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

In 2005 Anderson was charged with federal tax evasion (26 U.S.C. 7201) for tax years 1995 through 1999, while Anderson was an entrepreneur and venture capitalist involved in operating several international companies, including G & A, which generated hundreds of millions of dollars of income. The government alleged that because G & A was a “controlled foreign corporation,” he was required to recognize a share of its income on his tax return; that he fraudulently failed to do so; and thatAnderson had fraudulently underpaid his taxes by $184 million, 99% of which stemmed from G & A. He pleaded guilty with respect to two years and was sentenced to 108 months imprisonment. In 2007 Anderson filed a petition to redetermine his tax deficiencies, 26 U.S.C. 6213(a). The Tax Court granted partial summary judgment to the IRS. The Third Circuit affirmed. Anderson’s conviction for tax evasion in 1998 and 1999 precludes him, by virtue of collateral estoppel, from contesting in civil fraud proceedings that G & A income was taxable to him in those years. The IRS’s concession of all deficiency and penalty issues for the years 1995, 1996, and 1997 has no preclusive effect on those issues for 1998 and 1999. View "Anderson v. Comm'r of Internal Revenue" on Justia Law

Martinez, a native of Nicaragua, entered the U.S. without inspection in 1985. In 1989, he married a citizen, had a daughter, and began adjusting his status to lawful permanent resident. In 1990, Martinez pleaded guilty to sexual assault of his eight-year-old stepdaughter. In 1991, prior to sentencing, Martinez traveled to Nicaragua to complete the immigrant visa application process. The consulate approved his application. Martinez was admitted to the U.S.as a permanent resident the following day. He was later sentenced to four years in prison. Martinez was released on parole in 1992. The Department of Homeland Security initiated removal in 2009. Martinez argued that he was eligible for adjustment of status under former INA Section 212(c), which waived the bar against status adjustment for convicted aggravated felons who had at least seven years unrelinquished residence, at least five years as an LPR, and had not served more than five years in prison. The IJ found Martinez statutorily ineligible for relief. The BIA agreed that he had “never been lawfully admitted for permanent residence.” The Third Circuit denied review. A person accorded status as “lawfully admitted for permanent residence” upon physical entry, who did not substantively qualify for such status, is barred from relief. View "Martinez v. Atty Gen. of the U.S." on Justia Law

In 2002 Glover entered into a mortgage with WaMu. After being injured Glover fell behind on her mortgage in 2005 and requested a work-out agreement to reduce her payments. WaMu initially threatened to foreclose, but subsequently agreed to postpone her payments until the request had been evaluated. Eventually, WaMu denied the request. Murray, an attorney with Udren Law Offices, called Glover and informed her that she owed WaMu missed payments, attorney’s fees and costs, totaling $3,397.28. WaMu then filed a foreclosure complaint. After communications between Glover and WaMu‘s assignee, Wells Fargo, Glover entered into a loan modification agreement with Wells Fargo. Glover filed a putative class-action against WaMu, Wells Fargo, and the Udren firm, alleging violations of the Pennsylvania Fair Credit Extension Uniformity Act, premised on violations of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, 15 U.S.C. 1692. The district court dismissed. The Third Circuit affirmed. An FDCPA claim was not timely because Glover’s amended pleadings did not provide the fair notice required for relatation back to her original filing View "Glover v. Fed. Deposit Ins. Corp." on Justia Law

In 2002 Murray pleaded guilty, in New Jersey, to traveling interstate to engage in illicit sexual conduct with a minor. Later that year, in a Pennsylvania district court, he pleaded guilty to possession of child pornography. He was sentenced to an aggregate term of 95 months’ imprisonment, followed by concurrent three-year terms of supervised release. Both sentencing judges imposed special conditions of release that, for example, required him to register as a sex offender and to submit to unannounced searches of his computer. After Murray was released from prison in 2010, he moved to the Western District of Pennsylvania, which assumed jurisdiction for the remainder of his term of supervised release. Though Murray had not violated his existing supervised release conditions, the probation office sought to modify them to bring them in line with the conditions of release that are typically used in that district. The court granted the request and imposed several new, more stringent conditions, including a prohibition on possession of sexually-oriented material and a requirement to submit to workplace searches. The Third Circuit remanded the new conditions for an explanation of why they are no greater than necessary to satisfy the section 3553(a) sentencing factors. View "United States v. Murray" on Justia Law

Martorano was sentenced to life imprisonment without parole after pleading guilty, in 1984, to 19 counts related to the wholesale distribution of drugs. He appealed the sentence, arguing that the district court imposed an illegal general sentence; and that his undifferentiated sentence for conspiring to distribute drugs (21 U.S.C. 846) and supervising a Continuing Criminal Enterprise (21 U.S.C. 848) violated the Double Jeopardy Clause. The Third Circuit rejected the arguments and affirmed, noting that, since 1988, the sentence has been reviewed by various district court judges and Third Circuit panels. View "United States v. Martorano" on Justia Law

Duran, a native of the Dominican Republic, was admitted to the U.S. as a legal permanent resident in 1981. He married in 1988 and fathered two children. In 1997 he applied for naturalization. He completed his examination under oath. When a final decision did not come in the mail, Duran made repeated calls to the agency, attempting to be scheduled to take the Oath. Nearly ten years later, he pled guilty to conspiracy to distribute and possess narcotics and possession with intent to distribute cocaine and was sentenced to 51 months’ imprisonment. The government instituted removal proceedings under 8 U.S.C. 1227(a)(2)(B)(i) and 8 U.S.C. §1227(a)(2)(A)(iii). Although he did not challenge the convictions, he argued that he was not removable because his 1997 naturalization application had been finalized. He also argued that he should not be removed because the government’s loss of his file precluded him from taking the Oath and thereby prevented his naturalization and citizenship. Meanwhile, the government denied his naturalization based on his 2008 convictions The Immigration Judge ordered him removed to the Dominican Republic. The BIA dismissed Duran’s appeal. The Third Circuit denied appeal. View "Duran-Pichardo v. Attorney Gen. of the U.S." on Justia Law

Powell’s cousin, Lassiter, testified that he and Powell engaged in robberies of college students and drug dealers in North Philadelphia in 2008. They decided their crimes were attracting too much attention and determined instead to rob business owners by following them from their stores to their homes. They targeted immigrant business owners in the belief that “Chinese people” would keep business proceeds at home because they did not use banks. They cased Star Wigs, owned by Y.B., a female Korean immigrant. The store sold merchandise from multiple out-of-state suppliers. They followed Y.B. to her home, invaded the house, beat the occupants, took credit cards, a handgun, jewelry, handbags, heirlooms, cash that belonged to Y.B.’s husband, receipts and petty cash from the business, and personal electronics. During a subsequent, similar robbery, the victim’s daughter called police, who were able to follow and arrest defendants in possession of stolen items. Powell was convicted under the Hobbs Act, 18 U.S.C. 1951, for both robberies and sentenced to 697 months’ imprisonment and restitution of $20,762.55. The Third Circuit affirmed. The critical jurisdictional question under the Hobbs Act is the robbery’s effect on interstate commerce; where the robbery occurs is but one factor. View "United States v. Powell" on Justia Law

Stoerr pled guilty to bid rigging, 15 U.S.C. 1; conspiracy to provide kickbacks and to defraud the United States, 18 U.S.C. 371; and assisting in the preparation of false tax returns, 26 U.S.C. § 7206(2). The convictions stemmed from kickback payments that Stoerr solicited and accepted from sub-contractors in connection with environmental remediation projects managed by Sevenson, his employer from 1980 to October 2003. In total, the district court determined that the scheme resulted in losses of $134,098.96 to the EPA and $257,129.22 to Tierra. After Sevenson learned of the kickbacks scheme, it paid Tierra approximately $241,000 to compensate for its losses. It then commenced a civil action against Stoerr in state court to recover its losses, and sought restitution in connection with Stoerr’s sentencing, under the Mandatory Victims Restitution Act, 18 U.S.C. 3663A, for reimbursement of the amount that it paid to Tierra. The district court denied Sevenson‟s request for restitution, instead ordering that Stoerr pay restitution to Tierra. The Third Circuit dismissed; as a non-party, Sevenson lacks standing to appeal. View "United States v. Stoerr" on Justia Law

The New Jersey Sports and Exposition Authority, a state agency which owned a leasehold interest in the East Hall, also known as “Historic Boardwalk Hall”, on the boardwalk in Atlantic City, was tasked with restoring it. After learning of the market for federal historic rehabilitation tax credits (HRTCs) among corporate investors, and of the additional revenue which that market could bring to the state through a syndicated partnership with one or more investors, NJSEA created Historic Boardwalk Hall, LLC (HBH) and sold a membership interest to a subsidiary of Pitney Bowes. Transactions admitting PB as a member of HBH and transferring ownership of East Hall to HBH were designed so that PB could earn the HRTCs generated from the East Hall rehabilitation. The IRS determined that HBH was simply a vehicle to impermissibly transfer HRTCs from NJSEA to PB and that all HRTCs taken by PB should be reallocated to NJSEA. The Tax Court disagreed. The Third Circuit reversed. PB, in substance, was not a bona fide partner in HBH. View "Historic Boardwalk Hall, LLC v. Comm'r of Internal Revenue" on Justia Law

In 2005 a house that had operated as an unlicensed bar was robbed by three men with guns. The men took cell phones and cash from patrons and were apprehended in the area shortly after the robbery, carrying some of the stolen items, and were identified by witnesses. Three defendants, Shavers, White, and Lewis were convicted of robbery affecting interstate commerce, conspiracy to commit robbery affecting interstate commerce, witness tampering, and using and carrying firearms during and in relation to a crime of violence. The Third Circuit vacated Shavers’s and White’s witness tampering convictions and Shavers’s eight-year term of supervised release. The court affirmed the other convictions and Lewis’s sentence. The court upheld jurisdiction under the Hobbs Act stating that property crimes like robbery and extortion are, unlike possession of a gun in a school zone or gender-motivated violence, indisputably economic, and, in the aggregate, have a substantial impact on interstate commerce. View "United States v. Shaver" on Justia Law