United States of America v. Kevin Fordham (24-2033); Martin Murff (24- 2041); Eddie Reid (24-2046)

RECOMMENDED FOR PUBLICATION
Pursuant to Sixth Circuit I.O.P. 32.1(b)
File Name: 26a0202p.06
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
v.
KEVIN FORDHAM (24-2033); MARTIN MURFF (24-
2041); EDDIE REID (24-2046),
Defendants-Appellants.
┐
│
│
│
│
│
│
│
│
┘
Nos. 24-2033/2041/2046
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan at Detroit.
No. 2:21-cr-20354—Jonathan J.C. Grey, District Judge.
Argued: April 29, 2026
Decided and Filed: July 22, 2026
Before: STRANCH, BLOOMEKATZ, and HERMANDORFER, Circuit Judges.
_________________
COUNSEL
ARGUED: Benjamin D. Allen, GESS, MATTINGLY & ATCHISON, PSC, Lexington,
Kentucky, for Appellant Kevin Fordham. Meghan Sweeney Bean, UNITED STATES
ATTORNEY’S OFFICE, Detroit, Michigan, for Appellee. ON BRIEF: Benjamin D. Allen,
GESS, MATTINGLY & ATCHISON, PSC, Lexington, Kentucky, for Appellant Kevin
Fordham. Linda D. Ashford, Detroit, Michigan, for Appellant Martin Murff. James C. Thomas,
Sterling Heights, Michigan, for Appellant Eddie Reid. Meghan Sweeney Bean, UNITED
STATES ATTORNEY’S OFFICE, Detroit, Michigan, for Appellee.
_________________
OPINION
_________________
HERMANDORFER, Circuit Judge. Kevin Fordham, Martin Murff, and Eddie Reid held
top posts within the Almighty Vice Lord Nation. Following a lengthy investigation into Vice
>

-- 1 of 27 --

Nos. 24-2033/2041/2046 United States v. Fordham, et al. Page 2
Lord operations in Michigan, law-enforcement officers arrested dozens of members in an effort
to dismantle the organization’s leadership. Dozens of plea agreements resulted. But Fordham,
Murff, and Reid opted for trial. After four weeks of proceedings, a jury convicted each of
racketeering conspiracy, conspiracy to distribute controlled substances, and related crimes.
All three defendants appealed. Their consolidated cases present four suppression issues,
two Sixth Amendment claims, two sufficiency-of-the-evidence challenges, and a sentencing
dispute. Of those, only Fordham’s procedural sentencing challenge has merit. We therefore
vacate Fordham’s sentence, remand for Fordham’s resentencing, and otherwise affirm.
I
A
Founded in Chicago in the late 1950s, the Almighty Vice Lord Nation (AVLN) is a gang
that has grown into a nationwide enterprise with over 30,000 members. The organization
operates under a written constitution and bylaws. Members must swear oaths of loyalty, abide
by the organization’s strict code of silence, obey orders without question, and serve as soldiers
for the AVLN to the point of death. They are required to attend weekly meetings and pay
regular dues so that the organization can purchase guns, fund drug trafficking, and support
incarcerated members. Those who violate the AVLN’s rules face disciplinary proceedings that
often end in violent beatings. Those who cooperate with law enforcement face worse.
The AVLN operates through a complex hierarchy comprising distinct groups and leaders.
This case features two AVLN branches called the Insane Vice Lords and Mafia Insane Vice
Lords. Every branch maintains its own internal leadership structure consisting of Princes and
Kings. But members all ultimately answer to national- and state-level leadership. At the
national level, the Vice Lord King of Kings governs the entire organization. Below him, national
Princes exercise significant authority. Leaders of branches containing the word “Insane” sit on
the El Shabazz Board in Chicago, the Vice Lord “holy land.” Trial Tr. Vol. 15, R.1345, PageID
11939-40; Trial Tr. Vol. 1, R.1310, PageID 9032. The El Shabazz Board directs and controls all
Insane branches nationwide. Each state in which the AVLN operates in turn has its own
Supreme Elite, the highest-ranking member in that jurisdiction. In Michigan, the Supreme Elite

-- 2 of 27 --

Nos. 24-2033/2041/2046 United States v. Fordham, et al. Page 3
chairs the Michigan Board, a governing body made up of the highest-ranking Vice Lords from
each branch within the state.
Despite the AVLN’s complex structure, Vice Lord allegiance transcends branch lines.
When any Vice Lord puts out the call for an “aid and assist,” all others must respond without
hesitation. Trial Tr. Vol. 5, R.1325, PageID 9802-03. Members owe the same obedience to any
higher-ranked Vice Lord.
B
In 2018, the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives began an
investigation with a single goal: dismantle the AVLN’s Michigan operations from the top down.
For years, ATF agents worked to penetrate the organization. They cultivated confidential
informants, monitored thousands of jail calls, conducted controlled purchases of narcotics and
firearms, obtained court-ordered wiretaps on the cell phones of key members, and secured search
warrants for social-media accounts, personal devices, and member homes. At the center of the
investigation were Kevin Fordham, Martin Murff, and Eddie Reid.
Fordham, an Insane Vice Lord, simultaneously held two of the AVLN’s most powerful
positions. At the state level, he was the Supreme Elite of Michigan and served as chairman of
the Michigan Board. In the national hierarchy, he held the rank of Prince and sat on the El
Shabazz Board, where he wielded the self-proclaimed “deciding vote.” Ex. 3601, 1:42-45.
These roles gave Fordham nationwide influence. As Fordham boasted, Vice Lords across the
country knew his name and his “status [would] stick anywhere.” Ex. 3611B, 0:10-17.
Martin Murff was a Chicago-based national Prince of the Mafia Insane Vice Lords. At
the time of the investigation, he was the highest-ranking active member of the branch. In that
role, he sat with Fordham on the El Shabazz Board.
Operating below Fordham and Murff was Eddie Reid, the highest-ranking Mafia Insane
Vice Lord in Michigan. He represented his branch on the Michigan Board alongside Fordham.
As the law-enforcement investigation progressed, agents uncovered the AVLN’s
extensive criminal operations in Michigan. Among other things, agents became aware of

-- 3 of 27 --

Nos. 24-2033/2041/2046 United States v. Fordham, et al. Page 4
narcotics distribution, firearms trafficking, and numerous violent acts committed under the Vice
Lord banner. The discussion below addresses only the activities most relevant to this appeal.
Drug trafficking. Federal agents discovered a drug-distribution network that ran through
the organization’s hierarchy and extended from Chicago to Michigan and beyond. From
Chicago, Murff orchestrated the supply chain and coordinated distribution to other Vice Lords.
At his direction, members transported substantial quantities of controlled substances across state
lines. Vice Lords looking for illegal narcotics often reached out to Murff. Reid worked closely
with Murff—his branch’s Prince—in coordinating sales and supply runs. On one occasion,
when a courier transporting two kilograms of fentanyl from Atlanta was intercepted, Reid led
efforts to secure replacement shipments. Reid also regularly corresponded with other Vice Lords
about drugs and personally participated in multiple controlled purchases.
Fordham’s involvement in the drug-distribution network also came to light during the
investigation. As Supreme Elite of Michigan, Fordham kept close tabs on the AVLN’s drug
operations in the state. Agents testified that Fordham discussed drug trafficking daily during the
90-day period his phone was wiretapped. In one recorded call, Reid reported sourcing cocaine
from Vice Lords in Chicago and noted that the favorable price he received was likely because the
sellers knew Fordham. Fordham agreed and discussed with Reid the importance of securing a
consistent supply for trafficking purposes. Other members also updated Fordham of their sale
activity by text. And when the AVLN’s drug operations came under law-enforcement scrutiny,
members informed Fordham.
Investigators also conducted dozens of controlled purchases from Vice Lords using
confidential informants and undercover officers. One of the investigation’s key players—
Confidential Informant 27016—completed four purchases of crack cocaine, cocaine, and
marijuana directly from Fordham, each for resale quantities. CI-27016 later provided details
about the AVLN’s drug activities. He confirmed that the general ethos of the operation was “we
all eat”—meaning, “collectively we gonna get money together.” Trial Tr. Vol. 5, R.1325,
PageID 9869. To accomplish that goal, members purchased their supply from within the AVLN
distribution chain, gave each other “family discount[s],” and paid dues that helped fund
additional drug purchases. Id. at PageID 9800.

-- 4 of 27 --

Nos. 24-2033/2041/2046 United States v. Fordham, et al. Page 5
Code of silence. Beyond drug distribution, the investigation revealed numerous acts of
violence committed to protect and promote the AVLN. Many of these acts stemmed from
violations of the organization’s strictly enforced code of silence. Vice Lords actively monitored
court filings for potential cooperators, including by circulating documents and witness lists
among themselves via text and social media. Anyone suspected of assisting law enforcement
was promptly reported to leadership.
The consequences for perceived cooperation could be lethal. During the investigation,
agents learned of a kill order issued against an AVLN member suspected of cooperation and
intervened to warn him of the threat. While leadership agreed to postpone his sentence until law-
enforcement scrutiny subsided, others were less fortunate. The Michigan Board once ordered the
death of an inmate suspected of cooperating, leading to a prison stabbing that left him in critical
condition. Subsequent testimony established that such violent retaliation was a standard part of
Vice Lord procedure. Members learned how to fashion weapons, identify blind spots in prison
security systems, and efficiently kill fellow inmates.
Fordham’s own communications reflected the same preoccupation with exposing
cooperators and preserving AVLN integrity. He possessed lists of potential cooperators and
coordinated retaliatory efforts. In one recorded call, Fordham suggested having an individual
“watch the sunset”—common code for a targeted killing. Trial Tr. Vol. 14, R.1344, PageID
11715. And when another Vice Lord broke the code, it was Fordham who approved the
“charges” against her. Id. at PageID 11658.
C
After three years of investigation, the Government obtained a grand-jury indictment
charging 40 AVLN members and their associates with racketeering conspiracy, multiple drug
conspiracies, and other related offenses. In the early hours of June 3, 2021, law-enforcement
officers arrested dozens of these individuals in one fell swoop. Fordham, Murff, and Reid were
among those apprehended.
While many of their associates entered plea agreements, Fordham, Murff, and Reid
proceeded to trial. Fordham was charged with five counts: Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt

-- 5 of 27 --

Nos. 24-2033/2041/2046 United States v. Fordham, et al. Page 6
Organizations conspiracy (Count 1), two counts of conspiracy to distribute controlled substances
(Counts 4 and 5), possession with intent to distribute marijuana (Count 40), and possession of a
firearm in furtherance of the marijuana offense (Count 41). Counts 40 and 41 arose from the
events of June 3, when arresting agents discovered large quantities of marijuana and other drug
paraphernalia in Fordham’s home, along with three firearms stored nearby. Murff and Reid were
also charged in the RICO conspiracy (Count 1) and with one count of conspiracy to distribute
controlled substances (Count 5). Reid faced two additional counts of distribution of controlled
substances (Counts 25 and 26), and one count of possession with intent to distribute controlled
substances (Count 27).
After a month-long trial, the jury convicted Murff and Reid on all counts. It convicted
Fordham on Counts 1, 5, and 40—covering RICO conspiracy, national drug-trafficking
activities, and possession with intent to distribute. But it acquitted him of Counts 4 and 41—
covering drug trafficking that allegedly occurred in Detroit as well as firearm possession. At
sentencing, Fordham received 200 months’ imprisonment, Murff received 235 months, and Reid
received 240 months. Each timely appealed, and we have jurisdiction. 18 U.S.C. § 3742(a); 28
U.S.C. § 1291.
The defendants raise a panoply of issues. First, all three press a range of suppression
arguments. All defendants challenge the admission of evidence obtained through a Title III
wiretap of cell-phone communications. Fordham and Reid also object to the scope of search
warrants for information contained within their Facebook accounts. Next, Reid challenges the
warrant that authorized the seizure and search of his cell phone. Finally, Reid contends that the
district court should have suppressed statements made by Vice Lords in a police van after the
June 2021 arrests. Second, Murff argues that certain prison-correspondence policies abridged his
constitutional right to counsel. Third, Fordham urges that limitations on his cross-examination
of a trial witness violated the Sixth Amendment’s Confrontation Clause. Fourth, Fordham
contests the sufficiency of the evidence supporting two of his convictions. Fifth, Fordham
argues that his sentence is procedurally and substantively unreasonable. We address each issue
in turn.

-- 6 of 27 --

Nos. 24-2033/2041/2046 United States v. Fordham, et al. Page 7
II
We begin with the defendants’ suppression challenges. When reviewing a district court’s
denial of a motion to suppress, we examine factual findings for clear error and legal conclusions
de novo. United States v. Richards, 659 F.3d 527, 536 (6th Cir. 2011). We view all evidence in
the light most favorable to the government. Id. The movant bears the burden of establishing a
constitutional or statutory violation requiring suppression. United States v. Rodriguez-Suazo,
346 F.3d 637, 643 (6th Cir. 2003).
Motions to suppress must be filed before trial and argued “with specificity.” United
States v. Buchanon, 72 F.3d 1217, 1226-27 (6th Cir. 1995); see Fed. R. Crim. P. 12(b)(3)(C).
Defendants who fail to file a pretrial motion to suppress forfeit their suppression arguments on
appeal. United States v. Ramamoorthy, 949 F.3d 955, 962 (6th Cir. 2020). Our review of such
forfeited arguments “is permissive, not mandatory.” United States v. Olano, 507 U.S. 725, 735
(1993); see Fed. R. Crim. P. 52(b). And we routinely decline to reach forfeited, fact-intensive
suppression issues implicating an underdeveloped record. See Ramamoorthy, 949 F.3d at 962
(collecting cases).
A
The defendants’ first suppression challenge concerns certain evidence obtained through
wiretaps under Title III of the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968, 18 U.S.C.
§§ 2510-2520. Defendants argue that the wiretap applications violated Title III’s necessity
requirement, which they say required exclusion of the resulting wiretap evidence.
1
Title III provides that a wiretap application must include “a full and complete statement
as to whether or not other investigative procedures have been tried and failed or why they
reasonably appear to be unlikely to succeed if tried or to be too dangerous.” 18 U.S.C.
§ 2518(1)(c). That language, we have noted, imposes a “necessity requirement” for wiretap
applications. United States v. Gardner, 32 F.4th 504, 514 (6th Cir. 2022). That requirement in

-- 7 of 27 --

Nos. 24-2033/2041/2046 United States v. Fordham, et al. Page 8
turn helps ensure that wiretaps are not “used thoughtlessly or in a dragnet fashion.” United
States v. Alfano, 838 F.2d 158, 163 (6th Cir. 1988).
To make the requisite Title III showing, however, law enforcement need not “prove that
every other conceivable method has been tried and failed or that all avenues of investigation
have been exhausted.” Id. Instead, we evaluate whether applications satisfy three criteria:
(1) the wiretap cannot be “the initial step” in an investigation, (2) “traditional investigative
techniques” must be inadequate under the circumstances, and (3) investigators’ reliance on past
experience in addressing the necessity of a wiretap must be tied to the “particular facts of the
case.” Gardner, 32 F.4th at 515 (citations omitted). In short, investigators must “give serious
consideration to the non-wiretap techniques” before seeking a wiretap and inform the issuing
court why “such non-wiretap techniques have been or will likely be inadequate.” Alfano, 838
F.2d at 163-64 (citation omitted).
Courts analyze wiretap evidence differently than traditional suppression motions. That is
because Title III wiretaps involve two layers of decisionmakers: the district court that originally
authorized the wiretap and the district court that later denied the motion to suppress wiretap
evidence. Gardner, 32 F.4th at 514. An assertion that a wiretap application fails Title III’s
necessity requirement “attacks the issuing district court’s determination.” Id. We accord that
determination “great deference” and reverse only if the issuing court abused its discretion by
authorizing the wiretaps. Alfano, 838 F.2d at 162 (quotation marks omitted); see Gardner, 32
F.4th at 514.
2
Before applying those standards, we address the scope of the wiretap evidence that is
properly under review. Throughout the investigation, law-enforcement agents obtained several
wiretaps on the phones of key AVLN members. In the district court suppression proceedings,
however, the defendants challenged only a January 15, 2021, order authorizing a wiretap on
Murff’s phone. Murff’s suppression motion argued that the wiretap application flunked the
statutory necessity requirement. Though Fordham and Reid later joined the Murff wiretap
motion, neither joinder filing mentioned any other wiretap.

-- 8 of 27 --

Nos. 24-2033/2041/2046 United States v. Fordham, et al. Page 9
On appeal, Fordham and Reid seek to expand their challenge by contesting multiple
wiretaps—beyond that on Murff’s phone—obtained during the investigation. Fordham, the only
defendant to file a reply,1 offers two reasons why the broader challenge was preserved. To start,
Fordham claims that his joinder expressed intent to “argue in conjunction with” Murff’s motion.
Reply Br. 7. In addition, Fordham notes that his counsel prefaced his remarks at the suppression
hearing by claiming that all the wiretaps were “clones” of one another. Id. In his telling, both
statements indicate an intent to go beyond the four corners of Murff’s suppression motion and
challenge every wiretap that captured Fordham’s calls.
Neither statement supports Fordham’s broader suppression arguments. Murff’s written
motion expressly limited the suppression challenge to the Murff wiretap alone. Fordham’s
request to join and argue in conjunction with that motion—through a filing that never mentioned
another wiretap—lacks the requisite “specificity” to expand the suppression motion’s scope. See
Buchanon, 72 F.3d at 1226-27. The same goes for the ambiguous remarks by Fordham’s counsel
at the hearing, which did not present or otherwise expand on challenges to other wiretap
evidence. Accordingly, Fordham and Reid have forfeited any challenge to Title III wiretaps
other than the wiretap on Murff’s phone.
In this suppression context, defendants’ forfeiture leaves us with two options: review for
plain error or not at all. Ramamoorthy, 949 F.3d at 962. “[I]n the ordinary case, where the
defendant’s suppression claim hinges on unresolved issues of fact, the more prudent course is to
decline to exercise plain-error review.” Id. at 964. We heed that path here. Wiretap suppression
claims are fact-intensive, detail-oriented inquiries that depend on the exact content of the
challenged application. E.g., Gardner, 32 F.4th at 515-18. Yet here, the other wiretap
applications Fordham and Reid purport to challenge were never introduced into the record.
While Fordham claims that review is still possible because these other applications were
“clones” of the Murff application, he has offered no support for that assertion. Reply Br. 7. Nor
does that argument solve the lack of record fact-findings about the state of the investigation and
1We reiterate that reply briefs, though not required, “are critical to inform the court if a defendant disagrees
with the government’s argument.” United States v. House, No. 25-5505, 2026 WL 1168127, at *2 n.1 (6th Cir. Apr.
29, 2026).

-- 9 of 27 --

Nos. 24-2033/2041/2046 United States v. Fordham, et al. Page 10
sufficiency of traditional techniques at the time agents obtained these other wiretaps. We
therefore limit our review to the Murff wiretap application.
3
The Murff wiretap application satisfies each of the three necessity criteria we have
applied to Title III.
Initial step. First, the wiretap was not an initial step in the investigation. See Gardner,
32 F.4th at 515. Law-enforcement officers had actively pursued the AVLN network for three
years before applying for the wiretap. This Court has held that just one year of traditional
investigation was “an appropriate time” to wait in comparable cases. Id.; see also United States
v. Turner, Nos. 22-5046/5107/5131/5681/6056, 2024 WL 3634454, at *2 (6th Cir. Aug. 2, 2024)
(about a year in another AVLN investigation). During those three years, moreover, investigators
employed an array of traditional techniques, including: cultivating two confidential informants
embedded in the AVLN enterprise; reviewing hundreds of phone calls to those informants and
thousands of prison calls by AVLN members; conducting multiple controlled purchases of
narcotics through confidential informants and undercover officers; surveilling various AVLN
members; installing multiple pole cameras; obtaining around 200 federal grand jury subpoenas
regarding internet transactions, money transfers, and prison calls; executing multiple search
warrants on the homes and social-media accounts of AVLN members; using pen registers on the
phones of AVLN leadership; and reviewing public records and police reports. These efforts
confirm that law enforcement did not seek to shortcut their investigation by obtaining the wiretap
as an initial step. See Gardner, 32 F.4th at 515; United States v. Gonzalez, 849 F. App’x 557,
562-63 (6th Cir. 2021); United States v. Patel, 579 F. App’x 449, 454 (6th Cir. 2014).
Use of traditional techniques. Second, the application explained why each of the above
traditional methods of investigation had failed, run its course, would be “too dangerous” to
pursue, or appeared “unlikely to succeed.” 18 U.S.C. § 2518(1)(c); see Gardner, 32 F.4th at 515.
Some techniques—like visual surveillance, pole cameras, and pen registers—could provide
information on Vice Lords’ general patterns of movement and communication but failed to shed
light on the innerworkings of AVLN leadership. Techniques that involved soliciting information

-- 10 of 27 --

Nos. 24-2033/2041/2046 United States v. Fordham, et al. Page 11
from members were frustrated by the AVLN’s code of silence and policy of violent retaliation,
both of which were documented in the application. The group’s compartmentalization and
hierarchical structure further frustrated investigative efforts; for instance, information on the
Michigan and El Shabazz Boards was shielded from most rank-and-file members. For that
reason, undercover officers and current confidential informants lacked insight into either Board.
The defendants insist that investigators should have conducted more surveillance,
cultivated additional confidential sources, or attempted trash pulls and GPS tracking. But Title
III is not an exhaustion requirement that forces investigators to attempt the “full panoply of
surveillance techniques.” United States v. Wright, 635 F. App’x 162, 167 (6th Cir. 2015). It is
enough that investigators considered alternative methods and explained why they would be
inadequate to accomplish the goals of the investigation. See Alfano, 838 F.2d at 163-64. Here,
the application detailed how earlier surveillance efforts were unsuccessful and at times thwarted
by AVLN countersurveillance techniques. It further explained that cultivating additional sources
may be ineffective or dangerous. New sources would require significant time to rise through the
ranks and reach a position where they were privy to Board matters. Meanwhile, recruiting
existing AVLN members risked unearthing the entire investigation with one ill-chosen target.
Finally, the application noted that trash pulls and GPS tracking were both unlikely to yield
information on internal Board affairs. That explanation sufficed under Title III to show the
shortcomings of traditional investigatory methods.
Case-specific support. Third, as the above details confirm, investigators keyed their
alternative-methods assessment to the “particular facts of the case at hand.” United States v.
Landmesser, 553 F.2d 17, 20 (6th Cir. 1977). Defendants’ chief counter—that the application
impermissibly relies on generic or “boilerplate” assertions—does not hold up. Reid Br. 21;
Murff Br. 45; see also Fordham Br. 18-19. To be sure, the application at time drifts into the
generic. But caselaw recognizes that certain patterns hold constant across criminal
organizations. See Gardner, 32 F.4th at 517. So wiretap applications can rely on generalizations
so long as “specific examples provide support along the way.” Id. Investigators cleared that bar
by pairing general statements about the nature of gangs or the futility of certain techniques
with AVLN literature and specific incidents throughout the investigation. The defendants’

-- 11 of 27 --

Nos. 24-2033/2041/2046 United States v. Fordham, et al. Page 12
mere-“boilerplate” objection “fail[s] to contend with” the presence of “case-specific examples.”
Id.
To sum up, the Murff wiretap application established that officers gave “serious
consideration” to traditional techniques before reasonably concluding that those methods could
not bring down the Michigan and El Shabazz Boards. Alfano, 838 F.2d at 163 (citation omitted).
The challenged wiretap approval was lawful, as was the admission of the resulting evidence.
B
Next, Fordham and Reid argue that evidence recovered from their Facebook accounts
should have been suppressed because the search warrants were unconstitutionally overbroad.
The warrants. As the investigation unfolded, it became clear that Vice Lords routinely
used Facebook for a wide range of activities including coordinating meetings, discussing internal
governance, and selling drugs and firearms. Fordham and Reid were no exception. The publicly
available portions of their accounts showed both men self-identifying as Vice Lords and
discussing AVLN business. So, in December 2019, investigators sought a warrant for
information related to three Facebook accounts, including Fordham’s. About two months later,
they sought a warrant for six other accounts, including Reid’s.
Both warrants followed a two-step structure. See Fed. R. Crim. P. 41(e)(2)(B). At step
one, Facebook was ordered to disclose broad categories of account data. Many categories lacked
any time limits on the data requested. But, as relevant here, the warrants limited the production
of photos and messages to January 2014 onward for Fordham and January 2015 onward for Reid.
At step two, the warrant authorized officers to seize only that information constituting fruits,
evidence, or instrumentalities of the crimes under investigation. In addition, that step-two
authorization was likewise time-bound to January 2014 onward for Fordham and January 2015
onward for Reid.
Before trial, Fordham and Reid moved to suppress all evidence obtained under the two-
step Facebook warrants. As their sole basis for suppression, Fordham and Reid argued that the

-- 12 of 27 --

Nos. 24-2033/2041/2046 United States v. Fordham, et al. Page 13
breadth of step one’s disclosures rendered the warrants unconstitutionally overbroad. The
district court denied the motion.
Overbreadth. The Fourth Amendment requires warrants to “particularly describ[e] the
place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.” U.S. Const. amend. IV.
Particularity challenges come in two varieties: clarity and overbreadth. See Richards, 659 F.3d
at 537. Fordham and Reid raise the latter, arguing that each warrant’s scope “is too broad in the
sense that it includes items that should not be seized.” Id. (citation omitted). In other words,
they argue that particular portions of the warrant permitted seizures that were not supported by
probable cause. See id. We review such claims de novo. Id. at 536.
Seizing items beyond the proper scope of a warrant violates the Fourth Amendment and
“generally requires that either an officer request a new warrant to seize items not in the warrant’s
scope or that an exception to the warrant requirement must apply.” United States v. Whiteside,
141 F.4th 734, 747 (6th Cir. 2025). Overbreadth, however, does not “doom the entire warrant.”
United States v. Greene, 250 F.3d 471, 477 (6th Cir. 2001). Instead, courts isolate the overbroad
portions and suppress only the “evidence seized pursuant to that part of the warrant.” Id.
(citation omitted). That principle applies on appeal, too. Where the evidence “seized pursuant to
the overbroad portion of the search warrant was not introduced into evidence . . . [the defendant]
was not prejudiced by the defect in the warrant.” United States v. Blakeney, 942 F.2d 1001, 1027
(6th Cir. 1991).
Sometimes, as here, defendants pressing overbreadth challenges assert that a warrant
provision should have been narrowed with additional constraints. In such cases, courts decline
suppression if the challenged evidence would have been seized even under the narrower warrant.
See United States v. Hanna, 661 F.3d 271, 287 (6th Cir. 2011); United States v. Honeysucker,
No. 21-2614, 2023 WL 142265, at *5 (6th Cir. Jan. 10, 2023). For instance, even when this
Court has agreed that warrants should have covered only a particular time period, we’ve
explained that suppression follows only for evidence that falls outside that time window. See
United States v. Abboud, 438 F.3d 554, 576 (6th Cir. 2006); United States v. Neuhard, 770 F.
App’x 251, 254 (6th Cir. 2019). We’ve indicated the same for subject-matter limitations. See
Hanna, 661 F.3d at 287.

-- 13 of 27 --

Nos. 24-2033/2041/2046 United States v. Fordham, et al. Page 14
Both lines of cases illustrate the same basic point. A defendant cannot seek suppression
on the ground that a warrant lacks safeguards if the challenged evidence still would have been
seized with the safeguards in place. In such cases, the defendant has suffered no prejudice from
the warrant’s alleged overbreadth. See id.; Abboud, 438 F.3d at 576. And no prejudice as to the
trial evidence means no suppression.
Our most recent encounter with a two-step warrant in United States v. Honeysucker
confirms this rule. See 2023 WL 142265, at *5. At step one, the Honeysucker warrant sought
broad cell-phone-record disclosures from T-Mobile—many without time limits. Id. at *4. Yet
step two then limited the items subject to seizure to the fruits of the suspected crimes and
imposed a particular date range. Id. In seeking suppression, Honeysucker asserted that the
Fourth Amendment required temporal restrictions at step one. Id. We noted that even if
Honeysucker were correct, he offered “no argument that any trial evidence or evidence that
contributed to his conviction” came from beyond the time period he requested. Id. at *5. That
meant the evidence Honeysucker sought “to suppress would have been recovered even if the
warrant had imposed that limitation.” Id. at *10 (Moore, J., concurring in part and concurring in
the judgment). So there was simply “no evidence to be severed for overbreadth.” Id. at *5.
Fordham and Reid’s overbreadth challenge encounters the same problem. Both generally
allege three deficiencies with the warrants. They claim that step one of the warrant (1) was not
tailored to the crimes alleged, (2) exceeded the time period covered by the indictment, and
(3) extended beyond AVLN-related matters. But all three proposed restrictions—as to crimes,
the time period, and non-AVLN matters—were in place at step two. Perhaps for that reason,
Fordham and Reid have not cited any evidence introduced at trial that falls outside the temporal
and subject-matter guardrails they now seek.2 Nor do they argue that the allegedly improper
2During oral argument, Fordham’s counsel newly asserted that the four-year period governing seizure of
the Facebook photographs and messages was too lengthy. Counsel pressed that contention even while
acknowledging that the charged conspiracy spanned longer than four years. But see United States v. Zelaya-Veliz,
94 F.4th 321, 338 (4th Cir. 2024) (explaining that the conspiracy’s “wide-ranging nature” and breadth helped
“mitigate[] any concern that the scope of the warrant was impermissibly broad”). In any event, because the four-
year challenge made its first appearance at oral argument, it is forfeited. Resurrection Sch. v. Hertel, 35 F.4th 524,
530 (6th Cir. 2022) (en banc).

-- 14 of 27 --

Nos. 24-2033/2041/2046 United States v. Fordham, et al. Page 15
scope at step one yielded any evidence or investigatory leads distinct from the evidence seized at
step two.
Thus, even had Fordham and Reid’s preferred limitations been present at step one, the
record indicates that the challenged trial evidence “would have been lawfully acquired.” Hanna,
661 F.3d at 287. We therefore need not address whether the Facebook warrants’ two-step
structure violated the Fourth Amendment. Fordham and Reid’s failure to link their overbreadth
claim with the exclusion of any evidence independently forecloses their challenge. Id.;
Blakeney, 942 F.2d at 1027.
C
Reid next challenges the admission of evidence seized from his cell phone.
When officers arrested Reid, they executed a search warrant at his residence that
authorized the seizure of various items, including his cell phone. The warrant also permitted
officers to search electronic-storage media seized for evidence of the crimes charged in the
indictment. Reid contends the warrant was overbroad because it lacked temporal limits, though
he does not dispute that the core of the warrant was supported by probable cause.
The warrant passes muster under our Court’s caselaw. We have repeatedly upheld
warrants authorizing the seizure of computers for subsequent off-site forensic search when “the
warrant application and affidavit demonstrate a sufficient chance of finding some needles in the
computer haystack.” United States v. Evers, 669 F.3d 645, 652 (6th Cir. 2012) (citation omitted)
(collecting cases). That’s because the unique nature of electronic-storage mediums makes it
difficult to know ex ante where or in what format relevant evidence may be stored. Id. at 653.
We apply the same principles to cell phones, which “may contain a litany of information”
functionally “equivalent to a personal computer.” United States v. Bass, 785 F.3d 1043, 1049
(6th Cir. 2015). Thus, we’ve upheld cell phone search warrants without temporal limits against
overbreadth challenges when the warrant is limited to evidence of the crimes under investigation.
See id. at 1049-50. Because the warrant for Reid’s phone was so limited, it was not overbroad.

-- 15 of 27 --

Nos. 24-2033/2041/2046 United States v. Fordham, et al. Page 16
Reid’s counterarguments do not change that conclusion. He suggests that officers needed
a second warrant before conducting a forensic extraction from the phone. But a second warrant
to search properly seized electronic devices is unnecessary if “the evidence obtained in the
search did not exceed the probable cause articulated in the original warrant.” Evers, 669 F.3d at
652 (quoting Richards, 659 F.3d at 539 n.10). He also briefly faults the affidavit for not limiting
itself to specific crimes, but in so doing ignores that such a limit was contained in the warrant.
For those reasons, we affirm the district court’s denial of the motion to suppress the
evidence seized from Reid’s phone.
D
Reid’s final suppression challenge addresses statements that he and other Vice Lords
made while detained in law-enforcement vehicles following their arrests.
After the coordinated arrests on June 3, 2021, many arrestees were held in two vans while
awaiting interviews at an ATF field office. Both vans were equipped with recording devices,
and some of the conversations captured on recordings were introduced at trial. No defendant
filed a pretrial motion to suppress these statements.
Reid now argues that the surreptitious recording violated his Fourth Amendment rights.
Because he failed to file a motion to suppress, he forfeited that claim. See Ramamoorthy, 949
F.3d at 962; Fed. R. Crim. P. 12(b)(3)(C). Moreover, whether an individual has a reasonable
expectation of privacy is “necessarily a fact-dependent inquiry” that must be undertaken “on a
case-by-case basis.” Hicks v. Scott, 958 F.3d 421, 431 (6th Cir. 2020) (citation omitted). Reid
did not develop a record that might aid us in conducting that inquiry. So, as with the forfeited
Title III-wiretap challenges, we decline to review this fact-intensive suppression claim. See
Ramamoorthy, 949 F.3d at 962.
Reid also briefly asserts that the recording violated the Wiretap Act, that the statements
were inadmissible under Federal Rule of Evidence 801(d)(2)(E), and that their admission
violated his Confrontation Clause rights. Those assertions are “unaccompanied by some effort at

-- 16 of 27 --

Nos. 24-2033/2041/2046 United States v. Fordham, et al. Page 17
developed argumentation,” and thus forfeited. United States v. Taylor, 165 F.4th 1029, 1036
(6th Cir. 2026) (citation omitted).
III
Turning to the Sixth Amendment challenges, we begin with Murff’s claim that a prison-
mail policy violated his constitutional right to counsel.
Murff’s challenge arises from the policy at his pretrial-detention facility, the Sanilac
County Jail. During Murff’s time there, suboxone was smuggled into the facility through “bogus
legal mail.” Murff Mail Hr’g, R.966, PageID 6112. That incident prompted officials to update
the jail’s incoming mail policy. Under the new protocol, officers opened legal mail in the
detainee’s presence, copied it, provided the copies to the detainee, and placed the originals with
his personal property. Later, the jail added a final step of resealing the originals with signed and
dated evidence tape. The policy prohibits officers from reading legal mail.
Before trial, Murff sought a hearing on the mail policy, arguing that it violated his
attorney-client privilege and Sixth Amendment right to counsel. He objected both to the copying
of legal mail—fearing the copier could be hacked—and to the jail’s retention of the original
mail—fearing officers might read it. The district court held that the mail policy did not violate
Murff’s Sixth Amendment rights. In so holding, it emphasized that Murff had not alleged that
the copier was actually compromised or that officers were reading his mail by virtue of the
policy.
On appeal, Murff contends that the Sanilac County Jail’s mail policy was
unconstitutional. Murff further asserts that, to avoid being subject to the policy, he stopped
exchanging written correspondence with counsel. From there, he claims that this self-imposed
limitation on his written correspondence with counsel so impaired his defense that it violated his
Sixth Amendment right to counsel and requires reversal of his convictions. We review that
constitutional claim de novo. See United States v. Stone, 432 F.3d 651, 654 (6th Cir. 2005).
To establish a Sixth Amendment violation based on governmental interference with the
attorney-client relationship, a defendant must show both an intrusion on the attorney-client

-- 17 of 27 --

Nos. 24-2033/2041/2046 United States v. Fordham, et al. Page 18
relationship and resulting prejudice. See United States v. Steele, 727 F.2d 580, 585-86 (6th Cir.
1984). A constitutionally cognizable intrusion requires some “invasion[] of the defense camp,”
such as the prosecution’s gaining improper access to attorney-client communications or learning
confidential trial strategy. Id. at 585 (quotation marks omitted); see United States v. Dobson,
626 F. App’x 117, 124 (6th Cir. 2015). If no intrusion occurs, there is no Sixth Amendment
violation. See Dobson, 626 F. App’x at 124-25. But even when there is an intrusion, the
defendant must show prejudice to counsel’s ability “to provide adequate representation in the[]
criminal proceedings.” United States v. Morrison, 449 U.S. 361, 366 (1981); see also Steele, 727
F.2d at 586.
Murff’s challenge to the mail policy fails because the policy does not constitute an
intrusion. The only harm he alleges arises from steps he took to avoid potential intrusions that
could occur under the mail policy; he never claims that any such intrusion into his attorney-client
relationship actually occurred.3 The policy itself prohibits officers from reading legal mail.
And, as the district court noted, there is no “ongoing allegation that prison mail is being read by
prison officials.” Murff Mail Hr’g, R.966, PageID 6135. So Murff has not shown any policy-
caused intrusion, and we need not reach the issue of prejudice.
One loose end remains. Murff also believes that the county jail was subject to federal
Bureau of Prisons regulations and that its mail policy violated 28 C.F.R. § 540.18. Even
assuming Murff is correct that the regulation applies and contradicts the jail’s policy, a
regulatory infraction does not provide a standalone basis for reversing his conviction. Cf. United
States v. Caceres, 440 U.S. 741, 754-55 (1979). Because Murff has shown no constitutional
violation, he is not entitled to relief.
3In the hearing on his mail-policy claim, Murff testified about one incident where an officer purportedly
admitted to reading his legal mail. Even if that would qualify as an intrusion, Murff did not allege that such
violations were ongoing and does not complain of or attribute prejudice to that single incident on appeal. His
challenge is instead centered on the mail policy itself.

-- 18 of 27 --

Nos. 24-2033/2041/2046 United States v. Fordham, et al. Page 19
IV
Next, Fordham argues that the district court violated his rights under the Confrontation
Clause of the Sixth Amendment by limiting his cross-examination of Confidential Informant
27016.
CI-27016 was a Vice Lord who began cooperating with the ATF in 2018. He operated
close to Fordham, helping agents track drug operations in Michigan. In that role, CI-27016
completed multiple controlled purchases, including four directly from Fordham. At trial, he
testified about those purchases and his broader experience with the AVLN.
As relevant here, the Government moved in limine to limit cross-examination of CI-
27016 about his criminal record, dismissed charges, and an outstanding warrant. Fordham
opposed the motion, urging that such information was critical to impeaching CI-27016’s
propensity for truthfulness and flagging his potential incentives to testify for the Government.
The district court granted the Government’s motion in part and denied it in part. It disagreed
with Fordham’s request to cross-examine CI-27016 about his pre-2013 criminal convictions.
But it held that Fordham could elicit CI-27016’s four post-2013 felony convictions. As for CI-
27016’s uncharged acts, the district court concluded that CI-27016’s cooperation could lead to a
more favorable resolution of the 2021 charge pending in the outstanding warrant. So it permitted
Fordham to cross-examine CI-27016 on that basis.
Fordham now argues that prohibiting cross-examination of CI-27016’s pre-2013
convictions violated his Confrontation Clause rights. We review his claim de novo. United
States v. Taylor, 127 F.4th 1008, 1013 (6th Cir. 2025).
The Sixth Amendment guarantees a criminal defendant the right “to be confronted with
the witnesses against him.” U.S. Const. amend. VI. Although cross-examination is central to
that right, it is not unlimited. The Confrontation Clause “guarantees an opportunity for effective
cross-examination, not cross-examination that is effective in whatever way, and to whatever
extent, the defense might wish.” Delaware v. Fensterer, 474 U.S. 15, 20 (1985). District courts
therefore retain “wide latitude” to impose “reasonable limits” on cross-examination. Delaware
v. Van Arsdall, 475 U.S. 673, 679 (1986).

-- 19 of 27 --

Nos. 24-2033/2041/2046 United States v. Fordham, et al. Page 20
We use a three-step framework to evaluate Confrontation Clause challenges to
restrictions on cross-examination. See Boggs v. Collins, 226 F.3d 728, 739 (6th Cir. 2000).
First, we ask whether the district court limited the defendant’s ability to elicit information about
the “witness’s bias, prejudice or motive to testify.” Id. If so, we next determine “whether the
jury had enough information, despite the limits placed on otherwise permitted cross-examination,
to assess the defense theory of bias or improper motive.” Id. If the jury lacked adequate
information, we proceed to the third step and balance “the violation against the competing
interests at stake.” Id.
Fordham’s claim fails because the jury had sufficient evidence “to assess [Fordham’s]
theory of bias” and arguments about CI-27016’s truthfulness. Id. The testimony about CI-
27016’s criminal history was extensive. He admitted that he had been a Vice Lord for
approximately 14 years, during which he became an AVLN enforcer and independently
committed assaults and other crimes. The jury learned that CI-27016 amassed four felony
convictions in the past ten years, failed to pay taxes on the money he received from ATF, and
had two outstanding warrants—one for breaking and entering a vehicle and another for making
terroristic threats against a family member. On top of that, CI-27016 volunteered that he had
been incarcerated from around 1999 to 2009.
Questioning of CI-27016 also probed his personal incentives to cooperate. On cross-
examination, he freely admitted that he didn’t want to go back to prison. Even when explaining
that he was “tired” of criminal activity and had decided to turn over a new leaf, he acknowledged
that his cooperation with ATF was motivated by “self-preservation.” Fordham also introduced
statements ATF agents made during an interview with CI-27016 that could be interpreted as
threats to pursue charges absent cooperation.
In short, the jury had plentiful evidence from which to evaluate Fordham’s arguments
about CI-27016’s truthfulness and incentives to cooperate. Any additional evidence on these
fronts therefore “would have been cumulative.” United States v. Martin, 526 F. App’x 643, 648
(6th Cir. 2013). The district court’s limitations on cross-examination did not violate Fordham’s
Confrontation Clause rights.

-- 20 of 27 --

Nos. 24-2033/2041/2046 United States v. Fordham, et al. Page 21
V
Fordham next challenges the sufficiency of the evidence supporting his convictions for
conspiracy to distribute controlled substances and RICO conspiracy.
A defendant bringing a sufficiency challenge “bears a very heavy burden.” United States
v. Davis, 397 F.3d 340, 344 (6th Cir. 2005) (citation omitted). While our review is de novo, we
are “highly deferential to the jury’s verdict.” United States v. Baskerville, 164 F.4th 459, 472
(6th Cir. 2026) (citation omitted). The test is “whether, after viewing the evidence in the light
most favorable to the prosecution, any rational trier of fact could have found the essential
elements of the crime.” Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307, 319 (1979). When answering that
question, we “may not reweigh the evidence, reevaluate the credibility of witnesses, or substitute
our judgment for that of the jury.” United States v. Martinez, 430 F.3d 317, 330 (6th Cir. 2005).
A
To convict Fordham of conspiracy to distribute controlled substances, the Government
had to prove three elements: “(1) an agreement to violate drug laws; (2) knowledge of and intent
to join the conspiracy; and (3) participation in the conspiracy.” United States v. Gardner, 488
F.3d 700, 710 (6th Cir. 2007); see 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1), 846.
The conspiracy. Agreements to violate drug laws “need not be express or formal.”
United States v. Caver, 470 F.3d 220, 233 (6th Cir. 2006). A mere “tacit or mutual
understanding among the parties is sufficient.” United States v. Forrest, 17 F.3d 916, 918 (6th
Cir. 1994). That understanding “may be inferred from circumstantial evidence that can
reasonably be interpreted as participation in the common plan.” United States v. Deitz, 577 F.3d
672, 677 (6th Cir. 2009) (citation omitted). When a criminal organization and a drug conspiracy
are intertwined, courts often consider whether the group “intended to use its organizational
structure and contacts to facilitate the sale of drugs.” Id. at 680. Relevant factors may include
common supply chains, intra-organization sales, and whether drug proceeds flow back into the
organization’s coffers. See id. at 680-81; United States v. Lawson, 535 F.3d 434, 445 (6th Cir.
2008).

-- 21 of 27 --

Nos. 24-2033/2041/2046 United States v. Fordham, et al. Page 22
Here, Fordham, Murff, Reid, and five other Vice Lords were charged with conspiracy to
distribute fentanyl, heroin, cocaine, and marijuana. The Government offered sufficient evidence
for a rational jury to find an agreement to that effect.
The jury heard testimony from CI-27016 that being a Vice Lord was “like having
tentacles”—it plugged members into a broader drug-distribution network. Trial Tr. Vol. 5,
R.1325, PageID 9815. Members were encouraged to purchase from suppliers within the AVLN
chain, who gave fellow Vice Lords the “family discount,” in a coordinated effort to maximize
profits. Id. at PageID 9800. Member dues also went towards purchasing more drugs for the
organization. That testimony was corroborated by calls and texts between the charged co-
conspirators. The evidence at trial captured those individuals discussing shared suppliers,
fronting drugs, coordinating large-scale shipments across state lines, and completing multiple
controlled sales. It was more than sufficient for a rational juror to conclude there was “an
agreement to violate drug laws.” Gardner, 488 F.3d at 710.
Fordham’s knowledge and participation. “Once a conspiracy is shown, evidence
connecting a particular defendant to the conspiracy need only be slight.” United States v. Gibbs,
182 F.3d 408, 421 (6th Cir. 1999) (citation omitted). Proving a defendant’s participation “does
not require an action furthering the conspiracy.” United States v. Bailey, 170 F.4th 573, 583 (6th
Cir. 2026) (citation omitted). Rather, it “may be inferred from [his] actions and reactions to the
circumstances.” United States v. Hernandez, 31 F.3d 354, 358 (6th Cir. 1994) (citation omitted).
To be convicted, a defendant does not have to be involved in “every phase of the conspiracy, so
long as he is a party to the general conspiratorial agreement.” United States v. Hodges, 935 F.2d
766, 773 (6th Cir. 1991) (citation omitted).
The Government presented sufficient evidence tying Fordham to the drug conspiracy.
Fordham’s leadership position in the AVLN network gave him significant influence over the
organization’s affairs. Fordham’s reach extended to the AVLN’s drug-related activities. Agents
testified that Fordham spoke of drug trafficking on a daily basis. Trial evidence captured
Fordham and Reid discussing how Chicago-based distributors respected Fordham’s status. Other
communications showed AVLN members keeping Fordham apprised of drug prices or quality.
And Fordham himself sold distribution quantities of various narcotics to CI-27016 on four

-- 22 of 27 --

Nos. 24-2033/2041/2046 United States v. Fordham, et al. Page 23
occasions. During one of these sales, Fordham offered to connect CI-27016 to his supplier and
elected not to upcharge CI-27016 because he was Fordham’s “little bro”—a common manner of
referring to fellow AVLN members. Ex. 2945A, 3:38-40. Together, the trial evidence readily
surpasses the “slight” threshold required to link Fordham to the charged narcotics conspiracy.
Gibbs, 182 F.3d at 421 (citation omitted).
Fordham’s counterarguments do not convince. He asserts that the Government’s case
rests entirely on his four transactions with CI-27016. Yet that overlooks the “additional
evidence” outlined above demonstrating that Fordham’s involvement went beyond a “mere
purchase or sale.” Deitz, 577 F.3d at 680 (citation omitted). Fordham next contends that his
conviction must be overturned because (1) the Government didn’t prove that the drugs he sold
were fronted by AVLN members and (2) there was no evidence that he shared profits from his
personal sales. But neither is required to sustain his conviction. Bailey, 170 F.4th at 583; United
States v. Mosley, 53 F.4th 947, 959 (6th Cir. 2022). The evidence enabled a rational juror to
conclude that Fordham knew that his co-conspirators intended to use the AVLN’s
“organizational structure” to violate the drug laws, and that he “acquiesced in that agreement.”
Deitz, 577 F.3d at 680 (citation omitted). That is sufficient.
We therefore affirm Fordham’s conviction for conspiracy to distribute controlled
substances.
B
We next turn to Fordham’s conviction for racketeering conspiracy, which required the
Government to prove: “(1) that an enterprise existed; (2) that the enterprise was engaged in, or
that its activities affected, interstate commerce; (3) that the defendant was employed by or
associated with the enterprise; and (4) that the defendant conspired to ‘conduct or participate,
directly or indirectly, in the conduct of such enterprise’s affairs through a pattern of racketeering
activity.’” Baskerville, 164 F.4th at 476 (quoting 18 U.S.C. § 1962(c)).
Fordham’s opening brief meaningfully contested only the AVLN’s status as a RICO
enterprise. But in his reply brief, Fordham concedes that the enterprise element is off the table
because his Rule 29 motion failed to raise it as a basis for acquittal. See United States v. Porter,

-- 23 of 27 --

Nos. 24-2033/2041/2046 United States v. Fordham, et al. Page 24
886 F.3d 562, 566 (6th Cir. 2018) (order). So he instead suggests in passing that the evidence
was insufficient to establish the conspiracy element—an argument he did raise below. But he
forfeited the argument on appeal by failing to raise it in his opening brief. See Kuhn v.
Washtenaw County, 709 F.3d 612, 624-25 (6th Cir. 2013). Fordham’s reply brief, moreover,
simply asserts insufficiency without citing governing caselaw or the evidence at trial. So
Fordham’s “skeletal” reply discussion of the conspiracy element is forfeited twice over. United
States v. Fowler, 819 F.3d 298, 309 (6th Cir. 2016).
Regardless, the Government presented sufficient evidence. To prove the conspiracy
portion of the RICO-conspiracy charge, the Government had to tie Fordham to a “pattern of
racketeering activity.” 18 U.S.C. § 1962; see Baskerville, 164 F.4th at 477. That pattern
requires at least two predicate acts, as defined by statute. 18 U.S.C. § 1961(5). And evidence
must show that Fordham “adopt[ed] the goal of furthering or facilitating the criminal
endeavor.” Salinas v. United States, 522 U.S. 52, 65 (1997). Unlike with a substantive RICO
offense, for a RICO conspiracy charge the Government need not prove that Fordham “agreed to
commit two predicate acts himself, or even that any overt acts have been committed.” United
States v. Saadey, 393 F.3d 669, 676 (6th Cir. 2005). It is enough if Fordham agreed, whether
formally or informally, to “facilitate” an underlying “scheme” that would involve some AVLN
member committing two predicate acts. Salinas, 522 U.S. at 65; see Baskerville, 164 F.4th at
477. Suffice it to say, the evidence along those lines—ranging from Fordham’s status as the top
Vice Lord in the state of Michigan, to his intelligence briefings about the AVLN’s drug
trafficking, to his commitment to and extensive involvement with advancing the AVLN’s status,
to a bevy of predicate acts by Fordham and other AVLN members comprising drug and violent
offenses—abounded. So even putting forfeiture aside, Fordham’s RICO conspiracy conviction
stands.
VI
The final issue in this appeal is Fordham’s challenge to his sentence. Because we vacate
Fordham’s sentence on procedural grounds, we do not reach his substantive arguments. See
United States v. Adams, 873 F.3d 512, 520 (6th Cir. 2017).

-- 24 of 27 --

Nos. 24-2033/2041/2046 United States v. Fordham, et al. Page 25
Fordham’s procedural objection focuses on the district court’s application of a two-level
enhancement under U.S.S.G. § 2D1.1(b)(1). That provision, among other things, directs district
courts to enhance a defendant’s offense level if the convicted offense had certain characteristics.
As it related to enhancing Fordham’s sentence for the drug-trafficking conviction, the cited
conduct was that “a dangerous weapon (including a firearm) was possessed.” Id.
Recall that, during Fordham’s arrest, agents found three firearms in Fordham’s home near
large amounts of marijuana and drug paraphernalia. That discovery gave rise to Count 40
(possession with intent to distribute marijuana) and Count 41 (possession of a firearm in
furtherance of Count 40). The jury convicted Fordham on Count 40’s drug charge. But they
acquitted him on the accompanying firearm-possession charge in Count 41.
When it came time for sentencing, though, the same three firearms giving rise to
acquitted Count 41 appeared in Fordham’s presentencing report. Citing the discovery of those
firearms, the report recommended a two-level enhancement under § 2D1.1(b)(1) for possessing a
dangerous weapon. Fordham filed an objection to the proposed enhancement that was later
repeated in an addendum to the presentence report. Fordham’s written objection asserted that (1)
he was acquitted on Count 41’s firearms-possession charge and (2) insufficient evidence
supported the enhancement’s application.
Then, just weeks before Fordham’s sentencing, the U.S. Sentencing Commission’s
acquitted-conduct amendment took effect. U.S.S.G. § 1B1.3(c) (2024). Under it, “[r]elevant
conduct” for purposes of applying the § 2D1.1(b)(1) enhancement “does not include conduct for
which the defendant was criminally charged and acquitted in federal court, unless such conduct
also establishes, in whole or in part, the instant offense of conviction.” Id. § 1B1.3(c). The
district court ordered supplemental briefing on whether the amendment affected Fordham’s
sentencing range. But the briefing primarily addressed drug quantities underlying other counts—
not the firearms enhancement—and the district court’s subsequent order only discussed drug
quantities. See United States v. Fordham, 797 F. Supp. 3d 746 (E.D. Mich. 2024).
Sentencing then proceeded. At the sentencing hearing, the district court stated that it was
following the presentencing report’s recommendation to apply the dangerous-weapon

-- 25 of 27 --

Nos. 24-2033/2041/2046 United States v. Fordham, et al. Page 26
enhancement. In so doing, the district court did not squarely address Fordham’s written
acquitted-conduct objection.
To impose a procedurally reasonable sentence, district courts must “adequately explain
the chosen sentence to allow for meaningful appellate review.” Gall v. United States, 552 U.S.
38, 50 (2007). When a defendant presents a non-frivolous argument for a lower sentence, “the
record must reflect both that the district judge considered the defendant’s argument and that the
judge explained the basis for rejecting it.” United States v. Richardson, 437 F.3d 550, 554 (6th
Cir. 2006); see United States v. Thomas-Mathews, 81 F.4th 530, 544 (6th Cir. 2023) (collecting
cases). That is not to say that every objection requires an explanation. We recognize that
“arguments clearly without merit can, and for the sake of judicial economy should, be passed
over in silence.” United States v. Gale, 468 F.3d 929, 940 (6th Cir. 2006) (citation omitted). But
“remand may be appropriate” when a defendant presents “an arguably meritorious claim for a
lesser sentence, but there is little to suggest that the district court actually considered it.” Id.
The Government does not argue that Fordham forfeited his acquitted-conduct objection
by raising it only in written objections to the presentencing report rather than in the acquitted-
conduct briefing or at the sentencing hearing. And it does not dispute that the district court failed
to pass on the merits of Fordham’s objection during sentencing. Instead, the Government urges
us to reject Fordham’s acquitted-conduct argument in the first instance. Alternatively, the
Government seeks affirmance of Fordham’s sentence based upon grounds for the firearms
enhancement that were neither pressed nor passed on at sentencing. Those include assertions
that Fordham possessed the recovered firearms in furtherance of violent RICO activities and that
his co-conspirators possessed other firearms in connection with drug-trafficking offenses.
We decline the Government’s request and opt to remand so that the district court may
consider the issues now presented. Many of the issues the parties now dispute on appeal—
including application of the recent acquitted-conduct amendment or the potential alternative
bases for applying the § 2D1.1(b)(1) enhancement—turn on the extensive trial evidence or
require resolving the interplay between the complex series of charges in the Government’s
lengthy indictment. Those are matters on which we lack a developed record and over which the
district court maintains superior expertise given its familiarity with these proceedings. For those

-- 26 of 27 --

Nos. 24-2033/2041/2046 United States v. Fordham, et al. Page 27
reasons, the Guidelines recognize the propriety of permitting district courts, in their sentencing
discretion, to pass on such issues in the first instance. See U.S.S.G. § 1B1.3 cmt. n.10; see, e.g.,
United States v. Clay, 162 F.4th 757, 779 (6th Cir. 2025).
The district court’s management of this complex prosecution is commendable. Our
decision to vacate and remand for further consideration of the parties’ sentencing arguments
reflects that the district court is “better position[ed]” to resolve the outstanding disputes and
weigh how they might affect its sentencing calculus. Clay, 162 F.4th at 779. We therefore
vacate Fordham’s sentence and remand for resentencing.
* * *
For the reasons given, we affirm the convictions of Fordham, Murff, and Reid. We
vacate Fordham’s sentence and remand for Fordham’s resentencing.

-- 27 of 27 --