Justia U.S. 3rd Circuit Court of Appeals Opinion Summaries

A federal grand jury returned an indictment against defendant and her boyfriend; she was charged with knowingly aiding and abetting the possession of a firearm by a convicted felon, 18 U.S.C. 922(g)(1)1 and 2(a)2. The boyfriend pled guilty as a felon in possession. The district court dismissed the indictment against defendant. The Third Circuit reversed and remanded. A finding that the government would not be able to prove the charge was premature; an aiding and abetting charge required proof that the substantive crime has been committed and that the defendant knew of the commission of the substantive offense and acted with intent to facilitate it. Rejecting a Second Amendment claim, the court reasoned that the indictment did not charge that defendant's mere possession of a gun violated the law.View "United States v. Huet" on Justia Law

Petitioners, citizens of Mexico, entered the U.S. unlawfully in 1993 and 1998, respectively. Since 2000, husband has been seeking employment-based permanent residency. An individual who would not ordinarily qualify for lawful permanent residency because he entered without inspection, may apply as the beneficiary of a labor certification application or a visa petition filed on or before April 30, 2001, 8 U.S.C. 1255(i). According to the court, petitioners' former attorney provided incompetent, and at times ethically questionable, representation throughout the visa petition process, missing filing deadlines and sending associates to hearings without adequate information about the case, so that an IJ granted voluntary departure and the BIA affirmed denial of a motion to reopen. The Third Circuit denied review. The Due Process Clause does not guarantee an alien effective assistance of counsel in preparing, filing, and appealing a labor certification application and a visa petition before the start of removal proceedings. By the time removal proceedings began, petitioners had accrued more than one year of unlawful presence and would have been ordered removed regardless of counsel's actions.View "Contreras v. Attorney Gen. of U.S." on Justia Law

An employee, injured on the job, returned to work and presented a specialist's note, restricting her lifting. After five days her supervisor told her that her restrictions made it impossible for her to work and advised her to seek permanent disability. She submitted copies of additional doctors' notes in an effort to be reinstated, but the company concluded that the notes contained conflicting dates, contradictory answers on whether the medical condition was work related, ambiguities about the employee's ability to lift, and illegible content. The employee did not respond to requests for clarification, but filed a Workers' Compensation lawsuit and contacted the EEOC. She then filed suit, and, during discovery, turned over new copies of the notes. After plaintiff failed to produce originals at trial, there was conflicting testimony about the existence and location of originals. The district court declared a mistrial. Plaintiff sent the original notes to the court five days later. The court dismissed the case with prejudice, based on spoliation of evidence. The Third Circuit reversed and remanded. It is not clear that plaintiff intentionally withheld the documents or that the company suffered severe harm. View "Bull v. United Parcel Serv., Inc." on Justia Law

Defendants were convicted of honest services fraud, 18 U.S.C. 1346, mail fraud ("traditional" fraud), 18 U.S.C.1341, and conspiracy, 18 U.S.C. 371, based on a defendant (city councilman) taking official actions in exchange for gifts. Their appeal claimed that the 2010 Supreme Court decision, Skilling v. U.S., affected the law of honest services fraud. The Third Circuit vacated and remanded. While the evidence was sufficient to convict on each count, the Skilling decision made jury instructions on honest services fraud incorrect. The jury should have been instructed on a bribery theory but not on a conflict-of-interest theory. The error was not necessarily harmless; the law of honest services fraud depends on intent and finding intent requires a jury to make reasonable inferences. Evidence of honest services fraud overlapped substantially evidence submitted on traditional fraudView "United States v. Wright" on Justia Law