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

Thomas was in custody pending trial for shoplifting and failing to pay fines. He was assigned to a small unit with an upper level open to the lower level, housing minimum and medium security detainees. The facility has four or five fights reported every day; 20-30 are estimated to be unreported. Thomas had a reputation as a bully, known for stealing food. One day Thomas found about 12 angry inmates outside of his upper level cell. A verbal dispute ensued. Officer Martinez was with the crowd; Officer Wilde was on the lower level. Martinez said something about locking everybody down. The inmates laughed, but did not disperse. Inmate Santiago yelled, “come down here and take stuff from me.” Thomas began to walk to the lower level. Within seconds after he arrived, Santiago struck Thomas. Martinez restrained Santiago, but another inmate struck Thomas. Martinez was immediately next to Thomas yelled for everyone to lock down. The inmates complied. Three to four minutes had passed between the beginning of the argument on the upper level and the violence on the lower level. Inmates stated that the officers could and should have stopped the argument. Thomas suffered a concussion and loss of sight in one eye. Thomas sued under 42 U.S.C. 1983 and the New Jersey Civil Rights Act, The district court granted the county summary judgment. The Third Circuit vacated, finding genuine issues of material fact concerning deliberate indifference to the need for pre-service training in conflict de-escalation and intervention and whether the lack of such training had a causal relationship to Thomas’s injuries.View "Thomas v. Cumberland Cnty." on Justia Law

Cooper was convicted of rape in Oklahoma in 1999 and paroled in 2006, before enactment of the Sex Offender Registration and Notification Act (SORNA), 18 U.S.C. 2250; 42 U.S.C. 16901. He complied with sex offender registration laws in effect at the time. After enactment of SORNA, Cooper moved to Delaware in 2011. He did not register in Delaware, nor did he inform authorities of his new address. He was convicted of failing to comply with SORNA sex offender registration requirements. On appeal, he challenged the constitutionality of the provision of SORNA in which Congress delegated to the Attorney General the authority to determine the applicability of registration requirements to pre-SORNA sex offenders. The Third Circuit affirmed his conviction, stating that it found “delegation of this important decision curious at best,” but not an unconstitutional abdication. View "United States v. Cooper" on Justia Law

Abbott was convicted of possession of a firearm by a convicted felon, 18 U.S.C. 922(g), among other charges. His sentence included a 15-yearmandatory minimum for violating the Armed Career Criminal Act, 18 U.S.C. 924(e). The court found that three of his previous convictions were “serious drug offenses” under the ACCA. Abbott’s attorney did not object. Abbott challenged an unrelated portion of his sentence on direct appeal. The Third Circuit and U.S. Supreme Court affirmed. Abbott filed a petition under 28 U.S.C. 2255, alleging that his attorney at sentencing was ineffective for failing to contest the use of his prior conviction for possession with the intent to distribute, under 35 PA. STAT. 780-113(a)(30), as an ACCA predicate offense. The district court denied the petition without a hearing, finding that the sentencing court properly employed the modified categorical approach. The Third Circuit affirmed, finding that the Pennsylvania statute is “divisible,” so that use of the modified categorical approach was proper. The statute can be violated by the possession of and intent to distribute many different drugs, the types of which can increase the prescribed range of penalties, so the statute includes several alternative elements. View "United States v. Abbott" on Justia Law

The Winkelman brothers, have a “long and protracted litigation history” involving challenges to the constitutionality of their sentences, which they brought while in custody, and which were filed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 2255. The Sixth Circuit denied certificates of appealability. The current motion, to reinstate their direct appeals, argued that their sentences are unconstitutional in light of the Supreme Court’s 2013 holding, Alleyne v. U.S. that “any fact that increases the mandatory minimum [sentence] is an ‘element’ that must be submitted to the jury” and proved beyond a reasonable doubt. The Third Circuit denied the motion, which it characterized as “successive.” A successive section 2255 motion is authorized only if it is based on “newly discovered evidence,” or on “a new rule of constitutional law, made retroactive to cases on collateral review by the Supreme Court, that was previously unavailable.” The Supreme Court may have announced a new rule of law in Alleyne, but note that “a new rule is not ‘made retroactive to cases on collateral review’ unless the Supreme Court holds it to be retroactive.” View "United States v. Winkelman" on Justia Law

Woronowicz was convicted of four counts of willful failure to file tax returns and was sentenced to 12 months of imprisonment with 1 year of supervised release. He failed to comply with the terms of supervised release, resulting in an additional three months’ imprisonment. Woronowicz failed to surrender. After being arrested, Woronowicz consented a search of his residence. Agents discovered counterfeit currency with a face value in excess of $207,000. About 90 percent of the bills were completed on only one side and $20,000 worth were completed on both sides. Agents also discovered materials used to manufacture counterfeit currency. Woronowicz pleaded guilty to the one count of counterfeiting. The district court applied a 12-level enhancement to the Guidelines range, under section 2B5.1(b)(1)(B) based on its calculation of the face value of the counterfeit currency as exceeding $200,000. The Third Circuit affirmed. View "United States v. Woronowicz" on Justia Law

Vega pled guilty to multiple counts of crack cocaine possession and distribution, and to possession of a firearm in furtherance of a drug trafficking offense. In 2004, the district court sentenced him to 108 months imprisonment on the drug charges and a mandatory 60 months, to be served consecutively, on the firearm count. The Sentencing Guidelines called for 97-121 months on the drug charges; the gun offense carried a mandatory consecutive sentence of 60 months, 18 U.S.C. 24(c)(1)(A)(I). At the time, the drug charges also carried a mandatory minimum penalty of 120 months, 21 U.S.C. 841(b)(1)(A)(iii). This ought to have led to a range of 120-121 months, but the mandatory minimum was not requested by the government. In 2010, the Fair Sentencing Act lowered mandatory minimum penalties for distributing crack cocaine. Under the new guideline (made retroactive, effective November, 2011), the offense level for Vega’s drug offenses would be 30. With relevant adjustments already established, this would lead to a Guideline range of 78-97 months rather than 97-121 months. The district court found that sentence reduction was blocked by operation of the 120 month mandatory minimum sentence that should have been, but was not, applied to his case. The Third Circuit reversed, acknowledging that the case presented an interaction of complex statutes, policy statements, and confused prior proceedings, creating a difficult, perhaps unique, pattern. View "United States v. Ortiz-Vega" on Justia Law

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