Criminal Law

Dist. Ct. did not err in sentencing defendant to 141-month term of incarceration on bank robbery and firearm charges based in part on 2-level bodily injury enhancement for eye injuries sustained by bank teller, who had been pepper-sprayed during robbery. While defendant argued that enhancement was improper because pepper spray was not dangerous weapon, Dist. Ct could properly impose enhancement based on teller's testimony that she sustained burning sensation in her eyes, which prevented her from wearing contact lenses.

Dist. Ct. erred in denying defendant's motion under 28 USC section 2255 seeking to challenge his drug distribution conviction based on claim that his trial counsel was ineffective for failing to seek suppression of crack cocaine seized from borrowed vehicle that defendant had driven. Defense counsel's decision not to file motion to suppress was based on misperception that defendant did not have reasonable expectation of privacy in borrowed vehicle in which he was driver, as well as faulty premise that defendant could not claim both privacy interest in vehicle, as well as lack of knowledge about contents of said vehicle. Moreover, remand was required for evidentiary hearing to determine whether defendant actually gave consent to search vehicle, and whether police had reasonable suspicion to question defendant prior to conducting instant search.

In prosecution on armed robbery and firearms charges, Dist. Ct. did not err in denying defendant's request to present witness to testify as to defendant's reputation for truthfulness where defendant decided not to testify at trial. Although issue arose as to whether defendant gave truthful statement when confessing to charged offenses, instant witness did not know defendant at time of offense, and thus his proposed testimony as to truthfulness of any of defendant's trial testimony would have been irrelevant where defendant did not take witness stand.

Dist. Ct. did not commit plain error in imposing 120-month term of incarceration after defendant had entered guilty plea on charge of possession of sawed-off shotgun even though Dist. Ct. neglected to hold govt. to terms of plea agreement calling for govt. to file motion seeking additional one-level reduction in criminal offense level arising out of defendant's timely entry of guilty plea. While govt. breached agreement, defendant could not show that his sentence would have been different had govt. filed said motion since instant guilty plea, which was entered on fourth day of trial, would not have warranted awarding defendant extra reduction.