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

Henry Washington, a state prisoner, alleged that prison guard T.S. Oswald sexually assaulted him twice, once in 2013 and again in 2015. During the first incident, Washington claimed that Oswald and another guard handcuffed him, fondled him, and attempted to insert a nightstick into his rectum, causing him to bleed. In the second incident, Oswald allegedly fondled Washington and attempted to insert his finger into Washington's rectum while escorting him back to his cell.Washington sued Oswald under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for cruel and unusual punishment. The jury found in favor of Washington, awarding him $20,000 in compensatory damages and $25,000 in punitive damages for the 2013 assault, and $20,000 in compensatory damages and $200,000 in punitive damages for the 2015 assault. Oswald moved for judgment as a matter of law or a new trial, arguing insufficient evidence and excessive punitive damages. The United States District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania denied these motions.The United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit reviewed the case. The court held that there was sufficient evidence for the jury to find Oswald liable for both assaults. The court also upheld the punitive damages, finding them not excessive under the Due Process Clause. The court noted that Oswald's actions were highly reprehensible, the punitive damages were proportionate to the harm caused, and the awards were consistent with those in comparable cases. The court affirmed the District Court's decision, maintaining the jury's awards. View "Washington v. Gilmore" on Justia Law

Jose Soto was convicted by a jury of conspiracy to commit bank robbery, two counts of bank robbery, and two counts of using and carrying a firearm during a crime of violence. At sentencing, the District Court set his offense level at 29 and sentenced him to 289 months in federal prison, including two mandatory and consecutive seven-year terms. The offense level included a two-level enhancement for obstruction of justice based on allegations that Soto improperly interacted with jurors, a witness's brother, and victims.The District Court for the District of New Jersey imposed the obstruction of justice enhancement based on three incidents: Soto stepping onto an elevator with jurors and asking one to press a button, interacting with a testifying witness's brother, and greeting victims at the courthouse. Soto's counsel argued that these interactions were not intended to obstruct justice and that Soto had not been instructed to avoid such interactions. The District Court, however, focused on the consequences of Soto's conduct rather than his intent, leading to the enhancement.The United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit reviewed the case and found that the District Court's application of the obstruction of justice enhancement was not supported by adequate evidence. The appellate court noted that the District Court did not explicitly adopt the findings of the presentence report and that the record lacked sufficient evidence to support the allegations of obstruction. The court emphasized that the enhancement requires a willful intent to obstruct justice, which was not demonstrated by Soto's actions. Consequently, the Third Circuit vacated the sentence and remanded the case for resentencing without the obstruction of justice enhancement. View "USA v. Soto" on Justia Law

In this case, the appellants, DeAndre Jackson and Quintel Martins, challenged the denial of their motions to suppress evidence obtained during a traffic stop. The incident occurred around 1:10 AM on October 2, 2019, when Officer Thayer McCauley, patrolling with an unarmed trainee, noticed a car with a broken taillight, a damaged license plate, and an expired registration. Suspecting the car might be stolen, he attempted to stop it, but the driver evaded him. About forty minutes later, McCauley spotted the car again and, after a brief pursuit, conducted a "felony stop" in a dark, secluded area. The occupants were ordered out at gunpoint, handcuffed, and frisked. A gun magazine was found on Jackson, who then admitted to having a gun in the car. A subsequent search revealed more evidence, including another firearm and items linked to recent robberies.The United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania denied the motions to suppress, finding the stop and search lawful. The court determined that the officers' actions were justified by the circumstances, including the time of night, the high-crime area, and the suspects' evasive behavior. The court also found that the officers had probable cause to search the vehicle based on Jackson's admission about the firearm and the smell of marijuana.The United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit affirmed the District Court's decision. The appellate court held that the officers' actions during the stop were reasonable given the totality of the circumstances. The court emphasized that the officers were justified in taking safety precautions due to the potential danger posed by the suspects' behavior and the environment. The court concluded that the measures taken, including the use of firearms and handcuffs, were appropriate to ensure officer safety and did not violate the Fourth Amendment. View "United States v. Jackson" on Justia Law

Daniel Rutherford sought a reduction of his 42.5-year sentence for two armed robberies, arguing that he is eligible for compassionate release due to changes in sentencing laws under the First Step Act. This Act, among other things, reduced mandatory minimum sentences for certain crimes but did not make these changes retroactive. Rutherford contended that if sentenced today, his sentence would be significantly shorter due to these changes.The United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania denied Rutherford's motion, citing the Third Circuit's precedent in United States v. Andrews. In Andrews, the court held that nonretroactive changes to sentencing laws, such as those in the First Step Act, cannot be considered "extraordinary and compelling reasons" for compassionate release. The District Court concluded that this precedent barred Rutherford's argument.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit affirmed the District Court's decision. The Third Circuit reiterated its holding in Andrews, stating that the nonretroactive changes to 18 U.S.C. § 924(c) under the First Step Act cannot be considered as a basis for compassionate release. The court emphasized that allowing such changes to be considered would conflict with Congress's explicit decision to make these changes nonretroactive. The court also noted that while the Sentencing Commission's amended policy statement allows for consideration of nonretroactive changes in certain circumstances, this policy cannot override the clear intent of Congress as interpreted in Andrews.Thus, the Third Circuit held that the First Step Act's changes to § 924(c) cannot be considered in determining eligibility for compassionate release, affirming the District Court's denial of Rutherford's motion. View "USA v. Rutherford" on Justia Law

Kay Ellison, co-founder of a charter airline, was convicted of federal wire fraud, bank fraud, and conspiracy. The airline, Direct Air, faced cash flow issues and Ellison siphoned millions from an escrow account through fictitious reservations and falsified records. She was charged alongside Judy Tull and chose not to testify or present a defense at trial. The jury convicted her on all counts, and she was sentenced to ninety-four months in prison and ordered to pay over $19 million in restitution. Her convictions were affirmed on direct appeal.Ellison filed a motion to vacate her sentence under 28 U.S.C. § 2255, claiming ineffective assistance of counsel. She argued her attorney incorrectly advised her that if she did not testify, she could not present other evidence, which she claimed prejudiced her defense. The United States District Court for the District of New Jersey denied her motion without an evidentiary hearing, concluding that even if her counsel was ineffective, she could not show prejudice because there was no reasonable probability that the jury would have acquitted her if she had testified or presented other witnesses.The United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit reviewed the case and affirmed the District Court's decision. The Third Circuit applied the Strickland v. Washington standard, which requires showing a reasonable probability that the result of the proceeding would have been different but for the attorney's errors. The court found that Ellison failed to demonstrate such a probability, as her proposed testimony and that of her witnesses would not have likely changed the jury's verdict given the strong evidence against her. Thus, the denial of her habeas corpus petition was upheld. View "Ellison v. USA" on Justia Law

The case involves James Peperno, Jr., who was found guilty by a jury of nine counts of conspiracy to commit bribery and wire fraud, among other related charges. Peperno devised a scheme to solicit bribes from Walter Stocki, who was involved in zoning litigation with the borough of Old Forge, Pennsylvania. Peperno, along with Robert Semenza, Jr., the Old Forge Borough Council President, planned to influence the litigation in Stocki's favor in exchange for bribes. Peperno initially approached Stocki in January 2019, asking for a $20,000 upfront payment and a monthly retainer. Stocki recorded their conversations and later contacted the FBI, which led to further recorded interactions and payments facilitated by the FBI.The United States District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania presided over the case. At trial, Peperno was found guilty on all counts except for two counts of money laundering. The Presentence Report (PSR) recommended sentencing enhancements for multiple bribes and for the total value of the bribes exceeding $15,000. Peperno objected to these enhancements, but the District Court overruled his objections, finding the recommendations supported by the evidence. The court sentenced Peperno to 72 months’ imprisonment, considering his intent and financial motivations.The United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit reviewed the case. Peperno appealed, arguing that the District Court erred in denying his request for a jury instruction on entrapment and in applying the sentencing enhancements. The Third Circuit held that the District Court correctly denied the entrapment instruction, as Peperno failed to show government inducement or lack of predisposition. The court also upheld the sentencing enhancements, agreeing that the evidence supported the finding of multiple bribes and that the total value of the bribes exceeded $15,000. The Third Circuit affirmed the District Court’s judgment of sentence. View "USA v. Peperno" on Justia Law

William Valentin, along with four other men, robbed a jewelry store in New Jersey, during which Valentin pointed a loaded gun at a store employee. The robbers stole nearly $900,000 in jewelry and left behind substantial evidence, including video footage, fingerprints, DNA, and cell phone records. A jury convicted Valentin of Hobbs Act robbery, conspiracy to commit Hobbs Act robbery, use of a firearm during a crime of violence, and conspiracy to use a firearm during a crime of violence. The District Court sentenced him to a term of imprisonment within the applicable sentencing guidelines range.The District Court for the District of New Jersey initially tried Valentin and his cousin Jonathan Arce together, but the jury acquitted Arce and failed to reach a verdict for Valentin, resulting in a mistrial. Valentin was retried a year later, and the jury found him guilty on all counts. The District Court sentenced him as a career offender, calculating the applicable sentencing guidelines range as 360 months to life imprisonment. Valentin did not object to the stated basis for the sentence, and the Court imposed a within-guidelines sentence of 360 months’ imprisonment, 5 years’ supervised release, and $889,844.33 in restitution.The United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit reviewed the case. Valentin raised several challenges to his convictions and sentence, including the admission of certain identification testimony, the exclusion of other similar testimony, the admission of evidence of a prior criminal relationship, and the reasonableness of his sentence. The Court of Appeals found that any potential errors in the District Court’s evidentiary rulings were harmless given the overwhelming evidence of Valentin’s guilt. The Court also held that brandishing a firearm during a robbery qualifies as a crime of violence under the sentencing guidelines. Consequently, the Court of Appeals affirmed the District Court’s judgment of conviction and sentence. View "USA v. Valentin" on Justia Law

A criminal defendant, convicted of aggravated manslaughter and sentenced to thirty years in prison, twice instructed his attorney to file a plenary appeal. However, his intake appellate counsel designated the appeal for the expedited sentence-review track (ESOA). The ESOA panel did not transfer the case to the plenary calendar and affirmed the sentence. The defendant's subsequent post-conviction relief applications in state court, which included claims of ineffective assistance of counsel, were unsuccessful.The United States District Court for the District of New Jersey denied the defendant's habeas corpus petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2254, which included claims related to the ESOA designation. The court also denied his Rule 60(b) motion, which specifically challenged the intake appellate counsel's decision to place the appeal on the ESOA calendar.The United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit reviewed the case. The court held that the Rule 60(b) motion was not a second or successive habeas application because it was filed within 28 days of the underlying judgment. However, the court found that the defendant's claim of ineffective assistance of counsel was procedurally defaulted because it was not exhausted in state court and he could not show the requisite prejudice to overcome the default. The court applied the Strickland standard for prejudice, requiring a reasonable probability that the result of the proceeding would have been different but for counsel's errors, rather than the Flores-Ortega standard, which applies when the entirety of direct appellate review is rendered unavailable. The court affirmed the denial of the habeas petition and the Rule 60(b) motion. View "Ross v. Administrator East Jersey State Prison" on Justia Law

In 2015, Eddie Williams was prosecuted in Pennsylvania for crimes related to a dispute over illegal drug profits, resulting in one death and one serious injury. Williams, along with Rick Cannon and Akeita Harden, was implicated in the incident. Cannon pleaded guilty to multiple charges, including homicide, and Williams was tried jointly with Harden. During the trial, the judge read Cannon's Criminal Information, which included charges naming Williams as a co-conspirator, to the jury. Williams was found guilty on all counts and sentenced to life imprisonment plus additional years.Williams filed a Post-Conviction Relief Act (PCRA) petition in 2017, arguing ineffective assistance of counsel due to his attorney's failure to object to the reading of Cannon's Criminal Information. The PCRA court denied the petition, and the Pennsylvania Superior Court affirmed. The Pennsylvania Supreme Court denied further appeal. Williams then filed a habeas corpus petition in the United States District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania, which granted relief, finding a violation of the Confrontation Clause and ineffective assistance of counsel.The United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit reviewed the case. The court held that the reading of Cannon's Criminal Information, which included testimonial statements implicating Williams, violated the Confrontation Clause. The court also found that Williams's counsel was ineffective for failing to object to the reading, which prejudiced Williams's defense. The Third Circuit affirmed the District Court's decision to grant habeas relief, concluding that the errors had a substantial and injurious effect on the jury's verdict. The case was remanded for the District Court to issue a writ of habeas corpus. View "Williams v. District Attorney Lebanon County" on Justia Law

Michael Hughes and Nashadeem Henderson committed two armed robberies in 2016. In the first incident, they robbed a drug dealer, with Hughes pulling a gun and demanding drugs and cash. When the dealer resisted, Henderson shot him in the leg. Four days later, they robbed a pizza delivery driver, with Henderson shooting the driver in the leg while Hughes took cash from his pockets. Hughes was convicted of two counts of Hobbs Act robbery and two gun charges under 18 U.S.C. § 924(c).The United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania instructed the jury that Hughes could be convicted under § 924(c) if he had either completed or attempted the robberies. Hughes did not object to this instruction at trial. The jury found Hughes guilty on all counts. Hughes appealed, arguing that the jury instructions were incorrect and that there was insufficient evidence to support his convictions.The United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit reviewed the case. The court acknowledged that the District Court erred by instructing the jury that attempted Hobbs Act robbery could support a § 924(c) charge, as the Supreme Court had later clarified in United States v. Taylor that attempted Hobbs Act robbery is not a crime of violence. However, the Third Circuit found that this error did not prejudice Hughes because the evidence overwhelmingly showed that he completed the robberies. The court also found sufficient evidence to support Hughes's involvement in both robberies and the impact on interstate commerce.The Third Circuit held that the erroneous jury instruction did not affect the trial's outcome and affirmed Hughes's convictions and sentence. View "USA v. Hughes" on Justia Law