162433P.pdf   03/27/2017  United States  v.  Terrance C. Jackson
   U.S. Court of Appeals Case No:  16-2433
   U.S. District Court for the District of North Dakota - Bismarck   
   [PUBLISHED] [Kelly, Author, with Murphy, Circuit Judge, and Montgomery, 
   District Judge] 
   Criminal case - Criminal law and sentencing. Argument that defendant's 
   in-custody statements should be suppressed because of his drug use and 
   lack of sleep rejected because an officer credibly testified that 
   defendant volunteered certain statements and that they were not made in 
   response to any questions by law enforcement; defendant's responses to 
   limited questions about his current mental and physical state were 
   admissible; response to a question regarding the last time defendant had 
   his hair cut was not admissible as it was asked with the intention of 
   obtaining an incriminating response; however the error in admitting the 
   response was harmless as it was unlikely that this single statement had a 
   major impact on the jury's decision; the district court did not err in 
   refusing to admit four of the eight instances of the victim's prior acts 
   of violence as there was no evidence that the victim had committed two of 
   the acts, evidence concerning one of the acts was cumulative, and one of 
   the incidents, dating back to when the victim and defendant were about 15, 
   was lacking in probative value; constitutional challenge to Rule 29.1 
   regarding the order of closing argument rejected; the district court did 
   not abuse its discretion by denying defendant's request for sur-rebuttal 
   concerning his claim of self-defense; the district court considered and 
   explicitly rejected defendant's request for a variance under Guidelines 
   Sec. 5K2.10 and defendant's claim that the court erred by failing to 
   consider the request must be rejected; district court did not err in 
   refusing to grant such a variance; the district court did not err in 
   refusing to sua sponte consider a variance based on a proposed amendment 
   to the Guidelines where the amendment would have no effect on the range; 
   no error in denying request to postpone sentencing for a mental health 
   exam as defendant had one in 2010 and there was no reason to believe 
   another exam would produce different results or cause the court to impose 
   a lesser sentence.