Recent Circuit Cases

In a multi-party appeal, the Fifth Circuit affirmed drug- and money-laundering-conspiracy convictions under domestic promotional laundering (but rejecting concealment-based laundering), finding error in a Rule 1006 summary spreadsheet, upholding a CCE conviction, and vacating a § 924(c) sentence for lack of a jury finding on a short-barreled rifle.

The Fourth Circuit reversed the denial of a motion to dismiss a § 844(h)(1) “use of fire to commit a felony” charge predicated on interstate domestic violence resulting in death. The Court held that the interstate-domestic-violence offense ends when the victim dies, so post-death concealment by burning the body is not “using fire” to commit that felony.

The Third Circuit affirmed revocation of a defendant’s supervised release and a 48-month sentence where the district court credited hearsay statements from the alleged stabbing victim. The Court held the statements were sufficiently reliable, and the government showed good cause for the witness’s absence.

The Third Circuit affirmed the denial of a sentence reduction under § 3582(c)(2) based on the retroactive amendment under U.S.S.G. § 4C1.1. The Court held that § 6A1.3(a)’s notice-and-opportunity protections apply to § 3582(c)(2) proceedings, but there was no due-process violation because the district court relied on information used at the original sentencing, not “new information.”

The Second Circuit affirmed a conviction for receiving firearms purchased out of state, rejecting a Second Amendment challenge to 18 U.S.C. § 922(a)(3), which prohibits the interstate transport of firearms. The Court held the statute regulates the mode of acquiring firearms and does not meaningfully burden the right to keep and bear arms, and, in any event, it is consistent with the Nation’s historical tradition under Bruen.

The Eleventh Circuit reversed the dismissal of a civil complaint brought by a group of medical marijuana users in Florida challenging 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(3), which prohibits firearm possession by unlawful users of controlled substances. The Court held that the Government had not established that disarming state-lawful medical marijuana users is consistent with the Nation’s historical tradition of firearm regulations under Bruen.

The Fifth Circuit affirmed the suppression of evidence obtained pursuant to a search warrant for the defendant’s girlfriend’s home. The Court reasoned that the search warrant affidavit, which merely alleged that the defendant had brandished a gun at a Waffle House and was at his girlfriend’s apartment on another date, was “bare bones,” “rested on little more than conjecture,” and amounted to “a hunch dressed in paperwork.” Notably, the Court further held that the affidavit was so lacking in probable cause that the good faith exception did not apply.

The Tenth Circuit reversed a district court’s dismissal of an indictment charging a defendant with possession of a firearm as an unlawful drug user. Applying the Supreme Court’s refined standard for Second Amendment claims under Rahimi, the Court remanded for further fact-finding by the district court to determine whether non-intoxicated marijuana users, like the defendant, pose a sufficient risk of future danger so as to justify 18 USC 922(g)(3).

The First Circuit vacated a defendant’s conviction for attempted coercion and enticement of a minor. The Court held that the trial court erred in excluding certain expert testimony from a clinical psychologist. While the trial court had allowed the witness to testify as an expert in the field of internet sexual behaviors, it erred in prohibiting the witness from opining on the defendant’s internet chats and whether chats like his met the pattern shown by child predators who communicate with minors online.

The First Circuit vacated the sentence of a former police officer convicted of RICO conspiracy. The Court held that the district court erred in considering the PSR’s mere mentioning of the defendant’s prior administrative complaints, without more to substantiate them, as a basis for an upwards variance from the Guidelines.