Criminal Law

Dist. Ct. did not err in sentencing defendant to 240-month term of incarceration on drug conspiracy and firearm charges based in part on calculation of drug sales occurring at two different locations that were attributed to defendant. Record supported instant drug calculation even though co-defendants made some drug sales at times when defendant was not physically present. Moreover, Dist. Ct. could view disparity between length of defendant's sentence and sentences given to some co-defendants as justified where defendant was career offender who, unlike some of his co-defendants, had not cooperated with authorities.

Dist. Ct. did not err in sentencing defendant to 120-month term of incarceration on conspiracy to commit bankruptcy fraud and mail fraud charges based, in part on four-level enhancement for his leadership role in directing others, including his wife, to hide $2.5 million in assets from defendant's creditors. Dist. Ct. could properly find that defendant's involvement in scheme was otherwise extensive, without making specific finding as to number of individuals that defendant brought into scheme, where instant scheme concerned approximately nine individuals and large amounts of money over several year period. Moreover, defendant lacked standing to contest condition of term of wife's two-year probation for her role in instant conspiracies where Dist. Ct. prohibited wife from having any contact with defendant for duration of her probation period.

In prosecution on charge of illegal reentry in U.S. without permission, Dist. Ct. did not abuse discretion in preventing defense counsel from stating during closing argument that jury could not convict defendant because he was never properly removed from U.S. in first instance because authorities removed defendant to wrong country. Location to which defendant had been removed was irrelevant to jury's determination as to whether defendant was guilty of charged offense, and record failed to contain any evidence indicating that defendant's reentry in to U.S. was warranted because of defendant's placement in wrong country.

In prosecution on drug conspiracy and distribution charges, Dist. Ct. did not err in limiting defendant’s cross-examination of co-defendant (who had agreed to testify on behalf of govt.) by preventing counsel from asking about nature and extent of defendant’s arrest warrant that was pending at time of co-defendant’s arrest on instant charges. While subject arrest warrant concerned first-degree murder charge, defendant’s right to confrontation was not violated by said restriction where counsel was able to elicit from co-defendant fact that arrest warrant concerned serious felony offense, and counsel was otherwise able to explore different areas of potential bias.

Ct. of Appeals dismissed defendant's appeal of his guilty plea to drug conspiracy charge where terms of said plea contained waiver of any right to appeal conviction or sentence. Ct. rejected defendant's claim that plea was involuntary on claim that both parties mistakenly believed that defendant was eligible for safety-value treatment on his sentence since Ct. noted that plea colloquy established that defendant was entering into plea with knowledge that he might not qualify for safety-valve treatment.