NO ORAL ARGUMENT HAS YET BEEN SCHEDULED FOR THIS APPEAL
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT
No.
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
V.
HENRY JEROME xxxxxxx, Appellant
ON APPEAL FROM
THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
(Criminal No. 91-00088-01)
BRIEF OF APPELLANT
HENRY JEROME xxxxxxx
A.J. KRAMER
FEDERAL PUBLIC DEFENDER
625 Indiana Avenue, N.W., 550
Washington, DC 20004
(202) 208-7500
W. GREGORY SPENCER
Assistant Federal Public Defender
Counsel for Appellant
CERTIFICATE AS TO PARTIES, RULINGS, AND RELATED CASES
Pursuant to D.C. Circuit Rule 11(a)(1), appellant hereby certifies the following:
Parties
Henry Jerome xxxxxxx and the United States of America appeared below and are the only parties in this Court.
Rulings Under Review
Appellant seeks review of the following issues arising from the trial of this case before The Honorable Thomas F. Hogan of the United States District Court for the District of Columbia:
1. Whether the District Court erred in denying the petitioner's motion to suppress evidence.
2. Whether the District Court erred in denying the petitioner a two level reduction of his sentencing guidelines for acceptance of responsibility.
3. Whether the inclusion of drugs, other than those related to the count of conviction, in calculating the petitioner's sentencing guideline level was error under the circumstances of this case.
Related Cases
The case on review has never been before this Court or any other court. Counsel is not aware of any other related cases pending in this Court or any other court.
TABLE OF CONTENTS
CERTIFICATE AS TO PARTIES, RULINGS, AND RELATED CASES i
STATUTES AND RULES 2
JURISDICTION 2
STATEMENT OF ISSUES 2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE 2
SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT 11
ARGUMENT
I. THE WARRANTLESS ARREST OF THE APPELLANT INSIDE OF PRIVATE DWELLING VIOLATED HIS FOURTH AMENDMENT RIGHTS. 12
II. THE APPELLANT READILY ACCEPTED PERSONAL RESPONSIBILITY FOR HIS CRIMINAL CONDUCT, AND THUS, WAS ENTITLED TO THE TWO LEVEL REDUCTION PROVIDED BY SECTION 3E1.1 OF
THE SENTENCING GUIDELINES. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
III. THE APPELLANT'S SENTENCING GUIDELINE LEVEL SHOULD HAVE BEEN BASED SOLELY UPON THE AMOUNT OF DRUGS RELATED TO HIS COUNT OF CONVICTION UNDER THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THIS CASE 15
CONCLUSION 17
TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
Cases
Minnesota v. Olson, 110 S. Ct. 1684 (1990) 13
Payton v. New York, 445 U.S. 573, 586 (1980) 12
Rakas v. Illinois, 439 U.S. 128, 144, n.12 (1978) 13
Wong Sun v. United States, 371 U.S. 471 (1963) 14
United States v. Oliveras, 905 F.2d 623 (2d Cir. 1990) 15
United States v. Perez-Franco, 873 F.2d 455 (1st Cir. 1989) 15
United States v. Schaper, 903 F.2d 891 (2d Cir. 1990) . . 16
United States v. Taylor, 937 F.2d 676 (D.C. Cir. 1991) 14
Constitutional Provisions and Statutes
18 U.S.C. 2 3, 15
18 U.S.C. 3231 2
21 U.S.C. 841(a)(1) and 841(b)(1)(B)(iii) 2, 3, 15
28 U.S.C. 1291 2
Sentencing Guidelines
U.S.S.G. 1B1.3(a)(2) 15
U.S.S.G. 2D1.1(3) 15
U.S.S.G. 3E1.1 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11, 12, 14
U.S.S.G. 3E1.1(b) 14
Other Authorities
D.C. Circuit Rule 11(a)(1). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . i
District of Columbia Circuit Rule 11(a)(3) . . . . . . . . . . 2
Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 28(f) . . . . . . . . . . . 2
[PURSUANT TO D.C. CIRCUIT RULE 13(i), NO ORAL ARGUMENT
HAS YET BEEN SCHEDULED FOR THIS APPEAL]
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA