In United States v. Rolle, No. 19-11354 (Apr. 14, 2023) (Wilson, Jordan, Brasher), the Court affirmed the district court's denial of Mr. Rolle's motion to dismiss the indictment. Mr. Rolle was charged with one count of conspiracy to encourage and induce aliens to enter the United States, in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1324(a)(1)(A)(v)(I); 16 counts of encouraging and inducing aliens to enter the United States, in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1324(a)(2)(B)(ii); and one count of conspiracy to allow, procure, and permit aliens to enter the United States, in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1327. Mr. Rolle moved to dismiss the indictment, arguing that it failed to state a crime because his conduct occurred outside the United States.  The Court disagreed, and, as a matter of first impression, held that §§ 1324(a)(1)(A)(iv), (1)(A)(v)(I), and 2(B)(ii), apply extraterritorially.  Its holding is in line with the holdings of the  1st, 5th, 9th, and D.C. Circuits. In so holding, the Court affirmed the continued vitality of United States v. Bowman, 260 U.S. 94 (1922), which held the presumption against extraterritoriality does not apply “to criminal statutes which are, as a class, not logically dependent on their locality for the government’s jurisdiction, but are enacted because of the right of the [...]

In United States v. Burnette, No. 21-13990 (Apr. 11, 2023) (Jordan, Rosenbaum, Newsom), the Court affirmed Mr. Burnette's bribery-based convictions. Mr. Burnette, a real estate developer in Tallahassee, was accused of soliciting bribes from two undercover agents posing as property developers in order to sway a Tallahassee city commissioner's vote.  He was found guilty of Hobbs Act extortion, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1951(a); honest-services mail fraud, in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 1341, 1346; using a facility of interstate commerce to facilitate unlawful activity, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1952(a)(3); and making a material false statement to the FBI, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1001(a)(2). O appeal, Mr. Burnette's main challenge  turned on the Supreme Court's interpretation of the definition of "bribery"--as found in 18 U.S.C. § 201--in McDonnell v. United States, 579 U.S. 550 (2016).  In McDonnell, the Supreme Court narrowed the meaning of the term "official act," and clarified that in order to implicate the bribery statute's prohibition, a public official must either engage or agree to engage in (1) a sufficiently serious act--such as casting a vote (2) concerning a sufficiently serious and concrete matter. His challenge was, however, denied on the reasoning that some errors were invited, and others unpreserved, [...]

In United States v. Dawson, No. 21-11425 (Apr. 5, 2023) (Wilson, Branch, Lagoa), the Court affirmed Mr. Dawson's convictions. The Court considered, as an issue of first impression, whether an adult who films himself exposing his genitals and masturbating in the presence of a child where the child is the object of the sexual desire in the film "uses" that child to engage in sexually explicit conduct for purposes of 18 U.S.C. § 2251(a), and held that such conduct fits squarely within the language of the statute. On appeal, Mr. Dawson argued that he did not violate § 2251(a) because the videos underlying his convictions depicted an adult engaging in solo, adult-only, sexually explicit conduct near a fully clothed minor who was neither the focal point of the images, depicted as a sexual object, nor otherwise involved in the sexual act.  He argued that his conduct did not constitute "uses" as that term is defined.  The Court disagreed, agreeing instead with the government's reading of § 2251(a)--that it covered passive use of a child in sexually explicit conduct.  That is, under § 2251(a), a minor must be involved in the offender's sexually explicit conduct, but need not necessarily be actively engaging in his or her own [...]

In United States v. Hall, No. 22-10230 (Apr. 5, 2023) (Branch, Brasher, Ed Carnes), the Court held, as a matter of first impression, that a district court may not sentence a defendant to home confinement for violating the terms of his supervised release where the district court has also sentenced the defendant to the statutory maximum period of imprisonment for that violation.  The Court vacated Mr. Hall's sentence to the extent it imposed a term of home confinement and remanded for resentencing. Mr. Hall, a class C felon, violated the conditions of his supervised release.  After revoking his supervised release, the district court sentenced Mr. Hall to the statutory maximum two years' imprisonment and added one year of home confinement with location monitoring. The Court held that such a sentence is inconsistent with the limitation that a district court may impose home confinement "only as an alternative to incarceration."  As such, the district court lacked the authority to impose an additional year of home confinement on top of the statutory maximum sentence of incarceration.  In so holding, the Court joined the Fifth Circuit in United States v. Ferguson, 369 F.3d 847 (5th Cir. 2004), which reasoned that a court cannot impose the maximum term of [...]

In United States v. Penn, No. 21-12420 (Mar. 24, 2023) (Lagoa, Brasher, Ed Carnes), the Court affirmed the defendant’s ACCA sentence based on prior Florida sale-of-cocaine convictions. In holding that the prior convictions were ACCA “serious drug offenses,” the Court rejected three arguments. First, circuit precedent foreclosed the defendant’s argument that a serious drug offense have a mens rea element requiring the defendant know the illicit nature of the substance, which Fla. Stat. 893.13 lacks.  Second, and in a question of first impression resulting in an extended discussion, the Court held that, although the least culpable conduct prohibited by 893.13 was “attempted transfer,” that conduct was covered by the word “distribution” in the ACCA definition and so was not overbroad. Third, applying Wooden, the Court held that the two prior convictions occurred on separate occasions because they occurred 30 days apart, and the Court rejected under plain error the defendant’s Apprendi argument, which was raised for the first time on appeal, because there was no precedent directly resolving the issue. https://media.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/pub/files/202112420.pdf http://defensenewsletter.blogspot.com/

In United States v. Batmasian, No. 21-12800 (Mar. 24, 2023) (Branch, Luck, Antoon), the Court held that the district court lacked jurisdiction to consider the pardoned defendant’s motion to expunge his conviction. The defendant filed his expungement motion in the district court that convicted him. But the Eleventh Circuit rejected the defendant’s reliance on the doctrine of ancillary jurisdiction. No court had ever expressly embraced such jurisdiction for a constitutional expungement request. And the Court declined to do so because the alleged constitutional violation—a purported denial of his First Amendment right to donate to charities—was the natural result of an otherwise valid arrest or conviction. https://media.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/pub/files/202112800.pdf http://defensenewsletter.blogspot.com/