DEFENSE LINK MONTHLY NEWSLETTER FOR CJA PANEL ATTORNEYS LEIGH M. SKIPPER, CHIEF FEDERAL DEFENDER MARCH 2017 INSIDE THIS ISSUE

Size: px
Start display at page:

Download "DEFENSE LINK MONTHLY NEWSLETTER FOR CJA PANEL ATTORNEYS LEIGH M. SKIPPER, CHIEF FEDERAL DEFENDER MARCH 2017 INSIDE THIS ISSUE"

Transcription

1 DEFENSE LINK MONTHLY NEWSLETTER FOR CJA PANEL ATTORNEYS LEIGH M. SKIPPER, CHIEF FEDERAL DEFENDER MARCH 2017 INSIDE THIS ISSUE U.S. Supreme Court to Decide Whether Naturalized Citizen May be Deported on the Basis of an Immaterial False Statement Page 1 Recent Third Circuit and Supreme Court Cases Page 5 Upcoming National FDO and Panel Attorney Training Programs Race in the Federal Criminal Court: Strategies in Pursuit of Justice Baltimore, MD (4/6/17-4/8/17) Fundamentals of Federal Criminal Defense Seminar Houston, TX (6/8/17-6/9/17) Winning Strategies Seminar II Houston, TX (6/8/17-6/10/17) The Andrea Taylor Sentencing Advocacy Workshop II Baltimore, MD (6/22/17 6/24/17) For registration information on these programs, and more, please visit U.S. Supreme Court to Decide Whether Naturalized Citizen May be Deported on the Basis of an Immaterial False Statement Angela Haynes, Research & Writing Attorney The U.S. Supreme Court recently granted certiorari to address a circuit split regarding the essential elements of the naturalization fraud statute. Section 1425 of Title 18 of the United States Code prohibits the knowing procurement, or attempted procurement, contrary to law, of the naturalization of any person, or documentary or other evidence of naturalization or of citizenship. See 18 U.S.C. ' 1425(a). A conviction under 18 U.S.C. ' 1425(a) would denaturalize a previously naturalized citizen. See 8 U.S.C. ' 1451(e). Generally, the courts have construe[d] the phrase contrary to law to mean contrary to all laws applicable to naturalization. 1 Specifically, these courts have ruled that the procurement or attempted procurement of naturalization is contrary to law when the applicant provides false information on the application in violation of another criminal statute. 2 1 United States v. Maslenjak, 821 F.3d 675, 686 (6th Cir. 2016). See also, United States v. Hannoune, 2014 WL at *3 (W.D.Pa., Oct. 14, 2014)( [t]he statute does not define the phrase contrary to law, but it has been interpreted to mean a violation of the laws governing naturalization. )(quoting United States v. Djanson, 578 Fed.Appx. 238, 239 (4th Cir., July 11, 2014); citing Fedorenko v. United States, 449 U.S. 490, 506 (1981); United States v. Puerta, 982 F.2d 1297, (9th Cir. 1992)). 2 See United States v. Hannoune, 2014 WL at *3 (W.D.Pa., Oct. 14, 2014) (quoting United States v. Latchin, 554 F.3d 709, 712 (7th Cir. 2009); citing United States v. Mensah, 737 F.3d 789, 803 (1st Cir. 2013)). Thus, the predicate offenses under ' 1425(a) may be a part of the Immigration and Naturalization Act, codified at 8 U.S.C. ' 1101, et seq., or a violation of another criminal statute, such as false statements in violation of 18 U.S.C. ' See United States v. Maslenjak, 821 F.3d 675, (6th Cir. 2016)(listing cases). U.S. SUPREME COURT CONTINUED ON PAGE 2 Editors Jennifer Nimmons Herman Attorney Advisor Kimberly Campoli Paralegal/Panel Administrator Federal Community Defender Office for the Eastern District of PA Helen Marino, First Assistant Federal Defender Nina Carpiniello Spizer, Chief, Trial Unit Elizabeth Toplin, Assistant Chief, Trial Unit Brett Sweitzer, Chief of Appeals

2 MARCH 2017 PAGE 2 The courts are not united, however, on the characterization of the false information provided. The First, Fourth, Seventh and Ninth Circuits have ruled that materiality is an element of 18 U.S.C. ' 1425(a). 3 The Sixth Circuit has ruled, however, that the false information does not in fact need to be material. 4 The Third Circuit has not yet addressed this specific issue. 5 Therefore, the specific question presented to the Court in Maslenjak v. United States, 2017 WL (Jan. 13, 2017), is Whether the Sixth Circuit erred by holding, in direct conflict with the First, Fourth, Seventh, and Ninth Circuits, that a naturalized American citizen can be stripped of her citizenship in a criminal proceeding based on an immaterial false statement. In Maslenjak, Defendant Divna Maslenjak was a Bosnian Serb who sought to flee the civil war in the former Yugoslavia. In 1998, Mrs. Maslenjak and her family met with U.S. immigration officials in Belgrade to request refugee status. During this oral application process, Mrs. Maslenjak stated that she and her family feared persecution in Bosnia because her husband had refused to enlist in the Bosnian army. In fact, Mr. Maslenjak was not only a member of the Bosnian Serb army, he was an officer in the Bratunac Brigade, the unit which was later convicted of war crimes by the Hague Tribunal. Mrs. Maslenjak also stated that she and her husband had lived apart from 1992 to 1997, when in fact they had lived together. Mrs. Maslenjak and her family ultimately were granted refugee status. They immigrated to the United States in 2000, and Mrs. Maslenjak became a lawful permanent resident in In 2006, U.S. immigration officials targeted Mr. Maslenjak to investigate whether he lied on his immigration application regarding his service in 3 See, e.g., United States v. Mensah, 737 F.3d 789, 803 (1st Cir. 2013); United States v. Latchin, 554 F.3d 709, 712, 713 n. 3 (7th Cir. 2009); United States v. Aladekoba, 61 Fed.Appx. 27, 28 (4th Cir. 2003); United States v. Puerta, 982 F.2d 1297 (9th Cir. 1992). See also, United States v. Shahla, 2013 WL at *3 n.9 (M.D.Fl., June 3, 2013), aff d, 752 F.3d 939 (11th Cir. 2014), cert. denied, 135 S.Ct. 985 (2015). 4 The Eighth Circuit has not specifically ruled on this issue, but has concluded that a lower court did not err by instructing the jury that materiality was an element of naturalization fraud. See United States v. Nguyen, 829 F.3d 907, 915 (8th Cir. 2016)(court approved the following instructions: (1) the defendant provided false information in the naturalization process, (2) the false information related to a material matter, (3) the defendant acted knowingly, and (4) naturalization was attempted as a result of the false information. ). 5 At least one court within the Third Circuit has noted the Ninth Circuit s recitation of the elements for 18 U.S.C. ' 1425(a) with approval. In United States v. Hannoune, 2014 WL (W.D.Pa., Oct. 14, 2014), the court noted that, in order to sustain a conviction of attempted naturalization fraud, the government must prove the following elements beyond a reasonable doubt: (1) that the false information provided by the defendant has a tendency to suggest that he was qualified for naturalization, (2) that the production of truthful information would have led to the discovery of facts relevant to the alien's petition for naturalization, and (3) that there must be evidence sufficient to give rise to a fair inference that the applicant was statutorily ineligible for naturalization. Hannoune, 2014 WL at *3 n.3 (quoting United States v. Alferahin, 433 F.3d 1148, (9th Cir. 2006); citing Puerta). Other courts within the Third Circuit have simply referenced the statute itself to identify the essential elements of ' 1425(a). See, e.g., United States v. Malik, 2009 WL at *4 (E.D.Pa., Dec. 7, 2009)(Surrick, J.), aff d, 424 Fed.Appx. 122 (3d Cir., Apr. 21, 2011); United States v. Vaghari, 2009 WL at *4 (E.D.Pa., July 27, 2009)(DuBois, J.). U.S. SUPREME COURT CONTINUED ON PAGE 3

3 MARCH 2017 PAGE 3 Jeffrey M. Lindy, Esquire CJA Panel Representative Eastern District of PA Please contact Jeff Lindy with any CJA issues, comments, or concerns: Lindy & Tauber 1221 Locust Street Third Floor Philadelphia, PA (215) jlindy@lindylawfirm.com the Bosnian Serb army. Following Mr. Maslenjak s arrest, Mrs. Maslenjak applied for naturalization. On her naturalization application, Mrs. Maslenjak stated that she had never knowingly lied to a U.S. government official while applying for immigration or to gain entry to the U.S. Mrs. Maslenjak subsequently became a naturalized citizen in Mr. Maslenjak ultimately was convicted of making false statements on a government document. To avoid deportation, he filed a petition for asylum. During her husband s asylum hearing, Mrs. Maslenjak admitted that she had lied to immigration officials in 1998 regarding her husband s military service and their cohabitation. The government subsequently charged Mrs. Maslenjak with lying on her naturalization application by stating that she had not lied during her previous proceedings to obtain refugee status and naturalization, in violation of 18 U.S.C. ' 1425(a). She was convicted, and her naturalization was revoked pursuant to 8 U.S.C. ' 1451(e). On appeal, Mrs. Maslenjak claimed that the trial court erred by, inter alia, instructing the jury that it could find her guilty of violating ' 1425(a) if she merely made a false statement in violation of immigration laws, regardless of whether the statement was material. See Maslenjak, 821 F.3d at 685. The trial court had concluded that the word material is not found in the statute, and there was no support to find that materiality is an implied element of the statute. Mrs. Maslenjak had relied upon cases from the First, Fourth, Seventh and Ninth Circuits to argue that proof of materiality is required to denaturalize a citizen under U.S. naturalization laws. Specifically, Mrs. Maslenjak claimed that the same materiality element required for the civil denaturalization proceedings under 8 U.S.C. ' 1451(a) should also apply to the criminal denaturalization proceedings under 8 U.S.C. ' 1451(e), and by extension, a prosecution under 18 U.S.C. ' 1425(a). Id. at 682. These cases also presented the equitable argument that mandatory denaturalization under ' 1425(a) is a harsh punishment that should be imposed only after a higher showing of materiality. Id. at 689. The Sixth Circuit rejected Mrs. Maslenjak s arguments, and it found the reasoning of its sister circuits to be unpersuasive. Specifically, the Sixth Circuit agreed with the lower court s ruling that the word material does not U.S. SUPREME COURT CONTINUED ON PAGE 4

4 MARCH 2017 PAGE 4 appear in ' 1425(a). See 821 F.3d at , 690. The Sixth Circuit also determined that Mrs. Maslenjak and its sister circuits improperly equated the civil process for denaturalization under 8 U.S.C. ' 1451(a) with the criminal proceeding provided under 8 U.S.C. ' 1451(e). See 821 F.3d at , The Sixth Circuit also concluded that, contrary to the assertions of Mrs. Maslenjak and its sister circuits, an individual may be convicted under ' 1425(a) for violating a statute related to naturalization that does not include a materiality element. In her case, the government had charged Mrs. Maslenjak with violating 18 U.S.C. ' 1425(a) by providing false statements on her naturalization application in violation of 18 U.S.C. ' 1015(a) and 8 U.S.C. ' 1427(a)(3). Neither 18 U.S.C. ' 1015(a) nor 8 U.S.C. ' 1427(a)(3) contain a materiality element. See 821 F.3d at 687, 690. Consequently, the Sixth Circuit concluded that a naturalized citizen may be denaturalized for violating a statute which does not contain materiality as an element. Id. at 683, , 690. The Sixth Circuit did recognize, however, that the government would in fact be required to prove the materiality of the false statement if the offense it identifies as the predicate under 18 U.S.C. ' 1425(a) contains a materiality element. See 821 F.3d at 688. Nonetheless, the Sixth Circuit concluded that, where the predicate offense identified does not contain a materiality element, materiality will not be an implied element under 18 U.S.C. ' 1425(a). Id. at 689. The Sixth Circuit ultimately identified the essential elements of 18 U.S.C. ' 1425(a) as: (1) [the defendant] procured her naturalization; (2) that she procured it in some manner contrary to law; and (3) that she did so knowingly. 6 The Sixth Circuit in Maslenjak did not address the issue of whether Mrs. Maslenjak s statements were in fact material. See 821 F.3d at 693. The government argued in its brief opposing certiorari that this case is a poor vehicle for the Supreme Court to use to resolve the circuit split because Mrs. Maslenjak s statements were clearly material. This conclusion begs the question, what type of false statement would be immaterial and therefore not violative of 18 U.S.C. ' 1425(a)? 7 It does not appear that the Supreme Court will address this specific issue in Maslenjak, thus leaving the door open for another defendant to enter on another day. 6 Maslenjak, 821 F.3d at 685. See also, United States v. Santos, 2016 WL at *7 (S.D.Fl., July 26, 2016)(citing United States v. Biheiri, 293 F. Supp. 2d 656, 659 (E.D. Va. 2003); United States v. Rogers, 898 F. Supp. 219, 220 (S.D.N.Y. 1995)). 7 In United States v. Puerta, 982 F.2d 1297 (9th Cir. 1992), Defendant provided false information when he stated that he had never used aliases and that he had not been out of the U.S. after his initial entry. See 982 F.2d at Citing the caselaw interpreting the civil denaturalization statute, the Ninth Circuit ruled that these false statements were not material because they did not have a natural tendency to produce the conclusion that the applicant was [not] qualified for citizenship. Id. at (quoting Kungys v. United States, 485 U.S. 759, (1988)(Brennan, J., concurring)). 1 Specifically, the court ruled that Defendant s statements regarding his aliases and time abroad did not raise a fair inference that Defendant was attempting to hide a criminal record or other disqualifying fact. Id. at 1304.

5 MARCH 2017 PAGE 5 RECENT THIRD CIRCUIT AND SUPREME COURT CASES Christofer Bates, Research & Writing Attorney SUPREME COURT I. Ineffective Assistance of Counsel for Eliciting Racially-Based Future Dangerousness Testimony Buck v. Davis, , 2017 U.S. LEXIS 1429 (U.S. Feb. 22, 2017). This case relies on the Martinez and Trevino decisions to excuse the procedural default of an ineffective assistance of trial counsel claim and grants relief under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b). The Court found that trial counsel was ineffective for eliciting expert testimony at sentencing that the petitioner s race made him more likely to commit future crimes of violence. Such race-based future dangerousness evidence is patently unconstitutional, and no competent defense attorney would introduce such evidence. II. Cert. Granted Effect of Guilty Plea on Constitutional Challenge to Statute of Conviction Class v. United States, No (Cert. Granted Jan. 13, 2017). QUESTION PRESENTED: Whether a guilty plea inherently waives a defendant s right to challenge the constitutionality of his statute of conviction? In this case, the defendant raised Second Amendment and Due Process challenges to his prosecution for carrying a firearm on the grounds of the U.S. Capitol Building. He pled guilty, admitting his factual guilt without an explicit appellate waiver. When he re-raised his constitutional claims on appeal, the D.C. Circuit held that his guilty plea waived all claims of error on appeal, including constitutional ones. The Circuits are currently split as follows: the D.C., First, and Tenth Circuits all hold that a guilty plea waives constitutional challenges to the statute of conviction. The Third, Fifth, Sixth, Ninth, and Eleventh Circuits hold that a guilty plea does not inherently waive constitutional challenges. Finally, the Fourth, Seventh, and Eighth Circuits allow facial, but not as-applied constitutional challenges to a conviction after a guilty plea. RECENT CASE UPDATES CONTINUED ON PAGE 6

6 MARCH 2017 PAGE 6 THIRD CIRCUIT I. Two-Jury Procedure in Joint Trial / Preserving Sentencing Objections United States v. Brown, --- F.3d ---, 2017 U.S. App. LEXIS 3124 (3d Cir. Feb. 22, 2017). Brown was charged with participating in a cocaine trafficking conspiracy. He was tried along with another codefendant who was connected to the conspiracy, but had no connection to him personally. The remainder of the coconspirators pled guilty. The trial court made the decision to empanel separate juries for Brown and his co-defendant who went to trial. Brown argued on appeal that the dual jury procedure violated his Fifth Amendment Due Process rights and his Sixth Amendment right to a trial before an impartial jury. The Court began by holding that Brown s constitutional challenges were not waived merely because his defense counsel agreed to the dual jury procedure. There was no record made that Brown knew the rights he was waiving and the consequences of waiving those rights. The court reserved for 2255 proceedings the issue of whether defense counsel was ineffective for agreeing to the dual jury procedure. Substantively, Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 14 gives the district courts great latitude in crafting procedures for joint trials. The dual jury procedure used in this case was within the trial court s discretion. Further, Brown was unable to point to any prejudicial evidentiary spillover from his co-defendant sufficient to establish a plain error. The Court also rejected Brown s invitation to revisit its earlier en banc decision in United States v. Flores- Mejia, 759 F.3d 253 (3d Cir. 2014), which requires a defendant to raise procedural objections after the district court pronounces its sentence in order to preserve the error and avoid plain error review. II. Drug Weight / Abuse of Trust / Obstruction of Justice / Sentencing Disparity United States v. Douglas, --- F.3d ---, 2017 U.S. App. LEXIS 3125 (3d Cir. Feb. 22, 2017). Douglas, who had a special badge enabling him to pass TSA checkpoints without having his luggage checked, was involved in a large scale cocaine trafficking conspiracy. The evidence supported the district court s factual finding that the government proved Douglas responsible for more than 450 grams of cocaine by a preponderance of the evidence. A co-defendant testified that Douglas smuggled 10 or 13 kilograms through the San Francisco International Airport 40 to 50 times. This was corroborates by flight records, telephone toll records, and bank deposits. RECENT CASE UPDATES CONTINUED ON PAGE 7

7 MARCH 2017 PAGE 7 The district court properly applied the two-level enhancement for abuse of a position of trust pursuant to U.S.S.G. 3B1.3. Given the paramount importance of airport security, the discretion that a person has when given security access at an airport is similar to the way prison workers are treated under the guidelines. And given the importance of airport security to the nation s national security, government authorities who grant access to secured areas in the airport expect those with access to act with integrity. Therefore, an airport employee granted a security clearance is reasonably viewed as a person who occupies a position of public trust that can be breached by using his position to further a crime. The enhancement was proper here even though there was no evidence that Douglas held any supervisory position, because given his security clearance, Douglas s freedom permitted him to commit a difficult-todetect crime. The district court erred when it imposed an obstruction of justice enhancement based on Douglas s failure to appear for court on one day of trial. There was no evidence in the record to suggest Douglas s failure to appear was willful. To the contrary, there were medical records demonstrating that he had been in the emergency room in the early morning hours, along with a doctor s note excusing him from court that day. Thus, the case was remanded for resentencing. III. Listening Post Theory for Wiretaps / Evidentiary Issues United States v. Jackson, --- F.3d ---, 2017 U.S. App. LEXIS 3367 (3d Cir. Feb. 24, 2017). In this case, the Third Circuit adopted the listening post theory that under Title III either the interception of or the communications themselves must have been within the issuing judge s territorial jurisdiction. This meant that the wiretaps intercepting Mr. Jackson s out-of-state phone calls were lawful, because the intercepting law enforcement officers were located inside Pennsylvania. The Pennsylvania wiretap statute, which is generally modeled after Title III, includes an express provision adopting the listening post theory. Therefore, the evidence from the state wiretaps upon which the later federal wiretap orders were partially premised was lawfully obtained, and the district court properly denied Mr. Jackson s motion to suppress evidence from the federal wiretaps. The district court erred in allowing the agent to testify as a lay witness about his understanding of the meaning of clear conversations made during the intercepted calls. In some parts, the agent inferred the knowledge for his testimony on other evidence, rather than on his direct knowledge of the events at issue. The error in admitting this testimony, however, was not plain. Furthermore, there was minimal prejudice because Jackson s co-defendants testified to the same basic interpretations of the calls, and the jury was able to independently review them to reach its own conclusions. The district court did not err when it permitted the government to elicit testimony about the cooperating codefendants guilty pleas. Such evidence was not admitted as substantive evidence of Jackson s guilt; rather, it was relevant to the cooperators credibility, whether the government was selectively prosecuting Jackson, and whether the co-conspirators had firsthand knowledge of the crime for which Jackson was on trial. RECENT CASE UPDATES CONTINUED ON PAGE 8

8 MARCH 2017 PAGE 8 There was no plain error established by the prosecutor s inopportune mention of a co-conspirator s invocation of his Fifth Amendment right in response to a question from the district court about the applicability of a particular hearsay exception. Finally, there was valid claim of cumulative trial error. IV. Ineffective Assistance of Counsel for Failing to Seek Judge s Recusal McKernan v. Superintendent, Smithfield SCI, --- F.3d ---, 2017 U.S. App. LEXIS 3593 (3d Cir. Feb. 28, 2017). This case holds that the constitutional right to an impartial trial extends to a bench trial, and cannot be waived by a defendant. Defense counsel in this case rendered ineffective assistance when he not only failed to move for a recusal of the trial judge in McKernan s bench trial for homicide, but also talked McKernan out of pursuing the issue. The trial judge called the homicide victim s family into her robing room after reading a website they had created about her, which painted her as a lenient judge who was incapable of rendering harsh decisions to defendants. She also referred to the district attorney as the family s attorney, when in fact the prosecutor represented the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. And finally, the judge reassured the family that she was not a judge incapable of issuing harsh results. These facts played directly into McKernan s trial theory --- that he was guilty of a lesser degree of homicide. Any competent attorney would have moved to recuse the judge (who was deciding the issue of innocence or guilt in the bench trial) as a result of this bias. Not only that, but defense counsel took things a step further by talking McKernan out of pursuing a recusal motion. The prejudice prong of the ineffective assistance claim was met here because the trial judge s sensitivity to criticism for being too lenient made it far less likely that she would accept McKernan s defense that he was guilty of a lesser degree of homicide.

9 MARCH 2017 PAGE 9 Leigh M. Skipper, Chief Federal Defender Helen Marino, First Assistant Federal Defender Nina Carpiniello Spizer, Chief, Trial Unit Elizabeth Toplin, Assistant Chief, Trial Unit Brett Sweitzer, Chief of Appeals Federal Community Defender Office for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania Suite 540 West The Curtis Center 601 Walnut Street Philadelphia, PA Phone (215) Contact Kimberly Campoli if you have a new address, office address, or telephone number, for any Panel related matters, or if you wish to be removed from the CJA Panel for the EDPA. Kimberly_Campoli@fd.org WANT MORE? VISIT OUR WEBSITE AT AND THE THIRD CIRCUIT BLOG AT RECENT 3d CIR CASES CONTINUED ON PAGE 8

DEFENSE LINK MONTHLY NEWSLETTER FOR CJA PANEL ATTORNEYS LEIGH M. SKIPPER, CHIEF FEDERAL DEFENDER NOVEMBER 2014 INSIDE THIS ISSUE

DEFENSE LINK MONTHLY NEWSLETTER FOR CJA PANEL ATTORNEYS LEIGH M. SKIPPER, CHIEF FEDERAL DEFENDER NOVEMBER 2014 INSIDE THIS ISSUE DEFENSE LINK MONTHLY NEWSLETTER FOR CJA PANEL ATTORNEYS LEIGH M. SKIPPER, CHIEF FEDERAL DEFENDER NOVEMBER 2014 INSIDE THIS ISSUE Collateral Consequences Resource Center Launches Website Page 1 Recent Third

More information

DEFENSE LINK MONTHLY NEWSLETTER FOR CJA PANEL ATTORNEYS LEIGH M. SKIPPER, CHIEF FEDERAL DEFENDER APRIL 2015 INSIDE THIS ISSUE

DEFENSE LINK MONTHLY NEWSLETTER FOR CJA PANEL ATTORNEYS LEIGH M. SKIPPER, CHIEF FEDERAL DEFENDER APRIL 2015 INSIDE THIS ISSUE DEFENSE LINK MONTHLY NEWSLETTER FOR CJA PANEL ATTORNEYS LEIGH M. SKIPPER, CHIEF FEDERAL DEFENDER APRIL 2015 INSIDE THIS ISSUE FBI Mishandles Evidence Page 1 Recent Third Circuit and Supreme Court Cases

More information

No. IN THE Supreme Court of the United States. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Respondent.

No. IN THE Supreme Court of the United States. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Respondent. No. IN THE Supreme Court of the United States DIVNA MASLENJAK, v. Petitioner, UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Respondent. On Petition for Writ of Certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth

More information

In the Supreme Court of the United States

In the Supreme Court of the United States No. 16-309 In the Supreme Court of the United States DIVNA MASLENJAK, PETITIONER v. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA ON PETITION FOR A WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT

More information

DEFENSE LINK MONTHLY NEWSLETTER FOR CJA PANEL ATTORNEYS. Johnson Update LEIGH M. SKIPPER, CHIEF FEDERAL DEFENDER DECEMBER 2017 INSIDE THIS ISSUE

DEFENSE LINK MONTHLY NEWSLETTER FOR CJA PANEL ATTORNEYS. Johnson Update LEIGH M. SKIPPER, CHIEF FEDERAL DEFENDER DECEMBER 2017 INSIDE THIS ISSUE DEFENSE LINK MONTHLY NEWSLETTER FOR CJA PANEL ATTORNEYS LEIGH M. SKIPPER, CHIEF FEDERAL DEFENDER DECEMBER 2017 INSIDE THIS ISSUE Johnson Update Page 1 Recent Third Circuit and Supreme Court Cases Page

More information

DEFENSE LINK MONTHLY NEWSLETTER FOR CJA PANEL ATTORNEYS LEIGH M. SKIPPER, CHIEF FEDERAL DEFENDER MARCH Clemency Project 2014

DEFENSE LINK MONTHLY NEWSLETTER FOR CJA PANEL ATTORNEYS LEIGH M. SKIPPER, CHIEF FEDERAL DEFENDER MARCH Clemency Project 2014 DEFENSE LINK MONTHLY NEWSLETTER FOR CJA PANEL ATTORNEYS LEIGH M. SKIPPER, CHIEF FEDERAL DEFENDER MARCH 2014 INSIDE THIS ISSUE Clemency Project 2014 Page 1 Filing a Clemency Petition: First Steps Page 2

More information

IN THE INDIANA COURT OF APPEALS. No. 15A PC-2889 STATE S BRIEF OF APPELLEE

IN THE INDIANA COURT OF APPEALS. No. 15A PC-2889 STATE S BRIEF OF APPELLEE IN THE INDIANA COURT OF APPEALS No. 15A04-1712-PC-2889 DANIEL BREWINGTON, Appellant-Petitioner, v. STATE OF INDIANA, Appellee-Respondent. Appeal from the Dearborn Superior Court 2, No. 15D02-1702-PC-3,

More information

Follow this and additional works at:

Follow this and additional works at: 2013 Decisions Opinions of the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit 4-10-2013 USA v. John Purcell Precedential or Non-Precedential: Non-Precedential Docket No. 10-1982 Follow this and additional

More information

OFFICE OF THE FEDERAL PUBLIC DEFENDER EASTERN DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA U.S. SUPREME COURT CRIMINAL LAW UPDATE

OFFICE OF THE FEDERAL PUBLIC DEFENDER EASTERN DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA U.S. SUPREME COURT CRIMINAL LAW UPDATE OFFICE OF THE FEDERAL PUBLIC DEFENDER EASTERN DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA U.S. SUPREME COURT CRIMINAL LAW UPDATE Criminal Cases Decided Between May 1 and September 28, 2009, and Granted Review for the October

More information

OFFICE OF THE FEDERAL PUBLIC DEFENDER EASTERN DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA U.S. SUPREME COURT CRIMINAL LAW UPDATE

OFFICE OF THE FEDERAL PUBLIC DEFENDER EASTERN DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA U.S. SUPREME COURT CRIMINAL LAW UPDATE OFFICE OF THE FEDERAL PUBLIC DEFENDER EASTERN DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA U.S. SUPREME COURT CRIMINAL LAW UPDATE Criminal Cases Decided Between September 1, 2010 and March 31, 2011 and Granted Review for

More information

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES No. 14 191 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES CHARLES L. RYAN, DIRECTOR, ARIZONA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTONS, VS. RICHARD D. HURLES, Petitioner, Respondent. On Petition for Writ of Certiorari to the

More information

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. MICHAEL E. PARKER, Defendant-Appellant. No

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. MICHAEL E. PARKER, Defendant-Appellant. No Page 1 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. MICHAEL E. PARKER, Defendant-Appellant. No. 07-3364 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE TENTH CIR- CUIT 551 F.3d 1167; 2008 U.S. App. LEXIS 25274

More information

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. ARMANDO REYES VERA, AKA Mando, AKA Armando Vera, Defendant-Appellant. No. 16-50364

More information

No SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES. Joseph Jones, Desmond Thurston, and Antuwan Ball Petitioner- Appellants,

No SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES. Joseph Jones, Desmond Thurston, and Antuwan Ball Petitioner- Appellants, No. 13-10026 SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES Joseph Jones, Desmond Thurston, and Antuwan Ball Petitioner- Appellants, v. United States, Respondent- Appellee. Appeal from the United States Court of Appeals

More information

RECENT THIRD CIRCUIT AND SUPREME COURT CASES

RECENT THIRD CIRCUIT AND SUPREME COURT CASES RECENT THIRD CIRCUIT AND SUPREME COURT CASES March 6, 2013 Christofer Bates, EDPA SUPREME COURT I. Aiding and Abetting / Accomplice Liability / 924(c) Rosemond v. United States, --- U.S. ---, 2014 WL 839184

More information

UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT. No

UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT. No UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 05-4609 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, versus Plaintiff - Appellee, DAMON BRIGHTMAN, Defendant - Appellant. No. 05-4612 UNITED STATES OF

More information

May Jacob Schuman Research & Writing Specialist Federal Community Defender Office, E.D. Pa.

May Jacob Schuman Research & Writing Specialist Federal Community Defender Office, E.D. Pa. Appellate Update May 2018 Jacob Schuman Research & Writing Specialist Federal Community Defender Office, E.D. Pa. Supreme Court Decisions Sessions v. Dimaya 138 S.Ct. 1204 (2018) Facts Dimaya is an LPR

More information

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS RECOMMENDED FOR FULL-TEXT PUBLICATION Pursuant to Sixth Circuit Rule 206 File Name: 12a0035p.06 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee, X -- -

More information

No IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES CASSANDRA ANNE KASOWSKI, PETITIONER UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

No IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES CASSANDRA ANNE KASOWSKI, PETITIONER UNITED STATES OF AMERICA No. 16-9649 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES CASSANDRA ANNE KASOWSKI, PETITIONER v. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA ON PETITION FOR A WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE

More information

Follow this and additional works at:

Follow this and additional works at: 2016 Decisions Opinions of the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit 1-22-2016 USA v. Marcus Pough Follow this and additional works at: http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2016

More information

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT. No D.C. Docket No. 8:06-cr EAK-TGW-4. versus

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT. No D.C. Docket No. 8:06-cr EAK-TGW-4. versus Case: 12-10899 Date Filed: 04/23/2013 Page: 1 of 25 [PUBLISH] IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT No. 12-10899 D.C. Docket No. 8:06-cr-00464-EAK-TGW-4 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

More information

Follow this and additional works at:

Follow this and additional works at: 2014 Decisions Opinions of the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit 2-21-2014 USA v. Robert Cooper Precedential or Non-Precedential: Non-Precedential Docket 09-2159 Follow this and additional

More information

No IN THE Supreme Court of the United States. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Respondent.

No IN THE Supreme Court of the United States. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Respondent. No. 16-309 IN THE Supreme Court of the United States DIVNA MASLENJAK, v. Petitioner, UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Respondent. On Writ of Certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit

More information

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN NORTHERN DIVISION. Petitioner, Case No BC v. Honorable David M.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN NORTHERN DIVISION. Petitioner, Case No BC v. Honorable David M. UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN NORTHERN DIVISION ERIC VIDEAU, Petitioner, Case No. 01-10353-BC v. Honorable David M. Lawson ROBERT KAPTURE, Respondent. / OPINION AND ORDER DENYING

More information

STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS

STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, Plaintiff-Appellee, UNPUBLISHED June 9, 2015 v No. 317282 Jackson Circuit Court TODD DOUGLAS ROBINSON, LC No. 12-003652-FC Defendant-Appellant.

More information

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT. No D.C. Docket No. 4:13-cr HLM-WEJ-1. versus

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT. No D.C. Docket No. 4:13-cr HLM-WEJ-1. versus Case: 15-15246 Date Filed: 02/27/2017 Page: 1 of 15 [PUBLISH] IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT No. 15-15246 D.C. Docket No. 4:13-cr-00043-HLM-WEJ-1 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

More information

NO. IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES, Trevon Sykes - Petitioner. vs. United State of America - Respondent.

NO. IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES, Trevon Sykes - Petitioner. vs. United State of America - Respondent. NO. IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES, 2017 Trevon Sykes - Petitioner vs. United State of America - Respondent. PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI Levell D. Littleton Attorney for Petitioner 1221

More information

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS TENTH CIRCUIT ORDER AND JUDGMENT* Before GORSUCH, SEYMOUR, and PHILLIPS, Circuit Judges.

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS TENTH CIRCUIT ORDER AND JUDGMENT* Before GORSUCH, SEYMOUR, and PHILLIPS, Circuit Judges. FILED United States Court of Appeals UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS Tenth Circuit TENTH CIRCUIT November 25, 2014 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Elisabeth A. Shumaker Clerk of Court Plaintiff - Appellee, v.

More information

USA v. Bernabe Palazuelos-Mendez

USA v. Bernabe Palazuelos-Mendez 2016 Decisions Opinions of the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit 1-14-2016 USA v. Bernabe Palazuelos-Mendez Follow this and additional works at: http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2016

More information

v No Kalamazoo Circuit Court FH Defendant-Appellant.

v No Kalamazoo Circuit Court FH Defendant-Appellant. S T A T E O F M I C H I G A N C O U R T O F A P P E A L S PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, Plaintiff-Appellee, UNPUBLISHED August 17, 2017 v No. 333147 Kalamazoo Circuit Court AARON CHARLES DAVIS, JR.,

More information

June 2018 Fourth Circuit Case Summaries: June 20, 21, 26, and 27, 2018

June 2018 Fourth Circuit Case Summaries: June 20, 21, 26, and 27, 2018 Phil Dixon 919.966.4248 dixon@sog.unc.edu UNC School of Government June 2018 Fourth Circuit Case Summaries: June 20, 21, 26, and 27, 2018 Seizure was supported by reasonable suspicion and affirmed despite

More information

The Jurisprudence of Justice John Paul Stevens: Selected Opinions on the Jury s Role in Criminal Sentencing

The Jurisprudence of Justice John Paul Stevens: Selected Opinions on the Jury s Role in Criminal Sentencing The Jurisprudence of Justice John Paul Stevens: Selected Opinions on the Jury s Role in Criminal Sentencing Anna C. Henning Legislative Attorney June 7, 2010 Congressional Research Service CRS Report for

More information

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT Case: 14-51238 Document: 00513286141 Page: 1 Date Filed: 11/25/2015 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee United States Court of Appeals

More information

Case 2:15-cr FMO Document 52 Filed 04/25/16 Page 1 of 17 Page ID #:295

Case 2:15-cr FMO Document 52 Filed 04/25/16 Page 1 of 17 Page ID #:295 Case :-cr-00-fmo Document Filed 0 Page of Page ID #: EILEEN M. DECKER United States Attorney LAWRENCE S. MIDDLETON Assistant United States Attorney Chief, Criminal Division RITESH SRIVASTAVA (Cal. Bar

More information

NC General Statutes - Chapter 15A Article 89 1

NC General Statutes - Chapter 15A Article 89 1 Article 89. Motion for Appropriate Relief and Other Post-Trial Relief. 15A-1411. Motion for appropriate relief. (a) Relief from errors committed in the trial division, or other post-trial relief, may be

More information

USA v. Mario Villaman-Puerta

USA v. Mario Villaman-Puerta 2011 Decisions Opinions of the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit 2-16-2011 USA v. Mario Villaman-Puerta Precedential or Non-Precedential: Non-Precedential Docket No. 10-2061 Follow this

More information

USA v. Brenda Rickard

USA v. Brenda Rickard 2009 Decisions Opinions of the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit 7-1-2009 USA v. Brenda Rickard Precedential or Non-Precedential: Non-Precedential Docket No. 08-3163 Follow this and

More information

In the Supreme Court of the United States

In the Supreme Court of the United States No. 16-309 In the Supreme Court of the United States DIVNA MASLENJAK, PETITIONER v. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA ON WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT BRIEF FOR

More information

STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS

STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, Plaintiff-Appellee, UNPUBLISHED October 19, 2010 v No. 292998 Genesee Circuit Court CORDARO LEVILE HARDY, LC No. 07-020165-FC Defendant-Appellant.

More information

: : CRIMINAL DIVISION : : : Notice of Intent to Dismiss PCRA : Without Holding An Evidentiary Hearing OPINION

: : CRIMINAL DIVISION : : : Notice of Intent to Dismiss PCRA : Without Holding An Evidentiary Hearing OPINION IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF LYCOMING COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA COMMONWEALTH OF PA vs. DAVID GEHR, : No. CR-1010-2015 : : CRIMINAL DIVISION : : : Notice of Intent to Dismiss PCRA : Without Holding An Evidentiary

More information

USA v. Daniel Castelli

USA v. Daniel Castelli 2014 Decisions Opinions of the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit 1-7-2014 USA v. Daniel Castelli Precedential or Non-Precedential: Non-Precedential Docket 12-2316 Follow this and additional

More information

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI WESTERN DIVISION

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI WESTERN DIVISION IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI WESTERN DIVISION UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) Criminal Action No. ) 05-00344-02-CR-W-ODS STEVEN SANDSTROM,

More information

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Georgia

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Georgia U.S. v. Dukes IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT No. 04-14344 D. C. Docket No. 03-00174-CR-ODE-1-1 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA Plaintiff-Appellee, versus FRANCES J. DUKES, a.k.a.

More information

Update: The LPR Bars to 212(h) To Whom Do They Apply?

Update: The LPR Bars to 212(h) To Whom Do They Apply? Update: The LPR Bars to 212(h) To Whom Do They Apply? Katherine Brady, Immigrant Legal Resource Center, 2014 1 Section 212(h) of the INA is an important waiver of inadmissibility based on certain crimes.

More information

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN NORTHERN DIVISION. Plaintiff, Case Number BC v. Honorable David M.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN NORTHERN DIVISION. Plaintiff, Case Number BC v. Honorable David M. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN NORTHERN DIVISION Plaintiff, Case Number 03-20028-BC v. Honorable David M. Lawson DERRICK GIBSON, Defendant. / OPINION

More information

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT. No Non-Argument Calendar. D.C. Docket No. 9:17-cr KAM-1.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT. No Non-Argument Calendar. D.C. Docket No. 9:17-cr KAM-1. Case: 18-11151 Date Filed: 04/04/2019 Page: 1 of 9 [DO NOT PUBLISH] IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT No. 18-11151 Non-Argument Calendar D.C. Docket No. 9:17-cr-80030-KAM-1

More information

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT ARMANDO GUTIERREZ, AKA Arturo Ramirez, Petitioner, v. ERIC H. HOLDER, JR., Attorney General, Respondent. No. 11-71788 Agency No. A095-733-635

More information

Follow this and additional works at:

Follow this and additional works at: 2011 Decisions Opinions of the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit 7-13-2011 USA v. Rideout Precedential or Non-Precedential: Non-Precedential Docket No. 07-4567 Follow this and additional

More information

NO F IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff/appellee,

NO F IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff/appellee, NO. 04-10461-F IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff/appellee, v. OSCAR PINARGOTE, Defendant/appellant. On Appeal from the United States District

More information

LOPEZ v. GONZALES & TOLEDO- FLORES v. UNITED STATES: STATE FELONY DRUG CONVICTIONS NOT NECESSARILY AGGRAVATED FELONIES REQUIRING DEPORTATION

LOPEZ v. GONZALES & TOLEDO- FLORES v. UNITED STATES: STATE FELONY DRUG CONVICTIONS NOT NECESSARILY AGGRAVATED FELONIES REQUIRING DEPORTATION LOPEZ v. GONZALES & TOLEDO- FLORES v. UNITED STATES: STATE FELONY DRUG CONVICTIONS NOT NECESSARILY AGGRAVATED FELONIES REQUIRING DEPORTATION RYAN WAGNER* I. INTRODUCTION The United States Courts of Appeals

More information

United States Court of Appeals

United States Court of Appeals In the United States Court of Appeals For the Seventh Circuit Nos. 07-3396 & 08-1452 JESUS LAGUNAS-SALGADO, v. Petitioner, ERIC H. HOLDER, JR., Attorney General of the United States, Respondent. Petitions

More information

IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF TENNESSEE AT JACKSON Assigned on Briefs February 2, 2010

IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF TENNESSEE AT JACKSON Assigned on Briefs February 2, 2010 IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF TENNESSEE AT JACKSON Assigned on Briefs February 2, 2010 BILLY HARRIS v. STATE OF TENNESSEE Appeal from the Criminal Court for Shelby County No. 01-02675 Carolyn Wade

More information

of unfair prejudice. Fed.Rules Evid. Rule 404(b), 28 U.S.C.A.

of unfair prejudice. Fed.Rules Evid. Rule 404(b), 28 U.S.C.A. U.S. v. CARTER Cite as 779 F.3d 623 (6th Cir. 2015) 623 UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff Appellee, v. Jason Anthony CARTER, Defendant Appellant. No. 14 5276. United States Court of Appeals, Sixth Circuit.

More information

In the SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES

In the SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES In the SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES No. 13-10026 Joseph Jones, Desmond Thurston, and Antuwan Ball, Petitioners, v. United States, Respondent. On Appeal from the Appellate Court of the District of

More information

THIS DOCUMENT WAS PREPARED BY EMPLOYEES OF A FEDERAL DEFENDER OFFICE AS PART OF THEIR OFFICIAL DUTIES.

THIS DOCUMENT WAS PREPARED BY EMPLOYEES OF A FEDERAL DEFENDER OFFICE AS PART OF THEIR OFFICIAL DUTIES. Would an Enhancement for Accidental Death or Serious Bodily Injury Resulting from the Use of a Drug No Longer Apply Under the Supreme Court s Decision in Burrage v. United States, 134 S. Ct. 881 (2014),

More information

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT. vs. Appeal No District Court Docket Number 1:03-cr-129 JIM RICH Appellant.

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT. vs. Appeal No District Court Docket Number 1:03-cr-129 JIM RICH Appellant. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA Appellee, UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT vs. Appeal No. 04-50647 District Court Docket Number 1:03-cr-129 JIM RICH Appellant. / APPELLANT RICH S MOTION FOR

More information

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT. No P. versus. WARDEN, Respondent Appellee.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT. No P. versus. WARDEN, Respondent Appellee. Case: 17-14027 Date Filed: 04/03/2018 Page: 1 of 10 KEITH THARPE, IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT No. 17-14027-P versus Petitioner Appellant, WARDEN, Respondent Appellee.

More information

RECENT THIRD CIRCUIT AND SUPREME COURT CASES

RECENT THIRD CIRCUIT AND SUPREME COURT CASES RECENT THIRD CIRCUIT AND SUPREME COURT CASES August 7, 2014 Christofer Bates, EDPA SUPREME COURT I. Chemical Weapons Convention Implementation Act / Breadth of Statute Bond v. United States, 134 S. Ct.

More information

UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT. No

UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT. No UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 09-4368 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. MICHAEL ANTHONY DARBY, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States

More information

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA Case 3:12-cr-00087-JMM Document 62 Filed 09/19/16 Page 1 of 20 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA UNITED STATES OF AMERICA : No. 3:12cr87 : No. 3:16cv313 v. : :

More information

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA. v. Case No. 5D02-503

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA. v. Case No. 5D02-503 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA STATE OF FLORIDA, Appellant, v. Case No. 5D02-503 JAMES OTTE Appellee. / ON APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL, FIFTH DISTRICT AND THE SEVENTH JUDICIAL

More information

F I L E D August 26, 2013

F I L E D August 26, 2013 Case: 11-60763 Document: 00512353873 Page: 1 Date Filed: 08/26/2013 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS United States Court of Appeals FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT Fifth Circuit F I L E D August 26, 2013 Lyle

More information

Follow this and additional works at:

Follow this and additional works at: 2009 Decisions Opinions of the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit 1-27-2009 USA v. Marshall Precedential or Non-Precedential: Non-Precedential Docket No. 07-4778 Follow this and additional

More information

MISSISSIPPI COURT OF APPEALS OPINIONS HAND DOWN DATE: 9/20/2016

MISSISSIPPI COURT OF APPEALS OPINIONS HAND DOWN DATE: 9/20/2016 MISSISSIPPI COURT OF APPEALS OPINIONS HAND DOWN DATE: 9/20/2016 SIMS v. STATE, NO. 2015-KA-01311-COA http://courts.ms.gov/images/opinions/co115582.pdf Topics: Armed robbery - Ineffective assistance of

More information

USA v. Edward McLaughlin

USA v. Edward McLaughlin 2016 Decisions Opinions of the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit 4-25-2016 USA v. Edward McLaughlin Follow this and additional works at: http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2016

More information

DEFENSE NEWSLETTER IN THIS ISSUE: SUPREME COURT UPDATE... p.1 11TH CIRCUIT CASE SUMMARIES p.1 TABLE OF CASES IN THIS ISSUE. p.5

DEFENSE NEWSLETTER IN THIS ISSUE: SUPREME COURT UPDATE... p.1 11TH CIRCUIT CASE SUMMARIES p.1 TABLE OF CASES IN THIS ISSUE. p.5 IN THIS ISSUE: SUPREME COURT UPDATE... p.1 11TH CIRCUIT CASE SUMMARIES p.1 TABLE OF CASES IN THIS ISSUE. p.5 DEFENSE NEWSLETTER Vol. 14, No. 1 Kaleen M. Williams, Federal Public Defender November 2008

More information

Follow this and additional works at:

Follow this and additional works at: 2008 Decisions Opinions of the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit 1-24-2008 USA v. Lister Precedential or Non-Precedential: Non-Precedential Docket No. 06-1476 Follow this and additional

More information

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI WESTERN DIVISION

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI WESTERN DIVISION IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI WESTERN DIVISION UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) No. 07-00200-01-CR-W-FJG ) WILLIAM ENEFF, ) ) ) Defendant. )

More information

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT 15 489 cr United States v. Nastri UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT SUMMARY ORDER RULINGS BY SUMMARY ORDER DO NOT HAVE PRECEDENTIAL EFFECT. CITATION TO A SUMMARY ORDER FILED ON OR AFTER

More information

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P : : : : : : : : :

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P : : : : : : : : : NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37 COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA v. DAVID COIT Appellant IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA No. 561 EDA 2017 Appeal from the PCRA Order Entered

More information

STATE OF OHIO STEVEN MURPHY

STATE OF OHIO STEVEN MURPHY [Cite as State v. Murphy, 2010-Ohio-1422.] Court of Appeals of Ohio EIGHTH APPELLATE DISTRICT COUNTY OF CUYAHOGA JOURNAL ENTRY AND OPINION No. 93093 STATE OF OHIO PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE vs. STEVEN MURPHY DEFENDANT-APPELLANT

More information

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA BONGANI CHARLES CALHOUN PETITIONER UNITED STATES OF AMERICA RESPONDENT

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA BONGANI CHARLES CALHOUN PETITIONER UNITED STATES OF AMERICA RESPONDENT NO. IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA BONGANI CHARLES CALHOUN PETITIONER VS. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA RESPONDENT PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

More information

Anthony Reid v. Secretary PA Dept Corr

Anthony Reid v. Secretary PA Dept Corr 2011 Decisions Opinions of the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit 3-25-2011 Anthony Reid v. Secretary PA Dept Corr Precedential or Non-Precedential: Non-Precedential Docket No. 09-3727

More information

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA SIXTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA SIXTH APPELLATE DISTRICT IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA SIXTH APPELLATE DISTRICT PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA,) ) Plaintiff and Respondent, ) ) v. ) ) SHAWN RAMON ROGERS, ) ) Defendant and Appellant. )

More information

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee, versus GEORGE DAVID SALUM, III., Defendant-Appellant. No Non-Argument Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee, versus GEORGE DAVID SALUM, III., Defendant-Appellant. No Non-Argument Calendar Page 1 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee, versus GEORGE DAVID SALUM, III., Defendant-Appellant. No. 07-10944 Non-Argument Calendar UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT 257

More information

IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF TENNESSEE AT JACKSON December 8, 2015 Session

IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF TENNESSEE AT JACKSON December 8, 2015 Session IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF TENNESSEE AT JACKSON December 8, 2015 Session KENTAVIS JONES v. STATE OF TENNESSEE Appeal from the Circuit Court for Madison County No. C-14-251 Donald H. Allen, Judge

More information

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P : : : : : : : : :

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P : : : : : : : : : NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37 COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA v. YAMIL RUIZ-VEGA Appellant IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA No. 137 MDA 2017 Appeal from the PCRA Order Entered

More information

In The Court of Appeals Sixth Appellate District of Texas at Texarkana

In The Court of Appeals Sixth Appellate District of Texas at Texarkana In The Court of Appeals Sixth Appellate District of Texas at Texarkana No. 06-15-00129-CR JAMES CUNNINGHAM, Appellant V. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee On Appeal from the 85th District Court Brazos County,

More information

Follow this and additional works at:

Follow this and additional works at: 2004 Decisions Opinions of the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit 4-29-2004 USA v. Hoffner Precedential or Non-Precedential: Non-Precedential Docket No. 02-2642 Follow this and additional

More information

No. 06SC188, Medina v. People Sentencing for Crime Different than Jury Conviction Violates Due Process and Sixth Amendment

No. 06SC188, Medina v. People Sentencing for Crime Different than Jury Conviction Violates Due Process and Sixth Amendment Opinions of the Colorado Supreme Court are available to the public and can be accessed through the Court s homepage at http://www.courts.state.co.us/supct/supctcaseannctsindex.htm and are posted on the

More information

Chapter 1 Obligations of Defense Counsel

Chapter 1 Obligations of Defense Counsel Chapter 1 Obligations of Defense Counsel 1.1 Purpose of Manual 1-2 1.2 Obligations of Defense Counsel 1-2 A. The U.S. Supreme Court Decides Padilla v. Kentucky B. North Carolina Follows Padilla in State

More information

Court of Appeals of Ohio

Court of Appeals of Ohio [Cite as State v. Parker, 2012-Ohio-4741.] Court of Appeals of Ohio EIGHTH APPELLATE DISTRICT COUNTY OF CUYAHOGA JOURNAL ENTRY AND OPINION No. 97841 STATE OF OHIO vs. COREY PARKER PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE DEFENDANT-APPELLANT

More information

USA v. Hector Tovar-Sanchez

USA v. Hector Tovar-Sanchez 2013 Decisions Opinions of the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit 1-17-2013 USA v. Hector Tovar-Sanchez Precedential or Non-Precedential: Non-Precedential Docket No. 11-3810 Follow this

More information

TENTH CIRCUIT ORDER AND JUDGMENT * On October 20, 2006, Jonearl B. Smith was charged by complaint with

TENTH CIRCUIT ORDER AND JUDGMENT * On October 20, 2006, Jonearl B. Smith was charged by complaint with FILED United States Court of Appeals Tenth Circuit UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS December 23, 2011 TENTH CIRCUIT Elisabeth A. Shumaker Clerk of Court UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, v. Plaintiff - Appellee,

More information

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT Case: 13-11396 Document: 00512881175 Page: 1 Date Filed: 12/23/2014 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Summary Calendar Plaintiff-Appellee United States

More information

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS TENTH CIRCUIT ORDER DENYING CERTIFICATE OF APPEALABILITY *

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS TENTH CIRCUIT ORDER DENYING CERTIFICATE OF APPEALABILITY * FILED United States Court of Appeals Tenth Circuit UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS TENTH CIRCUIT February 6, 2009 Elisabeth A. Shumaker Clerk of Court MONSEL DUNGEN, Petitioner - Appellant, v. AL ESTEP;

More information

Case 5:10-cv DMG-JCG Document 28 Filed 08/15/14 Page 1 of 8 Page ID #:118 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

Case 5:10-cv DMG-JCG Document 28 Filed 08/15/14 Page 1 of 8 Page ID #:118 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT Case 5:10-cv-01081-DMG-JCG Document 28 Filed 08/15/14 Page 1 of 8 Page ID #:118 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT FILED AUG 15 2014 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS KENNETH

More information

Sn tilt uprrmr C aurt

Sn tilt uprrmr C aurt JAN "1 5 201o No. 09-658 Sn tilt uprrmr C aurt of tile ~[nitri~ ~tatrs JEFF PREMO, Superintendent, Oregon State Penitentiary, Petitioner, Vo RANDY JOSEPH MOORE, Respondent. Petition for Writ of Certiorari

More information

IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF TENNESSEE AT JACKSON Assigned on Briefs August 5, 2014

IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF TENNESSEE AT JACKSON Assigned on Briefs August 5, 2014 IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF TENNESSEE AT JACKSON Assigned on Briefs August 5, 2014 DERRICK TAYLOR v. STATE OF TENNESSEE Appeal from the Criminal Court for Shelby County No. 10-03281 Glenn Wright,

More information

December 19, This advisory is divided into the following sections:

December 19, This advisory is divided into the following sections: PRACTICE ADVISORY: THE IMPACT OF THE BIA DECISIONS IN MATTER OF CARACHURI AND MATTER OF THOMAS ON REMOVAL DEFENSE OF IMMIGRANTS WITH MORE THAN ONE DRUG POSSESSION CONVICTION * December 19, 2007 On December

More information

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT 09-3389-cr United States v. Folkes UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT August Term, 2010 (Submitted: September 20, 2010; Decided: September 29, 2010) Docket No. 09-3389-cr UNITED STATES

More information

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS TENTH CIRCUIT. Appellee, No v. N.D. Okla. JIMMY LEE SHARBUTT, ORDER AND JUDGMENT *

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS TENTH CIRCUIT. Appellee, No v. N.D. Okla. JIMMY LEE SHARBUTT, ORDER AND JUDGMENT * UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS TENTH CIRCUIT FILED United States Court of Appeals Tenth Circuit August 12, 2008 Elisabeth A. Shumaker Clerk of Court UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Appellee, No. 07-5151 v. N.D.

More information

3. Sentencing and Punishment O978

3. Sentencing and Punishment O978 U.S. v. JOKHOO Cite as 806 F.3d 1137 (8th Cir. 2015) 1137 UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff Appellee v. Khemall JOKHOO, also known as Kenny Jokhoo, also known as Kevin Smith, also known as Kevin Day,

More information

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT ORDER AND JUDGMENT *

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT ORDER AND JUDGMENT * UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT FILED United States Court of Appeals Tenth Circuit September 21, 2015 Elisabeth A. Shumaker Clerk of Court Plaintiff - Appellee,

More information

SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES

SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES (Bench Opinion) OCTOBER TERM, 2004 1 NOTE: Where it is feasible, a syllabus (headnote) will be released, as is being done in connection with this case, at the time the opinion is issued. The syllabus constitutes

More information

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF MISSISSIPPI NO CP COA STATE OF MISSISSIPPI BRIEF FOR THE APPELLEE

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF MISSISSIPPI NO CP COA STATE OF MISSISSIPPI BRIEF FOR THE APPELLEE E-Filed Document Apr 20 2016 15:53:20 2015-CP-00893-COA Pages: 30 IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF MISSISSIPPI ERNIE WHITE APPELLANT VS. NO. 2015-CP-00893-COA STATE OF MISSISSIPPI APPELLEE BRIEF

More information

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT ORDER AND JUDGMENT * Joseph Eddy Benoit appeals the district court s amended judgment sentencing

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT ORDER AND JUDGMENT * Joseph Eddy Benoit appeals the district court s amended judgment sentencing UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, FILED United States Court of Appeals UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS Tenth Circuit Plaintiff - Appellee, FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT March 13, 2015 Elisabeth A. Shumaker Clerk of Court

More information

USA v. Devlon Saunders

USA v. Devlon Saunders 2012 Decisions Opinions of the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit 1-30-2012 USA v. Devlon Saunders Precedential or Non-Precedential: Non-Precedential Docket No. 11-1635 Follow this and

More information

SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES

SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES Cite as: 549 U. S. (2007) 1 NOTICE: This opinion is subject to formal revision before publication in the preliminary print of the United States Reports. Readers are requested to notify the Reporter of

More information

USA v. Anthony Spence

USA v. Anthony Spence 2014 Decisions Opinions of the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit 2-3-2014 USA v. Anthony Spence Precedential or Non-Precedential: Non-Precedential Docket 13-1395 Follow this and additional

More information