533 F. App'x 83
3d Cir.2013Background
- Boodoo and Mark were convicted of conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute a controlled substance; Mark was also convicted of conspiracy to import with intent to distribute.
- Evidence included intercepted calls, video recordings, and testimony from purchasers, a confidential informant, and DEA agents detailing the conspiracy’s operation.
- The district court sentenced Boodoo to 121 months and Mark to a sentence corresponding to the conspiracy calculations; both challenged convictions and/or sentences on appeal.
- The panel affirmed the convictions but vacated both sentences and remanded for resentencing.
- Appellate issues included sufficiency of the conspiracy evidence, alleged mistrial denial, and sentencing.errors under revised statutes and procedures.
- For Boodoo, the court vacated the sentence and remanded for resentencing under the Fair Sentencing Act; for Mark, the sentence was vacated and remanded for resentencing after Rule 32(i)(1)(A) PSR considerations.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sufficiency of conspiracy evidence | Boodoo/Mark contend evidence only showed buyer-seller links. | Boodoo/Mark argue insufficiency to prove unity, intent, and agreement. | Convictions affirmed; rational jury could find conspiracy elements beyond reasonable doubt. |
| Conspiracy to import element (Count 18) sufficiency | Evidence showed Mark participated in import conspiracy. | Challenge to import-conspiracy proof. | Conviction for conspiracy to import with intent to distribute affirmed. |
| Mistrial due to witness remark | Statement about informant relocation expenses prejudiced Mark. | Mistrial should have been granted. | No abuse of discretion; remark isolated and curable; convictions affirmed. |
| Sentencing under Fair Sentencing Act and Rule 32 | Apply Fair Sentencing Act to post-August 3, 2010 sentencing; challenge PSR handling. | Dispute over PSR reading, mandatory minimums, and history category. | Boodoo: vacated and remanded for resentencing under Fair Sentencing Act; Mark: sentence vacated and remanded for resentencing for Rule 32(i)(1)(A) compliance. |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Dent, 149 F.3d 180 (3d Cir. 1998) (standard for sufficiency of evidence on conspiracy)
- United States v. Voigt, 89 F.3d 1050 (3d Cir. 1996) (weighing evidence for sufficiency; deferential standard)
- United States v. Gonzalez, 918 F.2d 1129 (3d Cir. 1990) (elements of conspiracy; guilt must be shown beyond a reasonable doubt)
- United States v. Pressler, 256 F.3d 144 (3d Cir. 2001) (unity of purpose, shared goal, and agreement for conspiracy)
- United States v. Boria, 592 F.3d 476 (3d Cir. 2010) (knowledge of illegal objective in conspiracy context)
- United States v. Brodie, 403 F.3d 123 (3d Cir. 2005) (circumstantial inference of a preconceived scheme)
- United States v. Samuels, 741 F.3d 570 (3d Cir. 1984) (guilt remains personal; evidence considered cumulatively)
- United States v. Lore, 430 F.3d 190 (3d Cir. 2005) (test for prejudice from a witness’s remarks; three-factor test)
- United States v. Xavier, 2 F.3d 1281 (3d Cir. 1993) (prejudice assessment and curative actions example)
- United States v. Merced, 603 F.3d 203 (3d Cir. 2010) (need for a reasoned basis in sentencing decisions)
- Dixon v. United States, 648 F.3d 195 (3d Cir. 2011) (Fair Sentencing Act applied to post-August 3, 2010 sentences)
- Dorsey v. United States, 132 S. Ct. 2321 (2012) (Fair Sentencing Act scope and application)
- Rita v. United States, 551 U.S. 338 (2007) (requirement of meaningful appellate review and reasoned decisionmaking)
- United States v. Osborne, 291 F.3d 908 (6th Cir. 2002) (Rule 32(i)(1)(A) remand when PSR not properly reviewed)