U.S. v. Montez

In prosecution on drug distribution charge, Dist. Ct. did not abuse its discretion in admitting wiretapped conversations defendant had with third-party that gave details surrounding drug transaction at issue in charged offense. While defendant argued that said admission violated hearsay rule with respect to third-party’s statements, Dist. Ct. could properly admit said wiretapped statements, since: (1) third-party’s statements gave context to defendant’s admissions made in wiretapped conversations and were not admitted to establish truth of third-party’s statements; and (2) without third-party’s statements, defendant’s statements would have been unintelligible. Also, Dist. Ct.’s did not err in sentencing defendant to 210-month term of incarceration, even though said sentence was enhanced by fact that defendant qualified as career offender under Section 4B1.1 of Sentencing Guidelines. Defendant’s prior Illinois conviction for aggravated battery of officer was qualifying “crime of violence,” where uncontested findings in presentence report indicated that defendant was convicted under aggravated battery statute’s bodily harm clause.