Criminal Law

Dist. Ct. did not err in sentencing defendant to 262-month term of incarceration on charge of using minors to produce child pornography based in part on finding that defendant actually distributed series of pornographic pictures where defendant admitted in pre-sentencing written allocution that he generated said pictures and sent them to third-party. Moreover, Dist. Ct. could properly reject defendant’s claim that said allocution was inadmissible as part of proffer agreement between defendant and govt., since defendant used said allocution to affirmatively present his own mitigation argument. Ct. also found that instant sentence was substantively reasonable, even though defendant presented substantial mitigation evidence, where record showed that defendant used three minor victims, two of whom were related to defendant, to generate his pornography.

In sentencing defendants on drug conspiracy conviction, Dist. Ct. did not err in determining that participants in drug conspiracy produced and distributed 700 grams of heroin per week. Dist. Ct. could find officer believable in his testimony that one member of conspiracy calculated heroin sales at 700 grams per week, and Dist. Ct. was not required to believe other members of conspiracy who calculated heroin sales at 250 grams per week. Moreover, Dist. Ct. could properly apply 700 figure to all members of conspiracy. Dist. Ct. erred, though, in applying as to one defendant two-level enhancement under section 2D1.1(b)(1) of USSG for possession of firearms by other members of conspiracy, where record did not indicate that said defendant was aware of presence of firearms during operations of conspiracy.

Dist. Ct. erred in dismissing as untimely plaintiff-prisoner’s section 1983 action alleging that defendants-prison doctors and nurse were deliberately indifferent to his medical needs by delaying certain medical tests that would have timely discovered his prostate cancer. Two-year statute of limitations period for section 1983 deliberate-indifference case does not begin until plaintiff knows of his injury and its cause, and plaintiff’s limitation period did not begin until he learned of his cancer diagnosis, which was within two years of filing of instant action.

Defendant was entitled to new sentence hearing on his conviction on drug conspiracy charges where record showed that Dist. Ct. failed to adequately consider defendant’s primary argument that his history of mental health problems warranted below-guidelines sentence. Defendant presented expert testimony regarding his decreased likelihood to re-offend upon his release from prison, and Dist. Ct.’s fleeting reference to defendant’s “mental health issues” made it impossible to review whether Dist. Ct. adequately considered defendant’s argument.

Defendant was entitled to new sentencing hearing on his drug conspiracy conviction where Dist. Ct. failed to evaluate defendant’s claim that he was entitled to reduction of sentence based on his minor participation in drug conspiracy, and where govt. agreed with defendant that he was entitled to mitigation-role reduction under section 3B1.2 of USSG. On remand, Dist. Ct. should look at defendant’s role in conspiracy as whole with respect to short duration of his participation in conspiracy, his limited relationships with other participants in conspiracy, his limited potential for financial gain, as well as his limited knowledge of conspiracy.

Record contained sufficient evidence to support entry of defendant’s guilty plea to charge of interstate transportation of child pornography where defendant indicated during plea colloquy that: (1) he downloaded child pornography onto laptop; and (2) he knew laptop contained child pornography at time he crossed Canadian border and knew that laptop was with him at time he crossed border. Ct. rejected defendant’s claim that charged offense required proof that he knew that transportation of laptop containing child pornography constituted violation of law.