Justia U.S. D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals Opinion Summaries

Appellant pleaded guilty to unlawful possession with intent to distribute five grams or more of cocaine base and was sentenced to 210 months of imprisonment, five years of supervised release, and a $100 special assessment. On appeal, defendant challenged his sentence on two primary grounds: (1) the sentence violated the ex post facto clause because the Sentencing Guidelines Manual applied by the district court was promulgated after he committed the offense of conviction and could have resulted in a harsher sentence than the one yielded by the Manual in effect at the time of the offense; and (2) the district court had an erroneously limited view of its discretion to impose a below-Guidelines sentence following the Supreme Court's decision in United States v. Booker. Although the court rejected appellant's ex post facto argument, the court was persuaded by his claim as to the district court's concept of its discretion. Accordingly, the court vacated and remanded for resentencing. View "United States v. Terrell" on Justia Law

This case raised questions about the scope of the Executive's authority to prosecute war crimes under current federal statutes. This particular dispute involved the military commission conviction of petitioner, an al Qaeda member who worked for Osama bin Laden. The court concluded that: (1) despite petitioner's release from custody, this case was not moot; (2) consistent with Congress's stated intent and so as to avoid a serious Ex Post Facto Clause issue, the court interpreted the Military Commissions Act of 2006, 10 U.S.C. 821, not to authorize retroactive prosecution of crimes that were not prohibited as war crimes triable by military commission under U.S. law at the time the conduct occurred; and (3) when petitioner committed the relevant conduct from 1996-2001, Section 821 provided that military commissions may try violations of the "law of war." Because the court read the Act not to retroactively punish new crimes, and because material support for terrorism was not a pre-existing war crime under Section 821, petitioner's conviction for material support for terrorism could not stand. The court reversed the judgment of the Court of Military Commission Review and directed that petitioner's conviction for material support for terrorism be vacated. View "Hamdan v. United States" on Justia Law

Upon being retried after a mistrial in his criminal case, appellant had requested that two stipulations entered into during his first trial not be enforced. The court joined other circuits in applying the general rule on stipulations to criminal prosecutions and found no abuse of discretion by the district court. The district court reasonably viewed the stipulations as affirmative evidentiary admissions in the prosecution of the indicted counts. Appellant failed to demonstrate manifest injustice in being held to the stipulations; he had a full opportunity to present evidence, call witnesses, and argue to the jury that the phone records were inconsistent and thus inaccurate and due little weight. Moreover, the authenticity of the records was a peripheral issue at his trial and any error in admitting the stipulations was harmless. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment. View "United States v. Kanu" on Justia Law

Appellants filed suit claiming that the FWS had unlawfully denied their requests for permits to import hunting trophies taken from elephant hunts in Zambia in 2005 and 2006. The district court rejected appellants' claims and granted summary judgment to the Government. Because this matter was unripe for review when the district court heard the case and issued its decision, the record on appeal was incomplete. Therefore, the court vacated the judgment and remanded for further consideration. View "Marcum, et al v. Salazar, et al" on Justia Law

Appellant was convicted of one count of bank robbery and two counts of attempted bank robbery and was sentenced to concurrent terms of 132 months on each count. On appeal, defendant challenged his conviction and sentence. The court concluded that under 18 U.S.C. 3162(a)(2)'s waiver provision, appellant waived his right to seek dismissal under section 3162(a)(1) based on an untimely indictment; appellant's challenge of the district court's failure to order a competency hearing ex mero motu was rejected; and the district court properly imposed a 2-point enhancement for obstruction of justice based on appellant's deliberate misrepresentations. Accordingly, the court affirmed the conviction and sentence. View "United States v. Hines" on Justia Law