Criminal Law

Dist. Ct. did not err in sentencing defendant to 180-month term of incarceration on charge of receipt of child pornography based in part on Dist. Ct.'s finding that defendant's prior conviction for criminal trespass involving minor qualified as relevant conduct as part of pattern of activity involving sexual exploitation of minor under section 2G2.2(b)(5) of USSG, and that under application note 3 to section 2G2.2, said relevant conduct could be used to increase defendant's criminal history category. Ct. found that application note 3 created exception to general rule that relevant conduct may not be considered when computing defendant's criminal history score. Ct. also found that length of sentence was substantively reasonable.

Dist. Ct. did not err in sentencing defendant to 78-month term of incarceration on charge of possession of child pornography based in part on number of images enhancement under section 2G2.2 of USSG and sadistic images enhancement under section 2G2(b)(4) of USSG. Ct. rejected defendant's claims that section 2G2.2 was unconstitutional because it was legislated by Congress, as opposed to being promulgated by Sentencing Commission, or that enhancement for sadistic images otherwise constituted improper double counting.

Dist. Ct. did not err in sentencing defendant to above-guideline 60-month term of incarceration on charge of conspiracy to produce fake identification and immigration documents. Ct. rejected defendant's claim that he was entitled to minor participant reduction where defendant played administrative role in directing others in conspiracy, and where police found $200,000 of conspiracy's money in defendant's home. Moreover, Ct. rejected defendant's claim that he was entitled to three-level reduction for acceptance of responsibility where Ct. found that defendant untruthfully minimized his participation in conspiracy and falsely denied knowing that his conduct was crime. Moreover, above-guideline sentence was reasonable given defendant's concession that he created approximately 30,000 fake documents.

Dist. Ct. did not err in denying defendant's habeas petition challenging his murder conviction on grounds that his trial counsel was ineffective for failing to address certain outbursts from spectators, who claimed that defendant was guilty of charged offense, or to object to defendant wearing ankle restraints during trial. Defendant failed to preserve for review restraint issue by failing to raise it in appeal from state-court denial of his post-conviction petition. Moreover, defendant failed to establish any prejudice as to spectator outbursts where record failed to identify substance of outbursts and where each juror told trial court that outbursts did not affect his or ability to render fair verdict.

Record contained sufficient evidence to support defendant's conviction on charges of distribution of child pornography, as well as possession of child pornography, even though defendant argued that convictions on both charges violated Double Jeopardy Clause since possession charge was lesser-included offence of distribution charge. No Double Jeopardy violation occurred since both convictions did not rest on same set of operative facts since distribution charge occurred when defendant sent via his computer images of child pornography, and possession charge occurred one month later when police discovered said images on defendant's computer. Fact that defendant had continued to possess same images after he distributed copies of said images did not require different result.

Dist. Ct. did not err in sentencing defendant to 97-month term of incarceration on bank robbery charges that involved robberies of four banks, even though defendant argued that Dist. Ct. failed to consider his difficult family background and various steps towards rehabilitation taken while in prison. Instant sentence was reasonable in view of fact that applicable guidelines called for sentence within 151 to 188-month range, and record showed that Dist. Ct. actually discussed defendant's background, along with other section 3553(a) factors.

Dist. Ct. erred in sentencing defendant to 137-month term of incarceration on crack-cocaine offenses based, in part, on Dist. Ct. observation that defendant was not entitled to retroactive reduction in his sentence under 18 USC section 3582(c)(2) based upon reduction in Guideline range for crack offenses in view of fact that defendant had been found guilty of certain prison infractions. Defendant is entitled to new section 3582(c)(2) hearing to present evidence to dispute said factual observations about his prison record (as well as determine source of said information) where record did not otherwise contain certified copy of his prison disciplinary record.

Record contained sufficient evidence to support jury's guilty verdict on charge of making false statement to federal law enforcement officer, who was investigating defendant's purchase of several firearms. While defendant claimed that several of his recently purchased firearms were stolen from backseat of his unlocked car, jury could find that defendant had lied about why he no longer possessed said firearms where: (1) defendant lacked sufficient funds to purchase said firearms on his own; and (2) defendant reported missing firearms to police only after he was initially approached by federal officer inquiring about said firearms. Dist. Ct. also did not err in excluding evidence that defendant had offered to take pre-trial polygraph test where record was silent as to defendant's knowledge about admissibility of any test results at time alleged offer had been made.