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

De Castro, a citizen of the Dominican Republic came to the U.S. around 2002-2003. In 2012, he married a U.S. citizen. In 2014, his spouse’s Petition for Alien Relative was approved. The State Department notified De Castro that his immigrant visa petition was eligible for further processing. Months later, he was arrested as an alien in possession of a weapon, 18 U.S.C. 922(g)(5)(A). De Castro eventually pleaded guilty and was allowed to depart voluntarily in 2017. Thirteen months after the Supreme Court’s 2019 “Rehaif” decision, De Castro sought a writ of error coram nobis challenging his conviction. In Rehaif, the Supreme Court held that section 922(g)'s “knowingly” provision applies to both the possession and immigration status elements. De Castro argued that the government never proved he knew he was illegally or unlawfully in the United States; the court never informed him at his plea colloquy that the government was required to prove that element.The Third Circuit affirmed the denial of the petition, finding that De Castro did not have a sound reason for his delay in seeking relief; his knowledge-of-immigration-status argument was not futile in 2017 when he entered his plea agreement; and De Castro cannot establish actual innocence under the Rehaif standard because he cannot demonstrate it is more likely than not that no reasonable juror would conclude that he knew of his status as an illegal alien at the time he possessed a firearm. View "United States v. De Castro" on Justia Law

In New Jersey for a family party, Saint-Jean was driving home to Massachusetts with his uncle. Palisades Interstate Park Police stopped the vehicle for driving too slowly and for having tinted windows. In response to questions, Saint-Jean stated that he was originally from Haiti but was a U.S. citizen. Officers ordered the men out of the car, frisked them, and requested to search the vehicle. Saint-Jean signed a consent-to-search form. In a compartment between the front seats, they found small plastic bags containing heart-shaped objects that looked like Valentine’s Day candies. The officers suspected that the items were actually MDMA or ecstasy. Saint-Jean stated that they were Valentine’s Day candies from his coworker and offered her contact information. The officers declined, arrested Saint-Jean, and took him to a police station. The objects were not tested. The officers issued a traffic summons and a criminal summons for possessing a controlled substance, later downgraded to a disorderly persons offense. Many weeks later, the objects were determined to be candy. The prosecution continued for four more months.In Saint-Jean’s subsequent civil rights suit, the district court rejected the officers’ request for qualified immunity for Fourth Amendment claims but dismissed one constitutional claim against the officers and all of the claims against the prosecutor and the governmental entities. Before the officers appealed, Saint-Jean amended his complaint. The Third Circuit dismissed the appeal. Due to the prior amendment, the district court’s order was not final and there was no basis for appellate jurisdiction. View "Saint-Jean v. Palisades Interstate Park Commission" on Justia Law

In 2005, Bentley robbed a liquor store at gunpoint and was caught after a car chase. He confessed and was indicted for being a felon in possession of a firearm, 18 U.S.C. 922(g)(1), Hobbs Act robbery, and using and carrying a firearm during a crime of violence, section 924(c)(1)(A)(ii). The felon-in-possession-of-a-firearm charge carried a sentence of not more than 10 years but under the Armed Career Criminal Act (ACCA) a person convicted of that crime who has three or more prior convictions “for a violent felony or a serious drug offense,” is subject to a mandatory sentence of “not less than fifteen years,” section 924(e)(1). Bentley pled guilty to being a felon in possession of a firearm and using and carrying a firearm during a crime of violence and admitted he was subject to ACCA’s sentencing enhancement. The agreement listed prior convictions: first-degree reckless endangering (Delaware, 1991) and robbery and use of a firearm (Virginia 1988 and 1989). Bentley was sentenced to 22 years’ imprisonment.After the Supreme Court’s 2015 “Johnson” holding that ACCA’s “residual clause,” was unconstitutionally vague, Bently sought resentencing, arguing that the prior convictions mentioned in his plea no longer counted as strikes under ACCA. The Third Circuit affirmed the denial of relief. The undisputed PSR documented six North Carolina convictions for breaking and entering as ACCA predicates. Any Johnson error would be harmless. View "United States v. Bentley" on Justia Law

Under the 1982 Victim and Witness Protection Act (VWPA), a court sentencing a defendant convicted of certain crimes could order restitution 18 U.S.C. 3663(a)(1); a restitution order was “a lien in favor of the United States,” that expired 20 years after the entry of the judgment.” The 1996 Mandatory Victims Restitution Act (MVRA) made restitution mandatory and provides that a restitution lien never becomes unenforceable, and a defendant’s liability to pay expires 20 years after the defendant’s release from imprisonment. Days before MVRA took effect, Norwood committed a New Jersey bank robbery and was convicted of federal crimes. His $19,562.87 restitution order was governed by the VWPA. Norwood filed successful habeas petitions. His restitution order was not disturbed, although his sentence was reduced.In 2016, U.S. Attorney’s office sought money from Norwood’s prison account ($6,031.40) to satisfy Norwood’s outstanding restitution. The ensuing dispute continued until the 20-year anniversary of Norwood’s original judgment and restitution order. Under the VWPA, his liability to pay would have expired. The district court held that the government could enforce its lien under the VWPA because it filed its motion to do so before May 30, 2017. The court analogized to the tax code and concluded there was no ex post facto issue. The Third Circuit reversed. Retroactively applying the MVRA to extend the duration of Norwood’s restitutionary liability violates the Ex Post Facto Clause. View "United States v. Norwood" on Justia Law

Barney’s wife got a restraining order against him and temporary custody of their son. She was subsequently found dead near their son’s daycare, her throat cut open. Barney was charged with murder. Barney had a rocky relationship with his defense lawyer, Riley, and claims that he told Riley of his plan to represent himself on July 14, 2005, then wrote the judge a letter. Though Barney had dated the letter July 21, the judge did not get it until August 10, the day before the trial began. In court, the judge held up the letter, explained that he had not read it, and handed it to Riley. Riley promised Barney that he would “deal with” Barney’s request. He never did.After a two-week trial, Barney was convicted of first-degree murder. His conviction was affirmed. In habeas proceedings, the New Jersey Superior Court found that Barney did not “clearly and unequivocally” tell the court or Riley that he wanted to represent himself. The Third Circuit affirmed the denial of federal habeas relief. The state court ruling was not “contrary to, or involved an unreasonable application of, clearly established” Supreme Court precedent, 28 U.S.C. 2254(d). Barney did not establish prejudice in his ineffective assistance claim; the trial court did not get Barney’s request until the eve of jury selection. View "Barney v. Administrator New Jersey State Prisons" on Justia Law

In 2008, Shields was convicted of crack cocaine offenses. His PSR classified him as a career offender based on his 1995 Maryland conviction for robbery with a deadly weapon and his 2002 Maryland conviction for conspiracy to distribute crack cocaine. His Guidelines range was 360 months to life. Shields objected to an enhancement for the use of a firearm in connection with the offense and to the drug quantity attributed to him, which exceeded that found by the jury. The court declined to rule on the objections because neither would change his Guidelines range given his career-offender status. The court sentenced Shields to 360 months in prison. The Fair Sentencing Act of 2010 subsequently reduced the disparities between the sentencing schemes for crack and powder cocaine. Shields became eligible for resentencing in 2018, based on the First Step Act.Shields requested a full sentencing hearing or to file a sentencing memorandum with supplemental documentation “to present evidence of his post-sentence rehabilitation” and to dispute his career-offender status. He believed one of his prior convictions was no longer a predicate offense, and renewed his objections to the enhancements for firearm use and drug weight. The court denied his request for a full hearing and reduced his sentence to 262 months, stating “[t]he First Step Act does not permit the court to consider other statutory or sentencing guideline amendments enacted since" the offense. The Third Circuit vacated. The district court had the discretion to consider Shields’s arguments concerning intervening changes in law and abused its discretion in denying him the opportunity to make other arguments in favor of a downward variance. View "United States v. Shields" on Justia Law

Norton, a 38-year-old Connecticut woman, communicated for several months with a 14-year-old Pennsylvania boy. Their communications became overtly sexual. Norton drove from Connecticut to Pennsylvania and met the minor in a park near his home. Soon after, the minor’s parents discovered Norton’s communications with the minor and notified law enforcement. Norton was convicted of attempted enticement of a minor, 18 U.S.C. 2422(b), and travel to engage in illicit sexual conduct with a minor, 18 U.S.C. 2423(b). She was sentenced to 168 months in prison, 20 years of supervised release, and special assessments of $200 (18 U.S.C. 3013) and $5,000 under the Justice for Victims of Trafficking Act, 18 U.S.C. 3014 (JVTA).The Third Circuit affirmed. The court rejected Norton’s argument that her due process rights were violated because the court sentenced her based on false contentions by the government that she lied when she testified that she had no intention of meeting the minor after lunch and that the evidence showed, contrary to her testimony, that Norton returned to the same park to meet the minor after lunch. The district court did not mention either of the two allegedly materially incorrect facts when responding to Norton’s objection to the two-point enhancement for obstruction of justice or in analyzing the 3553(a) factors. The court upheld a determination that Norton was not indigent for purposes of imposing the JVTA assessment. View "United States v. Norton" on Justia Law

In 2016, York County, Pennsylvania police officers conducted controlled cocaine buys from Brown, then obtained a search warrant for Brown’s apartment. Inside the apartment, they discovered Brown himself, cocaine, scales, money, and a loaded revolver tucked under the couch cushion where Brown had been sitting. Brown was indicted on multiple counts, including being a felon in possession of a firearm. 18 U.S.C. 922(g). Brown pleaded guilty to cocaine possession and distribution and the section 922(g) offense. At the time of sentencing, Brown had five prior Pennsylvania convictions for the distribution, or possession with intent to distribute, of controlled substances. One, from 2008, involved cocaine, and the remaining four, spanning from 2009-2014, involved marijuana.The district court applied the Armed Career Criminal Act (ACCA)'s 15-year mandatory minimum. The court declined to decide whether Brown was a “career offender” under U.S.S.G. 4B1.1 after making the ACCA determination. The Third Circuit affirmed Brown’s 15-year sentence, despite the intervening federal decriminalization of hemp. Absent contrary statutory language, the law in effect at the time of the commission of the federal offense applies when employing the categorical approach in the ACCA context. The state schedule matched the federal schedule in effect when Brown committed the federal offense triggering the ACCA enhancement. View "United States v. Brown" on Justia Law

Vurimindi, a native of India, came to the U.S. on a work visa in 2000, and after marrying an American citizen, became a lawful permanent resident in 2008. Vurimindi’s erratic behavior toward his neighbors eventually led to his arrest and conviction on two counts of misdemeanor stalking under Pennsylvania law, which makes it a crime to: engage[] in a course of conduct or repeatedly commit[] acts toward another person . . . under circumstances which demonstrate either an intent to place such other person in reasonable fear of bodily injury or to cause substantial emotional distress to such other person.” Vurimindi was sentenced to two consecutive terms of 15-30 months’ imprisonment.In removal proceedings under 8 U.S.C. 1227(a)(2)(E)(i), which makes any noncitizen convicted of a “crime of stalking” removable, the IJ applied the categorical approach, comparing the elements of the relevant state offense with the elements of the federal generic offense. The IJ concluded that Vurimindi was removable. The Third Circuit granted Vurimindi’s petitions for review. The BIA mistakenly found that Vurimindi failed to raise the issue before the IJ; the Pennsylvania stalking offense sweeps more broadly than the federal generic under the categorical approach and is not a removable offense. View "Vurimindi v. Attorney General United States" on Justia Law

Granthon was shot dead on a Harrisburg, Pennsylvania street corner. A day earlier, Granton had purchased an ounce of crack cocaine from Burton. Granthon “was short a couple grams” and sought a refund. The evidence linking Burton to Granthon’s death was “overwhelming.” Burton was convicted of first-degree murder. Williams was also charged with first-degree murder, conspiracy, and reckless endangerment of another but the evidence was weaker. No witness recognized Williams and no cell phone records placed him near the scene that night. Williams claimed he spent the night at a casino, but offered conflicting alibi stories and never used his casino rewards card that night. Williams’s trial lawyer’s “defense theory” was that Williams was “not placed at the scene.” He did not call Rochon, a witness at Burton’s trial whose testimony allegedly indicated that Granthon also shot a gun, nor did he make the case for self-defense or voluntary manslaughter.Williams was convicted and sentenced to life in prison. The Third Circuit affirmed the denial of his petition for habeas relief, rejecting claims of ineffective assistance of counsel. His trial attorney’s alleged negligence is not self-evident, as the attorney may have reasonably thought that self-defense arguments would detract from an alibi defense. To show his attorney was negligent, Williams would need to develop the record in district court but the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act forbids federal courts from supplementing the state court record under these circumstances. View "Williams v. Superintendent Mahanoy SCI" on Justia Law