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

Defendant appealed his conviction for four counts related to his role in a conspiracy to distribute narcotics. The court concluded that the district court did not err in denying defendant's motion to suppress evidence of drugs arising out of the October 21 car stop where an officer's belief that a seatbelt was unbuckled was reasonable, whether or not it was erroneous, and the officer had probable cause to conduct the stop; the district court did not err in refusing to suppress the drug evidence that the police recovered during the February 1 search of defendant's blue sedan outside the police station where the district court did not commit plain error by failing to rule that the manipulation of the key fob constituted an unlawful search, and where the search was permitted under the automobile exception; defendant did not suffer prejudice from the prosecutor's improper statements and there was no plain error; and the district court did not abuse its discretion in refusing to grant a downward variance based on 18 U.S.C. 3553(a)(6). Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment. View "United States v. Williams" on Justia Law

Defendant appealed his sentence after pleading guilty to four counts of hostage-taking where he kidnapped 16 civilians in the Philippines. The court rejected defendant's claim that the district court should have applied a part of the Sentencing Guidelines that came into effect after the offense, and that the district court should have not applied the terrorism enhancement under U.S.S.G. 3A1.4(a); the district court did not err in applying the enhancement where defendant conceded that he conditioned the hostage release on government policy commitments and such a bargaining stance falls squarely within the statutory language; and the district court did not err in departing downward from the Guidelines based on defendant's incarceration before his extradition to the United States. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment of the district court. View "United States v. Haipe" on Justia Law

Defendant appealed his conviction for attempting to persuade a minor to engage in unlawful sexual activity in violation of 18 U.S.C. 2422(b). At issue was whether section 2422(b) requires direct communications with a minor. In this case, defendant's conviction was based on Internet and phone conversations with an undercover detective. The court held that a defendant can be convicted under section 2422(b) for communicating with an adult intermediary, if the defendant's communications with the intermediary are aimed at persuading, inducing, enticing, or coercing the minor. Here, the court vacated the conviction and remanded for a new trial nevertheless because the district court erred in instructing the jury and excluding expert testimony crucial to the defense. View "United States v. Hite" on Justia Law

Defendant appealed his conviction and sentence for conspiring to import cocaine into the United States. Defendant was part of the regional leadership of the Fuerzas Armadas Revolucionarias de Colombia (FARC), a left-wing guerilla group. The court concluded that there was overwhelming evidence to support defendant's conviction; the court rejected defendant's Brady argument, concluding that he failed to show that admitting the Reinsertado reports was likely to have changed the trial's outcome; admission of a training video and printouts did not substantially affect the jury's verdict and, therefore, any error in admitting them was harmless; and the court rejected defendant's challenge to the length of his sentence because, while the trial judge did not instruct the jury to make a finding as to the quantity of drugs involved in the conspiracy that was reasonably foreseeable to defendant, the evidence was overwhelming that defendant was personally involved in the manufacture and import of more than 7,000 kilograms. Accordingly, the court affirmed the conviction and sentence.View "United States v. Garcia" on Justia Law

Defendants Ransom and Talbott appealed their sentences after pleading guilty to fraud charges in connection with the operation of their property management company. The court need not decide whether Ransom's appeal waiver should stand since the court determined that, even if Ransom had not waived his right to appeal, his arguments made on appeal were meritless. The court concluded that defendants' sentences were both procedurally and substantively reasonable. The district court did not only all that it was required to do in entering the upwardly variant sentences, but more than enough. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment of the district court.View "United States v. Ransom, Jr." on Justia Law

Defendants Bondo and Fahnbulleh appealed their convictions and sentences on several counts of fraud in connection with their work on a humanitarian aid program in Africa funded by an agency of the United States government. The court concluded that defendants were not denied a speedy trial where the district court did not clearly err in granting the 18 U.S.C. 3161(h)(8) delay periods; there was no error in regards to subject matter jurisdiction and venue; the district court did not err by admitting two government exhibits into evidence; the district court did not err in denying a motion by Bondo for a mistrial where the improper remarks by the prosecutor did not prejudice defendants; and the district court properly calculated defendants' sentencing guidelines range. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment of the district court.View "United States v. Fahnbulleh" on Justia Law

Defendants Olejiya and Akinadewo appealed their sentences after pleading guilty to one count of conspiracy to commit bank fraud based on their participation in a scheme that involved opening fraudulent bank accounts. The court concluded that the district court properly applied an aggravated role enhancement of three levels for Olejiya and four for Akinadewo. The district court did not fail to make the factual findings necessary to support a 12 level increase for both based on the amount of intended loss in the conspiracy. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment of the district court.View "United States v. Olejiya" on Justia Law

Defendant, convicted of unlawful possession with intent to distribute fifty grams or more of methamphetamine, appealed from the district court's judgment sentencing him to a period of incarceration, followed by supervised release. The court held that it need not decide the sufficiency of the affidavit at issue because the exclusionary rule was inapplicable to the fruits of the search under United States v. Leon. Further, the district court did not err in refusing to hold an evidentiary hearing under Franks v. Delaware. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment of the district court.View "United States v. Matthews" on Justia Law

Defendant appealed her conviction and sentence for offenses related to her fraudulent collection of millions of dollars from Medicaid for procedures that were never performed. The court rejected defendant's evidentiary challenges and concluded that the district court acted within its discretion in limiting the cross-examination of a Health and Human Services investigator; ruling that defendant could use the superbills at issue only as evidence of her state of mind if she first provided a foundation; refusing to declare a mistrial because of allegedly prejudicial comments made during trial; and by admitting testimony regarding the care of developmentally-disabled patients. The court concluded that defendant's sentence did not violate the Double Jeopardy Clause; the district court did not err in applying an enhancement under U.S.S.G. 3B1.3 for those who abuse a position of trust; and defendant waived her argument regarding the forfeiture argument. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment of the district court.View "United States v. Wheeler" on Justia Law

Plaintiffs, prisoners who violated D.C. criminal laws before March 3, 1985, filed suit contending that the Parole Commission contravened the Ex Post Facto Clause by retroactively applying parole guidelines that it issued in 2000, instead of the guidelines in place at the time of their offenses. The court reversed the district court's dismissal of the complaint for failure to state a claim because the court concluded that plaintiffs have plausibly alleged that the application of the 2000 guidelines creates a "significant risk of prolonging [their] incarceration." The court remanded for further proceedings. View "Daniel, et al. v. Fulwood, Jr., et al." on Justia Law