2009 D e c i sion s O p inion s of the U nit e d S t at e s C our t of Appe al s for the Thir d C ir c uit 6-25-2009 

# U SA v . M uh amm a d P r e c e de nt i al or N on-P r e c e de nt i al : N on-P r e c e de nt i al D ocke t N o . 07-4592

F o llow thi s and a dd it ion al work s at : http://d i git alc ommon s .l a w . vi ll anova . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2009

Thi s de c i sion i s br ou ght t o you for f r e e and ope n a c c e s s b y the O p inion s of the U nit e d S t at e s C our t of Appe al s for the Thir d C ir c uit at V i ll anova U nive r sity S choo l of L a

w Di git al Reposit ory

. It h as be e n a c c ept e d for inclusion in 2009 D e c i sion s b y an author i z e d a dmini s tr at or of V i ll anova U nive r sity S choo l of L a

w Di git al Reposit ory

. F or mor e inform at ion, p le as e c ont a ct Be n j amin . C arl s on@l a

w . vi ll anova . e du . Re c omme nde d C it at ion " U SA v . M uh amm a d " (2009). 2009 D e cisio n s . P ape r 1135. http://d i git alc ommon s .l a

w . vi ll anova . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2009/11351 NOT P RE CE DE NT I AL UN I TED STATES CO UR T OF A PP EALS F O R T H E T H IR D C IR C U IT

___________ N o. 07- 4592

___________ UNI T E D S T AT E S OF AM E RI CA ,

v. B U W L U S A . M U H A M M A D , A p p e llan t.

___________ O n A p p e a l f

ro m th e U n ited S tate s D istric t C o u rt forthe W e ste rn D istric t o f

P e n n sy lv a n ia ( D . C . C r i m i nal N o. 05- cr - 00035) D istri ct Ju d g e: H o n o rab le M au ri ce B . C o h il l, Jr.

___________ Subm i t t ed U nderT hi r d C i r cui tL . A . R . 34. 1( a)

M ay19, 2009 B efore: F U E N T E S , JO R D A N , and N Y G A A R D C i rcui tJudg es.

( O pi ni on Fi l ed: J une 25, 2009)

OPI NI ON O F THE COURTM uhamm ad al s o ar gues t hat( 1) ther e w as i ns uffi ci entevi dence t o es t abl i s h t hat 1 he know i ngl ydepos i t ed the thr eat eni ng comm uni cat i on, ( 2) ther e w as i ns uffi ci ent e v id e n c e to p ro v e th a t a th re a t w a s m a d e , (3 ) th e p ro se c u tin g a tto rn e ye n g a g e d in m i s conducti n hi s cl os i ng ar gum ent , ( 4) the j udge enga ged i n m i s conductthatpr ej udi ced D e f e n d a n t , ( 5 ) t h e D i s t r i c tC o u r ta b u s e d i t s d i s c r e t i o n w h e n i tp e r m i t t e d e x p e r tt e s t i m o n y, ( 6 ) t h e D i s t r i c tC o u r ta b u s e d i t s d i s c r e t i o n w h e n i tp e r m i t t e d th e g o v e r n m e n tt o p l a y a v id e o f o r th e ju ry , (7 ) th e D istric t C o u rt e rre d in d e n y in g M u h a m m a d ’s m o tio n to s uppr es s cert ai n evi dence , and ( 8) t he t erm of i m pr i s onm entof 175 m ont hs w as exce s s i ve. 2 FU E N T E S, C i r cui tJ udge: B uw l us M uhamm ad appe al s hi s convi ct i on and s ent ence form ai l i ng thr eat eni ng comm uni cat i ons — l et t er s cont ai ni ng a s ol i d, w hi t e pow derbel i eved t o be anthr ax or anotherharm ful s ubs t ance — t o s ever al publ i c off i ci al s thatr es ul t ed i n a s i gni fi cant di s rupt i on of governm entoper at i ons . W hi l e M uhamm ad r ai s es a l ar ge numberof i s s ues on appea l , w e bel i eve onl yt hr ee r equi r e ext ended c om m ent : ( 1) w hetherthe D i s t r i ct C o u rt a b u se d its d isc re tio n in d e n y in g M u h a m m a d ’s m o tio n f o r a m istria l in re sp o n se to t he conduc tof one j ur or ; ( 2) w hetherM uhamm ad’ s i ndi ctm entand convi ct i on vi ol at e the E x PostFact o C l aus e orD ue Pr oces s C l aus e of the C ons t i tut i on; and ( 3) w hetherthe pr os ecut i ng at t or neyengage d i n m i s conductbefor e the gr and j ury . Forthe r eas ons s et 1 f o rth b e lo w , w e w ill a f

f irm th e ju d g m e n t o f

th e D istric t C o u rt. I . B eca us e w e w r i t e exc l us i vel yforthe part i es , w e onl ydi s cus s the fa ct s t o t he ext ent n e c e ss a ryf

o r re so lu tio n o f

th e c a se . O n M a rc h 2 , 2 0 0 4 , M u h a m m a d a p p e a re d in tra f f ic cour ti n E r i e, Penns y l vani a w her e he w as found gui l t yof dr i vi ng w i thouta l i cens e. T he3

fol l ow i ng day , he w as s chedul ed t o appea ri n s t at e courton el even s epar at e cha r ges i nvol vi ng dr i vi ng w i t h a s us pended l i cens e. M uhamm ad’ s appea r ance w as canc el l ed, h o w e v e r, b e c a u se th e c o u rth o u se c lo se d a f terf iv e e n v e lo p e s c o n tain in g a so lid , w h ite p o w d er a rri v ed in the m ail . T h e lett ers w ere ad d resse d to three C o m m o n P leas C o u rt Ju d g e s a n d th e E rie C o u n tyD istric t A tto rn e y ’s O f f ice . A d d iti o n a lly , E rie ’s C ityH a ll cl os ed af t eran enve l ope w as del i ver ed t o t he may oron t he s ame day . A tthe t i m e, the s ubs t ance w as bel i eved t o be anthr ax ors om e harm ful s ubs t ance . C hemi cal anal y s i s l at er rev ea led th at th e su b stan ce w as o n lyb ak ing p o w er. M uhamm ad w as qui ckl yi dent i fi ed as a pos s i bl e s us pect , havi ng pr evi ous l yhad s om e form of cont actw i t h t he r eci pi ent s of the fi ve enve l opes . M uhamm ad w as char ged w ith f iv e c o u n ts o f

s e n d in g th re a te n in g c o m m u n ic a tio n s in v io la tio n o f 1 8 U .S .C . § 8 7 6 . H e w a s c o n v icte d a f

ter a ju rytrial a n d se n ten c e d to a 1 7 5 m o n th ter m o f im p riso n m e n t. O n t he fi nal dayof M uhamm ad’ s tr i al , J ur orN o. 108 i nform ed the courtof a comm entm ade t o herbyJ ur orN o. 86 dur i ng l unch the pr evi ous day . A ccor di ng t o t he r ecor d, J ur orN o. 86 r epor t edl ys ugges t ed thats he pl anned t o avoi d an upcomi ng c o m m u n ity str e e t f

e s tiv a l b e c a u s e “ e v e ry b la c k p e rs o n in to w n ” w o u ld b e in a tte n d a n c e . ( Supp. A pp. at859. ) T he r ecor d fur t herdi s cl os es thatw hen a gr oup of A fr i can A m er i can t eena ger s w al ked pas tt he tw o j ur or s on t he s t r eet , J ur orN o. 86 r epor t edl ycomm ent ed t hat“the w or l d w as i n a verys ad s hape a nd s he coul dn’ tbeart o l ook atthem. ” ( Supp. A p p . a t 8 6 0 .)W e revi ew t he D i stri ctC ou rt ’s decis i on t o d enythe m oti on for m i stri al for abu se 2 o f d is c re tio n . G o v ’t o

f V .I. v. Fa h ie , 4 1 9 F .3 d 2 4 9 , 2 5 8 (3 d C ir . 2 0 0 5 ).

4 J ur orN o. 108 w as conce r ned thatthe comm ent s w er e s ym pt om at i c of a n u n d erly ing rac ial b ias o n the p art of Ju ror N o . 8 6 . B ef

o re inf o rm ing the c o u rt , h o w ev er, sh e d iscu ssed h er c o n ce rns w ith fo u r or f ive o ther juro rs. (S u p p . A p p . at 86 1 . ) In re sp o n se , Ju ro r N o . 1 0 5 su g g e ste d th a t Ju ro r N o . 1 0 8 sa yn o th in g a b o u t th e c o m m e n t, w hi l e anotherj ur ors ugges t ed thatJ ur orN o. 108 s houl d i nform the C our t . A ft ers peaki ng w i t h t he j udge’ s cl erk aboutt he mat t er , J ur orN o. 108 m etw i t h t he j udge i n chamber s and expl ai ned w hathad tr ans pi r ed. T h ere af ter, the C o u rtsu m m o n ed M u h am m ad , w h o w as p ro se , an d the p rose cu tor, t o chamber s , w her e the courtr epor t err ead ba ck the conve r s at i on betw een J ur orN o. 108 and the C our t . I n cons ul t at i on w i t h t he part i es , the D i s t r i ctC our tdeci ded t o r emove Jur or N o. 86 and r epl ace herw i t h an al t ernat e. M uhamm ad moved fora mi s t r i al , w hi ch the D i s t r i ctC our tdeni ed. M uhamm ad then r eques t ed thatthe C our tal s o r epl ace J ur orN o. 105, w ho had advi s ed J ur orN o. 108 t o r emai n qui et . T he D i s t r i ctC our tand the pr os ecut oragr eed, and J ur orN o. 105 w as r epl ace d. II. W e fi r s taddr es s M uhamm ad’ s cont ent i on thathe s uffe r ed s ubs t ant i al pr ej udi ce fr om t he r et ent i on of the otherj ur or s and the cont i nuat i on of tr i al . W hethera def endant 2 s uffe r s s ubs t ant i al pr ej udi ce i s det erm i ned bycons i der i ng the “pr obabl e ef fec t ” thatt he5

o f f e n s iv e c o m m e n t w o u ld b e lik e ly to h a v e o n a h yp o th e tic a l a v e ra g e ju ro r. U ni t ed Stat es v. G i l s enan , 9 4 9 F .2 d 9 0 , 9 5 (3 d . C ir . 1 9 9 1 ). I n ourvi ew , t he D i s t r i ctC our tt ook appr opr i at e s t eps t o r emove t he j ur orw ho e x p re s s e d ra c ia l b ia s , a s w e ll a s th e ju ro r w h o m a yh a v e b e e n o v e rl yto le ra n t o f th a t b ia s . M u h a mm a d ’ s mo t i o n f

o ra mi s t r i a l a p p e a r s t o b e b a s e d o n th e n o t i o n th a ti twa s u n k n o wn h o w m an yo ther juro rs po tential lyag ree d w ith Ju ror N o . 8 6 , an d there fo re the o ther juro rs m a yh a v e b e e n tain ted b yJu ro r N o . 8 6 ' s c o m m e n ts. (S u p p . A p p . at 8 6 6 .) A f ter c a re f u lly cons i der i ng M uhamm ad’ s r epea t ed obj ect i ons , the D i s t r i ctC our tnevert hel es s deni ed the m o tio n . Fi r s t , t he D i s t r i ctC our tr eas oned thati tcoul d notbe ce r t ai n w hyJ ur orN o. 105 advi s ed J ur orN o. 108 nott o i nform the C our t ; he mayhave be en mot i vat ed bypr ej udi ce orhe mayhave thoughtt hati nform i ng the C our tw oul d have r es ul t ed i n t he tr i al begi nni ng anew . ( Supp. A pp. at867. ) Second, the C our tnot ed thatthe purpos e of conduct i ng t he i ni t i al voi rdi r e w as t o guar d agai ns tthi s type of bi as . T he j udge comm ent ed as fol l ow s : “I j us tdon’ tfee l thatthi s w om an w oul d be enough t o s w ayot her peopl e ort ai ntot herpeopl e t o herw ayof thi nki ng. I tdoes n’ tm ake s ens e t o m e that w oul d happen. ” ( Supp. A pp. 866- 67. ) H e l at ercont i nued, “I can’ tbel i eve thatbeca us e I s ayt o s om ebodyel s e I don’ tl i ke bl ack pe opl e, thati s goi ng t o m ake thatper s on notl i ke a b lack p erso n . ” (S u p p . A p p . at 86 9 . ) Co n s i s t e n twi t h t h e r e a s o n i n g o f th e Di s t r i c tCo u r t , a n d th e r e c o r d b e f o r e u s , we ca n n o t sayitw as a n ab u se o f d iscreti o n to b eli ev e tha t Juro r N o . 8 6 ' s co m m en ts w ereS ect i on 87 6 p rovi des 3 W hoeverknow i ngl ys o depos i t s orcaus es t o be del i ver ed as afor es ai d, any comm uni cat i on w i t h orw i t houta name ordes i gnat i ng m ark s ubs cr i bed t her et o, addr es s ed t o anyot herper s on and cont ai ni ng anythr eatt o ki dnap an yp erso n o r an ythrea t t o injure th e p erso n o f th e a d d resse e o r of an o ther, s hal l be fi ned undert hi s t i t l e ori m pr i s oned notm or e than fi ve y ear s , or b o th . 1 8 U .S .C . § 8 7 6 (c ) ( 2 0 0 0 ). 6 unl i kel yt o t ai ntt he r emai ni ng j ur or s . I n addi t i on, w e not e thatM uhamm ad neve ras ked th e D is tr ic t C o u rt to v o ird ir e th e re s t o f th e ju ro rs c o n c e rn in g a n yju ro r m is c o n d u c t. ( Supp. A pp. at869. ) G i ven the ac t i ons t aken bythe D i s t r i ctC our tt o r emove bot h t he ju ro r w h o e x p re ss e d b ias a g a in st A f ric a n A m e ric a n s a s w e ll as th e ju ro r w h o f a iled to rec o g n ize the im p o rt an ce o f th at bias in the c o n text o f a crim inal p roc ee d ing , w e a re sati sfied that the D istri ct C o u rtd id n o t abu se it s d iscreti o n in d en y ing M u h am m ad ’s m o tio n f o r a m istria l. III . N e x t, M u h a m m a d ra ise s th e iss u e o f w h e th e r th e in d ictm e n t an d c o n v ictio n v io late t h e E x P o s tF a c t o Cl a u s e o ra n yd u e p r o c e s s r i g h tt o n o t i c e o f th e p r o s c r i b e d a c t i v i t y . He ar gues t hatbeca us e the comm i s s i on of the cr i m e t ook pl ace on M ar ch 3, 2004, pr i ort o t he t hi s C our t ’ s deci s i on i n U ni t ed Stat es v. Zavr el , 3 8 4 F .3 d 1 3 0 (3 d C ir. S e p t. 21 , 2 0 0 4 ), h is cas e s houl d nothave be en eva l uat ed ac cor di ng t o Za vre l’s in te rp re ta tio n o f 1 8 U .S .C . § 876. M uhamm ad ar gues t hatbyappl y i ng the ana l y s i s of Zavr el , the D istri ct C o u rt 3 comm i t t ed an a ctof “j udi ci al ex pos tfac t o” and de ni ed hi m fai rw arni ng i n vi ol at i on ofT he s uffi ci encyof an i ndi ctm entand convi ct i on pr es ent s a ques t i on of l aw over 4 w h ic h w e e x e rc is e p le n a ry re v ie w . G ov’ tof the V. I . v. Mool enaar , 133 F. 3d 246, 247 ( 3d. C ir . 1 9 9 8 ). 7 t he D ue Pr oces s C l aus e of the C ons t i tut i on. 4 In d e e d th e S u p re m e C o u rt h a s re c o g n ize d th a t “a d e p riv a tio n o f th e rig h t o f

f a ir w arni ng can r es ul tfr om . . . an unfor es eea bl e and r etr oact i ve j udi ci al expans i on of narr ow and pr eci s e s t atut or yl anguage . ” B o u ie v . C ity o f C o lu m b ia , 3 7 8 U .S .3 4 7 , 3 5 2 (1 9 6 4 ). H ow ever , t he r i ghtof fa i rw arni ng does notr es ton t he Ex P os tFact o C l aus e as M u h a m m a d c o n te n d s ; r a th e r, i t is p a rt o f th e c o re c o n c e p t o f

d u e p ro c e s s . R ogers v. Tennes s ee , 5 3 2 U .S . 4 5 1 , 4 5 9 (2 0 0 1 ) (n o tin g th a t B oui e w a s “ f irm lyro o ted in w e ll es t abl i s hed not i on of du e proce ss , ” s uch as “not i ce, for es eea bi l i t y , and, i n par t i cul ar , t he r i ghtt o fai rw arni ng . . . . ”) . M or eover , the pr ohi bi t i on agai ns tr etr oact i ve appl i cat i on of jud ici al i n terpretati o n s o f c ri m inal statu tes i s restri cted to tho se statutes th at are

“ u n e x p e c ted a n d in d e f

e n sib le b yre f

e re n c e to th e law w h ich h a d b e e n e x p re ss e d p rio r to t he conduc ti n i s s ue. ” Id . at 45 7 . In th is l igh t, M u h am m ad ’s claim that the D istri ct C o u rt comm i t t ed an a ctof “j udi ci al ex pos tfac t o, ” i n appl y i ng Zavr el i s unfounded. I n Zavr el , w e h e ld th a t th e d e f e n d a n t’s m a ili n g o f

c o rn sta rc h , w h ich w a s m e a n t to r es embl e anthr ax butdi d notcont ai n a w r i t t en mess age, nevert hel es s cons t i tut ed a “c o m m u n icati o n ” w ith in the m ea n ing o f § 8 7 6 . 3 8 4 F . 3 d at 13 4 . W e h eld th at un d er § 876, a comm uni cat i on “nee d notbe i n w r i t i ng. ” Id . a t 1 3 5 . W e f u rth e r h e ld th a t a c o m m u n ic a tio n o f

th is n a tu re a f

f ir m a tiv e ly co n s titu te d a “ th re a t to in ju re ” u n d e r § 8 7 6 .8

Id . at 13 6 (“A rea so n ab le pe rson o p en ing an en v elop e c o n tai n ing a w h it e p o w d ery s ubs t ance , dur i ng t he hei ghtof the anthr ax cr i s i s i n t hi s countr y , w oul d doubt l es s fea r i m m edi at e and f

utur e i nj ur y . ”) O urdeci s i on i n Zavr el , bas ed on ourr eadi ng of § 876, cr eat ed no s urpr i s e orr evel at i on. A nd, beca us e the D i s t r i ctC our t ’ s appl i cat i on of the r eas oni ng i n Za v re l w as nei t herunexpec t ed nori ndefe ns i bl e i n l i ghtof expr es s ed pr i orl aw , ther e w as no due pr oces s vi ol at i on even though t he ac tcont empl at ed by§ 876 occurr ed bef or e Zavr el

w as deci ded. I n Zavr el , we fou nd supp ortfor ou r i nterpret at i on of § 87 6 in tw o d eci si on s, b o th d e c id e d b e f

o re th e a c ts c o m m itte d b yM u h a m m a d . See, e. g. , P r at tv. U ni t ed Stat es , 129 F. 3d 54, 56 ( 1s tC i r . 1997) ( uphol di ng a convi ct i on under§ 876 form ai l i ng a m ut i l at ed pi g t o a l ocal pol i ce c hi ef a ft erthe off i cerhad conf

i s cat ed s ever al of the d e f e n d a n t’s f

ire a rm s); U

n itedS ta tes v . M

a lik , 16 F. 3d 45, 49 ( 2d C i r . 1994) ( “A n abs ence o f e x p lic itly th re a te n in g la n g u a g e d o e s n o t p re c lu d e th e f in d in g o f a th re a t . . . .” ). A c c o rd in g ly , w e c o n c lu d e th a t th e D istric t C o u rt p ro p e rlyd e n ied M u h a m m a d ’s m o tio n to d is m is s th e in d ic tm e n t b a s e d o n h is c la im o f “ ju d ic ia l e x p o s t f

a c to .” I V. L as t l y , M uhamm ad cont ends thatthe i ndi ctm ents houl d have be en di s m i s s ed beca us e the pr os ecut i ng at t or neyengage d i n m i s conductbefor e the gr and j ury . H e ar gues t hatw hi l e pr es ent i ng t he ca s e t o t he gr and j ury , the pr os ecut i ng at t orneyvi ol at ed M uhamm ad’ s due pr oces s r i ght s bydes cr i bi ng the mat er i al cont ai ned i n t he enve l opes as a “w hi t e pow der . ” M uhamm ad s ugges t s thati f the pr os ecut orhad des cr i bed theI ti s u n c l e a rwh i c h d e s c r i p t i o n M u h a mm a d i s a r g u i n g s h o u l d h a v e b e e n u s e d . He 5 a p p a re n tly o b

je c ts , h o w e v e r, t o th e c h a ra c te ri z a tio n o f th e m a te ri a l a s a “ p o w d e r.” W e e x erc ise p lena ryrev iew o f th e D istri ct C o u rt ’s de cisi o n to d en yM u h am m ad ’s 6 m o tio n to d is m is s th e in d ic tm e n t a n d re v ie w th e C o u rt ’s f a c tu a l f in d in g s f o r c le a r e rr o r. U ni t ed Stat es v. N

ol an- C ooper , 1 5 5 F .3 d 2 2 1 , 2 2 9 (3 d C ir . 1 9 9 8 ). 9 s ubs t ance di ffe r ent l yi n t he i ndi ctm ent , s uch as “mul t i - col or ed gr een a nd w hi t e gr anul ar r ock s al t , ” “s ol i d par t i cl es , ” “gr anul ars ubs t ance , ” ors i m pl y“s ol i d pow der , ” the 5 governm entw oul d nothave be en abl e t o pr ove an e s s ent i al el ementof § 876: the

“ th re a t[ ] t o in

ju re .” 6 W e begi n bynot i ng t hatt he di s m i s s al of an i ndi ctm enti s a “dr as t i c r emedy . ” U ni t ed Stat es v. Mor r is on , 44 9 U . S . 36 1, 36 5 n . 2 (198 1). A dis t ri ctcou rt , i n the exerci se o f it s su p erv isoryau tho ri ty , “m ayn o t dism iss an ind ictm en t fo r errors in th e g ran d jury pr ocee di ngs unl es s t he err or s pr ej udi ced the def endant . ” B ank of

N ova Scot i a v. U

ni t ed Stat es , 487 U . S. 250, 254 ( 1988) . R ather , a courtm us tcons i derw hethera vi ol at i on in f lu e n c e d th e g ra n d ju ry’s d e c is io n to in d ic t o r c o n s titu te d o rd in a ry, h a rm le s s e rr o r. I d. at256. W e re

ject M u h am m ad ’s arg u m en t th at he w as p rejud iced b ythe g o v ern m en t’ s d e s c ri p tio n o f

th e s u b s ta n c e a s a “ p o w d e r” d u ri n g th e g ra n d ju ry p ro c e e d in g s . M uhamm ad has noti dent i fi ed, and w e ar e notot herw i s e aw ar e of, anycas e l aw or sta tu to rya u th o rityto su p p o rt th e p ro p o sitio n th a t itis in a p p ro p ria te o r in a c c u ra te to d esc ri b e a w h it e su b stan ce seize d b yp o li ce as a “w h it e p o w er” d u ri n g g ran d jury pr ocee di ngs . M or eover , even i f w e w er e t o concl ude thatther e w as pr os ecut or i al10

m isco n d u ct be fo re the ind ict ing g ran d jury , the g u il tyv erd ictd eli v ere d b ythe p eti t j u ry c u re d a n yd e f

e c t in th e g ra n d ju ry p ro c e e d in g a n d re n d e re d a n ym is c o n d u c t h a rm le s s . U n itedS ta tes v . C o n so le , 13 F. 3d 641, 672 ( 3d. C i r . 1993) ( not i ng that“[a ] ny pr os ecut or i al m i s conductbefor e the gr and j ury‘ had the theor et i cal pot ent i al t o aff ectt he g ra n d ju ry ’s d e ter m in a tio n w h e th e r to in d ict . . . [ b ]u t th e p e titju ry ’s s u b se q u e n t g u ilty ver di ctm eans notonl yt hatt her e w as pr obabl e ca us e . . . butal s o t hattheyar e i n fac t gui l t yas char ged bey ond a r eas onabl e doubt . ’ ”) ( quot i ng U n itedS ta tes v . Me c h a n ik , 475 U . S . 6 6 , 7 0 (19 8 6 )). V. W e h a v e th o ro u g h lya n d c a re f u llyc o n sid e re d e a c h o f th e o th e r a rg u m e n ts M uhamm ad r ai s es on appea l , and w e fi nd thattheyar e w i t houtm er i tand thus do not w a rr a n t d is c u s s io n . F or the fo regoi ng reas on s, w e w i l l affirm the D i stri ctC ou rti n all res pects .