453 F.3d 1048 (2006)
The district court did not abuse its discretion in admitting taped conversations where an agent had authenticated the identity of the participants, the gaps in the recording did not render them inadmissible, and the individual involved in the recordings was not improperly induced into making them. The pre-indictment delay claim was barred as defendant had not brought a motion claiming a defect in the indictment prior to trial.
- The district court did not err in allowing a witness's testimony regarding his opinion of statements made by defendant where the statements were made on redirect in response to defendant's cross-examination, which had also solicited the witness's opinion.
- The evidence was sufficient to sustain the convictions as the evaluation of two eyewitnesses' testimony was for the jury and even if that testimony was excluded, there was sufficient inculpatory evidence to reasonably find defendant guilty.
- Although the district court erroneously considered the U.S. Sentencing Guidelines Manual mandatory, the error was harmless.
- Finally, the restitution order was appropriate as an award of lost future income was not precluded by the Mandatory Victim Restitution Act.
The judgment was affirmed.
Recommended Supplements and Study Aids for Evidence
Shop Amazon for the best prices on Law School Course Materials.