District court’s enhanced sentencing of a defendant convicted of drug possession during a traffic stop, based on other drugs found at defendant’s home, is affirmed where: 1) district court’s refusal to apply the exclusionary rule to evidence found in defendant’s home was not clear error based on lack of any evidence to support defendant’s bare assertion of misconduct; 2) district court did not clearly err in finding that the drugs seized from defendant’s home were part of the same common scheme or plan as the offense for which he was convicted, and thus, the drugs were properly used to enhance his sentence; 3) district court did not err in applying the enhancement under section 2D1.1(b)(1) based on a firearm found at defendant’s home, as there was sufficient evidence to support a conclusion that defendant had constructive possession of the gun found at his home and that the gun was used in connection with his drug activity; and 4) sentence was reasonable as it was at the low end of the applicable guidelines range.
Read US v. Perez, No. 07-2375
Appellate Information
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Indiana, Hammond DivisionArgued January 20, 2009Decided September 9, 2009
Judges
Before Easterbrook, Chief Judge, Sykes, Circuit Judge, and Kendall, District Judge
You Don’t Have To Solve This on Your Own – Get a Lawyer’s Help
Civil Rights
Block on Trump’s Asylum Ban Upheld by Supreme Court
Criminal
Judges Can Release Secret Grand Jury Records
Politicians Can’t Block Voters on Facebook, Court Rules
