Criminal Law

Dist. Ct. erred in sentencing defendant to 97-month term of incarceration on drug distribution charge where, although said sentence was within applicable guideline range, Dist. Ct. failed to provide any explanation for imposing said sentence at high end of guideline other than fact that trafficking in heroin was serious crime. Also, Dist. Ct.’s observation that instant sentence would give defendant opportunity to learn lawful work skills violated rule in Tapia, 131 S.Ct 2382, which prohibits consideration of potential for rehabilitation as factor in length of sentence

Dist. Ct. did not err in denying defendant’s motion to dismiss instant wire fraud indictment on grounds that Pakistani official had denied U.S. petition to extradite defendant, after finding that U.S. had failed to present prima facie case of defendant’s guilt on wire fraud charge. Defendant also claimed that dismissal of indictment was appropriate under speedy trial provision of 6th Amendment, where instant criminal matter had been pending since 2004. Ct. of Appeals lacked jurisdiction to consider speedy trial issue since Dist. Ct.’s denial of defendant’s motion on said issue was not final order. Moreover, Ct. refused to decide whether fugitive disentitlement doctrine applied, where defendant, who had dual citizenship with Pakistan, moved to Pakistan prior to instant indictment. However, Dist. Ct. was not required to give comity to Pakistani official's ruling since it too was not final, and since no additional probable cause hearing was required once defendant had been indicted.

In prosecution on drug conspiracy charge, Dist. Ct. did not err in admitting several wiretapped telephone conversations involving defendant’s alleged co-conspirators. Dist. Ct. could properly find under preponderance of evidence standard that govt. established requisite foundation for admitting such statements where: (1) defendant did not dispute that drug conspiracy existed or that said statements concerning plans for drug sales were made in furtherance of said conspiracy; and (2) record showed, and jury found, that defendant had joined said conspiracy. Fact that many co-conspirator’s statements were made prior to defendant’s joining of conspiracy was irrelevant, where defendant had essentially adopted previous acts and declarations of his co-conspirators when he joined conspiracy.

In prosecution on charge of unlawful possession of firearm by felon, Dist. Ct. did not err in giving instruction that informed jury that govt. had to prove that “defendant knowingly possessed a firearm.” While defendant argued that instruction was defective because jury was required to unanimously agree that he possessed specific firearm in order to convict him under 18 USC section 922(g), Ct. found that possession of specific firearm was not element of charged offense. Ct. further held that prosecutor’s repeated misstatement regarding caliber size of firearm at issue in charged offense did not deprive defendant of fair trial.