Correspondent
Capitol Hill correspondent, covers legislative and political stories.
The Eleventh Circuit affirmed a statutory maximum sentence of 840 months for child pornography offenses, ruling that the district court did not abuse its discretion. The court held that the district court properly weighed the need to protect the public over the defendant's mitigating arguments regarding his mental health.
The United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit affirmed the sentences imposed on Gilbert Gomez Jr. following his drug conspiracy convictions and supervised release revocations. The court rejected arguments regarding drug quantity findings, sentencing adjustments, and the constitutionality of consecutive revocation sentences.
The Fifth Circuit affirmed a conviction for possession with intent to distribute cocaine, ruling that the defendant forfeited his challenge to the traffic stop's duration by failing to address an independent basis for the district court's ruling. The court also found no clear error in the lower court's determination that the defendant's consent to search his vehicle was voluntary under the totality of the circumstances.
The Supreme Court held that the Sentencing Reform Act does not authorize automatically extending a defendant's supervised release term due to abscondment. Consequently, a district court lacks authority to treat a new offense committed after a supervised release term has expired as a violation of that term.
The Fifth Circuit affirmed the sentence and restitution order for a defendant convicted of PPP wire fraud conspiracy, rejecting her challenges to the loss calculation and mass-marketing enhancement. The court held that the district court acted within its discretion by relying on conservative estimates from the Presentence Report that the defendant failed to rebut with evidence.
The Ninth Circuit held that a district court may correct its failure to afford a defendant the right to allocute under Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 32 as an 'other clear error' under Rule 35(a). The panel affirmed the defendant's sentence after the district court properly vacated and re-sentenced him within the rule's ten-day window.
The Fourth Circuit held that a criminal offense carrying a maximum sentence of twelve months qualifies as a crime for which a sentence of one year or longer may be imposed under federal immigration law. Consequently, the petitioner's Virginia Class 1 misdemeanor conviction renders him ineligible for cancellation of removal.
The Ninth Circuit affirmed a defendant's enhanced sentence, holding that an Oregon conviction for attempted first-degree assault qualifies as a crime of violence under the Sentencing Guidelines. The court clarified that the force clause requires only a substantial step toward the use of physical force, distinct from the stricter probable desistance test used in other contexts.
The Ninth Circuit affirmed David Wayne DePape's convictions for attempting to kidnap a federal officer and assaulting a family member of a federal official. The court held that sufficient evidence supported the finding that the crimes were committed on account of the victims' performance of official duties.
The Eleventh Circuit denied the defendant's motion to substitute counsel as moot after he clarified he did not seek new representation. The court conducted an independent review of the record under Anders v. California and affirmed the convictions, finding no arguable issues of merit.
