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

In 2009, defendant pled guilty to a one-count information charging him with possession of child pornography in violation of 18 U.S.C. 2252A(a)(5)(B) and, in light of his 1999 Michigan state court proceeding where he pled guilty to distributing child pornography, the district court sentenced him to ten years imprisonment. At issue was whether defendant had such a "prior conviction" under the laws of the State of Michigan. The court concluded that if defendant had been convicted in state court of the conduct for which he was sentenced in federal court, his assignment under the Michigan Holmes Act, Mich. Comp. Laws 762.11, would have been treated as a "conviction" for determining his minimum sentence. It followed that even if Michigan law determined defendant's minimum federal sentence, he had a prior conviction under Michigan law relating to child pornography. Therefore, the court held that the district court properly imposed the ten year mandatory minimum sentence pursuant to section 2252A(b)(2).

Appellant, a Yemeni detainee at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, appealed the district court's denial of his petition for writ of habeas corpus. Appellant claimed there was insufficient evidence to find that he was part of al-Qaida and that the district court relied on evidence outside the record, abused its discretion in denying additional discovery, and committed various legal errors. The court affirmed the district court's denial and held that a preponderance of the evidence unmistakably showed that appellant was part of al-Qaida in light of his guesthouse and military training camp admissions, his carrying a rifle at the behest of camp superiors, and his suspicious movements and implausible narrative of his final capture in the company of at least one known al-Qaida operative.

Appellant appealed his conviction of seven counts of bank fraud and four counts of immigration fraud whereby he filed hundreds of applications for labor certification containing false representations that various shell companies he controlled would employ his alien clients and he reproduced counterfeit checks to draw on his clients' banks accounts involving hundreds of thousands of dollars. At issue was whether the district court erred in determining that appellant's waiver of his right to counsel under the Sixth Amendment was unequivocal and voluntary, knowing, and intelligent. The court held that the district court might have been well advised to inquire about appellant's waiver of counsel on the same day it accepted the waiver, but in viewing the proceedings as a whole, the court concluded that the district court's colloquy was constitutionally adequate to confirm that he voluntarily chose to represent himself and did so knowingly and intelligently. The court also held that, assuming there was a Sixth Amendment right to prepare a pro se defense upon self-representation, appellant failed to show he was denied adequate access to business records seized by law enforcement or that he was prejudiced in his defense by limitations on access to those materials and other government discovery. The court further held that all but one of appellant's challenges to the enhancements imposed by the district court in sentencing lacked merit and as to that enhancement, there was insufficient evidence to show that appellant was a leader under U.S.S.G. 3B1.1. Accordingly, the court confirmed the conviction and remanded for resentencing.

Appellant filed a suit against appellees, including the police officer that arrested her, alleging violations of her First and Fourth Amendment rights where the officer arrested her when she refused to stop what she described as "silent expressive dancing" inside the Jefferson Memorial. At issue was whether the district court properly dismissed appellant's complaint for failure to state a claim. The court affirmed the dismissal and held that appellant was lawfully arrested for violating the reasonable regulations that govern the Jefferson Memorial, a nonpublic forum reserved for the tranquil commemoration of Mr. Jefferson's legacy, and that the officer had probable cause to make the arrest and used reasonable force to subdue her without injury after she twice refused his lawful orders.

A jury found David Safavian, Chief of Staff of the General Services Administration ("GSA"), guilty on four counts of a five-count indictment where his convictions were related to a golf trip he took with Jack Abramoff, a lobbyist, who had asked Safavian for information about two properties the GSA owned. At issue was whether Counts Three and Five should be vacated on the grounds of prosecutorial vindictiveness; whether Counts Two and Five should be vacated on the grounds that the government failed to prove Safavian's false statements to the ethics officer and to the Federal Bureau of Investigation ("FBI") were materially within the meaning of 18 U.S.C. 1001(a)(1); and whether a new trial should be granted on Count One and Count Three where the district court improperly admitted evidence regarding the cost of the private plane. The court held that so long as Safavian's false statements were capable of influencing the course of the FBI's investigation, those statements were material within the meaning of section 1001(a)(1). The court also held that the district court did not clearly err in presuming vindictiveness on the part of the prosecution or in holding that the government overcame that presumption when it offered two reasons why the addition of Count Five was not vindictive. The court further held that its reasons for rejecting Safavian's arguments pertaining to Counts One, Two, and Three were the same as those of the district court and did not need to repeat them.

Appellants appealed jury convictions of numerous crimes that arose from appellants' bank-robberies including subduing innocent bystanders with gratuitous gunplay, pistol whipping a victim, and peppering a pursuing police car with bullets. At issue was whether the admission of "other crimes" evidence was in error where the evidence was offered for an impermissible purpose and where its probative value outweighed its prejudicial effect. Also at issue was whether there was sufficient evidence to support one appellant's conviction under 18 U.S.C. 924(c)(1)(B)(ii) that he carried the AK-47 with two handles and even if the government satisfied its burden of proof as to this issue, the government failed to show he knew the gun was capable of firing automatically. The court held that there was no error in admitting evidence of appellants' commission of three carjackings, theft of forty cars, and use of false names, as well as marijuana cultivation and distribution, where the evidence was relevant to prove appellants' association and the probative value outweighed the potential for prejudice. The court also held that evidence of the "Silver Spring" carjacking did not amount to grave error and that the prejudice resulting from the carjacking was slight when compared to the evidence of the violence acts for which appellants were indicated. The court further held that it was reasonable for the jury to conclude that appellant carried a machinegun and that section 924(c) did not require proof that appellant knew the weapon was a machinegun. The court finally held that appellants' numerous other claims were without merit.

Appellant was convicted and sentenced to 18 months imprisonment and ordered to pay $160,000 in restitution to the Naval Research Laboratory ("Research Laboratory") when he stole computer equipment over the course of ten years as an employee of the Research Laboratory. At issue was whether the costs of the Research Laboratory's internal investigation constituted necessary expenses that were incurred during participation in the investigation and prosecution of the offense under the Mandatory Victims Restitution Act ("Act"), 18 U.S.C. 3663A(b)(4). The court reversed the district court's judgment ordering restitution and held that the text of the Act did not authorize restitution for the costs of an organization's internal investigation at least when the internal investigation was neither required nor requested by the criminal investigators or prosecutors.

Appellant appealed a conviction on one count of committing an act affecting a personal financial interest in violation of 18 U.S.C. 208(a) and 216(a)(2) and two counts of making false statements in violation of 18 U.S.C. 1001(a)(2) where the convictions arose from his involvement in the allocation of a $15 million congressional earmark while serving as the interim Associate Administrator of the National Aeronautics and Space Administration ("NASA"). At issue was whether there was sufficient evidence to support his convictions under section 208(a) and whether the district court properly charged the jury with the section 208(a) violation. The court held that there was sufficient evidence to support appellant's conviction under section 208(a) where there was ample evidence from which the jury could conclude that the allocation of the earmarked funds was indeed a "particular matter" within the meaning of the statute; that appellant participated both "personally and substantially" in the distribution of the earmarked funds; and that appellant knew he had a financial interest in the "particular matter." The court also held that even if the district court erred by not including the "direct and predictable effect" language in the jury charge, its error was harmless.

Criminal proceedings were conducted with five defendants, members of the Raven 23 team from Blackwater Worldwide ("Blackwater"), where Blackwater was hired by American security officials to evacuate a diplomat from a car bomb explosion and where there existed a dispute over who fired shots that killed and wounded Iraqi civilians. At issue was whether the district court properly dismissed an indictment against the five defendants on the ground that the evidence presented to the grand jury, and the decision to prosecute two of the defendants, was tainted by statements of defendants. The court held that the district court erred by treating evidence as single lumps and excluding them in their entirety when at the most, only some portion of the content was tainted; by failing to conduct a proper independent-source analysis as required by Kastigar v. United States and United States v. Rinaldi; by applying the wrong legal standard when it excluded a defendant's journal and his testimony simply because the news reports based on some of the immunized statements were "a cause" for his writing it; and to the extent that evidence tainted by the impact of one defendant's immunized statements may be found to have accounted for the indictment of that defendant, it did not follow that the indictment of any other defendant was tainted.

Petitioner sued defendant, who plead guilty to possession of child pornography and possessed depictions of petitioner, seeking over $3,000,000 in restitution. At issue was whether her petition for mandamus should be granted where the district court awarded her an amount of $5000 in restitution and whether petitioner may directly appeal the district court's decision. The court granted the petition for mandamus in part where the district court admitted the restitution award was smaller than the amount of harm she suffered as a result of defendant's offense. The court denied petitioner's direct appeal where it was not authorized by statute and dismissed as moot her motion to consolidate her mandamus petition with her direct appeal.