Moore: Sex for Contraband Conspiracy Affirmed

In U.S. v. Moore, No. 07-10326 (April 22, 2008), the Court affirmed the convictions of two correctional officers convicted of "bribery."
The Court rejected a challenge to the sufficiency of the conspiracy evidence, noting that while the government witness gave conflicting testimony, the jury was free to credit the testimony that the correctional officers agreed to participate in a "sex for contraband conspiracy."
The Court rejected defendants’ argument that the mere acts of switching guard duty to avoid detection, allowing inmate use of the telephone, allowing inmates to leave their unit at night, were not "official acts" for purposes of the illegal gratuity statute. The Court pointed out that an "official act" need not involve a violation of a statute, but could involve the mere violation of an established practice. Under this broader definition, the defendants’ acts were "official acts."
The Court also rejected the argument that there were multiple conspiracies, not a single "sex for contraband" conspiracy. The Court found no "material variance" from the indictment, noting that the defendants acts all had a "common goal," an "underlying scheme," and "overlapping arrangements." Further, a multiple conspiracy jury instruction was not required, because the evidence showed a common scheme.
The Court rejected the argument that the Court constructively amended the indictment when it specifically instructed the jury that it is a violation of an officer’s duty to provide contraband to an inmate. The Court noted that this language was largely based on the indictment and did not expand the grounds for conviction.
The Court also found no "plain error" in the jury instruction that sex is a "thing of value."

Livesay: Inadequate Explanation for sentence variance

In U.S. v. Livesay, No. 06-11303 (April 23, 2008), the Court reversed the sentence of 60 months’ probation imposed on a former controller at HealthSouth corporation, for his role in this company’s $1.4 billion fraud. The sentence reflected a downward 5K1.1 departure, based on the defendant’s substantial assistance to authorities, from the Guideline range of 78-97 months.
The Court noted that the sentencing court relied on the fact that Livesay "repudiated the conspiracy at an early time." The Court pointed out, however, that repudiation from a conspiracy is not related to substantial assistance. Hence, the sentencing court committed procedural error.
The sentencing court also committed procedural error in failing to give any explanation of its reasons for imposing a sentence of 60 months’ probation; the sentencing court failed to give any reasoning or indication of what facts justified its significant variance from the advisory Guidelines range. It also failed to discuss how its sentence would satisfy the § 3553(a) factors. This failure precluded meaningful appellate review. The district court listed the sentences received by others in the HealthSouth fraud, but did not indicate how Livesay’s culpability compared to theirs.

Velasquez: Immigration Status Not a Proper Sentencing Factor

In U.S. v. Velasquez, No. 06-16637 (April 21, 2008), the Court vacated a nine-month sentence imposed on a defendant for violation of supervised release.
The defendant pled guilty and was sentenced to time served and two years supervised release for use of a counterfeit visa for entry into the United States, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1546(a). While on supervised release, the defendant was arrested for driving with a suspended licence. Though recognizing the "de minimus" nature of this supervised release violation, the district court imposed the high-end guideline range sentence of nine months, because of its concern that a person in the United States illegally should not be allowed to "roam free." The district court also questioned the wisdom of immigration authorities in letting an illegal alien out of custody, on bond, while his immigration asylum application was pending.
The Court vacated the sentence, pointing out that Congress vested authority to detain removable aliens in the United States, not in the courts. "[A] judge may not impose a more severe sentence than he would have otherwise based on unfounded assumptions regarding an individual’s immigration status or on his personal view of immigration policy." http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/200616637.pdf

Harrell: Obstruction enhancement includes underlying crimes

In U.S. v. Harrell, No. 06-15410 (April 17, 2006), on a government appeal, the Court held that the sentencing court erred in declining to impose the Guidelines cross-reference enhancement for obstruction of justice, USSG § 2J1.2, with regard to obstruction that occurred "in respect to" other underlying crimes.
The defendant was convicted of obstruction of justice for attempting to convince a witness to support his version of a conversation he had with another person, which itself also involved witness tampering. At sentencing, the government claimed that the obstruction of justice sentence should be enhanced, in accord with the guideline cross-reference provision, based on the seriousness of the underlying crimes for which Harrell was being prosecuted when he obstructed justice.
The Court agreed that the Guideline enhancement should apply with respect to the underlying crimes for which the prosecution would have been obstructed had the tampering been successful, for example, if a prosecution’s witness’ credibility was successfully undermined. However, the enhancement would not apply to charges that were severed from the trial at which Harrell’s obstruction conduct was at issue. "For the obstruction of justice [enhancement] to be cross-referenced, the obstruction of justice must have had the potential to disrupt the government’s investigation or prosecution of [the] crimes."

Westry: Hearsay statement to a friend can be against penal interest

In U.S. v. Westry, No. 06-13847 (April 16, 2008), the Court affirmed convictions and vacated in part sentences for a number defendants convicted of drug trafficking morphine, methadone, oxycontin and other drugs.
The Court rejected a challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence of conspiracy. The Court rejected the claim that because the defendants were at time in competition with each other for drug suppliers or customers, they were not part of a conspiracy. The Court pointed to evidence of "interrelatedness" of the defendant’s conduct. The Court further noted that "the existence of healthy competition" did not negate supplying consumers’ demand. As to one defendant, the Court rejected a "mere presence" claim, pointing out that he accepted a cash payment from an undercover officer to pay for his drug trafficking-related travel.
The Court also rejected the claim that a hearsay statement from a cocaine addict (and eventual victim of overdose) regarding the source of his cocaine. The Court recognized that the statement was made to a friend. However, it still could be treated as a "statement against penal interest," because of the chance, "albeit slight," that the declarant’s admission that he was waiting for cocaine would subject him to severe penalties.
The Court found no error in the refusal to give jury instructions regarding the defense of withdrawal from a conspiracy. The only evidence of withdrawal was a statement that one defendant "wasn’t involved" anymore. Because withdrawal requires "affirmative action to disavow or defeat the purpose of the conspiracy," there was insufficient evidence to support a withdrawal instruction.
The Court also rejected a challenge to the Pinkerton jury instructions. The defendants had sought instructions that specified that the amount of drugs at issue, and the death of drug user, were reasonably foreseeable. The Court upheld instructions which more generally instructed the jury that a co-conspirator is responsible for others’ crimes that were "a reasonably foreseeable consequence of the conspiracy."
Turning to sentencing, the Court found no error in the application of the "death enhancement," based on the death of an addict from an overdose from an injection of methadone sold by the defendants. "Where a conspirator is involved in distributing drugs to addicts, some of which are even administered intravenously, it is a reasonably foreseeable consequence that one or more of those addicts may overdose and die."
As to one defendant, however, the Court agreed that the evidence was too "meager" to support a death enhancement, as it only showed his "presence and association" with a member of the conspiracy prior to the death of the addict. A defendant cannot be held accountable for a death that occurred prior to his entry into conspiracy.
The Court, however, affirmed the imposition of a firearm enhancement. The Court held that a firearm’s possession is a reasonably foreseeable consequence of a "long-standing operation of a drug house." In any event, any error in applying the enhancement was harmless, in light of the life sentences imposed on other bases.

Begay: DUI is not a "violent felony"

In Begay v. U.S., No. 06-11543, the Supreme Court held that a felony conviction for driving under the influence of alcohol (DUI) falls outside the scope of the "violent felony" definition, for purposes of imposing a mandatory 15-year prison term upon a felon who unlawfully possesses a firearm and who has three or more prior "violent felony" convictions.
The Court concluded that DUI is too unlike the four examples Congress listed in the "violent felony" definition, namely "burglary, arson, or extortion, or [an offense that] involves use of explosives," to indicate that Congress intended that provision to cover DUI. "[T]he statute covers only similar crimes, rather than every crime that presents a serious potential risk of physical injury to another." (Emphasis in original).
The Court found that DUI differs from the four example crimes, in that it does not involve the violence and aggressive conduct typical of them. The Court noted that a contrary definition would take in crimes "far removed . . . from the deliberate kind of behavior associated with the violent criminal use of firearms."

Mock: Attempted Murder Enhancement Requires Findings

In U.S. v. Mock, No. 06-15861 (April 14, 2008), the Court affirmed a defendant’s arson convictions, but reversed the sentence because the district court did not make explicit findings of fact to support its attempted murder enhancement.
The Court rejected a challenge to remarks in the prosecutor’s closing argument, noting that while "colorful," they did not jeopardize the fairness of the trial. The Court also rejected a variety of challenges to the trial court’s evidentiary rulings.
Turning to the sentence, the Court noted that USSG § 2A2.1 provides for a sentence enhancement for arson offenses if the offender "attempted to cause death" by first-degree murder. The trial court imposed this enhancement, without making explicit findings. The Court noted that findings are necessary to facilitate judicial review. The Court therefore vacated the sentence and remanded for resentencing.

Ellisor: Christmas Show Fraud Punished by 87 months

In U.S. v. Ellisor, No. 05-14459 (April 7, 2008), the Court affirmed the mail fraud convictions and 87-month sentence of a defendant convicted of defrauding schools and children’s parents of money paid for tickets for a non-existent "Christmas Around the World Show."
The Court rejected Ellisor’s claim that the district court violated Fed. R. Evid. 404(b) when it admitted evidence of two prior incidents, a fraudulent "Washington D.C. on Tour" show, and his non-payment of his $ 1,657 charges at Coconut Grove’s Doubletree Hotel. The first incident showed Ellisor’s "intent to defraud by promoting an illusory show," while the evidence of the unpaid hotel bill was intertwined with the proof of the government’s fraud case, occurring as it did in the weeks leading up to the dates advertised for the show.
The Court also affirmed the exclusion of evidence of Ellisor’s prior authentic shows, noting that evidence of good conduct is not admissible to negate criminal intent.
The Court rejected a challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence, finding "ample" evidence from which the jury could have convicted. "‘Christmas From Around the World’ was billed as featuring 28 foreign ambassadors, Harry Potter characters, lavish Christmas decorations, raffle prizes, and even live reindeer. When the children showed up . . . the convention center was locked and bare."
Turning to the sentence, the Court rejected Ellisor’s argument that the loss amount was less than $30,000, that schools, not parents and children, should only be counted as victims, and that he had misrepresented that the University of Miami was a sponsor. The Court also affirmed the obstruction of justice enhancement based on Ellisor’s perjurious testimony at trial.
Finally, the Court affirmed the upward variance based on the "reprehensible" offense and prior similar misconduct.

Svete: Mail Fraud Instruction Defective

In U.S. v. Svete, No. 05-13809 (March 26, 2008), the Court reversed mail fraud convictions for two defendants based on an erroneous jury instruction, but otherwise rejected the defendants’ challenges to their convictions and sentences. The case arose out of an $80 million fraud on investors in life insurance benefits.
Citing U.S. v. Brown, 40 F.3d 1218 (11th Cir. 1994), the Court rejected challenges to the sufficiency of the evidence, pointing out that both defendants had testified in their defense, and that the jury was therefore free to believe of the opposite of their testimony.
The Court, however, agreed that the mail fraud jury instruction was defective because, though directly copied from the Pattern Jury Instruction, it failed to instruct, as the caselaw provided, that a scheme was "reasonably calculated to deceive persons of ordinary prudence and comprehension." The inaccuracy impaired the defendants ability to argue that, in light of the available documentation, it was unreasonable for any prudent investor to have relied on the defendants’ contrary statements, or not to seek independent advice. The Court therefore reversed the mail fraud convictions.
The Court rejected Giglio-based challenges to the trial. A prosecution witness lied on the witness stand about not having been previously incarcerated. However, the Court found that the violation was not "material," because the defendant decided not to pursue this line of impeachment, and because other impeachment of the witness was successful, and because this witness’ testimony was otherwise corroborated by other witnesses.
Finally, the Court rejected the challenge to the determination of a loss over $80 million for sentencing purposes.

McNeil: Extraordinary Attorney Negligence Tolls AEDPA period

In Downs v. McNeil, No. 05-10210 (March 24, 2008), the Court held that equitable tolling may apply to a Florida death row inmate’s otherwise untimely federal habeas petition.
The Court recognized that a showing of "ordinary" attorney negligence would not suffice to equitably toll AEDPA’s statute of limitations. Here, however, Downs showed "extraordinary" negligence and even wilful misconduct, including an instance where an attorney lied to him about having filed a document that would have tolled the running of his limitations period. In view of the "extraordinary circumstances" presented, the Court remanded the case for an evidentiary hearing to determine whether equitable tolling applied.

Maupin: Florida nolo contendere w/ adjudication withheld counts as prior conviction

In United States v. Maupin, No. 07-03341 (March 24, 2008), the Court held that a child pornography offender’s prior Florida nolo contendere plea with adjudication withheld to Florida child pornography charges counted as a prior conviction for purposes of the sentencing enhancement under 18 U.S.C. § 2252(A)(b)(1) and (b)(2).
The statute provided for enhancements for prior convictions "under the laws of any State." Maupin argued that under Florida state law, a nolo contendere plea with adjudication withheld is not considered a conviction, and that this plea should therefore not count under the federal statute. The Court rejected this argument, holding that as it had held with respect to the federal drug statute, the meaning of the word "conviction" has a federal meaning, unless Congress specifically provides otherwise. Under federal law, a nolo contendere plea with adjudication withheld counts as a prior conviction. Thus, Maupin’s prior nolo contendere plea with adjudication withheld counted as a prior conviction for federal sentencing purposes. The Court therefore affirmed the 480-month sentence.

Devine: No further duty to consult about appeal

In Devine v. U.S., No. 07-11206 (March 20, 2008), the Court held that defense counsel was not ineffective for failing to file a notice of appeal.
The defendant pled guilty. The plea was valid. His plea included an appeal waiver. The waiver provided that the only issue he could appeal was the legality of his sentence. The low-end Guideline range sentence was legal.
The defendant claimed that counsel failed to fully inform him about the advantages and disadvantages of an appeal. The Court assumed arguendo that counsel did not fully discuss the advantages and disadvantages of an appeal, but still found no ineffective assistance of counsel. First, the factual record below showed that the defendant did not reasonably demonstrate to counsel that he was interested in appealing. Second, no rational defendant would want to appeal in these circumstances. Thus, counsel had no duty to consult further with the defendant about an appeal.

Burgest: Dual Sovereignty Precludes Suppression

In U.S. v. Burgest, No. 06-11351 (March 13, 2008), the Court rejected the defendant’s argument that statements he gave to federal investigators should be suppressed, because his right to counsel had attached in State criminal proceedings for the same drug offense, and the statements were obtained in violation of his right to counsel.
The Court recognized that the right to counsel had attached on the State charges. However, the right to counsel is offense specific, here to the State charge. The federal offenses were distinct. The Court relied on the "dual sovereignty rule," and held that the State right to counsel did not attach to the federal charges.

Stratton: Kimbrough remand

In U.S. v. Stratton, No. 06-10080 (March 13, 2008), the Court remanded a case for resentencing on Kimbrough grounds. The Court noted that the defendant had preserved the Kimbrough issue by challenging the crack/powder disparity in his appeal. Further, the district court at sentencing specifically rejected Stratton’s argument that it had the authority to consider the crack/powder disparity as a basis for a sentence reduction.

Lawhorn: Habeas relief granted on ineffectiveness grounds

In Lawhorn v. Allen, No. 04-11711 (March 11, 2008), the Court (Barkett, Wilson, Cox), affirmed a district court’s grant of habeas relief to an Alabama death row inmate, on ineffective assistance of counsel grounds.
The district court had ruled that Lawhorn was entitled to habeas relief on the ground that a confession that he gave was the product of an unlawfully long five-day detention without access to counsel. The Court pointed out, however, that the state courts had found that Lawhorn’s confession was voluntary, based on the fact that he was twice given his Miranda warning. This finding was entitled to deference.
The Court found that counsel was ineffective in waiving the giving of a closing argument during the penalty phase of the proceedings. Counsel had waived closing argument based on a misunderstanding of the rules – he thought his waiver would preclude the prosecution from making rebuttal closing. The prosecution was in fact permitted to make a rebuttal closing. The fact that counsel misunderstood the law precluded a finding that he made a sound "strategic" decision. In addition, Lawhorn was prejudiced by the failure to give a closing argument, because he had a good argument that he was a victim of "domination" by the person who made him commit the murder.

Gordon: Counsel not ineffective in failure to insist on allocution

In Gordon v. U.S., No. 05-16703 (March 7, 2008), the Court held that the defendant did not establish ineffective assistance of counsel. Gordon claimed that his counsel was ineffective for failing to object to the district court’s failure to address Gordon personally at sentencing. The Court held that even though such a failure can constitute "plain error" on direct appeal, it would not presume prejudice to the defendant in a § 2255 context. Here, the defendant did not establish prejudice.
The Court also rejected Gordon’s request for an evidentiary hearing into his ineffective assistance of counsel claim. The Court noted that it could conceive of reasonable motivations for counsel’s failure to insist on the Gordon’s right to speak up at sentencing, to wit, Gordon’s remarks "might lead the court to consider [him] even less honest than it already considered him."

Michel: 2255 motion unsigned but timely

In Michel v. U.S., No. 06-13982 (March 11, 2008), the Court held that even though an inmate initially filed an unsigned § 2255 motion, and only later filed a signed motion – after the running of the statute of limitations – the timeliness of the initial unsigned prevented his motion from being dismissed on untimeliness grounds.
The Court noted that the Rules Governing § 2255 proceedings were specifically amended to provide that a clerk should file, instead of reject, an unsigned § 2255 motion. This amendment was not in effect at the time Michel filed his motions, but it was in effect at the time the district court dismissed his motion – which was the relevant time period. The Court also noted that the Rules Governing § 2255 proceedings trumped the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, when these two differ, and the district court therefore erred in relying on Fed. R. Civ. P. 11 in dismissing Michel’s petition.

Aviles: Withdrawal determines which Guideline manual to apply in "constant" conspiracies

In U.S. v. Aviles, No. 05-14446 (March 4, 2008), the Court, on a government appeal, reversed the district court for possibly using the wrong Guidelines manual at sentencing.
A sentencing court should apply the Guidelines manual in effect at the time of sentencing, unless use of this manual would violate the Ex Post Facto Clause (because the punishment increased after the defendant committed the offense), in which case it should use the manual in effect at the time the crime was committed. This rule can raise issues in conspiracy cases, where the crime continues over time, somewhat indefinitely. Was the defendant still involved in the conspiracy at the time of the later manual? Or did he withdraw? Can the reasonably foreseeable acts of his co-conspirators extend the conspiracy, even if he withdrew, since these acts are part of the defendant’s "relevant conduct"? Are the acts of a co-conspirator reasonably foreseeable when the conspiracy itself is sporadic?
The Court held that only when a conspiracy is "sporadic" can the cessation of one defendant’s participation cut-off the time for applying a new Guidelines manual. When (as here) a conspiracy is constant and consistent, then only withdrawal from the conspiracy will avoid application of a new Guidelines manual (under ex post facto principles). Here, the district court failed to address the withdrawal question. The Court therefore remanded the case for consideration of when the defendants withdrew from the conspiracy.

Deverso: Mistake of Age not a 2252 defense

In U.S. v. Deverso, No. 06-16048 (March 5, 2008), the Court affirmed convictions for using a minor to engage in sexually explicit conduct outside the United States for the purpose of producing a visual depiction of such conduct within the United States.
The Court found that the birth certificate of a victim in the Philippines was adequately authenticated, as a foreign public document under FRE 902(3). Here, a government agent testified that he obtained the certificate from the Philippine National Census and Statistics Office and that he had the copy authenticated and certified at the United States Embassy in Manila. The document itself was accompanied by certificates from Embassy official verifying the document’s authenticity.
The Court rejected the defendant’s argument that he was entitled to a "mistake of age" jury instruction. The Court noted that the statute contained no element requiring the defendant to know the age of the victim, and added that the Constitution did not require such an element to be included in the statute.

Alexander: Fla. 3.800(c) motion does not toll AEDPA limitations

In Alexander v. Sec. Dep’t of Corrections, No. 06-12501 (March 3, 2008), vacating its prior opinion, the Court held that a motion under Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800(c) does not toll the AEDPA limitations period. Accordingly, the Court dismissed the Florida inmate’s § 2254 petition as untimely.
The Court noted that, unlike Fla. R. Crim. P. 3.850 motions, or even 3.800(a) motions, which challenge the legality of a judgment, a 3.800(c) motion merely invoked the leniency of the court and set forth no challenge of legal error. Consequently, this was not the type of State post-conviction application which tolled the AEDPA limitations period.