Unpublished Dispositionunited States of America, v. Paul A. Johnson, Appellant.united States of America v. Dwight I. Davis, Appellant, 895 F.2d 809 (D.C. Cir. 1990)

Annotate this Case
U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit - 895 F.2d 809 (D.C. Cir. 1990)

Feb. 7, 1990


Before RUTH BADER GINSBURG, Circuit Judge, SPOTTSWOOD W. ROBINSON, III, Senior Circuit Judge, and THOMAS PENFIELD JACKSON* , District Judge.

JUDGMENT

PER CURIAM.


These consolidated causes came on for consideration on the record on appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Columbia, and were briefed and argued by counsel. The issues have been accorded full consideration by Court, and occasion no need for an opinion. See D.C. Cir. Rule 14(c).

Upon consideration thereof, it is

ORDERED and ADJUDGED by the Court that the judgment under review in No. 89-3080 be and hereby is affirmed. The District Court did not abuse its discretion in excluding the medical records and expert testimony proffered by appellant Johnson, which were of minimal relevance and little probative value. The Government's admitted but unintentional violation of Rule 16 of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure, in omitting disclosure of the letter obtained from appellant Johnson's former attorney, does not justify reversal. The letter did not fall within the ambit of the attorney-client privilege and, in view of the overwhelming weight of the evidence pointing toward appellant Johnson's predisposition to distribute a controlled substance and his guilt of the offenses of which he was convicted, the error was not prejudicial. Nor is reversal warranted by the Government's alleged failure to reveal a false statement made by a government informant, particularly in light of the production of the notes and memoranda of FBI agents prior to trial. The District Court's factual determinations supporting sentence enhancements under Sections 3B1.1 and 3C1.1 of the Sentencing Guidelines were not clearly erroneous. It is

FURTHER ORDERED and ADJUDGED by the Court that the judgment under review in No. 89-3058 be and hereby is affirmed. The District Court's finding that appellant Davis' participation was not a "mitigating role" within the meaning of Section 3B1.2 of the Sentencing Guidelines was not clearly erroneous.

 *

Of the United States District Court for the District of Columbia, sitting by designation pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 292(a)