In United States v. Dennis, Case No. 21-10316 (Feb. 16, 2022) (William Pryor, Jordan, Anderson), the Court affirmed Ms. Dennis's revocation sentence. The issue addressed on appeal concerned the notice that a probationer must receive before her probation can be revoked.  Ms. Dennis was serving a sentence of 24 months probation when probation filed a petition to revoke her probation for violating her conditions of supervision.  The petition alleged that she had committed a felony (willful obstruction of law enforcement by threats or violence), and two misdemeanor offenses (simple battery on a police officer and theft of services).  At her revocation hearing, Ms. Dennis argued that she did not commit felony obstruction, which requires something more than misdemeanor obstruction, for which she was not charged.  She argued that she was entitled to written notice of the allegations against her, and that because there was no allegation of misdemeanor obstruction, she could not be found to have committed that offense.  The district court rejected Ms. Dennis's argument, found that she had committed the act of misdemeanor obstruction, and sentenced her to 2 years of supervised release. On appeal, this Court affirmed.  At issue was whether the petition to revoke Ms. Dennis's probation [...]

In United States v. Williams, Case No. 20-14187 (Feb. 15, 2022) (Wilson, Luck, Lagoa), the Court affirmed the denial of Mr. Williams's motion for a sentence reduction under § 404 of the First Step Act, finding that he was not sentenced for a covered offense. Mr. Williams pleaded guilty to one count of distribution of unspecified amounts of crack cocaine within 1,000 feet of a housing facility, in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1), 841(b)(1)(C), and 860(a). He stipulated that the drug quantity attributable to him for purposes of calculating his guideline range was more than 500mg but less than 1g of crack cocaine.  His base offense level was calculated using the career offender enhancement and resulted in a guideline imprisonment range of 188 to 235 months.  His statutory penalty was 1 to 40 years' imprisonment and at least 6 years of supervised release, pursuant to 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(b)(1)(C) and 860(a).  He was sentenced to 200 months' imprisonment followed by 6 years of supervised release. On appeal of the district court's denial of his motion to reduce his sentence based on the First Step Act, Mr. Williams argued that, because his 21 U.S.C. § 860(a) conviction was a “covered offense” under the First Step [...]

In Washington v. Durand, Case No. 20-12148 (Feb. 7, 2022) (William Pryor, Lagoa, Schlesinger (M.D. Fla.)), the Court, in a 42 U.S.C. § 1983 case, addressed whether an officer must release a suspect detained pursuant to a valid arrest warrant when the officer learns of possibly exculpatory evidence.   Here, during the investigation of the murder of an elderly woman, Vivianne Washington was arrested pursuant to a warrant based on a tip from a confidential informant that she was involved in the crime and a positive photograph identification by a perpetrator who had already confessed.  Shortly after Ms. Washington's arrest, however, police officers brought her in front of the perpetrator, who said, "That's not her."  Officers did not immediately release Ms. Washington.  Instead, she was detained for an additional twenty hours, and only released when the perpetrator confessed that he had lied about Ms. Washington. Ms. Washington argued that police officers had an affirmative duty to return to the magistrate to inform him that the perpetrator had failed to identify her in person, and that their failure to do so violated her right to be free from unreasonable seizures under the 4th and 14th Amendments because there was no longer probable cause to [...]

In United States v. Maurya, Case No. 19-10746 (Feb. 1, 2022) (William Pryor, Grant, Anderson), the Court affirmed Nathan Hardwick's convictions, but vacated the restitution portion of his sentence and remanded.  The Court vacated Asha Maurya's sentence and remanded for resentencing.   On appeal, both Hardwick and Maurya challenged the restitution order requiring a payment of over $40 million because the district court failed to support its order with any reasoning.  The government conceded that the district court failed to support its calculation with any factual findings, and the Court agreed.  As a result, the Court vacated the restitution order and remanded for the district court to "correct its oversight."   Maurya also argued that her sentence must be vacated because the district court applied a sentencing enhancement that did not exist when her offense was committed, therefore violating the Constitution's prohibition against ex post facto laws.  Applying plain error review, the Court agreed.  The Court noted that though courts typically apply the Guidelines in effect at the time of sentencing, the Ex Post Facto Clause prohibits the use of the Guidelines issued after the offense that create a higher applicable sentencing range.  In this case, the district court used the 2018 Guidelines, which [...]

In Chamu v. U.S. Att'y Gen., No. 19-13908 (Jan. 26, 2022) (Branch, Grant, Brasher), the Court, on appeal from a Board of Immigration Appeals ("BIA") decision, found Mr. Chamu ineligible for cancellation of removal on account of his prior conviction of an offense "relating to a controlled substance (as defined in section 802 of title 21)"--namely cocaine possession under Fla. Stat. §  893.13(6)(a). Mr. Chamu argued that the Florida statute was overbroad because Florida considers some substances to be cocaine that the federal government, in the federal controlled substance schedules, does not.  He also argued that the Florida statute was overbroad because it covered more states of mind than its federal counterpart--that is, the Florida possession statute alone presumes that a defendant knows a possessed substance is illegal, whereas federal law requires proof of knowledge. The BIA rejected both of his arguments.  As to his first argument, the BIA accepted that the Florida and federal definitions were not a perfect match, but concluded that the mismatch made no difference because Mr. Chamu had failed to show a "realistic probability that the Florida statute would be enforced more broadly." The Court, reviewing the BIA's determination, applied the categorical approach to determine if § [...]