US v. Gonzalez-Melendez

Filing 920100113

Opinion

var gAgent = navigator.userAgent.toLowerCase()
var gWindows = ( (gAgent.indexOf( "win" ) != -1 ) || ( gAgent.indexOf( "16bit" ) != -1 ) )
var gIE = ( gAgent.indexOf( "msie" ) != -1 )
var bInlineFloats = ( gWindows && gIE && ( parseInt( navigator.appVersion ) >= 4 ) )
var floatwnd = 0

var WPFootnote1 = 'Of the Eighth Circuit, sitting by designation.\
'

var WPFootnote2 = 'The appellant does not challenge the sufficiency of the\
evidence, and the facts are largely not in dispute. We thus\
provide a truncated background narrative. See United States v.\
Santiago, 566 F.3d 65, 67 (1st Cir. 2009). We supplement this\
description with additional details as necessary to resolve issues\
raised in this appeal.\
'

var WPFootnote3 = 'In this note, the jury requested copies of the indictment and\
the court\'s instructions of law, as well as an explanation of an\
unspecified issue from the district court. See Gonzalez-Melendez\
I, 570 F.3d at 3.\
'

var WPFootnote4 = ' Although we are treating the appellant\'s 403 argument as\
preserved, a strong argument could be made that it was not. A\
review of the record indicates that appellant\'s counsel did not\
object to either of the witness\' testimony on 403 grounds. See\
United States v. Henderson, 320 F.3d 92, 102 (1st Cir. 2003) ("If\
a new basis for objection is raised for the first time on appeal,\
the ground is not subject to harmless error review, and may only be\
reviewed for plain error."). \
'

var WPFootnote5 = 'Because we affirm the district court\'s conclusion that the\
Form was not discoverable under the Jencks Act, we have no reason\
to apply the especially rigorous form of harmless error review that\
is required when Jencks Act material was not disclosed. See\
Gonzalez-Melendez I, 570 F.3d at 5 (citing Goldberg, 425 U.S. at\
111 n.21).\
'

var WPFootnote6 = 'We can be sure of the harmlessness of this error because the\
note, received at the beginning of deliberations, did not suggest\
that the jury suffered from substantial confusion or needed\
explanation of any specific topic. Moreover, the jury continued to\
deliberate and request additional materials and clarification. \
Indeed, the jury sent the judge two more notes before eventually\
reaching a verdict. Thus, it is likely that the jury\'s need for an\
explanation, and any consequent jury confusion, dissipated before\
it rendered a verdict. Therefore, the appellant suffered no\
prejudice.\
'

var WPFootnote7 = 'The text of Rule 32 provides in pertinent part that "[b]efore\
imposing sentence, the court must: . . . address the defendant\
personally in order to permit the defendant to speak or present any\
information to mitigate the sentence." Fed. R. Crim. P.\
32(i)(4)(A)(ii).\
'

var WPFootnote8 = 'Because we remand this case for re-sentencing, we need not\
take up the appellant\'s remaining sentencing arguments, and note\
that he is not precluded from seeking a non-guidelines sentence\
during re-sentencing. See De Alba Pagan, 33 F.3d at 130 n.6.\
'

function WPShow( WPid, WPtext )
{
if( bInlineFloats )
eval( "document.all." + WPid + ".style.visibility = 'visible'" );
else
{
if( floatwnd == 0 || floatwnd.closed )
floatwnd = window.open( "", "comment", "toolbars=0,width=600,height=200,resizable=1,scrollbars=1,dependent=1" );
floatwnd.document.open( "text/html", "replace" );
floatwnd.document.write( "\r\n" );
floatwnd.document.write( " p { margin-top:0px; margin-bottom:1px; } \r\n" );
floatwnd.document.write( "\r\n" );
floatwnd.document.write( WPtext );
floatwnd.document.write( 'Close');
floatwnd.document.write( "