Appellate Section - Criminal

Briefs and Opinions

• United States v. Pearce (6th Cir.) - Appellee
  • The district court properly found that an “aggravating role” enhancement applies
  • The district court properly denied a downward adjustment under the new “zero-point” offender provision
   

  Document	Date
  Brief as Appellee	04/05/24

• United States v. Taum (9th Cir.) - Appellee
  • The evidence more than sufficed for a reasonable, properly instructed jury to convict Taum
  • Taum has no valid Confrontation Clause claim
  • There was no prosecutorial misconduct warranting a new trial
  • The district court properly imposed a two-offense-level increase at sentencing for obstructing justice
  • The district court made no errors to accumulate, and the government’s case was strong enough to overcome any cumulative error
   

  Document	Date
  Brief as Appellee	03/22/24

• United States v. Alo-Kaonohi and Aki (9th Cir.) - Appellee/Cross-Appellant
  • Section 249(a)(1)’s “because of” test incorporates the traditional standard of but-for causation
  • Section 249(a)(1) is constitutional as applied to defendants’ conduct and does not raise federalism concerns
  • Defendants’ facial challenge to Section 249(a)(1) fails
  • The district court correctly applied the obstruction-of-justice enhancement when sentencing Aki
  • The district court erred in holding that it could not apply Sentencing Guidelines § 3A1.1(a) without a special jury finding (government’s cross-appeal)
   

  Document	Date
  Brief as Appellee/Cross-Appellant	02/14/24

• United States v. Tagaloa (9th Cir.) - Appellee
  • The district court did not plainly err by allowing the security footage of defendants’ assault into evidence
  • The evidence was more than sufficient for a reasonable jury to convict Tagaloa on all three charges
  • The district court properly allowed Tagaloa’s statement into evidence because Tagaloa waived his Garrity rights in his FBI interview
   

  Document	Date
  Brief as Appellee	01/08/24

• United States v. Nettisia Mitchell (11th Cir.) - Appellee
  • This Court should dismiss Mitchell’s appeal because she entered into a valid appeal waiver and her appeal falls outside the waiver’s exception for ineffective assistance of counsel
  • The district court properly declined to apply a two-level minor role reduction under Sentencing Guidelines § 3B1.2
   

  Document	Date
  Brief as Appellee	01/05/24

• United States v. Buntyn (10th Cir.) - Appellee
  • Buntyn forfeited de novo review of the sufficiency of the evidence supporting the jury’s finding of a deprivation of pretrial detainees’ Fourteenth Amendment rights
  • This Court should not exercise its discretion to excuse Buntyn’s failure to argue for plain-error review in his opening brief
  • Buntyn makes no attempt to argue that his sufficiency claim satisfies the plain-error standard
  • Sufficient evidence supported Buntyn’s conviction under 18 U.S.C. 242
  • The district court did not abuse its discretion by precluding the defense from using the word “malice” to discuss the willfulness element during closing argument
  • The district court did not plainly err in giving an Allen instruction
   

  Document	Date
  Surreply Brief	01/31/24
  Brief as Appellee	12/15/23

• United States v. Howald (9th Cir.) - Appellee
  • Section 249(a)(2) is constitutional under the Commerce Clause both facially and as applied to Howald’s conduct in this case
  • Section 249(a)(2) is a crime of violence
   

  Document	Date
  Brief as Appellee	12/13/23

• United States v. Leahy (11th Cir.) - Appellee
  • Section 245(b)(2)(B) is constitutional, including as applied to this case
  • Leahy’s three challenges to the district court’s jury instructions fail
  • The district court properly denied Leahy’s motions for acquittal and for a new trial
   

  Document	Date
  Brief as Appellee	11/13/23

• United States v. Harvel (6th Cir.) - Appellee
  • Counts 2 through 5 of the Superseding Indictment were timely
  • The Superseding Indictment sufficiently charged that Harvel committed his crimes “under color of law”
  • The district court did not abuse its discretion in denying Harvel’s motions for a mistrial
  • Federal Rule of Evidence 413 does not violate the Due Process Clause
  • The length of time between Harvel’s conduct and his indictment did not violate his due process rights
   

  Document	Date
  Brief as Appellee	10/30/23

• United States v. Lonnie Mitchell (11th Cir.) - Appellee
  • The district court properly excluded evidence of the victims’ other sexual behavior under Rule 412
  • The district court acted within its discretion under Rule 404(b) and Rule 403 to admit evidence of Mitchell’s drug-dealing activities
   

  Document	Date
  Court of Appeals Decision, available at 2024 WL 490151	02/08/24
  Brief as Appellee	10/13/23

• United States v. Ware (10th Cir.) - Appellee
  • The district court’s within-guidelines sentence is substantively reasonable
   

  Document	Date
  Court of Appeals Decision, available at 2024 WL 825569	02/28/24
  Brief as Appellee	09/28/23

• United States v. Lashley (11th Cir.) - Appellee
  • The district court did not abuse its discretion by varying upward from Lashley’s recommended Guidelines sentence after considering the Section 3553(a) factors
   

  Document	Date
  Court of Appeals Decision, available at 2023 WL 8253883	11/29/23
  Brief as Appellee	08/07/23

• United States v. Seneca (5th Cir.) - Appellee
  • The district court correctly calculated Seneca’s Guidelines sentence
  • The district court’s above-Guidelines sentence is substantively reasonable
   

  Document	Date
  Certiorari Denied, available at 2024 WL 1607891 (Mem) (United States Waived Response to the Petition for a Writ of Certiorari)	04/15/24
  Court of Appeals Decision, available at 2023 WL 8253754	11/29/23
  Brief as Appellee	08/03/23

• United States v. Pinkney (9th Cir.) - Appellee
  • Pinkney’s motion should be denied because he did not first seek release pending appeal from the district court
  • In the alternative, Pinkney’s motion should be denied because it is procedurally and substantively deficient
   

  Document	Date
  Brief as Appellee	03/01/24
  Court of Appeals Order	08/09/23
  Response in Opposition to Motion for Release Pending Appeal	07/31/23

• United States v. William Bryan et al. (11th Cir.) - Appellee
  • The jury reasonably convicted defendants of a hate crime
  • The jury reasonably convicted defendants of attempted kidnapping
   

  Document	Date
  Brief as Appellee	06/02/23

• United States v. Bean (6th Cir.) - Appellee
  • The district court did not commit plain error in admitting C.G.’s testimony
  • The district court did not commit error, plain or otherwise, in refusing to admit at trial the out-of-court video recordings of F.M.
  • Sufficient evidence establishes that Bean’s assault on F.M. resulted in bodily injury to F.M. under 18 U.S.C. 242 (Count 1)
  • Sufficient evidence establishes that Bean used objectively unreasonable force against C.G. under 18 U.S.C. 242 (Counts 4 and 5)
   

  Document	Date
  Court of Appeals Decision	10/11/23
  Brief as Appellee	04/28/23

• United States v. Thao (8th Cir.) - Appellee
  • Sufficient evidence showed that Thao acted willfully
  • The district court did not abuse its discretion in denying Thao’s motion for a mistrial based on allegations of prosecutorial misconduct
   

  Document	Date
  Certiorari Denied, available at 2024 WL 72331 (Mem) (United States Waived Response to the Petition for a Writ of Certiorari)	01/08/24
  Court of Appeals Decision, reported at 76 F.4th 773	08/04/23
  Brief as Appellee	04/20/23

• United States v. Bhimani (3d Cir.) - Appellee
  • Bhimani cannot show that the district court plainly erred in admitting a redacted version of his video-recorded, post-arrest interview and that he was prejudiced by such admission
   

  Document	Date
  Court of Appeals Decision	08/10/23
  Brief as Appellee	03/09/23

• Sherman v. Trinity Teen Solutions (10th Cir.) - Amicus
  • The scope of parental consent is not relevant to whether defendants violated Section 1589
   

  Document	Date
  Court of Appeals Decision, reported at 84 F.4th 1182	10/31/23
  Brief as Amicus	03/07/23

• United States v. Mitchell (9th Cir.) - Appellee
  • The district court properly determined that Mitchell remains a danger to the community
  • The district court properly determined that no set of conditions could reasonably assure the safety of the community from Mitchell
   

  Document	Date
  Court of Appeals Order	11/22/22
  Opposition to FRAP 9(A) Memorandum Regarding Pretrial Detention	11/10/22

• United States v. Hougen (9th Cir.) - Appellee
  • Hougen is not entitled to a new trial based on his belated public-trial claim
  • Section 249(a)(1) is a valid exercise of Congress’s Thirteenth Amendment powers
  • Hougen is not entitled to a new trial based on references to alleged invocations of his right to remain silent
  • The district court did not commit reversible error in admitting evidence of Hougen’s prior racially motivated attacks
   

  Document	Date
  Certiorari Denied, available at 2024 WL 1348914 (Mem) (United States Waived Response to the Petition for a Writ of Certiorari)	04/01/24
  Court of Appeals Decision (Published), reported at 76 F.4th 805	08/01/23
  Court of Appeals Decision (Unpublished), available at 2023 WL 4887318	08/01/23
  Brief as Appellee	10/17/22

• United States v. Boen (8th Cir.) - Appellee
  • Neither of the evidentiary rulings challenged by Boen evince any error by the district court
  • The jury had sufficient evidence on which to find that Boen caused English and Greene bodily injury
  • The district court correctly applied a sentencing enhancement for Boen’s obstruction of justice
  • Boen’s sentence is substantively reasonable
   

  Document	Date
  Court of Appeals Decision, reported at 59 F.4th 983	02/10/23
  Brief as Appellee	09/14/22

• Roof v. United States (S. Ct.) - Respondent
  • The court of appeals correctly rejected petitioner’s contentions that his waiver of the right to counsel was invalid because the district court misadvised him as to whether he could control counsel’s presentation of mitigation evidence; that 18 U.S.C. 247(a)(2) exceeds Congress’s Commerce Clause power, as applied to his planning, execution, and proselytization of his shooting spree; and that 18 U.S.C. 249(a)(1) is facially unconstitutional
  • The court of appeals’ decision does not implicate any conflict among the lower courts warranting this Court’s intervention
   

  Document	Date
  Certiorari Denied, reported at 143 S. Ct. 303	10/11/22
  Brief in Opposition	08/31/22

• United States v. Maynard (4th Cir.) - Appellee
  • The district court’s order requiring witnesses to wear face masks during the COVID-19 pandemic did not violate Maynard’s Sixth Amendment right to confrontation
  • The district court correctly calculated Maynard’s sentence under the Sentencing Guidelines
   

  Document	Date
  Court of Appeals Decision, available at 2024 WL 118221	01/11/24
  Brief as Appellee	08/15/22

• United States v. Burks (11th Cir.) - Appellee
  • Sufficient evidence supports Burks’s conviction under 18 U.S.C. 242
  • Burks’s 108-month, within-guidelines sentence is procedurally and substantively reasonable
   

  Document	Date
  Court of Appeals Decision	09/29/23
  Brief as Appellee	08/12/22

• United States v. Hari (8th Cir.) - Appellee
  • This court should affirm Hari’s convictions under 18 U.S.C. 247(a) because that law is facially constitutional
  • This court should affirm Hari’s conviction under 18 U.S.C. 924(c) because Hari committed crimes of violence
  • This court should affirm the district court’s denial of Hari’s motion to dismiss because no Sixth Amendment violation occurred
   

  Document	Date
  Certiorari Denied, available at 2023 WL 8007570 (United States Waived Response to the Petition for a Writ of Certiorari)	11/20/23
  Court of Appeals Decision, reported at 67 F.4th 903	05/10/23
  Brief as Appellee	07/01/22

• United States v. Wallace (6th Cir.) - Appellee
  • Sufficient evidence supports Wallace’s conviction for possession with intent to distribute methamphetamine
  • The district court properly applied a two-level enhancement for possessing a firearm
   

  Document	Date
  Court of Appeals Decision, reported at 51 F.4th 177	10/12/22
  Brief as Appellee	06/16/22

• United States v. Kindley (8th Cir., S. Ct.) - Appellee/Respondent
  • The district court did not err in admitting other-acts evidence
  • The district court properly instructed the jury on consideration of Rule 413 evidence
  • Rule 413 does not violate the Fifth Amendment’s Due Process Clause
   

  Document	Date
  Certiorari Denied, reported at 143 S. Ct. 2676 (United States Waived Response to the Petition for a Writ of Certiorari)	06/26/23
  Court of Appeals Decision, available at 2022 WL 17245115	11/28/22
  Brief as Appellee	02/10/22

• United States v. Diggins (1st Cir.) - Appellee
  • Section 249(a)(1) is a valid exercise of Congress’s power under Section 2 of the Thirteenth Amendment and this court should affirm Diggins’s convictions under that statute
  • The Assistant Attorney General’s decision to certify Diggins’s prosecution under 18 U.S.C. 249(b)(1) is judicially unreviewable and substantively sound
  • Diggins has waived his challenges to the evidentiary rulings relating to his white-supremacist tattoos, but those challenges are meritless in any event
   

  Document	Date
  Certiorari Denied, reported at 143 S. Ct. 383 (United States Waived Response to the Petition for a Writ of Certiorari)	10/31/22
  Court of Appeals Decision, reported at 36 F.4th 302	06/08/22
  Brief as Appellee	12/09/21

• United States v. Lobos-Ruiz (1st Cir.) - Appellee
  • The district court’s order should be vacated and the case remanded because the court relied on a factual inaccuracy regarding Lobos-Ruiz’s risk of flight
   

  Document	Date
  Court of Appeals Judgment, available at 2021 WL 5322350	11/15/21
  Brief as Appellee	10/29/21

• United States v. Palkowitsch (8th Cir.) - Appellee
  • The district court did not commit procedural error in imposing Palkowitsch’s below-guidelines sentence of 72 months’ imprisonment
  • The district court did not abuse its discretion when it sentenced Palkowitsch to a below-guidelines sentence of 72 months’ imprisonment
   

  Document	Date
  Court of Appeals Decision, reported at 36 F.4th 796	06/10/22
  Brief as Appellee	10/01/21

• Stein v. United States (S. Ct.) - Respondent
  • The court of appeals correctly rejected petitioner’s claims that (1) his challenge to the District of Kansas’s jury selection plan was procedurally proper and (2) the plan substantially violated the terms of the Jury Act
  • The court of appeals’ decision does not conflict with any decision of this Court or any other court of appeals, and further review is not warranted
   

  Document	Date
  Certiorari Denied, reported at 142 S. Ct. 425	11/01/21
  Brief in Opposition	09/29/21

• Wright v. United States (S. Ct.) - Respondent
  • This Court should hold the petition for a writ of certiorari pending this Court’s disposition of the petition for a writ of certiorari in Stein
  • If the Court denies the petition in Stein, in accord with the government’s brief in opposition in that case, it should then deny the petition in this case
   

  Document	Date
  Certiorari Denied, reported at 142 S. Ct. 435	11/01/21
  Memorandum in Opposition	09/29/21

• United States v. Bixler (6th Cir.) - Appellee
  • The district court acted within its discretion when it declined to postpone trial
  • The district court did not err by allowing the United States to strike a juror whose family and friends knew Bixler
  • The district court did not abuse its discretion by admitting expert testimony about the medical nature of drug addiction and withdrawal
  • The district court did not abuse its discretion by limiting evidence of the victims’ other prostitution
  • The jury had sufficient evidence to convict Bixler of sex trafficking and witness tampering
  • The district court did not abuse its discretion in sentencing Bixler
   

  Document	Date
  Certiorari Denied, reported at 142 S. Ct. 2838 (United States Waived Response to the Petition for a Writ of Certiorari)	06/21/22
  Court of Appeals Decision, available at 2022 WL 247740	01/27/22
  Brief as Appellee	09/08/21

• United States v. Folks (2d Cir.) - Appellee
  • This court should affirm the district court’s denial of Folks’s motions to suppress
  • This district court did not abuse its discretion in denying Folks’s motion for a new trial
  • There was no prosecutorial misconduct warranting a new trial
  • There is no cumulative error
   

  Document	Date
  Certiorari Denied, reported at 142 S. Ct. 2659 (United States Waived Response to the Petition for a Writ of Certiorari)	04/25/22
  Court of Appeals Summary Order, available at 2021 WL 5987009	12/17/21
  Brief as Appellee	06/25/21

• United States v. Huntley (11th Cir.) - Appellee
  • The evidence was sufficient to sustain Huntley’s conviction for violating 18 U.S.C. 242
   

  Document	Date
  Court of Appeals Decision, available at 2021 WL 4944818	10/25/21
  Brief as Appellee	06/11/21

• United States v. Bryant (6th Cir.) - Appellee
  • There was ample evidence to support the jury’s finding that Bryant acted willfully when he tased a fully restrained pretrial detainee who posed no threat
   

  Document	Date
  Court of Appeals Decision, available at 2022 WL 1055914	04/08/22
  Brief as Appellee	05/05/21

• United States v. Daniel Davis (5th Cir.) - Appellee
  • The district court did not abuse its discretion in denying Davis’s motion to sever
  • The district court did not abuse its discretion in admitting polygraph evidence regarding two non-defendant witnesses to the assault
  • The district court properly admitted evidence of Seymore’s eyewitness account of the second assault through the testimony of two other correctional officers
  • The district court did not abuse its discretion in denying Davis’s motion to admit evidence that Savoie previously threw feces from his cell
  • The district court properly applied a two-level enhancement to Davis’s base offense level under Guideline 3a1.3 for restraint of victim
   

  Document	Date
  Certiorari Denied, reported at 142 S. Ct. 2767 (United States Waived Response to the Petition for a Writ of Certiorari)	05/31/22
  Court of Appeals Decision, available at 2022 WL 226000	01/24/22
  Brief as Appellee	03/29/21

• Marlowe v. Warden, FCI Hazelton (4th Cir.) - Appellee
  • The district court lacked jurisdiction over Marlowe’s petition under In re Jones, 226 F.3d 328 (4th Cir. 2000), because no Sixth Circuit or Supreme Court case law conclusively established the legality of Marlowe’s conviction, and thus Burrage effected no change in the applicable substantive law
   

  Document	Date
  Court of Appeals Decision, reported at 6 F.4th 562	07/27/21
  Rule 28(j) Letter	02/10/21

• United States v. Legins (4th Cir.) - Appellee
  • Sufficient evidence supported Legins’s conviction under 18 U.S.C. 1001
  • The district court properly applied an eight-year statutory maximum sentence to Legins’s Section 1001 conviction
  • Legins’s 54-month sentence was procedurally and substantively reasonable
   

  Document	Date
  Certiorari Denied, reported 143 S. Ct. 266 (United States Waived Response to the Petition for a Writ of Certiorari)	10/03/22
  Court of Appeals Decision, reported at 34 F.4th 304	05/11/22
  Brief as Appellee	01/26/21

• United States v. Washington (6th Cir.) - Appellee
  • The district court acted within its discretion in denying Washington an extension of time to file his first notice of appeal
  • This court should dismiss the appeal because the notice of appeal was untimely
  • The district court did not abuse its discretion in denying Washington’s motion to modify his conditions of supervised release to override Tennessee law
   

  Document	Date
  Court of Appeals Order	09/08/22
  Brief as Appellee	02/22/22
  Dismissed, available at 2021 WL 8202454	12/14/21
  Court of Appeals Order	06/10/21
  Brief as Appellee	12/22/20

• United States v. Hewitt (8th Cir.) - Appellee
  • The evidence was sufficient to convict Hewitt of conspiracy against civil rights and deprivation of civil rights
  • The district court did not abuse its discretion when it sentenced Hewitt to a below-guidelines sentence of 45 months
   

  Document	Date
  Court of Appeals Decision, reported at 999 F.3d 1141	06/08/21
  Brief as Appellee	12/09/20

• United States v. Davis (9th Cir.) - Appellee
  • The district court did not abuse its discretion in admitting testimony by Shantel Kaye under Rules 403 and 413
  • The jury had sufficient evidence to convict Davis of altering, destroying, or concealing evidence under Section 1519
  • The district court correctly determined Davis’s base offense level under the sentencing guidelines
   

  Document	Date
  Court of Appeals Decision, available at 855 F. App’x 362	05/13/21
  Brief as Appellee	11/25/20

• United States v. Roof (4th Cir.) - Appellee
  • The district court did not clearly err in finding Roof competent to stand trial
  • Roof’s convictions under 18 U.S.C. 247 are valid
  • Roof’s convictions under 18 U.S.C. 249 are valid
  • Roof’s convictions under 18 U.S.C. 924 are valid
  • The death penalty is not plainly cruel and unusual punishment based on Roof’s age or mental capacity
  • The Attorney General properly certified Roof’s prosecution
   

  Document	Date
  Court of Appeals Order	09/24/21
  Opposition to Petition for Panel Rehearing	09/23/21
  Court of Appeals Decision, reported at 10 F.4th 314	08/25/21
  Brief as Appellee	11/16/20

• United States v. Eakes (6th Cir.) - Appellee
  • The district court did not commit plain error by limiting Eakes’s cross-examination of Morgan based on considerations of relevance, prejudice, and jury confusion
   

  Document	Date
  Court of Appeals Decision, available at 843 F. App’x 719	02/04/21
  Brief as Appellee	09/16/20

• United States v. Marq Perez (5th Cir.) - Appellee
  • The district court did not commit plain error by allowing Perez to be tried and convicted under both 18 U.S.C. 247 and 18 U.S.C. 844(h) for destroying the mosque through the use of fire
  • The district court did not err in punishing Perez under both Section 247 and Section 844(h)
  • The district court did not plainly err in applying the § 2k1.4 arson guideline
  • The district court’s application of the § 2k1.4 arson guideline and the Section 844(h)(1) ten-year mandatory consecutive sentence did not plainly constitute impermissible double counting
   

  Document	Date
  Court of Appeals Decision, available at 839 F. App’x 870	12/30/20
  Brief as Appellee	06/16/20

• Hill v. United States (S. Ct.) - Respondent
  • Petitioner did not raise a facial challenge in the court of appeals, and the court accordingly did not address it
  • This case does not present an appropriate opportunity for evaluating the statute’s (18 U.S.C. 249(a)(2)(B)(iv)(I)) application to the other factual scenarios raised in petitioner’s brief
  • The court of appeals correctly rejected petitioner’s as-applied challenge under Supreme Court precedents
   

  Document	Date
  Certiorari Denied, reported at 141 S. Ct. 272	10/05/20
  Brief in Opposition	05/26/20

• United States v. Stein et al. (10th Cir.) - Appellee
  • Defendants are not entitled to judicial relief under the Jury Selection and Service Act of 1968 based on the method of petit juror selection used for their trial
  • The district court properly declined to instruct the jury on entrapment
  • The district court correctly applied the terrorism enhancement
  • There was no prosecutorial misconduct (Wright only)
  • The manner in which the district court ruled on the admissibility of defendants’ recorded statements under Rule 801(d)(2)(e) was not an abuse of discretion (Wright only)
  • The district court correctly denied Wright’s motion for a judgment of acquittal on his false-statements charge (Wright only)
  • There is no cumulative error (Wright only)
   

  Document	Date
  Court of Appeals Decision, reported at 985 F.3d 1254	01/25/21
  Consolidated Brief as Appellee	05/08/20

• United States v. Miller (7th Cir.) - Appellee
  • The district court did not abuse its discretion in concluding that the government did not violate Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963), by turning over evidence to defendant after trial that resulted from an unrelated investigation of Miller’s activities and was neither material nor favorable the defense
   

  Document	Date
  Certiorari Denied, reported at 141 S. Ct. 1452 (United States Waived Response to the Petition for a Writ of Certiorari)	02/22/21
  Court of Appeals Order, available at 822 F. App'x 484	08/06/20
  Brief and Supplemental Appendix as Appellee	05/01/20
  Brief and Supplemental Appendix as Appellee	05/01/20

• Antico v. United States (S. Ct.) - Respondent
  • Petitioner contends that the district court’s Allen charge referring to the expense of trial and the cost of retrial was erroneous, and that the circuits are in conflict as to whether such instructions are unduly coercive. Petitioner waived that argument by affirmatively requesting the instruction
  • The court of appeals’ decision is correct and does not conflict with any decision of this Court or another court of appeals
   

  Document	Date
  Certiorari Denied, reported at 140 S. Ct. 2826	06/01/20
  Brief in Opposition	04/24/20

• United States v. Edwards (4th Cir.) - Appellant
  • The district court erred in failing to include liquidated damages in the restitution award
   

  Document	Date
  Court of Appeals Decision, reported at 995 F.3d 342	04/21/21
  Reply Brief	05/07/20
  Brief as Appellant	03/03/20

• United States v. Graham (7th Cir.) - Appellee
  • The introduction of Moore’s statements did not violate Graham’s Sixth Amendment right to confrontation
  • The district court did not abuse its discretion by denying Graham’s motion for a mistrial
   

  Document	Date
  Certiorari Denied, reported at 143 S. Ct. 1770 (United States Waived Response to the Petition for a Writ of Certiorari)	04/17/23
  Court of Appeals Decision, reported at 47 F.4th 561	08/29/22
  Brief as Appellee	02/27/20

• United States v. George (4th Cir.) - Appellant/Cross-Appellee
  • The district court abused its discretion by varying downward to a sentence of probation only based on findings of fact that the jury rejected
   

  Document	Date
  Court of Appeals Decision, available at 2021 WL 5505404	11/24/21
  Reply Brief	07/23/20
  Brief as Appellant/Cross-Appellee	02/04/20

• United States v. Toure and Cros-Toure (5th Cir.) - Appellee
  • The district court did not plainly err by not considering sua sponte the constitutionality of 18 U.S.C. 1589 where no court has ever held that the statute’s definition of “serious harm” is unconstitutionally vague or overbroad
  • The evidence was sufficient to convict Mohamed Toure of forced labor under 18 U.S.C. 1589
  • The district court correctly instructed the jury on conspiracy to harbor an alien for financial gain and harboring an alien
  • The district court did not abuse its discretion in ordering defendants to pay $288,620.24 in restitution
   

  Document	Date
  Court of Appeals Decision, reported at 965 F.3d 393	07/10/20
  Brief as Appellee	01/21/20

• United States v. Keith (5th Cir.) - Appellee
  • Keith’s appeal must be dismissed because she expressly waived her right to challenge on appeal the constitutionality of Section 242, and that waiver is valid and enforceable
  • Class v. United States does not control this case
   

  Document	Date
  Certiorari Denied, reported at 141 S. Ct. 307 (United States Waived Response to the Petition for a Writ of Certiorari)	10/05/20
  Court of Appeals Order	01/10/20
  Motion to Dismiss	12/19/19

• United States v. Stein (10th Cir.) - Appellee
  • The affidavit accompanying the search warrant established probable cause to search electronic devices found in Stein’s home for digital evidence of his plot to blow up a predominantly Muslim apartment complex
  • Stein has waived his specific arguments concerning the particularity of the warrant’s authorized computer search and they are meritless in any event
  • The good-faith exception to the exclusionary rule provides an independent reason to deny Stein’s motion to suppress
   

  Document	Date
  Court of Appeals Order, available at 819 F. App'x 666	07/28/20
  Brief as Appellee	12/12/19

• Martinez v. United States (S. Ct.) - Respondent
  • This Court’s decision in Davis does not affect the validity of petitioner’s conviction under Section 924(c)
  • Petitioner cannot make “a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right,” 28 U.S.C. 2253(c)(2), as he must to obtain a certificate of appealability on collateral review
   

  Document	Date
  Certiorari Denied, reported at 140 S. Ct. 894	01/13/20
  Memorandum in Opposition to Petition for Writ of Certiorari	12/06/19

• United States v. Roeder (1st Cir.) - Appellee
  • The district court’s decision to bar expert testimony on an ultimate issue at trial does not raise a substantial issue
  • Roeder’s sufficiency arguments do not present substantial issues likely to result in reversal or a new trial
  • Any error in the district court’s Batson inquiry was harmless and therefore cannot constitute a substantial issue likely to result in reversal or a new trial
   

  Document	Date
  Dismissed, available at 2020 WL 5742883	08/31/20
  Opposition to Motion for Release Pending Appeal	10/24/19

• United States v. Douglas (5th Cir.) - Appellee
  • The district court correctly calculated Douglas’s guidelines sentence
  • The district court’s within-guidelines sentence is substantively reasonable
   

  Document	Date
  Court of Appeals Decision, reported at 957 F.3d 602	04/30/20
  Brief as Appellee	10/01/19

• United States v. Wei Lin (9th Cir.) - Appellee
  • In calculating Lin’s base offense level, the district court correctly applied the cross reference at Sentencing Guidelines § 2G1.1(c)(1)
  • The district court properly denied Lin’s motion to withdraw his guilty plea
   

  Document	Date
  Court of Appeals Decision, available at 830 F. App'x 523	10/22/20
  Brief as Appellee	09/03/19

• United States v. Cates (7th Cir.) - Appellee
  • The district court correctly held that the Double Jeopardy Clause does not preclude the government from arguing that Cates committed aggravated sexual abuse under Section 2241(a)(1) by using physical force
  • The district court correctly held that the Double Jeopardy Clause does not preclude the government from arguing that Cates committed aggravated sexual abuse under Section 2241(a)(2) by placing Lemons in fear of death or serious bodily injury
   

  Document	Date
  Court of Appeals Decision, reported at 973 F.3d 742	09/01/20
  Brief as Appellee	07/31/19

• United States v. Ryle (10th Cir.) - Appellee
  • The Supreme Court’s Davis decision announced a new substantive rule that retroactively applies to Ryle’s collateral challenge to his sentence under Section 924(C)(1)(A)
  • The district court’s order and judgment should be vacated and the case remanded to that court with directions to grant Ryle’s requested relief in accordance with Davis
   

  Document	Date
  Court of Appeals Order, available at 778 F. App'x 598	07/24/19
  Motion to Vacate District Court Order and Judgment and Remand	07/19/19

• Luviano v. United States (S. Ct.) - Respondent
  • The court of appeals correctly determined that Section 1519 does not require proof of the sort that petitioner posits, and its decision does not conflict with any decision of this Court or another court of appeals
  • Further review is not warranted
   

  Document	Date
  Certiorari Denied, reported at 140 S. Ct. 159	10/07/19
  Brief in Opposition	05/31/19

• United States v. Cooper (11th Cir., S. Ct.) - Appellee, Respondent
  • Overwhelming evidence supports Cooper’s convictions
  • The district court properly applied the Federal Rules of Evidence regarding hearsay and protected Cooper’s rights under the Confrontation Clause
  • The invited error and “curative admissibility” doctrines bar Cooper’s opinion testimony challenge
  • The district court properly instructed the jury
   

  Document	Date
  Certiorari Denied, reported at 140 S. Ct. 613 (United States Waived Response to the Petition for a Writ of Certiorari)	12/09/19
  Court of Appeals Decision, reported at 926 F.3d 718	06/10/19
  Brief as Appellee	05/11/18

• United States v. Murunga (3d Cir.) - Appellee
  • Murunga has waived her right to appeal her conviction, including her right to appeal the district court’s denial of her motion to withdraw the guilty plea
  • Murunga’s mere assertion, without any evidence, that she was factually innocent and coerced into pleading guilty is insufficient for withdrawal of her guilty plea
   

  Document	Date
  Court of Appeals Order	08/09/19
  Motion for Summary Action and Dismissal	04/30/19

• United States v. Damon Jackson, et al . (4th Cir.) - Appellee
  • The district court did not commit plain error by refusing to enter a judgment of acquittal as to Corey Miller
  • The absence of a multiple conspiracies instruction was not plain error because neither the facts nor binding precedent supports such an instruction
  • The district court did not plainly err by not giving a specific unanimity instruction on the conspiracy charge or the sex trafficking charge
  • The district court did not plainly err by admitting evidence regarding a victim’s age because none of the statements was inadmissible hearsay
  • Cumulative error doctrine does not apply because appellants did not preserve any of the purported errors and cannot establish any plain error
   

  Document	Date
  Court of Appeals Decision, available at 813 F. App'x 846	05/14/20
  Brief as Appellee	03/29/19

• United States v. Dukes (6th Cir.) - Appellee
  • The district court did not abuse its discretion by admitting the government’s expert testimony
  • The evidence was sufficient to support Dukes’ conviction under 18 U.S.C. 242
   

  Document	Date
  Court of Appeals Decision, available at 779 F. App'x 332	06/28/19
  Brief as Appellee	03/11/19

• United States v. Wood (3d Cir.) - Appellee
  • Sufficient evidence supports the jury’s finding that the conspiracy and substantive harboring offenses took place within the ten-year statute of limitations
  • There was no constructive amendment of the indictment, prejudicial variance, or duplicitous charge
  • None of the objects of the conspiracy were legally invalid as time-barred, and even if they were, that would not warrant vacatur of defendants’ conspiracy convictions under Supreme Court precedent
  • The district court did not plainly err in submitting the encouraging-and-inducing object to the jury where defendants did not argue below that 8 U.S.C. 1324(a)(1)(a)(iv) was facially overbroad and no precedent had reached that conclusion at the time of the verdict
  • Wood’s sufficiency challenge is insubstantial because record evidence supports the jury’s rejection of his limitations defense
  • Wood’s challenge to his conspiracy conviction would not affect the jury verdict or substantially reduce his prison sentence, and does not raise a substantial question
   

  Document	Date
  Certiorari Denied, reported at 141 S. Ct. 906  (United States Waived Response to the Petition for a Writ of Certiorari)	12/07/20
  Court of Appeals Decision, available at 801 F. App'x 833	02/06/20
  Brief as Appellee	08/14/19
  Court of Appeals Order	12/27/18
  Opposition to Motion for Bail	12/19/18

• United States v. Porter (10th Cir.) - Appellee/Cross-Appellant
  • The evidence was sufficient for the jury to convict defendant under 42 U.S.C. 3631
  • There was no constructive amendment of the indictment
  • The district court erred in calculating porter’s sentencing guidelines range for his conviction (cross-appeal)
  • The district court’s finding that Porter did not intend to cause bodily injury to Waldvogel was clearly erroneous and unsupported by the evidence
  • The district court’s procedural error of failing to apply a base offense level of 10 was not harmless
   

  Document	Date
  Court of Appeals Decision, reported at 928 F.3d 947	06/28/19
  Reply Brief	02/15/19
  Brief as Appellee/Cross-Appellant	11/26/18

• United States v. Hickman and Howell (6th Cir.) - Appellee
  • The district court properly applied multiple enhancements to Hickman’s base offense level
  • The district court’s denial of the United States’ motion for a downward departure under Sentencing Guidelines § 5k1.1 in Hickman’s case is not reviewable
  • The district court did not abuse its discretion in its jury instruction on consciousness of guilt in Howell’s trial
  • The district court’s jury instruction on deliberate indifference in Howell’s trial was not plain error
   

  Document	Date
  Court of Appeals Decision, reported at 766 F. App'x 240	03/14/19
  Brief as Appellee	11/14/18

• United States v. Antico (11th Cir.) - Appellee/Cross-Appellant
  • The evidence was sufficient to sustain Antico’s conviction for violating 18 U.S.C. 1512(B)(3)
  • The district court did not plainly err in giving an Allen charge to the jury
  • The district court did not abuse its discretion in denying Antico’s post-verdict requests to investigate alleged juror misconduct
  • No “cumulative error” requires reversal of Antico’s conviction
  • The district court erred in declining to use aggravated assault as the underlying offense to calculate Antico’s Sentencing Guidelines range for his obstruction of justice conviction (cross-appeal)
   

  Document	Date
  Court of Appeals Decision, reported at 934 F.3d 1278	08/14/19
  Reply Brief	11/16/18
  Brief as Appellee/Cross-Appellant	09/24/18

• United States v. Brown (11th Cir.) - Appellee/Cross-Appellant
  • The evidence was sufficient to sustain Brown’s conviction for violating 18 U.S.C. 242
  • The district court did not abuse its discretion in denying Brown’s motion for a new trial on his Section 242 conviction based on the weight of the evidence
  • The district court erred in declining to use aggravated assault as the underlying offense to calculate Brown’s Sentencing Guidelines range for his Section 242 conviction (cross-appeal)
   

  Document	Date
  Court of Appeals Decision, reported at 934 F.3d 1278	08/14/19
  Reply Brief	11/16/18
  Brief as Appellee/Cross-Appellant	09/20/18

• Metcalf v. United States (S. Ct.) - Respondent
  • The court of appeals' decision does not conflict with any decision of this Court or another court of appeals
  • Further review is not warranted
   

  Document	Date
  Certiorari Denied, reported at 139 S.Ct. 412	10/29/18
  Brief in Opposition	09/14/18

• United States v. Royal (4th Cir.) - Appellee
  • Royal’s within-Guidelines sentence is substantively reasonable
   

  Document	Date
  Court of Appeals Decision, available at 741 F. App'x 165	11/06/18
  Brief as Appellee	07/31/18

• United States v. Slager (4th Cir.) - Appellee
  • The district court correctly found that the underlying offense was second-degree murder
  • The district judge’s discussion of the autopsy report with his wife did not constitute reversible error
  • The district court did not plainly err in applying a two-level enhancement for obstruction of justice
  • The district court did not abuse its discretion in refusing to credit Megan Fletcher’s state court testimony and report
  • The district correctly held that the federal prosecution was not barred by the Constitution’s prohibition on Double Jeopardy
   

  Document	Date
  Certiorari Denied, reported at 139 S.Ct. 2679 (United States Waived Response to the Petition for a Writ of Certiorari)	06/03/19
  Court of Appeals Decision, reported at 912 F.3d 224	01/08/19
  Brief as Appellee	07/05/18

• United States v. Doggart (6th Cir.) - Appellee
  • The district court did not abuse its discretion in granting an upward departure under Application Note 4 of the Terrorism Enhancement guideline, Sentencing Guidelines § 3A1.4
  • The district court did not abuse its discretion in rejecting the Rule 11(c)(1)(a) plea agreement
  • There is no basis for reassignment to another judge
  • Doggart was properly convicted of two counts of soliciting crimes of violence in violation of 18 U.S.C. 373
  • There was sufficient evidence for a jury to find that the Islamberg Mosque was used in interstate commerce
  • The district court properly applied the terrorism enhancement at sentencing
  • Doggart’s sentence is procedurally and substantively reasonable
   

  Document	Date
  Court of Appeals Decision, available at 2021 WL 5111912	11/03/21
  Brief as Appellee	06/02/21
  Court of Appeals Decision, reported at 947 F.3d 879	01/15/20
  Supplemental Brief	09/20/19
  Court of Appeals Decision, reported at 906 F.3d 506	10/18/18
  Brief as Appellee	05/24/18

• United States v. Asher (6th Cir.) - Appellee
  • The district court neither erred nor abused its discretion in admitting evidence of Asher’s prior use of force and false incident report under Federal Rule of Evidence 404(b)
  • The district court did not plainly err by failing to grant a two-level downward adjustment in Asher’s offense level
   

  Document	Date
  Court of Appeals Decision, reported at 910 F.3d 854	12/12/2018
  Brief as Appellee	05/14/18

• United States v. Givhan (6th Cir.) - Appellee
  • The district court did not abuse its discretion by relying on Rule 412 to limit cross-examination about the nature of the charges that Christine and Shakela faced when they were arrested, and the court’s ruling did not violate Givhan’s Sixth Amendment right to confront the witnesses about their motive
  • The district court’s Rule 412 rulings did not violate Givhan’s right to present a complete defense
  • Givhan cannot establish cumulative error
  • The district court did not plainly err in rejecting Givhan’s argument for a lower sentence based on an article about alleged racial disparities in sex trafficking prosecutions
   

  Document	Date
  Court of Appeals Decision, available at 740 F. App'x 458	06/29/18
  Brief as Appellee	12/22/17

• United States v. Whittington (9th Cir.) - Appellee
  • Whittington was convicted of a crime of violence under Section 3631 in violation of Section 924(c)
  • The district court properly sentenced Whittington
   

  Document	Date
  Court of Appeals Decision, available at 721 F. App’x 713	05/01/18
  Brief as Appellee	10/16/17

• United States v. Groce (7th Cir.) - Appellee
  • The district court did not violate the defendant’s Sixth Amendment right to cross-examination by barring him from questioning the victims about their purported, prior prostitution
  • The district court’s limitations on defendant’s cross- examination of Ms. Stuhr, after she testified that she had not previously engaged in prostitution, did not violate his Sixth Amendment rights
  • Defendant waived his challenge to the sex trafficking jury instruction; even if considered, an error in the element of “reckless disregard” in 18 U.S.C. 1591(a)(1) did not affect defendant’s substantial rights and therefore would not warrant reversal
  • The district court did not plainly err in admitting Ms. Copeland’s testimony concerning the charged conspiracy
  • This court should vacate defendant’s conviction on Count 9, retaliation in violation of 18 U.S.C. 1513(b)(2), because the jury instruction failed to identify an element of the offense
  • Defendant cannot establish cumulative error
   

  Document	Date
  Court of Appeals Decision, reported at 891 F.3d 260	05/23/18
  Brief as Appellee	10/12/17

• United States v. Bergeron (5th Cir.) - Appellee
  • The district court sufficiently considered the Section 5k1.1 factors
  • The district court provided Bergeron with an individualized sentence
  • The district court’s below-guidelines sentence is substantively reasonable
   

  Document	Date
  Court of Appeals Decision, available at 707 F. App’x 288	12/21/17
  Brief as Appellee	08/25/17

• United States v. Hines (5th Cir.) - Appellee
  • The district court’s within-Guidelines sentence is substantively reasonable and does not create any unwarranted sentencing disparities
   

  Document	Date
  Court of Appeals Decision, available at 707 F. App’x 803	12/28/17
  Brief as Appellee	08/21/17

• United States v. Cowden (4th Cir.) - Appellee
  • The evidence was sufficient to sustain Cowden’s conviction for violating 18 U.S.C. 242
  • The district court acted within its discretion in admitting evidence of Cowden’s prior uses of force under Federal Rule of Evidence 404(b)
  • The district court correctly instructed the jury on the elements of 18 U.S.C. 242
  • The district court acted within its discretion in ordering restitution for the full amount of Hamrick’s medical expenses
   

  Document	Date
  Court of Appeals Decision, reported at 882 F.3d 464	02/16/18
  Brief as Appellee	06/05/17

• Gerard Smith v. United States (S. Ct.) - Respondent
  • The United States waived its response
  • Petitioner argued that the trial court gave an improper good faith instruction that allowed the jury to convict the defendants of obstruction even if it determined that they acted exclusively in good faith
   

  Document	Date
  Certiorari Denied, reported at 137 S. Ct. 2193 (United States Waived Response to the Petition for a Writ of Certiorari)	05/30/17

• United States v. Broussard (5th Cir.) - Appellee
  • Class did not apply because Broussard makes a statutory rather than a constitutional challenge and that the waiver rule applied where, as here, the alleged defect could have been cured before the guilty plea
  • Broussard waived his Federal Vacancies Reform Act argument through his guilty plea, and the Act does not preclude this prosecution
  • The district court used the correct Guidelines range to sentence Broussard
  • The district court acted reasonably in the sentencing process and provided sufficient reasoning for its within-Guidelines sentence
  • The district court’s within-Guidelines sentence is substantively reasonable and does not create any unwarranted sentencing disparities
  • Broussard cannot rebut the presumption against bail pending appeal because he cannot demonstrate that there is a substantial question of law or fact in this appeal
   

  Document	Date
  Court of Appeals Order, Petition for Rehearing DENIED	03/29/18
  Supplemental Letter Brief	03/19/18
  REVISED Court of Appeals Decision	02/22/18
  Court of Appeals Decision, reported at 882 F.3d 104	02/05/18
  Brief as Appellee	08/02/17
  Court of Appeals Order	04/21/17
  Opposition to Defendant’s Motion for Bail Pending Appeal and Stay of Surrender Date	04/20/17

• United States v. Hatley (5th Cir.) - Appellee
  • The district court used the correct guidelines range to sentence Hatley
  • The district court’s sentencing decision was procedurally reasonable and provided sufficient reasoning
  • The district court’s within-guidelines sentence is substantively reasonable and does not create any unwarranted sentencing disparities
  • Hatley cannot rebut the presumption against bail pending appeal because he cannot demonstrate that there is a substantial question of law or fact that is likely to result in a reduced sentence to a term of imprisonment that will be shorter than the time period it will take to resolve this appeal
   

  Document	Date
  Court of Appeals Decision, available at 717 F. App’x 457	01/26/18
  Brief as Appellee	07/03/17
  Court of Appeals Order	04/20/17
  Opposition to Defendant’s Motion for Bail Pending Appeal and Stay of Surrender Date	04/20/17

• United States v. Greer (6th Cir.) - Appellee
  • The district court correctly calculated Greer’s base offense level
  • Greer’s sentence is procedurally and substantively reasonable
  • The district court’s refusal to grant Greer’s request for a downward departure from the guidelines range is not reviewable, and is proper in any event
   

  Document	Date
  Court of Appeals Decision, reported at 872 F.3d 790	10/03/17
  Brief as Appellee	02/02/17

• United States v. Metcalf (8th Cir.) - Appellee
  • Section 249(a)(1) is a valid exercise of Congress’s power under Section 2 of the Thirteenth Amendment
  • The evidence was sufficient to sustain defendant’s conviction
  • The district court did not abuse its discretion in refusing to give defendant’s requested instruction on character evidence
   

  Document	Date
  Court of Appeals Decision, reported at 881 F.3d 641	02/02/18
  Brief as Appellee	01/18/17

• Mullet, et al. v. United States (S. Ct.) - Respondent
  • The court of appeals' decision is correct and does not conflict with any decision of another court of appeals
  • Further review is not warranted
   

  Document	Date
  Certiorari Denied, reported at 137 S. Ct. 1065	02/21/17
  Brief in Opposition	12/22/16

• United States v. Corder (6th Cir.) - Appellee
  • Sufficient evidence supported Corder’s convictions under 18 U.S.C. 242
  • The district court properly declined to instruct the jury that a doorway to one’s home is a public place
  • The district court properly admitted a redacted order dismissing Baize’s criminal charges
  • The district court properly found that Corder opened the door to his truthfulness as a police officer
  • The district court properly followed Screws in instructing the jury on willfulness under 18 U.S.C. 242
  • The district court properly applied a two-level guidelines enhancement for physical restraint
  • The Bail Reform Act (Act) mandates detention pending appeal in the circumstances presented in this case
  • Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 3143(b)(2), a person found guilty of a crime of violence shall be detained
  • Corder has not established that he is entitled to release pending appeal under either: (1) the required showing that there are “exceptional reasons” why his “detention would not be appropriate”; or (2) the Section 3143(b)(1) factors
   

  Document	Date
  Certiorari Denied, reported at 138 S. Ct. 2632 (United States Waived Response to the Petition for a Writ of Certiorari)	06/11/18
  Court of Appeals Decision, available at 724 F. App'x 394	02/12/18
  Brief as Appellee	05/12/17
  Court of Appeals Order	12/27/16
  Response to Motion for Release Pending Appeal	12/21/16

• Baston v. United States (S. Ct.) - Respondent
  • The court of appeals correctly concluded that Congress’s extraterritorial application of Section 1591, as authorized by Section 1596(a)(2), is a valid exercise of Congress’s authority under the Foreign Commerce Clause
  • The Offences Clause does not restrict Congress’s power to create extraterritorial crimes under the Foreign Commerce Clause
  • The court of appeals’ decision does not conflict with any decision of any other court of appeals
   

  Document	Date
  Certiorari Denied, reported at 137 S. Ct. 850	03/06/17
  Brief in Opposition	11/16/16

• United States v. Umbach and Kines (11th Cir.) - Appellee
  • The evidence was sufficient to convict defendants of violating 18 U.S.C. 1512(b)(3)
  • The jury instructions defining the elements of 18 U.S.C. 1512(b)(3) were proper
  • The district court did not abuse its discretion in any of the evidentiary rulings Kines challenges
  • No “cumulative error” requires reversal of Kines’s conviction
  • This court should remand for the district court to resentence defendants without application of a two-level abuse-of-trust enhancement
  • Defendants fail to raise a “substantial question of law or fact” likely to result in a reversal or reduced sentence, and thus have not satisfied the standard required for an appeal bond under 18 U.S.C. 3143(b)(1)(B)
  • This Court should dismiss this appeal as improperly taken under Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 9(b)
  • Under Rule 9(b), when a defendant has “already filed a notice of appeal from the judgment of conviction,” the proper procedure for seeking review of a district court’s denial of an appeal bond motion is to file a motion for bond pending appeal in the pending appeal of the underlying conviction, rather than initiating an entirely separate appeal
   

  Document	Date
  Court of Appeals Decision, available at 708 F. App’x 533	08/30/17
  Brief as Appellee	02/27/17
  Court of Appeals Order	10/21/16
  Opposition to Motions for Bond Pending Appeal	08/26/16
  Response to Motion for Bond	08/10/16

• United States v. Hill (4th Cir.) - Appellant
  • The panel correctly applied the framework set forth in the Supreme Court’s decisions under the Hobbs Act and Federal Arson statute
  • The panel decision is consistent with Lopez and Morrison
  • The panel decision recognizes that Commerce Clause Authority is limited
  • Hill’s argument that Section 249(a)(2) criminalizes violent conduct ignores the Commerce element at issue here, which ensures that the statute criminalizes only violent conduct that directly interferes with ongoing commerce
  • Hill’s challenge to the jury instructions is not properly before this court and lacks merit because the district court’s instructions tracked the statute, while Hill’s proposal incorrectly stated the law
  • Hill’s arguments regarding the jury instructions are not properly before this court because he failed to cross-appeal the judgment
  • Section 249(a)(2) is constitutional as applied because C.T. was actively engaged in commercial activity affecting interstate commerce when Hill assaulted him and the assault interfered with that activity
  • Section 249(a)(2) is constitutional as applied because the Commerce Clause empowers Congress to prohibit workplace discrimination and violence at employers that affect commerce
   

  Document	Date
  Court of Appeals Decision,reported at 927 F.3d 188	06/13/19
  Opposition to Petition for Rehearing En Banc	08/23/19
  Reply Brief	02/04/19
  Brief as Appellant	11/30/18
  Court of Appeals Order	09/07/17
  Petition for Panel Rehearing	09/01/17
  Court of Appeals Decision, available at 700 F. App'x 235	08/18/17
  Reply Brief	09/30/16
  Brief as Appellant	07/28/16

• Rodella v. United States (S. Ct.) - Respondent
  • The court of appeals' decision neither conflicts with any decision of this Court nor implicates any circuit conflict warranting this Court’s review
  • No further review is warranted
   

  Document	Date
  Certiorari Denied, reported at 137 S. Ct. 37	10/03/16
  Brief in Opposition	07/15/16

• United States v. Cortes-Meza (11th Cir.) - Appellee
  • The district court did not abuse its discretion in admitting four victims’ diary entries and related testimony as relevant evidence of Cortes-Meza’s use of force, fraud, and coercion to prostitute the victims
  • The district court did not abuse its discretion in denying Cortes-Meza’s motions for a new trial
  • The district court’s imposition of a 480-month sentence on the five sex trafficking counts was substantively reasonable
   

  Document	Date
  Court of Appeals Decision, available at 685 F. App'x 731	04/13/17
  Brief as Appellee	06/24/16

• Cazares v. United States (S. Ct.) - Respondent
  • No further review is warranted
  • The court of appeals correctly concluded that the defendants waived their right to a public trial for the portions of the voir dire proceedings conducted outside the presence of the public
  • The court of appeals correctly concluded that the government’s firearms expert’s conclusion matching bullets to a “scientific certainty” was harmless error
   

  Document	Date
  Certiorari Denied, reported at 136 S. Ct. 2484	06/20/16
  Brief in Opposition	05/18/16

• United States v. Rushin, et al. (11th Cir.) - Appellee
  • The district judge did not abuse his discretion in declining to recuse himself from this case shortly before trial due to his participation as a lawyer in a civil-rights lawsuit ten years earlier
  • The district court’s minor limitation on appellants’ cross-examination of cooperating witnesses did not violate Hall’s or Rushin’s Sixth-Amendment rights
  • The district court did not abuse its discretion in excluding as irrelevant and unduly prejudicial evidence of prior acts of inmate violence
  • Appellants’ constitutional challenge to their sentences is foreclosed by circuit precedent and, in any event, is meritless
   

  Document	Date
  Court of Appeals Decision, reported at 844 F.3d 933	12/21/16
  Court of Appeals Decision (in re Ronald Lach)	06/22/16
  Brief as Appellee	12/10/15

• United States v. Barnes and Brown (10th Cir.) - Appellee/Cross-Appellant
  • The sentences the district court imposed on both defendants were substantively unreasonable
  • Defendants’ convictions were proper
  • The sentences imposed by the district-court judge were inadequate
   

  Document	Date
  Court of Appeals Decision, reported at 890 F.3d 910	05/16/18
  Reply Brief	08/18/17
  Brief as Appellant	05/10/17
  Certiorari Denied, reported at 137 S. Ct. 237 (United States Waived Response to the Petition for a Writ of Certiorari) (S. Ct.)	10/03/16
  Court of Appeals Decision	06/27/16
  Reply Brief	02/01/16
  Brief as Appellee/Cross-Appellant	11/18/15

• United States v. Colin Boone (8th Cir.) - Appellee
  • The district court did not abuse its discretion in admitting evidence of defendant’s prior use of excessive force and his failure to report such conduct
  • The district court properly admitted video evidence, Exhibits 224 and 225
  • Any errors in the district court’s evidentiary rulings were harmless
   

  Document	Date
  Certiorari Denied, reported at 137 S. Ct. 676 (United States Waived Response to the Petition for a Writ of Certiorari) (S. Ct.)	01/09/17
  Court of Appeals Decision, reported at 828 F.3d 705	07/08/16
  Brief as Appellee	11/05/15

• United States v. Roy (4th Cir.) - Appellee
  • 18 U.S.C. 1594(c) is not constitutionally vague
  • Roy's conviction under Section 1594(c) is supported by sufficient evidence
  • The district court did not err in excluding evidence under Federal Rule of Evidence 412
  • Roy's sentence is procedurally and substantively reasonable
   

  Document	Date
  Court of Appeals Decision, available at 630 F. App'x 169	11/05/15
  Brief as Appellee	07/31/15

• Diaz-Colon v. United States (S. Ct.) - Respondent
  • Petitioner could not establish reversible plain error because the indictment adequately alleged the sentence-enhancing facts, bodily injury and death clearly resulted from the charged acts, and the evidence of the omitted facts was overwhelming and essentially uncontroverted
  • This case was not a good vehicle to address any variation in the courts' approaches to the substantial-rights prong of the plain error analysis because petitioner failed to satisfy any of the other plain-error requirements
  • Petitioner's remaining arguments are fact-bound and do not implicate any division of authority or misapplication of law and, in any event, are without merit.
   

  Document	Date
  Certiorari Denied, reported at 136 S. Ct. 30	10/05/15
  Brief in Opposition	06/23/15

• United States v. Spaulding, et al. (2d Cir.) - Appellee
  • The evidence was more than sufficient to support the verdicts against Spaulding on all counts
  • There was more than sufficient evidence for the jury to find Cari guilty of the false arrest of Father Manship as well as conspiracy and obstruction of justice
  • The district court properly excluded privileged information
  • The court’s jury instructions referencing the First Amendment were eminently proper and they neither amended the indictment to al-low conviction for violation of the First Amendment nor allowed the jury to employ a heightened or subjective standard of probable cause
  • The prosecutors’ summations were proper and there was no misconduct of any kind
  • Spaulding’s 60-month sentence was procedurally and substantively reasonable and should be affirmed
   

  Document	Date
  Court of Appeals Decision, available at 631 F. App'x 5	11/23/15
  Brief as Appellee	05/19/15

• United States v. Kalbflesh (4th Cir.) - Appellee
  • The pre-indictment delay did not violate due process because Kalbflesh cannot prove actual prejudice from the delay and, regardless, the delay was justified by the government's careful, good-faith investigation
  • The use of an unavailable co-conspirator's statements did not implicate the Confrontation Clause because the statements were neither testimonial nor hearsay
   

  Document	Date
  Court of Appeals Decision, available at 621 F. App’x 157	08/13/15
  Brief as Appellee	05/04/15

• United States v. Michael Smith (11th Cir.) - Appellee
  • The district court did not err in denying the defendant's motion to suppress his statements or abuse its discretion in denying the defendant's motion for a Kastigar hearing
  • The district court correctly applied the Sentencing Guidelines
   

  Document	Date
  Certiorari Denied, reported at 137 S. Ct. 690 (United States Waived Response to the Petition for a Writ of Certiorari) (S. Ct.)	01/09/17
  Court of Appeals Decision, reported at 821 F.3d 1293	04/29/16
  Brief as Appellee	02/26/15

• United States v. Michael Connelly, Sr. (9th Cir.) - Appellee
  • The district court did not abuse its discretion in denying defendant the opportunity to cross-examine the victim regarding her convictions that were more than ten years old, particularly when the defendant could address more recent convictions
  • There is sufficient evidence to support the false statement conviction
  • The jury instructions on willfulness for Section 1001, while erroneous, were harmless
   

  Document	Date
  Court of Appeals Decision, available at 613 F. App’x 604	06/01/15
  Brief as Appellee	12/04/14

• Vidal-Maldonado v. United States (S. Ct.) - Respondent
  • Petitioner's "willfulness" and "fair warning" objections are predicated upon an erroneous characterization of the facts and, in any event, are meritless
  • This case is a poor vehicle for addressing the issue because, among other reasons, the court of appeals addressed it on plain error review, and that applying the one book rule here did not violate the Ex Post Facto Clause
   

  Document	Date
  Certiorari Denied, reported at 134 S. Ct. 2839	06/23/14
  Opposition to Certiorari	05/21/14

• United States v. Eaton (6th Cir.) - Appellee
  • None of Eaton's issues - the sufficiency of the evidence, the court's failure to give a unanimity instruction as to one of the two witness tampering counts, the court's failure to instruct the jury on the affirmative defense in Section 1512(e), the prosecution's remarks on rebuttal, and the cumulative effect of any trial errors - has merit
   

  Document	Date
  Court of Appeals Decision, reported at 784 F.3d 298	04/20/15
  Brief as Appellee	03/06/14

• United States v. Miller, et al. (6th Cir.) - Appellee
  • The Court should grant en banc review because the panel's interpretation and application of Section 249(a)(2) are incorrect and exceptionally important
  • Section 249(a)(2) is constitutional on its face and as applied under Congress's Commerce Clause power
  • Defendants' arguments lack merit
   

  Document	Date
  Court of Appeals Decision, reported at 822 F.3d 842	05/04/16
  Brief as Appellee	08/24/15
  Court of Appeals Order	11/20/14
  Petition for Rehearing En Banc	10/10/14
  Court of Appeals Decision, reported at 767 F.3d 585	08/27/14
  Brief as Appellee	02/28/14

• Hatch v. United States (S. Ct.) - Respondent
  • The court of appeals correctly rejected Hatch's arguments
  • There is no basis for the Court to review well-settled law that the Jones analysis applies in the Thirteenth Amendment context
   

  Document	Date
  Certiorari Denied, reported at 134 S. Ct. 1538	03/24/14
  Opposition to Certiorari	02/07/14

• United States v. McIntosh (4th Cir.) - Appellee
  • McIntosh's appeal should be dismissed as he waived the right to appeal in his plea agreement
   

  Document	Date
  Court of Appeals Decision, available at 552 F. App'x 260	01/27/14
  Motion to Dismiss	11/18/13

• Hardy v. United States (S. Ct.) – Respondent
  • Hardy now challenges the Fifth Circuit's unpublished, per curiam decision that his indictment sufficiently alleged the necessary elements supporting a life sentence
  • This case does not warrant Supreme Court review
   

  Document	Date
  Certiorari Denied, reported at 134 S. Ct. 60	10/07/13
  Brief in Opposition	06/18/13

• United States v. Anna Miller (6th Cir.) – Appellee
  • Because the jury, as reflected on the verdict form, expressly found that there were two objects of the conspiracy – violating Section 249 and obstruction of justice – Miller's conviction for conspiracy stands
  • Miller was convicted of a crime of violence and has not established that she satisfies the requirements for release pending appeal
   

  Document	Date
  Order Denying Petition for Rehearing and Motion for Clarification	09/24/14
  Response to Motion for Clarification or Panel Rehearing	09/22/14
  Order Denying Motion for Release Pending Appeal	07/24/13
  Opposition to Motion for Release Pending Appeal	06/03/13

• United States v. Samuel Mullet, Sr. (6th Cir.) – Appellee
  • Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 3622, and its implementing regulations, 28 C.F.R. 570.30 et seq., only the Bureau of Prisons has the authority to grant such furloughs, and in the case the request was denied
  • Because the BOP decision is not reviewable, the motion must be denied
  • Mullet has not established, under 18 U.S.C. 3145(c), that there are "exceptional reasons" why his "detention would not be appropriate" or that he raises substantial issues of law and fact likely to result in reversal, a new trial, or a reduced term of imprisonment
   

  Document	Date
  Order Denying Motion for Emergency Bond/Furlough	11/13/14
  Response to Motion for Emergency Bond/Furlough	11/13/14
  Order Denying Motion for Release Pending Appeal	07/24/13
  Opposition to Motion for Release Pending Appeal	04/30/13

• United States v. Linda Schrock (6th Cir.) – Appellee
  • Schrock has not established, under 18 U.S.C. 3145(c), that there are "exceptional reasons" why her "detention would not be appropriate" or that she raises substantial issues of law and fact likely to result in reversal, a new trial, or a reduced term of imprisonment
   

  Document	Date
  Order Denying Motion for Release from Incarceration	09/24/14
  Opposition to Motion for Release from Incarceration	09/22/14
  Order Denying Motion for Release Pending Appeal	05/09/13
  Opposition to Motion for Release Pending Appeal	04/15/13

• House v. United States (S. Ct.) – Respondent
  • The Eleventh Circuit's application of the harmless error standard in this context does not conflict with Supreme Court precedent or other circuit authority, and that its conclusion that the error was harmless as to the four Section 242 counts that were upheld was correct
   

  Document	Date
  Certiorari Denied, reported at 133 S. Ct. 1633	03/25/13
  Brief in Opposition	02/22/13

• United States v. Cannon, et al. (S. Ct. and 5th Cir.) - Appellee
  • The court of appeals' decision was correct and does not conflict with other courts of appeals' decisions
  • The Supreme Court's decisions in City of Boerne v. Flores, 521 U.S. 507 (1997) (addressing Congress's power to enforce the Fourteenth Amendment), and Shelby County v. Holder, 133 S. Ct. 2612 (2013) (addressing Congress's power to enforce the Fifteenth Amendment), do not affect Congress's power to enforce the Thirteenth Amendment
  • The decision in Shelby County has no bearing on Congress's power under Section 2 of the Thirteenth Amendment; the decision did not address or disturb the Supreme Court's longstanding line of cases addressing Congress's power under Section 2 to address and proscribe badges and incidents of slavery
  • The rationale of Shelby County is inapplicable to the far more limited, and very different, legislation enforcing the Thirteenth Amendment, and that neither the "equal sovereignty" concerns, nor broader federalism concerns, expressed in Shelby County have relevance to legislation enforcing the Thirteenth Amendment that proscribes private, race-based violent conduct
  • Given the scope of Congress's power under Section 2 of the Thirteenth Amendment, and Section 249's legislative history, Congress had ample authority to enact Section 249(a)(1) and prohibit racially-motivated violent conduct as a badge or incident of slavery
  • The evidence was sufficient to sustain the convictions
   

  Document	Date
  Certiorari Denied, reported at 135 S. Ct. 709	12/01/14
  Brief in Opposition to Certiorari	10/29/14
  Court of Appeals Decision, reported at 750 F.3d 492	04/24/14
  Supplemental Brief	08/26/13
  Brief as Appellee	02/15/13

• United States v. Morales (11th Cir.) - Appellee
  • The court should dismiss Morales's appeal because he waived his right to appeal his sentence in his plea agreement or, in the alternative, affirm his sentence as reasonable
   

  Document	Date
  Court of Appeals Decision	06/20/13
  Brief as Appellee	02/11/13

• United States v. Cates (7th Cir.) - Appellee
  • The district court did not abuse its discretion in denying defense counsel's motion for an extension of time to file post-trial motions
   

  Document	Date
  Court of Appeals Decision, reported at 716 F.3d 445	06/13/13
  Brief as Appellee	01/17/13

• United States v. Mitchell (5th Cir.) - Appellee
  • There is sufficient evidence to prove the falsity and materiality of Mitchell's deposition testimony
  • The district court properly concluded that the defendant was not prejudiced by the delayed production of two witnesses' statements and that a trial continuance was not warranted
  • The district court did not abuse its discretion in advising jurors to continue deliberating to try and reach a verdict on all counts
   

  Document	Date
  Court of Appeals Decision, available at 538 F. App'x 369	04/11/13
  Brief as Appellee	11/30/12

• United States v. McQueen and Dawkins (11th Cir.) - Appellee/Cross-Appellant
  • None of the defendants' issues, including sufficiency of the evidence, improper jury instructions, improper bolstering of a government witness, and evidentiary errors, has merit
  • The defendants' sentences are substantively unreasonable because McQueen and Dawkins were not similarly situated with their co-defendant, and therefore there was no requirement to avoid a disparity with his sentence
   

  Document	Date
  Court of Appeals Decision, reported at 727 F.3d 1144	08/22/13
  Reply Brief as Appellee/Cross-Appellant	11/16/12
  Brief as Appellee/Cross-Appellant	09/06/12

• Sease v. United States (S. Ct.) - Respondent
  • This case is a poor vehicle for resolving the Fourth Amendment issue Sease attempts to raise
  • The issue is factbound and unlikely to arise in future cases
   

  Document	Date
  Certiorari Denied, reported at 133 S. Ct. 102	10/01/12
  Brief in Opposition to Petition for Writ of Certiorari	08/03/12

• United States v. Hatch (10th Cir.) – Appellee
  • Given the scope of the Congress's power under Section 2 of the Thirteenth Amendment, and Section 249's legislative history, Congress had ample authority to enact Section 249(a)(1) and prohibit racially-motivated violent conduct as a badge or incident of slavery
   

  Document	Date
  Court of Appeals Decision, reported at 722 F.3d 1193	07/03/13
  Brief as Appellee	07/25/12

• United States v. Dugue (5th Cir.) – Appellee
  • The circumstances giving rise to the mistrial were not such that the prosecutor "goaded" the defendant into seeking a mistrial, and therefore did not satisfy the narrow exception identified by the Supreme Court that bars retrial of a defendant after the defendant has successfully moved for a mistrial
   

  Document	Date
  Petition for Rehearing Denied	10/10/12
  Petition for Panel Rehearing	08/21/12
  Court of Appeals Decision, reported at 690 F.3d 636	08/09/12
  Brief as Appellee	07/23/12

• United States v. Williams and Moore (5th Cir.) – Appellee
  • The evidence was more than sufficient to support the jury's verdict on all counts, and that the sentences were correctly determined
   

  Document	Date
  Court of Appeals Decision, reported at 708 F.3d 639	02/11/13
  Brief as Appellee	06/14/12

• United States v. Thinn (9th Cir.) – Appellee
  • There was no abuse of discretion
  • The witness police officers were percipient witnesses who properly testified regarding their training and observations
  • The court allowed, but properly limited, testimony regarding events involving the victim on other occasions
   

  Document	Date
  Court of Appeals Decision, available at 489 F. App'x 195	12/20/12
  Brief as Appellee	06/11/12

• United States v. Beck (9th Cir.) – Appellee
  • Defendant's waiver was valid
  • The evidence was sufficient to uphold the conspiracy conviction
   

  Document	Date
  Court of Appeals Decision, available at 491 F. App'x 855	12/07/12
  Brief as Appellee	05/21/12

• United States v. Bello (11th Cir.) – Appellee
  • The court properly instructed the jury, because the statutorily enumerated means are not separate elements that require unanimity
   

  Document	Date
  Court of Appeals Decision, available at 503 F. App'x 910	01/17/13
  Petition for Panel Rehearing Granted; Petition for Rehearing En Banc Denied	01/17/13
  Court of Appeals Decision (vacated)	10/19/12
  Brief as Appellee	05/16/12

• United States v. Pagan-Ferrer, et al. (1st Cir.) – Appellee
  • The district court did not abuse its discretion in refusing to hold a hearing to allow defendants to substantiate an allegation of courtroom closure that could have been, but was not, raised until after defendants' conviction
  • The district court did not err in determining that a curative instruction would be sufficient to overcome any potential prejudice caused by a witness's reference to a finding of liability against the City of San Juan in an earlier civil proceeding
  • The district court did not err in ruling that the admission of Salas' identification of pagan did not violate due process but rather involved questions of weight and credibility that were properly left to the jury to decide
  • The district court did not err in denying defendants' Rule 29 motion, as the evidence was more than sufficient to support conviction
  • There is no basis for this court to find plain error with the district court's jury instruction regarding consciousness of guilt
  • There was no material variance between the allegations contained in Count 16 and the evidence presented against Morales at trial
  • Vidal's sentence raises no ex post facto concerns
  • The district court did not commit plain error in rejecting Morales' argument that his sentence should be more lenient than those of defendants who pled guilty and cooperated with the government
   

  Document	Date
  Court of Appeals Decision, reported at 736 F.3d 573	11/22/13
  Brief as Appellee	05/02/12

• United States v. Maybee (8th Cir.) – Appellee
  • The evidence was more than sufficient to support the jury's verdict that defendant agreed with another person to cause bodily injury to the five victims, and did so willfully and because the victims were Hispanic, and, in so doing, violated 18 U.S.C. 371 and 18 U.S.C. 249(a)(1)
  • Given the scope of Congress's power under Section 2 of the Thirteenth Amendment, and Section 249's legislative history, Congress had ample authority to enact Section 249(a)(1) and prohibit racially-motivated violent conduct as a badge or incident of slavery
   

  Document	Date
  Certiorari Denied, reported at 133 S. Ct. 556 (United States Waived Response to the Petition for a Writ of Certiorari) (S. Ct.)	10/29/12
  Court of Appeals Decision, reported at 687 F.3d 1026	08/06/12
  Brief as Appellee	04/20/12

• United States v. Johnson (W.D. La.) – Plaintiff
  • The magistrate judge's sentence was not an abuse of discretion
   

  Document	Date
  District Court Decision, available at 2012 WL 1428890	04/20/12
  Brief in Opposition	03/30/12

• United States v. McRae, et al. (5th Cir.) – Appellee
  • The district court properly denied McRae's motion for new trial and that his conviction and sentence were otherwise proper in all respects
  • The district court did not err in refusing to reopen the detention proceedings, in refusing to revoke the magistrate's detention order, or in holding that there was no due process violation
  • The district court did not err in instructing the jury on manslaughter
  • The district court did not err in holding that joinder was proper, or in denying Warren's motions for severance or mistrial
  • The United States complied with all Brady obligations
  • The district court did not err in its evidentiary rulings
  • Warren's conviction and sentence are constitutional in all respects
  • Because the district court appropriately exercised its discretion to impose consecutive sentences, this Court need not address Warren's argument that Section 924(j) "does not require a mandatory consecutive sentence"
  • The evidence presented at trial was more than sufficient to support McRae’s conviction for obstruction of justice
  • 18 U.S.C. 1519 is not unconstitutionally vague
  • The evidence is sufficient to support McRae's conviction for deprivation of rights under color of law
  • McRae's taking and burning of Tanner's vehicle constituted an unlawful seizure for Fourth Amendment purposes
  • McRae's sentence does not violate the Double Jeopardy Clause of the Constitution
  • The district court abused its discretion in granting McCabe's motion for a new trial
   

  Document	Date
  Court of Appeals Decision, reported at 795 F.3d 471	07/28/15
  Brief as Appellee	02/23/15
  Court of Appeals Decision, available at 533 F. App'x 487	06/28/13
  Opposition to Defendant's Appeal from Detention Order (Warren)	05/30/13
  Certiorari Denied, reported at 133 S. Ct. 2037 (United States Waived Response to McRae's Petition for a Writ of Certiorari) (S. Ct.)	04/29/13
  Court of Appeals Decision, reported at 702 F.3d 806	12/17/12
  Reply Brief as Appellee/Cross-Appellant	04/02/12
  Brief as Appellee	01/30/12

• United States v. Mathis (5th Cir.) – Appellee
  • The district court did not err in applying arson as the underlying offense
   

  Document	Date
  Court of Appeals Decision, available at 476 F. App'x 22	04/19/12
  Brief as Appellee	01/03/12

• United States v. Wilson (8th Cir. and S. Ct.) - Appellee/Respondent
  • Wilson is not entitled to review of his conviction or sentence because the sentence-enhancement provisions that were relied on in his case are not subject to the infirmities recognized in Johnson
  • The court properly employed the aggravated assault guideline in sentencing Wilson, and that his sentence was properly enhanced based on restraint of the victims and on one victim's substantial bodily injury
   

  Document	Date
  Court of Appeals Judgment	12/09/16
  Certiorari Denied, reported at 137 S. Ct. 232	10/03/16
  Response to Petition for Permission to File a Successive Habeas Petition	06/21/16
  Certiorari Denied, reported at 133 S. Ct. 873 (United States Waived Response to the Petition for a Writ of Certiorari) (S. Ct.)	01/07/13
  Court of Appeals Decision, reported at 686 F.3d 868	08/02/12
  Brief as Appellee	12/13/11

• United States v. Melgoza (5th Cir.) - Appellee
  • There is sufficient evidence to prove Melgoza's use of force against one detainee that resulted in bodily injury
  • The district court properly dismissed a juror for reading a newspaper article and forming an opinion about the case prior to deliberations
  • Melgoza was not denied his right to an impartial jury based on the court's handling of the juror's misconduct
   

  Document	Date
  Certiorari Denied, reported at 133 S. Ct. 285 (United States Waived Response to Petition for Writ of Certiorari) (S. Ct.)	10/01/12
  Court of Appeals Decision, available at 469 F. App'x 357	04/06/12
  Brief as Appellee	12/01/11

• United States v. Gould (10th Cir.) - Appellee
  • The district court did not abuse its discretion in excluding several hearsay reports written by defendant
  • A 25-month delay between defendant's convictions and sentencing did not violate his Sixth Amendment right to a speedy trial
   

  Document	Date
  Court of Appeals Decision, reported at 672 F.3d 930	02/28/12
  Supplemental Brief as Appellee	11/30/11

• United States v. Moyer and Nestor (3d Cir.) - Appellee
  • Evidence was sufficient to support the jury's verdicts
  • Indictment was sufficient
  • 18 U.S.C. 1519 is not unconstitutionally vague
   

  Document	Date
  Certiorari Denied, reported at 133 S. Ct. 979 (United States Waived Response to Nestor's Petition for Writ of Certiorari) (S. Ct.)	01/22/13
  Certiorari Denied, reported at 133 S. Ct. 165 (United States Waived Response to Moyer's Petition for Writ of Certiorari) (S. Ct.)	10/01/12
  Court of Appeals Decision, reported at 674 F.3d 192	02/29/12
  Brief as Appellee	09/15/11

• United States v. Sanchez (9th Cir.) - Appellee
  • The district court did not err in denying Sanchez's motion as the court's statements during a pretrial detention hearing are not evidence of his innocence
  • The district court was not required to make factual findings before rejecting Sanchez's examples of an allegedly unwarranted sentencing disparity where none of the examples involved Section 242 convictions and their relevance was a question of law, not a disputed issue of fact
   

  Document	Date
  Court of Appeals Decision, available at 472 F. App'x 575	03/23/12
  Brief as Appellee	09/14/11

• United States v. Barnwell (8th Cir.) - Appellee
  • The government met its burden of showing by clear and convincing evidence that no set of conditions of Barnwell's release will reasonably assure the safety of the community
   

  Document	Date
  Court of Appeals Order and Judgment	07/26/11
  Opposition to Defendant's Statement of Case in Support of Appeal from Detention Order	07/22/11

• United States v. Nguyen (9th Cir.) - Appellee
  • The district court properly denied defendant's motion; defendant challenges the denial of his motion to suppress items seized from his campaign headquarters and home, including invoices and emails, for lack of probable cause
   

  Document	Date
  Court of Appeals Decision, reported at 673 F.3d 1259	03/23/12
  Brief as Appellee	07/20/11

• United States v. Nnaji (5th Cir.) - Appellee
  • In all respects, the evidence was sufficient to support the forced labor, harboring, document servitude, and conspiracy charges
   

  Document	Date
  Certiorari Denied, reported at 132 S. Ct. 1763 and 132 S. Ct. 1770 (United States Waived Response to Petitions for Writ of Certiorari) (S. Ct.)	03/19/12
  Court of Appeals Decision, available at 447 F. App'x 558	10/26/11
  Brief as Appellee	07/06/11

• United States v. Piekarsky & Donchak (3d Cir.) - Appellee
  • None of the issues defendants raised has merit, including defendants' challenges to the indictment, the jury instructions, the sufficiency of the evidence, certain evidentiary rulings, and the calculation of their sentences
   

  Document	Date
  Certiorari Denied, reported at 133 S. Ct. 549 (United States Waived Response to Piekarsky's Petition for a Writ of Certiorari) (S. Ct.)	10/29/12
  Certiorari Denied, reported at 133 S. Ct. 373 (United States Waived Response to Donchak's Petition for a Writ of Certiorari) (S. Ct.)	10/01/12
  Court of Appeals Decision, reported at 687 F.3d 134	06/18/12
  Brief as Appellee	07/01/11

• United States v. Gray (6th Cir.) - Appellee
  • The jury instructions were correct statements of law
  • The district court's sentencing calculation was correct
  • The evidence was sufficient to support his convictions
   

  Document	Date
  Certiorari Denied, reported at 133 S. Ct. 990 (United States Waived Response to Defendant's Petition for a Writ of Certiorari) (S. Ct.)	01/22/13
  Court of Appeals Decision, reported at 692 F.3d 514	08/31/12
  Brief as Appellee	06/30/11

• Wei Sun v. United States (S. Ct.) - Respondent
  • The court of appeals correctly rejected petitioner's argument that her conviction should be overturned because the District Court for the Northern Mariana Islands is "unconstitutionally established and constituted," in violation of Article III of the Constitution
  • Further review is not warranted
   

  Document	Date
  Certiorari Denied, reported at 132 S. Ct. 451	10/17/11
  Brief in Opposition to Petition for Writ of Certiorari	06/24/11

• United States v. Saldana, et al. (9th Cir.) - Appellee
  • Issues raised by defendants do not warrant reversal
  • Issues included: whether their rights were violated by being shackled during trial and excluded from portions of the voir dire; various evidentiary issues, including the admission of hearsay statements made by a deceased witness, restrictions on cross-examination, the denial of a motion to suppress, and the testimony of a government expert witness; and whether Section 245(b)(2)(B) is constitutional on its face and as applied in this case
  • The bias and hardship voir dire did not violate the defendants' right to a public trial, and that to the extent there was error, it was not structural error warranting reversal
   

  Document	Date
  Court of Appeals Decision, reported at 788 F.3d 956	05/14/15
  Supplemental Brief	10/25/12
  Brief as Appellee	06/15/11

• United States v. Dodson (8th Cir.) - Appellee
  • The government met its burden of showing by clear and convincing evidence that no set of conditions of Dodson's release will reasonably assure the safety of the community
   

  Document	Date
  Court of Appeals Order and Judgment	07/05/11
  Opposition to Appeal from Detention Order	06/03/11

• United States v. Jay Schmeltz (6th Cir.) - Appellee
  • The indictment was not duplicitous and therefore curative instructions were not necessary and, in any event, under plain error review, Schmeltz did not suffer prejudice
   

  Document	Date
  Court of Appeals Decision, reported at 667 F.3d 685	12/20/11
  Brief as Appellee	05/23/11

• United States v. Jones (6th Cir.) - Appellee
  • Under the terms of his plea agreement, Jones waived his right to appeal his sentence, including any conditions of supervised release; and, in any event, the district court did not abuse its sentencing discretion
   

  Document	Date
  Court of Appeals Order	11/16/11
  Brief as Appellee	04/15/11

• United States v. Royal (4th Cir./S. Ct.) - Appellee
  • The district court correctly calculated and sentenced defendant, given that the victims were vulnerable and that defendant used the computer to effectuate his crimes, obstructed justice, and was a leader of the conspiracies
   

  Document	Date
  Certiorari Denied, reported at 132 S. Ct. 1119 (United States Waived Response to Petition for Writ of Certiorari) (S. Ct.)	01/17/12
  Court of Appeals Decision, reported at 442 F. App'x 794	08/10/11
  Brief as Appellee	04/14/11

• United States v. Owens and Sease (6th Cir.) - Appellee
  • The jury was properly instructed, the evidence was sufficient to support Sease's convictions, and the district court correctly determined Owens' Guidelines offense level
   

  Document	Date
  Court of Appeals Decision, reported at 659 F.3d 519	10/21/11
  Court of Appeals Decision, available at 437 F. App'x 436	09/01/11
  Brief as Appellee	04/13/11

• United States v. Leonard Fox (6th Cir.) - Appellee
  • Appellant claimed the following: 1) the district court abused its discretion in refusing to allow him to withdraw his guilty plea; (2) the government violated the terms of the plea agreement with regard to its sentencing recommendation; and (3) his sentence is unreasonable
  • The Division argued that none of the alleged errors warrant reversal and that the sentence was proper
   

  Document	Date
  Court of Appeals Order	10/18/11
  Brief as Appellee	03/29/11

• Freeman v. United States (S. Ct.) - Respondent
  • Among the four issues raised by Freeman in his petition, three are factually based and do not give rise to any colorable issue for review by the Supreme Court
  • These issues are whether the court of appeals erred in finding the district court's abuse of discretion harmless, whether the right which Freeman violated was clearly established at the time of his crime, and whether sufficient evidence existed to prove that Freeman joined the conspiracy to violate civil rights
  • No split exists regarding the fourth issue, which is whether the Sixth Circuit's affirmation of the district court's limitation on cross-examination of a key government witness creates a circuit split
  • Circuits have taken an ad hoc approach to determining what constitutes sufficient cross-examination of a key witness
   

  Document	Date
  Certiorari Denied, reported at 131 S. Ct. 2443	05/25/11
  Brief in Opposition to Petition for Writ of Certiorari	04/06/11

• Davis v. United States (S. Ct.) - Respondent
  • Indictment was sufficient and any error was harmless
  • Fifth Circuit properly applied the law of the case to bar reconsideration of Davis's jury selection claims
   

  Document	Date
  Certiorari Denied, reported at 131 S. Ct. 1676	03/21/11
  Brief in Opposition to Petition for Writ of Certiorari	02/18/11

• Fontenot v. United States (S. Ct.) -- Respondent
  • The statutory-interpretation issue is not squarely presented in this case because, since Fontenot failed to object to the challenged jury instruction, the case must be decided under the plain error standard of review
  • The jury instruction was correct and no authority supports petitioner's interpretation of the statute
   

  Document	Date
  Certiorari Denied, reported at 131 S. Ct. 1601	03/07/11
  Brief in Opposition to Petition for Writ of Certiorari	02/04/11

• United States v. Georgia Silva (9th Cir.) -- Appellee
  • The evidence was sufficient to support defendant's conviction
  • The district court did not abuse its discretion in admitting the challenged evidence or in excluding the evidence of the state court prosecution
   

  Document	Date
  Court of Appeals Decision, available at 428 F. App'x 737	04/21/11
  Brief as Appellee	02/02/11

• Cozzi v. United States (S. Ct.) -- Respondent
  • Court of appeals decision was correct: the incoming police chief's "tip" to the FBI did not constitute an improper use of the immunized testimony
  • Court of appeals decision does not conflict with the decisions of other courts of appeals
   

  Document	Date
  Certiorari Denied, reported at 131 S. Ct. 1472	02/22/11
  Brief in Opposition to Petition for Writ of Certiorari	01/13/11

• Mahender Murlidhar Sabhnani v. United States (S. Ct.) -- Respondent
  • The Second Circuit affirmed the district court’s aiding and abetting instruction on the ground that the willfulness component of the instruction erroneously permitted the jury to convict him for failing to act, rather than affirmatively acting to aid and abet defendant’s wife
  • The Second Circuit’s harmless-error analysis did not conflict with established precedent and was correct
   

  Document	Date
  Certiorari Denied, reported at 131 S. Ct. 1000	01/18/11
  Brief in Opposition to Petition for Writ of Certiorari	12/14/10

• Varsha Sabhnani v. United States (S. Ct.) -- Respondent
  • The Second Circuit affirmed the district court’s denial of defendant’s motion to change venue based on alleged pervasive pre-trial publicity
  • The Second Circuit’s ruling did not conflict with established precedent and was correct
   

  Document	Date
  Certiorari Denied, reported at 131 S. Ct. 1000	01/18/11
  Brief in Opposition to Petition for Writ of Certiorari	12/14/10

• United States v. Dann (9th Cir.) -- Appellee
  • Sufficient evidence supported the jury's verdict against defendant
  • The district court did not err in calculating defendant's guidelines range
  • The district court did not err in its restitution order
   

  Document	Date
  Court of Appeals Decision, reported at 652 F.3d 1160	07/22/11
  Brief as Appellee	12/03/10

• United States v. Joseph Silva (9th Cir.) -- Appellee
  • The district court did not abuse its discretion in admitting the challenged evidence or in excluding the evidence of the state court prosecution
   

  Document	Date
  Court of Appeals Decision, available at 428 F. App'x 737	04/21/11
  Brief as Appellee	11/22/10

• United States v. Warren (5th Cir.) -- Appellee
  • District court did not err in holding that no conditions of release could reasonably assure Warren’s appearance at trial or the safety of the community
   

  Document	Date
  Court of Appeals Decision, available at 397 F. App'x 994	10/21/10
  Opposition to Motion for Pre-Trial Release	09/27/10

• United States v. Karl Thompson (9th Cir.) - Appellant and Appellee
  • Consistent with the district court's ruling, the defendant's rights under Brady v. Maryland, 383 U.S. 83 (1963), were not violated because he was not prejudiced by any withheld information
  • The district court: (1) did not abuse its discretion in evidentiary rulings, (2) did not err in its jury instructions on willfulness, and (3) did not abuse its discretion in denying a new trial based on the jury's limited exposure to extrinsic evidence
  • District court abused its discretion under Federal Rule of Evidence 403 because a limiting instruction would be understood by the jury and would eliminate any undue prejudice, and the district court failed to accord sufficient weight to the probative value of this evidence for both charges
  • Admission of this evidence is consistent with Boyd v. City and County of San Francisco, 576 F.3d 938, 944 (9th Cir. 2009), which held, in a case involving an officer’s use of deadly force, that evidence not known by an officer was admissible to address a disputed fact, and was more probative than prejudicial
   

  Document	Date
  Certiorari Denied, reported at 135 S. Ct. 879 (United States Waived Response to the Petition for a Writ of Certiorari) (S. Ct.)	12/15/14
  Court of Appeals Decision, available at 579 F. App'x 552	06/17/14
  Brief as Appellee	01/02/14
  Court of Appeals Decision, available at 423 F. App'x 758	03/24/11
  Brief as Appellant	09/21/10

• United States v. White (4th Cir.) -- Appellant/Cross-Appellee
  • Defendant is not entitled to sensitive discovery materials produced by the United States before trial; he has no present need for them, since a motion under 28 U.S.C. 2255 would be premature while his appeal is pending
  • There was sufficient evidence to support the jury’s verdict on Count 6
  • The court erred in refusing to apply the vulnerable-victim sentencing adjustment
  • There was sufficient evidence to support the jury’s verdict on Counts 1, 3, and 5
  • The First Amendment does not require proof of specific intent to threaten under 18 U.S.C. 875(c)
  • The indictment was not constructively amended
   

  Document	Date
  Court of Appeals Decision, reported at 670 F.3d 498	03/01/12
  Court of Appeals Decision, available at 458 F. App'x 228	12/15/11
  Informal Brief as Appellee	07/28/11
  Response/Reply Brief	10/28/10
  Brief as Appellant	08/27/10

• United States v. Morris (5th Cir.) -- Appellee
  • Morris's conviction was based on sufficient evidence
  • The sentence was reasonable and based on a proper calculation of the federal sentencing guidelines
   

  Document	Date
  Court of Appeals Decision, available at 404 F. App'x 916	12/17/10
  Brief as Appellee	08/25/10

• Seale v. United States (S. Ct.) -- Respondent
  • Certiorari is not warranted: petitioner continues to challenge the statute-of-limitations and suppression of evidence issues
   

  Document	Date
  Certiorari Denied, reported at 131 S. Ct. 163	10/04/10
  Opposition to Petition for Writ of Certiorari	08/23/10

• Wang & Kuo v. United States (S. Ct.) -- Respondent
  • Petition for a writ of certiorari should be held pending the Court’s decision in Dolan v. United States, No. 09-367: the petition challenges the timeliness of a restitution order
   

  Document	Date
  Certiorari Granted, Vacated, and Remanded, reported at 130 S. Ct. 3458	06/21/10
  Brief for the United States	04/21/10

• United States v. Armstrong (9th Cir.) -- Appellee
  • The sentence was reasonable and properly reflected the factors codified in 18 U.S.C. 3553(a)
  • An enhancement for obstruction of justice was proper where Armstrong testified falsely at trial
  • The sentence was properly enhanced for racial selection of the victim
   

  Document	Date
  Court of Appeals Decision, reported at 620 F.3d 1172	08/31/10
  Brief as Appellee	04/12/10

• McGowan v. United States (S. Ct.) -- Respondent
  • Further review is unwarranted: Ninth Circuit reversed a district court’s decision to overturn a jury’s guilty verdict convicting petitioner, who was a correctional officer, on two counts of depriving convicted inmates of their civil rights in violation of 18 U.S.C. 242
   

  Document	Date
  Certiorari Denied, reported at 130 S. Ct. 2372	04/26/10
  Opposition to Petition for Writ of Certiorari	03/26/10

• Perez v. United States (S. Ct.) -- Respondent
  • Bureau of Prisons’ investigation of petitioner’s conduct, carried out under rules and regulations requiring documentation and investigation of every use of force against an inmate, qualifies as an “official proceeding” under Section 1512(c)
   

  Document	Date
  Certiorari Denied, reported at 130 S. Ct. 2341	04/05/10
  Opposition to Petition for Writ of Certiorari	03/05/10

• United States v. Wang & Kuo (9th Cir.) -- Appellee
  • The restitution order was timely in light of Dolan v. United States, No. 09-367 (S. Ct.)
  • The district court did not commit plain error in ordering restitution or in using the gross income valuation methodology
  • The district court did not abuse its discretion in relying on affidavits from the victims and interview testimony from Kuo’s wife and a customer regarding the prices charged, where the defendant’s destroyed the business records that would have allowed for more detailed proof
   

  Document	Date
  Court of Appeals Decision, reported at 620 F.3d 1158	08/30/10
  Supplemental Brief	08/06/10
  Court of Appeals Decision, reported at 588 F.3d 729	12/03/09
  Brief as Appellee (filed under seal)	12/15/08

• United States v. Lanham & Freeman (6th Cir.) -- Appellee/Cross-Appellant
  • Freeman has not sustained his burden of showing a substantial question of law or fact that was likely to result in reversal, a new trial, a sentence not including imprisonment, or a reduced sentence less than the time served plus the time for appeal under 18 U.S.C. 3143(b)(1)(B)
  • Freeman failed to show “exceptional circumstances” under 18 U.S.C. 3145(c)
  • District court did not abuse its discretion in refusing to strike several jurors for cause and striking another for cause
  • District court did not abuse its discretion when it limited questioning of a government cooperating witness concerning the sentence he faced
  • Sufficient evidence supported all three counts of conviction against Lanham and Freeman
  • District court did not err by having the jury determine whether the elements of aggravated sexual abuse had occurred
  • District court did not commit plain error by declining to find a lesser role for Freeman
  • District court did not abuse its discretion in finding that the government had not violated Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963)
  • District court committed legal error by refusing to use the 2008 Sentencing Guidelines
  • District court legally erred by declining to apply a leadership enhancement to Lanham’s sentence
  • Sixth Circuit’s opinion unnecessarily exacerbates a circuit split and errs on an important matter of law in suggesting that the Ex Post Facto Clause bars the use of post-offense, severity-enhancing Guidelines amendments
   

  Document	Date
  Petition for Rehearing En Banc Denied	12/17/10
  Petition for Rehearing En Banc	10/07/10
  Court of Appeals Decision, reported at 617 F.3d 873	08/24/10
  Brief as Appellee/Cross-Appellant	06/03/09
  Response to Defendant's Motion for Post-Conviction Release	03/30/09

• Glenn v. Holder (E.D. Mich.) – Defendant
  • The Complaint should be dismissed under Rule 12(b)(1) for lack of jurisdiction because plaintiffs lack standing
  • The Complaint should be dismissed under Rule 12(b)(6), for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted
   

  Document	Date
  District Court Order	09/07/10
  Reply Brief in Support of Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss	05/20/10
  Motion to Dismiss the Complaint and Brief in Support	04/15/10

• United States v. Sun (9th Cir.) -- Appellee
  • The district court has jurisdiction to hear criminal cases arising under the laws of the United States
  • The evidence was sufficient to support the convictions
   

  Document	Date
  Court of Appeals Decision, available at 399 F. App'x 319	10/14/10
  Brief as Appellee	03/08/10

• United States v. Fontenot (11th Cir.) -- Appellee
  • Both the language of 18 U.S.C. 1519 and its legislative history support the district court’s instruction because the element that the matter be within the jurisdiction of the United States is purely jurisdictional
  • Any error would be harmless because Fontenot testified that he probably took a course explaining that excessive force can be a state or federal crime
   

  Document	Date
  Court of Appeals Decision, reported at 611 F.3d 734	07/13/10
  Brief as Appellee	12/22/08

• Masarik v. United States (S. Ct.) -- Respondent
  • Certiorari is not warranted: the petition challenges the district court=s exclusion of expert testimony regarding the reliability of eyewitness identifications
   

  Document	Date
  Certiorari Denied, reported at 130 S. Ct. 1137	01/19/10
  Opposition to Petition for Writ of Certiorari	12/14/09

• Kaufman v. United States (S. Ct.) -- Respondent
  • The court of appeals (1) correctly rejected petitioners’ Sixth Amendment challenge to an order prohibiting petitioners from making direct eye contact with the victim-witnesses at trial; and (2) correctly affirmed under plain error review petitioners’ convictions for violations of the involuntary servitude and forced labor statutes
   

  Document	Date
  Certiorari Denied, reported at 130 S. Ct. 1013	12/14/09
  Opposition to Petition for Writ of Certiorari	11/12/09

• United States v. White (4th Cir.) – Appellant
  • The defendant is a danger to the community
  • The order of release should be reversed because the district court improperly relied upon inconclusive psychiatric evidence and failed to consider all of the pretrial release factors under 18 U.S.C. 3142(g)
   

  Document	Date
  Court of Appeals Order	10/21/09
  Memorandum Brief in Support of Appeal from District Court Order of Release Pending Trial	09/25/09

• United States v. Milbourn (7th Cir.) – Appellee
  • There was sufficient evidence to support the convictions
  • The prosecutor's closing arguments were proper
  • The statutory minimum sentence for use of fire does not conflict with 18 U.S.C. 3553(a)(2)
   

  Document	Date
  Court of Appeals Decision, reported at 600 F.3d 808	04/07/10
  Brief as Appellee	10/19/09

• United States v. Mardis (6th Cir./S. Ct.) – Appellee
  • The district court correctly denied the motion to dismiss an indictment
  • Under the Dual Sovereignty doctrine, the federal indictment does not violate the Double Jeopardy Clause
   

  Document	Date
  Certiorari Denied, reported at 131 S. Ct. 365 (United States Waived Response to the Petition for a Writ of Certiorari) (S. Ct.)	10/04/10
  Court of Appeals Decision, reported at 600 F.3d 693	03/31/10
  Brief as Appellee	10/23/09

• United States v. Bunke (6th Cir.) – Appellee
  • The felony conviction should be upheld
   

  Document	Date
  Certiorari Denied, reported at 131 S. Ct. 2464 (United States Waived Response to the Petition for a Writ of Certiorari) (S. Ct.)	05/25/11
  Court of Appeals Decision, available at 412 F. App'x 760	01/19/11
  Brief as Appellee	12/11/09

• United States v. Marcus (S. Ct.) -- Petitioner
  • The Second Circuit’s plain error standard for reviewing ex post facto claims conflicts with subsequent Supreme Court cases on plain error because those cases require reversal only when there is a “reasonable possibility” of conviction.
  • Urged the Court to grant the petition, vacate the judgment, and remand for further consideration in light of the Court's most recent plain error decision, Puckett v. United States, 129 S. Ct. 1423 (2009)
   

  Document	Date
  Certiorari Denied, reported at 134 S. Ct. 135 (United States Waived Response to the Petition for a Writ of Certiorari) (S. Ct.)	10/07/13
  Supreme Court Decision, reported at 130 S. Ct. 2159	05/24/10
  Reply Brief	02/17/10
  Brief as Petitioner	12/04/09
  Certiorari Granted, reported at 130 S. Ct. 393	10/13/09
  Reply Brief	07/15/09
  Petition for Writ of Certiorari	05/06/09

• United States v. Mendez (6th Cir.) -- Appellee
  • The defendant’s sentence was reasonable
   

  Document	Date
  Court of Appeals Decision, available at 362 F. App'x 484	01/25/10
  Brief as Appellee	05/05/09

• United States v. Sandstrom & Eye (8th Cir./S. Ct.) -- Appellee
  • District court did not abuse its discretion in denying defendants’ motions for severance
  • Indictment was not multiplicitous
  • Congress had authority to enact 18 U.S.C. 245
  • Prosecutor’s comments during closing were not improper or prejudicial
  • Evidence was sufficient to support Eye’s convictions on one of the Section 245 charges and a related firearm charge
   

  Document	Date
  Certiorari Denied, reported at 131 S. Ct. 192 (Eye) and 131 S. Ct. 202 (Sandstrom) (United States Waived Response to the Petitions for a Writ of Certiorari) (S. Ct.)	10/04/10
  Court of Appeals Decision, reported at 594 F.3d 634	01/29/10
  Brief as Appellee	06/12/09

• United States v. Davis (5th Cir.) -- Appellee
  • Davis’s crimes, prison record, and police record provided sufficient evidence of future dangerousness; clarification of a minor error in the instructions did not require reversal; the court did not abuse its discretion in formulating instructions; and other alleged errors at trial did not require reversal under a plain error standard
   

  Document	Date
  Brief as Appellee	06/30/09
  Court of Appeals Decision, reported at 609 F.3d 663	06/16/10

• United States v. Ferguson & Ferguson (9th Cir.) -- Appellee
  • District court did not violate the defendants’ Confrontation Clause rights in limiting cross-examination of three government witnesses to exclude details of an unrelated, uncharged homicide
  • District court properly calculated Defendant Joseph Ferguson’s 97-month sentence, and that sentence is reasonable
  • Circuit precedent forecloses Defendant William Ferguson’s Eighth Amendment challenge to his 1,224-month sentence, imposed for multiple violations of 18 U.S.C. 924(c)
   

  Document	Date
  Court of Appeals Decision, available at 377 F. App'x 718	04/29/10
  Brief as Appellee	07/13/09

• United States v. Perez-Laguna (4th Cir.) -- Appellee
  • Government did not breach the plea agreement because the defendant did not readily demonstrate acceptance of responsibility
  • Defendant’s other arguments are barred by his waiver of appeal, and even if not barred are without merit
   

  Document	Date
  Court of Appeals Decision, available at 357 F. App'x 507	12/16/09
  Brief as Appellee	07/22/09

• United States v. Song Ja Cha (9th Cir.) -- Appellent
  • District court erred in suppressing items seized pursuant to a valid search warrant based on probable cause obtained after the police secured the premises for 25 and a half hours to prevent the destruction of evidence
  • Government did not waive its argument that the exclusionary rule’s remedy should not be applied, when the argument was raised for the first time in its objections to the magistrate’s report that recommended that evidence seized pursuant to a validly issued warrant from defendants’ premises should be suppressed
   

  Document	Date
  Dismissed	10/19/16
  Motion to Dismiss	07/19/16
  Court of Appeals Decision, reported at 597 F.3d 995	03/09/10
  Reply Brief	07/28/09
  Brief as Appellant	05/08/09

• United States v. Marcus (2d Cir.) -- Appellee
  • The Division argued that the rule of lenity does not apply because 18 U.S.C. 1589 and 1591 clearly and unambiguously prohibit the defendant’s conduct, and that the statutes are constitutional as applied in this case
  • The U.S. Attorney’s Office addressed all remaining issues
   

  Document	Date
  Court of Appeals Decision, reported at 628 F.3d 36	12/07/10
  Court of Appeals Decision, reported at 538 F.3d 97	08/14/08
  Brief as Appellee	12/14/07

• United States v. Bartlett (7th Cir.) -- Appellee
  • The evidence is sufficient
  • None of the alleged errors warrant reversal of the conviction
  • The sentences are proper
  • The district court fulfilled its limited obligation to clarify its intent on remand, and there are no other reviewable issues
   

  Document	Date
  Court of Appeals Decision, available at 370 F. App'x 714	03/31/10
  Brief as Appellee	03/01/10
  Court of Appeals Decision, reported at 567 F.3d 901	06/08/09
  Brief as Appellee	03/12/09

• United States v. Smith (9th Cir.) -- Appellee
  • The district court correctly refused to suppress Smith’s voluntary grand jury testimony, nor did the court abuse its discretion in excluding testimony of Smith’s proposed expert witness because the proposed testimony of this self-styled CB radio culture expert did not meet the standards of Rule 702 of the Federal Rules of Evidence
  • The district court did not commit clear error in applying a six-level enhancement to his base offense level because his conduct evidenced an intent to carry out his threats, nor commit legal error in adding a three-level adjustment because Smith selected his victim because of his race, nor commit plain error in adding a two-level enhancement for Smith’s leadership role in the offense
  • The court did not abuse its discretion by not discussing specifically Smith’s argument that the sentence recommended by the Probation Office created an unwarranted sentencing disparity under 18 U.S.C. 3553(a)
   

  Document	Date
  Court of Appeals Decision, available at 365 F. App'x 781	02/12/10
  Brief as Appellee	02/13/09

• United States v. Wilson (6th Cir.) -- Appellee
  • The evidence is sufficient to sustain the jury’s verdict that bodily injury resulted
  • The district court did not commit plain error in denying defendant’s motion for severance
   

  Document	Date
  Court of Appeals Decision, available at 344 F. App’x 134	08/25/09
  Brief as Appellee	02/11/09

• United States v. Paulin (11th Cir.) -- Appellee
  • There was no amendment of the indictment and that the instructions and evidence at trial were sufficient to sustain a conviction of conspiracy to deprive Celestin of her right to be free of involuntary servitude
  • The indictment clearly charged Paulin with forced labor after the effective date of 18 U.S.C. 1589
  • The district court did not err in refusing to grant the requested instruction
   

  Document	Date
  Court of Appeals Decision, available at 329 F. App'x 232	05/27/09
  Brief as Appellee	02/04/09

• United States v. Pilati (N.D. Ala. and 11th Cir.) -- Appellee
  • The record showed that the victim was a minor and that he was a minor for the purposes of registration under the Sex Offender Registration and Notification Act (SORNA)
  • Pilati failed to raise many of his arguments (among other issues, denial of counsel of choice, insufficiency of the evidence, inadequacy of jury instructions, and improper application of SORNA) before the district court and none have merit
   

  Document	Date
  Court of Appeals Decision, reported at 627 F.3d 1360	12/17/10
  Brief as Appellee	04/26/10
  Memorandum Opinion (N.D. Ala.)	04/07/09
  Brief as Appellee	12/19/08

• United States v. Cook (D.C. Cir.) -- Appellee
  • A new trial is not warranted because all of the evidence Cook identifies was disclosed during trial when Cook had ample opportunity to use it and because he failed to demonstrate that the evidence in question was exculpatory and material
  • Cook’s filing of two reports did not violate his Fifth Amendment privilege against compelled self-incrimination because the statements in the reports were exculpatory, false, and voluntary
   

  Document	Date
  Court of Appeals Decision, available at 330 F. App'x 1	04/21/09
  Brief as Appellee	01/09/09

• United States v. Simmons (5th Cir.) -- Appellee
  • The record evidences the district court’s correct understanding of its discretion
   

  Document	Date
  Court of Appeals Decision, reported at 568 F.3d 564	05/18/09
  Brief as Appellee	11/05/08

• United States v. Farrell & Farrell (8th Cir.) -- Appellee
  • The evidence was sufficient to support the Farrells’ convictions for peonage, conspiracy, and document servitude
  • The district court did not plainly err in permitting an expert to testify on the “climate of fear” that exists in many human trafficking cases
   

  Document	Date
  Court of Appeals Decision, reported at 563 F.3d 364	04/17/09
  Brief as Appellee	08/06/08

• United States v. Egbert, Walker, & Massey (10th Cir.) -- Appellee
  • The district court did not err in cross-referencing the aggravated assault guideline and adding five levels to Walker’s and Massey’s base offense levels in connection with the second incident
  • The district court did not err in including the second incident in computing the base offense levels of Walker and Egbert, who did not participate in that assault
  • The district court did not err in using the second incident as a basis for adjusting Walker’s and Massey’s base offense levels for purposes of grouping
  • The district court did not err in applying a four-level enhancement to Walker’s sentence for being an organizer and leader of the criminal activity
  • Walker’s sentence is substantively reasonable
   

  Document	Date
  Court of Appeals Decision, reported at 562 F.3d 1092	04/14/09
  Brief as Appellee	06/09/08

• United States v. Seale (5th Cir.) -- Appellee
  • The prosecution was not barred by the statute of limitations
  • Pre-indictment delay did not violate the defendant’s due process rights
  • The district court did not err in denying the defendant's motion to suppress his 1964 statement to the FBI
  • The district court did not abuse its discretion by allowing the United States’ forensic pathologist to give his expert opinion regarding the victims’ causes of death
  • The district court did not abuse its discretion by excluding the testimony of the co-conspirator’s attorney to impeach his client
  • The district court did not abuse its discretion by admitting evidence of the defendant’s motive
  • The evidence was sufficient to support the jury’s verdict
  • The panel decision conflicted with Fifth Circuit precedent for applying conflicting canons of statutory construction in Griffon v. Department of Health & Human Services, 802 F.2d 146 (1986)
  • 1972 amendment to 18 U.S.C. 1201, which repealed the death penalty but also enlarged the scope of federal kidnapping, was a substantive amendment that applied prospectively only, and did not retroactively affect the statute of limitations applicable to the defendant’s 1964 conduct
  • Defendant may not seek certification, and even if he could, the statute-of-limitations question does not warrant certification
  • No supporting authority exists for a second rehearing en banc based on a change in the court’s composition
   

  Document	Date
  Court of Appeals Decision, reported at 600 F.3d 473	3/12/10
  Court of Appeals Order to Certify Question to Supreme Court, reported at 577 F.3d 566	7/30/09
  Opposition to Defendant’s Motion to Certify Question of Law to the Supreme Court	6/18/09
  Court of Appeals Decision (En Banc), reported at 570 F.3d 650	6/5/09
  Supplemental Brief as Appellee	4/16/09
  Petition for Rehearing Granted	11/14/08
  Petition for Rehearing En Banc	09/23/08
  Petition for Panel Rehearing	09/23/08
  Brief as Appellee	03/14/08

• United States v. Gagnier (6th Cir.) -- Appellee
  • Gagnier’s arguments concerning his Sentencing Guidelines total offense level and the travel restriction imposed on his supervised release – requiring him to remain in the United States – are waived because he failed to raise them in his initial appeal
  • Alternatively, the district court correctly considered the staged on-duty shooting incident as “relevant conduct,” correctly imposed offense level increases under U.S.S.G §§ 2B1.1(b)(1)(D) & 2B1.1(b)(12)(B), and did not abuse its discretion in imposing the travel restriction
  • Gagnier’s sentence was reasonable
   

  Document	Date
  Court of Appeals Decision	01/21/09
  Brief as Appellee	06/18/08

• United States v. Cedric Jackson (11th Cir.) -- Appellee
  • The Civil Rights Division filed a motion to dismiss Jackson’s appeal based on his valid waiver of his right to appeal his sentence. The court of appeals upheld Jackson’s conviction and sentence and denied the Division’s motion to dismiss the appeal as moot
   

  Document	Date
  Court of Appeals Decision, available at 303 F. App'x 749	12/17/08

• United States v. Gilpatrick (6th Cir.) -- Appellee
  • The district court did not commit plain error in imposing a period of confinement in a community corrections facility as a condition of supervised release following imprisonment.
  • The district court did not err in adding two levels to base offense level for obstruction of justice for providing the FBI a false report of the incident and adding four levels for role as a leader and organizer of the offense.
   

  Document	Date
  Court of Appeals Decision, reported at 548 F.3d 479	11/26/08
  Brief as Appellee	02/19/08

• United States v. Teel (5th Cir.) -- Appellee
  • The district court correctly determined that the government’s proffered reasons were neutral and that the government did not engage in intentional discrimination on the basis of race or sex in selecting jurors.
  • The district court did not abuse its discretion in any of its evidentiary rulings.
  • None of the errors alleged by appellant warrants reversal.
   

  Document	Date
  Court of Appeals Decision, available at 299 F. App'x 387	11/13/08
  Brief as Appellee	07/09/08

• United States v. Salazar (5th Cir.) -- Appellee
  • The district court properly calculated the Guideline range and the defendants’ sentences are reasonable
   

  Document	Date
  Court of Appeals Decision, available at 287 F. App'x 330	07/17/08
  Brief as Appellee	01/07/08

• United States v. Djoumessi (6th Cir.) - Appellee
  • The appellant is not entitled to equitable tolling
  • Appellant's 28 U.S.C. 2255 motion for vacation of his sentence is therefore time-barred
  • The government presented ample evidence that the defendant coerced his victim to provide labor through the use and threats of physical injury and abuse of law or legal process
  • The defendant’s federal prosecution did not violate the Fifth Amendment’s prohibition on double jeopardy
   

  Document	Date
  Court of Appeals Decision, available at 434 F. App'x 535	09/15/11
  Brief as Appellee	04/01/11
  Court of Appeals Decision	08/20/08
  Brief as Appellee	12/20/07

• United States v. Kaufman (10th Cir.) -- Appellee
  • The district court did not violate defendants’ Confrontation Clause rights when it ordered defendants to avoid direct eye contact with the victim-witnesses
  • The district court did not commit plain error when it instructed the jury on the definition of labor and services as to counts 2, 3, and 5
  • There is sufficient evidence that defendants used the requisite compulsion under 18 U.S.C. 1584 to force Kevin and Jonathan to labor on the farm
   

  Document	Date
  Court of Appeals Decision, reported at 546 F. 3d 1242	11/12/08
  Brief as Appellee	12/17/07

• United States v. Carson, Hey, P. Jacquemain & R. Jacquemain (6th Cir.) -- Appellee/Cross-Appellant
  • The prosecutor’s comments during closing argument were not improper and do not warrant reversal
  • The district court’s instruction on 18 U.S.C. 242 comported with Graham v. Connor
  • The evidence was sufficient to support defendants’ convictions
  • The district court did not err in denying Hey’s request for an evidentiary hearing
  • Carson’s sentence is reasonable; Robert Jacquemain’s sentence is unreasonable
  • The district court failed to consider the applicable guideline range
  • The sentence of probation is substantively unreasonable
   

  Document	Date
  Court of Appeals Decision, reported at 560 F.3d 566	03/30/09
  Reply Brief as Appellee/Cross-Appellant	10/19/07
  Brief as Appellee/Cross-Appellant	08/20/07

• United States v. Gonzalez (9th Cir.) -- Appellee
  • The district court did not abuse its discretion in admitting, as a prior consistent statement, sergeant Garza’s testimony concerning Cecilia Tirado’s account of the night she was raped by Gonzalez
  • The district court did not abuse its discretion in admitting Pamela Fields’ prior statements to sergeant Kagy and nurse McClung
  • Exclusion as irrelevant of testimony relating to the restraining order against Rory Fitzhugh did not violate Gonzalez’s right under the confrontation clause
  • The district court did not abuse its discretion in admitting evidence of two prior acts of sexual misconduct by Gonzalez
  • “Cumulative prejudice” does not warrant reversal
   

  Document	Date
  Court of Appeals Decision, reported at 533 F.3d 1057	07/18/08
  Brief as Appellee	08/17/07

• United States v. Calimlim (7th Cir.) -- Appellee/Cross-Appellant
  • This court should uphold the defendants’ convictions
  • The district court erred in calculating the defendants’ sentences
   

  Document	Date
  Court of Appeals Decision, reported at 538 F.3d 706	08/15/08
  Reply Brief as Appellee/Cross-Appellant	10/25/07
  Brief as Appellee/Cross-Appellant	08/15/07

• United States v. Hunt (11th Cir.) -- Appellee
  • The evidence was sufficient to support defendant’s conviction for violating 18 U.S.C. 1519
  • Defendant’s conduct is covered by 18 U.S.C. 1519
  • Defendant’s sentence is reasonable
   

  Document	Date
  Court of Appeals Decision, reported at 526 F.3d 739	05/05/08
  Brief as Appellee	07/05/07

• United States v. Conatser (6th Cir.) -- Appellee
  • The evidence was sufficient to support Conatser’s conviction
  • Marlowe’s sentence is constitutional
  • The district court did not err in applying the guideline for second degree murder
  • The defendants’ sentences are reasonable
   

  Document	Date
  Court of Appeals Decision, reported at 514 F.3d 508	02/04/08
  Brief as Appellee	06/19/07

• United States v. Weems & Mitchell (8th Cir.) -- Appellant
  • The district court erred in calculating the defendants’ offense level
   

  Document	Date
  Court of Appeals Decision, reported at 517 F.3d 1027	02/28/08
  Brief as Appellant	05/24/07

• United States v. Chang (5th Cir.) -- Appellee
  • The district court's finding that Chang was a leader or organizer of an extensive criminal activity is not clearly erroneous
  • The district court did not clearly err in finding Chang eligible for the enhancement for vulnerable victims
   

  Document	Date
  Court of Appeals Decision, available at 237 F. App'x 985	08/07/07
  Brief as Appellee	05/04/07

• United States v. Udeozor (4th Cir.) -- Appellee
  • The district court did not abuse its discretion in admitting evidence regarding the co-conspirator’s sexual abuse of the victim
  • Admission of recorded conversations between a co-conspirator and the victim did not violate defendant’s Sixth Amendment rights
  • The district court’s use of special findings was proper defendant’s sentence was reasonable
   

  Document	Date
  Court of Appeals Decision, reported at 515 F.3d 260	02/01/08
  Brief as Appellee	04/16/07

• United States v. Aguilar (5th Cir.) -- Appellee
  • The district court’s 242 instruction properly followed Graham v. Connor
  • The district court did not constructively amend the indictment
  • The district court correctly instructed the jury with regard to the specific intent required by Count 1
  • The district court did not commit error when it gave the jury the definition of “corruptly” in 1512(b)(1) that Aguilar requested
  • The district court did not violate Aguilar’s Sixth Amendment rights or abuse its discretion in excluding evidence of Jimenez’s arrest record
  • The district court did not abuse its discretion when it excluded a photograph of Gilbert Garcia and testimony concerning the possibility of a firearm in the cadillac
  • The district court did not abuse its discretion when it replaced a juror, who disobeyed its instructions, with an alternate juror
   

  Document	Date
  Court of Appeals Decision, available at 242 F. App'x 239	09/13/07
  Brief as Appellee	04/11/07

• United States v. Miller (8th Cir.) -- Appellee
  • The evidence was more than sufficient to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that defendant-appellant Jody Miller violated inmate Climmie Jones’s Eighth Amendment rights
  • The district court did not abuse its discretion in admitting victim Terry O’Neil’s medical records into evidence
  • The district court did not abuse its discretion in admitting chief jailer Kaye Harris’s testimony about statements jailer Chris Mcfarlin made to her regarding his false report on the O’Neil incident
   

  Document	Date
  Court of Appeals Decision, reported at 477 F.3d 644	02/23/07
  Brief as Appellee	10/10/06

• United States v. Henderson (11th Cir.) -- Appellee
  • The district court was entitled to use the original presentence report at defendant’s resentencing
  • This decision not to grant a downward departure is committed to the district court’s unreviewable discretion
   

  Document	Date
  Brief as Appellee	09/15/06
  Court of Appeals Decision, available at 211 F. App'x 919	12/22/06

• In re Grand Jury (4th Cir.) -- Appellant
  • The district court abused its discretion in quashing the grand jury subpoena
   

  Document	Date
  Court of Appeals Decision, reported at 478 F.3d 581	02/22/07
  Brief as Appellant (filed under seal)	09/12/06

• United States v. LeMoure & Polito (1st Cir.) -- Appellee
  • The district court correctly allowed the charged violations of 18 U.S.C. 1503 in Counts Nine and Ten of the indictment to be decided by the jury
  • The evidence presented was sufficient to support Polito’s convictions under 18 U.S.C. 1512(b)(1)
  • The district court’s instructions to the jury on Section 1512(b)(1) did not constitute plain error
  • None of Polito’s convictions violate his double jeopardy rights
  • Admission of evidence of Lemoure’s conversation with Joseph Weddleton about invoking the Fifth Amendment was not plain error
  • In calculating a guideline sentence range the district court correctly concluded that Lemoure had obstructed an investigation which included allegations that he used a dangerous weapon
   

  Document	Date
  Court of Appeals Decision, reported at 474 F.3d 37	01/29/07
  Brief as Appellee	08/31/06

• United States v. Ruiz (5th Cir.) -- Appellee
  • Sufficient evidence supports the jury’s verdict
  • The district court did not abuse its discretion in instructing the jury on the elements of the offense
   

  Document	Date
  Court of Appeals Decision, available at 213 F. App'x 345	01/16/07
  Brief as Appellee	07/19/06

• United States v. Haddock (9th Cir.) -- Appellee
  • Haddock’s appeal should be dismissed based on his knowing and voluntary waiver of appellate rights
  • The district court’s refusal to grant a downward departure based on alleged aberrant behavior is not reviewable, and was proper at any rate
  • The district court correctly applied the restraint-of-victim enhancement
   

  Document	Date
  Court of Appeals Decision, available at 202 F. App'x 969	10/23/06
  Brief as Appellee	07/18/06

• United States v. Budd (6th Cir.) -- Appellee
  • The district court did not plainly err in instructing the jury on Count 1
  • The district court did not constructively amend Count 2 of the indictment by instructing the jury at the second trial on Pinkerton liability and conspiracy law
  • The district court did not constructively amend the indictment by using an Eighth Amendment standard in instructing the jury on Count 3
  • The district court did not plainly err in instructing the jury on the Fourteenth Amendment standard applicable to uses of force against pretrial detainees
  • The evidence was sufficient to prove that Budd’s use of force against pretrial detainee Stephen Blazo violated the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment
  • The evidence was sufficient to convict Budd on Count 3
   

  Document	Date
  Court of Appeals Decision, reported at 496 F.3d 517	08/13/07
  Brief as Appellee	07/13/06

• United States v. Lee (9th Cir.) -- Appellee
  • The district court did not err in denying defendant’s motion to dismiss the indictment
  • The district court did not abuse its discretion in denying defendant’s motion for a mistrial based on comments made during the government’s rebuttal argument
  • The district court was not required to refer to american samoan law when it instructed the jury
  • The district court was authorized to impose consecutive sentences pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 3584
   

  Document	Date
  Court of Appeals Decision, reported at 472 F.3d 638	12/27/06
  Brief as Appellee	05/31/06

• United States v. Picklo (11th Cir.) -- Appellee
  • There was sufficient evidence to prove that Picklo was acting under color of law when he robbed and shot Frausto
  • The government adduced sufficient evidence to prove the necessary interstate commerce nexus under the Hobbs Act
  • There was sufficient evidence to convict Picklo of attempting to kill Frausto in order to prevent him from reporting the robbery to federal officials
   

  Document	Date
  Court of Appeals Decision, available at 190 F. App'x 887	07/27/06
  Brief as Appellee	05/03/06

• United States v. Hobbs (4th Cir.) -- Appellee
  • The evidence was sufficient to support the defendant’s convictions
  • The district court correctly denied defendant Kratzer’s motion for a new trial because the prosecutor’s closing argument did not implicate defendant Kratzer’s Fifth Amendment right not to testify
  • The district court correctly ruled that the prosecutor’s rebuttal closing argument did not warrant a new trial
  • The district court did not abuse its discretion in admitting Joshua Hancock’s testimony
  • The district court’s refusal to strike an alternate juror was not clearly erroneous
   

  Document	Date
  Court of Appeals Decision, available at 190 F. App'x 313	07/19/06
  Brief as Appellee	04/11/06

• United States v. Jackson (9th Cir.) -- Appellee
  • Evidence was sufficient to support Jackson’s conviction
  • The district court did not abuse its discretion by denying Jackson’s motion for a new trial
  • Questioning and impeachment of defense witness Loerzel was not prosecutorial misconduct that materially affected the fairness of the trial
  • The district court correctly instructed the jury that the statutory term “knowingly” did not require Jackson to have knowledge that his conduct was illegal
  • The district court did not instruct the jury that it could consider matters beyond the scope of the indictment
  • The district court correctly applied an enhancement for abuse of a position of trust to Jackson’s sentence
   

  Document	Date
  Court of Appeals Decision, available at 186 F. App'x 736	06/20/06
  Brief as Appellee	03/27/06

• United States v. Norris (11th Cir.) -- Appellee
  • The district court's sentence was procedurally and substantively reasonable
  • The district court correctly determined that Norris should be detained pending his trial
  • Government presented abundant evidence that Norris coerced his victims into providing their labor through force, threats of force, and the imposition of real and imagined debts
  • District court’s giving of the Eleventh Circuit’s pattern Allen instruction was permissible and not coercive
  • Imposition of a life sentence on Norris is consistent with the statutes under which he was convicted, the Sentencing Guidelines, and the Constitution
   

  Document	Date
  Court of Appeals Decision, available at 453 F. App'x 861	10/04/11
  Brief as Appellee	05/17/11
  Court of Appeals Decision, available at 358 F. App'x 60	12/18/09
  Brief as Appellee	05/06/09
  Court of Appeals Decision, available at 188 F. App'x 822	06/27/06
  Brief as Appellee	03/14/06

• United States v. Simmons (5th Cir.) -- Appellee/Cross-Appellant
  • The evidence was sufficient to prove that Simmons sexually assaulted Robinson and that his conduct involved "aggravated sexual abuse"
  • The district court did not abuse its discretion in admitting the expert testimony of Dr. Louise Fitzgerald
  • The prosecutor's remark during closing argument that Robinson had been kidnapped is not reversible error
  • The district court did not abuse its discretion in admitting evidence that Simmons failed to log in the marijuana he seized from the victim the night of the rape
  • The district court did not abuse its discretion in admitting into evidence excerpts of Simmons' state trial testimony
  • The district court did not abuse its discretion by declining to advise the jury that Simmons had been acquitted in state court
  • The district court erred as a matter of law in refusing to impose a two-level enhancement under Sentencing Guidelines § 2A3.1(b)(3)(A), which applies if the victim was "in the custody, care, or supervisory control of the defendant"
  • The sentence imposed was unreasonable in light of the egregiousness of the offense, Simmons' perjury, his lack of remorse, and the inadequacy of the district court's explanation for choosing a sentence so far below the Guidelines range
  • The district court erred as a matter of law in refusing to impose a two-level enhancement under Sentencing Guidelines § 2A3.1(B)(3)(A), which applies if the victim was "in the custody, care, or supervisory control of the defendant"
  • The sentence imposed was unreasonable under Booker
   

  Document	Date
  Court of Appeals Decision, reported at 470 F.3d 1115	11/21/06
  Reply Brief as Cross-Appellant	03/27/06
  Brief as Appellee/Cross-Appellant	02/01/06

• United States v. Skinner (2d Cir.) -- Appellee
  • The evidence was sufficient to support the defendants' conviction
  • The indictment properly alleges violations of 18 U.S.C. 242
  • Count IX of the indictment does not subject Acosta to double jeopardy with respect to counts VI and VII
  • The district court properly instructed the jury regarding Acosta's liability under Pinkerton v. United States
  • The district court properly instructed the jury on the term "use" as it is used in 18 U.S.C. 242
  • A violation of 18 U.S.C. 242 through the use, attempted use, or threatened use of a dangerous weapon, explosives, or fire is a crime of violence under 18 U.S.C. 924(c)(3)
  • The district court properly denied defendants' motions to dismiss count IX of the indictment
  • Defendants received a fair trial
   

  Document	Date
  Court of Appeals Decision, reported at 470 F.3d 132	11/30/06
  Court of Appeals Order, available at 207 F. App’x 39	11/30/06
  Brief as Appellee	01/17/06

• United States v. Perkins (4th Cir.) -- Appellee
  • The district court did not commit reversible error in admitting the lay and expert opinions of law enforcement officers on the reasonableness of defendant-appellant Perkins's use of force
  • The evidence viewed in the light most favorable to the government supports the jury's finding that defendant-appellant Perkins caused "bodily injury" to Koonce, and thus, Perkins's felony conviction for violating 18 U.S.C. 242
   

  Document	Date
  Court of Appeals Decision, reported at 470 F.3d 150	11/29/06
  Brief as Appellee	10/21/05

• United States v. Briston (3d Cir.) -- Appellee
  • The evidence was sufficient to prove that the property defendant embezzled, stole, or converted to his own use was "valued at $5,000 or more," as required by 18 U.S.C. 666
  • Funds that the department of justice provides to state and local law enforcement agencies under its equitable sharing program are "benefits" under 18 U.S.C. 666
  • Rankin borough received "benefits" under 18 U.S.C. 666(B) when federal block grants were used to pay for street, sewer, and playground projects requested by the borough
  • The district court did not err in instructing the jury that payments under the federal government's equitable sharing program are "benefits" for purposes of Section 666
  • The district court did not abuse its discretion fusing to allow the defense to present testimony concerning accusations of wrongdoing by Rankin Borough's mayor
  • The district court did not abuse its discretion in instructing the jury on Count 1
   

  Document	Date
  Court of Appeals Decision, available at 192 F. App'x 84	07/14/06
  Brief as Appellee	09/01/05

• United States v. Wyrick (5th Cir.) -- Appellee
  • The evidence was sufficient to support the defendant's conviction under 18 U.S.C. 242
   

  Document	Date
  Court of Appeals Decision, available at 2005 WL 2901906	11/04/05
  Brief as Appellee	06/22/05

• United States v. Byrne (1st Cir.) -- Appellee
  • The district court did not abuse its discretion by limiting cross-examination as to bias on the part of the police officers who testified for the government
  • The evidence was sufficient to support defendant's conviction on the witness tampering counts
  • Defendant's sentence was not plain error under Booker
   

  Document	Date
  Court of Appeals Decision, reported at 435 F.3d 16	01/11/06
  Brief as Appellee	06/02/05

• United States v. Gonzales, Gomez & Reyna (5th Cir.) -- Appellee
  • The district court properly refused to dismiss the indictment
  • The jury instructions on willfulness were not plain error
  • The evidence was sufficient to convict Gonzales of violating 18 U.S.C. 242 by willfully using excessive force against Carrera, resulting in his bodily injury
  • The evidence was sufficient to convict each defendant of willfully violating Carrera's due process rights by acting with deliberate indifference to his serious medical needs, thereby causing bodily injury
  • The admission of Carrera's out-of-court statements was not plain error
  • The indictment was not constructively amended, and, even if it had been, reversal would be unwarranted under plain-error review
  • The deportation of individuals arrested with Carrera did not violate Gonzales' Sixth Amendment rights, and, in any event, does not warrant reversal under a plain-error standard
  • Gonzales's Brady claims are not properly before this court
  • The allegations of prosecutorial misconduct are unfounded and, at any rate, do not warrant a new trial for Gonzales under a plain-error standard
  • Defendants have not demonstrated, under a plain-error standard, that they are entitled to resentencing under Booker or Blakely
  • The district court did not clearly err in finding that the offenses involved two or more participants under Section 2H1.1 of the Sentencing Guidelines
  • The district court did not clearly err in finding that Gonzales was an organizer, leader, manager, or supervisor under Guidelines § 3B1.1
  • The district court did not clearly err in finding that Carrera was a "vulnerable victim" under Guidelines § 3A1.1
  • The district court did not err in imposing a restraint-of-victim enhancement against Gonzales under Guidelines § 3A1.3
  • The district court did not clearly err in finding that Gonzales obstructed justice
  • Gonzales' remaining arguments are meritless
   

  Document	Date
  Court of Appeals Decision, reported at 436 F.3d 560	01/17/06
  Brief as Appellee	04/27/05

• United States v. LaVallee, Schultz, & Verbickas (10th Cir.) -- Appellee/Cross-Appellant
  • The jury instructions were not erroneous
  • Sufficient evidence supports Schultz's conviction
  • The district court did not commit reversible error in any of its evidentiary rulings
  • The district court did not plainly err by summarily denying the defendants' untimely and unsupported motion to disqualify a BOP attorney
  • The denial of Schultz's motions for new trial are not before this court in these appeals
  • This court should remand for resentencing under a correct application of the guidelines, or, in the alternative, affirm the sentences
  • Defendants bear the burden of showing the sentencing errors that the government identified were harmless
  • The government's cross appeal does not seek imposition of sentences in violation of United States v. Booker
  • The district court's application of the Guidelines was erroneous
  • The district court did not abuse its discretion when it denied Schultz's motion for new trial based on newly discovered evidence
  • The district court did not err in concluding that Schultz was not entitled to a new trial under Brady v. Maryland
  • Schultz's claims regarding prosecutorial misconduct were not made below and are therefore waived
   

  Document	Date
  Petition for Rehearing Denied (Schultz)	04/19/06
  Court of Appeals Decision, reported at 439 F.3d 670	02/28/06
  Brief as Appellee	09/14/05
  Reply Brief as Appellee/Cross-Appellant	06/22/05
  Brief as Appellee/Cross-Appellant	04/07/05

• Conley v. United States (1st Cir.) -- Appellant
  • This Court should reverse the district court's order granting relief pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 2255.
  • This court must review de novo the district court's materiality determination
  • The FBI memorandum is cumulative impeachment evidence that does not justify relief under Section 2255
   

  Document	Date
  Court of Appeals Decision, reported at 415 F.3d 183	07/20/05
  Reply Brief	04/29/05
  Brief as Respondent-Appellant	02/25/05

• Skidmore v. United States (9th Cir.) -- Appellee
  • Blakely is not retroactively applicable to cases on collateral review
   

  Document	Date
  Court of Appeals Decision, available at 155 F. App'x 313	12/12/05
  Brief as Appellee	01/19/05

• United States v. Jones (6th Cir.) -- Appellee
  • The district court did not err in refusing to suppress the defendant's confession because the defendant was not in custody for Miranda purposes and because his statements were voluntary
   

  Document	Date
  Court of Appeals Decision, unpublished	07/27/05
  Brief as Appellee	09/13/04

• United States v. Henderson (11th Cir.) -- Appellee
  • The district court did not abuse its discretion in rulings regarding testimony by and about Jack Collins
  • The sheriff's removal from office for fraud was relevant
  • The district court did not abuse its discretion in barring polygraph testimony
  • The district court appropriately barred Henderson's proposed expert witness on police procedure
  • Grant's treating physician's opinion on the causation of Grant's injury is permissible under Federal Rule of Evidence 701
  • The exclusion of law enforcement officers from the grand and petit jury does not violate the Sixth Amendment
  • The Supreme Court's Blakely decision does not invalidate Henderson's sentence
   

  Document	Date
  Court of Appeals Decision, reported at 409 F.3d 1293	05/23/05
  Brief as Appellee	09/16/04

• United States v. Nichols (4th Cir.) -- Appellee
  • Nichols' conviction is supported by evidence sufficient for the jury to conclude that he participated in the attack
  • The district court's correctly refused to give a lesser-included offense instruction
  • Blakely provides no grounds for reducing or remanding Nichols' sentence
   

  Document	Date
  Court of Appeals Decision, available at 149 F. App'x 149	09/14/05
  Brief as Appellee	08/10/04

• United States v. Bailey (1st Cir.) -- Appellee
  • The alleged spillover effect of the conspiracy charge on which Bailey was acquitted did not deprive him of a fair trial on the other counts
  • The jury instruction on aiding and abetting was not plain error
  • The evidence was sufficient to prove that Nikolas Dais suffered bodily injury
  • 18 U.S.C. 1512(b)(3) does not require that a federal investigation be pending at the time of the defendant's misleading conduct
  • Bailey is not entitled to a new trial on the perjury count
  • The district court did not clearly err in finding that Nikolas Dais was a vulnerable victim
  • The Supreme Court's Blakely decision does not invalidate the Federal Sentencing Guidelines
  • Even if Blakely applied to the Federal Sentencing Guidelines, Bailey's sentence should be upheld under plain-error review
  • If this Court concludes that Blakely applies to the Guidelines and that Bailey's sentence cannot withstand plain-error review, this Court should remand for resentencing within the district court's traditional discretion
  • Bailey's sentence should be upheld under the plain error standard
   

  Document	Date
  Court of Appeals Decision, reported at 405 F.3d 102	05/03/05
  Supplemental Brief as Appellee Regarding Booker	04/05/05
  Supplemental Brief as Appellee Regarding Blakely	08/23/04
  Brief as Appellee	07/16/04

• United States v. Flowers (7th Cir.) -- Appellant
  • The district court erred in ordering that court records relating to defendant's conviction be expunged
   

  Document	Date
  Court of Appeals Decision, reported at 389 F.3d 737	11/19/04
  Reply Brief as Appellant (Under Seal)	08/03/04
  Brief as Appellant (Under Seal)	06/28/04

• United States v. Bradley & O'Dell (1st Cir.) -- Appellee
  • The district court's jury instructions regarding Section 1589 were not plain error, nor did they mislead the jury or misstate the law
  • The district court did not abuse its discretion by admitting testimony regarding the defendants' mistreatment of Clarke and Wilson
  • The district court correctly applied the Sentencing Guidelines
  • The Supreme Court's Blakely decision does not invalidate Bradley's and O'Dell's sentences
  • If the Court concludes that Blakely does invalidate the defendants' sentences, the Court should remand for resentencing within the district court's traditional discretion
  • The defendants have not met their burden to show a reasonable probability that the district court would have sentenced them more leniently under advisory guidelines
   

  Document	Date
  Court of Appeals Decision, reported at 426 F.3d 54	10/14/05
  Supplemental Brief as Appellee Regarding Booker	09/06/05
  Court of Appeals Decision, reported at 390 F.3d 145	12/08/04
  Supplemental Brief as Appellee Regarding Blakely	08/04/04
  Brief as Appellee	06/14/04

• Harris v. United States (5th Cir.) -- Appellant
  • Harris's trial counsel's performance was neither objectively unreasonable nor prejudicial
   

  Document	Date
  Court of Appeals Decision, reported at 408 F.3d 186	04/27/05
  Reply Brief	08/27/04
  Brief as Appellant	06/08/04

• United States v. Hooks (11th Cir.) -- Appellee/Cross-Appellant
  • Hooks's use of force in this case was clearly unreasonable under the circumstances
  • This court should reject appellant's invitation to overturn United States v. Myers
  • The district court erred in calculating Hooks's sentence under the Guidelines
  • Hooks is ineligible for an adjustment based on acceptance of responsibility
  • The facts do not support a downward departure based on victim conduct
  • None of the additional factors relied upon by the district court supports a downward departure
  • The Supreme Court's Blakely decision has no effect on Hooks' sentence
   

  Document	Date
  Court of Appeals Decision, available at 132 F. App'x 281	05/20/05
  Supplemental Letter Brief	03/24/05
  Reply Brief as Appellee/Cross-Appellant	07/20/04
  Brief as Appellee/Cross-Appellant	06/04/04

• United States v. Maravilla & Dominguez (1st Cir.) -- Respondent
  • This court lacks jurisdiction over these appeals from the district court's order denying petitioners' renewed motion for bail
  • Assuming arguendo that this court has jurisdiction, the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying petitioners' third bail petition
   

  Document	Date
  Court of Appeals Decision, unpublished	10/06/04
  Brief as Respondent	05/20/04

• United States v. Powers & Garcia (9th Cir.) -- Appellee
  • The introduction of excerpts from the October 2, 1995, interview did not violate Garcia's Fifth Amendment rights
  • The introduction of excerpts of Powers' state court testimony was not plain error as to Garcia
  • The admission of excerpts from Garcia's October 2 interview was not plain error as to Powers
  • Because 18 U.S.C. 241 does not require proof of an overt act, the United States was not required to prove that any of the overt acts listed in the indictment were committed within the limitations period
  • Hampton's remarks to Ebright were co-conspirator statements under Fed. R. Evid. 801 and thus their admission did not violate the Confrontation Clause
  • The disqualification of Powers' lawyers did not violate his rights under the Sixth Amendment or the Due Process Clause (this argument is contained in volume 2 of this brief, which is filed under seal.)
   

  Document	Date
  Response to Second Petition for Rehearing	02/18/05
  Court of Appeals Decision, unpublished	10/29/04
  Brief as Appellee	02/26/04

• United States v. Ferreira (7th Cir.) -- Appellee
  • Sufficient evidence supports Ferreira's conviction for causing a deprivation of rights under color of law
   

  Document	Date
  Court of Appeals Decision, available at 105 F. App'x 198	07/09/04
  Brief as Appellee	02/24/04

• Ballinger v. United States (7th Cir.) -- Appellee
  • Petitioner has waived or procedurally defaulted all claims except ineffective assistance of counsel
  • Ballinger received effective assistance of counsel
  • Ballinger's conviction did not violate his due process rights
   

  Document	Date
  Court of Appeals Decision, reported at 379 F.3d 427	08/11/04
  Brief as Appellee	01/23/04

• United States v. Fuselier (5th Cir.) -- Appellee
  • Fuselier's status as the highest ranking Klan member present is sufficient to support the district court's four level enhancement for serving as a leader or organizer of a criminal activity involving five or more participants under Section 3B1.1 of the Sentencing Guidelines
   

  Document	Date
  Court of Appeals Decision, available at 95 F. App'x 85	04/20/04
  Brief as Appellee	01/20/04

• United States v. Franklin (11th Cir.) -- Appellee
  • Section 247(c) is a valid exercise of Congress's authority under Section 2 of the Thirteenth Amendment
  • The court did not abuse its discretion in excluding testimony concerning defendant's mental condition
  • The district court did not abuse its discretion in denying defendant's motion to exclude defendant's recorded statements concerning his criminal mischief conviction
  • Defendant is not entitled to a new trial based upon the failure to transcribe defendant's taped confession
   

  Document	Date
  Court of Appeals Decision, unpublished	04/30/04
  Brief as Appellee	12/09/03

• United States v. Donnelly (1st Cir.) -- Appellee
  • The district court did not err in determining that Gibson was particularly susceptible to Donnelly's crime
   

  Document	Date
  Court of Appeals Decision, reported at 370 F.3d 87	05/27/04
  Brief as Appellee	11/14/03

• United States v. Brugman (5th Cir.) -- Appellee
  • The evidence was sufficient to support the defendant's conviction under 18 U.S.C. 242
  • The district court did not abuse its discretion in admitting evidence of another act committed by the defendant
  • The district court correctly calculated the defendant's sentence
   

  Document	Date
  Court of Appeals Decision, reported at 364 F.3d 613	03/26/04
  Brief as Appellee	11/13/03

• United States v. Sipe (5th Cir.) -- Appellant
  • The Department of Justice memorandum referring to Agent Cruce's "dislike" of Sipe does not constitute Brady information
  • The district court erred in considering, in its cumulative analysis under Brady, that the failure to produce criminal history data for witness Murillo warranted a new trial
  • The United States was not required to produce notes of an interview of Ms. Rodriguez because she was known to Sipe and her statement is not exculpatory
  • Additional evidence regarding financial and other benefits given to Mexican National witnesses is not material, individually or collectively, to warrant a new trial
  • The United States had no obligation to produce photographs taken at the crime scene two months after the assault
  • The withheld evidence, considered cumulatively, does not create a reasonable probability that the verdict would be different
   

  Document	Date
  Court of Appeals Decision, reported at 388 F.3d 471	10/15/04
  Brief as Appellant	11/04/03

• United States v. Fuller, Serrata & Lipscomb (10th Cir.) -- Appellee/Cross-Appellant
  • The evidence overwhelmingly supports defendants' convictions
  • The district court did not abuse its discretion by limiting cross-examination and excluding extrinsic evidence regarding certain underlying details of the victim's criminal convictions
  • The district court properly instructed the jury
  • The district court properly calculated the total offense levels for the sentence of each defendant
  • The district court relied on impermissible factors when it departed downward from the sentences prescribed by the Sentencing Guidelines
   

  Document	Date
  Court of Appeals Decision, reported at 425 F.3d 886	10/06/05
  Supplemental Brief Regarding Blakely	08/30/04
  Reply Brief as Cross-Appellant	03/05/04
  Brief as Appellee/Cross-Appellant	10/29/03

• United States v. Davis & Hardy (5th Cir.) -- Appellant/Cross-Appellee
  • Because Davis and Hardy challenged the Indictment after trial and appeal, the Indictment is reviewed with maximum liberality
  • The Third Superseding Indictment sufficiently alleges that Davis and Hardy had the requisite intent under the FDPA to murder Kim Marie Groves
  • The Indictment sufficiently alleges that Davis and Hardy engaged in substantial planning and premeditation leading to the murder of Kim Marie Groves
  • Davis's cross-appeal should be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction
   

  Document	Date
  Court of Appeals Decision, reported at 380 F.3d 821	08/04/04
  Supplemental Letter Brief as Appellant/Cross-Appellee	05/19/04
  Reply Brief as Appellant/Cross-Appellee	01/09/04
  Brief as Appellant/Cross-Appellee	10/24/03

• United States v. Corum (8th Cir.) -- Appellee
  • The evidence was sufficient to establish violations of Section 844(e)
  • The application of Section 844(e) to defendant's conduct is within Congress's Commerce Power
  • The evidence was sufficient to establish the Interstate Commerce element of Section 247(a)
  • Section 247(a)(2) does not violate the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment
   

  Document	Date
  Court of Appeals Decision, reported at 362 F.3d 489	04/05/04
  Brief as Appellee	09/24/03

• United States v. May (4th Cir.) -- Appellant
  • The district court erred in concluding that defendant may deserved a downward departure for victim misconduct
  • The district court erred in granting defendant May a downward departure for aberrant behavior
  • The district court clearly erred in finding that defendant May accepted responsibility for his actions
   

  Document	Date
  Court of Appeals Decision, reported at 359 F.3d 683	03/04/04
  Reply Brief as Appellant	11/10/03
  Brief as Appellant	09/04/03

• United States v. Verbickas, et al. (10th Cir.) -- Appellee
  • Whether the defendants' felony convictions for violating 18 U.S.C. 242 (deprivation of rights under color of law) are "crimes of violence," thus making the defendants ineligible for release under 18 U.S.C. 3143(a)(2)
   

  Document	Date
  Court of Appeals Decision, available at 75 F. App'x 705	09/02/03
  Response of the United States to Defendants' Memoranda in Support of Appeal from Order Denying Release Before Judgment of Conviction	08/21/03

• In re United States (7th Cir.) -- Petitioner
  • Whether the district court exceeded its authority and usurped the executive power of the Attorney General when it refused the government’s request to dismiss the remaining count of the indictment and instead appointed a “special counsel” to prosecute it
   

  Document	Date
  Court of Appeals Decision, reported at 345 F.3d 450	09/16/03
  Petition for a Writ of Mandamus	08/01/03

• United States v. Williams (5th Cir.) -- Appellee
  • A violation of 18 U.S.C. 242 and the use of excessive force are crimes of violence under 18 U.S.C. 924(c)(3)
  • The district court properly admitted lay opinion testimony by officers that Williams's shooting of Hall was not reasonable
  • The cross-examination of Williams does not constitute reversible error
  • The district court did not abuse its discretion in admitting evidence relevant to the victim's state of mind
  • The United States' redirect and rebuttal closing on co-defendant Barfield's plea agreement do not establish prosecutorial misconduct or improper vouching
   

  Document	Date
  Court of Appeals Decision, reported at 343 F.3d 423	08/14/03
  Brief as Appellee	05/09/03

• United States v. Ramos (11th Cir.) -- Appellee
  • The prosecutor's opening statement was proper and does not warrant reversal
  • Defendants are not entitled to reversal of their convictions as a result of the Government's alleged failure to provide timely notice of its intent to introduce 404(b) evidence
  • Forfeiture that is primarily proceeds of defendants' crimes and constitutes an amount substantially less than the fine authorized by law and the sentencing guidelines is not excessive within the meaning of the eighth amendment
  • The district court did not vindictively sentence defendant when following an order to vacate and remand for resentencing, predicated on an intervening Supreme Court decision, it imposed a longer sentence than the erroneously calculated original sentence
  • The district court did not clearly err in finding that a pistol-whipping committed during and in furtherance of the counts of conviction is relevant conduct within the meaning Section 1B1.3 of the Federal Sentencing Guidelines
  • The record supports the district court's finding that the victim of the pistol-whipping sustained "permanent or life-threatening injury" since defendant placed his victim's life at risk and caused the permanent scars on his face
  • The district court correctly denied petitioner’s pro se motion filed pursuant to 2255, in which petitioner alleged that his appellate counsel was constitutionally ineffective for pursuing his appeal without advising him that he could receive a longer sentence than originally imposed
   

  Document	Date
  Court of Appeals Decision	12/08/08
  Brief as Appellee	04/22/08
  Court of Appeals Decision, available at 130 F. App'x 415	05/05/05
  Brief as Appellee	10/29/04
  Brief as Appellee	09/22/04
  Court of Appeals Decision, available at 301 F. App'x 902	09/26/03
  Brief as Appellee	05/05/03

• United States v. Allen (9th Cir.) -- Appellee
  • There was sufficient evidence to prove violations of 18 U.S.C. 241 and 245(b)(2)(b) and the statutes are constitutional
  • The district court did not abuse its discretion in admitting certain "skinhead evidence"
  • The evidence was sufficient to support the convictions of Flom under 18 U.S.C. 241 (Conspiracy) and Allen and Dixon under 18 U.S.C. 2 (Aiding and Abetting)
  • The district court did not abuse its discretion in denying Potter's motion for a mistrial
  • The district court did not err in calculating the sentences of Allen, Dixon, and Skidmore
   

  Document	Date
  Court of Appeals Decision, reported at 341 F.3d 870	08/26/03
  Brief as Appellee	02/06/03

• United States v. White (7th Cir.) -- Appellee
  • Officer White acted under color of law when he assaulted Brenda Pryor
  • The district court did not abuse its discretion by admitting evidence of a prior assault by White pursuant to Fed. R. Evid. 404(b)
  • The district court did not abuse its discretion in allowing redirect examination on the context of White's interview by the FBI
   

  Document	Date
  Court of Appeals Decision, available at 68 F. App'x 707	05/29/03
  Brief as Appellee	01/22/03

• Moreno Morales v. United States (1st Cir.) -- Respondent-Appellee
  • The district court did not abused its discretion in dismissing the Section 2255 petition without an evidentiary hearing
   

  Document	Date
  Court of Appeals Decision, reported at 334 F.3d 140	07/03/03
  Brief as Respondent-Appellee	01/21/03

• Wiegand v. United States (6th Cir.) -- Appellee
  • The district court erred in ruling that Wiegand’s challenge to his conviction on count 3 was untimely
   

  Document	Date
  Court of Appeals Decision, reported at 380 F.3d 890	08/19/04
  Brief as Appellee	01/31/03

• United States v. Manns (6th Cir.) -- Appellee
  • Manns and Lewis demonstrated the malice aforethought required to support second degree murder as the underlying offense for their Section 242 convictions
  • The district court properly denied McDougle's pretrial motions to dismiss the indictments
  • The district court properly denied McDougle's motion for acquittal and did ot abuse its discretion in denying the request for a new trial
   

  Document	Date
  Court of Appeals Decision, available at 82 F. App'x 153	11/13/03
  Brief as Appellee	01/03/03

• United States v. Gasanova (5th Cir.) -- Appellee
  • The district court correctly instructed the jury that Visas obtained based on fraudulent representations do not give "official authorization" to enter or remain in the United States under 8 U.S.C. 1324(a)(2)(b)
  • The district court did not abuse its discretion in declining to conduct voir dire regarding a news article that reported testimony at trial
  • The district court appropriately barred cross-examination that would elicit prejudicial testimony that had no probative value
  • The district court appropriately determined items subject to criminal forfeiture based on the preponderance of the evidence
  • Ample evidence supported the Gasanovs' sentence for conspiracy to violate the human trafficking laws
   

  Document	Date
  Court of Appeals Decision, reported at 332 F.3d 297	05/22/03
  Brief as Appellee	12/20/02

• United States v. Christian (7th Cir.) -- Appellee
  • Codefendants’ guilty pleas to lesser included misdemeanor violations of 18 U.S.C. 242 do not bar the government from presenting evidence and convicting defendant of a felonious violation of 18 U.S.C. 242
  • District court did not abused its discretion in refusing to allow defendant’s expert to characterize the severity of the victim’s injuries
  • Evidence is sufficient to establish that defendant acted under color of law.
   

  Document	Date
  Court of Appeals Decision, reported at 342 F.3d 744	08/19/03
  Brief as Appellee	11/25/02

• United States v. Jackson (8th Cir.) -- Appellee
  • Court acted well within its discretion in permitting the prosecutor to cross-examine defendant on facts surrounding defendant's prior conviction
  
   

  Document	Date
  Court of Appeals Decision, reported at 310 F.3d 1053	11/18/02
  Brief as Appellee	07/31/02

• United States v. Tecum (11th Cir.) -- Appellee
  • Defendant received adequate translation services during trial
  • Court properly admitted into evidence documentation regarding the defendant's arrival in the U.S.
  • Defendant was properly restrained by U.S. Marshals when he threatened a witness during the trial
  • Defendant was provided effective assistance of counsel
  
   

  Document	Date
  Court of Appeals Decision, available at 48 F. App'x 739	08/28/02
  Brief as Appellee	05/24/02

• United States v. Bates (3d Cir.) -- Appellee
  • District court did not err in refusing to sever trial of multiple defendants
  • Alleged prosecutorial misconduct is not a basis for reversal of convictions in this case
  • Evidence was sufficient to support convictions of police officers accused of violating citizens' civil rights
  
   

  Document	Date
  Court of Appeals Decision, available at 46 F. App'x 104	06/12/02
  Brief as Appellee	03/19/02

• United States v. Lee (11th Cir.) -- Appellee
  • District court properly referred to Sentencing Guideline for underlying offense in applying Guideline for civil rights offense
  • Government's recommendation that court apply Guideline for underlying defense did not violate plea agreement
  
   

  Document	Date
  Court of Appeals Decision, available at 37 F. App'x 500	05/06/02
  Brief as Appellee	03/15/02

• United States v. Kennard (9th Cir.) -- Appellee
  • Defendant who pleaded guilty and agreed not to appeal his sentence cannot appeal his sentence on the grounds that the plea was involuntary
  • Defendant's plea agreement was voluntary
  
   

  Document	Date
  Court of Appeals Decision, available at 46 F. App'x 426	08/29/02
  Brief as Appellee	02/28/02

• United States v. Rayborn (6th Cir.) -- Appellant
  • Church was used in interstate commerce within the meaning of federal arson statute
  
   

  Document	Date
  Court of Appeals Decision, reported at 312 F.3d 229	12/06/02
  Brief as Appellant	01/28/02

• United States v. Howell (10th Cir.) -- Appellee
  • Judge did not error in refusing to require disclosure of nature of the felonies committed by a Government witness
  • prosecutors did not engage in misconduct
  • Judge did not error in admitting evidence that Howell attacked an inmate
  • Judge properly admitted inmate grievance form into evidence
  • Judge gave a proper Allen charge to the jury
  • The cumulative effect of the claimed errors does not warrant reversal
  • Judge properly denied request for a new trial based on new evidence
  
   

  Document	Date
  Court of Appeals Decision, reported at 285 F.3d 1263	04/05/02
  Brief as Appellee	10/22/01

• United States v. Vangates (11th Cir.) -- Appellee
  • Statements made by Defendant in prior civil case were not inadmissible compelled statements for Fifth Amendment purposes
  
   

  Document	Date
  Court of Appeals Decision, reported at 287 F.3d 1315	04/08/02
  Brief as Appellee	10/04/01

• United States v. Kwon (9th Cir.) -- Appellee
  • Court of Appeals should dismiss appeal because Defendants waived their right to appeal the issues they are raising
  • Case decided after sentencing in this case does not apply to Defendants because they waived their right to appeal sentencing
  
   

  Document	Date
  Court of Appeals Decision, available at 41 F. App'x 69	07/02/02
  Brief as Appellee	10/04/01

• United States v. Rathburn (4th Cir.) -- Appellee/cross-appellant
  • Judge did not commit plain error in failing to instruct jury to disregard evidence regarding dismissed count
  • District court erred in refusing to give upward sentencing adjustment for obstruction of justice
  • District court erred in giving defendant downward departure because he was a police officer and police officers may be subject to abuse in prison
  
   

  Document	Date
  Dismissed	09/06/01
  Brief as Appellee/Cross-Appellant	08/08/01

• United States v. Geston (9th Cir.) -- Appellee/cross-appellant
  • The Government did not knowingly use false testimony against the defendant police officer in excessive force case
  • The Government's cross-examination of certain witnesses is not a basis for reversal
  • The district court did not err in refusing to allow the defendant to cross-examine the victim about prior, unrelated fights the victims had been in with a hotel security guard and fellow Navy sailor
  • The district court misapplied the Sentencing Guidelines by refusing to increase the defendant's sentence based on the facts that the defendant was acting under color of law and abusing his capacity as a pubic official
  
   

  Document	Date
  Court of Appeals Decision, reported at 299 F.3d 1130	08/13/02
  Reply Brief	09/21/01
  Brief as Appellee/Cross-Appellant	07/31/01

• United States v. Daniels (5th Cir.) -- Appellee
  • The compelled statements of one of the defendants were not used against him at trial in violation of Garrity v. New Jersey
  • The district court did not err in refusing to recuse the prosecution team or sever defendants' trials
  • The court's supplemental jury instructions were proper
  • There as sufficient evidence to support convicting defendants of viciously beating a handcuffed inmate in violation of the Eighth Amendment
  
   

  Document	Date
  Court of Appeals Decision, reported at 281 F.3d 168	01/23/02
  Brief as Appellee	06/18/01

• United States v. Harris (5th Cir.) -- Appellee/cross-appellant
  • There was sufficient evidence to convict the defendant, a county sherrif, of beating a handcuffed suspect with his baton when the suspect refused to calm down in the back of a police car
  • The district court erred in reducing the defendant's sentence to less than 15% of the length of imprisonment set forth in the Sentencing Guidelines, based on the court's conclusion that the victim's misbehavior contributed to the incident
  
   

  Document	Date
  Court of Appeals Decision, reported at 293 F.3d 863	06/11/02
  Brief as Appellee/Cross-Appellant	04/04/01

• United States v. Colvin (7th Cir.) -- Appellee
  • Double Jeopardy clause does not prevent cumulatively punishing a defendant for using fire in the commission of a felony and the underlying felony itself
  • Whether the weapon defendant used was an assault weapon was relevant only to the length of defendant's sentence and, therefore, was properly decided by the judge
  
   

  Document	Date
  Court of Appeals Decision, reported at 353 F.3d 569	12/24/03
  Response to Petition for Rehearing	02/20/02
  Court of Appeals Decision, reported at 276 F.3d 945	01/17/02
  Brief as Appellee	03/20/01

• United States v. Villareal (5th Cir.) -- Appellee
  • INS agent properly convicted for sale of stolen birth certificate
  
   

  Document	Date
  Court of Appeals Decision	06/11/01
  Brief as Appellee	12/11/00

• United States v. Rowe (4th Cir.) -- Appellee
  • Fire-bombing of two automobiles falls within scope of 18 U.S.C. 844(i), which prohibits arson of real or personal property used in interstate commerce or in any activity affecting interstate commerce
  
   

  Document	Date
  Court of Appeals Decision, available at 13 F. App'x 139	07/05/01
  Brief as Appellee	12/06/00

• United States v. Franklin (8th Cir.) -- Appellee
  • Prison guard who beat prisoner not entitled to sentencing departure based on "aberrant behavior" or minimal degree of injury
  
   

  Document	Date
  Court of Appeals Decision	03/22/01
  Brief as Appellee	11/06/00

• United States v. Brown & Troxel (7th Cir.) -- Appellee
  • Police officers properly convicted under 18 U.S.C. 242 for use of excessive force by persons acting under color of law
  
   

  Document	Date
  Court of Appeals Decision, reported at 250 F.3d 580	05/16/01
  Brief as Appellee	11/02/00

• United States v. Wallace (5th Cir.) -- Appellee
  • Prison guard properly convicted under 18 U.S.C. 242 in two separate trials for willful assault of inmates
  
   

  Document	Date
  Court of Appeals Decision	02/12/01
  Brief as Appellee(second consolidated case)	10/06/00
  Brief as Appellee (first consolidated case)	10/06/00

• United States v. Vartanian (6th Cir.) -- Appellee
  • Evidence was sufficient to sustain conviction under 42 U.S.C. 3631(a) for threatening African-American couple through their real estate agents
  
   

  Document	Date
  Court of Appeals Decision, reported at 245 F.3d 609	03/30/01
  Brief as Appellee	09/11/00

• United States v. Grassie (10th Cir.) -- Appellee
  • Arson of a church falls within scope of 18 U.S.C. 844(i), which prohibits arson of real or personal property used in interstate commerce or in any activity affecting interstate commerce, and the Hobbs Act
  
   

  Document	Date
  Court of Appeals Decision, reported at 237 F.3d 1199	01/19/01
  Brief as Appellee	09/08/00

• United States v. Odom (11th Cir.) -- Appellee
  • Arson of a church falls within scope of 18 U.S.C. 844(i), which prohibits arson of real or personal property used in interstate commerce or in any activity affecting interstate commerce
  
   

  Document	Date
  Court of Appeals Decision, reported at 252 F.3d 1289	05/31/01
  Brief as Appellee	08/11/00

• United States v. Magleby (10th Cir.) -- Appellee
  • Evidence was sufficient to sustain conviction under 42 U.S.C. 3631(a) for burning a cross in front of home of African-American family
  
   

  Document	Date
  Court of Appeals Decision, reported at 241 F.3d 1306	03/07/01
  Brief as Appellee	08/01/00

• United States v. Mungia (5th Cir.) -- Appellee
  • Requirement of 18 U.S.C. 245(a)(1) that the Attorney General certify in writing that in his judgment prosecution "is in the public interest and necessary to secure substantial justice" does not require certification to be filed with court
  
   

  Document	Date
  Court of Appeals Decision	11/30/00
  Brief as Appellee	07/26/00

• United States v. Downen (9th Cir.) -- Appellee
  • Evidence was sufficient to sustain convictions under 18 U.S.C. 241, 371 and 1001 for assaulting Mexican-American family because they moved into apartment and lying about incident
  
   

  Document	Date
  Court of Appeals Decision	06/15/00
  Brief as Appellee	03/13/00

• United States v. Whitney (10th Cir.) -- Appellee
  • Evidence was sufficient to sustain conviction under 18 U.S.C. 241 and 42 U.S.C. 3631 for burning a cross in front of home of African-American family
  
   

  Document	Date
  Court of Appeals Decision, reported at 229 F.3d 1296	10/11/00
  Brief as Appellee*	02/23/00

  * Note: this brief has been redacted consistent with the provisions of Victims' Protection and Rights Act regarding child witnesses, 18 U.S.C. 3509

• United States v. Byrne (9th Cir.) -- Appellee
  • Jeopardy did not attach to tentative decision to enter judgment of acquittal
  
   

  Document	Date
  Certiorari Denied, reported at 531 U.S. 1114	01/16/01
  Opposition to Petition for Writ of Certiorari	12/13/00
  Petition for Rehearing En Banc Denied	06/15/00
  Court of Appeals Decision (amended), reported at 203 F.3d 671	01/31/00
  Brief Opposing Petition for Rehearing En Banc	12/14/99
  Court of Appeals Decision, reported at 192 F.3d 888	09/17/99
  Brief as Appellee	05/20/99

• United States v. Lanier (6th Cir.) -- Appellee
  • Fugitive disentitlement doctrine bars defendant raising claims that were raised in proceedings terminated due to his flight
  • The district court properly dismissed Lanier's application for habeas corpus, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 2241, because he failed to demonstrate that he was eligible to invoke that remedy
  
   

  Document	Date
  Court of Appeals Order, unpublished	09/14/05
  Brief as Respondent-Appellee	05/09/05
  Certiorari Denied	06/11/01
  Opposition to Petition for Writ of Certiorari	05/09/01
  Court of Appeals Decision, unpublished	11/06/00
  Brief as Appellee	10/12/99

• United States v. Johnson (5th Cir.) -- Appellee
  • Defendant burned a church that used in interstate commerce, or an activity affecting interstate commerce, within the meaning of 18 U.S.C. 844(i).
  
   

  Document	Date
  Court of Appeals Decision, reported at 194 F.3d 657	11/01/99
  Brief as Appellee/Cross-Appellant	11/30/98

Browse Briefs by Category

Access to Justice
Affirmative Action
Americans with Disabilities Act and Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act
Constitutionality of Federal Statutes
Criminal
Education
Employment Discrimination (Race, National Origin, Sex, and Religion)
Equal Credit Opportunity Act
Equal Protection Clause
Freedom of Access to Clinic Entrances Act
Housing
Immigration
Individuals with Disabilities Education Act
Institutionalized Persons
Police Misconduct (Civil Cases)
Religion Cases
Servicemember Cases
Third Party Intervention in Civil Rights Cases
Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964
Voting
Other