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

In each of these consolidated petitions for review, an alien’s initial counsel withdrew, and the alien represented himself at the merits hearing on his requests for relief from removal. After denying those requests and ordering the aliens removed, the Immigration Judge informed each alien that he had a right to administratively appeal the removal order to the Board of Immigration Appeals and that the right could be waived. Each alien waived that right, preferring to be deported rather than remain in custody. Days afterward, each alien filed a pro se notice of appeal. Later, in briefs filed by pro bono counsel, each alien disputed a removal. The BIA dismissed each administrative appeal, finding that the waiver of an administrative appeal was valid. Each alien then filed an unsuccessful motion for reconsideration with the BIA.The Third Circuit denied petitions for review. The administrative record does not compel the conclusion that the waivers were invalid, and the BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying the alien’s motion to reconsider. Each IJ explained the right to appeal and the meaning of the waiver; the waivers were not involuntary. View "Alexander-Mendoza v. Attorney General United States" on Justia Law

Ascolese, a compliance officer, brought a False Claims Act (FCA) retaliation claim against his former employer, MBP, in connection with a qui tam action involving a federally-funded public housing construction project for the Philadelphia Housing Authority (PHA). In 2009–2010, Congress amended the FCA, 31 U.S.C. 3729(a)(1)(A), to expand the scope of protected conduct shielded from retaliation and the type of notice an employer must have of the protected conduct. The new standard is whether Ascolese showed he engaged in protected conduct in furtherance of an FCA action or other efforts to stop or more violations of the FCA and that he was discriminated against because of his protected conduct. The court believed that the pre-amendment standard was required by the Third Circuit, and concluded that Ascolese failed to show MBP was on notice that he was attempting to stop MBP from violating the FCA and not merely doing his job.The Third Circuit vacated and remanded. The right question is whether Ascolese pled facts that plausibly showed MBP was on notice he tried to stop MBP’s alleged FCA violation. Ascolese sufficiently pled that he engaged in protected conduct when he went outside of his chain of command to report his concerns of fraudulent work to the PHA. View "Ascolese v. Shoemaker Construction Co" on Justia Law

Convicted of wire fraud, for his scheme to defraud Gains Capital, Banks was sentenced to 104 months’ imprisonment. Banks made fraudulent deposits of $324,000 and unsuccessfully executed 70 withdrawals/transfers totaling $264,000. Gain Capital, however, did not transfer any to Banks and suffered no loss.The Third Circuit remanded for resentencing. The district court erred in applying the loss enhancement to the U.S.S.G. fraud guideline. The loss enhancement in the Guideline’s application notes impermissibly expands the word “loss” to include both intended loss and actual loss. The court affirmed the conviction, rejecting an argument that the court erred in denying Cross his constitutionally protected right to self-representation. The court predicated its finding that Banks could not understand the risks of self-representation on Banks’s voluminous filings and the court’s own observations of Banks over several years, including his “unrelenting and persistent focus on CIA-managed ‘voice-to-skull’ technology, a construct as to which he admits he has no factual basis to conclude was ever applied to him.” The court properly concluded Banks could not knowingly and voluntarily waive his right to counsel. The court upheld special device-purchase and financial-transactions conditions of supervised release and a requirement that Banks participate in DNA collection. View "United States v. Banks" on Justia Law

Investigating drug trafficking based on the report of a confidential informant, the police entered the homes of both Alexander and his girlfriend, without search warrants. Officers entered Alexander’s home and secured the premises, then waited to conduct a search until a warrant was issued. At Alexander’s girlfriend’s home, they secured the premises and were applying for a warrant, which was all but certain to issue, when they received what they understood as consent to a search. Alexander was charged with possession with intent to distribute 28 grams or more of cocaine base, 21 U.S.C. 841(a)(1), (b)(1)(B); possession with intent to distribute cocaine; possession of a firearm in furtherance of a drug trafficking crime, 18 U.S.C. 924(c)(1)(A)(i); and possession of a firearm by a prohibited person, 18 U.S.C. 922(g)(1), 924(a)(2).The Third Circuit affirmed the denial of Alexander’s motion to suppress, citing the inevitable discovery exception to the exclusionary rule. There was probable cause to believe Alexander had cocaine and drug-dealing paraphernalia in both houses. Officers had reason to believe that Alexander had been tipped off so that evidence of drug dealing would be imminently destroyed. Exigent circumstances justified the officers entering without a warrant; the search of Alexander’s residence was valid because a warrant was properly issued. View "United States v. Alexander" on Justia Law

In 2012, the DEA, the FBI, and the Chester Police Department initiated a joint investigation of a drug trafficking conspiracy (DTG) that employed confidential informants, controlled purchases of narcotics, surveillance, pole cameras, pen registers, and court-authorized wiretaps. To facilitate their drug trafficking, members of the DTG illegally carried guns and stashed both drugs and guns in alleyways and in a playground.Some members pled guilty; the four Appellants, among others, were convicted on drug conspiracy and related charges. The Third Circuit affirmed their convictions and sentences. Any improper expert testimony in violation of Rule of Evidence 704(b) was harmless error in light of the evidence that supports the Appellants’ membership in the conspiracy. The court rejected claims that the district court erred in its instructions and interrogatories to the jury concerning the quantity of drugs for which they were held responsible and erred in admitting evidence of firearms and acts of violence in the vicinity of the DTG’s territory during the period of the conspiracy. The court properly calculated the sentences, considering career offender status, acceptance of responsibility, firearms enhancements, and drug quantities attributable to the Appellants. View "United States v. Womack" on Justia Law

A York, Pennsylvania woman told law enforcement that Dyer had attacked her with a handgun, trafficked women, and sold drugs from his house. They obtained a warrant to search Dyer’s home for “[f]irearms, illegal drugs, [and] cell phones” after a search of his criminal history revealed that Dyer, a felon, may have possessed a firearm. Officers executed the warrant the following day; they found Dyer, who directed them to a firearm that matched the woman's description. They also seized “the Box” containing pills, drug packing materials, and ID” from a shelf in Dyer’s son’s bedroom. ATF Agents obtained another warrant to search Dyer’s residence, garage, and the surrounding curtilage for drugs and drug paraphernalia; they found pentylone capsules (bath salts), and digital scales with cocaine residue.Charged with knowingly possessing a firearm as a convicted felon, possession of a firearm in furtherance of a drug trafficking crime, criminal conspiracy to distribute and possess pentylone with the intent to distribute, and possession of pentylone with the intent to distribute. Dyer moved to suppress all the evidence. The court ultimately refused to exclude the firearm properly seized during the first search and the drugs, digital scales, and packaging seized during the second search. Dyer pled guilty to the felon in possession of a firearm charge, Dyer appealed the admission of the Box. The Third Circuit affirmed. The Box was immaterial to his case and admitting it was at most harmless error. View "United States v. Dyer" on Justia Law

Clark, a JTVCC inmate, was treated for schizophrenia and bipolar disorder at the prison for at least 10 years, a fact of which the prison officials were aware. Despite having few disciplinary “points” on his record and no security classification meriting solitary confinement, Clark remained in the unit for seven months, alone in his cell except for three one-hour intervals per week. Clark was not allowed to work or participate in educational or religious services. He was permitted only four phone calls and four visitors per month. Inmates must “earn their way out” of solitary confinement; while in isolation, Clark would “yell and bang on the door." Prison officials considered these outbursts to be disciplinary incidents. When Clark questioned his confinement, he was put in the “naked room,” an isolation cell where he had only an open smock. Clark's mental illness caused behavior that was punished by conditions that furthered his deterioration. Clark experienced “increased hallucinations, paranoia, self-mutilation, sleeplessness, and nightmares.”Officials failed to abide by a policy requirement to consider his mental illness. Clark alleges they knew of the American Correctional Association study on the effects of solitary confinement on seriously mentally ill inmates. The study singled out JTVCC’s Warden, stating that he is not “open to change in regards to restrictive housing" regarding the mentally ill. The Third Circuit reversed the qualified immunity dismissal of Clark’s 42 U.S.C. 1983 suit. His allegations trigger established Eighth Amendment protection. View "Clark v. Coupe" on Justia Law

In March 2020, New Jersey Governor Murphy responded to the spread of COVID-19; Executive Order 107 prohibited in-person gatherings and ordered New Jersey residents to “remain home or at their place of residence,” except for certain approved purposes, such as an “educational, political, or religious reason.” EO 107 excepted businesses deemed “essential,” including grocery and liquor stores, which could continue to welcome any number of persons (consistent with social distancing guidelines). Violations of EO 107 were subject to criminal prosecution for “disorderly conduct.” The order granted the Superintendent of the State Police, “discretion to make clarifications and issue [related] orders[.]” He exercised that power, declaring (Administrative Order 2020-4) that gatherings of 10 or fewer persons were presumptively permitted. Neither EO 107 nor AO 2020-4 contained an exception for religious worship gatherings or other First Amendment activity.Two New Jersey-based, Christian congregations, believing that the Bible requires them to gather for in-person worship services, violated the Orders and were cited. Less than a week after the filing of their complaint, challenging the Orders, Governor Murphy raised indoor gathering limits to 50 persons or 25 percent of room capacity (whichever was less), allowing outdoor religious gatherings without any gathering limits. The district court denied the congregations’ motion for a preliminary injunction. The Third Circuit dismissed an appeal as moot. View "Clark v. Governor of New Jersey" on Justia Law

New Jersey permits candidates running in primary elections to include beside their name a slogan of up to six words to help distinguish them from others on the ballot but requires that candidates obtain consent from individuals or incorporated associations before naming them in their slogans. Candidates challenged this requirement after their desired slogans were rejected for failure to obtain consent. They argued that ballot slogans are, in effect, part of the campaign and that the consent requirement should be subject to traditional First Amendment scrutiny.The district court disagreed, holding that, though the ballot slogans had an expressive function, the consent requirement regulates the mechanics of the electoral process. The court applied the Anderson-Burdick test. The Third Circuit affirmed. The line separating core political speech from the mechanics of the electoral process “has proven difficult to ascertain.“ The court surveyed the election laws to which the Supreme Court and appellate courts have applied the Anderson-Burdick test, as opposed to a traditional First Amendment analysis, and derived criteria to help distinguish which test is applicable. New Jersey’s consent requirement is subject to Anderson-Burdick’s balancing test; because New Jersey’s interests in ensuring election integrity and preventing voter confusion outweigh the minimal burden imposed on candidates’ speech, the requirement passes that test. View "Mazo v. New Jersey Secretary of State" on Justia Law

Gonzalez-Aquino, a citizen of the Dominican Republic and a lawful U.S. permanent resident, has been convicted of burglary, escape, theft, trespass, and more. His most recent convictions, theft and conspiracy to commit theft, were aggravated felonies. Gonzalez-Aquino sought to defer his removal under the Convention Against Torture, claiming that if he returned to the Dominican Republic, he would face threats. As a teenager, he got into a gambling dispute with a man who belonged to a well-known criminal gang. The man threatened to kill him, so he moved to the U.S.. In the U.S., Gonzalez-Aquino was arrested for murdering another Dominican. The charges were dropped, but the victim’s family threatened to kill him if he returned to the Dominican Republic.The IJ rejected his arguments, finding that he had not shown that he would likely be tortured or that the Dominican government would acquiesce to any torture. The proceedings were not ideal: the judge used legal jargon without explanations, said little about what evidence was needed, and asked few questions. The videoconference was malfunctioning; the judge could see Gonzalez-Aquino but he could not see her. The BIA dismissed an appeal. The Third Circuit denied a petition for review. Because he is removable for committing an aggravated felony, the court lacked jurisdiction to review the Board’s factual or discretionary decisions, 8 U.S.C. 1252(a)(2)(C). Gonzalez-Aquino did not allege violation of any fundamental rights and was not prejudiced by procedural errors. View "Gonzalez Aquino v. Attorney General United States" on Justia Law