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

Defendant was convicted of conspiracy to commit honest-services wire fraud. The conviction arose out of his work for former United States Representative Curt Weldon where defendant intentionally failed to disclose certain payments made to his wife. After the Supreme Court handed down Skilling v. United States, a decision that substantially limited the permissible reach of the honest-services fraud statute, defendant filed a motion under 28 U.S.C. 2255 to vacate and set aside his conviction and sentence. The court concluded that defendant was denied an opportunity to collaterally attack his conviction and sentence because he could not demonstrate that he was also innocent of a separate and uncharged offense that had a lower sentencing range under the Sentencing Guidelines. The court reversed the order denying defendant's motion to vacate his conviction because defendant was not required to make such a showing. View "United States v. Caso, Jr." on Justia Law

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

CRLA appealed from an enforcement order of a subpoena duces tecum and the OIG cross-appealed the protective order governing disclosure of material discovered by the subpoena and also establishing a notice requirement. The district court concluded that only federal and not California state privileges and protections governed the scope of disclosure compelled under the subpoena. The court affirmed the judgment of the district court summarily enforcing the investigative subpoena issued by the OIG. The court vacated, however, the order insofar as it added a five-day notice requirement to the confidentiality terms otherwise applicable. View "United States, et al. v. California Rural Legal Assist." 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

HAI challenged the FAA's issuance of a rule requiring helicopter pilots to use a route one mile off the north shore of Long Island, New York for the purpose of noise abatement in residential areas. The court concluded that under the plain text of 49 U.S.C. 40103, the FAA had authority to prescribe air traffic regulations to protect individuals and property on the ground and HAI pointed to no express limitations on the FAA's general authority in such matters; HAI's contentions that the FAA's finding that there was noise problem was unsupported by substantial evidence in the record and that the Final Rule was an impermissible deviation from longstanding FAA authority; and the court rejected HAI's remaining arguments. Accordingly, the court denied HAI's petition for review. View "Helicopter Assoc. Int'l v. FAA" on Justia Law

Environmental groups petitioned for review of the EPA's "Deferral Rule," which deferred regulation of biogenic carbon dioxide for three years. The EPA justified this Deferral Rule on the basis of the de minimis, one-step-at-a-time, and administrative necessity doctrine. Concluding that the dispute was ripe for review, the court rejected the EPA's use of the de minimus doctrine where EPA expressly disavowed this doctrine, explaining that the Deferral Rule had a three-year sunset provision whereas the de minimis doctrine was used to establish permanent exemptions; the EPA's invocation of the one-step-at-a-time doctrine was arbitrary and capricious where the EPA failed to explain in the Deferral Rule what "full compliance" with the "statutory mandate" means; the court rejected the administrative necessity doctrine where the EPA rejected a proposed middle-ground option; and the court rejected the absurd results doctrine that the EPA raised for the first time in its brief. Accordingly, the court granted the petition for review. View "Center for Biological Diversity v. EPA" 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

Appellant traveled from South Korea to the United States and, while present in the United States, he gambled at slot machines frequently. The IRS contended that appellant must pay taxes on every winning pull at the slot machine and appellant disputed that interpretation pursuant to Tax Code 871, arguing that the IRS should calculate his winnings on at least a per-session basis. The court concluded that Section 871 allowed non-resident aliens, such as appellant, to calculate winnings or losses on a per-session basis. Accordingly, the court reversed the judgment of the Tax Court and remanded to the Tax Court so the parties could determine the proper amount of appellant's tax liability. View "Park, et al. v. Commissioner of IRS" 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