In United States v. Ware, No. 21-10539 (June 1, 2023) (Newsom, Luck, Tjoflat), the Court affirmed Mr. Ware's convictions and sentence. Mr. Ware was convicted of thirteen counts of Hobbs Act robbery and associated firearm offenses, and sentenced to life in prison.  On appeal, he raised three challenges to his convictions and one challenge to his sentence. Mr. Ware first contended the district court erred by not holding a formal Daubert hearing before admitting expert fingerprint evidence.  Mr. Ware relied on a 2009 United States National Resource Counsel ("NRC") report and subsequent 2016 President's Counsel of Advisors on Science and Technology ("PCAST") to argue that because fingerprint analysis involves individual human judgement, the resulting fingerprint comparison conclusion can be influenced by cognitive bias, rendering it unreliable.  The Court noted that a Daubert hearing is not always required and found that the district court had not abused its discretion in not holding a hearing.  The district court considered the reports and arguments presented and found that fingerprint evidence was reliable enough as a general matter to be presented to the jury.  Many of the critiques of fingerprint evidence found in the PCAST report go to the weight that ought to be given fingerprint analysis, not to the [...]

In United States v. Verdeza, No. 21-10461 (May 31, 2023) (William Pryor, Rosenbaum, Marcus), the Court affirmed the defendant’s healthcare fraud convictions and sentence. First, the Court held that the evidence was sufficient to support the convictions under an aiding and abetting theory. Second, the district court did not commit plain error by allowing an FBI agent to give “summary” testimony because there was no precedent holding that such testimony is, in itself, is improper. The district court did not abuse its discretion by admitting evidence under Rule 404(b) because no notice was required under the pre-2020 version of the Rule and the evidence was not impermissible propensity evidence. And any error by allowing the government to ask two leading questions was harmless given the overwhelming evidence of guilt. Third, evidence at trial supported the district court’s decision to give a deliberate ignorance instruction, and any error was harmless given the evidence of the defendant’s actual knowledge. Fourth, as to sentencing, there was no precedent supporting the defendant’s argument that the definition of “loss” in the commentary was ambiguous post-Dupree, and so there was no plain error in calculating the amount based on the defendant’s intended loss. There was no [...]

In United States v. Gruezo, No. 22-11342 (May 5, 2023) (Newsom, Grant, Hull) (per curiam), the Court affirmed the defendant’s MDLEA convictions. After previously issuing this unpublished opinion without oral argument, the Court granted the government’s motion to publish the opinion. First, the Court held that there was jurisdiction under the MDLEA. The defendant stipulated that the vessel had no indicia of nationality visible, and that the master had no claim of nationality when asked. That was enough, the Court held, to support jurisdiction. The Court went to explain that the statute did not require the Coast Guard to ask the master to make a claim of both nationality and registry because the statute is written in the disjunctive. Second, the Court upheld the constitutionality of the MDLEA. The statute was not vague because it gave notice that, without a claim or nationality or registry, the vessel will be considered stateless.  The statute did not violate Miranda by failing to inform the master of the consequences for failing to make such a claim; an as-applied challenge was waived by the guilty plea, and a facial challenge was foreclosed by precedent. Finally, the statute did not violent due process for failing [...]

In United States v. Hamilton, No. 21-14266 (May 2, 2023) (Rosenbaum, Jill Pryor, Tjoflat), the Court—without oral argument—affirmed the defendant’s 40-year sentence and lifetime term of supervised release after pleading guilty to enticing a minor, sending interstate extortionist threats, and producing child pornography. As to the term of imprisonment, the defendant argued that the district court erred by applying a four-level enhancement under U.S.S.G. 2G2.1(b)(4). However, the Court found it unnecessary to address that argument because his total offense level would have remained unchanged under the grouping rules in 3D1.4. Thus, any error was harmless. As to supervised release, the defendant argued that the district court failed to state its reasons. The Court clarified that the requirement in 18 U.S.C. 3553(c)(1)—that the court state the reasons for a guideline-range sentence—applied to supervised release. And it re-affirmed that it reviews that issue de novo, even where a defendant does not object. However, the district court need not make two separate explanations—one for imprisonment and one for supervised release—because most of the 3553(a) factors are the same. In this case, the district court did not separately address the 3553(a) factors in connection with supervised release, but it did address several of those [...]

In Somers v. United States, No. 19-11484 (Apr. 25, 2023) (Jill Pryor, Anderson, Marcus), the Court affirmed Mr. Somers's ACCA-enhanced sentence. Mr. Somers argued that his prior conviction for Florida aggravated assault with a deadly weapon could not serve as an ACCA predicate because it can be committed with a mens rea of recklessness. The Court disagreed, and held that, because aggravated assault under Florida law requires a mens rea of at least knowing conduct, it qualifies as an ACCA predicate offense under Borden. In so holding, the Court relied on guidance from the Florida Supreme Court, which held that the first element of the assault statute, section 784.011(1), requires not just the general intent to volitionally take the action of threatening to do violence, but also that the actor directs the threat at a target, namely another person.  That is, the Florida Supreme Court held that the Florida assault statute demands the specific intent to direct a threat at another person and therefore cannot be violated by a reckless act. https://media.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/pub/files/201911484.pdf http://defensenewsletter.blogspot.com/  

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 [...]