UNITED STATES

v.

PHILMON CHAMBERS

BRASHER, Circuit Judge:

This kitchen-sink criminal appeal is about the trial, convictions, and sentences of two members of the Gangster Disciples. Lesley Green and Philmon Chambers were tried together, alongside another member of the gang. The jury found Green and Chambers guilty of participation in a conspiracy under the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act. The jury also found Chambers guilty of three other crimes: (1) commission of a violent crime in aid of racketeering (murder); (2) use of a firearm during and in relation to a crime of violence; and (3) causing the death of a person through the use of a firearm. Both Green and Chambers were sentenced to life in prison—Chambers received two consecutive life sentences plus another consecutive term of imprisonment. Green challenges his conviction, and Chambers challenges his convictions and sentences. We affirm on all issues.

I.

We divide our background into three parts. First, we explain the history, structure, and operations of the Gangster Disciples. Second, we describe Green's and Chambers's involvement in the gang and their crimes. Third, we explain the relevant procedural history that led to this appeal.

A.

One prominent former member of the Gangster Disciples described it this way: “Ain't nothing normal about this mob . . . We kill people for the littlest reasons, it is not normal.” Doc. 361 at 146-47.

The Gangster Disciples formed in the late 1960s in Chicago with the merger of David Barksdale's “Devil's Disciples” and Larry Hoover's "Supreme Gangsters." After the death of Barksdale— whom the Gangster Disciples refers to as "King David”—Hoover has led the gang as its “Chairman” from various prisons since the 1970s. Today, the gang has a presence in thirty-seven to forty states, both inside and outside of prison. And, relevant to this appeal, the Gangster Disciples has operated in Georgia since the mid- 1990s.

The Gangster Disciples operates under a "pyramid-like" structure. Below Hoover is the “board of directors,” the members of which carry out Hoover's orders. Then, there is the governor of governors, who acts as an "in-between person . . . between the board and the governors.” Each state has a governor position, and most states have an assistant governor position as well. The Gangster Disciples further subdivides each state into regions governed by a "regent." Regions are, then, further subdivided into “decks” or "counts," which are headed by a first coordinator. At the bottom of the pyramid are outstanding members, who act as “foot soldiers."

The Gangster Disciples engages in a laundry list of crimes: murder, robbery, extortion, fraud, drug trafficking, carjacking, prostitution, and the like. Money from these crimes “funnel[s] up" through the "giant pyramid" of the gang. Some of the money from criminal activity is used for “aid & assistance," which includes providing funds to other members who are in hiding from law enforcement. The gang also maintains safehouses and other places members can use to flee from prosecution.

The Gangster Disciples also employs literature coordinators to ensure that its members are familiar with the knowledge, codes, and rules of the gang. The "Number One Rule of the gang" is "[s]ilence & secrecy." Doc. 360 at 145. That rule means that no Gangster Disciple “shall speak about the organization with anyone who is not a member of the organization.” Doc. 362 at 197. Violating "Rule Number One” is “the most severe violation” of gang rules, and it can result in a gang-sanctioned punishment of death. Doc. 362 at 198; Doc. 360 at 146.

The Gangster Disciples uses “enforcers” to enforce the rules of the gang and to punish violators. As one might expect, the gang's enforcers are tasked with enforcing the rule of “silence & secrecy." Doc. 360 at 150. According to a former national chief enforcer of the gang, "enforcers” are also “known as trigger pullers" because they "are willing to pull the trigger of a gun" for the gang. Doc. 361 at 103. Enforcers may also deal with external threats to the gang "if it come[s] down to it.” Id. at 102.

B.

The event that sparked the criminal prosecutions against Green and Chambers was the murder of Walter Brown. Brown was a member of the Gangster Disciples who lived in Athens- Clarke County, Georgia. Brown was shot and killed after a drug deal turned sour. This appeal is not about Brown's murder; it is about the three murders that followed shortly thereafter.

Brown and Andrea Browner were fellow Gangster Disciples, as well as cousins. The day after Brown's murder, Browner posted on her Facebook page: "Yo justice will be served. I love you!” Doc. 341-9 at 1; Doc. 362 at 235–36. The text of Browner's post was over a background that featured blue six-point stars, a primary symbol of the Ganger Disciples. That symbol, also known as a “Star of David," pays homage to Barksdale.

The Gangster Disciples “see themselves as their own nation with their own justice.” Doc. 362 at 236. By "justice,” Browner did not mean seeking justice in a courtroom. She meant retaliation, and "the required retaliation for the murder of a Gangster Disciple" is "[m]ore murder.” Doc. 361 at 127.

At that time, Chambers was Browner's boyfriend, as well as the Gangster Disciples's chief enforcer for the state of Georgia. After Brown's murder, Chambers and Browner started looking for the shooter. But if an enforcer cannot find a person responsible for the murder of a Gangster Disciple, the family of the suspected killer is "not off limits." Doc. 361 at 128.

Four days after Brown's murder, Chambers and Browner found a suitable target. Browner, who made money as a prostitute, met Rodriguez Rucker at a hotel for sex. During their meeting, Browner discovered that Rucker was the suspected shooter's cousin. Browner texted Chambers, “[g]et here so u can follow him." Doc. 359 at 25–26; Doc. 341-325 at 99. Browner knew that Chambers had a gun, because earlier that day he texted her that he had a "tool.” Doc. 359 at 20-21.

Joshua Jackson was also at the hotel that day. Jackson was a Gangster Disciple who, according to his father, had a mild mental disability. Jackson had a “talkative” personality, and members of the Gangster Disciples distrusted him because they had come to believe that Jackson had "snitched" on the gang in the past. Browner texted Chambers: “Don't park where Josh can see[,]" followed by, "He[] talk too damn much.” Doc. 359 at 26; Doc. 341- 325 at 99.

Chambers arrived at the hotel in his black truck, and he waited for Rucker to leave. A string of surveillance footage showed that Chambers followed Rucker to his home. While Chambers was stalking Rucker, Browner called Brown's widow and asked her to remove their signatures from the wake attendance log that they had just signed that day. Browner also told Brown's widow that they would not be able to make it to Brown's funeral.

Residents on Rucker's street heard gunshots around 3 p.m., and they saw a black truck speeding away from the scene. Rucker was lying dead in a neighbor's front yard. He had been shot four times in the back. Police found Rucker's phone at the crime scene, and when they reviewed its contents, they found his messages setting up the meeting with Browner for paid sex.

Browner and Chambers fled to a Gangster Disciples safehouse. Police tracked the couple using cell phone location data, and they arrested Browner the day after Rucker's murder on a warrant for prostitution.

Police searched Browner's car and found cell phones, 70 grams of cocaine, and about 100 grams of a cutting agent. They also found a briefcase that belonged to Chambers that contained Gangster Disciples literature, including a handwritten list titled "E Team Jan. 2016.” The E Team list named fifteen Gangster Disciples, including Chambers and Green. One Gangster Disciple testified that he, Chambers, and Green all served on the G-Side enforcement team, and Chambers was the leader of that team.

Chambers suspected that Jackson had “snitched" and told the police that he was Rucker's killer. So Chambers told Green that he needed to "handle the business . . . of the Nation”—the Gangster Disciples—and deal with the snitch. See Doc. 360 at 181–82.

So Green gathered a fellow Gangster Disciple and another man who was on friendly terms with the gang. Green told them they were going to “hit a lick,” meaning commit a theft. Green arranged that his group of three would meet Jackson and Derrick Ruff at a nearby Walmart. The five men smoked marijuana together in Green's Jeep, and Green told them that he knew where they could steal some marijuana from a storage unit and send "aid & assistance" to Chambers in Texas. Nothing about Green's plan was out of the ordinary; Green and his group had broken into commercial storage units multiple times before.

The group snuck into the storage-unit facility through the fence gate, and broke into a storage unit and all went inside. Once inside, Green pulled out a pistol and shot Jackson twice in the head. Ruff panicked, grabbed one of the other men, and begged Green not to kill him. Green ordered the other man to move, and once he complied, Green shot Ruff too.

Right after Green killed Jackson and Ruff, he started “looking for their phones" because he had texted them to set up the meeting. Doc. 360 at 180. When the other men asked Green why he did not tell them about his plan to kill Jackson and Ruff, Green told them that he “couldn't mess it up.” Id. at 184. Chambers tried to call Green that same night, but Green had turned his phone off. Green cancelled service for his phone number the next day.

Police arrested Chambers about three months later in Texas after wiretapped phone calls disclosed his plot to move Jackson's and Ruff's bodies from the storage unit to a landfill. While Chambers was in detention, jail officials had come to believe that he was trying to smuggle contraband into the jail, so they started monitoring his mail. Jail officials intercepted a letter from Chambers in which he explained how he had been reading discovery material and was concerned that members of the Gangster Disciples were cooperating with law enforcement. In his letter, Chambers complained that "[i]f they would've stuck 2 da script in case things went bad, then Grip [Green] . . . would be home. I would still be here tho'. And J.T. too cuz da phone taps, but J.T. neva actually committed a crime . . . .” Doc. 341-239 at 2. Chambers continued, "Better yet if CLEAR instructions would've been followed by Grip [Green], then it wouldn't even be a case! They neva would've placed him at da scene meeting dem n[***]az. . . . He didn't tell folks dem nothing about dis. Not even da onez ridin' wit' him.” Id. Chambers was frustrated because Green “didn't tell dem da instructions he was given. He just took it upon himself 2 do it his way." Id.

C.

Chambers tried his best to delay the proceedings against him. Chambers chose to represent himself at his arraignment, and a magistrate judge held a Faretta hearing to ensure that his decision was voluntary and intelligent. The district court appointed standby counsel.

At Chambers's first pretrial conference, he made “sovereign citizen arguments" and again told the district court that he had "made the decision to not take an attorney because [he was] not subject to the Court, but rather subject to treaty.” Doc. 119 at 8–9. The district court informed Chambers that he had stand-by counsel, to which Chambers responded, “She won't be needed. I do not consent to any of your attorneys. I'm not a ward of your state." Id. at 10–11. Chambers's stand-by counsel told the district court that she had offered her services to him, and that he had “asked [her] to have no contact with him." Id. at 19. She stated that she did not plan to contact him “unless he reaches out to me.” Id. The district court agreed with that plan.

At the second pretrial conference, Chambers refused to follow the district court's instructions and again stated that he did not consent to the district court's jurisdiction. The district court removed Chambers from the hearing because of his repeated disruptions.

At the final pretrial conference, Chambers informed the district court that the “Moorish Science Temple of America” was sending "someone” to represent him. Doc. 466 at 7. It was unclear whether this hypothetical representative was an attorney. Chambers asked the district court to continue the trial, and the district court denied that request. The district court explained to Chambers: "You have picked the path that you are on. You cannot come in here less than a week before trial and seek to delay the proceedings because you now wish to retain counsel or have somebody represent you.” Id. at 8. The district court further observed that "having, again, gone down this path, you cannot at the last minute throw up a roadblock. So, there will be no continuance.” Id. at 9.

The district court again had to remove Chambers from the courtroom after he continued to disrupt the proceedings. On his way out, Chambers said, “let the record reflect I do not consent to being represented by any of your attorneys.” Id. at 16.

After the pretrial conference ended, the district court returned Chambers to the courtroom for an ex parte conference that Chambers had requested. Chambers again asked for a continuance, and again, the district court made it clear that it would "not continue this trial." Id. at 106–08. The district court told Chambers that he had made the decision to proceed in the way he had chosen, and that it had explained to him "the potential consequences of that decision." Id. at 108–09. The district court continued, “And now that we're on the verge of trial, I am not going to upset that because you may be having second thoughts or you may feel you need more time." Id. at 109. The district court informed Chambers that "counsel is free to enter an appearance in this case, but they will have to understand that their entry in the case will not delay the case." Id. The next day, the district court relieved Chambers's stand-by counsel due to a conflict of interest and appointed new stand-by counsel for Chambers.

On the morning of jury selection, Chambers maintained that he did not want to be represented. Chambers's new stand-by counsel felt it was his "obligation to ask the district court "for a week or some amount of time" to prepare. Doc. 357 at 76. The district court responded to Chambers's stand-by counsel: “[Y]ou are free to do what you feel like you need to do in your role as stand-by counsel, but there will be no delay." Id. at 77.

The next day, just before opening statements, Chambers asked the district court to appoint his stand-by counsel as trial counsel. Chambers's counsel renewed his request for a continuance to prepare for the case. The district court saw two possible options: "[W]e release this jury and we start over with a trial setting or we start the trial today." Doc. 358 at 27. Green opposed any continuance, and the government opposed any severance. The district court found that Chambers had waged a “clear campaign . . . to delay the proceedings.” Id. at 29–30. After balancing the interests of all parties, the district court found it was “clear . . . that Mr. Chambers ha[d] in a calculated way operated to delay and disrupt these proceedings." Id. at 30. Accordingly, the district court chose the "one course of action that [was] appropriate under the circumstances, and that [was] to proceed with the trial.” Id.

The government presented its case against Green, Chambers, and Browner over the course of a two-and-a-half-week trial. Neither Green nor Chambers elected to testify or present evidence.

The jury convicted Green of participation in a RICO conspiracy (18 U.S.C. § 1962(d)), the only count charged against him. The jury also found that Green either murdered or unlawfully aided, abetted, advised, encouraged, or counseled another to murder Jackson and Ruff.

The jury convicted Chambers on all counts. As to count one, the jury found that Chambers participated in a RICO conspiracy (18 U.S.C. § 1962(d)), and that he murdered Rucker as part of that conspiracy. The jury also found that he aided, abetted, advised, encouraged, or counseled another to murder Jackson and Ruff as part of the conspiracy. As to count two, the jury found that Chambers was guilty of violent crime in aid of racketeering, specifically VICAR murder (18 U.S.C. § 1959(a)(1)). As to count three, the jury found that Chambers was guilty of using or carrying a firearm during and in relation to a crime of violence (18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(1)(A)). And as to count four, the jury found that Chambers was guilty of causing the death of a person through the use of a firearm (18 U.S.C. § 924(j)(1)).

Chambers moved for a new trial, in part because the district court denied his motion for a continuance. The district court held a hearing on the motion, and the government introduced evidence of a jailhouse phone call between Chambers and his father the night before opening statements. In that call, Chambers's father coached Chambers to ask the district court the following morning to appoint his stand-by counsel as counsel. Chambers's father explained to him that action would delay the case, or, if the district court denied his request, it might give Chambers grounds to have the case thrown out down the road. The district court concluded that Chambers's predicament "was entirely of his own making. It was clear that . . . his calculation for months had been to delay, delay, delay." Doc. 479 at 38. So the district court denied Chambers's motion for a new trial.

In the same hearing, the district court addressed a merger issue for sentencing purposes. The government had moved to merge Browner's and Chambers's convictions on count four (section 924(j)(1)) into their convictions on count two (section 1959(a)(1)). The government asked the district court to merge the convictions in that direction because Congress decided that the only appropriate penalties for a conviction of VICAR murder (count two) were life imprisonment or death. Browner, but not Chambers, objected. She argued that, based on her actions, the district court should instead merge count two into count four, and have the discretion to sentence her to a term of imprisonment less than life. The district court initially agreed with Browner's argument and stated that it would merge count two into count four for both Browner and Chambers.

After a short recess, the government raised the possibility that, if the district court merged count two into count four, sentencing Chambers on counts three (section 924(c)(1)(A)) and four might raise double jeopardy concerns. The government proposed two options for the district court to consider. One option was for the district court to merge count two into count four, vacate count three, and sentence Chambers on counts one and four. The other option was for the district court to revisit its earlier decision, merge count four into count two, and sentence Chambers on counts one, two, and three.

The district court acknowledged that the question of how to handle the merging of convictions was a matter of discretion. So it considered the specific factual circumstances underlying Chambers's convictions and also took into account the effect of merger on Chambers's punishment. Ultimately, the district court opted to accept the second option and merged Chambers's conviction on count four into his conviction on count two.

The district court sentenced Green to a term of life imprisonment. The district court sentenced Chambers to two consecutive terms of life imprisonment on counts one and two, and a consecutive term of 120 months' imprisonment on count three.

At a later restitution hearing, the government presented evidence that Derrick Ruff Sr., the father of victim Ruff, lost $952.80 in income when he missed work to attend court proceedings against Chambers. Chambers objected on the grounds that Ruff Sr. was not a "victim” under the Mandatory Victims Restitution Act, but the district court overruled that objection.

Green, Chambers, and Browner appealed. We dismissed Browner's appeal for want of prosecution. This is Green's and Chambers's consolidated appeal.

II.

Several standards of review govern this consolidated appeal. As to the issues Green raises, we review a preserved challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence de novo. United States v. Azmat, 805 F. 3d 1018, 1035 (11th Cir. 2015). “We examine whether the evidence, when viewed in the light most favorable to the government, and accepting reasonable inferences and credibility choices by the fact-finder, would enable the trier of fact to find the defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.” Id. (citation modified). And we will affirm the conviction "unless there is no reasonable construction of the evidence from which the jury could have found the defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt." Id. (citation modified).

“When reviewing the denial of a motion to suppress wiretapped communications, we review legal conclusions de novo and factual findings for clear error.” United States v. Caldwell, 81 F. 4th 1160, 1175 (11th Cir. 2023). We review preserved challenges to a district court's evidentiary rulings for abuse of discretion, and review underlying factual findings for clear error. United States v. Dickerson, 248 F. 3d 1036, 1046 (11th Cir. 2001). “[W]hen employing an abuse-of-discretion standard, we must affirm unless we find that the district court has made a clear error of judgment, or has applied the wrong legal standard.” United States v. Frazier, 387 F. 3d 1244, 1259 (11th Cir. 2004).

As to the issues Chambers raises, we review a district court's "disposition of requests for trial continuances for abuse of discretion." United States v. Graham, 643 F. 3d 885, 893 (11th Cir. 2011) (citation modified). We ordinarily review a district court's decision to empanel an anonymous jury for an abuse of discretion, but we review unpreserved challenges to a district court's precautionary explanation to an anonymous jury for plain error. See United States v. Ochoa-Vasquez, 428 F. 3d 1015, 1033 n.24, 1035 (11th Cir. 2005). We review unpreserved challenges to a district court's shackling determination for plain error. United States v. Ahmed, 73 F. 4th 1363, 1373 (11th Cir. 2023). “Plain error requires (1) error, (2) that is plain, and (3) that affects substantial rights." Id. (citation modified). "And we may notice the error only if it seriously affects the fairness, integrity, or public reputation of judicial proceedings.” Id. (citation modified).

We review an argument of cumulative error de novo. United States v. Pendergrass, 995 F. 3d 858, 881 (11th Cir. 2021). “The cumulative-error doctrine calls for reversal of a conviction if, in total, the non-reversible errors result in a denial of the constitutional right to a fair trial." Id.

We review preserved sentencing errors for harmless error. United States v. Paz, 405 F. 3d 946, 948 (11th Cir. 2005). Under the harmless error standard, “[a]ny error, defect, irregularity, or variance that does not affect substantial rights must be disregarded." Fed. R. Crim. P. 52(a). Finally, we review “the legality of an order of restitution” de novo. United States v. Keelan, 786 F. 3d 865, 869 (11th Cir. 2015) (citation modified).

III.

Green presents four arguments challenging his conviction. Chambers presents four arguments challenging his convictions, two arguments challenging his sentencing, and one challenging the restitution award entered against him. We address each in turn.

A.

1.

Green argues that the government failed to prove all the elements underlying his RICO conspiracy conviction. According to Green, although the government may have established that he murdered Jackson and Ruff, it did not establish that he murdered them "in furtherance of the G-side Gangster Disciples . . . enterprise." Green's Br. at 23–24. Green made this same argument that slices and dices the Gangster Disciples into independent geographic territories to the jury, and the jury rejected it. So do we.

"To establish a RICO conspiracy violation under 18 U.S.C. § 1962(d), the government must prove that the defendants objectively manifested, through words or actions, an agreement to participate in the conduct of the affairs of the enterprise through the commission of two or more predicate crimes.” United States v. Starrett, 55 F. 3d 1525, 1543 (11th Cir. 1995) (citation modified). An enterprise need not be a legal entity such as a corporation or partnership; it may also be a group of persons associated together for a common purpose of engaging in a course of conduct.” United States v. To, 144 F. 3d 737, 744 (11th Cir. 1998) (citation modified). The government must establish “the vital element of agreeing to commit the predicate acts," but if it supplies "proof of the commission of racketeering activity, the inference of an agreement to do so is unmistakable.” United States v. Martino, 648 F. 2d 367, 383 (5th Cir. June 1981) (citation modified).

Here, like one of the appellants in Starrett, Green argues that the government's evidence connects him only to a local chapter of a national gang, but that it does not provide a nexus between the murders and the national racketeering enterprise. See Starrett, 55 F. 3d at 1547-48. The evidence, however, is sufficient for a rational jury to have concluded otherwise. At trial, the government presented evidence that established that the Gangster Disciples is a national organization that operates under a "pyramid-like” structure. Green was a member of the national gang, and he furthered the Gangster Disciples enterprise by holding the position of "enforcer," a position of authority within the enterprise. Green killed Jackson and Ruff to enforce "silence & secrecy," Rule Number One of the Gangster Disciples. Green committed those murders after Chambers, the enforcement team leader, told him that he needed to go "handle the business of the Nation,” meaning the Gangster Disciples.

Green also contends that he murdered Jackson and Ruff "in furtherance of Chambers'[s] personal motivations,” not in furtherance of the Gangster Disciples enterprise. Green's Br. at 23. The government supplied plenty of evidence—Green's enforcer position, the rule against “snitching,” and Chambers telling Green that he needed to go “handle the business . . . of the Nation”—to allow a reasonable jury to reject that view. We reject it as well, because a "rational trier of fact could have found the essential elements of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt." United States v. Hernandez, 433 F. 3d 1328, 1335 (11th Cir. 2005) (citation modified).

2.

Green next argues that the government introduced illegally obtained wiretap evidence over his motion to suppress, and that this evidence prejudiced him. The government complied with federal and Georgia state law in intercepting the phone calls, and there was no error in their admission.

"Title III of the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act regulates the interception of wire, oral, and electronic communications.” United States v. Stowers, 32 F. 4th 1054, 1063 (11th Cir. 2022) (citation modified). The Act allows “[t]he principal prosecuting attorney of any State, or the principal prosecuting attorney of any political subdivision thereof, if such attorney is authorized by a statute of that State to" apply "to a State court judge of competent jurisdiction for an order authorizing or approving the interception of wire, oral, or electronic communications." 18 U.S.C. § 2516(2). A state judge "may grant" the order so long as the order complies with 18 U.S.C. § 2518 and applicable state law. Id. If the judge wishes to approve a wiretap order, the judge "may enter an ex parte order" approving the application “within the territorial jurisdiction of the court in which the judge is sitting." 18 U.S.C. § 2518(3).

We look to state law to determine “[t]he territorial jurisdiction over which a court has authority." Stowers, 32 F. 4th at 1069 (citation modified). Georgia law allows the Attorney General or "the district attorney having jurisdiction over prosecution of the crime under investigation” to submit a sworn "written application" to "a judge of superior court having jurisdiction over the crime under investigation” for a wiretap order. Ga. Code Ann. § 16-11-64(c). Georgia law is in accord with the federal law, as any wiretap order must comply with “18 U.S.C. Chapter 119”—Title III. Id. Further, Georgia law provides that any wiretap order “shall have state-wide application and interception of communications shall be permitted in any location in this state.” Id. Read together, then, federal law and Georgia law allow Georgia state judges to grant wiretap orders that apply across the state.

The wiretap order here allowed for interception of communications at any location in Georgia. But Green argues that the wiretapped calls that the government introduced as evidence were not "intercepted” within Georgia. Green argues that an FBI agent's testimony at trial established that the relevant calls were first intercepted in the telephone company's switch (at an unknown location), and then the audio for 4G or 5G calls was sent to Quantico, Virginia, and only then was the audio forwarded to Athens-Clarke County, Georgia. All agree that law enforcement first listened to the relevant phone calls in Athens-Clarke County, Georgia.

That last fact is dispositive. Under Title III, "intercept' means the aural or other acquisition of the contents of any wire, electronic, or oral communication through the use of any electronic, mechanical, or other device.” 18 U.S.C. § 2510(4). And "[u]nder Georgia law and consistent with Title III,” an “interception' occurs both at the 'listening post' where the call is heard and at the location of the targeted phone when it makes or receives a call." Stowers, 32 F. 4th at 1070 (quoting Luangkhot v. State, 736 S.E. 2d 397, 400 (Ga. 2013)). All of our sister circuits that have considered the question have reached the same conclusion we reach today: an interception occurs both where the wiretapped phone is located and where a listener first hears the communications. See, e.g., United States v. Rodriguez, 968 F. 2d 130, 136 (2d Cir. 1992); United States v. Jackson, 849 F. 3d 540, 551–52 (3d Cir. 2017); United States v. Denman, 100 F. 3d 399, 403 (5th Cir. 1996); United States v. Ramirez, 112 F. 3d 849, 852 (7th Cir. 1997); United States v. Henley, 766 F. 3d 893, 911–12 (8th Cir. 2014); United States v. Luong, 471 F. 3d 1107, 1109 (9th Cir. 2006); United States v. Dahda, 853 F. 3d 1101, 1112 (10th Cir. 2017), aff'd, 584 U.S. 440 (2018); United States v. Cano-Flores, 796 F. 3d 83, 86- 87 (D.C. Cir. 2015).

So it makes no difference that data first traveled through the telephone switch in parts unknown and then traveled to Virginia before making its way to Georgia; because the calls were first listened to in Georgia, they were intercepted in Georgia. That interception complied with the wiretap order, and thus the district court did not err by admitting the calls as evidence.

3.

Having addressed the wiretap, we turn to Green's hearsay argument. Specifically, Green argues that the government unlawfully introduced Chambers's jailhouse letter in violation of the rule against admission of hearsay evidence and his Confrontation Clause rights under the Sixth Amendment. The district court was within its discretion to admit the jailhouse letter as a co-conspirator statement, and its underlying factual findings on the issue of whether Green withdrew from the conspiracy were not clearly erroneous. And under our precedent, Chambers's statements in the letter were not testimonial, so there was no Confrontation Clause problem with their admission.

Under the Federal Rules of Evidence, a statement "made by the party's coconspirator during and in furtherance of the conspiracy” is not hearsay. Fed. R. Evid. 801(d)(2)(E); see also United States v. Diaz, 248 F. 3d 1065, 1087 (11th Cir. 2001). To introduce a coconspirator statement under Rule 801(d)(2)(E), “the government must prove by a preponderance of the evidence that (1) a conspiracy existed, (2) the conspiracy included the declarant and the defendant against whom the statement is offered, and (3) the statement was made during the course of and in furtherance of the conspiracy." United States v. Underwood, 446 F. 3d 1340, 1345–46 (11th Cir. 2006).

Green contends that the government failed to establish the third element—that Chambers's jailhouse letter was written during the course of the conspiracy. Green argues that, by the time Chambers had written the letter, Green had already withdrawn from the conspiracy. "Withdrawal . . . is an affirmative defense, which the defendant has the burden of proving.” United States v. Finestone, 816 F. 2d 583, 589 (11th Cir. 1987). And “[t]he defendant's burden in this regard is substantial." Id. To establish withdrawal from a conspiracy, a defendant must prove “(1) that he has taken affirmative steps, inconsistent with the objectives of the conspiracy, to disavow or to defeat the objectives of the conspiracy; and (2) that he made a reasonable effort to communicate those acts to his co-conspirators or that he disclosed the scheme to law enforcement authorities.” Starrett, 55 F. 3d at 1550. Further, "[t]he conspirator's break with the other conspirators . . . must be both clean and permanent.” Morton's Mkt., Inc. v. Gustafson's Dairy, Inc., 198 F. 3d 823, 839 (11th Cir. 1999).

Green argues that he withdrew from the conspiracy. The district court's conclusion that he did not withdraw is based on factual determinations, which we review for clear error. See Bourjaily v. United States, 483 U.S. 171, 175 (1987); Lamonica v. Safe Hurricane Shutters, Inc., 711 F. 3d 1299, 1317 (11th Cir. 2013); Fed. R. Evid. 104. And we must affirm the district court's factual findings unless "a review of the entire record leaves us with the definite and firm conviction that a mistake has been committed.” Cuenca v. Rojas, 99 F. 4th 1344, 1350 (11th Cir. 2024) (quoting Berenguela-Alvarado v. Castanos, 950 F. 3d 1352, 1357 (11th Cir. 2020)).

Green nonetheless argues that the district court's finding that he did not withdraw from the conspiracy was clearly erroneous for three reasons. But his arguments fall well short of convincing us that the district court was mistaken. See id.

First, he says that he was already in custody at the time Chambers wrote his jailhouse letter, so the government cannot contend that he was furthering the conspiracy. But “neither arrest nor incarceration automatically triggers withdrawal from a conspiracy." United States v. Gonzalez, 940 F. 2d 1413, 1427 (11th Cir. 1991). Indeed, neither arrest nor confinement does anything to advance a defendant's withdrawal argument because neither action is affirmative, nor does it communicate anything to the other members of the conspiracy.

Second, Green contends that after his arrest and confinement, he could not further contribute to Chambers's activities, meaning that he had effectively withdrawn from the conspiracy. But "[a] mere cessation of activity in the conspiracy is not enough. Finestone, 816 F. 2d at 589. So a conspirator who sits idly by—even in a jail cell—has not withdrawn.

Third, Green says that he "plainly met with the [g]overnment to share information regarding the prior activities of the parties that defeated the objectives of Chambers' [s] conspiracy." Green's Br. at 40. But meeting with and supplying the government with information does not automatically “defeat or disavow the purpose of the conspiracy." United States v. Rosenthal, 793 F. 2d 1214, 1244 (11th Cir. 1986). Here, the district court found that Green's asserted "break” from the conspiracy fell short of the “clean and permanent” break that is necessary to withdraw from a conspiracy, and we see no clear error in that finding. Morton's Mkt., 198 F. 3d at 839.

The district court acknowledged that Green had made a "largely true" proffer to the government. Critically, though, Green's proffer was not "completely true in perhaps its most critical respect, and that is the killing of Ruff and Jackson; specifically. who killed them and how they were killed.” Doc. 367 at 215.

Green could not have “disclosed the scheme to law enforcement authorities" if he actively deceived or hid a critical element of the scheme from law enforcement authorities. Starrett, 55 F. 3d at 1550. The district court also found it relevant that after Green made a less-than-completely-true proffer to the government, he "signed [a] statement with his co-conspirators disavowing" the proffer he had made. Doc. 367 at 215. To be sure, the district court acknowledged that “evidence of duress” existed as to Green's disavowal statement. Id. But that did not "change the fact that the statement was made." Id. Further, Green supplied no evidence "suggest[ing] that [he] communicated any disavowal of the conspirator objectives, including the cover-up of the conspiracy, in a manner reasonably calculated to reach his co-conspirators.” Id. On this record, we cannot say that the district court's factual finding that Green failed to withdraw from the conspiracy was clearly erroneous. Because we agree with the district court's factual finding that Green did not withdraw from the conspiracy, that means that Green and Chambers were co-conspirators at the time Chambers wrote the jailhouse letter. Accordingly, the district court acted within its discretion by admitting Chambers's jailhouse letter as a co-conspirator statement under Rule 801(d)(2)(Ε).

We also see no issue with the jailhouse letter's admission under the Confrontation Clause. “The Confrontation Clause prohibits the admission of only testimonial' hearsay—‘solemn declarations or affirmations made for the purpose of establishing or proving some fact.” United States v. Brown, 125 F. 4th 1043, 1056 (11th Cir. 2025) (citation modified) (quoting Crawford v. Washington, 541 U.S. 36, 51 (2004)). “Statements are testimonial if in light of all the circumstances, viewed objectively, the primary purpose of the conversation was to create an out-of-court substitute for trial testimony.” Id. (citation modified).

A co-conspirator's statement admitted under Rule 801(d)(2)(E) poses no Confrontation Clause issue if the statement was "not made under circumstances which would have led [the declarant] reasonably to believe that his statement would be available for use at a later trial.” Underwood, 446 F. 3d at 1347. Just so here. Chambers's jailhouse letter to a friend about his concerns that Gangster Disciples were violating the “silence & secrecy” rule does not fall within “the core class of ‘testimonial' statements,” such as "ex parte in-court testimony or its functional equivalent,” “extrajudicial statements contained in formalized testimonial materials,” or "statements that were made under circumstances which would lead an objective witness reasonably to believe that the statement would be available for use at a later trial.” Id. (citation modified). Because the statements in the letter are nontestimonial, they do not implicate the Confrontation Clause, and thus there is no reversible error.

4.

Next, Green challenges some of the government's exhibits. Green contends that the government unlawfully introduced the "E Team Jan. 2016" list and four photos of ballistic vests and plates as evidence. According to Green, the evidence was irrelevant under Federal Rule of Evidence 401, and was unduly prejudicial under Federal Rule of Evidence 403. Because the evidence was both relevant and not unduly prejudicial, we find the district court acted within its discretion by admitting it.

"The standard for what constitutes relevant evidence is a low one . . . .” United States v. Tinoco, 304 F. 3d 1088, 1120 (11th Cir. 2002). Under Rule 401, “[e]vidence is relevant if: (a) it has any tendency to make a fact more or less probable than it would be without the evidence; and (b) the fact is of consequence in determining the action.” Fed. R. Evid. 401.

Green argues that the “E Team Jan. 2016” list was irrelevant because "beyond the writing itself, which is not self-evident as to its meaning or purpose, no lawfully admissible evidence exists to explain it." Green's Br. at 42–43. But as Green concedes, Chambers's jailhouse letter, which we have concluded was admissible evidence, explains its significance. Chambers wrote: “I took my briefcase wit' me. I had my book of knowledge, my Moorish National documents, [and] a notebook that had a list of da G Side E-team in 2016." Doc. 341-239 at 6. Therefore, the "E Team Jan. 2016” list itself was relevant evidence, as it tended to establish that Green was a member of the enforcement team that punished Gangster Disciples who violated gang rules, and that he committed the murders of Jackson and Ruff as part of his role in the gang.

As to the ballistic vests and plates, Green argues that the government did not introduce any evidence that connected those items to his role on the enforcement team. To be sure, that evidence could support other inferences as well—Green could have hypothetically used those items while moonlighting as a bouncer, or he could have worn the vest regularly out of fear. But to pass Rule 401's relevancy test, "a single relevant inference suffices,” even if that inference is not the best one or most likely one. 22 Wright & Miller's Federal Practice & Procedure Evidence § 5165 (2d ed. 2025). That relevant inference exists on this record; Green's possession of those items could lead the jury to infer that Green used those items to carry out dangerous enforcement team tasks like the murders the government attributed to him.

Now that we have established that the evidence was relevant, we turn to Rule 403, which allows a court to “exclude relevant evidence if its probative value is substantially outweighed by a danger of . . . unfair prejudice.” Fed. R. Evid. 403. “In criminal trials relevant evidence is inherently prejudicial.” United States v. Betancourt, 734 F. 2d 750, 757 (11th Cir. 1984). That is why "[t]he balance under Rule 403 should be struck in favor of admission." Finestone, 816 F. 2d at 585 (citation modified). We “must look at the evidence in a light most favorable to its proponent, maximizing its probative value and minimizing its prejudicial effect." Id. (quoting United States v. Jamil, 707 F. 2d 638, 642 (2d Cir. 1983)). Indeed, "Rule 403 is an extraordinary remedy which should be used only sparingly since it permits the trial court to exclude concededly probative evidence.” Id. (quoting United States v. Betancourt, 734 F. 2d 750, 757 (11th Cir. 1984)).

Turning first to the "E Team Jan. 2016” list, Green argues that the admission of the list was unfairly prejudicial because the evidence established that Chambers possessed the list right after Green committed the murders, which proves "an active connection between . . . Green and the G-side E-Team.” Green's Br. at 45. That evidence was probative on the relevant question of whether Green was an enforcer within the Gangster Disciples. And although that evidence certainly prejudiced Green, that prejudice was due to its probative value to the government's case. The evidence does not even approach Rule 403's exclusionary territory reserved for unfairly prejudicial evidence.

The same is true for the photos of the ballistic vests and plates. Green says it was "unfair and misleading" for the government to have introduced those photos, because it could have "lure[d]" the jury into finding that “Green [was] engaged in unlawful violence." Id. The government presented a mountain of evidence that established that Green did in fact engage in unlawful violence and murdered two men in a storage unit out of allegiance to the Gangster Disciples. So Green's possession of a ballistic vest and plates does support the idea that he was engaged in unlawful violence: that is exactly what the government needed to prove. It was fair game for the government to introduce that evidence, and the evidence did not mislead the jury—it just led the jury to a conclusion that Green did not prefer.

The district court did not abuse its discretion by admitting the evidence as relevant under Rule 401, nor did it abuse its discretion by refusing to exclude the evidence under Rule 403.

B.

1.

We now address Chambers's arguments, starting with the motion for continuance. Chambers contends that the district court abused its discretion when it denied his motion for a continuance. We disagree.

"The Sixth and Fourteenth Amendments to the U.S. Constitution guarantee that any person brought to trial in any state or federal court must be afforded the right to assistance of counsel before he or she can be validly convicted and punished by imprisonment.” United States v. Verderame, 51 F. 3d 249, 251 (11th Cir. 1995). And "[u]nder certain circumstances, denial of a motion for continuance of trial may vitiate the effect of this fundamental right.” Id. But "[t]he right to assistance of counsel, cherished and fundamental though it be, may not be put to service as a means of delaying or trifling with the court." United States v. Fowler, 605 F. 2d 181, 183 (5th Cir. 1979). A defendant may not "use the right to counsel as a means to manipulate the court and cause delay." United States v. Graham, 643 F. 3d 885, 894 (11th Cir. 2011). And we have cautioned that "[j]udges must be vigilant that requests for appointment of a new attorney on the eve of trial should not become a vehicle for achieving delay.” Bowman v. United States, 409 F. 2d 225, 227 (5th Cir. 1969) (quoting United States v. Llanes, 374 F. 2d 712, 717 (2d Cir. 1967)). Accordingly, our rule is that “[d]enial of a continuance, requested by a defendant in order to permit additional preparation for trial, must be upheld unless the defendant can show an abuse of discretion and specific, substantial prejudice." United States v. Saget, 991 F. 2d 702, 708 (11th Cir. 1993).

Chambers contends that the district court abused its discretion because the issue “was not that counsel needed additional time to prepare, but that he had no ability to prepare at all." Chambers's Br. at 44. But the blame for that fact is not on the district court, but on Chambers. Chambers's delay tactics in this case are well-documented. He routinely disrupted proceedings and insisted on making frivolous "sovereign citizen” arguments. And he repeatedly expressed his desire to the trial court to represent himself and disclaimed any need for counsel for over a year. It was not until a week before the trial was scheduled to begin that Chambers first mentioned the possibility that counsel would represent him—and the counsel that Chambers referenced never made an appearance. Chambers asked the district court to appoint his stand-by counsel as his counsel on the morning of opening statements after being coached to do so as a delay tactic by his father.

The district court's denial of Chambers's obvious attempt to delay the proceedings against him "did not result in the loss of [his] right to counsel.” Graham, 643 F. 3d at 894. Although Chambers's stand-by counsel had little time to prepare for the case, that circumstance was created—indeed, invited—by-Chambers's “manipulative conduct and his repeated insistence on representing himself” until the last possible moment. Id.; see also United States v. Ross, 131 F. 3d 970, 988 (11th Cir.1997) (“It is a cardinal rule of appellate review that a party may not challenge as error a ruling or other trial proceeding invited by that party." (quotation marks omitted)).

Apart from Chambers's delay tactics, he has failed to establish any "specific, substantial prejudice" that resulted from the denial of his motion for a continuance. Saget, 991 F. 2d at 708. “To make such a showing, [the defendant] must identify relevant, noncumulative evidence that would have been presented if his request for a continuance had been granted.” Id. All Chambers can do is point to the difficulty his counsel had in wading through the pile of evidence pointing to his guilt. He supplies no reason for this Court to believe that the outcome of his trial would have been different had the district court granted his motion for a continuance. United States v. Valladares, 544 F. 3d 1257, 1264 (11th Cir. 2008).

The denial was within the district court's discretion.

2.

Chambers next argues that the district court erred in the way it empaneled an anonymous jury. To be clear, Chambers does not challenge the district court's decision to use an anonymous jury. Instead, he contends that the district court failed to give a precautionary instruction to the jury to explain why it used numbers instead of names for juror identification, and why it had jurors transported to the courthouse from an off-site location each day.

Chambers did not object to any of the district court's anonymous jury procedures, so we review this argument for plain error. “An error cannot be plain unless the issue has been specifically and directly resolved by the explicit language of a statute or rule or on point precedent from the Supreme Court or this Court." United States v. Sanchez, 940 F. 3d 526, 537 (11th Cir. 2019). Chambers cannot establish plain error here because no binding authority explicitly requires the precautionary instruction that Chambers favors. In fact, two of our precedents hold that the failure to issue a special precautionary instruction on the use of anonymous jury procedures was not plain error. See United States v. Bowman, 302 F. 3d 1228, 1239 (11th Cir. 2002); United States v. Ochoa-Vasquez, 428 F. 3d 1015, 1035 (11th Cir. 2005).

3.

Chambers argues that the district court's shackling procedure was improper. Although Chambers concedes that the jury never viewed his shackles, he argues that the courtroom procedures reflected that he was not free to move about the courtroom, which unnecessarily prejudiced him. He contrasts the free movement of the attorneys against the movement of his codefendant Browner, who proceeded pro se at trial and had to examine witnesses from her table.

Once again, Chambers did not object to the district court's shackling procedure, so we review this issue for plain error. Our precedent confirms that there is no error, plain or otherwise, when the jury is unable to view the defendant's shackles. Caldwell, 81 F. 4th at 1178–79; Ahmed, 73 F. 4th at 1377–78; see also Moon v. Head, 285 F. 3d 1301, 1318 (11th Cir. 2002); United States v. Mayes, 158 F. 3d 1215, 1226 (11th Cir. 1998).

4.

Chambers argues that the cumulative effect of the district court's errors in denying the continuance, of the anonymous jury procedure, and of the shackling procedure, deprived him of a fair trial. But "[w]here there is no error or only a single error, there can be no cumulative error.” United States v. Daniels, 91 F. 4th 1083, 1101 (11th Cir. 2024) (quoting United States v. Gamory, 635 F. 3d 480, 497 (11th Cir. 2011)). Because we find no error on those individual issues, there is no basis for reversal on cumulative error grounds.