Criminal Law

Dist. Ct. did not err in sentencing defendant to 30-year term of incarceration on seven-counts of receipt, possession and distribution of child pornography charges where Dist. Ct. imposed six concurrent 20-year sentences on distribution and receipt counts, as well as consecutive 10-year sentence on possession count. Instant sentence was below sentencing guidelines, and Dist. Ct was not required to impose consecutive sentence on possession count. Moreover, Dist. Ct. could impose said sentence after finding that defendant exhibited pattern of activity involving sexual abuse of victims, even though such pattern concerned uncharged conduct. Dist. Ct. erred, though, in imposing restitution amounts of $3,367,854 and $965,827.64 for damages incurred by two girls whose pornographic images were found in defendant’s possession. While record supported Dist. Ct.’s calculation of damages, it improperly failed to reduce one award by amounts victim had received from other defendants in other cases. Also, new hearing was required to determine whether defendant had actually downloaded and/or had transmitted said images to other individuals

Record showed no violation of Grand Jury Clause of 5th Amendment with respect to defendant’s conviction on four counts of interstate transportation of stolen cell phones in violation of 18 USC section 2314, even though defendant argued that govt.’s evidence at trial constructively amended indictment to include additional offense conduct (i.e., transportation of items that had been “taken by fraud”) where language in indictment mentioned only transportation of items that had been “stolen.” Term “stolen” is broad enough to encompass fraudulent taking, such that there was no impermissible variance between evidence adduced at trial and language in indictment. Additionally, Dist. Ct. did not err in enhancing defendant’s sentence based on finding that defendant was person in business of receiving and selling stolen cell phones, even though defendant had legitimate business that included sales of cell phones.

Dist. Ct. did not err in granting defendant-employer’s motion for summary judgment in action alleging that defendant reassigned plaintiff to different job on account of her race, sex and/or age after plaintiff was involved in verbal altercation with co-worker. While plaintiff alleged that defendant treated certain co-workers more favorably, plaintiff failed to demonstrate that said co-workers were similarly situated for purposes of establishing prima facie discrimination case where plaintiff failed to show that said co-orkers were involved in similar misconduct, or that said co-workers shared plaintiff’s job description or supervisor.

Dist. Ct. did not err in sentencing defendant to 240-month term of incarceration on crack cocaine distribution charges even though defendant argued that he should have been sentenced under more lenient sentencing guidelines of Fair Sentencing Act. Although defendant raised instant issue at his guilty plea hearing, defendant waived instant issue by failing to raise it at his sentencing hearing where his counsel affirmatively withdrew all objections to presentence report and agreed to lower career offender sentencing guideline range that effectively avoided hearing on relevant conduct.