United States v. Shippley, 690 F.3d 1192

Shippley was Mongols Motorcycle Club Sergeant at Arms, tasked with arming members for confrontations.
Maestas, a former club president and federal informant, testified that Shippley supplied large quantities of cocaine.
The jury returned a general guilty verdict on the conspiracy count but answered in the special interrogatories that Shippley conspired to distribute none of the drugs.
The district court ordered further deliberations, after which the jury convicted and found that Shippley conspired to distribute 500 grams or more of cocaine.
Shippley appeals arguing Powell and Dotterweich required an acquittal and that the court coerced the jury; the government cross-appears on evidentiary and sentencing issues, which the court addresses in turn.
The court ultimately affirms on multiple grounds, including admissibility of 404(b) evidence and the weapon-enhancement sentencing ruling.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the district court could order further deliberations after an inconsistent verdict.	Shippley argues Powell/Dotterweich require acquittal.	Shippley contends district court erred by forcing further deliberations.	No reversible error; Powell/Dotterweich do not require acquittal; district court may order further deliberations.
Whether the district court coerced the jury by its supplemental instruction.	Shippley claims coercion akin to Jenkins.	Shippley contends instruction pressured verdict.	Not coercive in view of overall instruction and context; not reversible error.
Whether admission of Maestas’s 404(b) testimony was proper.	Shippley challenges Rule 404(b) as improper prior-act evidence.	Maestas’s testimony was relevant, probative, and not unduly prejudicial with limiting instruction available.	Proper under 404(b); evidence admissible and not reversible error.
Whether the § 2D1.1(b)(1) weapon enhancement was properly applied.	Shippley argues no connection between gun and conspiracy.	Evidence shows gun transfer during relevant conduct; enhancement supported.	Supported by record; enhancement affirmed.

Powell, 469 U.S. 57 (U.S. 1984) (inconsistent verdicts permitted to stand; no automatic acquittal)
Dotterweich, 320 U.S. 277 (U.S. 1943) (logically inconsistent verdicts do not preclude entering verdicts)
Jenkins v. United States, 381 U.S. 445 (U.S. 1965) (per curiam; coercive admonitions questioned)
Edwards, 540 F.3d 1156 (10th Cir. 2008) (limits on 404(b) when absence of mistake issue)
Wilson, 107 F.3d 774 (10th Cir. 1997) (four-part Rule 404(b) test; relevance and limits)
Huddleston v. United States, 485 U.S. 681 (U.S. 1988) (standard for 404(b) admissibility and limiting instruction)
Mares, 441 F.3d 1152 (10th Cir. 2006) (abuse of discretion standard for evidentiary rulings)
Foy, 641 F.3d 455 (10th Cir. 2011) (relevant-conduct weapon-enhancement framework)
Roederer, 11 F.3d 973 (10th Cir. 1993) (relevance of uncharged conduct under guidelines)
Rodriguez-Felix, 450 F.3d 1117 (10th Cir. 2006) (consideration of uncharged conduct post-Booker)