Opinion ID: 152179
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Alex Melendez

Text: Alex Melendez argues that the district court erred by denying his motions to suppress a photographic identification and for a bill of particulars, and by refusing to grant the joint Batson motion. He also argues that he was entitled to an acquittal because the evidence was insufficient to sustain a conviction for violations of 21 U.S.C. §§ 846 and 860, and 18 U.S.C. § 1962(d). Melendez also asserts that there was insufficient evidence to establish that he committed an overt act leading to murder rather than “only an assault;” that there was insufficient evidence to convict him of engaging “in any conduct tending to prove he participated in a racketeering enterprise;” that the district court improperly ignored evidence that a juror had arrived at a guilty verdict based upon compulsion and duress, and; that the district court made unconstitutional findings during the sentencing process, resulting in an unreasonable sentence.