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

Small, a Pennsylvania state prisoner, was sentenced by a federal court to 135 months for filing false tax returns, to be served consecutive to his state sentence. He was returned to the Correctional Institution at Huntingdon to serve the remainder of his state sentence. U.S. Marshals served the Commonwealth Department of Corrections with a detainer, which governed Small’s transfer to federal authorities upon completion of his state sentence. Huntingdon staff received documents in the mail, ostensibly from the Clerk of Court for the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania, vacating Small’s federal conviction and sentence. They were actually forgeries sent at Small’s direction. They appeared to have the signatures of the clerk and judge and the court’s seal. Huntingdon officials released Small upon completion of his state sentence. Learning of his release, federal agents arrested Small, who was charged with: forging the signature of a federal judge, forging a federal agency seal, mail fraud, conspiracy, and escape. Small unsuccessfully moved to dismiss the escape, arguing that he was never in federal custody, a requisite element of the crime. He was sentenced to 60 months to be served consecutively to his tax fraud sentence. The Third Circuit affirmed, finding that Small committed “escape” under 18 U.S.C. 751. View "United States v. Small" on Justia Law

Between 2007 and 2012, Fountain, an IRS employee, helped orchestrate several schemes that involved filing false tax returns, claiming refunds under the Telephone ExciseTax Refund,the First Time Homebuyer Credit, or the American Opportunity Tax Credit. Fountain employed her knowledge of IRS fraud detection to avoid detection. Fountain and Ishmael enlisted people, including Johnson, to recruit claimants to provide their personal information in exchange for part of a cash refund. A jury convicted Fountain, Ishmael, and Johnson on multiple counts of conspiracy and filing false claims to the IRS, 18 U.S.C. 286, 287. Fountain was also convicted of Hobbs Act extortion and making or presenting false tax returns, 18 U.S.C. 1951(a); 26 U.S.C. 7206. Additionally, Johnson was convicted of filing false claims while on pretrial release. The court sentenced Fountain to 228 months in prison and ordered her to pay $1,740,221 in restitution; sentenced Ishmael to 144 months and $1,750,809 in restitution; and sentenced Johnson to 216 months in prison and to pay $1,248,592 in restitution. Each sentence fell within the Guidelines range after various enhancements were applied. The Third Circuit affirmed. View "United States v. Fountain" on Justia Law

Edwards was convicted of attempted possession with intent to distribute cocaine in violation of 21 U.S.C. 841(a)(1) and 21 U.S.C. 846, but was acquitted of an accompanying conspiracy charge under section 846. The Third Circuit vacated, finding that the government violated Edwards’s Fifth Amendment rights by repeatedly referring to Edwards’s post-arrest, post-Miranda silence in its case-in-chief and during closing arguments. The error was not harmless. View "United States v. Edwards" on Justia Law

Philadelphia officers received an anonymous call reporting “a black male wearing a gray hoodie with a gun in his waistband talking to a female. . . 914 North Markoe Street outside,” in a “high crime area.” The officers had earlier received a call regarding an alleged gunshot “around the corner” from that address. The officers parked their police cars 50-60 feet from the house and moved towards Lowe. Lowe was speaking with Witherspoon in front of her house. Lowe was wearing a gray hoodie; his hands were in the pockets. The officers did not see a gun or any indication that Lowe had a gun, nor did they observe any disturbance. The parties dispute the events that led to the officers frisking Lowe and finding a gun. Lowe entered a conditional guilty plea to possessing a firearm as a convicted felon, 18 U.S.C. 922(g)(1), and appealed denial of his suppression motion. On remand, neither party supplemented the record. The district court entered findings of fact and conclusions of law and again denied Lowe’s motion. The Third Circuit reversed, finding that police did not have reasonable suspicion to conduct a Terry stop when they seized Lowe and that the court erred in identifying the moment of seizure. View "United States v. Lowe" on Justia Law

The Criminal Justice Act, 18 U.S.C. 3006A, requires each federal district court to establish a plan to furnish representation to indigent persons charged with federal crimes. In seven different Post-Conviction Review Act cases in various Pennsylvania counties, hearings were initiated to disqualify the Federal Community Defender (FCD) as counsel, based on that organization’s alleged misuse of federal grant funds to appear in state proceedings. FCD acknowledges that it sometimes appears in PCRA proceedings without a federal court order directing it to do so, but claims that it uses federal grant funds only for preparatory work that will be relevant to a federal habeas petition and only if it has received a federal court order appointing it as counsel for federal habeas proceedings or is working to obtain such an appointment. FCD removed the motions under the federal officer removal statute, 28 U.S.C. 1442(a)(1), (d)(1). The Commonwealth moved, under 28 U.S.C. 1447(c), to return each to state court, claiming lack of subject matter jurisdiction. FCD argued that the Commonwealth lacked a federal private right of action and that federal law preempted the motions. The district courts split. The Third Circuit held that FCD properly invoked removal jurisdiction and that the Commonwealth’s attempts to disqualify it as counsel proceedings are preempted. View "In Re: Commonwealth's Motion" on Justia Law

Kolodesh owned a home-health services company. He approached his employee, Pugman, about starting a home-based hospice care company. Pugman's agreed. Kolodesh funded the new company, Home Care Hospice. Pugman managed the operations. Kolodesh’s wife and Pugman were listed as owning equal shares; Kolodesh was intimately involved in forming and overseeing its management. In 2000 or 2001, Kolodesh, Pugman, and Pugman's wife began giving gifts and cash “kickbacks” to doctors in exchange for patient referrals. At Kolodesh’s suggestion, Pugman placed doctors or their employees on the Hospice payroll with sham job titles and issued paychecks in exchange for patient referrals. About 90% of the revenue generated by Hospice came from Medicare reimbursements. Kolodesh and Pugman had contractors submit fake invoices Hospice would pay; the contractor would give most of the money to Kolodesh and Pugman, keeping a portion. The participants were charged with conspiracy to defraud a health care benefit program, 18 U.S.C. 1349, 21 counts of health-care fraud, 18 U.S.C. 1347, two counts of mail fraud, 18 U.S.C. 1341, and 11 counts of money laundering, 18 U.S.C. 1957. Pugman testified for the government after having pled guilty. The Third Circuit affirmed Kolodesh's sentence of 176 months’ imprisonment and a restitution order of $16.2 million. View "United States v. Kolodesh" on Justia Law

Merlino, reputed former head of the Philadelphia mob, began a three-year term of supervised release in September 2011. In June 2014, law enforcement observed Merlino at a Boca Raton cigar bar with convicted felons, including Ciancaglini, Merlino’s co-defendant. The probation office presented a revocation petition. The court ordered issuance of a summons; a clerk called defense counsel in an effort to secure a mutually agreeable hearing date. Defense counsel, citing work obligations and an upcoming medical procedure, stated that he was unavailable until December. The government indicated that it was “reluctant” to accommodate substantial delay. Defense counsel then informed the clerk that he was available in October. On September 16, the clerk issued notice summoning Merlino for a revocation hearing on October 10. On October 6, defense counsel notified the court that he believed it lacked jurisdiction because no warrant or summons had issued before the expiration of Merlino’s term on September 6. The court concluded that the deadline had been equitably tolled and found that Merlino had violated the terms of his release. The Third Circuit vacated, holding that 18 U.S.C. 3583(i) is jurisdictional, requiring that a warrant or summons issue before the expiration of supervised release in order for a district court to conduct revocation proceedings. View "United States v. Merlino" on Justia Law

Alvarez, a two-year-old citizen of Mexico, entered the U.S. without admission or parole. In 1989 he became a lawful permanent resident. Alvarez served in the U.S. Army, 1991-2004. Alvarez has only departed the United States as a member of the Army. In 2000 Alvarez had sexual contact with a female platoon member who was so intoxicated that she was unable to consent. He provided a signed denial to the Army Criminal Investigation Division. He eventually pleaded guilty to violations of the Uniform Code of Military Justice: 10 U.S.C. 907, for making false official statements; 10 U.S.C. 925, sodomy; and, 10 U.S.C. 934, for two specifications of violating the general article. The judge sentenced Alvarez to a bad conduct discharge, to be reduced to the grade of E-1, and to be confined for 18 months. The sentence did not allocate the confinement to the convictions. In 2012, DHS agents arrested Alvarez. An IJ found him removable under 8 U.S.C. 1227(a)(2)(A)(iii) and 1101(a)(43)(F), as an alien who has been convicted of an aggravated felony. The BIA affirmed. The Third Circuit remanded. The BIA committed legal error in concluding that Alvarez’s sodomy conviction was a crime “for which the term of imprisonment [was] at least one year,” 8 U.S.C. 1101(a)(43)(F). View "Chavez-Alvarez v. Att'y Gen., United States" on Justia Law

Siluk is an indigent state prisoner who was allowed to file in forma pauperis (IFP). He currently owes a filing fee of $350 to the Clerk of the District Court and $505 to the Clerk of the Third Circuit. Siluk argued that the Prison Litigation Reform Act (PLRA), 28 U.S.C. 1915(b)(2), only requires a 20% deduction from his prison account each month until both fees are paid, and that the deductions should be made in the order in which they were incurred. The government argued that section 1915(b) requires that a monthly 20-percent deduction must be made concurrently for fees owed in both courts until the fees are paid, which would result in a 40-percent deduction from Siluk’s account. After noting a conflict among the circuits, the Third Circuit adopted the sequential recoupment rule: section 1915 permits the recoupment of only 20% of a prisoner’s monthly income for filing fees, regardless of how many civil actions or appeals the prisoner elects to pursue. View "Siluk v. Merwin" on Justia Law

Alvarez, a citizen of Mexico, entered the U.S. at a young age without inspection and later adjusted to lawful permanent resident status. He married a U.S. citizen, but is now divorced; he has sons who are citizens. In 2000, while serving in the U.S. Army, he was convicted by a General Court-Martial of giving false official statements (10 U.S.C. 907), sodomy (10 U.S.C. 925), and violating the general article (10 U.S.C. 934). He served 13 months and was released in 2002. ICE agents arrested him in 2012, charging him as removable under 8 U.S.C. 1227(a)(2)(A)(iii) for his conviction on an aggravated felony. He was ordered detained without bond under 8 U.S.C. 1226(c). The district court denied his petition for habeas corpus. The Third Circuit reversed with instructions that Alvarez must be afforded a prompt bond hearing. Beginning sometime after the six-month time-frame considered by the Supreme Court in Demore, the burdens to Alvarez’s liberties outweighed any justification for using presumptions to detain him without bond to further the goals of the statute. The statute’s goals would not have been, and will not be undermined by requiring the government to produce individualized evidence that Alvarez’s continued detention was or is necessary. View "Chavez-Alvarez v. Warden York County Prison" on Justia Law