Seventh Circuit: USA v. Darrick Vallodolid

In that the political beliefs expressed about immigration policy and discriminatory law enforcement were not exclusively rooted in the venirepersons' ethnicity, their removal from the pool of jurors wasn't constitutionally impermissible.

Given the small size of the sample, statistical analysis and disparate impact analysis alone is insufficient to establish discriminatory nature of the strikes.

As the eyewitness testimony was riddled with inconsistencies beyond the exculpatory ones, it was for the finder of fact to determine its credibility.

Sufficient evidence to find that the crime was gang-related, even absent formal affiliation with the gang, in that it furthered the activities of the former gang.

Sufficient evidence of the conspiracy to admit the statement of the co-conspirator.  Statement indicating possession of drugs in the house admitted not for the truth of the matter asserted, but to establish that the robbers believed there to be drugs there.

Sufficient evidence for conspiracy, given the customary procedures of the gangs and the defts' involvement with them.  Sufficient circumstantial evidence to establish drug quantities.

Federal RICO proceeding wasn't required to incorporate state predicate offense's procedural requirement of bifurcated penalty phase.

USA v.  Darrick Vallodolid

Fifth Circuit: USA v. Singletary

Given that the deft conspired to supply firearms to drug dealers, the conspiracy among the drug dealers to sell drugs is distinct from the conspiracy to supply them with firearms, and therefore a valid predicate for the increased sentence.

The distinction between these conspiracies also serves to separate the two relevant sentencing factors, so that they're not double-counting the same offense.

USA v. Singletary

First Circuit: US v. Patch

 

At 11: "The sockdolager here..." 

Deft can't be denied the safe harbor of the sentencing reduction for lack of participation by mere evidence of accompanying others on supply trips; mere presence at prohibited transactions is insufficient.

http://media.ca1.uscourts.gov/pdf.opinions/20-2063P-01A.pdf

Eighth Circuit: United States v. Herbert Green

 As the officer removed the package containing contraband from where the delivery company had placed it in their facility, but in a manner consistent with the procedure agreed with the delivery company, the officer was working at the direction of the company in carrying it to the dog sniffing area, and the package was not seized until the dog's reaction had established reasonable suspicion.

The dog's reaction, combined with the suspicious appearance of the box, and the deft's demonstrated familiarity with the object provided sufficient probable cause for the arrest.

Scope of the search justified as a protective sweep exceeded Fourth Amendment bounds, since the sweep is permitted in order to determine whether there are othre people in the house, and the officers looked in cabinets and trash cans and opened a shoebox.  

Remand to determine whether a waarant would have been sought anyway and the evidence admitted by means of an independent source 

http://media.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/21/08/202796P.pdf

Sixth Circuit: United States v. Jason Rosales

 

Sufficient evidence for drug conspiracy, since, despite the fact that drugs were never mentioned between the the two, the structure and manner of the single transaction, combined with the amount of drugs involved, would allow a reasonable finder of fact to convict.  Deft's version of events did not have to be disproven.

Given statutory mandatory minimums, sentencing instructions that looked to the whole conspiracy to establish drug quantities, rather than calculating the amount that each defendant was either responsible for or might reasonably have thought to be involved was harmless error, as there was only a single unit involved in the single transaction.

For the Obstruction of Justice sentencing bump, the court needed to make specific findings of the material hindrance to the investigation caused by deft's throwing the cell phone against the ground; although the sentence ultimately varied downward, remanded for reconsideration.

United States v. Jason Rosales

Seventh Circuit: USA v. Trent Slone

 

Given the proximity of the guns to the drugs in the deft's domain, sufficient evidence to establish a sentencing bump by a preponderance, despite acquittal on the drug trafficking charge.

USA v. Trent Slone

Eighth Circuit: United States v. Jonas Ross, III

 

Sufficient evidence for a reasonable finder of fact to conclude that the deft sold the drugs that caused the death, although the trace amounts found afterward were of the mixture's component parts.

 United States  v.  Jonas Ross, III

Eighth Circuit: United States v. Chimanga Smith

 

Traffic violation and subsequent flight established probable cause for stop and placing the driver in handcuffs.

Plain-view exception allows a police officer to shine a flashlight through the windshield after all of the suspects have left the car.

No error in declining to instruct on the lesser included offense of possession, as there was insufficient evidence probative of likelihood for individual use.

(Seven uses of "Cleaned Up" signal in nine page opinion.)

United States  v.  Chimanga Smith

Sixth Circuit: United States v. Michael White, Jr.

 

The visits to the house by the seller of drugs during the transactions created a fair probability or sufficient common sense inference for a search warrant for the house.

The appropriateness of a no-knock warrant sounds in S1983 claims, not a suppression hearing.

United States v. Michael White, Jr. 

Fifth Circuit: USA v. Vigil

Given finding that the deft abused (rather than merely used) illegal drugs, the court did not abuse its discretion in imposing a ban on alcohol consumption during supervised release; the condition is reasonably related to the verdict, the deprivation is minimal, and the condition is consistent with the goals of sentencing. 

USA v. Vigil

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

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

Eighth Circuit: United States v. Kinzey Shaw

Degree of coordination established at trial sufficed for the conspiracy count and for calculating drug quantities from shared sales.

As the bottle tested was established to have held a certain percentage of the controlled substance analogue, it was reasonable for the court to assume that the others held the same percentage.

Deft's requests to co-conspirators in holding cell not to "tell on her" sufficed for obstruction of justice sentencing bump.

United States  v.  Kinzey Shaw

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

Seventh Circuit: USA v. Nathaniel Ruth

Plain error in sentencing court's increased sentence due to federal controlled substances statute, as the state predicate offense, unlike the federal statute, incorporates positional isomers of the controlled substance, which might very well exist.  The sentencing guidelines increase was correct, though, as it doesn't reference the federal statute.

USA v. Nathaniel Ruth

Sixth Circuit: United States v. Andy Maya

Sufficient evidence for possession in furtherance where the firearm is kept with funds gained from drug dealing and occasionally taken with the deft when dealing drugs.

Allowing expert testimony that a firearm being kept near drug proceeds is consistently linked to its being used to guard those funds was not an abuse of discretion, since it didn't discuss the legal aspects of the ultimate issue.

United States v. Andy Maya

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

Sixth Circuit: United States v. Erik McCoy

The facts that the deft was regularly selling drugs, and that he was apprehended in possession of a large amount of drugs while at work provided sufficient explanation in the warrant's affidavit for a search of the apartment that he shared with another employee to be permissible under the good faith exception.

http://www.opn.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/18a0209p-06.pdf

.

Second Circuit: United States v. Lobo

Witness assertion, when credited, suffices to establish that drugs made it to US markets.

Aggravating role sentence increase upheld.

"http://www.ca2.uscourts.gov/decisions/isysquery/1aad3dd4-e94a-4e4b-a3b1-6cd4b00c0df9/1/doc/17-2894_opn.pdf#xml=http://www.ca2.uscourts.gov/decisions/isysquery/1aad3dd4-e94a-4e4b-a3b1-6cd4b00c0df9/1/hilite/

Third Circuit: USA v. Zenaido Renteria, Jr.

As venue is  jurisdictional element that does not take the state of mind of the deft into account, venue in a certain district need not be foreseeable by the deft.

Sentence drug calculations upheld.

http://www2.ca3.uscourts.gov/opinarch/172079p.pdf