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

Defendant appealed his sentence and conviction for drug conspiracy. The court concluded that the district court did not abuse its discretion in admitting Federal Rule of Evidence 404(b) evidence of prior drug activity and in denying defendant's motion requesting that the drug conspiracy charge and the witness tampering charge be severed for purposes of trial where, in both instances, the district court gave reasoned explanations for its decisions and the jury was given limited instructions. The court also concluded that the prosecutor's improper remarks did not substantially prejudice defendant. In regards to defendant's sentence, the court concluded that defendant was not entitled to safety-valve relief where he had not fulfilled all the requirements of 18 U.S.C. 3553(f) and, consequently, his counsel was not ineffective for not arguing the issue with more vigor. Finally, the district court correctly determined that it did not have the discretion to award a United States v. Smith departure of any length beneath the statutory minimum. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment. View "United States v. Valdez" on Justia Law

Defendant appealed his sentence and conviction under 18 U.S.C. 3582(c)(2) for trafficking crack cocaine, contending that the judge who sentenced him failed to determine the quantity of drugs he possessed. The court concluded that the district court's finding that the drug quantity contained in the presentence report (PSR) was implicitly adopted by the sentencing court was not clear error, and the decision to deny the section 3582(c)(2) motion was not an abuse of discretion. Defendant, who waited 20 years to raise this challenge, had the opportunity to challenge the facts contained in the PSR at sentencing, and he declined to do so. He also declined to raise the argument on direct appeal. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment of the district court. View "United States v. Kennedy" on Justia Law

Appellant, convicted of drug charges, appealed his sentence, claiming that he was denied the effective assistance of counsel. The court need not decide whether the record before it was sufficient to resolve this claim because both parties agreed that it was not. Therefore, the court remanded for whatever proceedings were necessary to determine whether appellant was denied his constitutional right to effective assistance of counsel, which could include an evidentiary hearing in the district court's discretion. The court rejected appellant's claims under the Fair Sentencing Act, Pub. L. No. 111-120, 124 Stat. 2372, as meritless where he was convicted a half year in advance of the Act's passage. View "United States v. Thompson" on Justia Law

Plaintiff filed suit claiming that the District police violated her common-law, statutory, and constitutional rights when they arrested her for disorderly conduct. The jury awarded her compensatory and punitive damages. The District and its officers appealed. The court concluded that the district court did not abuse its discretion by excluding evidence of the radio log. The court concluded, however, that the district court erred by issuing a missing evidence instruction but that the error was not prejudicial. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment. View "Huthnance v. District of Columbia, et al." on Justia Law

Appellant fled to the United States after a Hong Kong magistrate issued a warrant for his arrest on charges of smuggling, evasion of customs duties, bribery, conspiracy to defraud, and money laundering. On appeal, appellant challenged the district court's grant of an application under 28 U.S.C. 2467(d)(3) for a restraining order to preserve appellant's assets. The court concluded that the district court's restraining order was issued in a manner consistent with the procedural due process protections of 18 U.S.C. 983(j)(1)(A) where the applicable foreign criminal or forfeiture proceedings in this case afforded protections consistent with those afforded by the filing of a civil forfeiture complaint in the United States. The court need not decide whether all of those proceedings were required, or whether fewer or different proceedings would have sufficed. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment, concluding that the proceedings appellant was afforded was sufficient to satisfy the mandate of section 2467(d)(3). View "Luan, et al. v. United States" on Justia Law

After defendant was charged with drug-related offenses, the Government committed a series of disclosure violations leading to, and then extending beyond, the district court's declaration of a mistrial based upon such violations. Before retrial, the prosecutor belatedly disclosed more information that defendant had subpoenaed before the first trial. Defendant argued that he would have seen the first trial through to a verdict but for the Government's latest disclosure violation. Defendant moved to dismiss the indictment under the Double Jeopardy Clause but the district court denied the motion. The court affirmed, concluding that retrial was not barred by the Double Jeopardy Clause because the prosecutor's several violations were unintentional. View "United States v. McCallum" on Justia Law

Defendant appealed the district court's denial of his request for a sentence reduction under 18 U.S.C. 3582(c)(2). The court concluded that the sentencing court relied on defendant's "flawed" guideline range in this case, opening the door to "reexamination" of his sentence under a section 3582(c)(2) proceeding; because of the government's substantial assistance motion, no mandatory minimum was at work when the district court sentenced defendant; without the mandatory minimum bar, no provision kept Amendment 750 from having "the effect of lowering" defendant's applicable guideline range, leaving defendant eligible under the policy statement to pursue a sentence reduction; and the policy statement did not foreclose 18 U.S.C. 3553(e) defendants from receiving reductions on that basis. Accordingly, the court reversed and remanded for further proceedings. View "In re: Sealed Case" on Justia Law

Defendant appealed his conviction, after a retrial, of conspiracy to distribute and to possess with intent to distribute phencyclidine (PCP). On appeal, defendant argued that the district court violated Federal Rule of Evidence 701 when it permitted the FBI's administrative case agent to testify about his understanding of recorded conversations played for the jury. The court concluded that the district court's failure to enforce Rule 701's boundaries on lay-opinion testimony denied the jury the information it needed to assess the FBI agent's interpretations of recorded statements and the errors were not harmless. Accordingly, the court vacated and remanded for further proceedings. View "United States v. Hampton" on Justia Law

Defendant pled guilty to unlawful possession of a firearm and ammunition by a convicted felony and was sentenced to 37 months imprisonment and 3 years supervised release. On appeal, defendant challenged his sentence of 24 months imprisonment imposed after the second revocation of his supervised release, arguing that his revocation sentences should be aggregated under 18 U.S.C. 3583(e)(3). The court concluded that the 2003 amendment to section 3583(e)(3), adding the phrase "on any such revocation," resulted in the felony class imprisonment terms at the end of section 3583(e)(3) being per-revocation limits, and not aggregate limits. The court further held that upon each revocation of supervised release, a defendant could be sentenced to the felony class imprisonment limits at the end of section 3583(e)(3), without regard to prison time previously served for revocation of supervised release. Accordingly, the court affirmed the sentence. View "United States v. Spencer" on Justia Law

Appellant appealed the district court's denial of his petition for a writ of habeas corpus. The district court concluded that appellant was part of al Qaeda or the Taliban at the time of his capture, based on evidence of what he did and with whom he stayed in Pakistan and Afghanistan as well as his efforts to explain away that evidence, which the district court found implausible. The court affirmed the judgment, concluding that the district court's findings of fact were not clearly erroneous, and those facts supported the conclusion that appellant was more likely than not a part of enemy forces at the time of his capture. View "Hussain v. Obama, et al" on Justia Law