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

Defendant, the former CFO of the National City Christian Church, was convicted of offenses related to his role in swindling the church out of more than $850,000, much of it through arranging an increase in the church's line of credit at Adams National Bank. On appeal, defendant contended that the government was required to prove that he stole certain individuals' identity information and that these individuals suffered individual harm beyond that suffered by the church. The court rejected defendant's argument that 18 U.S.C. 1028A required evidence that defendant stole the identity information at issue. The court also held that defendant's argument, that section 1028A applied only where the individuals whose means of identification were unlawfully used have suffered individual harm, lacked merit. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment. View "United States v. Reynolds" on Justia Law

Appellant challenged the district court's decision to reimpose a 360-month sentence for numerous narcotics- and firearms-related convictions after the court vacated one of the convictions upon which his original sentence was based. The court upheld the sentence, concluding that the district court correctly understood its authority on remand and did not err in exercising that authority. The court also took the opportunity to collect and restate this circuit's rules regarding which arguments the district court could consider on a remand for resentencing when the remand order provided no express instructions. View "United States v. Blackson" on Justia Law

Defendant, a Colombian national, was extradited for, charged with, and convicted of conspiracy to distribute cocaine with the knowledge or intent that it would be imported into the United States. On appeal, defendant raised several challenges to his conviction and sentence. Most significantly, defendant maintained that his trial attorney suffered from a conflict of interest that deprived him of his Sixth Amendment right to conflict-free representation and that excessive trial delays violated his constitutional and statutory speedy trial rights. The court concluded that neither claim had merit. Defendant made a rational and informed decision that, given the stipulation and the limited nature of his attorney's conflict, he wanted to proceed with counsel's representation. The district court's explanation of trial delays was sufficient. As to defendant's remaining claims, the court concluded either that the district court made no error or that any such error was harmless. Accordingly, the court affirmed both the conviction and sentence. View "United States v. Lopesierra-Gutierrez" on Justia Law

Defendant was convicted of conspiring to possess and distribute one kilogram or more of PCP. On appeal, defendant claimed that his trial and sentencing were defective in several respects. Defendant's ineffective assistance claim turned on two alleged deficiencies in his counsel's performance, both of which related to the "safety valve" provision of the Sentencing Guidelines. The court concluded that, in defendant's case, the record supported neither a conclusive determination that his ineffective assistance claim would succeed, nor one that it must fail. Accordingly, the court remanded for further proceedings as to defendant's ineffective assistance of counsel claim. The court concluded that defendant's other claims lacked merit. View "United States v. Bell" on Justia Law

Prior to Freeman v. United States, the district court denied defendant's 18 U.S.C. 3582(c)(2) motion for a reduction of his Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 11(c)(1)(C) sentence. The court held that it had jurisdiction of defendant's appeal notwithstanding his release from incarceration and the commencement of his term of supervised release; defendant's appeal was not moot because applying the amended version of the supervisory release provision would be impermissibly retroactive and, in not applying this amended provision, it becomes likely that defendant's term of supervisory release could be impacted by the outcome of this appeal; it remained for the district court to address the pre-amendment inter-circuit conflict as to which of two provisions on supervisory release applied to defendant in considering his pending motion to reduce his supervisory term; in the absence of necessary overlap between the reasoning of the plurality and concurring opinions in the Supreme Court's decision in Freeman to discern a narrower opinion that constituted binding precedent, defendant qualified for relief under section 3582(c)(2). Accordingly, the court reversed and remanded. View "United States v. Epps" on Justia Law

Defendant appealed his convictions for assault with a dangerous weapon, possession of a firearm during dangerous offenses, and being a felon in possession of a firearm. Defendant contended that the district court's self-defense instruction erroneously diluted the government's burden of proof. The court held that the jury instruction did not contradict any precedent of the court or the Supreme Court. Nor did it contravene any clear legal norm. Therefore, the court concluded that the instruction was not plainly erroneous and there was no need to consider the remaining elements of the plain error standard. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment. View "United States v. Purvis" on Justia Law

Defendant pled guilty to mail fraud, in violation of 18 U.S.C. 1341, and was sentenced to 60 months in prison followed by 36 months of supervised release, as well as ordered to pay restitution to his victims. On appeal, defendant challenged his sentence. The court held that defendant's appeal was not barred; rehabilitation was not the only factor the district court considered in determining defendant's prison time; the court found no support for the claim that defendant's prison term was longer than a wealthy person's term would have been for a similar crime; and because the government conceded at oral argument that defendant could not be ordered to enroll in the Inmate Financial Responsibility Program, the court modified his sentence to reflect the fact that enrollment was voluntary. As modified, the court affirmed the sentence. View "United States v. Godoy" on Justia Law

Appellant, indicted for conspiracy to distribute crack cocaine, pled guilty pursuant to a Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 11(c)(1)(C) plea agreement, which generally specifies an agreed-upon sentence or sentencing range. On appeal, appellant primarily argued that he was entitled to a sentence reduction because the advisory U.S. Sentencing Guidelines governing crack-related offenses were retroactively lowered after he was sentenced. The court held that appellant's sentence was not based on a Guideline sentencing range, but was instead based on a plea agreement made under Rule 11(c)(1)(C). Therefore, the Sentencing Commission's change to the crack Guidelines sentencing range did not make appellant eligible for a sentence reduction under 18 U.S.C. 3582(c)(2). The court further held that appellant's choice-of-counsel argument was meritless. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment. View "United States v. Duvall" on Justia Law

Appellant, once a prominent Washington lobbyist, was convicted of honest-services fraud, paying an illegal gratuity, and conspiracy relating to his provision of meals, tickets, and other gifts to public officials. Appellant's convictions stemmed from his involvement in Jack Abramoff's lobbying team. On appeal, appellant challenged the district court's instructions on the honest-services counts, the sufficiency of the evidence on the illegal-gratuity count, and the admission of evidence of his lawful campaign contributions. Although each of appellant's arguments was weighty, the court ultimately affirmed the convictions. View "United States v. Ring" on Justia Law

Plaintiff, together with the Second Amendment Foundation, contended that 18 U.S.C. 922(g)(1) was inapplicable to common-law misdemeanants as a class and, alternatively, that application of the statute to this class of individuals violated the Second Amendment. Plaintiff was convicted some forty years ago for common-law misdemeanor assault and battery and consequently was barred for life from ever possessing a firearm under section 922(g)(1). The court held that plaintiff's statutory arguments were unpersuasive and that disarmament of common-law misdemeanants as a class was substantially related to the important governmental objective of crime prevention. Therefore, the court rejected plaintiff's statutory and constitutional challenges, affirming the district court's dismissal of the action. View "Schrader, et al v. Holder, Jr., et al" on Justia Law