Skip to main content

Are you a legal professional? Visit our professional site

Search for legal issues
For help near (city, ZIP code or county)
Please enter a legal issue and/or a location

US v. Bucci, No. 07-2376

Article Placeholder Image
By FindLaw Staff on September 11, 2009 5:05 PM

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.     

Read US v. Bucci, No. 07-2376

Appellate Information

On Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts

Decided September 11, 2009


Before: Ebel, Seyla, and Howard, Circuit Judges.   

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.

Find a Lawyer

More Options