In United States v. Rodriguez, No. 20-13534 (Aug. 1, 2023) (William Pryor, Jill Pryor, Grant), the Court affirmed in part and vacated in part Mr. Rodriguez's sentence, and remanded for a limited resentencing. Mr. Rodriguez appealed his sentence for possession with intent to distribute 100 grams or more of heroin and 50 grams or more of methamphetamine. The Court agreed that Mr. Rodriguez was entitled to a limited resentencing because the district court erred by imposing conditions of supervised release in the written judgment that were not orally pronounced at the sentencing hearing.  The Court held that a district court must pronounce at the defendant’s sentencing hearing any discretionary conditions of supervised release—that is, any condition of supervised release other than those mandatory conditions set forth in 18 U.S.C. § 3583(d).  The Court noted that a district court may do so by expressly incorporating a written list detailing the conditions, and does not need to individually pronounce each discretionary condition at sentencing. The Court rejected Mr. Rodriguez's other challenges to his sentence, finding no clear error in the district court's imposition of a two-level enhancement for maintaining a premises for the purpose of manufacturing or distributing a controlled substance, under U.S.S.G. § 2D1.1(b)(12); [...]

In United States v. Miles, No. 21-12609 (Lagoa, Brasher, Boulee), the Court vacated the defendant’s ACCA sentence. The Court held that a prior Florida conviction for unlawful possession of a listed chemical under Fla. Stat. 893.149 is not a “serious drug offense” under ACCA. The elements of that offense requires one to possess the chemical with reasonable cause to believe that some person will use it to manufacture a controlled substance. However, that conduct does not itself involve (i.e., necessarily entail) “manufacturing” or “possessing with intent to manufacture” a controlled substance, as required by ACCA’s “serious drug offense” definition. https://media.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/pub/files/202112609.pdf https://defensenewsletter.blogspot.com/

In United States v. Gary, No. 21-13249 (July 21, 2023) (Wilson, Luck, Hull) (per curiam), the Court held upheld the defendant’s ACCA sentence. The Court held that Florida aggravated assault qualified as a “violent felony” under the ACCA’s elements clause. The Court relied on its decision in Somers, which reached that same conclusion after the Florida Supreme Court held that simple assault could not be committed recklessly. Therefore, the offense remained a qualifying predicate notwithstanding the Supreme Court’s decision in Borden. https://media.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/pub/files/202113249.pdf https://defensenewsletter.blogspot.com/

In United States v. Ahmed, No. 20-14264 (July 13, 2023) (Rosenbaum, Branch, Brasher), the Court affirmed the defendant’s convictions for healthcare fraud, wire fraud, and money laundering. irst, the Court found no Sixth Amendment violation due to counsel’s failure to visit the defendant during an overnight recess out of concerns about the pandemic. Any lack of communication was not due to the government or the court but rather the lawyer’s concern for his own health. There is no indication he would have otherwise visited the client during that recess. And the district court otherwise went to great lengths to facilitate communication. The Court also declined to address an ineffective assistance of counsel claim on direct appeal because the record was not sufficiently developed. Finally, the Court rejected a series of pandemic-related complaints—i.e., that the defendant was not provided Adderall during trial, he sustained a slip and fall injury in jail, the jail confiscated his legal materials, he was shackled during trial, and the jury was unengaged—because the district court remedied these issues, the jury did not see him shackled, and there was no indication that the jury was unengaged. Second, the Court rejected a claim of prosecutorial misconduct arising from [...]

In Garrison v. United States, No. 20-13260 (July 13, 2023) (Branch, Luck, Antoon), the Court affirmed the denial of a 2255 motion challenging a 924(c) conviction based on Davis. he 924(c) conviction in this stash house robbery case was based on two drug trafficking offenses and Hobbs Act conspiracy, the latter of which is no longer a predicate “crime of violence” post-Davis. At trial, the court instructed the jury that it could rely on any of the three predicates (including the now-invalid Hobbs Act conspiracy) to convict for the 924(c) count, and the jury returned a general verdict. While the Eleventh Circuit held that this scenario violated the Supreme Court’s decision in Stromberg, it concluded that the error was harmless because the predicate offenses were inextricably intertwined.  Thus, there was no possibility that the jury relied on the now-invalid Hobbs Act conspiracy predicate. The Court rejected the movant’s argument that it was precluded from looking beyond the jury instructions and the verdict to determine whether the 924(c) conviction rested on the invalid predicate. https://media.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/pub/files/202013260.pdf https://defensenewsletter.blogspot.com/

In United States v. Walker, No. 22-10164 (July 13, 2023) (William Pryor, Luck, Hull), the Court affirmed the defendant’s sex trafficking convictions. First, the evidence was sufficient to support a conviction of sex trafficking by coercion because a reasonable jury could have found that the defendant had a scheme, plan, or pattern intended to cause the woman to believe that failure to engage in prostitution would resulted in serious harm—namely, not having a place to stay and going hungry in a city hundreds of miles away from her home and family. Second, and applying plain error, the government’s alleged failure to disclose its expert testimony before trial did not affect the defendant’s substantial rights because defense counsel anticipated the testimony and there was ample additional evidence of guilt apart from the expert’s testimony. https://media.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/pub/files/202210164.pdf https://defensenewsletter.blogspot.com/