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

Santarelli was convicted of multiple crimes, including mail fraud, wire fraud, and conspiracy to commit mail fraud and wire fraud, and was sentenced to 70 months of imprisonment. The Third Circuit affirmed. Santarelli’s conviction became final on December 12, 2014. On November 30, 2015, Santarelli timely sought habeas relief, 28 U.S.C. 2255, alleging ineffective assistance of trial and appellate counsel in a combined 130 ways, In August 2016, Santarelli sought to amend her initial habeas petition to “include” in the “multiple grounds and constitutional violations . . . that specifically relate to enhancements, sentencing[,] and [S]entencing [G]uidelines.” The district court denied the motion as “time-barred” because the new allegations did not “relate back” to the initial habeas petition pursuant to FRCP 15(c). The court also denied Santarelli’s habeas petition on the merits. The Third Circuit denied a certificate of appealability with respect to the denial of Santarelli’s initial habeas petition on the merits but held that the allegations contained in Santarelli’s Motion to Amend “relate back” to the date of her initial habeas petition under Rule 15(c) and that her Subsequent Petition is not a “second or successive” habeas petition under 28 U.S.C. 2244 and 2255(h). The court remanded for the district court to consider the merits of her initial habeas petition as amended. View "United States v. Santarelli" on Justia Law

Nunez was indicted for passport fraud, making a false representation of U.S. citizenship, using a false social security number, and producing a state driver’s license not issued for her use. Nunez was detained under the Bail Reform Act (BRA), 18 U.S.C. 3142(d), which permits the 10-day pretrial detention of non-citizens who may pose a flight risk or danger so ICE may take them into custody. ICE lodged a detainer. Twelve days later, a different magistrate arraigned Nunez, denied the government’s motion for pretrial detention, and set conditions for her release. The district court upheld the order. ICE then executed its detainer, taking Nunez into custody for her removal proceedings. While in ICE custody, Nunez unsuccessfully moved to dismiss her indictment or obtain release, arguing that section 3142(d) gives the government “the choice of [either] taking the Defendant into [ICE] custody during the ten-day period and proceeding with removal or continuing with the criminal prosecution in which case the BRA controls.” The court held that 8 U.S.C. 1226(a)(1) allowed ICE to detain Nunez during the pendency of removal proceedings notwithstanding the criminal action; her detention did not conflict with the BRA. The Third Circuit dismissed an appeal of the ruling denying the request to dismiss the indictment, which was not a final ruling. The court affirmed the denial of Nunez’s claim that her BRA release order foreclosed her ICE detention. View "United States v. Nunez" on Justia Law

The FBI recruited Fairview Township Police Officer Baker’s fellow officer, Bennage, to assist in an investigation into allegations that Baker was involved in stealing drug proceeds. Baker learned that Bennage had found cash on a drug-overdose victim; Baker texted, “Where’s mine? LOL.” Bennage responded that others had been watching. Baker responded, “next time. LOL.” Days later, after Bennage and other officers discovered multiple stacks of cash during a search, Baker sent Bennage a text saying that he would help with the evidence and “don’t get greedy, be smart.” Baker told Bennage to put his share in a toolbox in Baker’s truck. Less than a month later, the FBI and Bennage executed an undercover operation in which Bennage and Baker stopped an FBI agent traveling with $15,000, posing as a drug trafficker. Bennage took the ‘trafficker’ in for booking, leaving Baker alone with the vehicle. Baker searched the car. He discovered the $15,000. FBI cameras recorded the process. Baker took $3,000. He later confessed to the thefts and was convicted of stealing or embezzling public money, 18 U.S.C. 641. The Third Circuit affirmed, upholding the trial court’s refusal to give an entrapment jury instruction and a jury instruction requiring the government to prove that he had an intent to permanently, rather than temporarily, deprive the government of its money, and its refusal to allow Mrs. Baker to testify about the financial burden of her cancer-related medical bills. View "United States v. Baker" on Justia Law

James arranged to sell cocaine to a DEA confidential informant, took a bag containing 12 kilograms of cocaine to a hotel room where the informant was staying, and negotiated a price of $13,500. DEA agents immediately arrived and arrested James. James, who apparently had no criminal history, was charged with conspiracy to distribute narcotics, 21 U.S.C. 846, and possession with intent to distribute narcotics, section 841(a)(1). After being thoroughly questioned by the judge, James agreed to the government’s statement of facts and entered a plea of guilty to Count 1, which the court accepted. Months later, before sentencing, James filed a pro se “motion to dismiss counsel based upon ineffectiveness of counsel,” asserting his innocence, and claiming duress and that he did not understand the plea agreement. Newly-appointed counsel moved to withdraw the plea and argued entrapment. The court denied the motion, reasoning that “an entrapment defense is a claim of legal innocence, not factual innocence,” and James had failed to assert factual innocence. The Third Circuit affirmed. Even if James’s assertion of legal innocence (entrapment) were sufficient, bald assertions of innocence are insufficient to permit a defendant to withdraw his guilty plea. The court noted his earlier admissions, including that he negotiated the price on a per-kilo basis; James’s statements during the plea hearing indicate that his plea was knowing, voluntary, and fully informed. View "United States v. James" on Justia Law

Greene and his girlfriend, Manley, traveling in a van without its lights on, were stopped by Hanover Township Officer Stefanowicz. Manley was driving, but was unable to produce a driver’s license, vehicle registration, or proof of insurance. She gave Stefanowicz a rental car agreement in the name of Hurtudo-Moreno that listed no other authorized drivers. Stefanowicz smelled unburnt marijuana emanating from the vehicle. Greene was “repeatedly seeking to leave... and reaching for his waistband.” Stefanowicz executed a “Terry” pat-down, and felt a bulge, the seal of a plastic baggie, and the texture of its contents. Stefanowicz immediately recognized the bag as marijuana and placed Greene under arrest. Stefanowicz searched the van and found bullets in the glove box and in Manley’s purse. Walking to the squad car, Greene was bending over and walking in unusual ways. Another officer searched Greene further and located a loaded, stolen handgun in his groin area. The police arrested Manley. Greene expressed concern for Manley and volunteered that he would “take the hit” for the gun.The Seventh Circuit affirmed the denial of his suppression motions and his conviction (18 U.S.C. 922(g)(1)). Stefanowicz’s response to Greene's question about the charges Manley faced did not constitute the functional equivalent of interrogation. Greene asked for the information; his response was unforeseeable. Stefanowicz’s answer was brief, accurate, and unrelated to the gun and bullets. Greene was not “emotionally upset or overwrought.” The “plain-feel doctrine” permits an officer to seize an object when, given his training and experience, he develops probable cause to believe it is contraband by the time he concludes it is not a weapon and “in a manner consistent with a routine frisk.” View "United States v. Greene" on Justia Law

In 2014, A.M. defrauded two banks and their customers, using skimming devices and PIN-pad overlays on ATMs. He was charged with 19 counts of bank fraud and aggravated identity theft, 18 U.S.C. 1028A and 1344. He pleaded guilty to only one count of each. A.M. objected to his guideline calculation for the bank-fraud conviction because it included a two-level enhancement for using “device-making equipment” to make counterfeit debit cards, U.S.S.G. 2B1.1(b)(11)(A)(i). He argued that his conviction for aggravated identity theft precluded that enhancement. The court disagreed but, because of A.M.’s cooperation, sentenced him to only 10 months’ imprisonment on that count. A.M. objected that the government had not also moved for a departure below the mandatory minimum sentence for his aggravated-identity-theft sentence. The court found that identity theft is an especially severe crime and sentenced A.M. to the mandatory minimum sentence of two years’ consecutive imprisonment. The Third Circuit affirmed. While device-making equipment can copy means of identification, it is not itself a means of identification, so the device-making enhancement was proper. The law empowers courts to depart below a statutory minimum only “[u]pon motion of the Government,” 18 U.S.C. 3553(e). The government made no such motion with respect to aggravated identity theft. View "United States v. Meireles-Candel" on Justia Law

Trant and Ashby had a heated encounter at a gas station in Bovoni, St. Thomas, that ended with each displaying his pistol. After law enforcement officers looked into these events, Trant was convicted as a convicted felon in possession of a firearm, 18 U.S.C. 922(g)(1). The Third Circuit affirmed. The district court did not abuse its discretion by granting the government’s motion to re-open its case-in-chief because Trant was not prejudiced. The motion was made before Trant had the opportunity to present his evidence, thereby giving him the opportunity to respond and also limiting any disruption to the proceedings. The court rejected Trant’s argument that the court should have permitted him to question Ashby about his possession of a firearm, suggesting it was probative of Ashby’s character for untruthfulness and necessary for the jury to evaluate Ashby’s credibility. The implausible nature of Ashby’s having an ulterior motive for testifying hardly made it “obvious” that Trant had the right to ask Ashby about the latter’s illegal possession of a firearm. Trant’s conviction was supported by sufficient evidence. View "United States v. Trant" on Justia Law

Inmate Bailey-Snyder was moved to administrative segregation after federal corrections officers found a homemade shank on his person. He remained in the Special Handling Unit (SHU) pending investigation. Ten months later, Bailey-Snyder was indicted for possession of a prohibited object in prison. He filed several motions for extensions before moving to dismiss, citing his placement in isolation as the start of the speedy trial clock. The district court denied the motion. At trial, defense counsel cross-examined the officers who found the shank regarding incentive programs for recovering contraband. The government elicited that the programs do not reward individual contraband recoveries. Neither officer discussed the potential consequences of planting a shank. The defense rested without offering testimony or evidence. During summation, the prosecutor stated: “The defendant is guilty of his crime." The court concluded that the prosecutor expressed personal belief in the defendant’s guilt; the prosecutor had to make a corrected statement to the jury. In closing, the government argued: “[i]t’s conjecture to say that these correctional officers would put their jobs, their careers, their livelihoods on the line to possibly plant a shank on this defendant to maybe, maybe, have a little notch to get a promotion.” The defense unsuccessfully objected, claiming the government was “arguing a fact not in evidence.” Bailey-Snyder was sentenced to 30 months’ imprisonment, consecutive to his underlying sentence. The Third Circuit affirmed. An inmate’s placement in isolation, while under investigation for a new crime, does not trigger his right to a speedy trial under the Sixth Amendment or the Speedy Trial Act. There was no improper vouching or cumulative error in Bailey-Snyder’s trial. View "United States v. Bailey-Snyder" on Justia Law

Over seven years, Dr. Greenspan referred more than 100,000 blood tests to Biodiagnostic Laboratory, which made more than $3 million off these tests. In exchange, the Lab gave Greenspan and his associates more than $200,000 in cash, gifts, and other benefits. A jury convicted Greenspan of accepting kickbacks, 42 U.S.C. 1320a-7(b)(1)(A); using interstate facilities with the intent to commit commercial bribery, 18 U.S.C. 1952(a)(1), (3); honest-services wire fraud, 18 U.S.C. 1343, 1346; and conspiracy to do all of those things. The Third Circuit affirmed, characterizing the evidence of his guilt as overwhelming. The district court erred in instructing the jury that Greenspan had to “demonstrate” the prerequisites for an advice-of-counsel defense; in excluding as hearsay some of his testimony about that legal advice; in asking only Greenspan’s counsel, not Greenspan personally, whether he wished to speak at sentencing; and in limiting the scope of the defense to five particular agreements rather than all eight, but all of those errors were harmless. The court properly excluded evidence that the blood tests were medically necessary. That evidence was only marginally relevant and risked misleading the jury. View "United States v. Greenspan" on Justia Law

Pierce was arrested after about 10 grams of marijuana and 40 grams of heroin were discovered in the rental car he was driving. Pierce offered to cooperate and subsequently made controlled transactions under surveillance. On June 25, Pierce paid Rowe $3900 and received 198.86 grams of heroin; on June 27, Pierce paid him $7000 in pre-recorded bills for heroin Pierce had previously received. Rowe was arrested. Officers recovered a notebook, several cell phones, and cash that matched the pre-recorded bills. Charged with distribution and possession with intent to distribute 1000 grams of heroin, 21 U.S.C. 841(a)(1) and (b)(1)(A), Rowe conceded that he distributed approximately 200 grams. The jury returned a general verdict finding Rowe guilty of the offense in the amounts of both 1000 grams or more and 100 grams or more. The Third Circuit vacated and remanded for entry of judgment based on 100 grams. The evidence was insufficient to support the 1000-gram verdict. The government did not present evidence of a single distribution involving 1000 grams or more of heroin. The prosecutor mistakenly believed that distribution of 1000 grams could be proven by combining several distributions. The district court confirmed that the government was mistaken, but erroneously found that because Rowe was also charged with possession with intent to distribute, a continuing offense, the verdict could stand. View "United States v. Rowe" on Justia Law