First CIrcuit: US v. Mejia Romero

 

Given reasonable inferences to be drawn from the warrant application according to the deft's behoof, sufficient nexus between the property, the deft, and the alleged crime, as the whole is greater than the sum of its parts.

Offense proscibed knowing crimal activity involving a certain type and quantity of drug, not necessarily the known involvement of a certain type and quantity of drug.

US v. Mejia Romero

First Circuit: US v. Cotto-Flores

 

As Congress retains the power to legislate on police power matters in Puerto Rico, the amendment of the relevant statute to include commonwealths sufficiently indicated the intent of Congress that the law should apply to crimes committed entirely within the non-state commonwealth.

Sufficient evidence for conviction, as the impeachment of the witness didn't make the finder of fact's crediting of other evidence unreasonable.

Instructing the jury on the state predicate offense didn't confuse them about which offense they were weighing.

As live video testimony is only available in certain situations where the witness cannot reasonably communicate because of fear, allowing a witness to testify remotely where the fear was generalized to the situation and not specific to the deft, and the court accepted the witness' statement without adopting it as a reasoned finding, a retrial is an appropriate remedy.

Concur: 

Constitutional status of Puerto Rico is still that of an unincorporated territory, as the law creating the Commonwealth changed governance procedures rather than constitutional status, and was not a compact.

 US v. Cotto-Flores

Fifth Circuit: SA v. Noel Jones

 

Sufficient basis for plea to specific drug quantities, given duration of daily drug sales; sufficient basis for conspiracy plea as to buyer/seller relationship where the relationship goes on for long enough and sufficient mutual trust is established.

Court's instructions at plea colloquy did not rise to the level of plain error.

Ineffective assistance waived for not being raised below, preserved for collateral challenge.

SA v. Noel Jones

Seventh Circuuit: USA v. Robert Hosler

Sufficient evidence of enticement under the statute where statements seem to provoke the illegal conduct -- there is no requirement that the victim's will has to be overcome.

USA v.  Robert Hosler

Fifth Circuit: USA v. Herman Sanders, et al

Rivals might have been appropriately joined, as they were involved in the same acts or transactions, but no actual prejudice, given curative instruction and the fact that the potentially prejudicial testimony was a small part of the total.

Required scienter encompasses all of the elements -- "knowingly" implies that the deft knew that the victims were minors.  Lack of proof of this at trial made for a constructive amendment to the indictment.

USA v. Herman Sanders, et al

Eighth Circuit: United States v. Jovan Harris

Repeated purchases of large amounts of drugs suffice to establish that there was more than an abstract buyer-seller relationship; there was therefore sufficient evidence for the conspiracy count.

Where there is proof of the drug sale, proof of the death or serious bodily injury, and circumstantial evidence that the two were related, a rational finder of fact might conclude that the sale was of the drugs that caused the death or serious bodily injury.  Same if victim testifies that they were "pretty sure" that they bought the drugs in question from the deft.

Where one deft actually enters into the transaction and another leaves the drugs in the WC for the customer, there is sufficient evidence for the finder of fact to conclude that the drugs were purchased from the latter.

United States  v.  Jovan Harris

Ninth Circuit: USA v. Tuan Luong

Sufficient nexus to interstate commerce for purpose of the Hobbs Act where a BB with servers in the state and redundant servers out of the state is used to facilitate a robbery, since the site operated as an interstate market and facilitated interstate transactions -- the deft's conduct therefore had an impact on interstate commerce.

As the indictment at retrial served for the same complex of facts, it was not constructively amended by the gov't suggestion that the deft's attempted use of a stole debit card was interstate in nature.

Unanimity instruction not required, as interstate commerce theories were alternate means that jurors could have used to convict on the same factual elements.

Jury instruction on "slight but not speculative" effect on interstate commerce was either correct or harmless error.

Even if mere use of the interstate instrumentality is insufficient to satisfy interstate standard, prosc. statements to contrary and statements of duty to convict were not incurable conduct.

Erroneous not to instruct that knowledge of felon status was an element of felon in possession, but not plain error, given deft's many prior felony convictions.

Hobbs Act robbery is a valid ACCA predicate.

Vacated and remanded to determine if the acceptance of responsibility sentencing reduction was inappropriately denied due to the interstate commerce challenge.

USA v. Tuan Luong

Fifth Circuit: USA v. Selene Suarez

Where the indictment alleges financial structuring of an amount precisely equal to the statutory limit, the defect is harmless error where the jury might rationally find that related events proved at trial established that an amount greater than the statutory limit was at issue.

Where an employee engages in a course of conduct of structuring bank deposits in furtherance of the employer's illegal scheme, a forfeiture order against the employee personally does not implicate the Excessive Fines clause if the amount is below the statutory maximum and the Guidelines limit.

USA v. Selene Suarez

First Circuit: US v. Capelton

As the subsequent caselaw discussed the willingness to assist if necessary in terms of the intent that the crime be committed, there was not a realistic probability that courts would convict under the statute without intent as an element -- the offense is therefore categorically a predicate offense under the sentencing law.

US v. Capelton

Fifth Circuit: USA v. Louis Luyten

No clear error in sentencing bump for conduct that creates an unreasonable risk of death or serious bodily injury, as deft. transported aliens in a small plane, one over the rated capacity, and had no pilot's license.

USA v. Louis Luyten

Fifth Circuit: USA v. Robert Montgomery

Plain error in offender registration conviction, as, under categorical analysis, the predicate conviction was for a crime that has a reasonable probability of sweeping more broadly than the Federal standard.

Concur: Categorical analysis is generally a muddle.

USA v. Robert Montgomery

Fourth Circuit: US v. Billy Curry, Jr.

Suspicionless stop and search of person in proximity to audible gunshots was not justified under the emergency aid exception within exigent circumstances, as such a stop would require firm knowledge of the crime and a close geographical association with the place of the crime.

CJ, concur:  Dissent's approach risks overpolicing, country at a moment of reckoning.

Concur: Sociology and predictive policing not a basis for law.

Concur: Scotus dictum sets standard for special needs exigency, searches must be discretionless and systematic.

Concur: Predictive policing = racial profiling.

Dissent 1: Having to stop and wait to get the details of the crime undercuts predictive policing, results in communities under-served by police.

 Dissent 2: Upon reasonable suspicion of exigency, police must balance the gravity of the risk against the right infringed.

(Amended opinion presumably corrects typo from "waiving Constitutions in the air" to "waving Constitutions in the air,  per Google archive of old file.) 

US v. Billy Curry, Jr. 

Eleventh Circuit: USA v. Shusta Traverse Gumbs

No abuse of discretion in refusal of instruction on "forcibly," given plain meaning and other instructions.

No abuse of discretion in refusal of instruction on transportation exception to use of a vehicle as a weapon -- deft can separately establish that it was merely used to escape, and the statute only requires general intent.

No abuse of discretion in refusal of instruction on simple assault as lesser included -- elements for that would establish the charged offense.

No abuse of discretion in simple repetition of the instruction after jury question on mens rea on use of the vehicle as a weapon.

Sufficient evidence for conviction as to victims standing to the side of the car, in addition to the one in front.

 USA v. Shusta Traverse Gumbs

Eighth Circuit: United States v. Dante Benson-Henry

Social media posts showing person possessing firearm, one of which was in front of deft's garage, suffice to sufficiently establish felony possession for purposes of parole revocation and subsequent sentence.

Sentence substantively reasonable given public safety and substance abuse treatment needs.

United States  v.  Dante Benson-Henry

Eighth Circuit: United States v. Kenton Eagle Chasing

Collateral challenge to federal jurisdiction for original crime cannot be made when appealing revocation of supervised release, as there is a separate statutory basis for revocation proceedings.

No Sixth Amendment right to jury trial in parole revocation proceedings, given circuit precedent to contrary.

Court's spoken opinions during revocation proceedings did not sufficiently demonstrate deep-seated antagonism.

No abuse of discretion in court's finding that escape from designated residence was excessive, if necessary.

Tribal police car without other markings was sufficiently marked by the emergency light to fall within the statute, alternately, harmless error.

Previous waiver of challenge to PSR elements permitted court to consider them, though disputed at revocation hearing.

Sentence substantively reasonable.

 United States  v.  Kenton Eagle Chasing

Fifth Circuit: USA v. Robert Brandon

As deft took affirmative steps to conceal possession of firearm, court's acceptance of guilty plea without colloquy or finding on scienter to establish that deft knew that his previous conviction would prohibit possession was not plain error.

USA v. Robert Brandon

Fifth Circuit: USA v. Chia Lee, et al

Sufficient evidence, given facts.

Where deft lives in a certain judicial district and has a bank in that district, jury might have legitimately found that venue was proper in conspiracy in prosecution; vicinage concerns are not implicated where deft lives in the district.

Jury sending note to judge during proceedings asking for clarification of charges is insufficient to establish improper deliberations where individually interviewed jurors claim that discussion of the merits had not occurred.

Govt experts general statements based on small fraction of files reviewed were harmless error.

Although instruction on deliberate ignorance was an abuse of discretion given lack of purposeful contrivance, inclusion was harmless error.

No clear error where sentencing report estimates drug quantities without a showing on the percentage of lawful prescriptions.

No plain error where conflicting findings would result from using the totality of either of the two versions of the Guidelines, rather than the combination of the two elected by the sentencing court.

Firearm in adjoining office sufficient for sentencing bump where prescriptions were written in an examination room.

USA v. Chia Lee, et al

Fifth Circuit: USA v. James Perryman

Commerce Clause sufficient justification for law barring convicted felon's possession of weapon that at some point previous travelled in interstate commerce; present interstate travel need not be established.

PSR's unsworn statements describing previous proceeding are sufficient to establish perjury for the purpose of sentencing bump where the court also adopts an addendum that contains the relevant record excerpts.

USA v. James Perryman

Second Circuit: United States v. Spoor

The obscene nature of a film is objectively determined by the film's content; the intention of the creator is considered only as an element of the analysis.

No constructive amendment in shifting dates in facts alleged.

Past bad acts appropriately admitted, as the court was careful to remove the more inflammatory bits.

Within-guidelines 360 month sentence substantively reasonable.

http://www.ca2.uscourts.gov/decisions/isysquery/e79595db-c3ea-48e1-95ea-ab87f17d70cb/2/doc/16-2972_opn.pdf#xml=http://www.ca2.uscourts.gov/decisions/isysquery/e79595db-c3ea-48e1-95ea-ab87f17d70cb/2/hilite/

Eighth Circuit: United States v. Calvin Bernhardt

Sufficient evidence where counterfeit bills were in a stack separate from the other currency and showed varying levels of verisimilitude.

Indictment counts not multiplicitous, as one refers to spoiliation.

Attempt to persuade co-conspirator to remain silent, where accompanied by consciousness of wrongdoing, is culapable, as it falls outside of Fifth Amendment and privilege protections.

A substantial step towards illicit travel must implicate travelling -- not the underlying criminal plan.

http://media.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/18/09/171325P.pdf