United States v. Robert Spence, 703 F. App'x 121

Spence was a central distributor in a cocaine trafficking network, receiving shipments from California and distributing in western Pennsylvania; he also ran legitimate businesses.
Federal agents searched a warehouse he rented and conducted a protective sweep of a van parked inside; agents saw drug paraphernalia in plain view. Spence moved to suppress evidence from the van; the district court ruled he lacked standing to challenge the van search.
Spence was indicted on drug and money‑laundering charges; he proceeded pro se at trial with standby counsel. During trial the court limited the length of his cross‑examination as duplicative and confusing.
The government played recordings Spence had made of his own calls; the prosecutor noted they might violate Pennsylvania wiretap law but were admissible under federal law. Spence moved for a mistrial; motion denied.
Jury convicted Spence of (1) conspiracy to distribute ≥5 kg cocaine and (2) conspiracy to commit money laundering; acquitted/mistrial on possession count.
On sentencing the PSR calculated total offense level above Guidelines maximum; court varied downward and imposed 20 years’ imprisonment. Spence appealed on four grounds.

Issue	Spence's Argument	Government's Argument	Held
1. Motion to suppress van evidence (Fourth Amendment)	Search violated Fourth Amendment; suppression required	Court did not err; any error harmless because no van evidence used at trial	Affirmed — no reversible error; any error harmless (no van evidence admitted)
2. Time limits on cross‑examination (Sixth Amendment Confrontation Clause)	Limiting cross‑examination to government’s direct time violated confrontation, particularly as pro se	Limits were within court’s discretion to prevent confusion, repetition, and docket delay	Affirmed — limits reasonable and not an abuse of discretion; any error harmless as no omitted fruitful line shown
3. Motion for mistrial after admission of Spence’s recordings	Recordings lacked foundation and were prejudicial; mistrial required	Defense waived foundation objection by not timely objecting; any error harmless because Spence told jury he lawfully made recording	Affirmed — review for plain error fails; no plain error and harmlessness established
4. Sentence unreasonable / disparity with co‑conspirators	Sentence disparate compared with more or equally culpable co‑conspirators	District court considered §3553(a) factors and noted co‑conspirators pleaded guilty, justifying leniency differences	Affirmed — sentence reasonable; district court considered disparity and plea differences appropriately

United States v. Wilson, 413 F.3d 382 (3d Cir. 2005) (standard of review for suppression rulings)
Herring v. United States, 555 U.S. 135 (2009) (suppression required only for flagrant Fourth Amendment violations)
Chapman v. California, 386 U.S. 18 (1967) (harmless error standard)
Bruton v. United States, 391 U.S. 123 (1968) (right to confrontation includes cross‑examination)
Chambers v. Mississippi, 410 U.S. 284 (1973) (Confrontation Clause rights are not absolute)
Miranda v. Cooper, 967 F.2d 392 (10th Cir. 1992) (limits on cross‑examination may be justified to avoid prejudice and confusion)
United States v. Whitmore, 359 F.3d 609 (D.C. Cir. 2004) (district court has discretion to place reasonable limits on cross‑examination)
Corbitt v. New Jersey, 439 U.S. 212 (1978) (plea bargains can justify sentencing leniency for plea‑owning defendants)