Criminal Law

Dist. Ct. did not err in denying defendant’s motion to reduce his sentence under 18 USC section 3582(c)(2) on his crack cocaine distribution conviction, even though defendant claimed that he was entitled to reduction under retroactive crack cocaine sentencing guidelines. Defendant’s original sentence was based on statutory mandatory minimum 120-month sentence under 21 USC section 841(b)(1)(B) due to his prior felony drug conviction, and under Poole, 550 F3d 676, defendant cannot reduce his sentence if original sentence was based on statutory minimum. Fact that defendant’s original sentence was below 120-month statutory minimum did not require different result.

In prosecution on charge of structuring currency transactions in order to evade federal reporting requirements for transactions involving more than $10,000, Dist. Ct. improperly applied Rule 608(b) by allowing prosecutor to cross-examine defendant at length about alleged false statements made on her tax return and student financial aid applications. Record showed that prosecutor lacked good faith basis for believing that defendant had lied on said tax and financial aid forms, and said error was not harmless, where defendant’s credibility was crucial factor in determining defendant’s intent and knowledge with respect to her sizeable and daily ATM withdrawals that defendant claimed were necessary to fund purchase of house. (Dissent filed.)

Dist. Ct. did not err in dismissing defendant’s habeas petition challenging his sentence on drug distribution conviction, where said petition constituted second habeas petition that had not been previously authorized by Ct. of Appeals. Defendant filed and lost first habeas petition, and although defendant subsequently obtained reduced sentence under Amendment 750 of sentencing guidelines that retroactively set new offense levels for crack-cocaine-related convictions, said sentence did not provide defendant with opportunity to file second habeas petition that raised different sentencing issue, since his prior reduction in sentence did not occur within context of “resentence” proceeding that allowed Dist. Ct. to examine issues other than those posed under Amendment 750.

In prosecution on tax conspiracy charge stemming from scheme in which defendant and her husband submitted tax returns on behalf of two trusts for two tax years in which said returns claimed sizeable tax refunds even though trusts had never paid any taxes, Dist. Ct. did not err in admitting evidence of defendant’s submission of tax refund for trust in which she was trustee, even though indictment did not specifically mention said tax return. Tax return in which she was trustee also sought sizeable tax refund where trust had not paid any taxes, and while defendant argued that admission into evidence of said tax return constituted impermissible constructive amendment of indictment, Ct. found no constructive amendment, where indictment could be read to include all tax returns submitted by defendant and her husband during time frame set forth in indictment. Moreover, Ct. noted that disputed tax return was direct evidence of charged conspiracy.