United States v. Bunchan, 2010 U.S. App. LEXIS 24177

Bunchan was charged in 2007 with use of a facility of interstate commerce in murder-for-hire and solicitation of a crime of violence.
In 2005–2006, while awaiting trial for a fraud scheme, he discussed hiring murders with a fellow inmate who cooperated with the FBI.
The FBI used an undercover ‘Jamal’; Bunchan received Jamal’s contact info and drafted lists of murder targets.
In July 2006, Bunchan wrote a letter listing twelve targets with priority and payment amounts; the letter was mailed from prison.
Bunchan was tried on the fraud charges and then on murder-for-hire; a prior conviction and sentence on the fraud case existed.
The jury found Bunchan guilty on the murder-for-hire and solicitation counts; the district court imposed 300 months, partly upwardly departed under § 5K2.0.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Constructive amendment of indictment	Indictment not charged ‘obstruction of justice’; instruction misled the jury.	District court effectively amended the indictment by framing the underlying felony as obstruction by murder.	No constructive amendment; instructions mirrored the charged § 373 with underlying violent felony.
Jury nullification instruction	Court encouraged nullification by telling jurors they need not follow instructions.	Instruction was not improper when viewed in context; no denial of constitutional rights.	No reversible error; instructions considered in total charge did not improperly invite nullification.
Substantive reasonableness of sentence	300-month term is reasonable given institutional dangers and § 3553(a) factors.	Sentence is excessive; fraud sentence already accounted for murder-for-hire conduct, causing disparity.	Sentence affirmed as substantively reasonable; district court properly considered multiple factors and concurrent-in-part framing.

United States v. Celestin, 612 F.3d 14 (1st Cir. 2010) (constructive amendments require notice to defendant)
United States v. Dubon-Otero, 292 F.3d 1 (1st Cir. 2002) (plain-error review for unpreserved claims)
United States v. Brandao, 539 F.3d 44 (1st Cir. 2008) (plain-error standards and substantial rights)
United States v. Olano, 507 U.S. 725 (1993) (plain-error framework and structural errors)
United States v. Sepulveda, 15 F.3d 1161 (1st Cir. 1993) (juror duties and application of law)
Jones v. United States, 527 U.S. 373 (1999) (nullification-related standards and jury instructions)
United States v. Gonzalez, 570 F.3d 16 (1st Cir. 2009) (contextual evaluation of jury charges)
Sullivan v. Louisiana, 508 U.S. 275 (1993) (prejudice analysis in jury instruction errors)
United States v. Marshall, 109 F.3d 94 (1st Cir. 1997) (prosecutor/vouching considerations and contemporaneous objection)
United States v. Martin, 520 F.3d 87 (1st Cir. 2008) (sentencing review and deference to district court)
Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38 (U.S. 2007) (abuse-of-discretion standard for sentence reasonableness)