Top Legal News » 6th COA

Decisions In Criminal Law Matters

admin — Sat, 31 Jul 2010 12:47:16 +0000

US v. Street, 08-6242, concerned a challenge to the district court’s affirmance of the magistrate judge’s denial of defendant’s motion to suppress in a prosecution for conspiring to possess and distribute methamphetamine and related crimes. In affirming the conviction, the court held that the police did not violate the Fourth Amendment during the search and arrest of defendant, that no error occurred in the district court’s substitution of an alternate juror in the midst of deliberations, and that a reasonable jury could conclude that defendant carried a firearm to facilitate the drug sale.

US v. Al-Cholan, 08-2532, concerned a challenge to a conviction of defendant for traveling in interstate commerce for the purpose of engaging in illicit sexual conduct in violation of 18 U.S.C. section 2423(b). In affirming the conviction, the court held that defendant’s entrapment defense fails because the evidence incontrovertibly establishes that he was predisposed to commit the offense. The court rejected defendant’s claim that the government’s conduct was so outrageous that due process considerations would bar a conviction as meritless, as well as defendant’s claim that the district court erred by refusing to suppress his post-arrest statements. Lastly, the court held that district court did not err in rejecting the manufactured jurisdiction defense, or in imposing the sentence enhancement.

In re Siggers, 08-1214, concerned a defendant’s request for authorization to file a second/successive habeas relief from his first-degree murder conviction. In denying the request, the court held that, considering the strength of the evidence presented by the government at trial, defendant’s allegations fail to establish a prima facie showing that the constitutional errors he alleges probably resulted in the conviction of an innocent person.

Awkai v. Mitchell, 01-4278, concerned a challenge to the district court’s denial of defendant’s petition for a writ of habeas corpus from his conviction for aggravated murder of his wife and brother-in-law and sentence to death. In affirming the denial, the court held that defendant has not overcome the strong presumption that counsel’s conduct fell within the wide range of reasonable professional assistance and therefore cannot satisfy Strickland’s deficiency standard. Further, even assuming that defendant had shown that the Supreme Court of Ohio’s assessment of his counsel’s effectiveness was unreasonable, he still cannot show that the court’s conclusion that he had not satisfied the prejudice prong of the Strickland ineffective-assistance test was also unreasonable. The court also held that defendant’s counsel was not deficient in the presentation of mitigation-phase evidence, and rejected defendant’s claim of prosecutorial misconduct as procedurally defaulted.

Related Resources:

Full text of US v. Street
Full text of US v. Al-Cholan
Full text of In re Siggers
Full text of Awkai v. Mitchell,

Decisions In Criminal Matters, Plus Civil Rights Suit For First Amendment Retaliation

admin — Sat, 31 Jul 2010 12:47:16 +0000

US v. Horn, 09-5090, concerned proceedings arising from defendant’s motion for resentencing based on Guidelines Amendment 709, arguing that he was not a career offender under the amendment because his two prior robbery convictions would no longer count as separate offenses. In reversing the district court’s grant of the motion, the court held that the district court lacked the authority to resentence defendant because 18 U.S.C. section 3582(c)(2) and U.S.S.G. section 1B1.10 provide that the Commission’s retroactivity determinations control whether district courts may resentence defendants and the Commission has not designated Amendment 709 for retroactive application.

US v. Hameed, 09-3259, concerned a challenge to the district court’s denial of defendant’s motion for a reduction of his sentence under 18 U.S.C. section 3582(c)(2), in a prosecution for conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute crack cocaine and for being a felon in possession of a firearm. In affirming the denial, the court held that, although defendant’s ultimate sentence was indeed “based on” the crack guidelines, and those regulations have since been lowered, they were not actually “applicable” to the departure he received pursuant to 18 U.S.C. section 3553(e) and U.S.S.G. section 5K1.1.

Paige v. Coyner, 09-3287, concerned a plaintiff’s section 1983 suit against a county official and two county entities, claiming that defendants retaliated against her by calling for employer and saying false things about her after she raised concerns at a public hearing regarding a proposed interstate-highway project. In reversing the district court’s grant of defendant’s motion to dismiss and sua sponte dismissal of the case against the remaining two defendants, the court held that the district court erred in dismissing plaintiff’s claims under Rule 12(b)(6) by misapplying the Supreme Court’s decision in Blum v. Yaretsky, 457 U.S. 991 (1982), as plaintiff has alleged all that she needs to in order to state a claim for relief under section 1983 against all three defendants.

Related Resources:

Full text of US v. Horn
Full text of US v. Hameed
Full text of Paige v. Coyner

Decisions In Age Discrimination Suit & Cleveland’s Suit Against Lenders for Foreclosure Crisis

admin — Sat, 31 Jul 2010 12:47:16 +0000

Spengler v. Worthington Cylinder, 08-3110, concerned a challenge to the district court’s denial of defendant’s Rule 50(b) motion and jury verdict in favor of the plaintiff, in plaintiff’s age discrimination suit against his former employer under the Age Discrimination in Employment Act and Ohio’s anti-discrimination statute. In afirming, the court held that the district court did not err in allowing plaintiff’s case to proceed to trial as the language in plaintiff’s EEOC charge sets forth sufficient facts to put the EEOC on notice of plaintiff’s retaliation claim despite his failure to check the “Retaliation” box on the charge. The court held that plaintiff’s judicial complaint set forth facts establishing a prima facie case of retaliation under the ADEA, and that the totality of the evidence in the record does not lead reasonable minds to but one conclusion in favor of the defendant on the retaliation claim. Also, because plaintiff established the amount of his damages and defendant failed to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that plaintiff was not entitled to those damages, damages were properly awarded. Lastly, the court held that the jury could have reasonably concluded that the supervisor’s conduct was willful and therefore, liquidated damages were warranted.

City of Cleveland v., Ameriquest Mortgage Sec., Inc., 09-3608, concerned City of Cleveland’s public nuisance suit against twenty-two financial entities, claiming that defendants are responsible for a large portion of the subprime lending market in Cleveland and nationally that led to a foreclosure crisis in Cleveland. In affirming district court’s judgment in favor of the defendants, the court held that the joint motion precludes Cleveland from now arguing that the district court should have remanded this suit, and the district court properly permitted this case to proceed in federal court. The court further held that the connection between the alleged harm and the alleged misconduct it too indirect to warrant recovery.

Related Resources:

Full text of Spengler v. Worthington Cylinder
Full text of City of Cleveland v., Ameriquest Mortgage Sec., Inc

Securities Fraud Conviction, Plus Jurisdiction to Hear Motion to Expunge FBI Records

admin — Sat, 31 Jul 2010 12:47:16 +0000

US v. Faulkenberry, 08-4233, concerned a challenge to a conviction of defendant for securities fraud, wire fraud, money laundering, and conspiracies to commit these crimes. In affirming in part, the court held that sufficient proof supported defendant’s wire fraud, securities fraud, and conspiracy to commit wire and securities fraud convictions. However, the court reversed the judgment with respect to defendant’s money laundering conviction as, to prove a violation of money laundering pursuant to section 1956(a)(1)(B)(i), it is not enough for the government to prove merely that a transaction had a concealing effect or that the transaction was structured to conceal the nature of illicit funds, but rather, what is required is that concealment be an animating purpose of the transaction. Accordingly, the court reversed defendant’s conviction for conspiracy to commit money laundering. The court rejected defendant’s remaining claims as meritless, and vacated and remanded defendant’s sentence for resentencing.

US v. Lucido, 09-1410, concerned a challenge to the district court’s denial of petitioner’s motions to expunge all records of his federal money laundering charges and related proceedings held by the FBI, of which he was acquitted of eighteen years ago. In vacating the judgment, the court held that the district court lacked jurisdiction to entertain petitioner’s requests. Thus, the matter is remanded for the district court to dismiss the motions for lack of jurisdiction.

Related Resources:

Full text of US v. Faulkenberry
Full text of US v. Lucido

Securities Fraud Conviction, Plus Jurisdiction to Hear Motion to Expunge FBI Records