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

This case raised questions about the scope of the Executive's authority to prosecute war crimes under current federal statutes. This particular dispute involved the military commission conviction of petitioner, an al Qaeda member who worked for Osama bin Laden. The court concluded that: (1) despite petitioner's release from custody, this case was not moot; (2) consistent with Congress's stated intent and so as to avoid a serious Ex Post Facto Clause issue, the court interpreted the Military Commissions Act of 2006, 10 U.S.C. 821, not to authorize retroactive prosecution of crimes that were not prohibited as war crimes triable by military commission under U.S. law at the time the conduct occurred; and (3) when petitioner committed the relevant conduct from 1996-2001, Section 821 provided that military commissions may try violations of the "law of war." Because the court read the Act not to retroactively punish new crimes, and because material support for terrorism was not a pre-existing war crime under Section 821, petitioner's conviction for material support for terrorism could not stand. The court reversed the judgment of the Court of Military Commission Review and directed that petitioner's conviction for material support for terrorism be vacated. View "Hamdan v. United States" on Justia Law

Upon being retried after a mistrial in his criminal case, appellant had requested that two stipulations entered into during his first trial not be enforced. The court joined other circuits in applying the general rule on stipulations to criminal prosecutions and found no abuse of discretion by the district court. The district court reasonably viewed the stipulations as affirmative evidentiary admissions in the prosecution of the indicted counts. Appellant failed to demonstrate manifest injustice in being held to the stipulations; he had a full opportunity to present evidence, call witnesses, and argue to the jury that the phone records were inconsistent and thus inaccurate and due little weight. Moreover, the authenticity of the records was a peripheral issue at his trial and any error in admitting the stipulations was harmless. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment. View "United States v. Kanu" on Justia Law

Appellant was convicted of one count of bank robbery and two counts of attempted bank robbery and was sentenced to concurrent terms of 132 months on each count. On appeal, defendant challenged his conviction and sentence. The court concluded that under 18 U.S.C. 3162(a)(2)'s waiver provision, appellant waived his right to seek dismissal under section 3162(a)(1) based on an untimely indictment; appellant's challenge of the district court's failure to order a competency hearing ex mero motu was rejected; and the district court properly imposed a 2-point enhancement for obstruction of justice based on appellant's deliberate misrepresentations. Accordingly, the court affirmed the conviction and sentence. View "United States v. Hines" on Justia Law

Defendant was convicted of international drug trafficking and drug trafficking with intent to provide financial support to a terrorist. On appeal, defendant challenged his conviction and life sentence for narcoterrorism. He also claimed that his trial counsel provided ineffective assistance. The court affirmed defendant's conviction and sentence but remanded for the district court to hold an evidentiary hearing on the claim of ineffective assistance because defendant raised colorable claims under both Strickland prongs and the trial record did not conclusively show whether he was entitled to relief. View "United States v. Mohammed" on Justia Law

After a jury trial, Defendant was convicted for conspiracy to distribute narcotics. At issue on appeal was whether the government proved, beyond a reasonable doubt, that Defendant knowingly entered into the conspiracy with the specific intent to further the unlawful objective of drug distribution. The D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals reversed, holding (1) there was no affirmative evidence that Defendant knowingly joined the narcotics conspiracy or had the specific intent to further its aims; and (2) given the scope of the government's investigation and the role its witnesses played in the conspiracy, any reasonable jury should have wondered why the government could not find such evidence. View "United States v. Gaskins" on Justia Law

Thirteen years ago, the Government sued several cigarette manufacturers (Defendants) and related industry organizations for civil violations of the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO). The suit asserted that Defendants had conspired to deceive consumers about the health effects and addictiveness of smoking, seeking injunctive relief and disgorgement of $280 billion in profits. In this latest round of the lawsuit, Defendants challenged the district court's refusal to vacate injunctions imposed in 2009. The D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed, holding that the district court (1) did not clearly err when it found Defendants were reasonably likely to commit future RICO violations despite the passage of the Tobacco Control Act; and (2) did not abuse its discretion when it refused to vacate its injunctions under the primary jurisdiction doctrine. View "United States v. Philip Morris USA Inc." on Justia Law

Thirteen years ago, the Government sued several tobacco companies for civil violations of the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO). The suit asserted that Defendants had conspired to deceive consumers about the health effects and addictiveness of smoking, seeking, among other things, injunctive relief. The district court granted injunctive relief against the tobacco companies to prevent future RICO violations. The injunction included provisions requiring Appellants to make disclosure to the Government of various marketing data. The parties were unable to agree on the parameters of the disclosure requirement. The district court determined (1) the companies were required to furnish the full range of disaggregated marketing data sought by the Government under its understanding of the injunction; and (2) the Government could disclose the data to other governmental entities subject to the confidentiality provisions in the final order. The tobacco companies sought an interlocutory appeal, claiming that the clarification of the injunction actually effected a modification of the requirements. The D.C. Circuit Court of appeals dismissed the appeal for lack of jurisdiction, concluding that the district court did not modify the injunction. View "United States v. Philip Morris USA Inc." on Justia Law

Appellants were executives at the Purdue Frederick Company when it misbranded the painkiller OxyContin a schedule II controlled substance. The Company was convicted of fraudulent misbranding, and the executives were convicted under the "responsible corporate officer" doctrine of the misdemeanor of misbranding a drug. Based upon their convictions, the Secretary of Health and Human Services later excluded the individuals from participation in federal health care programs for twelve years under 42 U.S.C. 1320a-7(b). Appellants sought review, arguing that the statute did not authorize their exclusion and the Secretary's decision was unsupported by substantial evidence and was arbitrary and capricious. The district court granted summary judgment for the Secretary. The D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals reversed, holding (1) the statute authorized the Secretary's exclusion of Appellants, but (2) the Secretary's decision was arbitrary and capricious for want of a reasoned explanation for the length of the exclusions. View "Friedman v. Sebelius" on Justia Law

In 1993, Plaintiff was convicted of the crimes of threatening to injure a person and manslaughter. In 1997, Congress brought the D.C. parole system under the jurisdiction of the U.S. Parole Commission (USPC). In 2000, the USPC adopted its own regulations regarding suitability for parole. At Plaintiff's parole hearings in 2001 and 2005, the USPC applied the 2000 regulations and denied Plaintiff parole. In 2005, Plaintiff filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus, alleging that application of the 2000 Regulations, rather than the 1987 Regulations, at his hearings violated his rights under the Ex Post Facto Clause. The D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the district court's dismissal of Plaintiff's damages suit on the ground of qualified immunity, concluding that application of those regulations did not violate any clearly established constitutional right of which a reasonable official would have known at the time of the hearings. View "Taylor v. Reilly" on Justia Law

Defendant was convicted following a jury trial of multiple offenses, including possession of a firearm as a convicted felon, related to the shooting of an undercover agent of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives. Defendant was sentenced to 270 months in prison, and the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed. Defendant subsequently filed a motion to modify his sentence, arguing that he was entitled to a reduction and sentence and seeking a hearing to see if his sentence should be reduced. The district court denied the motion. The D.C. Circuit affirmed, holding that the district court did not clearly err by finding that it reached Defendant's ultimate sentence by starting with Sentencing Guideline 2K2.1, which covers convictions for felons in possession of a firearm. View "United States v. Gatling" on Justia Law