-
July 25th, 2009UncategorizedIn U.S. v. Williams, No. 08-10185 (March 31, 2009), the Court affirmed the district court’s re-imposition of a life sentence.
In a prior appeal, the Court had vacated the life sentence because the district court failed to give a reason for imposing a life sentence. Upon remand, the district court provided reasons.
The Court noted that its limited mandate precluded the district court from re-examining the life sentence based on new considerations. The Court recognized that one exception to the mandate rule involved intervening changes in the law. Here, one prior conviction that qualified Williams as a "career offender" was a Florida state conviction for battery of a law enforcement. The Florida Supreme Court recently held that this offense was not a "forcible felony." Further, the Court’s precedent which held that federal, not state, law governs for career offender purposes is now up for review in the United States Supreme Court. Yet neither of these recent developments constituted an intervening change in law. -
July 24th, 2009UncategorizedIn United States v. Dullum, No. 07-4502, March 13, 2009, the Court of Appeals affirmed the District Court’s ruling on five sentencing adjustments including; intended loss, vulnerable victim, abuse of trust, obstruction of justice, and acceptance of responsibility in this mail and bank fraud case. The most interesting fact about this case is that the defendant was a Secret Service Special Agent In Newark and an active member of his New Jersey church when the offenses were committed.
Dullum befriended two fellow church members who were recovering alcoholics/drug addicts, and were "a little slow", and volunteered to serve as their financial advisor. The Government maintained that it was in that capacity that Dullum forged one of the victim’s signatures on her will, did not inform the deceased’s family that he was acting as the executor of her estate, made misrepresentations about the value of the estate, transferred money form the estate’s bank account into his person account, and produced a fabricated $20,000 promissory note made out to him by the deceased.
The bank fraud aspect of the case involved a rental property at the Jersey shore owned by Dullum. He deposited two rent checks from the same renter into the estate account and then transferred the money to his personal account. (After depositing the first rent check in the estate bank account, Dullum falsely claimed he did not receive the check. He asked the renter to send a new check made payable to one of the two church members, who he falsely claimed was his wife.) Dullum made restitution for the two checks, after he was interviewed by the Secret Service and the bank froze his accounts.
Dullum argued that the District Court should have applied a four rather than a six level enhancement for loss because his bank fraud scheme (the rent checks) caused no loss. The Court held that Dullum intended to cause a loss for the full amount of the rent check. The Court rejected Dullum’s argument, that he is entitled to credit for repayment of the loss amount, because his repayment was after and not before the crime was uncovered. U.S.S.G. § 2B1.1 App. N.3(E)(I). The Court also rejected Dullum’s argument that the loss associated with the rent check should be reduced to zero because he had other funds in his bank accounts to offset the check.
Dullum argued that the two fellow church members were not vulnerable and were not direct victims. The Court, citing United States v. Monostra, 125 F.3d 183, 189 (3d Cir. 1997), held this enhancement is not limited to situations in which the vulnerable person is the direct victim of the offense of conviction, but that courts may look to all the conduct underlying an offense. The Court noted that the deceased victim was vulnerable, even if the direct victim was her estate. Further, there need only be one vulnerable victim in order for the two level enhancement to apply.
Dullum argued that his relationship with his two fellow church members was not the type of situation contemplated by the abuse of trust adjustment. The Court opined that through Dullum’s involvement with his church, he acted as a teacher, advisor and counselor to the two victims, and that he spent substantial time with them over three years as a trusted church figure of authority, counseling them with respect to their substance and alcohol abuse, and acting as their financial advisor. The Court found that Dullum’s position was a private position of trust and that the District Court did not err in applying the two level enhancement.
Dullum also objected to the two level enhancement for obstruction of justice. The Court held this adjustment was justified because during the investigation Dullum was interviewed three times, and provided five sworn statements, four of which contained lies. He also provided a forged promissory note during his third interview, and failed a polygraph examination. Only after repeated interviews, did he more truthfully discuss his actions in his fifth and final sworn statement.
Finally Dullum argued he should have received a three level, rather than one level, reduction for acceptance of responsibility. The Court determined Dullum was not entitled to the benefit of this adjustment because he refused to take full responsibility for his behavior, and, conduct resulting in an obstruction enhancement ordinarily indicates the defendant has not accepted responsibility for his criminal conduct. (U.S.S.C. § 3C1.1 App. N. 4). As a result, the Court determined the District Court was well within its discretion to grant a one level rather than three level reduction for acceptance of responsibility. -
July 22nd, 2009UncategorizedIn United States v. Crandell, No. 07-4004 (Jan. 29, 2009), police responded to an anonymous tip regarding a Black male with blond-tipped dreadlocks in the area carrying a handgun in his waistband. The officers apparently recognized the tip as a description of the defendant. As the officers arrived in the area, they observed the defendant walking in their direction. The officers approached the defendant and conducted a pat down search of his person.
The trial court suppressed the gun as fruit of an illegal seizure under the Fourth Amendment. The court ruled that the anonymous tip was insufficient to support a reasonable suspicion to justify the stop. The trial court apparently assumed that police had seized the defendant when they initiated the pat down search. The government appealed, arguing that the defendant had not been seized pursuant to Fourth Amendment jurisprudence.
The Court reiterated that before the trial court could address the sufficiency of the anonymous tip to support the requisite reasonable suspicion for an investigatory stop, it first had to determine whether the encounter between the defendant and police implicated Fourth Amendment, i.e., whether the defendant had been seized.
The Third Circuit then provided a detailed discussion of the three forms of citizen-police interaction recognized by the Supreme Court, each of which requires a different level of scrutiny under the Fourth Amendment. At one end of the spectrum is a consensual encounter, where the officer merely requests information. The citizen may choose to engage in the encounter or terminate it. This consensual encounter involves the least amount of intrusion upon an individual’s Fourth Amendment rights, and therefore does not require the officer to develop a level of suspicion before he stops the individual. At the other end of the spectrum is a full arrest, for which police must have probable cause. Between the consensual encounter and the full arrest is the investigatory stop, which is more intrusive upon an individual’s Fourth Amendment rights than a consensual encounter, but less intrusive than a full arrest. To justify an investigatory stop, police must have a reasonable, articulable suspicion that the individual has engaged in criminal activity.
The Court also elucidated the meaning of "seizure" under the Fourth Amendment, clarifying that a seizure occurs when a citizen is restrained by police either by physical force or a show of authority.
The Court vacated the lower court’s ruling and remanded the case to allow the lower court to determine, based upon the facts and circumstances surrounding the encounter, whether the defendant initially had been subjected to a seizure or a consensual encounter. -
July 19th, 2009UncategorizedIn U.S. v. Lopez-Garcia, No. 08-12662 (April 21, 2009), the Court affirmed the conviction and sentence of a defendant for having been unlawfully found in the United States in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326(a) and (b)(2).
The Court rejected the argument that incriminating statements he gave were tainted as the "fruit of the poisonous tree" because they resulted from his initial seizure in violation of the Fourth Amendment. The Court found no Fourth Amendment violation. The police officer had reasonable suspicion to stop Lopez-Garcia’s vehicle based on its observation that he seemed to have been engaging in a drug transaction. [In a footnote, the Court noted that the government had not demonstrated that the "particular circumstances" showed a violation of the Georgia traffic code, and thus a traffic violation alone did not justify the stop]. The Court also found that probable cause supported Lopez-Garcia’s arrest, because the consensual search of the vehicle uncovered a drug substance and paraphernalia. The Court added that even if there had been a Fourth Amendment violation, the statements Lopez-Garcia later gave were "too attenuated from his arrest to be regarded as fruit of the poisonous tree." The statements were made the day after the arrest. The arrest and the questioning were conducted by different individuals. The arrest was not motivated by the ulterior purpose to determine Lopez-Garcia’s immigration status.
The Court also rejected the argument that Miranda required suppression of the statements. The parties did not dispute that Lopez-Garcia was in "custody." However, the Court found that no "interrogation" occurred, because the law enforcement agent who questioned Lopez-Garcia would not have reasonably known that his questions would elicit a self-incriminating statement. The questioner was not aware that Lopez-Garcia had previously been deported, nor that he had entered the country illegally. Therefore, he would not have thought it "especially likely" that Lopez-Garcia would confess to having re-entered the country illegally.
The Court further rejected the argument that the "fruit of the poisonous tree" doctrine required suppression of a second Mirandized confession Lopez-Garcia gave 10 days after his first confession. These later statements were "far too attenuated" from the earlier ones to have been tainted by them. In addition, the Court rejected a Missouri v. Seibert challenge to the second confession, finding that the absence of Miranda warnings in a first interview was not purposeful, but merely reflected the fact that the interrogator did not anticipate that his questions would result in self-incriminating statements.
The Court rejected the argument that Lopez-Garcia’s immigration files should have been suppressed. The Court again found the "fruit of the poisonous tree" doctrine inapplicable. It also noted that identification information is not excludable, citing its recent decision in U.S. v. Farias-Gonzalez (identity evidence not subject to exclusionary rule).
Turning to sentencing, the Court affirmed the imposition of a 16-level sentence enhancement based on a prior conviction for a felony firearms offense under Georgia law. The Court found that the Georgia offense was the equivalent of an 18 U.S.C. § 924(c) violation. The Court noted that the nexus of the firearm to a drug trafficking offense in Lopez-Garcia’s firearm offense would have satisfied the "possession" prong of the § 924(c) offense. The Court rejected Lopez-Garcia’s U.S. v. Shepard challenge to the district court’s fact-finding on this point, noting that the district court relied on the PSI, and the PSI information regarding the prior Georgia offense’s nexus to drug trafficking was undisputed. Without deciding whether reliance on a PSI is always justified, the Court, citing U.S. v. Hedges, noted that when statements in a PSI are undisputed, a sentencing court is permitted to rely on them despite the absence of supporting evidence. -
July 17th, 2009UncategorizedIn U.S. v. Irey, No. 08-10997 (March 30, 2009), the Court rejected a government appeal of a 240-month sentence imposed on a defendant convicted of using minors to engage in sexually explicit conduct outside the United States for the purpose of producing visual depictions of such conduct and transporting the images to the United States.
The sentencing judge described the conduct as "horrific." The Guideline sentence was 360 months. The statutory maximum was also 360 months; the minimum was 180 months. The district court correctly computed the guideline sentence, and directly discussed the § 3553(a) factors on the record.
Affirming the sentence, the court noted that a 17-1/2 year sentence was not "a trifle." Further, the defendant was 50; thus the consequences of the sentence were "severe." A life term of "rigorous" supervised release was imposed. The sentence was "years beyond" the statutory minimum. The Court stated: "If we were responsible for sentencing Defendant in the first instance, we might have imposed a different sentence: we clearly believe that sentences other than the one actually imposed might also be appropriate. But we must respect the district court as the sentencer, and we accept that the sentence imposed by the district court is within the outside borders of reasonable sentences for this case. . . . The sentence must be affirmed." -
July 16th, 2009Uncategorized
In United States v. Ford, No. 08–5091 (6th Cir. Mar. 18, 2009), the panel of Judges Merritt, Cole, and Sutton found that a walkaway escape is not a crime of violence. Use of force is not an element of Kentucky’s second-degree escape offense. Analysis therefore proceeded under the "otherwise clause" of 4B1.2(a)(2). Court used some good language. For example, "[t]hat an offense presents a risk of physical injury to others, as Begay demonstrates, does not by itself suffice to show that it is a crime of violence." Court goes on to note that "all walkaway offenders have engaged in purposeful conduct." But there is no requirement of purposeful violence or purposeful aggressiveness. Court points out that "[t]he ‘otherwise’ requirement demands not just that the offense involve a similar risk of injury but also that it involve a similar type of crime." Finally, the Court finds that if any doubt remains the benefit of that doubt must go to the defendant under the Rule of Lenity. Court still notes the Shepard issue, which is an issue (see Mr. Strong’s post of March 16, 2009). The issue is a little different, as this offense is not a "reckless" one, but the analysis still seems unsettled in the Shepard area. -
July 13th, 2009Uncategorized
In United States v. Guthrie, Nos. 07–6215/6286 (6th Cir. Mar. 2, 2009), the panel of Judges Martin, Moore, and Gwin (N.D. Ohio) considered a number of trial issues presented by the defendant and a sentencing challenge by the government. A jury convicted the defendant of car-jacking, discharging a firearm during a crime of violence, possessing a sawed-off shotgun, and being a felon in possession of a firearm. The court sentenced the defendant to 300 months of incarceration total. This sentence accounted for the mandatory minimum sentences at play.The defendant challenged several aspects of the trial proceedings: 1) The AUSA being able to speak with the victim-witness during her cross-examination; 2) introduction of audio recordings of 911 calls; 3) introduction of video of a police pursuit; 4) the trial court’s refusal to issue a writ to produce a witness at trial; 5) the court’s instruction on "intent to cause death or serious bodily injury;" and 6) the denial of his motions for a judgment of acquittal based on the insufficiency of the evidence.
The government challenged the sentence, which included a variance from the guideline range. The government argued that the sentencing court varied because of the impact of the statutory mandatory minimums on the overall sentence and that the court did not adequately explain the grounds for the sentence.
The panel affirmed the conviction and sentence.
I will focus on two issues here: the witness-sequestration issue and the sentencing issue. The sequestration issue is interesting for a number of reasons. In our office in the Western District of Michigan, we recently brought a similar challenge because of conduct during a trial. This Guthrie decision does recognize the viability of such challenges. The Guthrie defendant characterized the error he raised as a failure to sequester the witness and as a violation of his Sixth Amendment right to confront his accuser. In rejecting the challenge, the panel pointed out that the district court merely had called a routine recess at the end of the day and that the defense did not object to the handling of the situation as the decision was made—the defense only objected as the witness was being dismissed and asked that the prosecutor not talk to the witness.
The panel concluded that sequestration orders do not prohibit witnesses from speaking with counsel. The panel noted that the defense did not question the witness regarding potentially improper communications when the witness took the stand the following day. Finally, the defense did not, on appeal, allege that anything improper occurred. I think these facts are what decided the issue. Perhaps on different, less benign, facts the situation could have come out differently.
As to sentencing, the government had argued for a 40-year sentence. The guideline recommendation was for 360 months and an additional 10 years because of the 10-year, consecutive minimum for the use of the firearm during a violent crime. The appellate court upheld the 25-year sentence imposed. It found that the district court was not trying to "negate" the mandatory minimum sentence for the use of the firearm during a crime of violence, as is prohibited by United States v. Franklin, 499 F.3d 578 (6th Cir. 2007). The panel found that the sentencing court had concluded that a 40-year sentence was just too long. The panel refused to impute an improper analysis to the district court and concluded the sentence was reasonable. -
July 11th, 2009UncategorizedIn Parker v. Allen, No. 05-16907 (April 20, 2009), the Court affirmed the denial of habeas relief to an Alabama inmate convicted of a 1988 murder.
The Court rejected Parker’s Batson challenge to the peremptory strikes used against black venirepersons. The Court noted that the Alabama courts had considered this claim, and found no error in a finding of an absence of "purposeful discrimination."
The Court also rejected Parker’s argument based on the prosecutor’s improper vouching for prosecution witnesses in closing arguments. The Court noted that the Alabama courts had found the improper vouching occurred, but that this vouching did not materially affect the trial. This conclusion was not unreasonable.
The Court also found that the Alabama courts were not unreasonable in rejecting Parker’s Brady claim. Parker argued that the prosecution should have disclosed the criminal history record of one of its witnesses. The Court noted that the convictions were a matter of public record that Parker could have uncovered. Further, the jury heard about some of the witnesses prior convictions.
The Court rejected Parker’s ineffective assistance of counsel claims. Counsel were not ineffective for failing to present evidence that Parker was drug or alcohol impaired when he made a statement to police, because Parker was in fact cognizant of the situation. Counsel were not ineffective in failing to present evidence regarding the murder weapon; additional evidence would have been cumulative. Counsel were not ineffective in failing to present additional evidence of the absence of probable cause for Parker’s arrest, because Parker was not prejudiced by not having this additional evidence presented. -
July 8th, 2009Uncategorized
In most published sentencing opinions upholding sentences against a defendant's challenge, a circuit court panel often provides a detailed description of the crime and its aggravating factors. For this reason, I often get suspicious when I see an opinion like the Eighth Circuit's ruling today in US v. Barron, No. 08-1613 (8th Cir. Mar. 5, 2009). The only hint of the nature and circumstances of the defendant's offense of felon in possession comes from this paragraph:
Here, Barron argued in his sentencing memorandum that the district court should impose the same sentence of probation that another district court imposed in United States v. Francis, No. 03-CR-03174 (W.D. Mo. Nov. 28, 2006), because Barron’s offense conduct was similar to that of Francis. See United States v. Francis, 462 F.3d 810, 812-14 (8th Cir. 2006) (describing the relevant facts). Barron asserted that he, like Francis, had reason to believe that the prohibition on his possession of firearms had ended, and urged that a failure to grant him the same degree of leniency accorded to Francis would cause unwarranted sentence disparity.
But, as the first paragraph of the Eighth Circuit's ruling makes clear, this defendant's sentencing appeal is unavailing:
Charles Barron pled guilty to unlawful possession of a firearm as a previously convicted felon, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1). The district court sentenced Barron to 46 months’ imprisonment, a term within the advisory guideline range of 46 to 57 months. Barron appeals his sentence, arguing that the district court abused its discretion by failing adequately to consider the need to avoid unwarranted sentence disparities under 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) and by refusing to vary from the guideline range because of the “inherent inequity” of USSG § 2K2.1(a)(4)(B), which provides an increased base offense level for offenses involving large-capacity semiautomatic firearms. We affirm.
Though it is hard to be certain, this ruling gives me the impression that a defendant has received nearly four years in federal prison for being a foolish gun collector. Maybe my hyper-active Second Amendment radar is a bit out of whack these days, but these kinds of opaque rulings always make me a bit suspicious of what a court has left out of its opinion.
