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

Cardona was convicted of conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute over 100 kilograms of marijuana, 21 U.S.C. 841(a)(1), (b)(1)(B) & 846; conspiring to possess with intent to distribute less than 100 grams of heroin, 21 U.S.C. 841(a)(1), (b)(1)(C) & 846; possession with intent to distribute over 100 kilograms of marijuana, 21 U.S.C. 841(a)(1) & (b)(1)(B); and possession with intent to distribute over 100 grams of heroin, 21 U.S.C. 841(a)(1) & (b)(1)(C). He was sentenced to 480 months and eventually was referred to the special management unit, which limits contact with other prisoners and access to personal property. An inmate is allowed to reintegrate, by demonstrating potential for positive interaction. Between his sentencing and SMU referral, Cardona filed multiple lawsuits challenging his conviction and conditions of confinement. He believes that SMU referral was punishment for the litigation, although the notice referred to narcotics-related infractions. He filed a pro se habeas petition under 28 U.S.C. 224. The district court dismissed for lack of jurisdiction, stating that the SMU did not affect the fact or duration of incarceration. The Third Circuit affirmed, agreeing that Cardona must file a civil rights action under Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents to seek redress. View "Cardona v. Bledsoe" on Justia Law

In 2002, Thompson was indicted on two counts, and pled guilty to one, of distributing fewer than five grams of crack cocaine (21 U.S.C. 841(a)(1)). Because he had two prior felony convictions, he qualified as a career offender under U.S.S.G. 4B1.1. Had Thompson not been classified as a career offender, his Guidelines range would have been 46 to 57 months, but he was sentenced to 151 months, the bottom of the range for career offenders. After the United States Sentencing Commission issued a retroactive amendment to the Sentencing Guidelines that lowered the base offense levels for crack cocaine offenses, Thompson moved to reduce his sentence pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 3582(c)(2). He conceded that Third Circuit precedent (United States v. Mateo, 2009) foreclosed his argument, and the district court denied the motion. The Third Circuit affirmed, concluding that Mateo remains valid in light of Freeman v. United States, 131 S. Ct. 2685 (2011). View "United States v. Thompson" on Justia Law

Defendant communicated with a detective who was posing as a 15-year-old girl on a social networking website. In response to defendant's question, the detective stated that she was 15 years old. Defendant raised sexual topics during communications online and by cellular telephone, masturbated in front of "Ashley" on his webcam, and discussed arrangements to meet in person, including whether he should buy condoms. He was arrested at the place arranged for the meeting. Convicted of attempted enticement of a minor, 18 U.S.C. 2422(b), he was sentenced to 121 months' imprisonment and 25 years of supervised release. The Third Circuit affirmed, rejecting a challenged to the sufficiency of the evidence that defendant believed he was communicating with a minor and an argument that the government's remark that defense counsel would "certainly present evidence" violated his Fifth Amendment rights. The district court properly calculated the sentencing range, based on masturbation constituting "sexual contact" for the purpose of the two-level enhancement under U.S.S.G. 2G1.3(b)(4)(A). View "United States v. Pawlowski" on Justia Law

In 2008, defendants, then 18 and 16 years old, accompanied by a group of other young Shenandoah residents began partying and drinking, then encountered Ramirez and became engaged in an argument with him that involved racial slurs. The incident escalated to the savage beating of Ramirez, who died two days later as a result of injuries he sustained. They were acquitted of all but minor state charges and each served six months. Following public outcry, they were convicted of criminal violation of the Fair Housing Act, 42 U.S.C. 3631, which penalizes actions taken against an individual on account of his race, color or national origin, and with the specific intent to intimidate the victim or others like him from exercising their right to housing free of discrimination. The Third Circuit affirmed, rejecting a challenge to a jury instruction that the government was not required to prove that issues of race and occupancy were the only motivations in beating Ramirez. The court also rejected claims that double jeopardy barred the federal trial and that the evidence was not sufficient to support a conviction under 3631. View "United States v. Piekarsky" on Justia Law

In 2004 defendant was convicted of crimes related to possession with intent to distribute narcotics and possession of two handguns. At the initial sentencing, the district court granted a new trial with respect to four counts. The Third Circuit reversed and limited remand to re-sentencing only. The district court sua sponte found certain counts of conviction multiplicitous and vacated another count on the basis that its own jury charge was plainly erroneous. The Third Circuit vacated, again reinstating all counts of conviction, remanded for resentencing, and directed reassignment of the case to a different district court judge. View "United States v. Kennedy" on Justia Law

Defendant, a former federal prosecutor and prominent defense attorney, was indicted on charges including violations of the Racketeering Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act. Reasoning that the RICO charges were inappropriate in light of the disparate nature of the substantive crimes that served as racketeering predicates, the district court dismissed. The Third Circuit reversed. On remand, the government filed a 33-count superseding indictment charging RICO violations, witness tampering (including facilitation of murder), participation in a cocaine-trafficking conspiracy, and tax evasion. The district court ordered the murder counts severed and tried them first, prohibiting the government from introducing evidence of two other witness-murder plots. The jury was unable to reach a verdict. After the jury was dismissed, the government, anticipating retrial, asked whether the court would adhere to its earlier evidentiary rulings. “Absolutely,” was the response, though the court noted that the government would be permitted to try to convince it otherwise. The Third Circuit vacated the ruling excluding evidence of the other plots and remanded for reassignment; the court’s statements before and after the earlier appeal indicate that its "impartiality might reasonably be questioned." View "United States v. Bergrin" on Justia Law

Andrews was designated as contractor for improvements to the sewage system, in a no-bid process involving kickbacks and bribery, having made numerous false statements in the bond application package. After the contract was terminated, he submitted a claim of $748,304, based on false statements and duplicate charges. Evidence indicated that Andrews was not capable of the project work and that the entire scheme was fraudulent. He was convicted of one count of conspiracy, 18 U.S.C. 371, four counts of wire fraud, 18 U.S.C. 1343, 1346, and 2, one count of program fraud, 18 U.S.C. 666(a)(1)(B) and 2, one count of making a false claim upon the Government of the Virgin Islands, 14 V.I.C. 843(4), and one count of inducing a conflict of interest, 3 V.I.C. 1102, 1103, and 1107. The Third Circuit affirmed the conviction, but remanded for resentencing. Errors in the indictment and jury instructions concerning honest services fraud did not affect substantial rights. Although the 151-month term of imprisonment was within the statutory maximum for Counts Two through Five, it exceeded the statutory maximum for Counts One and Six; it was not possible to determine whether the sentence was legal as to each count View "United States v. Andrew" on Justia Law

Following a controlled-buy involving a confidential informant, Haziz was charged with distribution of five grams or more of cocaine base, 21 U.S.C. 841(a)(1) and distribution of cocaine base within 1,000 feet of a public housing facility, 21 U.S.C. 860(a). He waived conflict for representation by a firm representing a co-defendant. When he withdrew consent, a new attorney was appointed. At trial, the judge denied a motion for a mistrial that was based on witness statements that Haziz was in jail, but used a cautionary instruction. After the jury was dismissed, an alternate juror told a deputy that jurors had stated that they went along with the verdict although they did not necessarily agree with it. The court informed counsel, but denied a motion to interview the alternate juror. Haziz was sentenced to 120 months. The Third Circuit affirmed the convictions, rejecting arguments based on disqualification of first defense counsel; denial of a mistrial; denial of the request to interview the alternate juror; refusal to adopt a “mitigating role” adjustment in sentencing; and the total weight of the drugs involved. The court vacated the sentence; the Fair Sentencing Act of 2010 applies and Haziz is not subject to a mandatory minimum sentence. View "United States v. Self" on Justia Law

ABC is a dissolved corporation. Doe 1 was the company’s President and sole shareholder. Doe 2 is his son. LaCheen represents ABC and Doe 1; Blank represents Doe 2. The law firms have a joint-defense agreement covering the three. Investigating tax implications of ABC’s acquisition and sale of closely held companies, the government issued a grand jury subpoena to ABC’s former vice president as custodian of records. The documents are in custody of Blank. ABC refused to accept service of the subpoena issued to its former employee. The government issued subpoenas to LaCheen and Blank. The firms withheld documents listed on a privilege log. The government sought to compel ABC, Blank, and LaCheen to produce documents identified on the privilege logs, citing cited the crime-fraud doctrine, which provides that evidentiary privileges may not be used to shield communications made for purposes of getting advice for commission of a fraud or crime. The district court entered the order. The Third Circuit dismissed for lack of appellate jurisdiction. To obtain immediate appellate review, a privilege holder must disobey the order, be held in contempt, then appeal the contempt order. That route is available to ABC, which can obtain custody of the documents from its agent. View "In Re: Grand Jury" on Justia Law

Rolan was convicted in 1984 of murder and possession of an instrument of crime for a 1983 shooting death involving a drug sale. He obtained habeas corpus relief based on ineffective assistance of counsel. After a retrial, the jury convicted Rolan of murder again. After exhausting appeals, he again sought habeas corpus. The district court denied the petition. The Third Circuit affirmed, rejecting a claim of prosecutorial misconduct that was based on closing argument statements about the reliability of an alibi witness. The court properly allowed reading of a transcript of testimony by a witness, who died before retrial. View "Rolan v. Coleman" on Justia Law