United States v. Boling, 648 F.3d 474

Boling was convicted in the district court of possession with intent to distribute under 5 grams of cocaine base and two counts of distribution; he received an upward above-guidelines sentence of 180 months.
On October 3, 2007, MVPD Detective Jackson observed Boling near a burglarized apartment and found marijuana on Boling, a digital scale, and 16 rocks of crack cocaine totaling 2.6 grams; Boling previously had a 2005 conviction for possession with intent to distribute crack cocaine under similar circumstances.
Captain Almaroad, head of the Mount Vernon drug task force, interviewed Boling; Boling admitted possession of crack cocaine but claimed it was for personal use.
An informant bought crack cocaine from Boling on October 18 and November 5, 2007; the transactions were recorded and showed rapid exchanges; Boling contested the reliability of the evidence at trial.
Boling represented himself at trial, alleged a conspiracy by MVPD officers to fabricate evidence, and challenged the credibility of officers; the government cross-examined Boling about prior offenses.
The district court admitted an IDOC printout and Almaroad testimony about career offender status to explain why Boling might be prosecuted federally; Boling later contested these admissions as inaccurate.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Admissibility of 2005 conviction under Rule 404(b)	Boling's 2005 conviction supports intent to distribute.	The evidence is improper propensity evidence for intent.	Admissible to show intent, not propensity; probative and not unduly prejudicial.
Admissibility of IDOC printout and Almaroad testimony on career offender status	Evidence explains Boling's federal eligibility and motive to prosecute.	Evidence is irrelevant or prejudicial and based on inaccurate history.	Admission was partially erroneous but harmless given overwhelming other evidence; no reversal.
Prosecutor's closing argument tying career offender status to credibility	Closing linked career offender status to Boling's credibility.	Such linkage was improper prejudicial misdirection.	No plain error; statements did not affect substantial rights or fairness.
Demonstration of bias by district judge during cross-examination	Judge's action showed bias against Boling.	Judge's action was a managerial choice to limit testimony.	No plain error; actions were within discretion and not clearly biased.
Reasonableness of above-guidelines sentence	Sentence was unwarranted and improperly enhanced by obstructive acts.	Court misapplied guidelines or failed to consider §3553(a).	Sentence reasonable; court properly weighed §3553(a) factors and considered obstruction evidence.

United States v. Gorman, 613 F.3d 711 (7th Cir. 2010) (abuse-of-discretion review for Rule 404(b) admissibility)
United States v. Conner, 583 F.3d 1011 (7th Cir. 2009) (admission of prior acts to show intent)
United States v. Dennis, 497 F.3d 765 (7th Cir. 2007) (harmless error analysis for evidentiary rulings)
United States v. Willis, 523 F.3d 762 (7th Cir. 2008) (multiple acts of obstruction considered in sentencing context)
United States v. Furkin, 119 F.3d 1276 (7th Cir. 1997) (obstruction-focused sentencing considerations)
United States v. Williams, 425 F.3d 478 (7th Cir. 2005) (standard for reviewing §3553(a) factors)
United States v. Pineda-Buenaventura, 622 F.3d 761 (7th Cir. 2010) (reasonableness review of sentence inside or outside guidelines)
United States v. Hall, 608 F.3d 340 (7th Cir. 2010) (procedural explanation requirements for departures)
United States v. Anderson, 604 F.3d 997 (7th Cir. 2010) (factors guiding appellate review of sentencing decisions)
United States v. Johnson, 617 F.3d 286 (4th Cir. 2010) (harmlessness not established by defendant's post-trial testimony)