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

Henderson pleaded guilty to possession with intent to distribute 40 grams or more of a mixture and substance containing fentanyl, 18 U.S.C. 841(a)(1), (b)(1)(B)(iv), without a plea agreement. The district court applied the career offender enhancement under U.S.S.G. 4B1.1 and the Armed Career Criminal Act (ACCA), based on findings that Henderson’s 2015 Pennsylvania conviction for possession with intent to deliver heroin qualified as a “controlled substance offense,” and Henderson’s 2005 Pennsylvania conviction for conspiracy to commit robbery qualified as a “crime of violence.” The enhancement increased the applicable Guideline range from 70-87 months’ imprisonment to 188-235 months. Henderson did not challenge the PSR Guideline calculations and was sentenced to 120 months’ imprisonment, with the court noting Henderson’s “mental health issues.” The Third Circuit stayed Henderson's appeal. In the meantime, the Supreme Court (Borden, 2021) found that crimes that can be committed with recklessness do not qualify as “violent felonies” under ACCA.The Third Circuit vacated Henderson's sentence, noting that its precedents had previously dictated different sentencing outcomes for defendants convicted of conspiracy and other inchoate offenses but that Borden resolved the conflict. Under Pennsylvania law, conspiracy to commit robbery does not constitute a “crime of violence” for purposes of the career offender enhancement. View "United States v. Henderson" on Justia Law

Liposomal bupivacaine is a nonopioid pain medication that Pacira manufactures under the name EXPAREL; it is a local anesthetic administered at the time of surgery to control post-surgical pain. As of 2020, EXPAREL sales represented nearly all of Pacira’s total revenue. Pacira complains that the defendants, the American Society of Anesthesiologists, its journal, its editor, and authors published statements in a variety of forms, conveying their view that EXPAREL is “not superior” to standard analgesics or provides “inferior” pain relief.The Third Circuit affirmed the dismissal of Pacira’s suit for trade libel. Opinion statements are generally nonactionable. A “fair and natural” reading of the statements at issue shows that these are nonactionable subjective expressions. Pacira’s allegations boil down to disagreements about the reliability of the methodology and data underlying the statements; “a scientific conclusion based on nonfraudulent data in an academic publication is not a ‘fact’ that can be proven false through litigation.” Pacira failed to identify any aspect of the Articles, a Continuing Medical Education program, or a Podcast that “bring their conclusions outside the protected realm of scientific opinion.” View "Pacira Biosciences Inc v. American Society of Anesthesiologists Inc" on Justia Law

Perez-Colon was convicted of two counts of production of child pornography, 18 U.S.C. 2251(a), one count of distribution, section 2252(a)(2), five counts of attempted distribution, 2252(a)(2), and one count of possession, 2252(a)(4)(B). Eight counts involved “M1,” a female toddler. Perez-Colon was living with M1 and her mother at a motel. He posted a Craigslist advertisement seeking to “share real incest stories fetish stories underage pedo stories” with “real experiences and pictures.” An undercover FBI agent responded. Perez-Colon sent the agent pornographic images and videos of M1. A search of Perez-Colon’s smartphone revealed that he produced these and other similar pictures and videos. Perez-Colon also attempted to distribute an image of a toddler boy's genitals; the boy's mother took the photo and sent it to Perez-Colon to show him the boy’s rash.The Third Circuit affirmed his 55-year sentence. The court rejected Perez-Colon’s objections to his PSR’s treatment of Guideline 3D1.2, which required the court to group closely related counts together when determining Perez-Colon’s number of “units” of counts; to a two-level Guideline 2G2.1(b)(5) enhancement that applies “[i]f the defendant was a parent, relative, or legal guardian of the minor involved in the offense, or if the minor was otherwise in the custody, care, or supervisory control of the defendant”; and to a five-level 4B1.5(b) enhancement for “a pattern of activity involving prohibited sexual conduct.” View "United States of America v. Perez-Colon" on Justia Law

When Mack was incarcerated, he worked at the prison commissary, where two supervising prison guards singled him out for harassment because of his Muslim faith. When Mack went to the back of the commissary to pray during shift breaks, the guards followed him and interfered with his prayers by making noises, talking loudly, and kicking boxes. Fearing retaliation if he continued to pray at work, Mack stopped doing so. The guards nevertheless engineered his termination from his commissary job. He sued.The district court granted the guards summary judgment on Mack’s lone surviving claim, under the Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993 (RFRA), 42 U.S.C. 2000bb, citing qualified immunity. The Third Circuit vacated. While, as a matter of law, qualified immunity can be asserted as a defense under RFRA, the officers have not met their burden of establishing that defense. Framed in the light most favorable to Mack, evidence of the RFRA violation here involved significant, deliberate, repeated, and unjustified interference by prison officials with Mack’s ability to pray as required by his faith. If different facts come out at trial, the officers may again raise qualified immunity. View "Mack v. Yost" on Justia Law

Freeman was convicted, along with Miller and Collier, of second-degree murder. The jury had heard the confession of Miller, a non-testifying codefendant, with redactions that replaced the names of Collier and Freeman, with the substitutes “the first guy” and “the second guy.” The court gave a limiting instruction that the statement was to be considered only as to Miller, not as to the other defendants, in order to protect Freeman’s Sixth Amendment right to confront a witness against him. Freeman’s objection was overruled and rejected on appeal in state court.The district court concluded that a “Bruton” violation occurred and that the violation was not harmless, and granted Freeman habeas relief. The Third Circuit reversed. A Bruton violation occurred. When a statement is redacted— whether by substituting the codefendant’s name with a neutral pronoun, a blank space, or a symbol—in such a manner that “[a] juror … need only lift his eyes to [the codefendant], sitting at counsel table” to understand who is being implicated, the introduction of that statement is a Sixth Amendment violation. However, there was ample other evidence against Freeman, and the violative statement was largely duplicative of other evidence; there is no “grave doubt about whether [the error] had substantial and injurious effect or influence in determining the jury’s verdict.” The error was harmless. View "Freeman v. Superintendent Fayette SCI" on Justia Law

Rivera, a Newark police officer from 1993-2018, collected $78,941 in bribes from three brothel owners in exchange for protecting the owners from arrest, using law enforcement resources to assist them, and making things difficult for competing brothels. Rivera did not report the income from the bribes, for which he should have paid $17,408 in federal taxes. He was indicted on 14 counts. Rivera pleaded guilty to accepting corrupt payments with the intent to be influenced and rewarded, 18 U.S.C. 666(a)(1)(B)–(2), and aiding and assisting in the preparation of false tax returns, 26 U.S.C. 7206(2). The government agreed to dismiss the remaining counts if Rivera pleaded guilty and was sentenced to 46 months. The plea agreement included an appellate waiver that Rivera attested he read and fully understood.Nine months after the court “conditionally” accepted his plea, Rivera moved to withdraw his plea, claiming the court had deferred acceptance of it until the sentencing, which had not occurred. He argued Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 11(d) permitted him to withdraw his plea “for any reason or no reason.” The Third Circuit affirmed the denial of Rivera’s motion. The district court stated that while it had deferred acceptance of the plea agreement, it had accepted the plea itself, which could not be withdrawn absent “a fair and just reason.” The Third Circuit enforce the waiver of Rivera’s right to appeal. View "United States v. Rivera" on Justia Law

To improve a stretch of U.S. Route 22 near Altoona, the Pennsylvania Department of Transportation (PennDOT) sought two right-of-way easements from for new drainage pipes, covering less than one-tenth of an acre of Merritt's property. PennDOT initiated condemnation and over Merritts’s objections, acquired title to and possession of the easements. With no success in that state-court proceeding, Merritts filed a federal suit, claiming that PennDOT’s acquisition of the easements and the compensation offered for them violated the U.S. Constitution and Pennsylvania law.The district court dismissed all claims with prejudice, some based on Eleventh Amendment immunity, the remainder under “Burford abstention,” which protects “complex state administrative processes from undue federal interference.” The Third Circuit affirmed in part. The “Ex parte Young” exception to Eleventh Amendment immunity does not allow Merritts’s claims for injunctive and declaratory relief against the PennDOT officials in their official capacities because he does not seek prospective relief from an ongoing violation. Merritts’s section 1983 claims for damages against the PennDOT officials in their individual capacities for allegedly unlawfully acquiring the easements for PennDOT cannot be dismissed under Burford abstention; his claims for damages premised on the allegedly unlawful acquisition of the easements meet the conditions for dismissal under the Rooker-Feldman doctrine, but his claims concerning the denial of just compensation do not. The dismissals on Eleventh Amendment and Rooker-Feldman grounds should have been without prejudice. View "Merritts v. Richards" on Justia Law

Bayada employees are paid extra for exceeding their weekly productivity minimums. If they fail to meet those minimums, Bayada withdraws from their available accumulated paid time off (PTO) to supplement the difference between the points they were expected to earn and what they actually earned. Bayada does not deduct from an employee’s guaranteed base salary when the employee lacks sufficient PTO to cover a productivity point deficit. The plaintiffs filed a collective action and putative class action alleging that the deductions effectively reduced their salary and violated the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA), 29 U.S.C. 201, and state employment laws; they claimed that PTO qualified as salary under the FLSA and its related regulations.The Third Circuit affirmed summary judgment in favor of Bayada. As a matter of first impression, the court held based on the plain meaning of the regulatory language promulgated under the FLSA, that PTO is not part of an employee’s salary. The FLSA prohibits an actual, improper deduction from an employee’s salary. Bayada did not reduce the guaranteed base pay of any of the plaintiffs. View "Higgins v. Bayada Home Health Care Inc" on Justia Law

The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission conditionally approved Adelphia’s application under 15 U.S.C. 717f(c), the Natural Gas Act, to acquire, construct, and operate an interstate natural gas pipeline system. As part of that project, Adelphia sought to construct a compressor station in West Rockhill Township and applied to the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) to demonstrate compliance with the Federal Clean Air Act and Pennsylvania’s Air Pollution Control Act. The DEP granted Plan Approval.Adelphia successfully moved to dismiss appeals to the Pennsylvania Environmental Hearing Board, arguing that federal courts of appeals have original and exclusive jurisdiction over challenges to environmental permits issued by the DEP. The Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania reversed, reasoning that administrative proceedings are not “civil actions” and that the Natural Gas Act did not preempt the Board from exercising its jurisdiction. Adelphia then filed suit in the Middle District of Pennsylvania requesting that it enjoin the Board from acting. Adelphia also appealed to the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania.The district court dismissed Adelphia’s suit, holding that the issue preclusion doctrine bars Adelphia from bringing a federal action premised on arguments the Commonwealth Court rejected. The Third Circuit affirmed. Adelphia’s challenge impermissibly seeks to relitigate an issue decided by the Commonwealth Court. View "Adelphia Gateway LLC v. Pennsylvania Environmental Hearing Board" on Justia Law

In 2013, three armed men in ski masks entered a Harrisburg, Pennsylvania Cracker Barrel restaurant, robbed the victims at gunpoint, and stashed $8,000 in a bag. A victim hiding in the bathroom called 911. The robbers fled but were arrested nearby. Police discovered a loaded handgun approximately 10 feet from where Stoney was found. The cash and two other guns were also recovered.Stoney admitted his involvement and identified his co-defendants. Stoney was charged with Hobbs Act robbery and the Use of a Firearm During a Crime of Violence, 18 U.S.C. 2; 1951; 924(c)(1)(A). The firearm charge referenced the Hobbs Act robbery as the predicate offense, based on two theories of liability: Pinkerton and aiding and abetting. The indictment did not specify a completed Hobbs Act robbery but Stoney pled guilty, admitting to a completed gunpoint robbery.The Third Circuit affirmed the denial of Stoney’s successive motion under 28 U.S.C. 2255, rejecting arguments that his conviction should be treated as an attempted Hobbs Act robbery, which fails to qualify as a 924(c)(3)(A) predicate crime of violence or that his conviction, based on Pinkerton liability and aiding and abetting, does not qualify as a crime of violence. There is no question that Stoney personally committed a completed Hobbs Act robbery View "United States v. Stoney" on Justia Law