US v. Sed, No. 09-1489, involved a challenge to the district court's denial of defendant's motion to suppress in a conviction for conspiracy to distribute and possession with the intent to distribute drugs and other related crimes, claiming that the Pennsylvania police violated his Fourth Amendment rights when they arrested him in Ohio and that the district court erred in failing to reduce his sentence because of "sentencing entrapment" or "sentencing factor manipulation."
In rejecting both claims, the court held that the seizure of defendant was not unreasonable and the district court did not err in denying his motion to suppress as the stop of defendant's car before it entered Pennsylvania from Ohio was a de minimis mistake which does not render the seizure unreasonable. Furthermore, the district court did not err when it failed to grant a downward departure or an additional downward variance as the record amply supports the court's conclusion that defendant committed perjury and the Pennsylvania did not act improperly in their sting operation.
- Full text of US v. Sed