Circuit Court Opinions

The Seventh Circuit reversed the defendant’s conviction under 922(g) based on his prior misdemeanor conviction for family violence battery. Under Rehaif, the Government would have had to prove that the defendant knew that his prior conviction prohibited him from possessing firearms, and the defendant established a reasonable probability that he would not have pleaded guilty had he known the Government’s burden, especially given the circumstances of his prior misdemeanor conviction, which involved a guilty plea without counsel or being thoroughly advised of the collateral consequences.

The Sixth Circuit vacated the defendant’s sentence for drug conspiracy and remanded it to the sentencing court after the court held the defendant accountable for a higher drug quantity than the jury did at trial, which the defendant argued violated his Sixth Amendment claim. The court held that the sentencing court did not adequately explain its reasoning, so it could not review the constitutionality of the defendant’s claim.

The Tenth Circuit affirmed the trial court’s denial of the defendant’s request to enjoin ICE from removing him once he was granted pretrial release, holding that a defendant’s release under the Bail Reform Act does not preclude ICE from detaining him under its own, independent statutory authority.

In a case involving young lawyers charged with throwing molotov cocktails into an unoccupied police cruiser, the Second Circuit affirmed the district court’s order releasing them on bond pending trial. The Court concluded that the district court did not clearly err in determining the conditions of release were adequate to safeguard the community and that it did not err by not explicitly mentioning the statutory presumption against release in its order.

The Court vacated the defendant’s state law conviction for first degree murder. The defendant’s shackling during trial violated clearly established federal law and was not harmless since the evidence of first-degree premeditation was not overwhelming.

The Court affirmed the defendant’s conviction under 18 USC 912 for impersonating a U.S. employee and acting in conformity with that pretense, rejecting his argument that the offense requires an intent to defraud. The Court held that all that was required was impersonating an officer and an “overt act” which causes a victim to take a course of action they otherwise wouldn’t, which in this case was satisfied because the defendant’s high school crush opened her door to him and let him in based on her belief that he was a DEA agent.

The Court held that defendants who pleaded guilty and had their pleas accepted before enactment of the First Step Act were not eligible for expanded safety-valve relief under the First Step Act, even if they were sentenced after the Act was enacted.

The district court is not required to hold a hearing prior to reducing a defendant’s sentence under the First Step Act’s retroactive penalties for crack-cocaine.

The Court held that a movant under 28 U.S.C. 2255 is not entitled to discovery prior to filing his or her motion.

The Court affirmed the defendant’s conviction for unlawfully transporting technology to Cuba without a license, holding that there was sufficient evidence that he knew his conduct was unlawful given repeated warnings he received regarding the export license requirement. The Court also held that the trial court adequately conveyed the substance of the defendant’s proposoed instruction on ignorance of the law while it did not recite it verbatim and that the defendant’s sentencing enhancement for obstruction of justice was warranted given his perjured testimony at trial.