Criminal Law

Dist. Ct. erred in failing to provide explanations for its imposition of 3 out of 7 special conditions of supervised release, and record otherwise did not provide reason for why they were imposed. Moreover, Dist. Ct. failed to explain how instant standard and special conditions for supervised release comported with statutory sentencing factors and failed to provide basis for imposing certain conditions that are to take place prior to defendant’s release from prison. However, defendant could not seek remand for new sentencing hearing, where his attorney did not raise instant sentencing issue in his Anders brief, and where defendant did not file any response to Anders brief.

Dist. Ct. did not err in sentencing defendant to 120-month term of incarceration on fraud charge based in part on finding that defendant’s Ponzi-like scheme resulted in $18.2 million loss to certain investors-victims. While defendant argued that loss figure was inaccurate because portion of instant loss occurred as result of market forces, record supported Dist. Ct.’s finding that actual loss to investors was between $7 million and $20 million where: (1) defendant had collected $16.8 million during Ponzi scheme; and (2) $16.8 million figure was within same offense level and sentencing range that was applied to defendant’s sentence. Fact that Dist. Ct. used $18.2 million figure when sentencing defendant was too small of difference from actual $16.8 million loss figure to have affected sentence in instant case.

Dist. Ct. erred in sentencing defendant to 360-month term of incarceration on drug conspiracy charge arising out of conduct that occurred in 2010, where said sentence was based in part on relevant conduct finding that included defendant’s conduct in transporting 1.8 kilograms of crack cocaine in 2008. Record failed to contain sufficient connection between defendant’s 2008 conduct and his 2010 drug conduct that formed basis of instant charged offense, where fact that defendant transported crack cocaine in both 2008 and 2010 was only similarity in conduct. Moreover, record failed to contain sufficient details with respect to mode of transportation and quantities of crack cocaine so as to establish “strong showing” of similarity for acts that occurred two years apart. Fact that 2008 and 2010 conduct involved members of same gang did not require contrary result.

Dist. Ct. erred in denying petitioner’s habeas petition challenging instant revocation of 30 days of petitioner’s good-time credits based on charge that petitioner, in his capacity as prison inmate law clerk, misused library’s computers by downloading child support and divorce legal forms pursuant to requests made by prison’s library staff. Record showed that instant downloading was “authorized” because it had been requested by prison staff, and thus record failed to establish that petitioner had violated any prison rule. Ct. rejected prison’s claim that petitioner should not have followed staff’s directives.

Motions judge from Ct. of Appeals deferred to merits panel govt.’s motion to dismiss defendant’s appeal as being frivolous, where govt. claimed in motion that defendant had waived instant appeal by entering into guilty plea. Appeal waiver in plea agreement does not deprive appellate court of jurisdiction to consider its own jurisdiction over case, and govt.’s motion would not necessarily expedite resolution of appeal, where defendant’s appointed counsel has opportunity to mount non-frivolous argument that waiver does not apply. Accordingly, where defendant has not filed his merits brief, govt. should have merely filed notice of intent to file motion to dismiss so as to allow appointed counsel to review issue with defendant to determine whether or not he wished to proceed with appeal while keeping original briefing schedule intact.