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

Nationals of the Republic of Trinidad and Tobago abducted wealthy individuals, held them captive in the island's mountainous forests, and extorted ransoms from terrified family and friends. The conspirators were extradited to the United States, tried, and convicted of violating the Hostage Taking Act, 18 U.S.C. 1203. Principally at issue was whether the Act applies if the victim secured his United States citizenship through fraud. The court agreed with the district court that the Act does apply. The court concluded that, by its plain language, section 1203 broadly protects United States citizens. The statute imposes no restriction on this protection. It does not, for example, exclude citizens who, in retrospect, are unworthy of the honor. Nor does it exclude persons whose citizenship might at some later time be invalidated. In other words, section 1203 protects victims according to their status at the time of the hostage-taking. Therefore, the court affirmed the district court's judgment as to this issue. Further, the court affirmed the district court's denial of defendants' petition for a writ of mandamus requiring the United States Attorney to initiate posthumous denaturalization proceedings against the victim under 8 U.S.C. 1451. The court rejected defendants' remaining claims. The court affirmed the convictions and the judgment of the district court. View "United States v. Straker" on Justia Law

Defendant, convicted of travel fraud and wire fraud for a scheme in which he obtained funds from investors and home buyers based on false representations about how the funds would be used, appealed his convictions and sentence, raising several challenges. The court remanded defendant's claim that his trial counsel was ineffective by failing to offer certain testimony and evidence to establish Fourth Amendment standing and by failing to move for dismissal under the Speedy Trial Act, 18 U.S.C. 3162(a)(2). The court rejected defendant's remaining challenges, including a number of passing suggestions of ineffective assistance of counsel mentioned only in footnotes or conclusory statements in defendant’s briefing. Those passing references, which contain no discussion of the relevant law, are “not enough to raise [those] issue[s] for our review.” View "United States v. Miller" on Justia Law

Appellants, a criminal defense attorney and two legal investigators, were convicted in 2012 of breaching duties owed to the court by fabricating evidence and suborning perjury during a 2008 trial in which they represented another individual as defendant. In this appeal, appellants raise claims of prosecutorial misconduct. Two appellants raise claims under Brady v. Maryland, for reversal of their convictions based on the Government’s undisputed breach of its obligation to timely turn over exculpatory evidence. The court agreed with Appellant Daaiyah Pasha that but for the Brady deficiency, there is a reasonable probability of a different outcome in her case. Therefore, the court directed a new trial for Daaiyah Pasha, with appropriate remedies to cure the damage caused by the Government’s delayed disclosure. However, the court did not agree with Appellants Charles Daum and Iman Pasha on the challenges they raise, and so the court affirmed their convictions. View "United States v. Pasha" on Justia Law

Defendant, a member of the Gulf Cartel and a former Mexican state police officer, was convicted of conspiring to manufacture and distribute cocaine and marijuana for importation into the United States. On appeal, defendant raised numerous challenges to his conviction and sentence. The court rejected all of defendant's challenges except for one exception. The court concluded that the $15 billion forfeiture assessed by the district court must be recalculated under the terms of 21 U.S.C. 853(a)(1), and the court remanded to the district court for that purpose. The court did not reach defendant's argument that the forfeiture constituted an “excessive” fine in violation of the Eighth Amendment, or his contentions that the district court miscalculated the forfeiture under its understanding of section 853(a)(1). View "United States v. Cano-Flores" on Justia Law

Plaintiffs, two Kazakh businessmen, filed suit alleging that defendants violated the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO), 18 U.S.C. 1962(c) - (d), by engaging in criminal activity through the Krull Corporation. The specific predicate racketeering crimes alleged are money laundering, in violation of 18 U.S.C. 1956, and extortion, in violation of the Hobbs Act, 18 U.S.C. 1951. The amended complaint also alleged a defamation claim. The district court dismissed the case with prejudice. Determining that it has jurisdiction over the appeal, the court concluded that plaintiffs' allegations failed to state a RICO claim where plaintiffs do not contend that their complaint states a claim of domestic Hobbs Act extortion by defendants; plaintiffs do not assert that the actual extortion of their assets in Kazakhstan was itself in any way a violation of the Hobbs Act; and defendants only argue that Defendant Mirtchev's agreement in D.C. to Dariga Nazarbayeva’s extraterritorial, non-Hobbs-Act extortion scheme in Kazakhstan constituted a conspiracy in the United States to violate the Hobbs Act. The court also concluded that the complaint fails to state a claim for defamation or for conspiracy to defame. Finally, the district court did not abuse its discretion in declining to impose Rule 11 sanctions. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment. View "Hourani v. Mirtchev" on Justia Law

Defendant received a 144-month sentence for possession with intent to distribute 50 grams or more of crack cocaine. At issue on appeal was whether a district court must consider the crack/powder disparity before deciding whether to assign concurrent or consecutive sentences to a defendant. The court concluded that, although the district court misinterpreted 18 U.S.C. 3584(a) as having embedded in it a presumption in favor of consecutive sentences for separate conduct and offenses, this error did not sufficiently affect the district court's exercise of its discretion to require remand and resentencing. The court rejected defendant's remaining arguments and affirmed the sentencing order. View "United States v. Ayers" on Justia Law

Appellant, a Colombian citizen, was indicted under the Maritime Drug Law Enforcement Act (MDLEA), 46 U.S.C. 70503(a), and extradited to the United States for prosecution. Appellant pleaded guilty to a charge of conspiracy to distribute drugs “on board . . . a vessel subject to the jurisdiction of the United States,” in violation of the MDLEA. The court concluded that the MDLEA’s conspiracy provision reaches appellant’s extraterritorial conduct in this case; the overt acts of other conspirators on board the vessel are attributable to appellant, satisfying any “on board a vessel” requirement that might arguably circumscribe the MDLEA’s extraterritorial application; the Felonies Clause provides Congress with authority to “punish” appellant for his role in the conspiracy; the application of the MDLEA in appellant's case does not violate the Due Process Clause; the district court did not err when it assumed the truth of the government’s proffered facts in denying appellant’s motion, including with regard to whether the pertinent vessel was subject to the jurisdiction of the United States; the court rejected appellant's Brady claims; and the court rejected appellant's sentencing claims. Accordingly, the court affirmed the conviction and sentence. View "United States v. Ballestas" on Justia Law

Defendants Bell and Wilson, two members of the Congress Park Crew gang, appealed their conviction and sentences for their involvement in various crimes including crack distribution. The court rejected Wilson's argument that substitutions of trial counsel deprived him of effective representation where the court was unpersuaded by his theory of appeal, which hinges on an extension of the doctrine of presumptive prejudice; the district court did not abuse its discretion by admitting evidence of two uncharged murders; the court found no Brady violations based on suppression of certain reports; even considering the cumulative effect of the multiple alleged Brady violations, the untimely or suppressed materials are insufficient to undermine the court's confidence in the jury's verdict or to overcome the Government's evidence; and the court rejected defendants' sentencing challenges where the sentences did not violate the Sixth Amendment and were procedurally and substantively reasonable. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment of the district court. View "United States v. Bell" on Justia Law

Defendant, convicted of twenty-five counts of aiding or assisting in the filing of a false tax return, appealed his convictions. Defendant alleged that the court improperly instructed the jury and that he received ineffective assistance of counsel. The court found no error in the jury instruction regarding I.R.C. 7206(2) or prejudice from the alleged ineffectiveness. Reading the instructions as a whole, the court concluded that the district court’s instruction on good faith “substantially covered” the knowledge element that defendant requested. Therefore, the court affirmed the conviction. Because the government has conceded error in regards to the restitution order, which was improperly calculated, the court remanded for reconsideration of that aspect of defendant's sentence. View "United States v. Udo" on Justia Law

Defendant, convicted of twenty-five counts of aiding or assisting in the filing of a false tax return, appealed his convictions. Defendant alleged that the court improperly instructed the jury and that he received ineffective assistance of counsel. The court found no error in the jury instruction regarding I.R.C. 7206(2) or prejudice from the alleged ineffectiveness. Reading the instructions as a whole, the court concluded that the district court’s instruction on good faith “substantially covered” the knowledge element that defendant requested. Therefore, the court affirmed the conviction. Because the government has conceded error in regards to the restitution order, which was improperly calculated, the court remanded for reconsideration of that aspect of defendant's sentence. View "United States v. Udo" on Justia Law