Criminal Law

Dist. Ct. did not err in denying defendant's motion under 18 USC section 3582(c) for reduced sentence on drug conspiracy charge where said motion was based on reduced offense levels for crack cocaine crimes under sentencing guidelines. Defendant's 157-month sentence was based on stipulated term in plea agreement rather than on original sentencing guidelines. Ct. of Appeals, though, indicated that result would be different if language in plea agreement contained specific reference to original sentencing guidelines that were retroactively reduced by later amendment to guidelines.

Ct. of Appeals denied motion by defendant's counsel to withdraw after filing Anders brief in defendant's appeal of drug conspiracy conviction, even though counsel asserted that defendant's appeal was frivolous. While counsel addressed potential sentencing issues in Anders brief, counsel gave no indication that she conducted thorough evaluation of any potential trial or pre-trial issues.

Dist. Ct. erred in sentencing defendant to 188-month term of incarceration on drug conspiracy charge where sentence was imposed after Dist. Ct. rejected post-trial stipulation on drug quantity made by defendant and govt. based on similar stipulations made by govt. with co-defendants. While Dist. Ct. has authority to disregard post-trial stipulation regarding drug quantity, Dist. Ct. erred in doing so where it never questioned similar stipulations at prior sentencing hearings involving co-defendants, and where Dist. Ct. never explained justification for treating co-defendants differently with regard to quantity of drugs at issue in conspiracy based on same record.

Dist. Ct. did not err in denying defendants' motion for sentence reduction under 18 USC section 3582(c)(2) based on retroactive crack-cocaine amendments to sentencing guidelines. Record supported Dist. Ct.'s finding that each defendant was responsible for over 4.5 kilograms of crack cocaine based upon calculations of approximately 17 kilograms of crack-cocaine contained in presentence reports. Although Dist. Ct. had made original findings based on defendants' plea agreements, subject findings of greater quantity of crack-cocaine were not inconsistent with original findings where 17-kilogram figures were contained in original presentence reports.

Dist. Ct. did not err in sentencing defendant to 80-month term of incarceration on charge of illegal re-entry into U.S. where said sentence was based in part on inclusion into defendant's criminal history, three 1991-92 convictions that defendant claimed had release date that was more than 15 years before he committed instant offense. While defendant claimed that presentence report was inaccurate in that it suggested that defendant's parole on said offense had been revoked, and thus his release date on said convictions had been extended to time within relevant 15-year period, Dist. Ct. could properly rely on information contained in presentence report since defendant failed in his burden of demonstrating inaccuracy of presentence report where defendant gave only bare statement that correctional officials had provided erroneous information about status of his prior convictions.

Defendant was entitled to new trial on charge of possession of unregistered sawed-off rifle and silencer where Dist. Ct. allowed govt. to place into evidence fact that defendant had threatening sign on front door of his home, as well as security system, and permitted govt. to present 23 firearms for jury's view. Although issue at trial was whether defendant knew that sawed-off rifle possessed characteristics that required it to be registered, and whether defendant intended use of oil filter as silencer, evidence of threatening sign and security system was irrelevant and had effect of inviting jury to convict defendant based on fear or dislike for defendant. Moreover, display of all 23 firearms before jury was improper since said display improperly focused jury's attention on shear volume of fire power that defendant possessed. Prosecutor also erred in making two demonstrations during closing argument that attempted to link oil filter to rifle since said demonstrations concerned new facts that conflicted with testimony of govt.'s own expert witness.