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

DEA agents searched a storage facility that Davenport controlled and found drug paraphernalia, cash, 160 grams of cocaine, and vehicles, including one that contained a loaded pistol. Agents later executed a warrant on Davenport’s residence. Davenport pleaded guilty to conspiracy to distribute and possess with intent to distribute cocaine and cocaine base. The plea agreement addressed sentencing recommendations, listed how the Guidelines should apply to Davenport’s conduct, and stated that “none of these recommendations is binding” on the court. During negotiations, the clause “the defendant possessed a firearm” was stricken. Davenport argued that the stricken provision precluded the government from pursuing a gun enhancement; the government claimed that it meant that Davenport no longer stipulated to that fact. At a hearing, Davenport affirmed that he read and understood the agreement and admitted the facts presented. The Probation Office’s calculations included a two-level enhancement for possessing a firearm in connection with the offense and another for obstructing justice, producing a Guidelines range of 235 to 240 months’ imprisonment. The court rejected Davenport’s objections, but varied downward and sentenced him to 199 months. The Third Circuit affirmed and subsequently affirmed denial of his motion to vacate, set aside, or correct his sentence under 28 U.S.C. 2255, rejecting claims that counsel was ineffective in failing to argue that the government breached Davenport’s plea agreement.by advocating for the gun enhancement. View "United States v. Davenport" on Justia Law

Babaria, a licensed radiologist and medical director and manager of Orange Community MRI, an authorized Medicare and Medicaid provider, pleaded guilty to one count of making illegal payments (kickbacks), 42 U.S.C. 1320a-7b(b)(2)(A). From 2008 through 2011, he paid physicians to refer patients to Orange for diagnostic testing and billed Medicare and Medicaid for testing that was tainted by the corrupt referrals. Orange received $2,014,600.85 in payments that were directly traceable to the kickback scheme. There was no evidence that Babaria falsified patient records, billed Medicare or Medicaid for testing that was not medically necessary, or otherwise compromised patient care. Babaria objected to the PreSentence Investigation Report, which recommended a two-level adjustment for abuse of a position of trust (USSG 3B1.3) and a four-level adjustment for aggravating role (USSG 3B1.1(a)), resulting in a recommended Guidelines range of 70-87 months’ imprisonment. Ultimately, the Guidelines range was 60 months, capped by the statutory maximum for Babaria’s count of conviction. He argued that the correct range was 37 to 46 months. The court applied both adjustments but granted a downward variance and sentenced Babaria to 46 months’ imprisonment, a fine of $25,000, and forfeiture of the $2,014,600.85. The Third Circuit affirmed the sentence. View "United States v. Babaria" on Justia Law

To rob a Philadelphia jewelry store, Burnett obtained a gun and Hankerson borrowed a car from Adams. A store video security system captured Burnett’s face during the robbery. They fled with Hankerson driving, but got lost and drove down a dead-end street. Instead of turning around, they parked the car, placed the loot in its trunk, and left on foot. After visiting the crime scene, police received a call reporting a “suspicious black Honda” on a residential street not far from the robbery. Witnesses described the men leaving the car. Police suspected it was involved in the robbery, tried to contact Adams, had the Honda towed, and executed a warrant. They recovered the jewelry, stolen security videotape, wigs, the bloodstained gun, a wallet containing Hankerson’s identification, latex gloves, and zip ties like those used to bind the robbery victims. One glove contained the DNA of Burnett and the store owner and another contained the DNA of Hankerson and the store owner. Hankerson pleaded guilty and cooperated. Burnett challenged the vehicle search as “fundamentally unfair.” The district court held that Burnett lacked standing, as he merely was a passenger and lacked a privacy interest in the vehicle. The Third Circuit affirmed. View "United States v. Burnett" on Justia Law

Working for “Cali Connect,” Thompson transported cocaine from California to Pittsburgh. Cooperating witnesses named Thompson. In wiretapped phone conversations, Thompson made drug-related comments. Texas troopers on I-40 near Amarillo, a “known corridor for narcotics,” stopped his truck, traveling eastbound at 84 mph in a 70 mph zone, and ran Thompson’s criminal history, which showed dated narcotics offenses, and a firearm offense. Thompson declined to consent to a search, but accepted responsibility for anything discovered in the truck. A K-9 unit dog alerted. The officers opened the truck-bed and smelled marijuana. Beneath a tarp lay five tubs containing marijuana. After speaking with DEA investigators, troopers searched the tailgate and found six kilograms of cocaine. Thompson was charged locally for the marijuana and was not informed about the discovery of cocaine. Weeks later, DEA officers executed search warrants on residences associated with Cali Connect, including Thompson’s. Investigators recovered two kilograms of cocaine. At DEA offices, six hours later, Thompson offered information about his sources and co-conspirators. He received a written waiver of his right to prompt presentment 12 hours after his arrest. Thompson continued to cooperate the next day and was presented 48 hours after his arrest. After denial of motions to suppress, Thompson pled guilty to conspiracy to distribute five kilograms or more of cocaine and conspiracy to launder monetary instruments. The Third Circuit affirmed denial of the motion to suppress the fruits of a search, finding reasonable suspicion, but vacated as to statements made while in custody, prior to being presented to a magistrate judge. View "United States v. Thompson" on Justia Law

Equinox, a wilderness-guide, displayed website photographs, including one of Franz with a wooly mammoth tusk. The Bureau of Land Management sent an undercover agent on an Equinox expedition. Franz participated and volunteered that he had gone on 14 Arctic expeditions and had tusks in his Pennsylvania house. He offered to create souvenir CDs for others. BLM obtained a search warrant for Franz’s house, describing, on attachments, the tusks, other illegal artifacts, photographs, emails, and related information on computers or electronic storage devices. The warrant, affidavit, and accompanying papers were sealed to protect cooperating witnesses and the secrecy of ongoing investigations. Agents executed the warrant and provided Franz with a copy of its face sheet. Franz did not receive copies of attachments, although he requested them. The agent mistakenly believed that, because the warrant was sealed, he could not reveal the attachments. He explained the circumstances giving rise to the warrant and described items authorized to be seized. During the search, agents saw framed photographs of young, nude girls and pamphlets containing images of nude minors engaged in sexually explicit conduct. Agents collected the items in plain view, examined a computer, saw indications of child pornography, and seized the computer. The FBI obtained a warrant to search the electronic storage devices. Franz pled guilty to theft of government property and conspiracy to defraud the U.S. The district court denied a motion to suppress in the prosecution for receipt of child pornography, 18 U.S.C. 2252(a)(2). Franz was convicted. The Third Circuit affirmed. The agent had no intention to wrongfully conceal the purpose of the search; withholding the attachments was a “reasonable misunderstanding.” No appreciable deterrent effect would be gained by applying the exclusionary rule. View "United States v. Franz" on Justia Law

DEA agents executed a search warrant at multiple Reading-area residences. After his arrest, Bui admitted that they purchased his house to convert it into a marijuana grow factory. Bui was indicted for conspiracy to manufacture more than 1,000 marijuana plants, 21 U.S.C. 846; manufacturing, and aiding and abetting the manufacturing, of more than 100 marijuana plants, 21 U.S.C. 841(a)(1) and 18 U.S.C. 2; using the house to manufacture and to distribute marijuana, 21 U.S.C. 856(a)(1); and manufacturing and distributing marijuana within 1,000 feet of an athletic field owned by the school district, 21 U.S.C. 860(a) and 18 U.S.C. 2. Bui pled guilty to counts one and four in a plea agreement that detailed the statutory sentence ranges and stipulated that the house was within 1000 feet of the athletic field so that Bui’s base offense level should be increased two levels under U.S.S.G. 2D1.2(a)(1). Bui claims that he pled guilty because his counsel stated that he would receive a reduced sentence under the “safety valve.” Bui’s counsel moved (18 U.S.C. 3553(f)), for sentence reduction, but, at the hearing, withdrew the motion because 3553(f) did not apply to section 860. Bui was sentenced to the mandatory minimum of 120 months. In his habeas petition, Bui argued: that his plea was not voluntary or knowing, but induced by counsel’s misrepresentations; ineffective assistance; error in accepting Bui’s guilty plea, because there was no evidence that the athletic field was a school; and ineffective assistance by failing to explain section 860(a). The district court denied relief. The Third Circuit vacated, finding a reasonable probability that, but for counsel’s errors, Bui would not have pled guilty. View "United States v. Bui" on Justia Law

Lagano was fatally shot in 2007, in front of an East Brunswick, New Jersey diner. In 2012 his estate filed suit against the Bergen County Prosecutor’s Office (BCPO) and former BCPO Chief of Detectives Mordaga, alleging that BCPO personnel improperly revealed to members of organized crime that Lagano was an informant, which established a state-created danger in violation of his due process rights. The estate also challenged a 2004 search of Lagano’s home and seizure of his property. The district court dismissed all claims. The Sixth Circuit affirmed that claims based on the 2004 search were time-barred, but reversed in part. Mordaga, sued in his official and personal capacities, is amenable to suit as a “person” under 42 U.S.C. 1983 and 1985. The allegations supported a reasonable inference that neither Mordaga nor the BCPO acted within classic investigatory and prosecutorial functions with respect to the state-created danger claim so the district court erred in viewing them as part of the state, not amenable to suit under sections1983 and 1985. The court reinstated a claim under the New Jersey Civil Rights Act and instructed the district court with respect to qualified immunity and Eleventh Amendment analysis. View "Estate Frank P. Lagano v. Bergen County Prosecutors Offi" on Justia Law

Paladino responded to internet ad placed by an undercover federal agent that offered videotapes of young boys engaged in sexual conduct. Paladino agreed to provide videos of boys engaged in sexually explicit conduct in exchange for those offered by the agent. After Paladino picked up the package, officers tried to arrest him, but he fled. After a car chase, during which he struck several cars and discarded the videos, Paladino was apprehended. Officers executed a search warrant at Paladino’s residence, and recovered media and a laptop computer that contained 5,201 files with images of child pornography. Paladino pled guilty to distributing material depicting sexual exploitation of a minor, 18 U.S.C. 2252(a). The district court sentenced him to 120 months’ imprisonment followed by supervised release. The Third Circuit affirmed the sentence. In 2013, Paladino was released. His probation officer reported that Paladino had violated conditions obligating him not to associate with persons convicted of a felony; to comply with the Computer Restriction and Monitoring Program; and to participate in a mental health or sex offender treatment program. At Paladino’s revocation hearing, defense counsel stated that Paladino challenged the missed treatment violation; there was no further discussion of that challenge. The government and defense counsel agreed to eight months of imprisonment followed by continued supervision. The judge asked “Mr. Paladino, is that your understanding?” Paladino responded “Yes.” The judge imposed the agreed sentence. The Third Circuit vacated, finding that the court committed plain error by failing to “address the defendant personally in order to permit the defendant to speak or present any information to mitigate the sentence.” View "United States v. Paladino" on Justia Law

Mayorga, a native of El Salvador, entered the U.S. as a teenager in 1988 because of the then on-going civil war in El Salvador. He applied for asylum in 1995, and has had work authorization since then. He married a U.S. citizen and has five children under the age of 15, all U.S. citizens. In 2010, Mayorga pled guilty to engaging in the unlicensed business of firearms dealing, 18 U.S.C. 922(a)(1)(A) and (a)(2), and was sentenced to 46 months in prison. When he was released, the Department of Homeland Security served Mayorga with notice of removal proceedings, alleging two grounds: under 8 U.S.C. 1182 (a)(6)(A)(i), as an alien present in the U.S. without having been admitted or paroled, and having been convicted of a crime involving moral turpitude (CIMT) under section 212(a)(2)(A)(i)(I). At his hearing Mayorga contested his removability for having been convicted of a CIMT and applied for cancellation of removal, voluntary departure, asylum, withholding of removal, and withholding of removal under the Convention Against Torture (CAT). The IJ denied each application, reasoning that if Mayorga’s crime was not categorically a crime involving moral turpitude, he would likely be ineligible for cancellation of removal under the “person of good moral character” requirement, 8 U.S.C. 1229b(b)(1)(B). The BIA upheld the decision. The Third Circuit reversed, holding that Mayorga would suffer a serious adverse consequence if his crime were found to be a categorical CIMT, and that his challenge was therefore justiciable. Mayorga’s crime was not categorically a CIMT.View "Mayorga v. Att'y Gen. of the U.S." on Justia Law

Reyes was convicted of Hobbs Act robbery of a grocery store, 18 U.S.C. 1951(a)1; using a firearm in relation to a crime of violence, 18 U.S.C. 924(c); and being a felon in possession of a firearm, 18 U.S.C. 922(g)(1)t. He appealed only his Hobbs Act conviction. The Third Circuit affirmed. After unsuccessfully petitioning the Supreme Court for certiorari, Reyes filed a pro se habeas petition, 28 U.S.C. 2255. The district court appointed counsel and conducted an evidentiary hearing. Before the court ruled, Reyes sought to amend his petition, to add claims under the Supreme Court’s 2013 Alleyne decision. In Alleyne, the Court clarified that, under the Sixth Amendment, “‘any facts that increase the prescribed range of penalties to which a criminal defendant is exposed’ are elements of the crime” and must be found beyond a reasonable doubt. The district Court denied Reyes’ petition and his request to amend. While appeal was pending, the Third Circuit decided United States v. Winkelman, finding that the new rule of criminal procedure announced by the Supreme Court in Alleyne does not apply retroactively to cases on collateral review. View "United States v. Reyes" on Justia Law