author: SELYA, Circuit Judge.

text:
    UNITED STATES of America, Appellee, v. José MATOS-DE-JESÚS, Defendant, Appellant.
    No. 16-1695
    United States Court of Appeals, First Circuit.
    May 5, 2017

      Elizabeth A. Billowitz, Boston, MA, on brief for appellant.
    Rosa Emilia Rodríguez-Vélez, United States Attorney, Mariana E. Bauzá-Al-monte, Assistant United States Attorney, Chief, Appellate Division, and Francisco A. Besosa-Martinez, Assistant United States Attorney, on brief for appellee.
    Before HOWARD, Chief Judge, SELYA and LYNCH, Circuit Judges.
   SELYA, Circuit Judge.

With respect to some firearms charges, the sentencing guidelines provide that if the offense of conviction involves three or more guns, the defendant’s offense level is to be enhanced by a specified number of levels. See USSG § 2K2.1(b)(l). Here, the offenses of conviction involved two firearms, and the sentencing court, recognizing that the guideline enhancement was inapplicable, considered the second firearm as an aggravating factor in imposing an upwardly variant sentence.

In this appeal, defendant-appellant José Matos-de-Jesús argues, inter alia, that the sentencing guidelines already account for the presence of both guns and, therefore, that the sentencing court erred in considering his possession of the second gun as part of the groundwork for the upward variance. Discerning no error, we affirm.

The facts are straightforward. In October of 2015, Puerto Rico police pulled over the appellant’s car (which the appellant was driving) after noticing a problem with the license plate. When a passenger opened the glove compartment to retrieve the registration, the officers spotted at least one loaded Glock magazine. When queried, the appellant admitted that he did not have a firearms permit, and the officers ordered him out of the car. As he stepped out, they removed a Glock pistol from his waistband. The gun had been “chipped,” that is, modified to fire automatically.

After a vehicle search, see United States v. Panitz, 907 F.2d 1267, 1271 (1st Cir. 1990) (discussing “vehicle exception” to warrant requirement), the police discovered a second Glock pistol (also “chipped”), four loaded high-capacity magazines, and more than 100 loose rounds of ammunition. During the ensuing arrest, the appellant threatened to kill one of the arresting officers upon his release.

In due course, a federal grand jury sitting in the District of Puerto Rico handed up an indictment charging the appellant with one count of possession of firearms by a convicted felon, see 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1), and one count of possession of machine guns, see id. § 922(o). Notably, each count of the indictment referenced the appellant’s possession of both of the seized firearms. The appellant entered a straight guilty plea to both counts.

At sentencing, the court heard arguments of counsel and the appellant’s allo-cution. Without objection, it set the appellant’s total offense level at 19, assigned him to criminal history category IV, and calibrated his guideline sentencing range at 46 to 57 months. After mulling the sentencing factors limned in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a), the court varied upward and imposed a 72-month term of immurement. It explained that the upward variance reflected in significant part the appellant’s possession of not one, but two, guns. The court added, though, that the upwardly variant sentence also took into account the presence of several other aggravating factors, such as the appellant’s extensive criminal history and the fact that he had threatened a police officer during his arrest.

The appellant objected to his sentence, in general terms, as both procedurally and substantively unreasonable. The district court overruled these objections. This timely appeal followed.

Appellate review of claims of sentencing error entails a two-step pavane. See United States v. Martin, 520 F.3d 87, 92 (1st Cir. 2008). Under this framework, we first address any assignments of procedural error. See id. If the sentence passes procedural muster, we then address any challenge to its substantive reasonableness. See id. Here, the appellant advances claims of both procedural and substantive error.

The appellant’s most loudly bruited procedural claim is that the sentencing court blundered when it used his possession of two firearms as part of the groundwork for an upward variance. He starts with the uncontroversial premise that the sentencing guidelines direct courts to add additional levels to a defendant’s offense level when the defendant possesses three or more guns in connection with the offense of conviction. See USSG § 2K2.1(b)(l). With this premise as a starting point, he asserts that the guidelines treat the “possession of one or two firearms ... the same,” and insists, a fortiori, that the second gun already was factored into his guideline range. Building on this less-than-sturdy foundation, he concludes that the sentencing court’s decision to vary upward based on that fact amounted to impermissible double-counting. See United States v. Sepúlveda-Hernández, 817 F.3d 30, 34-35 (1st Cir. 2016).

The appellant objected below on procedural grounds, but his objection was altogether generic, not specific. He did not allude to, or even mention, the specific claim of error that he now seeks to raise. “A general objection to the procedural reasonableness of a sentence is not sufficient to preserve a specific challenge to any of the sentencing court’s particularized findings.” United States v. Soto-Soto, 855 F.3d 445, 448 n.1 (1st Cir. 2017) [No. 16-1444, 2017 WL 1547276] (collecting cases); accord United States v. Ahrendt, 560 F.3d 69, 76 (1st Cir. 2009) (holding that because “generic objections” do not afford a sentencing court sufficient notice, such objections are inadequate to preserve specific claims of sentencing error). Hence, our review of this claim is for plain error. Under that formidable standard, the appellant must show “(1) that an error occurred (2) which was clear or obvious and which not only (3) affected [his] substantial rights, but also (4) seriously impaired the fairness, integrity, or public reputation of judicial proceedings.” United States v. Duarte, 246 F.3d 56, 60 (1st Cir. 2001). The appellant’s challenge fails at the first step of plain error review: there was no error, plain or otherwise.

The claim is wrong on its face. The sentencing guidelines make no provision for the presence of two guns during the commission of an offense under either 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1) or 18 U.S.C. § 922(o). Thus, taking the second gun into account as part of the mix of factors to be considered at sentencing cannot conceivably be double-counting. See Sepúlveda-Hernández, 817 F.3d at 34-35. Moreover, the presence of that gun was obviously relevant to the nature of the crime. Consequently, the district court did not err in giving weight to that fact.

In this regard, we find instructive the Supreme Court’s recent decision in Dean v. United States, — U.S. -, 137 S.Ct. 1170, 197 L.Ed.2d 490 (2017). There, the Court considered the degree of discretion afforded to a judge called upon to impose sentence for a violation of 18 U.S.C. § 924(c), which creates a separate offense for the use or possession of a firearm in connection with a drug-trafficking crime and requires a mandatory minimum sentence for the firearm offense. This mandatory minimum sentence must be imposed consecutively to any sentence imposed for the underlying crime. The Court was confronted with the question of whether, in calculating a sentence for the underlying offense, the sentencing judge must close his eyes to the fact that the defendant will also serve a consecutive mandatory minimum sentence for the firearms offense. See Dean, 137 S.Ct. at 1174. The Court held that, in the absence of statutory language directing the sentencing judge to ignore the requirement for a consecutive mandatory minimum sentence, the judge may consider that fact in his sentencing calculus. See id. at 1175-78.-

The Court made pellucid that sentencing judges “have long enjoyed discretion in the sort of information they may consider when setting an appropriate sentence.” Id. at 1175. Without an express prohibition to the contrary, a sentencing judge may therefore consider any factor that reasonably relates to the concerns limned in 18'U.S.C. § 3553(a). See id. at 1175-76.

As applied here, the reasoning of Dean defenestrates the appellant’s argument that the court below could not take into account the second gun in its application of the section 3553(a) factors. Neither a federal criminal statute nor the sentencing guidelines forbids a sentencing court from considering the presence of a second gun when imposing sentence for either a section 922(g)(1) or a section 922(o) offense. We hold, therefore, that the court below acted well within the encincture of its discretion in considering .that fact when it sentenced the appellant.

Next, the appellant suggests that the sentencing court committed procedural error by inadequately explaining its reasons for imposing the upward variance. This specific suggestion is made for the first time on appeal and, thus, engenders plain error review. See United States v. Bermúdez-Meléndez, 827 F.3d 160, 164 (1st Cir. 2016). Plain error, though, is plainly absent.

To be sure, a sentencing court’s burden to explain its sentence increases the more that it deviates from the guideline range. See Martin, 520 F.3d at 91. Even so, a variant sentence may be “based on a complex of factors whose interplay and precise weight cannot ... be precisely described.” Id. at 92 (citation omitted). That is the situation here; and given this reality, the sentencing court had no need to “be precise to the point of pedantry.” United States v. Vargas-García, 794 F.3d 162, 166 (1st Cir. 2015) (quoting United States v. Turbides-Leonardo, 468 F.3d 34, 40 (1st Cir. 2006)). In such circumstances, it ordinarily suffices to satisfy the burden of explanation if the court identifies the primary reasons underpinning its decision. See id.

That burden was carried here. Before imposing the challenged sentence, the court below discussed the appellant’s lengthy criminal history, which included a conviction for second-degree murder and an array of weapons and drug offenses. The court bemoaned the fact that the appellant had made no apparent effort to “liv[e] a law abiding life.” It added that even though “he passed most of his adult life in jail,” he continued to reoffend. So, too, the court indicated that it was giving weight to the fact that the appellant had threatened a police officer at the time of his arrest. Last—but surely not least—the court voiced particular concern about the fact that the. appellant, a previously convicted felon, possessed two automatic weapons. The court found this fact especially disconcerting due to the prevalence of gun violence in Puerto Rico and the Commonwealth’s rising murder rate. See United States v. Flores-Machicote, 706 F.3d 16, 22-23 (1st Cir. 2013) (approving use of similar approach). Given the clarity of these statements, we find the sentencing court’s explanation of the appellant’s variant sentence to be more than adequate on plain error review.

This brings us to the appellant’s claim, preserved below, that his sentence is substantively unreasonable. Specifically, he submits that his background did not warrant the substantial upward variance and that the court misjudged the likelihood that he would reoffend. Our review is for abuse of discretion. See Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 51, 128 S.Ct. 586, 169 L.Ed.2d 445 (2007); Martin, 520 F.3d at 92.

As a general matter, a reviewing court is not at liberty to second-guess a sentencing court’s reasoned judgments about matters committed to the sentencing court’s discretion. See United States v. Clogston, 662 F.3d 588, 593 (1st Cir. 2011). Consistent with this principle, the substantive reasonableness of a sentence turns on whether the sentencing court articulated “a plausible sentencing rationale” and reached “a defensible result.” Martin, 520 F.3d at 96. There is more than one reasonable sentence in virtually any case, and we will vacate a procedurally correct sentence as substantively unreasonable only if it lies “outside the expansive boundaries” that surround the “universe” of reasonable sentences. Id at 92. This is a highly deferential standard of review, and it applies full-bore to non-guideline sentences. See Vargas-García, 794 F.3d at 167.

As we already have explained, the sentencing court expounded upon the appellant’s extensive and violent criminal history, his predilection to reoffend, and the gravity of the offenses of conviction (which was particularly concerning given the community in which they took place). The court also noted the presence of the second gun and the cascade of bullets found in the appellant’s car. We think that these observations, taken collectively, comprise a plausible sentencing rationale.

The sentencing court also reached a defensible result. While the sentence surpassed the top of the guideline range, “even a substantial variance does not translate, ipso facto, into a finding that the sentence is substantively unreasonable.” Flores-Machicote, 706 F.3d at 25. Context matters, see id., and the sentence in this case is responsive to the nature and circumstances of the offense, the characteristics of the offender, the importance of deterrence, and the need for condign punishment. In light of the facts and circumstances previously discussed, there is no principled way that we can say that a 72-month sentence falls outside the expansive universe of substantively reasonable sentences.

We need go no further. For the reasons elucidated above, the challenged sentence is

Affirmed.

      . We hasten to add that, even if double-counting occurred, it would not necessarily require vacating the appellant's sentence. See, e.g., United States v. Zapata, 1 F.3d 46, 47 (1st Cir. 1993) (noting that, "[i]n the sentencing context, double counting is a phenomenon that is less sinister than the name implies” and is often "perfectly proper”).

      . In part, the appellant argues that, because the sentencing court relied on the presence of the second gun—which he contends was already factored into his guideline range—the court was .obligated to provide an additional explanation for the upward variance. See United States v. Zapete-Garcia, 447 F.3d 57, 60 (1st Cir. 2006). That argument fails for the reasons already discussed, and we make no further reference to it.


source: Caselaw Access Project

author: HOWARD, Chief Judge.

license: Public Domain

text:
    UNITED STATES of America, Appellee, v. Christian SÁNCHEZ-COLBERG, Defendant, Appellant.
    No. 15-2522
    United States Court of Appeals, First Circuit.
    May 8, 2017

      William S. Maddox on brief for appellant.
    Tiffany V. Monrose, Assistant United States Attorney, Rosa Emilia Rodriguez-Vélez, United States Attorney, and Mariana E. Bauzá-Almonte, Assistant United States Attorney, Chief, Appellate Division, on brief for appellee.
    Before HOWARD, Chief Judge, TORRUELLA and BARRON, Circuit Judges.
   HOWARD, Chief Judge.

Christian Sánchez-Colberg pleaded guilty to two drug- and weapons-related charges; in exchange, the government dismissed others. Sánchez now appeals his sentence, attacking its procedural and substantive reasonableness. Although Sanchez’s plea agreement does not bar this appeal, his challenges ultimately fail on their merits. We affirm.

I. Background

Puerto Rico law enforcement officers encountered Sánchez and his codefendant while searching abandoned apartments in an unrelated case. The officers found Sán-chez with cocaine, marijuana, drug ledgers, cash, ammunition, and two handguns—one of which was modified to fire automatically. Sánchez eventually entered guilty pleas to possessing marijuana with the intent to distribute, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1), and possessing firearms in furtherance of a drug-trafficking crime, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(1)(A)®. In exchange, the government agreed to dismiss other charges—one of which carried a mandatory 30-year-minimum sentence. See id. § 924(c)(l)(B)(ii).

In the plea agreement, the parties stipulated that the appropriate guidelines sentencing range for the marijuana charge was 0-6 months’ incarceration, and agreed to recommend a sentence “at the higher end.” The firearms charge carried a statutorily required consecutive incarcerative term of at least 60 months, and the parties identified the guidelines range as that statutory minimum. See id. § 924(c)(1)(A)®; U.S.S.G. § 2K2.4(b) (2014). On that count, however, the plea agreement contemplated an above-guidelines sentence: , Sánchez could argue for as few as 96 months, and the government could “request a ... term of imprisonment of up to one hundred and fifty-six (156) months.” The agreement further provided that Sánchez would waive his right to appeal, so long as the court sentenced him “according to its terms, conditions, and recommendations.”

At the sentencing hearing, Sánchez asked the judge to impose a 6-month sentence on the marijuana charge and a 96-month sentence on the firearms charge (102 months total). The government also recommended a 6-month sentence on the marijuana charge, but requested a 144-month sentence for the firearms (150 months total). The district court accepted the parties’ recommendation on the marijuana charge, but found insufficient “the sentence that both the government and the defense recommended” on the firearms charge. The court then sentenced Sánchez to the top of the range specified in the plea agreement for the § 924(c) violation: 156 months (for a total incarcerative sentence of 162 months). Sánchez did not object at •the sentencing hearing; in this timely appeal, however, he argues that the sentence was unreasonable.

II. Analysis

Before addressing the merits, we first determine whether this appeal falls within the waiver of appeal to which Sánchez agreed. See United States v. Betancourt-Pérez, 833 F.3d 18, 21 (1st Cir. 2016). it does not.

A. Waiver

A plea agreement’s appeal-waiver provision “is valid if it was knowingly and voluntarily executed, and if enforcement would not result in a miscarriage of justice.” United States v. Santiago-Burgos, 750 F.3d 19, 22 (1st Cir. 2014). “But ‘[e]ven a knowing and voluntary appeal waiver only precludes appeals that fall within its scope.’ ” Id. at 22-23 (alteration in original) (quoting United States v. McCoy, 508 F.3d 74, 77 (1st Cir. 2007)). When determining such a provision’s scope, “we rely on basic contract interpretation principles, construing the agreement where possible to give effect to every term and phrase, and construing any ambiguities in favor of allowing the appeal to proceed.” Iff at 23 (citations omitted).

Sanchez’s plea agreement contains this appeal-waiver provision: “Defendant hereby agrees that if this Honorable Court accepts this Plea and Forfeiture Agreement and sentences him according to its terms, conditions, and recommendations, Defendant waives and surrenders his right to appeal the judgment and sentence in this case.”

The agreement’s “Sentence Recommendation” provision reads, in its entirety:

As to [the marijuana count] the parties agree to recommend a sentence of imprisonment at the higher end of the above referenced guideline calculation. As to [the firearms count] the defendant can request a consecutive term of imprisonment of ninety-six (96) months and the Government can request a consecutive term of imprisonment of up to one hundred and fifty-six (156) months. The parties agree that any recommendation by either party for a term of imprisonment below or above the stipulated sentence recommendation constitutes a material breach of the Plea and Forfeiture Agreement.

Sánchez argues that the appeal-waiver provision does not apply because the district court sentenced him to 156 months on the firearms count, but he requested 96 months and the government sought only 144 months—so the court did not sentence him “according to” the parties’ “recommendations.” The government counters that, because it was permitted to ask for a 156-month sentence on the firearms count, Sánchez’s ultimate sentence “was within the range contemplated by the parties in the plea agreement,” and he was thus sentenced according to the agreement’s terms and conditions.

“Plea agreements should be given their plain meaning.” United States v. Ocasio-Cancel, 727 F.3d 85, 89 (1st Cir. 2013). But here, the meaning of Sánchez’s plea agreement is ambiguous. The appeal-waiver provision bars any appeal from a sentence in accordance with the agreement’s “terms, conditions, and recommendations.” (emphasis added). The underlined language is not meaningless: because we “constru[e] the agreement ... to give effect to every term and phrase,” Santiago-Burgos, 750 F.3d at 23, we do not read the appeal-waiver provision’s inclusion of “recommendations” as mere surplusage. See United States v. Garcia, 698 F.2d 31, 36 (1st Cir. 1983) (rejecting a plea-agreement construction that would “render the language mere surplusage”) (quoting United States v. Bowler, 585 F.2d 851, 854 (7th Cir. 1978)).

The agreement’s ambiguity lies in the meaning of the phrase “its ... recommendations.” The phrase could simply refer to any sentence within the “stipulated sentence recommendation” contained within the agreement’s four corners. But the phrase could also refer more narrowly to the parties’ actual requests at sentencing for a term of imprisonment, so long as those requests are within the agreement’s textually specified sentencing range. Cfi United States v. Ríos-Hernández, 645 F.3d 456, 459, 461-62 (1st Cir. 2011) (construing “its ... recommendations” to be limited by the parties’ agreement to recommend a sentence at the lower end of the applicable guideline range). The phrase’s meaning as used in the agreement is thus ambiguous. And, because we construe plea-agreement ambiguity against the government, we hold that Sánchez’s appeal is not within the appeal-waiver provision’s scope, and accordingly proceed to the merits. See United States v. Newbert, 504 F.3d 180, 185 (1st Cir. 2007).

B. Sentencing Error

Sánchez’s sentencing-error arguments, however, fail on their merits. We review these claims in two steps: “we first determine whether the sentence imposed is procedurally reasonable and then determine whether it is substantively reasonable.” Cruz-Vazquez, 841 F.3d at 549 (quoting United States v. Clogston, 662 F.3d 588, 590 (1st Cir. 2011)).

1. Procedural reasonableness

Sánchez contends that his sentence was procedurally unreasonable because the district court “did not articulate a basis for exceeding the recommendations of the parties.” See Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 51, 128 S.Ct. 586, 169 L.Ed.2d 445 (2007) (procedural error includes “failing to adequately explain the chosen sentence”). Because Sánchez did not preserve this argument by raising it below, we review only for plain error. See United States v. Bermúdez-Meléndez, 827 F.3d 160, 164 (1st Cir. 2016). There was no error here, plain or otherwise.

“To satisfy its burden of explanation, the sentencing court need do no more than identify the main factors behind its decision.” Id. The sentencing court met that obligation here. As acknowledged by Sánchez in his brief, the court determined, among other findings, that the parties’ sentencing requests did “not reflect the seriousness of the offense,” which included possession of “two powerful weapons!,] one of which is modified to shoot automatically,” in addition to “the ammunition ... [drugs], drug ledgers, and drug paraphernalia.” This explanation sufficed to meet the procedural-reasonableness requirement. See id. at 164-65 (finding no procedural error when explanation reflected defendant’s possession of an “impressive array of munitions,” including an assault rifle, “in close proximity to a trove of illegal drugs”).

One final note on procedural reasonableness: to the extent that Sanchez asserts that the court erred by not explaining why it rejected the parties’ requested sentences, the law does not support him. “Although a sentencing court typically has a duty to explain why it selected a particular sentence, it has ‘no corollary duty to explain why it eschewed other suggested sentences.’ ” Id. at 165 (quoting United States v. Vega-Salgado, 769 F.3d 100, 104 (1st Cir. 2014)).

2. Substantive reasonableness

Having established that the sentence was not procedurally unreasonable, we turn to its substantive reasonableness. Once again, Sánchez did not object below. Consistent with our recent cases, and favorably to Sánchez, we assume arguendo that abuse-of-discretion review applies. See Cruz-Vázquez, 841 F.3d at 549 & n.2. We nevertheless reject the substantive-reasonableness claim.

“The essence of appellate review for substantive reasonableness is whether the sentence is the product of ‘a plausible ... rationale and a defensible result.’ ” United States v. Rivera-González, 776 F.3d 45, 51 (1st Cir. 2015) (quoting United States v. Martin, 520 F.3d 87, 96 (1st Cir. 2008)). Sánchez argues that his sentence was substantively unreasonable because he received a greater sentence than did his codefendant, even though there was no reason for the disparity. Though we may find cause for concern when one judge sentences “identically situated defendants” differently, that is not the case here—and Sánchez makes no effort to explain why he and his codefendant are identically situated. United States v. Reyes-Santiago, 804 F.3d 453, 467 (1st Cir. 2015) (citation omitted).

In fact, Sánchez posits a distinction between the two men: he claims that his codefendant—not he—possessed the machine gun, because the label on the evidence bag containing the machine gun did not list Sánchez’s name. The record, however, supports a finding that Sánchez possessed the machine gun. The plea agreement memorializes that Sánchez “did knowingly possess [both] firearms,” which Sánchez acknowledged by initialing the paragraph describing the two weapons. And later, during the plea colloquy, the district court advised Sánchez that the firearms count alleged that he “knowingly possessed firearms,” described both weapons in detail, and asked Sánchez “is that what you did? ... Is that what you’re pleading guilty to?” Sánchez replied ‘Yes.” Accordingly, because Sánchez has not demonstrated either that he and his code-fendant were “identically situated” or that Sánchez was less culpable, his disparity argument fails. See id. (“We have routinely rejected disparity claims ... because complaining defendants typically fail to acknowledge material differences between their own circumstances and those of their more leniently punished confederates.”).

Finally, Sánchez argues that his sentence on the firearms count wás substantively unreasonable insofar as the court varied upward from the guidelines sentence. As Sánchez acknowledges, however, the parties themselves recommended' an upwardly variant sentence. It was not unreasonable for the court to impose a sentence within the parties’ bargained-for range. See Rivera-González, 776 F.3d at 52 (finding upwardly variant sentence substantively reasonable when “it produced the same aggregate period of incarceration to which the parties had previously-agreed” in plea agreement).

III. Conclusion

For the reasons stated, we hold that the plea agreement does not bar this appeal, but we affirm the sentence.

      . Because Sánchez pleaded guilty, we draw the facts "from the plea agreement, the change-of-plea colloquy, the Pre-Sentence Investigation Report ('PSR'), and the transcript of the sentencing hearing.” United States v. Cruz-Vázquez, 841 F.3d 546, 547 n.1 (1st Cir. 2016).

      . This language distinguishes Sánchez’s case from others in which we construed appeal-waiver provisions lacking such a term. See, e.g., United States v. Morales-Arroyo, 854 F.3d 118, 119 (1st Cir. 20Í7); Betancourt-Pérez, 833 F.3d at 22.

      . Sánchez urges that United States v. Guzman-Fernandez, 824 F.3d 173 (1st Cir. 2016), requires abuse-of-discretion review for unpre-served procedural-reasonableness claims. Guzman-Fernandez, however, dealt with a preserved claim. IA at 176 ("Guzman’s counsel 'objected’....”) (alteration omitted).

      . There may be a hint of an ineffective-assistance-of-counsel argument in Sánchez’s brief, but ”[w]e normally do not consider such claims on direct appeal where ... they were not first presented to the district court.” United States v. Hallock, 941 F.2d 36, 43 (1st Cir. 1991).


author: SOUTER, Associate Justice.

text:
    DUKES BRIDGE LLC, Plaintiff, Appellant, Stanley Miller, Trustee of the TPCS Corporation Irrevocable Life Insurance Sub-Trust, Plaintiff, v. Gilbert D. BEINHOCKER, Defendant, Appellee, Leonard Phillips, Individually and as Trustee of the TPCS Corporation Irrevocable Life Insurance Trust, Defendant.
    No. 16-1520
    United States Court of Appeals, First Circuit.
    May 8, 2017

      Shawn R. Farrell, with whom Cohen Seglias Pallas Greenhall & Furman, P.C., Philadelphia, PA, was on brief, for Dukes Bridge LLC.
    John P. Connelly, with whom Robert T. Ferguson, Jr., and Hinckley, Allen & Snyder LLP, Boston, MA, were on brief, for Gilbert D. Beinhocker.
    Before BARRON, Circuit Judge, SOUTER, Associate Justice, and SELYA, Circuit Judge.

       Hon. David H. Souter, Associate Justice (Ret.) of the Supreme Court of the United States, sitting by designation.

   SOUTER, Associate Justice.

Dukes Bridge LLC, a plaintiff in this action for breach of contract, appeals the district court’s grant of summary judgment to defendant Gilbert D. Beinhocker. We reverse and remand.

I.

The maze of detail in this transaction is lucidly organized in the district court’s opinion, but a limited recitation of facts suffices for purposes of the appeal. Bein-hocker entered into the contract in question as one element of a transaction to raise capital for his flailing business and income for himself. The dealings among the parties involved Beinhocker’s purchase of a multi-million dollar life insurance policy on his own life, to be held in trust for the two years during which the insurer could contest the representation in his policy application, then sold by the insurance broker to a third party for a profit to Beinhocker, among others. As he lacked the wherewithal to pay the policy premiums prior to the anticipated sale, he obtained financing from a lender, Aqua Blue Wealth Management, LLC, Dukes Bridge’s predecessor in interest.

The several documents structuring the transaction included a “Specialty Finance Loan Agreement,” providing that the lender would pay two years of the life insurance policy’s premiums. A trust was formed with Beinhoeker’s business partner, Leonard Phillips, as trustee, and a sub-trust, whose trustee was the plaintiff Stanley Miller. The actual borrower under the Loan Agreement was the sub-trust, which held the life policy as collateral for the lender’s protection.

As it concerns this appeal, the Loan Agreement included a non-recourse provision, that in case of default the obligations to the lender under the agreement could be satisfied only from the collateral policy. It expressly protected Beinhocker:

Notwithstanding any other provision of this Specialty Finance Loan Agreement or any other Loan Documents, Lender agrees that under these Loan Documents there are not any circumstances, including but not limited to the recourse obligations of the Borrower [Sub-Trust], under which ... Beinhocker will personally be responsible for any obligations owed to the Lender ... or the Insured’s [Beinhocker’s] assets will be subject to any claims, liens or judgments of the Lender or any affiliates of the Lender.

The same day the Loan Agreement was executed, Beinhocker, Phillips, and Miller entered into a “Non-Contravention Agreement,” with the stated purpose of “inducting]” the lender to “enter into the Loan Agreement.” The Non-Contravention Agreement provided that Beinhocker would not “contravene or take any action that will cause an event of default under the Specialty Finance Loan Agreement or any other contract, understanding, or commitment déscribed in the Loan Documents.” Beinhocker would not “pledge, assign ..., or otherwise dispose of, or encumber with any Lien, the [life insurance policy] without the prior, written consent of [Miller].” Nor would Beinhocker “make any withdrawals from or obtain any policy loans against the” policy without Miller’s consent. Beinhocker agreed to hold the lender “harmless” against, and to “reimburse” it for, “any and all loss, liability, or damage resulting from any breach or non-fulfillment” of the Non-Contravention Agreement by Beinhocker, and for any “assessments, judgments, out-of-pocket costs and expenses, including without limitation, legal fees and expenses incident to” such breach.

With these agreements in place, the original lender paid the first-year premium on the life insurance policy, as well as part of the second year’s. Before the lender completed the second-year payments, however, Beinhocker became nervous. He worried that his insurance broker would have difficulty finding a buyer for the policy, and would end up selling it to “any anonymous party in Russia or Asia” who “would have a $10 million incentive to have [him] anonymously assassinated.” To assuage his fears, Beinhocker decided to sabotage the scheme. Unbeknownst to Miller, he requested Phillips to take out a $200,000 loan against the life insurance policy, the amount they had hoped to realize on its eventual sale. Phillips did so, with the ultimate effect of causing the policy to lapse, dismantling the entire arrangement.

Dukes Bridge (which by this time had succeeded to Aqua Blue’s position under the loan contract) then brought this action against Beinhocker, alleging that in causing the $200,000 loan to be taken out against the life insurance policy, he had violated the Non-Contravention Agreement, resulting in damages to the lender. Each side moved for summary judgment. The district court found there was no question about Beinhocker’s breach of the Non-Contravention Agreement but that he was immune from liability under the quoted non-recourse provision in the Loan Agreement. Accordingly, it entered summary judgment for Beinhocker on the breach of contract claim. Dukes Bridge LLC v. Beinhocker, No. 10-10877-DPW, 2012 WL 4324919, at *7-9 (D. Mass. Sept. 19,2012).

Before this court, Dukes Bridge assigns error to the district court’s application of the non-recourse provision in the Loan Agreement to immunize Beinhocker from liability. Dukes Bridge submits that no genuine issue of material fact remains, that the district court’s entry of summary judgment for Beinhocker should be vacated, and that summary judgment should be entered in its own favor instead.

II.

Our review of the district court’s summary judgment for Beinhocker is de novo, Tang v. Citizens Bank, N.A., 821 F.3d 206, 215 (1st Cir. 2016), as is our examination of its interpretation of the contracts in question, C.A. Acquisition Newco, LLC v. DHL Express (USA), Inc., 696 F.3d 109, 112 (1st Cir. 2012). We follow the parties’ lead and apply the substantive law of Massachusetts to the contract-law issues raised in this diversity action. Cochran v. Quest Software, Inc., 328 F.3d 1, 6 (1st Cir. 2003).

The principal issue raised by Dukes Bridge’s appeal requires resolution of the conflict between the previously quoted non-recourse provision in the Loan Agreement and the liability provisions of the Non-Contravention Agreement, each of them executed as an element of the single loan transaction. As noted, the Loan Agreement was between Dukes Bridge’s assignor as lender and Miller, the sub-trustee. Though Beinhocker was not a signatory, he was obviously intended to be a third-party beneficiary of the non-recourse clause relied upon by the district court, and thus able to plead the clause as a defense to liability where it applies.

We agree with the district court that it would apply here if judged by its terms alone. The “[notwithstanding” provision purports to place it in a superior position to any source of obligation Beinhocker might incur to the lender under the Loan Agreement “or any other Loan Documents.” “Loan Document” is defined in the Loan Agreement to include “all ... agreements ... executed by the requisite Person(s) ... in connection with any of the foregoing [documents, which include the Loan Agreement] and accepted ... by the Lender.” Like the district court, we understand the Non-Contravention Agreement to have been executed in connection with the loan and “accepted” by Dukes Bridge’s assignor, given the obvious object of the protection it provided to the lender and its express statement that it was executed as inducement for the loan.

We part company with the district court, however, over its assumption that the clear facial applicability of the non-recourse clause is sufficient without further enquiry to negate Beinhocker’s exposure to liability to the lender under the Non-Contravention Agreement. That agreement’s emphatic centrality to the complex transaction cannot be doubted. It was obviously meant to guard against an act by Beinhocker that would sabotage the overall transaction in favor of an immediate benefit to him. Neither is there any uncertainty about its contemplated applicability to the action of obtaining the loan against the life insurance policy without Miller’s consent, or about the effect of that forbidden act in frustrating the entire transaction and leaving the lender with the loss from which Beinhocker had agreed to hold it harmless. Beinhocker freely admits the breach of his agreement, and its consequences, as just what he intended in order to obtain immediate cash and eliminate the jeopardy to his life. There is, in sum, no question that application of the non-recourse clause here leaves Beinhocker’s Non-Contravention Agreement a nullity as of the moment he signed it as an inducement for the necessary loan.

To leave the matter there would exemplify a resolution of conflicting contractual provisions that we conclude the law of Massachusetts would not condone. The key to determining which provision should prevail here is the rule that in construing contractual terms they must be read as a whole and every one given effect so far as possible. See J.A. Sullivan Corp. v. Commonwealth, 397 Mass. 789, 494 N.E.2d 374, 378 (1986) (“A contract is to be construed to give reasonable effect to each of its provisions.”); see also Bailes v. Babcock Power Inc., 476 Mass. 565, 70 N.E.3d 905, 916 (2017) (citing J.A. Sullivan for the proposition that a court should not “read [a] provision” out of a contract); Restatement (Second) of Contracts § 202(2) (1981) (“A writing is interpreted as a whole, and all writings that are part of the same transaction are interpreted together.”). The courts of Massachusetts recognize that rule in circumstances like those here, when a transaction is structured through multiple contracts. See Chelsea Indus., Inc, v. Florence, 358 Mass. 50, 260 N.E.2d 732, 735 (1970) .(“The two contracts were part of a single transaction. In construing them, weight must be given to that circumstance.”); see also Wilmot H. Simonson Co. v. Green Textiles Assocs., 755 F.2d 217, 219 (1st Cir. 1985) (same) (quoting Chelsea Indus.). That tenet of the Commonwealth’s law may readily be applied here to allow for the application of each provision, owing to the range of facts that could produce the damages alleged by the lender.

Consider first the possibility that the sub-trustee-borrower might default so as to cause loss and reduce or destroy the value of the collateral policy without any participation by Beinhocker, or even knowledge on his part. A change of residence to Tahiti financed by loan proceeds might successfully tempt a susceptible trustee, for example. If it did so without any involvement by Beinhocker, there is no apparent argument against applying the non-recourse provision to protect him from a claim by the lender. But in the circumstance that Beinhocker himself causes loss to the lender by violating the Non-Contravention Agreement, it is likely that the parties to the transaction would have understood that the hold-harmless terms of that agreement would and should prevail, subjecting Beinhocker to liability.

This resolution of the facial conflict by recognizing reasonable spheres of respective applicability gives effect to each set of terms and gives the parties and the drafters of the documents credit for coherent thinking. See Stop & Shop, Inc. v. Ganem, 347 Mass. 697, 200 N.E.2d 248, 251 (1964) (“Justice, common sense and the probable intention of the parties are guides to construction of a written instrument.”); see also Fishman v. LaSalle Nat’l Bank, 247 F.3d 300, 302 (1st Cir. 2001) (stating, in interpreting a contract subject to Massachusetts law, that “[cjommon sense is as much a part of contract interpretation as is the dictionary or the arsenal of canons”). We accordingly hold the terms of the Non-Contravention Agreement entitled to apply on the facts of this case, without nullification by the Loan Agreement’s non-re-, course clause.

III.

The judgment for Beinhocker is reversed and the case is remanded for reconsideration of Dukes Bridge’s motion for summary judgment and its motion to substitute MLSF LLC in its place. Costs shall be taxed in favor of Dukes Bridge.

      . A second such clause is arguably of more limited scope, on the basis of which Dukes Bridge argues its inapplicability to a violation of the Non-Contravention Agreement, described below. Given our conclusion that the relevant terms of that agreement control on the issue of Beinhocker’s personal liability, there is no reason to delve into this issue.

      . Dukes Bridge and Beinhocker are not the only parties to the action. Miller, too, is a plaintiff, and Phillips a defendant. The district court entered summary judgment against Miller, on the ground that he cannot show damages from any breach of the Non-Contravention Agreement. Dukes Bridge LLC v. Beinhocker, No. 10-10877-DPW, 2012 WL 4324919, at *7 (D. Mass. Sept. 19, 2012). The district court entered summary judgment against Phillips on Dukes Bridge’s claim that Phillips, like Beinhocker, breached the Non-Contravention Agreement. Id. at *8-9. Neither of those judgments is at issue on appeal.

      . We note Beinhocker’s threshold argument that Dukes Bridge lacks standing to respond to the merits of this appeal, owing to its disclosure that it has assigned its interest in the verdict to a third party, MLSF LLC (not before the court). This position is insufficiently substantial to call for extended examination. Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 25(c), a party’s standing is determined by its position at commencement of the action, when Dukes Bridge had not yet made the assignment. Although Dukes Bridge moved to substitute MLSF LLC for itself in the district court, the record indicates that Beinhocker opposed the motion, which was not ruled upon, supposedly because of a fact issue the court chose not to resolve in view of the judgment in Beinhocker’s favor. The motion may be addressed on remand.


author: CHIN, Circuit Judge:

text:
    UNITED STATES of America, Appellee, v. James LYLE, aka Sealed Defendant 3, Michael Van Praagh, aka Sealed Defendant 1, Defendants-Appellants, Anthony Tarantino, aka Sealed Defendant 2, Defendant.

    Docket Nos. 15-958-cr(L), 15-1175-cr(CON)
    August Term 2016
    United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit.
    Argued: January 12, 2017
    Decided: May 9, 2017

      MICHAEL FERRARA, Assistant United States Attorney (Brendan F. Quigley, Assistant United States Attorney, on the brief), for Joon H. Kim, Acting United States Attorney for the Southern District of New York, New York, New York, for Appellee.
    DANIEL S. NOOTER (Thomas H. Nooter, on the brief), Freeman Nooter & Ginsberg, New York, New York, for Defendant-Appellant James Lyle.
    MARSHA R. TAUBENHAUS, Law Offices of Marsha R. Taubenhaus, New York, New York, for Defendant-Appellant Michael Van Praagh.
    Before: RAGGI, CHIN, and LOHIER, Circuit Judges.

       The Clerk of Court is respectfully directed to amend the official caption to conform to the above.

   CHIN, Circuit Judge:

Defendants-appellants James Lyle and Michael Van Praagh appeal from judgments of the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York (Crotty, J.) convicting them on charges relating to the distribution of methamphetamine. Lyle challenges the admission at trial of evidence seized during a December 11, 2013 inventory search of a rental car and a January 9, 2014 search of his hotel room. He also challenges the admission at trial of certain post-arrest and proffer statements. Van Praagh challenges the sufficiency of the evidence of his participation in a methamphetamine distribution conspiracy, the admission of Lyle’s post-arrest and proffer statements in their joint trial, and the reasonableness of his sentence. Because we conclude that the evidence at trial was sufficient to support all convictions, the challenged searches and seizures did not violate the Fourth Amendment, the admission of Lyle’s statements did not violate the Fifth Amendment, and Van Praagh’s sentence was reasonable, we affirm the judgments of the district court.

BACKGROUND

I. The Facts

Because Van Praagh and Lyle appeal convictions following a jury trial, we view the evidence in “the light most favorable to the government, crediting any inferences that the jury might have drawn in its favor.” United States v. Rosemond, 841 F.3d 95, 99-100 (2d Cir. 2016) (quoting United States v. Dhinsa, 243 F.3d 635, 643 (2d Cir. 2001)).

A. Overview

Throughout 2013, Van Praagh regularly sold pound quantities of methamphetamine. These deals generally occurred once a week and often took place in Manhattan hotels. Van Praagh also sold smaller quantities of methamphetamine out of his apartment in Queens and through in-person deliveries to his customers. Brandon Hodges, an Arizona-based methamphetamine supplier, sent Van Praagh methamphetamine on three or four occasions during this time, with the largest shipment containing four ounces of methamphetamine. Van Praagh regularly sold methamphetamine to Lyle, who was also a methamphetamine dealer in the New York area. Lyle regularly sold methamphetamine to Anthony Tarantino. Tarantino initially purchased methamphetamine for personal use, but eventually starting selling small quantities of methamphetamine to his own clients. Both Hodges and Tarantino cooperated with the government and testified at trial.

In January 2013, Lyle introduced Tarantino to Van Praagh. Tarantino accompanied Lyle to Van Praagh’s apartment so that Lyle could restock his methamphetamine supply. While at Van Praagh’s apartment, Tarantino saw Lyle purchase methamphetamine from Van Praagh, which Lyle later sold to Tarantino. In April 2013, Lyle took Tarantino to Van Praagh’s apartment a second time, where Tarantino again observed Lyle “re-up,” ie., purchase methamphetamine, from Van Praagh. After this second visit, Tarantino and Van Praagh became romantically involved, and eventually Tarantino moved in with Van Praagh and began helping him sell methamphetamine.

B. The Seizure of Methamphetamine from Van Praagh’s Hotel Room

On May 29, 2013, Van Praagh and Tarantino checked into the Out Hotel in midtown Manhattan. That night, they sold pound quantities of methamphetamine to several customers, including Lyle. The next day, they checked out of the hotel but accidentally left approximately a pound of methamphetamine and $20,000 cash in the hotel room safe. Hotel staff found the drugs and money and called the New York City Police Department (“NYPD”), and officers arrived to seize the drugs and cash. After Van Praagh realized his mistake later that day, he returned to the hotel, where he was arrested by the NYPD. During the arrest, the officers seized a cellular* phone and over $1,000 cash from Van Praagh’s pocket. The officers also searched Van Praagh’s Vespa scooter parked outside the hotel, where they found part of and packaging for a digital scale.

Soon thereafter, Tarantino brought Lyle money to give to Van Praagh’s father to bail Van Praagh out of jail. The day after Van Praagh got out of jail, he and Tarantino flew to Arizona to ensure that Van Praagh’s methamphetamine suppliers would continue to sell to him. Van Praagh and Tarantino returned to New York and continued their sale of methamphetamine.

C. Lyle’s Arrests

On December 11, 2013, NYPD officers observed Lyle park and exit a car in midtown Manhattan. The officers noticed a knife clipped to Lyle’s pants, which they later determined to be an illegal gravity knife. The officers approached Lyle as he was closing the trunk of the car. Lyle told the officers that he was legally permitted to carry a gravity knife because he was a member of the stagehands union and used the knife to perform his job. Lyle initially said he had not driven the car but when the officers informed him that they had seen him driving it, Lyle admitted as much. When asked for identification, Lyle produced a New York State ID with the expiration date scratched off. The officers confirmed that Lyle’s driver’s license was suspended. The officers also determined that the vehicle Lyle was driving was a rental car and that Lyle was not an authorized driver under the rental agreement. Lyle claimed that his girlfriend had rented the car and had given him permission to drive it. The officers arrested Lyle for driving with a suspended license and for possessing an illegal knife.

Before heading to the station for processing, Lyle asked if the car could be left at the location and stated that his girlfriend would pick it up. The officers denied the request and impounded the vehicle. At the police precinct, an inventory search was conducted. Over one pound of methamphetamine and approximately $39,000 cash were found in the trunk of the car.

The following day—December 12, 2013—Lyle was brought to the District Attorney’s Office where he made certain statements in custody after being read his Miranda rights. When asked about the methamphetamine that was in the trunk of the rental car, Lyle stated that “an individual ... had contacted him and asked him to hold something for him.” Tr. 435. He stated that upon meeting with that individual and another individual, he stayed in the car and did not see what was placed in the trunk but presumed it to be drugs because the individual that he was meeting with was known to distribute large quantities of methamphetamine in the New York area. When asked about his relationship with these two individuals, Lyle stated that he was friends with them, and had eventually begun working with one of them in delivering methamphetamine to the individual’s customers.

Lyle stated that the person in charge had a source of supply in Arizona named either Brendan or Brandon. Lyle also “provided a few names” of other people in the New York area who distributed large quantities of methamphetamine. Tr. 436.

On January 9, 2014, police in East Windsor, New Jersey responded to an anonymous call that people were using methamphetamine in a hotel room. When they got to the hotel room, Lyle opened the door and invited the officers inside. The officers heard the toilet flush and saw Lyle’s girlfriend come out of the bathroom. The officers observed a torch lighter on the bathroom shelf, a small clear bag next to the trash can, and a partial clear straw wrapper containing white residue on the bathroom floor. Additionally, they observed a towel under the bathroom doorway. In the bedroom, the officers noticed that a clear bag had been affixed to the smoke detector with rubber bands.

Officers then performed a consent search of the room, and found approximately fourteen grams of methamphetamine, $3,270 cash, a digital scale,, and numerous plastic baggies. Lyle and his girlfriend were both arrested.

II. The Proceedings Below

A. The Indictment and Van Praagh’s Arrest

Van Praagh, Lyle, and Tarantino were indicted on March 20, 2014. On March 31, 2014, Drug Enforcement Administration (“DEA”) agents arrested Van Praagh at his apartment. After receiving consent to search the apartment, agents found tools used to sell drugs, including a heat-sealer, packaging .materials, and multiple scales, and a note from Hodges asking Van Praagh to have Lyle call him.

On April 6, 2013 Van Praagh called his father from jail and told him, in a recorded call, “they got nothing.... I sterilized the house like I told you.” Supp. App. 104. He also told him, “[t]hey got Anthony [Tarantino], but I’m expecting that he’ll be disappearing any day now.... I believe that he had been talking.” Supp. App. 105.

B. Lyle’s Proffer Session

On April 7, 2014, Lyle participated in a proffer session with the government in hope of reaching a cooperation agreement. A proffer agreement was executed, stipulating that the government would not use any of Lyle’s statements made during the proffer sessions against him, except “to rebut any evidence or arguments offered by or on behalf of [Lyle].” Lyle App. 36.

During the proffer session, Lyle admitted that (1) around 2011 or 2012, he sometimes stayed with Van Praagh while working on projects in New York City; (2) he observed Van Praagh smoking and using methamphetamine; (3) he occasionally delivered packages to Van Praagh’s clients; (4) he accompanied Van Praagh to deliver methamphetamine thirty to fifty times; (5) Van Praagh told Lyle his supplier was in Arizona; and (6) on one occasion, Lyle accompanied Van Praagh to pick up methamphetamine from a library in New York City.

C. The Superseding Indictment and Pretrial Motions

A superseding indictment was filed September 30, 2014, charging- (1) Van Praagh and Lyle with conspiring to distribute 500 grams or more of methamphetamine, in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 846 and 841(b)(1)(A), from December 2012 to January 2014; (2) Van Praagh with distributing and possessing with intent to distribute 50 grams or more of methamphetamine, in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1) and 841(b)(1)(B), on or about May 30, 2013; and (3) Lyle with distributing and possessing with intent to distribute 50 grams or more of methamphetamine, in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1) and 841(b)(1)(B), on or about December 11, 2013.

Before trial, Lyle moved to suppress the physical evidence recovered from the search of the automobile, as well as his subsequent post-arrest statements. In an affidavit filed in support of the motion, Lyle admitted that (1) just prior to his arrest, he had been driving the car that had been rented by his girlfriend with her permission; (2) he possessed a gravity knife that day; (3) he initially told the police officers he had not been driving the car but later admitted to driving the car; and (4) his license was suspended at the time.

On September 11, 2014, the district court held an evidentiary hearing on the voluntariness of Lyle’s post-arrest statements and, on October 1, 2014, the court denied Lyle’s motion to suppress. The court found there was probable cause for Lyle’s arrest, based on his possession of a gravity knife. The court then concluded that the search of the rental car was justified on two independent bases. First, Lyle had no reasonable expectation of privacy in the rental car because he was not an authorized driver under the rental agreement. Second, the search of the rental car was a valid inventory search. The court also found that Lyle’s post-arrest statements were made voluntarily and pursuant to a valid Miranda waiver.

D. The Trial

Lyle and Van Praagh’s trial began on October 14, 2014, and ended on October 20, 2014. The government called nineteen witnesses, and introduced physical evidence consisting of drugs and drug processing materials, text messages between the defendants, testimony regarding Lyle’s post-arrest and proffer statements, and the recorded call Van Praagh made to his father while incarcerated. Van Praagh called one witness who testified about the circumstances of Van Praagh’s March 31, 2014 arrest. Lyle did 'not put on a case.

During his opening statement, Lyle’s counsel stated that “[Lyle] obtained, bought, borrowed, was given methamphetamine for his own use. Where we dispute is the idea that he was a dealer.” Tr. 28. Later that day, the government submitted a letter brief, asserting that Lyle’s counsel’s argument that Lyle was not a dealer opened the door to Lyle’s proffer statements about distributing drugs with Van Praagh.

Lyle’s .statements to law enforcement were admitted in two contexts. First, the district court allowed testimony regarding Lyle’s December 12, 2013 post-arrest statements to law enforcement to be admitted only as against him, prohibiting mention of Van Praagh. Van Praagh did not object to the redacted testimony. Government witnesses testified that Lyle admitted that an “individual” for whom hfe worked as a “runner” “asked him to hold something for him” in the trunk of the rental car, which Lyle “presumed ... to be drugs” because Lyle knew “[t]hat individual along with another individual” distributed “large quantities of crystal meth in the New York area.” Tr. 435, 534. Lyle was friends “[m]ore so with the individual that had not placed the drugs in the trunk.... He said that he began as friends, and eventually he began working with that individual”—the “individual who was in charge”—“assisting him in delivering ... methamphetamine to that individual’s customers.” Tr. 435-36. Lyle told law enforcement that the individuals for whom he was working as a runner had a source of supply in Arizona named either Brendan or Brandon. Lyle also gave law enforcement “a few names” of other people in the New York area who distributed methamphetamine, including the names of three competitor drug dealers. Tr. 436. On cross-examination, Lyle’s attorney elicited testimony that, during the post-arrest interview, Lyle “gave names of people during the conversation,” one of which was Brandon or Brendan. Tr. 448.

Second, toward the close of the government’s case, the district court ruled—over Lyle’s objection—that Lyle’s proffer statements were admissible, but again prohibited mention of Van Praagh. Van Praagh did not object. The government witness then testified that Lyle admitted he had “first become involved in methamphetamine” in 2012 through “someone” he “knew ... from work.” Tr. 517-18. Lyle observed “that person ... using and distributing crystal methamphetamine.” Tr. 518. Lyle “began distributing small packages” for that person and “accompanying that person on deals as well as picking up crystal methamphetamine.” Id. Lyle admitted that “he accompanied this person ... [on] between 30 to 50 occasions. And that at one point they had gone to a library in the New York City area ... to pick up crystal methamphetamine.” Id. Lyle said the methamphetamine supplier was in Arizona.

On cross-examination, Lyle’s attorney elicited from the witness that “[Lyle] actually g[a]ve real names of people” during his proffer session, and provided “some names of people whose last names he didn’t know.” Tr. 524. These names included “Zaron,” “Ted,” “Bob,” and “Joe.” Tr. at 525.

At the close of trial, the district court instructed the jury, in pertinent part: “There has been evidence that Mr. Lyle made statements to law enforcement authorities .... I want to let you know that ... Mr. Lyle’s statement about his own conduct may not be considered or discussed by you with regard to Mr. Van Praagh.” Tr. 713.

On October 20, 2014, the jury found the defendants guilty on all counts. On March 25, 2015, the district court sentenced Lyle principally to the statutory mandatory minimum of 120 months’ imprisonment and, on April 2, 2015, the district court sentenced Van Praagh principally to 144 months’ imprisonment. In imposing a higher sentence on Van Praagh, the district court concluded that ‘Van Praagh had a higher role, more important role. He dealt in more drugs than did Mr. Lyle.” Van Praagh App. 62.

These appeals followed.

DISCUSSION

Six issues are presented: (1) whether Lyle had a reasonable expectation of privacy in the rental car; (2) the interpretation of Lyle’s proffer agreement; (3) the sufficiency of the redactions to Lyle’s proffer statements; (4) the admissibility of Lyle’s New Jersey arrest; (5) the sufficiency of the conspiracy evidence against Van Praagh; and (6) the reasonableness of Van Praagh’s sentence. We address each issue in turn.

I. Reasonable Expectation of Privacy in Rental Car

We review a district court’s ruling on a suppression motion for clear error as to factual findings, “giving special deference to findings that are based on determinations of witness credibility,” and de novo as to questions of law. United States v. Hussain, 835 F.3d 307, 312-13 (2d Cir. 2016) (quoting United States v. Lucky, 569 F.3d 101, 106 (2d Cir. 2009)). We conclude that Lyle’s motion was properly denied. Because we find that Lyle had no reasonable expectation of privacy in the rental car, we do not need to address the legality of the inventory search.

A. Applicable Law

The Fourth Amendment guarantees citizens the “right ... to be secure in their ... effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures.” U.S. Const, amend. IV. To prove that a search violated the Fourth Amendment, “an accused must show that he had a legitimate expectation of privacy in a searched place or item.” United States v. Rahme, 813 F.2d 31, 34 (2d Cir. 1987) (citing Rawlings v. Kentucky, 448 U.S. 98, 104, 100 S.Ct. 2556, 65 L.Ed.2d 633 (1980)). The person challenging the search must demonstrate a subjective expectation of privacy in the place searched, and that expectation must be objectively reasonable. United States v. Paulino, 850 F.2d 93, 97 (2d Cir. 1988).

We have not addressed the question of whether an unauthorized driver of a rental car has a reasonable expectation of privacy in the car. This question has divided the various circuit courts, resulting in at least three responses.

The majority of circuits that have considered this question have concluded that an unauthorized driver of a rental car lacks a legitimate expectation of privacy in the car absent extraordinary circumstances. See United States v. Kennedy, 638 F.3d 159, 165 (3d Cir. 2011) (“[A]s a general rule, the driver of a rental car who has been [l]ent the car by the renter, but who is not listed on the rental agreement as an authorized driver, lacks a legitimate expectation of privacy in the car unless there exist extraordinary circumstances suggesting an expectation of privacy.”); United States v. Seeley, 331 F.3d 471, 472 (5th Cir. 2003) (per curiam) (finding no plain error in district court’s holding that defendant “lacked standing to challenge the search of the rental car, as he (the sole occupant of the car) was not the renter or an authorized driver” (citing United States v. Boruff, 909 F.2d 111, 117 (5th Cir. 1990))); United States v. Wellons, 32 F.3d 117, 119 (4th Cir. 1994) (“[AJppellant, as an unauthorized driver of the rented car, had no legitimate privacy interest in the car and, therefore, the search of which he complains cannot have violated his Fourth Amendment rights.”); United States v. Obregon, 748 F.2d 1371, 1373, 1375 (10th Cir. 1984) (holding that district court was not “clearly erroneous in finding that [defendant] did not have a legitimate expectation of privacy in the [rental] car he was driving,” where defendant’s name was not on car rental contract).

The Sixth Circuit has taken a slightly different—more fact-based—approach. It has acknowledged “that as a general rule, an unauthorized driver of a rental vehicle does not have a legitimate expectation of privacy in the vehicle, and therefore does not have standing to contest the legality of a search of the vehicle,” but it has refused “to adopt a bright line test ... based solely on whether the driver of a rental vehicle is listed on the rental agreement as an authorized driver.” United States v. Smith, 263 F.3d 571, 586 (6th Cir. 2001). Rather, the Sixth Circuit considers whether the unauthorized driver “had a legitimate expectation of privacy which was reasonable in light of all the surrounding circumstances.” Id. at 586. In Smith, the court concluded that the unauthorized driver of a rental car had a legitimate expectation of privacy in a rented vehicle because (1) he was married to authorized driver, (2) had the renter’s permission to use the car, (3) was himself a licensed driver, (4) “was able to present the rental agreement and provided the officer with sufficient information regarding the vehicle,” and (5) had himself paid for the rental car. Id.

Finally, the Eighth and Ninth Circuits have held that an unauthorized driver has a reasonable expectation of privacy in a rental car if the authorized driver gave him or her permission to use the car. United States v. Thomas, 447 F.3d 1191, 1198-99 (9th Cir. 2006) (“[W]e cannot base constitutional standing entirely on a rental agreement to which the unauthorized driver was not a party and may not capture the nature of the unauthorized driver’s use of the car. Rather, an unauthorized driver who received permission to use a rental car and has joint authority over the car may challenge the search to the same extent as the authorized renter.” (internal citation omitted)); United States v. Best, 135 F.3d 1223, 1225 (8th Cir. 1998) (“If [authorized driver] had granted [unauthorized driver] permission to use the [rented] automobile, [unauthorized driver] would have a privacy interest giving rise to standing.”).

B. Application

We do not need to reach the question of whether an unauthorized driver of a rental car ever has a reasonable expectation of privacy in the car, because Lyle was not just an unauthorized driver, but an unlicensed one. Accordingly, Lyle’s use of the rental car was both unauthorized and unlawful. See N.Y. Vehicle & Traffic Law § 511 (prohibiting operating a car without a valid license). Lyle should not have been driving any car because his license was suspended, and a rental company with knowledge of the relevant facts certainly would not have given him permission to drive its car nor allowed a renter to do so. Under these circumstances, Lyle did not have a reasonable expectation of privacy in the rental car. See United States v. Haywood, 324 F.3d 514, 516 (7th Cir. 2003) (declining to resolve circuit split over whether unauthorized driver had reasonable expectation of privacy in rental car, because unauthorized driver also had suspended license and the combination resulted in no reasonable expectation of privacy); cf. United States v. Tropiano, 50 F.3d 157, 161 (2d Cir. 1995) (“[W]e think it obvious that a defendant who knowingly possesses a stolen car has no legitimate expectation of privacy in the car.”); United States v. Ponce, 947 F.2d 646, 649 (2d Cir. 1991) (“To mount a challenge to a search of a vehicle, defendants must show, among other things, a legitimate basis for being in it, such as permission from the owner.”).

Our decision in United States v. Smith, 621 F.2d 483 (2d Cir. 1980), is instructive. There, we held that Smith had no legitimate expectation of privacy in the trunk of a rental car, despite the fact that he was in the driver’s seat of the car when he was stopped by law enforcement. Id. at 485, 487. Like Lyle, Smith “had no driver’s license and the car was registered in another’s name.” Id. at 487. Also like Lyle, Smith “made no showing that he had any legitimate basis for being in the car at all.” Id.

Lyle’s reliance on the Sixth Circuit’s decision in Smith, 263 F.3d at 586, is misplaced. Smith presented unique facts. Specifically, Smith was not only the husband of the renter, but he also “had a business relationship with the rental company” because he had “called the rental company to reserve the rental vehicle,” “was given a reservation number,” and “provided the company with his credit card number, and that credit card was subsequently billed for the rental of the vehicle.” Id. In light of these facts, the Sixth Circuit determined that “Smith was the de facto renter of the vehicle” and that, therefore, he had a legitimate expectation of privacy in the rental car. Id. at 586-87. Lyle was not the de facto renter of the car at issue here. Moreover, the Sixth Circuit also noted that Smith was a licensed driver. Id. at 586 (“Smith was a licensed driver.... Therefore, it was not illegal for Smith [to] drive the vehicle.”). For these reasons, Smith is distinguishable.

Accordingly, Lyle lacked a reasonable expectation of privacy in the rental car, and the district court did not err in denying his motion to suppress.

II. The Proffer Agreement Waiver

We review the district court’s interpretation of the scope of a proffer agreement waiver de novo and its eviden-tiary rulings for abuse of discretion. Rosemond, 841 F.3d at 107.

A. Applicable Law

Ordinarily, a “statement made during plea discussions with an attorney for the prosecuting authority” that does not result in a guilty plea is not admissible against the defendant who made the statement. Fed. R. Evid. 410(a)(4). The protections provided by Rule 410, however, can be waived, including in a proffer agreement with the government, provided that such waiver is knowing and voluntary. Rosemond, 841 F.3d at 107; United States v. Velez, 354 F.3d 190, 194-95 (2d Cir. 2004).

To determine whether a proffer agreement’s waiver provision applies, we ask first whether the defendant has offered any evidence or made a factual assertion that would trigger the Rule 410 waiver, and, “if so, whether the proffer statement ‘fairly rebut[s]’ the fact asserted or evidence offered or elicited.” Rosemond, 841 F.3d at 107. If the waiver has been triggered and the proffer statement properly rebuts the assertion triggering the waiver, the government may offer the proffer statement. Id.

In Rosemond, we gave examples of factual assertions that will trigger the proffer waiver, including “asserting, in an opening statement, that someone other than the defendant was the real perpetrator of the crime,” id. at 109 (citing United States v. Barrow, 400 F.3d 109, 114, 119 (2d Cir. 2005)), and “arguing that a shooting was ‘an intended kidnapping gone wrong,’ when the defendant admitted in a proffer session that the shooting was-‘an intentional murder,’ ” id. at 110 (quoting United States v. Gomez, 210 F.Supp.2d 465, 472 (S.D.N.Y. 2002)).

B. Application

The district court properly held that the waiver was triggered by Lyle’s counsel’s statement during opening argument that “we dispute [] the idea that [Lyle] was a dealer.” Tr. 28. Lyle’s proffer agreement contained a waiver that allowed his statements to come in “to rebut any evidence or arguments offered by or on behalf of [Lyle].” Lyle App. 36.

As this Court has recognized, a defense argument does not trigger a waiver if it “simply challenge^] the sufficiency of government proof on [the] elements.” Barrow, 400 F.3d at 119. But “a statement of fact in a defense opening, such as [a] statement ... unequivocally identifying [someone other than defendant] as the real perpetrator of the charged crimes,” is a factual assertion that would trigger a waiver provision. Id. Here, defense counsel did not ascribe the charged crime to someone else, but he did more than challenge the sufficiency of the government’s proof. Rather than argue that the government would not adduce credible evidence that Lyle was a drug dealer, counsel disputed the very idea that Lyle was a dealer. This is the functional equivalent of an affirmative statement that Lyle, in fact, did not deal methamphetamine. This assertion was belied by Lyle’s proffer admissions and, thus, triggered the waiver provision in the proffer agreement.

Lyle’s proffer statements fairly rebut his counsel’s opening argument that Lyle was not a dealer. The proffer statements at issue included that (1) Lyle repeatedly distributed “small packages” of methamphetamine; (2) Lyle accompanied another person to obtain and deliver methamphetamine; and (3) Lyle knew the location of the methamphetamine supplier. Taken together, these statements imply participation in a drug distribution operation and thus fairly rebut Lyle’s counsel’s argument in his opening statement that Lyle was a mere user of methamphetamine and not a dealer. See Barrow, 400 F.3d at 120-21 (emphasizing that “proper rebuttal is not limited to direct contradiction” but “encompasses any evidence that the trial judge concludes fairly counters and casts doubt on the truthfulness of factual assertions advanced, whether directly or implicitly, by an adversary”).

Hence, we conclude that the district court did not abuse its discretion in admitting Lyle’s proffer statements.

III. The Admission of Lyle’s Reddcted Statements

A. Applicable Law

In Bruton v. United States, 391 U.S. 123, 135-36, 88 S.Ct. 1620, 20 L.Ed.2d 476 (1968), the Supreme Court held that admission of a non-testifying co-defendant’s confession naming the defendant as a perpetrator at their joint trial violates the latter’s Sixth Amendment right to cross-examination. The Court later made clear that a non-obvious redaction of a eo-defen-dant’s confession to eliminate any references to the defendant will eliminate any Bruton problem. See Gray v. Maryland, 523 U.S. 185, 195-97, 118 S.Ct. 1151, 140 L.Ed.2d 294 (1998); Richardson v. Marsh, 481 U.S. 200, 208-09, 107 S.Ct. 1702, 95 L.Ed.2d 176 (1987).

We have consistently held that the introduction of a co-defendant’s confession with the defendant’s name replaced by a neutral noun or pronoun does not violate Bruton. See, e.g., United States v. Jass, 569 F.3d 47, 58 (2d Cir. 2009) (noting that operative questions when evaluating Bru-ton claim are “(1) did the redacted statement give any indication to the jury that the original statement contained actual names, and (2) did the statement standing alone otherwise connect co-defendants to the crimes” (internal quotation marks and ellipsis omitted)). In United States v. Tutino, 883 F.2d 1125 (2d Cir. 1989), for example, we affirmed a conviction based in part on a co-defendant’s statement that was redacted to reference “others,” “other people,” and “another person.” Id. at 1135.

To determine whether a redaction is sufficient under Bruton, we view the redacted statement separate and apart from any other evidence admitted at trial. Id. (citing United States v. Wilkinson, 754 F.2d 1427, 1435 (2d Cir. 1985)); see also United States v. Williams, 936 F.2d 698, 700-01 (2d Cir. 1991) (“[T]he appropriate analysis to be used when applying the Bruton rule requires that we view the redacted confession in isolation from the other evidence introduced at trial. If the confession, when so viewed, does not incriminate the defendant, then it may be admitted with a proper limiting instruction even though other evidence in the case indicates that the neutral pronoun is in fact a reference to the defendant.”).

B. Application

Van Praagh contends that his constitutional rights were violated by the admission of Lyle’s redacted proffer and post-arrest statements. We ordinarily review evidentiary rulings for abuse of discretion; however, Van Praagh did not object to the introduction of the redacted statements at trial, and so we review the admission of this evidence for plain error. See United States v. Pierce, 785 F.3d 832, 840 (2d Cir.), cert. denied, — U.S. -, 136 S.Ct. 172, 193 L.Ed.2d 139 (2015).

The redacted statements did not violate Bruton. The neutral terms “individual” and “person,” which were substituted for proper names with the exception of that of a supplier—“Brendan or Brandon,” Tr. 436, 534—were not so obvious as to indicate to the jury that the original statements contained actual names. This was an ongoing criminal enterprise where many people were involved and the government introduced evidence of methamphetamine dealing by several people. Thus, the substitutions alone did not necessarily identify Van Praagh. Further, Lyle’s redacted statements sounded sufficiently natural. For instance, he admitted that he had “first become involved in methamphetamine” through “someone” he “knew, ... from work,” Tr. 517-18, and that the individual for whom he worked as a “runner” “asked him to hold something for him” in the trunk of the rental car. Tr. 435, 534. Because such statements “might actually have been said by a person admitting his own culpability in the charged conspiracy while shielding the specific identity of his confederate,” they do not violate Bruton. Jass, 569 F.3d at 62. Nor did the redacted statements, viewed in isolation, contain any information indicating that Van Praagh was the “individual” in question, let alone information that would “immediately inculpate” him. Id. at 61 (internal quotation marks omitted).

Van Praagh relies on United States v. Taylor, 745 F.3d 15 (2d Cir. 2014), to support his contention that the redactions violated Bruton, but Taylor is distinguishable. Taylor involved a single robbery of a drug store by four people. Id. at 20-21. One of the four, Luana Miller, became a cooperating witness, and another, Curtis Taylor, gave post-arrest confessions. Id. At the trial of Taylor and the two other co-defendants, the trial court admitted Taylor’s post-arrest confessions but required their redaction to omit identifications of his two co-defendants. In the portions of the confessions that were admitted, Miller’s name was mentioned but the names of the two co-defendants were replaced with “two other individuals,” “the person,” and “the driver.” Id. at 29. We determined that in this circumstance the redactions were so obvious as to violate Bruton. Our reasoning was as follows. First, Miller’s name was used throughout and, “[i]f Taylor had been trying to avoid naming his confederates, he would not have identified one of them—Miller—in the very phrase in which the names of the other confederates are omitted.” Id. Second, the wording of the redacted statements, ie., “[t]he robbery was the idea of the person who waited with Luana Miller and Taylor at the gas station,” was stilted and unnatural. Id. Third, in this context, the “reference to ‘two other individuals’ [was] suspiciously closer to the speech of a prosecutor than that of a perpetrator.” Id. On the basis of these factors, we determined that it was obvious that names had been omitted from the statements and, therefore, “the choice of implied identity [was] narrow. The unnamed persons correspond[ed] by number (two) and by role to the pair of co-defendants ... [and] [t]he jury could immediately infer, on the evidence of the redacted confession alone, that Taylor had likely named the co-defendants.” Id.

This case is unlike Taylor. First, Lyle’s statements referred to multiple people— not only one unnamed person to correspond to the one co-defendant, Van Praagh. This did not present the necessary process-of-elimination problem that left the jury’s “choice of implied identity narrow” as in Taylor. Id. Second, in addition to Van Praagh’s methamphetamine dealing, the government introduced evidence of methamphetamine dealing by its two cooperating witnesses—Tarantino and Hodges—as well as several others. Because Lyle’s statements did not reference by name those cooperating witnesses, the jury could reasonably have inferred that they were the “other persons” Lyle was referring to in his redacted statements. Third, Lyle’s statements referred to people involved in a conspiracy to engage in ongoing criminal conduct, not a single criminal act like in Taylor. For all of these reasons, Taylor is inapposite.

We also note that the district court here gave a limiting instruction. See Taylor, 745 F.3d at 28 (“It matters that the district court gave limiting instructions” because “[w]e normally assume that jurors follow limiting instructions”). The district court specifically instructed the jury that “Lyle’s statement about his own conduct may not be considered or discussed by you with regard to Mr. Van Praagh.” Tr. 713.

Finally, Van Praagh’s constitutional rights were not violated by Lyle’s counsel eliciting testimony on cross-examination that his client’s statements had been redacted for presentation at trial and that his client had indeed provided actual names in his proffer and post-arrest statements. Again, because Van Praagh did not object during Lyle’s attorney’s cross-examination, we review for plain error. In urging error, Van Praagh relies on Gray v. Maryland, 523 U.S. 185, 118 S.Ct. 1151, 140 L.Ed.2d 294 (holding that “considered as a class, redactions that ... notify the jury that a name has been deleted” violated the Confrontation Clause). But Gray’s focus was on the inadequacy of the government’s redaction. Van Praagh can point to no case plainly identifying Bruton error when a defendant, whose post-arrest statements are being offered against him, elicits the fact of redaction, or elicits parts of the redacted statement.

Van Praagh fails to show plain error here. First, his case is distinguishable from Gray in that, there, the redaction inadequacy was attributable to the prosecution. In any event, Van Praagh cannot satisfy the prejudice prong of plain error because in his case the redacted statements referred to multiple “individuals,” which means the revelation could not have been immediately inculpatory. See Jass, 569 F.3d at 61.

Further, during cross-examination, Lyle’s attorney elicited from the same witness several of the names that Lyle mentioned during his post-arrest and proffer statements, including “Zaron,” “Ted,” “Bob,” and “Joe.” Tr. 525. In our view, that testimony made it less, not more, obvious to the jury that Lyle had also mentioned Van Praagh. Van Praagh’s name was not mentioned at all, and Lyle’s counsel’s elicitation of other names suggested that the “other persons” mentioned were the individuals whose names Lyle’s counsel elicited, not Van Praagh. For all of these reasons, the admission of Lyle’s redacted statements was not plainly erroneous.

IV. Admissibility of Lyle’s New Jersey Arrest

We review a district court’s evi-dentiary rulings for abuse of discretion, which we will find only if the district court “acted arbitrarily and irrationally.” United States v. Greer, 631 F.3d 608, 614 (2d Cir. 2011) (quoting United States v. Garcia, 291 F.3d 127, 136 (2d Cir. 2002)).

A. Applicable Law

Federal Rule of Evidence 404(b) provides:

Evidence of a crime, wrong, or other act is not admissible to prove a person’s character in order to show that on a particular occasion the person acted in accordance with the character.

Fed. R. Evid. 404(b). “The Second Circuit’s ‘inclusionary rule’ allows the admission of such evidence ‘for any purpose other than to show a defendant’s criminal propensity, as long as the evidence is relevant and satisfies the probatiye-prejudice balancing test of Rule 403 of the Federal Rules of Evidence.’” Greer, 631 F.3d at 614 (quoting United States v. Inserra, 34 F.3d 83, 89 (2d Cir. 1994)).

Not all evidence of uncharged misconduct, however, is prohibited by Rule 404(b). Rather,

[E]videnee of uncharged criminal activity is not considered other crimes evidence ... if it arose out of the same transaction or series of transactions as the charged offense, if it is inextricably intertwined with the evidence regarding the charged offense, or if it is necessary to complete the story of the crime on trial.

United States v. Carboni, 204 F.3d 39, 44 (2d Cir. 2000) (internal quotation marks omitted); see also Inserra, 34 F.3d at 89 (“[Ejvidence of other bad acts may be admitted to provide the jury with the complete story of the crimes charged by demonstrating the context of certain events relevant to the charged offense.”).

B. Application

The district court did not abuse its discretion in admitting the evidence seized during the New Jersey arrest in January 2014. First, that evidence was not barred by Rule 404(b) because the arrest “arose out of the same transaction or series of transactions as the charged offense.” Carboni, 204 F.3d at 44. Specifically, as discussed above, Lyle argued at trial that he was only a methamphetamine user—not a dealer. The government rebutted that argument with evidence of Lyle’s New Jersey arrest. In summation, the government argued:

14 or 15 grams [of methamphetamine] is still many hundreds, if not thousands, of dollars of meth.... Also, you know what else was in that room? A dozen baggies, a scale, $3,000 in cash. He was not weighing out meth for his own personal use. That was meth he was going to sell.

Tr. 629. In other words, the evidence seized pursuant to the New Jersey arrest was not evidence of other crimes; it was evidence of the very crime charged in count one of the indictment, a conspiracy involving Lyle, Van Praagh, and others to distribute methamphetamine from in or about December 2012 through in or about January 2014. Accordingly, evidence of the New Jersey arrest was admissible as direct proof of the methamphetamine distribution conspiracy.

Second, and in any event, the evidence of the New Jersey arrest fits within the Rule 404(b) inclusionary rule because it shows Lyle’s knowledge and intent regarding the contents of the rental car. Because Lyle argued throughout trial that he did not know what was in the trunk of the rental car, his knowledge and intent were at issue. United States v. Ramirez, 894 F.2d 565, 568 (2d Cir. 1990) (“When the defendant disavows awareness that a crime was being perpetrated, and the government bears the burden of proving the defendant’s knowing possession as an element of the crime, knowledge is properly put in issue.”). The fact that Lyle was in possession of 14-15 grams of methamphetamine and tools of the drug trade less than a month after he was arrested with the rental car is probative of his knowledge and intent regarding the contents of the rental car. In addition, the probative value of this evidence was not “substantially outweighed” by the risk of unfair prejudice as it “did not involve conduct any more sensational or disturbing than the crimes with which [Lyle was] charged.” United States v. Pitre, 960 F.2d 1112, 1120 (2d Cir. 1992) (quoting United States v. Roldana-Zapata, 916 F.2d 795, 804 (2d Cir. 1990)). Accordingly, the district court acted well within its discretion in finding that the probative value of the evidence outweighed the threat of unfair prejudice.

V. Sufficiency of the Conspiracy Evidence.

We review Van Praagh’s challenge to whether the evidence was sufficient to support his conspiracy conviction de novo, “view[ing] the evidence in the light most favorable to the government, crediting every inference that could have been drawn in the government’s favor, and deferring to the jury’s assessment of witness credibility and its assessment of the weight of the evidence.” Rosemond, 841 F.3d at 113 (quoting United States v. Coplan, 703 F.3d 46, 62 (2d Cir. 2012)). We must affirm if “any rational trier of fact could have found the essential elements of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt.” Id. (quoting United States v. Vernace, 811 F.3d 609, 615 (2d Cir. 2016)).

The crux of a conspiracy is an agreement between two or more persons to join together to accomplish something illegal. United States v. Parker, 554 F.3d 230, 234 (2d Cir. 2009) (“To prove a conspiracy, the evidence must show that ‘two or more persons agreed to participate in a joint venture intended to commit an unlawful act.’ ” (quoting United States v. Desimone, 119 F.3d 217, 223 (2d Cir. 1997))). We have recognized a “narrow exception” to the conspiracy rule for a transaction between a buyer and seller of drugs. Id. Under this exception, “the existence of a buyer-seller relationship does not itself establish a conspiracy; however, where there is additional evidence showing an agreement to join together to accomplish an objective beyond the sale transaction, the evidence may support a finding that the parties intentionally participated in a conspiracy.” United States v. Hawkins, 547 F.3d 66, 72 (2d Cir. 2008); see also United States v. Rojas, 617 F.3d 669, 674 (2d Cir. 2010) (“[T]he exception does not protect either the seller or buyer from a charge that they conspired together to transfer drugs if the evidence supports a finding that they shared a conspiratorial purpose to advance other transfers, whether by the seller or by the buyer.” (alteration and internal quotation marks omitted)). The question thus becomes “whether the evidence in its totality suffices to permit a jury to find beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant was not merely a buyer or seller of narcotics, but rather that the defendant knowingly and intentionally participated in the narcotics-distribution conspiracy by agreeing to accomplish its illegal objective beyond the mere purchase or sale.” Hawkins, 547 F.3d at 73-74.

Van Praagh did not request a buyer-seller instruction at trial and so we review for plain error. Pierce, 785 F.3d at 840. The district court did not plainly err in failing to give a buyer-seller instruction because the government presented ample evidence of a narcotics conspiracy beyond a buyer-seller relationship between Van Praagh and Lyle.

First, Van Praagh sold methamphetamine not just to Lyle, but to others. Indeed, he received weekly shipments of methamphetamine, which he then sold to others. With assistance from Tarantino, he regularly sold methamphetamine out of his apartment in Queens as well as out of hotels, and he made deliveries to “[p]roba-bly 50” customers. Tr. 124.

Second, the quantity of drugs was consistent with a drug trafficking operation. Tarantino testified that Lyle repeatedly purchased pound-level quantities of methamphetamine at $19,000 to $25,000 per pound. See United States v. Contreras, 249 F.3d 595, 600 (7th Cir. 2001) (noting that repeat sales suggest “more than a transient relationship,” but are “by themselves” insufficient to support an inference of a conspiracy between the supplier and purchaser); see also United States v. Murray, 618 F.2d 892, 902 (2d Cir. 1980) (“[0]ne who deals in large quantities of narcotics may be presumed to know that he is a part of a venture which extends beyond his individual participation.” (quoting United States v. Magnano, 543 F.2d 431, 433-34 (2d Cir. 1976))).

Accordingly, the district court did not plainly err in failing to sua sponte give a buyer-seller instruction. See United States v. Medina, 944 F.2d 60, 65-66 (2d Cir. 1991) (holding that the district court was not required to give a buyer-seller instruction “where ... there is advanced planning among the alleged co-conspirators to deal in wholesale -quantities of drugs obviously not intended for personal use” because “[u]nder such circumstances, the participants in the transaction may be presumed to know that they are part of a broader conspiracy”).

VI. Reasonableness of Van Praagh’s Sentence

We review the substantive reasonableness of a sentence under a “deferential abuse-of-discretion standard.” United States v. Aldeen, 792 F.3d 247, 251 (2d Cir. 2015) (quoting Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 41, 128 S.Ct. 586, 169 L.Ed.2d 445 (2007)). The question is whether Van Praagh’s below-Guidelines sentence of 144 months’ imprisonment “shock[s] the conscience,” constitutes a “manifest injustice,” or is otherwise substantively unreasonable. Id. at 255 (quoting United States v. Rigas, 583 F.3d 108, 123 (2d Cir. 2009)); see also United States v. Perez-Frias, 636 F.3d 39, 43 (2d Cir. 2011) (per curiam) (“[I]n the overwhelming majority of cases, a Guidelines sentence will fall comfortably within the broad range of sentences that would be reasonable in the particular circumstances. It is therefore difficult to find that a below-Guidelines sentence is unreasonable.” (internal quotation marks and citation omitted)).

Van Praagh’s below-Guidelines sentence of 144 months was substantively reasonable. The district court fully explained its reasoning. It considered Van Praagh’s “very unhappy upbringing,” and the “very positive change” that Van Praagh “seem[ed] to be undergoing.” Van Praagh App. 58-59. The district court determined, however, that a 144-month sentence was sufficient but not greater than necessary because Van Praagh (1) had committed a “very serious” crime; (2) had a “long history of drug dealing” and “plenty of opportunities to change”; (3) clearly had been “in charge of dealing more drugs at a higher level than [Lyle]”; and (4) had a “prior record suggesting] that he still continues to be a danger to the community.” Id.

Van Praagh’s argument that, like Lyle, he should have been sentenced to the statutory mandatory minimum of 120 months’ imprisonment is unavailing. As the district court noted, Van Praagh had a “more important role” than Lyle. See Van Praagh App. 62. Van Praagh supplied Lyle with pound quantities of methamphetamine on multiple occasions. Van Praagh had people working for him to make drug deliveries. Moreover, Van Praagh’s criminal history was clearly more serious than Lyle’s. Although neither man had previously served any jail time for his crimes, Van Praagh’s previous convictions included crimes relating to methamphetamine, while Lyle had only a violation for marijuana possession twenty years prior to the instant offense conduct. In these circumstances, we identify no abuse of the district court’s sentencing discretion and no merit in Van Praagh’s claim that his sentence is substantively unreasonable.

CONCLUSION

To summarize, we conclude as follows:

1. Because Lyle was an unlicensed, as well as unauthorized, driver of the rental car, he had no reasonable expectation of privacy in that car, and the district court did not err in denying his motion to suppress.

2. Lyle’s counsel’s statement in his opening argument that “we dispute [ ] the idea that [Lyle] was a dealer,” Tr. 28, triggered the waiver in Lyle’s proffer agreement, and the proffer statements, taken together, fairly rebutted his counsel’s argument that Lyle was a mere user of methamphetamine and not a dealer.

3. The admission of Lyle’s redacted proffer and post-arrest statements in the defendants’ joint trial was not plainly erroneous because the statements substituted neutral terms for actual names and had no otherwise identifying information. Further, the district court did not plainly err in allowing Lyle’s counsel, without Van Praagh’s objection, to elicit testimony that Lyle’s statements had been redacted, that Lyle had provided actual names in his proffer and post-arrest statements, and what several of those names were because those disclosures did not prejudice Van Praagh and, indeed, made it less obvious to the jury that Lyle was referring to Van Praagh in his statements.

4. The district court did not abuse its discretion in admitting the evidence seized during Lyle’s New Jersey arrest because (a) it was direct evidence of the conspiracy charged in count one of the superseding indictment, and (b) even if it was not direct evidence, it was not “other crimes evidence” prohibited by Federal Rule of Evidence 404(b) because it showed Lyle’s knowledge and intent regarding the contents of the rental car on December 11, 2013.

5. The district court did not plainly err in failing to sua sponte give a buyer-seller instruction to the jury because the government presented ample evidence of a narcotics conspiracy.

6. Van Praagh’s below-Guidelines sentence of 144 months’ imprisonment was substantively reasonable.

Accordingly, the judgments of the district court are AFFIRMED.

      . Lyle identified this individual as Van Praagh, but at trial, "individual” was substituted for Van Praagh’s name pursuant to Bruton v. United States, 391 U.S. 123, 88 S.Ct. 1620, 20 L.Ed.2d 476 (1968).

      . Van Praagh contends that his Bruton argument was preserved by his counsel’s objection to the admission of Lyle’s unredacted statements and by Lyle's counsel's objection to the redacted statements. Admission of unredacted statements, however, is a different and independent issue, and Van Praagh cites no authority suggesting that one party’s counsel may preserve another party’s claim of error when the other party's counsel fails timely to join in the objection. Accordingly, plain error review applies.