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

A Pennsylvania prisoner sentenced to death sought to reopen his federal habeas corpus proceedings to present expert evidence obtained in 1999, which he argued would support his claim that he was incompetent at the time of his guilty plea and sentencing. This evidence was not presented during his initial state postconviction proceedings due to his counsel’s alleged ineffectiveness. The prisoner contended that a subsequent Supreme Court decision, Martinez v. Ryan, should allow him to introduce this evidence in federal court, despite statutory restrictions.The United States District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania denied the prisoner’s motion under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b)(6), finding it untimely and concluding that Martinez did not apply because the ineffective assistance of trial counsel claim had already been adjudicated on the merits and was not procedurally defaulted. The District Court also determined that no extraordinary circumstances justified reopening the habeas proceedings and declined to issue a certificate of appealability. The United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit granted a certificate of appealability and reviewed the case.The United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit held that, while the prisoner could use Rule 60(b)(6) to challenge the District Court’s failure to hold an evidentiary hearing, his motion was timely. However, the court concluded that Martinez does not permit reopening the case to introduce new evidence where the underlying claim was already decided on the merits. Furthermore, even if Martinez applied, the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act (AEDPA) bars the introduction of new evidence unless strict statutory requirements are met, which the prisoner could not satisfy. The Third Circuit affirmed the District Court’s order in part, vacated in part, and remanded with instructions to dismiss the portion of the motion constituting a successive habeas petition. View "Taylor v. Commissioner of Pennsylvania" on Justia Law

The appellant was charged, along with two others, with robbing a restaurant in Pennsylvania, in violation of federal statutes prohibiting Hobbs Act robbery and the use of firearms during a crime of violence. He pleaded guilty to both charges. At sentencing, the United States Probation Department recommended that he be classified as a career offender under the United States Sentencing Guidelines, based on two prior Pennsylvania state court robbery convictions—one in Dauphin County and one in Cumberland County. The appellant, through counsel, objected to the career offender designation, arguing that the two prior convictions should be treated as a single predicate. The United States District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania overruled this objection, designated him a career offender, and sentenced him to 210 months in prison.On direct appeal to the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit, appellate counsel filed an Anders brief, asserting no nonfrivolous grounds for appeal. The Third Circuit affirmed the sentence and granted counsel’s motion to withdraw. The court also dismissed the appellant’s claim for relief under Johnson v. United States, finding no indication that the residual clause of the Guidelines was used in his designation. The court declined to rule on the ineffective assistance of counsel claim, noting it could be raised in a collateral proceeding. The appellant then filed a motion under 28 U.S.C. § 2255, arguing that his trial counsel was ineffective for failing to challenge whether his prior convictions qualified as crimes of violence. The District Court denied the motion without an evidentiary hearing, finding the records showed both prior convictions were for robbery under Pennsylvania law and qualified as crimes of violence.The United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit reviewed the denial of the § 2255 motion. The court held that the District Court did not err in finding that both prior convictions were for robbery under 18 Pa. Cons. Stat. § 3701(a)(1)(ii), which qualifies as a crime of violence under the Guidelines. The court also held that trial counsel was not ineffective for failing to challenge the career offender designation on the grounds raised. The Third Circuit affirmed the District Court’s judgment. View "USA v. Dobbin" on Justia Law

Juan Montas, a citizen of the Dominican Republic, entered the United States as a toddler in 1996. In 2017, he was convicted in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey for conspiracy to distribute heroin and was subsequently deported in 2020. Montas reentered the U.S. illegally before April 2023 and was arrested by New Jersey State Police for possession of a false driver’s license, drug offenses, and money laundering. He pled guilty in 2023 to illegally reentering the United States.The U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey sentenced Montas in 2024. During the sentencing, the court relied on the Presentence Investigation Report (PSR) and the hearing transcript from Montas’s 2017 sentencing without prior notice to Montas or his counsel. Montas’s counsel did not object to this reliance during the sentencing. The court imposed a 34-month imprisonment sentence, noting Montas’s previous statements and actions from the 2017 sentencing.Montas appealed to the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit, arguing that the District Court violated Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 32 by relying on information from the 2017 sentencing without prior notice. The Third Circuit reviewed the issue for plain error since Montas did not raise the objection in the lower court. The Third Circuit found that the District Court erred and that the error was clear. However, Montas failed to demonstrate that the error affected his substantial rights, as he could not show that the sentence would have been different with proper notice. Consequently, the Third Circuit affirmed the sentence. View "USA v. Montas" on Justia Law

Julio Suarez participated in a scheme to file false federal income tax returns from March 2009 to September 2016. His role involved negotiating the sale of refund checks to check-cashing businesses and providing these checks to his co-conspirators. In April 2018, Suarez was charged with conspiracy to defraud the government, theft of government money, and aggravated identity theft. He pleaded guilty to conspiracy to defraud the government and aggravated identity theft in August 2019.The United States District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania sentenced Suarez to seventy months in prison, which was at the top of his Guidelines range. During his sentence, the Sentencing Guidelines were amended, resulting in a lower Guidelines range for offenders with zero criminal history points. Suarez filed a motion for a sentence reduction under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2), which the District Court denied, despite acknowledging his eligibility for a reduction.The United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit reviewed the case. Suarez argued that the District Court abused its discretion by improperly applying the Section 3553(a) factors and failing to justify an upward variance from the amended Sentencing Guidelines. The Third Circuit found that the District Court had adequately considered the Section 3553(a) factors, including the nature and circumstances of Suarez’s offenses, the need for the sentence to reflect the seriousness of the offense, and the need to protect the public. The Court also noted that the District Court had acknowledged Suarez’s rehabilitative efforts but determined they did not warrant a sentence reduction.The Third Circuit held that the District Court did not abuse its discretion in denying Suarez’s motion for a sentence reduction and affirmed the judgment of the District Court. View "United States v. Suarez" on Justia Law

Safehouse, a Pennsylvania nonprofit corporation, was established in 2018 to address opioid abuse in Philadelphia by providing overdose prevention services, including supervised illegal drug use. Safehouse argues that its activities are motivated by a religious belief in the value of human life and that government intervention substantially burdens its religious exercise.The United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania initially determined that Safehouse’s proposed activities did not violate 21 U.S.C. § 856(a)(2). However, the Third Circuit Court of Appeals reversed this decision, holding that Safehouse’s activities would indeed violate the statute. On remand, the District Court dismissed Safehouse’s Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA) and Free Exercise counterclaims, reasoning that non-religious entities are not protected by these provisions. Safehouse appealed this dismissal.The United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit reviewed the case and held that the District Court erred in its interpretation. The Third Circuit determined that RFRA and the Free Exercise Clause extend protections to non-natural persons, including non-religious entities like Safehouse. The court emphasized that RFRA’s plain text and Free Exercise doctrine protect any “person” exercising religion, which includes corporations and associations. The court reversed the District Court’s dismissal of Safehouse’s RFRA and Free Exercise counterclaims and remanded the case for further consideration of whether Safehouse has plausibly pleaded these claims. The appeal by José Benitez, President of Safehouse, was dismissed due to lack of appellate standing. View "United States v. Safehouse" on Justia Law

Adam Urda attended a gathering where he attempted to start a bonfire with motor oil and racecar fuel, resulting in an explosion that injured him, another adult, and a four-year-old girl. The girl was severely injured and required extensive medical treatment. Trooper Jeffrey Sokso investigated the incident, interviewed witnesses, and filed a criminal complaint against Urda for aggravated assault, risking a catastrophe, and recklessly endangering another person. The charges were approved by an assistant district attorney. However, a magistrate judge dismissed the first two charges, and the Court of Common Pleas dismissed the third charge, finding no probable cause.Urda then sued Sokso in federal court for unlawful seizure, false arrest, malicious prosecution, abuse of process, and intentional infliction of emotional distress under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The United States District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania granted summary judgment for Sokso on the abuse of process and intentional infliction of emotional distress claims but denied it on the remaining claims, rejecting Sokso's qualified immunity defense.The United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit reviewed the case and held that qualified immunity protects Sokso. The court found that Urda did not provide any precedent showing that Sokso's actions violated clearly established law. The court emphasized that qualified immunity shields officers unless it is clear to a reasonable officer that their conduct was unlawful. The court concluded that Sokso's actions did not rise to the level of an obvious constitutional violation and that the District Court had defined the right too abstractly. Consequently, the Third Circuit reversed the District Court's denial of summary judgment on the remaining claims, granting Sokso qualified immunity. View "Urda v. Sokso" on Justia Law

Lynell Guyton was convicted by a jury of nine drug-trafficking, firearm, and money-laundering offenses. His criminal activities included ordering large quantities of fentanyl analogues from China, using Skype to communicate with suppliers, and making payments through MoneyGram. Law enforcement intercepted a package containing fentanyl analogues addressed to a pseudonym used by Guyton, leading to his arrest. Subsequent investigations revealed Guyton's continued involvement in drug trafficking and possession of firearms.The United States District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania denied Guyton's motion for judgment of acquittal and sentenced him to 360 months' imprisonment on the primary drug charges, with concurrent sentences on the remaining counts. The court also applied recidivist enhancements based on Guyton's prior state conviction. Guyton appealed, raising several arguments, including instructional errors, constructive amendment of the indictment, and improper application of recidivist enhancements.The United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit reviewed the case. The court found that the District Court erred in denying Guyton's motion for judgment of acquittal on one of the firearm possession charges (Count 3) due to insufficient evidence of constructive possession. The court vacated this conviction and remanded for a judgment of acquittal on that count. However, the court affirmed the remaining convictions and sentences, finding no reversible error in the jury instructions, the alleged constructive amendment, or the application of recidivist enhancements. The court concluded that the instructional errors did not affect Guyton's substantial rights and that the evidence overwhelmingly supported the remaining convictions. View "United States v. Guyton" on Justia Law

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