In Garrison v. United States, No. 20-13260 (July 13, 2023) (Branch, Luck, Antoon), the Court affirmed the denial of a 2255 motion challenging a 924(c) conviction based on Davis. he 924(c) conviction in this stash house robbery case was based on two drug trafficking offenses and Hobbs Act conspiracy, the latter of which is no longer a predicate “crime of violence” post-Davis. At trial, the court instructed the jury that it could rely on any of the three predicates (including the now-invalid Hobbs Act conspiracy) to convict for the 924(c) count, and the jury returned a general verdict. While the Eleventh Circuit held that this scenario violated the Supreme Court’s decision in Stromberg, it concluded that the error was harmless because the predicate offenses were inextricably intertwined.  Thus, there was no possibility that the jury relied on the now-invalid Hobbs Act conspiracy predicate. The Court rejected the movant’s argument that it was precluded from looking beyond the jury instructions and the verdict to determine whether the 924(c) conviction rested on the invalid predicate. https://media.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/pub/files/202013260.pdf http://defensenewsletter.blogspot.com/

In United States v. Walker, No. 22-10164 (July 13, 2023) (William Pryor, Luck, Hull), the Court affirmed the defendant’s sex trafficking convictions. First, the evidence was sufficient to support a conviction of sex trafficking by coercion because a reasonable jury could have found that the defendant had a scheme, plan, or pattern intended to cause the woman to believe that failure to engage in prostitution would resulted in serious harm—namely, not having a place to stay and going hungry in a city hundreds of miles away from her home and family. Second, and applying plain error, the government’s alleged failure to disclose its expert testimony before trial did not affect the defendant’s substantial rights because defense counsel anticipated the testimony and there was ample additional evidence of guilt apart from the expert’s testimony. https://media.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/pub/files/202210164.pdf http://defensenewsletter.blogspot.com/

In Perkins v. United States, No. 20-14781 (July 10, 2023) (Branch, Grant, Schlesinger), the Court affirmed the denial of a 2255 motion. First, the Court affirmed the denial of a substantive competency/due process claim. The district court did not clearly err in finding that the movant was competent at the time of sentencing and in rejecting the contrary determination by the movant’s expert.  The district court properly relied on jailhouse calls showing his knowledge of the proceedings. And the movant’s expert evaluated him six years after sentencing, and her testimony conflicted with other expert testimony. Second, the Court affirmed the denial of an ineffective assistance of counsel claim based on counsel’s failure to investigate his mental health. The Court determined that counsel’s performance was not deficient because he took action after first learning about the movant’s mental health issues. In any event, any deficient performance was not prejudicial because there was no evidence that he would have been deemed incompetent at the time of sentencing had he been evaluated around that time. https://media.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/pub/files/202014781.pdf http://defensenewsletter.blogspot.com/

In United States v. Jews, No. 22-10502 (July 6, 2023) (Wilson, Newsom, Lagoa), the Court vacated the defendant’s sentence. The Court held that the defendant’s Alabama youthful-offender adjudication was not an “adult” conviction under U.S.S.G. 2K2.1 or 4A1.2. The Court reached that conclusion after applying four factors from circuit precedent. First, state law did not deem the prior to be a conviction at all, let alone an adult conviction. Second, the nature of the proceedings was, under state law, different in various substantive and procedural ways than an adult criminal proceeding. Third, he received a three-year sentence, a factor that cut in favor of an “adult” conviction but was not decisive. Fourth, and finally, the record did not reveal the amount of time he actually served. On balance, then, the Court concluded that the first two factors meant that the conviction was not “adult” under the Guidelines. https://media.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/pub/files/202210502.pdf http://defensenewsletter.blogspot.com/

In United States v. Laines, No. 21-11535 (June 6, 2023) (Bill Pryor, Rosenbaum, Marcus), the Court affirmed Mr. Laines's drug- and firearm-related convictions as well as his ACCA sentence, which was based upon a prior Florida cocaine conviction. Mr. Laines first argued that the evidence was insufficient to support two of his convictions--possession with intent to distribute and a related firearms offense--because there was no evidence that he had the intention to distribute the drugs he possessed.  The Court disagreed, finding that his intent to distribute had been proven circumstantially. He next argued that he was entitled to a new trial based on Brady and Giglio.  More specifically, he argued he was entitled to a new trial both because the police had unconstitutionally searched his phone upon his arrest and failed to disclose said search to the defense, and because the government failed to disclose prior to trial that one of its witnesses--one of the arresting officers in the case--had committed misconduct and was the subject of multiple internal investigations.  The Court disagreed, finding no reasonable probability of a different trial outcome. Finally, Mr. Laines argued that he was not ACCA because his prior Florida cocaine conviction was not a "serious drug offense" because [...]