Criminal Law News

Case Summaries

Asset Forfeiture

[06/18] US v. 777 Greene Ave.
In a civil forfeiture proceeding, the motion to withdraw of defendant's counsel is denied where such a motion will not be granted unless counsel satisfies the requirements established under Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1976), and its progeny. With regard to motions to withdraw filed by appellate counsel appointed pursuant to 18 U.S.C. section 983(b)(2)(A), the procedure established under Anders and its progeny is best suited to protect the right to counsel to which indigent litigants are entitled.

[06/10] People v. Indiana Lumbermens Mut. Ins. Co.
In a motion to set aside a forfeiture and exonerate a bond, court of appeals' reversal of trial court's denial is reversed as a motion for relief from forfeiture of bail must be made within 180 days of forfeiture, unless the time is extended as the governing statute permits, even when an absconding defendant is arrested or surrendered in a county other than the jurisdiction where the case is pending.

[06/09] US v. Connors
In the civil forfeiture proceedings of defendant's home allegedly used to facilitate his illegal operation of Cuban cigar smuggling and distribution business, for which he was eventually convicted of, district court's judgment is affirmed where: 1) district court's denial of defendant's motion to dismiss is affirmed as the court properly denied defendant's motion to dismiss based on the statute of limitations, as the government filed its complaint within five years of the alleged offenses; 2) district court's grant of summary judgment on an income deficiency theory is affirmed; and 3) the property remains forfeited to the United States.

[06/02] Mabry v. Superior Court
In homeowners' petition for a writ of mandate challenging an order of the trial court, allowing for foreclosure to proceed on their home, is granted in part and remanded to the trial court to determine whether or not the lender complied with Civil Code section 2923.5. To the extent that the trial court's order precludes the assertion of any class action claims, the petition is denied.

[06/01] In re: Jordan
In a petition for a writ of mandamus ordering the district court to direct the government to return motorcycles seized in connection with a criminal investigation, the petition is denied where the district court did not clear err in determining that, when the government has failed to provide notice of a seizure in accordance with 18 U.S.C. section 983(a)(1)(A), section 983(a)(1)(F) does not compel the government to return seized property before initiating a judicial forfeiture proceeding.

[05/26] US v. Hull
In a prosecution for distribution of child pornography, the forfeiture of defendant's property is affirmed where: 1) the evidence showed a substantial connection ? not merely an incidental or fortuitous relationship ? between the real property and the offenses; 2) because defendant's acreage was a single tract of land that was conveyed to him as a whole, the district court was correct to treat the entire acreage as a single piece of "property" when applying the statute; and 3) the relatively high recommended fine range did not suggest a minimal level of culpability, and a comparison of the forfeiture and the fine range suggested that the forfeiture was, at a minimum, presumptively not excessive.

[05/07] ERI Consulting Eng'r, Inc. v. Swinnea
In plaintiffs' suit against his former business partner claiming various causes of action including common law fraud and breach of fiduciary duty, judgment of the court of appeals holding that equitable forfeiture is not an available remedy is reversed as, when a partner in a business breached his fiduciary duty by fraudulently inducing another partner to buy out his interest, the consideration received by the breaching party for his interest in the business is subject to forfeiture as a remedy for the breach, in addition to other damages that result from the tortious conduct.

Read More

Criminal Law & Procedure

[06/28] McDonald v. City of Chicago
In an action against the City of Chicago alleging that the City's handgun ban left plaintiffs vulnerable to criminals, judgment for defendants is reversed where the Fourteenth Amendment incorporates the Second Amendment right, recognized in Heller, to keep and bear arms for the purpose of self-defense.

[06/25] Dale v. Holder
In a petition for review of a decision by the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) upholding petitioner's order of removal under 8 U.S.C. section 1101(a)(43)(F) for being convicted of an aggravated felony, the petition is granted where: 1) although the argument petitioner presented to the BIA was not identical to that which he raised in his petition for review, the arguments were sufficiently related to establish that he presented his ground for relief to the administrative agency in the first instance; and 2) the BIA erred as a matter of law in concluding that petitioner could not legally plead guilty to an attempted violation of N.Y. Penal Law 120.10(3) or (4).

[06/25] Bailey v. Cain
In a murder prosecution, petitioner's appeal of the denial of his habeas petition is dismissed and the denial of petitioner's Fed. R. Crim. P. 60 motion is affirmed where: 1) omitted from petitioner's motion for a certificate of appealability was a specific reference to the judgment or order from which appeal was taken; and 2) petitioner made no attempt to show that he could not have obtained a transcription sooner if it were necessary to make his case before the district court.

[06/25] Woodfox v. Cain
In the state's appeal from a grant of petitioner's habeas petition in a murder prosecution, the order is reversed where: 1) petitioner failed to exhaust his Confrontation Clause claim in state court; 2) there was no indication in the state court adjudication that suggested a reliance on any procedural vehicle rather than the merits to deny relief; 3) it was not unreasonable to conclude that defense counsel did not render constitutionally deficient performance by failing to pursue a confrontation objection; and 4) the absence of a fingerprint expert did not cause petitioner prejudice that warrants habeas relief.

[06/25] US v. Williams
In a case involving a defendant's transport of 74 unlawful aliens, and the death of 19 of them after he left the aliens locked in the trailer of his tractor?trailer without activating the trailer's air conditioning unit, defendant's murder convictions are affirmed where: 1) the Government's articulated reasons for striking a veniremember were supported by the voir dire transcripts; and 2) it was not clear error for the district court to include defendant's first trip, during which he transported approximately 60 unlawful aliens, as part of the relevant conduct. However, his sentence is vacated where the district court erred in its definition of "act of violence" under the Federal Death Penalty Act and, under the correct definition, the evidence at trial cannot support a finding that the requisite threshold intent was met.

[06/25] People v. Bloom
Conviction of defendant for resisting arrest and other related charges, arising from making more than 40 harassing calls to 911 in a single evening, is affirmed over a challenge to a denial of a motion to suppress as a dispatcher lawfully arrested defendant for making the calls and she was not required to physically restrain him or to be present at the time of the arrest.

[06/25] US v. Womack
In a prosecution of defendant for distributing cocaine base, district court's application of a career offender enhancement when imposing a sentence of 360 months is vacated and remanded as, although the district court did not err by applying the career offender enhancement in defendant's guidelines calculation and the sentence imposed was within a correctly calculated guidelines range, the district court erred in stating that it could not consider the sentencing disparity between crack and powder cocaine offenses under the guidelines because district courts may disagree with the career offender enhancement on policy grounds related to the crack/powder disparity and impose sentences accordingly.

Read More

Sentencing

[06/25] US v. Williams
In a case involving a defendant's transport of 74 unlawful aliens, and the death of 19 of them after he left the aliens locked in the trailer of his tractor?trailer without activating the trailer's air conditioning unit, defendant's murder convictions are affirmed where: 1) the Government's articulated reasons for striking a veniremember were supported by the voir dire transcripts; and 2) it was not clear error for the district court to include defendant's first trip, during which he transported approximately 60 unlawful aliens, as part of the relevant conduct. However, his sentence is vacated where the district court erred in its definition of "act of violence" under the Federal Death Penalty Act and, under the correct definition, the evidence at trial cannot support a finding that the requisite threshold intent was met.

[06/25] US v. King
In defendant's appeal from the district court's judgment revoking his term of supervised release and imposing additional supervised release conditions on the basis of five violations of his supervised release conditions, the order is affirmed where: 1) 18 U.S.C. section 3605's language did not limit a transferee court's power to violations that occur after transfer; 2) together, the ordinary meaning of "associate," the court's cases, and defendant's probation officer's instructions adequately notified defendant that telephone and e-mail communications with felons were prohibited; and 3) the evidence was sufficient to support the district court's finding that defendant's misrepresentation was intentional.

[06/25] US v. Buzo-Zepeda
Defendant's sentence for reentry into the U.S. following deportation is affirmed where a "Johnson waiver" in California state court had no effect on the determination of whether a defendant qualifies for a point increase under United States Sentencing Guidelines Manual section 4A1.1, Criminal History Category.

[06/25] US v. Womack
In a prosecution of defendant for distributing cocaine base, district court's application of a career offender enhancement when imposing a sentence of 360 months is vacated and remanded as, although the district court did not err by applying the career offender enhancement in defendant's guidelines calculation and the sentence imposed was within a correctly calculated guidelines range, the district court erred in stating that it could not consider the sentencing disparity between crack and powder cocaine offenses under the guidelines because district courts may disagree with the career offender enhancement on policy grounds related to the crack/powder disparity and impose sentences accordingly.

[06/25] US v. Robinson
District court's grant of pro se defendant's motion to reduce his sentence under 18 U.S.C. section 3582(c)(2) for crack cocaine and firearm related offenses is affirmed and his motion for appointment of counsel denied as, pursuant to section 3582(c)(2), a district court is not authorized to reduce a defendant's sentence below the amended Guidelines range.

[06/25] US v. Alexander
Defendant's sentence for being a felon in possession of a firearm is affirmed where: 1) a conviction under Fla. Stat. section 790.15(2) involved conduct that was "similar in kind and degree of risk posed" to burglary, arson, extortion, and crimes involving the use of explosives -- the crimes enumerated in the Guidelines' definition of crime of violence; and 2) the district court did not have authority to award credit for time served in state custody.

[06/25] US v. Huff
Defendant's convictions and sentences for bribery and conspiracy to commit wire fraud and bribery are affirmed in part where: 1) the evidence was sufficient to establish a single conspiracy in this case, and there was no material variance between the indictment and the evidence presented at trial; and 2) the district court did not err in basing the loss amount on defendant's substantive counts of conviction only. However, a restitution order is vacated in part where the circuit court was unable to determine whether the amount of restitution imposed by the district court exceeded the victims' actual losses.

Read More