Criminal Law

Dist. Ct. did not err in sentencing defendant to 144-month term of incarceration on conspiracy to commit bank robbery charge, even though Dist. Ct. imposed two-level enhancement for carjacking under circumstances where defendant’s accomplice took car keys from bank employee and eventually left bank in employee’s car. Ct. rejected defendant’s argument that said enhancement did not apply where accomplice only took car keys, as opposed to car, while in presence of employee. Moreover, employee was under restraint at time keys were taken from her purse.

In prosecution on charge of making false statement in connection with purchase of firearm under 18 USC section 922(a)(6), Dist. Ct. did not err in giving “ostrich” instruction allowing jury to find that defendant “knowingly” made false statement under circumstances where he strongly suspected that he made false statement about non-existence of misdemeanor conviction of domestic violence and deliberately avoided truth in making such statement. Record showed that defendant originally (and correctly) answered “yes” to question as to whether he had been convicted of misdemeanor crime of domestic violence, but changed answer to “no” when prompted by computer to check his answers to all questions. Moreover, jury could properly find that defendant’s change from correct answer to wrong answer demonstrated either direct knowledge regarding existence of said conviction or deliberate avoidance of truth where defendant failed to read computer’s instructions as to how to answer said question.

Dist. Ct. did not err in denying defendant’s habeas petition challenging his murder conviction on ground that his trial counsel was ineffective by failing to properly impeach witness about alleged inculpatory statement defendant made regarding shooting of victim. While defense counsel attempted to impeach witness by referring to statement witness made to defense counsel and then abandoned said line of questioning after being reminded that counsel might have to withdraw from case to extent that counsel might have made himself witness on defendant’s behalf, any error by counsel in failing to have third-party present during alleged conversation for impeachment purposes was harmless, where said attempted impeachment did nothing to discredit other evidence placing defendant at scene of crime and identifying defendant as shooter. Dist. Ct. also did not err in rejecting claim that state-court improperly denied his post-conviction petition that challenged said identification evidence, since instant challenge to state-court’s interpretation of state law is not cognizable on habeas review.

Dist. Ct. did not err in sentencing defendant to 41-month term of incarceration on escape charge that was imposed consecutively to sentence given to bank robbery charge to which defendant was incarcerated at time of escape. While defendant argued that section 5G1.3(b) of USSG applied so as to require that he be given concurrent sentence for his escape charge, section 5G1.3(b) did not apply since his bank robbery was completed offense at time of escape, and thus did not constitute relevant conduct with respect to his escape charge. Moreover, defendant could not establish additional requirement that his bank robbery offense serve as basis for any increase in offense level assigned to his escape charge.