Defendant's sentence, a forfeiture order and convictions for drug trafficking and related crimes is affirmed where: 1) district court did not abuse its discretion in denying defendant discovery in support of his vindictive-prosecution claim; 2) a second superseding indictment was timely filed as defendant did not "engage" in a monetary transaction until the funds were deposited into his account; 3) defendant had no reasonable objective expectation of privacy in the front of his home; 4) officers had probable cause to believe there was evidence of criminal activity in defendant's vehicle to conduct a search; 5) district court did not abuse its discretion in allowing the government a rebuttal opening statement; 6) district court's imposition of enhancement did not violate defendant's Sixth Amendment rights where the court was aware of its discretion to impose a below-guideline sentence and adequately considered defendant's argument for a below-guideline sentence; and 7) district court did not plainly err in instructing the jury that "proceeds" meant "gross proceeds" for forfeiture purposes.
On Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts
Decided September 11, 2009
Opinion by Ebel, Circuit Judge
For Appellant: Kimberly Homan
For Appellee: Sangita K. Rao, Attorney, Criminal Division, Appellate Section, United States Department of Justice, Michael J. Sullivan, United States Attorney, and Peter K. Levitt, Assistant United States Attorney.