Pridgen

MEMORANDUM *

James Pridgen appeals his conviction and sentence for carjacking, 18 U.S.C. § 2119 , two counts for use of a firearm during a crime of violence, 18 U.S.C. § 924 (c), conspiracy to commit robbery, 18 U.S.C. § 371 , and armed robbery of a federal credit union, 18 U.S.C. § 2113 . We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291 , and we affirm in part and reverse and remand in part.

I.

Pridgen first appeals the district court’s denial of his motion to suppress hair and saliva samples taken pursuant to a search warrant, but outside the presence of counsel, and its ruling that a contemporaneous statement could be used for impeachment purposes. The physical taking of the hair and saliva samples outside the presence of counsel did not violate the Sixth Amendment. See Gilbert v. California, 388 U.S. 263, 267 , 87 S.Ct. 1951 , 18 L.Ed.2d 1178 (1967) (holding that even aside from the fact that the exemplars were taken before the indictment, the taking of handwriting exemplars was not a “critical” stage of the criminal proceedings). Moreover, it is well settled that the laboratory analysis of these samples is not a critical stage of the proceedings requiring the presence of…