In United States v. Leonard, No. 19-14142 (July 8, 2021) (Martin, Grant, Brasher), the Court held that an indictment's failure to set out an element of the offense does not warrant an automatic presumption of prejudice to the defendant.  Any such error is subject to the harmless-error inquiry. Defendant was indicted for being a felon in possession of a firearm prior to the Supreme Court's issuance of Rehaif v. United States, 139 S. Ct. 2191 (2019).  Once the Supreme Court granted certiorari review in Rehaif, the government, in an abundance of caution, superseded defendant's indictment to include the knowledge element.  The defendant moved to dismiss the new indictment as legally insufficient, which the district court denied. On appeal, defendant challenged his indictment, the district court's refusal to reopen his suppression hearing, the district court's denial of his motion to hold a hearing to challenge the search warrant affidavit, whether cumulative trial errors warranted reversal, and the propriety of his sentence. With regard to the indictment, the Court held that an indictment that references only § 922(g) and not also § 924(a)(2) is sufficient to confer subject matter jurisdiction.  Additionally, the indictment was itself legally sufficient and gave defendant adequate notice of the elements the government needed [...]

In United States v. Matthews, No. 20-10554 (July 6, 2021) (Wilson, Rosenbaum, Ed Carnes), the Court affirmed the defendant's 57-month sentence for making false statements to a firearms dealer. Defendant objected to the application of enhancements for (1) an offense involving a semiautomatic firearm that is capable of accepting a large capacity magazine, and (2) having a prior conviction for a crime of violence. The Court first acknowledged that neither it nor its sister circuits had published an opinion addressing how the sentencing enhancement under § 2K2.1(a)(3) applies when the underlying offense is making a false statement to a firearms dealer. At issue here is the commentary's definition of semiautomatic firearm that is capable of accepting a large capacity magazine as "a magazine or similar device that could accept more than 15 rounds of ammunition was in close proximity to the firearm.  Here, the district court reasonably inferred that a magazine capable of accepting more than 15 rounds of ammunition--that comes standard with the rifle defendant tried to purchase--was in close proximity to the rifle defendant tried to purchase.  As such, the district court did not err in applying the enhancement. The Court also reaffirmed that a conviction for felony battery under [...]

In Pitts v. United States, No. 18-12096 (July 6, 2021) (Luck, Ed Carnes, Marcus), the Court affirmed the denial of Pitts's  Johnson-based second or successive § 2255 motion. Pitts was sentenced as an armed career criminal based upon the following prior convictions: (1) a 1978 California conviction for robbery with a firearm; (2) a 1982 California conviction for robbery and forcible rape; (3) a 1993 Florida conviction for delivery of cocaine; and (4) a 2001 Florida conviction for possession with intent to sell or deliver cocaine. On appeal, the Court addressed whether Pitts carried his burden of showing that the district court that sentenced him erred under the Johnson decision in counting his two robbery convictions as ACCA predicate violent felonies.  It found that he had not under Beeman.  A movant can meet his Beeman burden in one of two ways: first, by pointing to evidence in the record showing that the district court relied only on the residual clause in sentencing him--evidence which may include comments made by the parties, by the sentencing judge, or in the PSR; second, by showing that when he was sentenced, binding precedent clearly established that the predicate offense was a violent felony only under the ACCA's residual clause. Here, Pitts failed to [...]

In In re Grand Jury Subpoena, No. 21-11596 (June 25, 2021) (Jordan, Newsom, Lagoa), the Court upheld an order granting the government’s motion to compel an attorney’s testimony to a grand jury. The attorney was the lawyer in charge of the campaign of a political candidate who was under criminal investigation.  While the attorney claimed that his testimony was protected by the attorney-client privilege, the Court agreed with the district court that the communications fell into the crime-fraud exception to the privilege.  First, the Court held that the government made a prima facie showing of federal wire fraud by the candidate stemming from the diversion of, and failure to report, funds solicited by and donated to the campaign.  Second, the Court held that the attorney’s communications with the campaign were sufficiently related to the wire-fraud scheme.  Although courts have articulated different standards of relatedness, the more restrictive standard—requiring the communications to have furthered the criminal purpose—was met here because the lawyer was aware of the personal expenditures and then revised and reviewed the misleading disclosure forms. https://media.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/pub/files/202111596.pdf

In United States v. Nunez et al., No. 19-14181 (June 17, 2021) (William Pryor, Grant, Tjoflat), the Court affirmed the defendants’ MDLEA convictions. First, the Court held that there was jurisdiction because the vessel was one without nationality.  The “vessel without nationality” definitions in the statute were not exclusive, and the vessel here lacked nationality because it carried no documents, flew no flag, had no name or numbers, and nobody on the vessel claimed that it had nationality or registry.  In addition, nobody claimed to be the master or captain, and the smugglers all played equal roles.  The Court rejected the argument that this meant they were all in charge or took turns at being in charge.  The Court also rejected a Second Circuit decision, which concluded that jurisdiction was lacking when three men, none of whom claimed to be the master, were not asked for a claim of nationality or registry. Second, the Court held that the district court was not required to hold an evidentiary hearing on jurisdiction under either the Confrontation Clause or the statute.  In this case, the smugglers did not identify any facts that they sought to contest or additional facts they sought to introduce.  [...]