Legal News & Updates
United States v. Sanchez, No. 19-14002 (Apr. 5, 2022)
In United States v. Sanchez, No. 19-14002 (Apr. 5, 2022) (Branch, Grant, Ed Carnes), the Court affirmed Mr. Sanchez's convictions and sentence. Mr. Sanchez was charged with two counts of enticing a minor to engage in sexual activity, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2422(b); two counts of enticing a minor to engage in sexually explicit conduct in order to produce child pornography, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2251(a); two counts of possessing child pornography, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2252(a)(4)(B); and one count of having committed a felony offense involving a minor while already a registered sex offender, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2260A. He was found guilty after trial of all counts and sentenced to life imprisonment plus a consecutive ten-year mandatory minimum. Mr. Sanchez appealed the district court's denial of his motion to suppress. More specifically, whether the district court erred by not excluding evidence derived from the officer's brief, warrantless entry into Mr. Sanchez's home for the sole purpose of seizing a phone for which the officers had obtained a search warrant. Officers arrived at Mr. Sanchez's home, which he shared with his parents, with a warrant to seize his phone. They encountered Mr. Sanchez out on his driveway. [...]
United States v. Williams, Case No. 18-13890 (Mar. 30, 2022)
In United States v. Williams, Case No. 18-13890 (Mar. 30, 2022) (Jordan, Jill Pryor, Tjoflat), the Court affirmed the district court because it found that Mr. Williams had forfeited any arguments under which the Court could grant relief on appeal. Mr. Williams, a sovereign citizen, wanted to represent himself before the district court. The district court held a Faretta hearing and denied Mr. Williams's request. Mr. Williams subsequently pleaded guilty, with the assistance of counsel, and was sentenced to 151 months imprisonment. Mr. Williams was then assigned a new attorney on appeal. This attorney moved to withdraw as counsel pursuant to Anders v. California, which the Court denied two times, finding at least two issues of arguable merit: (1) whether, despite later pleading guilty, the Court has discretion to review the denial of a defendant's request to proceed pro se, which is a potential structural error and, if so, (2) whether the district court erred in denying Williams's request to proceed pro se because it believed that he did not understand the risks of proceeding pro se due to his illogical legal theories. The appellate brief failed to meaningfully address whether the guilty plea precluded the Court from addressing the Faretta issue. As to that issue, the [...]
Said v. U.S. Att’y Gen., 21-12917 (Mar. 24, 2022)
In Said v. U.S. Att'y Gen., 21-12917 (Mar. 24, 2022) (Jordan, Newsom, Tjoflat), the Court held that a violation of Fla. Stat. § 893.13(6)(a)--the Florida marijuana possession statute--did not relate to a controlled substance, as defined in 21 U.S.C. § 802, and thus did not prevent Mr. Said from accruing the necessary seven-year period of continuous residence for his application for cancellation of removal. As such, the Court found that the BIA and IJ erred in finding that Said was ineligible for cancellation of removal. The Court reasoned that by the plain language of Fla. Stat. § 893.02(3), not all substances that it proscribes are federally controlled. Section 893.02(3) includes “all parts” of the marijuana plant, while federal law does not. For instance, federal law does not include the mature stalks of the marijuana plant or fiber produced from such stalks. 21 U.S.C. § 802(16). This is a significant divergence, and on its own, is sufficient to establish a realistic probability of broader prosecution under Florida law. The Court distinguished its opinion from Chamu, where petitioner presented a hypothetical form of cocaine covered by state, but not federal law, to attempt to establish overbreadth. Here, because the stalks of the marijuana plant do exist, it cannot [...]
United States v. Lee, 20-13505 (Mar. 21, 2022)
In United States v. Lee, 20-13505 (Mar. 21, 2022) (Lagoa, Brasher, Tjoflat), the Court affirmed the defendant’s conviction under 18 U.S.C. 2251(a) over a double jeopardy challenge. The defendant sent text messages to a minor requesting sexually explicit images. The defendant was originally charged with violating 2251(d), and a jury convicted him. Shortly thereafter, however, the Eleventh Circuit in Caniff clarified that such conduct does not violate 2251(d), and the district court granted a judgment of acquittal. Based on the same conduct, the government brought a new indictment, charging the defendant with violating 2251(a), and the defendant moved to dismiss on double jeopardy grounds. The Eleventh Circuit held that the district court correctly denied the motion because 2251(a) and 2251(d) are distinct offenses with different elements. 2251(d) requires proof that the defendant made a notice or advertisement involving a sexually explicit depiction of a minor, whereas 2251(a) requires proof that the defendant arranged for a minor to engage in sexually explicit conduct for the purpose of creating a depiction of that conduct. Because there were scenarios where a defendant could violate 2251(d) but not 2251(a), and vice versa, they were not the same offense for double jeopardy purposes. https://media.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/pub/files/202013505.pdf http://defensenewsletter.blogspot.com/ [...]
United States v. Dupree, Case No. 19-13776 (Feb. 18, 2022)
In United States v. Dupree, Case No. 19-13776 (Feb. 18, 2022), the Court agreed to rehear Mr. Dupree's appeal en banc, vacating the panel's prior unpublished opinion. The panel, in affirming Mr. Dupree's sentence, found itself bound by the Court's opinion in United States v. Weir, 51 F.3d 1031 (11th Cir. 1995). The issue raised concerns whether a conviction under 21 U.S.C. § 846 (conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute a controlled substance) qualifies as a "controlled substance offense" for purposes of the career offender enhancement under U.S.S.G. § 4B1.1. Mr. Dupree, in his petition for rehearing en banc, argued both that a § 846 conspiracy is not a "controlled substance offense" because Application Note 1 adds to, rather than interprets, § 4B1.2's text, and that a § 846 conspiracy is not a "controlled substance offense" because a § 846 conspiracy covers more conduct than a generic conspiracy. https://media.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/pub/files/201913776.1.pdf http://defensenewsletter.blogspot.com/
United States v. Campbell, Case No. 16-10128 (Feb. 16, 2022)
In United States v. Campbell, Case No. 16-10128 (Feb. 16, 2022), the en banc Court--in an opinion authored by Judge Tjoflat--considered whether the good-faith exception to the exclusionary rule is a proper ground for affirming Mr. Campbell's conviction despite the government's failure to raise that alternative ground before the panel, and answered in the affirmative. The en banc Court also concluded that the good-faith exception applied, and accordingly, affirmed the denial of Mr. Campbell's motion to suppress. The district court determined that officers had reasonable suspicion to stop Mr. Campbell's car on account of his rapidly-blinking turn signal, and that officers did not unreasonably prolong the stop by asking Mr. Campbell twenty-five seconds worth of questions unrelated to the purpose of the stop. Because the district court found the seizure reasonable, it did not address whether Mr. Campbell's consent to search his car was tainted or whether--as the government argued in supplemental briefing before the district court--the good faith exception to the exclusionary rule applied. On appeal, Mr. Campbell once again challenged his seizure, and a panel of the Court affirmed. In affirming, however, the panel considered the good-faith exception, which, though fully briefed in the district court below, was not [...]