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

Erik Harris, a frequent marijuana user, purchased three pistols over a short period. Each time, he falsely stated on federal forms that he was not an unlawful user of marijuana. After losing one of the guns while intoxicated, Harris reported it stolen and bought a replacement. When the missing gun was found with a felon, Harris admitted to regular marijuana use during police questioning.The United States District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania denied Harris's motion to dismiss the charges, which included three counts under 18 U.S.C. §922(g)(3) for possessing guns as an unlawful drug user and three counts under §922(a)(6) for lying to obtain the guns. The court concluded that §922(g)(3) was constitutional as applied to Harris, using means-end scrutiny. Harris then pleaded guilty to all counts but preserved his right to appeal the denial of his motion to dismiss.The United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit reviewed the case. The court held that history and tradition justify §922(g)(3)’s restrictions on those who pose a special danger of misusing firearms due to frequent drug use. However, the court found insufficient facts to determine whether the law's restrictions are constitutional as applied to Harris. The court affirmed the statute's constitutionality in general but vacated Harris's conviction under §922(g)(3) and remanded the case for further fact-finding. The court also held that §922(g)(3) is not unconstitutionally vague as applied to Harris and upheld his convictions under §922(a)(6) for lying on the federal forms. View "United States v. Harris" on Justia Law

Kevin Johnson was convicted of first-degree murder in 1986 for the killing of Lyndon "Cowboy" Morris, a drug dealer in Philadelphia. Four witnesses identified Johnson as the shooter, with three positively identifying him and one expressing doubts. Johnson claimed mistaken identity and presented an alibi, but his testimony conflicted with his alibi witnesses. The jury convicted him, and he was sentenced to life in prison. The Superior Court affirmed his conviction and sentence.Johnson sought post-conviction relief under the Pennsylvania Post Conviction Relief Act (PCRA), claiming ineffective assistance of counsel and presenting new evidence of witness recantations. The PCRA court denied his petition, but the Superior Court remanded for an evidentiary hearing. After the hearing, the state courts dismissed his petition, and the dismissal was affirmed. Johnson then filed a federal habeas petition, which was pending when new evidence emerged, leading to additional PCRA petitions that were ultimately dismissed as time-barred.The United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania reviewed Johnson's federal habeas petition. Johnson and the Philadelphia District Attorney's Office attempted to settle the case by waiving procedural defenses, but the District Court rejected the procedural-default waiver. The court found that Johnson's Brady claims, based on witness recantations and arrest photos, were not material and did not warrant habeas relief. The court also rejected Johnson's ineffective assistance of counsel claims.The United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit affirmed the District Court's decision. The court held that the District Court had discretion to reject the procedural-default waiver and that Johnson failed to show cause and prejudice or a fundamental miscarriage of justice to overcome the default. The court also found that Johnson did not qualify for an evidentiary hearing under 28 U.S.C. § 2254(e)(2) and that his remaining Brady and ineffective assistance claims lacked merit. View "Johnson v. Superintendent Mahanoy SCI" on Justia Law

Ronell Moses was driving through his Pittsburgh suburb when Officer Dustin Hess, in a marked police SUV, smelled burnt marijuana and saw that Moses's car windows were tinted very dark, both of which are illegal. The officer followed Moses to his home, where Moses parked in his driveway. The officer walked up the driveway, searched Moses's car, and found a loaded, stolen pistol. Moses, a felon on probation, was arrested and charged with possessing a gun and ammunition as a felon.The United States District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania denied Moses's motion to dismiss the indictment, which challenged the constitutionality of the law under the Second Amendment. The court also denied his motion to suppress the gun, rejecting his claim that the officer had invaded his home's curtilage without a warrant. Moses then pleaded guilty conditionally, preserving his right to appeal the curtilage issue and the constitutionality of the law.The United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit reviewed the case. The court held that the officer did not invade Moses's curtilage by walking halfway up the driveway, as the driveway was not an extension of Moses's home. The court applied a de novo standard of review to curtilage decisions, aligning with other circuits. The court also held that the officer's actions were constitutional and that Moses, as a felon on parole, could be prosecuted for possessing a gun. The court affirmed Moses's conviction. View "United States v. Moses" on Justia Law

Robert Lanoue, a Canadian citizen and lawful permanent resident of the United States, pleaded guilty to submitting false claims to the government under 18 U.S.C. § 287. He operated a scuba school that was part of a government program funded by the post-9/11 GI Bill, which reimbursed him for teaching veterans. Lanoue admitted to submitting false and fraudulent claims, resulting in a loss of over $3 million to the Department of Veterans' Affairs. Following his conviction, the government initiated removal proceedings, arguing that his crime was an aggravated felony involving fraud or deceit with losses exceeding $10,000.The Immigration Judge found that Lanoue's crime met the criteria for an aggravated felony and denied his request for a waiver of inadmissibility. The Board of Immigration Appeals upheld this decision, leading Lanoue to petition for review.The United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit reviewed the case. The court determined that Lanoue's conviction under 18 U.S.C. § 287 categorically involved deceit, as the statute requires knowingly submitting false claims to the government. The court also found that the government had proven by clear and convincing evidence that the loss exceeded $10,000, based on Lanoue's stipulation and plea agreement indicating losses between $1.5 and $3.5 million.Lanoue's argument for a retroactive waiver under 8 U.S.C. § 1182(h) was rejected. The court noted that to qualify for such a waiver, a lawful permanent resident must have been convicted or admitted to the crime at the time of reentry, which was not the case for Lanoue.The Third Circuit held that filing false claims under 18 U.S.C. § 287 is an aggravated felony involving deceit, and the government sufficiently proved the loss amount. Consequently, Lanoue is removable and ineligible for a waiver. The court denied his petition for review. View "Lanoue v. Attorney General United States of America" on Justia Law

Kelvin Rosa, a state prisoner, sought federal habeas relief, claiming ineffective assistance of counsel during his trial for burglarizing a check-cashing store and shooting a responding police officer. Rosa was captured after a high-speed chase, during which he and others threw burglary tools and a stolen gun out of their car. The state presented extensive prior-bad-acts evidence, including details of other burglaries Rosa allegedly committed, to link him to the gun used in the check-cashing store burglary.The state habeas court denied Rosa's claim, concluding that his counsel was effective and that any deficiencies did not prejudice him. Rosa then filed a pro se petition for federal habeas relief, raising the same ineffective-assistance claim. The United States District Court for the District of New Jersey granted habeas relief, finding that the state habeas court had unreasonably applied the Strickland v. Washington standard for ineffective assistance of counsel.The United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit reviewed the case and agreed with the District Court. The Third Circuit held that Rosa's trial counsel was deficient for failing to object to the extensive prior-bad-acts evidence and for not requesting timely and specific limiting instructions to mitigate its prejudicial impact. The court found that the state habeas court's conclusion that counsel was effective was unreasonable, as it did not consider whether counsel should have taken further action during the trial.The Third Circuit also found that the state habeas court unreasonably concluded that Rosa was not prejudiced by his counsel's deficiencies. The court noted that the evidence against Rosa was not overwhelming, and the extensive prior-bad-acts evidence likely influenced the jury's verdict. The court affirmed the District Court's grant of habeas relief, concluding that Rosa's trial was unfair due to his counsel's ineffective assistance. View "Rosa v. Administrator East Jersey State Prison" on Justia Law

On December 31, 2020, four plainclothes police officers in unmarked cars patrolled a high-crime area in Newark. Detective Marc Castro observed a parked Audi with its engine running, sunroof open, and heavily tinted windows. As Castro approached, he smelled burning marijuana and decided to conduct a vehicle stop. Upon approaching the vehicle, Castro saw smoke emanating from the driver's side window and detected a stronger smell of marijuana. The driver, Abdul Outlaw, provided his documents without any suspicious behavior. Castro asked Outlaw to step out of the vehicle and conducted a pat-down, finding a firearm and a prescription bottle with raw marijuana on Outlaw's person. Outlaw was arrested, and the officers issued motor vehicle summonses and charged him with various offenses.The United States District Court for the District of New Jersey reviewed the case. Outlaw moved to suppress the evidence obtained from the search. After an evidentiary hearing and supplemental briefing, the District Court granted Outlaw’s motion, reasoning that while the vehicle stop was lawful, Castro did not have reasonable suspicion or probable cause to search Outlaw’s person.The United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit reviewed the case. The court held that while the smell of marijuana can create probable cause to search a vehicle, it does not necessarily create probable cause to arrest an individual without additional facts connecting the smell to that person. The court found that Castro’s observations did not establish probable cause to arrest Outlaw, as there were no signs that Outlaw was under the influence or had been smoking marijuana. The court affirmed the District Court’s order suppressing the evidence obtained from the unlawful search. View "United States v. Outlaw" on Justia Law

Shakira Martinez was convicted by a jury in the District of Delaware for multiple money laundering offenses related to a drug trafficking operation run by her husband, Omar Morales Colon. The District Court sentenced her to 108 months of imprisonment. After her sentencing, the United States Sentencing Commission enacted a retroactive amendment to the Sentencing Guidelines, allowing certain offenders with no criminal history a two-point reduction in their total offense level. Martinez argued that the appellate court should vacate her sentence and remand for resentencing in light of this amendment.The District Court determined Martinez’s total offense level to be 30, with a criminal history category of I, resulting in a recommended sentencing range of 97 to 121 months. Martinez requested a downward variance due to psychological disorders, but the court denied this request and sentenced her to 108 months. Martinez appealed, and during the appeal process, the Sentencing Commission made amendments to the Guidelines retroactive. Martinez then sought to have her sentence vacated and remanded for resentencing under the new Guidelines.The United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit reviewed the case. The court held that it has the discretionary authority under 28 U.S.C. § 2106 to vacate a sentence and remand for resentencing in light of a retroactive Guidelines amendment. The court found that granting this relief would promote judicial economy and serve the interest of justice. Therefore, the court vacated Martinez’s sentence and remanded the case to the District Court for resentencing consistent with the retroactive Guidelines amendment. View "USA v. Martinez" on Justia Law

A cheesesteak restaurant owner, Nicholas Lucidonio, was involved in a payroll tax fraud scheme at Tony Luke’s, where he avoided employment taxes by issuing paychecks for “on-the-books” wages, requiring employees to sign back their paychecks, and then paying them in cash for both “on-the-books” and “off-the-books” wages. This led to the filing of false employer tax returns that underreported wages and underpaid employment taxes. Employees, aware of the scheme, received Form W-2s listing only “on-the-books” wages, resulting in underreported income on their personal tax returns. The conspiracy spanned ten years and involved systemic underreporting of wages for 30 to 40 employees at any given time.Lucidonio pleaded guilty to one count of conspiracy to defraud the IRS (Klein conspiracy) under 18 U.S.C. § 371. He did not appeal his conviction but challenged his sentence, specifically the application of a United States Sentencing Guideline that increased his offense level by two points. The enhancement applies when conduct is intended to encourage others to violate internal revenue laws or impede the IRS’s collection of revenue. Lucidonio argued that the enhancement was misapplied because it required explicit direction to others to violate the IRS Code, which he claimed did not occur, and that his employees were co-conspirators, not additional persons encouraged to violate the law.The United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit reviewed the case. The court disagreed with Lucidonio’s interpretation that the enhancement required explicit direction. However, it found that the government failed to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that Lucidonio encouraged anyone other than co-conspirators, as the employees were aware of and participated in the scheme. Consequently, the court vacated the sentence and remanded the case for resentencing without the enhancement. View "United States v. Lucidonio" on Justia Law

Patrick Barkers-Woode and Nana Mensah were involved in a conspiracy to defraud Sprint Corporation by exploiting a sales promotion that offered smartphones to new customers at no upfront cost. Conspirators in Ghana obtained personal information of unsuspecting individuals and used it to sign them up as new Sprint customers, arranging for the smartphones to be sent to vacant homes. Barkers-Woode, Mensah, and others tracked, retrieved, and delivered the smartphones to a buyer. The conspiracy was responsible for 274 orders of 833 smartphones, resulting in $357,565.92 in actual loss and $595,399.76 in intended loss. A jury convicted both defendants of mail fraud, aggravated identity theft, and conspiracy to commit these offenses.The United States District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania sentenced Barkers-Woode to 111 months’ imprisonment and Mensah to 99 months’ imprisonment. Both defendants appealed, challenging their sentences and, in Barkers-Woode’s case, the admission of certain evidence during the trial.The United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit reviewed the case. The court found that the District Court erred in applying a 14-point enhancement based on intended loss rather than actual loss, as required by the court's decision in United States v. Banks. This error affected the defendants' substantial rights, leading the court to reverse and remand for resentencing based on actual loss. The court also upheld the District Court's application of a 2-point enhancement for the number of victims, recognizing that victims of identity theft are included within the definition of "victim" under the Sentencing Guidelines.Additionally, the court affirmed the District Court's decision to admit testimony about a related fraud against Walmart, as it directly proved the conspiratorial agreement. The court also upheld the decision to require Barkers-Woode to proceed pro se after his sixth attorney withdrew, citing his extremely dilatory conduct. Finally, the court rejected Mensah's argument that sentencing enhancements should be based on facts charged in the indictment and proved beyond a reasonable doubt, reaffirming the precedent set in United States v. Grier. View "USA v. Barkers-Woode" on Justia Law

David Payo pled guilty to two bank robberies in 2017. The District Court applied a career-offender enhancement to his sentence based on three prior robbery convictions: a 2001 federal conviction, a 2008 Pennsylvania conviction, and a 2010 Pennsylvania conviction. Payo argued that the 2008 and 2010 convictions did not involve crimes of violence, but the District Court disagreed, relying on a state-court docket sheet and an argument not advanced by the Government.The United States District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania held that Payo's 2008 conviction was under § 3701(a)(1)(ii) and his 2010 conviction under § 3701(a)(1)(iv) qualified as a crime of violence under the enumerated-offenses clause. Payo appealed, arguing that the District Court improperly relied on a non-Shepard document (the docket sheet) and advanced an argument the Government had not made.The United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit reviewed the case and found that the District Court erred in relying on the state-court docket sheet, which was not a Shepard document, and in advancing an argument the Government had not made regarding the 2010 conviction. The Third Circuit vacated Payo's sentence and remanded the case for further proceedings, instructing the District Court to determine whether Payo's 2008 conviction was under § 3701(a)(1)(i) or (ii) using only the Shepard documents produced by the Government initially. If the conviction was under subsection (ii), the enhancement stands; otherwise, it does not. View "USA v. Payo" on Justia Law