In United States v. Robinson, No. 22-10949 (Sept. 28, 2023) (Jordan, Rosenbaum, Newsom), the Court vacated the defendant’s contempt conviction for violating a civil injunction against a stun-gun company. The Court concluded that the evidence was insufficient that the defendant was bound by the injunction under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 65. Most notably, the Court declined to consider whether the defendant was liable under an aiding and abetting theory because the government failed to pursue that theory in the district court. And, relying on recent Supreme Court decisions in Percoco and Ciminelli, as well as fair-notice principles, the Court concluded that it could not affirm on a ground that the government did not advance in the district court, a rule that applied equally to bench trials as well as jury trials. https://media.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/pub/files/202210949.pdf http://defensenewsletter.blogspot.com/

In Jones v. United States, No. 20-13365 (Sept. 14, 2023) (Wilson, Luck, Lagoa), the Court directed the district court to dismiss a second 2255 motion for lack of jurisdiction. Jones filed a 2255 motion to vacate his mandatory life sentence under 3559, arguing that its residual clause was unconstitutionally vague in light of the Supreme Court’s decisions in Johnson, Dimaya, and Davis. On appeal, the government agreed that 3559’s residual clause was unconstitutionally vague and that Jones was otherwise entitled to relief. Accordingly, the Eleventh Circuit appointed an amicus to defend the district court’s ruling. Although not even the amicus raised this argument, the Eleventh Circuit sua sponte concluded that the district court lacked jurisdiction because Jones could not satisfy the gatekeeping requirement in 2255(h)(2) for a second 2255 motion. The reason was that, although the Supreme Court had declared numerous other similar residual clauses unconstitutional, there was no Supreme Court decision specifically declaring 3559’s residual clause unconstitutional. Judge Wilson dissented, arguing that Jones was relying on the same rule of law announced in Johnson, as well as Dimaya and Davis, since that rule was not limited to the specific residual clauses struck down in those cases. He said that [...]

In United States v. Talley, No. 22-13921 (Sept. 7, 2023) (Wilson, Grant, Brasher), the Court vacated the district court’s judgment revoking supervised release. The defendant committed the supervised release violation after the term of supervision had lapsed but while he was a fugitive from justice. The Court held that the district court erred in tolling the period of supervised release based on his fugitive status for absconding from supervision. The Court reasoned that the fugitive tolling doctrine, which applies in the context of senteces of imprisonment, did not apply in the context of supervised release. And the Court reasoned that the statutory text contemplated only two circumstances where a term of supervision may be tolled, neither of which related to fugitive status. In so holding, the Court joined the First Circuit and parted ways with three other circuits. https://media.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/pub/files/202213921.pdf http://defensenewsletter.blogspot.com/

In United States v. Beach, No. 21-11342 (Aug. 30, 2023) (Luck, Lagoa, Tjoflat), the Court affirmed Mr. Beach's conviction. Mr. Beach was convicted of tampering with a witness, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1512(a)(2)(A).  He appealed his conviction on the ground that the evidence was insufficient to convict him of the offense in 3 respects: (1) the alleged threat of physical force only related to a criminal investigation--a controlled drug purchase--and not an “official proceeding”; (2) the evidence failed to establish that he intended to prevent the witness from testifying in an official proceeding because he did not know about or foresee that there would be a grand jury or court proceeding; and (3) the evidence failed to establish that he was the person who threatened the witness because the government did not authenticate the jail calls or call the witness to testify that he was the person on the phone with her. As an initial matter, the Court reviewed Mr. Beach's first two issues for plain error only because they were not specifically raised in the district court.  That is, although Mr. Beach moved for a judgment of acquittal on the government's failure to prove "the essential elements of the charge," this [...]

In United States v. Wiley, No. 22-10179 (Aug. 29, 2023) (Jill Pryor, Grant, Maze (N.D. Ala.)), the Court affirmed Mr. Wiley's convictions. Mr. Wiley was charged with one count of conspiracy to commit Hobbs Act robbery, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1951(a); five counts of aiding and abetting Hobbs Act robbery, in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 1951(a) and 2; and five counts of aiding and abetting to use, carry, and brandish a firearm during a crime of violence, in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 924(c)(1)(A)(ii) and 2. On appeal, he first argued that the district court abused its discretion by striking a juror for cause because of her religious beliefs.  That juror told the court that she was a a Jehovah’s Witness and would have difficulty judging others because she did not “have a lot of faith in the legal—the justice system.”  The Court found no abuse of discretion because courts may exclude or remove jurors who make clear that they may not sit in judgment of others based on their religious beliefs. He next argued that the district court plainly erred by allowing law enforcement officers to give lay opinion testimony identifying Mr. Wiley in the surveillance footage presented at [...]