Thursday, July 27, 2017

Flight crew interference not categorically COV

US v. Diaz:  In this appeal, the Fourth Circuit considered whether the Victim and Witness Protection Act (VMPA) or the Mandatory Victims Restitution Act (MVRA) applied in the defendant, David Diaz’ case, after he pleaded guilty to interfering with the flight crew on a cross-country flight he tried to take in 2015.  Diaz, who self-medicated his declining mental health, got drunk before a flight that he was supposed to take to move from his father’s home in Northern Virginia, to his mother’s home in Texas.  Approximately 45 seconds after take off, an inebriated Diaz left his seat and rushed the cockpit, and resisted attempts to restrain him.  After the plane landed back in D.C. a short 13 minutes later, the flight crew refused to get back on the plane, the flight was canceled and passengers booked onto other flights.  United Airlines lost approximately $22k as a result.

After Diaz pleaded guilty, the PSR noted United’s losses but did not indicate a statutory basis for restitution.  Diaz argued that his offense fell within the scope of the VMPA and restitution was not mandatory, but he suggested that he could more readily afford a slightly lesser amount of restitution, in light of his financial situation.  At sentencing, the government argued for the application of the MVRA and mandatory restitution.  The district court agreed with the government, and did not rule on whether flight crew interference was a crime of violence.  Diaz appealed the restitution order.

The issue for the Fourth Circuit was whether it is possible for a crime presumptively covered by the VWPA to instead fall within the scope of the MVRA, and the court says yes.  It is clear that the MVRA may apply in determining restitution for a defendant who interferes with a flight crew, but only if it is also determined that flight crew interference falls within the scope of a statutory list of certain crimes.  If it is not a crime of violence, it won’t fit on the list.  The Fourth Circuit did a categorical approach analysis of whether flight crew interference is a crime a violence and determined the statute is indivisible, that it did not qualify as a crime of violence under the force clause (and the government, by failing to address the argument, waived the residual clause possibility).  It concluded that the appropriate statute to apply in Diaz’s case for determining the restitution question here was the VWPA.

Thursday, July 20, 2017

Survivor's benefits are "things of value"

US v. Kiza:  Social Security survivor’s benefits are benefits paid to eligible surviving spouses and children, and they come from a trust fund established by Congress.  To oversee the trust, Congress created a Board of Trustees that reports to Congress on its operation and “actuarial status,” recommends improvements to its administration, and notifies Congress when the amounts in the fund grew too small.

In this case, Kiza began receiving survivor’s benefits as the representative payee for his two children, after representing to the Social Security Administration that his minor children were entitled to benefits upon the death of their father.  Except he wasn’t dead, just created a fake identity, his “twin brother.”  In total, Kiza received survivor’s benefits around $51,860.  

Kiza was indicted for theft of government property and he went to trial.  The jury found Kiza guilty of the sole charge against him.  He appealed, arguing that the survivor’s benefits were not “things of value.”  In Kiza’s argument, the benefits he received from the trust were money from individual citizens, not money from the U.S. Government.  The Fourth Circuit agreed with the government’s position that the money originated from the government, were regulated and accounted for by the government, so the benefits were a thing of value.  The Fourth Circuit upheld the verdict against him.

(Decided 5/1/17).

Residual Clause of career offender guideline valid for MD robbery with dangerous weapon

US v. Riley:  On appeal, Riley challenged his classification as a career offender, arguing that his prior conviction for Maryland robbery with a dangerous weapon was not a predicate “crime of violence” to enhance his sentence (from a guidelines range of 21-27 months to a whopping 210-262 months).  Riley did not object at the time of sentencing, so the Fourth Circuit reviewed Riley’s issue for plain error, instead of review de novo.

The Fourth Circuit held that the district court did not err in classifying Riley as a career offender, as Maryland robbery with a dangerous weapon “fits comfortably” within the residual clause’s definition of a crime of violence.  Despite Johnson and because of Beckles, the Fourth Circuit concluded, the residual clause of the career offender guideline remains valid.

(Decided 5/9/17).

16-level bump affirmed

US v. Walker:  In this case, a Jamaican national pleaded guilty to illegal reentry, and the district court that sentenced him found him to have been previously convicted of an aggravated felony.  This prior offense was a drug conviction from Ohio, which the district court concluded was a “drug trafficking offense” which called for a 16-level enhancement of Walker’s sentence, yielding an advisory guidelines range for Walker of 46-57 months.  The district court imposed a 30-month sentence, and Walker appealed the issue of whether his drug crime was a “drug trafficking offense.”

The Fourth Circuit affirmed the application of the enhancement to Walker’s sentence, after concluding that his prior drug conviction from Ohio qualified as a “drug trafficking offense” under the illegal reentry guideline, then in effect.  In 2004, Walker pleaded guilty to a charge of drug trafficking under Ohio law.  Walker argued that the conviction should not qualify as a “drug trafficking offense” because the statute required only that the defendant act knowingly, rather than with specific intent, as he argued was required by the guidelines.  The Fourth Circuit disagreed, finding that Walker misread the guidelines’ definition of “drug trafficking offense,” and that the absence of a specific-intent requirement in the Ohio statute does not prevent the 2004 conviction from qualifying as a drug trafficking offense under the guidelines.

The Fourth Circuit analyzed the Ohio statute using the categorical approach, stating that the Ohio statute qualifies as a drug trafficking offense only if all of the ways of violating the statute, including the least culpable, satisfy the definition of “drug trafficking offense.”  The 10th circuit considered the same Ohio statute and found that it qualified as a “controlled substance offense” under the career-offender guideline, concluding that all the acts prohibited by the Ohio statute qualified as “distribution.”  The Fourth Circuit agreed with 10th Circuit and concluded here that Walker’s conviction from Ohio qualified as a “drug trafficking offense” and the 16-level enhancement to his sentence was proper.

(Decided 5/24/17).

NC robbery with a dangerous weapon qualifies as ACCA predicate under force clause

US v. Burns-Johnson:  The mandatory minimum 15-year term of imprisonment imposed here was upheld by the Fourth Circuit, which found that even though robbery is not an enumerated offense, statutory armed robbery in North Carolina qualifies as a violent felony under the force clause of the ACCA.  Under a categorical approach, the Fourth Circuit held that robbery with a dangerous weapon categorically qualified as a violent felony under the ACCA force clause.

Burns-Johnson argued on appeal that his prior conviction did not qualify as a violent felony because the crime did not require the use of violent physical force “capable of causing physical pain and injury to another person,” e.g. administering poison.  The Fourth Circuit disagreed, holding that Torres-Miguel was not dispositive here, and even if NC statutory armed robbery could by committed by use of poison, the crime would still entail the use, attempted use, or threatened use of violent physical force under the ACCA, based on its holding in In re Irby and the Supreme Court’s holding in Castleman.

Burns-Johnson also argued that his prior conviction did not constitute a violent felony because it did not explicitly require that a person intentionally use or threaten to use force, which argument the Fourth Circuit foreclosed in its recent decision, United States v. Doctor.  The Fourth Circuit found that it would require the exercise of pure “legal imagination” to suppose that NC appellate courts would apply this statute when a robbery occurred with the unintentional use of a dangerous weapon.

Mandate Rule and Sentencing Package Doctrine in Re-sentencing appeal

US v. Ventura:  The Fourth Circuit granted Ventura relief from one count of seven for which he had received convictions, and remanded his case to the district court for re-sentencing.  Originally, he received a sentence of 420 months for his part in operating several brothels in Annapolis and Easton, Maryland, and in Portsmouth, Virginia.  On re-sentencing, Ventura received a sentence of 420 months again.  He appealed, arguing that the district court violated the mandate rule, arguing that the district court acted vindictively in sentencing him a second time to 420 months, even though one of his convictions had been overturned.  Third, he argued the new sentence was unreasonable because the court considered facts related to the count that had been vacated as well as some of his conduct while he was incarcerated with the BOP.  The Fourth Circuit affirmed.

In its analysis, the Fourth Circuit determined that the mandate rule was not violated because the lower court was permitted to consider the issue de novo and it could entertain any relevant evidence on that issue that it could have heard at the first hearing.  Additionally, pursuant to the Sentencing Package Doctrine, when a court of appeals vacates and remands a case for re-sentencing, the original sentence becomes void in its entirety and the district court is free to revisit any rulings from the initial sentencing.  The Fourth Circuit found that the sentencing package doctrine controlled the result in this case.  Moreover, the Fourth Circuit determined that its remand did not automatically entitle Ventura a 60-month reduction merely because his count seven conviction had been vacated; rather, the mandate left plenty of room for the district court to recalculate the sentences for the other six convictions that were not vacated.  The Fourth Circuit held that the district court did not exceed the mandate in the First Decision (appeal).  

Regarding the vindictiveness challenge, the Fourth Circuit held that Ventura’s challenge failed because he did not receive an increase in his aggregate sentence upon re-sentencing; the district court imposed the same term.  Under the “aggregate package” approach, courts compare the total original sentence to the total sentence after re-sentencing.  If the new sentence is greater than the original sentence, the new sentence is considered more severe.  Since Ventura received the same sentence, 420 months in prison, his attempt to establish a presumption of vindictiveness fails.

Finally, Ventura’s reasonableness challenges fail because the district court was permitted to consider Ventura’s violent conduct and alleged possession of firearms in crafting his sentence, and secondly, the factual underpinnings of the vacated count against Ventura were nonetheless proved by a preponderance of the evidence and could be considered in connection with Ventura’s re-sentencing.  With regard to Ventura’s conduct while in BOP custody, the Fourth Circuit held that a re-sentencing court could account for and decrease a sentence based on a defendant’s rehabilitation, or, by the same token, potential misdeeds.

No credit for time on improper release from jail

US v. Grant:  In this case, Briceton Grant pled guilty to an information that charged him with possession of PCP, and received a sentence that included one year of supervised probation.   A mere four days later, Grant received an additional charge of PWID marijuana and a schedule I/II drug.  His PO filed a petition to revoke his supervised probation.  A magistrate judge found Grant in violation and revoked his probation, and remanded Grant to the marshals for 15 days of incarceration as punishment for the violation.

The marshals erroneously allowed Grant to be released eleven days too early.  Grant’s attorney contacted the government to determine how to proceed given the error.  Grant’s PO filed a petition to have Grant remanded to serve the additional days, and Grant surrendered to the marshals.  Grant filed a motion to receive credit for the 10 days during which time he was mistakenly release.  After the magistrate denied the motion, Grant filed the instant appeal.

According to the Fourth Circuit, there appeared to have been a federal common law right to credit for time erroneously spent at liberty that dated back to the 1930s, and since then, some sister circuits have recognized a federal common law right to credit for time erroneously spent at liberty.  Some circuits award this credit when the government has been shown to have acted maliciously.  Other courts award credit whenever the government errs, even if it was merely negligent.  The Court notes that it is not certain at all that a federal common law right to credit for time erroneously spent at liberty currently exists.  Grant played no role in causing the premature release, and the government did not act with malice when it negligently released him.  Yet, the Fourth Circuit held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying Grant his credit for time erroneously at liberty because Grant had paid only 1/3 of his debt to society, he could serve his time on weekends to accommodate his employment, the ten days will not disrupt his life in a way that months or years of re-incarceration might do, and the government promptly recognized its mistake.  The Fourth Circuit affirmed the district court’s judgment.

Wednesday, July 05, 2017

Indirect Force Enough to Sustain ACCA Sentence

US v. Reid: Reid was convicted of being a felon in possession of a firearm. He had three prior conviction in Virginia for inflicting bodily injury on a correctional officer. The district court concluded that these were "violent felonies" for ACCA purposes and sentenced Reid to 15 years in prison.

The Fourth Circuit affirmed the sentence. Applying the categorical approach, the court concluded that the Virginia offense was a violent felony and, therefore, the ACCA mandatory minimum was triggered. It rejected Reid's argument that although the offense requires the causing of bodily injury, it did not meet the meaning of "force" (as the Supreme Court set forth in 2010's Johnson) because such injuries could be sustained by "indirect means." In other words, Reid relied on Torres-Miguel and it's conclusion that just because an offense requires a particular level of energy does not mean it has an element requiring the use of force. The court adopted the Government's position that the Supreme Court's decision in Castleman eclipses Torres-Miguel ("while the holding may still stand . . . it's reasoning can no longer support" the argument) and, therefore, indirect force is good enough. The court cites Irby, but does note that it doesn't apply directly to ACCA. Again, there doesn't seem to be any engagement with the idea that the language of Castleman (and Voisine) itself limits its reach to misdemeanor crime of domestic violence situations.