Topic
Every decision we've filed under Criminal.
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 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 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 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.
The Fifth Circuit affirmed the sentences of a defendant convicted of drug conspiracy and supervised release violations, rejecting his claim that the district court relied on impermissible self-serving statements. The court held that the probation officer's conservative drug quantity calculation was supported by corroborating evidence and that the district court did not violate the Supreme Court's recent Esteras ruling.
The Eleventh Circuit vacated and remanded a district court's denial of a compassionate release motion because the lower court incorrectly ruled that the defendant failed to exhaust administrative remedies. Although the government conceded on appeal that exhaustion was satisfied, the appellate court declined to affirm on the merits since the district court never addressed the substantive arguments regarding the defendant's cancer diagnosis.
The Eleventh Circuit dismissed a defendant's appeal because a valid plea agreement waiver barred the challenge. The court found the defendant's sentence did not exceed the statutory maximum or the guideline range determined by the district court.
The Tenth Circuit granted appointed counsel's motion to withdraw and dismissed the appeal after determining the case presented no meritorious issues. The court conducted an independent review and found the defendant's challenges to his guilty plea and sentence were wholly frivolous.
The Sixth Circuit affirmed Dr. Michael Fletcher's convictions for distributing controlled substances, finding sufficient evidence that he prescribed high volumes of opioids without examining patients. The court further held that Dr. Fletcher validly waived his right to counsel a second time and that his secret reliance on a disbarred attorney did not constitute a due process violation.
The Fifth Circuit granted the Federal Public Defender's motion to withdraw from representing Juan Andres Macharigui-Duran after finding no nonfrivolous issues for appeal. The court dismissed the defendant's criminal appeal following a review of the record and the Anders brief.