Criminal Law

Dist. Ct. did not err in sentencing defendant to 90-month term of incarceration on charge of unauthorized presence in U.S. after having been removed, even though defendant argued that Dist. Ct. failed to address his argument that he was entitled to 19-month reduction due to govt. delay in charging him with instant offense. While said delay precluded defendant from serving instant sentence concurrently with state conviction, record showed that Dist. Ct. actually considered defendant’s argument and rejected it, after finding that defendant’s criminal history that included convictions for similar offenses dictated longer sentence. Moreover, concurrent sentence was not warranted where state conviction on drug and firearm charges was unrelated to instant charged offense.

Dist. Ct. erred in sentencing defendant to 235-month term of incarceration on drug conspiracy charge, where said sentence was based in part on imposition of 3-level enhancement under section 3B1.1 of USSG for defendant’s role as manager or supervisor in conspiracy. Instant enhancement was improper where it was based on defendant’s supervision of two buyers of drugs, and defendant lacked requisite control of said buyers, where record showed that defendant merely fronted drugs and played no role in establishing price for resale of drugs or in determining how or where said drugs could be resold. Fact that defendant demanded that said drugs be sold quickly and controlled quantity of drugs sold to buyers did not require different result.

Dist. Ct. did not err in sentencing defendant to 210-month term of incarceration on mail fraud and money laundering charges stemming from scheme to manipulate over $6 million in investors’ funds for defendant’s own personal use. Dist. Ct. could properly count married investors with joint investment accounts as two separate victims when calculating that instant scheme involved more than 50 victims for purpose of imposing enhancement under section 2B1.1(b)(2) of USSG, since spouses who hold joint investment accounts share gain and losses equally. Moreover, Dist. Ct. did not err in denying defendant’s fourth request for continuance of sentencing hearing where defendant had already incurred eight-month delay in sentencing hearing to conduct research on any issue regarding amount of loss incurred by victims, and where it was unlikely that defendant’s claimed errors would have altered final sentencing range.

Dist. Ct. did not err in sentencing defendant to 84-month term of incarceration on mail fraud charge, even though defendant argued that Dist. Ct. had failed to address his claim that applicable sentencing guideline had inflated to level that was unreasonable for someone with his age (60) and health conditions. Dist. Ct. was not required to address said argument where defendant’s argument did not concern his own characteristics and circumstances, but rather pertained to challenge to validity of guideline itself. Moreover, Dist. Ct. could properly find that defendant’s health concerns regarding his high blood pressure and cholesterol were not out of ordinary for person of his age, and that circumstances surrounding defendant’s scheme, that involved taking $3.1 million from bankers and lenders, as well as his history of fraud, supported imposition of instant sentence.

Record contained sufficient evidence to support jury’s guilty verdict on first-degree murder charge arising out of defendant’s assault of his cellmate while housed in federal prison. While defendant argued that jury should have found that he killed cellmate in heat of passion, and thus should have been convicted of only voluntary manslaughter, record supported instant first-degree murder conviction, where defendant admitted to prison guard that cellmate, as child molester, had to be killed and conceded to FBI agent that he had attacked cellmate “after some thought.” Moreover, while defendant testified that attack was triggered by spontaneous rage stemming from his own childhood sexual abuse, jury was entitled to believe his pretrial admissions instead.

In prosecution on armed bank robbery and firearm charges that resulted in conviction for defendant, Dist. Ct. did not err in denying defendant’s motion for new trial based on allegations of juror misconduct, even though alternate juror stated in affidavit that other jurors made statements during prosecution’s case indicating that they had discussed evidence and had already decided defendant’s guilt. Rule 606(b)(1) precludes consideration about how pre-deliberation statements by jurors may have affected actual deliberation and verdicts, and Dist. Ct. could properly determine that instant allegations should not be deemed prejudicial to defendant’s case where: (1) allegations of misconduct did not concern external influence on jury; and (2) jury was properly instructed with respect to importance and gravity of group deliberations.