US v. Shields
(United States Ninth Circuit) - Convictions arising from the capitalization and operation of real estate development business are affirmed where there is not a reversible plain error. The jury instruction error in this case was not 'clear and obvious' because it was not clearly required by precedent, and the error did not affect the outcome of the proceedings.
US v. Huggins
(United States Second Circuit) - Sentence for wire fraud and conspiracy to commit wire fraud related to defrauding investors in a sham diamond company are vacated and remanded where the district court erred in applying sentencing enhancements for (1) receiving gross receipts in excess of $1 million from a financial institution under U.S.S.G. section 2B1.1(b)(A); and (2) for abusing a position of trust pursuant to U.S.S.G. section 3B1.3. Conviction otherwise affirmed.
US v. Loftis
(United States Ninth Circuit) - In a criminal action, the district court's grant in part of defendant's motion is affirmed where evidence of uncharged transactions are not evidence of 'other' crimes under Rule 404(b), but rather evidence of a scheme to defraud that is the first element of wire fraud.
Salman v. US
(United States Supreme Court) - In a case involving the tipper and tippee liability provisions of Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and the Securities and Exchange Commission's Rule 10b-5, defendant's conviction of federal securities-fraud crimes for trading on inside information he received from a friend and relative-by-marriage, is affirmed where: 1) the Ninth Circuit properly applied Dirks v. SEC, 463 U.S. 646, to affirm defendant's conviction; and 2) under Dirks, the jury could infer that the tipper here personally benefited from making a gift of confidential information to a trading relative.
SEC v. Frohling
(United States Second Circuit) - In a case in which defendant was found liable for securities laws violations sections 5 and 17(a) of the Securities Act of 1933, 15 U.S.C. sections 77e, 77q(a), section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, 15 U.S.C. section 78j(b), and Rule 10b-5 there under, 17 C.F.R. section 240.10b-5, in connection with false opinion letters defendant wrote or approved to enable impermissible public offerings of unregistered shares of stock of defendant, the district court's grant of summary judgment to the SEC is affirmed over defendant's principal contention that the district court erred in ruling that there was no genuine issue to be tried as to his knowledge of the falsity of the letters.
US v. O'Donnell
(United States First Circuit) - Conviction for bank fraud under 18 U.S.C. section 1344 is affirmed where defendant was aware that Countrywide Bank, FSB was involved in approving the loan he sought to obtain through fraud, and so possessed the specific intent to defraud a financial institution required by the statute.
US v. Rand
(United States Fourth Circuit) - Conviction for conspiracy and obstruction of justice resulting from earnings mismanagement, improper accounting related to the sale and lease back of homes, and the deletion of emails following a grand jury subpoena is affirmed where: 1) the district court's exclusion of certain evidence related to why defendant deleted emails was not in error; 2) the district court did not err is denying defendant's motion for a mistrial on evidentiary and trial conduct grounds; and 3) the district court's method of determining the loss amount from defendant's fraud was correct.
US.v. Miller
(United States Third Circuit) - Sentence for conviction of securities fraud, 15 U.S.C. section 78j(b), and tax evasion, 26 U.S.C. section 7201, is affirmed where: 1) despite defendant's failure to register as such, he was an 'investment adviser,' as defined by the Investment Advisers Act of 1940, 15 U.S.C. section 80b-2(a)(11), and the District Court therefore properly applied the investment advisor enhancement under U.S.S.G. section 2B1.1(b)(19)(A)(iii); 2) the Government did not breach the plea agreement; and 3) the sentence is not substantively unreasonable.
US v. Barrett
(United States Second Circuit) - Affirmed in part, vacated in part. Defendant challenged his conviction for using firearms in the commission of violent crimes. Because categorizing crimes of violence cannot be done on a case-by-case basis, the defendant’s charge for using firearms in the commission of a robbery is vacated.
In re Sagin
(California Court of Appeal) - Vacated conviction. Defendant was sentenced to life without parole for the conviction of a murder in 1986. He petitioned for a writ of habeas corpus asserting that newly available DNA evidence shows that he was not at the scene of the crime.
People v. Kuma
(California Court of Appeal) - Affirmed. Defendant was convicted of vehicular manslaughter. Defendant challenged the judgment contending that the jury received confusing and conflicting instructions. The appeals court held that if any error occurred it was harmless.
US v. Pervis
(United States Fifth Circuit) - Affirmed. A Texas bank robbery was properly considered a crime of violence and it was a second or subsequent offense in relation to an attempt made two days earlier.
US v. Kalu
(United States Fifth Circuit) - Affirmed. The application of two sentencing enhancements in the case of a person who pleaded guilty to a conspiracy to commit healthcare fraud was not a procedural error.
US v. Heon-Ceol Chi
(United States Ninth Circuit) - Finding the crime described in Article 129 of South Korea’s Criminal Code fits squarely within the definition of “bribing a public official” from 18 U.S.C. Section 1956, the indictment was sufficient and there was no instructional error.
US v. Pugh
(United States Second Circuit) - Affirmed, remanded for resentencing. Because defendant’s letter describing his allegiance to the Islamic State was never translated or otherwise communicated to his wife, the marital communication privilege does not apply.
People v. Hall
(California Court of Appeal) - Appeal dismissed. Defendant pled no contest to identity theft. She was sentenced to county jail and the court imposed various fees and assessments. Defendant challenged the fees and assessments but claimed no error at trial or at the time of sentencing as required by Penal Code 1237.2. Therefore, the appeal must be dismissed
People v. Force
(California Court of Appeal) - Reversed and remand for new trial. Defendant is a sexually violent predator who is currently receiving treatment at a state mental hospital. He challenged the court order denying his petition to be placed in a conditional release program on the grounds that he was denied a fair trial. The appeals court agreed stating that the prosecutor interfered with Defendant’s right to testify and the trial court erroneously refused to admit his release plan into evidence. The appeals court held that a fair trial is a fundamental right.
US v. Haynes
(United States Seventh Circuit) - Affirmed. Different charges involved in a nested set of charges were divisible and a jury could find the accused guilty of the underlying Hobbs Act robberies.
US v. London, Jr.
(United States First Circuit) - Affirmed. A motion to correct a 1996 sentence as a career offender was not timely because the motion asserts a right not recognized in caselaw.
US v. Lillard
(United States Ninth Circuit) - Reversed. The panel held that, in the context of the restitution statute, “period of incarceration” does not include pretrial detention. The district court’s order to seize funds in the defendant’s inmate trust account is reversed.
People v. Buchanan
(California Court of Appeal) - Affirmed conviction. Remanded for sentencing. Defendant was convicted of several crimes including kidnapping with intent to commit a sex offense. The trial court found certain sentence enhancement applied. The appeals court affirmed the judgment, but found several sentencing errors.
In re R.C.
(California Court of Appeal) - Affirmed. Juvenile defendant, R.C., a high school student, used his cellphone to record a video while he was having consensual sex with a female high school student. She did not give permission. She requested that it be deleted. R.C. agreed to delete it if she would have sex with his friend. The Juvenile Court found that R.C. had committed an unauthorized invasion of privacy. R.C. argues that there was insufficient evidence that the cellphone was concealed as required by Penal Code 647. The appeals court offered an interpretation of “concealed” that include not telling about the intention to video record and keeping the cellphone hidden from sight, even though he later announced he was recording.
Sanchez v. Davis
(United States Fifth Circuit) - Affirmed. Even if an attorney's failure to object to a question about his immigration status during a murder trial had been ineffectual assistance it was not prejudicial.
US v. Aguilar-Alonzo
(United States Fifth Circuit) - Vacated and remanded. A two-level enhancement of the sentence in the case of a man convicted on marijuana charges was not supported by the evidence.
People v. Cadena
(California Court of Appeal) - Vacated in part. Defendant was convicted of multiple lewd acts upon a child. Defendant argued that the evidence did not support part of the conviction and his sentence is unconstitutional. The appeals court agreed that the evidence supported only two lewd acts on each victim and that his sentence was unconstitutionally excessive.
US v. Barber
(United States Seventh Circuit) - Affirmed. Facebook evidence and cellphone data were properly admitted in the conviction of a man for stealing firearms from a federally licensed firearms dealer.
US v. Fuentes-Rodriguez
(United States Fifth Circuit) - Affirmed. A sentence following a guilty plea for illegal reentry was proper because assault-family violence qualifies as a crime of violence and is therefore an aggravated felony.
People v. Montellano
(California Court of Appeal) - Appeal dismissed. The trial court’s order was a preliminary eligibility determination and was not appealable under Penal Code section 1238.
People v. Gonzalez
(California Court of Appeal) - Affirmed. Appeals court concluded that Defendant was property sentenced to consecutive sentences and should be remanded solely for resentencing in light of Penal Code section 1385.
In re N.C.
(California Court of Appeal) - Affirmed. Juvenile defendant appealed from order of confinement of nine years for sexual battery upon intoxicated 17-year-old female. Appeals court found no abuse of discretion. Affirmed order denying attorney’s fees. Appeals court held that Code of Civil Procedure section 1021.5 fees are not recoverable in a dependency proceeding.
People v. Fontenot
(Supreme Court of California) - Affirmed. Defendant was charged with completed kidnapping but was convicted of attempted kidnapping. Defendant argued that a conviction for a crime he was not charged with violates the Sixth Amendment. The court held that a criminal defendant can be convicted of an attempted crime despite being charged with a completed crime because being charged with a completed crime is sufficient notice that he could be charged with an attempted crime.
People v. Aledamat
(Supreme Court of California) - Reversed court of appeal ruling that found prejudicial error. Defendant was charged with assault with a deadly weapon, specifically a box cutter. The Supreme Court concluded as a matter of law that a box cutter is not inherently deadly, but that the Defendant used the box cutter in a deadly way. The Court went on to say that the trial court’s determination that the box cutter was an inherently deadly weapon was harmless error.
Assn. for L.A. Deputy Sheriffs v. Superior Court
(Supreme Court of California) - A prosecutor in a criminal case has a duty to disclose to the defense information that they personally know and information that they can learn about that is favorable to the accused. This obligation to disclose even includes restricted information about law enforcement officers. A law enforcement agency may disclose to the prosecution identifying information about an office and relevant exonerating or impeaching material in a confidential personnel file.
Crutsinger v. Davis
(United States Fifth Circuit) - Denied. A man on death row could not show that a reasonable jurist would debate whether the district court abused its discretion denying a motion to reopen his final judgment and for stay of execution and did not establish circumstances justifying the exercise of equitable discretion.
US v. Fitzgerald
(United States Ninth Circuit) - Vacated and remanded. The defendant’s prior Nevada conviction for attempted battery with substantial bodily harm in violation of Nev. Rev. Stat. Section 200.481(2)(b) and 193.330 qualifies as a felony conviction for a crime of violence under U.S.S.G. Section 2K2.1.
Janusiak v. Cooper
(United States Seventh Circuit) - Affirmed. The state court determination that the long questioning and reference to access to her children were not coercion was affirmed, where a woman convicted of first degree homicide of an infant argued that statements made during an interrogation were involuntary and should have been suppressed.
People v. Grundfor
(California Court of Appeal) - Affirmed. Defendant pled no contest to driving under the influence and injuring another person. He was ordered to pay restitution. Defendant’s insurance carrier settled a civil lawsuit for the injuries and then the injured party sought attorney’s fees as restitution through the court. The trial court ordered the payment of attorney’s fees in restitution.
People v. Foster
(Supreme Court of California) - Affirmed. A mentally disordered offender’s commitment may continue after the offender’s term has expired if their condition is not in remission and they represent a substantial danger of physical harm.
US v. Kelerchian
(United States Seventh Circuit) - Affirmed. The conviction of a man involved in defrauding arms manufacturers into selling machinegun and laser sights restricted by law for law enforcement and military use was affirmed.
US v. Green
(United States Ninth Circuit) - Vacated and remanded. The panel held that the district court erred by concluding it could not listen to the defendant’s allocution before determining whether a reduction of acceptance of responsibility was warranted under the Sentencing Guidelines, affecting the defendant’s substantial rights and fairness of the proceedings.
USA v. Simon
(United States Seventh Circuit) - Affirmed. Defendant, a prior felon, was pulled over for a traffic stop. A drug-sniffing dog alerted on Defendants car. A search of the vehicle did not find drugs but did find a gun. Defendant was charged with felon-in-possession. Defendant was sentenced to 15 years. Defendant appealed on grounds that search was improper and error by trial court. Appellate court found no reversible error.
US v. Lee
(United States Seventh Circuit) - Affirmed. Defendant was charged with executing a scheme to defraud local governments by falsely representing that his industrial fans were assembled in the United States. Appeals court found no error in the judgment or the sentence.
Castillo v. Superior Court
(California Court of Appeal) - Writ issued and trial court directed to grant Defendant's motion. Defendant sought to have the complaint against him dismissed for failure to conduct a preliminary examination within 60 days. Trial court denied the motion, but Appeals court held the 60-day rule is absolute and there was no evidence that supported tolling the rule.
People v. Torfason
(California Court of Appeal) - Reversed. Defendant was judged a mentally disordered offender (MDO) for bipolar disorder. With his bipolar disorder in remission, a re-commitment order was sought for Defendant’s pedophilia. The appeals court held that a re-commitment order must be based on the same mental disorder that was the basis of the original commitment.
US v. Burden
(United States DC Circuit) - Vacated and remanded. The district court erred in admitting deposition testimony by a witness who was deported before trial because they failed to make reasonable efforts to procure his presence.
US v. Johnson
(United States Seventh Circuit) - Affirmed. An unconstitutional conviction did not occur when an attorney confirmed he no longer disputed restitution while in chambers but repeated this withdrawal in open court.
US v. Hopper
(United States Seventh Circuit) - Partially affirmed, partially vacated. A man was properly convicted on drug charges and was subject to a sentence enhancement for maintaining drug premises, but the court plainly erred in calculating his relevant conduct and the case was remanded for resentencing.
US v. Adams
(United States Seventh Circuit) - Affirmed. Probable cause supported the search of a man's home and even if it hadn't the officers could rely on the warrant in good faith. Sentencing was properly calculated.
Scrimo v. Lee
(United States Second Circuit) - Reversed. Finding the trial court’s exclusion of three defense witnesses violated defendant’s constitutional right to present a complete defense, the panel reverses and remands the judgement of the district court with direction to grant the writ.
US v. Begay
(United States Ninth Circuit) - Affirmed in part, reversed in part. Defendant’s conviction for second-degree murder affirmed. However, because second-degree murder can be committed recklessly, it does not categorically constitute a “crime of violence.” Therefore, the conviction of discharging a firearm during a crime of violence is reversed.