Criminal Law

Dist. Ct. did not err in sentencing defendants to 120-month and 200-month terms of incarceration on drug conspiracy charge based on finding that conspiracy involved at least 20 kilograms of cocaine. Undercover agent told defendants during two recorded conversations that targeted stash house typically contained 20 kilograms of cocaine, and Dist. Ct. could find that said evidence met reasonably foreseeable standard when determining drug quantity at issue in charged conspiracy.

In prosecution on wire fraud charge, Dist. Ct. did not err in denying defendant's motion to dismiss based on her claim that instant 1,229-day delay in bringing her case to trial violated Speedy Trial Act, as well as her 6th Amendment right to speedy trial. Defendant only cited one continuance/exclusion of time in her motion to dismiss, and thus at best could seek only plain error review as to any other exclusions. Moreover, record supported Dist. Ct.'s finding that no Speedy Trial Act violation occurred where all but one "end-of-justice" exclusions were adequately supported by findings in record based on complexity of case, magnitude of discovery and attorneys' schedules. Fact that Dist. Ct. initially found that one delay was erroneously attributed as "end-of-justice" exclusion did not require different result where Dist. Ct. orally explained at time continuance was granted that said delay was attributable to medical emergency of essential govt. witness. Also, while Dist. Ct. failed to make required findings with respect to one delay attributable to preparation of pre-trial motion, instant delays chargeable to govt. were still less than 70 days allowed under Act. Ct. also found no 6th Amendment speedy trial violation where defendant was responsible for many of pre-trial continuances, and where she failed to establish any prejudice resulting from instant delay.

Dist. Ct. did not err in denying defendant's motion to dismiss his indictment on drug conspiracy charges even though English magistrate found in extradition proceeding that U.S. govt. failed to present sufficient evidence to establish that defendant was individual named in indictment. Under United Kingdom's concept of collateral estoppel, United Kingdom would not give preclusive effect to findings in extradition proceeding where collateral estoppel is not applied to criminal matters. Moreover, while collateral estoppel might apply under federal common law to rulings made in extradition proceeding, collateral estoppel did not apply in instant case where instant finding that govt. failed to present sufficient evidence in extradition proceeding to establish identity of defendant would have no weight in actual trial on instant charge since govt. would be entitled to present more and different evidence to establish defendant's guilt.