|
KARL HARRIS, Petitioner-Appellee/Cross-Appellant, v. BLAINE C. LAFLER, Respondent-Appellant/Cross-Appellee. |
|
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of Michigan at Detroit.
No. 03-74822—Bernard A. Friedman, Chief District Judge.
Argued: December 11, 2008
Decided and Filed: January 30, 2009
Before: ROGERS, SUTTON and McKEAGUE, Circuit Judges.
SUTTON, Circuit Judge. A jury convicted Karl Harris of violating several Michigan criminal laws, including second-degree murder, and the judge sentenced him to 52 to 77 years in prison. His state-court efforts to obtain relief came to naught, and he filed this federal habeas corpus petition, which the district court rejected in all respects, save one: It granted relief on his Brady claim that the prosecution failed to disclose three statements made by the police to the State’s lead witness before he testified. We affirm.
|
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. JEFFORY C. YOUNG (07-5600), MORRIS ROLLER (07-5608), Defendants-Appellants. |
|
Appeal from the United States District Courts
for the Eastern District of Tennessee
at Winchester and Chattanooga.
No. 06-00014—R. Allan Edgar, District Judge.
Argued: December 5, 2008
Decided and Filed: January 30, 2009
Before: MERRITT, MOORE, and COLE, Circuit Judges.
KAREN NELSON MOORE, Circuit Judge. In 2006, the government named Morris Roller (“Roller”) and Jeffory Young (“Young”) as defendants in a twenty-count superseding indictment. Count one charged both men with a conspiracy to manufacture 1000 or more marijuana plants and to distribute 1000 or more kilograms of marijuana. Roller and Young were tried jointly, and the jury convicted each man of conspiracy involving more than 100 but less than 1000 marijuana plants and more than 100 but less than 1000 kilograms of marijuana. Roller and Young were also convicted of the substantive offenses with which they were charged. The district court sentenced Roller to serve 200 months and Young to serve 224 months of imprisonment. Roller and Young appeal their convictions and their sentences.
On appeal, Roller and Young allege that: (1) the district court erroneously admitted hearsay; (2) the district court erred when it applied a leadership-role sentencing enhancement; (3) the district court erred in considering acquitted conduct in sentencing; and (4) their sentences were procedurally and substantively unreasonable. Young also argues that the district court erred when it admitted statements by Roller regarding the use of force to collect drug-related debts. Roller asserts that the district court’s response to the jury’s question regarding the duration of the conspiracy was prejudicial error. We AFFIRM Roller’s and Young’s convictions and sentences.