Appellate Section
CRIMINAL
-
United States v. Marcus (2d Cir.) -- Appellee
- The Division argued that the rule of lenity does not apply because 18 U.S.C. 1589 and 1591 clearly and unambiguously prohibit the defendant’s conduct, and that the statutes are constitutional as applied in this case
- The U.S. Attorney’s Office addressed all remaining issues
-
United States v. Bartlett (7th Cir.) -- Appellee
- The evidence is sufficient
- None of the alleged errors warrant reversal of the conviction
- The sentences are proper
-
United States v. Smith (9th Cir.) -- Appellee
- The district court correctly refused to suppress Smith’s voluntary grand jury testimony, nor did the court abuse its discretion in excluding testimony of Smith’s proposed expert witness because the proposed testimony of this self-styled CB radio culture expert did not meet the standards of Rule 702 of the Federal Rules of Evidence
- The district court did not commit clear error in applying a six-level enhancement to his base offense level because his conduct evidenced an intent to carry out his threats, nor commit legal error in adding a three-level adjustment because Smith selected his victim because of his race, nor commit plain error in adding a two-level enhancement for Smith’s leadership role in the offense
- The court did not abuse its discretion by not discussing specifically Smith’s argument that the sentence recommended by the Probation Office created an unwarranted sentencing disparity under 18 U.S.C. 3553(a)
-
United States v. Wilson (6th Cir.) -- Appellee
- The evidence is sufficient to sustain the jury’s verdict that bodily injury resulted
- The district court did not commit plain error in denying defendant’s motion for severance
-
United States v. Paulin (11th Cir.) -- Appellee
- There was no amendment of the indictment and that the instructions and evidence at trial were sufficient to sustain a conviction of conspiracy to deprive Celestin of her right to be free of involuntary servitude
- The indictment clearly charged Paulin with forced labor after the effective date of 18 U.S.C. 1589
- The district court did not err in refusing to grant the requested instruction
-
United States v. Fontenot (11th Cir.) -- Appellee
- Both the language of 18 U.S.C. 1519 and its legislative history support the district court’s instruction because the element that the matter be within the jurisdiction of the United States is purely jurisdictional
- Any error would be harmless because Fontenot testified that he probably took a course explaining that excessive force can be a state or federal crime
-
United States v. Pilati (N.D. Ala.) -- Appellee
- The record showed that the victim was a minor and that he was a minor for the purposes of registration under the Sex Offender Registration and Notification Act (SORNA)
-
United States v. Cook (D.C. Cir.) -- Appellee
- A new trial is not warranted because all of the evidence Cook identifies was disclosed during trial when Cook had ample opportunity to use it and because he failed to demonstrate that the evidence in question was exculpatory and material
- Cook’s filing of two reports did not violate his Fifth Amendment privilege against compelled self-incrimination because the statements in the reports were exculpatory, false, and voluntary
-
United States v. Wang & Kuo (9th Cir.) -- Appellee
- The district court did not commit plain error in ordering restitution or in using the gross income valuation methodology
- The district court did not abuse its discretion in relying on affidavits from the victims and interview testimony from Kuo’s wife and a customer regarding the prices charged, where the defendant’s destroyed the business records that would have allowed for more detailed proof
| Document |
Date |
| Brief as Appellee, (filed under seal)
| 12/15/08 |
-
United States v. Simmons (5th Cir.) -- Appellee
- The record evidences the district court’s correct understanding of its discretion
-
United States v. Farrell & Farrell (8th Cir.) -- Appellee
- The evidence was sufficient to support the Farrells’ convictions for peonage, conspiracy, and document servitude
- The district court did not plainly err in permitting an expert to testify on the “climate of fear” that exists in many human trafficking cases
-
United States v. Egbert, Walker, & Massey (10th Cir.) -- Appellee
- The district court did not err in cross-referencing the aggravated assault guideline and adding five levels to Walker’s and Massey’s base offense levels in connection with the second incident
- The district court did not err in including the second incident in computing the base offense levels of Walker and Egbert, who did not participate in that assault
- The district court did not err in using the second incident as a basis for adjusting Walker’s and Massey’s base offense levels for purposes of grouping
- The district court did not err in applying a four-level enhancement to Walker’s sentence for being an organizer and leader of the criminal activity
- Walker’s sentence is substantively reasonable
-
United States v. Seale (5th Cir.) -- Appellee
- The prosecution was not barred by the statute of limitations
- Pre-indictment delay did not violate the defendant’s due process rights
- The district court did not err in denying the defendant's motion to suppress his 1964 statement to the FBI
- The district court did not abuse its discretion by allowing the United States’ forensic pathologist to give his expert opinion regarding the victims’ causes of death
- The district court did not abuse its discretion by excluding the testimony of the co-conspirator’s attorney to impeach his client
- The district court did not abuse its discretion by admitting evidence of the defendant’s motive
- The evidence was sufficient to support the jury’s verdict
- The panel decision conflicted with Fifth Circuit precedent for applying conflicting canons of statutory construction in Griffon v. Department of Health & Human Services, 802 F.2d 146 (1986)
-
United States v. Gagnier (6th Cir.) -- Appellee
- Gagnier’s arguments concerning his Sentencing Guidelines total offense level and the travel restriction imposed on his supervised release – requiring him to remain in the United States – are waived because he failed to raise them in his initial appeal
- Alternatively, the district court correctly considered the staged on-duty shooting incident as “relevant conduct,” correctly imposed offense level increases under U.S.S.G §§ 2B1.1(b)(1)(D) & 2B1.1(b)(12)(B), and did not abuse its discretion in imposing the travel restriction
- Gagnier’s sentence was reasonable
-
United States v. Cedric Jackson (11th Cir.) -- Appellee
- The Civil Rights Division filed a motion to dismiss Jackson’s appeal based on his valid waiver of his right to appeal his sentence. The court of appeals upheld Jackson’s conviction and sentence and denied the Division’s motion to dismiss the appeal as moot
-
United States v. Gilpatrick (6th Cir.) -- Appellee
-
The district court did not commit plain error in imposing a period of confinement in a community corrections facility as a condition of supervised release following imprisonment.
- The district court did not err in adding two levels to base offense level for obstruction of justice for providing the FBI a false report of the incident and adding four levels for role as a leader and organizer of the offense.
-
United States v. Teel (5th Cir.) -- Appellee
-
The district court correctly determined that the
government’s proffered reasons were neutral and that the government did not
engage in intentional discrimination on the basis of race or sex in selecting jurors.
- The district court did not abuse its discretion in any of its evidentiary rulings.
- None of the errors alleged by appellant warrants reversal.
-
United States v. Salazar (5th Cir.) -- Appellee
-
The district court properly calculated the Guideline range and the defendants’ sentences are reasonable
-
United States v. Djoumessi (6th Cir.) -- Appellee
-
The government presented ample evidence that the defendant coerced his victim to provide labor through the use and threats of physical injury and abuse of law or legal process
-
The defendant’s federal prosecution did not violate the Fifth Amendment’s prohibition on double jeopardy
-
United States v. Kaufman (10th Cir.) -- Appellee
-
The district court did not violate defendants’ Confrontation Clause rights when it ordered defendants to avoid direct eye contact with the victim-witnesses
-
The district court did not commit plain error when it instructed the jury on the definition of labor and services as to counts 2, 3, and 5
-
There is sufficient evidence that defendants used the requisite compulsion under 18 U.S.C. 1584 to force Kevin and Jonathan to labor on the farm
-
United States v. Carson, Hey, P. Jacquemain & R. Jacquemain (6th Cir.) -- Appellee/Cross-Appellant
-
The prosecutor’s comments during closing argument were not improper and do not warrant reversal
-
The district court’s instruction on 18 U.S.C. 242 comported with Graham v. Connor
-
The evidence was sufficient to support defendants’ convictions
-
The district court did not err in denying Hey’s request for an evidentiary hearing
-
Carson’s sentence is reasonable; Robert Jacquemain’s sentence is unreasonable
-
The district court failed to consider the applicable guideline range
-
The sentence of probation is substantively unreasonable
-
United States v. Gonzalez (9th Cir.) -- Appellee
-
The district court did not abuse its discretion in admitting, as a prior consistent statement, sergeant Garza’s testimony concerning Cecilia Tirado’s account of the night she was raped by Gonzalez
-
The district court did not abuse its discretion in admitting Pamela Fields’ prior statements to sergeant Kagy and nurse McClung
-
Exclusion as irrelevant of testimony relating to the restraining order against Rory Fitzhugh did not violate Gonzalez’s right under the confrontation clause
-
The district court did not abuse its discretion in admitting evidence of two prior acts of sexual misconduct by Gonzalez
-
“Cumulative prejudice” does not warrant reversal
-
United States v. Calimlim (7th Cir.) -- Appellee/Cross-Appellant
-
This court should uphold the defendants’ convictions
-
The district court erred in calculating the defendants’ sentences
-
United States v. Hunt (11th Cir.) -- Appellee
-
The evidence was sufficient to support defendant’s conviction for violating 18 U.S.C. 1519
-
Defendant’s conduct is covered by 18 U.S.C. 1519
-
Defendant’s sentence is reasonable
-
United States v. Conatser (6th Cir.) -- Appellee
-
The evidence was sufficient to support Conatser’s conviction
-
Marlowe’s sentence is constitutional
-
The district court did not err in applying the guideline for second degree murder
-
The defendants’ sentences are reasonable
-
United States v. Weems & Mitchell (8th Cir.) -- Appellant
-
The district court erred in calculating the defendants’ offense level
-
United States v. Chang (5th Cir.) -- Appellee
-
The district court's finding that Chang was a leader or organizer of an extensive criminal activity is not clearly erroneous
-
The district court did not clearly err in finding Chang eligible for the enhancement for vulnerable victims
-
United States v. Udeozor (4th Cir.) -- Appellee
-
The district court did not abuse its discretion in admitting evidence regarding the co-conspirator’s sexual abuse of the victim
-
Admission of recorded conversations between a co-conspirator and the victim did not violate defendant’s Sixth Amendment rights
-
The district court’s use of special findings was proper defendant’s sentence was reasonable
-
United States v. Aguilar (5th Cir.) -- Appellee
-
The district court’s 242 instruction properly followed Graham v. Connor
-
The district court did not constructively amend the indictment
-
The district court correctly instructed the jury with regard to the specific intent required by Count 1
-
The district court did not commit error when it gave the jury the definition of “corruptly” in 1512(b)(1) that Aguilar requested
-
The district court did not violate Aguilar’s Sixth Amendment rights or abuse its discretion in excluding evidence of Jimenez’s arrest record
-
The district court did not abuse its discretion when it excluded a photograph of Gilbert Garcia and testimony concerning the possibility of a firearm in the cadillac
-
The district court did not abuse its discretion when it replaced a juror, who disobeyed its instructions, with an alternate juror
-
United States v. Miller (8th Cir.) -- Appellee
-
The evidence was more than sufficient to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that defendant-appellant Jody Miller violated inmate Climmie Jones’s Eighth Amendment rights
-
The district court did not abuse its discretion in admitting victim Terry O’Neil’s medical records into evidence
-
The district court did not abuse its discretion in admitting chief jailer Kaye Harris’s testimony about statements jailer Chris Mcfarlin made to her regarding his false report on the O’Neil incident
-
United States v. Henderson (11th Cir.) -- Appellee
-
The district court was entitled to use the original presentence report at defendant’s resentencing
-
This decision not to grant a downward departure is committed to the district court’s unreviewable discretion
-
In re Grand Jury (4th Cir.) -- Appellant
-
The district court abused its discretion in quashing the grand jury subpoena
-
United States v. LeMoure & Polito (1st Cir.) -- Appellee
-
The district court correctly allowed the charged violations of 18 U.S.C. 1503 in Counts Nine and Ten of the indictment to be decided by the jury
-
The evidence presented was sufficient to support Polito’s convictions under 18 U.S.C. 1512(b)(1)
-
The district court’s instructions to the jury on Section 1512(b)(1) did not constitute plain error
-
None of Polito’s convictions violate his double jeopardy rights
-
Admission of evidence of Lemoure’s conversation with Joseph Weddleton about invoking the Fifth Amendment was not plain error
-
In calculating a guideline sentence range the district court correctly concluded that Lemoure had obstructed an investigation which included allegations that he used a dangerous weapon
-
United States v. Ruiz (5th Cir.) -- Appellee
-
Sufficient evidence supports the jury’s verdict
-
The district court did not abuse its discretion in instructing the jury on the elements of the offense
-
United States v. Haddock (9th Cir.) -- Appellee
-
Haddock’s appeal should be dismissed based on his knowing and voluntary waiver of appellate rights
-
The district court’s refusal to grant a downward departure based on alleged aberrant behavior is not reviewable, and was proper at any rate
-
The district court correctly applied the restraint-of-victim enhancement
| Document |
Date |
| Brief as Appellee [PDF] |
07/18/06 |
| Court of Appeals Decision (unpublished), available at 202 Fed. Appx. 969
|
10/23/06 |
-
United States v. Budd (6th Cir.) -- Appellee
-
The district court did not plainly err in instructing the jury on Count 1
-
The district court did not constructively amend Count 2 of the indictment by instructing the
jury at the second trial on Pinkerton liability and conspiracy law
-
The district court did not constructively amend the indictment by using an Eighth Amendment
standard in instructing the jury on Count 3
-
The district court did not plainly err in instructing the jury on the Fourteenth Amendment
standard applicable to uses of force against pretrial detainees
-
The evidence was sufficient to prove that Budd’s use of force against pretrial detainee Stephen
Blazo violated the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment
-
The evidence was sufficient to convict Budd on Count 3
-
United States v. Lee (9th Cir.) -- Appellee
-
The district court did not err in denying defendant’s motion to dismiss the indictment
-
The district court did not abuse its discretion in denying defendant’s motion for a mistrial based on comments made during the government’s rebuttal argument
-
The district court was not required to refer to american samoan law when it instructed the jury
-
The district court was authorized to impose consecutive sentences pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 3584
-
United States v. Picklo (11th Cir.) -- Appellee
-
There was sufficient evidence to prove that Picklo was acting under color
of law when he robbed and shot Frausto
-
The government adduced sufficient evidence to prove the necessary interstate
commerce nexus under the Hobbs Act
-
There was sufficient evidence to convict Picklo of attempting to kill Frausto
in order to prevent him from reporting the robbery to federal officials
-
United States v. Hobbs (4th Cir.) -- Appellee
-
The evidence was sufficient to support the defendant’s convictions
-
The district court correctly denied defendant Kratzer’s motion for a new trial because the prosecutor’s closing argument did not implicate defendant Kratzer’s Fifth Amendment right not to testify
-
The district court correctly ruled that the prosecutor’s rebuttal closing argument did not warrant a new trial
-
The district court did not abuse its discretion in admitting Joshua Hancock’s testimony
-
The district court’s refusal to strike an alternate juror was not clearly erroneous
-
United States v. Jackson (9th Cir.) -- Appellee
-
Evidence was sufficient to support Jackson’s conviction
-
The district court did not abuse its discretion by denying Jackson’s motion for a new trial
-
Questioning and impeachment of defense witness Loerzel was not prosecutorial misconduct that materially affected the fairness of the trial
-
The district court correctly instructed the jury that the statutory term “knowingly” did not require Jackson to have knowledge that his conduct was illegal
-
The district court did not instruct the jury that it could consider matters beyond the scope of the indictment
-
The district court correctly applied an enhancement for abuse of a position of trust to Jackson’s sentence
| Document |
Date |
| Brief as Appellee [PDF] |
03/27/06 |
| Court of Appeals Decision (unpublished), available at 186 Fed. Appx. 736
|
06/20/06 |
-
United States v. Norris (11th Cir.) -- Appellee
-
The district court correctly determined that Norris should be detained
pending his trial
-
United States v. Simmons (5th Cir.) -- Appellee/Cross-Appellant
-
The evidence was sufficient to prove that Simmons sexually assaulted Robinson
and that his conduct involved "aggravated sexual abuse"
-
The district court did not abuse its discretion in admitting the expert
testimony of Dr. Louise Fitzgerald
-
The prosecutor's remark during closing argument that Robinson had been
kidnapped is not reversible error
-
The district court did not abuse its discretion in admitting evidence that
Simmons failed to log in the marijuana he seized from the victim the night of
the rape
-
The district court did not abuse its discretion in admitting into evidence
excerpts of Simmons' state trial testimony
-
The district court did not abuse its discretion by declining to advise the jury
that Simmons had been acquitted in state court
-
The district court erred as a matter of law in refusing to impose a two-level
enhancement under Sentencing Guidelines § 2A3.1(b)(3)(A), which applies if the
victim was "in the custody, care, or supervisory control of the defendant"
-
The sentence imposed was unreasonable in light of the egregiousness of the
offense, Simmons' perjury, his lack of remorse, and the inadequacy of the
district court's explanation for choosing a sentence so far below the
Guidelines range
-
The district court erred as a matter of law in refusing to impose a two-level
enhancement under Sentencing Guidelines § 2A3.1(B)(3)(A), which applies if the
victim was "in the custody, care, or supervisory control of the defendant"
-
The sentence imposed was unreasonable under Booker
-
United States v. Skinner (2d Cir.) -- Appellee
-
The evidence was sufficient to support the defendants' conviction
-
The indictment properly alleges violations of 18 U.S.C. 242
-
Count IX of the indictment does not subject Acosta to double jeopardy with
respect to counts VI and VII
-
The district court properly instructed the jury regarding Acosta's liability
under Pinkerton v. United States
-
The district court properly instructed the jury on the term "use" as it is
used in 18 U.S.C. 242
-
A violation of 18 U.S.C. 242 through the use, attempted use, or threatened
use of a dangerous weapon, explosives, or fire is a crime of violence under
18 U.S.C. 924(c)(3)
-
The district court properly denied defendants' motions to dismiss count IX of
the indictment
-
Defendants received a fair trial
-
United States v. Perkins (4th Cir.) -- Appellee
-
The district court did not commit reversible error in admitting the lay
and expert opinions of law enforcement officers on the reasonableness of
defendant-appellant Perkins's use of force
-
The evidence viewed in the light most favorable to the government supports
the jury's finding that defendant-appellant Perkins caused "bodily injury"
to Koonce, and thus, Perkins's felony conviction for violating 18 U.S.C. 242
-
United States v. Briston (3d Cir.) -- Appellee
-
The evidence was sufficient to prove that the property defendant embezzled,
stole, or converted to his own use was "valued at $5,000 or more," as required
by 18 U.S.C. 666
-
Funds that the department of justice provides to state and local law enforcement
agencies under its equitable sharing program are "benefits" under 18 U.S.C. 666
-
Rankin borough received "benefits" under 18 U.S.C. 666(B) when federal block
grants were used to pay for street, sewer, and playground projects requested
by the borough
-
The district court did not err in instructing the jury that payments under the
federal government's equitable sharing program are "benefits" for purposes of
Section 666
-
The district court did not abuse its discretion fusing to allow the defense
to present testimony concerning accusations of wrongdoing by Rankin Borough's mayor
-
The district court did not abuse its discretion in instructing the jury on Count 1
-
United States v. Wyrick (5th Cir.) -- Appellee
-
The evidence was sufficient to support the defendant's conviction under 18 U.S.C. 242
-
United States v. Byrne (1st Cir.) -- Appellee
-
The district court did not abuse its discretion by limiting cross-examination
as to bias on the part of the police officers who testified for the government
-
The evidence was sufficient to support defendant's conviction on the witness
tampering counts
-
Defendant's sentence was not plain error under Booker
-
United States v. Gonzales, Gomez & Reyna (5th Cir.) -- Appellee
-
The district court properly refused to dismiss the indictment
-
The jury instructions on willfulness were not plain error
-
The evidence was sufficient to convict Gonzales of violating 18 U.S.C. 242 by
willfully using excessive force against Carrera, resulting in his bodily injury
-
The evidence was sufficient to convict each defendant of willfully violating
Carrera's due process rights by acting with deliberate indifference to his serious
medical needs, thereby causing bodily injury
-
The admission of Carrera's out-of-court statements was not plain error
-
The indictment was not constructively amended, and, even if it had been, reversal
would be unwarranted under plain-error review
-
The deportation of individuals arrested with Carrera did not violate Gonzales'
Sixth Amendment rights, and, in any event, does not warrant reversal under a
plain-error standard
-
Gonzales's Brady claims are not properly before this court
-
The allegations of prosecutorial misconduct are unfounded and, at any rate, do
not warrant a new trial for Gonzales under a plain-error standard
-
Defendants have not demonstrated, under a plain-error standard, that they are
entitled to resentencing under Booker or Blakely
-
The district court did not clearly err in finding that the offenses involved two
or more participants under Section 2H1.1 of the Sentencing Guidelines
-
The district court did not clearly err in finding that Gonzales was an organizer,
leader, manager, or supervisor under Guidelines § 3B1.1
-
The district court did not clearly err in finding that Carrera was a "vulnerable
victim" under Guidelines § 3A1.1
-
The district court did not err in imposing a restraint-of-victim enhancement
against Gonzales under Guidelines § 3A1.3
-
The district court did not clearly err in finding that Gonzales obstructed justice
-
Gonzales' remaining arguments are meritless
-
United States v. LaVallee, Schultz, & Verbickas (10th Cir.) --
Appellee/Cross-Appellant
-
The jury instructions were not erroneous
-
Sufficient evidence supports Schultz's conviction
-
The district court did not commit reversible error in any of its evidentiary rulings
-
The district court did not plainly err by summarily denying the defendants'
untimely and unsupported motion to disqualify a BOP attorney
-
The denial of Schultz's motions for new trial are not before this court in these
appeals
-
This court should remand for resentencing under a correct application of the
guidelines, or, in the alternative, affirm the sentences
-
Defendants bear the burden of showing the sentencing errors that the government
identified were harmless
-
The government's cross appeal does not seek imposition of sentences in violation
of United States v. Booker
-
The district court's application of the Guidelines was erroneous
-
The district court did not abuse its discretion when it denied Schultz's motion
for new trial based on newly discovered evidence
-
The district court did not err in concluding that Schultz was not entitled to a
new trial under Brady v. Maryland
-
Schultz's claims regarding prosecutorial misconduct were not made below and are
therefore waived
-
Conley v. United States (1st Cir.) -- Appellant
-
This Court should reverse the district court's order granting relief pursuant to
28 U.S.C. 2255.
-
This court must review de novo the district court's materiality determination
-
The FBI memorandum is cumulative impeachment evidence that does not justify relief
under Section 2255
-
Skidmore v. United States (9th Cir.) -- Appellee
-
Blakely is not retroactively applicable to cases on collateral review
-
United States v. Jones (6th Cir.) -- Appellee
-
The district court did not err in refusing to suppress the defendant's confession
because the defendant was not in custody for Miranda purposes and because his
statements were voluntary
-
United States v. Henderson (11th Cir.) -- Appellee
-
The district court did not abuse its discretion in rulings regarding testimony
by and about Jack Collins
-
The sheriff's removal from office for fraud was relevant
-
The district court did not abuse its discretion in barring polygraph testimony
-
The district court appropriately barred Henderson's proposed expert witness on
police procedure
-
Grant's treating physician's opinion on the causation of Grant's injury is
permissible under Federal Rule of Evidence 701
-
The exclusion of law enforcement officers from the grand and petit jury does
not violate the Sixth Amendment
-
The Supreme Court's Blakely decision does not invalidate Henderson's sentence
-
United States v. Nichols (4th Cir.) -- Appellee
-
Nichols' conviction is supported by evidence sufficient for the jury to conclude
that he participated in the attack
-
The district court's correctly refused to give a lesser-included offense
instruction
-
Blakely provides no grounds for reducing or remanding Nichols' sentence
-
United States v. Bailey (1st Cir.) -- Appellee
-
The alleged spillover effect of the conspiracy charge on which Bailey was
acquitted did not deprive him of a fair trial on the other counts
-
The jury instruction on aiding and abetting was not plain error
-
The evidence was sufficient to prove that Nikolas Dais suffered bodily injury
-
18 U.S.C. 1512(b)(3) does not require that a federal investigation be pending
at the time of the defendant's misleading conduct
-
Bailey is not entitled to a new trial on the perjury count
-
The district court did not clearly err in finding that Nikolas Dais was a
vulnerable victim
-
The Supreme Court's Blakely decision does not invalidate the Federal Sentencing
Guidelines
-
Even if Blakely applied to the Federal Sentencing Guidelines, Bailey's sentence
should be upheld under plain-error review
-
If this Court concludes that Blakely applies to the Guidelines and that
Bailey's sentence cannot withstand plain-error review, this Court should remand
for resentencing within the district court's traditional discretion
-
Bailey's sentence should be upheld under the plain error standard
-
United States v. Flowers (7th Cir.) -- Appellant
-
The district court erred in ordering that court records relating to defendant's
conviction be expunged
| Document |
Date |
| Brief as Appellant (Under Seal) |
06/28/04 |
| Reply Brief as Appellant (Under Seal) |
08/03/04 |
|
Court of Appeals Decision [PDF], reported at 389 F.3d 737 |
11/19/04 |
-
United States v. Bradley & O'Dell (1st Cir.) -- Appellee
-
The district court's jury instructions regarding Section 1589 were not plain
error, nor did they mislead the jury or misstate the law
-
The district court did not abuse its discretion by admitting testimony regarding
the defendants' mistreatment of Clarke and Wilson
-
The district court correctly applied the Sentencing Guidelines
-
The Supreme Court's Blakely decision does not invalidate Bradley's and O'Dell's
sentences
-
If the Court concludes that Blakely does invalidate the defendants' sentences,
the Court should remand for resentencing within the district court's traditional
discretion
-
The defendants have not met their burden to show a reasonable probability that
the district court would have sentenced them more leniently under advisory guidelines
-
Harris v. United States (5th Cir.) -- Appellant
-
Harris's trial counsel's performance was neither objectively unreasonable nor
prejudicial
-
United States v. Hooks (11th Cir.) -- Appellee/Cross-Appellant
-
Hooks's use of force in this case was clearly unreasonable under the circumstances
-
This court should reject appellant's invitation to overturn United States v. Myers
-
The district court erred in calculating Hooks's sentence under the Guidelines
-
Hooks is ineligible for an adjustment based on acceptance of responsibility
-
The facts do not support a downward departure based on victim conduct
-
None of the additional factors relied upon by the district court supports a
downward departure
-
The Supreme Court's Blakely decision has no effect on Hooks' sentence
-
United States v. Maravilla & Dominguez (1st Cir.) -- Respondent
-
This court lacks jurisdiction over these appeals from the district court's order
denying petitioners' renewed motion for bail
-
Assuming arguendo that this court has jurisdiction, the district court did not
abuse its discretion in denying petitioners' third bail petition
-
United States v. Powers & Garcia (9th Cir.) -- Appellee
-
The introduction of excerpts from the October 2, 1995, interview did not violate
Garcia's Fifth Amendment rights
-
The introduction of excerpts of Powers' state court testimony was not plain
error as to Garcia
-
The admission of excerpts from Garcia's October 2 interview was not plain error
as to Powers
-
Because 18 U.S.C. 241 does not require proof of an overt act, the United States
was not required to prove that any of the overt acts listed in the indictment
were committed within the limitations period
-
Hampton's remarks to Ebright were co-conspirator statements under Fed. R. Evid.
801 and thus their admission did not violate the Confrontation Clause
-
The disqualification of Powers' lawyers did not violate his rights under the
Sixth Amendment or the Due Process Clause (this argument is contained in volume 2
of this brief, which is filed under seal.)
-
United States v. Ferreira (7th Cir.) -- Appellee
-
Sufficient evidence supports Ferreira's conviction for causing a deprivation of
rights under color of law
| Document |
Date |
| Brief as Appellee [PDF] |
02/24/04 |
| Court of Appeals Decision (unpublished & unreported), available at 2004 WL 1559206
|
07/09/04 |
-
Ballinger v. United States (7th Cir.) -- Appellee
-
Petitioner has waived or procedurally defaulted all claims except ineffective
assistance of counsel
-
Ballinger received effective assistance of counsel
-
Ballinger's conviction did not violate his due process rights
-
United States v. Fuselier (5th Cir.) -- Appellee
-
Fuselier's status as the highest ranking Klan member present is sufficient to
support the district court's four level enhancement for serving as a leader
or organizer of a criminal activity involving five or more participants under
Section 3B1.1 of the Sentencing Guidelines
-
United States v. Franklin (11th Cir.) -- Appellee
-
Section 247(c) is a valid exercise of Congress's authority under Section 2 of
the Thirteenth Amendment
-
The court did not abuse its discretion in excluding testimony concerning
defendant's mental condition
-
The district court did not abuse its discretion in denying defendant's motion
to exclude defendant's recorded statements concerning his criminal mischief
conviction
-
Defendant is not entitled to a new trial based upon the failure to transcribe
defendant's taped confession
-
United States v. Donnelly (1st Cir.) -- Appellee
-
The district court did not err in determining that Gibson was particularly
susceptible to Donnelly's crime
-
United States v. Brugman (5th Cir.) -- Appellee
-
The evidence was sufficient to support the defendant's conviction under
18 U.S.C. 242
-
The district court did not abuse its discretion in admitting evidence of
another act committed by the defendant
-
The district court correctly calculated the defendant's sentence
-
United States v. Sipe (5th Cir.) -- Appellant
-
The Department of Justice memorandum referring to Agent Cruce's "dislike" of
Sipe does not constitute Brady information
-
The district court erred in considering, in its cumulative analysis under Brady,
that the failure to produce criminal history data for witness Murillo warranted
a new trial
-
The United States was not required to produce notes of an interview of Ms.
Rodriguez because she was known to Sipe and her statement is not exculpatory
-
Additional evidence regarding financial and other benefits given to Mexican
National witnesses is not material, individually or collectively, to warrant
a new trial
-
The United States had no obligation to produce photographs taken at the crime
scene two months after the assault
-
The withheld evidence, considered cumulatively, does not create a reasonable
probability that the verdict would be different
-
United States v. Fuller, Serrata & Lipscomb (10th Cir.) --
Appellee/Cross-Appellant
-
The evidence overwhelmingly supports defendants' convictions
-
The district court did not abuse its discretion by limiting cross-examination
and excluding extrinsic evidence regarding certain underlying details of the
victim's criminal convictions
-
The district court properly instructed the jury
-
The district court properly calculated the total offense levels for the
sentence of each defendant
-
The district court relied on impermissible factors when it departed downward
from the sentences prescribed by the Sentencing Guidelines
-
United States v. Davis & Hardy (5th Cir.) -- Appellant/Cross-Appellee
-
Because Davis and Hardy challenged the Indictment after trial and appeal, the
Indictment is reviewed with maximum liberality
-
The Third Superseding Indictment sufficiently alleges that Davis and Hardy had
the requisite intent under the FDPA to murder Kim Marie Groves
-
The Indictment sufficiently alleges that Davis and Hardy engaged in substantial
planning and premeditation leading to the murder of Kim Marie Groves
-
Davis's cross-appeal should be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction
-
United States v. Corum (8th Cir.) -- Appellee
-
The evidence was sufficient to establish violations of Section 844(e)
-
The application of Section 844(e) to defendant's conduct is within Congress's
Commerce Power
-
The evidence was sufficient to establish the Interstate Commerce element of
Section 247(a)
-
Section 247(a)(2) does not violate the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment
-
United States v. May (4th Cir.) -- Appellant
-
The district court erred in concluding that defendant may deserved a downward
departure for victim misconduct
-
The district court erred in granting defendant May a downward departure for
aberrant behavior
-
The district court clearly erred in finding that defendant May accepted
responsibility for his actions
-
United States v. Verbickas, et al. (10th Cir.) -- Appellee
-
Whether the defendants' felony convictions for violating 18 U.S.C. 242
(deprivation of rights under color of law) are "crimes of violence," thus making
the defendants ineligible for release under 18 U.S.C. 3143(a)(2)
-
In re United States (7th Cir.) -- Petitioner
-
Whether the district court exceeded its authority and usurped the executive
power of the Attorney General when it refused the government’s request to
dismiss the remaining count of the indictment and instead appointed a “special
counsel” to prosecute it
-
United States v. Williams (5th Cir.) -- Appellee
-
A violation of 18 U.S.C. 242 and the use of excessive force are crimes of
violence under 18 U.S.C. 924(c)(3)
-
The district court properly admitted lay opinion testimony by officers that
Williams's shooting of Hall was not reasonable
-
The cross-examination of Williams does not constitute reversible error
-
The district court did not abuse its discretion in admitting evidence relevant
to the victim's state of mind
-
The United States' redirect and rebuttal closing on co-defendant Barfield's plea
agreement do not establish prosecutorial misconduct or improper vouching
-
United States v. Ramos (11th Cir.) -- Appellee
-
The prosecutor's opening statement was proper and does not warrant reversal
-
Defendants are not entitled to reversal of their convictions as a result of
the Government's alleged failure to provide timely notice of its intent to
introduce 404(b) evidence
-
Forfeiture that is primarily proceeds of defendants' crimes and constitutes
an amount substantially less than the fine authorized by law and the sentencing
guidelines is not excessive within the meaning of the eighth amendment
-
The district court did not vindictively sentence defendant when following an
order to vacate and remand for resentencing, predicated on an intervening
Supreme Court decision, it imposed a longer sentence than the erroneously
calculated original sentence
-
The district court did not clearly err in finding that a pistol-whipping
committed during and in furtherance of the counts of conviction is relevant
conduct within the meaning Section 1B1.3 of the Federal Sentencing Guidelines
-
The record supports the district court's finding that the victim of the
pistol-whipping sustained "permanent or life-threatening injury" since
defendant placed his victim's life at risk and caused the permanent scars
on his face
- The district court correctly denied petitioner’s pro se motion filed pursuant to 2255, in which petitioner alleged that his appellate counsel was constitutionally ineffective for pursuing his appeal without advising him that he could receive a longer sentence than originally imposed
-
United States v. Allen (9th Cir.) -- Appellee
-
There was sufficient evidence to prove violations of 18 U.S.C. 241 and
245(b)(2)(b) and the statutes are constitutional
-
The district court did not abuse its discretion in admitting certain
"skinhead evidence"
-
The evidence was sufficient to support the convictions of Flom under
18 U.S.C. 241 (Conspiracy) and Allen and Dixon under 18 U.S.C. 2 (Aiding
and Abetting)
-
The district court did not abuse its discretion in denying Potter's motion
for a mistrial
-
The district court did not err in calculating the sentences of Allen, Dixon,
and Skidmore
-
United States v. White (7th Cir.) -- Appellee
-
Officer White acted under color of law when he assaulted Brenda Pryor
-
The district court did not abuse its discretion by admitting evidence of a
prior assault by White pursuant to Fed. R. Evid. 404(b)
-
The district court did not abuse its discretion in allowing redirect
examination on the context of White's interview by the FBI
-
Moreno Morales v. United States (1st Cir.) -- Respondent-Appellee
-
The district court did not abused its discretion in dismissing the Section
2255 petition without an evidentiary hearing
-
Wiegand v. United States (6th Cir.) -- Appellee
-
The district court erred in ruling that Wiegand’s challenge to his conviction on count 3 was
untimely
-
United States v. Manns (6th Cir.) -- Appellee
-
Manns and Lewis demonstrated the malice aforethought required to support
second degree murder as the underlying offense for their Section 242 convictions
-
The district court properly denied McDougle's pretrial motions to dismiss
the indictments
-
The district court properly denied McDougle's motion for acquittal and did
ot abuse its discretion in denying the request for a new trial
-
United States v. Gasanova (5th Cir.) -- Appellee
-
The district court correctly instructed the jury that Visas obtained based
on fraudulent representations do not give "official authorization" to enter
or remain in the United States under 8 U.S.C. 1324(a)(2)(b)
-
The district court did not abuse its discretion in declining to conduct voir
dire regarding a news article that reported testimony at trial
-
The district court appropriately barred cross-examination that would elicit
prejudicial testimony that had no probative value
-
The district court appropriately determined items subject to criminal
forfeiture based on the preponderance of the evidence
-
Ample evidence supported the Gasanovs' sentence for conspiracy to violate
the human trafficking laws
-
United States v. Christian (7th Cir.) -- Appellee
-
Codefendants’ guilty pleas to lesser included misdemeanor
violations of 18 U.S.C. 242 do not bar the government from presenting evidence and
convicting defendant of a felonious violation of 18 U.S.C. 242
-
District court did not abused its discretion in refusing to allow
defendant’s expert to characterize the severity of the victim’s injuries
-
Evidence is sufficient to establish that defendant acted under color of law.
-
United States v. Mohr (4th Cir.) -- Appellee
-
District Court did not abuse its discretion in admitting the limited 404(b)
evidence in this case
-
District Court did not commit plain error or abuse of discretion in admitting
the testimony of Dennis Bonn on redirect examination
-
District Court did not abuse its discretion or commit plain error in admitting
the expert testimony of Dr. James Fyfe as rebuttal evidence
-
United States v. Jackson (8th Cir.) -- Appellee
-
Court acted well within its discretion in permitting the prosecutor to cross-examine
defendant on facts surrounding defendant's prior conviction
-
United States v. Tecum (11th Cir.) -- Appellee
-
Defendant received adequate translation services during trial
-
Court properly admitted into evidence documentation regarding the defendant's
arrival in the U.S.
-
Defendant was properly restrained by U.S. Marshals when he threatened a witness
during the trial
-
Defendant was provided effective assistance of counsel
| Document |
Date |
| Brief as Appellee [PDF] |
05/24/02 |
| Court of Appeals decision, unpublished, 48 Fed. Appx. 739, -- F.3d -- (Table)
| 08/28/02 |
-
United States v. Bates (3d Cir.) -- Appellee
-
District court did not err in refusing to sever trial of multiple defendants
-
Alleged prosecutorial misconduct is not a basis for reversal of convictions in
this case
-
Evidence was sufficient to support convictions of police officers accused of
violating citizens' civil rights
-
United States v. Lee (11th Cir.) -- Appellee
-
District court properly referred to Sentencing Guideline for underlying offense
in applying Guideline for civil rights offense
-
Government's recommendation that court apply Guideline for underlying defense
did not violate plea agreement
| Document |
Date |
| Brief as Appellee [PDF] |
03/15/02 |
| Court of Appeals decision, unpublished, 37 Fed. Appx. 500, -- F.3d -- (Table)
| 05/06/02 |
-
United States v. Kennard (9th Cir.) -- Appellee
-
Defendant who pleaded guilty and agreed not to appeal his sentence cannot
appeal his sentence on the grounds that the plea was involuntary
-
Defendant's plea agreement was voluntary
-
United States v. Rayborn (6th Cir.)
-- Appellant
-
Church was used in interstate commerce within the meaning of federal arson statute
-
United States v. Howell (10th Cir.) -- Appellee
-
Judge did not error in refusing to require disclosure of nature of the
felonies committed by a Government witness
-
prosecutors did not engage in misconduct
-
Judge did not error in admitting evidence that Howell attacked an inmate
-
Judge properly admitted inmate grievance form into evidence
-
Judge gave a proper Allen charge to the jury
-
The cumulative effect of the claimed errors does not warrant reversal
-
Judge properly denied request for a new trial based on new evidence
-
United States v. Vangates (11th Cir.) -- Appellee
-
Statements made by Defendant in prior civil case were not inadmissible
compelled statements for Fifth Amendment purposes
-
United States v. Kwon (9th Cir.) -- Appellee
-
Court of Appeals should dismiss appeal because Defendants waived their
right to appeal the issues they are raising
-
Case decided after sentencing in this case does not apply to Defendants
because they waived their right to appeal sentencing
-
United States v. Rathburn (4th Cir.) -- Appellee/cross-appellant
-
Judge did not commit plain error in failing to instruct jury to disregard
evidence regarding dismissed count
-
District court erred in refusing to give upward sentencing adjustment for
obstruction of justice
-
District court erred in giving defendant downward departure because he
was a police officer and police officers may be subject to abuse in prison
-
United States v. Geston (9th Cir.) -- Appellee/cross-appellant
-
The Government did not knowingly use false testimony against the defendant
police officer in excessive force case
-
The Government's cross-examination of certain witnesses is not a basis for reversal
-
The district court did not err in refusing to allow the defendant to
cross-examine the victim about prior, unrelated fights the victims had been
in with a hotel security gaurd and fellow Navy sailor
-
The district court misapplied the Sentencing Guidelines by refusing to
increase the defendant's sentence based on the facts that the defendant
was acting under color of law and abusing his capacity as a pubic official
-
United States v. Daniels (5th Cir.) -- Appellee
-
The compelled statements of one of the defendants were not used against
him at trial in violation of Garrity v. New Jersey
-
The district court did not err in refusing to recuse the prosecution team or
sever defendants' trials
-
The court's supplemental jury instructions were proper
-
There as sufficient evidence to support convicting defendants of viciously
beating a handcuffed inmate in violation of the Eighth Amendment
-
United States v. Harris (5th Cir.) -- Appellee/cross-appellant
-
There was sufficient evidence to convict the defendant, a county sherrif,
of beating a handcuffed suspect with his baton when the suspect refused to
calm down in the back of a police car
-
The district court erred in reducing the defendant's sentence to less than
15% of the length of imprisonment set forth in the Sentencing Guidelines,
based on the court's conclusion that the victim's misbehavior contributed to
the incident
-
United States v. Colvin (7th Cir.) -- Appellee
-
Double Jeopardy clause does not prevent cumulatively punishing a defendant
for using fire in the commission of a felony and the underlying felony itself
-
Whether the weapon defendant used was an assault weapon was relevent only
to the length of defendant's sentence and, therefore, was properly decided
by the judge
-
United States v. Villareal (5th Cir.) -- Appellee
-
INS agent properly convicted for sale of stolen birth certificate
-
United States v. Rowe (4th Cir.) -- Appellee
-
Fire-bombing of two automobiles falls within scope of 18 U.S.C. 844(i),
which prohibits arson of real or personal property used in interstate commerce
or in any activity affecting interstate commerce
-
United States v. Franklin (8th Cir.) -- Appellee
-
Prison guard who beat prisoner not entitled to sentencing departure based
on "aberrant behavior" or minimal degree of injury
-
United States v. Brown & Troxel (7th Cir.) -- Appellee
-
Police officers properly convicted under 18 U.S.C. 242 for use of excessive
force by persons acting under color of law
-
United States v. Wallace (5th Cir.) -- Appellee
-
Prison guard properly convicted under 18 U.S.C. 242 in two separate trials
for willful assault of inmates
-
United States v. Vartanian (6th Cir.) -- Appellee
-
Evidence was sufficient to sustain conviction under 42 U.S.C. 3631(a) for
threatening African-American couple through their real estate agents
-
United States v. Grassie (10th Cir.) -- Appellee
-
Arson of a church falls within scope of 18 U.S.C. 844(i), which prohibits
arson of real or personal property used in interstate commerce or in any
activity affecting interstate commerce, and the Hobbs Act
-
United States v. Odom (11th Cir.) -- Appellee
-
Arson of a church falls within scope of 18 U.S.C. 844(i), which prohibits
arson of real or personal property used in interstate commerce or in any
activity affecting interstate commerce
-
United States v. Magleby (10th Cir.) -- Appellee
-
Evidence was sufficient to sustain conviction under 42 U.S.C. 3631(a) for
burning a cross in front of home of African-American family
-
United States v. Mungia (5th Cir.) -- Appellee
-
Requirement of 18 U.S.C. 245(a)(1) that the Attorney General certify in
writing that in his judgment prosecution "is in the public interest and
necessary to secure substantial justice" does not require certification
to be filed with court
-
United States v. Downen (9th Cir.) -- Appellee
-
Evidence was sufficient to sustain convictions under 18 U.S.C. 241, 371 and
1001 for assaulting Mexican-American family because they moved into apartment
and lying about incident
-
United States v. Whitney (10th Cir.) -- Appellee
-
Evidence was sufficient to sustain conviction under 18 U.S.C. 241 and 42
U.S.C. 3631 for burning a cross in front of home of African-American family
* Note: this brief has been redacted consistent
with the provisions of Victims' Protection and Rights Act regarding child
witnesses, 18 U.S.C. 3509
-
United States v. Byrne (9th Cir.) -- Appellee
-
Jeopardy did not attach to tentative decision to enter judgment of acquittal
-
United States v. Lanier (6th Cir.) -- Appellee
-
Fugitive disentitlement doctrine bars defendant raising claims that were
raised in proceedings terminated due to his flight
-
The district court properly dismissed Lanier's application for habeas corpus,
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 2241, because he failed to demonstrate that he was
eligible to invoke that remedy
-
United States v. Johnson (5th Cir.) -- Appellee
-
Defendant burned a church that used in interstate commerce, or an activity
affecting interstate commerce, within the meaning of 18 U.S.C. 844(i).
Browse Briefs by Category
Affirmative Action
Americans with Disabilities Act and
Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act
Civil Rights of Institutionalized Persons Act
Constitutionality of Federal Statutes
Criminal
Education
Employment Discrimination (Race, National
Origin, Sex, and Religion)
Freedom of Access to Clinic Entrances Act
Housing
Individuals with Disabilities Education Act
Religion Cases
Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964
Voting
Other
Updated March 10, 2009
