Source: https://www.scribd.com/document/321205781/United-States-v-Emmanuel-Ikechukwu-Anudu-A-K-A-Cletis-A-K-A-Claytus-United-States-of-America-v-Emmanuel-Odemena-United-States-of-America-v-Chij
Timestamp: 2019-04-23 00:25:02+00:00

Document:
Chijioke CHUCKWUMA, a/k/a Mark, Defendant-Appellant.
Cyriacus AKAS a/k/a Koots, Defendant-Appellant.
Charles ONWUAZOMBE, a/k/a Ebele Onwuazor, DefendantAppellant.
Jerome Okoye ONWUAZOR, a/k/a Peter, DefendantAppellant.
Attorney, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellee. ON BRIEF: James C.
Savage, Rockville, Maryland, for Appellant Onwuazor; Walter C.
McCord, Jr., Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellant Anudu; Robert L.
Before MURNAGHAN, ERVIN, and WILKINS, Circuit Judges.
affirm on all remaining counts.
the portions of the opinion to which they are relevant.
court de novo. United States v. Newsom, 9 F.3d 337, 338 (4th Cir.1993).
Venue is proper "in [any] district in which the offense was committed." Fed.
Cir.), cert. denied sub nom., Ard v. United States, 409 U.S. 867 (1972), cert.
verb in Counts XII and XIII is "distribute."
Dodds and Special Agent Will Plummer on May 15 at a diner in Queens.
Maryland to support venue in the District of Maryland.
distribution can be a continuous thing."
955, 967 (2nd Cir.1983), but the First and Eleventh Circuits have held that it is.
question but were not present when the substances actually changed hands.
improperly issued prescriptions), cert. denied, 434 U.S. 1015 (1978)).
can be committed uno ictu.
held, therefore, that distribution is not a continuing offense. Id. at 302-03.
event, not a continuing operation, so distribution is not a continuing crime.
United States v. Duke, 409 F.2d 669, 671 (4th Cir.1969), cert. denied, 397 U.S.
without deciding whether the alleged deliveries in Maryland actually occurred.
because the verdict may have rested exclusively on the insufficient ground.
Zant v. Stephens, 462 U.S. 862, 881 (1983); Terminiello v. Chicago, 337 U.S.
1, 5-6 (1949); Cramer v. United States, 325 U.S. 1, 36 n. 45 (1945); Williams v.
convictions under Counts XII and XIII.
"prejudice[d] the jury's consideration of the dispositive issue," United States v.
unconstitutional manner." See Victor v. Nebraska, 114 S.Ct. 1239, 1243 (1994).
reasonable doubt as to each and every element of the offense.
so beyond a reasonable doubt.
The Supreme Court addressed a nearly identical instruction in Victor v.
is one based upon 'reason.' A fanciful doubt is not a reasonable doubt." Id.
their testimony deserves. Ordinarily, it is assumed that a witness will speak the truth.
constitutes error, but argues that it was harmless in this case.
the testimony of that witness such credibility, if any, as you think it deserves."
defendant's] testimony such credence and belief as you may think it deserves,"
apparently without the need to first overcome the presumption of truthfulness.
judge did not speak in terms of a "presumption" that must be "outweighed"
distinguish between the defendants and the government's witnesses.
The instruction in this case more closely resembles that in United States v.
that the error "prejudice[d] the jury's consideration of the dispositive issue."
prosecution to produce all exhibits, all papers and things mentioned in the evidence.
evidence in determining whether the government had met its burden of proof."
also should state that the jury may consider that failure to produce evidence.
that it could consider the failure of the prosecution to produce certain evidence.
of evidence, a defendant's guilt has been proven beyond a reasonable doubt.
in tandem with the instruction to which the appellants object, but it was given.
create "a reasonable likelihood that the jury misconstrued the instruction."
Craigo, 956 F.2d at 67.
"proof of ... facts or circumstances surrounding the commission of the crime."
reasonably likely to have prejudiced the jury's deliberations.
rationale for the manner in which the government had elected to present its case.
argument, but had no proper place in the court's instructions to the jury.
warranted reversal of the defendant's conviction. Id. at 46-47.
assume that a crime had been committed.
beyond a reasonable doubt," Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307, 319 (1979)).
indictment and the charges that the government actually presented to the jury.
sufficient evidence to support their convictions on those charges.
error or omission did not mislead the defendant to the defendant's prejudice.
Fed.R.Crim.P. 7(c)(3). The counts in question both include the word "attempt."
therefore, the convictions under Counts IX and XI.
transaction was designed to disguise the nature or source of those proceeds."
designed to conceal the illegal nature of the proceeds.
act in concert to commit the act.
evidence is sufficient to support the jury's finding of an agreement to import.
application of the Guidelines to the facts is reversible only if clearly erroneous.
18 U.S.C. 3742(e) (1988). Questions of law, however, are reviewed de novo.
United States v. Daughtrey, 874 F.2d 213, 217 (4th Cir.1989).
the Guidelines incorrectly and estimated inaccurately the amounts of drugs.
who does more than two acts is automatically responsible for all the drugs.
In fact, the district court does not appear to have applied such a bright-line rule.
does and then is it foreseeable that you can see that all these drugs are coming in?
Because the trial judge was using the correct "reasonable foreseeability"
included at least 30 kilograms of heroin.
adjustment for a minor role in the conspiracy, because he was only a courier.
that the district court clearly erred.
downward adjustment for acceptance of responsibility.
because of the illegal activities of the other conspiracy.
reasonable fact-finder could not have found single conspiracy).
support the jury's finding of a single conspiracy.
knowledge and thus violated Rule 602.
properly admitted Koots's statements under Rule 801.
we vacate Onwuazor and Okoli's convictions and sentences on those charges.
were to run con currently, as were all of his periods of supervised release.
special assessment of fifty dollars for every count.
Schedule I narcotic drug controlled substance.
the case. This applies to a defendant who takes the stand on his own behalf.
importance or an unimportant detail, and whether or not intentional falsehood.
When Men Murder Women: When Will We Have Enough?

References: v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.

 v.

 v. 
 v.

 v.

 v. 
 v.