Criminal Law

Dist. Ct. did not err in sentencing defendant to 70-month term of incarceration on felon in possession of firearm charge, after finding that defendant was responsible for possession of eight or more firearms. Dist. Ct. could properly base said finding on testimony of: (1) special agent, who recounted statement made by co-defendant, who asserted that she had purchased eight firearms on behalf of defendant; and (2) defendant’s post-arrest statement indicating that co-defendant had purchased multiple guns for him. Fact that no govt. witness could independently verify that defendant ultimately possessed each of eight guns purchased by co-defendant did not require different result. Moreover, Dist. Ct. was not required to accept defendant’s statement that he possessed only two firearms, where defendant gave inconsistent statements regarding number of firearms he had actually possessed.

In prosecution on drug and firearm charges, Dist. Ct. did not err in denying defendant’s motion to suppress drugs seized during search of defendant during police stop of third-party and others, where defendant was in same vehicle with third-party, who was wanted for arrest on unrelated charge. Initial stop and brief frisk of defendant for weapons (which did not produce instant drugs) was proper to ensure officer’s safety when arresting third-party. Moreover, defendant's continued detention and second search was appropriate, where officer noticed blood on defendant’s clothing and on clothing of third-party and others in vehicle. Fact that officer used handcuffs for defendant's initial detention did not require different result. Moreover, any error was harmless, where instant drugs would have been discovered at scene of initial stop since other officers came to scene with information that defendant matched description of suspect in recent armed robbery, which, in turn, would have provided second basis for searching defendant.

Dist. Ct. did not err in sentencing defendant to 190-month term of incarceration on drug conspiracy charge based in part on finding that instant conspiracy involved between 15 to 50 kilograms of cocaine. Ct. rejected defendant’s argument that govt. was required to prove instant drug quantity beyond reasonable doubt, and Ct. further found that there was sufficient evidence to support Dist. Ct.’s finding under preponderance of evidence standard that conspiracy concerned at least 15 kilograms of cocaine where: (1) police found 9.5 kilograms of cocaine, plus approximately $124,000 in cash from defendant’s home on day of his arrest that suggested that defendant was high volume dealer of cocaine; and (2) another individual stated that he had participated in long-term series of cocaine sales with defendant.

In prosecution on fraud and aggravated identity theft charges, prosecutor did not commit any misconduct by making multiple references during closing argument to defendant as being liar. While defendant argued that said references denied him fair trial because they constituted improper character attack, record showed that said accusations constitute fair commentary on fact that defendant’s testimony was directly contradicted by multiple govt. witnesses, who had no motive to lie, as well as by physical evidence. Ct. further noted that prosecutor, in pointing out said contradictions, did not inject his personal opinion as to defendant’s credibility.

Dist. Ct. did not err in sentencing defendant to 87-month term of incarceration on extortion charges in which defendant had obtained $55,000 from victim after convincing victim that he had kidnapped former victim’s girlfriend and would harm victim’s parents. Dist. Ct. could properly impose two-level enhancement under section 2B3.2(b)(2) of USSG based on defendant’s demand of $75,000 plus new car, and defendant could not negate effect of said demand, even though victim allegedly owed debt to defendant. Moreover, Dist. Ct. could properly add another three offense levels to sentence based on defendant’s demonstrated ability to carry out threatened harm to victim’s family, where record showed that defendant had researched address and other personal information about victim’s family. Also, Dist. Ct. did not err in denying defendant any reduction in offense level based on his guilty plea, where defendant had attempted to enlist another individual to intimidate victim into not testifying against defendant, and where defendant had falsely claimed at guilty plea hearing that he had never taken any money from victim.