United States v. Nicholas Padilla

Nicholas Padilla appeals his jury conviction of being a felon in possession of a firearm, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922 (g)(1). Padilla argues that his motion for new trial should have been granted because, after his conviction, a state court invalidated his predicate state conviction nunc pro tunc. Padilla also challenges the district court’s admission of a statement obtained from him allegedly in violation of Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 , 86 S.Ct. 1602 , 16 L.Ed.2d 694 (1966). Finally, Padilla contends that the district court erred in admitting expert testimony relating to gang behavior. We reject all of these contentions and affirm Padilla’s conviction.

After this appeal had been submitted for decision, the Supreme Court of the United States decided Blakely v. Washington, — U.S.-, 124 S.Ct. 2531 , 159 L.Ed.2d 403 (2004). Padilla moved for supplemental briefing on the effect - of Blakely on his sentence. In the interest of judicial economy, however, we do not address the Blakely issues, and we accordingly , deny Padilla’s motion. Because the Supreme Court has pending two appeals that are likely to shed light on Blakely’s effect on the United, States Sentencing…