Criminal Law

Record contained sufficient evidence to support defendant’s convictions on charges of conspiracy to make false statements to gun manufacturer and ATF officials in connection with defendant’s illegal purchase of machineguns and laser sights that resulted in defendant being able to purchase said machineguns/sights for his own purposes and to sell certain parts of said guns to others. Record showed that defendants and others submitted letters falsely claiming that Sheriff’s Dept. wanted demonstrations of otherwise prohibited weapons to induce manufacturer to sell said guns to defendant. Ct. rejected defendant’s claim that govt. failed to show that specific false statements were made. Also, record supported jury’s guilty verdict on money-laundering conspiracy charge through defendant’s use of proceeds of wire fraud to engage in money transactions exceeding $10,000 in violation of 18 USC section 1957. Record showed that defendant and others sent materially false statements to gun manufacturer asserting that machineguns were being purchased by Sheriff’s Department, and machineguns were proceeds of said wire fraud. Moreover, for purposes of section 1957, govt. was required to show that instant scheme to defraud was aimed at some form of “property,” and said element was satisfied where defendant’s deceit/fraud deprived gun manufacturer of cognizable property interest in avoiding illegal sales of its machineguns.

Dist. Ct. did not err in denying defendant’s habeas petition challenging her murder conviction on ground that police officials violated her 5^th and 14^th Amendment rights by using improper coercive tactics to generate damaging statements during 7-hour video-taped interrogation. Ct. rejected defendant’s claim that interrogation was unduly coercive, where: (1) defendant voluntarily waived her Miranda rights prior to interrogation; (2) officers did not use violence or intimidation during interrogation; (3) officers were generally attentive to defendant’s personal needs during interrogation and offered to take breaks during interrogation; and (4) police officials could properly confront plaintiff about fact that medical evidence did not support her initial claim that baby fell off bed. Also, social worker, who conveyed idea that social services might take defendant’s children away if deceased baby had been injured in defendant’s home, did not convey message that defendant would lose her children if she did not confess to murder of baby.

Record contained sufficient evidence to support jury’s guilty verdict on wire fraud charge stemming from defendant’s scheme to import from S. Korea fully-assembled turbo blowers, where defendant represented that said blowers were made in U.S.A. for purpose of obtaining funds under Recovery Act for sales of said blowers. While defendant argued that govt. improperly amended indictment by presenting evidence of misrepresentations beyond defendant’s “Buy American” certifications, govt. proved that defendant knew that his blowers were made in S. Korea and lied about that fact, and additional misrepresentations concerned same elaborate scheme to defraud govt. Also, govt. rejected defendant’s contention that blowers manufactured in S. Korea complied with Buy American certification. Moreover, record similarly supported defendant’s smuggling convictions, where defendant had mislabeled country of origin for its imported blowers. Too, Dist. Ct. could properly reduce defendant’s initial sentence of 20-month incarceration to 12-month incarceration pursuant to defendant’s motion under Rule 35(a), where: (1) basis for reduction was Dist. Ct.’s error in using defendant’s gross revenue arising out of sales of its blower, instead of his net profits arising out of said sales, when determining appropriate guideline range; and (2) said error would have warranted vacatur of original sentence on appeal.

In prosecution on charge of unlawful possession of firearm by felon, Dist. Ct. did not err in denying defendant’s motion to possess seizure of gun that was found in defendant’s car, after defendant was stopped for failure to signal more than 100 feet ahead of turning at intersection, and after drug-sniffing dog alerted on defendant’s car while officers were gathering information and processing defendant’s ticket on traffic infraction. Dist. Ct. could properly believe officers who stated that they saw defendant turn without signaling at least 100 feet from intersection, so as to justify instant stop, and Ct. rejected defendant’s argument that: (1) officers prolonged instant 7-minute stop for purposes of allowing dog to compete sniff test; and (2) dog, who rendered false alert for presence of drugs, had been improperly trained, which, in turn, undermined finding of probable cause to search defendant’s car.

Ct. of Appeals lacked jurisdiction to consider defendant’s appeal of his 21-month sentence, as well as imposition of $211,428.80 restitution order, even though defendant claimed that his sentence was unconstitutional, where he was not present at time his counsel waived any objection to restitution amount. Instant plea agreement contained appeal waiver, and defendant indicated during plea colloquy that he understood that restitution would be set at $211,428.80 figure and stated on two occasions that he expressly waived his right to appeal his sentence. Also, defendant’s failure to raise any objection to restitution amount set by Dist. Ct. when given opportunity to do so established that, in absence of any appeal waiver, defendant had deliberately abandoned said issue.

In prosecution on unlawful possession of firearm by felon charge, Dist. Ct. did not err in denying defendant’s motion to suppress items from his apartment that were seized by police pursuant to search warrant. While defendant argued that police lacked probable cause to support issuance of warrant, Dist. Ct. could properly find that probable cause supported issuance of warrant, where: (1) defendant was stopped in girlfriend’s car that contained drug paraphernalia; (2) girlfriend told police that she and defendant shared bedroom in defendant’s apartment, and that bedroom contained additional drug paraphernalia and firearm; (3) girlfriend had been in defendant’s apartment that day and gave police key to search safe; (4) police were aware of defendant’s prior drug conviction, as well as anonymous tips that defendant had been involved in drug activities; and (5) search of apartment produced gun as described by girlfriend. Also, Dist. Ct. did not err in increasing defendant’s offense level under section 2K2.1(a)(4) of USSG based on defendant’s prior Illinois methamphetamine conspiracy conviction that qualified as “controlled substance offense,” even though Guideline itself did not include drug conspiracies as such offenses. Under Raupp, 677 F.3d 756, Ct. found that inclusion of drug conspiracy offenses in Application Note to section 2K2.1(a)(4) allowed Dist. Ct. to view defendant’s drug conspiracy offense as controlled substance offense.

Record contained sufficient evidence to support jury’s guilty verdict on drug conspiracy charge, even though defendant argued that evidence only established existence of series of methamphetamine sales between defendant and certain buyers, where record showed that defendant sold drugs on credit or fronted large quantities of drugs to certain buyers, and that defendant engaged in pooling arrangements with other co-conspirators to purchase large quantities of methamphetamine that demonstrated existence of common goal to distribute said drug. Ct. further rejected defendant’s contention that there was fatal variance between proof of conspiracy at trial and conspiracy alleged in indictment. Also, govt. was not required to disclose proffer letters from its cooperating witnesses, where: (1) defense counsel made no formal request for said letters under Rule 16 and failed to explain why counsel failed to make said request; and (2) govt. produced plea agreements from said witnesses, which superseded proffer letters and outlined terms of witnesses’ cooperation. However, defendant was entitled to new sentencing hearing, where Dist. Ct. miscalculated quantity of drugs that qualified for relevant conduct, and where Dist. Ct. double-counted two quantities of drugs that actually concerned single quantity of drugs involved in single pooling arrangement.