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

Zabielski robbed PNC Bank. Footage from security tapes demonstrates that Zabielski was not disoriented.‖ He approached the teller with a note that read: “$10,000,” stating only that he needed the money within two minutes. The teller noticed a bulge in Zabielski‘s jacket pocket, and thought that he might have a gun or a knife. She gave him $4,767. Zabielski told people about the robbery. His mother convinced him to return the money. He mailed $3,790 to the bank. Images from security cameras were provided to local media, and Zabielski was identified. He initially lied, but a year later pled guilty to bank robbery, 18 U.S.C. 2113(a). With a two-level enhancement for making a threat of death (USSG 2B3.1(b)(2)(F)), an offense level of 21, and a criminal history category of I, Zabielski‘s advisory Guidelines range was 37 to 46 months. Zabielski objected to the enhancement and requested a downward variance, claiming that he suffered from bipolar disorder and had resumed treatment since the robbery. The district court rejected his arguments, but imposed a sentence of 24 months. The Third Circuit affirmed, holding that application of the enhancement was harmless error and that Zabielski‘s sentence was not substantively unreasonable. View "United States v. Zabielski" on Justia Law

A parole officer, knowing that Benjamin‘s license was suspended, observed Benjamin driving. He organized a search of the house where Benjamin lived with Esprit. In the bedroom, agents found hearing and eye protection, targets, a postcard with Benjamin‘s name and address, a handgun trigger lock, ammunition, car titles in the name of Burch, a Burch driver‘s license, an identification card for Benjamin, Benjamin‘s social security card, and receipts on an auto loan for Burch. Agents found a notebook that, according to expert testimony, contained illegal drug information, and a digital cooking scale. There was a loaded handgun in the basement, with Esprit’s permit. In ceiling joists, agents found 6.62 grams of cocaine base and 326.93 grams of marijuana. Benjamin was convicted of possession with intent to distribute five grams or more of cocaine base, 21 U.S.C. 841(a)(1), (b)(1)(B); possession with intent to distribute marijuana, 21 U.S.C. 841(a)(1), (b)(1)(D); and possession of a firearm by a felon, 18 U.S.C. 922(g)(1) and sentenced to 20 years. The Third Circuit remanded with respect to sentencing on the firearm conviction, but otherwise affirmed, rejecting challenges to sufficiency of the evidence, to the constitutionality of the felon-in-possession statutes, and to rulings allowing references to his parole. View "United States v. Benjamin" on Justia Law

Under the “Hyde Amendment,” a district court in criminal cases may award to a prevailing party a reasonable attorney’s fee and other litigation expenses, if the position of the United States was vexatious, frivolous, or in bad faith, unless the court finds special circumstances, 18 U.S.C. 3006A. The district court denied such an award in a case involving four counts of conspiring and attempting to commit extortion, 18 U.S.C. 951(a) & 2 (Hobbs Act), and two counts of traveling in interstate commerce to promote and facilitate bribery, 18 U.S.C. 1952(a)(3) & 2 (Travel Act). The government alleged that Manzo, a candidate for mayor of Jersey City, sought cash payments from Dwek, an informant posing as a developer, and that, in exchange, Manzo indicated he would help Dwek with matters involving Jersey City government. The district court dismissed each Hobbs Act count because Manzo was not a public official at the time of the conduct. The Third Circuit affirmed. The court later held that receipt of something of value by an unsuccessful candidate in exchange for a promise of future official conduct does not constitute bribery under the New Jersey bribery statute and dismissed all remaining charges. The Third Circuit affirmed the denial of fees. View "United States v. Manzo" on Justia Law

Gilliam was fatally shot outside a Pittsburgh bar in 1997. Grant was convicted on the testimony of one witness, who based his identification on clothing. The witness was apparently granted leniency with respect to a parole violation in exchange for testimony; the criminal history of the witness was not disclosed to or discovered by the defense. Others, who had been present and who stated that Grant was not the shooter, were not called as witnesses. There was no physical evidence tying Grant to the crime. The state court denied Grant’s petition for an evidentiary hearing on trial counsel’s ineffectiveness. The Pennsylvania Supreme Court affirmed, holding for the first time that claims of ineffective assistance of counsel should generally be raised in the first instance in post-conviction proceedings. Grant then filed an unsuccessful pro se petition under the Pennsylvania Post Conviction Relief Act, 42 Pa.C.S.A. 9541. The federal district court denied his habeas petition. The Third Circuit remanded, directing the court to grant a conditional writ of habeas corpus on the ineffective assistance claim.View "Grant v. Lockett" on Justia Law

The Federal Trade Commission secured a judgment of $10,204,445 against Sussman and his co-defendants and equitable relief, based on abusive debt collection activities. Sussman subsequently entered a safe deposit box and removed coins that had been “frozen” in connection with the earlier action; he was then convicted of theft of government property, 18 U.S.C. 641, and obstruction of justice, 18 U.S.C. 1503(a) and sentenced to 41 months on each count, to be served concurrently, followed by three years of supervised release. The court also imposed a $15,000 fine and a $200 special assessment. The Third Circuit affirmed, rejecting a challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence and a clam that Sussman should be afforded a new trial because a portion of the trial transcript is unavailable, apparently because a court reporter lost the transcript. The court upheld the admission into evidence of redacted documents from the FTC’s prior civil case and jury instructions on the elements of obstruction of justice and Sussman’s theory of defense. View "United States v. Sussman" on Justia Law

Defendants are MB, a registered investment adviser, and people affiliated with MB. A fraudulent scheme was perpetrated by Bloom while he was an employee and officer of MB, through a hedge fund called North Hills that Bloom controlled and managed outside the scope of his responsibilities at MB. Bloom was arrested and indicted in New York in 2009 on charges relating to the Ponzi scheme, by which time most of the money invested in North Hills was gone. Investors filed suit, alleging: controlling person liability under Section 20(a) of the Securities and Exchange Act; negligent supervision; violations of Securities and Exchange Commission Rule 10b-5; violations of the Pennsylvania Unfair Trade Practice and Consumer Protection Law; and breach of fiduciary duty. The district court rejected all claims. The Third Circuit vacated and remanded with respect to MB on the claims for violations of Rule 10b-5 and the state UTPCPL, and otherwise affirmed. View "Belmont v. MB Inv. Partners, Inc." on Justia Law

Denny, an inmate at the Fairton, New Jersey, Federal Correctional Institution, was punished with 60 days of disciplinary segregation and forfeiture of 40 days of good time credit after a “shank” was found in a vent between the cell he shared with another inmate and another cell. The Disciplinary Hearing Officer found that Denny possessed weapons in violation of a prison regulation. Denny sought a writ of habeas corpus, 28 U.S.C. 2241 arguing that prison officials violated his Fourteenth Amendment due process rights. The district court sua sponte dismissed the petition. The Third Circuit affirmed, noting the affirmative responsibility, of which the inmates were on notice, that they were to keep their “area” free from contraband. The mere discovery of contraband in a shared cell constitutes “some evidence” that each prisoner in that cell possessed the contraband. View "Denny v. Schultz" on Justia Law

Wilson pleaded guilty to drug charges. The plea agreement included a waiver of his right to appeal or collaterally challenge his conviction and sentence except if the government appealed, the sentence exceeded statutory limits, or the sentence unreasonably exceeded the sentencing guideline range determined by the district court. Wilson was sentenced to 65 months’ imprisonment with six years of supervised release. The Third Circuit enforced the waiver and affirmed the sentence. In 2011, Wilson was released from prison and began supervised release. Three months later, his Probation Officer sought to modify the terms and conditions of his supervised release to include participation in a mental health program. The district court held a hearing and took testimony about a number of bizarre incidents and about Wilson’s grandiose ideas and acts of unconventional behavior. Wilson also testified. The court ordered that Wilson’s conditions of supervised release be modified to add the condition that he undergo a mental health assessment and, if necessary, participate in an approved mental health treatment program. The Third Circuit affirmed after finding that appeal was not barred by the waiver. View "United States v. Wilson" on Justia Law

In 1996 mother reported to police that, during a visit to her father’s apartment, their 12-year-old (Linda) alleged that father made sexual advances. Mother obtained an order of protection after he twice failed to appear. The county agency classified father as an “indicated” child abuse perpetrator on Pennsylvania’s child abuse registry. Father was charged with indecent exposure and endangering a child’s welfare. He pled guilty to harassment; the remaining charges were dismissed. In subsequent years, Linda denied the incident. Mother and father resumed living together and were allowed, by the agency, to have related children in their home. After mother obtained custody of their grandchild, the agency removed all children from the home, based on father’s listing. By the time father attempted to appeal in 2007, the agency had destroyed its 1996 records. The listing was expunged in 2010. The district court rejected claims under 42 U.S.C. 1983. The Third Circuit affirmed, finding that the agency’s position with respect to the listing did not “shock the conscience” and that there was no showing of a deliberate decision to deprive the plaintiff of due process nor evidence that the agency employs a policy or has a custom of conducting desultory investigations. View "Mulholland v. Cnty. of Berks" on Justia Law

Johnson was convicted of first-degree murder and sentenced to life in prison without any physical evidence or eyewitness testimony tying him to the crime. The testimony of Robles, Johnson’s friend, that Johnson had confessed guilt to him, was pivotal. Johnson filed multiple petitions under Pennsylvania’s Post-Conviction Relief Act, unsuccessfully claiming violations of Brady v. Maryland. He then unsuccessfully sought federal habeas relief. The Third Circuit reversed, noting that it was not until discovery in Johnson’s federal habeas case that previously undisclosed evidence was uncovered, showing that, at the time Robles testified, he was under investigation for his role in a shooting, an assault, and multiple shots-fired incidents. Robles, who was never charged with any crimes despite repeated dealings with police in investigations involving guns and drugs, supplied police with information concerning an unrelated crime when his own involvement in an assault came under investigation. The jury never heard the impeachment evidence because when Johnson sought discovery of information concerning any criminal activity of Robles, charged or uncharged, the District Attorney who prosecuted Johnson represented to the state court that it had no information or police reports naming Robles as a suspect. View "Johnson v. Folino" on Justia Law