Criminal Law

Dist. Ct. did not err in sentencing defendant to 37-month term of incarceration on 2009 charge of illegal re-entry into U.S. after having been deported where said sentence was based, in part, on 16-level enhancement for being previously deported after felony conviction for drug trafficking offense. While defendant argued that his 1989 conviction for selling/transporting cocaine did not constitute qualifying crime for said enhancement under sentencing guidelines at time of his 1989 conviction, instant enhancement was proper since defendant's prior conviction was qualifying crime under 2010 sentencing guidelines applicable at time of sentencing. Ct. also rejected defendant's claim that instant enhancement was improper because his 1989 conviction had been previously used to enhance his 1995 conviction for illegal re-entry into U.S.

In prosecution on mortgage-based, wire fraud charges, Dist. Ct. did not err in admitting co-defendant's post-arrest statement, even though defendant argued that said admission violated Confrontation Clause because statement contained incriminating references to defendant. Record failed to support defendant's claim that post-arrest statement contained any facially incriminating evidence, and any possible reference to defendant in statement had been redacted prior to said admission. Fact that Dist. Ct. failed to instruct jury that it could not consider post-arrest statement as evidence against anyone other than co-defendant did not prejudice defendant in view of overwhelming nature of other evidence establishing defendant's guilt.

In prosecution on forgery charges, Dist. Ct. did not err in admitting defendant's prior forgery conviction where said admission shed light on defendant's intent and lack of mistake with respect to charged offense that concerned defendant's retention and alteration of client's checks that had been earmarked for Internal Revenue Service. Moreover, charged offense and prior forgery conviction were sufficiently similar in that in each case defendant used his business relationship with client to gain access to client's funds.

Dist. Ct. did not commit plain error in sentencing defendant to 65-month term of incarceration on drug conspiracy charge, even though govt. failed to recommend base offense level of 32, as required under plea agreement, and Dist. Ct. imposed sentence based on offense level of 37, after finding that defendant qualified as career offender. Defendant cannot establish plain error where defendant's attorney acknowledged at sentencing hearing that defendant qualified as career offender, and where proper sentencing guideline range was 37. Ct. further noted that defendant's sentence was reasonable where applicable guideline range was 262 to 327 months' incarceration.