Legal News & Updates
United States v. Jackson, No. 21-13963 (Dec. 13, 2022)
In United States v. Jackson, No. 21-13963 (Dec. 13, 2022) (Rosenbaum, Jill Pryor, Ed Carnes), the Court reversed course and held that the Supreme Court's reasoning in McNeill v. United States, 563 U.S. 816 (2011), requires the conclusion that ACCA's "serious drug offense" definition incorporates the version of the controlled-substances list in effect when the defendant was convicted of his prior state drug offense. Mr. Jackson's prior convictions included convictions for violating Fla. Stat. § 893.13 in 1998 and in 2004 with conduct involved cocaine. In 1998 and in 2004, § 893.13 criminalized selling, manufacturing, delivering, or possessing with the intent to sell, manufacture, or deliver, cocaine and cocaine-related substances, including a substance called ioflupane. The federal version of Schedule II of the Controlled Substances Act ("CSA") also encompassed ioflupane in 1998 and 2004. The federal government only exempted ioflupane from Schedule II in 2015. So, in 2017, when Mr. Jackson possessed the firearm that resulted in his federal conviction, ioflupane was not a controlled substance "as defined . . . [under] the Controlled Substances Act." Be that as it may, however, the Court ultimately held that ACCA's definition of "serious drug offense" incorporates the version of the controlled-substances schedules in effect when the defendant was [...]
United States v. Garcon, No. 19-14650 (Dec. 6, 2022)
In United States v. Garcon, No. 19-14650 (Dec. 6, 2022), the en banc Court--in an opinion authored by Chief Judge Pryor--considered whether, in the First Step Act, the word "and" means "and" with regard to a grant of safety-valve relief. More specifically, the en banc Court considered the language of 18 U.S.C. § 3553(f)(1), which empowers a court to grant a criminal defendant relief from a mandatory minimum sentence only if "the defendant does not have" "more than 4 criminal history points," "a prior 3-point offense[,] . . . and . . . a prior 2-point violent offense." The Majority--in an opinion drafted by Chief Judge Pryor and joined in full by Judges Wilson, Jill Pryor, Newsom, Luck, and Lagoa--after considering the text of the statute and applying the ordinary-meaning canon, held that because the conjunctive "and" joins together the enumerated criminal history characteristics in (A)-(C), a defendant must have all three before he is ineligible for safety-valve relief. In so holding, the Majority specifically rejected the government's distributive reading of the word "and," declining "to adopt that novel reading when it appears to have been crafted by the government specifically for this statute to achieve its preferred outcome." Judge Rosenbaum concurred in the judgment only, [...]
United States v. B.G.G., No. 21-10165 (Nov. 22, 2022)
In United States v. B.G.G., No. 21-10165 (Nov. 22, 2022) (Wilson, Luck, Lagoa), the Court, on appeal by the government, vacated the dismissal of an information with prejudice under Rule 48(a). During the pandemic, the Southern District of Florida imposed a temporary moratorium on grand juries. Concerned that they would not be able to charge the defendant within the statute of limitations, prosecutors filed an information before the statute of limitations expired. Then, after the limitations period expired, the government moved to dismiss the information under Rule 48(a) without prejudice, which it believed would have triggered a six-month extension within which they intended to bring an indictment. The district court, however, dismissed the information with prejudice, precluding a subsequent indictment. On appeal, the Eleventh Circuit held that the district court abused its discretion by committing five separate legal errors. First, the district court failed to apply the presumption of good faith to the government’s Rule 48(a) motion to dismiss. That presumption applies even where, as here, the government articulates a reason for the dismissal. Second, the district court failed to require the defendant to rebut the presumption by showing that the government sought the dismissal in bad faith. Third, the [...]
United States v. Malone, No. 20-12744 (Oct. 26, 2022)
In United States v. Malone, No. 20-12744 (Oct. 26, 2022) (Rosenbaum, Tjoflat, Moody (M.D. Fla.)), the Court, applying plain-error review, vacated Mr. Malone's sentence and remanded for resentencing before a different district court judge. Mr. Malone was charged with (1) three counts of wire fraud, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1343; (2) one count of interstate transportation of a stolen motor vehicle, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2312; and (3) one count of sale of a stolen motor vehicle, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2313. He agreed to plead guilty to four counts in exchange for the government's agreement to dismiss one count. The government reserved the right to oppose a two-level reduction for acceptance of responsibility under U.S.S.G. § 3E1.1 if it received information that Mr. Malone acted inconsistently with acceptance of responsibility between the date of the plea hearing and the date of the sentencing hearing. The government also agreed to move for a one-level reduction for acceptance of responsibility, and to recommend a sentence within the advisory Guidelines range as calculated by the court at the sentencing hearing. The PSR recommended that Mr. Malone be denied acceptance of responsibility, which resulted in a guidelines range of 57 to 71 months' [...]
United States v. Conage, No. 17-13975 (Sept. 30, 2022)
In United States v. Conage, No. 17-13975 (Sept. 30, 2022) (Ed Carnes, Julie Carnes, Clevenger) (per curiam), the Court affirmed the defendant’s ACCA sentence based on a prior drug trafficking conviction under Fla. Stat. 893.135. The defendant argued that his prior conviction was not a ACCA “serious drug offense” because 893.135 can be committed by purchase, whereas the ACCA requires possession with intent to distribute. In a prior opinion, the Eleventh Circuit certified a question to the Florida Supreme Court about whether “purchase” under 893.135 necessarily required actual or constructive possession. The Florida Supreme Court held that it did. In light of the Florida Supreme Court’s opinion, the Eleventh Circuit rejected the defendant’s argument and affirmed his ACCA sentence. https://media.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/pub/files/201713975.pdf http://defensenewsletter.blogspot.com/
United States v. Grushko, No. 20-10438 (Sept. 23, 2022)
In United States v. Grushko, No. 20-10438 (Sept. 23, 2022) (Jordan, Jill Pryor, Marcus), the Court affirmed the defendants’ convictions and sentences for conspiracy to commit access device fraud. First, the Court held that officers did not violate the Fourth Amendment by entering the defendants’ home after detaining them outside. Under the totality of the circumstances, the officers had reason to believe that one of the defendants was still inside the home because they did not know the identity of the men they had detained. Although they had previously seen a picture of the defendant, his appearance had since changed, and the officers were not permitted to look through the wallets of the men because they were not under arrest. And the officers heard noises from inside the home, and so had reason to believe that the defendant was still inside. Second, the district court did not abuse its discretion in making comments to the voir dire panel about types of forensic evidence that might be seen on TV. Although the statements were unnecessary and unwise, it was not reversible error because the court did not suggest that the government did not have to prove the elements or was relieved [...]