Six new cases from the federal circuits this week. My favorite - a subjective measure, I know - is United States v. Ramirez. Any time a court, even the Ninth Circuit, vacates a drug conspiracy conviction for insufficient evidence it's worth a read.

Last week I posted about a First Circuit case that raised, I thought, a specter of support for jury nullification. Lots of folks responded to that - it turns out that nullification is a popular topic.

On Twitter, I was directed to this recent opinion out of New Mexico on nullification. If you have time, I highly recommend it. It canvasses the history of nullification as an important part of what our criminal justice system is built on then says, basically, no.

I also exchanged a few emails about nullification with a prosecutor friend of mine (yes, I have prosecutor friends, don't tell). He pointed out, rightly, that nullification is not your friend if you're thinking of, say, the Criminal Section of the Civil Rights Division of DOJ going into, say, Alabama, to prosecute hate crimes. Or almost any public corruption trial of a very popular politician. It's a fair point. The interplay between popular sentiment and the rule of law is complicated. And, as soon as cases that raise those kinds of concerns are the majority of the criminal trials in the country, perhaps prohibiting nullification would clearly be good.

To the victories!

1. United States v. Davis, Fourth Circuit: Appellant pled guilty to possession of a stolen firearm and was ordered to pay restitution to reimburse the homeowner from whose home he broke into for the value of the unrecovered firearm and damage caused by the break-in. Because the homeowner is not a victim under the Victim and Witness Protection Act, and because appellant's plea agreement did not include an explicit agreement to pay restitution to a person other than a victim of the offense of conviction, there was no basis to order restitution. This plain error required reversal of the restitution order.

2. United States v. Luna-Acosta, Tenth Circuit: Appellant pled guilty to illegal re-entry into the United States. At sentencing, the district court orally announced a sentence of one year in prison. Five months later, a written judgment was filed imposing a 33-month sentence. Because the court lacked jurisdiction to alter the sentence, the sentence was vacated and the case remanded for the court to enter a new judgment with a one-year sentence.

3. United States v. Mackay, Tenth Circuit: Appellant was convicted of unlawfully prescribing controlled substances and sentenced to 20 years in prison. Although the total sentence was below the advisory guidelines range, it exceeded the statutory maximum sentence on nine counts. Because the judgment was unclear whether the court intended to impose a 20-year sentence on each count, which would have been illegal, the case was remanded to allow the court to clarify the sentence for the record.

4. United States v. Mancuso, Ninth Circuit: Appellant was convicted of possession and distribution of cocaine, as well as two counts of maintaining a drug-involved premises. The distribution conviction was vacated because it joined two or more distinct and separate offenses into a single count. The convictions for maintaining a drug involved premises were vacated because the district court committed plain error by utilizing a "significant purposes" instruction rather than a "primary or principal use" instruction.

5.United States v. Patrick, Sixth Circuit: Appellant pled guilty to drug and firearm charges. At the plea hearing, the judge did not state the mandatory minimum penalty for the firearm charge. Because the court's failure to ensure that appellant understood that he faced a mandatory minimum sentence of five years for the firearm charge affected his substantial rights, the plea was vacated to allow appellant to withdraw his plea.

6. United States v. Ramirez, Ninth Circuit: Appellant was convicted of distribution, possession with intent to distribute, and conspiracy to distribute meth. When viewing the evidence on the conspiracy charge in the light most favorable to the government, the government failed to present sufficient evidence showing that appellant had an agreement with another to distribute meth. As a result, the conspiracy conviction was vacated and the case remanded for the district court to grant a judgment of acquittal on that count and to conform the sentence accordingly.

There are a handful of resentencing remands in the federal courts last week.

Perhaps most interesting is United States v. Francois, remanding because the sentence imposed exceeded the statutory maximum. One doesn't see that too often (though it's preserved in even the most aggressive appeal waivers - I think of it as a theoretical thing rather than a real meaningful risk, but, hey, last week was the week.).

To the victories!

1. United States v. Allen, Fourth Circuit: Appellant was convicted of conspiring to possess with intent to distribute 50 grams or more of crack cocaine and sentenced to 10 years in prison, the mandatory minimum at the time he committed the offense. Before he was sentenced, the Fair Sentencing Act ("FSA") was passed, which raised the drug quantities that triggered mandatory minimum sentences for certain crack offenses. Because the FSA was passed before appellant was sentenced and appellant didn't possess the amount of crack necessary to trigger the mandatory minimum under the FSA, his sentence was vacated and the case remanded for resentencing.

2. United States v. Dotson, Sixth Circuit.pdf: Appellant was convicted of sexual exploitation of a minor and possession of child pornography. He was sentenced to 22 years in prison to be followed by a 20-year term of supervised release, which carried with it many conditions. Because the district court did not articulate a rationale for imposing some of the conditions of supervised release, the judgment was vacated as to those conditions and the case remanded for further proceedings.

3. United States v. Francois, First Circuit: Appellant was convicted of four counts of possession of a firearm by a convicted felon, one count of possession a firearm with an obliterated serial number, and 12 counts stemming from his use of a stolen identity to purchase those firearms. For these offenses, he was sentenced to 164 months in prison. Because appellant's sentences for some of the offenses related to his use of a stolen identity exceeded the statutory maximum, the case was remanded for resentencing.

4. United States v. Hamilton, Eleventh Circuit: Appellant pled guilty to possession with intent to distribute 5 grams or more of crack cocaine and other drug offenses and was sentenced to 262 months. Appellant made two motions under 18 U.S.C.§ 3582(c)(2) to reduce his sentence based on Amendment 750 to the sentencing guidelines, which lowered the base offense levels applicable to crack offenses. It was error to deny the second motion because (1) the government's and probation's memos contained inaccurate or incomplete information about the drug quantity findings at sentencing and (2) the district court did not determine accurately the drug quantity.

5. United States v. Savani, et al., Eighth Circuit: Three appellants were separately convicted of crack cocaine-related offenses. In each case, appellants were sentenced below the statutory mandatory minimum. Shortly after appellants were sentenced, the FSA became law, and Amendment 750 was approved. In light of this amendment, appellants moved to further reduce their sentences. Because they were not barred for policy reasons from seeking a further sentencing reduction under § 3582(c)(2), the courts' orders denying appellants' motions were vacated and the cases remanded for further proceedings.

6. United States v. Washington, Eleventh Circuit: Appellant pled guilty to four fraud offenses and was sentenced to 105 months in prison. The sentence was based in part on the court's ruling that 250 or more people or entities were victimized by the fraud scheme. Because the government failed to present any evidence that there were 250 or more victims, appellant's sentence was vacated and the case remanded for the court to resentence appellant using a two-level, rather than six-level, enhancement for the number of victims under U.S.S.G. § 2B1.1(b)(2)(A).

October 29, 2007 started bad for Cortez Fisher.

He walked out of his house and the Baltimore police approached him (he lived in Baltimore). They asked to talk to him. He said no. He tried to drive away, but backed into a cop car.

He was arrested and searched - they found empty glass vials in his pants pocket.

The officers got a search warrant for Mr. Fisher's house and car, based on an affidavit by Baltimore DEA Task Force Officer Mark Lunsford.

In the affidavit, DEA Task Force Officer Lunsford said that he had talked to a confidential informant who was reliable and had helped him with a number of prior cases. The confidential informant said that Mr. Fisher sold drugs out of his house. DEA Task Force Officer Lunsford said that after hearing from the confidential informant, he personally had watched Mr. Fisher sell drugs from his car.

Law enforcement searched Mr. Fisher's house and car. They found drugs and a gun.

Mr. Fisher plead guilty to being a felon in possession of a firearm.

He was sentenced to ten years in prison.

One year later, DEA Task Force Officer Lunsford pled guilty to fraud for lying on affidavits in search warrants.

Now former-DEA Task Force Officer Lunsford said that Mr. Fisher's affidavit was one of the ones he lied in.

The District Court Holds That When Police Lie On A Search Warrant Affidavit It Isn't Necessarily A Miscarriage of Justice

Of course, as soon as the U.S. Attorney's Office learned that a man was in prison based on a lie, they immediately moved to vacate his conviction. A prosecutor's ethical mandate, of course, is to do substantial justice and protect the integrity of our system of justice.

No, wait, sorry, my bad. I must have misunderstood what a prosecutor is supposed to do. The U.S. Attorney's Office did exactly nothing.

Mr. Fisher, however, was understandably concerned that he had been convicted based on the word of someone who was now an admitted fraud.

He sent a letter to the district court saying that maybe he should have his plea taken back, since a law enforcement lie is a "but for" cause of his incarceration.

The district court held that this was not a good reason to withdraw a plea:

Unquestionably, if [Defendant] had known of Lunsford's criminal misconduct, he would have filed a motion to suppress, and the motion may well have been successful. Nevertheless, [Defendant] does not deny that he was unlawfully in possession of a firearm (as he admitted under oath during his Rule 11 colloquy). Under these circumstances[,] I cannot find that a failure to allow [Defendant] to withdraw his guilty plea would result in a "miscarriage of justice." Certainly, [Defendant] was denied of an opportunity to pursue a motion to suppress that might have been meritorious, but neither the Government nor his own counsel was aware of Lunsford's criminal misconduct at the time that [Defendant] entered his guilty plea and was sentenced. Therefore, it cannot be said that [Defendant's] counsel was ineffective or that the Government breached any obligation that it owed to him.

I don't understand how the district court could determine that "it cannot be said that . . . the [g]overment breached any obligation that it owed to" Mr. Fisher when it prosecuted him based on evidence obtained from a fraudulent affidavit. Wasn't ex-DEA Task Force Officer Lunsford a part of the government when he made the fraudulent affidavit?

The Fourth Circuit Holds That You Can Withdraw A Plea When It Is Procured By Fraud

The Fourth Circuit, in United States v. Fisher, took a different view:

This . . . is not a case where Defendant sought to withdraw his plea "merely because he discover[ed] long after the plea ha[d] been accepted that his calculus misapprehended the quality of the State's case or the likely penalties attached to alternative courses of action." Rather, Defendant's misapprehension stems from an affirmative government misrepresentation that "strikes at the integrity of the prosecution as a whole."

The Fourth Circuit was also good to note that just because Mr. Fisher was factually guilty doesn't matter - even a guilty person can suffer a miscarriage of justice.

Ultimately, the court of appeals found Mr. Fisher's plea was simply too compromised to stand:

Given the totality of the circumstances of this case--a law enforcement officer intentionally lying in a affidavit that formed the sole basis for searching the defendant's home, where evidence forming the basis of the charge to which he pled guilty was found--Defendant's plea was involuntary and violated his due process rights. Under these egregious circum- stances, Defendant was deceived into making the plea, and the deception prevents his act from being a true act of volition.

Though, as the court of appeal helpfully pointed out, the government can try Mr. Fisher again if want to put ex-DEA Task Force Officer Lunsford on as a witness at trial.

Last week was an active week in the federal appeals courts.

Perhaps most interesting - especially to those who are concerned about the state of our federal public defenders - is the Second Circuit's opinion in United States v. Barton. There, a federal defender tried to get out of a case but the judge wouldn't let him out.

On those facts, it turns out that was reversible error.

As the federal defender budget crisis gets worse, this kind of opinion may be comforting?

As you may have heard, there's been a lot of coverage of the federal defender budget situation in the press in the last week. The federal defender for the Southern District of Ohio laid himself off rather than do the same to his people. NPR had a big story on the federal defender system which is worth a listen.

What's frustrating about a lot of this coverage is that it blames the whole problem on the sequester. While the sequester is, of course, not helping, the Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts announced the budget restructuring on February 14th, before the sequester hit (and, even, before it was clear the sequester was going to hit).

The sequester is bad. And I'm all for getting the word out on that. But it seems that the FPD problem is also the result of something going on that isn't terribly indigent-defense friendly in the AO.

And, with that, to the victories,

1. United States v. Baird, First Circuit: Appellant was convicted of possession of a stolen firearm. At trial, the court refused to give a jury instruction that would have allowed him to assert the defense of "innocent possession" of the stolen weapon. Because appellant was entitled to that instruction, his conviction was vacated and the case remanded for a new trial.

2. United States v. Barton, Second Circuit: An assistant federal public defender made a motion to withdraw from representing a defendant in a criminal case. The court abused its discretion by forcing the attorney to continue the representation because the defendant, after being informed of his right to counsel, refused to recognize the public defender as his attorney, said he didn't want an appointed attorney, and didn't attempt to establish his financial eligibility for appointed counsel.

3. United States v. Benoit, Tenth Circuit: Appellant was convicted of receipt and possession of child pornography. Because these convictions arose out of the same depictions, the convictions violated the double jeopardy clause, requiring remand to vacate one of the convictions and sentences. Additionally, because the court did not explain whether the specific losses suffered by the victim were proximately caused by appellant's action, remand for redetermination of the portion of damages attributable to appellant was required.

4. United States v. Doyle, Sixth Circuit: Appellant pled guilty to failing to register as a sex offender and was sentenced to three years and one month in prison, followed by ten years' supervised release, which was subject to four special conditions. Because the court procedurally erred in failing to explain the reasons for imposing the special conditions, and because the record doesn't otherwise explain the basis for them, the special conditions were vacated and the case remanded for resentencing.

5. United States v. Fisher, Fourth Circuit.pdf: Appellant pled guilty to possession of a firearm by a felon. The officer responsible for the investigation that led to the appellant's arrest and guilty plea later pled guilty to defrauding the justice system. In particular, the officer admitted lying in the affidavit underpinning the warrant for appellant's home and car, where evidence forming the basis of the charge to which appellant pled guilty was found. The officer's affirmative misrepresentation, which informed appellants' decision to plead guilty, rendered appellant's plea involuntary and violated his due process rights. As a result, the district court erred in denying appellant's motion to vacate his plea.

6. United States v. LKAV, Juvenile Male, Ninth Circuit: Tribal authorities of the Tohono O'odham nation charged a juvenile with murder in 2009. In 2011, the United States filed its own charge against the juvenile and moved to commit him to an adult medical facility for psychiatric evaluation. Because the district court erred in committing the juvenile under 18 U.S.C. § 4241(d), rather than § 5037(e), reversal was required.

7. United States v. Logan, Eighth Circuit: Appellant pled guilty to conspiracy to distribute 50 grams or more of crack cocaine and was sentenced to 156 months in prison, which was later reduced to 120 months based on substantial assistance she provided after sentencing. Later, appellant filed a motion to reduce her sentence based on an amendment to the advisory guidelines that lowered the base offense levels for certain crack offenses. The district court erred in finding appellant wasn't eligible for a sentence reduction under her plea agreement. She was. Consequently, the case was reversed and remanded for further proceedings.

It's a good week in the federal circuits for folks accused of a crime.

Instead of the all-too-common diet of sentencing remands, there are some nice wins on our rights against unreasonable searches and seizures and against uncounseled statements to law enforcement. Well done appellate counsel!

And, what week would be complete without an opinion on restitution in child pornography cases.

To the Victories!

1. United States v. Black, Fourth Circuit: Appellant pled guilty to being a felon in possession of a firearm after his motion to suppress the firearm was denied. Because the officers who stopped him lacked reasonable suspicion to believe he was engaged in a crime, the stop violated the Fourth Amendment, and the firearm should have been suppressed as fruit of the unlawful search. For these reasons, the district court's ruling on the motion was reversed and appellant's conviction and sentence were vacated.

2. United States v. Gamble, Sixth Circuit: Appellants were convicted of two unrelated child pornography offenses and ordered to pay over $1 million in restitution to "Vicky," one of the people depicted in the images. Because the courts did not require a showing of proximate cause between Vicky's losses and the appellants' offenses, remand for that analysis was required. Furthermore, on remand, the lower courts must reconsider the extent to which appellants must pay restitution where they share responsibility for Vicky's injuries with hundreds of other child pornography viewers.

3. United States v. Ramirez, First Circuit: Appellant pled guilty to conspiracy to distribute and distribution of crack cocaine. He was sentenced to 13 years in prison. Because the record was unclear as to whether the court applied an enhancement for knowingly or intentionally using a minor person when committing the offenses, remand was required to resolve this question.

4. United States v. Hunter, Seventh Circuit: The district court properly granted appellant's motion to suppress statements he made to police after asking for his attorney. Because appellant unambiguously and unequivocally invoked his right to counsel, the officers should have stopped questioning him. As a result, the statements appellant made after asking for his attorney were properly suppressed.

5. United States v. Bell, D.C. Circuit: Appellant was convicted of conspiring to possess and distribute PCP. He argued that his lawyer was ineffective because the lawyer didn't tell him that he could have received a lower sentence under the "safety valve" provision of the Guidelines. Appellant also said his lawyer was ineffective because the lawyer didn't request a continuance at the sentencing hearing when it became apparent that appellant didn't about the safety valve. Because the record suggested a serious possibility that the lawyer was ineffective and that this ineffectiveness prejudiced appellant, remand was proper to resolve this uncertainty.

6. United States v. Moore, Fourth Circuit: Appellant was convicted of carjacking, using a firearm in the carjacking, and conspiracy. Because the district court erred in denying appellant's motion for a new trial, which was based in part on newly discovered evidence that a picture of a potential suspect in the underlying offenses was mislabeled, his conviction was vacated and the case remanded for a new trial.

Tamatha Hilton was the bookkeeper for a company called Woodsmith's. Woodsmith's made furniture. Ms. Hilton made bad decisions.

Specifically, for a few years, she took checks written by Woodsmith's customers and gave them to her husband, Jimmy Hilton. Mr. Hilton did not work at Woodsmith's.

Mr. Hilton gave the checks to his ex-wife, Jacqueline Hilton. Ms. Hilton opened a bank account at Suntrust in her name, saying that she was the owner of a company called Woodsmiths Furniture Company.

She was not.

She was, however, the owner of a pre-printed stamp from an office supply store that said checks made out to Woodsmiths should be deposited into her Suntrust Account.

You can probably guess how that was used.

Over two years Woodsmiths lost around $650,000 to Ms. Hilton's Suntrust Account.

The three were charged with identity theft, mail fraud, mail theft, money laundering, conspiracy, passing forged securities, and making a false statement to a financial institution.

At trial, Ms. Hilton was acquitted of making a false statement to a financial institution. Everyone else was convicted of everything else.

In their appeal to the Fourth Circuit, resolved in United States v. Hilton, Mr. and Ms. Hilton challenged their convictions for identity theft, on very clever grounds:

Jimmy and Jacqueline appeal their convictions for identity theft and aggravated identity theft, in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 1028(a)(7) and 1028A (the identity theft statutes). They argue that the conduct charged, namely, the use of the stamp bearing Woodsmiths' name in endorsing the stolen checks, did not constitute a violation of the identity theft statutes, because the language of those statutes does not encompass the act of stealing the identity of a corporation.

Ultimately, the Fourth Circuit agreed.

Noting that,

In light of the serious consequences flowing from a criminal conviction, the rule of strict construction rests on the principle that "no [person] shall be held criminally responsible for conduct which he could not reasonably understand to be pro- scribed." Accordingly, although "[t]he simple existence of some statutory ambiguity is not sufficient" to trigger automatic resolution of the ambiguity in favor of a defendant, "we will construe [a] criminal statute strictly and avoid interpretations not clearly warranted by the text." (internal citations omitted)

The statute, 18 U.S.C. § 1028(a)(7) makes it illegal to transfer, possess, or use "a means of identification of another person with the intent to commit, or to aid or abet, or in connection with, any unlawful activity that constitutes a violation of [f]ederal law, or that constitutes a felony under any applicable [s]tate or local law." The vicious § 1028A - which imposes a two-year consecutive mandatory minimum if someone commits and identity theft crime in connection with another felony - uses the same language.

In the definition section for both statute defines "means of identification" as "any name or number that may be used, alone or in conjunction with any other information, to identify a specific individual."

Under the Dictionary Act - the Act that defines terms used in federal statutes if there isn't another definition that's more closely tailored - "person" includes corporations. "Individual" though, might not.

Because that's an ambiguous question, the Fourth Circuit held that the identity theft statute does not apply to corporations.

we are left with a "grievous ambiguity or uncertainty in the statute[s]," and we decline to speculate regarding Congress' intent. Instead, faced with the choice of two plausibly valid interpretations, "we yield to the rule of lenity." (internal citations omitted)

Though the convictions for mail fraud, mail theft, money laundering, conspiracy, and passing forged securities still stood. The folks who were convicted were remanded for resentencing.

Happy New Year!

In our first "Short Wins" of the new year, the Eighth Circuit reverses a district court's order restricting a person in BOP custody from communicating with folks on the outside, the Ninth Circuit reverses on a career offender determination, and the Sixth Circuit reversed when a district court didn't give a person counsel in a competency hearing.

My personal favorite, though, is the Ninth Circuit's remand in a mail fraud case that, the court of appeals determined did not involve the mails.

Sometimes it's the little things.

To the victories!

1. United States v. Allmon, Eighth Circuit: After appellant was convicted of offenses arising out of his involvement in a drug trafficking operation and a conspiracy to kill a witness, the district court granted the government's motion to restrict appellant from communicating with 29 people. Years later, the court on its own motion ordered more stringent restrictions on appellant's communications after it learned that appellant circumvented the initial restrictions. Because the Director of the Bureau of Prisons did not make a motion to further restrict appellant's communications, this was error. As a result, the order requiring more stringent restrictions was vacated.

2. United States v. Lee, Ninth Circuit: Appellant was convicted of distributing crack cocaine and was sentenced as a career offender under Sentencing Guideline section 4B1.1 based on two prior convictions that the district court identified as controlled substance offenses. Because the government failed to meet its burden of showing that one of the two convictions qualifies as a predicate offense, the case was remanded for the district court to consider appellant's career offender status.

3. United States v. Phillips, Ninth Circuit: Appellant was convicted of mail fraud, among other offenses, arising out of his scheme to defraud his company. Because appellant's fraudulent scheme did not depend in any way on the use of the mails, his conviction for mail fraud was reversed.

4. United States v. Pileggi, Fourth Circuit: Appellant was convicted of various offenses as a result of his involvement in a fraudulent sweepstakes scheme. He was sentenced to 50 years in prison and ordered to pay more than $ 4 million in restitution. Appellant appealed his sentence, but not the restitution amount. On remand for resentencing, the court increased the restitution amount to more than $ 20 million. Because the appellate court's mandate did not give the district court the authority to change the restitution amount, the second restitution order was vacated and the case remanded for the district court to reinstate the first order.

5. United States v. Ross, Sixth Circuit: Appellants Bryan Ross and Robert Burston were convicted of offenses arising out of their involvement in a counterfeit check scheme. With respect to Mr. Ross, the district court erred when, upon granting a competency hearing, it failed to reappoint full-time counsel to represent Mr. Ross until the issue of competency was resolved. Mr. Ross' case was remanded for an evidentiary hearing to determine whether he was unconstitutionally deprived of counsel at the competency hearing. If the district court determines that Mr. Ross was deprived of counsel, his conviction and sentence will be vacated.

6. United States v. Watson, Fourth Circuit: Appellant was convicted of being a felon in possession of a firearm and ammunition. The district court denied appellant's motion to suppress a statement he made after being detained by police for three hours without probable cause. This was error because (1) appellant's three-hour detention was an unlawful custodial arrest in violation of his Fourth Amendment rights, (2) the taint of this unlawful arrest was not purged by the two Miranda warnings provided during his detention or by any intervening circumstance, and (3) the erroneous admission of appellant's statement was not harmless. As a result, appellant's convictions were vacated and the case remanded to the district court.

7. United States v. Xu, Ninth Circuit: Four Chinese nationals appealed their convictions arising out of their scheme to steal funds from the Bank of China and retain the proceeds by illegal transfers of funds and by immigration fraud. Because the district court erred in applying Sentencing Guideline section 2S1.1(a)(1) instead of section 2S1.1(a)(2), which resulted in a higher base offense level, the case was remanded for resentencing.

This week's wins cover three circuits and four diverse areas of law.

Particularly interesting (to me) are the Fourth Circuit's opinion holding that it may not be a crime to steal the identity of a corporation. It feels like corporate personhood and its limits are popping up in all sorts of ways these days.

The Eighth Circuit has an interesting jury instruction issue in a sexual assault case, and, remarkably, the First Circuit has a remand based on the sufficiency of the evidence in a marijuana conspiracy case. A good set of wins all around.

And good work Fourth Circuit for having two entries on the list!

To the victories!

1. United States v. Hilton, Fourth Circuit: Appellants Jacqueline, Tamatha, and Jimmy Hilton were convicted of offenses arising out of their scheme to defraud a furniture manufacturer. Jacqueline and Jimmy were convicted of, among other crimes, identity theft and aggravated identity theft. Because the statutes governing these crimes are ambiguous as to whether they include the theft of a corporation's identity, Jacqueline's and Jimmy's convictions on these counts were vacated. As to the remaining counts, the court vacated Jacqueline's and Jimmy's sentences and remanded for resentencing.

2. United States v. Rouillard, Eighth Circuit: At appellant's trial for rape, he requested that the jury be instructed that the knowledge element of rape required the jury to find not only that (1) he engaged in a sexual act with a woman when she was incapable of consenting, but also that (2) he knew of the woman's incapacity or inability to consent. The district court declined to provide instruction (2). This was error, as (2) is an element of the offense and deprived appellant of his defense. Consequently, appellant's conviction was reversed and the case remanded for a new trial.

3. United States v. Torres-Miguel, Fourth Circuit: Appellant was convicted of illegal reentry by an aggravated felon. At sentencing, the district court imposed a 16-level enhancement based on its finding that appellant's state conviction for a criminal threat constituted a prior "crime of violence" under Sentencing Guideline § 2L1.2(b)(1)(A)(ii). Because the state conviction did not qualify as a crime of violence, the enhancement was improper. Appellant's sentence was vacated and the case remanded for resentencing.

4. United States v. Burgos, First Circuit: In drug conspiracy case, a rational jury could not have concluded beyond a reasonable doubt that appellant had knowledge of or was willfully blind to a marijuana distribution operation. Because the government did not meet its burden of proving that appellant knowingly and voluntarily participated in the conspiracy, appellant's conviction was vacated with instructions for the district court to enter a judgment of acquittal.

After yesterday's heady news from the ABA Law Journal (did I mention you can vote for this blog here), I completely neglected to, you know, actually blog. Apologies.

Here are brief treatments of the wins from the week with Thanksgiving in it. Like Thanksgiving leftovers, there's not a lot here to be tremendously excited about, but, if you're really into yams and there are yams in the fridge, you're happy.

To carry the metaphor forward, let's hope you're really into sentencing remands.

The three cases are all on sentencing issues. The Ninth Circuit reversed on a sentencing issue in an illegal reentry case based on a change in the probation revocation guidelines, the Fourth Circuit reversed on a Fair Sentencing Act case, and the Fifth Circuit reversed a restitution award in Ponzi scheme case.

There's a backlog of interesting cases (no offense to these guys) from prior weeks. Later this week I'll have a few posts up about those.

To the Victories:

1. United States v. Catalan, Ninth Circuit: After Appellant was convicted of drug trafficking and served his six-month jail term, he was deported. When he later pled guilty to illegal reentry, his probation on the drug charge was revoked and he was sentenced to 360 days in jail. At his illegal reentry sentencing, the court imposed a 16-level enhancement under Sentencing Guideline 2L1.2(b)(1) based on appellant's six-month sentence and his 360-day sentence. Guideline 2L1.2(b)(1) provides for a 16-level enhancement if the defendant was previously deported after a drug trafficking conviction for which the "sentence imposed" was greater than 13 months. After appellant's sentencing, the Sentencing Commission clarified that a probation revocation sentence served after deportation should not be used to calculate the "sentence imposed" under the Guideline. Because the court used the probation revocation sentence to calculate the "sentence imposed," appellant's sentence was vacated and the case remanded for resentencing.

2. United States v. Edmonds, Fourth Circuit: Appellant was convicted of conspiracy to distribute more than 50 grams of crack cocaine, among other drug offenses. He was sentenced to life imprisonment on the conspiracy charge on the effective date of the Fair Sentencing Act, which increased the amount of crack cocaine needed to trigger the life imprisonment mandatory minimum from 50 grams to 280 grams. Because appellant was entitled to the benefits of the Act and the Act was not addressed below, appellant's sentence was vacated and the case remanded for resentencing with directions for the court to consider the Act.

3. United States v. Murray et al, Fifth Circuit: Appellants were convicted and sentenced for crimes arising out of a Ponzi scheme. None of appellants' sentences required restitution and none deferred determination of the amount of restitution to a later date. Because the district court found that restitution was inapplicable, the Mandatory Victims Restitution Act did not authorize the court to reopen appellants' final sentencing judgments to amend the sentences to include a restitution requirement. Because the right to appeal the timing of the court's order was not waived, the restitution orders were reversed.

Robert Peoples is no stranger to car trouble.

After his release from prison, he brought three lawsuits against South Carolina prison officials for violating his civil rights.

On the day of jury selection for his civil rights suit, Mr. Peoples was late. The federal judge hearing the case told Mr. Peoples that he had to be in court the next morning by 9:30.

The next day, Mr. Peoples was late. The District Judge, Judge Currie, told him that if he was late again the case would be dismissed.

Mr. Peoples was on time the next day.

Though the day after that he called the courthouse fifteen minutes before he was supposed to be there. Mr. Peoples reported that he had a flat tire and that roadside assistance was on its way.

The district court, in an effort of largess that it would later regret, confirmed that Mr. Peoples had car trouble and dispatched the Marshals to give him a ride to court.

Judge Currie found that Mr. Peoples had left his house in time to get to court, but was delayed by an unanticipated event. The case was not dismissed for his failure to appear and prosecute the case.

The trial went on.

On April 12, sadly, Mr. Peoples was late again. The judge heard argument from the parties about whether to dismiss the case, then decided that Mr. Peoples was willfully late. Judge Currie dismissed the case with prejudice.

What Not To Do After Losing In Court

A person has a number of options when a judge rules against her. She can file an appeal. She can ask for reconsideration. She can decide it's tough marbles and go home.

Mr. Peoples did not pursue these options. Instead, according to the Fourth Circuit, he went into the

courtroom, and approached Deputy Clerk Sara Samsa, who was gathering jury certificates to bring to Judge Currie. Peoples interrupted Samsa and repeated several times, "Tell Judge Currie get the f--- off all my cases. I started to tell her something there. I started to tell her ass something today."

Moreover,

Although the audio of the recording is somewhat garbled, it also contains an additional statement from Peoples in which he tells Judge Currie to "straighten the f--- up" or "straight the f--- up."

(As an aside, I think this is a very dignified way of handling the profanity inherent in this opinion. One would expect such classiness from Judge Diana Motz.).

This caused quite a bit of trouble. Court security was called. Details of finishing the case's dismissal were delayed. The FBI was called to take a statement from the courtroom clerk.

Judge Currie issued a show cause order as to why Mr. Peoples shouldn't be held in contempt. Then Judge Currie recused herself from that proceeding, since the profanity had Judge Currie as its object.

The Varieties of Federal Criminal Contempt

There are two kinds of criminal contempt available to a federal judge - both are under Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 42.

A 42(a) contempt proceeding is like a criminal trial - the person has a lawyer, has notice and opportunity to be heard, and a prosecutor is appointed.

A 42(b) proceeding is different. Rule 42(b) says that a court "may summarily punish a person who commits criminal contempt in its presence if the judge saw or heard the contemptuous conduct and so certifies. . . ."

Mr. Peoples proceeding on his regrettable statements about Judge Currie was a 42(a) proceeding. He had a lawyer, notice of the charges, and a prosecutor was appointed.

Old Habits Die Hard

Sadly, Mr. Peoples had car trouble on his way to the contempt proceeding and was late. The judge said that there would be a second contempt proceeding on his tardiness after the first contempt proceeding.

He was found in criminal contempt on the first count having to do with his suggestions about how Judge Currie comport herself. (it's a fascinating read - please check out the opinion for how the court got there if you're interested)

With no break in the proceedings, but with a bit of time for Mr. Peoples to talk to his lawyer while court was still in session, the second contempt proceeding started.

Mr. Peoples was found in contempt of court in that proceeding.

A Summary Hearing

On appeal, in United States v. Peoples, the Fourth Circuit reversed that second contempt finding.

Because the procedural requirements of 42(a) weren't followed, the contempt finding was only allowable if it was a summary disposition for contempt.

And a summary contempt disposition is only allowable if it's for someone who does something contemptuous in the presence of the judge who issues the contempt order.

As the Fourth Circuit has said,

We, and the majority of our sister circuits, do not consider tardiness or absence from court to provide an adequate basis for summary disposition under Rule 42(b). See In re Gates, 600 F.3d at 339 (holding that mere tardiness, like failure to appear, does not occur "in the actual presence of the court" and therefore is not subject to summary punishment (internal quotation marks omitted)); see also In re Contempt Order, 441 F.3d 1266, 1268 (10th Cir. 2006) (explaining that attorney's failure to appear "by no stretch . . . occur[red] within the presence of the court"); In re Chandler, 906 F.2d 248, 249-50 (6th Cir. 1990) ("'A lawyer's failure to attend court is not a contempt in the presence of the court.'" (quoting United States v. Onu, 730 F.2d 253, 255-56 (5th Cir. 1984))); United States v. Nunez, 801 F.2d 1260, 1264 (11th Cir. 1986) (per curiam) ("[T]he majority of circuits which have considered the issue have concluded that counsel's tardiness or absence cannot be characterized as contempt in the presence of the court.").

So, Mr. Peoples second contempt finding could not stand and was reversed, even while his first contempt determination is still good.

If you're thinking about being late to court, think about Mr. Peoples. You may have your case dismissed against your wishes, but at least you can't be held in contempt on a summary disposition.

It's a dog's breakfast of victories in the nation's federal criminal appellate courts.

Personally, I love a good case on the district court's contempt power -- look to see the Fourth Circuit's contempt reversal in United States v. Peoples profiled in more depth a little later in the week. The case has everything -- a pro se litigant, a finding of contempt, and profanity (which is tastefully referred to in the opinion). It reminds me of another great pro se contempt case from last year. It reminds me, too, of the Sixth Circuit's relatively recent case on the limits of a district court's power to sanction a lawyer. Always good stuff.

Which is not to give short shrift to the two other wins from last week -- resentencing in an illegal reentry case and unsupported supervised release conditions in a federal sex case.

And, of course, this week the Supreme Court is hearing more arguments and it's a relatively criminal heavy week. Tuesday has a Padilla case, as well as a nice Fourth Amendment question -- can the cops detain someone incident to a search warrant if the person is not actually present when the search warrant is executed. Wednesday is dog sniff day.

Of course, that assumes that Frankestorm doesn't blow the Eastern Seaboard away. Wish us luck with that.

On to the victories:

1. United States v. Peoples, Fourth Circuit: On appeal of appellant's two criminal contempt convictions, the Fourth Circuit held that, as to the second conviction, the district court committed plain error when it summarily imposed a contempt sanction for appellant's tardiness because the court failed to provide appellant with notice and an opportunity to be heard, and because this failure affected appellant's substantial rights.

2. United States v. Rodriguez-Escareno, Fifth Circuit: In illegal reentry case, the district court applied a 16-level enhancement to appellant's sentence because it considered his earlier crime, conspiracy to distribute methamphetamine, to be a "drug trafficking offense" under Guideline § 2L1.2(b)(1)(A)(i). The court erred in applying the enhancement because the elements of the conspiracy conviction under 21 U.S.C. § 846 are not consistent with the meaning of "conspiring" under the relevant Guideline: the Guideline requires an overt act, while § 846 does not. This was plain error because it was obvious and affected appellant's substantial rights: had his sentence been properly calculated, his Guidelines range would have been 15-21 months, as opposed to the 41-51 months determined by the court. Appellant's 48-month sentence was vacated and the case remanded for resentencing.

3. United States v. Child, Ninth Circuit: Appellant was convicted of attempted sexual abuse. A condition of supervised release prohibited him from residing with or being around children under age 18, including his daughters, and from socializing with or dating anybody with children under age 18, including his fiancée, without prior approval from his probation officer. The court failed to make specific findings on the record addressing the necessity of restricting appellant's ability to have contact with his children and fiancée. Because of the significant liberty interest implicated, these errors - as well as the absence in the record of any evidence supporting the condition - rendered the condition substantively unreasonable. The condition was also overbroad. For these reasons, the condition was vacated and the case remanded.

Sometimes I don't even recognize the Fourth Circuit anymore. They granted a coram nobis writ in a case based on bad immigration advice in United States v. Akinsade.

The Embezzlement at the Bank

Mr. Akinsade worked at a Chevy Chase bank in 1999. He was nineteen years old and was a lawful permanent resident in the United States - he had come here legally from Nigeria.

Mr. Akinsade cashed checks for friends in his neighborhood. He pocketed some of the money.

He then felt guilty and told his boss, who called the FBI. He cooperated with the FBI against his friends.

He was charged with embezzlement by a bank employee.

The Lawyer and the Plea

Mr. Akinsade really did not want to be deported. His lawyer worked out a plea for him, and told him that if he plead guilty, he couldn't be deported.

His lawyer said that since he was only pleading guilty to one offense, he would be unable to be deported. Just like the rule that a husband and a wife can't be arrested for the same crime, that's not the law.

He went to court to plead guilty. The district court judge had the following exchange with him:

The Court: [P]eople who are found guilty of felonies, often lose their right to vote, certain professional licenses may be denied them, may not be able to serve on a jury. And I know felons can't possess firearms. Certain jobs may be denied you. If you are on parole or probation with another system, that can be affected. Or if you are not a citizen, you could be deported. All of these things could be triggered by being found guilty of a felony. Do you understand that?

Akinsade: Yes, Your Honor.

He was sentenced to one month of community confinement, three years of supervision, a Special Assessment of $100 and restitution of $8,000.

Mr. Akinsade Makes Good

As the Fourth Circuit said,

After serving his sentence, Akinsade attended the University of Maryland where he received a bachelor's degree in computer science. He later earned a master's degree from the university, graduating with a 3.9 GPA, and received a fellowship from the National Science Foundation. Akinsade then entered into a leadership program at General Electric Company and moved to upstate New York.

The United States Government Doesn't Care If Mr. Akinsade Made Good

Nine years after his conviction, Mr. Akinsade was arrested and placed in immigration detention. He was detained for nine months, then charged as a removable alien.

He filed a coram nobis petition based on his lawyer's Very Bad Advice.

A coram nobis petition is authorized under 28 U.S.C. § 1651. Basically, it lets a court set aside a conviction if the person seeking to set it aside is no longer locked up and is suffering an ill effect of the conviction.

Though, of course, the person still has to have a really good reason to set it aside. The Fourth Circuit explained that,

As a remedy of last resort, the writ of error coram nobis is granted only where an error is "of the most fundamental character" and there exists no other available remedy. United States v. Mandel, 862 F.2d 1067, 1075 (4th Cir. 1988). The writ is narrowly limited to "'extraordinary' cases presenting circumstances compelling its use 'to achieve justice.'" United States v. Denedo, 129 S. Ct. 2213, 2220 (2009) (quoting United States v. Morgan, 346 U.S. 502, 511 (1954)). Thus, the writ provides relief in cases where the error "rendered the proceeding itself irregular and invalid." United States v. Addonizio, 442 U.S. 178, 186 (1979) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted) (superseded by statute on other grounds). A petitioner seeking this relief must show that "(1) a more usual remedy is not available; (2) valid reasons exist for not attacking the conviction earlier; (3) adverse consequences exist from the conviction sufficient to satisfy the case or controversy requirement of Article III; and (4) the error is of the most fundamental character." Hirabayashi v. United States, 828 F.2d 591, 604 (9th Cir. 1987).

The District Court Also Doesn't Care That Mr. Akinsade Made Good

The government fought the petition every step, and the district court rejected the petition.

Mr. Akinsade argued that if his lawyer had advised him on what the law is, rather than on what he imagined the law to be, but was too lazy to look up or find out, he wouldn't be getting deported.

The district court said that its questions during the plea colloquy were enough to mean that Mr. Arkinsale knew he could have been deported, regardless of the lawyer's advice.

The Fourth Circuit disagreed,

in light of the equivocal nature of the admonishment, counsel's affirmative misadvice that is clearly contrary to law, and the severity of the consequence itself.

Because the district court only told Mr. Arkinsale that he could be deported, but not that he would be, the Fourth Circuit held that the plea colloquy was not sufficiently definite as to override his prior lawyers faulty advice.

The Lawyer Also Didn't Really Investigate the Facts

Finally, to win, Mr. Arkinsale had to prove that if it weren't for his lawyer's advice he would be in a different position.

Mr. Arkinsale's deportation proceedings were under a provision that applies to folks who were involved in a fraud of more than $10,000. In his criminal case, his lawyer said that if he'd gone to trial, he could have argued that he was only involved in two checks that totaled $8,000, and would have disputed a third check that put him over the $10,000 threshold.

Indeed, his restitution amount was a mere $8,000.

The Fourth Circuit found that was good enough to show that if the lawyer's advice hadn't been wrong, things would have been different. The court of appeals granted the coram nobis.

While his lawyer's bad advice did mean that Mr. Arkinsale spent months in prison when he shouldn't have, at least he isn't going to be deported.

It's exceptionally rare for the Fourth Circuit to reverse a life sentence for someone who caused another person to die in the course of a botched bank robbery. And when the panel that heard the appeal has both Judges Wilkinson, and Niemeyer - whoa nelly - that's one whopper of a government error.

A Bank Robbery Gone Bad

September 28, 2008 did not turn out the way Larry Whitfield had planned.

His hope was to start the day with a bank robbery. He went to a credit union in North Carolina with a friend, a .357 magnum, and an assault rifle.

As he walked into the credit union's vestibule, a metal detector in the vestibule locked the inner doors of the credit union. Thwarted, Mr. Whitfield shook the doors of the financial institution.

They did not yield.

Mr. Whitfield and his companion sped away.

A Chase Gone Bad

Mr. Whitfield and his companion separated. Eventually, as the police pursued, he broke into the home of an elderly couple - Herman and Mary Parnell.

Ms. Parnell was home. Mr. Parnell was not.

Mr. Whitfield called a friend to come get him. Ms. Parnell was very upset - panicked and breathing oddly - to have Mr. Whitfield in his house.

Mr. Whitfield's friend later testified that Mr. Whitfield told Ms. Parnell at one point - "[M]a'am, just calm down. I'm probably more scared than you are, and I'm actually just trying to leave."

Ms. Parnell said she was short of breath and Mr. Whitfield tried to give her a glass of water and aspirin. His friend suggested that he call and ambulance. He didn't.

Ms. Parnell died of a heart attack.

Mr. Whitfield fled out the back door, and was caught by the police and arrested.

Mr. Whitfield Is Indicted

Mr. Whitfield was charged in federal court with attempted bank robbery, an number of weapons counts, and violating 18 U.S.C. § 2113(e).

Section 2113(e) is a strange one. Here's what it says:

Whoever, in committing [bank robbery or attempted bank robbery], or in avoiding or attempting to avoid apprehension for the commission of such offense, or in freeing himself or attempting to free himself from arrest or confinement for such offense, kills any person, or forces any person to accompany him without the consent of such person, shall be imprisoned not less than ten years, or if death results shall be punished by death or life imprisonment.

As the Fourth Circuit explained in Mr. Whitfield's case, United States v. Whitfield,

[Section] 2113(e) encompasses three alternative offenses pertinent to this case -- penalizing a defendant who, in evading apprehension for an attempted bank robbery: (1) "kills any person" (the "killing offense"); or (2) "forces any person to accompany him without the consent of such person" (the "forced accompaniment offense"); or (3) "forces any person to accompany him without the consent of such person" and "death results" (the "death results offense").

Oddly, Mr. Whitfield's indictment did not charge him with each of these offenses - or even the third one. Instead, his indictment said,

LARRY WHITFIELD did knowingly enter and attempt to enter Fort Financial Credit Union . . . with intent to commit therein a felony affecting that credit union, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2113(a), . . . as set forth in COUNT ONE of this Indictment; and in avoiding or attempting to avoid apprehension for said offense, forced M.P. to accompany him without her consent, and killed M.P.

He was charged with violating the first and second offenses set out in section 2113(e), but not the third (the one that kind of obviously looks like it applies).

The Case Goes To The Jury

Mr. Whitfield's case went to trial.

Mr. Whitfield's counsel noted the error in how the indictment was written and how it did not include the third element. The district court was unmoved.

At the end of trial, the jury was instructed that there are two ways of violating section 2113(e) and,

[w]ith respect to the second way of violating this statute, if you find that the defendant forced Mary Parnell to accompany him, you must also decide whether that forced accompaniment resulted in Mary Parnell's death.

The jury found Mr. Whitfield guilty of forcing Mary Parnell to accompany him, and also found that Mr. Whitfield's forced accompaniment caused Mary Parnell's death.

At sentencing, the district court determined that Mr. Whitfield was subject to a mandatory life term for his conviction on the forcible accompaniment charge.

Mr. Whitfield was sentenced to life on the forcible accompaniment when death results charge - indeed, the judgment described the offense as "[f]orced accompaniment while attempting to avoid apprehension for an attempted bank robbery resulting in death."

He was sentenced to an additional 300 months on a number of other charges arising out of his attempted bank robbery and flight.

The Fourth Circuit Vacates Mr. Whitfield's Conviction

He appealed.

The Fourth Circuit held that the three offenses in set out in section 2113(e) are indeed three separate offenses:

[W]e are content to adhere to the Supreme Court's nomenclature and describe § 2113(e) as creating "separate offenses by the specification of distinct elements." See Jones, 526 U.S. at 252.15 More specifically, the killing offense requires proof that a defendant "kill[ed] any person." The forced accompaniment offense necessitates proof that a defendant "force[d a] person to accompany him without the consent of such person." And the death results offense -- although entailing the lesser-included forced accompaniment offense -- requires further proof that "death result[ed]."

Because Mr. Whitfield wasn't indicted for violating the separate "death results" charge, even though he was later convicted for it - and sentenced to life for it - his conviction and sentence violated his right to be indicted by a grand jury.

As the Fourth Circuit put it,

[B]y instructing on the uncharged death results offense, the district court constructively amended Count Four to broaden the possible bases for conviction beyond those presented to the grand jury. When such a constructive amendment is found, the error is fatal and reversible per se.

Though, Mr. Whitfield was convicted for a violation of section 2113(e) other than on the "death results" language.

And he'll be resentenced for that on remand.

The range is between 10 years and life.

Albert Burgess made some bad decisions.

First, he downloaded a mass of child pornography. The folks at Immigrations and Customs Enforcement (or "ICE") were able to find him through the payment information he supplied to the child porn purveyor.

ICE asked for and received a warrant to search his house. While his house was being searched he agreed to be questioned.

He told law enforcement that he was the only person who used his home computer. That was probably also a mistake.

They found child pornography on his computer - and on CDs in his house.

He was arrested. While he was waiting to be checked into jail, a female law enforcement agent asked if she could keep talking to him. He said yes.

This was also a mistake. I don't know why it seems there are a lot of female agents working child porn cases, but folks accused of these crimes seem to be really willing to talk to them. There's something going on there - law enforcement is being smart in a way not dissimilar to Hooters.

Here's how the Fourth Circuit describes Mr. Burgess's statements:

Burgess, looking down at a copy of the arrest warrant, stated, "You've got me." He admitted to viewing child pornography between two and three times per week, and also informed Redden that he knew of significant child pornography trafficking operations in Russia and the Philippine Islands (the Philippines).

Ok, so far this is relatively typical for a child pornography case. Then things go a little off the rails. Mr. Burgess is released before trial.

The Perils Of Do-It-Yourself 5K1.1

While he's on pretrial release,

On March 7, 2008, Burgess placed a telephone call to [law enforcement] stating, "Well, I've got to help myself. I've got to talk to somebody." Burgess met with the federal agents at his home three days later, signed a statement waiving his Miranda rights, and provided details regarding his pornography sources in Russia and the Philippines. It was Burgess' understanding that the federal authorities would use the information and email addresses he had provided to assist in the investigation of these internet pornography sources. Burgess was under the impression that he was bargaining with the federal agents, and later testified to this effect, stating: "You know, you've got to give [the government] something before they can give you something. You can't sit there, you know, and extract something from them." Burgess also confessed to the federal agents that he viewed child pornography for five hours per day while masturbating, and that he did so to prevent himself from actually committing offenses on a child.

I agree that Mr. Burgess needed to talk to someone. I just think that he probably needed to talk to a lawyer, and not a federal law enforcement agent.

In exchange for his efforts to "help" Mr. Burgess was sentenced to 292 months in prison and a lifetime of supervised release.

The Fourth Circuit Rejects Easy Restitution For Child Porn Victims

The district court in North Carolina also sentenced him to pay restitution to a known victim of child pornography - Vicky.

In United States v. Burgess, the Fourth Circuit joined a number of other circuits to reject this request for restitution for victims of child pornography.

It did so in a way similar to how other courts have approached it - the district court has to make findings of how the defendant in this case caused the harm complained about by the child pornography victim. It's not per se impossible, it's just going to be massively difficult to accomplish.

So, on remand,

The primary difficulty that will face the district court on remand will be the determination, if the court finds that proximate causation has been established, of the quantum of loss attributable to Burgess for his participation in Vicky's exploitation. Vicky is entitled to the "full amount" of restitution for such loss, and we leave the calculation of such an amount to the district court in the first instance. While the district court is not required to justify any award with absolute precision, the amount of the award must have a sufficient factual predicate. Vicky's loss is an aggregation of the acts of the person who committed and filmed her assault, those who distributed and redistributed her images, and those who possessed those images. The culpability of any one defendant regarding Vicky's loss is dependent at least in part on the role that defendant played with respect to her exploitation.

Fair enough - in this line of cases that's kind of the baseline in light of what the First, Second, Third, Fifth, Ninth, Eleventh, and D.C. Circuit's have already held. But wait, there's more . . .

Every Downloading Of Child Pornography Is Separate For Federal Criminal Restitution

But then the Fourth Circuit goes further notes that joint and several liability does not apply for child pornography restitution awards - at least in cases involving possession and receipt.

We also observe that the tort concept of joint and several liability is not applicable in this context. In situations such as Vicky's, individuals viewing her video recordings inflict injuries at different times and in different locations. Therefore, those individuals cannot have proximately caused a victim the same injury. As the court observed in Monzel, "so long as the requirement of proximate cause applies, as it does here, a defendant can be jointly and severally liable only for injuries that meet that requirement." Monzel, 641 F.3d at 539 (citing Restatement (Second) of Torts § 879 cmt. b (1979) for the proposition that individual instances of exploitation are separate injurious results).

This is going to create an odd kind of restitution award if a district court is ever able to find that a child pornography possessor has proximately caused harm to someone in Vicky's situation.

How would you approach that at a hearing? The images depicting Vicky were downloaded, let's say, 100,000 times. Is the quantum of harm from each download the same? Do you just divide? Does it matter if one person says he looked at the images every day and others looked weekly? Do you want to count views or downloads?

How desperately are district court judges going to find a way to avoid thinking too much about any of this?

You Can't Assume Yourself Into Immunity

And, to answer the lingering question from Mr. Burgess's statements were entitled to any kind of immunity because he was trying to cooperate with law enforcement to get his sentence reduced, the Fourth Circuit said no.

Mr. Burgess argued that because he was trying to provide substantial assistance to help catch child pornographers in the Philippines and Russia, his statements couldn't be used against him.

Sometimes, a lawyer can negotiate that deal for a client - which is why Mr. Burgess probably should have used a lawyer to negotiate his immunity deal.

As the Fourth Circuit explained,

A defendant's alleged agreement to cooperate with law enforcement authorities in exchange for transactional immunity is governed by traditional principles of contract law, and therefore an agreement of this nature may be express or implied. United States v. McHan, 101 F.3d 1027, 1034 (4th Cir. 1996). Irrespective whether the alleged agreement is express or implied, the defendant must establish that a meeting of the minds occurred such that the government agreed to refrain from prosecuting the defendant in return for his cooperation. Id. (holding that the same standard applies with respect to equitable immunity).

In this case, Burgess can identify no action or statement on the part of the government sufficient to establish a meeting of the minds regarding immunity for his statements. Burgess was informed of his Miranda rights before every exchange with the authorities, and at no time did a law enforcement agent make any statement or representation concerning immunity. Additionally, the agents' conduct cannot be viewed objectively as impliedly offering immunity to Burgess or as accepting such an offer from him. Additionally, the agents' conduct cannot be viewed objectively as impliedly offering immunity to Burgess or as accepting such an offer from him. Indeed, Burgess' own testimony at trial demonstrated his mistaken belief that, despite repeated Miranda warnings, he expected to receive a benefit from providing information to the authorities. Such a mistaken belief, however, cannot serve as the foundation for an immunity claim.

It's a dark side to the rise of DIY culture. There's nothing wrong with DIY painting or bicycle repair. Perhaps it's less helpful to have do it yourself negotiations with federal criminal authorities.

Related Links:

• A District Judge Can't Sanction A Lawyer For Filing A Motion Just Because He Really Hates The Lawyer's Client (or, why you shouldn't cross a border with child pornography on your laptop


• A District Court Can't Take Away Alcohol and Technology For The Rest of A Person's Life, Even If He's Guilty of A Child Porn Offense


• The Fifth Amendment Protects You From Being Compelled To Unencrypt Your Hard Drive


• Club Rules, Prejudicial Evidence, and Hard Distinctions About Child Pornography


• Federal Child Pornography Charges

William Cloud believed in the American dream of home ownership. He worked to make buying a home easy for people in his community.

He wanted to make buying a house easy, even if it would be the second or third house that a person would own.

To make sure the houses he was helping people buy were up to snuff, he'd buy them first and do some work on them. He'd then sell them - or, using the government's language - he'd "flip" them to the people he was helping to become real estate investors.

He made money on each sale, because, of course, a man has to eat. And he didn't disclose these payments to himself because it didn't want to cloud his good works with the ugly taint of money.

Also, he knew that people could buy more houses if their credit was good. So, he'd work with people to purchase a number of houses quickly, so that they only had to use the one credit report for the series of mortgages. That way, the first house wouldn't show up on the credit report for the second or third house.

Unfortunately, like so many of us in this modern life, Mr. Cloud spread himself too thin. He was available to help folks get into the houses, but wasn't able to make the time to help his neighbors pay their mortgages.

Many of the homes were foreclosed on.

The government, immune to the pull of Mr. Cloud's good works, indicted him for mortgage fraud and money laundering.

Mortgage fraud, because Mr. Cloud told a number of people to make false statements on mortgage applications and also, uh, helped them make those false statements.

Money laundering because Mr. Cloud paid a number of people to help him with this home ownership vision - he paid people to find others to buy houses and facilitate real estate closings.

A jury convicted Mr. Cloud.

In United States v. Cloud, the Fourth Circuit reversed his money laundering conviction.

Money laundering is, generally, when a person take the profits from a crime and cleans them up by transferring the money.

However, the money has be profits from a crime. As the Supreme Court explained in United States v. Santos [FN1]:

Few crimes are entirely free of cost, and costs are not always paid in advance. Anyone who pays for the costs of a crime with its proceeds--for example, the felon who uses the stolen money to pay for the rented getaway car--would violate the money laundering statute. And any wealth-acquiring crime with multiple participants would become money laundering when the initial recipient of the wealth gives his confederates their shares. Generally speaking, any specified unlawful activity, an episode of which includes transactions which are not elements of the offense and in which a participant passes receipts on to someone else, would merge with money laundering.

And, of course, if money laundering merges with the underlying crime a person can't be convicted of both offenses without violating double jeopardy.

So - if a person is prosecuted for a substantive offense, that person can't be charged with money laundering for transferring expenses associated with that offense.

Or, as the Fourth Circuit explained,

Cloud's money laundering convictions are based on payments to recruiters, buyers, and other coconspirators for the role each person played in the mortgage fraud scheme. Cloud's mortgage fraud depended on the help of others, and their help, in turn, depended on payments from Cloud. Such payments are no different than "the felon who uses the stolen money to pay for the rented getaway car" or "the initial recipient of the wealth" in "any wealth-acquiring crime with multiple participants . . . [who] gives his confederates their shares." Santos, 553 U.S. at 516 (plurality opinion). Because Cloud's money laundering convictions on Counts 28-33 were based on paying the "essential expenses" of his underlying fraud, we find a merger problem.

Mr. Cloud's money laundering convictions were then vacated.

The Fourth Circuit also reversed an order that Mr. Cloud had to pay the costs of his court-appointed attorney's time.

The case was sent back for resentencing.

[FN1] - Strictly speaking this was just Justice Scalia writing for a plurality. But it's really good language.

See also:

Paying For Drugs Is Not Money Laundering

Last year came to be known as the year that the Fourth Amendment rose again in Richmond, Virginia.

The Fourth Circuit held that police conduct violated the Fourth Amendment here, here, here, here, and here.

Last week, the Fourth Circuit did it again.

Frederick Jones was driving three of his friends through Richmond Virginia. They were in a car with New York license plates. They were all African-American.

Two police officers spotted them and started to follow their car. Because the area was known as a place where people sell drugs, and because the men were in a car with out of state plates, and because, as one officer put it "the people in the vehicle didn't belong there" they were followed.

In the light of the late afternoon, the police followed the men in a marked police car.

The men pulled onto a one-way private road that ran along an apartment building. They parked their car.

The police car pulled past them on the road and stopped, blocking anyone from driving past. If the men wanted to leave in their car, they would have had to back up the one-way street the wrong way.

The men in the car got out. Mr. Jones stayed with the car by the driver's side door. Everyone else went into the apartment building.

The police got out of their car and walked up to Mr. Jones. They instructed him that they needed to talk to him. They asked him to lift his shirt and to let them pat him down. He did.

They asked for his driver's license. He didn't have one.

They told him he was then under arrest for driving without a license. When they searched him again as a part of the arrest, they found a gun in his pants, and some marijuana. He was charged with possessing a firearm as a drug user. (though, what about this Fourth Circuit case?)

He filed a motion to suppress the evidence, which was denied. On appeal, the Fourth Circuit reversed, in United States v. Jones, finding that he was seized by the officers when they approached him for Fourth Amendment purposes, so that the evidence was obtained illegally.

The court of appeals was moved by the way the officer parked.

We agree that when an officer blocks a defendant's car from leaving the scene, particularly when, as here, the officer has followed the car, the officer demonstrates a greater show of authority than does an officer who just happens to be on the scene and engages a citizen in conversation.

The court of appeals also thought the way the officers approached Mr. Jones also made it plain to him that he couldn't leave. Some times, officers approach and ask permission to talk to a person. That isn't what happened here.

Rather, in speaking to Jones, the officers clearly continued their show of authority. According to [the officer] himself, 'right when' he 'made contact' with Jones, he asked Jones to "lift [his] shirt" to see whether Jones possessed a weapon. Not satisfied with the shirt lift, [the officer] then asked Jones to consent to a pat down search, further implying that the officer suspected that Jones--a person the police had followed onto private property--might be armed. Thus, their immediate verbal exchange with Jones did nothing to lessen a reasonable person's suspicion that he was the target of a criminal investigation, and, in light of the totality of the circumstances, only enhanced it.

For those reasons, the Fourth Circuit concluded that

Thus, the totality of the facts in this case requires us to conclude that the officers detained Jones before they had any justification for doing so. For two police officers in uniform in a marked police patrol car conspicuously followed Jones from a public street onto private property and blocked Jones's car from leaving the scene. The officers then quickly approached Jones by the driver's side of his car -- letting two other vehicle occupants walk away--and nearly immediately asked first that he lift his shirt and then that he consent to a pat down search for weapons. Although the uniformed officers did not draw their holstered weapons or use a threatening tone, these circumstances would suggest to a reasonable person that the officers were not "treating the encounter as 'routine' in nature," but rather that the officers were targeting him because he was engaged in "illegal activity." See Gray, 883 F.2d at 322-23. Any one of these facts on its own might very well be insufficient to transform a consensual encounter into a detention or seizure, but all of these facts viewed together crystallize into a Fourth Amendment violation.

The Confederacy may never rise again, but it's nice to see the Fourth Amendment is coming back in Richmond.

Imagine you were going to a professional meeting. Maybe it's a weeklong off-site skills training for work. Maybe it's an odd kind of a conference in your hometown. You'll be at some strange new location during the day, then go home at night.

At the start of the exercise, people seem interested in you. They ask you a lot about yourself. But then, at some point, you're given a seat and told to just sit, watch, and learn.

Next, the woman who is leading the training reads to you from a list of instructions that she had prepared in advance. You are not allowed to ask questions. Your fellow participants aren't allowed to talk about the instructions.

Some stuff happens - a few people talk to you and they ask questions of other people who answer them. Maybe you read some documents.

After that stuff is done, the person who read to you at the start of the training reads to you again to tell you how to figure out what the people were talking to you about. She gives you a list of instructions, and tells you to go talk to the other participants, but you have to follow the rules she gave you.

Also, she may or may not give you a copy of those rules.

This is, in many ways, the experience of a juror in a federal criminal trial. Jurors are given instructions - which they are presumed to follow closely - only once, and often only orally.

In United States v. Lawson, decided recently by the Fourth Circuit, one of the jurors was eager to understand the elements of the crime he was supposed to figure out if someone was guilty of.

The government alleged that a number of people, including Scott Lawson, were on trial for violating the animal fighting prohibition of the Animal Welfare Act, 7 U.S.C. § 2156(a). The defendants in this case were accused of cockfighting (or, rather, getting game fowl to fight - the defendants themselves weren't actually fighting. That would have probably not been a federal crime).

The Animal Welfare Act prohibits "sponsoring" a cockfight.

One of the jurors, named Jury 177, after listening to the evidence, was curious. He wasn't sure that he knew what "sponsoring" means.

He did what most folks these days do when they don't know the meaning of a word. He went to Wikipedia and looked up "sponsoring." The jury then found the folks accused of sponsoring cockfights guilty.

Six days after the jury returned the guilty verdict, one of the jurors told a court security officer than Juror 177 had been Googling for justice.

The district court appointed a lawyer for Juror 177, and had a hearing about what happened.

Even though Juror 177 was looking at a criminal contempt charge - and, indeed, was found guilty of contempt and sentenced to a fine and community service - Juror 177 testified that he had searched on the internet to learn what "sponsoring" means and shared what he found with his fellow jurors.

What Juror 177 didn't realize, apparently, is that he was told by the district court judge that he wasn't allowed to consult the internet as a part of his deliberations. The problem this doesn't raise for the Fourth Circuit is that the way we instruct jurors is sort of bizarre as a kind of human interaction, and jurors don't listen to jury instructions. [FN1]

No, instead the Fourth Circuit was troubled by the presence of Wikipedia.

Even though Googling to find the meaning of a word is incredibly common - even Judge Posner does it - the Fourth Circuit held that using Wikipedia was just too unreliable to allow this verdict to stand. [FN2]

As the Fourth Circuit said,

Given the open-access nature of Wikipedia, the danger in relying on a Wikipedia entry is obvious and real. As the "About Wikipedia" material aptly observes, "[a]llowing anyone to edit Wikipedia means that it is more easily vandalized or susceptible to unchecked information." Id. Further, Wikipedia aptly recognizes that it "is written largely by amateurs."Id.

We observe that we are not the first federal court to be troubled by Wikipedia's lack of reliability. See Bing Shun Li v. Holder, 400 F. App'x 854, 857-58 (5th Cir. 2010) (expressing "disapproval of the [immigration judge's] reliance on Wikipedia and [warning] against any improper reliance on it or similarly unreliable internet sources in the future"); Badasa v. Mukasey, 540 F.3d 909, 910-11 (8th Cir. 2008) (criticizing immigration judge's use of Wikipedia and observing that an entry "could be in the middle of a large edit or it could have been recently vandalized"); Crispin v. Christian Audigier, Inc., 717 F. Supp. 2d 965, 977 (C.D. Cal. 2010) (criticizing parties' reliance on Wikipedia); Kole v. Astrue, No. CV 08- 0411, 2010 WL 1338092, at *7 n.3 (D. Idaho Mar. 31, 2010) (admonishing counsel from using Wikipedia as an authority, observing that "Wikipedia is not a reliable source at this level of discourse"); Baldanzi v. WFC Holdings Corp., No. 07-CV-9551, 2010 WL 125999, at *3 n.1 (S.D.N.Y. Jan. 13, 2010) (observing that Wikipedia "touts its own unreliability"); Campbell ex rel. Campbell v. Secretary of Health and Human Servs., 69 Fed. Cl. 775, 781 (Fed. Cl. 2006) (observing dangers inherent in relying on Wikipedia entry).

The case was remanded for a new trial.

So, to summarize: John McCain can use Wikipedia for his speeches. Judge Posner can use Google for his opinions. Jurors cannot use Wikipedia instead of following the jury instructions.

[FN1] - Juror 177 was found in contempt because the court's directions went specifically to him; they weren't of general applicability like in this case. Though this raises a question - how can failing to follow a jury instruction subject someone to contempt? Can a jury be held in contempt en mass when they nullify? Should the trial jury be held in contempt every time the court of appeals reverses for insufficient evidence when the jury convicted? Juror 177 was, presumably, trying in good faith to resolve a Doesn't this seem a little crazy?

[FN2] - To be fair, there is a multi-part test that the court of appeals applied - the unreliability of Wikipedia only went to one part. Though the rest of it is pretty dry.

Former Congressman William Jefferson, a son of New Orleans, will perhaps be best known for having been found with cash - cold, hard, cash - in his freezer.

He was convicted in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia of eleven charges in connection with a bribery scheme involving his role as a member of Congress and officials in Africa. In a major coup for his lawyer, he was not convicted of the offense involving the cash found in his freezer.

He was convicted, alas. And, the Fourth Circuit affirmed 10 of his 11 counts of conviction in United States v. Jefferson.

The one count they reversed on, though, is exceptionally interesting (to me).

Count 10 - Wire Fraud

Count ten of the indictment against Mr. Jefferson alleged that he violated the federal wire fraud statute, 18 U.S.C. § 1343.

This count was based on a telephone call from Africa to Kentucky on July 6, 2005. The government alleged that the call was in furtherance of a scheme that was hatched, in part, in the Eastern District of Virginia.

His lawyers challenged whether there was venue for such a call in the Eastern District of Virginia. After all, the call was started in Africa and accepted in Kentucky. That doesn't look like it affects the folks who live near the federal courthouse in Alexandria.

The district court rejected the venue challenge.

A Bit Of Background on Venue in a Criminal Case

In a criminal case, a person's right to proper venue is Constitutional - it's in article III, section 2, clause 3; "The Trial of all Crimes . . . shall be held in the State where the said Crimes shall have been committed." It's also contained in Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 18.

For many federal criminal statutes, Congress has expressly said where venue lies. Money laundering, under 18 U.S.C. § 1956 is a good example. Congress has said that a money laundering prosecution can go forward in any jurisdiction where the money laundering transaction happened, or where the illegal act that requires money to be laundered was done (assuming the person accused did the laundering).

But, for many federal statutes, there's no explicit venue provision. Wire fraud, as it happens, is one of those statutes.

In that case, the Supreme Court has said that a person can be prosecuted in the jurisdiction where the conduct that is prohibited by the statute took place.

Venue in a Wire Fraud Case

Simple enough. What's the conduct in wire fraud?

Mr. Jefferson's lawyers argued that the conduct for wire fraud is the making or receiving of the wire. That's what "wire fraud" is about - using a wire.

The government, on the other hand, said that the elements of wire fraud are (1) the use of a wire that is (2) in furtherance of a scheme to defraud. Either one of those elements is an act necessary to complete the offense, argued the government. As a result, the government said that if either happened in the Eastern District of Virginia, the prosecution was proper there.

In fairness to the government, the Seventh Circuit has said basically the same thing in United States v. Pearson, 340 F.3d 459 (7th Cir. 2003).

Thinking Up A Fraud Scheme Is Not Conduct

The Fourth Circuit sided with Mr. Jefferson. It held that,

The scheme to defraud is clearly an essential element, but not an essential conduct element, of wire (or mail) fraud.

Picking up the phone and making a call is an act. Similarly, for mail fraud, putting a letter in a mailbox is an act. But planning a fraud scheme, not so much. Quoting a Second Circuit case, United States v. Ramirez, 420 F.3d 134, 144-45 (2005), the court of appeals held that,

devising a scheme to defraud is not itself conduct at all (although it may be made manifest by conduct), but is simply a plan, intention or state of mind, insufficient in itself to give rise to any kind of criminal sanctions.

Because Mr. Jefferson only had a state of mind in the Eastern District of Virginia, and didn't use the phone there - Count 10 was dismissed for improper venue.

The moral of the story is that you can think about fraud where ever you'd like. Just only answer the phone where you want to face a jury.

Air travel is always hard, but Samir Ibisevic's trip was much worse than most.

His father had died, and he was flying to Sarajevo for the funeral. He'd been up all night traveling from Syracuse to Dulles with his mother, Rahima. He had a headache and he was upset by his father's death.

He also had $5,000 in cash in his pocket, and his mom had another $35,000 in her bags.

A customs officer, doing a random check of passengers, approached Mr. Ibisevic. The officer explained that it isn't illegal to take cash out of the country, but if you want to take more than $10,000, you have to fill out a reporting form.

The officer asked Mr. Ibisevic if he was traveling with any cash. Mr. Ibisevic said he had $5,000.

The officer took Mr. Ibisevic and his mother to a more private area. He asked again, how much currency they were taking out of the country "as a whole." Again Mr. Ibisevic said $5,000.

Mr. Ibisevic, as much of the defense evidence at his later trial showed, speaks very little English and reads even less.

The officer showed him a reporting form. Mr. Ibisevic looked at the form for a minute or two. The officer then told him to write the amount of cash he was taking out of the country on the form. Mr. Ibisevic wrote "$5,000."

The officers then searched Mr. Ibisevic's bags, as well as those of his mother. They found the $40,000 in cash.

The Criminal Charges

Mr. Ibisevic was charged with failing to report the international transportation of currency, cash smuggling, and making a false statement.

Each offense requires that it be committed "willfully." The sole issue at trial is whether Mr. Ibisevic intended to make a false statement or fail to report, or, instead, if he simply didn't realize he was obligated to.

The Mother and Child Reunion

Mr. Ibisevic's mother testified against him, under an immunity agreement. She said that the money was his, and that she speaks no English (she testified through an interpreter).

On cross, Mr. Ibisevic's lawyer asked Mr. Ibisevic's mother what Mr. Ibisevic said before the customs agent showed him the reporting form and asked him to sign it.

As the mother started to answer, the district court, without an objection from the government, interrupted the testimony. The court expressed concern that the testimony would be hearsay.

Mr. Ibisevic's lawyer explained what the answer would be - Mr. Ibisevic's mother would say that her son told her that the agents wanted to know the value of the bags if they were lost.

The district court thought this evidence was hearsay and refused to let it in.

Mr. Ibisevic's defense case focused on how limited Mr. Ibisevic's English was. Mr. Ibisevic himself testified that he didn't know he had to report the cash, but that he thought the customs officers were asking about the value of his luggage in case it was lost.

He was convicted, and sentenced to two years probation. He also had to forfeit the cash.

The Appeal

Mr. Ibisevic appealed based on the district court's hearsay ruling.

In United States v. Ibisevic, the Fourth Circuit held that, first, Mr. Ibisevic's statement to his mother about what he thought they were asking wasn't hearsay.

Hearsay is when a person is testifying about something someone said outside of the courtroom and they're trying to prove that what the person said is true.

So, if a witness says, "John said the money was counterfeit" and the person offering that testimony is trying to prove that the money was counterfeit, then that would be hearsay.

But, if, instead, the person offering the witness is trying to prove that John thought the money was counterfeit, then it isn't hearsay - it just goes to what John thought.

Here, Mr. Ibisevic wasn't trying to prove that the agents were asking him about the value of his luggage - they clearly weren't. Rather, he was trying to prove what he thought they were asking.

So, the testimony wouldn't have been hearsay. Though, even if it were hearsay, it still would have been admissible under the "present sense impression" exception to the hearsay rule.

The court of appeals also concluded that the error wasn't harmless. The issue of Mr. Ibisevic's intent was the only issue at trial. This evidence bore directly on that.

So, Mr. Ibisevic is going back for another trial.

Anthony Doswell was having a bad run of luck.

He was on supervised release from the end of a federal sentence. Supervised release works a bit like probation for those who have been in prison - folks coming out of a federal prison have a period of years where they have to check in with a probation officer, be drug tested, and, if they mess up, sent back to prison.

One big way to mess up is to commit a new crime. The rub is that a person can be violated - and sent back to prison - for committing a new crime, not just for being convicted of committing a new crime.

So, it's possible for a person on supervised release to be charged with a new crime, beat the charge, then be sent to prison anyway.

It's a hard world.

Anthony Doswell was in a spot like that. He was on supervised release and had been charged with having some marijuana on his person. He also tested positive for heroin and didn't show up to mental health treatment, or to meet with his supervising probation officer. [FN1]

He and his lawyer went to court to answer the allegations. His plan was to admit that he had been using marijuana and throw himself on the mercy of the court.

At the hearing, his lawyer learned that Mr. Doswell had previously been charged with heroin distribution.

Mr. Doswell had also been to court on the charge - twice! Each time the chemist who said the heroin in question was heroin had neglected to show up. The heroin case was eventually dismissed.

Mr. Doswell and his attorney may not have had the most transparent relationship.

In any event, Mr. Doswell objected to a violation of his supervised release based on the heroin. The government went forward with the allegation, providing the district court with the charging documents for the state court heroin distribution charge, as well as the chemist's report.

The government did not call any witnesses.

The district court found that Mr. Doswell had violated his supervised release by selling heroin. As the Fourth Circuit summarized it,

Without explanation, the district court concluded that, "notwithstanding the objection," the drug analysis report was "sufficient to support the [heroin] violation alleged." Accordingly, the court found Doswell guilty of the heroin violation set forth in Supplemental Notice, a violation that the court concluded, "in itself, [wa]s sufficient for . . . a mandatory revocation [of Doswell's supervised release]." The court then sentenced Doswell to the statutory maximum, twenty-four months of imprisonment.

On appeal, the only issue the Fourth Circuit dealt with, in United States v. Doswell, was whether, under Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 32.1(b)(2), Mr. Doswell had a right to have the witnesses against him testify.

The government argued that under a prior Fourth Circuit case, and the general principle that revocation hearings are less formal, it didn't have to have a witness there.

Mr. Doswell, instead, suggested the court of appeals look at the language of Rule 32.1(b)(2), which says that at a revocation hearing, a person has

an opportunity to appear, present evidence, and question any adverse witness unless the court determines that the interest of justice does not require the witness to appear

Since the district court spent exactly no time balancing whether the interests of justice didn't require the chemist to testify against Mr. Doswell, the Fourth Circuit reversed the finding of violation and remanded.

Big congratulations to the defense lawyer on appeal, Joanna Silver! Way to ask the court to please read the law.

[FN1] - I know, they call the people who supervise folks on supervised release "Probation Officers" even though it's supervised release. I suppose "Supervised Release Officer" is too specialized a title or something.