Case Summaries

Asset Forfeiture

[12/22] US v. Twenty Miljam-350 IED Jammers
In a case seeking civil in rem forfeiture, pursuant to 22 U.S.C. Section 401(a), of certain communication-jamming devices that the owner was charged with illegally attempting to export, the district court's judgment ordering forfeiture is affirmed where: 1) the claimant's stipulation not to contest forfeiture in exchange for dismissal of a criminal complaint was enforceable; and 2) the claimant lacked Article III standing to oppose the forfeiture because it could not cause him injury.

[11/30] US v. Martin
In an appeal from an order of the district court directing a criminal forfeiture, under Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 32.2 and after the appellants were convicted on drug-related offenses, order is affirmed where the Rule 32.2 deadline, as it then existed, is most persuasively understood as a time-related directive rather than a jurisdictional condition, and because appellants were on notice at the time of sentencing that the district court would enter forfeiture orders.

[11/22] US v. Zorrilla-Echevarria
In an appeal from a judgment of the district court dismissing petitioners' application for ancillary hearings to a criminal forfeiture proceedings under 31 U.S.C. sections 5317(c)(1) and 5332(b)(2), judgment is: 1) affirmed in part as to the entry of the money judgment order of forfeiture with respect to defendant; and 2) vacated in part as to the portion of the final order of forfeiture ordering that the attached $543,731 in cash shall be used to satisfy the money judgment.

[11/14] LA County Metro. Trans. Authority v. Alameda Produce Market, LLC
In an appeal from a judgment of the court of appeals concerning the scope of the waiver provisions of California's "quick-take" eminent domain procedure, Code Civ. Proc. sections 1255.010, 1255.410, judgment is reversed because if a lender holding a lien on condemned property applies to withdraw a portion of a Section 1255.210 deposit, and the property owner does not object to the application, the lender's withdrawal does not constitute a waiver of the property owner's claims and defenses under Section 1255.260.

More...

Criminal Law & Procedure

[02/03] US v. Mahin
In a prosecution on two counts of possessing a firearm or ammunition while subject to a domestic violence protective order in violation of 18 USC section 922(g)(8), the judgment of conviction is: 1) affirmed in part, where the statute and its application to the defendant's firearm use the same day he was served with a protective order did not violate the Second Amendment under the intermediate scrutiny standard; and 2) reversed in part and remanded for resentencing, where it was plain error to convict and sentence the defendant on two separate counts for the simultaneous possession of a firearm and ammunition under section 922(g)(8).

[02/03] US v. Culbertson
In a prosecution in which the defendant pleaded guilty to a charge of conspiracy to import 100 grams or more of heroin and five kilograms or more of cocaine, the case is remanded to the district court with instructions to vacate the judgment of conviction, where: 1) there was an inadequate factual basis for the defendant's guilty plea with respect to the quantity of drugs for which he was responsible; and 2) the district court's error in accepting the defendant's plea was not harmless.

[02/03] US v. Leahy
In a sentencing challenge brought by a defendant convicted of being a felon in possession of a firearm, the district court's 10-year sentence is affirmed, where: 1) the district court's application of enhancements under the sentencing guidelines and its inclusion of criminal history points was procedurally reasonable; and 2) the sentence, although the maximum possible, was substantively reasonable, as the district court articulated a plausible sentencing rationale and imposed a sentence within the range of reasonable outcomes.

[02/02] US v. Rivera-Santana
In a sentencing challenge after the appellant was convicted of illegal reentry into the United States after being removed for a conviction of an aggravated felony, the sentencing court's judgment order is affirmed, where: 1) two upward departures in the advisory Sentencing Guidelines range, augmented by an upward variance of 90 months therefrom, were not procedurally unreasonable; and 2) the resulting sentence, which was the statutory maximum, was not substantively unreasonable.

More...

Habeas Corpus

More...