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

Galarza, a U.S. citizen, was working at a construction site. The contractor sold cocaine to an undercover detective, Correa, who arrested the contractor, Galarza, and other employees for conspiracy to deliver cocaine. Galarza had a wallet, containing his Pennsylvania driver’s license, his Social Security Card, a debit card, and his health insurance card. The complaint listed Galarza’s place of birth as Perth, N.J. and contained his Social Security Number and date of birth. Correa called ICE and provided Galarza’s information. Galarza claims that, by making the call, Correa indicated that she suspected Galarza had given false identification information. Galarza was detained and went through booking; officials took his wallet and its contents. ICE Agent Szalczyk, acting on information relayed by Correa, filed an immigration detainer that described Galarza as a suspected “alien” and citizen of the Dominican Republic. The detainer was not accompanied by a warrant, an affidavit of probable cause, or a removal order. A surety company posted bail, but Galarza was told that he would not be released. Galarza had not been interviewed by ICE nor provided with a copy of the detainer. Three days after his arrest, a counselor told Galarza about the detainer. Galarza protested and urged the counselor to retrieve his wallet. The counselor refused. Galarza later met with ICE officers. The detainer was removed and Galarza was released about three days after his arrest. Galarza was acquitted and filed complaints under 42 U.S.C. 1983 and the Federal Tort Claims Act, 28 U.S.C. 346(b). The district court dismissed the complaint against Lehigh County, holding that it could not be held responsible for Galarza’s detention because it was compelled to follow the detainer. The Third Circuit vacated. Immigration detainers do not compel a state or local law enforcement agency to detain suspected aliens subject to removal.View "Galarza v. Szalczyk" on Justia Law

Bautista, a legal permanent resident, was ordered removed from the U.S. as an alien convicted of a crime involving moral turpitude, 8 U.S.C. 1182(a)(2)(A)(i)(I). The IJ found him ineligible for cancellation of removal because his New York conviction for attempted arson constituted an aggravated felony, 8 U.S.C. 1229b(a). The Board of Immigration Appeals dismissed his appeal, finding that the arson conviction fell within the definition of an aggravated felony under 8 U.S.C. 1101(a)(43). The Third Circuit granted a petition for review. The attempted arson conviction is not an aggravated felony with respect to collateral immigration consequences. Applying the categorical approach, the New York statute under which Bautista was convicted does not match the elements of 18 U.S.C. 844(i), the corresponding federal statute, which requires a connection to interstate commerce. View "Bautista v. Att'y Gen. of the U.S." on Justia Law

Airport customs officers intercepted a UPS package containing heroin. The address handwritten on the package was “18 Walnut St. Union Town PA.” The electronic manifest gave the address as “59 Millview Dr. Uniontown.” When the two conflict, UPS delivers to the electronic address. Agents repackaged the heroin, using the Millview address and enclosing a beeper to indicate when the package was opened. They obtained an anticipatory search warrant for the Millview address, the home of the mother of Dutrieville’s child, to be executed once the package was inside the home. An undercover agent delivered the package to Dutrieville. Two minutes later the beeper activated. Agents announced their presence, and, receiving no response, entered the home. They took Dutrieville into custody and searched. In a bedroom, agents found the heroin. In the master bedroom, they found the empty package, the beeper, Dutrieville’s cell phone and overnight bag, and unused stamp bags (often used to package heroin). They found digital scales and other drug paraphernalia in the living room. Dutrieville admitted that he had been staying at the home with consent, although he was the subject of a Protection From Abuse Order that could not be overridden by consent. Dutrieville was charged with attempted possession with intent to distribute 100 grams or more of a substance containing heroin, 21 U.S.C. 841(a)(1). After denial of his motion to suppress, Dutrieville entered a conditional guilty plea. The Third Circuit affirmed that, because he was prohibited from entering the home, he lacked standing to challenge the search. View "United States v. Dutrieville" on Justia Law

Glenn was convicted of the murder of Griffin and is currently a Pennsylvania prisoner. He unsuccessfully appealed and sought collateral review in state courts, then sought habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. 2254. The district court denied relief. The Third Circuit affirmed, rejecting arguments that the trial court violated his due process rights by refusing to grant a mistrial after an eyewitness proffered contradictory testimony, opting instead to strike the entirety of the testimony and provide cautionary jury instructions and that his trial counsel was ineffective in not moving to strike other evidence in the record that referred to that witness’s identification of Glenn as the murderer. View "Glenn v. Dist. Attorney Allegheny Cty." on Justia Law

Brooks, Edwards, and John-Baptiste were convicted served as law enforcement officers: Brooks and Edwards with the Virgin Islands Police Department and John-Baptiste with the Virgin Islands Port Authority. The Third Circuit affirmed their convictions of conspiracy under the Racketeering Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act, 18 U.S.C. 1962(d); conspiracy and extortion under the Hobbs Act, 18 U.S.C. 1951(a) & (2); conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute controlled substances, in violation of 21 U.S.C. 846; distribution of and possession with intent to distribute controlled substances, in violation of 21 U.S.C. 841(a)(1); and, under Virgin Island law, conspiracy, extortion, solicitation and receipt of a bribe, and conflict of interest, and kidnapping and false imprisonment, but on cross-appeals, reversed acquittals on certain counts.View "United States v. Brooks" on Justia Law

The client was the target of a grand jury investigation into alleged violations of the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act. The grand jury served a subpoena on the client’s former attorney and the government moved to enforce this subpoena and compel testimony, under the crime-fraud exception to the attorney-client privilege. The client sought to quash the subpoena by asserting the attorney-client privilege and work product protection. After questioning the attorney in camera, the district court found that the crime-fraud exception applied and compelled testimony. The Third Circuit affirmed, holding that the district court applied the correct standard in determining whether to conduct an in camera examination of a witness, requiring a showing of a factual basis adequate to support a good faith belief by a reasonable person that in camera review of the materials may reveal evidence to establish the claim that the crime-fraud exception applies. The court did not abuse its discretion in applying that standard, in determining procedures for the examination, or in ultimately finding that the crime-fraud exception applied. View "In Re: Grand Jury Subpoena" on Justia Law

During Banks’ supervised release for a bank fraud conviction, he was arrested for conspiring to steal or create more than 75 fraudulent checks. He pleaded guilty to conspiracy to commit bank fraud (18 U.S.C. 1349), and to violating conditions of his supervised release. He stipulated to a Grade A violation of supervised release. The plea agreement stated that that the prosecution “cannot and does not make any representation or promise as to what guideline range may be found by the sentencing judge, or as to what sentence Richard Banks ultimately will receive.” Banks acknowledged his voluntary waiver of any right to challenge the sentence imposed “if that sentence falls within or below the Guidelines range that results from the agreed total Guidelines offense level of 14 and the sentence for the Violation Petition falls within or below the Guideline range set forth.” Banks substantially cooperated with the government, resulting in a number of convictions. After granting a 6-level downward departure for cooperation, the court imposed a term of 18 months for the bank fraud, but denied requests for the same downward departure, and for a concurrent term, on the supervised release violation. The court ordered 33 months’ imprisonment for the violation, to be served consecutively. The Third Circuit affirmed, rejecting an argument that the appellate waiver was inapplicable to the situation. View "United States v. Banks" on Justia Law

A postal inspector intercepted a parcel on suspicion of narcotics trafficking because the return address was fictitious. The inspector knew that drug traffickers often bring narcotics from Mexico into Arizona and mail them to the east coast. A trained narcotics canine detected the presence of narcotics in the parcel. Agents gathered information about the recipient address and obtained a warrant. The parcel contained 20 pounds of marijuana. The agents held the parcel for four days and planned a controlled delivery of a reconstructed parcel, containing a GPS locator. Golson identified himself by the false name given on the parcel’s address and accepted the package. After receiving a signal that the package had been opened, agents conducted a search of the house pursuant to an anticipatory search warrant and found several guns and ammunition, 704 packets of heroin packaged for distribution, 40 grams of raw heroin, a cutting agent, packaging material consistent with drug distribution, a heat sealer, heat sealable bags, a scale, rubber examination gloves, and masks. The district court rejected a motion to suppress. The Third Circuit affirmed, finding that there was probable cause for the anticipatory warrant, that the delay was reasonable, and that the search was a state search so that FRCP 41(b) did not apply.View "Unted States v. Golson" on Justia Law

Collins, a Pennsylvania prisoner convicted in 1993 of first-degree murder, appealed the district court’s denial of his petition for habeas corpus. The court certified two questions for appeal: whether Collins was deprived of his Sixth Amendment right to effective assistance of counsel because his trial counsel “inadequately prepared for trial and completely failed to conduct any investigation, including into the ballistics evidence” and whether trial counsel’s alleged ineffective assistance, combined with alleged errors of the trial court, cumulatively caused him prejudice. The Third Circuit affirmed, while expressing “serious doubt that trial counsel conducted an adequate investigation.” In light of the uncontroverted evidence presented against Collins at trial, the state court’s determination that Collins failed to show he suffered prejudice was not an unreasonable application of the Supreme Court’s 1984 decision in Strickland v. Washington, which sets the standard for ineffective-assistance-of-counsel claims. Collins also did not exhaust his claim of cumulative error, which was, therefore, procedurally defaulted. View "Collins v. Sec'y, PA Dep't of Corrs." on Justia Law

Sharif, an inmate housed in the Restrictive Housing Unit, punched a corrections officer. Sharif claims that C.O. Picone punched Sharif first. Picone testified that once he was struck, he attempted to protect himself and that C.O. Potance, who was helping Picone retrieve dinner trays, attempted to restrain Sharif. Sharif asserted that once Picone began to hit him, Potance and C.O. Pinto entered his cell and joined in the attack by choking him. Following the altercation, Sharif was handcuffed and moved to a “suicide cell.” He continued to cause commotion and was moved to a restraint chair. Sharif contends that while he was in the restraint chair, he was punched repeatedly by unnamed corrections officers, observed and permitted by Lieutenant Kospiah. Sharif was charged with aggravated assault, entered a plea of nolo contendere, and was convicted as charged. Sharif filed an excessive force claim under 42 U.S.C. 1983 and moved to exclude evidence of his nolo contendere plea under Rule 410. The court admitted the evidence when Sharif took the stand and denied wrongdoing. The Third Circuit vacated and remanded, noting that Sharif’s credibility was already “suspect” and that the plea was, therefore, of minimal relevance.View "Sharif v. Picone" on Justia Law