162541P.pdf   09/12/2017  United States  v.  Darryl Parker
   U.S. Court of Appeals Case No:  16-2541
                          and No:  16-2598
                          and No:  16-3086
                          and No:  16-3334
                          and No:  16-3335
   U.S. District Court for the District of Minnesota - St. Paul   
   [PUBLISHED] [Smith, Author, with Colloton and Kelly, Circuit Judges] 
   Criminal cases - Criminal law and sentencing. With respect to defendant 
   Black: (1) the district court did not err in denying his motion for a 
   mistrial as the evidence he points to as unduly prejudicial concerning 
   gang warfare was necessary to explain the context of the charged offenses 
   and the court's decision to permit the prosecution to comment on this 
   matter in opening and closing arguments was not an abuse of the court's 
   discretion; no error in admitting police officer's testimony regarding 
   gang involvement or expert testimony on ballistics or Facebook and 
   Instagram evidence; (2)evidence was sufficient to support Black's 
   conspiracy conviction; (3) there was insufficient evidence to support 
   Black's conviction for illegal possession of a firearm as the evidence was 
   insufficient to connect the discarded firearm to Black. With respect to 
   defendant Bender: (1) no error in rejecting his proposed "free speech" 
   instruction with respect to his conviction for conspiring to threaten 
   witnesses; (2) the instruction given on conspiracy was legally correct and 
   the district court did not err in rejecting Bender's proposed instruction; 
   (3) the jury instructions did not permit Bender to be convicted for 
   conduct outside the time frame alleged in the indictment; (4) the court 
   erred in imposing a two-level enhancement under Guidelines Sec. 3C1.1 for 
   obstruction of justice as Bender did not believe the witnesses threatened 
   would be used against him at sentencing and thus, his actions were not 
   intended to obstruct justice on the underlying firearm charge; remanded 
   for resentencing. With respect to defendant Johnson, the district court 
   considered defendant's mitigating factors and adequately explained the 
   basis for its sentencing decision; the sentence imposed was not 
   substantively unreasonable. With respect to defendant Parker: (1) 
   defendant Parker's sentence is not substantively unreasonable. Judge 
   Colloton, concurring in part and dissenting concerning the reversal of 
   defendant Black's conviction for possession of a firearm.