Justia Government & Administrative Law Opinion Summaries

The case revolves around the legality of bump stocks, accessories that allow semi-automatic rifles to fire at a rate similar to machine guns. The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) had long held that semi-automatic rifles equipped with bump stocks were not machine guns under the statute. However, following a mass shooting in Las Vegas, Nevada, where the shooter used bump stocks, the ATF reversed its position and issued a rule classifying bump stocks as machine guns.The case was first heard in the District Court, where Michael Cargill, who had surrendered two bump stocks to the ATF under protest, challenged the rule. Cargill argued that the ATF lacked statutory authority to classify bump stocks as machine guns because they did not meet the definition of a machine gun under §5845(b). The District Court ruled in favor of the ATF, concluding that a bump stock fits the statutory definition of a machine gun.The case was then taken to the Court of Appeals, which initially affirmed the District Court's decision but later reversed it after rehearing en banc. The majority of the Court of Appeals agreed that §5845(b) was ambiguous as to whether a semi-automatic rifle equipped with a bump stock fits the statutory definition of a machine gun. They concluded that the rule of lenity required resolving that ambiguity in Cargill's favor.The Supreme Court of the United States affirmed the decision of the Court of Appeals. The Court held that a semi-automatic rifle equipped with a bump stock is not a machine gun because it cannot fire more than one shot by a single function of the trigger. Furthermore, even if it could, it would not do so automatically. Therefore, the ATF exceeded its statutory authority by issuing a rule that classifies bump stocks as machine guns. View "Garland v. Cargill" on Justia Law

In this case, the defendant, Gerald Smith, was convicted of murder, kidnapping, and drug trafficking charges three decades ago. He was sentenced to multiple life sentences under the then-mandatory sentencing guidelines. In 2018, Congress passed the First Step Act, which allows courts to resentence defendants convicted for certain drug crimes that carry lighter sentences today than at the time of sentencing. In 2019, the Supreme Court held unconstitutionally vague one aspect of the “crime-of-violence” definition set forth in 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(3). Smith sought vacatur of his crime-of-violence convictions and for First Step Act resentencing for other convictions. The district court denied both forms of relief.The United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit affirmed the district court's decision. The court found that Smith's convictions for Continuing Criminal Enterprise (CCE) murder involved the intentional use of force against others, qualifying them as crimes of violence under Section 924(c)’s elements clause. The court also affirmed the district court's denial of resentencing under the First Step Act, as Smith was not eligible for resentencing on most counts, and the district court reasonably explained its denial of resentencing on the eligible counts. The court remanded to the district court for the limited purpose of entering a revised judgment and conviction order that reflects this court’s prior vacatur of Smith’s felony-murder and attempted-armed-robbery convictions. View "United States v. Smith" on Justia Law

The case involves the State of Texas and Dwayne Robert Heath, who was indicted for injury to a child in 2016. Heath's counsel requested discovery from the District Attorney's Office, which provided law enforcement records, child protective services records, and photographs. However, a 911 call made by the complainant's mother on the date of the alleged offense was not disclosed until six days before the fourth trial setting, despite being in the possession of law enforcement since 2016. Heath's counsel filed a motion to suppress the 911 call, alleging that the evidence was improperly withheld in violation of Article 39.14 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and various constitutional provisions.The trial court granted Heath's motion to suppress the 911 call, concluding that the State violated Article 39.14(a) by failing to disclose the 911 call "as soon as practicable" after Heath's timely request for discovery. The State appealed, and the court of appeals affirmed the trial court's decision. The State then sought discretionary review from the Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.The Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas affirmed the judgment of the court of appeals. The court held that under Article 39.14, "the state" means the State of Texas, which includes law enforcement agencies. The court also held that "as soon as practicable" means as soon as the State is reasonably capable of doing so. Therefore, the State violated its duty under Article 39.14 by failing to timely disclose the 911 call. The court further held that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in excluding the 911 call due to the State's untimely disclosure. View "Texas v. Heath" on Justia Law

The case involves two defendants, Raekwon Patton and Austin Mallory, who were found guilty of their roles in a drive-by shooting following an encounter with a rival gang member. The shooting occurred after the defendants and their gang members spotted Raysean Nelson, a rival gang member, in a parking lot and followed him. The defendants were charged with attempted murder in aid of racketeering and discharging a firearm during a crime of violence.The district court overruled multiple objections raised by the defendants. Patton argued that the jury instructions were missing and that the evidence presented by the government was excessive and portrayed him negatively. He also claimed that his decision to return fire was justified as the other side shot first. However, the court found that Patton had not attempted to retreat before using force, which was required by Iowa law. The court also rejected Patton's argument that the instructions set the bar too low on the racketeering element.Mallory challenged the verdict based on two evidentiary decisions and questioned whether the government established that he was a knowing accomplice. The court excluded a hearsay statement that Mallory hoped would prove he was not the driver during the shooting. The court also did not admit evidence showing Mallory's involvement in non-gang activities, considering it as inadmissible character evidence.The United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit affirmed the judgments of the district court, finding sufficient evidence for the jury to conclude that Mallory was guilty as an accomplice and rejecting Patton's arguments about the jury instructions and the evidence presented by the government. View "United States v. Mallory" on Justia Law

James Chandler was convicted for twice robbing on-duty United States Postal Service employees using a fake gun, and in one instance, kidnapping his victim. The District Court enhanced Chandler's sentence for using the replica gun in the robberies and the kidnapping, and for the kidnapping being motivated, at least in part, by the mail carrier being a government employee.Chandler appealed the application of these two enhancements, arguing that the judge erred in holding that a replica of a gun constitutes a dangerous weapon, and further erred in holding that his kidnapping of the second mail carrier was motivated by her status as a government employee. He also appealed his conviction for armed robbery, rather than unarmed robbery, again arguing that a replica firearm is not a dangerous weapon.The United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit affirmed the District Court's decision. The Court of Appeals found that the term "dangerous weapon" is genuinely ambiguous and can include a replica firearm. The Court also found that the District Court did not err in accepting Chandler's guilty plea to armed robbery. Finally, the Court of Appeals agreed with the District Court that Chandler was motivated to kidnap the mail carrier because she was a government employee. View "USA v. Chandler" on Justia Law

The case revolves around Gerald Sewell, who responded to a post on Craigslist, seeking a sexual encounter. The post was made by an undercover FBI agent posing as a 15-year-old girl. The conversation between Sewell and the agent quickly turned sexual, with plans to meet later the same day. Sewell drove from Missouri to Illinois to meet the supposed minor, only to be arrested upon arrival.Sewell was indicted for attempted enticement of a minor and for traveling across state lines with intent to engage in illicit sexual conduct. He pleaded not guilty and requested a jury instruction on entrapment. The district court denied this request, finding no evidence of persistent persuasion by the undercover agent or reluctance by Sewell. The court concluded that the government had used the sting operation to solicit the crime without inducing Sewell. Sewell was convicted on both counts and sentenced to concurrent ten-year sentences.In the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit, Sewell appealed the district court's denial of an entrapment instruction. The court, after reviewing the case, found no evidence of inducement, only solicitation of the crime, which is insufficient to put the entrapment defense before the jury. The court noted that it was Sewell who encouraged the supposed minor to meet for a sexual rendezvous, and he set aside any misgivings he may have had to drive across state lines to meet her. The court concluded that the government had furnished Sewell the ordinary opportunity to commit the charged crime, and he eagerly took it. The court affirmed the district court's decision, denying Sewell's requested entrapment instruction. View "USA v. Sewell" on Justia Law

The defendant, Roland Riemers, was found guilty of disorderly conduct by a jury after he pursued a train that was blocking a street for longer than twenty minutes, a violation of a city ordinance. Riemers parked his car near the tracks, approached the train, informed the employees of the violation, and ignited a road flare. Both Riemers and the train employees called the police, and Riemers was subsequently charged.Riemers transferred his case from the Grand Forks Municipal Court to the District Court for a jury trial. He was found guilty of disorderly conduct under the Grand Forks City Code. Riemers appealed, arguing that the court lacked jurisdiction due to procedural errors, that he should have been prosecuted under state law rather than city ordinance, and that the court erred by not instructing the jury about the right to conduct a citizen's arrest. He also argued that no victim was identified and that there was insufficient evidence for a conviction.The Supreme Court of North Dakota affirmed the lower court's decision. The court found that the district court did not lack jurisdiction, as the city was not required to serve the criminal information on Riemers. The court also ruled that Riemers could be prosecuted under city ordinance, as the city's disorderly conduct ordinance did not supersede state law. The court rejected Riemers' argument about the right to conduct a citizen's arrest, as he had waived any claim of error by expressing satisfaction with the jury instructions. The court also found that the criminal information was sufficient to protect Riemers from a subsequent prosecution for the same offense. Finally, the court declined to review Riemers' argument about the sufficiency of the evidence, as he had not moved for a judgment of acquittal at trial. View "City of Grand Forks v. Riemers" on Justia Law

The case involves Jay Jelinek, who was appealing an order denying his motion to suppress evidence and challenging evidentiary rulings made by the district court during his trial. Jelinek was found by a North Dakota Game and Fish Department Warden in a field during deer hunting season. The Warden recognized Jelinek from previous encounters and knew that his hunting privileges were suspended. Jelinek was replacing batteries in a trail camera and stated that he had been sitting in a deer stand with his wife, who had a deer tag, earlier that day. Jelinek moved to suppress evidence gathered during his encounter with the Warden, arguing that he was unlawfully seized and that the Warden did not have reasonable suspicion of criminal activity.The District Court of Grand Forks County denied Jelinek's motion to suppress, finding that he was not subject to an improper seizure prior to his arrest and that the Warden had reasonable suspicion of criminal activity. Jelinek also argued that the court erred in denying his motion for acquittal on one count, as the State's only evidence of guilt was his own statements. He further argued that the court erred in allowing evidence of his criminal history to go to the jury and that his 6th Amendment rights were violated.The Supreme Court of North Dakota affirmed in part and reversed in part. The court found that the district court did not err in denying Jelinek's motion to suppress, as there was sufficient evidence supporting the district court's findings that Jelinek was not unlawfully seized. The court also found that the district court did not err in denying Jelinek's motion for acquittal, as there was substantial independent evidence establishing the trustworthiness of Jelinek's statements to law enforcement. However, the court found that the district court erred in allowing Jelinek's criminal history to be considered by the jury after one count was dismissed. The case was remanded for a new trial. View "State v. Jelinek" on Justia Law

The case involves Jay Diamond, who was convicted of impersonating a federal officer in an attempt to avoid a speeding ticket and to avoid being arrested for falsely impersonating a federal officer. The incidents occurred when Diamond was pulled over for speeding and he told the officer that he was an air marshal. He presented a badge that read "United States Federal Air Marshal." However, upon investigation, it was found that Diamond was never employed as a federal air marshal or through the Transportation Security Administration (TSA).In the lower courts, Diamond argued that the government failed to present sufficient evidence to establish that he acted as a federal officer and that the district court erred in admitting evidence of his alleged prior bad acts and in instructing the jury. The district court denied Diamond's motion to exclude his ex-wife's testimony about his prior instances of impersonating a federal officer or military member. The court also denied Diamond's request for a jury instruction on the misdemeanor offense in 18 U.S.C. § 701, which Diamond argued was a lesser included offense of his alleged § 912 crime.In the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit, Diamond's convictions were affirmed. The court found that the evidence was sufficient to support Diamond’s § 912 convictions. The court also ruled that the district court did not abuse its discretion in admitting Diamond's ex-wife's testimony. Furthermore, the court found that 18 U.S.C. § 701 is not a lesser included offense of § 912, and therefore the district court did not err in refusing to give Diamond's requested § 701 instruction. View "United States v. Diamond" on Justia Law

The case involves Gerardo Farias-Contreras, who pleaded guilty to conspiring to distribute methamphetamine and heroin. As part of the plea agreement, the government agreed to dismiss two other charges and not to recommend a sentence exceeding the low-end of the guideline range. Farias-Contreras argued for a six-level reduction in the base offense level, resulting in a guidelines range of 108–135 months, citing his many physical disabilities. The government, after reducing the base offense level by three levels, calculated a guidelines range of 151–188 months and recommended a 151-month term.The United States District Court for the Eastern District of Washington sentenced Farias-Contreras to 188 months' imprisonment, citing substantially the facts and argument presented by the government. Farias-Contreras appealed, arguing that the government implicitly breached its promise under the plea agreement not to recommend a sentence in excess of the low-end of the sentencing guidelines range when the government implicitly urged the district court to impose a harsher sentence.The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit affirmed the sentence. The court found that the government's conduct crossed the line from permissible advocacy to an improper end-run of the plea agreement, thus implicitly breaching its promise not to recommend a sentence in excess of the low-end of the calculated guideline range. However, the court concluded that the error was not plain because the court's precedent does not make sufficiently clear to what extent the government may respond to a defendant’s request for a downward departure without implicitly breaching the plea agreement. The court took the opportunity to clarify its law on the subject. View "USA V. FARIAS-CONTRERAS" on Justia Law