Criminal Law

Dist. Ct. did not err in denying defendant’s habeas petition challenging imposition of special parole term on drug conviction even though prison officials had erroneously issued defendant notice of discharge after defendant had completed regular parole of his sentence. Record showed that Dist. Ct. originally sentenced defendant to special parole term that was to be served after defendant had completed regular parole term of sentence, and that U.S. Parole Commission issued Certificate of Special Parole nunc pro tunc six hours prior to defendant committing unrelated armed robbery. Ct. rejected defendant’s claim that issuance of detainer (to be enforced after completion of armed robbery sentence) based on violation of special parole was improper on grounds that he received inadequate notice of special parole term since defendant had notice of special parole at original sentencing. Moreover, Ct. rejected defendant’s claim that Commission was equitably estopped from enforcing detainer where record showed at most existence of mere mistake in issuance of notice of discharge.

Dist. Ct. did not err in denying defendant’s motion to suppress gun that police seized from defendant pursuant to Terry stop in which police questioned defendant and others in group that police had observed drinking alcohol in public. Police could properly stop entire group where local ordinance prohibited individuals from consuming alcohol in public, and officer could properly search defendant for weapons where: (1) defendant failed to initially comply with officer’s directive to move to certain area and instead took five steps in opposite direction; (2) instant stop took place in high crime area where recent shooting had occurred; and (3) defendant displayed nervous behavior when confronting officer. Fact that officer indicated that he was going to search all members of group for weapons upon arrival at scene did not require different result where justification for search does not depend on subjective intent of officer.

Defendant could properly be found guilty of possession of firearms in furtherance of drug distribution under 18 USC section 924(c), even though facts of case indicated that defendant exchanged drugs for firearms instead of cash. When defendant exchanged drugs for guns, he took possession of guns in way that furthered distribution of drugs. Fact that defendant did not come into possession of guns until after drugs had been distributed did not require different result.