111500P.pdf   12/06/2012  United States  v.  Randeep Mann
   U.S. Court of Appeals Case No:  11-1500
                          and No:  11-2187
   U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Arkansas - Little Rock   
   [PUBLISHED] [Shepherd, Author, with Smith and Benton, Circuit Judges]
   Criminal case - Criminal law and Sentencing. When a grand jury is not
   in session during the thirty-day period set forth in 18 U.S.C. Sec. 3161(b),
   the period for filing an indictment is automatically extended, and the
   district court did not err in denying defendant's Speedy Trial Act motion;
   18 U.S.C. Sec. 922(o) is a lesser included offense of 26 U.S.C. Sec.
   5861(d), and defendant Mann's convictions on counts charging violations
   of both sections must be remanded with instructions to vacate one of the
   convictions; indictment gave adequate notice of the accusations and a bill
   of particulars filed in response to defendant's request did not amend the
   indictment; while three counts charging firearm violations were
   improperly joined with bombing and obstruction of justice counts, the
   joinder did not prejudice defendant; no error in denying defendant's
   motion to sever his case from his wife's prosecution as they were both
   charged with conspiracy and the evidence against his wife could have
   been admitted against defendant even if she had not been joined;
   evidence was sufficient to support defendant's conviction for using and
   conspiring to use a weapon of mass destruction; evidence was sufficient
   to support defendant's conviction for aiding and abetting use of weapon
   of mass destruction; the vehicle belonging to the victim in the bombing
   was used in commerce as that phrase is used in 18 U.S.C. Sec. 844(i) and
   the evidence was sufficient to support defendant's conviction; evidence
   was sufficient to support defendant's conviction for possessing
   unregistered grenades; evidence was sufficient to support defendant's
   conviction for obstruction of justice, and the instructions on these counts
   were proper; claims of constructive amendment of the indictment or fatal
   variance rejected; district court did not err in applying the cross-reference
   for attempted murder contained in Guidelines Sec. 3A1.2; no error in
   finding the victim was an "official victim" as defined by Guidelines Sec.
   3A1.2; no error in imposing an enhancement for obstruction of justice
   under Guidelines Sec. 3C1.1 where defendant directed the assault of a
   federal inmate; the court did err in imposing an enhancement under
   Guidelines Sec. 2K2.1(b)(4) for possessing grenades with an altered
   serial number as the grenades were not manufactured with serial
   numbers; court erred in imposing an enhancement for possession of
   stolen firearms under Guidelines Sec. 2k2.1(b)(4), as there was no
   evidence that the grenades in question had been stolen. Judge Smith,
   concurring in part and dissenting in part.