News
Crime
[07/22]
Trial date to be set for Vick co-defendant
[07/29]
NY judge set to sentence disgraced NBA ref
[08/19]
Armed 85-year-old woman makes intruder call cops
[08/18]
It's an open case: Who's stealing manhole covers?
[08/18]
Ky. sheriff picks up wrong man in Calif.
[08/15]
Texas police say 12-year-old girl drove mom to bar
[08/13]
Cocaine found hidden in Providence, RI, police car
[08/05]
Oregon thief interrupts bike trip from Indiana
More...
White Collar Crime
[08/15]
Detroit mayor to stand trial on assault charges
[08/15]
Shanghai official gets death sentence for bribery
[08/14]
Judge lets Detroit mayor go to Democrat convention
[08/14]
Taiwan's Chen: I broke the law
[08/12]
Judge rules Detroit mayor didn't violate bond
[08/12]
Imprisoned ex-Ohio congressman to be released
[08/12]
Mukasey: No prosecutions in Justice hiring scandal
[08/11]
Mich. AG: Detroit mayor violated bail terms again
More...
Case Summaries
Asset Forfeiture
[08/14]
Santiago-Lugo v. US
In a claim by plaintiff for return of seized but not forfeited property as barred by the statute of limitations, government's motion for summary affirmance is granted where: 1) the six-year limitations period under 28 U.S.C. section 2401(a) applies to Rule 41(g) claims; and 2) in circumstances where there has been a related criminal proceeding but no civil forfeiture proceeding, the cause of action accrues at the end of the criminal proceeding.
[08/06]
US v. $125,938.62
In a civil forfeiture action under the Civil Asset Forfeiture Reform Act of 2000 (CAFRA), court's order of forfeiture is affirmed in part and reversed in part where: 1) the government met its burden of proving that two of the certificates of deposit were subject to forfeiture because they were derived from funds stolen from the Nicaraguan treasury; but 2) with respect to five other certificates, the government failed to meet its burden to present evidence of a connection between those funds and funds stolen from the Nicaraguan treasury.
[07/31]
US v. $291, 828.00 in US Currency
In an in rem civil forfeiture proceeding brought pursuant to 21 U.S.C. section 881(a)(7) against money, jewelry and electronic equipment seized from claimant's home, rulings in favor of government and an order of forfeiture are affirmed where: 1) exigent circumstances existed; and 2) evidence obtained after the search warrant was admissible.
[07/28]
US v. $92,300 in US Currency
Summary judgment ordering the forfeiture of currency allegedly found on claimant and in his vehicle is reversed where: 1) the government's evidence supporting its motion consisted of an affidavit containing hearsay evidence; and 2) legislative changes increasing the government's burden in civil forfeiture cases to a preponderance-of-the-evidence standard also required that hearsay no longer be admissible in forfeiture proceedings.
[07/22]
US v. De La Mata
In a case where the government obtained defendants' promises to convey certain interests in property to the United States, in lieu of a forfeiture trial and sentence, an order granting the government's motion for a "final order of forfeiture" is affirmed in part and vacated in part where: 1) individual defendants and corporate defendants were properly before the court of appeals; 2) the circuit court rejects individual defendants' argument that the district court lacked subject matter jurisdiction because the government's motion sought relief in a criminal case via amended sentences; but 3) corporate defendants were not parties to individual defendants' agreements and thus retained certain property interests.
[07/17]
US v. Porchay
In proceedings arising after charges against appellant for drug and money laundering were dismissed, denial of appellant's motions to recover property seized from her car and residence and for attorneys' fees is affirmed where: 1) the court did not err in converting her Rule 41(g) claim into a section 853(n) claim since she was no longer a defendant at that time; 2) appellant conceded that she did not own the property in question and failed to present ownership evidence; 3) appellant did not have a right to challenge the seizure as a third party; and 4) attorneys' fees were not warranted.
[05/21]
Jackson v. US
Partial denial of defendant's motion for return of property under Fed. R. Crim. Pro 41(g) is affirmed in part and reversed in part where: 1) evidence indicated that another party had a claim of ownership interest adverse to defendant's stereo/video equipment and clothing found in his girlfriend's vehicle at the time of arrest; but 2) defendant was entitled to return of custom wheels installed on his girlfriend's vehicle as, evidence did not suggest that the property was abandoned, intended as a gift, or integrated under Missouri's doctrine of accession.
[05/13]
US v. Padron
Conviction and sentence for mail fraud and conspiracy to commit mail fraud is affirmed over defendant's claims that: 1) the government's conduct in investigating him amounted to entrapment; 2) the district court made erroneous evidentiary rulings during trial; and 3) the district court erred in its calculation of victim's loss amount and that it lacked statutory authority to impose a forfeiture money judgment against him.
More...
Criminal Law & Procedure
[08/19]
US v. Bonin
In a case involving an individual previously arrested for making threats to country music singer George Strait and later for threats to a magistrate judge, an order committing defendant to the custody of the Attorney General pursuant to a dangerousness determination is vacated and remanded where the determination contravened the requisite statutory procedure.
[08/19]
US v. Duhon
On remand from the Supreme Court, sentence of probation for possessing child pornography is affirmed over the government's objections that: 1) the district court's failure to apply enhancements requested by the government was reversible error; 2) consideration of the disparity between defendant's and co-defendant's sentences was plain error; 3) the sentencing guidelines precluded sentencing defendant to probation; and 4) the sentence was substantively unreasonable.
[08/19]
Stoltie v. Tilton
The circuit court affirms the district court's decision, and adopts its opinion in Stoltie v. California, 501 F. Supp.2d 1252 (C.D. Cal. 2007), except for one section as to which it expresses no view, where: 1) the state appellate court misunderstood the confused and confusing explanation of reasonable doubt provided to the jury by the trial judge; and 2) this error led it to apply clearly established Supreme Court law regarding reasonable doubt in an unreasonable manner.
[08/19]
US v. Soto
Conviction for aiding and abetting the making of false statements to a federal firearms licensee is affirmed over objections that: 1) the evidence was insufficient to support the conviction; 2) the question of whether the forms filled out by the alleged principal as required by the licensee, on which she had allegedly lied, were statutorily-required records was a jury question; and 3) even if the record-keeping question was a question of law, the forms in question were not required records.
[08/19]
US v. Carter
Sentence for tax fraud, money laundering, and engaging in illicit monetary transactions is affirmed over the government's objections as to: 1) findings based on defendant's age that she was unlikely to commit future crimes; 2) a finding that defendant's offenses were not typical money-laundering offenses; and 3) several other mitigating circumstances found pursuant to consideration of the 18 U.S.C. section 3553(a) factors.
[08/19]
US v. Clark
Amended judgment correcting a sentence for possessing and conspiring to possess cocaine with intent to distribute is affirmed where: 1) a mandatory minimum sentence was statutorily required, and the sentencing court was required to invoke Fed. R. Crim. P. 35(a) to correct its initial imposition of a lesser sentence; and 2) judge-found facts based on a preponderance of the evidence standard were sufficient to determine the drug quantity.
[08/19]
US v. Henry
Denial of defendants' motions to dismiss their indictment related to marijuana growing is reversed, and their convictions and sentences vacated and remanded where the continuance of trial for 103 days could not be excluded from defendant's speedy trial clock, which caused the total delay in defendant's case to exceed the seventy days allowed by the Speedy Trial Act.
[08/19]
US v. Vega-Castillo
Sentence of 70 months for reentering the United States illegally after having been deported or removed is affirmed over claims of error that prior precedent, which "does not require the district court to depart based on the availability of the [fast-track] departure", was overruled by Kimbrough.
More...
Sentencing
[08/19]
US v. Duhon
On remand from the Supreme Court, sentence of probation for possessing child pornography is affirmed over the government's objections that: 1) the district court's failure to apply enhancements requested by the government was reversible error; 2) consideration of the disparity between defendant's and co-defendant's sentences was plain error; 3) the sentencing guidelines precluded sentencing defendant to probation; and 4) the sentence was substantively unreasonable.
[08/19]
US v. Carter
Sentence for tax fraud, money laundering, and engaging in illicit monetary transactions is affirmed over the government's objections as to: 1) findings based on defendant's age that she was unlikely to commit future crimes; 2) a finding that defendant's offenses were not typical money-laundering offenses; and 3) several other mitigating circumstances found pursuant to consideration of the 18 U.S.C. section 3553(a) factors.
[08/19]
US v. Clark
Amended judgment correcting a sentence for possessing and conspiring to possess cocaine with intent to distribute is affirmed where: 1) a mandatory minimum sentence was statutorily required, and the sentencing court was required to invoke Fed. R. Crim. P. 35(a) to correct its initial imposition of a lesser sentence; and 2) judge-found facts based on a preponderance of the evidence standard were sufficient to determine the drug quantity.
[08/19]
US v. Mastromatteo
Denial of defendant's motion for a Franks hearing and his sentence for drug-related offenses are affirmed where: 1) defendant's failure to obtain a written conditional plea was not a jurisdictional bar to the circuit court's hearing the appeal; 2) the district court did not err in holding that defendant lacked standing to contest a search of certain property; 3) even if he had standing, the denial of a Franks hearing was proper; and 4) the sentence was reasonable.
[08/19]
US v. Vega-Castillo
Sentence of 70 months for reentering the United States illegally after having been deported or removed is affirmed over claims of error that prior precedent, which "does not require the district court to depart based on the availability of the [fast-track] departure", was overruled by Kimbrough.
[08/18]
US v. Contreras
A bank robbery conviction and life sentence is affirmed where: 1) a probation officer's testimony, which identified defendant as the robber from surveillance footage, was helpful to the jury and thus complied with Rule 701 of the Federal Rules of Evidence because she identified him based on her prior familiarity with his appearance; 2) her testimony also complied with Rule 403 and the Sixth Amendment because he had wide latitude to cross-examine the officer as he saw fit; and 3) a sentencing challenge was squarely foreclosed.
[08/18]
US v. Valentine
In a criminal proceeding in which defendant plead guilty to being a felon in possession of a firearm, denial of defendant's motion to suppress evidence seized in his apartment after his arrest and from the sentence imposed after defendant pleaded guilty, is vacated and remanded where defendant's arrest was not supported by probable cause.
[08/15]
US v. Darden
Sentence for possessing a handgun and ammunition is vacated and remanded where: 1) under plain terms of the Armed Career Criminal Act (ACCA), the court must look to the current sentencing laws of the state to determine whether the drug offense is "serious"; and 2) under current state law, the maximum sentence prescribed for these offenses is less than ten years.
More...
