Criminal Law

Dist. Ct. erred in summarily holding defendant’s counsel in contempt for, among other things, failing to appear at previously scheduled status conference that Dist. Ct. had mandated that counsel personally attend. While Dist. Ct. found that counsel had lied with respect to statements made in motion to continue show cause hearing, Dist. Ct. could not use summary contempt procedures under Rule 42(b) to make instant contempt finding since: (1) counsel’s failure to appear at status conference did not occur in Dist. Ct.’s actual presence; (2) any false statements that counsel made in motion to continue show cause hearing did not occur in Dist. Ct.’s presence; and (3) any testimony given by counsel at show cause hearing could be found contemptuous only after Dist. Ct. relied on extrinsic evidence and engaged in fact-finding. Ct., though, rejected counsel’s claim that evidence at show cause hearing was insufficient to establish contempt where contents of counsel’s motion to continue show cause hearing, as well as counsel’s testimony, was sufficiently “troubling” to warrant new hearing.

In prosecution on drug conspiracy charge, Dist. Ct. did not err in sentencing defendants to 80-month and 120-month terms of incarceration based in part on finding that defendants were organizers or leaders of drug organization that involved 5 or more participants under section 3B1.1(a) of USSG. Record showed that, along with instant two defendants, there were three other individuals, who assisted defendants in procuring and distributing drugs pursuant to series of drug sales. Fact that defendants did not exercise control over one individual who served as drug supplier did not require different result since defendants needed to control only one individual for enhancement to apply. Moreover, Dist. Ct. did not err in giving one defendant significantly longer sentence where: (1) unlike other defendant, said defendant qualified for 10-year mandatory minimum sentence due to existence of prior conviction; (2) unlike other defendant, said defendant did not enter into plea agreement with govt.; and (3) said defendant had longer involvement in relevant drug sales that extended to time that said defendant had been incarcerated.