041607P.pdf   08/19/2005  United States  v.  James Hull
   U.S. Court of Appeals Case No:  04-1607
   District of Minnesota   
   [PUBLISHED] [Gruender, Author, with Melloy and Heaney, Circuit 
   Judges] 
   Criminal case - criminal law. Defendant's statements were properly 
   admitted, as his first statement was not made in response to custodial 
   interrogation after he had indicated he wished to exercise his Miranda 
   rights, and his second statement came after he voluntarily and knowingly 
   initiated contact with the police and waived his invoked right to an 
   attorney; venue was proper in Minnesota; proposed instruction on 
   multiple conspiracies was properly rejected; no error in permitting 
   government to ask defendant if his CDs could be characterized as 
   gangster rap; no error in denying motion for a Franks hearing as 
   defendant failed to show the challenged statements were false or material; 
   applying Pirani's plain error analysis, defendant was not entitled to 
   Booker relief as he failed to demonstrate a reasonable probability that the 
   district court would have imposed a lesser sentence under an advisory 
   scheme. Judge Heaney, concurring.