The Court affirmed the defendant’s conviction after the District Court judge allowed the Government to present inculpatory testimony in the absence of the Defendant and her Counsel, declining to apply the “structural error” standard to these types of errors and finding that the court’s error did not affect the defendant’s substantial rights under the plain-error standard of review.
On remand after the Court’s en banc decision in Ovalles, the panel held that Ms. Ovalles’s attempted car-jacking was a “crime of violence” under § 924(c)(3)(A)’s elements clause, as it requires that a defendant have an intent to cause death or bodily harm and that he take a substantial step towards commission of that crime.
The Court held that the residual clause of § 924(c), which defines a “crime of violence,” was not void-for-vagueness after invoking the canon of constitutional doubt to support a narrower reading of the provision, one that qualifies a defendant’s offense as a “crime of violence” based on the defendant’s underlying conduct in that offense.
The Court affirmed the defendant’s conviction, holding that the Rules of Evidence do not apply in § 851 hearings, and that the district court did not plainly err in applying the preponderance of evidence standard where the evidence established the defendant’s prior conviction beyond a reasonable doubt.
The Court affirmed the defendant’s sentence after holding that defendant’s prior second-degree murder conviction was a “violent felony” under the ACCA’s elements clause.
The Court affirmed the district court’s denial of the defendant’s § 2255 motion, holding that the defendant’s Johnson claim was not a “new rule of constitutional law that was previously unavailable” since the defendant included a Johnson claim in his first § 2255, which were procedurally defaulted.
The Court reversed a defendant’s conviction for possession with the intent to distribute ethylone. At issue was whether ethylone is a “positional isomer” of butylone, which would therefore make it an illegal controlled substance. The DEA asserted that it was, pursuant to its regulations defining “positional isomers.” The Court disagreed, holding that the DEA’s definition did not unambiguously apply to ethylone, and the Rule of Lenity did not allow for Auer deference in criminal prosecutions.
Last week, a prominent Atlanta cancer treatment practice reached a settlement agreement with the Department of Justice to resolve allegations that it over-billed Medicare. Georgia Cancer Specialists is one of the largest oncology providers in the country and has 27 offices in Georgia. The company has not released a statement yet and though it has […]
Join The Federal Docket Newsletter