Articles Tagged with “Supervised Release”

Published on:

Here is a recap of some recent victories from the Sixth Circuit. Good to see vigilant defense counsel using foresight to prevent undue restrictions resulting from sentencing conditions.

United States v. Arnold. Sixth Circuit: A jury convicted Appellant of being a felon in possession of a firearm. At sentencing, the district court departed upward, at least in part, because of its concern that a longer term of imprisonment was needed to ensure that Appellant received appropriate mental health treatment. Specifically, the district court found that Appellant’s “anger” warranted an upward departure to promote public safety, but also that Appellant so needed a “psychiatric intervention” that the Court felt compelled “to grant the government’s motion to go outside and above the sentencing guidelines” to ensure the Appellant would receive that treatment. The Sixth Circuit found that the district court abused its discretion.

United States v. Kelly. Sixth Circuit: Appellant violated his terms of supervised release by failing to register as a sex offender. As part of its Judgment, the district court imposed that district’s rote conditions of supervised release for sex offenders. But the Appellant’s last sex offense predated the revocation by 26 years. Moreover, the record demonstrated that Appellant had a low likelihood of recidivism (for sex offenses), had no mental disorder, had benefitted from previous therapy, and the age had lessened the risk of re-offending. Under such circumstances, the district court abused its discretion and the sentence was substantively unreasonable. The case further highlights the need for Counsel to be vigilant when Courts seek to impose “standard” conditions of supervised release.

United States v. Wilson. Sixth Circuit: A jury convicted Appellants of conspiracy to defraud the United States and providing false information to the Social Security Administration. Appellants sought to demonstrate their good faith reliance on the advice of their accountant, but the district court precluded that effort. Specifically, the district court found that Appellants had not sufficiently made an offer of proof sufficient for the defense to be presented to the jury. The Sixth Circuit, finding that the district court abused its discretion, found that an offer of proof unnecessary. Rather, Appellants needed only to inform the court of the substance of the evidence to be presented. As a second finding of error, the Sixth Court found that the district court failed to articulate its reasoning for a leadership enhancement, which required reversal.

Robert Dietrick represents criminal defendants in the federal Courts of Appeals.

Published on:

This week’s favorite Short Win is United States v. Gray. I say this less because of the legal issue involved – a jury instruction for “malice” – than for how much fun the opinion is to read. Here’s the opening:

Words are slippery things. Take “malice,” its legal definitions alone can encompass: the intent to commit a wrongful act, reckless disregard for the law, ill will, wickedness of heart, and the intent to kill. See Black’s Law Dictionary 968-69 (7th ed. 1999). But can malice’s fifty shades of meaning include “improper motive?” Former flight attendant Nancy Gray, convicted of providing false information regarding a bomb threat on an airplane, seeks to convince us that she was denied a fundamentally fair trial when her jury was instructed that malice meant “evil purpose or improper motive.” Because we find that the district court’s definition just won’t fly, we vacate Gray’s conviction and remand this case for a new trial.

It goes on from there. And, really it’s a sad story about a flight attendant snapping. But it’s good prose.

To the victories!

Thumbnail image for Thumbnail image for you win.jpg1. United States v. Gray, First Circuit: Appellant’s conviction for giving false information regarding a bomb threat on an airplane was vacated and remanded because the trial court improperly instructed the jury on the definition of malice. By instructing he jury that malice could be “an improper purpose,” the trial court reduced the government’s burden of proof.

Defense Attorney: Inga L. Parsons
2. United States v. Medina, First Circuit: After pleading guilty to failure to register as a sex offender, Appellant was sentenced to 30 months’ imprisonment and 20 years of supervised release. This sentence was vacated and remanded for resentencing because the 20-year period of supervised release was based on the erroneous classification of Appeallant’s SORNA violation as a sex offense. In addition, two conditions of supervised release–one restricting Appellant from accessing or possessing a wide range of sexually stimulating material, and the second requiring Appellant to submit to intrusive penile plethysmograph testing–were not justified by the record.

Defense Attorney: Edward J. O’Brien

Continue reading →

Published on:

There are two cases in this batch of short wins that I think deserve a special shout out.

First, there’s United States v. Torres-Perez. Appeal waivers are the bane of federal criminal practice (or one of them). Their only advantage is that they make prosecutors’ lives easier. The downside, which is significant, is that they discourage the development of the law. I’d rather have the government work more and know what the law is. Though I may be crazy. In Perez, the Fifth Circuit slapped down an appeal waiver requirement in order to get credit for a acceptance.

Second, there’s United States v. Barta – another great entrapment case from the Seventh Circuit. That circuit is bustin out entrapment cases like Taylor Swift and Katy Perry bust out insults of each other. Or something.

To the victories!

you win.jpg1. United States v. Matta, Second Circuit: As part of the conditions for his supervised release, Appellant was required to participate in a drug treatment or detoxification program, but the Probation Department was allowed to decide if that program should be inpatient or outpatient. The delegation of that decision to the Probation Department was improper because the power to impose special conditions of supervised release is vested exclusively in the district court. That condition was vacated and the case remanded for resentencing.

Defense Attorney: Yuanchung Lee
2. United States v. Fernandez, Fifth Circuit: Appellant was convicted of failing to register as a sex offender and as part of his supervised release, was required to install computer filtering software that would block or monitor Appellants access to sexually oriented websites for any computer he possesses or uses. Because neither the failure to register as a sex offender or his underlying offense involved the use of a computer, the special condition was not sufficiently tied to the facts of the case and was vacated.

3. United States v. Torres-Perez, Fifth Circuit: Appellants pled guilty to illegal reentry. Despite timely entry of the plea deals, the government did not move for any reduction for acceptance of responsibility, claiming that it would not do so because Appellants had not waived their rights to appeal. Withholding the sentencing reduction for that reason is impermissible, so the case was remanded for resentencing
4. Unitd States v. Bailey, Seventh Circuit: Appellant pled guilty to distributing crack cocaine and reserved his right to appeal if the Fair Sentencing Act ever was determined to apply to his case. The Supreme Court subsequently decided that the FSA should apply to cases like Appellant’s retroactively. The Seventh Circuit determined that the proper procedural vehicle for Appellant was a petition for relief under Section 2255, and that the proper remedy was a new sentencing hearing.

5. United States v. Barta, Seventh Circuit: Appellant’s conviction for conspiracy to commit bribery was reversed because Appellant was entrapped as a matter of law. In an undercover government sting operation, Appellant and his co-defendants agreed to bribe a fictional county official in California to obtain a government contract. The government admitted that Appellant was not predisposed to committing the crime and the court found that the government had induced the crime through repeated attempts at persuasion, employing both fraudulent misrepresentations and promises of additional reward.

6. United States v. Hawkins, Seventh Circuit: The district court erred in its definition of bribery under the mail fraud statute by including the intent to be rewarded, without anything in return. The statute requires more than just accepting a reward for a person to be guilty of bribery; it requires that the person does something in exchange for the reward. The convictions for mail fraud were vacated.

7. United States v. McMillian, Seventh Circuit: Appellant’s sentence of thirty years was based in part on the application of two sentencing guideline which were created after the dates of Appellant’s offenses. That application violates the ex post facto clause and the court held that Appellant was entitled to resentencing because the new guidelines range would have been 30 years to life. The previous sentence of 30 years was below the guidelines, rather than within it, so it is possible the judge would have decreased Appellant’s sentence if the proper guidelines range was considered.

8. United States v. Thompson, Seventh Circuit: The Seventh Circuit again took issue with a number of conditions of supervised release imposed by the district courts. Although the court notes that it is difficult to determine conditions of release that may not be implemented for years or decades, the Seventh Circuit vacated a number of conditions because the district court did not provide any reasoning or justification, the condition was not orally articulated at sentencing, or because the condition was unrelated to the crime.

9. United States v. McElmurry, Ninth Circuit: Appellants convictions for possession and distribution of child pornography were vacated. The district court’s failure to reading or listen to evidence–including interview statements made in connection with a prior state law child pornography conviction and a letter written to an inmate months before the crime was charged–was improper under Federal Rules of Evidence 403.

Defense Attorney: John Balazs
10. United States v. Rice, Ninth Circuit: The calculation of restitution and forfeiture was flawed where the loss amount included money laundered before Appellant had joined the conspiracy. Thus, the case was remanded for resentencing and recalculation of those amounts.

Defense Attorney: William H. Gamage
11. United States v. Wray, Tenth Circuit: Appellant’s sentencing guidelines were miscalculated because his prior crime of “Sexual Assault – 10 Years Age Difference” under Colorado statute section 18-3-402(1)(e) does not constitute a crime of violence. The definition for “crime of violence” includes forcible sex offenses, but, applying the categorical approach, the statute in question here does not fall under that definition.

Defense Attorneys: Matthew Belcher and Virginia L. Grady

Published on:

The most interesting case in the last two weeks, I think, is United States v. Shannon. There, the person accused of a crime simply didn’t feel like talking to law enforcement – because, really, who would. The government crossed him on his decision not to talk and asked why he didn’t come forward with his exculpatory testimony sooner.

The Third Circuit reversed because this violated his Fifth Amendment rights – there’s really no point in having a right not to talk if you hold it against a person when she doesn’t talk.

To the Victories!

1155650_berlin_siegessule.jpg1. United States v. Santaigo, First Circuit: Appellant was convicted of failing to register as a sex offender and the terms of his supervised release included a number of special sex offender conditions. One condition, which was not articulated by the judge at the sentencing hearing but only added in the written judgment, must be vacated because it was imposed in Appellant’s absence.

Defense Attorneys: Liza L. Rosado-Rodríguez, Héctor E. Guzmán-Silva, and Héctor L. Ramos Vega
2. United States v. Cuti, Second Circuit: After being convicted of making false statements and securities fraud, Appellant was ordered to pay restitution. The court vacated the restitution order and remanded for the trial court to determine what expenses incurred are “necessary” under the Victim and Witness Protection Act. The court held that legal expenses incurred in connection with civil arbitration were not undertaken or pursued in the aid of prosecution and therefore were improperly included in the restitution order.

Defense Attorneys: Brian C. Brook and Matthew J. Peed
3. United States v. Shannon, Third Circuit: Appellant’s conviction was vacated because the government cross-examined Appellant during trial about his post-arrest silence. The government violated Appellant’s Fifth Amendment rights when it questioned him about failing to come forward earlier with his exculpatory version of the facts.

Defense Attorney: Paul D. Boas
4. United States v. Farah, Sixth Circuit: Appellant’s conviction for refusing to testify in the criminal prosecution of thirty gang members was in violation of the double jeopardy clause. The underlying criminal investigation was, in part, for the sex trafficking of minors and Appellant was convicted of both willfully disobeying an order requiring his testimony and of obstructing or attempting to obstruct the child sex trafficking laws. Those convictions require proof of the same elements, requiring the willfully disobeying conviction to be vacated.

Defense Attorney: James Mackler
5. United States v. Brewer, Eighth Circuit: Appellant was convicted of failing to register as a sex offender under the Sex Offender and Registration Notification Act (SORNA). Appellant, who was convicted prior to the enactment of SORNA, challenged the Attorney General’s interim rule that made registration requirements to all pre-Act offenders. Because that rule was set without the required period for notice and comment, and without good cause, and that rule prejudiced Appellant, SORNA did not apply to Appellant and his conviction must be vacated.

6. United States v. Thornton, Eighth Circuit: Appellant was sentenced to the 15-year mandatory minimum for being an armed career criminal. That sentence was vacated because two of his prior convictions did not qualify as the three predicate offenses necessary to be considered an armed career criminal. First, the government admitted that a Missouri burglary conviction for which Appellant received a suspended sentence could not be a predicate offense. Second, Appellant’s Kansas burglary conviction was under a statute which criminalized both violent and non-violent conduct. It could not be considered a predicate offense because the government did not prove that Appellant was convicted under the subsection criminalizing violent conduct.

7. Castellanos v. Small, Ninth Circuit: Petitioner’s application for habeas relief should have been granted where the government exercised four peremptory strikes against Hispanic venirepersons. The Ninth Circuit found that the government’s reason for striking one person because she did not have children was pretextual.

Defense Attorneys: Gia Kim and Sean K. Kennedy
8. Gibbs v. LeGrand, Ninth Circuit: The district court improperly dismissed Appellant’s petition for habeas corpus. Because Appellant had repeatedly requested updates from his attorney about his state post-conviction proceedings, and counsel had pledged to update Appellant. Counsel, however, did not tell Appellant his stat post-conviction proceedings had ended, causing Appellant to miss the deadline for his federal habeas petition. That misconduct was an extraordinary circumstance requiring an extension of time for filing the habeas petition.

Defense Attorneys: Megan C. Hoffman, Debra A. Bookout, and Ryan Norwood
9. United States v. Dreyer, Ninth Circuit: Appellant’s convictions for child pornography were reversed because the trial court should have excluded where a military agent turned over the fruits of his investigation to local law enforcement. The court held that it is improper for a military special agent to investigate conduct by anyone in the state of Washington, not just those connected with the military. Such investigation violates the regulations and policies proscribing direct military enforcement of civilian laws.

Defense Attorney: Erik V. Levin
10. United States v. Meyer, Ninth Circuit: In California, the one-year statute of limitations in which to file a §2254 habeas petition begins to run once 1) the California Supreme Court denies the state habeas petition; and 2) the United States Supreme Court denies certiorari or the 90-day period for filing a petition for certiorari expires. Petitioner here filed his habeas petition within one year of the denial of his state habeas, and it was only at that point that he had exhausted state remedies and the statute of limitations began to run.

Defense Attorney: Charles Marchand Bonneau II
11. United States v. Heineman, Tenth Circuit: Appellant was convicted after a bench trial of one count of sending an interstate threat. That conviction was reversed because the court did not make a finding that Appellant intended the recipient to feel threatened. The Ninth Circuit held that the First Amendment requires the government to prove in any true-threat prosecution that the accused intended the recipient to feel threatened.

Defense Attorneys: Benjamin McMurray and Kathryn Nester

Published on:

Child porn cases are turning out to be a surprisingly large portion of what’s in federal court.

Child pornography is gross and wrong, to be clear. But these cases are, I think, a symptom of a larger problem.

All of us have times in our lives when we’re in the wilderness, when we feel adrift and alienated and unsure of where we’re going or where we are. Some folks in this time of life turn to alcohol, Some turn to drugs, video games, or other ways to keep themselves from facing the great chasm of dissatisfaction that their lives have become. “The mass of men lead lives of quiet desparation” and all that.

Maybe this desperation is more acute in these times, maybe it’s an inevitable part of what it is to be human.

In any event, as anyone who has defended someone who has been accused of possession of child pornography knows, unfortunately, some folks come to this dark place in their lives and instead of drinking their time away, they turn to pornography. Often they start on more mainstream stuff, come to be desensitized and look for things that are more and more disturbing. That can lead them to child pornography. Or these folks are just searching for pornography in volume and come to the massive troves of child pornography floating around the internet.

The government is not shy about bringing these cases. Much as folks with drug addictions get punished by our government when they come to harder stuff – even though what they really ought to get is treatment – people who merely possess child pornography are too aggressively pursued for what is often a mental health problem that requires treatment.

Happily, in United States v. Husmann, the Third Circuit took a stand against a particularly gross practice in the prosecution of child pornography laws.

Much child pornography is shared through online file sharing systems. So, you can have child pornography in a folder that you mark to be shared with others on the internet.

The government sometimes takes the position that making stuff available through putting it in a folder that allows sharing is distribution of child pornography. Distribution is a massively more severe crime than possession with a much more severe mandatory minimum. And by threatening a distribution charge where a person only allowed file sharing, the government can coerce plenty of people into taking a plea, or taking a plea under worse terms.

Thankfully, the Third Circuit came out against that practice, holding that just showing the images were available for sharing isn’t the same as saying they were distributed.

To the victories!

1155650_berlin_siegessule.jpg1. United States v. Groysman, Second Circuit: Appellant was convicted of health care fraud and money laundering. The main government witness gave testimony that included inadmissible hearsay and opinions, and was allowed, without personal knowledge, to provide the foundation for seven government exhibits that were inaccurate and misleading. The admission of misleading exhibits for which the witness had no personal knowledge of the matters conveyed, as well as inappropriate opinion testimony relating to Appellant’s role in the scheme, was prejudicial and required the convictions to be vacated and the case remanded for a new trial.

Defense Attorney: Maurice H. Sercarz
2. United States v. Brown, Third Circuit: Appellant’s conviction for being a felon in possession of a firearm was vacated and the remanded for a new trial. The district court erred in admitting evidence of Appellant’s past firearm purchases. Although the government had a legitimate non-propensity purpose for admitting the evidence–it showed Appellant’s knowledge of the firearm in his car–it still violated 404(b) because the government did not proffer a sufficient explanation of why the evidence was relevant. Evidence that Appellant had previous purchased firearms does nothing to establish that he knowingly possessed a gun six years later.

Defense Attorney: Kimberly R. Brunson
3. United States v. Brown, Third Circuit: The district court inappropriately applied a sentencing enhancement after finding that Appellant was a career offender, requiring Appellant’s sentence to be vacated. There is a narrow range of cases where a court can look beyond the legal requirements, and instead examine the factual bases for a conviction to determine if it was a crime of violence. But here, exploring the underlying facts was in error because the prior conviction did not require the factfinder to make a determination that there was a crime of violence so the modified categorical approach cannot be used.

Defense Attorney: Thomas W. Patton
4. United States v. Husmann, Third Circuit: Appellant was convicted by a jury of three counts of distributing child pornography after Appellant placed images in a shared computer folder connected to a file sharing network. At trial, the government did not present evidence that any person had downloaded or obtained those images. The mere placement of images into a folder, making those images available to users of the file sharing network, does not constitute distribution. Appellant’s conviction was therefore vacated.

Defense Attorneys: Theodore C. Forrence, Jr., Kenneth C. Edelin, Jr.

5. United States v. Foster, Sixth Circuit: Appellant was sentenced to 622 months’ imprisonment for two counts of drug possession, two counts of firearm possession, one count of drug distribution, and one count of conspiracy. One of the drug possession charges as well as one firearm possession counts were vacated because they were in violation of the Double Jeopardy Clause. Those two counts duplicate other counts for which Appellant was convicted and sentenced.

Defense Attorney: Frederick Liu
6. United States v. Miller, Sixth Circuit: A jury found Appellants guilty of hate crimes after a string of assaults in Amish communities where the Appellants would cut the hair of members of their Amish community. During trial, the court gave a jury instruction requiring the jury to find that the faith of the victims must be a “significant factor” in motivating the assaults. The convictions must be vacated and Appellants retried because the instruction should have required the jury to find that the faith of the victims was a “but for” cause of the assaults.

Defense Attorneys: Michael E. Rosman, Matthew D. Ridings, Wendi L. Overmyer, Rhonda L. Kotnik, John R. Mithcell, Kip T. Bollin, Holly H. Little, Mark R. Butscha, Jr., David C. Jack, George C. Pappas, Brian M. Pierce, Joseph A. Dubyak, Samuel G. Amendolara, Steven R. Jaeger, Robert E. Duffrin, Rhys . Cartwright-Jones, Damian A. Billak, J. Dean Carro, Wesley A. Dumas, Sr., James S. Gentile, Nathan A. Ray, and Gary H. Levine
7. United States v. Prater, Sixth Circuit: A conviction for third-degree burglary under New York law is not a “violent felony” for purposes of the Armed Career Criminal Act. The district court’s determination that these were violent felonies without applying the modified categorical approach was in error. The sentence was vacated and the case remanded.

Defense Attorney: Laura E. Davis
8. United States v. Chapman, Seventh Circuit: Appellant was convicted of drug trafficking by a jury. The district court erroneously admitted details of Appellant’s prior drug-trafficking conviction under Rule 404(b). The judge allowed the government to use that evidence to prove knowledge and intent, but the relevance of the evidence depended entirely on a forbidden propensity inference. Appellant’s conviction was vacated and remanded for a new trial.

9. United States v. Gonzalez, Seventh Circuit: Appellants were members of the Almighty Latin Kings Nation gang and most pled guilty to various charges, although one went to trial. Appellant Anaya, who was found guilty at trial, must be resentenced because the district court increased a statutory maximum based on facts that were not proven beyond a reasonable doubt. Thus, the sentencing guidelines should have reflected a maximum of 20 years as opposed to 30.

10. United States v. Johnson, Seventh Circuit: At sentencing, the district court did not announce a term of supervised release, but one was incorporated in the court’s written amended judgment. The conditions of supervised release which were not orally announced at sentencing were vacated and the case remanded for the district court to clarify conditions of the supervised release.

11. United States v. Fowlkes, Ninth Circuit: The forcible removal of drugs from Appellant’s rectum during a body cavity search, without medical training or a warrant, violated Appellant’s Fourth Amendment rights. The evidence obtained from that brutal and physically invasive search should have been suppressed. The conviction predicated on the drugs was vacated and the case remanded for resentencing.

Defense Attorney: Thomas P. Sleisenger
12. United States v. Luis, Ninth Circuit: The district court erred in calculating the loss amount after Appellant pled guilty to conspiracy and loan fraud. The district court erred by calculating the restitution amount based on the unpaid principal loan balance rather than the value of the loans when they were purchased.

Defense Attorney: Todd W. Burns
13. United States v. Nora, Ninth Circuit: The district court’s denial of a motion to suppress was reversed. Although Appellant’s arrest was supported by probable cause, it violated the Fourth Amendment because officers physically took Appellant into custody in his front yard by surrounding his house and ordering him out at gunpoint. All evidence seized in the search incident to arrest should have been suppressed, as should the statements made by Appellant’s statements.

Defense Attorney: Michael J. Treman
14. Wharton v. Chappell, Ninth Circuit: The district court’s denial of habeas was vacated and remanded for further factual proceedings to determine ineffective assistance of counsel. Appellant’s claim that his lawyer was ineffective for failing to investigate and present testimony by Appellant’s half-brother that there was sexual abuse ubiquitous in Appellant’s family could have merit as the jury may not have rendered a verdict of death. The case was remanded for further proceedings.

Defense Attorneys: Marcia A. Morrissey and Lynne S. Coffin

Published on:

It’s been an interesting few weeks in the circuits (and, apologies for the gap in posting – pesky family vacations).

Probably my favorite is United States v. Mergen, about whether an FBI agent’s statements that what the guy charged with a crime was doing were ok and legal were admissible. I tend to think FBI stings that take advantage of how weak the entrapment defense is are one of the more loathsome things our federal government does – any time you can poke holes in that I think it’s a good thing.

Also of note is United States v. Bagdy – there, a guy who spent an inheritance on stuff that wasn’t restitution, instead of restitution, didn’t violate his supervised release conditions. Supervised release can be insane – especially when restitution is in play. Nice work for the Third Circuit in dialing it back.

To the victories!

1155650_berlin_siegessule.jpg1. United States v. Martinez, First Circuit: Appellant pled guilty to one count of being a felon in possession of a firearm and was sentenced to 70 months’ imprisonment. That sentence was vacated because the district court erred in applying a six-level sentencing enhancement for having previously committed a crime of violence. The First Circuit held that a conviction for assault and battery in Massachusetts is categorically not necessarily a crime of violence because it does not require proof of intent.

Defense Attorney: William W. Fick
2. United States v. Ramos, First Circuit: Appellant was convicted of various child pornography charges, and as part of his supervised release, was forbidden from using a computer or the internet without permission and also was forbidden from having pornographic material. Those conditions were vacated because they are not reasonably related to Appellant’s characteristics and history and thus deprive him of more liberty than is reasonably necessary to achieve the goals of sentencing.

Defense Attorney: Steven A. Feldman
3. United States v. Mergen, Second Circuit: Appellant’s conviction under the Travel Act was vacated because the district court erred by excluding as hearsay a recording in which the FBI agent assured Appellant that he had done nothing wrong. The statements should not be excluded as hearsay where prior inconsistent statements are offered for impeachment, and the fact that some portions of the recording were inaudible was not a proper basis for exclusion under the authentication rule.

Defense Attorneys: Andrew J. Frisch and Jeremy B. Sporn
4. United States v. Bagdy, Third Circuit: The district court cannot revoke supervised release based on Appellant’s purposeful dissipation of an inheritance he received instead of using the money to pay restitution he owed. While that conduct is reprehensible, it did not violate a specific condition of Appellant’s supervised release. The judgment was vacated and the case remanded.

Defense Attorney: Candace Cain
5. United States v. Mark, Third Circuit: After being convicted of conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute a controlled substance, Appellant was sentenced to 210 months’ imprisonment. The court remanded for resentencing because the Court did not provide a basis for its findings on the amount of drugs attributable to Appellant and Appellant had disputed the amount as indicated in the PSR. The court’s conclusory statements were insufficient since the amount to attribute was in dispute.

Defense Attorney: Pamela L. Colon
6. United States v. McLaurin, Fourth Circuit: Appellant’s sentence was vacated because his criminal history calculation included two common law robbery convictions when Appellant was 16. Because this miscalculation was plain error, the case was remanded for resentencing with a lower sentencing range.

Defense Attorneys: Joshua B. Carpenter, Lawrence W. Hewitt, and Henderson Hill
7. United States v. Juarez-Velasquez, Fifth Circuit: Appellant’s probation revocation was reversed and vacated because his supervised release expired prior to the date the Probation Office petitioned the court for revocation, depriving the court of jurisdiction. Tolling a term of supervised release is appropriate only when Appellant was imprisoned in connection to a criminal conviction, and Appellant’s imprisonment was only while he was awaiting trial for charges for which he was acquitted.

8. United States v. Hackett, Sixth Circuit: Appellant was convicted by a jury of various gang-related, weapons, and drug offenses as well as a RICO conspiracy charge and was sentenced to 440 months’ imprisonment. The mandatory-minimum sentence on a firearms count was imposed in violation of Alleyne–because the indictment did not allege that Appellant discharged the weapon–and therefore Appellant’s sentence was vacated and remanded for resentencing.

Defense Attorney: David L. Doughten
9. United States v. Noble, Sixth Circuit: During their trial for various drug trafficking charges, Appellants moved to suppress evidence obtained from a frisk during a traffic stop. The decision to perform the frisk was based solely on: 1) a passenger acting extremely nervous; 2) the DEA task force told the officer that the vehicle was suspected to be involved in drug trafficking; and 3) the idea that subjects involved in drug trafficking often carry a weapon to protect themselves. That was not enough to amount to a reasonable suspicion so the convictions were vacated and the case remanded.

Defense Attorneys: Frederick J. Anderson, Charles P. Gore, and Katherine A. Crytzer
10. United States v. Tomlinson, Sixth Circuit: Appellant was convicted by a jury for being a felon in possession of a firearm. Appellant timely raised his Batson challenge before the jury was sworn and the trial commenced, so the case was remanded for a Batson hearing. The Sixth Circuit held that a Batson challenge does not have to happen contemporaneously for each stricken juror.

Defense Attorney: Valentine C. Darker
11. United States v. Toviave, Sixth Circuit: Appellant was convicted of forced labor for requiring his young relatives to cook, clean, and do household chores. The Court found that Appellant’s behavior was reprehensible, but did not amount to forced labor. Requiring a child to do chores cannot possibly amount to forced labor, and physically punishing children for failing to perform those chores does not change the nature of the work from chores into forced labor. His conviction was therefore vacated.

Defense Attorney: Christopher Keleher
12. Socha v. Boughton, Seventh Circuit: The district court abused its discretion when it rejected Petitioner’s equitable tolling argument when requesting habeas relief. Although he failed to file his petition within the given time limits, equity required that the deadline be forgiven. Petitioner faced many difficulties in filing his petition, none of which were his fault, including his inability to obtain his case file for almost a year from the public defender despite numerous requests.

13. United States v. Adame-Hernandez, Seventh Circuit: The district court withdrew Appellant’s guilty plea over his objection. This violated the procedures of Rule 11 which allows a district court to reject a plea agreement and then allow Appellant to either stand by the plea or withdraw it. It was an abuse of discretion for the court to make that choice for Appellant. The court also erred in believing Appellant had breached the plea agreement.

14.United States v. Domnenko, Seventh Circuit: A 14-point sentencing enhancement was not sufficiently explained or supported and therefore required remand. Appellants were convicted of fraud, but a conviction for their involvement does not necessarily mean that all economic damages were reasonably foreseeable.

15. United States v. Jones, Seventh Circuit: The sentences for three Appellants were vacated and remanded for resentencing. Jones’ request to be sentenced under the Fair Sentencing Act was erroneously denied. Mockabee was sentenced under a more recent version of the sentencing guidelines which resulted in a higher guidelines range than the previous version. Drake’s sentence was also vacated and remanded for resentencing because the jury failed to make specific findings regarding drug quantities which increased the mandatory minimum. All three must be resentenced.

16. United States v. Moore, Seventh Circuit: A jury convicted Appellant of using or carrying a firearm during and in relation to a crime of violence but was unable to reach a verdict on the predicate violent crime itself. The conviction was vacated because the trial court solicited a partial verdict form the jury before the jurors indicated that no further deliberations would be useful. Because this could have resulted in a premature verdict, the conviction must be vacated.

17. United States v. Walton, Seventh Circuit: The trial court’s denial of Appellant’s motion to suppress was in error. Appellant had Fourth Amendment standing despite the fact that he was a parolee because parolees do not receive fewer constitutional protections based on their status. Further, the person who is listed on a rental agreement for a rental car does possess an expectation of privacy that enables him to challenge a search under the Fourth Amendment. Thus, the denial of the suppression motion was reversed and remanded for further proceedings.

18. United States v. Zheng, Seventh Circuit: After pleading guilty to aggravated identity theft and conspiracy to misuse Social Security numbers and commit passport fraud, Appellant was sentenced to 61 months in prison. A two-level sentencing enhancement for fraudulent use of a foreign passport was applied. The case was remanded for resentencing because the application of the enhancement would double-count conduct that was already considered in the aggravated identity theft conviction and therefore was improper.

19. Franco v. United States, Eighth Circuit: After pleading guilty to conspiracy to distribute methamphetamine, Appellant was sentenced to 120 months’ imprisonment. Appellant filed a habeas petition arguing that his sentence should be vacated because his attorney failed to file a requested notice of appeal. The district court erred by denying the habeas petition without an evidentiary hearing to determine whether Appellant had asked his attorney to file an appeal. The denial of the petition was reversed and remanded.

20. Colwell v. Bannister, Ninth Circuit: The district court’s grant of summary judgment was reversed in a §1983 claim. The Nevada Department of Corrections’ categorical denial of Petitioner’s request to have cataract surgery amounted to deliberate indifference when it was based on an administrative policy that one eye was good enough for prison inmates. The case was remanded for trial.

Defense Attorneys: Mason Boling, Lauren Murphy, Dustin E. Buehler, Michelle King, Joy Nissen, and Gregory C. Sisk
21. Hernandez v. Spearman, Ninth Circuit: The district court erred in failing to apply the prison mailbox rule when dismissing Petitioner’s habeas corpus petition as untimely. The mailbox rule applies when a pro se habeas petitioner gives his petition to a third party to mail from within the prison.

Defense Attorney: Tony Faryar Farmani
22. Nordstrom v. Ryan, Ninth Circuit: Petitioner’s allegations that prison officials violated his constitutional rights when they read a confidential letter to his lawyer should not have been dismissed for failure to state a claim. Petitioner stated a Sixth Amendment claim by alleging that officials read his legal mail, claimed entitlement to do so, and his right to private consultation with counsel had been chilled. Those allegations also supported Petitioner’s claim for injunctive relief. The district court’s dismissal was reversed.

Defense Attorneys: Michelle King, Joy Nissen, Gregory C. Sisk, Mason Boling, Lauren E. Murphy, and Dustin E. Buehler.

23. United States v. JDT, Juvenile Male, Ninth Circuit: The adjudications of delinquency for six counts of aggravated sexual abuse were vacated and remanded for reconsideration. The district court abused its discretion in denying Appellant’s requests to suspend his status as a juvenile delinquent because the court did not weigh the factors bearing on suspension.

Defense Attorney: Keith J. Hilzendeger
24. United States v. Mageno, Ninth Circuit: Appellant’s conviction for conspiracy to distribute methamphetamine was reversed because the prosecutors made several factual misstatements in closing arguments which encouraged the jury to convict Appellant based on evidence not presented at trial. The Ninth Circuit determined that there was a reasonable probability that the misstatements affected the outcome of Appellant’s trial.

Defense Attorney: Mace J. Yampolsky
25. United States v. Hale, Tenth Circuit: Appellant was convicted of making a materially false statement under oath in a bankruptcy case. That conviction cannot stand where the questions giving rise to the allegation were ambiguous and the answers provided by Appellant may have been valid under one interpretation of the questions asked. That conviction was reversed.

Defense Attorney: Joseph Alexander Little, IV
26. United States v. Roy, Eleventh Circuit: Appellant’s conviction for possession of child pornography was vacated and the case remanded for a new trial because the trial court allowed the government to elicit testimony and evidence even though defense counsel was not in the courtroom. This was a violation to Appellant’s 6th Amendment right to counsel because the government was allowed to examine its computer forensics expert witness and admit inculpatory evidence (pictures) even though defense counsel was not in the courtroom.

Published on:

There’s been a lot in the circuits in the last week, but perhaps the most surprising bit is that the Seventh Circuit issued four opinions on supervised release conditions.

Supervised release may not be the sexiest of issues, but, especially in child pornography cases, it matters a lot. I’m not sure what’s in the water in Chicago, but whatever it is reaffirms that these conditions need to be narrowly tailored and properly justified.

To the victories!

1155650_berlin_siegessule.jpg1. United States v. Ganias, Second Circuit: Following a jury trial, Appellant was convicted for tax evasion. That conviction was vacated because the district court erred in denying a motion to suppress personal computer records. Those records were retained by the Government for more than two-and-a-half years after Appellant’s computer was copied pursuant to a search warrant. This unauthorized retention of personal files violated Appellant’s Fourth Amendment rights.

Defense Attorneys: Stanley A. Twardy, Jr. and Daniel E. Wenner
2. United States v. Adepoju, Fourth Circuit: Appellant was convicted by a jury of bank fraud and aggravated identity theft and sentenced to 70 months’ imprisonment. During sentencing, Appellant was given a sentencing enhancement for sophisticated means. Completing paperwork to open a bank account in another’s name, including obtaining that personal information via internet searched, did not constitute sophisticated means, so the sentence was vacated and the case remanded for resentencing.

Defense Attorney: John O. Iweanoge, II
3. United States v. Henriquez, Fourth Circuit: The Fourth Circuit determined that first degree burglary in Maryland did not constitute a generic burglary and therefore does not qualify as a crime of violence under the U.S. Sentencing Guidelines. Appellant’s sentence was reversed because he received a sentencing enhancement for having committed a crime of violence.

Defense Attorneys: Paresh S. Patel and James Wyda
4. United States v. Blevins, Fifth Circuit: Appellant received a sentencing enhancement for having a prior felony drug conviction. In order to apply that enhancement, the Government was required to serve notice on Appellant. The Government’s service of such information under a first indictment was insufficient when that indictment was dismissed and the Government then filed a second, separate indictment. The notice must be served as part of the prosecution to which the sentencing is connected, so the case was remanded for further proceedings.

5. United States v. Escobedo, Fifth Circuit: During trial, the Government introduced evidence of Appellant’s withdrawn guilty plea and related inculpatory statements. Appellant withdrew the guilty plea prior to its acceptance by the district court and proceeded to trial instead. The plea included a waiver of Appellant’s ability to challenge the introduction of his withdrawn guilty plea and related inculpatory statements. Because the plea was ambiguous about whether that waiver took effect immediately or only upon the acceptance of the plea, the case was reversed and remanded.

6. United States v. Mackay, Fifth Circuit: After pleading guilty to conspiracy to distribute and possession with intent to distribute marijuana. Because of a clerical error, Appellant’s PSR and judgment listed cocaine instead of marijuana. Appellant filed a motion to correct that error. The refusal to correct the PSR was reversed. The Fifth Circuit concluded that the PSR is a part of the record under Rule 36 and because the BOP uses the PSR for classification and designation, the error was not harmless.

7. United States v. Rodriguez-Lopez, Fifth Circuit: Appellant was convicted by a jury of conspiracy to distribute marijuana. The district court applied a three-level sentencing enhancement for his managerial or supervisor role in the drug conspiracy. On appeal, the Court vacated and remanded for resentencing because there was no evidence that Appellant had exercised supervisory control over other members of the conspiracy, nor was he involved in the planning of operations of the organization. Instead, he only recruited another to purchase firearms, and that person recruited others. That involvement was insufficient to prove a managerial position for the sentencing enhancement.

8. United States v. Baker, Seventh Circuit: Appellant pled guilty for failing to register as a sex offender and was sentenced to 77 months’ imprisonment followed by a life term of supervised release. The judge also imposed eight special conditions of supervised release. The life term of supervised release was vacated because the judge improperly calculated the guidelines and failed to provide for any justification for exceeding the correct 5-year guidelines term. Three special conditions were also vacated because they were not reasonably tailored or properly defined. Finally, the order was deficient in failing to account for Appellant’s potential inability to pay for some of the required treatment and tests of his supervision.

9. United States v. Benhoff, Seventh Circuit: Appellant pled guilty to knowingly transporting and shipping child pornography and, along with his sentence, was given special conditions of supervised release. The court’s order on two of the special conditions was remanded sot that the trial court can narrowly tailor them. The trial court must clarify what materials are “sexually stimulating” as well as narrow the scope of the no contact with minors order so it does not block Appellant’s access to protected speech.

10. United States v. Farmer, Seventh Circuit: Once again, the Seventh Circuit vacated the special conditions of Appellant’s supervised release and remanded for further consideration. In this case, the special conditions bore no reasonably direct relationship to Appellant’s underlying crime. Appellant pled to attempted extortion and using interstate communications in that attempt. The two conditions–a prohibition on self-employment and a requirement that Appellant submit to a search of his person, vehicle, office, residence, and property without a warrant–were not reasonably related to his convictions.

11. United States v. Garrett, Seventh Circuit: Appellant’s sentencing guidelines were miscalculated after his drug offense conviction. The court did not clearly state the drug quantity that it found attributable to Appellant or adequately indicate the evidence it found reliable in determining Appellant’s relevant conduct. Appellant’s sentence was vacated and the case remanded for resentencing.

12. Henderson v. Ghosh, Seventh Circuit: Appellant, a prisoner, filed suit against health care providers and corrections employees alleging deliberate indifference to his medical needs. During litigation, Appellant’s motions for recruitment of counsel were denied. Only once the defendants filed a summary judgment motion was Appellant’s motion for recruitment of counsel granted. This trial court did not properly assess Appellant’s competence to litigate his claims, which was only exacerbated by his incarceration. In addition, the factual and legal complexity of the claims necessitated the appointment of counsel in this case.

13. United States v. Glover, Seventh Circuit: Appellant’s motion to suppress guns, drugs, and paraphernalia seized from his home pursuant to a search warrant was improperly denied. The search warrant had no information regarding the informant’s credibility, which undermined the magistrate’s ability to be a neutral arbiter of probable cause. The complete absence of that information was sufficient to raise an inference of reckless disregard for the truth, which warranted reversal.

14. United States v. Johnson, Seventh Circuit: Appellant’s special condition of supervised release which required him to participate in sex offender treatment was not supported. Appellant’s only sex-related offense was a misdemeanor conviction fifteen years before sentencing in the immediate case. That condition of supervised release was therefore vacated.

15. United States v. Nelson, Eighth Circuit: Appellant’s currency was seized pursuant to a lawful traffic stop, where Appellant was found to be carrying a small amount of marijuana and paraphernalia. Appellant had gathered the currency in advance of a road trip from his own savings account, stock dividends, and family. Despite the legitimate sources of the currency, the government instituted a forfeiture proceeding claiming that the currency was substantially connected to drug trafficking. The trial court’s ruling allowing the forfeiture was reversed because the Government failed to prove that Appellant was planning to purchase and transport large amounts of drugs and other evidence indicated that Appellant was not engaged in trafficking.

16. United States v. Aguilera-Rios, Ninth Circuit: Appellant’s conviction for illegal reentry was reversed. The Ninth Circuit found that Appellant’s removal order was invalid because it was based on a conviction under the California Penal Code which was not a categorical match for the federal firearms aggravated felony.

Defense Attorney: Kara Hartzler
17. United States v. Jackson, Ninth Circuit: The Ninth Circuit reversed Appellant’s conviction for unlawfully manufacturing or possessing an identification card of the design prescribed by the head of any department or agency of the United States. No rational fact-finder could conclude beyond a reasonable doubt that the fake card Appellant was “of the design prescribed by the head of any department or agency of the United States,” because the card was created by the maintenance center at a Marine Corps base and Appellant created a copy of the card previously issued to him because he constantly lost his actual card.

Defense Attorney: Davina T. Chen
18. Boyd v. United States, Eleventh Circuit: Appellant’s fourth §2255 motion was dismissed as successive. That dismissal was reversed because the term “successive” does not refer to all habeas petitions filed second or successively in time. Instead, it bars only motions which could have been raised in a claim for relief in an earlier motion but were not. Appellant’s three previous §2255 motions did not render the fourth successive because the wrong which he now asserts was not obvious until 2003 and the first §2255 motion was in 2001. The second and third §2255 motions were not decided on the merits and therefore did not make this motion successive either.

19. United States v. Dougherty, Eleventh Circuit: Two Appellants’ sentences of 428 months were vacated. The trial court improperly applied six-level sentencing enhancements for assaulting a police officer during immediate flight from an offense. The Eleventh Circuit determined that “immediate flight” did not encompass the assault on a police officer which occurred eight days after the flight began. That is, continuing flight does not qualify as immediate flight.

Published on:

It’s a been a relatively quiet week in the federal circuits. Which is one reason I think this week is a nice one to share this very cool graphic on how forfeiture laws are hurting people in these United States.

Forfeiture is insane. It reminds me too much of the California prison industry lobbying for tough on crime laws – the incentives simply line up wrong (it’s a long chart – the short wins are at the bottom).

Here’s the chart:

Please include attribution to ArrestRecords.com with this graphic.

Civil Forfeiture, an infographic from ArrestRecords.com

To the victories!

1155650_berlin_siegessule.jpg1. United States v. Ferguson, Fourth Circuit: Appellant was deemed to have violated his supervised release based on possession of marijuana. Because the district court based that finding in part on a laboratory report that was prepared by a forensic examiner who did not testify, the sentence was vacated and remanded.

Attorneys: Nia Ayanna Vidal and Michael S. Nachmanoff
2. United States v. Villegas Palacios, Fifth Circuit: Appellant pled guilty to reentry of a deported alien. He was denied a one-level reduction in the sentencing guidelines because he refused to waive his right to appeal. An amendment to the sentencing guidelines became effective after Appellant’s sentencing but pending appeal. Those guidelines apply and require the one point reduction.

3. Vega v. Ryan, Ninth Circuit: The court reversed a denial of Petitioner’s habeas corpus petition challenging a conviction for sexual abuse. Trial counsel was ineffective when he failed to review the Petitioner’s file and interview a witness who would say the victim recanted the allegations. This was objectively unreasonable and had a reasonable probability of affecting the result of the proceedings.

Attorney: Patricia A. Taylor
4. United States v. Isaacson, Eleventh Circuit: After a jury trial, Appellant was convicted of conspiring to commit securities fraud. His sentence included 36 months’ imprisonment and $8 million in restitution. The sentence was vacated and the case remanded because the government did not carry its burden in attributing losses to Appellant’s participation in the conspiracy. This affected both a sentencing enhancement for loss amount as well as the amount of restitution owed.

Published on:

In this edition, I think the most interesting case (of a number of interesting cases) is United States v. Garcia.

There, the government had an agent testify as an expert. The Fourth Circuit reversed, because the agent’s “expert testimony” exceeded the bounds of what counts as expert testimony.

The way agents get qualified as experts is, often, nuts. It’s good to see the Fourth Circuit rolling it back.

To the victories!

1155650_berlin_siegessule.jpg1. United States v. Jones, First Circuit: Appellant was sentenced to two life sentences, as well as various other 10-to-40 year sentences, related to child pornography and child sex act charges. The First Circuit found that Appellant’s prior conviction did not require proof that he acted with the intent to degrade, humiliate, or arouse the victim and therefore did not qualify as a predicate offense requiring a life sentence. Because the sentences for the other charges were impacted by the two life sentences, the case was remanded for resentencing.

Defense Attorney: Jonathan G. Mermin
2. United States v. Lucena-Rivera, First Circuit: Appellant pled guilty to one count of conspiracy to commit money laundering and was sentenced to 220 months in prison. Because the trial court did not make sufficient findings of facts regarding the sentencing enhancement for being “in the business of laundering funds” the case was remanded for factual findings.

Defense Attorneys: Martin G. Weinberg and Kimberly Homan
3. United States v. Santiago-Burgos, First Circuit: After pleading guilty to a drug conspiracy charge, Appellant was sentenced to 97 months’ imprisonment. Appellant argued, and the government conceded, that two criminal history points were improperly assessed. The First Circuit therefore remanded for resentencing.

Defense Attorney: Heather Golias
4. United States v. Sepulveda-Hernandez, First Circuit: The First Circuit held that a statute which doubles the maximum available penalty for drug distribution in close proximity to a youth center is an independent offense and not just a sentence-enhancing factor. The evidence at trial was not sufficient to support a conviction for that offense, so the conviction was vacated.

Defense Attorney: Irma R. Valldejuli
5. United States v. Gill, Second Circuit: Appellant’s collateral challenge to his order of deportation was denied by the district court, which relied on the fact that §212(c) of the Immigration and Nationality Act had been repealed. The repeal of §212 effectively eliminated statutorily-provided discretionary relief from deportation to a class of non-citizens, including Appellant. Allowing deportation of Appellant would have an impermissible retroactive effect on those who relied on §212 when they were tried and convicted. The case was therefore remanded.

6. United States v. Pena, Second Circuit: During sentencing, Appellant received a sentencing enhancement for obstruction of justice based on written statements he made in support of a motion to suppress. In denying the motion to suppress, the trial judge found Appellant’s statements not credible. The sentencing judge then applied a sentencing enhancement based on the trial judge’s finding of falsity in Appellant’s statements. The Second Circuit found that the district court committed clear error in determining that Appellant willfully made false statements and remanded for resentencing.

7. United States v. Smith, Third Circuit: As part of Appellant Smith’s sentence for bank fraud and aggravated identity theft, he was ordered to pay restitution of $68,452. The case was remanded once prior, and Appellant’s restitution amount was increased to $77,452. Because the district court exceeded the scope of remand by revisiting the restitution amount, the additional $9,000 in restitution was vacated.

Defense Attorney: Peter A. Levin
8. Barnes v. Joyner, Fourth Circuit: Petitioner, who was convicted of first-degree murder and sentenced to death, appeals the denial of his writ of habeas corpus. Because the post-conviction court failed to apply a presumption of prejudice and also failed to investigate the alleged juror misconduct which led to the petition, the case was remanded for an evidentiary hearing.

Defense Attorneys: Milton Gordon Widenhouse, Jr. and George B. Currin
9. United States v. Blackledge, Fourth Circuit: Appellant was civilly committed as a sexually dangerous person under the Adam Walsh Child Protection and Safety Act. During the commitment hearings, Appellant’s lawyers had twice moved to withdraw as counsel, but both motions were denied. The Fourth Circuit found that it was abuse of discretion to deny the motions to withdraw because the trial judge did not engage in an adequate inquiry as to the substance of the motion to withdraw. The district court erred in failing to examine the length of time Appellant and his attorney had ceased communication and trial preparation. The judgments on the motions to withdraw were vacated and the case remanded for further consideration.

Defense Attorney: Richard Croutharmel
10. United States v. Garcia, Fourth Circuit: After a jury trial, Appellant was convicted of narcotics trafficking. Those convictions were vacated because the trial court abused its discretion by allowing an FBI agent to testify as both an expert and lay witness. The court’s cautionary instruction to the jury and sustaining some objections was not sufficient to mitigate the risk of prejudice.

Defense Attorney: Todd Michael Brooks and Erek L. Barron
11. United States v. Ocasio, Fourth Circuit: Appellant was convicted by a jury for extortion under the Hobbs Act and was ordered to pay restitution to Erie Insurance as part of his sentence. The Fourth Circuit vacated the restitution order because Erie Insurance was never proven, or even alleged, to be a victim of the conspiracy, and restitution awards must be tied to the loss caused by the convicted offense.

Defense Attorneys: Matthew Scott Owen and Daniel S. Epps
12. United States v. Ramirez-Castillo, Fourth Circuit: Appellant was sentenced to 33 months’ imprisonment after a jury determined that two objects he made while in prison were weapons and violated a federal statute prohibiting the possession of those weapons. The convictions were vacated because the jury was never asked whether Appellant was guilty, but only whether the first object was a weapon and whether the second object was possessed by Appellant.

Defense Attorney: Cameron Jane Blazer
13. United States v. Sadler, Sixth Circuit: Appellants, a husband and wife, were convicted of various crimes associated with operating pain-management clinics. One of Mrs. Sadler’s convictions – for wire fraud – was not supported by the evidence so the conviction was reversed. The wire fraud statute does not punish those who simply use a scheme to defraud, but instead only those who use a scheme to defraud with the intention of depriving others of money or property. The government did not prove Mrs. Sadler’s intent to defraud others of money or property.

Defense Attorney: William G. Brown
14. Avila v. Richardson, Seventh Circuit: The Court reversed the denial of habeas relief and remanded for further proceedings because the state court applied a rule of law contrary to controlling precedent of the Supreme Court. Appellant’s claim of ineffective assistance of counsel was wholly denied because the court said such an appeal was waived by his plea. However, the Supreme Court has held that a guilty plea can be challenged if the plea itself was the result of ineffective assistance of counsel.

15. United States v. Ford, Eighth Circuit: On remand from the Supreme Court following United States v. Burrage, the Eighth Circuit held that the government had not proven at trial that the drugs Appellant sold were a but-for cause of death of a buyer. The conviction and sentence were vacated.

16. United States v. Shaw, Eighth Circuit: Appellant was sentenced to 378 months’ imprisonment after the court determined a mandatory-minimum 7-year sentence was required for brandishing a firearm in furtherance of a drug-trafficking offense. Because the jury had not made a specific finding about the firearm, the sentence was vacated and remanded for resentencing.

17. United States v. Stokes, Eighth Circuit: Appellant pled guilty to possession with intent to distribute. The sentencing judge based the sentence in part on the idea that Appellant’s long-term unemployment was indicative of being a drug dealer. The Eighth Circuit found that this determination was clearly erroneous because the facts in the records only supported the fact that Appellant had previous used drugs. The case was remanded for reconsideration of Appellant’s request for a downward variance.

18. Butler v. Long, Ninth Circuit: The Ninth Circuit reversed the district court’s denial of an untimely habeas petition. Petitioner was not provided an opportunity to amend the previously-field habeas petition and so was entitled to equitable tolling from the date of the first dismissal until the filing of the current petition.

Defense Attorney: John Ward
19. Dixon v. Williams, Ninth Circuit: Petitioner filed a habeas corpus petition challenging the jury instruction on self-defense. Because the trial court’s instruction was inaccurate–asking for an honest but “reasonbale” (instead of “unreasonable) belief in the necessity for self-defense–and it lowered the State’s burden of proof, the writ of habeas corpus must be granted.

Defense Attorneys: Randolph Fiedler and Debra A. Bookout
20. Frost v. Boening, Ninth Circuit: The writ for habeas corpus should be granted because the trial court infringed on Petitioner’s Sixth and Fourteenth Amendment rights when it precluded counsel from making a reasonable doubt argument to the jury. The Ninth Circuit held that Petitioner was deprived of his right to demand that the jury find him guilty of all elements of the crime and that the burden of proof had shifted.

Defense Attorney: Erik B. Levin
21. United States v. Brooks, Ninth Circuit: The district court failed to set time limitations on an involuntary medication order. Because over a year had passed from the order, the Ninth Circuit ordered a new inquiry pursuant to Sell v. United States.

Defense Attorney: C. Renee Manes
22. United States v. Preston, Ninth Circuit: Appellant’s conviction was reversed and the case remanded for a new trial because the trial court improperly admitted a confession by the Appellant. Taking into consideration the particular circumstances of the Appellant, the Ninth Circuit held that the confession was involuntary because the tactics used by law enforcement, along with Appellant’s intellectual disability, created a coercive interrogation and an involuntary confession.

Defense Attorneys: Keith Swisher
23. United States v. Ramirez-Estrada, Ninth Circuit: Appellant’s convictions for attempted entry after deportation and making a false claim to United States citizenship were reversed. The Ninth Circuit held that Appellant’s post-invocation silence was improperly used to impeach him at trial.

Defense Attorney: Caitlin E. Howard
24.United States v. Thum, Ninth Circuit: Appellant’s supervised release was revoked by the trial court after it found him guilty of encouraging or inducing an illegal alien to reside in the United States. The judgment was reversed and the case remanded with instruction to dismiss the petition because merely escorting an alien from a fast food restaurant near the border to a nearby vehicle does not violate the statute.

Defense Attorney: Devin Burstein
25. United States v. Castro-Perez, Tenth Circuit: Appellant pled guilty to distributing cocaine and was sentenced to 63 months’ imprisonment and three years of supervised release. Under the sentencing guidelines, Appellant received a two-level enhancement for committing a drug crime while possessing a dangerous weapon. The Tenth Circuit held that there was no physical relation between the weapon and the drug trafficking activity as required for the sentencing enhancement and therefore remanded for resentencing.

Defense Attorney: Deborah Roden
26. United States v. Hill, Tenth Circuit: Appellant was convicted of charged related to a bank robbery. During trial, an FBI agent was allowed to testify as an expert about his interrogation of Appellant and about Appellant’s credibility. The Tenth Circuit found that it was plain error to allow expert testimony opining on the credibility of a witness, including the Appellant, and that this error affected Appellant’s substantial rights. The convictions were reversed.

Defense Attorneys: Howard A. Pincus and Warren R. Williamson
27. United States v. Thomas, Tenth Circuit: After a jury trial, Appellant was found guilty of two drug charges and sentenced to 130 months in prison. Appellant’s sentence was vacated because the district court erred during sentencing by applying harsher guidelines based on six prior convictions. The government’s evidence had only addressed one of the six convictions, so it was improper for the sentencing court to rely on the other five.

Defense Attorney: Thomas D. Haney
28. United States v. Harrell, Eleventh Circuit: Appellant pled guilty to robbery charges and received an agreed-upon sentence of 25 years. This conviction was vacated because the trial court was improperly involved in plea negotiations. The trial court instigated and orchestrated the plea negotiations, commenting on the potential sentences both after trial and after a plea. This seriously affected the integrity and fairness of the judicial proceeding, so Appellant must be allowed to withdraw the guilty plea.

Published on:

There are two interesting opinions I’d like to highlight from this crop.

First, there’s United States v. Prado from the Seventh Circuit. Every now and again, in sentencing, a district court will say it can’t consider something. It seems to me that whatever that something is, these days, a district court can probably consider it. Prado is another example of that proposition.

More sensationally, check out the Ninth Circuit’s opinion in United States v. Maloney! Laura Duffy, the AUSA for the Southern District of California, watched the en banc argument in this case, decided the government’s position was wrong and asked the Ninth Circuit to vacate the conviction. Nice.

To the victories!

1155650_berlin_siegessule.jpg1. United States v. Fish, First Circuit: Appellant was convicted of being in possession of body armor after having been convicted of a crime of violence. The conviction was reversed because none of Appellant’s previous convictions qualifies as a crime of violence.

Defense Attorney: Thomas J. O’Connor, Jr.

2. Kovacs v. United States, Second Circuit.pdf: The Eastern District of New York denied Appellants’ petition for writ of error coram nobis. The Second Circuit reversed and granted the writ after it found that Appellant’s lawyer rendered ineffective assistance of counsel. Appellant’s lawyer gave erroneous advice regarding deportation after pleading guilty.

Defense Attorney: Nicholas A. Gravanta, Jr.

3. United States v. Maynard, Second Circuit: Appellants were convicted after a series of bank robberies and ordered to pay restitution. Because the amount of restitution included bank expenses beyond the amount taken, the Second Circuit vacated and remanded for a new determination of restitution.

4. United States v. Salazar, Fifth Circuit: After violating the terms of his supervised release, Appellant was sentenced to prison and an additional period of supervised release, including special conditions. The Fifth Circuit found that the district court abused its discretion by ordering imposing the special condition without demonstrating that the condition was reasonably related to statutory factors.

5. United States v. Urias-Marrufo, Fifth Circuit: The district court denied Appellant’s motion to withdraw her guilty plea. On appeal, the Fifth Circuit vacated and remanded because the district court did not properly consider the merits of Appellant’s ineffective assistance of counsel claim.

6. United States v. Adams, Seventh Circuit: Two of the appellants received sentencing enhancements for maintaining a “stash house” after being convicted of drug offenses. Because the sentencing guideline provision which allowed that enhancement was not in place at the time of the offense, their sentences were reversed and remanded.

7. United States v. Maloney, Ninth Circuit: The United States Attorney moved to vacate the sentence and remand the case after reviewing a video of the en banc oral argument. The court agreed that the prosecutor had made references during rebuttal that were inappropriate and granted the motion to vacate.

8. United States v. Harrison, Tenth Circuit: After being convicted by a jury for a drug conspiracy charge, Appellant was sentenced to 360 months in prison. The sentence was vacated and remanded because the court improperly adopted the calculation in the presentence report showing that Appellant was responsible for more than 1.5 kilograms of methamphetamine.

Defense Attorneys: O. Dean Sanderford and Raymond P. Moore
9. United States v. Jones, Eleventh Circuit: Appellant was sentenced to 180 months for being a felon in possession of a firearm. After the Supreme Court ruling in Descamps, it is clear that Appellant’s prior convictions cannot serve as an Armed Career Criminal Act predicate offense. Because a sentencing enhancement was incorrectly applied, the sentence is vacated and remanded.

10. United States v. Baldwin, Second Circuit: Appellant was sentenced to 87 months’ imprisonment after pleading guilty to possession of child pornography, and possession of a firearm by a convicted felon. During sentencing a two-level enhancement for distribution of child pornography was imposed. The sentence was vacated because there was no finding of knowledge as required to impose that two-level enhancement.

11. United States v. Lagrone, Fifth Circuit: Appellant was charged with two felony theft counts and sentenced to two concurrent terms of 45 months’ imprisonment. Because each of the two theft offenses involved Government property with a value less than $1,000, she could not be convicted of more than a single felony count. The case was therefore vacated and remanded.

12. United States v. Prado, Seventh Circuit: After pleading guilty to one count of extortion, Appellant asked the district court, during sentencing, to consider a similar case and the sentence imposed during that case. The court did not allow that information to be introduced. Appellant’s sentence was reversed and remanded because the court erred in not understanding that it had discretion to hear Appellant’s argument and that error was not harmless.

13. United States v. Shannon, Seventh Circuit: One of Appellant’s special conditions of supervised release was that he could not possess any sexually explicit material. This condition was not discussed by anyone prior to its imposition. Based on that lack of findings or explanation on the lifetime ban, the condition was vacated.

14. United States v. Howard, Eighth Circuit: Appellant’s sentence was vacated and remanded for resentencing because one of his prior convictions no longer qualified as a “violent felony” under the Armed Career Criminal Act after the Supreme Court’s decision in Descamps v. United States, ____ U.S. ____, 133 S.Ct. 2276 (2013).