Rehaif: No Mens Rea Required as to Status Element of 922(g)

In United States v. Rehaif, No. 16-15860 (Aug. 17, 2017) (Dubina, Ed Carnes, William Pryor), the Court affirmed the defendant's conviction for possessing a firearm and ammunition while being unlawfully in the United States, in violation of 18 U.S.C. 922(g)(5)(A) and 924(a)(2).

On appeal, the defendant first argued that the government was required to prove not only that he knowingly possessed the firearm/ammunition, but also that he knew he was unlawfully in the United States.  In rejecting that argument, the Court relied heavily on 922(g)(1) precedents -- including an 11th circuit case from 1997 -- holding that the government does not need to prove that the defendant knew of his felon status.  Notably, it rejected the contrary conclusion reached in a concurring opinion by then-Judge Gorsuch.  The Court opined that there was no reason to treat felon status under 922(g)(1) differently than unlawful-presence status under 922(g)(5).  It therefore broadly held that "there is no mens rea requirement with respect to the status element of 922(g)."  The Court nonetheless noted that, although not alleged in that case,"there could be a mistake of fact defense."

Next, the defendant argued that he was "unlawfully" presented in the United States only when he was so adjudicated by an immigration officer.  As a matter of statutory construction, the court rejected that argument, finding that he was unlawfully in the United States the moment he violated the terms and conditions of his visa.  In that case, the defendant had remained in the United States under an F-1 non-immigrant student visa after he was no longer enrolled as a full-time student.

Martin: Denial of Motion Seeking Judicial Recommendation for BOP Placement Is Not an Appealable Order

In United States v. Martin, No. 16-17353 (August 15, 2017) (Wilson, Jordan, Rosenbaum) (per curiam), the Court held that an order denying a defendant's motion for a non-binding, judicial recommendation to BOP for placement in a residential re-entry center was not a final appealable order under 28 U.S.C. 1291.  In so holding, the Court followed the unanimous view of six other circuits.

Caraballo: District Courts Have Jurisdiction to Consider Successive 3582(c)(2) Motion Where Initial Motion Denied

In United States v. Caraballo-Martinez, No. 16-11772 (August 4, 2017) (Hull, Marcus, Clevenger), the Court affirmed the denial of the defendant's motion for a sentencing reduction under 18 U.S.C. 3582(c)(2).  The primary question on appeal was a threshold one: whether the district court had jurisdiction to entertain Caraballo's successive 3582(c)(2) motion.  Although he was eligible for a sentencing reduction based on Amendment 599, the district court had denied his initial 3582(c)(2) motion under the 3553(a) factors.  Caraballo then filed a renewed 3582(c)(2) motion based on the same Guideline.  On appeal, the Court held that, where the district court denies -- as opposed to grants -- the initial 3582(c)(2) motion and thus does not impose a different sentence, the court retains jurisdiction to consider a successive 3582(c)(2) motion based on the same Guideline.  The Court declined to address, and thus left open, whether there were non-jurisdictional prohibitions on such successive motions.  The Court nonetheless affirmed the denial of Caraballo's successive 3582(c)(2) motion, finding that the district court had sufficiently considered and weighed the 3553(a) factors.

Kevin Newsom

Yesterday the Senate confirmed Kevin Newsom of Alabama as the newest member of the Eleventh Circuit by a vote of 66-31.  His biography remains available at the link below.

https://www.bradley.com/people/n/newsom-kevin-c

Williams: Affirming MDLEA Convictions Where No Drugs Found

In United States v. Williams, et al., No. 15-15460 (August 1, 2017) (Jill Pryor, Jordan, Proctor), the Court affirmed the defendants' MDLEA drug convictions and one defendant's failure to heave to conviction, but found insufficient evidence to support the remaining defendants' convictions for aiding and abetting the failure to heave to.

The Court rejected the defendants' three evidentiary arguments.  First, it rejected the argument that the district court improperly admitted expert testimony regarding IoScan results reflecting traces of cocaine on the vessel.  The Court rejected the argument that, although the witness was an expert in operating IoScan machines, he was not an expert in interpreting its results; and it rejected the argument that the expert's testimony should have been excluded under Daubert or Rule 403 because it could not definitively answer every question about the presence of cocaine on the vessel.

Second, the Court rejected the argument that the district court improperly allowed Coast Guard officers to provide lay opinion testimony that objects jettisoned from the vessel resembled cocaine bales found in prior drug interdictions.  That observation was properly admitted as lay, rather than expert, testimony because it was based on the objects' appearance and size using an infrared system, and did not require scientific or technical knowledge.  The Court rejected the defendants' argument, based on Jayyousi, that opinions offered by law enforcement officers do not automatically become expert opinions simply because they involve knowledge that pre-existed the instant investigation.

Third, the Court rejected the argument that the district court improperly admitted a "zarpe," a Colombian document including the names of the defendants and their ports of call, as unauthenticated and containing hearsay.  The government introduced evidence that the zarpe was authentic under Rule 901.  And it did not contain hearsay because it was offered to demonstrate that it was a ruse, not accurate.

The Court found sufficient evidence to support the defendants' drug conspiracy convictions, despite the fact that no cocaine was found on the vessel or in the sea.  The Court relied on the following facts: they were traveling at night in rough waters on a known drug trafficking route; the vessel was traveling in the opposite direction of where the captain initially said it was going; there was no fishing equipment on the vessel, which was registered as a fishing vessel; the crew members were observed throwing objects overboard; the officers found gasoline, a known masking agent; and the vessel behaved erratically.  The Court found sufficient evidence that the contraband was in fact cocaine based on officers' testimony about prior cocaine interdictions in that same area, the size/shape of the bales thrown over, and the IoScan results.

The Court affirmed defendant Williams' conviction for failing to heave to, because he was the master of the vessel, which sped up and made erratic movements after hailed by the Coast Guard.  The Court, however, reversed the remaining defendants' convictions for aiding and abetting that violation, because there was no evidence that they intended to aid and abet Williams' failure to heave to; the fact that they jettisoned the packages was insufficient.

Hernandez: Coast Guard Certification Conclusive Proof of MDLEA Jurisdiction

In United States v. Hernandez, et al., No. 15-10810 (July 28, 2017) (Rogers (6th Cir.), Hull, Marcus), the Court upheld the defendants' drug-trafficking convictions under the MDLEA.

The primary issue on appeal was whether the vessel was subject to the jurisdiction of the United States as a vessel without nationality.  The Court concluded that it was because the Coast Guard's certification that Guatemala neither confirmed nor denied its registration was conclusive proof satisfying the jurisdictional requirement.  The Court found that the defendants could not look behind or challenge that certification, even where, as here, it turned out that the vessel was in fact registered in Guatemala, and the defendants claimed that the Coast Guard possessed information that would have easily led it to reach that conclusion.  The Court, in a lengthy discussion, reached that conclusion as a matter of both statutory construction and international law.  The Coast Guard's certification is conclusive proof, even if inaccurate or the product of bad faith, because the statute delegates such matters to the diplomatic branches.  Relatedly, the Court rejected the argument that, by the time Guatemala neither confirmed nor denied registration (making the vessel subject to US jurisdiction), the defendants were no longer committing the drug offense.

The Court also rejected several additional arguments by the defendants.  It found the evidence sufficient to support the convictions.  It found no reversible prosecutorial misconduct because, even though some remarks made during closing did "not reflect the high standards to which the Government should hold itself," they were not sufficiently prejudicial.  The Court found that the accidental destruction of the vessel and other items did not violate Brady or Arizona v. Youngblood.  The Court briefly rejected various hearsay-related arguments.  And the Court upheld sentencing enhancements for both acting as a captain, where the defendant identified himself as such and held a captain's license, and for recklessly creating a substantial risk of death, where the defendant engaged in aggressive maneuvering of the vessel.

Little: Constructive Possession of a CP Email Where Stored on the Server

In United States v. Little, No. 16-10664 (July 28, 2017) (Ed Carnes, William Pryor, Dubina), the Court affirmed a conviction and sentence for possessing and transporting child pornography.

As for the conviction, the defendant argued that venue was improper in Florida for his possession conviction, because he received an email with child pornography attached while he was in Texas and did not open that email while he was in Florida.  The Court rejected that argument for two reasons.  First, the Court found that the defendant unquestionably possessed a different email containing child pornography while in Florida, since he sent that email to someone else.  Even though that email was also the subject of the transportation count, that did not violate double jeopardy because possession and transportation have different elements.  Second, and in any event, the Court found that the defendant had constructive possession of the Texas email while he was in Florida, because he had the power to retrieve that email from the server, and he expressed an intention to do so by discussing trading child pornography.  Applying plain error, the Court also upheld the denial of a motion to sever the possession and transportation counts, emphasizing that they involved the same time-frame, same email account, and similar subject matter.

As for the sentence, the Court found that the district court did not err in applying the five-level enhancement for distributing child pornography with the expectation to receive a thing of value, pursuant to U.S.S.G. 2B2.2(b)(3)(B).  The Court found no clear error in finding that the evidence reflected an expectation of receiving child pornography, which was a thing of value.  The Court also upheld the two-level enhancement for using a computer in connection with the charged offense, pursuant to U.S.S.G. 2B2.2(b)(6).  The Court found that applying the enhancement did not result in impermissible double-counting, because his base-offense level did not fully account for his use of a computer.  Agreeing with five other circuits, the Court reasoned that, because not all transportation cases necessarily do require the use of a computer, that use was not fully reflected in the base-offense level for that count.

Martin: Florida Fleeing and Eluding is a "Crime of Violence" Under Guidelines' Former Residual Clause

In United States v. Martin, No. 16-11627 (July 27, 2017) (Ed Carnes, Tjoflat, William Pryor) (per curiam), the Court held that the defendant's Florida conviction for fleeing and eluding was a "crime of violence" under U.S.S.G. 2K2.1(a)(4)(A).  The Court relied on prior precedent holding that this offense qualified under the residual clause of the Armed Career Criminal Act, and the residual clause in U.S.S.G. 4B1.2 (and incorporated into 2K2.1) had the same meaning.  It therefore qualified under that clause.  The Court recognized that, although Johnson had declared the ACCA's residual clause void for vagueness, Beckles held that the residual clause in 4B1.2(a)(2) was not unconstitutionally vague.  Finally, the Court noted that the Sentencing Commission had deleted the residual clause in 4B1.2, but that amendment had not taken effect at the time of the defendant's sentencing.  And the Court declined to apply that amendment retroactively because it was substantive, not clarifying, since it eliminated an entire class of offenses from the "crime of violence" definition.

Gill: Firearm Possession under 2K2.1 "Unlawful" if Prohibited by State Law

In United States v. Gill, No. 16-11306 (Ed Carnes, William Pryor, Dubina) (per curiam), the Court held that, for purposes of U.S.S.G. 2K2.1(b)(1), the "unlawful" possession of a firearm includes possession that is unlawful under state law.  The defendant argued that, because the firearm in question was manufactured in Florida and did not move in interstate or foreign commerce, it was not unlawful under federal law and therefore should not count for purposes of 2K2.1.  The Court rejected that argument, finding that the firearm was nonetheless unlawful under Florida's felon-in-possession statute, and that was sufficient for the Guideline.  Although the government did not make that argument below, the Court was free to affirm on that alternative ground, because all of the relevant facts were contained in the PSI, those facts were not disputed, and the Court could take judicial notice of the Florida statute.  Finally, the Court found that the facts demonstrated the defendant's possession of the firearm because there was joint custody of the safe in which it was found, and that safe contained other items admittedly belonging to the defendant.  

Burke: State Sentence Imposed After Initial Federal Sentence but Before Federal Re-sentencing is "Prior Sentence"

In United States v. Burke, No. 16-16458 (July 19, 2017) (William Pryor, Ed Carnes, Dubina), the Court held that the term "prior sentence" under U.S.S.G. 4A1.1(a) includes a state sentence imposed after the defendant's initial federal sentence but before the district court vacated that sentence and re-sentenced him.

In 2010, Burke was sentenced as an armed career criminal.  In 2011, a Florida state court sentenced him on a variety of offenses.  In 2016, the district court granted Burke's 2255 motion based on Johnson, vacated the initial sentence, and conducted a full re-sentencing.  At that re-sentencing, the court treated the 2011 Florida sentences as "prior sentences" for purposes of calculating his criminal history.  The court of appeals held that this was correct because, when a district court vacates a sentence, that sentence becomes void in its entirety.  "[V]acatur in our Circuit wipes the slate clean," and re-sentencing is de novo.  Therefore, the 2011 sentences became "prior sentences" when he was re-sentenced in 2016.  In so holding, the Court joined the Eighth and Ninth Circuits and rejected a contrary decision from the First Circuit.  It also rejected Burke's reliance on the rule of lenity, finding the text of the Guideline clear, but also doubting that the rule of lenity applies to the advisory Guidelines at all.

The Court also rejected Burke's argument that his 1999 Florida armed robbery conviction was not a crime of violence under U.S.S.G. 2K2.1, because that argument was foreclosed by binding precedent in Fritts and Lockley.

Lange: Florida Aiding and Abetting Attempted Manufacture is "Controlled Substantce Offense"

In United States v. Lange, No. 16-15164 (July 17, 2017) (William Pryor, Ed Carnes, Moore), the Court held that the Florida offense of being a principal to the attempted manufacture of a controlled substance qualified as a "controlled substance offense" under U.S.S.G. 4B1.2(b).

In so holding, the Court relied heavily on the commentary to the Guidelines.  Although the commentary listed aiding and abetting, attempting, and conspiring to prohibit manufacture, the Court found that this list of inchoate crimes was inclusive, not exclusive.  Applying general rules of statutory construction, and declining to read the Guidelines narrowly, the Court found that the commentary also encompassed principal liability for aiding and abetting attempted manufacture.  Like the enumerated inchoate crimes, this crime also sought to prohibit manufacture.  To support its conclusion, the Court also relied on Florida's principal liability law and the federal law of aiding and abetting under 18 U.S.C. 2.

Applying plain error, the Court also rejected the defendant's argument that the government engaged in sentencing factor manipulation by encouraging five separate criminal transactions during a sting operation instead of arresting him after the first transaction.  The Court noted that the government must engage in "extraordinary  misconduct" in order to engage in sentencing factor manipulation, and the Court had never previously reduced a sentence on that basis.  The Court found no error, let alone plain error, because nothing required officers to make an arrest after the first transaction in a sting operation.

Wright: Non-Descript PII not an "Access Device" and Traffic Citation Not an "Arrest"

In United States v. Wright, No. 15-14833 (July 14, 2017) (Hull, Marcus, Rogers), the Court addressed a variety of Guidelines issues, ultimately vacating the sentence and remanding for further proceedings.

First, for purposes of the fraud loss Guideline and identity-theft statute, the Court held that debit/credit cards and social security numbers qualified as an "access device."  The Court, however, held that "personal identifying information" -- without any evidence about what that information contained -- was not an access device.  Because the district court's loss calculation turned on that issue, and there were no factual findings regarding the PII, the Court remanded for further proceedings.

Second, the Court affirmed the denial of a two-level minor-role reduction under De Varon, finding that the defendant possessed and transmitted lots of PII.  Although she claimed that she feared for her safety, her refusal to identify any other members of the conspiracy meant that she failed to meet her burden to establish that she had a lesser role.

Third, the Court affirmed the denial of a reduction for acceptance of responsibility because, although the defendant had cooperated and pled guilty, she was convicted for misdemeanor marijuana possession during pretrial release, finding that evidence of continued, but unrelated, criminal conduct after an arrest supports the denial.

Fourth, the Court held that a diversionary disposition resulting from a nolo plea qualified for criminal history points, even though adjudication was withheld.  The Court also held that a traffic citation did not constitute an intervening "arrest" for purposes of 4A1.2(c), a question that had divided two circuits.

Louis: Drug-Trafficking Convictions Reversed for Insufficient Evidence

In United States v. Louis, No. 16-11349 (July 10, 2017) (Wilson, Tjoflat, Robreno), the Court reversed a defendant's drug-trafficking convictions for insufficient evidence.

The Court emphasized that, in order to find the defendant guilty of conspiracy to posses cocaine with intent to distribute, and possession of cocaine with intent to distribute, the government was respectively required to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant knew the object of the conspiracy and that he was in possession of cocaine.  The Court found that, while there was sufficient evidence that the defendant knew that the boxes in question contained contraband that was illegal under some law, there was insufficient evidence to establish his knowledge that the boxes contained drugs.  The government relied heavily on the defendant's presence and flight, but the Court found this evidence, without more, to be insufficient.  The Court also rejected the government's reliance on an entrustment theory because, despite the large quantity of drugs, the defendant was present with the drugs only briefly and was never left alone with them.

Melton: Promise to File 5K or Rule 35 Motion is Not a Promise to File a 3553(e) Motion

In United States v. Melton, et al. Nos. 15-15738, 15-15743 (July 10, 2017) (Ed Carnes, Rosenbaum, Higginbotham), the Court reversed orders granting defendants relief under 18 U.S.C. 3582(c)(2) to sentences below the statutory minimum based on 18 U.S.C. 3553(e).

Generally, a defendant sentenced to the statutory minimum is not entitled to a reduction under 3582(c)(2).  The district court went below the statutory minimum here by effectively forcing the government to file a 18 U.S.C. 3553(e) motion, believing that this was necessary in order to give the defendants the benefit of their plea agreement.  The Court reversed because, although the plea agreement contemplated the government filing a 5K1.1  or Rule 35 motion (and the government did in fact file a 5K motion at the original sentencing), the agreement said nothing at all about a 3553(e) motion.  And the Court refused to imply such a promise into the agreement, distinguishing between 3553(e), 5K, and Rule 35.  Because the plea agreement did not include such a 3553(e) promise, the Court concluded that the district court lacked authority to re-write the agreement and go below the statutory minimum when granting 3582(c)(2) relief.  The Court declined to address whether the government is permitted to file a 3553(e) motion in a 3582(c)(2) proceeding in order to give the defendant the benefit of his bargain.

Ovalles: Johnson Does not Invalidate Residual Clause in 924(c)(3)(B)

In Ovalles v. United States, No. 17-10172 (Hull, William Pryor, Tjoflat), the Court -- without holding oral argument -- held that Johnson does not invalidate the residual clause in 18 U.S.C. 924(c)(3)(B), and that attempted carjacking satisfies the elements clause in 18 U.S.C. 924(c)(3)(A).

As for the residual clause, the Court agreed with three circuits and found that 924(c)(3)(B) was materially different, both textually and functionally, from the ACCA's residual clause.  The Court found the Seventh Circuit's contrary decision in Cardena unpersuasive.  Notably, the Court did not mention Dimaya, still pending in the Supreme Court, but on page 21 it did seek to distinguish the analysis under 16(b) as being less precise and predictable than the analysis under 924(c)(3)(B).

As for the elements clause, the Court observed that it had already held in the SOS context, in In re Smith, that carjacking qualified.  Assuming that attempted carjacking by "threat and violence" clearly qualified, the Court focused on the intimidation prong, finding that "[p]roscribed criminal conduct where the defendant must take the car by intimidation and act with intent to kill or cause serious bodily injury is unmistakably a crime of violence also."  For support, the Court notably cited two federal bank robbery cases, Kelly and In re Sams.  Applying categorical approach, the Court concluded that it could conceive of no "plausible" (as distinguished from "theoretical") ways to commit attempted carjacking without either the attempted or threatened use of force.

Spivey: Police Deception Does Not Vitiate Voluntariness of Consent

In United States v. Spivey, No. 15-15023 (June 28, 2017) (William Pryor, Martin, Boggs), the Court held that the use of deception by law enforcement officers did not vitiate the voluntariness of a defendant's consent to the warrantless entry and search of her home.

The majority said that, while deception can be relevant to voluntariness, it would not necessarily or always render consent involuntary; rather, it was just one factor to consider.  At the same time, the court also said that the subjective motivation of the officers, including their use of a pretext or even a deliberate lie, was not relevant to voluntariness, since the inquiry focused on the defendant's state of mind.  In this case, the defendant had reported prior burglaries of her home.  The burglar was arrested and informed the authorities that the home contained a credit card manufacturing plant.  Two federal fraud-task force officers then went to the home on the pretext of following up on the burglary when in fact their real purpose was to investigate the credit card fraud.  They informed her that they were there to investigate the burglaries, and they misrepresented the identity of one of the officers -- a Secret Service Agent who falsely posed as a crime-scene technician and pretended to dust the house for fingerprints.  The majority found that the defendant essentially invited the officers to her home by reporting the burglaries and made the strategic decision/gamble to assume the risk of the officers discovering contraband.

Judge Martin wrote a lengthy dissent, arguing that the consent was not voluntary under the circumstances of this case.  She concluded this way: "The Majority opinion tells police that what happened here is not a problem.  In effect, it teaches police they don't need to get a warrant so long as they can pre-plan a convincing enough ruse.  This is true even if, as here, that ruse includes skirting the limits of the officer's legal authority to investigate only certain crimes.  In doing so, I fear the Majority opinion undermines the public's trust in the police as an institution together with the central protections of the Fourth Amendment.  When I read the record in Ms. Austin's case, I don't believe this is the 'reasonable' conduct our Founders had in mind when drafting the Fourth Amendment."

Alberts: Minor-on-Minor Conduct Can Trigger 2G2.2(b)(5) Enhancement for Pattern of Sexual Abuse

In United States v. Alberts, No. 16-11065 (June 13, 2017) (Martin, Jill Pryor, Anderson), the Court affirmed a 120-month sentence for receiving and possessing child pornography.

The defendant unsuccessfully made two arguments on appeal.  First, he argued that the district court erroneously applied the enhancement in 2G2.2(b)(5) for engaging in a pattern of activity involving sexual abuse.  The defendant did not dispute the PSI facts, where he admitted to engaging in sexual activity with minor relatives, and that admission, coupled with corroborating indicators of his interest in pedophilia and incest, was sufficient to support the enhancement.  The defendant argued that, because the sexual activity occurred more than 30 years ago, it was too attenuated, but he acknowledged that this argument was foreclosed by binding circuit precedent.  And the Court rejected the defendant's argument that the enhancement does not apply to sexual activity committed by the defendant when he himself was a minor.  Joining other circuits, the Court reasoned that the application notes to 2G2.2(b)(5) referred to several statutory provisions that prohibited minor-on-minor conduct, and nothing in the Guideline was to the contrary.  The Court cautioned, however, that only conduct falling within one the statutory provisions can support an enhancement, but the defendant did not dispute that his conduct qualified as "sexual acts" within the meaning of one of those statutes.

Second, the defendant argued that his sentence was procedurally and substantively unreasonable.  As to the former, the Court, applying plain error, found that, although the district court did plainly err under Tapia by considering the need for rehabilitation at sentencing, that error did not affect the defendant's substantial rights because rehabilitation was merely an ancillary concern at sentencing.  As to the latter, the Court found that the 120-month sentence, which fell below the properly calculated guideline range, was not substantively unreasonable.

In re Hernandez: Denial of a Second SOS Application Based on Baptiste

In In re Hernandez, No. 17-11989 (May 31, 2017) (per curiam), the Court denied an application for leave to file a second or successive 2255 motion based on Johnson.  He argued that his 924(c) convictions based on Hobbs Act robbery/extortion and carjacking were invalid because those predicates no longer qualified as crimes of violence.  Mr. Hernandez had previously filed a similar application based on Johnson, which the Eleventh Circuit had denied on the ground that his Hobbs Act convictions qualified as crime of violence under the elements clause in 924(c)(3)(A).  Under the Eleventh Circuit's precedent in In re Baptiste, that earlier denial precluded his instant application.  The Court further added that Mathis did not announce a new rule of constitutional law and therefore did not provide an independent basis for his application.

Judge Martin, joined by Judge Jill Pryor, concurred in the result in a 13-page opinion.  In the concurrence, she: reiterated her disagreement with Baptiste, but recognized that it remained binding precedent; explained that it was not clear that, under the categorical approach, Hobbs Act extortion satisfies the elements clause; attempted Hobbs Act extortion is even less likely to satisfy the elements clause; and the practice of stacking 924(c) convictions, which was "prolific" in the Southern District of Florida, can lead to particularly harsh and unjust sentences.  She closed by lamenting the Court's inability to revisit the original panel ruling and thereby permit Mr. Hernandez to have the district court determine whether his sentence is illegal.

Jockisch: Jury Unanimity Not Required for Underlying State Offense in Attempted Enticement Prosecution

In United States v. Jockisch, No. 14-13577 (May 26, 2017) (Julie Carnes, Jordan, Robreno), the defendant was charged under 18 U.S.C. 2422(b) with attempting to persuade a 15-year old minor to engage in sexual activity that, if consummated, would have violated Alabama law.  The indictment listed three Alabama statutes that the defendant could have been charged with had that sexual activity occurred: second-degree rape, second degree sodomy, and second degree sexual abuse.  The Court rejected the defendant's argument that the jury was required to unanimously agree as to which Alabama offense the sexual activity would have violated.  Finding these to be means rather than elements of the offense, and distinguishing the Supreme Court's decision in Richardson, the Court held that the jury need unanimously agree only that the sexual activity being enticed would have violated at least one of the listed Alabama statutes had it been carried out.  Alternatively, the Court held that the jurors were necessarily unanimous that the defendant could have been charged with second degree sexual abuse.

Judge Jordan concurred in the judgment, disagreeing with the majority's analysis.  Agreeing with a contrary decision from the Seventh Circuit, he would have required the jury to unanimously agree on the underlying state offense.  He concurred because he believed that the error in this case was harmless.

Doyle: Prejudice Presumed for Allocution Errors Notwithstanding Low-End Sentence

In United States v. Doyle, No. 14-12181 (May 25, 2017) (Ed Carnes, Jill Pryor, Ripple), the Court addressed whether the presumption of prejudice governing allocution errors applies where the defendant is sentenced at the low-end of the advisory guideline range.  The Court held that it does.

There is a general presumption of prejudice for purposes of the third plain-error prong where a defendant is not afforded the opportunity to allocute at sentencing.  In pre-Booker cases, however, the Court had carved out an exception where the defendant received a sentence at the low end of the then-mandatory guideline range.  The reason: there was virtually no possibility that the defendant could have received a lower sentence.

In Doyle, the Court held that this exception to the presumption of prejudice did not apply to post-Booker advisory cases.  Even if the defendant is sentenced at the low end of the guideline range, there is a still a possibility that he could receive a lower sentence by virtue of a downward variance (provided he is not sentenced at the statutory minimum).  Accordingly, even though Doyle received a sentence at the low end of the guideline range, and he failed to object to the court's failure to afford him the opportunity to allocute, there was a presumption of prejudice (and the other plain-error prongs were satisfied).  The Court therefore vacated the sentence, remanding for the limited purpose of allocution and for the court to consider any post-sentencing rehabilitation in its discretion.

Shalhoub: Denial of fugitive challenge not immediately appealable

In U.S. v. Shalhoub, No. 16-10533 (April 28, 2017), the Court held that the denial of a motion for special appearance of counsel to seek the dismissal of an indictment on the ground that the defendant is a fugitive is not an immediately appealable collateral order. The Court noted that the only orders that are immediately appealable are those where the right would be destroyed if it were not vindicated before trial. The Court found that Shalhoub’s motion was not asserting “a right not to be tried,” the usual prerequisite for an immediately appealable order.” The Court also rejected Shalhoub’s request for a writ of mandamus to order the district court to rule on his motion for dismissal of the indictment. “That [Shalhoub] does not want to submit himself to the jurisdiction of the federal courts does not make the legal remedies available to challenge his indictment inadequate.”

Doran: FSU organization did not receive federal funds

In U.S. v. Doran, No. 16-10927 (April 26, 2017), the Court reversed a conviction for embezzlement in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 666, holding that the organization that was the victim of Doran’s scheme, the non-profit Student Investment Fund established by Florida State University for educational purposes, was not a recipient of federal funds, and § 666 therefore was not violated. The Court found that the non-profit organization was not an “alter ego” of FSU. [Jill Pryor, J., concurring, would have held that the government failed to put on sufficient specific proof that FSU received over $10,000 in federal funds, and that § 666 therefore was not violated].

Collins: bank gratuity offense is "offense against property"

In U.S. v. Collins, No. 15-12805 (April 26, 2017), the Court held that for restitution purposes, a defendant guilty of conspiracy to accept gratuities with the intend to influence a bank transaction has committed an “offense against property,” and is therefore subject to mandatory restitution –here, in the amount of $251,860.31. The Court stated that restitution does not apply to offenses “with only incidental property loss.” The Court held that it would not apply a “categorical approach” to determine whether an offense qualified as one “against property,” but would focus on the conduct underlying the offense of conviction. Here, Collins “sought to derive an unlawful benefit from the property at play in the bank transactions she corruptly facilitated.” Her offense therefore qualified as one “against property.”

Hastie: Personal information includes email address

In U.S. v. Hastie, No. 15-14481 (April 25, 2017), the Court held that the term “personal information” in 18 U.S.C. § 2721, which prohibits the disclosure of personal information obtained by a state department of motor vehicles, includes email addresses. The Court noted the “similarity” between email addresses and the non-exhaustive list of examples of personal information in the statute, which includes an individual’s photograph, driver identification number and address. [Jordan, J., dissenting, argued that whether an email address qualifies as “personal information” was a factual question that should have been left for the jury to decide].

Roy: Counsel's absence from courtroom is not structural error

In U.S. v. Roy, No. 12-15093 (April 26, 2017), the Court (en banc) (8-3) in a 281-page opinion held that harmless error, not structural error, applied to determine whether defense counsel’s absence from the courtroom during the questioning of a prosecution witness at trial was reversible error. The Court recognized that in Cronic, the Supreme Court held that structural error occurs when a criminal defendant has been denied the assistance of counsel at a critical stage of the trial. But defense counsel “was present during 99.6 percent of Roy’s trial, and he vigorously represented Roy.” The Court reasoned that the 18 questions and answers that Roy’s counsel missed were not a “stage” or “critical stage” of a trial, because they did not constitute a separate step in the trial process, or a discrete phase of it. The Court also noted that it was able to make a prejudice analysis because it knew the precise questions and answers that defense counsel missed out on. The Court concluded that the error caused by counsel’s absence was harmless as to the single attempted child enticement charge, noting that in addition to the six images of child pornography mentioned during counsel’s absence, “the jury was presented with overwhelming and irrefutable evidence of Roy’s sexual interest in minor girls.” As to the counts of possession of child pornography, the evidence was also “overwhelming.”

Davis: Prosecution for witness tampering not multiplicitous

In U.S. v. Davis, No. 15-13241 (April 20, 2017), the Court affirmed the convictions of a defendant charged with being a felon in possession of a firearm, and with witness tampering and obstruction of justice in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 1512(b)(1) & 1503. The Court rejected Davis’ argument that the witness tampering and obstruction charges were multiplicitous because Congress did not intend for cumulative prosecution under §§ 1512 and 1503. The Court acknowledged that the Second Circuit had held that Congress intended for witness tampering to be prosecuted only under § 1512, but noted that the majority of circuits disagreed with the Second Circuit. The Court also noted that a prosecution under § 1503 involves interference with the due administration of justice, while a violation of § 1512 does not require a “pending judicial proceeding.” The Court rejected Davis’ argument that a prosecution under § 1512 for witness tampering involves an “implicit requirement” of a pending judicial proceeding, holding that so long as two offenses involve different elements, a court need look no further in determining that the prosecution of both offenses does not offend Double Jeopardy.

Gonzalez-Murillo: Remand for 3582 resentencing

In U.S. v. Gonzalez-Murillo, No. 16-11464 (April 4, 2017), the Court held that when it was unclear whether, at the original sentencing, the district court, under USSG § 5G1.3(b)(1), gave the defendant credit for 13 months he served in state custody for a term of incarceration that was undischarged at the time of the federal sentencing, the Court remanded for resentencing pursuant to a subsequently amended Guideline, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2). The Court recognized that if the state custody was discharged, then any sentence reduction would have a discretionary departure, not subject to further reduction under § 3582(c)(2). But because the prior sentence might have not have been based on a departure, the Court remanded for resentencing.

Monzo: Affirming rejection of minor role reduction

In U.S. v. Monzo, No. 16-10222 (April 7, 2017), the Court rejected the argument that the district court erroneously failed to grant the defendant drug courier a “minor role” sentence reduction. The Court found that the district court did no erect any per se role for couriers in drug cases. The Court also rejected the argument that the district court erred in assigning three criminal history points for a prior Nevada drug-possession conviction, finding that Monzo was arrested on a probation violation, his probation was revoked, and he was sentenced to 12-30 months imprisonment. This 30-month sentence exceeded 13 months, the length of sentence sufficient to trigger three criminal history points.

Osman: Restitution for child pornography

In U.S. v. Osman, No. 14-14124 (April 12, 2017), the Court rejected a child pornography defendant’s challenge to a restitution order covering future therapy: “We are not dealing here with just the likelihood that a young child whose pornographic images are shared online will suffer residual effects from the reproduction of those images will need treatment. We are dealing with a child who was molested by her father, who will be informed of that fact, who will know that her father is absent from her life and suffering imprisonment based on that interaction. That is a heavy burden to place on a child. We cannot imagine that therapy will not be in order at the relevant times. Given the facts here, it seems that the need for future therapy is not just likely, but a virtual certainty.”

Pridgeon: Fla. Stat. 893.13 qualifies as controlled substance offense

In U.S. v. Pridgeon, No. 15-15739 (April 12, 2017), the Court affirmed the career offender sentence for a defendant convicted of methamphetamine trafficking. The Court rejected the argument that a Florida drug trafficking violation of Fla. Stat. § 893.13 fails to qualify as a “controlled substance offense” because the offense lacks the requisite mens rea with respect to the illicit nature of the substance. The Court pointed out that this argument was foreclosed by prior Circuit precedent.

Horner: Affirming tax fraud convictions

In U.S. v. Horner, No. 15-14675 (April 13, 2017), the Court rejected challenges to convictions for filing false tax returns. The Court rejected the argument that the government presented false testimony from an IRS agent. The testimony “was neither false nor misleading.” The Court also rejected the argument that the district court erroneously failed to give the jury the “good faith reliance” instruction that had been given in another case, pointing out that that this was not the “only acceptable instruction on good faith reliance.” The Court also rejected the argument that the district court erred in failing to instruct the jury on the “due diligence” obligations of tax preparers. The Court also rejected the argument that the district court erred in allowing the government to characterize the Horners’ cash deposits as “structuring.” “The evidence was highly probative in addressing the issue of the Horners’ financial savvy.” Finally, the Court rejected the argument that it was unfair to admit the defendants’ 2005 and 2006 tax returns. The Court found that these acts, though in earlier years, were part of the same set of actions through which the jury found the defendants committed tax fraud in 2007 and 2008.

Bergman: No withdrawal from conspiracy

In U.S. v. Bergman, No. 14-14990 (March 24, 2017), the Court rejected the argument that the defendant withdrew from the health care fraud more than five years before the indictment, and that the prosecution was therefore barred by the five-year statute of limitations. The Court concluded that the jury could reasonably have found that Bergman resigned his position at the firm that was committing fraud only under threat of being fired, and that this resignation therefore did not constitute the kind of affirmative step to disavow or defeat the conspiracy required for withdrawal. The Court rejected Bergman’s substantive unreasonableness challenge to his 180-month sentence. The Court pointed out that Bergman “played a key role” in perpetuating a scheme that fraudulently billed Medicare of nearly $200 million. The Court rejected a co-defendant’s claim that a “vulnerable victim” enhancement should not have been imposed based on patients who were also co-conspirators. The Court explained that some of the patients, including some who suffered from dementia, were not co-conspirators. [Martin, J., dissented from the statute of limitations holding, concluding that Bergman’s resignation qualified as a withdrawal from the conspiracy].

McCullough: reassignment of judge permissible after guilty plea

In U.S. v. McCullough, No. 15-15430 (March 15, 2017), the Court held that Fed. R. Crim. P. 25(b)(1), which bar reassigning a case to a new judge after a guilty verdict unless the judge who presided “at trial” is absent or disabled does not bar reassignment after a guilty plea. The Court noted that guilty pleas are governed not by Rule 25, but by Rule 11. The decision to separate Rules 25 and 11 suggests that Rule 25 does not apply to defendants who plead guilty. The Court also rejected the argument that the sentencing judge was too unfamiliar with the record. Turning to the Fourth Amendment suppression issue, the Court held that a traffic stop based on the police’s determination that certain portions of a vehicle’s Alabama licence plate were not clearly visible, in violation of a provision of the Alabama Code. This provided an objectively reasonable basis for the traffic stop. The Court also rejected the argument that the officer’s interpretation of the traffic code was inconsistent with the decision of an Alabama appellate court. Finally, the Court found that McCullough waived his argument in a supplemental authority letter that he was not a career offender, by failing to make this argument in his opening brief.

Butts: rejecting ineffective assistance of counsel claim

In Butts v. GDCP Warden, No. 15-15691 (March 9, 2017), the Court affirmed the denial of habeas relief to a Georgia death row inmate, rejecting his claim that counsel was ineffective for failing to develop mitigating evidence during the sentencing phase of his trial. The Court found that the defense team “thoroughly” investigated mitigating evidence. The Court declined to second guess trial counsel’s strategic decision to focus on residual doubt instead of mitigation evidence.

Hughes: Rule 11(c) defendant not eligible for sentence reduction

In U.S. v. Hughes, No. 15-15246 (Feb. 27, 2017), the Court held that a defendant who pled guilty under a Rule 11(c)(1)(C) plea, which binds the district court to impose the sentence recommended by the parties, was not subsequently eligible for a sentence reduction based on an Amendment to the Sentencing Guidelines and 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2). The Court noted that the Supreme Court addressed this issue in Freeman (2011), a “plurality” decision in which Justice Sotomayor’s concurrence provided the “less-far-reaching” ground, and therefore represented Freeman’s holding. The Court noted the Circuit split on the holding in Freeman, and sided with the majority view. Under this view, a Rule 11(c) defendant is only eligible for a § 3582(c)(2) sentence reduction if the sentencing judge’s decision to accept the recommended sentence is based on the guidelines (not, as the plurality reasoned, because every sentence is based on the guidelines). Here, Hughes’ plea agreement did not make clear that a sentencing range formed the basis for his sentence. Therefore, Hughes was not sentenced “based on” the guidelines range, and he is not eligible for a sentence modification.

Phillips: Granting 2255 relief where false statement by police officer tainted conviction

In Phillips v. U.S., No. 14-11960 (Feb. 23, 2017), the Court, reversing the denial of § 2255 relief, agreed with the defendant (and the government’s concession) that a prior conviction for drug trafficking was tainted by the false testimony at trial of a West Palm Beach police officer, who was also under criminal investigation for conduct that occurred at the time of his investigation of the defendant. The Court concluded that the officer’s false testimony was “material” to the government’s case, and thus there was “grave doubt” about whether it influenced the jury’s verdict. The Court, however, affirmed the district court’s ruling on two other counts that despite the warrant application’s reliance on false statements by the police officer, there was other information in the warrant that supported probable cause. There was sufficient evidence, apart from the false testimony, to justify the search warrant that led police to the discovery of ammunition in Phillips’ residence.

Vargas: Duration of traffic stop not unreasonable

In U.S. v. Vargas, No. 16-14714 (Feb. 16, 2017), the Court affirmed the denial of a motion to suppress evidence on Fourth Amendment grounds, rejecting the argument that the police detained the defendant for an unreasonable time after a traffic stop. The Court pointed out that neither the driver nor the passenger of the vehicle that had been pulled over for a traffic infraction had a driver’s license. The police therefore had a duty to continue to detain them, and prevent them from driving off.

Votrobek: Georgia and Florida conspiracies were separate

In U.S. v. Votrobek, No. 14-12790 (Feb. 13, 2017), the Court affirmed the convictions and sentences of defendants convicted of conspiring to distribute drugs and money laundering. The Court rejected the argument that Double Jeopardy barred prosecution for a Georgia conspiracy on the ground that it was the same conspiracy for which a defendant was acquitted after a jury trial in Florida. The Court concluded that the defendant committed two separate conspiracies, noting that the conspiracies did not overlap in time, and involved different co-conspirators. Though the offenses were almost identical, this factor is least important to the Double Jeopardy analysis. Moreover, the overt acts were different – and the conspiracies took place in two separate States: Florida and Georgia. The Court also rejected a challenged failure to hold a Franks hearing to determine whether the probable cause affidavit supporting a warrant lacked a basis. The Court cited the information detailed in the affidavit, and found that it supported the need for a wiretap. The Court further rejected the argument that the district court should have given an “entrapment by estoppel” defense jury instruction. Entrapment by estoppel occurs when a defendant reasonably relies on an official’s approval of the conduct at issue. Here, at no point did an official communicate to a defendant that his conduct was in compliance with the law.

Scheels: Enhancement for sadistic conduct

In U.S. v. Scheels, No. 15-15405 (Jan. 31, 2017), the Court rejected the argument that the four level enhancement of U.S.S.G. § 2G2.1(b)(4) for an offense involving material that portrays sadistic or masochistic conduct should not apply when the sadistic or masochistic conduct in the pornography was directed at the defendant, not at the child victim. The Court pointed out that the Guideline covered conduct that “involved” sadistic or masochistic conduct, not that the conduct be directed at the victim. The Court noted past cases involving conduct directed at the victim, but found that these cases merely hold that conduct directed toward a child is sufficient to warrant the enhancement, not that it is necessary. The Court affirmed the 600-month sentence.

Golden: Turner remains binding precedent

In United States v. Golden, No. 15-15624 (Jan. 24, 2017), the Court held that it was bound by its precedent in Turner v. Warden Coleman FCI to hold that a Florida conviction for aggravated assault, in violation of Fla. Stat. § 784.021, constitutes a crime of violence for Guideline enhancement purposes. [Jill Pryor, J, concurring, urged the Court to reconsider the viability of Turner en banc. She argued that Turner conflicts with other Circuit precedent, and with the analytical approach of subsequent Supreme Court cases.

Stein: Signalife investor loss amount vacated

In United States v. Stein, No. 14-15621 (Jan. 18, 2017), the Court affirmed all fraud convictions arising out of a scheme to inflate the stock price of Signalife, but vacated his conviction and remanded for resentencing. The Court rejected Stein’s Brady claim, finding that the evidence at issue was exculpatory, and was available to him with reasonable diligence. The Court also rejected Stein’s Giglio claim, finding that the prosecution did not speak falsely, and its statements did not involve testimony that would have materially affected the judgment. Turning to the sentence, the Court noted that the district court calculated the loss amount based on a finding that all 2, 415 shareholders who owned shares of stock of the company whose value Stein inflated suffered a loss during the period the stock was artificially inflated. The Court noted that there was no direct evidence, and insufficient circumstantial evidence, that 2,415 investors relied on the fraudulent information Stein disseminated. The Court noted that on remand, the district court could try again to prove the losses of the Signalife investors, or rely on the defendant’s actual gain, instead of the actual loss, as a measure of the loss for Guideline purposes. The Court also agreed with Stein that, in calculating loss, the district court erroneously failed to account for “intervening events” that may have affected the stock price, specifically, the short-selling of over 22 million shares of Signalife and the across-the-board decline of the market in 2008. The Court instructed the district court to determine whether these intervening events affected the price of Signalife, and, if so, whether Stein reasonably foresaw this.

Garcia-Martinez: Florida Second Degree Burglary is not a Violent Felony

In U.S. v. Garcia-Martinez, No. 14-15725 (Jan. 11, 2017), the Court held that a prior conviction for second-degree burglary of a dwelling in violation of Fla. Stat. § 810.02(3) does not count as a violent felong for purposes of USSG 2L1.2(b)(1)(A)(ii). Noting a Circuit conflict on the meaning of a “dwelling,” and siding with the majority view, the Court held that a generic dwelling is a space intended for use as “a human habitation.” Florida, however, includes the “curtilage” of a space within its definition of a “dwelling.” This takes Florida’s definition outside the generic definition. Further, the dwelling and the curtilage are not alternative elements of a burglary, just different means of committing the offense. Thus, the locational element is indivisible. The Court therefore vacated the sentence and remanded for resentencing.

Rushin: Defense precluded from asking cooperating witnesses about specific future sentences

In U.S. v. Rushin, No. 14-15622 (Dec. 21, 2016), the Court affirmed the convictions and sentences of prison guards charged with abusing prisoners and covering up the incidents. The Court declined to address whether the district court erroneously limited one defendant’s counsel CJA voucher, finding that no appellate jurisdiction existed because the notice of appeal did not indicate that counsel intended to participate as an appellant. The Court rejected the defendants’ challenge to the district court’s ruling that during cross-examination of the government’s cooperating witnesses who had pled guilty, the defense could not inquire regarding the specific sentences these cooperating witnesses might have received, absent their cooperation. The Court noted that the defendants were permitted to ask whether the cooperating witnesses would have faced a more severe penalty, or expected a lesser sentence. However, “the precise number of years the cooperating witnesses may have faced provides little, if any, value above those questions defense counsel were permitted to ask.” Moreover, “due to the fact that the sentence range applicable to these witnesses would reveal the sentence range for defendants, the proposed additional examination could invite jury nullification. The risk of jury nullification is accentuated by the fact that defendants were guards and the victims prisoners.” The Court also rejected the defendants’ claim that the district court unduly limited their defense when it precluded them from introducing evidence of “unrelated inmate violence.” The Court explained that unrelated inmate violence did not make the defendants’ assaults more or less likely or more or less justified. Moreover, jury nullification appeared to be the reason for introducing this evidence – an improper basis. Turning to sentencing, the Court rejected the argument that the district court unduly relied on the conduct underlying the civil rights violations, for which the defendants were acquitted, to punish them for obstruction of justice. A district court may rely on acquitted conduct at sentencing. [Jordan, J., concurring, stated that in certain cases it could be a Confrontation Clause error to preclude the defense from asking a cooperating witness about the mandatory minimum sentence he would otherwise be facing.]

Green: Harmless Rule 404b errors

In U.S. v. Green, No. 14-12830 (Nov. 30, 2016), the Court affirmed the conviction and sentence of 262 months for a defendant charged with being a felon-in-possession of a firearm in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1). The Court rejected Green’s challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence: Green was hiding in the same room in which the firearm was discovered, had been living at this residence, and had admitted to the arresting officer that the firearm was his. The Court also rejected the argument that Green’s admission was uncorroborated and therefore should not have been considered, finding that there was circumstantial evidence of constructive possession. The Court agreed with Green that the district court should have redacted the indictment’s reference to prior “crimes” in the plural, given that Green had stipulated to having a single prior conviction. The Court recognized that communicating to the jury that a defendant could have “dozens of convictions” increases the risk of unfair prejudice. However, the error was harmless in light of the significant circumstantial evidence. The ammunition possession conviction that the government relied on for purposes of Rule 404(b) had been entered after Green pled nolo contendere to the charge. Citing Federal Rule of Evidence 803(22), which precludes the use of a nolo plea to prove the truth the matter asserted in a judgment of conviction, the Court concluded that the admission of Green’s prior conviction was insufficient to prove that Green actually committed the prior act at issue. However, again, the error was harmless in light of the “ample” evidence “independent of the Rule 404(b) conviction,” supporting guilt. Moreover, the nolo conviction was “not emphasized during trial or closing argument,” as the district court gave a cautionary Rule 404(b) instruction, and the prosecutor in closing told the jury that the 404(b) conviction was only admitted for the “very limited purpose” of showing whether Green had the “intent” to possess the items at issue. Turning to the sentence, the Court found no error in sentencing Green under the Armed Career Criminal Act (“ACCA”), based on prior Florida battery convictions. The Court noted that the Supreme Court left open the possibility of relying on Shepard documents to determine whether a prior battery conviction qualified as a “crime of violence.” Here, these documents (the agreed factual basis for Green’s nolo plea) indicated that Green “struck” another against his will. Specifically, that the victim said that Green “hit him in the face.”

Cobb: Affirming 324-month sentence for fraudulent tax return filings

In U.S. v. Cobb, No. 15-12817 (Nov. 30, 2016), the Court affirmed the 324-month sentence of a defendant convicted of mail and wire fraud conspiracy, aggravated identity theft, and firearm possession, in a scheme involving using stolen identities to file hundreds of fraudulent tax returns. The Court rejected Cobb’s challenge to the $2.5 million loss amount to support an 18-level sentence enhancement, and the determination that the offense involved more than 250 victims, finding that the government presented sufficient evidence to support these calculations. The Court also rejected the challenge to the $1.8 million restitution award, finding that this was the amount of money the Internal Revenue Service paid out. The Court found that Cobb waived a challenge to the sentence enhancement for use of an unauthorized access device, and a challenge to the finding that a prior serious drug offense qualified him for an enhanced sentence, finding that he withdrew his objections to these enhancements at the sentencing hearing.

Ammar: Speedy Trial Act violation

In U.S. v. Ammar, No. 13-12044 (Nov. 29, 2016), the Court vacated a defendant’s conviction because of a violation of the Speedy Trial Act, and remanded for the district court to consider whether the dismissal of the indictment should be with, or without, prejudice. On September 1, 2011, Ammar was indicted, with other defendants, in a case in which the government was contemplating seeking the death penalty. This indictment started the 70-day Speedy Trial Act deadline. However, over Ammar’s repeated objections, the district court set the case for trial one year later. The district court rejected Ammar’s motion to dismiss for a Speedy Trial Act violation on the ground that the trial date was “by agreement of everybody.” This finding was factually inaccurate, as Ammar had repeatedly objected to the length of the delay. Further, an agreement of the parties does not satisfy the required “ends of justice” finding to justify tolling the Act’s 70-day deadline. The Court rejected the argument that a district court need not utter “magic words” to toll the deadline, finding that, even if this were possible, here the district court explicitly declined to make ends-of-justice findings, relying instead, erroneously, on the “agreement of everybody.” The Court left it to the district court to apply the statutory factors and make the determination whether the indictment should be dismissed with or without prejudice.

Gundy: Georgia burglary qualifies as generic burglary

In U.S v. Gundy, No. 14-12113 (Nov. 23, 2016), the Court (2-1) held that a Georgia burglary conviction qualified as a “crime of violence” for purposes of the Armed Career Criminal Act (ACCA). The Georgia statute defined burglary as unlawful entry “within the dwelling house of another or any building, vehicle, railroad car, watercraft, or other such structure designed for use as the dwelling of another . . .” The Court recognized that this definition swept more broadly than generic burglary, because it encompassed not only entry into buildings, but also into vehicles. However, based on Georgia caselaw, which requires an indictment to specify the location of an alleged burglary, the Court concluded that each of the locations were “locational elements,” not merely alternative means of committing burglary. As a result, the statute was “divisible.” Each location was a separate crime. Thus, the Court could examine the record of Gundy’s prior burglaries to determine whether Gundy’s prior burglaries qualified as generic burglaries. Because Gundy’s prior burglaries involved a “dwelling house” or a “business house,” they all qualified as generic burglaries for ACCA purposes. [Jill Pryor, J., dissenting, interpreted Georgia’s standard jury instructions’ reference to “building or dwelling” as referring to a single element, not as identifying separate crimes, and noted that, in burglary trials, Georgia juries are not required to agree on the type of dwelling at issue].

Error in verdict form merely clerical

In U.S. v. Davis, No. 15-10927 (Nov. 22, 2016), the Court rejected the argument that the trial court erred when it amended the judgments to change a count of conviction from “Robbery” in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 924(c), to possession of a firearm during a crime of violence in violation of § 924(c). The Court noted that the error in the initial judgment arose out of a mistake in the jury’s verdict form. However, the indictment, the parties’ closing arguments, the jury instructions, and the jury’s questions during deliberations indicate that it understood that the charge in this count was not “robbery,” but a § 924(c) firearm violation. Moreover, the overwhelming evidence in the case supported this conviction. The jury “inescapably” found that the defendants “used a gun.” The error in the verdict form was merely clerical.

Esprit: Florida burglary is not an ACCA "crime of violence"

In U.S. v. Esprit, No 14-13066 (Nov. 21, 2016), the Court held that, post-Johnson, Florida burglary in violation of Fla. Stat. § 810.02(1)(b)(1) is not a “crime of violence” for purposes of a sentence enhancement under the Armed Career Crimnal Act (ACCA). The Court determined that Fla. Stat. § 810.02(1)(b)(1) is an “indivisible” statute, because a jury is not required in its verdict to identify the means that were used to commit the burglary, whether by entering a building or entering a building’s “curtilage.” Unlawful entry of a building or its curtilage are possible alternative means of committing the offense of burglary, not alternative elements of the burglary offense. As a result, the “modified categorical approach,” which authorizes examining the facts underlying a conviction, does not apply. Consequently, since the Supreme Court in James held that the inclusion of “curtilage” in Florida’s burglary offense takes this offense outside the definition of generic burglary, which requires entry into, or remaining in, a building or other structure, Florida burglary did not qualify as a “crime of violence.” The Court therefore vacated Esprit’s sentence and remanded to the district court with instructions that he be resentenced without the ACCA enhancement.

Leon: No plain error constructive amendment

In U.S. v. Leon, No. 15-12578 (Nov. 16, 2016), the Court, on plain error review, rejected the argument that the district court constructively amended the indictment by allowing the defendant to be convicted of attempting to cause a bank not to file required currency transaction reports (CTRs) concerning currency transactions exceeding $10,000. The Court recognized that the word “structure” is contained in 31 U.S.C. § § 5423(a)(1), not in 5324(a)(3), the statute under which Leon was charged and convicted, and that the parties used the term “structuring” during trial. But both statutes are said to refer to a “structuring” transaction. As a result, there was no “plain error.” The Court also rejected a sufficiency of the evidence challenge.

Hernandez-Alberto: Incompetency claim tolls habeas limitations period

In Hernandez-Alberto v. Sec., Fla. Dep’t of Corrections, No. 14-14092 (Nov. 4, 2016), the Court held that, for purposes of the statute of limitations governing federal habeas petitions, a properly filed Florida postconviction petition claiming incompetency remains “pending” through the final termination of the postconviction proceedings despite the state court’s having found the prisoner competent before the end of those proceedings. Because the petitioner’s application was properly filed, and remained so throughout the period of his postconviction proceeding, it tolled the deadline to file his federal habeas petition.

Fritts: 1989 Florida robbery qualifies as ACCA "crime of violence"

In U.S. v. Fritts, No. 15-15699 (Nov. 8, 2016), the Court held that a 1989 armed robbery conviction in violation of Fla. Stat. § 812.13 qualified as a “crime of violence” under the Armed Career Criminal Act (“ACCA”). The Court noted that in U.S. v. Dowd, decided in 2006, it had held that a 1974 conviction for armed robber was a violent felony under ACCA. Under Dowd, a Florida armed robbery conviction qualifies under ACCA’s elements clause. The Court rejected the argument that the Supreme Court’s decision in Curtis Johnson altered the analysis. The Court further noted that U.S. v. Lockley, decided in 2011, had held that a 1991 armed robbery qualified as a crime of violence under the elements clause of the career offender Guideline. Lockley’s reasoning also governed Fritts’ 1989 conviction. The Court rejected the argument that, under Florida law, prior to 1997, only the slightest force was sufficient to convict a defendant of Florida robbery. The Court held that, to the contrary, the robbery statute required resistance that is overcome by the physical force of the offender.

Hughes: No speedy trial violation

In U.S. v Hughes, No. 14-14181 (Nov. 4, 2016), the Court rejected the defendant’s argument that his prosecution for being a felon-in-possession of a firearm should have been dismissed on Speedy Trial Act grounds. The Court found that the oral, pre-trial motion of the government for the detention of the defendant automatically triggered an excludable period from that day until the conclusion of the hearing on that motion. As a result, no Speedy Trial Act violation occurred. The Court rejected the argument that the period of delay was caused by the defendant’s non-excludable motion for a continuance. The Court also rejected Hughes’ claim that a juror was struck in violation of Batson. The government explained that it struck the juror because he had committed a felony and violated the terms of his resultant probation; these were not facially discriminatory reasons. The Court also rejected a Crawford v. Washington challenge to the admission of statements by a 911 caller. Citing Davis v. Washington, the Court explained that the 911 caller’s statements were non-testimonial. The Court further ruled that a jury instruction that told the jury that it took account of a defendant’s false exculpatory statement did not violate Hughes’ right to remain silent, when evidence was introduced that Hughes (falsely) denied knowledge of the firearm that was found by law enforcement. A false statement by a defendant may be considered as substantive evidence of guilt.

Campo: Circumstantial evidence supports murder conviction

In U.S. v. Campo, No. 14-15541 (Nov. 1, 2016), the Court affirmed the convictions and sentences of a defendant convicted of murder, firearm trafficking, and firearm possession. The Court rejected Campo’s challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence, noting the circumstantial evidence that supported the verdict of conspiracy to murder. The evidence showed that Campo intended to kill a former gun trafficking accomplice in order to prevent him from communicating with police about the scheme. Campo bragged about the killing almost a year after the fact. Cell phone records placed Campo’s phone near the scene of the crime at the time of the murder. DNA evidence also supported the verdict. Ballistics tests matched the firearms that were used in the murder to the type of barrel Campo used on his firearm. Sufficient evidence also supported the firearm trafficking conviction. On plain error review, the Court rejected the argument that, under Fed. R. Evid. 701, the victim’s brother should not have been allowed to testify that when he called police after seeing blood in a warehouse, he told police that he thought that Campo had killed his brother. The Court noted that this opinion testimony was based on the brother’s perceptions at the time, and therefore admissible. Under Fed. R. Evid. 704, this testimony was not objectionable even though it addressed an ultimate issue in the case. On plain error review, the Court also rejected the argument that it was a Double Jeopardy violation to convict Campo of causing the death of a person while using a firearm in furtherance of a crime of violence in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 924(j), and also of the lesser offense of using a firearm in furtherance of a crime of violence, in violation of § 924(c). The Court noted the absence of Supreme Court caselaw supporting this argument, and Circuit precedent suggesting it was without merit.

Seabrooks: Florida robbery is an ACCA "crime of violence"

In U.S. v. Seabrooks, No. 15-10380 (Oct. 19, 2016), the Court rejected challenges to the “aiding and abetting” jury instruction, and, as to sentencing, held that prior Florida robbery convictions qualified as violent felonies under the Armed Career Criminal Act (“ACCA”). Seabrooks was convicted of aiding and abetting in the possession of a stolen firearm, and in being a felon in possession of a firearm. On plain error review, the Court rejected Seabrooks’ argument based on Rosemond v. U.S. that to obtain an aiding and abetting instruction, the government must prove that a defendant had “advance knowledge” of his accomplice’s actions. The Court stated that an aiding and abetting conviction does not invariably require that the aider and abettor know the extent of his confederate’s criminal intentions before he initiates the offense conduct. Rather, it can apply if a defendant does not withdraw from the scene once he realizes the confederate’s criminal designs he qualifies as an aider and abettor. Here, Seabrooks received the stolen firearms from his accomplice and placed them in the console of a vehicle. Further, there was no plain error regarding whether Rosemond requires advance knowledge of a principal’s status as a convicted felon, as neither the Eleventh Circuit nor the Supreme Court have resolved this question. Turning to sentencing, the Court held that, under U.S. v. Lockley, a Florida armed robbery qualified as a “crime of violence” under ACCA. The Court rejected Seabrooks’ argument that Lockley should be limited to post-1999 Florida robberies. The Court noted that the Florida robbery statute has not changed from the 1970s to the present. The Court further noted that since 1922, the Florida Supreme Court has held that the force that is required to make the offense a robbery is force sufficient to overcome a victim’s resistance – the kind of force that qualifies an offense, under ACCA, as a crime of violence. [Martin, J., concurring, did not agree that the scope of the Florida robbery statute had not changed since the 1970s. Judge Martin noted that under McCloud, a 1976 Florida Supreme Court case, “any degree of force” sufficed to convert larceny into robbery. This rule changed in 1997, when the Florida Supreme Court decided Robinson. Seabrooks’ convictions occurred in 1997, after Robinson.]

Plate: jail for inability to pay restitution is improper

In U.S. v. Plate, No. 15-13928 (Oct. 5, 2016), where the district court imposed a jail sentence, in lieu of probation, because the defendant was only able to pay $40,000 toward the $142,000 she owed in restitution, the Court reversed the sentence for being substantively unreasonable,. The district court abused its discretion by giving dispositive weight to Plate’s inability to pay restitution. The government recognized that the district court would have imposed a sentence of no further incarceration if Plate had been able to pay restitution. The district court based its sentence of incarceration solely on an impermissible factor. Because the district court had reiterated its earlier position when it denied Plate bond pending appeal, and characterized her arguments on appeal as “frivolous,” the Court remanded the case for resentencing before a different district court judge.

Wilchcombe: Prosecution may comment on post-arrest/pre-Miranda silence

In U.S. v. Wilchcombe, No. 14-14991 (Oct. 4, 2016), the Court affirmed convictions of defendants charged with drug trafficking while on board a vessel subject to U.S. jurisdiction en route from Haiti to the Bahamas. The Court rejected the defendants’ argument that it should review en banc its holding in U.S. v. Campbell that the MDLEA violates Due Process because it does not require proof of a nexus between the United States and a defendant. The Court also rejected the argument that the Bahamian government’s “statement of no objection” was not clear enough to inform the U.S. that the Bahamian government consented to its exercise of jurisdiction over the vessel, finding that it communicated the “substance” of consent. The Court rejected Wilchcombe’s argument that his “mere presence” on the boat sufficed to sustain his conspiracy conviction, pointing out that the boat contained 895 kilograms of narcotics, much of it stored on deck, and had long been acquainted with the others on the boat, including its captain. Acknowledging that the circuits are split on whether the prosecution can comment at trial on a defendant’s silence prior to being given Miranda warnings, the Court noted that in the Eleventh Circuit this is not error, and therefore not a basis for a mistrial. Even if it was error, it was harmless in light of the ample evidence of guilt, and that as to one defendant it was used for impeachment, which is permitted. The Court rejected the argument that the government destroyed the vessel in bad faith without photographing it, and in repatriating one of the occupants to Haiti. The Coast Guard allocated its resources to recovering bales thrown overboard, and it was mere “speculation” that this occupant would have provided exculpatory testimony. Finally, the Court rejected the argument that Fed. R. Evid. 404(b) precluded admission of evidence that one of the defendants was previously arrested while captaining a boat carrying drugs. This evidence tended to prove this defendant’s knowledge that drugs were present, and made his lack of knowledge defense less plausible. [Jordan and Walker, JJ. concurred, but argued that Eleventh Circuit precedent holding that the government can use post arrest/pre-Miranda silence is misguided and should be reconsidered en banc, stating that the trigger for the constitutional protection of silence should be custody, not the recitation of Miranda warnings.]

Takhalov: On panel rehearing, insufficient evidence on count

In U.S. v. Takhalov, No. 13-12385 (Oct. 3, 2016), on panel rehearing, the Court agreed with defendant Pavlenko that insufficient evidence supported one of Pavlenko’s convictions for wire-fraud. The Court ruled that American Express could not have relied on Pavlenko’s purportedly fraudulent email since it received this email after it had already approved a charge. Accordingly, the Court reversed the conviction.

Vail-Balon: Mere touching is not a crime of violence

In U.S. v. Vail-Bailon, No. 15-10351 (Sept. 28, 2016) (2-1), the Court held that when it is committed by “mere touching,”Florida felony battery in violation of Fla. Sta. § 784.041 does not qualify as a “crime of violence” for purposes of U.S.S.G. § 2L1.2. The Court noted that § 784.041 is a “divisible” offense. Here, no Shepard-approved documents established under which alternative element Vail-Balon was convicted. The Court therefore assumed that he was convicted under for “actually and intentionally touching” a victim. Simple battery, under Florida law, contains the same touching element, and can be satisfied by any intentional physical contact, no matter how slight. But the elements clause of § 2L1.2 requires “violent force.” The Court noted that at oral argument Vail-Bailon asserted that a person can be guilty of felony battery in Florida if the offender taps another person on the shoulder at the top of stairs, and the person falls down the stairs and suffers grievous bodily harm. The government did not challenge that interpretation at oral argument. Such a crime does not involve the use of “violent force.” “Florida battery by mere touching cannot qualify as a ‘crime of violence,’ no matter what the injury resulting from the mere touching might turn out to be. Citing Leocal, which held that driving under the influence was not a crime of violence, the Court noted that an action that does not normally cause bodily harm, like touching, only qualifies as a “crime of violence” if the offender engages in it “with some type of intent to harm another.”

White: Prior Alabama drug convictions count as ACCA predicates

In U.S. v. White, No. 14-14044 (Sept. 21, 2016), the Court rejected the defendant’s argument that his prior Alabama drug trafficking convictions qualified under ACCA as a “serious drug offense.” White’s prior Alabama offense was for possessing marihuana “for other than personal use.” White argued that he could have possessed marihuana to administer or dispense it. The Court rejected this as a mere “theoretical possibility.” The Court also rejected the argument that its precedent in U.S. v. Robinson, which had rejected the same argument, had been abrogated by the Supreme Court subsequent decision in Descamps. Descamps’ holding that the modified categorical approach applies only when a statute is divisible “has no bearing” on whether possession of marijuana for other than personal use necessarily involves an intent to distribute, that is, a “serious drug offense.” The Court likewise rejected the argument that White’s prior cocaine conviction was not a predicate ACCA offense, because it was merely based on a quantity of cocaine, not necessarily manufacturing, distributing, or possessing with intent to do either. The Court noted that it had rejected this same argument previously, finding one could infer an intent to traffic in cocaine from the quantity of cocaine involved. The Court again rejected the argument that its prior precedent was no longer controlling in light of Descamps.

Cruickshank: Reversing denial of minor role reduction

In U.S. v. Cruickshank, No. 14-13754 (Sept. 20, 2016), the Court affirmed convictions for drug trafficking on the high seas, in violation of 46 U.S.C. § 70503. The Court held that its precedent in U.S. v. Campbell foreclosed a challenge to the constitutionality of the statute. The Court also rejected a challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence, finding that the evasive maneuvers of the vessel while being followed by a Coast Guard helicopter, and other evidence, sufficed. The Court also rejected the defense challenge to the district court’s reliance, for jurisdictional purposes, on a State Department certification that Jamaica had not accepted a claim of nationality for the vessel. The Court noted that under the statute, jurisdiction was not an element of the offense. The Confrontation Clause was therefore not implicated by the admission in evidence of the State Department certification. Turning to sentencing, the Court reviewed the district court’s denial of a “minor role” Guideline sentence reduction in light of the amendments to this Guideline that took effect in November 2015, amendments that clarified the meaning of this Guideline. The Court noted that the district court stated that the quantity of cocaine being transported was so large that no participant in the scheme could have been eligible for a minor role reduction. However, in light of the Court’s precedent in U.S. v. DeVaron, and the factors identified in the amended Guideline, it was legal error for the district court to say that drug quantity could be the only factor to be considered. The Court noted that Cruickshank did not load the drugs on the vessel, reconstruct the vessel, fuel the vessel, attend the planning meetings for the trip, or otherwise appear to have any role concerning the quantity of drugs involved. The Court therefore vacated the minor role reduction denial, and vacated the case for the district court to consider “the totality of the circumstances.”

Sullivan: Ineffective post-conviction counsel

In Sullivan v. Sec., Fla. Dep’t of Corrections, No. 15-13993 (Sept. 20, 2016), the Court affirmed the grant of habeas relief to a Florida inmate who claimed that post-conviction counsel was ineffective for failing to investigate a claim that trial counsel was ineffective in counseling Sullivan to reject a 7-year plea offer and to go to trial on an voluntary intoxication defense, when voluntary intoxication was no longer a valid defense under Florida law, and Sullivan, a habitual offender, received a 30-year sentence. The failure to investigate was objectively unreasonable. Had post-conviction counsel investigated, he would have learned about the 7-year plea offer, and would have determined that it was ineffective advice to rely on a defense that had been abolished years earlier.

Difalco: 851 notice is not jurisdictional

In U.S. v. Difalco, No. 15-14763 (Sept. 20, 2016), the Court, reversing Circuit precedents, held that the failure of the government to file a notice of prior conviction, as required by 21 U.S.C. § 851, is not a jurisdictional defect. “Section 851 is essentially a claims-processing rule that has no impact on the district court’s subject-matter jurisdiction.” Therefore, the notice requirement of Section 851 is subject to waiver. Difalco’s plea agreement contained an appeal waiver. This waiver knowingly waived Difalco’s right to challenge a § 851 defect in his sentence. Moreover, even if the waiver was not knowing, there was no defect that gave rise to “plain error.” Though the government’s § 851 notice was “hardly a model to be emulated by prosecutors in future cases,” the “scrivener’s errors” it contained did not result in Difalco not being put on notice of the prior conviction upon which the government was relying. Nor did the district court’s statements at sentencing – at which it varied downward below the Guideline range – indicate that Difalco’s sentence was affected by any error. The Court also rejected the argument that the Magistrate Judge committed error during its Rule 11 colloquy, finding that Difalco was informed of the mandatory minimum punishment on account of his prior felony convictions.

Matchett: Rehearing Denied

In U.S. v. Matchett, No. 14-10396 (Sept. 13, 2016), the Eleventh Circuit denied rehearing en banc from the panel decision, which had held that the void for vagueness doctrine does not apply to the sentencing guidelines.

Cox: No "new judgment" for AEDPA purposes where amended judgment did not affect sentence

In Cox v. Sec., Fla. Dept of Corrections, No. 13-15718 (Aug. 26, 2016), the Court held that an amended judgment of a Florida court that dismissed one of the counts of conviction did not qualify as a “new judgment” for purposes of avoiding AEDPA’s bar on second or successive habeas petitions filed more than one year after a judgment became final. The Court noted that the dismissal of the count of conviction did not affect the sentence, as the trial court had imposed a suspended sentence on this count, and he was serving a life sentence on the remaining counts. As a result, Cox was not “in custody” under this count, and the “new judgment” rule did not apply.

Hunter: Government breached plea agreement

In U.S. v. Hunter, No. 15-12640 (Aug. 26, 2016), the Court vacated a defendant’s sentenced because the government breached the plea agreement. The plea agreement provided that the government would recommend at sentencing an acceptance of responsibility sentence reduction. Hunter pled guilty to his drug trafficking charges. In response to the presentence investigation report, the government, instead of requesting a reduction for acceptance of responsibility, sought an upward departure or variance. The district court decided to give the acceptance of responsibility reduction, but then, at the government’s urging, imposed a 60-month sentence, an upward departure or variance from the Guideline range of 18-24 months. Hunter’s plea agreement contained an appeal waiver; but an appeal waiver does not include a waiver of a government’s breach of a plea agreement. The Court found that the government breached its promise to recommend an acceptance of responsibility sentence reduction. The government claimed that it was relieved of this obligation because, prior to the plea agreement, Hunter had testified at a suppression hearing in a manner that the district court found not to be credible, and it argued that this fell within one of the exceptions of the plea agreement. But “the government cannot avail itself of [exceptions to the plea agreement] based solely on facts of which it was aware prior to entering the plea agreement.” The government claimed that it anticipated that the district court would impose an obstruction of justice enhancement. But the government failed to condition its obligation to recommend the acceptance reduction on a specific ruling with regard to obstruction. The government cannot read the plea agreement as “a promise it knew it did not have to keep.” This would “induce a guilty plea in exchange for nothing.” The government claimed that Hunter was not entitled to any remedy, because the district ultimately disregarded its objection to an acceptance of responsibility reduction. The Court rejected this argument. “[W]e are not concerned with whether the district court was influenced by the government’s recommendation (or lack thereof); instead, our focus in on the interests of justice.” The breach occurred before the district court imposed sentence; any actions by the district court thereafter could “neither moot nor cure the government’s breach.” The Court therefore applied one the applicable remedies in this circumstance: it remanded the case for resentencing before a different district court judge.

Tharp: No ineffective assistance of counsel

In Tharpe v. Warden, No. 14-12464 (Aug. 25, 2016), the Court denied habeas relief to a Georgia inmate sentenced to death for a 1990 murder. The Court rejected Tharpe’s ineffective assistance claim, finding that a fairminded jurist could easily have concluded that counsel’s investigation was reasonable assistance. The Court found that Tharpe had failed to identify any “red flags” that would have required further investigation of his background. The Court also rejected Tharpe’s claim that he suffered from cognitive impairments that made him ineligible for the death penalty. He was able to graduate high school, and engage in routing commercial transactions.

Wilson: On habeas review, court will not "look through" summary disposition

In Wilson v. Warden, No. 14-10681 (Aug. 23, 2016), the Court (en banc) (6-5), affirmed the denial of habeas relief to a Georgia inmate sentenced to death for a 1996 murder. Wilson had sought habeas relief in Georgia state courts unsuccessfully: his request for a certificate of probable cause was summarily denied by the Georgia Supreme Court. The Court held that this adjudication was an adjudication on the merits. The Court would not “look through” this denial to the reasoning of the lower court. Wilson was required to show that there was no reasonable basis for the Georgia Supreme Court’s ruling, which he failed to do.

Jones: No habeas relief for 1991 murder

In Jones v. Sec., Fla. Dep’t of Corrections, No. 13-15053 (Aug. 25, 2016), the Court affirmed the denial of habeas relief to a death row inmate sentenced to death for a 1991 murder. The Court rejected the argument that counsel at the penalty phase was ineffective for failing to present mental health mitigation evidence. The Court deferred to the Florida Supreme Court’s determination that mitigating evidence would have been undercut by other mental health evidence that indicated that Jones was not suffering from any mental illness. The Court also found that Jones had not carried his burden of showing that he was prejudiced by trial counsel’s failure to object to his alleged shackling at trial. “The evidence establishing Jones’s guilt was overwhelming.”

Gonzalez: No Double Jeopardy violation for convictions on two conspiracies

In U.S. v. Gonzalez, No. 13-15878 (Aug. 23, 2016), the Court rejected the Double Jeopardy challenges of a defendant convicted of conspiracy to defraud the U.S. in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 371 and a separate count of conspiracy to commit health care fraud in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1349. The Court noted the Double Jeopardy test is whether each offense requires proof of a fact which the other does not. Here, the § 371 conspiracy required proof of an overt act, whereas the health care fraud conspiracy did not. The § 371 required the United States government to be a victim whereas health care fraud did not. Hence, there was no Double Jeopardy violation in convicting Gonzalez under both statutes. On plain error review, the Court rejected Gonzalez’ argument that the jury instructions mistakenly told the jury that a conviction of one conspiracy would require a conviction of the other charged conspiracy. The Court further found that even if the instruction was mistaken, there was “more than ample evidence” to support Gonzalez’ conviction for both conspiracies.

Phillips: Civil writ of bodily attachment is valid warrant under Fourth Amendment

In U.S. v. Phillips, No. 14-14660 (Aug. 23, 2016), the Court held that, under the Fourth Amendment, the police can validly arrest a person based on a civil writ of bodily attachment for unpaid child support. The Court noted that the Fourth Amendment requires a warrant to be “particular, sworn, and supported by probable cause.” The Florida writ in Phillips’ case met these requirements because it issued only after a person was found liable by a preponderance of the evidence for civil contempt for failure to pay child support. The Court rejected the argument that the warrant must be based on a crime, as opposed to a civil offense, pointing out that bench warrants based on civil contempt have been held not to present a problem under the Fourth Amendment. The Court also noted that even if material witness warrants might not satisfy the Fourth Amendment, this would not affect the decision because writs of bodily attachment, like bench warrants, are based on a “violation of law” – here, civil contempt. Turning to sentencing, the Court held that Phillips had waived his challenge to his 15-year sentence as an armed career criminal, because his plea agreement stated that he understood that the district court “must” impose a sentence of no less than 15 years, and at sentencing he affirmatively asked the district court to sentence him to 15 years.