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

Appellant was convicted of three murders and sentenced to death. This appeal stemmed from appellant's Freedom of Information Act (FOIA), 5 U.S.C. 552, requests to the FBI seeking information related to the FBI's investigation of him. Appellant appealed the district court's grant of summary judgment in favor of the FBI, which concluded that the FBI had released all non-exempt documents as required by FOIA; that the FBI performed an adequate search; and that the FBI correctly applied FOIA Exemptions 3, 7(C), and 7(D). The court affirmed the judgment and rejected appellant's argument that the FBI improperly withheld the 125 pages at issue and appellant's complaint about the alleged inadequacy of the search. The court concluded that the FBI had released all reasonably segregable, non-exempt material to appellant. View "Hodge v. FBI, et al" on Justia Law

Appellant alleged that the District of Columbia violated rights conferred upon him by Article 36(1)(b) of the Vienna Convention on Consular Relations, Apr. 24, 1963, 21 U.S.T. 77, 101, 596 U.N.T.S. 261. Appellant is a national of Jamaica and currently incarcerated in a federal penitentiary. Assuming without deciding that Article 36(1)(b) conferred individually enforceable rights under 42 U.S.C. 1983, the court concluded that appellant's suit was untimely. Accordingly, the court affirmed the district court's grant of summary judgment to the District of Columbia. View "Earle v. District of Columbia" on Justia Law

Defendant pled guilty to Student Aid Fraud, Bank Fraud, and Social Security Fraud. Defendant appealed from the district court's judgment on several grounds. The court held that the district court erred in describing the elements of Student Aid Fraud; however, the error did not affect defendant's substantial rights. The court found no merit in any of the remaining claims raised by defendant on appeal. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment. View "United States v. Moore" on Justia Law

Appellant pleaded guilty to four counts of sex trafficking of children and was sentenced to imprisonment, as well as ordered to pay a total of $3,892,055 in restitution to the four victims. On appeal, appellant challenged the restitution order but the Government argued that he waived his right to appeal the order. The court concluded that appellant did not waive his right to appeal the restitution order but the court rejected appellant's arguments on the merits and affirmed the judgment. View "In re: Sealed Case, et al" on Justia Law

Petitioner, a detainee at Guantanamo Bay Naval Base, appealed from the district court's denial of his petition for a writ of habeas corpus. Petitioner, an Afghan national, became a senior Taliban official in 1994. He asserted, however, that he was not a part of the Taliban forces. The court found no clear error in the district court's factual determinations where the evidence established that petitioner was at least more likely than not a part of the Taliban forces. Accordingly, the court affirmed the denial of the petition. View "Khairkhwa, et al v. Obama, et al" on Justia Law

Defendant appealed his 65-month sentence of imprisonment, arguing that it was both procedurally and substantively defective. Among other arguments, defendant contended that his Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD), depression, and substance abuse issues made it substantively unreasonable to sentence him to more than a brief period of incarceration, followed by a treatment at a private facility. The court disagreed with defendant's contentions and affirmed the judgment. View "United States v. Warren" on Justia Law

Defendant filed a motion challenging his sentence pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 2255 after he failed to obtain reversal of his conviction. The motion was filed within the one-year limitation of section 2255(f), but did not include his claim of ineffective assistance of trial counsel. The government therefore maintained that this later-filed claim was not properly before the court. The court held that equitable tolling applied to section 2255 motions. Here, the later-filed claim was not properly before the court because defendant was diligent in researching his claim and post-conviction counsel acknowledged that the failure to include the ineffective assistance claim in the timely section 2255 motion was due solely to his own error. On the merits, however, the court concluded that defendant failed to meet his burden under Strickland v. Washington. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment. View "United States v. McDade" on Justia Law

Defendant pled guilty to copyright infringement and mail fraud. Pursuant to the Mandatory Victim Restitution Act (MVRA), 18 U.S.C. 3663A, the district court ordered him to pay restitution to Adobe Systems in an amount equivalent to the revenue he received from his sales of the pirated products. The court vacated the order because the government failed to meet its burden to present evidence from which the district court could determine Adobe Systems' actual loss as a result of the pirated sales. View "United States v. Fair" on Justia Law

Defendant was convicted of drug related offenses and sentenced before Congress passed the Fair Sentencing Act of 2010 (FSA), Pub. L. No. 111-220, section 2, 124 Stat. 2372, which reduced the disparity between the treatment of crack and powder cocaine. The court rejected defendant's argument that the FSA applied to him because his case was on appeal when the Act was passed; that the district court abused its discretion in refusing to postpone sentencing until after passage of the Act; and that the district court erred substantively and procedurally by adding the additional sentence for perjury to the mandatory minimum. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment. View "United States v. Fields" on Justia Law

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