Criminal Law

Record contained sufficient evidence to support jury's guilty verdict on charge of filing false tax returns and conspiracy to defraud U.S. Defendant could not locate receipts to support alleged large business expenses, and defendant had inconsistently told agent that he had no idea where figures on tax returns had originated. Moreover, defendant took personal draws from business that greatly exceeded his reported income. Record also showed that defendant was complicit in understatement of taxes, and that tax preparer had provided notes to defendant to explain falsification of taxes.

In prosecution on advertising, transporting and possessing child pornography, Dist. Ct. did not err in denying defendant's for-cause challenge to prospective juror who initially indicated that she would find it difficult to be fair to defendant due to incident where individual had attempted to kidnap prospective juror's daughter. Juror's experience was unrelated to charged offense, and said juror eventually indicated that she could set her experience aside and be fair to defendant, and that she would give defendant benefit of doubt. Moreover, Dist. Ct. was in better position to determine ability of prospective juror to follow its instructions. (Dissent filed.)

Dist. Ct. did not commit plain error in sentencing defendant to 300-month term of incarceration on drug distribution charge based in part on finding that defendant was career offender, which in turn was based in part on defendant's two state-court domestic assault convictions that Dist. C. treated as crimes of violence. While instant state-court offense covered both intentional and reckless mental states, record was silent as to whether defendant had requisite mental state to qualify state-court convictions as crimes of violence. However, defendant's failure to object at sentencing hearing to classification of state-court convictions as crimes of violence meant that Dist. Ct. could rely on presentence report's classification of said convictions as crime of violence in absence of any evidence that sentencing error occurred.

Dist. Ct. erred in summarily finding under Fed. R. Crim Pro. 42(b) that defendant was in direct criminal contempt of court by extorting his radio audience to flood Dist. Ct. with e-mails, some of which contained threatening language, while Dist. Ct. was considering civil contempt proceeding against defendant. Dist. Ct. should have proceeded under Rule 42(a) requiring normal criminal process and could not render summary disposition since any contempt was done outside Dist. Ct.'s presence. Ct. of Appeals rejected argument that presence condition was satisfied where Dist. Ct. read e-mails on court's computer since Dist. Ct. had to do outside research to determine why it was getting e-mails. Fact that there may have been urgency to preserve court's security did not justify need to punish defendant summarily.