Case Summaries

Criminal Law & Procedure

[09/28] US v. Metcalfe
District court's post-judgment order denying defendant's motion for a sentence reduction is affirmed as the appeal lacked merit and 18 U.S.C. section 3582(c)(2) is not a vehicle for convicts to raise unrelated sentencing challenges that they had previously overlooked or omitted.

[09/25] US v. Troy
District court's conviction of defendant for assaulting a federal officer in violation of 18 U.S.C. section 111(a) is affirmed as a rational factfinder could have concluded beyond a reasonable doubt that the officer was acting within the scope of her official duties for the purposes of the statute.

[09/25] US v. Cabrera-Rivera
District court's conviction of defendant for crimes related to the robbery of an armored truck in Puerto Rico is vacated and remanded where, although the government established the required nexus to interstate commerce under the Hobbs Act, 18 U.S.C. section 1951(a), defendant's Confrontation Clause rights were violated by the admission of hearsay evidence.

[09/24] US v. Samueli
In a criminal prosecution against the co-founder of Broadcom alleging that defendant made a false statement to the SEC, defendant's appeal from two orders by the district court rejecting his plea bargain is dismissed for lack of jurisdiction where: 1) a plea-rejection order is not completely separate from the merits; and 2) the plea-rejection order was effectively reviewable on appeal from a final judgment.

[09/24] US v. Sipai
In an appeal from the district court's denial of defendant's motion for reduction of his drug and firearm possession sentence under 18 U.S.C. section 3582(c)(2), the district court's order is affirmed where the district court rejected defendant's applicable guidelines range, and reduced defendant's sentence pursuant to the 18 U.S.C. section 3553 factors, and thus any further reduction would not be consistent with the Sentencing Commission's policy statements.

[09/24] US v. Starnes
District court's sentence and conviction of defendants for, inter alia, knowingly violating EPA work practice standards for the handling and disposal of regulated asbestos-containing material, is affirmed where: 1) evidence supports a finding that defendant was an operator of the project within the meaning of the Clean Air Act; 2) the evidence was sufficient to establish falsity, federal-government jurisdiction, and the necessary elements of an 18 U.S.C. section 1001(a) violation; and 3) defendants' various challenges to the district court's determination of their respective sentences is rejected.

[09/24] In re M.M.
Juvenile court's conviction of a minor for resisting a public officer under Penal Code section 148(a)(1) arising from a vandalism charge is reversed where, as a matter of law, a campus security officer is not a public officer for purposes of section 148.

[09/24] People v. Benhoor
Trial court's denial of defendant's motion to dismiss the citation for driving at an unsafe speed and conviction of the infraction is affirmed where, although the trial court violated Rule 4.210(b)(7) by failing to bring defendant to trial within 45 days of receipt of his request for a new trial, the violation does not require dismissal of the citation.

[09/24] Wagner v. Smith
In habeas proceedings arising from petitioner's murder conviction, district court's denial of relief is vacated and remanded as three of petitioner's claims have not been properly exhausted because the claims were not fairly presented to the state courts.

[09/23] US v. Watson
In an appeal challenging a condition of defendant's supervised release barring him from entering San Francisco without the prior approval of his probation officer, the appeal is dismissed where: 1) the condition was reasonably tied to the court's stated aims of rehabilitation and deterrence and was no more restrictive than reasonably necessary to serve those purposes; and 2) the language of defendant's plea agreement waiver encompassed the appeal, and the waiver was knowingly and voluntarily made given the circumstances surrounding the agreement.

[09/23] US v. Bragg
Defendant's sentence for filing false tax returns is vacated where the district court failed to adequately explain the grounds for the sentence because: 1) the record was not clear that defendant's incarceration would harm his father's business; 2) the district court understated the severity of the offense; and 3) the district court improperly relied on prompt satisfaction of a substantial monetary sanction to impose a non-custodial sentence.

[09/23] US v. Richardson
Defendant's firearm possession sentence is affirmed where the district court properly enhanced defendant's sentence due to his commission of a prior violent felony under U.S.S.G. section 4B1.2(a), as defendant was convicted of a Kansas law felony for "fleeing or attempting to elude a police officer" because he was involved in a high speed chase that resulted in a motor vehicle accident involving other vehicles.

[09/23] US v. Harris
Denial of incarcerated appellant's motion to vacate an order of civil contempt that has been in effect for over five years, which stemmed from a criminal proceeding in which defendant was convicted of conspiracy and fraud and sentenced to 188 months' imprisonment, is affirmed where: 1) the court permissibly structured the order of contempt so that it tolled the commencement of appellant's criminal sentence, such that only if and when the contempt order is lifted will he begin serving that sentence; 2) an order of civil contempt will only become punitive if a contemnor is unable to comply with the order, or if the circumstances indicate that a court is maintaining the contempt for an impermissible punitive purpose; 3) in this case, appellant can comply with the order in question at any time and the order will be lifted.

[09/23] People v. Contreras
Conviction of defendant for drug possession and enhanced sentence based on prior conviction for controlled substance is affirmed where: 1) defendant's claim that his sentencing was delayed in violation of state and federal constitution is without merit as the record shows abundant justification for the delay which was not presumptively prejudicial; and 2) defendant's ineffective assistance of counsel claim is meritless.

[09/23] People v. Hernandez
Trial court's imposition of enhanced sentencing on a defendant convicted of receiving stolen property while on a release from custody on his own recognizance (O.R.) is vacated as Penal Code section 1318 was not complied with in connection with defendant's release from custody and defendant did not commit a new felony while on an O.R. release. Therefore, since defendant's release did not qualify as an O.R. release under applicable law, the enhancement findings under section 12022.1 were not supported by the evidence.

[09/23] People v. Moore
Trial court's order to pay victim restitution pursuant to Penal Code section 1202.4 including lost wages arising from a conviction for burglary is affirmed as, even though the victim did not testify as a witness, the wages that he lost while attending criminal court proceedings constituted economic loss attributable to defendant's misconduct.

[09/23] Kholi v. Wall
In habeas proceedings district court's dismissal of the petition as time-barred is reversed and remanded as a state post-conviction motion to reduce an imposed sentence that seeks purely discretionary leniency and does not challenge the validity of the conviction or sentence acts as a tolling mechanism within the purview of 28 U.S.C section 2244(d)(2), and thus, defendant's habeas petition was timely filed and improvidently dismissed.

[09/23] US v. Wright
District court's denial of defendant's motion to suppress a gun involving a Terry stop is affirmed as the totality of the circumstances supports the district court's conclusion that officers had reasonable suspicion to stop defendant.

[09/23] Barradas v. Holder
Petition for review of BIA's decision to remove a Mexican citizen and lawful permanent resident of the United States on the ground that he knowingly attempted to smuggle illegal aliens into the country is denied as there is reasonable, substantial, and probative evidence in the record to support the IJ's and BIA's conclusion that the government proved petitioner's conviction by clear, unequivocal, and convincing evidence. Petitioner's due process claims are rejected as there is substantial support the BIA's findings that he was afforded a full and fair opportunity to present his case before a neutral IJ.

[09/23] US v. Faris
Defendant's conviction and sentence for using a facility of interstate commerce to entice a minor to engage in sexual activity are affirmed where: 1) 18 U.S.C. section 2422(b) did not exceed Congress' commerce clause power; 2) even if none of defendant's communications were routed over state lines, the internet and telephone he used to contact the undercover officer were still instrumentalities of interstate commerce; 3) defendant's challenges to his sentence were foreclosed by circuit precedent.

Back to Main