Legal News

Case Summaries

Asset Forfeiture

[03/08] US v. Brummer
In defendant's appeal from the district court's order that he forfeit two firearms and six rounds of ammunition pursuant to his conviction of knowingly and willfully failing to declare firearms to a common carrier, the order is affirmed where the indictment charging defendant with violating 18 U.S.C. section 922(e) included a notice of forfeiture, and thus the district court therefore was required to order forfeiture of the property.

[03/02] US v. Cheeseman
In a prosecution of defendant for violating 18 U.S.C. section 922(g)(3), which criminalizes possession of firearms and ammunition by an unlawful user or addict of a controlled substance, district court's judgment ordering the forfeiture of over 600 firearms and ammunition is affirmed where: 1) the possession of firearms and ammunition is sufficient for a district court to find that the property was "involved in" a section 922(g)(3) offense; and 2) forfeiture did not violate the Excessive Fines Clause as the value of the firearms was at most two times the maximum penalty imposed by the statute.

[02/26] US v. Meux
Following defendant's conviction and sentence of 37 months' imprisonment and order to pay a mandatory restitution of $134,218.52, a magistrate judge's order granting the government's motion for turnover of funds that was held in custody by a US Marshal in an unrelated case is affirmed as the magistrate judge had authority to hold a hearing and to order the turnover of funds to satisfy the lien. Furthermore, record reflects that defendant was provided with essentially the same due process protections he wold have been accorded in garnishment proceedings.

[02/16] US v. $22,050.00 US Currency
In an in rem forfeiture action in connection with a drug distribution and money laundering investigation wherein the United States Drug Enforcement Administration seized $22,050 from petitioner's office, judgment of the district court denying his motion to set aside default and entry of judgment in favor of the United States is reversed where: 1) in civil forfeiture cases such as this one, where the question is whether to excuse a known claimant's failure to file a verified claim and answer in the allotted time, district courts should analyze the case using the generally applicable Federal Rules (Rule 55(c)) rather than under the appellate court's requirement of "strict compliance" with the forfeiture rules; 2) the government would not have been prejudiced by setting aside the default; 3) claimant has asserted meritorious defenses to the forfeiture claim; and 4) on remand, it must be determined whether claimant was culpable under Rule 55(c) for the default by willfully failing to appear and plead.

Read More

Criminal Law & Procedure

[03/11] Stanley v. Schriro
In a capital habeas matter, a denial of the petition is affirmed in part where defense counsel's performance did not prejudice petitioner during the guilt phase of his trial. However, denial of the petition is reversed in part where trial counsel rendered ineffective assistance during the penalty phase of trial by failing to investigate and present readily available mitigating evidence and that failure was prejudicial.

[03/11] Tijani v. Holder
Petition for review of the BIA's denial of petitioner's asylum application is granted in part where the court was required to remand to the BIA to address the questions of whether petitioner would be in danger of persecution on account of his religion or would be entitled to other relief. However, the petition is denied in part where petitioner's credit card fraud in violation of Cal. Penal Code section 532a(1) constituted a crime of moral turpitude.

[03/11] US v. Dodd
Defendant's sentence for knowingly receiving and possessing child pornography is affirmed where: 1) absent concrete evidence of ignorance -- evidence that was needed because ignorance was entirely counterintuitive -- a fact-finder could reasonably infer that the defendant knowingly employed a file sharing program for its intended purpose; and 2) the district court committed no procedural error in determining defendant's advisory guidelines sentencing range.

[03/11] US v. Akens
Defendant's drug and firearm possession conviction are affirmed where: 1) defendant's prior Missouri conviction was a sufficient predicate for his 18 U.S.C. section 922(g)(1) conviction, despite its expungement; 2) defendant was not entitled to a Franks hearing because he did not make a substantial preliminary showing; and 3) defendant knowingly and voluntarily waived his rights to appeal the firearm enhancement and the career offender status in exchange for a 140-month sentence.

Read More