Criminal Law News

Case Summaries

Asset Forfeiture

[03/08] US v. Brummer
In defendant's appeal from the district court's order that he forfeit two firearms and six rounds of ammunition pursuant to his conviction of knowingly and willfully failing to declare firearms to a common carrier, the order is affirmed where the indictment charging defendant with violating 18 U.S.C. section 922(e) included a notice of forfeiture, and thus the district court therefore was required to order forfeiture of the property.

[03/02] US v. Cheeseman
In a prosecution of defendant for violating 18 U.S.C. section 922(g)(3), which criminalizes possession of firearms and ammunition by an unlawful user or addict of a controlled substance, district court's judgment ordering the forfeiture of over 600 firearms and ammunition is affirmed where: 1) the possession of firearms and ammunition is sufficient for a district court to find that the property was "involved in" a section 922(g)(3) offense; and 2) forfeiture did not violate the Excessive Fines Clause as the value of the firearms was at most two times the maximum penalty imposed by the statute.

[02/26] US v. Meux
Following defendant's conviction and sentence of 37 months' imprisonment and order to pay a mandatory restitution of $134,218.52, a magistrate judge's order granting the government's motion for turnover of funds that was held in custody by a US Marshal in an unrelated case is affirmed as the magistrate judge had authority to hold a hearing and to order the turnover of funds to satisfy the lien. Furthermore, record reflects that defendant was provided with essentially the same due process protections he wold have been accorded in garnishment proceedings.

[02/16] US v. $22,050.00 US Currency
In an in rem forfeiture action in connection with a drug distribution and money laundering investigation wherein the United States Drug Enforcement Administration seized $22,050 from petitioner's office, judgment of the district court denying his motion to set aside default and entry of judgment in favor of the United States is reversed where: 1) in civil forfeiture cases such as this one, where the question is whether to excuse a known claimant's failure to file a verified claim and answer in the allotted time, district courts should analyze the case using the generally applicable Federal Rules (Rule 55(c)) rather than under the appellate court's requirement of "strict compliance" with the forfeiture rules; 2) the government would not have been prejudiced by setting aside the default; 3) claimant has asserted meritorious defenses to the forfeiture claim; and 4) on remand, it must be determined whether claimant was culpable under Rule 55(c) for the default by willfully failing to appear and plead.

[02/11] US v. Herder
Conviction of defendant for drug related crimes and sentence to 41 months' imprisonment is affirmed in part, vacated in part, and remanded where: 1) the direct and circumstantial evidence presented at trial was more than ample to support the jury's verdict; 2) district court did not abuse its discretion in denying defendant's request for a "mere proximity" jury instruction; 3) defendant's sentence is vacated and remanded as, on the record, district court did not understand that it had discretion to depart from the Guidelines, and was therefore, procedurally unreasonable; and 4) the order of forfeiture is affirmed as the district court did not clearly err in finding that defendant intended to use the $1,223 to commit, or to facilitate the commission, of the offenses for which he was convicted.

[02/02] US v. Resnick
In a wire fraud case arising as a result of defendant's role in a check-kiting scheme that caused the failure of a federal savings bank, wherein the government sought to collect defendant's financial obligations to the FDIC from third party-bookie who received money from the insolvent defendant, judgment in favor of the government under a theory of fraudulent transfer under the Federal Debt Collection Procedure Act (FDCPA) is affirmed as defendant's transfers of money to his bookie fell within the scope of the FDCPA, and the bookie is liable to the government for the constructively fraudulent transfers. The bookie's remaining arguments regarding supplementary proceedings and affirmative defenses are rejected.

[01/12] Full Throttle Films, Inc. v. Nat'l Mobile Television, Inc.
In ex parte proceedings, arising after plaintiff obtained a writ of attachment and levied on certain deposit accounts of defendant, a grant of third-party claimant-Wachovia Capital Finance Corporation's application for release of the levied property and order quashing the levy is reversed where: 1) the record contains no evidence to support the trial court's finding that Wachovia holds a perfected security interest in the accounts on which plaintiff levied; and 2) the record contains no evidence that Wachovia met any of the alternative requirements for showing that its security interest was not subordinated to plaintiff's attachment lien.

Read More

Criminal Law & Procedure

[03/08] US v. Chavez-Suarez
Defendant's sentence for reentering the country following deportation after a conviction for a drug trafficking offense is affirmed where, in light of all of the evidence in the record, including defendant's past illegal reentries and certain aggravating factors in his underlying drug-trafficking conviction, the imposition of a guidelines-range sentence did not manifest a clear error of judgment by the district court.

[03/08] People v. Cobb
Following defendant's completion of sentence for assault with a deadly weapon and commitment to a state hospital for treatment as a mentally disordered offender (MDO), judgment of the court of appeals finding that defendant was not denied due process in extension of his commitment is affirmed as, without a time waiver or good cause, section 2972 does not permit continued confinement when an extension trial does not begin before the scheduled release date.

[03/08] People v. Lara
Following defendant's prosecution for false imprisonment of a child, a finding of not guilty by reason of insanity, and commitment to a state hospital, judgment of the court of appeal directing that the trial court grant defendant's motion to dismiss the petition for an extension of his commitment is reversed where: 1) the statutory deadline for filing an extension petition is directory, not mandatory, as long as the petition is filed before the expiration of the current commitment; 2) defendant was not entitled to a dismissal of the petition on due process grounds; and 3) upon motion, defendant would have been entitled under due process to release pending trial, subject to possible proceedings under the Lanterman-Petris-Short Act. However, defendant is not now eligible for release because the court retained jurisdiction to try him and he received a fair trial.

[03/08] People ex rel. Reisig v. Acuna
In an action initiated by the district attorney against the Broderick Boys, an alleged criminal street gang, and 23 of its members to enjoin as a public nuisance their activities in a 2.98-square mile area of West Sacramento, grant of district attorney's motion for a preliminary injunction is affirmed in part and reversed in part where: 1) sufficient and credible evidence supports the trial court's conclusion that the Broderick Boys is a criminal street gang whose activities have created a public nuisance in the designated area; and 2) two provisions in the injunction, one dealing with controlled substances and the other dealing with the consumption of alcoholic beverages, are unenforceable.

[03/08] People v. Puluc-Sique
People's request to extend the appellate disentitlement doctrine (applicable to fugitives) to a criminal defendant who had been deported from the country by the ICE is denied as, absent additional circumstances not presented here, a defendant who has been deported does not stand in the same shoes as one who has voluntarily placed himself beyond the court's control.

[03/08] US v. McNeil
In a conviction of defendant for unlawful possession of a firearm and unlawful possession with intent to distribute crack cocaine, district court's imposition of a sentence as an armed career criminal is affirmed where: 1) defendant's previous felony drug convictions were punishable by a maximum term of imprisonment of at least ten years both at the time he committed the offenses and at the time of his federal sentencing; 2) district court's upward departure was not procedurally or substantively unreasonable; and 3) the sentence was reasonable.

[03/08] US v. Brummer
In defendant's appeal from the district court's order that he forfeit two firearms and six rounds of ammunition pursuant to his conviction of knowingly and willfully failing to declare firearms to a common carrier, the order is affirmed where the indictment charging defendant with violating 18 U.S.C. section 922(e) included a notice of forfeiture, and thus the district court therefore was required to order forfeiture of the property.

Read More

Sentencing

[03/08] US v. Chavez-Suarez
Defendant's sentence for reentering the country following deportation after a conviction for a drug trafficking offense is affirmed where, in light of all of the evidence in the record, including defendant's past illegal reentries and certain aggravating factors in his underlying drug-trafficking conviction, the imposition of a guidelines-range sentence did not manifest a clear error of judgment by the district court.

[03/08] US v. Molina
Defendant's sentence for transporting an illegal alien is affirmed where: 1) because there was no evidence of involuntariness, the district court properly admitted the hearsay evidence at defendant's sentencing hearing pursuant to a signed stipulation; and 2) the conflicting evidence weighed against a finding that defendant accepted responsibility for his actions.

[03/08] Rhoades v. Henry (Haddon)
In a capital habeas matter, denial of the petition is affirmed where: 1) the deposition testimony and affidavits of both counsel supported the district court's finding that petitioner failed to show that defense counsel lacked the information contained in an allegedly withheld report; 2) petitioner pointed to no evidence that the judge was unable to preside over his case in a fair and impartial manner; and 3) petitioner offered insufficient authority to justify the application of a heightened standard of reliability to guilt phase issues.

[03/08] US v. Granados
Defendant's drug conspiracy conviction and sentence are affirmed where: 1) the police were justified in entering defendant's room without a warrant because of their reasonable belief that it was necessary to protect the general public, hotel guests and employees; 2) the mere fact some of the men in a police lineup had facial hair like defendant did not, standing alone, indicate that the lineup was suggestive; and 3) the government gave racially neutral reasons for exercising its peremptory challenges to all three of the potential jurors defendant claimed the government struck in violation of Batson.

[03/08] US v. Bolden
Defendants' drug conspiracy convictions and sentences are affirmed where: 1) the district court did not abuse its discretion in erring on the side of caution by dismissing a juror when the juror had contact with an interested third party whose identity was known to the juror; 2) evidence that a defendant acted as a source and facilitated a transaction was sufficient for a conviction under the distribution statute; 3) given that defendant did not object to the drug quantity findings at sentencing, and that the evidence at trial supported amounts close to those in the presentence investigation report upon which the district court relied, the findings were adequate under the circumstances; and 4) the evidence at trial showed that defendant recruited members of the conspiracy and directed those members to distribute drugs.

[03/08] People v. Cobb
Following defendant's completion of sentence for assault with a deadly weapon and commitment to a state hospital for treatment as a mentally disordered offender (MDO), judgment of the court of appeals finding that defendant was not denied due process in extension of his commitment is affirmed as, without a time waiver or good cause, section 2972 does not permit continued confinement when an extension trial does not begin before the scheduled release date.

[03/08] People v. Lara
Following defendant's prosecution for false imprisonment of a child, a finding of not guilty by reason of insanity, and commitment to a state hospital, judgment of the court of appeal directing that the trial court grant defendant's motion to dismiss the petition for an extension of his commitment is reversed where: 1) the statutory deadline for filing an extension petition is directory, not mandatory, as long as the petition is filed before the expiration of the current commitment; 2) defendant was not entitled to a dismissal of the petition on due process grounds; and 3) upon motion, defendant would have been entitled under due process to release pending trial, subject to possible proceedings under the Lanterman-Petris-Short Act. However, defendant is not now eligible for release because the court retained jurisdiction to try him and he received a fair trial.

Read More