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

Shiheem Amos appealed the denial of his motion to suppress a firearm, which was found after he was stopped by police officers who suspected him of being involved in a disturbance reported at a nearby location. Amos argued that he was seized without reasonable suspicion, and therefore the firearm should not have been admissible in court. The United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit held that Amos was not seized until after he attempted to flee from the police officers, and at that point, the officers had reasonable suspicion to seize him based on his attempt to flee. Thus, the firearm was admissible, and the motion to suppress was correctly denied.Amos also challenged his 62-month sentence, which included an enhancement for a previous state court conviction that was classified as a crime of violence under the United States Sentencing Guidelines. The court records did not specify which subsection of the Pennsylvania aggravated assault statute Amos had been convicted under, but the government argued that all possible subsections qualified as a crime of violence. However, the Third Circuit held that one of the subsections, which can be violated by a failure to act, does not meet the definition of a crime of violence because it does not require the use of violent force. Therefore, the court vacated Amos's sentence and remanded for resentencing without the crime of violence enhancement. View "USA v. Amos" on Justia Law

In this case, Daniel Coach and Clifton Junius, who were both involved in a drug distribution operation, appealed the denials of their motions for sentence reduction under the First Step Act. They argued that their convictions for intentional killing in furtherance of a continuing criminal conspiracy were "covered offenses" under the Act, and hence, they were eligible for sentencing relief for their convictions under that statute. The United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit disagreed with the appellants' arguments, holding that drug-related murder under 28 U.S.C. § 848(e)(1)(A) is not a covered offense under the First Step Act.The appellants also argued that their murder and drug charges on which they were sentenced were interdependent, so they were eligible for sentence reduction under the sentencing package doctrine. The court disagreed, stating that the sentencing package doctrine does not apply to this case because the sentences imposed on Coach and Junius for murder in furtherance of a continuing criminal enterprise were imposed independently from their cocaine base distribution charges and were not part of a sentencing package. The court affirmed the lower court's decision denying the motions for sentence reduction. View "USA v. Coach" on Justia Law

The United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit heard an appeal by Mark Jordan regarding his conviction for armed bank robbery and associated gun charges. The main issue was whether armed bank robbery can be considered a "crime of violence" under a federal gun statute. Jordan argued that armed bank robbery could be committed recklessly, and therefore should not count as a crime of violence.The court, however, found that the federal armed bank robbery statute is divisible into different crimes, and the specific crime that Jordan pleaded guilty to required purpose or knowledge, not recklessness. Therefore, using the modified categorical approach, the court held that armed bank robbery is a crime of violence. The court also held that whenever a federal crime is predicated on committing another crime, the elements of the predicate crime are considered elements of the first crime as well.In regards to the facts of the case, Jordan committed three bank robberies, during two of which he fired a gun. He was charged with three counts of armed bank robbery under 18 U.S.C. § 2113(d) and two gun charges under 18 U.S.C. § 924(c). He pleaded guilty to all five counts and was sentenced to 318 months in prison. He later challenged his sentence, arguing that § 2113(d) is not a "crime of violence" under § 924(c), which is what the court ultimately disagreed with. View "USA v. Jordan" on Justia Law

The case involves an appeal by Michael Caraballo who was sentenced for an aggravated assault. He challenges the District Court's finding that the injuries sustained by his victim amounted to serious bodily injury rather than bodily injury under the United States Sentencing Guidelines, which resulted in a higher guideline range for Caraballo. The case arose from an incident where Caraballo, an inmate, assaulted another inmate with a five-inch metal shank, causing the victim to sustain a number of puncture wounds, a fractured mandible, and abrasions. Caraballo pleaded guilty to assault with a dangerous weapon, aiding and abetting, and possessing contraband in prison. During the sentencing hearing, Caraballo's counsel objected to the five-level sentencing enhancement for causing serious bodily injury. The District Court overruled the objection and sentenced Caraballo on the low end of the range, which was 63 months. Caraballo appealed, arguing that the injuries caused to the victim constituted bodily injury, not serious bodily injury.The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit held that the phrase "serious bodily injury" as used in the relevant guideline is ambiguous. Therefore, it turned to the Sentencing Commission's interpretation of the phrase in the commentary to the Guidelines. The court held that the reasonableness, character, and context of the Sentencing Commission's interpretation entitles it to controlling weight. Applying the commentary definition, the court held that the District Court did not commit clear error by concluding that the victim's injuries constituted serious bodily injury rather than bodily injury. Therefore, the court affirmed the judgment of the District Court. View "USA v. Caraballo" on Justia Law

In this case, the appellant, Steven Voneida, a former convict, appealed to the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit, arguing that his conviction for transmitting threatening communications was no longer criminal due to a change in law. His conviction came after a series of threatening MySpace posts he made in 2007, expressing admiration for the Virginia Tech shooter. He was convicted based on the jury's decision that "a reasonable person would interpret his statement as a true threat."Voneida filed several unsuccessful motions for relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2255. He then filed a petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2241, arguing that the Supreme Court’s decision in Elonis v. United States, 575 U.S. 723 (2015), resulted in a change in law that rendered his conduct no longer criminal.The Third Circuit initially determined that Voneida’s claim could not proceed under § 2241, but this was reversed. On remand, the District Court rejected Voneida’s claim on the merits. During the pendency of Voneida’s appeal, the Supreme Court decided Jones v. Hendrix, 143 S. Ct. 1857 (2023), which established that the limitations on second or successive motions set forth in 28 U.S.C. § 2255(h) do not make § 2255 “inadequate or ineffective” such that a prisoner must pursue a remedy under § 2241.As a result of the holding in Jones, the Third Circuit held that Voneida has no recourse under § 2241. The Court vacated the District Court’s Order and remanded with instructions to dismiss for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction. View "Voneida v. Johnson" on Justia Law

A traffic stop conducted by Pennsylvania State Trooper Galen Clemons resulted in the arrest of Jamar Hunter after a loaded Glock-45 semi-automatic handgun was discovered in Hunter's waistband. This discovery followed a routine license and warrant check and an additional computerized criminal history check on Hunter and his passenger, Deshaun Davis. Hunter was later indicted for possession of a firearm as a convicted felon. Hunter moved to suppress the firearm evidence claiming that the computerized criminal history check extended the traffic stop beyond its constitutional authority.The United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania granted Hunter's motion to suppress. The court reasoned that the computerized criminal history check was unrelated to the traffic stop's mission and, without reasonable suspicion, prolonged the stop, therefore violating the Fourth Amendment.The United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit reversed the District Court’s decision, finding that the lower court had applied a subjective standard of review, thereby erring as a matter of law. The appellate court held that the criminal history check, which lasted approximately two minutes, was an objectively reasonable safety precaution related to the mission of the traffic stop under Rodriguez v. United States, 575 U.S. 348 (2015) and the Fourth Amendment. The Court of Appeals found the check to be a negligibly burdensome officer safety precaution that fell within the stop's mission. The case was remanded for further proceedings consistent with this opinion. View "USA v. Hunter" on Justia Law

Coach and Junius were involved in a drug distribution operation in North Philadelphia from 1992-2001. Coach was head of the operation and engaged in multiple acts of violence, including several homicides. Junius engaged in long-term drug distribution and acts of violence, including homicides. In 2003, Coach pled guilty to possession with intent to distribute more than 50 grams of cocaine base, 21 U.S.C. 841(a)(1) and (b)(1)(A) and intentional killing in furtherance of a continuing criminal enterprise (CCE), section 848(e)(1)(A), plus other counts. Junius pled guilty to conspiracy to distribute more than 50 grams of cocaine base section 846, and intentional killing in furtherance of a CCE. The court sentenced Coach to 60 years and Junius to 40 years and denied all motions to correct the sentence under 28 U.S.C. 2255, for compassionate release, and for sentence reduction under the First Step Act, 132 Stat. 5194.The Third Circuit affirmed the denial of their First Step Act motions. A conviction under 21 U.S.C. 848(e)(1)(A) for murder in furtherance of a CCE is not a “covered offense” under the First Step Act. The sentences on the defendants’ separate offenses are to run concurrently; each defendant’s drug-related murder sentence could be treated discretely, so the sentencing package doctrine does not apply. View "United States v. Junius" on Justia Law

In 2022, Stewart, serving a life sentence for drug trafficking, racketeering, and attempted money laundering, moved for compassionate release, 18 U.S.C. 3582(c)(1)(A)(i). He cited his record of rehabilitation, the risks posed by the COVID-19 pandemic, and his status as a survivor of attempted prison rape as extraordinary and compelling reasons warranting a sentence reduction.The district court found that there were no “extraordinary and compelling” circumstances and declined to analyze whether Stewart’s release would be consistent with the section 3553(a) sentencing factors. The Third Circuit affirmed the denial of relief. Section 3582 does not define “extraordinary and compelling,” so courts may consult the Sentencing Commission’s policy statements—which are non-binding in the context of prisoner-initiated motions—“to form a working definition” of the phrase. The Third Circuit has held that neither the length of a lawfully imposed sentence nor any nonretroactive change to mandatory minimum sentences establishes “extraordinary and compelling” circumstances warranting release but may be relevant “at the next step of the analysis,” when the court weighs the section 3553(a) factors. View "United States v. Stewart" on Justia Law

Under Kaboni’s leadership, the KSO gang sold drugs. While Kaboni was incarcerated, Kidada coordinated KSO activities. Northington was a KSO drug dealer and enforcer, causing one murder and committing another. Merritt sold drugs for the gang, often with his cousin, KSO member Lewis. In 2004, Kaboni told Kidada of his concern that KSO member Coleman was cooperating with the police. Kidada told Lewis that Kaboni had ordered him to “firebomb the Colemans’ house.” Lewis enlisted Merritt; the cousins filled gas cans and headed to Merritt’s house to get a gun. At 4:08 a.m., a Philadelphia officer stopped them for speeding but allowed them to leave. The two then parked near the Coleman house, carried the cans to the house, kicked in the door, and fired shots. Merritt ran inside and threw a lit gas can, causing a “big explosion.” He then exited the house, throwing another can. Lewis left a message on Kidada’s phone: “It was done.” .Six people, ages 15 months to 53 years, were killed. Coleman entered witness protection. Court-authorized recording devices near Kaboni’s cell and in the visitation room intercepted Kaboni’s conversations with his friends and other inmates and recorded Kaboni making vulgar statements about the deaths and threatening to kill others.Kidada, Northington, and Merritt were convicted of combinations of RICO conspiracy, murder in aid of racketeering (and conspiracy), retaliating against a witness, and using fire in the commission of a felony. The Third Circuit, after affirming Kiboni’s convictions and death sentence, affirmed their convictions and life sentences. The court upheld a refusal to grant Kidada a new trial based on a conflict allegedly held by one of her attorneys, the admission of Kaboni’s statements, evidentiary rulings, the rejection of a “Batson” challenge, jury instructions, and the denial of motions to sever. View "United States v. Savage" on Justia Law

In 2018, Kousisis and Alpha Painting were convicted of conspiracy to commit wire fraud, 18 U.S.C. 1349, and three counts of wire fraud, 18 U.S.C. 1343. The charges arose from false documents filed concerning “disadvantaged business enterprise” status in transportation construction projects for which the U.S. Department of Transportation provided funds through the Federal Highway Administration to the Pennsylvania Department of Transportation. The district court imposed a 20-point sentencing enhancement under U.S.S.G. 2B1.1(b)(1), which corresponds to a loss of $9.50 million-$25 million, noting that the actual loss to the government was not measurable at the time of sentencing and concluding that Alpha’s “ill-gotten profits” represented an appropriate measure of loss.The Third Circuit affirmed the convictions. The defendants secured PennDOT’s money using false pretenses and the value PennDOT received from the partial performance of those painting and repair services is no defense to criminal prosecution for fraud. The court vacated the calculation of the amount of loss for sentencing purposes, noting the extreme complexity of the case. The victim’s loss must have been an objective of the fraudulent scheme; it is insufficient if that loss is merely an incidental byproduct of the scheme. The court separately vacated a forfeiture order of the entire profit amount on the contracts. View "United States v. Alpha Painting & Construction Co., Inc." on Justia Law