Legal News

Case Summaries

Criminal Law & Procedure

[09/02] US v. Beale
Defendants' convictions for conspiracy to prevent by intimidation a judicial officer from discharging her official duties, and obstruction of justice, are affirmed where: 1) the evidence was sufficient to convict defendants of conspiracy to prevent by force, intimidation or threat, an officer of the U.S. from discharging her duties; 2) the First Amendment did not bar defendants' convictions because the conduct underlying the convictions was an unprotected true threat; and 3) the jury was advised more than once about the protections afforded by the First Amendment.

[09/02] US v. Holmes
Defendant's convictions for being a felon in possession of a firearm, and for possessing with intent to distribute in excess of five grams of crack cocaine, are affirmed in part where the evidence was sufficient to overcome a challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence to support defendant's conviction on the felon-in-possession charge. However, the convictions are reversed in part where neither defendant nor his attorney on his behalf made a clear and intentional waiver of defendant's rights to confrontation that would allow the full extent of the confidential informant's statements read by an officer.

[09/02] US v. Rea
District court's conviction of defendants for conspiracy to distribute in excess of 500 grams of a mixture containing methamphetamine and other related offenses, and their sentences are affirmed in part and vacated in part where: 1) because the government concedes defendant's argument, that the conspiracy alleged in his indictment is a lesser included offense of the continuing criminal enterprise (CCE) and that, along with a special assessment for each, his concurrent sentences thus amount to cumulative punishment not authorized by Congress, defendant's conviction and sentence for conspiracy are vacated; 2) the evidence presented against defendant was sufficient to justify his continuing criminal enterprise conviction; 3) district court did not abuse its discretion by admitting the statements made by defendant's co-conspirators and any error related to an agent's testimony was harmless; 4) district court did not plainly err by imposing the firearm sentencing enhancement upon the defendant as the government demonstrated that the guns were found in close proximity to drug paraphernalia and that defendant dealt in large quantities of meth on a frequent basis; 5) sufficient evidence supported co-defendant's conviction for conspiracy as based on the evidence, any reasonable juror could find that the relationship between the defendants exceeded that of a buyer-seller relationship; and 6) district court's calculation errors did not affect co-defendant's substantial rights.

[09/02] US v. Ritchie Special Cred. Invs., Ltd.
In intervenor's application to intervene in an adversary proceeding initiated by the government pursuant to 18 U.S.C. section 1345 against the alleged author of a Ponzi scheme, the denial of the application is affirmed where: 1) the litigation progressed substantially between the initiation of these proceedings and intervenor's second motion to intervene; and 2) intervenor had knowledge of all the facts surrounding the district court's injunction, and failed to take issue with it when first presented with an opportunity to do so.

[09/02] US v. Slaight
Conviction of a defendant for receipt and possession of child pornography shipped in interstate or foreign commerce, and sentenced to a mandatory minimum of 15 years by reason of a previous conviction for aggravated sexual abuse of a minor, is reversed as, defendant's motion to suppress incriminating statements that he had made when questioned by federal officers at a police station should have been granted as facts are incontrovertible and show that the average person in defendant's position would have thought himself in custody, and any other conclusion would leave Miranda in tatters.

[09/02] US v. Hernandez
In a conviction of defendant for distributing more than 50 grams of cocaine base, district court's imposition of a 120-month sentence, in believing that it was required by U.S.S.G. section 5G1.3(c) to impose the sentence as part of the federal sentence, because defendant's state offense (for which defendant had already served 18 months of at the time of his federal sentencing) was unrelated to his federal offense, is vacated and remanded as, section 5G1.3(b) does not apply to this case as the governing statute for these purposes is 18 U.S.C. section 3584(a) which gives a district court the discretion to impose a term of imprisonment either concurrently or consecutively to a prior undischarged term, taking into consideration the factors enumerated in 18 U.S.C. section 3553(a).

More...

White Collar Crime

[08/26] US v. Prince
Conviction of defendant for conspiracy to commit money laundering and multiple counts of money laundering, in connection with fraudulent claims for payment for physical therapy services provided to Medicare beneficiaries, is affirmed where: 1) the evidence at trial was sufficient to establish that the defendant committed, or conspired to commit, money laundering by conducting, or aiding and abetting another in conducting, the specified financial transactions knowing that they involved the proceeds of Medicare fraud; 2) a reasonable person would not question the judge's impartiality toward defendant because a government witness was represented by an attorney who previously represented the judge in a prior unrelated matter; and 3) district court did no abuse its discretion by refusing to require the government to provide a pretrial disclosure of its exhibit list.

[08/19] US v. Kottwitz
Defendants' convictions for tax fraud-related charges are affirmed in part where the circumstantial evidence was sufficient for the jury to have concluded beyond a reasonable doubt that defendants entered into the charged conspiracy. However, the convictions are vacated in part where: 1) the district court erred in refusing to give defendants' requested special instruction to the jury on their good faith reliance on their accountant's advice; and 2) the evidence was insufficient for a properly instructed jury to convict on the charge of aiding and assisting in the filing of a materially false corporate tax return.

[08/18] US v. Holstein
Conviction of defendant for bankruptcy fraud and making false statements in bankruptcy petitions, based on providing bankruptcy services at his law firm while on suspension for professional conduct, is affirmed as the evidence was sufficient to establish beyond a reasonable doubt the essential elements of both 18 U.S.C. section 157(1) and 18 U.S.C. section 1519.

[08/12] US v. Kumar
Defendants' convictions and sentences for conspiracy, securities and wire fraud, obstruction of justice, and perjury are affirmed in part where: 1) regardless of whether defendant's false testimony violated 18 U.S.C. section 1512(c)(2), it plainly violated section 1503(a), and the indictment charged at least that offense; 2) the Fifth Amendment did not protect false testimony; and 3) application of the 2005 Guidelines to defendants' fraud offenses, which were completed in 2000, did not violate the Ex Post Facto clause. However, one defendant's sentence is vacated where the district court erroneously failed to award defendant a two-point reduction for acceptance of responsibility that he should have received.

[08/11] US v. Cantrell
District court's conviction of defendant for honest services fraud, for using his position in public office to steer contracts to a third party in exchange for kickbacks, and other crimes, and sentence of 78 months' imprisonment are affirmed where: 1) defendant's award of contracts was clearly a kickback scheme, so section 1346 - even as pared down by Skilling v. United States, 561 U.S. __, 2010 WL 2518587 (2010) - applies to defendant; 2) the district court did not err in applying U.S.S.G. section 2C1.1; and 3) there is no evidence that the district judge committed procedural error or otherwise acted unreasonably in imposing a within-guidelines sentence.

[08/05] US v. Straw
Defendant's sentence for wire fraud, mail fraud, making, possessing, and uttering a forged security, and money laundering is affirmed where: 1) it was not plain error for the district court to hear defendant's family member's statement because the statement concerned defendant's background, character, and conduct; 2) given the fact that the victims of defendant's wills-and-estate-planning scheme overlapped with the victims of other schemes, and that defendant used those seminars to find new victims for his other crimes and assess their financial situations, it was not clearly erroneous for the district court to determine they were part of the same course of conduct; and 3) the district court was aware of defendant's mental health issues and there was no evidence it disregarded them in varying upward.

More...