It used to be that I resented the Sixth Circuit for not having an RSS feed. If you want to see the latest from the Sixth Circuit, you have to subscribe by email. You can't just go to their webpage.
But now, frankly, I love getting a friendly email blast every day to that circuit of the Kentucky Derby, 3-way chilli, and no-fourth-amendment-protection-for-GPS-cell-phone-data.
And so, in celebration to the Sixth Circuit, here is a Sixth Circuit focused edition of Short Wins.
Next week, I promise, we'll start with more breaking news from around the country.
In the meantime, here's news of Batson, oxycodone, and fraud. Oh my!
1. Campbell v. United States, Sixth Circuit: In conspiracy to commit wire and mail fraud case, defense counsel provided ineffective assistance by failing to file an appeal despite appellant's request to do so - even though appellant's guilty plea included a partial waiver of his right to appeal.
2. United States v. Bazazpour, Sixth Circuit: In money laundering and arson case, district court erred in applying a two-level obstruction of justice sentence enhancement under U.S.S.G. § 3C1.1 because the court did not make an explicit finding that the appellant gave false testimony. As a result, the Sixth Circuit remanded for resentencing to determine whether a 3C1.1 enhancement is proper.
3. United States v. LaPointe, Sixth Circuit: In drug case, the appellant was entitled to a new trial on his conviction for conspiring to distribute or possess with intent to distribute oxycodone because he was improperly denied a jury instruction on a lesser-included offense.
4. United States v. D. McAllister, Sixth Circuit: In wire and bankruptcy fraud case, the appellant challenged the government's peremptory strike of the only two African-Americans in the jury pool under Batson v. Kentucky. Because it was unclear whether the district court satisfied the third step of the Batson challenge, remand was required for the court to make explicit findings as to whether the appellant established the existence of purposeful race discrimination in the selection of his jury and, as a result, whether his Batson challenge requires reversal of his conviction.
5. United States v. T. McAllister, Patterson, Hughes, Ratcliff, Weeks-Savage, Sixth Circuit: In drug conspiracy case, Mr. Hughes' sentence was procedurally unreasonable because the district court did not explain why it rejected his non-frivolous argument regarding the disparity between his sentence and that of his co-conspirators. Mr. Hughes' sentence was vacated and the case remanded for resentencing.
6. United States v. Morgan, Sixth Circuit: In drug and firearm discharge case, remand for resentencing was warranted because the district court erred in (1) double-counting the appellant's conduct in discharging the firearm and (2) applying the attempted-murder Guideline to the appellant's sentence where the facts did support a finding that the appellant had a specific intent to kill.
7. United States v. Welch, Sixth Circuit: In counterfeiting case, remand for resentencing was appropriate because the district court violated the Ex Post Facto Clause by relying on a Sentencing Guidelines amendment not in effect at the time of the appellant's illegal conduct which, in turn, subjected appellant to a harsher sentence.
And, finally, let me thank the newest lawyer in The Kaiser Law Firm, Rachel Browder, for her continuing help with the "Short Wins" feature.
About This BlogThe Federal Criminal Appeals Blog is published by The Kaiser Law Firm PLLC in Washington, DC. The Kaiser Law Firm represents people who have been charged with federal crimes, are under federal investigation, or have a federal criminal appeal.
If you'd like to speak with us, please call (202) 640-2850. Odds are we'd love to talk to you.