476(notingthatacourt"mayassumethat.  ..Congresswasaware"ofthepreviouslyexistingstatutory p provisions,andthusthatitschoiceof"adifferentformulation" 8 wasintentional).Suchanintentmakessenseinthecontextofthe P evolvingnatureoftheCSA.Initially,thedistrictcourtswere  givenbroadleewayinfashioningsentences,butCongressreversed  coursein1984byenactingmandatorypenaltiestoavoidsentencing X disparities.SeeToddE.Gonyer,FederalSentencinginaPost  p ChapmanWorld:Whatisa"MixtureorSubstance"Anyhow?,46U.Kan. 8 L.Rev.983,98488(1998).Subsequentamendmentsinthe1980's   increasedtheconsequencesofthosemandatorypenalties.Seeid. x! Thus,itwouldnotbesurprisingtolearnthatCongressintended @" the1994amendmentstoensurethatthemandatoryrecidivistpenalty  X# provisionswouldbeapplieduniformlynotonlyacrossstatutory  $ lines,butalsoacrossstatelines. O_    11Robersonalsoarguesthatweshouldvacatehissentence e becausethedistrictcourtviolatedhisSixthAmendmentrightsby - imposingthe20yearmandatoryminimumsentencebasedonaprior  convictionthatthegovernmentdidnotprovetothejurybeyonda X reasonabledoubt.Althoughthiscircuithaspreviouslyread   _Almendarez_ԄTorresv.UnitedStates,523U.S.224(1998),to M foreclosesuchanargument,seeUnitedStatesv._Ivery_,427F.3d   69,75(1stCir.2005),_Roberson_Ԁurgesustoreexaminetheissue  x inlightofatrioofrecentSupremeCourtdecisions,Shepardv.  @ UnitedStates,544U.S.13(2005);UnitedStatesv.Booker,543 m   U.S.220(2005);and_Blakely_v.Washington,542U.S.296(2004). 5   _Roberson_Ԁcontendsthatthesethreecasescombinetounderminethe    continuingvalidityof_Almendarez_ԄTorresandourcircuitprecedent.  `  Werecentlyrejectedthisargumentsittingasanenbanccourt. (  SeeUnitedStatesv._Jimenez_Ԅ_Beltre_,440F.3d514,520(1stCir. U  2006)(enbanc)("[_W]e_Ԁareboundtofollow[_Almendarez_ԄTorres]   untilitisexpresslyoverruled."). _    3X^rXXXEvenwerewetoacceptthepremisethattherereadingofan  instructioncouldpresentafreshopportunityforalitigantto x objecttotheinstruction,wenotethat_Roberson_Ԁagainfailedto @ lodgetheobjectionafterthecourtrereadthechargetothejury.#X^rXXX^r/#)!dxdxLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5 !X^rXXX  _TRXܐ3'X3' Letter3'Letter3'LetterT ? * !      X~XXX^r =X X~7O8W UnitedStatesCourtofAppeals# X~X =#   'X X~FortheFirstCircuit# X~X '# #X^rXX X~# @ A') ` dE<` A L    `     h      p No.051315   @UNITEDSTATESOFAMERICA, + {  @&Appellee,   @tt)v. K  @#KURT_ROBERSON_, +  @ Defendant,Appellant. k  A') ` dE<` A K @ APPEALFROMTHEUNITEDSTATESDISTRICTCOURT " @0 0 FORTHEDISTRICTOFMASSACHUSETTS b @44[Hon.GeorgeA._O'Toole_,Jr.,U.S.DistrictJudge] B A') ` dE<` A  @'Before Y   @@((Lipez,CircuitJudge, 9 Cyr,SeniorCircuitJudge, y! andHoward,CircuitJudge.  Y# A') ` dE<`!` A a!&     MartinF.Murphy,withwhomFoley_Hoag_Ԁ_LLP_wasonbrief,for 8"( appellant. #P)   RandallE._Kromm_,AssistantUnitedStatesAttorneywithwhom #* MichaelJ.Sullivan,UnitedStatesAttorney,wasonbrief,for $+ appellee. X% , *'ddd Xdd Xdd X(#(#,( dd ,( dd ,( dd +  '#/'#  SI(d#0 `@38939`@S_August11,2006 (,$2 _ RHC)$3" `@38939 `@ R((d#4  (  *%4?   80^r0XXdXXd81*,X` XX*",US ,  (:!&),   ` HOWARD,CircuitJudge .AjuryconvictedKurt_Roberson_Ԁof   sellingmorethan50gramsofcrackcocaine,see21U.S.C. D 841(a)(1)and841(b)(1)(A)(iii),andofusingorcarryingafirearm $ duringandinrelationtothattransaction,see18U.S.C. d  924(c)(1)(A).Thedistrictcourtsentenced_Roberson_Ԁto300months'  D imprisonment._Roberson_'sappealchallengeshisconvictionsand    sentenceonseveralgrounds.Weaffirm. d    I.     ` TheFederalBureauofInvestigation(FBI)began 4  investigating_Roberson_Ԁinearly2003.Aspartofthat  investigation,FBIagentsengagedtheservicesofacooperating T witness,Eric_Mena_,whohadknown_Roberson_Ԁforeightyearsandhad 4 formerlybeenadrugdealingassociateof_Roberson_'s._Mena_Ԁagreed t tomakeacontrolledpurchaseofcrackcocainefrom_Roberson_Ԁas T partofapleabargainresolvingdrugchargesagainsthim.   ` OnMarch10ofthatyear,FBIagentEdward_Kappler_ $t outfitted_Mena_Ԁwithanelectronictransmitterandadigital   recordertoenabletheFBItomonitor_Mena_'sconversationswith D" _Roberson_._Mena_ԀthenwenttothehomeofRaymondMuse,amutual  $$ associateof_Roberson_Ԁand_Mena_,andinformedhimthathewantedto d"& buysomecrackfrom_Roberson_.Musebrought_Mena_Ԁtowhere_Roberson_ #D( wascurrentlystaying.After_Roberson_Ԁentered_Mena_'scar,_Mena_ % * toldhimthatheneededtwoouncesofcrack._Roberson_Ԁagreedto 'd", providethedrugsthenexteveningandtold_Mena_Ԁthatheshould (#.  calltoinitiatethepickup. 4*%0  ` While_Mena_Ԁwassaving_Roberson_'sphonenumberonhis   mobilephone,_Roberson_Ԁspontaneouslystated,"Yo,yougotany @ burners?Icantradeyouaburner."_Mena_Ԁtestifiedattrialthat   "burner"meanthandgun,andthatheunderstood_Roberson_'sstatement `  tobeanoffertosellhimagun._Roberson_Ԁdescribedthegunas"a  @ brandnew,40cal."thatwas"likea_Glock_,topischrome.The    restisplastic."_Mena_Ԁwasnoncommittalastothatofferbut `  confirmedthathewouldmeetwith_Roberson_Ԁthenextday.    ` Thefollowingevening,_Mena_,whowasagainoutfittedwith 0  atransmitterandanaudiorecorder,triedseveraltimes,  unsuccessfully,toreach_Roberson_Ԁonhismobilephone.TheFBI P directed_Mena_ԀtodrivetoMuse'shouseagain.Ratherthanusing 0 hisowncar,however,_Mena_ԀdroveanundercovercarthattheFBIhad p equippedwithahiddenvideocamera.AfterMuseand_Mena_ P successfullycontacted_Roberson_,Musedirected_Mena_Ԁtoanapartment  complexinanearbytown._Mena_ԀdrovetheundercovercarwithMuse  p ashispassenger.    ` Aftertheyarrivedattheapartmentcomplex,Muselocated @" _Roberson_Ԁandbroughthimto_Mena_'scar._Roberson_Ԁsatinthefront  $ passengerseatnextto_Mena_,whileMusesatintheback._Roberson_ `"& told_Mena_,"Igotyoursixtygrams,"andthentoldhimitwould #@( cost$2,000.As_Mena_Ԁwascountingouthismoney,_Roberson_Ԁlooked % * outthebackwindowandstated,"IgottheraponmesoI'mshook '`", anyway."_Mena_Ԁtestifiedattrialthatthismeantthat_Roberson_Ԁwas (#. paranoidbecausehehadahandgunonhim._Roberson_Ԁthenhanded 0*%0 _Mena_Ԁasandwichbagcontainingcrack. +'2  ` As_Mena_Ԁinspectedthecrack,_Roberson_Ԁpulledahandgun  outofhiswaistband,pointeditin_Mena_'sdirection,andstated, @ "That'swhatI'mtalkingaboutman."_Mena_Ԁtold_Roberson_Ԁnotto   pointthegunathimandaskedtoseeit._Roberson_Ԁhandedthegun `  to_Mena_,wholookedatitandsmelledittoseeifithadbeen  @ fired._Mena_Ԁfoundthedesignoftheguntobeconsistentwitha    "_Glock_"inthatthetopwaschromeandthebottomwasplastic. `  _Mena_Ԁasked_Roberson_Ԁwhyhewantedtogetridofthehandgunand   _Roberson_Ԁrepliedthattheserialnumbershadbeenscratchedoff. 0  When_Mena_Ԁaskedwhetherthegunhadbeenfiredyet,_Roberson_  replied,"Nah,Idon'twasteshells,man.Ishoot_niggas_Ԁthough." P _Mena_Ԁhandedthegunbackto_Roberson_,andtheycompletedthedrug 0 transaction. p  ` _Mena_Ԁthenasked_Roberson_Ԁifhewouldbeinterestedin P buying_Mena_'scar._Mena_Ԁinitiatedthisconversationoutsidethe  carsothatFBIagentswouldhaveanopportunitytoobserve  p _Roberson_Ԁdirectly.Asaresult,agentTimothyQuinn,whowas   conductingphysicalandaudiosurveillancenearby,wasableto @" drivewithin12feetof_Mena_Ԁand_Roberson_Ԁastheylookedoverthe  $ vehicle._Roberson_Ԁthenwentbackintotheapartmentcomplex. `"&  ` Laterthatmonth,afederalgrandjuryreturnedatwo #@( countindictmentcharging_Roberson_Ԁofpossessionwithintentto % * distributeanddistributionofmorethan50gramsofcocainebase,*!= #  1       '`", inviolationoftheControlledSubstancesAct("_CSA_"),see21  U.S.C.841(a)(1)and841(b)(1)(A)(iii)(the"drugcharge"),and @ ofusingorcarryingafirearm"duringandinrelationto"adrug   traffickingoffense,see18U.S.C.924(c)(1)(A)(the"gun `  charge").Thegovernmentsubsequentlyfiledaninformation  @ pursuantto21U.S.C.851providingnoticeofitsintenttoseek    increasedpunishmentthedoublingofthedrugcharge'smandatory `  minimumsentencefrom10to20yearsbyreasonofaprior   conviction.Afterafivedaytrial,includingtestimonyfrom_Mena_, 0  _Kappler_ԀandQuinn,ajuryconvicted_Roberson_Ԁonbothcounts.   ` _Roberson_Ԁmovedforajudgmentofacquittalbothduring P trialandaftertheverdict.SeeFed.R._Crim_.P.29(a),(c).He 0 arguedthattherewasinsufficientevidenceestablishingthathe p hadpossessedcrackorhadsoldmorethan50gramsofcrack.He P alsoarguedthatthegovernmenthadnotpresentedsufficient  evidencetoprovethathehadcarriedoruseda"firearm,"asthat  p termisdefinedin18U.S.C.921(a)(3),orthathehadcarriedor   usedafirearm"duringandinrelationto"thedrugtransaction. @" Finally,hearguedthat,becausethegovernmenthadnotofferedany  $ evidenceestablishinghispriorconviction,thedistrictcourt `"& couldnotimposeanincreasedpenaltyforthedrugconviction.The #@( courtdenied_Roberson_'smotionsinallrespects. % *  ` Atsentencing,thedistrictcourtfoundthatthe20year '`", mandatoryminimumappliedtothedrugcharge,see21U.S.C. (#. 841(b)(A)(iii),anda5yearconsecutivemandatoryminimumapplied 0*%0 totheguncharge,see18U.S.C.924(c)(1)(A).Afterdetermining +'2 thattheSentencingGuidelinesadvisedasentencingrangeof35  yearstolife,andconsideringthesentencingfactorssetforthin @ 18U.S.C.3553(a),thecourtimposedasentenceof25yearsin   prison,thestatutoryminimumsentence. `   ` _Roberson_Ԁnowappealsthedistrictcourt'sorderdenying  @ hismotionforjudgmentofacquittalontheguncharge,arguing    thatthegovernmentfailedtoadducesufficientevidencetoprove `  eitherthathecarriedanactual"firearm"orthathecarrieda   firearm"inrelationto"adrugtraffickingoffense.He 0  alternativelyrequestsanewtrialonthegunchargeontheground  thatthecourterroneouslyinstructedthejuryconcerningthe"in P relationto"requirement,andanewtrialonbothchargesonthe 0 basisofimproperlyadmittedtestimony.Finally,_Roberson_Ԁargues p thattheapplicablemandatoryminimumsentenceforthedrug P convictionistenyears,not20years.    II.   p > 9(93  "3"   ` 3>2  A  .3  0   Theguncharge 3>?݌  (# (# Ќ   ` _Roberson_Ԁchallengestheconsecutivefiveyearmandatory D" minimumsentencehereceivedforusingorcarryingafirearm  $$ "duringandinrelationtoadrugtraffickingoffense"onseveral d"& grounds.18U.S.C.924(c)(1)(A).Webeginwith_Roberson_'s #D( contentionthatthedistrictcourtincorrectlyinstructedonthe % * "inrelationto"requirement,andcompoundedtheerrorbysimply 'd", restatingthesameerroneousinstructionwhenthejurysought (#.  clarification. 4*%0  ` Attrial,both_Roberson_Ԁandthegovernmentsubmitted   proposedjuryinstructionsaddressingtheguncharge.The @ governmentproposedtheFirstCircuitpatternjuryinstruction,   whichprovides,inrelevantpart: `  8 ` To"carry"afirearmduringandinrelationto  @ acrimemeanstomoveortransportthefirearm    onone'spersonorinavehicleorcontainer    duringandinrelationtothecrime.Itneed H   notbeimmediatelyaccessible.To"use"a `  firearmduringandinrelationtoacrime (  meanstoemploythefirearmactively,suchas   tobrandish,display,barter,strikewith, h  fireorattempttofireit,oreventorefer 0  toitinawaycalculatedtoaffectthe H  underlyingcrime.Thefirearmmusthave  playedaroleinthecrimeormusthavebeen  intendedbythedefendanttoplayarolein P thecrime.Thatneednothavebeenitssole h purpose,however.0` x` x CSeeFirstCircuitCriminalPatternJuryInstructions4.07(1998). p Thepatterninstructionpurposefullydeclinestodefine"in P relationto"separatelyfromtheterms"carry"and"use."Seeid.  4.07_cmt_.3("Itseemsbestnottodefine'useorcarry'  p separatelyfrom'duringandinrelationto.'").6 #  2      ׀_Roberson_,   however,drawingonlanguagefromSmithv.UnitedStates,508U.S. @" 223(1993),proposedthataparagraphbeaddedtodirectlyaddress  $ thisrequirement.Thecourtagreedtoinstructthejuryonthe"in `"&  relationto"element,butdeclinedtoadopt_Roberson_'sproposal #@( wholesale.Instead,itcrafteditsowninstructionbasedon  languagefromSmith: @  8 ` Thewords"duringandinrelationto"areto   begiventheirplainandcustomarymeaning.  Thephrase"inrelationto"isexpansive.At `  aminimumitmeansthatthefirearmmusthave ( x hadsomepurposeoreffectwithrespecttothe  @ drugtraffickingcrime.Ifafirearmis    presentsimplyasaresultofcoincidenceor    accidentitcannotbesaidthatitwasusedor H   carriedinrelationtothedrug_traffic[king_] `  offense.Thefirearmmusthavefacilitatedor (  havehadthepotentialtofacilitatethedrug   offense.h ` x` x #L ` Duringaprechargeconference,_Roberson_Ԁobjectedtothe H  statement"thephrase'inrelationto'isexpansive."Heargued  thattheword"expansive"erroneouslyimpliedthatthephrase"in h relationto"wasintendedtoexpand,ratherthanlimit,thephrase  "usedorcarried."Thedistrictcourtdeniedtheobjectionand 8 deliveredthepatternjuryinstructionalongwiththe"inrelation  to"insertthatithadcrafted.Afterthecharge,_Roberson_Ԁfailed X torenewhisobjection,andthejuryretiredtodeliberate. 8  ` Duringthefirstfulldayofdeliberations,thejury x! submittedanoteasking:"Doescarryingafirearmduringbut  X# independentofadrugtransactionconstitutetheuseofafirearm !% inrelationtodrugtrafficking?"Contendingthattheword (#x' "independent"meanstheoppositeof"inrelationto,"_Roberson_ $ ) requestedthecourttodirectlyanswerthejury'squestioninthe H&!+ negative.Thecourt,however,agreedwiththegovernmentthatsuch '(#- aninstructionwouldriskprovidingthejurywithadecisive h)$/ conclusion.Thecourtthereforeelectedtosimplyrereadthegun *H&1 chargeinstructioninthehopethathearingtheinstructionagain  wouldhelpthejuryresolvethequestioninternally.Beforethe @ courtsummonedthejury,_Roberson_Ԁagainobjectedthatthe   instructionwaserroneousinsofarasitstatedthat"inrelation `  to"is"expansive."Aftertherereadingoftheinstruction,the  @ juryreturneditsverdictslaterthatdaywithoutadditional    inquiry. `   ` TopreserveanobjectiontoajuryinstructionunderFed.   R._Crim_.P.30(d),alitigantmustlodgeaspecificobjectionand 0  statethegroundsfortheobjectionafterthecourthaschargedthe  juryandbeforethejurybeginsdeliberations.SeeUnitedStates P v.Moran,393F.3d1,13&n.7(1stCir.2004).Objections 0 registeredduringprechargehearingsareinsufficienttopreserve p theissue.Seeid.Wereviewsuch_unpreserved_Ԁjuryinstruction P claimsforplainerroronly.Seeid.   ` _Roberson_Ԁseeksamorefavorablestandardofreviewby  p arguingthathissecondobjectiontothe"expansive"instruction   preservedtheissuebecauseitwasmadeafterthecourt'soriginal @" chargetothejuryonthegunchargeandbeforethejuryretiredto  $ deliberatefollowingthecourt'srereadingoftheguncharge `"& instruction._Roberson_Ԁcontendsthatthesecondobjection #@( effectivelyservedRule30(d)'spurpose"tobringtotheattention % * ofthetrialcourterrorsoromissionsinitschargesothatthey '`", maybecorrectedbeforethecasegoestothejury."UnitedStates (#. v.Sturm,870F.2d769,77576(1stCir.1989).Butthecasehad 0*%0 alreadygonetothejury._Roberson_'srenewedobjection,registered +'2 afterthejuryhadbegunitsdeliberations,cametoolateto  satisfyRule30(d).SeeUnitedStatesv.SantanaRosa,132F.3d @ 860,863n.1(1stCir.1998)("[A]partywaivesanyobjectionit   mighthavetoajuryinstructionbyfailingtoenterthatobjection `  intotherecordimmediatelyafterthejudgehasinstructedthejury  @ andbeforethejurybeginsdeliberations.")(Emphasisadded).P #  3      ׀We    thereforereviewtheinstructionforplainerror,underwhich `  _Roberson_Ԁ"mustdemonstrate:(1)thatanerroroccurred(2)which   wasclearorobviousandwhichnotonly(3)affectedthe 0  defendant'ssubstantialrights,butalso(4)seriouslyimpairedthe  fairness,integrity,orpublicreputationofjudicialproceedings." P Moran,393F.3dat13(quotationmarksomitted). 0  ` _Roberson_Ԁcannotmeetthisstringentstandard.The p districtcourttookthelanguage"[_t]he_Ԁphrase'inrelationto'is P expansive"directlyfromthemajorityopinioninSmith.See508  U.S.at237._Roberson_ԀmakesnoargumentthatSmithisnolonger  p goodlaworhasbeenunderminedbysubsequentSupremeCourt   precedent.Indeed,federalappellatecourtscontinuetociteSmith @" forthepropositionthat"inrelationto"is"expansive."See,  $ e.g.,UnitedStatesv.Brown,400F.3d1242,1250(10thCir.2005); `"& UnitedStatesv.Williams,344F.3d365,371(3dCir.2003);_McNeal_ #@(  v.UnitedStates,249F.3d747,750(8thCir.2001). % *  ` Moreover,_Roberson_'sargumentthatthejurylikely   misunderstood"expansive"tomeanthatthephrase"inrelationto" @ wasintendedtoenlargeuponthecircumstancesinwhichadefendant   maybeprosecutedforusingorcarryingafirearm,isbeliedwhen `  theinstructionisviewedasawhole.SeeUnitedStatesv.  @ _DeStefano_,59F.3d1,3(1stCir.1995).Althoughonedefinition    of"expansive"is"capableofexpandingortendingtoexpand,"The `  Am.HeritageDictionary624(4thed.2000),anotheris"broadin   sizeorextent;comprehensive."Id.Onlythelatterdefinition 0  makessenseinthecontextoftheinstructionasawhole.The  sentencesimmediatelyfollowingthe"expansive"instructionstate: P 8 ` Ataminimum["inrelationto"]meansthatthe 0 firearmmusthavehadsomepurposeoreffect  withrespecttothedrugtraffickingcrime. p Ifafirearmispresentsimplyasaresultof 8 coincidenceoraccidentitcannotbesaidthat P itwasusedorcarriedinrelationtothedrug  _traffic[king_]offense.Thefirearmmusthave  facilitatedorhavehadthepotentialto X facilitatethedrugoffense. p` x` x Ѐ{kGiventhelimitinglanguageofthosesentences,itwouldbe   illogicaltoreadthesentencecontainingtheword"expansive"in @" theway_Roberson_Ԁsuggests.Whenreadinitsentirety,the"in  $ relationto"instructionadequatelyandaccuratelyconveysthe `"& meaningofthephraseasdescribedinSmith. #@(  ` _Roberson_Ԁcountersthatthejury'smiddeliberation % * questionillustratesthattherewasconfusionwiththeinstruction. '`", Hearguesthatthedistrictcourtthereforeerredbynotdirectly (#. answeringthejury'squestionashesuggested:that"ifitistheir 0*%0 conclusionthatthegunwaseitherusedorcarriedindependentof +'2 thedrugtraffickingoffense,thatwouldmeanthatitwasnot  eitherusedorcarriedinrelationtothedrugtraffickingcrime." @  ` Wedisagree.Asageneralrule,whethertoprovidea   supplementaryinstructiontothejury"isamatterwithinthesound `  discretionofthetrialcourt."Elliotv.S.D.WarrenCo.,134  @ F.3d1,7(1stCir.1998).Here,thecourtanticipatedthatthe    jurymightwrestlewiththeissueofwhetherthegunwasusedor `  carried"inrelationto"thedrugtransaction.At_Roberson_'s   behest,thecourtcarefullycraftedaninstruction,consistentwith 0  Smith,toaidthejury'sevaluationofthe"inrelationto"  requirement.Underthecircumstances,itwaswellwithinthe P court'sdiscretiontoeschew"_elaborat[ing_]ontheseinitial, 0 entirelycorrectinstructions"andinstead,electsimply"torefer p thejurytotheoriginalformulation."Id. P  ` Thisisespeciallysogiventhephrasingofthejury  question,whichsuggestedthatthejurywasputtingittothecourt  p tomakethedispositivedecision.Districtcourtsmustexercise   cautioninsuchcircumstances.Seee.g.,Arizonav.Johnson,351 @" F.3d988,994(9thCir.2003)(recognizinginasimilarsituation  $ thatadistrictcourtmustexercisecaution,whena"simple `"& affirmativeornegativeresponsemightfavoroneparty'sposition, #@( placeundueweightoncertainevidence,orindicatethatthetrial % * judgebelievescertainfactstobetruewhensuchmattersshould '`", properlybedeterminedbythejury")(quotationandemphasis (#. omitted);UnitedStatesv._Lakich_,23F.3d1203,1209(7thCir. 0*%0 1994)(notingthatadistrictcourt"wouldhaveriskedintrudingon +'2 8W  8e 8  thejury'sfactfinding"haditgiven"asimpleaffirmativeanswer"  tothejury'squestionofwhetherafindingofentrapmentonone @ count"reflects"onanother).Wethereforecannotfaultthecourt   forchoosingthemorecautiousalternativeofrereadingthe `  originalinstructionandlettingthatinstructionstandalone.B #  4          @   `  _Roberson_Ԁalsochallengesthesufficiencyoftheevidence    supportingtheguncharge."  Indeterminingtheevidentiary `  sufficiencyofaguiltyverdict,wereviewthetotalityofthe   evidenceinthelightmostfavorabletothegovernment,andthen 0  askwhetheranyrationaltrieroffactcouldhavefoundthe  essentialelementsofthecrimebeyondareasonabledoubt.United P Statesv.Bailey,405F.3d102,111(1stCir.2005)(quotation 0 marksomitted). p  ` _Roberson_Ԁfirstchallengesthegovernment'sevidence P establishingthatheusedorcarrieda"firearm"duringthedrug  transaction.C`  #  5      ׀SeeUnitedStatesv.Taylor,54F.3d967,975(1st  p Cir.1995)(notingthat18U.S.C.924(c)"requiresproofbeyond  areasonabledoubtthatthepersonperpetratingthepredicate @ offenseusedarealgun").Hecontendsthat_Mena_'stestimonyby   itselfisinsufficienttoprovethattheobject_Roberson_Ԁhandedto `  _Mena_Ԁwasarealgunbecause_Mena_Ԁisnotanexpertongunsandhis  @ layopinionisnotcreditworthy,giventhatitisbasedonhis    observationoftheallegedgunatnightinadarkcar. `   ` Although924(c)requiresproofthatthegunisreal,   thegovernment'sproofneednot"reachalevelofscientific 0  certainty."Id.at97576.Descriptivelayopiniontestimonycan  besufficient.UnitedStatesv._Kirvan_,997F.2d963,96667(1st P Cir.1993).Here,_Mena_'stestimonywassufficienttogroundthe 0 jury'sfinding.Although_Mena_Ԁwasnotafirearmsexpert,he p testifiedthathewasfamiliarwithhandguns,havingheldthemon P severaloccasions._Mena_Ԁtestifiedthathehadtheopportunityto  holdandcloselyinspect_Roberson_'shandgun._Mena_Ԁtookadvantage  p ofthatopportunity,smellingittoseeifithadbeenfired,and   noticingthattheserialnumbershadbeenscratchedoff.Attrial, @" _Mena_Ԁprovideddetailsaboutthegun(thatitlookednewandhad  $ chromeonthetopwithablackplasticbottom),notedthatits `"& design(aplasticbottom)wascommonlyreferredtobyhis #@( associatesinthedrugtradeasa"_Glock_,"andstatedthatit"felt % * likeahandgun."Although_Mena_Ԁobservedthegunatnightinsidea '`", carwiththeinteriorlightsoff,suchfactorsgoonlytothe (#. weightof_Mena_'stestimony,andwouldnotpreventarationaljury  fromcrediting_Mena_'sopinion.Cf.Taylor,54F.3dat976(finding @ sufficientlaywitnesstestimonybyabanktellerandacustomer   servicerepresentativewho"observedtheobjectgrippedby[the `  defendant]atcloserange");_Kirvan_,997F.2dat96667(finding  @ sufficientlaywitnesstestimonyoftwoindividualswhodescribed    seeingthedefendantholdingwhatappearedtobeagun,andwho `  statedthatitsounded"heavy"whenitfelltotheground).    ` _Roberson_Ԁalsocontendsthatarationaljurycouldnot 0  havefoundthat_Roberson_Ԁusedorcarriedthegun"inrelationto"  adrugtraffickingoffensebecausetheevidenceestablished,at P most,thathecarriedthegunfortheindependentpurposeof 0 offeringitto_Mena_Ԁaftercompletionofthedrugtransaction.He p assertsthathisoffertosellthegunto_Mena_Ԁwasanentirely P separateandunrelatedtransaction.   ` Asthejurywasinstructed,the"inrelationto"language  p of924(c)(1)requires,ataminimum,thatthefirearmhavesome   purposeoreffectwithrespecttothedrugtraffickingcrime. @" Smith,508U.S.at238.Merepossessionofagunduringthecourse  $ ofcriminalconductdoesnotsupportaconvictionunderthe `"& statute.UnitedStatesv.Plummer,964F.2d1251,1254(1stCir. #@( 1992);seealsoUnitedStatesv.Grace,367F.3d29,35(1stCir. % * 2004).Nonetheless,thephrasehasbeenconstruedbroadly,and '`", encompassesavarietyofsituationswherethefirearmfacilitates (#. orhasthepotentialtofacilitatethedrugtraffickingoffense. 0*%0 See,e.g.,Smith,508U.S.at229(findingthatanattemptto +'2 barterafirearmfordrugssatisfiedthe"inrelationto"  requirement);UnitedStatesv.Luciano_Mosquera_,63F.3d1142,1151 @ (1stCir.1995)(holdingthatgunkeptavailable"ifacontingency   aroseortomake[an]escape"wascarried"inrelationto"the `  predicatedrugoffense).Moreover,facilitationoftheunderlying  @ drugoffenseneednotbethedefendant'ssolepurposefor    possessingtheweapon.SeeUnitedStatesv._Vazquez_Ԁ_Guadelupe_,407 `  F.3d492,500n.4(1stCir.2005)(notingthatasufficientnexus   existedbetweendefendant'spossessionofagunandthedrugcrime 0  notwithstandingalegitimateexplanationfordefendant'spossession  ofthegunviz.,hisemploymentasapoliceofficer). P  ` Here,atleasttwopermissiblegroundsexistedforthe 0 jury'sdeterminationthat_Roberson_Ԁusedorcarriedthefirearm"in p relationto"thedrugtransaction.Thejurycouldhavereasoned P that_Roberson_Ԁbrandishedtheguntoemboldenhimselforto  intimidate_Mena_.SeeUnitedStatesv.Eaton,890F.2d511,512  p (1stCir.1989).Attheirfirstmeeting,_Roberson_Ԁinformed_Mena_   thathehadahandguntotrade.Arationaljurycouldinferthat @" _Roberson_Ԁintendedthatstatementtoput_Mena_Ԁonnoticethathe  $ wouldbearmedonthedayofthedrugtransaction.Sureenough, `"& duringthetransaction,before_Mena_Ԁfinishedpayingforthecrack, #@( _Roberson_Ԁpulledthehandgunfromhiswaistband,pointeditin % * _Mena_'sdirection,andproclaimed,"that'swhatI'mtalkingabout." '`", Furtherdemonstratinghisdeadlypotential,_Roberson_Ԁinformed_Mena_ (#. that,whilehedoesnot"wasteshells,"hedoes"shoot_niggas_." 0*%0 Althoughtheevidencethat_Roberson_Ԁsubsequentlyhandedthegunto +'2 _Mena_Ԁmayweakenthetheorythat_Roberson_Ԁwasusingthegunto  intimidate_Mena_,theaboveevidencewassufficienttogroundthe @ jury'sverdict.SeePlummer,964F.2dat1255(notingthatwhile   thefactsmaypermitmultipleinferences,"thefactfinderis `  entitledtochooseamongreasonableinterpretationsofthe  @ evidence").     ` Evenifthejurybelievedthatthegunwascarriedonly `  forthepurposeofattemptingtosellitto_Mena_,itstillcould   havereasonablyconcludedthatthegunwascarried"inrelationto" 0  thedrugtransaction.Atthefirstmeeting,when_Mena_Ԁasked  _Roberson_Ԁforcrack,_Roberson_Ԁmentionedthathehadagunhewanted P totrade.Thenextday,as_Mena_Ԁwascountinghismoney,_Roberson_ 0 handedthegunto_Mena_Ԁforhisinspectionandstatedthathewas p nervousaboutcarryingthegunbecausetheserialnumberswere P scratchedoff.Indeed,itappearedto_Mena_Ԁthat_Roberson_Ԁwas  anxioustogetridofthegun.Fromthistestimony,thejurycould  p havereasonablyconcludedthattheopportunitytotradethegunwas   anincentivefor_Roberson_Ԁtoagreeto_Mena_'srequestforcrack. @" Cf.UnitedStatesv._Lipford_,203F.3d259,267(4thCir.2000)  $ (holdingthatinordertoconvinceasellertotaketherisks `"& inherentinthesaleofdrugs,"adrugpurchasercanoften'sweeten #@( thepot,'offeringtopurchasenotonlydrugs,butotherillegal % * goodsaswell").Onthesefacts,ajurycouldhavereasonably '`", concludedthat,atleastin_Roberson_'smind,thegundealandthe (#. drugdealwereintertwined. 0*%0  +'2  "3"   ` 32  B  .3  0   Impropertestimony3݌ (# (# Ќ   `  Duringitscaseinchief,thegovernmentasked_Mena_ @ whetherheknew"whichismoreaddictive,crackorcocainepowder?"   Thedistrictcourtoverruled_Roberson_'ssubsequentobjection,and `  _Mena_Ԁanswered,"Ibelievecrackismoreaddictive."Whenasked  @ whichdrugis"stronger,"_Mena_Ԁagainanswered,"crack."_Mena_Ԁthen    testifiedthatwhenhehadbeenadrugdealer,hehadsoldpowder `  cocaine,butthat_Roberson_Ԁhadbeenacrackdealer.Duringits   closingargument,thegovernmentstated,"Eric_Mena_Ԁtoldyouthat 0  hewasacocainedealerandthatKurt_Roberson_Ԁwasacrackdealer.  Eric_Mena_Ԁalsotoldyouthatasbetweencocaineandcrack,crackis P morepotentandaddictive." 0  ` Onappeal,_Roberson_Ԁcontendsthatthegovernmentfailed p tolayasufficientfoundationtoground_Mena_'sopinionbecauseit P didnotestablishthat_Mena_Ԁwasanexpertontheaddictive  propertiesofcocaine,seeFed.R._Evid_.702,orofferevidence  p about_Mena_'slayperceptionsastothedifferentaddictive   qualitiesorrelativepotencyofcrackversuspowdercocaine,see @" Fed.R._Evid_.701._Roberson_Ԁcontendsthattheimproperlyadmitted  $ evidencewasbothmisleading(inthatitisthedifferenceinthe `"& typicalmethodofadministration,notanydifferenceinthe #@( inherentpropertiesofthetwoformsofcocaine,thatcausesan % * increasedriskofaddictionwithcrack)D #  6      ׀andhighlyprejudicial(in '`", thattheimpropertestimonyandclosingargumentwasaimedat (#. bolstering_Mena_'scharacter,whiledegrading_Roberson_'s).Because  _Mena_'stestimonywascriticaltothegovernment'scase,_Roberson_ @ argues,anewtrialisnecessary.Thegovernmentconcedes,   correctly,thatitdidnotlayanadequatefoundationtoground `  _Mena_'stestimony.Nevertheless,thegovernmentarguesthatthe  @ errorwasharmlessinlightoftheoverwhelmingevidenceof    _Roberson_'sguilt. `   ` Weagreewiththegovernmentthattheerrorwasharmless   becauseitis"highlyprobablethattheerrordidnotinfluencethe 0  verdict."4X^rXXX^rUnitedStatesv._Flemmi_,402F.3d79,95(1stCir.2005)  (quotationmarksomitted)(describingtheharmlesserrorstandard P fornonconstitutionalevidentiaryerrors)._Roberson_Ԁattemptsto 0 rebutthegovernment's"overwhelmingevidence"argumentbypointing p tovariousweaknessesinthegovernment'scase.Forinstance, P _Roberson_Ԁasserts,thetestimonyofagents_Kappler_ԀandQuinn  identifying_Roberson_#X^rXX4X^r#Ԁwasfallible.Butevenassumingthatthis  p testimonywasnotoverwhelmingbyitself,itisnotablethatallof   thegovernment'sevidence,includingthetestimonyof_Kappler_Ԁand @" Quinn,andtherecordedaudioandvideoevidence,corroborates  $ _Mena_'saccountofwhathappened.Giventhewealthofevidence `"& supporting_Mena_'stestimony,itishighlyunlikelythathis #@( veracity,atleastwithrespecttotheeventsofMarch10and11, % * 2003,wasseriouslyquestionedbythejury.Moreover,wedoubt '`", thatthejurywouldviewtherelativeaddictivenessofcrackversus (#. powdercocainetobeanimportantfactorfordrawingits 0*%0 conclusionsaboutthecharacterofthetwomen._Mena_Ԁadmittedon +'2 thestandthathewasadealerof,amongotherdrugs,powder  cocaine.Itishighlyimprobablethatanydiminutiveboost_Mena_'s @ credibilitymayhavereceivedfrombeingcastasadealerofaless   addictiveformofcocainewouldhaveinfluencedthejury's `  verdicts.  @  "3"   ` 32  C  .3  0   Sentence 3݌   (# (# Ќ   ` Atsentencing,thedistrictcourtheardargument `  concerningwhetherthemandatoryminimumsentenceonthedrug   chargeshouldbedoubledfromtenyearsto20yearsinlightof 0  _Roberson_'s1996Massachusettsconvictionfordistributionof  marijuanainviolationofMass.Gen.Lawsch.94C,32D.See21 P U.S.C.841(b)(1)(A)(providinga20yearmandatoryminimumfor 0 anypersonconvictedunder841(a)thathas"apriorconviction p forafelonydrugoffense")._Roberson_Ԁarguedthattheprior P Massachusettsconvictionwasnota"felonydrugoffense"under  841(b)(1)(A)becauseMassachusettslawcategorizedtheoffenseas  p amisdemeanor.Thedistrictcourtrejected_Roberson_'sargument,   findingthatthe_CSA_Ԁclearlydefinesa"felonydrugoffense"asany @" priorconvictionforanoffensepunishablebymorethanoneyearof  $ imprisonment.See21U.S.C.802(44).Because_Roberson_'s1996 `"& Massachusettsconvictionwaspunishablebyuptotwoyearsin #@( prison,seeMass.Gen.Lawsch.94C,32C,thecourtfoundthat % * itqualifiedasa"felonydrugoffense"notwithstandingthestate's '`", classificationoftheoffenseasamisdemeanor. (#.  ` Onappeal,_Roberson_Ԁcontendsthatthedistrictcourt 0*%0 erredbyapplyingthe20yearmandatoryminimumtothedrugcharge. +'2 _Roberson_'sargumentshingeonthepremisethattwodefinedterms  aretriggeredby841(b)(1)(A).Citingtoseveralcanonsof @ statutoryconstructionandtothelegislativehistoryofthe_CSA_,   hearguesthatthedefinitionof"felonydrugoffense"containedin `  802(44)ismodifiedbythedefinitionof"felony"containedin  @ 802(13).See21U.S.C.802(13)("Theterm'felony'meansany    FederalorStateoffenseclassifiedbyapplicableFederalorState `  lawasafelony.")._Roberson_Ԁcontendsthatbothofthese   definitionsmustbesatisfiedtotrigger841(b)(1)(A)'s20year 0  mandatoryminimum.Under_Roberson_'sinterpretation,aprior  convictionisa"felonydrugoffense"under841(b)(1)(A)onlyif P thepriordrugoffenseisboth(1)punishablebymorethanoneyear 0 injail,seeid.802(44),and(2)classifiedasafelonybythe p relevantfederalorstateauthority,seeid.802(13). P  ` ArecentD.C.Circuitdecisionsupports_Roberson_'s  position.SeeUnitedStatesv.West,393F.3d1302(D.C.Cir.  p 2005).E #  7      ׀Like_Roberson_,thedefendantinWesthadbeenconvicted   under21U.S.C.841(a)and(b)(1)(A)(iii)fordistributingmore @" than50gramsofcocainebase.Thedistrictcourtincreasedthe  $ mandatoryminimumfromtento20yearsbasedonapriordrug `"& convictioninMarylandthatwasclassifiedbythatstateasa #@( misdemeanor,butwhichwaspunishablebyuptofouryearsin % * prison.Onappeal,theD.C.Circuitvacatedthedefendant's20 '`", yearsentence,holdingthatthedefinitionof"felonydrugoffense" (#. providedby802(44)mustbereadinconjunctionwiththe  definitionof"felony"providedby802(13).TheD.C.Circuit @ foundthedefendant'spositionthatCongressintended"felony   drugoffense"toincorporatethedefinitionscontainedinboth `  802(13)and802(44)was"atleastasplausible"asthe  @ government'sthat802(44)alonecontrols.Id.at1315.    Invokingtheruleoflenity,thecourtheldthattheenhancement `  provisionof841(b)(1)(A)islimited"tothoseinstancesinwhich   thepriordrugoffenseisbothpunishablebymorethanoneyearand 0  classifiedasafelonybycontrollingauthority."Id._Roberson_  arguesthat,evenifwedonotadopthisconstructionofthe P statute,weshouldfollowtheD.C.Circuitandapplytheruleof 0 lenitytoresolvetheissueinhisfavor. p  ` _Roberson_'schallengetotheapplicabilityofthe20year P mandatoryminimumsentencepresentspurelegalquestionsof  statutoryconstruction.Assuch,ourreviewisdenovo.Doylev.  p Huntress,Inc.,419F.3d3,8(1stCir.2005)."Asinanycaseof   statutoryconstruction,ouranalysisbeginswiththelanguageof @" thestatute."Zimmermanv.CambridgeCreditCounselingCorp.,409  $ F.3d473,475(1stCir.2005)(quotingHughesAircraftCo.v. `"& Jacobson,525U.S.432,438(1999)).Weaccordthestatutorytext #@( "itsordinarymeaningbyreferencetothe'specificcontextin % * whichthatlanguageisused,andthebroadercontextofthestatute '`", asawhole.'"_Mullane_v.Chambers,333F.3d322,330(1stCir. (#. 2003)(quotingRobinsonv.ShellOilCo.,519U.S.337,341 0*%0 (1997)).Ifthestatutorylanguageprovidesaclearanswer,the +'2 inquiryends.SeeHughes,525U.S.at438;_Sepulveda_v.United  States,330F.3d55,64(1stCir.2003). @  ` Thewordingoftheprovisionsatissue,readinthe   contextofthestatuteasawhole,leadustoconcludethat,for `  thepurposesofthe_CSA_,theterm"felonydrugoffense"isaterm  @ ofartseparateanddistinctfromtheterm"felony."Inourview,    thedefinitionof"felonydrugoffense"containedin802(44) `  unambiguouslycontrolsforthepurposesofdeterminingwhetherthe   penaltyenhancementin841(b)(1)(A)istriggered.Wetherefore 0  reject_Roberson_'sargumentsanddeclinetoinvoketheruleof  lenity.SeeUnitedStatesv.Councilman,418F.3d67,83(1stCir. P 2005)(enbanc)(holdingthattheruleoflenity"onlyappliesif 0 'thereisagrievousambiguityoruncertaintyaboutthestatute'") p (quoting_Muscurello_v.UnitedStates,524U.S.125,13839(1998)). P Webeginouranalysisbydelineatingthe_CSA_'sstructure.   ` In1970,toconsolidatetheassorteddruglawsthenon  p thebooksandtoenhancefederaldrugenforcementpowers,Congress   enactedtheComprehensiveDrugAbusePreventionandControlAct @" (the"1970Act").SeePub.LawNo.91513,84Stat.1236;see  $ generallyGonzalesv._Raich_,545U.S.1(2005).TheActis `"& subdividedintothreetitles.The_CSA_,establishedinTitleII, #@( addressesthecontrolofdrugsandtheenforcementofdruglaws, % * see21U.S.C.801904,whileTitleIII,aptlynamedthe '`", ControlledSubstancesImportandExportAct("ImportAct"), (#. concernstheirimportandexporttoandfromtheUnitedStates,see 0*%0 id.951971. +'2  ` PartDofthe_CSA_Ԁlaysoutthesubstantiveoffensesand  theattendantpenalties.Asisrelevanthere,PartDmakesit @ unlawful"foranypersonknowinglyorintentionally(1)to   manufacture,distribute,ordispenseorpossesswithintentto `  manufacture,distributeordispenseacontrolledsubstance."Id.  @ 841(a)(1).Pursuanttothe"penalties"provisionofthat    section,"anypersonwhoviolates"841(a)throughconduct `  involving,interalia,"50gramsormoreofamixture"containing   cocainebase,"shallbesentencedtoatermofimprisonmentwhich 0  maynotbelessthan10years."Id.841(b)(1)(A)(iii).Further  on,thesamesubsectionprovidesthat"[_i]f_Ԁanypersoncommitssuch P aviolationafterapriorconvictionforafelonydrugoffensehas 0 becomefinal,suchpersonshallbesentencedtoatermof p imprisonmentwhichmaynotbelessthan20years."Id.(Emphasis P added).   ` Section802providesdefinitionsforthetermsusedin  p the_CSA_ԀandtheImportAct.Thetworelevantdefinitionsprovide   asfollows: @" 8 ` Theterm"felony"meansanyFederalorState  $ offenseclassifiedbyapplicableFederalor !% Statelawasafelony....n`"&` x` x 8 ` Theterm"felonydrugoffense"meansan #@( offensethatispunishablebyimprisonmentfor $ ) morethanoneyearunderanylawoftheUnited % * StatesorofaStateorforeigncountrythat H&!+ prohibitsorrestrictsconductrelatingto '`", narcoticdrugs,marihuana,ordepressant '(#- stimulantsubstances.(#.` x` x  GId.802(13),(44). 0*%0  ` Themostlogicalinterpretationof841(b)(1)(A),we   believe,isthatthephrase"felonydrugoffense"isatermofart @ invokedintentionallybyCongresstoincorporatebyreferencethe   specificdefinitioncontainedin802(44).Cf.UnitedStatesv. `  _Cordoza_Ԅ_Estrada_,385F.3d56,58(1stCir.2004)(holdingthatthe  @ statutorydefinitionoftheterm"aggravatedfelony"in8U.S.C.    1101(a)(43)(F)"isatermofartthatincludeswithinitsambit `  certainmisdemeanorsunderstatelawthatcarryasentenceofat   leastoneyear);seealso4X^rXXX^r_Stenberg_v._Carhart_,530U.S.914,942 0  (2000)("Whenastatuteincludesanexplicitdefinition,wemust  followthatdefinition,evenifitvariesfromthatterm'sordinary P meaning.").Becausetheterm"felonydrugoffense"isspecifically 0 definedin802(44),and#X^rXX4X^r#841(b)(1)(A)makesuseofthatprecise p term,thelogical,commonsensewaytointerpret"felonydrug P offense"in841(b)(1)(A)isbyreferencetothedefinitionin  802(44).SeeO'Connellv._Shalala_,79F.3d170,176(1stCir.  p 1996)("[_C]ourts_Ԁareboundtoaffordstatutesapractical,   commonsensereading."). @"  ` _Roberson_Ԁarguesthat802(44)'sdefinitionmustberead  $ asincorporatingthedefinitionof"felony"in802(13)because `"& theterm"felonydrugoffense"containswithinitthedefinedterm #@( "felony."Becausethedefinitionofadefinedtermisordinarily % * triggeredbyeveryreferencetothattermwithinastatute,see1A '`", &2ANormanJ.Singer,Sutherland:StatutesandStatutory (#.  Construction,20:8,47:7(6thed.2000),_Roberson_Ԁargues,the 0*%0 definitionof"felony"isembeddedinboth802(44)'sdefinition  ofand841(b)(1)(A)'sreferenceto"felonydrugoffense." @   ` Butthetermbeingdefinedisnotordinarilyreadas   beingitselfapartofthedefinitionoftheterm.IfCongresshad `  intendedthedefinitionin802(44)tocrossreferencethe  @ definitionin802(13),itcouldhaveindicatedsuchacross    referenceinthetextofthedefinition.Forexample,Congress `  couldhavewritten802(44)tostatethat"theterm'felonydrug   offense'meansafelony...."F #  8      ׀Indeed,suchinternalcross 0  referencing,definingonetermbyreferenceinthetextofthe  definitiontoanotherdefinedterm,isnotunusualintheUnited P StatesCode.See,e.g.,18U.S.C.1961(5)(defininga"pattern 0 ofracketeeringactivity"asrequiring,interalia,"atleasttwo p actsofracketeeringactivity,"therebyexpresslycrossreferencing P theseparatelydefined"racketeeringactivity"in1961(1));18  U.S.C.1956(c)(4)(defininga"financialtransaction"as,inter  p alia,"atransaction,"therebyexpresslyincorporatingthe   definitionof"transaction"in1956(c)(3));G #  9      ׀seeZimmerman,409 @" F.3dat47576(lookingtoCongress'smethodofdraftingstatutes  $ inotherpartsoftheCodeasanaidininterpretingstatutory `"& text). #@(  ` HadCongressintendedtorequirebothdefinitionsforthe  purposesof841(b)(1)(A),butalsowishedtopreserveadistinct @ definitionof"felonydrugoffense"forthepurposesofother   provisions,itcouldhaveaccomplisheditspurposeswithinthetext `  of841(b)(1)(A).Forexample,Congresscouldhavewritten  @ 841(b)(1)(A)totriggera20yearmandatoryminimumwheneverany    personcommitsaviolationof841(a)"afterapriorconviction `  forafelonydrugoffensethatisclassifiedbyapplicableFederal   orStatelawasafelonyhasbecomefinal. 0   ` Congressdidnotuseanyoftheseconventions.Thus,we  areleftwithastatutoryprovisionthatspecificallyreferencesa P definedterm, felonydrugoffense.Where,ashere,Congress 0 defineswhataparticularterm"means,"thatdefinitioncontrolsto p theexclusionofanymeaningthatisnotexplicitlystatedinthe P definition,seeSutherland47:7(citing_Colautti_v.Franklin,439  U.S.379,392&n.10(1978)),andregardlessoftheordinary  p meaningofthewords,seeid.at20:8(citingPackardMotorCar   Co.v.N.L.R.B.,330U.S.485(1947));_Cordoza_Ԅ_Estrada_,385F.3dat @" 58.  $  ` Thedistrictcourt'sconstruction,that802(44)alone `"& providesthedefinitionof"felonydrugoffense,"isfurther #@( supportedbyananalysisofthestatuteasawhole.See_Shalala_, % * 79F.3dat176("[A]courtengagedinthetaskofstatutory '`", interpretationmustexaminethestatuteasawhole,givingdue (#. weighttodesign,structure,andpurposeaswellastoaggregate 0*%0 language.").Reviewingthesubstantiveprovisionsinthe_CSA_ +'2 revealsthattheterm"felonydrugoffense"isutilizedonlyin  841(b)(1).Thetermalsoappearsinaparallelprovisionofthe @ ImportAct.See21U.S.C.960(b).Inbothstatutes,thetermis   usedsolelytospecifythetypeofpriorconvictionthatwill `  triggeramandatorysentenceenhancement.Insomeinstances,the  @ sentencingfloorisenhanced.Seeid.841(b)(1)(A)and(B);    960(b)(1)and(2)(alldoublingtheminimumsentencewhenthe `  defendant'sviolationofthesubjectsectionwascommitted"after   apriorconvictionforafelonydrugoffensehasbecomefinal"). 0  Inothers,thesentencingceilingisenhanced.Seeid.  841(b)(1)(C)and(D);960(b)(3)(allincreasingthepotential P maximumsentencewhenthedefendant'sviolationofthesubject 0 sectionwascommitted"afterapriorconvictionforafelonydrug p offensehasbecomefinal").Inallevents,apriorconvictionfor P a"felonydrugoffense"willresultinasignificantupwardre  calibrationofthestatutorilymandatedsentencingrange.  p  ` Incontrast,theterm"felony"(withouttheaccompanying   words"drugoffense")isutilizedextensivelythroughoutthe_CSA_ @" foravarietyofpurposes.See,e.g.,21U.S.C.824(a)(2)  $ (providingcircumstancesunderwhicharegistrationtomanufacture `"& ordistributecontrolledsubstancesmayberevoked);841(e) #@( (providingcircumstancesinwhichaninjunctionisavailableunder % * 841);843(b)(forbiddingtheuseofacommunicationfacilityto '`", accomplishthecommissionofafelony);843(d)(12)(settinga (#. maximumsentenceforviolationsof843forpersonswithaprior 0*%0 felonydrugconviction);848(c)(1)(defininga"continuingcriminal +'2 enterprise"asinvolvingafelonyviolation);853(d)(creatinga  _rebuttable_Ԁpresumptioninfavorofforfeitureagainstanyperson @ convictedofafelony);862a(a)(denyingeligibilityforcertain   assistanceandbenefitsprogramsforanypersonconvictedofan `  offenseclassifiedasafelony);878(a)(3)(grantingdrug  @ enforcementofficersthepowertomakewarrantlessarrestswhere    thereisprobablecausetobelieveafelonyhasbeencommitted). `   ` Congress'sdecisiontousethepreciseterm"felonydrug   offense"in841(b)(1),insteadofthemorebroadlyusedterm 0  "felony,"evidencesanintenttodistinguishthesesentence  enhancementprovisionsfromtheotherprovisionsthatrefertothe P generic"felony."SeeCitizen'sAwarenessNetwork,Inc.v.United 0 States,391F.3d338,346(1stCir.2004)("Theprincipleisclear p thatCongress'suseofdifferentiallanguageinvarioussectionsof P thesamestatuteispresumedtobeintentionalanddeserves  interpretativeweight.");Sutherland,46:05("[_W]here_Ԁthe  p legislaturehascarefullyemployedaterminoneplaceandexcluded   itinanother,itshouldnotbeimpliedwhereexcluded.").Given @" thestructureofthe_CSA_,andthetargeteduseoftheterm"felony  $ drugoffense,"thelogicalinferenceisthatCongressintendedthe `"& statutoryenhancementsin841(b)(1)(A)tobetriggeredby #@( referenceto802(44)alone.Asthegovernmenthassuggested, % * Congressmayhavewishedtoavoidthepossibilitythatthe '`",  substantialconsequencesofthemandatorysentenceenhancementsin (#. 841(b)(1)(A)wouldturnonthehappenstanceofastate's  classificationofaprioroffense.H #  10       @   ` _Roberson_'sinvocationsofthecanonsofstatutory   constructiondonotpersuadeusthatthestatuteisambiguous. `  _Roberson_Ԁarguesthat,becausethedefinitionsin802(13)and  @ 802(44)arepartofthesame_definitional_Ԁsectionandaddressthe    samesubjectmattertheclassificationofoffensestheyare  coequalandshouldbereadinparimateria(i.e.,theyshouldbe @ construedtogether).SeeUnitedStatesv.Kelley,712F.2d884,   889(1stCir.1983).Moreover,continues_Roberson_,ifwedonot `  readthedefinitionof"felony"inconjunctionwiththedefinition  @ of"felonydrugoffense,"thenthedefinitionof"felony"will    becomesuperfluous.SeeUnitedStatesv.VenFuel,Inc.,758F.2d `  741,75152(1stCir.1985)("Allwordsandprovisionsofstatutes   areintendedtohavemeaningandaretobegiveneffect,andno 0  constructionshouldbeadoptedwhichwouldrenderstatutorywords  orphrasesmeaningless,redundantorsuperfluous."). P  ` Theabovecitedcanons,aswellasthecanon,citedby 0 thegovernment,thataspecificprovisiongovernsasagainsta p generalprovision,seeMoralesv.TransWorldAirlines,Inc.,504 P U.S.374,38485(1992),arecorollariesofthecardinalrulethat  courtsmuststrivetoharmonizealltheprovisionsofastatuteto  p givethemallforceandeffect,seeSutherland,46:06.Absenta   conflictbetweenthetwoprovisions,resorttothecanons(which @" are,afterall,onlytoolsofconstruction)isunnecessary.Here,  $ wefindnotensionbetweenthedefinitionof"felony"andthe `"& definitionof"felonydrugoffense."Viewingthestatuteasa #@( whole,thetwoseparatedefinitionsareharmonizedbyrecognizing % * thattheyareusedfordifferentpurposes.Thestructureofthe '`", statute,andthedifferentialuseofthetwoterms,leadusto (#. inferthatthetermswereintendedtocarryindependentmeanings 0*%0 forindependentpurposes.Applyingthedoctrineofinparimateria +'2 7O  7e 7  tomergetwo_definitional_Ԁclauseswouldthusdefeattheirvery e purposes.Cf.Kelley,712F.2dat889(holdingthattwo  substantiveprovisionsaimedatregulatingthesameareaofconduct   Єdisqualifyingjudgeswithapersonalbiasagainstaparty   shouldbeconstruedinparimateria).  @  ` Because felonydrugoffenseisadefinedtermofart 5   andwehavefoundnothinginsections802(44)or841(b)(1)(A)  `  indicatingaCongressionalintenttoincorporatethedefinitionof U  "felony"intheterm"felonydrugoffense,"wefindnostatutory   ambiguity.The20yearmandatoryminimumcontainedin u 841(b)(1)(A)(iii)istriggeredwhenthedefendanthasaprior  convictionforan offensethatispunishablebyimprisonmentfor 0 morethanoneyearunderanylawoftheUnitedStates. % Accordingly,wefindthatthedistrictdidnoterrinapplyingthe P 20yearmandatoryminimumsentencetothedrugcharge.I #  11       E  e    III.  @`  e    ` Fortheforegoingreasons,we affirm _Roberson_'s  convictionsandsentence.