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

Philadelphia police officers entered a private residence without a warrant because they believed the house to be abandoned. Upon searching the house, they found Harrison sitting in a recliner with a gun, scales, pills, and cocaine base on the table next to him. The police took Harrison into custody, seized the gun, and obtained a warrant to seize the rest of the items. Harrison was charged with possession with intent to distribute five grams or more of cocaine base and moved to suppress the physical evidence. The district court denied the motion; although Harrison, a tenant, had a reasonable expectation of privacy in the house, the police officers were operating under the mistaken but reasonable belief that the house was abandoned. The Third Circuit affirmed. A house can be abandoned for Fourth Amendment purposes; the officers did not make a mistake of law. Their mistake of fact was reasonable, based on their observations over several months that the house appeared unfit for human habitation. There was trash strewn about, the lawn was overgrown with weeds, and windows on both levels were either boarded up or exposed. The front door was left open, and the lock may have been broken. View "United States v. Harrison" on Justia Law

Mitchell was convicted on charges related to his possession of a firearm with an obliterated serial number. The Third Circuit affirmed the district court’s denial of Mitchell’s motion to strike Juror 97, a police department employee, because the law does not categorically impute bias to coworkers of key witnesses in a trial. Under the circumstances, Mitchell’s right to trial by an impartial jury was protected adequately by inquiry for actual bias, and that inquiry yielded no evidence of actual bias. The court remanded for additional fact-finding with respect to Juror 28, a “close cousin” of the prosecutor. The law presumes bias in jurors who are close relatives of the parties in a case and the court did not elicit sufficient information on the nature of the relationship between the prosecutor and Juror 28. View "United States v. Mitchell" on Justia Law

From 1996 to 2001, while working as a licensed realtor, Mendoza helped borrowers obtain federally insured mortgages. He was charged with conspiring to fraudulently induce the Federal Housing Authority to insure mortgage loans, 18 U.S.C. 371 and 1001. Mendoza’s counsel, Cavanagh, explained that he could avoid prison by pleading guilty, but did not apprise Mendoza that, as an aggravated felony, his crime would lead to mandatory deportation to his home country, Ecuador, 8 U.S.C. 1227(a)(2)(A)(iii). Prior to sentencing Mendoza learned from his Presentence Investigation Report that his conviction might result in removal. The district court sentenced Mendoza to two years’ probation and ordered him to pay $100,000 in restitution. As a condition of his probation, Mendoza was required to cooperate with immigration officials. The government instituted removal proceedings. After completing his sentence, Mendoza moved, under 28 U.S.C. 2255, to vacate his sentence and withdraw his plea. The district court denied the motion. The Third Circuit affirmed. View "Mendoza v. United States" on Justia Law

Based on DNA evidence found on furniture, McBride was charged with the murder of his wife 16 years after her disappearance. He was convicted and exhausted Pennsylvania state court appeals. The district court denied his habeas corpus petition. The Third Circuit affirmed, rejecting McBride’s claim that his trial counsel was ineffective by failing to object to certain references to his silence, in violation of his constitutional right to remain silent. There was at least a reasonable argument that trial counsel’s actions were within the “wide range of professionally competent assistance.” View "McBride v. Superintendant Houtzdale" on Justia Law

After guard mistakenly gave Taylor, an inmate convicted of drug and weapons charges, an extra razor blade, Taylor created a shank. Subsequently, in an exercise yard with Bistrain, Taylor construed Bistrain’s comment as a threat. After Bistrian was handcuffed, Taylor, not yet handcuffed, slashed his face, arms, and legs with the shank. Guards used pepper spray but did not subdue Taylor until they tossed a flash grenade into the yard. Taylor told guards that he had to get Bistrian before Bistrian got him. Taylor was convicted of assault with a dangerous weapon, 18 U.S.C. 113(a)(3) and sentenced to an additional 120 months. Taylor attempted to show justification and claimed that the prosecution was racially motivated because he was charged for this assault, on a white victim, but had not been charged for an earlier assault on black inmates. The Third Circuit affirmed. By including “without just cause or excuse” in the statute Congress did not intend to convert justification, a common-law defense, into an element for which the government bears the burden of proof beyond a reasonable doubt. Just cause is an affirmative defense to a section 113(a)(3) violation; defendant bears the burden of proving it by a preponderance of the evidence. View "United States v. Taylor" on Justia Law

Borrome, a citizen of the Dominican Republic, and, since 1996 a lawful permanent resident of the U.S. pled guilty in 2002 to violations of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act, 21 U.S.C. 301-399d, prohibitions on unlicensed wholesale distribution of prescription “drugs” in interstate commerce. He was sentenced him to four months’ imprisonment followed by four months’ home confinement. In 2010 he was served with a notice of removal and the IJ reasoned that because Borrome’s offense involved unauthorized distribution of a Schedule II controlled substance (Oxycontin ), it is an aggravated felony under 8 U.S.C. 1101(a)(43)(B) pursuant to the “hypothetical federal felony test,” so that Borrome was removable under 8 U.S.C. 1227(a)(2)(B)(i) as an alien convicted of violating any law “relating to a controlled substance.” The Board of Immigration Appeals affirmed. Borrome has been removed from the United States. The Seventh Circuit reversed, concluding that violation of the FDCA wholesale distribution provisions does not constitute an aggravated felony and that those laws are not laws relating to a controlled substance. View "Borrome v. Att'y Gen. of the U.S." on Justia Law

A jury found Claxton guilty of conspiring to possess cocaine with the intent to distribute, but the district court entered a judgment of acquittal on the ground that there was not enough evidence for a reasonable jury to conclude that Claxton knowingly participated in the conspiracy. The Third Circuit reversed and remanded for sentencing. The court noted evidence that Claxton repeatedly did that organization’s bidding, that he was entrusted to help transport large sums of money, that he visited the place where that money was laundered, and that he frequented the place where the organization’s drugs were stored and its business discussed. The totality of those circumstances was more than enough to allow the jury to rationally decide beyond a reasonable doubt that he was guilty. View "United States v. Claxton" on Justia Law

Booker participated in a bank robbery with co-conspirators. After being arrested on unrelated charges, he provided incriminating statements to the police. Booker moved to suppress these statements as violations of his Miranda rights. The district court denied his motion. Before trial, Booker requested that he be allowed to proceed pro se. The court conducted a hearing and warned him of the consequences of self-representation. While articulating the potential sentences facing him, the district court erred and misstated one of the relevant mandatory minimums (stating it was five years and not 25 years). Booker was convicted of all charges. The Third Circuit vacated and remanded for a new trial. In light of the court’s error, Booker’s waiver of counsel was not voluntary and knowing. View "United States v. Booker" on Justia Law

Figueroa admits that he sold heroin to an undercover officer, who returned later and purchased cocaine and heroin. During the second purchase, the officer saw what appeared to be a gun tucked into Figueroa’s waistband. It was dark and he only saw a few inches of the object. Officers then stopped the car driven, and owned, by Figueroa’s girlfriend. Figueroa was in the front passenger seat. Officers removed both from the car, opened the glove compartment, and recovered a handgun. Both occupants denied knowledge of the firearm. No forensic evidence connected either to the firearm. The jury convicted on the drug counts, but was split on the charge of carrying a firearm during a drug trafficking offense, 18 U.S.C. 924(c)(1). After releasing the jury, the judge changed courses, asked that the jury be held, and had them deliberate a charge of possession of a firearm by a felon, 18 U.S.C. 922(g)(1) and 924(e). The jury convicted and Figueroa was sentenced to 180 months, the statutory minimum for possession by a felon. The Third Circuit affirmed. Reconvening after declaring a mistrial on Count III did not violate Double Jeopardy or subject the jury to outside influences. View "United States v. Figueroa" on Justia Law

In 1993 Vasquez was sentenced to 262 months for heroin offenses. In 1996, he was sentenced to 14 months, to run consecutively, for possession of a prohibited object. His projected release date is October, 2012. The Second Chance Act, which applies, increases a federal prisoner’s eligibility for pre-release placement in a halfway house from 6 to 12 months, and requires the Bureau of Prisons to make individual determinations that ensure that placement is of sufficient duration to provide the greatest likelihood of success and to provide incentives for participation in skills development programs. Vasquez’s team recommended a 151-180 day placement in a Residential Re-entry Center. Vasquez had not regularly participated in educational programs during his incarceration. He filed a habeas corpus petition, arguing that the BOP failed to comply with the reentry initiative and improperly added a factor to trick inmates into thinking that they have been considered for incentives that were never properly implemented. The district court rejected the petition. Vasquez was not merely challenging construction of the Second Chance Act or implementation of the reentry initiative; exhaustion of administrative remedies was required. There was no abuse of discretion in how the factors were balanced with goals of the Act. View "Vasquez v. Strada" on Justia Law